Softpanorama

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

Trump bulletin, 2016

Donald Trump -- an unusual paleoconservative fighter against excesses of neoliberal globalization

Best 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

Among  the most interesting articles about Donald Trump on the first half of 2016 were:

[Jul 31, 2016] Clinton has now made Democrats the anti-Russia party

How about WAPO does some real reporting and compares the two candidate on the issues at hand and leaves out all the speculation"
Judging from comments the level of brainwashing of WaPo readership is just staggering... Far above that existed in soviet Russia (were most people were suspiciously about Soviet nomenklatura and did not trust them).
Notable quotes:
"... In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president. ..."
"... And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. ..."
"... This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform. ..."
"... Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks? Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria? ..."
"... if Clinton wins, she will be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats will need to fall in line ..."
"... I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. ..."
"... In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security? ..."
"... The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative. ..."
"... Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof. Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation. ..."

[Jul 31, 2016] Media myth that Trump supports are ignorant rednecks

"... If I'm not mistaken I believe that it's already been debunked that Trump supporters are ignorant as it is. The corporate media will always quote the crazies when it suits them and ignore any inconvenient truths, statements or memes ..."

[Jul 30, 2016] Why Trump might win

"... her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her again ..."
"... Our biggest problem here isn't Trump – it's Hillary. She is hugely unpopular - nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. ..."

[Jul 25, 2016] Trump is a natural leader. He is a boor, but he is a natural leader

"... Barack Obama = CIA creation to be a rubber stamp. He was never a leader. Early on, he'd clearly indicated that the job of the President is not to lead, but to pass or veto bills from Congress. This narrow interpretation allowed him to screw us good. He and his dupes explained that we got screwed because of meany republicans and especially b/c "his hands were tied". ..."

[Feb 04, 2016] Pitchfork Time Elites Have Lost Their Healthy Fear Of The Masses

An interesting, but not a deep,  discussion about the possibility of uprising against the neoliberal elite in the current circumstances...
Notable quotes:
"... Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet? ..."
"... With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of wealth and power.  ..."
"... will goldman sucks n shitty bank loan me money to purchase a pitchfork? http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/03/update-fec-informs-ted-cr...  ..."
"... It really doesn't matter what *ism society embraces. What matters more is is the power elite greedy enough to sell out their own kind?  ..."

 


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Dec 04, 2019] The Anti-Trust Election

This is from 2016 election cycle but still relevant. Money quote: "Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. "
Despicable neoliberal MSM do not like to discuss real issue that facing people in 220 elections. They like to discuss personalities. Propagandists of Vichy left like Madcow spend hours discussing Ukrainegate instead of real issues facing the nation.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue. ..."
"... If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste. But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome. ..."
"... Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose. ..."
"... "Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog). ..."
"... But then it dawned on me: antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important, why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it? ..."
"... Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either. ..."
"... They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic mistake. ..."
"... Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. ..."
Oct 08, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Economist's View
I have a new column:

The Anti-Trust Election of 2016 :

... ... ...

Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue.

We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government and the magic of markets to justify ignoring the problem.

If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste. But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome.

JohnH : October 07, 2016 at 09:10 AM , October 07, 2016 at 09:10 AM
"We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government" which has been amply demonstrated during the last 7 years by negligible enforcement of anti-trust laws.

Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose.

Vote third party to register your disgust and to open the process to people who don't just represent the predator class.

supersaurus -> JohnH... October 07, 2016 at 10:05 AM , October 07, 2016 at 10:05 AM
"Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog).
JohnH -> JohnH... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 04:32 PM
Thomas Frank: "I was pleased to learn, for example, that this year's Democratic platform includes strong language on antitrust enforcement, and that Hillary Clinton has hinted she intends to take the matter up as president. Hooray! Taking on too-powerful corporations would be healthy, I thought when I first learned that, and also enormously popular. But then it dawned on me: antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important, why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it?"
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/07/some-clintons-pledges-sound-great-until-you-remember-whos-president

One party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them...a distinction without a difference.

Who do you prefer to have guarding the chicken house...a fox or a coyote? Sane people would say, 'neither.'

Peter K. -> DrDick... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 01:13 PM
Yes and Clinton supporters attacked Sanders over this during the primaries.

Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either.

http://jwmason.org/slackwire/links-for-october-6/

"At Vox,* Rachelle Sampson has a piece on corporate short-termism. Supports my sense that this is an area where there may be space to move left in a Clinton administration."

* http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/3/13141852/short-term-capitalism-clinton-economics

Henry Carey's ghost : , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 09:35 PM
Economists have said for thirty years that free trade will benefit the US. Increasingly the country looks like a poor non-industrialized third world country. Why should anyone trust US economists?

They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic mistake.

Trust in experts is what has transformed the US from a world leader in 1969 with the moon landing to a country with no high speed rail, no modern infrastructure, incapable of producing a computer or ipad or ship.

Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse.

>

[Dec 04, 2019] The Anti-Trust Election

This is from 2016 election cycle but still relevant. Money quote: "Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. "
Despicable neoliberal MSM do not like to discuss real issue that facing people in 220 elections. They like to discuss personalities. Propagandists of Vichy left like Madcow spend hours discussing Ukrainegate instead of real issues facing the nation.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue. ..."
"... If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste. But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome. ..."
"... Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose. ..."
"... "Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog). ..."
"... But then it dawned on me: antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important, why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it? ..."
"... Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either. ..."
"... They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic mistake. ..."
"... Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. ..."
Oct 08, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Economist's View
I have a new column:

The Anti-Trust Election of 2016 :

... ... ...

Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue.

We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government and the magic of markets to justify ignoring the problem.

If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste. But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome.

JohnH : October 07, 2016 at 09:10 AM , October 07, 2016 at 09:10 AM
"We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government" which has been amply demonstrated during the last 7 years by negligible enforcement of anti-trust laws.

Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose.

Vote third party to register your disgust and to open the process to people who don't just represent the predator class.

supersaurus -> JohnH... October 07, 2016 at 10:05 AM , October 07, 2016 at 10:05 AM
"Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog).
JohnH -> JohnH... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 04:32 PM
Thomas Frank: "I was pleased to learn, for example, that this year's Democratic platform includes strong language on antitrust enforcement, and that Hillary Clinton has hinted she intends to take the matter up as president. Hooray! Taking on too-powerful corporations would be healthy, I thought when I first learned that, and also enormously popular. But then it dawned on me: antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important, why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it?"
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/07/some-clintons-pledges-sound-great-until-you-remember-whos-president

One party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them...a distinction without a difference.

Who do you prefer to have guarding the chicken house...a fox or a coyote? Sane people would say, 'neither.'

Peter K. -> DrDick... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 01:13 PM
Yes and Clinton supporters attacked Sanders over this during the primaries.

Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either.

http://jwmason.org/slackwire/links-for-october-6/

"At Vox,* Rachelle Sampson has a piece on corporate short-termism. Supports my sense that this is an area where there may be space to move left in a Clinton administration."

* http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/3/13141852/short-term-capitalism-clinton-economics

Henry Carey's ghost : , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 09:35 PM
Economists have said for thirty years that free trade will benefit the US. Increasingly the country looks like a poor non-industrialized third world country. Why should anyone trust US economists?

They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic mistake.

Trust in experts is what has transformed the US from a world leader in 1969 with the moon landing to a country with no high speed rail, no modern infrastructure, incapable of producing a computer or ipad or ship.

Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse.

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yes, that's this Ben Rhodes .

kj1313 , May 13, 2016 at 7:15 am

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

MtnLife , May 13, 2016 at 8:02 am

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

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

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

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 8:22 am

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

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

marym , May 13, 2016 at 9:24 am

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

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 10:09 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

marym , May 13, 2016 at 11:46 am

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

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

NotTimothyGeithner , May 13, 2016 at 12:21 pm

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

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

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

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 2:22 pm

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

B , May 13, 2016 at 11:59 am

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

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

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

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

kj1313 , May 13, 2016 at 3:17 pm

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

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 2:17 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lindaj , May 13, 2016 at 3:09 pm

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

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

Pespi , May 13, 2016 at 9:26 am

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

Vatch , May 13, 2016 at 9:55 am

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

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

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 10:39 am

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

Vatch , May 13, 2016 at 3:56 pm

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

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 5:09 pm

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

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

pictboy3 , May 13, 2016 at 10:56 am

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

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

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

Jim , May 13, 2016 at 11:29 am

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

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

The Bush administration?

cm , May 13, 2016 at 2:45 pm

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

Skippy , May 13, 2016 at 6:07 pm

Obama does not get is morning SITREP delivered with biblical headers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cassandra , May 13, 2016 at 5:14 pm

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

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

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

Ulysses , May 13, 2016 at 3:31 pm

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

JTMcPhee , May 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm

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

But the Panopticon will Save us

Vatch , May 13, 2016 at 4:01 pm

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

TG , May 13, 2016 at 12:20 pm

Kudos. Well said.

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

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

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

Vatch , May 13, 2016 at 2:23 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

anon , May 13, 2016 at 2:37 pm

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

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

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

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

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

Vatch , May 13, 2016 at 4:50 pm

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

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

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

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

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

steelhead23 , May 13, 2016 at 5:28 pm

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

NotTimothyGeithner , May 13, 2016 at 9:29 am

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

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

MikeNY , May 13, 2016 at 7:17 am

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

bowserhead , May 13, 2016 at 9:22 am

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

NotTimothyGeithner , May 13, 2016 at 10:19 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

anon , May 13, 2016 at 7:51 am

As if HRC wont?

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 8:43 am

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

Ian , May 13, 2016 at 9:05 am

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

Jason , May 13, 2016 at 2:54 pm

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

Ulysses , May 13, 2016 at 3:17 pm

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

Jason , May 13, 2016 at 3:49 pm

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

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

steelhead23 , May 13, 2016 at 6:29 pm

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

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

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

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 3:58 pm

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

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

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

flora , May 13, 2016 at 10:52 am

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

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 2:34 pm

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

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

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

MtnLife , May 13, 2016 at 8:06 am

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

MikeNY , May 13, 2016 at 8:18 am

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

MtnLife , May 13, 2016 at 10:00 am

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

MikeNY , May 13, 2016 at 10:10 am

Kind words, TY.

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

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

NotTimothyGeithner , May 13, 2016 at 9:57 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

The recall campaign proved this a bad assumption.

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

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

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

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 2:46 pm

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

jsn , May 13, 2016 at 11:37 am

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

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

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

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

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

marym , May 13, 2016 at 8:48 am

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

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

marym , May 13, 2016 at 8:57 am

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

MikeNY , May 13, 2016 at 9:30 am

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

marym , May 13, 2016 at 12:39 pm

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

MikeNY , May 13, 2016 at 5:05 pm

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

JTMcPhee , May 13, 2016 at 9:43 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep.

Felix_47 , May 13, 2016 at 10:41 am

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

JTMcPhee , May 13, 2016 at 2:46 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

inode_buddha , May 13, 2016 at 6:41 pm

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

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

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

Nick , May 13, 2016 at 7:22 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P , May 13, 2016 at 7:45 am

This guy has been writing some great stuff this cycle.

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

miamijac , May 13, 2016 at 8:06 am

like's bait and switch.

Nick , May 13, 2016 at 8:05 am

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

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

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

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

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

bowserhead , May 13, 2016 at 8:50 am

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

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

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 9:34 am

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

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

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

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

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

ggm , May 13, 2016 at 2:17 pm

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

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 2:51 pm

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

pretzelattack , May 13, 2016 at 4:16 pm

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

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

Let's not forget the warrantless surveillance program!

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

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

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

"The United States does not torture." -GWB

Ian , May 13, 2016 at 9:10 am

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

Rhondda , May 13, 2016 at 11:22 am

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

I no longer believe - any of it .

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 2:54 pm

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

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

Northeaster , May 13, 2016 at 8:45 am

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

This.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pavel , May 13, 2016 at 8:01 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That bagel spread though

P , May 13, 2016 at 7:37 am

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

samhill , May 13, 2016 at 7:41 am

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

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

bowserhead , May 13, 2016 at 8:13 am

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

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

JustAnObserver , May 13, 2016 at 10:05 am

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

bowserhead , May 13, 2016 at 10:54 am

Good point.

JustAnObserver , May 13, 2016 at 1:40 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 4:24 pm

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

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

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 5:38 pm

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

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

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

Noonan , May 13, 2016 at 9:38 am

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

NotTimothyGeithner , May 13, 2016 at 9:52 am

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

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

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

TedWa , May 13, 2016 at 10:01 am

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

Praedor , May 13, 2016 at 10:34 am

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

TedWa , May 13, 2016 at 10:43 am

Exactly, and I'm loving it :^)

ewmayer , May 13, 2016 at 6:49 pm

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

ke , May 13, 2016 at 10:13 am

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

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

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

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

dingusansich , May 13, 2016 at 10:31 am

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

RUKidding , May 13, 2016 at 2:43 pm

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

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

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

Won't get fooled again.

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

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

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

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

Very true, and vice versa.

hemeantwell , May 13, 2016 at 10:32 am

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

ke , May 13, 2016 at 11:38 am

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

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

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

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

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

ke , May 13, 2016 at 11:54 am

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

Watt4Bob , May 13, 2016 at 12:30 pm

The way I read this situation is this;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RUKidding , May 13, 2016 at 2:49 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND

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

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

singfoom , May 13, 2016 at 2:44 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bowserhead , May 13, 2016 at 1:43 pm

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

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

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

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

Bernard , May 13, 2016 at 1:44 pm

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

Evil is as evil does. aka Hillary

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

singfoom , May 13, 2016 at 2:54 pm

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

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

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 3:09 pm

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

Massinissa , May 13, 2016 at 7:06 pm

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

Massinissa , May 13, 2016 at 7:04 pm

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

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

Massinissa , May 13, 2016 at 7:09 pm

Hey, let me tell you a secret

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

snip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow. Just wow.

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

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

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

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

Why, I am glad you asked.

War Is Realizing the Israelizing of the World

snip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And another link:

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

And another:

Who is Israel's Biggest Enemy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John , May 13, 2016 at 2:59 pm

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

Massinissa , May 13, 2016 at 7:01 pm

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

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

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

He's right, you know.

[Mar 14, 2019] The Fog of Politics

Nov 19, 2016 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason. But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others, are a solemn, basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing compared with that of the rich."

John Kenneth Galbraith

The sugar high of the Trump election seems to be wearing a bit thin on Wall Street. I had said at the time that I thought they would just execute the trading plans they had in place in their supposition that Hillary was going to win. And this is what I think they did, and have been doing.

And so when the thrill is gone, and dull reality starts sinking in, I suspect we are going to be in for quite a correction.

However, I am tuning out the hysteria from the Wall Street Democrats, especially the pitiful whining emanating from organizations like MSNBC, CNN, and the NY Times, because they have discredited themselves as reliable, unbiased sources. They really have.

They may just be joining their right-leaning peers in this, but they still do not realize it, and think of themselves as exceptional, and morally superior. And the same can be said of many pundits, and insiders, and very serious people with important podiums in the academy and the press.

Hillary was to be their meal ticket. And their anguish at being denied a payday for their faithful service is remarkable.

We are being treated to rumours that Trump is going to appoint this or that despicable person to some key position. I am waiting for him to show his hand with some actual decisions and appointments.

This is not to say that I am optimistic, not in the least. I am not, and I most certainly did not vote for him (or her for that matter). But the silliness of the courtiers in the media is just too much, too much whining from those who had their candy of power and money by association expectations taken away.

I am therefore very interested in seeing who the DNC will choose as chairperson. Liz Warren came out today and endorsed Ellison, which I believe Bernie Sanders has done as well. He is no insider like Wasserman-Schulz, Brazile, or Dean.

The Democratic party is at a crossroads, in a split between taking policy positions along lines of 'class' or 'identity.'

By class is meant working class of the broader public versus the moneyed interests of financiers and tech monopolists. Identity implies the working with various minority groups who certainly may deserve redress for real suppression of their rights and other financial abuses, but in a 'splintering' manner that breaks them down into special interest groups rather than a broader movement of the disadvantaged.

Why has this been the establishment approach of the heart of the Democratic power circles?

I think the reason for this Democratic strategy has been purely practical. There was no way the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party could make policy along lines of the middle class and the poor, and keep a straight face, while gorging themselves in a frenzy of massive soft corruption and enormous donations from the wealthiest few who they were thereby expected to represent and to serve.

And so they lost politically, and badly.

The average American, of whatever identity, finally became sick of them, and rejected the balkanization of their interests into special identity groups that could be more easily managed and messaged, and controlled.

This was a huge difference that we saw in the Sanders campaign, almost to a fault. Not because he was wrong necessarily, but because it was so unaccustomed, and insufficiently articulated. Sanders had his heart in the right place, perhaps, but he lacked the charisma and outspokenness of an FDR. Not to mention that his own party powers were dead set against him, because they wanted to keep the status quo that had rewarded them so well in place.

It is not at all obvious that the Democrats can find themselves again. Perhaps Mr. Trump, while doing some things well, will take economic policy matters to an excess, and like the Democrats ignore the insecurity and discontent of the working class. And the people will find a voice, eventually, in either the Democratic party, or something entirely new.

This is not just an American phenomenon. This has happened with Labour and Brexit in the UK, and is happening in the rest of the developed nations in Europe. One thing that the ruling elite of the West have had in common is a devotion to corporate globalisation and inequality.

And that system is not going to 'cohere' as economist Robert Johnson had put it so well.

With all this change and volatility and insecurity, it appears that people will be reaching for some sort of safe haven for themselves and their resources. So far the Dollar index has benefited from this, not because of its virtues, but from the weakness and foundering of the others.

I am afraid that the confidence in the Dollar as a safe haven is misplaced, especially if things go as I expect that they will with the US economy under a Trump administration. But that is still largely in his hand,s to be decided and written. We have yet to see if he has the will and mind to oppose the vested interests of his own party and the corporate, moneyed interests.

That is an enormous, history-making task, requiring an almost historic moral compass. And so I am not optimistic.

Have a pleasant evening.

[Mar 14, 2019] The Fog of Politics

Nov 19, 2016 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason. But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others, are a solemn, basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing compared with that of the rich."

John Kenneth Galbraith

The sugar high of the Trump election seems to be wearing a bit thin on Wall Street. I had said at the time that I thought they would just execute the trading plans they had in place in their supposition that Hillary was going to win. And this is what I think they did, and have been doing.

And so when the thrill is gone, and dull reality starts sinking in, I suspect we are going to be in for quite a correction.

However, I am tuning out the hysteria from the Wall Street Democrats, especially the pitiful whining emanating from organizations like MSNBC, CNN, and the NY Times, because they have discredited themselves as reliable, unbiased sources. They really have.

They may just be joining their right-leaning peers in this, but they still do not realize it, and think of themselves as exceptional, and morally superior. And the same can be said of many pundits, and insiders, and very serious people with important podiums in the academy and the press.

Hillary was to be their meal ticket. And their anguish at being denied a payday for their faithful service is remarkable.

We are being treated to rumours that Trump is going to appoint this or that despicable person to some key position. I am waiting for him to show his hand with some actual decisions and appointments.

This is not to say that I am optimistic, not in the least. I am not, and I most certainly did not vote for him (or her for that matter). But the silliness of the courtiers in the media is just too much, too much whining from those who had their candy of power and money by association expectations taken away.

I am therefore very interested in seeing who the DNC will choose as chairperson. Liz Warren came out today and endorsed Ellison, which I believe Bernie Sanders has done as well. He is no insider like Wasserman-Schulz, Brazile, or Dean.

The Democratic party is at a crossroads, in a split between taking policy positions along lines of 'class' or 'identity.'

By class is meant working class of the broader public versus the moneyed interests of financiers and tech monopolists. Identity implies the working with various minority groups who certainly may deserve redress for real suppression of their rights and other financial abuses, but in a 'splintering' manner that breaks them down into special interest groups rather than a broader movement of the disadvantaged.

Why has this been the establishment approach of the heart of the Democratic power circles?

I think the reason for this Democratic strategy has been purely practical. There was no way the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party could make policy along lines of the middle class and the poor, and keep a straight face, while gorging themselves in a frenzy of massive soft corruption and enormous donations from the wealthiest few who they were thereby expected to represent and to serve.

And so they lost politically, and badly.

The average American, of whatever identity, finally became sick of them, and rejected the balkanization of their interests into special identity groups that could be more easily managed and messaged, and controlled.

This was a huge difference that we saw in the Sanders campaign, almost to a fault. Not because he was wrong necessarily, but because it was so unaccustomed, and insufficiently articulated. Sanders had his heart in the right place, perhaps, but he lacked the charisma and outspokenness of an FDR. Not to mention that his own party powers were dead set against him, because they wanted to keep the status quo that had rewarded them so well in place.

It is not at all obvious that the Democrats can find themselves again. Perhaps Mr. Trump, while doing some things well, will take economic policy matters to an excess, and like the Democrats ignore the insecurity and discontent of the working class. And the people will find a voice, eventually, in either the Democratic party, or something entirely new.

This is not just an American phenomenon. This has happened with Labour and Brexit in the UK, and is happening in the rest of the developed nations in Europe. One thing that the ruling elite of the West have had in common is a devotion to corporate globalisation and inequality.

And that system is not going to 'cohere' as economist Robert Johnson had put it so well.

With all this change and volatility and insecurity, it appears that people will be reaching for some sort of safe haven for themselves and their resources. So far the Dollar index has benefited from this, not because of its virtues, but from the weakness and foundering of the others.

I am afraid that the confidence in the Dollar as a safe haven is misplaced, especially if things go as I expect that they will with the US economy under a Trump administration. But that is still largely in his hand,s to be decided and written. We have yet to see if he has the will and mind to oppose the vested interests of his own party and the corporate, moneyed interests.

That is an enormous, history-making task, requiring an almost historic moral compass. And so I am not optimistic.

Have a pleasant evening.

[Mar 02, 2019] Ron Paul to Trump: Dont Listen to Neocons! by Adam Dick

Ron Paul was right in 2016 to express reservations about Trump forign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign policy actions. ..."
"... Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice. ..."
"... Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good sign." ..."
"... Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that "builds up the war fever" can ..."
Nov 11, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Ron Paul, known for his promotion of the United States following a noninterventionist foreign policy, presented Thursday his take on the prospects of Donald Trump's foreign policy as president. Paul set out his analysis in an extensive interview with host Peter Lavelle at RT.

Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign policy actions. Paul says he views favorably Trump's comments in the presidential election about "being less confrontational with Russia" and criticizing some of the US wars in the Middle East. Paul, though, notes that Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice.

Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good sign."

Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that "builds up the war fever" can

[Mar 02, 2019] Ron Paul to Trump: Dont Listen to Neocons! by Adam Dick

Ron Paul was right in 2016 to express reservations about Trump forign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign policy actions. ..."
"... Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice. ..."
"... Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good sign." ..."
"... Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that "builds up the war fever" can ..."
Nov 11, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Ron Paul, known for his promotion of the United States following a noninterventionist foreign policy, presented Thursday his take on the prospects of Donald Trump's foreign policy as president. Paul set out his analysis in an extensive interview with host Peter Lavelle at RT.

Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign policy actions. Paul says he views favorably Trump's comments in the presidential election about "being less confrontational with Russia" and criticizing some of the US wars in the Middle East. Paul, though, notes that Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice.

Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good sign."

Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that "builds up the war fever" can

[Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap

Highly recommended!
Dec 30, 2018 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

At the inception of this entire RussiaGate spectacle I suggested that it was a political distraction to take the attention away from the rejection by the people of neoliberalism which has been embraced by the establishments of both political parties.

And that the result of the investigation would be indictments for perjury in the covering up of illicit business deals and money laundering. But that 'collusion to sway the election' was without substance, if not a joke.

Everything that has been revealed to date tends to support that.

One thing that Aaron overlooks is the evidence compiled by William Binney and associates that strongly suggests the DNC hack was no hack at all, but a leak by an insider who was appalled by the lies and double dealing at the DNC.

In general, RussiaGate is a farcical distraction from other issues as they say in the video. And this highlights the utterly Machiavellian streak in the corporate Democrats and the Liberal establishment under the Clintons and their ilk who care more about money and power than the basic principles that historically sustained their party. I have lost all respect for them.

But unfortunately this does open the door for those who use this to approve of the Republican establishment, which is 'at least honest' about being substantially corrupt servants to Big Money who care nothing about democracy, the Constitution, or the public. The best of them are leaving or have already left, and their party is ruined beyond repair.

This all underscores the paucity of the Red v. Blue, monopoly of two parties, 'lesser of two evils' model of political thought which has come to dominate the discussion in the US.

We are heavily propagandized by the owners of the corporate media and influencers of the narrative, and a professional class that has sold its soul for economic advantage and access to money and power.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2HBA3Zm3dGM

And here is a bit more from Nate Silver --

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SETw5GLF8mU

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

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

Submitted by Karen Kwiatkowski via LewRockwell.com,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4:00 AM October 6, 2011

Kitchen Table, USA

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

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

A. FEDERAL RESERVE

1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately

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

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

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

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

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

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT

1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately

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

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

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

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

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

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

A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING

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

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

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

B. PENSION FUNDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Richard Wharton: They don't last long.

rlouis Aug 20, 2016 7:47 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cortes , July 24, 2016 at 11:16 am

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

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

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

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

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

yalensis , July 25, 2016 at 3:40 pm

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

[Apr 04, 2017] Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say Fox News

Notable quotes:
"... This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas' television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: "I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration." ..."
Apr 04, 2017 | www.foxnews.com
Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance.

The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.

The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.

It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being posed by the sources late Monday.

... ... ...

This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas' television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: "I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration."

... ... ...

As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.

... ... ...

Rice is no stranger to controversy. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, she appeared on several Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration's later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.

[Dec 31, 2016] What Happened to Obamas Passion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael August 7, 2011

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

Bill Levine August 7, 2011

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

AnAverageAmerican August 7, 2011

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

cdearman Santa Fe, NM August 7, 2011

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

SP California August 7, 2011

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

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

farospace san francisco August 7, 2011

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

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

Richard Katz American in Oxford, UK August 7, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

An Ordinary American Prague August 7, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

martin Portland, Oregon August 7, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps all of these are true.

[Dec 31, 2016] Like Iraq WMD Fiasco, Russia Story Does Not Add Up

If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services? '
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions. And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Dec 30, 2016 | mishtalk.com

Yesterday, President Obama expelled 35 Russian "Operatives" from the Russian Embassy .

Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?

The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment.

... ... ....

Something Stinks

The Rolling Stone comments Something About This Russia Story Stinks

In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is " insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.

Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia hacked the election."

This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale backed by no credible evidence ).

As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.

And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely on unnamed security sources.

Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration.

Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind.

Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here.

We just don't know, which is the problem.

We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across.

Where the Hell is the Evidence?

'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians'

John McAfee, founder of the security firm McAfee Associates, says 'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians' .

The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location.

McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location, their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said

"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."

Question of Patriotism

It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling, and wars.

Related

keepitsimple , December 30, 2016 1:41:03 at 1:41 PM
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old story, over and over again.
Bobdough , December 30, 2016 10:51:52 at 10:51 PM
Not gullibilty, but complicity
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:07:19 at 2:07 PM
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time?

No problem if they deliver proof.

James Greenberg , December 30, 2016 6:30:47 at 6:30 PM
Read 1984. It will explain EVERYTHING.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 7:05:07 at 7:05 PM
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees interesting vs political bias they exhibit.

Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone upsetting that plan.

Crysangle , December 30, 2016 8:56:05 at 8:56 PM
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.

Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-30/italy-urges-europe-begin-censoring-free-speech-internet

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:53:11 at 9:53 AM
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians!

Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero! So, while Palestinians struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!

Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?

Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:58:31 at 9:58 AM
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97% this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Greg , December 30, 2016 2:07:48 at 2:07 PM
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:09:55 at 2:09 PM
Some rumours Obama to be considered for UN role and Cameron NATO.
Germ , December 30, 2016 2:13:34 at 2:13 PM
It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!"
Winston , December 30, 2016 3:43:28 at 3:43 PM
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.

And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.

Note he avoided the phrase, "slam dunk"

Winston , December 30, 2016 3:52:29 at 3:52 PM
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort.

Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."

fingerhole , December 30, 2016 5:24:36 at 5:24 PM
Any government that claims a right to secrecy over its affairs is going to use lying as a policy.
Steven milgrom , December 30, 2016 4:17:51 at 4:17 PM
Snowden says that it is auite easy to trace the source of the hackers.
madashellowell , December 30, 2016 4:21:48 at 4:21 PM
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate.

I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:25:43 at 1:25 PM
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.

Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians, both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was clear the wars were pointless.

Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.

vooch , December 30, 2016 5:18:15 at 5:18 PM
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
Winston , December 30, 2016 5:24:35 at 5:24 PM
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/

Excerpt:

"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks.

Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."

WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."

The_Fish , December 30, 2016 5:54:31 at 5:54 PM
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined themes.

Little people upset the apple-cart? http://www.globalresearch.ca/bilderberg-chooses-hillary-clinton-for-2016/5454829

wootendw , December 30, 2016 6:01:33 at 6:01 PM
"We just don't know "

The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:09:50 at 9:09 PM
One of the leakers is dead, we know that.
joelg5 , December 30, 2016 6:35:45 at 6:35 PM
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.

McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.

The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.

After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.

Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial interests to nurture the misma.

Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.

Ron J , December 31, 2016 12:32:19 at 12:32 PM
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view "

All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over 50 years.

After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack, believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.

CJ , December 30, 2016 8:15:54 at 8:15 PM
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too stupid.
Truth seeker , December 30, 2016 9:32:32 at 9:32 PM
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.

Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots, it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your naïveté here surprises me!

Bobdough , December 30, 2016 11:00:12 at 11:00 PM
The Russians are coming!

Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:52:15 at 9:52 PM
Germany takes back its gold from US. Finally, after the Fed Res refused an audit request. http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/27-12-2016/136521-gold-0/
Simon Hodges , December 31, 2016 7:57:09 at 7:57 AM
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.

The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.

Seenitallbefore , December 31, 2016 9:48:10 at 9:48 AM
Don't be stupid. The Russians did it. CNN reported it, so it must be true.
Winston , December 31, 2016 10:22:42 at 10:22 AM
Supporting -EXACTLY- the points I've previously made here: Russian Hackers Said To "Penetrate US Electricity Grid" Using Outdated Ukrainian Malware

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-31/russian-hackers-said-penetrate-us-electricity-grid-using-outdated-ukrainian-malware

Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.

Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking tools that are widely available for purchase.

He said:

1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:09:53 at 1:09 PM
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't.

Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?

And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?

I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote

[Dec 31, 2016] The last hissy fit of neocon Obama is probably connected with the loss of Alepo and being sidelined in Syria

Notable quotes:
"... White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks). ..."
"... The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised, so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political system, which is insane. ..."
"... You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination." ~Charles de Gaulle. ..."
"... United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list... ..."
"... Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. ..."
Dec 31, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug. Putin, it seems, is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is too.

But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to his disadvantage .

"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to] box in – the next administration's relationship with Russia," said Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"Putin, in part, saw through that and sidestepped it by playing good cop to [Russian foreign minister Sergey] Lavrov and the [state] Duma, who were calling for a reciprocal response."


vgnych 8h ago

All Obama does with his clumsy movements is just attempting to blame Russians for Democrat's loss of elections. Also he is obscuring peaceful power transition while at it.

All what Trump needs to do is to just call the looser a loser a move on.

Max South , 30 Dec 2016 18:56
White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks).

The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised, so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political system, which is insane.

This argumentation means that even if Russian government has done the hacking, it was a good deed, there is nothing to sanction Russia for even in such case.

MacCosham -> Max South , 30 Dec 2016 19:38
There were no hacks, the DNC emails were leaked by disgruntled insiders. As brilliantly said by the heroic former diplomat Craig Murray. Reply
CDNBobOrr , 30 Dec 2016 18:58
'Fraid both Putin and Trump are a lot smarter than Barry. Putin's move in not retaliating and inviting US kids to the Kremlin New Year party was an astute judo throw. And Barry is sitting on his backside wondering how it happened. Reply
antobojar , 30 Dec 2016 19:00
.. Probably Obama's "exceptionalism" made him so clumsy on international affairs stage..

.. just recently.. snubbed by Fidel.. he refused to meet him..
.. humiliated by Raul Castro, he declined to hug president of USA..
.. Duterte described.. hmm.. his provenance..
.. Bibi told him off in most vulgar way.. several times..
.. and now this..
..pathetic..

P.S.
You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination." ~Charles de Gaulle.

chiefwiley -> Tribal War , 30 Dec 2016 21:49
Obama knew about Russian involvement in July. Look it up. He ignored it because it was seen as having no effect, and they didn't want the appearance of the government favoring Hillary, because they thought she was in line for a landslide victory.

After the election, "RUSSIA" has become a fund raising buzz word for Democrats.

Phrygian , 30 Dec 2016 19:02
Talk about sore loser. Obama's actions are disgraceful. The sooner he leaves office the better. Reply Share
AveAtqueCave -> Phrygian , 30 Dec 2016 19:17
The election should have taught our "betters" that people do think for themselves, albeit occasionally.

I've been frustrated enough with Obama since he pardoned Bush and Cheney... now he wants to sacrifice whatever shreds of reputation the Democratic party has... to be a white knight for miserable candidate, warmonger, and incompetent Hillary Clinton.

He figured the republicans would love him when he took Bush et al. off the hook and (clumsily) implemented Romney's health plan. They didn't.

Now he thinks leftists will love him because he's going "all in" on Hillary didn't lose this all on her own. They won't.

The guy doesn't have a fraction of the insight he credits himself with.

blocksburg -> Phrygian , 30 Dec 2016 19:18
Indeed, may even be seen as treasonous behaviour Reply
Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:06
Simple solution, publish the commenter geolocation and ban proxy, clean the comment section from putinbots. Putin like ASBO's must stop to do more harm against democracy. Reply Share
Down2dirt -> Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:17
What a foolish comment. Reply Share
Ilurktostudyyouall -> Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:39
And what happens when you begin to realise many are not putinbots? Reply Share
Not4TheFaintOfHeart -> Ilurktostudyyouall , 30 Dec 2016 19:58
I'm sure they'll find some excuse to get around that...
'It's elephants all the way down', don't forget Reply
ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 19:07
Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who.

Obama is salty because of Kilary getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria.

Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting times. Reply

foolisholdman -> ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 20:01
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat, but the core of their policies was Corpratism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.

The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism" any more.

Terry Phillips , 30 Dec 2016 19:19
You just know these people, like Johnny boy, who are pointing fingers at Russia are doing so based upon long laid plans to bind up Trump from building a healthy relationship with Russia which would put an end to terrorism and likely all of these petty little wars that are tearing the world to pieces. These people want war because division keeps them in power and war makes them lots of money. I hope that Trump and Putin can work together and build a trust and foundation as allies in that together we can stamp out terrorism and stabilize the worlds conflicts. Everything these people do in the next 20 days has a single agenda and that is to cause instability and roadblocks for Trump and his team. Hope is just around the corner people so let's help usher it in.
86753oh9 , 30 Dec 2016 19:24
First... let's see some actual evidence/proof. Oh, that's right, none has been offered up.
Second... everyone is upset that the DNC turd was exposed, but no one upset about the existence of the turd. ?

Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking the game board and forcing everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible.

TheWindsOfFreedom -> 86753oh9 , 30 Dec 2016 19:33
Hundred times repeated lie will become the truth... that's the US officials policy for decades now. In 8 years, they did nothing, so they are trying to do "something" in the last minute. For someone, who's using his own brain is all of this just laughable.

United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list...

Fulhamred , 30 Dec 2016 19:26
Hopefully now this will enable senate and congress republicans to prevent these crazy ideas of russian appeasement take hold and prusue a hardline against Russia, Hamas, Iran and Cuba.
Down2dirt -> Fulhamred , 30 Dec 2016 19:31
They'll probably do that. Business as usual. To pursue a hard line against Isis enablers like Saudi and Qatar, now that would be a surprise. Reply Share
Individualist -> Down2dirt , 30 Dec 2016 19:35
Actually the biggest ISIS enabler was Cheney.
Down2dirt -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:42
Well you're probably right about that.
rocjoc43rd -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:45
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area.

You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.

cosmith , 30 Dec 2016 19:27
So the person awarded a Nobel Peace Prize uses his last weeks in office to sour relations between the only 2 superpowers on Earth for - what ?

American party politics /
Spite ?
Ideological hatred ?

For those of you who are too young to remember, look up "Cold War" and look for references
to Hawks and Doves.

Who are the Hawks now - and who are the Doves ?

The Left/Liberal paradigm is so drastically in need of updating that it is becoming downright dangerous.

Hell hath on fury like a self defined "liberal" scorned.

Banker1 -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:48
The foreign power did the American people a favor when it exposed the corruption within the Democratic Party; something the establishment media was apparently unable or unwilling to do. Rather than sanctioning Putin, Americans should be thanking him!
Haigin88 , 30 Dec 2016 19:30
R.E.M.: 'Exhuming McCarthy'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMedTmZKo38 Reply Share
gottliebvera , 30 Dec 2016 19:34
I think Obama is behaving in a most petulant and non-presidential manner. Lack of decorum as parting shot. Good going. Reply Share
UnitedundertheSun -> Jonathan Stromberg , 30 Dec 2016 23:10
Attack Russia with a wet lettuce? Oh the pain! And gives Putin the high moral ground. Brilliant politics from Obama.

All to hamfistedly conceal what a rotten dysfunctional political organisation he heads.

Obama plays snakes and ladders while Putin is playing chess.

chelsea55 , 30 Dec 2016 19:35
Seems a no brainer, reverse Obama's ridiculous posturing gesture. As if the US doesn't have a long track record of interfering in the affairs of other countries.
chelsea55 -> LithophaneFurcifera , 30 Dec 2016 21:57
Personally I think the US should do as it wishes but it's extremely hypocritical to act shocked when the same meddling is returned by others. Obama is acting foolishly as if the final weeks of his presidency have any genuine traction on future events.

[Dec 30, 2016] The Coup against Trump and His Military

Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Notable quotes:
"... In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'. ..."
"... Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly. ..."
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

Introduction

A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup' is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election.

The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.

The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives, mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.

The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and legitimacy.

The Coup as 'Process'

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'.

Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies in Congress and the Judiciary.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking office in January.

While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.

Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.

Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump of

  1. being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
  2. blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for Secretary Clinton.

The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass media.

In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.

Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia, the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like Jill Stein.

The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention: The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties, and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival 'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry' Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.

ORDER IT NOW

The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.

President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and place of our choosing".

Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo – and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.

Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance

Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress. He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.

Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his cabinet who had their own allied business associations.

One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL, George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security and intelligence positions.

The Coup: Can it succeed?

In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation' on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.

If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').

He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.

(Reprinted from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

Kirt December 28, 2016 at 3:19 pm GMT

A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power. But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but the whole system?

John Gruskos , December 28, 2016 at 4:16 pm GMT

If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Robert Magill , December 28, 2016 at 5:30 pm GMT

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations

The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids?

Replies: @Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). , @animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.

What a god-awful president.

An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.

The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not one shred of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --

If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Brás Cubas , December 28, 2016 at 6:17 pm GMT

Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance of forces in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction to make, and it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy" is being questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?

Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more optimistic than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about my own poor country Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)

Happy new year!

schmenz , December 28, 2016 at 9:05 pm GMT
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Exactly...

Svigor , December 28, 2016 at 9:28 pm GMT

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.

And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

Replies: @Seamus Padraig

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Lieutenant Morrisseau , December 28, 2016 at 11:27 pm GMT

MAN PAD LETTER – DM 24 DEC 2016

I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers .such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing laws. –Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

• Replies: @Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Bruce Marshall , December 29, 2016 at 6:05 am GMT • 100 Words @Lieutenant Morrisseau MAN PAD LETTER - DM 24 DEC 2016


I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing laws. --Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

• Replies: @El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Mark Green says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 29, 2016 at 6:39 am GMT • 600 Words

This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?–Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

• Replies:

@Authenticjazzman

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist. ,

@Seamus Padraig

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead foreever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,

@Rurik

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game. , @map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained.

How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors. ,

@RobinG "

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile...
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

@Tomster

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Pirouette , December 29, 2016 at 7:08 am GMT

The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will now be tied by all the traitors that run the US.

You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade buying slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.

(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and forcing the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.

You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate reality: are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression of you?

This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject matter is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or do you want to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary and dishonest policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?

Max Havelaar , December 29, 2016 at 10:45 am GMT

My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.

Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

• Replies: @annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
Karl , December 29, 2016 at 11:20 am GMT

the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches – it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

@Seamus Padraig
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally--you know, a kosher nostra!

mp , December 29, 2016 at 11:23 am GMT

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups

The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic. In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for a coup.

If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.

El Dato , December 29, 2016 at 11:39 am GMT
@Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my.

Authenticjazzman , December 29, 2016 at 1:00 pm GMT
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

Agent76 , December 29, 2016 at 1:59 pm GMT

D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.

Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)

It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.

Skeptikal , December 29, 2016 at 3:00 pm GMT
@Robert Magill
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.

So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).

animalogic , December 29, 2016 at 3:01 pm GMT • 100 Words

@Robert Magill

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website

@Svigor

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT • 1

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.

Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.

They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Karl the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

It seems you may be on to something:

RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra!

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm GMT

@Max Havelaar My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.

Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0

The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

• Agree: Kiza • Replies: @Anonymous
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do? , @Max Havelaar A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.

Maybe the Russian FSB an get to him.

Durruti , December 29, 2016 at 4:57 pm GMT

Nice well written article by James Petras.

I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .

The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2 million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.

Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.

Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.

I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below, for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.

Respect All! Bow to None!

Merry Christmas!

God Bless!

[MORE]
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "

The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.

We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

The United States is No longer Sovereign

The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.

The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

For Love of Country

The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"

"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."

Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "

Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty
[email protected]

Anonymous , December 29, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT

@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.

It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do?

• Replies: @Bill Jones The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.

My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?

The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?

As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.

Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:

My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.

At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.

Miro23 , December 29, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT

If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably split the same way.

The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects, and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.

Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.

Rurik , December 29, 2016 at 5:42 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game.

Art , December 29, 2016 at 7:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace - Art

• Agree: Seamus Padraig • Replies: @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.

Francis Boyle writes:

"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.

Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Svigor , December 29, 2016 at 9:52 pm GMT

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.

True.

alexander , December 29, 2016 at 10:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

• Replies: @annamaria

"They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration."

The subtitles are quite direct in presenting the US deciders as criminal bullies: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/12/russia-obama-was-most-evil-president.html

@Tomster What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

RobinG , December 29, 2016 at 10:25 pm GMT

@Art I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace --- Art

"If we get past the inauguration ."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act – providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

• Replies: @Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

map , December 29, 2016 at 10:41 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

• Replies: @joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb , @RobinG "A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Realist , December 29, 2016 at 11:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

joe webb , December 29, 2016 at 11:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but

Joe Webb

• Replies: @map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

Stebbing Heuer says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 11:36 pm GMT

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else.

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 11:50 pm GMT

@Realist "The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies – the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

• Replies: @Realist Great observations. Thanks. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art , December 30, 2016 at 1:06 am GMT • 100 Words @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really – how pissed off can they be?

Peace - Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

• Replies: @RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

Svigor , December 30, 2016 at 2:20 am GMT • 100 Words

Looks like I spoke too soon:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek inside the Democrat machine.

Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand!

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT

@Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

• Replies: @Art
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
anon , December 30, 2016 at 6:33 am GMT

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .

• Replies: @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC


Realist , December 30, 2016 at 8:17 am GMT

@annamaria The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html

"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ... the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."

Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

Great observations. Thanks.

map , December 30, 2016 at 9:16 am GMT

@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb

The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

• Replies: @Tomster "treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them. , @joe webb good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.

Joe Webb

Seamus Padraig says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 30, 2016 at 2:05 pm GMT

@anon https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

• Replies: @geokat62
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ , @alexander Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years...

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back.....four times...

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.

But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?

Skeptikal , December 30, 2016 at 2:38 pm GMT • 100 Words

"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. "

The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."

A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist. A black mark on both countries' report cards.

geokat62 , December 30, 2016 at 2:52 pm GMT @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/


RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:02 pm GMT

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by?

The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:32 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

Art , December 30, 2016 at 4:49 pm GMT

@RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:14 pm GMT @alexander

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:16 pm GMT

@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.

alexander , December 30, 2016 at 5:28 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back ..four times

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.

But hey, that's life in the USA .Right, Seamus ?

joe webb , December 30, 2016 at 6:15 pm GMT

@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
Joe Webb

Realist , December 30, 2016 at 6:57 pm GMT • 100 Words

Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.

January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.

lavoisier says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 31, 2016 at 1:38 am GMT • 100 Words

@joe webb

Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.

I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.

[Dec 30, 2016] The Coup against Trump and His Military

Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Notable quotes:
"... In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'. ..."
"... Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly. ..."
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

Introduction

A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup' is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election.

The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.

The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives, mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.

The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and legitimacy.

The Coup as 'Process'

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'.

Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies in Congress and the Judiciary.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking office in January.

While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.

Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.

Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump of

  1. being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
  2. blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for Secretary Clinton.

The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass media.

In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.

Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia, the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like Jill Stein.

The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention: The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties, and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival 'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry' Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.

ORDER IT NOW

The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.

President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and place of our choosing".

Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo – and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.

Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance

Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress. He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.

Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his cabinet who had their own allied business associations.

One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL, George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security and intelligence positions.

The Coup: Can it succeed?

In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation' on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.

If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').

He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.

(Reprinted from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

Kirt December 28, 2016 at 3:19 pm GMT

A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power. But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but the whole system?

John Gruskos , December 28, 2016 at 4:16 pm GMT

If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Robert Magill , December 28, 2016 at 5:30 pm GMT

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations

The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids?

Replies: @Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). , @animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.

What a god-awful president.

An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.

The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not one shred of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --

If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Brás Cubas , December 28, 2016 at 6:17 pm GMT

Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance of forces in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction to make, and it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy" is being questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?

Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more optimistic than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about my own poor country Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)

Happy new year!

schmenz , December 28, 2016 at 9:05 pm GMT
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Exactly...

Svigor , December 28, 2016 at 9:28 pm GMT

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.

And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

Replies: @Seamus Padraig

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Lieutenant Morrisseau , December 28, 2016 at 11:27 pm GMT

MAN PAD LETTER – DM 24 DEC 2016

I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers .such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing laws. –Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

• Replies: @Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Bruce Marshall , December 29, 2016 at 6:05 am GMT • 100 Words @Lieutenant Morrisseau MAN PAD LETTER - DM 24 DEC 2016


I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing laws. --Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

• Replies: @El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Mark Green says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 29, 2016 at 6:39 am GMT • 600 Words

This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?–Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

• Replies:

@Authenticjazzman

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist. ,

@Seamus Padraig

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead foreever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,

@Rurik

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game. , @map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained.

How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors. ,

@RobinG "

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile...
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

@Tomster

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Pirouette , December 29, 2016 at 7:08 am GMT

The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will now be tied by all the traitors that run the US.

You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade buying slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.

(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and forcing the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.

You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate reality: are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression of you?

This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject matter is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or do you want to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary and dishonest policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?

Max Havelaar , December 29, 2016 at 10:45 am GMT

My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.

Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

• Replies: @annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
Karl , December 29, 2016 at 11:20 am GMT

the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches – it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

@Seamus Padraig
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally--you know, a kosher nostra!

mp , December 29, 2016 at 11:23 am GMT

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups

The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic. In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for a coup.

If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.

El Dato , December 29, 2016 at 11:39 am GMT
@Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my.

Authenticjazzman , December 29, 2016 at 1:00 pm GMT
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

Agent76 , December 29, 2016 at 1:59 pm GMT

D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.

Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)

It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.

Skeptikal , December 29, 2016 at 3:00 pm GMT
@Robert Magill
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.

So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).

animalogic , December 29, 2016 at 3:01 pm GMT • 100 Words

@Robert Magill

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website

@Svigor

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT • 1

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.

Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.

They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Karl the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

It seems you may be on to something:

RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra!

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm GMT

@Max Havelaar My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.

Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0

The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

• Agree: Kiza • Replies: @Anonymous
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do? , @Max Havelaar A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.

Maybe the Russian FSB an get to him.

Durruti , December 29, 2016 at 4:57 pm GMT

Nice well written article by James Petras.

I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .

The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2 million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.

Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.

Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.

I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below, for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.

Respect All! Bow to None!

Merry Christmas!

God Bless!

[MORE]
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "

The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.

We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

The United States is No longer Sovereign

The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.

The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

For Love of Country

The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"

"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."

Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "

Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty
[email protected]

Anonymous , December 29, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT

@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.

It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do?

• Replies: @Bill Jones The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.

My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?

The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?

As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.

Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:

My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.

At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.

Miro23 , December 29, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT

If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably split the same way.

The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects, and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.

Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.

Rurik , December 29, 2016 at 5:42 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game.

Art , December 29, 2016 at 7:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace - Art

• Agree: Seamus Padraig • Replies: @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.

Francis Boyle writes:

"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.

Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Svigor , December 29, 2016 at 9:52 pm GMT

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.

True.

alexander , December 29, 2016 at 10:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

• Replies: @annamaria

"They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration."

The subtitles are quite direct in presenting the US deciders as criminal bullies: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/12/russia-obama-was-most-evil-president.html

@Tomster What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

RobinG , December 29, 2016 at 10:25 pm GMT

@Art I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace --- Art

"If we get past the inauguration ."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act – providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

• Replies: @Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

map , December 29, 2016 at 10:41 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

• Replies: @joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb , @RobinG "A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Realist , December 29, 2016 at 11:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

joe webb , December 29, 2016 at 11:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but

Joe Webb

• Replies: @map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

Stebbing Heuer says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 11:36 pm GMT

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else.

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 11:50 pm GMT

@Realist "The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies – the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

• Replies: @Realist Great observations. Thanks. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art , December 30, 2016 at 1:06 am GMT • 100 Words @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really – how pissed off can they be?

Peace - Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

• Replies: @RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

Svigor , December 30, 2016 at 2:20 am GMT • 100 Words

Looks like I spoke too soon:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek inside the Democrat machine.

Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand!

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT

@Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

• Replies: @Art
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
anon , December 30, 2016 at 6:33 am GMT

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .

• Replies: @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC


Realist , December 30, 2016 at 8:17 am GMT

@annamaria The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html

"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ... the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."

Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

Great observations. Thanks.

map , December 30, 2016 at 9:16 am GMT

@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb

The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

• Replies: @Tomster "treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them. , @joe webb good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.

Joe Webb

Seamus Padraig says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 30, 2016 at 2:05 pm GMT

@anon https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

• Replies: @geokat62
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ , @alexander Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years...

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back.....four times...

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.

But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?

Skeptikal , December 30, 2016 at 2:38 pm GMT • 100 Words

"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. "

The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."

A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist. A black mark on both countries' report cards.

geokat62 , December 30, 2016 at 2:52 pm GMT @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/


RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:02 pm GMT

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by?

The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:32 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

Art , December 30, 2016 at 4:49 pm GMT

@RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:14 pm GMT @alexander

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:16 pm GMT

@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.

alexander , December 30, 2016 at 5:28 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back ..four times

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.

But hey, that's life in the USA .Right, Seamus ?

joe webb , December 30, 2016 at 6:15 pm GMT

@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
Joe Webb

Realist , December 30, 2016 at 6:57 pm GMT • 100 Words

Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.

January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.

lavoisier says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 31, 2016 at 1:38 am GMT • 100 Words

@joe webb

Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.

I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.

[Dec 29, 2016] One thing lost in all the hullabaloo about Russian hacks is that the Obama administration's record on cyber security has been terrible.

Dec 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Reply ↓ cocomaan , December 28, 2016 at 9:29 am

One thing lost in all the hullabaloo about Russian hacks is that the Obama administration's record on cyber security has been terrible. Off the top of my head I can think of several compromising cases:

* Anything having to do with HRC's bathroom server, of course
* The Sony hack that Obama said was North Korea, but other experts say was probably just Trump's 400 lb fat guy on a bed.
* The alleged Chinese hacking of OPM
* And undoubtedly the "CYBER 911!!" of the alleged Russian interference in the election.

I don't see anyone talking about the fact that cyber infrastructure looks like it's been hit by birdshot. All the while, Obama's intelligence teams are mining information on Americans as extralegally as possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dec 28, 2016] The Empire Strikes Back The MSMs 3-Point Plan To Recapture The Narrative

Notable quotes:
"... Secondly , a meme has been invented about so-called "Fake News," which will be used to shut down dissident media outlets. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com
Some perspective: For most of human history, power was rooted in possession of land. After the Industrial Revolution , power lay in controlling in the means of production. But today, the main source of power is control of information.

Having the power to control information (what Steve Sailer calls The Megaphone ) gives you the ability to determine what issues will be discussed, what viewpoints are considered legitimate, and who is allowed to participate in polite society. It ultimately allows you to push an entire code of morality on others. And morality is, ultimately, a weapon more terrible than can be found in any arsenal [ Weaponized Morality , by Gregory Hood, Radix, October 12, 2016].

The 2016 election was ultimately a battle between the commanding heights of media (newspapers, networks, and web portals) and what we could call the guerillas of media (/pol, forums, hackers, right wing trolls , and independent media outlets like us). The latter lacked power on their own, but they united behind Donald Trump, a man whose brand was so well-established that the Establishment couldn't ignore him. It was Fourth Generation Warfare –this time over information.

And just as guerillas have been frustrating established armies all around the world on real-world battlefields, so did the online commandos frustrate and eventually overcome the seemingly invincible Fourth Estate.

But this victory wasn't inevitable. From day one, the MSM tried to destroy Donald Trump , including his business empire, because of his stated views on immigration.

Since that failed, they have started turning on his supporters with three tactics.

Soon after the election, the Leftist Think Progress blog announced that the Alt Right should only be called "white nationalist" or "white supremacist". [ Think Progress will no longer describe racists as "alt-right" , November 22, 2016] The AP dutifully echoed this pronouncement days later, warning journalists not to use the term and instead to stick to pejoratives. [ AP issues guidelines for using the term 'alt-right,' by Brent Griffiths, Politico, November 28, 2016]

This is a literally Orwellian attempt to eliminate Crimethink through linguistic control . Of course, no such guidelines will apply to non-white Identitarian groups such as the National Council of La Raza, which will continue to be called an "advocacy" or "progressive grass-roots immigration-reform organization" [ NCLR head: Obama 'deporter-in-chief, ' by Reid Epstein, Politico, March 4, 2016].

Needless to say, most the rationale for this is not just fake, but comically, obviously, wrong. Thus the Washington Post reported that VDARE.com (and many other sites) was a "Russian propaganda effort" based on no evidence at all. We ask: where is our vodka?

Rolling Stone, which pushed one of the most disgusting hoaxes in modern journalism at the University of Virginia, is having meetings with President Obama to discuss "fake news." The Guardian fell for what appears to be a hoax decrying "online hate" precisely because it is impossible to tell the difference today between the latest virtue signaling craze and satire.

But algorithms are already being introduced to distinguish between "verified" and "non-verified" news sources. It can be assumed only Leftist sites will receive verification on social media. [ Fake news on Facebook is a real problem. These college students came up with a fix in 36 hours , By Colby Itkowitz, Washington Post, November 18, 2016]

There is "fake news" and it is annoying, to be sure. There were plenty of cringey stories about non-existent celebrity endorsements of Trump i n the last cycle. But most "verified" or "mainstream" sources today don't actually report but simply "point and sputter" or actually conceal real news. For example, even after the journalists got what they wanted out of the latest NPI conference , the MSM still couldn't restrain themselves from simply making things out of whole cloth .

Actual attacks on Trump supporters are not covered, while unsourced, unverified claims of a wave of "hate crimes," which mostly consists of handwritten notes most likely written by the supposed "victims" or incidents so trivial normal people wouldn't even notice , dominate the headlines.

This is a far more insidious form of "fake news" than anything "the Russians" are promoting. And what about the lie of " hands up, don't shoot ?"

Another example: supposedly mainstream outlets are comfortable leveling wild charges Steve Bannon is somehow a "white nationalist." Bannon on the evidence is actually a civic nationalist who has specifically denounced racism and, if anything, is showing troubling signs of moving towards the "DemsRRealRacist"- style talking points which led Conservatism Inc. to disaster. There are absolutely no statements by Bannon actually calling for, say, a white ethnostate.

In contrast, Rep. Keith Ellison, candidate to head the DNC, actually has c alled for a black ethnostate. [ Keith Ellison once proposed making a separate country for blacks , by Justin Caruso, Daily Caller, November 26, 2016]. However, this has not prevented him from being "normalized" and celebrated by the "mainstream" media.

The logical conclusion of all of this:

Or, as VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow told the NPI conference: "What we are going to see in the next few years is an intensified Reign Of Terror."

For example, Buzzfeed's latest masterpiece of journalism: the shocking revelation that reality stars Chip and Joanna Gaines attend a church that disagrees with homosexual marriage [ Chip and Joanna Gaines' Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage , by Kate Aurthur, Buzzfeed, November 29, 2016]. You know–like every Christian church for about 2000 years. The obvious agenda: to get the show canceled or the Gaines to disavow their own pastor.

This is the goal of most "journalism" today–to get someone fired or to get someone to disavow someone. The Southern Poverty Law Center ( $PLC to VDARE.com) makes a lucrative income from policing speech . ( Right, a graph of their endowment fund.)And journalists today are no different than the $PLC. They do not report, they do not provide information, and rather than ensuring freedom they are the willing tools of repression.

And this repression only goes one way.

If you wouldn't invite some communist demonstrator into your meeting, why would you invite an MSM journalist? They have the same beliefs, the same motivations, and increasingly, they rely on the same tactics. Aside from the occasional throwing of feces (as Richard Spencer learned at NPI), the preferred tactic of "Antifa" consists of pearl-clutching blog posts.

The repression is accelerating. Reddit is now moving to censor pro-Trump content on its site [ Breaking: Unethical @reddit CEO vows to crack down on "toxic users" as right wing subreddit protests censorship , by Charles Johnson, Got News, November 30, 2016]. Having been purged from Twitter, many free speech supporters are moving to GAB, so The New York Times is trying to get that shut down too [ The Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space , by Amanda Hess, November 30, 2016]. And Kellogg pulled its ads from Breitbart, after Trump's election, because it said it did not "align with its values as a company". [ Breitbart at 'war' with Kellogg's over advertising snub , BBC, December 1, 2016].

Since the election, journalists have been paying tribute to their own courage, promising to hold Trump accountable. But there is no greater enemy to free speech than reporters. Shutting down the networks and shuttering the newspapers would be a boon to independence of thought, not an obstacle.

For his own sake, to defend his own Administration, Trump has to delegitimize the MSM, just as he did during the campaign. He should continue to use his Twitter account and speak straight to the people. He should not hold press conferences with national MSM and speak only to local reporters before holding rallies. If Twitter bans him, as Leftists are urging, he should nationalize it as a utility and make it a free speech zone.[ Twitter has become a utility , by Alan Kohler, The Australian, October 17, 2016]

And Trump's supporters need to act the same way. Stop giving reporters access. Stop pretending you can play the MSM for your own benefit. Stop acting like these people are anything other than hostile political activists whose only interest in life is to make yours worse.

Stop giving them what they want.

Your career, family, and entire life may depend on it. And so does the life of the nation.

James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

[Dec 28, 2016] The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these maniacs from doing everything they can to keep neoliberals in power

Notable quotes:
"... "The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA and FBI and McCarthyism. ..."
"... They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the *alleged* hacking by Russia that amounts to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is. ..."
"... THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children. If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party click their heels and salute. ..."
"... The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence. ..."
"... If it's true the "Russians" (who be that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

Anon December 12, 2016 at 9:33 pm GMT

This post by Leftie on facebook offers glimpse into chasm on the other side.

It's Progs vs Globs. ProGlob is coming apart.

"The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA and FBI and McCarthyism.

They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the *alleged* hacking by Russia that amounts to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is.

The "fake news" (it's called free speech you fucking assholes) that the Rooskies pumped into our helpless and confused brains is a threat to the Republic but "capitalism means freedom and democracy", WMD's, yellow cake, mobile weapons labs, babies torn from incubators, the international monolithic communist conspiracy, Gaddafi supplying viagra to his troops, the headchoppers Obama gives arms and sends into Syria to destroy yet another nation are "moderates", KONY 2012, the filthy Hun is coming to kill us all in 1917, "Duck and cover!!" Gulf of Tonkin, Ho Chi Min's soldiers are going to spring from their canoes on the beaches of Malibu to rape your wife and make you wear pajamas, "superpredators" and on and on etc etc etc

THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children. If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party click their heels and salute.

The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence.

If it's true the "Russians" (who be that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe.

And the whole obscene carnival engulfing the nation is of course to be blamed on the racist knuckle-dragging "basket of deplorables.""

[Dec 28, 2016] How NOT to hack an election Russian Hack EXPOSED as Hoax Zero Hedge

Dec 28, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
For those who missed it among the deluge of propaganda, the Russian 'hack' of the election has been exposed as a huge hoax:

A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. ' The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.

For those who have read our book Splitting Pennies - this comes as no surprise. As we explain in the book, the world is manipulated by several large global "Banks" which are also owners of big news outlets that control the flow of information around the world (i.e. Thompson Reuters). The surprise here is that the disinformation campaign goes so deep, it has even fooled senators into voting for a bill to stop Russian propaganda; which - on the surface, every flag waving US senator should agree with. No one wants foreign spies or foreign propaganda influencing the domestic population. But how big is the 'threat' of 'Russian' propaganda and how has it been overplayed, in a final 'hail mary' attempt to disrupt the legitimate political process. The motto, the modus operandi of the Illuminati controlled CIA "Order from Chaos" is explained on their 'think tank' website here.

Americans steeped in a culture of 'politics' are again being fooled, this election wasn't about party or state lines, "Republicans" didn't win over "Democrats" - this election was about a wild card, a non-politician, non-Establishment candidate winning by a landslide if going by the polls (Trump was given 5% chance of winning up until the night of election).

How to Hack an Election

Interestingly, Bloomberg (although biased Bloomberg is still one of the only mainstream news sources that still produces real, investigative journalism globally) in April published an extremely well researched composition "How to Hack an Election" detailing the life of a real election hacker, Andres Sepulveda and his US political 'analyst' partner, Juan Jose Rendon. To understand how foolish the claim about Russians hacking the election, readers can study the story of Sepulveda who successfully hacked multiple elections in Latin America and was paid millions for his efforts:

When Peña Nieto won, Sepúlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives, hard drives, and cell phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with a hammer. He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.

For eight years, Sepúlveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peña Nieto job was by far his most complex. He led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peña Nieto, a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory. On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle of Colón Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone.

Sepúlveda's career began in 2005, and his first jobs were small-mostly defacing campaign websites and breaking into opponents' donor databases. Within a few years he was assembling teams that spied, stole, and smeared on behalf of presidential campaigns across Latin America. He wasn't cheap, but his services were extensive. For $12,000 a month, a customer hired a crew that could hack smartphones, spoof and clone Web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts. The premium package, at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepúlveda says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met only a few.

His teams worked on presidential elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Campaigns mentioned in this story were contacted through former and current spokespeople; none but Mexico's PRI and the campaign of Guatemala's National Advancement Party would comment.

The point here, well there are several points. One, Sepulveda is not the only guy in the world doing this. The CIA even has a team of social media trolls and the NSA has a department that only develops robots to do the same thing Sepulveda was doing and better. The age of 'spies' has transformed into an electronic, digital, online version - much like the internet has transformed life and business it has also changed the way the intelligence establishment deals with controlling the population. Oh how the FBI has evolved since the days of Hoffman and Cointelpro!

Many of Sepúlveda's efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the 21st century. "My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda, rumors-the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see," he says in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily fortified offices of Colombia's attorney general's office. He's serving 10 years in prison for charges including use of malicious software, conspiracy to commit crime, violation of personal data, and espionage, related to hacking during Colombia's 2014 presidential election. He has agreed to tell his full story for the first time, hoping to convince the public that he's rehabilitated-and gather support for a reduced sentence.

Usually, he says, he was on the payroll of Juan José Rendón, a Miami-based political consultant who's been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. Rendón denies using Sepúlveda for anything illegal, and categorically disputes the account Sepúlveda gave Bloomberg Businessweek of their relationship, but admits knowing him and using him to do website design. "If I talked to him maybe once or twice, it was in a group session about that, about the Web," he says. "I don't do illegal stuff at all. There is negative campaigning. They don't like it-OK. But if it's legal, I'm gonna do it. I'm not a saint, but I'm not a criminal." While Sepúlveda's policy was to destroy all data at the completion of a job, he left some documents with members of his hacking teams and other trusted third parties as a secret "insurance policy."

We don't need a degree in cybersecurity to see how this was going on against Trump all throughout the campaign. Not only did they hire thugs to start riots at Trump rallies and protest, a massive online campaign was staged against Trump.

Rendón, says Sepúlveda, saw that hackers could be completely integrated into a modern political operation, running attack ads, researching the opposition, and finding ways to suppress a foe's turnout. As for Sepúlveda, his insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all relatively cheaply. He wrote a software program, now called Social Media Predator, to manage and direct a virtual army of fake Twitter accounts. The software let him quickly change names, profile pictures, and biographies to fit any need. Eventually, he discovered, he could manipulate the public debate as easily as moving pieces on a chessboard-or, as he puts it, "When I realized that people believe what the Internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to make people believe almost anything."

Sepúlveda managed thousands of such fake profiles and used the accounts to shape discussion around topics such as Peña Nieto's plan to end drug violence, priming the social media pump with views that real users would mimic. For less nuanced work, he had a larger army of 30,000 Twitter bots, automatic posters that could create trends. One conversation he started stoked fear that the more López Obrador rose in the polls, the lower the peso would sink. Sepúlveda knew the currency issue was a major vulnerability; he'd read it in the candidate's own internal staff memos.

While there's no evidence that Rendon or Sepulveda were involved in the 2016 election, there is also no evidence that Russian hackers were involved in the 2016 election. There's not even false evidence. There isn't a hint of it. There isn't a witness, there isn't a document, there's nothing - it's a conspiracy theory! And a very poor one.

By the way, if you want to disguise your IP address as if you are living in Russia, there's a service that will do this for about $10/month - millions of people use this service. You can sign up for it too, and choose what country you want to be 'from' - Canada, Brazil, Russia - take your pick.

Russian hackers would have had the same or better (probably much better) tools, strategies, and resources than Sepulveda. But none of this shows up anywhere. If anything, this is an example of how NOT to hack an election.

To learn more about the way the world works, checkout Splitting Pennies. To gain some Alpha in your portfolio for QEP / ECP investors checkout Alpha Z Advisors.

Further reading about 'truth' and 'alternative reality'

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution .

Armand Hammer: The Untold Story

A People's History of the United States

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich

Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets .
Mike Masr , Dec 28, 2016 8:06 AM

This truth will be swept under the rug and regarded as "fake news" because it doesn't fit the official Obama narrative that Russia did it!
mary mary Kefeer , Dec 27, 2016 6:55 PM
Thanks. Right. Hillary's official electronic communications is more correct than Hillary's emails.

(And the "wipe them, you mean like with a rag?" from Hillary, after having been in government all her adult life and after having presented herself as a modern Secretary of State who knew all about how government and modern technology worked would have been a funny joke if it hadn't obviously been intended to cover up enormous crimes.)

Grandad Grumps , Dec 27, 2016 2:58 PM
Whoever is running the world with all of this fake stuff and all of the monitoring of people and petty false propganda, they pretty much suck at it. it is as if they are claiming to be running the world using "training wheels". As a substitute for God they stink! Grade D-!
Fathead Slim , Dec 27, 2016 2:25 PM
The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it, it only has to be presented by the only sources these imbeciles are willing to use: their fucking TV sets. Most people are so deluded by their main source of entertainment and information that they wouldn't give a shit if incontrovertible evidence that their TV information source was lying was presented to them.

Most people I know don't want to know anything that can't be spoonfed to them on a TV screen.

Dick Buttkiss Fathead Slim , Dec 27, 2016 2:42 PM
"The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it..."

Like the tale that the only steel highrise buildings to ever collapse due to fires (turning into dust at near freefall speed) ocurred on a single day 15 years ago, orchestrated, along with everything else on that fateful day, by a man in a cave half a world away.

Fathead Slim Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 6:57 PM
Yep, a prime example. TV addicts are also convinced that they've seen news broadcasts that announced the finding of WMDs in Iraq.
Kefeer Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 4:49 PM
You left out that the man was also on dialysis.
jeff montanye Kefeer , Dec 27, 2016 6:51 PM
and that after every airport was closed and every single commercial plane was grounded, that man's entire extended family resident in the u.s., some two dozen individuals, was given fbi protection, rented cars and chartered planes, and flown out of the country without ever being interviewed, at all, by any law enforcement branch of the government of the united states which, needless to say, had absolutely no involvement with the deadliest foreign attack on u.s. soil since the war of 1812, killing nearly 600 more than died at pearl harbor. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/

this was known at the time it happened. what took longer to discover was that the source of the foreign attack was not a cave in afghanistan or even saudi arabia or the muslim world generally.

all along it was our trusted ally, brave little israel.

  • http://www.whale.to/b/israel_did_911.html
  • https://sites.google.com/site/onedemocraticstatesite/archives/-solving-9...
  • http://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586
  • http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticl... .
  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/everything-rich-man-trick/
  • https://smile.amazon.com/dp/098213150X/sr=1-1/qid=1467687982/ref=olp_pro...
  • http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
  • Twodogs jeff montanye , Dec 28, 2016 8:33 AM
    Anti-semitism enables one to ignore the elephant in the room, namely the Saudis who have been spending billions promoting Wahhabism and terrorism, to blame a tiny little country for everything, without ever having to bother about evidence. Seek help.
    BSHJ Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 3:06 PM
    Well, he was probably always watching HGTV and knew all the right tricks to make his man-cave as efficient as possible.
    mary mary BSHJ , Dec 27, 2016 6:58 PM
    So easy (with a little help from Bush and Cheney) that even a cave-man could do it. ....

    [Dec 27, 2016] To vote or not to vote: that's the question

    Notable quotes:
    "... "It's common for people to put the blame on the non-voters here. They shirked their duty: to vote for the status quo, even if it's slowly killing them. This complaint is usually unpleasantly whiny. ..."
    "... The demand political systems make of us – 'of constituting ourselves as subjects, of liberating ourselves, expressing ourselves at whatever cost, of voting, producing, deciding' – are in their own way an exercise of power. In these conditions, resistance takes the form of the refusal to do so: 'the renunciation of the subject position and of meaning – precisely the practices of the masses.' ..."
    "... Mr. Trump won nearly one in four voters who wanted the next president to follow more ..."
    Dec 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    I'll leave any metaphors as exercises for readers, but note the careful advance work: The crowd is fenced off (and there's what looks like additional cordage, in orange, to make the fence even more effective, Clinton has a box to stand on, the edge of the box is marked with colored tape so she doesn't trip and fall, the campaign logos are placed behind her head, and her security is present but not in the shot. That's a rp

    "The Clin­ton team was so con­fid­ent in its ana­lyt­ic­al mod­els that it op­ted not to con­duct track­ing polls in a num­ber of states dur­ing the last month of the cam­paign. As a con­sequence, de­teri­or­at­ing sup­port in states such as Michigan and Wis­con­sin fell be­low the radar screen, slip­page that that tra­di­tion­al track­ing polls would have cer­tainly caught" [ National Journal ]. "Ac­cord­ing to Kantar Me­dia/CMAG data, the Clin­ton cam­paign did not go on the air with tele­vi­sion ads in Wis­con­sin un­til the weeks of Oct. 25 and Nov. 1, spend­ing in the end just $2.6 mil­lion. Su­per PACs back­ing Clin­ton didn't air ads in Wis­con­sin un­til the last week of the cam­paign. In Michigan, aside from a tiny $16,000 buy by the cam­paign and a party com­mit­tee the week of Oct. 25, the Clin­ton cam­paign and its al­lied groups didn't con­duct a con­cer­ted ad­vert­ising ef­fort un­til a week be­fore the elec­tion. In fact, the Clin­ton cam­paign spent more money on tele­vi­sion ad­vert­ising in Ari­zona, Geor­gia, and the Omaha, Neb­raska mar­kets than in Michigan and Wis­con­sin com­bined. It was Michigan and Wis­con­sin, along with Pennsylvania (the Clin­ton cam­paign and al­lied groups did spend $42 mil­lion on tele­vi­sion in the Key­stone State), that ef­fect­ively cost Demo­crats the pres­id­ency." Apparently, a Putin agent was in charge of Clinton's analytical models. It's the only explanation!

    "Why Clinton Lost: An exercise in victimology" [ Global Guerillas ]. "here's a list of 'popular' reasons for why Clinton unexpectedly lost the election to Trump according to the establishment. Notice how all of them blame the 'other.' This is the language of betrayal. The type of language that feeds civil war." I agree, and will have more to say about that.

    "It's common for people to put the blame on the non-voters here. They shirked their duty: to vote for the status quo, even if it's slowly killing them. This complaint is usually unpleasantly whiny.

    The fact that these people feel entitled to make it points to exactly why they keep on losing" [Sam Kriss, Guardian ].

    "In The Implosion of Meaning in the Media, the philosopher Jean Baudrillard describes this kind of voter alienation as a tactic. The demand political systems make of us – 'of constituting ourselves as subjects, of liberating ourselves, expressing ourselves at whatever cost, of voting, producing, deciding' – are in their own way an exercise of power. In these conditions, resistance takes the form of the refusal to do so: 'the renunciation of the subject position and of meaning – precisely the practices of the masses.'

    In the US, mainstream liberals are announcing their "Resistance" to a 2017 that's smashing into the end of December with all the dumb force of a Trump presidency – but their ideas mostly consist of giving money to the Democrats. Whatever form resistance does take, it won't be that." So, one might say that the interesting act of resistance has already taken place. Of course, if the Democrats cared about alienated voters, expanding the franchise would be a core party function. Imagine what the billion dollars Clinton set on fire and threw in the air while losing to Trump could have done, if put to use serving that purpose!

    Realignment and Legitimacy

    ... ... ...

    "Donald J. Trump won the white working-class vote over Hillary Clinton by a larger margin than any major-party nominee since World War II. Instead of this considerable achievement inspiring introspection, figures from the heights of journalism, entertainment, literature and the Clinton campaign continue to suggest that Mr. Trump won the presidency by appealing to the bigotry of his supporters.

    As Bill Clinton recently said, the one thing Mr. Trump knows 'is how to get angry white men to vote for him.'

    This stereotyping of Trump voters is not only illiberal, it falsely presumes Mr. Trump won because of his worst comments about women and minorities rather than despite them" [David Paul Kuhn, New York Times ].

    "But traits are not motives and don't necessarily decide votes. Consider that four in 10 liberal Democrats, the largest share of any group, said in 2011 that they would hold a Mormon candidate's faith against him or her. It would be silly to argue that, therefore, liberals voted for Mr. Obama because Mitt Romney was Mormon. Yet the Trump coalition continues to be branded as white backlash. The stereotyping forgets that many Trump supporters held a progressive outlook.

    Mr. Trump won nearly one in four voters who wanted the next president to follow more liberal policies."

    [Dec 27, 2016] Welcome to Greater Israel!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    Dec 27, 2016 | www.unz.com
    While the presidential campaign was still in progress it was possible to think that there might be some positive change in America's broken foreign policy. Hillary Clinton was clearly the candidate of Washington Establishment hawkishness, while Donald Trump was declaring his disinclination for democracy and nation building overseas as well as promoting détente with Russia. Those of us who considered the foreign policy debacle to be the most dangerous issue confronting the country, particularly as it was also fueling domestic tyranny, tended to vote on the basis of that one issue in favor of Trump.

    On December 1 st in Cincinnati, president-elect Donald Trump made some interesting comments about his post-electoral foreign policy plans. There were a lot of good things in it, including his citing of $6 trillion "wasted" in Mideast fights when "our goal is stability not chaos." And as for dealing with real enemies, he promised to "partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism " He called it a "new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past" adding that "We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks."

    Regarding the apparent inability of governments to thoroughly check out new immigrants prior to letting them inside the country, demonstrated most recently in Nice, Ohio and Berlin, Trump described how "People are pouring in from regions of the Middle East - we have no idea who they are, where they come from what they are thinking and we are going to stop that dead cold. These are stupid refugee programs created by stupid politicians." Exaggerated? For sure, but he has a point, and it all is part and parcel of a foreign policy that serves no actual interest for people who already live in the United States.

    But, as so often with Trump, there was also the flip side. On the looney fringe of the foreign and national security policy agenda, the president-elect oddly believes that "The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes." So to reduce the number of nukes we have to create more of them and put them in more places. Pouring gasoline on a raging fire would be an appropriate analogy and it certainly leads to questions regarding who is advising The Donald with this kind of nonsense.

    Trump has promised to "put America first," but there is inevitably a spanner in the works. Now, with the New Year only six days away and the presidential inauguration coming less than three weeks after that, it is possible to discern that the new foreign policy will, more than under Barack Obama and George W. Bush, be driven in significant part by Israeli interests.

    At least Obama had the good sense to despise Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but that will not be true of the White House after January 20 th . Trump's very first telephone conversation with a foreign head of government after being elected was with Netanyahu and during the campaign, he promised to invite Bibi to the White House immediately after the inauguration. The new president's first naming of an Ambassador-designate to a foreign nation was of his good friend and bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman to Israel. Friedman had headed Trump's Israel Advisory Committee and is a notable hard liner who supports the Israeli settler movement, an extreme right-wing political entity that is nominally opposed by existing U.S. government policy as both illegal and damaging to Washington's interests. Beyond that, Friedman rejects creation of a Palestinian state and supports Israel's actual annexation of the West Bank.

    U.S. Ambassadors are supposed to support American interests but Friedman would actually be representing and endorsing a particularly noxious version of Israeli fascism as the new normal in the relationship with Washington. Friedman describes Jerusalem as "the holy capital of the Jewish people and only the Jewish people." Trump is already taking steps to move the U.S. Embassy there, making the American government unique in having its chief diplomatic mission in the legally disputed city. The move will also serve as a recruiting poster for groups like ISIS and will inflame opinion against the U.S. among friendly Arab states in the region. There is no possible gain and much to lose for the United States and for American citizens in making the move, but it satisfies Israeli hardliners and zealots like Friedman.

    The Trump team's animosity towards Iran is also part of the broader Israeli agenda. Iran does not threaten the United States and is a military midget compared either to nuclear armed Israel or the U.S. Yet is has been singled out as the enemy du jour in the Middle East even though it has invaded no one since the seventeenth century. Israel would like to have the United States do the heavy lifting to destroy Iran as a regional power. If Washington were to attempt to do so it would be a catastrophe for all parties involved but that has not stopped hardliners from demanding unrelenting military pressure on Tehran.

    Donald Trump is not even president yet but he advised Barack Obama to exercise the U.S. veto for the resolution condemning Israeli settlements that was voted on at the United Nations Security Council on Friday, explaining that "As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis."

    This is a straight Israeli line that might even have been written by Netanyahu himself. Or by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which fumed "AIPAC is deeply disturbed by the failure of the Obama Administration to exercise its veto to prevent a destructive, one-sided, anti-Israel resolution from being enacted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). In the past, this administration and past administrations have rejected this type of biased resolution since it undermines prospects for peace. It is particularly regrettable, in his last month in office, that the president has taken an action at odds with the bipartisan consensus in Congress and America's long history of standing with Israel at the United Nations."

    Ah yes, the fabled negotiations for a two state solution, regularly employed to enable Israelis to do nothing while expanding their theft of Arab land and one wonders how Trump would define what is "fair to the Palestinians?" So we are already well into Trump's adoption of the "always the victim argument" that the Israelis have so cleverly exploited with U.S. politicians and the media.

    Not content with advising Obama, Trump also reportedly took the Palestinian issue one step further by directly pressuring the sponsoring Egyptians to postpone any submission of the resolution. Expecting to have a friendly president in the White House after January 20 th , Egypt's president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi complied on Thursday but the motion was reintroduced by New Zealand, Venezuela, Senegal and Malaysia on the following day. The resolution passed with 14 yes votes and a courageous U.S. abstention after Obama finally, after eight long years, developed a backbone. But unfortunately, Trump's interventions suggest that nothing critical of Israel will be allowed to emerge from the U.N. during his term of office. Referring to the U.N. vote, he said that "things will be different after January 20 th ."

    The United Nations resolution produced an immediate reaction from Israeli Firsters in Congress and the media, led by Senator Chuck Schumer and the Washington Post . The Post featured a lead editorial entitled The Obama Administration fires a dangerous parting shot and an op-ed The United States just made Middle East peace harder by no less a redoubtable American hero than Eliot Abrams. Look in vain for any suggestion of what might be construed as an actual U.S. interest in either piece. It is all about Israel, as it always is.

    The problem with Israel and its friends is that they are never satisfied and never leave the rest of us Americans alone, pushing constantly at what is essentially an open door. They have treated the United States like a doormat, spying on us more than any ostensibly friendly nation while pocketing our $38 billion donation to their expanding state without so much as a thank you. They are shameless. Israel's ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer has been all over American television sputtering his rage over the United Nations settlements vote. On CNN he revealed that Israel has "clear evidence" that President Obama was "behind" the resolution and he announced his intention to share the information with Donald Trump. Every American should be outraged by Israel's contempt for us and our institutions. One has to wonder if the mainstream media will take a rest from their pillorying of Russia to cover the story.

    For many years now, Israel has sought to make the American people complicit in its own crimes while also encouraging our country's feckless and corrupt leadership to provide their government with political cover and even go to war on its behalf. This has got to stop and, for a moment, it looked like Trump might be the man to end it when he promised to be even-handed in negotiating between the Arabs and Israelis. That was before he promised to be the best friend Israel would ever have.

    Israel's quarrels don't stay in Israel and they are not limited to the foreign policy realm. I have already discussed the pending Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, a bipartisan effort by Congress to penalize and even potentially criminalize any criticism of Israel by equating it to anti-Semitism. Whether Israel itself wants to consider itself a democracy is up to Netanyahu and Israeli voters but the denial of basic free speech rights to Americans in deference to Israeli perceptions should be considered to be completely outrageous.

    And there's more. Israel's government funded lawfare organization Shurat HaDin has long been using American courts to punish Palestinians and Iranians, obtaining punitive damages linked to allegations regarding terrorist incidents that have taken place in Israel. Now Shurat HaDin is using our courts to go after American companies that do business with countries like Iran.

    Last year's nuclear agreement with Iran included an end to restraints on the Islamic Republic's ability to engage in normal banking and commercial activity. As a high priority, Iran has sought to replace some of its aging infrastructure, to include its passenger aircraft fleet. Seattle based Boeing has sought to sell to Iran Air 80 airplanes at a cost of more than $16 billion and has worked with the U.S. government to meet all licensing and technology transfer requirements. The civilian-use planes are not in any way configurable for military purposes, but Shurat HaDin on December 16 th sought to block the sale at a federal court in Illinois, demanding a lien against Boeing for the monies alleged to be due to the claimed victims of Iranian sponsored terrorism. Boeing, meanwhile, has stated that the Iran Air order "support(s) tens of thousands of U.S. jobs."

    So an agency of the Israeli government is taking steps to stop an American company from doing something that is perfectly legal under U.S. law even though it will cost thousands of jobs here at home. It is a prime example of how much Israel truly cares about the United States and its people. And even more pathetic, the Israel Lobby owned U.S. Congress has predictably bowed down and kissed Netanyahu's ring on the issue, passing a bill in November that seeks to block Treasury Department licenses to permit the financing of the airplane deal.

    The New Year and the arrival of an administration with fresh ideas would provide a great opportunity for the United States to finally distance itself from a toxic Israel, but, unfortunately, it seems that everything is actually moving in the opposite direction. Don't be too surprised if we see a shooting war with Iran before the year is out as well as a shiny new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem (to be built on land stolen from Palestinians , incidentally). Trump might think he is ushering in a new era of American policy based on American interests but it is beginning to look a lot like same-old same-old but even worse, and Benjamin Netanyahu will be very much in the driver's seat.

    [Dec 27, 2016] A Battle Over American-Made Products Is Looming and Republicans Are in the Middle of It

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers union. President Barack Obama appointed him to the President's Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. Follow him on Twitter @USWBlogger. Originally published at Alternet ..."
    "... as long as the trade balance is zero ..."
    "... Removing Buy-USA language shows exactly who he thinks his constituency is, and it isn't the good people of Janesville, Wisconsin. If liberals could sense an opportunity, they'd run him over with a steamroller. ..."
    Dec 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ... ... ...

    By Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers union. President Barack Obama appointed him to the President's Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. Follow him on Twitter @USWBlogger. Originally published at Alternet

    ... ... ...

    By advocating night after night for American Made, President-elect Trump essentially warned Ryan not to strip the Buy-American provisions out of the Water Resources Development Act. But Ryan did it anyway early in December when he got the act from the Senate.

    The act contained strong, permanent Buy America language when the Senate sent it over. These provisions are significant because they use tax dollars to create 33 percent more U.S. factory jobs , something that is, again, important to voters, 68 percent of whom told the Mellman Group & North Star Opinion Research in November in a national survey conducted for the Alliance for American Manufacturing that they were worried that the country had lost too many manufacturing jobs.

    In addition-and President-elect Trump knows this from the response he gets at his rallies-Buy American policies are very popular. Seventy-four percent of voters say large infrastructure projects financed by taxpayer money should be constructed with American-made materials and American workers. And those who voted for President-elect Trump agree more strongly – 79 percent of them say American-made should be given preference over the lowest bidder.

    This is a very big deal to iron and steel producers and workers in the United States. Far too many mills are closed or partially shuttered because of unfairly traded imports, and more than 16,000 steelworkers across this country have been laid off over the past year.

    China is the main culprit, but there are others. China produces so much steel now that it has managed to inundate the world with more steel than anyone needs. It is dumping steel on the world market at such low prices that no one can compete. As a result, producers from places as far flung as Mexico, the U.S., Canada, India, the U.K. and Spain are shutting down and throwing workers out of their jobs.

    China props up that excess steelmaking capacity with methods that are illegal under the terms of the agreements it entered into to gain access to the World Trade Organization and Permanent Normalized Trade Relations with the United States. If steel is sold domestically, a country can provide steel firms with subsidies like exemptions from utility payments and taxes, interest-free loans and free land. But those free market-warping subsidies violate international trade agreements when the steel is exported. That's what China is doing. And it's killing American steel companies and American jobs.

    When Ryan eliminated the permanent Buy American provision in the Water Bill, essentially saying it's fine to import illegally subsidized Chinese iron and steel for taxpayer-financed water projects, he was also saying it is fine to bankrupt American steel companies and destroy American jobs.

    If the United States is reduced to buying steel from China to build its military tanks and armor, that's okay with Ryan, as long as he maintains a great relationship with the lobbyists for the foreign steelmakers. They pushed him hard to drop the Buy American provision through Squire Patton Boggs, a Washington, D.C. lobby and law firm employing Ryan's predecessor Speaker John Boehner and numerous former top GOP aides .

    He got hit with a tweet storm after he chose Chinese jobs over American jobs, though. Buy American supporters and members of the Congressional Steel Caucus began pointing out on Twitter just how good #BuyAmerica is for American jobs and the economy and cited @realDonaldTrump, the President-elect's Twitter handle on every Tweet, which means his account was alerted.

    This came from Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown:

    " .@RealDonaldTrump : Tell @SpeakerRyan to put #BuyAmerica back in Water bill. American tax dollars for American jobs."

    And steelworkers wrote protests on Ryan's Facebook page and hundreds called Ryan and his anti-American-made congressional crew.

    Ryan responded. Sort of. He restored one-year Buy American language to the bill. Nothing like the permanent provisions achieved in other federal laws, but it does keep the jobs for 12 months and the issue alive until President-elect Trump can take on Ryan mano-a-mano on Buy American after the inauguration.

    Ryan has made clear his anti-American preference, so this will be a royal rumble. But the Speaker should beware. The last time the President-elect stepped into the ring with a heavyweight, it was with the ring's owner, World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Vince McMahon, a former professional wrestler. And McMahon left bald and defeated. Altandmain , December 27, 2016 at 2:18 am

    Perhaps the only good thing to come our of Trump is that he might energize a populist base to support manufacturing. The Trump base really needs to push hard on this matter.

    The only other is that Trump is less likely to get involved in a war with Russia.

    Otherwise I would suspect that he has long betrayed his promises. He won't be addressing corruption like he promised during the election. He's already stuffed his cabinet with cronies. The good news is that elements of his base are already crying foul. Let's hope that they can win on this one.

    On the left, the battle with the Establishment Democrats is a serious challenge for real change. They have learned nothing from 2016, the election of Trump and how popular Sanders was. Either that or they have no desire to admit they know, but won't admit the truth.

    KK , December 27, 2016 at 2:52 am

    Nothing will change because nothing can change: if you have mixed all the ingredients for a sponge cake and baked it in the oven, can the children elect a leader to change it into a chocolate cake?

    ambrit , December 27, 2016 at 4:32 am

    You forget that the ultimate strategy is to destroy the sponge cake utterly and start over from scratch. Desperate people do not always act "rationally." If the general public come to see the Trump administration as having betrayed them, they do not have to switch to the Democrat team. That's the Neo Democrat's mistake. TINA is not an "inevitable" strategy. The Dems tried TINA with the "inevitable" H Clinton, and lost.
    To torture your analogy somewhat, the 'sponge cake' can become fertilizer for helping to grow something new.

    PlutoniumKun , December 27, 2016 at 6:28 am

    +1. If Trump badly lets down his base, then the likelihood is that they will turn to an even nuttier and more dangerous strand of the right, not liberal Dems. Thats why its absolutely vital that the left presents a coherent and popular alternative.

    aab , December 27, 2016 at 7:01 am

    That, or even fewer people go to the polls, destabilizing and delegitimizing the system further without providing a path to productive change. The cake analogy is really only useful within the context of electoral choice in our system. We're only being offered box mix Red Velvet cake vs. box mix Devils Food cake. So whether you need protein, or fermented cabbage, or calcium, or just want coconut cake, you are SOL - you can't make any of those things from those two box mixes, and those two box mixes both have too many toxins and too few nutrients for the body politic to survive on.

    PlutoniumKun , December 27, 2016 at 9:45 am

    I think thats the big question mark. Will angry disappointed voters just give up voting? Or will they keep picking non-mainstream choices until eventually they succeed. I suspect the former, but there is no doubt the establishment fears the latter.

    cocomaan , December 27, 2016 at 9:56 am

    Will angry disappointed voters just give up voting?

    I think the answer probably lies in other democracies that stagnated. So if we can find some of those, we have a historical lesson.

    I actually don't think the powers that be want to have low turnout. It starts to delegitimize the system. It's bad for everyone.

    Lune , December 27, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    Recent history gives us an answer: the Republican base has been upset with the establishment since GWB. But their voter participation hasn't declined. They channeled it into the tea party, and ever-crazier politicians, to the extent that the 'first wave' of tea party outsiders are now being chased out be even crazier second and third wavers.

    Remember that Newt Gingrich was the original barbarian at the gate. And now he's almost a centrist statesman compared to the people being supported by the Republican base. And Paul Ryan was chosen by Mitt Romney precisely because he was a tea party darling when elected, and now he's considered a RINO as the base continues its walk into insanity.

    Vatch , December 27, 2016 at 10:07 am

    or even fewer people go to the polls, destabilizing and delegitimizing the system further

    The CEOs of giant corporations and the billionaires who own the United States don't care how many people actually vote. They just want their privileges to be preserved, and that is far more likely with low voter turnouts.

    fco , December 27, 2016 at 11:46 am

    however, you can slice that sponge cake into thin layers, lightly brush it with the liqueur of choice, layer it with fair trade organic chocolate ganache, and voila, a chocolate cake to die for! Bon Appetite and Let them eat cake.

    ambrit , December 27, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    That's for the Masters fco. We toiling masses, and now even the toadying class, have to settle for Oreos. (And now that the Oreo has been replaced by a Twinkie )

    readerOfTeaLeaves , December 27, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    +100
    Beautifully stated.

    And FWIW, I'm not sure what 'left' or 'right' actually mean anymore.
    Fundamentally, we need new ways of thinking about economics.

    If those manufacturing plants are all owned by offshore, or tax haven veiled interests, there's no guarantee that the workers will still get a fair pay for their work. What we need are manufacturing skills, but also more equitable business structures.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 27, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    Two way to get fertilizer from that sponge cake.

    1. Destroy it

    2. Eat it and wait a few hours. (Faster this way?)

    oh , December 27, 2016 at 9:34 am

    If the leader is a good salesman like Barry, using media propaganda, he can sell it as chocolate cake.

    Katharine , December 27, 2016 at 10:11 am

    Unsatisfactory metaphor. A cake is a finished product. Politics is an ongoing process, with continually changing policies. If it were true that nothing could change, we might still have strong unions–or be living in a state of nature with no government or civilization at all.

    Lee , December 27, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    http://twentytwowords.com/cavemen-and-the-problem-with-living-organically/

    Lambert Strether , December 27, 2016 at 3:39 am

    Interesting display of (some) muscle.

    Joe Jordan , December 27, 2016 at 9:12 am

    One aspect left out of this analysis that I would like to see incorporated is the argument Robert Brenner makes in "The Economics of Global Turbulence." The gist of the book is a (drawn-out) citing of statistics that confirm a classical Marxist 'declining profit rate' argument that after factories become efficient enough, and this seems particularly true for commodities like steel, there is really not a good way to bring back employment in that sector. Basically, it seems as if a few dozen Chinese steel factories can supply all of the steel for the whole world. This would imply that even if we slapped tariffs high enough on Chinese steel to cause the introduction of new plants in the US, it would still not actually produce that many jobs. Whether it makes sense to take the Marxist analysis one step further and say that few jobs = few profits is perhaps debatable, but the core of the analysis seems sound to me and so I wonder how much effect a buy American campaign could really have in high capital industries like steel.

    Steve H. , December 27, 2016 at 9:56 am

    Joe Jordan, this is a perspective rather than an answer: Viewing the benefits solely in jobs (or profits) is insufficient. Strategic resources like steel require not only factories but skills. If domestic production goes to zero, so does motivation for not only research to new processes, but retention of base knowledge.

    When we put the metal roof on this fall, our supplier talked about Chinese steel panels being lesser quality, as well as the coating on them. As they degrade faster than expected, new roofing will be required, driving further demand. If Chinese subsidize steel for export beyond the normal bezzle/vig level, the sector becomes unsustainable. The payoff is can be in monopoly control, or in strategic timing. From "Unconditional Warfare":

    "Even though they are the same ancient territorial disputes, nationality conflicts, religious clashes, and the delineation of spheres of power in human history, and are still the several major agents of people waging war from opposite directions, these traditional factors are increasingly becoming more intertwined with grabbing resources, contending for markets, controlling capital, trade sanctions, and other economic factors, to the extent that they are even becoming secondary to these factors."

    Also:

    "this is because the monopolizing of one type of technology is far more difficult than inventing a type of technology."

    Steve H. , December 27, 2016 at 10:20 am

    Edit: "Unconditional Warfare" to " Unrestricted Warfare "

    readerOfTeaLeaves , December 27, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    I'm really glad to see someone reiterate this point, which Yves has made repeatedly the past few years:

    Strategic resources like steel require not only factories but skills. If domestic production goes to zero, so does motivation for not only research to new processes, but retention of base knowledge.

    It's not simply the quality of materials, and I personally have nothing against the Chinese. (Rather the opposite: I have huge admiration for what they have accomplished.) However, without people working in manufacturing, there are entire categories of knowledge that get lost.

    I could make a solid case that one of our current problems is too many business schools, too much financialization, and too many lobbyists: all of those people are thinking about abstractions and not enough practical hands-on understanding of how the world actually works.

    I sometimes think that I've learned more about economics from planting, hoeing, weeding, and harvesting my veggie garden than I've learned from university coursework. Economics is fundamentally complex and unpredictable; like gardening, you just have to keep at it and hedge your bets and pay attention.

    Basically, we have a whole bunch of people who have never assessed the quality of their soil, so - Paul Ryan being a classic case! - they don't grasp the elemental reality that you can't grow a crop in depleted soil. Good manufacturing policies are like building up your humus (soil, related to the work "humility"). And good business policies are like having good seeds, or good plant cuttings; they come from good stock, and if well cared for have a chance to produce ongoing prosperity.

    Okay, off my soapbox . (Can hardly wait for the Gardening Catalogs to start arriving next week! ;-)

    PlutoniumKun , December 27, 2016 at 10:00 am

    I think a key problem in steel is that the Chinese (and India) have been squeezing every last bit of product out of old outdated mills in order to keep prices down. China has some of the most high tech mills in the world side by side with Mao era backyard mills, still churning it out. Its these old mills which are responsible for some of the worst pollution this winter as the government has revved up yet another construction boom. Its long overdue to shut down a lot of this capacity. The Indians are somewhat notorious for buying up old mills in Europe and elsewhere and basically working them to destruction, then walking away when they can't squeeze out any more profit.

    So I think the steel industry at the moment is not a competitive industry in the classic supply and demand sense. If the US were to seriously pursue an 'American first' policy that would be a major shock to the industry. I've no idea how much capacity remains in the US industry, but I'd suspect it would in the short term be very profitable in the short term if there was a big shortfall. But that would I think be short term, and wouldn't necessarily change long term trends in profitability.

    But environmentally, it would be great if an American first policy led to a big shutdown in steel capacity elsewhere. Thats assuming the Chinese and Indian didn't opt for a hugely expansionary policy to compensate.

    Lune , December 27, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    I would only agree with this if the playing field were level. That is, if Chinese mfg'ers comply with the same environmental, safety, and labor regulations that the U.S. does, and still manages to provide lower cost goods, then perhaps we should let them do it. (NB: I don't care about the govt incentives; the U.S. has an industrial policy called defense that comprises a larger GDP than any other country in the world).

    But even then, the theory of comparative advantage only works as long as the trade balance is zero . That is, it's fine to give up steel production if you can find something else to export that you do better. Even a zero profit producer provides value to the local economy from all the wages paid to its employees, and the downstream activity of its local suppliers.

    reslez , December 27, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Basically, it seems as if a few dozen Chinese steel factories can supply all of the steel for the whole world. This would imply that even if we slapped tariffs high enough on Chinese steel to cause the introduction of new plants in the US, it would still not actually produce that many jobs.

    This seems to be a non sequitur - you appear to have missed a supporting argument that would actually link these two statements. But then so does most of the political establishment when they tell us TINA as if they read it in the Bible.

    If the US is legally required to "buy American" for infrastructure products that's going to restore some jobs and preserve steel-making know-how domestically. I think Trump's supporters would be OK with that, even if it's not huge in terms of jobs numbers.

    craazyboy , December 27, 2016 at 9:24 am

    "First, the infrastructure spending won't lead to an increase in fiscal spending, so it will not act as an economic stimulus. "

    Not quite so. The other problem is private investment is going towards areas of what should be termed as mal-investment. Most damaging is corporate investment off shore – it costs money to destroy American jobs- but the Fed is helping with ZIRP policy making it a little more cost effective to destroy jobs. Then other private mal-investment areas are buying into a overpriced stock market (it's used stock – companies don't get the funds for investment), over priced bonds and – every passive investors' favorite – selling corporate bonds to buy back corporate stock. This is like "black hole" capitalism.

    But the main problem with private infrastructure investment is it usually entails the granting of market monopolies to private entities. This has never ended well and results in price gouging of the consumer, unless there is a well functioning regulating body controlling prices. But we are always told regulation is bad .and the [monopoly]market setting prices is good and crony capitalists are working in our best interests, even tho it doesn't always seem that way .

    So we're in an era where private investment has failed the country. Pouring huge Federal stimulus on top of the current transmission paths leads to some "trickle down", at best. Really, the most effective thing to do is just steal all the money back. :)

    Trump could get a good start by becoming our "Bankrupter in Chief". Cancel the F-35, forcing Lockheed into a prepackaged bankruptcy like they did with Government Motors. We'd then have Government Defense Contractor, with the stockholder and bondholder liability gone off the balance sheet. The factories would still be there – just a new and improved cost structure. Then work out a similar approach for health, drugs and education. We'd be amazed how easily our "private sector" collapses if Uncle Sam just stops paying it for a little while. :)

    Steven , December 27, 2016 at 10:48 am

    @Craazyboy – Like your ideas about "steal all the money back" (I believe M. Hudson calls this 'claw back' – of all the money stolen from the public with the help of the Fed after the 2008 financial crisis) and "Bankrupter in Chief". But I'm hoping you were just being 'craazy' and don't really believe Trump and his cronies want to do 'good'.

    Let's hope Trump and the boys from GSachs concentrate on setting up toll booths and Maginot Lines on the nation's borders when they think infrastructure. That way the damage they do could conceivably be undone in 10 – 20 years. Take a look at http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/06/28/taken-for-a-ride-on-the-interstate-highway-system/ Following the model it suggests would of course require them to think longer term than their take the money and run, short term profit seeking mentality most likely permits, i.e. publicly funded infrastructure which sets the rules for the operation of 'free markets' for a century to come.

    For example, they could construct, at public expense, a national power grid anchored at the nation's largest, dirtiest coal mines instead of the best solar or wind locations. That way coal could again become 'cheaper' than wind or solar for decades to come. The general idea here is the construction of infrastructure which offers the possibility of the greatest LONG TERM profit, even at the expense of short term principles like private ownership of public infrastructure.

    craazyboy , December 27, 2016 at 11:08 am

    I believe Trump has the proven job experience to be our "Bankrupter in Chief". But, no, I don't have high hopes he will exercise his strengths in that area.

    I have bad dreams that Trump finds out that he can only hire Mexican labor to build The Wall, because they're the only ones living in the neighborhood.

    But, as you point out, they can create their own 100 year TINA. Another current example – health care. We can't have single payer – because "in America we have health insurance companies!"

    Steven , December 27, 2016 at 11:24 am

    A new acronym is needed for TINA. How about TIANA – 'there is ABSOLUTELY no alternative'? I just love the stuff "the smartest guys in the room" come up with – for example, erecting tolls booths on everything and then off-shoring, out-sourcing and downsizing the jobs their customers need to be able to pay the tolls!

    Pete , December 27, 2016 at 11:39 am

    I must confess i forgot what TINA stood for. Thanks for spelling it out.

    polecat , December 27, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Or how 'bout TATIANA ~ 'TRUMP ANNOUNCES there Is Absolutely no alternative'

    What so say you .. 'Comrades ??'

    Yves Smith Post author , December 27, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    The statement is correct as written. No increase in fiscal spending means that the increase in infrastructure spending has come about by cutting spending somewhere else. We've separately written at great length as to the problems with privatization, which is what these public-private partnerships would amount to.

    DJG , December 27, 2016 at 9:57 am

    Even as liberals are still wallowing in psychobabble, we see some ways of handling the Republican elites and the Trump administration, and even handing them some defeats. Ryan is a Republican intellectual (Obama told us so), and someone who is politically weak. Removing Buy-USA language shows exactly who he thinks his constituency is, and it isn't the good people of Janesville, Wisconsin. If liberals could sense an opportunity, they'd run him over with a steamroller.

    Meanwhile, we will see if it is possible to hang this conundrum on the members of Trump's cabinet, who are used to being coddled executives and to exporting other people's jobs whenever they felt like it. Another possible opportunity. (Just don't look for the DLC wing to lead on this issue.)

    So the predicted fascist regime already can't get its act together. What we're seeing is Reagan Redux, and there were plenty of ways of defeating the tactics of that last TV star.

    Left in Wisconsin , December 27, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Removing Buy-USA language shows exactly who he thinks his constituency is, and it isn't the good people of Janesville, Wisconsin. If liberals could sense an opportunity, they'd run him over with a steamroller.

    Very interesting comment. I'm not in Ryan's district but I know many people who are. The district has been gerrymandered to make it easier for Ryan to hold (he still has Janesville but no longer has D-leaning Beloit), but the fact is he is hugely popular despite holding position after position that is contrary to the (economic) interests of his constituents. I wish it were different but my sense is Ryan could go shoot people in Times Square and still be re-elected for as long as he wants.

    Kurt Sperry , December 27, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    "Removing Buy-USA language shows exactly who he thinks his constituency is, and it isn't the good people of Janesville, Wisconsin. If liberals could sense an opportunity, they'd run him over with a steamroller."

    Liberals aren't (or perhaps are no longer) looking for opportunities that benefit the 99%. Conservatives, of course, aren't either because those politicians work for roughly the same hundred families as the Liberal politicians do. A left-populist would easily win today, Sanders would have landslided Trump. But, of course, left-populism is the one great existential political danger to those hundred families' wealth piles. Liberalism, conservatism or even right-populism can all be managed and navigated–and indeed exploited. Left-populism, let's not forget, came really dangerously close to getting the executive this year. Like to the point that the kayfabe was in danger and "the force" was palpably in flux.

    The table is really set for left-populism right now to the extent that any special catalyst or nucleation point could push it into open battle with those hundred families. A battle that will be extraordinarily difficult for them to navigate. All of the anti-democratic cheats combined: the systemic corruption, the gerrymandering, the crooked primaries, the voter suppression and outright electoral fraud, the captive media and so on combined, as impressive as they are, can only tilt the playing field so far. Exceed or surmount the entry barriers, and much of those corruptive infrastructures listed above fall as well. You can only game any putative democracy so far, and while that is a long way, it isn't ever absolute. It's like having an impressive system of dikes holding back the ocean, it all can work perfectly up to its engineering limits, but once those physical limits are exceeded, none of it subsequently works as it should. The extreme amount of energy holding the illusion in place only becomes readily–undeniably–apparent when that amount of energy is suddenly insufficient.

    Sanders getting within a whisker of the executive is, I think, one hell of a lot more significant than people know or allow. But I think perhaps the longer it takes for left-populism to prevail, the stronger its momentum will be. I don't see the devastations of the current bipartisan, globalist neoliberalism empowering any other group as well. Trump will in all likelihood do great damage to right-populism, clearing out the field even more.

    Steve H. , December 27, 2016 at 10:15 am

    : To be the reserve currency issue, you need to be willing to run trade deficits on an ongoing basis so there is plenty of your currency in foreign hands. That is equivalent to having your domestic demand support foreign jobs, or exporting jobs. [ Yves ]

    This may indicate that any job growth in the U.S. won't be from making more stuff ('buy American'), but rather by restricting immigration ('hire American').

    reslez , December 27, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    Saw this yesterday:

    Report: 71 Percent of New Jobs Go to Foreign Born Legal, Illegal Immigrants in NH

    A CIS analysis using data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey showed that since 2000, 71 percent of the net increase in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job in New Hampshire has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal), even though the native-born accounted for 65 percent of population growth among the working-age.

    John k , December 27, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Yes, this is a conundrum. A high import duty makes dollars harder to get to those foreigners that want to save in dollars, so pushes up the price, somewhat negating the duty.
    Immigration roughly doubled in 1990, to current 1 million per year. Maybe 32 million since 1975, 10% of current pop.
    1 million per year current immigration adds up, 10 million since 2006 or, if unchanged, another 10 million by 2026.
    This blog talks of stagnant middle lower class wages since mid-seventies, wonder what effect 32mm immigrants had on wages or 24mm current unemployed or given up looking workers?
    Who do we care about most unemployed here or unemployed over there? What, exactly, is wrong about a wall, or drastically reducing immigration? Once somebody gets citizenship their family members get priority is this good policy for the bottom 50%? We do know that corps would like to further drive down wages, explaining her hopes for open borders.
    And what about students? Is it good policy to educate foreigners instead of locals? Who wants to explain their reasons to locals turned away? To their families? (To influence future foreign leaders? Really? Xi was educated here would you say he is therefore our good buddy?) so who is hurt, and who is helped, if we end or reduce student visas?

    What is the progressive position on America, or Americans, first? I would say that when unemployment is truly low we could allow some immigration, when we expand our universities to account for pop growth we could allow some foreign participation.

    No more foreign adventures. We are already confronting Russia big time sack the neocons at state and war departments and CIA Slash armaments spending. End the useless wasteful f35, redirect spending to infra. Withdraw 'tactical' nukes surrounding Russia.

    Enforce steel and other violations of WTO agreements with great vigor. Maybe a tariff would catch the attention of those assuming they have unfettered access to our markets and therefore have no need to cooperate in other ways. I doubt our tariffs would lead to a trade war exporters desperately need our markets because their own unemployment terrifies them and or because austerity has killed their own. (We can explain that unemployment is, for the first time in decades, beginning to terrify our own pols.)

    Support Brexit with guarantee that existing trade agreement remains in place. the sooner the euro disaster crashes and burns the better.

    Ranger Rick , December 27, 2016 at 10:38 am

    I fully expect a fight to come over labeling and country of origin laws. The automobile industry already stretches the definition of "made in America" to its breaking point for tax purposes.

    John Wright , December 27, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    I spent some time looking for American made tools in the local Sears store.

    What surprised me was the socket ratchets, that used to have "Made in the USA" stamped in them now had no country of origin shown. "Made in China" is only on the packaging.

    I found, and bought, some pliers and tin snips that were still made in the USA (and marked on the product as well) so it appears if a product is not marked "Made in USA" one should assume it is imported.

    At the local salvage yard, I found a sharpening stone that had cynically printed on the packaging "Distributed with Pride in the USA" on it while being made in China.

    It is difficult to find American manufactured products at the retail level. Even the iconic American brand Vise-Grip tools moved from DeWitt, Nebraska to China, and I don't imagine the wages were very high in Nebraska.

    jrs , December 27, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    And even then if all you have is a "made in the U.S.A." label there is no certainty it isn't produced by prison labor (made in the U.S.A.!), many companies use it, but not every industry.

    inode_buddha , December 27, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    I deal with tools for a living. what has happened is the apex group has bought up rights to the classic USA brands and offshored the lot. dozens of brands all held by private equity. as an industrial/plant mechanic, myself an all coworkers can verify that everything
    has crapified. I now go exclusively on eBay for functional antiques.

    stefan , December 27, 2016 at 11:32 am

    Americans are addicted to cheap.

    ambrit , December 27, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    "Cheap" masks the decline in an American's wages, and also the decline in their standard of living. I've found that "cheap" imported tools are inferior in the main. So, "cheap" helps Americans to delude themselves that the "American Dream" is still alive.

    Grizziz , December 27, 2016 at 11:47 am

    The article lacks the names of the offending agents. What are the names of the iron and steel importers and their chief executives and/or principal owners.
    In order to fight you need to know who to fight.

    Lune , December 27, 2016 at 12:36 pm

    "First, the infrastructure spending won't lead to an increase in fiscal spending, so it will not act as an economic stimulus. "

    To add to craazyboy's comment, this isn't the full picture. If Trump's policies incentivize private money towards infrastructure spending that has a higher GDP multiplier effect than other activities like corporate share buybacks, then the net macroeconomic result will be equivalent to stimulus even without an increase in direct fiscal spending.

    That said, I'm not a fan of public/private partnerships for precisely the reasons you mentioned. But in this new administration, we may have to be content with the crumbs :-) (plus, when the public/private investments inevitably go bankrupt they'll be socialized at only twice the cost of building it with public funds in the first place )

    reslez , December 27, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    > If Trump's policies incentivize private money towards infrastructure spending that has a higher GDP multiplier effect than other activities like corporate share buybacks, then the net macroeconomic result will be equivalent to stimulus even without an increase in direct fiscal spending.

    I don't think this is likely, primarily because the "PPP" projects are going to erect tolls on major infrastructure. Tolls function as regressive taxes and are going to act as a decelerator pedal on the economy, diverting money from people who would spend it productively into the pockets of politically-connected rentiers. Does it net out better than dumping the same amount of private resources into stock buybacks? Not if you believe in rational market theory. I mean at least a new road or bridge exists that didn't before, but the economics of private ownership are going to quickly extract even more. If they couldn't, the investors would have done the buyback instead.

    Yves Smith Post author , December 27, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    Huh? What do corporate stock buybacks have to do with fiscal spending? Nada. That is apples and oranges.

    You seem to be putting your fingers in your ear re the fiscal impact issue. There will be no fiscal multiplier because this is not fiscal spending. It's going to be privately financed with tax gimmies of various sorts. To the extent those tax gimmies reduce tax revenues (the intent is not much, that's the whole point of doing it this way), they'll be paid for with cuts in spending elsewhere.

    You have a fiscal multiplier effect ONLY with actual fiscal spending. This is not that. All those studies that folks like Summers cited to support infrastructure spending are irrelevant to how Trump is planning to do this.

    John k , December 27, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    Bank loans also injects money into private sector. Most spending likely to be gov backed loans, immediate effect similar to fiscal deficits, though negated when loan paid back over time.

    Lune , December 27, 2016 at 12:42 pm

    "That American-job-creating, buy-American thing is supported by 71 percent of the American public"

    Is that the same 71% of the public that's made WalMart the largest employer in the country? Buy American is a great concept in general but a terrible policy to pursue individually in the face of cheaper imports. That's why Donald Trump hires illegal immigrants to clean his hotels, and Pat Buchanan drove a Mercedes.

    The only way to do it meaningfully is by law and trade restrictions. And I doubt Trump cares to do the hard work of passing those types of laws (while overcoming entrenched bipartisan opposition). Much easier to pay a few companies to temporarily keep a few jobs around and then take a victory lap.

    susan the other , December 27, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    Ryan stands to lose everything with old tricks like this. He has been a toady all of his career. Now whatsa slimy toad to do?

    laura , December 27, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    In 1989, California suffered a major earthquake and the bridge between Oakland and San Francisco was deemed unsafe. The Legislature requested that the rebuild use only US Steel. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed that and so China sourced the steel.
    Guess what, it delayed rebuilding and the new span is considered to be unsafe. . . . In a future quake.

    Pat , December 27, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    You would think that the government "buying American" would not be so controversial. Not only does that give the corporations more responsibility to do it right, it is also the right thing to do for many reasons.

    1.) It employs Americans.
    2.) It employs Americans, who can use that paycheck to buy things in America, providing even more employment for Americans who can then go and
    3.) It employs Americans, who pay taxes on those wages. Taxes that go to building things in America, like infrastructure, or educating our children, or yes feeding our hungry.
    4.) It employs Americans, who for the most part have no reason to want to sabotage those things, build back doors into them, or yes copy the plans so they can be made cheaper in another country.
    5.) It is the right thing to do.

    I'm sure others can come up with other additions to the list, but to me it is a no brainer. But of course it is a no brainer for most voters, it is only our corrupt elected officials currying favor with foreign and multinational corporations that have a conflict of interest who refuse to admit it.

    [Dec 27, 2016] Is Trump just another globalists shill?

    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    John San Vant... Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 08:07 AM , December 27, 2016 at 08:07 AM
    John,

    I wonder what facts you have to label Trump's team "globalist shills".

    Robert W. Merry in his National Interest article disagrees with you
    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trump-vs-hillary-nationalism-vs-globalism-2016-16041
    === start of the quote ===
    Globalists captured much of American society long ago by capturing the bulk of the nation's elite institutions -- the media, academia, big corporations, big finance, Hollywood, think tanks, NGOs, charitable foundations. So powerful are these institutions -- in themselves and, even more so, collectively -- that the elites running them thought that their political victories were complete and final. That's why we have witnessed in recent years a quantum expansion of social and political arrogance on the part of these high-flyers.

    Then along comes Donald Trump and upends the whole thing. Just about every major issue that this super-rich political neophyte has thrown at the elites turns out to be anti-globalist and pro-nationalist. And that is the single most significant factor in his unprecedented and totally unanticipated rise. Consider some examples:

    Immigration: Nationalists believe that any true nation must have clearly delineated and protected borders, otherwise it isn't really a nation. They also believe that their nation's cultural heritage is sacred and needs to be protected, whereas mass immigration from far-flung lands could undermine the national commitment to that heritage.

    Globalists don't care about borders. They believe the nation-state is obsolete, a relic of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which codified the recognition of co-existing nation states.

    Globalists reject Westphalia in favor of an integrated world with information, money, goods and people traversing the globe at accelerating speeds without much regard to traditional concepts of nationhood or borders.
    === end of the quote ===

    I wonder how "globalist shills" mantra correlates with the following Trump's statements:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/28/donald-trump-globalization-trade-pennsylvania-ohio/86431376/

    === start of quote ===
    "Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.

    In a speech devoted to what he called "How To Make America Wealthy Again," Trump offered a series of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called [Obama] "failed trade policies" - including rejection of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations and re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary.

    The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also said he would pursue bilateral trade agreements rather than multi-national deals like TPP and NAFTA.

    In addition to appointing better trade negotiators and stepping up punishment of countries that violate trade rules, Trump's plans would also target one specific economic competitor: China. He vowed to label China a currency manipulator, bring it before the World Trade Organization and consider slapping tariffs on Chinese imports coming into the U.S.

    [Dec 27, 2016] The technocrats lied about how globalization would be great for everyone. Peoples actual experience in their lives has been different.

    Notable quotes:
    "... We have a dollar democracy that protects the economic interest of the elite class while more than willing to let working class families lose their homes and jobs on the back end of wide scale mortgage fraud. Then the fraud was perpetuated in the mortgage default process just to add insult to injury. ..."
    "... One thing that Trump certainly got wrong that no one ever points out is that there is a lot more murder than rape crossing the Mexican-American border in the drug cartel operations ..."
    "... The technocrats lied about how globalization would be great for everyone. People's actual experience in their lives has been different. ..."
    "... Centrist Democrat partisans with their increasinly ineffectual defenses of the establishment say it's only about racism and xenophobia, but it's more than that. ..."
    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron
    RE: Democracy Is Dying as Technocrats Watch - William Easterly

    Assaults on democracy are working because our current political elites have no idea how to defend it.

    [There are certainly good points to this article, but the basic assumption that our electorally representative form of republican government is the ideal incarnation of the democratic value set is obviously incorrect. We have a dollar democracy that protects the economic interest of the elite class while more than willing to let working class families lose their homes and jobs on the back end of wide scale mortgage fraud. Then the fraud was perpetuated in the mortgage default process just to add insult to injury.

    One thing that Trump certainly got wrong that no one ever points out is that there is a lot more murder than rape crossing the Mexican-American border in the drug cartel operations:<) ]

    Peter K. -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... December 27, 2016 at 06:39 AM

    The author fails to mention the Sanders campaign. An elderly socialist Jew from Brooklyn was able to win 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to Clinton's 55%.

    This despite a nasty, hostile campaign against him and his supporters by the Clinton campaign and corporate media.

    There's also Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Podemos, Syriza, etc.

    Italy's 5 Star movement demonstrates a hostility to technocrats as well.

    The author doesn't really focus on how the technocrats have failed.

    The technocrats lied about how globalization would be great for everyone. People's actual experience in their lives has been different.

    Trump scapegoated immigrants and trade, as did Brexit, but what he really did was channel hostility and hatred at the elites and technocrats running the country.

    Centrist Democrat partisans with their increasinly ineffectual defenses of the establishment say it's only about racism and xenophobia, but it's more than that.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Peter K.... , -1
    Yes sir.

    [Dec 27, 2016] Donald Trump targets globalization and free trade as job-killers

    Dec 27, 2016 | www.usatoday.com

    "Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.

    In a speech devoted to what he called "How To Make America Wealthy Again," Trump offered a series of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called "failed trade policies" - including rejection of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations and re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary.

    The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also said he would pursue bilateral trade agreements rather than multi-national deals like TPP and NAFTA.

    In addition to appointing better trade negotiators and stepping up punishment of countries that violate trade rules, Trump's plans would also target one specific economic competitor: China. He vowed to label China a currency manipulator, bring it before the World Trade Organization and consider slapping tariffs on Chinese imports coming into the U.S.

    [Dec 27, 2016] This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.

    Notable quotes:
    "... This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context. ..."
    "... Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a Federal crime. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : , December 18, 2016 at 07:18 AM

    This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.

    Cyber security is a serious risk management operation that firms and governments spend outrageous sums of money on because hacking attempts, especially from sources in China and Russia, occur in vast numbers against every remotely desirable target corporate or government each and every day. At my former employer, the State of Virginia, the data center repelled over two million hacking attempts from sources in China each day. Northrop Grumman, the infrastructure management outsourcer for the State of Virginia's IT infrastructure, has had no known intrusions into any Commonwealth of Virginia servers that had been migrated to their standard security infrastructure thus far since the inception of their contract in July 2006. That is almost the one good thing that I have to say about NG. Some state servers, notably the Virginia Department of Health Professions, not under protection of the NG standard network security were hacked and had private information such as client SSNs stolen. Retail store servers are hacked almost routinely, but large banks and similarly well protected corporations are not. Security costs and it costs a lot.

    Even working in a data center with an excellent intrusion protection program as part of that program I had to take an annual "securing the human" computer based training class. Despite all of the technical precautions we were retrained each year to among other things NEVER put anything in an E-Mail that we did not want to be available for everyone to read; i.e., to never assume privacy is protected in an E-Mail. Embarrassing E-Mails need a source. We should assume that there will always be a hacker to take advantage of our mistakes.

    RGC -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 07:57 AM
    Can you spell "diversion"?

    Sanders: "Break up the banks!"

    Trump: "The elites are screwing you over!"

    Supporters of the status quo:

    "It's racism"

    "It's Russian hackers"

    Whatever it takes to change the subject.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RGC... , December 18, 2016 at 08:09 AM
    Maybe it is diversion, but it is definitely uninformed if not just plain stupid.
    sglover -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 06:11 PM
    Absolutely. What does that suggest about Team Dem?
    DrDick -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 08:34 AM
    The reality is that all the major world powers (and some minor ones), including us, do this routinely and always have. While it is entirely appropriate to be outraged that it may have materially determined the election (which I think is impossible to know, though it did have some impact), we should not be shocked or surprised by this.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    "...I would suggest attacks on Putin's personal business holdings all over the world..."

    [My guess is that has been being done a long time ago considering the direction of US/Russian foreign relations over NATO expansion, the Ukraine, and Syria.

    Long before TCP/IP the best way to prevent dirty secrets from getting out was not to have dirty secrets. It still works.

    The jabbering heads will not have much effect on the political opinions of ordinary citizens because 40 million or more US adults had their credit information compromised by the Target hackers three years ago. Target had been saving credit card numbers instead of deleting them as soon as they obtained authorizations for transfers, so that the 40 million were certainly exposed while more than twice that were probably exposed. Establishment politicians having their embarrassing E-mails hacked is more like good fun family entertainment than something to get all riled up about.]

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/10/news/companies/target-hacking/

    Target: Hacking hit up to 110 million customers

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:22 AM
    Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a Federal crime. Political parties are private. The Federal government did not protect Target or Northrop Grumman's managed infrastructure for the Commonwealth of Virginia although either one can take forensic information to the FBI that will obtain warrants for prosecution. Foreign criminal operations go beyond the immediate domestic reach of the FBI. Not even Interpol interdicts foreign leaders unless they are guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

    The Federal government can do what it will as there are not hard guidelines for such clandestine operations and responses. Moreover, there are none to realistically enforce against them, which inevitably leads to war given sufficient cycles of escalation. Certainly our own government has done worse (political assassinations and supporting coups with money and guns) with impunity merely because of its size, reach, and power.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:43 AM
    BTW, "the burglar that just ransacked your house" can be arrested and prosecuted by a established regulated legal system with absolutely zero concerns of escalating into a nuclear war, trade war, or any other global hostility. So, not the same thing at all. Odds are good though that the burglar will get away without any of that because when he does finally get caught it will be an accident and probably only after dozen if not hundreds of B&E's.

    There is a line. The US has crossed that line, but always in less developed countries that had no recourse against us. Putin knows where the line is with the US. He will dance around it and lean over it, but not cross it. We have him outgunned and he knows it. Putin did not tamper with an election, a government function. Putin tampered with private data exposing incriminating information against a political party, which is a private entity rather than government entity. Whatever we do should probably stay within the rule of law as it gets messy fast once outside those boundaries.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 11:01 AM
    As far as burglars go I live in a particular working class zip code that has very few burglaries. It is a bad risk/reward deal unless you are just out to steal guns and then you better make sure that no one is home. Most people with children still living at home also have a gun safe. Most people have dogs.

    There are plenty burglaries in a lower income zip code nearby and lots more in higher income zip codes further away, the former being targets of opportunity with less security and possible drug stashes, which has a faster turnover than fencing big screen TV's. High income neighborhoods are natural targets with jewelry, cash, credit cards, and high end electronics, but far better security systems. I don't know much about their actual crime stats because they are on the opposite side of the City of Richmond VA from me, but I used to know a couple of burglars when I lived in the inner city. They liked the upscale homes near the University of Richmond on River Road.

    Peter K. -> DrDick... , December 18, 2016 at 09:21 AM
    Putin was mad b/c Clinton interfered in Russia's election using the bully-pulpit.

    She may have been complete correct in what she was saying, but it's not surprising she pissed Putin off.

    The Democratic establishment would rather discuss this than do a post-mortem on Hillary's campaign.

    They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined the election.

    DeDude -> Peter K.... , December 18, 2016 at 09:43 AM
    "They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined the election"

    And those two statement are not in conflict unless you are a brain dead Fox bot. Big nothing-burgers like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters. When the heck are you going to grow up and get past your 5 stages of Sanders grief?

    Peter K. -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:54 AM
    "Big nothing-burgers like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters. "

    There is already an audience for those faux scandals, the Fox viewers.

    They don't create new Voters.

    You're nothing but a brainwashed partisan Democrat, a mirror-image of these brainwashed Fox viewers.

    You're told what you're supposed to think by the Party leadership and you eat it up.

    No critical thinking skills.

    EMichael -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    He's barely over Nader.
    DeDude -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:07 AM
    I know - and there used to be some signs of a functional brain. Now it is all "they are all the same" ism and Hillary derangement syndrome on steroids. Someone who cares need to do an intervention before it becomes he get gobbled up by "ilsm" ism.
    Peter K. -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 01:08 PM
    Nader's critique was correct.

    The Democrats moved to the right and created more Trump voters.

    im1dc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    ABC video interview by Martha Raddatz of Donna Brazile 2:43

    Adding the following FACTS, not opinion, to the Russian Hacking debate at the DNC

    Russian hacks of the DNC began at least as early as April, the FBI informed the DNC in May of the hacks, NO ONE in the FedGovt offered to HELP the DNC at anytime (allowed it to continue), and Russia's Putin DID NOT stop after President Obama told Putin in September to "Cut it Out", despite Obama's belief otherwise

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-chair-says-committee-was-attacked-by-russian-hackers-through-election-day_us_5856acb6e4b08debb78992e4

    "DNC Chair Says Russian Hackers Attacked The Committee Through Election Day"

    'That goes against Obama's statement that the attacks ended after he spoke to Putin in September'

    by Dave Jamieson Labor Reporter...The Huffington Post...12/18/2016...10:59 am ET

    "The chair of the Democratic National Committee said Sunday that the DNC was under constant cyber attack by Russian hackers right through the election in November. Her claim contradicts President Barack Obama's statement Friday that the attacks ended in September after he issued a personal warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    "No, they did not stop," Donna Brazile told Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week." "They came after us absolutely every day until the end of the election. They tried to hack into our system repeatedly. We put up the very best cyber security but they constantly [attacked]."

    Brazile said the DNC was outgunned in its efforts to fend off the hacks, and suggested the committee received insufficient protection from U.S. intelligence agencies. The CIA and FBI have reportedly concluded that Russians carried out the attacks in an effort to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.

    "I think the Obama administration ― the FBI, the various other federal agencies ― they informed us, they told us what was happening. We knew as of May," Brazile said. "But in terms of helping us to fight, we were fighting a foreign adversary in the cyberspace. The Democratic National Committee, we were not a match. And yet we fought constantly."

    In a surprising analogy, Brazile compared the FBI's help to the DNC to that of the Geek Squad, the tech service provided at retailer Best Buy ― which is to say well-meaning, but limited.

    "They reached out ― it's like going to Best Buy," Brazile said. "You get the Geek Squad, and they're great people, by the way. They reached out to our IT vendors. But they reached us, meaning senior Democratic officials, by then it was, you know, the Russians had been involved for a long time."..."

    im1dc -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 08:59 AM
    This new perspective and set of facts is more than distressing it details a clear pattern of Executive Branch incompetence, malfeasance, and ineptitude (perhaps worse if you are conspiratorially inclined)
    im1dc -> im1dc... , -1
    The information above puts in bold relief President Obama's denial of an Electoral College briefing on the Russian Hacks

    There is now no reason not to brief the Electors to the extent and degree of Putin's help for demagogue Donald

    [Dec 27, 2016] Neopopulism

    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

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

    [Dec 26, 2016] Russian Hacker Conspiracy Theory is Weak, But the Case For Paper Ballots is Strong

    Dec 26, 2016 | politics.slashdot.org
    (facebook.com) 286 Posted by msmash on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:01PM from the stranger-things dept. On Wednesday, J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan's Center for Computer Security & Society and a respected voice in computer science and information society, said that the Clinton Campaign should ask for a recount of the vote for the U.S. Presidential election . Later he wrote, "Were this year's deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don't believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other." The Outline, a new publication by a dozen of respected journalists, has published a post (on Facebook for now, since their website is still in the works), in which former Motherboard's reporter Adrianne Jeffries makes it clear that we still don't have concrete evidence that the vote was tampered with, but why still the case for paper ballots is strong . From the article: Halderman also repeats the erroneous claim that federal agencies have publicly said that senior officials in Russia commissioned attacks on voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois. In October, federal agencies attributed the Democratic National Committee email hack to Russia, but specifically said they could not attribute the state hacks. Claims to the contrary seem to have spread due to anonymous sourcing and the conflation of Russian hackers with Russian state-sponsored hackers. Unfortunately, the Russia-hacked-us meme is spreading fast on social media and among disaffected Clinton voters. "It's just ignorance," said the cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr, who published his own response to Halderman on Medium. "It's fear and ignorance that's fueling that." The urgency comes from deadlines for recount petitions, which start kicking in on Friday in Wisconsin, Monday in Pennsylvania, and the following Wednesday in Michigan. There is disagreement about how likely it is that the Russian government interfered with election results. There is little disagreement, however, that our voting system could be more robust -- namely, by requiring paper ballot backups for electronic voting and mandating that all results be audited, as they already are in some states including California. Despite the 150,000 signatures collected on a Change.org petition, what happens next really comes down to the Clinton team's decision.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Crowdsourced Volunteers Search For Solutions To Fake News

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (wired.co.uk) 270 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday November 27, 2016 @03:34AM from the help-me-hive-mind dept. Upworthy co-founder Eli Pariser is leading a group of online volunteers hunting for ways to respond to the spread of fake news. An anonymous reader quotes Wired UK: Inside a Google Doc, volunteers are gathering ideas and approaches to get a grip on the untruthful news stories. It is part analysis, part brainstorming, with those involved being encouraged to read widely around the topic before contributing. "This is a massive endeavour but well worth it," they say...

    At present, the group is coming up with a list of potential solutions and approaches . Possible methods the group is looking at include: more human editors, fingerprinting viral stories then training algorithms on confirmed fakes, domain checking, the blockchain, a reliability algorithm, sentiment analysis, a Wikipedia for news sources, and more.

    The article also suggests this effort may one day spawn fake news-fighting tech startups.

    [Dec 26, 2016] The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with fair and equal play for all. This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and equal play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus no less then Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus ..."
    "... If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation from Wall Street occupation" movement. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right wing nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have. ..."
    Dec 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    EMichael : December 26, 2016 at 12:47 PM , 2016 at 12:47 PM
    You guys should wake up and smell what country you live in. Here is a good place to start.

    "Campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan told stories of Cadillac-driving "welfare queens" and "strapping young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. In trumpeting these tales of welfare run amok, Reagan never needed to mention race, because he was blowing a dog whistle: sending a message about racial minorities inaudible on one level, but clearly heard on another. In doing so, he tapped into a long political tradition that started with George Wallace and Richard Nixon, and is more relevant than ever in the age of the Tea Party and the first black president.

    In Dog Whistle Politics, Ian Haney L?pez offers a sweeping account of how politicians and plutocrats deploy veiled racial appeals to persuade white voters to support policies that favor the extremely rich yet threaten their own interests. Dog whistle appeals generate middle-class enthusiasm for political candidates who promise to crack down on crime, curb undocumented immigration, and protect the heartland against Islamic infiltration, but ultimately vote to slash taxes for the rich, give corporations regulatory control over industry and financial markets, and aggressively curtail social services. White voters, convinced by powerful interests that minorities are their true enemies, fail to see the connection between the political agendas they support and the surging wealth inequality that takes an increasing toll on their lives. The tactic continues at full force, with the Republican Party using racial provocations to drum up enthusiasm for weakening unions and public pensions, defunding public schools, and opposing health care reform.

    Rejecting any simple story of malevolent and obvious racism, Haney L?pez links as never before the two central themes that dominate American politics today: the decline of the middle class and the Republican Party's increasing reliance on white voters. Dog Whistle Politics will generate a lively and much-needed debate about how racial politics has destabilized the American middle class -- white and nonwhite members alike."

    https://www.amazon.com/Dog-Whistle-Politics-Appeals-Reinvented-ebook/dp/B00GHJNSMU

    im1dc : , December 26, 2016 at 01:51 PM
    Reading the above posts I am reminded that in November there was ONE Election with TWO Results:

    Electoral Vote for Donald Trump by the margin of 3 formerly Democratic Voting states Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

    Popular Vote for Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 Million

    The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral States that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal play for all.

    And, in the 3 States that turned the Electoral Vote in Trump's favor and against Hillary, all that is needed are 125,000 or more votes, probably fewer, and the DEMS win the Electoral vote big too.

    It is not any more complex than that.

    So how does the Democratic Party get more votes in those States?

    PANDER to their voters by delivering on KISS, not talking about it.

    That is create living wage jobs and not taking them away as the Republican Party of 'Free Trade' and the Clinton Democratic Party 'Free Trade' Elites did.

    Understand this: It is not the responsibility of the USA, or in its best interests, to create jobs in other nations (Mexico, Japan, China, Canada, Israel, etc.) that do not create jobs in the USA equivalently, especially if the gain is offset by costly overseas confrontations and involvements that would not otherwise exist.

    likbez : December 26, 2016 at 02:49 PM , 2016 at 02:49 PM
    You are dreaming:

    "The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral States that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal play for all. "

    The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and equal play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus no less then Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

    If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation from Wall Street occupation" movement.

    Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right wing nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have.

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

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

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

    Wyoming , December 25, 2016 at 8:18 am

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

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

    johnnygl , December 25, 2016 at 8:38 am

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

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

    Vatch , December 25, 2016 at 11:17 am

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

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

    Katharine , December 25, 2016 at 9:12 am

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

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 25, 2016 at 11:37 am

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

    That start is not completed yet.

    jrs , December 25, 2016 at 12:06 pm

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

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

    Sorrynotsorry , December 25, 2016 at 6:43 am

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

    Synoia , December 25, 2016 at 7:16 am

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

    Merry Christmas to all

    Direction , December 25, 2016 at 7:43 am

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

    Dirk77 , December 25, 2016 at 11:58 am

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

    +1 to you and Synoia. Merry Christmas!

    Reify99 , December 25, 2016 at 10:01 am

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

    A candid conversation: Bernie Sanders and Sara Silverman

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

    Knifecatcher , December 25, 2016 at 11:23 am

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

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

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

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 25, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Perhaps these 2:

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

    Steeeve , December 25, 2016 at 1:28 pm

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

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

    floatingcopy , December 25, 2016 at 8:15 am

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

    johnnygl , December 25, 2016 at 8:43 am

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

    Marco , December 25, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    13 points already? We're toast.

    jrs , December 25, 2016 at 12:20 pm

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

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

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

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

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

    DJG , December 25, 2016 at 12:48 pm

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

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

    Direction , December 25, 2016 at 8:28 am

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

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

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

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

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

    Montanamaven , December 25, 2016 at 12:47 pm

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

    JohnnyGL , December 25, 2016 at 1:31 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    funemployed , December 25, 2016 at 8:49 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reify99 , December 25, 2016 at 10:33 am

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

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

    Katharine , December 25, 2016 at 10:38 am

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

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

    jrs , December 25, 2016 at 12:34 pm

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

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

    craazyman , December 25, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Oh man. More identity politics yada yada.

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

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

    Grow up & Merry Christmas. LOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I hope I am wrong

    Peace on earth and goodwill to all

    jrs , December 25, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    movements often outgrow their leaders

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

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

    dcblogger , December 25, 2016 at 10:42 am

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

    beth , December 25, 2016 at 11:42 am

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

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

    Montanamaven , December 25, 2016 at 10:53 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    fosforos , December 25, 2016 at 10:55 am

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

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

    *Sigh*

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

    walt , December 25, 2016 at 11:21 am

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

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

    Gaylord , December 25, 2016 at 11:23 am

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

    PhilK , December 25, 2016 at 11:26 am

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

    Katharine , December 25, 2016 at 11:41 am

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

    Reify99 , December 25, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    True, otherwise we're lost in celebrity.

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

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

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

    At least these yunguns are DOING something.

    Reify99 , December 25, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    +1

    Jamie , December 25, 2016 at 1:11 pm

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

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

    – Anne Lamott

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

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

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

    ChrisAtRU , December 25, 2016 at 2:11 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah and FestivusForTheRestOfUs to everyone!

    [Dec 26, 2016] Is Trump's Foreign Policy the New Mainstream

    Dec 26, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
    TNI Staff

    December 22, 2016

    With the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, the American public opted for change. A new poll from the Charles Koch Institute and Center for the National Interest on America and foreign affairs indicates that the desire for a fresh start may be particularly pronounced in the foreign policy sphere. In many areas the responses align with what Donald Trump was saying during the presidential campaign-and in other areas, there are a number of Americans who don't have strong views. There may be a real opportunity for Trump to redefine the foreign policy debate. He may have a ready-made base of support and find that other Americans are persuadable.

    Two key questions centering on whether U.S. foreign policy has made Americans more or less safe and whether U.S. foreign policy has made the rest of the world more or less safe show that a majority of the public is convinced that-in both cases-the answer is that it has not. 51.9 percent say that American foreign policy has not enhanced our security; 51.1 percent say that it has also had a deleterious effect abroad. The responses indicate that the successive wars in the Middle East, ranging from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya, have not promoted but, rather, undermined a sense of security among Americans.

    The poll results indicate that this sentiment has translated into nearly 35 percent of respondents wanted a decreased military footprint in the Middle East, with about 30 percent simply wanting to keep things where they stand. When it comes to America's key relationship with Saudi Arabia, 23.2 percent indicate that they would favor weaker military ties, while 24 percent say they are simply unsure. Over half of Americans do not want to deploy ground troops to Syria. Overall, 45.4 percent say that they believe that it would enhance American security to reduce our military presence abroad, while 30.9 percent say that it should be increased.

    That Americans are adopting a more equivocal approach overall towards other countries seems clear. When provided with a list of adjectives to describe relationship, very few Americans were prepared to choose the extremes of friend or foe. The most popular term was the fairly neutral term "competitor." The mood appears to be similarly ambivalent about NATO. When asked whether the U.S. should automatically defend Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia in a military conflict with Russia, 26.1 percent say that they neither agree nor disagree. 22 percent say that they disagree and a mere 16.8 percent say that they agree. Similarly, when queried about whether the inclusion of Montenegro makes America safer, no less than 63.6 percent say that they don't know or are not sure. About Russia itself, 37.8 percent indicate they see it as both an adversary and a potential partner. That they still see it as a potential partner is remarkable given the tenor of the current media climate.

    The poll results underscore that Americans are uneasy with the status quo. U.S. foreign policy in particular is perceived as a failure and Americans want to see a change, endorsing views and stands that might previously have been seen as existing on the fringe of debate about America's proper role abroad. Instead of militarism and adventurism, Americans are more keen on a cooperative world, in which trade and diplomacy are the principal means of engaging other nations. 49 percent of the respondents indicate that they would prioritize diplomacy over military power, while 26.3 percent argue for the reverse. 54 percent argue that the U.S. should work more through the United Nations to improve its security. Moreover, a clear majority of those polled stated that they believed that increasing trade would help to make the United States safer. In a year that has been anything but normal, perhaps Trump is onto something with his talk of burden sharing and a more critical look at the regnant establishment foreign policy that has prevailed until now.

    [Dec 26, 2016] https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/812676949646647296

    Dec 26, 2016 | twitter.com

    People are really having a hard time wrapping their minds around the extent of the catastrophe that is the Trump admin. A case in point 1/

    Here James Kwak, generally a fine analysts, tries to cope with the choice of Larry Kudlow as economic adviser (*) 2/

    He criticizes Kudlow for simplistic adherence to Econ 101. Would that that were all! Ludlow is a full-on crank; we could only wish that 3/

    he was doing freshman-level economic analysis, as opposed to living in a fantasy land where tax cuts for the wealthy are magical 4/

    And yet Kudlow looks like the least crazy, least goldbuggish of the new admin's economic hires. We need to stop sugar-coating! 5/

    *- Larry Kudlow and Economics in the Trump
    Administration - December 23, 2016 - James Kwak
    https://baselinescenario.com/2016/12/23/larry-kudlow-and-economics-in-the-trump-administration/ Reply Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:01 AM pgl said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... And I though Kwak nailed Kudlow. OK - Krugman is right. BTW - look above for some comic relief. JohnH is attacking Kwak on the exchange rate thing. Kudlow is a terrible choice for CEA but let's be thankful did not pick JohnH for that job.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Are We Seeing Propaganda About Russian Propaganda?

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (rollingstone.com) 335 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 04, 2016 @12:39PM from the ghosts-of-Joseph-McCarthy dept. MyFirstNameIsPaul was one of several readers who spotted this disturbing instance of fake news about fake news. An anonymous reader writes: Last week the Washington Post described "independent researchers" who'd identified "more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda " that they estimated were viewed more than 200 million times on Facebook. But the researchers insisted on remaining anonymous "to avoid being targeted by Russia's legions of skilled hackers," and when criticized on Twitter, responded "Awww, wook at all the angwy Putinists, trying to change the subject -- they're so vewwy angwy!!"

    The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months," writes Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi , calling the Post's article an "astonishingly lazy report". (Chris Hedges, who once worked on a Pulitzer Prize-winning team at the New York Times, even found his site Truthdig on the group's dubious list of over 200 " sites that reliably echo Russian propaganda ," along with other long-standing sites like Zero Hedge , Naked Capitalism , and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.) "By overplaying the influence of Russia's disinformation campaign, the report also plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists that it hopes to combat," complains Adrian Chen, who in 2015 documented real Russian propaganda efforts which he traced to "a building in St. Petersburg where hundreds of young Russians worked to churn out propaganda ."
    The Post's article was picked up by other major news outlets ( including USA Today ), and included an ominous warning that "The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on 'fake news'."

    [Dec 26, 2016] China Chases Silicon Valley Talent Who Are Worried About Trump Presidency

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (cnbc.com) 416 Posted by msmash on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @10:20AM from the aftermath dept. China is trying to capitalize on President-elect Donald Trump's hardline immigration stance and vow to clamp down on a foreign worker visa program that has been used to recruit thousands from overseas to Silicon Valley. From a report on CNBC: Leading tech entrepreneurs, including Robin Li, the billionaire CEO of Baidu, China's largest search engine, see Trump's plans as a huge potential opportunity to lure tech talent away from the United States . The country already offers incentives of up to $1 million as signing bonuses for those deemed "outstanding" and generous subsidies for start-ups. Meanwhile, the Washington Post last month reported on comments made by Steve Bannon, who is now the president-elect's chief strategist, during a radio conversation with Trump in Nov. 2015. Bannon, the former Breitbart.com publisher, indicated that he didn't necessarily agree with the idea that foreign talent that goes to school in America should stay in America. "When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think ...," Bannon said, trailing off. "A country is more than an economy. We're a civic society."

    [Dec 26, 2016] Fearing Tighter US Visa Regime, Indian IT Firms Rush To Hire

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org

    (moneycontrol.com) 184 Posted by msmash on Monday November 28, 2016 @02:20PM from the meanwhile-in-India dept. From a report on Reuters: Anticipating a more protectionist US technology visa programme under a Donald Trump administration, India's $150 billion IT services sector will speed up acquisitions in the United States and recruit more heavily from college campuses there . Indian companies including Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, and Wipro have long used H1-B skilled worker visas to fly computer engineers to the US, their largest overseas market, temporarily to service clients. Staff from those three companies accounted for around 86,000 new H1-B workers in 2005-14. The US currently issues close to that number of H1-B visas each year. President-elect Trump's campaign rhetoric, and his pick for Attorney General of Senator Jeff Sessions, a long-time critic of the visa programme, have many expecting a tighter regime.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Will Trump Protect America's IT Workers From H-1B Visa Abuses?

    Dec 26, 2016 | it.slashdot.org
    (cio.com.au) 400

    Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday November 27, 2016 @11:34AM from the making-campaign-promises-great-again dept. Monday president-elect Donald Trump sent "the strongest signal yet that the H-1B visa program is going get real scrutiny once he takes office," according to CIO.

    Slashdot reader OverTheGeicoE summarizes their report: President-elect Donald Trump released a video message outlining his policy plans for his first 100 days in office. At 1 minute, 56 seconds into the message, he states that he will direct the Department of Labor to investigate "all abuses of the visa programs that undercut the American worker ."

    During his presidential campaign, Trump was critical of the H-1B visa program that has been widely criticized for displacing U.S. high-technology workers. "Companies are importing low-wage workers on H-1B visas to take jobs from young college-trained Americans," said Trump at an Ohio rally.

    At other rallies, Trump invited former IT workers from Disney who had been forced to train their H-1B replacements to speak.
    "What he didn't say was that he was going to close the door to skilled immigrants," one tech entrepreneur told CNN Money -- although Trump's selection for attorney general has called the shortage of qualified American tech workers "a hoax".

    [Dec 24, 2016] If the 2018 elections will not be converted to verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing of all close elections, then it is clear that the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines. ..."
    "... If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies. ..."
    Dec 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    John M -> John M ... December 23, 2016 at 07:17 PM

    Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines.

    If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Has The CIA Been Politicized

    Notable quotes:
    "... The use of the term, however, rather naïvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed. ..."
    "... Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers. ..."
    "... Does the organization depend on taxpayer funding for a substantial amount of its budget? ..."
    "... Does the organization engage in what would be illegal activities were it not for protective government legislation? ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    Anonymous leakers at the CIA continue to make claims about Russia and the 2016 election. In response to demands to provide evidence, the CIA has declined to offer any, refusing to meet with Congressional intelligence committees, and refusing to issue any documents offering evidence. Instead, the CIA, communicating via leaks, simply says the equivalent of "trust us."

    Not troubled by the lack of evidence, many in the media and in the Democratic party have been repeating unsubstantiated CIA claims as fact.

    Of course, as I've noted before , the history of CIA intelligence is largely a history of missing the forest for the trees. Sometimes, the failures have been spectacular.

    One of the questions that immediately arises in the media in situations like these, however, is " has the CIA been politicized ?"

    When used in this way, the term "politicized" means that the CIA is involved in helping or hurting specific political factions (e,g., specific ideological groups, pressure groups, or presidential administrations) in order to strengthen the CIA's financial or political standing.

    All Government Agencies Are Politicized

    The use of the term, however, rather naïvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed.

    Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers.

    This idea might seem plausible to school children in junior-high-school civics classes, but not to anyone who lives in the real world.

    In fact, if we wish to ascertain whether or not an institution or organization is "politicized" we can simply ask ourselves a few questions:

    If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then you are probably dealing with a politicized organization. If the answer to all of these questions is "yes" - as is the case with the CIA - then you're definitely dealing with a very politicized organization. (Other "non-political" organizations that fall well within this criteria as well include so-called "private" organizations such as the Federal Reserve System and Fannie Mae.)

    So, it has always been foolish to ask ourselves if the CIA is "politicized" since the answer is obviously "yes" for anyone who is paying attention.

    Nevertheless, the myth that the CIA and agencies like it can be non-political continues to endure, although in many cases, the charge has produced numerous helpful historical analysis of just how politicized the CIA has been in practice.

    Recent Narratives on CIA Politicization

    Stories of CIA politicization take at least two forms: One type consists of anti-CIA writers attempting to illustrate how the CIA acts to manipulate political actors to achieve its own political ends. The other type consists of pro-CIA writers attempting to cast the CIA as an innocent victim of manipulation by senior Washington officials.

    Of course, it doesn't matter whether the provenance of CIA politicking comes from within the agency or outside it. In both cases, the fact remains that the Agency is a tool for political actors to deceive, manipulate, and attack political enemies.

    With CIA leaks apparently attempting to call the integrity of the 2016 election into question, the CIA is once again being accused of politicization. Consequently, articles in the Washington Times , the Daily Caller , and The Intercept all question the CIA's motivation and present numerous examples of the Agency's history of deception.

    The current controversy is hardly the first time the Agency has been accused of being political, and during the build up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, for example, the CIA worked with the Bush Administration to essentially manufacture "intelligence."

    In his book Failure of Intelligence , Melvin Allan Goodman writes:

    Three years after the invasion of Iraq, a senior CIA analyst, Paul Pillar, documented the efforts of the Bush administration to politicize the intelligence of the CIA on Iraqi WMD and so-called links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Pillar accused the Bush administration of using policy to drive intelligence production, which was the same argument offered by the chief of British intelligence in the Downing Street memorandum prior to the war, and aggressively using intelligence to win public support for the decision to go to war....Pillar does not explain why no senior CIA official protested, let alone resigned in the wake of the president's misuse of intelligence on Iraq's so-called efforts to obtain uranium ore in Africa. Pillar falsely claimed "for the most part, the intelligence community's own substantive judgments do not appear to have been compromised," when it was clear that the CIA wa wrong on every conclusion and had to politicize the intelligence to be so egregiously wrong."

    Since then, CIA officials have attempted to rehabilitate the agency by claiming the agency was the hapless victim of the Administration. But, as Goodman notes, we heard no protests from the Agency when such protests would have actually mattered, and the fact is the Agency was easily used for political ends. Whether or not some agents wanted to participate in assisting the Bush administration with trumping up evidence against Iraq remains irrelevant. The fact remains the CIA did it.

    Moreover, according to documents compiled by John Prados at the George Washington University , "The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported" and that "Under the circumstances, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the CIA and other intelligence agencies defended themselves against the dangers of attack from the Bush administration through a process of self-censorship. That is the very essence of politicization in intelligence."

    In other words, to protect its own budgets and privileges, the CIA reacted quickly to shape its intelligence to meet the political goals of others.

    Journalist Robert Parry has also attempted to go the CIA-as-victim route in his own writings. In an article written before the Iraq War debacle, Parry looks at how the Agency was used by both Reagan and Clinton, and claims that what is arguably of the CIA's biggest analytical errors - repeatedly overstating the economic strength of the Soviet Union - was the result of pressure applied to the Agency by the Reagan administration. (Parry may be mistaken here, as the CIA was wrong about the Soviet economy long before the Reagan Administration .)

    While attempting to defend the CIA, however, Parry is merely providing a list of the many ways in which the CIA serves to manufacture false information that are useful for political officials.

    In this essay for the Center for International Policy, Goodman further lists many examples of politicization and concludes "Throughout the CIA's 60-year history, there have been many efforts to slant analytical conclusions, skew estimates, and repress evidence that challenged a particular policy or point of view. As a result, the agency must recognize the impact of politicization and introduce barriers to protect analysts from political pressures. Unfortunately, the CIA has largely ignored the problem."

    It is difficult to ascertain whether past intelligence failures were due to pressure form the administration or whether they originated from within the Agency itself. Nevertheless, the intelligence failures are numerous, including:

    The fact that politicization occurs might help explain some of these failures, but simply claiming "politicization" doesn't erase the legacy of failure, and it hardly serves as an argument in favor of allowing the CIA to continue to command huge budgets and essentially function unsupervised. Regardless of fanciful claims of non-political professionalism, it is undeniable that, as an agency of the US government, the CIA is a political institution.

    The only type of organization that is not politicized is a private-sector organization under a relatively laissez-faire regime. Heavily regulated private industries and all government agencies are politicized by nature because they depend heavily on active assistance from political actors to sustain themselves.

    It should be assumed that politicized organizations seek to influence policymakers, and thus all the actions and claims of these organization should be treated with skepticism and a recognition that these organizations benefit from further taxation and expanded government powers inflicted on ordinary taxpayers and other productive members of society outside the privileged circles of Washington, DC.

    Perimetr -> Chupacabra-322 •Dec 23, 2016 11:34 AM
    Is the CIA politicized?

    ...Is the pope catholic?

    How many more presidents does the CIA have to kill to answer your question?

    Oldwood -> DownWithYogaPants •Dec 23, 2016 11:26 AM
    How could the CIA NOT be politicized? They collect "intelligence" and use it to influence policy makers without ANY accountability and no real proof. The CIA operates on CONJECTURE that is completely subjective to bias and agenda. Is that ANYTHING BUT political?
    TeaClipper's picture -> TeaClipper •Dec 23, 2016 11:24 AM
    The CIA was not wrong about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it lied about them. That is a very big distinction.
    Old Poor Richard •Dec 23, 2016 12:13 PM
    The question is whether the CIA is puppeteer and not the puppet.

    The Snowden report, jam packed with provably false scurrilous accusations, demonstrates that not only is the US intelligence community entirely lacking in credibility, but that they believe themselves so powerful that they can indefinitely get away with baldfaced lies.

    The thing is, the deep state can only keep up the charade when they completely control the narrative, the way China does. Hence the attacks on the first amendment that are accelerating as fast as the attacks on the second amendment. Majority of Americans don't believe the Russian hacking hoax and it make the CIA increasingly hysterical.

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 23, 2016 12:33 PM
    The CIA has been politicized. In fact, all the way down to the COS level, and in concert with the State Department. Brennan and Moran are nothing but Clinton surrogates.

    In one embassy in a country where IEDs keep blowing up, there were millions of taxpayer dollars spent and continue to be spent in "safe spaces" and "comfort food and liquor" inside an embassy (taking away space from the US Marine Giuards for it) to let "Democrat snowflakes" in senior embassy and CIA positions recover from the Trump elections.

    The real reaon for the loss of the Phillipines as an ally may eventually come out that a gay senior embassy official made a pass at the President of the country. Just like it happened with the gay ambassador in the Dominican Republic.

    That Libral You Hate •Dec 23, 2016 12:41 PM
    I would say the simple answer to the question asked in the headline of this article is "yes" but it is important to actually understand the nuance of the langer answer.

    The critical nuance is that: politics didn't conquor the CIA, but rather the CIA injected itself into politics. I.e. the CIA aren't political stooges, but act political because they have injected political stooges into politics and they have to act political to protect them to protect their interests. Thus while the answer is "yes" the question is phrased wrong as: "Has the CIA Been Politicized," the appropriate question is "Has politics been co-opted by the CIA"

    insanelysane •Dec 23, 2016 12:50 PM
    The first post is spot on except the CIA was in Southeast Asia stirring stuff up to get us into a war. War is big business.

    The entire reason for Vietnam was "If Vietnam falls the commies will be marching down Main Street USA afterwards."

    Well we fucking lost Vietnam and the commies still aren't marching down Main Street and yet the assessment is still being peddled by the Corporation.

    Kennedy was killed because, even though he was fucking totally drugged up, he still saw Vietnam for what it was.

    The Corporation gave Johnson and offer he couldn't refuse, take the keys to the kingdom, just keep "fighting" in Vietnam. I say fighting because we were just fucking around there. No one in charge wanted to risk winning the war.

    And here we are today, 23rd, December, 2016, "fighting" in the Middle East and the Corporation not willing to risk winning the war. Just need to keep it hot enough for the weapons and ammunition to be used in a nice steady pace to keep business going.

    [Dec 23, 2016] CIA Director John Brennan may face investigation for leaking Russian hacker story to the Washington Post

    theduran.com
    Fox Business News discusses a potential investigation involving CIA Director John Brennan over whether he leaked information about the Russian hacking investigation to the media

    John Brennan takes his cues directly from Barack Obama, which means the entire CIA, Russian hack investigation, was initiated and conducted under Obama's direct order.

    The Russian hack, media spin, has been and remains a political play. National security has very little to do with it.

    [Dec 23, 2016] The economics of open borders - Crooked Timber

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think if you want to improve the economic inequality between countries, there are better ways than open borders. If the aim is to decrease economic inequality, you could make policies to reach this outcome that are more targeted than open borders, for example you could implement financial transfers between countries, or you could implement international minimum wages that could be phased in over 10-20-30 years, etc. ..."
    "... If the other problem you want to address is mobility for people who want to immigrate for personal reasons, you can just improve the access to immigration within the normal migration system, and increase migration quotas in line with some sort of expectation of what a optimum maximum population would be within a set period. ..."
    "... Another thing is infrastructure, it would be difficult to forecast infrastructure needs if migration is unregulated. It would take several decades to settle into a sort of equilibrium and until then you couldn't do very good projections of future infrastructure needs. In Victoria we already have had population growth that has outpaced infrastructure, and there are big problems particularly with transport but also with other infrastructure needs. ..."
    "... The surcharge is supposed to be a payment towards the existing infrastructure, from which the new entrants benefit. But native-born citizens, who benefit from the infrastructure built up by previous generations get the same benefit as a free gift! That already presupposes some quite strong claims about who is entitled to what, and who is entitled to exclude whom from access. ..."
    "... In a world with a rapidly increasing population and a resource base coming under increasing stress it acting merely to spread misery faster and to stop experiments in sustainability. ..."
    "... It undermining social and democratic structures. ..."
    "... Another issue with the tax is that it would make migration more difficult for lower income people who could't afford the tax. Countries like the UK are already targeting their migration intake to higher income earners where possible, and a tax would encourage that policy. ..."
    "... What if there were a minimum tax per immigrant per year, equal to the average taxes paid by citizens? ..."
    "... It is worth considering the world's economy as an engineering system that responds to forces placed upon it. One of the features of making migration difficult, through either bureaucratic or financial resistance, is that it dampens the response of the system to external forces. Open borders removes that damping and allows much faster response. Like most things in life, that has both good and bad consequences, but one of the consequences is the system becomes less stable. ..."
    "... As for the productivity argument – as usual, political theorists underestimate the value of extended family and long term inter-family arrangements in creating 'social capital' for productivity and stability. ..."
    "... Mobility has its place, and in a time when most Americans never went more than 25 miles from their birthplace during their entire lives an increase in mobility increased overall productivity. However, there are many reasons to believe that individual mobility is costing communities dearly in these present times; and that bad government and market oriented policies which are exacerbating the problem. ..."
    "... So in addition to the problems of infrastructure and gentrification on the recieving end of these net flows, we have issues in the regions that are being left-behind. Our current reactionary politics seems to be one of the consequences of this difficult issue. ..."
    "... I worry that "free movement of people" tends to have massive social costs that get swept under the rug when the issues are discussed in a purely economic framework. ..."
    "... For most of human history, the vast majority of people lived in extended family groups in villages, towns, or temporary encampments where they knew their neighbors, had relatively small social worlds, and didn't travel more than a few days from home. Cities, as we know them, (and their accompanying social maladies) are really only two or three centuries old and post-industrial cities are an even newer phenomenon. ..."
    "... What's worse, the rootless urban professionals have money, which means they can buy or rent homes anywhere, displacing the old residents. This has a double whammy effect, not only do the neighborhoods get new people who don't quite fit in, but the old "villagers" get forced out (and in many cases become rootless transplants in some other town), so communities enter a state of perpetual social flux where there aren't enough old timers left to assimilate the new arrivals and the social fabric disintegrates as natural communities are replaced by a massive web of voluntary ones that often don't (especially if there's a class or language barrier) and leave some people with no community at all. ..."
    "... Think of the million Poles in the UK, for example, they will predictably have "close relationships" with people in Poland, and will British retirees in Spain with people in the UK, and Irish people in the UK with people living in Ireland . ..."
    "... At this point I really, really have to emphasize the plug for John Smith's Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century because he addresses this kind of neoclassical boosterism more or less directly, from a leftist point of view. ..."
    "... In Smith's telling the suppression of international labor mobility is actually central to explaining not just global wage differentials perceived to result from differences in productivity, but also the data by which labor productivity between countries is measured in the first place. The neoclassicals' trick here is to take the international division of labor that emerges from what Smith calls "global labor arbitrage" (e.g. outsourcing) and remove it from their conceptual category of production altogether, instead regarding it through the lens of international trade as if workers on a factory floor were constantly "trading" their partially-assembled products to others further down the assembly line. ..."
    "... It's not exactly freedom of movement I'm arguing against so much as the notion that population centers have an essentially unlimited ability to absorb newcomers. From 18th Century Manchester to the American West to exploding Chinese industrial cities today, boom towns are notorious for their environmental devastation and social dysfunction. ..."
    "... Many municipalities already do this through the use of building permits, but their efforts are compromised by an imperative to expand their tax base and competition between municipalities that gravely limits their effective bargaining power. In a free trade, open borders world, I can see the same thing happening at the national scale, forcing whole countries to compete with one another for jobs and labor and hastening the rate of neo-colonial resource plundering. ..."
    "... Factor endowments equals they have poor people for cheap labor and we have rich people who create, consume and finance and the origins of the difference is like shrouded in mystery? ..."
    "... John Smith of WLGR is Marxian. Apples profits are generated by the workers at Foxconn in China, not the designers in San Jose. The surplus accruing to intellectual property is mostly a product of past and present Imperialism. ..."
    "... By the way, at least according to Wikipedia, there are 830,000 Poles in the UK_ so well south of a million still. It's a lot, but, lots less than, say, the 2.9 million Russian-born people in the US, a population I'm very familiar with, so I don't really need the lecture here. ..."
    "... I'm not arguing against change, but rather change that comes so quickly it creates a schism between the past and the present. The Gold Rush changed California from predominantly Spanish-speaking to majority Anglo in just a few years (and also killed tens of thousands of Indians in the process), so even if a place still has the same name following migration, it might not be pronounced the same way. ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Sebastian H 12.21.16 at 5:53 am ( )

    This is definitely approaching it from the right angle–large immigration flows act like globalization. They improve overall average GDP but definitely hurt certain sectors of workers in ways that thus far in the experiment suggests that they never recover.

    I wonder about the effect of big city housing costs. They act as a barrier to moving to a better job. Is this something that we should be worried about as part of the immigration issue?

    ZM 12.21.16 at 6:15 am

    I think if you want to improve the economic inequality between countries, there are better ways than open borders. If the aim is to decrease economic inequality, you could make policies to reach this outcome that are more targeted than open borders, for example you could implement financial transfers between countries, or you could implement international minimum wages that could be phased in over 10-20-30 years, etc.

    If the other problem you want to address is mobility for people who want to immigrate for personal reasons, you can just improve the access to immigration within the normal migration system, and increase migration quotas in line with some sort of expectation of what a optimum maximum population would be within a set period.

    Also there is already a problem with gentrification in many cities, and associated issues of people having to move further away from family and friends, and not enough affordable housing, and homelessness - open borders would increase all these problems I would think as it would take out all the regulations. And we already have problems with people from poor countries or poor areas being under pressure to migrate for work and financial reasons, and open borders would exacerbate that problem as well.

    I think refugees need to be able to migrate the most urgently, but it would still be better for them that there were specific policies for refugee migration that would allow the high numbers of refugees to migrate to safety either temporarily or permanently, rather than open borders.

    Most of the bloggers here are not in favour of laissez faire free trade, so I don't see why open borders are favoured when "open trade" isn't?

    ZM 12.21.16 at 6:21 am ( 5 )

    Another thing is infrastructure, it would be difficult to forecast infrastructure needs if migration is unregulated. It would take several decades to settle into a sort of equilibrium and until then you couldn't do very good projections of future infrastructure needs. In Victoria we already have had population growth that has outpaced infrastructure, and there are big problems particularly with transport but also with other infrastructure needs.

    Chris Bertram 12.21.16 at 9:14 am

    I blogged about a bunch of work, including a draft version of the same paper by Kennan, a few years ago John:

    http://crookedtimber.org/2012/08/22/open-borders-wages-and-economists/

    reason 12.21.16 at 9:19 am ( 7 )

    I'm a bit suspicious that this sort of analysis suffers from large measurement biases.

    As an environmentalist, I'm concerned that we may be increasing a statistic (GDP) that is just a measure of an extent of how much higher a proportion of consumer is now being captured in the market, and not a measure of actual welfare. I remember very well as young economist wondering when I heard a more senior economists complaining that Australians didn't want to work but just wanted to lie about on the beach. And then I thought about how northern Europeans pay large amounts of money in order to be able to lie about on the beach.

    Maybe the beach occupying Australians were being rational and the economist was not being rational. Having more crowded beaches does not show as a minus on GDP as far as I know.

    reason 12.21.16 at 9:20 am P.S.

    GDP may also measure how rapidly our natural capital is being converted to perishable goods, but not measure how rapidly it is being eroded.

    Chris Bertram 12.21.16 at 9:34 am ( 9 )

    On the immigration surcharge thing, I can see its attractions as a policy, but let me just comment on it from the point of view of principle, not to advocate any particular solution but to notice some things:

    The surcharge is supposed to be a payment towards the existing infrastructure, from which the new entrants benefit. But native-born citizens, who benefit from the infrastructure built up by previous generations get the same benefit as a free gift! That already presupposes some quite strong claims about who is entitled to what, and who is entitled to exclude whom from access.

    (Adding in some plausible history, we might further note that the existing domestic infrastructure hasn't, in many cases, been built up simply from the unaided efforts of the ancestors of the natives but often reflects the efforts of the colonised or dominated ancestors of the would-be immigrants.)

    Then notice also another asymmetry, that the proposal is to charge the incomers for the benefits they derive from the infrastructure, whilst allowing the natives to benefit for free from human capital that has been created elsewhere through educational and training programmes. That issue, the so-called brain drain problem (I'm not a fan of the term or many of the associated claims btw) forms the basis for a quite different set of proposals for taxing immigrants, the so-called Bhagwati tax. So the poor migrants get hit by taxation proposals from both sides, as it were!

    reason 12.21.16 at 9:35 am

    P.P.S. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not totally against open borders in all circumstances (in fact in a fairly equal world with a stable population I would be all for it), but I see a distinct danger of very rapid immigration:
    1. In a world with a rapidly increasing population and a resource base coming under increasing stress it acting merely to spread misery faster and to stop experiments in sustainability.
    2. It undermining social and democratic structures.

    Tom Davies 12.21.16 at 9:42 am ( 11 )

    "Chang, who opposes open borders" "Currently a reader in the Political Economy of Development at the University of Cambridge"

    Open borders for me but not for thee?

    ZM 12.21.16 at 9:45 am Chris Bertram,

    "So the poor migrants get hit by taxation proposals from both sides, as it were!"

    Another issue with the tax is that it would make migration more difficult for lower income people who could't afford the tax. Countries like the UK are already targeting their migration intake to higher income earners where possible, and a tax would encourage that policy.

    I would rather make improve inequality between countries, and then experiment with freer migration after that. Since I think there would be less incentive to migrate if countries were more equal, and then freer migration would be more likely to run smoother.

    Tom Davies 12.21.16 at 9:46 am ( 13 )

    And (didn't see comment 7) - while yes, a surcharge isn't strictly fair, it is a far lesser evil than not letting immigrants in at all.

    I think it's plausible that remittances would more than make up for the investments home countries had made in 'their' immigrants.

    SamChevre 12.21.16 at 11:14 am

    On a surcharge–I proposed one years ago in the context of the proposed "amnesty," that I think avoids some of the problems Chris Bertram notes above.

    What if there were a minimum tax per immigrant per year, equal to the average taxes paid by citizens? This would be a "pay your share of current costs" tax, not an additional tax.

    For the US, it would be roughly $10,000 a year for the federal government (20% of per capita GDP)–and any taxes paid to the federal government (FICA and income tax) would be credits against it.

    Dipper 12.21.16 at 12:16 pm ( 15 )

    It is worth considering the world's economy as an engineering system that responds to forces placed upon it. One of the features of making migration difficult, through either bureaucratic or financial resistance, is that it dampens the response of the system to external forces. Open borders removes that damping and allows much faster response. Like most things in life, that has both good and bad consequences, but one of the consequences is the system becomes less stable.

    As an example, it is possible to get as many workers as you want into the UK within a few days. If you have a warehouse that needs staff they can be here from anywhere in the EU, all well educated, speaking English, with accommodation and ready to work. I'm not saying its a good or a bad thing. But its a thing that has consequences.

    One organisation that has resisted Open Borders is the Corbyn clique in the Labour Party. Entry into the employment opportunities within that sector of the economy appears to be only open to relatives, children of political allies, school mates and children of celebrity chums.

    BenK 12.21.16 at 1:50 pm '

    Not allowed to vote' is political smokescreen. If those people have for some reason not established voting in the country they currently live in, then yes, they haven't paid the price for liberty there. If they can, then they are voting – just not where they would apparently prefer to be voting.

    As for the productivity argument – as usual, political theorists underestimate the value of extended family and long term inter-family arrangements in creating 'social capital' for productivity and stability.

    Mobility has its place, and in a time when most Americans never went more than 25 miles from their birthplace during their entire lives an increase in mobility increased overall productivity. However, there are many reasons to believe that individual mobility is costing communities dearly in these present times; and that bad government and market oriented policies which are exacerbating the problem.

    William Meyer 12.21.16 at 2:46 pm ( 17 )

    A surcharge might be a useful approach. I will say, echoing Reason, that massive waves of immigration into a region change a lot of things, and not necessarily in ways that the natives would view as positive.

    I've lived in L.A. for the past 35 years, and during that time millions of immigrants have come into this metropolitan area. Traffic problems, noticeable in L.A. when I arrived in 1981 but something that could be reasonably dealt with, got much, worse.

    The public school system went from fair to actively problematic. In both cases, the problem was made much worse by lagging public investment, particularly in transportation systems.

    Maybe L.A. was uniquely dysfuntional politically, but I would suspect that most regions would see degradations in public goods in times of massive in-migration. The significant investment required for massive population growth will, in all likelihood, not be made, especially in a timely way, and the sort of planning that would actually be necessary for a pleasant transition to a more populous future seems likely to be beyond the capabilities of most cities, at least the ones I've lived in.

    The inevitable resulting problems will not endear the newcomers to the natives, even if those problems are solely the fault of the immigrants.

    William Meyer 12.21.16 at 2:48 pm

    Sorry, my mistake, the last sentence should read "even if those problems are NOT solely the fault of the immigrants.

    divelly 12.21.16 at 3:50 pm ( 19 )

    #7
    Reminds one of the old story of the Capitalist who berates the local for quitting fishing after catching enough for today's dinner so he can lay about playing guitar and drinking beer on the beach.

    "You should fish from dawn to dusk 7 days a week. Sell your surplus. Buy another fishing boat. Do this for 30 years."

    "What for?",asks the local.

    "So you can retire and lay about, play guitar and drink beer on the beach!"

    Omega Centauri 12.21.16 at 5:10 pm

    I think its a very difficult sale politically. But, you already know that.

    There also is the issue of potentially large scale population flows from less "productive" areas to more "productive" areas.

    We have this same issue within countries, such as rust belt to coastal cities in the US, and we've seen political consequences -Trump_vs_deep_state become ascendant.

    So in addition to the problems of infrastructure and gentrification on the recieving end of these net flows, we have issues in the regions that are being left-behind. Our current reactionary politics seems to be one of the consequences of this difficult issue.

    Chris Bertram 12.21.16 at 7:25 pm ( 21 )

    @divelly it is from Adam Smith, Theory of the Moral Sentiments, part 3, ch. 3 :

    "What the favourite of the king of Epirus said to his master, may be applied to men in all the ordinary situations of human life. When the King had recounted to him, in their proper order, all the conquests which he proposed to make, and had come to the last of them; And what does your Majesty propose to do then? said the Favourite.-I propose then, said the King, to enjoy myself with my friends, and endeavour to be good company over a bottle.-And what hinders your Majesty from doing so now? replied the Favourite."

    Stephen 12.21.16 at 8:10 pm

    Moral sentiments of less desirable people: I propose to enjoy myself by being revenged on and utterly destroying my enemies, and to be good company over the finest available bottle with those who dare not contradict me.

    Not my sentiments, not CB's but

    Matt 12.21.16 at 10:43 pm ( 23 )

    I think we should be extra skeptical of any paper that claims that the "economics of open borders" hasn't received "much" attention. Maybe not as much as many other things, and there may be some hedging about what, exactly, fits, but the economics of migration has received _lots_ of attention. In The US, the National Academy of Science did a huge study on it in the mid 80's, and updated it again just recently.

    Jagdish Bhagwati has written quite a bit on it, both popular and formal. George Borjas has written a lot on it (most of it not good, in my opinion, but a lot on it.) Lots and lots of people, including some very famous economist, have responded to Borjas. Paul Krugman has written on it. One of my mentors, Howard Chang, a lawyer-economist at Penn Law, has written a lot on it. Etc. So, already we know that there is something a bit fishy here.

    Next, this sort of thing typically assumes, for its strong conclusions, that everyone will move to where he or she will get the "highest" return for his or her skills. We know this is false, because it doesn't even happen within any particular country, where there are no restrictions, no "surcharge" to pay, and fewer cultural barriers. So, the gain will certainly be much smaller than is projected.

    I'd also suggest that this bit from John, Moreover, in a world where more than a billion people travel internationally each year, it's inevitable that vast numbers of people are going to have close relationships of all kinds with citizens of other countries. Restrictions on movements across borders impose costs on all those people ranging from minor to calamitous.

    Would need to be _much_ more rigorous to do any work. I travel quite a bit, yet unless "close relationships" means "people I know somewhat", this isn't true for me. Is it true for "vast" numbers of people? I'm not sure. It's too flabby to do work now. And, do we have in mind visits, temporary residence, permanent residence (with or without access to full membership?) Etc. There are really a huge number of details here, and the absolutely must be worked through, carefully, before you can say anything useful. I'm in favor of reducing most barriers to movement. But, the arguments, if they are to be any good, really do need some care.

    Chris Bertram 12.22.16 at 12:00 am

    I'm puzzled by your last paragraph Matt, given what I know about your work. I don't know how large a number has to be to be "vast", but the spouses separated from one another and the children separated from one parent by the UK's spousal visa income requirements already number in the 10s of 1000s. Add to that elderly dependent relatives who are separated from children, lone refugee children separated from family members in other countries. And then multiply all this separation by the number of countries that make things difficult for people. I think that probably adds up to a vast number of people in close relationships with others who are separated by border regimes and who are currently incurring costs that are often calamitous. Don't you?

    Matt 12.22.16 at 2:41 am ( 25 )

    Hi Chris – yes, the cases you mention are interesting and important ones. It goes a little way towards making John's too flabby to work statement a bit better. But even in these cases, it's important to work through what's wrong with the different examples. (This is what I try to do in my work, and it's why I'm annoyed by what seems to me to be handwaving that blurs and distorts more than it helps.) I would insist that "making this difficult" for people, or causing them to "incur costs" isn't a good way to think about these issues at all. (I will go see my parents for the first time in over a year next week. It will be difficult and I will incur may costs to do so. Nothing interesting follows from that at all, I think.) And, John's categories include may more than those you mention. What follows for them? Why are borders, and not other types of boundaries relevant here? (Suppose my best friend is admitted to Harvard and I am not. But I'd like to study with him! Is it unfair that I'm not allowed to? Why not?) There are answers here, but we'll not get at them from the approach in the post, I think, and especially not if we follow the approach in this paragraph. The issues need to be dug in to, even though that take time.

    (I might note that I've just finished a semi-popular short piece on thinking about immigration post-Trump and post-Brexit. I started it by thinking about some of your discussion of Joe Carens' book from a few years ago, and tried to think about reasonable strategies for working towards fairer immigration policies in our dark times. One thing I suggested was fighting against needlessly mean (in both senses of the word) restrictions like the too-high social support requirements for family members in the UK. So, I see that as a real problem. But, I don't think that helps rehabilitate the claims made, or suggested, in this paragraph. If and when the piece comes out, I'll send it to you.)

    John Quiggin 12.22.16 at 3:22 am

    Matt @24 It was an aside of course, but one that I didn't think needed a detailed exposition. The calamitous cases Chris mentions are well known, as is the fact that lots of people suffer no, or only trivial, problems of this kind. Rather than multipy such trivial examples as you do in @26, why not explain why you think the calamitous cases are rare, or need to be explained in detail?

    Faustusnotes 12.22.16 at 5:10 am ( 27 )

    Matts response is to glib. My own family was driven into poverty by separation in the 1980s and the long term pressures on all of us of that experience were huge. Yes nothing follows from that if you're a wealthy academic, but quite a lot follows from it if you're not.

    Dave 12.22.16 at 10:05 am

    I worry that "free movement of people" tends to have massive social costs that get swept under the rug when the issues are discussed in a purely economic framework.

    For most of human history, the vast majority of people lived in extended family groups in villages, towns, or temporary encampments where they knew their neighbors, had relatively small social worlds, and didn't travel more than a few days from home. Cities, as we know them, (and their accompanying social maladies) are really only two or three centuries old and post-industrial cities are an even newer phenomenon.

    What people in the urban professional class tend to forget, however, is that the old model of village life never went away . In truly rural or otherwise undeveloped areas, it's mostly stayed the same, and other cases it was remapped onto urban neighborhoods or desperately clung to in "small towns" that are, in fact, larger than most Medieval cities.

    Now, these people have a problem, which is that they'd very much like to maintain a traditional village lifestyle (well, some of them just want to escape or move to the city and get rich, but I'll get to that), but neither industrial nor post-industrial capitalism has had any patience for people who want to stay put. Industries and opportunities have concentrated in large urban agglomerations, but exactly which industries and which cities shifts every generation or two. Plants close down or move to other countries, higher education pulls millions of people far from home, entire fields of employment vanish or emerge from whole cloth and it's impossible to keep up. So, we as individuals can, at any time, be forced into a terrible dilemma. Either move away from the life you know and the people who keep you happy, healthy, safe, and sane, or forfeit your "optimal" career and some share of prosperity and human capital.

    Depending on what class you are, the values you hold, and what the costs and benefits of moving away really are, there may be no choice at all. Really, there are two kinds of migrants. There are the desperate, who migrate for negative reasons, and the ambitious, who do it for positive ones (with plenty of overlap) and only the latter is really making a choice as such. The outcomes are different too. Refugees and economic migrants occasionally become rich and successful, but usually they're just looking for security. Whereas people who move around a lot to get the best education and the best jobs, are often massively rewarded, but too many such people creates a culture of anomy and alienation where no one knows their neighbors and everyone seems to be from somewhere else.

    What's worse, the rootless urban professionals have money, which means they can buy or rent homes anywhere, displacing the old residents. This has a double whammy effect, not only do the neighborhoods get new people who don't quite fit in, but the old "villagers" get forced out (and in many cases become rootless transplants in some other town), so communities enter a state of perpetual social flux where there aren't enough old timers left to assimilate the new arrivals and the social fabric disintegrates as natural communities are replaced by a massive web of voluntary ones that often don't (especially if there's a class or language barrier) and leave some people with no community at all.

    I grew up in the Southern California suburbs in wake of the Sunbelt migrations and massive immigration from Latin America and had the utterly peculiar experience of being one of only a tiny fraction of the population whose grandparents (well, two of them) also grew up there. Growing up, it seemed like most of my teachers (and really a huge chunk of the professional class in general) were from either the East Coast or the Midwest and many of them had strange notions about what it meant to be Californian, having moved here for the sunshine or the surfing or the jobs or the "vibe" and more able to see the place as an ideal than a reality.

    People don't realize the extent to which generations of migration can isolate people from the land, but I saw it. People that luxuriantly watered their lawns despite the climate and planted gardens full of plants from all over the world while treating the native plants like weeds. The tragedy of people in brushfire country not even realizing that having wooden shingles is a bad idea. People mocking the native California accents, affecting them badly to fit in, or refusing to acknowledge that we had one at all (we have several). Or, take the baffling experience millions of California kids get this time of year where adults around them act like our Christmas is somehow "wrong" because there's no snow and we don't have a "real" winter.

    There was and is wanton disregard for tradition or the environment. The old growth oaks that once covered much of SoCal were cut down for wood and cattle land and now most people have no idea they were ever there, huge tracts of "empty" desert were flooded with saltwater when the Salton Sea was created, the LA river was turned into a storm drain, massive population increases and utterly unrestricted suburban sprawl has destroyed most of our wetlands and turned the Coastal Sage Scrub into one of the most threatened ecosystems on Earth. All that and CalTrans still plants invasive, flammable Eucalyptus by every freeway. These were largely the work of generations of short sighted, greedy migrants who didn't understand or value the land, but will be borne by generations to come. Our land is being paved, poisoned, and pumped dry and most people don't even see it because there aren't enough people around who still remember when it was any different.

    If open borders means that places all over the world start getting flooded with migrants and disrespected and debased the way Southern California has been, then I have no choice but to oppose it.

    reason 12.22.16 at 10:47 am ( 29 )

    A small point: – instead of adding additional taxes, one way to get the same net effect is to have a basic income with a long residency requirement for non-citizens.

    Matt 12.22.16 at 3:29 pm

    John – there is a lot of space between "not rare" and "vast", isn't there? That space needs to be looked at carefully, and not used as a hand-wave. That's my point.

    Faustunotes – I'm sorry to hear that. In published work, I've argued for strong rights for family migration schemes. Without knowing more about your situation (not that I'm asking for details now) I can't say more about, but, for example, the sorts of public support systems I've argued for (and that exist in many countries) can be easily met by lots of people – the US requires 125% of the poverty level for a family of the appropriate size, for example. That is arguably a top acceptable level.

    That meant that I was able to sponsor my wife when I was a grad student making $15,000 a year (in 2003), not at all a "wealthy academic". So, again, it's important to get the details right, to criticize particular cases, and not draw strong conclusions from hand-waving generalizations. Failing to do this won't lead to any good work.

    Chris Bertram 12.22.16 at 7:08 pm ( 31 )

    Matt, I think your quibbling with John on "vast numbers" is pretty silly here. You are an American, and the US is a continental power with a large population. Perhaps it is rare for Americans to have close relationships (let's set the bar at good friendships) with people outside the borders of their country. But many of us live in smaller countries and on continents with lots of borders. I think you'll find that when you tot up all the Europeans and Latin Americans with cross border relationships (to name but two continents) and add in all the people who belong to ethnicities that stretch across many borders, you'll get to a pretty high number.

    Think of the million Poles in the UK, for example, they will predictably have "close relationships" with people in Poland, and will British retirees in Spain with people in the UK, and Irish people in the UK with people living in Ireland .

    Alesis 12.22.16 at 8:55 pm

    The ever present struggle with taking the empirical body of knowledge on gains from migration and making it into policy is that the only salient objections to migration are decidedly non economic. Sure they pretend at an economic basis with admirable dedication to the act but the bottom line is even if you prove that net wages for every single individual would go up from migration it would till have exactly the same opponents you started with.

    WLGR 12.22.16 at 9:53 pm ( 33 )

    At this point I really, really have to emphasize the plug for John Smith's Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century because he addresses this kind of neoclassical boosterism more or less directly, from a leftist point of view.

    If he was reacting to this post Smith would zero in on the key premise underlying Kennan's model: the idea that global wage differentials inherently reflect global differences in the productivity of labor between nation-states, known as the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis. Kennan seems to handwave away the idea of actually defending it by deferring to "large bodies of evidence", evidence whose interpretation within a more-or-less standard neoclassical framework he takes as a given - although notice how he hedges his initial claims more carefully ("cross-country differences in income levels are associated with differences in productivity", and "large differences [in productivity] remain after adjusting for differences in physical and human capital endowments ", emphasis mine) before moving on to construct a model where "relative wages are used below to measure cross-country differences in labor efficiency", plain and simple. Nice trick!

    In any case, here's Smith:

    The North-South purchasing power anomaly is sometimes called the Penn effect, after the Penn World Table, which has gathered comparative price data from most countries in the world since 1950. This effect is inversely correlated with per-capita GDP; as Figure 5.2 (page 143) clearly shows, the poorer the nation, the bigger the gap. Mainstream neoclassical economics advances two chief explanations for this anomaly, the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis, which hinges on differences in labor productivity between rich and poor countries; and an alternative model, proposed by Jagdish Bhagwati, Irving Kravis, Richard Lipsey, and others, which claims to circumvent differences in labor productivity and accounts for the anomaly as the consequence of differences in "factor endowments," that is, the relative abundance of capital and labor in the two countries. Since their arguments are tautological, they arrive at the same conclusion. In the former approach, the relative productivity of labor and capital determines the demand for these two factors and, in conjunction with their supply, determines their equilibrium (market-clearing) prices. In the second approach, different factor endowments affect the supply and demand in markets for labor and capital, determining marginal productivities, so arriving at the other's starting point.

    According to both approaches, the purchasing power anomaly arises because of the low wages of workers providing services (for example, a bus journey or a haircut), resulting in the prices of these services being typically much lower in, say, Bangladesh than in Belgium. But equilibrium exchange rates do equalize the prices of internationally tradable goods-in other words, they assume that strong PPP holds in the tradable goods sector. Service sector wages are low in Bangladesh because wage levels in the service sector are determined by wage levels in the tradable goods sector. This occurs because labor is intersectorally mobile but not internationally mobile; in other words, workers can freely move between the tradable and non-tradable sectors within nations, equalizing wages between them, but cannot freely move across the borders between nations, especially those between hard-currency and soft-currency nations. it therefore turns out that the suppression of the free international movement of labor, the great exception to the principle of globalization and whose cardinal importance is stressed in this book, is also at the heart of the purchasing power anomaly.

    In sum, the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis says that the purchasing power anomaly results from the lack of correspondence between the similar levels of productivity of service workers in Belgium and Bangladesh and the vast differences in their wages. The contrary argument advanced here is that it is the oversupply of labor, not its productivity, that is the prime determinant of Southern wage levels. wages of service providers and incomes of petty entrepreneurs are kept low not by the paltry productivity of workers in the tradable goods sector, as mainstream theory has it, but by the destitution of a large part of the working population. This is why a haircut or a bus journey in Dhaka is so much cheaper than in Amsterdam, even though a pair of scissors or a bus may cost the same in both countries, and may even have come off the same production line. Furthermore, local capitalists are not the prime beneficiaries of the super-profits generated by this expanded employment of low-wage labor. Instead, intense competition among Southern exporters leaves them with only a minor share of the proceeds, the rest passed on to their Northern customers through ever-lower export prices. The purchasing power anomaly results not only or mainly from conditions in goods and Forex markets but is fundamentally the product of conditions in labor markets and in the sphere of production where this labor is put to work. The enormous growth in the relative surplus population combines with suppression of international labor mobility to exert a tremendous downward pressure on all wages and on the incomes of small producers, maintaining or widening still further the distance between real wages in the imperialist nations and in the Global South.

    In Smith's telling the suppression of international labor mobility is actually central to explaining not just global wage differentials perceived to result from differences in productivity, but also the data by which labor productivity between countries is measured in the first place. The neoclassicals' trick here is to take the international division of labor that emerges from what Smith calls "global labor arbitrage" (e.g. outsourcing) and remove it from their conceptual category of production altogether, instead regarding it through the lens of international trade as if workers on a factory floor were constantly "trading" their partially-assembled products to others further down the assembly line. Here's Smith again:

    Statistics on labor productivity, obtained by dividing the value added of a firm, industrial sector, or nation by its total workforce, are highly deceptive. Much of the alleged increase in labor productivity in the imperialist nations is an artifact resulting from the outsourcing of low value-added, labor-intensive production processes to low-wage countries. As Susan Houseman has argued, "when manufacturers outsource or offshore work, labor productivity increases directly because the outsourced or offshored labor used to produce the product is no longer employed in the manufacturing sector and hence is not counted in the denominator of the labor productivity equation." This is extremely important, because "the rate of productivity growth in U.S. manufacturing increased in the mid-1990s, greatly outpacing that in the services sector and accounting for most of the overall productivity growth in the U.S. economy." Thus she argues, "To the extent that offshoring is an important source of measured productivity growth in the economy, productivity statistics will, in part, be capturing cost savings or gains to trade but not improvements in the output of American labor." Houseman believes this solves "one of the great puzzles of the American economy in recent years the fact that large productivity gains have not broadly benefited workers in the form of higher wages. Productivity improvements that result from offshoring may largely measure cost savings, not improvements to output per hour worked by American labor."

    Thus, when a firm outsources labor-intensive production processes, the productivity of the workers who remain in its employment rises, even though nothing about their specific labor has changed. Outsourcing therefore has what might be called a "ventriloquist effect" on measures of productivity. But this only scratches the surface of the productivity paradox. Labor-intensive production processes are practically synonymous with low value-added production processes, yet the more labor-intensive it is, that is, the larger living labor is relative to dead labor, the greater is its contribution to value and surplus value-but much of this is captured by capital-intensive capitals, showing up as a much higher value added per worker.

    John Quiggin 12.22.16 at 11:17 pm

    @Dave You are arguing against internal freedom of movement. Do you support systems of internal passports, as in the Soviet Union or the hukou system in China?

    John Quiggin 12.23.16 at 3:14 am

    WLGR: I'll look for this book. But on an initial reading of your first quotation, it seems to me that Smith is just restating the factor endowment model. What does "surplus labor" mean, if not a high ratio of labor to capital? Does he spell out the distinction somewhere else?

    ZM 12.23.16 at 3:26 am

    John Quiggin,

    China has a very large population, hukou is problematic and has some undesirable impacts, but China needs to get all the provinces and cities more equal before they can change the hukou system. At the moment the inequality between provinces and cities in China is very very great compared to inequality between States and cities in Australia.

    ZM 12.23.16 at 3:27 am ( 37 )

    Although inequality has decreased as more people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 10-20 years.

    Dave 12.23.16 at 6:06 am

    @ John Quiggin 34

    That's a very good question and it does show why one should always consider the full ramifications of ones' arguments. I would say that policies against internal migration are not limited to Communist dictatorships - that's what serfdom was, after all. I'm enough of a liberal to find that sort of thing oppressive, but I do think it had a certain social utility (of course, letting people move and travel has advantages too).

    It's not exactly freedom of movement I'm arguing against so much as the notion that population centers have an essentially unlimited ability to absorb newcomers. From 18th Century Manchester to the American West to exploding Chinese industrial cities today, boom towns are notorious for their environmental devastation and social dysfunction.

    Even in a modern era where resource extraction and heavy industry are less dominant economic drivers than they once were, the combination of free movement of capital and free movement of labor is a consistent recipe for explosive, unplanned, and unsustainable growth in whatever areas are deemed economically valuable. The boom bust cycle of capitalism maps onto the landscape itself and the effects for both the natives and the newcomers can be devastating.

    What I would argue though is that free movement of people is a problem only insofar as there is free movement of capital. You won't have millions of people flood a region if that region hasn't already been flooded with millions of jobs. This would require a new international regulatory framework to put the brakes on massive industrial and commercial development and a rejection of the current extreme growth bias in economic thought. In effect, I think that it should be businesses that have to apply for those permits or internal passports, rather than individuals.

    Many municipalities already do this through the use of building permits, but their efforts are compromised by an imperative to expand their tax base and competition between municipalities that gravely limits their effective bargaining power. In a free trade, open borders world, I can see the same thing happening at the national scale, forcing whole countries to compete with one another for jobs and labor and hastening the rate of neo-colonial resource plundering.

    My worst case scenario is something like this. Lets say a fairly small - but not necessarily tiny - country like Uruguay adopts global open borders. A little while later, they make the shocking discovery that they're sitting on some of the largest reserves of, oh let's say, rare earth metals in the world.

    Now, these metals are incredibly valuable so getting the capital to open mines and ore processing centers isn't a problem, the bigger issue is that Uruguay only has 3.4 million people, most of whom already have jobs, so the tens of thousands of employees needed to build the new mining industry will mostly be coming from elsewhere (or the mining companies will start by hiring Uruguayanos, but then they'll need migrants to fill the jobs the natives vacated). It doesn't stop there though, because the great new mining industry will produce secondary industries such as cell phone manufacturing, service jobs for the growing population, construction jobs to expand the national infrastructure, and on and on and on. These jobs bring in new migrants, who help grow the economy, and attract new migrants in a feedback loop that only ends when the bubble bursts or wages collapse.

    How big does Uruguay get before the boom goes bust? Does it double in size? Triple? Does Montevideo become one of the biggest cities in South America, with sprawling, polluted, slums to match? What happens to the reasonably stable, reasonably prosperous, reasonably progressive little country that was there before? Would Uruguay still be Uruguay at that point?

    These are the things I worry about.

    hix 12.23.16 at 7:14 am ( 39 )

    Poor former farmers that move to big cities typically wont drive cars, wont handle big industrial manichery and will only heat /cool tiny living spaces. So they are probably not a significant factor for the environmental issues in say big Chinese cities.

    Neville Morley 12.23.16 at 7:39 am

    @Dave #28:

    "Cities as we know them (and their accompanying social maladies) are really only two or three centuries old".

    No. Ancient Rome had a population of 750,000-1,000,000, based almost entirely on migrants, and more than large enough to create any number of social maladies; at least five other cities in Mediterranean with populations in the hundreds of thousands; series of cities in China with populations similar to Rome.

    Evidence suggests significant levels of mobility, not just for elite. I don't think this necessarily has any bearing on the modern situation (capitalism, technology, yadda yadda), but certainly the historical evidence doesn't support your implied "large-scale migration is unnatural" thesis.

    Igor Belanov 12.23.16 at 7:58 am ( 41 )

    Dave @ 38

    "Would Uruguay still be Uruguay at that point?"

    What a daft question. When did the 'model' Uruguay exist, the one that we are supposed to preserve for all eternity? Now? Before the Uruguayan nation-state was formed? Before Columbus?

    The irony is that the effort needed to prevent change would in all likelihood just lead to other changes of a more dysfunctional nature.

    engels 12.23.16 at 12:21 pm

    OT and possibly an ignorant question but does anyone know of any meaningful national or cultural difference between Uruguay and Argentina?

    bob mcmanus 12.23.16 at 12:27 pm ( 43 )

    Factor endowments equals they have poor people for cheap labor and we have rich people who create, consume and finance and the origins of the difference is like shrouded in mystery?

    John Smith of WLGR is Marxian. Apples profits are generated by the workers at Foxconn in China, not the designers in San Jose. The surplus accruing to intellectual property is mostly a product of past and present Imperialism.

    Matt 12.23.16 at 1:30 pm

    Chris – maybe it's silly, but, if my work on immigration has tried to show anything at all, it's that to make a contribution on the subject, it's important to get the facts right, not make assumptions about movement we know are not true (people will move to where they get the best return on their skills, etc.), not assume away other difficulties, and not blur cases together through hand-waiving ("vast numbers", "relationships", etc.) All of that's done here, and even more so in the paper under discussion. I find it really annoying. Maybe I shouldn't let it bother me, but it seems to me to be typical "assume a can-opener" level of discussion, at the very best, and not helpful.

    By the way, at least according to Wikipedia, there are 830,000 Poles in the UK_ so well south of a million still. It's a lot, but, lots less than, say, the 2.9 million Russian-born people in the US, a population I'm very familiar with, so I don't really need the lecture here.

    Dave 12.23.16 at 2:03 pm ( 45 )

    @ Neville 40

    You're right, of course. I recognize now that my argument was a bit fuzzy and verges into begging the question ("Modern cities, as I've chosen to define them, only existed under capitalism, therefore urban dysfunction is all capitalism's fault, QED, etc."). "Bigger than Cleveland" is not a universal definition of what a city is and I shouldn't have treated it as one.

    I'm not trying to say massive migration was unnatural though. I'm of the opinion that anything humans do is natural, if that helps. Nor do I think migration, even of the large-scale variety is wrong , but rather that it can be immensely harmful if there are no systems in place to mitigate its social and environmental effects. So discussing policy that would tear down all political barriers to migration as if it were mainly an issue of wages and productivity struck me as reductive. Even on purely economic terms, the way migration contributes to urban sprawl outpacing infrastructure is a huge issue that I frequently see overlooked.

    @Igor 41:

    I'm not arguing against change, but rather change that comes so quickly it creates a schism between the past and the present. The Gold Rush changed California from predominantly Spanish-speaking to majority Anglo in just a few years (and also killed tens of thousands of Indians in the process), so even if a place still has the same name following migration, it might not be pronounced the same way.

    engels 12.23.16 at 3:32 pm

    Also would be interesting to see numbers on marriages to foreign nationals by country-a quick google didn't turn it up.

    Chris Bertram 12.23.16 at 4:26 pm ( 47 )

    @engels – pretty sure that this is because the stats don't exist for many countries. The British government simply has no idea how many of its nationals are married to EU nationals (at least for England and Wales, there may be some record-keeping in Scotland).

    engels 12.23.16 at 6:55 pm

    Chris, that makes sense-there's a bit about estimates here though:
    http://www.economist.com/node/21538103

    Dipper 12.23.16 at 7:36 pm ( 49 )

    @47. The UK has no idea how many EU citizens are here full stop. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia.

    The 2001 UK Census recorded 36,555 Portuguese-born people resident in the UK. More recent estimates by the Office for National Statistics put the figure at 107,000 in 2013. The 2011 Census recorded 88,161 Portuguese-born residents in England and Wales. The censuses of Scotland and Northern Ireland recorded 1,908 and 1,996 Portuguese-born residents respectively. Other sources estimate the Portuguese community to be larger, with the editor of a Portuguese-language newspaper putting the number of Portuguese passport holders in London alone at 350,000. According to academics José Carlos Pina Almeida and David Corkill, writing in 2010, estimates of the Portuguese population of the UK range from 80,000 to 700,000.

    I mention it because informal information from someone at the embassy puts the number closer to 1 million. Many of them well have been born here. But nevertheless the point is that the estimates are all over the place.

    Again, its not necessarily a good or a bad thing, but as a scientist with a bit of a measurement fixation I find the fact that no-one has any idea to be quite disturbing.

    engels 12.23.16 at 8:31 pm

    E.g. on US vs Europe:

    [Dec 23, 2016] This is the time for stronger, more interventionist in internal policy state and the suppression of financial oligarchy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Democratic party under Bill Clinton became yet another neoliberal party (soft neoliberals) and betrayed both organized labour and middle class in favour of financial oligarchy. ..."
    "... The cynical calculation was that "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrats anyway. And that was true up to and including election of "change we can believe in" guy. After this attempt of yet another Clinton-style "bait and switch" trick failed. ..."
    "... Now it is clear that far right picked up large part of those votes. So in a way Bill Clinton is the godfather of the US far right renaissances. The same is true for Hillary: her "kick the can down the road" stance made victory of Trump possible (although it surprised me; I expected that neoliberals were still strong enough to push their candidate down the US people throat) ..."
    "... Under "democrat" Obama the USA pursued imperial policy of creating global neoliberal empire. The foreign policy remained essentially unchanged. Neocons were partially replaced with "liberal interventionists" which is the same staff in a different bottle. This policy costs the US tremendous amount of money and it is probable that the US is going the way British empire went -- overextending itself. ..."
    "... Regional currency blocks are now a reality and arrangements bypass the usage of US dollar if international trade are common. They are now in place between several large countries such as Russia and China and absolutely nothing can reverse this trend. So dollar became virtualized -- a kind of "conversion gauge" but without profits for real conversion national currency to dollars for major TBTF banks. ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fed C. Dobbs : , December 23, 2016 at 02:16 PM
    (So, how long will the
    post-inaugural honeymoon last?
    I'd give it no more than a month.
    Then what? I dunno, but nothing good.)

    Reality TV Populism
    http://nyti.ms/2i72Rol
    NYT - Paul Krugman - Dec 23

    This Washington Post article on Poland - where a right-wing, anti-intellectual, nativist party now rules, and has garnered a lot of public support - is chilling for those of us who worry that Trump_vs_deep_state may really be the end of the road for US democracy. The supporters of Law and Justice clearly looked a lot like Trump's white working class enthusiasts; so are we headed down the same path?

    (In Poland, a window on what happens when
    populists come to power http://wpo.st/aHJO2
    Washington Post - Anthony Faiola - December 18)

    Well, there's an important difference - a bit of American exceptionalism, if you like. Europe's populist parties are actually populist; they pursue policies that really do help workers, as long as those workers are the right color and ethnicity. As someone put it, they're selling a herrenvolk welfare state. Law and Justice has raised minimum wages and reduced the retirement age; France's National Front advocates the same things.

    Trump, however, is different. He said lots of things on the campaign trail, but his personnel choices indicate that in practice he's going to be a standard hard-line economic-right Republican. His Congressional allies are revving up to dismantle Obamacare, privatize Medicare, and raise the retirement age. His pick for Labor Secretary is a fast-food tycoon who loathes minimum wage hikes. And his pick for top economic advisor is the king of trickle-down.

    So in what sense is Trump a populist? Basically, he plays one on TV - he claims to stand for the common man, disparages elites, trashes political correctness; but it's all for show. When it comes to substance, he's pro-elite all the way.

    It's infuriating and dismaying that he managed to get away with this in the election. But that was all big talk. What happens when reality begins to hit? Repealing Obamacare will inflict huge harm on precisely the people who were most enthusiastic Trump supporters - people who somehow believed that their benefits would be left intact. What happens when they realize their mistake?

    I wish I were confident in a coming moment of truth. I'm not. Given history, what we can count on is a massive effort to spin the coming working-class devastation as somehow being the fault of liberals, and for all I know it might work. (Think of how Britain's Tories managed to shift blame for austerity onto Labour's mythical fiscal irresponsibility.) But there is certainly an opportunity for Democrats coming.

    And the indicated political strategy is clear: make Trump and company own all the hardship they're about to inflict. No cooperation in devising an Obamacare replacement; no votes for Medicare privatization and increasing the retirement age. No bipartisan cover for the end of the TV illusion and the coming of plain old, ugly reality.

    anne -> Fed C. Dobbs... , December 23, 2016 at 02:23 PM
    Correcting the date:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/reality-tv-populism/

    December 19, 2016

    Reality TV Populism
    By Paul Krugman

    likbez : , -1
    Two points:

    Point 1:

    Democratic party under Bill Clinton became yet another neoliberal party (soft neoliberals) and betrayed both organized labour and middle class in favour of financial oligarchy.

    The cynical calculation was that "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrats anyway. And that was true up to and including election of "change we can believe in" guy. After this attempt of yet another Clinton-style "bait and switch" trick failed.

    Now it is clear that far right picked up large part of those votes. So in a way Bill Clinton is the godfather of the US far right renaissances. The same is true for Hillary: her "kick the can down the road" stance made victory of Trump possible (although it surprised me; I expected that neoliberals were still strong enough to push their candidate down the US people throat)

    Point 2:

    Under "democrat" Obama the USA pursued imperial policy of creating global neoliberal empire. The foreign policy remained essentially unchanged. Neocons were partially replaced with "liberal interventionists" which is the same staff in a different bottle. This policy costs the US tremendous amount of money and it is probable that the US is going the way British empire went -- overextending itself.

    Regional currency blocks are now a reality and arrangements bypass the usage of US dollar if international trade are common. They are now in place between several large countries such as Russia and China and absolutely nothing can reverse this trend. So dollar became virtualized -- a kind of "conversion gauge" but without profits for real conversion national currency to dollars for major TBTF banks.

    So if we think about Iraq war as the way to prevent to use euro as alternative to dollar in oil sales that goal was not achieved and all blood and treasure were wasted.

    In this sense it would be difficult to Trump to continue with "bastard neoliberalism" both in foreign policy and domestically and betray his election promises because they reflected real problems facing the USA and are the cornerstone of his political support.

    Also in this case neocons establishment will simply get rid of him one way or the other. I hope that he understand this danger and will avoid trimming Social Security.

    Returning to Democratic Party betrayal of interests of labour, Krugman hissy fit signifies that he does not understand the current political situation. Neoliberal wing of Democratic Party is now bankrupt both morally and politically. Trump election was the last nail into Bill Clinton political legacy coffin.

    Now we returned to essentially the same political process that took place after the Great Depression, with much weaker political leaders, this time. So this is the time for stronger, more interventionist in internal policy state and the suppression of financial oligarchy. If Trump does not understand this he is probably doomed and will not last long.

    That's why I think Trump inspired far right renaissance will continue and the political role of military might dramatically increase. And politically Trump is the hostage of this renaissance. Flint appointment in this sense is just the first swallow of increased role of military leaders in government.

    [Dec 23, 2016] What would be Trump's biggest mistake

    Notable quotes:
    "... the newly elected US president, Donald Trump, is a big question mark, especially concerning the US foreign policy. First of all, we must not forget that Trump is part of the US plutocracy, therefore, he will seek to defend the interests of his class, no matter how much the Right-Wing fanatics want to present him as an 'anti-establishment' figure. ..."
    "... The only hope we have, is that Trump will reject the neocon policy and try to build a different relation with the oncoming rival economic alliance of BRICS, based on mutual benefits for both the developing countries and the West. ..."
    "... We have to assume, of course, a very ideal situation in which Trump will be capable to surpass the pressure of the warmongering neocons and the deep state who run the US empire for decades, in contrast with Hillary Clinton, who would be more than willing to apply their agenda. ..."
    "... The US is using the dollar superiority to retain its vast military expenses, conduct wars and secure oil reserves. It feels that it must confront the Chinese economic expansionism, otherwise dollar monopoly will break and a vicious circle will start in which the US declining empire will be finding more and more difficult to be the number one global power. ..."
    "... Well, it seems that Donald is following such an approach! He appears to be conciliatory concerning Putin, but continuously provokes the Chinese! ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    As John Pilger describes in his new documentary The Coming War on China , the "threat of China" is becoming big news. The media is beating the drums of war, as the world is being primed to regard China as the new enemy. What is not news, is that China itself is under threat. A quick look at the map of the American military bases in Asia-Pacific, is adequate for someone to understand that they form a giant noose, encircling China with missiles, bombers, warships.
    It is quite clear that the Western plutocracy is changing the agenda because it sees that the Sino-Russian alliance is trying to build an independent block which could become a serious threat against the dollar domination, and therefore, the neoliberal model, through which the elites are hoping to establish their global supremacy.
    Many support that the newly elected US president, Donald Trump, is a big question mark, especially concerning the US foreign policy. First of all, we must not forget that Trump is part of the US plutocracy, therefore, he will seek to defend the interests of his class, no matter how much the Right-Wing fanatics want to present him as an 'anti-establishment' figure.
    You don't need to go too far on this. Just take a look at those who has appointed in key positions to run the economy and you will understand that Trump will not only do 'business as usual', but indeed, he will seek to secure the domination of the plutocracy, by expanding the destructive neoliberal agenda against the interests of the US working class.
    The only hope we have, is that Trump will reject the neocon policy and try to build a different relation with the oncoming rival economic alliance of BRICS, based on mutual benefits for both the developing countries and the West.

    We have to assume, of course, a very ideal situation in which Trump will be capable to surpass the pressure of the warmongering neocons and the deep state who run the US empire for decades, in contrast with Hillary Clinton, who would be more than willing to apply their agenda.
    While it seems that, he does want a smooth re-approach with Russia, the signals he sends concerning China, long before he get elected, are not to be taken as a conciliatory approach, without doubt.
    The US is using the dollar superiority to retain its vast military expenses, conduct wars and secure oil reserves. It feels that it must confront the Chinese economic expansionism, otherwise dollar monopoly will break and a vicious circle will start in which the US declining empire will be finding more and more difficult to be the number one global power.
    What would be the 'right approach' for the neocons who are running out of time in this brutal race? It would be, probably, to focus primarily on China, which is indeed the biggest economic threat, but doesn't have the military power (like Russia) to confront the US. A scenario would be that the US starts a war that ends quickly, changes the regime in China, put its puppet, and probably, break China (as they want to do with Russia), using disputed provinces as a pretext (e.g. Tibet, Xinjiang). Having also encircled Russia from Europe, the US will bet on the fact that the Russians will not react, as they will be occupied to maintain forces on their Western borders.
    Well, it seems that Donald is following such an approach! He appears to be conciliatory concerning Putin, but continuously provokes the Chinese! Everything shows that Trump is determined to continue the Obama 'Pivot to Asia' anti-China legacy, but this would be also his biggest mistake.
    Forget for a moment that the Chinese continuously upgrade their military forces, as well as, their nuclear arsenal, partly because of the stupid neocon policy, adopted by Obama, that makes them feel directly threatened and quite nervous. Forget that in the area there is a North Korea that no one knows what it can do and how far it will go with its nukes, if only would "smell" a coalition of US-led forces that are about to operate close to its territory.
    If Trump thinks that Putin will sit back and watch this happening, he is completely mistaken. Apart from the fact that Russia and China are committed by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which is expanding on security and defence issues , Putin knows that, if China falls, Russia will be next. Therefore, it would be a major mistake for Trump to obey to the lunatic neocon plans because the gates of hell towards WWIII will be opened for good.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Russian Hacking The CIA Never Lies Information Clearing House - ICH

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    There certainly are experts in the field who should know about the alleged hacking, but they are not allowed to disrupt mainstream media's Russophobe frenzy. Bet you never saw William Binney on mainstream media. Who is Binney? He is the guy who put together the NSA's elaborate worldwide surveillance system. He has publicly stated on alternative news sites, that if something was "hacked", the NSA would instantly know who, when, and whether the info was passed on to another party. He designed the system. He argues, there was no hacking for that very reason. Binney insists the e-mails had to have been leaked by an "insider" who had access to the data. Never heard him on mainstream media huh? Next comes Craig Murray a former US Ambassador who claims he knows who leaked the e-mails, because he met with the individual in Washington D.C. Never heard him on mainstream media either huh? Finally, Julian Assange, the man who released the e-mails. He insisted all along he never got the e-mails from Russia. Another no show on mainstream media. Whatever happened to the journalistic adage of going to the source? Assange is the source, but no mainstream media journalist, and I use the term very loosely, has ventured to speak with him. The accusation has been repeated countless times, without any evidence, or consulting with any of the above three experts.

    Because the big lie has been repeated so many times by corporate media, about half of the US public, according to a recent poll, believes Russia interfered, even though there is not a bit of evidence to support it. Once again they take the bait; hook, line, and sinker.

    For believers of Russian hacking, I offer the following analogy. It might, but I doubt it will help, because you cannot undo the effect of propaganda. You are put on trial for murder that you did not commit. The prosecutor and judge simply say they have reached a "consensus view", the phrase offered by intelligence agencies, that you committed the murder and are guilty. You ask for proof. They offer none. They just keep repeating that you did it. You challenge and ask how do you know I did it? Answer: we have anonymous sources, but we cannot tell you who they are, nor can we show you proof.

    Just as in the fake run-up to the Iraq war, the expert voices of the opposition are not tolerated on mainstream media. Do these folks really want a war with Russia? Are they so upset with Trump's pronouncement that he wanted better relations with Russia? What sane person would not? Hmmm.

    It appears there is a war already raging between the Russophobes, who do not want better relations with Russia, and are doing their best to smear and demonize Putin, and those who do. This is the same tactic used with Manuel Noriega of Panama, Muarmar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein, before they made war on all three. Demonize, then make war.

    Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on those who buy into propaganda without any proof.

    Think about it and use a little logic.

    jim james · 1 day ago
    The oddity of the above author's first paragraph is that the CIA was not lying in 2001-03. The CIA said Iraq/Saddam had no wmds.

    In fact, if you lived through it then perhaps you recall the words cherry-picking and stove-piped intel. Now, I understand he's CIA so there's no reason to believe them, but ask Larry Johnson (I know, great name for CIA).

    Fitzhenrymac 125p · 22 hours ago
    Actually he didn't mention the CIA in the first paragraph. However in late 2002 CIA director George Tenet and United States Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited attempts by Hussein to obtain uranium from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee using intelligence Italy, Britain, and France.

    Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the UN Security Council, judging them counterfeit but the CIA while having suspicions, largely kept them to themselves.

    guest01 · 18 hours ago
    The author of the above article, Joe Clifford is referring to what CIA Chief George Tenet who represented US intelligence, said: it was "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD. Tenet was quoted over and over again by Bush-Dick regime to justify US war against Iraq. After Tenet said those words, CIA neither contradicted him nor corrected him which meant that they went along with the "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD. Tenet, representing US intelligence, even sat quietly behind Powell at the UNSC when Powell was spewing his lies about Iraq's nonexistent WMD.
    tictac · 23 hours ago
    Not only to officials repeat false assertions over and over, but those who hear the falsities, themselves start repeating them. The more outrageous, the more they are repeated.
    Rampart · 21 hours ago
    Fool me once, shame on you,. Fool me twice, .....we won't get fooled agin.
    GW
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    Yeah right, in the CIA's (very bad) dreams maybe, the people will not be fooled. But this isn't a CIA nightmare, on the contrary.
    fantelius 67p · 19 hours ago
    Even Trump doesn't believe in or trust the CIA Why should anyone else?
    See: Presidential Proof of Governmental Distrust https://systemhumanity.com/2016/12/23/presidentia...
    OSIKA · 19 hours ago
    You forgot former Yugoslavia.There they "sharpened "their tools.They "demonized" that country,demonized their President,trained and financed those local soldiers and then destroyed that country while "peace making".Filthy BASTARDS.And you people call USA a decent country?They lied when they created that country and still their mouths and deeds are full of lies,murder and plunder.And their Churches are cheer leaders in that endeavour yet they will proclaim even this Christmas "Peace to the world" while they will plot more of the same.They preach one thing but their actions are totally opposite.They leave wrecked countries behind them and those people end up feeding from containers.I hope that they choke on that stolen turkey.
    romanaorfred · 17 hours ago
    I would still plead with our grassroots hero Tom Feely to discontinue the sensationalistic, emotonal pandering photos on the front page of ICH.

    I much prefer the old text styled front page of ICH -sans pictures - leave the focus on quality content - not hype.

    We could do without the bad memory of Hillary and Obama pics.

    uphill · 11 hours ago
    ditto
    Schlüter 84p · 17 hours ago
    „Media, Independent and Mainstream: Fake News and Fake Narratives": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/media-i...
    &
    „US Allegations Against Russia: Hold the Thief! (in addition to the previous post)": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/us-alle...
    ignasi orobitg gene · 15 hours ago
    Truth is the first love of Freedom.
    Truth answers all questions.
    No dream of freedom is possible by listening to lies
    coldish1 42p · 14 hours ago
    Craig Murray was not a US ambassador. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004.
    Fired Up · 11 hours ago
    The counter tactic for the "big lie" is the "big truth." Ordinary people have access to e-mail, social media and website comments. No secret organization is needed. Just make counter-bullturdism part of your personal routine.
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    This takes time. Most people invest little thought into the news they digest. Quite often, news (or "news") is not even digested at all, just internalised. They know this. The CIA, th eDNC, all of them. They rely on public apathy to survive.
    FrankZ · 8 hours ago
    This the the lie the liberals love just like Iraq's wmd was the lie so dear to the conservatives. It's sickening the way these partisan idiots are so easily manipulated.
    LRE · 6 hours ago
    It doesn't matter who hacked the emails one bit! That right there is the point the powers that be want us to argue about endlessly, because it draws attention away from what actually matters: What matters is that the emails revealed the truth about the democratic party, and that they rigged their primaries. What matters is that the press did not reveal this and since the reveal, they have been trying to distract people from the truth. It is the press and the Democratic party that were influencing the 2016 election by lying and cheating, not the Russians or whoever hacked the email.
    chrisgoodwin 60p · 4 hours ago
    The e-mails were not hacked: they were leaked. Every time anyone refers to the "hacked" e-mails, it raises the question "Who dunnit ?" This is a wild goose chase. The e-mails were leaked by a disgusted insider.
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    The contents of the leaks/hacks were almost never claimed to be false. Even the very faint cries of "the e-mails were doctored" eventually died out. Nobody has stepped in to claim that the information was false since. This means that all Wikileaks revealed was true. Whoever was responsible for providing this information has done a very valuable public service. Yes, even if it (somehow) was the Russians. To deny that the leak/hack was beneficial to the public is insane.

    Not that we didn't know beforehand that the CIA are quite crazy, but still. I would at least have expected them to welcome this 4th detente. I mean, they have thus far shown that their intelligence gathering efforts in Russia are laughably bad. Do they not want some respite form the humiliation? It would at least be good PR.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Has The CIA Been Politicized

    Notable quotes:
    "... The use of the term, however, rather naïvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed. ..."
    "... Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers. ..."
    "... Does the organization depend on taxpayer funding for a substantial amount of its budget? ..."
    "... Does the organization engage in what would be illegal activities were it not for protective government legislation? ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    Anonymous leakers at the CIA continue to make claims about Russia and the 2016 election. In response to demands to provide evidence, the CIA has declined to offer any, refusing to meet with Congressional intelligence committees, and refusing to issue any documents offering evidence. Instead, the CIA, communicating via leaks, simply says the equivalent of "trust us."

    Not troubled by the lack of evidence, many in the media and in the Democratic party have been repeating unsubstantiated CIA claims as fact.

    Of course, as I've noted before , the history of CIA intelligence is largely a history of missing the forest for the trees. Sometimes, the failures have been spectacular.

    One of the questions that immediately arises in the media in situations like these, however, is " has the CIA been politicized ?"

    When used in this way, the term "politicized" means that the CIA is involved in helping or hurting specific political factions (e,g., specific ideological groups, pressure groups, or presidential administrations) in order to strengthen the CIA's financial or political standing.

    All Government Agencies Are Politicized

    The use of the term, however, rather naïvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed.

    Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers.

    This idea might seem plausible to school children in junior-high-school civics classes, but not to anyone who lives in the real world.

    In fact, if we wish to ascertain whether or not an institution or organization is "politicized" we can simply ask ourselves a few questions:

    If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then you are probably dealing with a politicized organization. If the answer to all of these questions is "yes" - as is the case with the CIA - then you're definitely dealing with a very politicized organization. (Other "non-political" organizations that fall well within this criteria as well include so-called "private" organizations such as the Federal Reserve System and Fannie Mae.)

    So, it has always been foolish to ask ourselves if the CIA is "politicized" since the answer is obviously "yes" for anyone who is paying attention.

    Nevertheless, the myth that the CIA and agencies like it can be non-political continues to endure, although in many cases, the charge has produced numerous helpful historical analysis of just how politicized the CIA has been in practice.

    Recent Narratives on CIA Politicization

    Stories of CIA politicization take at least two forms: One type consists of anti-CIA writers attempting to illustrate how the CIA acts to manipulate political actors to achieve its own political ends. The other type consists of pro-CIA writers attempting to cast the CIA as an innocent victim of manipulation by senior Washington officials.

    Of course, it doesn't matter whether the provenance of CIA politicking comes from within the agency or outside it. In both cases, the fact remains that the Agency is a tool for political actors to deceive, manipulate, and attack political enemies.

    With CIA leaks apparently attempting to call the integrity of the 2016 election into question, the CIA is once again being accused of politicization. Consequently, articles in the Washington Times , the Daily Caller , and The Intercept all question the CIA's motivation and present numerous examples of the Agency's history of deception.

    The current controversy is hardly the first time the Agency has been accused of being political, and during the build up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, for example, the CIA worked with the Bush Administration to essentially manufacture "intelligence."

    In his book Failure of Intelligence , Melvin Allan Goodman writes:

    Three years after the invasion of Iraq, a senior CIA analyst, Paul Pillar, documented the efforts of the Bush administration to politicize the intelligence of the CIA on Iraqi WMD and so-called links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Pillar accused the Bush administration of using policy to drive intelligence production, which was the same argument offered by the chief of British intelligence in the Downing Street memorandum prior to the war, and aggressively using intelligence to win public support for the decision to go to war....Pillar does not explain why no senior CIA official protested, let alone resigned in the wake of the president's misuse of intelligence on Iraq's so-called efforts to obtain uranium ore in Africa. Pillar falsely claimed "for the most part, the intelligence community's own substantive judgments do not appear to have been compromised," when it was clear that the CIA wa wrong on every conclusion and had to politicize the intelligence to be so egregiously wrong."

    Since then, CIA officials have attempted to rehabilitate the agency by claiming the agency was the hapless victim of the Administration. But, as Goodman notes, we heard no protests from the Agency when such protests would have actually mattered, and the fact is the Agency was easily used for political ends. Whether or not some agents wanted to participate in assisting the Bush administration with trumping up evidence against Iraq remains irrelevant. The fact remains the CIA did it.

    Moreover, according to documents compiled by John Prados at the George Washington University , "The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported" and that "Under the circumstances, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the CIA and other intelligence agencies defended themselves against the dangers of attack from the Bush administration through a process of self-censorship. That is the very essence of politicization in intelligence."

    In other words, to protect its own budgets and privileges, the CIA reacted quickly to shape its intelligence to meet the political goals of others.

    Journalist Robert Parry has also attempted to go the CIA-as-victim route in his own writings. In an article written before the Iraq War debacle, Parry looks at how the Agency was used by both Reagan and Clinton, and claims that what is arguably of the CIA's biggest analytical errors - repeatedly overstating the economic strength of the Soviet Union - was the result of pressure applied to the Agency by the Reagan administration. (Parry may be mistaken here, as the CIA was wrong about the Soviet economy long before the Reagan Administration .)

    While attempting to defend the CIA, however, Parry is merely providing a list of the many ways in which the CIA serves to manufacture false information that are useful for political officials.

    In this essay for the Center for International Policy, Goodman further lists many examples of politicization and concludes "Throughout the CIA's 60-year history, there have been many efforts to slant analytical conclusions, skew estimates, and repress evidence that challenged a particular policy or point of view. As a result, the agency must recognize the impact of politicization and introduce barriers to protect analysts from political pressures. Unfortunately, the CIA has largely ignored the problem."

    It is difficult to ascertain whether past intelligence failures were due to pressure form the administration or whether they originated from within the Agency itself. Nevertheless, the intelligence failures are numerous, including:

    The fact that politicization occurs might help explain some of these failures, but simply claiming "politicization" doesn't erase the legacy of failure, and it hardly serves as an argument in favor of allowing the CIA to continue to command huge budgets and essentially function unsupervised. Regardless of fanciful claims of non-political professionalism, it is undeniable that, as an agency of the US government, the CIA is a political institution.

    The only type of organization that is not politicized is a private-sector organization under a relatively laissez-faire regime. Heavily regulated private industries and all government agencies are politicized by nature because they depend heavily on active assistance from political actors to sustain themselves.

    It should be assumed that politicized organizations seek to influence policymakers, and thus all the actions and claims of these organization should be treated with skepticism and a recognition that these organizations benefit from further taxation and expanded government powers inflicted on ordinary taxpayers and other productive members of society outside the privileged circles of Washington, DC.

    Perimetr -> Chupacabra-322 •Dec 23, 2016 11:34 AM
    Is the CIA politicized?

    ...Is the pope catholic?

    How many more presidents does the CIA have to kill to answer your question?

    Oldwood -> DownWithYogaPants •Dec 23, 2016 11:26 AM
    How could the CIA NOT be politicized? They collect "intelligence" and use it to influence policy makers without ANY accountability and no real proof. The CIA operates on CONJECTURE that is completely subjective to bias and agenda. Is that ANYTHING BUT political?
    TeaClipper's picture -> TeaClipper •Dec 23, 2016 11:24 AM
    The CIA was not wrong about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it lied about them. That is a very big distinction.
    Old Poor Richard •Dec 23, 2016 12:13 PM
    The question is whether the CIA is puppeteer and not the puppet.

    The Snowden report, jam packed with provably false scurrilous accusations, demonstrates that not only is the US intelligence community entirely lacking in credibility, but that they believe themselves so powerful that they can indefinitely get away with baldfaced lies.

    The thing is, the deep state can only keep up the charade when they completely control the narrative, the way China does. Hence the attacks on the first amendment that are accelerating as fast as the attacks on the second amendment. Majority of Americans don't believe the Russian hacking hoax and it make the CIA increasingly hysterical.

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 23, 2016 12:33 PM
    The CIA has been politicized. In fact, all the way down to the COS level, and in concert with the State Department. Brennan and Moran are nothing but Clinton surrogates.

    In one embassy in a country where IEDs keep blowing up, there were millions of taxpayer dollars spent and continue to be spent in "safe spaces" and "comfort food and liquor" inside an embassy (taking away space from the US Marine Giuards for it) to let "Democrat snowflakes" in senior embassy and CIA positions recover from the Trump elections.

    The real reaon for the loss of the Phillipines as an ally may eventually come out that a gay senior embassy official made a pass at the President of the country. Just like it happened with the gay ambassador in the Dominican Republic.

    That Libral You Hate •Dec 23, 2016 12:41 PM
    I would say the simple answer to the question asked in the headline of this article is "yes" but it is important to actually understand the nuance of the langer answer.

    The critical nuance is that: politics didn't conquor the CIA, but rather the CIA injected itself into politics. I.e. the CIA aren't political stooges, but act political because they have injected political stooges into politics and they have to act political to protect them to protect their interests. Thus while the answer is "yes" the question is phrased wrong as: "Has the CIA Been Politicized," the appropriate question is "Has politics been co-opted by the CIA"

    insanelysane •Dec 23, 2016 12:50 PM
    The first post is spot on except the CIA was in Southeast Asia stirring stuff up to get us into a war. War is big business.

    The entire reason for Vietnam was "If Vietnam falls the commies will be marching down Main Street USA afterwards."

    Well we fucking lost Vietnam and the commies still aren't marching down Main Street and yet the assessment is still being peddled by the Corporation.

    Kennedy was killed because, even though he was fucking totally drugged up, he still saw Vietnam for what it was.

    The Corporation gave Johnson and offer he couldn't refuse, take the keys to the kingdom, just keep "fighting" in Vietnam. I say fighting because we were just fucking around there. No one in charge wanted to risk winning the war.

    And here we are today, 23rd, December, 2016, "fighting" in the Middle East and the Corporation not willing to risk winning the war. Just need to keep it hot enough for the weapons and ammunition to be used in a nice steady pace to keep business going.

    [Dec 23, 2016] NSA Whistleblower US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia Zero Hedge

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    During the third and last presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, debate moderator Chris Wallace pulled a quote from a speech Clinton had given to Brazilian bankers, noting the information had been made available to the public via WikiLeaks.

    Instead of answering the question, Clinton blamed the Russian government for the leaks , alleging " [t]he Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans ," hacking " American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election ."

    Following the claim, Clinton criticized Trump for saying " [Clinton] has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else ," repeating her assertion that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had determined the Russian government had been behind the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack.

    Despite her claim, reality couldn't be more different.

    Instead of 17 agencies, only the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have offered the public any input on this matter, claiming the DNC attacks " are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts ."

    Without offering any evidence, these two - not 17 - agencies hinted that the Kremlin could be behind the cyber attack. But saying they believe the hacks come from the Russians is far short of saying they know the Russians were behind them.

    During an interview on Aaron Klein's Sunday radio program , former high-ranking NSA intelligence official-turned-whistleblower, William Binney , discussed the alleged Russian involvement in our elections, suggesting the cyber attack against the DNC may not have originated from the Russian government. Instead, Binney says, a " disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker " is likely behind the breach.

    https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/nsa-whistleblower-tells-aaron-klein-agency-has-all-of-hillarys-emails

    Speaking as an analyst, Binney added that a testimony by the former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller from March 2011 shows the FBI has access to a series of databases that helps them " to track down known and suspected terrorists ."

    According to Binney, what Mueller meant is that the FBI has access to the NSA database and that it's accessed without any oversight, meaning the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as well as the FBI, have open access to anything the NSA has access to. " So if the FBI really wanted [Clinton's and the DNC emails] they can go into that database and get them right now ," Binney told Klein.

    Asked if he believed the NSA had copies of all Clinton's emails, " including the deleted correspondence ," Binney said:

    " Yes. That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there ."

    While Binney seems to be the only intelligence insider who has come forward with this type of analysis, a young man from Russia whose servers were implicated in the recent hacking of the DNC sites says he has information that will lead to the hacker - yet the FBI won't knock on his door.

    In a conversation with the New York Times , Vladimir M. Fomenko said his server rental company, King Servers, is oftentimes used by hackers. Fomenko added that the hackers behind the attack against computerized election systems in Arizona and Illinois - which, like the DNC hack, were also linked to the Russian government by the FBI - had used his servers.

    According to the 26-year-old entrepreneur, "[w]e have the information. If the F.B.I. asks, we are ready to supply the I.P. addresses, the logs, but nobody contacted us."

    " It's like nobody wants to sort this out, " he added .

    After learning that two renters using the nicknames Robin Good and Dick Robin had used his servers to hack the Arizona and Illinois voting systems, Fomenko released a statement saying he learned about the problem through the news and shut down the two users down shortly after.

    While he told the New York Times he doesn't know who the hackers are, he used his statement to report that the hackers are not Russian security agents.

    " The analysis of the internal data allows King Servers to confidently refute any conclusions about the involvement of the Russian special services in this attack ," he said on September 15, the New York Times reported.

    According to Fomenko, he found a trail left by the hackers through their contact with King Servers' billing page, which leads to the next step in the chain " to bring investigators in the United States closer to the hackers ."

    The clients used about 60 I.P. addresses to contact Fomenko, including addresses belonging to server companies in Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Britain, and Sweden. With these addresses in hand, authorities could track the hackers down.

    But while this information is somewhat recent, few news organizations found it necessary to report on the King Servers link. In the past, however, at least one major news network mentioned Binney.

    In August 2016, Judge Andrew Napolitano commented on the DNC hack.

    On "Judge Napolitano Chambers," the Judge said that while the DNC, government officials, and the Clinton campaign all accuse the Russians of hacking into the DNC servers, " the Russians had nothing to do with it. "

    [Dec 23, 2016] NSA Whistleblower Destroys CIA Narrative – "Hard Evidence Points To Inside Leak, Not Russia Hack

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.activistpost.com

    Originally from: NSA Whistleblower US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia Zero Hedge

    December 21, 2016

    By Vin Armani

    "A group of retired senior intelligence officials, including the NSA whistleblower William Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA), have posted an open letter on consortiumnews.com that destroys the Obama administration's "Russian hacking" narrative.

    Within the letter, Binney argues that, thanks to the NSA's "extensive domestic data-collection network," any data removed remotely from Hillary Clinton or DNC servers would have passed over fiber networks and therefore would have been captured by the NSA who could have then analyzed packet data to determine the origination point and destination address of those packets. As Binney further notes, the only way the leaks could have avoided NSA detection is if they were never passed over fiber networks but rather downloaded to a thumb drive by someone with internal access to servers."

    [Dec 22, 2016] Leaked Memo Reveals List Of Trump's Top Defense Priorities

    Dec 22, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    A leaked communication between the Trump transition team's Undersecretary of Defense for policy Brian McKeon, and the Pentagon, has revealed the four biggest defense priorities for the president-elect. Among the top four items listed in the memo from are: 1) developing a strategy to defeat/destroy ISIS; 2) build a strong defense by eliminating budget caps/the sequester, 3) develop a comprehensive cyber strategy, and 4) eliminate wasteful spending by finding greater efficiencies.

    The list was communicated to McKeon by Mira Ricardel, one of the leaders of Trump's Pentagon transition team, according to the memo obtained by Foreign Policy magazine and published Tuesday.

    your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    Pinto Currency , Dec 21, 2016 1:41 PM
    A very good sign - Trump not on the banker war wagon.
    Let the bankers explain their creation of the economic collapse.
    gatorengineer Pinto Currency , Dec 21, 2016 1:55 PM
    You couldnt have possibly read the email.....

    1) Defeat Isis, there isnt a military solution here or necessary (step 1, stop funding them, step 2, isolate countries that do (turkey, Saudi, etc))

    2) Increase force size, yeah that doesnt help the bankers war machine

    froze25 gatorengineer , Dec 21, 2016 2:01 PM
    Very comprehensive article on where Putin came from and how he got to where he is. My guess is this is the information of why Trump may have a soft spot for him. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/how-the-1980s-e...
    Joe Davola gatorengineer , Dec 21, 2016 2:02 PM
    One can only hope, based on the crumpled appearance of the leaked memo, that it was smuggled out by this year's Fawn Hall stuffed in her unmentionables.
    Chris Dakota Joe Davola , Dec 21, 2016 2:07 PM
    Russia not listed a threat because Russia is not a threat.

    This liberal warmongers make me puke.

    [Dec 22, 2016] Deep State Desperation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Only John F. Kennedy directly challenged it, firing CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs disaster. He was assassinated, and whether or not CIA involvement is ever conclusively proven, the allegations have been useful to the agency, keeping politicians in line. The Deep State also co-opted the media, keeping it in line with a combination of fear and favor. ..."
    "... Why has the US been involved in long, costly, bloody, and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? ..."
    "... Why should the US get involved in similar conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and other Middle Eastern and Northern African hotspots? ..."
    "... Isn't such involvement responsible for blowback terrorism and refugee flows in both Europe and the US? ..."
    "... Have "free trade" agreements and porous borders been a net benefit or detriment to the US? Why is the banking industry set up for periodic crises that inevitably require government bail-outs? ..."
    "... How has encouraging debt and speculation at the expense of savings and investment helped the US economy? ..."
    "... The shenanigans in the US after Trump's election-violent protests, hysterical outbursts, the vote recount effort, the proof-free Russian hacking allegations, "fake news," and the attempt to sway electoral college electors-are the desperate screams of those trapped inside. ..."
    "... Regrettably, the building analogy is imperfect, because it implies that those inside are helpless and that the collapse will only harm them. In its desperation, incompetence, and corrupt nihilism, the Deep State can wreak all sorts of havoc, up to and including the destruction of humanity. Trump represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Deep State, but the chances it will be lethal are minimal and the dangers obvious. ..."
    "... "War on Terror" + "Refugee Humanitarian Crisis" =European Clusterfuck ..."
    "... "War on Drugs" + "Afghan Opium/Nicaraguan Cocaine" =Police State America ..."
    Dec 22, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Robert Gore via StraightLineLogic.com,

    The pathetic attempts to undo Donald Trump's victory are signs of desperation, not strength, in the Deep State.

    The post World War II consensus held that the USSR's long-term goal was world domination. That assessment solidified after the Soviets detonated an atomic bomb in 1949. A nuclear arms race, a space race, maintenance of a globe-spanning military, political, and economic confederation, and a huge expansion of the size and power of the military and intelligence complex were justified by the Soviet, and later, the Red Chinese threats. Countering those threats led the US to use many of the same amoral tactics that it deplored when used by its enemies: espionage, subversion, bribery, repression, assassination, regime change, and direct and proxy warfare.

    Scorning principles of limited government, non-intervention in other nations' affairs, and individual rights, the Deep State embraced the anti-freedom mindset of its purported enemies, not just towards those enemies, but toward allies and the American people. The Deep State gradually assumed control of the government and elected officials were expected to adhere to its policies and promote its propaganda. Only John F. Kennedy directly challenged it, firing CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs disaster. He was assassinated, and whether or not CIA involvement is ever conclusively proven, the allegations have been useful to the agency, keeping politicians in line. The Deep State also co-opted the media, keeping it in line with a combination of fear and favor.

    Since its ascension in the 1950s, the biggest threat to the Deep State has not been its many and manifest failures, but rather what the naive would regard as its biggest success: the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Much of the military-industrial complex was suddenly deprived of its reason for existence-the threat was gone. However, a more subtle point was lost.

    The Soviet Union has been the largest of statism's many failures to date. Because of the Deep State's philosophical blinders, that outcome was generally unforeseen. The command and control philosophy at the heart of Soviet communism was merely a variant on the same philosophy espoused and practiced by the Deep State. Like the commissars, its members believe that "ordinary" people are unable to handle freedom, and that their generalized superiority entitles them to wield the coercive power of government.

    With "irresponsible" elements talking of peace dividends and scaling back the military and the intelligence agencies, the complex was sorely in need of a new enemy . Islam suffers the same critical flaw as communism-command and control-and has numerous other deficiencies, including intolerance, repression, and the legal subjugation of half its adherents. The Deep State had to focus on the world conquest ideology of some Muslims to even conjure Islam as a plausible foe. However, unlike the USSR, they couldn't claim that sect and faction-ridden Islam posed a monolithic threat, that the Islamic nations were an empire or a federation united towards a common goal, or that their armaments (there are under thirty nuclear weapons in the one Islamic nation, Pakistan, that has them) could destroy the US or the entire planet.

    There was too much money and power at stake for the complex to shrink. While on paper Islam appeared far weaker than communism, the complex had one factor in their favor: terrorism is terrifying. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans surrendered liberties and gave the Deep State carte blanche to fight a war on terrorism that would span the globe, target all those whom the government identified as terrorists, and never be conclusively won or lost. Funding for the complex ballooned, the military was deployed on multiple fronts, and the surveillance state blossomed. Most of those who might have objected were bought off with expanded welfare state funding and programs (e.g. George W. Bush's prescription drug benefit, Obamacare).

    What would prove to be the biggest challenge to the centralization and the power of the Deep State came, unheralded, with the invention of the microchip in the late 1950s. The Deep State could not have exercised the power it has without a powerful grip on information flow and popular perception. The microchip led to widespread distribution of cheap computing power and dissemination of information over the decentralized Internet. This dynamic, organically adaptive decentralization has been the antithesis of the command-and-control Deep State, which now realizes the gravity of the threat. Fortunately, countering these technologies has been like trying to eradicate hordes of locusts.

    The gravest threat, however, to the Deep State is self-imposed: it's own incompetence. Even the technologically illiterate can ask questions for which it has no answers.

    1. Why has the US been involved in long, costly, bloody, and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
    2. Why should the US get involved in similar conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and other Middle Eastern and Northern African hotspots?
    3. Isn't such involvement responsible for blowback terrorism and refugee flows in both Europe and the US?
    4. Have "free trade" agreements and porous borders been a net benefit or detriment to the US? Why is the banking industry set up for periodic crises that inevitably require government bail-outs? (SLL claims no special insight into the nexus between the banking-financial sector and the Deep State, other than to note that there is one.) Why does every debt crisis result in more debt?
    5. How has encouraging debt and speculation at the expense of savings and investment helped the US economy?

    The Deep State can't answer or even acknowledge these questions because they all touch on its failures.

    Brexit, Donald Trump, other populist, nationalist movements catching fire, and the rise of the alternative media are wrecking balls aimed at an already structurally unsound and teetering building that would eventually collapse on its own. The shenanigans in the US after Trump's election-violent protests, hysterical outbursts, the vote recount effort, the proof-free Russian hacking allegations, "fake news," and the attempt to sway electoral college electors-are the desperate screams of those trapped inside.

    Regrettably, the building analogy is imperfect, because it implies that those inside are helpless and that the collapse will only harm them. In its desperation, incompetence, and corrupt nihilism, the Deep State can wreak all sorts of havoc, up to and including the destruction of humanity. Trump represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Deep State, but the chances it will be lethal are minimal and the dangers obvious.

    The euphoria over his victory cannot obscure a potential consequence: it may hasten and amplify the destruction and resultant chaos when the Deep State finally topples . Anyone who thinks Trump's victory sounds an all clear is allowing hope to triumph over experience and what should have been hard-won wisdom.

    Cheka_Mate -> unrulian •Dec 22, 2016 8:52 PM

    Deep State Playback:

    Hegelian Dialectics: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis

    Example

    "War on Terror" + "Refugee Humanitarian Crisis" =European Clusterfuck

    Or

    "War on Drugs" + "Afghan Opium/Nicaraguan Cocaine" =Police State America

    Both hands (Left/Right) to crush Liberty

    Mano-A-Mano -> Cheka_Mate •Dec 22, 2016 8:54 PM

    The DEEP STATE pretends they hate Trump, gets him in office, hoodwinks the sheeple into believing they voted for him, while they still retain control.

    Voila!

    TeamDepends -> unrulian •Dec 22, 2016 8:55 PM

    Remember the Maine! Remember the Lusitania! Remember the USS Liberty! Remember the Gulf of Tonkin! Never forget.

    Withdrawn Sanction •Dec 22, 2016 8:52 PM

    "In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans surrendered liberties and gave the Deep State carte blanche..."

    What a load of crap. The Deep State CAUSED 9/11 and then STOLE Americans' liberties.

    StraightLineLogic: Linear thinker, indeed.

    WTFUD •Dec 22, 2016 8:56 PM

    Shakespeare would have had a field-day with this Material; Comic Tragedy!

    BadDog •Dec 22, 2016 9:00 PM

    Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.

    red1chief •Dec 22, 2016 9:09 PM

    Funny how a guy loading up his administration with Vampire Squids is thought to be disliked by the Deep State. Deep State psy ops never ceases to amaze.

    [Dec 21, 2016] Globalization and Sovietization of America by Vladimir Brovkin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Democracy is inevitably going to clash with the demands of Globalization as they are opposite. Globalization requires entrepreneurs to search cheaper means of production worldwide. ..."
    "... In practice, this means moving capital out of the USA. ..."
    "... To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive and prosper came into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and with the capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier to make money. ..."
    "... American capitalism from its very beginning was based on the assumption that what was good for business was good for America. Until 1929 it more or less worked. The robber barons were robbing other entrepreneurs and workers but at least they reinvested their ill gained profits in America. The crash of 1929 showed that the interests of Big Banks clashed with the interest of American society with devastating results. ..."
    "... The decades after WWII have seen a slow and steady erosion of American superiority in technology and productivity and slow and steady flight of capital from the USA. Globalization has been undermining America. From the point of view of Global prosperity if it is cheaper to produce in China, production should relocate to China. From the point of view of American worker, this is treason, a policy destroying the United States as an industrial power, as a nation, and as a community of citizens. Donald Trump is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact. The vote for Donald Trump has been a protest against Globalization, immigration, open borders, capital flight, multiculturalism, liberalism and all the values American Liberal establishment has been preaching for 60 years that are killing the USA. ..."
    "... Donald Trump wants to arrest the assault of Globalization on America. He promised to reduce taxes, and to attract business back to the USA. However, reduced taxes are only one ingredient in incentives. For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force, steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods, among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing. ..."
    "... Dr. Brovkin is a historian, formerly a Harvard Professor of History. He has published several books and numerous articles on Russian History and Politics. Currently, Dr. Brovkin works and lives in Marrakech, Morocco. ..."
    "... This is an interesting question: is it possible to contain neoliberal globalization by building walls, rejecting 'trade' agreement, and so on. I get the feeling that a direct attack may not work. Water will find a way, as they say. With a direct attack against globalization, what you're likely to face is major capital flight. ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | www.unz.com
    In his election campaign Donald Trump has identified several key themes that defined American malaise. He pointed to capital flight, bad trade deals, illegal immigration, and corruption of the government and of the press. What is missing in Trump's diagnosis though is an explanation of this crisis. What are the causes of American decline or as Ross Pero used to say: Let's look under the hood.

    Most of the challenges America faces today have to do with two processes we call Globalization and Sovietization. By Globalization we mean a process of externalizing American business thanks to the doctrine of Free trade which has been up to now the Gospel of the establishment. By Sovietization we mean a process of slow expansion of the role of the government in economy, education, business, military, press, virtually any and every aspect of politics and society.

    Let us start with Globalization.

    Dani Rodrick ( The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy) has argued that it is impossible to have democracy and globalization at the same time. Democracy is inevitably going to clash with the demands of Globalization as they are opposite. Globalization requires entrepreneurs to search cheaper means of production worldwide.

    In practice, this means moving capital out of the USA. For fifty years economists have been preaching Free trade, meaning that free unimpeded, no tariffs trade is good for America. And it was in the 1950s, 60s and 1970s that American products were cheaper or better than those overseas. Beginning with the 1970s, the process reversed. Globalization enriched the capitalists and impoverished the rest of Americans. To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive and prosper came into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and with the capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier to make money.

    American capitalism from its very beginning was based on the assumption that what was good for business was good for America. Until 1929 it more or less worked. The robber barons were robbing other entrepreneurs and workers but at least they reinvested their ill gained profits in America. The crash of 1929 showed that the interests of Big Banks clashed with the interest of American society with devastating results.

    The decades after WWII have seen a slow and steady erosion of American superiority in technology and productivity and slow and steady flight of capital from the USA. Globalization has been undermining America. From the point of view of Global prosperity if it is cheaper to produce in China, production should relocate to China. From the point of view of American worker, this is treason, a policy destroying the United States as an industrial power, as a nation, and as a community of citizens. Donald Trump is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact. The vote for Donald Trump has been a protest against Globalization, immigration, open borders, capital flight, multiculturalism, liberalism and all the values American Liberal establishment has been preaching for 60 years that are killing the USA.

    Donald Trump wants to arrest the assault of Globalization on America. He promised to reduce taxes, and to attract business back to the USA. However, reduced taxes are only one ingredient in incentives. For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force, steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods, among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing.

    To fight Globalization Donald Trump announced in his agenda to drop or renegotiate NAFTA and TPP. That is a step in the right direction. However, this will not be easy. There are powerful vested interests in making money overseas that will put up great resistance to America first policy. They have powerful lobbies and votes in the Congress and it is by far not certain if Trump will succeed in overcoming their opposition.

    Another step along these lines of fighting Globalization is the proposed building of the Wall on Mexican border. That too may or may not work. Powerful agricultural interests in California have a vested interest in easy and cheap labor force made up of illegal migrants. If their supply is cut off they are going to hike up the prices on agricultural goods that may lead to inflation or higher consumer prices for the American workers.

    ... ... ...

    The Military: Americans are told they have a best military in the world. In fact, it is not the best but the most expensive one in the world. According to the National priorities Project, in fiscal 2015 the military spending amounted to 54% of the discretionary spending in the amount of 598.5 billion dollars . Of those almost 200 billion dollars goes for operations and maintenance, 135 billion for military personnel and 90 billion for procurement (see Here is How the US Military Spends its Billions )

    American military industrial complex spends more that the next seven runners up combined. It is a Sovietized, bureaucratic structure that exists and thrives on internal deals behind closed doors, procurement process closed to public scrutiny, wasted funds on consultants, kickbacks, and outrageous prices for military hardware. Specific investigations of fraud do not surface too often. Yet for example, DoD Inspector General reported:

    material internal control weakness that affect the safeguarding of assets, proper use of funds, and impair the prevention of and identification of fraud, waste and abuse. Source: "FY 2010 DoD Agencywide Agency Financial Report (vid. p.32)" (PDF). US Department of Defense. Retrieved 7 January 2011, cited in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#cite_note-20

    Why is it that an F35 fighter jet should cost 135 million apiece and the Russian SU 35 that can do similar things is sold for 35 million dollars and produced for 15 million? The answer is that the Congress operates on a principle that any price the military asks is good enough. The entire system of military procurement has to be scrapped. It is a source of billions of stolen and wasted dollars. The Pentagon budget of half a trillion a year is a drain on the economy that is unsustainable, and what you get is not worth the money. The military industrial complex in America does not deliver the best equipment or security it is supposed to.(on this see: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/cutting-waste-isnt-enough-curb-pentagon-spending-18640 )

    Donald Trump was the first to his credit who raised the issue: Do we need all these bases overseas? Do they really enhance American security? Or are they a waste of money for the benefit of other countries who take America for a free ride. Why indeed should the US pay for the defense of Japan? Is Japan a poor country that cannot afford to defend itself? Defense commitments like those expose America to unnecessary confrontations and risk of war over issues that have nothing to do with America's interests. Is it worth it to fight China over some uninhabitable islands that Japan claims? (See discussion: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/should-the-us-continue-guarantee-the-security-wealthy-states-17720 )

    Similarly, Trump is the first one to raise the question: What is the purpose of NATO? ( see discussion of NATO utility: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/will-president-trump-renegotiate-the-nato-treaty-18647 ) Yes the Liberal pro-Clinton media answer is: to defend Europe from Russian aggression. But really what aggression? If the Russians wanted to they could have taken Kiev in a day two years ago. Instead, they put up with the most virulently hostile regime in Kiev. Let us ask ourselves would we have put up with a virulently anti-American regime in Mexico, a regime that would have announced its intention to conclude a military alliance with China or Russia? Were we not ready to go to nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuba? If we would not have accepted such a regime in Mexico, why do we complain that the Russians took action against the new regime in Ukraine. Oh yes, they took Crimea. But the population there is Russian, and until 1954 it was Russian territory and after Ukrainian independence the Russians did not raise the issue of Crimea as Ukrainian territory and paid rent for their naval base there The Russians took it over only when a hostile regime clamoring for NATO membership settled in Kiev. Does that constitute Russian aggression or actually Russian limited response to a hostile act? (see on this Steven Cohen: http://eastwestaccord.com/podcast-stephen-f-cohen-talks-russia-israel-middle-east-diplomacy-steele-unger/ ) As I have argued elsewhere Putin has been under tremendous pressure to act more decisively against the neo-Nazis in Kiev. (see Vlad Brovkin: On Russian Assertiveness in Foreign Policy. ( http://eastwestaccord.com/?s=brovkin&submit=Search )

    With a little bit of patience and good will a compromise is possible on Ukraine through Minsk accords. Moreover, Ukraine is not in NATO and as long as it is not admitted to NATO, a deal with the Russians on Ukraine is feasible. Just like so many other pro-American governments, Ukraine wants to milk Uncle Sam for what it is worth. They expect to be paid for being anti/Russian. (See discussion on need of enemy: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/does-america-need-enemy-18106 ) Would it not be a better policy to let Ukraine know that they are on their own: no more subsidies, no more payments? Mend your relations with Russia yourselves. Then peace would immediately prevail.

    If we admit that there is no Russian aggression and that this myth was propagated by the Neo/Cons with the specific purpose to return to the paradigm of the cold war, i.e. more money for the military industrial complex, if we start thinking boldly as Trump has begun, we should say to the Europeans: go ahead, build your own European army to allay your fears of the Russians. Europe is strong enough, rich enough and united enough to take care of its defense without American assistance. (See discussion of Trumps agenda: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/course-correction-18062 )

    So, if Trump restructures procurement mess, reduces the number of military bases overseas, and invests in high tech research and development for the military on the basis of real competition, hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved and the defense capability of the country would increase.

    ... ... ...

    Dr. Brovkin is a historian, formerly a Harvard Professor of History. He has published several books and numerous articles on Russian History and Politics. Currently, Dr. Brovkin works and lives in Marrakech, Morocco.

    Mao Cheng Ji says: December 21, 2016 at 8:43 am GMT • 200 Words

    This is a bit too much, Volodya. Maybe you should've taken one subject – globalization, for example – and stop there.

    This is an interesting question: is it possible to contain neoliberal globalization by building walls, rejecting 'trade' agreement, and so on. I get the feeling that a direct attack may not work. Water will find a way, as they say. With a direct attack against globalization, what you're likely to face is major capital flight.

    You might be able to make neoliberal globalization work for you (for your population, that is), like Germany and the Scandinavians do, but that's a struggle, constant struggle. And it's a competition; it will have to be done at the expense of other nations (see Greece, Portugal, Central (eastern) Europe). And having an anti-neoliberal president is not enough; this would require a major change, almost a U turn, in the whole governing philosophy. Forget the sanctity of 'free market', start worshiping the new god: national interest

    animalogic says: December 21, 2016 at 10:14 am GMT • 400 Words

    What an INTERESTING article -- So much that is right, so much that is wrong. An article you can get your teeth into.
    On globalisation: pretty spot-on (although I believe he exaggerates the US weakness in what he calls "preconditions": there are still many well educated Americans, still good neighborhoods (yes, sure it could be a lot better). He's against NAFTA & other neoliberal Trade self indulgences.
    But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.

    Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"

    This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical laws ?)

    Of course, the author is correct on the US military-industrial complex: it is a sump of crime & corruption. Yet he seems not to grasp that the problem is regulative capture. How is the Fiasco of the F35 & MacDonald Douglas merely an issue for the Legislature alone & how does this circus resemble the Soviet Union, beyond the fact that BOTH systems (like most systems) are capable of gross negligence & corruption ?

    I like what the author says about NATO, Japan, bases etc. Although he's a little naive if he thinks NATO for instance is about "protecting" Europe. Yes, that's a part of it: but primarily NATO etc exist as a tool/mask behind which the US can exert it's imperial ambitions against friend & for alike.

    The author does go off against welfare well that's to be expected: sadly I don't think he quite gets the connection between globalisation & welfare .He also legitimately goes after tertiary education, but seems to be (again) confused as to cause & effect.

    The author is completely spot on with his sovietization analogy when he comes to the US security state. Only difference between the Soviets & the US on security totalitarianism ? The US is much better at it (of course the US has technological advantages unimaginable to the Soviets)

    • Replies: @Randal I agree with you that it's a fascinating piece, and I also agree with many of the points you agree with.
    But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.

    Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"

    This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical laws ?)

    I think part of the problem here might be a mistaken focus on "the government" as an independent actor, when in reality it is just a mechanism whereby the rulers (whether they are a dictator, a political party or an oligarchy or whatever), and those with sufficient clout to influence them, get things done the way they want to see them done.

    As such there is really not much difference between the government directly employing the people who do things (state socialism), and the government paying money to companies to get the same things done. Either way, those who use the government to get things done, get to say what gets done and how. There are differences of nuance, in terms of organizational strengths and weaknesses, degrees of corruption and of efficiency, but fundamentally it's all big government.

    A more interesting question might be - how really different are these big government variants from the small government systems, in which the rulers pay people directly to get things done the way they want them to be done?

    Miro23 says: December 21, 2016 at 11:06 am GMT • 300 Words

    An excellent article. The points that resonated the most were:

    For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force, steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods, among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing.

    This is an enormously difficult problem that will take years to resolve, and it will need a rethink of education from the ground up + the political will to fight the heart of Cultural Bolshevism and the inevitable 24/7 Media assault.

    Drain the swamp in Washington: ban the lobbyists, make it a crime to lobby for private interest in a public place, restructure procurement, introduce real competition, restore capitalism, phase out any government subsidies to Universities, force them to compete for students, force hospitals to compete for patients. Cut cut cut expenditure everywhere possible, including welfare.

    Banning lobbyists should be possible but draining the rest of the swamp looks really complicated. Each area would need to be examined from the ground up from a value for money – efficiency viewpoint. It doesn't matter which philosophy each one is run on – good value healthcare is desirable whichever system produces it.

    Could we have ever imagined in our worst dreams that a system of mass surveillance would be created and perfected in the USA. (see discussion on this in: Surveillance State, in http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/surveillance-state

    This one should be easy. The Constitution guarantees a right to privacy so just shut down the NSA. Also shut down the vast CIA mafia (it didn't exist prior to 1947) and the expensive and useless FED (controlling the money supply isn't the business of a group of private banks – an office in the Treasury could easily match the money supply to economic activity).

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    This one should be easy. The Constitution guarantees a right to privacy so just shut down the NSA. Also shut down the vast CIA mafia (it didn't exist prior to 1947) and the expensive and useless FED (controlling the money supply isn't the business of a group of private banks – an office in the Treasury could easily match the money supply to economic activity).

    From Unz, I have learned that the US actually has a four-part government: the "Deep State" part which has no clear oversight from any of the other three branches.

    anonymous says: December 21, 2016 at 5:22 pm GMT • 300 Words

    To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive and prosper came into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and with the capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier to make money.

    Another add-on contradiction, comrade, is that the selfsame capitalist class expect their host nation to defend their interests whenever threatened abroad. This entails using the resources derived from the masses to enforce this protection including using the little people as cannon fodder when deemed useful.

    Donald Trump is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact.

    Come now, do you really believe that all these politicians who have gone to these world-class schools don't know this? They simply don't care. They're working on behalf of the .1% who are their benefactors and who will make them rich. They did not go into politics to take vows of poverty. They just realize the need to placate the masses with speeches written by professional speechwriters, that's all.

    Insofar as Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid goes, those are the most democratic institutions of all. It's money spent on ourselves, internally, with money being cycled in and out at the grassroots level. Doctors, nurses, home-care providers, etc etc, all local people get a piece of the action unlike military spending which siphons money upwards to the upper classes.

    I'd rather be employed in a government job than unemployed in the private sector. That's not the kind of "freedom" I'm searching for comrade.

    Randal says: December 21, 2016 at 6:29 pm GMT • 300 Words

    @animalogic What an INTERESTING article -- So much that is right, so much that is wrong. An article you can get your teeth into.

    On globalisation: pretty spot-on (although I believe he exaggerates the US weakness in what he calls "preconditions": there are still many well educated Americans, still good neighborhoods (yes, sure it could be a lot better). He's against NAFTA & other neoliberal Trade self indulgences.
    But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but I find the concept... incoherent...& suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.

    Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"

    This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical laws ?)

    Of course, the author is correct on the US military-industrial complex: it is a sump of crime & corruption. Yet he seems not to grasp that the problem is regulative capture. How is the Fiasco of the F35 & MacDonald Douglas merely an issue for the Legislature alone...& how does this circus resemble the Soviet Union, beyond the fact that BOTH systems (like most systems) are capable of gross negligence & corruption ?

    I like what the author says about NATO, Japan, bases etc. Although he's a little naive if he thinks NATO for instance is about "protecting" Europe. Yes, that's a part of it: but primarily NATO etc exist as a tool/mask behind which the US can exert it's imperial ambitions ...against friend & for alike.
    The author does go off against welfare...well that's to be expected: sadly I don't think he quite gets the connection between globalisation & welfare....He also legitimately goes after tertiary education, but seems to be (again) confused as to cause & effect.

    The author is completely spot on with his sovietization analogy when he comes to the US security state. Only difference between the Soviets & the US on security totalitarianism ? The US is much better at it (of course the US has technological advantages unimaginable to the Soviets)

    I agree with you that it's a fascinating piece, and I also agree with many of the points you agree with.

    But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.
    Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"
    This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical laws ?)

    I think part of the problem here might be a mistaken focus on "the government" as an independent actor, when in reality it is just a mechanism whereby the rulers (whether they are a dictator, a political party or an oligarchy or whatever), and those with sufficient clout to influence them, get things done the way they want to see them done.

    As such there is really not much difference between the government directly employing the people who do things (state socialism), and the government paying money to companies to get the same things done. Either way, those who use the government to get things done, get to say what gets done and how. There are differences of nuance, in terms of organisational strengths and weaknesses, degrees of corruption and of efficiency, but fundamentally it's all big government.

    A more interesting question might be – how really different are these big government variants from the small government systems, in which the rulers pay people directly to get things done the way they want them to be done?

    [Dec 21, 2016] The essence of voting the lesser of two evils: To comfortable centrists like pgl, the Democrats should be graded on a curve. As long as theyre better than the awful Republicans, then theyre good enough and beyond criticism.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The essence of voting the lesser of two evils: "To comfortable centrists like pgl, the Democrats should be graded on a curve. As long as they're better than the awful Republicans, then they're good enough and beyond criticism." ..."
    "... These Wall Street Democrats can rest assured that Democrats will surely get their turn in power in 4-8 years...after Trump thoroughly screws things up. And then Democrats will proceed to screw things up themselves...as we learned from Obama and Hillary's love of austerity and total disinterest in the economic welfare of the vast majority. ..."
    "... In case you didn't notice, Democrats did nothing about the minimum wage 2009-2010. ..."
    "... Many Democratic candidates won't even endorse minimum wage increase in states where increases win via initiative. They preferred to lose elections to standing up for minimum wage increases. ..."
    Dec 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    December 20, 2016 at 07:59 AM

    Peter K.... The essence of voting the lesser of two evils: "To comfortable centrists like pgl, the Democrats should be graded on a curve. As long as they're better than the awful Republicans, then they're good enough and beyond criticism."

    These Wall Street Democrats can rest assured that Democrats will surely get their turn in power in 4-8 years...after Trump thoroughly screws things up. And then Democrats will proceed to screw things up themselves...as we learned from Obama and Hillary's love of austerity and total disinterest in the economic welfare of the vast majority.

    To pgl and his ilk, Obama was great as long as he said the right things...regardless of what he actually did. Hillary didn't even have to say the right things...she only had to be a Wall Street Democrat for pgl to be enthusiastic about her.

    JohnH -> jonny bakho... , December 20, 2016 at 12:39 PM
    In case you didn't notice, Democrats did nothing about the minimum wage 2009-2010. At a minimum, they could have taken their dominance then to enact increases for 2010-2016 or to index increases to inflation. Instead, Pelosi, Reid and Obama preferred to do nothing.

    Many Democratic candidates won't even endorse minimum wage increase in states where increases win via initiative. They preferred to lose elections to standing up for minimum wage increases.

    [Dec 21, 2016] The Real Saboteurs of a Trump Foreign Policy - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... Allegations aren't evidence but the media is treating them as such. And even if they Russia did hack Hillary's e-mails I haven't heard anyone claim the e-mails released by Wikileaks are untrue or fabrications. ..."
    "... At minimum (((Carl Gershman))) should be questioned along with rogue CIA agents in their role in the anti-Putin demonstrations of 2011. ..."
    "... Obama has ordered an investigation. The result will be the Russians did it. Then the lie will be official truth. You can't argue with official truth. It's official. ..."
    "... I suspect John McBloodstain and Lindsey and Chucky are in denial, and haven't quite come to terms with the idea that Trump is going to be the man in power. With his hands on the levers and the bully pulpit at his fingertips. I hope they learn to regret their treasonous hubris, in presuming to undermine Trump as he takes the reins and then fastens the bit tightly on McCain's angry face. And then jerks them for effect. ..."
    "... The era of neocon Eternal Wars is over. America is no longer going to be Israel's obedient, dutiful golem. ..."
    "... Some say that objectively reality doesn't even exist, that is all just a matter of perception. Well Americans must be really lucky people, because they have government + MSM who are so vastly intellectually superior to any mere mortal, that they are able to interpret the reality to the ordinary Americans so it won't confuse them any longer. ..."
    "... Actually, according to Karl Rove, the neocon intelligentsia (I know, a contradiction in terms) of whom he is a proud member, claims to possess even higher powers – they are able to create reality now, because why bother with only interpreting reality, when thanks to your superior intellect you can create it. Hillary is also one of those neocons possessing (or possessed by) higher power and proud owner of those magical abilities. ..."
    "... One of those neocon moments when they were able to create reality out of thin air, occurred when they "discovered" the Russian hacking of the election process in USA. Some people will call that "creation" of reality for what it actually is – creation of propaganda, but those are just mean unpatriotic Americans or other nationals who don't have America's best interests at heart. ..."
    "... Some who are even more critical of America's reality "creation" abilities, would call those realities nightmares – like the realities created in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine even, but as they say, maybe those are only interpretations of reality and according to US – wrong interpretations of reality. ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | www.unz.com

    exiled off mainstreet says:

    December 20, 2016 at 7:42 am GMT

    I think Trump is likely to follow this advice, which is excellent, and I don't think he'll give way easily to the power structure. He knows he'll be neutered if he follows their dictates and the demands of the lamestream media.

    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    anon says: December 20, 2016 at 10:56 am GMT • 400 Words

    The Obama Presidency began with predetermined success. After all, they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize.

    And we know how long that lasted.

    Trump is the Republican's 'come to Jesus' moment. They have to get beyond their fetish for 'losing on principle' to winning.

    The Russian Hacking was big news because it was the last gasp for a rationale to gum up the Electoral College vote today. Russian hacking is a purely partisan, Democratic ploy. So lets have big Congressional hearings on insecure computer servers and hacked emails of who was that? Hillary Clinton. This will disappear in a New York minute as soon as anyone starts digging into the Democrat's junk. Sample questions: Were Podesta's emails altered or faked? Or were they his actual emails? Are we sure? How sure? He couldn't have actually said that, no? He REALLY said that? And on and on.

    The mere use of 'Hillary Clinton' and 'Email' in the same sentence will create a pavlovian response and the next word is what? Even Nancy Pelosi will hear the word JAIL in some crevice of her demented mind.

    This isn't going anywhere.

    Meanwhile, there is a taxcut to fight over. There won't be time to even consider it given the rush to the trough for the various interests.

    And anyway - Trump isn't going to cut military budgets. But he will gladly - along with congressional whores of all parties - put more money into anti-terror cyber stuff. It's way more profitable than building an airplane. Profit margins higher. And its impossible to determine if it works or it doesn't work. An airplane has to fly, no? Cyber intelligence? I dunno - it can never be proven one way or the other unless there is a massive failure, and then it can never be proven who actually screwed up.

    Trump isn't the sort to 'take one for the team' and will instinctively blame Obama and Bush and Hillary and search for something that looks less like guaranteed failure. There is nothing left in the Middle East to do that doesn't have failure written all over it.

    And the last thing he will tolerate is Paul Ryan and Company trying to cram a big Russian sanctions package down his throat. Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China.
    Yes! This is exactly the smart play. It is essential.

    Let's have a little triangular diplomacy in the other direction this time. We've paid a big price for Nixon/Kissenger's three-way ploy. It's time to rotate their triangle. China is our enemy. It is the enemy they birthed and our capital created. , @boogerbently " Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China."

    Jeane Dixon predicted that back in the 60's.

    KenH says: December 20, 2016 at 11:47 am GMT • 100 Words

    Russia didn't "hack" the election and anyone who believes they did is a low information American searching for reasons to oppose Trump and rationalize Hillary's electoral loss.

    After all Hildabeast won the popular vote (thanks to mass third world immigration) but was rejected in key battleground states owing to Obamanomics and her treasonous call for admitting hundreds of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees as well as her support for amnesty. This was too much for flyover country to stomach.

    Allegations aren't evidence but the media is treating them as such. And even if they Russia did hack Hillary's e-mails I haven't heard anyone claim the e-mails released by Wikileaks are untrue or fabrications.

    At minimum (((Carl Gershman))) should be questioned along with rogue CIA agents in their role in the anti-Putin demonstrations of 2011. I think waterboarding would be a fitting form of interrogation in this case.

    Buzz Mohawk says: December 20, 2016 at 12:59 pm GMT • 100 Words

    @anon The Obama Presidency began with predetermined success. After all, they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize.

    And we know how long that lasted.

    Trump is the Republican's 'come to Jesus' moment. They have to get beyond their fetish for 'losing on principle' to winning.

    The Russian Hacking was big news because it was the last gasp for a rationale to gum up the Electoral College vote today. Russian hacking is a purely partisan, Democratic ploy. So lets have big Congressional hearings on insecure computer servers and hacked emails of ... who was that? Hillary Clinton. This will disappear in a New York minute as soon as anyone starts digging into the Democrat's junk. Sample questions: Were Podesta's emails altered or faked? Or were they his actual emails? Are we sure? How sure? He couldn't have actually said that, no? He REALLY said that? And on and on.

    The mere use of 'Hillary Clinton' and 'Email' in the same sentence will create a pavlovian response and the next word is what? Even Nancy Pelosi will hear the word JAIL in some crevice of her demented mind.

    This isn't going anywhere.

    Meanwhile, there is a taxcut to fight over. There won't be time to even consider it given the rush to the trough for the various interests.

    And anyway -- Trump isn't going to cut military budgets. But he will gladly -- along with congressional whores of all parties -- put more money into anti-terror cyber stuff. It's way more profitable than building an airplane. Profit margins higher. And its impossible to determine if it works or it doesn't work. An airplane has to fly, no? Cyber intelligence? I dunno -- it can never be proven one way or the other unless there is a massive failure, and then it can never be proven who actually screwed up.

    Trump isn't the sort to 'take one for the team' and will instinctively blame Obama and Bush and Hillary and search for something that looks less like guaranteed failure. There is nothing left in the Middle East to do that doesn't have failure written all over it.

    And the last thing he will tolerate is Paul Ryan and Company trying to cram a big Russian sanctions package down his throat. Plus -- get real -- anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China.

    Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China.

    Yes! This is exactly the smart play. It is essential.

    Let's have a little triangular diplomacy in the other direction this time. We've paid a big price for Nixon/Kissenger's three-way ploy. It's time to rotate their triangle. China is our enemy. It is the enemy they birthed and our capital created.

    WorkingClass says: December 20, 2016 at 1:09 pm GMT

    Obama has ordered an investigation. The result will be the Russians did it. Then the lie will be official truth. You can't argue with official truth. It's official.

    Marcus says: December 20, 2016 at 2:31 pm GMT

    He should also investigate which legislators leaked CIA "report" to press and have them held accountable. Investigate why other agencies didn't push against the CIA's attempted coup. Ideally the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough support for that.

    • Replies: @Avery {Ideally the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough support for that.}

    Abolishing CIA not a good idea, because some level of intelligence gathering (humint) on _foreign_ enemies/adversaries of US is needed. But Trump definitely can abolish entire departments that are not purely humint intelligence related. And those who meddled in the presidential election should be brought up on charges, if they can be identified.

    Also, if Trump tries to completely abolish CIA, a massive terrorist attack might be organized and Trump will be blamed for taking away US ability to detect it by abolishing CIA Frightened American public will acquiesce to even more enslavement, just like after 9/11. US spooks who meddle in American politics are evil and are experts at that sort of thing. And will do anything to survive. Trump has to be very careful. Maybe have the Pentagon neuter them in a roundabout way.

    But you are right: Trump can't let what CIA did slide. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Rurik says: December 20, 2016 at 3:42 pm GMT • 300 Words

    But if there is to be an investigation of clandestine interference in the politics and elections of foreign nations, let's get it all out onto the table.

    yes, let's please do! as Hillary and the neocons and msm have all been demanding that "Assad must go".. out of the other side of their lizard faces they're howling that 'Russia is trying to meddle in our politics!!' How dare they?!'

    $5 billion in the Ukraine for a putsch to undermine that democratically elected government, and then get caught deciding on the phone who's going to be the next president in Kiev -- all while screeching about the impropriety of Russia leaking the phone call. The hypocrisy is mind-numbing. The only thing exceptional is the unilateral arrogance on steroids.

    President-elect Trump should call in his new director of the CIA, Rep. Mike Pompeo, and tell him to run down and remove, for criminal misconduct, any CIA agents or operatives leaking secrets to discredit his election.

    I suspect John McBloodstain and Lindsey and Chucky are in denial, and haven't quite come to terms with the idea that Trump is going to be the man in power. With his hands on the levers and the bully pulpit at his fingertips. I hope they learn to regret their treasonous hubris, in presuming to undermine Trump as he takes the reins and then fastens the bit tightly on McCain's angry face. And then jerks them for effect.

    The era of neocon Eternal Wars is over. America is no longer going to be Israel's obedient, dutiful golem. Spilling its blood and treasure to assuage the insatiable lust for death and misery of the Zio-scum.

    'America first!' is now the mantra, and little Chucky and the Stain and Lindsey are all just traitorous little war pigs from the old order. Soon to join Mitt Romney in publically humiliated repudiation.

    • Replies: @FLgeezer Keep them coming Rurik. Your posts are priceless.
    Avery says: December 20, 2016 at 4:34 pm GMT • 200 Words @Marcus He should also investigate which legislators leaked CIA "report" to press and have them held accountable. Investigate why other agencies didn't push against the CIA's attempted coup. Ideally the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough support for that.

    {Ideally the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough support for that.}

    Abolishing CIA not a good idea, because some level of intelligence gathering (humint) on _foreign_ enemies/adversaries of US is needed. But Trump definitely can abolish entire departments that are not purely humint intelligence related. And those who meddled in the presidential election should be brought up on charges, if they can be identified.

    Also, if Trump tries to completely abolish CIA, a massive terrorist attack might be organized and Trump will be blamed for taking away US ability to detect it by abolishing CIA Frightened American public will acquiesce to even more enslavement, just like after 9/11. US spooks who meddle in American politics are evil and are experts at that sort of thing. And will do anything to survive. Trump has to be very careful. Maybe have the Pentagon neuter them in a roundabout way.

    But you are right: Trump can't let what CIA did slide.

    • Replies: @Marcus It can be replaced by something better, anyway it has been largely obsolete since a) collapse of USSR and b) internet revolution. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Marcus says: December 20, 2016 at 5:09 pm GMT @Avery {Ideally the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough support for that.}

    Abolishing CIA not a good idea, because some level of intelligence gathering (humint) on _foreign_ enemies/adversaries of US is needed. But Trump definitely can abolish entire departments that are not purely humint intelligence related. And those who meddled in the presidential election should be brought up on charges, if they can be identified.

    Also, if Trump tries to completely abolish CIA, a massive terrorist attack might be organized and Trump will be blamed for taking away US ability to detect it by abolishing CIA Frightened American public will acquiesce to even more enslavement, just like after 9/11. US spooks who meddle in American politics are evil and are experts at that sort of thing. And will do anything to survive. Trump has to be very careful. Maybe have the Pentagon neuter them in a roundabout way.

    But you are right: Trump can't let what CIA did slide.

    It can be replaced by something better, anyway it has been largely obsolete since a) collapse of USSR and b) internet revolution.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke Agreed. It should be totally broken up and an absolutely new agency created. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    SolontoCroesus says: December 20, 2016 at 6:07 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Another perspective: in a secular era of declining industry, the next new technology is expected to be cybersecurity. Companies like Palantir are clearing that path; others will follow. (Palantir got its major boost thru CIA contracts; the company, created in Silicon Valley, established a presence next door to the US anti-terrorism center in N Virginia - closer to the teat.) Money men want US gov and other governments as well to put government funding behind these ventures.

    Creating a scare to herd the flock this way or that is as old as Torah. Similarly, creating a scapegoat - an unblemished ram caught in the thicket - is an age-old tactic.

    Alex Karp, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and a few other innovator/entrepreneurs are not the folks who are behind the Russkie scare, but the investors or would-be investors in the emerging industries those folks created, and the politicians they depend on to ensure government support for their investment/enterprise, are in it up to their third wive's plastic surgery bills, not to mention the pool boy.

    Follow the money.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Cyrano says: December 20, 2016 at 6:46 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Some say that objectively reality doesn't even exist, that is all just a matter of perception. Well Americans must be really lucky people, because they have government + MSM who are so vastly intellectually superior to any mere mortal, that they are able to interpret the reality to the ordinary Americans so it won't confuse them any longer.

    Actually, according to Karl Rove, the neocon intelligentsia (I know, a contradiction in terms) of whom he is a proud member, claims to possess even higher powers – they are able to create reality now, because why bother with only interpreting reality, when thanks to your superior intellect you can create it. Hillary is also one of those neocons possessing (or possessed by) higher power and proud owner of those magical abilities.

    One of those neocon moments when they were able to create reality out of thin air, occurred when they "discovered" the Russian hacking of the election process in USA. Some people will call that "creation" of reality for what it actually is – creation of propaganda, but those are just mean unpatriotic Americans or other nationals who don't have America's best interests at heart.

    Some who are even more critical of America's reality "creation" abilities, would call those realities nightmares – like the realities created in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine even, but as they say, maybe those are only interpretations of reality and according to US – wrong interpretations of reality.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Mr Curious says: December 20, 2016 at 8:51 pm GMT

    RT shows MSM as ISIS supporting, anti-White, anti-Christian terrorist-supporters.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke RT does a pretty good job of demonstrating the fake against the real. It's not perfect at all, but any American taking the time to watch it would have a much clearer awareness of the degree to which they're being misled and lied to by establishment media. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Anon says: December 20, 2016 at 10:11 pm GMT

    Lie detectors? Now that Trump is on the hot seat and torture is on the books, these squealers had better watch out.

    Cortes says: December 20, 2016 at 10:25 pm GMT

    There's probably more likelihood of Dmitry Orlov 's whimsical (?) take on Obama being true:

    http://cluborlov.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/is-obama-russian-agent.html

    NoseytheDuke says: December 20, 2016 at 10:59 pm GMT

    @Marcus It can be replaced by something better, anyway it has been largely obsolete since a) collapse of USSR and b) internet revolution.

    Agreed. It should be totally broken up and an absolutely new agency created.

    nsa says: December 21, 2016 at 1:31 am GMT • 100 Words

    The propaganda broadcasts on behalf of the North Vietnamese by Tokyo Rose McCain are readily available on the internet. It is well known in Wash DC that Dame Lindsey Graham is a closet case overcompensating with campy militarism. The rest of the neocons .we all know who and what they are, by now.

    Bill Jones says: December 21, 2016 at 9:34 pm GMT @Buzz Mohawk
    Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China.
    Yes! This is exactly the smart play. It is essential.

    Let's have a little triangular diplomacy in the other direction this time. We've paid a big price for Nixon/Kissenger's three-way ploy. It's time to rotate their triangle. China is our enemy. It is the enemy they birthed and our capital created.

    "China is our enemy. "

    Bollocks.

    China is not my enemy.

    My enemies are located in Washington DC and Sodom on Hudson.

    Kyle McKenna says: December 22, 2016 at 1:05 am GMT

    Article needs More Mossad.

    "SPOTTED: Mossad Chief Briefs Trump Staff at Trump Tower"

    http://www.onlysimchas.com/news/44035/spotted-mossad-chief-briefs-trump-staff-at-trump-tower

    [Dec 21, 2016] The reason Trump won the GOP nomination was exactly because he claimed to reject traditional GOP policies and approaches

    Notable quotes:
    "... At some point the GOP has to decide how much of Trump's populist agenda they can stuff in the toilet without inducing an uncontrollable backlash. ..."
    "... The reason Trump won the GOP nomination was exactly because he claimed to reject traditional GOP policies and approaches. ..."
    "... If the GOP just go ahead with a traditional "rule for the rich" policy (because they won) there could be serious fireworks ahead - provided the Dems can pull out a populist alternative policy by the the next election. ..."
    "... I have no idea what's going to happen, but my guess is that Trump and the Republicans are going to completely sell out the "Trump voters." ..."
    "... But they still tried to push through Social Security privatization even though everyone is against it. ..."
    "... If recent history is any guide, incumbents get a second term regardless of how bad the economy is. Clinton, Bush, and Obama were all reelected despite a lousy economy. The only exception in recent memory was Bush 41. ..."
    "... Upper class tax cuts were central to his policies. Anybody who believed he was anything other than an standard issue Republican would buy shares in Arizona swampland. ..."
    "... trump did indeed state that he would give bigger tax cuts to the rich, repeatedly. the genius of trump's performance is that by never having a clear position his gullible followers were able to fill in the gaps using their own hopes and desires. ..."
    "... That is correct, but also the weakness in his support. They will almost certainly be disappointed as the exact interpretations and choices between incompatible promises turns out to be different from the individuals hopes and desires. ..."
    "... And consider how dysfunction from laissez faire healthcare policy readoption leads to rising prices/costs above current trend to limit disposable income even more, it will be amazing if we do not have stagnation and worse for the bulk of society. ..."
    "... Bush implemented and expanded a community health clinic system, that reallnwoukd be a nice infrastructure play for the US, but this Congress is more likely to disinvest here. They certainly don't want these do-gooder nonprofits competing against the doctor establishment. ..."
    "... The question is first of all whether Trump can bully the Fed away from their current and traditional course (which would not allow much of a stimulus, before they cancelled it out with rate hikes). ..."
    "... Second whether the Fed itself having been traditionally prone to support GOP presidents (see inconsistencies in Greenspan's policies during Clinton vs. Bush) will change its policies and allow higher inflation and wage growth than they have under any Dem president. ..."
    "... The little people go to the credit channels to help finance the purchase of durables and higher education too. The Fed's actions themselves will see these credit prices ratchet, so nit good fir basic demand. Veblen goods will see more price rises as the buyers will have lots of rentier/lobbying gathered money to burn. ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    DeDude -> jonny bakho... December 20, 2016 at 07:40 AM
    At some point the GOP has to decide how much of Trump's populist agenda they can stuff in the toilet without inducing an uncontrollable backlash.

    The reason Trump won the GOP nomination was exactly because he claimed to reject traditional GOP policies and approaches. It was the old tea-partiers insisting that their anti-rich/Anti-Wall street sentiments be inserted into the GOP.

    If the GOP just go ahead with a traditional "rule for the rich" policy (because they won) there could be serious fireworks ahead - provided the Dems can pull out a populist alternative policy by the the next election.

    Peter K. -> DeDude... , December 20, 2016 at 07:56 AM

    hey, a good comment!

    I have no idea what's going to happen, but my guess is that Trump and the Republicans are going to completely sell out the "Trump voters."

    George W. Bush wasn't completely horrible (besides Iraq, John Roberts, tax cuts for the rich, the Patriot act and the surveillance state, Katrina, etc. etc. etc.). He was good on immigration, world AIDS prevention, expensive Medicare drug expansion, etc.

    But they still tried to push through Social Security privatization even though everyone is against it.

    To some extent Bush demoralized the Republican base and they didn't turn out in 2008.

    JohnH -> DeDude... , December 20, 2016 at 08:04 AM
    If recent history is any guide, incumbents get a second term regardless of how bad the economy is. Clinton, Bush, and Obama were all reelected despite a lousy economy. The only exception in recent memory was Bush 41.

    About the only thing that can derail Trump is a big recession in 2019.

    DrDick -> DeDude... , December 20, 2016 at 08:18 AM
    "The reason Trump won the GOP nomination was exactly because he claimed to reject traditional GOP policies and approaches."

    While generally enthusiastically embracing them. Upper class tax cuts were central to his policies. Anybody who believed he was anything other than an standard issue Republican would buy shares in Arizona swampland.

    DeDude -> DrDick... , December 20, 2016 at 08:35 AM
    He never came out directly saying or tweeting that he would give bigger tax cuts to the rich than anybody else - he said he would give bigger tax cuts. It is true that people with a college education had an easy time figuring him out even before the election. But the populist messages he campaigned on were anti-establishment including suggesting that the "hedge-fund guys" were making a killing by being taxed at a lower rate.
    yuan -> DeDude... , December 20, 2016 at 10:00 AM
    trump did indeed state that he would give bigger tax cuts to the rich, repeatedly. the genius of trump's performance is that by never having a clear position his gullible followers were able to fill in the gaps using their own hopes and desires.
    DeDude -> yuan... , December 20, 2016 at 11:19 AM
    "his gullible followers were able to fill in the gaps using their own hopes and desires"

    That is correct, but also the weakness in his support. They will almost certainly be disappointed as the exact interpretations and choices between incompatible promises turns out to be different from the individuals hopes and desires. The reason Trump was able to beat even a Tea party darling, was the backlash against big money having taken over the Tea party. The backlash against Trump_vs_deep_state being "taken over by big money" interest will be interesting to observe, especially if the Dems find the right way to play it.

    yuan -> DeDude... , December 20, 2016 at 11:36 AM
    i hope you are right! however, history shows that a political movement can remain irrational longer than your government can remain democratic.
    DrDick -> jonny bakho... , December 20, 2016 at 08:14 AM
    And that is the least of the damage they will inflict.
    New Deal democrat said in reply to pgl... , December 20, 2016 at 05:10 AM
    Following up on Johnny Bakho's comment below, let's assume that average wage growth YoY for nonsupervisory workers never reaches 3% before the next recession hits. Wage growth rates always decline in recessions, usually by over 2%.

    If in the next recession, we see actual slight nominal wage decreases, is a debt-deflationary wage-price spiral inevitable? Or could there be a small decline of less than -1% without triggering such a spiral.

    Got any opinion? Is there any research on this?

    pgl -> New Deal democrat... , December 20, 2016 at 06:04 AM
    "is a debt-deflationary wage-price spiral inevitable?"

    Good question. It all depends on the response of policy makers. If we continue with the stupid fiscal austerity that began in 2011, it may be inevitable. Which is why doing public infrastructure investment is a very good idea.

    New Deal democrat said in reply to pgl... , December 20, 2016 at 06:28 AM
    We're doomed.
    DrDick -> New Deal democrat... , December 20, 2016 at 08:19 AM
    I knew that immediately after the election.
    JF -> DrDick... , December 20, 2016 at 01:07 PM
    And consider how dysfunction from laissez faire healthcare policy readoption leads to rising prices/costs above current trend to limit disposable income even more, it will be amazing if we do not have stagnation and worse for the bulk of society.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , December 20, 2016 at 07:08 AM
    "Which is why doing public infrastructure investment is a very good idea."

    If Hillary Clinton was so progressive according to people like you and Krugman, then why was her infrastructure plan so meager?

    Alan Blinder said it would be small small that it wouldn't effect the Fed's thinking on its rate hike schedule.

    JF -> Peter K.... , December 20, 2016 at 01:10 PM
    Bush implemented and expanded a community health clinic system, that reallnwoukd be a nice infrastructure play for the US, but this Congress is more likely to disinvest here. They certainly don't want these do-gooder nonprofits competing against the doctor establishment.
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , December 20, 2016 at 03:52 PM
    EMike said it about Bernie..... no soup for you!

    For Clinton dems, the ones the wiki revealed are con artists, doing for the peeps [like Bernie stood for] is too far ideologically for the faux centrists.

    They are neoliberals market monetarists who keep the bankers green and everyone else takes the back seats.

    DeDude -> pgl... , December 20, 2016 at 07:49 AM
    At this point in time pretty much anything the policy makers do will be countered by the Fed. The question is first of all whether Trump can bully the Fed away from their current and traditional course (which would not allow much of a stimulus, before they cancelled it out with rate hikes).

    Second whether the Fed itself having been traditionally prone to support GOP presidents (see inconsistencies in Greenspan's policies during Clinton vs. Bush) will change its policies and allow higher inflation and wage growth than they have under any Dem president.

    pgl -> DeDude... , December 20, 2016 at 07:55 AM
    As long as the FED thinks the natural rate of the employment to population ratio is only 60% - you'd be right. But then the FED is not thinking clearly.
    yuan -> Peter K.... , December 20, 2016 at 10:59 AM
    like many of my fellow socialists, i fulminated about bernanke's coddling of banks and asset holders. i was somewhat wrong. bernanke was a evidently a strong voice for banking regulation and an end to the moral hazard of TBTF. it is a pity that obama did not listen to him.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/05/13/ending-too-big-to-fail-whats-the-right-approach/

    JF -> yuan... , -1
    The little people go to the credit channels to help finance the purchase of durables and higher education too. The Fed's actions themselves will see these credit prices ratchet, so nit good fir basic demand. Veblen goods will see more price rises as the buyers will have lots of rentier/lobbying gathered money to burn.

    Will the Fed use rulemaking to control bubbling in the financial asset marketplaces as they wont want to rause rates too much. I hope they are paying attention

    [Dec 21, 2016] The Perfect Weapon How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S by ERIC LIPTON , DAVID E. SANGER and SCOTT SHANE

    the article contain at least one blatant lie which discredits its connect: the assertion the Sony attack was from North Korea. No mentioning of Flame and Stixnet. Another proof that NYT is a part of Clinton campaign and became a neocons mouthpiece...
    Notable quotes:
    "... How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all, and democracy, a great service? ..."
    "... I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization. ..."
    "... What they were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong. ..."
    "... Clinton herself was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly fellow in his stead. ..."
    "... What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus. ..."
    "... The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November 9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote because of the release of these e-mails? ..."
    "... If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned. ..."
    "... The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. ..."
    "... The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it. ..."
    "... That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you. ..."
    "... I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with the shoe on the other foot ..."
    "... I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated. On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight in, so to speak. ..."
    "... Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth? ..."
    "... I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this. ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | www.nytimes.com
    Sandy Garossino Vancouver, British Columbia December 13, 2016

    An aspect that truly surprises me is the hopeless ineptitude of the DNC response (which could easily have parallels in the RNC).

    Irrespective of who the cyber-attacker is, it's astounding in this day and age that sensitive organizations do not pre-arm themselves with the highest security, and treat every sign of interference (eg, an actual FBI WARNING PHONE CALL) as a major alarm.

    Sadly, that this response is probably replicated all over the place underscores a theory I've held for some time: Technology will kill democracy. Maybe it already has.

    Martha Dryden, NY December 13, 2016

    I'm surprised at what's missing here. How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all, and democracy, a great service?

    I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization.

    What they were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong.

    Assange and Putin (if he was involved) revealed the truth. And since Clinton took no care to guard her private emails, mixed with public communications, how much sympathy is she owed?

    Clinton herself was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly fellow in his stead. We do this sort of thing all the time, so if the Russians "interfere" in our electoral process by revealing true stuff (far short of fomenting a coup like we did in Ukraine), isn't that just tit for tat? We even hacked into the communications of European leaders and international organizations. We were the first to use cyber warfare (Stuxnet, v. Iran), so how can we play holier than thou? What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus.

    Classicist New York, NY December 13, 2016

    The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November 9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote because of the release of these e-mails?

    The bigger issue for me is that because we are now politicizing this hacking (i.e. making the argument that the hacking helped Republicans), many Republicans are opposed to investigating it.

    That is crazy to me.

    Southern Boy The Volunteer State December 13, 2016

    If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned.

    The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent.

    The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it.

    That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.

    GBC , Canada December 13, 2016

    I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with the shoe on the other foot

    I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated. On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight in, so to speak.

    Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth?

    Mark Bratanov FL December 13, 2016

    I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this.

    Eric Lipton is an NYTimes reporter Reporter December 13, 2016

    The agent could have walked over to the DNC headquarters and shown the DNC IT consultant his badge. Or he could have invited the DNC IT consultant to his office--confirming his true identity. Instead, the two communicated for several months just by phone, and as a result, the DNC IT consultant did not fully believe he was speaking to an FBI agent, and so he did not act as aggressively to search for the possible cyber intrusion.

    GC carrboro, nc December 13, 2016

    She lost, get over it. Yes the Electoral College is obsolete. Yes some voting machines can be hacked, but no-one is claiming that in states with tight results. Let's see what the official investigation says, and who says it.

    For better or worse Mr. Trump will be our next President because he won the election. Personally I'm delighted that he may damp down the over-the-top Russophobia that is swirling around DC, "defense" contractor Congressional shills, & the offices of the NYT but nowhere else in the country.

    It's time for progressives to emerge from Obama-daze and convince the rest of the country that they have a better vision for this country's future than that offered by conservatives/reactionaries. One that doesn't involve bombing hapless foreigners. Articulate your policies as best you can, learn from your defeats and from your victories. Onward!

    Southern Boy The Volunteer State December 13, 2016

    If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned. The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it. That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.

    Louisa is a trusted commenter New York December 13, 2016

    The police call and tell you to be sure to lock your doors and windows--there have been people seen lurking around your house.

    You hang up on them. And do nothing about your doors or windows.

    The police call repeatedly. You ignore all their calls.

    The police advise you to install an alarm system. You, making millions a year, say you can't afford it.

    You receive a notice in the mail telling you you've received 6 months worth of free storage. A van will arrive to pick up your stuff.

    You let the movers take your stuff away. You did not supervise what they took.

    You are the DNC, in terms of how they acted during this mess.

    [Dec 21, 2016] Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider? ..."
    "... Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda. ..."
    "... Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60. ..."
    "... And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer. ..."
    "... This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ? ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 07:15 PM

    Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider?

    One DNC staffer, 27-year-old Seth Rich, the DNC's director of voter expansion, was killed around this time in pretty strange circumstances. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/democratic-national-committee-staffer-shot-and-killed-in-washington.html

    Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-wikileaks-figure-says-insider-russia-hack/

    Or it can come from a dissident within the US agency that did have access to all emails.

    Do you remember such a person as Edward Snowden ?

    It might be very educational for you to read his opinion about this case:

    While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges are just propaganda and insinuations.

    And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party.

    As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.

    DeDude -> likbez... , December 18, 2016 at 08:05 PM
    Or you can explain why you believe strange Faux news conspiracy stories with absolutely no evidence that this person was in a position to hack the computers? Or why do you believe the obvious hugely conflicted statements from Wikileaks operatives, who would never want to admit that they were played by the Russians? Or a guy like Snowden who's life depend on Putins charity? Why would those sources make anybody question the clear evidence already presented?

    The fact that NSA is not going to publish all its evidence, is not a surprise. No need to tell the Russians and other hackers how they can avoid detection. But it is not just the government that conclude Russian involvement. Private company experts have reached the same conclusion. The case for a Russian government hack is about as good as it can get.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    likbez -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:48 PM
    Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.

    Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60.

    And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer.

    This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ?

    That's what this hysteria is now about, I think.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> likbez... , -1
    The NSA is very good at finding the source of intrusion attempts because they happen all the time every day from China, Russia, North Korea and just little island backwaters in the Pacific.

    Doing something to stop or punish the perpetrators is what is hard. Individual US installation instances must each be protected by their own firewalls and then still monitored for unusual variations in traffic patterns through firewalls to detect IP spoofing.

    [Dec 20, 2016] The Real Saboteurs Of A Trump Foreign Policy

    Dec 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

    The never-Trumpers are never going to surrender the myth that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the hacking of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee to defeat Clinton and elect Donald Trump.

    Their investment in the myth is just too huge.

    For Clinton and her campaign, it is the only way to explain how they booted away a presidential election even Trump thought he had lost in November. To the mainstream media, this is the smoking gun in their Acela Corridor conspiracy to delegitimize Trump's presidency.

    Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sees Russian hacking as a way to put a cloud over the administration before it begins. But it is the uber-hawks hereabouts who are after the really big game.

    They seek to demonize Putin as the saboteur of democracy - someone who corrupted an American presidential election to bring about victory for a "useful idiot" whom Clinton called Putin's "puppet."

    If the War Party can convert this "fake story" into the real story of 2016, then they can scuttle any Trump effort to attain the rapprochement with Russia that Trump promised to try to achieve.

    If they can stigmatize Trump as "Putin's president" and Putin as America's implacable enemy, then the Russophobes are back in business.

    Nor is the War Party disguising its goal.

    Over the weekend, Sen. John McCain called for a congressional select committee to investigate Russian hacking into the Clinton campaign. The purpose of the investigations, said Sen. Lindsey Graham, "is to put on President Trump's desk crippling sanctions against Russia."

    "They need to pay a price," Graham chortled on Twitter.

    "Crippling sanctions" would abort any modus vivendi, any deal with Russia, before Trump could negotiate one. Trump would have to refuse to impose them - and face the firestorm to follow. The War Party is out to dynamite any detente with Russia before it begins.

    Among the reasons Trump won is that he promised to end U.S. involvement in the costly, bloody and interminable wars in the Middle East the Bushites and President Barack Obama brought us - and the neocons relish - and to reach a new understanding with Russia and Putin.

    But to some in Washington, beating up on Russia is a conditioned reflex dating to the Cold War. For others in the media and the front groups called think tanks, Russophobia is in their DNA.

    Though Julian Assange says WikiLeaks did not get the emails from Russia, this has to be investigated. Did Russia hack the DNC's email system and John Podesta's email account? Did Putin direct that the emails be provided to WikiLeaks to disrupt democracy or defeat Clinton?

    Clinton says Putin has had it in for her because he believes she was behind the anti-Putin demonstrations in Moscow in 2011.

    But if there is to be an investigation of clandestine interference in the politics and elections of foreign nations, let's get it all out onto the table.

    The CIA director and his deputies should be made to testify under oath, not only as to what they know about Russia's role in the WikiLeaks email dumps but also about who inside the agency is behind the leaks to The Washington Post designed to put a cloud over the Trump presidency before it begins.

    Agents and operatives of the CIA should be subjected to lie detector tests to learn who is leaking to the anti-Trump press.

    Before any congressional investigation, President-elect Trump should call in his new director of the CIA, Rep. Mike Pompeo, and tell him to run down and remove, for criminal misconduct, any CIA agents or operatives leaking secrets to discredit his election.

    Putin, after all, is not an American. The CIA saboteurs of the Trump presidency are. Will the media investigate the leakers? Not likely, for they are the beneficiaries of the leaks and co-conspirators of the leakers.

    The top officials of the CIA and Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy, should be called to testify under oath. Were they behind anti-Putin demonstrations during the Russian elections of 2011?

    Did the CIA or NED have a role in the "color-coded" revolutions to dump over pro-Russian governments in Moscow's "near abroad"?

    If Russia did intrude in our election, was it payback for our intrusions to bring about regime change in its neighborhood?

    What role did the CIA, the NED and John McCain play in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine in 2014? McCain was seen cheering on the crowds in Independence Square in Kiev.

    Trump has promised a more hopeful foreign policy than that of the Republicans he denounced and is succeeding. No more wars where vital interests are not imperiled. No more U.S. troops arriving as first responders for freeloading allies.

    The real saboteurs of his new foreign policy may not be inside the Ring Road in Moscow; rather, they may be inside the Beltway around D.C.

    The real danger may be that a new Trump foreign policy could be hijacked or scuttled by anti-Trump Republicans, not only on Capitol Hill but inside the executive branch itself.

    [Dec 20, 2016] Is the slide toward military dictatorship the poarth the the USA will take due to collapse of neoliberlaism

    Notable quotes:
    "... But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable -- up to a complete reverse on certain promises. ..."
    "... So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama) toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites ) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism. ..."
    "... After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in 1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez, December 19, 2016 at 09:18 PM

    I think the shift from New Deal Capitalism to neoliberalism proved to be fatal for the form of democracy that used to exist in the USA (never perfect, and never for the plebs).

    Neoliberalism as a strange combination of socialism for the rich and feudalism for the poor is anathema for democracy even for the narrow strata of the US society who used to have a say in the political process. Like Bolshevism was dictatorship of nomenklatura under the slogan of "Proletarians of all countries, unite!", neoliberalism is more like dictatorship of financial oligarchy under the slogan "The financial elite of all countries, unite!")

    In this sense Trump is just the logical end of the process that started in 1980 with Reagan, or even earlier with Carter.

    And at the same time [he is] the symptom of the crisis of the system, as large swats of population this time voted against status quo and that created the revolutionary situation when the elite was unable to govern in the old fashion. That's why, I think, Hillary lost and Trump won.

    But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable -- up to a complete reverse on certain promises.

    So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama) toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites ) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism.

    After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in 1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date.

    And the slide toward military dictatorship does not necessary need to take a form of junta, which takes power via coup d'état. The control of the government by three letter agencies ("national security state") seems to be sufficient, can be accomplished by stealth, and might well be viewed as a form of military dictatorship too. So it can be a gradual slide: phase I, II, III, etc.

    The problem here as with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR is the growing level of degeneration of elite and the growth of influence of deep state, which includes at its core three letter agencies. As Michail Gorbachev famously said about neoliberal revolution in the USSR "the process already started in full force". He just did not understand at this point that he already completely lost control over neoliberal "Perestroika" of the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika

    In a way, the US Presidents are now more and more ceremonial figures that help to maintain the illusion of the legitimacy of the system. Obama is probably the current pinnacle of this process (which is reflected in one of his nicknames -- "teleprompter" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/obama-photo-caption-contest-teleprompter_n_1821154.html) .

    You probably could elect a dog instead of Trump and the US foreign policy will stay exactly the same. This hissy fits about Russians that deep state gave Trump before December 19, might be viewed as a warning as for any potential changes in foreign policy.

    As we saw with foreign policy none of recent presidents really fully control it. They still are important players, but the question is whether they are still dominant players. My impression is that it is already by-and-large defined and implemented by the deep state. Sometimes dragging the President forcefully into the desirable course of actions.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Tancredo Would Republican Establishment Use Impeachment to Block Trump Agenda

    Notable quotes:
    "... Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you. ..."
    "... Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to win concession after concession from the Trump White House. ..."
    "... There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. ..."
    "... On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump. But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging. ..."
    "... Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms. Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power to do so. ..."
    "... on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement. ..."
    "... Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican Party. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Several months ago I was asked what advice I would give to the Trump campaign.

    I said, only half joking, that he had better pick a vice presidential candidate the establishment hates more than it hates him. That would be his only insurance against impeachment. Those drums have already begun to beat, be it ever so subtly.

    Is anyone surprised how quickly the establishment that Donald Trump campaigned against has announced opposition to much of his policy agenda? No. But few understand that the passionate opposition includes a willingness to impeach and remove President Trump if he does not come to heel on his America First goals.

    Ferocious opposition to Trump from the left was expected and thus surprises nobody. From the comical demands for vote recounts to street protests by roving bands of leftist hate-mongers and condescending satire on late-night television, hysterical leftist opposition to Trump is now part of the cultural landscape.

    But those are amusing sideshows to the main event, the Republican establishment's intransigent opposition to key pillars of the Republican president's agenda.

    Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you.

    If you think talk of impeachment is insane when the man has not even been sworn into office yet, you have not been paying attention. Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to win concession after concession from the Trump White House.

    What are the key policy differences that motivate congressional opposition to the Trump agenda? There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's immigration laws.

    On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump. But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging.

    Yet, while the President-elect 's transition teams at the EPA, State Department and Education Department are busy mapping ambitious changes in direction, Congress's Republican leadership is busy doubling down on dissonance and disloyalty.

    Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms. Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power to do so.

    And then, on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement.

    It is no exaggeration to say that Trump's success or failure in overcoming the opposition to immigration enforcement will determine the success or failure of his presidency. If he cannot deliver on his most prominent and most popular campaign promise, nothing else will matter very much.

    So, the bad news for President Trump is this: If he keeps faith with his campaign promises on immigration, for example to limit Muslim immigration from terrorism afflicted regions, which is within his legitimate constitutional powers as President, he will risk impeachment. However, his congressional critics will face one enormous hurdle in bringing impeachment charges related to immigration enforcement: about 90 percent of what Trump plans to do is within current law and would require no new legislation in Congress. Obama disregarded immigration laws he did not like, so all Trump has to do is enforce those laws.

    Now, if you think talk of impeachment is ridiculous because Republicans control Congress, you are underestimating the depth of Establishment Republican support for open borders.

    The first effort in the 21st century at a general amnesty for all 20 million illegal aliens came in January 2005 from newly re-elected President George Bush. The "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill passed by the US Senate in 2013 did not have the support of the majority of Republican senators, and now they are faced with a Republican president pledged to the exact opposite agenda, immigration enforcement. And yet, do not doubt the establishment will sacrifice a Republican president to protect the globalist, open borders status quo.

    The leader and spokesman for that establishment open borders agenda is not some obscure backbencher, it is the Republican Speaker of the House. Because the Speaker controls the rules and the legislative calendar, if he chooses to play hardball against Trump on immigration he can block any of Trump's other policy initiatives until Trump abandons his immigration enforcement goals.

    What all this points to is a bloody civil war within the Republican Party fought on the battlefield of congressional committee votes.

    Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican Party.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Nickolas Kristof again demonstrates the level of neocons panic and his MIC lobbyist credentials

    What a despicable MIC stooge...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion. ..."
    "... Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States. ..."
    "... Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager. Yet it's notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with Russia's "Order of Friendship." ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    From Donald Trump The Russian Poodle - The New York Times

    In 1972, President Richard Nixon's White House dispatched burglars to bug Democratic Party offices. That Watergate burglary and related "dirty tricks," such as releasing mice at a Democratic press conference and paying a woman to strip naked and shout her love for a Democratic candidate, nauseated Americans - and impelled some of us kids at the time to pursue journalism.

    Now in 2016 we have a political scandal that in some respects is even more staggering. Russian agents apparently broke into the Democrats' digital offices and tried to change the election outcome. President Obama on Friday suggested that this was probably directed by Russia's president, saying, "Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin."

    In Watergate, the break-in didn't affect the outcome of the election. In 2016, we don't know for sure. There were other factors, but it's possible that Russia's theft and release of the emails provided the margin for Donald Trump's victory.

    The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion.

    Both Nixon and Trump responded badly to the revelations, Nixon by ordering a cover-up and Trump by denouncing the CIA and, incredibly, defending Russia from the charges that it tried to subvert our election. I never thought I would see a dispute between America's intelligence community and a murderous foreign dictator in which an American leader sided with the dictator.

    Let's be clear: This was an attack on America, less lethal than a missile but still profoundly damaging to our system. It's not that Trump and Putin were colluding to steal an election. But if the CIA is right, Russia apparently was trying to elect a president who would be not a puppet exactly but perhaps something of a lap dog - a Russian poodle.

    In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair was widely (and unfairly) mocked as President George W. Bush's poodle, following him loyally into the Iraq war. The fear is that this time Putin may have interfered to acquire an ally who likewise will roll over for him.

    Frankly, it's mystifying that Trump continues to defend Russia and Putin, even as he excoriates everyone else, from CIA officials to a local union leader in Indiana.

    Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States.

    Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager. Yet it's notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with Russia's "Order of Friendship."

    Whatever our personal politics, how can we possibly want to respond to Russia's interference in our election by putting American foreign policy in the hands of a Putin friend?

    Tillerson's closeness to Putin is especially troubling because of Trump's other Russia links. The incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn, accepted Russian money to attend a dinner in Moscow and sat near Putin. A ledger shows $12.7 million in secret payments by a pro-Russia party in Ukraine to Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort. And the Trump family itself has business connections with Russia.

    [Dec 18, 2016] America is a banana republic! FBI chief agrees with CIA on Russias alleged election help for Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
    "... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
    www.sott.net
    Reprinted from RT

    FBI and National Intelligence chiefs both agree with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential elections partly in an effort to help Donald Trump win the White House, US media report.

    FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are both convinced that Russia was behind cyberattacks that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, The Washington Post and reported Friday, citing a message sent by CIA Director John Brennan to his employees.

    "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it.

    "The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI," it continued.

    Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election to help Trump win, calling info "fuzzy and ambiguous"

    ... ... ...

    [Dec 18, 2016] DNC did not take even elementary steps to protect its infrastructure, steps described in NIST guidelines, it operated like a non profit and did not even have 24 x7 monitoring of its servers to say nothing about firewalls and proxy infrastructure corresponding to the level of sensitivity of information they handle. In other words they were suckers and pays for their machinations, greed and incompetence

    Notable quotes:
    "... To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish. ..."
    "... The Clintons' venality has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk. ..."
    "... That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics. I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future. ..."
    "... We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public entity. ..."
    "... Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian. ..."
    "... And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 10:06 AM
    It was only after listening to the Donna Brazile interview that I decided to comment on the hacking because of how wrong that Donna Brazile was in so many ways. What responsibility do you think that the Federal government should have for protecting the data of a private political operation? What legal or regulatory responsibility do you think that the Federal government has towards the protection of data for private civilian entities? The second question is rhetorical only to put the first question in perspective since they are materially exactly the same thing according to law. How difficult do you think it is to avoid exposure of incriminating or covert E-mails simply by not having such things?
    sglover -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 06:19 PM
    I just can't get past imagining that Donna Brazile is an honest, competent observer at all, and particularly this episode.
    mrrunangun said in reply to im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 11:13 AM
    To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish.

    The Clintons' venality has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk.

    HRC was elected senator from NY despite that. That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics. I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future.

    DeDude -> mrrunangun... , December 18, 2016 at 12:14 PM
    If it wasn't that none of what you write has any connection to the fact; it sounds good. What right wing website did you copy-paste it from?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to mrrunangun... , December 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM
    THANKS! We better get used to Republicans, at least until they "d'oh" their way out of political power just like the Democrats did. Democrats will never get it back on their own.

    DeDude -> im1dc..., December 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM

    I think there was a serious lack of IT competence in the DNC playing a big role. One being with the obvious incompetence of their cyber-security contractor and another the lack of supervision or procedures set for this person:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    I agree that the procedures and rules at the FBI could have been much better. Why the FBI agent didn't (or maybe (s)he did) send the information up higher in the chain (all the way to the President) is a bit of a mystery. Hacking of one of our two major parties should have been Presidential level info, or at least cabinet level.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    How about the possibility of not even having any E-mails incriminating Democrats of political corruption? Would that have been to hard? I am not saying that they should not be corrupt, just don't put it in an E-mail for Christ's sake.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:37 PM
    [Interesting that Putin is the bad guy here for exposing the behavior of the DNC. Why so much talk of Russians and so little talk of what was in those Emails?]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

    2016 Democratic National Committee email leak

    The 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak is a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to and subsequently published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016. This collection included 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the DNC, the governing body of the United States' Democratic Party.[1] The leak includes emails from seven key DNC staff members, and date from January 2015 to May 2016.[2] The leak prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the Democratic National Convention.[3] After the convention, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.[4]

    WikiLeaks did not reveal its source; a self-styled hacker going by the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the attack. On July 25, 2016, the FBI announced that it would investigate the hack[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The same day, the DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, stating, "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," and that the emails did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."[12] On November 6, 2016, WikiLeaks released a second batch of DNC emails, adding 8,263 emails to its collection.[13]

    On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[14] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee...

    ...Bernie Sanders' campaign

    In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[45] The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary-after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory-but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."[46]

    In a May 2016 email chain, the DNC chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall told the DNC chief executive officer, Amy Dacy, that they should have someone from the media ask Sanders if he is an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary.[46][47] In another email, Wasserman Schultz said of Bernie Sanders, "He isn't going to be president."[45]

    On May 21, 2016, DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach sent an email to DNC Spokesman Luis Miranda mentioning a controversy that ensued in December 2015 when the National Data Director of the Sanders campaign and three subordinate staffers accessed the Clinton campaign's voter information on the NGP VAN database.[48] (The party accused Sanders' campaign of impropriety and briefly limited their access to the database. The Sanders campaign filed suit for breach of contract against the DNC; they dropped the suit on April 29, 2016.)[47][49][50] Paustenbach suggested that the incident could be used to promote a "narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess." (The suggestion was rejected by the DNC.) [46][47] The Washington Post wrote: "Paustenbach's suggestion, in that way, could be read as a defense of the committee rather than pushing negative information about Sanders. But this is still the committee pushing negative information about one of its candidates."...

    ...Financial and donor information

    The New York Times wrote that the cache included "thousands of emails exchanged by Democratic officials and party fund-raisers, revealing in rarely seen detail the elaborate, ingratiating and often bluntly transactional exchanges necessary to harvest hundreds of millions of dollars from the party's wealthy donor class. The emails capture a world where seating charts are arranged with dollar totals in mind, where a White House celebration of gay pride is a thinly disguised occasion for rewarding wealthy donors and where physical proximity to the president is the most precious of currencies."[60] As is common in national politics, large party donors "were the subject of entire dossiers, as fund-raisers tried to gauge their interests, annoyances and passions."[60]

    In a series of email exchanges in April and May 2016, DNC fundraising staff discussed and compiled a list of people (mainly donors) who might be appointed to federal boards and commissions.[61] Center for Responsive Politics senior fellow Bob Biersack noted that this is a longstanding practice in the United States: "Big donors have always risen to the top of lists for appointment to plum ambassadorships and other boards and commissions around the federal landscape."[61] The White House denied that financial support for the party was connected to board appointments, saying: "Being a donor does not get you a role in this administration, nor does it preclude you from getting one. We've said this for many years now and there's nothing in the emails that have been released that contradicts that."...

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:41 PM
    That does not make Putin a good guy. I was not a fan of Snowden's either. But it is easier for me to avoid incriminating myself in Emails than it is to get a foreign leader half way around the world to not expose my self-incrimination if it is in his self-interest to do so and he has the resources to do so.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM
    We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public entity.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:53 PM
    I probably should have said investors instead of owners to be more precise.
    DeDude -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 01:20 PM
    So a bunch of nothing burgers about how the sausage is made. You don't say that there is actually people in the DNC that have their own personal favorite among the primary candidates - shocking??? And campaign donations in exchange for the ability to gain influence -- almost half a chocking as the K-Street project - and a quarter as shocking as the revelation that donating to the Clinton foundation could NOT give the donors what they wanted from the State Department (what an absurdly incompetent scheme of corruption - how could we let her run the gobinment).

    I am sure that the Russian governments hack of the GOP didn't find anything like that - and that's the reason they didn't make those emails public.

    The general advice that you should not send anything by email that you don't want the public to know should have been headed by all involved. Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who had > 30K emails examined and not a single one where she had said anything not good for public consumption.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 02:38 PM
    "...Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who had > 30K emails examined and not a single one where she had said anything not good for public consumption."

    [Now you are starting to come around.

    NO, I did not find anything in the Emails shocking. None of it was a surprise at all to me. However, it was enough for a lot of other people to be influenced in their voting (likely to stay home and maybe it helped the Green Party get a few more votes), otherwise no one would care that they were hacked.

    Observer's comment just down thread shows that he got it. Now he was not a Hillary supporter and more likely than not a Libertarian of sorts, but the principle here is universal, simple risk management where there was nothing to be gained and everything to lose.

    Also, going to war over the hacked Emails of any political party is probably off the table:<) Where Hillary made a mistake was making an enemy that had one of the worlds most aggressive state sponsored internet hacking programs (China and the US being the only ones that are more capable, but still less aggressive and more covert).]

    im1dc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 05:18 PM
    You have exhaustively proven that there was no crime or wrong doing committed by the DNC or Hillary. Thanks. You have provided evidence that politics is politics and like sausage making you don't want to actually see it up close and personal.

    Nothing here, nothing at all.

    Except for Marshall McLuhan's observation that the media is the message. In this case the Russian leaked emails to Assange lead Wikileaks calculated to dribble out over the months and weeks before the November election to suggest there were illegalities and criminal behavior being covered up by Hillary and the DNC at EXACTLY the same time Donald Trump is jetting around the country telling everybody who listened that the election was rigged, Hillary is a crook, and the MSM was out to get him.

    Wow, how did you miss that and the implications derived from it?

    likbez -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 05:41 PM
    Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider?

    One DNC staffer, 27-year-old Seth Rich, the DNC's director of voter expansion, was killed around this time in pretty strange circumstances. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/democratic-national-committee-staffer-shot-and-killed-in-washington.html

    Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-wikileaks-figure-says-insider-russia-hack/

    Or it can come from a dissident within the US agency that did have access to all emails.

    Do you remember such a person as Edward Snowden ? It might be very educational for you to read his opinion about this case:

    While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges are just propaganda and insinuations.

    And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party.

    As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.

    ilsm -> im1dc... , -1
    Nothing Ron says is clearing. The e-mail thing is about safeguarding and preserving public records. The content of mishandled records is not an issue.

    The public demanded to know what government does. Congress passed the federal records act. The crime has nothing to do with content.

    That is one felony Comey could complain about justice whitewashing. The elements of friendly information released must never be discussed, that would make the breeches worse. Except in closed, secure rooms with no electronic bugging devices.

    Clinton would have been impeached!

    [Dec 18, 2016] Will Donald Trump Cave on Social Security

    First Bush II bankrupted the country by cutting taxes for rich and unleashing Iraq war. Then Republicans want to cut Social Securty to pay for it
    Notable quotes:
    "... His nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, a Republican congressman from Georgia, has been a champion of cuts to all three of the nation's large social programs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. When discussing reforms to Social Security, he has ignored ways to bring new revenue into the system while emphasizing possible benefit cuts through means-testing, private accounts and raising the retirement age. ..."
    "... But Mr. Price, who currently heads the House Budget Committee, has found a way to cut Social Security deeply without Congress and the president ever having to enact specific benefit cuts, like raising the retirement age. ..."
    "... Mr. Trump's hands-off approach to Social Security during the campaign was partly a strategic gesture to separate him from other Republican contenders who stuck to the party line on cutting Social Security. But he also noted the basic fairness of a system in which people who dutifully contribute while they are working receive promised benefits when they retire. Unfortunately, he has not surrounded himself with people who will help him follow those instincts. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    Donald Trump campaigned on a promise not to cut Social Security, which puts him at odds with the Republican Party's historical antipathy to the program and the aims of today's Republican leadership. So it should come as no surprise that congressional Republicans are already testing Mr. Trump's hands-off pledge.

    ... ... ...

    As Congress drew to a close this month, Sam Johnson, the chairman of the House Social Security subcommittee, introduced a bill that would slash Social Security benefits for all but the very poorest beneficiaries. To name just two of the bill's benefit cuts, it would raise the retirement age to 69 and reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment, while asking nothing in the way of higher taxes to bolster the program; on the contrary, it would cut taxes that high earners now pay on a portion of their benefits. Last week, Mark Meadows, the Republican chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said the group would push for an overhaul of Social Security and Medicare in the early days of the next Congress.

    ... ... ...

    Another sensible reform would be to bring more tax revenue into the system by raising the level of wages subject to Social Security taxes, currently $118,500. In recent decades, the wage cap has not kept pace with the income gains of high earners; if it had, it would be about $250,000 today.

    The next move on Social Security is Mr. Trump's. He can remind Republicans in Congress that his pledge would lead him to veto benefit cuts to Social Security if such legislation ever reached his desk. When he nominates the next commissioner of Social Security, he can choose a competent manager, rather than someone who has taken sides in political and ideological debates over the program.

    What Mr. Trump actually will do is unknown, but his actions so far don't inspire confidence. By law, the secretaries of labor, the Treasury and health and human services are trustees of Social Security. Mr. Trump's nominees to head two of these departments, Labor and Treasury - Andrew Puzder, a fast-food executive, and Steve Mnuchin, a Wall Street trader and hedge fund manager turned Hollywood producer - have no government experience and no known expertise on Social Security.

    His nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, a Republican congressman from Georgia, has been a champion of cuts to all three of the nation's large social programs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. When discussing reforms to Social Security, he has ignored ways to bring new revenue into the system while emphasizing possible benefit cuts through means-testing, private accounts and raising the retirement age.

    There is no way to mesh those ideas with Mr. Trump's pledge. But Mr. Price, who currently heads the House Budget Committee, has found a way to cut Social Security deeply without Congress and the president ever having to enact specific benefit cuts, like raising the retirement age. Recently, he put forth a proposal to reform the budget process by imposing automatic spending cuts on most federal programs if the national debt exceeds specified levels in a given year. If Congress passed Mr. Trump's proposed tax cut, for example, the ensuing rise in debt would trigger automatic spending cuts that would slash Social Security by $1.7 trillion over 10 years, according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. This works out to a cut of $168 a month on the average monthly benefit of $1,240. If other Trump priorities were enacted, including tax credits for private real estate development and increases in military spending, the program cuts would be even deeper.

    Mr. Trump's hands-off approach to Social Security during the campaign was partly a strategic gesture to separate him from other Republican contenders who stuck to the party line on cutting Social Security. But he also noted the basic fairness of a system in which people who dutifully contribute while they are working receive promised benefits when they retire. Unfortunately, he has not surrounded himself with people who will help him follow those instincts.

    Susan Anderson is a trusted commenter Boston 1 hour ago
    There is a simple solution to Social Security.

    Remove the cap, so it is not a regressive tax. After all, Republicans appear to be all for a "flat" tax. Then lower the rate for everyone.

    There is no reason why it should only be charged on the part of income that is needed to pay for necessary expenses should as housing, food, medical care, transportation, school, communications, and such. Anyone making more than the current "cap" is actually able to afford all this.

    There is no reason the costs should be born only by those at the bottom of the income pyramid.

    As for Republican looting, that's just despicable, and we'll hope they are wise enough to realize that they shouldn't let government mess with people's Social Security!

    Thomas Zaslavsky is a trusted commenter Binghamton, N.Y. 1 hour ago
    The idea hinted in the editorial that Trump has any principle or instinct that would lead him to protect benefits for people who are not himself or his ultra-wealthy class is not worthy of consideration. No, Trump has none such and he will act accordingly. (Test my prediction at the end of 2017 or even sooner; it seems the Republicans are champing at the bit to loot the government and the country fro their backers.)
    Christine McM is a trusted commenter Massachusetts 2 hours ago
    I wouldn't hold Trump to any of his campaign promises, given how often he changes positions, backtracks, changes subjects, or whatever. His biggest promise of all was to "drain the swamp" and we know how that turned out.

    He might have a cabinet of outsiders, but they are still creatures from outside swamps. That said, if there is even the barest of hints that this is on the agenda, I can pretty much bet that in two years, Congress will completely change parties.

    Imagine: cutting benefits for people who worked all their lives and depend on that money in older age, all in order to give the wealthiest Americans another huge tax cut. For a fake populist like Trump, that might sound like a great idea (he has no fixed beliefs or principles) but to his most ardent supporters, that might be the moment they finally get it: they fell for one of the biggest cons in the universe.

    Rita is a trusted commenter California 2 hours ago
    Given the Republican desire to shut down Medicare and Social Security, it is not hard to predict that they will do so a little at a time so that people will not notice until its too late.

    But since the Republicans have been very upfront with hostility towards the social safety net, one can conclude that their supporters want to eliminate social safety net.

    Mary Ann Donahue is a trusted commenter NYS 2 hours ago

    RE: "To name just two of the bill's benefit cuts, it would raise the retirement age to 69 and reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment..."

    The COLA for 2017 is .03% a paltry average increase of $5 per month. There was no increase in 2016.

    The formula for how the COLA is calculated needs to be changed to allow for fair increases not reductions.

    Mary Scott is a trusted commenter NY 4 hours ago
    Republicans have been promising to "fix" Social Security for years and now we are seeing exactly what they mean. We can see how low they're willing to stoop by their plan to cut the taxes that high earners now pay on a portion of their benefits and decimate the program for everybody else. I wouldn't be surprised if they raised SS taxes on low and middle income earners.

    There has been an easy fix for Social Security for years. Simply raise the tax on income to $250,000 thousand and retirees both present and future would be on much firmer footing. Many future retirees will be moving on to Social Security without the benefit of defined pension plans and will need a more robust SS benefit in the future, not a weaker one.

    Don't count on Donald Trump to come to the rescue. He seems to hate any tax more than even the most fervent anti-tax freak like Paul Ryan. Mr. Trump admitted throughout the campaign that he avoids paying any tax at all.

    The Times seems to want to give Mr. Trump limitless chances to do the right thing. "Will Donald Trump Cave on Social Security" it asks. Of course he will. One has only to look at his cabinet choices and his embrace of the Ryan budget to know the answer to that question. Better to ask, "How Long Will It Take Trump To Destroy Social Security?"

    At least it would be an honest question and one that would put Mr. Trump in the center of a question that will affect the economic security of millions of Americans.

    serban is a trusted commenter Miller Place 4 hours ago
    Cutting benefits for upper income solves nothing since by definition upper incomes are a small percentage of the population. The obvious way to solve any problem with SS is to raise taxes on upper incomes, the present cap is preposterous. People so wealthy that SS is a pittance can show their concern by simply donating the money they get from SS to charities.
    david is a trusted commenter ny 4 hours ago

    We can get some perspective on what Social Security privatization schemes would mean to the average SSS recipient from Roger Lowenstein' analysis of Bush's privatization scheme.

    Roger Lowenstein's Times article discusses the CBO's analysis of how the Bush privatization scheme for Social Security would reduce benefits.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/magazine/16SOCIAL.html?_r=1&amp;pagewa...

    "The C.B.O. assumes that the typical worker would invest half of his allocation in stocks and the rest in bonds. The C.B.O. projects the average return, after inflation and expenses, at 4.9 percent. This compares with the 6 percent rate (about 3.5 percent after inflation) that the trust fund is earning now.

    The second feature of the plan would link future benefit increases to inflation rather than to wages. Because wages typically grow faster, this would mean a rather substantial benefit cut. In other words, absent a sustained roaring bull market, the private accounts would not fully make up for the benefit cuts. According to the C.B.O.'s analysis, which, like all projections of this sort should be regarded as a best guess, a low-income retiree in 2035 would receive annual benefits (including the annuity from his private account) of $9,100, down from the $9,500 forecast under the present program. A median retiree would be cut severely, from $17,700 to $13,600. "

    [Dec 18, 2016] The US medias neo-McCarthyite campaign for war against Russia by Andre Damon

    Notable quotes:
    "... These allegations were followed Wednesday by a press briefing in which White House spokesman Josh Earnest declared that media outfits in the US, in reporting on the Democratic Party emails released by WikiLeaks, "essentially became the arms of Russian intelligence." ..."
    "... Later that day, President Obama threatened to retaliate against Russia, telling National Public Radio, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will." ..."
    "... The Times followed up its inflammatory article with an editorial Thursday all but accusing the president-elect of acting as a Russian agent. ..."
    "... There are bitter and raging conflicts within the state, and a faction of the military-intelligence apparatus is determined that there be no retreat from an aggressive confrontation with Russia. This is connected to anger over the debacle of the CIA-led regime-change operation in Syria. ..."
    "... Bound up with this internecine conflict within the ruling class, there is a concerted effort to politically bludgeon the American people into supporting further military escalation, both in the Middle East and against Russia itself. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    The American population is being subjected to a furious barrage of propaganda by the media and political establishment aimed at paving the way to war.

    The campaign was sharply escalated this week, beginning with Wednesday's publication of a lead article in the New York Times . Based entirely on unnamed sources and flimsy and concocted evidence, it was presented as definitive proof of Russia's hacking of Democratic Party emails and waging of "cyberwar" against the United States.

    These allegations were followed Wednesday by a press briefing in which White House spokesman Josh Earnest declared that media outfits in the US, in reporting on the Democratic Party emails released by WikiLeaks, "essentially became the arms of Russian intelligence."

    On Thursday, Earnest declared that president-elect Trump had encouraged "Russia to hack his opponent because he believed it would help his campaign." Later that day, President Obama threatened to retaliate against Russia, telling National Public Radio, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will."

    These warmongering comments by the Obama administration were accompanied by editorials in leading US and international newspapers denouncing Trump's accommodative stance toward Russia and clamoring for a more aggressive response to the alleged hacking. News reports, based on unnamed intelligence officials, breathlessly proclaim that Russian President Vladimir Putin directly ordered and oversaw the hacking.

    The Times followed up its inflammatory article with an editorial Thursday all but accusing the president-elect of acting as a Russian agent. "There could be no more 'useful idiot,' to use Lenin's term of art, than an American president who doesn't know he's being played by a wily foreign power," the Times declared. The editorial further defined Russia as "one of our oldest, most determined foreign adversaries," adding, "Kremlin meddling in the 2016 election" justifies "retaliatory measures."

    The declarations by the Times and other media outlets combine all of the noxious elements of 1950s McCarthyism, with capitalist Russia replacing the Soviet Union: hysterical denunciation of "wily" Russia, shameless lying and attacks on domestic opponents as spies, traitors and agents of foreign governments.

    There are bitter and raging conflicts within the state, and a faction of the military-intelligence apparatus is determined that there be no retreat from an aggressive confrontation with Russia. This is connected to anger over the debacle of the CIA-led regime-change operation in Syria. Trump has packed his cabinet with generals and is planning a massive escalation of war, but he has also indicated a preference for greater accommodation with Russia.

    Bound up with this internecine conflict within the ruling class, there is a concerted effort to politically bludgeon the American people into supporting further military escalation, both in the Middle East and against Russia itself.

    The propaganda campaign alleging Russian interference in the US election parallels a related media blitzkrieg claiming that Syrian government troops, backed by Russia, are carrying out massacres as they retake the Syrian city of Aleppo.

    The Times ' lead editorial on Thursday, titled "Aleppo's Destroyers: Assad, Putin, Iran," declares: "After calling on Mr. Assad to 'step aside' in 2011, Mr. Obama was never able to make it happen, and it may never have been in his power to make it happen, at least at a cost acceptable to the American people." The front-page lead of Thursday's Times bemoans the fact that efforts to whip up public support for US military intervention in Syria have "not resonated" as much as previous propaganda campaigns.

    The international press has joined in the hysteria. An op-ed in Germany's Der Spiegel bitterly complains that "Obama sought a diplomatic, not a military solution" to the crisis in Syria. It "made him popular, both in the United States and here [in Germany]," the piece states, but adds that such "self-righteousness is wrong."

    Such media propaganda campaigns are not new. Without exception, they have preceded every bloody military adventure: the attempts to blame Afghanistan for the September 11 terrorist attacks in the run-up to that country's invasion in 2001; the lying claims about "weapons of mass destruction" before the 2003 invasion of Iraq; and the reports of an imminent massacre of civilians in Benghazi that preceded the US bombing and destruction of Libya in 2011.

    The difference now, however, is that this campaign is directed not at a virtually defenseless and impoverished former colony, but at Russia, the world's second-ranked nuclear power. None of the figures carrying out this campaign care to explain how a war against Russia should be fought, how many people will die, and how such a war could avoid a nuclear exchange leading to the destruction of human civilization.

    Behind the banner headlines and vituperative editorials, real steps are being taken to prepare for warfare on a scale not seen for 60 years. Earlier this year, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley told the Association of the United States Army that the military must prepare for wars against great powers, which will be "very highly lethal, unlike anything our Army has experienced since World War II."

    The campaign that has developed over the past two weeks makes clear what the policy of a Clinton administration would have been. The Democratic Party and its allied media outlets have rooted their opposition to Trump not on the basis of his losing the popular vote by nearly three million ballots, or that he is appointing a cabinet dominated by right-wing, reactionary billionaires, bankers, business executives and generals, but on the charge that he is "soft" on Russia. That is, the Democratic Party has managed to attack Trump from the right.

    Whatever the outcome of the conflict within the state, the American ruling class is preparing for war. The dissolution of the USSR 25 years ago was greeted with enraptured declarations of an era of perpetual peace, in which a world under the unrivaled hegemony of the United States would be free of the wars that plagued mankind in the 20th century. Now, after a quarter century of bloody regional conflicts, the blood-curdling declarations of the press make it clear that a new world war is in the making.

    Among broad sections of workers and young people, there is deep skepticism toward government lies and hostility to war. However, this opposition can find no reflection within any faction of the political establishment. The building of a new anti-war movement, based on the international unity of the working class in opposition to capitalism and all the political parties of the ruling class, is the urgent task.

    Andre Damon

    [Dec 18, 2016] Two more states confirm election hacks traced to US government

    "Oh dear. How are they going to keep their 'Putin did it' story straight if they keep shooting themselves in the foot like this?"
    www.sott.net

    Last week we reported that the State of Georgia had traced an attempted break-in to its voter registration database to none other than the famous Russian government agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

    Now it has been revealed that Kentucky and West Virginia "have confirmed suspected cyberattacks linked to the same U.S. Department of Homeland Security IP address as last month's massive attack in Georgia". There must be some way to blame Moscow:

    While there could be an "innocent" explanation for such attacks (testing network security, for example), the Department of Homeland Security did not inform any of these states - before or after the attacks - that they had been conducted, for security-checking purposes or otherwise. In other words: These states still don't know why DHS targeted, and they're still waiting for an answer:

    In the past week, the Georgia Secretary of State's Office has confirmed 10 separate cyberattacks on its network over the past 10 months that were traced back to DHS addresses.

    "We're being told something that they think they have it figured out, yet nobody's really showed us how this happened," Kemp said. "We need to know."

    He says the new information from the two other states presents even more reason to be concerned.

    "So now this just raises more questions that haven't been answered about this and continues to raise the alarms and concern that I have," Kemp said.
    Georgia's Secretary of State says he has already sent an appeal to the incoming Trump administration, asking for assistance in resolving this bizarre string of cyber attacks.

    Stay tuned.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Revealed! Putin personally hacked DNC from surveillance aircraft with bear on board

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst. She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary. Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post, New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or at her website www.danielleryan.net. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Danielle Ryan
    RT
    Sat, 17 Dec 2016 21:42 UTC Map © Alexey Nikolsky / Reuters Shocking revelations earlier this week as US intelligence officials confirmed with "high confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin was "personally involved" in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

    According to the anonymous sources inside the anonymous US intelligence agency, Putin's objectives were multifaceted, but the whole thing began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton because she said some mean things about him a few times. Putin is also an "immature 12 year-old child," a former US official with links to the defense industry, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed (with high confidence).

    The high level, anonymous and completely trustworthy sources also told a major US news agency that Putin himself had piloted a specially-designed Russian spy plane across the Atlantic to personally direct the still-ongoing hacking operations from the air.

    via GIPHY
    Satellite images seen by a separate anonymous NASA whistleblower are believed to show Putin in the cockpit of the spy plane alongside his co-pilot Boris, a lifelike robotic bear which has been under secret development in the depths of Siberia and has been programmed to attack Putin's enemies on command using a variety of lethal methods.

    The NASA whistleblower did not provide journalists with photographic evidence, but the editors had a chat about it in their morning meeting and concluded that it's probably still true.

    In fact, the American news agency could not verify any of the claims from the officials who commented for the story, but given that their sources used the term "high confidence" they took this to mean the evidence must be "nearly incontrovertible" and relayed the information to the public with this implication. An understandable decision, since, as we all know, only 100 percent factual information is ever released by anonymous intelligence officials.

    Okay, let's rewind. Obviously that bit about the bear and the plane was fake news. And maybe a few other bits, too. But it all demonstrates a point. I've provided you with about the same amount of evidence as NBC has in its story this week claiming Putin personally rigged the US election: I made some allegations, I cited anonymous sources and then I conveyed it to you readers as "nearly incontrovertible" and suggested no further digging or investigation, or even a bit of healthy skepticism, was necessary.

    Journalism is dying

    There was a time when journalists needed more than 'maybes' and 'probablys' before deciding what their sources told them was "incontrovertible" and delivering half-baked conspiracy theories to the public. That time has apparently long gone.

    Imagine for a moment that RT published a story about, oh, let's say Barack Obama personally hacking into Putin's computer. Now imagine the only evidence RT provided was "anonymous FSB officials" and told its readers the story was therefore practically indisputable because these anonymous sources were "confident" in the legitimacy of their secret evidence. Imagine the laughs that would get from sneering Western journalists. Well, that's pretty much exactly what NBC did. And they're not alone. The Washington Post has been at it too, reporting on a "secret" CIA assessment that Russia worked to get Donald Trump elected, quoting anonymous "top officials" and like NBC, providing no evidence.

    Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but for something to be presented to the public as indisputable fact, there must be evidence made available to back it up. Neither the CIA or the FBI have provided any such evidence to the public.

    Perhaps the saddest thing though is having to acknowledge that all our debates over fake news and real news really don't matter because the very people we are told to trust are the people who will most adeptly use the public's concerns over fake news to manipulate them. The CIA, for example, is hardly known for its long history of telling the truth. Its employees are literally trained in the art of deception and disinformation. They are hardly averse to creating a bit of fake news or making up 'evidence' where needed. Anything they say or do can be forgiven once someone utters the words "national security".

    NBC's story claimed Putin not only wanted to embarrass Clinton with the DNC leaks, but to highlight corruption in the American political system; the emails showing, for example, how the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign to ensure Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, would be the Democratic nominee.

    Now, what better way to encourage people to ignore the corruption in the system than to focus their attention on the idea that Putin is the one who told them about it? Are people really reading these stories and convincing themselves that the CIA is the most credible source of public information on what the Russians are doing?

    Clinton's long-shot

    We've been hearing about Russian hacking for months, long before the election results in November, so why the sudden confidence in all this new and secret evidence? Why the new assertions that Putin himself directed the hacking? Look at your calendar. The Electoral College votes on Monday and it may be Clinton's last hope. It's a long shot, but in true Clinton character, she won't go down without a fight to the last gasp. Her best hope is to convince the Electoral College that Trump's win was influenced by a foreign power, is therefore illegitimate and that national security will be at stake if he takes office.

    Amazingly, in the midst of all this, while Clinton's camp is still trying to get her elected through back-door tactics, Obama has pretty much called the election results legitimate .

    Members of the Electoral College are expected to vote the way their states voted, but they are not required to. If Clinton can get enough members to flip their votes, Trump is deprived of the 270 votes he needs to become president. That's what this is really all about - and the media is serving as Clinton's willing accomplice.

    Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst. She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary. Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post, New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or at her website www.danielleryan.net.

    [Dec 17, 2016] Responsibility for the current decline of middle class in the USA rests on neoliberals

    Dec 17, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Tim Duy:

    Responsibility : I have been puzzling over this from Paul Krugman :

    Donald Trump won the electoral college at least in part by promising to bring coal jobs back to Appalachia and manufacturing jobs back to the Rust Belt. Neither promise can be honored – for the most part we're talking about jobs lost, not to unfair foreign competition, but to technological change. But a funny thing happens when people like me try to point that out: we get enraged responses from economists who feel an affinity for the working people of the afflicted regions – responses that assume that trying to do the numbers must reflect contempt for regional cultures, or something.

    Is this the right narrative? I am no longer comfortable with this line:

    for the most part we're talking about jobs lost, not to unfair foreign competition, but to technological change.

    Try to place that line in context with this from Noah Smith:

    Then, in the 1990s and 2000s, the U.S opened its markets to Chinese goods, first with Most Favored Nation trading status, and then by supporting China's accession to the WTO. The resulting competition from cheap Chinese goods contributed to vast inequality in the United States, reversing many of the employment gains of the 1990s and holding down U.S. wages. But this sacrifice on the part of 90% of the American populace enabled China to lift its enormous population out of abject poverty and become a middle-income country.

    Was this "fair" trade? I think not. Let me suggest this narrative: Sometime during the Clinton Administration, it was decided that an economically strong China was good for both the globe and the U.S. Fair enough. To enable that outcome, U.S. policy deliberately sacrificed manufacturing workers on the theory that a.) the marginal global benefit from the job gain to a Chinese worker exceeded the marginal global cost from a lost US manufacturing job, b.) the U.S. was shifting toward a service sector economy anyway and needed to reposition its workforce accordingly and c.) the transition costs of shifting workers across sectors in the U.S. were minimal.

    As a consequence – and through a succession of administrations – the US tolerated implicit subsidies of Chinese industries, including national industrial policy designed to strip production from the US.

    And then there was the currency manipulation. I am always shocked when international economists claim "fair trade," pretending that the financial side of the international accounts is irrelevant. As if that wasn't a big, fat thumb on the scale. Sure, "currency manipulation" is running the other way these days. After, of course, a portion of manufacturing was absorbed overseas. After the damage is done.

    Yes, technological change is happening. But the impact, and the costs, were certainly accelerated by U.S. policy.

    It was a great plan. On paper, at least. And I would argue that in fact points a and b above were correct.

    But point c. Point c was a bad call. Point c was a disastrous call. Point c helped deliver Donald Trump to the Oval Office. To be sure, the FBI played its role, as did the Russians. But even allowing for the poor choice of Hilary Clinton as the Democratic nominee (the lack of contact with rural and semi-rural voters blinded the Democrats to the deep animosity toward their candidate), it should never have come to this.

    The transition costs were not minimal.

    Consider this from the New York Times :

    As the opioid epidemic sweeps through rural America, an ever-greater number of drug-dependent newborns are straining hospital neonatal units and draining precious medical resources.

    The problem has grown more quickly than realized and shows no signs of abating, researchers reported on Monday. Their study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, concludes for the first time that the increase in drug-dependent newborns has been disproportionately larger in rural areas.

    The latest causalities in the opioid epidemic are newborns.

    The transition costs were not minimal.

    My take is that "fair trade" as practiced since the late 1990s created another disenfranchised class of citizens. As if we hadn't done enough of that already. Then we weaponized those newly disenfranchised citizens with the rhetoric of identity politics. That's coming back to bite us. We didn't really need a white nationalist movement, did we?

    Now comes the big challenge: What can we do to make amends? Can we change the narrative? And here is where I agree with Paul Krugman:

    Now, if we want to have a discussion of regional policies – an argument to the effect that my pessimism is unwarranted – fine. As someone who is generally a supporter of government activism, I'd actually like to be convinced that a judicious program of subsidies, relocating government departments, whatever, really can sustain communities whose traditional industry has eroded.

    The damage done is largely irreversible. In medium-size regions, lower relative housing costs may help attract overflow from the east and west coast urban areas. And maybe a program of guaranteed jobs for small- to medium-size regions combined with relocation subsidies for very small-size regions could help. But it won't happen overnight, if ever. And even if you could reverse the patterns of trade – which wouldn't be easy given the intertwining of global supply chains – the winners wouldn't be the same current losers. Tough nut to crack.

    Bottom Line: I don't know how to fix this either. But I don't absolve the policy community from their role in this disaster. I think you can easily tell a story that this was one big policy experiment gone terribly wrong.

    [Dec 17, 2016] You think Putin personally supervised the Yahoo hacking? This could make many people patriotic in a hurry.

    Notable quotes:
    "... this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified. ..."
    "... [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before. ..."
    "... Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz. ..."
    "... It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts. ..."
    "... "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed. ..."
    "... With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press? ..."
    "... I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire. ..."
    "... The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened. ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    pretzelattack , December 16, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified.

    HBE , December 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before.

    B1whois , December 16, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    The great sucking pit of need that keeps on giving. when will it abate?

    different clue , December 16, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    They are only hurt at the loss of their beloved Clintron, and are seizing on the Puttin Diddit excuse.

    polecat , December 16, 2016 at 7:45 pm

    Did they happen to offer you some Guyana Kool-Aid with that order of vitriol ?

    Brad , December 16, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    Unfortunately the whole "grief cycle" will get a reboot after next Monday's "Election II".

    The rest of us are to be pissed off that the CIA and Clinton clique have continued to agiprop this.

    Knot Galt , December 16, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Since the ex-Correct The Record key jockeys are out of a job they have to practice their craft somewhere.

    hunkerdown , December 16, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz.

    auntienene , December 16, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    I don't think I've looked at my yahoo account in 8-10 years and I didn't use their email; just had an address. I don't remember my user name or password. I did get an email from them (to my not-yahoo address) advising of the breach.

    Do I need to do anything at all?

    hunkerdown , December 16, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    auntienene, probably not, but as a general principle it's better to close accounts down properly than to abandon them.

    Tvc15 , December 16, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    I was amazed as I watched a local am news show in Pittsburgh recommend adding your cell phone number in addition to changing your password. Yeah, that's a great idea, maybe my ss# would provide even more security.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 16, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    I use yahoo email. Why should I move? As I understood the breach it was primarily a breach of the personal information used to establish the account. I've already changed my password - did it a couple of days after the breach was reported. I had a security clearance with DoD which requires disclosure of a lot more personal information than yahoo had. The DoD data has been breached twice from two separate servers.

    As far as reading my emails - they may prove useful for phishing but that's about all. I'm not sure what might be needed for phishing beyond a name and email address - easily obtained from many sources I have no control over.

    So - what am I vulnerable to by remaining at yahoo that I'm not already exposed to on a more secure server?

    polecat , December 16, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    You are vulnerable to the knowledge that Marissa Mayer is STILL employed as a high-level corporate twit --

    Lee , December 16, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts.

    Ranger Rick , December 16, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed.

    Pat , December 16, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Yeah, it isn't like Mr. 'We go high' is going to admit our relationship has declined because we have underhandedly tried to isolate and knee cap them for pretty much his entire administration.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 16, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Are you referring to Obama's press conference? If so, I am glad he didn't make a big deal out of the Russian hacking allegations - as in it didn't sound like he planned a retaliation for the fictional event and its fictional consequences. He rose slightly in stature in my eyes - he's almost as tall as a short flea.

    With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press?

    Why is a lameduck messing with the Chinese in the South China sea? What is the point of all the "fake" news hogwash? Is it related to Obama's expression of concern about the safety of the Internet? I can't shake the feeling that something is going on below the surface of these murky waters.

    Susan C , December 16, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire.

    He did respond at one point to a reporter that the hacks from Russia were to the DNC and Podesta but funny how he didn't say HRC emails. Be it as it may, I think what was behind it was HRC really trying to impress all her contributors that Russia really did do her in, see Obama said so, since she must be in hot water over all the money she has collected from foreign governments for pay to play and her donors.

    The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened.

    Pat , December 16, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    Unfortunately the nightly news is focusing on Obama says Russia hacked the DNC and had it in for Clinton!!! He warned them to stay out of the vote! There will be consequences! Russia demands the evidence and then a story about the evidence. (This one might have a few smarter people going "huh, that's it?!?!")

    I do like the some private some public on that consequences and retaliation thing. You either have to laugh or throw up about the faux I've got this and the real self-righteousness. Especially since it is supposedly to remind people we can do it to you. Is there anyone left outside of America who doesn't think they already do do it to anyone Uncle Sam doesn't want in office and even some they do? Mind you I'm not sure how many harried people watching the news are actually going to laugh at that one because they don't know how how much we meddle.

    Knot Galt , December 16, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Obamameter. ty L. Scofield ;-)

    [Dec 17, 2016] Paul Krugman Useful Idiots Galore

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

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

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

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

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

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

    "Useful Idiots Galore," terrifying.

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

    One thought....

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

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

    Seems a bit of a double standard.

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

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

    the looking glass you all went through.

    Trump has more convictions than any democrat

    ... ... ...

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

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

    September 22, 2014

    Snap Out of It
    By David Brooks

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

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

    October 21, 2014

    Putin and the Pope
    By Thomas L. Friedman

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

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

    December 20, 2014

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

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

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

    December 21, 2014

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

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

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

    January 27, 2015

    Czar Putin's Next Moves
    By Thomas L. Friedman

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

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

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

    September 15, 2015

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

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

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

    September 20, 2015

    Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    RUSSIA'S UNFREE PRESS

    The Boston Globe - Marshall Goldman - January 29, 2001

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (No link; from their archives.)

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

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

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

    February 7, 2001

    Russia's Unfree Press
    By Marshall I. Goldman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And there is outrage fatigue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [Dec 17, 2016] Obama, The Divider in Chief, Invokes Reagan 'Rolling Over in His Grave' in Attempt to Shame Republicans into Hating Putin

    Dec 17, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    The agitprop out of the White House isn't working these days, thanks to the advent of fake news of course. Following weeks of hysteria, following Donald J. Trump's triumphant victory of Hillary Clinton and Obama's legacy, Obama took to the podium for one last time to divide Americans -- this time invoking the revered late President Ronald Reagan -- saying he'd be 'rolling over in his grave' now had he known that over a third of republicans approve of Putin in some random poll.

    If Obama truly wants to know why Americans are willing to accept the words of Putin, undoubtedly a strong man leader, over his -- he should take a look in the mirror and then gander over to his computer to re-read all of the Wikileaks from John Podesta's email that Putin so graciously made available to us all. They speak volumes about the corruptness and the rot permeating in our capitol. Even without the emails, we see the neocon strategy of persistent war and deceit hollowing out this nation -- devouring its resources, emptying its treasury, and there is nothing redeeming about it.

    During the press conference, Obama provided his media with incontrovertible evidence that Russia was behind the WikiLeaks, saying 'not much happens in Russia without Putin's approval.'

    Russia has a land mass of 6,592,800 sq miles and Putin controls every single inch of it. This is retard level thinking.

    Moreover, Obama says he told Putin to 'cut it out' when he last saw him in China, warning him of serious consequences. Luckily for us, Putin got scared and ceased all further hackings. However, the damage had already been done and the Wikileaks released.

    I suppose this type of lazy thinking appeals to a certain subset of America, else why would he make such infantile statements?

    The Divider in Chief, one last time reminding himself and the press that XENOPHOBIA against Russians is good. The Russians are a useless sort, who produce nothing of interest, a very small and weak country, only capable of wiping out the entirety of America 10x over via very large nuclear detonations. Oh, and you pesky republicans love Putin because you're sooo political.

    This is what some might call 'idiotic diplomacy', mocking and deriding a rival nation to the point of war, a war that could exterminate life on planet earth for at least a millennia. Genius.

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

    [Dec 17, 2016] Top 11 Russian-Hack Questions the Rogue-Electors Should Ask the CIA The Daily Sheeple

    Notable quotes:
    "... (To read about Jon's mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix , click here .) ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | www.thedailysheeple.com
    Assuming these "rogue-Electors" from the Electoral College get a briefing on the "Russian election-hack" from the CIA , and assuming the Electors have a few working brain cells, and assuming they care, here are the top 11 questions they should ask the CIA presenter.

    Questions One through Three (repeated with enthusiasm and fervor): Are you just going to feed us generalities and tell us you can't detail specifics because that would compromise your methods and personnel? We can read the generalities in the Washington Post, whose owner, Jeff Bezos, chief honcho at Amazon, has a $600 million contract with the CIA to provide cloud computing services, so he and the Post and the CIA are in bed together.

    Question Four: We need a precise distinction here. How did "Russia hacked the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails and fed the emails to WikiLeaks who released them" suddenly morph into "Russia hacked the election vote"?

    Question Five: The security systems that protected the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails were so feeble a child could have gotten past them in a few minutes. Why should we assume high-level Russian agents were involved?

    Question Six: Not only does the CIA have a history of lying to the American people, lying is part of your job description. Why should we believe you? Take your time. We can have food brought in.

    Question Seven: We're getting the feeling you're talking down to us as if we're the peasants and you're the feudal barons. Why is that? Do you work for us, or do we work for you? Once upon a time, before you went to work for the Agency, were you like us, or were you always arrogant and dismissive?

    Question Eight: Let's put aside for a moment the question of who leaked all those emails. What about the substance and content of the emails? Was all that forged or was it real? If you claim there was forgery, prove it. Put a dozen emails up on that big screen and take us through them, piece by piece, and show us where and how the forgery occurred. By the way, why didn't you allow us to bring several former NSA analysts into this briefing? Are we living in the US or the USSR?

    Question Nine: Are you personally a computer expert, sir? Or are you merely relaying what someone else at the CIA told you? Would you spell your name for us again? What is your job description at the Agency? Do you work in public information? Are you tasked with "being convincing"?

    Question Ten: Do you think we're completely stupid?

    Question Eleven: Let's all let our hair down, okay? Forget facts and specifics. Of course we want to overthrow the election and install Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. So do you. We're on the same team. But we need you to give us something, anything. So far, this briefing is embarrassing. Once we get out of here, we want to tell a few persuasive lies. Give us a Russian name, any name. Or a location in Russia we can use. The brand name of a Russian vodka. Caviar. Something that sounds Russian. Make up a code with letters and numbers. Help us out. How about the name of an American who who's actually a Russian spy? You could shoot him later today in a "gun battle at a shopping mall." That would work.

    Good luck.

    (To read about Jon's mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix , click here .)

    Related Reads

    Someone Just Officially Called the CIA's Bluff over Russia

    National Intelligence Office: 'We Won't Say the CIA Is Wrong, But They Can't Prove Russian Intent to Tamper with the Election'

    Wow: Now US Officials and Mainstream Media Claim Putin PERSONALLY Involved in Election Hacks

    Russian Narrative Falls Apart – Wikileaks Operative Claims Clinton Emails Handed Over By "Disgusted" Democrat Whistleblowers

    "Sorry, I Meant Russia": Watch WH Press Secretary Josh Earnest "Accidentally" Accuse China of Hacking Our Elections

    Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

    We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos ( Click for details ).

    Contributed by Jon Rappoport of No More Fake News .

    The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED , Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

    [Dec 16, 2016] Questions for the Electors on Russian Hacking by Andrew Cockburn

    Podesta essentially gave up his email due to committed by him blunder: sending his password to the attacker. As such it was far from high-end hacking, which can be attributed to intelligence agencies. It is more like a regular, primitive phishing expedition which became successful due to Podesta blunder. So this is not hacking but phishing expedition... That makes big difference.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian, in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence do that? ..."
    "... If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned server? Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft? ..."
    "... Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question, clearly indicate? ..."
    "... Numerous reports ascribe the hacks to hacking groups known as APT 28 or "Fancy Bear" and APT 29 or "Cozy Bear." But these groups had already been accused of nefarious actions on behalf of Russian intelligence prior to the hacks under discussion. Why would the Kremlin and its intelligence agencies select well-known groups to conduct a regime-change operation on the most powerful country on earth? ..."
    "... The joint statement issued by the DNI and DHS on October 7 2016 confirmed that US intelligence had no evidence of official Russian involvement in the leak of hacked documents to Wikileaks, etc, saying only that the leaks were " consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." Has the US acquired any evidence whatsoever since that time regarding Russian involvement in the leaks? ..."
    Dec 14, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    It is being reported that John Podesta, Chairman of the defeated $1.2 billion Clinton presidential campaign, is supporting the call by various officials, including at least forty Electors, that the members of the Electoral College be given a classified intelligence briefing on the alleged Russian hacking before the College votes on December 19.

    In the event such a briefing comes to pass, it might be helpful if the Electors had some informed questions to ask the CIA

    1. The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian, in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence do that?
    2. If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned server? Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft?
    3. Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question, clearly indicate?
    4. Numerous reports ascribe the hacks to hacking groups known as APT 28 or "Fancy Bear" and APT 29 or "Cozy Bear." But these groups had already been accused of nefarious actions on behalf of Russian intelligence prior to the hacks under discussion. Why would the Kremlin and its intelligence agencies select well-known groups to conduct a regime-change operation on the most powerful country on earth?
    5. It has been reported in the New York Times , without attribution, that U.S. intelligence has identified specific G.R.U. officials who directed the hacking. Is this true, and if so, please provide details (Witness should be sworn)
    6. The joint statement issued by the DNI and DHS on October 7 2016 confirmed that US intelligence had no evidence of official Russian involvement in the leak of hacked documents to Wikileaks, etc, saying only that the leaks were " consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." Has the US acquired any evidence whatsoever since that time regarding Russian involvement in the leaks?
    7. Since the most effective initiative in tipping the election to Donald Trump was the intervention of FBI Director Comey, are you investigating any possible connections he might have to Russian intelligence and Vladimir Putin?

    [Dec 16, 2016] The Cold War, Continued: Post-Election Russophobia

    Dec 16, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org
    by Gary Leupp Mainstream TV news anchors including MSNBC's Chris Hayes are reporting as fact---with fuming indignation---that Russia (and specifically Vladimir Putin) not only sought to influence the U.S. election (and---gosh!---promote "doubt" about the whole legitimacy of the U.S. electoral system) but to throw the vote to Donald Trump.

    The main accusation is that the DNC and Podesta emails leaked through Wikileaks were provided by state-backed Russian hackers (while they did not leak material hacked from the Republicans). I have my doubts on this. Former U.S. ambassador to Uzbekistan and torture whistle-blower Craig Murray, a friend of Julian Assange, has stated that the DNC emails were leaked by a DNC insider whose identity he knows. The person, Murray contends, handed the material over to him, in a D.C. park. I have met Murray, admire and am inclined to believe him. (I just heard now that John Bolton, of all people, has also opined this was an inside job.)

    [Dec 16, 2016] Putin Lashes Out At Obama Show Some Proof Or Shut Up Zero Hedge

    Dec 16, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Putin Lashes Out At Obama: "Show Some Proof Or Shut Up" Tyler Durden Dec 16, 2016 9:09 AM 0 SHARES Putin has had enough of the relentless barrage of US accusations that he, personally, "hacked the US presidential election."

    The Russian president's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said on Friday that the US must either stop accusing Russia of meddling in its elections or prove it. Peskov said it was "indecent" of the United States to "groundlessly" accuse Russia of intervention in its elections.

    "You need to either stop talking about it, or finally show some kind of proof. Otherwise it just looks very indecent ", Peskov told Reporters in Tokyo where Putin is meeting with Japan PM Abe, responding to the latest accusations that Russia was responsible for hacker attacks.

    Peskov also warned that Obama's threat to "retaliate" to the alleged Russian hack is "against both American and international law", hinting at open-ended escalation should Obama take the podium today at 2:15pm to officially launch cyberwar against Russia.

    Previously, on Thursday, Peskov told the AP the report was " laughable nonsense ", while Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova accused "Western media" of being a "shill" and a "mouthpiece of various power groups", and added that "it's not the general public who's being manipulated," Zakharova said. "the general public nowadays can distinguish the truth. It's the mass media that is manipulating themselves."

    Meanwhile, on Friday Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister told state television network, Russia 24, he was "dumbstruck" by the NBC report which alleges that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in an election hack.

    The report cited U.S. intelligence officials that now believe with a "high level of confidence" that Putin became personally involved in a secret campaign to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. "I think this is just silly, and the futility of the attempt to convince somebody of this is absolutely obvious," Lavrov added, according to the news outlet.

    As a reminder, last night Obama vowed retaliatory action against Russia for its meddling in the US presidential election last month. "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections that we need to take action and we will at a time and place of our own choosing," Obama told National Public Radio.

    US intelligence agencies in October pinned blame on Russia for election-related hacking. At the time, the White House vowed a "proportional response" to the cyberactivity, though declined to preview what that response might entail. Meanwhile, both President-elect Donald Trump, the FBI, and the ODNI have dismissed the CIA's intelligence community's assessment, for the the same reason Putin finally lashed out at Obama: there is no proof.

    That, however, has never stopped the US from escalating a geopolitical conflict to the point of war, or beyond, so pay close attention to what Obama says this afternoon.

    According to an NBC report , a team of analysts at Eurasia Group said in a note on Friday that they believe the outgoing administration is likely to take action which could result in a significant barrier for Trump's team once he takes office in January .

    "It is unlikely that U.S. intelligence reports will change Trump's intention to initiate a rapprochement with Moscow, but the congressional response following its own investigations could obstruct the new administration's effort ," Eurasia Group analysts added.

    At the same time, Wikileaks offered its "validation" services, tweeting that " Obama should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible. "

    Obama should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible.

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 16, 2016

    We doubt Obama would take the whistleblower organization on its offer, even if he did have any Putin documents to authenticate.

    Luc X. Ifer Ignatius , Dec 16, 2016 9:21 AM
    No joke anymore today USSA declares war to Russia just for keeping Obama the 1st on the trone. 'Election hacking called the new 9/11' officially

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/16/elijah-cummings-russia-hac...

    Ignatius Luc X. Ifer , Dec 16, 2016 9:27 AM
    If it's "another 9/11," doesn't that mean it's another phony, constructed event (that killed 3,000 people)?
    Luc X. Ifer Ignatius , Dec 16, 2016 9:36 AM
    Correct but this time they will not engage a tin can dictator but an equivalent nuclear power lead by the best strategy trained minds in the world
    ThanksChump Luc X. Ifer , Dec 16, 2016 10:39 AM
    And they would do so over what, apparently, was a typo by Podesta's aide:

    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/15/report-podesta-email-hack-due-t...

    TeamDepends Ignatius , Dec 16, 2016 9:38 AM
    And orchestrated by Mossad/CIA Millions upon millions of ordinary folks just got up and voted to take out the trash, and by God their will be done. If we don't remove the cancerous tumors now, they will regrow and regroup and in our weakened state it will be GAME OVER.
    Ignatius TeamDepends , Dec 16, 2016 9:43 AM
    One of the slickest, most corrupt urban renewal projects in history, or at least in NYC history.

    Don't ask me, ask "Lucky Larry."

    http://www.ae911truth.org/news.html

    Crash Overide Luc X. Ifer , Dec 16, 2016 10:04 AM
    The sad part is they are spinning this as election tampering when in fact there was none, some decent human beings found out the truth of how corrupt, evil, and treasonous these people are and wanted the American public to know.

    You can tell they are desperate now, I just hope the law enforcement community is ready to uphold their oath.

    MFL5591 IridiumRebel , Dec 16, 2016 10:14 AM
    False testimony to Congress on NSA surveillance programs [ edit ]

    Excerpt of James Clapper's testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

    On March 12, 2013, during a United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, Senator Ron Wyden quoted the keynote speech at the 2012 DEF CON by the director of the NSA, Keith B. Alexander . Alexander had stated that "Our job is foreign intelligence" and that "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly." [30]

    When Edward Snowden was asked during his January 26, 2014 TV interview in Moscow what the decisive moment was or why he blew the whistle, he replied: "Sort of the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back." [31]

    This is the man reponsible for the newest lie to the American people. Are you serious?

    Mr Pink asteroids , Dec 16, 2016 9:21 AM
    When lying could end up costing hundreds of billions of dollars and many human lives it is called fraud
    JRobby Mr Pink , Dec 16, 2016 9:32 AM
    A new definition of war crimes has presented itself for several years now.

    Day 53 - Where is Eric Braverman?

    Mike Masr , Dec 16, 2016 9:39 AM
    This asshole jack off obozo wants to start WW3 with Russia for Soros and all his globalist neocon pals BEFORE he leaves office. His pals shoveled out way too much money to get that dirty corrupt, crooked pig Hillary elected. The anti-Trump street protests, riots, burning, pillaging and looting didn't work. The recount directed by the Hillary stooge Jill Stein actually got Trump more votes so this didn't work. So now we go with "fake news" accusations against Russia and Putin. The assholes in our goverment pushing this theme are the dirty fucking crooks we voted against by voting for Donald Trump. They won't go down without a fight. So today at 2:15PM ET Obozo will do his best to get the actual war with Russia on deck!!!

    The war mongering neocons won't stop until we have literally minutes to live. Russia has underground facilitities for 70% of the citizens in the Russian Federation. In the US only the so-called elites have some underground place to hide. Like that would save them anyway as it would be delayed death from Cobalt bombs. We peons and serfs will simply be vaporized immediately into non-existance. Obozo and his minions and handlers know this and don't give a fuck.

    Obozo and those around him are insane and believe that a nuclear war with Russia is winnable. The truth is that the world will not even be fit for human life after a full scale nuclear, chemical and biological exchange. Who thinks it stops at nuclear? Russia inherited the WMD arsenal of the Soviet Union. There are enough chemical and biological weapons in the Russian Federation to kill everyone on earth twenty times.

    DirtySanchez , Dec 16, 2016 9:31 AM
    During the days of the Cold War, I generally respected and believed the American press and many of our politicains.

    For the past 25 years, I don't respect or believe the American press or any politician.

    I honestly believe the Russian government and press is more credible and responsible than anything in this country.

    Donald Trump literally gave me my country back.

    Gadfly , Dec 16, 2016 9:43 AM
    This is real simple. Obama and Hillary got their asses kicked by Putin in the Ukraine, Crimea, and Syria because Putin was honest and acted out of integrity and real concern for his people, and Obama and Hillary were evil and pathological liars and up to no good, and acted out of a lust for power, control over others, and stealing their resources. And now the two pathetic losers want revenge. And this is their vile attempt at trying to get it. We're laughing at you Hillary and Obama. You are a disgrace to your country and the human race.
    BitchezGonnaBitch Gadfly , Dec 16, 2016 10:18 AM
    You must remember something here - we laid it on for Vlad / Serg. Our governments made it so easy for them to play the white knights, they didn't even need to try. Russian administration is just like any other - the machine - but we fucked up so tragically bad in our foreign policy conduct that just going against the unilateral actions of US / NATO / UN has won Russians major support in Western societies, sick to the back teeth of the media game BS.

    Our elites came to believe that the world is theirs. That they can take what they want. Citizenry hasn't been best pleased due to cognitive dissonance ("shining house on the hill" =/= 500k dead Iraqis "worth it"). Enter the Russians: central admin personnel = expert level 120, conservative social values, non-interventionist foreign policy, always stressing legality / due process. They showed us up. Simple as. They were the first to dare point at our naked emperors.

    They also have guns. Lots of guns, and big ones too. We will never really fight them head on - we wouldn't stand a chance. Not with their society coalescing around the govt, and ours hating the guts out of our elites. We'd get stomped.

    Phillyguy , Dec 16, 2016 9:39 AM

    To quote Joseph Goebbels "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." There are several things going on. MSM and deep state were counting on a Hillary Clinton victory and continued US bellicose posturing against Russia. The deep state is also apoplectic about the military debacle in Syria. The ministry of propaganda- corporate media (owned by 6 large corporations; Link: www.wakingtimes.com/2015/08/28/the-illusion-of-choice-90-of-american-media-controlled-by-6-corporations ) has been saturating the airwaves and social media with ongoing stories about Russian "hacking" which are probably nonsense. A far more likely scenario is this "hacking" was carried out by people with intimate knowledge of Hillary Clinton's background, her email correspondence and location of servers where this information was stored/archived, such as people in the FBI, CIA, DHS or State Dept. These hacked messages were then forwarded to Judicial Watch, WikiLeaks or contacts in Russia or China to cover their tracks.
    This might be of interest-
    Former NSA Officer – CIA Lying About Russians Hacking DNC By Jim W. Dean Dec 14, 2016; Link: www.veteranstoday.com/2016/12/14/former-nsa-officer-cia-lying-about-russians-hacking-dnc

    Bottom line is that fierce battles are going on between completing economic factions who run the US. Both groups are pursuing increasingly reckless and bellicose foreign policies which are likely to lead to direct military confrontations with Russia and China.

    See:

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/12/16/pers-d16.html ; www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-foreign-policy-and-the-electoral-college-vote-...

    az_patriot , Dec 16, 2016 9:49 AM
    I'm a cyber security professional with over 30 years experience and several certifications. Hackers with apparent Russian ties (not necessarily the Russian government) have been involved in global hacking efforts for many years. So have the Chinese. So has everyone else, including the US.

    None of this may be true at all, because hackers that know what they're doing never leave a trail behind. EVER. And if they do leave a trail, it's almost always a false flag -- which means that what you think you see is not actually where it came from. It's highly unlikely that sophisticated hackers connected with the Russian government would be stupid enough to leave anything behind that identified who they were or where they operated from.

    I'm calling BS on this whole thing, for two reasons. One -- the "election" wasn't hacked, the DNC was -- and their extremely dirty laundry aired. We now know for certain that the Democrats are a bunch of liars, thieves, and hooligans that could care less about the country. And two -- the politicization of this by Obama is nauseating. The likelihood that anyone knows for certain that the Russian government was behind it is about zero or less.

    Jack Offelday , Dec 16, 2016 9:44 AM
    Yesterday, Julian Assange emphatically stated on Sean Hannity's radio show that the Russians had absolutely no involvement in the Wikileaks hacks. I'll believe Assange before the Obama administration or US media shills. Assange has never been proven wrong.
    dexter_morgan , Dec 16, 2016 9:57 AM
    is the fake news (MSM) covering this at all, or just the propaganda from CIA?
    mary mary dexter_morgan , Dec 16, 2016 10:56 AM
    The Associated Press and the New York Times are repeating, word for word, whatever CIA and CIA-in-Chief says, and then all Vatican-controlled newspapers are printing the AP and NYT articles. Big dose of CIA in my local newspaper today, and yesterday, and every day since, at least, Merrimack College pointed the way toward The One True Propaganda, with its junior-professor-of-how-Hollywood-and-TV-portray-overweight-people's omniscient and omnipotent list of "Fake News Sites". Still waiting for the Pope to endorse this list: maybe when Rome Freezes Over.
    Braindonor1 , Dec 16, 2016 9:59 AM
    The article nails an important point. The purpose of this exercise is to sabotage any Trump attempts for a rapprochement with Russia. Peace with major powers is bad for business and Obama's Zionist masters need war to advance their one world government plans.

    Obama knows no moral compass and will do anything, say anything, to get the treats from his masters that a faithful lap dog believes it deserves.

    Dilluminati , Dec 16, 2016 10:02 AM
    Some of the racist quotes here I can't uptick, that said it was classic Obama from the trump speech telling EVERYONE in advance what he was going to do military wise. That is disapointing. Lets assume that China, Russia, and many other capable state actors did hack Hillary's server? Lets go the route of occums razor and assume that as a truth. That does not excuse the behavior and sheer stupidity of:

    Setting up an illegal server anyway, AFTER hillary requested and was denied a phone like the POTUS.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-req...

    Emails show NSA rejected Hillary Clinton's request for secure smartphone

    So let us start here! Keep in mind she lost numerous devices, the stupid cunt kept loosing her phones and misplacing them.

    Then Hillary hell bent on having her own private communication system circumvents the DOS and sets up her own! At the point where that decision was made there was no longer any attack against the United States of America but instead an attack against a politician leaking state level data on a non-secure media. If anyone should be held accountable it should be Hillary despite INTENT, yes Hillary.

    But it gets better folks!

    Then we have the DNC and Weiner hacks, and the DNC and the RNC are not actual offices of government, There is no fucking .gov address behind the DNC or GOP. The nice lady who runs the local GOP isn't a vetted government employee and used some poor habits in her handling of data, she was ignorant of a BCC and the security of doing so. (to her credit she learned quickly) *** side note

    And then finally there was Weiners emails. These emails were on a non-government device/computer and seemed to have been traversed by yahoo. So you have these stupid fucking people doing the following: Using Yahoo, DNC, and Gov systems utilizing the same passwords. BUT IT GETS BETTER

    Yahoo is using a MD5 hash for it's security! https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/12/15/yahoo-breach-ive-closed-my-a...

    So now a phishing attack at one account podesta becomes a swiss cheese attack as numerous vectors are exploited, did the Russians hack weiner and put the emails on his device? It is with password complexity, password expiration, and non-passowrd reuse that government can ensure that you don't use the same password on Yahoo that you use at .gov sites. It is by using multi-factor authentication and geo location that a .gov account can be authenticated and authorized.

    But what we have is a bunch of assholes who mishandled the peoples data or governmnet data and it was never their personal data! It was either the data of the united states in which case Hillary should be fucking charged or it was not and she is a stupid fucking victim like the other billion or so yahoo hacks.

    So now we got Obama just like Trump said, telling the world what we are going to do before we do it for optimal results.. lets tell russia in advance.. we will attack at noon...for what has been characterized as yoga emails on non-government systems by the attorney general.

    This is why I hate the elites, this is why I never needed Russia to do anything to votes against these incompetent and ridiculous assholes.

    As Obama leaves offce remember that this observation is concise and made from an educated and unbiased persepctive of handling government data.

    The echo cjhamber that Obama lives in has become as insular as that of Hillary. And damn these people for their confusion of conviction with fact. And finally.. we beat the democrats in PA the good old fashioned way.. we were grassroots and not astro-turf.

    ***** The local GOP website was being cyber-squated when I volunteered, an email of so from me on blacklisting it and there ads would not have shut them down, but it would have hit them in the pocket and caused monetary disruption, they released the expired domain and stopped squatting, the local head of the GOP, defintly not .gov but "GOP" was being blocked by email systems because she would send out GOP emails to an email list with 100 or so recipients and the spam filters thought it was spam or a virus. So I explained to her how to use BCC tools, and our communication improved. I didn't want my email shared with everyone anyway! But the DNC and GOP ain't fucking government.. at best these people are like televangelists which is like hollywood for ugly people.

    I can say this, I have an ENORMOUS respect for the local GOP, I have come to like many of them. I don't agree with them on everything but never has so few, worked so hard, to empower so many more to volunteer and win an election. And to their credit shown the right way changed, they didn't piss and moan.

    Resistance Is Hope Dilluminati , Dec 16, 2016 10:44 AM
    Good observations, sir. People like you are the reason ZH is so useful for enlightenment.

    I should add that if Hillary was claiming to lose her phone, then Hillary probably wasn't losing her phone all the time. She was probably periodically destroying it to destroy evidence. Burn phones or burners are a common technique among criminals to minimize the evidence available if/when they get caught.

    smacker , Dec 16, 2016 10:04 AM
    Looks to me like Obola and his cabal are trying to cause as much friction as possible with Russia before he leaves office.

    This garbage allegation about Putin being personally involved in hacking the US election, the recent announcement of supplying more weapons to terrorists in Syria, recent wild allegations of Russian genocide in Syria (whilst ignoring Syrian people waving and cheering when the SAA arrived in Allepo) and threats to begin a cyberwar are all designed to do this.

    Obola has become a dangerous liability.

    MrBoompi , Dec 16, 2016 10:31 AM
    Obama has acted like a CIA employee for 8 years. He lied to get into office and he's lied ever since, just like the CIA teaches its employees to do. The CIA is not bound by US or international law and they could give a shit about our Constitution, our laws, or our elections, as long as their preferred candidate gets in of course. Are we currently any better than the Nazis? Conquering other countries is the same regardless if you do it covertly or not, regardless of how many lies you say or not. These people must be stopped. Unfortunately it might take mass civil unrest to bring the changes we need. Stealing the election from Trump and handing it to a criminal like Clinton may be the spark. Let's hope there are enough people left with integrity and intelligence in DC to do the right thing.
    dltff-ya , Dec 16, 2016 10:32 AM
    There is no concept of a open courtroom to decide contentious technical issues like. This . Cozy bear, whatever bear
    'more than i can' bear. A jury of fair minded people can decide when a good adversarial courtroom encounter occurs.
    I would like to see Trey Gowdy defending Putin against whatever CIA stooge they send up. Obama has a lot of gall to complain about hacking when Hillary, Podesta, and the run DNC gang was so careless that a very amateur hacking/phishing effort would be sufficient to do this break in. Then there is the assertion that some disgruntled democratic people leaked the whole works- from the inside- being mad at Hillary over Bernie I guess.

    If the US wants as gentlemen agreement not to read each others mail, maybe we could pursue that but hacking Putin and sending NGO's to undermine him, the numerous color revolutions from George Soros in Ukraine, Georgia, ... make it seem to me that Putin is the aggrieved party here, now being threatened by Obama personally. Everybody snoops on everybody. Israel, Russia, US and the five eyes, China, ... but when it gets personal like this Putin Obama threat thing, we could cross a line, like an obscure assassination of the Austrian Archduke by some Serbian did. Putin is a serious fellow and not somebody to threaten without consequences. We may think he sees it as just posturing, and we better hope it stops right there. If the Clinton mob can't win, they may decide to bring the house down on everybody.

    your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    dltff-ya , Dec 16, 2016 10:41 AM
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/questions-electors-russian-hacking...

    Interesting points about the alleged hacking.

    dexter_morgan , Dec 16, 2016 10:44 AM
    cia

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/16/senate-homeland-chair-cia-denied-m...

    mary mary , Dec 16, 2016 11:05 AM
    Obama: "I am, of course, not speaking about the real, live Vladimir Putin. I am speaking about our CIA cardboard-cutout caricature of Vladimir Putin. We ALWAYS have a number of cardboard-cutouts in stock, of various people, to blame for whatever goes wrong next.
    Handful of Dust , Dec 16, 2016 11:07 AM
    Assange on WikiLeaks: 'Our Source Is Not the Russian Government'

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/bea2e062-22ac-3d8b-85d4-d8514d5d4efc/assang...

    Yes We Can. But... , Dec 16, 2016 11:09 AM
    "....while Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova accused "Western media" of being a "shill" and a "mouthpiece of various power groups ", and added that "it's not the general public who's being manipulated," Zakharova said. " the general public nowadays can distinguish the truth . It's the mass media that is manipulating themselves .""

    Can you effin believe such a statement made by the Russian gubmint - and that it is true ?

    az_patriot , Dec 16, 2016 11:35 AM
    This whole affair screams one thing and one thing only: politics. And dirty, childish, Democrat politics at that. COULD the Russian government have hacked the DNC? Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? NO. Government-sponsored hackers don't leave telltale signs as to who they are, they leave false flags and a trail of breadcrumbs that lead nowhere or to places they want you to think the hack came from. Anyone smart enough to hack the DNC isn't going to do anything to reveal who they are. Not even accidentally.
    dlfield , Dec 16, 2016 11:32 AM
    A) Just why the hell would U.S. "Intelligence" be briefing NBC news?

    B) Next, we will be blaming space aliens for "hacking" the election.

    The horse has spoken. ;-)

    [Dec 15, 2016] Exclusive: Top US spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking – sources

    Dec 15, 2016 | uk.reuters.com

    The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

    While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named .

    An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

    "ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis – a deductive assessment of the available intelligence – for the same reason, the three officials said


    marknesop says: December 13, 2016 at 6:17 am
    But all of them, without exception, accept that the Democrats' server was hacked by Russia, and that it was Russia who leaked the information through Wikileaks, and that Russia also hacked the Republicans but declined to release incriminating or influential material it had in its possession. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence of this, either.

    [Dec 15, 2016] Putin Valday 2016 speeech

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Vladimir Putin's Valdai Speech at the XIII Meeting (Final Plenary Session) of the Valdai International Discussion Club (Sochi, 27 October 2016)

    As is his usual custom, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the final session of the annual Valdai International Discussion Club's 13th meeting, held this year in Sochi, before an audience that included the President of Finland Tarja Halonen and former President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki. The theme for the 2016 meeting and its discussion forums was "The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow" which as Putin noted was very topical and relevant to current developments and trends in global politics, economic and social affairs.

    Putin noted that the previous year's Valdai Club discussions centred on global problems and crises, in particular the ongoing wars in the Middle East; this fact gave him the opportunity to summarise global political developments over the past half-century, beginning with the United States' presumption of having won the Cold War and subsequently reshaping the international political, economic and social order to conform to its expectations based on neoliberal capitalist assumptions. To that end, the US and its allies across western Europe, North America and the western Pacific have co-operated in pressing economic and political restructuring including regime change in many parts of the world: in eastern Europe and the Balkans, in western Asia (particularly Afghanistan and Iraq) and in northern Africa (Libya). In achieving these goals, the West has either ignored at best or at worst exploited international political, military and economic structures, agencies and alliances to the detriment of these institutions' reputations and credibility around the world. The West also has not hesitated to dredge and drum up imaginary threats to the security of the world, most notably the threat of Russian aggression and desire to recreate the Soviet Union on former Soviet territories and beyond, the supposed Russian meddling in the US Presidential elections, and apparent Russian hacking and leaking of emails related to failed US Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's conduct as US Secretary of State from 2008 to 2012.

    After his observation of current world trends as they have developed since 1991, Putin queries what kind of future we face if political elites in Washington and elsewhere focus on non-existent problems and threats, or on problems of their own making, and ignore the very real issues and problems affecting ordinary people everywhere: issues of stability, security and sustainable economic development. The US alone has problems of police violence against minority groups, high levels of public and private debt measured in trillions of dollars, failing transport infrastructure across most states, massive unemployment that either goes undocumented or is deliberately under-reported, high prison incarceration rates and other problems and issues indicative of a highly dysfunctional society. In societies that are ostensibly liberal democracies where the public enjoys political freedoms, there is an ever-growing and vast gap between what people perceive as major problems needing solutions and the political establishment's perceptions of what the problems are, and all too often the public view and the elite view are at polar opposites. The result is that when referenda and elections are held, predictions and assurances of victory one way or another are smashed by actual results showing public preference for the other way, and polling organisations, corporate media with their self-styled "pundits" and "analysts" and governments are caught scrambling to make sense of what just happened.

    Putin points out that the only way forward is for all countries to acknowledge and work together on the problems that challenge all humans today, the resolution of which should make the world more stable, more secure and more sustaining of human existence. Globalisation should not just benefit a small plutocratic elite but should be demonstrated in concrete ways to benefit all. Only by adhering to international law and legal arrangements, through the charter of the United Nations and its agencies, can all countries hope to achieve security and stability and achieve a better future for their peoples.

    To this end, the sovereignty of Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Syria and Yemen should be respected and the wars in those countries should be brought to an end, replaced by long-term plans and programs of economic and social reconstruction and development. Global economic development and progress that will reduce disparities between First World and Third World countries, eliminate notions of "winning" and "losing", and end grinding poverty and the problems that go with it should be a major priority. Economic co-operation should be mutually beneficial for all parties that engage in it.

    Putin also briefly mentioned in passing the development of human potential and creativity, environmental protection and climate change, and global healthcare as important goals that all countries should strive for.

    While there's not much in Putin's speech that he hasn't said before, what he says is typical of his worldview, the breadth and depth of his understanding of current world events (which very, very few Western politicians can match), and his preferred approach of nations working together on common problems and coming to solutions that benefit all and which don't advantage one party's interests to the detriment of others and their needs. Putin's approach is a typically pragmatic and cautious one, neutral with regards to political or economic ideology, but one focused on goals and results, and the best way and methods to achieve those goals.

    One interesting aspect of Putin's speech comes near the end where he says that only a world with opportunities for everyone, with access to knowledge to all and many ways to realise creative potential, can be considered truly free. Putin's understanding of freedom would appear to be very different from what the West (and Americans in particular) understand to be "freedom", that is, being free of restraints on one's behaviour. Putin's understanding of freedom would be closer to what 20th-century Russian-born British philosopher Isaiah Berlin would consider to be "positive freedom", the freedom that comes with self-mastery, being able to think and behave freely and being able to choose the government of the society in which one lives.

    The most outstanding point in Putin's speech, which unfortunately he does not elaborate on further, given the context of the venue, is the disconnect between the political establishment and the public in most developed countries, the role of the mass media industry in reducing or widening it, and the dangers that this disconnect poses to societies if it continues. If elites continue to pursue their own fantasies and lies, and neglect the needs of the public on whom they rely for support (yet abuse by diminishing their security through offshoring jobs, weakening and eliminating worker protection, privatising education, health and energy, and encouraging housing and other debt bubbles), the invisible bonds of society – what might collectively be called "the social contract" between the ruler and the ruled – will disintegrate and people may turn to violence or other extreme activities to get what they want.

    An English-language transcript of the speech can be found at this link .

    [Dec 15, 2016] MSM fight agains new media is somewhat similar to papacy fight with Reformation

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    On watching the "Keiser Report " on the imperial blowback against independent media, it strikes me that the MSM are as to the Papacy as the new media are to Martin Luther:

    https://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/370114-episode-max-keiser-1005/

    [Dec 14, 2016] Opinion Putin didnt win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did

    Notable quotes:
    "... That those scheming Russians were clever enough to hack into voting machines, but not clever enough to cover their tracks? ..."
    "... It's strangely reminiscent of the days of the Red scare, minus the Reds. ..."
    "... The displaced machinists in the industrial midwest, whose votes helped put Trump in the White House, believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. ..."
    "... was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance. ..."
    "... They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican. They hoped they would be so revolted by Trump that they would vote for her, but they didn't. ..."
    "... It's panic over loss of control. They aren't pondering ways to make things better for the American people. Not in the Beltaway. Not the duoploy. The handwringing is strictly about control and pasification of the population. ..."
    "... The long, long list of dodgy-donors to The Clinton Foundation told large numbers of Democrat voters everything they needed to know about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. This, and the 'knifing' of Bernie, sealed her fate. ..."
    "... America will never, and should never, forgive Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. ..."
    "... At last! Someone on this newspaper talking common sense. ..."
    "... Absurd! She was a rich white hawkish neolib who has no one but herself and the Democratic Pary to blame for the terrible loss which will seal the supreme court for years. Face facts!! She couldn't even beat Trump and was widely viewed as a fraud. ..."
    "... The person who lost the Presidential Election in USA is Hillary Clinton. She, like Blair is a war monger. I, if I had a vote, would not have voted for her. ..."
    "... If she had been elected we would have had bigger and better wars in the Middle East. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended despite Obama calling the Iraq war a "strategic mistake". One that continued for another eight years. To those two we have added Syria and Lybia. ..."
    "... " ...reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. " The rest of the world has known that for decades. ..."
    "... I don't understand how accurate reporting by Wikileaks of politicians' emails is considered 'interference' with the US elections. To me, it seems helpful. If a US newspaper made the report, they would probably get a prize. If a foreign organization made the report, so what? People abroad are free (I hope) to comment on US matters, and people in the US are free to read it or not. ..."
    "... Perhaps they mean the Guardian's politics. Identity politics has been thoroughly rejected and instead of learning from the experience, Guardian has been electing to throw more of the same tactics, except louder ..."
    "... Americans across the political spectrum are happy to use Putin to distract them from reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. ..."
    "... You're absolutely right. Putin is the boogeyman for every ill, real or purported, of his own society, and when the American political system and its institutions prove to be broken, Putin gets to be the boogeyman for that, too. What a powerful man! He must be pleased. ..."
    "... This is an ultimate truth because it explains why Merkel will not be elected. These days Putin is in full control of the world and is responsible for everything. ..."
    "... Let's thank Hillary for that. There is a very good news: on the 20th January we'll cut all Saudi supply channels to the IS and kill all the bastards within 2 months. ..."
    "... In the modern world it is enough to do nothing to be a good man, eg if Bush, Blair, Obama and Clinton didn't create ISIS, the world would be a much better place. You do not even need to be smart to understand this. ..."
    "... It's crazy. Even if the Russian hacking claims are legitimate, the leaks still revealed things about the Democrats that were true. It's like telling your friend that their spouse is cheating on them, and then the spouse blaming you for ruining the marriage. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign spent like drunken sailors, on media. This is a new role for the media giants that took care of Clinton's every need, including providing motivational research and other consultants. ..."
    "... The ongoing scenario that now spins around Putin as a central figure is a product of "after shock media". ..."
    "... To weave fictional reality in real time for a mass audience is a magnum leap from internet fake news. This drama is concocted to keep DNC from going into seclusion until the inauguration. ..."
    "... Doug Henwood is absolutely correct. This obsession with the supposed foreign interference is baseless. All the real culprits operate within our own system. ..."
    "... Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders." ..."
    "... I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, and I note that already Trump's campaign has put down TWO odious political dynasties, AND the TPP -- all very healthy developments. ..."
    "... The only thing that kept the contest somehow close was the unprecedented all-media fear campaign against Trump. ..."
    "... It was always Hillary's election to lose and she lost it simply because she was not to be trusted. Her very public endorsement by gangster capitalist Jay-Z told you all you needed to know about who she represented. ..."
    "... I was dubious before, but I'm now actively concerned. This crop of Democrats and their deep state cohorts are unhinged and dangerous. They see me and my families' lives as an externality in their eventual war with Russia. As Phyrric a victory as there could possibly be. They are psychotic; not only waging countless coups and intelligence operations abroad, but now in plain sight on American soil. The mainstream media seems to invoke the spirit of Goebbels more vividly with each passing day. Their disdain and manipulation of the general populace is chilling. They see us not as people to be won-over, but as things to be manipulated, tricked and coerced. Nothing new for politicians (particularity the opposition) - but the levels here are staggering. ..."
    "... January couldn't come soon enough - and I say that as strong critic of Trump. ..."
    "... A good article to counterbalance the reams of rubbish we are hearing in the US election post-mortem. Anyone who had neural activity should have known that when you steal the candidacy, you certainly won't get the votes. Clinton effectively handed the election to Trump by not having the humility, humanity and honesty to admit defeat by Benie Sanders. ..."
    "... There's always the possibility of course, that the US establishment realised Clinton's blatant warmongering wasn't 'good for business'. ..."
    "... So maybe, they thought, we can get the Russkies 'on side', deal with China (ie. reduce it to a 'client state'/ turn it into an ashtray) - and then move on Russia and grab all those lovely resources freed up by global warming.... ..."
    "... Only her campaign volunteers knew, her message to the public was "dont vote for Trump" which translates to, I could lose to him, vote for me! ..."
    "... The Podesta emails confirmed what many people already suspected and knew of Hillary and her campaign. Those who were interested in reading them had to actually look for them, since MSM was not reporting on them. It's not as if an avid MSNBC or CNN watcher was going to be exposed. ..."
    "... It's hilarious how the major Left outlets (Washington Post) are now telling it's readers how Russia is to blame for people voting against Hillary due to the Podesta emails, when they didn't even report on the emails in the first place. ..."
    "... EVERYTHING about the system all halfway decent people detest, is summed up in the figure of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... Like Donald said, she had 'experience', but it was all BAD 'experience'. ..."
    "... she is a frail, withered old woman who needs to retire - def the wrong democrat choice, crazy -- Berni.S would have won if for them - he is far more sincere ..."
    "... "The displaced machinists... believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance." ..."
    "... This argument is as asinine as the one the author opposes. It was a collusion of events that led to this result, including the failure of both parties to adapt to an evolving economic and social climate over decades. The right wing hailing the collapse of liberalism as a result of decades of liberal mismanagement conveniently forget their own parties have held the reins for half that time, and failed just as miserably as the left.... ..."
    "... It's quite bizarre to see "progressives" openly side with the military industrial complex, which is threatened by a president elect weary of more warfare. ..."
    "... It's to be expected from career politicians like McCain who is kicking and screaming, but it's shameful to see supposed liberally-minded people help spread the Red Scare storyline. ..."
    "... Obama has behaved dreadfully, first he or his office gets one of its poodles namely MI6 to point the finger at Putin re cyberwar, which was swiftly followed by the International Olympic Committee looking at Russia for 2012 Olympic games, the elections in the US and the Democrats CIA coming out with unsubstantiated nonsense (funny how they never like, providing collaborative evidence - on this or anything that supposedly Russia has done) then there is Syria, and Obama and the Democrats were the cheerleader for regime change, because they have been out manoeuvred in that sphere. All of it in less than a week. ..."
    "... If Obama, the administration, and the CIA were smart they would have realised that a concerted effort to blame Putin / Russia would be seen for what it is - a liar and one of trying to discredit both the outcome of the US elections, the dislike of HRC, and her association with Wall St. - she raised more money for her campaign than Trump and Sanders put together (if the Democrats had chosen Sanders, then they would have stood a chance) and that their hawk would not be in a position to create WW111 - thank goodness. The Democrats deserved what they got. ..."
    "... This organ of the liberal media (no scare quotes required - it is socially liberal and economically neoliberal), along with many others, dogmatically supported Clinton against Sanders to the point of printing daily and ridiculous dishonesty, even going so far as to make out as if anyone who supports any form of wealth redistribution is a racist, sexist, whitesplaining dude-bro. ..."
    "... The Wikileaks emails proved the votes were rigged against Sanders, it why Debbie W Shulz had to resign ..."
    "... The election was close, and if one less thing had gone wrong for Hillary she would have won. However I think an important thing that lost her the election was identity politics. She patronized Afro-Americans and Hispanics, by tell them that because they are Trump-threatened minorities, they should vote for her. In the same vein, gays and women were supposed to vote for her. But what she was really telling these groups was that they should revel in their supposed victimhood, which was not a great message. ..."
    "... Completely agreed! The onus for defeat belongs to the Democrat party leadership as well. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both understood where the momentum of the election was headed before anyone else did. The election was won and lost in the white blue collar Midwest. A place that decided that diet corporatism is decidedly worse than a populist right wing extremist. ..."
    "... No one here believed the ridiculous about-face Hillary pulled on the question of the TPP. I guarantee you Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and perhaps Ohio and Iowa. ..."
    "... "Our self-image as the world's greatest democracy...." Well, speaking for myself and plenty of other Americans, I never said anything like that about us. In fact, like a lot of people I wish we would stick to our own business, quit trying to be the world's cop, and cease meddling in other countries' affairs. ..."
    "... Assuming that it really was the Russians who done it, I guess they had a better game plan than the Saudis. ..."
    "... Her 'deplorables' comment was every bit as telling as Mitt Romney's '47%'. We really needed to know about her 'public versus private positions', even if it only confirmed what everybody already knew. I am not 100% sure the system made the worst choice in raising up Donald Trump. ..."
    "... The American voters heard a steady stream of these arguments. Some may have simply ignored them. Others took them into consideration, but concluded that they wanted drastic change enough to put them aside. White women decided that Trump's comments, while distasteful, were things they'd heard before. ..."
    "... Reliance on the sanctity of racial and gender pieties was a mistake. Not everyone treats these subjects as the holiest of holies. The people who would be most swayed by those arguments never would have voted for Trump anyways. ..."
    "... Colin Powell said Clinton destroys everything she touches with hubris. Seeing as how she destroyed the democrat "blue wall" and also had low turnout which hurt democrats down the ticket I agree. ..."
    "... All this hysteria about the USA and Russia finally working together than apart doesn't help either for it appears that the [neoliberal] lefties want a perpetual war rather than peace. ..."
    "... The CIA being outraged about a foreign state intervening in an election is quite funny. They have intervened so many times, especially in Latin America, to install puppet regimes. ..."
    "... As for hacking... does anybody believe the CIA has never hacked anybody? ..."
    Dec 13, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Hillary Clinton was the symbol of neoliberal globalization and contept of neoliberal for common poeple (aka deplorable). That's why she lost. this is more of the first defeat of neoliberal candidate in the USA then personal defeat of Hillary. She was just a symbol, or puppet, if you wish.

    ... ... ...

    And what exactly are the claims made by these Putin-did-it stories? That were it not for Russian chicanery, Hillary Clinton would have won the popular vote by five million and not almost three million? That displaced machinists on the banks of Lake Erie were so incensed by the Podesta emails that they voted for Trump instead of Clinton? That Putin was pulling FBI director James Comey's strings in his investigation of the Clinton emails? That those scheming Russians were clever enough to hack into voting machines, but not clever enough to cover their tracks?

    It's strangely reminiscent of the days of the Red scare, minus the Reds.

    ... ... ...

    The displaced machinists in the industrial midwest, whose votes helped put Trump in the White House, believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance.

    They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican. They hoped they would be so revolted by Trump that they would vote for her, but they didn't.

    ... ... ...

    Of course there are questions about our voting machines. The American balloting system is a chaotic mess, with an array of state and local authorities conducting elections under a vast variety of rules using technologies ranging from old-fashioned paper ballots to sleek touch-screen devices.

    The former take forever to count, and the latter are unauditable – we can have no idea whether the counts are accurate. The whole system is a perfect example of a quote attributed (probably falsely) to Joseph Stalin: "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." It's not a system that inspires trust, but we barely discuss that.

    LMichelle , 14 Dec 2016 03:07

    It's panic over loss of control. They aren't pondering ways to make things better for the American people. Not in the Beltaway. Not the duoploy. The handwringing is strictly about control and pasification of the population.

    And you're shocked? I'm shocked you expected more.

    cvneuves , 14 Dec 2016 02:49
    The really amazing story about the presidential elections 2016 was actually not Clinton or Trump. It was how close the US actually got to get its first socialist, or factually rather social-democratic president. Americans are craving for more justice and equality.

    And no, Clinton does not stand for any "left values". Therefore the media favored her.

    Pu2u2skeete -> dphaynes , 14 Dec 2016 02:43
    The long, long list of dodgy-donors to The Clinton Foundation told large numbers of Democrat voters everything they needed to know about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. This, and the 'knifing' of Bernie, sealed her fate. A reincarnated Tricky Dicky would have trounced her, too.
    poikloik098 -> Mansplain , 14 Dec 2016 03:05
    Weird in your mind only. A letter just before the election suggesting that Clinton might be indicted? And was she? Of course not. Match the letter's release with the polls at the time to see it's influence.

    Clinton's problems such as her email server were nothing compared to all the baggage that Trump carries, yet Trump's problems were blithely ignored by many because they thought Trump would make a difference.

    AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 02:19
    America will never, and should never, forgive Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
    jmac55 , 14 Dec 2016 02:18
    At last! Someone on this newspaper talking common sense.

    For the last twenty years, (way before we even knew Putin's name) the Republican Party have promoted, fomented and instigated the most ludicrous lies and calumnies about the Democratic Party and particularly Hilary Clinton, who they quite rightly recognised as a future Democratic Presidential candidate.

    They have politicised: education, defense, Federal Parks, water, race, religion and even the air we breath in their efforts to ensure victory and to this end, they bought and paid for populist uprisings against Democratic politicians, like the now abandoned Tea Party.

    The problem was that even when Republicans were elected, they obviously couldn't keep their own nonsensical promises to their now rabid audience who no longer trusted their own elected Government.

    When Trump, a disestablishment, anti-Government candidate came along, the electorate (naively) saw a possibility of the change they have been promised.

    Of course the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton, since they can see the destruction he can cause their geopolitical adversary and Putin would say as much as he can to support Trump...errr....even though it would be counter-productive with conservative voters...but it is unlikely that he bears anywhere near the blame that the Republican Party does, who foolishly allowed their own 'attack dog' to bite them on the arse.

    I'm sorry to say that the Republican Party (and the US) has to suck this one up and admit...(to mix my hackneyed metaphors) that they've blown themselves up with their own petard!

    joanne Ward , 14 Dec 2016 02:17
    I think with hindsight Bernie Sanders is going to be blamed for dividing the Democratic Party and bolstering the Republican propaganda against the Clintons. If only we had stuck together with Clinton we wouldn't be facing the Trump disaster now. Hillary Clinton is not evil and she was very highly qualified--to paraphrase Brando, we could have had progress instead of a disaster, which is what we have now.
    sand2016 -> joanne Ward , 14 Dec 2016 02:25
    Absurd! She was a rich white hawkish neolib who has no one but herself and the Democratic Pary to blame for the terrible loss which will seal the supreme court for years. Face facts!! She couldn't even beat Trump and was widely viewed as a fraud.
    FriendlyEmpiricist -> Fred1 , 14 Dec 2016 02:28
    You fool, the Libertarian party is the largest third party in the US and they mostly take votes from the Republicans. Stop blaming third parties when their existence demonstrably helps the Democrats. Or perhaps you dream of a world where conservatives still support their third party just as much as they ever did but lefties all move in perfect lockstep? If so, it's time for a reality check.
    pacificist , 14 Dec 2016 02:14
    Up jumped Hilary Benn with the theory that Jeremy Corbyn had caused the Brexit vote. His resignation and the denunciation of 172 Labour MP's based on an "indisputable fact" that nobody believes to be true today. The person who lost the Presidential Election in USA is Hillary Clinton. She, like Blair is a war monger. I, if I had a vote, would not have voted for her.

    If she had been elected we would have had bigger and better wars in the Middle East. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended despite Obama calling the Iraq war a "strategic mistake". One that continued for another eight years. To those two we have added Syria and Lybia. The west, like Russia, is dabbling in other people's wars. They have been made one hundred times worse.

    What Hillary would not have dabbled in is the industrial decline in the "Rust Belt" states. She is proposing to do nothing. So they had the prospect of no rectification at home with yet more wars abroad. No wonder they stayed at home. Hillary and Nu Labour are the same: belligerancy in the Middle East coupled with tame pussy cat against failing capitalism at home. The middle east has got total destruction from the west and total nothingness but austerity (ie more failure) as the action plan for capitalism. They are on the "same page" then!

    Jympton , 14 Dec 2016 01:48
    " ...reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. " The rest of the world has known that for decades.
    helenus , 14 Dec 2016 01:48
    I don't understand how accurate reporting by Wikileaks of politicians' emails is considered 'interference' with the US elections. To me, it seems helpful. If a US newspaper made the report, they would probably get a prize. If a foreign organization made the report, so what? People abroad are free (I hope) to comment on US matters, and people in the US are free to read it or not. It could be argued that only reporting democratic emails is distorting the truth: I'd say its a step towards the whole truth. I welcome all disclosures that are pertinent to a good decision by US voters.
    PostTrotskyite -> helenus , 14 Dec 2016 01:53
    When did hacking become legal?
    helenus -> PostTrotskyite , 14 Dec 2016 02:57
    ask Snowden
    DMontaigne -> 14122016 , 14 Dec 2016 02:26
    The Guardian helped Trump? How many Americans actually read the Guardian?
    Mansplain -> DMontaigne , 14 Dec 2016 02:46
    Perhaps they mean the Guardian's politics. Identity politics has been thoroughly rejected and instead of learning from the experience, Guardian has been electing to throw more of the same tactics, except louder
    Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 01:42
    Citizens of the UK are by far the most heavily surveilled in the western world. This has been the case since long before the ubiquitous introduction of CCTV cameras.
    HomoSapienSapiens , 14 Dec 2016 01:35

    Americans across the political spectrum are happy to use Putin to distract them from reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is.

    You're absolutely right. Putin is the boogeyman for every ill, real or purported, of his own society, and when the American political system and its institutions prove to be broken, Putin gets to be the boogeyman for that, too. What a powerful man! He must be pleased.

    Only, the thing is, the American political system and its institutions - American democracy - weren't undermined overnight. It took several decades and it was done by Americans who weren't so keen on democracy. Can't fob that off on Putin, try as they might.

    If American power takes a big fat fall like Humpty Dumpty, don't look to Vladimir Putin, look in a fucking mirror. That's where you'll find the culprit.

    PreziDonald -> PostTrotskyite , 14 Dec 2016 01:28
    This is an ultimate truth because it explains why Merkel will not be elected. These days Putin is in full control of the world and is responsible for everything.
    PreziDonald , 14 Dec 2016 01:23
    Let's thank Hillary for that. There is a very good news: on the 20th January we'll cut all Saudi supply channels to the IS and kill all the bastards within 2 months.
    PreziDonald -> shampacanada , 14 Dec 2016 01:43
    In the modern world it is enough to do nothing to be a good man, eg if Bush, Blair, Obama and Clinton didn't create ISIS, the world would be a much better place. You do not even need to be smart to understand this.
    Your Donald.
    From where you'd rather be.
    With love.
    Lafeyette , 14 Dec 2016 01:13
    It's crazy. Even if the Russian hacking claims are legitimate, the leaks still revealed things about the Democrats that were true. It's like telling your friend that their spouse is cheating on them, and then the spouse blaming you for ruining the marriage.
    Althnaharra , 14 Dec 2016 01:05
    The Clinton campaign spent like drunken sailors, on media. This is a new role for the media giants that took care of Clinton's every need, including providing motivational research and other consultants.

    The ongoing scenario that now spins around Putin as a central figure is a product of "after shock media". Broadcast media bounced America back and forth from sit-com to gun violence for decades, giving fiction paramount value. To weave fictional reality in real time for a mass audience is a magnum leap from internet fake news. This drama is concocted to keep DNC from going into seclusion until the inauguration.

    judyblue , 14 Dec 2016 01:04
    Doug Henwood is absolutely correct. This obsession with the supposed foreign interference is baseless. All the real culprits operate within our own system.
    Chukcha Rybak , 14 Dec 2016 01:04
    What happened to Guardian today ? A reasonable story. Unreal feel
    AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:51
    Maybe, in four years, Trump's administration can oversee a secure election. Unlike the Obama folks, who seem to make a calamity out of any project bigger than making a sandwich.
    Pu2u2skeete -> AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:59
    Obama still has access to lethal drones, watch your back.
    TheMediaSux , 14 Dec 2016 00:49
    This hullabaloo really highlights the disdain the establishment has for the American voter. They thought they had it tied up. They thought they had pulled one over on the American people. They are not interested in what the voter actually wants.

    And this raises questions about why our servicemen and women are making sacrifices. The establishment story-line talks about our brave soldiers dying so we can have free elections. Or something like that. The establishment does not care about free and fair elections. In fact, this hullabaloo should have demonstrated to everybody that the establishment does not respect or accepts the results of elections that don't go their way.

    AveAtqueCave -> TheMediaSux , 14 Dec 2016 00:53
    Look at WikiLeaks. They died so Hillary could present her ever-so-clever "tick-tock on Libya" and make fools think she's a constructive foreign policy force.
    AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:48
    Trump blows, but I'm relieved incompetent Hillary Clinton and her gang of bloodthirsty bunglers aren't going to be in the white house.

    Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should have shown more respect to her party's membership.

    Pu2u2skeete -> AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:55
    H. Clinton would have started a war against Russia in Syria come January; and war against Russia in The Ukraine shortly after. Trump could yet end civilization as we know it: thereagain the CIA might 'JFK' him early doors before he's able to.
    DogsLivesMatter -> Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 01:25
    Trump might start a war with Iran. He will have the backing of Saudi Arabia, Israel and Jordon. That frightens me just as much if not worse.
    Pu2u2skeete -> DogsLivesMatter , 14 Dec 2016 01:30
    Fully agree with you. Trump's victory is certain to have incalculable consequences for life on earth. I believe he will give Netenyahu the green light to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. I am no fan of Trump.
    Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 00:43
    American 'exceptionalism;' The World's Policeman; The greatest country on earth. Descriptions believed and espoused by the USA. So Exceptional is America that it claims a God-given right to interfere with or sabotage political parties, foriegn governments (democratically-elected or not) and sovereign states anywhere it chooses. Now we have the hilarious spectacle of a historically blood-drenched CIA (Fake News Central) squawking and squealing completely fabricated nonsense about Kremlin interference in Trump's election victory. Tell that to the tens of millions slaughtered in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the many other nations and people's around the globe who have had first hand experience of American Exceptionalism. You could not make it up..
    Fred Lunau -> Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 01:43
    Well said. Sad but true.

    cvneuves , 14 Dec 2016 00:41
    Arguably, Clinton and the DNC themselves showed very little respect for democracy, as we know from leaks. And now they are whining because of a democratic outcome they don't like.

    We should discuss two things:

    - the content of the mails
    - and the ethical question: did the hacker, whoever it is, did democracy rather a service than a disservice? From when on is a piece of information so valuable that its origins don't matter anymore?

    Media, at least in times when msm still had some moral clout, often relied in their investigative journalism on source which by themselves were not necessarily ethically bona fide - but the public interest, the common good benefited by the information.

    Had Clinton won the election and we only found out now about the trickery that aided in her success we would have a major dilemma. We would have to have endless discussions now about her legitimacy.

    LibertineUSA , 14 Dec 2016 00:26
    I am one who firmly believes that Clinton lost this election because of Clinton's and the DNC's ineptitude and hubris.

    But that doesn't mean the Russians weren't running a psy-ops campaign of fake news stories and misinformation about Clinton and this election on Facebook.

    Which was more responsible for Clinton's loss? Most probably Clinton's ineptitude but the fake news campaigns on Facebook had some effect. It needs to be addressed...

    diddoit -> LibertineUSA , 14 Dec 2016 00:35
    But hadn't Hillary made it personal by saying Trump was Putin's puppet etc?
    She even refused to state whether she'd seek to impose a no-fly zone over Syria; this despite leading Generals telling her it would mean going to war with Russia and Syria.

    Given all that, it's hardly surprising the Russian Duma broke into spontaneous applause upon the confirmation of her defeat. She'd very much cast herself as the enemy of Russia in the campaign.

    LibertineUSA -> diddoit , 14 Dec 2016 01:12
    With the naming of Rex Tillerson, a close business, and personal, friend of Putin, to be Secy. of State I am not sure the argument can be made that she was wrong in her assessment.
    Mizzentop , 14 Dec 2016 00:21
    This article is absolutely right. Trump was not a good candidate and for him to beat Clinton should be setting alarm bells ringing in Democrat HQ. The left though does have an entrenched culture of deluding itself and convincing itself that its a victim of things beyond its control. That lack of self awareness and inability to be brutally honest with itself is a major reason why the left wins many fewer elections than the left. It is also why there are never shock wins for the Democrats or Labour because they always assume too much. The Tories and Republicans are very good at understanding their weaknesses and mitigating them to win elections.
    Aaron Aarons -> Mizzentop , 14 Dec 2016 00:41
    It's absurd to consider Clinton and the mainstream Democrats as part of "the Left". Even the best of the Democrats are generally more on the Right than on the Left, in that they are pro-capitalist and defend the national interests of U.S. imperialism. Add to that their almost unanimous support for the settler colony called "Israel" and there's very little leftism to be found among them.
    JamesHeartfield -> ID8701745 , 14 Dec 2016 00:31
    Cunning of Putin to go back in time and persuade the framers of the US constitution to institute an electoral college, so that he could put his own candidate in place all those hundreds of years later.
    No. Both candidates fought an election under the same rules. In the run up to the vote, Hillary's spokesmen often argued that even if the vote was close, they had the electoral college sewn up. She has nobody to blame but herself.
    ID5073867 , 14 Dec 2016 00:11
    There are plenty of villains who contributed to the electoral downfall of HRC, mostly, though, it's HRC who is primarily responsible, with a big assist from an arrogant & politically inept DNC. Hillary won a bare majority of women, plus the average income of Trump voters exceeded that of Hillies' supporters. Then all the groundwork for the deplorables was laid by Bill, who got rid of Glass-Steagell. Too much is being made of the machinist from Erie & the deplorables generally & if the Dems don't take a serious look at themselves we'll have Agent Orange for 8 rather than 4 deplorable years.
    freeandfair -> S , 14 Dec 2016 01:52
    For goodness sake, it is not foreign governments , it is information. With advance of social media and internet it became so much harder to control the information that gets out.
    That is where we are in a post-propaganda world. You are not only receiving your government approved daily portion of brainwashing but propaganda and brainwashing and information from various sources, all with their various interests. It is your job a s an individual to decide what to believe. You can't put the jinni back in the box.
    cvneuves , 14 Dec 2016 00:10
    It is all about a narrative to suit the agenda. Had Trump outspent Clinton 2:1 he would now be reviled as the candidate of arms industry, pharmaceuticals and big banks. Had Clinton defeated him it would be celebrated as a successful setback for the aforementioned industries; the intelligence of the voters would have been praised. But then supposedly, Clinton was more supported by disadvantaged groups, albeit they then also would be disadvantaged with regards to their education.

    It will always end up in absurdity. However, the notion that "Putin" (never with first name, or Mr, preferably pronounced "Poot'n") decided the US presidency is, interesting.

    Usually the issue simply is, crap candidate, crap result.

    diddoit , 14 Dec 2016 00:09
    Had Sanders been the candidate and had he lost to Trump, I doubt very much he'd have started all this blaming the Russians nonsense.

    Ultimately, Hilary had terrible trustworthiness ratings from nearly 25 years in frontline politics; every shortcoming ruthlessly exploited along the way by her and her husband's political opponents. Ignoring all that historic baggage(dating back to the early '90s) as irrelevant and blaming defeat on the Russians makes everyone supporting that theory look equally absurd.

    MayorHoberMallow , 14 Dec 2016 00:08
    In the 2016 Presidential election, in the 49 States other than California, Trump won the popular vote and enough electoral votes to win the election.
    In California, the most populous State in America, the popular vote was so overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary Clinton that she ended up winning the overall popular vote.
    The electoral college is working exactly as the Founding Fathers intended.
    cvneuves -> ID8701745 , 14 Dec 2016 01:08

    No he didn't. Check your facts and try again.

    He did, in fact Trump is 600,000 votes ahead of Clinton without California.

    Trump 62,916,237 - California 3,916,209 = 59,000,028
    Clinton 65,758,070 - California 7,362,490 = 58,395,580

    Amazing, the difference a fact check can make, isn't it? Thanks for alerting me to a fact check.

    Zacky Olumba , 13 Dec 2016 23:58
    In Shakespeare's book "Julius Caesar" the dictator was told not to go to the Capitol where he will be murdered. His wife warned him, the soothsayer warned him but he ignored it. Caesar's wisdom was consumed in confidence...confidence that he will be crowned king, confidence that all Romans (most stupid people then) loved him, and confidence that those who surround him are his 'friends.' He adamantly went to the Capitol and was murdered.

    Clinton ignored most rural areas and I totally agree with the writer along this line "They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican." Clinton and her team paid dearly for it just like Caesar did. Blaming Russian for the loss is like "You made me do it."

    Simon Speed , 13 Dec 2016 23:53
    In the UK, Rupert Murdoch accesses a Prime Minister as readily as any government minister and wields at least as much influence. At least he is open and honest about this. Similar oligarchs exert their power more discretely. Murdoch's an Australian born US citizen (for business reasons) with a truly global empire.

    A country's big rich have always ruled it's politics. Imperial powers have intervened in their spheres of influence . But now the big rich are international and, it seems, 1st world electorates are getting a taste of what 3rd world people have become used to.

    What strikes me is the reluctance of the US political elite (including Obama) to intervene, even when there's a suspicion of vote rigging. The right of the rich and powerful to control the electoral process (as they have long done) trumps the national-interest (US v. rival powers) side of politics.

    It's a confusing globalized world.

    LastNameOnTheShelf , 13 Dec 2016 23:41
    Hilary Clinton won the popular vote. More people voted for her. What is the deal with the electoral college? How is it possible to have such a huge discrepancy between the two. What is the point of blaming the candidate when they can lose while winning?

    And what is the point of blaming the candidate for their campaign when large numbers of Americans are prepared to believe the most random bullshit? What did you want her to do, lie more often? Because apparently, that's what it takes.

    86753oh9 -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 13 Dec 2016 23:52
    this does a good job of explaining how the electoral college system works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0 ->
    MayorHoberMallow -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:09
    From my comment above... "In the 2016 Presidential election, in the 49 States other than California, Trump won the popular vote and enough electoral votes to win the election.
    In California, the most populous State in America, the popular vote was so overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary Clinton that she ended up winning the overall popular vote.
    The electoral college is working exactly as the Founding Fathers intended."
    Keith Schoose -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:20
    The election is decided by Electoral Votes. Everyone including Hillary knew that. Complaining that she won the popular vote while losing in the Electoral College would be similar to the loser of a soccer match complaining they lost 1-nil even though they outshot the victor by a 6-1 margin. Whine all you want about the popular vote, it is irrelevant.

    Hillary Clinton visited Arizona in the last week of the election, while visiting Wisconsin ZERO times in the general election campaign. The trip to Arizona was a waste of time.

    She lost because she was a horrible candidate with terrible strategy. All these people bleating about "Putin" and or the "popular vote" make me laugh.

    Afterthoughtbtw -> RobertAussie , 14 Dec 2016 00:10
    With respect, you're going to have to back up some of those claims in the second paragraph and how they could apply to Russia.

    As for the first paragraph, a few things come to mind.

    Firstly, it's a huge simplification - there are things like public interest laws to be borne in mind when talking about the press having to obey the law. I don't think there is much doubt that this was in the public interest. I mean what Clinton did with the email server was actually illegal. If someone hacked into a mob boss' computer, got evidence of his/her crimes, and leaked them to the press, would you criticise the hacker or the mob boss?

    Secondly, how on earth was this selectively released to favour one side? How do you favour one side over the other when you only have information on one side. You are literally saying that you shouldn't report on one side's wrongdoings if you can't find anything wrong about the other's! If these are genuine - which absolutely no-one to do with Clinton has denied - then that is all there is to it. Reality isn't partisan.

    Or are you talking about how it was released? You mean dumped en masse onto Wikileaks? How was that showing bias in any way? I just don't understand what you are trying to claim here.

    Finally this comment makes me suspect you don't appreciate the American political climate:

    But, given the result, the section of the press that would investigate hasn't got the money or power to do so. You can be assured the Fox network would have devoted billions to the investigation had HRC won though.

    Fox News aren't the only people with money - indeed, Clinton vastly outspent Trump in the election... by roughly half a billion(!) dollars.

    JamesHeartfield -> fairviewsue , 14 Dec 2016 01:24
    O -- The Director of the CIA says it, then it must be true? Forgive me, but isn't this an organisation created to spread disinformation around the world, overthrow foreign governments, and subvert democracy? Which elections in the world has the CIA not tried to influence? Time Magazine openly boasts that the US government and agencies had a direct role in securing the election of President Yeltsin (who sold off a significant share of the country's assets under US advice, and plunged Russia into the worst recession since the 1930s). Hillary Clinton openly supported the management of the elections for the Palestine National Authority in 2006. Bill Clinton openly agitated for the overthrow of President Aristide.
    Now that the CIA's most assiduous supporters have lost office, up pops the CIA, blaming the Russians, like we were in some bad 1950s Cold War pastiche. Get real. Take responsibility for your own failures, Democrats. Time to cleanse the stables.
    hashtagthat , 13 Dec 2016 23:21
    The CIA: the organisation that brought us WMD, a Gulf war, 100,000s of deaths and the birth of ISIS. The original fake news masters.

    Highly credible.

    Mark222 , 13 Dec 2016 23:12
    Where is even the proof of Russian propaganda? It all seems to come from an "Anonymous source", without verfication I don't see how this is any more legitimate than the rest of the post truth fake news out there that people believe just because it confirms their biases.
    LastNameOnTheShelf -> Mark222 , 13 Dec 2016 23:45
    The CIA claim to know that Russian hackers leaked the Clinton campaign emails to Assange. You can, of course, disbelieve them, but they're not a random anonymous source exactly.
    Rosie423956 -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:17
    Except the sources within the CIA are anonymous. The same CIA who has wrought wars, coups, interfered with elections. That CIA Anonymous source.

    This would be funny, except...oh hell, it's still funny.

    JamesHeartfield -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:56
    The CIA -- Trustworthy source --
    cvneuves -> Sappho53 , 13 Dec 2016 23:17
    Putin extremely powerful man. Make regime change in Amerika without needing invasion or rebels. Soon regime change also in many Europan countries by sending copies of emails to small room in embassy of little country in London.

    You know how powerful Putin? Last week even show finger to Chuck Norris! Chuck Norris now call Putin "sir".

    James Harris -> Sappho53 , 14 Dec 2016 01:43
    Uterus or bust went bust a good while back. Give it up
    Michronics42 , 13 Dec 2016 22:50
    Thank you, Doug Henwood for pointing out what the wholly-owned corporate "pundits" choose not to divulge to coincide with their own agendas.

    Hillary was a disastrous choice for the "Democratic" party, but the vast majority of Democratic politicians were just too feckless to support Bernie Sanders, so now we have an equally terrible choice in Donald Trump.

    That Clinton and Trump even competed for the presidency is in itself an indication of just how disconnected and undemocratic U.S. politics has become.

    Moreover, as Henwood (a frequent and unsparing critic of Clinton, Inc. over the years) has pointed out both Democrats and Republicans are supporting the Russia conspiracy theory in a cowardly attempt to distract the U.S. public from the real and far more dire crisis, which is Washington's enormous political dysfunction not Russia's complicity. (Read Henwood's essay: Stop Hillary! Vote no to a Clinton Dynasty in Harper's Magazine, November 2014 - one article a month is free for reading).

    Yes, the electoral college is a ridiculous throwback to slavery which should be abolished, but its dissolution is just one of many things I'd like to see eradicated from a governing body that has long stopped representing the interests of working class Americans; unless, of course you have the influence and money for such access.

    The non-violent and powerful Black Lives Matter, Moral Mondays in North Carolina and Standing Rock protesters (reinforced by U.S. veterans and other supporters) have demonstrated that change is possible if we're carefully focused on uprooting and replacing government corruption.

    Francisco Carvajal , 13 Dec 2016 22:49
    A silly binary-it's not either Putin or Clinton but a complex conjecture. Can't we raise our intellectual level closer to the complexity of our world?
    SubjectiveSubject , 13 Dec 2016 22:46
    The West support for regimes like Israel and Saudi Arabia makes it hard to present a credible case against Putin on any issues but, rigging the election is just absurd. These days people are more clued up and know Hillary lost because she was not trusted, carried baggage and was funded by big banks. It is rather worrying that we've gone backward and Nazi propaganda tactics are the norm again.
    skiloypet , 13 Dec 2016 22:42
    There was a 50/50 chance the Democrats would take the fall from grace; both parties are out of touch with mainstream, middle-class America, it's just coincidence Trump manifested himself when he did. Neither party had a good message or a good messenger; the dark phenomenon of Trump could have come from either party, the nation was so desperate for change. Yet the GOP really maneuvered for Jeb Bush to begin with; the Democrats, with a significantly smaller field, laid their bet on Clinton. The public's rejection of both Bush and Clinton left the door open for a GOP interloper, Trump; and Clinton was pushed on the Democrats rather than Sanders.

    Even the GOP will have buyers remorse if/when they cannot temper Trump.

    Patrick Moore , 13 Dec 2016 22:34
    As someone who wanted Hilary to win, it is difficult to disagree with any of this.

    If she couldn't beat Trump - who about three times a day said something idiotic or repugnant, then she really was the wrong candidate

    Since he won Trump has actually sounded miles more sensible. I can't help feel that if he had adopted his current tone before the election that he would have won by a landslide

    samuel glover -> Herr_Settembrini , 13 Dec 2016 22:55
    "This was the strategy not because Clinton was was incompetent; it was the strategy because all available data pointed to the fact that it was working."

    What a joke.

    She had a billion dollars in her campaign fund. The money she spent on "data" was just money flushed down the sewer. (No doubt various Clinton hangers-on got very nice "consulting" fees.) She was a Democrat who publicly bragged about her devotion to **Henry Kissinger**.

    She lost to **Donald Trump**. I think even Martin O'Malley could've beaten Trump; I'm certain Sanders could. Only Hillary Clinton had the "magic" necessary to lose to a casino and real estate huckster.

    She was always a lousy candidate, and she's an incompetent politician as well. Dems can face that, face reality, or keep going as they are, in which case there won't **be** a Democratic Party before long.

    MountainMan23 , 13 Dec 2016 22:24
    Agreed. HRC, DNC and the Clintonistas are the only ones responsible for her loss. But there's more to their post-election pushback than just shifting the blame, a lot more.

    Demonizing Russia isn't just about seeking a scapegoat. Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders.

    That's a lot of anticipated arms sales and a lot of every bit as anticipated political "donations" from the corporate establishment.

    amuel glover -> MountainMan23 , 13 Dec 2016 23:00
    " Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders."

    That's a mighty optimistic forecast, but it's not impossible. I think Trump is likely to be a disaster, and even if he isn't, an unleashed Republican gang is a horrible thing to imagine. Still, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, and I note that already Trump's campaign has put down TWO odious political dynasties, AND the TPP -- all very healthy developments.

    cvneuves , 13 Dec 2016 22:23
    Hillary Clinton lost because the majority of the voters were nauseated by her by her fake perma- smile which might as well have been installed by cosmetic surgery. The well rehearsed, worn-out, hollow on-message crap she spouted had zilch credibility and as much resonance. She had nothing to say to the electorate.

    That the Clinton spent about twice as much as the Trump camp in this case did not work to her favour: every appearance on tv made her lose voters.

    The only thing that kept the contest somehow close was the unprecedented all-media fear campaign against Trump.

    I have never had any doubt that that Trump would get the job. What surprised me though, is that only one in 200 eligible voters bothered with the Green's Jill Stein: they are supposedly relatively highly committed to their causes.

    Another mistake of the Clinton campaign, btw. was to focus on scandal. My experience of 45 years of campaigning tells me "scandal" does not win any campaigns.

    cvneuves -> Walter Masterson , 13 Dec 2016 22:45

    99% of the weapons in the Trump arsenal were Trumped up Hillary "scandals"

    They did not decide it. Neither did the new "sexual victim" paraded every couple of days by the Clinton camp. Scandal and counter-scandal are part of every campaign and ignored by non-committed voters.

    What did it for Trump was, that he spoke unscripted, thus came across a somewhat more genuine, and at least acknowledged the victims of de-industrialisation, for which he could not be blamed, but Clinton could. Clinton did not have anything she could present apart from "better equipped because of experience" - with an undistinguished actual record. The name Clinton can be blamed for the plight of the "rust-belt".

    Juillette , 13 Dec 2016 22:19
    Americans have paid a heavy price because of free trade deals and they want a different direction. In the last 15 years there is a noticeable difference in opportunity and wages and most of our politicians don't care. Hillary lost this because she supported most free trade and outsourcing jobs to India and China. They DNC has a chance to reform but they choose not to. I hope Bernie starts a new party and leaves the neo liberals behind. Who knows where Trump will take us but if he adds to the swamp he will be a one term president. Right now it looks like he is repaying his Wall Street fundraisers and big oil super pacs. Our politicians deserve the embarrassment for ignoring our citizens struggles.
    PennyCarter -> Juillette , 13 Dec 2016 22:25
    I mostly see your argument and respect it. However I was not aware that trump was subject to enormous support from super-pacs or Wall Street?
    Juillette -> PennyCarter , 13 Dec 2016 22:58
    Steven Mnuchin with ties to Wall Street stepped in when no one else would and fund raised for Trump. Mnuchin is picked as secretary of treasury. Big oil supported Cruz and moved to Trump with a few superpacs that Kellyanne Conway managed. Both Wall Street and energy will be deregulated. Also tax reform for corporations. He will have to follow through on new trade deals, tax on imports and immigration or he will only help the 1%. We will see if he follows through...
    samuel glover -> PennyCarter , 13 Dec 2016 23:02
    His appointments aren't those of a guy intent on keeping Wall Street at arm's length. **Three** cabinet posts to Goldman Sachs alums?!?!? C'mon.....
    Solomon Black , 13 Dec 2016 22:18
    But didn't Obama dismiss Romney's warning that Russia was a threat to America in 2012. Democrats double standard.
    Walter Masterson -> Solomon Black , 13 Dec 2016 22:31
    Short answer: no.

    Keith Schoose -> Solomon Black , 14 Dec 2016 00:57
    Short answer: Yes.

    Mauryan , 13 Dec 2016 22:18
    CIA? The one which came up with the truth about WMDs in Iraq?

    Who can trust an intelligence agency that has become a legalized criminal organization?

    I think Aliens changed the course of the election and not Putin :-)

    Patrick Moore -> Mauryan , 13 Dec 2016 22:41
    Exactly. So Goldman Sachs as well as the CIA are supporting Hilary. What's not to love about that.

    Difficult to even think of a more toxic endorsement

    MarinaAs , 13 Dec 2016 22:14
    You sir are simply, wrong! read:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/12/1609989/-It-s-the-Russian-arctic-shelf-stupid
    kritter , 13 Dec 2016 22:14
    The only person the democrats are helping with this is Putin.

    diddoit -> kritter , 13 Dec 2016 22:25
    Indeed,

    I bet in Moscow they're quite enjoying this notion Putin can simply dismiss any govt on earth by simply letting loose a few hackers and propagandists. And probably thinking if only.

    The west looks like its collectively losing its marbles. Political systems, like tastes and fashion change naturally over time. Our two party systems struggle to cope with any change, thus the bewildered politicians within these parties lash out.

    PennyCarter -> diddoit , 13 Dec 2016 22:33
    It seems the Arab spring has finally reached America
    MOTCO , 13 Dec 2016 22:11
    The US have been obsessed with the commies for so long they can't see where the new threats are coming from.
    SteveTory , 13 Dec 2016 22:09
    On November 25, 2016, the Obama administration said the results from November 8, "accurately reflect the will of the American people." The following day, the White House released another statement saying, "the federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."
    Herr_Settembrini -> SteveTory , 13 Dec 2016 22:38
    And? Does anybody claim that any foreign power hacked the voting machines themselves?

    The claim is that Russian directed operatives hacked the DNC, etc. in an attempt to find embarrassing material that would damage Clinton's candidacy. They succeeded.

    mismeasure -> Herr_Settembrini , 13 Dec 2016 23:49
    We know about the claims. What about the evidence?
    suddenoakdeath , 13 Dec 2016 22:04
    Doug Henwood trying to beat the Bernie Sanders drum. What I heard from Bernie Sanders Townhall in Wisconsin is that people blamed illegal immigrants for their situation. Deep down inside they have been Trump supporters for a while. That is why Trump won Wisconsin.
    Wiseaftertheevent , 13 Dec 2016 22:02
    A Labour MP is claiming that Putin also fixed the Brexit vote - which also shows how people will blame anyone but themselves for losing a vote. There is not one Clinton supporter who would have complained about the result had she won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote.

    That is not to say that the system should not be changed but Democrats and/or Clintonites should not try to change it retrospectively. That would mean chaos.

    ATLcitizen7 , 13 Dec 2016 22:02
    Totally agree with this article by Mr. Henwood. If Democrats, and Republicans for that matter, want to go on a wild goose chase to blame Russians for the election outcome, with basically no hard evidence to back their claim, rather than look at the real reasons why they lost (disaffected angry citizens and not being able to compete with Trump because they chose lousy candidates) then they deserve to continue losing their future elections. So be it.
    Mystik Al , 13 Dec 2016 22:01
    If she had not spent so much time calling Trump a Misogynist while taking money from Saudi Arabia then maybe , just maybe she would have not come across as the most deceitful and toxic candidate the US has ever seen.
    NancyVolle , 13 Dec 2016 21:58
    Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin solely because of NAFTA & TPP. Bill & Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA. Hillary Clinton had a history of supporting TPP & Obama was actively pushing it. When Hillary Clinton changed her position on TPP people in the old industrial heartland were not convinced that was sincere. The Russians were not responsible for Hillary, Bill & Obama's history of support for trade deals that facilitate moving jobs to low wage countries that suppress unions, allow unsafe working conditions & don't have meaningful environmental regulations.
    seho90 , 13 Dec 2016 21:56

    Julian Assange denies that the Russian government was the source of the hacked emails to and from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta that WikiLeaks published. Of course, there's no way of knowing if he's telling the truth – but regardless of their source, how much influence did they have on the election outcome?

    oh, right

    so when the Wikileaks reveals evilness of the conservatives, it's good, but when the liberals get revealed, he's not telling the truth?

    give me a break.

    Wikileaks is a neutral source, not a conservative or a liberal one.

    PennyCarter -> seho90 , 13 Dec 2016 22:04
    I agree with you. However may I add that the point is not whether Assange is of good character or whether Wikileaks is left or right. The point is has any Wikileaks releases been proven false in the last 10 years or so?
    Herr_Settembrini -> seho90 , 13 Dec 2016 22:32

    Wikileaks is a neutral source, not a conservative or a liberal one.

    Bull. Assange dripped, dripped, dripped the leaks so that it would do maximum damage to Clinton. Whether he has conservative or liberal leanings is irrelevant. What in incontrovertible, however, is that he has an anti-Clinton bias.

    What the leaks revealed is exactly the kind of internal policy debates, calibration of message, and gossipy venting that occurs in any political campaign. Only out of context did they appear damaging.

    calderonparalapaz , 13 Dec 2016 21:43
    Is Guardian running cold war propaganda?

    "Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence"- Glen Greenwald

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence /

    ewmbrsfca , 13 Dec 2016 21:41
    The other big elephant in the room is that nearly half of those eligible to vote did not. Instead, the hysterical US media engage the gullible populace in yet another game of mass distraction, and soon Putin will be forgotten and all will salivate over the Oscar nominations. Thus the United States of Amnesia will settle into its usual addictive habit of running after any "news" that holds the promise of distractive entertainment. Never mind the nation's democracy... "We amuse ourselves to death" (Neil Postman).
    Mike Kiepe , 13 Dec 2016 21:37
    This article is spot on. Tulsi Gabbard 2020
    PennyCarter , 13 Dec 2016 21:34
    Otto Bismarck once said: "laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made"

    To paraphrase, I guess you could also say the same about elections. Leaks revealing behind the curtains shenanigans of any election would turn most stomachs. After seeing this election I may become a vegetarian.

    Huddsblue , 13 Dec 2016 21:32
    Too right. It was always Hillary's election to lose and she lost it simply because she was not to be trusted. Her very public endorsement by gangster capitalist Jay-Z told you all you needed to know about who she represented.
    chris200 , 13 Dec 2016 21:12
    I used to work for an American oil company. Clinton was the one thing that united Democrats and Republicans over lunch time chats. She was unsuitable, and unfit for office. People voted not necessarily for Trump, but against Clinton. Don't blame Trump for this result. Blame the democrats and their poor candidates. So far I like his choice of cabinet members. Except for the banker they are men that create wealth by providing work for talented people. Not something the Guardian understands.
    merrykoala -> LDWWDL , 13 Dec 2016 21:27
    So your prime character witness for Hillary Clinton is.....Bill Clinton.

    Good luck with that.

    FYI mishandling protectively marked documents is wrongdoing, which James Comey testified that she had. Had it been ANYBODY other than a presidential candidate their feet wouldn't have touched the floor.

    Justin Chudgar , 13 Dec 2016 21:09
    What the author fails to emphasize is the degree to which Dem. party 'insiders' like DWSchulz and DBrazile and so on sabotaged their own nomination process by biasing the pre-primary and primary contests in favor of Clinton in subtle and stupidly obvious ways.

    Had this been a contest between Trump and B. Sanders, M. O'Malley, J. Biden, E. Warren, etc. there would have been no Podesta emails to care hack, no home server to investigate, etc. By tipping the scales in favor of Clinton early, parts of the Dem. party caused the current outcome.

    piouspish , 13 Dec 2016 20:58
    I was dubious before, but I'm now actively concerned. This crop of Democrats and their deep state cohorts are unhinged and dangerous. They see me and my families' lives as an externality in their eventual war with Russia. As Phyrric a victory as there could possibly be. They are psychotic; not only waging countless coups and intelligence operations abroad, but now in plain sight on American soil. The mainstream media seems to invoke the spirit of Goebbels more vividly with each passing day. Their disdain and manipulation of the general populace is chilling. They see us not as people to be won-over, but as things to be manipulated, tricked and coerced. Nothing new for politicians (particularity the opposition) - but the levels here are staggering.

    January couldn't come soon enough - and I say that as strong critic of Trump.

    erewhon888 , 13 Dec 2016 20:39
    There is an update to yesterday's Guardian article. Update: David Swanson interviewed Murray today, and obtained additional information. Specifically, Murray told Swanson that: (1) there were two American leakers ... one for the emails of the Democratic National Committee and one for the emails of top Clinton aide John Podesta; (2) Murray met one of those leakers; and (3) both leakers are American insiders with the NSA and/or the DNC, with no known connections to Russia.
    michaelmichael , 13 Dec 2016 20:38
    "Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did"

    Nailed it. If the Democrats had fielded someone who actually represented the people (and who spoke the truth) instead of a corporate shill, the outcome would have been very different.

    They had the ideal candidate in Sanders and they fucked him out of it. But have they learned anything? I seriously doubt it.

    Patrick Perroud , 13 Dec 2016 20:37
    Mrs Clinton is not blaming others. She never did. It's the CIA - backed by the 17 US intelligence agencies - that's saying Russia interfered with the election process in the USA.

    In UK as well, the MI6 said something similar a few weeks ago. Germany is also concerned about the next elections in France and Germany. If any of this was true then it would be a serious threat against democracy in Western countries.

    So who's blaming who? Deep cheaters or bad loosers? The CIA could be wrong but is probably correct this time. Trying to bury this unanimous call from western secret services under contempt is significant by itself.

    Thatoneguyyouknow -> Patrick Perroud , 13 Dec 2016 21:06
    " It's the CIA - backed by the 17 US intelligence agencies - that's saying Russia interfered with the election process in the USA. "

    Way to parrot FAKE NEWS.

    That is a COMPLETE LIE. Unless you honestly believe that agencies like the DEA and NASA's "intelligence" conclusively found "proof" that does not exist. That TALKING POINT was a lie when CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN originated it, and it is STILL a lie.

    But hey, it's only wrong when the "bad guys" on the "other team" spread fake news and engage in intellectual dishonesty, right? When it's the "good guys" it's just a case of the "ends justify the means" and perfectly acceptable, right?

    samuel glover -> Patrick Perroud , 13 Dec 2016 23:43
    "Mrs Clinton is not blaming others. She never did."

    Bullshit. Just last week she resurfaced (can't she grasp the idea of the graceful exit?) to yammer on about the menace of "fake news". Because of course we all know that before 2016, all American elections have been exercises in fair-mindedness and scrupulous devotion to truth.

    stellendar , 13 Dec 2016 20:37
    It's funny how media simply refuses to admit that Trump did it.
    Russians, Hilary, polar bears - none of them had anything to do with it - HE WON.
    Live with it.
    Hmeckardt , 13 Dec 2016 20:36
    The clickbait headline is frustrating. No serious person is accusing Russia of having caused Clinton's loss. Instead, serious people (including, thankfully, leading Republicans) are demanding that we take a thoughtful and comprehensive look at the evidence that Russia intended to influence the election. That's a necessary step for protecting our democracy and it's irresponsible to ascribe political motives to that task.
    Bauhaus -> Hmeckardt , 13 Dec 2016 20:42
    What about the $20 million given to Clinton from Saudi Arabia, did that influence the election or don't we talk about that?
    James Harris -> Bauhaus , 13 Dec 2016 20:44
    Sssshhh don't mention facts that don't support the agenda
    HeeeresJohnny , 13 Dec 2016 20:34
    There was a good article in The Intercept the other regarding the CIA's unsubstantiated (and subserviently published by the media) claims of Russian interference - how it has essentially become a willy-waving contest between the CIA and the FBI in the wake of the elections; how the CIA is an inherently untrustworthy organisation and the media allowing "senior officials" to dictate the news with empty leaks and no evidence (while shouting the loudest about fake news) is folly.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence /

    Eric Hurley -> HeeeresJohnny , 13 Dec 2016 20:53
    The CIA is untrustworthy? what about the FBI?

    HeeeresJohnny -> Eric Hurley , 13 Dec 2016 21:05
    As far as I know, the FBI isn't currently leaking unsubstantiated "news" with the potential of provoking dangerously poor relations with Russia.
    Thatoneguyyouknow -> Eric Hurley , 13 Dec 2016 21:12
    "The CIA is untrustworthy?"

    Have you ZERO knowledge of history? WHAT in their ENTIRE EXISTENCE has given you a ONE SINGLE BIT of faith in their credibility?

    michaelmichael -> Dzomba , 13 Dec 2016 20:40
    "but using covert methods to manipulate the flow of information in the public debate to undermine a candidate is totally unacceptable"

    the US prefers to engineer military coups

    finnja , 13 Dec 2016 20:32
    Very true. It takes an abysmal candidate to lose against (quoting Jimmy Dore here:) Donny Tinyhands.
    It takes a special brand of dense to run
    - for Wall Street (against reinstatement of Glass Steagall)
    - for a direct military confrontation with nuclear power Russia (wich Clinton's pet-project of no-fly zones in Syria would have signified)
    - for trade deals (nobody bought Clinton was suddenly against that)
    and expect the DEMOCRATIC base to turn out.
    Jesus Christ, Donny ran to the left of Hillary on all three issues. Not that anyone trusts him to keep any promise, but at least he didn't outright spit in the face of the people who want less war, less neoliberalism and less Wall Street cronyism while running for election.
    No Democratic candidate worth his/her name would have lost against Trump, not even if the Axis of Evil (whoever that currently is) had hacked all their emails, photobooks and private porn-flicks, in which they starred, and had them all run nonstop 24/7 on every screen on Earth.
    2fingersup2tories , 13 Dec 2016 20:23
    I'm shocked!!! Aren't the Russians to blame for everything???
    My t.v breaking, the rain outside, brexit, Donald trump, the Iraq war, the death of Jesus, those damn Russians, nothing is safe around those monsters.
    Hilarious
    enodesign , 13 Dec 2016 20:19
    Thanks for this article .

    You are so correct .

    I am so sick and tired of hearing those whining elite democrats gone incessantly about white males , the FBI , Putin , Russia , stupid red state citizens , etc., etc ..

    I want say ' Shut the fuck up -- ..... and look in the bloody mirror ' .

    I am a classic liberal .... always have been ..... always will be ...... and I don't know what you would like to call these corrupt , elitist , contemporary democrats but you certainly can not call them real liberals .

    I call them designer democrats . They care only for their particular pet issues and they ongoing pursuit of notions of their own superiority . They routinely generalize in highly sexist and racist fashions and through the use of political correctness seek to silence all of their critics .

    I , simply , loath them .

    They sabotaged Bernie Sanders campaign . Bernie Sanders ..... the nicest , most caring man to come along in American politics in the past 50 years . Not since , FDR , John and Robert Kennedy have we seen such hope for average people .

    But oh , no ..... Bernie was an outsider ..... not part of their corrupt , elite club . He was a threat to their ongoing party . He had to go .

    They didn't give a shit about what was good for the people . They only cared about themselves and their exploitation of the Democratic Party and it's traditional status ..... and their vulgar corruption of genuine liberalism for their own purposes .

    The Democratic Party establishment will now undergo a long , long overdue cleansing . The Clintons are the first to go as they should be . Two total career political scoundrels , if ever there were any . Lies and secrecy were all that you ever got from them aside form the horrific repeal of the 'Glass-Steggall Act ' and the Stock Trade Modernization Bill which lead to the licensing of the financial elite to plunder the economy , ruin the lives of countless average Americans and turn the economy into a complete casino .

    Elitist to the core , they were .

    Imagine an elite , spoon fed , self-interested urbanite like Hillary Clinton telling some poor white male schmuck living in some small town , who for economic reasons has never had a good full time time and works 3 temporary part-time jobs to pay the bills that he is privileged .

    Bloody ridiculous --

    Talk about overt sexism . Talk about overt racism .

    It's these kinds of behaviours that doomed Hillary Clinton .

    She only has herself to blame .

    If she really had cared about average people she would have not sabotaged Bernie Sanders and she would have stepped aside back in June when every poll indicated the she could not beat Trump and that Bernie could beat him by 10 to 15 points .

    Now , we the people are stuck with a Trump presidency ..... something which you can pretty much be assured is going to be un mitigated disaster in ways that we can't even begin to imagine yet .

    Lord help us .

    Good-bye Democratic Party elites ..... don't let the fucking door hit on the way out .

    I wish I could say that it was nice knowing you but it wasn't .

    Go off to your designer lives and pontificate about what is good for people ..... a subject that you know little about and really don't give a damn .

    Go back to Davos and party with the financial global elite for they are really your people .... your kind . Certainly , average hardworking , genuinely liberal people are not .

    Liberalism exists for all people not just the self-anointed few .

    Treflesg , 13 Dec 2016 20:14
    Have you noticed how recently the 'we are not racist and you are' left have started to use the Chinese and Russians as convenient foreign bogeymen to scare the people with?

    Awkward economic figures, blame the Chinese.
    Awkward diplomatic issues or you lost a vote, blame the Russians.

    The problem with this is that our media then amplifies these attacks on China and Russia, they hear them, and they start to resent it and respond. And our future relations with two major world powers are made worse than they needed to be.

    sarkany , 13 Dec 2016 20:13
    A good article to counterbalance the reams of rubbish we are hearing in the US election post-mortem. Anyone who had neural activity should have known that when you steal the candidacy, you certainly won't get the votes. Clinton effectively handed the election to Trump by not having the humility, humanity and honesty to admit defeat by Benie Sanders.

    He was not a perfect choice, but he could have been a candidate who was everything that Trump wasn't - uncorrupted, honest, and with a clearly thought out and principled agenda.

    All Trump was facing was someone as entitled and establishment as he was,. but with less of what passes for 'the human touch' across the pond.

    There's always the possibility of course, that the US establishment realised Clinton's blatant warmongering wasn't 'good for business'.

    The Russians are no doubt aware that the US has to try and cut the Gordian knot - Washington cannot face down China and Russia at the same time; and the two countries are mutually supportive in the UN and are developing many economic projects together.

    So maybe, they thought, we can get the Russkies 'on side', deal with China (ie. reduce it to a 'client state'/ turn it into an ashtray) - and then move on Russia and grab all those lovely resources freed up by global warming....

    yohoot , 13 Dec 2016 20:12
    Seems to me like the Clinton agenda of big oil, big banks and alot of lies won the WH. Hillary's big corporate donors are on Trumps transition team. Surely they didnt want her to win, since she adopted Sanders regulatory, tax the wealthy platform, hence Clinton was duped with marketing strategy which turned voters off, she was reduced to name calling over promotong policy...what did she represent? Only her campaign volunteers knew, her message to the public was "dont vote for Trump" which translates to, I could lose to him, vote for me!
    Benjohn6379 , 13 Dec 2016 19:58
    The Podesta emails confirmed what many people already suspected and knew of Hillary and her campaign. Those who were interested in reading them had to actually look for them, since MSM was not reporting on them. It's not as if an avid MSNBC or CNN watcher was going to be exposed.

    So, if you were seeking them out, A: you probably already suspected those things and B: you weren't going to vote for Hillary to begin with.

    It's hilarious how the major Left outlets (Washington Post) are now telling it's readers how Russia is to blame for people voting against Hillary due to the Podesta emails, when they didn't even report on the emails in the first place.

    theshining , 13 Dec 2016 19:57
    FINALLY sanity intrudes. For one article and one day. But hey , progress is progress. Trump will NOT be what you think him to be. He will be far better. He will still do things you don't like, but not REALLY bad things. :-)

    There was no reason to vote for Clinton as the article says. She offered nothing except the entitlement of HER. It wasn't enough. Thank The Gods. EVERYTHING about the system all halfway decent people detest, is summed up in the figure of Hillary Clinton. And evidently (and I stand to be corrected) she didn't even have the stones not to melt down on election night and Podesta had to go out there and be a complete buffoon.

    Trump might be an unknown but Clinton and her used up party were a complete known. Like Donald said, she had 'experience', but it was all BAD 'experience'. Trump might not fix the problems but at least he's going to try. Clinton didn't even see the problems.

    Raleighchopper , 13 Dec 2016 19:48
    -> Neoliberalism turned our world into a business. And there are two big winners
    Fearmongering Donald Trump and optimistic Silicon Valley seem to epitomize opposing ideologies. But the two have far more in common than you think

    Steady now Graun, 2 sensible articles in 1 day.

    quasar9uk , 13 Dec 2016 19:48
    it did her a really big favour because she was and still is in poor health and the stress of high office would have been fatal for her probably
    quasar9uk -> kronfeld , 13 Dec 2016 22:20
    she is a frail, withered old woman who needs to retire - def the wrong democrat choice, crazy -- Berni.S would have won if for them - he is far more sincere
    Ken Kutner , 13 Dec 2016 19:48
    Here is the key paragraph: "The displaced machinists... believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance." Funny the author fails to notice that that describes to a T Trump's campaign, and actually his whole life. That description applies to Trump several orders of magnitude moreso than it applies to Hillary Clinton's life. If you think Trump is really interested in bringing jobs, especially good paying jobs back, you are willfully blind.
    Prydain , 13 Dec 2016 19:43
    "Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did"

    Trump won, he played the game brilliantly to the rules (including the electoral college system), Clinton lost (you can't win it for the opposition, you can just lose, and the Democrats didn't put out their best hope) and Putin was irrelevant in terms of any interference (although maybe Trump voters would rather the US develop a better relationship with Russia, but that's down to Trump in playing that card).

    SwansonDinner , 13 Dec 2016 19:39
    This argument is as asinine as the one the author opposes. It was a collusion of events that led to this result, including the failure of both parties to adapt to an evolving economic and social climate over decades. The right wing hailing the collapse of liberalism as a result of decades of liberal mismanagement conveniently forget their own parties have held the reins for half that time, and failed just as miserably as the left....
    HellisEmpty , 13 Dec 2016 19:38
    It's quite bizarre to see "progressives" openly side with the military industrial complex, which is threatened by a president elect weary of more warfare.

    It's to be expected from career politicians like McCain who is kicking and screaming, but it's shameful to see supposed liberally-minded people help spread the Red Scare storyline.

    Aquarius9 , 13 Dec 2016 19:27
    A good article Henwood.

    The Democrats are in full blown tantrum mode, throwing teddies out of their pram and spitting dummies across the room, because their warmonger and deceitful candidate HRC, didn't win, that's why there has been all this bad news nonsense about Putin and/or Russia since last week.

    Obama has behaved dreadfully, first he or his office gets one of its poodles namely MI6 to point the finger at Putin re cyberwar, which was swiftly followed by the International Olympic Committee looking at Russia for 2012 Olympic games, the elections in the US and the Democrats CIA coming out with unsubstantiated nonsense (funny how they never like, providing collaborative evidence - on this or anything that supposedly Russia has done) then there is Syria, and Obama and the Democrats were the cheerleader for regime change, because they have been out manoeuvred in that sphere. All of it in less than a week.

    If Obama, the administration, and the CIA were smart they would have realised that a concerted effort to blame Putin / Russia would be seen for what it is - a liar and one of trying to discredit both the outcome of the US elections, the dislike of HRC, and her association with Wall St. - she raised more money for her campaign than Trump and Sanders put together (if the Democrats had chosen Sanders, then they would have stood a chance) and that their hawk would not be in a position to create WW111 - thank goodness. The Democrats deserved what they got.

    ohforgoodnesssake -> PanYanPickle , 13 Dec 2016 19:35
    This organ of the liberal media (no scare quotes required - it is socially liberal and economically neoliberal), along with many others, dogmatically supported Clinton against Sanders to the point of printing daily and ridiculous dishonesty, even going so far as to make out as if anyone who supports any form of wealth redistribution is a racist, sexist, whitesplaining dude-bro.
    WitoldLutoslawski -> zootsuitbeatnick , 13 Dec 2016 19:14
    The Wikileaks emails proved the votes were rigged against Sanders, it why Debbie W Shulz had to resign
    Raleighchopper , 13 Dec 2016 18:59
    Or more precisely the Superdelegates and the Democratic National Committee did. Her Goldman/Morgan Stanley speechs were in 2013 ffs, they all knew she had form and was 'viewed as an insider' as Obama put it in The New Yorker interview.
    danubemonster , 13 Dec 2016 18:58
    The election was close, and if one less thing had gone wrong for Hillary she would have won. However I think an important thing that lost her the election was identity politics. She patronized Afro-Americans and Hispanics, by tell them that because they are Trump-threatened minorities, they should vote for her. In the same vein, gays and women were supposed to vote for her. But what she was really telling these groups was that they should revel in their supposed victimhood, which was not a great message.
    Stetson Meyers , 13 Dec 2016 18:45
    Completely agreed! The onus for defeat belongs to the Democrat party leadership as well. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both understood where the momentum of the election was headed before anyone else did. The election was won and lost in the white blue collar Midwest. A place that decided that diet corporatism is decidedly worse than a populist right wing extremist.

    No one here believed the ridiculous about-face Hillary pulled on the question of the TPP. I guarantee you Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and perhaps Ohio and Iowa.

    ojeemabalzitch , 13 Dec 2016 18:36
    "Our self-image as the world's greatest democracy...." Well, speaking for myself and plenty of other Americans, I never said anything like that about us. In fact, like a lot of people I wish we would stick to our own business, quit trying to be the world's cop, and cease meddling in other countries' affairs.

    If we do that, then I could care less about our image or what the rest of the world thinks. Let some other country be the "leader of the Free World." Who died and left the US in charge, anyway? Not one war we have fought since WWII has been worth the price of one drop of American blood.

    Steve Gustafson , 13 Dec 2016 18:31
    Assuming that it really was the Russians who done it, I guess they had a better game plan than the Saudis. I consider the Russians to have done us a favor of sorts by exposing Hillary's secret Wall Street speeches and the machinations of the DNC. Her 'deplorables' comment was every bit as telling as Mitt Romney's '47%'. We really needed to know about her 'public versus private positions', even if it only confirmed what everybody already knew. I am not 100% sure the system made the worst choice in raising up Donald Trump.

    And even so, if it takes four years of Trump to remove the people who thought Hillary was a good candidate from power in the Democratic Party, it may work out for the best in the long run. And if it takes four years of Trump to show the people who voted for Trump that Republican ideologues can only make their problems worse, so be it. It's mostly the hubris that amuses me at this point. They thought they were the pros. They had the money. They had the ground game. All they did wrong was to preselect and preordain a candidate nobody wanted.

    Steve Gustafson -> Kevin Watson , 14 Dec 2016 04:13

    abuses women, advances the cause of racism, attacks women's rights, is xenophobic

    The American voters heard a steady stream of these arguments. Some may have simply ignored them. Others took them into consideration, but concluded that they wanted drastic change enough to put them aside. White women decided that Trump's comments, while distasteful, were things they'd heard before.

    Reliance on the sanctity of racial and gender pieties was a mistake. Not everyone treats these subjects as the holiest of holies. The people who would be most swayed by those arguments never would have voted for Trump anyways.

    Bronxite -> Kevin Watson , 14 Dec 2016 02:21
    Colin Powell did not advise Clinton to do that, and even if he did she was a fool to take his advice when her boss Obama explicitly told her not to keep a private server. Colin Powell said Clinton destroys everything she touches with hubris. Seeing as how she destroyed the democrat "blue wall" and also had low turnout which hurt democrats down the ticket I agree.
    Max von Berg , 13 Dec 2016 18:09
    Zero evidence other than "he said, she said" regarding any involvement of Russian espionage agencies in the U.S. elections but the left, incredulous once the result didn't go their way, are now clinging to anything to divert attention from the issues that HRC ignored and Trump embraced.

    All this hysteria about the USA and Russia finally working together than apart doesn't help either for it appears that the [neoliberal] lefties want a perpetual war rather than peace.

    noteasilyfooled , 13 Dec 2016 18:01
    The CIA being outraged about a foreign state intervening in an election is quite funny. They have intervened so many times, especially in Latin America, to install puppet regimes.

    As for hacking... does anybody believe the CIA has never hacked anybody?

    Anyway, had the emails not existed, there would have been nothing with which to help Trump. The Democrats have only themselves to blame. Bernie Sanders or ANY other candidate without the Clintons baggage could have done a better job f beating Trump. They wanted Hillary at all cost; they lost!

    GuardianFodder -> noteasilyfooled , 13 Dec 2016 18:55
    Christmas cracker joke for you;

    Q: Why has there never been a coup in the US?

    A: Because Washington doesn't have an American embassy....

    [Dec 14, 2016] Ron Paul The War On Fake News Is A War On Free Speech Zero Hedge

    Dec 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    A major threat to liberty is the assault on the right to discuss political issues, seek out alternative information sources, and promote dissenting ideas and causes such as non-interventionism in foreign and domestic affairs. If this ongoing assault on free speech succeeds, then all of our liberties are endangered.

    One of the most common assaults on the First Amendment is the attempt to force public policy organizations to disclose their donors. Regardless of the intent of these laws, the effect is to subject supporters of controversial causes to harassment, or worse. This harassment makes other potential donors afraid to support organizations opposing a popular war or defending the rights of an unpopular group.

    Many free speech opponents support laws and regulations forbidding activist or educational organizations from distributing factual information regarding a candidate's positions for several months before an election. The ban would apply to communications that do not endorse or oppose any candidate. These laws would result in the only sources of information on the candidate's views being the campaigns and the media.

    Recently the Federal Election Commission (FEC) rejected a proposal to add language exempting books, movies, and streaming videos from its regulations. The majority of FEC commissioners apparently believe they should have the power, for example, to ban Oliver Stone's biography of Edward Snowden, since it was released two months before the election and features clips of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump discussing Snowden.

    The latest, and potentially most dangerous, threat to the First Amendment is the war on "fake news." Those leading the war are using a few "viral" Internet hoaxes to justify increased government regulation - and even outright censorship - of Internet news sites. Some popular websites, such as Facebook, are not waiting for the government to force them to crack down on fake news.

    Those calling for bans on "fake news" are not just trying to censor easily-disproved Internet hoaxes. They are working to create a government-sanctioned "gatekeeper" (to use Hillary Clinton's infamous phrase) with the power to censor any news or opinion displeasing to the political establishment. None of those wringing their hands over fake news have expressed any concern over the fake news stories that helped lead to the Iraq War. Those fake news stories led to the destabilizing of the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, and the deaths of millions.

    The war on "fake news" has taken a chilling turn with efforts to label news and opinion sites of alternative news sources as peddlers of Russian propaganda. The main targets are critics of US interventionist foreign policy, proponents of a gold standard, critics of the US government's skyrocketing debt, and even those working to end police militarization. All have been smeared as anti-American agents of Russia.

    Just last week, Congress passed legislation creating a special committee, composed of key federal agencies, to counter foreign interference in US elections. There have also been calls for congressional investigations into Russian influence on the elections. Can anyone doubt that the goal of this is to discredit and silence those who question the mainstream media's pro-welfare/warfare state propaganda?

    The attempts to ban "fake news;" smear antiwar, anti-Federal Reserve, and other pro-liberty movements as Russian agents; and stop independent organizations from discussing a politician's record before an election are all parts of an ongoing war on the First Amendment. All Americans, no matter their political persuasion, have a stake in defeating these efforts to limit free speech. dirtscratcher Snípéir_Ag_Obair , Dec 13, 2016 11:45 AM

    For the MSM to declare war on 'fake news' they would have to shoot themselves in the head (instead of the foot). A delightful idea, now that I think about it.
    Nemontel , Dec 13, 2016 11:34 AM
    Leftists just don't like loosing power.

    Ignatius Nemontel , Dec 13, 2016 11:48 AM
    That's the faux left .

    Traditional left is equal protection under the law, against imperial war and, most importantly, pro-justice for the working and middle classes (i.e., against off-shoring mfg, etc.).

    All this nonsense PC and identity politics is designed to divide the left (the working class) on the core issues.

    Killdo Nemontel , Dec 13, 2016 12:12 PM
    from my Easter European point of view (after a decade spent in the USSA) - Democrats seem much more Stalininst and totalitarian than Republicans. $hitlery really reminds me of former prez Milosevic's ugly wife (she was also politically involved and as totalitarian as $hitlery)
    koaj , Dec 13, 2016 11:44 AM
    Anyone with a brain could see this was their underhanded attempt at State approved news. They are getting desperate
    Grandad Grumps , Dec 13, 2016 11:48 AM
    Foreign interference in elections? How about some drill down into Hillary Clinton's donors.

    Foreign influence goes Waaayyy beyond conspiracy theories of hacking.

    whatamaroon , Dec 13, 2016 12:18 PM
    If only the Ron Paulers and the Libertarians weren't for open borders I would support them.
    jfb whatamaroon , Dec 13, 2016 12:55 PM
    They are not "pro-immigration", they are against an intrusive police state that use illegal immigration as an excuse to adopt artificial measures. Do you find logic that in many states you have in parallel

    1) Welfare for refugees & illegal immigrants

    2) Other government services as well

    3) Money use to crack down on business with spot checks to see if they hire illegal immigrants

    4) Money use to increase the patrols along the border or even build a wall

    5) Naturalization of illegal immigrants after a few years of residence

    Usually when the media organize a debate it's always rigged

    On one side you will have the guy/woman who say that Westerners are selfish because they need to offer more to those who arrive and adapt themselves to the new migrants

    On the other side the guy/woman who will say that we are at war with Islam, that they have wage a war on us with this invasion and that some asses need to be kick out overthere, Assad, Ghadafi, Iran, you can name them, martial law is necessary to defend ourself by bombing them.

    Rigged debate between to bogus 'solutions'

    DuneCreature , Dec 13, 2016 12:58 PM
    The fake news accusation is possible to counter. ... Let them call you a 'Fake News' website all they want. ..

    Post and publish well researched and truthful news and then let MSM do your advertising for you. ... Call yourself "Fake News - 'Something'" and let the MSM lying fuckers send you traffic. When they say fake news said this, that or something else and people search you out to hear all your 'fake news' and discover your reports are more on the mark than all the fictional gibberish MSM is trying to feed them, MSM loses it's audience even more.

    Truth has a way of bubbling to the top. ..... Just look at the story of ZeroHedge.

    Send in the lawyers if you have to.

    Live Hard, Sue The Deep Pockets Of MSM When They Lie, Die Free

    ~ DC v4.0

    [Dec 13, 2016] Theres A Psy-Op, All Right; But It Isnt The Russians Zero Hedge

    Dec 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Via DaisyLuther.com,

    Enough with "the Russians" already. This "Russian Disinformation" and "Russian Hacking" stuff is getting more ridiculous by the day.

    First, don't let the irony escape you that most, if not all, of the pundits breathlessly blaming the Russians for "fake news" and "election interference" are the very ones who were saying that Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in for president. They're the ones who were providing her campaign with questions in advance, and allowing her people to approve/disapprove of articles.

    Secondly, many of the entities blamed for spreading "Russian propaganda" were the ones with the audacity to tell the truth about the Clinton crime family and spread knowledge of the information released by Wikileaks. Obviously, I'm not including those Macedonian college kids in this, but keep in mind that they weren't doing it for the Russians – they were doing it to make money.

    This isn't about the Russians at all, which anyone with half a brain realizes is absolutely ridiculous.

    Here's what this really is.

    This is a war on the Trump presidency. It's an attempted coup.

    Maybe it's even another effort to outright steal the presidency from Trump. Maybe there's someone with a lot of money to throw into this "OMG THE RUSSIANS" rhetoric who really hates Russia and who really wanted Hillary Clinton to be the President. Maybe his name rhymes with "Doros." I don't know this for sure, but it's at least a more likely story than "The Russians" hacking our election and deliberately spreading propaganda.

    And it's working. Ten of the Electoral College delegates have asked to be briefed on the Russian "interference" before they cast their votes on the 19th.

    But that isn't all. This is a two-for-one deal.

    It's important to note that the MSM lost every single bit of their remaining credibility during the last election and they're desperate to get it back. It reminds me of a high school kid who gets caught doing something she shouldn't, who then makes up stories about another group of kids to get people talking about them instead of her. The MSM can't accept the fact that Hillary Clinton lost, despite their dishonest but enthusiastic efforts to steal the election for her. They'll collude with whoever they have to in order to become relevant again.

    Do you really have any doubt that they'll collude with whoever they have to in order to become relevant again?

    About "The Russians"

    The whole plotline about "the Russians" really took off when the Washington Post published an article listing a couple hundred websites as Russian "fake news" sites. (I know the owners of quite a few of these sites personally -as in, we've shared meals and wine together – and I can tell you, they're as American as apple pie." The Washington Post later backtracked on the accusations but did not retract the article.

    And today, the New York Times was at it with an article entitled, " CIA Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence ."

    Except that when you consider that evidence by definition is definitive and the NYT admits everything they have is circumstantial, then, doesn't that completely negates the headline? The article is sheer speculation, just like the WaPo article that named the "fake news" sites.

    What's more, the FBI completely disagrees with the CIA, and they've been very public about it. They don't believe that there is well, evidence . I'll quote from WaPo here .

    The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.

    "The FBI briefers think in terms of criminal standards - can we prove this in court," one of the officials said. "The CIA briefers weigh the preponderance of intelligence and then make judgment calls to help policymakers make informed decisions. High confidence for them means 'we're pretty damn sure.' It doesn't mean they can prove it in court."

    Give me a break. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should never, ever believe anything the Washington Post refers to as investigative journalism. They have no idea what proof or evidence even means.

    There's a psy-op, all right, but it isn't "the Russians" perpetrating it.

    It's the CIA (keep in mind that psyops is part of their job) working hand in hand with the MSM.

    You just have to laugh at some of these headlines and quotes.

    For your entertainment, enjoy the following round-up of headlines promoting the "Blame Russia" sentiment.

  • Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House ( source )
  • House passes intelligence bill enhancing efforts against Russia ( source )
  • Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election?" ( CNN )
  • Fake News, Russians, and Election Reversal ( Town Hall )
  • A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories ( NY Times )
  • DID RUSSIAN AGENTS INFLUENCE THE U.S. ELECTION WITH FAKE NEWS? ( Vanity Fair)
  • Experts Say Russian Propaganda Helped Spread Fake News During Election ( NPR )
  • Media Wakes Up To Russia's 'Fake News' Only After It Is Applied Against Hillary ( Forbes )
  • And then, have an eyeroll at some very silly quotes

    From an interview on NPR:

    "But let's remember, this was a very close vote where just, you know, a few tens of thousands of votes in a few states ended up making the difference. So I don't know, if you believe that the kind of information that crashes through all of our social media accounts affects how we think and potentially how we vote, I think you would conclude that this kind of stuff does matter." ( source )

    From the NY Times:

    "RT [Russia Today] often seems obsessed with the United States, portraying life there as hellish. On the day President Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention , for example, it emphasized scattered demonstrations rather than the speeches. It defends the Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, as an underdog maligned by the established news media." ( source )

    From a secret mystery source on CNN:

    "There was no way that any one could have walked out of there with that the evidence and conclude that the Russian government was not behind this." ( source )

    From CBS:

    Responding to intelligence officials' report that Russia tried to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of President-elect Donald Trump, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Arizona) on Sunday said he doesn't know what to make of Mr. Trump's dismissal of the issue.

    "I don't know what to make of it because it's clear the Russians interfered," he told CBS' "Face the Nation." "Whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to elect a certain candidate, I think that's a subject of investigation. But facts are stubborn things. They did hack into this campaign." ( source )

    Politico reported:

    "Donald Trump's insult-laced dismissal of reports that the CIA believes Russia hacked the 2016 election to help him is rattling a spy community already puzzled over how to gain the ear and trust of the incoming president." ( source )

    While some of the efforts are laughable, the end result could be incredibly serious.

    And by serious, I mean devastating. It could result in civil war. It could result in World War III.

    Despite the inadvertent hilarity, this is a blatant effort to keep President-Elect Trump out of the White House and to silence the opposition.

    When all dissenting voices are silenced, you're only getting one part of the story. You're only getting the part that those in power want you to hear. If we learned nothing else from Wikileaks, we learned that there are dark secrets about the evils of money, power, and manipulation. We learned how many conspiracy theories about the Clintons were actually facts , and we learned some things we can't unlearn about the proclivities of some of the most powerful people in Washington .

    We learned that some people will do anything to remain in power.

    We're watching them do anything right now.

    Never has an election been so vehemently contested. Never has our country been so divided. If the election results are cast aside, what do you really think will happen? Do you think Trump supporters will just sigh and accept it?

    And what about Russia?

    Just a few months ago, we were on the verge of war with them . By scapegoating "The Russians," if this psy-op is successful, and Trump is kept out of office, what do you think is going to happen with tensions between the two countries?

    Enough with "the Russians" already. The real conspiracy is happening right here in America.

    [Dec 13, 2016] Not Just America: Germany and Other Countries Blame Russia for Losses By Status Quo

    Dec 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Glenn Greenwald notes that – in the face of Trump and Brexit (which were primarily caused by economic policies which have created massive inequality ) – the Democratic National committee is trying to blame everybody and everything but their own status quo policies and candidates which rig the system for the fatcats and hurt the little guy:

    The indisputable fact is that prevailing institutions of authority in the West, for decades, have relentlessly and with complete indifference stomped on the economic welfare and social security of hundreds of millions of people. While elite circles gorged themselves on globalism, free trade, Wall Street casino gambling, and endless wars (wars that enriched the perpetrators and sent the poorest and most marginalized to bear all their burdens), they completely ignored the victims of their gluttony, except when those victims piped up a bit too much - when they caused a ruckus - and were then scornfully condemned as troglodytes who were the deserved losers in the glorious, global game of meritocracy.

    ***

    A short, incredibly insightful, and now more relevant than ever post-Brexit Facebook note by the Los Angeles Times's Vincent Bevins wrote that "both Brexit and Trump_vs_deep_state are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years." Bevins went on: "Since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt."

    For those who tried to remove themselves from the self-affirming, vehemently pro-Clinton elite echo chamber of 2016, the warning signs that Brexit screechingly announced were not hard to see. Two short passages from a Slate interview I gave in July summarized those grave dangers: that opinion-making elites were so clustered, so incestuous, so far removed from the people who would decide this election - so contemptuous of them - that they were not only incapable of seeing the trends toward Trump but were unwittingly accelerating those trends with their own condescending, self-glorifying behavior.

    ***

    The warning lights were flashing in neon for a long time, but they were in seedy places that elites studiously avoid. The few people who purposely went to those places and listened, such as Chris Arnade , saw and heard them loud and clear. The ongoing failure to take heed of this intense but invisible resentment and suffering guarantees that it will fester and strengthen. This was the last paragraph of my July article on the Brexit fallout:

    Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, [elites] are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to delegitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures there will be many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future.

    ***

    Democrats have already begun flailing around trying to blame anyone and everyone they can find - everyone except themselves - for last night's crushing defeat of their party.

    You know the drearily predictable list of their scapegoats: Russia, WikiLeaks, James Comey, Jill Stein, Bernie Bros, The Media, news outlets (including, perhaps especially, The Intercept) that sinned by reporting negatively on Hillary Clinton. Anyone who thinks that what happened last night in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan can be blamed on any of that is drowning in self-protective ignorance so deep that it's impossible to express in words.

    ***

    Put simply, Democrats knowingly chose to nominate a deeply unpopular, extremely vulnerable, scandal-plagued candidate, who - for very good reason - was widely perceived to be a protector and beneficiary of all the worst components of status quo elite corruption. It's astonishing that those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble - that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate, especially in this climate - are now the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating her anyway.

    But that's just basic blame shifting and self-preservation. Far more significant is what this shows about the mentality of the Democratic Party. Just think about who they nominated: someone who - when she wasn't dining with Saudi monarchs and being feted in Davos by tyrants who gave million-dollar checks - spent the last several years piggishly running around to Wall Street banks and major corporations cashing in with $250,000 fees for 45-minute secret speeches even though she had already become unimaginably rich with book advances while her husband already made tens of millions playing these same games. She did all that without the slightest apparent concern for how that would feed into all the perceptions and resentments of her and the Democratic Party as corrupt, status quo-protecting, aristocratic tools of the rich and powerful: exactly the worst possible behavior for this post-2008-economic-crisis era of globalism and destroyed industries.

    ***

    Trump vowed to destroy the system that elites love (for good reason) and the masses hate (for equally good reason), while Clinton vowed to manage it more efficiently. That, as Matt Stoller's indispensable article in The Atlantic three weeks ago documented, is the conniving choice the Democratic Party made decades ago: to abandon populism and become the party of technocratically proficient, mildly benevolent managers of elite power. Those are the cynical, self-interested seeds they planted, and now the crop has sprouted.

    Indeed, the Dems re-elected Mrs. Status Quo – Nancy Pelosi – as minority leader. And Pelosi claims :

    I don't think people want a new direction.

    Similarly, outgoing Senate minority leader Harry Reid says :

    I don't think the Democratic Party is in that big of trouble.

    I mean, if Comey kept his mouth shut, we would have picked up a couple more Senate seats and we probably would have elected Hillary.

    Of course, the whole claim that Russia hacked the U.S. election is baseless as is the whole hysterical claim that Russian propaganda swung the election.

    But it's not just America

    After Brexit and Italexit – with a potential Frexit looming on the horizon – the status quo in Europe is also trying to shift attention (look, squirrel!) from their failed policies to boogeymen.

    For example, European leaders are also claiming that Russian propaganda is interfering with European values.

    And Germany's incredibly unpopular Social Democratic party is claiming that Russia might hack its election.

    A former British cabinet member alleges that Russian hackers "probably" swayed the Brexit vote.

    And Washington Post national security reporter at Adam Entous told BBC this week that a CIA official claims that Russia hacked the Brexit vote, and the vote in Ukraine (starting around 1:09:58).

    What's next the status quo starts blaming their electoral losses on little green men?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The article and the five New Democrats fail to discuss the anti-working class policies that they have championed for decades. Job security is the paramount issue that drives voting by many members of the working class. The New Democrats and the Old Republicans share a devotion to the two greatest threats to working class job security – austerity and the faux free trade deals. This makes it ironic that the paper sought out the Party faction leaders who have been so wrong for so long as supposedly being the unique source of providing the right answers now. If the five New Democrats had engaged in introspection and were prepared to discuss their disastrous, repeated policy failures that would have been valuable, but the New Democrats admit to making zero errors in the article.

    The paper's understanding of economics and jobs is so poor that it wrote this clunker.

    But even liberals believe Democrats must work harder to compete for voters who lean to the right, if only to shave a few points off the Republican Party's margin of victory in rural America. In some cases, they said, that may mean embracing candidates who hold wildly different views from the national party on certain core priorities.

    First, the phrase and the implicit logic in the use of the phrase "even liberals" reverses reality. It is progressives who have consistently called for the Democratic Party to return to its role as a party that champions working people.

    Second, the issue is generally not who "leans to the right." Indeed, the 2016 election should have made clear to the paper the severe limits on the usefulness of the terms "right" and "left" in explaining U.S. elections. Jobs are not a right v. left issue.

    Third, the paramount policy priority – jobs – is the same regardless of whether one focuses on economic or political desirability. So, how long does it take for the article, and the five New Democrats to discuss "jobs?" Given the fact that they vented at length about the fear that they would begin to lose their jobs within two years, the subject of job security should have been paramount to the five New Democrats. The article, however, never even mentioned jobs or any of the related critical concepts – austerity, the faux trade deals, or the refusal to provide full employment. Further, the article did not comment on the failure of the New Democrats to even mention these any of these four concepts.

    "A Clarion Message about the Economy with Appeal to all 50 States"

    Here is UMKC's economics department's long-standing proposal to every American political party:

    Our party stands for full employment at all times. We will make the federal government the guaranteed employer of last resort for every American able and wanting to work. We recognize that the United States has a sovereign currency and can always afford to ensure full employment. We recognize that austerity typically constitutes economic malpractice and is never a valid excuse for rejecting full employment. The myth that we help our grandchildren by consigning their grandparents and parents to unemployment is obscene. The opposite is true.

    The working class wants jobs and job security – not simply income. Working class people overwhelmingly want to work. Working class males who are unable to find secure, full time work often become depressed and unmarriageable. If you want to encourage marriage and improve the quality of marriages, full employment and job security are vital policies. There are collateral advantages to providing full employment. Full employment can reduce greatly the "zero sum" fears about employment that can tear a society apart. Each of these outcomes is overwhelmingly supported by Americans.

    Good economics is not a "right" v. "left" issue. Austerity is terrible economics. The fact that we have a sovereign currency is indisputable and there is broad agreement among finance professionals that such a currency means that the federal government budget is nothing like a household. The major party that first adopts the federal full employment guarantee will secure a critical political advantage over its rivals. Sometimes, good economics is good politics.

    Disturbed Voter , December 12, 2016 at 6:13 am

    It is critical that existing Democrat leadership goes into retirement. Finagling the Clintons back into the WH, delays this by 4, 8 or more years. Besides generating immense animosity. This could be easily accomplished if all Democrat leadership retires at 65 immediately, to live on their Social Security and Medicare (if they think those are still important).

    vlade , December 12, 2016 at 7:02 am

    ah, but there was a "clarion message". It was "we care not even about the 1%, but the 0.01%. The rest of you can piss off".
    Which is why Dems got dumped.

    steelhead23 , December 12, 2016 at 11:35 am

    I suspect this meeting was functionally similar to the ecclesiastic kvetching when folks began to believe the world was a sphere some 600 years ago. I can imagine them thinking: unemployment (as they measure it) is low, housing prices are jumping, and boy, look at that stock market – how did our base constituency lose its way?

    As long as the Democratic Party leadership thinks this way, the party is useless and should be abandoned. I might suggest that Bill, Yves, Randy Wray, and others get to work educating them, but like flat-earthers, these folks not only live in willful ignorance, they would very much like to cast that crowd on the pyre of false-news purveyors lest they lead even more of the faithful astray.

    sgt_doom , December 12, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    I have to fully agree with Prof. Black's assessment; thought this when they reelected Nancy "my son works at Countrywide" Pelosi and doubled down on their identity politics. (David Harvey disposes of identity politics in a single sentence in his latest book.)

    timotheus , December 12, 2016 at 7:43 am

    But in this Lewis Carroll universe, "Work harder to compete for Republican votes" doesn't mean steal Trump's jobs-related thunder but give in on things like fracking a la Madame Heitkamp, or discover an enthusiasm for guns like Manchin, or run anti-abortion stalwarts like Donnelly. That's why the reporter couldn't depart from the vague mush–the "centrists'" solution to the Democrats' debacle is to become Republicans.

    lyman alpha blob , December 12, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    My folks are bible thumping, Fox News watching, prolife, and anti-gay marriage voters.

    They were all set to vote for Bernie, not because they agreed with him on everything, but because he was fighting for people like them and he was honest. They would have burned in H-E-double-hockey-sticks before voting for Clinton though. Judging by the polls during the primaries and the eventual outcome, they were far from alone in their assessment. Too bad the dimwit DC Dems can't be bothered to actually talk to people like them.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    They sort of do talk to people like your relatives, but partisanship is strong. Plenty of local Democrats can diagnose and propose solutions caused by the GOP but will worship Trump if he had a "D" next to his name. Claire McCaskill probably receives enough praise from partisan plebes for no payment she assumes all the plebes should love her. For conservative types, Sanders not being in the other tribe was a huge selling point.

    The Trumpening , December 12, 2016 at 8:05 am

    The fundamental power diagram of politics is that groups of donors select groups of politicians to fight for the interests of the donors. The complication in democracy is that the voters select which politicians will rule. So the donors are like a client, the politicians like a lawyer and the voters are like a jury. A talented politician is one who can cunningly convince voters to set her guilty donors free.

    So all these New Democrats are doing is suggesting ways to better plead to the jury. But they are in no way questioning the donors or whether they should continue to push policies that only serve the donors' best interests

    One revolutionary feature of Donald Trump's campaign was that he was his own donor and so was very free to directly appeal to what is in the best interests of the working class voters he targeted: economic nationalism.

    Conversely the most problematic feature of the Trump campaign was that he was running as the head of a party that did have plenty of donors and he was openly contradicting plenty of these donors' interests. But Trump correctly calculated that the only way to power in America was to hijack one of the two legacy parties.

    In some ways Bernie Sanders attempted a similar feat, although I remain skeptical about whether he really was trying to win. If Sanders had become President, he would be facing the same problems that Trump now faces; how to rule a party whose policies fundamentally diverge in many areas from what you have promised to deliver.

    And so until the Democrat change donors – specifically by announcing that as a party they will only accept small donations and adopt some of the Trump tactics to reduce campaign spending – nothing will change except the sound bites. Many working class people realized exactly how flawed Trump was but they rolled the dice for one reason only – no one owned Trump. Or as Henry Kissinger put it:

    "This president-elect, it's the most unique that I have experienced in one respect. He has absolutely no baggage," Kissinger told CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS." "He has no obligation to any particular group because he has become president on the basis of his own strategy."

    Kissinger is smart so he makes these words sound blasé but I can assure you they strike fear into the hearts of America's elite. But only when we hear these same elites expressing fear of the entire Democratic party (like they did about Bernie Sanders) will we know something fundamental has changed for the better.

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 10:44 am

    The Trumpening
    December 12, 2016 at 8:05 am

    Some very good insights. I would be curious to know your thoughts on when the repub/Trump split comes, which way will FOX tilt? Right now FOX is all Trump, but after a year or two of insinuations that Trump is a Pro Putin commie, I suspect the masterful propagandists that make so much of our beliefs will either cause the actual downfall of Trump, or will more than neuter him.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Trump was selected by Republican voters despite Fox not being his BFF. Trump is the GOP, and Republican voters support their own. 41 called Reagan a practitoner of Voodoo economics. Yes, this was an appeal to the Southern strategy. Attacks on Trump that say he's not a "true conservative" will never work. Trump is a known clown. He can't embarrass himself, and I think it's important to remember Iraq happened. What did the average Republican voter take from that? Putin Fear Fest is very similar to the events of 2002.

    Periodically, new tribal arrangements need to be made. Romney was given a chance. He failed, so the GOP voters selected someone new. Republicans hate Democrats. Attacks levied by Democrats will always be brushed off.

    Videos could emerge of Trump swearing allegiance to Putin at an orgy, and Republican voters wouldn't care.

    This Russia stuff isn't about Trump but about the Democrats pleading with people not to look at the man behind the curtain.

    jrs , December 12, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    Yes Republicans stick together plus they think Trump is most likely to accomplish their "small government" goals and so they support Trump (this is probably true, the establishment supported Hillary, but many a Republican votes party line for one of their own).

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    Hillary did well with defense contract related Republicans, but they are clustered. The ones in hideously over priced McMansions in Virginia and Maryland are terrified of spending being redirected. They have mortgages to pay, and if Trump thinkers with defense spending whether through cutting cutting or moving, Northern Virginia will become a land of white elephants. Northern Virginia might have incomes, but outside of old town Alexandria, it's a dump of out of control suburban sprawl.

    No one sane would live there by choice. The costs are too high to relocate a corporate operation or even grow one. Republicans in Wisconsin don't care.

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    NotTimothyGeithner
    December 12, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Oh, I agree with your overall points. I was just wondering specifically about Murdoch and if his contrariness will make FOX pro Russian ((in the face of overwhelming repub foreign policy establishment against Trump)), or will FOX be the "repub" anti Russain brand. It will be interesting when being "conservative" means you like Putin .

    And I remember how many rabidly anti communists where having conniptions when Reagan met with Gorbachev in Iceland. But Reagan was well ensconced in the establishment. Can Trump alone end the red menace?

    schmoe , December 12, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    ? – "Trump was selected by Republican voters despite Fox not being his BFF. " Hannity and O'Reilly segments this past cycle were one hour propaganda news feeds for Trump.

    The Trumpening , December 12, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    As far as Fox goes from what I understand they are currently split - with Kelly Megyn (I know), Brit Hume, and Chris Wallace being anti-Trump while Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs are pro-Trump bigly. This is a smart balancing of Fox's short term need for viewers versus their longer-term policy requirements. But there can be no doubt that Rupert Murdoch is rabidly anti-Trump - he even gave that raving NeverTrump lunatic Louise Mensch a website called HeatStreet.

    From glancing at the National Review it seems the GOPe think they are being generous by admitting defeat and magnanimously getting behind Trump's cultural agenda while insisting conservatives stay in charge of economic and foreign policy. But this is no change at all since the Republicans have always been offering the working classes empty cultural issues.

    I imagine the Republicans see this as a Tour de France with them being the huge peloton while Trump is a lone breakaway attacker who they will soon swallow back up and totally co-opt.

    I don't think the MSM are that good at propaganda; if they were Trump wouldn't be President!. For example now they have launched this Trump + Putin campaign but Trump responds by picking a fight with China. But the MSM is aghast and totally support the Chinese position! So they accuse Trump of carrying water for Russia put there's the entire MSM all lined up with buckets of Chinese water on their heads!

    I suppose at some point several top GOP Senators (McCain, Flake) and a bottom (Lindsey Graham) will leave the party and caucus with the Democrats to ensure legislative gridlock. I believe if Trump really tried he could get a House of Representatives that supports him. I don't see how he herds the Senate though.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    Propaganda only works when people are aware there is no curtain. At this point, the Wizard of Oz has been revealed, and unlike Baum's creation, he has no redeeming qualities. Telling everyone to look at the big giant head again fails.

    The msm and the Democrats don't know how to function moving forward because building trust will take years of effort, and many of the specific personalities are done. They can never be attached to a competitive effort without undermining the effort. If they hope to retake their spot, when FB seemed trendy and not a mom hangout, they need people to forget about the curtain, but it's impossible. Instead they will whine about wicked witches of the North.

    Even Trump won because the GOP misfits were sheepdogs for Jeb. Whatever else Trump was, he wasn't part of Jeb's curtain. Shouting Trump is a fraud doesn't work as long as you then scream "pay no mind to the strings on my back." I think Rufio could have made more noise if he wasn't such an obvious beta as he attacked Jeb, but one could argue he betrayed Jeb. People don't like that kind of thing.

    samkoki , December 12, 2016 at 11:48 pm

    Hogwash.

    Bernie proved that there is plenty of money for candidates with the right intent and policies.

    What you say, that dems can't win without its moneyed donor class, is a notion that has been used to bludgeon democrats into conservatism and passivity.

    Bernie blasted your assertion about campaign finance to bits.

    As to the dems "figuring something out," the dem leadership doesn't need to figure anything out. They are perfectly happy serving the 1%. It's the rest of the democrats who need to figure that out about their leadership and take action, whether it is tossing the leadership or starting a new party.

    Adamski , December 13, 2016 at 5:59 am

    According to an NYT article about his campaign, Sanders was not running to win until after his popularity started to skyrocket. Initially he was still attending the Senate and was not campaigning fulltime.

    It was just an attempt to spread his liberal policy message nationwide. But how to control the party as President when it's opposed to him on policy? That's what "political revolution" meant. If Congress opposed Trump, he will have a rally of thousands in the district of any difficult legislator blaming him or her for not letting Trump make America great again.

    Similarly Sanders can campaign to either get a Dem majority, it he hadn't got one in 2016, by 2018. Or to increase it or make it more liberal. This is what he did when the city council opposed him in Burlington, Vermont. Within a year he got one which was much more pliable. The progressives never got a majority but he went from Obama-style gridlock to a working government.

    aab , December 13, 2016 at 6:07 am

    One correction: Bernie Sanders is not a liberal. He is a democratic socialist. It's not a minor point, particularly because liberals deliberately obfuscate the difference to con voters.

    Liberals believe in hierarchy. I'm pretty confident Bernie Sanders is an egalitarian. That matters, when it comes to policy and governance, as well as core values.

    Marshall Auerback , December 12, 2016 at 8:05 am

    Putin is not the one responsible for manipulating Democrats into an intensely pro-Wall Street, anti-working class political posture that loses elections.

    Clive , December 12, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    I agree - if the "old" parties act like the old neoliberal parties, they can't solve our current predicament. While our predicament isn't a new one, just a new version of an old problem, retreading the past 20 or 30 years isn't going to do the trick.

    Normal , December 12, 2016 at 8:11 am

    Gov't as employer as last resort is a huge leap from the goals of full employment and job security. This is promoted here and elsewhere without any rationale. Someone will have to explain why this is the only possible solution.

    Arizona Slim , December 12, 2016 at 8:26 am

    Have you noticed the private sector stepping up? With a free market jobs program that would provide full employment? I haven't either.

    jrs , December 12, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    Plus the quality of the jobs in the private sector is often horrible (of course not all but many). There is a reason everyone wants a government job. And unless the government sector forces the private sector to improve the quality of their jobs (ie living wages and ACTUALLY enforce overtime and safety and etc. not to mention all the contract work going on that isn't EVEN jobs) it will remain so. Quality of jobs matters.

    fritter , December 12, 2016 at 8:40 am

    Not really, but try explaining the opposite. How can we have full employment without gov't employment as last resort? Granted you can have "goals" all you want if you ignore them, but we'll put that aside and assume you are not disingenuous.
    Everything else has been tried and failed, miserably. Companies sit on piles of cash without significant hiring. Tax incentives get gamed easily.
    Offering employment is the simplest, most targeted solution that effectively cuts the rest of the employers out of the hostage taking business.

    Cry Shop , December 12, 2016 at 9:18 am

    The working class wants jobs and job security – not simply income.

    I rather like the term used here instead of jobs , people want a livelihood. In the USA, that get's shortened into jobs, and then later short changed again into things like minimum wage. One could have fully employment and terrible livelihood. Only the Japanese could put up with 50+ years of being economic animals. Anyone who thinks full employment is going to solve issues like income inequality has been eating mushrooms picked from the cow pasture.

    Mark Anderlik , December 12, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Yes. Better to say "good jobs." Nearly 40% of workers in my community work at low-wage jobs that do not provide for a decent living on its own.

    Cry Shop , December 12, 2016 at 11:25 am

    I just don't even like the idea of "good jobs" - so limited and so American.

    For example, Jobs won't save us from Climate Change, it's not just a money issue. Hence Livelihood, as in lets make sure the bastards who made this mess die before we do, then we;ll have some justice to make our miserable end more bearable. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/links-121216.html#comment-2725938

    Waldenpond , December 12, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Full employment is the growth argument. Both would be beneficial but I would prefer the switch to income/leisure. Shorter work week, more leisure activities, less consumption, less growth.

    lyman alpha blob , December 12, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    Ditto. Government doesn't need to provide jobs where people go to the office and get paid to sit on their rear end all day – we already have enough of those in the public and private sectors.

    I'd like to see a basic income guarantee with some sort of mandatory work required to get it. Something like the draft where people are called up to work for a certain period of time on a rotating basis but also giving them some say in what sort of job they get to do. One year you work at job x for a period of time, train your replacement and then get a bunch of time off. The next year you can try something different at job y.

    Waldenpond , December 12, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    Mandatory work everything is work. Yes, you can have call up for people who want to do a stint/internship learning large scale community construction, infrastructure, plumbing, electrical, etc.

    Still, there needs to be jobs where people sit on their back sides part of a day some prefer working in offices and some are only able to work in offices.

    But stretch the imagination: Community service runs the gamut: people to clean up streets, keep gutters open, scrape up weeds, maintain plantings, paint, repair; assisting children, seniors and animals; art etc. I am not a musician nor actor but would appreciate having free/low cost local enrichment programs. Public schools (the ones left) could be used in the evening for free classes: electronics, woodworking, engine/household repair, cooking, nutrition, etc.

    And yes, there will be a need for people who sit on their rear ends to help organize and track activities. :)

    lyman alpha blob , December 12, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Yes what you said.

    And don't get me wrong about the rear end sitting – I don't mean those types of jobs shouldn't exist, I just mean that when you show up at the office you ought to have some actual work to do. And going to meetings deciding what work others should be doing doesn't count. I've worked at a few where I was required to be there for eight hours a day but only had four hours of work to do, and not for lack of asking.

    One can only read the whole internet so many times a day ;)

    polecat , December 12, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    'Shorter work week, more leisure activities, less consumption, less growth.'

    and lots of Free birthcontrol ..

    jrs , December 12, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    What nonsense it is to generalize what the working class as a whole wants (and really this probably should include everyone who works for a living). Some want jobs, some income. If everyone only wanted jobs no mothers would ever stay home to raise children etc..

    Waldenpond , December 12, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    Everything is work, everything is a job. If you take care of an elderly relative, it's duty (unpaid labor), if you take care of an elderly stranger it's a job. If you raise your own children, it's duty (unpaid labor), if raise others children, it's a job.

    Elites are claiming more and more work is duty and of course it should be unpaid not to mention volunteerism.

    If there was an income guarantee, most would labor their days away as work contributes to social connection and provides personal satisfaction.

    If there was an income, I imagine social life would be richer as more people could be artists (festivals!), performers (community theater!), work in schools (art, music, construction classes) etc.

    HotFlash , December 12, 2016 at 9:09 am

    And, of course, it is the government that is the issuer of this sovereign currency that they cannot run out of. Or are you suggesting that the government give the $$ to the private sector, which will, of course, trickle it on down? We could call it, I don't know, how about 'quantitative easing'?

    Another reason to prefer the government (which, after all, is "us") to administer jobs-for-all is providing jobs that do useful things for society which could not be provided on a for-profit basis. Um, like daycare, medical care, public utilities, eldercare, voter registration, education, making things that are repairable, and then repairing them when they need it, organic agriculture, humane animal husbandry, saving the monarch butterflies, *manual* residential snow shoveling - all those things that 'cost too much' for a for-profit business to do.

    Eclair , December 12, 2016 at 10:27 am

    Exactly, HotFlash. And, notice that so many of these livelihoods, child and eldercare, teaching, repair persons, garbage collectors, snow plow operators, have been relegated to the level of 'minimum wage jobs,' and the people that perform these necessary services consigned to the ranks of 'too dumb to be innovators or investment bankers.'

    We have been conned into mumbling to our military, 'thank you for your service,' as they get to board flights before us. Why not honor trash collectors and the women who clean the toilets in our workplaces and the workers who are out on the county roads and interstates at 2am in a blizzard, keeping the roads clear so we don't have to be inconveniences? Where would our society be without them?

    Cry Shop , December 12, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Douglas Adams was only being partially facetious when he had the an advanced civilization wiped out because they shipped out their phone cleaners on rocket-ships (ala the Marching Morons). It was his subtle rebuke to both Kornbluth and the Ayn Randian/neo-conservative of that time, as well as the general vapid consumerist society.

    As to the military, I always favored the Coast Guard, they risk their lives to save other humans, not help the MIC and Empire.

    manymusings , December 12, 2016 at 11:39 am

    I think explaining govt-as-employer-of last-resort becomes easy once a few misconceptions are corrected and a few realities sink in. But it's no small thing for the realities to sink in - everything we've been taught, or encouraged to assume, is working against us. Conventional, responsible wisdom is that the wealth one has that didn't come from the government is "earned" and any activity that "earns" money is inherently productive and being productive is good - it makes one worthy. People think of "money" as the stuff passed around in big green wads in the movies, that comes into being through work an ingenuity (unless the govt commits the sin of "just printing it"). Distribution may not be "fair" but it at least follows certain intuitive laws or forces, that have a vague sense of morality associated with them (e.g., money is earned through productivity which means whoever has it by definition earned it, e.g. MH point on FIRE sector). It is a tautology - but a powerful one. People don't think of money as the product of accounting, a two sided coin created literally from a balance sheet - debits and credits, assets and liabilities - and that commercial banks can conjure "money" - pump it into circulation - simply by marking an asset in their ledger. People don't know that banks issue loans (create assets) out of nothing all the time (i.e., loans without corresponding deposits or reserves, loaning what they don't "have"). The asset becomes revenue-generating through interests and fees, which, if non-liquidating, are the precise opposite of "productive."

    It is so difficult for this to sink in because our society organizes itself as if this weren't true. Speaking personally, it takes a persistent, systematic re-organization of how we process facts and arguments. We hear something like a "sovereign currency can never run out" as a justification for universal income or govt-as-employer-of-last-resort, and it triggers a deeply embedded sense that somehow this would send the economy spinning of the rails. But once it sinks in that "money" is just an asset/liability, and its entry into private circulation is purely a matter of public policy (not private "productivity"), at least then you're asking the right question: how should a sovereign inject currency into private circulation? Maybe no one answer is universally right at all times and in all circumstances .. but at this point debt is outpacing actual productivity, which means it must be written down (MH argument) and/or there needs to be an injection on the debtor side to try to catch up (e.g., jobs program or universal income). Which is why it is so nonsensical for the govt to "print money" in the form of transferring assets in the form of increasing bank reserves, as if bank lending depends on reserves at all it's like trying to fill a pool but flooding your sink). At least that's how I make sense of it still may botch the details, but at least once you strip away the cultural/social/moral baggage, it becomes more of a matter of simple economic logic that doesn't need a larger explanation. If you want to fill the pool, fill the pool, not the sink. But the baggage is real - which is why it really does seem to be a matter of letting the realities sink in.

    juliania , December 12, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    The baggage you speak of actually began with Reagan when from a government position of high privilege he actually sneered at government as the employer of last resort with his statement belittling "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Which a subservient press took and ran with to make sure it settled into everyone's subconscious. It's helpful to revisit the rise of Ronald Reagan, and to remember that Obama took him as his role model, not FDR.

    This battle has been ongoing in American politics probably since way back before the Great Depression, but that's as far back as some of us remember our parents telling us about. I love Bill Black because he's the kind of Democrat I thought I was. This new crowd makes me sick. It's appropriate that Obama's murder weapons are called drones. That's what the New Democrats are: drones.

    KYrocky , December 12, 2016 at 8:20 am

    The New Democrats will likely go the way of the blue dog Democrats. Their Republican voters will ask themselves why should they vote for a powerless Republican-lite, and they will simply die politically.

    They care about staying a Senator. They care about themselves first and only, and will suck up to and serve whoever provides the money that allows them to hold onto their seats.

    Voters in these red states voted for change, above all else. They voted for a nut job because they finally heard a candidate speaking to their issues and concerns, something their Senators, apparently, have not done.

    Dave McCrae , December 12, 2016 at 8:20 am

    There will soon be so few democrats remaining that we should give some serious consideration to a sequestration solution of giving them their own land, with no fossil fuel degradation, clean water from the glaciers, a tiny house, a pouch of seeds, and a sustainable truck garden, no cars trucks or bicycles, a fig tree in the middle of town. They could either pay taxes or not, as they felt motivated, and provide their own services regardless as not to be a burden. We could gather them up and have a long march to their new home; it would be hravenly! The rest of us could peacefully proceed to hell.

    manymusings , December 12, 2016 at 8:23 am

    This is mind blowing. Granted I didn't follow the link to the full story - but how on earth is this even news , even under the pathetic standards of election post mortems? New dems concoct self-admiring story, posture as the ones who "get it." Feed it to reporter, who agrees to attribute anonymously of course (so it has the feel of insiders and not high schoolers). I'm guessing what these courageous centrists really mean with the confused prescription to court voters who "lean right" is to appeal on social/cultural issues. Scold "elitist identity politics" of the national party as a distraction from the "economic message" (which of course will be the same assault on decency it always has been). So "economy first" would mean attack/exploit social liberalism and call it a "fight" for the economic plight of the every-man/woman. The beauty is you get to sound angry on behalf of voters without an iota of accountability or reflection, without ever having to answer for shallow, self-serving policies and abject failure.

    cnchal , December 12, 2016 at 11:10 am

    Some times Bill is so over the top it is comical.

    Note that the paper never tells you what the five New Democrats so bluntly identified as the New Democrats' "missteps" or what new policies they believed needed to be adopted by the Party. This failure is particularly bizarre because the paper says that its reportage is based on sources that the paper agreed to keep anonymous so that they could speak frankly about this meeting over Chinese food. . .

    The five New Democrats were: Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Jon Tester of Montana, at a dinner held at the Washington home of Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat of North Dakota.

    So, not anonymous at all.

    Here is the key part to understanding the plight of the politician / narcissist that feels the wrath of voters.

    . . . All face difficult re-election races in 2018.

    There is nothing worse than being ignored, but fail to understand that what they themselves fear, being ignored with no jawb, the peasants have been living with for decades. Hypocrite is the word and these are vacuous human beings that care only about themselves no matter what emotional fakery they use.

    flora , December 12, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Um .
    what the five New Democrats so bluntly identified as the New Democrats' "missteps" or what new policies they believed needed to be adopted by the Party

    Um, noun (subject)-verb-object. what (noun) was identified as (verb) "missteps" and "'policies" (objects) eg. the 5 did not identify the missteps or policies.

    cnchal , December 12, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    Comical. The first line in Bill's post gets the NYT headline wrong.

    On December 10, 2016, a New York Times article entitled "Democrats Have a New Message: It's the Economy First"

    The actual headline is "Democrats Hone a New Message: It's the Economy Everyone ". A small detail for sure, which implies from The NYT it's a purveyor of fake news, because honing implies a refinement of a message already being said, and is contradicted within two words, by the word "new". It is possible that the headlines keep changing and that Bill's was up when he quoted them, which would solidify their reputation of fake news purveyors.

    Getting back to the meat of Bill's post.

    This failure is particularly bizarre because the paper says that its reportage is based on sources that the paper agreed to keep anonymous so that they could speak frankly about this meeting over Chinese food. That combination of supposed frankness from the sources gained by the grant of anonymity so them could describe in detail the purported bluntness by the gang of five should have produced some epic, specific condemnations of the Democratic Party's leadership by the New Democrats. Instead, it produced mush . . .

    Going to the NYT article here is the reference to anonymous sources, so I freely admit to being wrong about Bill's anonymous Chinese food eating party (or wake) attendees being the fatuous five.

    The party, these senators said, had grown overly fixated on cultural issues with limited appeal to the heartland. They criticized Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan, "Stronger Together," as flat and opaque, according to multiple people present at the dinner, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity .

    This is the NYT's only reference to anonymity and furthers it's reputation of a fake news purveyor as the word "some" implies that some would go on record but either couldn't be found or weren't asked.

    The rest of the article segues into a pity party, from those that weren't there.

    Moderate Democrats are not alone in their sense of urgency about honing a new economic message. After a stinging loss to Donald J. Trump, liberals in the party are also trying to figure out how to tap into the populist unrest that convulsed both parties in 2016. Only by making pocketbook issues the central focus, they say, can Democrats recover in the 2018 midterm elections and unseat Mr. Trump in 2020.

    "We need to double down and double down again on the importance of building an economy not just for those at the top, but for everyone ," said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a high-profile progressive who is seen as a leading potential opponent for Mr. Trump.

    Elizabeth Warren doesn't realize that those at the top stole it from everyone else, and quadrupling down on building an economy that works for those at the top won't work for those at the bottom or anyone else except for those at the top.

    Beyond that, they expect wide variance in how officeholders handle Mr. Trump and his agenda, from moderates who seek out accommodation to blue-state leaders who pursue total war . Their emerging message is likely to focus on protecting Medicare and Social Security, attacking income inequality and political corruption , and blocking legislation that might restrict access to health care.

    "Likely" and "might" are weasel words. How likely are those that live and breath corruption to cut off their own supply?

    The whole article is a mix of real and fake news and some days I like my comedy, black.

    juliania , December 12, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Well, I laughed myself silly over this one:

    "So, how long does it take for the article, and the five New Democrats to discuss "jobs?" Given the fact that they vented at length about the fear that they would begin to lose their jobs within two years, the subject of job security should have been paramount to the five New Democrats."

    I'm still chuckling. It's sort of like five roosters in a chicken coop that only has room for one, all vying to become Chanticleer.

    I mean, you do have to laugh sometimes.

    Ignacio , December 12, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Yeps, hypocrisy became a major disease in politics long ago. Now it's time to pay for it, apparently.

    templar555510 , December 12, 2016 at 8:40 am

    We in the UK had thirteen years of ' New Labour ' which was Tony Blair's repositioning of the old Labour Party to turn it into a right of centre Thatcherite, neoliberal, let's privatise everything party, thus abandoning the working class in the process . Exactly as Bill Black describes re the Democrats . The problem as I see it is hydra headed , but here are the headings as it were :

    1. A political shift to the right is also a psychological one, separating the ' doing okays ' from the ' left behinds ' and in the process reducing ( if not eliminating ) empathy from the ' doing okays ' for the ' left behinds ' . So intentional or otherwise this is a ' divide and rule ' policy, by government that has given rise to Global Trump_vs_deep_state. In the process the electability of a left-wing candidate as a leader – Saunders, Corybyn – has been made impossible under the present set up.

    2. Automation. The power of labour hasn't just been weakened by this rightward shift . It has been severely weakened by the onward march of capital embracing new technologies of every type and as we all know none of the productivity gains from this have benefitted labour, nor will they in the future.

    3. Bill Black is right a government is not like a household, but the daily message that we ' tax in order to spend ' is a deeply rooted belief system and just trying ( as I do ) to explain why this is not the case is, I imagine , like Copernicus trying to explain the actual motion of the earth around the sun. They just don't get it. It goes against common sense .

    The election of Trump is not the beginning of the end it is end of the beginning. This is not a polite, dinner party conversation, it's going to turn ugly rather quickly and, just like the Crash of 2008 no-one will have seen it coming.

    sharonsj , December 12, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    Re automation: I know the CEOs are pushing replacing people with robots. But none of them can give you an answer to this question: Which robots are going to buy your products? And the fact that none of them can even think this far ahead means they are just as clueless as the New Dems. Maybe they can't see it coming but plenty of us can. I keep telling my friends they better start preparing for any and all emergencies because the future ain't gonna be pretty.

    John Wright , December 12, 2016 at 8:52 am

    Truly the Times will not connect any obvious dots

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

    This is the same Joe Manchin whose daughter, Heather Bresch, heads up Mylan of recent EpiPen monopoly pricing fame.

    Maybe Democratic voters are realizing that the elected Democrats are concerned about taking care of their own well-connected class, but working people are a group ignored most of the time and catered to, verbally, only 2/4/6 years.

    Quanka , December 12, 2016 at 9:00 am

    Can we get a re-post on a previous BB primer on MMT? I studied (bachelors) econ, I have read L. Randal Wray's MMT book but I find the concepts of a sovereign currency hard to explain to outsiders who are mostly inundated with globalism, "free trade" etc.

    casino implosion , December 12, 2016 at 11:40 am

    Wray, whatever his importance to the MMT world as a theorist, is a terrible explainer. Cullen Roche (who disagrees with the UMKC economists on the prescriptive points of the theory, such as the job guarantee) does a far better job explaining it to the beginner on his site Pragmatic Capitalism.

    JEHR , December 12, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    Sometimes it does not matter how well you explain that a sovereign country need not raise taxes before spending can take place because some people will never change their beliefs no matter how well those beliefs are challenged. It is almost as difficult as trying to change someone's religious beliefs.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    U.S. level sovereign countries. Russia could do it. Brazil and Indonesia could, but most "sovereign" countries would have problems with international trade if they tried this. Iran maybe could do it.

    I fear many people believe the U.S. is a higher character version of the UK or France, so when you try to explain this, they don't quite grasp the U.S. is a continent spanning power and don't grasp why the dollar has value. The U.S. isn't the indispensable nation. It's the nation that can check out. Other nation states don't have this luxury. Despite the decline of industrial production, the U.S. makes that or could easily. American exceptionalism isn't the moral garbage Obama pushes. It's sovereignty in the modern world.

    Barry , December 12, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    Try Bill Mitchell – his blog is on the blogroll on the right
    He even has weekly tests to see if you have got the concept!

    UserFriendly , December 12, 2016 at 9:42 pm

    For people without a background in Econ I highly recommend theses youtube playlists. They are filtered into different categories and are very good explainers.

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWXGA051bB7uXlvsiGjvOxw/playlists

    oh , December 12, 2016 at 9:13 am

    The Dems are hoping that they'll be back in office as soon as the Repubs screw up. And it's quite possible since people don't have a choice other that the duopoly. We have to start building other parties to give ourselves a choice. But will we do it? How?

    John k , December 12, 2016 at 9:17 am

    They didn't lose because more people voted rep.
    They lost because 10mm that voted for big o in 2008 stayed home, didn't vote for anybody for pres, or went 3rd party in other words, ABC, or anybody but Clinton.
    A few will some day emulate Bernie, but this leap of faith means no banker money. Not many of these senior dems
    new blood, please!

    HotFlash , December 12, 2016 at 9:17 am

    I find the spectacle of these despicable excuses for Senators being deeply concerned for their own job security quite heart-warming. Thanks, Prof Black, goes great with coffee.

    But why, oh why, if they are that scared about their jobs, can't they get a clue? Are they still afraid of Hillary? Afraid that they would have to do honest work? Or do they still truly believe that the working class is just muttons?

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 9:45 am

    There aren't corporate board jobs waiting for losers without years of direct labor on behalf of corporate backers. Backbenchers who simply enjoy the celebrity of DC and follow corporate directives aren't relevant once they lose.

    Certain ones retire to avoid the stench of losing (Evan Bayh, now officially a loser) and can manage decent jobs, but what does a loser bring to corporate pr especially when they are replaceable faces? A retired astronaut will come cheaper and present far less chance of scandal.

    DJG , December 12, 2016 at 9:25 am

    I'm detecting a new meme: Clarion

    And the Democrats already keep trying that same old trick of hating their base. Heidi Heitkamp is about as far right as one can go. What's next? Resurrecting Pinochet to run in Florida?

    ChrisAtRU , December 12, 2016 at 9:28 am

    As if on cue, #TheLastCourtJesterOfTheNeoLiberalCrown has (of course) chimed in this morning with more weep-worthy analysis:

    The Tainted Election

    Warning: May cause severe eye-rolling (at the very least).

    John Wright , December 12, 2016 at 10:29 am

    Thanks for the warning.

    I did click on the link, and the Krugman's first sentence was "The CIA, according to The Washington Post, has now determined that hackers working for the Russian government worked to tilt the 2016 election to Donald Trump."

    At least Krugman didn't write, "According to reliable sources" as many people would not view the CIA and WaPo as reliable sources.

    The thrust of the Krugman op-ed is that Clinton lost by such a small margin in some states, it could have been the alleged Russian influence that made the difference.

    And it could have been because she was a lousy candidate with many concerns about her judgment and ethics (Libya, Iraq, Clinton Foundation, 150K Wall Street speeches, possible selling of favors during SOS, email evidence destruction, cheating on a debate with prior knowledge of debate questions from Donna Brazile, for TPP then against it.).

    Krugman should be taking the Democratic leadership to task for foisting their marginal candidate on the electorate and the failure of the existing Democratic President to do much for the voters in his eight years in office.

    I remember going to a lecture/book signing by Paul Krugman about 12 years ago and he seemed to be a decent and thoughtful academic.

    Perhaps winning the Nobel branded economics prize was not good for him?

    Or maybe there is something in the drinking water at the Times, that like the Shadow, has the ability to "cloud men's minds"?

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 10:59 am

    John Wright
    December 12, 2016 at 10:29 am

    I view Krugman the same way I view the inquisitors of the Holy Roman Empire – they are the "true" believers, and as such have a duty to defend the sacredness of the church (i.e., the democratic party – it is INCAPABLE OF ERROR).

    Krugman's indoctrination into the religion of economics would put the indoctrination of Jesuits to shame. Krugman is simply incapable of examining his indoctrination and in that respect can't even match Greenspan, who at least owned up to the flaw in his (Greenspan's) ideology.
    Democrats are perfect, ergo any critique of Obama, ACA, employment, droning, et al is racism and any critique of Hillary is sexism – Krugman: ANY disagreement means your stupid.

    thesaucymugwump , December 12, 2016 at 9:43 am

    "Working class people overwhelmingly want to work. Working class males who are unable to find secure, full time work often become depressed and unmarriageable"

    As always, Bill Black is spot-on, but the above sentence can be extended by eliminating the words "working class." The reason Trump won is not only because of blue collar workers. White collar workers in jeopardy of losing their job due to H-1B visas heard Trump's promise that he would stop visa abuse.

    And Democratic leaders still have not realized that a non-criminal candidate, e.g. Jim Webb, would have trounced Trump due to his sheer normality. They were in too much of a hurry to crown their queen. Joe "more of the same" Biden is not the answer.

    The Democratic Party might disappear for the most part unless it dumps identity politics and re-embraces workers and unions.

    Jim Webb / Tulsi Gabbard in 2020.

    simjam , December 12, 2016 at 9:53 am

    The problem can be stated quite simply: New Democrats pay close attention to the ministrations of George Soros, AIPAC, and Wall Street. The policies flow from the dollars these entities provide.

    Eureka Springs , December 12, 2016 at 9:58 am

    Abolish the United States Senate.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 10:51 am

    It's the rationale solution. I believe even indirect elections would produce a better class of Senators. The pomp of the Senate is corrupting. Each Senator fancies himself or herself President. If Hillary could almost make it and an empty suit such as Obama could make it, the Senator from the great state of (insert state) definitely could, so they need to keep the money spigots open and not offend voters in other states.

    Indirectly elected Senators would likely be former state house Speaker types or people who have had more than back benching jobs and never felt the thrill of winning statewide. They wouldn't entertain delusions of becoming President.

    An added benefit is people would pay more attention to state house races. Fixing potholes would not be sufficient for reelection.

    Knot Galt , December 12, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Senate corruption is not about pomp as it is really about Citizens United. That senators have weak malleable egos that money easily corrupts is disguised by the pomp of the Senate.

    Anyone who has ever run for local or state public office knows that local races are treated like the bush leagues and minor leagues of baseball where the campaign manager acts like a scout for the party apparatus. Each party has their loyalists and, to borrow a great metaphor, Inquisition-era Klugmans, who guard the gates and dole out monies to influence the local media and voters.

    Thrown to the wayside are the actual beliefs of democracy; as the religion of money is the only thing recognized. The rationale decision is to reconnect with the ideas of principal. It's not going to be easy. As this article demonstrates, everyone involved in it is completely void of any principal thought.

    And yet I wonder. Bill Black's critique and commentators on this post provide evidence that general principals are thought about. How then, could indirect elections tap into this vein and eschew our vacuous and archaic Senator class?

    Altandmain , December 12, 2016 at 10:05 am

    The existing Democratic leadership should be forced to resign in disgrace.

    They claimed that veering to the center and peddling candidates like Clinton would be more "electable". That has not proven to be the case.

    The cruel reality is that they won't go without a fight. They're not public servants. They only care about themselves.

    rd , December 12, 2016 at 11:40 am

    The House Democrats re-elected Pelosi and company virtually unchallenged. I think they are so used to losing that they view keeping majorities in the east and west coast states as victory.

    TK421 , December 12, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    When centrism fails, they'll try conservativism. People like that only do the right thing after all else has failed.

    Denis Drew , December 12, 2016 at 10:46 am

    One interesting path to bring left out labor back?

    Just read that Trump stacked NLRB could walk back teaching and research assistants category as employees. Hey; we know states may conduct their own union certification setups for farm workers because farm workers were left off FDR's ship.
    https://onlabor.org/2016/12/09/what-will-a-trump-nlrb-mean-for-graduate-teaching-and-research-assistants/

    HEY! THAT MEANS THAT ANY CATEGORY OF WORKERS DEFINED OUTSIDE THE FED SETUP IS ELIGIBLE FOR SEPARATE STATE LABOR ORGANIZING SETUP!!!!!!!!!!!!

    State labor setup could add something oh, so every day practicable. State NLRB substitute could MANDATE certification elections upon a finding of union busting. States should also take union busting as seriously in criminal law as fed takes taking a movie in the movies - that FBI warning on your DVD comes alive and you are gone for couple of years if caught.

    But mandating certification elections has so much more an everyday, natural businesslike feel that it could sail relatively smoothly through state legislatures. Nota bene: Wisconsin mandates re-certification of public employees unions annually (51% of membership required; not just voters) - nothing too alien about mandating union elections.

    State set up might ACTUALLY go the last practical mile and actually force employers to actually bargain with certified unions - which refusal to bargain remains the last impassable barrier associated with the fed no-enforcement mechanism. See Donald Trump in Vegas.

    See: A HANDBOOK ON THE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS LAW (35 page)
    for an example (maybe unique) of a state fully replicating federal labor law for a left out segment of workers.
    https://www.alrb.ca.gov/content/pdfs/formspublications/handbook/handbook0207.pdf

    rd , December 12, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Classic tone-deafness

    So I think one of the main issues out there is even understanding what middle-class means. A key example of this can be found in this piece where the difficulties that Swiss watch makers are facing is because of the struggling middle-class. Completely baffling I have never known anybody in the "middle class" to even be thinking of buying a Rolex Oyster watch. There are many other things that they would do with $5k before buying a watch.

    I think the media and policy makers are mistaking the struggles of people who are making over $250k a year (or local equivalent) as the struggles of the middle class.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-12/middle-class-angst-is-depressing-swiss-watch-sales

    rd , December 12, 2016 at 11:39 am

    I think this is an interesting column discussing whether or not economists should be focused as much on income distribution as total income growth. I think what the Democratic party has completely missed is that the period fo time that the Trump voters view as "When America Was Great" was a period when GDP growth was high (3%-4%) but more importantly, a record percentage of it was being allocated to the middle-class.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-09/economists-pretend-they-don-t-pick-winners-and-loser

    Trump's big challenge will be routing the current 3% GDP growth to his voters as he has promised to. I have not seen or heard any concrete policy proposals that will accomplish this, so there should be a yawning wide door for the Democrats to march through 2 and 4 years from now if they can figure out how to turn on the light to discover where that door is. Right now the Democrats are just fighting with the Republicans on how the money should be distributed among the top 10% instead of looking at revisiting their policies form scratch.

    Sanders was on the right track, but went to far on key things such as free university. I think most Americans would agree that college should have some value that is paid for, but it should be much less than $60k/year tuition. The rest of the developed world doesn't have massive student debt issues because their colleges and universities are typically in the $3k to $20k/year tuition and many professional programs (lawyers, doctors etc.) are structured as long undergraduate programs instead of 4-year undergraduate program just being a weeding out process before you even get into the professional program.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Free college is popular. Most people went to free public schools. Your argument against college is the same argument against elementary school. If you want more STEM graduates as a society, pay for it.

    JustAnObserver , December 12, 2016 at 11:39 am

    One small quibble: IMHO it is an issue of left vs. right. Unfortunately the US has no `left' and the only options ever presented are right vs. even-further-right.

    juliania , December 12, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    "Second, the issue is generally not who "leans to the right." Indeed, the 2016 election should have made clear to the paper the severe limits on the usefulness of the terms "right" and "left" in explaining U.S. elections. Jobs are not a right v. left issue."

    Gaylord , December 12, 2016 at 11:47 am

    Dems are owned by the banks, so they are helping to rob us.

    Kris Aman , December 12, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Until Democrat Party leadership disavows their neoliberal, financial strip-mining, progressive voters are challenged by identity politics. How can one remain a Democratic loyalist under those circumstances?

    In an article today on medical patents, drug profits and march-in rights, the NY Times created a video. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/retro-report-medical-patents-profits.html

    The video begins with the March of Dimes funded development of the polio vaccine. Edward Murrow asks Jonas Salk, "Who owns the patent on this vaccine?" Salk famously answered, "The people, I'd say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

    The video ends with his Salk's son repeating what his father said to him: "What is more important? The human value of the dollar or the dollar value of the human?"

    These questions are not valid when corporate oligarchs control the puppet strings of both political parties.

    Presumably, that's because neoliberals have bought into the Chicago School theory of human capital, "the stock of knowledge, habits, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital

    Since economic value is intended for the shareholder, neoclassical and neoliberal policies are intended to achieve the same outcome: to decrease the dollar value of the human.

    Arizona Slim , December 12, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    All of Benjamin Franklin's inventions went into the public domain.

    fosforos , December 12, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    Prof Black says that Al Gore is "the [co]leader of the New Democrats." That was true in 1988-1992. But some people sometimes learn a thing or two over a quarter-century. In Gore's case, he learned something yuuuge: that global warming is the central issue of our time for *everyone*. Yet Prof. Black, the Democrats new, old, and middleaged, every single commenter on this posting, not to mention the Five coal-state Senators whining about "the economy," not a one of all of them had a single word about the most important (perhaps the *only* important issue) of our times. Does anyone doubt that, had the Democrats been forced to nominate him in the contested convention that I had so hoped for, the campaign, its outcome, and our present discussion would be quite different?

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    I believe Gore was a less talented version of his father under the spell of Tipper who was usually on a crusade against naughty language. Left to his own devices, Gore is alright, but it takes him a while. He was garbage in 2000.

    Dave , December 12, 2016 at 8:43 pm

    Eeyore Lieberman on the ticket is what did him in.

    larry silber , December 12, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    Wow! I respect Bill Black,so much so that if I was a billionaire respite with household name recognition to promote my ascension to the big house, my cabinet would have hopefully been blessed with his inclusion. I get the monetary sovereignty reality and am equally frustrated over the disconnect most people have digesting the difference between public and private debt. Unfortunately long standing cultural beliefs continually propogandized are hard to change, so without a very established credentialed leader, like maybe some of those new democats, and a host of other well respected influential cohorts supporting this counter intuitive reversal of perception, the reality that our governments finances are nothing akin to a households will only be reckognized by a very small group of open minded heterodox academics and truth seeking objective journalists, like the folks here at Naked Capitalism. I assume some unsavory corporate benefactors of energy , banking, and the sometimes comically nefarious cast of charachters running the various military industrial enterprises, obviously dependent upon government accomodations, contracts, and unlimited revolving door exposures, must have some inherent comprehension of the governments monetary sovereignty. Though i am sure, just like justice and law, to them its two tier. Whether we want to admit it or not, class is a big divider, and those benefitting from our current insanity stand on some shaky shoulders. They need institutions that are self affirming and equally prescribed to regardless of class. Religion helps the downtrodden with hope and morality; equally comforting to the plutocrats that be are the multiple arenas upholding assumptions espousing limited federal government coffers, conforming the masses to be humble and aquiescent, but more importantly incentivizes a hard working competitive ethic that the powers that be easily exploit for ever more profits.
    Now the divergence between me and Professor Black comes where he implores that people just want to work, anotherwords have a secure job. What that job is and what it pays isnt the priority, the idea they have a structured format to adhere to and anchor their societal existence is whats paramount. I dont buy it! . I get it, here at Naked Capitalism isnt the place for anecdotal exploits, so i dont want to bore anybody with my angry history. But experiences do correspond to attitudes and policy persuasions. Briefly, I own a small business, I hate it, I simply have to continue with it because otherwise I am in the street. The Great Recession gutted my savings, opportunities, and networks, while age, personal obligations, and finances precludes any restructuring. Surely many middle aged middle class americans share my frustrations, and the future isnt looking any brighter. That being said, work for the sake of doing something integrated for a minimal pay check to stay relevant and in the "system" isnt what's needed. Productive opportunities that engage those that are idle and prone to self destructive behaviors might be socially responsible, and obviously our federal government can provide funding for that, even though this cooperative idea might sound too much like socialism. Young people surely need educational opportunities and structured paths to engage in that will lead to either being productive or aid searching for better sustainable ventures that balance our proclivity to turn nature into profits for the few. Point is, obviously society is a growth in progress and each new generation needs guidance finding ways to spend time assuring they and their societal members are continuing to build upon and improve the quality of everybodies lives. Sometimes profit can be a great motivator for this, and other times not. I am not sure if Prof. Black is expanding his definition of work. Maybe instead of getting into debt for an education, vocational or academic, people should be paid a living wage to receive an education at the beginning of their occupational lives, or like me, they need help restructuring due to public policy that destroyed their economic and occupational existences.. Bernie tried to introduce these concepts, but fear of deficits and lacking funds took center stage. Bernie, who obviously knows the truth because of Stephanie Kelton, got cold feet with regards to attempting an honest discusion, reverting instead to increased taxing to find funding. Sorry , until the definition of "work" is broadened, i'm not in favor of collectively indoctrinating unfortunate able bodied persons into a government work program that serves as a wage floor for some make for work job. Something like the Orange Oompa Loompa's proposed border wall? The entire concept sounds way too Orwelian for me.

    jackiebass , December 13, 2016 at 6:33 am

    New Democrats are really moderate republicans. For the democrat party to survive and get back their base, they have to adopt progressive democrat ideas. Electing Schumer as their senate leader is a mistake. He represents all that is bad about the democrat party. People are tired of being screwed by Neoliberal policies. We need a new deal for the 99%. Those voters that were conned by Trump are in for a rude awaking, and it won't take too long. American voters are very fickle. Not long ago the republican party was portrayed as on life support. It didn't take long for that to change. If democrats are smart they will quit living in the past and become more progressive. They only need to support their base to make big changes happen.

    [Dec 13, 2016] If you boil down what Clinton and the Clintonites are saying, Putin stole the election from her, and Trump is a Russian agent of influence.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Where is Steiner?!?!?!? ..."
    "... What is ALREADY going on with Trump, Dems, Russia is fascinating – and he is NOT EVEN SWORN in yet!!! WOW! The war mongers are REALLY panicking . Anti commie – its the new politically correct viewpoint . ..."
    "... adding: "a party of buck-passing juveniles that have no vision for the future " ..."
    "... Republicans have an agenda. It's terrible but they have one. Democrats represent rule by the professional class, including bankers. That's it. Publicly, they're for rainbows, good things and bringing people together. ..."
    "... Several of my Democratic friends are simultaneously convinced that Trump is a Russian stooge and outraged that he won't listen to his daily national security briefings. ..."
    "... No. First, access was granted by .. Hillary and Podesta and their own idiocy ( her with the server, him with the pas*word) . IMO we are entitled to know what was in the emails. It certainly did not change my vote nor did it change the vote of anyone I know. ..."
    "... I think both Clinton and Trump would be terrible presidents but it has been obvious since she lost that Hillary is unable to accept this to the point of mental illness. First she tried to have her proxies do some damage and when that did not work, she counters with this. ..."
    "... The anti-Trump tapes . And the one with former Miss Universe – is she an American now? Do you call that 'foreign' intervention? "Former Miss Universe tries to steal election for HIllary!!!" ..."
    Dec 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Hillary: " Where is Steiner?!?!?!? " I don't envy whoever's gonna have to take her aside and tell her it's really over. Poor Bill

    If you boil down what Clinton and the Clintonites are saying, Putin stole the election from her, and Trump is a Russian agent of influence. The first is a casus belli , and the second is treason. The first demands a response at the very least of recalling our Ambassador from Moscow. That hasn't happened, which tells you that the people responsible for such things (Obama) don't take Clinton's casus belli seriously. The second calls for a solution "by any means necessary" (exactly as Clinton's previous claim, that Trump is a fascist, does).

    "By any means necessary" would include anything from a von Stauffenberg solution (no doubt the CIA has a wet team) all the way up to a coup. (This last is hard to imagine, since a coup demands occupying physical space with armed force. Who could Clinton call on?)

    So what the Clintonites have settled on is trying get the Electoral College to reverse the election. I can't imagine this coming to anything, since the majority of the electors - since Trump won the election - are Republicans

    Ian Welsh lays out the logic if the Clinton dog actually catches the car :

    If I were a Trump voter, and a bunch of electors, on data that is this uncertain, and which even if it is true amounts to "telling the truth about Hillary and Democrats" were to give the election to Clinton I would be furious.

    I would consider it a violation of democratic norms: an overturning of a valid election result because elites didn't like the result.

    And while I'm not saying they should, or I would (nor that I wouldn't), many will feel that if the ballot box is not respected, then violence is the only solution.

    If faithless electors give the election to Clinton, there will be a LOT of violence as a result, and there might even be a civil war.

    Ian is Canadian; then again, installing Clinton in office by retroactively changing the election rules is a "cross the Rubicon" moment. At least in Maine, I wouldn't picture a Civil War, but I would picture shattered windows in every Democrat headquarters in the state, and then we'd go on from there. Welsh concludes:

    This is where Nazi/Fascist/Hitler/Camps rhetoric leaves you. Nothing is off the table.

    Either decide you mean it, or calm down and take shit off the table that is going to get a lot of people dead if you pull it off.

    Exactly.

    "CIA admits it broke into Senate computers; senators call for spy chief's ouster" [ McClatchy (Re Silc)]. Fooled ya! From 2013. I'm so old I remember when anonymous CIA soruces weren't always revered as truth-tellers.

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    What is ALREADY going on with Trump, Dems, Russia is fascinating – and he is NOT EVEN SWORN in yet!!! WOW! The war mongers are REALLY panicking . Anti commie – its the new politically correct viewpoint .

    timbers , December 12, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    Yes, there is something weird going on with these stories that the CIA appears to be spreading. MOA is saying the MSN is falsely reporting China is flying nukes it doesn't have in planes all over the place. Just a guess but bet this too comes from CIA

    China threatening us with nukes and Russia stealing our elections. The fake news B.S. quotient is off the richter scale. Makes you yearn for the good old days when all we had to worry about was WMD in Iraq.

    ProNewerDeal , December 12, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    except Putin & his dominant party in the Russian gov are not Commie, Putin is a right-wing authoritarian. I suppose Putin, Trump, & HClinton could each be labeled within the right-wing authoritarian category.

    politicalcompass certaintly categorized HClinton & Trump as right-wing authoritarian, & HClinton was closer to Trump on the graph, than she was to Sanders (left-wing libertarian)

    Carolinian , December 12, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Hillary: "Where is Steiner?!?!?!?"

    Droll! How long before a Downfall video featuring Hillary's loss?

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Carolinian
    December 12, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNVu7cCoVlg

    Such videos actually go back to 2015, but I thought you would enjoy the one where the H guy is talking about the actual election results .

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D026asX0oMo

    and the subtitles are much easier too read on this one .

    flora , December 12, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    re: the new McCarthyism.

    I'd expect this 'reds under the bed' fear mongering from Fox News, not from WaPo. Guess the Wapo is to the Dems what Fox News is to the GOP. Clarifying election, indeed.

    flora , December 12, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    adding: "a party of buck-passing juveniles that have no vision for the future "

    Yep. Pretty much.

    ChrisAtRU , December 12, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    #Concur – A marvelous turn of phrase

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    Really? Check out where Saints Jack and Bobby were during the red scare craze of the 50's. Freedom of speech wasn't their pet project. I know but "Dallas 1963", but there whereabouts in the 1950's aren't the product of conspiracy theory. For the fetishists, their red hunter status has to be ignored. Bobby was a full fledged inquisitor for McCarthy.

    The Dems are throwing on the golden oldies in an attempt to relive the glory of the past.

    dcblogger , December 12, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    what drives me crazy about the Russian hacking conspiracy theory is that there actually WAS a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election, as carefully documented by Greg Palast and Brad Friedman. It consisted of the crosscheck purge of the voting rolls, voter suppression and vapour voting machines. That no Democrat is talking about this tells me that the party is done for.

    Michael , December 12, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    +1

    RUKidding , December 12, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Good points, and yes, that ticks me off as well. The D Party continues to sit on their thumbs and do bupkiss about real voting issues while issuing Red Scare Menace 3.0.

    Why bother voting Democratic? They're not going to do one blasted thing for the proles. They haven't for years and years.

    Steve C , December 12, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    Republicans have an agenda. It's terrible but they have one. Democrats represent rule by the professional class, including bankers. That's it. Publicly, they're for rainbows, good things and bringing people together.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 12, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    The tin foil hat theory is the CIA is currently stealing the election.

    Waldenpond , December 12, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    The CIA is sterotypically attempting to ouster the President elect for someone farther to the right? So, the same ol' same ol'.

    Anonymous , December 12, 2016 at 8:04 pm

    Yes, the tin foil hat theory is that this all stems from the situation in Syria The CIA's aka HRC"s Syria regime change is a failure. The CIA had high hopes, now dashed. The only chance for war with Russia is to get HRC installed. The recount failed. So, Plan B.

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2016/12/making-predictions-is-tough.html

    For those of us who think too much schadenfreude is ..wonderful

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    The goal is to keep local and state operators and donors from asking questions about the conduct of the Clintonistas and other elected Dems.

    There is a politico article from the wake of the 2014 disaster where elite Dems promised Hillary would save them. An incredible amount of money, time, and reputations was put behind a loser, not just a loser but a person who lost to Donald Trump. Anyone who donated any thing to the Clinton effort should be crazy about Clinton Inc's conduct, so Clinton Inc needs to blame everyone but themselves.

    Roquentin , December 12, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    Let's just say for the sake of argument that the CIA and the Democrats have massively overplayed their hand in these accusations against Russia. I suspect it wouldn't take all that much to bring it all down like a house of cards, with a major scandal ensuing in its wake. Let's say that the anonymous CIA source, assuming it was legit, has badly misrepresented what evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, is there. They're "all-in" on this now. People will have to resign or get fired within these organizations after Trump takes over because of this, wouldn't they? If their careers are on the line, who knows what they'll resort to in order to save their own skins? Maybe this play at flipping the Electoral College was the game all along.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    The Clintons were abysmal candidates before emails were uttered. Hillary significantly under performed Gore in 2000 in New York by a significant margin despite a candidate too extreme for Peter King.

    Every doubt about Hillary's electability was based in fact and OBVIOUS to anyone who spent more than half a second taking the election seriously. Every Hillary primary voter who isn't a already spectacular crook failed as citizens by putting forth a clown such a Hillary. There are no ways around this.

    Hillary just lost to Donald Trump because "liberals" are too childish to take politics seriously, even her centrist supporters should have seen she is a clod. Of course, most centrists would stop being centrists if they possessed critical thinking skills.

    This is no less than trying to latch onto something that excuses their failures as citizens and human beings.

    Tom Allen , December 12, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    Several of my Democratic friends are simultaneously convinced that Trump is a Russian stooge and outraged that he won't listen to his daily national security briefings.

    lyman alpha blob , December 12, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    In light of the risible 'fake news' meme and NC's invocation of media related laws, here's a reminder of another law you may find useful – Sturgeon's Law .

    Sci fi writer Theodore Sturgeon was told by a critic that 90% of scifi was crap and he retorted that 90% of everything was crap. You just need to know how to find the good stuff.

    Caveat lector.

    Chromex , December 12, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Except he was wrong about crap. 100% of crap is crap. And that's what this latest CIA fake news. influence the electors stuff is-100% crap,

    Aumua , December 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Seems like this fake 'fake news' news (c) 2016 is primed to blow up right in the face of entities like The Times, as more and more people see that half of what they purvey as news is as likely to be B.S. as anything coming from an alternative, or even fringe website.

    What's more is that they are driving the point home that their news stories can't be trusted, with the very same 'fake news' story they are trying to use to emphasize how comparatively real their news is. The irony levels are off the scale. It's uncharted territory.

    Chromex , December 12, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    In order to accept this is any kind of deal ( I do not support Trump nor did I vote for him) there are so many hidden premises you have to accept it is laughable
    First let's assume that Putin himself donned a Mr Robot Hoodie and hacked the server and printed the emails and gave them to Assange who was sitting next to him.
    SO WHAT?

    Is the American public so gullible? Was that somehow unfair?

    No. First, access was granted by .. Hillary and Podesta and their own idiocy ( her with the server, him with the pas*word) . IMO we are entitled to know what was in the emails. It certainly did not change my vote nor did it change the vote of anyone I know.

    It's not like all the anti-Trump tapes etc were not strategically timed to influence the election. IS it OK if Americans do it?

    Second, all they could do with Trump was run past business stuff. He did not have a public policy record to reveal the man was not in government service.. she was. My view is that if the public was so influenced by the emails, which had some absolutely appalling details, none of which were forged, then they were entitled to be ,even if Hitler himself had done the hacking.

    It is disheartening that , less than a month after the NYT said maybe we were biased and we promise to be more careful they are again acting as propagandists and not pointing out all the absurd hidden premises that must be accepted to manufacture an issue. I am still waiting for the Times report on her "fake news" that she was under fire- obviously a story designed to influence primary voters.

    I think both Clinton and Trump would be terrible presidents but it has been obvious since she lost that Hillary is unable to accept this to the point of mental illness. First she tried to have her proxies do some damage and when that did not work, she counters with this.

    I never recall anyone saying that the Democratic party has an absolute right to control the flow of information in the world. AS much as i despise Trump and his stone age cabinet, I am starting to think he is less pathological about this than her. Perhaps if this latest gambit fails she will go the way of Lady Macbeth,

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 12, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    The anti-Trump tapes . And the one with former Miss Universe – is she an American now? Do you call that 'foreign' intervention? "Former Miss Universe tries to steal election for HIllary!!!"

    [Dec 12, 2016] Why CIA is involved in DNC computers hacking probe?

    Dec 12, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    likbez, December 11, 2016 11:46 pm

    Beverly,
    === quote ===
    Just the fact that Trump has now said he thinks the CIA's cyber forensics team is the same group that tries to determine the nuclear capacity of other countries is itself scary–and revealing. He doesn't recognize and obvious distinctions even about incredibly important things, doesn't understand the concept of expertise, and can't distinguish between important and unimportant things.
    === end of quote ===
    Two points:

    1. After Iraq WMD false claim CIA as agency had lost a large part of its credibility, because it is clear that it had succumbed to political pressure and became just a pocket tool in the dirty neocon political games. At this time the pressure was from neocons in Bush administration. Don't you think that it is possible that this is the case now too ?

    2. It's not the job of CIA to determine who and how hacked DNC computers or any other computers in the USA. CIA mandate is limited to foreign intelligence and intelligence aggregation and analysis. It is job of FBI and NSA, especially the latter, as only NSA has technical means to trace from where really the attack had come, if it was an attack.

    So any CIA involvement here is slightly suspect and might point to some internal conflicts within Obama administration. It is unclear why Obama had chosen CIA Also as CIA and State Department are closely linked as CIA operatives usually use diplomatic cover that request looks a little bit disingenuous as Hillary used to work for State Department. In this case one of the explanation might be that it can be attributed to the desire to create a smoke screen and shield Clintons from pressure by rank-and-file Hillary supporter (and donors) to explain the devastating defeat in electoral college votes against rather weak, really amateur opponent.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence

    Notable quotes:
    "... Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to WikiLeaks. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    ALberto | Dec 12, 2016 4:37:31 PM | 9

    Apparently CIA has finally figured out that their asses are toast. CIA has fed a constant stream of half truths and outright rabrications to US MSM and are now turning on WaPo. CIA also has killer drones and military powers they have no right to exercise. Apparently the rats are turning on each other. Let the trials and subsequent executions begin.

    LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC

    However, the FBI reported they did not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Russian Government did such a thing. The POST reported that a secret CIA report had been presented to lawmakers on Capitol Hill allegedly saying there was information linking Russia to the election hackings in favor of President-elect Trump.

    Now, the CIA is saying the POST got it wrong in fact, they allegedly lied. At this point I think the whole thing is a mess, and I don't see how the American people can decipher the "real" news from the "fake" news.

    Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-cia-says-they-did-not-tell-the-washington-post-that-russia-hacked-election-in-favor-of-trump/

    [Dec 12, 2016] US Insiders Not Russia Leaked Clinton Emails

    Dec 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Posted by: jfl | Dec 12, 2016 2:22:05 AM | 75

    Greenwald documents the fake news produced and disseminated by 'actual, real journalists' at MSNBC, the Atlantic, and Newsweek ...

    A Clinton Fan Manufactured Fake News That MSNBC Personalities Spread to Discredit WikiLeaks Docs

    ... to counteract 'Russian propaganda', no doubt. bs.

    William Binney says US Insiders – Not Russia – Leaked Clinton Emails , and Craig Murray says he knows who leaked them ...

    We're in the midst of an attempted coup by the neo-cons and the cia. On or about 21 January we'll see what happens.

    Krollchem | Dec 12, 2016 9:21:27 AM | 91
    jfl@ 35

    For more information on the WaPo, CIA, Ukraine neo-nazi's and PropOrNot see:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/09/the-anonymous-blacklist-promoted-by-the-washington-post-has-apparent-ties-to-ukrainian-fascism-and-cia-spying/

    Worth noting that Ukrainian associations have been deeply embedded in most large US cities since the early 1950s. Not unlike the AIPAC propaganda wing that pulls the strings in the US government.

    dahoit | Dec 12, 2016 10:54:07 AM | 94
    @22;We are not at war with Russia, so that article has no bearing on Trump.

    The only people at war with them are the ziomonsters and the CIA, and the divide and conquer MSM.

    Why would the CIA f*ck with an incoming POTUS? Because they are scared shiteless he will expose their 9-11 treason?

    ... ... ...


    [Dec 12, 2016] Paul Joseph Watson Dismantles Fabricated Russian Narrative Zero Hedge

    Dec 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    nmewn knukles , Dec 12, 2016 7:11 PM
    And having a KNOWN perjurer (James Clapper) presiding over this farce of an "investigation" is just the icing on the cake.

    "Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

    Then it was revealed by Edward Snowden that, why yes, in fact the NSA does collect data on HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HERE IN AMERICA (probably all) and not "unwittlingly"...on fucking purpose...snaring both Obama and Clapper in their fabricated stories otherwise known as lies.

    Clapper perjured himself before Congress, a felony.

    Period.

    End of story.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Joseph R. McCarthy - Cold War - HISTORY.com

    Dec 12, 2016 | www.history.com
    The next month, a Senate subcommittee launched an investigation and found no proof of any subversive activity. Moreover, many of McCarthy's Democratic and Republican colleagues, including President Dwight Eisenhower, disapproved of his tactics ("I will not get into the gutter with this guy," the president told his aides). Still, the senator continued his so-called Red-baiting campaign. In 1953, at the beginning of his second term as senator, McCarthy was put in charge of the Committee on Government Operations, which allowed him to launch even more expansive investigations of the alleged communist infiltration of the federal government. In hearing after hearing, he aggressively interrogated witnesses in what many came to perceive as a blatant violation of their civil rights. Despite a lack of any proof of subversion, more than 2,000 government employees lost their jobs as a result of McCarthy's investigations. "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" In April 1954, Senator McCarthy turned his attention to "exposing" the supposed communist infiltration of the armed services. Many people had been willing to overlook their discomfort with McCarthyism during the senator's campaign against government employees and others they saw as "elites"; now, however, their support began to wane. Almost at once, the aura of invulnerability that had surrounded McCarthy for nearly five years began to disappear. First, the Army undermined the senator's credibility by showing evidence that he had tried to win preferential treatment for his aides when they were drafted. Then came the fatal blow: the decision to broadcast the "Army-McCarthy" hearings on national television. The American people watched as McCarthy intimidated witnesses and offered evasive responses when questioned. When he attacked a young Army lawyer, the Army's chief counsel thundered, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" The Army-McCarthy hearings struck many observers as a shameful moment in American politics. The Fall of Joseph McCarthy By the time the hearings were over, McCarthy had lost most of his allies. The Senate voted to condemn him for his "inexcusable," "reprehensible," "vulgar and insulting" conduct "unbecoming a senator." He kept his job but lost his power, and died in 1957 at the age of 48.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Clinton Campaign, Top Democrats Call For Intel Briefing, Commission Ahead Of Electoral College Vote

    Notable quotes:
    "... The authenticity of the content of the hacked/leaked emails were never in doubt. Several DNC lackeys, including the chair of the democratic national committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, were fired on the grounds of bias, fraud and even conspiracy to commit criminal acts. ..."
    "... Their desperation makes them very dangerous, especially while still ostensibly in charge of many elements of gov't and, of course, the entrenched MSM. ..."
    "... So can we now accept that the Russians hacked Hillarys server? Seems before the election, the Demorats kept trying to deny it happened. ..."
    "... What about the DHS trying to Hack the Georgia Election Computer System? ..."
    "... Not just gossip, an un-named official (not an official statement by the department head) stating with "confidence" (not evidence), off the record but reported in every major fish-wrap, that Russian hackers were interfered in our elections, AND inferring that they knew the motives/intentions behind this conjured crime. ..."
    "... If there were ANY evidence, the Dems would have paraded it out in front of us loudly and proudly the second they found it. Instead, they prefer making jacka$$es out of themselves (and our country) with innuendo-based trial balloons, as everyone in the world capable of critical thinking laughs at them (us). ..."
    "... So we are still "shooting the messenger"? Nobody wants to discuss the content of the Podesta emails, even though they have not been discredited in any way. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | Zero Hedge
    monad, Dec 12, 2016 8:46 AM

    Russians did not affect my votes against HRC. HRC did: Whitewater. Mena. Foster. Waco. OKC. Ruby Ridge. Her continuing career and liberty is proof of a Conspiracy.

    oncemore , Dec 12, 2016 8:13 AM

    What hacking?

    Gucifer said, that it was open. The sysadmin said, that it was unmodified Windows business suite server.

    Who needs more to get in, as a standard MS product? I am convinced every intelligence agency on this earth (yes, Zimbabwian agency as well), has a copy of all emails there.

    Andre , Dec 11, 2016 10:10 PM
    Doesn't anybody remember O was going to put our cybr-defenses on full alert to defend the election?

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/us-bolsters-cyber-defense-for-election-f...

    (also posted to the nosebleed section of the main article).

    Ya know, if cyber defenses were increased, this should never have gotten this far.

    mary mary , Dec 11, 2016 8:45 PM
    Anthony Weiner is Russian? When will they indict Crooked Hillary?
    YHC-FTSE -> Handful of Dust , Dec 11, 2016 8:34 PM
    It looks like never doesn't it?

    The authenticity of the content of the hacked/leaked emails were never in doubt. Several DNC lackeys, including the chair of the democratic national committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, were fired on the grounds of bias, fraud and even conspiracy to commit criminal acts.

    Hillary Clinton herself can be indicted on lying under oath to Congress, conspiracy to commit criminal acts (Paying agitators to assault the supporters of her opponents), election fraud (See Veritas), contravening the Federal Records Act, Improper handling of classified documents, and I won't even go into Pizzagate, Saudi funding and the Clinton Foundation, or I'll be here typing all night.

    Where it gets interesting (actually vomit-inducing disgusting), just as Julian Assange alluded, is inside the Podesta emails that colludes with Huma Abedin's dirty laundry on her/Weiner's laptop. The missing (deleted) emails, the references to paedophile activities and snippets of pay-for-play inside the Clinton Foundation. These are not just embarrassing or technicalities that can be woven into excuses, but information that could bring hanging back as the ultimate form of justice for the perpetrators.

    So, these cretins are doing what they glanced at in The Art of War: That the best defense is offence. They are going all out full retard to save their lives using every asset they have in the msm, intelligence, politics and oligarchy.

    Look how fast they moved with H.R.6393 to criminalize alternative news. To discredit the leaked information, to discredit the source, to attack anyone who publishes or mentions them. They will not stop because they cannot stop. This isn't a subsidy for the failing msm, that's a bonus, this is a fight for their existence because they have committed crimes that not a single decent person in the world can abide. It is so horrific, I still have trouble with believing it, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

    Where this will lead is obvious -- a distraction first from the content of the leaks, false accusations and attacks on Russia and anyone who talks about it, leading to the biggest false accusation of all: Trump as a (willing or unwilling) foreign agent which amounts to treason and therefore unfit to be president. Bring the hammer down on the stock market at the same time and we have a conflagration erupting from the already boiling cauldron of American society. Too much conjecture? Maybe.

    francis_the_won... YHC-FTSE , Dec 11, 2016 10:51 PM
    "Too much conjecture? Maybe."

    No, you articulated what I was alluding to a few posts above (I posted before reading yours). Their desperation makes them very dangerous, especially while still ostensibly in charge of many elements of gov't and, of course, the entrenched MSM.

    They'll create the crisis they vow to not let go to waste. Any excuse to seize ultimate power.

    foxmuldar , Dec 11, 2016 5:03 PM
    So can we now accept that the Russians hacked Hillarys server? Seems before the election, the Demorats kept trying to deny it happened.

    What about the DHS trying to Hack the Georgia Election Computer System? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/9/georgia-election-official...

    mary mary foxmuldar , Dec 11, 2016 8:41 PM
    No, I can't accept that the Russian's hacked Hillary's server. Not until I see some evidence. Just repeating the same gossip a million times is not providing evidence.
    francis_the_won... mary mary , Dec 11, 2016 10:46 PM
    Not just gossip, an un-named official (not an official statement by the department head) stating with "confidence" (not evidence), off the record but reported in every major fish-wrap, that Russian hackers were interfered in our elections, AND inferring that they knew the motives/intentions behind this conjured crime.

    If there were ANY evidence, the Dems would have paraded it out in front of us loudly and proudly the second they found it. Instead, they prefer making jacka$$es out of themselves (and our country) with innuendo-based trial balloons, as everyone in the world capable of critical thinking laughs at them (us).

    This tactic is so brutally transparent that I really fear what they are really up to......or maybe they are this stupid?

    philipat Keyser , Dec 12, 2016 7:41 AM
    So we are still "shooting the messenger"? Nobody wants to discuss the content of the Podesta emails, even though they have not been discredited in any way. Classic divert and deflect tactics which a Libtard MSM enjoys being a part of.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Now German Politicians Worried About Striking Increase In Russian Propaganda And Fake News

    Notable quotes:
    "... CIA-controlled BND tells its journalists to follow with the program. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    They probably forgot about Snowden revelation way too soon...

    Either Russian intelligence officials have suddenly become extremely efficient at disrupting national elections in the world's largest democracies or the establishment leaders of those democracies have intentionally launched a coordinated, baseless witch hunt as a way to distract voters from their failed policies. We have our suspicions on which is more likely closer to the truth...

    Either way, per Reuters , Germany's domestic intelligence agency is reporting a "striking increase" in Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilizing German society, and targeted cyber attacks against political parties.

    "We see aggressive and increased cyber spying and cyber operations that could potentially endanger German government officials, members of parliament and employees of democratic parties," Hans-Georg Maassen, head of the BfV spy agency, said in statement.

    Maassen, who raised similar concerns about Russian efforts to interfere in German elections last month, cited what he called increasing evidence about such efforts and said further cyber attacks were expected.

    The agency said it had seen a wide variety of Russian propaganda tools and "enormous use of financial resources" to carry out "disinformation" campaigns aimed at the Russian-speaking community in Germany, political movements, parties and other decision makers.

    The goal was to spread uncertainty, strengthen extremist groups and parties, complicate the work of the federal government and "weaken or destabilise the Federal Republic of Germany".

    Like accusations made by Hillary and Obama in the U.S., German politicians, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, have asserted that Russian intelligence agents and media outlets have attempted to spread "fake news" in an effort to "fan popular angst over issues like the migrant crisis." Of course, it can't simply be that voters disagree with Merkel's "open border" policies which have resulted in a massive influx of migrants that have been linked to increasing crime, terrorist attacks and sexual assaults on German citizens...that would just be silly and racist and xenophobic.

    German officials have accused Moscow of trying to manipulate German media to fan popular angst over issues like the migrant crisis , weaken voter trust and breed dissent within the European Union so that it drops sanctions against Moscow.

    But intelligence officials have stepped up their warnings in recent weeks, alarmed about the number of attacks.

    Last month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she could not rule out Russia interfering in Germany's 2017 election through Internet attacks and misinformation campaigns.

    Estonian Foreign Minister Sven Mikser on Thursday said he expected Russia to continue a campaign of "psychological warfare" and spreading false information after the cyber attacks launched during the U.S. election.

    "It's a pretty safe bet that they will try to do it again," he told Reuters in Hamburg at a meeting of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. "They will try to surprise us. That's something that we should be very careful to look at and try to protect ourselves from."

    While we have absolutely no doubt in Merkel and Obama's assertions that Russia has been able to successfully sabotage national elections, it is curious that, in the U.S., Russian efforts were only successful in certain states where voters had been disproportionately hurt by past Clinton policies (e.g. WI, MI, PA, OH) but not in other swing states like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.

    Mediocritas, Dec 12, 2016 3:05 AM ,
    Pot calling the kettle black...again.

    CuttingEdge Mediocritas, Dec 12, 2016 3:17 AM ,

    Is this seriously the best these globalist craven cunts have got as a strategy?

    It really worked out well for them pre-election, didn't it?

    Question is, can they sustain this for eight fucking years without having anything to show for it (and no audience with an IQ over 75) at the end?

    Soros will need to dig deep to keep this shitshow on life-support.

    Captain Chlamydia CuttingEdge, Dec 12, 2016 3:31 AM ,
    Exactly. The whole Putin did it narrative in the MSM is government propaganda. Nato bullshit Deep State military industrial complex trying very hard to get the Sheeple to believe in their leaders.....
    HedgeJunkie Captain Chlamydia, Dec 12, 2016 3:45 AM ,
    Our War Criminal Government is why I'm embarrassed to call myself 'American'.

    I'm not too far from Mexico, I already have two cousins the emmigrated there. I like Mexians and Mexico.

    But I can't throw awasy what I already have.

    I expect a Yuge increase on the cost of renewing our passports,

    Sandmann HedgeJunkie, Dec 12, 2016 3:57 AM ,
    Mitt Romney's family fled to Mexico - you should read the story
    jaap Sandmann, Dec 12, 2016 4:18 AM ,
    Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?
    Troy Ounce jaap, Dec 12, 2016 4:38 AM ,

    The biggest defeat for globalists would be that Europe will start looking east, towards Russia, instead of West. Follow the money for these German politicians: bet the "Open Society Foundation" from George Soros will be mentioned regularly.

    CuttingEdge Troy Ounce, Dec 12, 2016 5:15 AM ,
    Introducing Fake News, as faithfully supplied by that bastion of journalistic integrity (not ) - Der Spiegel :

    More pesky Russian fake news, Frau Merkel? Fearmongering propaganda, Mutti?

    ... ... ...

    HowdyDoody -> Troy Ounce, Dec 12, 2016 5:35 AM ,
    CIA-controlled BND tells its journalists to follow with the program.
    CuttingEdge -> Nobodys Home, Dec 12, 2016 3:18 AM ,
    Same puppetmasters.
    Nobodys Home -> CuttingEdge, Dec 12, 2016 3:22 AM ,
    Shudder! I just got a visual of ugly old Sore Os behind a puppet stage with innocent little kids watching the show.
    Kina, Dec 12, 2016 3:16 AM ,
    The world would be a better place if Russia actualy did all the things they have been accused of instead of the CIA and Germany making all this shit up.

    One thing is for certain the NWO was working on Russia at the time of the election, which Clinton was meant to be a guaranteed winner - expcept the Soros-Neocon-Clinton-DNC cabal totally fucked up their rigging, not realising how popular Trump actually was.

    NOW they are in total fucking panic trying to think of ways to get Trump out.

    These neocon fucktard New World Order proponents were trying to corner Russia, remove Putin and make Russia kow tow to the NWO and accept their new overlords. EXCEPT it was and is a total fucking stupid idea because the result would have been nuclear war - Russia would never ever bend to the USA and the NWO - they were totally dreaming if they believed that. And the result would have been a military alliance between China and Russia - with Europe and the USA and Russia in ashes.

  • The world dodge a nuclear bullet when Trump won. So now, having failed to overturn the election through Stein recounts and rigging (the judges wouldn't play along) they have to go the whole demonise Russia thing, as was their original plan. And they want to push it fast before the EU breaks up, as the sheeple wake the fuck up to these neocon Oligarch overlords.
  • My bet is a major False Flag attack somewhere outrageous blamed on Russia.

    These fucking neocons like Soros, Israel, Germany, Clintons and all their backers and cabal either are totally stupid or just don't give a fuck, knowing that nuclear war is a real possibility - AND that the USA CANNOT defend itself against nuclear attack , despite all the wankery about their defense systems.

    So these people know there is a chance of laying waste to the USA - and they don't care, it is worth it for their NWO.

  • Gavrikon -> Kina, Dec 12, 2016 3:30 AM ,
    Considering that the Russians are Hollywood's favorite general purpose villains (as opposed to the practitioners of the religion of peace, or Mexican criminals), this is hardly unexpected, dontcha think?
    dogismycopilot, Dec 12, 2016 3:16 AM ,
    The Russians ate my homework.

    Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 3:19 AM ,
    last week I read that the german government was aware of the NSA spying at least since 2001. No outrage here. Outrage only occurs if you don't have any evidence, and it's the russians. Do you know how most of german elections are held? Paper ballots, ID-cards and lists of citizens who are elligible to vote. There's definitely some hacking possible... Hate your politicians, often!
    Joe A -> Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 3:45 AM ,
    Not only did they know that the NSA spied on the German government -including Merkel's mobile- the German BND along with the NSA spied on the rest of Europe: policitians, EU officials and European businesses.
    Sandmann -> Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 3:56 AM ,
    BND operates as an arm of NSA which funds their operation in Bad Aibling
    TruthBeforeAll -> Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 5:54 AM ,
    "Outrage only occurs if you don't have any evidence..." Way less risk that way.
    DuneCreature -> rmopf2010, Dec 12, 2016 6:06 AM ,
    Well, you could be right about Snowden. .....

    While I will agree that if you knew where to look, in a basic fashion, everything he brought to light was already known or knowable, at least.

    The thing Snowden did was brought all the pieces together, stole the graphics (great visualizing tools), program names and working details and evidence that these things are all possible and on-line. ..... He brought the story together and made it very public. .........

    Not something that Boos Hamilton, the CIA or the NSA would have wanted. ..

    ... ... ...

    Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 3:51 AM ,
    well, whatever you might think about Russian influence in the US...

    ... Russian influence on and in Germany (and all other european countries) is a quite different affair. one little factoid: the so called "Russlands-Deutsche"( * ), i.e. "Russian-Germans" number somewhere between two and three million , in Germany. we are talking here about at least one million that speaks Russian better then German, and reads/watches Russian News

    here, on this continent, we are btw somewhat used to external influences, be them Russian or US ones

    I forecasted to "Haus" some years ago that eventually the German political "status-quo" would start to point out the Russian influence on "Alternative für Deutschland". That moment is nearly there

    again: US Americans might be somewhat confused about foreign influences on their political matters

    here , it has been a reality during the whole of the Cold War and after, from both the US and Russia

    just some examples:

    the reports over the last years about the German parliament being spied upon and hacked by both the CIA and the Russian intelligence services are completely plausible. Merkel was holding up her phone... and alleged that the CIA was spying on her. again, very plausible

    the EU org in Brussels was hacked/spied upon by the British intelligence services, too. again, very plausible. indeed, now that the Brexit talks begin in a confrontational manner... there are even more reasons for the British GCHQ to spy on Brussels

    -------

    (*) wiki article about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germans_in_Russia,_Ukraine_and_...

    Sandmann -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 3:55 AM ,
    They are caled "Spaetaussiedler" Ghordius. There are about the same number of Turks in Germany. It is true the prison population of Germany is largely Serbs, Turks, Spaetaussiedler and New Arrivals.

    I hear Russian but after having millions of Russian soldiers in Germany since 1945 and huge Russian influence back into the 18th Century that is not unusual. You can get Tax Forms in Russian but not English.

    Berlin always was the capital of the East never of the West which Adenauer cleverly placed on the Rhine rather than the Spree. Berlin has always had to consider Russia because ONLY in the years 1919-1939 and 1990-2016 has Germany NOT shared a border with Russia in the past 250 years.

    It is German Aggression that twice brought Russian troops to Berlin

    Ghordius -> Sandmann, Dec 12, 2016 4:07 AM ,
    Sandmann, as often, you try to "soften the blow" of my message with some tidbits that are often completely irrelevant

    they don't call themselves "Spätaussiedler". They call themselves Russlands-Deutsche, i.e. Russian-Germans

    their prison population is irrelevant, here. their right to vote in the German election is

    they read Russian News, they watch RT in Russian, they hold up signs like "Putin save us", and they are quite confused, to boot, and pawns in this "game"

    some Germans, when they arrived, made jokes that some of those Russian-Germans hardly qualified to "Germanness", up to saying things like "all families that in the 19th Century had once a German Shephard as pet". but this is too, irrelevant

    fact is that their numbers are substantial. fact is that they are influenced by their media consumption from Russia. fact is that they were used to see Putin and Merkel as good friends... until they weren't anymore, and since then they are bombarded with news how Merkel is the source of all evils, in Europe

    fact is also that the political establishments in Germany were, up to now, not that fond to tell them anything that would make them too confused because... they are voters, too. and in a political setup like Germany's, you don't tell hard truths to voters, and you don't insult them as dupes

    nevertheless, fact is that Russian (and US, note) influence on Germany's politics is substantial, including that on the Russlands-Deutsche in Germany

    samjam7 -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 3:58 AM ,
    I don't think anyone is denying the fact that Germany has become a playball of foreign powers ever since it lost WW1, yes the first, not the second one was already desicive in that.

    Now, no matter how many German-Russians there are in Germany they are still citizens of your country, else they would not have been allowed to come back. The question for Germany needs to be looking ahead into the future, become aware that it is dependent or even controlled by other greater powers, a status it lost, one century ago. Its citizens should start to raise the question which side is better for us, should we work more closely with continental Russia, with all its ressources and land? Or should we work closer with martim ZATO? What has that relationship really done for us, what have we truly benefitted from it?

    Once there is a serious discussion going on about it, Germans will surely never support an atlantcist such as Merkel. For the time being, I'm glad there are German-Russians at least one branch of German society that is keenly aware of the dire situation your country is in.

    Ghordius -> samjam7, Dec 12, 2016 4:15 AM ,
    " no matter how many German-Russians there are in Germany they are still citizens of your country, else they would not have been allowed to come back "

    do you live in some alternate reality planet? check yourself on this your assumption

    we are talking about Russian citizens that were granted German citizenship when arriving in Germany because of their German ancestry

    the "Return of the Russian-Germans" to Germany has gone on since before and after WWI, and the only thing that stopped it for a while was the Iron Curtain

    nevertheless, it was a German policy to grant them citizenship on arrival

    and no, your "Merkel the Atlanticist" is a tad... extreme. it's not about Russia or "ZATO", here

    samjam7 -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 4:53 AM ,
    Right, else they would not have been granted citizenship, I don't see why we should disagree on that subject.

    Regarding Merkel is not an Atlanticist, I would like a bit more of an argument just calling it extreme but not providing information as to why is not making your argument very strong. I have plenty of reasons to believe she is: "Allowing nuclear weaopns to be stationed in Germany against the will of the Bundestag, not being the slightest bit affected by the NSA spying scandal, supporting sanctions to Russia that hurt German business much more than British or American...the list goes on and on."

    Ghordius -> samjam7, Dec 12, 2016 5:11 AM ,
    samjam7, do you ever check on what you believe ? let's take only this: " (Merkel) allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed in Germany against the will of the Bundestag "

    just googled it. already in the second hit I get this:

    " The Bundestag decided in March 2010 by a large majority, that the federal government should 'press for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany.' Even the coalition agreement between the CDU and FDP, the German government in 2009 had promised the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Büchel. "

    that's the German Bundestag pressing/instructing the German executive to "do something" in that direction, yes

    that's not the German Bundestag doing a law , which is the very thing it could do, being a lawgiver

    saying "the will of the Bundestag" in this is just that: propaganda. and you fell for it

    the true will of the Bundestag is expressed in law. the rest is "please, try to...", so that your "Merkel is going against the will of..." is just... stretching the truth

    in the same way, there is a substantial difference between welcoming citizens of other countries because of their ancestry and granting them citizenship versus: "they already had that German citizenship"

    samjam7 -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 5:29 AM ,
    Where in the above statement did I talk of law? You Germans always need everything 'schwarz auf weiss' or its wrong....

    I spoke of will and to be honest even your quote that you thankfully looked up, proofs without any doubt that the parliament had a will, namely not to station more nuclear weapons in Büchel. Now that the Bundestag doesn't fight with Merkel over it 'i.e. pass a law' is related to the political system of Germany and that its major parties are co-opted and prefer to nod off Merkel's politics than resist it. Also it is highly questionable whether the German Parliament has the authority to decide on these matters, as it delves into the grey area of who actually decides what kind of troops are stationed in Germany, Merkel or the US/UK?

    To call that Propaganda though is unwarranted and rather weak, or how more clearly can a Parliament demonstrate its will?

    [Dec 12, 2016] Former UK Ambassador Blasts CIAs Blatant Lies, Shows A Little Simple Logic Destroys Their Claims

    Notable quotes:
    "... William Casey (CIA Director), "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."? ..."
    "... if an organization has lost trust of national security affairs it should be DISBANDED ..."
    "... ...so why did Debbie Wassername-Schultz resign if the hacks were untrue about her non-neutrality toward Bernie Marx in favor of Hillary Crony? Is this not a usurpation of the peoples will and an affront to "democracy" everywhere? ..."
    "... How is it that a "charity" is only a "charity" as long as the people running this "charity" remain in power? Everyone suddenly becomes "less charitable" because she lost? Why is that? Can't they say cronyism and be done with it? ..."
    "... The entire story is based on a leak from Senate Staff on SSCI alleging what they were told in a briefing by CIMC. What SSCI was told is that there is no evidence of who was the hacker. Because Russia is one of many possibilities, somebody on SSCI who leaked to WaPo concluded for himself that the hacker was Russia. That is not what they were told. The vitriol should be directed toward WaPo and their Senate SSCI source. ..."
    "... As the Obama Administration falls apart, expect the various players to begin to look out for themselves. ..."
    "... Obama is hanging everyone out to dry in the futile attempt to save his own 'legacy'. ..."
    "... Truman signed its charter. The original intent was to assemble and study Information, period. Truman later remarked he would never have done so had he known it would go amok. Instead, it became a weapon of the Deep State. It is now a direct threat to the American Republic. ..."
    "... Ah, yes. The CIA The folks who claimed that Sony was hacked by North Korea, when a private security firm was able to directly finger the disgruntled ex-employees responsible. ..."
    "... The CIA is run by neocons, who are upset that their stooge Hillary lost the election and Trump, the elected President-to-be, is making a direct pivot towards accomodation with their arch-enemy Vladimir Putin. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, the receivers of the DNC leaks know who they got the information from, and swear publicly that that also was an inside leak. But if it were an inside leak, then it couldn't call the results of the election into question. Only interference by a Foreign Power can do that. ..."
    "... Same for the Nameless One. Does she want to admit that her own bureaucracy prefers that she not sit on the throne, or does she like the idea of blaming a sinister foreign entity for her loss? ..."
    "... If the Russians did it, is Obama twisting the knife in the Clinton's back? The email leaks were a false flag attack against the Clintons perpetrated by Obama to remove them from the power matrix, and install himself as head of the Democrat party, free from their influence, and free to move that party in the direction he wants as it's defacto leader. ..."
    "... John Swinton, Chief editorial writer of the New York Times from 1860 to 1870: "There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes." ..."
    "... Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked. ..."
    "... The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern.(Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners. ..."
    "... Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants. ..."
    "... Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: " Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. ..."
    "... The other begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?" The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity. ..."
    "... Craig Murray: "[...] the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. " I wasn't aware of this CIA allegation against the FBI, it's quite astonishing. ..."
    "... Craig Murray: "[...] this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. " No one should be surprised that The Guardian is up to its neck in publishing ... garbage ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals" involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks.

    The anonymous source claims of "We know who it was, it was the Russians" are beneath contempt.

    Urban Redneck -> Chris Dakota, Dec 11, 2016 6:07 PM
    The CIA has lots of evidence (both collected and manufactured) which is then misconstrued through politiczed analysis and dissemination to serve their own and their primary customer's personal interests.

    Back during the Reagan administration, someone casually told me "We spend more on disinformaion than we do on information" - I doubt things have changed that much since then.

    manofthenorth -> Urban Redneck, Dec 11, 2016 6:15 PM
    Also during the Reagan years;

    William Casey (CIA Director), "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."?

    Overdrawn -> Laddie, Dec 11, 2016 8:15 PM
    It wasn't a hack, it was a leak. It says so in the article.

    on 19th October CNN said the 2016 Election couldn't be hacked.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cnn+2016+presidential+election+cannot+be+hacke...

    Badsamm -> bigdumbnugly, Dec 11, 2016 7:30 PM
    Correct me if Im wrong; but i thought the law prohibits the CIA from operations and investigations on home soil. That is the job for the FBI. Why is the CIA commenting on computer systems that were hacked in the US of A? There are at least a dozen other agencies (just as worthless) that this would fall under their jurisdiction.
    _mike123_ -> bigdumbnugly, Dec 12, 2016 12:02 AM

    If the Russians had anything to do with the hacked emails, which are only accusations, they did the American people a great service by exposing the evil of the DNC, HRottenC and their MSM minions, none of whom could care less about their ethics violations. They are only upset because they were caught. Their supporters have been had by their own kind and their leaders are now redirecting their exposure onto the Russians and Trump to keep their sheep misdirected from the real problems, HRC and Obama.

    post turtle saver -> bigdumbnugly, Dec 12, 2016 12:31 AM
    we all know what happened to the boy who cried "wolf" when none were there... by the time there actually _were_ wolves, no one believed him...

    the CIA has lost the plot and cried "wolf" too many times for anyone to believe them anymore... if an organization has lost trust of national security affairs it should be DISBANDED

    nmewn -> Billy the Poet, Dec 11, 2016 7:24 PM
    Well it is a wide open "bear trap"...lol...(to use a metaphor) sitting there out in the open un-camouflaged for everyone with two brain cells left in their heads to see...and at some point someone is going to ask...

    ...so why did Debbie Wassername-Schultz resign if the hacks were untrue about her non-neutrality toward Bernie Marx in favor of Hillary Crony? Is this not a usurpation of the peoples will and an affront to "democracy" everywhere?

    How is it that a "charity" is only a "charity" as long as the people running this "charity" remain in power? Everyone suddenly becomes "less charitable" because she lost? Why is that? Can't they say cronyism and be done with it?

    Yezzz, let the progressive tears flow, they taste wonderful ;-)

    chindit13, Dec 11, 2016 6:54 PM
    The Brit Ambassador has the wrong target, because he was caught by Fake News.

    The entire story is based on a leak from Senate Staff on SSCI alleging what they were told in a briefing by CIMC. What SSCI was told is that there is no evidence of who was the hacker. Because Russia is one of many possibilities, somebody on SSCI who leaked to WaPo concluded for himself that the hacker was Russia. That is not what they were told. The vitriol should be directed toward WaPo and their Senate SSCI source.

    As the Obama Administration falls apart, expect the various players to begin to look out for themselves. Do not be surprised if in the next few days, Brennan or someone else at the agency sets the record straight and throws some 'shade' on WaPo and Obama.

    Obama is hanging everyone out to dry in the futile attempt to save his own 'legacy'. Whoever might have been a loyal soldier and who fell on his sword if requested to do so is not going to do it anymore. Obama is a child who cannot accept that he has been an abject failure, so he is getting desperate to create some false historical record.

    imprehensibli , Dec 11, 2016 7:15 PM
    Canadian Journalist Eva Bartlett DESTROYS MSM FAKE NEWS ON SYRIA (please watch - important): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebE3GJfGhfA
    Stemmer -> imprehensibli, Dec 11, 2016 10:09 PM
    I remember Zerohedge reporting on a meeting last year with US Senator McCain and Arab terrorists that included photos . These terrorists were on the US most wanted list. Too bad that Canadian reporter did not mention that.
    SgtShaftoe, Dec 11, 2016 7:23 PM
    I'd say this entire campaign is far too clunky and clumsy to be executed by the CIA The CIA has done some incredibly evil shit in the past so I wouldn't put something like this past them, however they are far more professional generally than this from my limited exposure and what I've researched about activities of the agency.
    lakecity55, Dec 11, 2016 8:30 PM
    The "CIA" has outlived its usefulness. It needs to be broken up and disbanded. Truman signed its charter. The original intent was to assemble and study Information, period. Truman later remarked he would never have done so had he known it would go amok. Instead, it became a weapon of the Deep State. It is now a direct threat to the American Republic.
    kuwa mzuri, Dec 11, 2016 8:36 PM
    Our spy and security apparatus didn't defeat the Soviet Union's "evil empire" so much as it emulated it, using Orwell and Huxley as roadmaps, rather than warnings.
    Fathead Slim -> kuwa mzuri, Dec 11, 2016 11:12 PM
    True, the fall of the Soviet Union came as a complete surprise to US Intelligence agencies.
    fearnot, Dec 11, 2016 10:06 PM
    Maybe it wasn't the Russians. Who else could it possibly be? Not the CIA! Not in good ol USA. Maybe it was Aliens! After all the UK Mail thought as much with Kennedy. Or maybe Bush and his clan are the Aliens. All I can say is Trump better never let the CIA instead of Secret Service guard him and his motorcade!

    The CIA Kennedy assassination theory is a prominent John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. The CIA's potential involvement was frequently mentioned during the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in plots to assassinate foreign leaders, particularly Fidel Castro.[1][2] According to author James Douglass, Kennedy was assassinated because he was turning away from the Cold War and seeking a negotiated peace with the Soviet Union.[3][4] Accusations and confessions of and by alleged conspirators, as well as official government reports citing the CIA as uncooperative in investigations, have at times renewed interest in these conspiracy theories.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theory

    joego1, Dec 11, 2016 10:24 PM
    The DNC leaks came from Seth Rich who was Arkansided; https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4v3bpg/dnc_leaker_silenced_...

    Other leaks came from patriot U.S. intell; https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=steve+pieczenik+leaks+cam+f...

    Case closed; Fire the CIA

    Faeriedust, Dec 11, 2016 10:34 PM
    Ah, yes. The CIA The folks who claimed that Sony was hacked by North Korea, when a private security firm was able to directly finger the disgruntled ex-employees responsible.

    Let's break this down some more. The CIA is run by neocons, who are upset that their stooge Hillary lost the election and Trump, the elected President-to-be, is making a direct pivot towards accomodation with their arch-enemy Vladimir Putin.

    Meanwhile, the FBI is stacked with political employees and their career hirees installed under GW Bush, and leans strongly against the Democrats, to the point of deliberately leaking damaging evidence against the Democratic candidate the week before the election . . . granted that there wouldn't have been any information to leak, if Hillary had followed the laws and policies of her federal position.

    Meanwhile, the receivers of the DNC leaks know who they got the information from, and swear publicly that that also was an inside leak. But if it were an inside leak, then it couldn't call the results of the election into question. Only interference by a Foreign Power can do that.

    But to the extent that the Russians DID lobby against Hillary, they did so completely openly. If you read an article in Russia Today in favor of Trump or against Hillary, you can hardly claim to be deceived.

    The Russians are allowed to have an opinion; we can't stop that. What they aren't allowed to do is to vote, or to contribute money to the candidates' campaigns (here we will lightly skip over the millions donated to Hillary's campaign by Israeli dual citizens, the Saudis, the Australians, Nigeria, VietNam, India, Haiti . . .).

    tarabel, Dec 11, 2016 10:37 PM
    What did you expect them to say? "Uh, yes, Mr. President, it was us, actually." Of course they are going to point the finger elsewhere. Especially to someplace that cannot be pressured. You would too, if placed in the same position. Same for the Nameless One. Does she want to admit that her own bureaucracy prefers that she not sit on the throne, or does she like the idea of blaming a sinister foreign entity for her loss?

    And even if Russia did it, it's not like they made anything up. Come on, people. Realpolitik.

    gregga777, Dec 11, 2016 10:49 PM
    The CIA (Central Insanity Agency) IS the United States government. It controls all of the other so-called independent intelligence agencies. Would the CIA lie to overturn the 2016 Presidential elections? Well, the CIA are the very same people who: <
    • for decades have had hundreds of nationally and internationally prominent so-called journalists on the CIA payroll and controlled the stories reported by Western Mainstream Conporate News Media;
    • assassinated President John F. Kennedy because they were furious about the failure of their insane Bay of Pigs fiasco, the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc., etc., etc.;
    • faked the Gulf of Tonkin intelligence to get the United States Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution giving the bloodthirsty Generals and Admirals and President Lyndon B. Johnson the false flag incident to drastically escalate the Vietnam War–closely located to the Golden Triangle's highly coveted rich heroin supplies–and all of the attendant decades of lying about that war;
    • destabilized Afghanistan to encourage invasion by the Soviet Union;
    • created, supported and armed the Sunni Mujahideen, which morphed into Al Qaeda following the Gulf War, to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan;
    • encouraged President Jimmy Carter to admit the Shah of Iran to create the pretext for decades of enmity between Iran and the United States and destroy Jimmy Carter's Presidency;
    • encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait to give President George H. W. Bush the pretext to declare war on Iraq;
    • were behind the 9/11/2001 false flag attacks on the World Trade Center towers, and their destruction with controlled explosives demolitions charges, and the Pentagon and then lied that it was all an Al Qaeda plot;
    • lied about Al Qaeda's role in 9/11/2001 to justify the invasion of Afghanistan with its highly coveted, rich poppy fields for heroin production;
    • lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify President George W. Bush's war of aggression against Iraq;
    • created, finances, arms and supports ISIS;
    • plans and carries out false flag operations to influence public opinion;
    • lie about whatever whenever it suits their agenda;
    • controls the 'narratives' in the Feral gangster government's organs of state propaganda (mainstream & social media and entertainment oligopoly);

    And far, far more. But, I got tired of typing and I don't want to bore the readers. The point being that they are ALL professional liars and the love of truth and the American Republic is not in them.

    Yes, of course the CIA would lie to overturn the 2016 Presidential elections.

    Crassius, Dec 11, 2016 11:02 PM
    If the Russians did it, is Obama twisting the knife in the Clinton's back? The email leaks were a false flag attack against the Clintons perpetrated by Obama to remove them from the power matrix, and install himself as head of the Democrat party, free from their influence, and free to move that party in the direction he wants as it's defacto leader.

    Blaming the leaks on the Russians gains obfuscation of Obama's chief foreign policy failure as President.... drawing a red line, then failing to act when it was crossed, which signaled to the world that he was an impudent little bitch that could be ignored in a world that understands only one thiing..... strength.

    holdbuysell, Dec 11, 2016 11:02 PM

    John Swinton, Chief editorial writer of the New York Times from 1860 to 1870: "There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

    obelix, Dec 12, 2016 3:52 AM
    Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked.

    Furthermore, Clinton's statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing painfully clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA These facts began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different directions.

    The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern.(Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners.

    However, over the last two decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet, where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency must now defend itself with apologetics. Clinton's "Americans will never know" defense is a prime example.

    obelix, Dec 12, 2016 3:54 AM
    Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants.

    The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.

    Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: " Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama.

    The other begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?" The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity.

    Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal of collecting and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options.

    The first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about the Adolf Hitlers of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote.

    Which of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship, like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.

    smacker, Dec 12, 2016 4:27 AM
    Craig Murray: "[...] the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. " I wasn't aware of this CIA allegation against the FBI, it's quite astonishing.

    The FBI and CIA are both utterly corrupt, as is every other faction of the Obola Administration including the Marxist slimeball himself at the very top, but what we see here are factions throwing allegations against each other.

    smacker, Dec 12, 2016 4:39 AM
    Craig Murray: "[...] this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. " No one should be surprised that The Guardian is up to its neck in publishing ... garbage written by Jonathen Freedland. After all it's been "the progressive Left's" house newspaper for years and is known as " The Grauniad " by dissenters.

    What is truly bad is that the BBC are coming out of the closet and once again revealing their own Left-wing Establishment bias by running fake news stories on its TV news channel.

    The Fing News, Dec 12, 2016 4:50 AM
    This is the same CIA that talked about WMD's in Iraq! They will continue being the good Clinton stooges they are. More lies from CIA!

    [Dec 12, 2016] Trump Claims of Russian interference in 2016 race ridiculous, Dems making excuses

    Notable quotes:
    "... President-elect Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview with " Fox News Sunday ," decried as "ridiculous" the CIA's reported assessment that Russia intervened in the election to boost his candidacy – describing the claim as another "excuse" pushed by Democrats to explain his upset victory. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.foxnews.com
    President-elect Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview with " Fox News Sunday ," decried as "ridiculous" the CIA's reported assessment that Russia intervened in the election to boost his candidacy – describing the claim as another "excuse" pushed by Democrats to explain his upset victory.

    "It's just another excuse. I don't believe it," Trump said. " Every week it's another excuse. We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College."

    Trump spoke with Fox News' Chris Wallace in the president-elect's first Sunday show interview since winning the election.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Why CIA is involved in DNC computers hacking probe?

    Dec 12, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    likbez, December 11, 2016 11:46 pm

    Beverly,
    === quote ===
    Just the fact that Trump has now said he thinks the CIA's cyber forensics team is the same group that tries to determine the nuclear capacity of other countries is itself scary–and revealing. He doesn't recognize and obvious distinctions even about incredibly important things, doesn't understand the concept of expertise, and can't distinguish between important and unimportant things.
    === end of quote ===
    Two points:

    1. After Iraq WMD false claim CIA as agency had lost a large part of its credibility, because it is clear that it had succumbed to political pressure and became just a pocket tool in the dirty neocon political games. At this time the pressure was from neocons in Bush administration. Don't you think that it is possible that this is the case now too ?

    2. It's not the job of CIA to determine who and how hacked DNC computers or any other computers in the USA. CIA mandate is limited to foreign intelligence and intelligence aggregation and analysis. It is job of FBI and NSA, especially the latter, as only NSA has technical means to trace from where really the attack had come, if it was an attack.

    So any CIA involvement here is slightly suspect and might point to some internal conflicts within Obama administration. It is unclear why Obama had chosen CIA Also as CIA and State Department are closely linked as CIA operatives usually use diplomatic cover that request looks a little bit disingenuous as Hillary used to work for State Department. In this case one of the explanation might be that it can be attributed to the desire to create a smoke screen and shield Clintons from pressure by rank-and-file Hillary supporter (and donors) to explain the devastating defeat in electoral college votes against rather weak, really amateur opponent.

    [Dec 12, 2016] If You Are For Peace You Are A Russian Agent by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the CIA is actually stupid enough to believe this, the US is without a competent intelligence agency. Of course, the CIA didn't say and doesn't believe any such thing. The fake news stories in the presstitute media are all sourced to unnamed officials. Former British ambassador Craig Murray described the reports accurately: "bullshit." ..."
    "... Fake news is the presstitute's product. Throughout the presidential primaries and presidential campaign it was completely clear that the mainstream print and TV media were producing endless fake news designed to damage Trump and to boost Hillary. We all saw it. We all lived through it. What is this pretense that Russia is the source of fake news? ..."
    "... We have had nothing but fake news from the presstitutes since the Klingon regime. Fake news was used against Yugoslavia and Serbia in order to cloak the Clinton's war crimes. ..."
    "... Ironic, isn't it, that it is those who purport to be liberal and progressive who are responsible for the revival of McCarthyism in America. Moreover, the liberal progressives are institutionalizing McCarthyism in the US government. There is clearly a concerted effort being made to define truth as fake news and to define lies as truth. ..."
    www.unz.com

    Speaking of fake news, the latest issue of the National Enquirer at the supermarket checkout is giving the mainstream presstitute media a run for the money: "Castro's Deathbed Confession: I Killed JFK. How I framed Oswald."

    That's almost as good as the fake news going around the presstitute media, such as the TV stations, the Washington Post, New York Times, and Guardian-yes, even the former leftwing British newspaper has joined the ranks of the press prostitutes-that the CIA has concluded that "Russian operatives covertly interfered in the election campaign in an attempt to ensure the Republican candidate's victory."

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report

    If the CIA is actually stupid enough to believe this, the US is without a competent intelligence agency. Of course, the CIA didn't say and doesn't believe any such thing. The fake news stories in the presstitute media are all sourced to unnamed officials. Former British ambassador Craig Murray described the reports accurately: "bullshit."

    So who is making the stories up, another anonymous group tied to Hillary such as PropOrNot, the secret, hidden organization that released a list of 200 websites that are Russian agents?

    Fake news is the presstitute's product. Throughout the presidential primaries and presidential campaign it was completely clear that the mainstream print and TV media were producing endless fake news designed to damage Trump and to boost Hillary. We all saw it. We all lived through it. What is this pretense that Russia is the source of fake news?

    We have had nothing but fake news from the presstitutes since the Klingon regime. Fake news was used against Yugoslavia and Serbia in order to cloak the Clinton's war crimes.

    Fake news was used against Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia in order to cloak the Bush regime's war crimes.

    Fake news was used against Libya and Syria in order to cloak the Obama regime's war crimes.

    Without fake news these three blood-drenched presidencies would have been hauled before the War Crimes Commission, tried, and convicted.

    Can anyone produce any truthful statement from the presstitute media about anything of importance? MH-17? Crimea? Ukraine?

    Ironic, isn't it, that it is those who purport to be liberal and progressive who are responsible for the revival of McCarthyism in America. Moreover, the liberal progressives are institutionalizing McCarthyism in the US government. There is clearly a concerted effort being made to define truth as fake news and to define lies as truth.

    (Reprinted from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)

    [Dec 12, 2016] McCarthyism Is Breaking Out All Over by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... As Pam Martens reports, another imbecile has now composed a list of 200 suspect professors who also dissent from the official bullshit fed to the American people. ..."
    "... In an effort to regain control over Americans' minds, they are attempting to define dissenters and truth-tellers as "Russian agents." Why "Russian agents"? Because they hope that their fake news portrait of Russia as America's deadly enemy has taken hold and will result in the public turning away from those of us labeled "Russian agents." ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

    As Pam Martens reports, another imbecile has now composed a list of 200 suspect professors who also dissent from the official bullshit fed to the American people.

    http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/12/u-s-journalists-and-professors-appearing-on-rt-america-get-blacklisted/

    The official government purveyors of fake news in the US and their presstitute agents are concerned that they are losing control over the explanations given to the American people.

    In an effort to regain control over Americans' minds, they are attempting to define dissenters and truth-tellers as "Russian agents." Why "Russian agents"? Because they hope that their fake news portrait of Russia as America's deadly enemy has taken hold and will result in the public turning away from those of us labeled "Russian agents."

    I don't think it is working.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Fake News Versus No News

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the present moment, it is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global adversary of the U.S. ..."
    "... Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail. ..."
    "... Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington's intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill. ..."
    Dec 06, 2016 | www.unz.com

    ... ... ...

    ...Does the name Judith Miller ring any bells? And the squeaks of rage coming from the U.S. Congress over being lied to is also something to behold as the federal government has been acting in collusion with the media to dish up falsehoods designed to start wars since the time of the Spanish-American conflict in 1898, if not before.

    The fake news saga is intended to discredit Donald Trump, whom the media hates mostly because they failed to understand either him or the Americans who voted for him in the recent election. You have to blame somebody when you are wrong so you invent "fake news" as the game changer that explains your failure to comprehend simple truths. To accomplish that, the clearly observable evidence that the media was piling on Donald Trump at every opportunity has somehow been deliberately morphed into a narrative that it is Trump who was attacking the media, suggesting that it was all self-defense on the part of the Rachel Maddows of this world, but anyone who viewed even a small portion of the farrago surely will have noted that it was the Republican candidate who was continuously coming under attack from both the right and left of the political-media spectrum.

    There are also some secondary narratives being promoted, including a pervasive argument that Hillary Clinton was somehow the victim of the news reporting due specifically to fake stories emanating largely from Moscow in an attempt to not only influence the election but also to subvert America's democratic institutions. I have observed that if such a truly ridiculous objective were President Vladimir Putin's desired goal he might as well relax. Our own Democratic and Republican duopoly has already been doing a fine job at subverting democracy by assiduously separating the American people from the elite Establishment that theoretically represents and serves them.

    Another side of the mainstream media lament that has been relatively unexplored is what the media chooses not to report. At the present moment, it is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global adversary of the U.S.

    Instead of seeking a new Cold War, Washington should instead focus on working with Russia to make sure that disagreements over policies in relatively unimportant parts of the world do not escalate into nuclear exchanges. Russian actions on its own doorstep in Eastern Europe do not in fact threaten the United States or any actual vital interest. Nor does Moscow threaten the U.S. through its intervention on behalf of the Syrian government in the Middle East. That Russia is described incessantly as a threat in those areas is largely a contrivance arranged by the media, the Democratic and Republican National Committees and by the White House.

    Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail.

    Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington's intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill.

    Neoconservatives are frequently described as ideologues, but the truth is that they are more interested in gaining increased access to money and power than they are in promulgating their own brand of global regime change.

    ... ... ...

    Greasy William

    Russophobia/Putinophobia is as big as it is because it is a rare issue where the mainstream right, the left and the political class all agree, albeit for different reasons. The mainstream right is anti Russia because of the Cold War and Russia's support for Iran, Venezuela and Cuba. The left hates Russia because of Pussy Riot, humiliating Obama and Merkel in the Ukraine, Snowden, supporting anti immigrant politicians like Le Pen and Wilders, jailing/killing pro Western Russian politicians, the gay stuff and especially for Trump. The political class hates Russia simply because it is a rival to US power in Europe and the Middle East. Put all three together, and you get a political consensus for Russophobia.

    At the end of the day, however, Russophobia or even Putinophobia is a minority position in the US; or else Trump wouldn't have been elected. And a huge chunk of the people who voted for Hillary are blacks and hispanics, who don't give a rat's ass about Russia and probably couldn't even find it on a map.

    Before Pussy Riot/Ukraine/Snowden/Gays/Trump there was even a lot of sympathy in the US media for victims of Chechen terrorism, especially after the Beslan school thing. As late as the 2012 election, Obama was mocking Mitt Romney's Russophobia.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Trump chooses Exxon CEO Tillerson as Secretary of State

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is a big unknown. I think Paul Craig Roberts said it best - give Trump 6 months and then form an opinion. ..."
    "... For the moment, I think Tillerson is a far far better pick than Guilliani, Romney or Bolton. ..."
    "... "Tillerson might be the worst secretary of state contender on Trump's list" says Wapo. So, he's the best, no doubt!! ..."
    "... Almost all professional anti-Russia "Senior Fellows" are dependent on State Department to fund their lobbying. Tillerson a disaster for them ..."
    "... Deepening Ties Between Exxon and Russia Run Counter to U.S. Efforts to Punish Putin ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    aaaa | Dec 10, 2016 11:11:04 PM | 94
    @35 Trump is a big unknown. I think Paul Craig Roberts said it best - give Trump 6 months and then form an opinion. I'm not too optimistic however; Trump's policies could flop and the hawks could weasel their warmongering in (IRAN + CHINA + ????)

    For the moment, I think Tillerson is a far far better pick than Guilliani, Romney or Bolton. I hope that he will acquire the position. He seems to be smart, but also seems to have good character (considering.)

    Of course, the inauguration is a few weeks off, so the concern about a soft coup are real ones, especially when the CIA is throwing out the Russia claims.

    smuks | Dec 10, 2016 2:36:33 PM | 16

    OT (sorry, but I really don't care about so-called 'leaks' and 'hacks'):

    Trump chooses Exxon CEO Tillerson as Secretary of State.

    Kind of makes me wonder...what if we see the emergence of a new confrontation, between a 'fossil fuel' block comprising the US, Russia and OPEC, and a 'renewables' block of China, the EU and pretty much everyone else? Yep, I admit that's a very long shot.

    From The Hague | Dec 10, 2016 2:53:49 PM | 21
    #16 Yes! Yeah!
    Wonderful

    "Tillerson might be the worst secretary of state contender on Trump's list" says Wapo. So, he's the best, no doubt!!
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/12/07/tillerson-might-be-the-worst-one-on-trumps-list/?utm_term=.066b74221ede

    Almost all professional anti-Russia "Senior Fellows" are dependent on State Department to fund their lobbying. Tillerson a disaster for them
    https://twitter.com/27khv/status/807666659896987648

    Deepening Ties Between Exxon and Russia Run Counter to U.S. Efforts to Punish Putin
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140827/deepening-ties-between-exxon-and-russia-run-counter-us-efforts-punish-putin

    Russian President Vladimir Putin is seen here awarding ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson with the Order of Friendship last year.

    chipnik | Dec 10, 2016 3:59:06 PM | 39
    @29

    ... ... ...

    John Bolton, dutifully reading from the CIA's Yellow Cake playbook

    "I'm obviously aware that people are quite focused on the economy rather than foreign policy issues, but that is something that should and can be altered as people see the nature of the grave threats around the world that we face. We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year."

    MIC IS NOW IN CONTROL OF DEFENSE, NSA, CIA AND STATE, AND GOLDMAN IS IN CONTROL OF TREASURY, COMMERCE, OMB, NEC AND FED. THIS IS THE NEO-CON END-GAME: THE 1998-2001 SOFT COUP-HARD COUP, THAT TOOK AMERICA DOWN.

    All we need is Ari Fleischer in the role of Bolton's spox to the media, lol. "Mr. Fleischer, please come to the red phone service desk, you have a call waiting." It's all monkey-brain now!

    Circe | Dec 11, 2016 12:38:16 AM | 103
    There's something very fishy about the choices of Rex Tillerson and John Bolton for SoS and Deputy SoS respectively.

    Tillerson has major potential conflicts of interest that the Senate will scrutinize including the award he received from Putin. I'm seriously questioning how Tillerson will get Senate approval. On the other hand, John Bolton, is very popular with most Republicans and hawkish Democrats and will have no problem whatsoever.

    I believe this strange combination is a red flag that perfectly illustrates Trump's strategy, which is one of the following:

    1. Either Trump deliberately chose someone with close ties to Russia and Putin because he knows he won't be approved by the Senate, and his first choice from the start, John Bolton, will pass with flying colors;

    2. Or William Engdahl is right that the Neocon strategy is pivoting and adapting to present circumstances:

    His job will be to reposition the United States for them to reverse the trend to disintegration of American global hegemony, to, as the Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz Project for the New American Century put it in their September, 2000 report, "rebuild America's defenses."

    To do that preparation, a deception strategy that will fatally weaken the developing deep bonds between Russia and China will be priority. It's already begun. We have a friendly phone call from The Donald to Vladimir the Fearsome in Moscow. Russian media is euphoric about a new era in US-Russia relations after Obama. Then suddenly we hear the war-mongering NATO head, Stoltenberg, suddenly purr soothing words to Russia. Float the idea that California Congressman and Putin acquaintance, Dana Rohrabacher, is leaked as a possible Secretary of State. It's classic Kissinger Balance of Power geopolitics–seem to ally with the weaker of two mortal enemies, Russia, to isolate the stronger, China. Presumably Vladimir Putin is not so naïve or stupid as to fall for it, but that is the plot of Trump's handlers. Such a strategy of preventing the growing Russia-China cooperation was urged by Zbigniew Brzezinski in a statement this past summer.

    http://journal-neo.org/2016/11/25/the-dangerous-deception-called-the-trump-presidency/

    Let's not forget that the first time Trump was asked during the campaign who he gets foreign policy advice from; the first name that popped up was JOHN BOLTON, and he praised him as being tough. John Bolton was strongly allied with Dick Cheney. Steve Yates, another Neocon, was Cheney's China advisor and is Trump's as well. After reading Engdahl's article, I wrote my own opinion of the Neocon strategy based on Engdahl's and you can read it on the Saker's site here: http://thesaker.is/his-own-man-or-someones-puppet/

    But if you find it difficult to read without paragraphs: scroll down through the comments on the Saker's own opinion of Engdahl's piece as that's where my original comment appeared with paragraphs.

    http://thesaker.is/is-donald-trump-really-only-a-showman-who-will-prepare-the-usa-for-war/

    Something stinks about this Tillerson/Bolton combination. You can read my theory on why Neocons are pivoting to a new strategy of divide and conquer as Engdahl believes, and it has to do with the growing economic bond between China and Iran as well and killing two birds with one stone; invading Iran to contain China and sabotage OBOR.

    Note as well, that in courting Russia to isolate China and weaken the growing cooperation between China and Russia, as Engdahl puts it, Russia will ultimately lose its own influence, unless of course Netanyahu has made Putin an offer he can't refuse, since Netanyahu has been courting Putin for quite some time already; and this is very bizarre, since Putin frustrated Netanyahu's plan for Syria.

    http://en.europe-israel.org/2016/12/09/russian-diplomat-moscow-jerusalem-friendship-at-highest-point-ever/

    Something's very wrong with this picture.

    smuks | Dec 11, 2016 1:01:21 PM | 148
    So Bolton will be Tillerson's vice-SoS. How much more Neocon can you get? And you seriously believe Trump will 'clean the Augean Stables', 'drain the swamp' and 'open a new book' in foreign policy, esp. relations with Russia? Dream on.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Unraveling the Russian Hack Conspiracy Propaganda

    " BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION"
    Notable quotes:
    "... The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered: ..."
    "... The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino. ..."
    "... The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak: ..."
    "... Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria. ..."
    "... Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win? ..."
    "... So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win. ..."
    "... The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't. ..."
    "... Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating. ..."
    "... The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. ..."
    "... I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this. ..."
    "... And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . . ..."
    "... Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility. ..."
    "... Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to: ..."
    "... I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians. ..."
    "... This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS. ..."
    "... Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) : ..."
    "... "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath." ..."
    "... There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts. ..."
    "... In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him. ..."
    "... What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama. ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.noquarterusa.net

    UPDATE–PLEASE SEE BELOW. BOTTOMLINE, BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION.

    Let me stipulate up front that both the United States and Russia engage in covert and clandestine information operations. It is called espionage. It is but one aspect of the broader intelligence activity also known as spying. Time for all you snowflakes in America to grow up and get a grip and deal with with reality. If the respective intelligence organizations in either country are not doing this they are guilty of malpractice and should be dismantled.

    There are two basic types of espionage activity–Covert refers to an operation that is undetected while in progress, but the outcome may be easily observed. Killing Bin Laden is a prime example of a "covert" operation. A Clandestine Operation is something that is supposed to be undetected while in progress and after completion. For example, if the U.S. or Russia had a mole at the top of the National Security bureaucracy of their respective adversary, communicating with that mole and the mole's very existence would be clandestine.

    So, the alleged Russian meddling in our election–was it covert or clandestine?

    The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered:

    a full review into hacking by the Russians designed to influence the 2016 election, White House Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser Lisa Monaco said Friday.

    The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino.

    The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak:

    DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Calls Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver an "A–" and a "Liar"

    In May the Nevada Democratic State Convention became rowdy and got out of hand in a fight over delegate allocation. When Weaver went on CNN and denied any claims violence had happened, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, once she was notified of the exchange, wrote "Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he never acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred."

    Highlighting Sanders' Faith

    One email shows that a DNC official contemplated highlighting Sanders' alleged atheism - even though he has said he is not an atheist - during the primaries as a possibility to undermine support among voters.

    "It may make no difference but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of the DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. "He had skated on having a Jewish heritage. I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

    Building a Narrative Against Sanders

    "Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess," DNC National Secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote in an email to National Communications Director Luis Miranda on May 21. After detailing ways in which the Sanders camp was disorganized, Paustenbach concludes, "It's not a DNC conspiracy it's because they never had their act together."

    The London Observer noted that :

    The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.

    It was the Clinton spokesman, Robbie Mook, who launched the claim on July 24, 2016 that these leaks were done by the Russians in order to help Trump:

    The source of the leak has not been revealed, though Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, said on ABC News' "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday that he believes the Russians were instrumental in it.

    "Experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, took all these emails and now are leaking them out through these websites," Mook said Sunday. "It's troubling that some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

    The Clinton campaign started planning to smear Trump as a Putin stooge as early as December 2015. The Podesta emails showed clearly that the Clinton campaign decided early on to clobber Trump for his "bromance" with Putin. It was Brent Buwdosky almost one year ago (December 21, 2015) who proposed going after Trump with the Russian card in an email to Podesta:

    Putin did not agree to anything about removing Assad and continues to bomb the people we support. We pushed the same position in 2012 (Geneva 1, which HRC knows all about) and Geneva 2 in 2014. Odds that Putin agrees to remove Assad are only slightly better than the odds the College of Cardinals chooses me to someday succeed Pope Francis. Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria.

    Going after Trump as a Russian stooge was in the Clinton playbook long before Trump won a primary. One the wedge issues for Clinton with respect to Trump was Syria. Trump took a strong stand (which many thought would hurt him with Republicans) in declaring we should not be trying to get rid of Assad and that America should cooperate with the Russians in fighting the Islamists. Clinton, by contrast, called for imposing a No Fly Zone that would have risked a direct confrontation with Russia.

    Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win?

    So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win.

    The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't.

    Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating.

    The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. But no amount of media help and foreign money could transform Hillary into a likeable candidate. She was dreadful on the campaign trail and terrible at talking to the average American. Even her boy, Brent Budowsky, reluctantly acknowledged this in an email to John Podesta on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 :

    While I have been warning for some time about the dangers facing the Clinton campaign, aggressively in privately, tactfully in columns, during this latest stage I have been publicly defending her with no-holds barred, and here is my advice based on the reaction I have been receiving and the dangers I see coming to fruition.

    I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this.

    And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . .

    She could say she was right anticipating this, but wrong in overreacting by trying to shield her private emails, and she takes full responsibility for this, and apologizes to her supporters and everyone else, and now she has turned over all information, it will ultimately be seen that there no egregious wrongs committed.

    She needs to stop talking like a lawyer parsing legalistic words and a potential defendant expecting a future indictment, which is how she often looks and sounds to many voters today. Instead, she should take full responsibility for a mistake with no equivocation, and segue into the role of a populist prosecutor against a corrupted politics that Americans already detest ..and make a direct attack against the Donald Trump politics of daily insults and defamations and intolerance against whichever individuals and groups he tries to bully on a given day, and while defending some Republican candidates against his attacks, she should deplore their being intimidated by his insults and offering pastel versions of the intolerance he peddles.

    In other words, she should stop acting like a front-runner who cautiously tries to exploit the rules of a rigged game to her advantage, and start acting like a fighting underdog who will fight on behalf of Americans who want a higher standard of living for themselves, a higher standard of politics for the nation, and a higher level of economic opportunity and social justice for everyone.

    Like JFK after the Bay of Pigs, the more responsibility she takes now the more she will succeed going forward.

    Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility.

    UPDATE –This is an extremely dangerous time now. Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to:

    "conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process. It is to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders," she said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters. "This is consistent with the work that we did over the summer to engage Congress on the threats that we were seeing."

    Then comes news last night that :

    The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

    Why do you order a review if the CIA has already made a factual determination? In fact, we were told in October that the whole damn intelligence community determined the Russians did it. USA Today reported this in October :

    The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.

    "We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing," Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas .

    Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had "no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else."

    But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies , in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians.

    This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS.

    Barack Obama told CNN' Van Jones the following the other night :

    "The ability of ISIL to not just mass inside of Syria, but then to initiate major land offensives that took Mosul, for example, that was not on my intelligence radar screen," Obama told Zakaria, using the administration's term for the Islamic State terror group.

    Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) :

    In a letter issued the day after a White House surveillance review placed new political pressure on the National Security Agency, the seven members of the House judiciary committee said that James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, ought to face consequences for untruthfully telling the Senate that the NSA was "not wittingly" collecting data on Americans.

    "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath."

    There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts.

    In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him.

    What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama.

    Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.

    [Dec 11, 2016] The CIA's Absence of Conviction by Craig Murray

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also. ..."
    craigmurray.org.uk

    I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it.

    There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

    [Dec 11, 2016] There are two ways to read Trump position on the Iran deal,

    www.moonofalabama.org
    Circe | Dec 11, 2016 7:20:51 PM | 152
    @140 nonsensefact

    First of all; that Boeing deal was a condition of the Iran deal! Trump wants to tear up the deal; it was one of his promises. Second, Republicans wanted more than that funding for Israel. I never denied Obama was not a Zionist enabler -- can't you read??? Third, if Obama's an enabler; Trump is in bed with Netanyahu and Zionists since he promised to tear up the Iran deal and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem... whooooo does that??? Who promises sht like that? Only someone who's even crazier than Nut job yahu!

    nonsensefactory | Dec 11, 2016 7:55:20 PM | 153
    @152 Circe

    There are two ways to read Trump's position on the Iran deal, but I think this is the right way to look at it:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/11/trump-iran-jcpoa-obama-tehran/508211/

    "But he has also complained that American companies are shut out of post-deal economic opportunities in Iran, and suggested that Washington will need to cooperate with Iran as well as Russia in dealing with the Syrian civil war."

    Here's what I predict short-term for the Middle East: The situation will settle down into something like the Pakistan-India situation, with Iran and Syria on one side, and Saudi Arabia and Israel on the other. That's just short-term, however. Israel and Saudi Arabia are not very viable long-term. Eventually, I'm guessing the Gulf Arab monarchies will be replaced by parliamentary democracies, as happened with the Shah of Iran, and Israel will have to accept a one-state solution in which all Palestinians and Arabs get the same rights as Jewish citizens of Israel - which means, yes, separation of church and state, something any American vassal/client state should be willing to accept. IAEA inspections of the nuclear arsenal are also inevitable. But this will not "wipe Israel off the map" any more than it resulted in genocide for white South Afrikaaners.

    [Dec 11, 2016] The CIA's Absence of Conviction by Craig Murray

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also. ..."
    craigmurray.org.uk

    I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it.

    There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Russia Rigged Election, Killed JFK And Hid Saddams WMDs, Confirms CIA

    waterfordwhispersnews.com
    craazyboy December 10, 2016 at 10:10 am

    hahaha. Tho I think they made a spelling error- s/b Osamaovitch Boris Ladenofsky.

    Baby Gerald December 10, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Thanks for this– a much-needed Onion-esque satirical dig at the Globe/Post/NYT trifecta of garbage. To base a headline on information gleaned from anonymous sources and unnamed officials in secret meetings with unpublished agendas seems the most dangerous type of fake news there is. The death of irony was greatly exaggerated, if you ask me.

    Aumua December 10, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Next up: Russia influenced the Superbowl. You thought the Cubs' actually winning was a little strange? Well, have we got a shocker for you..

    [Dec 11, 2016] Are Saudis behind CIA "report" on Russian influence on elections?

    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Stormcrow , December 11, 2016 at 7:38 am

    What's behind the Russian Hack Propaganda? Two articles worth a read. I apologize if they've been posted before.

    What Are The Hearsay Leaks About "Russian Election Hacking" Attempting To Achieve?
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/12/what-are-the-hearsay-leaks-about-russian-election-hacking-attempting-to-achieve.html

    BEHIND CIA"S "REPORT" ON ELECTION: THE SAUDIS
    https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/09/unpacking-new-cia-leak-dont-ignore-aluminum-tube-footnote/

    UserFriendly , December 11, 2016 at 7:47 am

    Well, At least Tillerson believes in Climate change and is in favor of a carbon tax
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/06/30/exxon-yes-exxon-backs-a-carbon-tax/#1fbb193e4aea

    Jim Haygood , December 11, 2016 at 9:00 am

    Are we seeing a pattern here? Tillerson - a Putin counterpart and recipient of Russia's Order of Friendship - to Moscow; Gov Branstad - farmin' buddy of Premier Xi since the 1980s - to Beijing. And so forth.

    Inside-the-Beltway folk are upset at the overturning of the established order, in which diplomatic posts go to the biggest bundlers, regardless of country knowledge. Lacking titles of nobility here in the Homeland, we need an outlet for the well-connected to purchase a prestigious sinecure and a black diplomatic passport. Otherwise a frightening Revolt of the Affluent could roil our streets.

    Still angling for the Court of St James myself - got any witticisms I could share with the Queen?

    Katniss Everdeen , December 11, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Like it or not, Tillerson as secretary of "state" makes a fair amount of sense.

    His appointment would acknowledge, pretty overtly, that american foreign "policy" is, always and everywhere, about energy.

    We ignore human rights abuses in saudi arabia and overthrow Gadhafi when he proposes demanding payment for oil in a gold-backed currency. Iraq. Assad must "go" because of a pipeline. A biden boy gets a seat on the board of a Ukranian energy company after a u. s. backed coup. The clinton foundation in Nigeria.

    And that's just the last decade or so of wars and "threats to american interests." Maybe it's time we just got honest about it.

    Carolinian , December 11, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Honesty would be a refreshing change.

    Jomo , December 11, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Don't say it's about "energy" 'cause it's about "oil."

    [Dec 11, 2016] The Clintons happily sacrificed the whole party to save themselves and in the end, they couldnt even accomplish THAT. What amazes me is that the chokehold that the Clintons had

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Jake Sullivan, Clinton's policy director, was the only one in Clinton's inner circle who kept saying she would likely lose, despite the sanguine polling," Glenn Thrush says, citing Sullivan's friends. ..."
    "... "He was also the only one of the dozen aides who dialed in for Clinton's daily scheduling call who kept on asking if it wasn't a good idea for her to spend more time in the Midwestern swing states in the closing days of the campaign." ..."
    "... Clinton herself had a spat with other top party officials who wanted to run against Trump as emblematic of where crazy repubs were headed. Clinton said, 'no, be nice to republicans, only Trump matters and we want their voters.' ..."
    "... The Clintons happily sacrificed the whole party to save themselves and in the end, they couldn't even accomplish THAT. What amazes me is that the chokehold that the Clintons had(still have?) was so tight that the party let it happen! ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Michael December 10, 2016 at 10:28 pm

    Ellison is talking about starting the same sort of thing again with the 50-state strategy, and yeah, it's gonna pay off fast and big.

    johnnygl December 10, 2016 at 8:40 am

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/how-the-democratic-party-lost-its-way-214514

    Decent read from a democrat candidate in NC who ran for congress and got no help from DCCC. Makes larger point about how they need to built out the organization with training, infrastructure for campaigns. One remarkable bit is how there was a seat in TX district that hillary clinton won and the party didn't even field a candidate!

    Jim Haygood December 10, 2016 at 9:01 am

    A similar story about the final days of the SS Clintanic :

    "Jake Sullivan, Clinton's policy director, was the only one in Clinton's inner circle who kept saying she would likely lose, despite the sanguine polling," Glenn Thrush says, citing Sullivan's friends.

    "He was also the only one of the dozen aides who dialed in for Clinton's daily scheduling call who kept on asking if it wasn't a good idea for her to spend more time in the Midwestern swing states in the closing days of the campaign."

    "They spent far more time debating whether or not Clinton should visit Texas and Arizona, two states they knew she had little chance of winning, in order to get good press," Thrush says. Just a week before Election Day, Clinton made a campaign stop in Tempe, Arizona.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/one-man-in-hillarys-campaign-warned-she-could-lose-and-everybody-ignored-him/#ixzz4SRXoMcMO

    Who knows whether the NYT's ten months of daily fake news about "inevitable Hillary" misled the campaign, or the campaign misled the NYT?

    One is reminded of the old nautical story about an imperious captain sailing on into a wall of clouds, as the worried navigator watches the barometer dropping to 28 inches of mercury.

    The NYT's job is to inject more mercury - problem solved! (we thought)

    integer December 10, 2016 at 11:17 am

    Stuart Eizenstat , an Israel lobbyist with the law firm Covington and Burling , seemed to find it worthwhile to spend time emailing Jake Sullivan .

    johnnygl December 10, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    Building on lambert's favorite quote from atrios "they had ONE job!". Anecdotes like this from politico really emphasize how they literally stopped trying to elect other democrats. It was ALL about clinton and little else mattered. There was NO plan B!

    Clinton herself had a spat with other top party officials who wanted to run against Trump as emblematic of where crazy repubs were headed. Clinton said, 'no, be nice to republicans, only Trump matters and we want their voters.'

    The Clintons happily sacrificed the whole party to save themselves and in the end, they couldn't even accomplish THAT. What amazes me is that the chokehold that the Clintons had(still have?) was so tight that the party let it happen!

    cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    Personally I would like to see the Democratic Party go the way of the Whigs. They don't deserve my time and effort when the elite go out of their way to stack the deck.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Unraveling the Russian Hack Conspiracy Propaganda

    " BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION"
    Notable quotes:
    "... The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered: ..."
    "... The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino. ..."
    "... The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak: ..."
    "... Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria. ..."
    "... Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win? ..."
    "... So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win. ..."
    "... The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't. ..."
    "... Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating. ..."
    "... The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. ..."
    "... I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this. ..."
    "... And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . . ..."
    "... Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility. ..."
    "... Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to: ..."
    "... I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians. ..."
    "... This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS. ..."
    "... Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) : ..."
    "... "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath." ..."
    "... There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts. ..."
    "... In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him. ..."
    "... What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama. ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.noquarterusa.net

    UPDATE–PLEASE SEE BELOW. BOTTOMLINE, BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION.

    Let me stipulate up front that both the United States and Russia engage in covert and clandestine information operations. It is called espionage. It is but one aspect of the broader intelligence activity also known as spying. Time for all you snowflakes in America to grow up and get a grip and deal with with reality. If the respective intelligence organizations in either country are not doing this they are guilty of malpractice and should be dismantled.

    There are two basic types of espionage activity–Covert refers to an operation that is undetected while in progress, but the outcome may be easily observed. Killing Bin Laden is a prime example of a "covert" operation. A Clandestine Operation is something that is supposed to be undetected while in progress and after completion. For example, if the U.S. or Russia had a mole at the top of the National Security bureaucracy of their respective adversary, communicating with that mole and the mole's very existence would be clandestine.

    So, the alleged Russian meddling in our election–was it covert or clandestine?

    The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered:

    a full review into hacking by the Russians designed to influence the 2016 election, White House Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser Lisa Monaco said Friday.

    The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino.

    The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak:

    DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Calls Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver an "A–" and a "Liar"

    In May the Nevada Democratic State Convention became rowdy and got out of hand in a fight over delegate allocation. When Weaver went on CNN and denied any claims violence had happened, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, once she was notified of the exchange, wrote "Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he never acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred."

    Highlighting Sanders' Faith

    One email shows that a DNC official contemplated highlighting Sanders' alleged atheism - even though he has said he is not an atheist - during the primaries as a possibility to undermine support among voters.

    "It may make no difference but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of the DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. "He had skated on having a Jewish heritage. I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

    Building a Narrative Against Sanders

    "Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess," DNC National Secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote in an email to National Communications Director Luis Miranda on May 21. After detailing ways in which the Sanders camp was disorganized, Paustenbach concludes, "It's not a DNC conspiracy it's because they never had their act together."

    The London Observer noted that :

    The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.

    It was the Clinton spokesman, Robbie Mook, who launched the claim on July 24, 2016 that these leaks were done by the Russians in order to help Trump:

    The source of the leak has not been revealed, though Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, said on ABC News' "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday that he believes the Russians were instrumental in it.

    "Experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, took all these emails and now are leaking them out through these websites," Mook said Sunday. "It's troubling that some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

    The Clinton campaign started planning to smear Trump as a Putin stooge as early as December 2015. The Podesta emails showed clearly that the Clinton campaign decided early on to clobber Trump for his "bromance" with Putin. It was Brent Buwdosky almost one year ago (December 21, 2015) who proposed going after Trump with the Russian card in an email to Podesta:

    Putin did not agree to anything about removing Assad and continues to bomb the people we support. We pushed the same position in 2012 (Geneva 1, which HRC knows all about) and Geneva 2 in 2014. Odds that Putin agrees to remove Assad are only slightly better than the odds the College of Cardinals chooses me to someday succeed Pope Francis. Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria.

    Going after Trump as a Russian stooge was in the Clinton playbook long before Trump won a primary. One the wedge issues for Clinton with respect to Trump was Syria. Trump took a strong stand (which many thought would hurt him with Republicans) in declaring we should not be trying to get rid of Assad and that America should cooperate with the Russians in fighting the Islamists. Clinton, by contrast, called for imposing a No Fly Zone that would have risked a direct confrontation with Russia.

    Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win?

    So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win.

    The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't.

    Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating.

    The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. But no amount of media help and foreign money could transform Hillary into a likeable candidate. She was dreadful on the campaign trail and terrible at talking to the average American. Even her boy, Brent Budowsky, reluctantly acknowledged this in an email to John Podesta on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 :

    While I have been warning for some time about the dangers facing the Clinton campaign, aggressively in privately, tactfully in columns, during this latest stage I have been publicly defending her with no-holds barred, and here is my advice based on the reaction I have been receiving and the dangers I see coming to fruition.

    I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this.

    And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . .

    She could say she was right anticipating this, but wrong in overreacting by trying to shield her private emails, and she takes full responsibility for this, and apologizes to her supporters and everyone else, and now she has turned over all information, it will ultimately be seen that there no egregious wrongs committed.

    She needs to stop talking like a lawyer parsing legalistic words and a potential defendant expecting a future indictment, which is how she often looks and sounds to many voters today. Instead, she should take full responsibility for a mistake with no equivocation, and segue into the role of a populist prosecutor against a corrupted politics that Americans already detest ..and make a direct attack against the Donald Trump politics of daily insults and defamations and intolerance against whichever individuals and groups he tries to bully on a given day, and while defending some Republican candidates against his attacks, she should deplore their being intimidated by his insults and offering pastel versions of the intolerance he peddles.

    In other words, she should stop acting like a front-runner who cautiously tries to exploit the rules of a rigged game to her advantage, and start acting like a fighting underdog who will fight on behalf of Americans who want a higher standard of living for themselves, a higher standard of politics for the nation, and a higher level of economic opportunity and social justice for everyone.

    Like JFK after the Bay of Pigs, the more responsibility she takes now the more she will succeed going forward.

    Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility.

    UPDATE –This is an extremely dangerous time now. Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to:

    "conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process. It is to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders," she said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters. "This is consistent with the work that we did over the summer to engage Congress on the threats that we were seeing."

    Then comes news last night that :

    The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

    Why do you order a review if the CIA has already made a factual determination? In fact, we were told in October that the whole damn intelligence community determined the Russians did it. USA Today reported this in October :

    The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.

    "We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing," Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas .

    Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had "no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else."

    But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies , in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians.

    This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS.

    Barack Obama told CNN' Van Jones the following the other night :

    "The ability of ISIL to not just mass inside of Syria, but then to initiate major land offensives that took Mosul, for example, that was not on my intelligence radar screen," Obama told Zakaria, using the administration's term for the Islamic State terror group.

    Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) :

    In a letter issued the day after a White House surveillance review placed new political pressure on the National Security Agency, the seven members of the House judiciary committee said that James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, ought to face consequences for untruthfully telling the Senate that the NSA was "not wittingly" collecting data on Americans.

    "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath."

    There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts.

    In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him.

    What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama.

    Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Something fishy about President Obama decision to investigate Russian influence of the recent Presidential elections

    Notable quotes:
    "... My perspective from across the ocean has always been that the McCarthy philosophy was the least admirable episode in recent US history. ..."
    "... It's almost as if the West, or at least Western Elite circles who have strived to saturate the airways with Russia-the-bogey-man material since the year dot, can they, on the back of this one-sided propaganda machine, wheel-out blame directed towards Russia for .... well almost anything they desire. ..."
    "... If only Barack Hussain Obama had not taken it upon his self to interfere in our referendum with his clear 'Back of the queue' threat, it may have been possible to not think he is a hypocrite. ..."
    "... I suspect this is one last roll of the dice by the 'democrats' to keep Trump out of office. ..."
    "... Obama is foolishly upping the ante, not on Putin, but on Trump. Trump's instinct will be to put a 10x hurt on Obama for this. Don't punk Trump. ..."
    "... They are desperate to discredit the winner. It is as ineffective as any of his failed policies ..."
    "... In other words, Obama admits he hasn't kept America secure versus 21st-century threats. ..."
    "... Obama has said the intelligence agencies had the proof that Russia interfered with the election. With all their proof why order a review? Can't wait until Obama leaves office. ..."
    "... what, is the USA the new Latin America, and Russia the new CIA ? forever meddling surreptitiously to undermine and overthrow other sovereign nation states democratic processes ? that's just so unfair ..."
    "... It is a funny joke, but on the essence I would advise to read investigative report "The New Red Scare" in Harpers. The evidence of Russian government having anything to do with any hacks is literally non-existing. ..."
    "... The US, heckler of the world for decades, stirring trouble wherever the dart falls, and yet Russian hackers and North Korean hookers are to blame for 99.9% of the worlds problems. Reality is, if the US didn't move past its own borders for 10 years the world would be already a much, much better place. ..."
    "... The Guardian probably shouldn't go along in helping build the new McCarthyist, Cold War narrative, especially when it's just a bunch of US politicians and media figures repeating politically expedient, but factually unsupported claims. The Western media is trying to be Hearst Newspapers in the Spanish-American war. ..."
    "... This is explicitly bad because it allows the suppression of dissent, of creating blacklists, the military industrial complex to further consolidate power, and to blame all sorts of domestic failures on shadowing foreign influence. ..."
    "... But when Judith Miller, the NYT, George Bush and Hillary Clinton used fake news to kill hundreds of thousands, Obama told us to get over it, to "look forward and not backward." ..."
    "... The United States has attempted to push its democratic ideologies on countries all over the world, using means much more direct than hacking. Yet they cannot take a fraction of what they dish out. If Russia is indeed intervening to aid nationalists around the world, then Russia is a friend and should be welcomed with open arms. Trump should do the same, and used the powers of the United States to undermine [neoliberal] leftists around the globe. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | , discussion.theguardian.com
    Mauryan , 9 Dec 2016 18:29
    Interesting - Obama never ordered an independent probe into 9/11 or invasion of Iraq or on the Wall Street Collapse. Somehow Russian hacking seems to be more draconian than all the above.

    And Russians somehow got into the brains of the disgruntled white population, and controlled Trump's brain so that he would be voted to power. Then they still control Trump's brain so much that he is wanting to let NATO countries pay for their security, make Japan, South Korea and everyone else where US maintains its bases to pay for themselves.

    And then suddenly there is a news of a thousand Russian athletes doing well in 2012 London Olympics due to enhanced drugs. Until now, no one knew about this or heard about it.

    It is not that I am supporting Russia all of a sudden. It is just that I am not supporting the attempt to create enemies out of thin air and make them monstrous as needed, while covering even more sinister schemes that need public attention.

    Obama is part of the same system too that runs everything from behind the curtains. He still is a good man. But he has only some much room to function within and survive.

    Karahashianders -> Mauryan , 9 Dec 2016 18:48
    A good man is not capable of bombing 7 countries in 8 years' time. People are too naive to believe that someone could look as nice and sound as nice as Obama and push to advance the agenda of some of the most evil and power-hungry megalomaniacs on the planet.
    Woodenarrow123 , 9 Dec 2016 18:28
    It was Wikileaks that did it.

    I don't know if the Russians provided Wikileaks with the actual emails or not but Wikileaks like so many news organisations before them released info obtained illegally that they thought the public had a right to know.

    Now Assange has effectively been imprisoned in an Embassy in London for around 5 years on bogus charges and his reputation was damaged by the same charges - Obviously Obama does not want to give any credit to Assange and he knows he has played a part in this outrageous persecution.

    This would also a could time to remind fellow commentators here about the Nuland - Pyatt conversation that was recorded by Russia and released. This conversation showed the the involvement of two high ranking US Politicians in the armed coup in Ukraine where an elected albeit corrupt leader was forced to flee the country.

    200gnomes -> Woodenarrow123 , 9 Dec 2016 18:39
    wikileaks did it because the MSM refuses to do it.
    joeblow9999 , 9 Dec 2016 18:28
    NOTHING in the DNC or Hilly campaign emails has been refuted by anyone. The corrupt DNC and Hilly got caught.

    This is literally like a pedophile complaining to the police because someone stole their illegal porn. Absolutely shameful.

    neighbor65003 , 9 Dec 2016 18:23
    US intelligence? is this the same intelligent agency that gave us Iraq WMD report? They have no credibility
    DaveCP , 9 Dec 2016 18:22
    After reading the first two pages of comments here, it is tempting to believe the bear contributes to these forums on quite an organised scale.

    I fail to see what possible fear anyone could have from whatever evidence exists being seen by, at least, those with a vested interest.

    diddoit -> DaveCP , 9 Dec 2016 18:27

    The period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against supposed communists, as well as a campaign spreading fear of their influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents.

    The third Red Scare? *clutches teddy bear*

    Only one slight problem ...there aren't any reds in charge in Russia anymore.

    diddoit -> DaveCP , 9 Dec 2016 18:38
    My point being, there is no great ideological clash anymore. Assange volunteered the fact the email data didn't come from the Russians. And whether Trump is better than Hillary is open to debate.
    DaveCP -> diddoit , 9 Dec 2016 18:42
    My perspective from across the ocean has always been that the McCarthy philosophy was the least admirable episode in recent US history. I doubt many people want to return to that but surely, demonstrable evidence in either direction is the only antidote to accusations and conspiracy theories, and is needed now more than ever in this supposed 'post truth' era. Reply Share
    thinkandleap1234 , 9 Dec 2016 18:22
    I assume that Obama is being told to do this, and probably by the same people who backed the Clinton individual for POTUS. The American people must be exceedingly dumb if they fall for this rubbish.
    jamese07uk , 9 Dec 2016 18:18
    It's almost as if the West, or at least Western Elite circles who have strived to saturate the airways with Russia-the-bogey-man material since the year dot, can they, on the back of this one-sided propaganda machine, wheel-out blame directed towards Russia for .... well almost anything they desire.

    Problem is, are the public still eating out of their hands!?

    Brext and the Trump victory is suggesting - not all of us by a long way.

    Boris66 , 9 Dec 2016 18:15
    If only Barack Hussain Obama had not taken it upon his self to interfere in our referendum with his clear 'Back of the queue' threat, it may have been possible to not think he is a hypocrite.
    john D , 9 Dec 2016 18:14
    I was more worried about Soros and democracy NGOs then i was of russian hackers this election.
    wtfbollos , 9 Dec 2016 18:13
    what a joke, america has been 'interfering' (i.e. bombing and destroying) how many countries since 1945?? incredible hypocrisy and sickening double-standards.
    IronBorn , 9 Dec 2016 18:13
    War propoganda. Will the White Helmets be saving Russian civilians too? I suspect this is one last roll of the dice by the 'democrats' to keep Trump out of office.
    sejong , 9 Dec 2016 18:09
    Obama is foolishly upping the ante, not on Putin, but on Trump. Trump's instinct will be to put a 10x hurt on Obama for this. Don't punk Trump.
    timolin , 9 Dec 2016 18:06
    They are desperate to discredit the winner. It is as ineffective as any of his failed policies. He is completely useless.
    AveAtqueCave , 9 Dec 2016 18:04
    In other words, Obama admits he hasn't kept America secure versus 21st-century threats.
    WoodenNickel , 9 Dec 2016 18:04
    Obama has said the intelligence agencies had the proof that Russia interfered with the election. With all their proof why order a review? Can't wait until Obama leaves office.
    Clotsworth , 9 Dec 2016 17:59
    what, is the USA the new Latin America, and Russia the new CIA ? forever meddling surreptitiously to undermine and overthrow other sovereign nation states democratic processes ? that's just so unfair
    smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 17:57
    Oh dear. Russia causes regime change in America. What a laugh. What goes around comes around.
    Max South -> smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 21:10
    It is a funny joke, but on the essence I would advise to read investigative report "The New Red Scare" in Harpers. The evidence of Russian government having anything to do with any hacks is literally non-existing.
    FMinus , 9 Dec 2016 17:57
    The US, heckler of the world for decades, stirring trouble wherever the dart falls, and yet Russian hackers and North Korean hookers are to blame for 99.9% of the worlds problems. Reality is, if the US didn't move past its own borders for 10 years the world would be already a much, much better place.
    IanB52 , 9 Dec 2016 17:57
    The Guardian probably shouldn't go along in helping build the new McCarthyist, Cold War narrative, especially when it's just a bunch of US politicians and media figures repeating politically expedient, but factually unsupported claims. The Western media is trying to be Hearst Newspapers in the Spanish-American war.

    This is explicitly bad because it allows the suppression of dissent, of creating blacklists, the military industrial complex to further consolidate power, and to blame all sorts of domestic failures on shadowing foreign influence. This is exactly what countries like Iran and North Korea do. Bravo guys, for keep this story going for almost half a year with no substantial proof whatsoever.

    AveAtqueCave , 9 Dec 2016 17:55
    But when Judith Miller, the NYT, George Bush and Hillary Clinton used fake news to kill hundreds of thousands, Obama told us to get over it, to "look forward and not backward." What a waste of 8 years.
    Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 17:54
    Obama's last exercise in futility.
    hadeze242 -> Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 18:04
    he suddenly discovered, 2-3 wks ago, that he was enthusiastic about space technology and exploration. He (that is his ghost writers) published a 1 p. article about his love of space. Fact is, first thing great-mind Obama did 8yrs ago is gut NASA's budget. He never mentioned space once in 8 yrs. Suddenly, he is a fan. Creepy ... how does he deal with his hypocritical self every morning?
    ShoppingKingLouie , , 9 Dec 2016 17:53
    Political theatre. He will be out of office before anyone will even be asked to take office.

    Its hilarious that The Guardian tries to frame US Intelligence as a single cohesive unit. Its a splintered multi-headed hydra that will never act on this. Once again Obama brings righteous powerful leadership to the act of being ineffective.

    Benjohn6379 , 9 Dec 2016 17:51
    "Cold War 2: Tear Down This Firewall"

    Starring:
    Shirtless Putin
    Legacy Obama
    Hillary "I'm Not Trump" Clinton
    Donald "OG Troll" Trump
    Super Elite Genius Ninja Russian Hackers
    The Poor Defenseless Victim DNC
    John "Let's All Just Laugh at The Risotto Recipe and Not Pay Attention to any of my Other Emails" Podesta
    80's synth "rock" and really bright neon clothing

    And featuring: Lou Diamond Phillips as.....Guccifer 2.0

    worryingmother -> Benjohn6379 , 9 Dec 2016 18:14
    Like Rocky Horror, but more psycho. Where has Lou Diamond Phillips been, anyway.
    calderonparalapaz , , 9 Dec 2016 17:45
    News Media Reports of governments hacking foreign govts and private Companies:

    CNN
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/16/technology/nsa-hacking-tools-snowden /

    Bloomberg News
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-23/how-the-u-dot-s-dot-government-hacks-the-world

    Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/powerful-nsa-hacking-tools-have-been-revealed-online/2016/08/16/bce4f974-63c7-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html?utm_term=.2ea1198b2a8b

    The Intercept: The NSA would know about Russian Hacking
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/26/russian-intelligence-hack-dnc-nsa-know-snowden-says /

    UK Gauardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-petrobras

    RT News
    https://www.rt.com/usa/us-hacking-exploits-millions-104 /

    UK Mirror: hacking German Govt
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/angela-merkels-phone-hacked-american-2485433

    Ryan Wei , 9 Dec 2016 17:45
    The United States has attempted to push its democratic ideologies on countries all over the world, using means much more direct than hacking. Yet they cannot take a fraction of what they dish out. If Russia is indeed intervening to aid nationalists around the world, then Russia is a friend and should be welcomed with open arms. Trump should do the same, and used the powers of the United States to undermine [neoliberal] leftists around the globe.
    John malkovich -> CrankyMac , 9 Dec 2016 19:49
    No its by the letter actually. Libya, Yemen backed by US, Pakistan, Tunisia had some financial and military backing. Obama is the drone king. And Ukraine well have you heard of Victoria nuland before? Regime change in Ukraine cost the taxpayer 5 billion dollars

    [Dec 11, 2016] Russia has always been the convenient whipping boy for the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Outrageous how the Russians interfered with the Koch brothers and Soros's electoral process... ..."
    "... No one, not the government agencies, not those ominous private security firms, no one presented even a shred of evidence for any involvement of the Russian government. Not even some lackluster ambiguous data, it was all anecdotal stuff, 'confidence' and fluffy rhetoric. ..."
    "... The McCarthy-esque paranoia spread by the Clinton campaign to deflect from the content of those emails took foothold it seems. ..."
    "... If the evidence were to hand, actually existed, it would have been all over the front pages of the WaPo, NYT and other major news outlets, not just in the US but everywhere else too. Investigating this 'evidence' is, to borrow William Gibson's simile, "Like planning to assassinate a figure out of myth and legend". The usual 'national security considerations' which have been and will continue to be adduced, as reasons for not publishing the evidence is pure triple-distilled BS and pretty much everyone knows that it's BS. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    kropotkinsf , 9 Dec 2016 18:44
    Russia has always been the convenient whipping boy for the United States. We manufactured the cold war because we needed an enemy to prop up our war economy. We built the Soviet Union into this monolithic bogey man, spoiling to crush the west, enemies of "freedom," in order to keep the west scared and pliant and in our pocket. After so-called communism collapsed, we found new enemies in the middle east but they lacked the staying power. So now it's back to Russia. Maybe the Russians did hack into the DNC. If so, they merely exposed the damning material. They didn't write it.
    discreto , 9 Dec 2016 18:44
    Oh boy the knives are out against Russia, first I read about the 2012 Olympics which even if it is true I would hold the British Olympic Committee responsible for the failure to find out about the doping at the time of the Games and not 4 years later. I have just read US, Obama is now pointing the finger at Russia for the outcome of the US Elections oh dear they are really scraping the barrell to look for someone to blame instead of finding out why their own people decided to vote for Trump. This is all typical American hyperbole and nonsense and a concerted effort on America's efforts to orchestrate the next War.
    America is so way behind with any modern services, they apparently do not have their bank cards with pin or contactless as yet.
    DogsLivesMatter -> discreto , 9 Dec 2016 18:49
    Have you seen this documentary?
    https://www.rt.com/shows/documentary/369619-drugs-sport-doping-scandal /
    ShoppingKingLouie -> discreto , 9 Dec 2016 18:50
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia
    Puro , 9 Dec 2016 18:43
    Unlucky failed mainstream media lost all confidence of its readership and are now broke. What will they do next? ask for money saying that they're helping others whilst keeping most of it?
    bishoppeter4 , 9 Dec 2016 18:41
    The Russians are coming -- = The sky is falling -- It's the 1950s again.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:40
    Yet The Guardian spews anti Trump hatred and propaganda everyday to a US audience and no one is investigating the UK for meddling.

    Seems fishy.

    MasonInNY -> ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:46
    Why would the UK wish to meddle in a US election? Or France, Germany, Finland, or Italy? Russia, though... :)
    ShoppingKingLouie -> MasonInNY , 9 Dec 2016 18:48
    Why did the NSA spy on those very same countries?
    Logicon , 9 Dec 2016 18:39
    Outrageous how the Russians interfered with the Koch brothers and Soros's electoral process...
    dongerdo , 9 Dec 2016 18:38
    No one, not the government agencies, not those ominous private security firms, no one presented even a shred of evidence for any involvement of the Russian government. Not even some lackluster ambiguous data, it was all anecdotal stuff, 'confidence' and fluffy rhetoric.

    But if it makes them happy....

    The McCarthy-esque paranoia spread by the Clinton campaign to deflect from the content of those emails took foothold it seems.

    mike muse , 9 Dec 2016 18:36
    If the evidence were to hand, actually existed, it would have been all over the front pages of the WaPo, NYT and other major news outlets, not just in the US but everywhere else too. Investigating this 'evidence' is, to borrow William Gibson's simile, "Like planning to assassinate a figure out of myth and legend". The usual 'national security considerations' which have been and will continue to be adduced, as reasons for not publishing the evidence is pure triple-distilled BS and pretty much everyone knows that it's BS.
    Jim Chaypull -> mike muse , 9 Dec 2016 19:32
    Yeah sure, just like how it was 'all over the front pages' about what really happened on 9/11, who was really involved etc.

    And don't give me any of that conspiracy theory, tin-foil hat bs either...unless you are able to be honest about this conspiracy: 19 or 20 strip-club lovin, don't-need-no-takeoff/landing-lessons jihadists used box-cutters to overpower jet air planes and with the-luck-of-the-century HIT NOT ONE....BUT TWO skyscrapers at the EXACT SPOT where the 47 concrete -steel inner columns were weak enough to cause 'pancaking' of the undamaged 60-90 UNDAMAGED FLOORS. Collapsing (and pulverizing concrete into dust) the building into itself.

    And then weirdly enough a small cabal of PNAC signees who in writing had expressed that pax-americana was going to be 'difficult unless a pearl harbor like event happens' had almost as much Luck-of-the-century as the jihadists when......WA LA....into their lap.....a new pearl harbor.

    suzie009 , 9 Dec 2016 18:36
    Is it possible that if Bernie Sanders had been up against Trump he may have won??

    That's the real question that needs addressing - together with why wasn't he chosen!

    JuliusSqueezer -> suzie009 , 9 Dec 2016 18:41
    He definitely would have won.
    jmac55 , 9 Dec 2016 18:35
    Nonsense!

    Trying to blame one of the most flawed and undemocratic election process's in the Western hemisphere on the Russians is laughable to the point of hysteria.

    The dumb-ed down bigoted electorate is a direct result of decades of a two party political system, backed up by a compliant media, that fosters mindless patriotism and ignorance rather than enlightenment and intelligent discussion on the problems facing the country.

    Never have I seen a better example of your own dog biting you on the arse!

    But Clinton lost the election because the Republicans realised she was certain to be the Democratic Presidential candidate fifteen years ago and they began their smear campaign against her right there and then, and a lot of it stuck.

    When you add to that tens of thousands on the left like me who voted for her...but would not campaign for her because we didn't agree with her disastrous blunder in helping to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya ( a country that is now a feudal backwater) and her stated goals of regime change in Syria and all the while she had a domestic policy was cosying up to the bankers and Wall Street elites, whilst ignoring blue collar Americans without jobs and prospects for their future...the almost inevitable result is Trump as President of the United States.

    'Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!'

    The US will get what it deserves...and it deserves Trump I'm afraid.

    [Dec 11, 2016] That supposed Russian interference

    Notable quotes:
    "... Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars. In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre, mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few. ..."
    "... This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it 1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news ..."
    "... Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political agendas. ..."
    "... What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms. ..."
    "... In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth" is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the Internet age. ..."
    "... The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat ..."
    "... According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons. ..."
    "... Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat. ..."
    "... The CIA whinging about a right wing president being installed by a foreign power might just be the greatest self-awareness fail ever! ..."
    "... LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez! They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria. ..."
    "... The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days. ..."
    "... Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times. ..."
    "... In fact, Trump's coalition looks remarkably similar to the one that Scott Walker put together in 2014. ..."
    "... Obama in Spartanburg, SC in 2007: And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner. ..."
    "... And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    2016 Post Mortem

    Trump Transition

    The Evidence to Prove the Russian Hack emptywheel. The headline is a bit off, since the post's subject is really the evidence required to prove the Russian hack. Some of which does exist. That said, this is an excellent summary of the state of play. I take issue with one point:

    Crowdstrike reported that GRU also hacked the DNC. As it explains, GRU does this by sending someone something that looks like an email password update, but which instead is a fake site designed to get someone to hand over their password. The reason this claim is strong is because people at the DNC say this happened to them.

    First, CrowdStrike is a private security firm, so there's a high likelihood they're talking their book, Beltway IT being what it is. Second, a result (DNC got phished) isn't "strong" proof of a claim (GRU did the phishing). We live in a world where 12-year-olds know how to do email phishing, and a world where professional phishing operations can camouflage themselves as whoever they like. So color me skeptical absent some unpacking on this point. A second post from emptywheel, Unpacking the New CIA Leak: Don't Ignore the Aluminum Tube Footnote , is also well worth a read.

    Chief Bromden December 11, 2016 at 7:51 am

    Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars. In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre, mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few.

    They murder, torture, train hired mercenary proxies (who they are often pretending to oppose), stage coups of democratically elected govt.'s, interfere with elections, topple regimes, install ruthless puppet dictators, and generally enslave other nations to western corporate pirates. They are a rogue band of pirates themselves.

    This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it 1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news

    Conclusion: It isn't the Russians that are interfering with U.S. kangaroo elections, it's the professionals over at the CIA

    Brett December 11, 2016 at 11:29 am

    +1000

    Elizabeth Burton December 11, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm.

    voteforno6 December 11, 2016 at 8:10 am

    Re: That supposed Russian interference

    I've tried to point out on other blogs just how shaky that story in the Washington Post is, and the response I get is something along the lines of, well, other outlets are also reporting it, so it must be true. It does me no good to point out that this is the same tactic used by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. People will believe what they want to believe.

    johnnygl December 11, 2016 at 8:35 am

    It may help to point to the history of CIA influence at WaPoo. Counterpunch had a short piece reminding everyone of Operation Mockingbird (going from memory on that name) where CIA had reporters on staff at the paper directly taking orders and simultaneously on CIA payroll.

    If questioned about CIA's motivation for hating trump, my best guess is that it is because trump is undermining their project to overthrow assad in syria using nusra rebels. And also because trump wants to be nice to russia.

    I think there's some people in the cia that think they played a major role in winning the cold war through their support for mujahadeen rebels in afghanistan. I suspect they think they can beat putin in syria the same way. This is absolutely nutty.

    JohnnyGL December 11, 2016 at 11:51 am

    The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political agendas.

    There's a large number of people that will see through the facade. Right now, Trump supporters are getting a lesson in how much resistance there can be within the establishment. I'm no Trump supporter, but I think seeing what these institutions are capable of is a useful exercise for all involved.

    begob December 11, 2016 at 9:07 am

    There's a running battle at the wikipedia article on Fake News Website, where propornot is now considered debunked.

    Ulysses December 11, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Apologies if this analysis by Robert Parry has already been shared here:

    "What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms.

    In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth" is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the Internet age.

    And then there's the possibility of more direct (and old-fashioned) government enforcement by launching FBI investigations into media outlets that won't toe the official line. (All of these "solutions" have been advocated in recent weeks.)

    On the other hand, if you do toe the official line that comes from Stengel's public diplomacy shop, you stand to get rewarded with government financial support. Stengel disclosed in his interview with Ignatius that his office funds "investigative" journalism projects.

    "How should citizens who want a fact-based world combat this assault on truth?" Ignatius asks, adding: "Stengel has approved State Department programs that teach investigative reporting and empower truth-tellers."

    The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat techniques to preserve truth– may turn ou to be overly pessimistic.

    Ulysses December 11, 2016 at 11:36 am

    Sorry, I forgot the link!

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-orwellian-war-on-skepticism-battling-fake-news/5559949

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 11, 2016 at 11:57 am

    It's like that quote: When the Clinton tide goes out, you discover who's been swimming naked.

    Jim Haygood December 11, 2016 at 9:11 am

    America's military empire is an enormous convection cycle, as money falls in while arms sales and global disorder radiate out.

    Mr Milk Mustache (John Bolton) as assistant Sec State will help perpetuate and accelerate the grand convective cycle.

    John Merryman December 11, 2016 at 9:47 am

    Jim,

    Keep in mind the basis of this capitalist economy is Federal debt. They have to spend it on something. The government doesn't even budget, which is to list priorities and spend according to need/ability. They put together these enormous bills, add enough to get the votes, which don't come cheap and then the prez can only pass or veto.

    If they wanted to actually budget, taking the old line item veto as a template, they could break these bills into all their various items, have each legislator assign a percentage value to each one, put them back together in order of preference and the prez would draw the line. "The buck stops here."

    That would keep powers separate, with congress prioritizing and the prez individually responsible for deficit spending. It would also totally crash our current "Capitalist" system.

    According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons.

    Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat.

    The Trumpening December 11, 2016 at 8:15 am

    The CIA whinging about a right wing president being installed by a foreign power might just be the greatest self-awareness fail ever!

    johnnygl December 11, 2016 at 10:12 am

    LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez! They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria.

    Uahsenaa December 11, 2016 at 10:24 am

    There are so many eye-rolling ironies in all this I think my eyeballs might just pop out of their sockets. And the liberals going out of their way to tout the virtues of the CIA the very same organization that never shied from assassinating or overthrowing a leftwing president/prime minister it galls. The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days.

    NotTimothyGeithner December 11, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times.

    My guess is donors are annoyed after the 2014 debacle and are having a hard time rationalizing a loss to a reality TV show host with a cameo in Home Alone 2.

    allan December 11, 2016 at 8:25 am

    From the Amy Walter post mortem on the race in WI:

    In fact, Trump's coalition looks remarkably similar to the one that Scott Walker put together in 2014.

    It's really a shame that Obama didn't put on those walking shoes lift a finger to help the public service unions fight Walker.

    Uahsenaa December 11, 2016 at 10:27 am

    Obama in Spartanburg, SC in 2007:

    And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.

    And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed.

    Maybe he just couldn't find a pair of comfy shoes

    polecat December 11, 2016 at 11:37 am

    Hol(e)y Shoes .

    they glide on water funky bilge water --

    Tertium Squid December 11, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Here's what the "russki hacks" narrative reminds me of.

    ambrit December 11, 2016 at 9:43 am

    I'd extend that to include the entire DNC "Apologia pro Sancta Hillaria."

    UserFriendly December 11, 2016 at 9:33 am

    That ProPublica piece ( Suspected of Corruption at Home, Powerful Foreigners Find Refuge in the U.S. Pro Publica) is brutal. Not only do we have to be the shittest corrupt country in the world but we have to be a safe haven for ever other corrupt politician in the world as long as they have $$. Can someone just make it all end? Please. There needs to be a maximum wealth where anything you earn past it just gets automatically redistributed to the poor.

    aliteralmind December 11, 2016 at 9:43 am

    Truth in journalism just got a little bit more difficult:

    http://www.johnlaurits.com/2016/12/10/disinformation-bill-propaganda/

    tgs December 11, 2016 at 10:32 am

    Thanks for the link – really important and scary things are going in congress concerning 'fake news' and Russian propaganda and HR 6393 is particularly bad. The EU is also taking steps to counter 'fake news' as well. Obama claimed that some form of curation is required – and it is happening quickly. People are suggesting that propornot has been debunked. That does not matter anymore. The Obama regime and the MSM don't care – that have gotten the message out.

    And the people behind this are really deranged – check out Adam Schiff calling Tucker Carlson a Kremlin stooge for even suggesting that there is no certainty that Russia leaked the emails to Wikileaks.

    After all, the media went all in for Hillary and spent huge amounts of time explaining why Trump is unfit. But they lost.

    And now our efforts on behalf of al Queada are failing in Syria and more hysteria ensues. See for example:

    Allies Warn Trump Against Cooperating With Russia Over Syria .

    Some commentators believe that there is a well-organized large scale effort to normalize the suppression of free speech.

    temporal December 11, 2016 at 11:50 am

    The email saga lost a provable set of sources a long time ago. Before the files were given to Wikileaks it was already too late to determine which people did it. So-called forensic evidence of these computers only tell us that investigators either found evidence of a past compromise or that people want us to believe they did. Since the compromise was determined after the fact, the people with access could have done anything to the computers, including leave a false trail.

    The core problem is that since security for all of these machines, including the DNC's email server and most likely many of those from Team R, was nearly non-existent nearly nothing useful can be determined. The time to learn something about a remote attacker, when it's possible at all, is while the machine is being attacked – assuming it has never been compromised before. If the attacker's machine has also been compromised then you know pretty much nothing unless you can get access to it.

    As far as physical access protection goes. If the machine has been left on and unattended or is not completely encrypted then the only thing that might help is a 24 hour surveillance camera pointed at the machine.

    Forensic evidence in compromised computers is significantly less reliable than DNA and hair samples. It's much too easy for investigators to frame another party by twiddling some bits. Anyone that thinks that even well intentioned physical crime investigators have never gotten convictions with bad or manipulated evidence has been watching and believing way too many crime oriented mysteries. "Blindspot" is not a documentary.

    As for projecting behaviors on a country by calling it a "state action", Russia or otherwise, implying that there is no difference between independent and government sponsored actions, that is just silly.

    [Dec 11, 2016] This hysteria over Russia is getting downright dangerous as it looks like forces which are pushing that story stop at nothing to delegitimize the election results.

    Apt observation from Gareth: "I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election so as to force him into a defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing relations with Russia and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has the guts to make some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even threatened to take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning. "
    Essentially after WaPo scandal it is prudent to view all US MSM as yellow press.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news. ..."
    "... As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print WaPo advertisers. Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they advertise in the Washington Post. ..."
    "... Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist. ..."
    "... The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or we'll delegitimate your election.' ..."
    "... Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus diverting the wrath of the rank and file. ..."
    "... About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the names of those who purveyed WMD stories. ..."
    "... Job #1 always is suppressing the Sanders faction. Not beating Trump or the Republicans. They want control of their little pond. ..."
    "... Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a liar or cheat) Hillary. ..."
    "... All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real issues at hand about our political system, which is a two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments. ..."
    "... If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods of selecting candidates. ..."
    "... Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets. ..."
    "... the idea that Saudi (or other Middle Eastern states) also intervened (with money), is not more credible? ..."
    "... Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians. ..."
    "... So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies know it was the Russians, really? ..."
    "... Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported. ..."
    "... I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted for Christmas. ..."
    "... It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging. ..."
    "... The world is flat . Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing the article because I think it is hilarious. ..."
    "... Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell what they are sitting in.. ..."
    "... Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic. ..."
    "... What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a NeoCon sympathizer is installed. ..."
    "... Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia. All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS. ..."
    "... The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again. ..."
    "... That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything they can to cast the blame elsewhere. ..."
    "... I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future – that means the neocons vs Trump. ..."
    "... "The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude. ..."
    "... The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. ..."
    "... Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with or without the establishment coronation queen. ..."
    "... "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students. ..."
    "... Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim – perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from him. ..."
    "... WaPo seems allied with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon sector which was asserting itself in Syria. ..."
    "... Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things. ..."
    "... Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats, I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand that this was happening. ..."
    "... rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently superior economic governance. [12] ..."
    "... I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However, Trump is a survivable disaster–with Hillary that would have been the end. ..."
    "... If Trump has many Goldman guys, is it a case of 'keeping your enemies close?' ..."
    "... First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula: ..."
    "... Suppress the left ..."
    "... Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election ..."
    "... Use identity politics as a distraction. ..."
    "... There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies. ..."
    "... The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump, at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will happen. ..."
    "... There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed, which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him. He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because he won't even try to do anything for his base. ..."
    "... I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies." We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees. ..."
    "... By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority. ..."
    "... Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power permanently. Why do I think this is not over? ..."
    "... I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling. Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution ..."
    "... At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday the Senate passed the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. ..."
    "... " establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth! ..."
    "... Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS. ..."
    "... This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin these clowns once and for all. ..."
    "... These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip. ..."
    "... Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's Love Child". ..."
    "... Panem et circenses. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Gareth December 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election so as to force him into a defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing relations with Russia and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has the guts to make some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even threatened to take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning.

    voteforno6 December 10, 2016 at 7:21 am

    This hysteria over Russia is getting downright dangerous. The people pushing that story will seemingly stop at nothing to delegitimize the election results.

    Steve C December 10, 2016 at 8:04 am

    The Post's Marc Fisher was on the PBS Newshour last night. He talked about Alex Jones. They probably didn't expect the pushback from Yves, Truthdig, etc. The Establishment often underestimates dissenters.

    Real fake news, like Jones, benefits from the fake news charge. Their readers hate the MSM. I wonder if the same ethic can develop on the left.

    The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news.

    Isolato December 10, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    I heard Stephen Colbert lump Alex Jones together w/Wikileaks as if they were the same "fake news". I have also repeatedly heard Samantha Bee refer to Julian Assange as a rapist. Sigh. Both of those comments are "fake news". The allegations against JA are tissue thin and Wikileaks has NEVER been challenged about the truth of their releases. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Rhondda December 10, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/07/how-the-swedes-set-up-julian-assange/

    It's snarky, but then so is your comment. The 'charges' against Assange have a nasty political stink on them.

    Dave December 10, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    "just as the internet has destroyed their advertising." Shouldn't that be "destroyed their ability to sell advertising?"

    As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print WaPo advertisers. Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they advertise in the Washington Post.

    Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist.

    The Wapo's trying to steal Craigslist business with online job listings. Looks like an opportunity to have some fun for creatives.

    https://jobs.washingtonpost.com/

    different clue December 10, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    Boss WaPo OwnerMan Bezos is very rich. He bought WaPo as a propaganda outlet. He is prepared to lose a lot of money keeping it "open for propaganda." Naming and shaming and boycotting every advertiser WaPo has could certainly embarass WaPo and perhaps diminish its credibility-patina for Bezoganda purposes. It is certainly worth trying.

    The WaPo brand also owns a lot of other moneymaking entities like Kaplan testing and test-prepping I believe. It would be a lot harder to boycott those because millions of people find them to be important. But perhaps a boycott against them until WaPo sells them off to non Bezos ownership would be worth trying.

    Perhaps a savage boycott against Amazon until Bezos fires everyone at WaPo involved in this McCarthy-list and related articles . . . and humiliates them into unhireability anywhere else ever again?

    Brindle December 10, 2016 at 9:16 am

    The Dem Liberals (Joan Walsh etc). on the twitter are going full throttle with this, it's a twofer as Joan is using this to attack Sanders supporters for not being on the front lines of Russia Fear.

    Anarcissie December 10, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or we'll delegitimate your election.' (Apparently TrumpCo has not delivered a convincing submission yet.)

    Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus diverting the wrath of the rank and file. Evidently it's also going to be used against the Sanders faction of the Democrats. About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the names of those who purveyed WMD stories.

    Steve C December 10, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Job #1 always is suppressing the Sanders faction. Not beating Trump or the Republicans. They want control of their little pond.

    cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a liar or cheat) Hillary.

    Perhaps they should consider that it could be worse, a foreign nation could be arming people and encouraging them to topple the government we have like what we're doing in Syria. It isn't like the very sharp divisions elsewhere haven't resulted in civil war.

    Cry Shop December 10, 2016 at 9:37 am

    All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real issues at hand about our political system, which is a two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments.

    If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods of selecting candidates.

    Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Flimsy distractions.

    Coincidentally, all these urgent initiatives will lead to replacing Trump with Hillary as president. "I will tear down the very building just to achieve my Pyrrhic victory."

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL December 10, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    Thank you, sorry Dems, Boris Badunov did not swing the election. If you want *hard* evidence (not fake news) of a foreign government influencing the election you might have a look at the beheading, gay-killing, women-supressing tyrannical monarchy known as The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and ask whether it made sense for them to be the *#1* contributor to your candidate.

    HBE December 10, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians.

    So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies know it was the Russians, really?

    "They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding - which they say was also reached with high confidence - that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee's computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks."

    Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported.

    I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted for Christmas.

    Pavel December 10, 2016 at 11:00 am

    It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging.

    Especially when dealing with a President Trump. He's already made his distaste for the WaPo clear. We are entering a new, crazy, dangerous era of press-presidential relations. All the more reason for the newspapers to behave responsibly - is that too much to ask?

    integer December 10, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    The world is flat . Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing the article because I think it is hilarious.

    integer December 10, 2016 at 8:38 pm

    Also, Bradford deLong should be included with Krugman and Friedman, though the length and width of deLong's connections don't seem to have the same acceleration, energy, or viscosity, as the other two. There are also olfactory and temporal differences.

    integer December 11, 2016 at 1:32 am

    Come to think of it, I also don't think Krugman Turdman or Friedman Flathead would have to grovel to Neera "I'm a loyal soldier" Tanden and John "Done, so think about something else" Podesta to get a family member a "meritocratic" job.

    YassirYouBetcha December 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Multiple languages use the Cyrillic alphabet, including Bulgarian and, notably, Ukrainian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_script

    local to oakland December 10, 2016 at 11:52 am

    See also this. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/chuck-schumer-russia-senate-election-inquiry-232464

    TK421 December 10, 2016 at 11:57 am

    If Russia is so dangerous, then anyone who mishandles classified information (say, by storing it on a personal server) should be prosecuted, shouldn't they?

    Aumua December 10, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell what they are sitting in.. I also wonder just where the line is between those who actually buy into this hysteria, and those who simply feel justified in using whatever means they can to discredit Trump and overturn the election. I think there's a lot of overlap and grey area there in many people's minds.

    Anonymous December 10, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic.

    What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a NeoCon sympathizer is installed.

    Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia. All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS.

    Plenue December 10, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again. Apparently she's in opposition to much of her party leadership on this, so if they ditch her in the future and get someone better I may consider voting for them again. The reality of Trump as president is going to be bad enough, attempting to sabotage the transition isn't doing anyone any favors. I don't like Obama at all, but he wants a clean, peaceful transfer of power, and on that issue at least he's correct.

    R McCoy December 10, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything they can to cast the blame elsewhere.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future – that means the neocons vs Trump.

    Hillary vs Trump, invoking Russia now, is about fighting the last war. That one was over more than a month ago. It's more convoluted to say one team still desires to continue the fight.

    Chief Bromden December 10, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    You may be on to something http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/russian-interference-could-give-courts-legal-authority_us_584be136e4b0151082221b9c

    "The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude.

    Jagger December 10, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude.

    I just read the NYT article covering the same topic, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0 ,

    The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. But that is just me. From reading the NYT comments on the OBama Russia election hack article, the NYT commenters have en mass swallowed the story hook, line and sinker. They apparently don't need evidence and have completely loss any sort of functioning long term memory.

    Benedict@Large December 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    And it's pretty clear that Clinton is right in with it. The woman has literally lost her marbles

    cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    Based on the fact that she was hidden more than actually performing on the campaign trail, that is a possibility. She may have very well been our own puppet government member that some were ready to install here just like we tend to do over in other nations. No real marbles needed since she wouldn't actually be running things. It's come to my attention that we seem to be inching closer and closer to third world here and those places rarely have vibrant democracies.

    Chief Bromden December 10, 2016 at 8:04 am

    Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with or without the establishment coronation queen.

    "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students.

    Eustache de Saint Pierre December 10, 2016 at 8:49 am

    Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim – perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from him.

    Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Sifting the election through a Peter Turchin filter, Sanders' run was a response to 'popular immiseration' while the choice-of-billionaires was 'intra-elite competition'. WaPo seems allied with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon sector which was asserting itself in Syria.

    I needed Jalen & Jacoby to sooth me to sleep last night, after seeing the last chart (Fig. 14.4) from Turchin's latest book. You can see it by hitting Ctrl-End from this pdf . If he's correct, this election was just the warm-up for 2020. Crikey.

    subgenius December 10, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

    witters December 10, 2016 at 11:08 pm

    The link to CM – and further disgracefulness from the now worthless Guardian: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

    Vatch December 10, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats, I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand that this was happening.

    I hope people will vigorously lobby their Representatives and Senators, and pay attention to who the genuine progressives are in the 2018 primaries.

    Invy December 10, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    Like ordinary citizens, although for the opposite reasons, elites are losing faith in democratic government and its suitability for reshaping societies in line with market imperatives. Public Choice's disparaging view of democratic politics as a corruption of market justice, in the service of opportunistic politicians and their clientele, has become common sense among elite publics-as has the belief that market capitalism cleansed of democratic politics will not only be more efficient but also virtuous and responsible. [11]

    Countries like China are complimented for their authoritarian political systems being so much better equipped than majoritarian democracy, with its egalitarian bent, to deal with what are claimed to be the challenges of 'globalization' -- a rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently superior economic governance. [12]

    How will capitalism end – New Left Review

    jgordon December 10, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Right, the euphemisms have been done away with. I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However, Trump is a survivable disaster–with Hillary that would have been the end.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    If Trump has many Goldman guys, is it a case of 'keeping your enemies close?'

    Altandmain December 10, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    In the long run, a Clinton presidency would be far more damaging.

    First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula:

    1. Suppress the left
    2. Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election
    3. Use identity politics as a distraction.

    A Trump victory forces questions on the conventional wisdom (not really wisdom), and forces changes. At best, they can hope to shove another Obama that is attractive on the outside, but will betray people, but even that will be harder because people now are more watchful. Not to mention, the mainstream media has lost its power.

    There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies.

    The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump, at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will happen.

    There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed, which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him. He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because he won't even try to do anything for his base.

    relstprof, December 10, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies." We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees.

    The left must be vigilant and smart. There is opportunity here, but sidetracking on fake news, pop vote, etc. doesn't gain much in terms of opposition.

    Michael, December 10, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    I think you're possibly right, and I just couldn't pull the lever to vote for Trump. Sometimes we just have to be true to ourselves and hope it works out.

    RenoDino December 10, 2016 at 8:26 am

    By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority.

    All the intelligent agencies are now in lock step over Russian intervention. How do they let this result stand? Trump obviously realizes his win is now in play and has gone after those same agencies pointing out their gross incompetence.

    Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power permanently. Why do I think this is not over?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Michael Moore agrees with you – something is, or might be (more accurate description of what he is said to have said, I think), brewing, according to him, or rather, his intuition .

    John Parks December 10, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling. Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution What the State Department and MSM have pleasantly referred to in the past as a bloodless coup. See Ukraine, Brazil, Argentina et al

    Sammy Maudlin December 10, 2016 at 8:26 am

    At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday the Senate passed the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

    According to Senator Portman's press release, the Bill "will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." The bill also creates a "grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work."

    While the passage of this bill seems very coincidentally timed given recent events, it was actually introduced in March. Not sure whether it simply followed a normal legislative track, or was brought back from the dead recently, etc.

    Of note is the fact that, according to Steve Sestanovich, a Senior Counsel at the Council on Foreign Relations , "a lot of what the bill wants done is actually being done," noting that a range of agencies are already focused on the disinformation problem, and that traditional foreign policy tools still have a major role to play.

    Eclair December 10, 2016 at 10:46 am

    " establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth!

    grizziz December 10, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    It is important to find work for our newly minted graduates of marketing, psychology and sociology as well as those graduates of the communication school and the arts. The need of our post-industrial information age is to make things up as opposed to just making things. Our liberal nation has promised our children that after they have enslaved themselves through student debt they will find work. The work they find is likely to be meaningful only to the creditors who wish to be repaid.

    The graduates will find idealistic rationales like patriotism or making "'Merica Grate Again" to soothe their corrupted souls while keeping the fake news as fresh as a steamy load.

    integer December 10, 2016 at 11:04 am

    US Psychological Warfare in Ukraine: Targeting Online Independent Media Coverage

    Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS.

    From yesterday's links but seems appropriate. This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin these clowns once and for all.

    local to oakland December 10, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    But these memes are now in play differently by Trump appointees. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/betsy-devos-claim-media-fake-news-232459

    Government messing with the First Amendment is dangerous. I feel like an electrician watching someone reach for the wrong wire.

    integer December 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    That may be but what we are seeing now is just an echo of the Clinton/Soros plan, and not even close to the disaster that would result from having Soros et al at the helm. My guess is that the CIA are now simply using gullible Republicans (yes, there is certainly some redundancy there) as useful idiots, but this dynamic significantly weakens the original plan.

    shinola December 10, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    "I feel like an electrician watching someone reach for the wrong wire." I'm definitely stealing that one – thanks!

    cnchal December 10, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Trump, the Man in the Crowd

    Amy Davidson ends her article with this paragraph.

    And that is why the rallies are likely to endure: to serve as calibrators of or infomercials for what Trump believes that "the public" wants. One can waste a lot of time delving into the question of Trump's psychological need for affirmation . What is politically more important is how he might use the set piece of a cheering crowd to brush aside other considerations, particularly those involving the checks on the Presidency, and the willingness of those in other areas of the government, or in the White House itself, to exercise them. Should courts worry about "a lot of angry people"? One important point not to let go of is that a crowd that the President assembles and the broader public are two very different things, no matter how big the arena, or how filled it is with love . A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the midterm elections. Maybe those will surprise Trump.

    News flash for Amy. When a narcissist uses the word "love" it doesn't mean what you think it does. Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling to Donald. Nothing more, nothing less.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:55 am

    A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the midterm elections. Maybe those will surprise Trump.

    We remind ourselves that no one can help us but us. We empower ourselves.

    So, it goes for today, as it did in 2008. Such moderation!!! A better opportunity will come in two years!!!! I said that to myself 8 years ago, but I didn't hear much of it from the media then. And we (not just I) say that now.

    As for crowds reacting and it being fulfilling for the one being looked up on – again, it's the same human psychology, whether the guy on stage is a rock star, Lenin, Roosevelt, Pol Pot, the next savior or Idi Amin. How much love is there for anyone in any long term relationship, except to affirm and be affirmed by 'love' everyday, in small acts or otherwise, much less some politicians you interact through abstractions, like, through the media or stories told to us.

    kareninca December 10, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    "Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling to Donald. Nothing more, nothing less."

    These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip.

    Jhallc December 10, 2016 at 8:51 am

    Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's Love Child".

    Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 9:15 am

    : The right has its own version of political correctness. It's just as stifling.

    It looks like this perspective is snapping into place. From a letter in our (paywalled) local paper, from Dec. 3:

    telling everyone else not to be so sensitive or PC (ditto; theirs is a "conservative" PC). [Kenneth D. Pimple]

    Steeeve December 10, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    Patriotic Correctness is a useful term and concept. Otherwise, the article was extremely long-winded and boring. Editor to writer: "I need you to fill 3,000 words worth of space with this 50-word idea "

    Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 10:59 am

    Panem et circenses.

    But then I think of the old Chicago prayer:

    Where's my bread, Daley?

    fosforos December 10, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    Long, long ago I learned that the only really trustworthy stories in the "Press" were on the sports pages. Now I'm scarcely sure of even that

    cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 10:38 pm

    I don't consider Trump a compromise candidate and that's largely because I don't see him actually moving the country forward in the right direction. Sanders, for me, would have been a compromise from the point of view of he probably wouldn't have moved us far enough fast enough for me but he would have set us leftward instead of ever rightward and that IS an improvement.

    The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 10:06 am

    The mainstream media is doubling down on imagined pro-Russian heresies in a fashion not seen since the Reformation. Back then the Catholic Church held a monopoly on ideology. They lost it to an unruly bunch of rebellious Protestants who were assisted by the new technology of the printing press.

    Nowadays various non-conformist internet sites, with the help of the new technology of the internet, are challenging the MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion. To show how much things have changed, back in the 60's, dissidents such as the John Birch Society were limited to issuing pamphlets to expound on their theories of Russians taking over America. In a very ironic role-reversal, today it is the increasingly desperate Washington Post that more closely matches the paranoia of the John Birch Society as it accuses non-conformist media heretics – who are threatening the MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion - of allowing Russians to take over America.

    But let's spare a thought for poor Jeff Bezos. He basically thought he was purchasing the medieval equivalent of a Bishopry when he bought the WaPo. But now after running six anti-Trump editorials each and every day for the past 18 months, in which his establishment clergy engaged in an ever increasing hysteria-spiral trying to outdo each other in turning Trump into Hitler, it ends up Bezos' side lost the election anyway. It's like he bought a Blockbuster store in 2008 and never even thought about Netflix!

    And so now the MSM is literally launching an Establishment Inquisition by issuing "indexes" of prohibited heretical websites.

    Where will this lead? The grossly paranoiac reading is the Establishment's Counter Reformation is laying the ideological groundwork for a sort of coup d'etat to be followed by the rule of a goodthink junta. In this case we have to start calculating how many divisions are loyal to Trump's gang of generals versus how many are loyal to Obama's generals. A more moderate reading is that with these anti-Russian headlines, the Establishment is attempting to pressure Trump to stay the Establishment course on foreign policy and to appoint a SecState who is hostile to Russia. And in the best case these crazy MSM ramblings are just the last gasps of soon to be extinct media mammoths.

    fosforos December 10, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    Or is it CIA preparation for an Electoral College coup and an H of Reps "election" of–Lindsy Graham?

    The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    One thing you can say about Trump is that he is most certainly not a wuss. In the face of this firestorm about Russian influence sources say Trump is going to nominate Rex Tillerson, who is very pro-Putin, as Secretary of State!

    Lindsie Graham is going to be apoplectic!

    tgs December 10, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Do you think Tillerson will be confirmed?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    I wonder what happens when they don't confirm any of his nominees? Is this a case of 'I will nominee so many you don't like, you will be forced to confirm at least a few?'

    The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Yes I do because Trump is reportedly naming NeoCon John Bolton as undersecretary. That's going to be a package deal; if they reject Tillerson then Bolton is gone as well. The NeoCons are desperate to get Bolton into the Administration.

    Bolton's job will be to go on talk shows and defend Trump's policies. If he doesn't do it then he gets fired.

    And so from the rest of the world's point of view, Tillerson is the carrot but Bolton remains in the background as the stick in case anyone starts thinking Trump is too soft and decides to test him.

    Baby Gerald December 10, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Glenn Greenwald dissects the fake news spewing about Russian involvement with aplomb:

    Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this. ..."
    "... In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in. ..."
    "... Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran. ..."
    "... Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts ..."
    "... Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege ..."
    "... I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves ..."
    "... "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. ..."
    "... New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail. ..."
    "... No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken. ..."
    "... The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda. ..."
    "... So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical! ..."
    "... Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote. ..."
    "... So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me. ..."
    "... "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul ..."
    "... At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg ..."
    "... President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ..."
    "... The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power. The fight goes on. ..."
    "... Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis. ..."
    "... Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it! ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    From: Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election Spncer Ackerman in New York and David Smith in Washington

    Geoff Smythe , 24m ago

    Well, if Rupert Mudroach, an American citizen, can influence the Australian elections, who gives a stuff about anyone else's involvement in US politics?

    The US loves demonising Russia, even supporting ISIS to fight against them.

    The United States of Amnesia just can't understand that they are run by the military machine.

    As Frank Zappa once correctly stated: The US government is just the entertainment unit of the Military.

    Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016

    Altogether the only thing people are accusing the Russians of is the WikiLeaks scandal. And in hindsight of the enormous media bias toward Trump it really comes of as little more than leveling the playing field. Hardly the sort of democratic subversion that is being suggested.

    And of course there is another problem and that is in principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The US even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    HollyOldDog -> Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016 01:4
    Don't know about Russians, but in the early 2000's the Ukrainian hackers had some nasty viruses embedded in email attachments that could fuckup ARM based computers.
    smellycat -> waltercarl67, 11 Dec 2016 00:0
    Time to stop attempting regime change in other countries then, if you condemn it in your own. What goes around comes around.
    caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    European governments tried to elect Hillary Clinton. Latin American and Asian allies of the US tried to elect Clinton.

    Top leaders of France, the UK, Germany, all leaked to US newspapers, with dire warnings of how Trump's election would lead to bad outcomes.

    Many countries made as clear as possible, without coming out officially for a candidate, that they were for the election of Clinton.

    Mexico tried to get Clinton elected. Believe me, they did. Not officially, of course, but almost.

    But all we hear about is Russia.

    Wonder why???

    uyCybershy -> caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran.
    imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:0
    Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts, as the last battle in their support to jidaists fighting the Syrian Army. This is the dark pit where our so called free press has fallen into.
    Flugler -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Yep had a chat with an army mate yesterday asked him what the fcuk the supposed head of MI6 was on about regarding Russian support for Syrian govt suggesting Russian actions made terrorism more likely here in UK. He shrugged his shoulders and said he hoped Putin wiped the terrorists out...
    smellycat -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:4
    Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege

    Of course no news on the danger to the civilians of W,Aleppo, who have been bombarded indiscriminately for months by the 'moderates' in the east of the city or the danger to the civilians of Palmyra, Mosul or al Bab.

    Geoff Smythe -> smellycat , 11 Dec 2016 01:3
    Or the 50,000 that have been evacuated out of Aleppo by the Russian military. https://www.rt.com/news/369869-syria-evacuation-civilians-aleppo /
    Merseysidefella , 10 Dec 2016 21:5
    I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves. I´ll still look for the Guardian articles on football which are excellent.
    Cheers!
    GuyCybershy -> confettifoot , 10 Dec 2016 21:0
    The Sanders movement inside the Democratic party did offer some hope but this was snuffed out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign in collusion with the media. This is what likely caused her defeat in November and not some Kremlin intrigue.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality," Karl Rove.
    caveOfShadows -> dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Don't use quotes when you are doing a fake attribution.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail.
    joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    Fake news....No news.....None sense news?

    Uncle Sam has been doing it for years and the degree of incestuousness between MSM and the "Agencies" is all right here (just one example)

    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmeyerM.htm

    smellycat -> joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    That's some serious shit
    '"The same sons of bitches," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."
    stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:2
    No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken.

    Hmmm....

    Flugler -> stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:3
    Distract the masses with bullsh*t , nothing new... Trump needs to double up on his personal security, he has doubled down on the CIA tonight bringing upmtheir bullsh*t on WMD. Thing are getting interesting...
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 19:2
    Meanwhile the good guys with their Smart bombs indulge in a spot of collateral damage. (Or war crimes as it's described when Russians do it).

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-90-iraqi-soldiers-killed-in-mosul-from-us-airstrikes/

    This article is jiberish, as are the ones trying to say that the Russians caused Brexit.

    GuyCybershy -> sunflowerxyz , 10 Dec 2016 19:3
    The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda.
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 19:1
    Spreading lies about the very real Podesta emails and their importance seems to be a fake news stock in trade. Since Hillary was responsible I'm not sure where Putin comes into the picture.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs /
    GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 19:0
    So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical!
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 18:3
    "If we can revert to the truth, then a great deal of one's suffering can be erased, because a great deal of one's suffering is based on sheer lies. "
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    US politicians and the MSM depend on sheer lies.....
    Powerspike -> KassandraTroy , 10 Dec 2016 18:5
    They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I'm sick of jumping through their hoops - how about you?
    James7 , 10 Dec 2016 17:2
    "Tin Foil Hat" Hillary--
    "This is not about politics or partisanship," she went on. "Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."

    We fail to see how Russian propaganda has put people's lives directly at risk. Unless, of course, Hillary is suggesting that the increasingly-bizarre #Pizzagate swarm journalism campaign (which apparently caused a man to shoot up a floor tile in a D.C. pizza shop) was conjured up by a bunch of Russian trolls.

    And this is about as absurd as saying Russian trolls were why Trump got elected.

    "It needs to be said," former counterintelligence agent John R. Schindler (who, by the way, believes Assange and Snowden are both Russian plants), writes in the Observer, "that nearly all of the liberals eagerly pontificating about how Putin put Trump in office know nothing about 21st century espionage, much less Russia's unique spy model and how it works. Indeed, some of the most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks -- right until clandestine Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they're panicking."

    (Nonetheless, #Pizzagate and Trump, IMHO, are manifestations of a population which deeply deeply distrusts the handlers and gatekeepers of the status quo. Justified or not. And with or without Putin's shadowy fingers strumming its magic hypno-harp across the Land of the Free. This runs deeper than just Putin.)

    Fake news has always been around, from the fake news which led Americans to believe the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise and completely unprovoked .

    To the fake news campaigns put out by Edward Bernays tricking women into believing cigarettes were empowering little phallics of feminism. (AKA "Torches of Freedom.")

    This War on Fake News has more to do with the elites finally realizing how little control they have over the minds of the unwashed masses. Rather, this is a war on the freaks, geeks and weirdos who've formed a decentralized and massively-influential media right under their noses.

    Laissez Faire Today

    James7 -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 17:3
    and there may be some truth to that. An article says has delved into financial matters in Russia.

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.

    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me.

    So let me be the first to thank Russia for providing us with their research.

    Instead of assassination, coup or invasion, they simply showed us our leaders' own words when written behind the public's backs.

    I'm no fan of Putin, but this was a useful bit of intelligence you've shared with us.
    Happy Christmas, Vlad.

    Next time why not provide us with the email of all our banks and fossil fuel companies; you can help us clean up both political parties with one fell swoop that way.

    GuyCybershy -> BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul
    greyford14 -> GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Be careful there, Ron Paul is an FSB agent of Putin, according to the Washington Post.
    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg
    GuyCybershy -> elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Dems are so out to lunch that they make FOX pundits seem sane. I would say the Democratic party is beyond hope of saving.
    sblejo , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    The U.S. is getting what it deserves, IF Russia was even dumb enough to meddle. The government in this country has been meddling in other countries' affairs sixty years, in the Middle East, in South America and other places we don't even know about. The result is mayhem, all in the 'interests' of the U.S., as it is described.
    Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    Note that most supporters of the Russian hacks never (and cannot) present rational arguments, just dubious talking points--AKA Fake News.

    But it is fun to spot the gaps in their logic, and the holes in their stories.

    Great sport--rather like hunting hares.

    GuyCybershy -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    We need to trust the CIA, they'd never fix evidence to manipulate the American public.
    BaronVonAmericano -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    Where's the gap in this logic:
    A) The American public has been offered ZERO proof of hacking by the Russian government to alter our election.
    B) Even if true, no one has disputed the authenticity of the emails hacked.
    C) Therefore, the WORST Russia could have done is show us who are own leader are when they don't think we're listening.
    D) Taken together, this article is pretty close to fake news, and gives us nothing that should outrage us much at this time -- unless we are trying to foment war with Russia or call for a military coup against the baboon about to take the oath of office.
    foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    Hacking by unnamed individuals. No direct involvement of the Russian government, only implied, alleged, etc. Seems to me that if Hillary had obeyed the law and not schemed behind the scenes to sabotage Bernie S. there would have been nothing to leak! Really this is all about being caught with fer fingers in the cookie jar. Does it matter who leaked it? Did the US public not have a right to know what the people they were voting for had been up to? It's a bit like the governor of a province being filmed burgling someone's house and then complaining that someone had leaked the film to the media, just when he was trying to get re-elected!
    GuyCybershy -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    The US public has a right to know what CNN, New York Times and the Washington Post want them to know.
    sblejo -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    It is called passing the buck, and because of the underhanded undermining of Bernie Sanders, who was winning, we have Trump. Thank you Democratic party.
    aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    I am disappointed that the Guardian gives so much prominence to such speculation which is almost totally irrelevant. Why would we necessarily (a) believe what the superspies tell us and (b) even if it is true why should we care?

    I am also very disappointed at the Guardians attitude to Putin, the elected leader of Russia, who was so badly treated by the US from the moment he took over from Yeltsin. I was in Russia as a visitor around that time and it was obvious that Putin restored some dignity to the Russian people after the disastrous Yeltsin term of office. If the US had been willing to deal with him with respect the world could be a much better place today. Instead the US insisted in trying to subvert his rule with the support of its supine NATO allies in order to satisfy its corporate rulers.

    GuyCybershy -> aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    They expected Russia to fall apart like the USSR and then they could march in and pick up the pieces. Putin prevented this and this why they hate him.
    NickinHalifaxNS , 10 Dec 2016 16:2
    If this is true, the US can hardly complain. After all, the US has a long record of interfering in other countries' elections--including CIA overthrow of elected governments and their replacement with murderous, oppressive, right-wing dictatorships.

    If the worst that Russia did was reveal the truth about what Democratic Party figures were saying behind closed doors, I'd say it helped correct the unbalanced media focus on preventing Trump from becoming President. Call it the globalization of elections.

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 15:5
    First, the government has yet to present any persuasive evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or anyone else. All we have is that there is Russian code (meaningless according to cyber-security experts) and seemingly baseless "conclusions" by "intelligence" officials. In other words, fake news at this point.

    Second, even if true, the allegation amounts to an argument that Russia presented us with facts that we shouldn't have seen. Think about that for a while. We are seeing demands that we self-censor ourselves from facts that seem unfair. What utter idiocy.

    This is particularly outrageous given that the U.S. directly intervenes in the governance of any number of nations all the time. We can support coups, arm insurgencies, or directly invade, but god forbid that someone present us with unsettling facts about our ruling class.

    This nation has jumped the shark. The fact that Trump is our president is merely confirmation of this long evident fact. That fighting REAL NEWS of emails whose content has not been disputed is part of our war on "fake news," and the top priority for some so-called liberals, promises only worse to come.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:5
    >> Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Russia had "succeeded" in "sow[ing] discord" in the election, and urged as much public disclosure as is possible.

    What utter bullshit. The DNC's own dirty tricks did that. Donna Brasille stealing debate questions and handing them to Hillary so that she could cheat did that. The FBIs investigation into Hillary did that. Podesta's emails did that. The totally one-sided press coverage (apart from Fox) of the election did that. But it seems the american people were smart enough to see through the BS and voted for trump. Good for them.

    And we're gonna need a lot more than the word of a few politicised so-called intelligence agencies to believe this russo-hacking story. These are the same people who lied about Iraqi WMDs so they are proven fakers/liars. These are also the same people who hack EVERYONE else so I, quite frankly, have no sympathy even of the story turns out to be true.

    MrIncredlous , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Obama is a disgrace to his office.

    Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
    Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
    Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
    Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
    Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
    Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    When the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security release a joint statement it is not without very careful consideration to the wording.
    Therefore, to understand what is known by the US intelligence services one must analyse the language used.

    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

    This is very telling:
    "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."

    Alleged:
    adjective [attributive]
    said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality

    Consistent:
    adjective
    acting or done in the same way over time

    Method:
    noun
    a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something

    Motivation:
    noun
    a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way

    So, what exactly is known by the US intelligence services?

    Well what we can tell is:
    the alleged (without proof) hacks were consistent (done in the same way) with the methods (using a particular procedure) and motivations (and having reason for doing so) with Russian State actions.

    There is absolutely no certainty about this whatsoever.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Thank God Obama will be out of office soon. He is the biggest disappointment ever. He has ordered the death of THOUSANDS via drone strikes in other people's countries and most of the deaths were innocent bystanders. If President Xi of China or Putin were to do that we would all be calling them tyrannical dictators and accusing them of a back door invasions. But somehow people are brainwashed into thinking its ok of the US president to do such things. Truly sickening.
    Flugler , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Says the CIA the organisation set up to destabilise governments all over the world. Lol.....
    Congratulations for keeping a straight face I hope Trump makes urgently needed personnel changes in the alphabet soup agencies working against humanity for very many years.
    Susanna246 , 10 Dec 2016 13:1
    Beware --

    This is an extremely dangerous game that Obama and the political elites are playing.

    The American political elites - including senetors, bankers, investors, multinationals et al, can feel power and control slipping away from them.

    This makes them very dangerous people indeed - as self-preservation and holding onto power is their number one priority.

    What they're aiming to do ( a child can see what's coming ), is to call into question the validity of Trump's victory and blame the Russians for it.

    The elites are looking to create chaos and insurrection, to have the result nullified and to vilify Putin and Russia.

    American and Russian troops are already lined up and facing each other along the Eastern European borders and all it takes is one small incident from either side.

    And all because those that have ruled the roost for so many decades ( in the White house, the 2 houses of Congress and Wall St ), simply cannot face losing their positions of power, wealth and political influence.

    They're out to get Trump, the populists and President Putin.

    God help us all.

    MacTavi5h , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    This is starting to feel like an attempt to make the Trump presidency appear illegitimate. The problem is that it could actually make the democrats look like sore losers instead. We've had the recount, now it's foreign interference. This might harm them in 2020.

    I don't like that Trump won, but he did. The electoral college system is clearly in the constitution and all sides understood and agreed to it at the campaign commencement. Also some, by no means all, of commenters saying that the popular vote should win have also been on referendum BTL saying the result isn't a legitimate leave vote, make your minds up!

    I don't want Trump and I wanted to remain but, by the rules, my sides lost.

    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    Yet in August, Snowden warned that the recent hack of NSA tied cyber spies was not designed to expose Hillary Clinton, but rather a display of strength by the hackers, showing they could eventually unmask the NSA's own international cyber espionage and prove the U.S. meddles in elections around the world.

    http://yournewswire.com/snowden-claims-russia-can-expose-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections /

    nishville , 10 Dec 2016 12:3
    A reader's comment from the Independent:

    Will the CIA be providing evidence to support these allegations or is it a case of "just trust us guys"? In any event, hypocrisy is a national sport for the Yanks. According to a Reuters article 9 August 2016 "NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peña Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peña won that election and is now Mexico's president.

    The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.

    The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.

    Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."

    At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America."

    zulugroove -> nishville , 10 Dec 2016 13:4
    Fake news!! ...That would be a Clinton / Obama , reply!!
    CTG2016 , 10 Dec 2016 12:0
    Breaking news! CIA admits people in USA aren't smart enough to vote for the person right person. Why blame Russians now?
    Come on. Let's move on and enjoy the mess Trump will start. This is going to be worse than GWB.
    We should all just enjoy the political comedy programs.
    Gallicdweller , 10 Dec 2016 11:1
    The CIA accusing a foreign power of interfering in the election of a showman for president - it would take me all day top cite the times that this evil criminal organisation has interfered in the affairs of other countries, ordered assassinations, coups etc. etc. etc
    Dave Harries , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Yes like the "help" the CIA gave to the Taliban, Bin Laden and Co. when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
    Then these dimwits from the CIA who taught Bin Laden and Co guerrilla warfare totally "missed" 9/11 and Twin Towers with all their billions of funding.
    So basically this is a total load of crap and if you think we are going to believe any reports vs. Russia these fools at the CIA are going to publish then think again.
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    During the election our media was exposed as in essence a propaganda tool for the Democrat campaign and they continue the unholy alliance after the election
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Instead of trying to blame the Russians how about reflecting on why the Democrats picked such a dreadful candidate.
    ana ruiz , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    Pathetic move from an organisation that created ISIS and is single handling every single conflict in the world. Here we have a muppet president that for once wants to look after USA affairs internally and here we have a so alleged independent organisation that wants to keep bombing and destabilising the world. Didn't Trump said he wanted to shake the FBI and CIA ? Who is going to stop this machine of treachery ? : south America, middle east ...Asia ... they put their fingers on to create a problem- solution caveat wereas is to create weapons contracts /farma or construction and sovereign debt . But it never tricles down to the layperson ..
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    "We are Not calling into question the election results"
    next White House sentence - "Just the integrity.. " WTF

    What more do you need to know - Bullshit Fake News.. propaganda, spoken by the youngest possible puppet boy White House Rep. who almost managed to have his tie done up..

    I am bookmarking this guy, for a laugh! White House Fake Newscaster ..:)

    Worth watching the sides of his mouth onto his attempt to engage you with the eyes, but blinking way too much before, during and after the word "Integrity".. FAKE!

    His hand signals.. lmfao, so measured, how sweet.. now sack the sycophants --

    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    People should know that these Breaking News stories we see in Western media on BBC, Guardian etc, about Russian interference are in fact from Wash Post and NY Times quoting mysterious sources within the CIA
    Of course we know that Wash Post and NY Times were completely objective during the election and didn't favor any party
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:0
    Russia made Hillary run the most expensive campaign ever, spending 1.2 billion dollars.
    Russia stole Hillary's message to the working people and gave her lousy slogans
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    My real comment is below, but work with me, for a moment.
    So, since 2008, eh? Barack has thought carefully, with a legal mind.

    Can't we somehow blame the Russians for the whole Economic collapse.. coming soon, Wall Street Cyber Crash, screwed up sKewed up systems of Ponzi virus spiraling out of control..

    blame the Russians , logic, the KGB held the FED at gunpoint and said "create $16.2 Trillion in 5 working days"
    jeez, blame anything and anybody except peace prize guy Obama, the Pope, Bankers & Israel..

    Now can we discuss the Security of the Pound against Cyber Attack.. what was it 6% in 2 minutes, early on Sunday morning, just over month ago.. whoosh!

    It seems more important than discussing an election where the result was always OBVIOUS!

    And we called it, just like Kellyanne Conway..

    Who is Huma Abedin? I wish to know and hear her talking to Kellyanne Conway, graciously in defeat.. is that so unreasonable?
    ********
    Obama wishes to distract from exceedingly poor judgement, at the very minimum....
    after his Greek Affair with Goldman Sachs.. surely.

    As for his other Foreign Policy: Eternal Shame, founded on Fake News!
    Obama the Fake News Founder to flounder over the Russians, who can prove that he, Obama supports & supported Terrorism!

    Thus this article exists, to create doubt over the veracity of evidence to be presented over NATO's involvement in SYRIA! Obama continues to resist, or loose face completely..

    Just ask Can Dundar.... what he knows now and ask Obama to secure the release of Can Dundar's wife's passport, held for no legitimate reason in Turkey! This outrageous stand off, from Erdogan & Obama to address their failures and arrogant disrespect of Woman and her Legal Human Rights is Criminal.. & a Sickness of Mind that promotes Dictatorship!

    Mainstream Media - Fake News.. for quite some time!
    & Obama is guilty!

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 09:4
    President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/trump-team-same-people-who-say-russia-meddled-in-election-said-iraq-had-wmds/#ixzz4SQWsDXpZ
    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:1
    It's getting funny as Biden promised cyber attack on Russia weeks before Trump was elected .. due to Russian hackers?
    uptonogoode -> alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    Link?
    alexfoxy28 -> uptonogoode , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/721851/russia-joe-biden-obama-cyber-attack-war-clinton-putin-US-moscow

    or just google about it.

    ArtherOhm , 10 Dec 2016 08:5
    Is the USA, as author of windows software, really unable to prevent foreign hacking?

    Do the CIA never do anything like this?

    Do we actually have any evidence rather than just a lot of allegations?

    Shotcricket -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 09:0
    'Russia like to surprise' ?

    The one certainty of the US/EU led drive to remove an elected leader just in their 2nd year after an election that saw them gain 47% of the popular vote was the Russki response, its borders were immediately at open 'threat' from any alliance. NATO or otherwise, the deep sea ports of eastern Ukraine which had always been accessed by the Russki fleets would lose guaranteed access etc....to believe the West was surprised by this action, would be to assume the US Generals were as stupid as the US administration, they knew exactly the response of the Russkis & would have made no difference if their leader had been named Putin or Uncle Tom Cobbly.

    In some ways the Russkis partitioning of the East of Ukraine could well minimise the possibility of a world conflict as the perceived threat is neutralised by the buffer.

    The Russkis cyber doodah is no different to our own the US etc, they're all 'at it' & all attempt to inveigle the others in terms of making life difficult.....not too sure Putin will be quite as comfortable with the Pres Elects 3 Trumpeteers though as the new Pressie looks likely to open channels of communications but those negotiations might well see a far tougher stance......still, in truth, all is never fair in love or war

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 08:4
    .....that the CIA is not only suddenly involved, but suddenly at the forefront, may well reflect President-elect Trump's stated policy intentions being far removed from those that the CIA has endorsed, and might be done with an eye toward undermining Trump's position in those upcoming policy battles.
    At the center of those Trump vs. CIA battles is Syria, as the CIA has for years pushed to move away from the ISIS war and toward imposing regime change in Syria. Trump, by contrast, has said he intends to end the CIA-Saudi program arming the Syrian rebels, and focus on fighting ISIS. Trump was even said to be seeking to coordinate anti-ISIS operations with Russia.
    The CIA allegations could easily imperil that plan, as so long as the allegations remain part of the public discourse, evidence or not, anything Trump does with respect to Russia is going to have a black cloud hanging over it.
    http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/09/cia-claims-russia-intervened-to-get-trump-elected /
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    Oh dear Obama trolls? Food for your starved thoughts:

    Your degree of understanding IT is disturbing, especially given how dependent we are on it.

    This is all very simple. The process by which you find out if and how a machine was hacked was clearly documented in the Russian "Internet Audit", run by a group of Grey Hats.

    Grey Hats: People concerned about security who perform unauthorized hacks for relatively benign purposes, often just notifying people of how their system is flawed. IT staff have mixed reactions(!), the illegality is not disputed but the benefit of not being hit by a Black Hat first can be considerable at times. Differentiation is rare, especially as some hacktivist groups belong here, causing no damage beyond reputational by flagging activity that is not acceptable to the hacktivists.

    Black Hats: These are the guys to worry about. These include actually destructive hacktivists. These are the ones who steal data for malicious purposes, disrupt for malicious purposes and just generally act maliciously.

    Nothing in reports indicates if the DNC hack was Grey Hat or Black Hat, but it should be obvious that there is a difference.

    IP addresses and hangouts - worthless as evidence. Anyone can spoof the former, happens all the time (NMap used to provide the option, probably still does), Grey Hats and Black Hats alike have the latter and may break into other people's. It's all about knowing vulnerabilities.

    That voting machines were even on the Internet is disturbing. That they and the DNC server were improperly configured for such an environment is frightening - and possibly illegal.

    The standard sequence of events is thus:

    Network intrusion detector system identifies crafted packet attacking known vulnerability.
    In a good system, the firewall is set to block the attack at that instant.

    If the attacker scans the network, the only machine responding to such knocks should be a virtual machine running a honeypot on attractive-looking port numbers. The other machines in the zone should technically violate the RFCs by not responding to ICMP or generating recognized error codes on unused/blocked ports.

    The system logger picks up an event that creates a process that shouldn't be happening.
    In a good system, this either can't happen because the combination of permissions needed doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter because the process is root jailed and hasn't the privileges to actually do any harm.

    The file alteration logger (possibly Tripwire, though the Linux kernel can do this itself) detects that a process with escalated privileges is trying to create, delete or alter a file that it isn't supposed to be able to change.
    In a good system with mandatory access controls, this really is impossible. In a good system with logging file systems, it doesn't matter as you can instruct the filesystem to revert those specific alterations. Even in adequate but feeble systems, checkpoints will exist. No use in a voting system, but perfectly adequate for a campaign server. In all cases, the system logs will document what got damaged.

    The correct IT manager response is thus:
    Find out why the firewall wasn't defaulting to deny for all unknown sources and for unnecessary ports.
    Find out why the public-facing system wasn't isolated in the firewall's DMZ.
    Find out why NIDS didn't stop the attack.
    Non-public user mobility should be via IPSec using certificates. That deals with connecting from unknown IP addresses without exposing the innards of the system.
    Lock down misconfigured network systems.
    Backup files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt for forensic purposes.
    Revert files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt to last good version.
    Close permission loopholes. Everything should run with the fewest privileges necessary, OS included. On Linux, kernel permissions are controlled via capabilities.
    Establish from the logs if the intruder came through a public-facing application, an essential LAN service or a non-essential service.
    If it's a LAN service, block access to that service outside the LAN on the host firewall.
    Run network and host vulnerability scanners to detect potential attack vectors.
    Update any essential software that is detected as flawed, then rerun the scanners. Repeat until fixed.
    Now the system is locked down against general attacks, you examine the logs to find out exactly what failed and how. If that line of attack got fixed, good. If it didn't, then fix it.
    Password policy should prevent rainbow attacks, not users. Edit as necessary, lock accounts that aren't secure and set the password control system to ban bad passwords.

    It is impossible from system logs to track where an intruder came from, unsecured routers are common and that means a skilled attacker can divert packets to anywhere. You can't trust brags, in security nobody is honest. The sensible thing is to not allow such events in the first place, but when (not if) they happen, learn from them.

    GraemeHarrison , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    If the USA is to investigate the effect of foreign governments 'corrupting' the free decisions of the American people in elections, perhaps they could look into the fact that for the past three decades every Republican candidate for president, after they have won the nomination of their party, has gone to just one foreign country to pledge their firm commitment/allegiance to that foreign power, for the purpose of shoring up large blocks of donors prior to the actual presidential election. The effect is probably more 'corrupting' than any leak of emails!
    SamSamson , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    Obama should confess to creating ISIS, sustaining ISIS & utilising ISIS as a proxy army to have them do things that he knew US soldiers could never be caught doing!!!

    They then spoon fed you bullshit propaganda about who the bad guys were, without ever being to properly explain why the US armed forces were prevented from taking any hostile action against ISIS, until they were FORCED TO, that is, when Putin let the the cat out of the bag!!!

    LordTomnoddy , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Hilarious. One would've thought Obama of all presidents would be reluctant to delve too deeply into this particular midden. As the author of the weakest and most incompetent American foreign policy agenda since Carter's, it's much the likeliest that if China or Russia have been hacking US elections, then by far the biggest beneficiary will have been himself.
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Just another attempt to distract from realities, like:-

    From:[email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: 2015-05-28 12:12 Subject: Fwd: POLITICO Playbook

    cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <[email protected]> > Date: May 28, 2015 at 9:44:12 AM EDT > To: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, "Cheryl Mills ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW: POLITICO Playbook > > Morning, > I am sure you are working on this, but clearly, the opposition is trying to undercut Hillary's reputation for honesty (the number one characteristic people look for in a President according to most polls) ..and also to benefit from an attack on wealth that Dems did the most to start I am sure we need to fight back against both of these attacks. > Xoxo > Lynn > > By Mike Allen (@mikeallen; [email protected]), and Daniel Lippman (@dlippman; [email protected]) > > > > QUINNIPIAC POLL, out at 6 a.m., "Rubio, Paul are only Republicans even close to Clinton": "In a general election, ... Clinton gets 46 percent of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio." Clinton leads Christie 46-37 ... Huckabee 47-40 ... Jeb 47-37 ... Walker 46-38 ... Cruz 48-37 ... Trump 50-32. > > --"[V]oters say 53-39 percent that Clinton is NOT honest and trustworthy, but say 60-37 ... that she has strong leadership qualities. Voters are divided 48-47 ... over whether Clinton cares about their needs and problems." > > --RNC's new chart - "'Dead Broke' Clintons vs. Everyday Americans": "Check out the chart below to see how many households in each state it would take to equal the 'Dead Broke' Clintons." http://bit.ly/1Avg8iE

    Blind leading the Blind.. & Obama knows that very well after it was clear that Clinton was NEVER trusted by the Voters, which makes Debbie and the DNC look like a complete bunch of..

    Idiots?!?! STILL BLAMING The RUSSIANS.... instead of themselves!

    She was and always will be unelectable due to exceedingly poor judgement, across the board.

    Can we move on?

    Polly123456 , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Who is in charge of Internet security in the US government? Because it seems full of holes. Last time it was the Chinese and this time it's the Russians, yet not one piece of evidence to say where hacks have come from. How much are these world class Internet security people paid? And why do they still have a job? People sitting in their bedrooms on a pc from stores like staples have hacked their security regularly.
    AlexPeace , 10 Dec 2016 08:0

    In 2016, he said, the government did not detect any increased cyber activity on election day itself but the FBI made public specific acts in the summer and fall, tied to the highest levels of the Russian government. "This is going to put that activity in a greater context ... dating all the way back to 2008."

    Extremely vague. Seems like there is no evidence at all to suggest any Russian involvement, but they need to pretend otherwise. Blah, blah, blah, Weapons of mass destruction... Apollo mission, etc
    FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Ole, Russians exposed the DNC emails, we knew about that. I though this should investigate Russians vote rigging, but I guess not. I for once welcome anyone who hacks my government and exposes their skeletons, so I can see what kind of dirty garbage I had leading or potentially leading my country.

    Maybe the DNC should play fair and not dirty next time and put a candidate forward without skeletons that still reek of rotting flesh.

    Robert Stokes -> FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    You rig electronic voting machines by reflashing the firmware or switching out the sd cards. Can't be done remotely.
    Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 07:5
    And the CIA has never intervened in a foreign election?
    VibePit -> Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Oh heaven forbid!! The Shah of Iran was democratically elected but of course. . .
    HeathCardwell , 10 Dec 2016 07:2
    Don't believe any of this at all.
    American has been thee most corrupt and disgusting western nation for decades, run by people who are now being shown for who they really are and they're shitting themselves big time. The stakes don't get higher than this.
    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:1
    What's the point of this?

    The American people don't want Clinton because she is a liar and a dangerous psychopath who also ignored the working people.

    If you want to change that, get her treatment. Don't try to undermine the election result.

    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    How can you not respect Putin?

    He's spent the last few years making fools out of Clinton, Kerry and the obomber.

    If you didn't want him to let Crimea rejoin Russia, then you shouldn't have initiated the coup that broke up Ukraine.

    Peter Turner , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    What a total load of double talk. There is zero integrity in anything CIA says or does since the weapons of mass destruction deal or before that it was the Iran Contra deal and before that it was the Bay of Pigs. Now we have this rigging os the election results based on zero evidence. The whole thing is just idiocy. What is Obama trying to achieve?The end game will be for Obama to go down in history as ... let's just say he is not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to being a so called world leader. Well done Obama you have now completely trashed what is left of your legacy.
    LondonLungs , 10 Dec 2016 06:5

    "CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election – report "

    You might as well ask accountants to do a study on wether it's worthwhile to use an accountant. Part of the CIAs job is to influence elections around the world to get US-Corporation friendly gov'ts in to power. So yes of course they are going to say that a gov't can influence elections, if they said otherwise then they'd be admitting they're wasting money.

    Ted Reading Reading 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    So, it was the Russians! I knew it must've been them, they're so sneaky. All HFC had was the total backing of the entire establishment, including prominent Republican figures, the total fawning support of the entire main-stream media machine which carefully controlled the "she's got a comfortable 3 point lead maybe even double-digit lead" narrative and the "boo and hiss" pantomime slagging of her opponent. Plus the endless funds from the crooked foundation and murderous fanatics from the compliant Gulf states, and lost. But hey, do keep this going please, it'll help the Trumpster get a second term! Trump/Nugent 2020.
    righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    It's possible the Russians hacked and released the documents. However the report is not saying the Russians created them.

    So whatever was so deplorable about them was all Democrat

    Nataliefreeman -> righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    Good point. Add that the whole election was dogged is the most glaring media bias and suddenly Russia comes off as simply leveling the playing field a bit
    12inchPianist , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    CIA finds Russia had covertly influenced election. CIA finds FBI had overtly influenced election. Fancy that!
    ashleigh2 , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    The 'secret' enquiry reported to Congress that the CIA concludes etc, etc, etc. Then yet more revelations from 'anonymous sources' are quoted in the Washington Post and The New York Times reaching the same conclusions.....talk about paranoia, or are the Democrats guilty of news fakery of the highest order to deny the US voters....
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    Ooh Obama...there's a little snag about this investigation.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    How about a Presidential review covering US interference in the elections of countries around the world?
    Paulare -> Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    But where to start?

    UK, Australia, Chile, Nicoragua, Cuba, Philippines, Malaysia, Germany...?

    such choice..

    Bosula -> Paulare , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Yes. Maybe do it on a regional basis across the globe.
    Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    Of course the Americans would never interfere in other people's elections would they?...........I imagine the Russians wanted to avoid a nuclear war with war monger Hilary & who can blame them?
    Nataliefreeman -> Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    Y'know really all they seem to be looking possibly guilty of is the wikileaks scandal. Compare that to the enormous media bias regarding Trump and suddenly the Russians at worst come off as evening the playing field so as to help an election be less biased...
    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    When certain members of the public would believe one man over those who have more intelligence in a follicle than he will ever have floating in his cranium is when you realise that a place like Guantanamo should exist, exclusively for them.
    http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/surprise-cost-of-ammo-for-us-navy-destroyers-new-guns-800000-a-shot-161114?news=859762
    Newmacfan , 10 Dec 2016 05:3
    Paranoia about Russia has arrived at the laughable, almost like the fable of the boy who cried wolf! Even the way the CIA statement is worded makes you smile. "silk purse sows ear"? Everyone is clutching at straws rather than looking down the barrel at the truth......that folks is what is missing from Western Politics......"The Truth" --
    StephenO , 10 Dec 2016 04:3

    Obama expected the review to be completed before he leaves office...

    Really?? Obama wants a "deep review" of internet activities surrounding the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016; and he wants this done in less than 40 days? And it encompasses voting stations throughout the 50 states? That's the definition of political shenanigans.

    Dom Michaels -> pureist , 10 Dec 2016 04:3
    Seeing as how the CIA interfered with Ukraine before and during the overthrow of Yanukovich, and with Moscow protests a few years ago...... seems like everyone is always trying to interfere with each-other. Hypocrisy abounds
    MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    This is not really a fight against Trump. That is lost. This is an intramural fight among Democrats.

    This is desperate efforts by the corporate Democrats to hang on to power after Hillary (again) lost.

    Excuses. Allegations without sources given, anonymous.

    Remember that the same people used the same media contacts to spread fake news that the Podesta leaks were faked, and tried to shift attention from what was revealed to who revealed it.

    GuyCybershy -> MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Agreed. Another reason why the Democratic party is not worth saving. 13 million voted for Sanders in the primary, that is enough to start a new party.
    Fabr1s , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    if the Ruskies did it, there's something funny: they did it on Obama's watch and her protege, Hillary, lost it. The system is a real mess in this case.

    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    Read and research further...
    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national
    GeoffP -> Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Interesting link. It raises a particularly salient question: assuming the Russians did indeed do it - and after the whole CIA yellow cake thing in Iraq, no one could possibly doubt national intelligence agencies any more - does it particularly matter?

    Did the Russians write the emails? The betrayal of Sanders, the poor protection on classified materials, the cynical, vicious nonsense spewed out by the HRC campaign, the media collusion with the DNC and HRC: did the Russians do these things too? Or was that Clinton and the DNC? Silly question, I'm sure.

    sejong -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Russia's competence with computer hacking and cyber espionage is a given

    So what? What about Chinese or Israeli competence in these areas?

    This is Fake News that exists only because Clinton lost.

    The real news is about in competence by HRC, DWS, and the DNC in foisting a sure loser on American voters.

    naomh -> sejong , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Thank you for speaking the truth!!!!
    GeoffP -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Well, chief, the Wisconsin recount is in and the results are staggering: after the recount, Clinton has gained on Trump by 3 votes... and Trump gained on Clinton by a heady six votes. One begins to wonder at the 'Manchurian candidate' claim.
    third_eye , 10 Dec 2016 03:3
    It is precisely charades like this that millions in the US and around the world have given up on the establishment. Business as usual or rather lying as usual will only alienate more not-so-stupid citizens. It speaks volumes about their desperation that they're are actually employing such obviously infantile tactics on the Russia even as they continue to paper over Hillary's tattered past. The result of the investigation is totally predictable..................Yes, the Russians were involved in hacking the elections, but..........for reasons of national security, details of the investigative process and evidence cannot be revealed.
    Longleveler , 10 Dec 2016 03:2
    If the Russians really wanted Trump to win that means they helped Hillary win the Democratic primaries because Bernie would have beat Trump.. There was a mess of hanky-panky going on to defeat Bernie, and deflecting the blame to a foreign actor should keep the demonstrators off the streets.
    If someone is gullible enough to believe the Russians did it they'd also believe that Elvis made Bigfoot hack the DNC. That's even more plausible since bigfoot is just a guy who spends so much time sitting at his computer he lost all interest in personal hygiene.
    Will D , 10 Dec 2016 03:1
    The Democrats are really desperate to find anything they can use to challenge the results of the election.

    Either way they look foolish - openly investigating the possibility of Russian hacking which acknowledges that their electoral systems aren't well secured, OR look really foolish if they find anything (whether real or faked).

    The big question now is if, and how much, they will fake the findings of the investigation so that they can declare the election results wrong, and put Clinton into the White House.

    Clearly, it is a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. It is incredible that one man can make the largest Western nation look so ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

    madeiranlotuseater , 10 Dec 2016 02:4
    Pot calling the kettle black. Reveal fully what the CIA get up to all over the planet. The phoney intel America has used to go to war causing countries to implode. The selective way they release information to project the picture they want. I am not convinced that Russia is any better or any worse than the USA.
    onofabeach , 10 Dec 2016 02:3
    I can understand the Russians wanting Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he is a weak leader and totally incompetent.

    I can also understand Putin preferring DJT to HRC.

    It's about time the planet settled down a little bit, Trump and Putin will do more for world peace in the next year than Obama achieved in his 8 wasted years in charge.

    The Democrats have yet to realise the reason for their demise was not the racists, the homophobes, the KKK, the Deplorables, the misogynists, the xenophobes etc etc etc.

    It was Hillary Clinton.

    Get over it, move on, stop whining, get out of your safe room, put the puppy down, throw the play dough away, stop protesting, behave like an adult.

    As much as I am enjoying the monumental meltdown of the left, it is getting sad now and I am starting to feel very sorry for you.

    BoBiel , 10 Dec 2016 02:2
    Georgia Says Someone in U.S. Government Tried to Hack State's Computers Housing Voter Data

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/georgia-reports-attempt-to-hack-states-election-database-via-ip-address-linked-to-homeland-security-1481229960

    http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-us-of-trying-to-hack-its-election-systems

    123Akava , 10 Dec 2016 02:1
    What a sad bunch of clowns. But the time is ripe. You and your sort are done Obama, Hillary Clinton, Juncker, Merkel, Hollande, Mogherini, Kerry, Tusk, Nuland, Albright, Breedlove, SaManThe Power and the rest of the reptiles. With all respect - mwuahahaha! - you will soon sink into the darkness of the darkest places of history, but you won't be forgotten, no you won't!
    poppetmaster , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    The Democrats still don't understand that the problem in American politics is everything that happened BEFORE election day.

    How can you worry about the ballot boxes when the entire process from beginning to end is utterly corrupt.

    CarlHansen , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    As for the Podesta email. John Podesta was so stupid that he gave out his password in a simple email scam that any 8 year old kid could have conducted. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange did it himself. Assange will be celebrating at the demise of Hillary.
    phobeophobe , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    Guys! Your side lost the election. Get over it & stop looking for excuses.

    I don't think it was the Russians, it was just a lot of people got sick of being told what to think & how to behave by your side of politics.

    It is because people who disagree with you are either ignored, shut-down or called names with weaponised words such as "racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, you name it. You go out onto the streets chanting mindless slogans aimed at shutting down debate. You have infiltrated academia and no journalism graduate comes out of a western univerity without a 60 degree lean to the left. People of alternative views to what is now the dominant social paradigm are not permitted to speak at universities. Once they were the vanguard of dangerous ideas. Now they are just sheep pens.

    You have infiltrated the mainstream media so of course people need to go to Info Wars, Breitbart & Project Veritas to get the other side to your one-sided argument.

    Your side of politics has regulated the very words we speak so that we can't even express a thought anymore without being chanted down, or shut down, prosecuted or sued.

    There was once a time when it was the left who spoke up for freedom of speech. It was the left who demanded that a man be judged by the content of his character & not the color of his skin & it was once the right who used to be worried about the Russians taking over our institutions.

    Have a look at yourselves. Look at what you've become. You've stopped being the guardians of freedom & now you have become the very anti-freedom totalitarians you thought you were campaigning against.

    Bleating about the "popular vote" doesn't cut it either. That's like saying, the other side scored more goals than us but we had possession of the ball more times. It is sad for you but it is irrelevant.

    Trump won the election! Get over it!

    Let's see what sort of job he does before deciding what to do next.

    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 01:5
    News flash for all the obamabots:

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 01:3
    Joe Biden unwittingly gave the game up when he spoke to the press with indignation of the Russian hacks. The US would respond in kind with a covert cyber operation run by the CIA First of all it would be the NSA, not the CIA Secondly, it's not covert when you tell the press! Oh Joe, you really let the Obama administration down with that gaffe! Who would believe them now? A lot of people it would seem. Mainly those still reeling from an election they were so vested in
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Unfortunately our media has lost all credibility.
    For years we were told it was necessary to remove the dictator Assad in Syria. The result, a country destroyed, migrant crisis that fuelled Brexit and brought EU to its knees.
    Now they are going to sell the 'foreign entities decided the US election'.
    It's just a sad situation
    GuyCybershy -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Syria has been destroyed because Western client states in the Middle East wanted this to happen. Assad had a reasonably successful secular government and our medieval gulf state allies felt. threatened by his regime. there was the little business of a pipeline, but of course that would be called a "conspiracy theory".
    SomersetApples , 10 Dec 2016 01:1
    If Obama has resources to spend on investigations, he should be investigating why the US is providing guided missiles to the terrorist in Syria. We had such great hopes for him, and he has proved to be totally useless as a president. Rather than giving us leadership and guidance he is looking under his bed for spooks. Just another example of his incompetence at a time when we needed leadership.

    Looking for proof of espionage will be like trying to prove a negative and only result in a possible or at best a likely type of result for no purpose. It would just be another case of an unsupported accusation being thrown about.

    Facing up to the question of who is supplying weapons to terrorist would require the courage to take on the Military Industrial Complex and he hasn't got it. Trump will be different.

    ID3053875 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    If the russians did interfere in the USA elections perhaps is a bit of poetic justice.
    The USA has interfere in Latin America for over hundred years and they have given us Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Noriega, Pinochet, Duvaliers , military juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Streener in Paraguay to name a few. They all were narcissists, racists and insecure. The american people love this type of leader now they got him in the white house may be from Russia with love. Empires get destroyed from within, look at Little Britain now, maybe the same will happen soon in the USA.
    Viva China , is far from Latin America
    nbk46zh , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    So if the US managed to somehow get rid of Russia and China, what would they do then? How would it justify hundreds of billions in defense spending? Just remember, the US military industry desperately needs an external enemy to exist. Without it, there is no industry.
    ID5151903 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    No I disagree. I don't think it was a conpriscy. It was just decades of misinformation, lies, usually perpertrated by our esteemed foreign minister. The man is a buffoon , liar and incompetent. It is quite amusing to see how inept, Incompotent and totally unsuited this man child is to public office.
    PullingTheStrings , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Good to see alot of Americans on here back into Mccarthyism/Paranoia/scapegoating/Witch hunting/Propaganda.
    smellycat , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Clinton's 'Russia did it' cop-out
    https://off-guardian.org/2016/12/09/clintons-russia-did-it-cop-out /
    prairdog , 10 Dec 2016 00:4
    Why should we trust US intelligence which is essentially US propaganda?
    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    Another red herring that smacks of desperation. The final death throes of a failed administration. These carefully chosen words reveal a lot. The email leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations" of Russian hackers. In layman's terms its the equivalent of saying "we haven't got a clue who it was but it's the kind of thing they would probably do". Don't expect a smoking gun because it doesn't exist, otherwise we would have known about it by now.
    PostTrotskyite -> DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    It's not just the US who has accused Putin of meddling in their domestic affairs. Germany and the UK have made the same allegations. Are they wrong too?
    DanielDee -> PostTrotskyite , 10 Dec 2016 00:5
    I think anyone with reasonable intelligence would take each accusation on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that Russia conducts cyber operations, as the US and UK and Germany does. There is also little doubt that significant Russophobia exists, particularly since the failed foreign attempt of regime change in Syria that was thwarted by Russia. On that last point many citizens of the West are coming to the realisation that a secular government in Syria is preferable to one run by jihadists installing crude sharia law (Libya was certainly a lesson). Furthermore, if Hillary Clinton had succeeded one dreads to think of the consequences of her no-fly-zone plans. Thankfully she didn't succeed, no doubt in part to wikileaks revelations, who for the record stated that did not result from Russian hacks
    sejong , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    Fake News is mass gaslighting, removing any sense of what is real. Biggest psy-op ever.
    gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:1
    Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election


    FAKE NEWS ALERT

    JCDavis -> gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    They already stated their conclusions, now they have to find evidence.
    Yodasyodel , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Hows the election recount going? You know the one this paper kept going on about a few weeks ago in Wisconsin that was supposed to be motivated by "Russian Hacking" in the election? Not very well but you have gone quiet. Also I see the Washington Post has been forced to backtrack for implying news outlets like Breitbart are Russian controlled on the advice of their own lawyers....after all calling someone a Russian agent without a shred of evidence is seriously libellous and they know it. Russian agents to blame yeah ok Obama no doubt the Easter Bunny will be next in your sights you fraud.
    Wilderloo , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Look no further than Hillarys private server. Classified information sent and received and Obam was part of it. Obama is a liar and a fraud who is now blaming the Russians for crooked Hillarys loss.
    SUNLITE , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Feed the flames of the war mongers that want Russia and Putin to be our bogeyman.Feed the military industrial complex more billions.The U.S. Defense budget is already 10 times that of Russia ,feed NATO already on Russia's boarder with tanks ,troops and heavy weapons.i did expect more from this pres,... The lies ,mis information and propaganda has worked so well since the end of WW2,upon a public who has been fed those lies {and is to busy with sports ,gadgets,games, alcohol and other drugs }for 70 yrs by a compliant,for profit lap dog media more interested in producing infotainment and profits than supplying information..If you don't think the "public" isn't very poorly informed and will believe anything ,..just look at who the next prez will be..
    GuyCybershy -> SUNLITE , 10 Dec 2016 00:0
    I don't think it's true that Trump voters were less informed than Clinton voters. The public knows that they all lie, they simply choose the one who's lies most appeal to them.
    Alexander Bach , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Did he also order to investigate the Clinton's deeds revealed by the 'hackers'?
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    Unfortunately Obama is not leaving office with dignity.
    This action is another attempt to delegitimize the election of Trump. We already have the recount farce going on.
    If Republicans had tried to delegitimize the election of Obama we know what the reaction from media would have been. An outcry against antidemocratic and racist behaviour
    USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    The corporate media is so predictable at this point. The news cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria while the guys over in entertainment roll out a slick fantasy about anti-Nazi resistance. It all adds up to a big steaming pile of crap but you hope it will push enough buttons to keep the citizens chained to their their desks for another quarter. Don't bet on it. As a great American said at another time of upheaval, you can't fool everyone forever...
    GuyCybershy -> USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    We're supposed to condemn "white nationalism" in The US and UK while supporting it in Ukraine.
    GeeDeeSea -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 23:4
    That's not all. We in US and UK are supposed to condemn jihadists in Iraq while supporting them Syria.
    James7 -> Eddy Cannella , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Hillary? Although I would lean to more "Grey."

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    So it's anti-Russia propaganda today again, all over the Guardian as well as everywhere else.

    I daresay they have a few things (perhaps a tad more important than football and athletics) to say about us as well..

    smellycat -> raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Sour grapes at the liberation of Aleppo and their loss of face.
    I'm surprised they haven't started asking about the missing 250K civilians,who must even now be languishing in Assad's dungeons.
    Keeping that one for tomorrow probably.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    When Cheney used the terror alert levels to keep the US population in the constant state of fear, the Democrats denounced it as fear mongering. Now they're embracing the same tactics in the constant demonization of Russia. Look, it's raining today! Russia must be trying to control the weather in the US! Get them! Utterly ridiculous.
    stegordon21 , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    The US has been the most bloodthirsty, aggressive nation in my lifetime. Where the US goes we obediently follow. Yet as Obama (7 countries he's bombed in his presidency, not bad for a Nobel Prize Winner) continues to circle Russia with NATO on their borders. We're continually spun headline news that Russia is the aggressor and is continually meddling in foreign affairs. We are the aggressors, we are the danger to ourselves and it's we who are run by megalomaniac elites who pump us full of fear and propaganda.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    Malicious cyberactivity... has no place in international community... No? When West does it, then it's for democratic purposes? But invading countries on a humanitarian pretense does? So Democrats are still looking to blame Russia for everything not going their way I see. This rhetoric didn't work for Clinton in the election and it won't now. Stop with this nonsense
    GuyCybershy -> nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    There wasn't a lot of outrage about the use of the "stuxnet" virus against Iran. You see, when we do it is always for a good cause.

    Paulare , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Take the long view folks.

    The Egyptian Empire lasted millenum,
    The Greek and Roman Empires a thousand years, give or take.
    The Holy Roman Empire centuries.
    The British and French circa 200 years.
    The USSR about 70, the USA 70 and counting

    This is just the cyclical death throes of empires played out at ever increasing speed before our very eyes.

    DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    5 articles abut Russia, again. This is the Russia interference in the Guardian. Putin must be stopped.
    Earl_Grey -> DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    NATO has bought a subscription to the Guardian
    TonyBlunt , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Is all this hoohaa the BBC and the Guardian trying to get some revenge for the Russian liberating East Aleppo?
    TheIPAResistance , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    This is exactly why we should never move to electronic voting. Can you imagine the lengths the IPA would go to ensure their men security the power they need to roll out their neoliberal agenda? As a tax-free right wing think tank composed of rich like Rinehart, Murdoch, Forrest, et al. the sky's the limit.
    Anthony1152 , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    The five stages of dealing with psychological trauma: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hillary and the Democrats are still at stage one and two. Obama is only beginning stage one as events dawn on him.
    TheCharacteristicEquation 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    I really do feel the established media and its elite hierarchy are vexed by both the Trump victory and Brexit here in the UK. Now the media attention turns to a report on another of its perpetual campaigns, namely Russia, and corruption in sport.

    I'm not going to doubt the 'findings', but I know humans are corrupt ALL over the world, but it does strike me that no Western outlet, ever prints anything positive about Russia. I mean - nothing, zero!

    dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    If, indeed, the Russian government gathered the DNC and Podesta info released by Wikileaks, the Russians did the American people a favor by pulling back the curtain on behind the scenes scheming by Clinton campaign potentates.
    Of course, I don't believe the Democratic claim that Clinton lost the election because of the Russians and the FBI.
    GuyCybershy -> dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    Podesta's password was "p@ssword". Inexcusable carelessness.
    smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Nothing wrong with a bit of regime change now and then, so we've been told. No good crying when the Russians do it to you.
    sammy3110 , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    It's instructive to see the Guardian drag up Reagan's "Evil Empire" spiel, but only after Hillary lost.
    GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    US backed a coup, or set up a coup, to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine which led to war. Putin's payback seems fully justified.
    theenko -> GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Yanukovych is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Putin puppet should be in jail.

    GeeDeeSea -> theenko , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Porshenko is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Obama puppet should be in jail.

    Earl_Grey , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Oh my, a foreign country may have had a tiny influence on a US Election.

    How about investigating the overthrow of the Democratically elected Govt in Ukraine, or the influence the US has had on the Syrian Govt, or even in Australia, where the Chinese Govt donates massive amounts of money to Political Parties (note, there's no link of course between Chinese Govt donations and Chinese Companies being able to buy most of Australia and employ Chinese Nationals in Australia on Chinese conditions and 500,000 Chinese Nationals being able to buy Real Estate in Sydney alone... none whatsoever).

    bcnteacher , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Good call! Something is fishy about the US electoral system.
    COReilly , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    I'm not a policy or think tank wonk, but isn't Russia just a euphemism for China. Aren't their geopolitical interests linked. You just say Russia because China has us by the financial balls (I'm sure the Guardian would prefer to NOT be censored on the mainland) right? Package it that way and I'm on board. My love of Dostoevsky goes out the window. Albeit I still think Demons one of the best novels ever written. Woke me up.
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    Survivor of Bosnian sniper fire Hillary Clinton decries fake news in speech yesterday
    Aaron Aarons , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I'm all in favor of delegitimizing the incoming semi-fascist Trump/Pence regime, and find Obama's talk of a smooth transition disgusting. However, I reject the appeal to Russophobia or other Xenophobia.

    BTW, Obama and his collaborators like Diane Feinstein have done a lot to prepare the legal basis for fascistic repression under the new POtuS.

    Sund Fornuft , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I already know what the comission will find. They will find evidences that Iraq holds vast ammonúnt of weapons of mass destruction! Oh wait, that was already used.
    kalander , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    Obama has been as useless as his predecessor young Bush. His policies generally are in tatters and the US neo cons evil fantasy of full spectrum dominance has met its death in Syria. Bravo.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power.

    The fight goes on.

    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    After an election cycle with proven collusion between the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign and our media, our media has the nerve to come up with the term 'fake news'.
    Hypocrisy at its finest
    John Urquhart , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Nobody does paranoia like the yanks. To the rest of the world, the unedifying spectacle of the world's biggest bullies, snoops, warmongers, liars and hypocrites complaining about how unfair life is, is pretty nauseating. Most of America's problems are home-grown.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Why fake the news when you can just strong the media companies into muzzling their criticism?

    http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/mika-brzezinski-says-clinton-camp-tried-to-pull-her-off-the-air /

    mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    And the final report will conclude with something along the lines of:
    'After a thorough, exhaustive investigation of all relevant evidence concerning the potential of foreign interference in the United States electoral process, the results of the investigation have shown that, although there remain troubling questions about the integrity of U.S. cyber-security which should prompt immediate Congressional review, there has been uncovered no conclusive evidence to support the conjecture that cyber attacks originating with any foreign actor, state or individual had any significant effect on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, and that there is no cause or justification for the American People to question the fairness of or lose faith in the electoral process and laid out by and carried out according to the Constitution.'
    I do Holiday cards too.
    garenmel -> mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    My hat off to you sir/madam. This was great!
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Georgia's Secretary of State is accusing someone at the Department of Homeland Security of illegally trying to hack its computer network, including the voter registration database.
    In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, copied to the full Georgia congressional delegation, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp alleges that a computer with a DHS internet address attempted to breach its systems.
    http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack

    Wake up and smell the BS, the hacking is being done by people a lot nearer home.....

    feliciafarrel , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Oh dear, the GOP seem to have forgotten what they were saying about Putin and the Kremlin a short while back:

    The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.

    https://www.gop.com/platform/american-exceptionalism/

    Are they going to conveniently forget all decency and morality? Is the white supremacist agenda in the GOP finally in the ascendant?

    Russian Troll (Number 254) 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    I as a Russian Troll do not like this investigation and will do or say anything in order to change your mind. Putin is not a problem, the EU is.
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    ..... prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity, not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite undisturbed.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/5/reflections-fake-news /
    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    "The Anonymous Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying".

    http://www.alternet.org/media/anonymous-blacklist-promoted-washington-post-has-shocking-roots-ukrainian-fascism-eugenics-and

    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Clinton lost even though she outspent Trump two to one. She was just a lousy candidate who ran a terrible campaign.
    fimbulvinter -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Uh excuse me but that sort of introspection doesn't fly. She was flawless and the blame rests solely on Russia/alt-right/Sanders/Third Parties/Racism/Misogyny/Alignment of the stars/etc/etc
    emilyadam , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I thnk the idea that russia has world domination is quite laughable, what else they gonna be blamed for next, reduction of giraffe population!Lol
    I think a teeny wee paranoia is setting in, or outright deliberate propaganda, too obvious
    Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around.

    The CIA hacks have been destabalisuping Government for a at least seventy years.

    One thing is pretty obvious paper ballots and a different ballot for each is much harder to rig.

    It is ironic it takes a despot life key Trump to bring the issue to a head AFTER unexpectedly won.

    freeandfair -> Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    "Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around."

    The CIA were caught hacking into the US Congressional computers just 6 or so months ago. Nothing came out of it.

    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3

    possible Russian hacking in US election

    Based on the fact that the US 2000 (and possibly 2004) election was outright stolen by George Bush Jr., perhaps the propagandists in the White House and media ought to be looking for a "Russian connection" in regards to our illustrious former president.

    Texas_Sotol , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that our close Russian allies have done anything to influence and undermine the stability of other countries. Preposterous accusation! And to try to become huge winners in the Western Hemisphere, by cheating? Vitriolic nonsense!

    Many posters here actually believe that Good Old Russia should just stick with what they do best. That's poison!

    Fencewalker -> Bluebird101 , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Rather like the Litvenenko inquiry...full of maybe's and possibilities, with not a shred of hard, factual proof shown - demonstrating that the order came from the Kremlin.
    It's just a total accident that Putin's most vocal opponents keep getting shot in the head, gunned down on bridges, suffering 'accidents' or strange miscarriages of (sometimes post-mortem) 'justice' and fall victim to radiological state-enacted terrorism in foreign countries. No pattern there, whatsoever.
    Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I am at a loss. On the one hand, I hear about Russian economy in tatters, gas station posing as a country, deep crisis, economy the size of Italy, rusty old military toys, aircraft carrier smoking out the whole Northern hemisphere, etc. On the other hand, I hear about Russian threat all the time, which must be countered by massive build up of the US and EU military, Russia successfully interfering in the elections in the beacon of democracy, the US, with 20 times greater economy, with powerful allies, the best armed forces in the world, etc. Are we talking about two different Russias, or is this schizophrenia, pure and simple?
    jamese07uk -> Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    It's always easy to find reasons to fear something, added to that the psychology of the unknown, and we have the makings of very powerful propaganda. Whatever Russia's level of corruption, and general society, I feel I cannot trust the Western media anymore 100%. There seems to be a equally sinister hidden agenda deep within Western Elites - accessing Russia's land, political and potential wealthly resources must surely be one of them!? The longterm Western agenda/mission?
    spiridonovich , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    The Democratic Party's problem is Russia, which the President is rightly putting front and center. All Russians are the summit of eviality, and must be endlessly scapegoated in order for Democrats to regain power for the nation's greater good.

    Democrats' problems have nothing to do with corruption, glaring conflicts of interest, favoritism, ass-licking editors, crappy data, lacking enthusiasm, and horribly poor judgement.

    None of these issues need to be publicly addressed, being of no consequence to independent voters, and the President, Guardian, et al. must continue their silent -- and "independent" -- vigil on such silly topics, if Democrats are to have any hope of cultivating enough mindless, enraged, and abandoned sheep to bring them future victories.

    ImmortalTao , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    I admire Trump, Putin & Farage. Don't agree with them but I have admiration for them. They show all the cunning, calculating, resourcefulness that put the European race on top. Liberals don't like that and want to see the own people fall to the bottom. Thankfuly the neoliberal elite are finishedm
    MJMaguire , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Absurd nonsense - the third anti-Russian story of the day. Very little of this has much traction because of the sheer volume of misinformation coming out about Russia. there are very good cogent reasons why the Democrats lost the US election - none of them have anything to do with Russia.
    slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    another pathetic attempt to delegitimize Trump. wanna know why he won? look in the mirror, Barry.
    oldsunshine -> slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:2
    Will Obama see Clinton if he looks in the mirror??
    Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    I can't see a thing wrong with reviewing the last three election cycles, if there is any doubt at all and to put speculation to bed, it should be done.
    CurtBrown -> Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Why stop at the last three?
    Karl Marks -> CurtBrown , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Because the US is more concerned about money than democratic integrity.
    dicksonator , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    So the US intelligence servies aren't doing similar operations?

    If they werent, heads would roll as they have a considerable budget. Did we learn nothing from Edward Snowden? Are Russia just better at this? I doubt it.

    I think both sides conduct themselves in a despicable manner so please dont call me a Putin apologist. Well, feel free actually, I could'nt care less.

    gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0

    Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election


    US interference:

    COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Comments
    VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
    CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
    GERMANY l961 Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
    LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
    142 more rows

    Shall I go on with anoter 142? US lying scumbags

    yeCarumba -> gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    the vietnam fiasco alone is enough to disqualify america from any criticism about interference in internal affairs
    they practically destroyed the country
    KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    The pathetic way the media are pushing this big-bad-Russians meme is a little depressing.

    This "hack" is totally fictional, the wikileaks e-mails were almost certainly that...leaks. As most o their output has been over the years. For 95% of the Wikileaks existence there have been absolutely zero connections with "the Kremlin", in fact they have leaked stuff damaging to Russia before now.

    The Russian's did not hack the DNC, or rig the election, this is yet another example of the political establishment hysterically pointing fingers and making up lies when their chosen side loses an election.

    freeandfair -> KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I remember how North Korea was blamed for Sony hack. I think they were even cut from the internet for a day and there was all this talk of punishing them. And then later it came out that very likely wasn't North Korea. Only the news cycle already moved on and nobody cared.
    mismeasure , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    Traditionally, the best Cold Warriors have been right-wing liberals. In the absence of policies that concretely benefit the people they engage in threat inflation and demagoguery.
    SergeyL , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    In 90s US set all figures in Russia - from president to news program anchor. Elections of 96 were ripped by American "advisors" so that Eltsyn with 3% rating "won" them. It's payback time.
    Shaemus Gruagain , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    Oh how wonderful it is to watch them smart and the bonus? no more Obamas.
    uest88888 -> PeteCW , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    And yet the so-called "Russian trolls" (which is apparently anyone who exercise a modicum of skepticism) seem to be winning here at CiF based on the number of likes per comment, which is likely why the NSA sponsored propagandists and clueless dopes are getting so increasingly shrill.
    Mattster101 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    If you take a wider view, this is all really about keeping the Dems in the game, trying to undo the Trump validity and give them another go in 4 or so years. Really, seems quite desperate that a man that allowed 270000 wild horses to be sold for horsemeat this year across the border to Mexico, brought HC in to his own cabinet having said 'she will say anything and do nothing', knowing what a nightmare that would make, and is going to watch his healthcare get ripped to shreds, needs more accomplishments in his last year, aka Obama, ergo, let's investigate the evil russians and their female athletes with male DNA ( you would think I am making this stuff up, but I am not ) ... Come on Grandma, where are you when we need you most
    nolongersilent , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    we must somehow, subvert the despicable populace that elected trump. we must erase from history the conceding of president elect clinton - newpeak from the ministry of truth. we'll get her into the white house if it takes more cash, lies, and corruption. after all, who needs democracy in the democratic party when we have big brother. democracy just confuses the members. we'll send the despicables through the ministry of love to re-educate them, of course, this IS 1984 after all....we will vote for you, the intelligentsia of the left knows what is best for you.
    eldudeabides , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    Should Hillary have been disqualified (and prosecuted) for having access to debate questions beforehand?
    Nete75 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    "Malicious cyber activity, specifically malicious cyber activity tied to our elections , has no place in the international community. Unfortunately this activity is not new to Moscow. We've seen them do this for years ... The president has made it clear to President Putin that this is unacceptable."

    Note how carefully it specifies that it is cyber activity tied to the american elections that is inappropriate. I presume that is simply to avoid openly saying that mass-surveillance by the US government of everyone's private email, and social network accounts doesn't come under that "no place in the international community" phrase. You know, one does wonder how these people's faces don't come off in shame when whinning about potential interference by foreign governemnts after a full 8 years or so of constant revelations of permanent spying and mass-surveillance by the US government of international leaders and ordinary citizens worldwide.

    Boghaunter , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    So the DNC was hacked - so what. Hacking is so common these days as to be expected. A quick perusal of the internet provides some SIGNIFICANT hacks that deserved some consternation:

    9/4/07 The Chinese government hacked a noncritical Defense Department computer system in June, a Pentagon source told FOX News on Tuesday.

    Spring 2011 Foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon computer system this spring and stole 24,000 files - one of the biggest cyber-attacks ever on the U.S. military,

    On the 12th of July 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton the largest U.S. military defence contractor admitted that they had just suffered a very serious security breach, at the hands of hacktivist group AntiSec.

    5/28/13 The confidential version of a Defense Science Board report compiled earlier this year reportedly says Chinese hackers accessed designs for more than two dozen of the U.S. military's most important and expensive weapon systems.

    June 2014 The UK's National Crime Agency has arrested an unnamed young man over allegations that he breached the Department of Defense's network last June.


    1/12/15 The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was suspended Monday after it was hacked by ISIS sympathizers (OK twitter accounts shouldn't be a big deal. Why does US CentCom even HAVE a twitter account???)

    5/6/15 OPM hack: China blamed for massive breach of US government data

    Omoikani , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    And so the neocon propaganda machine trundles on, churning out this interesting material day after day. The elephant in the room is that if you get hacked you have no knowledge of this until your private stuff is all over the internet, and the chances of finding out who did it are zilch. Everyone in IT security knows this.
    johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:1
    Another "fake news" story. Does anybody with a pulse really believe that Russia hacked the DNC? The US Security Services admitted that it was NOT Russia; the likelihood is that the leaks were provided to Wikileaks by insiders within the US Administration - they wanted to ensure that Hillary did not win. None of the actual revelations were covered by the MSM, and "the Russians did it" was a convenient distraction.
    Omoikani -> johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    All people that on earth do dwell have no clue who hacked the DNC to the amusing end that Podesta's e-mails ended up on the internet, but it suits a dangerous political narrative to demonise Russia until it becomes plain logical to attack them.
    peterward881 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0
    YES YES let attack Russia, YES YES YES, Russia Russia we should carry on attacking Russia. We the journalists are well paid by the man from Australia. YES YES we must to carry on attacking Russia and forget the shit happening in other countries. YES YES it is our duty.
    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    And I guess Obama has also ordered the Guardian to do a full court press of anti-Russian propaganda, just judging by the articles pumped out on today's rag alone.

    The US government is seemingly attempting the "Big Lie" tactic of Joseph Goebbels and instigating support in the public for war against Russia. By repeating the completely unsubstantiated allegations that Russia has somehow "interfered with the election" they hope, without any genuine basis, to strong arm the public into accepting a further ramping of tensions and starting yet another illegal war for profit.

    Chirographer , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    There's nothing wrong with conducting the investigation, but shouldn't it have been done before accusing Russia?

    And aren't all the people cited in the article political appointees, Democrats or avowed Trump enemies, and then there's closing, " A spokesman for the director of national intelligence declined to comment."

    Karega , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Surely of all the Orders Obama might issue during his last weeks in office, why does he choose to give a stupid Order that effectively makes US some sort of Banana Republic? This man was/is more hype than real! At a stroke of a pen he seriously undermines the integrity of the US Electoral System. Whatever credibility was left has now been eroded by these constant and silly claims that somehow Russians installed Trump as President. Doesn't that make Trump some sort of Russian Agent?
    Meanwhile MSM keeps on streaming some fake news and theories and then Obama Orders US intelligence to dig deeper. This is lunacy!
    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Obama certainly understands that Russia is not the reason why Trump was elected. However, he wants to create new obstacles on the way of normalization of relations between the US and Russia and make it more difficult for Trump.

    However, Trump is not a weak man, not a skinny worm; and he can hit these opponents back so hard that international court for them (for invasions into sovereign countries) will lead to their life sentences.

    Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Only two weeks ago the Obama Administration publicly stated there was no evidence of cybersecurity breaches affecting the electoral process, as reported in the NYT :

    The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials that they did not see "any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."

    The administration said it remained "confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was borne out." It added: "As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."

    Was Obama lying then or is he lying now?
    imperfetto , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Is there any limit to the ridicolous, Mr. Obama? what is this? a tragicomic play of the inept?
    Here we are with the most childish fabrication that it must be the Russians' fault if Trump won the election. I'll be laughing for an entire cosmic era! And all this after US publically announced that they were going to launch a devastating acher attack against the badies: the Russians, which of course didn't work out. Come on, this is more comedy that a serious play.

    What probably is going on, the readers can gather by having a look at the numberless articles that are being published by maistream media against the Russians.
    Why this histeric insurgence of Russofobia? Couldn't it be that it is intolerable for the US and their allies to see the Russians winning in Aleppo, and most of all restoring peace and tollerance among the population returning to their abbandoned homes.

    brothersgrimm , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I think Hillary, in part, lost the election due to all the fake news being pumped out by the mainstream corporate media, doing her bidding. People are tired of it, along with all the corruption and lies that came to the surface through the likes of Wikileaks.
    Trump is a terrible alternative, but the only alternative people were given, so many went with it.
    Now we see fake news making out the Russians to be the bad guys again, pumping out story after story, trying to propagandize the population into sucking up these new memes. Russia has its problems, and will always act in its own self-interest, but it's nothing compared to the tactics the US uses, bullying countries around the world to pander to its own will, desperately trying to maintain its Empire.
    RoachAmerican , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Examine something real, Nuclear Hillary. It must be time for Spring Planting??
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html?_r=0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syEjkPyqRew
    Minutes 20 to 25
    Uranium One Wyoming
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    http://www.npr.org/2015/04/23/401781313/clinton-foundation-linked-to-russian-effort-to-buy-uranium-company
    https://youtu.be/jkfE10g8xbc
    at 25 minutes et seq
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkfE10g8xbc&feature=youtu.be


    Below, first paragraphs are the most important
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

    The 1 2 3 Step of Acquisition of Uranium One
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clintons-putin-and-uranium-2015-4

    Going Private Part Public Company Disappears
    http://www.wise-uranium.org/ucscr.html

    http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/economics/22-01-2013/123551-russia_nuclear_energy-0 /
    Coward Comey needs to go.

    Joelbanks , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    The scripture tells us those who live by the sword will perish by it.

    America was in the interference of other countries' elections before its ugly 2016 presidential election. Remember Ukraine and Secretary Hillary Clinton's employee Victoria F****the EU Nuland in Ukraine. Now we have the makings of some kind of conflict with Russia over its alleged meddling in America's elections. More global tension= More cash flowing into the US equity market, money printing by another means.

    hardlyeverclever , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I'd be surprised if the Russians weren't trying to affect the outcome of the election. The Brits had a debate in Parliament on Trump, Obama made threats to the UK on the Brexit vote, so who knows what we're all doing in each others elections behind closed doors while we are clear to do so publically.

    The MSM's absolute refusal to address the leaks in a meaningful way (other than the stuff about recipes) suggests to be no one felt it a big deal at the time.

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Obama could realise that Hillary's viewes on Putin and Russia did not help her at all. People are not that stupid, they see well, use own brains and not so easily impressed by whatever CNN says to them.
    Alun Jones , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    John McAfee said that any organization sophisticated enough to do these hacks is also sophisticated enough to make it look as though any country they want did it. So it could have been anyone.
    palindrome , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Obama earlier this year: Russia is not a world power, only a regional power.

    Obama now: Russia has the power to manipulate the USA election.

    Which one is it then?

    Of course it's all bull...Obama is another establishment puppet who cannot accept that people have figured out their modus operandi.

    diddoit , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    It's reported today on Ars Technica : ThyssenKrupp suffered a "professional attack"

    The steelmaker, which makes military subs, says it was targeted from south-east Asia.

    ..the design of its plants were penetrated by a "massive," coordinated attack which made off with an unknown amount of "technological know-how and research."

    The internet and precious information...

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Neoliberals are just desperately losing ideological competition at home and abroad. They cannot convince people that they are right because it's not what's going on.

    It does not matter what some others say, it's what really goes on matters.

    alexfoxy28 -> imipak , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    But there is innate, basic self-interest in all people (that does not depend on education, ethnicity, race) and people know it instinctively well. They will not go against it even if all around will tell otherwise.
    alexfoxy28 -> alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 21:1 0 1
    simulacra27 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    The fake news channel brought to you by Obama and co.
    p.s. I mean that people cannot be manipulated by others at this basic level when some higher level manipulative tools are used.
    Kasem3000 , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    I love how this has now become solid fact. No confirmation, nothing official but it is no common fact that the Russians interfered. How many reports do we hear about US interference with foreign countries infastructure through covert means.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Meh. Seems like tampering happens all the time. How many elections in South America did the USA fix? How many in the middle east and Africa? I think this "russian's did it" rhetoric is counterproductive as it is stopping Democrats from doing the introspective needed to really understand why HRC lost the election.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    How can you on the one hand crusade against "fake news" and on the other promote this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/dec/08/artist-alison-jackson-self-publishes-spoof-trump-photos-despite-fear-of-being-sued#comments

    Sutir Comed , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and there was credible evidence that the Russians had rigged the election in favor of the Democrat. The right-wing echo chamber would be having seizures! These people are UTTER HYPOCRITES. And they would obviously rather win with the help of a hostile foreign power than try to preserve the integrity of our elections.
    MayorHoberMallow , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia may or may not have hacked the DNC. I'd like to find out. I hope the DNC aren't enough of doofusses to assume this wouldn't be in the realm of possibility.
    I presume that the U.S. has its own group of hackers doing the same Worldwide. This is not a criticism; I would expect the U.S. intelligence community to learn what our rivals, and even some of our friends, are up to.
    Timothy Everton , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    This is getting to be pretty lame. I have doubts that "Russia" could interfere to any great extent with our elections any more than we could with theirs. Sure, individuals or organizations, and more than likely in THIS country, could do so. And they have, as we saw with the DNC and Sanders campaign (and vice versa). Let's not go into an almost inevitable nuclear war over what is quite possibly "fake news".
    dreylon , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia did this, Russia did that
    its getting very boring now, you have lost all credibility
    you have cried wolf to many times
    stop trying to manipulate us
    Johnny Kent , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    When will the Democrats get it? It wasn't the Russians, who are blamed for everything, including the weather, by desperate Western failed leaders, but an unsuitable candidate in Clinton, which lost them the Election. Bernie Sanders would have walked it.
    Catonaboat , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Well Guardian I do believe you hit a nerve, I don't think I've ever seen a more one sided BTL. Me thinks some people do protest too much.
    Iaorana , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Regarding the notorious "fuck the EU " on the part of the US "diplomat" Victoria Nuland "the State Department and the White House suggested that an assistant to the deputy prime minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin was the source of the leak, which he denied " Wiki

    Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis.

    Lafcadio1944 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Boy, oh boy, fake news is everywhere just read this headline!

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    Which states as fact there was interference by Russia and that the investigation is to determine how bad it was. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER has been offered by anyone that Russia interfered in any way. FAKE NEWS!!

    Mike5000 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Voting machine hacking is a very serious problem but you generally need physical access to a voting machine to hack it. Anyone notice thousands of Russians hanging around in Detriot, Los Angeles, etc election HQs? How about Clinton drones?

    If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary we'd be celebrating president-elect Bernie. If they hadn't rigged the general Hillary would have lost by a landslide.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    We never investigated this tho did we Former President Obama?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Time to put on your big girl pants, accept defeat and leave gracefully.

    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    1000 Russian athletes were doping in the 2012 Olympics - but it's taken until now to realise it?!
    Russia influenced the 2016 US election?!
    Russia is presently "influencing" the German elections?!
    Russia is killing civilians and destroying hospitals with impunity in Syria?!
    etc
    Wow! Russia is taking over the world, it must be stopped, can anyone save us? Obama? Trump? NATO?
    Look out! Russian armies are massing on the border ready to sweep into Europe.......arrhhh!

    I love the smell of gibberish in the morning!

    geofffrey , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    ***Newsflash***

    Reads:

    "..ex-prime minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair of the United Kingdom, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States of America, have formally announced a new transatlantic political party to be named: The Neoliberal Elite Party for bitter anti-Brexiters and sore anti-Trumpettes.

    dahsab , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    Rather rich coming from my country which has interfered in elections around the world for decades. I suppose it's only cheating if the other team does it.

    Not that they'll find any evidence. Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it!

    [Dec 10, 2016] McCarthys Smiling Ghost Democrats Point the Finger at Russia by Norman Solomon

    Notable quotes:
    "... Joe McCarthy rose to corrosive prominence at the midpoint of the 20th century by riding hysteria and spurring it on. The demagoguery was fueled not only by opportunistic politicians but also by media outlets all too eager to damage the First Amendment and other civil liberties in the name of Americanism and anti-communism. ..."
    "... Most Democratic leaders, for their part, seem determined to implicitly - or even explicitly - scapegoat the Russian government for the presidential election results. Rather than clearly assess the impacts of Hillary Clinton 's coziness with Wall Street, or even the role of the FBI director just before the election, the Democratic line seems bent on playing an anti-Russia card. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    This country went through protracted witch hunts during the McCarthy era. A lot of citizens - including many government workers - had their lives damaged or even destroyed. The chill on the First Amendment became frosty, then icy. Democracy was on the ropes.

    Joe McCarthy rose to corrosive prominence at the midpoint of the 20th century by riding hysteria and spurring it on. The demagoguery was fueled not only by opportunistic politicians but also by media outlets all too eager to damage the First Amendment and other civil liberties in the name of Americanism and anti-communism.

    Today, congressional leaders of both parties seem glad to pretend that Section 501 of the Intelligence Authorization Act is just fine, rather than an odious and dangerous threat to precious constitutional freedoms. On automatic pilot, many senators will vote aye without a second thought.

    Yet by rights, with growing grassroots opposition , this terrible provision should be blocked by legislators in both parties, whether calling themselves progressives, liberals, libertarians, Tea Partyers or whatever, who don't want to chip away at cornerstones of the Bill of Rights.

    Most Democratic leaders, for their part, seem determined to implicitly - or even explicitly - scapegoat the Russian government for the presidential election results. Rather than clearly assess the impacts of Hillary Clinton 's coziness with Wall Street, or even the role of the FBI director just before the election, the Democratic line seems bent on playing an anti-Russia card.

    Perhaps in the mistaken belief that they can gain some kind of competitive advantage over the GOP by charging Russian intervention for Donald Trump 's victory, the Democrats are playing with fire. The likely burn victims are the First Amendment and other precious freedoms.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Whos Behind PropOrNots Blacklist of News Websites

    From Wikipedia article Communist propaganda. "....the term "propaganda" broadly refers to any publication or campaign aimed at promoting a cause and is/was used for official purposes by most communist-oriented governments. Rooted in Marxist thought, the propaganda of communism is viewed by its proponents as the vehicle for spreading the enlightenment of working class people and pulling them away from the propaganda of their oppressors that reinforces their exploitation, such as religion or consumerism. A Bolshevik theoretician, Nikolai Bukharin, in his The ABC of Communism wrote:[1] The State propaganda of communism becomes in the long run a means for the eradication of the last traces of bourgeois propaganda dating from the old régime; and it is a powerful instrument for the creation of a new ideology, of new modes of thought, of a new outlook on the world.
    Similarly neoliberal propaganda is the vehicle of spreading neoliberal ideas and "neoliberal rationality" inside the country and all over the world the reinforces key postulated of neoliberalism -- unlimited "free market" for transnational corporations, deregulation, suppression of wages via "free movement of labor" and outsourcing and offshoring, decimation of labor unions and organized labor in general (atomization of working force"), "greed is good" memo, etc.
    Like Communist propaganda during Brezhnev rule, neoliberal propaganda after 2008 is in crisis, and it is natural to expect that neoliberal propagandists will resort to heavy handed tactic of McCarthyism in a vain attempt to restore its influence.
    wallstreetonparade.com
    Wall Street On Parade closely examined the report issued by PropOrNot, its related Twitter page, and its registration as a business in New Mexico, looking for "tells" as to the individual(s) behind it. We learned quite a number of interesting facts.

    As part of its McCarthyite tactics, PropOrNot has developed a plugin to help readers censor material from the websites it has blacklisted. It calls that its YYYCampaignYYY. In that effort, it lists an official address of 530-B Harkle Road, Suite 100, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. That's one of those agent addresses that serve as a virtual address for the creation of limited liability corporations that want to keep their actual principals secret. The address has dozens of businesses associated with it. There should also be a corresponding business listed in the online archives of the business registry at the Secretary of State of New Mexico. However, no business with the words Propaganda or PropOrNot or YYY exist in the New Mexico business registry, suggesting PropOrNot is using a double cloaking device to shield its identity by registering under a completely different name.

    PropOrNot's Twitter page provides a "tell" that its report may simply be a hodgepodge compilation of other people's research that was used to arrive at its dangerous assertion that critical thinkers across America are a clandestine network of Russian propaganda experts. Its Tweet on November 7 indicates that the research of Peter Pomerantsev, a Senior Fellow at the Legatum Institute in London, who has also been cooperating on research with the Information Warfare Project of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) in Washington, D.C, inspired its efforts.

    According to SourceWatch, the Legatum Institute "is a right-wing think tank promoting 'free markets, free minds, and free peoples.' " SourceWatch adds that the Legatum Institute "is a project founded and funded by the Legatum Group, a private investment group based in Dubai." According to the Internet Archive known as the Wayback Machine, the Center for European Policy Analysis previously indicated it was an affiliate of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). We can see why they might want to remove that affiliation now that the Koch brothers have been exposed as funders of a very real network of interrelated websites and nonprofits. According to Desmog, NCPA has received millions of dollars in funding from right wing billionaires like the Koch brothers and their related trusts along with the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation (heir to the Mellon fortune) along with corporations like ExxonMobil.

    CEPA's InfoWar Project is currently listed as a "Related Project" at PropOrNot's website. Indeed, there are numerous references within the report issued by PropOrNot that sound a familiar refrain to Pomerantsev and/or CEPA. Both think the U.S. Congress is in denial on the rising dangers of Russian propaganda and want it to take more direct counter measures. Pages 31 and 32 of the PropOrNot report urge the American people to demand answers from the U.S. government about how much it knows about Russian propaganda. The report provides a detailed list of specific questions that should be asked.

    In the August 2016 report released by CEPA (the same month the PropOrNot Twitter account was established) Pomerantsev and his co-author, Edward Lucas, recommend the establishment of "An international commission under the auspices of the Council of Europe on the lines of the Venice Commission" to "act as a broadcasting badge of quality. If an official body cannot be created, then an NGO could play a similar advisory role."

    On its website, PropOrNot recommends a much stronger censorship of independent media websites, writing:

    "We call on the American public to Obtain news from actual reporters, who report to an editor and are professionally accountable for mistakes. We suggest NPR, the BBC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Buzzfeed News, VICE, etc, and especially your local papers and local TV news channels. Support them by subscribing, if you can!"

    It has been the experience of Wall Street On Parade that the editors of the New York Times are more than willing to ignore brazen misreporting of critical facts, even when the errors are repeatedly brought to their attention; even when those erroneous facts are then repeated by the President of the United States. (See our report: President Obama Repeats the Falsehoods of the New York Times and Andrew Ross Sorkin on Restoring the Glass-Steagall Act.)

    CounterPunch was quick to point out that the Washington Post's former publisher, Philip Graham, supervised a disinformation network for the CIA during the Cold War, known as Mockingbird. Graham was reported to have died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at his farm in 1963.

    CEPA's website indicates that on May 10 it hosted Senators Chris Murphy and Rob Portman to discuss "Russia's sophisticated disinformation campaign." CEPA's President, A. Wess Mitchell is quoted as saying: "What's missing is a significant effort on the part of the U.S. government. Not nearly enough has been done."

    Six days after Washington Post reporter Craig Timberg ran his first PropOrNot story, he published another article indicating that "Congressional negotiators on Wednesday approved an initiative to track and combat foreign propaganda amid growing concerns that Russian efforts to spread 'fake news' and disinformation threaten U.S. national security." Quoted in the story was none other than the very Senator who had met with CEPA in May on that very topic, Senator Rob Portman.

    Portman is quoted as follows: "This propaganda and disinformation threat is real, it's growing, and right now the U.S. government is asleep at the wheel." Among Portman's top three donors to his 2016 Senate race were Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, two Wall Street behemoths that would very much like to pivot the national debate to anything other than Wall Street power and corruption.

    [Dec 10, 2016] NBCs Fake News King Brian Williams Launches Crusade Against Fake News

    Notable quotes:
    "... Fake News, the new barrel bombs meme ..."
    "... Sorry, Brian, but you and your ilk sold your credibility for a full investment position in Hillary and Globalism. Your only recourse now is to attack and try to delegitamize those who call you out. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Now this is rich. Brian Williams, the disgraced ex-NBC journalist who was literally fired for falsely reporting that he was in a helicopter during the Iraq war that took on combatant fire, is now going on a crusade against "fake news." On his MSNBC show last night, Williams decided to attack retired General Flynn and Donald Trump for spreading "fake news" via their twitter accounts.

    ... ... ...

    nuubee •Dec 9, 2016 11:42 AM

    I'm going to start reading The Onion and taking it seriously now.

    nope-1004 -> Pladizow •Dec 9, 2016 11:48 AM

    At least he wasn't in real harms way, like Hillary, when she landed under sniper fire.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMpqImAjel4

    NoDebt -> Life of Illusion •Dec 9, 2016 12:02 PM

    It's like [neo]Liberals are genetically compelled or something to accuse others of what they themselves are actually doing. I've never seen anything this universally true for an entire group of people suffering the same mental illness ([neo]liberalism).

    nmewn -> MillionDollarBonus_ Dec 9, 2016 1:24 PM ,
    Accredit this you fucking bozo...

    The Iraq RPG Helicopter Hit

    - "A terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG." - NBC Nightly News, January 30, 2015

    - "It was no more than 120 seconds later that the helicopter in front of us was hit." - Brian Williams to Tim Russert on CNBC, March 2005

    - "I was instead following the aircraft" [that was struck by the RPG]. - NBC Nightly News, Wednesday February 5, 2015

    - Williams' original [March 26, 2003, NBC News] report indicated that a helicopter in front of his was hit. - PolitiFact

    - NBC publishes a book [in 2003], "Operation Iraqi Freedom," in which they describe Williams' experience, implying that his helicopter sustained fire. - PolitiFact

    - May 2008: Williams writes another [NBC News] blog, responding to a note from a soldier who he met in Iraq. In this post, Williams indicates that he was in a helicopter that took fire. - PolitiFact

    - "I've done some ridiculously stupid things under that banner, like being in a helicopter I had no business being in Iraq with rounds coming into the airframe," he said [to Alec Baldwin in March 2014] - PolitiFact

    - "We were in some helicopters. What we didn't know was, we were north of the invasion. We were the northernmost Americans in Iraq. We were going to drop some bridge portions across the Euphrates so the Third Infantry could cross on them. Two of the four helicopters were hit, by ground fire, including the one I was in, RPG and AK-47. - Williams to Letterman on March 26, 2013 - PolitiFact.

    - In the initial NBC broadcast where he described his 2003 Iraq reporting mission, embattled NBC anchor Brian Williams falsely claimed that "we saw the guy . . . [who] put a round through the back of a chopper," which he further and incorrectly claimed was "the Chinook [helicopter] in front of us." - Breitbart

    - "We flew over a bridge. He waved to the lead pilot very kindly. With that someone else removed the tarp, stood up, and put a round through the back of a chopper missing the rear rotor by four or five feet." - To Tom Brokaw on March 26, 2003 - Breitbart

    - "[Y]ou go back to Iraq, and I looked down the tube of an RPG that had been fired at us and it hit the chopper in front of ours." - Williams to Fairfield University in 2007 - Ace of Spades

    SEAL Team 6 Tale

    - "We have some idea which of our special operations teams carried this out," Williams said on "The Late Show With David Letterman" the day after the raid [May 2, 2011]. "It happens to be a team I flew into Baghdad with, on the condition that I would never speak of what I saw on the aircraft, what aircraft we were on, what we were carrying, or who we were after." - Huffington Post

    - "Now, people might be hearing about SEAL Team 6," Williams said the next night, May 3, 2011, on "Nightly News." "I happen to have the great honor of flying into Baghdad with them at the start of the war." - Huffington Post

    - "I flew into Baghdad, invasion plus three days, on a blackout mission at night with elements of SEAL Team 6, and I was told not to make any eye contact with them or initiate any conversation," Williams said. (Three days after the U.S. invasion would have been March 22, 2003, not April 9, 2003, which was the day Williams broadcasted from the Baghdad airport.) - To David Letterman in May of 2012 - Huffinton Post

    - In the 2012 "Late Show" appearance, Williams also recalled carrying a box of Wheat Thins, which he said a hungry special operator dug into with a "hand the size of a canned ham." They got to talking, and Williams told the commando how much he admired his knife. "Darned if that knife didn't show up at my office a couple weeks later," Williams told Letterman. - Huffington Post

    - "About six weeks after the Bin Laden raid, I got a white envelope and in it was a thank-you note, unsigned," Williams said on "Letterman" in January 2013. "And in it was a piece of the fuselage of the blown-up Black Hawk in that courtyard. Sent to me by one of my friends." - Huffington Post

    - In February 2014, Williams elaborated on the helicopter gift in another media appearance, this time on the sports talk show hosted by Dan Patrick. "It's one of the toughest things to get," he said, "and the president has a piece of it as well It's made of a material most people haven't seen or held in their hands." - Huffington Post

    Fall of the Berlin Wall

    - "I've been so fortunate," he said during a 2008 forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. "I was at the Brandenburg Gate the night the wall came down." - CNN

    - "Here's a fact: 25 years ago tonight, Tom Brokaw and I were at the Berlin Wall," Williams said at a gala held on November 8, 2014. - CNN

    The Pope

    - "I was there during the visit of the pope," Williams said [in 2002]. - CNN

    - While delivering the commencement address at Catholic University that year [2004], Williams said the "highlight" of his time at the school "was in this very doorway, shaking hands with the Holy Father during his visit to this campus." - CNN

    Katyusha Rocket Fire

    - "There were Katyusha rockets passing just beneath the helicopter I was riding in," he told a student interviewer from Fairfield (Conn.) University that year [2007]. - Washington Post

    Katrina

    - "All of us watched [in the Superdome] as one man committed suicide." - Williams to Tom Brokaw, at Columbia University in 2013 .

    –. My week, two weeks there was not helped by the fact that I accidentally ingested some of the floodwater. I became very sick with dysentery." - Williams to Tom Brokaw at Columbia University in 2013.

    - "Our hotel was overrun with gangs. I was rescued in the stairwell of a five-star hotel in New Orleans by a young police officer – we are friends to this day." - Williams to Tom Brokaw at Columbia University in 2013.

    - "When you look out of your hotel window in the French Quarter and watch a man float by face down, when you see bodies that you last saw in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and swore to yourself that you would never see in your country," Williams told Eisner [in 2006], who suggested in the interview that Williams emerged from former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw's shadow with his Katrina coverage. - USA Today

    - In Williams's telling, the pathos of the scene extended to his crew's access to food. "We were desperate for food and drink. But not like the people we were seeing in the streets," he said in the documentary "In His Own Words: Brian Williams on Hurricane Katrina." - Washington Post

    Puppy Rescue

    - "I remember one such house fire - the structure was fully involved with flames and smoke. I was wearing a breathing apparatus, conducting a search on my hands and knees, when I felt something warm, squishy and furry on the floor of a closet. I instinctively tucked it in my coat." - October 2011, USA Today

    - "All I ever did as a volunteer fireman was once save two puppies." - January 2007, Esquire

    Christmas Tree Robbery

    In a 2005 interview with Esquire magazine, Williams said a thief drew on him in the 1970s - leaving him "looking up at a thug's snub-nosed .38 while selling Christmas trees out of the back of a truck." – NY Post

    Quitting College

    - "One day, I'm at the copy machine in the White House and Walter Mondale comes up behind me and clears his throat. A classic throat-clearing. I thought people only did that in movies, but it turns out vice-presidents do it, too. Anyway, it makes for an exceptionally good morning, and I run from the White House to the GW campus for class. I'm still wearing my West Wing hard pass on a chain, and when my professor sees it, he admits that he's only been to the White House on the public tour. And I thought to myself, This is costing me money that I don't have, and I'm a young man in too much of a hurry. So I left school." - Brian Williams to Esquire , 2005

    - But then a friend invited him to drive to Washington, D.C., for a weekend, and everything changed. Smitten with the city and its youthful energy, Williams decided to move there. He transferred what credits he could from Brookdale to Catholic University and took a job in the public relations department to help pay his expenses. He landed an internship at the White House, and when that ended, he answered an ad for a clerking job at a broadcasting association. - 2009, New Jersey-Star Ledger

    Ms No nmewn Dec 9, 2016 10:08 PM ,
    It's just amazing what a shameless loser this guy has always been. I was surprised that they even fired him for contriving this story, that is after all, what they do. The whole idea behind embedding journalists was to make them part of the team, which prevents subjective journalism (not that there was a risk of that happening with him) and turning the war into a fictionalized patriotic orgy of bullshit reality TV. This was a huge shame to the profession of journalism before you factor in the lies and perpetual fabrication.

    The only reason he was fired was due to the fact that we were in the throws of a giant national masturbation frenzy over military aggression and the military and it's endeavors became untouchable overnight. When they got pissed off during that time frame it definitely mattered, not so much now. Now they are just screwing them and everybody else. These news anchors are absolutely disgusting, just about every one of them. They all look like pumpkins and hookers. They need to lay off the hairspray and man-makeup before throwing themselves into 170 degree acidic geyser (you don't want it too hot).

    Perimetr Ms No Dec 9, 2016 10:44 PM
    These ratfuck pressitutes haven't noticed Clinton lost the election because we stopped buying the MSM lies nothing there that's worthwhile to read based on his stupidity here.
    The Saint NewHugh Dec 9, 2016 10:11 PM ,
    Similar to Brian Williams, here is a short documentary on what makes George Soros such an evil person.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aETpLQ7WcM

    Paul E. Math NoDebt Dec 9, 2016 9:21 PM ,
    Brian Willians has been discredited and should either retire or find another job. But also, and I'm serious about this, Pizzagate is a ridiculous made-up bullshit story that is distracting everyone from the real issues and the way that the Dems have fucked our whole civilization for real, not just a few kids that likely never even happened.

    Even if pizzagate is real it is far less important than the many real ways in which the elites have fucked us all.

    Uzda Farce AllTimeWhys Dec 9, 2016 12:10 PM ,
    Brian Williams is a member of the Rockefeller/CFR along with Mika Brzezinski and Charles "Joe" Scarborough. See member lists at cfr dot org.

    "The fact that we will not reestablish [another] Walter Cronkite, because of technology... does not mean we can't have people who are trusted. Brian Williams is sitting here , Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric..."

    -- CFR media control roundtable , sponsored by Time-Warner, 2009-09

    J S Bach Uzda Farce Dec 9, 2016 12:18 PM ,
    Hubris and hypocrisy... the two things the MSM is best at.
    NotApplicable J S Bach Dec 9, 2016 1:02 PM ,
    With over a century of government schooling to dumb down the population, I'd say their lack of tact is fairly well warranted, given the average length of attention span can likely be measured in hours.
    TeamDepends Uzda Farce Dec 9, 2016 12:20 PM ,
    All we can do is tell the unawake to turn off the idiot box, stop ingesting Kellogg's etc etc. Every day we win a few more battles, and one day come to realize the enemy are all lying on the ground, motionless.
    Bam_Man NoDebt Dec 9, 2016 1:05 PM ,
    It's called PROJECTION.

    A very common symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    Other symptoms include:

  • Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
  • Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
  • Exaggerating your achievements and talents
  • Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
  • Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
  • Requiring constant admiration
  • Having a sense of entitlement
  • Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
  • Taking advantage of others to get what you want
  • Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
  • Being envious of others and believing others envy you
  • Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner
  • Dimwit Life of Illusion Dec 9, 2016 1:00 PM ,
    EVIDENTLY NOT,

    Obama orders review of cyber attacks on 2016 election – adviser

    President Barack Obama directed US intelligence agencies to conduct a full review of cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office, homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said on Friday. Monaco told reporters the results of the report would be shared with lawmakers and others. Obama leaves office on January 20. (Reuters)

    EscapeKey LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 11:54 AM ,
    here's some more fake news from nbc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgm3_jzcNm4

    Whalley World EscapeKey Dec 9, 2016 12:34 PM ,
    Fake News, the new barrel bombs meme
    Antifaschistische LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 11:58 AM ,
    remember, this has nothing to do with fake news. This has everything to do with competition. THe MSM is getting too much competition from independent bloggers and opinions that don't follow their narrative. Their goal now......figure out some way to shut them down.
    mary mary Antifaschistische Dec 9, 2016 12:06 PM ,
    Amazing! People find truth more interesting than the MSM pablum of misdirection and misinformation.
    LyLo Antifaschistische Dec 9, 2016 12:29 PM ,
    And that's the entirety of the issue: if McCain had won in 2008, we'd have been hearing about fake news then. It really is just that we had the audacity to disagree with the legacy media--who for the first time in my memory broke every rule they had for themselves in appearing to cover all sides--to try to corral the US public into voting for their candidate of choice. Even Fox News was anti-Trump, for fuck's sake: did they not realize that gave away the game?!

    Ironically, I feel if the media hadn't been so in-the-bag for Clinton from the start, I wouldn't be surprised if she had won. The media lost her A LOT of votes by making it look like, whether true or not, they had been bought off. (Yeah, I know they were. But they aren't supposed to APPEAR it; Clinton should ask for a refund, in my opinion.)

    So yeah; look forward to media licensing being floated, and somehow requiring credentials for journalists (which will end with needing to be 'certified,' which will inevitably require an expensive several year trip to your university daycare of choice.)

    Will it work? Actually, for once, I have hope: I don't think it will. In fact, I suspect fairly soon, someone is going to notice that Thomas Payne was probably the first purveyor of "fake news" in this country, and that's a fucked up thing to be against as an American.

    MANvsMACHINE LyLo Dec 9, 2016 1:03 PM ,
    Fox News was anti-Trump?
    equity_momo LyLo Dec 9, 2016 8:53 PM ,
    BS. If McCain won in 2008 we'd already be in an actual fucking hot war with Russia. 2008 was a wet-dream for Soros and his boys. They got to win big or win FUCKING BIG.
    flaminratzazz LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 12:06 PM ,
    This is all a distraction from the tribes FULL COURT PRESS

    again, just like I said yesterday about recognizing evil look at their eyes

    The eyes

    equity_momo LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 8:48 PM ,
    Heres an idea. How about we play the "Fake News Game"

    I say something that could be true or false , you reply with your answer and then its your turn.

    "Hillary Clinton has only been on the Lolita Express 6 times" True or False ?

    equity_momo equity_momo Dec 9, 2016 9:04 PM ,
    Its TRUE!

    The FBI found State Dept emails showing that Hillary Clinton went to "Orgy Island" at least 6 times - and at least once in the company of convicted pedo Jeffrey Epstein. (Bill Clinton went there "at least 20 times" - those pesky progressives!)

    El Oregonian nope-1004 Dec 9, 2016 11:50 AM ,
    Oh yeah, him and pope poopagolio are the "Real" ones... PLEASE! (FLAKE NEWS!: as in snowflakes)
    Chupacabra-322 El Oregonian Dec 9, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    Brian,

    You are the epitome of and exactly exactly the type of vile, disgusting, reprehensible Scum at the bottom of the Swap. A bottom feeder at best.

    The Presstitute Centrailized Media has been exposed for the farce that it is. The obvious denial of it simply exposes the Sociopathic / Psychopathic Nature of you vile Scum Fucks.

    Accept it. The Public has lost all respect for the Centrailzed Industrial Complex Presstitiute Media.

    Son of Loki El Oregonian Dec 9, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    The Libtards are desperate to attack Russia and start WW III, bailout Wall Street again and keep the Swamp parasites in power in DC to keep the gravy train flowing.

    MSM and Dem lies get Yuuuger every day...it's almost laughable but they are actually very dangerous people and thus, we need to protect the 2nd to protect us from them if they get to desperate.

    Miss Expectations nope-1004 Dec 9, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    Part of me is sorry that our military didn't drop Hillary and Chelsea off in Tuzla, Bosnia amid snipper fire.
    sgt_doom Pladizow Dec 9, 2016 1:27 PM ,
    False assumption, my friend!

    There has never been an actual media in America to begin with --- just go back and check out the trash that the Pulitzer fellow wrote, and then realize why that prize is awarded to the riff-raff who usually receive it.

    Yup, I remember Brian . . .

    https://memegenerator.net/instance/59167575

    What a piece of crapola.

    RU4Au Pladizow Dec 9, 2016 1:29 PM ,
    Suicide, indeed!

    Sorry, Brian, but you and your ilk sold your credibility for a full investment position in Hillary and Globalism. Your only recourse now is to attack and try to delegitamize those who call you out.

    EAT ROCKS, PRICK!

    chubbar Pladizow Dec 9, 2016 8:55 PM ,
    The gig is up for these MSM pantywaists and they know it. The only way they maintain viewership is if the gov't shuts down the internet, which it may. These little fucktards like williams are some of the biggest purveyors of bullshit in the history of mankind and they know we are on to their game. No one is going back to believing anything these assholes say except for the most partisan, retarded, misinformed of the US population.
    stocker84 nuubee Dec 9, 2016 11:50 AM ,
    Wait, the onion is not a real news souce?

    Get outta here!

    This is real isn't it?

    http://www.theonion.com/article/cia-realizes-its-been-using-black-highli...

    trumpala Dec 9, 2016 11:43 AM ,
    McCarthyism 2.0 against the independent information
    Rebel yell Dec 9, 2016 12:10 PM ,
    Main Stream news - earning the respect and trust of 6% of Americans!
    Dangerous Fake News Epidemic!
    Yes We Can. But... Dec 9, 2016 12:20 PM ,
    MSM = MainStream Media

    It died and is being reincarnated as:

    FNM - The Fake News Media

    Heretofore, please refer to the former MSM as the FNM. Thank you.

    Squidbilly Dec 9, 2016 12:37 PM ,
    the news organizations are all propped up to keep the global culture industry operational. If they were to be displaced by conscious consumers of worth while real news, like the kind that's now starting to make it's way through the alternative media, they would only exist for viewers who were being groomed for social unrest. Oh wait, that's what their doing now isn't it?
    2muchtax Dec 9, 2016 12:38 PM ,
    This is the opportunity to wake people up that you care about. If nothing else you can show that the news is all coordinated. There is no possibility that in a free competitive market every org would repeat the same message from the same perspective.

    I have taken advantage of the oligarchs sloppiness. People who thought I was crazy two years ago are now acknowledging I was right. I have delivered news to people and two weeks later it was a breaking story. Take the opportunity and bring a few more people over.

    Robert Trip Dec 9, 2016 12:41 PM ,
    Not only has Williams got hot combat experience but he's also rescued countless folks right here at home form car wrecks and burning buildings.

    And this guy is a regular Batman for thwarting armed robberies and terrorist attacks.

    Let's cut the guy some slack on this.

    He sure has the street cred.

    Atomizer Dec 9, 2016 12:48 PM ,
    Brian,

    Ever hear about NYT vs Sullivan? 1964, before I was born.

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commonlaw.htm

    Then you have the 1998 telecommunications Act signed by Bill Clinton. Next,

    Shh! Don't criticize the government or they will send you to the Gulag! HR 6393

    Text of H.R. 6393 : Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Received by the Senate version) - GovTrack.us

    Highlights of H.R. 6393 ,

    Driving your own into the Media coffin. Do you honestly think we will be forced to watch your shit? I think not...

    CIA FAKE NEWS Propaganda!! Full Documentary 2015 - YouTube

    Mike Masr Dec 9, 2016 1:51 PM ,
    The only truly fake news is the US MSM. This bullshit that is called "news" is filled with omissions, distortions, half truths, bald faced lies and fabrications. This is the "official narrative" the Kool Aid that we are all supposed to drink. Remember how the MSM colluded with the Bush Administration's neocons to sell the bullshit Iraq WMD story that was presented to the UN by Colin Powell? Total bullshit. How can anyone believe anything that is fed to us from the MSM.

    Ironic but the guy I'm going to tell you about was featured on 60 minutes. You know what I love is when the US State Department or the MSM quotes the UK Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. This is a little old man in a dingy apartment in a slum Arab neighborhood in London. This old fucking guy claims to know whats going on in Syria. Actually this is a neocon propaganda mill for the CIA It's comments, suggestions and conclusions are solely based upon an official narrative created by the CIA and sold to us through the MSM.

    Look at the pre-election coverage and non-stop polling data talked about by all the MSM boneheads including this Brian Williams jack off. Donald Trump was continously slammed, over and over again by *all of them.*The exception was Sean Hannity. Now look at the partial list of donors to crooked Hillary's campaign.

    The list of donors to the Clinton campaign included many of the most powerful media institutions in the country - among the donors: Comcast (which owns NBC, and its cable sister channels, such as MSNBC); James Murdoch of News Corporation (owner of Fox News and its sister stations, among many other media holdings); Time Warner (CNN, HBO, scores of other channels); Bloomberg; Reuters; Viacom; Howard Stringer (of CBS News); AOL (owner of Huffington Post); Google; Twitter; The Washington Post Company; George Stephanopoulos (host of ABC News' flagship Sunday show); PBS; PRI; the Hearst Corporation and others ( http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37451-the-clinton-foundation-and-the-... ).

    Trump is correct when he says the US media is crooked. It's all fucking fake news!!

    Post election- I now watch local news for traffic and weather in the morning. But fuck them I will not listen to the MSM talking heads or anything else on the crooked MSM. To know whats going on in the world I now watch RT which presents an objective and honest perspective of what's really going on in the world. Of course they call RT fake news, or Russian propaganda. All I can say is they can go fuck themselves! I am sick and tired of the lies and bullshit which is the official US narrative as presented by our 100% crooked MSM!

    The real fake news is presented by the liars in our MSM!

    SirBarksAlot Dec 9, 2016 1:47 PM ,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EZezBEeRHw

    Spoof on Brian Williams.

    HeyThere Dec 9, 2016 3:21 PM ,
    Brian Williams (known liar) warns against Fake News?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EZezBEeRHw
    GreatUncle Dec 9, 2016 3:31 PM ,
    Lol makes no difference now ... I left the MSM, never read it anymore.

    I am no longer misinformed by them - that's a bonus.

    I now prefer news from other nations because domestically it is all the fucking same from the libtards and progressives of more people murdered because of some shit they created. Still get drug addicts committing crime just like all them illegal immigrants because with no money you have to commit a crime to exist. We all know that domestically your bankers are robbing you and that the politicians are lying pieces of shit.

    So why would I want to read what I already know? Nope don't need it.

    Bye, bye NBC and the rest of you I can predict what the stories you will run with tomorrow because they are the same fucking lies like the past 30 years.

    StreetObserver Dec 9, 2016 9:04 PM ,
    Attack the MSM by attacking their ability to sell advertising.

    "That newspaper you are advertising in has been wrong on everything, from going into Iraq to recommending that loser Hillary Clinton to the final election results. If you are advertising in that dishonest discredited rag, your product or service is being tarnished by association. "

    "Just watch President Elect Trump's Thank You Tour speech. Tens of thousands of people loudly booed the press and the media that were there. You really want to spend your money buying ads from those discredited losers?"

    847328_3527 Dec 9, 2016 9:16 PM ,
    The neocons and fascist Democrat factions are joining forces looks like and as desperate as can be. They've lied since day one, bombed RNC offices, beat innocent people up at Trump rallys, published non-stop fake news, and now pull the "Russian agent" theory out of their closet.

    Most Americans laugh at these nuts but I think they are very scary and serious since they have alot of money invested in Queeb Hillary and war with Russia.

    Rebel yell Dec 9, 2016 10:01 PM ,
    The Washington Post ( fake news organization) is reporting that the CIA secretly informed the senate last week that there was Russian interference in our election and that it was Russia's goal to ensure the election of Donald Trump. Apparently the house was informed in September and was questioned if this should be made public and the Republicams said no, according to the Washington Post - the source identified himself as " DNC in deep shit" . /Sarc.

    Rachel Maddow was gleefully reporting on this tonight, as if it somehow vindicated her and her morally bankrupt colleagues from the fact that they should have been reporting on this rather than the Russians, since it is an American election and it is their job to investigate and report the news.

    Of course Obama has decided to keep this information secret, although, 7 "Democratic " senators were requesting that the Obama administration released PARTS of the findings of the investigation which can only lead one to question which PARTS they would prefer to keep from the American public and why. It also is a concern of national security that national secrets are ending up on the Washington Post- maybe they received this information from Russia.

    Mitch McConell was reported to have been dismissive of the allegations as a result of the lack of agreement over the evidence among the 17 security agencies involved, the lack of any source directly linking the Russian government to releasing DNC hacked emails to the Wikileaks
    This also begs to question Rachel Maddow on her lack of outrage of the behavior of the DNC in colluding with the press and rigging the primary. As if to say, since Russia revealed the information and the wrong doing of the DNC, it is not a question of if the behavior of the DNC was just or unjust.

    Nor does it vindicate any Hillary supporter, it does not legitimize what the DNC, the press, or Hillary Clinton did.

    Leave it to the incompetent Washington Post and MSNBC and Rachel Maddow to completely miss the ball again.

    Is it surprising to anyone that Russia did not wish for world war 3?

    Thanks comrades!

    Kina Dec 9, 2016 10:07 PM ,
    Washington Post CNN Madow DNC credibility approaching zero plus they already did the 'Russians did it' thing.

    The probs them Dems has that THEY were in power when whatever happened ..happened.

    Rjoins Dec 9, 2016 10:19 PM ,
    We don't have to be too concerned about fake news pumped out by Russia and other evil doers. That job is being well handled already by NBC, CNN, the New York Times, and others.

    In this post-truth world, these openly left-biased media organizations can rival Pravada of the old Soviet Union in their laughable news reports, lack of integrity, and willingness to suppress news they don't want known while publishing outright propaganda.

    In a democracy where citizens must make informed decisions about governments, politicians and issues, it seems to me that the people behind these corrupt media outlets are just debasing their country; I imagine they at least get well paid for their treachery.

    Curious how, having destroyed their own credibility and lost so many viewers and readers, these organizations are now attacking their new, smaller divergent rivals on the internet.

    amenlight Riquin Dec 9, 2016 10:56 PM ,
    The Liberal Leftist and the MSM created the terms Alt-Right and Fake News to distort real news and make them fit into their political agenda! They use this to discredit Conservatives in an effort to shut down Alternative and Conservatist News Media, especially on the Internet and Talk Radio to end competition! They want Free Speech for the Left and Censorship for the Right! The truth is that people discovered their plot and it backfired!!!
    Mainstream media lost all credibility with We the People!!!

    [Dec 10, 2016] Site Behind Washington Posts McCarthyite Blacklist Appears To Be Linked to Ukrainian Fascists and CIA Spies

    Notable quotes:
    "... All of the "The Russians are Coming" nonsense is coming from Democrat party organs and mouthpieces. Not Trump and his media allies. ..."
    "... An excellent article from Mark. This Alexandra Chalupa sounds like a real piece of work. These Cold Warriors seem to have red-colored glasses and see commies everywhere they look. ..."
    "... Of course, there was that old experiment ( Kohler et al ) where they had people wearing different colored goggles for some time, then asked participants to take them off. And what happened? The participants continued to see in those hues. ..."
    "... Wait a second, so there was ..."
    "... CIA has been whipping ethnic Ukies into a patriotic frenzy for decades with social clubs that seep revanchist propaganda. ..."
    "... HR 6393: "(Sec. 501) This title establishes an executive branch interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments (with the role of the Russian Federation hidden or not acknowledged publicly) through front groups, covert broadcasting, media manipulation, disinformation or forgeries, funding agents of influence, incitement, offensive counterintelligence, assassinations, or terrorist acts. The committee shall expose falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies." ..."
    "... Plus, that will add $160 million, IIRC, to The Deficit. ..."
    "... Two things this article curiously doesn't seem to mention. The first is Victoria Nuland, who must be a close Hillary confidante, and architect of the coup in Ukraine ..."
    "... So your food for thought is that the Russian state behaves rationally in the face of an aggressive military power? Of course, they are hacking everything. If they weren't before the NSA revelations (where the U.S. vacuums up everything and then has no safeguards on what they grab; Congress has had testimony about NSA employees using their power to stalk people), they were afterwards. ..."
    "... Here's some food for thought. John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton all tried to make a country of 145 million or so people with numerous internal problems a major campaign platform. Not one of them is President. Could there be a connection? ..."
    "... As one of the people who consistently calls bull hockey about the claims that the wikileaks releases of the DNC and Podesta emails are the results of Russian government hackers, I will hereby agree with the idea that Russia is hacking everything they can get their hands on. Mind you I believe that every major government from the US to China to Germany to India are hacking everything they can get their hands on. And that every government knows that about all the rest. As far as I am concerned anyone who doesn't believe that is beyond naive. ..."
    "... But thinking that every major government had access to Clinton's emails, Boeing's files, and knows what internet videos Obama/May/Merkel/Putin/Castro have accessed more than once is not the same thing as thinking they are stupid enough or have decent strategic reasons to make that public knowledge by releasing damaging but not destroying emails concerning the massive stupidity and arrogance of one candidate for President and her core people. ..."
    "... There is only one reason that the meme about Fake News is being pushed now – the people who have been pushing fake news for awhile to promote their agendas have lost the control they thought they had over the public and now worry about them rebelling. If fake news were important Judith Miller wouldn't have a job or a book deal and the opportunity to promote that book. Hell Murdoch wouldn't have a media empire. ..."
    "... I don't know why so many so-called movers and shakers want war with Russia, but it is clear that anyone getting in the way of that goal is now in the cross hairs. ProporNOT may be more about Ukrainian support, but the people who promoted them are about the reasons it was being used in the first place. ..."
    "... Eastern European fascists running propaganda web sites for the Whappo, indeed. ..."
    "... If you read Matt Stoller's excellent piece from The Atlantic ..."
    "... I don't see "Banana Republican" Trump as a fascist - he is in many ways an exemplar of Caudillismo , a charismatic, populist, but authoritarian oligarch. ..."
    "... Nance used fake news about Clinton speeches to propagate the fake news that the Podesta emails were fake. ..."
    "... Was amused to see that naturalnews (one of the sites listed in propornot – it looks like I guess a right wing alternative medicine type site) is offering a $10k reward for unmasking propornot but I don't think anyone's ever going to be able to collect. ..."
    "... Why? Because they take the site seriously on its claim of being composed of 30 members and will only pay out for the identities of at least ten. I think it's just one, maybe two guys. ..."
    "... There are dots to connect – the WP article, Congressional Section 501 activity, Senators McCain/Graham "leadership"; and most recently, Hillary's comments. Suspect coordination. Connect the dots. And then search for a motive. ..."
    "... The national security state is concerned that Trump will seek mutually beneficial agreements with Russia. For evidence of the power of the national "security" state a tour of the Pentagon is not necessary. Tour Tyson Corner, Virginia, instead, for starters. ..."
    "... And once Trump has established these agreements there will then be no stopping several Eastern European countries + Germany (of course) realizing where their economic interests really lie. Does anyone really believe that Germany is going to let itself be turned into an irradiated wasteland just to please a bunch of neocon paranoids ? ..."
    "... That's what the neocons, the MIC, and all their shills, and enablers truly fear. Paradoxically this ludicrous attempt to revive McCarthyism may well end up actually ending the Cold War for good & all 25 years after it should have ended. ..."
    "... From the article: "It's now been a few days, and the shock and disgust is turning to questions about how to fight back-and who we should be fighting against." ..."
    "... How many people, world-wide, are involved and invested in the whole "taking over everything" machinery of "state security" and espionage and corporate hegemony? And who is this "we" who should be fighting? ..."
    "... This book provides a detailed account of the ways in which the CIA penetrated and influenced a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders, details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts. The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for, or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies. ..."
    "... The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA "projects," and others drifted in and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were publicly exposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political tide to the left. ..."
    "... U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the "Democratic Left" and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell. The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts of "anti-Stalinist" leftists and rightists. They were completely free to defend Western cultural and political values, attack "Stalinist totalitarianism" and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism and imperialism. Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society was printed in the CIA-subsidized journals. What was particularly bizarre about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not only their political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers of truth, iconoclastic humanists, freespirited intellectuals, or artists for art's sake, who counterposed themselves to the corrupted "committed" house "hacks" of the Stalinist apparatus. ..."
    "... It is impossible to believe their claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore the absence in the journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the absence, during their cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, and Korea that led to millions of deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every imperialist crime of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers: some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant essayists like Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling at leftist dissidents. When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London "intellectuals" feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA retaliated. Tom Braden, who directed the International Organizations Branch of the CIA, blew their cover by detailing how they all had to have known who paid their salaries and stipends (397-404). ..."
    "... I have no answers for "what is to be done." ..."
    "... It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached. ..."
    "... One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent. ..."
    "... Dems didn't lose this elections because of "fake news". Dems lost because they did not prosecute the bankers who caused the 2008 financial crash, who fraudulently foreclosed on homes and are still engaged in fraud (see: Wells Fargo). imo. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    financial matters December 9, 2016 at 7:00 am

    Great article but I'm unsure about the conclusion. ""This is the world the Washington Post is bringing back to its front pages. And the timing is incredible-as if Bezos' rag has taken upon itself to soften up the American media before Trump moves in for the kill. And it's all being done in the name of fighting "fake news" and fascism.""

    I was much more worried about this happening with Hillary at the helm. She seems more in line with Soros and the Ukrainian extremists. Trump still seems to be interested in working with Putin on things of mutual interest although he will probably find resistance in both US parties.

    craazyboy December 9, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Yup. I'm still thinking "Make Ukraine Great Again" is not on Trump's agenda. But I'm just taking things day by day. Still digesting Soros found some Nazis he likes. [Facebook "Like" gots it covered. No new tweaking of social media required.]

    However, I think it would be interesting if Trump investigated whether treason against Ukraine is punishable by firing squad under US Treason Law. Since they've made it kinda personal.

    Ted December 9, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Yeah, the piece is a bit uneven and the last bit a bit revealing of the author's own biases. All of the "The Russians are Coming" nonsense is coming from Democrat party organs and mouthpieces. Not Trump and his media allies.

    The most effective neo-fascism that we see emerging everywhere is pretty consistently on the erstwhile voices of the "left" affiliated with the Democrat Party which is double speak for the New American Right. Indeed, by going back to the height of the cold war to make connections to these shady organizations rather than modern day plutocrats (Amazonia and Googlie are low hanging fruit), the author is employing misdirection. So, I will take this with a few grains of salt.

    Romancing The Loan December 9, 2016 at 10:49 am

    Yeah. Didn't propornot even mention Trump himself as one of those scurrilously Russian-influenced? That's certainly been a major D talking point.

    cocomaan December 9, 2016 at 7:07 am

    An excellent article from Mark. This Alexandra Chalupa sounds like a real piece of work. These Cold Warriors seem to have red-colored glasses and see commies everywhere they look.

    Of course, there was that old experiment ( Kohler et al ) where they had people wearing different colored goggles for some time, then asked participants to take them off. And what happened? The participants continued to see in those hues.

    Roger Smith December 9, 2016 at 8:11 am

    Wait a second, so there was foreign intervention in this election and there were nefarious racists and eugenicists involved, but they weren't behind Trump, but Clinton!?

    /heavy sarcasm

    Thank you very much for sharing this JLS! What a fasc inating read! The historical context Ames provides is very intriguing and convincing.

    Katharine December 9, 2016 at 10:33 am

    "Convincing" is too strong. I would say rather suggestive, possibly persuasive. There is not enough evidence to convince. More investigation is needed, and this might be a productive line of inquiry, but it is too soon to talk about conclusions.

    Claudia Riche December 9, 2016 at 8:17 am

    I am a huge fan of your website and donate as regularly as i can. I am appalled at what the Washington Post did and its implications for free speech in the US going forward.

    That said, I find this article defamatory in purpose, rather than informative. I do not believe it meets the usual standards of Naked Capitalism: it is not fairly reasoned, nor based only on relevant fact to the issue at hand. In my opinion, it is designed to smear and thus undermines the considerable, unusual credibility of your website. I find it disturbing that it has been amplified by its inclusion as a link. It does damage to the cause, rather than further it.

    Roger Smith December 9, 2016 at 8:44 am

    How so? First off, we know very little and Ames acknowledges that, but he uses historical context to expand on that and build a case behind the PropOrNot / FPRI claims and their potential motives. He fully admits he is working with that we've got. Maybe all these illustrations do just happen to line up well and new information will change perception, but Ames discussion hits a lot of typical looking benchmarks.

    Eureka Springs December 9, 2016 at 9:11 am

    How is Mr Ames experience and the very place in which Chalupa works, what she says, as well as the history of our countries actions upon others around the world and within not reasonable to consider?

    I'm sorry if incorrect but you seem like a troll without explaining yourself in specificity further.

    Kogut December 9, 2016 at 8:33 am

    Disturbed voter, batshit Springtime-for-Hitler Ukies long predate Biden's involvement. CIA has been whipping ethnic Ukies into a patriotic frenzy for decades with social clubs that seep revanchist propaganda. The hapless Ukies were meant to be cannon fodder for hot war on the USSR. When Russia molted and shed the USSR, Ukraine continued its Soviet degeneration but the associations had a life of their own. That's how CIA clowns wound up proud owners of the Exclusion Zone.

    Sluggeaux December 9, 2016 at 9:12 am

    The DNC should have dropped the Chalupa. (I can't help myself this morning )

    MED December 9, 2016 at 9:20 am

    HR 6393: "(Sec. 501) This title establishes an executive branch interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments (with the role of the Russian Federation hidden or not acknowledged publicly) through front groups, covert broadcasting, media manipulation, disinformation or forgeries, funding agents of influence, incitement, offensive counterintelligence, assassinations, or terrorist acts. The committee shall expose falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies."

    craazyboy December 9, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Plus, that will add $160 million, IIRC, to The Deficit.

    Jay December 9, 2016 at 9:38 am

    Two things this article curiously doesn't seem to mention. The first is Victoria Nuland, who must be a close Hillary confidante, and architect of the coup in Ukraine .

    The second thing is not so curious per se, but a common feature of articles about Russian hacking accusations–they gloss over the fact that there is good evidence that the Russians are hacking everything they can get their hands on. To assume otherwise is naive. Much of this evidence is available in a recently-published book, The Plot to Hack America by Malcolm Nance.

    He doesn't identify American news sources of being Russian stooges, but does describe how the hacks on the DNC have FSB (the new KGB) fingerprints all over them. He also describes Trump's ties to the Kremlin, as well as his advisors' business interests there. Food for thought.

    NotTimothyGeithner December 9, 2016 at 10:06 am

    So your food for thought is that the Russian state behaves rationally in the face of an aggressive military power? Of course, they are hacking everything. If they weren't before the NSA revelations (where the U.S. vacuums up everything and then has no safeguards on what they grab; Congress has had testimony about NSA employees using their power to stalk people), they were afterwards.

    Here's some food for thought. John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton all tried to make a country of 145 million or so people with numerous internal problems a major campaign platform. Not one of them is President. Could there be a connection?

    Pat December 9, 2016 at 10:08 am

    As one of the people who consistently calls bull hockey about the claims that the wikileaks releases of the DNC and Podesta emails are the results of Russian government hackers, I will hereby agree with the idea that Russia is hacking everything they can get their hands on. Mind you I believe that every major government from the US to China to Germany to India are hacking everything they can get their hands on. And that every government knows that about all the rest. As far as I am concerned anyone who doesn't believe that is beyond naive.

    But thinking that every major government had access to Clinton's emails, Boeing's files, and knows what internet videos Obama/May/Merkel/Putin/Castro have accessed more than once is not the same thing as thinking they are stupid enough or have decent strategic reasons to make that public knowledge by releasing damaging but not destroying emails concerning the massive stupidity and arrogance of one candidate for President and her core people.

    There is only one reason that the meme about Fake News is being pushed now – the people who have been pushing fake news for awhile to promote their agendas have lost the control they thought they had over the public and now worry about them rebelling. If fake news were important Judith Miller wouldn't have a job or a book deal and the opportunity to promote that book. Hell Murdoch wouldn't have a media empire.

    I don't know why so many so-called movers and shakers want war with Russia, but it is clear that anyone getting in the way of that goal is now in the cross hairs. ProporNOT may be more about Ukrainian support, but the people who promoted them are about the reasons it was being used in the first place.

    susan the other December 9, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    Because big picture. Eurasia is inevitably coming together and it is the end of an era. Why we thought we could prevent this from happening must be based on pure hubris. Everything has changed so much in one century that even language makes no sense. Eastern European fascists running propaganda web sites for the Whappo, indeed.

    Hillary Clinton taking up the cause against fake news. Jesus. As Liz Warren said, personnel is policy. You hire fascist nut cases, you create fascism. Hillary, you're so very patriotic.

    Sluggeaux December 9, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    If you read Matt Stoller's excellent piece from The Atlantic , "How the Democrats Killed their Populist Soul" you'll see that Clintonism matches the corporatist model of fascism as derided by Franklin Roosevelt in the late '30's, before mass-murder became associated with the brand and when people like Charles Lindbergh were touting it as the "modern" way forward. If you understand Clintonism as corporatist fascism, the DNC's affinity for Ukraine becomes more and more logical.

    I don't see "Banana Republican" Trump as a fascist - he is in many ways an exemplar of Caudillismo , a charismatic, populist, but authoritarian oligarch.

    marym December 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Nance used fake news about Clinton speeches to propagate the fake news that the Podesta emails were fake.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/

    Jay December 9, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    I read that. I don't believe Nance said the Podesta emails were fake, just that there was a possibility that those supplying the documents to Wikileaks could adulterate the documents or introduce fabricated documents into the pipeline. Quite easy to do when leaking, what was it, fifty thousand emails? And I still haven't heard a single persuasive argument to disprove that the Russians hacked the DNC. Quite the contrary. The hacks originated from IP addresses known to originate in the FSA (Fancy Bear) who have led a prodigious list of pro-Russian exploits against targets throughout eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, Ukraine, and the German Bundestag. Real-time adjustments from those IPs also occurred from the Moscow time zone, and some used cyrillic keyboards.

    Don't get me wrong: I disagree with the WaPo piece, and have read, commented, and financially supported Naked Capitalism for quite a while now. And there's no faker news than that Iraq had WMDs, a fact that the press has never quite overcome in the eyes of the public. But just because spooky Intelligence Community people say that Russia hacked the DNC, doesn't make it not so. There are way too many people on the left going off half-cocked. Have you noticed how since the "fake news" imbroglio flamed up, MSM criticism of Trump's swampland cabinet picks have been quite muted?

    marym December 9, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    The Intercept post has a link to the Nance tweet, which is still out there, saying

    Malcolm Nance Retweeted KA Semenova

    Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done.

    He, Podesta, and the correspondents in the leaked emails never provided a single example and/or proof that any email was forged. Also, I don't understand the technicality, but there is some type of hash value associated with an email such that WL was able provide confirmation of those emails where the hash value was intact. Instructions on how to replicate that confirmation process were published at the time.

    Romancing The Loan December 9, 2016 at 9:40 am

    Was amused to see that naturalnews (one of the sites listed in propornot – it looks like I guess a right wing alternative medicine type site) is offering a $10k reward for unmasking propornot but I don't think anyone's ever going to be able to collect.

    Why? Because they take the site seriously on its claim of being composed of 30 members and will only pay out for the identities of at least ten. I think it's just one, maybe two guys.

    Outis Philalithopoulos December 9, 2016 at 10:28 am

    That's really funny.

    Carolinian December 9, 2016 at 10:48 am

    Or as Trump would say one 400 lb guy in his bedroom.

    Yalt December 9, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    Would Josh Frank's article today at Counterpunch on the BSDetector plugin be a good place to start, or is that unrelated BS?

    Deep Throat December 9, 2016 at 10:57 am

    There are dots to connect – the WP article, Congressional Section 501 activity, Senators McCain/Graham "leadership"; and most recently, Hillary's comments. Suspect coordination. Connect the dots. And then search for a motive.

    The national security state is concerned that Trump will seek mutually beneficial agreements with Russia. For evidence of the power of the national "security" state a tour of the Pentagon is not necessary. Tour Tyson Corner, Virginia, instead, for starters.

    JustAnObserver December 9, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    And once Trump has established these agreements there will then be no stopping several Eastern European countries + Germany (of course) realizing where their economic interests really lie. Does anyone really believe that Germany is going to let itself be turned into an irradiated wasteland just to please a bunch of neocon paranoids ?

    Goodbye sanctions and then, shortly after, its bye, bye NATO bye bye.

    That's what the neocons, the MIC, and all their shills, and enablers truly fear. Paradoxically this ludicrous attempt to revive McCarthyism may well end up actually ending the Cold War for good & all 25 years after it should have ended.

    Grizziz December 9, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    Good article. Great comment thread! Thanks to everyone.

    JTMcPhee December 9, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    From the article: "It's now been a few days, and the shock and disgust is turning to questions about how to fight back-and who we should be fighting against."

    How many people, world-wide, are involved and invested in the whole "taking over everything" machinery of "state security" and espionage and corporate hegemony? And who is this "we" who should be fighting?

    Fundamentals: The human siege of the planet is (it seems sort of clear) driving the biosphere toward collapse as a sustainer of most human life. Ever more of the extractable entities of the planet (mineral and living resources, "money" whatever that is, the day labor of most of us, on and on) are being used, and used up, in service to what? a relatively few masters of manipulation who are playing a game that most of the rest of us, were we able to focus and figure it out, would recognize as murder and attempted murder as part of a war "we" did not enlist (most of us) to participate in. The manipulators, both the ones sitting on extreme piles of wealth and the power it provides, and the senior effectives in the various "agencies" that play out the game, what the heck do they "want?" Other than "MORE"?

    What motivates a Coors or Koch or Bezos or Brock or the various political figures and their handlers and minions and "advisors?" This one little episode shows how completely it appears that the whole species is screwed: "Who do we fight, and how?" Are "we" is the readers of NC? Some few of whom are stooges and operatives for the Ministries of Truth who are tracking and recording what transpires here and no doubt subtly injecting "influencers" into the discourse. Some are just ordinary people, of varying degrees of insight and ability to influence the collective net vector of human activity (for good or ill). Some are hoping to just find some awareness of and comprehension of what-all is shaking on the Big Game Board of Life. In this moment, "we" depend, in this one tiny instance among the great flood of chaos-induction and interest-seeking, on the responses and pressures "our" hosts can bring to bear - threatening letters to the propagators like WaPo and Craig Timberg, just one tumor in the vast cancer that afflicts the species, attempts to link up with other parts of the too-small "good will, comity and deceny" population that is fractioned and atomized and constantly seduced or frightened into going along with the larger trend line, grabbing URLs and stuff I'm not smart enough to understand, all that. But the Big People, the Deep State that "we" are subtly taught NOT to believe exists by various bits of sophistry, is a lot better armed and equipped and always active - its operatives are paid, usually pretty well, to be on the job all the time, operating their various and manifold, multifarious, often ingenious, always disingenous operations, and always thinking up new ways to screw over and loot and debase and oppress and enserf the rest of us.

    Here's just one explication of how the Deep State operates:

    This book provides a detailed account of the ways in which the CIA penetrated and influenced a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders, details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts. The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for, or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies.

    The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA "projects," and others drifted in and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were publicly exposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political tide to the left.

    U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the "Democratic Left" and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.

    The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts of "anti-Stalinist" leftists and rightists. They were completely free to defend Western cultural and political values, attack "Stalinist totalitarianism" and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism and imperialism. Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society was printed in the CIA-subsidized journals.

    What was particularly bizarre about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not only their political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers of truth, iconoclastic humanists, freespirited intellectuals, or artists for art's sake, who counterposed themselves to the corrupted "committed" house "hacks" of the Stalinist apparatus.

    It is impossible to believe their claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore the absence in the journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the absence, during their cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, and Korea that led to millions of deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every imperialist crime of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers: some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant essayists like Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling at leftist dissidents. When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London "intellectuals" feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA retaliated. Tom Braden, who directed the International Organizations Branch of the CIA, blew their cover by detailing how they all had to have known who paid their salaries and stipends (397-404). http://monthlyreview.org/1999/11/01/the-cia-and-the-cultural-cold-war-revisited/

    And that is just one part of the "operations" put in motion by just "our" national rulers by ONE of the "seventeen national security agencies" that apparently appear in the organization chart of the US empire.

    These mostly faceless people, from "wet workers" to "economic hit men" to analysts and office workers and Station Chiefs and functionaries at DIA and NIA and NSA and the rest of the acronymists of "state security," are "just doing their jobs," with more or less personal malevolence (William Casey, Dick Cheney, the Dulleses, Kermit Roosevelt, on and on), seem to be working from a central organizing principle: Control of minds and resources, in service to imperial and corporate and personal dominion. What tools and actions and thought processes do ordinary people have, to fight back or even resist against this kind of onslaught? "We" are told we are becoming responsible to do our daily best, in among fulfilling our and our families' basic needs, and to minimize our environmental impacts to at least slow the destruction, and also somehow to become aware, in a world of dis- and dysinformation, of what is being done to us and our children and communities, and "resist." And "fight back." Against who, and against what, and by what means, when you have the "Googolverment," and all those millions of employees and managers and executives thereof, on call and on task 24/7 looking for ever more subtle ways to data mine and monetize and manipulate "us"? And in a feedback loop that has been ongoing since no doubt the earliest of "civilization" cities and tribes and nations, the "arms race" both in straight military terms and in the sneaky-pete realm of espionage and state security and "statecraft," "the Russians" and the Pakistanis and Chinese and Israelites, and probably Brazilians and Zoroastrians, are all growing their own machinery of consumption and dominance and destruction.

    What's the model "we" are supposed to be working from? Some people here are looking for "investment opportunities" to take advantage of the chaos and destruction, and there are many for those who can see the patterns and buy in. But what would a "just and decent world" (at least the human population) even look like, and is there anything in our DNA that moves enough of us toward that inchoate model to even have a prayer of suppressing those darker and deadlier impulses and motivations and goals?

    I have no answers for "what is to be done." It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached. One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent. And try to build little communities that don't depend on killable cyber connections for their interconnectedness. And work on an "organizing principle" of their/our own, that has a chance of surviving the crushing mass of energetic but negative energy that infects the species.

    And thanks to our hosts, for doing their bit to face down the fokkers that would take us all down if they could. It's a constant struggle, and no doubt they are more aware than even a Futilitarian like myself of all the parasites and malignancies that are so increasingly active and invested in looting what's left of "antidotes."

    dk December 9, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    I have no answers for "what is to be done."

    Yes you do, the part about little communities and ad-hoc organizing principles is spot-on; that stuff works, it just grows slowly at first. It is also self-limiting, a valuable feature, given the manifest evidence of how badly things can go wrong when communities are pushed to grow beyond their capacities.

    It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached.

    Decency and comity have their little flaws, too; both can obscure incidents of gross folly. But yeah, population factors are just ferocious.

    One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent.

    Not to worry. Incompetence is on it! Any second now wait for it wait for it excuse me, my timepiece seems to have frozen hmm. Well, it appears that "peak incompetence" has already arrived and done the bulk of its work, we just haven't noticed all of the results yet. We are now in that phase between the giant's stumble and their final impact on the ground.

    All this is normal, predictable, and as it should be (even the unfortunate parts); it's entropy. It would be wiser to abandon bivalent moralities and just evaluate each circumstance on its merits, and do our best.

    Yalt December 9, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    That Ukrainian nationalists are behind propornot seems clear; that they're from the Nazified wing seems implausible. Would the Bandera crowd be likely to think of putting a USS Liberty veterans' website on a list of Russian propaganda outlets?

    integer December 9, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Ukrainian nationalists = Nazified Ukrainians. Israel is also involved so yes it makes a lot of sense that the USS Liberty veterans' website on "the list". Might be time for Israel (and Genie energy) to kiss the Golan Heights goodbye.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    (((Israel))) was almost certainly the "brains" behind YYYpropornotYYY
    Not as clever as they think they are. Free Palestine!

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    Yats and Porky are Jewish, so are some oligarchs who sponsor various neo-Nazi military formations. Ihor Kolomoyskyi, for example, sponsors the Aidar Battalion. The bottom line is, the neo-Nazis need to please their US government and Ukie oligarch sponsors in order to keep the dough flowing, so Russians are the new Jews in Ukraine. Geopolitics makes for strange bedfellows.

    grizziz December 9, 2016 at 9:11 pm

    Wikipedia has Yats being a member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Porky belonging to the Ukrainian Orthodox church. Not vouching for Wikipedia and knowing that history can produce some interesting heritage, I thought I would point that out. Kolomoyskyi has dual citizenship with Israel and of course infamous Clinton Foundation donor and Maidan supporter Victor Pinchuk was raised by Jewish parents before sacking his own country.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    The Forward certainly counts Porky as a Jew, and many Jewish organizations have attacked Yats for concealing his Jewish roots. Given the rampant anti-antisemitism in Ukraine, can't really blame them for concealing their identity. It was shortly before the Maidan that Mila Kunis went back to her native Ukraine to promote her flick, and got called very unsavory names by some rabid anti-Semites in Kiev.

    Kim Kaufman December 9, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Fake News: How a Partying Macedonian Teen Earns Thousands Publishing Lies

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fake-news-how-partying-macedonian-teen-earns-thousands-publishing-lies-n692451

    " Dimitri - who asked NBC News not to use his real name - is one of dozens of teenagers in the Macedonian town of Veles who got rich during the U.S. presidential election producing fake news for millions on social media. "

    flora December 9, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    heh. Dems didn't lose this elections because of "fake news". Dems lost because they did not prosecute the bankers who caused the 2008 financial crash, who fraudulently foreclosed on homes and are still engaged in fraud (see: Wells Fargo). imo.

    Pat December 9, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    Well that and passed a regressive health insurance bailout that required people to purchase expensive and largely useless insurance; and showed their complete and utter contempt for working Americans by ignoring the real state of the under and unemployment, and continued that contempt by passing several job killing trade bills and attempting three other mega steroid versions of same.

    There are many reasons why the Democrats lost, but mostly it is because they stopped doing little more than barely pretending to represent the interests of anyone outside of the wealthy and corporate 'persons' who fund their campaigns and retirements. Protecting the banks and bankers being only the clearest example.

    Pat December 9, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    Dimitri works cheap. Although I'm sure Brock wasn't paying much more to his minions.

    John Medcalf December 9, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    I still don't see any of my favorite bloggers going after Bezos. I didn't even see him mentioned until today. We are looking pretty timid so far in the face of Trump and Bezos (Trump from another direction). No possibility of winning without fighting the war where it's taking place.

    Kim Kaufman December 9, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    Style
    Mainstream media puts out the call for pro-Trump columnists

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mainstream-media-puts-out-the-call-for-pro-trump-columnists/2016/12/09/2153fdd2-bca7-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?postshare=9161481311692262&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.4161c7dfadd3

    Comments are pretty funny:

    For Hire: Established corporation seeking experienced individuals in need of a challenge. Applicants should have –

    *at least 3 Yrs. experience of having their head head firmly up their backsides.
    * a certificate from a licensed physician confirming applicants
    mental impairment
    * an ability to to obfuscate combined with no understanding of the terms 'cognitive dissonance' 'false moral equivalence' and 'logical fallacy'

    Applicant must be at least 13 years old and show the capacity to convince 45% of America that he or she is 30.

    If this is you contact 1-800-DON TRUMP

    ginnie nyc December 9, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Earlier in this thread there was a comment from Claudia Riche claiming the Ames article is, essentially, a smear job. I feel compelled to respond as I have direct personal knowledge of one of his two main points, specifically re: the extreme right-wing tenor of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, or FPRI in Philadelphia.

    I worked at FPRI (yes, me the Marxist) in the mid-to-late 1970's, and was in contact with people there through the early 1980's. I can testify that Ames's description of Strausz-Hupe and his ideas are entirely accurate. I didn't know much about S-H when I first started working there, but I figured out his age and original location probably made him a 3-way spook, at the least. I could cite chapter and verse of the various associates and leading personalities that went through there (including Alexander Haig) but I don't have the energy today.

    Ames mentions that FPRI was driven off the Penn campus – well, only in the technical sense. If you spit out the window you'd hit a university building, and many principals there were professors at Penn, including Strausz-Hupe. Also, many Penn grad students passed through there, and undergrads (like me).

    For laughs, here is an interesting, if airbrushed, synopsis of the influence of FPRI by my old friend Alan Luxenberg:

    http://www.fpri.org/news/2013/11/the-impact-of-the-foreign-policy-research-institute/

    So, no Ms. Riche, there is no smearing going on in Mark Ames detailed account in this regard.

    Outis Philalithopoulos December 9, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Here it is – sorry it didn't post immediately. BTW stuff not posting immediately doesn't necessarily mean either (1) there is anything wrong with your comment, or (2) it got permanently eaten by Skynet. Sometimes the algorithm for finding spam gets false positives for reasons that are not entirely clear.

    ginnie nyc December 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    Outis, my comment on FPRI seems to have disappeared. Could you see if it can be extracted from Skynet? Thanks.

    JOHN bougearel December 9, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    that was alot of investigative digging jerri-lynn -- so nice To see u surprise me twice in a week. tremendous effort -thank you a post worth cross posting if it hasn't been already

    Jerri-Lynn Scofield Post author December 9, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    John–

    This is indeed a great post, but I'm not the author. Mark Ames is the author. I just cross-posted his fine work, which was originally published by AlterNet.

    RBHoughton December 9, 2016 at 9:14 pm

    The CIA's apparent involvement reveals the immense danger and probable failure of expecting a few managers to keep the sty clean.

    Its not just in spookery that standards have collapsed. The world of professionals – doctors, lawyers, accountants – has followed the same downward trajectory and it started in 1970 with demonetization and the subsequent expansion of honorable greed.

    It was in early 1970s that creative accounting and its penchant for creating wealth out of nothing appeared.Then we saw these dodgy scorers appearing in court and swearing to the truth of their new view. That infected the legal profession. The prosecutors were still willing to present all their evidence for and against conviction to the Judge but the defense increasingly cheated, led by the lawyer who tells his customers 'we never plead guilty,' and starts the creation of a case beyond a reasonable doubt in place of the defendant's actual evidence.

    It may be that doctors have so far escaped the moral collapse although on a recent visit to hospital I saw the elevator lobbies infested with the army of capitalism in the shape of suited drug salesmen trying to create obligations on the part of doctors.

    We seem to have lost our way and for the time being its the man who cares only for the bottom line who is winning the war of the world. He's the man who owns the newspaper that tells you every bad thing is because of foreigners.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Possible connection between Ukraian Diaspora in the USA and

    Typically Diaspora is more nationalistic the "mainland" population. This is very true about Ukrainian Diaspora, which partially is represented by those who fought on the side of Germany in the WWII. They are adamantly anti-Russian.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine. ..."
    "... Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them, but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. ..."
    "... And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment. ..."
    "... Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American Exceptionalism. ..."
    "... And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues. ..."
    "... The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion ..."
    "... This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad faith commenting. ..."
    "... The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. ..."
    "... I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side won WWII. ..."
    "... "The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko " ..."
    "... Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over ..."
    "... The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military. ..."
    "... The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is becoming more visible each day. ..."
    "... Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that can 180 mid-flight? ..."
    "... What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story. ..."
    "... Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained in Poland, US, and Canada). ..."
    "... Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991 has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research on J. Timoshenko). ..."
    "... There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections. The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis. ..."
    "... So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points ..."
    "... I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will just laugh at you. ..."
    "... What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded Voice of America and is a regular with Ukraine's "StopFake.org" which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up. ..."
    "... Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. ..."
    "... Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too. ..."
    "... What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center. That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government. ..."
    "... Here's an article by Lev Golinkin commenting on the far-right's strong and dangerous influence on Ukraine today. A fascist presence like this could easily be a powerful element in Ukrainian elections, very suddenly and unpredictably too. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/ ..."
    "... This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far! ..."
    "... Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues. I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream lies about Russia and Ukraine. ..."
    "... and/or incontinence ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Kovpak December 9, 2016 at 3:45 am

    Hello, I'm the blogger of Russia Without BS, a site you cited once in the stories about PropOrNot. As I have recently written on my blog , I believe PropOrNot is most likely one person who is not linked to any real organization group or intelligence agency. The individual is most likely what I call a cheerleader, which is basically a person with no reasonable connection to some conflict, yet who takes a side and sort of lives vicariously through their imagined "struggle."

    That being said, you're probably not going to do yourself any favors claiming that Maidan was a fascist coup and that fascists are in charge in Ukraine. Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers (quite the opposite, actually), and they were not the majority of people there. Basically you condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence of neo-Nazis and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well documented).

    Without actually bothering to look at the issues involved, you are basically telling millions of Ukrainians that they should have tolerated a corrupt, increasingly authoritarian government that was literally stealing their future all because some right-wingers happened to latch on to that cause too. Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine.

    As for the slogan, yes, Slava Ukraini, Heroiam Slava! has its origins in the OUN, but there are some important things to consider when discussing Ukrainian history.

    Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them, but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. Look at the average salary in Ukraine and look into some of the instances of corruption (some of which continue to this day), and you'll understand why a lot of people aren't going to get up in arms about someone waving the red and black flag. Most people have become very cynical and see the nationalists as provocateurs or clowns, and thus they don't take them seriously enough.

    ... ... ...

    olga December 9, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Before you call this good points, please familiarize yourself with the (accurate) history of the Maidan, Ukraine, neo-nazi presence in that country, and Russian history. Please Kovpak seems to be an embodiment of what Ames tries to convey.

    dk December 9, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    "You're a poseur!"
    "No, you're poser!"

    The more experienced observer listens to all sides; and all sides lie at least a little, if only for their own comfort. Beyond that, subjectivity is inescapable, and any pair of subjectives will inevitably diverge. This is not a malign intent, it's existential circumstance, the burden of identity, of individual life.

    My own (admittedly cursory) analysis happens to coincide with Jim Kovpak's first para (PropOrNot being primarily a lone "cheerleader"). And I can see merit, and the call for dispassionate assessment, in some of his other points. This does not mean I endorse Kovpak over Ames, or Ames over Kovpak; both contribute to the searching discussion with cogent observation (and the inevitable measure of subjective evaluation).

    I thank both for their remarks, and also thank our gracious hosts ;).

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 9:23 am

    Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers

    No, but it was hijacked by fascists. It is sad that more democratic/progressive forces lost out, but that's what happened. You seem to be trying to avoid recognizing this fact by affirming the rightfulness of those who began the revolt. Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered, spent, and gunned them. It's time to mourn, not to defend a parasitic Frankenstein that is trying to develop a European fascist movement. Goons from that movement assaulted and injured May Day demonstrators in Sweden this year and then fled back to the Ukraine. They are dangerous and should not be protected with illusions.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered, spent, and gunned them

    And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment. Thus we have the ridiculous situation where supposedly reputable media like NYT and WaPoo cheer on the Azov battalion and its brethren, and deny the very symbolism of the various Nazi insignia and regalia featured on their uniforms. Jim makes some very good points, but he fell way short in ignoring the role of the US MSM in this travesty.

    And just in case someone tries to claim that we all make mistakes at times and that the MSM made an honest mistake in regards to these neo-Nazi formations, the same thing has been happening in Syria, where the US and its Gulf allies have armed extremists and have whitewashed their extremism by claiming even Al Qaeda and its offshoots are noble freedom fighters.

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    Good on the parallel with Syria. The evolution, or distortion, of revolutionary movements as they struggle to gain support and offensive power and then either are modified or jacked by "supporting" external powers is not a cheering subject. The tendency to ignore that this has happened takes two forms. One is what we are here discussing. The other is its opposite, as seen in, for example, the way some writers try to maintain that there never was a significant democratic/progressive/humane etc. element to the Syrian opposition.

    flora December 9, 2016 at 9:57 am

    Ukraine, as I understand it, is not monolith but has roughly 2 interest areas – western and eastern – divided by the River Dnieper. The Western half is more pro-European and EU, the Eastern half is more pro-Russia. The word "fascist" in Ukraine means something slightly different than in means in the US and the EU. So I take your comment with a grain of salt, even though it is interesting.

    Ukraine's geographical location as the land "highway" between Europe and Asia has created a long and embattled history there.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 10:17 am

    So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points because you mistakenly think Russia is somehow opposed to US capitalism,

    Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American Exceptionalism.

    And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues.

    Soulipsis December 9, 2016 at 11:48 am

    Seconded.

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    Thirded. The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion of the fruits of the Russian oligarchic capitalist effort will benefit Russians, not elites tied to the US, because of his self-interested nationalism. Not much to cheer about but better than where things were headed when Yeltsin was in power.

    KRB December 9, 2016 at 10:49 am

    This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad faith commenting.

    The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. There is absolutely no equivalent to this with Occupy at all. Where does this false analogy even come from? No where does the author state that Maidan was ONLY fascists, that is again your strawman response. Maidan had a lot of support from pro-western, pro-european, pro-liberal forces. But to deny the key and often lead roles played by neo-fascists in the actual organization, "self defense" and violent confrontations with the Yanukovych goons is gross whitewashing.

    Much worse is the way you rationalize the fascist OUN salute by arguing that it means something else now, or it's become normalized, etc. These are all the same bullshit arguments made by defenders of the Confederate flag. "It means something different now." "it's about heritage/being a rebel!/individualism!" There is no "but" to this, and anyone who claims so is an asshole of the first order. The salute descends directly from collaborators in the Holocaust and mass-murder of Jews and Poles and collaboration with Nazis. If people claim they don't understand its origins, then educate them on why it's so fucked up, don't make excuses for them. Really disgusting that you'd try to rationalize this away. There is no "but" and no excuse, period.

    "Russia Without BS" is one hell of an ironic name for someone bs-ing like this. Your failure to actually engage the article, setting up and knocking down strawmen instead, and evading, using false analogies-reveal your own intellectual pathologies. Try responding to the actual text here, and maybe you'll be taken seriously.

    Martin Finnucane December 9, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    +1

    My thought was that this post was an example of the strawman fallacy. Yet certainly Mr. Kovpak wasn't just shooting from the hip. That is, he thought about this thing, wrote it, looked it over, and said "well enough" and posted it. Poor logic, or bad faith?

    I think the tell was his characterization of the article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points." What the hell is a "Russian talking point"? How do Ames' contentions follow said talking points? Are he saying, perhaps, that Ames is another one of those Kremlin agents we've been hearing about, or perhaps another "useful idiot"? Perhaps Ames – of all people – is a dupe for Putin, right?

    Hasbara, Ukrainian style. Bringing this junk onto NS, either this guy is alot of dumber than he gives himself credit for, or he actually has no familiarity with NS, outside of the now- and rightly-notorious WP/ProporNot blacklist. Probably the latter, since it looks like his comment was a pre-masticated one-and-done.

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side won WWII.

    AD December 9, 2016 at 10:55 am

    I'm glad Jim Kovpak provided this background. I was very troubled to see Ames breezily smear the Ukrainian uprising as "fascist," essentially writing off the protesters as U.S. proxies and dismissing their grievances as either non-existent or irrelevant. Something similar has happened in Syria, of course. Yes, the U.S. ruling blocs try to advance their interests in such places, but if you ignore the people on the ground or dismiss them as irrelevant, you're just playing into the hands of other tyrannical interests (in Syria: Assad, Putin, Hezbollah, etc.).

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    $5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they ain't US proxies. Gla that you straightened that out for us.

    The grievances in Ukraine are many and are legitimate. But that the people's anger was hijacked by US-financed proxies is a fact. Nuland was caught dictating that Yats would be the new PM, and darned if he didn't become just that. The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko, and the country was plunged into a civil war. But Yats and Porky are freedom-loving democrats! The old saying remains true: "They may be corrupt SOBs, but they are our corrupt SOBs!"

    Heck, for all the crocodile tears shed by the West about corruption and democracy, it has nurtured corruption in Eastern Europe and looked the other way as democracy has been trampled. Including in my native Bulgaria, where millions of dollars spent by the US and allied NGOs on promoting and financing "free press" have seen Bulgaria's freedom of media ranking slip to third world levels. But Bulgaria is a "democracy" because it is a member of the EU and NATO, and as such its elites have done the bidding of its Western masters at the expense of Bulgaria's national interests and the interests of its people. Ukraine is headed down that road, and all I can say to regular Ukrainians is that they are in for an even bigger screwing down the road, cheer-led by the Western "democracies" and "free" media.

    Meddling by US hyperpower in the internal affairs and the replacement of one set of bastahds with another set of bastahds that is beholden to the US is not progress, which is why we call it out. After all the spilled blood and destruction sponsored by the US, can you honestly say that Ukraine and Syria and Libya and Iraq are now better off, and that their futures are bright? I can't, and I can't say that for my native country either. That's because this new version of neocolonialism is the most destructive and virulent yet. And it is particularly insidious because it fools well-meaning people, like yourself, into believing that it actually helps improve the lives of the natives. It does not.

    lyman alpha blob December 9, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    "The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko "

    That pretty much sums it up. Jim Kovpak does make some excellent points which help to understand what the Ukranians are thinking. The discussion regarding the poor education system and potential lack of knowledge of what certain symbolism refers to was really good. Sort of reminds me of the Southerners in the US who still claim that the Stars and Bars is just about Southern heritage and pride without bothering to consider the other ramifications and what the symbol means for those who were persecuted at one time (and continuing to today). But yeah, I'm sure there are those who think that that flag was just something the Duke boys used on the General Lee when trying to outrun Roscoe.

    All that being said, I don't believe anybody here thinks that Yanukovich was some paragon of virtue ruling a modern utopia. The problem is that the new boss looks surprisingly familiar to the old boss with the main difference being that the fruits of corruption are being funneled to different parties with the people likely still getting the shaft.

    If your a(just as many in the US are), it's quite possible they are also unaware of the current US influence in their country, just as most US citizens are unaware of what the US has done in other countries.

    I'd be very interested in Jim Kovpak's thoughts on this.

    RMcHewn December 9, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    $5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they ain't US proxies. Gla[d] that you straightened that out for us.

    Yes, it doesn't get any more blatant than that, and if anyone believes otherwise they are obviously hooked on the officially sanctioned fake news, aka the MSM.

    Damian December 9, 2016 at 10:56 am

    "Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers / Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers than other Eastern European nations" silly at best!

    Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over

    The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military.

    The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is becoming more visible each day.

    Your statements are pure propaganda and I would assume you work indirectly for Alexandra Chalupa!

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 11:35 am

    Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that can 180 mid-flight?

    Young Ex-Pat December 9, 2016 at 11:28 am

    "Basically you condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence of neo-Nazis and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well documented)."

    You must be kidding. Where to begin? Can we start with the simple fact that the Russian Foreign Ministry wasn't handing out baked goods to Occupy protesters in NYC, egging them on as they tossed molotov cocktails at police, who, strangely enough, refrained from shooting protesters until right after a peaceful political settlement was reached? Coincidence or fate? Or maybe there is strong evidence that right wing fanatics were the ones who started the shooting on that fateful day? http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021

    And sorry, no matter how much Kovpak denies it, the muscle behind the "glorious revolution" was a bunch of far-right thugs that make our American alt-right look like girl scouts. Andrei Biletsky, leader of Azov Battalion and head of Ukraine's creatively named Social-National Assembly, says he's committed to "punishing severely sexual perversions and any interracial contacts that lead to the extinction of the white man." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329 - Just like those hippies at Zuccotti Park, right?! Oh,and this guy received a medal from Poroshenko.

    I can keep going, but your "Maidan was just like Occupy!" argument pretty much speaks for itself. Glory to the heroes indeed.

    p.s. "Russia Without the BS" is awful.

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 11:30 am

    As someone who lived many years in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian and Russian and knows personally many of the people involved, yes, Ukrainians know full well the origin of the Nazi slogans that the local Nazis spout.

    That doesn't mean that the average frustrated euromaidan supporter is a Nazi, but Nazis bussed in from Galicia did eventually provide the muscle, as it were, and the rest of the country were willing to get in bed with them, appoint them to run ministries, and let them have independent military units.

    Those Nazis are perfectly happy to call themselves Nazis.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story.

    Foppe December 9, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    To be fair, there is a fairly wide gap between 'racist' and 'violent racist of the KKK/Nazi variety'.

    Also (yes, partly preaching to the choir, but with a purpose), liberals are perfectly happy to stay quiet about enormous income/prosecution/incarceration/kill rate differences, so long as those targeted/affected can (bureau-/meritocratically) be described as 'druggies/criminals/"extremists"/uneducated-thus- undeserving '. And to ignore drone bombing of brown people. Etc. So all the pearl-clutching/virtue-signaling concerning racism is pretty easy to shrug off as concerning little more than a plea to express one's support for racist policy in a PC fashion.

    (Highly recommend The New Jim Crow , which I've only recently started reading, for no good reason. Bizarre to realize that all of the stuff that's being reported on a little bit now has been going on for 30 years now (30y of silence / wir-haben-es-nicht-gewusst wrt the structural nature; note that any/all reporting that im/explicitly describes these issues as "scandals"/"excesses" is part of the problem.)

    Gareth December 9, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    The whole Fake News world is a house of mirrors:

    http://www.stopfake.org/en/stopfakenews-98-eng-with-jim-kovpak/

    olga December 9, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    WOW I guess we have democracy, so your comment got through. In a way, your post confirms the existence of rabidly anti-Russian entities – the very point that Mark Ames makes. But you know, there are people who know a thing or two about Russia and Ukraine, and can easily refute much of your diatribe. (1) Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained in Poland, US, and Canada).

    Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991 has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research on J. Timoshenko).

    Corruption persists in U. today – and based on the now-required property disclosures by U. politicians – may be even worse. It is likely correct that most U. don't give a damn about Bandera – but most U. also do not have any power to do anything about the neo-nazis, as they are (at least in the western part of the country) numerous, vocal, and prone to violence.

    There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections. The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis.

    (2) But it is your comments about the U. neo-nazi participation in the war that seem to clarify who you really represent. This participation was not much discussed during the soviet times – I only found out that they continued to fight against the soviet state long after the war ended recently – from family members who witnessed it (in Belorussia, west. Ukr., and eastern Czechoslovakia). Some of them witnessed the unspeakable cruelty of these Ukr. "troops" against villagers and any partisans they could find. White-washing this period (or smearing soviet educational system) will not help – there is plenty of historical evidence for those who are interested in the subject.

    (3) What you say about the Russian state promoting this or that is just a scurrilous attack, with no proof. Not even worth exploring. On the other hand, there are plenty of documented murders of Ukr. journalists (google Buzina – a highly intelligent and eloquent Ukr. journalist, who was gunned down in front of his home; there are quite a few others).

    Ukr. in 2014 may have been protesting inept government, but what they ended up with is far worse – by any measure, Ukr. standard of living has gone way down. But now, the industrial base of the country has been destroyed, and the neo-nazi genie will not go back into the bottle any time soon. Ukr. as a unified place did not exist until after WWI, and the great divisions – brought starkly into contrast by the 2014 destruction of the state – cannot be papered over anytime soon.

    lyman alpha blob December 9, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Appreciate the points you bring up but if the Ukranians truly want an end to an exploitative system, they probably are not going to get it by allying themselves with Uncle Sugar. The US provided billions of dollars to foment the coup and our oligarchs expect a return on that investment – they aren't going to suddenly start trust funds for all Ukranians out of the goodness of their hearts. You are aware of that aren't you?

    integer December 9, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points

    I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will just laugh at you.
    Hahahahahaha!

    Reply
    KRB December 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded Voice of America and is a regular with Ukraine's "StopFake.org" which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up.

    Rhondda December 9, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    It was patently obvious from his comment that he's a pro shill but very good to have the proof. Thanks, KRB.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. The good news is that by the 80's nobody believed the state and its propagandists, even on the rare occasion they were telling the truth, and America's people seem to be a bit ahead of the curve already, which may explain the "fake news" hysteria from the creators and disseminators of fake news.

    Eddie Anderson December 9, 2016 at 8:34 pm

    Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers than other Eastern European nations, but if you look at their polls and elections you see that the far-right in Ukraine does far worse than it does in other Eastern and even Western European countries

    Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too.

    What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center. That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government.

    Here in America we saw something like that in the early 1990s, when KKK leader David Duke migrated to the political mainstream by running for office as a Republican in Louisiana. Of course Duke never changed his views, he just learned to dissemble himself in the way he sold his politics to the public.

    Here's an article by Lev Golinkin commenting on the far-right's strong and dangerous influence on Ukraine today. A fascist presence like this could easily be a powerful element in Ukrainian elections, very suddenly and unpredictably too. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/

    Ignacio December 9, 2016 at 4:22 am

    This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far!

    Benedict@Large December 9, 2016 at 7:32 am

    Yes, these are dangerous people, as are most "true believers". I'm also becoming even more disappointed at Ms, Clinton. For a while, she seemed to be keeping a little distance from her dead-enders, but now that her and Bill are out back on the money trail (How much is enough?), it doesn't look good.

    Selling fear? Really? Isn't there a shelf life on that?

    notabanker December 9, 2016 at 7:56 am

    Ahhh, but it's not money they accumulate, its power. And time is their only constraint. This is what they do.

    Jim Haygood December 9, 2016 at 8:03 am

    William Banzai7 on "Prop or Nuts." Hillary's "Childen of the Rainbow" button (look carefully) is to die for.

    https://c8.staticflickr.com/1/601/30710973103_365b8e0b4d_b.jpg

    Clive December 9, 2016 at 9:00 am

    There's a crock of something at the end of that rainbow, but I doubt very much that it contains any gold.

    ambrit December 9, 2016 at 11:07 am

    I'm not certain about the contents of that crock, good sir. We now live in a "culture" where s–t IS gold. Otherwise, why are we now enduring a "popular press" full of "wardrobe malfunctions," new amazing bikini bodies, salacious gossip, and equally salacious "news?" (The Page Three was shut down really because there was too much competition.)

    Oh tempura, oh s'mores! (Latinate for "We're crisped!")

    Carolinian December 9, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Indeed. The above article is great, great stuff and shows why some of us found Hillary more disturbing than Trump. Therefore Ames' final assumption

    And the timing is incredible-as if Bezos' rag has taken upon itself to soften up the American media before Trump moves in for the kill.

    seems a bit off. It's certainly true that Trump said news organizations should face greater exposure to libel laws but one suspects this has more to do with his personal peevishness and inability to take criticism than the Deep State-y motives described above. Clearly the "public versus private" Hillary–Nixon in a pant suit–would have been just the person to embrace this sort of censorship by smear and her connection with various shadowy exiles and in her own campaign no less shows why Sanders' failure to make FP the center of his opposition was, if not a political mistake, at least evidence of his limited point of view.

    It's unlikely that anyone running this time would be able to change our domestic trajectory but this fascism from abroad is a real danger IMO. In Reagan times some of us thought that Reagan supported reactionary governments abroad because that's what he and his rogue's gallery including Casey and North wished they could do here. The people getting hysterical over Trump while pining for Hillary don't seem to know fascism when it's right in front of them. Or perhaps it's just a matter of whose ox is going to be gored.

    Soulipsis December 9, 2016 at 11:59 am

    Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues. I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream lies about Russia and Ukraine.

    Disturbed Voter December 9, 2016 at 6:45 am

    No surprise, ever since the US, and Biden, got involved in Ukraine. And it is even probable, that people like that were behind the Kennedy assassination, that the US has admitted was a conspiracy, that is still protected from "journalistic sunshine" under lock and key by the US government.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 6:49 am

    Thanks for giving this article its own post, and thanks to dcblogger for providing the link in yesterday's Water Cooler.

    Seems to me that this little bout of D-party/CIA incompetence, and/or incontinence, will finally sound the death knell for the Operation Paperclip gang's plan. Good riddance.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 7:01 am

    and/or incontinence

    I'm looking at you, Soros!

    [Dec 10, 2016] We Demand That PropOrNot Remove Its Blacklist, Report, and Browser Tool Defaming Naked Capitalism and Issue an Apology naked

    Notable quotes:
    "... merely reporting what PropOrNot said ..."
    "... the first in a series ..."
    "... The MSM has lost control of the narrative. The big dailies continue to hemorrhage ad revenue, month in and month out, year in and year out. Their existence going forward will be even more dependent on government assistance. Fake News is the pathetic death rattle of the neoliberal order. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    As the Columbia Journalism Review stated (emphasis original):

    More importantly, the editor's note vaults into verbal gymnastics in an attempt to simultaneously rationalize and distance itself from an obviously flawed primary source. Any data analysis is only as good as the sum of its parts, and it's clear that PropOrNot's methodology was lacking.

    The Post, of course, was merely reporting what PropOrNot said . Yet it used declarative language throughout, sans caveat, lending credence to a largely unknown organization that lumps together independent left-wing publications and legitimately Russian-backed news services. The Post diminished its credibility at a time when media credibility is in short supply, and the non-apologetic editor's note doesn't help.

    And from FAIR (emphasis original):

    Almost two weeks after its article ran, the Post ran a sort of correction in the form of an editorial comment in italics pasted on top of the online edition of Timberg's November 24 piece (where only those looking for the by then old original story would find it). In that note, the editors say that the paper

    did not name any of the sites [on PropOrNot's blacklist], does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of the Post 's story, PropOrNot has removed some of those sites from its list.

    Of course, the damage was already done, as the original article achieved widespread circulation via the Post 's wire service; it would be up to all those news organizations that bought and ran the story, or reported their own versions of it, to make any correction.

    Meanwhile, the facile dodge of "we didn't name the sites" ignores the reality that the Post had prominently showcased PropOrNot and let its name vouch for the heretofore unknown group's credibility. The paper didn't have to run the list; anyone with a smartphone could do a Google search, find PropOrNot's website as the first listing, go to the homepage and find a link button headed "The List."

    And apparently plenty of readers did that. While thanks to the Post 's grant of anonymity, PropOrNot's hidden principals remained safe from inquiring reporters and Russian hackers alike, editors of sites named on its McCarthyite hit list quickly found themselves deluged with venomous calls and emails. As Jeffrey St. Clair, a co-founder and editor of CounterPunch.org , another site listed prominently as a propaganda tool, recalls, "The morning after the Post published its article, I found 1,000 emails in my inbox, mostly hate mail and death threats."

    readerOfTeaLeaves December 10, 2016 at 2:40 am

    Expert media commentators criticized the Post's handwave in the form of an editor's note that it placed at the top of a story that is now history, as opposed to news. The mild concession is likely to be read only by fans of the 199 sites that were defamed by the Post, and journalists who've taken interest in the row and not the vast public that read the story through the post and other major outlets, like USA Today, that re-reported or syndicated Timberg's piece.

    It all depends upon who you follow on Twitter, but from my check-in's today, the WaPo is not coming off well.

    This whole 'fake news' mess is downright weird.
    I have trouble understanding how anyone can govern, given the growing legitimacy problems.

    It seems as if there are (very well greased) wheels within (extravagantly funded) wheels moving behind the scenes.
    Meanwhile, apparently Obama has formally requested that the Intel Community develop a 'consensus report' about the role of the Russians in this most recent election (per Emptywheel). "Senior officials' in Congress have already been briefed, and some are apparently leaking: this much smoke signals a battle royale behind the scenes.

    The worst possible outcome, IMVHO, is failing to investigate and come clean.

    Every time our government is too gutless to deal with reality - whether WMD, or the Financial Crisis - the legitimacy of government is further eroded. It would be helpful if Hillary renounced the Presidency, and agreed that even if the election should be overturned, that she would defer to some other person. The investigation should not be used as a recount, nor as a re-do. It should function only to restore credibility to the US federal government, and for no other reason.

    Unfortunately for Trump, if he blocks this kind of investigation, it will only diminish his credibility, and weaken the very power he seeks to hold.
    Life is full of paradoxes and mysteries; this one takes the cake.

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 3:16 am

    I agree with your comment re Twitter, but Twitter is heavy with journalists who love the story of a media fight. This is catnip to them.

    The Washington Post story was tweeted far more heavily when it first ran than the follow-on criticism was. The story proper got 14,800 comments. It was picked up by USA Today, CNN, and I haven't even begun to track how many different other publishers. The original reach was at least an order of magnitude, and probably two orders of magnitude, bigger than the discussion of the itty bitty walkback.

    Presumptuous Insect December 10, 2016 at 6:16 am

    Yves,

    Do you have a website set up for donations, like GoFundMe or Paypal? If you do, I am sure lots of us can help you to get the word out on twitter, etc.

    PI

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 6:19 am

    Thanks so much!

    Please see our Tip Jar in the right column. It tells you how to donate using a debit or credit card, or send a check.

    We had a recent emergency fundraiser, and some of that has already been allocated to extra site coverage (to have others do more site-minding and content generation so as to free me up to spend time on this stuff) and the other part (a bit more than half the total) is to fund expenses for litigation.

    Generalfeldmarschall Von Hindenburg December 10, 2016 at 3:05 am

    Is this episode really Bezos carrying water for a faction of the deep state? They had to have known that if you malign the entirety of the alt media-left and right that they'd show their teeny little teeth.
    I bet they feed this chump Timberg to the crocodiles ultimately. Meanwhile Mark Ames will ferret out the weird nexus of Ukrainian Nazi types. But since the WaPo will take the heat and the public will lose interest, nobody will care. But in the end the 4 or 5 folks who came up with this scheme will have achieved their goals:

    *Throw mud on non corporate news reportage.
    *Fire a warning shot over Trumps bow
    *Plant seeds with the population for the future when some ginned up provocation will again put Russia in the crosshairs of a black propaganda campaign.

    These archonic m_fers are relentless. Russia represents an independent power which absolutely cannot be permitted by Empire. This is part of a long term strategy to box Russia in. They are seen as the weaker of the Sino Russian partnership and are being targeted first.

    rusti December 10, 2016 at 6:13 am

    Not having witnessed anything like this before I'm having trouble understanding the strategy here. What potential end game is there in dealing directly with PropOrNot? Jim Moody's time is valuable, Yves' time is valuable, but they seem likely to be a few nobodies who no one would have paid any attention to if the Washington Post hadn't amplified the reach of their amateurish operation by factor of a million.

    Clive December 10, 2016 at 6:24 am

    I think you said it all there without maybe realizing it - PropOrNot may seem like harmless nobodies and, left to their own devices and not given the oxygen of publicity that is what they'd have remained.

    But there are no accidents in life. The Washington Post (and do keep in mind its owner) picked up on their output and played their tune on the Mighty Media Wurlitzer thereby amplifying it. That alone is suggestive that PropOrNot may not be the two guys working out of their Mom's basement which it is easy to think they might be.

    Add in the fact that - worldwide now, I can tell you that even outside the U.S. this whole "fake news" meme is still getting lots of airtime, the BBC in England is running 'Russia Hacked the U.S. Election' stories right now as I watch and the Japanese language media has similar too - what the Washington Post is seeking to do looks very well orchestrated and coordinated it means that you must not take anything at face value here.

    allan December 10, 2016 at 6:47 am

    The MSM is all in. Last night the PBS Newshour ran the first in a series of stories on FakeNews™, with favorably framed clips of Clinton and Sheryl Sandberg, and an extended
    interview with Marc Fisher of the WaPo. Oddly, no mention of the PropOrNot fiasco.

    craazyboy December 10, 2016 at 8:08 am

    It doesn't take a tin foil hat to believe the globalist-neocon-neolib-blob_thing feels it necessary to delegitimize Trump and Trump's election in order to reassure its merry band of practitioners that it's still biz as usual in the One World.

    And tho it may seem a challenge to re-paint "Lying Hillary" as the beacon of truth, challenges are what keep one motivated and ever stronger. No pain no gain.

    P.S. Irony Of The Year Award goes to Russia for hacking and releasing real news. If we are giving them the credit for DNC hacks and Hillary's secret private server discovery.

    barefoot charley December 10, 2016 at 10:24 am

    All in: (Yes, the Russians did it and no, we don't have to prove it)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.3de053262ddc

    lyman alpha blob December 10, 2016 at 9:42 am

    I went to a fundraiser last night where the very politically involved crowd was largely liberal and one of the award presenters brought up 'fake news' during her speech. If I'm not mistaken a member of this woman's family was one of Clinton's superdelegates. This 'fake news' meme is definitely being spread far and wide.

    Nuke it from orbit.

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 6:33 am

    We need to pursue the source of the defamation. See the BuzzFeed story yesterday, which is generally very sympathetic to our position. Yet even that reporter says, Why have you gone after the Post and not ProOrNot too?

    I think this is at the very most six guys and probably more like two or three, for reasons not worth taking the time to explain. And do not forget that the New Yorker said not only they but other major pubs were shown the story and passed on it.

    So the question is more: why did the Post pick up on obvious rubbish and treat it as newsworthy? This may have less to do with grand conspiracy as much as a bad intersection of events, such as: the Post under Bezos explicitly placing much more pressure on reporters to churn out stories quickly, which means less fact checking; hysteria over Russia and fake news; and individual reporters and editors seeing it as to their advantage to be in front of a hot area, no matter at what risk. Recall the Post has run such nutty stories as one saying that Hillary's 9/11 collapse was due to Putin poisoning her.

    Jack December 10, 2016 at 9:07 am

    I think WAPO picked it up because they were obviously all in for Clinton during the election. Whether Bezos was the hand behind this or not, WAPO has certainly focused on Trump. They even admitted they were doing it as Bob Woodward disclosed in a Zero Hedge article. And of course, WAPO assisted Clinton against Sanders with their coverage which has been documented many times. Now Clinton is on the bandwagon of the fake news fiasco. She just gave a speech about it Thursday.

    rusti December 10, 2016 at 9:14 am

    Thanks Yves (and Clive) for the responses. My concern is that if a shoddy three-man operation, paired with a useful idiot MSM amplifier, can provoke a response that puts sites like NC on the defensive and takes time from original reporting, it could be a template for quick-and-dirty future attacks against independent media outlets. It seems like the amplifier is the only part of the chain that can't just change domain names and set up shop somewhere else.

    But I can see how ignoring them entirely isn't an optimal solution either. I'll keep throwing my change in the tip jar and seeing how it all unfolds.

    craazyboy December 10, 2016 at 8:47 am

    The PorN site is a dark site. We don't know who the principals are or where its funding comes from. YYYYvesYYY also said NC needs to know what jurisdiction to file in in order to pursue PorN, but that is not even known at this point. But in the Wapo response to TruthDig, Wapo stated they did have "numerous" discussions with some persons at PorN before running the story.

    So you got to shake the tree by the branches you can grab. The ball is now in Wapo's court to state, "Journalistic integrity demands we do not reveal our sources in order to protect their safety."

    Meanwhile PorN is calling upon the entire USG security apparatus to investigate 200 websites for Treason, but we are unsure about which country[government] Treason is being committed against in One World. This doesn't sound like a very safe situation for simple minded provincial US citizen homebodies.

    Mike December 10, 2016 at 6:25 am

    Hello,

    I have been browsing your links for many years now – I find them well balanced, genuine, thought provoking, and usually quite deep. And it is not just me – your quality is well recognized among financial online community and punditry.

    It is important you treat this thing with the right kind of attention. This is not mccarthian. If it would be, you would be locked down in some hole in a secret location. This is somebody claiming you have silicone tits and an extramarital affair with Michael Moore. Nobody gives a shit about this, or their software, or WaPo and thir article – even if it gets 10 million retweets. Twitter attention span is 1 minute.

    Sure, sue everybody. But never give them an aureola of some dark sinister power. Ridicule them every way of the step. Ridicule "newspapers of record". Ridicule retweets. Have fun with it. Find new cases of such crap, where you personally are not affected. Help Melania Trump in her great fight against online violence :-)

    Just never concede to this as a "media fight" or "two versions of reality". This has nothing to do with news or reality. Do not give them that ground. This is some insignificant ass claiming you have fake tits, and it was picked up by an obsolete marketing tool called WaPo. A claim of an extramarital affair with Michael Moore would probably get even more coverage and more retweets and I bet some cable news discussions about public health consequences of missionary position with such a voluptuous man.

    Make the most out of this opportunity.

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 6:44 am

    We are fighting a legal battle and a political battle. The need to do both somewhat restricts our degrees of freedom. The political battle is ultimately the far more important one, since the "fake news" scare is part of a major push to restrict content on the web, by de facto rather than de jure means.

    tegnost December 10, 2016 at 10:22 am

    you're kidding yourself, every time lately that I look at mainstream headlines the fake news story is there near the top, can no longer stomach the news hour but another commenter says they're doing a series think about all those proper folks demanding their kids not read alternative views? The only consolation I can think of is that hillary lost because clearly this story was put out in advance of her losing and would still be amplified had she won, .the outcome looks bleak either way from here might as well fight it

    Hoi Polloi December 10, 2016 at 7:04 am

    I can tell you these fake news websites articles were heavily promoted here in Europe, so the consequences are wide spread world wide.

    I tried to explain the reasons and people behind ProporNot, but my comments were censored on 3 of the biggest digital newspapers in The Netherlands, some of them are in close contact with Soros.

    We have national elections in March 2017 and I can tell you the majority of the people are mad as hell and they know the news presented to them in the MSM are/were heavily biased towards Clinton. The MSM are sh*t scared what will happen in March 2017, an earthquake in the political landscape. All the liberal political leaders are now suddenly promoting political stuff that was unimaginable 2 years ago.

    I have followed your website on and off the last 5 years and the idea that you are guided by the Ruskies is absolutely preposterous even insane.

    I just wonder, was Wapo so blinded by the total unexpected loss of Clinton that they keep on publicing this nonsense or is it the trench war by Trump through his tweets. Wapo must have been aware of the amateurish drivel from Propornot and took a big risk of being exposed as havily biased and unprofessional with a heavy backlash.

    Anyways, I would like to donate to you in this battle, do you accept Paypal as well.

    I wish you and your team lots of success, Yves in this battle for truth.

    Cheers
    Fred from Holland

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Thanks for the intel and your willingness to help. Yes, we accept PayPal. Please visit our Tip Jar (the snow leopards in the right column).

    Itamar Turner-Trauring December 10, 2016 at 7:54 am

    It's not clear who own the domain since they use a Whois privacy provider ( https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=propornot.com ).

    However, if PropOrNot doesn't respond you might be able to get their Whois privacy provider to get you the real owner's details – click on "File a Claim" at https://www.domainsbyproxy.com/default.aspx to see their process.

    Peter December 10, 2016 at 9:37 am

    Check this: http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/12/whos-behind-propornots-blacklist-of-news-websites/

    And follow the money. Always.

    FluffytheObeseCat December 10, 2016 at 7:58 am

    I realize that there were a number of right wing news outlets included in this de facto censorship effort. But, they seem to be in a much stronger position than the left wing ones. Wider distribution, less choosy about what they'll run, favored by the incoming power elite, etc. Except, perhaps for a few paleocons-turned-libertarian-contrarians like Paul Craig Roberts. The Drudge Report types seem less vulnerable.

    I haven't been paying as much attention as I should to post a comment. But, first order, it looks like this imbalance may pertain to targeting. No one could expect to dull the impact of the Drudge Report by including it in an app of this kind. It is simply too prominent. Therefore, dampening the influence of the Drudge Report (and similar sites) was not the point of this little exercise.

    Slurring the actual targets by including Drudge & company in the app seems . more the point.

    Carolinian December 10, 2016 at 8:32 am

    Last night the PBS Newshour did a segment on "fake news." They are also participating in the current PBS pledge drive. Perhaps they are hoping that George Soros will send them a big check.

    One had hoped that the show would improve now that the election is over. One was wrong.

    Local8 December 10, 2016 at 9:34 am

    The MSM has lost control of the narrative. The big dailies continue to hemorrhage ad revenue, month in and month out, year in and year out. Their existence going forward will be even more dependent on government assistance. Fake News is the pathetic death rattle of the neoliberal order.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Shiny object distruction from the real issues

    Short-termism is a real problem for the US politicians. It is only now the "teeth of dragon" sowed during domination of neoliberalism since 80th start to show up in unexpected places. And reaction is pretty predictable. As one commenter said: "Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'. ..."
    "... Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. ..."
    "... i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists) ..."
    "... Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. ..."
    "... The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there? ..."
    "... Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us ..."
    "... The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet. ..."
    "... The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions. ..."
    "... What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord! ..."
    "... As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. ..."
    "... Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. ..."
    "... The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly 4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn ..."
    "... 96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. ..."
    "... Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA. ..."
    "... Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. ..."
    "... There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. ..."
    "... And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. ..."
    "... Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. ..."
    "... I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor. ..."
    "... The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling ..."
    "... Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying. ..."
    "... This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play. ..."
    "... At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show. ..."
    "... Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA ..."
    "... Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms. ..."
    "... I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. ..."
    "... In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. ..."
    "... after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing? ..."
    "... The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS. ..."
    "... 'CIA Team B' ..."
    "... 'Committee on the Present Danger' ..."
    "... 'Office of Special Plans' ..."
    "... Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. ..."
    "... It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. ..."
    "... He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    MEFOBILLS -> Keyser , Dec 10, 2016 1:01 PM

    It is worse than "shiny object." Human brains have a latency issue - the first time they hear something, it sticks. To unstick something, takes a lot of counter evidence.

    So, a Goebbels-like big lie, or shiny object can be told, and then it can take on a life of its own. False flags operate under this premise. There is an action (false flag), and then false narrative is issued into press mouthpieces immediately. This then plants a shiny object in sheeple brains. It then takes too much mental effort for average sheeple to undo this narrative, so "crowds" can be herded.

    Six million dead is a good example of this technique.

    Fortunately, with the internet, "supposed fake news sites like ZH" are spreading truth so fast - that shiny stories issued by our Oligarch overlords are being shot down quickly.

    Bezo's, who owns Washington Post, is taking rents by avoiding sales taxes; not that I'm a fan of sales taxes. But, ultimately, Bezos is taking rental thefts, and he is afraid of Trump - who may change the law, hence collapse the profit scheme of Amazon.

    Cognitive Dissonance -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM

    Oldwood. I have a great deal of respect for you and your intelligent opinions.

    My only concern is our constant and directed attention towards the 'liberals' and 'progressives'. When we do so we are thinking it is 'them' that are the problem.

    In fact it is the force behind 'them' that is the problem. If we oppose 'them', we are wasting our energy upon ghosts and boogeymen.

    Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'.

    chunga -> Cognitive Dissonance •Dec 10, 2016 11:33 AM

    I've been reading what the blue-teamers are saying over on the "Democratic Underground" site and for a while they've been expressing it's their "duty" to disrupt this thing. They are now calling Trump a "Puppet Regime".

    Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. Also watch for moar of the Suprun elector frauds pop out of the woodwork. The Russian people must be absolutely galvanized by what's happening, USSA...torn into many opposing directions.

    dark pools of soros -> chunga •Dec 10, 2016 1:38 PM
    First tell them to change their name to the Progressive Party of Globalists. Then remind them that many democrats left them and voted for Trump.. Remind them again and again that if they really want to see blue states again, they have to actually act like democrats again

    I assure you that you'll be banned within an hour from any of their sites

    American Gorbachev -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:12 AM

    not an argument to the contrary, but one of elongating the timing

    i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists)

    with a political timetable operative as well, whereby some (pardon the pun :) trumped up excuse for impeachment investigations/proceedings can consume the daily news during the run-up to the mid-term elections (with the intent of flipping the Senate and possibly House)

    these are very powerful, patient, and deliberate bastards (globalist statists) who may very well have engineered Trump's election for the very purpose of marginalizing, near the point of eliminating, the rural, christian, middle-class, nationalist voices from subsequent public debate

    Oldwood -> American Gorbachev •Dec 10, 2016 10:21 AM

    The problem is that once Trump becomes president, he will have much more power to direct the message as well as the many factions of government agencies that would otherwise be used to substantiate so called Trump failures. This is a calculated risk scenario for them, but to deny Trump the presidency by far produces more positives for them than any other.

    They will have control of the message and will likely shut down much of alternate media news. It is imperative that Trump be stopped BEFORE taking the presidency.

    sleigher -> overbet •Dec 10, 2016 10:00 AM

    "I read one morons comment that the IP address was traced back to a Russian IP. Are people really that dumb? I can post this comment from dozens of country IPs right now."

    Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. IP addresses from Russia mean nothing.

    kellys_eye -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there?

    Paul Kersey -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    "Most of our politicians are chosen by the Oligarchy."

    And most of our politicians choose the Oligarchy. Trump's choices:

    Wilbur Ross, Rothschild, Inc

    The working man's choices.....very limited.

    Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey •Dec 10, 2016 10:27 AM

    "Barack Obama received more money from Goldman Sachs employees than any other corporation. Tim Geithner, Obama's first treasury secretary, was the protege of one-time Goldman CEO Robert Rubin. "

    "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

    Nameshavebeench... -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 11:53 AM

    If Trump gets hit, the 'official story' of who did it will be a lie.

    There needs to be a lot of online discussion about this ahead of time in preparation. If/when the incident happens, there needs to be a successful counter-offensive that puts an end to the Deep State. (take from that what you will)

    We've seen the MO many times now;

    The patterns are well established & if Trump gets hit it should be no surprise, now the 'jackals' need to be exterminated.

    Also, keep in mind that everything we're hearing in all media just might be psyops/counter-intel/planted 'news' etc.

    sgt_doom -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 1:25 PM

    Although I have little hope for this happening, ideally Trump should initiate full forensic audits of the CIA, NSA, DIA and FBI. The last time a sitting president undertook an actual audit of the CIA, he had his brains blown out (President John F. Kennedy) and the Fake News (CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.) reported that a fellow who couldn't even qualify as marksman, the lowest category (he was pencilled in) was the sniper.

    Then, on the 50th anniversary of that horrible coup d'etat, another Fake News show (NPR) claimed that a woman in the military who worked at the rifle range at Atsuga saw Oswald practicing weekly - - absurd on the fact of it, since women weren't allowed at military rifle ranges until the late 1970s or 1980s (and I doublechecked and there was never a woman assigned there in the late 1950s).

    Just be sure he has trustworthy bodyguards, unlike the last batch of phony Secret Service agents (and never employ anyone named Elmer Moore).

    2rigged2fail -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 4:04 PM

    Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us

    Arnold -> Arnold •Dec 10, 2016 9:15 AM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

    jmack -> boattrash •Dec 10, 2016 11:08 AM

    All these Russian interference claims require one to believe that the MSM and democrat machine got out played and out cheated by a bunch of ruskies. This is the level of desperation the democrats have fallen too. To pretend to be so incompetent that the Russians outplayed and overpowered their machine. But I guess they have to fall on that narrative vs the fact that a "crazy" real estate billionaire with a twitter account whipped their asses.

    Democrats, you are morally and credulously bankrupt. all your schemes, agenda's and machinations cannot put humpty dumpty back together again. So now it is another period of scorched earth. The Federal Bureaucracy will fight Trump tooth and nail, joined by the democrats in the judiciary, and probably not a few rino's too.

    It is going to get ugly, like a machete fight. W. got a taste of it with his Plame affair, the brouhaha over the AGA firings, the regime of Porter Goss as DCI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Goss

    DuneCreature -> cherry picker •Dec 10, 2016 10:30 AM

    The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet.

    The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions.

    You said a mouth full, cherry picker. ..... Until the US Intel community goes 'bye bye' the world will HATE the US. ... People aren't stupid. They know who is behind the evil shit.

    ... ... ..

    G-R-U-N-T •Dec 10, 2016 9:39 AM

    What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord!

    Colborne •Dec 10, 2016 9:37 AM

    As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. So, that's the lay of the terrain there now, that's who's running the place. And they aren't going without a fight apparently.

    Interesting times , more and more so.

    66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    For those of us who still have a grip on reality, here are the facts of this election:

    But given this is a story from WaPo, I think will just give a few days until it is thoroughly discredited.

    max2205 -> 66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 11:04 AM

    And she won CA by 4 million. She hates she only gets a limited amount of electoral votes.. tough shit rules are rules bitch. Suck it

    HalEPeno •Dec 10, 2016 9:43 AM

    Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA.

    Clara Tardis •Dec 10, 2016 9:45 AM

    This is a vid from the 1950's, "How to spot a Communist" all you have to do is swap out commie for: liberal, neocon, SJW and democrat and figure out they've about won....

    https://youtu.be/w86QhV7whjs

    dogismycopilot •Dec 10, 2016 9:51 AM

    This is the same CIA that let Pakistan build up the Taliban in Afganistan during the 1990s and gave Pakistan ISI (Pakistan spy agency) hundreds of millions of USD which the ISI channeled to the Taliban and Arab freedom fighters including a very charming chap named Usama Bin Laden.

    The CIA is as worthless as HRC.

    Fuck them and their failed intelligence. I hope Trump guts the CIA like a fish. They need a reboot.

    Yes We Can. But... -> venturen •Dec 10, 2016 10:08 AM

    Why might the Russians want Trump? If there is anything to the stuff I've been reading about the Clintons, they are like cornered animals. Putin just may think the world is a safer, more stable place w/o the Clintons in power.

    TRM -> atthelake •Dec 10, 2016 10:44 AM

    If it is "on" then those doing the "collections" should be aware that a lot of people they will be "collecting" have read Solzhenitsyn.

    "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"

    Those doing the "collections" will have to choose and choose wisely the side they are on. How much easier would it be for them to report back "Sorry, couldn't find them" than to face the wrath of a well armed population?

    Abaco •Dec 10, 2016 9:53 AM

    The clowns running the intelligence agencies for the US have ZERO credibility. Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. He was not fired or reprimanded in any way. He retired with a generous pension. He is a treasonous basrtard who should be swinging from a lamppost. These people serve their political masters - not the people - and deserve nothing but mockery and and a noose.

    mendigo •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM

    As reported on infowars:
    On Dec 9 0bomber issued executive order providing exemption to Arms Export Control Act to permit supplying weapons (ie sams etc) to rebel groups in Syria as a matter "essential to national security "interests"".

    Be careful in viewing this report as is posted from RT - perhaps best to wait for corraboaration on front page of rededicated nyt to be sure and avoid fratrenizing with Vlad.

    Separately Gabard has introduced bill : Stop Arming Terrorists Act.

    David Wooten •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM

    There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia.

    Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. All of these institutions should be registered as foriegn agents and any cleared US citizen should have his or her clearance revoked if they do any work for these organizations, either as a contractor or employee. And these Gulf states have all been donating oil money to UK and US universities so lets include the foreign studies branches of universities in the registry of foreign agents, too.

    And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. Arms companies who sell deadly weapons to the Gulf States, in turn, donate money to Congressmen and now own politicians such as Senators Graham and McCain. It's no wonder Graham wants to help his pals - er owners. So what we have here ('our' government) is institutionalized influence, if not outright control, of US foreign policy by some of the most vicious states on the planet,
    especially Saudi Arabia - whose religious police have been known to beat school girls fleeing from burning buildings because they didn't have their headscarves on.

    As Hillary's 2014 emails have revealed, Qatar and Saudi Arabia support ISIS and were doing so about the same time as ISIS was sweeping through Syria and Iraq, cutting off the heads of Christians, non-Sunnis and just about anyone else they thought was in the way. The Saudi/Gulf States are the driving force to get rid of Assad and that is dangerous as nuclear-armed Russia protects him. If something isn't done about this, the Gulf oil states may get US into a nuclear war with Russia - and won't care in the least.

    Richard Whitney •Dec 10, 2016 10:10 AM

    So...somehow, Putin was able to affect the election one way, and the endorsements for HRC and the slander of Trump by and from Washington Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, practically every big-city newspaper, practically every newspaper in Europe, every EU mandarin, B Streisand, Keith Olberman, Comedy Central, MSNBC, CNN, Lady Gaga, Lena Dunham and a wad of other media outlets and PR-driven-celebs couldn't affect that election the other way.

    Sounds unlikely on the face of it, but hats off to Vlad. U.S. print and broadcast media, Hollywood, Europe...you lost.

    seataka •Dec 10, 2016 10:11 AM

    The Reverse Blockade

    "Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. " page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski more

    just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:51 AM

    that car ride for the WH to the capital is going to be fun.

    Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 12:12 PM

    Your comment ticked one of my remaining Brain Cells.

    The final scene of "The Gauntlet".

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076070/

    Pigeon •Dec 10, 2016 10:29 AM

    I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor.

    The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling. 50% of the Federal govt needs to go.....now.

    What is BEYOND my comprehension is how anyone would think that in Putin's mind, Trump would be preferable to Hillary. She and her cronies are so corrupt, he would either be able to blackmail or destroy her (through espionage and REAL leaks) any time he wanted to during her presidency.

    Do TPTB think we are this fucking stupid?

    madashellron •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM

    Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46006.htm

    jfb •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM

    I love this. Trump is not eager to "drain the swamp" and to collide with the establishment, anyway he has no viable economic plan and promised way too much. However if they want to lead a coup for Hilary with the full backing of most republican and democrat politicians just to get their war against Russia, something tells me that the swamp will be drained for real when the country falls apart in chaos.

    northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:36 AM

    Fuckin' Obama interfered in the Canadian election last year by sending advisers up north to corrupt our laws. He has a lot of nerve pointing fingers at the Russians.

    I notice liberals love to point fingers at others, when they are the guilty ones. It must be in the Alinsky handbook.

    Pigeon -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:38 AM

    Called "projection". Everything they accuse others of doing badly, illegally, immorally, etc. - means that is EXACTLY what they are up to.

    just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:35 AM

    It is in the Alinsky handbook.

    Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 4:41 PM

    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_sau...

    jerry_theking_lawler •Dec 10, 2016 10:45 AM

    CIA = Deep State.

    Trump should not only 'defund' them but should end all other 'programs' that are providing funds to them. Drug trade, bribery, embezzelment, etc. End the CIA terror organization.

    Skiprrrdog •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM

    Putin for Secretary of State... :-)

    brianshell •Dec 10, 2016 10:50 AM

    Section 8, The congress shall have the power to...declare war...raise armies...navies...militia.
    The National Security Act charged the CIA with coordinating the nation's intelligence activities and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence affecting national security.

    Rogue members of the executive branch have overstepped their authority by ordering the CIA to make war without congressional approval or oversight.

    A good deal of the problems created by the United States, including repercussions such as terrorism have been initiated by the CIA

    Under "make America great", include demanding congress assume their responsibility regarding war.

    Rein in the executive and the CIA

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 10, 2016 10:59 AM

    This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play.

    At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show.

    Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA

    The fact that's forgotten about this is that if the story was even slightly true, it shows how incompetent the Democrats are in running a country, how Barak Obama was an intentional incompetent trying to drive the country into the ground and hurting its people, how even with top technologies, coerced corrupted vendors and trillions in funding the NSA, CIA and FBI they were outflanked by the FSB and others and why Hillary's server was more incompetent and dangerous a decision than we think.

    Maybe Hillary and Bill had their server not to hide information from the people, but maybe to actually promote the Russian hacking?

    Why should Trump believe the CIA? What kind of record and leadership do they have that anyone other than a fool should listen to them?

    small axe •Dec 10, 2016 10:55 AM

    At some point Americans will need to wake up to the fact that the CIA has and does interfere in domestic affairs, just as it has long sought to counter "subversion" overseas. The agency is very likely completely outside the control of any administration at this point and is probably best seen as the enforcement arm of the Deep State.

    As the US loses its empire and gains Third World status, it is (sadly) fitting that the CIA war to maintain docile populations becomes more apparent domestically.

    Welcome to Zimbabwe USA.

    marcusfenix •Dec 10, 2016 11:10 AM

    what I don't understand is why the CIA is even getting tangled up in this three ring circus freak show.

    Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms.

    I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. All these stars are not exactly going to support their president going belly up to the bar with Putin. and since Trump has no military or civilian leadership experience (which is why I believe he has loaded up on so much brass in the first place, to compensate) I have no doubt they will have tremendous influence on policy.

    In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. perhaps some have grown so large and so powerful that they have their own agendas? it's not as if our federal government has ever really been one big happy family there have been many times when the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. and congress is week so oversight of this monolithic military and intelligence entities may not be as extensive as we would like to think.

    after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing?

    and is this really all just a small glimpse of some secret war within, which every once in a while bubbles up to the surface?

    CheapBastard •Dec 10, 2016 11:34 AM

    The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS.

    However, there is no doubt the Russians stole my TV remote last week.

    Kagemusho Dec 10, 2016 11:38 AM

    The Intel agencies have been politicized since the late 1970's; look up 'CIA Team B' and the 'Committee on the Present Danger' and their BS 'minority report' used by the original NeoCons to sway public opinion in favor of Ronald Reagan and the arms buildup of the 1980's, which led to the first sky-high deficits. It also led to a confrontational stance against the Soviet Union which almost led to nuclear war in 1983: The 1983 War Scare Declassified and For Real http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb533-The-Able-Archer-War-Scare-Decl...

    The honest spook analysts were forced out, then as now, in favor of NeoCons with political agendas that were dangerously myopic to say the least. The 'Office of Special Plans' in the Pentagon cherry-picked or outright fabricated intel in order to justify the NeoCon/Israeli wet-dream of total control of oil and the 'Securing the (Israeli) Realm' courtesy of invading parts of the Middle East and destabilizing the rest, with the present mess as the wholly predictable outcome. The honest analysts told them it would happen, and now they're gone.

    This kind of organizational warping caused by agency politicization is producing the piss-poor intel leading to asinine decisions creating untold tragedy; that the WaPo is depending upon this intel from historically-proven tainted sources is just one more example of the incestuous nature of the relations between Traditional Media and its handlers in the intel community.

    YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 11:54 AM

    This isn't a "Soft Coup". It's the groundwork necessary for a rock hard, go-for-broke, above the barricade, tanks in the street coup d'etat. You do not get such a blatant accusation from the CIA and establishment echo vendor, unless they are ready to back it up to the hilt with action. The accusations are serious - treason and election fraud.

    Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. His natural "Mistake" is seeking people at his level of business acumen - his version of real, ordinary people - when billionaires/multimillionaires are actually Type A personalities, usually predatory and addicted to money. In his world, and in America in general, money equates to good social standing more than any other facet of personal achievements. It is natural for an American to equate "Good" with money. I'm a Brit and foreigners like me (I have American cousins I've visited since I was a kid) who visit the States are often surprised by the shallow materialism that equates to culture.

    So we have a bunch of dubious Alpha types addicted to money in transition to take charge of government who know little or nothing about the principle of public service. Put them in a room together and without projects they can focus on, they are going to turn on each other for supremacy. I would not be surprised if Trump's own cabinet destroys him or uses leverage from their own power bases to manipulate him.

    Mike Pompeo, for example, is the most fucked up pick as CIA director I could have envisaged. He is establishment to his core, a neocon torture advocate who will defend the worst excesses of the intelligence arm of the MIC no matter what. One word from his mouth could have stopped this bullshit about Russia helping Trump win the election. Nobody in the CIA was going to argue with the new boss. Yet here we are, on the cusp of another attack on mulitple fronts. This is how you manipulate an incumbent president to dial up his paranoia to the max and failing that, launch a coup d'etat.

    It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him and he chose his cabinet from the establishment swamp dwellers to best protect him from his enemies. Wrong choices, granted, but understandable.

    He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power.

    flaminratzazz ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM
    I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him,,
    +1 I think he was just dickin around with throwin his hat in the ring, was going to go have fun calling everyone names with outlandish attacks and lo and behold he won.. NOW he is shitting himself on the enormity of his GREATEST fvkup in his life.
    jomama ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:16 PM
    Unless you can show how Trump's close ties to Wall St. (owes banks there around 350M currently
    YHC-FTSE ->jomama •Dec 10, 2016 12:59 PM
    My post is conjecture, obviously. The basis of my musings, as stated above, is the fact that the establishment has tried to destroy Trump from the outset using all of their assets in his own party, the msm, Hollyweird, intelligence and politics. A full retard attack is being perpetrated against him as I type.

    There is some merit to dividing the establishment, the Deep State, into two opposing sides. One that lost power, priestige and funds backing Hillary and one that did not, which would make Trump an alternative establishment candidate. But there is no proof that any establishment (MIC+Banking) entity even likes Trump, let alone supports him. As for Israel, Hillary was their candidate of choice, but their MO is they will always infiltrate and back both sides to ensure compliance.

    blindfaith ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:36 PM
    Do not underestimate Trump. I will grant that some of these picks are concerning. However, think in terms of business, AND government is a business from top to bottom. It has been run as a dog and pony show for years and look where we are. To me, I think his picks are strating to look like a very efficient team to get the government efficient again. That alone must make D.C. shake in thier boots.
    YHC-FTSE ->blindfaith •Dec 10, 2016 1:08 PM
    Underestimating Trump is the last thing I would do. I'm just trying to understand his motives in my own clumsy way. Besides, he promised to "Drain the swamp", not run the swamp more efficiently.
    ducksinarow •Dec 10, 2016 12:04 PM
    From a non political angle, this is a divorce in the making. Then democrats have been rejected in totallity but instead of blaming themselves for not being good enough, they are blaming a third party which is the Russians. They are now engaging the Republican Party in a custody battle for the "children". There are lies flying around and the older children know exactly what is going on and sadly the younger children are confused, bewildered, angry and getting angrier by the minute. Soon Papa(Obama) will be leaving which is symbolic of the male father figure in the African American community. The new Papa is a white guy who is going to change the narrative, the rules of engagement and the financial picture. The ones who were the heroes in the Obama narrative are not going to be heroes anymore. New heroes will be formed and revered and during this process some will die for their beliefs.

    Back to reality, Trump needs to cleanse the CIA of the ones who would sell our nation to the highest bidder. If the CIA is not on the side of America the CIA should be abolished. In a world where mercenaries are employed all over the world, bringing together a culturally mixed agency does not make for a very honest agency. It makes for a bunch of self involved countries trying to influence the power of individuals. The reason Castro was never taken down is because it was not in the interest of the CIA to do so. That is why there were some pretty hilarious non-attempts on Castro's life over the years. It is not in the best interest of the CIA that Trump be president. It is in the best interest of America that Trump is our President.

    brane pilot •Dec 10, 2016 12:22 PM

    Even the idea that people would rely on foreign governments for critical information during an election indicates the bankruptcy of the corrupt US media establishment. So now they resort to open sedition and defamation in the absence of factual information. The mainstream media in the USA has become a Fifth Column against America, no different than the so-called 'social science' departments on college campuses. Trump was America's last chance and we took it and no one is going to take it away.

    [Dec 09, 2016] Washington Post Refuses to Retract Article Defaming Naked Capitalism and Other Sites naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... It appears that the globalists are scared of anything that resembles the truth that counters their incessant propaganda If there was ever a discovery process in a lawsuit against WAPO, I would imagine that all roads would lead to a Contelpro section of the CIA It's interesting that Wall Street on Parade has noted that Propornot has a double blind registration in New Mexico. ..."
    "... Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. ..."
    "... More and more it seems like USA, like the roman empire, needs barbarians at the gates to distract the plebs from internal structural problems. ..."
    "... As long as Yeltsin allowed Wall Street to loot Russia of former soviet holdings, Russia was not "barbaric". Now that Putin has put a solid halt on said looting, Russia is again "barbarians" ..."
    "... And by refusing to address the emails, other than to scream "Russian hackers," the corporate media were able to convince the Clinton cultists and other Third-Way believers that the information they contained was just another right-wing attack on The Anointed because (other than leftist, Russian-loving "fake news" sites), the right-wing media were the only ones paying it any attention. ..."
    "... I am old enough to remember seeing in the news reel at my local theater in 1950 Joseph McCarthy holding up a piece of paper to the cameras and intoning in his inimitable droning voice, "I have here in my hand a list of 205 known members of the Communist Party who are working and shaping policy in the State Department." ..."
    "... People's livelihoods and reputations were thereby smeared for life. Never did McCarthy back his claims with evidence, nor did he retract his scurrilous accusation. Now, tell me how what Jeff Bezos and co. are doing in this instance is in any significant way different from what McCarthy did to these people back in 1956. What finally put it squarely before the American public and finally earned McCarthy Congressional censure was when Boston attorney Joseph Welch asked McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" ..."
    "... Here's the thing. Yes, RT is funded by the Russian government, and thus anything posted thereon needs to be considered with that in mind. Nevertheless, it is also where stories the corporates prefer to ignore are given attention. In other words, there is an irony that the Russians may, indeed, be trying to influence us, but if so, they appear to be doing it by subtly undermining the reliability of the corporate media. ..."
    "... To put it another way, dismissing RT solely because of its funding source is no better than dismissing NC et al. as propaganda sites, and doing so is actually feeding the propaganda machine. After all, we don't know what percentage of the US media currently receives "grants" from US intelligence agencies, now, do we. ..."
    "... In studying communications, there's a distinction between 'white' and 'black' propaganda. White propaganda is publishing truth that supports your cause. Black propaganda is, of course, slanderous lies. RT is white propaganda, so use it for the value it brings. ..."
    "... Exactly. I'm a grown-up. I have a lot of practice reading critically and I'm quite capable of questioning sources and filtering bias. I don't need Jeff Bezos to protect me from Russkie BadThink. ..."
    "... "does not itself vouch " You have to bear in mind this is not the Post talking, this is CIA CIA has blatantly used the Post as a their sockpuppet since they put Woodward in there to oust Nixon, and now they've got Bezos by the contractual balls. CIA has impunity in municipal statute and secret red tape so any answer you get from them means No fuck You. ..."
    "... The NDAA legalized domestic propaganda in 2013 so when the public repudiated their chosen president Hillary Clinton, CIA immediately got to work work attacking Article 19. ..."
    "... [M]aybe we should just lump them [WaPo] in with Breitbart and company. ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    cocomaan December 8, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Right on. When Yves says:

    This is tantamount to an admission that not only did the Washington Post do no fact-checking, but also that it does not consider fact-checking to be part of its job.

    Another way to put it is to say that WaPoo is not in the business of investigation but instead is in the business of regurgitation . WaPoo seems to think that reporting equals repeating.

    We don't need people who repeat other people's words. We need reporters who are digging.

    Eduardo Quince December 8, 2016 at 7:30 am

    Not enough! They need to apologise. They should also fire Timberg.

    Was this mimicry of a Trump tweet intentional or subconscious?

    john bougearel December 8, 2016 at 7:46 am

    "This minimalist walk-back does not remedy the considerable damage [already] done to NC and other sites." No, it certainly does not. Once the "defamatory cat" is out of the bag, you can't exactly stuff the cat back in.

    Proceed, young lady with your case. But as you move forward, do take measures to keep these vampires from stealing your adaptive energies and health.

    p.s. You know, this diminiishes WaPo to a mere "blog aggregator" when allows its "reporters" such as Craig Timberg to merely "scrape and publish" posts from anonymous blogsites (not even scraping from the laughable "gold standard" of truth on the internet: Wiki). These reporters aren't writing, they are scraping. What a bunch of lazy fucks at WaPo!

    And you know what I'd really like to do: kick this Craig Timberg character a new ass in a dark alley. Yves, when you are done shredding WaPo and Timberg, I sincerely hope they won't be able to sit down for a whole year.

    p.s.s. that post (yd) about Wiki becoming the "gold standard" of 'fact-finding" and "truth" on the internet was particularly disturbing. Even citations from academic journals (such as JAMA) posted in Wiki are laden with flawed research suffering from poor design and methodology, draw the wrong conclusions, reveal biases and conflicts of interest, show a lack of references etc. Decades ago, there was a shift in much of the medical literature – a shift from "evidence-based" to "consensus-based." The internet appears to be moving in the same direction, using various tools and methodologies that allow "consensus-based" opinions (valued by the certain parties that be) to be shaped as "facts" and "truth." When in fact, those opinions are anything but a truth.

    Alex December 8, 2016 at 8:53 am

    I suppose they're applying the Amazon retail aggregation model to the WaPo?

    flora December 8, 2016 at 10:11 am

    . a shift from "evidence-based" to "consensus-based."

    Yes. That's what I see as behind the browser flagging extensions, as if facts are subject to majority vote, which would make them opinions, not facts. If wapoo prints an editorial opinion on the editorial page, that's one thing. If wapoo prints editorial opinion masquerading as fact on the front page, that is a different matter.

    Wapoo's arrogant reply, in the form of an editor's note, to NC's letter isn't a surprising first move for them. I trust NC's atty has already thought many, many steps ahead.

    Sally December 8, 2016 at 7:47 am

    "The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so."

    You couldn't get a more weassely response. They admit they didn't fact check their sources, they cowadly now hide behind the defence of not actully naming any of the sites, and then finally try to play the "nothing to see here" defence of pretending the article didn't mean what it quite clearly did mean when it was published.

    Increasingly, challenging western govt output is seen as a form of rebellion. As Orwell said . telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    dk December 8, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    " nor did the article purport to do so."

    Shouldn't that be "nor does"? Since they didn't take it down

    Jim Haygood December 8, 2016 at 7:48 am

    One day I was listening to Bloomberg News on the car radio, when they aired a critical story on a company where I had worked. The criticism was from a third party group. And then the next news story began.

    Stunned, I phoned the reporter and asked, "Where was the company's rebuttal, or refusal to comment?"

    He replied, "It was there, you just didn't hear it."

    But I had listened with full attention, and it wasn't there. Maybe an editor had removed it to shorten the clip.

    This has been my experience with the MSM. They are always right. They make no mistakes. You should believe them, not your lying eyes and ears.

    Ulysses December 8, 2016 at 8:47 am

    "This has been my experience with the MSM. They are always right. They make no mistakes. You should believe them, not your lying eyes and ears."

    We have always been at war with Eurasia.

    The Ministry of Truth hasn't, yet, been given the power to completely silence those of us who don't stay within the confines of The Narrative. So their tactic is to portray us all as dangerous disinformators like Emmanuel Goldstein.

    Andrew December 8, 2016 at 7:52 am

    Accuracy is not part of the job when producing and publishing fake news – Washington Post

    Insta-epic classic

    William Young December 8, 2016 at 7:57 am

    In 1975, I went to the Soviet Union with a group of American tourists. At the time, I was working as a volunteer for Ralph Nader. A few times, some of the people in our group had a chance to talk to Soviet people in our hotels. The other Americans would give civics book explanations about how the US government worked. Some of the Soviet people would question these explanations, saying that they had heard from their government that the American government worked in a way that sounded to me much more accurate and in line with the way Nader portrayed the US. Undemocratic regimes are often fairly accurate in describing the faults of other governments, especially those of their perceived enemies, while ignoring their own failings. I do not know exactly what Russian propaganda the Washington Post is referring to, but I would not be surprised if various Russian sources simply repeat the common criticisms of the toxic activities of the neoliberal establishment – an establishment of which the Washington Post has been a long-time supporter. Why go through all of the trouble of fabricating stories when the reality is as damning as anything you could make up? So rather than the US sources in question spouting Russian propaganda, the Russians might simply be repeating the criticisms they are hearing from the US.

    Arizona Slim December 8, 2016 at 8:07 am

    All right. That did it. I'm sending another check to NC.

    FedUpPleb December 8, 2016 at 8:08 am

    This is tantamount to an admission that not only did the Washington Post do no fact-checking, but that it does not consider fact-checking to be part of its job.

    Ah, the Ratings Agencies "opinions" defense. Blithely ignorant of their own legally and historically protected positions. I suspect this is exactly the defense the WP will run with. Effectively they will assert their constitutional right as propagandists, to broadcast whatever they please in the national interest.

    is a new, private sector-led initiative

    I would say not entirely. True, large private corporations are behind a lot of this, but what is at stake is their authority to speak for, and their connections to, the state and Deep State.

    On a more emotional level, what is at stake is status. Because really that is all the big newspapers have anymore. Social status. Do not underestimate this currency. It is probably the most precious form of capital there is and the Post, et al, will fight with their fingernails to avoid losing it. Things could get pretty nasty. Good luck and give the bastards hell.

    HotFlash December 8, 2016 at 9:19 am

    Long, long time, b/c of their policies. I figure my opinion doesn't count, my vote doesn't count, but by golly, I will make every dollar I spend count. I buy locally when possible (ideally both locally made/grown and locally-owned retail, although there is at least one local company I will not patronize, for policy reasons) and have found alternate sources for things I can't get around here, eg. Powell's for books and Lehman's for tools and kitchen stuff. As a last resort I will comparison shop on Amazon and then ask my local supplier to order the thing in for me (as I did with my water heater). Not one nickel of mine will go to WaPo or Amazon. And I have told rellies, pls no Amazon gifts for our household.

    Vatch December 8, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Long before the current series of events happened, there were excellent reasons to avoid buying from Amazon.com. The horrific working conditions in Amazon.com warehouses should be enough to prevent any person from buying from the company. I suppose many people still aren't aware of how bad it is, so here's an example article:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-in-amazons-massive-warehouses-fulfillment-centers-2014-11/

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    As much as I would love to "boycott Amazon," it's not possible for several reasons. First, being old and crippled, I can't run out to the nearest Target to buy stuff, and I definitely don't have time or physical capacity to hop all over town trying to find some specialty item that doesn't sell enough for most bricks-and-mortar retailers to carry. I do buy direct when it's possible, but the fact of life is there's stuff you can only find on Amazon.

    Second, I own and operate a small digitally-based book publishing company, and Amazon is our major source of revenue. For me, boycotting Amazon would mean pulling my authors' work from distribution there, which isn't an option. Likewise, consider Kindle owners with extensive libraries.

    Frankly, I consider these calls to boycott some huge corporation the kind of symbolic action that allows people to feel good about themselves while avoiding doing anything actually effective. Like writing/emailing/phoning the editorial board of the local news media should they be broadcasting/publishing this rubbish-preferably all three and multiple times. Given that many are connected to the same major corporations as the Big Media, that strikes me as what really needs to be done.

    After all, WaPo isn't doing this in an echo chamber. Their fiction was picked up by all the major players and more than a few of the minor. The only way to counter public discourse is publicly.

    On another subject-Yves and Lambert, if you'd like someone to run over your articles pre-publication for a quick copyedit, you know where to find me. It's one of the non-monetary things I can donate.

    Spring Texan December 8, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Agree on symbolic action. I do buy from Amazon and either go to antiwar.com first (a mixed site, but one I want to see endure) and click so they get a commission or go to smile.amazon.com so my favorite small charity gets it.

    Buying is NOT voting. I'm a citizen and not mainly just a consumer. Not buying from amazon would hurt me more than them (especially as I like buying obscure second-hand books). There are much better things I can do to be politically effective, including letters to the editor and contributions.

    I do buy by preference from a third-party that doesn't distribute from Amazon warehouses if the price is close. And there are many things I do choose to get locally or from others. But I buy a heck of a lot from them especially books.

    JamesG December 8, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    Walmart has recently upgraded its on-line shopping site and its performance.

    You may not like WM but they don't own the Post and they're big enuff to hurt amazon.

    aliteralmind December 8, 2016 at 8:23 am

    There should be a union of sorts, among those defamed. Join forces with some other reputable smallish websites and create a consortium that pools resources to fight this sort of thing going forward.

    millicent December 8, 2016 at 8:24 am

    I think you should take the strongest, most aggressive stance possible given the huge number of very important issues at stake. I will continue to support naked capitalism any way that I can.

    kokuanani December 8, 2016 at 8:35 am

    Yves, have you contacted Bill Moyers? He initially referred to the Post article without adequate critical comment. He could and should remedy this. His voice would carry weight with the book bag-toting NPR folks, who will be among the last to "doubt" the Post.

    Lupemax December 8, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Excellent suggestion. I found NC when Bill Moyers recommended it on his old tv show when he interviewed Yves and it has continued to open my eyes big time and I haven't been the same since. Whenever I encounter a NYTimesbot or a BostonGlobebot or a Wapoobot or NPRbot (Blindly quoting believers) I tell them I don't have time for MSM anymore after Bill Moyers recommended this incredibly informative site and I tell them all about NC. I am so grateful for NC and Yves and Lambert and all the other contributors for what you all do. I would be devastated if this horror damages you (us) all. And Net Neutrality in general – Trump will go after it. WaPoo (love that) should be taken way out to the woodshed, shamed, and publicized for how awful they (and so many others in the MSM) have become. I will help in any way I can. And please stay well Yves and Lambert.

    savedbyirony December 8, 2016 at 11:58 am

    I found NC through Bill Moyers as well. Since he retired, i rarely look at the website and never the FC page anymore since the content significantly decreased in quality and originality imo after he retired. i know his name is still attached to the website and he still occasionally submits articles, but i wonder how much oversight and content involvement he has with the operation these days.

    savedbyirony December 8, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    That should read, "since he retired from the tv show Moyers & Co and it went off the air". The website still lists Bill Moyers as the managing editor. But the quality of the website noticeably changed after the show left PBS in i think 2015.

    andyb December 8, 2016 at 8:36 am

    It appears that the globalists are scared of anything that resembles the truth that counters their incessant propaganda If there was ever a discovery process in a lawsuit against WAPO, I would imagine that all roads would lead to a Contelpro section of the CIA It's interesting that Wall Street on Parade has noted that Propornot has a double blind registration in New Mexico.

    susan the other December 8, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    A propaganda holding company! This is allowed by the Whappo? It's a felony masquerading as a farce and they can't get out of this like little Judy Miller pretending to be dumb. Judy Miller is very sophisticated and so is the Whappo. Journalism isn't journalism if it does this sleazy stuff. Since when does a newspaper "disclaim" its own news? It's totally outrageous. And the nerve to say that PropOrNot insists on being anonymous. PropOrNot might as well be the Whappo itself. Only sleazy purveyors of crap disclaim it. This is just asking for satire. Whappo deserves to be ridiculed into oblivion.

    susan the other December 8, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    just a quick check on the net produced a a site: dab-oracl.com and an atty named Donald Burleson – stating that New Mexico is one of 17 states that enforce criminal libel and that you can file to lift the veil on anonymity for defamation and have the perp arrested cool

    susan the other December 8, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    that's dba-oracle.com for Burleson

    craazyboy December 8, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    craazyman may know these people!

    It's in Santa Fe and the U of Magonia has a channeling portal there. The channeling portal connects to alternate universes and higher order dimensions and all sorts of weird and unusual stuff passes thru the portal. It's where craazyman finds out about lots of stuff and he may have bumped(if that's right word) into these other channelers?

    larry December 8, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    Cointelpro was a section of the FBI, not the CIA

    johnnygl December 8, 2016 at 8:38 am

    If they can't vouch for the validity of their sources and stories, what value are they adding as an organization?

    If we want, we can go direct to prnewswire and govt issued press releases.

    seabos84 December 8, 2016 at 8:49 am

    I'm 56, I was a 9 buck an hour cook in Boston in 1988 when Dukakis came out of Labor Day with a 17 point lead.

    The campaign wizards of Bush Senior came up some kind of 'Dukakis hates America ' baloney, because of some other baloney about The Flag!! or The Pledge!!! For days, GWB Sr. came out in front of a bunch of flags & said the Pledge, and the craven, sycophantic, grovelling media of the day dutifully reported –

    "In order to show '__Dukakis hates America___' Vice President Bush said the pledge of allegiance."

    Anyone from that era remember all the liberal cloak rending and finger waving and furrowed brows? Anyone remember that Fairness Doctrine thing??? Seriously – having some contract mouth piece of the WAPO question NC is a badge of honor.

    rmm.

    But then I sigh; and, with a piece of scripture,
    Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
    And thus I clothe my naked villany
    With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ;
    And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.

    Northeaster December 8, 2016 at 9:03 am

    Dukakis infamy was due to the rape question in regard to the death penalty. It also didn't help posing in a tank.

    FluffytheObeseCat December 8, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Dukakis' loss was due to his weak response to a racist smear campaign that assigned him personal responsibility for every poor decision made by the Massachusetts penal system.

    His sin was failing to fight back with sufficient vigor. It's a good choice of anecdote for this comments thread however. An object lesson if you will.

    Science Officer Smirnoff December 8, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Willie Horton, Swift Boats, . . ., "Fake News" but that's just political campaign agitprop.

    Official or establishment agitprop is far more potent.

    Any submissions for the sweepstakes?

    AnonymousCounselor December 8, 2016 at 8:54 am

    The Washington Post has responded, from the perspective of their own interests, in literally the worst way possible.

    They have essentially gone on record as admitting that publish articles that are defamatory per se in a reckless manner, using a reckless (or non-existent) fact-checking and vetting process.

    It's really unbelievable, and many of us in the legal community are scratching our heads, now, wondering from whom The Washington Post is soliciting legal advice.

    sid_finster December 8, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    I don't think it matters, when you're the WaPo and acting as a mouthpiece for the establishment.

    I expect dismissal or summary judgment.

    Yves Smith Post author December 8, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    They wouldn't have deigned to respond at all if they weren't nervous about our attorney. But I agree, this response is incredibly lame and not helpful to them from a legal or reputational standpoint. They seem to think if they make a minimal gesture, NC and the other wronged sites won't proceed. Bad assumption.

    OIFVet December 8, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    My grandfather was a political refugee. He escaped Bulgaria after being jailed one too many times for having the audacity to disagree with the communist elites and its media organs, and to do so in public. What I see happening here in the US, with dissent on the verge of being suppressed or even criminalized, deeply concerns me because it reminds me of those bad old times. I respect you guys and your willingness to stand up to power, in ways I can not adequately express. Thank you.

    John Wright December 8, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Craig Timberg may be another example of the "son of more successful father" phenomenon who in attempting to exceed their fathers, do great damage to others (other examples: G.W. Bush, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, John McCain ).

    Timberg's father, Baltimore Sun political reporter Bob Timberg, is described at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-bob-timberg-20140821-story.html

    " He was nearly 30 years old, borderline ancient for a beginning daily newspaper reporter. Unlike other Capital staffers, he was a Naval Academy graduate with a master's degree in journalism, and he was a Vietnam war combat veteran. And he could not type."

    "I first noticed Bob's reporting talents from his incisive articles on a legal challenge to compulsory chapel attendance at the U.S. service academies, filed by six Annapolis midshipmen and a West Point cadet."

    "The highlight of Bob's reporting was an interview with celebrated evangelist Billy Graham, who shockingly characterized the students' lawsuit as a being "part of a planned attack against all chaplains, to force them completely out of all services," and further suggested that the young men were Communist dupes. Though Bob knew now that he had a good story, he still pressed on, asking Graham if an atheist can become a good naval officer. "I can't comment on that," the preacher answered."

    So Timberg's father questioned a prominent person who was alleging "Communist dupes" against military chaplains.

    But his son does little vetting of the shadowy group PropOrNot as he goes for HIS story alleging "Russian propagandists".

    It may be too late for the son to learn from the father's example.

    Kurt Sperry December 8, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Good story. The son as a pale shadow of the father is, as you say, not an uncommon thing. Craig, in this current example, doesn't seem to understand even the most basic, fundamental principles of journalistic ethics or professional conduct. It's strange someone in the profession that long could survive lacking that. Or maybe once you get on with a big name paper with a billionaire owner, sucking up to the establishment is a get out of jail free card when it comes to ethics and professional accountability.

    linda amick December 8, 2016 at 9:10 am

    I stopped ordering from Amazon two years ago after reading the stories about labor conditions for warehouse employees. It is nothing more than brutal slave labor.
    I used to at least read the headlines in the NYT and WaPo. Now I can not even stomach them.

    Sluggeaux December 8, 2016 at 9:18 am

    So, the WaPo now admits that "journalism" is dead and stenography is the only purpose their "platform" exists for.

    The quaint institution of "journalism" existed to sort "fact" from "opinion" and made the important distinction between the two. Opinions are like belly-buttons and assholes, everybody has one. Facts are more difficult to discern, but are immutable and objective. As attributed to the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. "

    This is the death of the First Amendment - The ScAmazon model of purporting to be a "marketplace" but refusing to vouch for the quality, safety, or authenticity of anything that they loudly and slickly shill to profit from the work of others. It is disgusting, hollow, and amoral. It must be brought to heel.

    JTFaraday December 8, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    And the Amazon warehouse of stenography too apparently. (Link from the original post):

    http://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/washington_post_bezos_amazon_revolution.php

    Carolinian December 8, 2016 at 9:20 am

    I suspect the MSM have always seen their ability to shape elections as their true "ring of power." As you say this has been going on for a long time–certainly pre-internet. The fact that Trump won despite their best efforts has likely shaken big media to the core. Which doesn't mean Trump's election was a good thing or a bad thing but simply that they didn't get to pick.

    Television will always be the most important medium when it comes to politics but the print media now see their role as "influencers" under threat from the web. And given their financial problems this may be the final existential threat. It's likely the Post editors knew perfectly well what they were doing and how shoddy that story was. It was a shot across the bow.

    Carolinian December 8, 2016 at 9:25 am

    Reply to seabos84

    Alejandro December 8, 2016 at 10:00 am

    From a sausage factory of "manufacturing consent" to a sausage factory of stifling dissent.

    DJG December 8, 2016 at 9:26 am

    Yves: What is going on here is deeply ingrained. We live in a country in which everyone's opinions are now canonical, as we see with wonder about the candidate for the head of the EPA. Pruitt's opinion counteracts years of research, because lawyers know all about science.

    I was reminded of how ingrained these "narratives" are when I read the lead in the Talk of the Town in the most recent New Yorker: Jeffrey Toobin on voting. He did a drive-by diagnosis of Jill Stein as a narcissist. (But, but, but the New Yorker already declared Trump a narcissist.) Then, in a couple of very curious sentences, he tries to accuse the Russians of tampering with the U.S. election campaign while admitting it unlikely that foreigners hacked the vote count. So you have two or three or four fake-news pieces strung together so as to assert power. That's the long and the short of it. Just as Pruitt is an ignoramus about science, so Toobin as an ignoramus about psychology. As Lambert often writes: Agnotology. I'd add: Agnotology to maintain the structures of power.

    We have been in this intellectual winter for a while: Liberals in denial, peddling psychobabble. Rightwingers in denial, peddling resentment.

    Keep talking to your lawyer.

    olga December 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

    At the end of the 70s, we came to the US, believing western media to be the epitome of honesty and truth (the belief itself based on plentiful pro-western propaganda, which we consumed unquestioningly). The highly misleading anti-Soviet propaganda in the US at that time was a bit of a shock. Not so much its existence, but its vicious nature. And the lies about "Russians are coming." Nothing much has changed – the west still dislikes Russia, and will do all it can to discredit the country (just watch out for the starting effort to ruin the 2018 futbal (soccer) games in Russia – anti-Sochi hysteria was just a preview). The wapoo stunt may be crude, but it is not a demonstration of incompetence. It does seem to be a part of concerted efforts to limit the free flow of information on the Internet. As the "narrative" has gotten away from powers that be, a new way to censor information is needed. Even Merkel said she'd want to address "fake news." Has everybodu forgotten operation Mockingbird ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird )? Nothing new under the sun – but the stakes are much higher now, as the west runs out of options to maintain supremacy.

    tgs December 8, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Yes, I find it hard to believe that, given the current hysteria, Russia is going to be allowed to host the World Cup in 2018.

    sid_finster December 8, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    Apparently HRC has also jumped on the censorship bandwagon.

    digi_owl December 8, 2016 at 9:54 am

    More and more it seems like USA, like the roman empire, needs barbarians at the gates to distract the plebs from internal structural problems.

    As long as Yeltsin allowed Wall Street to loot Russia of former soviet holdings, Russia was not "barbaric". Now that Putin has put a solid halt on said looting, Russia is again "barbarians"

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    Want to have some fun? Next time someone starts ranting about "the Russians hacked our election," try tossing out "Well, we messed with theirs, so it seems only fair."

    Lord Koos December 8, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    It's fitting, since the USA sees no problem in rigging other countries' elections, whether it be the middle East or Latin America.

    LA Mike December 8, 2016 at 10:07 am

    They basically pulled a trump:

    "I'm not saying it's true, but I've heard other people say it's true."

    jake December 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

    Post editorial/management probably doesn't have strong opinions - or any opinions - of the sites impugned by PropOrNot, including Naked Capitalism, since it's unlikely these corporate drones possess enough intellectual curiosity to actually look at them.

    The problem is confirmation bias (in this case, offering an acceptable explanation for why WaPo's Chosen Liberal lost the election, without having to look in the mirror) and shoddy careerist journalism generally, which works so well for so many, and which can't be litigated away.

    Banish Timberg, and you might as well put WaPO out of business.

    craazyboy December 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

    I recall seeing somewhere in the initial flurry of tweets and comments on the subject that someone had contacted Wapo and received a response from the editor or some such stating that "multiple contacts" were made to PorNot for some sort of purpose, perhaps verification, fact checking, or what ever it is newspapers do before breathlessly getting out the bold typeface and running a "story". Wish I could find it again. But now it seems that was fake news.

    The timing and placement of the "clarification" is rich. 14 days later slip in an "editor's comment" buried in the old news pile. Your pet parrot wouldn't even notice.

    drb48 December 8, 2016 at 10:11 am

    Timburg is obviously another tool – like Judith Miller. His "editors" knew full well the story was bullshit – "can't vouch for the validity" (because we can't be bothered to check our sources) – and ran it anyway. So there was/is an agenda. And the media wonder why they are in such low regard.

    Lord Koos December 8, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    I wonder how hands-on Bezos is with the WaPoo?

    amouise December 8, 2016 at 10:57 am

    Yves, in your apology post with your attorney's letter, you stated this

    I also hope, particularly for those of you who don't regularly visit Naked Capitalism, that you'll check out our related pieces that give more color to how the fact the Washington Post was taken for a ride by inept propagandists

    My first reaction to this was "presumes facts not in evidence"

    I don't believe the Post was taken in by anyone. They wanted to have a particular piece written and they did. Why in the world would they back down now?

    You're going to need more fundraisers because I'm guessing they'll be dragging this out. If they can't beat you with fake news then they will drain your resources with a long-drawn out legal process. Yes, I'm very cynical. Watched one of the bloggers I follow spend around $150,000 defending themselves from a defamation case that never went to trail. The blogger was also a lawyer so could help with her defense, had discounted legal assistance from an first amendment expert and an additional attorney. They had a year of depositions with constant delays. $150,000 is not petty cash.

    I know the circumstances are not the same but the Post has deep pockets. If they want to drain NC and other independent news sources, they have the resources to go the distance.

    Also please stop giving the newspapers excuses. The entire industry is pretty much consolidated. I don't think they very much care about whether or not a newspaper makes money after they've leveraged it with so much debt in order to purchase it in the first place. Or used their billions to simply buy it. Either way that would seem to indicate that's about the write-off and controlling the "narrative."

    As an added bonus get rid of your workers due to "costs." Further narrowing the acceptable narrative within the newsroom. Pretty soon, the entire industry is gutted just like other industries in this country. (I'd argue that's most of the way done except for independent media.) That's quite purposeful and just like other industries, it never had to be that way, even with the rise of the Internet and "things" like Google ads and Facebook.

    Stop giving them so much of the benefit of the doubt. They are engaged in a class war.

    Even if somewhere down the line they were to apologize and give you a prominent byline, the damage is already done with a good portion of their readership. Which was entirely the point.

    flora December 8, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    " I don't believe the Post was taken in by anyone. "

    I may wholeheartedly agree with you but there are good reasons for NC to be circumspect and initially offer Wapoo the option of backing away and retracting gracefully; or as gracefully as possible in this situation.

    Yes, I'm in for the long haul wrt donations. Bernie's campaign showed the power of small donations.

    scraping_by December 8, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    You've put your finger on the "stupid, crazy, or evil" question.

    Our esteemed hostess has chosen stupid, for reasons that seem good and sufficient. Crazy would be apparent from past behavior, and we of the tinfoil hat legions can make a good case for evil from the interests of the actors. But if nothing else, stupid is easily proved.

    PlutoniumKun December 8, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    I think the main reason many here are giving the benefit of the doubt to WaPo is that it was done so ineptly. The article reeks of carelessness and non-existent fact-checking and poor (or non-existent) editorial overview. If it was part of a deliberate plot to smear it should have been better written and they would have done a better job in covering themselves legally. Most recent high profile libel claims – such as the Rolling Stones college rape hoax story – originated from a mix of confirmation bias and incompetence, not (so far as we know) from a deliberate malign plot.

    Having said that, their refusal to come straight out and apologise when presented with the facts is just digging themselves a deeper hole. I've no doubt the NC crew will go all the way with this, I hope it proves deeply embarrassing for the WaPo, they are destroying their own reputation and its entirely their fault.

    RUKidding December 8, 2016 at 11:01 am

    I guess, on one level, it's intersting that the PTB saw the websites on the list as having that much power and influence to sway the election to Trump due to telling the truth, frankly. The truth clearly has no place in the US conversation anymore.

    At any rate, most of here saw our main, favored websites on that McCarthyite witch hunt list and thought: WOW. So we told the truth about Clinton and various other issues with this election, and now we must be silenced.

    Of course, it's pretty odd given the DNC hacked emails were really very revealing of many shady (to say the least) things, and I've seen those emails quoted quite a bit by many rightwing sources. And that info was, in fact, disseminated broadly to conservative voters. And I feel that those emails, possibly along with Comey's last minute "reveal," probably swayed some still-on-the-fence voters to either not vote for POTUS at all or to vote for Trump.

    Frankly, it's risable in the extreme that this country has been drowning in rightwingnut propaganda for the past 40+ years (or longer), and that's really what the rise of Trump is all about. As opposed to others here, I frankly despise Trump and all he stands for, but I give him props where due. He's kind of stupid but has this certain rat cunning about reading the moment and grabbing it for his purposes. He saw that those who had lost the most in this country were ripe for the plucking, and he went about using them for his own greedy means accordingly.

    Railing against a handful of truth-telling lefty-ish blogs is amazing on one level. I doubt that, even in the aggragate, many voters were swayed by the information provided. I think most who read these blogs are already determined what we'll do, but we come to these sites for a breath of fresh air, as it were.

    That, for me, is what makes this attack so chilling. The last few small voices of reason and sanity? And they have to be silenced? Brrrrrr . that's bitterly cold.

    Keep up the good fight, Yves and friends. This is gonna be tough row to hoe, but I'm in it to win it.

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    And by refusing to address the emails, other than to scream "Russian hackers," the corporate media were able to convince the Clinton cultists and other Third-Way believers that the information they contained was just another right-wing attack on The Anointed because (other than leftist, Russian-loving "fake news" sites), the right-wing media were the only ones paying it any attention.

    You have to give credit where it's due-they have had decades to perfect their method, and it is very hard to counter it.

    aletheia33 December 8, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    ckimball,

    after my own heart, thanks

    silicon valley does not know the meaning of trust. they have extracted it from every situation they can, destroying everything they touch, without realizing what they have unleashed. this will eventually be learned by all, the hard way.

    Ralph Johansen December 8, 2016 at 11:31 am

    I am old enough to remember seeing in the news reel at my local theater in 1950 Joseph McCarthy holding up a piece of paper to the cameras and intoning in his inimitable droning voice, "I have here in my hand a list of 205 known members of the Communist Party who are working and shaping policy in the State Department."

    People's livelihoods and reputations were thereby smeared for life. Never did McCarthy back his claims with evidence, nor did he retract his scurrilous accusation. Now, tell me how what Jeff Bezos and co. are doing in this instance is in any significant way different from what McCarthy did to these people back in 1956. What finally put it squarely before the American public and finally earned McCarthy Congressional censure was when Boston attorney Joseph Welch asked McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

    PQS December 8, 2016 at 11:38 am

    Yikes,Yves! What a lame response from them. We all need to keep up the pressure, by any means. This is one of those MSM errors that they hope will just go away, as evidenced by their hand waving dismissal. We can't let it! I think letters to the editor-an avalanche- might do a world of good.

    paul Tioxon December 8, 2016 at 11:48 am

    https://twitter.com/MazMHussain

    Murtaza HussainVerified account Dec 5
    ‏@MazMHussain
    2003: Rifle-toting Americans barge into Iraq after reading viral Fake News story about weapons of mass destruction.
    ------------------------------
    This fake news story ranks up there with the rifle toting Americans that barge into Viet Nam after the Fake News story about a US Navy warship that was attacked by the North Viet Namese Naval forces in the Gulf of Tonkin.

    Peter VE December 8, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    PolitiFact is running a poll for "Lie of the Year" here . There's a line for write in votes. I wrote in the Post's "Russian Propaganda " story. I suggest you can do the same.

    Propertius December 8, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Done. Tossing another $50 in for the legal fund, since today is payday.

    Brad December 8, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    A true fake news refusal to retract. Extraordinary that WaPo's editors also claim "not to vouch" for the veracity of whether or not RT.com is a "conduit for Russian propaganda". Really? RT is sponsored by the Russian state, how could it not be such a "conduit"? WaPo has all but admitted that it will print all the fake news it chooses to print. This reply is actually worse than the original offense. Pure confection of arrogance and cowardice as only libertarians can produce.

    But of course it doesn't matter if every last one of the news sources mentioned in the WaPo article were in fact such conduits. The issue is the neo-Cold war, neo-McCarthyite campaign launched over the last 2 years whose center of gravity lies clearly in the Clinton liberal Democrat camp.

    We can only imagine how the campaign would conduct itself if Clinton had won the Presidency. It was predictable they would come after the Left, only now they come on with less swag, but with a pathetic sore loser grudge. A perusal of the Liberal sphere on HuffnPuff, Alternet, Salon and such shows these still lost in a self-induced hysterical psychosis.

    Right NOW is the time to for leftists and progressives to draw a clear line, and distance, from American Liberalism and its blame the victim rhetoric.

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Here's the thing. Yes, RT is funded by the Russian government, and thus anything posted thereon needs to be considered with that in mind. Nevertheless, it is also where stories the corporates prefer to ignore are given attention. In other words, there is an irony that the Russians may, indeed, be trying to influence us, but if so, they appear to be doing it by subtly undermining the reliability of the corporate media.

    To put it another way, dismissing RT solely because of its funding source is no better than dismissing NC et al. as propaganda sites, and doing so is actually feeding the propaganda machine. After all, we don't know what percentage of the US media currently receives "grants" from US intelligence agencies, now, do we.

    scraping_by December 8, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    In studying communications, there's a distinction between 'white' and 'black' propaganda. White propaganda is publishing truth that supports your cause. Black propaganda is, of course, slanderous lies. RT is white propaganda, so use it for the value it brings.

    Propertius December 8, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Exactly. I'm a grown-up. I have a lot of practice reading critically and I'm quite capable of questioning sources and filtering bias. I don't need Jeff Bezos to protect me from Russkie BadThink.

    Yalt December 8, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    There's a sense in which that's true, of course. But it is a useful characterization? Is there even any point to such a broad statement about a media outlet, other than to discredit work that can't be discredited on more direct grounds?

    State sponsorship of media organizations is not all that unusual. The BBC is primarily funded by a tax levied on any British household that uses a television to receive a broadcast signal, for example. Is the WaPo in the habit of describing the BBC as a "conduit for British propaganda"? Am I acting as a useful idiot for the UK government every time I rehash an old Monty Python joke?

    Child Insemination Action December 8, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    "does not itself vouch " You have to bear in mind this is not the Post talking, this is CIA CIA has blatantly used the Post as a their sockpuppet since they put Woodward in there to oust Nixon, and now they've got Bezos by the contractual balls. CIA has impunity in municipal statute and secret red tape so any answer you get from them means No fuck You.

    The NDAA legalized domestic propaganda in 2013 so when the public repudiated their chosen president Hillary Clinton, CIA immediately got to work work attacking Article 19. CIA is panicking because Hillary was going to get them the war they need to preserve CIA impunity for the crime against humanity of systematic and widespread torture and murder in their global gulag of secret death camps.

    The ICC's investigation of US crimes against humanity has reached the critical point of referral to the pre-trial chamber . The ICC is under intense pressure from Russia and the global south to prove it's not afraid of US criminals. Italian courts have got torturer Sabrina de Souza, and they're going to use her to roll up the command chain. One way or another it's going to be open season on CIA torture cowards, in universal jurisdiction with no statute of limitations. This is a far graver threat to CIA than the family jewels. The international community is investigating CIA crimes, not avuncular Jim Schlesinger or some gelded congressional committee. Like Francis Boyle says, the US government is a criminal enterprise. And since COG was imposed it's got one branch, CIA

    That's the background here. You're the Op in Red Harvest. Poisonville's the USA.

    B1whois December 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    May I suggest that this site no longer link to The Wapoo for stories that are available elsewhere. I personally would prefer to not go to their site at all, but they seem to make up a lot of the links here.
    I understand that sometimes this will be unavoidable, as the Wapoo is the only one doing a particular story, but in cases where the story is carried at other sites, can you please link to those other sites instead?

    Epistrophy December 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    Yves:

    #FreePressDefenseFund

    And as a number of other commenters on this and other blogs have recently suggested:

    #BoycottBezos
    #BoycottAmazon
    #BoycottWaPo

    Mike December 8, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    I live in New Zealand and start every day with NC because WaPo and it's like runs an agenda. We all know that. I feel for you Yves but the site's strength is bringing together all those speaking truth to power. The courts won't care about that and that route can drain you personally and financially. Stay strong and play to your strengths. You have lots of support – perhaps more than you know.

    Kim Kaufman December 8, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    The Second Phase of the Propaganda Fake News War: Economic Strangulation. What Comes Next?
    by BAR editor and columnist Dr. Marsha Adebayo

    "The public has determined that the corporate media is actually the purveyor of "fake news" and turned to media organizations, such as BAR, Truthout and other outlets for information."

    http://blackagendareport.com/propaganda_fake_news_war

    McCarthy's ghost smiles as Dems point the finger at Russia

    By Norman Solomon, contributor – 12/07/16 07:00 PM EST

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/309249-mccarthys-ghost-smiles-as-dems-point-the-finger-at-russia#.WEi4Q_2C5g0.facebook

    R. Post December 8, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    So, since the W.P. won't bear responsibility for what they publish, maybe we should just lump them in with Breitbart and company. Just out of curiosity, did W.P. contact N.C. for comment before they tried to smear your (and, by extension, our) reputation?

    Outis Philalithopoulos December 8, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    No, they did not. Apparently, they did not contact anyone on the List .

    Propertius December 8, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    [M]aybe we should just lump them [WaPo] in with Breitbart and company.

    I already did. Now I lump them in with Alex Jones.

    Jim Haygood December 8, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    William Banzai7 ups the ante in his Visual Combat with the WaPoo (© cocomaan):

    https://c7.staticflickr.com/1/735/31469075126_eb5fa257d4_b.jpg

    marblex December 8, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    It's libel per se and an avalanche of lawsuits directed at PropOrNot and WaPo should be pretty effective. Because WaPo did not retract there is no defense.

    ChrisAtRU December 8, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    From a legal point of view, I wonder how the Executive Editor's (Marty Baron) tweeting of the article plays against the assertion that "The Post does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings". Is that a case where he was speaking (tweeting) his own opinion, and not necessarily that of his employer?

    #DisclaimersBeDamned

    ChrisPacific December 8, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    So if the WaPo doesn't consider validity checking of sources to be part of its job, then that raises the obvious question in this case: WHY the (insert expletive of your choice) did they take this site with anonymous authors, sweeping allegations and no evidence of any kind, and choose to make a featured story out of it? There are hundreds or thousands of other sites just like it out there. Why PropOrNot, and not any of the others?

    In other words, if (as they claim) the story boils down to "some anonymous people on the Internet made some unsubstantiated claims which may or may not be accurate", why did they decide it was newsworthy at all, let alone worthy of the kind of prominence they gave it?

    Read while you can December 8, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    As bad as the article about propornot is, it will get worse. Wapo is a partner of this dangerous group of "fake-news fighters".

    https://firstdraftnews.com/about/

    What is the purpose of a company like Dataminr to participate in this network financed by google?

    Expect NC and other sites be buried on google page 2 and deeper. Not trending on twitter etc.

    https://firstdraftnews.com/latest/
    Funny enough not a single word about the wapo propornot article.

    Please tell me i am overstating the importance of this network.

    3.14e-9 December 8, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    More evidence of WaPo's distorted idea of "fair and impartial."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/wp/2016/12/08/the-washington-post-honors-david-fahrenthold-with-inaugural-ben-bradlee-prize/

    They might actually get off the hook for libel on the grounds that the lack of fairness and impartiality wasn't malicious intent but part of their core values.

    MED December 8, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    might look over HR 6393

    "http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-02/house-quietly-passes-bill-targeting-russian-propaganda-websites"

    Fiver December 8, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    Yves/Lambert,

    Am I the only one who remembered an "Andrew Watts" commenting on NC? And wasn't Aug 21 the date ProporCrap started? And isn't the exchange between 'Andrew Watts' and 'timbers' of interest given the WaPo reporter's name is Timberg?

    Check out the comments from Aug 21 on NC:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/08/links-82116.html

    I also wonder if 'Andrew Watts' could be this guy:

    http://andrewwattsauthor.com/

    How hard would it be, really, for two or three people with some know-how to engage in discussion, get replies from comments, trace/track those people. Even one person hacked (and I'm virtually certain I was this summer) could provide a large number of sites visited or 'linked'.

    And it seems to me as well I sent a story to Lambert (and I wrote to Lambert something like "You mean this isn't real?") that I took to be a real WaPo story re a major wrinkle in the Clinton scandals that was part of a story link I got from Global Research, a story which also had a paragraph referenced from Breibart which I didn't notice until my comment wasn't posted, so I went back and looked. I assumed the comment was rejected due to the Breibart (sp?) reference. But what if WaPo/Watts were fishing at NC and saw my follow-up comment to Lambert with only the WaPo link and my question (assuming it was posted, which I do not remember)?

    Anyway, I hope this might prove useful somehow.

    kareninca December 8, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    I wonder if Snopes has asked to be removed from PropOrNot's list of "related projects."

    I contacted them to find out if they were going to ask themselves to be removed from that list, but I have not heard back from them. I guess we'll find out something about their reputability.

    limani December 8, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    NC deserves a huge Wapo-logy to help compensate for your losses, pain & suffering, and exemplary damages, of course.

    [Dec 09, 2016] Understanding Evil From Globalism To Pizzagate Zero Hedge

    Dec 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    I have spent the better part of the last 10 years working diligently to investigate and relate information on economics and geopolitical discourse for the liberty movement. However, long before I delved into these subjects my primary interests of study were the human mind and the human "soul" (yes, I'm using a spiritual term).

    My fascination with economics and sociopolitical events has always been rooted in the human element. That is to say, while economics is often treated as a mathematical and statistical field, it is also driven by psychology. To know the behavior of man is to know the future of all his endeavors, good or evil.

    Evil is what we are specifically here to discuss. I have touched on the issue in various articles in the past including Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood , but with extreme tensions taking shape this year in light of the U.S. election as well as the exploding online community investigation of "Pizzagate," I am compelled to examine it once again.

    I will not be grappling with this issue from a particularly religious perspective. Evil applies to everyone regardless of their belief system, or even their lack of belief. Evil is secular in its influence.

    The first and most important thing to understand is this - evil is NOT simply a social or religious construct, it is an inherent element of the human psyche. Carl Gustav Jung was one of the few psychologists in history to dare write extensively on the issue of evil from a scientific perspective as well as a metaphysical perspective. I highly recommend a book of his collected works on this subject titled 'Jung On Evil', edited by Murray Stein, for those who are interested in a deeper view.

    To summarize, Jung found that much of the foundations of human behavior are rooted in inborn psychological contents or "archetypes." Contrary to the position of Sigmund Freud, Jung argued that while our environment may affect our behavior to a certain extent, it does not make us who we are. Rather, we are born with our own individual personality and grow into our inherent characteristics over time. Jung also found that there are universally present elements of human psychology. That is to say, almost every human being on the planet shares certain truths and certain natural predilections.

    The concepts of good and evil, moral and immoral, are present in us from birth and are mostly the same regardless of where we are born, what time in history we are born and to what culture we are born. Good and evil are shared subjective experiences. It is this observable psychological fact (among others) that leads me to believe in the idea of a creative design - a god. Again, though, elaborating on god is beyond the scope of this article.

    To me, this should be rather comforting to people, even atheists. For if there is observable evidence of creative design, then it would follow that there may every well be a reason for all the trials and horrors that we experience as a species. Our lives, our failures and our accomplishments are not random and meaningless. We are striving toward something, whether we recognize it or not. It may be beyond our comprehension at this time, but it is there.

    Evil does not exist in a vacuum; with evil there is always good, if one looks for it in the right places.

    Most people are readily equipped to recognize evil when they see it directly. What they are not equipped for and must learn from environment is how to recognize evil disguised as righteousness. The most heinous acts in history are almost always presented as a moral obligation - a path towards some "greater good." Inherent conscience, though, IS the greater good, and any ideology that steps away from the boundaries of conscience will inevitably lead to disaster.

    The concept of globalism is one of these ideologies that crosses the line of conscience and pontificates to us about a "superior method" of living. It relies on taboo, rather than moral compass, and there is a big difference between the two.

    When we pursue a "greater good" as individuals or as a society, the means are just as vital as the ends. The ends NEVER justify the means. Never. For if we abandon our core principles and commit atrocities in the name of "peace," safety or survival, then we have forsaken the very things which make us worthy of peace and safety and survival. A monster that devours in the name of peace is still a monster.

    Globalism tells us that the collective is more important than the individual, that the individual owes society a debt and that fealty to society in every respect is the payment for that debt. But inherent archetypes and conscience tell us differently. They tell us that society is only ever as healthy as the individuals within it, that society is only as free and vibrant as the participants. As the individual is demeaned and enslaved, the collective crumbles into mediocrity.

    Globalism also tells us that humanity's greatest potential cannot be reached without collectivism and centralization. The assertion is that the more single-minded a society is in its pursuits the more likely it is to effectively achieve its goals. To this end, globalism seeks to erase all sovereignty. For now its proponents claim they only wish to remove nations and borders from the social equation, but such collectivism never stops there. Eventually, they will tell us that individualism represents another nefarious "border" that prevents the group from becoming fully realized.

    At the heart of collectivism is the idea that human beings are "blank slates;" that we are born empty and are completely dependent on our environment in order to learn what is right and wrong and how to be good people or good citizens. The environment becomes the arbiter of decency, rather than conscience, and whoever controls the environment, by extension, becomes god.

    If the masses are convinced of this narrative then moral relativity is only a short step away. It is the abandonment of inborn conscience that ultimately results in evil. In my view, this is exactly why the so called "elites" are pressing for globalism in the first place. Their end game is not just centralization of all power into a one world edifice, but the suppression and eradication of conscience, and thus, all that is good.

    To see where this leads we must look at the behaviors of the elites themselves, which brings us to "Pizzagate."

    The exposure by Wikileaks during the election cycle of what appear to be coded emails sent between John Podesta and friends has created a burning undercurrent in the alternative media. The emails consistently use odd and out of context "pizza" references, and independent investigations have discovered a wide array connections between political elites like Hillary Clinton and John Podesta to James Alefantis, the owner of a pizza parlor in Washington D.C. called Comet Ping Pong. Alefantis, for reasons that make little sense to me, is listed as number 49 on GQ's Most Powerful People In Washington list .

    The assertion according to circumstantial evidence including the disturbing child and cannibalism artwork collections of the Podestas has been that Comet Ping Pong is somehow at the center of a child pedophilia network serving the politically connected. Both Comet Ping Pong and a pizza establishment two doors down called Besta Pizza use symbols in their logos and menus that are listed on the FBI's unclassified documentation on pedophilia symbolism , which does not help matters.

    Some of the best documentation of the Pizzagate scandal that I have seen so far has been done by David Seaman, a former mainstream journalist gone rogue. Here is his YouTube page .

    I do recommend everyone at least look at the evidence he and others present. I went into the issue rather skeptical, but was surprised by the sheer amount of weirdness and evidence regarding Comet Pizza. There is a problem with Pizzagate that is difficult to overcome, however; namely the fact that to my knowledge no victims have come forward. This is not to say there has been no crime, but anyone hoping to convince the general public of wrong-doing in this kind of scenario is going to have a very hard time without a victim to reference.

    The problem is doubly difficult now that an armed man was arrested on the premises of Comet Ping Pong while "researching" the claims of child trafficking. Undoubtedly, the mainstream media will declare the very investigation "dangerous conspiracy theory." Whether this will persuade the public to ignore it, or compel them to look into it, remains to be seen.

    I fully realize the amount of confusion surrounding Pizzagate and the assertions by some that it is a "pysop" designed to undermine the alternative media. This is a foolish notion, in my view. The mainstream media is dying, this is unavoidable. The alternative media is a network of sources based on the power of choice and cemented in the concept of investigative research. The reader participates in the alternative media by learning all available information and positions and deciding for himself what is the most valid conclusion, if there is any conclusion to be had. The mainstream media simply tells its readers what to think and feel based on cherry picked data.

    The elites will never be able to deconstruct that kind of movement with something like a faked "pizzagate"; rather, they would be more inclined to try to co-opt and direct the alternative media as they do most institutions. And, if elitists are using Pizzagate as fodder to trick the alternative media into looking ridiculous, then why allow elitist run social media outlets like Facebook and Reddit to shut down discussion on the issue?

    The reason I am more convinced than skeptical at this stage is because this has happened before; and in past scandals of pedophilia in Washington and other political hotbeds, some victims DID come forward.

    I would first reference the events of the Franklin Scandal between 1988 and 1991. The Discovery Channel even produced a documentary on it complete with interviews of alleged child victims peddled to Washington elites for the purpose of favors and blackmail. Meant to air in 1994, the documentary was quashed before it was ever shown to the public. The only reason it can now be found is because an original copy was released without permission by parties unknown.

    I would also reference the highly evidenced Westminster Pedophile Ring in the U.K. , in which the U.K. government lost or destroyed at least 114 related files related to the investigation.

    Finally, it is disconcerting to me that the criminal enterprises of former Bear Sterns financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his "Lolita Express" are mainstream knowledge, yet the public remains largely oblivious. Bill Clinton is shown on flight logs to have flown on Epstein's private jet at least a 26 times; the same jet that he used to procure child victims as young as 12 to entertain celebrities and billionaires on his 72 acre island called "Little Saint James". The fact that Donald Trump was also close friends with Epstein should raise some eyebrows - funny how the mainstream media attacked Trump on every cosmetic issue under the sun but for some reason backed away from pursuing the Epstein angle.

    Where is the vast federal investigation into the people who frequented Epstein's wretched parties? There is none, and Epstein, though convicted of molesting a 14 year old girl and selling her into prostitution, was only slapped on the wrist with a 13 month sentence.

    Accusations of pedophilia seem to follow the globalists and elitist politicians wherever they go. This does not surprise me. They often exhibit characteristics of narcissism and psychopathy, but their ideology of moral relativity is what would lead to such horrible crimes.

    Evil often stems from people who are empty. When one abandons conscience, one also in many respects abandons empathy and love. Without these elements of our psyche there is no happiness. Without them, there is nothing left but desire and gluttony.

    Narcissists in particular are prone to use other people as forms of entertainment and fulfillment without concern for their humanity. They can be vicious in nature, and when taken to the level of psychopathy, they are prone to target and abuse the most helpless of victims in order to generate a feeling of personal power.

    Add in sexual addiction and aggression and narcissists become predatory in the extreme. Nothing ever truly satisfies them. When they grow tired of the normal, they quickly turn to the abnormal and eventually the criminal. I would say that pedophilia is a natural progression of the elitist mindset; for children are the easiest and most innocent victim source, not to mention the most aberrant and forbidden, and thus the most desirable for a psychopathic deviant embracing evil impulses.

    Beyond this is the even more disturbing prospect of cultism. It is not that the globalists are simply evil as individuals; if that were the case then they would present far less of a threat. The greater terror is that they are also organized. When one confronts the problem of evil head on, one quickly realizes that evil is within us all. There will always be an internal battle in every individual. Organized evil, though, is in fact the ultimate danger, and it is organized evil that must be eradicated.

    For organized evil to be defeated, there must be organized good. I believe the liberty movement in particular is that good; existing in early stages, not yet complete, but good none the less. Our championing of the non-aggression principle and individual liberty is conducive to respect for privacy, property and life. Conscience is a core tenet of the liberty ideal, and the exact counter to organized elitism based on moral relativity.

    Recognize and take solace that though we live in dark times, and evil men roam free, we are also here. We are the proper response to evil, and we have been placed here at this time for a reason. Call it fate, call it destiny, call it coincidence, call it god, call it whatever you want, but the answer to evil is us.

  • None
  • Donald Trump
  • Private Jet
  • FBI
  • Washington D.C.
  • Printer-friendly version
  • Dec 8, 2016 10:15 PM
  • 35
  • Comment viewing options Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    AtATrESICI Dec 8, 2016 10:18 PM ,
    Wow
    eforce AtATrESICI Dec 8, 2016 10:24 PM ,
    "Out of the temporary evil we are now compelled to commit will emerge the good of an unshakable rule, which will restore the regular course of the machinery of the national life, brought to naught by liberalism. The result justifies the means. Let us, however, in our plans, direct our attention not so much to what is good and moral as to what is necessary and useful."

    --The Protocols.

    peddling-fiction eforce Dec 8, 2016 10:29 PM ,
    This rabbit hole requires a little spiritual know-how but is very blunt and direct.

    It is about EVIL this time around here in our terrarium.

    Almost Solvent peddling-fiction Dec 8, 2016 10:30 PM ,
    Only one question matters.

    Is there a basement or not?

    peddling-fiction Almost Solvent Dec 8, 2016 10:40 PM ,
    and what are chicken lovers?

    For a laugh read some real fake encyclopedia entries here-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_ (conspiracy_theory)

    eforce peddling-fiction Dec 8, 2016 10:42 PM ,
    I should also point out those alledgedly behind The Protocols are not the people the article is referring ie: those people are typically found in any liberal establishment.
    Fed Supporter eforce Dec 8, 2016 10:55 PM ,
    #PizzaGate New Info 12/8/16: Pizzagate SHOOTER & BROTHER Exposed Via their INSTAGRAM

    CHAOS MAYHEM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHTsMWUGVeE NO KIDDING THE #PizzaGate Shooter's (KID BROTHER) HAS AN INSTAGRAM ... WTF FUBAR
    the Internet has located the Shooter's younger Transgendered BROTHER the artist from COMET ping Pong Band Nights..
    Squid-puppets a... peddling-fiction Dec 8, 2016 10:44 PM ,
    A good article, but it fails to deliver on these key aspects of the matter:

    Everyone knows from the Godfather and its genre that there is a connection between loyalty, criminality and power: Once you witness someone engaging in a criminal act, you have leverage over them and that ensures their loyalty. But what follows from that - which healthy sane minds have trouble contemplating - is that the greater the criminality the greater the leverage, and that because murderous paedophilia places a person utterly beyond any prospect of redemption in decent society, there in NO GREATER LOYALTY than those desperate to avoid being outed. These must be the three corners of the triangle - Power:Loyalty:Depravity through which the evil eys views the world.

    I always beleived in an Illuminati of sorts, however they care to self identify. Until Pizzagate, I never understood that murderous paedophilia, luciferian in style to accentuate their own depravity, is THE KEY TO RULING THE EARTH

    And another thing. If pizzagate is 'fake news' then it it inconceivably elaborate - they'd have had to fake Epstein 2008, Silsby 2010, Breitbart 2011, the 2013 portugese release of podestaesque mccann suspects, as well as the current run of wikileaks and Alefantis' instagram account - which had an avatar photo of the 13 yr old lover of a roman emperor.

    Is that much fake news a possibility? Or has this smoke been blowing for years and we've all been too distracted to stop and look for fire?

    JacksNight eforce Dec 8, 2016 10:43 PM ,
    Happy Advent everyone! "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests."

    Matthew 5:43-48

    PizzaGate/TwitterGate/RedditGate repost:

    PizzaGate Infographic:

    http://sli.mg/lwgIgH

    Archived reddit thread to fellow journalists which led to the banning of r/pizzagate:

    https://archive.fo/MrsGu

    Andrew Breitbart tweets before death adds fuel to online speculation of D.C. sex-trafficking ring:

    https://i.sli.mg/C9U1nQ.jpg

    The Pedophocracy by David McGowan – Bibliography included:

    http://www.whale.to/b/pedophocracy.html

    FBI Special Agent Ted Gunderson outlines satanic pedophile elements in the United States:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BplUD6kQYuU

    Evidence regarding international pedophile rings being protected by police and intelligence agencies:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1cm0t3/original_research_the_mountain_of_evidence_for_a/

    // //
    Draybin Defferc... eforce Dec 8, 2016 10:30 PM ,
    What floors me about the whole pizzagate thing is the evil staring us right in the face. And then to realize that the libtards don't even believe in evil at all, only "mental illness"!
    Umh Dec 8, 2016 10:22 PM ,
    Lesson #1: Do not waste your time figuring some things out. Things like evil people are probably beyond a decent persons ability to understand and let's be honest I don't want to feel any sympathy for them anyway.
    peddling-fiction Umh Dec 8, 2016 10:30 PM ,
    Invest some time if you want to understand what is going on> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/hiddenevil/hiddenevil.htm
    Uwantsun Dec 8, 2016 10:22 PM ,
    PIZZAGATE IS REAL. All else is intrigue.
    peddling-fiction Uwantsun Dec 8, 2016 10:34 PM ,
    PIZZAGATE

    Why does this artist paint this-> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyS0-oIUQAAJ7e8.jpg

    freddymercury Dec 8, 2016 10:22 PM ,
    The 'devil' is in the details
    Armadillo Bandit freddymercury Dec 8, 2016 10:33 PM ,
    Good subject to show your wit on.
    conraddobler Dec 8, 2016 10:35 PM ,
    True liberty does not exist and will never exist if the oxygen in the room is owned and rented back to you.

    Soul Glow Dec 8, 2016 10:33 PM ,
    The best thing about Pizzagate is that it vindicates Breitbart's tweets before he died about Podesta being a pedophile.

    https://i.sli.mg/C9U1nQ.jpg

    peddling-fiction Soul Glow Dec 8, 2016 10:38 PM ,
    May he rest in peace. No fear.
    JTimchenko Dec 8, 2016 10:39 PM ,
    Lots of evil going on... but people ought not to be nuts enough to go into some pizza joint with a gun firing just because rumors are flying.
    Soul Glow JTimchenko Dec 8, 2016 10:43 PM ,
    I'm all for gold manipulation. Leaves more time for me to buy it!

    ;)

    Neighbour Dec 8, 2016 10:37 PM ,
    Man knows Good and Evil, which is the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Man does not know God-Yet!

    When we are brought low, then we will know God, inwhich he will offer to us The Tree of Life.

    Keep your eyes open and ears tuned...our world is spinning faster and more violently then ever.

    cherry picker Neighbour Dec 8, 2016 10:54 PM ,
    The deeds of humans bring this out.

    This recent election illustrates how evil works.

    Read a book years ago by Dr. Karl Menninger, a psychiatrist, titled 'Whatever happened to Sin?'

    In it he talks of murder and that it is not a natural thing for man to do,. However, when the burden of guilt is spread over many shoulders and government condones the action, it becomes easier to bear.

    When observing the results, such as soldiers returning from war, unstable mentally, it is evident that evil has occured. It has been decades since I read the book, so the words I wrote may not be verbatim.

    dark pools of soros Dec 8, 2016 10:37 PM ,
    Good article.. must be fake

    ebworthen Dec 8, 2016 10:39 PM ,
    Wall Street, Washington, the FED, and the Kleptoligarchy are evil; Satanic.

    Was there a question in there somewhere?

    quax Dec 8, 2016 10:41 PM ,
    Unlike victimless Pizzagate a victim aledged to have been raped by Trump at the age of 13 did come forward, but this has been all but ignored here.
    kuwa mzuri quax Dec 8, 2016 10:50 PM ,
    You're saying raped, tortured, snuffed and maybe eaten child victims haven't come forward?

    You've got a point, then.

    stant Dec 8, 2016 10:41 PM ,
    Peak evil is hear , forget peak oil , peak debt etc
    Armadillo Bandit Dec 8, 2016 10:42 PM ,
    Lurked ZH for years, just started reading the comments. This is worse than Reddit's echo chamber. Bible quotes? 3 guys 1 hammer on liveleak has more productive comments. Why not mention methods you've used to help people reach their own conclusion about Pizzagate?
    Handful of Dust Dec 8, 2016 10:43 PM ,
    I had two slices of pizza for dinner. I had to try not to think of the poor children walking innocently about the store who may at any moment fall victim to a pedo. My gf said pizza places all over now need to keep a keen eye out for the Posdesta Brothers and their Gang after all the stuff that has come out from WikiLeaks and other sources about them.

    I notice the Podesta Brothers are now in hiding.

    Shameful.

    flaminratzazz Dec 8, 2016 10:51 PM ,
    The bible says God created evil and loosed it on us. The correct reading of Genesis 4;1 is from the dead sea scrolls stating :

    "And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael [Satan] , and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord."

    So in Isaiah 45:7 we have this:

    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things .

    So my research shows evil was "grafted" into humans through the unholy alliance and 2 seedline of people resulted.

    US and THEM

    you can see it in their eyes

    kuwa mzuri Dec 8, 2016 10:54 PM ,
    Good article but an exception: evil doesn't reside in all of us, sin does. Evil is the expression of wanton and intentional deception, injury, degradation, and destruction and rarely self-recognizes or admits to God as supreme. It may be DNA encoded. Sociopathy certainly is.

    But you're so right about the organized nature of it all, and for thousands of years. The newly formed EU didn't advertise itself as the New Babylonia for nothing on publicty posters, heralding the coming age of one tongue out of many and fashioning its parliament building after the Tower of Bablyon:

    http://nteb-mudflowermedia.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/eur...

    Secret societies are cannibalizing us, and themselves, but members won't know till it's too late that they'll also be eaten fairly early on. Of all "people", they should know those in the pyramid capstone won't have enough elbow room if they let in every Tom, Dick and Harry Mason.

    HRH Feant Dec 8, 2016 10:47 PM ,
    I am sympatico with Brandon. I have always had similar interests, about the soul, about ethics, about human behavior.

    The reality is that evil is extant in other human beings. The thought that your property manager is going to piss in your OJ or fuck their BFF in your bed is abhorrent to most people, but not all. There was an article this week about a married couple that had concerns about their rental unit manager. And what did they find? He was fucking his BFF (yes, of course it was another dude) in their bed. The good news is they got it on video and moved. The bad news? This kind of attitude is rampant. People don't give a shit about other people. They think the rules don't apply to them. That they are special. The result is renting from some asshat that fucks in your bed or pisses in your OJ. Or parents that wonder why little Johnny or little Janie never move out of the house and are stoned and play video games all day.

    Evil exists, in varying forms. Sadly too many people continue to make excuses for not only bad behavior but evil behavior. I don't think that way and I don't live my life that way but I am fully aware of all the morons stumbling through the world that do.

    Ms No Dec 8, 2016 10:50 PM ,
    I think people are misunderstanding the setup theory. Nobody believes, at least I hope not, that all of this art and bizarre behavior on the part of these freaks was staged for the purposes of taking down the last of our free media, but rather, they just took advantage of a situation where they knew people were making accusations that couldn't be sufficiently backed up or even prosecuted, and yet caused proven or contrived damages to people. If this is the case, their intention, with the help of intelligence agencies , is to frame alt-media for starting vigilante violence and the destruction of innocent people's lives through promoting defamation against others.

    I have no doubt that our entire system is riddled with pedophilia and likely much worse. They have also been getting away with this forever, so when we go for the takedown we better have our ducks in a row. To do otherwise will just give these sickos complete immunity and more decades will pass with them continuing to prey on our children. Not only is this at stake but the fate of all the children of this nation is at stake if we lose our media. We are in very dangerous and treacherous times. When you go toe to toe with the professional trade crafters you have to play smart or they will have you every time.

    Once people have had enough exposure to NPDs or psychopaths you will vibe them after a while. I imagine this is likely the case for anyone who has worked as a trader, finance, politics, big commodity booms are bad, etc. We have all encountered them somewhere. People should pay attention to how they feel (yeah I know, people hate that word) when they are around people. I have to pretend that I don't notice them because it is so apparent to me and immediately.

    The last time I picked one out at work, a few months later the creepy bastard walked past me at night during a -20 blizzard, with next to no visibility, knowing that I had an hour drive, and told me in super spooky whisper.. "Don't hit a deer on your way home now." I found out later that a bunch of horses had mysteriously died in his care and a bunch of other things that confirmed my suspicions. I had a long battle with him so I eventually got to understand him pretty well. I didn't have to hear the guy state a single sentence or watch any body language, I just knew immediately because I could feel his malevolence and threat in my stomach where we have a large nerve cluster. Pay attention and you will know. Also their eye contact is all wrong and too intense.

    Aussiekiwi Dec 8, 2016 10:55 PM ,
    Globalism, is designed to make you poorer slowly over decades by allowing wages and conditions to be for ever slowly reduced under the guise of free market competition to funnel wealth ever upwards to the 1%.

    [Dec 08, 2016] Washington Post Appends Russian Propaganda Fake News Story, Admits It May Be Fake

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge Report. ..."
    "... The piece's description of some sharers of bogus news as "useful idiots" could " theoretically include anyone on any social-media platform who shares news based on a click-bait headline ," Mathew Ingram wrote for Fortune. ..."
    "... But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker , its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda - ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote "the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labeled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier." ..."
    "... Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections? ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    In the latest example why the "mainstream media" is facing a historic crisis of confidence among its readership, facing unprecedented blowback following Craig Timberg November 24 Washington Post story " Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say ", on Wednesday a lengthy editor's note appeared on top of the original article in which the editor not only distances the WaPo from the "experts" quoted in the original article whose "work" served as the basis for the entire article (and which became the most read WaPo story the day it was published) but also admits the Post could not " vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's finding regarding any individual media outlet", in effect admitting the entire story may have been, drumroll "fake news" and conceding the Bezos-owned publication may have engaged in defamation by smearing numerous websites - Zero Hedge included - with patently false and unsubstantiated allegations.

    It was the closest the Washington Post would come to formally retracting the story, which has now been thoroughly discredited not only by outside commentators, but by its own editor.

    The apended note in question:

    Editor's Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot's list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group's methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post's story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.

    As The Washingtonian notes , the implicit concession follows intense and rising criticism of the article over the past two weeks. It was " rife with obviously reckless and unproven allegations, " Intercept reporters Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote, noting that PropOrNot, one of the groups whose research was cited in Timberg's piece, "anonymous cowards." One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge Report.

    The piece's description of some sharers of bogus news as "useful idiots" could " theoretically include anyone on any social-media platform who shares news based on a click-bait headline ," Mathew Ingram wrote for Fortune.

    But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker , its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda - ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote "the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labeled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier."

    Criticism culminated this week when the " Naked capitalism" blog threatened to sue the Washington Post, demanding a retraction.

    Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections?

    [Dec 07, 2016] Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group

    The authors seems to miss the key observation: this is a sign of the crisis of neoliberal propaganda model, which gave rise to Internet rumor mill. Rumor s (aka improvised news) became a prominent news source if and only if official channels of information are not viewed as trustworthy. And blacklisting alternative news sites does not help to return the trust. When it is gone it is gone. The same situation in the past happened in Brezhnev's USSR. People just stopped to trust official newspapers and turned to propaganda sites of Western =government such as BBC and voice of America for news. Soviet authorities tried to jam them, but this did not stop Soviet people from trying to listen to then at nights, trying to find frequencies that were not jammed.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Basically, everyone who isn't comfortably within the centrist Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush spectrum is guilty. On its Twitter account, the group announced a new "plugin" that automatically alerts the user that a visited website has been designated by the group to be a Russian propaganda outlet. ..."
    "... The group commits outright defamation by slandering obviously legitimate news sites as propaganda tools of the Kremlin. ..."
    "... a big part of the group's definition for "Russian propaganda outlet" is criticizing U.S. foreign policy ..."
    "... In sum: They're not McCarthyite; perish the thought. They just want multiple U.S. media outlets investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Russia. ..."
    "... PropOrNot is by no means a neutral observer. It actively calls on Congress and the White House to work "with our European allies to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT financial transaction system, effective immediately and lasting for at least one year, as an appropriate response to Russian manipulation of the election." ..."
    "... In other words, this blacklisting group of anonymous cowards - putative experts in the pages of the Washington Post - is actively pushing for Western governments to take punitive measures against the Russian government and is speaking and smearing from an extreme ideological framework that the Post concealed from its readers. ..."
    "... The Post itself - now posing as a warrior against "fake news" - published an article in September that treated with great seriousness the claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 Day because she was poisoned by Putin. ..."
    "... Indeed, what happened here is the essence of fake news. The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth that reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War. ..."
    "... So those who saw tweets and Facebook posts promoting this Post story instantly clicked and shared and promoted the story without an iota of critical thought or examination of whether the claims were true, because they wanted the claims to be true. That behavior included countless journalists. ..."
    Dec 05, 2016 | theintercept.com

    ... ... ...

    One of the core functions of PropOrNot appears to be its compilation of a lengthy blacklist of news and political websites that it smears as peddlers of "Russian propaganda." Included on this blacklist of supposed propaganda outlets are prominent independent left-wing news sites such as Truthout, Naked Capitalism, Black Agenda Report, Consortium News, and Truthdig.

    Also included are popular libertarian hubs such as Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com, and the Ron Paul Institute, along with the hugely influential right-wing website the Drudge Report and the publishing site WikiLeaks. Far-right, virulently anti-Muslim blogs such as Bare Naked Islam are likewise dubbed Kremlin mouthpieces. Basically, everyone who isn't comfortably within the centrist Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush spectrum is guilty. On its Twitter account, the group announced a new "plugin" that automatically alerts the user that a visited website has been designated by the group to be a Russian propaganda outlet.

    ... ... ...

    The group commits outright defamation by slandering obviously legitimate news sites as propaganda tools of the Kremlin.

    One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS's Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.

    The group eschews alternative media outlets like these and instead recommends that readers rely solely on establishment-friendly publications like NPR, the BBC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, and VICE. That is because a big part of the group's definition for "Russian propaganda outlet" is criticizing U.S. foreign policy.

    ... ... ...

    While blacklisting left-wing and libertarian journalists, PropOrNot also denies being McCarthyite. Yet it simultaneously calls for the U.S. government to use the FBI and DOJ to carry out "formal investigations" of these accused websites, "because the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business." The shadowy group even goes so far as to claim that people involved in the blacklisted websites may "have violated the Espionage Act, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and other related laws."

    In sum: They're not McCarthyite; perish the thought. They just want multiple U.S. media outlets investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Russia.

    ... ... ...

    PropOrNot is by no means a neutral observer. It actively calls on Congress and the White House to work "with our European allies to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT financial transaction system, effective immediately and lasting for at least one year, as an appropriate response to Russian manipulation of the election."

    In other words, this blacklisting group of anonymous cowards - putative experts in the pages of the Washington Post - is actively pushing for Western governments to take punitive measures against the Russian government and is speaking and smearing from an extreme ideological framework that the Post concealed from its readers.

    ... ... ...

    The Post itself - now posing as a warrior against "fake news" - published an article in September that treated with great seriousness the claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 Day because she was poisoned by Putin. And that's to say nothing of the paper's disgraceful history of convincing Americans that Saddam was building non-existent nuclear weapons and had cultivated a vibrant alliance with al Qaeda. As is so often the case, those who mostly loudly warn of "fake news" from others are themselves the most aggressive disseminators of it.

    Indeed, what happened here is the essence of fake news. The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth that reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War.

    So those who saw tweets and Facebook posts promoting this Post story instantly clicked and shared and promoted the story without an iota of critical thought or examination of whether the claims were true, because they wanted the claims to be true. That behavior included countless journalists.

    [Dec 07, 2016] McCarthyism 2.0 against the independent information

    Notable quotes:
    "... When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship. ..."
    "... Many still wonder if the planet indeed slips towards a new Cold War. Despite that there is plenty of evidence that this is, unfortunately, already a fact, another incident came to verify this situation. ..."
    "... The Western neoliberal establishment is exposed, revealing its real agenda: to challenge the alternative bloc driven by the Sino-Russian alliance. The 'democratic' Europe proceeded in a similar, unprecedented move recently. As reported by RT: "In a completely bonkers move this week, the EU Parliament approved a resolution to counter "Russian propaganda" and the "intrusion of Russian media" into the EU. The resolution was adopted with 304 MEPs voting in favor, 179 MEPs voting against it and 208 abstaining. The most bizarre part, however, is that the resolution lumped Russian media in with Islamist propaganda of the kind spread by terror groups like the so-called Islamic State. Thus Russian media is put on the same level with videos of ISIS beheadings and incitements to mass murder." ..."
    "... In Cold War 2.0, the Western neoliberal establishment is forced to create the respective McCarthyism. Therefore, the new dogma has changed accordingly. It doesn't matter if an alternative medium provides a different view, away from the mainstream media propaganda. It doesn't matter if the Whistleblowers are telling the truth about the US dirty wars and mass surveillance of ordinary citizens. As long as the US empire and its allies are exposed by all these elements outside their Matrix control, these elements help Russia, therefore, they are doing 'Russian propaganda'. It's as simple as that. ..."
    "... When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship. ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    Key insight: When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship.

    the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens

    When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship.

    Many still wonder if the planet indeed slips towards a new Cold War. Despite that there is plenty of evidence that this is, unfortunately, already a fact, another incident came to verify this situation.

    The blacklist created by PropOrNot and provided to Washington Post, containing more than 200 websites that are supposedly doing 'Russian propaganda', marks the start of a new McCarthyism era and verifies beyond doubt the fact that we have indeed entered the Cold War 2.0.

    Seeing that it's losing the battle of information, the establishment simply proceeded in one more clumsy move that will only accelerate developments against it.

    It really sounds like a joke to accuse anyone who opposes the US dirty wars and interventions that brought so much chaos and distraction, for doing 'Russian propaganda', when you are the one who supported and justified these wars through the most offensive propaganda, for decades.

    Someone has to tell the mainstream media parrots that their dirty tricks don't work anymore. According to a Gallup latest report, "Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year."

    The mainstream mouthpieces are extremely predictable. They will rush to blame internet and alternative media that flourished over the last fifteen years, for this unprecedented situation. Of course they will. They don't want any alternative to their propaganda monopoly which was extremely effective in guiding the sheeple during the past decades.

    The Western neoliberal establishment is exposed, revealing its real agenda: to challenge the alternative bloc driven by the Sino-Russian alliance. The 'democratic' Europe proceeded in a similar, unprecedented move recently. As reported by RT: "In a completely bonkers move this week, the EU Parliament approved a resolution to counter "Russian propaganda" and the "intrusion of Russian media" into the EU. The resolution was adopted with 304 MEPs voting in favor, 179 MEPs voting against it and 208 abstaining. The most bizarre part, however, is that the resolution lumped Russian media in with Islamist propaganda of the kind spread by terror groups like the so-called Islamic State. Thus Russian media is put on the same level with videos of ISIS beheadings and incitements to mass murder."

    It has been mentioned in previous article that "While the EU and US were occupied with the war against terrorism as well as with the dead-end wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas of the planet, Putin had all the time to build his own mechanism against Western propaganda. Being himself a man who had come to power with the help of media, he built his own media network which includes, for example, the TV network Russia Today, according to the Western standards, and "invaded" in millions of homes in the Western countries using the English language, promoting however the Russian positions as counterweight to the Western propaganda monopoly."

    In Cold War 2.0, the Western neoliberal establishment is forced to create the respective McCarthyism. Therefore, the new dogma has changed accordingly. It doesn't matter if an alternative medium provides a different view, away from the mainstream media propaganda. It doesn't matter if the Whistleblowers are telling the truth about the US dirty wars and mass surveillance of ordinary citizens. As long as the US empire and its allies are exposed by all these elements outside their Matrix control, these elements help Russia, therefore, they are doing 'Russian propaganda'. It's as simple as that.

    This latest desperate move of the establishment should alarm us all. Because it shows that the establishment is in panic and therefore, more dangerous than ever. When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship.

    [Dec 07, 2016] The Democratic left does not exist.

    Notable quotes:
    "... What people see in Clinton is a candidate willing to travel any distance at any time if the fee for showing up is $225 k for an hour of work, or so; but who couldn't find the time or reason to visit Wisconsin before an election and actually ask people to vote for her. ..."
    "... This does present possibilities, and was in fact the Clinton/DLC plan, although a plan dating back to the 1960s. The idea is to add to the identity groups that are currently the base of the Democratic Party college-educated urban professional socially progressive but economically moderate Republicans. This preserves the neoliberal system, but should create great economic opportunities for elite blacks, women, Latinos etc who really would rather get rich before socialism. ..."
    "... I am willing to now designate non-college rural whites as a valid minority, without real privilege except very locally, economically moderate but socially conservative. They have been up for grabs to a degree for a long time, and way too much a major topic of discussion, as nobody knows what to do with them, nobody really wants them, but they are very dangerous, as we can see. ..."
    "... The way he put it is that the neoliberal center-left's long-term political project since the '90s, as embodied in figures like the Clintons in the US and Blair in the UK, can be summed up as an effort to redefine the two-party system so that the nominally "left" party becomes a de facto ruling party representing the center-left and center-right, leaving the far right with a dangerously long leash to move the nominally "right" party ever closer toward an outright National Front-style fascist party, and ideally leaving a shattered and demoralized far left as what amounts to an ideological hostage of the center. ..."
    "... Both Clinton's failure to defeat Trump and the Blairites' failure to take Labour back from Corbyn have been setbacks for this project, and in both countries the center-right has largely decided to remain for now in its old electoral bloc with the proto-fascists instead of jumping ship to a "left" party that hasn't yet been fully transformed into a well-oiled machine for neoliberal centrism. ..."
    "... He'll do many things more or less exactly the way a Clinton administration would have done them, perhaps in some cases with enough of a superficial far-right veneer to create the perception of contrast (for instance future Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, who supports vouchers for religious private schools but otherwise might as well be a member of Democrats for Education Reform) and in some cases with red meat to the far right on issues the neoliberal center doesn't particularly care about (i.e. who the hell knows what if anything he'll do on issues like abortion rights, about which he's been all over the map in the past depending what's in his immediate opportunistic interest). ..."
    "... appointing figures from places like Goldman Sachs to positions of authority at institutions like the Treasury and the Fed is a thoroughly bipartisan commitment that doesn't make either major US party look any more left-wing or right-wing than the other. ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | http://crookedtimber.org/2016/11/28/the-day-after-brexit/#comment-699954

    kidneystones 12.03.16 at 1:01 pm 117

    The Democratic left does not exist. Sanders is an independent who would never have been nominated except to help rubber-stamp the inauguration of the donor-class candidate.

    The Democrats do not have a left-candidate, or a slate of 'left candidates' around whom a left might coalesce. That's the consequence of national Democratic priorities and the take-over of the party by the Clinton crime family. There are no 'up and coming' Democrats. Those who are talented are spotted and co-opted into the Clinton-controlled machine. The quid pro quo manner of doing business is transparent. Very large sums change hands and almost always according to the laws, in so far as the actual pay-offs are 'incidental' rather than clearly causal.

    How many doctoral candidates in their thirties get paid $600 k per year for part-time work and another $300 k per year plus stock options?

    All of them, if the doctoral candidate happens to be named Chelsea Clinton. As I noted earlier, Democrats regard outsourcing their interactions with young people and rural voters to Bernie Sanders as a 'solution.'

    What people see in Clinton is a candidate willing to travel any distance at any time if the fee for showing up is $225 k for an hour of work, or so; but who couldn't find the time or reason to visit Wisconsin before an election and actually ask people to vote for her.

    Yes, it was close. But let's not forget who won and why and how. The president-elect has already stolen parts of the Dem base and now he's after the rest. The traditional Dem coalition is already fractured and if the new president does half as well as he did destroying two political dynasties then Democrats may find themselves in an even deeper whole in 2018.

    Like Labour, Democrats need to figure out whether they are the party of the working class, or not.

    bob mcmanus 12.03.16 at 4:00 pm 118

    There was no (or not much) 'working class surge' for Trump.

    Well, there was, in that the internal composition of the Republican vote changed to be more white non-college rural working class and a little less urban college-educated Republicans. I don't know what the numbers are.

    This does present possibilities, and was in fact the Clinton/DLC plan, although a plan dating back to the 1960s. The idea is to add to the identity groups that are currently the base of the Democratic Party college-educated urban professional socially progressive but economically moderate Republicans. This preserves the neoliberal system, but should create great economic opportunities for elite blacks, women, Latinos etc who really would rather get rich before socialism.

    I am willing to now designate non-college rural whites as a valid minority, without real privilege except very locally, economically moderate but socially conservative. They have been up for grabs to a degree for a long time, and way too much a major topic of discussion, as nobody knows what to do with them, nobody really wants them, but they are very dangerous, as we can see.

    I say ship them back to Ireland.

    WLGR 12.03.16 at 4:46 pm 119

    Hidari @ 108, Matt Christman of the podcast Chapo Trap House made almost this exact point in a recent interview with NYU historian David Parsons on Parsons' podcast The Nostalgia Trap. (Both excellent podcasts, by the way.)

    The way he put it is that the neoliberal center-left's long-term political project since the '90s, as embodied in figures like the Clintons in the US and Blair in the UK, can be summed up as an effort to redefine the two-party system so that the nominally "left" party becomes a de facto ruling party representing the center-left and center-right, leaving the far right with a dangerously long leash to move the nominally "right" party ever closer toward an outright National Front-style fascist party, and ideally leaving a shattered and demoralized far left as what amounts to an ideological hostage of the center.

    Both Clinton's failure to defeat Trump and the Blairites' failure to take Labour back from Corbyn have been setbacks for this project, and in both countries the center-right has largely decided to remain for now in its old electoral bloc with the proto-fascists instead of jumping ship to a "left" party that hasn't yet been fully transformed into a well-oiled machine for neoliberal centrism. (Of course this is also pretty close to Quiggin's three-party system critique, depending on the extent to which one treats the distinction between center-left and center-right as ever having been particularly meaningful in the first place.)

    Faustusnotes, bob mcmanus brings up more or less the same litany of actual tangible policy decisions that I and others have brought up in the past, a kind of litany to which a typical center-leftist response is obstinately ignoring it.

    Another point US leftists have been making for many months now is that Trump himself isn't actually a fascist, he's only pretending to be one , which you treated as a novel discovery at #79 and to which your response was that Trump's neoliberal administration in practice will make neoliberal Democrats somehow leftist by comparison, which is absolutely incorrect.

    He'll do many things more or less exactly the way a Clinton administration would have done them, perhaps in some cases with enough of a superficial far-right veneer to create the perception of contrast (for instance future Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, who supports vouchers for religious private schools but otherwise might as well be a member of Democrats for Education Reform) and in some cases with red meat to the far right on issues the neoliberal center doesn't particularly care about (i.e. who the hell knows what if anything he'll do on issues like abortion rights, about which he's been all over the map in the past depending what's in his immediate opportunistic interest).

    But appointing figures from places like Goldman Sachs to positions of authority at institutions like the Treasury and the Fed is a thoroughly bipartisan commitment that doesn't make either major US party look any more left-wing or right-wing than the other.

    [Dec 07, 2016] Clinton Democrats betrayal of working class

    Dec 07, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bob mcmanus 12.03.16 at 2:35 am 110

    I want to see a political decision to abandon the working class

    NAFTA & TPP etc, big bank bailout no prosecutions, no mortgage relief, grossly inadequate structured and targeted stimulus, low inflation low gov't spending with many gov't jobs cut, insurance and provider friendly whirlpool of an expensive health care plan

    kidneystones 12.03.16 at 1:01 pm ( 117 )
    The Democratic left does not exist. Sanders is an independent who would never have been nominated except to help rubber-stamp the inauguration of the donor-class candidate.

    The Democrats do not have a left-candidate, or a slate of 'left candidates' around whom a left might coalesce. That's the consequence of national Democratic priorities and the take-over of the party by the Clinton crime family. There are no 'up and coming' Democrats. Those who are talented are spotted and co-opted into the Clinton-controlled machine. The quid pro quo manner of doing business is transparent. Very large sums change hands and almost always according to the laws, in so far as the actual pay-offs are 'incidental' rather than clearly causal.

    How many doctoral candidates in their thirties get paid $600 k per year for part-time work and another $300 k per year plus stock options?

    All of them, if the doctoral candidate happens to be named Chelsea Clinton. As I noted earlier, Democrats regard outsourcing their interactions with young people and rural voters to Bernie Sanders as a 'solution.'

    What people see in Clinton is a candidate willing to travel any distance at any time if the fee for showing up is $225 k for an hour of work, or so; but who couldn't find the time or reason to visit Wisconsin before an election and actually ask people to vote for her.

    Yes, it was close. But let's not forget who won and why and how. The president-elect has already stolen parts of the Dem base and now he's after the rest. The traditional Dem coalition is already fractured and if the new president does half as well as he did destroying two political dynasties then Democrats may find themselves in an even deeper whole in 2018.

    Like Labour, Democrats need to figure out whether they are the party of the working class, or not.

    bob mcmanus 12.03.16 at 4:00 pm There was no (or not much) 'working class surge' for Trump.

    Well, there was, in that the internal composition of the Republican vote changed to be more white non-college rural working class and a little less urban college-educated Republicans. I don't know what the numbers are.

    This does present possibilities, and was in fact the Clinton/DLC plan, although a plan dating back to the 1960s. The idea is to add to the identity groups that are currently the base of the Democratic Party college-educated urban professional socially progressive but economically moderate Republicans. This preserves the neoliberal system, but should create great economic opportunities for elite blacks, women, Latinos etc who really would rather get rich before socialism.

    I am willing to now designate non-college rural whites as a valid minority, without real privilege except very locally, economically moderate but socially conservative. They have been up for grabs to a degree for a long time, and way too much a major topic of discussion, as nobody knows what to do with them, nobody really wants them, but they are very dangerous, as we can see.

    I say ship them back to Ireland.

    WLGR 12.03.16 at 4:46 pm ( 119 )

    Hidari @ 108, Matt Christman of the podcast Chapo Trap House made almost this exact point in a recent interview with NYU historian David Parsons on Parsons' podcast The Nostalgia Trap. (Both excellent podcasts, by the way.) The way he put it is that the neoliberal center-left's long-term political project since the '90s, as embodied in figures like the Clintons in the US and Blair in the UK, can be summed up as an effort to redefine the two-party system so that the nominally "left" party becomes a de facto ruling party representing the center-left and center-right, leaving the far right with a dangerously long leash to move the nominally "right" party ever closer toward an outright National Front-style fascist party, and ideally leaving a shattered and demoralized far left as what amounts to an ideological hostage of the center. Both Clinton's failure to defeat Trump and the Blairites' failure to take Labour back from Corbyn have been setbacks for this project, and in both countries the center-right has largely decided to remain for now in its old electoral bloc with the proto-fascists instead of jumping ship to a "left" party that hasn't yet been fully transformed into a well-oiled machine for neoliberal centrism. (Of course this is also pretty close to Quiggin's three-party system critique, depending on the extent to which one treats the distinction between center-left and center-right as ever having been particularly meaningful in the first place.)

    Faustusnotes, bob mcmanus brings up more or less the same litany of actual tangible policy decisions that I and others have brought up in the past, a kind of litany to which a typical center-leftist response is obstinately ignoring it. Another point US leftists have been making for many months now is that Trump himself isn't actually a fascist, he's only pretending to be one , which you treated as a novel discovery at #79 and to which your response was that Trump's neoliberal administration in practice will make neoliberal Democrats somehow leftist by comparison, which is absolutely incorrect. He'll do many things more or less exactly the way a Clinton administration would have done them, perhaps in some cases with enough of a superficial far-right veneer to create the perception of contrast (for instance future Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, who supports vouchers for religious private schools but otherwise might as well be a member of Democrats for Education Reform) and in some cases with red meat to the far right on issues the neoliberal center doesn't particularly care about (i.e. who the hell knows what if anything he'll do on issues like abortion rights, about which he's been all over the map in the past depending what's in his immediate opportunistic interest). But appointing figures from places like Goldman Sachs to positions of authority at institutions like the Treasury and the Fed is a thoroughly bipartisan commitment that doesn't make either major US party look any more left-wing or right-wing than the other.

    [Dec 06, 2016] WPost woulds not Retract McCarthyistic Smear by Norman Solomon

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Smearing is not reporting," the RootsAction petition says. "The Washington Post 's recent descent into McCarthyism - promoting anonymous and shoddy claims that a vast range of some 200 websites are all accomplices or tools of the Russian government - violates basic journalistic standards and does real harm to democratic discourse in our country. We urge the Washington Post to prominently retract the article and apologize for publishing it." ..."
    "... For one thing, PropOrNot wasn't just another source for the Post 's story. As The New Yorker noted in a devastating article on Dec. 1, the story "prominently cited the PropOrNot research." The Post 's account "had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific authority of PropOrNot's work: the group released a 32-page report detailing its methodology, and named names with its list of 200 suspect news outlets . But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess." ..."
    "... As The New Yorker pointed out, PropOrNot's criteria for incriminating content were broad enough to include "nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself." Yet "The List" is not a random list by any means - it's a targeted mish-mash, naming websites that are not within shouting distance of the U.S. corporate and foreign policy establishment. ..."
    "... As The New Yorker 's writer Adrian Chen put it: "To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labeled a Russian propagandist." And he concluded: "Despite the impressive-looking diagrams and figures in its report, PropOrNot's findings rest largely on innuendo and conspiracy thinking." ..."
    "... As much as the Post news management might want to weasel out of the comparison, the parallels to the advent of the McCarthy Era are chilling. For instance, the Red Channels list, with 151 names on it, was successful as a weapon against dissent and free speech in large part because, early on, so many media outlets of the day actively aided and abetted blacklisting, as the Post has done for "The List." ..."
    "... Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wisconsin, who led the "Red Scare" hearings of the 1950s. ..."
    "... So far The New Yorker has been the largest media outlet to directly confront the Post 's egregious story. Cogent assessments can also be found at The Intercept , Consortium News , Common Dreams , AlterNet , Rolling Stone , Fortune , CounterPunch , The Nation and numerous other sites. ..."
    "... But many mainline journalists and outlets jumped at the chance to amplify the Post 's piece of work. A sampling of the cheers from prominent journalists and liberal partisans was published by FAIR.org under the apt headline " Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited 'Fake News' Blacklist? " ..."
    "... When liberals have green-lighted a witch-hunt, right wingers have been pleased to run with it. President Harry Truman issued an executive order in March 1947 to establish "loyalty" investigations in every agency of the federal government. Joe McCarthy and the era named after him were soon to follow. ..."
    Dec 05, 2016 | consortiumnews.com
    WPost Won't Retract McCarthyistic Smear

    After publishing a McCarthyistic "black list" that smears some 200 Web sites as "Russian propagandists," The Washington Post refuses to apologize - and other mainstream media outlets pile on, writes Norman Solomon.

    We still don't have any sort of apology or retraction from the Washington Post for promoting "The List" - the highly dangerous blacklist that got a huge boost from the newspaper's fawning coverage on Nov. 24. The project of smearing 200 websites with one broad brush wouldn't have gotten far without the avid complicity of high-profile media outlets, starting with the Post .

    On Thursday - a week after the Post published its front-page news article hyping the blacklist that was put out by a group of unidentified people called PropOrNot - I sent a petition statement to the newspaper's executive editor Martin Baron.

    The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post)

    "Smearing is not reporting," the RootsAction petition says. "The Washington Post 's recent descent into McCarthyism - promoting anonymous and shoddy claims that a vast range of some 200 websites are all accomplices or tools of the Russian government - violates basic journalistic standards and does real harm to democratic discourse in our country. We urge the Washington Post to prominently retract the article and apologize for publishing it."

    After mentioning that 6,000 people had signed the petition (the number has doubled since then), my email to Baron added: "If you skim through the comments that many of the signers added to the petition online, I think you might find them to be of interest. I wonder if you see a basis for dialogue on the issues raised by critics of the Post piece in question."

    The reply came from the newspaper's vice president for public relations, Kristine Coratti Kelly, who thanked me "for reaching out to us" before presenting the Post 's response, quoted here in full:

    "The Post reported on the work of four separate sets of researchers, as well as independent experts, who have examined Russian attempts to influence American democracy. PropOrNot was one. The Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list of organizations that it said had - wittingly or unwittingly - published or echoed Russian propaganda. The Post reviewed PropOrNot's findings and our questions about them were answered satisfactorily during the course of multiple interviews."

    Full of Holes

    But that damage-control response was as full of holes as the news story it tried to defend.

    For one thing, PropOrNot wasn't just another source for the Post 's story. As The New Yorker noted in a devastating article on Dec. 1, the story "prominently cited the PropOrNot research." The Post 's account "had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific authority of PropOrNot's work: the group released a 32-page report detailing its methodology, and named names with its list of 200 suspect news outlets . But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess."

    Contrary to the PR message from the Post vice president, PropOrNot did not merely say that the sites on its list had "published or echoed Russian propaganda." Without a word of the slightest doubt or skepticism in the entire story, the Post summarized PropOrNot's characterization of all the websites on its list as falling into two categories: "Some players in this online echo chamber were knowingly part of the propaganda campaign, the researchers concluded, while others were 'useful idiots' - a term born of the Cold War to describe people or institutions that unknowingly assisted Soviet Union propaganda efforts."

    As The New Yorker pointed out, PropOrNot's criteria for incriminating content were broad enough to include "nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself." Yet "The List" is not a random list by any means - it's a targeted mish-mash, naming websites that are not within shouting distance of the U.S. corporate and foreign policy establishment.

    And so the list includes a few overtly Russian-funded outlets; some other sites generally aligned with Kremlin outlooks; many pro-Trump sites, often unacquainted with what it means to be factual and sometimes overtly racist; and other websites that are quite different - solid, factual, reasonable - but too progressive or too anti-capitalist or too libertarian or too right-wing or just plain too independent-minded for the evident tastes of whoever is behind PropOrNot.

    As The New Yorker 's writer Adrian Chen put it: "To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labeled a Russian propagandist." And he concluded: "Despite the impressive-looking diagrams and figures in its report, PropOrNot's findings rest largely on innuendo and conspiracy thinking."

    As for the Post vice president's defensive phrasing that "the Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list," the fact is that the Post unequivocally promoted PropOrNot, driving web traffic to its site and adding a hotlink to the anonymous group's 32-page report soon after the newspaper's story first appeared. As I mentioned in my reply to her: "Unfortunately, it's kind of like a newspaper saying that it didn't name any of the people on the Red Channels blacklist in 1950 while promoting it in news coverage, so no problem."

    Pushing McCarthyism

    As much as the Post news management might want to weasel out of the comparison, the parallels to the advent of the McCarthy Era are chilling. For instance, the Red Channels list, with 151 names on it, was successful as a weapon against dissent and free speech in large part because, early on, so many media outlets of the day actively aided and abetted blacklisting, as the Post has done for "The List."

    Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wisconsin, who led the "Red Scare" hearings of the 1950s.

    Consider how the Post story described the personnel of PropOrNot in favorable terms even while hiding all of their identities and thus shielding them from any scrutiny - calling them "a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds."

    So far The New Yorker has been the largest media outlet to directly confront the Post 's egregious story. Cogent assessments can also be found at The Intercept , Consortium News , Common Dreams , AlterNet , Rolling Stone , Fortune , CounterPunch , The Nation and numerous other sites.

    But many mainline journalists and outlets jumped at the chance to amplify the Post 's piece of work. A sampling of the cheers from prominent journalists and liberal partisans was published by FAIR.org under the apt headline " Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited 'Fake News' Blacklist? "

    FAIR's media analyst Adam Johnson cited enthusiastic responses to the bogus story from journalists like Bloomberg's Sahil Kupar and MSNBC's Joy Reid - and such outlets as USA Today , Gizmodo , the PBS NewsHour , The Daily Beast , Slate , AP , The Verge and NPR , which "all uncritically wrote up the Post 's most incendiary claims with little or minimal pushback." On the MSNBC site, the Rachel Maddow Show's blog "added another breathless write-up hours later, repeating the catchy talking point that 'it was like Russia was running a super PAC for Trump's campaign.'"

    With so many people understandably upset about Trump's victory, there's an evident attraction to blaming the Kremlin, a convenient scapegoat for Hillary Clinton's loss. But the Post 's blacklisting story and the media's amplification of it - and the overall political environment that it helps to create - are all building blocks for a reactionary order, threatening the First Amendment and a range of civil liberties.

    When liberals have green-lighted a witch-hunt, right wingers have been pleased to run with it. President Harry Truman issued an executive order in March 1947 to establish "loyalty" investigations in every agency of the federal government. Joe McCarthy and the era named after him were soon to follow.

    In media and government, the journalists and officials who enable blacklisting are cravenly siding with conformity instead of democracy.

    Norman Solomon is co-founder of the online activist group RootsAction.org. His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He is the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

    [Dec 06, 2016] The Western War On Truth by Paul Craig Roberts

    This idea of casting dissidents as Russian Agent is directly from McCarthy play book. And paradoxically resembles the practive of the USSR in which dissdents were demonized as "Agent of the Western powers." The trick is a immanent part of any war propaganda efforts. So it is clear the Cold War II had started...
    Notable quotes:
    "... As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments as a hostile act. A brand new website, propornot.com, has just made its appearance condemning a list of 200 Internet websites that provide news and views at variance with the presstitute media that serves the governments' agendas . Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, or George Soros? ..."
    "... In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as "Russian agents." ..."
    "... The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump) "claim the White House." ..."
    "... Note the term applied to Trump - "insurgent candidate." That tells you all you need to know. ..."
    "... Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable. ..."
    "... The despicable Washington Post is a prime apologist for these war criminals. The entire Western print and TV media is so heavily implicated in the worst war crimes in human history that, if justice ever happens, the presstitutes will stand in the dock with the Clintons, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Obama and their neocon operatives or handlers as the case may be. ..."
    Dec 06, 2016 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

    The "war on terror" has simultaneously been a war on truth. For fifteen years-from 9/11 to Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" and "al Qaeda connections," "Iranian nukes," "Assad's use of chemical weapons," endless lies about Gadaffi, "Russian invasion of Ukraine"-the governments of the so-called Western democracies have found it essential to align themselves firmly with lies in order to pursue their agendas. Now these Western governments are attempting to discredit the truthtellers who challenge their lies.

    Russian news services are under attack from the EU and Western presstitutes as purveyors of "fake news" . Abiding by its Washington master's orders, the EU actually passed a resolution against Russian media for not following Washington's line. Russian President Putin said that the resolution is a "visible sign of degradation of Western society's idea of democracy."

    As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments as a hostile act. A brand new website, propornot.com, has just made its appearance condemning a list of 200 Internet websites that provide news and views at variance with the presstitute media that serves the governments' agendas . Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, or George Soros?

    I am proud to say that paulcraigroberts.org is on the list.

    What we see here is the West adopting Zionist Israel's way of dealing with critics. Anyone who objects to Israel's cruel and inhuman treatment of Palestinians is demonized as "anti-semitic." In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as "Russian agents." The president-elect of the United States himself has been designated a "Russian agent."

    This scheme to redefine truthtellers as propagandists has backfired. The effort to discredit truthtellers has instead produced a catalogue of websites where reliable information can be found, and readers are flocking to the sites on the list. Moreover, the effort to discredit truthtellers shows that Western governments and their presstitutes are intolerant of truth and diverse opinion and are committed to forcing people to accept self-serving government lies as truth.

    Clearly, Western governments and Western media have no respect for truth, so how can the West possibly be democratic?

    The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump) "claim the White House."

    Note the term applied to Trump - "insurgent candidate." That tells you all you need to know.

    You can read here what passes as "reliable reporting" in the presstitute Washington Post .

    See also .

    Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, which somehow escaped inclusion in The 200, unloads on Timberg and the Washington Post here .

    Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable.

    The despicable Washington Post is a prime apologist for these war criminals. The entire Western print and TV media is so heavily implicated in the worst war crimes in human history that, if justice ever happens, the presstitutes will stand in the dock with the Clintons, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Obama and their neocon operatives or handlers as the case may be.

    paulcraigroberts.org

    [Dec 06, 2016] Which purveys more fake news

    www.moonofalabama.org
    micawber | Dec 4, 2016 12:30:10 PM | 78
    Which purveys more "fake news" - RT.com on the one hand, or Fox News, MSNBC and CNN on the other? I asked that question on reddit and my post was deleted.

    [Dec 06, 2016] Very negative sentiment expressed in comment on immigration of progressive web site Moon of Alabama

    Dec 06, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    chipnik | Dec 3, 2016 7:40:26 PM | 42

    30

    A friend on Facebook made the mistake of posting two declamatory articles on the India financial apocalypse under Modi with the snark line 'this is what passes for democracy (sic) in the world now' and was notified just a day later by FB that their Profile was 'Determined to be an unauthorized Business Space', and would then be shut down, without any recourse, if they didn't provide a confirmed birth name and confirmed cell phone number. Nyet spasiba, ...so their profile went immediately 404.

    This FB purge masks the truth for what Modi really is, the Menem of India, for privatization of Indian gold wealth, for taxation of outsourced high-tech workers, and covering up the 100,000s of Hindu HIBs flying into the USA by the 747-load, taking away, by some estimates 98% of new high-tech jobs, and 56% of existing high-tech jobs, where American workers are being forced to train their Hindu replacements, then given a pink slip and six months of COBRA and booted out.

    [ASIDE: I was walking off frustration with Trump's financial picks today, and by sheer fate met an older guy who had just been terminated before he reached his employee-share pension age, by a company moving their assembly operations to China. He's hoping to move to Idaho or Montana, where there are so many unemployed meth heads, anyone who is clean and straight can find some kind of job that the Monkey Boys can't get their hooks into.]

    Hindus flooded the MSM back-office journalist pool, cratering American journalism careers. Forbes, Wall Street Journal, The Street, ...all use Hindus to write their news, bloat their comment section, and with more 'legal' Hindu H1Bs in editorial positions within the USA, which is why in the Big Feu-faw since 9/11 fussing over Mexicans, Muslims, Deadbeat Students and UnInsurable Elders, ...even with 95,000,000 Americans unemployed, you will NEVER, EVER hear a single word about Hindus.

    Nadella, Ellison, McDermott, Gelsinger, Besos, Zuckerberg, and Trump and his Cabinet are all 100% behind UNLIMITED H1B 'legal' immigration for USA. (Amazon even had to put cones around a dead PT minimum-wage worker, so their robots wouldn't crush his body, then the other day, an 'addlebrained' employee jumped off the roof). With all the jobs going to H1Bs, Trump will have to make America Great Again with his YUUGE infrastructure program : The Few, The Proud, The Brave!

    [Dec 05, 2016] Backlash Against Trade Deals: The End of US Led Economic Globalisation?

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline ..."
    "... President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US. ..."
    "... The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values. ..."
    "... But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. ..."
    "... But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them. ..."
    "... Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions ..."
    "... All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-à-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations ..."
    "... So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals. ..."
    "... The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself. ..."
    "... Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg ..."
    "... While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.) ..."
    "... Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes. ..."
    "... Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way. ..."
    "... We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products. ..."
    "... the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future! ..."
    "... The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder. ..."
    "... Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm ..."
    "... It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio. ..."
    "... The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/ "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike." ..."
    "... So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now? ..."
    "... Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade". ..."
    "... Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy." ..."
    "... Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project! ..."
    "... Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves. ..."
    "... Funny how little things change over the centuries. ..."
    "... The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans. ..."
    "... "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu. ..."
    "... The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China". ..."
    "... Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China". ..."
    "... Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them. ..."
    "... Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret. ..."
    "... Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects. ..."
    "... It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country. ..."
    "... I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations ..."
    "... Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St. ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline

    There is much angst in the Northern financial media about how the era of globalisation led actively by the United States may well be coming to an end. This is said to be exemplified in the changed political attitudes to mega regional trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that was signed (but has not yet been ratified) by the US and 11 other countries in Latin America, Asia and Oceania; and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) still being negotiated by the US and the European Union.

    President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

    However, the changing political currents in the US are making that ever more unlikely. Hardly anyone who is a candidate in the coming elections, whether for the Presidency, the Senate or the House of Representatives, is willing to stick their necks out to back the deal.

    Both Presidential candidates in the US (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) have openly come out against the TPP. In Clinton's case this is a complete reversal of her earlier position when she had referred to the TPP as "the gold standard of trade deals" – and it has clearly been forced upon her by the insurgent movement in the Democratic Party led by Bernie Sanders. She is already being pushed by her rival candidate for not coming out more clearly in terms of a complete rejection of this deal. Given the significant trust deficit that she still has to deal with across a large swathe of US voters, it will be hard if not impossible for her to backtrack on this once again (as her husband did earlier with NAFTA) even if she does achieve the Presidency.

    The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values.

    But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. Even the only US government study of the TPP's likely impacts, by the International Trade Commission, could project at best only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032. A study by Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta with Jomo Kwame Sundaram ("Trading down: Unemployment, inequality and other risks of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement", Working Paper 16-01, Global Development and Environment Institute, January 2016) was even less optimistic, even for the US. It found that the benefits to exports and economic growth were likely to be relatively small for all member countries, and would be negative in the US and Japan because of losses to employment and increases in inequality. Wage shares of national income would decline in all the member countries.

    But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them.

    Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying:

    1. the intellectual property provisions,
    2. the restrictions on regulatory practices
    3. the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
    Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

    All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-à-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations

    For example, the TPP (and the TTIP) require more stringent enforcement requirements of intellectual property rights: reducing exemptions (e.g. allowing compulsory licensing only for emergencies); preventing parallel imports; extending IPRs to areas like life forms, counterfeiting and piracy; extending exclusive rights to test data (e.g. in pharmaceuticals); making IPR provisions more detailed and prescriptive. The scope of drug patents is extended to include minor changes to existing medications (a practice commonly employed by drug companies, known as "evergreening"). Patent linkages would make it more difficult for many generic drugs to enter markets.

    This would strengthen, lengthen and broaden pharmaceutical monopolies on cancer, heart disease and HIV/AIDS drugs, and in general make even life-saving drugs more expensive and inaccessible in all the member countries. It would require further transformation of countries' laws on patents and medical test data. It would reduce the scope of exemption in use of medical formulations through public procurement for public purposes. All this is likely to lead to reductions in access to drugs and medical procedures because of rising prices, and also impede innovation rather than encouraging it, across member countries.

    There are also very restrictive copyright protection rules, that would also affect internet usage as Internet Service Providers are to be forced to adhere to them. There are further restrictions on branding that would reinforce the market power of established players.

    The TPP and TTIP also contain restrictions on regulatory practices that greatly increase the power of corporations relative to states and can even prevent states from engaging in countercyclical measures designed to boost domestic demand. It has been pointed out by consumer groups in the USA that the powers of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate products that affect health of citizens could be constrained and curtailed by this agreement. Similarly, macroeconomic stimulus packages that focus on boosting domestic demand for local production would be explicitly prohibited by such agreements.

    All these are matters for concern because these agreements enable corporations to litigate against governments that are perceived to be flouting these provisions because of their own policy goals or to protect the rights of their citizens. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism enabled by these agreements is seen to be one of their most deadly features. Such litigation is then subject to supranational tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards and which do not see the rights of citizen as in any way superior to the "rights" of corporations to their profits. These courts can conduct closed and secret hearings with secret evidence. They do not just interpret the rules but contribute to them through case law because of the relatively vague wording of the text, which can then be subject to different interpretations, and therefore are settled by case law. The experience thus far with such tribunals has been problematic. Since they are legally based on "equal" treatment of legal persons with no primacy for human rights, they have become known for their pro-investor bias, partly due to the incentive structure for arbitrators, and partly because the system is designed to provide supplementary guarantees to investors, rather than making them respect host countries laws and regulations.

    If all these features of the TPP and the TTIP were more widely known, it is likely that there would be even greater public resistance to them in the US and in other countries. Even as it is, there is growing antagonism to the trade liberalisation that is seen to bring benefits to corporations rather than to workers, at a period in history when secure employment is seen to be the biggest prize of all.

    So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals.

    human , September 22, 2016 at 10:14 am

    his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

    "just _after_ the November Presidential election"

    Uahsenaa , September 22, 2016 at 10:42 am

    I was watching a speech Premier Li gave at the Economic Club of NY last night, and it was interesting to see how all his (vetted, pre-selected) questions revolved around anxieties having to do with resistance to global trade deals. Li made a few pandering comments about how much the Chinese love American beef (stop it! you're killing me! har har) meant to diffuse those anxieties, but it became clear that the fear among TPTB of people's dissatisfaction with the current economic is palpable. Let's keep it up!

    allan , September 22, 2016 at 11:30 am

    On a related note:

    U.S. Court Throws Out Price-Fixing Judgment Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers [WSJ]

    A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a $147 million civil price fixing judgment against Chinese manufacturers of vitamin C, ruling the companies weren't liable in U.S. courts because they were acting under the direction of Chinese authorities.

    The case raised thorny questions of how courts should treat foreign companies accused of violating U.S. antitrust law when they are following mandates of a foreign government.

    "I was only following orders" might not have worked in Nuremberg, but it's a-ok in international trade.

    different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself.

    Wellstone's Ghost , September 22, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Trump has already back peddaled on his TPP stance. He now says he wants to renegotiate the TTP and other trade deals. Whatever that means. Besides, Trump is a distraction, its Mike Pence you should be keeping your eye on. He's American Taliban pure and simple.

    RPDC , September 22, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    This is simply false. Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg

    Hillary wants to start a war with Russia and pass the trade trifecta of TPP/TTIP/TiSA.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.)

    Trump was run to make Hillary look good, but that has turned out to be Mission Real Impossible!

    We are seeing the absolute specious political theater at its worst, attempting to differentiate between Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Trumpster – – – the only major difference is that Clinton has far more real blood on her and Bill's hands.

    Nope, there is no lesser of evils this time around . . .

    Quanka , September 23, 2016 at 8:25 am

    Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes.

    different clue , September 24, 2016 at 1:00 am

    Really? Well . . . might as well vote for Clinton then.

    First Woman President!
    Feminism!
    Liberation!

    TedWa , September 22, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way.

    a different chris , September 22, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    >only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032.

    At that point American's wages will have dropped near enough to Chinese levels that we can compete in selling to First World countries . assuming there are any left.

    oh , September 22, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Naaah, never been about competition, since nobody is actually vetted when they offshore those jobs or replace American workers with foreign visa workers.

    But to sum it up as succinctly as possible: the TPP is about the destruction of workers' rights; the destruction of local and small businesses; and the loss of sovereignty. Few Americans are cognizant of just how many businesses are foreign owned today in America; their local energy utility or state energy utility, their traffic enforcement company which was privatized, their insurance company (GEICO, etc.).

    I remember when a political action group back in the '00s thought they had stumbled on a big deal when someone had hacked into the system of the Bretton Woods Committee (the lobbyist group for the international super-rich which ONLY communicates with the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, and who shares the same lobbyist and D.C. office space as the Group of Thirty, the lobbyist group for the central bankers [Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Mario Draghi, Ernesto Zedillo, Bill Dudley, etc., etc.]) and placed online their demand of the senate and the congress to kill the "Buy America" clause in the federal stimulus program of a few years back (it was watered down greatly, and many exemptions were signed by then Commerce Secretary Gary Locke), but such information went completely unnoticed or ignored, and of course, the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future!

    http://www.brettonwoods.org
    http://www.group30.org

    Arthur J , September 22, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder.

    Carla , September 22, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    In June 2016, "[TransCanada] filed an arbitration claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) over President Obama's rejection of the pipeline, making good on its January threat to take legal action against the US decision.

    According to the official request for arbitration, the $15 billion tab is supposed to help the company recover costs and damages that it suffered "as a result of the US administration's breach of its NAFTA obligations." NAFTA is a comprehensive trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico that went into effect in January 1, 1994. Under the agreement, businesses can challenge governments over investment disputes.

    In addition, the company filed a suit in US Federal Court in Houston, Texas in January asserting that the Obama Administration exceeded the power granted by the US Constitution in denying the project."

    http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/transcanada_complains_nafta_sues_us_15_bn_keystone_xl_rejection/

    Six states have since joined that federal law suit.

    Kris Alman , September 22, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm

    It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio.

    Obama's rhetoric May 5, 2015 at the Nike campus was all about how small businesses would prosper. Congresswoman Bonamici clings to this rationale in her refusal to tell angry constituents at town halls whether she supports the TPP.

    The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/
    "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike."

    That appeals to the other big athletic corporations that cluster in the Portland metro: Columbia Sportswear and Under Armour.

    A plot twist!

    Vietnam will not include ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the agenda for its next parliament session. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/1087705/vietnam-delays-tpp-vote So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

    Vatch , September 22, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

    Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade".

    hemeantwell , September 22, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy."

    Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project!

    ChrisFromGeorgia , September 22, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves.

    Funny how little things change over the centuries.

    Brad , September 22, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans.

    "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu.

    Minnie Mouse , September 22, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    When America writes the rules of the global economy the global economy destroys America.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 22, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China".

    Would be nice if they had even a passing thought for those people in a certain North American region located in between Canada and Mexico.

    different clue , September 23, 2016 at 1:40 am

    Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China".

    Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them.

    different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    If calling the International Free Trade Conspiracy "American" is enough to get it killed and destroyed, then I don't mind having a bunch of foreigners calling the Free Trade Conspiracy "American". Just as long as they are really against it, and can really get Free Trade killed and destroyed.

    Chauncey Gardiner , September 22, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Excellent post. Thank you. Should these so called "trade agreements" be approved, perhaps Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS arbitration) futures can be created by Wall Street and made the next speculative "Play-of-the-day" so that everyone has a chance to participate in the looting. Btw, can you loot your own house?

    KYrocky , September 22, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret.

    At the time he made that statement Warren could go to an offsite location to read the TPP in the presence of a member of the Trade Commission, could not have staff with her, could not take notes, and could not discuss anything she read with anyone else after she left. Or face criminal charges.

    Yeah. Nothing secret about that.

    Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    And add to that everything from David Dayen's book (" Chain of Title ") on Covington & Burling and Eric Holder and President Obama, and Thomas Frank's book ("Listen, Liberals") and people will have the full picture!

    Spencer , September 22, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country.

    So, there's a financial incentive (to maximize profits), not to repatriate foreign income (pushes up our exchange rate, currency conversion costs, if domestic re-investment alternatives are considered more circumscribed, plus taxes, etc.).

    In spite of the surfeit of $s, and E-$ credits, and unlike the days in which world-trade required a Marshall Plan jump start, trade surpluses increasingly depend on the Asian Tiger's convertibility issues.

    Praedor , September 23, 2016 at 10:30 am

    I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations or even (potential) unfriendlies like China (who can easily put trojan spyware hard code or other vulnerabilities into critical microchips the way WE were told the US could/would when it was leading on this tech when I was serving in the 90s). We already know that US-written rules is simply a way for mega corporations to extend patents into the ever-more-distant future, a set of rules that hands more control of arts over to the MPAA, rules that gut environmental laws, etc. Who needs the US-written agreements when this is the result?

    Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St.

    [Dec 05, 2016] We Demand That The Washington Post Retract Its Propaganda Story Defaming Naked Capitalism and Other Sites and Issue an Apology

    Notable quotes:
    "... The motive is there (discredit competition), the evidence is there per the above, the legal standing is explicit, the only thing that is technically unquantifiable is the damage done. ..."
    "... Both Firefox and Chrome have added the option to open in a "private" or "incognito" window or tab, which also gets you around the monthly limit. ..."
    "... What NYT/WaPo lose in people not paying to read, they apparently can make up from people willing to pay to have things published. ..."
    "... 'The man' who shot one round into the floor* at Comet Pizza may be an actor, Edgar Maddison Welch, who has done various jobs in media, including playing a "raver/victim". ..."
    "... Yves, I would very much question your description of The Washington Post being " taken for a ride." over this story. ..."
    "... It's worth pointing out that the newspapers owner Jeff Bezos was hired by the Secretary of Defense to a rather sinister sounding organisation called the " Defense Innovation Advisory Board " in July. The Boards mission statement is to .."focus on new technologies and organizational behavior and culture." Also, in addition "identify innovative private-sector practices, and technological solutions that the DoD could employ in the future." ..."
    "... In short, Bezos, and his companies are now part of the MIC. I believe Googles CEO is also on the same board. ..."
    "... Am I supposed to accept then that the Washington Post really thinks that the work of PropOrNot is honestly and objectively carried out? I can't. ..."
    "... Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy of the accusation. In this case, instead, the Post intentionally credits accusations for which it can offer no support (or at least declines to do so). I'll conclude that the Post acted maliciously and spitefully, as in slander, until it gives me reason to think otherwise. No person or media outlet can disseminate such shocking and potentially damaging accusations without our demanding accountability. ..."
    "... If you read section 501 of this year's intelligence authorization bill, it directs the President to set up an interagency committee to 'counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.' So that shows you that senators from both parties are clearly concerned about Russian covert influence efforts. ..."
    "... "Never assume malice when incompetence will explain the behavior." unless a lengthy history of errors having the same bias suggests otherwise. ..."
    "... I've been a lifelong journalist, 10 years on a daily newspaper, 20 years freelancing for magazines. The Wapo story so blatantly violated fundamental journalistic standards I cannot believe any experienced editor would not have realized that. My only possible conclusion is that irresistible pressure was placed on editors to publish the story. ..."
    "... You fake a document that contains the truth. When you discredit the document, you discredit the truth. Maneuvers like that show why Karl Rove really was (in his own special way) a genius. ..."
    "... I followed the Bush Texas Air National Guard story in detail at the time, and the Rather story in particular, and posted on it a good deal. So far as I know, nobody ever claimed the $10,000 reward that Gary Trudeau offered for anybody who would come forward as an eye witness to Bush performing his TANG duties. ..."
    "... Your comment is heavy on speculation including the notion that Bezos is directly controlling what goes into the Post. I'd say the tight little club that is mainstream journalism doesn't require government subversion in order to represent a MIC point of view. As Gore Vidal said re the deep state: they don't need to conspire since they all think alike anyway. ..."
    "... With all due respect it isn't speculation that Bezos has been hired by the secretary of defence to the Defence innovation advisory board. I think you have to be very naive if you think he has little input into the editorial running of the paper. Why else buy a newspaper these days? They hardly make much money. ..."
    "... The British Guardian for example has been running articles and pushing a campaign of "The Internet we want." Which seems to consist of all critiscms of what it believes being censored. ..."
    "... As to Yves point about the amateur nature of this list, and the attack on sites like NC in the article, Yves shouldn't assume that all these people are geniuses. It won't be the first or the last time that powerful people who run businesses make complete fools of themselves. ..."
    "... And Bezos is too busy to have much/any input into editorial decisions. Newscycles are far too rapid. Bezos might make clear what the general priorities and tone are, but he's not going to be involved in individual stories save on a very exceptional basis, and news of that would get out to reporters and make the journalism rumor mill in a bad way. Marty Peretz, who unlike Bezos was the publisher and editor in chief of the magazine he bought (the vastly smaller The New Republic) had pet priorities (Israel) and preferences (falling in love with smart young male senior editors and then becoming disenchanted with them in a couple of years and driving them out) that were widely known. ..."
    "... These guys are so ludicrous that folks like Bellingcat are denouncing them. ..."
    "... Carl Bernstein has done some pretty deep reporting on decades of links bw CIA and media: http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php ..."
    "... Even he says there are not really any links bw CIA and WaPo as propaganda channel. As much as it'd be fun to fantasize about Bezos being an evil operator for the MIC, I am inclined toward Yves' narrative of incompetence, and an (unhealthy) dose of confirmation bias-seeking. ..."
    "... Much as I would believe anything about Bezos/WP, the article is so amateurish its very hard to believe it is part of an active top-down conspiracy. I'd be more inclined to think that it 'became known' among WP staff that certain Very Important People believe in the Russian propaganda conspiracy and that any articles highlighting this are more likely to be published than others. ..."
    "... Off the top of my head, some of the worst examples of journalistic libel recently have primarily been driven not by malice or conspiracies, but because of active confirmation bias. The journalist and editor strongly believes X to be true, therefore when a source comes up to provide a potentially juicy story confirming the reality and evil of X, then they leap on the source without any professional scepticism. The Rolling Stone college rape hoax comes to mind, as does a notorious case in Ireland which nearly destroyed investigative journalism in the main TV company. ..."
    "... In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google's search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US. ..."
    "... Zerohedge was listed as a "fake news" site but, as I'm sure many here know, they do great, hard hitting economic analysis and have had their projections and theories confirmed many times with a far better track record than the mainstream sites covering the same subject. ..."
    "... I'm not sure the guys behind all this mind losing the discussion in the end. As often, even if the smeared news sites, including NC, win the debate, they'll still lose the communication war. ..."
    "... The background to all this, the attempt by the Clintonites to draw on Cold War stink reserves (a National Ideological Reserve, sorta like the National Petroleum Reserve) and, if not its complete failure, than its failure to be decisively effective, makes me think we are witnessing signs of a decisive weakening in elite communication control. PropOrNot advances the process. ..."
    "... We fully endorse Yves Smith's efforts. ..."
    "... Additionally, we note that the only reason we haven't followed up with a similar action is because i) the allegations were beyond laughable – we have rejected all of them on the record, and ii) there are simply too much other events taking place in what should otherwise be a quiet end to the year taking place to focus on what may be a lenghty, if gratifying, legal process. ..."
    Dec 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    PWC, Raleigh December 5, 2016 at 4:59 pm

    +1 as well.

    The thing with raising money is you have to ask, ask, ask a lot, lot, lot.

    So when you need more money to continue this fight, just publish an updated case-statement with an ask, and the lot of us will turn over our digits to support the fight. Many hands make light work, as my mother always says.

    It's refreshing to have something to support that is worthwhile in both principle and actuality. Plus, the Post is a nasty piece of work. Same for the Times . Disgraceful and distasteful. They are only fun to peruse for the self-parody.

    Just Wondering December 5, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Class action lawsuit? Would perhaps smoke out any truly fake news alt media sites.

    Tim December 5, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    Class Action libel suit against WaPo and the propornot website seems reasonable. The motive is there (discredit competition), the evidence is there per the above, the legal standing is explicit, the only thing that is technically unquantifiable is the damage done.

    If the damages can be determined by some reasonable methodology then perhaps there is enough to make it worth bringing a suit.

    lyman alpha blob December 5, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Regarding paying for the news in general, I'm assuming there aren't too many readers who who actually want to pay WaPo or the NYT for anything at this point.

    Those sites and others in recent years have imposed a monthly free article limit and I find that sometimes after clicking on stories linked to from here I run up against the limit.

    I'm sure most people here are already aware of this, but just so you are never tempted to subscribe to their crappy organizations, all you need to do to get around the limit is use a different browser to open the link.

    Peter VE December 5, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    Both Firefox and Chrome have added the option to open in a "private" or "incognito" window or tab, which also gets you around the monthly limit.

    Skip Intro December 5, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    What NYT/WaPo lose in people not paying to read, they apparently can make up from people willing to pay to have things published.

    choung December 5, 2016 at 3:13 am

    My name is Choung, I'm Korean(south Korea).
    Korean have experienced this kind of things many many times under the military dictatorship,
    and now we were suffering from new blacklist.
    Our president is daughter of the past infamous dictator.

    I have visited your site and linked many good pieces. Sometimes translated them.

    Korean mainstream media don't handle this story,
    So, l wrote some pieces about it in public site.

    I strongly express solidarity with you on behalf of many progressive Koreans.

    ambrit December 5, 2016 at 4:12 am

    Of tangential interest is the "news" report, if Yahoo can be so described, of the man charged with various and sundry for threatening the pizzaria "implicated" in the pedophilia allegations swirling around in the overheated miasma that passes for "common wisdom" today.

    Of importance is the framing of the "story." The man is alleged to have gone off on his "adventure" as the result of "fake news site" reporting. The assault on journalism is now switching from a pure smear to a flanking maneuver. Whether real or manufactured, this act will probably be spun to support further crackdowns on dissenting points of view. Guilt by (manufactured) association can hurt just as badly as real guilt. All this plays out in the court of public opinion, a notoriously rickety edifice in the best of times. \

    See: https://www.yahoo.com/news/gunman-charged-threatening-dc-restaurant-hit-fake-news-030914425.html

    Congratulations for adopting the "best defense is a strong offense" strategy.

    Just Wondering December 5, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    'The man' who shot one round into the floor* at Comet Pizza may be an actor, Edgar Maddison Welch, who has done various jobs in media, including playing a "raver/victim". Look him up on IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2625901/bio

    * http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/gun-incident-fake-news/

    ambrit December 5, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    Ah ha! Putting on my "tinfoil hat" I'm tempted to say "False Flag Action."

    Sally December 5, 2016 at 4:27 am

    Yves, I would very much question your description of The Washington Post being " taken for a ride." over this story.

    It's worth pointing out that the newspapers owner Jeff Bezos was hired by the Secretary of Defense to a rather sinister sounding organisation called the " Defense Innovation Advisory Board " in July. The Boards mission statement is to .."focus on new technologies and organizational behavior and culture." Also, in addition "identify innovative private-sector practices, and technological solutions that the DoD could employ in the future."

    In short, Bezos, and his companies are now part of the MIC. I believe Googles CEO is also on the same board. These so called private corporations are now part of the US govt that works in the field of black ops. Remember also that Amazon has major contracts with the govt to provide cloud computing storage. This is fascism in all but name. It remains to be seen how long the new President Mr Trump will want to trust these people as they did so much to try to defeat him.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 6:19 am

    I beg to differ. No one would want to damage their credibility above all in undermining a narrative (in Beltway-speak) that they are tying to promote.

    Remember the Dan Rather scandal? Unlike this case, the underlying fact set about George Bush was accurate, but Dan Rather falling for bogus evidence not only forced Rather to resign, but

    1. diverted attention from what should have been a scandal if properly reported and
    2. confused any attempts to discuss it (as in the Rather evidence being bad made casual observers think the dirt on Bush was untrue).
    Quentin December 5, 2016 at 6:57 am

    I was also struck by the statement that the Post was 'taken for a ride'. Am I supposed to accept then that the Washington Post really thinks that the work of PropOrNot is honestly and objectively carried out? I can't.

    Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy of the accusation. In this case, instead, the Post intentionally credits accusations for which it can offer no support (or at least declines to do so). I'll conclude that the Post acted maliciously and spitefully, as in slander, until it gives me reason to think otherwise. No person or media outlet can disseminate such shocking and potentially damaging accusations without our demanding accountability.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 7:57 am

    Fact checking at the Washington Post is a joke:

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/12/httpswwwwashingtonpostcomopinionsglobal-opinionsthe-pros-and-cons-of-a-generals-general20161203f8d6e72c-b8b7-11e6.html

    And if you look at the what the Post said to Consortium News (hat tip UserFriendly), it apparently considers just chatting with a source for a bit an adequate basis for validating a smear against 200 publications. They effectively admit they did no independent verification:

    The reply came from the newspaper's vice president for public relations, Kristine Coratti Kelly, who thanked me "for reaching out to us" before presenting the Post's response, quoted here in full:

    "The Post reported on the work of four separate sets of researchers, as well as independent experts, who have examined Russian attempts to influence American democracy. PropOrNot was one. The Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list of organizations that it said had - wittingly or unwittingly - published or echoed Russian propaganda. The Post reviewed PropOrNot's findings and our questions about them were answered satisfactorily during the course of multiple interviews."

    Sally December 5, 2016 at 8:50 am

    Yves, just to be clear ..I am in complete support for you, and your site and other sites from these outrageous and slanderous attacks.

    I was just surprised at your generous description of them being "taken for a ride." I think that is way to charitable.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 9:24 am

    Never assume malice, when incompetence will explain the behavior.

    Gary Headlock December 5, 2016 at 9:56 am

    Speaking of, do you think your inclusion on the initial "PropOrNot" list is an example of malice or incompetence? Could it be some half-assed algorithm scanned the web for sites linking to RT (which I can remember at least one instance popping up in Water Cooler/Links), and called it a day? That seems the most plausible to me, but it also seems plausible that there are many organizations which would want to discredit NC.

    Samuel Conner December 5, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    I haven't seen "The List", but am confident that sites like Moon of Alabama and The Saker are on it. Saker is explicitly pro-Russia (this is not a criticism per se; I found his pieces on the Ukraine/Donbas crisis in 2014-15 to be more illuminating than most of the very little that one could find in the US MSM, for example) and MoA is typically skeptical of US international military adventures.

    Pieces from both of these sites have been, from time to time, linked at the NC daily news links page. Not sure, but there may be a few links over the past couple of years to items at Russia Insider as well. It may be that 2nd order associations were enough to "merit" NC's inclusion on "The List."

    Katharine December 5, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    But last week Timberg was still touting his "independent experts" in an article on a proposed new committee mandated in the 2017 intelligence authorization bill. He quoted Wyden:

    If you read section 501 of this year's intelligence authorization bill, it directs the President to set up an interagency committee to 'counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.' So that shows you that senators from both parties are clearly concerned about Russian covert influence efforts.

    Linking his earlier story with this information may be self-important stupidity on Timberg's part, but stupidity does not actually preclude malice.

    In any case, if senators are treating Russian influence as fact when we have yet to be shown any proof of its existence that is a sign this article, be it folly or malice, needs further discrediting, so thanks and more power to you!

    davidly December 5, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    That's an awful aphorism. Never discount one just because the other is a potential explanation, especially if the pattern indicates they'll abdicate their core responsibilities for access and relish going after those they resent for calling them out on it.

    Having said that, one can see how you personally wouldn't want to risk libel, but I will make no such assumptions about the likes of the beltway press.

    DarkMatters December 5, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    "Never assume malice when incompetence will explain the behavior." unless a lengthy history of errors having the same bias suggests otherwise.

    Best wishes, and success.

    Keith Warren December 5, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    indeed, incompetence and a deep hunger for confirmation bias fodder. Deadly combination.

    Lyle James December 5, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    I've been a lifelong journalist, 10 years on a daily newspaper, 20 years freelancing for magazines. The Wapo story so blatantly violated fundamental journalistic standards I cannot believe any experienced editor would not have realized that. My only possible conclusion is that irresistible pressure was placed on editors to publish the story.

    David Addams December 5, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    "Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy of the accusation."

    Excuse me.

    Rather (and CBS) had to admit that the documents used to make those accusations were fake. How do you have "accurate accusations" when those accusations are based on faked documents?

    Rather was not put in a bad positions by supporters of GW Bush.

    He was put in a bad position by Dan Rather.

    BTW, the Rather incident is a perfect illustration on how fake news gets reported. The underlying accusation so matched Rather's world view that he decided to run with them without doing any sort of fact checking. Or checking the reliability of the one source for the story.

    Doing so would have prevented Rather from reporting that story and having to resign in disgrace.

    This is why fact checking and verifying stories via multiple sources is so important when reporting news.

    It prevents reporting fake news.

    The reason we have so much "fake news" is that too many reporters have abandoned basic journalistic practices.

    On both sides of the aisle.

    Lambert Strether December 5, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    > How do you have "accurate accusations" when those accusations are based on faked documents?

    You fake a document that contains the truth. When you discredit the document, you discredit the truth. Maneuvers like that show why Karl Rove really was (in his own special way) a genius.

    I followed the Bush Texas Air National Guard story in detail at the time, and the Rather story in particular, and posted on it a good deal. So far as I know, nobody ever claimed the $10,000 reward that Gary Trudeau offered for anybody who would come forward as an eye witness to Bush performing his TANG duties.

    PWC, Raleigh December 5, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Exactly. +1,000

    And bingo, bango: the very strange truth becomes fiction.

    Carolinian December 5, 2016 at 7:45 am

    Your comment is heavy on speculation including the notion that Bezos is directly controlling what goes into the Post. I'd say the tight little club that is mainstream journalism doesn't require government subversion in order to represent a MIC point of view. As Gore Vidal said re the deep state: they don't need to conspire since they all think alike anyway.

    More likely the Post article is an example of journo dinosaurs striking out at websites they now regard as their rivals. Print journalism has been brought low, financially, by the internet and television.

    The people who work at the Post don't dare attack television because they all want to be on it. However the web is likely regarded as an easy target and I've long been under the impression that mainstream journalists know practically nothing about the internet other than Twitter and a few favored sites like Politico.

    While it's potentially the greatest communication medium ever devised, of course people visiting the internet have to bring their own truth filter. Which is why some of us have landed here. NC seems serious about getting to the truth, and if you don't like what's written you get to say so. What the MSM really resents is people thinking for themselves.

    Sally December 5, 2016 at 8:43 am

    With all due respect it isn't speculation that Bezos has been hired by the secretary of defence to the Defence innovation advisory board. I think you have to be very naive if you think he has little input into the editorial running of the paper. Why else buy a newspaper these days? They hardly make much money.

    I suspect that this outfit PropOrNot was set up before the election of Trump. They assumed Clinton was going to win and this was the The begining of an onslaught against the so called alternative media that was going to be waged once Hilary was safely inside the White House. Full regulation of the Internet is their aim. This agenda has been pushed in other so called liberal newspapers. The British Guardian for example has been running articles and pushing a campaign of "The Internet we want." Which seems to consist of all critiscms of what it believes being censored.

    As to Yves point about the amateur nature of this list, and the attack on sites like NC in the article, Yves shouldn't assume that all these people are geniuses. It won't be the first or the last time that powerful people who run businesses make complete fools of themselves.

    I doubt they thought they were going to be called out on it, and if Clinton won the election it didn't really matter because they would have the power to come after the alternative media. Trumps election has put a spanner in the works .for now. It remains to be seen if he will try to censor the Internet under pressure from elites.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 9:33 am

    No it wasn't. They bought the URL only in late August. The first tweet was November 5. The site appears to have been published at the earliest as of November 9, but from what I can tell, it was November 18.

    And Bezos is too busy to have much/any input into editorial decisions. Newscycles are far too rapid. Bezos might make clear what the general priorities and tone are, but he's not going to be involved in individual stories save on a very exceptional basis, and news of that would get out to reporters and make the journalism rumor mill in a bad way. Marty Peretz, who unlike Bezos was the publisher and editor in chief of the magazine he bought (the vastly smaller The New Republic) had pet priorities (Israel) and preferences (falling in love with smart young male senior editors and then becoming disenchanted with them in a couple of years and driving them out) that were widely known.

    andyb December 5, 2016 at 10:09 am

    Agree that Bezos is an unlikely instigator of this farce. More likely, from what we know about the CIA/Mockingbird history, the person responsible is most likely a CIA plant at the senior editor level.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 10:15 am

    I have to beg to differ re CIA plant. These guys are so ludicrous that folks like Bellingcat are denouncing them. I won't link even here to the original site since that helps them in Google, but just go look at the FAQ on the baddie's site or their Twitter feed. No one who was a pro in any field would see them as serious. I have no idea what the reporter was smoking. But the article reads as if they never did the most basic verification, like a web search. They didn't recognize that the "report" which was The List, was already up and they either double down on or try to cover for their mistake by "updating" the article saying the "report" went up Saturday November 26, when it had been up since at least November 18.

    Keith Warren December 5, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Carl Bernstein has done some pretty deep reporting on decades of links bw CIA and media: http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

    Even he says there are not really any links bw CIA and WaPo as propaganda channel. As much as it'd be fun to fantasize about Bezos being an evil operator for the MIC, I am inclined toward Yves' narrative of incompetence, and an (unhealthy) dose of confirmation bias-seeking.

    PlutoniumKun December 5, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Much as I would believe anything about Bezos/WP, the article is so amateurish its very hard to believe it is part of an active top-down conspiracy. I'd be more inclined to think that it 'became known' among WP staff that certain Very Important People believe in the Russian propaganda conspiracy and that any articles highlighting this are more likely to be published than others.

    Off the top of my head, some of the worst examples of journalistic libel recently have primarily been driven not by malice or conspiracies, but because of active confirmation bias. The journalist and editor strongly believes X to be true, therefore when a source comes up to provide a potentially juicy story confirming the reality and evil of X, then they leap on the source without any professional scepticism. The Rolling Stone college rape hoax comes to mind, as does a notorious case in Ireland which nearly destroyed investigative journalism in the main TV company.

    Having said that, I think it is strongly likely that certain elements in the establishment (probably the Clinton part of it) was actively pushing the Putin is Goebbels line for several months – but I doubt there is any structured conspiracy – these things tend to just become part of received wisdom, and there are plenty of bottom feeding journalists ready to join the parade.

    Ralph Johansen December 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Well, there's negligence, and then there's wanton, feckless, scurrilous, criminal negligence. Recompense accordingly.

    They certainly know or ought to know that, with the entire left field virtually empty, the Bill of Rights in the round hole, and because they've foreclosed global working class solidarity with walls, laws and red tape, (if that's too much of a stretch you don't belong), all they have to do is squirm at us and we crash.

    Ralph Johansen December 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Well, there's negligence, and then there's wanton, feckless, scurrilous, criminal negligence. Recompense accordingly.

    They certainly know or ought to know that, with the entire left field virtually empty, the Bill of Rights in the round hole, and because they've foreclosed global working class solidarity with walls, laws and red tape, (if that's too much of a stretch you don't belong), all they have to do is squirm at us and we crash.

    Winston December 5, 2016 at 10:54 am

    "What the MSM really resents is people thinking for themselves."

    Here are other examples of undoubtedly top-down suppression of anything other than the "kingmaker" and corrupt status quo maintainer narratives owned by the six mega-corporations that control 90% of what we see and hear.

    The stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup that's working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House – October 09, 2015

    http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/

    An under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology vendor for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley and Democratic politics.

    The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts by Schmidt -- the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet -- to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election. And it is one of a series of quiet investments by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs.

    Research Proves Google Manipulates Autocomplete Suggestions to Favor Clinton – 12 Sep 2016

    In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google's search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US.

    https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html

    Ironically, Sputnick News IS, I believe, a Russian supported site, but just on a hunch and noticing search autocompletion suggestion disparities myself, I had INDEPENDENTLY confirmed what Epstein proved a month before the topic hit the on-line news.

    I even emailed a few web sites about it, but they didn't run with it AS THEY SHOULD HAVE as they would have scooped Sputnick News. It was easy to prove, BTW. Google Trends data which is what is normally used to create autocomplete suggestions on Google did not match the suggestions made, but the search autocomplete suggestions on every other search engine DID.

    YouTube and Facebook censorship against political conservative video bloggers (Google owns YouTube)

    https://youtu.be/B6PtMcMsqVg?t=50m32s

    Wikileaks Reveals Google's "Strategic Plan" To Help Democrats Win The Election, Track Voters

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/wikileaks-reveals-googles-strategic-plan-help-democrats-win-election

    Zerohedge was listed as a "fake news" site but, as I'm sure many here know, they do great, hard hitting economic analysis and have had their projections and theories confirmed many times with a far better track record than the mainstream sites covering the same subject.

    James Miller December 5, 2016 at 5:21 am

    My heartfelt support (and contribution) will be with you as you take on one of the most egregiously insulting to its' readers and rot-riddled collection of hacks and mouthpieces. Now a propaganda outlet but once at least a flaky effort at journalism, today,s Washington Post has earned an encounter of the costly kind with a good lawyer or two, many times over.

    .Illegitemi non carborundum! (Don't let the bastards wear you down!).

    Jim Haygood December 5, 2016 at 8:45 am

    We should start calling it the Whoppo for its absurd fake news. Truth be told, I only ever go there for the "graphic news":

    http://comics.washingtonpost.com/featurepages/11_comics_andy-capp.html

    polecat December 5, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    I prefer the Traitor's Post

    Kokuanani December 5, 2016 at 6:54 am

    As I noted here this weekend, I have cancelled my subscription to the WaPo and will be sending a check to NC in the amount of what I would have paid for it.

    I am embarrassed that it took me so long to do so, but having been a subscriber since 1979 [except for when I lived elsewhere], the Post was rather a habit.

    I specifically mentioned the Timberg story as the reason for my cancellation, and hope this information will work its way up the Post food chain.

    Also, Amazon is as dead to me as Walmart. I refuse to buy from either of them.

    Arizona Slim December 5, 2016 at 8:50 am

    Keep the money in your economy. Shop at local businesses.

    Tom Stone December 5, 2016 at 7:29 am

    The "Fake News" story was vetted by editors at the WaPo before it was published. That they published an article that no reputable High School paper would have touched with a 10 foot pole speaks volumes. Hubris?.

    Did they think that because it was published by the WaPo that no one would question it?

    It was certainly a bold thing to do ( And stupid) unless the person or persons who decided to publish this trash thought they had the kind of powerful backing that would protect them from the consequences.

    I expect the WaPo to try to weasel their way out of this embarassment and urge you not to back down or compromise on your demands, if they don't get their noses rubbed in it they will crap on you again.

    When the National Enquirer has become more respectable than the WaPo ( And it is!) we are living in strange times indeed.

    Reify99 December 5, 2016 at 8:40 am

    Yep. The Wapo story is right up there with the grocery aisle headline,
    "Metal Eating Cockroaches Destroy Car"!

    Reify99 December 5, 2016 at 8:58 am

    If this effort begins to build a stronger alliance between truth telling internet sites -- thus promoting change from the ground up -- perhaps it will lead to quicker consequences for Wapo and others who pull this kind of stunt. If it becomes obvious that, not only will your bogus story increase the traffic to these sites at the very time they are pointing out what an idiot you are, but you also reliably get sued, maybe it won't be as much fun anymore.

    Inode_buddha December 5, 2016 at 10:05 am

    I only read the National Enquirer for the articles. {/rimshot}

    OldLion December 5, 2016 at 7:29 am

    I'm not sure the guys behind all this mind losing the discussion in the end. As often, even if the smeared news sites, including NC, win the debate, they'll still lose the communication war.

    The original revelation is buzzing around, and everybody loves it. If there is a rebuttal, it will be a boring article nobody will comment. What people will remember is : "the russians helped Trump win, and some fake news site like NC were their mouthpieces. I distinctly remember the articles, even if the MSM now tries to hide the truth"

    Not sure how to fight that, except with an even better message like : "There is a conspiracy by the WP to smear independent reporting."

    Sadly, I'm not sure it is possible to do that in all honestly. My opinion is that stupidity and ignorance are at work here (and everywhere), not some well organised effort. And the thoughtful voice is just boring.

    hemeantwell December 5, 2016 at 9:56 am

    I'm not so sure. This scandal might be something of a test of your argument, which predicts that, similar to the horrible fate of Gary Webb, the named sites will forever have a residue of doubt to deal with. Webb's story went the way it did because it was semiforgotten, drifting off into the collective preconscious, vaguely malodorous. Surely that can be avoided here. Opportunities for reminding readers of the farce and the revealed intentions of its promoters are abundant. One thing to consider might be to put the WaPo under steady critical scrutiny. For example, as above, the WaPo Whopper of the week.

    The background to all this, the attempt by the Clintonites to draw on Cold War stink reserves (a National Ideological Reserve, sorta like the National Petroleum Reserve) and, if not its complete failure, than its failure to be decisively effective, makes me think we are witnessing signs of a decisive weakening in elite communication control. PropOrNot advances the process.

    Katharine December 5, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Keep needling outlets that picked up the Post story and demanding a prominent apology for irresponsible reporting. Send them the FAIR link, send them this one. Ask why they haven't reaffirmed their commitment (sic) to basic journalistic principles . Be a damn nuisance. (I've often thought what a pity it is that "public nuisance" has a prior signification.)

    AnonymousCounsel December 5, 2016 at 9:07 am

    I'm relieved to know that James Moody will be representing Naked Capitalism in its authentic quest to right an egregious (and either reckless or intentional, in my opinion) wrong committed by a major newspaper of record that purports to represent the Fourth Estate.

    Mr. Moody is technically competent, deeply experienced and highly ethical.

    It's critical that the establishment-driven & coordinated assault on many credible alternative media outlets be halted if free speech and free criticism (which mainstream media sources have not only failed in protecting, but have willingly attempted to suppress views contrary to establishment-approved concepts) is to survive in the United States and elsewhere.

    There is a coordinated attempt by long-standing establishment media sources and government to discredit and de-legitimize very authentic, well-intentioned and thought-provoking non-mainstream media sources, which, if successful, would amount to nothing less than basic censorship and a wholesale de-democratization of news reporting and editorializing.

    That the Washington Post allowed for and even assisted a highly questionable and anonymous source to cast a wide net of aspersions over so many clearly legitimate alternative media sources (such as Naked Capitalism) is nothing short of shameful McCarthy-era attempts to stifle free political expression of substance, and must be challengers if there's any hope in preserving the very system of a free exchange of ideas and speech.

    Romancing The Loan December 5, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    They've come a long way from Watergate. Would really like to see discovery on how Propornot came to the WaPo's attention.

    craazyboy December 5, 2016 at 9:21 am

    I can't believe the unfairness of this allegation made by this propaganda watchdog website. I mean, if I were a Hillary supporter, I would be in tears over this. But as a Bernie supporter, I have learned to get over my butthurt.

    "You identified and thus denigrated Naked Capitalism, one of the sites targeted in the "study" as one of the "right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia."

    "shadowy cabal of global financiers" ???? We always use the stock symbols GS and JPM here. WTF is shadowy about that?????????????? You can look the symbols up in Bloomberg!

    Well, I guess maybe some fake news got posted here in the comments section, but I distinctly recall discussing real news, like when Hillary compared Putin to Hitler, or the Cookie Monster thing in Kiev. Or NATO scattering nukes around Eastern Europe. Or Soros and the CIA funding a long term propaganda war in Eastern Europe. Even Fox News would call that fair and balanced fake news. But at any rate, Russia shouldn't view any of this as hostile. That would just be childish.

    Jim Haygood December 5, 2016 at 9:23 am

    Confirming the impression that the Z site monitors NC closely for useful content, Tyler Durden now has a post up titled "Fake News" Site Threatens Washington Post With Defamation Suit, Demands Retraction .

    The post includes the Scribd document of Moody's letter.

    Since the Z site reportedly generates a six-figure annual profit, you'd think this deep-pocketed site would join the suit (should litigation regrettably become necessary). Whaddya say, Tyler(s)?

    frosty zoom December 5, 2016 at 9:45 am

    "moodyjim"*

    yeah!

    *@aol.com?!? ms. yves, may i suggest carrier pigeons?

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 10:25 am

    He's actually quite technically expert (as in he can take apart and analyze software) which is why I don't get the aol.com either. Although he may have been an early aol.com user, and I am told it is a nuisance to extract your contacts from aol.com, and he may have decided it was not worth the fuss.

    Jim Haygood December 5, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Now the post is "gray boxed" (pinned) on the Z site, making it one of two lead articles that apparently are expected to generate a high level of interest and comments.

    Which will send traffic this way. Welcome ZHers.

    MDBill December 5, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    It's not monetary support, however, the story now ends thus,

    We fully endorse Yves Smith's efforts.

    Additionally, we note that the only reason we haven't followed up with a similar action is because i) the allegations were beyond laughable – we have rejected all of them on the record, and ii) there are simply too much other events taking place in what should otherwise be a quiet end to the year taking place to focus on what may be a lenghty, if gratifying, legal process.

    Sluggeaux December 5, 2016 at 9:28 am

    Pass the popcorn! Mr. Moody is a terrific lawyer. I just hope that if Aurora Advisors winds up owning ScAmazon, the workers and suppliers start getting treated decently!

    craazyboy December 5, 2016 at 9:37 am

    It would really be cool if Mr. Moody was doing this "pro bono" – as in give 'em a royal hosing just for the fun of it.

    Jim December 5, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Good for you Yves. Just the dying gasps of an outdated system (MSM news). Anyone with half a brain knows alt news is the place to go these days.

    tiger December 5, 2016 at 10:33 am

    You're too nice to WaPo Yves, maybe this was incompetence but Bezos and WaPo are terrible and they did too many hit pieces on Trump which included false information, so this is not a coincidence. They are the fake news, and that's terrifying. Good luck and may you destroy them.

    RUKidding December 5, 2016 at 11:10 am

    Good luck. I agree with your demands and hope that they are satisfied.

    I gave up a long time ago on either the tv or mainstream print media as a source of credible or factual news. There are some print publications out there that do a rather decent job at reporting the news more accurately, but the ones I know of are mostly smaller local newspapers with very limited budgets.

    All the Bigs are propaganda pure and simple. I gave up reading the NYT and the WaPoo a long long time ago. It would embarress a parrot to have either on the bottom of their cage to catch their sh*t.

    dcblogger December 5, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    RJ Eskow video The Rise of MSNBC McCarthyism

    John Medcalf December 5, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    Where's Bezos? I'm still speculating this is Bezos' answer to Trump's birthing. Annoy the press like hell. Let them whine and sue. Then save the country.

    susan the other December 5, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    Addressing the Whappo's "incompetence" is genius bec. it cannot shake the label. It will stick with them now, whereas if you had gone for the throat with an accusation of malice the Whappo could have escaped all that disgust and resentment because to prove malice you have to prove intent. Like fraud. It's hard to do.

    Be Prepared December 5, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    It has been a difficult to watch these past 8 years under the continued conversion of whatever was left of MSM being turned to merely a propaganda arm for the Executive branch. It is absolutely hilarious that they had the audacity to write the article in the first place since MSM is the only "real" fake news outlet. I do believe it will be a difficult road to achieve a full retraction or even an acknowledgement because they will hide behind the concepts of editorial content. Nothing they write is vetted or researched because they merely conjure articles to fit their preconceptions. If nothing else, pushing back is still the right thing to do . just remember to not let it consume you to the detriment of your continued good work on this site.

    Isolato December 5, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    Just threw some money in the tip jar. Rip their lungs out.

    Kurt Sperry December 5, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Does the threat of civil litigation even matter to an organization with Bezos' endless resources to draw on? They would probably love the idea of a war of monetary attrition–they can't lose that game. It seems to me the weak link might be the creators of the website itself. Unlike a hardened target like the WaPo, they are unlikely to have such bottomless resources. The first step may be to use investigation or litigation to strip away the anonymity of the publishers of the site, probably by going after the hosting company, then to attack them directly. And if it turns out that filing website whois papers via a proxy privacy service is 100% surefire, ironclad protection from any legal accountability, then there really is no longer anything like accountability for web publishing. If that is the case then there is nothing stopping you from retaliating in kind, creating an anonymous website accusing Bezos of being a child pornographer or whatever and imploring that he and his lawyers negotiate with you to have the accusations retracted at your pleasure. Either filing whois papers for a domain using a privacy proxy is an unbreakable defense against litigation, or it isn't.

    Jess December 5, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Immediately linked to this post on my FB page. Hope it helps.

    Jess December 5, 2016 at 4:58 pm

    A friend then shared my link on the FB section for former FDL commenters.

    Doly Garcia December 5, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    My experience with journalists (as an organiser of non-profit activities) has convinced me that nowadays they do little to no fact-checking. In one particular case I know of, mainstream UK media including the Independent and the BBC publicized a man that, if they had simply bothered doing a Google search on his name, they'd immediately realize he had zero credibility on the field he was claiming expertise on.

    This should hardly be a surprise to anyone who has followed the story of climate change, with dozens of so-called "climate change" experts being allowed to write opinion pieces on mainstream media, in spite of having no credentials, and sometimes having long credentials of having lobbied for every dubious cause known to mankind, from the health safety of tobacco to the lack of issues with pesticides.

    The real issue is that it's getting damned near impossible for anyone to find out the truth about any controversial issue without spending a long time researching the subject. And most people don't have the time for this, and don't even know that they should regard the news on any controversial issue, from any source, with great suspicion.

    Brad December 5, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    If one is serious about pursuit of a retraction and apology from Wapo, support for NC's cautious approach is in order. It will not help the case being advanced to overstate with inferences about WaPo's motives. Sticking to the already known objective facts will be enough to produce the desired result, public discredit of WaPo by its own hand.

    That's said with full sympathy for the feelings on WaPo, a publication that now ranks with W. R. Hearst's in sheer depths of vileness. And that in general is rightfully laid at the door of its libertardian owner Jeff Bezos, a man whose enterprises mark all that is most evil about US capitalism today. But none of this belongs in the retraction / apology effort. As I see it, the effort is designed to produce a specific effect from specific cause. That effort is best supported by not second-guessing it at this point and over-loading it with meanings that can't be demonstrated within the context of the effort. Let's give it a chance to run and review / critique the result afterward.

    Finally and for the record, this is said as someone with no sympathy for the Putin regime, one that no leftist should have any truck with, "conscious or unconscious", especially from an "anti-imperialist" POV. The Putin regime is right wing, capitalist, neo-nationalist, revanchist, and neo-imperialist (and not at all "wannabe"). It supports with armed force a regime in Damascus that has destroyed "its own country" to save itself. It IS a regime ideologically congruent with Donald Trump's tendencies. IOW Putin's Russia is a lot like the United States in political coloration right now.

    Nevertheless, residents of the USA must first and foremost act against repression conducted by their own government and its political agents such as WaPo. We can agree to disagree on Putin while showing solidarity against domestic repression, especially of this poisonous neo-McCarthyite type. That is only common sense. Our main opponent is always at home.

    stockbrokher December 5, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    This, 100%.

    Claudia December 5, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    After more than a few decades of educational decline and loss of expertise, we have arrived at the Age of Incompetence. That the WaPo would hire such nitwits is all the proof one needs.

    Fiery Hunt December 5, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Crapification is the Way!

    Thanks, WaPoo!

    DarkMatters December 5, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    The most reasonable hypothesis I can see is that the PropOrNot effort is a response by the MSM to reassert information control, having lost it so spectacularly during the election. The alternative media's counterstory has proven to be more faithful to reality than the picture presented by elite journalists. Elite journalists themselves have been compromised by the Wikileaks revelations. The MSM's reputation is in tatters and SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, at least until enough time has gone by for the public to forget how truly dismally deceptive was their coverage.

    A consistently suspicious pattern of MSM behavior is their incuriousness, and in the present situation, one of the many of the herd of interrogatory elephants in the room is, why isn't the MSM investigating the people who make up PropOrNot? (Or asking any of the questions NS has posed). Would that not be newsworthy?

    Keith Warren December 5, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    I agree with this assessment wholeheartedly. I am afraid that the strategy of the dem establishment and their elite media allies over the next 4 years will be to regain narrative control via censorship, rather than make any attempts at governing like small-d democrats.

    Kim Kaufman December 5, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    The red baiting is popping out from all sides. Last week Amy Goodman interviewed Bernie – the first (she basically ignored him through the primary). She started off with "you were considered a fringe candidate " and he politely reminded her he has been in congress for 25 years. Then she said that he had been red-baited during the primary by Clinton over Castro and the Sandinistas and "could he speak some about Castro and Latin America?" And at every opportunity she reminded the audience he was an independent, not a Democrat, "a socialist."

    I have been told that Sarah Palin blew her chance to be Sec. of Interior, or VA, or whatever it was because she criticized Trump for "crony capitalism" over the Carrier deal.

    I'm totally confused about who our friends are these days.

    Greg Taylor December 5, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    How has "Beall's List" of so-called "predatory" open-access academic research publishers escaped a similar lawsuit? Some of these publishers were shut down as a direct result of being named so the list has undeniably done damage since being published in 2013. There seem to be strong parallels between "Fake News" and "Fake Science" censorship efforts.

    Kim Kaufman December 5, 2016 at 2:39 pm

    I might have called the spoof site: "PoopOrNot." :)

    Daniel December 5, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    I am surprised your attorney has not gone after PropOrNot. I most surely would have

    craazyman December 5, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    It's not unreasonable the Washington Post would confuse Naked Capitalism with a Porn site. But not a Russian porn site, that's just not credible since Naked Capitalism is English.

    They should just admit it they made up fake news. They probably never read anything on the site - or even looked at the pictures of naked animals. Naked pussys. Lots of those. With garish flash photography. It's enough to embarrass anybody with refined aesthetic sensibilities.

    But it isn't Porn and it's not Russian. I've never seen a Russian pussy here. Usually they're American or maybe from England. Sometimes they're even guys. That's kind of confusing, but a cat is a cat to most people. I'm not a veterinarian anyway.

    Fake news is the scourge of the internet. Fake news has been around a long time, as long as there were newspapers in fact. It started in the 1700s and it kept going. Before that it was fake but it was only passed by word of mouth.

    Now there's fake pictures. Fake news with fake pictures can sometimes be art - but only if you see it in the movies, where some drug addled lunatic pretends they're somebody else, then they go into rehab after the movie is made and sometimes before. News should be real, in theory, but in reality it isn't. Somebody makes it up but you don't always know who. That's why jourmalism is so important, because you want the person making it up to be accurate! You don't want them making up Porn and publishing that. Why pay for that? People make that up themselves evidently and don't even need a newspaper.

    So if they fell for the fake Porn angle here - thinking that Naked meant Porn, and from Russia of all places! - that must mean they're either making it up or they don't know what real news is from anywhere. Since it could be from other places besides Russia. If they went to a museum they'd see naked things but not Porn. There's a museum of things but it's not news or porn, it's just whatever. I'm just being honest. It doesn't have to be confusing, even for somebody who writes and takes pictures.

    templar555510 December 5, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    The tendency towards consensus has been apparent in the mainstream media for forty plus years , long before the internet came along and upset things. What has caused mass hysteria in those circles is the sound of these other uncontrolled and uncontrollable voices . Years ago the only comment section of a national newspaper was ' Letters to the Editor ' which the editor had the veto over, never mind editorial responsibility for, and he / she took their job seriously ( in my first hand experience ) . Those days are long gone . Imagine you are a young, or even a seasoned journalist on one of these papers and you think you have the ear of the editor , the temptation to bring forth a story ( ' scoop ' in old – fashioned newspaper speak ) that gives umpteen internet sites a good kicking must be hard to resist. Trouble is the story was trashed before it hit the ground . And so another nail goes in the coffin of the mainstream press .

    SpongeBobSaget December 5, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    The Daily Caller story about this has a survey asking readers if Naked Capitalism is a fake news site or not.

    On my browser it's not possible to check "No: I Never Found A Fake News Story On That Site" Only Yes it's fake can be selected.

    Vichy Chicago December 5, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    Here's a great example of the BBC conducting an unvetted interview.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw4utg42yCI

    /sarc

    [Dec 05, 2016] The Democratic Party Presidential Platform of 1996 – On Immigration

    Blast from the past. Bill Clinton position on illegal immegtation.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. ..."
    "... President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported. ..."
    "... However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime. ..."
    Nov 30, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    What follows is from Today's Democratic Party: Meeting America's Challenges, Protecting America's Values , a.k.a., the 1996 Democratic Party Platform. This is the section on immigration. I took the liberty of bolding pieces I found interesting.

    Democrats remember that we are a nation of immigrants. We recognize the extraordinary contribution of immigrants to America throughout our history. We welcome legal immigrants to America. We support a legal immigration policy that is pro-family, pro-work, pro-responsibility, and pro-citizenship , and we deplore those who blame immigrants for economic and social problems.

    We know that citizenship is the cornerstone of full participation in American life. We are proud that the President launched Citizenship USA to help eligible immigrants become United States citizens. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is streamlining procedures, cutting red tape, and using new technology to make it easier for legal immigrants to accept the responsibilities of citizenship and truly call America their home.

    Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.

    President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.

    However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime.

    Democrats want to protect American jobs by increasing criminal and civil sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers , but Republicans continue to favor inflammatory rhetoric over real action. We will continue to enforce labor standards to protect workers in vulnerable industries. We continue to firmly oppose welfare benefits for illegal immigrants. We believe family members who sponsor immigrants into this country should take financial responsibility for them, and be held legally responsible for supporting them.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Stiglitz Blasts Outrageous TPP as Obama Campaigns for Corporate-Friendly Deal Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the

    Notable quotes:
    "... Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade." ..."
    "... The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it , but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and " vehement advocate for the TPP "-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team. ..."
    "... Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said , "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country." ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.commondreams.org
    Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has reiterated his opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), saying on Tuesday that President Barack Obama's push to get the trade deal passed during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress is "outrageous" and "absolutely wrong."

    Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute, made the comments on CNN's "Quest Means Business."

    His criticism comes as Obama aggressively campaigns to get lawmakers to pass the TPP in the Nov. 9 to Jan. 3 window-even as resistance mounts against the 12-nation deal.

    Echoing an argument made by Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot, Stiglitz said, "At the lame-duck session you have congressmen voting who know that they're not accountable anymore."

    Lawmakers "who are not politically accountable because they're leaving may, in response to promises of jobs or just subtle understandings, do things that are not in the national interest," he said.

    Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade."

    "The advocates of trade said it was going to benefit everyone," he added. "The evidence is it's benefited a few and left a lot behind."

    Stiglitz has previously spoken out against the TPP before, arguing that it "may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades;" that it would mean "if you pass a regulation that restricts ability to pollute or does something about climate change, you could be sued and could pay billions of dollars;" and previously said that the president's TPP push "is one of Obama's biggest mistakes."

    Stiglitz has also been advising the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it, but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and "vehement advocate for the TPP"-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team.

    Opposition to the TPP also appeared Tuesday in Michigan and Florida, where union members and lawmakers criticized what they foresee as the deal's impacts on working families.

    Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said, "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country."

    [Dec 05, 2016] Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Tulsi Gabbard - Fighting for the people.

    Aug 01, 2016 | www.votetulsi.com

    We cannot allow this agreement to forsake the American middle class, while foreign governments are allowed to devalue their currency and artificially prop-up their industries.

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is a bad deal for the American people. This historically massive trade deal -- accounting for 40 percent of global trade -- would reduce restrictions on foreign corporations operating within the U.S., limit our ability to protect our environment, and create more incentives for U.S. businesses to outsource investments and jobs overseas to countries with lower labor costs and standards.

    Over and over we hear from TPP proponents how the TPP will boost our economy, help American workers, and set the standards for global trade. The International Trade Commission report released last May (https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf) confirms that the opposite is true. In exchange for just 0.15 percent boost in GDP by 2032, the TPP would decimate American manufacturing capacity, increase our trade deficit, ship American jobs overseas, and result in losses to 16 of the 25 U.S. economic sectors. These estimates don't even account for the damaging effects of currency manipulation, environmental impacts, and the agreement's deeply flawed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process.

    There's no reason to believe the provisions of this deal relating to labor standards, preserving American jobs, or protecting our environment, will be enforceable. Every trade agreement negotiated in the past claimed to have strong enforceable provisions to protect American jobs -- yet no such enforcement has occurred, and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has called TPP "NAFTA on steroids." The loss of U.S. jobs under the TPP would likely be unprecedented.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fC0qppnK_U

    Watch: Tulsi restates the need for transparency in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the House floor.

    [Dec 05, 2016] No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3." ..."
    "... To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer). ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Joe Hunter , August 31, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    " http://www.defenddemocracy.press/whole-game-containing-russisa-china/

    A response to Hillary Clinton's America Exceptionalist Speech:

    1. America Exceptionalist vs. the World..
    2. Brezinski is extremely dejected.
    3. Russia-China on the march.
    4. "There will be blood. Hillary Clinton smells it already ."

    clarky90 , August 31, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3."

    http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20160829/1044733257/russia-china-game-brics.html

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer).

    [Dec 05, 2016] In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have trotted out a new argument: we have come too far , our national credibility would be damaged if we stop now.

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    L , August 26, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    Regarding the push to pass the TPP and TISA I've been needing to get this off my chest and this seems to be as good a time as any:

    In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have trotted out a new argument: "we have come too far", "our national credibility would be damaged if we stop now." The premise of which is that negotiations have been going on so long, and have involved such effort that if the U.S. were to back away now we would look bad and would lose significant political capital.

    On one level this argument is true. The negotiations have been long, and many promises were made by the negotiators to secure to to this point. Stepping back now would expose those promises as false and would make that decade of effort a loss. It would also expose the politicians who pushed for it in the face of public oppoosition to further loss of status and to further opposition.

    However, all of that is voided by one simple fact. The negotiations were secret. All of that effort, all of the horse trading and the promise making was done by a self-selected body of elites, for that same body, and was hidden behind a wall of secrecy stronger than that afforded to new weapons. The deals were hidden not just from the general public, not from trade unions or environmental groups, but from the U.S. Congress itself.

    Therefore it has no public legitimacy. The promises made are not "our" promises but Michael Froman's promises. They are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government but only by the words of a small body of appointees and the multinational corporations that they serve. The corporations were invited to the table, Congress was not.

    What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make good.

    When that minor loss is laid against the far greater fact that the terms of these deals are bad, that prior deals of this type have harmed our real economies, and that the rules will further erode our national sovreignity, there is no contest.

    Michael Froman's reputation has no value. Our sovreignity, our economy, our nation, does.

    flora , August 26, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    +1

    grizziz , August 26, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    Thank you for your comment. +1

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    "We've gone too far."

    Whaddaya mean, "we"?

    ambrit , August 26, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    The imperial "We."
    I just had a soul corroding vision of H Clinton done up as Victoria Regina. Ouch!!! Go get the butter!

    Jim Haygood , August 26, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    In modern parlance, she's Victoria Rejayjay. :-0

    JohnnyGL , August 26, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Good comment .

    "What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make good."

    Yes! And the victory will taste so sweet when we bury this filthy, rotten, piece of garbage. Obama's years of effort down the drain, his legacy tarnished and unfinished.

    I want TPP's defeat to send a clear message that the elites can't count on their politicians to deliver for them. Let's make this thing their Stalingrad! Leave deep scars so that they give up on TISA and stop trying to concoct these absurd schemes like ISDS.

    abynormal , August 26, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    sorry but i don't see it that way at all. 'they' got a propaganda machine to beat all 'they' make n break reps all the time. i do see a desperation on a monetary/profit scale. widening the 'playing field' offers more profits with less risk. for instance, our Pharams won't have to slash their prices at the risk of sunshine laws, wish-washy politicians, competition, nor a pissed off public. jmo tho')

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 26, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    LOL "America's credibility" LOL, these people need to get out more. In the 60's you could hike high up into the Andes and the sheep herder had two pics on the wall of his hut: Jesus and JFK. America retains its cachet as a place to make money and be entertained, but as some kind of beacon of morality and fair play in the world? Dead, buried, and long gone, the hype-fest of slogans and taglines can only cover up so many massive, atrocious and hypocritical actions and serial offenses.

    Synoia , August 26, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    his legacy tarnished and unfinished.

    And his post-presidential money small .

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    Clinton Inc was mostly Bill helping Epstein get laid until after Kerry lost. If this was the reelection of John Edwards, Kerry's running mate, and a referendum on 12 years of Kerronomics, Bill and Hill would be opening night speakers at the DNC and answers to trivia questions.

    My guess is Obama is dropped swiftly and unceremoniously especially since he doesn't have much of a presence in Washington.

    John Wright , August 26, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    The must preserve American credibility argument on the line again.

    Here is a quote from NYT's Nicholas Kristoff from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/opinion/kristof-reinforce-a-norm-in-syria.html

    "It looks as if we'll be firing Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria in the coming days, and critics are raising legitimate concerns:"

    "Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious behavior like genocide or the use of chemical weapons. Since President Obama established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his credibility has been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."

    Obama did back down.

    NIcholas Kristof, vigilant protector of American credibility through bombing Syria.

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    he's just another syncophantic punk .in a long line of syncophantic punks

    ..oh..that includes Kristof too

    RabidGandhi , August 26, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    Ah yes the credibility of our élites. With their sterling record on Nafta's benefits, Iraq's liberation, Greece's rebound, the IMF's rehabilitation of countries

    We must pass TPP or Tom Friedman will lose credibility, what?

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    yeah but will he have to shave off his 'stache' ??

    Propertius , August 26, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    Well said!

    HopeLB , August 26, 2016 at 8:36 pm

    Wonderful (and credible) assessment.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Framing Votes for TPP as the Surrender of National Sovereignty (i.e., Treason) naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. ..."
    "... Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ..."
    "... I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Why the Proponents of TPP Are Traitors

    There are two reasons: First, they consciously seek to weaken the national defense. And second, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system is a surrender of national sovereignty .

    National Defense

    This might be labeled the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since we're informed that Paul Singer and Augustus Cole's techno-thriller has really caught the attention of the national security class below the political appointee level, and that this is a death blow for neoliberalism. Why? "The multi-billion dollar, next generation F-35 aircraft, for instance, is rendered powerless after it is revealed that Chinese microprocessor manufacturers had implanted malicious code into products intended for the jet" ( Foreign Policy ). Clearly, we need, well, industrial policy, and we need to bring a lot of manufacturing home. From Brigadier General (Retired) John Adams :

    In 2013, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board put forward a remarkable report describing one of the most significant but little-recognized threats to US security: deindustrialization. The report argued that the loss of domestic U.S. manufacturing facilities has not only reduced U.S. living standards but also compromised U.S. technology leadership "by enabling new players to learn a technology and then gain the capability to improve on it." The report explained that the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing presents a particularly dangerous threat to U.S. military readiness through the "compromise of the supply chain for key weapons systems components."

    Our military is now shockingly vulnerable to major disruptions in the supply chain, including from substandard manufacturing practices, natural disasters, and price gouging by foreign nations. Poor manufacturing practices in offshore factories lead to problem-plagued products, and foreign producers-acting on the basis of their own military or economic interests-can sharply raise prices or reduce or stop sales to the United States.

    The link between TPP and this kind of offshoring has been well-established.

    And, one might say, the link between neo-liberal economic policy "and this kind of offshoring has been well-established" as well.

    So, when I framed the issue as one where pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. Note that re-industrializing America has positive appeal, too: For the right, on national security grounds; and for the left, on labor's behalf (and maybe helping out the Rust Belt that neoliberal policies of the last forty years did so much to destroy. Of course, this framing would make Clinton a traitor, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. (Probably best to to let the right, in its refreshingly direct fashion, use the actual "traitor" word, and the left, shocked, call for the restoration of civility, using verbiage like "No, I wouldn't say she's a traitor. She's certainly 'extremely careless' with our nation's security.")

    ISDS

    The Investor-State Dispute Settlement system is a hot mess (unless you represent a corporation, or are one of tiny fraternity of international corporate lawyers who can plead and/or judge ISDS cases). Yves wrote :

    What may have torched the latest Administration salvo is a well-timed joint publication by Wikileaks and the New York Times of a recent version of the so-called investment chapter. That section sets forth one of the worst features of the agreement, the investor-state dispute settlement process (ISDS). As we've described at length in earlier posts, the ISDS mechanism strengthens the existing ISDS process. It allows for secret arbitration panels to effectively overrule national regulations by allowing foreign investors to sue governments over lost potential future profits in secret arbitration panels. Those panels have been proved to be conflict-ridden and arbitrary. And the grounds for appeal are limited and technical.

    (More from NC on the ISDS panels , the TPP clauses on ISDS , the "code of conduct" for lawyers before the ISDS, pending ISDS settlements , and the potential constitutional challenges to the ISDS system.)

    Here again we have a frame that appeals to both right and left. The very thought of surrendering national sovereignty to an international organization makes any good conservative's back teeth itch. And the left sees the "lost profits" doctrine as a club to prevent future government programs they would like to put in place (single payer, for example). And in both cases, the neoliberal doctrine of putting markets before anything else makes pro-TPP-ers traitors. To the right, because nationalism trumps internationalism; to the left, because TPP prevents the State from looiking after the welfare of its people.

    The Political State of Play

    All I know is what I read in the papers, so what follows can only be speculation. That said, there are two ways TPP could be passed: In the lame duck session, by Obama, or after a new President is inaugurated, by Clinton (or possibly by Trump[1]).

    Passing TPP in the Lame Duck Session

    Obama is committed to passing TPP (and we might remember that the adminstration failed to pass the draft in Maui , then succeeded in Atlanta . And the House killed Fast Track once , before voting for it (after which the Senate easily passed it, and Obama signed it). So the TPP may be a "heavy lift," but that doesn't mean Obama can't accomplish it. Obama says :

    [OBAMA:] And hopefully, after the election is over and the dust settles, there will be more attention to the actual facts behind the deal and it won't just be a political symbol or a political football. And I will actually sit down with people on both sides, on the right and on the left. I'll sit down publicly with them and we'll go through the whole provisions. I would enjoy that, because there's a lot of misinformation.

    I'm really confident I can make the case this is good for American workers and the American people. And people said we weren't going to be able to get the trade authority to even present this before Congress, and somehow we muddled through and got it done. And I intend to do the same with respect to the actual agreement.

    So how would Obama "muddle through"? One way is to appeal to legislators who won't have to face voters again :

    So it is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the last three elections was about 80.

    Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org, we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists. (An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).

    So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.

    (The article doesn't talk about the Senate, but Fast Track passed the Senate with a filibuster-proof super-majority, so the battle is in the House anyhow. And although the text of TPP cannot be amended - that's what fast track means! - there are still ways to affect the interpretation and enforcement of the text, so Obama and his corporate allies have bargaining chips beyond Beltway sinecures.[2])

    Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ( Remember , "[T]he preferences of economic elites have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.") However, if the anti-TPP-ers raise the rhetorical stakes from policy disagreement to treason, maybe a few of those 80 representatives will do the right thing (or, if you prefer, decide that the reputational damage to their future career makes a pro-TPP vote not worth it. Who wants to play golf with a traitor?)

    Passing TPP after the Inaugural

    After the coronation inaugural, Clinton will have to use more complicated tactics than dangling goodies before the snouts of representatives leaving for K Street. (We've seen that Clinton's putative opposition to TPP is based on lawyerly parsing; and her base supports it. So I assume a Clinton administration would go full speed ahead with it.) My own thought has been that she'd set up a "conversation" on trade, and then buy off the national unions with "jobs for the boys," so that they sell their locals down the river. Conservative Jennifer Rubin has a better proposal , which meets Clinton's supposed criterion of not hurting workers even better:

    Depending on the election results and how many pro-free-trade Republicans lose, it still might not be sufficient. Here's a further suggestion: Couple it with a substantial infrastructure project that Clinton wants, but with substantial safeguards to make sure that the money is wisely spent. Clinton gets a big jobs bill - popular with both sides - and a revised TPP gets through.

    Finally, an even more radical proposal, again from a conservative source :

    What Clinton needs is a significant revision to TPP that she can tout as a real reform to trade agreements, one that satisfies some of the TPP's critics on the left. A minor tweak is unlikely to assuage anyone; this change needs to be a major one. Fortunately, there is a TPP provision that fits the bill perfectly: investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), the procedure that allows foreign investors to sue governments in an international tribunal. Removing ISDS could triangulate the TPP debate, allowing for enough support to get it through Congress.

    Obama can't have a conversation on trade, or propose a jobs program, let alone jettison ISDS; all he's got going for him is corruption.[3] So, interestingly, although Clinton can't take the simple road of bribing the 80 represenatives, she does have more to bargain with on policy. Rubin's jobs bill could at least be framed as a riposte to the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since both are about "jawbs," even if infrastructure programs and reindustrialization aren't identical in intent. And while I don't think Clinton would allow ISDS to be removed ( her corporate donors love it ), at least somebody's thinking about how to pander to the left. Nevertheless, what does a jobs program matter if the new jobs leave the country anyhow? And suppose ISDS is removed, but the removal of the precautionary principle remains? We'd still get corporate-friendly decisions, bilaterally. And people would end up balancing the inevitable Clinton complexity and mush against the simplicity of the message that a vote for TPP is a vote against the United States.

    Conclusion

    I hope I've persuaded you that TPP is still very much alive, and that both Obama in the lame duck, and Clinton (or even Trump) when inaugurated have reasonable hopes of passing it. However, I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results (especially when the result comes from a letter to your Congress critter). Interestingly, Buzzfeed just published tonight the first in a four-part series, devoted to the idea that ISDS is what we have said it is all along: A surrender of national sovereignty. Here's a great slab of it :

    Imagine a private, global super court that empowers corporations to bend countries to their will.

    Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution. Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.

    Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful way to appeal. That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions secret. That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court's authority because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves as "The Club" or "The Mafia."

    And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing - and its decisions so unpredictable - that some nations dare not risk a trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions, such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments of convicted criminals.

    This system is already in place, operating behind closed doors in office buildings and conference rooms in cities around the world. Known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties that govern international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to ratify.

    That's the stuff to give the troops!

    NOTE

    [1] Trump: "I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers." Lotta wiggle room there, and the lawyerly parsing is just like Clinton's. I don't think it's useful to discuss what Trump might do on TPP, because until there are other parties to the deal, there's no deal to be had. Right now, we're just looking at Trump doing A-B testing - not that there's anything wrong with that - which the press confuses with policy proposals. So I'm not considering Trump because I don't think we have any data to go on.

    [2] In-Depth News explains the mechanisms:

    To pacify [those to whom he will corrupt appeal], Obama will have to convince them that what they want will anyway be achieved, even if these are not legally part of the TPP because the TPP text cannot be amended.

    He can try to achieve this through bilateral side agreements on specific issues. Or he can insist that some countries take on extra obligations beyond what is required by the TPP as a condition for obtaining a U.S. certification that they have fulfilled their TPP obligations.

    This certification is required for the U.S. to provide the TPP's benefits to its partners, and the U.S. has previously made use of this process to get countries to take on additional obligations, which can then be shown to Congress members that their objectives have been met.

    In other words, side deals.

    [3] This should not be taken to imply that Clinton does not have corruption going for her, too. She can also make all the side deals Obama can.

    [Dec 05, 2016] US Faces Major Setback As Europeans Revolt Against TTIP

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states. ..."
    "... These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. ..."
    "... "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks that have lasted three years not a single common item out of the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on. The United States has refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of "buy American".

    The opponents of the deal believe that in its current guise the TTIP is too friendly to US businesses. One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states.

    In Europe thousands of people supported by society groups, trade unions and activists take to the streets expressing protest against the deal. Three million people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. For instance, various trade unions and other groups have called for protests against the TTIP across Germany to take place on September 17. A trade agreement with Canada has also come under attack.

    US presidential candidate Donald Trump has promoted protectionist trade policies, while rival Hillary Clinton has also cast doubt on the TTIP deal. Congressional opposition has become steep. The lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have railed against free trade agreements as unfair to US companies and workers.

    These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. The chances are really slim.

    silverer •Sep 5, 2016 9:51 AM

    "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Trump campaign is a similar to Brexit crusade by grassroots activists against big banks and global political insiders . by those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised

    Notable quotes:
    "... Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it." ..."
    "... It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    ...the British politician, who was invited by Mississippi governor Phil Bryant, will draw parallels between what he sees as the inspirational story of Brexit and Trump's campaign. Farage will describe the Republican's campaign as a similar crusade by grassroots activists against "big banks and global political insiders" and how those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised can become involved in populist, rightwing politics. With Trump lagging in the polls, just as Brexit did prior to the vote on the referendum, Farage will also hearten supporters by insisting that they can prove pundits and oddsmakers wrong as well.

    This message resonates with the Trump campaign's efforts to reach out to blue collar voters who have become disillusioned with American politics, while also adding a unique flair to Trump's never staid campaign rallies.

    The event will mark the first meeting between Farage and Trump.

    Arron Banks, the businessman who backed Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign group associated with the UK Independence party (Ukip), tweeted that he would be meeting Trump over dinner and was looking forward to Farage's speech.

    The appointment last week of Stephen Bannon, former chairman of the Breitbart website, as "CEO" of Trump's campaign has seen the example of the Brexit vote, which Breitbart enthusiastically advocated, rise to the fore in Trump's campaign narrative.

    Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton.

    "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it."

    "I am being careful," he added when asked if he supported the controversial Republican nominee. "It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom."

    [Dec 05, 2016] Failure of Globalization and the Fourth Estate

    Notable quotes:
    "... As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning. ..."
    "... Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection, and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting is no better. ..."
    "... "Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking around the results tell me that. ..."
    "... The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility). I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets! ..."
    naked capitalism
    Free Trade," the banner of Globalization, has not only wrecked the world's economy, it has left Western Democracy in shambles. Europe edges ever closer to deflation. The Fed dare not increase interest rates, now poised at barely above zero. As China's stock market threatened collapse, China poured billions to prop it up. It's export machine is collapsing. Not once, but twice, it recently manipulated its currency to makes its goods cheaper on the world market. What is happening?

    The following two graphs tell most of the story. First, an overview of Free Trade.

    Deficit4-1024x420

    Capital fled from developed countries to undeveloped countries with slave-cheap labor, countries with no environmental standards, countries with no support for collective bargaining. Corporations, like Apple, set up shop in China and other undeveloped countries. Some, like China, manipulated its currency to make exported goods to the West even cheaper. Some, like China, gave preferential tax treatment to Western firm over indigenous firms. Economists cheered as corporate efficiency unsurprisingly rose. U.S. citizens became mere consumers.

    Thanks to Bill Clinton and the Financial Modernization Act, banks, now unconstrained, could peddle rigged financial services, offer insurance on its own investment products–in short, banks were free to play with everyone's money–and simply too big to fail. Credit was easy and breezy. If nasty Arabs bombed the Trade Center, why the solution was simple: Go to the shopping mall–and buy. That remarkable piece of advice is just what freedom has been all about.

    Next: China's export machine sputters.

    CAIXEN-1024x527

    China's problem is that there are not enough orders to keep the export machine going. There comes a time when industrialized nations simply run out of cash–I mean the little people run out of cash. CEOs and those just below them–along with slick Wall Street gauchos–made bundles on Free Trade, corporate capital that could set up shop in any impoverished nation in the world.. No worries about labor–dirt cheap–or environmental regulations–just bring your gas masks. At some point the Western consumer well was bound to run dry. Credit was exhausted; the little guy could not buy anymore. Free trade was on its last legs.

    So what did China do then? As its markets crashed, it tried to revive its export model, a model based on foreign firms exporting cheap goods to the West. China lowered its exchange rates, not once but twice. Then China tried to rescue the markets with cash infusion of billions. Still its market continued to crash. Manufacturing plants had closed–thousands of them. Free Trade and Globalization had run its course.

    And what has the Fed been doing? Why quantitative easy–increase the money supply and lower short term interest rates. Like China's latest currency manipulation, both were merely stop-gap measures. No one, least of all Obama and his corporate advisors, was ready to address corporate outsourcing that has cost millions of jobs. Prime the pump a little, but never address the real problem.

    The WTO sets the groundwork for trade among its member states. That groundwork is deeply flawed. Trade between impoverished third world countries and sophisticated first world economies is not merely a matter of regulating "dumping"-not allowing one country to flood the market with cheap goods-nor is it a matter of insuring that the each country does not favor its indigenous firms over foreign firms. Comparable labor and environmental standards are necessary. Does anyone think that a first world worker can compete with virtual slave labor? Does anyone think that a first world nation with excellent environmental regulations can compete with a third world nation that refuses to protect its environment?

    Only lately has Apple even mentioned that it might clean up its mess in China. The Apple miracle has been on the backs of the Chinese poor and abysmal environmental wreckage that is China.

    The WTO allows three forms of inequities-all of which encourage outsourcing: labor arbitrage, tax arbitrage, and environmental arbitrage. For a fuller explanation of these inequities and the "race to the bottom," see here.

    Of course now we have the mother of all Free Trade deals –the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)– carefully wrapped in a black box so that none of us can see what finally is in store for us. Nothing is ever "Free"–even trade. I suspect that China is becoming a bit too noxious and poisonous. It simply has to deal with its massive environmental problems. Time to move the game to less despoiled and maybe more impoverished countries. Meanwhile, newscasters are always careful to tout TPP.

    Fast Tracking is a con man's game. Do it so fast that the marks never have a chance to watch their wallets. In hiding negotiations from prying, public eyes, Obama, has given the con men a bigger edge: A screen to hide the corporations making deals. Their interest is in profits, not in public good.

    Consider the media. Our only defense is a strong independent media. At one time, newsrooms were not required to be profitable. Reporting the news was considered a community service. Corporate ownership provided the necessary funding for its newsrooms–and did not interfere.

    But the 70′s and 80′s corporate ownership required its newsrooms to be profitable. Slowly but surely, newsrooms focused on personality, entertainment, and wedge issues–always careful not to rock the corporate boat, always careful not to tread on governmental policy. Whoever thought that one major news service–Fox–would become a breeding ground for one particular party.

    But consider CNN: It organizes endless GOP debates; then spends hours dissecting them. Create the news; then sell it–and be sure to spin it in the direction you want.

    Are matters of substance ever discussed? When has a serious foreign policy debate ever been allowed occurred–without editorial interference from the media itself. When has trade and outsourcing been seriously discussed–other than by peripheral news media?

    Meanwhile, news media becomes more and more centralized. Murdoch now owns National Geographic!

    Now, thanks to Bush and Obama, we have the chilling effect of the NSA. Just whom does the NSA serve when it collects all of our digital information? Is it being used to ferret out the plans of those exercising their right of dissent? Is it being used to increase the profits of favored corporations? Why does it need all of your and my personal information–from bank accounts, to credit cards, to travel plans, to friends with whom we chat .Why is it afraid of us?


    jefemt, October 23, 2015 at 9:43 am

    As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning.

    If 'they' are failing, I'd hate to see success!

    Isn't it the un-collective WE who are failing?

    failing to organize,
    failing to come up with plausible, 90 degrees off present Lemming-to-Brink path alternative plans and policies,
    failing to agree on any of many plausible alternatives that might work

    Divided- for now- hopefully not conquered ..

    I gotta scoot and get back to Dancing with the Master Chefs

    allan, October 23, 2015 at 10:03 am

    Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection, and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting is no better.

    Vatch, October 23, 2015 at 10:36 am

    Don't just watch the toxic sludge; respond to it with a letter to the editor (LTE) of the offending publication! For some of those toxic editorials, and contact information for LTEs, see:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/200pm-water-cooler-10162015.html#comment-2503316

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/trading-away-land-rights-tpp-investment-agreements-and-the-governance-of-land.html#comment-2502833

    A few of the editorials may now be obscured by paywalls or registration requirements, but most should still be visible. Let them know that we see through their nonsense!

    TedWa, October 23, 2015 at 10:38 am

    "Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking around the results tell me that.

    TG, October 23, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility). I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets!

    Pelham, October 23, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    Even when newsrooms were more independent they probably would not, in general, have reported on free trade with any degree of skepticism. The recent disappearance of the old firewall between the news and corporate sides has made things worse, but at least since the "professionalization" of newsrooms that began to really take hold in the '60s, journalists have tended to identify far more with their sources in power than with their readers.

    There have, of course, been notable exceptions. But even these sometimes serve more to obscure the real day-to-day nature of journalism's fealty to the corporate world than to bring about any significant change.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The Great Ponzi Scheme of the Global Economy

    www.counterpunch.org
    March 25, 2016

    CHRIS HEDGES: We're going to be discussing a great Ponzi scheme that not only defines not only the U.S. but the global economy, how we got there and where we're going. And with me to discuss this issue is the economist Michael Hudson, author of Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. A professor of economics who worked for many years on Wall Street, where you don't succeed if you don't grasp Marx's dictum that capitalism is about exploitation. And he is also, I should mention, the godson of Leon Trotsky.

    I want to open this discussion by reading a passage from your book, which I admire very much, which I think gets to the core of what you discuss. You write,

    "Adam Smith long ago remarked that profits often are highest in nations going fastest to ruin. There are many ways to create economic suicide on a national level. The major way through history has been through indebting the economy. Debt always expands to reach a point where it cannot be paid by a large swathe of the economy. This is the point where austerity is imposed and ownership of wealth polarizes between the One Percent and the 99 Percent. Today is not the first time this has occurred in history. But it is the first time that running into debt has occurred deliberately." Applauded. "As if most debtors can get rich by borrowing, not reduced to a condition of debt peonage."

    So let's start with the classical economists, who certainly understood this. They were reacting of course to feudalism. And what happened to the study of economics so that it became gamed by ideologues?

    HUDSON: The essence of classical economics was to reform industrial capitalism, to streamline it, and to free the European economies from the legacy of feudalism. The legacy of feudalism was landlords extracting land-rent, and living as a class that took income without producing anything. Also, banks that were not funding industry. The leading industrialists from James Watt, with his steam engine, to the railroads

    HEDGES: From your book you make the point that banks almost never funded industry.

    HUDSON: That's the point: They never have. By the time you got to Marx later in the 19th century, you had a discussion, largely in Germany, over how to make banks do something they did not do under feudalism. Right now we're having the economic surplus being drained not by the landlords but also by banks and bondholders.

    Adam Smith was very much against colonialism because that lead to wars, and wars led to public debt. He said the solution to prevent this financial class of bondholders burdening the economy by imposing more and more taxes on consumer goods every time they went to war was to finance wars on a pay-as-you-go basis. Instead of borrowing, you'd tax the people. Then, he thought, if everybody felt the burden of war in the form of paying taxes, they'd be against it. Well, it took all of the 19th century to fight for democracy and to extend the vote so that instead of landlords controlling Parliament and its law-making and tax system through the House of Lords, you'd extend the vote to labor, to women and everybody. The theory was that society as a whole would vote in its self-interest. It would vote for the 99 Percent, not for the One Percent.

    By the time Marx wrote in the 1870s, he could see what was happening in Germany. German banks were trying to make money in conjunction with the government, by lending to heavy industry, largely to the military-industrial complex.

    HEDGES: This was Bismarck's kind of social – I don't know what we'd call it. It was a form of capitalist socialism

    HUDSON: They called it State Capitalism. There was a long discussion by Engels, saying, wait a minute. We're for Socialism. State Capitalism isn't what we mean by socialism. There are two kinds of state-oriented–.

    HEDGES: I'm going to interject that there was a kind of brilliance behind Bismarck's policy because he created state pensions, he provided health benefits, and he directed banking toward industry, toward the industrialization of Germany which, as you point out, was very different in Britain and the United States.

    HUDSON: German banking was so successful that by the time World War I broke out, there were discussions in English economic journals worrying that Germany and the Axis powers were going to win because their banks were more suited to fund industry. Without industry you can't have really a military. But British banks only lent for foreign trade and for speculation. Their stock market was a hit-and-run operation. They wanted quick in-and-out profits, while German banks didn't insist that their clients pay as much in dividends. German banks owned stocks as well as bonds, and there was much more of a mutual partnership.

    That's what most of the 19th century imagined was going to happen – that the world was on the way to socializing banking. And toward moving capitalism beyond the feudal level, getting rid of the landlord class, getting rid of the rent, getting rid of interest. It was going to be labor and capital, profits and wages, with profits being reinvested in more capital. You'd have an expansion of technology. By the early twentieth century most futurists imagined that we'd be living in a leisure economy by now.

    HEDGES: Including Karl Marx.

    HUDSON: That's right. A ten-hour workweek. To Marx, socialism was to be an outgrowth of the reformed state of capitalism, as seemed likely at the time – if labor organized in its self-interest.

    HEDGES: Isn't what happened in large part because of the defeat of Germany in World War I? But also, because we took the understanding of economists like Adam Smith and maybe Keynes. I don't know who you would blame for this, whether Ricardo or others, but we created a fictitious economic theory to praise a rentier or rent-derived, interest-derived capitalism that countered productive forces within the economy. Perhaps you can address that.

    HUDSON: Here's what happened. Marx traumatized classical economics by taking the concepts of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill and others, and pushing them to their logical conclusion. 2KillingTheHost_Cover_ruleProgressive capitalist advocates – Ricardian socialists such as John Stuart Mill – wanted to tax away the land or nationalize it. Marx wanted governments to take over heavy industry and build infrastructure to provide low-cost and ultimately free basic services. This was traumatizing the landlord class and the One Percent. And they fought back. They wanted to make everything part of "the market," which functioned on credit supplied by them and paid rent to them.

    None of the classical economists imagined how the feudal interests – these great vested interests that had all the land and money – actually would fight back and succeed. They thought that the future was going to belong to capital and labor. But by the late 19th century, certainly in America, people like John Bates Clark came out with a completely different theory, rejecting the classical economics of Adam Smith, the Physiocrats and John Stuart Mill.

    HEDGES: Physiocrats are, you've tried to explain, the enlightened French economists.

    HUDSON: The common denominator among all these classical economists was the distinction between earned income and unearned income. Unearned income was rent and interest. Earned incomes were wages and profits. But John Bates Clark came and said that there's no such thing as unearned income. He said that the landlord actually earns his rent by taking the effort to provide a house and land to renters, while banks provide credit to earn their interest. Every kind of income is thus "earned," and everybody earns their income. So everybody who accumulates wealth, by definition, according to his formulas, get rich by adding to what is now called Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

    HEDGES: One of the points you make in Killing the Host which I liked was that in almost all cases, those who had the capacity to make money parasitically off interest and rent had either – if you go back to the origins – looted and seized the land by force, or inherited it.

    HUDSON: That's correct. In other words, their income is unearned. The result of this anti-classical revolution you had just before World War I was that today, almost all the economic growth in the last decade has gone to the One Percent. It's gone to Wall Street, to real estate

    HEDGES: But you blame this on what you call Junk Economics.

    HUDSON: Junk Economics is the anti-classical reaction.

    HEDGES: Explain a little bit how, in essence, it's a fictitious form of measuring the economy.

    HUDSON: Well, some time ago I went to a bank, a block away from here – a Chase Manhattan bank – and I took out money from the teller. As I turned around and took a few steps, there were two pickpockets. One pushed me over and the other grabbed the money and ran out. The guard stood there and saw it. So I asked for the money back. I said, look, I was robbed in your bank, right inside. And they said, "Well, we don't arm our guards because if they shot someone, the thief could sue us and we don't want that." They gave me an equivalent amount of money back.

    Well, imagine if you count all this crime, all the money that's taken, as an addition to GDP. Because now the crook has provided the service of not stabbing me. Or suppose somebody's held up at an ATM machine and the robber says, "Your money or your life." You say, "Okay, here's my money." The crook has given you the choice of your life. In a way that's how the Gross National Product accounts are put up. It's not so different from how Wall Street extracts money from the economy. Then also you have landlords extracting

    HEDGES: Let's go back. They're extracting money from the economy by debt peonage. By raising

    HUDSON: By not playing a productive role, basically.

    HEDGES: Right. So it's credit card interest, mortgage interest, car loans, student loans. That's how they make their funds.

    HUDSON: That's right. Money is not a factor of production. But in order to have access to credit, in order to get money, in order to get an education, you have to pay the banks. At New York University here, for instance, they have Citibank. I think Citibank people were on the board of directors at NYU. You get the students, when they come here, to start at the local bank. And once you are in a bank and have monthly funds taken out of your account for electric utilities, or whatever, it's very cumbersome to change.

    So basically you have what the classical economists called the rentier class. The class that lives on economic rents. Landlords, monopolists charging more, and the banks. If you have a pharmaceutical company that raises the price of a drug from $12 a shot to $200 all of a sudden, their profits go up. Their increased price for the drug is counted in the national income accounts as if the economy is producing more. So all this presumed economic growth that has all been taken by the One Percent in the last ten years, and people say the economy is growing. But the economy isn't growing

    HEDGES: Because it's not reinvested.

    HUDSON: That's right. It's not production, it's not consumption. The wealth of the One Percent is obtained essentially by lending money to the 99 Percent and then charging interest on it, and recycling this interest at an exponentially growing rate.

    HEDGES: And why is it important, as I think you point out in your book, that economic theory counts this rentier income as productive income? Explain why that's important.

    HUDSON: If you're a rentier, you want to say that you earned your income by

    HEDGES: We're talking about Goldman Sachs, by the way.

    HUDSON: Yes, Goldman Sachs. The head of Goldman Sachs came out and said that Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world. That's why they're paid what they are. The concept of productivity in America is income divided by labor. So if you're Goldman Sachs and you pay yourself $20 million a year in salary and bonuses, you're considered to have added $20 million to GDP, and that's enormously productive. So we're talking in a tautology. We're talking with circular reasoning here.

    So the issue is whether Goldman Sachs, Wall Street and predatory pharmaceutical firms, actually add "product" or whether they're just exploiting other people. That's why I used the word parasitism in my book's title. People think of a parasite as simply taking money, taking blood out of a host or taking money out of the economy. But in nature it's much more complicated. The parasite can't simply come in and take something. First of all, it needs to numb the host. It has an enzyme so that the host doesn't realize the parasite's there. And then the parasites have another enzyme that takes over the host's brain. It makes the host imagine that the parasite is part of its own body, actually part of itself and hence to be protected.

    That's basically what Wall Street has done. It depicts itself as part of the economy. Not as a wrapping around it, not as external to it, but actually the part that's helping the body grow, and that actually is responsible for most of the growth. But in fact it's the parasite that is taking over the growth.

    The result is an inversion of classical economics. It turns Adam Smith upside down. It says what the classical economists said was unproductive – parasitism – actually is the real economy. And that the parasites are labor and industry that get in the way of what the parasite wants – which is to reproduce itself, not help the host, that is, labor and capital.

    HEDGES: And then the classical economists like Adam Smith were quite clear that unless that rentier income, you know, the money made by things like hedge funds, was heavily taxed and put back into the economy, the economy would ultimately go into a kind of tailspin. And I think the example of that, which you point out in your book, is what's happened in terms of large corporations with stock dividends and buybacks. And maybe you can explain that.

    HUDSON: There's an idea in superficial textbooks and the public media that if companies make a large profit, they make it by being productive. And with

    HEDGES: Which is still in textbooks, isn't it?

    HUDSON: Yes. And also that if a stock price goes up, you're just capitalizing the profits – and the stock price reflects the productive role of the company. But that's not what's been happening in the last ten years. Just in the last two years, 92 percent of corporate profits in America have been spent either on buying back their own stock, or paid out as dividends to raise the price of the stock.

    HEDGES: Explain why they do this.

    HUDSON: About 15 years ago at Harvard, Professor Jensen said that the way to ensure that corporations are run most efficiently is to make the managers increase the price of the stock. So if you give the managers stock options, and you pay them not according to how much they're producing or making the company bigger, or expanding production, but the price of the stock, then you'll have the corporation run efficiently, financial style.

    So the corporate managers find there are two ways that they can increase the price of the stock. The first thing is to cut back long-term investment, and use the money instead to buy back their own stock. But when you buy your own stock, that means you're not putting the money into capital formation. You're not building new factories. You're not hiring more labor. You can actually increase the stock price by firing labor.

    HEDGES: That strategy only works temporarily.

    HUDSON: Temporarily. By using the income from past investments just to buy back stock, fire the labor force if you can, and work it more intensively. Pay it out as dividends. That basically is the corporate raider's model. You use the money to pay off the junk bond holders at high interest. And of course, this gets the company in trouble after a while, because there is no new investment.

    So markets shrink. You then go to the labor unions and say, gee, this company's near bankruptcy, and we don't want to have to fire you. The way that you can keep your job is if we downgrade your pensions. Instead of giving you what we promised, the defined benefit pension, we'll turn it into a defined contribution plan. You know what you pay every month, but you don't know what's going to come out. Or, you wipe out the pension fund, push it on to the government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, and use the money that you were going to pay for pensions to pay stock dividends. By then the whole economy is turning down. It's hollowed out. It shrinks and collapses. But by that time the managers will have left the company. They will have taken their bonuses and salaries and run.

    HEDGES: I want to read this quote from your book, written by David Harvey, in A Brief History of Neoliberalism, and have you comment on it.

    "The main substantive achievement of neoliberalism has been to redistribute rather than to generate wealth and income. [By] 'accumulation by dispossession' I mean the commodification and privatization of land, and the forceful expulsion of peasant populations; conversion of various forms of property rights (common collective state, etc.) into exclusive private property rights; suppression of rights to the commons; colonial, neocolonial, and the imperial processes of appropriation of assets (including natural resources); and usury, the national debt and, most devastating at all, the use of the credit system as a radical means of accumulation by dispossession. To this list of mechanisms, we may now add a raft of techniques such as the extraction of rents from patents, and intellectual property rights (such as the diminution or erasure of various forms of common property rights, such as state pensions, paid vacations, and access to education, health care) one through a generation or more of class struggle. The proposal to privatize all state pension rights, pioneered in Chile under the dictatorship is, for example, one of the cherished objectives of the Republicans in the US."

    This explains the denouement. The final end result you speak about in your book is, in essence, allowing what you call the rentier or the speculative class to cannibalize the entire society until it collapses.

    HUDSON: A property right is not a factor of production. Look at what happened in Chicago, the city where I grew up. Chicago didn't want to raise taxes on real estate, especially on its expensive commercial real estate. So its budget ran a deficit. They needed money to pay the bondholders, so they sold off the parking rights to have meters – you know, along the curbs. The result is that they sold to Goldman Sachs 75 years of the right to put up parking meters. So now the cost of living and doing business in Chicago is raised by having to pay the parking meters. If Chicago is going to have a parade and block off traffic, it has to pay Goldman Sachs what the firm would have made if the streets wouldn't have been closed off for a parade. All of a sudden it's much more expensive to live in Chicago because of this.

    But this added expense of having to pay parking rights to Goldman Sachs – to pay out interest to its bondholders – is counted as an increase in GDP, because you've created more product simply by charging more. If you sell off a road, a government or local road, and you put up a toll booth and make it into a toll road, all of a sudden GDP goes up.

    If you go to war abroad, and you spend more money on the military-industrial complex, all this is counted as increased production. None of this is really part of the production system of the capital and labor building more factories and producing more things that people need to live and do business. All of this is overhead. But there's no distinction between wealth and overhead.

    Failing to draw that distinction means that the host doesn't realize that there is a parasite there. The host economy, the industrial economy, doesn't realize what the industrialists realized in the 19th century: If you want to be an efficient economy and be low-priced and under-sell competitors, you have to cut your prices by having the public sector provide roads freely. Medical care freely. Education freely.

    If you charge for all of these, you get to the point that the U.S. economy is in today. What if American factory workers were to get all of their consumer goods for nothing. All their food, transportation, clothing, furniture, everything for nothing. They still couldn't compete with Asians or other producers, because they have to pay up to 43% of their income for rent or mortgage interest, 10% or more of their income for student loans, credit card debt. 15% of their paycheck is automatic withholding to pay Social Security, to cut taxes on the rich or to pay for medical care.

    So Americans built into the economy all this overhead. There's no distinction between growth and overhead. It's all made America so high-priced that we're priced out of the market, regardless of what trade policy we have.

    HEDGES: We should add that under this predatory form of economics, you game the system. So you privatize pension funds, you force them into the stock market, an overinflated stock market. But because of the way companies go public, it's the hedge fund managers who profit. And it's those citizens whose retirement savings are tied to the stock market who lose. Maybe we can just conclude by talking about how the system is fixed, not only in terms of burdening the citizen with debt peonage, but by forcing them into the market to fleece them again.

    HUDSON: Well, we talk about an innovation economy as if that makes money. Suppose you have an innovation and a company goes public. They go to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment banks to underwrite the stock to issue it at $40 a share. What's considered a successful float is when, immediately, Goldman and the others will go to their insiders and tell them to buy this stock and make a quick killing. A "successful" flotation doubles the price in one day, so that at the end of the day the stock's selling for $80.

    HEDGES: They have the option to buy it before anyone else, knowing that by the end of the day it'll be inflated, and then they sell it off.

    HUDSON: That's exactly right.

    HEDGES: So the pension funds come in and buy it at an inflated price, and then it goes back down.

    HUDSON: It may go back down, or it may be that the company just was shortchanged from the very beginning. The important thing is that the Wall Street underwriting firm, and the speculators it rounds up, get more in a single day than all the years it took to put the company together. The company gets $40. And the banks and their crony speculators also get $40.

    So basically you have the financial sector ending up with much more of the gains. The name of the game if you're on Wall Street isn't profits. It's capital gains. And that's something that wasn't even part of classical economics. They didn't anticipate that the price of assets would go up for any other reason than earning more money and capitalizing on income. But what you have had in the last 50 years – really since World War II – has been asset-price inflation. Most middle-class families have gotten the wealth that they've got since 1945 not really by saving what they've earned by working, but by the price of their house going up. They've benefited by the price of the house. And they think that that's made them rich and the whole economy rich.

    The reason the price of housing has gone up is that a house is worth whatever a bank is going to lend against it. If banks made easier and easier credit, lower down payments, then you're going to have a financial bubble. And now, you have real estate having gone up as high as it can. I don't think it can take more than 43% of somebody's income to buy it. But now, imagine if you're joining the labor force. You're not going to be able to buy a house at today's prices, putting down a little bit of your money, and then somehow end up getting rich just on the house investment. All of this money you pay the bank is now going to be subtracted from the amount of money that you have available to spend on goods and services.

    So we've turned the post-war economy that made America prosperous and rich inside out. Somehow most people believed they could get rich by going into debt to borrow assets that were going to rise in price. But you can't get rich, ultimately, by going into debt. In the end the creditors always win. That's why every society since Sumer and Babylonia have had to either cancel the debts, or you come to a society like Rome that didn't cancel the debts, and then you have a dark age. Everything collapses.

    [Dec 05, 2016] A Protectionist Moment?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes , the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other. ..."
    Sep 12, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Paul Krugman:
    A Protectionist Moment? : ... if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. ...

    But it's also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics ( protectionism causes depressions !), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that...

    Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes , the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.

    So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even if they don't know exactly what form it's taking.

    Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.

    But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements - including TPP, which hasn't happened yet - is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.

    cawley : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 03:47 AM
    Again, just because automation has been a major factor in job loss doesn't mean "off shoring" (using the term broadly and perhaps somewhat inaccurately) is not a factor.

    The "free" trade deals suck. They are correctly diagnosed as part of the problem.

    What would you propose to fix the problems caused by automation?

    jonny bakho -> cawley... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:25 AM
    Automation frees labor to do more productive and less onerous tasks. We should expand our solar production and our mass transit. We need to start re-engineering our urban areas. This will not bring back the number of jobs it would take to make cities like Flint thrive once again.

    Flint and Detroit have severe economic problems because they were mismanaged by road building and suburbanization in the 1950s and 1960s. Money that should have been spent on maintaining and improving urban infrastructure was instead plowed into suburban development that is not dense enough to sustain the infrastructure required to support it. People moved to the suburbs, abandoned the built infrastructure of the cities and kissed them goodbye.

    Big roads polluted the cities with lead, noise, diesel particles and ozone and smog. Stroads created pedestrian kill zones making urban areas, unwalkable, unpleasant- an urban blights to drive through rather than destinations to drive to.

    Government subsidized the white flight to the suburbs that has left both the suburbs and the urban cores with too low revenue to infrastructure ratio. The inner suburbs have aged into net losers, their infrastructure must be subsidized. Big Roads were built on the Big Idea that people would drive to the city to work and play and then drive home. That Big idea has a big problem. Urban areas are only sustainable when they have a high resident density. The future of cities like Flint and Detroit will be tearing out the roads and replacing them with streets and houses and renewing the housing stock that has been abandoned. It needs to be done by infill, revitalizing inner neighborhoods and working outward. Cities like Portland have managed to protect much of their core, but even they are challenged by demands for suburban sprawl.

    Slash and burn development, creating new suburbs and abandoning the old is not a sustainable model. Not only should we put people to work replacing the Flint lead pipes, but much of the city should be rebuilt from the inside out. Flint is the leading edge of this problem that requires fundamental changes in our built environment to fix. I recommend studying Flint as an object lesson of what bad development policy could do to all of our cities.

    http://www.flintexpats.com

    jonny bakho -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:29 AM
    An Interview with Frank Popper about Shrinking Cities, Buffalo Commons, and the Future of Flint

    How does America's approach shrinking cities compare to the rest of the world?

    I think the American way is to do nothing until it's too late, then throw everything at it and improvise and hope everything works. And somehow, insofar as the country's still here, it has worked. But the European or the Japanese way would involve much more thought, much more foresight, much more central planning, and much less improvising. They would implement a more, shall we say, sustained effort. The American way is different. Europeans have wondered for years and years why cities like Detroit or Cleveland are left to rot on the vine. There's a lot of this French hauteur when they ask "How'd you let this happen?"

    Do shrinking cities have any advantages over agricultural regions as they face declining populations?

    The urban areas have this huge advantage over all these larger American regions that are going through this. They have actual governments with real jurisdiction. Corrupt as Detroit or Philadelphia or Camden may be, they have actual governments that are supposed to be in charge of them. Who's in charge of western Kansas? Who's in charge of the Great Plains? Who is in charge of the lower Mississippi Delta or central Appalachia? All they've got are these distant federal agencies whose past performance is not exactly encouraging.

    Why wasn't there a greater outcry as the agricultural economy and the industrial economy collapsed?

    One reason for the rest of the country not to care is that there's no shortage of the consumer goods that these places once produced. All this decline of agriculture doesn't mean we're running out of food. We've got food coming out of our ears. Likewise, Flint has suffered through all this, but it's not like it's hard to buy a car in this country. It's not as if Flint can behave like a child and say "I'm going to hold my nose and stop you from getting cars until you do the right thing." Flint died and you can get zero A.P.R. financing. Western Kansas is on its last legs and, gee, cereal is cheaper than ever.

    In some sense that's the genius of capitalism - it's heartless. But if you look at the local results and the cultural results and the environmental results you shake your head. But I don't see America getting away from what I would call a little sarcastically the "wisdom" of the market. I don't think it's going to change.

    So is there any large-scale economic fallout from these monumental changes?

    Probably not, and it hurts to say so. And the only way I can feel good about saying that is to immediately point to the non-economic losses, the cultural losses. The losses of ways of life. The notion of the factory worker working for his or her children. The notion of the farmer working to build up the country and supply the rest of the world with food. We're losing distinctive ways of life. When we lose that we lose something important, but it's not like The Wall Street Journal cares. And I feel uncomfortable saying that. From a purely economic point of view, it's just the price of getting more efficient. It's a classic example of Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction, which is no fun if you're on the destruction end.

    Does the decline of cities like Flint mirror the death of the middle class in the United States?

    I think it's more the decline of the lower-middle class in the United States. Even when those jobs in the auto factories paid very high wages they were still for socially lower-middle-class people. I think there was always the notion in immigrant families and working-class families who worked in those situations that the current generation would work hard so that the children could go off and not have to do those kind of jobs. And when those jobs paid well that was a perfectly reasonable ambition. It's the cutting off of that ambition that really hurts now. The same thing has been true on farms and ranches in rural parts of the united states.

    http://www.flintexpats.com/2010/05/interview-with-frank-popper-about.html

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:45 AM
    It is a much different thing to be small minded about trade than it is to be large minded about everything else. The short story that it is all about automation and not trade will always get a bad reception because it is small minded. When you add in the large minded story about everything else then it becomes something entirely different from the short story. We all agree with you about everything else. You are wrong about globalization though. Both financialization and globalization suck and even if we paper over them with tax and transfer then they will still suck. One must forget what it is to be a created equal human to miss that. Have you never felt the job of accomplishment? Does not pride and self-confidence matter in your life?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:11 AM
    "Have you never felt the joY of accomplishment?"

    [Apparently I have "jobs" on the mind even though I no longer have one nor need one in the least.]

    ken melvin -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:49 AM
    America's first course of action is denial; then, we pretend that things are different than the seem a lot.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to ken melvin... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:39 AM
    Priceless!
    DrDick -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:52 AM
    While automation is part of the story, offshoring is just as important. Even when there is not net loss in the numbers of jobs in aggregate, there is significant loss in better paying jobs in manufacturing. It is important to look at the distributional effects within countries, as well as between them

    http://www.statisticbrain.com/outsourcing-statistics-by-country/

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0ahUKEwjj9OK1xrbLAhUG92MKHbveBAgQFghhMAs&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wto.org%2Fenglish%2Fres_e%2Fbooksp_e%2Fglob_soc_sus_e_chap1_e.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHRBtLPlhJsKMg5PfxSlUIgOsFuwA&cad=rja

    https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2014/07/30/94864/offshoring-work-is-taking-a-toll-on-the-u-s-economy/

    Julio -> cawley... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:24 AM
    "off shoring"

    [The trending term is "tossing it over the Wall".]

    Chris G : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 03:58 AM
    Legislatively, what would it take to withdraw from the WTO? NAFTA? Other trade agreements?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Chris G ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:52 AM
    It would probably be cheaper and easier to just fix them. We don't need to withdraw from trade. We just need to fix the terms of trade that cause large trade deficits and cross border capital flows and also fix the FOREX system rigging.
    JohnH -> Chris G ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:10 AM
    What would it take to ignore trade agreements? They shouldn't be any more difficult to ignore than the Geneva Conventions, which the US routinely flaunts.
    Richard A. : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:30 AM
    In order to import we must export and in order to export we must import. The two are tied together. Suppressing imports means we export less.

    What free trade does is lower the price level relative to wages. It doesn't uniformly lower the price level but rather lowers the cost of goods that are capable of being traded internationally. It lowers the price on those goods that are disproportionately purchased by those with low incomes.

    Free trade causes a progressive decline in the price level while protectionism causes a regressive increase in the price level.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Richard A.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:56 AM
    Are you saying that free trade lowers the cost of rice in India and China and raises the cost of cell phones and autos in the US?
    pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:48 AM
    Funny rebuttal! Bhagwati probably has a model that says the opposite! But then he grew up in India and should one day get a Nobel Prize for his contributions to international economics.
    pgl -> Richard A.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:47 AM
    "What free trade does is lower the price level relative to wages."

    Which price? Whose wages? Look up Stopler-Samuelson ... a 1941 classic which I suspect Greg Mankiw has never bothered to learn.

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to Richard A.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:54 AM
    People don't need good wages, they can buy cheap Chinese stuff at WalMart.
    JohnH -> Richard A.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:14 AM
    "In order to import we must export and in order to export we must import." One would think. However, experience shows that that's not the case.

    Capital flows from overseas investments help balance the books. When that doesn't work, the US simply prints money to be held by foreign CBs.

    ken melvin : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:53 AM
    Our media needs to copy France 24, ... and have real debates about real issues. What we get is along the lines of ignoring the problem then attacking any effort to correct. for example, the media stayed away from the healthcare crisis, too complicated, but damn they are good at criticizing.
    JohnH -> ken melvin... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:16 AM
    France 24 promotes neocon-style jingoism...even worse than Big Media in America.

    I hope they're better on domestic social policy.

    Tom Palley : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:08 AM
    A seriously shameful article. Krugman has been a booster of trade & globalization for 30 years: marginally more nuanced than the establishment, but still a booster.

    Now, the establishment has what it wanted and the effects have been disastrous for those not in the top 20 percent of the income distribution.

    At this stage, comes insult to injury. Establishment economists (like Mr. Krugman) can reinvent themselves with "brilliant new studies" showing the costs and damage of globalization. They pay no professional costs for the grievous injuries inflicted; there is no mention of the fact that critical outsider economists have been predicting and writing about these injuries and were right; and they blithely say we must stay the course because we are locked-in and have few options.

    Forgive me while I puke.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Tom Palley ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:44 AM
    Bless you my son.

    I don't think that they think that we weebles have memories.

    Peter K. -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:13 AM
    "I don't think that they think that we weebles have memories."

    They insult our intelligence and wonder why people get mad.

    pgl -> Tom Palley ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:51 AM
    Krugman is not Greg Mankiw. Most people who actually get international economics (Mankiw does not) are not of the free trade benefits all types. Paul Samuelson certainly does not buy into Mankiw's spin. Funny thing - Mankiw recently cited an excellent piece from Samuelson only to dishonestly suggest Samuelson did not believe in what he wrote.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:12 AM
    Why are we talking about Mankiw? You can't move the goalposts.
    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:40 AM
    Why are you mischaracterizing what Krugman has written? That's my point. Oh wait - you misrepresent what people write so you can "win" a "debate". Never mind. Please proceed with the serial dishonesty.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:55 AM
    "The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't and can't."

    As Dean Baker says, we need to confront Walmart and Goldman Sachs at home, who like these policies, more than the Chinese.

    The Chinese want access to our consumer market. They'd also like if we did't invade countries like Iraq.

    "so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't"

    And what is that? Tear up trade deals? It is Krugman who is engaging in straw man arguments.

    DrDick -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:02 AM
    Krugman does indeed misrepresent Sanders' positions on trade. Sander is not against trade, he merely insists on *Fair Trade*, which incorporates human rights and environmental protections. His opposition is to the kinds of deals, like NAFTA and TPP, which effectively gut those (a central element in Kruman's own critique of the latter).
    DrDick -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    Krugman has definitely backed off his (much) earlier boosterism and publicly said so. This is an excellent piece by him, though it does rather downplay his earlier stances a bit. This is one of the things I especially like about him.
    Dan Kervick -> Tom Palley ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:11 AM
    I can get the idea that some people win, some people lose from liberalized trade. But what really bugs me about the neoliberal trade agenda is that it has been part of a larger set of economically conservative, laissez faire policies that have exacerbated the damages from trade rather than offsetting them.

    At the same time they were exposing US workers to greater competition from abroad and destroying and offshoring working class jobs via both trade and liberalized capital flows, the neoliberals were also doing things like "reinventing government" - that is, shrinking structural government spending and public investment - and ending welfare. They have done nothing serious about steering capital and job development efforts toward the communities devastated by the liberalization.

    The neoliberal position has seem to come down to "We can't make bourgeois progress without breaking a few working class eggs."

    pgl -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:41 AM
    I guess I'm not a neoliberal. Neither is Dani Rodrik. Nor is Paul Krugman.
    Dan Kervick -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:50 AM
    What does Dani Rodrik have to do with the above comments?
    pgl -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:51 AM
    Read his 1997 book. Excellent stuff.
    Julio -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:38 AM
    Great points, and a good line too.
    JohnH -> Tom Palley ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:22 AM
    Agreed! "Krugman has been a booster of trade & globalization for 30 years: marginally more nuanced than the establishment, but still a booster.'

    Now he claims that he saw the light all along! "much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions!), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that..."

    You would be hard pressed to find any Krugman clips that cited any of those problems in the past. Far from being an impartial economist, he was always an avid booster of free trade, overlooking those very downsides that he suddenly decides to confess.

    Dan Kervick : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:11 AM
    As far as I know, Sanders has not proposed ripping up the existing trade deals. His information page on trade emphasizes (i) his opposition to these deals when they were first negotiated and enacted, and (ii) the principles he will apply to the consideration of future trade deals. Much of his argumentation concerning past deals is put forward to motivate his present opposition to TPP.

    http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-trade/

    So Krugman's point about how difficult it would be diplomatically to "rip up" the existing trade deals seems like a red herring.

    Dan Kervick -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:29 AM
    Note also that Sanders connects his discussion of the harms of past trade policy to the Rebuild America Act. That is, his approach is forward facing. We can't undo most of the past damage by recreating the old working class economy we wrecked, but we can be aggressive about using government-directed national investment programs to create new, high-paying jobs in the US.
    jonny bakho -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:16 AM
    You could have said the same about the 1920s
    We can't undo most of the past damage by recreating the old agrarian class economy we wrecked, but we can be aggressive about using government-directed national investment programs to create new, high-paying jobs in the US.

    The march of progress:
    Mechanization of agriculture with displacement of large numbers of Ag workers.
    The rise of factory work and large numbers employed in manufacturing.
    Automation of Manufacturing with large displacement of workers engaged in manufacturing.
    What do we want our workers to do? This question must be answered at the highest level of society and requires much government facilitation. The absence of government facilitation is THE problem.

    Dan Kervick -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:23 AM
    Completely agree. Countries need economic strategies that go beyond, "let the markets sort it all out."
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:47 AM
    "...So Krugman's point about how difficult it would be diplomatically to "rip up" the existing trade deals seems like a red herring."

    [Win one for the kipper.]

    pgl -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:52 AM
    Memo to Paul Krugman - lead with the economics and stay with the economics. His need to get into the dirty business of politics dilutes what he ends up sensibly writes later on.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    ""The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't and can't."
    Chatham -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:36 AM
    Yeah, it's pretty dishonest for Krugman to pretend that Sanders' position is "ripping up the trade agreements we already have" and then say Sanders is "engaged in a bit of a scam" because he can't do that. Sanders actual position (trying to stop new trade deals like the TPP) is something the president has a lot of influence over (they can veto the deal). Hard to tell what Krugman is doing here other than deliberately spreading misinformation.

    Also worth noting that he decides to compare Sanders' opposition to trade deals with Trump, and ignore the fact that Clinton has come out against the TPP as well .

    anne : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:26 AM
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/a-protectionist-moment/

    March 9, 2016

    A Protectionist Moment?
    By Paul Krugman

    Busy with real life, but yes, I know what happened in the primaries yesterday. Triumph for Trump, and big upset for Sanders - although it's still very hard to see how he can catch Clinton. Anyway, a few thoughts, not about the horserace but about some deeper currents.

    The Sanders win defied all the polls, and nobody really knows why. But a widespread guess is that his attacks on trade agreements resonated with a broader audience than his attacks on Wall Street; and this message was especially powerful in Michigan, the former auto superpower. And while I hate attempts to claim symmetry between the parties - Trump is trying to become America's Mussolini, Sanders at worst America's Michael Foot * - Trump has been tilling some of the same ground. So here's the question: is the backlash against globalization finally getting real political traction?

    You do want to be careful about announcing a political moment, given how many such proclamations turn out to be ludicrous. Remember the libertarian moment? The reformocon moment? Still, a protectionist backlash, like an immigration backlash, is one of those things where the puzzle has been how long it was in coming. And maybe the time is now.

    The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't and can't.

    But it's also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions! ** ), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that; I think I've always been clear that the gains from globalization aren't all that (here's a back-of-the-envelope on the gains from hyperglobalization *** - only part of which can be attributed to policy - that is less than 5 percent of world GDP over a generation); and I think I've never assumed away the income distribution effects.

    Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, **** the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.

    So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even if they don't know exactly what form it's taking.

    Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.

    But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements - including Trans-Pacific Partnership, which hasn't happened yet - is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot

    ** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/the-mitt-hawley-fallacy/

    *** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/the-gains-from-hyperglobalization-wonkish/

    **** http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2016/03/trade_trump_and_downward_class059814.php

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:26 AM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot

    Michael Mackintosh Foot (1913 – 2010) was a British Labour Party politician and man of letters who was a Member of Parliament (MP) from 1945 to 1955 and from 1960 until 1992. He was Deputy Leader of the Labour Party from 1976 to 1980, and later the Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition from 1980 to 1983.

    Associated with the left of the Labour Party for most of his career, Foot was an ardent supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and British withdrawal from the European Economic Community. He was appointed to the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Employment under Harold Wilson in 1974, and he later served as Leader of the House of Commons under James Callaghan. A passionate orator, he led Labour through the 1983 general election, when the party obtained its lowest share of the vote at a general election since 1918 and the fewest parliamentary seats it had had at any time since before 1945.

    pgl -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:53 AM
    Foot sounds like he was a good leader of the Labour Party.
    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:27 AM
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/the-mitt-hawley-fallacy/

    March 4, 2016

    The Mitt-Hawley Fallacy
    By Paul Krugman

    There was so much wrong with Mitt Romney's Trump-is-a-disaster-whom-I-will-support-in-the-general * speech that it may seem odd to call him out for bad international macroeconomics. But this is a pet peeve of mine, in an area where I really, truly know what I'm talking about. So here goes.

    In warning about Trumponomics, Romney declared:

    "If Donald Trump's plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession. A few examples. His proposed 35 percent tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war and that would raise prices for consumers, kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses of all stripes to flee America."

    After all, doesn't everyone know that protectionism causes recessions? Actually, no. There are reasons to be against protectionism, but that's not one of them.

    Think about the arithmetic (which has a well-known liberal bias). Total final spending on domestically produced goods and services is

    Total domestic spending + Exports – Imports = GDP

    Now suppose we have a trade war. This will cut exports, which other things equal depresses the economy. But it will also cut imports, which other things equal is expansionary. For the world as a whole, the cuts in exports and imports will by definition be equal, so as far as world demand is concerned, trade wars are a wash.

    OK, I'm sure some people will start shouting "Krugman says protectionism does no harm." But no: protectionism in general should reduce efficiency, and hence the economy's potential output. But that's not at all the same as saying that it causes recessions.

    But didn't the Smoot-Hawley tariff cause the Great Depression? No. There's no evidence at all that it did. Yes, trade fell a lot between 1929 and 1933, but that was almost entirely a consequence of the Depression, not a cause. (Trade actually fell faster ** during the early stages of the 2008 Great Recession than it did after 1929.) And while trade barriers were higher in the 1930s than before, this was partly a response to the Depression, partly a consequence of deflation, which made specific tariffs (i.e. tariffs that are stated in dollars per unit, not as a percentage of value) loom larger.

    Again, not the thing most people will remember about Romney's speech. But, you know, protectionism was the only reason he gave for believing that Trump would cause a recession, which I think is kind of telling: the GOP's supposedly well-informed, responsible adult, trying to save the party, can't get basic economics right at the one place where economics is central to his argument.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/mitt-romney-speech.html

    ** http://www.voxeu.org/article/tale-two-depressions-what-do-new-data-tell-us-february-2010-update

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:28 AM
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/the-gains-from-hyperglobalization-wonkish/

    October 1, 2013

    The Gains From Hyperglobalization (Wonkish)
    By Paul Krugman

    Still taking kind of an emotional vacation from current political madness. Following up on my skeptical post on worries about slowing trade growth, * I wondered what a state-of-the-art model would say.

    The natural model to use, at least for me, is Eaton-Kortum, ** which is a very ingenious approach to thinking about multilateral trade flows. The basic model is Ricardian - wine and cloth and labor productivity and all that - except that there are many goods and many countries, transportation costs, and countries are assumed to gain productivity in any particular industry through a random process. They make some funny assumptions about distributions - hey, that's kind of the price of entry for this kind of work - and in return get a tractable model that yields gravity-type equations for international trade flows. This is a good thing, because gravity models *** of trade - purely empirical exercises, with no real theory behind them - are known to work pretty well.

    Their model also yields a simple expression for the welfare gains from trade:

    Real income = A*(1-import share)^(-1/theta)

    where A is national productivity and theta is a parameter of their assumed random process (don't ask); they suggest that theta=4 provides the best match to available data.

    Now, what I wanted to do was apply this to the rapid growth of trade that has taken place since around 1990, what Subramanian **** calls "hyperglobalization". According to Subramanian's estimates, overall trade in goods and services has risen from about 19 percent of world GDP in the early 1990s to 33 percent now, bringing us to a level of integration that really is historically unprecedented.

    There are some conceptual difficulties with using this rise directly in the Eaton-Kortum framework, because much of it has taken the form of trade in intermediate goods, and the framework isn't designed to handle that. Still, let me ignore that, and plug Subramanian's numbers into the equation above; I get a 4.9 percent rise in real incomes due to increased globalization.

    That's by no means small change, but it's only a fairly small fraction of global growth. The Maddison database ***** gives us a 45 percent rise in global GDP per capita over the same period, so this calculation suggests that rising trade was responsible for around 10 percent of overall global growth. My guess is that most people who imagine themselves well-informed would give a bigger number.

    By the way, for those critical of globalization, let me hasten to concede that by its nature the Eaton-Kortum model doesn't let us talk about income distribution, and it also makes no room for the possible role of globalization in causing secular stagnation. ******

    Still, I thought this was an interesting calculation to make - which may show more about my warped sense of what's interesting than it does about anything else.

    * http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/should-slowing-trade-growth-worry-us/

    ** http://www.nber.org/papers/w11764

    *** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade

    **** http://www.gcf.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/GCF_Subramanian-working-paper-3_-6.17.13.pdf

    ***** http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/home.htm

    ****** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/trade-and-secular-stagnation/

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:46 AM
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w11764

    November, 2005

    General Equilibrium Analysis of the Eaton-Kortum Model of International Trade
    By Fernando Alvarez and Robert E. Lucas

    We study a variation of the Eaton-Kortum model, a competitive, constant-returns-to-scale multicountry Ricardian model of trade. We establish existence and uniqueness of an equilibrium with balanced trade where each country imposes an import tariff. We analyze the determinants of the cross-country distribution of trade volumes, such as size, tariffs and distance, and compare a calibrated version of the model with data for the largest 60 economies. We use the calibrated model to estimate the gains of a world-wide trade elimination of tariffs, using the theory to explain the magnitude of the gains as well as the differential effect arising from cross-country differences in pre-liberalization of tariffs levels and country size.

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:46 AM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade

    The gravity model of international trade in international economics, similar to other gravity models in social science, predicts bilateral trade flows based on the economic sizes (often using GDP measurements) and distance between two units. The model was first used by Jan Tinbergen in 1962.

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:47 AM
    http://www.gcf.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/GCF_Subramanian-working-paper-3_-6.17.13.pdf

    June, 2013

    The Hyperglobalization of Trade and Its Future
    By Arvind Subramanian and Martin Kessler

    Abstract

    The open, rules-based trading system has delivered immense benefits-for the world, for individual countries, and for average citizens in these countries. It can continue to do so, helping today's low-income countries make the transition to middle-income status. Three challenges must be met to preserve this system. Rich countries must sustain the social consensus in favor of open markets and globalization at a time of considerable economic uncertainty and weakness; China and other middle-income countries must remain open; and mega-regionalism must be prevented from leading to discrimination and trade conflicts. Collective action should help strengthen the institutional underpinnings of globalization. The world should move beyond the Doha Round dead to more meaningful multilateral negotiations to address emerging challenges, including possible threats from new mega-regional agreements. The rising powers, especially China, will have a key role to play in resuscitating multilateralism.

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:56 AM
    Real income = A*(1-import share)^(-1/theta)

    [ Help! What does this mean in words? ]

    Peter K. : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:37 AM
    "Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins"

    That was never the conventional case for trade. Plus it's kind of odd that you have to add "plus have the government redistribute" to the case your making.

    Tom Pally above is correct. Krugman has been on the wrong side of this issue. He's gotten better, but the timing is he's gotten better as the Democratic Party has moved to the left and pushed back against corporate trade deals. Even Hillary came out late against Obama's TPP.

    Sanders has nothing about ripping up trade deals. He has said he won't do any more.

    As cawley predicted, once Sanders won Michigan, Krugman started hitting him again at his blog. With cheap shots I might add. He's ruining his brand.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:41 AM
    'A Protectionist Moment?'

    So for Krugman, no doing corporate trade deals means you're "protectionist?"

    It's a fair trade moment. As Dean Baker points out, corporate trade deals are protectionist:

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/tell-morning-edition-it-s-not-free-trade-folks

    Tell Morning Edition: It's Not "Free Trade" Folks
    by Dean Baker
    Published: 10 March 2016

    Hey, can an experienced doctor from Germany show up and start practicing in New York next week? Since the answer is no, we can say that we don't have free trade. It's not an immigration issue, if the doctor wants to work in a restaurant kitchen, she would probably get away with it. We have protectionist measures that limit the number of foreign doctors in order to keep their pay high. These protectionist measures have actually been strengthened in the last two decades.

    We also have strengthened patent and copyright protections, making drugs and other affected items far more expensive. These protections are also forms of protectionism.

    This is why Morning Edition seriously misled its listeners in an interview with ice cream barons Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield over their support of Senator Bernie Sanders. The interviewer repeatedly referred to "free trade" agreements and Sanders' opposition to them. While these deals are all called "free trade" deals to make them sound more palatable ("selective protectionism to redistribute income upward" doesn't sound very appealing), that doesn't mean they are actually about free trade. Morning Edition should not have used the term employed by promoters to push their trade agenda.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:57 AM
    This has been Dean Baker's excellent theme for a very long time. And if you actually paid attention to what Krugman said about TPP - he agreed with Dean's excellent points. But do continue to set up straw man arguments so you can dishonestly attack Krugman.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:06 AM
    Some of us have memories. Like Tom Palley up above.
    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:42 AM
    Memories of things Krugman never wrote. In other words, very faulty memories.
    Julio -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:07 AM
    No. That is not a sign of a faulty memory, quite the contrary.

    Krugman writes column after column praising trade pacts and criticizing (rightly, I might add) the yahoos who object for the wrong reasons.
    But he omits a few salient facts like
    - the gains are small,
    - the government MUST intervene with redistribution for this to work socially,
    - there are no (or minimal) provisions for that requirement in the pacts.

    I would say his omissions speak volumes and are worth remembering.

    Syaloch -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:51 AM
    Krugman initially wrote a confused column about the TPP, treating it as a simple free trade deal which he said would have little impact because tariffs were already so low. But he did eventually look into the matter further and wound up agreeing with Baker's take.
    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:56 AM
    "That was never the conventional case for trade". Actually it was. Of course Greg Mankiw never got the memo so his free trade benefits all BS confuses a lot of people. Mankiw sucks at international trade.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:11 AM
    Actually it wasn't. I remember what Krugman and others wrote at the time about NAFTA and the WTO.

    https://uneasymoney com/2016/03/06/krugman-suffers-a-memory-lapse/

    David Glasner attacks Krugman from the right, but he doesn't whitewash the past as you do. He remembers Gore versus Perot:

    "Indeed, Romney didn't even mention the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but Krugman evidently forgot the classic exchange between Al Gore and the previous incarnation of protectionist populist outrage in an anti-establishment billionaire candidate for President:

    GORE I've heard Mr. Perot say in the past that, as the carpenters says, measure twice and cut once. We've measured twice on this. We have had a test of our theory and we've had a test of his theory. Over the last five years, Mexico's tariffs have begun to come down because they've made a unilateral decision to bring them down some, and as a result there has been a surge of exports from the United States into Mexico, creating an additional 400,000 jobs, and we can create hundreds of thousands of more if we continue this trend. We know this works. If it doesn't work, you know, we give six months notice and we're out of it. But we've also had a test of his theory.

    PEROT When?

    GORE In 1930, when the proposal by Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley was to raise tariffs across the board to protect our workers. And I brought some pictures, too.

    [Larry] KING You're saying Ross is a protectionist?

    GORE This is, this is a picture of Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley. They look like pretty good fellows. They sounded reasonable at the time; a lot of people believed them. The Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Protection Bill. He wants to raise tariffs on Mexico. They raised tariffs, and it was one of the principal causes, many economists say the principal cause, of the Great Depression in this country and around the world. Now, I framed this so you can put it on your wall if you want to.

    You can watch it here*

    * https://uneasymoney com/2016/02/17/competitive-devaluation-plus-monetary-expansion-does-create-a-free-lunch/

    jonny bakho -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:26 AM
    You obviously have not read Krugman. Here is from his 1997 Slate piece:

    But putting Greenspan (or his successor) into the picture restores much of the classical vision of the macroeconomy. Instead of an invisible hand pushing the economy toward full employment in some unspecified long run, we have the visible hand of the Fed pushing us toward its estimate of the noninflationary unemployment rate over the course of two or three years. To accomplish this, the board must raise or lower interest rates to bring savings and investment at that target unemployment rate in line with each other.

    And so all the paradoxes of thrift, widow's cruses, and so on become irrelevant. In particular, an increase in the savings rate will translate into higher investment after all, because the Fed will make sure that it does.

    To me, at least, the idea that changes in demand will normally be offset by Fed policy--so that they will, on average, have no effect on employment--seems both simple and entirely reasonable. Yet it is clear that very few people outside the world of academic economics think about things that way. For example, the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement was conducted almost entirely in terms of supposed job creation or destruction. The obvious (to me) point that the average unemployment rate over the next 10 years will be what the Fed wants it to be, regardless of the U.S.-Mexico trade balance, never made it into the public consciousness. (In fact, when I made that argument at one panel discussion in 1993, a fellow panelist--a NAFTA advocate, as it happens--exploded in rage: "It's remarks like that that make people hate economists!")

    http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1996/10/economic_culture_wars.html

    pgl -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:44 AM
    Yes. But please do not interrupt PeterK with reality. He has important work do with his bash all things Krugman agenda. BTW - it is a riot that he cites Ross Perot on NAFTA. Perot has a self centered agenda there which Gore exposed. Never trust a corrupt business person whether it is Perot or Trump.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:42 AM
    Did you read what Al Gore said? He said nothing about the government redistributing the gains from NAFTA?
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:44 AM
    "But please do not interrupt PeterK with reality."

    We are talking about the reality of Krugman's past support for free trade agreements.

    You can't rewrite the past.

    jonny bakho -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:47 AM
    Yes the model PeterK is using is unclear. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on the economics of the issues. He seems to think that Sanders is a font of economic wisdom who is not to be questioned. I would hate to see the left try to make a flawed candidate into the larger than life icon that the GOP has made out of Reagan.
    Peter K. -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:15 AM
    "Yes the model PeterK is using is unclear. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on the economics of the issues."

    Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein. Like you I want full employment and rising wages. And like Krugman I am very much an internationalist. I want us to deal fairly with the rest of the world. We need to cooperate especially in the face of global warming.

    1. My first, best solution would be fiscal action. Like everyone else. I prefer Sanders's unicorn plan of $1 trillion over five years rather than Hillary's plan which is one quarter of the size. Her plan puts more pressure on the Fed and monetary policy.

    a. My preference would be to pay for it with Pigouvian taxes on the rich, corporations, and the financial sector.

    b. if not a, then deficit spending like Trudeau in Canada

    C. if the deficit hawks block that, then monetary-financing would be the way around them.

    2. close the trade deficit. Dean Baker and Bernstein have written about this a lot. Write currency agreements into trade deals. If we close the trade deficit and are at full employment, then we can import more from the rest of the world.

    3. If powerful interests block 1. and 2. then lean on monetary policy. Reduce the price of credit to boost demand. It works as a last resort.

    "I would hate to see the left try to make a flawed candidate into the larger than life icon that the GOP has made out of Reagan.'

    I haven't seen any evidence of this. It would be funny if the left made an old Jewish codger from Brooklyn into an icon. Feel the Bern!!!

    Sanders regularly points out it's not about him as President fixing everything, it's about creating a movement. It's about getting people involved. He can't do it by himself. Obama would say this too. Elizabeth Warren become popular by saying the same things Sanders is saying.

    Syaloch -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:19 PM
    The Compensation Principle certainly is part of standard Heckscher-Ohlin trade model, you can find it in any textbook:

    http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch60/T60-13.php

    However to say that the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the Compensation Principle isn't quite accurate. The conventional case has traditionally relied on the assertion that "we" are better off with trade since we could *theoretically* distribute the gains. However, free trade boosters never seem to get around to worrying about distributing the gains *in practice*. In practice, free trade is typically justified simply by the net aggregate gain, regardless of how these gains are distributed or who is hurt in the process.

    To my mind, before considering some trade liberalization deal we should FIRST agree to and implement the redistribution mechanisms and only then reduce barriers. Implementing trade deals in a backward, half-assed way as has typically been the case often makes "us" worse off than autarky.

    Peter K. -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:43 AM
    From Krugman's wikipedia article:

    "Krugman has at times advocated free markets in contexts where they are often viewed as controversial. He has ... likened the opposition against free trade and globalization to the opposition against evolution via natural selection (1996),[167]

    167 167 http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm

    "Ricardo's difficult idea". Web.mit.edu. 1996. Retrieved 2011-10-04.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:48 AM
    Wikipedia. Now there is an unimpeachable source!
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:17 AM
    what's your alternative?
    Julio -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:10 AM
    (In fact, when I made that argument at one panel discussion in 1993, a fellow panelist--a NAFTA advocate, as it happens--exploded in rage: "It's remarks like that that make people hate economists!")

    [Thanks to electoral politics, we're all fellow panelists now.]

    Peter K. -> Julio ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:20 AM
    "To me, at least, the idea that changes in demand will normally be offset by Fed policy--so that they will, on average, have no effect on employment--seems both simple and entirely reasonable. Yet it is clear that very few people outside the world of academic economics think about things that way."

    As we've seen the Fed is overly fearful of inflation, so the Fed doesn't offset the trade deficit as quickly as it should. Instead we suffer hysteresis and reduction of potential output.

    Peter K. : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:04 AM
    "The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious."

    Here Krugman is more honest. We're basically buying off the Chinese, etc. The cost for stopping this would be less cooperation from the Chinese, etc.

    This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists" as luddites.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:09 AM
    "This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists" as luddites."

    You have Krugman confused with Greg Mankiw. Most real international economics (Mankiw is not one) recognize the distributional consequences of free trade v. protectionism. Then again - putting forth the Mankiw uninformed spin is a prerequisite for being on Team Republican. Of course Republicans will go protectionist whenever it is politically expedient as in that temporary set of steel tariffs. Helped Bush-Cheney in 2004 and right after that - no tariffs. Funny how that worked.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:20 AM
    "Most real international economics (Mankiw is not one) recognize the distributional consequences of free trade v. protectionism."

    Obama and others don't defend the TPP that way. Krugman and Hillary don't support the TPP but only because the politics has shifted since the 1990s.

    If Krugman wrote today as he did in the 1990s, he'd completely ruin his brand as liberal economist.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:22 AM
    Where is the "redistribution from government" in the TPP. There isn't any.

    Even the NAFTA side agreements on labor and the environment are toothless. The point of these corporate trade deals is to profit from the lower labor and environmental standards of poorer countries.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:46 AM
    And where did I say TPP was a good thing? I have slammed TPP. And I never said NAFTA included this compensation thing. Nor did Mark Kleiman.

    But do continue to misrepresent what I and others have said. It is what you do.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:12 AM
    Hat tip to my Econospeak colleague Sandwichman for noting this from Krugman:

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2013/06/paul-krugmans-sympathy-for-luddites.html

    Mark Thoma also noted this sympathy for the Luddites. But the professional Krugman haters have to deny he would write such things.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:17 AM
    The fact that you resort to calling me a professional Krugman hater means you're not interested in an actual debate about actual ideas. You've lost the debate and I'm not participating.

    One is not allowed to criticize Krugman lest one be labeled a professional Krugman hater?

    Your resort to name calling just weakens the case you're making.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:47 AM
    You of late have wasted so much space misrepresenting what Krugman has said. Maybe you don't hate him - maybe you just want to get his attention. For a date maybe. Lord - the troll in you is truly out of control.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:29 AM
    I have not misrepresented what Krugman has said.
    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:49 AM
    Who wrote?

    "This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists" as luddites."

    Did you even bother to read that link to what the Sandwichman posted? Didn't think so.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:23 AM
    Sandwichman's quote is from 2013. I'm talking about before that and especially in the 1990s.

    Sandwichman says the quote is notable because Krugman has changed his views. That proves my point.

    Did you read it?

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:34 AM
    Sandwichman may think Krugman changed his views but if one actually read what he has written over the years (as opposed to your cherry picking quotes), you might have noticed otherwise. But of course you want Krugman to look bad. It is what you do.
    Syaloch -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:31 PM
    Krugman's views have evolved quite a bit over the years. Can you envision today's Krugman singing the praises of cheap labor?

    http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/smokey.htm

    In Praise of Cheap Labor (1997)

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:25 AM
    Only recently he has begun to say that trade deals are part of diplomacy, like we're giving these countries something in order for them to cooperate.

    If we didn't do these trade deals, these countries would cooperate less.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , -1
    It's a legitimate point.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The conditions that produced and enabled Trump are the Democratic Party betrayal or working classes, especially its transformation into another wing of neoliberal party of the USA under Clinton. People now view a vote for Hillary as a vote for more of the same - increasing disparity in wealth and income.

    Sizeable numbers of Americans have seen wages decline in real terms for nearly 20 years. Many/most parents in many communities do not see a better future before them, or for their children.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Democracy demands that ballot access rules be selected by referendum, not by the very legacy parties that maintain legislative control by effectively denying ballot access to parties that will pose a challenge to their continued rule. ..."
    "... I think the U.S. Party system, in the political science sense, shifted to a new state during George W Bush's administration as, in Kevin Phillip's terms the Republican Party was taken over by Theocrats and Bad Money. ..."
    "... My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income. ..."
    "... Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz status. ..."
    "... For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations. ..."
    "... Watching Clinton scoop up bankster money, welcome Republicans neocons to the ranks of her supporters does not fill me with hope. ..."
    Aug 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Glenn 08.02.16 at 5:01 pm

    @William Meyer 08.02.16 at 4:41 pm

    Legislators affiliated with the duopoly parties should not write the rules governing the ballot access of third parties. This exclusionary rule making amounts to preserving a self-dealing duopoly. Elections are the interest of the people who vote and those elected should not be able to subvert the democratic process by acting as a cartel.

    Democracy demands that ballot access rules be selected by referendum, not by the very legacy parties that maintain legislative control by effectively denying ballot access to parties that will pose a challenge to their continued rule.

    Of course any meaningful change would require a voluntary diminishment of power of the duopoly that now has dictatorial control over ballot access, and who will prevent any Constitutional Amendment that would enhance the democratic nature of the process.

    bruce wilder 08.02.16 at 8:02 pm

    I think the U.S. Party system, in the political science sense, shifted to a new state during George W Bush's administration as, in Kevin Phillip's terms the Republican Party was taken over by Theocrats and Bad Money.

    Ronan(rf) 08.04.16 at 10:35 pm

    "I generally don't give a shit about polls so I have no "data" to evidence this claim, but my guess is the majority of Trump's support comes from this broad middle"

    My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income.

    This would make some sense as they are generally in economically unstable jobs, they tend to be hostile to both big govt (regulations, freeloaders) and big business (unfair competition), and while they (rhetorically at least) tend to value personal autonomy and self sufficiency , they generally sell into smaller, local markets, and so are particularly affected by local demographic and cultural change , and decline. That's my speculation anyway.

    bruce wilder 08.06.16 at 4:28 pm

    I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community.

    Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to serve their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.)

    Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz status. The ugly prejudices and resentful arrogance of working class whites is thus a component of how racism works to organize a political community to serve a hegemonic master class. The business end of racism, though, is the autarkic poverty imposed on the working communities: slaves, sharecroppers, poor blacks, poor whites - bad schools, bad roads, politically disabled communities, predatory institutions and authoritarian governments.

    For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations.

    bruce wilder 08.06.16 at 4:31 pm

    Watching Clinton scoop up bankster money, welcome Republicans neocons to the ranks of her supporters does not fill me with hope.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Trump and the Transformation of Politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... Journal of Democracy ..."
    "... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | fpif.org
    Trump and the other illiberal populists have been benefiting from three overlapping backlashes.

    The first is cultural. Movements for civil liberties have been remarkably successful over the last 40 years. Women, ethnic and religious minorities, and the LGBTQ community have secured important gains at a legal and cultural level. It is remarkable, for instance, how quickly same-sex marriage has become legal in more than 20 countries when no country recognized it before 2001.

    Resistance has always existed to these movements to expand the realm of civil liberties. But this backlash increasingly has a political face. Thus the rise of parties that challenge multiculturalism and immigration in Europe, the movements throughout Africa and Asia that support the majority over the minorities, and the Trump/Tea Party takeover of the Republican Party with their appeals to primarily white men.

    The second backlash is economic. The globalization of the economy has created a class of enormously wealthy individuals (in the financial, technology, and communications sectors). But globalization has left behind huge numbers of low-wage workers and those who have watched their jobs relocate to other countries.

    Illiberal populists have directed all that anger on the part of people left behind by the world economy at a series of targets: bankers who make billions, corporations that are constantly looking for even lower-wage workers, immigrants who "take away our jobs," and sometimes ethnic minorities who function as convenient scapegoats. The targets, in other words, include both the very powerful and the very weak.

    The third backlash, and perhaps the most consequential, is political. It's not just that people living in democracies are disgusted with their leaders and the parties they represent. Rather, as political scientists Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk write in the Journal of Democracy , "they have also become more cynical about the value of democracy as a political system, less hopeful that anything they do might influence public policy, and more willing to express support for authoritarian alternatives."

    Foa and Mounk are using 20 years of data collected from surveys of citizens in Western Europe and North America – the democracies with the greatest longevity. And they have found that support for illiberal alternatives is greater among the younger generation than the older one. In other countries outside Europe and North America, the disillusionment with democratic institutions often takes the form of a preference for a powerful leader who can break the rules if necessary to preserve order and stability – like Putin in Russia or Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt or Prayuth Chan-ocha in Thailand.

    These three backlashes – cultural, economic, political – are also anti-internationalist because international institutions have become associated with the promotion of civil liberties and human rights, the greater globalization of the economy, and the constraint of the sovereignty of nations (for instance, through the European Union or the UN's "responsibility to protect" doctrine).

    ... ... ....

    The current political order is coming apart. If we don't come up with a fair, Green, and internationalist alternative, the illiberal populists will keep winning. John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The most powerful force in Presidential election 2016 is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics, especially among Democratic electorate

    Notable quotes:
    "... if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital - and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation of the same tradition?" ..."
    "... Trump is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal. ..."
    "... Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc. ..."
    "... But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. ..."
    "... There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents. The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal. ..."
    "... Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing and distressing. ..."
    "... There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down. ..."
    "... From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. ..."
    "... Ready even now to whine that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every time she comments. ..."
    "... That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support her ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    Rich Puchalsky 08.12.16 at 4:15 pm 683
    "Once again, if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital - and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation of the same tradition?"

    You have to be willing to see neoliberalism as something different from conservatism to have the answer make any sense. John Quiggin has written a good deal here about a model of U.S. politics as being divided into left, neoliberal, and conservative. Trump is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal.

    ... ... ...

    T 08.12.16 at 5:52 pm

    RP @683

    That's a bit of my point. I think Corey has defined the Republican tradition solely in response to the Southern Strategy that sees a line from Nixon (or Goldwater) to Trump. But that gets the economics wrong and the foreign policy too - the repub foreign policy view has not been consistent across administrations and Trump's economic pans (to the extent he has a plan) are antithetical to the Nixon – W tradition. I have viewed post-80 Dem administrations as neoliberals w/transfers and Repub as neoliberals w/o transfers.

    Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc.

    But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. Populists have nothing against gov't programs like SS and Medicare and were always for things like the TVA and infrastructure spending. Policies aimed at the poor and minorities not so much.

    bruce wilder 08.12.16 at 7:47 pm 689

    T @ 685: Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view.

    There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents. The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal.

    These are the two most unpopular candidates in living memory. That is different.

    I am not a believer in "the fire next time". Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing and distressing.

    Nor will Sanders be back. His was a last New Deal coda. There may be second acts in American life, but there aren't 7th acts.

    If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than Sanders or Trump have been offering.<

    Michael Sullivan 08.12.16 at 8:06 pm 690

    Corey, you write: "It's not just that the Dems went after Nixon, it's also that Nixon had so few allies. People on the right were furious with him because they felt after this huge ratification that the country had moved to the right, Nixon was still governing as if the New Deal were the consensus. So when the time came, he had very few defenders, except for loyalists like Leonard Garment and G. Gordon Liddy. And Al Haig, God bless him."

    You've studied this more than I have, but this is at least somewhat at odds with my memory. I recall some prominent attackers of Nixon from the Republican party that were moderates, at least one of whom was essentially kicked out of the party for being too liberal in later years. There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down.

    To think that something similar would happen to Clinton (watergate like scandal) that would actually have a large portion of the left in support of impeachment, she would have to be as dirty as Nixon was, *and* the evidence to really put the screws to her would have to be out, as it was against Nixon during watergate.

    OTOH, my actual *hope* would be that a similar left-liberal sea change comparable to 1980 from the right would be plausible. I don't think a 1976-like interlude is plausible though, that would require the existence of a moderate republican with enough support within their own party to win the nomination. I suppose its possible that such a beast could come to exist if Trump loses a landslide, but most of the plausible candidates have already left or been kicked out of the party.

    From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. A comparable election from the other side would give republican centrists/moderates the ability to discredit and marginalize the right wing base. But unlike Democrats in 1972, there aren't any moderates left in the Republican party by my lights. I'm much more concerned that this will simply re-empower the hard-core conservatives with plausbly-deniable dog-whistle racism who are now the "moderates", and enable them to whitewash their history.

    Unfortunately, unlike you, I'm not convinced that a landslide is possible without an appeal to Reagan/Bush republicans. I don't think we're going to see a meaningful turn toward a real left until Democrats can win a majority of statehouses and clean up the ridiculous gerrymandering.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.12.16 at 9:18 pm

    Val: "Similarly with your comments on "identity politics" where you could almost be seen by MRAs and white supremacists as an ally, from the tone of your rhetoric."

    That is 100% perfect Val. Insinuates that BW is a sort-of-ally of white supremacists - an infuriating insinuation. Does this insinuation based on a misreading of what he wrote. Completely resistant to any sort of suggestion that what she dishes out so expansively to others had better be something she should be willing to accept herself, or that she shouldn't do it. Ready even now to whine that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every time she comments.

    That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support her - for people to jump in saying "Why are you being hostile to women?" in response to people's response to her comment.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Yes, the System Is Rigged

    Notable quotes:
    "... More than a dozen Republican rivals, described as the strongest GOP field since 1980, were sent packing. This was the year Americans rose up to pull down the establishment in a peaceful storming of the American Bastille. ..."
    "... If 2016 taught us anything, it is that if the establishment's hegemony is imperiled, it will come together in ferocious solidarity - for the preservation of their perks, privileges and power. All the elements of that establishment - corporate, cultural, political, media - are today issuing an ultimatum to Middle America: Trump is unacceptable. Instructions are going out to Republican leaders that either they dump Trump, or they will cease to be seen as morally fit partners in power. ..."
    "... Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for "regime change" in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect "regime change" here at home? ..."
    "... Donald Trump's success, despite the near-universal hostility of the media, even much of the conservative media, was due in large part to the public's response to the issues he raised. ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    "I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged," Donald Trump told voters in Ohio and Sean Hannity on Fox News. And that hit a nerve.

    "Dangerous," "toxic," came the recoil from the media.

    Trump is threatening to "delegitimize" the election results of 2016.

    Well, if that is what Trump is trying to do, he has no small point. For consider what 2016 promised and what it appears about to deliver.

    This longest of election cycles has rightly been called the Year of the Outsider. It was a year that saw a mighty surge of economic populism and patriotism, a year when a 74-year-old Socialist senator set primaries ablaze with mammoth crowds that dwarfed those of Hillary Clinton.

    It was the year that a non-politician, Donald Trump, swept Republican primaries in an historic turnout, with his nearest rival an ostracized maverick in his own Republican caucus, Senator Ted Cruz.

    More than a dozen Republican rivals, described as the strongest GOP field since 1980, were sent packing. This was the year Americans rose up to pull down the establishment in a peaceful storming of the American Bastille.

    But if it ends with a Clintonite restoration and a ratification of the same old Beltway policies, would that not suggest there is something fraudulent about American democracy, something rotten in the state?

    If 2016 taught us anything, it is that if the establishment's hegemony is imperiled, it will come together in ferocious solidarity - for the preservation of their perks, privileges and power. All the elements of that establishment - corporate, cultural, political, media - are today issuing an ultimatum to Middle America: Trump is unacceptable. Instructions are going out to Republican leaders that either they dump Trump, or they will cease to be seen as morally fit partners in power.

    It testifies to the character of Republican elites that some are seeking ways to carry out these instructions, though this would mean invalidating and aborting the democratic process that produced Trump.

    But what is a repudiated establishment doing issuing orders to anyone?

    Why is it not Middle America issuing the demands, rather than the other way around?

    Specifically, the Republican electorate should tell its discredited and rejected ruling class: If we cannot get rid of you at the ballot box, then tell us how, peacefully and democratically, we can be rid of you?

    You want Trump out? How do we get you out? The Czechs had their Prague Spring. The Tunisians and Egyptians their Arab Spring. When do we have our American Spring? The Brits had their "Brexit," and declared independence of an arrogant superstate in Brussels. How do we liberate ourselves from a Beltway superstate that is more powerful and resistant to democratic change?

    Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for "regime change" in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect "regime change" here at home?

    Donald Trump's success, despite the near-universal hostility of the media, even much of the conservative media, was due in large part to the public's response to the issues he raised.

    By campaign's end, he had won the argument on trade, as Hillary Clinton was agreeing on TPP and confessing to second thoughts on NAFTA.

    But if TPP is revived at the insistence of the oligarchs of Wall Street, the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - backed by conscript editorial writers for newspapers that rely on ad dollars - what do elections really mean anymore?

    And if, as the polls show we might, we get Clinton - and TPP, and amnesty, and endless migrations of Third World peoples who consume more tax dollars than they generate, and who will soon swamp the Republicans' coalition - what was 2016 all about?

    Would this really be what a majority of Americans voted for in this most exciting of presidential races?

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," said John F. Kennedy.

    The 1960s and early 1970s were a time of social revolution in America, and President Nixon, by ending the draft and ending the Vietnam war, presided over what one columnist called the "cooling of America."

    But if Hillary Clinton takes power, and continues America on her present course, which a majority of Americans rejected in the primaries, there is going to be a bad moon rising.

    And the new protesters in the streets will not be overprivileged children from Ivy League campuses.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    [Dec 05, 2016] Neoliberalism has only exacerbated falling living standards

    Notable quotes:
    "... the capitalist economy is more and more an asset driven one. This article does not even begin to address the issue of asset valuations, the explicit CB support for asset inflation and the effect on inequality, and especially generational plunder. ..."
    "... the problem of living standards is obviously a Malthusian one. despite all the progress of social media tricks, we cannot fool nature. the rate of ecological degradation is alarming, and now irreversible. "the market" is now moving rapidly to real assets. This will eventually lead to war as all war is eventually for resources. ..."
    Aug 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Sally Snyder , August 5, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Here is an article that explains the key reason why economic growth will be slow for the foreseeable future:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-baby-bust-and-its-impact-on.html

    No matter what central banks do, their actions will not be able to create the same level of economic growth that we have become used to over the past seven decades.

    JEHR , August 5, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    Economic growth does not come from the central banks; if government sought to provide the basics for all its citizens, including health care, education, a home, and proper food and all the infrastructure needed to give people the basics, then you could have something akin to "growth" while at the same time making life more pleasant for the less fortunate. There seems to be no definition of economic growth that includes everyone.

    David , August 5, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    This seems a very elaborate way of stating a simple problem, that can be summarised in three points.

    And that's about it.

    jgordon , August 5, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    Neoliberalism has only exacerbated falling living standards. Living standards would be falling even without it, albeit more gradually.

    Neoliberalism itself may even be nothing more than a standard type response of species that have expanded beyond the capacity of their environment to support them. What we see as an evil ideology is only the expression of a mechanism that apportions declining resources to the elites, like shutting shutting down the periphery so the core can survive as in hypothermia.

    I Lost at Jeopardy , August 5, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    I really don't have problem with this. Let the financial sector run the world into the ground and get it over with.

    In defference to a great many knowledgable commentors here that work in the FIRE sector, I don't want to create a damning screed on the cost of servicing money, but at some point even the most considered opinions have to acknowledge that that finance is flooded with *talent* which creates a number of problems; one being a waste of intellect and education in a field that doesn't offer much of a return when viewed in an egalitarian sense, secondly; as the field grows due to, the technical advances, the rise in globilization, and the security a financial occuptaion offers in an advanced first world country nowadays, it requires substantially more income to be devoted to it's function.

    This income has to be derived somewhere, and the required sacrifices on every facet of a global economy to bolster positions and maintain asset prices has precipitated this decline in the well being of peoples not plugged-in to the consumer capitalist regime and dogma.

    Something has to give here, and I honestly couldn't care about your 401k or home resale value, you did this to yourself as much as those day-traders who got clobbered in the dot-com crash.

    nothing but the truth , August 6, 2016 at 11:46 am

    the capitalist economy is more and more an asset driven one. This article does not even begin to address the issue of asset valuations, the explicit CB support for asset inflation and the effect on inequality, and especially generational plunder.

    the problem of living standards is obviously a Malthusian one. despite all the progress of social media tricks, we cannot fool nature. the rate of ecological degradation is alarming, and now irreversible. "the market" is now moving rapidly to real assets. This will eventually lead to war as all war is eventually for resources.

    [Dec 04, 2016] UK election Who really governs Britain

    But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.
    Notable quotes:
    "... But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control. ..."
    "... In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments' ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries. ..."
    "... Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000. ..."
    "... On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene. ..."
    "... That's why we need a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European government for European issues elected by all Europeans. ..."
    May 04, 2015 | CNN.com

    Once upon a time, national elections were -- or seemed to be -- overwhelmingly domestic affairs, affecting only the peoples of the countries taking part in them. If that was ever true, it is so no longer. Angela Merkel negotiates with Greece's government with Germany's voters looming in the background. David Cameron currently fights an election campaign in the UK holding fast to the belief that a false move on his part regarding Britain's relationship with the EU could cost his Conservative Party seats, votes and possibly the entire election.

    Britain provides a good illustration of a general proposition. It used to be claimed, plausibly, that "all politics is local." In 2015, electoral politics may still be mostly local, but the post-electoral business of government is anything but local. There is a misfit between the two. Voters are mainly swayed by domestic issues. Vote-seeking politicians campaign accordingly. But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.

    Anyone viewing the UK election campaign from afar could be forgiven for thinking that British voters and politicians alike imagined they were living on some kind of self-sufficient sea-girt island. The opinion polls indicate that a large majority of voters are preoccupied -- politically as well as in other ways -- with their own financial situation, tax rates, welfare spending and the future of the National Health Service. Immigration is an issue for many voters, but mostly in domestic terms (and often as a surrogate for generalized discontent with Britain's political class). The fact that migrants from Eastern Europe and elsewhere make a positive net contribution to both the UK's economy and its social services scarcely features in the campaign.

    ... ... ...

    After polling day, all that will change -- probably to millions of voters' dismay. One American presidential candidate famously said that politicians campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. Politicians in democracies, not just in Britain, campaign as though they can move mountains, then find that most mountains are hard or impossible to move.

    In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments' ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries.

    Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000.

    The UK's courts are also far more active than they were. The British parliament in 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British domestic law, and British judges have determinedly enforced those rights. During the 1970s, they had already been handed responsibility for enforcing the full range of EU law within the UK.

    Also, Britain's judges have, on their own initiative, exercised increasingly frequently their long-standing power of "judicial review," invalidating ministerial decisions that violated due process or seemed to them to be wholly unreasonable. Devolution of substantial powers to semi-independent governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has also meant that the jurisdiction of many so-called UK government ministers is effectively confined to the purely English component part.

    On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene.

    The heirs of Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, Britain's political leaders are understandably still tempted to talk big. But their effective real-world influence is small. No wonder a lot of voters in Britain feel they are being conned.

    ItsJustTim

    That's globalization. And it won't go away, even if you vote nationalist. The issues are increasingly international, while the voters still have a mostly local perspective. That's why we need a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European government for European issues elected by all Europeans.

    [Dec 04, 2016] James Pinkerton Globalism Hits a Brick Wall Now, What Will Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Do

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Guardian ..."
    "... it seems fair to say: Globalism isn't quite the Wave of the Future that most observers thought it was, even just a year ago. And so before we attempt to divide the true intentions of Clinton and Trump, we might first step back and consider how we got to this point. ..."
    "... An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations . ..."
    "... Clinton will say anything then she'll sell you out. I hope we never get a chance to see how she will sell us out on TPP ..."
    "... What we would be headed for under Hillary Clinton is fascism--Mussolini's shorthand definition of fascism was the marriage of industry and commerce with the power of the State. That is what the plutocrats who run the big banks (to whom she owes her soul) aim to do. President, Thomas Jefferson knew the dangers of large European-style central banks. ..."
    Aug 30, 2016 | Breitbart
    On the surface, it appears that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, for all their mutual antipathy, are united on one big issue: opposition to new trade deals. Here's a recent headline in The Guardian: "Trump and Clinton's free trade retreat: a pivotal moment for the world's economic future."

    And the subhead continues in that vein:

    Never before have both main presidential candidates broken so completely with Washington orthodoxy on globalization, even as the White House refuses to give up. The problem, however, goes much deeper than trade deals.

    In the above quote, we can note the deliberate use of the loaded word, "problem." As in, it's a problem that free trade is unpopular-a problem, perhaps, that the MSM can fix. Yet in the meantime, the newspaper sighed, the two biggest trade deals on the horizon, the well-known Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the lesser-known Trans Atlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP), aimed at further linking the U.S. and European Union (EU), are both in jeopardy.

    Indeed, if TPP isn't doing well, TTIP might be dead: Here's an August 28 headline from the Deutsche Welle news service quoting Sigmar Gabriel, the No. 2 in the Berlin government: "Germany's Vice Chancellor Gabriel: US-EU trade talks 'have failed.'"

    So now we must ask broader questions: What does this mean for trade treaties overall? And what are the implications for globalism?

    More specifically, we can ask: Are we sure that the two main White House hopefuls, Clinton and Trump, are truly sincere in their opposition to those deals? After all, as has been widely reported, President Obama still has plans to push TPP through to enactment in the "lame duck" session of Congress after the November elections. Of course, Obama wouldn't seek to do that if the president-elect opposed it-or would he?

    Yet on August 30, Politico reminded its Beltway readership, "How Trump or Clinton could kill Pacific trade deal." In other words, even if Obama were to move TPP forward in his last two months in office, the 45th president could still block its implementation in 2017 and beyond. If, that is, she or he really wanted to.

    Indeed, as we think about Clinton and Trump, we realize that there's "opposition" that's for show and there's opposition that's for real.

    Still, given what's been said on the presidential campaign trail this year, it seems fair to say: Globalism isn't quite the Wave of the Future that most observers thought it was, even just a year ago. And so before we attempt to divide the true intentions of Clinton and Trump, we might first step back and consider how we got to this point.

    2. The Free Trade Orthodoxy

    It's poignant that the headline, "Trump and Clinton's free trade retreat", lamenting the decay of free trade, appeared in The Guardian. Until recently, the newspaper was known as The Manchester Guardian, as in Manchester, England. And Manchester is not only a big city, population 2.5 million, it is also a city with a fabled past: You see, Manchester was the cradle of the Industrial Revolution, which transformed England and the world. It was that city that helped create the free trade orthodoxy that is now crumbling.

    Yes, in the 18th and 19th centuries, Manchester was the leading manufacturing city in the world, especially for textiles. It was known as "Cottonopolis."

    Indeed, back then, Manchester was so much more efficient and effective at mass production that it led the world in exports. That is, it could produce its goods at such low cost that it could send them across vast oceans and still undercut local producers on price and quality.

    Over time, this economic reality congealed into a school of thought: As Manchester grew rich from exports, its business leaders easily found economists, journalists, and propagandists who would help advance their cause in the press and among the intelligentsia.

    The resulting school of thought became known, in the 19th century, as "Manchester Liberalism." And so, to this day, long after Manchester has lost its economic preeminence to rivals elsewhere in the world, the phrase "Manchester Liberalism" is a well-known in the history of economics, bespeaking ardent support for free markets and free trade.

    More recently, the hub for free-trade enthusiasm has been the United States. In particular, the University of Chicago, home to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, became free trade's academic citadel; hence the "Chicago School" has displaced Manchesterism.

    And just as it made sense for Manchester Liberalism to exalt free trade and exports when Manchester and England were on top, so, too, did the Chicago School exalt free trade when the U.S. was unquestionably the top dog.

    So back in the 40s and 50s, when the rest of the world was either bombed flat or still under the yoke of colonialism, it made perfect sense that the U.S., as the only intact industrial power, would celebrate industrial exports: We were Number One, and it was perfectly rational to make the most of that first-place status. And if scribblers and scholars could help make the case for this new status quo, well, bring 'em aboard. Thus the Chicago School gained ascendancy in the late 20th century. And of course, the Chicagoans drew inspiration from a period even earlier than Manchesterism,

    3. On the Origins of the Orthodoxy: Adam Smith and David Ricardo

    The beginnings of an intellectually rigorous discussion of trade can be traced to 1776, when Adam Smith published his famous work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

    One passage in that volume considers how individuals might optimize their own production and consumption:

    It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.

    Smith is right, of course; everyone should always be calculating, however informally, whether or not it's cheaper to make it at home or buy it from someone else.

    We can quickly see: If each family must make its own clothes and grow its own food, it's likely to be worse off than if it can buy its necessities from a large-scale producer. Why? Because, to be blunt about it, most of us don't really know how to make clothes and grow food, and it's expensive and difficult-if not downright impossible-to learn how. So we can conclude that self-sufficiency, however rustic and charming, is almost always a recipe for poverty.

    Smith had a better idea: specialization. That is, people would specialize in one line of work, gain skills, earn more money, and then use that money in the marketplace, buying what they needed from other kinds of specialists.

    Moreover, the even better news, in Smith's mind, was that this kind of specialization came naturally to people-that is, if they were free to scheme out their own advancement. As Smith argued, the ideal system would allow "every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice."

    That is, men (and women) would do that which they did best, and then they would all come together in the free marketplace-each person being inspired to do better, thanks to, as Smith so memorably put it, the "invisible hand." Thus Smith articulated a key insight that undergirds the whole of modern economics-and, of course, modern-day prosperity.

    A few decades later, in the early 19th century, Smith's pioneering work was expanded upon by another remarkable British economist, David Ricardo.

    Ricardo's big idea built on Smithian specialization; Ricardo called it "comparative advantage." That is, just as each individual should do what he or she does best, so should each country.

    In Ricardo's well-known illustration, he explained that the warm and sunny climate of Portugal made that country ideal for growing the grapes needed for wine, while the factories of England made that country ideal for spinning the fibers needed for apparel and other finished fabrics.

    Thus, in Ricardo's view, we could see the makings of a beautiful economic friendship: The Portuguese would utilize their comparative advantage (climate) and export their surplus wine to England, while the English would utilize their comparative advantage (manufacturing) and export apparel to Portugal. Thus each would benefit from the exchange of efficiently-produced products, as each export paid for the other.

    Furthermore, in Ricardo's telling, if tariffs and other barriers were eliminated, then both countries, Portugal and England, would enjoy the maximum free-trading win-win.

    Actually, in point of fact-and Ricardo knew this-the relationship was much more of a win for England, because manufacture is more lucrative than agriculture. That is, a factory in Manchester could crank out garments a lot faster than a vineyard in Portugal could ferment wine.

    And as we all know, the richer, stronger countries are industrial, not agricultural. Food is essential-and alcohol is pleasurable-but the real money is made in making things. After all, crops can be grown easily enough in many places, and so prices stay low. By contrast, manufacturing requires a lot of know-how and a huge upfront investment. Yet with enough powerful manufacturing, a nation is always guaranteed to be able to afford to import food. And also, it can make military weapons, and so, if necessary, take foreign food and croplands by force.

    We can also observe that Ricardo, smart fellow that he was, nevertheless was describing the economy at a certain point in time-the era of horse-drawn carriages and sailing ships. Ricardo realized that transportation was, in fact, a key business variable. He wrote that it was possible for a company to seek economic advantage by moving a factory from one part of England to another. And yet in his view, writing from the perspective of the year 1817, it was impossible to imagine moving a factory from England to another country:

    It would not follow that capital and population would necessarily move from England to Holland, or Spain, or Russia.

    Why this presumed immobility of capital and people? Because, from Ricardo's early 19th-century perspective, transportation was inevitably slow and creaky; he didn't foresee steamships and airplanes. In his day, relying on the technology of the time, it wasn't realistic to think that factories, and their workers, could relocate from one country to another.

    Moreover, in Ricardo's era, many countries were actively hostile to industrialization, because change would upset the aristocratic rhythms of the old order. That is, industrialization could turn docile or fatalistic peasants, spread out thinly across the countryside, into angry and self-aware proletarians, concentrated in the big cities-and that was a formula for unrest, even revolution.

    Indeed, it was not until the 20th century that every country-including China, a great civilization, long asleep under decadent imperial misrule-figured out that it had no choice other than to industrialize.

    So we can see that the ideas of Smith and Ricardo, enduringly powerful as they have been, were nonetheless products of their time-that is, a time when England mostly had the advantages of industrialism to itself. In particular, Ricardo's celebration of comparative advantage can be seen as an artifact of his own era, when England enjoyed a massive first-mover advantage in the industrial-export game.

    Smith died in 1790, and Ricardo died in 1823; a lot has changed since then. And yet the two economists were so lucid in their writings that their work is studied and admired to this day.

    Unfortunately, we can also observe that their ideas have been frozen in a kind of intellectual amber; even in the 21st century, free trade and old-fashioned comparative advantage are unquestioningly regarded as the keys to the wealth of nations-at least in the U.S.-even if they are so no longer.

    4. Nationalist Alternatives to Free Trade Orthodoxy

    As we have seen, Smith and Ricardo were pushing an idea, free trade, that was advantageous to Britain.

    So perhaps not surprisingly, rival countries-notably the United States and Germany-soon developed different ideas. Leaders in Washington, D.C., and Berlin didn't want their respective nations to be mere dependent receptacles for English goods; they wanted real independence. And so they wanted factories of their own.

    In the late 18th century, Alexander Hamilton, the visionary American patriot, could see that both economic wealth and military power flowed from domestic industry. As the nation's first Treasury Secretary, he persuaded President George Washington and the Congress to support a system of protective tariffs and "internal improvements" (what today we would call infrastructure) to foster US manufacturing and exporting.

    And in the 19th century, Germany, under the much heavier-handed leadership of Otto von Bismarck, had the same idea: Make a concerted effort to make the nation stronger.

    In both countries, this industrial policymaking succeeded. So whereas at the beginning of the 19th century, England had led the world in steel production, by the beginning of the 20th century century, the U.S. and Germany had moved well ahead. Yes, the "invisible hand" of individual self-interest is always a powerful economic force, but sometimes, the "visible hand" of national purpose, animated by patriotism, is even more powerful.

    Thus by 1914, at the onset of World War One, we could see the results of the Smith/Ricardo model, on the one hand, and the Hamilton/Bismarck model, on the other. All three countries-Britain, the US, and Germany, were rich-but only the latter two had genuine industrial mojo. Indeed, during World War One, English weakness became glaringly apparent in the 1915 shell crisis-as in, artillery shells. It was only the massive importing of made-in-USA ammunition that saved Britain from looming defeat.

    Yet as always, times change, as do economic circumstances, as do prevailing ideas.

    As we have seen, at the end of World War II, the U.S. was the only industrial power left standing. And so it made sense for America to shift from a policy of Hamiltonian protection to a policy of Smith-Ricardian export-minded free trade. Indeed, beginning in around 1945, both major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, solidly embraced the new line: The U.S. would be the factory for the world.

    Yet if times, circumstances, and ideas change, they can always change again.

    5. The Contemporary Crack-Up

    As we have seen, in the 19th century, not every country wanted to be on the passive receiving end of England's exports. And this was true, too, in the 20th century; Japan, notably, had its own ideas.

    If Japan had followed the Ricardian doctrine of comparative advantage, it would have focused on exporting rice and tuna. Instead, by dint of hard work, ingenuity, and more than a little national strategizing, Japan grew itself into a great and prosperous industrial power. Its exports, we might note, were such high-value-adds as automobiles and electronics, not mere crops and fish.

    Moreover, according to the same theory of comparative advantage, South Korea should have been exporting parasols and kimchi, and China should have settled for exporting fortune cookies and pandas.

    Yet as the South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang has chronicled, these Asian nations resolved, in their no-nonsense neo-Confucian way, to launch state-guided private industries-and the theory of comparative advantage be damned.

    Yes, their efforts violated Western economic orthodoxy, but as the philosopher Kant once observed, the actual proves the possible. Indeed, today, as we all know, the Asian tigers are among the richest and fastest-growing economies in the world.

    Leading them all, of course, is China. As the economic historian Michael Lind recounted recently,

    China is not only the world's largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), but also the world's largest manufacturing nation-producing 52 percent of color televisions, 75 percent of mobile phones and 87 percent of the world's personal computers. The Chinese automobile industry is the world's largest, twice the size of America's. China leads the world in foreign exchange reserves. The United States is the main trading partner for seventy-six countries. China is the main trading partner for 124.

    In particular, we might pause over one item in that impressive litany: China makes 87 percent of the world's personal computers.

    Indeed, if it's true, as ZDNet reports, that the Chinese have built "backdoors" into almost all the electronic equipment that they sell-that is to say, the equipment that we buy-then we can assume that we face a serious military challenge, as well as a serious economic challenge.

    Yes, it's a safe bet that the People's Liberation Army has a good handle on our defense establishment, especially now that the Pentagon has fully equipped itself with Chinese-made iPhones and iPads.

    Of course, we can safely predict that Defense Department bureaucrats will always say that there's nothing to worry about, that they have the potential hacking/sabotage matter under control (although just to be sure, the Pentagon might say, give us more money).

    Yet we might note that this is the same defense establishment that couldn't keep track of lone internal rogues such as Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. Therefore, should we really believe that this same DOD knows how to stop the determined efforts of a nation of 1.3 billion people, seeking to hack machines-machines that they made in the first place?

    Yes, the single strongest argument against the blind application of free- trade dogma is the doctrine of self defense. That is, all the wealth in the world doesn't matter if you're conquered. Even Adam Smith understood that; as he wrote, "Defense . . . is of much more importance than opulence."

    Yet today we can readily see: If we are grossly dependent on China for vital wares, then we can't be truly independent of China. In fact, we should be downright fearful.

    Still, despite these deep strategic threats, directly the result of careless importing, the Smith-Ricardo orthodoxy remains powerful, even hegemonistic-at least in the English-speaking world.

    Why is this so? Yes, economists are typically seen as cold and nerdy, even bloodless, and yet, in fact, they are actual human beings. And as such, they are susceptible to the giddy-happy feeling that comes from the hope of building a new utopia, the dream of ushering in an era of world harmony, based on untrammeled international trade. Indeed, this woozy idealism among economists goes way back; it was the British free trader Richard Cobden who declared in 1857,

    Free trade is God's diplomacy. There is no other certain way of uniting people in the bonds of peace.

    And lo, so many wars later, many economists still believe that.

    Indeed, economists today are still monolithically pro-fee trade; a recent survey of economists found that 83 percent supported eliminating all tariffs and other barriers; just 10 percent disagreed.

    We might further note that others, too, in the financial and intellectual elite are fully on board the free-trade train, including most corporate officers and their lobbyists, journalists, academics, and, of course, the mostly for-hire think-tankers.

    To be sure, there are always exceptions: As that Guardian article, the one lamenting the sharp decrease in support for free trade as a "problem," noted, not all of corporate America is on board, particularly those companies in the manufacturing sector:

    Ford openly opposes TPP because it fears the deal does nothing to stop Japan manipulating its currency at the expense of US rivals.

    Indeed, we might note that the same Guardian story included an even more cautionary note, asserting that support for free trade, overall, is remarkably rickety:

    Some suggest a "bicycle theory" of trade deals: that the international bandwagon has to keep rolling forward or else it all wobbles and falls down.

    So what has happened? How could virtually the entire elite be united in enthusiasm for free trade, and yet, even so, the free trade juggernaut is no steadier than a mere two-wheeled bike? Moreover, free traders will ask: Why aren't the leaders leading? More to the point, why aren't the followers following?

    To answer those questions, we might start by noting the four-decade phenomenon of wage stagnation-that's taken a toll on support for free trade. But of course, it's in the heartland that wages have been stagnating; by contrast, incomes for the bicoastal elites have been soaring.

    We might also note that some expert predictions have been way off, thus undermining confidence in their expertise. Remember, this spring, when all the experts were saying that the United Kingdom would fall into recession, or worse, if it voted to leave the EU? Well, just the other day came this New York Post headline: "Brexit actually boosting the UK economy."

    Thus from the Wall Street-ish perspective of the urban chattering classes, things are going well-so what's the problem?

    Yet the folks on Main Street have known a different story. They have seen, with their own eyes, what has happened to them, and no fusillade of op-eds or think-tank monographs will persuade them to change their mind.

    So we can see that there's been a standoff: Wall Street vs. Main Street; nor is this the first time this has happened.

    However, because the two parties have been so united on the issues of trade and globalization-the "Uniparty," it's sometimes called-the folks in the boonies have had no political alternative. And as they say, the only power you have in this world is the power of an alternative. And so, lacking an alternative, the working/middle class has just had to accept its fate.

    Indeed, it has been a bitter fate, particularly bitter in the former industrial heartland. In a 2013 paper, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) came to some startling conclusions:

    Growing trade with less-developed countries lowered wages in 2011 by 5.5 percent-or by roughly $1,800-for a full-time, full-year worker earning the average wage for workers without a four-year college degree.

    The paper added, "One-third of this total effect is due to growing trade with just China."

    Continuing, EPI found that even as trade with low-wage countries caused a decrease in the incomes for lower-end workers, it had caused an increase in the incomes of high-end workers-so no wonder the high-end thinks globalism in great.

    To be sure, some in the elite are bothered by what's been happening. Peggy Noonan, writing earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal-a piece that must have raised the hackles of her doctrinaire colleagues-put the matter succinctly: There's a wide, and widening, gap between the "protected" and the "unprotected":

    The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

    Of course, Noonan was alluding to the Trump candidacy-and also to the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Those two insurgents, in different parties, have been propelled by the pushing from all the unprotected folks across America.

    We might pause to note that free traders have arguments which undoubtedly deserve a fuller airing. Okay. However, we can still see the limits. For example, the familiar gambit of outsourcing jobs to China, or Mexico-or 50 other countries-and calling that "free trade" is now socially unacceptable, and politically unsustainable.

    Still, the broader vision of planetary freedom, including the free flow of peoples and their ideas, is always enormously appealing. The United States, as well as the world, undoubtedly benefits from competition, from social and economic mobility-and yes, from new blood.

    As Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, notes, "77 percent of the full-time graduate students in electrical engineering and 71 percent in computer science at U.S. universities are international students." That's a statistic that should give every American pause to ask: Why aren't we producing more engineers here at home?

    Moreover, Reuters reported in 2012 that 44 percent of all Silicon Valley startups were founded by at least one immigrant, and a 2016 study found that more than half of all billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. No doubt some will challenge the methodology of these studies, and that's fine; it's an important national debate in which all Americans might engage.

    We can say, with admiration, that Silicon Valley is the latest Manchester; as such, it's a powerful magnet for the best and the brightest from overseas, and from a purely dollars-and-cents point of view, there's a lot to be said for welcoming them.

    So yes, it would be nice if we could retain this international mobility that benefits the U.S.-but only if the economic benefits can be broadly shared, and patriotic assimilation of immigrants can be truly achieved, such that all Americans can feel good about welcoming newcomers.

    The further enrichment of Silicon Valley won't do much good for the country unless those riches are somehow widely shared. In fact, amidst the ongoing outsourcing of mass-production jobs, total employment in such boomtowns as San Francisco and San Jose has barely budged. That is, new software billionaires are being minted every day, but their workforces tend to be tiny-or located overseas. If that past pattern is the future pattern, well, something will have to give.

    We can say: If America is to be one nation-something Mitt "47 percent" Romney never worried about, although it cost him in the end-then we will have to figure out a way to turn the genius of the few into good jobs for the many. The goal isn't socialism, or anything like that; instead, the goal is the widespread distribution of private property, facilitated, by conscious national economic development, as I argued at the tail end of this piece.

    If we can't, or won't, find a way to expand private ownership nationwide, then the populist upsurges of the Trump and Sanders campaigns will be remembered as mere overtures to a starkly divergent future.

    6. Clinton and Trump Say They Are Trade Hawks: But Are They Sincere?

    So now we come to a mega-question for 2016: How should we judge the sincerity of the two major-party candidates, Clinton or Trump, when they affirm their opposition to TPP? And how do we assess their attitude toward globalization, including immigration, overall?

    The future is, of course, unknown, but we can make a couple of points.

    First, it is true that many have questioned the sincerity of Hillary's new anti-TPP stance, especially given the presence of such prominent free-traders as vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine and presidential transition-planning chief Ken Salazar. Moreover, there's also Hillary's own decades-long association with open-borders immigration policies, as well as past support for such trade bills as NAFTA, PNTR, and, of course, TPP. And oh yes, there's the Clinton Foundation, that global laundromat for every overseas fortune; most of those billionaires are globalists par excellence-would a President Hillary really cross them?

    Second, since there's still no way to see inside another person's mind, the best we can do is look for external clues-by which we mean, external pressures. And so we might ask a basic question: Would the 45th president, whoever she or he is, feel compelled by those external pressures to keep their stated commitment to the voters? Or would they feel that they owe more to their elite friends, allies, and benefactors?

    As we have seen, Clinton has long chosen to surround herself with free traders and globalists. Moreover, she has raised money from virtually every bicoastal billionaire in America.

    So we must wonder: Will a new President Clinton really betray her own class-all those Davos Men and Davos Women-for the sake of middle-class folks she has never met, except maybe on a rope line? Would Clinton 45, who has spent her life courting the powerful, really stick her neck out for unnamed strangers-who never gave a dime to the Clinton Foundation?

    Okay, so what to make of Trump? He, too, is a fat-cat-even more of fat-cat, in fact, than Clinton. And yet for more than a year now, he has based his campaign on opposition to globalism in all its forms; it's been the basis of his campaign-indeed, the basis of his base. And his campaign policy advisers are emphatic. According to Politico, as recently as August 30, Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro reiterated Trump's opposition to TPP, declaring,

    Any deal must increase the GDP growth rate, reduce the trade deficit, and strengthen the manufacturing base.

    So, were Trump to win the White House, he would come in with a much more solid anti-globalist mandate.

    Thus we can ask: Would a President Trump really cross his own populist-nationalist base by going over to the other side-to the globalists who voted, and donated, against him? If he did-if he repudiated his central platform plank-he would implode his presidency, the way that Bush 41 imploded his presidency in 1990 when he went back on his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.

    Surely Trump remembers that moment of political calamity well, and so surely, whatever mistakes he might make, he won't make that one.

    To be sure, the future is unknowable. However, as we have seen, the past, both recent and historical, is rich with valuable clues.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Democrat Tom Coyne : Trump Challenging Institutional Elites in Both Parties

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump is challenging the very fabric of the institutional elites in this country on both sides that have, quite frankly, just straight up screwed this country up and made the world a mess. ..."
    Aug 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Tom Coyne, a lifelong Democrat and the mayor of Brook Park, Ohio, spoke about his endorsement of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump with Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Matt Boyle.

    Coyne said:

    The parties are blurred. What's the difference? They say the same things in different tones. At the end of the day, they accomplish nothing. Donald Trump is challenging the very fabric of the institutional elites in this country on both sides that have, quite frankly, just straight up screwed this country up and made the world a mess.

    Regarding the GOP establishment's so-called Never Trumpers, Coyne stated, "If it's their expertise that people are relying upon as to advice to vote, people should go the opposite."

    Coyne has been described as "a blue-collar populist, blunt and politically incorrect":

    In an interview last week, Coyne said that Democrats and Republicans have failed the city through inaction and bad trade policies, key themes Trump often trumpets.

    "He understands us," Coyne said of Trump. "He is saying what we feel, and therefore, let him shake the bedevils out of everyone in the canyons of Washington D.C. The American people are responding to him."

    Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

    [Dec 04, 2016] In Trump We Trust E Pluribus Awesome! Ann Coulter

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump isn't a politician -- he's a one-man wrecking ball against our dysfunctional and corrupt establishment. We're about to see the deluxe version of the left's favorite theme: Vote for us or we'll call you stupid. It's the working class against the smirking class. ..."
    "... He understands that if we're ever going to get our economy back on its feet the wage-earning middle class will have to prosper along with investors ..."
    "... Trump that really "gets" the idea that the economy is suffering because the middle class can't find employment at livable wages ..."
    "... Ms. Coulter says it more eloquently: "The Republican establishment has no idea how much ordinary voters hate both parties." Like me, she's especially annoyed with Republicans, because we think of the Republican Party as being our political "family" that has turned against us: ..."
    "... The RNC has been forcing Republican candidates to take suicidal positions forever They were happy to get 100 percent of the Business Roundtable vote and 20 percent of the regular vote. ..."
    "... American companies used free trade with low-wage countries as an opportunity to close their American factories and relocate the jobs to lower-paying foreign workers. Instead of creating product and exporting it to other countries, our American companies EXPORTED American JOBS to other countries and IMPORTED foreign-made PRODUCTS into America! Our exports have actually DECLINED during the last five years with most of the 20 countries we signed free trade with. Even our exports to Canada, our oldest free trade partner, are less than what they were five years ago. ..."
    "... Trade with Japan, China, and South Korea is even more imbalanced, because those countries actively restrict imports of American-made products. We run a 4x trade imbalance with China, which cost us $367 billion last year. We lost $69 billion to Japan and $28 billion to South Korea. Our exports to these countries are actually DECLINING, even while our imports soar! ..."
    "... Why do Establishment Republicans join with Democrats in wanting to diminish the future with the WRONG kind of "free trade" that removes jobs and wealth from the USA? As Ms. Coulter reminds us, it is because Republican Establishment, like the Democrat establishment, is PAID by the money and jobs they receive from big corporations to believe it. ..."
    "... The donor class doesn't care. The rich are like locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country. A hedge fund executive quoted in The Atlantic a few years ago said, "If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile [that] means one American drops out of the middle class, that's not such a bad trade." ..."
    "... The corporate 1% who believe that the global labor market should be tapped in order to beat American workers out of their jobs; and that corporations and the 1% who own them should be come tax-exempt organizations that profit by using cheap overseas labor to product product that is sold in the USA, and without paying taxes on the profit. Ms. Coulter calls this group of Republican Estblishmentarians "locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country." ..."
    "... Pretending to care about the interests of minorities. Of course, the Republican Establishment has even less appeal to minorities than to the White Middle Class (WMC) they abandoned. Minorities are no more interested in losing their jobs to foreigners or to suffer economic stagnation while the rich have their increasing wealth (most of which is earned at the expense of the middle class) tax-sheltered, than do the WMC. ..."
    "... Trump has given Republicans a new lease on life. The Establishment doesn't like having to take a back seat to him, but perhaps they should understand that having a back seat in a popular production is so much better than standing outside alone in the cold. ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | www.amazon.com

    Donald Trump isn't a politician -- he's a one-man wrecking ball against our dysfunctional and corrupt establishment. We're about to see the deluxe version of the left's favorite theme: Vote for us or we'll call you stupid. It's the working class against the smirking class.

    Frank A. Lewes

    No pandering! The essence of Trump in personality and issues , August 23, 2016

    Ms. Coulter explains the journey of myself and so many other voters into Trump's camp. It captures the essence of Trump as a personality and Trump on the issues. If I had to sum Ms. Coulter's view of the reason for Trump's success in two words, I'd say "No Pandering!" I've heard many people, including a Liberal tell me, "Trump says what needs to be said."

    I've voted Republican in every election going back to Reagan in 1980, except for 2012 when I supported President Obama's re-election. I've either voted for, or financially supported many "Establishment Republicans" like Mitt Romney and John McCain in 2008. I've also supported some Conservative ones like Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. In this election I'd been planning to vote for Jeb Bush, a superb governor when I lived in Florida.

    Then Trump announced his candidacy. I had seen hints of that happening as far back as 2012. In my Amazon reviews in 2012 I said that many voters weren't pleased with Obama or the Republican Establishment. So the question became: "Who do you vote for if you don't favor the agendas of either party's legacy candidates?" In November 2013 I commented on the book DOUBLE DOWN: GAME CHANGE 2012 by Mark Halperin and John Heileman:

    =====
    Mr. Trump occupies an important place in the political spectrum --- that of being a Republican Populist.

    He understands that if we're ever going to get our economy back on its feet the wage-earning middle class will have to prosper along with investors, who are recovering our fortunes in the stock market.

    IMO whichever party nominates a candidate like Trump that really "gets" the idea that the economy is suffering because the middle class can't find employment at livable wages, will be the party that rises to dominance.

    Mr. Trump, despite his flakiness, at least understood that essential fact of American economic life.

    November 7, 2013
    =====

    Ms. Coulter says it more eloquently: "The Republican establishment has no idea how much ordinary voters hate both parties." Like me, she's especially annoyed with Republicans, because we think of the Republican Party as being our political "family" that has turned against us:

    =====
    The RNC has been forcing Republican candidates to take suicidal positions forever They were happy to get 100 percent of the Business Roundtable vote and 20 percent of the regular vote.

    when the GOP wins an election, there is no corresponding "win" for the unemployed blue-collar voter in North Carolina. He still loses his job to a foreign worker or a closed manufacturing plant, his kids are still boxed out of college by affirmative action for immigrants, his community is still plagued with high taxes and high crime brought in with all that cheap foreign labor.

    There's no question but that the country is heading toward being Brazil. One doesn't have to agree with the reason to see that the very rich have gotten much richer, placing them well beyond the concerns of ordinary people, and the middle class is disappearing. America doesn't make anything anymore, except Hollywood movies and Facebook. At the same time, we're importing a huge peasant class, which is impoverishing what remains of the middle class, whose taxes support cheap labor for the rich.

    With Trump, Americans finally have the opportunity to vote for something that's popular.

    =====

    That explains how Trump won my vote --- and held on to it through a myriad of early blunders and controversies that almost made me switch my support to other candidates.

    I'm no "xenophobe isolationist" stereotype. My first employer was an immigrant from Eastern Europe. What I learned working for him launched me on my successful career. I've developed and sold computer systems to subsidiaries of American companies in Europe and Asia. My business partners have been English and Canadian immigrants. My family are all foreign-born Hispanics. Three of my college roommates were from Ecuador, Germany, and Syria.

    BECAUSE of this international experience I agree with the issues of trade and immigration that Ms. Coulter talks about that have prompted Trump's rising popularity.

    First, there is the false promise that free trade with low-wage countries would "create millions of high-paying jobs for American workers, who will be busy making high-value products for export." NAFTA was signed in 1994. GATT with China was signed in 2001. Since then we've signed free trade with 20 countries. It was said that besides creating jobs for Americans, that free trade would prosper the global economy. In truth the opposite happened:

    American companies used free trade with low-wage countries as an opportunity to close their American factories and relocate the jobs to lower-paying foreign workers. Instead of creating product and exporting it to other countries, our American companies EXPORTED American JOBS to other countries and IMPORTED foreign-made PRODUCTS into America! Our exports have actually DECLINED during the last five years with most of the 20 countries we signed free trade with. Even our exports to Canada, our oldest free trade partner, are less than what they were five years ago.

    We ran trade SURPLUSES with Mexico until 1994, when NAFTA was signed. The very next year the surplus turned to deficit, now $60 billion a year. Given that each American worker produces an average of $64,000 in value per year, that is a loss of 937,000 American jobs to Mexico alone. The problem is A) that Mexicans are not wealthy enough to be able to afford much in the way of American-made product and B) there isn't much in the way of American-made product left to buy, since so much of former American-made product is now made in Mexico or China.

    Trade with Japan, China, and South Korea is even more imbalanced, because those countries actively restrict imports of American-made products. We run a 4x trade imbalance with China, which cost us $367 billion last year. We lost $69 billion to Japan and $28 billion to South Korea. Our exports to these countries are actually DECLINING, even while our imports soar!

    Thus, free trade, except with a few fair-trading countries like Canada, Australia, and possibly Britain, has been a losing proposition. Is it coincidence that our economy has weakened with each trade deal we have signed? Our peak year of labor force participation was 1999. Then we had the Y2K collapse and the Great Recession, followed by the weakest "recovery" since WWII? As Trump would say, free trade has been a "disaster."

    Why do Establishment Republicans join with Democrats in wanting to diminish the future with the WRONG kind of "free trade" that removes jobs and wealth from the USA? As Ms. Coulter reminds us, it is because Republican Establishment, like the Democrat establishment, is PAID by the money and jobs they receive from big corporations to believe it. Ms. Coulter says:

    =====
    The donor class doesn't care. The rich are like locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country. A hedge fund executive quoted in The Atlantic a few years ago said, "If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile [that] means one American drops out of the middle class, that's not such a bad trade."
    =====

    Then there is immigration. My wife, son, and extended family legally immigrated to the USA from Latin America. The first family members were recruited by our government during the labor shortage of the Korean War. Some fought for the United States in Korea. Some of their children fought for us in Vietnam, and some grandchildren are fighting in the Middle East. Most have become successful professionals and business owners. They came here LEGALLY, some waiting in queue for up to 12 years. They were supported by the family already in America until they were on their feet.

    Illegal immigration has been less happy. Illegals are here because the Democrats want new voters and the Republicans want cheap labor. Contrary to business propaganda, illegals cost Americans their jobs. A colleague just old me, "My son returned home from California after five years, because he couldn't get construction work any longer. All those jobs are now done off the books by illegals."

    It's the same in technology. Even while our high-tech companies are laying off 260,000 American employees in 2016 alone, they are banging the drums to expand the importation of FOREIGN tech workers from 85,000 to 195,000 to replace the Americans they let go. Although the H1-B program is billed as bringing in only the most exceptional, high-value foreign engineers, in truth most visas are issued to replace American workers with young foreigners of mediocre ability who'll work for much less money than the American family bread-winners they replaced.

    Both parties express their "reverse racism" against the White Middle Class. Democrats don't like them because they tend to vote Republican. The Republican Establishment doesn't like them because they cost more to employ than overseas workers and illegal aliens. According to them the WMC is too technologically out of date and overpaid to allow our benighted business leaders to "compete internationally."

    Ms. Coulter says "Americans are homesick" for our country that is being lost to illegal immigration and the removal of our livelihoods overseas. We are sick of Republican and Democrat Party hidden agendas, reverse-racism, and economic genocide against the American people. That's why the Establishment candidates who started out so theoretically strong, like Jeb Bush, collapsed like waterlogged houses of cards when they met Donald Trump. As Ms. Coulter explains, Trump knows their hidden agendas, and knows they are working against the best interests of the American Middle Class.

    Coulter keeps coming back to Mr. Trump's "Alpha Male" personality that speaks to Americans as nation without pandering to specific voter identity groups. She contrasts his style to the self-serving "Republican (Establishment) Brain Trust that is mostly composed of comfortable, well-paid mediocrities who, by getting a gig in politics, earn salaries higher than a capitalist system would ever value their talents." She explains what she sees as the idiocy of those Republican Establishment political consultants who wrecked the campaigns of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz by micromanaging with pandering.

    She says the Republican Establishment lost because it served itself --- becoming wealthy by serving the moneyed interests of Wall Street. Trump won because he is speaking to the disfranchised American Middle Class who loves our country, is proud of our traditions, and believes that Americans have as much right to feed our families through gainful employment as do overseas workers and illegal aliens.

    "I am YOUR voice," says Trump to the Middle Class that until now has been ignored and even sneered at by both parties' establishments.

    I've given an overview of the book here. The real delight is in the details, told as only Anne Coulter can tell them. I've quoted a few snippets of her words, that relate most specifically to my views on Trump and the issues. I wish there were space to quote many more. Alas, you'll need to read the book to glean them all!

    Frank A. Lewes
    Bruce, I would also add that the Republican Establishment chose not to represent the interests of the White Middle Class on trade, immigration, and other issues that matter to us. They chose to represent the narrow interests of:

    1. The corporate 1% who believe that the global labor market should be tapped in order to beat American workers out of their jobs; and that corporations and the 1% who own them should be come tax-exempt organizations that profit by using cheap overseas labor to product product that is sold in the USA, and without paying taxes on the profit. Ms. Coulter calls this group of Republican Estblishmentarians "locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country."

    2. Pretending to care about the interests of minorities. Of course, the Republican Establishment has even less appeal to minorities than to the White Middle Class (WMC) they abandoned. Minorities are no more interested in losing their jobs to foreigners or to suffer economic stagnation while the rich have their increasing wealth (most of which is earned at the expense of the middle class) tax-sheltered, than do the WMC.

    The Republican Establishment is in a snit because Trump beat them by picking up the WMC votes that the Establishment abandoned. What would have happened if Trump had not come on the scene? The probable result is that the Establishment would have nominated a ticket of Jeb Bush and John Kasich. These candidates had much to recommend them as popular governors of key swing states. But they would have gone into the election fighting the campaign with Republican Establishment issues that only matter to the 1%. They would have lost much of the WMC vote that ultimately rallied around Trump, while gaining no more than the usual 6% of minorities who vote Republican. It would have resulted in a severe loss for the Republican Party, perhaps making it the minority party for the rest of the century.

    Trump has given Republicans a new lease on life. The Establishment doesn't like having to take a back seat to him, but perhaps they should understand that having a back seat in a popular production is so much better than standing outside alone in the cold.

    Frank A. Lewes
    It's funny how White Men are supposed to be angry. But I've never seen any White men:

    1. Running amok, looting and burning down their neighborhood, shooting police and other "angry White men." There were 50 people shot in Chicago last weekend alone. How many of those do you think were "angry white men?" Hint: they were every color EXCEPT white.

    2. Running around complaining that they aren't allowed into the other gender's bathroom, then when they barge their way in there complain about being sexually assaulted. No, it's only "angry females" (of any ethnicity) who barge their way into the men's room and then complain that somebody in there offended them.

    Those "angry white men" are as legendary as "Bigfoot." They are alleged to exist everywhere, but are never seen. Maybe that's because they mostly hang out in the quiet neighborhoods of cookie-cutter homes in suburbia, go to the lake or bar-be-que on weekends, and take their allotment of Viagra in hopes of occassionally "getting lucky" with their wives. If they're "angry" then at least they don't take their angry frustrations out on others, as so many other militant, "in-your-face" activist groups do!

    [Dec 04, 2016] Michael Hudson 2016 Is Wall Street and the Corporate Sector (Clinton) vs. the Populists (Trump)

    Notable quotes:
    "... I've tuned out Warren-she has become the "red meat" surrogate for Clinton. Just because Taibbi was excellent on exposing Wall St. doesn't mean he really knows s**t about politics. I find the depiction of Trump as some kind of monster-buffoon to be simply boring and not very helpful. ..."
    "... (might be the Trump Chaos bc Hillary will strategically turn our war machine on us can't believe this is as good as it gets, sighed out) ..."
    "... Having the establishment, the military-industrial complex and Wall Street against him helps Trump a lot. ..."
    "... You can fool part of the people all the time, and all people part of the time, but Brexit won, so will Trump, politician extraordinaire ..."
    "... Given his family, a Trump presidency may look more like JFK's, where Bobby had more power than LBJ. Also, given Trump's negotiating expertise, I would certainly not believe any assertion of support he proclaims for the VP. I expect he had little choice in the matter, and that he also plans to send the VP to the hinterlands at the first opportunity. I'm unclear why so many appear to believe the VP has any influence whatsoever; I believe GWB was the only post-WW2 president who let the VP have any power. ..."
    "... What is a populist? Somebody that tries to do what the majority want. Current examples: Less wars and military spending. More infrastructure spending. Less support for banks and corps (imagine how many votes trump would gain if he said 'as pres I will jail bankers that break the law' And how that repudiates Obama and both parties.) Gun control (but not possible from within the rep party) ..."
    "... What is a fascist? Somebody that supports corporations, military, and military adventures. ..."
    "... Actually, it sounds a whole lot like a different candidate from a different party, doesn't it? ..."
    "... Neoliberal "Goodthink" flag. What this means when neoliberals say it is not let's build a better global society for all it means Corporations and our military should be able to run roughshod over the world and the people's of other countries. Exploit their citizens for cheap Labor, destroy their environment and move on. These are the exact policies of Hillary Clinton (see TPP, increase foreign wars etc.). Hillary globalism is not about global Brotherhood it's about global economic and military exploitation. Trump is nationalist non – interventionist, which leads to less global military destruction than hillary and less global exploitation. So who is a better for those outside the US, hillary the interventionist OR trump the non-interventionist? ..."
    "... Look, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate entities, including the DNC, could be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point. ..."
    "... The very fact that Establishment, Wall St and Koch bros are behind HRC is evidence that the current 'status quo' will be continued! I cannot stand another 4 years of Hilabama. ..."
    "... The striving for American empire has so totally confused the political order of the country that up is down and down is up. The idea of government for and by the people is a distant memory. Covering for lies and contradictions of beliefs has blurred any notion of principles informing public action. ..."
    "... If there is any principle that matters today, it is the pursuit of money and profit reigns supreme. Trump is populist in the sense he is talking about bringing money and wealth back to the working classes. Not by giving it directly, but by forcing businesses to turn their sights back to the US proper and return to making their profits at home. In the end, it is all nostalgia and probably impossible, but working class people remember those days so it rings true. That is hope and change in action. People also could care less if he cheats on his taxes or is found out lying about how much he is worth. Once again, fudging your net worth is something working people care little about. Having their share of the pie is all that matters and Trump is tapping into that. ..."
    "... The only crime Trump has committed so far is his language. Liberals like Clinton, Blair and Obama drip blood. ..."
    "... The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens. Globalization is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning to their tribal roots for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are 100% Status Quo Globalists. Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently I am planning on voting for the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the chaos avoids Maryland. ..."
    Jul 24, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Brindle, July 24, 2016 at 10:09 am

    I've tuned out Warren-she has become the "red meat" surrogate for Clinton. Just because Taibbi was excellent on exposing Wall St. doesn't mean he really knows s**t about politics. I find the depiction of Trump as some kind of monster-buffoon to be simply boring and not very helpful.

    abynormal , July 24, 2016 at 4:51 am

    for all the run around Hillary, Trump's chosen circle of allies are Wall Street and Austerity enablers. actually, Trump chaos could boost the enablers as easily as Hillary's direct mongering. War is Money low hanging fruit in this cash strapped era and either directly or indirectly neither candidate will disappoint.
    So I Ask Myself which candidate will the majority manage sustainability while assembling to create different outcomes? (might be the Trump Chaos bc Hillary will strategically turn our war machine on us can't believe this is as good as it gets, sighed out)

    Norb , July 24, 2016 at 10:54 am

    War is only good for the profiteers when it can be undertaken in another territory. Bringing the chaos home cannot be good for business. Endless calls for confidence and stability in markets must reflect the fact that disorder effects more business that the few corporations that benefit directly from spreading chaos. A split in the business community seems to be underway or at least a possible leverage point to bring about positive change.
    Even the splits in the political class reflect this. Those that benefit from spreading chaos are loosing strength because they have lost control of where that chaos takes place and who is directly effected from its implementation. Blowback and collateral damage are finally registering.

    Plenue , July 24, 2016 at 6:32 am

    Trump may be a disaster. Clinton will be a disaster. One of these two will win. I won't vote for either, but if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose, I'd take Trump. He's certainly not a fascist (I think it was either Vice or Vox that had an article where they asked a bunch of historians of fascism if he was, the answer was a resounding no), he's a populist in the Andrew Jackson style. If nothing else Trump will (probably) not start WW3 with Russia.

    cm , July 24, 2016 at 11:28 am

    And war with Russia doesn't depend just on Hillary, it depends on us in Western Europe agreeing with it.

    A laughable proposition. The official US policy, as you may recall, is fuck the EU .

    Where was Europe when we toppled the Ukrainian govt? Get back to me when you can actually spend 2% GDP on your military. At the moment you can't even control your illegal immigrants.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 24, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    The political parties that survive display adaptability, and ideological consistency isn't a requirement for that. Look at the party of Lincoln. Or look at the party of FDR.

    If the Democrats decapitate the Republican party by bringing in the Kagans of this world and Republican suburbanites in swing states, then the Republicans will go where the votes are; the Iron Law of Institutions will drive them to do it, and the purge of the party after Trump will open the positions in the party for people with that goal.

    In a way, what we're seeing now is what should have happened to the Republicans in 2008. The Democrats had the Republicans down on the ground with Obama's boot on their neck. The Republicans had organized and lost a disastrous war, they had lost the legislative and executive branches, they were completely discredited ideologically, and they were thoroughly discredited in the political class and in the press.

    Instead, Obama, with his strategy of bipartisanship - good faith or not - gave them a hand up, dusted them off, and let them right back in the game, by treating them as a legitimate opposition party. So the Republican day of reckoning was postponed. We got various bids for power by factions - the Tea Party, now the Liberty Caucus - but none of them came anywhere near taking real power, despite (click-driven money-raising) Democrat hysteria.

    And now the day of reckoning has arrived. Trump went through the hollow institutional shell of the Republican Party like the German panzers through the French in 1939. And here we are!

    (Needless to say, anybody - ***cough*** Ted Cruz ***cough*** - yammering about "conservative principles" is part of the problem, dead weight, part of the dead past.) I don't know if the Republicans can remake themselves after Trump; what he's doing is necessary for that, but may not be sufficient.

    Steve C , July 24, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    Republicans won Congress and the states because the Democrats handed them to them on a silver platter. To Obama and his fan club meaningful power is a hot potato, to be discarded as soon as plausible.

    Older & Wiser , July 24, 2016 at 8:37 am

    Having the establishment, the military-industrial complex and Wall Street against him helps Trump a lot.

    Pro-Sanders folks, blacks, and hispanics will mostly vote for Trump.
    Having Gov. Pence on the ticket, core Republicans and the silent majority will vote for Trump.
    Women deep inside know Trump will help their true interests better than the Clinton-Obama rinse repeat
    Young people, sick and tired of the current obviously rigged system, will vote for change.

    You can fool part of the people all the time, and all people part of the time, but Brexit won, so will Trump, politician extraordinaire
    Even Michael Moore gets it

    cm , July 24, 2016 at 11:35 am

    Trump has intimated that he is not going to deal with the nuts and bolts of government, that will be Pence's job.

    Given his family, a Trump presidency may look more like JFK's, where Bobby had more power than LBJ.

    Also, given Trump's negotiating expertise, I would certainly not believe any assertion of support he proclaims for the VP. I expect he had little choice in the matter, and that he also plans to send the VP to the hinterlands at the first opportunity. I'm unclear why so many appear to believe the VP has any influence whatsoever; I believe GWB was the only post-WW2 president who let the VP have any power.

    John k , July 24, 2016 at 10:48 am

    Minorities will benefit at least as much as whites with infrastructure spending, which trump says he wants to do It would make him popular, which he likes, why not believe him? And if pres he would be able to get enough rep votes to get it passed. No chance with Hillary, who anyway would rather spend on wars, which are mostly fought by minorities.

    What is a populist? Somebody that tries to do what the majority want. Current examples:
    Less wars and military spending. More infrastructure spending. Less support for banks and corps (imagine how many votes trump would gain if he said 'as pres I will jail bankers that break the law' And how that repudiates Obama and both parties.) Gun control (but not possible from within the rep party)

    What is a fascist? Somebody that supports corporations, military, and military adventures.

    Uahsenaa , July 24, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    I'm saying you have a much better chance to pressure Clinton

    Sorry, but this argues from facts not in evidence and closely resembles the Correct the Record troll line (now substantiated through the Wikileaks dump) that Clinton "has to be elected" because she is at least responsive to progressive concerns.

    Except she isn't, and the degree to which the DNC clearly has been trying to pander to disillusioned Republicans and the amount of bile they spew every time they lament how HRC has had to "veer left" shows quite conclusively to my mind that, in fact, the opposite of what you say is true.

    Also, when NAFTA was being debated in the '90s, the Clintons showed themselves to be remarkably unresponsive both to the concerns of organized labor (who opposed it) as well as the majority of the members of their own party, who voted against it. NAFTA was passed only with a majority of Republican votes.

    I have no way of knowing whether you're a troll or sincerely believe this, but either way, it needs to be pointed out that the historical record actually contradicts your premise. If you do really believe this, try not to be so easily taken in by crafty rhetoric.

    EndOfTheWorld , July 24, 2016 at 8:19 am

    BTW, I'll take Trump's record as a husband over HRC's record as a wife. He loves a woman, then they break up, and he finds another one. This is not unusual in the US. Hillary, OTOH, "stood by her man" through multiple publicly humiliating infidelities, including having to settle out of court for more than $800,000, and rape charges. No problem with her if her husband was flying many times on the "Lolita Express" with a child molester. Could be she had no idea where her "loved one" was at the time. Do they in fact sleep in the same bed, or even live in the same house? I don't know.

    EndOfTheWorld , July 24, 2016 at 7:12 am

    RE: calling Donald Trump a "sociopath"-this is another one of those words that is thrown around carelessly, like "nazi" and "fascist". In the Psychology Today article "How to Spot a Sociopath", they list 16 key behavioral characteristics. I can't see them in Trump-you could make a case for a few of them, but not all. For example: "failure to follow any life plan", "sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated", "poor judgment and failure to learn by experience", "incapacity for love"-–you can't reasonably attach these characteristics to The Donald, who, indeed, has a more impressive and loving progeny than any other prez candidate I can think of.

    edmondo , July 24, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Actually, it sounds a whole lot like a different candidate from a different party, doesn't it?

    HBE , July 24, 2016 at 11:06 am

    "I have a sense of international identity as well: we are all brothers and sisters."

    Neoliberal "Goodthink" flag. What this means when neoliberals say it is not let's build a better global society for all it means Corporations and our military should be able to run roughshod over the world and the people's of other countries. Exploit their citizens for cheap Labor, destroy their environment and move on. These are the exact policies of Hillary Clinton (see TPP, increase foreign wars etc.). Hillary globalism is not about global Brotherhood it's about global economic and military exploitation. Trump is nationalist non – interventionist, which leads to less global military destruction than hillary and less global exploitation. So who is a better for those outside the US, hillary the interventionist OR trump the non-interventionist?

    "And not everyone feels the same way, but for most voters there is either a strong tribal loyalty (Dem or Repub) or a weaker sense of "us" guiding the voter on that day.
    Mad as I am about the Blue Dogs, I strongly identify with the Dems."

    So you recognize you are a tribalist, and assume all the baggage and irrationality that tribalism often fosters, but instead of addressing your tribalism you embrace it. What you seem to be saying (to me)is that we should leave critical thinking at the door and become dem tribalists like you.

    "But the Repubs and Dems see Wall Street issues through different cultural prisms. Republican are more reflexively pro-business. It matters."

    Hillary Clinton's biggest donors are Wallstreet and her dem. Husband destroyed glass-steagall. Trump wants to reinstate glass-steagall, so who is more business friendly again?

    "He is racist, and so he knows how to push ugly buttons."

    This identity politics trope is getting so old. Both are racist just in different ways, Trump says in your face racist things, which ensure the injustice cannot be ignored, where hillary has and does support racist policies, that use stealth racism to incrementaly increase the misery of minorities, while allowing the majority to pretend it's not happening.

    "First, he will govern with the Republicans. Republican judges, TPP, military spending, environmental rollbacks, etc. Trump will not overrule Repubs in Congress."

    These are literally hillarys policies not trumps.
    Trump: anti TPP, stop foreign interventions, close bases use money for infrastructure.
    Hillary :Pro TPP, more interventions and military spending

    "And no, no great Left populist party will ride to the rescue. The populist tradition (identity) is mostly rightwing and racist in our society.
    People do not change political identity like their clothes. The left tradition in the US, such as it is, is in the Dem party."

    So what you are saying is quit being stupid, populism is bad and you should vote for hillarys neoliberalism. The democrats were once left so even if they are no longer left, we must continue to support them if another party or candidate that is to the left isn't a democrat? Your logic hurts my head.

    Arnold Babar , July 24, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    Look, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate entities, including the DNC, could be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point. Those who haven't realized that, or worse, who shill for them are willfully ignorant, amoral, or unethical. The fact that that includes a large chunk of the population doesn't change that. I don't vote for criminals.

    sunny129 , July 24, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    DNC is no different than RNC!

    The very fact that Establishment, Wall St and Koch bros are behind HRC is evidence that the current 'status quo' will be continued! I cannot stand another 4 years of Hilabama.

    I hate Hillary more than Trump. I want to protest at the Establishment, which at this represented by Hillary.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/dnc-email-leak-wikileaks/index.html

    John k , July 24, 2016 at 11:13 am

    Populism (support for popular issues) is, well, popular.

    Fascism (support for corps and military adventures) is, at least after our ME adventures, unpopular.

    Commenters are expressing support for the person expressing popular views, such as infrastructure spending, and expressing little support for the candidate they believe is most fascist.

    Btw, Most on this site are liberals, few are reps, so to support him they have had to buck some of their long held antipathy regarding reps.

    EndOfTheWorld , July 24, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Right, what is changing with Trump is the Republicans are going back to, say, the Eisenhower era, when Ike started the interstate highway system, a socialist program if there ever was one.

    local to oakland , July 24, 2016 at 10:48 am

    This article by Mckay Coppins was illuminating I thought.
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/how-the-haters-made-trump?utm_term=.sm0BPXq0g#.qnzvzj8aP

    It shows some of his history in a fairly sympathetic light.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 24, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    It's a good article; this is a general observation. Sorry!

    "Hate" seems to be a continuing Democrat meme, and heck, who can be for hate? So it makes sense rhetorically, but in policy terms it's about as sensible as being against @ssh0les (since as the good book says, ye have the @ssh0les always with you). So we're really looking at virtue signaling as a mode of reinforcing tribalism, and to be taken seriously only for that reason. If you look at the political class writing about the working class - modulo writers like Chris Arnade - the hate is plain as day, though it's covered up with the rhetoric of meritocracy, taking care of losers, etc.

    Strategic hate management is a great concept. It's like hate can never be created or destroyed, and is there as a resource to be mined or extracted. The Clinton campaign is doing a great job of strategic hate management right now, by linking Putin and Trump, capitalizing on all the good work done in the press over the last year or so.

    Pat , July 24, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    For years we have been told that government should be run like a business. In truth that statement was used as a cudgel to avoid having the government provide any kind of a safety net to its citizenry because there was little or no profit in it for the people who think that government largess should only be for them.

    Here's the thing, if government had been run like a business, we the people would own huge portions of Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Chase today. We wouldn't have bailed them out without an equity stake in them. Most cities would have a share of the gate for every stadium that was built. And rather than paying nothing to the community Walmart would have been paying a share of their profits (much as those have dropped over the years).

    I do not like Trump's business, but he truly does approach his brand and his relationships as a business. When he says he doesn't like the trade deals because they are bad business and bad deals he is correct. IF the well being of the United states and his populace are what you are interested in regarding trade deals, ours are failures. Now most of us here know that was not the point of the trade deals. They have been a spectacular success for many of our largest businesses and richest people, but for America as a whole they have increased our trade deficit and devastated our job base. When he says he won't go there, this is one I believe him on.

    I also believe him on NATO and on the whole Russian thing. Why, because of the same reasons I believe him on Trade. They are not winners for America as a whole. They are bad deals. Europe is NOT living up to their contractual agreement regarding NATO. For someone who is a believer in getting the better of the deal that is downright disgusting. And he sees no benefit in getting into a war with Russia. The whole reserve currency thing vs. nukes is not going to work for him as a cost benefit analysis of doing it. He is not going to front this because it is a business loser.

    We truly have the worst choices from the main parties in my lifetime. There are many reasons Trump is a bad candidate. But on these two, he is far more credible and on the better side of things than the Democratic nominee. And on the few where she might reasonably considered to have a better position, unfortunately I do not for a moment believe her to be doing more than giving lip service based on both her record and her character.

    GF , July 24, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    This article from Talking Points Memo was pointed to by PK in his Twitter feed today. It has some interesting background on Trump's Russian connections:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

    tegnost , July 24, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    Is it your opinion that to have globalisation we must marginalize russia to the extent that they realize they can't have utopia and make the practical choice of allowing finance capitalism to guide them to realistic incrementally achieved debt bondage?

    DarkMatters , July 24, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    World turned upside down.

    The Democratic Party has been inching further and further to the right. Bernie tried to arrest this drift, but his internal populist rebellion was successfully thwarted by party elite corruption. The Democratic position is now so far to the right that the Republicans will marginalize themselves if they try to keep to the right of the Democrats.

    But, despite party loyalty or PC slogans, the Democrat's rightward position is now so obvious that it can be longer disguised by spin. The Trump campaign has demonstrated, the best electoral strategy for the Republican Party is to leapfrog leftward and campaign from a less corporate position. This has given space for the re-evaluation of party positions that Trump is enunciating, and the result is that the Trump is running to the
    left of Hillary. How weird is this?

    DarkMatters , July 24, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    I meant to use right and left to refer generally to elite vs popular. The issue is too big to discuss without some simplification, and I'm sorry it has distracted from the main issue. On the face of it, judging from the primaries, the Republican candidates who represented continued rightward drift were rejected. (Indications are that the same thing happened in the Democratic Party, but party control was stronger there, and democratic primary numbers will never be known).

    The main point I was trying to make is that the Democratic party has been stretching credulity to the breaking point in claiming to be democratic in any sense, and finally the contradiction between their statements and actions has outpaced the capabilities of their propaganda. Their Orwellian program overextended itself. Popular recognition of the disparity has caused a kind of political "snap" that's initiated a radical reorganization of what used to be the party of the right (or corporations, or elites, or finance, or "your description here".)

    Besides confusion between which issues are right or left for Republicans or Democrats on the national level, internationally, the breakdown of popular trust in the elites, and the failure of their propaganda on that scale, is leading to a related worldwide distrust and rejection of elite policies. This distrust has been percolating in pockets for some time, but it seems it's now become so widespread that it's practically become a movement.

    I suspect, however, there's a Plan B for this situation to restore the proper order. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

    Norb , July 24, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    The striving for American empire has so totally confused the political order of the country that up is down and down is up. The idea of government for and by the people is a distant memory. Covering for lies and contradictions of beliefs has blurred any notion of principles informing public action.

    If there is any principle that matters today, it is the pursuit of money and profit reigns supreme. Trump is populist in the sense he is talking about bringing money and wealth back to the working classes. Not by giving it directly, but by forcing businesses to turn their sights back to the US proper and return to making their profits at home. In the end, it is all nostalgia and probably impossible, but working class people remember those days so it rings true. That is hope and change in action. People also could care less if he cheats on his taxes or is found out lying about how much he is worth. Once again, fudging your net worth is something working people care little about. Having their share of the pie is all that matters and Trump is tapping into that.

    Clintons arrogance is worse because the transcripts probably clearly show her secretly conspiring with bankers to screw the working people of this country. Trumps misdeeds effect his relationship to other elites while Clintons directly effect working people.

    Such a sorry state of affairs. When all that matters is the pursuit of money and profit, moving forward will be difficult and full of moral contradictions. Populism needs a new goal. The political machinery that gives us two pro-business hacks and an ineffectual third party has fundamentally failed.

    The business of America must be redefined, not somehow brought back to a mythical past greatness. Talk about insanity.

    John Wright , July 24, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    Thanks for the mention of the Bob Herbert editorial.

    I found it by searching for your quoted statement at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/26/opinion/in-america-cut-him-loose.html

    I was published Feb 26,2001

    Herbert has some advice for the Democrats.

    "Bill Clinton has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Send him packing."

    "There's not much the Democrats can do about Mrs. Clinton. She's got a Senate seat for six years. But there is no need for the party to look to her for leadership. The Democrats need to regroup, re-establish their strong links to middle-class and working-class Americans, and move on."

    "You can't lead a nation if you are ashamed of the leadership of your party. The Clintons are a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, and they've betrayed everyone who has ever believed in them."

    "As neither Clinton has the grace to retire from the scene, the Democrats have no choice but to turn their backs on them. It won't be easy, but the Democrats need to try. If they succeed they'll deserve the compliment Bill Clinton offered Gennifer Flowers after she lied under oath: "Good for you." "

    Amazing how the New York Times has "evolved" from Herbert's editorial stance of 15 years ago to their unified editorial/news support for HRC's candacy,

    In my view, it is not as if HRC has done anything to redeem herself in the intervening years.

    Herbert left the NY Times in 2011..

    Sound of the Suburbs , July 24, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    It takes liberals to create a refugee crisis.
    What country are we going to bomb back into the stone age this week?

    We are very squeamish about offensive language.
    We don't mind dropping bombs and ripping people apart with red hot shrapnel.
    We are liberals.

    Liberal sensibilities were on display in the film "Apocalypse Now".
    No writing four letter words on the side of aircraft.
    Napalm, white phosphorous and agent orange – no problem.

    Liberals are like the English upper class – outward sophistication hiding the psychopath underneath.
    They were renowned for their brutality towards slaves, the colonies and the English working class (men, women and children) but terribly sophisticated when with their own.

    Are you a bad language sort of person – Trump
    Or a liberal, psychopath, empire builder – Clinton

    The only crime Trump has committed so far is his language. Liberals like Clinton, Blair and Obama drip blood.

    Richard , July 24, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Lambert strether said: my view is that the democrat party cannot be saved, but it can be seized.
    Absolutely correct.
    That is why Trump must be elected. Only then through the broken remains of both Parties can the frangible Democrat Party be seized and restored.

    VietnamVet , July 24, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens. Globalization is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning to their tribal roots for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are 100% Status Quo Globalists. Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently I am planning on voting for the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the chaos avoids Maryland.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Dont blame the masses

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because we interpreted the end of the Cold War as the ultimate vindication of America's economic system, we intensified our push toward the next level of capitalism, called globalization. It was presented as a project that would benefit everyone. Instead it has turned out to be a nightmare for many working people. Thanks to "disruption" and the "global supply chain," many American workers who could once support families with secure, decent-paying jobs must now hope they can be hired as greeters at Walmart. Meanwhile, a handful of super-rich financiers manipulate our political system to cement their hold on the nation's wealth. ..."
    "... Rather than shifting to a less assertive and more cooperative foreign policy, we continued to insist that America must reign supreme. When we declared that we would not tolerate the emergence of another "peer power," we expected that other countries would blithely obey. Instead they ignore us. We interpret this as defiance and seek to punish the offenders. That has greatly intensified tensions between the United States and the countries we are told to consider our chief adversaries, Russia and China. ..."
    Aug 08, 2016 | www.bostonglobe.com
    Because we interpreted the end of the Cold War as the ultimate vindication of America's economic system, we intensified our push toward the next level of capitalism, called globalization. It was presented as a project that would benefit everyone. Instead it has turned out to be a nightmare for many working people. Thanks to "disruption" and the "global supply chain," many American workers who could once support families with secure, decent-paying jobs must now hope they can be hired as greeters at Walmart. Meanwhile, a handful of super-rich financiers manipulate our political system to cement their hold on the nation's wealth.
    Enrique Ferro's insight:
    Moments of change require adaptation, but the United States is not good at adapting. We are used to being in charge. This blinded us to the reality that as other countries began rising, our relative power would inevitably decline. Rather than shifting to a less assertive and more cooperative foreign policy, we continued to insist that America must reign supreme. When we declared that we would not tolerate the emergence of another "peer power," we expected that other countries would blithely obey. Instead they ignore us. We interpret this as defiance and seek to punish the offenders. That has greatly intensified tensions between the United States and the countries we are told to consider our chief adversaries, Russia and China.

    [Dec 04, 2016] The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies

    This is downright sickening and the people who are voting for Hillary will not even care what will happen with the USA iif she is elected.
    By attacking Trump using "Khan gambit" she risks a violent backlash (And not only via Wikileaks, which already promised to release information about her before the elections)
    People also start to understand that she is like Trump. He destroyed several hundred American lifes by robbing them, exploiting their vanity (standard practice in the USA those days) via Trump University scam. She destroyed the whole country -- Libya and is complicit in killing Khaddafi (who, while not a nice guy, was keeping the country together and providing be highest standard of living in Africa for his people).
    In other words she is a monster and sociopath. He probably is a narcissist too. So there is no much phychological difference between them. And we need tight proportions to judge this situation if we are talking about Hillary vs Trump.
    As for people voting for Trump -- yes they will. I think if Hillary goes aganst Trump, the female neoliberal monster will be trumped. She has little chances even taking into account the level of brainwashing in the USA (which actually is close to those that existed in the USSR).
    Notable quotes:
    "... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
    "... U.S. Government Tried to Tackle Gun Violence in 1960s ..."
    "... Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them. ..."
    "... The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences. ..."
    "... "Every society chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor." More specifically, isn't it a struggle between various political/economic/cultural movements within a society which chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor. ..."
    "... My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. ..."
    "... " the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism" ..."
    "... The neoliberals are all too aware that the clock is ticking. In this morning's NYT, yet more talk of ramming TPP through in the lame duck. ..."
    "... The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis. ..."
    "... This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint. People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. They think a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot. ..."
    "... Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government. ..."
    "... In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their ..."
    "... Your phrase "Trump is political vandalism" is great. I don't think I've seen a better description. NPR this morning was discussing Trump and his relationship with the press and the issues some GOP leaders have with him. When his followers were discussed, the speakers closely circled your vandalism point. Basically they said that his voters are angry with the power brokers and leaders in DC and regardless of whether they think Trump's statements are heartfelt or just rhetoric, they DO know he will stick it to those power brokers so that's good. Vandalism by a longer phrase. ..."
    "... Meritocracy was ALWAYS a delusional fraud. What you invariably get, after a couple of generations, is a clique of elitists who define merit as themselves and reproduce it ad nauseam. Who still believes in such laughable kiddie stories? ..."
    "... Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal. ..."
    "... Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders. ..."
    "... Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors. ..."
    "... Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry. ..."
    "... Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development. ..."
    "... Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour. ..."
    "... Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official. ..."
    "... Free public education including college (4 year degree). ..."
    "... Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left. ..."
    "... This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade. ..."
    "... Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- ..."
    "... "they are now re-shaping the world in their own image" Isn't this intrinsic to bourgeois liberalism? ..."
    "... Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats and kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human beings has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions (and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption. ..."
    "... Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category of problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources on the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher quality of life, not a higher quantity of people. ..."
    "... The issue goes beyond "current neoliberals up for election", it is most of our political establishment that has been corrupted by a system that provides for the best politicians money can buy. ..."
    "... America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With the exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of consumer debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism at bay, followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated capital of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty for the masses. ..."
    "... Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    The first comment gives a window into the hidden desperation in America that is showing up in statistics like increasing opioid addiction and suicides, rather than in accounts of how and why so many people are suffering. I hope readers will add their own observations in comments.

    seanseamour, June 1, 2016 at 3:26 am

    We recently took three months to travel the southern US from coast to coast. As an expat for the past twenty years, beyond the eye opening experience it left us in a state of shock. From a homeless man convulsing in the last throes of hypothermia (been there) behind a fuel station in Houston (the couldn't care less attendant's only preoccupation getting our RV off his premises), to the general squalor of near-homelessness such as the emergence of "American favelas" a block away from gated communities or affluent ran areas, to transformation of RV parks into permanent residencies for the foreclosed who have but their trailer or RV left, to social study one can engage while queuing at the cash registers of a Walmart before beneficiaries of SNAP.

    Stopping to take the time to talk and attempt to understand their predicament and their beliefs as to the cause of their plight is a dizzying experience in and of itself. For a moment I felt transposed to the times of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain dialectics fuzzed the perception of that other world to the west with a structured set of beliefs designed to blacken that horizon as well as establish a righteous belief in their own existential paradigm.

    What does that have to do with education? Everything if one considers the elitist trend that is slowly setting the framework of tomorrow's society. For years I have felt there is a silent "un-avowed conspiracy", why the seeming redundancy, because it is empirically driven as a by-product of capitalism's surge and like a self-redeeming discount on a store shelf crystalizes a group identity of think-alike know-little or nothing frustrated citizens easily corralled by a Fox or Trump piper. We have re-rcreated the conditions or rather the reality of "Poverty In America" barely half a century after its first diagnostic with one major difference : we are now feeding the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder, once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe.

    Praedor, June 1, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump. Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR) was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist.

    In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging. There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent real people in favor of useless eater rich.

    Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity, and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.

    Praedor , June 2, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    According to NPR's experts, many or most of those parties are "fascist". The fascist label is getting tossed around a LOT right now. It is slung at Trump, at UKIP, or any others. Fascist is what you call the opposition party to the right that you oppose. Now I don't call Trump a fascist. A buffoon, yes, even a charlatan (I still rather doubt he really originally thought he would become the GOP nominee. Perhaps I'm wrong but, like me, many seemed to think that he was pushing his "brand" – a term usage of which I HATE because it IS like we are all commodities or businesses rather than PEOPLE – and that he would drop by the wayside and profit from his publicity).

    Be that as it may, NPR and Co were discussing the rise of fascist/neofascist parties and wondering why there were doing so well. Easy answer: neoliberalism + refugee hoards = what you see in Europe.

    I've also blamed a large part of today's gun violence in the USA on the fruits of neoliberalism. Why? Same reason that ugly right-wing groups (fascist or not) are gaining ground around the Western world. Neoliberalism destroys societies. It destroys the connections within societies (the USA in this case). Because we have guns handy, the result is mass shootings and flashes of murder-suicides. This didn't happen BEFORE neoliberalism got its hooks into American society. The guns were there, always have been (when I was a teen I recall seeing gun mags advertising various "assault weapons" for sale this was BEFORE Reagan and this was BEFORE mass shootings, etc). Machine guns were much easier to come by BEFORE the 1980s yet we didn't have mass killings with machine guns, handguns, or shotguns. ALL that stuff is a NEW disease. A disease rooted in neoliberalism. Neoliberalism steals your job security, your healthcare security, your home, your retirement security, your ability to provide for your family, your ability to send your kids to college, your ability to BUY FOOD. Neoliberalism means you don't get to work for a company for 20 years and then see the company pay you back for that long, good service with a pension. You'll be lucky to hold a job at any company from month-to-month now and FORGET about benefits! Healthcare? Going by the wayside too. Workers in the past felt a bond with each other, especially within a company. Neoliberalism has turned all workers against each other because they have to fight to gain any of the scraps being tossed out by the rich overlords. You can't work TOGETHER to gain mutual benefit, you need to fight each other in a zero sum game. For ME to win you have to lose. You are a commodity. A disposable and irrelevant widget. THAT combines with guns (that have always been available!) and you get desperate acting out: mass shootings, murder suicides, etc.

    WorldBLee , June 2, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    There are actual fascist parties in Europe. To name a few in one country I've followed, Ukraine, there's Right Sector, Svoboda, and others, and that's just one country. I don't think anyone calls UKIP fascist.

    John Zelnicker , June 3, 2016 at 12:24 am

    @Praedor – Your comment that Yves posted and this one are excellent. One of the most succinct statements of neoliberalism and its worst effects that I have seen.

    As to the cause of recent mass gun violence, I think you have truly nailed it. If one thinks at all about the ways in which the middle class and lower have been squeezed and abused, it's no wonder that a few of them would turn to violence. It's the same despair and frustration that leads to higher suicide rates, higher rates of opiate addiction and even decreased life expectancy.

    Jacob , June 3, 2016 at 11:35 am

    "Machine guns were much easier to come by BEFORE the 1980s yet we didn't have mass killings with machine guns, handguns, or shotguns. ALL that stuff is a NEW disease. A disease rooted in neoliberalism."

    Easy availability of guns was seen as a serious problem long before the advent of neoliberalism. For one example of articles about this, see U.S. Government Tried to Tackle Gun Violence in 1960s . Other examples include 1920s and 1930s gangster and mob violence that were a consequence of Prohibition (of alcohol). While gun violence per-capita might be increasing, the population is far larger today, and the news media select incidents of violence to make them seem like they're happening everywhere and that everyone needs to be afraid. That, of course, instills a sense of insecurity and fear into the public mind; thus, a fearful public want a strong leader and are willing to accept the inconvenience and dangers of a police state for protection.

    Disturbed Voter , June 2, 2016 at 6:49 am

    First they came for the blue collar workers

    America has plenty of refugees, from Latin America

    Neo-liberal goes back to the Monroe Doctrine. We used to tame our native workers with immigrants, and we still do, but we also tame them by globalism in trade. So many rationalizations for this, based on political and economic propaganda. All problems caused by the same cause American predatory behavior. And our great political choice iron fist with our without velvet glove.

    Jeff , June 2, 2016 at 7:58 am

    Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind (if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe :) They all have more or less fascist governments.
    Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as a government running on behalf of the corporations).

    Seb , June 2, 2016 at 8:07 am

    That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around.

    None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can be called fascist in any meaningful sense.

    Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly anti-corporatist.

    BananaBreakfast , June 4, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    The problem here is one of semantics, really. You're using "fascist" interchangeably with "authoritarian", which is a misnomer for these groups. The EU is absolutely anti-democratic, authoritarian, and technocratic in a lot of respects, but it's not fascist. Both have corporatist tendencies, but fascist corporatism was much more radical, much more anti-capitalist (in the sense that the capitalist class was expected to subordinate itself to the State as the embodiment of the will of the Nation or People, as were the other classes/corporate units). EU technocratic corporatism has none of the militarism, the active fiscal policy, the drive for government supported social cohesion, the ethno-nationalism, or millenarianism of Fascism.

    The emergent Right parties like UKIP, FNP, etc. share far more with the Fascists, thought I'd say they generally aren't yet what Fascists would have recognized as other Fascists in the way that the NSDAP and Italian Fascists recognized each other -perhaps they're more like fellow travelers.

    tgs , June 2, 2016 at 9:46 am

    True, I posted a few minutes ago saying roughly the same thing – but it seems to have gone to moderation.

    Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them.

    Jeff , June 2, 2016 at 10:05 am

    When I was young, there were 4 divisions:
    * who owned the means of production (public or private entities)
    * who decided what those means were used for.
    If it is a 'public entity' (aka government or regime) that decides what is built, we have a totalitarian state, which can be 'communist' (if the means also belong the public entities like the government or regional fractions of it) or 'fascist' (if the factories are still in private hands).
    If it is the private owner of the production capacity who decides what is built, you get capitalism. I don't recall any examples of private entities deciding what to do with public means of production (mafia perhaps).
    Sheldon Wolin introduced us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means.
    When I cite Germany, it is not so much AfD, but the 2€/hour jobs I am worried about. When I cite Belgium, it is not the fools of Vlaams Belang, but rather the un-taxing of corporations and the tear-down of social justice that worries me.

    Jim , June 2, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    But Jeff, is Wolin accurate in using the term "inverted totalitarianism" to try to capture the nature of our modern extractive bureaucratic monolith that apparently functions in an environment where "it is no longer the government that decides what must be done..simply.."private owners just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means."

    Mirowski argues quite persuasively that the neoliberal ascendency does not represent the retreat of the State but its remaking to strongly support a particular conception of a market society that is imposed with the help of the State on our society.

    For Mirowski, neoliberalism is definitely not politically libertarian or opposed to strong state intervention in the economy and society.

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 10:19 am

    Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused. Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same.

    jan , June 2, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Hi
    I live in Europe as well, and what to think of Germany's AfD, Greece's Golden Dawn, the Wilder's party in the Netherlands etc. Most of them subscribe to the freeloading, sorry free trading economic policies of neoliberalism.

    schizosoph , June 2, 2016 at 9:28 am

    There's LePen in France and the far-right, fascist leaning party nearly won in Austria. The far right in Greece as well. There's clearly a move to the far right in Europe. And then there's the totalitarian mess that is Turkey. How much further this turn to a fascist leaning right goes and how widespread remains to be seen, but it's clearly underway.

    myshkin , June 2, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Searched 'current fascist movements europe' and got these active groups from wiki.

    National Bolshevik Party-Belarus
    Parti Communautaire National-Européen Belgium
    Bulgarian National Alliance Bulgaria
    Nova Hrvatska Desnica Croatia
    Ustaše Croatia
    National Socialist Movement of Denmark
    La Cagoule France
    National Democratic Party of Germany
    Fascism and Freedom Movement – Italy
    Fiamma Tricolore Italy
    Forza Nuova Italy
    Fronte Sociale Nazionale Italy
    Movimento Fascismo e Libertà Italy
    Pērkonkrusts Latvia
    Norges Nasjonalsosialistiske Bevegelse Norway
    National Radical Camp (ONR) Poland
    National Revival of Poland (NOP)
    Polish National Community-Polish National Party (PWN-PSN)
    Noua Dreaptă Romania
    Russian National Socialist Party(formerly Russian National Union)
    Barkashov's Guards Russia
    National Socialist Society Russia
    Nacionalni stroj Serbia
    Otačastveni pokret Obraz Serbia
    Slovenska Pospolitost Slovakia
    España 2000 Spain
    Falange Española Spain
    Nordic Realm Party Sweden
    National Alliance Sweden
    Swedish Resistance Movement Sweden
    National Youth Sweden
    Legion Wasa Sweden
    SPAS Ukraine
    Blood and Honour UK
    British National Front UK
    Combat 18 UK
    League of St. George UK
    National Socialist Movement UK
    Nationalist Alliance UK
    November 9th Society UK
    Racial Volunteer Force UK

    Lexington , June 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    "Fascism" has become the prefered term of abuse applied indiscriminately by the right thinking to any person or movement which they want to tar as inherently objectionable, and which can therefore be dismissed without the tedium of actually engaging with them at the level of ideas.

    Most of the people who like to throw this word around couldn't give you a coherant definition of what exactly they understand it to signify, beyond "yuck!!"

    In fairness even students of political ideology have trouble teasing out a cosistent system of beliefs, to the point where some doubt fascism is even a coherent ideology. That hardly excuses the intellectual vacuity of those who use it as a term of abuse, however.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , June 2, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    Precisely 3,248 angels can fit on the head of a pin. Parsing the true definition of "fascism" is a waste of time, broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks.

    As far as the definition "neo-liberalism" goes, yes it's a useful label. But let's keep it simple: every society chooses how resources are allocated between Capital and Labor. The needle has been pegged over on the Capital side for quite some time, my "start date" is when Reagan busted the air traffic union. The hideous Republicans managed to sell their base that policies that were designed to let companies be "competitive" were somehow good for them, not just for the owners of the means of production.

    The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences.

    Jim , June 2, 2016 at 7:40 pm

    PodBay stated:

    "Every society chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor." More specifically, isn't it a struggle between various political/economic/cultural movements within a society which chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor.

    Take, for example, the late 1880s-1890s in the U.S. During that time-frame there were powerful agrarian populists movements and the beginnings of some labor/socialist movements from below, while from above the property-production system was modified by a powerful political movement advocating for more corporate administered markets over the competitive small-firm capitalism of an earlier age.

    It was this movement for corporate administered markets which won the battle and defeated/absorbed the agrarian populists.

    What are the array of such forces in 2016? What type of movement doe Trump represent? Sanders? Clinton?

    Lexington , June 2, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks

    Which textbooks specifically?

    The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism, and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you have been reading.

    As for your definition of "fascism", it's obviously so vague and broad that it really doesn't explain anything. To the extent it contains any insight it is that public institutions (the state), private businesses (the corporation) and the armed forces all exert significant influence on public policy. That and a buck and and a half will get you a cup of coffee. If anything it is merely a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other ideologies (again, see the Vox article for a discussion of some of the beliefs that are arguably characteristic of fascist movements). Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist".

    My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. Given that these movements are only growing in strength as faith in traditional political movements and elites evaporate this is likely to produce exactly the opposite result. Right wing populism isn't going to disappear just because the left keeps trying to wish it away. Refusing to accept this basic political fact risks condemning the left rather than "the fascists" to political irrelevance.

    Roger Smith , June 2, 2016 at 7:13 am

    " the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism"

    This phrase is pure gold.

    allan , June 2, 2016 at 7:44 am

    The neoliberals are all too aware that the clock is ticking. In this morning's NYT, yet more talk of ramming TPP through in the lame duck.

    sleepy , June 2, 2016 at 7:56 am

    I moved to a small city/town in Iowa almost 20 years ago. Then, it still had something of a Norman Rockwell quality to it, particularly in a sense of egalitarianism, and also some small factory jobs which still paid something beyond a bare existence.

    Since 2000, many of those jobs have left, and the population of the county has declined by about 10%. Kmart, Penney's, and Sears have left as payday/title loan outfits, pawnshops, smoke shops, and used car dealers have all proliferated.

    Parts of the town now resemble a combination of Appalachia and Detroit. Sanders easily won the caucuses here and, no, his supporters were hardly the latte sippers of someone's imagination, but blue collar folks of all ages.

    weinerdog43 , June 2, 2016 at 8:25 am

    My tale is similar to yours. About 2 years ago, I accepted a transfer from Chicagoland to north central Wisconsin. JC Penney left a year and a half ago, and Sears is leaving in about 3-4 months. Kmart is long gone.

    I was back at the old homestead over Memorial Day, and it's as if time has stood still. Home prices still going up; people out for dinner like crazy; new & expensive automobiles everywhere. But driving out of Chicagoland, and back through rural Wisconsin it is unmistakeable.

    2 things that are new: The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis. (Yes, that means there is only enough money to resurface all the county roads if spread out over 200 years.) 2nd, there are dead deer everywhere on the side of the road. In years past, they were promptly cleaned up by the highway department. Not any more. Gross, but somebody has to do the dead animal clean up. (Or not. Don't tell Snotty Walker though.)

    Anyway, not everything is gloom and doom. People seem outwardly happy. But if you're paying attention, signs of stress and deterioration are certainly out there.

    Jim Haygood , June 2, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    "the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis"

    while the fedgov spends north of 5 percent of GDP on global military dominance.

    We're the Soviets now, comrades: shiny weapons, rotting infrastructure.

    Today in San Diego, the Hildabeest will deliver a vigorous defense of this decadent, dying system.

    Mary Wehrheim , June 2, 2016 at 8:32 am

    This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint. People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. They think a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot.

    You also have the more gullible fundis who have actually deluded themselves into thinking the man who is ultimate symbol of hedonism will deliver them from secularism because he says he will. Authoritarians who seek solutions through strong leaders are usually the easiest to con because they desperately want to believe in their eminent deliverance by a human deus ex machina. Plus he is ostentatiously rich in a comfortably tacky way and a TV celebrity beats a Harvard law degree. And why not the thinking goes the highly vaunted elite college Acela crowd has pretty much made a pig's breakfast out of things. So much for meritocracy. Professor Harold Hill is going to give River City a boys band.

    uahsenaa , June 2, 2016 at 9:58 am

    Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government.

    In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their political revolution is working. Since TPTB decided peaceful change (i.e. Sanders) was a non-starter, then they get to reap the whirlwind.

    Praedor , June 2, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    Your phrase "Trump is political vandalism" is great. I don't think I've seen a better description. NPR this morning was discussing Trump and his relationship with the press and the issues some GOP leaders have with him. When his followers were discussed, the speakers closely circled your vandalism point. Basically they said that his voters are angry with the power brokers and leaders in DC and regardless of whether they think Trump's statements are heartfelt or just rhetoric, they DO know he will stick it to those power brokers so that's good. Vandalism by a longer phrase.

    hunkerdown , June 2, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    Meritocracy was ALWAYS a delusional fraud. What you invariably get, after a couple of generations, is a clique of elitists who define merit as themselves and reproduce it ad nauseam. Who still believes in such laughable kiddie stories?

    Besides, consumers need to learn to play the long game and suck up the "scurrilous attacks" on their personal consumption habits for the next four years. The end of abortion for four years is not important - lern2hand and lern2agency, and lern2cutyourrapist if it comes to that. What is important is that the Democratic Party's bourgeois yuppie constituents are forced to defend against GOP attacks on their personal and cultural interests with wherewithal that would have been ordinarily spent to attend to their sister act with their captive constituencies.

    If bourgeois Democrats hadn't herded us into a situation where individuals mean nothing outside of their assigned identity groups and their corporate coalition duopoly, they wouldn't be reaping the whirlwind today. Why, exactly, should I be sympathetic to exploitative parasites such as the middle class?

    Dave , June 2, 2016 at 11:04 am

    There are all good ideas. However, population growth undermines almost all of them. Population growth in America is immigrant based. Reverse immigration influxes and you are at least doing something to reduce population growth.

    How to "reverse immigration influxes"?

    I too am a lifetime registered Democrat and I will vote for Trump if Clinton gets the crown. If the Democrats want my vote, my continuing party registration and my until recently sizeable donations in local, state and national races, they will nominate Bernie. If not, then I'm an Independent forevermore. They will just become the Demowhig Party.

    Jack Heape , June 2, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Here's a start

    1. Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal.
    2. Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks.
    3. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders.
    4. Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors.
    5. Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation.
    6. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry.
    7. Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development.
    8. Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour.
    9. Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official.
    10. Free public education including college (4 year degree).
    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 10:56 am

    Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 11:56 am

    This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade.

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- Patty Murray (up for re-election) and Cantwell are both trade traitors and got fast track passed.

    hunkerdown , June 2, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    "they are now re-shaping the world in their own image" Isn't this intrinsic to bourgeois liberalism?

    Sluggeaux , June 2, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats and kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human beings has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions (and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption.

    This deserves a longer and more thoughtful comment, but I don't have the time this morning. I have to fight commute traffic, because the population of my home state of California has doubled from 19M in 1970 to an estimated 43M today (if you count the Latin American refugees and H1B's).

    Vatch , June 2, 2016 at 11:04 am

    Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category of problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources on the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher quality of life, not a higher quantity of people.

    seanseamour , June 3, 2016 at 7:59 am

    The issue goes beyond "current neoliberals up for election", it is most of our political establishment that has been corrupted by a system that provides for the best politicians money can buy.

    In the 1980's I worked inside the beltway witnessing the new cadre of apparatchiks that drove into town on the Reagan coattails full of moral a righteousness that became deviant, parochial, absolutist and for whom bi-partisan approaches to policy were scorned prodded on by new power brokers promoting their gospels in early morning downtown power breakfasts. Sadly our politicians no longer serve but seek a career path in our growing meritocratic plutocracy.

    paul whalen , June 2, 2016 at 9:19 am

    America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With the exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of consumer debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism at bay, followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated capital of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty for the masses.

    Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/28/the-myth-of-the-middle-class-have-most-americans-always-been-poor/

    [Dec 04, 2016] Methheads as a sign of socioeconomic desperation: neoliberalism behaves much like British behaves in China during opium wars

    Notable quotes:
    "... Money, it seems to him, has somehow changed its role. It has "increased" (is that possible, he asks?) while at the same time it has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It appears to seek to become an autonomous and dominating sector of economic life, functionally separated from production of real things, almost all of which seem to come from faraway places. "Real" actually begins to change its meaning, another topic more interesting still. This devotion to the world of money-making-money seems to have obsessed the lives of many of the most "important" Americans. Entire TV networks are devoted to it. They talk about esoteric financial instruments that to the ordinary citizen look more like exotically placed bets-on-credit in the casino than genuine ways to grow real-world business, jobs, wages, and family income. The few who are in position to master the game live material lives that were beyond what almost any formerly "wealthy" man or woman in Rip's prior life could even imagine ..."
    "... children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness. ..."
    "... "If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist." ..."
    "... It's a Wonderful Life ..."
    "... as educators ..."
    "... OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive, patriotic and constructive. ..."
    "... I am paying an exorbitant subscription for the UK Financial Times at the moment. Anyway, the good news is that very regular articles are appearing where you can almost feel the panic at the populist uprisings. ..."
    "... The kernel of Neoliberal Ideology: "There is no such a thing as society." (Margaret Thatcher). ..."
    "... "In this postindustrial world not only is the labor question no longer asked, not only is proletarian revolution passé, but the proletariat itself seems passé. And the invisibles who nonetheless do indeed live there have internalized their nonexistence, grown demoralized, resentful, and hopeless; if they are noticed at all, it is as objects of public disdain. What were once called "blue-collar aristocrats"-skilled workers in the construction trades, for example-have long felt the contempt of the whole white-collar world. ..."
    "... Or, we could replace Western liberal culture, with its tradition to consume and expand by force an unbroken chain from the Garden of Eden to Friedrich von Hayek, with the notion of maintenance and "enough". Bourgeois make-work holds no interest to me. ..."
    "... My understanding of the data is that living standards increased around the world during the so-called golden age, not just in the U.S. (and Western Europe and Japan and Australia ). It could be that it was still imperialism at work, but the link between imperialism and the creation of the middle class is not straightforward. ..."
    "... I thought neoliberalism was just the pogrom to make everyone – rational agents – as subscribed by our genetic / heraldic betters .. putting this orbs humans and resources in the correct "natural" order . ..."
    "... Disheveled Marsupial for those thinking neoliberalism is not associated with libertarianism one only has to observe the decades of think tanks and their mouth organs roaming the planet . especially in the late 80s and 90s . bringing the might and wonders of the – market – to the great unwashed globally here libertarian priests rang in the good news to the great unwashed ..."
    "... I would argue that neoliberalism is a program to define markets as primarily engaged in information processing and to make everyone into non-agents ( as not important at all to the proper functioning of markets). ..."
    "... It also appears that neoliberals want to restrict democracy to the greatest extent possible and to view markets as the only foundation for truth without any need for input from the average individual. ..."
    Jun 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    bluecollarAl , June 2, 2016 at 10:06 am

    I am almost 70 years old, born and raised in New York City, still living in a near suburb.

    Somehow, somewhere along the road to my 70th year I feel as if I have been gradually transported to an almost entirely different country than the land of my younger years. I live painfully now in an alien land, a place whose habits and sensibilities I sometimes hardly recognize, while unable to escape from memories of a place that no longer exists. There are days I feel as I imagine a Russian pensioner must feel, lost in an unrecognizable alien land of unimagined wealth, power, privilege, and hyper-glitz in the middle of a country slipping further and further into hopelessness, alienation, and despair.

    I am not particularly nostalgic. Nor am I confusing recollection with sentimental yearnings for a youth that is no more. But if I were a contemporary Rip Van Winkle, having just awakened after, say, 30-40 years, I would not recognize my beloved New York City. It would be not just the disappearance of the old buildings, Penn Station, of course, Madison Square Garden and its incandescent bulb marquee on 50th and 8th announcing NYU vs. St. John's, and the WTC, although I always thought of the latter as "new" until it went down. Nor would it be the disappearance of all the factories, foundries, and manufacturing plants, the iconic Domino Sugar on the East River, the Wonder Bread factory with its huge neon sign, the Swingline Staples building in Long Island City that marked passage to and from the East River tunnel on the railroad, and my beloved Schaeffer Beer plant in Williamsburg, that along with Rheingold, Knickerbocker, and a score of others, made beer from New York taste a little bit different.

    It wouldn't be the ubiquitous new buildings either, the Third Avenue ghostly glass erected in the 70's and 80's replacing what once was the most concentrated collection of Irish gin mills anywhere. Or the fortress-like castles built more recently, with elaborate high-ceilinged lobbies decorated like a kind of gross, filthy-wealthy Versailles, an aesthetically repulsive style that shrieks "power" in a way the neo-classical edifices of our Roman-loving founders never did. Nor would it even be the 100-story residential sticks, those narrow ground-to-clouds skyscraper condominiums proclaiming the triumph of globalized capitalism with prices as high as their penthouses, driven ever upward by the foreign billionaires and their obsession with burying their wealth in Manhattan real estate.

    It is not just the presence of new buildings and the absence of the old ones that have this contemporary Van Winkle feeling dyslexic and light-headed. The old neighborhoods have disintegrated along with the factories, replaced by income segregated swatches of homogenous "real estate" that have consumed space, air, and sunlight while sucking the distinctiveness out of the City. What once was the multi-generational home turf for Jewish, Afro-American, Puerto Rican, Italian, Polak and Bohunk families is now treated as simply another kind of investment, stocks and bonds in steel and concrete. Mom's Sunday dinners, clothes lines hanging with newly bleached sheets after Monday morning wash, stickball games played among parked cars, and evenings of sitting on the stoop with friends and a transistor radio listening to Mel Allen call Mantle's home runs or Alan Freed and Murray the K on WINS 1010 playing Elvis, Buddy Holly, and The Drifters, all gone like last night's dreams.

    Do you desire to see the new New York? Look no further than gentrifying Harlem for an almost perfect microcosm of the city's metamorphosis, full of multi-million condos, luxury apartment renovations, and Maclaren strollers pushed by white yuppie wife stay-at-homes in Marcus Garvey Park. Or consider the "new" Lower East Side, once the refuge of those with little material means, artists, musicians, bums, drug addicts, losers and the physically and spiritually broken - my kind of people. Now its tenements are "retrofitted" and remodeled into $4000 a month apartments and the new residents are Sunday brunching where we used to score some Mary Jane.

    There is the "Brooklyn brand", synonymous with "hip", and old Brooklyn neighborhoods like Red Hook and South Brooklyn (now absorbed into so desirable Park Slope), and Bushwick, another former outpost of the poor and the last place I ever imagined would be gentrified, full of artists and hipsters driving up the price of everything. Even large sections of my own Queens and the Bronx are affected (infected?). Check out Astoria, for example, neighborhood of my father's family, with more of the old ways than most but with rents beginning to skyrocket and starting to drive out the remaining working class to who knows where.

    Gone is almost every mom and pop store, candy stores with their egg creams and bubble gum cards and the Woolworth's and McCrory's with their wooden floors and aisles containing ordinary blue collar urgencies like thread and yarn, ironing boards and liquid bleach, stainless steel utensils of every size and shape. Where are the locally owned toy and hobby stores like Jason's in Woodhaven under the el, with Santa's surprises available for lay-away beginning in October? No more luncheonettes, cheap eats like Nedicks with hot dogs and paper cones of orange drink, real Kosher delis with vats of warm pastrami and corned beef cut by hand, and the sacred neighborhood "bar and grill", that alas has been replaced by what the kids who don't know better call "dive bars", the detestable simulacra of the real thing, slick rooms of long slick polished mahogany, a half-dozen wide screen TV's blaring mindless sports contests from all over the world, over-priced micro-brews, and not a single old rummy in sight?

    Old Rip searches for these and many more remembered haunts, what Ray Oldenburg called the "great good places" of his sleepy past, only to find store windows full of branded, high-priced, got-to-have luxury-necessities (necessary if he/she is to be certified cool, hip, and successful), ridiculously overpriced "food emporia", high and higher-end restaurants, and apparel boutiques featuring hardened smiles and obsequious service reserved for those recognized by celebrity or status.

    Rip notices too that the visible demographic has shifted, and walking the streets of Manhattan and large parts of Brooklyn, he feels like what walking in Boston Back Bay always felt like, a journey among an undifferentiated mass of privilege, preppy or 'metro-sexed' 20 and 30-somethings jogging or riding bicycles like lean, buff gods and goddesses on expense accounts supplemented by investments enriched by yearly holiday bonuses worth more than Rip earned in a lifetime.

    Sitting alone on a park bench by the river, Rip reflects that more than all of these individual things, however, he despairs of a city that seems to have been reimagined as a disneyfied playground of the privileged, offering endless ways to self-gratify and philistinize in a clean, safe (safest big city in U.S., he heard someone say), slick, smiley, center-of-the-world urban paradise, protected by the new centurions (is it just his paranoia or do battle-ready police seem to be everywhere?). Old ethnic neighborhoods are filled with apartment buildings that seem more like post-college "dorms", tiny studios and junior twos packed with three or four "singles" roommates pooling their entry level resources in order to pay for the right to live in "The City". Meanwhile the newer immigrants find what place they can in Kingsbridge, Corona, Jamaica, and Cambria Heights, far from the city center, even there paying far too much to the landlord for what they receive.

    New York has become an unrecognizable place to Rip, who can't understand why the accent-less youngsters keep asking him to repeat something in order to hear his quaint "Brooklyn" accent, something like the King's English still spoken on remote Smith Island in the Chesapeake, he guesses
    .
    Rip suspects that this "great transformation" (apologies to Polanyi) has coincided, and is somehow causally related, to the transformation of New York from a real living city into, as the former Mayor proclaimed, the "World Capital" of financialized commerce and all that goes with it.

    "Financialization", he thinks, is not the expression of an old man's disapproval but a way of naming a transformed economic and social world. Rip is not an economist. He reads voraciously but, as an erstwhile philosopher trained to think about the meaning of things, he often can't get his head around the mathematical model-making explanations of the economists that seem to dominate the more erudite political and social analyses these days. He has learned, however, that the phenomenon of "capitalism" has changed along with his city and his life.

    Money, it seems to him, has somehow changed its role. It has "increased" (is that possible, he asks?) while at the same time it has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It appears to seek to become an autonomous and dominating sector of economic life, functionally separated from production of real things, almost all of which seem to come from faraway places. "Real" actually begins to change its meaning, another topic more interesting still. This devotion to the world of money-making-money seems to have obsessed the lives of many of the most "important" Americans. Entire TV networks are devoted to it. They talk about esoteric financial instruments that to the ordinary citizen look more like exotically placed bets-on-credit in the casino than genuine ways to grow real-world business, jobs, wages, and family income. The few who are in position to master the game live material lives that were beyond what almost any formerly "wealthy" man or woman in Rip's prior life could even imagine
    .
    Above all else is the astronomical rise in wealth and income inequality. Rip recalls that growing up in the 1950's, the kids on his block included, along with firemen, cops, and insurance men dads (these were virtually all one-parent income households), someone had a dad who worked as a stock broker. Yea, living on the same block was a "Wall Streeter". Amazingly democratic, no? Imagine, people of today, a finance guy drinking at the same corner bar with the sanitation guy. Rip recalls that Aristotle had some wise and cautionary words in his Politics concerning the stability of oligarchic regimes.

    Last year I drove across America on blue highways mostly. I stayed in small towns and cities, Zanesville, St. Charles, Wichita, Pratt, Dalhart, Clayton, El Paso, Abilene, Clarksdale, and many more. I dined for the most part in local taverns, sitting at the bar so as to talk with the local bartender and patrons who are almost always friendly and talkative in these spaces. Always and everywhere I heard similar stories as my story of my home town. Not so much the specifics (there are no "disneyfied" Lubbocks or Galaxes out there, although Oxford, MS comes close) but in the sadness of men and women roughly my age as they recounted a place and time – a way of life – taken out from under them, so that now their years are filled with decayed and dead downtowns, children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness.

    I am not a trained economist. My graduate degrees were in philosophy. My old friends call me an "Eric Hoffer", who back in the day was known as the "longshoreman philosopher". I have been trying for a long time now to understand the silent revolution that has been pulled off right under my nose, the replacement of a world that certainly had its flaws (how could I forget the civil rights struggle and the crime of Viet Nam; I was a part of these things) but was, let us say, different. Among you or your informed readers, is there anyone who can suggest a book or books or author(s) who can help me understand how all of this came about, with no public debate, no argument, no protest, no nothing? I would be very much appreciative.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    I'll just highlight this line for emphasis
    "there are no "disneyfied" Lubbocks or Galaxes out there, although Oxford, MS comes close) but in the sadness of men and women roughly my age as they recounted a place and time – a way of life – taken out from under them, so that now their years are filled with decayed and dead downtowns, children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness."
    my best friend pretty much weeps every day.

    Michael Fiorillo , June 2, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    bluecollar Al,

    As a lifelong New Yorker, I too mourn the demise of my beloved city. Actually, that's wrong: my city didn't die, it was taken from me/us.

    But if it's any consolation, remember that Everyone Loses Their New York (even insufferable hipster colonizers)

    Left in Wisconsin , June 2, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    Beautifully said.

    I don't have a book to recommend. I do think you identify a really underemphasized central fact of recent times: the joint processes by which real places have been converted into "real estate" and real, messy lives replaced by safe, manufactured "experiences." This affects wealthy and poor neighborhoods alike, in different ways but in neither case for the better.

    I live in a very desirable neighborhood in one of those places that makes a lot of "Best of" lists. I met a new neighbor last night who told me how he and his wife had plotted for years to get out of the Chicago burbs, not only to our city but to this specific neighborhood, which they had decided is "the one." (This sentiment is not atypical.) Unsurprisingly, property values in the neighborhood have gone through the roof. Which, as far as I can tell, most everyone here sees as an unmitigated good thing.

    At the same time, several families I got to know because they moved into the neighborhood about the same time we did 15-20 years ago, are cashing out and moving away, kids off to or out of college, parents ready (and financed) to get on to the next phase and the next place. Of course, even though our children are all Lake Woebegoners, there are no next generations staying in the neighborhood, except of course the ones still living, or back, at "home." (Those families won't be going anywhere for awhile!)

    I can't argue that new money in the hood hasn't improved some things. Our formerly struggling food co-op just finished a major expansion and upgrade. Good coffee is 5 minutes closer than it used to be. But to my wife and me, the overwhelming feeling is that we are now outsiders here in this neighborhood where we know all the houses and the old trees but not what motivates our new neighbors. So I made up a word for it: unsettling (adj., verb, noun).

    Softie , June 2, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    Try to read this one:

    "If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist."

    - Steve Fraser, The Age of Acquiescence

    Jim , June 2, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    bluecollar Al:

    Christopher Lash in "Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy" mentions Ray Oldenburg's "The Great Good Places: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts and How they Got You through the Day."

    He argued that the decline of democracy is directly related to the disappearance of what he called third places:,

    "As neighborhood hangouts give way to suburban shopping malls, or, on the other hand private cocktail parties, the essentially political art of conversation is replaced by shoptalk or personal gossip.

    Increasingly, conversation literally has no place in American society. In its absence how–or better, where–can political habits be acquired and polished?

    Lasch finished he essay by noting that Oldenburg's book helps to identify what is missing from our then newly emerging world (which you have concisely updated):

    "urban amenities, conviviality, conversation, politics–almost everything in part that makes life worth living."

    JDH , June 2, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    The best explainer of our modern situation that I have read is Wendell Berry. I suggest that you start with "The Unsettling of America," quoted below.

    "Let me outline briefly as I can what seem to me the characteristics of these opposite kinds of mind. I conceive a strip-miner to be a model exploiter, and as a model nurturer I take the old-fashioned idea or ideal of a farmer. The exploiter is a specialist, an expert; the nurturer is not. The standard of the exploiter is efficiency; the standard of the nurturer is care. The exploiter's goal is money, profit; the nurturer's goal is health - his land's health, his own, his family's, his community's, his country's. Whereas the exploiter asks of a piece of land only how much and how quickly it can be made to produce, the nurturer asks a question that is much more complex and difficult: What is its carrying capacity? (That is: How much can be taken from it without diminishing it? What can it produce dependably for an indefinite time?) The exploiter wishes to earn as much as possible by as little work as possible; the nurturer expects, certainly, to have a decent living from his work, but his characteristic wish is to work as well as possible. The competence of the exploiter is in organization; that of the nurturer is in order - a human order, that is, that accommodates itself both to other order and to mystery. The exploiter typically serves an institution or organization; the nurturer serves land, household, community, place. The exploiter thinks in terms of numbers, quantities, "hard facts"; the nurturer in terms of character, condition, quality, kind."

    I also think Prof. Patrick Deneen works to explain the roots (and progression) of decline. I'll quote him at length here describing the modern college student.

    "[T]he one overarching lesson that students receive is the true end of education: the only essential knowledge is that know ourselves to be radically autonomous selves within a comprehensive global system with a common commitment to mutual indifference. Our commitment to mutual indifference is what binds us together as a global people. Any remnant of a common culture would interfere with this prime directive: a common culture would imply that we share something thicker, an inheritance that we did not create, and a set of commitments that imply limits and particular devotions.

    Ancient philosophy and practice praised as an excellent form of government a res publica – a devotion to public things, things we share together. We have instead created the world's first Res Idiotica – from the Greek word idiotes, meaning "private individual." Our education system produces solipsistic, self-contained selves whose only public commitment is an absence of commitment to a public, a common culture, a shared history. They are perfectly hollowed vessels, receptive and obedient, without any real obligations or devotions.

    They won't fight against anyone, because that's not seemly, but they won't fight for anyone or anything either. They are living in a perpetual Truman Show, a world constructed yesterday that is nothing more than a set for their solipsism, without any history or trajectory."

    ekstase , June 2, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Wow. Did this hit a nerve. You have eloquently described what was the city of hope for several generations of outsiders, for young gay men and women, and for real artists, not just from other places in America, but from all over the world. In New York, once upon a time, bumping up against the more than 50% of the population who were immigrants from other countries, you could learn a thing or two about the world. You could, for a while, make a living there at a job that was all about helping other people. You could find other folks, lots of them, who were honest, well-meaning, curious about the world. Then something changed. As you said, you started to see it in those hideous 80's buildings. But New York always seemed somehow as close or closer to Europe than to the U.S., and thus out of the reach of mediocrity and dumbing down. New York would mold you into somebody tough and smart, if you weren't already – if it didn't, you wouldn't make it there.

    Now, it seems, this dream is dreamt. Poseurs are not artists, and the greedy and smug drive out creativity, kindness, real humor, hope.

    It ain't fair. I don't know where in this world an aspiring creative person should go now, but it probably is not there.

    Dave , June 2, 2016 at 10:21 am

    Americans cannot begin to reasonably demand a living wage, benefits and job security when there is an unending human ant-line of illegals and legal immigrants willing to under bid them.

    Only when there is a parity or shortage of workers can wage demands succeed, along with other factors.

    From 1925 to 1965 this country accepted hardly any immigrants, legal or illegal. We had the bracero program where Mexican males were brought in to pick crops and were then sent home to collect paychecks in Mexico. American blacks were hired from the deep south to work defense plants in the north and west.

    Is it any coincidence that the 1965 Great Society program, initiated by Ted Kennedy to primarily benefit the Irish immigrants, then co-opted by LBJ to include practically everyone, started this process of Middle Class destruction?

    1973 was the peak year of American Society as measured by energy use per capita, expansion of jobs and unionization and other factors, such as an environment not yet destroyed, nicely measured by the The Real Progress Indicator.

    Solution? Stop importing uneducated people. That's real "immigration reform".

    Now explain to me why voters shouldn't favor Trump's radical immigration stands?

    RUKidding , June 2, 2016 at 11:06 am

    Maybe, but OTOH, who is it, exactly, who is recruiting, importing, hiring and training undocumented workers to downgrade pay scales??

    Do some homework, please. If businesses didn't actively go to Central and South America to recruit, pay to bring here, hire and employ undocumented workers, then the things you discuss would be great.

    When ICE comes a-knocking at some meat processing plant or mega-chicken farm, what happens? The undocumented workers get shipped back to wherever, but the big business owner doesn't even get a tap on the wrist. The undocumented worker – hired to work in unregulated unsafe unhealthy conditions – often goes without their last paycheck.

    It's the business owners who manage and support this system of undocumented workers because it's CHEAP, and they don't get busted for it.

    Come back when the USA actually enforces the laws that are on the books today and goes after big and small business owners who knowingly recruit, import, hire, train and employee undocumented workers you know, like Donald Trump has all across his career.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    This is the mechanism by which the gov't has assisted biz in destroying the worker, competition for thee, but none for me. For instance I can't go work in canada or mexico, they don't allow it. Policy made it, policy can change it, go bernie. While I favor immigration, in it's current form it is primarily conducted on these lines of destroying workers (H1b etc and illegals combined) Lucky for the mexicans they can see the american dream is bs and can go home. I wonder who the latinos that have gained citizenship will vote for. Unlikely it'll be trump, but they can be pretty conservative, and the people they work for are pretty conservative so no guarantee there, hillary is in san diego at the tony balboa park where her supporters will feel comfortable, not a huge venue I think they must be hoping for a crowd, and if she can't get one in san diego while giving a "if we don't rule the world someone else will" speech, she can't get one anywhere. Defense contractors and military advisors and globalist biotech (who needs free money more than biotech? they are desperate for hillary) are thick in san diego.

    RUKidding , June 2, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    I live part-time in San Diego. It is very conservative. The military, who are constantly screwed by the GOP, always vote Republican. They make up a big cohort of San Diego county.

    Hillary may not get a big crowd at the speech, but that, in itself, doesn't mean that much to me. There is a segment of San Diego that is somewhat more progressive-ish, but it's a pretty conservative county with parts of eastern SD county having had active John Birch Society members until recently or maybe even ongoing.

    There's a big push in the Latino community to GOTV, and it's mostly not for Trump. It's possible this cohort, esp the younger Latino/as, will vote for Sanders in the primary, but if Clinton gets the nomination, they'll likely vote for her (v. Trump).

    I was unlucky enough to be stuck for an hour in a commuter train last Friday after Trump's rally there. Hate to sound rude, but Trump's fans were everything we've seen. Loud, rude, discourteous and an incessant litany of rightwing talking points (same old, same old). All pretty ignorant. Saying how Trump will "make us great again." I don't bother asking how. A lot of ugly comments about Obama and how Obama has been "so racially divisive and polarizing." Well, No. No, Obama has not been or done that, but the rightwing noise machine has sure ginned up your hatreds, angers and fears. It was most unpleasant. The only instructive thing about it was confirming my worst fears about this group. Sorry to say but pretty loutish and very uninformed. Sigh.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    part timer in sd as well, family for hillary except for nephew and niece .I keep telling my mom she should vote bernie for their sake but it never goes over very well

    Bob Haugen , June 2, 2016 at 10:35 am

    Re Methland, we live in rural US and we got a not-very-well hidden population of homeless children. I don't mean homeless families with children, I mean homeless children. Sleeping in parks in good weather, couch-surfing with friends, etc. I think related.

    equote , June 2, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Fascism is a system of political and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stand(s) accused of producing division and decline. . . . George Orwell reminded us, clad in the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time, . . . an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black; in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile.
    Robert O. Paxton
    In The Five Stages of Faschism

    " that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators' any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes)
    Sinclair Lewis
    It Can't Happen Here page 141

    Take the Fork , June 2, 2016 at 11:07 am

    On the Boots To Ribs Front: Anyone hereabouts notice that Captain America has just been revealed to be a Nazi? Maybe this is what R. Cohen was alluding to but I doubt it.

    pissed younger baby boomer , June 2, 2016 at 11:57 am

    The four horse men are, political , social, economic and environmental collapse . Any one remember the original Mad Max movie. A book I recommend is the Crash Of 2016 By Thom Hartmann.

    rfam , June 2, 2016 at 11:59 am

    From the comment, I agree with the problems, not the cause. We've increased the size and scope of the safety net over the last decade. We've increased government spending versus GDP. I'm not blaming government but its not neoliberal/capitalist policy either.

    1. Globalization clearly helps the poor in other countries at the expense of workers in the U.S. But at the same time it brings down the cost of goods domestically. So jobs are not great but Walmart/Amazon can sell cheap needs.

    2. Inequality started rising the day after Bretton Woods – the rich got richer everyday after "Nixon Shock"

    https://www.google.com/search?q=gini+coefficient+usa+chart&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1371&bih=793&tbm=isch&imgil=tRkxcVEo17ID8M%253A%253B-Lt3-YscSzdOaM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.the-crises.com%25252Fincome-inequality-in-the-us-1%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=tRkxcVEo17ID8M%253A%252C-Lt3-YscSzdOaM%252C_&usg=__bipTqXhWx0tXxke6Xcj5MUAcn-o%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjY18rm2onNAhUPeFIKHREjAS4QyjcILw&ei=nFdQV9iZCo_wyQKRxoTwAg#imgrc=tRkxcVEo17ID8M%3A

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    Hi rfam : To point 1 : Why is there a need to bring down the cost of goods? Is it because of past outsourcing and trade agreements and FR policies? I think there's a chicken and egg thing going on, ie.. which came first. Globalization is a way to bring down wages while supplying Americans with less and less quality goods supplied at the hand of global corporations like Walmart that need welfare in the form of food stamps and the ACA for their workers for them to stay viable (?). Viable in this case means ridiculously wealthy CEO's and the conglomerate growing bigger constantly. Now they have to get rid of COOL's because the WTO says it violates trade agreements so we can't trace where our food comes from in case of an epidemic. It's all downhill. Wages should have risen with costs so we could afford high quality American goods, but haven't for a long, long time.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from) the workers get the husk. Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am God, there doesn't need to be any other" Amazon sells cheap stuff by cheating on taxes, and barely makes money, mostly just driving people out of business. WalMart has cheap stuff because they subsidise their workers with food stamps and medicaid. Bringing up bretton woods means you don't know much about money creation, so google "randy wray/bananas/naked capitalism" and you'll find a quick primer.

    RUKidding , June 2, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    The Walmart loathsome spawn and Jeff Bezos are the biggest welfare drains in our nation – or among the biggest. They woefully underpay their workers, all while training them on how to apply for various welfare benefits. Just so that their slaves, uh, workers can manage to eat enough to enable them to work.

    It slays me when US citizens – and it happens across the voting spectrum these days; I hear just as often from Democratic voters as I do from GOP voters – bitch, vetch, whine & cry about welfare abuse. And if I start to point out the insane ABUSE of welfare by the Waltons and Jeff Bezos, I'm immediately greeted with random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow made out like a bandit on welfare.

    Hey, I'm totally sure and in agreement that there are likely a small percentage of real welfare cheats who manage to do well enough somehow. But seriously? That's like a drop in the bucket. Get the eff over it!!!

    Those cheats are not worth discussing. It's the big fraud cheats like Bezos & the Waltons and their ilk, who don't need to underpay their workers, but they DO because the CAN and they get away with it because those of us the rapidly dwindling middle/working classes are footing the bill for it.

    Citizens who INSIST on focusing on a teeny tiny minority of real welfare cheats, whilst studiously ignoring the Waltons and the Bezos' of the corporate world, are enabling this behavior. It's one of my bugabears bc it's so damn frustrating when citizens refuse to see how they are really being ripped off by the 1%. Get a clue.

    That doesn't even touch on all the other tax breaks, tax loopholes, tax incentives and just general all-around tax cheating and off-shore money hiding that the Waltons and Bezos get/do. Sheesh.

    JustAnObserver , June 2, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    This statement –

    "I'm immediately greeted with random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow made out like a bandit on welfare."

    is the key and a v. long term result of the application of Bernays' to political life. Its local and hits at the gut interpersonal level 'cos the "someones" form a kind of chain of trust esp. if the the first one on the list is a friend or a credentialed media pundit. Utterly spurious I know but countering this with a *merely* rational analysis of how Walmart, Amazon abuse the welfare system to gouge profits from the rest of us just won't ever, for the large majority, get through this kind emotional wall.

    I don't know what any kind of solution might look like but, somehow, we need to find a way of seriously demonising the corporate parasites that resonates at the same emotional level as the "welfare cheat" meme that Bill Clinton and the rest of the DLC sanctified back in the '90s.

    Something like "Walmart's stealing your taxes" might work but how to get it out there in a viral way ??

    Vatch , June 2, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    "random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow made out like a bandit on welfare."

    Hmm. Your acquaintances might need to be educated about urban legends .

    Anonymous Coward , June 2, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    Wait, you mean we don't all enjoy living in Pottersville?

    For anyone missing the reference, you clearly haven't been subjected to It's a Wonderful Life enough times.

    Judith , June 2, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    People may be interested in an ongoing project by the photographer Matt Black (who was recently invited to join Magnum) called the Geography of Poverty. http://www.mattblack.com/the-geography-of-poverty/

    Steve Sewall , June 2, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    What a comment from seanseamour. And the "hoisting" of it to high visibility at the site is a testament to the worth of Naked Capitalism.

    seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one considers the elitist trend " This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities – Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.*

    And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything.

    But I don't want to spend all morning doing that because I'm convinced that it's not too late for America to rescue itself from maelstrom in which it finds itself today. (Poe's "Maelstrom" story, cherished by Marshall McLuhan, is supremely relevant today.)

    To turn America around, I don't look to education – that system is too far gone to save itself, let alone the rest of the country – but rather to the nation's media: to the all-powerful public communication system that certainly has the interactive technical capabilities to put citizens and governments in touch with each other on the government decisions that shape the futures of communities large and small.

    For this to happen, however, people like the us – readers of Naked Capitalism – need to stop moaning and groaning about the damage done by the neoliberals and start building an issue-centered, citizen-participatory, non-partisan, prime-time Civic Media strong enough to give all Americans an informed voice in the government decisions that affect their lives. This Civic media would exist to make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping futures of all three communities – local, state and national – of which every one of us is a member.

    Pie in the sky? Not when you think hard about it. A huge majority of Americans would welcome this Civic Media. Many yearn for it. This means that a market exists for it: a Market of the Whole of all members of any community, local, state and national. This audience is large enough to rival those generated by media coverage of pro sports teams, and believe it or not much of the growth of this Civic media could be productively modeled on the growth of media coverage of pro sports teams. This Civic Media would attract the interest of major advertisers, especially those who see value in non-partisan programming dedicated to getting America moving forward again. Dynamic, issue-centered, problem-solving public forums, some modeled on voter-driven reality TV contests like The Voice or Dancing with the Stars, could be underwritten by a "rainbow" spectrum of funders, commericial, public, personal and even government sources.

    So people take hope! Be positive! Love is all we need, etc. The need for for a saving alternative to the money-driven personality contests into which our politics has descended this election year is literally staring us all in the face from our TV, cellphone and computer screens. This is no time to sit back and complain, it's a time to start working to build a new way of connecting ourselves so we can reverse America's rapid decline.

    OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive, patriotic and constructive. And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down, too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan, problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final.

    hunkerdown , June 2, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    "Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

    Sound of the Suburbs , June 2, 2016 at 12:36 pm

    I am paying an exorbitant subscription for the UK Financial Times at the moment. Anyway, the good news is that very regular articles are appearing where you can almost feel the panic at the populist uprisings.

    The end is nigh for the Neo-Liberals.

    Sound of the Suburbs , June 2, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    Whatever system is put in place the human race will find a way to undermine it. I believe in capitalism because fair competition means the best and most efficient succeed.

    I send my children to private schools and universities because I want my own children at the top and not the best. Crony capitalism is inevitable, self-interest undermines any larger system that we try and impose.

    Can we design a system that can beat human self-interest? It's going to be tricky.

    "If that's the system, how can I take advantage of it?" human nature at work. "If that's the system, is it working for me or not?" those at the top.
    If not, it's time to change the system.
    If so, how can I tweak it to get more out of it?

    Neo-Liberalism

    Academics, who are not known for being street-wise, probably thought they had come up with the ultimate system using markets and numeric performance measures to create a system free from human self-interest.

    They had already missed that markets don't just work for price discovery, but are frequently used for capital gains by riding bubbles and hoping there is a "bigger fool" out there than you, so you can cash out with a handsome profit.

    (I am not sure if the Chinese realise markets are supposed to be for price discovery at all).

    Hence, numerous bubbles during this time, with housing bubbles being the global favourite for those looking for capital gains.

    If we are being governed by the markets, how do we rig the markets?
    A question successfully solved by the bankers.

    Inflation figures, that were supposed to ensure the cost of living didn't rise too quickly, were somehow manipulated to produce low inflation figures with roaring house price inflation raising the cost of living.

    What unemployment measure will best suit the story I am trying to tell?
    U3 – everything great
    U6 – it's not so good
    Labour participation rate – it hasn't been this bad since the 1970s

    Anything missing from the theory has been ruthlessly exploited, e.g. market bubbles ridden for capital gains, money creation by private banks, the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income and the fact that Capitalism trickles up through the following mechanism:

    1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
    2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.

    Neo-Liberalism – It's as good as dead.

    perpetualWAR , June 2, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    I just went on a rant last week. (Not only because the judge actually LIED in court)

    I left the courthouse in downtown Seattle, to cross the street to find the vultures selling more foreclosures on the steps of the King County Administration Building, while above them, there were tents pitched on the building's perimeter. And people were walking by just like this scene was normal.

    Because the people at the entrance of the courthouse could view this, I went over there and began to rant. I asked (loudly) "Do you guys see that over there? Vultures selling homes rendering more people homeless and then the homeless encampment with tents pitched on the perimeter above them? In what world is this normal?" One guy replied, "Ironic, isn't it?" After that comment, the Marshall protecting the judicial crooks in the building came over and tried to calm me down. He insisted that the scene across the street was "normal" and that none of his friends or neighbors have been foreclosed on. I soon found out that that lying Marshall was from Pierce County, the epicenter of Washington foreclosures.

    The scene was totally surreal. And unforgettable.

    Softie , June 2, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    You need to take a photograph or two using your above words as caption.

    EGrise , June 2, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    And nobody cares
    As long as they get theirs

    Softie , June 2, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    The kernel of Neoliberal Ideology: "There is no such a thing as society." (Margaret Thatcher).

    Softie , June 2, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    "In this postindustrial world not only is the labor question no longer asked, not only is proletarian revolution passé, but the proletariat itself seems passé. And the invisibles who nonetheless do indeed live there have internalized their nonexistence, grown demoralized, resentful, and hopeless; if they are noticed at all, it is as objects of public disdain. What were once called "blue-collar aristocrats"-skilled workers in the construction trades, for example-have long felt the contempt of the whole white-collar world.

    For these people, already skeptical about who runs things and to what end, and who are now undergoing their own eviction from the middle class, skepticism sours into a passive cynicism. Or it rears up in a kind of vengeful chauvinism directed at alien others at home and abroad, emotional compensation for the wounds that come with social decline If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist."

    - Steve Fraser, The Age of Acquiescence

    LeitrimNYC , June 2, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    One thing I don't think I have seen addressed on this site (apologies if I have missed it!) in all the commentary about the destruction of the middle class is the role of US imperialism in creating that middle class in the first place and what it is that we want to save from destruction by neo-liberalism. The US is rich because we rob the rest of the world's resources and have been doing so in a huge way since 1945, same as Britain before us. I don't think it's a coincidence that the US post-war domination of the world economy and the middle class golden age happened at the same time. Obviously there was enormous value created by US manufacturers, inventors, government scientists, etc but imperialism is the basic starting point for all of this. The US sets the world terms of trade to its own advantage. How do we save the middle class without this level of control? Within the US elites are robbing everyone else but they are taking what we use our military power to appropriate from the rest of the world.

    Second, if Bernie or whoever saves the middle class, is that so that everyone can have a tract house and two cars and continue with a massively wasteful and unsustainable lifestyle based on consumption? Or are we talking about basic security like shelter, real health care, quality education for all, etc? Most of the stories I see seem to be nostalgic for a time when lots of people could afford to buy lots of stuff and don't 1) reflect on origin of that stuff (imperialism) and 2) consider whether that lifestyle should be the goal in the first place.

    perpetualWAR , June 2, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    I went to the electronics recycling facility in Seattle yesterday. The guy at customer service told me that they receive 20 million pounds per month. PER MONTH. Just from Seattle. I went home and threw up.

    Praedor , June 2, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    It doesn't have to be that way. You can replace military conquest (overt and covert) with space exploration and science expansion. Also, instead of pushing consumerism, push contentment. Don't setup and goose a system of "gotta keep up with the Joneses!"

    In the 50s(!!!) there was a plan, proven in tests and studies, that would have had humans on the mars by 1965, out to Saturn by 72. Project Orion. Later, the British Project Daedalus was envisioned which WOULD have put space probes at the next star system within 20 years of launch. It was born of the atomic age and, as originally envisioned, would have been an ecological disaster BUT it was reworked to avoid this and would have worked. Spacecraft capable of comfortably holding 100 personnel, no need to build with paper-thin aluminum skin or skimp on amenities. A huge ship built like a large sea vessel (heavy iron/steel) accelerated at 1g (or more or slightly less as desired) so no prolonged weightlessness and concomitant loss of bone and muscle mass. It was all in out hands but the Cold War got in the way, as did the many agreements and treaties of the Cold War to avoid annihilation. It didn't need to be that way. Check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    All that with 1950s and 60s era technology. It could be done better today and for less than your wars in the Middle East. Encourage science, math, exploration instead of consumption, getting mine before you can get yours, etc.

    hunkerdown , June 2, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    Or, we could replace Western liberal culture, with its tradition to consume and expand by force an unbroken chain from the Garden of Eden to Friedrich von Hayek, with the notion of maintenance and "enough". Bourgeois make-work holds no interest to me.

    Left in Wisconsin , June 2, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    My understanding of the data is that living standards increased around the world during the so-called golden age, not just in the U.S. (and Western Europe and Japan and Australia ). It could be that it was still imperialism at work, but the link between imperialism and the creation of the middle class is not straightforward.

    Likewise, US elites are clearly NOT robbing the manufacturing firms that have set up in China and other low-wage locations, so it is an oversimplification to say they are "robbing everyone else."

    Nostalgia is overrated but I don't sense the current malaise as a desire for more stuff. (I grew up in the 60s and 70s and I don't remember it as a time where people had, or craved, a lot of stuff. That period would be now, and I find it infects Sanders' supporters less than most.) If anything, it is nostalgia for more (free) time and more community, for a time when (many but not all) people had time to socialize and enjoy civic life.

    jrs , June 2, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    those things would be nice as would just a tiny bit of hope for the future, our own and the planet's and not an expectation of things getting more and more difficult and sometimes for entirely unnecessary reasons like imposed austerity. But being we can't have "nice things" like free time, community and hope for the future, we just "buy stuff".

    catlady , June 2, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    I live on the south side, in the formerly affluent south shore neighborhood. A teenager was killed, shot in the head in a drive by shooting, at 5 pm yesterday right around the corner from my residence. A white coworker of mine who lives in a rich northwest side neighborhood once commented to me how black people always say goodbye by saying "be safe". More easily said than done.

    Skippy , June 2, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    I thought neoliberalism was just the pogrom to make everyone – rational agents – as subscribed by our genetic / heraldic betters .. putting this orbs humans and resources in the correct "natural" order .

    Disheveled Marsupial for those thinking neoliberalism is not associated with libertarianism one only has to observe the decades of think tanks and their mouth organs roaming the planet . especially in the late 80s and 90s . bringing the might and wonders of the – market – to the great unwashed globally here libertarian priests rang in the good news to the great unwashed

    Jim , June 2, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    Hi Skippy:

    I would argue that neoliberalism is a program to define markets as primarily engaged in information processing and to make everyone into non-agents ( as not important at all to the proper functioning of markets).

    It also appears that neoliberals want to restrict democracy to the greatest extent possible and to view markets as the only foundation for truth without any need for input from the average individual.

    But as Mirowski argues–carrying their analysis this far begins to undermine their own neoliberal assumptions about markets always promoting social welfare.

    Skippy , June 2, 2016 at 10:09 pm

    Hay Jim

    When I mean – agents – I'm not referring to agency, like you say the market gawd/computer does that. I was referencing the – rational agent – that 'ascribes' the markets the right at defining facts or truth as neoliberalism defines rational thought/behavior.

    Disheveled Marsupial yes democracy is a direct threat to Hayekian et al [MPS and Friends] paranoia due to claims of irrationality vs rationally

    Rick Cass , June 2, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    Neo-liberalism could not have any power without legal and ethical positivism as the ground work of the national thought processes.

    seanseamour , June 3, 2016 at 4:32 am

    I have trouble understanding the focus on an emergence of fascism in Europe, focus that seems to dominate this entire thread when, put in perspective such splinter groups bear little weight on the European political spectrum.
    As an expat living in France, in my perception the Front National is a threat to the political establishments that occupy the center left and right and whose historically broad constituencies have been brutalized by the financial crisis borne of unbridled anglo-saxon runaway capitalism, coined neoliberalism. The resulting disaffection has allowed the growth of the FN but it is also fueled by a transfer of reactionary constituencies that have historically found identity in far left parties (communist, anti-capitalist, anarchist ), political expressions the institutions of the Republic allow and enable in the name of plurality, a healthy exultury in a democratic society.
    To consider that the FN in France, UKIP in the UK and others are a threat to democratic values any more that the far left is non-sensical, and I dare say insignificant compared to the "anchluss" our conservative right seeks to impose upon the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
    The reality in Europe as in America is economic. The post WWII era of reconstruction, investment and growth is behind us, the French call these years the "Trente Glorieuses" (30 glorious years) when prosperity was felt through all societal strats, consumerism for all became the panacea for a just society, where injustice prevailed welfare formulas provided a new panacea.
    As the perspective of an unravelling of this golden era began to emerge elites sought and conspired to consolidate power and wealth, under the aegis of greed is good culture by further corrupting government to serve the few, ensuring impunity for the ruling class, attempting societal cohesiveness with brash hubristic dialectics (America, the greatest this or that) and adventurism (Irak, mission accomplished), conspiring to co-opt and control institutions and the media (to understand the depth of this deception a must read is Jane Mayer in The Dark Side and in Dark Money).
    The difference between America and Europe is that latter bears of brunt of our excess.
    The 2008 Wall St / City meltdown eviscerated much of America' middle class and de-facto stalled, perhaps definitively, the vehicle of upward mobility in an increasingly wealth-ranked class structured society – the Trump phenomena feeds off the fatalistic resilience and "good book" mythologies remnant of the "go west" culture.
    In Europe where to varying degrees managed capitalism prevails the welfare state(s) provided the shock absorbers to offset the brunt of the crisis, but those who locked-in on neoliberal fiscal conservatism have cut off their nose in spite leaving scant resources to spur growth. If social mobility survives, more vibrantly than the US, unemployment and the cost thereof remains steadfast and crippling.
    The second crisis borne of American hubris is the human tidal wave resulting from the Irak adventure; it has unleashed mayhem upon the Middle East, Sub Saharan Africa and beyond. The current migrational wave Europe can not absorb is but the beginning of much deeper problem – as ISIS, Boko Haram and so many others terrorist groups destabilize the nation-states of a continent whose population is on the path to explode in the next half century.
    The icing on the cake provided by a Trump election will be a world wave of climate change refugees as the neoliberal establishment seeks to optimize wealth and power through continued climate change denial.
    Fascism is not the issue, nationalism resulting from a self serving bully culture will decimate the multilateral infrastructure responsible nation-states need to address today's problems.
    Broadly, Trump Presidency capping the neoliberal experience will likely signal the end of the US' dominant role on the world scene (and of course the immense benefits derived for the US). As he has articulated his intent to discard the art of diplomacy, from soft to institutional, in favor of an agressive approach in which the President seeks to "rattle" allies (NATO, Japan and S. Korea for example) as well as his opponents (in other words anyone who does not profess blind allegiance), expect that such modus operandi will create a deep schism accompanied by a loss of trust, already felt vis-a-vis our legislature' behavior over the last seven years.
    The US's newfound respect among friends and foes generated by President Obama' presidency, has already been undermined by the GOP primaries, if Trump is elected it will dissipate for good as other nations and groups thereof focus upon new, no-longer necessarily aligned strategic relationships, some will form as part as a means of taking distance, or protection from the US, others more opportunist with the risk of opponents such as Putin filling the void – in Europe for example.

    dk , June 3, 2016 at 8:08 am

    Neoliberalism isn't helping, but it's a population/resource ratio thing. Impacts on social orders occur well before raw supply factors kick in (and there is more than food supply to basic rations). The world population has more than doubled in the last 50 years, one doesn't get that kind of accelerated growth without profound impacts to every aspect of societies. Some of the most significant impacts are consequent to the acceleration of technological changes (skill expirations, automations) that are driven in no small part by the needs of a vast + growing population.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
    Note that the vertical scale in the of the first graph is logarithmic.

    I don't suggest population as a pat simplistic answer. And neoliberalism accelerates the declining performance of institutions (as in the CUNY article and that's been going on for decades already, neoliberalism just picked up where neoconservatism petered out), but we would be facing issues like homelessness, service degradation, population displacements, etc regardless of poor policies. One could argue (I do) that neoliberalism has undertaken to accelerate existing entropies for profit.

    Murica Derp , June 3, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Thanks for soliciting reader comments on socioeconomic desperation. It's encouraging to know that I'm not the only failure to launch in this country.

    I'm a seasonal farm worker with a liberal arts degree in geology and history. I barely held on for six months as a junior environmental consultant at a dysfunctional firm that tacitly encouraged unethical and incompetent behavior at all levels. From what I could gather, it was one of the better-run firms in the industry. Even so, I was watching mid-level and senior staff wander into extended mid-life crises while our entire service line was terrorized by a badly out-of-shape, morbidly obese, erratic, vicious PG who had alienated almost the entire office but was untouchable no matter how many firing offenses she committed. Meanwhile I was watching peers in other industries (especially marketing and FIRE) sell their souls in real time. I'm still watching them do so a decade later.

    It's hard to exaggerate how atrociously I've been treated by bougie conformists for having failed/dropped out of the rat race. A family friend who got into trouble with the state of Hawaii for misclassifying direct employees of his timeshare boiler room as 1099's gave me a panic attack after getting stoned and berating me for hours about how I'd wake up someday and wonder what the fuck I'd done with my life. At the time, I had successfully completed a summer job as the de facto lead on a vineyard maintenance crew and was about to get called back for the harvest, again as the de facto lead picker.

    Much of my social life is basically my humiliation at the hands of amoral sleazeballs who presume themselves my superiors. No matter how strong an objective case I have for these people being morally bankrupt, it's impossible to really dismiss their insults. Another big component is concern-trolling from bourgeois supremacists who will do awfully little for me when I ask them for specific help. I don't know what they're trying to accomplish, and they probably don't, either. A lot of it is cognitive dissonance and incoherence.

    Some of the worst aggression has come from a Type A social climber friend who sells life insurance. He's a top producer in a company that's about a third normal, a third Willy Loman, and a third Glengarry Glen Ross. This dude is clearly troubled, but in ways that neither of us can really figure out, and a number of those around him are, too. He once admitted, unbidden, to having hazed me for years.

    The bigger problem is that he's surrounded by an entire social infrastructure that enables and rewards noxious, predatory behavior. When college men feel like treating the struggling like garbage, they have backup and social proof from their peers. It's disgusting. Many of these people have no idea of how to relate appropriately to the poor or the unemployed and no interest in learning. They want to lecture and humiliate us, not listen to us.

    Dude recently told me that our alma mater, Dickinson College, is a "grad school preparatory institution." I was floored that anyone would ever think to talk like that. In point of fact, we're constantly lectured about how versatile our degrees are, with or without additional education. I've apparently annoyed a number of Dickinsonians by bitterly complaining that Dickinson's nonacademic operations are a sleazy racket and that President Emeritus Bill Durden is a shyster who brainwashed my classmates with crude propaganda. If anything, I'm probably measured in my criticism, because I don't think I know the full extent of the fraud and sleaze. What I have seen and heard is damning. I believe that Dickinson is run by people with totalitarian impulses that are restrained only by a handful of nonconformists who came for the academics and are fed up with the propaganda.

    Meanwhile, I've been warm homeless for most of the past four years. It's absurd to get pledge drive pitches from a well-endowed school on the premise that my degree is golden when I'm regularly sleeping in my car and financially dependent on my parents. It's absurd to hear stories about how Dickinson's alumni job placement network is top-notch when I've never gotten a viable lead from anyone I know from school. It's absurd to explain my circumstances in detail to people who, afterwards, still can't understand why I'm cynical.

    While my classmates preen about their degrees, I'm dealing with stuff that would make them vomit. A relative whose farm I've been tending has dozens of rats infesting his winery building, causing such a stench that I'm just about the only person willing to set foot inside it. This relative is a deadbeat presiding over a feudal slumlord manor, circumstances that he usually justifies by saying that he's broke and just trying to make ends meet. He has rent-paying tenants living on the property with nothing but a pit outhouse and a filthy, disused shower room for facilities. He doesn't care that it's illegal. One of his tenants left behind a twenty-gallon trash can full to the brim with his own feces. Another was seen throwing newspaper-wrapped turds out of her trailer into the weeds. They probably found more dignity in this than in using the outhouse.

    When I was staying in Rancho Cordova, a rough suburb of Sacramento, I saw my next-door neighbor nearly come to blows with a man at the light rail station before apologizing profusely to me, calling me "sir," "man," "boss," and "dog." He told me that he was angry at the other guy for selling meth to his kid sister. Eureka is even worse: its west side is swarming with tweakers, its low-end apartment stock is terrible, no one brings the slumlords to heel, and it has a string of truly filthy residential motels along Broadway that should have been demolished years ago.

    A colleague who lives in Sweet Home, Oregon, told me that his hometown is swarming with druggies who try to extract opiates from local poppies and live for the next arriving shipment of garbage drugs. The berry farm where we worked had ten- and twelve-year-olds working under the table to supplement their families' incomes. A Canadian friend told me that he worked for a crackhead in Lillooet who made his own supply at home using freebase that he bought from a meathead dealer with ties to the Boston mob. Apparently all the failing mill towns in rural BC have a crack problem because there's not much to do other than go on welfare and cocaine. An RCMP sergeant in Kamloops was recently indicted for selling coke on the side.

    Uahsenaa's comment about the invisible homeless is spot on. I think I blend in pretty well. I've often stunned people by mentioning that I'm homeless. Some of them have been assholes about it, but not all. There are several cars that I recognize as regular overnighters at my usual rest area. Thank God we don't get hassled much. Oregon is about as safe a place as there is to be homeless. Some of the rest areas in California, including the ones at Kingsburg and the Sacramento Airport, end up at or beyond capacity overnight due to the homeless. CalTrans has signs reminding drivers that it's rude to hog a space that someone else will need. This austerity does not, of course, apply to stadium construction for the Kings.

    Another thing that almost slipped my mind (and is relevant to Trump's popularity): I've encountered entrenched, systemic discrimination against Americans when I've tried to find and hold menial jobs, and I've talked to other Americans who have also encountered it. There is an extreme bias in favor of Mexican peasants and against Americans in the fields and increasingly in off-farm jobs. The top quintile will be lucky not to reap the whirlwind on account of this prejudice.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Donald Trump, Brexit Are Blowback From Years of Anti-Government Rhetoric US News Opinion

    Notable quotes:
    "... The number one issue fueling the leave vote was immigration – a lot like Trump's wall against Mexico. The number two issue was lack of accountability of government: Leavers believe that the EU government in Brussels is unaccountable to voters. For Trump supporters, resentment towards a distant and unaccountable Washington government ranks high as well. The Brexit constituency and the Trump constituency are both motivated by the same sense of loss and vulnerability. ..."
    "... In both the U.S. and the U.K., a large and growing segment of voters has not prospered in today's complex, technology-driven global economy. Their wages have stagnated and in many cases fallen. Too few good-paying jobs exist for people lacking a college degree, or even people with a college degree, if the degree is not in the right field. These people are angry, frustrated, and afraid -- and with very good reason. Both countries' governments have done little to help them adapt, and little to soothe the sting of globalization. The voter's concerns in both places are mostly the same even though these concerns have coalesced around a policy issue ("leave") in the U.K. whereas here in the U.S. they have coalesced around a candidate (Trump). ..."
    "... Similarly, the elite insiders of the Republican Party and their business allies badly underestimated Trump. Establishment candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush failed terribly. Now the Republican political insiders are trying to make sense of a presumptive nominee who trashes free trade, one of the fundamental principles of the party, and openly taunts one of most important emerging voting blocks. ..."
    "... Perhaps the biggest reason for the impotence of today's political elites is that elites have trashed the very idea of competent and effective government for 35 years now, and the public has taken the message to heart. Ever since Reagan identified government as the problem, conservative elites have attacked the idea of government itself – rather than respecting the idea of government itself while criticizing the particular policies of a particular government. This is a crucial (and dangerous) distinction. In 1986, Reagan went on to say "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ..."
    Aug 07, 2016 | www.usnews.com
    In addition, the issues are similar between the two campaigns: The number one issue fueling the leave vote was immigration – a lot like Trump's wall against Mexico. The number two issue was lack of accountability of government: Leavers believe that the EU government in Brussels is unaccountable to voters. For Trump supporters, resentment towards a distant and unaccountable Washington government ranks high as well. The Brexit constituency and the Trump constituency are both motivated by the same sense of loss and vulnerability.

    In both the U.S. and the U.K., a large and growing segment of voters has not prospered in today's complex, technology-driven global economy. Their wages have stagnated and in many cases fallen. Too few good-paying jobs exist for people lacking a college degree, or even people with a college degree, if the degree is not in the right field. These people are angry, frustrated, and afraid -- and with very good reason. Both countries' governments have done little to help them adapt, and little to soothe the sting of globalization. The voter's concerns in both places are mostly the same even though these concerns have coalesced around a policy issue ("leave") in the U.K. whereas here in the U.S. they have coalesced around a candidate (Trump).

    In both countries, political elites were caught flat-footed. Elites lost control over the narrative and lost credibility and persuasiveness with angry, frustrated and fearful voters. The British elites badly underestimated the intensity of public frustration with immigration and with the EU. Most expected the vote would end on the side of "remain," up to the very last moment. Now they are trying to plot their way out of something they never expected would actually happen, and never prepared for.

    Similarly, the elite insiders of the Republican Party and their business allies badly underestimated Trump. Establishment candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush failed terribly. Now the Republican political insiders are trying to make sense of a presumptive nominee who trashes free trade, one of the fundamental principles of the party, and openly taunts one of most important emerging voting blocks.

    How did the elites lose control? There are many reasons: With social media so pervasive, advertising dollars no longer controls what the public sees and hears. With unrestricted campaign spending, the party can no longer "pinch the air hose" of a candidate who strays from party orthodoxy.

    Perhaps the biggest reason for the impotence of today's political elites is that elites have trashed the very idea of competent and effective government for 35 years now, and the public has taken the message to heart. Ever since Reagan identified government as the problem, conservative elites have attacked the idea of government itself – rather than respecting the idea of government itself while criticizing the particular policies of a particular government. This is a crucial (and dangerous) distinction. In 1986, Reagan went on to say "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    Reagan booster Grover Norquist is known for saying, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Countless candidates and elected officials slam "Washington bureaucrats" even though these "bureaucrats" were none other than themselves. It's not a great way to build respect. Then the attack escalated, with the aim of destroying parts of government that were actually mostly working. This was done to advance the narrative that government itself is the problem, and pave the way for privatization. Take the Transportation Security Administration for example. TSA has actually done its job. No terrorist attacks have succeeded on U.S. airplanes since it was established. But by systematically underfunding it , Congress has made the lines painfully long, so people hate it. Take the Post Office. Here Congress manufactured a crisis to force service cuts, making the public believe the institution is incompetent. But the so-called "problem" is due almost entirely to a requirement, imposed by Congress, forcing the Postal Service to prepay retiree's health care to an absurd level, far beyond what a similar private sector business would have to do. A similar dynamic now threatens Social Security. Thirty-five years have passed since Reagan first mocked the potential for competent and effective government. Years of unrelenting attack have sunk in. Many Americans now distrust government leaders and think it's pointless to demand or expect wisdom and statesmanship. Today's American voters (and their British counterparts), well-schooled in skepticism, disdain and dismiss leaders of all parties and they are ready to burn things down out of sheer frustration. The moment of blowback has arrived.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Human beings are now considered consumer goods in job market to be used and then discarded. As a consequence, a lot of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape (pope Francis)

    Aug 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    R.L.Love : August 27, 2016 at 09:49 AM

    PK has nearly lost all of his ability to see things objectively. Ambition got him, I suppose, or maybe he has always longed to be popular. He was probably teased and ridiculed too much in his youth. He is something of a whinny sniveler after-all.

    Then too, I doubt if PK has ever used a public restroom in the Southwest, or taken his kids to a public park in one of the thousands of small towns where non-English speaking throngs take over all of the facilities and parking.Or had his children bullied at school by a gang of dark-skinned kids whose parents believe that whites took their land, or abused or enslaved their distant ansestors. It might be germane here too... to point out that some of this anti-white sentiment gets support and validation from the very rhetoric that Democrats have made integral to their campaigns.

    As for not knowing why crime rates have been falling, the incarceration rates rose in step, so duh, if you lock up those with propensities for crime, well, how could crime rates not fall? And while I'm on the subject of crime, the statistical analysis that is commonly used focuses too much on violent crime and convictions. Thus, crimes of a less serious nature, that being the type of crimes committed by poor folks, is routinely ignored. Then too, those who are here illegally are often transient and using assumed names, and so they are, presumably, more difficult to catch. So, statistics are all too often not as telling as claimed.

    And, though I'm not a Trump supporter, I fully understand his appeal. As would PK if he were more travelled and in touch with those who have seen their schools, parks, towns, and everything else turn tawdry and dysfunctional. But of course the nation that most of us live in is much different than the one that PK knows.

    likbez -> R.L.Love

    > And, though I'm not a Trump supporter, I fully understand his appeal

    I wonder why everybody is thinking about this problem only in terms of identity politics.

    This is a wrong, self-defeating framework to approach the problem. which is pushed by neoliberal MSM and which we should resist in this forum as this translates the problems that the nation faces into term of pure war-style propaganda ("us vs. them" mentality). To which many posters here already succumbed

    IMHO the November elections will be more of the referendum on neoliberal globalization (with two key issues on the ballot -- jobs and immigration) than anything else.

    If so, then the key question is whether the anger of population at neoliberal elite that stole their jobs and well-being reached the boiling point or not. The level of this anger might decide the result of elections, not all those petty slurs that neoliberal MSM so diligently use as a smoke screen.

    All those valiant efforts in outsourcing and replacing permanent jobs with temporary to increase profit margin at the end have the propensity to produce some externalities. And not only in the form "over 50 and unemployed" but also by a much more dangerous "globalization of indifference" to human beings in general.

    JK Galbraith once gave the following definition of neoliberal economics: "trickle down economics is the idea that if you feed the horse enough oats eventually some will pass through to the road for the sparrows." This is what neoliberalism is about. Lower 80% even in so-called rich countries are forced to live in "fear and desperation", forced to work "with precious little dignity".

    Human beings are now considered consumer goods in "job market" to be used and then discarded. As a consequence, a lot of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: "without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape" (pope Francis).

    And that inevitably produces a reaction. Which in extreme forms we saw during French and Bolsheviks revolutions. And in less extremist forms (not involving lampposts as the placeholders for the "Masters of the Universe" (aka financial oligarchy) and the most obnoxious part of the "creative class" aka intelligentsia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia ) in Brexit vote.

    Hillary and Trump are just symbols here. The issue matters, not personalities.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Much-disputed Iranian nuclear bomb

    An interesting warning about possible return of neocons in Hillary administration. Looks like not much changed in Washington from 2005 and Obama more and more looks like Bush III. Both Hillary and Trump are jingoistic toward Iran. Paradoxically Trump is even more jingoistic then Hillary.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal. ..."
    "... And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ). ..."
    "... Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." ..."
    "... What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. ..."
    "... In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence. ..."
    "... Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjà vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement. ..."
    "... So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped. ..."
    Sep 22, 2005 | www.washingtonpost.com
    That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal.

    As Los Angeles Times reporter Douglas Frantz wrote at one point, "Though Israel is a democracy, debating the nuclear program is taboo A military censor guards Israel's nuclear secrets." And this "taboo" has largely extended to American reporting on the subject. Imagine, to offer a very partial analogy, if we all had had to consider the Cold War nuclear issue with the Soviet, but almost never the American nuclear arsenal, in the news. Of course, that would have been absurd and yet it's the case in the Middle East today, making most strategic discussions of the region exercises in absurdity.

    I wrote about this subject under the title, Nuclear Israel , back in October 2003, because of a brief break, thanks to Frantz, in the media blackout on the subject. I began then, "Nuclear North Korea, nuclear Iraq, nuclear Iran - of these our media has been full for the last year or more, though they either don't exist or hardly yet exist. North Korea now probably has a couple of crude nuclear weapons, which it may still be incapable of delivering. But nuclear Israel, little endangered Israel? It's hard even to get your head around the concept, though that country has either the fifth or sixth largest nuclear arsenal in the world." And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ).

    Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." Now, read on. ~ Tom

    Attacking Iran: I Know It Sounds Crazy, But...

    By Ray McGovern

    "'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.'

    "(Short pause)

    "'And having said that, all options are on the table.'

    "Even the White House stenographers felt obliged to note the result: '(Laughter).'"

    ( The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin on George Bush's February 22 press conference)

    For a host of good reasons -- the huge and draining commitment of U.S. forces to Iraq and Iran's ability to stir the Iraqi pot to boiling, for starters -- the notion that the Bush administration would mount a "preemptive" air attack on Iran seems insane. And still more insane if the objective includes overthrowing Iran's government again, as in 1953 -- this time under the rubric of "regime change."

    But Bush administration policy toward the Middle East is being run by men -- yes, only men -- who were routinely referred to in high circles in Washington during the 1980s as "the crazies." I can attest to that personally, but one need not take my word for it.

    According to James Naughtie, author of The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency , former Secretary of State Colin Powell added an old soldier's adjective to the "crazies" sobriquet in referring to the same officials. Powell, who was military aide to Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger in the early eighties, was overheard calling them "the f---ing crazies" during a phone call with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw before the war in Iraq. At the time, Powell was reportedly deeply concerned over their determination to attack -- with or without UN approval. Small wonder that they got rid of Powell after the election, as soon as they had no more use for him.

    If further proof of insanity were needed, one could simply look at the unnecessary carnage in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003. That unprovoked attack was, in my view, the most fateful foreign policy blunder in our nation's history...so far.

    It Can Get Worse

    "The crazies" are not finished. And we do well not to let their ultimate folly obscure their current ambition, and the further trouble that ambition is bound to bring in the four years ahead. In an immediate sense, with U.S. military power unrivaled, they can be seen as "crazy like a fox," with a value system in which "might makes right." Operating out of that value system, and now sporting the more respectable misnomer/moniker "neoconservative," they are convinced that they know exactly what they are doing. They have a clear ideology and a geopolitical strategy, which leap from papers they put out at the Project for the New American Century over recent years.

    The very same men who, acting out of that paradigm, brought us the war in Iraq are now focusing on Iran, which they view as the only remaining obstacle to American domination of the entire oil-rich Middle East. They calculate that, with a docile, corporate-owned press, a co-opted mainstream church, and a still-trusting populace, the United States and/or the Israelis can launch a successful air offensive to disrupt any Iranian nuclear weapons programs -- with the added bonus of possibly causing the regime in power in Iran to crumble.

    But why now? After all, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency has just told Congress that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until "early in the next decade?" The answer, according to some defense experts, is that several of the Iranian facilities are still under construction and there is only a narrow "window of opportunity" to destroy them without causing huge environmental problems. That window, they say, will begin to close this year.

    Other analysts attribute the sense of urgency to worry in Washington that the Iranians may have secretly gained access to technology that would facilitate a leap forward into the nuclear club much sooner than now anticipated. And it is, of course, neoconservative doctrine that it is best to nip -- the word in current fashion is "preempt" -- any conceivable threats in the bud. One reason the Israelis are pressing hard for early action may simply be out of a desire to ensure that George W. Bush will have a few more years as president after an attack on Iran, so that they will have him to stand with Israel when bedlam breaks out in the Middle East.

    What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. For me, this evokes a painful flashback to the early eighties when "intelligence," pointing to "moderates" within the Iranian leadership, was conjured up to help justify the imaginative but illegal arms-for-hostages-and-proceeds-to-Nicaraguan-Contras caper. The fact that the conjurer-in-chief of that spurious "evidence" on Iranian "moderates," former chief CIA analyst, later director Robert Gates, was recently offered the newly created position of director of national intelligence makes the flashback more eerie -- and alarming.

    George H. W. Bush Saw Through "The Crazies"

    During his term in office, George H. W. Bush, with the practical advice of his national security adviser Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker, was able to keep "the crazies" at arms length, preventing them from getting the country into serious trouble. They were kept well below the level of "principal" -- that is, below the level of secretary of state or defense.

    Even so, heady in the afterglow of victory in the Gulf War of 1990, "the crazies" stirred up considerable controversy when they articulated their radical views. Their vision, for instance, became the centerpiece of the draft "Defense Planning Guidance" that Paul Wolfowitz, de facto dean of the neoconservatives, prepared in 1992 for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. It dismissed deterrence as an outdated relic of the Cold War and argued that the United States must maintain military strength beyond conceivable challenge -- and use it in preemptive ways in dealing with those who might acquire "weapons of mass destruction." Sound familiar?

    Aghast at this radical imperial strategy for the post-Cold War world, someone with access to the draft leaked it to the New York Times , forcing President George H. W. Bush either to endorse or disavow it. Disavow it he did -- and quickly, on the cooler-head recommendations of Scowcroft and Baker, who proved themselves a bulwark against the hubris and megalomania of "the crazies." Unfortunately, their vision did not die. No less unfortunately, there is method to their madness -- even if it threatens to spell eventual disaster for our country. Empires always overreach and fall.

    The Return of the Neocons

    In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence.

    Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjà vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement.

    Why dwell on this? Because it is second in importance only to the portentous reality that the earth is running out of readily accessible oil – something of which they are all too aware. Not surprisingly then, disguised beneath the weapons-of-mass-destruction smokescreen they laid down as they prepared to invade Iraq lay an unspoken but bedrock reason for the war -- oil. In any case, the neocons seem to believe that, in the wake of the November election, they now have a carte-blanche "mandate." And with the president's new "capital to spend," they appear determined to spend it, sooner rather than later.

    Next Stop, Iran

    When a Special Forces platoon leader just back from Iraq matter-of-factly tells a close friend of mine, as happened last week, that he and his unit are now training their sights (literally) on Iran, we need to take that seriously. It provides us with a glimpse of reality as seen at ground level. For me, it brought to mind an unsolicited email I received from the father of a young soldier training at Fort Benning in the spring of 2002, soon after I wrote an op-ed discussing the timing of George W. Bush's decision to make war on Iraq. The father informed me that, during the spring of 2002, his son kept writing home saying his unit was training to go into Iraq. No, said the father; you mean Afghanistan... that's where the war is, not Iraq. In his next email, the son said, "No, Dad, they keep saying Iraq. I asked them and that's what they mean."

    Now, apparently, they keep saying Iran ; and that appears to be what they mean.

    Anecdotal evidence like this is hardly conclusive. Put it together with administration rhetoric and a preponderance of other "dots," though, and everything points in the direction of an air attack on Iran, possibly also involving some ground forces. Indeed, from the New Yorker reports of Seymour Hersh to Washington Post articles , accounts of small-scale American intrusions on the ground as well as into Iranian airspace are appearing with increasing frequency. In a speech given on February 18, former UN arms inspector and Marine officer Scott Ritter (who was totally on target before the Iraq War on that country's lack of weapons of mass destruction) claimed that the president has already "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June in order to destroy its alleged nuclear weapons program and eventually bring about "regime change." This does not necessarily mean an automatic green light for a large attack in June, but it may signal the president's seriousness about this option.

    So, again, against the background of what we have witnessed over the past four years, and the troubling fact that the circle of second-term presidential advisers has become even tighter, we do well to inject a strong note of urgency into any discussion of the "Iranian option."

    Why Would Iran Want Nukes?

    So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped.

    Recovering quickly and realizing that he could not just leave the word "Israel" hanging there, Lugar began again: "Well, Israel is alleged to have a nuclear capability."

    Is alleged to have ? Lugar is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and yet he doesn't know that Israel has, by most estimates, a major nuclear arsenal, consisting of several hundred nuclear weapons? (Mainstream newspapers are allergic to dwelling on this topic, but it is mentioned every now and then, usually buried in obscurity on an inside page.)

    Just imagine how the Iranians and Syrians would react to Lugar's disingenuousness. Small wonder our highest officials and lawmakers -- and Lugar, remember, is one of the most decent among them -- are widely seen abroad as hypocritical. Our media, of course, ignore the hypocrisy. This is standard operating procedure when the word "Israel" is spoken in this or other unflattering contexts. And the objections of those appealing for a more balanced approach are quashed.

    If the truth be told, Iran fears Israel at least as much as Israel fears the internal security threat posed by the thugs supported by Tehran. Iran's apprehension is partly fear that Israel (with at least tacit support from the Bush administration) will send its aircraft to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, just as American-built Israeli bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981. As part of the current war of nerves, recent statements by the president and vice president can be read as giving a green light to Israel to do just that; while Israeli Air Force commander Major General Eliezer Shakedi told reporters on February 21 that Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran "in light of its nuclear activity."

    US-Israel Nexus

    The Iranians also remember how Israel was able to acquire and keep its nuclear technology. Much of it was stolen from the United States by spies for Israel. As early as the late-1950s, Washington knew Israel was building the bomb and could have aborted the project. Instead, American officials decided to turn a blind eye and let the Israelis go ahead. Now Israel's nuclear capability is truly formidable. Still, it is a fact of strategic life that a formidable nuclear arsenal can be deterred by a far more modest one, if an adversary has the means to deliver it. (Look at North Korea's success with, at best, a few nuclear weapons and questionable means of delivery in deterring the "sole remaining superpower in the world.") And Iran already has missiles with the range to hit Israel.

    Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has for some time appeared eager to enlist Washington's support for an early "pre-emptive" strike on Iran. Indeed, American defense officials have told reporters that visiting Israeli officials have been pressing the issue for the past year and a half. And the Israelis are now claiming publicly that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within six months -- years earlier than the Defense Intelligence Agency estimate mentioned above.

    In the past, President Bush has chosen to dismiss unwelcome intelligence estimates as "guesses" -- especially when they threatened to complicate decisions to implement the neoconservative agenda. It is worth noting that several of the leading neocons – Richard Perle, chair of the Defense Policy Board (2001-03); Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and David Wurmser, Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney -- actually wrote policy papers for the Israeli government during the 1990s. They have consistently had great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel and those of the US -- at least as they imagine them.

    As for President Bush, over the past four years he has amply demonstrated his preference for the counsel of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who, as Gen. Scowcroft said publicly , has the president "wrapped around his little finger." (As Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board until he was unceremoniously removed at the turn of the year, Scowcroft was in a position to know.) If Scowcroft is correct in also saying that the president has been "mesmerized" by Sharon, it seems possible that the Israelis already have successfully argued for an attack on Iran.

    When "Regime Change" Meant Overthrow For Oil

    To remember why the United States is no favorite in Tehran, one needs to go back at least to 1953 when the U.S. and Great Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Premier Mohammad Mossadeq as part of a plan to insure access to Iranian oil. They then emplaced the young Shah in power who, with his notorious secret police, proved second to none in cruelty. The Shah ruled from 1953 to 1979. Much resentment can build up over a whole generation. His regime fell like a house of cards, when supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini rose up to do some regime change of their own.

    Iranians also remember Washington's strong support for Saddam Hussein's Iraq after it decided to make war on Iran in 1980. U.S. support for Iraq (which included crucial intelligence support for the war and an implicit condoning of Saddam's use of chemical weapons) was perhaps the crucial factor in staving off an Iranian victory. Imagine then, the threat Iranians see, should the Bush administration succeed in establishing up to 14 permanent military bases in neighboring Iraq. Any Iranian can look at a map of the Middle East (including occupied Iraq) and conclude that this administration might indeed be willing to pay the necessary price in blood and treasure to influence what happens to the black gold under Iranian as well as Iraqi sands. And with four more years to play with, a lot can be done along those lines. The obvious question is: How to deter it? Well, once again, Iran can hardly be blind to the fact that a small nation like North Korea has so far deterred U.S. action by producing, or at least claiming to have produced, nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear Is the Nub

    The nuclear issue is indeed paramount, and we would do well to imagine and craft fresh approaches to the nub of the problem. As a start, I'll bet if you made a survey, only 20% of Americans would answer "yes" to the question, "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" That is key, it seems to me, because at their core Americans are still fair-minded people.

    On the other hand, I'll bet that 95% of the Iranian population would answer, "Of course Israel has nuclear weapons; that's why we Iranians need them" -- which was, of course, the unmentionable calculation that Senator Lugar almost conceded. "And we also need them," many Iranians would probably say, "in order to deter 'the crazies' in Washington. It seems to be working for the North Koreans, who, after all, are the other remaining point on President Bush's 'axis of evil.'"

    The ideal approach would, of course, be to destroy all nuclear weapons in the world and ban them for the future, with a very intrusive global inspection regime to verify compliance. A total ban is worth holding up as an ideal, and I think we must. But this approach seems unlikely to bear fruit over the next four years. So what then?

    A Nuclear-Free Middle East

    How about a nuclear-free Middle East? Could the US make that happen? We could if we had moral clarity -- the underpinning necessary to bring it about. Each time this proposal is raised, the Syrians, for example, clap their hands in feigned joyful anticipation, saying, "Of course such a pact would include Israel, right?" The issue is then dropped from all discussion by U.S. policymakers. Required: not only moral clarity but also what Thomas Aquinas labeled the precondition for all virtue, courage. In this context, courage would include a refusal to be intimidated by inevitable charges of anti-Semitism.

    The reality is that, except for Israel, the Middle East is nuclear free. But the discussion cannot stop there. It is not difficult to understand why the first leaders of Israel, with the Holocaust experience written indelibly on their hearts and minds, and feeling surrounded by perceived threats to the fledgling state's existence, wanted the bomb. And so, before the Syrians or Iranians, for example, get carried away with self-serving applause for the nuclear-free Middle East proposal, they will have to understand that for any such negotiation to succeed it must have as a concomitant aim the guarantee of an Israel able to live in peace and protect itself behind secure borders. That guarantee has got to be part of the deal.

    That the obstacles to any such agreement are formidable is no excuse not trying. But the approach would have to be new and everything would have to be on the table. Persisting in a state of denial about Israel's nuclear weapons is dangerously shortsighted; it does nothing but aggravate fears among the Arabs and create further incentive for them to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.

    A sensible approach would also have to include a willingness to engage the Iranians directly, attempt to understand their perspective, and discern what the United States and Israel could do to alleviate their concerns.

    Preaching to Iran and others about not acquiring nuclear weapons is, indeed, like the village drunk preaching sobriety -- the more so as our government keeps developing new genres of nuclear weapons and keeps looking the other way as Israel enhances its own nuclear arsenal. Not a pretty moral picture, that. Indeed, it reminds me of the Scripture passage about taking the plank out of your own eye before insisting that the speck be removed from another's.

    Lessons from the Past...Like Mutual Deterrence

    Has everyone forgotten that deterrence worked for some 40 years, while for most of those years the U.S. and the USSR had not by any means lost their lust for ever-enhanced nuclear weapons? The point is simply that, while engaging the Iranians bilaterally and searching for more imaginative nuclear-free proposals, the U.S. might adopt a more patient interim attitude regarding the striving of other nation states to acquire nuclear weapons -- bearing in mind that the Bush administration's policies of "preemption" and "regime change" themselves create powerful incentives for exactly such striving. As was the case with Iraq two years ago, there is no imminent Iranian strategic threat to Americans -- or, in reality, to anyone. Even if Iran acquired a nuclear capability, there is no reason to believe that it would risk a suicidal first strike on Israel. That, after all, is what mutual deterrence is all about; it works both ways.

    It is nonetheless clear that the Israelis' sense of insecurity -- however exaggerated it may seem to those of us thousands of miles away -- is not synthetic but real. The Sharon government appears to regard its nuclear monopoly in the region as the only effective "deterrence insurance" it can buy. It is determined to prevent its neighbors from acquiring the kind of capability that could infringe on the freedom it now enjoys to carry out military and other actions in the area. Government officials have said that Israel will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon; it would be folly to dismiss this as bravado. The Israelis have laid down a marker and mean to follow through -- unless the Bush administration assumes the attitude that "preemption" is an acceptable course for the United States but not for Israel. It seems unlikely that the neoconservatives would take that line. Rather

    "Israel Is Our Ally."

    Or so said our president before the cameras on February 17, 2005. But I didn't think we had a treaty of alliance with Israel; I don't remember the Senate approving one. Did I miss something?

    Clearly, the longstanding U.S.-Israeli friendship and the ideals we share dictate continuing support for Israel's defense and security. It is quite another thing, though, to suggest the existence of formal treaty obligations that our country does not have. To all intents and purposes, our policymakers -- from the president on down -- seem to speak and behave on the assumption that we do have such obligations toward Israel. A former colleague CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris , has put it this way: "The Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to Israel and its policies."

    An earlier American warned:

    "A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.... It also gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country." ( George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796 )

    In my view, our first president's words apply only too aptly to this administration's lash-up with the Sharon government. As responsible citizens we need to overcome our timidity about addressing this issue, lest our fellow Americans continue to be denied important information neglected or distorted in our domesticated media.

    Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst for 27 years -- from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. During the early 1980s, he was one of the writers/editors of the President's Daily Brief and briefed it one-on-one to the president's most senior advisers. He also chaired National Intelligence Estimates. In January 2003, he and four former colleagues founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

    Copyright 2005 Ray McGovern

    [Dec 02, 2016] No attempt at DNC of learning the history of neoliberalism, no attempt at any serious research about how and why it descroyed the US society

    Notable quotes:
    "... If I was in charge of the DNC and wanted to commission a very cleverly written piece to exonerate the DLC and the New Democrats from the 30 odd years of corruption and self-aggrandizement they indulged in and laughed all the way to the Bank then I would definitely give this chap a call. ..."
    "... I would ask the Author to start with the Powell memo and then make an investigation as to why the Democrats then and the DLC later decided to merely sit on their hands when all the forces the Powell memo unleashed proceeded to wreak their havoc in every established institution of the Left, principally the Universities which had always been the bastion of the Progressives. That might be a good starting point. ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Paul Art November 29, 2016 at 7:14 am

    If I was in charge of the DNC and wanted to commission a very cleverly written piece to exonerate the DLC and the New Democrats from the 30 odd years of corruption and self-aggrandizement they indulged in and laughed all the way to the Bank then I would definitely give this chap a call.

    I mean, where do we start? No attempt at learning the history of neoliberalism, no attempt at any serious research about how and why it fastened itself into the brains of people like Tony Coelho and Al From, nothing, zilch.

    If someone who did not know the history of the DLC read this piece, they would walk away thinking, 'wow, it was all happenstance, it all just happened, no one deliberately set off this run away train'. Sometime in the 90s the 'Left' decided to just pursue identity politics. Amazing.

    I would ask the Author to start with the Powell memo and then make an investigation as to why the Democrats then and the DLC later decided to merely sit on their hands when all the forces the Powell memo unleashed proceeded to wreak their havoc in every established institution of the Left, principally the Universities which had always been the bastion of the Progressives. That might be a good starting point.

    [Dec 02, 2016] K. Scott Schaeffer's review of Crippled America Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again

    Dec 02, 2016 | www.amazon.com
    Few detailed solutions, some crazy quotes, but actually better than his rivals' books. , November 3, 2015 By K. Scott Schaeffer Verified Purchase ( What's this? ) This review is from: Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again (Hardcover) Unlike a lot of political books, this one does not appear to be ghost-written. Trump's bombastic communications style is loud and clear from beginning to end. It's definitely coming from him. So I congratulate him on the fact that he's capable of writing a book on his own, unlike Ben Carson, who needed his wife to help him write his last two books.

    The book starts off poorly, however, with CHAPTER 2 being a draw-out rant about how the media treats Trump unfairly. It made me wonder if he was ever going to get to the issues. When he did refer to the issues, he seemed to think the presidency was the same as The Apprentice when he said, "The weaker schools will be closed, and ineffective teachers will be fired." So if you thought the teacher-student ratio in schools was bad, it looks like Trump firing teachers left and right will make it far worse.

    Shortly after, he follows with the unrealistic quote, "we need a military that will be so strong that we won't have to use it." We already spend 8 times more than the Russians do on defense. We already have enough nukes to wipe out the planet. But terrorists really don't care about that. Reagan and Bush already proved that no matter how much we spend on defense, terrorists still attack everything from the Beirut Embassy to the World Trade Center to our troops in Iraq.

    CHAPTER 3 goes right to his #1 topic – THE WALL: "Mexico will pay for it. How? We could increase the various border fees we charge. We could increase the fees on temporary Visas .we could pay for the wall through a tariff or cut foreign aid to Mexico." First, these are all small revenue generating ideas that wouldn't come close to paying for a 1000 mile wall. Second, American consumers would be the ones paying the tariffs, not Mexico.

    CHAPTER 4, on DEFENSE, starts with "Look at the state of the world right now There has never been a more dangerous time. The so-called insiders within the Washington ruling class are the people who got us into this trouble." Yeah, just ask someone when a Republican president did a better job. When Reagan was president, he gave scud missiles to Iraq after Saddam invaded Iran and started an 8 year war, while the Soviets invaded Afghanistan through Reagan's entire presidency. Foreign affairs are always a mess, and the Republicans do just as bad, if not worse, than the Democrats.

    There were a few good quotes in this chapter, however. Here are a few:

    Good quote: "We defend Germany. We defend Japan. We defend South Korea. We get nothing from them. It's time to change all of that." In other words, if we are going to defend other countries or help them in a war, we should be fully compensated for that. I've been thinking that for years. (Note "I wrote this before I was aware that Trump was so eagerly supported by Putin and was willing to turn his back on our NATO allies. We should not make the same mistake the Soviets did when they signed the non-aggression pact with Hitler and let him have his way in Europe, only to turn and kill 14 million Soviets when he was done. Putin may be the most dangerous man on earth.)

    Good quote: "if we are going to intervene in a conflict, there had better be a direct threat to our national interests Iraq was no threat to us."

    Good quote: "There is no reason the federal government should profit from student loans" - a sentiment already expressed by progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren.

    CHAPTER 6: This ENERGY chapter is where the book goes south again, with quotes like this one regarding the Keystone Pipeline: "eventually, the world will need that oil and we will need the good jobs that it will create." Trump unwittingly reveals the problem with his stance with this quote – American oil will be shipped to the world and not kept here where we need it. That will decrease our energy independence. Trump proves to be just one more Republican who is interested in serving global oil more than he is the American people.

    CHAPTER 7 is the HEALTHCARE chapter in which his best solution (after repealing Obamacare) is "I'd like to see a private insurance system without artificial lines drawn between states." He says this will increase competition and give customers more choices. But I fear that after a while, we'll have no more choices than we do with airlines. Trump offered virtually no other healthcare solutions in the brief healthcare chapter, which is worrisome.

    CHAPTER 8 is about the ECONOMY, where every conservative book fails, and this one is no exception. Here's where Trump resorts to lies: "Our national debt is more than $19 trillion Even the most liberal economists warn that as we head past the $20+ trillion debt levels, we'll be in big, big trouble." Economists aren't concerned about total dollars, since they go up with time due to population, inflation, and production growth. They are concerned with debt as a % of GDP. Right now our public debt is about 75% of GDP, as long as GDP grows as much as the debt, which is pretty much the way it is now, little will change. Once public debt reaches more than 100% - 120% of GDP (it reached 118% in 1946), then perhaps we'll be doomed.

    Here's a bigger lie: "When you also take into account the large number of jobholders who are underemployed, the real unemployment rate soars to the high teens or even 20%." This is a proven lie. The U6 unemployment rate (which includes discouraged and part-time workers looking to be full-time) is 10.0% as of 9/15 – the same as it was in 2005 and 1996, when the economy was considered good (you can look this up at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website).

    This economics chapter offers few solutions. He just says he'll negotiate better trade deals, and in the defense chapter, he says he'll create more jobs with increased defense spending, which we know will balloon the debt the way it did under Reagan and Bush. He says in the following chapter that we'll spend more on infrastructure to create a lot of jobs. I agree with that point, but it's still more government spending that will add to the debt.

    And that brings us to his TAX PLAN in CHAPTER 17. In it, families who earn less than $50,000 (which is just below the household median income) will pay no income tax. That's about 50% of Americans. And then the rates beyond that are 10%, 20%, and 25%. That's big tax savings for everyone. And he says "any business of any size will pay no more than 15%", compared to the current corporate tax of 35% (a big break for foreign billionaires who use America's infrastructure, safety, and workers to operate their American plants, but pay no personal taxes since they aren't Americans). How will this drastic tax cut for everyone not add to the debt? Trump's answer: "With disciplined budget management and elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse, this plan will allow us to balance the budget." This is a pathetically-empty promise. The problem with it is that it takes a lot more spending to more-extensively monitor waste, fraud, and abuse, and even with that, doing so is a tedious task that's easier said than done.

    In the chapters I didn't single out, Trump repeatedly toots his own horn by reviewing all of his wonderfully-successful business accomplishments, while failing to address the failures. And I don't recall the 4 corporate bankruptcies being mentioned, either.

    Despite this book's weaknesses, it's still better than Ben Carson's and Mike Huckabee's books. Huckabee focused on turning southerners and heartlanders against the rest of the country, while Carson frequently employed the blame-the-worker/blame-the-poor approach in his appeal to increase taxes on the poor while cutting their assistance – which is just plain cruel. I'm still afraid of Trump becoming president, but not as horrified as I would be with most of the other Republicans becoming president.

    [Dec 02, 2016] Paul Krugman Why Corruption Matters

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Paul Ryan plan to privatize Medicare will invite the corrupt health insurance oligopoly to basically rob all folks blind. Privatization effectively ends Medicare. But can the NYTimes just say that? Of course not but Dean Baker can ..."
    "... With 50 million people suffering directly or indirectly from family member suffering, voters will wage war on those responsible, and demand those responsible be punished: politicians, insurers, hospitals, doctors, drug companies, many of which are suffering financial declines ..."
    "... NHS start looking like the obvious bailout of the health care industry. Every worker still employed plus half those fired or retired would become government employees running the NHS, just like in post WWII Britain. ..."
    "... Pillage and plunder requires leaving your victims plenty of time to rebuild and build capital to make a return pillage and plunder worth the effort. ..."
    "... Tax cuts have pillaged and plundered, leaving little possible profit. With the bottom 50% and top 1% paying no taxes, who profits from tax cuts? The 1% who can't get their government contracts past Ted Cruz due to current tax cut deficits? ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    pgl : , November 28, 2016 at 10:15 AM
    The Paul Ryan plan to privatize Medicare will invite the corrupt health insurance oligopoly to basically rob all folks blind. Privatization effectively ends Medicare. But can the NYTimes just say that? Of course not but Dean Baker can :

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/is-the-nyt-trying-to-explain-republican-medicare-plan-or-disguise-it

    mulp -> pgl... , November 28, 2016 at 01:38 PM
    How can you rob people who on the whole have no money to steal?

    Let's imagine the right get everything they want, and end to Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and employer health benefits tax deductibles. Now it's either private insurers or nothing. Half the people will either be denied private insurance of fall short of being able to pay for it, especially if healthy, so insurers only get the people most likely to get sick enough to profit from insurance. Doctors and hospitals either refuse care for half the population beyond minor care, or they shift costs of the uninsured onto the insured, or they go bankrupt, or sharply downsize and do only. concierge care.

    With 50 million people suffering directly or indirectly from family member suffering, voters will wage war on those responsible, and demand those responsible be punished: politicians, insurers, hospitals, doctors, drug companies, many of which are suffering financial declines .

    NHS start looking like the obvious bailout of the health care industry. Every worker still employed plus half those fired or retired would become government employees running the NHS, just like in post WWII Britain.

    Unfortunately, Republicans are not that stupid, and Democrats not sufficiently Machiavellian to throw millions of Americans under the bus for five years for the great good in the following twenty years, by which time conservatives will have a new free lip unchanged plan to justify pillage and plunder.

    Pillage and plunder requires leaving your victims plenty of time to rebuild and build capital to make a return pillage and plunder worth the effort.

    Tax cuts have pillaged and plundered, leaving little possible profit. With the bottom 50% and top 1% paying no taxes, who profits from tax cuts? The 1% who can't get their government contracts past Ted Cruz due to current tax cut deficits?

    Wage and benefit cuts have pillaged and plundered workers into seeing poverty surrounding them, so who is left to slash wages and benefits? High tech workers? Immigrant labor hired by high tech?

    Industry has been pillaged and plundered. Farmers have been pillaged and plundered.

    Who is better off today than in 1980? Who sees greater opportunity today than their peers saw in 1980? Which of the flyover States with solid conservative government for years, even decades, see great opportunity ahead from new conservative pillage and plunder Laws?

    Economies are zero sum in the long run. Conservatives have spend labor income aka labor cost from before 1980, from 1980 to the present, and realistically from today to at least 2040 to pay for their pillage and plunder of all factors of the economy, including government, since 1980. The US is diminished as a result, with only the larger population, larger due to immigration, representing an increase in capital value. But the human capital is burdened with debt run up by conservatives since 1980.

    ilsm -> mulp... , November 28, 2016 at 03:54 PM
    'Rob people with no money':

    The $2800B in accumulated SS Trust Fund was a down payment on $5000B spent by the pentagon and CIA showing al Qaeda how they can get Syria, too.

    Tax cuts for the wealthy........

    ilsm -> pgl... , -1
    How the "corrupt health insurance oligopoly" got rich: Obamacare.

    Ryan will do for the "corrupt health insurance oligopoly" what Obama is doing.

    [Nov 30, 2016] Secretary of State pick is the biggest test case to see whether Trump, like Obama before him, is going to forget about his populist base and take the carrot Wall Street is offering him

    Notable quotes:
    "... One thing not mentioned yet, is Trump getting slammed by his populist base for his Secretary of State picks, which seem to come down to Romney and Giuliani. Romney is the worst of Wall Street, a complete tool of the neoliberal program, and Giuliani has a Hillary Clinton-like record on bloated speaking fees and pay-to-play deals with his law firm, Giuliani Partners. ..."
    "... That's the biggest test case to see whether Trump, like Obama before him, is going to forget about his populist base and take the carrot Wall Street is offering him. ..."
    "... If Trump really wanted to shake things up, he could pick Tulsi Gabbard for Secretary of State, that would be a clever move, far better than Giuliani or Romney. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    nonsensefactory | Nov 29, 2016 10:59:10 PM | 75

    One thing not mentioned yet, is Trump getting slammed by his populist base for his Secretary of State picks, which seem to come down to Romney and Giuliani. Romney is the worst of Wall Street, a complete tool of the neoliberal program, and Giuliani has a Hillary Clinton-like record on bloated speaking fees and pay-to-play deals with his law firm, Giuliani Partners. Either one of those clowns as Secretary of State would be a complete betrayal of everything Trump said he stood for on foreign policy. Romney however is drawing howls of protest from Rust Belt Trump supporters, because he's so pro-NAFTA, pro-TPP:
    https://www.thenation.com/article/more-nafta-anyone-romney-positions-free-trade-champion/

    That's the biggest test case to see whether Trump, like Obama before him, is going to forget about his populist base and take the carrot Wall Street is offering him. Another big one is whether John Bolton, neocon war pig just like Clinton pals Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan, ends up with a big foreign policy role. Forget about cooperation with Russia on ISIS in that case. So, those are some serious issues that Trump might want to distract his base from, but they're the major issues that will determine what kind of foreign policy, economic and military, Trump will really pursue.

    As far as Jill Stein, what the hell is she doing? The biggest Green Party issue right now should be helping block the Dakota Accesss Pipeline debacle, a consortium of short-sighted interests aiming at exporting Bakken crude overseas, including Warren Buffett, billionaire Democratic supporter, whose in $6 billion to DAPL via Phillips 66, and Kelcy Warren, billionaire Republican supported, CEO of Energy Transfer Partners, another DAPL partner.

    Instead she's playing some dumb political game, totally ignoring the one issue any real "Green Party" would be focusing on right now.

    nonsensefactory | Nov 29, 2016 11:04:38 PM | 77

    P.S. If Trump really wanted to shake things up, he could pick Tulsi Gabbard for Secretary of State, that would be a clever move, far better than Giuliani or Romney.

    Here's something on that:
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/307527-tulsi-gabbard-is-the-pick-for-secretary-of-state-not
    That would be a real jack move, slapping both the Democratic and Republican establishments, wouldn't it?

    [Nov 30, 2016] Ten Points on Immigration

    Nov 30, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    I have written a number of posts, some using data and some not, on immigrstion. Some of those posts attracted vitriol in comments, including from some who keep accusing me of hiding my punchline. Personally I find myself repeating myself, or trying to restate a point yet a different way so it will sink in. I figured it is probably time to put everything in one place, so here it is:

    1. Some cultures prepare their people to function well in the US, some don't.

    2. Ability to function well in the US is not the same thing as intelligence. As an example, consider me. I lived almost a third of my life in South America. I have never been to Central Asia. All else being equal, I can hit the ground running more easily in Argentina than in Iran. In Argentina I know how to behave in a seamless way that won't raise eyebrows. In Iran, I would need to put effort into day to day activities. Additionally, my communication skills wouldn't work as well. It isn't just a matter of not speaking Farsi, but also being unable to unconsciously read and display the myriad of social signals Iranian society uses. Therefore, my productivity will be greater in Argentina than Iran (again, all things being equal). And yet my traits – the degree to which I am or am not intelligent, creative, diligent, sane, honest, etc. – will be the same whether I am in Buenos Aires or in Teheran. Most of my work related skills (less those involving communication) will also be the same in both places. The difference between my productivity in Argentina v Iran will be due entirely to differences in cultural compatibility.

    3. Cultural compatibility runs the other way too. Arriving in the US doesn't automatically confer respect for Western values. In many countries, anti-Christian or anti-Semitic attitudes are common. In the West people argue about gay marriage. In some countries, the debate is whether gay people should be stoned or thrown off tall buildings. Similarly, the treatment of women and children in some countries would be criminal in the US. Think honor killings, child's marriages, FGM or bacha bazi. (And yes, we are seeing those things happening here now.). Writing again from the role of someone who was a guest in other peoples' countries for a third of his life, it should be the responsibility of the newcomer to adapt to his/her new home, and not of the residents of his/her new home to adapt to the newcomer.

    4. In Western countries, immigrants who don't manage to bridge cultural gaps are more likely to end up dependent on the taxpayer. Immigrants are disproportionate users of welfare. In general, it seems (at a minimum) to be bad form to request entry into another society only to become a burden on its people. It is one thing for refugees with no other option to do it, but most immigrants to the US are not refugees.

    5. Being overwhelmingly reliant on government largesse in a foreign society built by strangers has got to be dispiriting to most thinking adults. It can only add to a person's feeling of alienation. That in turn can lead to various dysfunctions – vices, crime, anti-social behavior and even terrorism. It is no surprise that some of these issues exist disproportionately in some immigrant communities.

    6. Countries whose emigrants do well in the US also tend to be countries with Western values and strong economies. More precisely, countries whose immigrants do well in the West have economies which thrive from the skills of its people, and not countries whose economies is based mostly on raw material extraction directed by foreigners or on financial transfers from wealthier nations.

    7. Countries whose emigrants function well in the US also function well in other Western countries. Conversely, countries whose emigrants don't function well in the US also don't function well in other Western countries.

    8. Within any society, there are some who are more able to function in the US and some who are less able to function in the US. To be blunt, some people have attitudes that allow them to function well in the West. Typically they are dissidents in non Western countries. Place of origin shouldn't be enough to, by itself, weed out one potential immigrant or guarantee entry to another to another.

    9. The fact that there is homegrown dysfunction isn't a good argument for importing more dysfunction. The fact that there is need and poverty in this country that doesn't receive sufficient aid is an argument against importing more need and poverty from abroad.

    10. There are far more people who would like to immigrate to the US than we allow into the US. Given that, it makes sense to be selective, both for our sake and the sake of those who are unlikely to function well and would become alienated and unable to fend for themselves in the US.

    I note that none of these points are new. I have stated them all before, but not all in one place.

    [Nov 30, 2016] The Electoral Consequences of Globalization

    Notable quotes:
    "... Capital in the Twenty-first Century, ..."
    Nov 29, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    by Joseph Joyce The Electoral Consequences of Globalization

    The reasons for the election of Donald Trump as President of the U.S. will be analyzed and argued about for many years to come. Undoubtedly there are U.S.-specific factors that are relevant, such as racial divisions in voting patterns. But the election took place after the British vote to withdraw from the European Union and the rise to power of conservative politicians in continental Europe, so it is reasonable to ask whether globalization bears any responsibility.

    The years before the global financial crisis were years of rapid economic globalization. Trade flows grew on average by 7% a year over the 1987-2007 period. Financial flows also expanded, particularly amongst the advanced economies. Global financial assets increased by 8% a year between 1990 and 2007 . But all this activity was curtailed in 2008-09 when the global financial crisis pushed the world economy into a downturn. Are the subsequent rises in nationalist sentiment the product of these trends?

    Trump seized upon some of the consequences of increased trade and investment to make the case that globalization was bad for the U.S. He had great success with his claim that international trade deals are responsible for a loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. In addition, he blamed outward foreign direct investment (FDI) by U.S. firms that opened production facilities in foreign countries for moving manufacturing jobs outside the U.S. Among the firms that Trump criticized were Ford Motor, Nabisco and the Carrier Corporation , which is moving a manufacturing operation from Indiana to Mexico.

    Have foreign workers taken the jobs of U.S. workers? Increased trade does lead to a reallocation of resources, as a country increases its output in those sectors where it has an advantage while cutting back production in other sectors. Resources should flow from the latter to the former, but in reality it can be difficult to switch employment across sectors. Daron Acemoglu and David Autor of MIT, David Dorn of the University of Zurich, Gordon Hanson of UC-San Diego and Brendan Price of MIT have found that import competition from China after 2000 contributed to reductions in U.S. manufacturing employment and weak U.S. job growth. They estimated manufacturing job losses due to Chinese competition of 2.0 – 2.4 million. Other studies find similar results for workers who do not have high school degrees.

    Moreover, multinational firms do shift production across borders in response to lower wages, among other factors. Ann E. Harrison of UC-Berkeley and Margaret S. McMillan of Tufts University looked at the hiring practices of the foreign affiliates of U.S. firms during the period of 1977 to 1999. They found that lower wages in affiliate countries where the employees were substitutes for U.S. workers led to more employment in those countries but reductions in employment in the U.S. However, when employment across geographical locations is complementary for firms that do significantly different work at home and abroad, domestic and foreign employment rise and fall together.

    Imports and foreign production, therefore, have had an impact on manufacturing employment in the U.S. But several caveats should be raised. First, as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee of MIT and others have pointed out, technology has had a much larger effect on jobs. The U.S. is the second largest global producer of manufactured goods, but these products are being made in plants that employ fewer workers than they did in the past. Many of the lost jobs simply do not exist any more. Second, the U.S. exports goods and services as well as purchases them. Among the manufactured goods that account for significant shares of U.S. exports are machines and engines, electronic equipment and aircraft . Third, there is inward FDI as well as outward, and the foreign-based firms hire U.S. workers. A 2013 Congressional Research Service study by James V. Jackson reported that by year-end 2011 foreign firms employed 6.1 million Americans, and 37% of this employment-2.3 million jobs-was in the manufacturing sector. More recent data shows that employment by the U.S. affiliates of multinational companies rose to 6.4 million in 2014. Mr. Trump will find himself in a difficult position if he threatens to shut down trade and investment with countries that both import from the U.S. and invest here.

    The other form of globalization that drew Trump's derision was immigration. Most of his ire focused on those who had entered the U.S. illegally. However, in a speech in Arizona he said that he would set up a commission that would roll back the number of legal migrants to "historic norms."

    The current number of immigrants (42 million) represents around 13% of the U.S. population, and 16% of the labor force. An increase in the number of foreign-born workers depresses the wages of some native-born workers, principally high-school dropouts, as well as other migrants who arrived earlier. But there are other, more significant reasons for the stagnation in working-class wages . In addition, a reduction in the number of migrant laborers would raise the ratio of young and retired people to workers-the dependency ratio-and endanger the financing of Social Security and Medicare. And by increasing the size of the U.S. economy, these workers induce expansions in investment expenditures and hiring in areas that are complementary.

    The one form of globalization that Trump has not criticized, with the exception of outward FDI, is financial. This is a curious omission, as the crisis of 2008-09 arose from the financial implosion that followed the collapse of the housing bubble in the U.S. International financial flows exacerbated the magnitude of the crisis. But Trump has pledged to dismantle the Dodd-Frank legislation, which was enacted to implement financial regulatory reform and lower the probability of another crisis. While Trump has criticized China for undervaluing its currency in order to increase its exports to the U.S., most economists believe that the Chinese currency is no longer undervalued vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar.

    Did globalization produce Trump, or lead to the circumstances that resulted in 46.7% of the electorate voting for him? A score sheet of the impact of globalization within the U.S. would record pluses and minuses. Among those who have benefitted are consumers who purchase items made abroad at cheaper prices, workers who produce export goods, and firms that hire migrants. Those who have been adversely affected include workers who no longer have manufacturing jobs and domestic workers who compete with migrants for low-paying jobs. Overall, most studies find evidence of positive net benefits from trade . Similarly, studies of the cost and benefits of immigration indicate that overall foreign workers make a positive contribution to the U.S. economy.

    Other trends have exerted equal or greater consequences for our economic welfare. First, as pointed out above, advances in automation have had an enormous impact on the number and nature of jobs, and advances in artificial intelligence wii further change the nature of work. The launch of driverless cars and trucks, for example, will affect the economy in unforeseen ways, and more workers will lose their livelihoods. Second, income inequality has been on the increase in the U.S. and elsewhere for several decades. While those in the upper-income classes have benefitted most from increased trade and finance, inequality reflects many factors besides globalization.

    Why, then, is globalization the focus of so much discontent? Trump had the insight that demonizing foreigners and U.S.-based multinationals would allow him to offer simple solutions-ripping up trade deals, strong-arming CEOs to relocate facilities-to complex problems. Moreover, it allows him to draw a line between his supporters and everyone else, with Trump as the one who will protect workers against the crafty foreigners and corrupt elite who conspire to steal American jobs. Blaming the foreign "other" is a well-trod route for those who aspire to power in times of economic and social upheaval.

    Globalization, therefore, should not be held responsible for the election of Donald Trump and those in other countries who offer similar simplistic solutions to challenging trends. But globalization's advocates did indirectly lead to his rise when they oversold the benefits of globalization and neglected the downside. Lower prices at Wal-Mart are scarce consolation to those who have lost their jobs. Moreover, the proponents of globalization failed to strengthen the safety networks and redistributive mechanisms that allow those who had to compete with foreign goods and workers to share in the broader benefits. Dani Rodrik of Harvard's Kennedy School has described how the policy priorities were changed: "The new model of globalization stood priorities on their head, effectively putting democracy to work for the global economy, instead of the other way around. The elimination of barriers to trade and finance became an end in itself, rather than a means toward more fundamental economic and social goals."

    The battle over globalization is not finished, and there will be future opportunities to adapt it to benefit a wider section of society. The goal should be to place it within in a framework that allows a more egalitarian distribution of the benefits and payment of the costs. This is not a new task. After World War II, the Allied planners sought to revive international trade while allowing national governments to use their policy tools to foster full employment. Political scientist John Ruggie of the Kennedy School called the hybrid system based on fixed exchange rates, regulated capital accounts and government programs " embedded liberalism ," and it prevailed until it was swept aside by the wave of neoliberal policies in the 1980s and 1990s.

    What would today's version of "embedded liberalism" look like? In the financial sector, the pendulum has already swung back from unregulated capital flows and towards the use of capital control measures as part of macroprudential policies designed to address systemic risk in the financial sector. In addition, Thomas Piketty of the École des hautes etudes en sciences (EHESS) and associate chair at the Paris School of Economics , and author of Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has called for a new focus in discussions over the next stage of globalization: " trade is a good thing, but fair and sustainable development also demands public services, infrastructure, health and education systems. In turn, these themselves demand fair taxation systems."

    The current political environment is not conducive toward the expansion of public goods. But it is unlikely that our new President's policies will deliver on their promise to return to a past when U.S. workers could operate without concern for foreign competition or automation. We will certainly revisit these issues, and we need to redefine what a successful globalization looks like. And if we don't? Thomas Piketty warns of the consequences of not enacting the necessary domestic policies and institutions: "If we fail to deliver these, Trump_vs_deep_state will prevail."

    cross posted with Capital Ebbs and Flows

    Comments (10) | Digg Facebook Twitter | --> --> --> Comments (10)

    1. spencer November 29, 2016 10:33 am

      Since 1980, US manufacturing output has approximately doubled while manufacturing employment fell by about a third.

      Yes, globalization impacts the composition of output and it is a contributing factor in the weaker growth of manufacturing output. but overall it has accounted for a very minor share of the weakness in manufacturing employment since 1980. Productivity has been the dominant factor driving manufacturing employment down.

    2. JimH November 29, 2016 11:11 am

      "Overall, most studies find evidence of positive net benefits from trade."

      Of course they do! And in your world, studies always Trump real world experience.

      Studies on trade can ignore the unemployed workers with a high school education or less. How were they supposed to get an equivalent paying job? EDUCATION they say! A local public university has a five year freshman graduation rate of 25%. Are those older students to eat dirt while attempting to accumulate that education!

      Studies on trade can ignore that illegal immigration increases competition for the those under educated employees. Since 1990 there has been a rising demand that education must be improved! That potential high school drop outs should be discouraged by draconian means if necessary. YET we allow immigrants to enter this country and STAY with less than the equivalent of an American high school education! Why are we spending so much on secondary education if it is not necessary!

      "In Mexico, 34% of adults aged 25-64 have completed upper secondary education, much lower than the OECD average of 76% the lowest rate amongst OECD countries."
      See: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/mexico/

      Trade studies can ignore the fate of a small town when its major employer shuts down and leaves. Trade studies can assume that we are one contiguous job market. They can assume that an unemployed worker in Pennsylvania will learn of a good paying job in Washington state, submit an application, and move within 2 weeks. Or assume that the Washington state employer will hold a factory job open for a month! And they can assume that moving expenses are trivial for an unemployed person.

      Our trade partners have not attempted anything remotely resembling balanced trade with us.

      Here are the trade deficits since 1992.
      Year__________US Trade Balance with the world
      1992__________-39,212
      1993__________-70,311
      1994__________-98,493
      1995__________-96,384
      1996__________-104,065
      1997__________-108,273
      1998__________-166,140
      1999__________-258,617
      2000__________-372,517
      2001__________-361,511
      2002__________-418,955
      2003__________-493,890
      2004__________-609,883
      2005__________-714,245
      2006__________-761,716
      2007__________-705,375
      2008__________-708,726
      2009__________-383,774
      2010__________-494,658
      2011__________-548,625
      2012__________-536,773
      2013__________-461,876
      2014__________-490,176
      2015__________-500,361
      From: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf

      AND there is the loss of the income from tariffs which had been going to the federal government! How has that effected our national debt?

      "However, when employment across geographical locations is complementary for firms that do significantly different work at home and abroad, domestic and foreign employment rise and fall together."

      And exactly how do you think that the US government could guarantee that complementary work at home and abroad. Corporations are profit seeking, amoral entities, which will seek profit any way they can. (Legal or illegal)

      The logical conclusion of your argument is that we could produce nothing and still have a thriving economy. How would American consumers earn an income?

      Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are RUST BELT states. Were the voters there merely ignorant or demented? You should never ever run for elected office.

    3. Beverly Mann November 29, 2016 12:30 pm

      Meanwhile, Trump today chose non-swampy Elaine Chao, Mitch McConnell's current wife and GWBush's former Labor Secretary, as Transportation Secretary, to privatize roads, bridges, etc.

    4. JimH November 29, 2016 12:36 pm

      The trade balances are in millions of dollars in the table in my last comment.

      Global trade had a chance of success beginning in 1992. But that required a mechanism which was very difficult to game. A mechanism like the one that the Obama administration advocated in October 2010.

      "At the meeting in South Korea's southern city of Gyeongju, U.S. officials sought to set a cap for each country's deficit or surplus at 4% of its economic output by 2015.
      The idea drew support from Britain, Australia, Canada and France, all of which are running trade deficits, as well as South Korea, which is hosting the G-20 meetings and hoping for a compromise among the parties.
      But the proposal got a cool reception from export powerhouses such as China, which has a current account surplus of 4.7% of its gross domestic product; Germany, with a surplus of 6.1%; and Russia, with a surplus of 4.7%, according to IMF statistics."
      See: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/24/business/la-fi-g20-summit-20101024

      That cap was probably too high. But at least the Obama administration showed some realization that global trade was exhibiting serious unpredicted problems. Too bad that Hillary Clinton could not have internalized that realization enough to campaign on revamping problematic trade treaties. (And persuaded a few more of the voters in the RUST BELT to vote for her.) Elections have consequences and voters understand that, but what choice did they have?

      In your world, while American corporations act out in ways that would be diagnosed as antisocial personality disorder in a human being, American human beings are expected to wait patiently for decades while global trade is slowly adjusted into some practical system. (As one shortcoming after another is addressed.)

      Antisocial personality disorder:
      "a personality disorder that is characterized by antisocial behavior exhibiting pervasive disregard for and violation of the rights, feelings, and safety of others "
      See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antisocial%20personality%20disorder#medicalDictionary

    5. Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 1:01 pm

      Spencer,

      The article states almost exactly what you 'add' in your comment:

      "Imports and foreign production, therefore, have had an impact on manufacturing employment in the U.S. But several caveats should be raised. First, as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee of MIT and others have pointed out, technology has had a much larger effect on jobs".

      So, what gives? Is there an award today for who ever gets the biggest DUH??? If there is anything worth adding, it would be a mention of the Ball St study that supports the author's claim but is somehow overlooked. But your comment, well, DUH!!

      =================================================

      JimH,

      Some good stuff there, your assessment of Economics and its penchant for ignoring variables, and your insight which states that "studies can assume that we are one contiguous job market", is all very true, and especially when it comes to immigration issues. I've lived most of my life near the Southern border and when economists claim that undocumented workers are good for our economy I can only chuckle and shake my head. I suppose I could also list all of the variables which those economists ignore, and there are many to choose from, but, there is that quote by Upton Sinclair: "You can't get a man to understand what his salary depends on his not understanding".

      In all fairness though, The Dept. of Labor does of course have its JOLTS data, and so not all such studies are based on broad assumptions, but Economics does have its blind spots, generally speaking. And of course economists apply far too much effort and energy serving their political and financial masters.

      As for your comment in regards to the the trade deficit, you might want to read up a little on the Triffin Dilemma. The essence of globalization has a lot to do with the US leadership choosing to maintain the reserve-currency status and Triffin showed that an increasing amount of dollars must supply the world's demand for dollars, or, global growth would falter. So, the trade deficit since 1975 has been intentional, for that reason, and others. Of course the cost of labor in the US was a factor too, and shipping and standards and so on. But, it is wise also, to remember that these choices were made at time, during and just after the Viet Nam war, when military recruitment was a very troubling issue for the leadership. And the option of good paying jobs for the working-class was very probably seen as in conflict with military recruitment. Accordingly, the working-class has been left with fewer options. This being accomplished in part with the historical anomaly of high immigration quotas, (and by the tolerance for illegal immigration), during periods with high unemployment, a falling participation-rate, inadequate infrastructure, and etc.

    6. Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 2:18 pm

      JimH,

      After posting my earlier comment it occurred to me that I should have recommended an article by Tim Taylor that has some good info on the Triffin dilemma.

      http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-triffin-dilemma-and-us-trade.html

      Also, it might be worth mentioning that you are making the common mistake of assigning blame to an international undertaking that would be more accurately assigned to national shortcomings. I'm referring here to what you quoted and said:

      ""Overall, most studies find evidence of positive net benefits from trade.""

      "Of course they do! And in your world, studies always Trump real world experience".

      My point being that "positive net benefits from trade" are based on just another half-baked measurement as you suggest, but the problems which result from trade-related displacements are not necessarily the fault of trade itself. There are in fact political options, for example, immigration could have been curtailed about 40 years ago and we would now have about 40 million fewer citizens, and thus there would almost certainly be more jobs available. Or, the laws pertaining to illegal immigration could have been enforced, or the 'Employee Free Choice Act could have been passed, or whatever, and then trade issues may have had much different impact.

    7. Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 3:12 pm

      It seems worth mentioning here, that there are other more important goals that make globalization valuable than just matters of money or employment or who is getting what. Let us not forget the famous words of Immanuel Kant:

      "the spirit of commerce . . . sooner or later takes hold of every nation, and is incompatible with war."

    8. coberly November 29, 2016 6:33 pm

      Ray

      the spirit of commerce did not prevent WW1 or WW2.

      otherwise, thank you, and Jim H and Joseph Joyce for the first Post and Comments for grownups we've had around here in some time.

    9. Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 7:03 pm

      Hey Coberly, long time no see.

      And yes, you are right, 'the spirit of commerce' theory has had some ups and downs. But, one could easily and accurately argue that the effort which began with the League of Nations, and loosely connects back to Kant's claim, has gained some ground since WW2. There has not, after-all, been a major war since.

      So, when discussing the pros and cons of globalization, that factor, as I said, is worthy of mention. And it was a key consideration in the formation of the Bretton Woods institutions, and in the globalization effort in general. This suggesting then that there are larger concerns than the unemployment-rate, or the wage levels, of the working-class folks who may, or may not, have been at the losing end of 'free-trade'.

      I've been a 'labor-lefty' since the 1970s, but I am still capable of understanding that things could have been much worse for the American working-class. Plus, if anyone must give up a job, who better than those with a fairly well-constructed safety-net. History always has its winners and losers, and progress rarely, if ever, comes in an even flow.

      Meanwhile, those living in extreme poverty, worldwide, have dropped from 40% in 1981, to about 10% in 2015 (World Bank), so, progress is occurring. But of course much of that is now being ignored by the din which has drowned out so many considerations that really do matter, and a great deal.

    10. coberly November 29, 2016 8:25 pm

      Ray

      I am inclined to agree with you, but sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees. Especially if one of those trees has fallen on you.

      In general I am more interested in stopping predatory business models that really hurt people than in creating cosmic justice.

      as for the relative lack of big wars since WW2, I always thought that was because of mutual assured destruction. I am sure Vietnam looked like a big enough war to the Vietnamese.

    [Nov 30, 2016] Welcome to the world of Europes far-right - Al Jazeera English

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true nature of far-right parties. ..."
    "... Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners. ..."
    "... "Our European cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single European currency," ..."
    "... The Austrian Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking Italian bordering region of South Tyrol. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector. ..."
    Nov 30, 2016 | www.aljazeera.com
    Around a decade ago, Columbia University historian Robert Paxton rightly pointed out how "a fascism of the future - an emergency response to some still unimagined crisis - need not resemble classical fascism perfectly in its outward signs and symbols ... the enemy would not necessarily be Jews.

    An authentically popular fascism in America would be pious, anti-black, and, since September 11, 2001, anti-Islamic as well; in Western Europe it would be secular and, these days, more likely anti-Islamic than anti-Semitic; and in Russia and Eastern Europe it would be religious, anti-Semitic, Slavophile, and anti- Western.

    New fascisms would probably prefer the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time." Does any of this sound familiar across the Atlantic?

    Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true nature of far-right parties.

    Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners.

    There is also a sense of decline and threat that was widely exploited by interwar fascism, and by these extreme-right parties, which - after 1945 - resisted immigration on the grounds of defending the so-called "European civilization".

    The future of Europe?

    The future of European societies could, however, follow these specific lines: "Our European cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single European currency," as Marcel de Graaff, co-president of the Europe of Nations and Freedom group in the European Parliament, declared.

    Another fellow party, the Belgian Vlaams Belang , calls for an opposition to multiculturalism. It "defends the interests of the Dutch-speaking people wherever this is necessary", and would "dissolve Belgium and establish an independent Flemish state. This state ... will include Brussels", the current capital of the EU institutions.

    The Austrian Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking Italian bordering region of South Tyrol.

    On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector.

    She also wants to renegotiate the European treaties and establish a " pan-European Union " including Russia.

    At the end of these inward-looking changes, there will be no free movement of Europeans across Europe, and this will be replaced with a reconsolidation of the sovereignty of nation states.

    Resentments among regional powers might rise again, while privileges will be based on ethnic origins - and their alleged purity. In sum, this is how Europe will probably look if one follows the "moderate" far-right policies. The dream of building the United States of Europe will become an obsolete memory of the past. And the old continent will be surely less similar to the post-national one which guaranteed peace and - relative - prosperity after the disaster of World War II.

    Andrea Mammone is a historian of modern Europe at Royal Holloway, University of London. He is the author of "Transnational Neofascism in France and Italy". He is currently writing a book on the recent nationalist turn in Europe.

    The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

    See also:

    rickstersherpa November 30, 2016 11:35 am

    I note that some of your factual assumptions e.g. "Immigrants are disproportionate users of welfare" appear to be wrong and may be drawn from corrupt sources (FAIR and/or AIC, in particular Steve Camarota). See https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it .

    Exception of course are refugees (which one could say we have some moral responsibility to rescue since our 15 year war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria (since we are bombing quite a bit in Syria), and many other places has more than done or bit fan disorder and violence from which the refugees flee rather than die, ditto the children fleeing Mexico and Central America where our war on (some people) who use drugs has created both right wing Governments and drug gangs and associated violence.)

    I think it is bad form when left wing sites repeat right-wing memes (falsehoods and half-truths), particularly when the new right-wing authoritarian kleptocrats who are taking over the Government are talking about rounding up, placing in concentration camps, and deporting millions of people, citizens and non-citizens alike..

    rickstersherpa, November 30, 2016 11:46 am

    Just out curiosity, since Mr. Kimel used the example of Iran, there was a huge Iranian immigration to the U.S. In sense they both support (since many of the these people were high skill immigrants) and rebut his point (since they came from a culture he marks as particularly "foreign" to U.S. culture. http://xpatnation.com/a-look-at-the-history-of-iranian-immigrants-in-the-u-s/ It has actually been an amazingly successful immigration, with many now millionaires (a mark of "success" that I find rather reflects the worse part of America, the presumption by Americans, Rich, Middle, or poor, that if you are not rich, you are nothing, a loser; but still it appears to be a marker that Mr. Kimel is using.

    Beverly Mann, November 30, 2016 3:47 pm

    To add to Rickstersherpa's comments, I'll also point out that among the Muslim immigrants who've committed acts of terrorism in this country, none to my knowledge was on welfare nor were their parents on welfare, None.

    This post is just the latest in what is now many-months-long series of white supremacist/ white nationalist posts by Kimel, whose original bailiwick at this blog was standard left-of-center economics but obviously is something close to the opposite now. He left the blog for two or three years, and came back earlier this year unrecognizable and with a vengeance. Literally.

    I was a blogger here for six-and-a-half years until earlier this month, and was among regulars who comment in the Comments threads who repeatedly expressed dismay. Kimel's last few posts, lik this one, are published directly under his name. Before that Dan Crawford and run75441 were posting them for him and crediting him with the posts.

    In my comments int those threads, I've suggested as you did here that this blogger belongs at Breitbart, or more accurately, you say that this blog is providing the same type of voice as Breitbart.

    But at least Breitbart hasn't been known as left-of-center blog. Allowing these posts on a blog that has misleads readers into thinking, if only for a moment, that maybe this guy's saying something that you're missing, or not saying something that you think he's saying. It's really jarring.

    The Rage November 30, 2016 3:49 pm

    Sorry, but leftists were the originators of anti-immigration. They blasted classical liberals and their "open borders" to buy talent on the market rather than "building within" and using the state to develop talent.

    "right wing" Christians are some of the worst people in terms of helping the underground railroad for immigrants in the US.

    The Rage November 30, 2016 3:54 pm

    Beverly, Breitbart loves illegal immigration and wants it to stay, indeed quite illegal.

    You represent the problem of modern politics. Anyone you don't agree with, you start making dialectical points rather than going under the hood to find out the point.

    Jack November 30, 2016 4:24 pm

    Kimel,
    Your points leave out any consideration of the cultural variabilities of this host country. Given that the USofA is a country made up of immigrants from a wide variety of places across the globe I would think that there is some benefit to varying the sources of immigration in the present given the past. Some of the cultural distinctions that you suggest as different from our own are not homogeneous within our own culture. For example, I wouldn't choose to live in some parts of the US because of the degree of antisemitism that I might find even though I am what one might call an agnostic Jew. There are many Americans that don't make that distinction.

    Face it Mike, there is probably a place for just about anyone from any place that would be suitable for their emigration within the US. We don't all have to share the same values with the new comer. We don't share values amongst ourselves as it is. We've got large numbers of immigrants and their off spring from the Far East, South East Asia, Africa, South America and the middle East. We even have many Europeans. Keep in mind that that last category is made up of people who have spent the past two thousand years trying as hard as possible to kill one another. So who is to say what immigrant group is best for the US? We've been moving backwards for the past several decades. Maybe we need some new blood to get thinks going forward again.

    Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:27 pm

    Apparently you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations and fears unrelated to racism and ethnicity bias masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and immigrants willing to work for lower wages irrespective of their race and ethnicity, on the other hand, The Rage. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about his claims.

    Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.

    Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:34 pm

    CORRECTED COMMENT: Apparently, The Rage, you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and fears unrelated to racism and ethnicity bias, that immigrants willing to work for lower wages will put downward pressure on wages in this country, irrespective of the race and ethnicity or the immigrant willing to work for the low wages. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about his claims.

    Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.

    (Definitely a cut-and-paste issue there with that first comment, which I accidentally clicked "Post Comment" for before it was ready for posting.)

    Jack, November 30, 2016 4:45 pm

    I will accept one category of immigrant for exclusion. No identifiable criminals allowed. We haven't always done so well on that trait. So let's do a better job of excluding those seeking admission who can be shown to be actively involved with any form of criminal behavior. That goes for Euros, Russians, Chinese, South Americans, etc. That also includes very wealthy criminals whose wealth is the result of their positions of authority in their home country.

    "The fact that there is homegrown dysfunction isn't a good argument for importing more dysfunction." What manner of dysfunction beyond criminality did you have in mind?

    " it makes sense to be selective, both for our sake and the sake of those who are unlikely to function well and would become alienated and unable to fend for themselves in the US." Please define "unlikely to function well" more precisely. Remember that the goal of our immigration quotas is to allow a reasonable balance of people from varying countries to achieve admission.

    "To be blunt, some people have attitudes that allow them to function well in the West. Typically they are dissidents in non Western countries." That statement is generally problematic. What measure of attitude do we use here? Is it the rabble rousers that you want to give preference to? Then why only from non Western countries?

    [Nov 28, 2016] Amazon.com K. Scott Schaeffer's review of Crippled America How to Make America Grea...

    Nov 28, 2016 | www.amazon.com
    Few detailed solutions, some crazy quotes, but actually better than his rivals' books. , November 3, 2015 By K. Scott Schaeffer Verified Purchase ( What's this? ) This review is from: Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again (Hardcover) Unlike a lot of political books, this one does not appear to be ghost-written. Trump's bombastic communications style is loud and clear from beginning to end. It's definitely coming from him. So I congratulate him on the fact that he's capable of writing a book on his own, unlike Ben Carson, who needed his wife to help him write his last two books.

    The book starts off poorly, however, with CHAPTER 2 being a draw-out rant about how the media treats Trump unfairly. It made me wonder if he was ever going to get to the issues. When he did refer to the issues, he seemed to think the presidency was the same as The Apprentice when he said, "The weaker schools will be closed, and ineffective teachers will be fired." So if you thought the teacher-student ratio in schools was bad, it looks like Trump firing teachers left and right will make it far worse.

    Shortly after, he follows with the unrealistic quote, "we need a military that will be so strong that we won't have to use it." We already spend 8 times more than the Russians do on defense. We already have enough nukes to wipe out the planet. But terrorists really don't care about that. Reagan and Bush already proved that no matter how much we spend on defense, terrorists still attack everything from the Beirut Embassy to the World Trade Center to our troops in Iraq.

    CHAPTER 3 goes right to his #1 topic – THE WALL: "Mexico will pay for it. How? We could increase the various border fees we charge. We could increase the fees on temporary Visas .we could pay for the wall through a tariff or cut foreign aid to Mexico." First, these are all small revenue generating ideas that wouldn't come close to paying for a 1000 mile wall. Second, American consumers would be the ones paying the tariffs, not Mexico.

    CHAPTER 4, on DEFENSE, starts with "Look at the state of the world right now There has never been a more dangerous time. The so-called insiders within the Washington ruling class are the people who got us into this trouble." Yeah, just ask someone when a Republican president did a better job. When Reagan was president, he gave scud missiles to Iraq after Saddam invaded Iran and started an 8 year war, while the Soviets invaded Afghanistan through Reagan's entire presidency. Foreign affairs are always a mess, and the Republicans do just as bad, if not worse, than the Democrats.

    There were a few good quotes in this chapter, however. Here are a few:

    Good quote: "We defend Germany. We defend Japan. We defend South Korea. We get nothing from them. It's time to change all of that." In other words, if we are going to defend other countries or help them in a war, we should be fully compensated for that. I've been thinking that for years. (Note "I wrote this before I was aware that Trump was so eagerly supported by Putin and was willing to turn his back on our NATO allies. We should not make the same mistake the Soviets did when they signed the non-aggression pact with Hitler and let him have his way in Europe, only to turn and kill 14 million Soviets when he was done. Putin may be the most dangerous man on earth.)

    Good quote: "if we are going to intervene in a conflict, there had better be a direct threat to our national interests Iraq was no threat to us."

    Good quote: "There is no reason the federal government should profit from student loans" - a sentiment already expressed by progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren.

    CHAPTER 6: This ENERGY chapter is where the book goes south again, with quotes like this one regarding the Keystone Pipeline: "eventually, the world will need that oil and we will need the good jobs that it will create." Trump unwittingly reveals the problem with his stance with this quote – American oil will be shipped to the world and not kept here where we need it. That will decrease our energy independence. Trump proves to be just one more Republican who is interested in serving global oil more than he is the American people.

    CHAPTER 7 is the HEALTHCARE chapter in which his best solution (after repealing Obamacare) is "I'd like to see a private insurance system without artificial lines drawn between states." He says this will increase competition and give customers more choices. But I fear that after a while, we'll have no more choices than we do with airlines. Trump offered virtually no other healthcare solutions in the brief healthcare chapter, which is worrisome.

    CHAPTER 8 is about the ECONOMY, where every conservative book fails, and this one is no exception. Here's where Trump resorts to lies: "Our national debt is more than $19 trillion Even the most liberal economists warn that as we head past the $20+ trillion debt levels, we'll be in big, big trouble." Economists aren't concerned about total dollars, since they go up with time due to population, inflation, and production growth. They are concerned with debt as a % of GDP. Right now our public debt is about 75% of GDP, as long as GDP grows as much as the debt, which is pretty much the way it is now, little will change. Once public debt reaches more than 100% - 120% of GDP (it reached 118% in 1946), then perhaps we'll be doomed.

    Here's a bigger lie: "When you also take into account the large number of jobholders who are underemployed, the real unemployment rate soars to the high teens or even 20%." This is a proven lie. The U6 unemployment rate (which includes discouraged and part-time workers looking to be full-time) is 10.0% as of 9/15 – the same as it was in 2005 and 1996, when the economy was considered good (you can look this up at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website).

    This economics chapter offers few solutions. He just says he'll negotiate better trade deals, and in the defense chapter, he says he'll create more jobs with increased defense spending, which we know will balloon the debt the way it did under Reagan and Bush. He says in the following chapter that we'll spend more on infrastructure to create a lot of jobs. I agree with that point, but it's still more government spending that will add to the debt.

    And that brings us to his TAX PLAN in CHAPTER 17. In it, families who earn less than $50,000 (which is just below the household median income) will pay no income tax. That's about 50% of Americans. And then the rates beyond that are 10%, 20%, and 25%. That's big tax savings for everyone. And he says "any business of any size will pay no more than 15%", compared to the current corporate tax of 35% (a big break for foreign billionaires who use America's infrastructure, safety, and workers to operate their American plants, but pay no personal taxes since they aren't Americans). How will this drastic tax cut for everyone not add to the debt? Trump's answer: "With disciplined budget management and elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse, this plan will allow us to balance the budget." This is a pathetically-empty promise. The problem with it is that it takes a lot more spending to more-extensively monitor waste, fraud, and abuse, and even with that, doing so is a tedious task that's easier said than done.

    In the chapters I didn't single out, Trump repeatedly toots his own horn by reviewing all of his wonderfully-successful business accomplishments, while failing to address the failures. And I don't recall the 4 corporate bankruptcies being mentioned, either.

    Despite this book's weaknesses, it's still better than Ben Carson's and Mike Huckabee's books. Huckabee focused on turning southerners and heartlanders against the rest of the country, while Carson frequently employed the blame-the-worker/blame-the-poor approach in his appeal to increase taxes on the poor while cutting their assistance – which is just plain cruel. I'm still afraid of Trump becoming president, but not as horrified as I would be with most of the other Republicans becoming president.

    [Nov 27, 2016] Washington Post Promotes Shadowy Website That Accuses 200 Publications of Being Russian Propaganda Plants

    This idea of McCarthy style attack turned in promotion with some sites having large flow of donations from outrages readers.
    Notable quotes:
    "... By Max Blumenthal, a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of Goliath and Republican Gomorrah. His most recent book is The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal. Originally published at Alternet ..."
    "... it was created about three months ago when the Red baiting was already in full swing in the media. ..."
    "... it now has a wikipedia page as of 15 Nov. ..."
    "... Congratulations! That site is like a who's who of influential critical reporting. I suspect, as with so many of the bubble-dwellers attempts, that this slapdash but probably overpriced effort will drive traffic to those sites while reducing the credibility of its promoters. An instant classic own-goal. I look forward to the inevitable and embarassing revelations about their founders and funding. ..."
    "... Under general tenets of defamation law (statutory and in common law), it is not just the original entity or person defaming (including defamation "per se") another that is liable for such torts, but others who carelessly or recklessly repeat the original defamatory statements/claims (in this case, both The Washington Post & New York Times bear similar potential liability as PropOrNot). ..."
    "... Requires actual malice since it's the media you're suing – but that can be proven by reckless indifference to the truth which this might actually meet the standard of, especially since the site isn't making this claim based on anything other than the content of the views espoused by the sites. ..."
    "... i vaguely thought the actual malice requirement was tied to the target being a public figure; maybe running a blog qualifies. ..."
    "... Propornot is directly accusing NC and the rest of a crime (espionage), which constitutes defamation per se, so I think the only issue before the court would be whether it was done with reckless indifference. ..."
    "... The MSM did such a fine job reporting the news during the campaign. (16 anti-Sanders stories in 16 hours from the WaPo. A new record.) Are small news/opinion sites cutting into their online advertising revenue. ;) ..."
    "... Second, had you bothered to read the actual PropOrNot site, it accuses all of the sites listed as being "propaganda outlets" under the influence of "coordinators abroad" (#11 in its FAQ). ..."
    "... And under #7, PropOrNot asserts that "some" of the sites are guilty of violating the Espionage Act and the Foreign Agent Registration Act, as in accusing them of being spies and calling for investigation (by implication of all, since how do you know which is or isn't) by the FBI and DoJ. ..."
    "... Their MSM propaganda isn't working and they see it. They already heavily censor comments on their MSM sites. Other MSM sights such as Bloomberg closed down comments altogether. Expect more of that. ..."
    "... what weakens people's confidence in their leaders is their not addressing people's issues and lying about their inability to do so. Despite protestations from the likes of much of our 'intelligentsia', mainstream media, and most of our political class, the majority of people are not stupid. There is a reason why terms like 'lame stream media' resonate with a large number of people. ..."
    "... For instance when Obama is out there talking about a recovery and people know that there is no such thing in their lives, their communities then HE has lost their confidence – not someone giving an interview on RT. ..."
    "... Or to put it another way the problem isn't someone going on RT and saying the emperor isn't wearing clothes, the problem is that the emperor isn't wearing clothes. ..."
    "... Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do. ..."
    "... How do you know any of this? how would you know would Russian intelligence's goals are, or how they think of Steve Keen? this is all just McCarthyism 2016, accusing the left of being dupes or willing agents of Russia. McCarthy had his 200 communists in the state department, this website and the Washington Post have their 200 Russian propaganda websites. Why are you catapulting this bullshit? ..."
    "... James do you happen to remember when those intelligence agencies reported Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.? How about when North Korea hacked Sony? Both of which were inaccurate and dare I say it propaganda intended to mislead the American public. ..."
    "... Why does Naval Intelligence have anything to do with this investigation? ..."
    "... Why were 17 agencies watching the DNC? ..."
    "... The immediate claims that Russia hacked the DNC were never credible to any one with even a bit of knowledge about high level hacking. The 17 agency thing was outright laughable once you asked the simple question of what most of them had to do with this investigation. And USA Today was and is the print equivalent of the Yahoo front page. ..."
    "... oh so now you're an intelligence expert, but somehow you still don't have any evidence, because the "17 intelligence agencies" don't have any evidence either. they didn't have evidence of wmd's but i bet you fell for that, too. i think the most dishonest line in your post is this: You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda ..."
    "... If Russia is actively trying to influence American politics, then they have been far more effective than the US and get a much bigger bang for their buck. For one thing, they didn't have to drop a single bomb to effect a regime change. So assuming you are correct, the noise is just a hysterical regime change envy. ..."
    "... So are RT and Sputnik propaganda outlets? Sometimes they are, but sometimes they report the truth that our MSM, having given up the last shreds of their journalistic integtity in return for access, won't report. ..."
    "... Given the widespread funding of media (including government-owned media) by Western governments, I would say that US and Euro hysteria about Russian propaganda, real and imagined, is yet another off-putting display of noxious American exceptionalism. ..."
    "... I grew up listening to broadcasts of RFE and VOA behind the Iron Curtain, and mixed in with honest reporting was a heavy dose of propaganda aimed at weakening Eastern European governments. Now, it is the America For Bulgaria Foundation that funds several media outlets in the country. What they all have in common is rabid Russophobia-driven editorial stances, and one can easily conclude that it is driven by the almighty dollar rather than by honest, deeply held convictions. So, America can do it but whines like a toddler when it is allegedly done to it?! What a crock. ..."
    "... The worst thing is that regardless of whatever propaganda wars are going on, this list constitutes a full frontal attack on free speech in the alleged "Land of the Free." Besides NC, there are number of sites distinguished by thorough, quality reporting of the kind that WaPo and NYT no longer engage in. Having grown up behind the Iron Curtain, this is chilling to me. Dissident voices speaking against the endless wars for profit and neoliberalism are in effect being intimidated and smeared by anonymous thugs. This, while the militarized local police and federal agencies, closely coordinated by "fusion centers", have ruthlessly put down a number of citizen protests, have engaged in spying on all of us, and have gone after whistleblowers for exposing the reach and scope of the surveillance state. These are the hallmarks of dictatorships, not of the alleged "world's greatest democracy and beacon of freedom." What the eff happened to America, and why are you equating challenging the oppressive and exploitative status quo with being "unwitting Russian dupes?" Seems to me that the useful idi0t here is you, with all due respect. ..."
    "... American intelligence uses exactly the same tactics, and has since at least WW1. Selling the American public on the Iraq war is a classic example. Remember that all news is biased, some much more so than others (we report, you decide.) ..."
    "... The advent of the internet and the subsequent broadening of readily available news of all slants has made it much harder for any intelligence agency of any specific country to control the news( but it has made it extremely easy for them to monitor what we are reading). ..."
    "... . The normal tell for this is being state sponsored, or having a big sugar daddy providing the funding, and Yves doesn't have any of that. ..."
    "... Some of us happen to believe that 'lambast[ing] the American political establishment and weaken[ing] the public's confidence in its leaders' is in the best interests of everyone on the planet, including the American public. If that constitutes propaganda, I'm not about to look that gift horse in the mouth. RT isn't perfect – I personally find their relentless cheerleading for economic growth rather wearying – but it knocks spots off the competition and consistently sends me scurrying to the internet to chase up on new faces and leads. I'm grateful for that. ..."
    "... Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious ..."
    "... It is obvious that Russia has been trying to influence American politics. The very existence of RT makes that obvious. What is not obvious is why modestly left-of-center Americans' political concerns should be subject to McCarthyite attacks in our most influential news outlets. We've been subject to internally generated far-right propaganda for decades now and have seen minimal, feeble 'mainstream' efforts to counter it. The far right has done tremendous damage to our nation and is poised to do much more now that its doyens control all branches of the federal government. ..."
    "... What I interpret this as is a strike by 'think tank' grifters against those who are most likely to damage their incomes, their prestige and their exceedingly comfortable berths on the Acela corridor. It's a slightly panicky, febrile effort by a bunch of heels who are looking at losing their mid-6-figure incomes . and becoming like so many of the rest of us: over-credentialed, under-paid and unable to afford life in the charming white parts of our coastal metropolises. ..."
    "... You've just libeled me. You have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim. Nor do you have any evidence that Russia has been "aggressively" trying to influence US politics. This is one of many hysterical lines offered by Team Dem over the course of this election, up there with depicting all Trump voters as racist yahoos. ..."
    "... "Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics" Apparently with the help of Hillz. Was her decision to use a private email server made with the help of Putin? ..."
    "... If you'd like, take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1959. Then you'll find many criticisms of US society by the Civil Rights movement sharing the same sinister tone as criticisms made by Soviet new outlets. Then you'll also find a gaggle of US pols and their minions claiming on that basis that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run. Then you'll also find many people who don't bother to distinguish source from story and end up enjoying the official Kool Aid. ..."
    "... It reminds me of a story from Northern Ireland in the 1960's when the leader of a civil rights march was asked by a BBC reporter 'is it true that your organisation has been infiltrated by radicals and communists?' His reply was to sigh and say 'I f**king wish it was true'. ..."
    "... @hemeantwell – This same claim of communist inspiration and connection was also thrown at the anti-war movement. I remember arguing with a friend of my parents in the summer of 1969, after my freshman year at college where I was active in the anti-war and anti-draft movements. After countering all of the arguments made by this gentleman, he was left with nothing to say but "Well, that's the Commie's line " as a final dismissal. ..."
    "... Right up to his death on 4 Apr 1968, Martin Luther King was accused by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI of "knowingly, willingly and regularly cooperating with and taking guidance from communists." Now there's a US national holiday in King's honor. ..."
    "... It's all propaganda of one sort or another. I exhort you to read Plato and understand that the Sophists for which Socrates held so much ire are much the same as anon and administration sources for so much of what drives journalism. ..."
    "... NC separates the wheat from the chaff. ..."
    "... Verdict on PropOrNot: Looks like Prop to me. Getting really sloppy, Oligarchy ..."
    "... This has all the earmarks of an effort by the Nuland Neocons that joined Camp Hillary, and now in defeat constitute a portion Hillary's professional dead enders. ..."
    "... Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march. It has powerful allies in the intelligence community, the media and actors on the world stage who deem Trump to be an existential threat to America and world. The story of Russian inspired fake news is paving the way for regime change, an HRC specialty. The recount is the tip of the spear. If they can pull this coup off, sites like this will move from the useful idiot category to the enemy of the state category overnight. ..."
    "... Manfred Keeting November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am If you weren't on the Nixon's enemies list, there was something wrong with you ..."
    "... First as tragedy, then as farce. People literally killed themselves because of McCarthyism. No one is going to kill themselves over this farce. ..."
    "... Aha, I have solved the mystery. It is elementary my dear Watson! The PropOrNot site is itself a Russian propaganda ploy on the part of the KGB! What? errr, ok, the FSB then. ..."
    "... But Max himself is an interesting character. I've been scratching my head wondering how a guy one step removed (Sidney Blumenthal) from the Clintons' inner circles is ambitious about exposing the ludicrous claims made by those same people regarding Palestine and Syria. ..."
    "... I like the idea some commenter had (too lazy to find it right now) that all these strategems were long-prepared, and in place for a Clinton victory. Now the Clinton faction in the political class is deploying them anyhow. They'd better hurry, because influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation isn't as lucrative as it once was . ..."
    "... For long time readers this russian(chinese) propaganda should be obvious. And it is ok, get used to it. Great opportunity to learn "how to read between the lines", and when you understand, solidifying into a basic skill. ..."
    "... Be careful NC. MSM are in panic. They see that their propaganda is less and less effective and start targeting those who offer an alternative against their obsolete narratives. Be prepared: when they will realize that these don't work at all, their fake democracy will become an open dictatorship. ..."
    "... The US MSM is all propaganda all the time-every bit as bad as Pravda ever was. RT now is the "anti-propaganda." They were even carrying Jesse Ventura and other Americans who are blacklisted by the MSM. ..."
    "... This is a "hail mary pass." ..."
    "... A hail mary pass that was intercepted by the opposing team and run back for a touchdown. ..."
    "... What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I feel like I missed some important public dis somewhere that would explain it all. Condoleeza Rice's general dated anti-Soviet attitude I could understand, but that doesn't explain the escalating bigotry pouring out of Obama and Clinton (and their various surrogates). Is it a case of a bomb in search of a war? ..."
    "... Looks to me like it came out of the HRC campaign. ..."
    "... What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I think it can be traced back to this . ..."
    "... I don't think there is an easy answer to your question, but I think it goes around to the failed Ukrainian coup (well, partially failed) and the realisation within a certain element of the neocon establishment that Putin had been inadvertently strengthened by their policy failures in the Ukraine and Syria. I think there was a concerted element within the Blob to refocus on 'the Russian threat' to cover up their failures in the Middle East and the refusal of the Chinese to take the bait in the Pacific. ..."
    "... This rolled naturally into concerns about cyberwar and it was a short step from there to using Russian cyberespionage to cover up the establishments embarrassment over wikileaks and multiple other failures exposed by outsiders. As always, when a narrative suits (for different reasons) the two halves of the establishment, the mainstream media is always happy to run it unquestioningly. ..."
    "... So in short, I think its a mixture of genuine conspiracy, mixed in with political opportunism. ..."
    "... Listen to Gore Vidal (in 1994!) and find out why: https://www.c-span.org/video/?61333-1/state-united-states ..."
    "... That is very good question and it does not have a simple answer. I have been pondering this for 8 years now. The latest bout of Russia-hatred began as Putin began to re-assert their sovereignty after the disastrous Yeltsin years. This intensified after Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. In adddition the US was preprogrammed to hate Russia for historical reasons. Mostly because of the Soviet era but also when the US inherited the global empire from the Brits we also got some of their dislike of the Russian empire dating back to the 19th century. ..."
    "... It all started when Putin arrested the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, when Putin put a stop to the shock therapy looting of Russia by the Harvard mafia and Jeffrey Sachs. Didn't he know that oligarch's are above the law? They are in the US. Didn't he know that money can buy you immunity from prosecution like it does in Europe and the US? Can't have that, hence the Ukraine, deprive him of his warm water naval base. Then there was the Crimean referendum. Out smarted again! Can't have that! ..."
    "... And so the Democratic Party ends, not with a bang, but with a McCarthyite lynch mob. ..."
    "... Didn't we used to call "fake news" rumors? And when did newspapers stop printing rumors? ..."
    "... Based on the evidence of above mentioned link, this "PropOrNot" can be part of a project of U.S. government to manipulate media to create an anti-Russia climate or more likely another method of attack on what they consider "Left" so status quo in economic policies of U.S. can be maintained. ..."
    "... it scares the pants off me ..."
    "... I'm with you Tom Stone. There is nothing funny about this. The MSM at this point is the greatest purveyor of fake news on the planet, I am talking about not just CNN and Fox, but the BBC, France24 and so on. ..."
    "... Pretty much everything they have said and every video they has shown on east Aleppo is either a lie or a fake. As someone noted the other day (I can't remember who) if the stories about east Aleppo were actually true, then the Russians and Syrians have destroyed approximately 900 hospitals – including the 'last pediatric hospital in east Aleppo' which has been completely demolished on at least three separate occasions in the last few months. The main stream outlets don't even try to be consistent. ..."
    "... It's 90 hospitals not 900, but 90 is just as ridiculous given the whole country of Syria only has 88 hospitals/clinics. ..."
    "... Weapons of Mass Distraction. Another nail in the coffin of credibility of the NYT and WaPo. Recall after the Stupid War and how there were zero weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq that the NYT and Wapo declined to mention or explore their own culpability in beating the drums of war. This will be more of the same. ..."
    "... I suspect that PropOrNot's outburst was developed during the campaign by well heeled and connected Hilary supporters to be unveiled after the election to muzzle increasingly influential web sites including NC. As it stands PropOrNot shot a blank. If Hilary had won the campaign against "fake news" would probably have taken on a more ominous tone. ..."
    "... PropOrNot is asserting that the sites on the 'List", both right and left, were responsible for the Clinton loss by spreading false Russian propaganda. This would make more sense, as a political project, if Clinton had won. Asking the Trump DOJ and Trump's/Comey's FBI to investigate the asserted causes of Trump's win is bizarre. ..."
    "... Excellent observation, preparation for a post Killery election purge of the alternate media. ..."
    "... Lots of panic for the Washington regime. The clownish asshole loser that they carefully groomed proved less repulsive than their chosen Fuehrer Clinton. Now they are distraught to see that their enemy Russia sucks much less than the USA. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Jill Stein has embarrassed herself with this effort. I gave money to her until she made her final vp choice – Baraka called Bernie a white supremacist! I did vote for her and now feel it really was a wasted vote. 1% in the national totals. Ok. Being a useful idiot for the Clintons – no way. ..."
    "... When the rot is complete and the edifice tumbles? Or when TINA wins, and the voices go silent? My bet is on the later. Collectively, the money got all 4 aces (and a few more hidden up their sleaves and a few more hidden in their boots, etc – no end of aces.) ..."
    "... Charles Hugh-Smith's response to the "list": "The Washington Post: Useful-Idiot Shills for a Failed, Frantic Status Quo That Has Lost Control of the Narrative" ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves here. As indicated in Links, we'll have more to say about this in due course. Note, however, that as Blumenthal points out, some of the sites that are listed as PropOrNot allies receive US government funding. As Mark Ames pointed out via e-mail, "The law is still clear that US State Dept money and probably BBG money cannot be used to propagandize American audiences." So if these sites really are "allies" in terms of providing hard dollars or other forms of support (shared staff, research), this site and its allies may be in violation of US statutes.

    By Max Blumenthal, a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of Goliath and Republican Gomorrah. His most recent book is The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal. Originally published at Alternet

    A shady website that claims "Russia is Manipulating US Opinion Through Online Propaganda" has compiled a blacklist of websites its anonymous authors accuse of pushing fake news and Russian propaganda. The blacklist includes over 200 outlets, from the right-wing Drudge Report and Russian government-funded Russia Today, to Wikileaks and an array of marginal conspiracy and far-right sites. The blacklist also includes some of the flagship publications of the progressive left, including Truthdig, Counterpunch, Truthout, Naked Capitalism, and the Black Agenda Report, a leftist African-American opinion hub that is critical of the liberal black political establishment.

    Called PropOrNot, the blacklisting organization was described by the Washington Post's Craig Timberg as "a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds." The Washington Post agreed to preserve the anonymity of the group's director on the grounds that exposure could result in their being targeted by "Russia's legions of skilled hackers." The Post failed to explain what methods PropOrNot relied on to conclude that "stories planted or promoted by the Russian disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times." (Timberg also cited a report co-authored by Aaron Weisburg, founder of the one-man anti-Palestinian "Internet Haganah" operation, who has been accused of interfering in federal investigations, stealing the personal information of anarchists, online harassment, and fabricating information to smear his targets.)

    Despite the Washington Post's charitable description of PropOrNot as a group of independent-minded researchers dedicated to protecting the integrity of American democracy, the shadowy group bears many of the qualities of the red enemies it claims to be battling. In addition to its blacklist of Russian dupes, it lists a collection of outlets funded by the U.S. State Department, NATO and assorted tech and weapons companies as "allies." PropOrNot's methodology is so shabby it is able to peg widely read outlets like Naked Capitalism, a leading left-wing financial news blog, as Russian propaganda operations.

    Though the supposed experts behind PropOrNot remain unknown, the site has been granted a veneer of credibility thanks to the Washington Post, and journalists from the New York Times, including deputy Washington editor Jonathan Weissman to former Obama senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer , are hailing Timberg's story as Pulitzer-level journalism. "Russia appears to have successfully hacked American democracy," declared Sahil Kapur, the senior political reporter for Bloomberg. The dead-enders of Hillary Clinton's campaign for president have also seized on PropOrNot's claims as proof that the election was rigged, with Clinton confidant and Center For American Progress president Neera Tanden declaring , "Wake up people," as she blasted out the Washington Post article on Russian black ops.

    PropOrNot's malicious agenda is clearly spelled out on its website. While denying McCarthyite intentions, the group is openly attempting to compel "formal investigations by the U.S. government, because the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business." The group also seeks to brand major progressive politics sites (and a number of prominent right-wing opinion outlets) as "'gray' fake-media propaganda outlets" influenced or directly operated by Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB). It can then compel Facebook and Google to ban them , denying them the ad revenue they rely on to survive.

    Though PropOrNot's hidden authors claim, "we do not reach our conclusions lightly," the group's methodology leaves more than enough room to smear an outlet on political grounds. Among the criteria PropOrNot identifies as clear signs of Russian propaganda are, "Support for policies like Brexit, and the breakup of the EU and Eurozone" and, "Opposition to Ukrainian resistance to Russia and Syrian resistance to Assad."

    By these standards, any outlet that raises the alarm about the considerable presence of extreme right-wing elements among the post-Maidan Ukrainian government or that questions the Western- and Saudi-funded campaign for regime change in Syria can be designated a Russia dupe or a paid agent of the FSB. Indeed, while admitting that they have no idea whether any of the outlets they blacklisted are being paid by Russian intelligence or are even aware they are spreading Russian propaganda, PropOrNot's authors concluded that any outlets that have met their highly politicized criteria "have effectively become tools of the Russian intelligence services, and are worthy of further investigation."

    Among the most ironic characteristics of PropOrNot is its claim to be defending journalistic integrity, a rigorous adherence to the facts, and most of all, a sense of political levity. In fact, the group's own literature reflects a deeply paranoid view of Russia and the outside world. According to PropOrNot's website , Russia is staging a hostile takeover of America's alternative online media environment "in order to Make Russia Great Again (as a new 'Eurasian' empire stretching from Dublin to Vladisvostok), on the other. That means preserving Russian allies like Bashar al-Assad in Syria, breaking up the 'globalist' EU, NATO, and US-aligned trade and defense organizations, and getting countries to join 'Eurasianist' Russian equivalents Or else."

    The message is clear: Stamp out the websites blacklisted by PropOrNot,or submit to the malevolent influence of Putin's "new global empire."

    Among the websites listed by PropOrNot as "allies" are a number of groups funded by the U.S. government or NATO. They include InterpreterMag, an anti-Russian media monitoring blog funded through Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, an arm of the U.S. government, which is edited by the hardline neoconservative Michael Weiss. Polygraph Fact Check, another project of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty aimed at Russian misinformation, is listed as an "ally." So is Bellingcat, the crowdsourced military analysis blog run by Elliot Higgins through the Atlantic Council, which receives funding from the U.S. State Department, various Gulf monarchies and the weapons industry. (Bellingcat is directly funded by Google, according to Higgins.)

    Unfortunately for PropOrNot's mysterious authors, an alliance requires the consent of all parties involved. Alerted to his designation on the website, Bellingcat's Higgins immediately disavowed it: "Just want to note I hadn't heard of Propornot before the WP piece and never gave permission to them to call Bellingcat 'allies,'" he wrote .

    As scrutiny of PropOrNot increases, its credibility is rapidly unraveling. But that has not stopped Beltway media wiseguys and Democratic political operatives from hyping its claims. Fake news and Russian propaganda have become the great post-election moral panic, a creeping Sharia-style conspiracy theory for shell-shocked liberals. Hoping to punish the dark foreign forces they blame for rigging the election, many of these insiders have latched onto a McCarthyite campaign that calls for government investigations of a wide array of alternative media outlets. In this case, the medicine might be worse than the disease.

    Daryl November 26, 2016 at 1:38 am

    The PropOrNot domain was registered on August 21st. It's hosted on Blogger.

    Seems pretty legit to me.

    Daryl November 27, 2016 at 1:30 am

    What I meant by my sarcastic remark is that there seems to be absolutely no reason to trust anything it says, from its content, to the fact that it was created about three months ago when the Red baiting was already in full swing in the media.

    begob November 27, 2016 at 9:00 am

    And it now has a wikipedia page as of 15 Nov. Plus discussion on non-deletion:

    Skip Intro November 26, 2016 at 1:53 am

    Congratulations! That site is like a who's who of influential critical reporting. I suspect, as with so many of the bubble-dwellers attempts, that this slapdash but probably overpriced effort will drive traffic to those sites while reducing the credibility of its promoters. An instant classic own-goal. I look forward to the inevitable and embarassing revelations about their founders and funding.

    JEHR November 26, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Yes, now I know where to go to read good critical analyses (the list).

    jrs November 26, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    The full list was a mix of really good sites and the unknown personal blogs of some whack-a -doodles producing "content" of little value. I see the list linked to is smaller.

    "Collectively, this propaganda is undermining our public discourse by providing a warped view of the world, where Russia can do no wrong, and America is a corrupt dystopia that is tearing itself apart."

    Meanwhile publicans even they would deem credible like the L.A. times report there are 63,000 homeless youths in los angeles. Corrupt dystopia? No it can not be.

    "It is vital that this effort be exposed for what it is: A coordinated attempt to deceive U.S. citizens into acting in Russia's interests."

    look idiots, the truth as I understand it is neither Russian interest NOR US government interests are necessarily in my interest

    kimsarah November 26, 2016 at 2:09 am

    Meanwhile, the Clintonoids still trying to twist the arms of electoral college voters. What stage of grief is this?
    http://www.goupstate.com/news/20161125/sc-electors-besieged-by-requests-not-to-cast-votes-for-trump

    Daryl November 26, 2016 at 3:14 am

    I believe it's "bargaining." But don't look out for "acceptance" any time soon or ever.

    wheresOurTeddy November 26, 2016 at 4:05 am

    So much kvetching pre-nov 8 about Trump not accepting results of election.

    Because what kind of person would do that?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef November 26, 2016 at 11:41 am

    No defeat, no soul-searching.

    So far, she is still undefeated, and the dying working class votes have not repudiated her yet.

    "Let's not be premature."

    AnonymousCounsel November 26, 2016 at 2:22 am

    I am an attorney. I am not soliciting or advising any entity or person, but those identified by PropOrNot, including Naked Capitalism, should consult competent legal counsel, having appropriate and specific experience regarding defamation law (maybe even in a "pooled," co-ordinated effort with others' among the over 200 entities named by PropOrNot) to seek a legal opinion as to whether there exists a viable defamation claim against The Washington Post, and also, via Weisburg, The New York Times, as both publications repeated potentially defamatory claims made by PropOrNot.

    Under general tenets of defamation law (statutory and in common law), it is not just the original entity or person defaming (including defamation "per se") another that is liable for such torts, but others who carelessly or recklessly repeat the original defamatory statements/claims (in this case, both The Washington Post & New York Times bear similar potential liability as PropOrNot).

    hunkerdown November 26, 2016 at 6:14 am

    Understanding the distinction between an attorney, and *my* attorney, and as a matter of general interest, I am curious: What about individual posters in their capacities as employees, contractors, or just rabble?

    Romancing The Loan November 26, 2016 at 9:29 am

    Requires actual malice since it's the media you're suing – but that can be proven by reckless indifference to the truth which this might actually meet the standard of, especially since the site isn't making this claim based on anything other than the content of the views espoused by the sites. /also an attorney but the wrong specialty. I'd be pleased to help if I can though – all of the sites I read regularly are on the list and whoever's propaganda op the site is the whole concept of what it represents scares the pants off me.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 11:48 am

    i vaguely thought the actual malice requirement was tied to the target being a public figure; maybe running a blog qualifies.

    Romancing The Loan November 26, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    All private individual gets you is compensatory damages – and everyone's readership and donations have increased.

    "We hold that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual. But this countervailing state interest extends no further than compensation for actual injury. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the States may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages, at least when liability is not based on a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth."

    Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347-349 (1974).

    Propornot is directly accusing NC and the rest of a crime (espionage), which constitutes defamation per se, so I think the only issue before the court would be whether it was done with reckless indifference.

    Seriously, Yves, please feel free to contact me offlist – I would be delighted to pro bono the heck out of this including at the direction of whoever you hire.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 10:44 pm

    thanks for enlightening me. it's such an obvious smear, and the post as far as i can see didn't vet the organization or its claims at all.

    skippy November 26, 2016 at 2:54 am

    Kudos

    flora November 26, 2016 at 3:31 am

    The MSM did such a fine job reporting the news during the campaign. (16 anti-Sanders stories in 16 hours from the WaPo. A new record.) Are small news/opinion sites cutting into their online advertising revenue. ;)

    James November 26, 2016 at 3:32 am

    I like you and your blog, but I'm almost positive your site has been guilty of accidently publishing Russian propaganda at some point. You've probably linked to stories that sound legit but can be traced all the way back to some Russian operation like RT, even though the third party source you got the story from seemed ok.

    The creator of the app never said all the sites on the list knowingly did it.

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 4:37 am

    First the fact that a story appeared on RT does not make it propaganda. We featured videos from Ed Harrison on the RT program Boom/Bust, which is about the US economy and has featured respected US and foreign academics, like Steve Keen.

    What Steve Keen has to say is not suddenly propaganda by virtue of appearing on RT.

    If you read Eddy Bernay's book Propaganda, he defines it as an entity or cause promoting its case. Thus when a news organization that is government-affiliated, like Voice of America or RT, presents a news story that is straight up reporting, that does not qualify as propaganda either (like "Marine Le Pen Gains in French Polls"). In fact, for a government site to be seen as credible when it does present propaganda, it has to do a fair bit of reasonably unbiased reporting.

    Second, had you bothered to read the actual PropOrNot site, it accuses all of the sites listed as being "propaganda outlets" under the influence of "coordinators abroad" (#11 in its FAQ).

    Several individuals on Twitter called this out as libel with respect to NC. And under #7, PropOrNot asserts that "some" of the sites are guilty of violating the Espionage Act and the Foreign Agent Registration Act, as in accusing them of being spies and calling for investigation (by implication of all, since how do you know which is or isn't) by the FBI and DoJ.

    And you defend this witch hunt? Seriously? Do you have any idea of what propaganda consists of? Hint: it is not reporting accurately and skeptically.

    John November 26, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Their MSM propaganda isn't working and they see it. They already heavily censor comments on their MSM sites. Other MSM sights such as Bloomberg closed down comments altogether. Expect more of that.

    And they will take every measure to close down any other independent sites people have turned to get some truth which millions of us know we aren't getting from the MSM.

    Those of us who have a grasp on what is going on in this country will find #7 is very disturbing.
    As it tells us what they have in mind to discredit and close down independent sites.

    James November 26, 2016 at 10:51 am

    As you know, propaganda doesn't have to [be] false. It can be more about selectively reporting certain facts or emphasizing certain facts over others to smear your target and mislead people. Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do.

    And the site clearly states that some sites are knowingly coordinating with Russian agents (like RT) and some are likely unaware that they are being influenced. They likely think NC falls into the unaware category.

    I think they should be more specific as to what sites they believe fall into the 'knowingly' and 'unknowingly' categories, but I also don't believe the app is an entirely crazy idea. Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics as we saw in the most recent US election and coming up with a response is a good idea even if this particular one should be improved.

    Pat November 26, 2016 at 11:07 am

    Um, James what weakens people's confidence in their leaders is their not addressing people's issues and lying about their inability to do so. Despite protestations from the likes of much of our 'intelligentsia', mainstream media, and most of our political class, the majority of people are not stupid. There is a reason why terms like 'lame stream media' resonate with a large number of people.

    For instance when Obama is out there talking about a recovery and people know that there is no such thing in their lives, their communities then HE has lost their confidence – not someone giving an interview on RT.

    Or to put it another way the problem isn't someone going on RT and saying the emperor isn't wearing clothes, the problem is that the emperor isn't wearing clothes.

    Pretending not to notice doesn't mean that no one has noticed. Considering the Washington/NY/California bubble, most people probably have and have been screaming at their television that he needs to get dressed.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 11:12 am

    what did we see in "the most recent election"? what is your evidence that Russia is "aggressively trying to influence American politics?"

    Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do.

    How do you know any of this? how would you know would Russian intelligence's goals are, or how they think of Steve Keen? this is all just McCarthyism 2016, accusing the left of being dupes or willing agents of Russia. McCarthy had his 200 communists in the state department, this website and the Washington Post have their 200 Russian propaganda websites. Why are you catapulting this bullshit?

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mccarthy-says-communists-are-in-state-department

    pebird November 26, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    But it's obvious, clearly. If you think otherwise, you are an unobvious.

    ChrisPacific November 26, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Well put. I could equally well argue that it's in Russia's interests that American leadership not be questioned, if it's following policies that are clearly stupid and likely to weaken America's position in the world. So the PropOrNot site might actually be a double blind backed by Russia, using fear of Russian influence to manipulate people into uncritical acceptance of their leaders and prevent questioning of poor decisions, thereby weakening America. (ALERT: If it's not obvious to readers, this is sarcasm).

    If your methodology is gazing into the tea leaves to figure out what Russia's position is, then smearing anybody that advocates a similar position, then that's such a ridiculously flimsy veneer of logic that it can be used to reach pretty much any conclusion you like (as my example above demonstrates). Tell me again who is guilty of propaganda in this scenario?

    James November 26, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

    I suppose all 17 intelligence agencies could be wrong.

    And RT has a pattern of inviting dissidents that have extremely negative views of American leadership. You can say this negative view justified but that doesn't negate the fact that Russia wants to amplify that discontent as much as possible.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 10:35 pm

    i suppose they still haven't provided any evidence whatsoever. just like you. What 17 agencies? what evidence are they relying on? Why does Obama say the election was not fixed by Russia, that there was no ramping up of cyber attacks?

    You could be working for David Brock at correct the record. the way you blindly accept the talking points of the Clinton campaign indicates that. you just keep repeating them, and don't respond to the criticisms of propornot as a source, or the reporter who uncritically accepted their little mccarthyite hit list. linking to a usa today article that blindly repeats the same talking points, again sans evidence, does not support your argument.

    James November 27, 2016 at 3:44 am

    I was not claiming Russia fixed the election results. I was referring to the email hacking directed at the Clinton camp during the election campaign.

    And my claim that Russia was likely involved in the email hacking is backed up by 17 intelligence agencies and reporting from various independent news outlets. If you had bothered to read the article, which you apparently didn't, you would know that the 17 agencies are the 'Office of the Director of National Intelligence' plus the 16 agencies listed in the link available in the article I provided.

    Here is the link in question: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/intelligence-community/members-of-the-ic

    If USA Today reporting is not credible to you but Russia Today's reporting is, then I'm afraid your trust of Kremlin created propaganda outlets over independent news outlets only underscores my point that Russian information warfare has been very successful at influencing and shaping parts of American public opinion.

    I also don't think US intelligence agencies would make this accusation publicly if they were not confident. They could have just as easily made this accusation against China but have not because it doesn't fit China's MO. Russia has engaged in similar types of email hacking operations in former Eastern European countries it has been seeking to control and influence.

    And comparing an app to McCarthyism is absurd. McCarthysim was the state targeting individuals and organizations. This is private citizens compiling a list by their own accord, which they are free to do. When a left wing blog makes a list of the top ten most right-wing and GOP influenced websites, are they also engaging in 'McCarthism'? Is the left engaging in 'McCarthyism' when it accuses Fox News of being GOP influenced propaganda? C'mon.

    Regardless, I am done with this conversation for now. You can think what you want.

    Pat November 27, 2016 at 4:24 am

    James do you happen to remember when those intelligence agencies reported Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.? How about when North Korea hacked Sony? Both of which were inaccurate and dare I say it propaganda intended to mislead the American public.

    Short of watching the hacking in real time there is no way those agencies would have been able to trace any competent hacker.So here are some very serious questions for you. Do you think the Russians hire script kiddies? Why does Naval Intelligence have anything to do with this investigation? Same with at least half of those agencies?

    Why were 17 agencies watching the DNC? Don't they have anything better to do, like figuring out who hacked the State Department, the IRS and Social Security?

    The immediate claims that Russia hacked the DNC were never credible to any one with even a bit of knowledge about high level hacking. The 17 agency thing was outright laughable once you asked the simple question of what most of them had to do with this investigation. And USA Today was and is the print equivalent of the Yahoo front page.

    You say you are done, but I sincerely hope so e of what was said here percolates in your thoughts. Most of us here understand propaganda, misinformation, and yes confirmation bias. You seem to need to learn to look critically at your usual sources as well as those you have warned about.

    James November 27, 2016 at 6:04 am

    Being wrong about something in the past doesn't mean you are always wrong. In fact, the CIA and FBI have been on the money about countless things in the past, but I'm sure you know this and are just trying to deflect. And it's not true that NK being involved in the Sony hack has been debunked. Opinion is mixed among independent security analysts. Look it up.

    And I think you should take your own advice as far as confirmation bias and understanding propaganda are concerned. Nobody who relies on FSB cut outs like RT for information and analysis has room to talk about their intelligence and critical thinking. NC and other alternative 'anti-establishment' news sources you consume are full of their own bias. You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda. Mr. Putin isn't a damsel in distress that needs your defending.

    integer November 27, 2016 at 6:52 am

    You can think what you want.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 6:58 am

    There are so many straw men in this I don't know where to begin. So I'm not going to. Not feeding trolls is one of my policies.

    pretzelattack November 27, 2016 at 9:14 am

    oh so now you're an intelligence expert, but somehow you still don't have any evidence, because the "17 intelligence agencies" don't have any evidence either. they didn't have evidence of wmd's but i bet you fell for that, too. i think the most dishonest line in your post is this: You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda

    while you're searching for evidence to back up the rancid propaganda exposed by glenn greenwald's article in the intercept, you can look for one single post expressing this conviction. just one.

    after all the lies by our intelligence agencies, using the same methods as this smear, to uncritically accept anonymous quotes betrays either a great naïveté or intellectual dishonesty.

    David Lamy November 26, 2016 at 11:31 am

    Gee, if only there were some North American country that would try to influence foreign elections, for example say Russian or Ukrainian ones.
    But let me extend James's thought above by advocating for our leaders to obtain public encryption keys so that we may send our grievances privately without enabling any foreign interference. Won't that just invigorate our democracy?

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    If Russia is actively trying to influence American politics, then they have been far more effective than the US and get a much bigger bang for their buck. For one thing, they didn't have to drop a single bomb to effect a regime change. So assuming you are correct, the noise is just a hysterical regime change envy.

    So are RT and Sputnik propaganda outlets? Sometimes they are, but sometimes they report the truth that our MSM, having given up the last shreds of their journalistic integtity in return for access, won't report.

    Given the widespread funding of media (including government-owned media) by Western governments, I would say that US and Euro hysteria about Russian propaganda, real and imagined, is yet another off-putting display of noxious American exceptionalism.

    I grew up listening to broadcasts of RFE and VOA behind the Iron Curtain, and mixed in with honest reporting was a heavy dose of propaganda aimed at weakening Eastern European governments. Now, it is the America For Bulgaria Foundation that funds several media outlets in the country. What they all have in common is rabid Russophobia-driven editorial stances, and one can easily conclude that it is driven by the almighty dollar rather than by honest, deeply held convictions. So, America can do it but whines like a toddler when it is allegedly done to it?! What a crock.

    The worst thing is that regardless of whatever propaganda wars are going on, this list constitutes a full frontal attack on free speech in the alleged "Land of the Free." Besides NC, there are number of sites distinguished by thorough, quality reporting of the kind that WaPo and NYT no longer engage in. Having grown up behind the Iron Curtain, this is chilling to me. Dissident voices speaking against the endless wars for profit and neoliberalism are in effect being intimidated and smeared by anonymous thugs. This, while the militarized local police and federal agencies, closely coordinated by "fusion centers", have ruthlessly put down a number of citizen protests, have engaged in spying on all of us, and have gone after whistleblowers for exposing the reach and scope of the surveillance state. These are the hallmarks of dictatorships, not of the alleged "world's greatest democracy and beacon of freedom." What the eff happened to America, and why are you equating challenging the oppressive and exploitative status quo with being "unwitting Russian dupes?" Seems to me that the useful idi0t here is you, with all due respect.

    Glen November 26, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    American intelligence uses exactly the same tactics, and has since at least WW1. Selling the American public on the Iraq war is a classic example. Remember that all news is biased, some much more so than others (we report, you decide.)

    The advent of the internet and the subsequent broadening of readily available news of all slants has made it much harder for any intelligence agency of any specific country to control the news( but it has made it extremely easy for them to monitor what we are reading).

    Naked capitalism uses a wide variety of sources, and obviously has no coordination with any intelligence agency. The normal tell for this is being state sponsored, or having a big sugar daddy providing the funding, and Yves doesn't have any of that.

    As always, it's up to the reader to use their critical thinking skills and form their own opinions.

    Atalanta69 November 26, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Some of us happen to believe that 'lambast[ing] the American political establishment and weaken[ing] the public's confidence in its leaders' is in the best interests of everyone on the planet, including the American public. If that constitutes propaganda, I'm not about to look that gift horse in the mouth. RT isn't perfect – I personally find their relentless cheerleading for economic growth rather wearying – but it knocks spots off the competition and consistently sends me scurrying to the internet to chase up on new faces and leads. I'm grateful for that.

    FluffytheObeseCat November 26, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    " Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious "

    Damning with faint praise. A dainty smear tactic noted as such since the days of .. Shakespeare.

    It is obvious that Russia has been trying to influence American politics. The very existence of RT makes that obvious. What is not obvious is why modestly left-of-center Americans' political concerns should be subject to McCarthyite attacks in our most influential news outlets. We've been subject to internally generated far-right propaganda for decades now and have seen minimal, feeble 'mainstream' efforts to counter it. The far right has done tremendous damage to our nation and is poised to do much more now that its doyens control all branches of the federal government.

    And yet this libelous attack is more focused on left-leaning opinion sites than on the ultra-right. The latter were thrown into this list almost as window dressing. Conceivably because the far right is very adept at self-defense. But more because the prestige and financial well-being of the center-"left" is endangered by the rise of an adversarial, econo-centric left. The insiders from this branch of our duopoly never have been harmed by their historic "opposition" (Tea Party kooks + corrupt Beltway Republicans).

    What I interpret this as is a strike by 'think tank' grifters against those who are most likely to damage their incomes, their prestige and their exceedingly comfortable berths on the Acela corridor. It's a slightly panicky, febrile effort by a bunch of heels who are looking at losing their mid-6-figure incomes . and becoming like so many of the rest of us: over-credentialed, under-paid and unable to afford life in the charming white parts of our coastal metropolises.

    Brad November 26, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    Correct. The Democratic party liberals perform only one objective function: Attack the Left. That is what they are "there" for.

    nippersdad November 26, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    I was wondering what Brock has been up to since the dissolution of "Correct the Record."

    Has it been dissolved or has it morphed into something else? This looks like too seamless a transition from the Clinton campaign strategy we have all grown to love to the revenge strategy we have come to expect from such people. I look forward to the discovery portions of the libel suits to come. Hopefully Yves and Lambert will be taking up a collection for so worthy an enterprise soon.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    since you ask: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/david-brock-donald-trump-donor-network-231588 I think the term is "doubling down."

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 6:12 pm

    You've just libeled me. You have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim. Nor do you have any evidence that Russia has been "aggressively" trying to influence US politics. This is one of many hysterical lines offered by Team Dem over the course of this election, up there with depicting all Trump voters as racist yahoos.

    Ed Harrison, who is the producer of the show and replied later in this thread, is the one who booked Keen and interviewed and other economists and firmly disputes your assertion that his show has anything to do with promoting an anti-US line. And as a former diplomat, Harrison would be far more sensitive than most to that sort of issue. I'm repeating his comment below:

    Hi Naked Capitalism. I haven't been on this site for some time. But I felt it necessary to comment due to an ad hominem attack from a commenter "James" regarding the show I produce at RT called Boom Bust.

    From my vantage point as producer at RT, I have been able to see the whole anti-Russia campaign unfold in all its fury. I have a lot of thoughts on this but I want to restrict my comments to the specific argument James makes. here:

    "it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do."

    Since I produce the show that Steve Keen appears on, I am well-placed to give you a view on this. James' comment is flat out false. What James writes is something he has fabricated in his imagination – connecting dots he believes should be connected based on no first hand evidence whatsoever.

    What actually happens on Boom Bust is this:

    Since no one I work with at RT has a sophisticated background in economics, finance or financial reporting, they give us a wide berth in putting together content for our show with nearly no top down dictates at all. That means we as American journalists have a pretty much free hand to report economic news intelligently and without bias. We invite libertarian, mainstream, non-mainstream, leftist, Democratic commentators, Republican commentators – you name it. As for guests, they are not anti-American in any way shape or form. They are disproportionately non-mainstream.

    We have no pro-Russian agenda. And that is in part because Russia is a bit player on the economic stage, frankly. Except for sanctions, it has mostly been irrelevant on our show since inception.

    Let me share a strange anecdote on that. We had a guest on our show about three years ago, early in my tenure. We invited him on because he had smart things to say about the UK economy. But he had also written some very negative things about Putin and Russia. Rather than whitewash this we addressed it specifically in the interview and asked him an open-ended question about Russia, so he could say his piece. I was ASTONISHED when he soft-pedaled his response and made no forceful case as he had done literally days ago in print. This guy clearly self-censored – for what reason I don't know. But it is something that has stayed with me ever since.

    The most important goal from a managerial perspective has been that our reporting is different i.e. covers missing and important angles of the same storyline that are missing in the mainstream media or that it covers storylines that are missing altogether.

    Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on our show appears "because he lambasts the American political establishment". This is false. He appears on our show because he is a credible economist who provides a differentiated view on economics and insight that we believe will help our viewers understand the global economy. If Paul Krugman had something to say of that nature and would appear on our show, we would welcome him. In fact, I and other producers have reached out to him many times to no avail, especially after we had Gerald Friedman give his take on the dust-up surrounding Bernie Sanders' economic plan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yna275KzuDQ

    Look, I understand the scepticism about RT and its motives. It IS a state-funded news outlet with news story angles that sometimes contrast sharply with western media. And it has not been critical of the Russian government as far as I can tell. But you can't ascribe nefarious motives to individual economists or reporters based on inaccurate or false third hand accounts. You are just making things up, creating a false narrative based on circumstantial evidence. This is just adding to the building peer pressure associated with what almost seems like an orchestrated campaign to discredit non-mainstream sources of news.

    bob November 26, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    "Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics" Apparently with the help of Hillz. Was her decision to use a private email server made with the help of Putin?

    Brad November 26, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    James, we get it. We US citizens are not to be permitted to criticize our own government or corporations as that might "weaken public confidence" in our Dear Leaders.

    We cannot be trusted to think for ourselves in discerning what is and is not propaganda, for after all we would be able to discern the same coming from the US side.

    The overt stifling of dissent that was such an outrageous feature of the Clinton campaign "is clearly a goal" of your side.

    Who needs Putin when we have mindless ClintonBots to do all the dirty work here?

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:22 am

    > weakens the public's confidence in its leaders*

    Assumes facts not in evidence. See Pew Research :

    This is a secular trend, a great wave. If Steve Keen were going on Tass 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Live!!! With ***Nude*** WOMBATS!!!!, undermining confidence in neoliberal economists - let me pause to gasp in horror - it would be the merest bit of froth on that wave. Taking Jame's view as a proxy for the views of the intelligence community, if they really believe this - and it's not just a ploy for budget time - then the country truly is doomed.

    NOTE * Note the authoritarian followership of "leaders." So my response with institutions is not precisely on point.

    Pat November 27, 2016 at 8:04 am

    The idea that banks were trusted more than organized labor was troublesome to me till I remembered the labor leaders like Trumka and the continued betrayals of membership by the likes of the AFL CIO. At that point I got it really was a toss up.

    Synoia November 26, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    This is a Bezos hostile takeover – aka:

    My revenue is suffering because my rag is bullshit, but all these alternatives are unfair competition - please Mr Government shut them done, because I, the one and only Great Bezos (or Great Bozo), is loosing money.

    Boo Hoo, boo hoo boo hoo .

    davidly November 26, 2016 at 5:41 am

    almost positive = have a vague notion based on nothing but conditioning
    In other words, you are a small-time useful ijit

    hemeantwell November 26, 2016 at 8:51 am

    If you'd like, take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1959. Then you'll find many criticisms of US society by the Civil Rights movement sharing the same sinister tone as criticisms made by Soviet new outlets. Then you'll also find a gaggle of US pols and their minions claiming on that basis that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run. Then you'll also find many people who don't bother to distinguish source from story and end up enjoying the official Kool Aid.

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 9:23 am

    It reminds me of a story from Northern Ireland in the 1960's when the leader of a civil rights march was asked by a BBC reporter 'is it true that your organisation has been infiltrated by radicals and communists?' His reply was to sigh and say 'I f**king wish it was true'.

    John Zelnicker November 26, 2016 at 9:47 am

    @hemeantwell – This same claim of communist inspiration and connection was also thrown at the anti-war movement. I remember arguing with a friend of my parents in the summer of 1969, after my freshman year at college where I was active in the anti-war and anti-draft movements. After countering all of the arguments made by this gentleman, he was left with nothing to say but "Well, that's the Commie's line " as a final dismissal.

    Jim Haygood November 26, 2016 at 10:52 am

    'US pols and their minions claiming that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run.'

    Right up to his death on 4 Apr 1968, Martin Luther King was accused by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI of "knowingly, willingly and regularly cooperating with and taking guidance from communists." Now there's a US national holiday in King's honor.

    That same year, my dad visited Moscow and Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring. After he returned, we started receiving crudely mimeographed newsletters from Moscow - actual Soviet propaganda , delivered right to our mailbox in Texas.

    So laden were they with hoary old Marxist rhetoric that we started satirizing it in our underground student newspaper, mocking the public school administration as "capitalist running dogs" and "colonialist oppressors." (This did not go over well.)

    To his regret, my dad sent one of the Soviet flyers to the FBI, but never got a reply. He suspected that they put him on a watch list, rather than investigating how the Soviets were distributing their crude invective through the US mail.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:16 am

    So laden were they with hoary old Marxist rhetoric that we started satirizing it in our underground student newspaper, mocking the public school administration as "capitalist running dogs" and "colonialist oppressors." (This did not go over well.)

    No capitalistic pigs?????
    – OINK!

    EGrise November 26, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Are you sure the newsletter wasn't printed by the FBI?

    Titus Pullo November 26, 2016 at 9:52 am

    They link American propaganda all the time. If you take off your blinders, you'll find that most news is just propaganda, because the basis for most news stories is what person X says. What's sad is that people like you believe there is some kind of "objective" news source in the "free world" that is telling it like it is. There isn't and there never has been.

    It's all propaganda of one sort or another. I exhort you to read Plato and understand that the Sophists for which Socrates held so much ire are much the same as anon and administration sources for so much of what drives journalism.

    NC separates the wheat from the chaff.

    Stick November 26, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Yep Sputnik News is a regular feature in Links.

    Yves Smith Post author November 27, 2016 at 12:08 am

    No, it isn't and I'm the one who puts links together. Shame on you.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:25 am

    Surely this is irony?

    flora November 26, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    You assume, without evidence, that the claims are true. I think in econ that's called "assume a can opener."

    anonymous in Southfield, MI November 26, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    I have identified a motif that pretty much always gives away a Hillary bot- it was used about several dozen thousand times as part of 'Correct the Record' during the runup to November 8. And here we have it again. It goes like this: I was always in favor of – – – – – – – (fill in the blank with the supposed offenders name) until I found out this 'truth'.

    Also, why not just admit you are a Clinton Supporter who finds it convenient that a lot of the sites could be trashed for being critical of HRC

    Spring Texan November 26, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    Yes, that motif was EVERYWHERE . . . you couldn't escape it!!

    Brad November 26, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    NC is likely "far more guilty" in accidentally republishing your American propaganda, since the Russian variety is so obvious.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:05 am

    Let me just make a list of the weasel words (setting aside the famous "I like you, but ____" trope, which I have never yet seen used in good faith in all my many years of blogging, partly because of the assumption that whether a random commenter "likes" the blog is important.

    1. almost positive
    2. guilty of accidentally
    3. at some point
    4. probably linked (but with no evidence)
    5. can be traced (but not by James!)
    6. some . operation like

    The ginormous pile of steaming innuendo and faux reasonableness aside, James seems to think that the NC readership has no critical thinking skills at all. Apparently, NC readers are little children who need expert guidance from James and his ilk - bless their hearts! - to distinguish crap from not crap.

    Adding "

    KnotRP November 26, 2016 at 3:47 am

    If there is any take away from this foul
    Bernays-inspired campaign season, it is
    that fear can and will overrule reason completely.
    Half of the voters (whichever lost) were set up
    for a cognitive dissonance cork blowing episode.
    No one should expect reason to be an effective defense against cognitive attempts to rectify that dissonance .neither side can be unplugged
    from their self-selected news matrix, without
    blowing their cork. It will not matter that this list
    is comical, because it is a dog whistle to the
    audience preloaded with fear (and the other side would've done a variation of the thene if they had lost).

    (pretty funny of them to list your site though..I guess
    the Russians must've also been quite upset by all
    the American mortage fraud in housing bubble #1
    and felt a need to •head explodes•)

    I suppose this comment will add me to some list maintained by some very frightened but misguided people? What's the line "lighten up, Francis"?

    wheresOurTeddy November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am

    Verdict on PropOrNot: Looks like Prop to me. Getting really sloppy, Oligarchy

    Benedict@Large November 26, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    This has all the earmarks of an effort by the Nuland Neocons that joined Camp Hillary, and now in defeat constitute a portion Hillary's professional dead enders.

    RenoDino November 26, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march. It has powerful allies in the intelligence community, the media and actors on the world stage who deem Trump to be an existential threat to America and world. The story of Russian inspired fake news is paving the way for regime change, an HRC specialty. The recount is the tip of the spear. If they can pull this coup off, sites like this will move from the useful idiot category to the enemy of the state category overnight.

    The brilliance of this move will eliminate all possibly of civil unrest since America democracy will be saved from a Russia threat that requires a declaration of war and severe restrictions on media freedom.

    I can guarantee you Trump is looking over his shoulder and sees it coming and is working furiously to build a case for his own legitimacy. He is doing his best to sound normal.

    Obama has relegated himself to the sidelines. He hates conflict, but will back Hillary if she can pull it off.

    We will know in two weeks one way or the other.

    bob November 26, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    "Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march." True that. Even a lost election can't stop them. Heard over the holiday- Andrew Cuomo for prez. So the same people who didn't show up to vote for Hillz can now not show up to vote for her waterboy/bagman.

    Manfred Keeting November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am

    Yet Mike Shedlock was not listed. If I were he, I'd be pissed. I'd write to the site demanding to know why!

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 4:17 am

    His post yesterday says pretty much that.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:18 am

    Manfred Keeting November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am If you weren't on the Nixon's enemies list, there was something wrong with you

    Synoia November 26, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    Or not important enough. I seem to remember those years, and my focus was on:

    1. The next Beer
    2. The next female
    3. The next Party
    4. Going to work
    5. I need to pee (see 1)

    All of which changed priority at a whim of what I had to do next.

    begob November 27, 2016 at 7:52 am

    I think sicsempertyrannis was omitted too. Some comments on there are informative on Syria.

    Propertius November 26, 2016 at 4:27 am

    Down in the 8th Circle of hell, I assume Joe McCarthy is getting a chuckle out of this.

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:29 am

    For sure. The "history doesn't repeat but it rhymes" is suddenly sickeningly applicable here.

    I hope they've bitten off more than they can chew in this case. There is that argument that we are "siloing" in our little corners of the web, however – everybody read the newspapers and listed to the radio back then. Which means a very, very small subset of the population set the agenda. Nowadays, the "far-left" and "far-right" are only a click away from each other (and they always did seem to have more in common with each other than the center which has gone from mushy to absolutely rotten). A unified pushback on this is not impossible and who knows where it might lead?

    Gabriel November 26, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    "First as tragedy, then as farce"

    Plenue November 26, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    First as tragedy, then as farce. People literally killed themselves because of McCarthyism. No one is going to kill themselves over this farce.

    The Rev Kev November 26, 2016 at 4:28 am

    Aha, I have solved the mystery. It is elementary my dear Watson! The PropOrNot site is itself a Russian propaganda ploy on the part of the KGB! What? errr, ok, the FSB then. By adding sites such as the Naked Capitalism site to the list, it will be discredited in its entirety thus letting the nefarious Russian propaganda websites be given a free pass. Mystery solved! And sorry Max but "Naked Capitalism" a leading left-wing financial news blog"? I'd rather label it a practical and empirical financial news blog myself.

    Seriously, I am wondering if something else is going on here ("tin-foil hat" mode on) with this piece of trash. No doubt people here have heard all the cries of "fake news" since the election. This was on top of months of claims of Russian hacking of the election which is still ongoing (cough cough, Jill Stein). Now Merkel is screaming blue murder of probable Russian hacking of the German elections next year and just this week the EU Parliament has passed a resolution which in part states that Russian media exists to "undermine the very notion of objective information or ethical journalism," and one of its methods is to cast all other information "as biased or as an instrument of political power."

    I am given to understand that the military use the term "preparing the battlefield" and that is what I think that we are seeing here. There have already been calls for FaceBook and Google to implement censorship of "fake news" which will amount to censorship of social and news feeds – the same media Trump used to bf the entire news establishment in this years election. Could we be seeing the beginnings of calls to censor the internet? All to fight terrorism and black propaganda of course. The Left would have absolutely no problem with this and if was used to get rid of sites that contrasted the mainstream media's narrative, more people would be forced to use the mainstream media for their news which would make them happy. Something to think about.

    rusti November 26, 2016 at 5:01 am

    And sorry Max but "Naked Capitalism" a leading left-wing financial news blog"? I'd rather label it a practical and empirical financial news blog myself.

    While the level of discussion here is generally at a much deeper level than most sites and commenters don't fit into neat little ideological boxes, I don't think it's a particularly egregious generalization to call a site with readers that overwhelmingly support things like financial regulation, single-payer health care and post-office banking "left-wing".

    But Max himself is an interesting character. I've been scratching my head wondering how a guy one step removed (Sidney Blumenthal) from the Clintons' inner circles is ambitious about exposing the ludicrous claims made by those same people regarding Palestine and Syria.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 5:22 am

    The list of news sites on the said fact-free, unsourced, anonymous webpage are all, so far as I can tell, news sites that have disagreed with neocon foreign policy preferences on several occasions.

    JEHR November 26, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    I am so tired of the use of "left" and " right" and "progressive" and "libertarian" that when I see these words I go off into a daze. These words are bandied about in so many different ways for so many different reasons, that they have almost become meaningless. I would rather that people or organizations be described in detail who supposedly have these "left" "right" etc. characteristics, then I would know what was being claimed.

    clincial wasteman November 26, 2016 at 11:47 pm

    yes, and one good way to that sort of detailed description is to read here regularly for a while: there's hardly any political self-tagging or confessional drama going on, but any one person's comments over a few months do add up to a picture of how her/his life experience, unlabelled political principles, intellectual ( not the same as academic!) background and style of spontaneous reaction (yes Mr Mencken, 'humor!) all fit together. And this gradually reveals a lot more than Left-Right status updates or biographical oversharing ever could: not so much about the person - who has a right to all the unknownness s/he wants - but about the experiences and reasoning that might connect a statement that delights you and another that leaves you aghast when both come from the same person and within about a dozen lines. And all this with no fuzzy-fake "consensus" in sight: mutual respect across abyssal differences is hard-won and correspondingly cared for.

    "The internet" still gets blamed for "ruining face-to-face interaction" by people who probably flatter themselves about the richness of their past social lives. But I can't imagine when I'll ever have a spare few years and some mysterious money (not to mention some "social skills" and a valid passport ) with which to visit Maine, Oregon, Arizona, Buenos Aires (etc etc etc) for extended casual conversations there. In the absence of that option, whatever you all have the patience to write here counts as THE escape route out of political parochialism and geographical niche.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:37 am

    > preparing the battlefield

    I like the idea some commenter had (too lazy to find it right now) that all these strategems were long-prepared, and in place for a Clinton victory. Now the Clinton faction in the political class is deploying them anyhow. They'd better hurry, because influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation isn't as lucrative as it once was .

    KK November 26, 2016 at 4:29 am

    Surely any site that accepts donations could be funded by a foreign power without knowing?
    ps A couple of my students make 50p a post for challenging negative posts on travel websites by making up how great was their experience.

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:34 am

    And, um, so what? They can waste money anywhere they want. How much has the US spent over my lifetime propagandizing the Middle East and how did that work out?

    rusti November 26, 2016 at 4:50 am

    The Neera Tandeen tweet is revealing in that it shows how hypocritical all the pearl-clutching was over Trump's complete lack of discretion in pushing bogus and fabricated stories. A cursory glance through the rest of her feed shows a bunch of equally thoroughly scrutinized claims that the Putin/Comey/Deplorables triumvirate conspired to steal the election from the forces of Good.

    z November 26, 2016 at 5:21 am

    For long time readers this russian(chinese) propaganda should be obvious. And it is ok, get used to it. Great opportunity to learn "how to read between the lines", and when you understand, solidifying into a basic skill.

    "The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent." and now you have a good ones, not a cheap wapo columnist but organised, educated, trained information warfare hacks.

    we are on the early days, more to come, much worse to come.

    nmb November 26, 2016 at 5:25 am

    Be careful NC. MSM are in panic. They see that their propaganda is less and less effective and start targeting those who offer an alternative against their obsolete narratives. Be prepared: when they will realize that these don't work at all, their fake democracy will become an open dictatorship.

    Steve H. November 26, 2016 at 10:26 am

    President-elect Trump calling them liars may have unsettled them.

    It's good to know we have a strong leader protecting our backs!

    /s? Time will tell.

    David N November 26, 2016 at 5:31 am

    I loved naked capitalism's election coverage, but here is an anecdote of how it angered conventional liberals.

    I read a particle physics blog by Columbia mathematician Peter Woit, who wrote an election post-mortem (he occasionally writes about politics). Not Even Wrong is one of the most popular blogs in theoretical physics, I've several excellent physicists post in the comments to previous entries. I was very surprised to see Woit blame naked capitalism (and others) for the electoral defeat of Hillary Clinton, he's a very conventional thinker normally so I would have expected him to not even know about naked capitalism. I'm still surprised he knew about it.

    My guess? There is a lot of communication in the country between people who do read some of these 200 news media organizations, with the vast majority who stick to conventional sources such as the NYT, the WSJ, and who think that Vox and The Atlantic are intellectual sources. When people get exposed to alternative media for the first time, even educated people, their most likely response is some combination of anger, laughter, and asking if the writer also believes that 9/11 is an inside job.

    Anyway, this is what it looked like: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8906

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 7:35 am

    I hate to get tin foily, but that blog is typical of a few I've seen – expressing real anger at the amorphous 'left' for not getting on board the Hilary train. There is an element of vengefulness in some of the writing and combined with the evidence of the article above, it seems there is an element within the establishment (the losing half) who are in full on McCarthy mode – and of course the first stage of a purge is to accuse the targets of being traitors and in the pay of foreign interests. Trump and the people around him are dangerous of course, but I think a defeated neolib/neocon establishment is equally dangerous. We are in worrying times, and its not just the far right we have to be worried about.

    john bougearel November 26, 2016 at 11:17 am

    Even normally level-headed Bill Black posted some rather biased opinionated op-eds here about P-Elect Trump. Which surprised me.

    Synoia November 26, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    he's a very conventional thinker

    And he is in the field of Physics research? Does that make it a Oxy-Moron or the dear Prof a complete Moron?

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:34 am

    > some rather biased opinionated op-eds

    Let's parse this

    1) Throw away the weasel words

    some rather biased opinionated op-eds -> biased opinionated op-eds

    2) Throw away the evidence-free

    biased opinionated op-eds -> opinionated op-eds

    3) Expand the abbreviations

    opinionated op-ed -> opinionated opinion editorial

    4) Eliminate redundancy

    opinionated opinion editorial -> opinion editorial

    So Bill Black wrote an "opinion editorial." Is there a problem with that?

    Marco November 26, 2016 at 8:37 am

    Woit also includes the NYT in his list of culprits so I don't know what planet he resides. Also interesting to note his jetting off to Paris as tonic. Oh the humanity!!

    craazyman November 26, 2016 at 8:40 am

    It's incredible how many otherwise smart people can't think for themselves.

    It's hard to know what to believe! You can believe your own eyes, but even your mind connects the dots without you knowing it.

    This is not the Washington Post's finest hour - although they probably haven't had one of those for years at this point. I'm down to the Redskins coverage in the WaPo, which is still quite good actually.

    I used to be a Washington Post paper boy, so I'l put one last quote from Charles Osgood

    It was while making newspaper deliveries, trying to miss the bushes and hit the porch, that I first learned about accuracy in journalism
    -Charles Osgood

    (All quotes from quotegarden.com)

    shinola November 27, 2016 at 12:05 am

    More people should read the historical "rantings" of Mark Twain, Mike Royko & Molly Ivins

    Joseph P. November 26, 2016 at 9:15 am

    I notice that Woit has disabled comments on this particular post (all other posts have comments enabled). Probably he justifies it by telling himself that he is running a physics related blog and isn't interested in promoting discussion on non-physics related matters like politics (but he still wants to promote his own political opinions on his physics blog!). It's typical of the fingers-in-the-ears reaction that ivory tower liberals to Trump's win.

    lyman alpha blob November 26, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    I am protesting his column by believing in string theory – that should teach him.

    David N November 26, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    One doesn't need string theory to explain the lyman-alpha forest though, just lambda-CDM cosmology :-)

    ggm November 26, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Calling Susan out by name, misrepresenting her viewpoints, and then turning of comments is completely indefensible.

    I always felt he has needlessly politicized string theory research l by making his case against it primarily in popular science books and on his blog rather than in peer-reviewed journals and academic papers. Since when is it a good idea to let public perception influence our scientific whims? Whether or not his arguments are valid is beside the point, it wasn't the right way to go about attempting to influence the field.

    Sammy November 26, 2016 at 5:35 am

    I am re-posting the following from an insightful comment on the Liberty Blitzkrieg report on this scam site:

    "The anonymous "executive director" of the Propornot website, quoted by the Washington Post, was mostly a likely a "senior military intelligence" impostor cum serial teen pornographer named Joel Harding. He is facing a lawsuit over the copyright infringement of Internet-distributed (teen) pornography (Case No. 1:16-cv-00384-AJT-TCB) in the US District Court for the eastern district of Virginia, Alexandria division. This is in the public domain.

    BTW, Harding's fellow trolls have been known to ascribe the rank of Brig Gen to their pathetic troll leader in private messages to the unsuspecting.

    No wonder Joel Harding wished to remain the anonymous "executive director" whose laughably scientific work was quoted by Washington Post. But why didn't Washington Post's Craig Timberg check this up? Basic journalistic checks thrown out of the mixed gender bathroom window? Details of Harding's trolling activities are available on the very Internet that is trolled by Joel Harding through his 3,000-odd troll sites.

    And to think that I used to be an avid reader of Washington Post's science and Technology reports now galls me.

    There is a growing assumption that the patriotic paranoid activities of Joel Harding and associates are a cover for their Ukrainian teen pornography distribution business."

    EndOfTheWorld November 26, 2016 at 5:41 am

    Sigmund Freud called this "projection".

    The US MSM is all propaganda all the time-every bit as bad as Pravda ever was. RT now is the "anti-propaganda." They were even carrying Jesse Ventura and other Americans who are blacklisted by the MSM.

    This is a "hail mary pass."

    Pavel November 26, 2016 at 8:02 am

    A hail mary pass that was intercepted by the opposing team and run back for a touchdown.

    Methinks the WaPo, "PropOrNot", and the rest of the MSM involved with this stunt are going to have a lesson in The Streisand Effect. Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg (whom I greatly admire BTW) has said he already has many new followers and donors.

    EndOfTheWord November 26, 2016 at 8:39 am

    The hail mary pass was intercepted and run back for a touchdown. Ha, ha, ha. That's a good one, Mr. Pavel.

    hunkerdown November 26, 2016 at 6:18 am

    There's a Chrome addon in beta! Wow. I must say I'm impressed. It's like a porn blocker for liberals in crisis.

    This demands popcorn and much Nietzschean weaponized laughter.

    sd November 26, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Serious question here.

    What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I feel like I missed some important public dis somewhere that would explain it all. Condoleeza Rice's general dated anti-Soviet attitude I could understand, but that doesn't explain the escalating bigotry pouring out of Obama and Clinton (and their various surrogates). Is it a case of a bomb in search of a war?

    EndOfTheWorld November 26, 2016 at 6:58 am

    Looks to me like it came out of the HRC campaign. LOL James Carville was talking about the KGB tampering with the vote tally .not knowing they've been out of business since 1991. The whole thing makes absolutely no sense, and it won't fly with the American public, many of whom watch RT, or may be married to or dating Russians. Even Randy Newman likes Putin enough to write a song about him.

    John November 26, 2016 at 9:17 am

    The funny thing is it's been an open secret that the Democratic party has known about electronic voting fraud (always swinging to the Right) for years but refuses to go near the subject publicly supposedly because they didn't want people to lose faith in election results and stop voting.

    John November 26, 2016 at 9:47 am

    Even today they are defending the results
    U.S. Officials Defend Integrity of Vote, Despite Hacking Fears
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/us/politics/hacking-russia-election-fears-barack-obama-donald-trump.html?_r=0

    tgs November 26, 2016 at 10:26 am

    The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election , it has concluded that the results "accurately reflect the will of the American people."

    From the NYT article you mention. It is now axiomatic that the Putin government was actively attempting to subvert our election. This despite the fact that absolutely no compelling evidence has ever been given.

    integer November 26, 2016 at 7:37 am

    What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I think it can be traced back to this .

    z November 26, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    After the nineties opening foreign influence was accepted and russia started integrating into the western world. Some years later the resurged nationalist kicked out western companies, broke cultural-social contacts.

    West is made on free trade-free business-free ideas flow. if russia not trading on common terms, west gonna take it by force. and russia holds one-fourth of fresh water, one-fifth of world forests, one sixth of arable but never before used land, and never before properly explored mineral wealth. All these can help to secure a prosperous 21.century for the west.

    Same like before the american conquest, only difference now local indigenous people wield nuclear weapons and have unlimited chinese support, so no rush let them make mistakes. (and they do, ukraine-syria-azerbaijan just the latest)

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 2:45 am

    I bet your funders can't wait to "properly explore" that Russian mineral wealth.

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 7:41 am

    I don't think there is an easy answer to your question, but I think it goes around to the failed Ukrainian coup (well, partially failed) and the realisation within a certain element of the neocon establishment that Putin had been inadvertently strengthened by their policy failures in the Ukraine and Syria. I think there was a concerted element within the Blob to refocus on 'the Russian threat' to cover up their failures in the Middle East and the refusal of the Chinese to take the bait in the Pacific.

    This rolled naturally into concerns about cyberwar and it was a short step from there to using Russian cyberespionage to cover up the establishments embarrassment over wikileaks and multiple other failures exposed by outsiders. As always, when a narrative suits (for different reasons) the two halves of the establishment, the mainstream media is always happy to run it unquestioningly.

    So in short, I think its a mixture of genuine conspiracy, mixed in with political opportunism.

    Dirk77 November 26, 2016 at 8:44 am

    +1

    cocomaan November 26, 2016 at 8:53 am

    Don't forget Snowden and Assange. The intelligence community is, I'm sure, furious about those two. With Snowden still in Russia, it's basically a weeping sore on the intelligence community's face. Those people do not like exposure at all.

    I remember that, shortly after Snowden's revelations, the war drums really started to beat for Syria.

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:43 am

    In all success* is the seeds of failure. Once upon a time, the "beating of war drums" was a great distraction from whatever ill's were currently affecting a nation. But the US now has such an overwhelming military that not only is there absolutely no threat to the US land mass, but for a given person there are at least two degrees of freedom between them and anybody actually involved in these wars themselves. We lost a soldier – ONE soldier – on Thanksgiving day and sure it was all over the news but how many USians actually know even a member of his family, let alone him? About zero to a first approximation.

    So it just isn't working as a distraction. TPTB I don't think really get that yet.

    *the word success here is used in a morally neutral sense

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    Likewise don't forget Chelsea/Bradley Manning! He was the one who put WikiLeaks on the map and is now paying a horrible price for his courage and love of humanity. His name is constantly dropped from the list of whistle blower heroes. Why? Because of his gender ambiguity? Whatever his gender Manning is an American hero worth remembering.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:29 am

    PlutoniumKun
    November 26, 2016 at 7:41 am

    I think that's about right PlutoniumKun but I would add your moniker – the US is gonna spend a FORTUNE (I TRILLION dollars using Austin Powers voice) updating our nuclear arsenal. Can't really justify using ISIS, so the Soviet boogyman has to be resurrected .

    Lurker November 26, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    YES! You need a big bad enemy to justify expenditures on big bad weapons. ISIS ain't gonna cut it.

    integer November 26, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    Plutonium kun : "I'm hardly absorbed by your stomach or intestines and I'm expelled by your body, so in fact I can't kill people at all"

    (Curiosity finally got the better of me)

    grayslady November 26, 2016 at 8:30 am

    A friend of mine is convinced that Obama and the Beltway crowd have never gotten over Russia giving asylum to Edward Snowden. If you look at the timing between Snowden's revelations and the U.S. ginning up its anti-Russia talk and activities, there is some correlation.

    cocomaan November 26, 2016 at 8:54 am

    haha, I literally just posted this two inches above! +1

    I think the intelligence community, all those northern virginia folks, hate the fact that every day there's a traitor who has an outlet on twitter.

    witters November 26, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    Listen to Gore Vidal (in 1994!) and find out why: https://www.c-span.org/video/?61333-1/state-united-states

    ToivoS November 26, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late?

    That is very good question and it does not have a simple answer. I have been pondering this for 8 years now. The latest bout of Russia-hatred began as Putin began to re-assert their sovereignty after the disastrous Yeltsin years. This intensified after Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. In adddition the US was preprogrammed to hate Russia for historical reasons. Mostly because of the Soviet era but also when the US inherited the global empire from the Brits we also got some of their dislike of the Russian empire dating back to the 19th century.

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 7:49 pm

    It all started when Putin arrested the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, when Putin put a stop to the shock therapy looting of Russia by the Harvard mafia and Jeffrey Sachs. Didn't he know that oligarch's are above the law? They are in the US. Didn't he know that money can buy you immunity from prosecution like it does in Europe and the US? Can't have that, hence the Ukraine, deprive him of his warm water naval base. Then there was the Crimean referendum. Out smarted again! Can't have that!

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 2:53 am

    Yes. There was a Michael Hudson piece posted here in 2014 that lays it all out. Apparently those wanting to bring "democratic institutions" to Russia haven't given up yet.

    This Propornot outfit has all the makings of a National Endowment for Democracy scam, including its sudden appearance in the Post, which has been publishing crazy regime-change-esque editorials on Russia for more than two years now.

    It's all so depressing.

    Mark Alexander November 26, 2016 at 6:37 am

    It's all my fault. I studied Russian in high school (4 years) and college (1 year), and even subscribed to Pravda briefly in college (as did all of my classmates) to improve reading skills. I also spent a month in Russia in 1971. This is how I became a dirty commie. By commenting on NC a half dozen times in the past, I have forever tainted it. Sorry!

    BTW, what is the W3C approved sarcasm tag? /sarc or /s?

    Disturbed Voter November 26, 2016 at 8:28 am

    I also took 4 years of Russian in HS. When in the Cold War, it is best to understand your opponents (not enemies), rather than be ignorant. That is how one can play chess and win and yes, it is as much a matter of intimidation and annoyance, as it is cold calculation. Bobby Fischer vs Boris Spassky. States have no enemies. Former allies become opponents and vice versa pragmatism rules.

    pebird November 26, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    Sometimes it isn't necessary.

    allan November 26, 2016 at 6:54 am

    " the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business."

    Sounds like half of the D.C. economy. And so the Democratic Party ends, not with a bang, but with a McCarthyite lynch mob.

    The Vole November 26, 2016 at 7:03 am

    Wow this is straight out of John LeCarre.

    divadab November 26, 2016 at 7:03 am

    Well Joe McCarthy was a Republican so this is yet another example of Democrats taking on that mantle of paranoid fear and war-mongering. Flipping Clintons, the best Republican President and candidate the Dems could come up with.

    Kathleen Smith November 26, 2016 at 7:45 am

    The MSM can no longer fool the people that there has been an economic recovery, that is why nobody believes the media anymore and that is why Donald Trump won the election. Watching news today is like watching a bad puppet show. The masses are finally waking up to the fact that their government has sold them down the river to big corporations and predatory bankers. Took the sheeple long enough.

    Kokuanani November 26, 2016 at 7:52 am

    I was dismayed to see a reference to this rotten WaPo article on Bill Moyers' Facebook. Usually he's much better than that.

    And based on the comments, folks are believing this junk.

    Escher November 26, 2016 at 8:21 am

    It's an idiotic new red scare, and I can tell you the well credentialed, supposedly smart liberals in my circles will eat it right up. Their critical thinking is completely out the window at this point, and they'll accept apparently anything to avoid coming to terms with Clinton having lost to Trump. It's terrifying.

    knowbuddhau November 26, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Bummer. I'll always have a fondness for him from the Power of Myth interviews.

    Was surprised to find PoN recommended in an article on In These Times.

    http://inthesetimes.com/article/19658/20-lessons-from-the-20th-century-on-how-to-survive-in-trumps-america

    9. Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on your screen is there to harm you. Bookmark PropOrNot and other sites that investigate foreign propaganda pushes.

    It was so jarring I kept reading that last sentence, thinking I'd missed the snark. Fully expected it to end with "as an example," not to lend it cred.

    Harold November 26, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    The article you mention in In These Times is by Timothy Snyder :), who despite being a well-known historian is no mean propagandist himself, having suggested that the Ukrainians not the Soviets liberated Auschwitz. http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/03/07/crimea-putin-vs-reality/

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    Timothy Snyder is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. That he would recommend PoN is at least a small indication of who stands behind it. Snyder is has given bad odor to the term "historian" over the past three years. He is to objective history what Bernays was to objective journalism.

    Harold November 26, 2016 at 8:26 pm

    Snyder: "The army group that liberated Auschwitz was called the First Ukrainian Front." The NYR of Books has suppressed the comment section on its blog, probably to spare Snyder the embarrassment of having his howlers pointed out by readers.

    knowbuddhau November 26, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    Ah so, thanks to you both. Two tells made me suspicious: lots of apparently good advice, then the little drop of poison just nonchalantly dropped in the mix; and Yale historian ;) .

    My comment there hasn't made it out of moderation yet. But someone else tore into him for the same reason I did, recommending PoN:

    Because you have no idea who the hell they are, anymore than anyone else does, they've just released a list of non-MSM news sites that they disagree with. They smear long running and well trusted sites as "propaganda" outlets without offering any evidence or stating any sort of methodology. You have litereally abandoned the professional ethic which ought to go along with being a published.historian and University professor purely because it makes you FEEL BETTER.

    I just asked him, as a Yale historian, to please tell us how the list was compiled, or at least give some reason for his unqualified recommendation. I went on to say that I read several of the sites listed, esp. Counterpunch and of course, NC. Even helpfully provided a link to this article, saying the idea that NC pushes foreign propaganda is ludicrous, and the WaPo article was being thoroughly debunked here.

    Ended with "I call upon the author to explain! (h/t Nick Cave)"

    inode_buddha November 26, 2016 at 8:22 am

    WaPo Has been sounding increasingly shrill for the last year. Makes you wonder what they're hiding or what truth they're running from.

    polecat November 26, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    Hit em where it hurts .. PROFITS --

    **BOYCOTT AMAZON & The WASHINGTON POST !!

    ** Any and all who spew this crap

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 9:38 am

    More likely, what "truth" 'they' are trying to manufacture. (When did the new 'owners' take up the reins at WaPo? There might be a correlation, and a causation involved)

    Inode_buddha November 26, 2016 at 10:29 am

    This is why I'm looking forward to any legal cases that may arise out of this - I plan to follow such *very* closely. Would love to see discovery documents upon the editorial and ownership staff . the legal equivalent of a public enema, "you shall have no more secrets "

    After all, didn't Fox News win a case essentially stating that it was OK to flat out lie and fabricate from whole cloth? Then why can't Democrat media organs do likewise?

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 10:46 am

    Why didn't I think of that earlier? "Political Infotainment." If my reading serves me right, I was under the impression that newspapers of a hundred years ago and earlier displayed their political allegiances openly. A reader could easily work out the underlying story from separating "story" from "interpretation." Now, news outlets are supposedly impartial and pure of heart. Yet another cherished myth bites the dust. Perhaps it is better this way.

    John November 26, 2016 at 10:52 am

    Yes Fox Lies did win such a case. And if any fake "news" outlet should be on the list it is them.

    pebird November 26, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    Didn't we used to call "fake news" rumors? And when did newspapers stop printing rumors?

    Disturbed Voter November 26, 2016 at 8:24 am

    Per FDR .. sometimes we are better known by our enemies, than by our friends.

    Vedant Desai November 26, 2016 at 8:30 am

    Just check this out :

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

    Based on the evidence of above mentioned link, this "PropOrNot" can be part of a project of U.S. government to manipulate media to create an anti-Russia climate or more likely another method of attack on what they consider "Left" so status quo in economic policies of U.S. can be maintained.

    Susan C November 26, 2016 at 8:32 am

    What is going on with the press/MSM lately? It is like one big game of mind control. Is that what journalism is for – to persuade people to do what the system wants them to do and I hope I am not stretching here but a la Bernays? I mean when I think about this it is really sort of terrifying as the MSM has done little else but constantly broadcast to people that life in America is just fine and everyone is happy when in fact the opposite is true – there is a lot of hardship out there since the financial crisis, a lot of people never recovered, millions or tens of millions. So how can people not be drawn to alternative news sites which thankfully are quite abundant now and want political change? It just seems like the WaPo, NYT are living in this one little sliver of opulence and prosperity while the rest of us just shake our heads and wonder what has happened to this country, especially as we see their darling was not voted in as President. So now they are striking out and attempting to smear the reputations of good sites, And what is this fake news thing – I am not on social media and have no idea what the fake news is – is it about the pizza places? And why are the social media sites being censored – I had read on zh that when the Comey story hit before the election that that news was not trending at all which was very strange according to those who would know better.

    I don't know where all this fear is coming from in the MSM but I imagine they have lost their grasp of the American mind. I worry every time I tune in that I am being lied to and misled for a reason. A political reason. I grew up in the 50's and remember real journalism and I want it back. I want to know what is really going on. Everywhere.

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    It has worked for a hundred years, since WWI and the Creel Commission, the destruction of a vibrant American Left. Imagine the panic in the boardroom suites, the millennials no longer think that socialism is a bad word, and supported an aging leftist for president. OMFG! It's all Russia's fault providing an alternate plausible narrative. Can't have that. Outsourcing jobs to Asia, burdening college students with immense debts, incredible corruption personified by the Queen of Wall Street couldn't have anything to do with it. All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's finally happened, they have over reached and are about to fall off the edge. Relish the panic.

    Escher November 26, 2016 at 8:41 am

    So this WaPo story is an example of the "fake news" we're supposed to be on the lookout for, right?

    cocomaan November 26, 2016 at 8:46 am

    When everything hits the fan, I'll be glad to have you other filthy propagandists in the FEMA camp alongside me, breaking rocks, eating gruel, and discussing the path to insanity.

    I really wish that reporters like those at the Post and the Times had done us all a favor and walked into the ocean after their abysmal election coverage. Why anyone listens to these outlets anymore is a question that I ponder at night, staring at the ceiling, wondering what the hell happened to my country.

    Butch In Waukegan November 26, 2016 at 9:04 am

    On PropOrNot's list is usslibertyveterans.org, which might be an indication its neocon origins.

    The site has few articles, no comments and its visit counter shows under 3,800 hits. It looks like it was created 4 months ago. It is propaganda because?

    Their stats page shows that ProOrNot's strategy might backfire. Yesterday was a record day for hits.

    Or maybe usslibertyveterans.org is a fishing lure.

    Jagger November 26, 2016 at 10:24 am

    Who could possibly have a problem with a site on the USS Liberty? Certainly narrows down the list of suspects considerably, assuming it wasn't a deliberate false track. For those not familiar with the USS Liberty, it was the USN ship attacked, nearly sunk with heavy casualties, by Israel in 1967. A lot of military still have bitterness towards Israel and the American leadership due to the lack of justice and cover-up over that incident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

    integer November 26, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    The surrounding of "Russian propaganda" with the letter 'y' reminds me a bit of this :

    (((Echo))) is a symbol used by anti-Semitic members of the alt-right to identify certain individuals as Jewish by surrounding their names with three parentheses on each side. The symbol became a subject of online discussions and media scrutiny in June 2016 after Google removed a browser extension that automatically highlights Jewish surnames in the style.

    Note that Israel has a lot to lose if Trump pulls the US out of the Middle East. Here's some Russian propaganda on the issue:

    Jagger November 26, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    Recent tweet by PropOrNot per Greenwald.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

    Tila Tequila's Descent Into Nazism Is A Long Time Coming

    The self-proclaimed "alt-reich queen" has a long history of anti-Semitism, and an even longer one of internet trolling.

    Again unless this is a false lead, these guys are looking more and more Israeli or Israeli sympathizers. Other tweets per Greenwald at same link also suggest a pretty low maturity level. Possibly kids or college level??

    Old Hickory November 26, 2016 at 9:20 am

    The WaPo story is in today's Greensboro (N.C.) News & Record. Front page, above the fold. Sheesh.

    Tom Stone November 26, 2016 at 9:26 am

    This is a lot worse than "Yellow Cake" and it scares the pants off me. This is the "Official line", signed off on by the editors of WaPo. Think about that for a minute. And then think about the campaign to get the EC to enthrone HRC.

    Trump dissed the MSM and they are pissed off, so are their masters who wanted Obama to slide through TPP in the period between Hillary's win and the inauguration. They blew more than $1Billion on a loser and they may have decided that losing is not acceptable and that it will be HRC on the throne, whatever it takes. The recklessness displayed by the MSM here is breathtaking at a moment when the USA is more divided than it has been since the election of 1860.

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 9:48 am

    Add this to the "YouTube Heros" project,
    see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh_1966vaIA
    and the nascent "fake news site" purge program,
    see: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-facebook-crack-down-adverts-appearing-fake-news-sites-us-election-trump-2016-11
    and one sees a coordinated meta project to "sanitize" the public's sources of information.
    I'm leaning towards your take on this. Joe McCarthy had nothing on these present "operators."

    Patricia November 26, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    Hero youtube vid ("mass flag videos!") has 918K dislikes to 29k likes. Encouraging

    tgs November 26, 2016 at 10:36 am

    it scares the pants off me

    I'm with you Tom Stone. There is nothing funny about this. The MSM at this point is the greatest purveyor of fake news on the planet, I am talking about not just CNN and Fox, but the BBC, France24 and so on.

    Pretty much everything they have said and every video they has shown on east Aleppo is either a lie or a fake. As someone noted the other day (I can't remember who) if the stories about east Aleppo were actually true, then the Russians and Syrians have destroyed approximately 900 hospitals – including the 'last pediatric hospital in east Aleppo' which has been completely demolished on at least three separate occasions in the last few months. The main stream outlets don't even try to be consistent.

    The people who run things here and in Europe are apparently desperate – and this latest move is an indication of how desperate they actually are. It is indeed scary.

    HBE November 26, 2016 at 11:11 am

    It's 90 hospitals not 900, but 90 is just as ridiculous given the whole country of Syria only has 88 hospitals/clinics.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:36 am

    tgs
    November 26, 2016 at 10:36 am

    I am publicly apologizing to Sarah Palin who I used to think was a dingbat for all of her criticism of the MSM aka Lame stream media. She was far, far more correct than I ever thought possible.

    But look at the silver lining – how many people like me who thought that the large media got the essential facts correct can now see how much we're being fed pure propaganda .how much of what you see depends on what your looking for .

    MRLost November 26, 2016 at 9:54 am

    Weapons of Mass Distraction. Another nail in the coffin of credibility of the NYT and WaPo. Recall after the Stupid War and how there were zero weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq that the NYT and Wapo declined to mention or explore their own culpability in beating the drums of war. This will be more of the same.

    John Wright November 26, 2016 at 11:11 am

    The Times had a retrospective on their actions on May 26,2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html

    "Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all."

    So the Times DID admit some culpability, but it wasn't as if the Times volunteered to donate a portion of their profits(deepen their losses?) to help Iraqi victims or US soldiers and their families.

    And given the Times Syria coverage, where even the sanctimonious Nick Kristof (August 28, 2013) called on for Obama to bomb Syria for credibility reasons, nothing has changed at the Times.

    "Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious behavior like genocide or the use
    of chemical weapons. Since President Obama established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his
    credibility has been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."

    The Times playbook is to parrot what TPTB wants to do and then if the readers subsequently revolt in disgust, apologize later.

    After I quit my digital subscription to the Times, it seems I'm limited to 10 articles/month. This might be more than the safely recommended monthly dose of the NYTimes.

    clarky90 November 26, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    The dissimulation, the feigned ignorance (the irony). During the 1930s, the New York Times actually acted as propaganda agents for Stalin. They collaborated with the Soviet Security Services to prevent the rescue of millions of Ukrainian peasants (deplorables).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

    "In 1932 Duranty received a Pulitzer Prize for a series of reports about the Soviet Union, 11 of them published in June 1931. He was criticized then and later for his denial of widespread famine (1932–33) in the USSR, most particularly the mass starvation in Ukraine. Years later, there were calls to revoke his Pulitzer; The New York Times, which submitted his work for the prize in 1932, wrote that his articles constituted "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper."

    Elizabeth Burton November 26, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    Editors were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper.

    And there you have it, boys and girls, the one driving force behind journalism as practiced in the corporate media. If I had been paid for every time I was told to fudge a story lest the local broadcast stations break it first, I would have been able to pay my mortgage.

    The Trumpening November 26, 2016 at 10:06 am

    This whole Russian propaganda campaign is nothing more then elites attempting to slam shut the Overton Window that the Trump campaign has pried open a bit this year. This article explains why they will most likely fail:

    http://thefutureprimaeval.net/the-overton-bubble/

    simjam November 26, 2016 at 10:11 am

    I suspect that PropOrNot's outburst was developed during the campaign by well heeled and connected Hilary supporters to be unveiled after the election to muzzle increasingly influential web sites including NC. As it stands PropOrNot shot a blank. If Hilary had won the campaign against "fake news" would probably have taken on a more ominous tone.

    Mel November 26, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Wolf mentioned that the list will function as a dog-whistle for money - that is, advertisers - telling them about the dangerous places. Maybe not shooting a blank in the short run. In the long run, of course, advertisers will follow the eyeballs anywhere.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    maybe David Brock is still correcting the record? ;) http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/david-brock-donald-trump-donor-network-231588

    Oil Dusk November 26, 2016 at 10:14 am

    The MSM became so biased during the Presidential election, it drove many Americans toward social media where you could at least view campaign speaches unfiltered. The same process is now being applied in the support of manmade climate change alarmism with hopefully the same result

    witters November 26, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    Go away. Stop smearing NC with climate denialism. You, sir, are a troll.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    i think you meant the same process is applied in the support of oil company propaganda. the msm slavishly supported the pro fracking clinton, slavishly acted for years as if there were an actual scientific debate, instead of fossil fuel shills vs scientists.

    Uahsenaa November 26, 2016 at 10:15 am

    I really hope this doesn't get buried in the comments, because it's important to note that Ames is actually incorrect. He would have been right as recently as 3 years ago but no longer is.

    The provisions of the Smith-Mundt act that prevented materials produced by the BGG from being used for domestic purposes were repealed by the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (actually passed in 2013, when incorporated into the NDAA), which states:

    The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication.

    It also contains a provision that supposedly prevents the BBG from influencing domestic public opinion, yet also says the following.

    Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure.

    Worth noting: passed under Obama and discounted at the time but venues such as Mother Jones, who did the heavy lifting of telling progressives they were paranoid.

    Uahsenaa November 26, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Mother Jones link .

    Katharine November 26, 2016 at 11:36 am

    Thanks for this information!

    I am guessing the proviso you quote may have been intended to cover the possibility of people in places like Florida hearing broadcasts aimed at Cuba or other targets, but it certainly raises questions.

    What I find most despicable in all this is the cowardice of these people making up their accusations and refusing to say who they are. Beneath contempt.

    Uahsenaa November 26, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    As a loophole it's not perfect (the intent of the primary provision it qualifies seems rather clear on its face), but we're talking about people who wrote elaborate memos justifying torture and extra judicial murder, and who went before Congress (i.e. Holder) to claim that "due process" does not necessarily mean "judicial process." A loophole like that is more than enough to judge such activities legal enough. I certainly can't imagine anyone in the current administration prosecuting it.

    Yves Smith Post author November 27, 2016 at 12:13 am

    Ames tells me Pando has a legal opinion to the contrary.

    lyman alpha blob November 26, 2016 at 10:19 am

    In regards to all this 'fake news' and 'Russian propaganda' hysteria, one potential problem I keep seeing mentioned is that certain sites could be banned from FleeceBook thereby destroying these sites' page hits and ad revenue.

    I don't use the FleeceBook so I guess I don't understand how this works. I can come to this or any other website any time I want so why would I care that it's been banned by FleeceBook? I don't remember exactly how I first heard of NC but I'm guessing I followed a link from one of the other left-leaning sites I read regularly (which coincidentally also are authored by Boris Badinov according to the WaPo). Is FB sort of like AOL back in the day where AOL users thought they were surfing the intertubes but in reality were in some sort of AOL-approved pen? And if that's the case I have to wonder how long it will be before FB becomes just like AOL is today, ie mainly used by the less internet savvy. I already hear rumors that the youngsters consider FB something only old people use.

    I am genuinely interested if anyone can explain this – would it really hurt websites that much to be banned by FB? Wouldn't there be a backlash against FB for doing so?

    PS: The thing that made me start using NC as my go-to source for news besides the excellent original financial reporting was the fact that you guys started including regular links to sites like BAR, Counetrpunch, etc that I was already reading anyway. I feel like I can read here without missing out on what was going on elsewhere – there's only so much one can read in a day. Keep up the great work!

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    I would assume that's how they intend to hurt these sites, but we get virtually no traffic from Facebook. However, being banned from FB would seriously dent out policy influence.

    Jess November 26, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    The thing is, it would prevent people like me from linking to NC stories in our personal posts, or in replies to posts from our FB friends.

    polecat November 26, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    Well now they gotcha were they want ya

    don't .. use Faceborg -- .. see that was easy .

    same with GooGOO, TWITTED etc. .

    Jess November 26, 2016 at 8:09 pm

    Unfortunately, Faceborg is the best way for me to stay in touch with certain people. For example, it has a closed group called FDL-LLN which is limited to former commenters on FireDogLake. (LLN stands for Late Late Night, which was a subforum for people to post music and discuss musical artists; the LLN heading was used for the FB group out of, I believe, both nostalgia and the friendships that many formed as FDL "pups".)

    In addition, if you post an NC link on FB, it gets seen by many people who might not otherwise become aware of the site.

    polecat November 27, 2016 at 2:20 am

    well .. by all means go ahead and continue to be used as product, because THAT"S the only thing of import by the likes of zuckerberg.

    homeroid November 27, 2016 at 2:39 am

    Ah Jess I miss LLN and Suz an Tut and all the rest. But not enough to go Faceborg. Somethings are lost some remain. I still have a phone which i use every so often.
    Bob.

    skippy November 27, 2016 at 3:44 am

    After a few years of FB econ sites, hashing things out with the usual suspects, things began to increasingly change as the primaries got to the wire. Once solid commenters replete with knowlage and experience began to mimic the very people and camps they once railed against.

    It was on then when I took on these people for such actions that I started to get the FB treatment, ending in privacy washing.

    Disheveled Marsupial . especially when noting Hillary's history and bad side, sad to think it might have been one of the old gang that put in a complaint to FB.

    WhatsNotToLike November 26, 2016 at 10:20 am

    There is something bizarre about this whole scenario.

    PropOrNot is asserting that the sites on the 'List", both right and left, were responsible for the Clinton loss by spreading false Russian propaganda. This would make more sense, as a political project, if Clinton had won. Asking the Trump DOJ and Trump's/Comey's FBI to investigate the asserted causes of Trump's win is bizarre.

    It only makes sense, IMHO, if this project was already in the works pre-election anticipating a Clinton win, where it would have had the benefit of targeting both the right and the left and continuing the drum beat for war. If that is the case, the losers appear to be too shell-shocked or committed, financially or ideologically, to think through the implications of letting this go forward.

    I do like the idea of NC, and other left-wing sites, forming a coalition with right-wing sites to take legal action. Ralph Nader's "Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State" comes to mind.

    Skip Intro November 26, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    The site was apparently registered on Aug. 21 2016, when the establishment still felt confident that the ascension of the empress was a done deal.

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 3:09 am

    Wasn't the reality of Russia intervention in Syria well underway by that time as well? Wasn't the whole US Syrian ploy dependent on everybody selling the people a clear distinction between evil Assad, evil ISIS, and good moderates (ahem al-quaeda)?

    That narrative was clearly no longer believed even by the journalists writing it. Why? Sites like this one and others. Why does it matter? Because aim was to get rid of Assad to cut Russia out of Mideast, having failed to achieve that goal two years earlier in Ukraine. Cui bono?

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    Excellent observation, preparation for a post Killery election purge of the alternate media.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    ah, that makes sense. and why waste a good purge even if plan a doesn't quite work out?

    nippersdad November 26, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    Good points. Also, IIRC, internet governance is due to be turned over to a non-governmental organization in the not too distant future. Might this not be a way of achieving the elimination of net neutrality during a Democratic Administration that would not want to be seen as sticking the knife in themselves?

    In that scenario, it would look a lot like the present Administration is secretly working the refs in the same way that they tried to push the TPP and its' associated ISDS provisions before the whistle was blown on them.

    Light a Candle November 26, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Wow, this is surreal. Edward Bernays on steroids.

    This whole bizarre "fake news" meme along with the and the Russians are coming is getting widespread media traction including Vanity Fair. It's getting repeated in Canadian media too.

    Now PropOrNot not is not credited as the source but the more plausible sounding Foreign Policy Research Institute and lots of references to the Washington Post's "reporting".

    I think this is a deliberate campaign to discredit progressive and independent news sources. God forbid that citizens should read a variety of sources and make up their own minds.

    jo6pac November 26, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Yes eddy b. meets Eric Hoffers True Believers.

    NC Please keep up the wonderful work done here.

    Stephanie November 26, 2016 at 10:40 am

    I have wondered for about a year now if someone is handing out anti-Russian story quotas – or maybe anti-Russian story cash, with a bonus for anything that goes viral. I'm not sure how else you explain stuff like this from a Gawker site that was mainly focused on minimum wage law and whether the Tilted Kilt could legally fire you for being too fat.

    This current listicle feels very much the same, except with less professionalism and more credulity. Either someone is getting paid enough not to care how asinine this looks, or the inmates really are running the media asylum.

    S Haust November 26, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Thanks a lot for noticing this.
    Provides me a one-click route to a long list of my favorite sources.
    Don't need to bother with bookmarks anymore.

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Naked Capitalism is in great company: BAR, Counterpunch, Antiwar, Consortium News. I didn't need to read these sites to come to my views though, all they did is to confirm what I had come to believe all on my own: that Hillary is a corrupt warmonger, that the American government has been captured by the moneyed elites, that the Democrat Party is a rat nest of neoliberal infestation. And while I was naturally predisposed toward Russia by virtue of where I was born and by Bulgarian history, my college career was marked by my support for all of the bad policies that brought us the new Cold War with Russia: NATO expansion, the bombing of Serbia, the economic ruin of Russia, the unipolar world order. I was young, stupid, and ambitious. Later on I simply settled into profound indifference toward Russia and a general anti-war attitude brought about by my own service. It wasn't until the hysterical MSM crapstorm of breathless smears about Sochi that I began to notice the US policies against Russia. So for me, the most effective pro-Russia propaganda outlets proved to be US MSM, WaPo and NYT being the most effective of all. Just one of life's little ironies. So WaPo wants to sling mud and go on a witch hunt? I suggest that they indict themselves first and foremost, for being a mindless disseminators of US government propaganda.

    Dave November 26, 2016 at 11:10 am

    Naked Capitalism is my home page and the first thing I read. If it's Russian Propaganda, I would like to offer a big Thank You to Russia. -sarc.

    Consider the Bezor's attack a positive, he will introduce thousands of new readers to this site.

    S Haust November 26, 2016 at 11:12 am

    "a new 'Eurasian' empire stretching from Dublin to Vladisvostok"

    Why Dublin? With a flick of the finger, they could have had the flyover terrain between there and Shannon.

    And why Vladivostock? You can go a lot farther East than that and still be in Russia.

    For Pete's sake, why have they not included Sapporo and the rest of Japan. Aren't they vulnerable too?

    And the Aleutians; for that matter, why not the rest of Alaska too? After all, we only bought it from them at a knock-down price. Anyone knows they got
    a raw deal. Shouldn't they want that back too?

    Katharine November 26, 2016 at 11:40 am

    You forget their target audience is ignorant of geography, inter alia. They had to stick to names people might be able to place at least vaguely.

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    Shannon Airport would have been appropriate as during the Cold War it was Aeroflots main base for flying on to Cuba. Its now only a short drive from Trumps Irish golf course.

    Ted November 26, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Conflicted. On the one hand, as a long time reader of a diversity of listed websites (on the lefty side mostly), this comes across as ham fisted and, frankly, bizarre. Not only the laughable story itself, but that it has been picked up and reposted by a host of other rather mainstream and 'liberal' surrogates.

    It is *bizarre* because Russia today is nothing of what the boogeyman USSR was in times past: an alternative political-economic arrangement to then industrial capitalism. Russia Today (wink, wink) is as capitalist and as democratic as any of the other players on this particular stage (plenty of the former, not so much of the latter). An economic competitor, sure, but no USSR. So the anti-Russia/Putin propaganda just consistently reads hollow to anyone who spends any time just reading run of the mill reporting of goings on in the world (reporting aside from propaganda stories). In other words, if you are a relatively informed reader of diverse sources and traveler, the anti-Russia stuff just comes across as contrived from the get go.

    But then again, I got a chance to visit with some 1000s of academic colleagues at a national convention recently. This is where the 'conflicted' point comes from. As Good Liberals, academics dine daily on a strict NYT, WAPO, NPR diet, with the more 'edgy' types hanging at VOX and HuffPo. And they BELIEVE everything their beloved media tells them through these sources, without reservation (and with the requisite snark and smirk). The academy is nearly completely captured and now so deeply immersed in its echo chamber that any information that might challenge its perception of the world is immediately dismissed as nefarious propaganda (either paid for by the Koch bros, or Putin). Of course, since the elite academy is overwhelmingly Ivy educated, their worldview loops back to their Ivy educated friends at said media outlets. Creating a bubble that is increasingly impenetrable to reason and critical analysis.

    Moose and Squirrel must DIE November 26, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Lots of panic for the Washington regime. The clownish asshole loser that they carefully groomed proved less repulsive than their chosen Fuehrer Clinton. Now they are distraught to see that their enemy Russia sucks much less than the USA.

    Russians get a much better deal than the US subject population. The Russian head of state has approval ratings that US politicians scarcely dream of. Russia complies with the Paris Principles, the gold standard for institutionalized human rights protection under international review. The USA does not. Russia's incorruptible President keeps kleptocrats in check, while the US banana republic installs them in high office. Russia complies with the rule of law: they refrain from use or threat of force and rely on pacific dispute resolution, using proportional and necessary force in compliance with UN Charter Chapter VII. The US shits on rule of law, interpreting human rights instruments in bad faith and flouting jus cogens to maintain impunity for the gravest crimes. In the precise terms of Responsibility to Protect, the US government does not even meet the minimal test for state sovereignty: compliance with the International Bill of Human Rights, the Rome Statute, and the UN Charter. Naturally the US is bleeding legitimacy and international standing, and Russia is going from strength to strength. If Russia invaded, we would strew flowers and sweets.

    The collapse of the USSR did Russia a world of good. Now it's time for the USA to collapse and free America.

    nothing but the truth November 26, 2016 at 11:29 am

    it boils down to Soros vs Putin. Anyone who is not with Soros is with Putin, according to Soros. Soros cannot digest the death threat he was given by Putin, to stay away from Russia or else. Since Soros was born in old communist europe, he seems to believe he has the right to regime change there. And he has been very successful – primarily because he is in bed with the CIA and the Russians are just now waking up again.

    Ignacio November 26, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    So sorry! I am a foreign "propagandist" reader, commenter and contributer from Spain, and I am just shoked to see this! How sad is this, it pretty much looks like McCarthysm again!!!!

    Edward Harrison November 26, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    Hi Naked Capitalism. I haven't been on this site for some time. But I felt it necessary to comment due to an ad hominem attack from a commenter "James" regarding the show I produce at RT called Boom Bust.

    From my vantage point as producer at RT, I have been able to see the whole anti-Russia campaign unfold in all its fury. I have a lot of thoughts on this but I want to restrict my comments to the specific argument James makes. here:

    "it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do."

    Since I produce the show that Steve Keen appears on, I am well-placed to give you a view on this. James' comment is flat out false. What James writes is something he has fabricated in his imagination – connecting dots he believes should be connected based on no first hand evidence whatsoever.

    What actually happens on Boom Bust is this:

    Since no one I work with at RT has a sophisticated background in economics, finance or financial reporting, they give us a wide berth in putting together content for our show with nearly no top down dictates at all. That means we as American journalists have a pretty much free hand to report economic news intelligently and without bias. We invite libertarian, mainstream, non-mainstream, leftist, Democratic commentators, Republican commentators – you name it. As for guests, they are not anti-American in any way shape or form. They are disproportionately non-mainstream.

    We have no pro-Russian agenda. And that is in part because Russia is a bit player on the economic stage, frankly. Except for sanctions, it has mostly been irrelevant on our show since inception.

    Let me share a strange anecdote on that. We had a guest on our show about three years ago, early in my tenure. We invited him on because he had smart things to say about the UK economy. But he had also written some very negative things about Putin and Russia. Rather than whitewash this we addressed it specifically in the interview and asked him an open-ended question about Russia, so he could say his piece. I was ASTONISHED when he soft-pedaled his response and made no forceful case as he had done literally days ago in print. This guy clearly self-censored – for what reason I don't know. But it is something that has stayed with me ever since.

    The most important goal from a managerial perspective has been that our reporting is different i.e. covers missing and important angles of the same storyline that are missing in the mainstream media or that it covers storylines that are missing altogether.

    Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on our show appears "because he lambasts the American political establishment". This is false. He appears on our show because he is a credible economist who provides a differentiated view on economics and insight that we believe will help our viewers understand the global economy. If Paul Krugman had something to say of that nature and would appear on our show, we would welcome him. In fact, I and other producers have reached out to him many times to no avail, especially after we had Gerald Friedman give his take on the dust-up surrounding Bernie Sanders' economic plan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yna275KzuDQ

    Look, I understand the scepticism about RT and its motives. It IS a state-funded news outlet with news story angles that sometimes contrast sharply with western media. And it has not been critical of the Russian government as far as I can tell. But you can't ascribe nefarious motives to individual economists or reporters based on inaccurate or false third hand accounts. You are just making things up, creating a false narrative based on circumstantial evidence. This is just adding to the building peer pressure associated with what almost seems like an orchestrated campaign to discredit non-mainstream sources of news.

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    You are in good company with that suspicion of a campaign to "sanitize" the public's sources of information. If one were to consider the Corporate sector as the equivalent of a state, then almost all news sources are liable to extra strong scrutiny. Going back to Bernays, the "shepherding" of the news sources used by the majority of the population is crucial to maintaining control of public perceptions. In that sense, the present struggle for control of the news narrative is understandable.
    Keep up the good work.

    shinola November 26, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    NC " a leading left-wing financial news blog"?

    Isn't that a compliment? I mean it does say "leading" (and I have to agree).

    As for "left-wing", well NC does frequently feature articles by Bill Black & others associated with the University of Mo. Kansas City; and UMKC has long been known for its lefty, socialist/commie leanings – I know because my 81 y.o. mother told me so (and I had a prof. there teaching "History of Economic Thought" who came right out & claimed to be a Socialist – horrors!)

    DJG November 26, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Lambert foresaw that there would be a witch hunt after the election. He indicated that it would come from the Democratic Party and the conserva-Dem establishment. And, ecco!, a witch hunt. So what could possibly be the source?

    I am noticing on my Facebook feeds that the ooshy liberals are in a feeding frenzy: They believe that they are victims of some breakdown in information. The shocker was that the news being passed around in DemPartyLandia was that the Democrats were on the verge of retaking both houses of Congress and the presidency. Meanwhile, Water Cooler showed that the neither house of Congress was truly in play and the presidential race was a dead heat. After the election, various lists began to circulate. The one cited by Yves isn't the first. I saw one list that included The Onion, The Daily Currant, and Duffel Blog. You mean Duffel Blog's story on U.S. soldiers trying en masse to join the Canadian army isn't true?

    Further, much of liberaldom is now deep into trying to flip the Electoral College or amend the Constitution immediately, as well as the Trump as Fascist meme.

    Yes, America, land of self-proclaimed bad-asses, turns out to be the realm of panic. And many policies and stances are going to have to be suddenly revised: Ooshy liberals, who supported charter schools for years, are suddenly shocked that DeVos of Amway is a charter-school addict. The disastrous foreign-policy adventures of the last few years have to be offloaded very soon on Trump, so that Obama can be thanked for being scandal-free.

    And, evidently, the conspiracy is now so big that it can't be blamed solely on Al-Jazeera.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    yes. a lot of people have stopped thinking straight, or stopped thinking:
    http://www.gocomics.com/michaelramirez/2016/11/19

    Ignacio November 26, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Isn't this a good run to autodestruction?
    -I mean, Dem party autodestruction?

    susan the other November 26, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    This means we need more outlets besides Google and Facebook; outlets impervious to witch hunts – maybe offshore enterprises, after all that's the trend. The more the merrier for manufacturing dissent – in a good sense. What Russia does cannot harm us but it is always good to hear their take; and China is interesting as well. We get such gobbledegook from MSM we would never understand a single issue without alternative news. It's a little late for them to be all hysterical about losing their grip – they've been annoying us and boring us to death for 5 decades; and selling us down the river. I'm amazed they have a following at all.

    Isolato November 26, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    I was horrified to hear this regurgitated on NPR last night w/o the slightest question. Proof? We don' need no steenkin' proof!

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:43 am

    If you have an NPR tote bag, demand a refund!

    TedWa November 26, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    The military industrial complex and all the elites are behind all this massive propaganda stuff and fake news. They want war and nothing is going to stand in their way – not the democrats, not the republicans, no one. HRC knew this – hence her "paranoia" about Russia. It's crazy. I hope Trump has the balls to stand up against them. Thanks NC for being here --

    Rostale November 26, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    With the Washington Post at least, there is a pretty handy avenue of response. Namely that its CEO Jeff Bezos, who clearly approves of the editorial policy, is also owner of Amazon.com If you don't approve of Mr. Bezos using his media platform to revive McCarthyism and Yellow Journalism, keep that in mind when doing your holiday shopping, and when you see that item you were thinking of buying on amazon, take a moment to see about buying it elsewhere, even if it costs a bit more to do so. If Mr. Bezos want to use the Washington Post to promote censorship of media control, make him pay for it in a drop in Amazon's stock price.

    Calvin madamombe November 26, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    "Information globalism is a free flow of information across the world irrespective of race, source geography. Its up to a competent reader being selective- choosing what sort of information they want consuming. Its the bases of choice, a basic human right."

    Don Lowell November 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Surely there is a lot of stuff going on and its good to flush it out. Wisconsin recount is a good place to start

    I think its local hacking as well as the rooskies..

    flora November 26, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    The Clinton campaign announced today they'll be joining the recount effort. Greens start a recount effort, Friday WaPo prints vile rumors, Saturday Clinton campaign announces it is joining the Wisc recount effort. This is banana republic stuff.

    winstonsmith November 26, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Here is Glenn Greenwald's take: Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group . I heartily agree with:

    One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time Magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired Magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS' Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.

    From the propornot website (deliberately not linking it) the YYY thing is really creepy.

    The YYYcampaignYYY is an effort to crowdsource identifying Russian propaganda outlets and sympathizers. To participate, when you see a social-media account, commenter, or outlet echoing Russian propaganda themes, highlight it with YYYs accordingly!

    Romancing The Loan November 26, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    Reminds me of the (((name of jewish person))) thing that popped up very briefly in the right wing fever swamp only to be instantly proudly self-added by a ton of jewish liberals.

    Elizabeth Burton November 26, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    I have come to the conclusion, based on personal observation, that anyone who includes the words "our leaders" in their narrative is not to be trusted. Granted, it's a personal thing, as I have been advocating whenever possible that we should under no circumstances apply that label to our elected officials but should instead always use their proper designation: "public servants."

    Anyone want to wager a thorough check of the MSM for the last fifty years or more would eventually uncover the first one of their ilk to refer to elected officials as "our leaders"? To then be followed by all of the others?

    Because how better to persuade the voting public that they should just fill in the bubble or push the button without asking a lot of silly questions about issues than by subtly brainwashing them with the implication the people they're voting for are better equipped to deal with the important stuff? Because "our leaders" are clearly better qualified to make the decisions than we are.

    George Phillies November 26, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    Also look for folks who refer to America as the Homeland. Heimatland sounds snazzier in the original German.

    shinola November 27, 2016 at 12:24 am

    "Homeland Security" had a creepy feel to it the 1st time I heard/read it

    Skip Intro November 27, 2016 at 2:28 am

    Good one. And referring to the president as our 'Commander in Chief' is also a pretty revolting tell.

    hunkerdown November 27, 2016 at 12:00 am

    Interesting. Google's n-gram viewer shows that "our leaders" is much more prevalent in books during and after wartime, peaking in 1942-44, with a somewhat steady rise between just before WW1 and the end of WW2 (upon which each war is superimposed), and an odd reversal upward around 1996 whose incline isn't much deflected by 9/11, and which levels off around 2005. It's almost like looking at the Third Way made flesh.

    Elizabeth November 26, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    My ex husband told me that back in the 70s when he was applying for a government job, he had to undergo an extensive FBI check. The fibbies found out he had a subscription to "Soviet Life" (a magazine about cultural, economic stuff in the USSR). As a result, his neighbors, family, past co-workers were all interviewed to see if he was a "subversive." The Russophobia has a long history.

    I agree with many commenters that Pravda's ProPorNet's listing is heading somewhere scary. The MSM got the message that they have no credibility anymore, and they're in a panic, as are the neocons/neolibs. I think after the US backed Ukrainian coup failed to nudge Russia into a war, this "Russian aggression" meme started in earnest. Now that the election is over and the "favored one" lost, it is quite telling to me that the panicked establishment isn't going to go quietly. They were planning on having WWIII, and are furious now.

    I'm too young to remember McCarthyism, but this stuff is frightening.

    sunny129 November 26, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    fyi

    [..]Also included are popular libertarian hubs such as Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute, along with the hugely influential right-wing website the Drudge Report and the publishing site WikiLeaks.

    [..]One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time Magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired Magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS' Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.[..]

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

    european November 26, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Key line from Greenwald IMO: "The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth which reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War."

    me: The only way the mainstream media can get its power back is by killing or at least crippling the internet.

    polecat November 26, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    Boycott ANYTHING Bezos related !!!

    sunny129 November 26, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    the biggest peddler of FAKE News!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-25/who%E2%80%99s-biggest-peddler-fake-news

    George Phillies November 26, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    What is happening for which this is a distraction?

    watermelonpunch November 27, 2016 at 12:04 am

    A bunch of people in the U.S. got fed up, and now it means that a lot of people who were used to only having contact with other people like themselves and hanging out at fancy parties are being told they need to start interacting with the general public or get a different job, and they're not happy about it.

    Karl Kolchack November 26, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Just last week I made my first ever reader contribution to NC–now I wish I had waited a few days so my donation could be interpreted as an "FU" to ProporNot. :)

    Optimader November 26, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    My comment waz very bad and had a time, then marched out behind the barn an waz shotz

    Sluggeaux November 26, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    This Washington Post piece is so insidious as to make my blood run cold. We've seen in "education reform" how the Gates Foundation and Walton Foundation would place un-sourced propaganda in articles by friendly reporters in the WaPost and the NYTimes and then reference the news outlets as proving their propaganda to be "fact."

    As some know, I am a professional conspiracy theorist, having served as a local-level criminal prosecutor for over 32 years. I see a grave threat to the First Amendment when an anonymous source suspected to have ties to the military-industrial complex calls for the government to investigate news sources for espionage.

    I also find it interesting that The Intercept didn't make the list, despite the presence of Glenn Greenwald. Given Pierre Omidyar's closeness to the current administration (was FirstLook created to take Greenwald and Taibbi out of circulation during the 2012 election?), is there some sort of "tell" here about where this attack on Free Speech is coming from?

    Those on this blacklist should pool resources to pursue retraction, repudiation, and an admission by the Post editorial board that Timberg's outrageously un-sourced "reporting" is libelous and was published with an at best reckless and at worst intentional disregard for the truth.

    Yves Smith Post author November 27, 2016 at 12:24 am

    They've listed only sites that they think lack the $ to sue them. That is clearly one of the criteria.

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 3:21 am

    Probably true, though also worth noting that (as has been observed frequently here), the Intercept's regular reporting on Ukraine and Syria was often little better than mainstream outlets.

    LifelongLib November 27, 2016 at 3:22 am

    David Stockman's site is on the list. Wonder if he still has any pull

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    What is even more alarming, this seems to be coordinated with Jane Harmon's recent advocacy of a FISA drone court which also targets "enemy" web sites. Is this a prelude to shutting down dissenting web sites based on their status as foreign agents of our arch enemy "Russia" which the European Parliament has equated with Daesh. There is a sense of impending revolution world wide, is this the first step to preempt such? Is martial law the next step? There seemed to be a lot of projection involved when the neo-libs accused Trump of fascism and not accepting election results. Who is now not accepting election results and who are the real fascists calling for the shutting down of news outlets?

    Kevin November 26, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    Instead of "most of all, a sense of political levity", maybe Max meant to say something like political heft, political gravitas?

    Paul Jurczak November 26, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    Yet another reason why political establishment got what it deserved this election cycle. They still think that a bit of propaganda denied them a victory and there is nothing wrong with their policies

    flora November 26, 2016 at 9:06 pm

    WaPo is now too vile to read.
    McClatchy is still a fairly good news source. And, oh, look at this: Clinton campaign will join recount effort in Wisconsin. Not surprising.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article117235428.html#storylink=latest_side

    flora November 26, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    adding: I think Stein and the Greens have been played.

    tgs November 26, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    Jill Stein has embarrassed herself with this effort. I gave money to her until she made her final vp choice – Baraka called Bernie a white supremacist! I did vote for her and now feel it really was a wasted vote. 1% in the national totals. Ok. Being a useful idiot for the Clintons – no way.

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    Ah yes, one more chance to steal the election. Syria must fall and be partitioned. Russia must be driven from the Ukraine, the internet must be cleansed of dissent. Patent and Copyright monopolies must be imposed on the world. This election took TPTB by surprise, they are surprised no longer. Trump does not want to be President, he's scared to death. The consensus is that the results will not change. Don't be so sure. There may yet be a coronation and then the shit will hit the proverbial fan. Apparently it was not enough for TPTB to control both parties, they also control the minor parties. Et tu Jill Stein!

    flora November 27, 2016 at 1:31 am

    recounts + planted stories on Russkie interference + pressure on electors to change their votes. that looks like the plan. in my foil bonnet opinion.

    Kim Kaufman November 26, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    Here's James Corbett's response to being on the list: What I Learned From the "PropOrNot" Propaganda List https://www.corbettreport.com

    integer November 26, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    Did you see this comment? It certainly seems plausible to me that cybersponse are involved. https://cybersponse.com/solutions/government

    integer November 26, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    FWIW I also checked that the registration address was correct. https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=propornot.com

    Contact details: General Inquiries | Support – 480.646.3006 | [email protected]

    Reify99 November 26, 2016 at 10:37 pm

    Hillary and her handlers had the choice to lose to Bernie or to Trump. They chose Trump.
    (OK, maybe not consciously.)

    Now, they are are NOT happy with the result but please notice that Bernie is looking better, has more news coverage, even appearing on The View, for crying out loud! Yes veal pen, "outreach", whatever. Doesn't matter what they Think They are crafting.

    If they keep up the Rooskie angle they will be amazed how good Bernie starts to look.
    A little FB censorship. Ditto! Shut down some international protests. (In North Dakota) Bingo!
    Drive people into the street! Whoooee!

    They, DNC, Bezos et al, will pine for him before this is all over. Because he is the symbol for what could have happened if they had followed the law and had gone peacefully.

    They can't see it yet.

    BTW, RT has a 30 minute segment with Chris Hedges at Standing Rock circulating now.
    Seems legit to me. Decide for yourself.

    RBHoughton November 26, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    Yves stand up and take a bow. You have been noticed by the filth. One of the many reassuring signs to come from the corridors of power lately. Is it possible change really is coming?

    RBHoughton November 27, 2016 at 12:11 am

    I have just learned of a group in the European Parliament led by a Polish MEP and member of the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformers in Europe that is likewise attempting to create a fear of "fake news" from those sites that don't follow the MSM Editors' example of restraint in publication.

    It has this week received a huge injection of public money to extend its work. It seems that North America and Europe are in lockstep on the need to keep the people ignorant.

    John Day November 26, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    I have emailed whoever is at Propornot and politely requested to be added to their list. Johnday's Blog http://www.johndayblog.com/ , though modest and unnoticed, links mostly to sites on their list. http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html

    If this site is seriously trying to help snowflakes create information-safe-places, then it needs to protect them from my blog, too. Fair is fair. I deserve recognition.

    I also think Ilargi @ The Automatic Earth is being snubbed through their non-inclusion of that site. Everybody should email them and demand that all worthy blogs get included in their precious list.

    Roquentin November 26, 2016 at 11:58 pm

    When's this shit going to end? Every time I think these big media outlets have hit rock bottom, they find a way to sink even lower.

    makedoanmend November 27, 2016 at 1:22 am

    "When's this shit going to end?"

    When the rot is complete and the edifice tumbles? Or when TINA wins, and the voices go silent? My bet is on the later. Collectively, the money got all 4 aces (and a few more hidden up their sleaves and a few more hidden in their boots, etc – no end of aces.)

    Then the silence reigns and TINA is happy. Despair is walled offed into its own echo chamber and silence is taken for acquiescence and indifference.

    Until it doesn't.

    Human history just keeps playing the same music. Mind you, big nature might be adding a new wrinkle to march-of-death tune. Interesting times, very interesting.

    Dugh November 27, 2016 at 3:58 am

    Charles Hugh-Smith's response to the "list": "The Washington Post: Useful-Idiot Shills for a Failed, Frantic Status Quo That Has Lost Control of the Narrative"

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blognov16/useful-idiots11-16.html?fullweb=1

    [Nov 27, 2016] Trumps Economic Plan This Isnt Going to Work

    Notable quotes:
    "... Steve Bannon, who is Trump's chief strategist and advisor, knows that he won't be able to build a strong, divers coalition to support his political revolution without boosting growth and improving conditions for working people. That's why fixing the economy is Job 1. ..."
    "... Trump also wants to reduce the top tax rate from 39.6% to 33%, while making modest reductions to the other brackets. Under the Trump plan, "a taxpayer who makes between $48,000 to $83,000 a year would save about $1,000 (while) people in the top 0.01%, making $3.7 million or more in a year, would receive $1 million in annual tax savings." (USA Today) ..."
    "... The idea that a Congressman can devote all his energy to lifting the ban on "abusive mortgages" - just eight years after abusive, predatory, toxic mortgages blew up the global financial system costing roughly $50 trillion and years of agonizing retrenchment– seems almost treasonous, doesn't it? And yet, at the very least, Hensarling is likely to become one of Trump's chief advisors on financial regulations. Go figure? ..."
    Nov 27, 2016 | www.unz.com
    Steve Bannon, who is Trump's chief strategist and advisor, knows that he won't be able to build a strong, divers coalition to support his political revolution without boosting growth and improving conditions for working people. That's why fixing the economy is Job 1.

    Here's a quote from Bannon:

    "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over. If we deliver "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed. They were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about."

    "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ( Ringside with Steve Bannon , Hollywood Reporter)

    I don't pretend to know anything more about Steve Bannon than I've read in the newspapers and on the Internet. What I do know, however, is that if he is sincere in his desire to defeat the corrupt political establishment and build a coalition that "will govern for 50 years", he's going to have to find a way to climb down on his hardline immigration policies in order to implement his economic strategy. That said, I expect Trump will settle on some way to minimize the damage he has done to himself and call on congress to get more involved in the hot-button immigration issue. In other words, he's going to have to punt if he wants to govern.

    ORDER IT NOW

    Bannon is the main architect of Trump's economic plan, a plan that has already earned broad public support, but a plan that won't succeed unless it is drastically changed. Here's why:

    Trump's economic plan can be broken into three parts: Tax cuts, deregulation and fiscal stimulus.

    As far as tax cuts, there are three main subsets:

    1–The corporate tax rate, which Trump wants to drop from 35 percent to 15 percent.

    2–A tax cut on the so-called "repatriation of funds"– which lowers the rate on roughly $2 trillion of cash that's currently stashed overseas by uber-rich US businesses that have been evading US corporate taxes for years. Trump wants to give these tax dodgers a one-time "holiday" with a 10% penalty for companies that agree to bring their cash back to the US. Trump believes that the one-time tax break will increase business investment and employment in the US. Critics say the scheme will not work unless the economy strengthens and demand grows.

    3–Trump also wants to reduce the top tax rate from 39.6% to 33%, while making modest reductions to the other brackets. Under the Trump plan, "a taxpayer who makes between $48,000 to $83,000 a year would save about $1,000 (while) people in the top 0.01%, making $3.7 million or more in a year, would receive $1 million in annual tax savings." (USA Today)

    Here's a brief summary from economist Dean Baker:

    "According to the analysis of the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, (Trump's) tax plan will reduce revenue by more than $9 trillion (close to 4 percent of GDP) over the course of the next decade. This tax cut plan would effectively add close to $800 billion to the annual deficit when it first takes effect, with the amount increasing over time

    "According to the Tax Policy Center, more than half of Trump's tax cuts will go to the richest one percent of the population. The richest 0.1 percent will get tax cuts that average almost $1.5 million annually. The Trump tax cut is consistent with the fundamental principle of the Republican Party, and unfortunately many Democrats, of putting as much money as possible in the pockets of the rich." ( Republican deficit hawks abandon their religion , Smirking Chimp)

    As you can see, most of the benefits from the proposed tax cuts go to the extremely rich. How does that fit with Trump's campaign promise:

    "I am proposing an across-the-board income-tax reduction, especially for middle-income Americans The tax relief will be concentrated on the working and middle-class taxpayer. They will receive the biggest benefit – it won't even be close."

    The tax cuts look like a serious betrayal of Trump's supporters. They also look like a misguided , short-term strategy that will derail Bannon's plan for broad coalition based on a strong economic growth and rising wages. This latest iteration of "trickle down" economics will not help him achieve that goal.

    Unfortunately, the other parts of Trump's economic plan are equally dismal. For example, Trump is determined to repeal many of the key provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, the toothless bill that Congress passed in order to prevent another financial meltdown. At present, Texas congressman, Jeb Hensarling - an outspoken critic of Dodd-Frank appears to be the frontrunner in the competition for US Treasury Secretary. Hensarling, who just last week said "Dodd-Frank was a grave mistake", is pushing his own Wall Street-friendly Financial CHOICE act, which would replace the bill with a "pro-growth, pro-consumer" alternative" that would protect the banks from 'growth-strangling regulation." ( Housingwire )

    Is that what we really need, more laws to protect the banks?? Check out this clip from Fortune Magazine:

    "Hensarling wants to put the market in charge. His view is that encouraging banks to hold lots of capital (as Dodd-Frank does) goes far enough by itself to shore up the system, making banks far safer than the law's dense web of stress tests, complex limits on trading, and banning of mortgages and credit cards deemed "abusive" by regulators. Now that Republicans control Congress and the White House, it's highly possible that the Hensarling manifesto, or a large part of it, will become law

    "I will not rest until Dodd-Frank is ripped out by its roots and tossed on the trash bin of history," (Hensarling) declared in a recent speech. The centerpiece of the CHOICE act is a provision that would exempt banks from the more restrictive Dodd-Frank regulations " ( This Congressman Could Turn the Dodd-Frank Financial Reforms Upside Down , Fortune)

    The idea that a Congressman can devote all his energy to lifting the ban on "abusive mortgages" - just eight years after abusive, predatory, toxic mortgages blew up the global financial system costing roughly $50 trillion and years of agonizing retrenchment– seems almost treasonous, doesn't it? And yet, at the very least, Hensarling is likely to become one of Trump's chief advisors on financial regulations. Go figure?

    What, in God's name, is Trump trying to achieve? On the one hand, he blames the Fed for inflating another gigantic asset bubble and, on the other, he tries to remove the regulatory obstacles to bubble-making. What sense does that make?

    Here's a little more background on Trump's crusade against regulation. This is from the Wall Street Journal:

    "Donald Trump has tapped a longtime critic of heavy regulation to flesh out his new administration's plans for remaking the financial rule book, including the potential dismantling of much of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul.

    Paul Atkins served as a Republican member of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2002 to 2008, where he spoke out against big fines for companies, arguing they punish shareholders. Now Mr. Atkins, 58 years old, is the member of the president-elect's transition team charged with recommending policies on financial regulation, according to current and former regulators briefed on the matter.

    Mr. Trump has detailed little about his views on financial regulation beyond his vow to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank law." ( Donald Trump's Point Man on Financial Regulation: A Former Regulator Who Favors a Light Touch , Wall Street Journal)

    Trump also wants to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) which recently imposed a $100 million fine on Wells Fargo for using bank employees to create more than 2 million unauthorized accounts to meet sales quotas. The action was applauded by consumer groups across the board which is why Trump will make every effort to defang the watchdog agency. The president-elect appears to be gearing up to eliminate any rule that impairs Wall Street's ability to rake in bigger profits, whether it puts the American people at risk or not.

    So how does this square with Steve Bannon's comments about coalition building and desire for a stronger economy?

    I can't figure it out, after all, Bannon sounds like a true believer, a no-nonsense, red-blooded, blue collar working guy who hates the Wall Street, the Republican establishment and the mainstream media. What's not to like about that?

    But how does Bannon's hardscrabble upbringing, his commitment to tea party uprising, and his take-no-prisoners combativeness, jibe with these flagrant tax giveaways, this anti-worker deregulation, and a fiscal policy that only benefits the uber wealthy? I don't get it??

    In an extremely persuasive interview with Buzzfeed News, Bannon disparages the new strain of "Ayn Rand" capitalism that objectifies people and turns them into commodities. He expands on this idea by giving a brief synopsis of the financial crisis that many will find galvanizing. Here's a clip:

    "The 2008 crisis, which, by the way, I don't think we've come through - is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks.
    And one of the reasons is that we've never really gone and dug down and sorted through the problems of 2008. Particularly the fact - think about it - not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis. And in fact, it gets worse. No bonuses and none of their equity was taken. So part of the prime drivers of the wealth that they took in the 15 years leading up to the crisis was not hit at all, and I think that's one of the fuels of this populist revolt that we're seeing as the tea party

    The bailouts were absolutely outrageous, and here's why: It bailed out a group of shareholders and executives who were specifically accountable.

    In fact, one of the committees in Congress said to the Justice Department 35 executives, I believe, that they should have criminal indictments against - not one of those has ever been followed up on. (and) Middle-class taxpayers, people that are working-class people, right, people making incomes under $50,000 and $60,000, it was the burden of those taxpayers, right, that bailed out the elites.

    It's all the institutions of the accounting firms, the law firms, the investment banks, the consulting firms, the elite of the elite, the educated elite, they understood what they were getting into, forcibly took all the benefits from it and then look to the government, went hat in hand to the government to be bailed out. And they've never been held accountable today. Trust me - they are going to be held accountable." ( This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World , Buzzfeed News)

    Repeat: "They are going to be held accountable."

    Bravo! He wants to lock them up. He wants the bankers to be held accountable and locked up! Who doesn't want that? Every working slob in America wants that. This is why Bannon has attracted such a loyal following; it's because his analysis of the financial crisis and its aftermath are "dead on". The American people know they were ripped off, know that Wall Street is infested with crooks and parasites, and know that the country is governed by a corrupt and unaccountable oligarchy of racketeers.

    Bannon has tapped into powerful feelings of frustration and rage, and he's built a thriving movement on top of them. But where's the beef? His economic policy just doesn't deliver the goods. Bannon is talking the talk, but he's not walking the walk.

    The tax cuts don't deliver for working people and neither does deregulation. So what about the third part of Trump's economic plan, the fiscal stimulus component?

    Bannon says he's the driving force behind the $1 trillion infrastructure development program. Unfortunately, the program is little more than a scam. Let me explain:

    Typically, when people think about fiscal stimulus, they imagine expensive Keynesian "shovel ready" infrastructure projects with lots of well-paid government workers building bridges, roads, rapid transit systems and even schools. That's not what this is. According to economist Jared Bernstein:

    "Instead of just allocating the needed resources as in the traditional approach, they propose to "offer some $137 billion in tax breaks to private investors who want to finance toll roads, toll bridges, or other projects that generate their own revenue streams."

    Since the plan depends on private investors, it can only fund projects that spin off user fees and are profitable. Rural roads, water systems, and public schools don't fall into that category. Neither does public transit, which fails on the profitable criterion (it depends on public subsidies." ( Trump's misguided flirtation with Keynesianism , Politico)

    This isn't going to work. It's completely self defeating. This is just more of the same, more handouts to big business. The whole point of fiscal stimulus is to get money in the hands of the people who will spend it fast, rev up the economy, boost growth, generate more demand and get the economy out of its eight-year-long funk. The rebuilding of infrastructure is secondary, in fact, it doesn't even matter. What matters is getting money circulating in the perennially-moribund economy. Caspice?

    Here's more on the Trump infrastructure boondoggle from an article in the Washington Post:

    "Trump's plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It's a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The Trump plan doesn't directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports, as did Hillary Clinton's 2016 infrastructure proposal. Instead, Trump's plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. There's no requirement that the tax breaks be used for expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects

    Second, as a result of the above, Trump's plan isn't really a jobs plan, either. Because the plan subsidizes investors, not projects; because it funds tax breaks, not bridges; because there's no requirement that the projects be otherwise unfunded, there is simply no guarantee that the plan will produce any net new hiring.

    Buried inside the plan will be provisions to weaken prevailing wage protections on construction projects, undermining unions and ultimately eroding workers' earnings. Environmental rules are almost certain to be gutted in the name of accelerating projects." ( Trump's big infrastructure plan? It's a trap. Washington Post)

    These so called "public-private partnerships" are just another way for big business to suck money out of the government. They don't help the economy, not really, and they don't help workers either. If Bannon is serious about building his coalition on the back of a robust economy, there's an easier way to do it. First get rid of the corporate ideologues and supply side radicals whose theories never work. Then hire a team of reputable economists who have first-hand experience implementing thorny stimulus programs of this magnitude. (Joseph Stiglitz, James Galbraith, Dean Baker, Michael Hudson, Jack Rasmus)

    Then start with the low-hanging fruit, that is, put money into already-running programs that will produce immediate results. For example, in James Galbraith's epic article "No Return to Normal" the economist recommends increasing Social Security payments. Think about that. It's a complete no-brainer. The people who live on Social Security spend every dime they get every month, which means that - if their payments go up by, let's say, $200 or more per month– then all that dough goes straight into the economy which is what fiscal stimulus is all about. Also, increase food stamp funding, lower the Medicare age of eligibility, and rehire a portion of the 500,000 federal workers who lost their jobs in the Crash of '08. These policies will put money into the economy immediately, boosting growth, increasing wages, and strengthening the prospects for whatever political party happens to be in office.

    The point is, fiscal stimulus doesn't have to be a boondoggle and it doesn't require "shovel ready" jobs. All that's needed is a competent team of economic advisors who know what the hell they're doing and the political will to get the job done. Trump's economic plan doesn't do that, all it does is slightly improve GDP while trillions of dollars are transferred to the bank accounts of behemoth corporations and Wall Street cronies.

    If Bannon is serious about fixing the economy and rebuilding the Republican party, my advice to him would be: Give Galbraith a call.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

    [Nov 26, 2016] Roger Stone - Why Bannon is Targeted

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bannon is targeted because the left knows he is dangerous. ..."
    "... Internally Bannon is the keeper of the Trump flame and must be a protector of the Trump agenda. ..."
    "... To be a great president Trump must deliver on his core promises of sealing our boarders, recharging economy, renegotiating the detrimental globalist trade deals upgrading veterans healthcare to be the finest in the world, creating a job boom in our inner cities while conducting a foreign policy that keeps us out of war while entering a new period of detente and hardheaded negotiations with Putin and the Russians that will enable us to work in coordination to crush our mutual enemy ISIS. ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | www.newswithviews.com

    Bannon is targeted because the left knows he is dangerous. Bannon has a keen understanding of alternative media and the Internet. Bannon understands the greater cultural divides and developments in the electorate which made the Trump victory possible. Bannon also knows that the Trump administration must not be co-opted by the party establishment types or the neocons who's war policies Trump disagrees with. Internally Bannon is the keeper of the Trump flame and must be a protector of the Trump agenda.

    To be a great president Trump must deliver on his core promises of sealing our boarders, recharging economy, renegotiating the detrimental globalist trade deals upgrading veterans healthcare to be the finest in the world, creating a job boom in our inner cities while conducting a foreign policy that keeps us out of war while entering a new period of detente and hardheaded negotiations with Putin and the Russians that will enable us to work in coordination to crush our mutual enemy ISIS.

    [Nov 26, 2016] Flashback Trump-Trashing Journalists Oozed Over Obamas 08 Transition

    Notable quotes:
    "... Over on CNN, contributor David Gregory (a onetime rising star at NBC) on November 18 slapped Trump's pick for National Security advisor, General Michael Flynn, for his allegedly "short-sighted, ignorant thinking." Two days later, on NBC's Sunday Today , Bloomberg's John Heilemann said Trump's Cabinet was shaping up to be a "really, really old white group of old white men." ..."
    "... Trump's election itself was cause for mourning. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman , on HBO's Real Time on November 11, equated it with the bloodiest day in U.S. history since the Battle of Antietam: "This is a moral 9/11. Only 9/11 was done to us from the outside and we did this to ourselves." ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | www.newsbusters.org
    During the campaign, the liberal news media did everything they could to prevent Donald Trump's election - including 91% negative coverage from the broadcast networks - but he won anyway. Now, journalists are trashing the way Trump is handling his transition, as well as his early Cabinet picks.

    But eight years ago, viewers heard a very different tone coming from the media, as journalists celebrated the election of Barack Obama, cheered the "brain power" of the "team of geniuses" he was assembling for his Cabinet, and tingled over how "cool" Obama seemed as he assumed the responsibilities of office.

    With Trump, the media are touting the "continuing turmoil" in his transition, as ABC's Tom Llamas claimed on the November 16 Good Morning America . "No one really knows who's in charge," correspondent Hallie Jackson echoed that evening on NBC's Nightly News . The selection of Steve Bannon on November 13 as a top White House advisor was greeted by the broadcast networks with phrases such as "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "extremist," "racist" and "anti-Semitic."

    Over on CNN, contributor David Gregory (a onetime rising star at NBC) on November 18 slapped Trump's pick for National Security advisor, General Michael Flynn, for his allegedly "short-sighted, ignorant thinking." Two days later, on NBC's Sunday Today , Bloomberg's John Heilemann said Trump's Cabinet was shaping up to be a "really, really old white group of old white men."

    Trump's election itself was cause for mourning. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman , on HBO's Real Time on November 11, equated it with the bloodiest day in U.S. history since the Battle of Antietam: "This is a moral 9/11. Only 9/11 was done to us from the outside and we did this to ourselves."

    On MSNBC the day after the election, host Lawrence O'Donnell bitterly griped: "There is the stench of the Trumpian vulgarity in the air now. Half the country is reeling under the hard to accept realization that they're going be hearing that voice every day for four years."

    But when liberal icon Barack Obama was preparing to assume power, the media took a very different approach. Here are a few examples, from the archives of the Media Research Center:

    Signing Up for Obama's Revolution

    MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "You know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that-"
    Host Joe Scarborough: "Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist."
    Matthews: "Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country....This country needs a successful presidency more than anything right now."
    - Exchange on MSNBC's Morning Joe , November 6, 2008.

    We Just Can't Wait One Minute More

    "If I had my druthers right now, we would convene a special session of Congress, amend the Constitution and move up the inauguration from Jan. 20 to Thanksgiving Day....Just get me a Supreme Court justice and a Bible, and let's swear in Barack Obama right now - by choice - with the same haste we did - by necessity - with L.B.J. in the back of Air Force One. "
    - New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, November 23, 2008.

    Obama's Cabinet: Excellence, Brain Power, a "Team of Geniuses"

    Host Keith Olbermann: "Is there going to be an overarching theme in the appointments? We discussed this last night, competency, bipartisanship, diversity, newness, where are they going?"
    Newsweek 's Howard Fineman: "Well, it's going to be all of those. But I think, if you had to pick one, it would be excellence."
    - MSNBC's Countdown , November 5, 2008.

    Co-host Robin Roberts: "Some would say it's a team of rivals, a la President Lincoln, or is a better comparison a team of geniuses as FDR did?"
    ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "Well, one Obama advisor told me what they like is a combination of team of rivals and The Best and the Brightest , which is the David Halberstam book about the incoming Kennedy administration.... We have not seen this kind of combination of star power and brain power and political muscle this early in a cabinet in our lifetimes."
    - ABC's Good Morning America , November 24, 2008.

    "It's also a meritocracy. These are superstars, not afraid of strong personalities - Larry Summers inside the White House - but people with so much brain power, and so much education, and a combination of talents here."
    - NBC's Andrea Mitchell on Obama's cabinet, December 21, 2008 Meet the Press .

    [Nov 26, 2016] Trump's media feud enters new era TheHill

    Nov 26, 2016 | thehill.com

    Of course, the media will get little sympathy from the public, with a favorable rating sitting at an all-time low in the latest Gallup survey. Only 32 percent of Americans say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the press.

    And Trump's allies believe all of their moves to beat back at what they view as a hopelessly biased liberal media are justified.

    They're fuming over what they see as a press corps that has dropped any pretense of objectivity in covering Trump, and they're sick of what they view as breathless coverage of frivolous stories...

    [Nov 25, 2016] Donald Trump tells mainstream media what he really thinks of them

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Being in front of a fucking firing squad" ..."
    "... room full of liars" ..."
    theduran.com
    President-elect Donald Trump recently had an 'off the record' meeting with members of the American press, aka mainstream media. Such events are not unusual for presidents and future presidents, but according to a variety anonymous sources, Donald Trump has not extended an olive branch to media figures who displayed their open bias against him throughout the campaign. >

    According to The Hill, Trump said that being in front of the mainstream media was like, "Being in front of a fucking firing squad". Other sources claim he repeatedly said that he was in a "room full of liars". If he indeed said either of those things, it is difficult to disagree with such an assessment. He also claimed that he "hated" CNN, feelings which seem self-evidently mutual.

    According to the generally anti-Trump Politico, the President-elect blasted NBC for using unflattering photographs of him throughout their coverage.

    Whether or not these reports are fully accurate is beside the point. Frankly, why would one trust off the record comments from people who publicly slandered Trump on the record and did so without a hint of shame.

    What is more significant is what Trump said about his use of social media during his lengthy interview on CBS's 60 Minutes. Here, Trump said that social media is an effective way to bypass big-media and speak directly to the public. He also stated that it is a quick, cheap and effective way to clarify misstatements made by the mainstream media.

    This is unequivocally true and it is heartening. To think that a small smartphone has the ability to reach as many and at times even more people than the mainstream media with their millions of dollars worth of cameras, microphones, lights, sets, drivers, vehicles, offices and staff, is a sign that the world is no longer beholden to the arrogant gatekeepers of news, perhaps better referred to as "fake news".

    Donald Trump was indeed given a very unfair time by the media and he has no reason to forget nor forgive. He also has no reason to placate them, and frankly due to the power of new-media, online media and his own highly effective use of social media, he doesn't need them.

    They are relics of the past and he is a symbol of the future.

    Steven Barry

    The alt-media is the samizdat (google it) of the internet age. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting it back.

    Simon

    Excellent. Yet even 'IF' the reports of this meeting are exaggerated, there is a fact that is undeniable; The new President is holding Court in his own palace, on top of his own castle, in New York.

    All the supplicants are coming to him. Even the Japanese Prime minister. He sits there in the economic capital of the USA rather than being in Washington - where presumably something like the HQ of the Republican Party would be the more normal venue for a president-elect.

    Far away in the DC Swamp (which voted 94% Hillary) the politicians, the hacks, the lobbyists the 'professionals' are in panic - there's no way to meet him, no way to do lunch at 30mins notice. All they have is the tragic ghost of BHO wandering around the White House, but the glitz the zeitgeist the locus is now at Trump Tower. Every day we see its lobby and the golden lift in the news.

    Many believe nothing will change, but so far there are plenty signs that it has.

    tom > Simon

    Let's hope the Trump Tower doesn't get 9/11'd.

    le-DeplorableFroggy > tom

    As long as the Mossad terrorists are kept OUT of the US from now on, and every zionist stooge is either locked up or thrown OUT of this country, NO more israHell/Mossad false flags in the US.

    ● How Ehud Barak Pulled Off 9-11 - (bollyn dot com/how-ehud-barak-pulled-off-9-11-2)
    ● MADE IN ISRAEL - 9-11 and the Jewish Plot Against America PDF - (shop.americanfreepress dot net/store/c/25-Israel.html)
    ● 9-11 EVIL - Israel's Central Role in the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks - (shop.americanfreepress dot net/store/c/25-Israel.html)
    ● Get the Hell Out of Our Country! Parts 1 to 5 - (veteranstoday dot com/2015/02/05/get-the-hell-out-of-our-country/)
    ● Israel a cornered rat - "In 10 years there will be no more Israel" - Henry 'Balloonie' Kizzinger - (darkmoon dot me/2014/israel-a-cornered-rat/)
    ● Netanyahu tells ministers not to talk to Trump's people - (theuglytruth.wordpress dot com/2016/11/21/netanyahu-tells-ministers-not-to-talk-to-trumps-people/#more-162166)

    7.62x54r • 3 days ago

    US media ( and other NATO media ) are propagandists. The US Big 6 should have their licenses yanked for putting forth a flawed and wholly dishonest product. Screw them.

    [Nov 24, 2016] Donald Trumps New York Times Interview Full Transcript - The New York Times

    Nov 24, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    FRIEDMAN: What do you see as America's role in the world? Do you believe that the role

    TRUMP: That's such a big question.

    FRIEDMAN: The role that we played for 50 years as kind of the global balancer, paying more for things because they were in our ultimate interest, one hears from you, I sense, is really shrinking that role.

    TRUMP: I don't think we should be a nation builder. I think we've tried that. I happen to think that going into Iraq was perhaps I mean you could say maybe we could have settled the civil war, O.K.? I think going into Iraq was one of the great mistakes in the history of our country. I think getting out of it - I think we got out of it wrong, then lots of bad things happened, including the formation of ISIS. We could have gotten out of it differently.

    FRIEDMAN: NATO, Russia?

    TRUMP: I think going in was a terrible, terrible mistake. Syria, we have to solve that problem because we are going to just keep fighting, fighting forever. I have a different view on Syria than everybody else. Well, not everybody else, but then a lot of people. I had to listen to [Senator] Lindsey Graham, who, give me a break. I had to listen to Lindsey Graham talk about, you know, attacking Syria and attacking, you know, and it's like you're now attacking Russia, you're attacking Iran, you're attacking. And what are we getting? We're getting - and what are we getting? And I have some very definitive, I have some very strong ideas on Syria. I think what's happened is a horrible, horrible thing. To look at the deaths, and I'm not just talking deaths on our side, which are horrible, but the deaths - I mean you look at these cities, Arthur, where they're totally, they're rubble, massive areas, and they say two people were injured. No, thousands of people have died. O.K. And I think it's a shame. And ideally we can get - do something with Syria. I spoke to Putin, as you know, he called me, essentially

    UNKNOWN: How do you see that relationship?

    TRUMP: Essentially everybody called me, all of the major leaders, and most of them I've spoken to.

    FRIEDMAN: Will you have a reset with Russia?

    TRUMP: I wouldn't use that term after what happened, you know, previously. I think - I would love to be able to get along with Russia and I think they'd like to be able to get along with us. It's in our mutual interest. And I don't go in with any preconceived notion, but I will tell you, I would say - when they used to say, during the campaign, Donald Trump loves Putin, Putin loves Donald Trump, I said, huh, wouldn't it be nice, I'd say this in front of thousands of people, wouldn't it be nice to actually report what they said, wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along with Russia, wouldn't it be nice if we went after ISIS together, which is, by the way, aside from being dangerous, it's very expensive, and ISIS shouldn't have been even allowed to form, and the people will stand up and give me a massive hand. You know they thought it was bad that I was getting along with Putin or that I believe strongly if we can get along with Russia that's a positive thing. It is a great thing that we can get along with not only Russia but that we get along with other countries.

    JOSEPH KAHN, managing editor: On Syria, would you mind, you said you have a very strong idea about what to do with the Syria conflict, can you describe that for us?

    TRUMP: I can only say this: We have to end that craziness that's going on in Syria. One of the things that was told to me - can I say this off the record, or is everything on the record?

    [Nov 24, 2016] Flynn and Ledeens Imaginary Alliance The American Conservative

    Nov 24, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    isn't impressed with Trump's national security appointments so far. Here he comments on Flynn's views:

    Iran is another subject on which Flynn displays far more simplistically expressed emotion than any careful attention to facts and the pros and cons of U.S. policy options. His attitude is demonstrated in Congressional testimony in June 2015, which can be fairly summarized as saying that Iran is bad in every respect and we should have no dealings with it on anything. (Jim Lobe has collated some of the lowlights from this statement). Flynn stated that "regime change in Tehran is the best way to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program"-with no further elaboration on how this would be brought about, leaving us to suppose that it is the Iraq 2003 model. He has given no indication since then of dropping his blanket opposition to the negotiated agreement that limits Iran's nuclear program and has successfully been in operation for more than a year, nor does he show any awareness of the U.S. intelligence community's public judgment that Iran had stopped any nuclear weapons program several years before he was testifying.

    Among other things, Flynn claims to know that "Iran has every intention of building a nuclear weapon" despite the fact that their government abandoned any attempt to do so over a decade ago. He claims that Iran's government has stated this intention "many times," but the truth is that their government has consistently denied ever seeking to build such a weapon. Many of the things that Flynn asserts in his testimony are demonstrably untrue, but they are part of a pattern of consistently exaggerating the threat from Iran and ignoring evidence that contradicts his alarmist assessments. Later in his testimony, he says this about Iran's relations with certain other states:

    Just look at the cooperation with North Korea, China and Russia. Connect those dots, and you get the outline of a global alliance aimed at the U.S., our friends, and our allies.

    This is not a case of "connecting dots" at all. It is an invention of an "alliance" where none exists on the basis of some very weak evidence. There is some limited cooperation between these states, but they are not allies nor do they regularly work together as if they were. We see in Flynn's testimony a nod towards the imaginary global "alliance" that Flynn and Ledeen concoct in their book (here is a video of the co-authors talking about the book from earlier this year), so this is a view that he already held over a year ago. That brings me back to the conclusion I reached over the summer when I first started writing about Flynn:

    The fact that he believes (or claims to believe) things as obviously false global "alliance" of villains should make it clear that he is happy to indulge and recycle extremely dangerous and foolish ideological talking points. That's not someone any of us should want working in or advising a future administration.

    Unfortunately, he will be advising the next president in a very influential position, and we should have no illusions about the quality of advice Flynn will be giving him.

    [Nov 24, 2016] Can Trump Really Make U.S. Coal Great Again

    Notable quotes:
    "... i expected trump to be a standard republican, but with two important possible benefits, scuttling the trade treaties and recognizing the huge blunder the republicans committed in iraq (yes i know the democrats helped them immensely), and thus somewhat less likely to get us into a war with russia. ..."
    "... Going back to the employment levels of the 70's was NOT on the ballot two weeks ago. What was on the ballot was a candidate who promised a hard or even crash landing for US coal and another who implied a much softer and stretched out landing. ..."
    "... Does the research measure and compare the cost of polluting, to put "very expensive" in context? Mostly seems that the neoliberal "logic" of "free" markets never consider the costs of externalities, whether they be social or environmental. ..."
    "... Many here are assuming that the current fracked natural gas volumes will continue indefinitely. This is a wrong hypothesis. ..."
    "... Coal might be needed because locally produced natural gas can became expensive pretty soon and burning it for generating electricity would be unwise. It is an more important as input for chemical industry then for power generation. In power generation it is essential only for rapid balancing wind and solar energy production. ..."
    "... The current costs of natural gas, which makes it suitable for power generation, are "unnatural" and can't be sustained for another ten years. So anybody who plans beyond that should think about alternatives. Coal is one of them. ..."
    Nov 24, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    rd November 24, 2016 at 8:50 am

    It's not greenhouse gas and climate change that killed coal. It was sulfur and soot. For some odd reason, people didn't like having acid rain and smog. So regulations were passed to manage that. Natural gas stepped in as an inexpensive clean replacement.

    Coal was already on the way out before carbon emissions came to the fore.

    Recent coal ash spills into rivers are also adding new cost layers to coal. People downstream of power plants want to have actual water in their streams and rivers. Power companies are spending billions of dollars now managing coal ash. That item wasn't on their ledger 5 years ago.

    Jeff Jenkins November 24, 2016 at 11:43 am

    coal is still king in the third world. it amazes me how provincial we still are not to know such things, but then we don't have any vacation, so go figure.

    Phil November 24, 2016 at 2:19 am

    A really good con builds trust, first. A genius con can have his "mark" eating out of his hand, even if the mark is wary, at first. Then, the con reels in his "mark", little-by-little. A promise here; a promise there; just delivering on the initial promise hooks the mark a little deeper.

    The con's appeal is always to the mark's most vulnerable weaknesses and desires. A genius con can spot vulnerabilities in a potential mark within minutes. It's uncanny.

    Once the con has begun, the mark is presented with statements of reassurance by the con, with the mark eventually engaging in more and more confirmation bias, as, over time, the mark begins to realize that things are not "quite right". The con keeps the mark busy by throwing up all kinds of smoke screens about how the mark "shouldn't worry". Eventually, before the mark comes to full awareness of have been completely screwed over, the con is long gone, having profited from his game, and moved on to his next thing.

    pretzelattack November 24, 2016 at 2:34 am

    well most grifters imo aren't like clinton; they don't have a nasty ideological streak which gives their scamming a more sinister purpose than merely staid old self enrichment (they're fine with that, too). i think some of them can be loyal, too, to people they know, and they have to try to be realistic. so the question would be who trump is conning, and how much regard he has for his kids interests, which is mixed in with his own self regard if only because they represent his only shot at immortality.

    i expected trump to be a standard republican, but with two important possible benefits, scuttling the trade treaties and recognizing the huge blunder the republicans committed in iraq (yes i know the democrats helped them immensely), and thus somewhat less likely to get us into a war with russia.

    i didn't expect him to move so quickly to help us emit more co2. given the increasing pace of climate change, that represents almost the level of threat of risking a war with russia. interesting times.

    Chris November 24, 2016 at 7:26 am

    I've often wondered why the Pentagon doesn't more aggressively 'lobby' both the Executive and Legislative branches on such issues as climate change and income inequality. Both issues factor heavily into defense planning scenarios and war gaming efforts. If the Pentagon were to openly acknowledge that climate change and income inequality directly impede their ability to fulfill their role in the national security strategy and defend the country, I'd have to believe the public would rally around them on these issues, the President and Congress as well.

    PlutoniumKun November 24, 2016 at 5:34 am

    Its always hard to tell with those individuals. Plenty of them are 'true believers', but its become impossible to get anywhere in Republican politics without buying into the 'climate change is a hoax' meme – even McCain was forced to recant. So I would guess that some of them know full well its a threat and would be pragmatic when it comes to decision making. I think also international pressure could be significant, even isolationists don't want to become pariahs.

    PlutoniumKun November 24, 2016 at 4:11 am

    My guess is that his instinct will be to pull a fast one on the coal industry if its in his interest. The energy industry is not a monolith – as an obvious example, the gas frackers would love to kill coal stone dead, by shutting down coal thermal capacity they guarantee themselves a bigger future market as gas displaces coal as base load. And the blob will be whispering in his ear that oil and gas is more important than coal in maintaining energy independence. So I suspect he will deliver his promises on oil and gas, but not coal.

    The Trumpening November 24, 2016 at 5:36 am

    I think saying that since Trump will be unable to bring US coal back to its heydays in the 70's that he somehow broke a campaign promise is unjust. All he said he would do is "save" the coal industry. Going back to the employment levels of the 70's was NOT on the ballot two weeks ago. What was on the ballot was a candidate who promised a hard or even crash landing for US coal and another who implied a much softer and stretched out landing.

    And whatever environmental damage that may be created by extending the life of the US coal industry will be more than offset for by the decrease in environmental damage due to the decrease in immigration Trump will bring about.

    Overpopulation used to be discussed in environmental circles but since the related concept of overimmigration became an item this whole discussion has been shut down. The more Trump's enforces immigration restrictionist policies, the lower the US population will be in 2100. Current immigration trends end up with a US population of 520 million or so. Very strict immigration restrictions could result in steady state or no-growth population policy which could mean only around 340 million in 2100.

    rd November 24, 2016 at 8:42 am

    The non-polluting part is key We are still cleaning up manufactured gas plants from the 1800s. The converted coal into coal gas and coal tar to provide lighting and heat.

    EndOfTheWorld November 24, 2016 at 9:15 am

    Well, H fuel cell cars are already on the scene, so it's a question of whether people like them or not. You can purchase a Toyota Mirai with three years' complimentary fuel for a mere $57,500. (CA rebate–$5,000)

    Alejandro November 24, 2016 at 11:12 am

    "very expensive process (if it is done in a non-polluting way)"

    Does the research measure and compare the cost of polluting, to put "very expensive" in context? Mostly seems that the neoliberal "logic" of "free" markets never consider the costs of externalities, whether they be social or environmental.

    Vernon Hamilton November 24, 2016 at 7:52 am

    I have worked in power industry O&M for 35 years. The prospect of a coal renaissance is as welcome as a zombie invasion, and about as likely. Burning gas is leaps and bounds better in every imaginable way, and there wont be any going back.

    Burning coal is miserable brutal work. wearing full body PPE while shoveling all day in the summer is certainly an honest respectable living, Bill Ramey and the rest of the coal lobbyists are welcome to come on down and pitch in if they think its so wonderful.

    Telling ex-coal miners "we are sending you back in to the mines (because there is no other work for you), and you will like it" (and they cheer) is the most appalling con worked in modern times.

    TG November 24, 2016 at 9:50 am

    ....Nothing trumps (sorry) population growth. It is the engine. Per-capita energy consumption in the US is well below the 1970 peak – total is only going up because of population growth. As far as the rest of the world: India makes noises about green tech, but these are fantasies: the real plan is to burn so much coal that even if the US eliminated all carbon emissions it would not matter.

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542091/indias-energy-crisis/

    Unless we address population growth as a factor which cannot be ignored – which is largely the result of pro-natalist government policies and official silence – anything else is irrelevant.

    Mark Frederi November 24, 2016 at 10:21 am

    In a word, no. Coal and oil fired electric plants are converting to natural gas at a rapid pace. As the conversions continue and old coal fired plants are retired the outlook for coal grows more dire. Even if the GOP Congress manged to provide some tax incentives or significantly eases regulations, coal mining is not the manpower intensive enterprise it once was so employment will not reach pre "slump" levels. Even so, it cost 66$ to generate 1MWh using natural gas, $92 for coal. The economies of scale, ease and lower cost of transport and less wear and tear on the physical plant and of course lower harmful emmisions of all types means natural gas is the fuel of choice for the foreseeable future.

    JimTan November 24, 2016 at 11:11 am

    Coal's economic issues also stem from technological innovations that favor natural gas over coal for to generate electricity. New Combined Cycle Natural Gas power plants generate more electricity per unit of fuel than Coal Steam power plants. According to the U.S. Department of Energy "Coal steam power plants require more energy input per megawatthour of generation than natural gas-fired combined-cycle plants the low cost of coal relative to natural gas until recent years favored the use of coal-fired generating":

    http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25652

    I think this means that current technology allows us to convert more energy to electricity from Natural Gas than Coal. This favors Natural Gas as a power source unless Coal is significantly cheaper.

    Rosario November 24, 2016 at 11:12 am

    No, costs are getting too high for extraction even without regs and there are limits to how much even Trump can do. The amount of labor engaged in the industry is less and less each year, the antagonism toward the industry is growing in tandem. Wrecked roads, property, watersheds, it is too visible and too messy, fracking is a bit cleaner, at least on the surface, pun intended.

    Maybe the coal industry can swing it for a few more decades in Wyoming but not in Eastern KY and to a certain extent in W. Virginia (W. Virginia is fine for a while, they still have a less compromised "coal culture" and a lot of coke quality coal with a much higher wholesale rate). Also, you can't deregulate natural gas and "save" coal at the same time. Natural gas will drop in cost displacing what little room is left for coal. Remember that many coal plants are being retired for wear and tear reasons, not just regulations. Lower natural gas will accelerate a move to combined cycle facilities in a climate of low natural gas prices.

    Once the domestic market is saturated with natural gas, producers will (try to) export the natural gas, then the price will go up, then utilities will be in a pickle. Even if that doesn't happen, as is always the case with fracked wells, the depletion rate is logarithmic. What to do then, build more coal plants and swing back into a dying realm of power production? I doubt it. Irony is, Trump may very well be the push needed to force utilities in the middle US to consider renewables as viable to their portfolio. My hope is a less shitty candidate in 2020 can take advantage of the stressful utility market to push a federal level energy initiative. Dreams, dreams.

    Art Eclectic November 24, 2016 at 11:46 am

    Even if federal regulations are removed, there are still state regulations and the fastest growing demand for energy is coming from states that are ideologically blue and committed to expanding renewable energy use and fighting pollution. Chances of getting any new coal fired plants in the states with the greatest demand and greatest capability to build new plants is unlikely.

    Plus, there are the economics of natural gas as mentioned numerous times above. Trump promising to "bring coal back" is like promising to bring horse and carriages back. Technology, demand, and costs have moved on.

    likbez November 24, 2016 at 12:33 pm
    Many here are assuming that the current fracked natural gas volumes will continue indefinitely. This is a wrong hypothesis.

    Coal might be needed because locally produced natural gas can became expensive pretty soon and burning it for generating electricity would be unwise. It is an more important as input for chemical industry then for power generation. In power generation it is essential only for rapid balancing wind and solar energy production.

    The current costs of natural gas, which makes it suitable for power generation, are "unnatural" and can't be sustained for another ten years. So anybody who plans beyond that should think about alternatives. Coal is one of them.

    [Nov 24, 2016] Trump destroys media stars face to face in his golden tower by Jon Rappoport

    Notable quotes:
    "... (To read about Jon's mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix , click here .) ..."
    "... 'We're in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong.' He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars," the source said. ..."
    "... Understand that these grifters-because that's what they are-believe they own the news and the truth, even as they're making it up by the ton. They and their masters-six companies that control 90% of big media-dispense fake reality to the populace 24/7. And now ..."
    "... They've got money, they've got arrogance, and they've got the airwaves, and it's not enough. ..."
    "... Their little trick-"how dare you insult us"-won't work. In fact, it'll make things worse for them. Not long ago, one survey placed the public's trust in media at 6%, which is about on the same level as the trust in public bathrooms in scuzzy bars by the railroad tracks next to mining camps in the 19th century. ..."
    jonrappoport.wordpress.com

    (To read about Jon's mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix , click here .)

    It was instant legend.

    Trump met yesterday with the rancid cream of media in his golden tower. They were there thinking it was all about creating a structure for access to the next president. Little did they know.

    Charlie Rose was there. Wolf Blitzer. Jeff Zucker, head of CNN. Martha "I weep for Hillary" Raddatz. Gayle King. Lester "the weasel-king of interrupters" Holt. Chuck Todd. George "property of the Clintons" Stephanopoulos.

    Fake, fake, fake, fake, fake. The whole gang. The NY Post has the story : "It was like a f–ing firing squad," one source said of the encounter. "Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said 'I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,' " the source said.

    "The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down," the source added. "Trump kept saying, 'We're in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong.' He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars," the source said.

    " he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who [also] hosted a [presidential] debate – which was Martha Raddatz who was also in the room." So You can hate Trump, but if you can't find joy in this story, you're in need of a blood transfusion.

    Way back at the beginning of the presidential campaign, I said that if Trump does nothing but run against the media he'll be doing the country a great service, because they're all snakes and cover-up artists and liars and they've been hypnotizing the population for as long as they've been around. Trump went on to exceed my expectations in that regard.

    If you can't stand Trump, you can fantasize about some other theoretical president who might have carried off his attacks on fake news as well, and with the same effect, but this is the man who did it. And yesterday was a landmark event in history.

    Understand that these grifters-because that's what they are-believe they own the news and the truth, even as they're making it up by the ton. They and their masters-six companies that control 90% of big media-dispense fake reality to the populace 24/7. And now

    They're lost inside their own bubble. They've never felt this kind of fury from a president. They don't know what to do.

    They've got money, they've got arrogance, and they've got the airwaves, and it's not enough. Of course they're outraged, and of course they'll continue doing whatever they can to undermine Trump, but they know he couldn't care less that they're deeply, deeply offended. Their little trick-"how dare you insult us"-won't work. In fact, it'll make things worse for them. Not long ago, one survey placed the public's trust in media at 6%, which is about on the same level as the trust in public bathrooms in scuzzy bars by the railroad tracks next to mining camps in the 19th century.

    These media honkers can stand in front of their mirrors and keep combing their hair and they can bring in new make-up people, and adjust the studio lighting and build new desks, and they can laugh and smile at cocktail parties and pretend they're still in the ascendance, but they're rapidly turning into laughingstocks, and the derision keeps building. If you feel sorry for them, your sympathy is grossly misplaced.

    The final straw here is Steve Bannon, Trump's new chief strategist and special counselor. The editor of Breitbart, Bannon recently stated in an interview : "The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what's wrong with this country. It's just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f-ing idea what's going on. If The New York Times didn't exist, CNN and MSNBC would be a test pattern. The Huffington Post and everything else is predicated on The New York Times. It's a closed circle of information from which Hillary Clinton got all her information - and her confidence. That was our opening."

    Trump is carrying out a sustained war against big media. He hasn't stopped. There is no sign he will stop. He knows, and Bannon knows, that the public is fed up with mainstream media.

    The unchallenged authority of The News has been cracked like an egg.

    Yesterday, Trump doubled and tripled down.

    Wake up and smell the singed hair and the sagging plastic surgery. The media stars are fading in their fake sky.

    Jon Rappoport

    The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED , EXIT FROM THE MATRIX , and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX , Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine .

    [Nov 24, 2016] Trump adviser tells House Republicans Youre no longer Reagans party TheHill

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moore surprised some of the Republican lawmakers assembled at their closed-door whip meeting last Tuesday when he told them they should no longer think of themselves as belonging to the conservative party of Ronald Reagan. ..."
    "... They now belong to Trump's populist working-class party, he said. A source briefed on the House GOP whip meeting - which Moore attended as a guest of Majority Whip Steve Scalise - said several lawmakers told him they were taken aback by the economist's comments. ..."
    "... "Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, Trump has converted the GOP into a populist working-class party," ..."
    "... Moore has spent much of his career advocating for huge tax and spending cuts and free trade. He's been as close to a purist ideological conservative as they come, but he says the experience of traveling around Rust Belt states to support Trump has altered his politics. ..."
    "... "It turned me more into a populist," he said, expressing frustration with the way some in the Beltway media dismissed the economic concerns of voters in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. ..."
    "... "Having spent the last three or four months on the campaign trail, it opens your eyes to the everyday anxieties and financial stress people are facing," Moore added. "I'm pro-immigration and pro-trade, but we better make sure as we pursue these policies we're not creating economic undertow in these areas." ..."
    "... Moore now believes Republican House members should be less ideologically pure and instead help Trump give the voters what he promised them. ..."
    "... "He wants to spend all this money on infrastructure," Moore said, referring to Trump's potentially trillion-dollar infrastructure package. ..."
    "... It's a massive spending bill that naturally appeals far more to Democrats than Republicans. Moore, who has worked for the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, is not a fan of the stimulus package, but he is prepared to support it. ..."
    "... "But the political reality," he added, "is there's a backlash against trade. Whether we like it or not we better adapt the rules in ways that benefit American workers more, or free trade is not going to flourish. ..."
    "... But Moore knows the days of Reaganite conservatism are probably over. "Reagan ran as an ideological conservative. Trump ran as an economic populist," he said. "Trump's victory," Moore added, "turned it into the Trump party." ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | thehill.com

    's economic adviser Stephen Moore told a group of top Republicans last week that they now belong to a fundamentally different political party.

    Moore surprised some of the Republican lawmakers assembled at their closed-door whip meeting last Tuesday when he told them they should no longer think of themselves as belonging to the conservative party of Ronald Reagan.

    They now belong to Trump's populist working-class party, he said. A source briefed on the House GOP whip meeting - which Moore attended as a guest of Majority Whip Steve Scalise - said several lawmakers told him they were taken aback by the economist's comments.

    "For God's sake, it's Stephen Moore!" the source said, explaining some of the lawmakers' reactions to Moore's statement. "He's the guy who started Club for Growth. He's Mr. Supply Side economics."

    "I think it's going to take them a little time to process what does this all mean," the source added of the lawmakers. "The vast majority of them were on the wrong side. They didn't think this was going to happen."

    Asked about his comments to the GOP lawmakers, Moore told The Hill he was giving them a dose of reality. "Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, Trump has converted the GOP into a populist working-class party," Moore said in an interview Wednesday. "In some ways this will be good for conservatives and in other ways possibly frustrating."

    Moore has spent much of his career advocating for huge tax and spending cuts and free trade. He's been as close to a purist ideological conservative as they come, but he says the experience of traveling around Rust Belt states to support Trump has altered his politics.

    "It turned me more into a populist," he said, expressing frustration with the way some in the Beltway media dismissed the economic concerns of voters in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

    "Having spent the last three or four months on the campaign trail, it opens your eyes to the everyday anxieties and financial stress people are facing," Moore added. "I'm pro-immigration and pro-trade, but we better make sure as we pursue these policies we're not creating economic undertow in these areas."

    After such a transformative experience - and after witnessing Trump's stunning victory - Moore now believes Republican House members should be less ideologically pure and instead help Trump give the voters what he promised them.

    "He wants to spend all this money on infrastructure," Moore said, referring to Trump's potentially trillion-dollar infrastructure package.

    It's a massive spending bill that naturally appeals far more to Democrats than Republicans. Moore, who has worked for the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, is not a fan of the stimulus package, but he is prepared to support it.

    "I don't want to spend all that money on infrastructure," Moore said. "I think it's mostly a waste of money. But if the voters want it, they should get it."

    "If Trump says build a wall then he should build a wall. If Trump says renegotiate TPP [the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal], he should renegotiate TPP." "Elections have consequences," Moore added, "and I do think Donald Trump has a mandate." Moore says his "view on trade has adjusted a bit" over the course of the 2016 campaign. "I used to be unilateral free trader," he said. "If somebody wants to sell something to us at less cost than we can produce here, then do it."

    "But the political reality," he added, "is there's a backlash against trade. Whether we like it or not we better adapt the rules in ways that benefit American workers more, or free trade is not going to flourish. "We can scream and whine all we want but that's reality."

    Moore is excited about large parts of Trump's agenda. He helped write Trump's tax plan and thinks the cuts will accelerate economic growth and create new jobs. He's also had a hand in Trump's energy plan and looks forward to slashing regulations hindering American energy production.

    But Moore knows the days of Reaganite conservatism are probably over. "Reagan ran as an ideological conservative. Trump ran as an economic populist," he said. "Trump's victory," Moore added, "turned it into the Trump party."

    [Nov 24, 2016] Jill Stein, who said on the campaign trail that Clinton is more dangerous than Trump, is filing for a recount with the specific aim of overturning the result and making Clinton president

    Notable quotes:
    "... That being the case I'm sorry I voted for Stein and question her honesty and the Green Party itself. Since the allegations of hacked voting machines sound shaky at best, one starts to wonder whether the allegations that Stein was in fact a vaxxer are true. But more to the point one wonders whether she has HRC on the speed dial. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Carolinian November 24, 2 | 016 at 6:11 pm

    So Jill Stein, who said on the campaign trail that Clinton is more dangerous than Trump, is filing for a recount with the specific aim of overturning the result and making Clinton president–at least according to your link.

    That being the case I'm sorry I voted for Stein and question her honesty and the Green Party itself. Since the allegations of hacked voting machines sound shaky at best, one starts to wonder whether the allegations that Stein was in fact a vaxxer are true. But more to the point one wonders whether she has HRC on the speed dial.

    [Nov 24, 2016] Trumps National Security Adviser Facilitated the Murder of Civilians in Afghanistan

    Nov 24, 2016 | www.truth-out.org
    But as an investigation published by Truthout in 2011 revealed , the target list that JSOC used for its "night raids" and other operations to kill supposed Taliban was based on a fundamentally flawed methodology that was inherently incapable of distinguishing between Taliban insurgents and civilians who had only tangential contacts with the Taliban organization. And it was Flynn who devised that methodology.

    The "night raids" on Afghan homes based on Flynn's methodology caused so much Afghan anger toward Americans that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, acknowledged the problem of Afghan antagonism toward the entire program publicly in a March 2010 directive.

    The system that led to that Afghan outrage began to take shape in Iraq in 2006, when Flynn, then-intelligence chief for JSOC, developed a new methodology for identifying and locating al-Qaeda and Shia Mahdi Army members in Iraq. Flynn revealed the technologies used in Iraq in an unclassified article published in 2008.

    At the center of the system was what Flynn called the "Unblinking Eye," referring to 24-hour drone surveillance of specific locations associated with "known and suspected terrorist sites and individuals." The drone surveillance was then used to establish a "pattern of life analysis," which was the main tool used to determine whether to strike the target. We now know from reports of drone strikes in Pakistan that killed entire groups of innocent people that "pattern of life analysis" is frequently a matter of guesswork that is completely wrong.

    Flynn's unclassified article also revealed that "SIGINT" (signals intelligence), i.e., the monitoring of cell phone metadata, and "geo-location" of phones were the other two major tools used in Flynn's system of targeting military strikes. JSOC was using links among cell phones to identify suspected insurgents.

    Flynn's article suggested that the main emphasis in intelligence for targeting in Iraq was on providing analysis of the aerial surveillance visual intelligence on a target to help decide in real time whether to carry out a strike on it.

    But when McChrystal took command of US forces in Afghanistan in mid-2009 and took Flynn with him as his intelligence chief, Flynn's targeting methodology changed dramatically. JSOC had already begun to carry out "night raids" in Afghanistan -- usually attacks on private homes in the middle of the night -- and McChrystal wanted to increase the tempo of those raids. The number of night raids increased from 20 per month in May 2009 to 90 per month six months later. It reached an average of more than 100 a month in the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010.

    At this point, the targets were no longer Taliban commanders and higher-ups in the organization. They included people allegedly doing basic functions such as logistics, bomb-making and propaganda.

    In order to rapidly build up the highly secret "kill/capture" list (called the "Joint Prioritized Effects List," or JPEL) to meet McChrystal's demands for more targets, Flynn used a technique called "link analysis." This technique involved the use of software that allowed intelligence analysts to see the raw data from drone surveillance and cell phone data transformed instantly into a "map" of the insurgent "network." That "map" of each network associated with surveillance of a location became the basis for adding new names to the JPEL.

    Flynn could increase the number of individual "nodes" on that map by constantly adding more cell phone metadata for the computer-generated "map" of the insurgency. Every time JSOC commandos killed or captured someone, they took their cell phones to add their metadata to the database. And US intelligence also gathered cell phone data from the population of roughly 3,300 suspected insurgents being held in the Afghan prison system, who were allowed to use mobile phones freely in their cells.

    What the expansion of cell phone data surveillance meant was that an ever-greater proportion of the targets on Flynn's "kill/capture list" were not identified at all, except as mobile phone numbers. As Matthew Hoh, who served as the senior US civilian official in Zabul Province until he quit in protest in September 2009, explained to me, "When you are relying on cell phones for intelligence, you don't get the names of those targeted."

    There was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed as cell phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.

    What made Flynn's methodology for expanding the kill/capture list even riskier was that there was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed as cell phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.

    Using such a methodology in the Afghan socio-political context guaranteed that a high proportion of those on the kill/capture list were innocent civilians. As former deputy to the European Union special representative to Afghanistan Michael Semple (one of the few genuine experts in the world on the Taliban movement) explained to me, most Afghans in the Pashtun south and east of Afghanistan "have a few Taliban commander numbers saved to their mobile phone contacts" as a "survival mechanism."

    Nader Nadery, a commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission in 2010, estimated that the total civilian deaths for all 73 night raids about which the commission had complaints that year was 420. But the commission acknowledged that it didn't have access to most of the districts dominated by the Taliban. So the actual civilian toll may well have been many times that number -- meaning that civilians may have accounted for more than half of the 2,000 alleged "Taliban" killed in JSOC's operations in 2010.

    The percentage of innocent people among those who were captured and incarcerated was even higher. In December 2010, the US command in Afghanistan leaked to a friendly blogger that 4,100 "Taliban" had been captured in the previous six months. But an unclassified February 5, 2011, internal document of the Combined Joint Inter-Agency Task Force responsible for detention policy in Afghanistan, which I obtained later in 2011, showed that only 690 Afghans were admitted to the US detention facility at Parwan during that six-month period. Twenty percent of those were later released upon review of their files. So alleged evidence of participation in the Taliban insurgency could not have existed for more than 552 people at most, or 14 percent of the total number said to have been captured. But many of those 552 were undoubtedly innocent as well. basarov 9 hours ago

    Porter is either a paid CIA/dimocrat party shill or perhaps extraordinarily stupid.
    It was OBAMA who implemented the vaunted 'surge" and flooded Afghanistan with an extra 30,000 US mercenaries. And I believe that obama was the US leader in 2009. To whine about a 3 star general, under orders to carry out an obama policy and then blame Trump by association reminds one of a 3 year old trying to make sense of Kabuki....surreal or simply delusional?

    We see that america needs a police state oligarchy; americans cannot distinguish between bovine excreta and caviar.

    Karl Rowley 19 hours ago
    Obama facilitated the murder of civilians in Afghanistan too. Are you outraged about that?
    DofG Karl Rowley 13 hours ago
    And so did the American people by sitting in the passive bubble of patriotism while we continue to scorch the Earth with imperialism abroad while having a surveillance state at home. We are ALL guilty!
    Ando Arike 20 hours ago
    Ultimately, isn't it Obama, as commander-in-chief, who's responsible for the dirty work of his team of assassins in JSOC? As far as I know, Obama is not out of office yet...
    Michael Valentine a day ago
    Gee I thought we were doing a swell job of killing folks in Afghanistan, that's what we are there for right?
    DofG Michael Valentine a day ago
    We are there to keep the poppy crops going which the Taliban had destroyed! You know that heroin/opiates thing.
    max's pad Michael Valentine a day ago
    I don't know why we are there or in Iraq. It was the Saudi families and Saudi funding that created the terrorism of 9-11. It was the Bush Admin NeoCons and the Neoliberal philosopy that created the longest war in our history. It is entirely coincidental that this war like Vietnam inflicts its greatest toll on a bunch of impoverished villagers.
    Francis max's pad 6 hours ago
    Max - the Saudi's may have helped finance 911 but they certainly were not the ones that pulled it off.blockquote>Jethro_T

    max's pad a day ago

    Thanks for mentioning Viet Nam. Flynn appears to have been cut from the same cloth as Gen. Wm. Westmoreland, who first brought us "victory" by body count.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Ron Paul: Shadow Government May Pull False Flag To Get Trump Into War

    www.infowars.com
    Former Congressman and Libertarian icon Ron Paul has warned that 'shadow government' neocons could orchestrate a 'false flag' incident in order to drag new president Donald Trump into a fresh war.

    "I don't how anybody can say they know what is going to happen," Paul told The Daily Caller, referring to Trump's foreign policy.

    "All we need is a false flag and an accident and everybody will be for teaching them a lesson," Paul said, warning that such an event could trigger new foreign entanglement.

    "The neocons always talked about it before 9/11 they kept saying, 'we aren't going to get our program in until we have a Pearl Harbor event,'" the former congressman stated, stopping short of saying he believes those attacks were staged.

    "I think other countries could use false flags." Paul also added.

    Paul also warned that a shadow government will continue to operate when Trump is president, just as it did during Obama's time in office.

    "Obama probably was much more attune to a different foreign policy of less aggression but why then does he do it?" Paul said.

    "I think there's the shadow government, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and all the things that can be done because they just melt away and they do exactly what the establishment says." the former Congressman added.

    Paul warned that those within the shadow government are seeking to influence Trump now.

    "He's very friendly with a lot of them right now, he's talking to them," Paul said, adding that "We don't have a final answer, we have to wait to see who get's appointed."

    "He doesn't talk about blowback and coming out of these countries. He has a better policy with Russia but I think he still is talking with the neoconservatives." Paul also stated.

    "The deep state is very very powerful and they have a lot of control," Paul said, adding "That is one of my big issues about how shadow government is so powerful in all administrations."

    Earlier this month, Paul issued the same warnings, saying that neocons and shadow government figures are going to attempt to infiltrate and influence Trump's presidency and prevent him from achieving successful change.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Trump will have as many problems with Ayn Ryan Congress as Obama/Clinton on economic issues

    Nov 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Cry Shop November 23, 2016 at 6:16 pm

    Bankers & Trump

    Bankers know you capture catch more flies with money honey.

    ewmayer November 23, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    "The Trump campaign, meanwhile, delved into message tailoring, sentiment manipulation and machine learning." - Oh, please, this sounds like a stereotypical Google-centric view of things. They of course left out the most important part of the campaign, the key to its inception, which could be described in terms like "The Trump campaign, meanwhile, actually noticed the widespread misery and non-recovery in the parts of the US outside the elite coastal bubbles and DC beltway, and spotted a yuuuge political opportunity." In other words, not sentiment manipulation – that was, after all, the Dem-establishment-MSM-wall-street-and-the-elite-technocrats' "America is already great, and anyone who denies it is deplorable!" strategy of manufactured consent – so much as actual *reading* of sentiment. Of course if one insisted on remaining inside a protective elite echo chamber and didn't listen to anything Trump or the attendees actually said in those huge flyover-country rallies that wasn't captured in suitably outrageous evening-news soundbites, it was all too easy to believe one's own hype.

    " former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who has known Trump socially for decades and is currently advising the president-elect on foreign policy issues " - I really, really hope this is just Hammerin' Hank tooting his own horn, as he and his sycophants in the FP establishment and MSM are wont to do.

    Brad November 23, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    "Trump dumps the TPP: conservatives rue strategic fillip to China" (Guardian)

    Another wedge angle for Trumps new-found RINO "friends" to play. Trump will have as many problems with Ayn Ryan Congress as Obama/Clinton on economic issues.

    "The TPP excludes China, which declined to join, proposing its own rival version, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which excludes the US." You see, it is all China's fault. No info presented on why China "declined" to join.

    And if Abe's Japan were really an independent country, they'd pick up the TPP baton and sell it to China.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Ron Paul Shadow Government May Pull False Flag To Get Trump Into War

    www.infowars.com
    Former Congressman and Libertarian icon Ron Paul has warned that 'shadow government' neocons could orchestrate a 'false flag' incident in order to drag new president Donald Trump into a fresh war.

    "I don't how anybody can say they know what is going to happen," Paul told The Daily Caller, referring to Trump's foreign policy.

    "All we need is a false flag and an accident and everybody will be for teaching them a lesson," Paul said, warning that such an event could trigger new foreign entanglement.

    "The neocons always talked about it before 9/11 they kept saying, 'we aren't going to get our program in until we have a Pearl Harbor event,'" the former congressman stated, stopping short of saying he believes those attacks were staged.

    "I think other countries could use false flags." Paul also added.

    Paul also warned that a shadow government will continue to operate when Trump is president, just as it did during Obama's time in office.

    "Obama probably was much more attune to a different foreign policy of less aggression but why then does he do it?" Paul said.

    "I think there's the shadow government, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and all the things that can be done because they just melt away and they do exactly what the establishment says." the former Congressman added.

    Paul warned that those within the shadow government are seeking to influence Trump now.

    "He's very friendly with a lot of them right now, he's talking to them," Paul said, adding that "We don't have a final answer, we have to wait to see who get's appointed."

    "He doesn't talk about blowback and coming out of these countries. He has a better policy with Russia but I think he still is talking with the neoconservatives." Paul also stated.

    "The deep state is very very powerful and they have a lot of control," Paul said, adding "That is one of my big issues about how shadow government is so powerful in all administrations."

    Earlier this month, Paul issued the same warnings, saying that neocons and shadow government figures are going to attempt to infiltrate and influence Trump's presidency and prevent him from achieving successful change.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Donald Trump meets with prominent Sanders supporter Tulsi Gabbard

    www.theguardian.com

    Donald Trump's unorthodox US presidential transition continued on Monday when he held talks with one of the most prominent supporters of leftwing Democrat Bernie Sanders.

    The president-elect's first meeting of the day at Trump Tower in New York was with Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic maverick who endorsed the socialist Sanders during his unsuccessful primary battle with Hillary Clinton.

    ... ... ...

    At first glance Gabbard, who is from Hawaii and is the first Hindu member of the US Congress, seems an unlikely counsellor. She resigned from the Democratic National Committee to back Vermont senator Sanders and formally nominated him for president at the party convention in July, crediting him with starting a "movement of love and compassion", although by then Clinton's victory was certain.

    But the Iraq war veteran has also expressed views that might appeal to Trump, criticising Obama, condemning interventionist wars in Iraq and Libya and taking a hard line on immigration. In 2014, she called for a rollback of the visa waiver programme for Britain and other European countries with what she called "Islamic extremist" populations.

    In October last year she tweeted: "Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won't bomb them in Syria. Putin did. #neverforget911." She was then among 47 Democrats who joined Republicans to pass a bill mandating a stronger screening process for refugees from Iraq and Syria coming to the US.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Trump won because Democratic Party governance eviscerated those communities

    Notable quotes:
    "... Judging by the people who Trump has appointed, it is looking like an ugly situation for the US. If he actually hires people like John Bolton, we will know that a betrayal was certain. While I think that it is probable that he is the lesser evil, he was supposed to avoid neoconservatives and Wall Street types (that Clinton associates herself with). ..."
    "... I think it would be a mistake to attribute too much "genius" to Trump and Kushner. It sounds like Kushner exhibited competence, and that's great. But Trump won in great measure because Democratic Party governance eviscerated those communities. ..."
    "... This is akin to how Obama got WAY too much credit for being a brilliant orator. People wanted change in '08 and voted for it. That change agent betrayed them, so they voted for change again this time. Or, more accurately, a lot of Obama voters stayed home, the Republican base held together, and Trump's team found necessary little pockets of ignored voters to energize. But that strategy would never have worked if not for Obama's and Clinton's malfeasance and incompetence. Honestly, Hillary got closer to a win that she had a right to. That ought to be the real story. ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Altandmain November 23, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    Does anyone else get the overwhelming impression that the US is heading for an impending collapse or serious decline at least, unless it puts a fight it against the status quo?

    Judging by the people who Trump has appointed, it is looking like an ugly situation for the US. If he actually hires people like John Bolton, we will know that a betrayal was certain. While I think that it is probable that he is the lesser evil, he was supposed to avoid neoconservatives and Wall Street types (that Clinton associates herself with).

    I find it amazing how tone deaf the Clinton campaign and Democratic Establishment are. Trump and apparently his son in law, no matter what else, are political campaigning geniuses given their accomplishments. For months people were criticizing their lack of experience in politics like a fatal mistake..

    I think that no real change is going to happen until someone authentically left wing takes power or if the US collapses.

    aab November 23, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    I think it would be a mistake to attribute too much "genius" to Trump and Kushner. It sounds like Kushner exhibited competence, and that's great. But Trump won in great measure because Democratic Party governance eviscerated those communities.

    This is akin to how Obama got WAY too much credit for being a brilliant orator. People wanted change in '08 and voted for it. That change agent betrayed them, so they voted for change again this time. Or, more accurately, a lot of Obama voters stayed home, the Republican base held together, and Trump's team found necessary little pockets of ignored voters to energize. But that strategy would never have worked if not for Obama's and Clinton's malfeasance and incompetence. Honestly, Hillary got closer to a win that she had a right to. That ought to be the real story.

    Daryl November 23, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    It is not clear to me what exactly a collapse entails. The US doesn't have obvious lines to fracture across, like say the USSR did. (I suppose an argument could be made for "cultural regions" like the South, Cascadia etc separating out, but it seems far less likely to happen, even in the case of continuing extreme economic duress and breakdown of democracy/civil rights).

    The US is and has been in a serious decline, and will probably continue.

    [Nov 23, 2016] A crisis of legitimacy -- recommended links

    Nov 23, 2016 | www.economist.com

    Legitimation crisis - Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimation_ crisis

    Jump to International crises of legitimacy - Legitimation crisis refers to a decline in the confidence of administrative functions, institutions, or leadership. The term was first introduced in 1973 by Jürgen Habermas, a German sociologist and philosopher. ‎ Legitimacy · ‎ Theories of legitimacy · ‎ Legitimation crisis origin · ‎ Historical examples A crisis of legitimacy | The Economist www.economist.com/node/796097

    A crisis of legitimacy . People are fed up with politics. Do not blame globalisation for that. Sep 27th 2001 | From the print edition. Timekeeper. Add this article to ... Legitimacy: Legitimation Crises and Its Causes - Political Science Notes www.politicalsciencenotes.com/ legitimacy / legitimacy -legitimation- crises -and-its.../797

    Causes of Legitimation Crisis : There are several causes or aspects of legitimation crisis . Habermas and several other neo-Marxists, after studying all the aspects of capitalist societies, have concluded that a number of factors are responsible for the legitimation crisis

    The Global Crisis of Legitimacy | Stratfor https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100503_global_ crisis _ legitimacy

    The Global Crisis of Legitimacy . Geopolitical Weekly. May 4, 2010 | 08:56 GMT. Print. Text Size. By George Friedman. Financial panics are an integral part of ...

    The Legitimacy Crisis in the United States: A Conceptual Analysis - JStor https://www.jstor.org/stable/800195 by DO Friedrichs - ‎1980 - ‎ Cited by 52 - ‎ Related articles A " legitimacy crisis " is widely perceived to exist on the basis of polls of public at- ... causes of a legitimacy crisis may be identified, it has been associated with the ...

    [PDF] THEORETICAL BASIS OF CRISIS OF LEGITIMACY AND ... - Dialnet https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3640420.pdf

    by GE Reyes - ‎2010 - ‎ Cited by 1 - ‎ Related articles Theoretical basis of crisis of legitimacy and implications for less developed countries: Guatemala as a case of study. TENDENCIAS. Revista de la Facultad de ...

    [PDF] A Crisis of Democratic Legitimacy? It's about Legitimation, Stupid! aei.pitt.edu/63549/1/EPB21-def.pdf

    by A Mattelaer - ‎2014 - ‎ Related articles Mar 21, 2014 - generalised crisis in legitimacy , our democracies face a crisis of legitimation: political choices are in dire need of an explanatory narrative that. The Legitimacy Crisis | RealClearPolitics www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/08/the_ legitimacy _ crisis _126530.html

    May 8, 2015 - American government - at all levels - is losing the legitimacy it needs to function. Or, perhaps, some segments of the government have ...

    The Global Crisis of Legitimacy of Liberal Democracy - Global ... https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/211/44824.html

    The third dimension of the crisis that I identify is the crisis of legitimacy of US hegemony. This, I think, is as serious as the other two crises, since, as an admirer of ...

    The Crisis of Legitimacy in Africa | Dissent Magazine https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the- crisis-of-legitimacy -in-africa

    The Crisis of Legitimacy in Africa. Abiola Irele ▫ Summer 1992. A bleak picture emerges from today's Africa. One glaring aspect is the material deprivation ...

    [Nov 23, 2016] Disrespecting the American Imperial Presidency by Matt Peppe

    www.counterpunch.org
    The Imperial Presidency of the United States has evolved over the last century to the point that the executive holds certain powers that can be considered dictatorial. Arguably, the most consequential decision in politics is to wage war. The Constitution specifically reserves this right for Congress. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, directs the wars that Congress declares. However, starting with Truman's intervention in the Korean War in 1950 and continuing with invasions of Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq and Afghanistan and the bombings of dozens more countries, the President's ability to unilaterally initiate war with a sovereign nation has been normalized. Congress has not declared war since 1941 despite the fact the U.S. military has intervened in nearly every corner of the world in the years since.

    In recent years, George W. Bush assumed the power to kidnap, torture, and assassinate any individual, anywhere in the world, at any time, without even a pretense of due process. Upon replacing Bush, Barack Obama legitimized Bush's kidnapping and torture (by refusing to prosecute the perpetrators or provide recourse to the victims) while enthusiastically embracing the power to assassinate at will. Noam Chomsky has said this represents Obama trashing the 800-year-old Magna Carta, which King John of England would have approved of.

    Can there be anything more dictatorial than the power of a single individual to kill and make war at will? While American presidents thankfully do not have the power to unilaterally impose taxes, pass legislation, or incarcerate without charges inside U.S. borders, the illegitimate authority they do possess to carry out unrestrained violence across the world is unquestionably a dictatorial feature.

    There has not been a single American president since World War II that has not exceeded his constitutional authority by committing crimes that would meet the standard by which officials were convicted and executed at the Nuremberg trials.

    Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 to imprison Japanese Americans in concentration camps was a flagrant violation of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

    Truman's firebombing of Tokyo, nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and invasion of Korea violated provisions of multiple treaties that are considered the "supreme law of the land" per Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

    Eisenhower's use of the CIA to overthrow democratically elected presidents in Iran and Guatemala, as well as the initiation of a terrorist campaign against Cuba, violated the UN Charter, another international treaty that the Constitution regards as the supreme law of the land.

    Kennedy was guilty of approving the creation of a mercenary army to invade Cuba, as well as covert warfare in Vietnam. Johnson massively escalated U.S. military involvement in Vietnam with the introduction of ground troops, which he fraudulently justified through misrepresentation of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

    Succeeding Johnson, Nixon waged a nearly genocidal air campaign against not only Vietnam but Cambodia and Laos, killing hundreds of thousands of people, destroying ecosystems across Indochina, and leaving an unfathomable amount of unexploded ordnance, which continues to kill and maim hundreds of people each year.

    Ford covertly supported the South African invasion of Angola and overtly supported the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. Carter continued supporting the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, as well as providing financial and military support to military dictatorships in Guatemala and El Salvador. Reagan oversaw the creation and operation of a terrorist army in Nicaragua, sponsored military dictatorships throughout Central America, and directly invaded Grenada.

    Bush the Elder invaded Panama and Iraq. Clinton oversaw sanctions in Iraq that killed as many as 1 million people, carried out an air war that indiscriminately pulverized civilian targets from 15,000 feet in Serbia, and bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that produced medications for half the country. Bush the Lesser invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama continued both of those wars, as well as dramatically expanding the drone assassination program in as many as seven countries.

    So I beg to differ with Blow and anyone else who claims the presidency deserves respect. Any institution or position that permits such illegal and immoral actions unchecked should be eradicated and replaced with some alternative that does not.

    Liberal Clinton defender Matt Yglesias argues that from a historical perspective, Trump is uniquely dangerous. "(P)ast presidents," Yglesias writes, "have simply been restrained by restraint. By a belief that there are certain things one simply cannot try or do."

    It is hard to take such vacuous proclamations with a straight face. As we have seen, every single American president since at least WWII has engaged in serious violations of international and domestic law to cause death, destruction and misery across the world, from murdering individuals without due process to unleashing two nuclear bombs on civilian populations in a defeated country that was seeking to surrender.

    When Trump assumes the presidency, he will inherit a frightening surveillance/military/incarceration apparatus that includes a targeted killing program; a vast NSA domestic and international spying network; a death squad (the Joint Special Operations Command); and an extralegal system for indefinite kidnapping and imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay.

    Partisans see a problem only when the presidency is in the "wrong" hands. If Obama is at the helm, liberals are fine with unconstitutional mass surveillance or killing an American citizen without charge or trial every now and then. Conservatives trusted Bush to warrantlessly surveill Americans, but were outraged at the Snowden revelations.

    Principled opponents recognize that no one should be trusted with illegitimate authority. The hand-wringing and hyperventilation by liberals about the dangers of a Trump presidency ring hollow and hypocritical.

    American presidents long ago became the equivalent of elected monarchs, beyond the democratic control of the those they purportedly serve. The occupant of the office is able to substitute his own judgments and whims for a universally applicable set of laws and limits on the exercise of power. It is what Dolores Vek describes as "actually existing fascism." Both parties have contributed to it, the media has normalized it, and the public has accepted its creation and continued existence without rebelling against it. It's time to stop treating the presidency itself with respect and start actively delegitimizing it.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Expect the Unexpected

    Nov 23, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    This unadmitted ignorance was previously displayed for those with eyes to see it in the Libya debacle, perhaps not coincidentally Clinton's pet war. Cast by the Obama White House as a surgical display of "smart power" that would defend human rights and foster democracy in the Muslim world, the 2011 Libyan intervention did precisely the opposite. There is credible evidence that the U.S.-led NATO campaign prolonged and exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, and far from creating a flourishing democracy, the ouster of strongman Muammar Qaddafi led to a power vacuum into which ISIS and other rival unsavories surged.

    The 2011 intervention and the follow-up escalation in which we are presently entangled were both fundamentally informed by "the underlying belief that military force will produce stability and that the U.S. can reasonably predict the result of such a campaign," as Christopher Preble has argued in a must-read Libya analysis at Politico . Both have proven resoundingly wrong.

    Before Libya, Washington espoused the same false certainty in advance of intervention and nation-building Iraq and Afghanistan. The rhetoric around the former was particularly telling: we would find nuclear weapons and "be greeted as liberators," said Vice President Dick Cheney. The whole thing would take five months or less, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It would be a "cakewalk." As months dragged into years of nation-building stagnation, the ignored truth became increasingly evident: the United States cannot reshape entire countries without obscene risk and investment, and even when those costly commitments are made, success cannot be predicted with certainty.

    Nearly 14 years later, with Iraq demonstrably more violent and less stable than it was before U.S. intervention, wisdom demands we reject Washington's recycled snake oil.

    Recent polls (let alone the anti-elite backlash Trump's win represents ) suggest Americans are ready to do precisely that. But a lack of public enthusiasm has never stopped Washington from hawking its fraudulent wares-this time in the form of yet-again unfounded certainty that escalating American intervention in Syria is a sure-fire solution to that beleaguered nation's woes.

    We must not let ourselves be fooled. Rather, we "should understand that we don't need to overthrow distant governments and roll the dice on what comes after in order to keep America safe," as Preble, reflecting on Libya, contends . "On the contrary, our track record over the last quarter-century shows that such interventions often have the opposite effect."

    And as for the political establishment, let Trump's triumph be a constant reminder of the necessity of expecting the unexpected and proceeding with due (indeed, much overdue) prudence and restraint abroad. If Washington so grossly misunderstood the direction of its own heartland-without the muddling, as in foreign policy, of massive geographic and cultural differences-how naïve it is to believe that our government can successfully play armed puppet-master over an entire region of the world?

    Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities. She is a weekend editor at The Week and a columnist at Rare , and her writing has also appeared at Time , Politico , Relevant , The Hill , and other outlets.

    [Nov 22, 2016] The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and improve the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do that and resist strong attempts to co-opt him into the standard set of neocon policies, which Washington pursued for several decades.

    crookedtimber.org

    likbez: 11.22.16 at 2:45 pm 42

    @41
    Chet Murthy 11.22.16 at 5:08 am

    There have been two constants in his campaign: "stomp the weaker" and "lovin' Putin". That's it.

    "lovin' Putin" is a propaganda trick which enforces a certain judgment on the US-Russia relations. You should better stay above this level in this blog.

    Putin was and remains an obstacle on building global neoliberal empire governed by the USA. So hate toward him by Washington establishment is quite natural. Nothing personal, just business. In other words, demonization of Putin and hysterical anti-Russian campaign (including Hillary attempt to convert Democratic Party into a War party) is just a sign of disapproval of Washington his lack of desire to convert Russia into yet another vassal state.

    The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and improve the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do that and resist strong attempts to co-opt him into the standard set of neocon policies, which Washington pursued for several decades.

    His "Contract with America" does not cover foreign policy issues except rejection of TPP, NAFTA and like.

    https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

    The hypothesis that he will pursue isolationist agenda is undermined by the amount of Iran hawks in his close circle.

    My impression is that his administration will try to bait Russia in order to prevent any strengthening of China-Russia alliance which was the main blowback of Obama policies toward Russia.

    Also under Trump the USA might be more selective as running six concurrent conflicts (Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine) which during Obama administration proved to be pretty expensive. Libya is now a failed state. In Ukraine the standard of living dropped to the level of $2 per day for the majority of population and the country became yet another debt slave, always balancing on the wedge of bankruptcy. And costs for the USA are continuing to mount in at least three of the six countries mentioned ( profits extracted in Ukraine and Iraq partially offset that). It is unclear whether Trump administration will continue this Obama policy of multiple unilateral engagements but I think is that during Trump administration the resistance to the USA unilateral interventionism will be stronger as neoliberalism itself became much less attractive ideology. Which is more difficult to "export". Similar to the fact that "communism" was more difficult to export after 60th by the USSR. In a way, after 2008 it is a "damaged good" notwithstanding its recent victories in Brazil and Argentina. See for example discussion at:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/22/does-clintons-defeat-mean-the-decline-of-us-interventionism/

    The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3)

    What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5)

    But, of course, we can only guess how Trump administration will behave.

    [Nov 22, 2016] Does Clinton's Defeat Mean the Decline of US Interventionism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Did the United States not know that intervening in "the lands of Islam" would act as a catalyst for Jihad? Was it by chance that the United States intervened only in secular states, turning them into manholes of religious extremism? Is it a coincidence that these interventions were and are often supported by regimes that sponsor political Islam? Conspiracy theory, you say? No, these are historical facts. ..."
    "... The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3) ..."
    "... What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5) ..."
    "... At the moment of this writing, any speculation as to the policy choices of Trump's foreign policy is premature. ..."
    "... Like Donald Trump, George W. Bush was a conservative Republican non-interventionist. He advocated "America First," called for a more subdued foreign policy and adopted Colin Powell's realism "to attend without stress" (7) with regard to the Near and Middle East. But his policy shifted to become the most aggressive and most brutal in the history of the United States. Many international observers argue that this shift came as a response to the September 11 attacks, but they fail to note that the aggressive germs already existed within Bush's cabinet and advisers: the neo-conservatives occupied key functions in his administration. ..."
    "... Up until now, Trump's links with the neo-cons remain unclear. The best-known neo-cons, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, and Robert Kagan, appear to have lost their bet by supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But others, less prominent or influential, seem to have won it by supporting Trump: Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, and James Woolsey, his adviser and one of the architects of the wars in the Middle East. ..."
    "... it is more realistic to suppose that as long as the United States has interests in the countries of the South and the Near and Middle East, so long it will not hesitate to intervene. ..."
    "... In this context, Trump's defeat and Clinton's accession are not sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism -- the end of an era and the beginning of another. ..."
    "... (Translated from the French by Luciana Bohne) ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    ... ... ...

    If the discourse of humanitarianism seduced the North, it has not been so in the South, even less in the Near and Middle East, which no longer believe in it. The patent humanitarian disasters in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have disillusioned them.

    It is in this sense that Trump's victory is felt as a release, a hope for change, and a rupture from the policy of Clinton, Bush, and Obama. This policy, in the name of edifying nations ("nation building"), has destroyed some of the oldest nations and civilizations on earth; in the name of delivering well-being, it has delivered misery; in the name of liberal values, it has galvanized religious zeal; in the name of democracy and human rights, it has installed autocracies and Sharia law.

    Who is to blame?

    Did the United States not know that intervening in "the lands of Islam" would act as a catalyst for Jihad? Was it by chance that the United States intervened only in secular states, turning them into manholes of religious extremism? Is it a coincidence that these interventions were and are often supported by regimes that sponsor political Islam? Conspiracy theory, you say? No, these are historical facts.

    Can the United States not learn from history, or does it just doom itself to repeat it? Does it not pose itself the question of how al-Qaeda and Daesh originated? How did they organize themselves? Who trained them? What is their mobilizing discourse? (1) Why is the US their target? None of this seems to matter to the US: all it cares about is projecting its own idealism. (2)

    The death of thousands of people in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya or Syria, has it contributed to the well being of these peoples? Or does the United States perhaps respond to this question in the manner of Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, who regretted the death of five-hundred-thousand Iraqi children, deprived of medications by the American embargo, to conclude with the infamous sentence, "[But] it was worth it "?

    Was it worth it that people came to perceive humanitarian intervention as the new crusades? Was it worth it that they now perceive democracy as a pagan, pre-Islamic model, abjured by their belief? Was it worth it that they now perceive modernity as deviating believers from the "true" path? Was it worth that they now perceive human rights as human standards as contrary to the divine will? Was it worth it that people now perceive secularism as atheism whose defenders are punishable by beheading?

    Have universal values become a problem rather than a solution? What then to think of making war in their name? Has humanitarian intervention become punishment rather than help?

    The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3)

    What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5)

    The end of interventionism?

    But are Clinton's defeat and Trump's accession to power sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism?

    Donald Trump is a nationalist, whose rise has been the result of a coalition of anti-interventionists within the Republican Party. They professe a foreign policy that Trump has summarized in these words: "We will use military force only in cases of vital necessity to the national security of the United States. We will put an end to attempts of imposing democracy and overthrowing regimes abroad, as well as involving ourselves in situations in which we have no right to intervene." (6)

    But drawing conclusions about the foreign policy of the United States from unofficial statements seems simplistic. At the moment of this writing, any speculation as to the policy choices of Trump's foreign policy is premature. One can't predict his policy with regard to the Near and Middle East, since he has not yet even formed his cabinet. Moreover, presidents in office can change their tune in the course of their tenure. The case of George W. Bush provides an excellent example.

    Like Donald Trump, George W. Bush was a conservative Republican non-interventionist. He advocated "America First," called for a more subdued foreign policy and adopted Colin Powell's realism "to attend without stress" (7) with regard to the Near and Middle East. But his policy shifted to become the most aggressive and most brutal in the history of the United States. Many international observers argue that this shift came as a response to the September 11 attacks, but they fail to note that the aggressive germs already existed within Bush's cabinet and advisers: the neo-conservatives occupied key functions in his administration. (8)

    Up until now, Trump's links with the neo-cons remain unclear. The best-known neo-cons, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, and Robert Kagan, appear to have lost their bet by supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But others, less prominent or influential, seem to have won it by supporting Trump: Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, and James Woolsey, his adviser and one of the architects of the wars in the Middle East.

    These indices show that nothing seems to have been gained by the South, still less by the Near and Middle East. There appears to be no guarantee that the situation will improve.

    The non-interventionism promised by Trump may not necessarily equate to a policy of isolationism. A non-interventionist policy does not automatically mean that the United States will stop protecting their interests abroad, strategic or otherwise. Rather, it could mean that the United States will not intervene abroad except to defend their own interests, unilaterally -- and perhaps even more aggressively. Such a potential is implied in Trump's promise to increase the budget for the army and the military-industrial complex. Thus, it is more realistic to suppose that as long as the United States has interests in the countries of the South and the Near and Middle East, so long it will not hesitate to intervene.

    In this context, Trump's defeat and Clinton's accession are not sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism -- the end of an era and the beginning of another. The political reality is too complex to be reduced to statements by a presidential candidate campaigning for election, by an elected president, or even by a president in the course of performing his office.

    No one knows what the future will bring.

    Marwen Bouassida is a researcher in international law at North African-European relations, University of Carthage, Tunisia. He regularly contributes to the online magazine Kapitalis.

    (Translated from the French by Luciana Bohne)

    [Nov 21, 2016] Trump first and foremost is the symptom, not cause of crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. Ideology is dead, like Bolshevism was dead soon after the end of WWII in the USSR

    The Imperial Presidency of the United States has evolved over the last century to the point that the executive holds certain powers that can be considered dictatorial. Arguably, the most consequential decision in politics is to wage war. The Constitution specifically reserves this right for Congress.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The anger against outsourcing jobs is very real and very dangerous for current corrupt neocon/neolib elite in Washington with their dream of global dominance and global neoliberal empire spanning all countries on all continents much like Trotsky dreamed about global Communist empire. ..."
    "... The key information about his real intention would be the candidate for the Secretary of State. But even here uncertainty will remain. For example, it is not completely clear to me that if Bolton would be appointed he will be able to pursue the policies of his neocon past. After all Trump has distinct authoritarian inclinations and Bolton is not stupid enough not to understand that. ..."
    "... Hopefully his foreign policy will be less jingoistic that Obama foreign policy. "Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war," said Trump, "unlike other candidates, war and aggression will not be my first instinct." ..."
    "... "lovin' Putin" is a propaganda trick which enforces a certain judgment on the US-Russia relations ..."
    "... Putin was and remain an obstacle on building global neoliberal empire governed by the USA. So hate toward him by Washington establishment is quite natural. Nothing personal, just business. In other words, demonization of Putin and hysterical anti-Russian campaign (including Hillary attempt to convert Democratic Party into a War party) is just a sign of disapproval of Washington his lack of desire to convert Russian into yet another vassal state. ..."
    "... The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and improve the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do that and resist strong attempts to co-opt him into standard set of neocon policies, which Washington pursued for several decades. ..."
    "... Any idea that he will peruse isolationist agenda is undermined by the amount of Iran hawks in his close circle. ..."
    "... My impression is that his administration will try to bait Russia in order to prevent any strengthening of China-Russia alliance which was the main blowback of Obama policies toward Russia. ..."
    "... This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5) ..."
    "... The US Empire has been nice to the Russians before. It was called detente and caused almost (not quite) as much hysteria in war-mongering (proto-neoconservative) circles as Trump's 'neo-detente' is causing now. However, the proviso is (and always was) that the warmongering could be ramped up again any time the Americans chose, and of course it was again under Reagan. ..."
    "... From the point of view of American imperialism, Trump's plan to (temporarily) be nice to Russia makes a lot of strategic sense: as you point out, under Obama American imperial forces were becoming increasingly overstretched. In any case, for historical reasons, Russia (white, capitalist, Christian) doesn't make as good an enemy as the mysterious dark forces of 'Radical Islam'. ..."
    "... So I am guessing under Trump we will see temporary rapprochement with Russia in the East, and more concentration on command and control of the Middle East. I am also guessing Obama's 'Pivot to China' will be allowed to quietly continue. It's also likely the US' policy of quietly picking off 'weak links' in the 'pink tide' in South American (cf Brazil, Honduras) will continue. ..."
    "... For the moment I take great comfort in the hostility Trump displayed to Eliot Cohen and his ilk – https://twitter.com/EliotACohen/status/798512852931788800 ..."
    "... "After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly." ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    likbez 11.21.16 at 10:41 pm 33

    Trump first and foremost is the symptom, not cause of crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. Ideology is dead, like Bolshevism was dead soon after the end of WWII in the USSR.

    Trump has two major path of his governance. He might try relying on nationalist insurgence his election provoked and squeeze the "deep state" and neocon cabal in Washington, or he will be co-opted by Republican brass. He probably understand that his positioning during election campaign as a fighter against globalization and neoliberalism excesses in the USA is the key link that provides political support for his administration. And throwing a couple on neocons or banksters against the wall would be a populist gesture well received by American public.

    The anger against outsourcing jobs is very real and very dangerous for current corrupt neocon/neolib elite in Washington with their dream of global dominance and global neoliberal empire spanning all countries on all continents much like Trotsky dreamed about global Communist empire.

    My feeling is that a lot of people are really ready to fight for Trump and that creates for problem for the "deep state", if Trump "indoctrination" by Washington establishment fails.

    Past revolts in some US cities are just the tip of the iceberg. Obama lost not only his legacy with Trump election. He lost his bid to keep all members of top 1% and first of all financial oligarchy that drives the events on 2008 unaccountable.

    So "accountability drive" which will be interpreted by neoliberals as "witch hunt" might well be in the cards. I encourage everybody in this blog to listen to the following Trump election advertisement.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2s9AV910NY

    Also I would not assume that he is a newcomer to political games. Real estate business is very a political activity. So a more plausible hypothesis is that he is a gifted politician both by nature and due to on the job training received in his occupation.

    His idea of creating a circle of advisors who compete with each other and thus allow him to be the final arbiter of major decisions is not new. He is not hostile to conflicts within his inner circle.

    The key information about his real intention would be the candidate for the Secretary of State. But even here uncertainty will remain. For example, it is not completely clear to me that if Bolton would be appointed he will be able to pursue the policies of his neocon past. After all Trump has distinct authoritarian inclinations and Bolton is not stupid enough not to understand that.

    Hopefully his foreign policy will be less jingoistic that Obama foreign policy. "Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war," said Trump, "unlike other candidates, war and aggression will not be my first instinct."

    likbez 44

    @41
    Chet Murthy 11.22.16 at 5:08 am

    There have been two constants in his campaign: "stomp the weaker" and "lovin' Putin". That's it.

    "lovin' Putin" is a propaganda trick which enforces a certain judgment on the US-Russia relations . You should better stay above this level in this blog.

    Putin was and remain an obstacle on building global neoliberal empire governed by the USA. So hate toward him by Washington establishment is quite natural. Nothing personal, just business. In other words, demonization of Putin and hysterical anti-Russian campaign (including Hillary attempt to convert Democratic Party into a War party) is just a sign of disapproval of Washington his lack of desire to convert Russian into yet another vassal state.

    The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and improve the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do that and resist strong attempts to co-opt him into standard set of neocon policies, which Washington pursued for several decades.

    His "Contract with America" does not cover foreign policy issues except rejection of TPP, NAFTA and like.

    https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

    Any idea that he will peruse isolationist agenda is undermined by the amount of Iran hawks in his close circle.

    My impression is that his administration will try to bait Russia in order to prevent any strengthening of China-Russia alliance which was the main blowback of Obama policies toward Russia.

    Also under Trump the USA might be more selective as running six concurrent conflicts (Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine). Which during Obama administration proved to be pretty expensive. Libya is now a failed state. In Ukraine the standard of living dropped to the level of $2 per day for the majority of population and the country became yet another debt slave, always balancing on the wedge of bankruptcy. And costs for the USA are continuing to mount in at least three of the six countries mentioned ( profits extracted in Ukraine and Iraq partially offset that). It is unclear whether Trump administration will continue this Obama policy of multiple unilateral engagements but I think is that during Trump administration the resistance to the USA unilateral interventionism will be stronger as neoliberalism itself became much less attractive ideology. Which is more difficult to "export". Similar to the fact that "communism" was more difficult to export after 60th by the USSR. In a way, after 2008 it is a "damaged good" notwithstanding its recent victories in Brazil and Argentina. See for example discussion at:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/22/does-clintons-defeat-mean-the-decline-of-us-interventionism/

    The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3)

    What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5)

    But, of course, we can only guess how Trump administration will behave.

    Hidari 11.23.16 at 8:38 am 51

    'The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and improve the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do that and resist strong attempts to co-opt him into standard set of neocon policies, which Washington pursued for several decades.'

    The US Empire has been nice to the Russians before. It was called detente and caused almost (not quite) as much hysteria in war-mongering (proto-neoconservative) circles as Trump's 'neo-detente' is causing now. However, the proviso is (and always was) that the warmongering could be ramped up again any time the Americans chose, and of course it was again under Reagan.

    From the point of view of American imperialism, Trump's plan to (temporarily) be nice to Russia makes a lot of strategic sense: as you point out, under Obama American imperial forces were becoming increasingly overstretched. In any case, for historical reasons, Russia (white, capitalist, Christian) doesn't make as good an enemy as the mysterious dark forces of 'Radical Islam'.

    So I am guessing under Trump we will see temporary rapprochement with Russia in the East, and more concentration on command and control of the Middle East. I am also guessing Obama's 'Pivot to China' will be allowed to quietly continue. It's also likely the US' policy of quietly picking off 'weak links' in the 'pink tide' in South American (cf Brazil, Honduras) will continue.

    'Trump: foreign policy continuity rather than change' may well be a typical graduate thesis in 30 years' time.

    reason 11.23.16 at 9:00 am 52

    I'm curious how Trump will deal with Erdogan. Erdogan seems to have all the tact and subtlety of an angry Bison and with Trump's thin skin, there is bound to be a conflict at some stage. And Erdogan is not Christian.

    kidneystones 11.23.16 at 10:05 am 53

    ... ... ...

    For the moment I take great comfort in the hostility Trump displayed to Eliot Cohen and his ilk – https://twitter.com/EliotACohen/status/798512852931788800

    "After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly."

    [Nov 21, 2016] If Berlusconi is like Trump, what can Italy teach America?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Many of these people voted for Obama in 2012. The reason they abandoned the Democrats this time is that they hadn't seen any improvement in their lives in the last 4 years. When Trump said Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street, they agreed. They were right: she is. ..."
    "... Berlusconi allied himself both with the nascent Lega and the remains of the neo-fascist MSI, members of which went on to hold high positions in his governments. The effects of this alliance were seen in spectacular fashion at the Genoa G8 meeting, which was used very effectively to outlaw street protest or at least to rebrand anyone protesting against government as 'extremist' (he similarly labelled anyone to his left as 'communist'). ..."
    "... The Guardian's Trump nervous breakdown continues apace.... what would you talk about if he didn't exist?? ..."
    "... As far as the part of non-deplorable voters are concerned, it is relatively clear what they want: economic security and perspective rather than the choice between unemployment and MacJobs, public services working reasonably well rather than garbage piling up in the streets, respectable political culture rather than corruption and nepotism. ..."
    "... Obviously, and not without reason, the confidence of many voters in the ability of the political establishment has faded to a degree allowing exploitation by tycoons presented as 'can-do' strongmen. Neither crying nor shouting at the voters nor agreeing that the N-word is ok will change that. ..."
    "... Trump wasn't as bad as Berlusconi however at the end of the day ordinary people are more concerned about their jobs, their own local economies, their hospitals, schools, local taxes, housing costs so in that respect they look to see change not the same oppressive status quo ..."
    "... It's why Sarkozy was rejected yesterday outright as people don't want a fake offer and the neoliberal Establishment serving corporates, a bent media and banking interests at the cost to themselves and their families. ..."
    Nov 21, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    by Stephanie Kirchgaessner

    Berlusconi was Italy's longest serving post war PM. Like Bill Clinton he was a talented totally corrupt, sexually obsessed politician.
    Derrick Hibbett 9m ago

    People voted for Trump for a variety of reasons. Some wanted abortion made illegal, some were KKK racists. It is pointless trying to "understand their concerns"; they will never support the left.

    Others voted for Trump because they believe he provide them with a secure job, with a salary which allows them to support themselves and their families. Many of these people voted for Obama in 2012. The reason they abandoned the Democrats this time is that they hadn't seen any improvement in their lives in the last 4 years. When Trump said Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street, they agreed. They were right: she is.

    The problem is that in the absence of a strong labour movement they were prey to a trickster who has no intention of challenging the corporations.

    nadaward 22m ago

    Something the article doesn't mention was Berlusconi's bringing of the far right out of the political cupboard.

    Berlusconi allied himself both with the nascent Lega and the remains of the neo-fascist MSI, members of which went on to hold high positions in his governments. The effects of this alliance were seen in spectacular fashion at the Genoa G8 meeting, which was used very effectively to outlaw street protest or at least to rebrand anyone protesting against government as 'extremist' (he similarly labelled anyone to his left as 'communist').

    I'm not sure that apart from a sort of desire for privatization of the state apparatus Berlusconi has or had strong political views. I think questions such as immigration were used in an instrumental fashion.

    It's often said that Berlusconi also brought what in Italy is called the language of the 'Bar Sport' into the political arena. In other words he cancelled the veneer of respectability in political language, with great help from the Lega. There was a sort of 'naughty boy' factor involved in this taboo breaking that had enormous appeal outside of the 'educated classes'. People suddenly felt entitled to let it all hang out and say what they wanted. A sort of nine-year stag night. The more people objected to his version of 'pussy grabbing' the more they could be successfully labelled stuck-up do-gooders.

    On the question of the Church and its complicity, I think that had a lot to do with the conservative papacies of the times.

    pfcbg 23m ago

    I love Donald Donny T. He is a phenomenal leader. Unlike Hillary, he isn't going to ally himself with Islamists of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but in fact, might crush them. I love Donald Donny T. He might unite with Russia crush Islamists.

    qpdarloboy 25m ago

    Berlusconi was a front man for the mafia. It's no coincidence that Forza Italia was launched immediately after the judicial investigations into corruption in the existing political parties looked set to wipe out the mafia's hold over Italian politics

    Nick Pers 32m ago

    it seems like the title of this article is inverted, Trump is like Berlusconi not the other way around. At least chronologically Berlusconi's political engagement was much prior to Trump and even on the financial level according to Forbes magazine Berlusconi is more than twice richer than Trump and obviously had much more media influence, but I do not see how the contrary is true as the title seems to suggest????

    Hurrellr 1h ago

    The Guardian's Trump nervous breakdown continues apace.... what would you talk about if he didn't exist?? Actually perhaps nervous breakdown is the wrong metaphor, perhaps its more like an orgasm ... he hits the sweet spot, you can protest endlessly... years and years lie ahead of you blathering on about Trump being the devil. The ultimate orgasmic showcasing of virtue. Christmas has come early!

    carlygirl 2h ago

    While it has received scant attention, Trump has also promised to repeal a 1954 ban that prevents tax-exempt organisations like churches from getting involved in politics, a change that could give churches an even more powerful role in US politics.

    Pure idiocy. Putting cults that believe in 'invisible men' in charge of political policy - it would be like the Taliban taking control of Afghanistan.

    pollyp57 -> carlygirl 22m ago

    The American religious right has a great deal in common with the Taliban - they aren't mad keen on science, they want to impose their own version of social control and they both absolutely agree that women should lip up and get on with the housework.

    Peter Krall 2h ago

    try and seriously understand what his voters want

    What is this supposed to mean? Understanding that some deplorables feel terrorised by the 'p.c.-police' if using the N-word is deprecated and bowing to them? Sorry, no! It may be possible to win the votes of these people by pursuing Trump's/Berlusconi's agenda but if this agenda is to be pursued: why not just let them do it?

    As far as the part of non-deplorable voters are concerned, it is relatively clear what they want: economic security and perspective rather than the choice between unemployment and MacJobs, public services working reasonably well rather than garbage piling up in the streets, respectable political culture rather than corruption and nepotism.

    Understanding this is the easy part. The problem is delivering. Obviously, and not without reason, the confidence of many voters in the ability of the political establishment has faded to a degree allowing exploitation by tycoons presented as 'can-do' strongmen. Neither crying nor shouting at the voters nor agreeing that the N-word is ok will change that.


    Streatham 2h ago

    And don't let's forget Berlusconi's pal Blair, he of the 'eye-catching initiatives' like the destruction of Iraq. Trump and Berlusconi together will never be responsible for as much evil as the billionaire Blair - close friend as well, of course, of Bill 'The Sleaze' Clinton.

    SpiderJerusalem01 2h ago

    People aren't that concerned with tabloid journalism. They worry about jobs, taxes, the economy. You know, the real stuff. But then, when you don't have those worries I guess you can indulge in fluff pieces.

    That's why the jig is up for you elitists. The world is changing, and not in your favour. Heh.


    Dimitri 3h ago

    Of course this whole nightmare can be avoided if the electoral collage actually decides to select the candidate who won the popular vote by over a million and a half...'such stuff as dreams are made on.'...

    tictactom -> Dimitri 3h ago

    Careful. You'll get ticked off for listening to MSM propaganda talking like that!

    FishDog -> Dimitri 3h ago

    They will state by state.

    Somefing Looms -> Dimitri 2h ago

    Clinton stole votes in several large urban areas - those where the returns were abnormally slow to be returned.

    imo, Clinton lost the popular vote by millions if a true vote were recorded.

    But, even if she didn't, without the Electoral College, a handful of states and even large cities would be choosing the POTUS every term in perpetuity, irrespective of the wishes of those elsewhere in the county.

    Why do you think that's a good idea?

    shaftedpig 3h ago

    Trump wasn't as bad as Berlusconi however at the end of the day ordinary people are more concerned about their jobs, their own local economies, their hospitals, schools, local taxes, housing costs so in that respect they look to see change not the same oppressive status quo .

    It's why Sarkozy was rejected yesterday outright as people don't want a fake offer and the neoliberal Establishment serving corporates, a bent media and banking interests at the cost to themselves and their families. If you want to know who the culprit politicos are look at people like Schauble who are openly threatening us and the democracy we voted for. This guy wasn't even elected by us but feels he has a right to dictate to us as one of his political ancestors once tried.

    https://mishtalk.com/2016/11/19/wolfgang-schauble-turns-to-threats-and-extortion/

    [Nov 21, 2016] Chuck Baldwin -- Trump Supporters Must Not Go To Sleep

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naïve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
    "... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
    "... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
    "... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
    "... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
    "... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
    "... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
    Nov 17, 2016 | www.newswithviews.com

    After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump] plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

    If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony, he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.

    And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist.

    Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment, thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out at worst.

    On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naïve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it.

    To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential administration.

    Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration, I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.

    Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of what we need to know.

    What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.

    There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian, pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.

    The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected.

    I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly, if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Chuck Baldwin -- Trump Supporters Must Not Go To Sleep

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naïve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
    "... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
    "... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
    "... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
    "... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
    "... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
    "... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
    Nov 17, 2016 | www.newswithviews.com

    After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump] plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

    If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony, he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.

    And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist.

    Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment, thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out at worst.

    On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naïve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it.

    To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential administration.

    Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration, I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.

    Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of what we need to know.

    What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.

    There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian, pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.

    The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected.

    I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly, if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Trumps team will start new wars in the Middle East - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... Former associates complain of Flynn's political tunnel vision that could wreak havoc in the Middle East. His consulting company, the Flynn Intel Group, appears to lobby for the Turkish government and Flynn recently wrote an article calling for all-out US support for Turkey, who Washington has been trying to stop launching a full scale invasion of Syria and Iraq. ..."
    Nov 21, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Flynn notoriously sees Islamic militancy not only as a danger, but as an existential threat to the US. He tweeted earlier this year that "fear of Muslims is RATIONAL".

    There is an obsessive, self-righteous quality to Flynn's approach that led him to join chants of "lock her up" in reference to Hillary Clinton during election rallies. Former associates complain of Flynn's political tunnel vision that could wreak havoc in the Middle East. His consulting company, the Flynn Intel Group, appears to lobby for the Turkish government and Flynn recently wrote an article calling for all-out US support for Turkey, who Washington has been trying to stop launching a full scale invasion of Syria and Iraq. Unsurprisingly, the Turkish president welcomed Trump's election with enthusiasm and sharply criticised protests against it in the US (something that would be swiftly dealt with by police water cannon in Turkey).

    A striking feature of the aspirants for senior office under Trump is a level of personal greed high even by the usual standards of Washington. Trump famously campaigned under the slogan "Drain the Swamp" and castigated official corruption, but it is turning out that the outflow pipe from swamp is the entry point of the new administration.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Michael Flynn Should Remember Truths He Blurted Out Last Year by DavidSwanson

    Notable quotes:
    "... New York Times ..."
    www.washingtonsblog.com

    Michael Flynn, expected to advise Donald Trump on counterproductive killing operations misleading labeled "national security," is generally depicted as a lawless torturer and assassin. But, whether for partisan reasons or otherwise, he's a lawless torturer and assassin who has blurted out some truths he shouldn't be allowed to forget.

    For example:

    "Lt. Gen. Flynn, who since leaving the DIA has become an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, charges that the White House relies heavily on drone strikes for reasons of expediency, rather than effectiveness. 'We've tended to say, drop another bomb via a drone and put out a headline that "we killed Abu Bag of Doughnuts" and it makes us all feel good for 24 hours,' Flynn said. 'And you know what? It doesn't matter. It just made them a martyr, it just created a new reason to fight us even harder.'"

    Or even more clearly:

    "When you drop a bomb from a drone you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good. The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just fuels the conflict."

    Will Flynn then advise Trump to cease dropping bombs from drones? Or will he go ahead and advise drone murders, knowing full well that this is counterproductive from the point of view of anyone other than war profiteers?

    From the same report:

    "Asked . . . if drone strikes tend to create more terrorists than they kill, Flynn . . . replied: 'I don't disagree with that,' adding: 'I think as an overarching strategy, it is a failed strategy.'"

    So Trump's almost inevitable string of drone murders will be conducted under the guidance of a man who knows they produce terrorism rather than reducing it, that they endanger the United States rather than protecting it. In that assessment, he agrees with the vast majority of Americans who believe that the wars of the past 15 years have made the United States less safe, which is the view of numerous other experts as well.

    Flynn, too, expanded his comments from drones to the wars as a whole:

    "What we have is this continued investment in conflict. The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just fuels the conflict. Some of that has to be done but I am looking for the other solutions."

    Flynn also, like Trump, accurately cites the criminal 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as critical to the creation of ISIS:

    "Commenting on the rise of ISIL in Iraq, Flynn acknowledged the role played by the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. 'We definitely put fuel on a fire,' he told Hasan. 'Absolutely there is no doubt, history will not be kind to the decisions that were made certainly in 2003. Going into Iraq, definitely it was a strategic mistake."

    So there will be no advice to make similar strategic mistakes that are highly profitable to the weapons industry?

    Flynn, despite perhaps being a leading advocate of lawless imprisonment and torture, also admits to the counterproductive nature of those crimes:

    "The former lieutenant general denied any involvement in the litany of abuses carried out by JSOC interrogators at Camp Nama in Iraq, as revealed by the New York Times and Human Rights Watch, but admitted the US prison system in Iraq in the post-war period 'absolutely' helped radicalise Iraqis who later joined Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its successor organisation, ISIL."

    Recently the International Criminal Court teased the world with the news that it might possible consider indicting US and other war criminals for their actions in Afghanistan. One might expect all-out resistance to such a proposal from Trump and his gang of hyper-nationalist war mongers, except that . . .

    "Flynn also called for greater accountability for US soldiers involved in abuses against Iraqi detainees: 'You know I hope that as more and more information comes out that people are held accountable History is not going to look kind on those actions and we will be held, we should be held, accountable for many, many years to come.'"

    Let's not let Flynn forget any of these words. On Syria he has blurted out some similar facts to those Trump has also articulated:

    "Publicly commenting for the first time on a previously-classified August 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo, which had predicted 'the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria ( ) this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want' and confirmed that 'the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and [Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,' the former DIA chief told Head to Head that 'the [Obama] Administration' didn't 'listen' to these warnings issued by his agency's analysts. 'I don't know if they turned a blind eye,' he said. 'I think it was a decision, I think it was a willful decision.'"

    Let that sink in. Flynn is taking credit for having predicted that backing fighters in Syria could lead to something like ISIS. And he's suggesting that Obama received this information and chose to ignore it.

    Now, here's a question: What impact will "bombing the hell" out of people have? What good will "killing their families" do? Spreading nukes around? "Stealing their oil"? Making lists of and banning Muslims? Is it Flynn's turn to willfully ignore key facts and common sense in order to "advise" against his better judgment a new president who prefers to be advised to do what he was going to do anyway?

    Or can Flynn be convinced to apply lessons learned at huge human cost to similar situations going forward even with a president of a different party, race, and IQ?

    [Nov 21, 2016] In theory, Trump is a non-interventionist; opposed to US military involvement in the Middle East and North Africa

    Notable quotes:
    "... But he has simultaneously opposed the agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme and criticised Barack Obama for pulling the last US troops out of Iraq in 2011 (though in fact this was under an agreement signed by George W Bush). ..."
    "... The US army and air force is today heavily engaged in Iraq and Syria and that is not going to end with Obama's departure. In contradiction to Trump's non-interventionism, leading members of his foreign policy team such as John Bolton, the belligerent former US ambassador to the UN, has been advocating a war with Iran since 2003. Bolton proposes carving out a Sunni state in northern Iraq and eastern Syria, a plan in which every sentence betrays ignorance and misjudgements about the forces in play on the ground. As a recipe for deepening the conflict in the region, it could scarcely be bettered. ..."
    "... There have always been crackpots in Washington, sometimes in high office, but the number of dangerous people who have attached themselves to the incoming administration may be higher today than at any time in American history. ..."
    "... Optimists have been saying this week that Trump is less ideological than he sounds and, in any case, the US ship of state is more like an ocean liner than a speedboat making it difficult to turn round. They add privately that not all the crooks and crazies will get the jobs they want. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | independent.co.uk

    From: Donald Trump's dangerous team of crackpots will spread corruption and start new wars in the Middle East The Independent by Patrick Cockburn

    In theory, Trump is a non-interventionist; opposed to US military involvement in the Middle East and North Africa, he wants to bring the war in Syria to an end. But he has simultaneously opposed the agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme and criticised Barack Obama for pulling the last US troops out of Iraq in 2011 (though in fact this was under an agreement signed by George W Bush).

    But Bush and Obama were both non-interventionists when first elected – until the course of events, and the enthusiasm of the Washington foreign policy establishment for foreign military ventures, changed all that.

    The US army and air force is today heavily engaged in Iraq and Syria and that is not going to end with Obama's departure. In contradiction to Trump's non-interventionism, leading members of his foreign policy team such as John Bolton, the belligerent former US ambassador to the UN, has been advocating a war with Iran since 2003. Bolton proposes carving out a Sunni state in northern Iraq and eastern Syria, a plan in which every sentence betrays ignorance and misjudgements about the forces in play on the ground. As a recipe for deepening the conflict in the region, it could scarcely be bettered.

    There have always been crackpots in Washington, sometimes in high office, but the number of dangerous people who have attached themselves to the incoming administration may be higher today than at any time in American history.

    Optimists have been saying this week that Trump is less ideological than he sounds and, in any case, the US ship of state is more like an ocean liner than a speedboat making it difficult to turn round. They add privately that not all the crooks and crazies will get the jobs they want.

    Unfortunately, much the same could have been said of George W Bush when he came into office before 9/11. It is precisely such arrogant but ill-informed opportunists who can most easily be provoked by terrorism into a self-destructive overreaction. Isis is having a good week.

    [Nov 20, 2016] The Field of Fight How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies by Michael T. Flynn, Michael Ledeen

    Trump essentially betrayed Flynn, who tried to did the billing of Kushner and persuade Russia to abstain from anti-Israel vote.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts' conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western universities. ..."
    "... There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. ..."
    "... General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept. ..."
    "... in contrast to what his detractors might opine, General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion itself. ..."
    "... The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true. ..."
    "... My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence. ..."
    "... I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations that he discusses in his book. ..."
    "... Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals and reactionaries of political Islam. ..."
    "... One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics," whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam." ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.amazon.com

    SomeRandomGuy July 17, 2016

    We're at war, but few people know it... or are willing to accept it.

    When I had heard in the news that Lt Gen Flynn might be chosen by Donald Trump as his Vice Presidential nominee, I was quick to do some research on Flynn and came across this work. Having worked in the intelligence community myself in the past several years, I was intrigued to hear what the previous director of the DIA had to say. I have read many books on the topic of Islam and I am glad I picked this up.

    The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts' conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western universities.

    If you have formed your opinion of Islam and the nature of the West's fight in the Middle East on solely what you hear in the main steam media (all sides), you would do well to read this book as a starting point into self-education on an incredibly complex topic.

    There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. Usually this political opining in a work such as this is distracting, but it does add much-needed context to decisions and events. That said, Lt Gen Flynn did a great job addressing a complex topic in plain language. While this is not a seminal work on

    Amazon Customer on November 11, 2016

    A critically important work for western civilization.

    General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept.

    He supports what he can tell us with citations. Radical Islam has declared war on Western democracies, most of all on the US. Its allies include Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and others. Their war against us is a long-term effort, and our politicians (except Trump?) don't want to hear it. We need to demand that our politicos prepare for this assault and start taking wise, strong steps to defeat it.

    Western Europe may already have been fatally infiltrated by "refugees" who will seek to Islamize it, and current birth rates suggest that those nations will have Muslim majorities in 20 years. General Flynn details what we must do to survive the assault. I bought the Kindle version and began reading it, but then paid more for the audible version so that I could get through it faster. Please buy and read this book!

    David Firester on September 2, 2016

    Looking Inward First, is What Generates the Strategy-Shifting Process. Flynn Gets This. Few Others Do.

    To begin with, I will say that the book is not exactly what one might expect from a recently retired General. For starters, there were numerous spelling errors, an assortment of colloquialisms and some instances in which the prose took on a decidedly partisan tone. The means of documenting sources was something akin to a blog-posting, in that he simply copied and pasted links to pages, right into the body of the work. I would have liked to have seen a more thoroughly researched and properly cited work. All of this was likely due to the fact that General Flynn released his book in the days leading up to Donald J. Trump's announcement of his Vice Presidential pick. As Flynn is apparently a close national security advisor to Trump, I can understand why his work appears to be somewhat harried. Nonetheless, I think that the book's timeliness is useful, as the information it contains might be helpful in guiding Americans' election choices. I also think that despite the absence of academic rigor, it makes his work more accessible. No doubt, this is probably one of Mr. Trump's qualities and one that has catapulted him to national fame and serious consideration for the office he seeks. General Flynn makes a number of important points, which, despite my foregoing adverse commentary, gives me the opportunity to endorse it as an essential read.

    In the introductory chapter, General Flynn lays out his credentials, defines the problem, and proceeds to inform the reader of the politically guided element that clouds policy prescriptions. Indeed, he is correct to call attention to the fact that the Obama administration has deliberately exercised its commanding authority in forbidding the attachment of the term "Islam" when speaking of the threat posed by extremists who advocate and carry out violence in the religion's name. As one who suffered at the hands of the administration for speaking truth to power, he knows all too well what others in the Intelligence Community (IC) must suffer in order to hold onto their careers.

    In chapter one, he discusses where he came from and how he learned valuable lessons at home and in service to his country. He also gives the reader a sense of the geopolitical context in which Radical Islamists have been able to form alliances with our worst enemies. This chapter also introduces the reader to some of his personal military heroes, as he delineates how their mentorship shaped his thinking on military and intelligence matters. A key lesson to pay attention to in this chapter is what some, including General Flynn, call 'politicization of intelligence.' Although he maintains that both the present and previous administration have been guilty of this, he credits the Bush administration with its strategic reconsideration of the material facts and a search for better answers. (He mentions this again in the next chapter on p.42, signifying this capability as a "leadership characteristic" and later recalls the president's "insight and courage" on p. 154.)

    Chapter two of The Field of Fight features an excellent summary of what transpires in a civil war and the manner in which Iraqis began to defect from al-Qa'ida and cooperate with U.S. forces. In this task, he explains for the layperson what many scholars do, but in far fewer pages. Again, this makes his work more accessible. He also works through the process of intelligence failures that are, in his opinion, produced by a superordinate policy failure housed in the upper echelons of the military structure. In essence, it was a misperception (willful or not) that guided thinking about the cause of the insurgency, that forbade an ability to properly address it with a population-centric Counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. He pays homage to the adaptability and ingenuity of General Stanley McChrystal's Task Force 714, but again mentions the primary barrier to its success was bureaucratic in nature.

    The main thrust of chapter 3, aptly named "The Enemy Alliance," is geared toward tying together the earlier assertion in chapter regarding the synergy between state actors like Iran, North Korea, Syria, and the like. It has been documented elsewhere, but the Iranian (non-Arab Shi'a) connection to the al-Qa'ida (Arab Sunni) terrorist organization can't be denied. Flynn correctly points out how the relationship between strange bedfellows is not new in the Middle East. He briefly discusses how this has been the case since the 1970s, with specific reference to the PLO, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Bosnia and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's. He also references President Obama's "curious sympathy" (p. 92) for enemies in places such as Venezuela and Cuba.

    General Flynn then reminds readers of some facts that have either been forgotten, or virtually unknown, by most Americans. Namely, the role that Saddam Hussein actually played with regard to the recruitment of foreign terrorists, the internal policies of appeasement for Islamists in his army and the support he lent to Islamists in other countries (e.g., Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan). He also reminds the readers of the totalitarian mindset that consumes Islamist groups, such as al-Qa'ida and the Islamic State. All the while, and in contrast to what his detractors might opine, General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion itself. This chapter is perhaps the most robust in the book and it is the sort of reading that every American should do before they engage in conversations about the nature of political Islam.

    Chapter four is a blueprint for winning what used to be called the 'global war on terror.' Although such a phraseology is generally laughed at in many policy circles, it is clear, as General Flynn demonstrates, that some groups and countries are locked in combat with us and our partners in the West. Yet, as he correctly points out, the Obama administration isn't willing to use global American leadership in order to defeat those who see us, and treat us, as their collective enemy. General Flynn's prescription includes four strategic objectives, which I won't recite here, as I'm not looking to violate any copyright laws. The essence of his suggestions, however, starts with an admission of who the enemy is, a commitment to their destruction, the abandonment of any unholy alliances we have made over the years, and a counter-ideological program for combating what is largely an ideologically-based enemy strong suit. He points to some of the facts that describe the dismal state of affairs in the Arab world, the most damning of which appear on pages 127-128, and then says what many are afraid to say on page 133: "Radical Islam is a totalitarian political ideology wrapped in the Islamic religion." Nonetheless, Flynn discusses some of the more mundane and pecuniary sources of their strength and the means that might be tried in an effort to undermine them.

    The concluding chapter of General Flynn's work draws the reader's attention to some of the works of others that have been overlooked. He then speaks candidly of the misguided assumptions that, coupled with political and bureaucratic reasons, slows adaptation to the changing threat environment. Indeed, one of the reasons that I found this book so refreshing is because that sort of bold introspection is perhaps the requisite starting point for re-thinking bad strategies. In fact, that is the essence of both the academic and practical work that I have been doing for years. I highly recommend this book, especially chapter 3, for any student of the IC and the military sciences.

    Bob Baker on August 4, 2016
    It's ironic that the general wrote about Pattern Analysis, ...

    It's ironic that the general wrote about Pattern Analysis, when DIA in late-1971 warned that the Ho Chi Minh Trail was unusually active using this technique.

    The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true.

    My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence.

    Amazon Customer on August 1, 2016
    A GREAT BOOK FOR UNDERSTANDING THE WAR ON TERROR

    At a time when so much is hanging in the balance, General Flynn's book plainly lays out a strategy for not only fighting ISIS/ISIL but also for preventing totalitarianism from spreading with Russia, North Korea and Cuba now asserting themselves - again.

    Sadly, because there is some mild rebuke towards President Obama, my fear is people who should read this book to gain a better understanding of the mind of the jihadist won't because they don't like their president being called out for inadequate leadership. But the fact remains we are at war with not just one, but several ideologies that have a common enemy - US! But this book is not about placing blame, it is about winning and what it will take to defeat the enemies of freedom.

    We take freedom for granted in the West, to the point where, unlike our enemies, we are no longer willing to fight hard to preserve those freedoms. General Flynn makes the complicated theatre of fighting Radical Islam easier to understand. His experience in explaining how we can and have won on the battlefield gives me great comfort, but also inspires me to want to help fight for the good cause of freedom.

    My sincerest hope is that both Trump and Clinton will read this book and then appoint General Flynn as our next Defense Secretary!

    Amazon Customer DCC on July 30, 2016
    recommend you read " Heretic

    I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations that he discusses in his book. All of the radical fighting that has taken place in the world, ever since the beginning evolution of the Islamic religion over 1400 years ago, has revolved around radical interpretations of the Qur'an.

    Until there is an Islamic religious reformation, there will never be a lasting resolution to the current "Radical Islamic Terrorist" problem. It is a religious ideology interpretation issue. Until that interpretation is resolved within the Islamic world, there will always be continuing radical interpretation outbreaks, from within the entire Islamic world, against all other forms of non-Islamic religions and their evolving cultures.

    If you require further insight, recommend you read " Heretic, Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now" , by Ayaan Hirisi Ali. DCC

    Aaron Rudroff on July 26, 2016
    To be continued...

    Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals and reactionaries of political Islam.

    One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics," whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam."

    As if there is any relationship to relationship to Islam other than it is the predominant religion in a majority of the area where they commit their criminal activity. As if the political war with terrorist is a function of a label that is of itself a oversimplification of the issues. Indeed, suggesting it is a nothing more than 'political correctness" and ignoring the possibility that it might be a function of setting the conditions in an otherwise polygon of political justice. This argument alone is evidence of the his willingness to develop domestic political will for war with a simple argument. Nevertheless, as a national strategy, it lacks the a foundational argument to motivate friendly regional actors who's authority is founded on political Islam.

    In 2008 a national election was held and the pyrrhic nature of the war in Iraq adjudicated via the process of democratic choice that ended support for continued large scale conventional occupation. That there is some new will to continue large scale conventional occupation seems unlikely, and as a democratic country, leaders must find other means to reach the desired end state, prosecuting contiguous operations to suppress, neutralize, and destroy "ALL" who use terrorism to expand and enforce their political will with a deliberate limited wars that have methodological end states. Lastly, sounding more like a General MacArther, the General Flynn's diffuse strategy seems to ignore the most principles of war deduced by Von Clausewitz and Napoleon: Concentration of force on the objective to be attacked. Instead, fighting an ideology "Radical Islam" seems more abstract then any splatter painting of modern are in principle form it suggests a commitment to simplicity to motivate our nation to prepare for and endure the national commitment to a long war.

    Since we can all agree there is no magical solution, then normative pragmatism of the likes that General. Flynn's assessment provides, must be taken into account in an operation and tactical MDMP. Ignoring and silencing Subject Matter Experts (SME's) will net nothing more than failure, a failure that could be measured in innocent civilian lives as a statistical body count. I could see General Flynn's suggestions and in expertise bolstering a movement to establish a CORP level active duty unit to prepare, plan, and implemented in phases 0, IV, & V (JP 5-0) . Bear in mind, Counter Insurgency (COIN) was never considered a National strategy but instead at tactical strategy and at most an operational strategy.

    William Struse TOP 500 REVIEWER on July 17, 2016
    The Crossroads of Our Republic

    Several times in its nearly 250 years of existence our Nation has been at a crossroads. Looking back on our War for Independence, the Civil War, and WWII we know the decisions made in those tumultuous times forever altered the destiny of our Republic.

    We are once again at one of those crossroads where the battle lines have been drawn, only this time in an asymmetrical war between western democracy and the radical Islamists and nation states who nurture them. In his timely book Field of Fight, Lt. General Michael T. Flynn provides a unique perspective on this war and what he believes are some of the steps necessary to meet this foe.

    Field of Fight begins as an autobiography in which the author gives you a sense of who he is as a man and a soldier. This background information then provides the reader with a better perspective through which to evaluate his analysis of the challenges we face as well as the course of action he believes we need to take to meet those challenges.

    The following are a few of the guidelines General Flynn proposes for developing a winning strategy in our war with radical Islam and other potential foes:

    1. Properly assess your environment and clearly define your enemy;
    2. Face reality – for politicians, this is never an easy thing to do;
    3. Understand the social context and fabric of the operational environment;
    4. Recognize who's in charge of the enemy's forces.

    In Field of Fight General Flynn makes the case that we are losing this war with radical Islam because our nation's leadership has failed to develop a winning strategy. Further he opines that our current leaders lack the clarity of vision and moral certitude that understands American democracy is a "better way", that not all forms of human government are equal, and that there are principled reasons worth fighting for - the very basic of those being, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

    I'll admit I'm concerned about the future of our country. As a husband and a father of five I wonder about the world we leaving for our children to inherit. I fear we have lost our moral compass thus creating a vacuum in which human depravity as exemplified by today's radical Islamists thrives.

    Equally concerning to me is what happens when the pendulum swings the other way. Will we have the moral and principled leaders to check our indignation before it goes too far? When that heart rending atrocity which is sure to come finally pushes the American people to white hot wrath who will hold our own passions in check? In a nation where Judeo-Christian moral absolutes are an outdated notion what will keep us from becoming that which we most hate?

    As I stated at the start of this review, today we are at a crossroads. Once again our nation needs principled men and women in positions of leadership who understand the Field of Fight as described by General Flynn and have the wisdom and courage to navigate this battlefield.

    * * *

    In summary, although I don't agree with everything written in this book I found it to be an educational read which will provided me with much food for thought over the coming months. As a representative republic choosing good leadership requires that we as citizens understand the problems and challenges we face as a nation. Today radical Islam is one of those challenges and General Flynn's book Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies gives a much needed perspective on the subject.

    Terry M Petty on July 16, 2016
    Flynn does great with military intelligence, needs more cultural intelligence

    Gen Flynn has been in the news a lot lately. He apparently did not get on well in DC with his views on fighting terrorism. That is very relevant now as we are seeking better ways to fight ISIS and terror in general. I read his book today to learn what is on his mind. Flynn had a lot of experience starting in the 82nd Airborne and was almost always in intelligence work. Army intelligence is narrowly focused - where is the enemy, how many of them are there, how are they armed and what is the best way to destroy them. Undoubtedly he was good at this. However, that is not the kind of intelligence we need to defeat ISIS. Flynn's book shows no sign of cultural awareness, which is the context by which we must build intelligence about our opponent. In Iraq, he did learn the difference between who was Sunni and who was Shia but that was it. He shows no sign of any historical knowledge about these groups and how they think and live. In looking at Afghanistan, he seems unaware of the various clans and languages amongst different people. The 2 primary languages of Afghanistan are Pashto and Dari. Dari is essentially the same as Farsi, so the Persian influence has been strong in the country for a long time. Flynn seems totally unaware. Intelligence in his world is obtained from interrogation and captured documents. They are processed fast and tell him who their next target should be. This kind of work is not broad enough to give him a strategic background. He sees USA's challenges in the world as a big swath of enemies that are all connected and monolithic. North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Syria, ISIS, and so forth. All need to be dealt with in a forceful manner. He never seems to think about matching resources with objective.

    This monlithic view of our opponents is obviously wrong. Pres George W Bush tried it that way with the Axis of Evil. The 1950's Cold War was all built in fear of the monolithic Soviet Union and China. All these viewpoints were failures.
    Flynn does not see it though. In the book, Flynn says invading Iraq in 2003 might have been the wrong choice. He would have invaded Iran. The full Neocon plan was for 7 countries in 5 years, right after knocking down Iraq, then we would do the same to Iran. I hope we have lost a lot of that hubris by now. But with poor vision by leaders like Flynn, we might get caught up again in this craziness.

    To beat ISIS and Al Qaeda type groups we need patience and allies. We have to dry up the source of the terrorists that want to die. That will be done with a combination of cultural outreaches as well as armed force.
    I am sure the Presidential candidates will both see that Flynn does not have that recipe. Where is a General that does? We have often made this mistake. Sixty Six years ago, we felt good that Gen Douglas MacArthur "knew the Oriental mind" and he would guid us to victory in Korea. That ended up as a disaster at the end of 1950. I think we are better off at working with leaders that understand the people that are trying to terrorize us. Generals don't develop those kinds of empathic abilities.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Rand Paul says he will oppose John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani for Secretary of State

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president," ..."
    "... "It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | rare.us

    Senator Rand Paul said Tuesday in an op-ed for Rare that he would oppose President-elect Donald Trump's rumored selection of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as Secretary of State.

    "Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president,"

    Paul wrote citing U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya that Trump has criticized but that Bolton strongly advocated.

    Reports since have indicated that former New York City mayor and loyal Trump ally, Rudy Giuliani is being considered for the post.

    The Washington Post's David Weigel reports , "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a newly reelected member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said this morning that he was inclined to oppose either former U.N. ambassador John Bolton or former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani if they were nominated for secretary of state."

    "It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was a big lesson," Paul told the Post. "Trump said that a thousand times. It would be a huge mistake for him to give over his foreign policy to someone who [supported the war]. I mean, you could not find more unrepentant advocates of regime change."

    Related: Rand Paul: Will Donald Trump betray voters by hiring John Bolton?

    [Nov 20, 2016] War Breaks Out Between Neo-Cons And Libertarians Over Trumps Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... "How many people sleep better knowing that the Baltics are part of NATO? They don't make us safer, in fact, quite the opposite . We need to think really hard about these commitments," said William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute. ..."
    "... A prominent member of the outsiders is Rand Paul, skeptic of Bush's foreign policy, who has criticized Bolton in the last few days. Paul on Tuesday blasted Bolton in an op-ed in Rare as "a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose." ..."
    "... However, neo-cons are bad at losing, so they have redoubled efforts to land one of their own next to Trump. Lindsey Graham, a prominent foreign policy hawk in the Senate, issued an endorsement of Bolton on Thursday, saying: "He understands who our friends and enemies are. We see the world in very similar ways." ..."
    "... He also slammed Paul's criticism of Bolton: "You could put the number of Republicans who will follow Rand Paul's advice on national security in a very small car. Rand is my friend but he's a libertarian and an outlier in the party on these issues." ..."
    "... Meanwhile, the biggest warmonger, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, who has not said who he'd like to see in Trump's cabinet, laid down a marker on Tuesday by warning the future Trump administration against trying to seek an improved relationship with adversary Russia. "When America has been at its greatest, it is when we have stood on the side those fighting tyranny. That is where we must stand again," he warned. ..."
    "... MENA is the most important, perhaps the only leverage that the US has to hold the global reserve currency. As long as the US retain the world's money, the US can finance its debt while collecting rent worldwide. Also, the US can export its inflation. ..."
    "... No US President can, or will willingly let these three to fail, because the collapse will be horrifying. ..."
    "... the U.S. Empire has globalised its reach as an instrument of the deep state and its oligarchy of owner/operators. Ostensibly to bring democracy to the oppressed, its real purpose was to enrich the rent-seekers on the MIC value chain and to protect and serve the private globalist interests who were the clients of the deep state. National funds flow has always been net outbound, and not the other way around, as in any successful precendent for empire. This continues to be true to this day because of the influence the wealthy rent-seekers on this value chain have over the federal government. Simple as that. ..."
    "... Raytheon, Lockheed and Boeing are corporate sponsors of the Rockefeller/CFR. James Woolsey, Stephen Hadley, John Bolton, Eliot Cohen and John McCain are CFR members. Also Bill Clinton, Janet Yellen, John Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein and George Soros. See member lists at cfr dot org. Cohen, Bolton, Woolsey, and McCain were also members of PNAC. ..."
    "... Yes. Out of NATO, stop the endless pointless wars in the M.E., embrace George Washington and avoiding "foreign entaglements." ..."
    "... Agree...but, easier said than done. A large component of our economy is wholly dependent on government funded MIC and arms sales. Dependency on government spending as large part of our economy has seeped into nearly every aspect of our market place. ..."
    "... There is a problem with the long term approach...is that the every attempt will be made to stop such a transition in its tracks. Even if it means world war. ..."
    "... With modern travel and communications neither policy would work any longer but I'll take nationalism. Bottom line on hawks, the budget is busted out! Cant afford guns and butter anymore. ..."
    "... The empire building has made all but a few a lot poorer and the majority on earth more miserable. I am not naive, I know violence is sometimes necessary, but eternal offence as a strategy ensures enemies will find ways to focus on that top dog and beat you. Beside what I think or believe about foreign policy, it doesn't matter we are broke in affording empire. Period. ..."
    "... You guys crazy or sumpthin? You want full employment at good wages? All out War is your best bet. No messy "fixing" anything, just flip the switch and off you go. Draft all those troublemakers, turn them into cannon fodder, crank up the printing presses and happy days are here again. ..."
    "... What is with you people? It is almost like Saudi Arabia doesn't exist and doesn't buy our politicians. It is almost as if Hillary Clinton never existed, nor her Saudi asset girlfriend (yes, married to an Israeli asset). Look, if you're going to blame the Jews every time, also blame the Wahhabis. And then you might want to also say fuck you to the British who are responsible for both nations. ..."
    "... Look, if you're going to blame the Jews every time, also blame the Wahhabis ..."
    "... Wahabism/Salafism has been used since Reagan as a weapon for covert war. Saudi Petrodollars recycle back to the U.S. MIC as they pass through the CIA Hillary Clinton approved very large increases in weapons to the Saudi's especially as they funded the Clinton machine. Clintons are CFR agents, and that has a heavy jewish illuminst influence. ..."
    "... In what fucking dimension do people this fucking incompetent still have jobs, let alone credibility? Preposterous that they even still have jobs. The US has blown 5-6 trillion on losing one war after the other, has caused massive disorder and chaos in the Mideast to absolutely no one's benefit except Israel, or so Israel believes, and destabilized the entire region to the point that a WWIII could erupt at any moment. ..."
    "... Disaster and incompetence at this level can only be rewarded with sackings and terminations across the board. But no, not in the US. The public is more preooccupied with fictional racists and Donald's bawdy pussy talk. ..."
    "... Trump has been provided an easy litmus test, who has ever advocated deposing Assad must be rejected, not because Assad is such a great guy, but because those who would replace him are radical islamists all. Russia could be cultivated as a friend and do more for world peace than the Arab world which has a fatal jihad disease. ..."
    "... The presidency is more of a ceremonial position now. If the deep state doesn't like the president, it can simply fire him, as it did with Kennedy (and arguably Nixon). It can also make his life a living hell or force a foreign policy showdown as it did with Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. ..."
    "... Controlled demolitions take weeks of planning and preparation. So the implication is that someone planned the WTC7 collapse weeks in advance. WTC7 held a number of offices, including offices of the SEC. Many files were destroyed. ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    In late October, when it was still conventional wisdom that Hillary was "guaranteed" to win the presidency, the WaPo explained that among the neo-con, foreign policy "elites" of the Pentagon, a feeling of calm content had spread: after all, it was just a matter of time before the "pacifist" Obama was out, replaced by the more hawkish Hillary.

    As the WaPo reported , "there is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump's scorched-earth presidential campaign is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama's departure from the White House - and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton - is being met with quiet relief ."

    The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.

    Oops.

    Not only did the "foreign policy" elite get the Trump "scorched-earth distraction" dead wrong, it now has to scramble to find what leverage - if any - it has in defining Trump's foreign policy. Worse, America's warmongers are now waging war (if only metaphorically: we all know they can't wait for the real thing) against libertarians for direct access to Trump's front door, a contingency they had never planned for.

    As The Hill reported earlier , "a battle is brewing between the GOP foreign policy establishment and outsiders over who will sit on President-elect Donald Trump's national security team. The fight pits hawks and neoconservatives who served in the former Bush administrations against those on the GOP foreign policy edges."

    Taking a page out of Ron Paul's book, the libertarians, isolationists and realists see an opportunity to pull back America's commitments around the world, spend less money on foreign aid and "nation-building," curtail expensive military campaigns and troop deployments, and intervene militarily only to protect American interests. In short: these are people who believe that human life, and the avoidance of war, is more valuable than another record quarter for Raytheon, Lockheed or Boeing.

    On the other hand, the so-called establishment camp, many of whom disavowed Trump during the campaign, is made up of the same people who effectively ran Hillary Clinton's tenure while she was Secretary of State, fully intent on creating zones of conflict, political instability and outright war in every imaginable place, from North Africa to Ukraine. This group is pushing for Stephen Hadley, who served as national security adviser under George W. Bush. Another Bush ally, John Bolton whose name has been floated as a possible secretary of State, also falls into this camp.

    According to The Hill, other neo-con, establishment candidates floated include Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), outgoing Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), rising star Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), and senior fellow at conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute and former Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.).

    "These figures all generally believe that the United States needs to take an active role in the world from the Middle East to East Asia to deter enemies and reassure allies."

    In short, should this group prevail, it would be the equivalent of 4 more years of HIllary Clinton running the State Department.

    The outsider group sees things differently.

    They want to revamp American foreign policy in a different direction from the last two administrations. Luckily, this particular camp is also more in line with Trump's views questioning the value of NATO, a position that horrified many in the establishment camp.

    "How many people sleep better knowing that the Baltics are part of NATO? They don't make us safer, in fact, quite the opposite . We need to think really hard about these commitments," said William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.

    A prominent member of the outsiders is Rand Paul, skeptic of Bush's foreign policy, who has criticized Bolton in the last few days. Paul on Tuesday blasted Bolton in an op-ed in Rare as "a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose."

    ... ... ...

    However, neo-cons are bad at losing, so they have redoubled efforts to land one of their own next to Trump. Lindsey Graham, a prominent foreign policy hawk in the Senate, issued an endorsement of Bolton on Thursday, saying: "He understands who our friends and enemies are. We see the world in very similar ways."

    He also slammed Paul's criticism of Bolton: "You could put the number of Republicans who will follow Rand Paul's advice on national security in a very small car. Rand is my friend but he's a libertarian and an outlier in the party on these issues."

    Funny, that's exactly what the experts said about Trump's chances of winning not even two weeks ago.

    Meanwhile, the biggest warmonger, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, who has not said who he'd like to see in Trump's cabinet, laid down a marker on Tuesday by warning the future Trump administration against trying to seek an improved relationship with adversary Russia. "When America has been at its greatest, it is when we have stood on the side those fighting tyranny. That is where we must stand again," he warned.

    Luckily, McCain - whose relationship with Trump has been at rock bottom ever since Trump's first appearance in the presidential campaign - has zero impact on the thinking of Trump.

    Furthermore, speaking of Russia, Retired Amy Col. Andrew Bacevich said there needs to be a rethink of American foreign policy. He said the U.S. must consider whether Saudi Arabia and Pakistan qualify as U.S. allies, and the growing divergence between the U.S. and Israel. "The establishment doesn't want to touch questions like these with a ten foot pole," he said at a conference on Tuesday hosted by The American Conservative, the Charles Koch Institute, and the George Washington University Department of Political Science.

    Furthermore, resetting the "deplorable" relations with Russia is a necessary if not sufficient condition to halt the incipient nuclear arms build up that has resulted of the recent dramatic return of the Cold War. As such, a Trump presidency while potentially a failure, may be best remember for avoiding the launch of World War III. If , that is, he manages to prevent the influence of neo-cons in his cabinet.

    And then there are the wildcards: those Trump advisers who are difficult to peg into which camp they fall into. One example is retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who was selected by Trump as his national security adviser. Flynn is a "curious case," said Daniel Larison, senior editor at The American Conservative. The retired Army general has said he wants to work with Russia, but also expressed contrary views in his book "Field of Fight."

    According to Larison, Flynn writes of an "enemy alliance" against the U.S. that includes Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. From that standpoint, he is about as "establishment" as they come.

    It's also not crystal clear which camp Giuliani falls into. The former mayor is known as a fierce critic of Islamic extremism but has scant foreign policy experience.

    Most say what is likely is change.

    "Change is coming to American grand strategy whether we like it or not,' said Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security at Texas A&M University.

    "I think we are overdue for American retrenchment. Americans are beginning to suffer from hegemony fatigue," he said.

    And, let's not forget, the tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children who are droned to death every year by anonymous remote-control operators in the US just so the US can pursue its global hegemonic interest. They most certainly have, and unless something indeed changes, will continue to suffer, leading to even more resentment against the US, and even more attacks against US citizens around the globe, and on US soil. Some call them terrorism, others call them retaliation.

    Escrava Isaura -> FreezeThese Nov 20, 2016 8:26 AM ,

    Help me here with this word (or whatever it means) REALISTS :

    Article: Ron Paul's book, the libertarians, isolationists and REALISTS see an opportunity . to intervene militarily only to protect American interests.

    So dear Libertarians, as I am about to show you two examples, but the list is long, that you have a problem, because of (US) reality:

    1) You are told by the left and right massmedia that the US is something like that: King of natural gas. We'll be the world exporter. That we have enough natural gas for 100 years, or some nonsense like that. But here is the REALITY :

    US "still" had to import almost 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2015.

    https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/importsexports/annual/

    2) Again, you might hear from the left and right massmedia that: US is shale this. US is shale that, even that shale is not oil, but some form of kerogen. In any event, here' the reality: US crude oil imports, by Millions of Barrels a Day: 2014: 7,344 2015: 7,363 As of July 2016: 8,092 (MBD)

    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_snd_d_nus_mbblpd_m_cur-1.htm

    Key Point (in my opinion): Libertarians, you can't have both of best worlds -two incomparable believes. You have to chose, otherwise you'll be a hypocrite while being a neocon as well.

    BigJim -> Escrava Isaura Nov 20, 2016 8:46 AM ,
    What's your point? That if we don't rule MENA, then the people in charge there won't sell us their natural gas?

    Lulz

    Escrava Isaura -> BigJim Nov 20, 2016 9:39 AM ,

    It's more complicated than that.

    MENA is the most important, perhaps the only leverage that the US has to hold the global reserve currency. As long as the US retain the world's money, the US can finance its debt while collecting rent worldwide. Also, the US can export its inflation.

    No US President can, or will willingly let these three to fail, because the collapse will be horrifying.

    Pairadimes -> Escrava Isaura Nov 20, 2016 10:02 AM ,
    This construction of the U.S. empire is a myth. Unlike the British, Spanish, French, Portuguese, or any other empire throughout history you care to name, the construction of the U.S. Empire has been a drastic net drain on U.S. finances.

    Unlike any preceding empire, which invaded other lands in search of wealth and captured client states to monetize added value, the U.S. Empire has globalised its reach as an instrument of the deep state and its oligarchy of owner/operators. Ostensibly to bring democracy to the oppressed, its real purpose was to enrich the rent-seekers on the MIC value chain and to protect and serve the private globalist interests who were the clients of the deep state. National funds flow has always been net outbound, and not the other way around, as in any successful precendent for empire. This continues to be true to this day because of the influence the wealthy rent-seekers on this value chain have over the federal government. Simple as that.

    In the process, the USA has been hollowed out from the inside, and risks imminent collapse. The greatest hope we can hold out for a Trump presidency is a recognition of the truth of this. Bannon gets close sometimes, but I still have my doubts that there is true recognition of just how dire these current circumstances are. In this, people like Ron Paul are right on target - to save the Republic, the Empire and its enabling institutions (like the Fed) must go.

    Uzda Farce -> jeff montanye Nov 20, 2016 10:06 AM ,
    Raytheon, Lockheed and Boeing are corporate sponsors of the Rockefeller/CFR. James Woolsey, Stephen Hadley, John Bolton, Eliot Cohen and John McCain are CFR members. Also Bill Clinton, Janet Yellen, John Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein and George Soros. See member lists at cfr dot org. Cohen, Bolton, Woolsey, and McCain were also members of PNAC.

    Michael Flynn's book "Field of Fight" is co-authored by neocon Michael Ledeen, defender of Israel and promoter of "universal fascism" . Ledeen is a member of the "Foundation for Defense of Democracies" where Trump advisor James Woolsey is chairman. Woolsey, Clinton's ex-CIA director, is also a member of the "Flynn Intel Group".

    Tallest Skil -> Stan522 Nov 19, 2016 10:51 PM ,
    Fuck the Truman Doctrine . We must return to Glorious Isolationism .
    ebworthen -> Tallest Skil Nov 19, 2016 11:08 PM ,
    Yes. Out of NATO, stop the endless pointless wars in the M.E., embrace George Washington and avoiding "foreign entaglements."

    Drain the M.I.C. and bank/corporation/insurer swamp!

    It is about individuals and families, not the vampire squids, trolls, and homunculi that infest the Imperial City.

    "Hang 'em high!"

    Falcon49 -> ebworthen Nov 20, 2016 7:05 AM ,
    Agree...but, easier said than done. A large component of our economy is wholly dependent on government funded MIC and arms sales. Dependency on government spending as large part of our economy has seeped into nearly every aspect of our market place.

    The gov expansion into and control of the economy has so distorted the markets, and created so much dependency that we are now in a situation where without it, our economy collapses. It would take decades to fix this problem without collapsing the economy while you are doing it...

    However, we would still feel the pain as we transition the economy. There is a problem with the long term approach...is that the every attempt will be made to stop such a transition in its tracks. Even if it means world war.

    Raging Debate -> Tallest Skil Nov 20, 2016 6:40 AM ,
    With modern travel and communications neither policy would work any longer but I'll take nationalism. Bottom line on hawks, the budget is busted out! Cant afford guns and butter anymore.

    The empire building has made all but a few a lot poorer and the majority on earth more miserable. I am not naive, I know violence is sometimes necessary, but eternal offence as a strategy ensures enemies will find ways to focus on that top dog and beat you. Beside what I think or believe about foreign policy, it doesn't matter we are broke in affording empire. Period.

    shovelhead -> Raging Debate Nov 20, 2016 8:45 AM ,
    You guys crazy or sumpthin? You want full employment at good wages? All out War is your best bet. No messy "fixing" anything, just flip the switch and off you go. Draft all those troublemakers, turn them into cannon fodder, crank up the printing presses and happy days are here again.

    Only those doped up hippies worry about nukes. Don't listen to them.

    geno-econ -> Stan522 Nov 20, 2016 9:09 AM ,
    Dear President Elect Donald Trump,

    I hear you do not like yo read, but you must read this ZH post that neatly summarizes the NeoCon influence in Wash. which has run it's course with little tangible returns and many negative debt outcomes including loss of millions of lives . Time to change or face world condemnation worse than Germany received after WWII. America has always been regarded as a savior Nation until the Neocons took over Wash. for narrow corporate, DOD and foreign interests.

    You have now heard all the arguments and must decide---compromise will only lead to more strife and possible economic collapse. This is the most important decision of your Presidency ---all other decisions and promises depend on this one.

    Sincerely,

    Mankind

    chosen , Nov 19, 2016 10:43 PM ,
    Fuck those stinking neo-con bastards. We are not going to be fighting Israel's wars again. This is the United States, not Israel, no matter how much jew money controls congress and no matter how much jew money controls the media. I hope Trump understands this very clearly.
    Krungle -> chosen , Nov 19, 2016 11:00 PM ,
    What is with you people? It is almost like Saudi Arabia doesn't exist and doesn't buy our politicians. It is almost as if Hillary Clinton never existed, nor her Saudi asset girlfriend (yes, married to an Israeli asset). Look, if you're going to blame the Jews every time, also blame the Wahhabis. And then you might want to also say fuck you to the British who are responsible for both nations.

    The reason "Islamophobia" is even a thing is because Saudis paid Jewish SJWs to make it a thing, all while they pay WASPs like Bolton to go apeshit on non-Wahhabi Muslims.

    Yes, before you even start, I'm aware of the claims that the Saudis are some sort of "crypto-Jews". Whatever. They need to be named regardless.

    chosen -> Krungle Nov 19, 2016 11:20 PM ,
    I don't recall the US fighting any wars that would directly benefit Saudi Arabia. Sure, the Saudis have a lot of money, but they are just a bunch of camel-fuckers who got rich because they are sitting on oil. They are still a bunch of dumb camel-fuckers. They don't have any nukes. I imagine the Saudis do nothing without the approval of the CIA Israel is a whole different story.
    Falcon49 -> chosen Nov 20, 2016 5:37 AM ,
    Several editions of the Iraq War? Your statement of what they are is moronic.
    MEFOBILLS -> Krungle Nov 19, 2016 11:24 PM ,
    Look, if you're going to blame the Jews every time, also blame the Wahhabis

    Let's deconstruct this statement shall we:

    What does America get, especially the Western Illuminist Bankers? All Saudi Petrodollars are to cycle into Western Capital Market, including Western Banks. Saudi's are to buy TBILLs with their petrodollars. All oil is to be priced in dollars, to then create demand for said dollars. Saudi's do not get to own a powerful financial center. (Can you name me a powerful Saudi bank?)

    Our Jewish friends are not stupid and have been running the money game since forever.

    The Coup for Saudi was actually a British MI6 project. If you trace MI6 back in time, it was an arm of Bank of England. BOE was brought into existence by Jewish Capital out of Amsterrrdaaaamn.

    Wahabism/Salafism has been used since Reagan as a weapon for covert war. Saudi Petrodollars recycle back to the U.S. MIC as they pass through the CIA Hillary Clinton approved very large increases in weapons to the Saudi's especially as they funded the Clinton machine. Clintons are CFR agents, and that has a heavy jewish illuminst influence.

    So- absolutely, the Salafists are on the side of our Illuminist friends.

    The Shites, especially those of Iran/Persia - have had their "funds" absconded with and/or locked up.

    So, which side of Islam has our Jewish Illuminist Cabal masters selected?

    inosent -> MEFOBILLS Nov 19, 2016 11:58 PM ,
    if you can post some reliable source material to support your post I'd like the see it. it generally tracks with my understanding but i could use some solid source material.
    MEFOBILLS -> inosent Nov 20, 2016 12:26 AM ,
    if you can post some reliable source material to support your post I'd like the see i

    Google 1973 Saudi Kissinger deal:

    For BOE the sources are more obscure. I personally have tracked them through time using population statistics and the like. I need to write a book, so I can quote myself.

    BOE, Cromwell, the Orange Kings - the usurpation of England, are all related by way of Stock Market Capital in Amersterdamn. You can trace our Jewish friends arrival in Amersterdamn with their loss of East West Mechanism (silver gold exchange rates on the caravan routes). They lost it to the portuguese when Vasco de Gama discovered the Sourthern route.

    The person who best cataloged these maneuvers was an american Alexander Del Mar - a great monetary historian. Look for his books.

    This stuff will take you years of effort, and I applaud anyone who takes it on.

    MEFOBILLS -> MEFOBILLS Nov 20, 2016 12:33 AM ,
    For the circulation of dollars during Vietnam War, See Hudson's books... especially Super Imperialism

    Dr. Bonzo •Nov 19, 2016 11:04 PM

    The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.

    In what fucking dimension do people this fucking incompetent still have jobs, let alone credibility? Preposterous that they even still have jobs. The US has blown 5-6 trillion on losing one war after the other, has caused massive disorder and chaos in the Mideast to absolutely no one's benefit except Israel, or so Israel believes, and destabilized the entire region to the point that a WWIII could erupt at any moment.

    Disaster and incompetence at this level can only be rewarded with sackings and terminations across the board. But no, not in the US. The public is more preooccupied with fictional racists and Donald's bawdy pussy talk.

    A nation of fucking morons. I swear.

    Victor999 -> Dr. Bonzo •Nov 20, 2016 4:09 AM

    You answered your own question....Israel is the first priority of American foreign policy - always.

    Chaos is precisely what Israel ordered in order to weaken central governments of the ME and destroy their military capability. WWIII? Doesn't matter in the least for Israel who will quietly stand aside and let the goyim fight it out, and then pick up the remains. We're all fucking morons for allowing the Jews to take over our money supply, our government, our intelligence services, our media - and hide themselves under the protective cloak of liberalism, political correctness and 'anti-Semitism' to shut down all rational debate and guard them against 'discriminatory' practices.

    Neochrome •Nov 19, 2016 11:06 PM

    First of all, McStain should STFU, we'll send a nurse to change his depends, no need to get all cranky.

    Giuliani's foreign expertise comes down apparently to be so "brave" to kick down Serbs when they are down and to proclaim to their face that they have deserved to be bombarded.

    Bolton is exactly opposite of everything that Trump campaigned on.

    Again, Mitt doesn't look half-bad considering the alternatives...

    Kagemusho •Nov 19, 2016 11:13 PM

    The Elite always signal their intent through the Traditional Media...like this:
    Empire or Not? A Quiet Debate Over U.S. Role
    by Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, 21 August 2001 https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/empireOrNot.html

    You will find the bastards were planning for war and just needed their Pearl Harbor 2 in order to launch it. The same PNAC, Office of Special Plans NeoCon nutcases that want to get close to Trump were talking so glibly and blithely about 'empire'. I knew even then that this was the Elite signaling intent, and we all know what happened a few weeks later. This article should provide the benefit of hindsight when considering Cabinet postings. These NeoCon Israel-Firster assholes belong in prison for war crimes!

    Salzburg1756 •Nov 19, 2016 11:16 PM

    neocon = Israel-Firster

    If Trump disempowers them, he will be a great/good president.

    the.ghost.of.22wmr -> Salzburg1756 •Nov 20, 2016 12:18 AM

    Trump sure sounds like an Israel-firster. How else could you interpret this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQgDgMGuDI0

    dunce •Nov 19, 2016 11:17 PM

    Trump has been provided an easy litmus test, who has ever advocated deposing Assad must be rejected, not because Assad is such a great guy, but because those who would replace him are radical islamists all. Russia could be cultivated as a friend and do more for world peace than the Arab world which has a fatal jihad disease.

    The Kurds have served our shared interests well , but like all Muslims have no real interest in becoming westernized and will turn on us once they have achieved their goals.

    UnschooledAustr... -> dunce •Nov 20, 2016 1:50 AM

    You are wrong about the Kurds. Besides the Alevites the only sane people in this mess called the islamic world.

    shovelhead -> dunce •Nov 20, 2016 9:35 AM

    The Kurds are an ethnic identity, not a religious one. While most are of an Islamic rootstock, the are Kurds of various religious beliefs. The Kurds are fighting for an autonomous region where all religions can co-exist without one being dominant and forcing others to conform.

    The Kurds problem is they are not physically separated by geography like Sicily, who falls under the Italian State but are still distinctly Sicilian in language and culture while the outside world sees them as Italian.

    The Kurds problem is that someone in Europe drew a line on a map without consulting them whether they wanted their traditional homeland to be divided between three different countries.

    Dabooda •Nov 20, 2016 12:37 AM

    BERNIE SANDERS would be a genius choice for Secretary of State. A kick in the teeth to the Clintonistas and the neocons, an olive branch to liberals of good will, and a hilarious end to the American civil war that the MSM and Soros are trying to drum up. Bernie's foreign policy was the only thing I liked about him.

    sinbad2 -> Dabooda •Nov 20, 2016 1:02 AM

    What a fantastic idea, political genius.

    UnschooledAustr... -> Dabooda •Nov 20, 2016 1:30 AM

    I - non-US citizen living in the US - frequently argued that I would have loved seeing Bernie run as VP for Trump.

    Not a lot of people who got it. You did.

    BTW: Fuck Soros.

    Big Ben •Nov 20, 2016 12:51 AM

    The presidency is more of a ceremonial position now. If the deep state doesn't like the president, it can simply fire him, as it did with Kennedy (and arguably Nixon). It can also make his life a living hell or force a foreign policy showdown as it did with Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs.

    Incidentally, I've been looking at some websites that claim that the 911 attacks could not have happened the way the government claimed. There were actually THREE buildings that collapsed: the North and South Towers and WTC7 which was never hit by an airplane. The government claims it collapsed due to fires, but a whole bunch of architects and structural engineers say that isn't possible. And if you look at the video of the collapse, it looks like a perfect controlled demolition. There have been a number of large fires in steel framed skyscrapers and none of them has caused a collapse. And even if a fire somehow managed to produce a collapse, it would create a messy uneven collapse where the parts with the hottest fires collapse first.

    Controlled demolitions take weeks of planning and preparation. So the implication is that someone planned the WTC7 collapse weeks in advance. WTC7 held a number of offices, including offices of the SEC. Many files were destroyed.

    Also Steven Jones, a retired BYU physics professor and other scientists have found particles of thermite in the dust from the North and South tower collapses. Thermite is an incendiary used to cut steel. This suggests that the collapse of the the North and South Towers was also caused by something other than an airplane collision.

    I have seen claims that GW Bush's younger brother was a high executive in the company that handled WTC security.

    So were the 9/11 attacks a preplanned event designed to create support for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

    .... ... ...

    [Nov 20, 2016] Rand Paul says he will oppose John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani for Secretary of State

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president," ..."
    "... "It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | rare.us

    Senator Rand Paul said Tuesday in an op-ed for Rare that he would oppose President-elect Donald Trump's rumored selection of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as Secretary of State.

    "Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president,"

    Paul wrote citing U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya that Trump has criticized but that Bolton strongly advocated.

    Reports since have indicated that former New York City mayor and loyal Trump ally, Rudy Giuliani is being considered for the post.

    The Washington Post's David Weigel reports , "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a newly reelected member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said this morning that he was inclined to oppose either former U.N. ambassador John Bolton or former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani if they were nominated for secretary of state."

    "It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was a big lesson," Paul told the Post. "Trump said that a thousand times. It would be a huge mistake for him to give over his foreign policy to someone who [supported the war]. I mean, you could not find more unrepentant advocates of regime change."

    Related: Rand Paul: Will Donald Trump betray voters by hiring John Bolton?

    [Nov 20, 2016] Most individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling.

    www.moonofalabama.org
    Posted by: Circe | Nov 19, 2016 8:37:46 PM | 23

    95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.

    And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for treason.

    Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".

    That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.

    Many of you here are extremely naïve regarding Trump.

    b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.

    Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon-unfriendly President was elected.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 10:20:57 PM | 26

    Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and buy arms.

    And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.

    What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.

    And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?

    The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:

    >> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?

    >> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that has produced a brittle social fabric.

    >> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?

    Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Here is an interesting interpretation of Trumps selection of cabinet and advisor positions

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures for the various departments. ..."
    "... I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet. ..."
    "... A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies). ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Patient Observer , November 19, 2016 at 8:41 am

    Here is an interesting interpretation of Trump's selection of cabinet and advisor positions:

    https://sputniknews.com/politics/201611191047623363-trump-administration-analysis/

    It is not about politics, but Trump's peculiar management style, Timofey Bordachev, Director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at Russia's High School of Economics, told RIA Novosti.

    "Those who have been studying the business biography of the newly elected president have noted that he has always played off his high-ranking employees against each other. While doing so he remained above the fight," he said.

    And

    Gevorg Mirzayan, an assistant professor of the Political Science department at the Financial University in Moscow pointed out two purposes for the nominations.

    "Trump needs to consolidate the Republican Party, hence he should nominate representatives of different party groups to key positions in his administration to win the support of the whole party," he told RIA Novosti. Surveillance © Photo: Pixabay Trump National Security Team Reportedly Wants to Dismantle Top US Spy Agency The second purpose is to form an administration that doesn't look too "dovish" or too "hawkish" to be able to avoid further accusations of excessive loyalty towards Moscow, he suggested. Thus without an image of a 'dove" who neglects the national interests, he will be able to normalize Russian-American relations, the expert said.

    The above brings rationality to the diverse selections made by Trump.

    However, the black swan event will be an economic collapse (fast or protracted over several years). That will be the defining event in the Trump presidency. I have no inkling how he or those who may replace him would respond.

    Jen , November 19, 2016 at 12:18 pm
    I had guessed myself that Trump was going to run the government as a business corporation. Surrounding himself with people of competing viewpoints, and hiring on the basis of experience and skills (and not on the basis of loyalty, as Hillary Clinton might have done) would be two ways Trump can change the government and its culture. Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures for the various departments.

    If running the US government as a large mock business enterprise brings a change in its culture so it becomes more open and accountable to the public, less directed by ideology and identity politics, and gets rid of people engaged in building up their own little empires within the different departments, then Trump might just be the President the US needs at this moment in time.

    Interesting that Russian academics have noted the outlines of Trump's likely cabinet and what they suggest he plans to do, and no-one else has. Does this imply that Americans and others in the West have lost sight of how large business corporations could be run, or should be run, and everyone is fixated on fake "entrepreneurship" or "self-entrepreneur" (whatever that means) models of running a business where it's every man, woman, child and dog for itself?

    Patient Observer , November 19, 2016 at 5:21 pm Patient Observer , November 19, 2016 at 5:21 pm
    I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet. Trump may have noted how Putin did an incredible turnaround of Russia and it all started with three objectives: restore the integrity of the borders, rebuild the industrial base and run off the globalists/liberals/kreakles. I am certainly not the first one to say this and I think that there is a lot of basis for that analysis. However, Trump will have a far more difficult challenge and frankly I don't think he has enough allies or smarts to pull it off.

    A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies).

    [Nov 20, 2016] Speculation: Trump Promotes NSA Boss Rogers To DNI Because He Leaked The Clinton Emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... Putin has been supporting right-wing movements across the West in order to weaken NATO ..."
    "... prepare ourselves ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Speculation: Trump Promotes NSA Boss Rogers To DNI Because He Leaked The Clinton Emails

    If some investigative journos start digging into the issue this story could develop into a really interesting scandal:

    Pentagon and intelligence community chiefs have urged Obama to remove the head of the NSA

    The heads of the Pentagon and the nation's intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.

    The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
    ...
    The news comes as Rogers is being considered by President-Elect Donald Trump to be his nominee for DNI, replacing Clapper as the official who oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower.

    Adm. Michael S. Rogers recently claimed in reference to the hack of the Democratic National Council emails that Wikileaks spreading them is "a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He obviously meant Russia.

    Compare that with his boss James Clapper who very recently said (again) that the "intelligence agencies don't have good insight on when or how Wikileaks obtained the hacked emails."

    Emails of the DNC and of Clinton's consigliere John Podesta were hacked and leaked. Additionally emails from Clinton's private email server were released. All these influenced the election in favor of Trump.

    Wikileaks boss Assange says he does not know where the emails come from but he does not think they came from Russia.

    Clapper and Carter wanted Rogers fired because he was generally disliked at the NSA, because two big breaches in the most secret Tailored Access Organization occurred on his watch even after the Snowden case and because he blocked, with the help of Senator McCain, plans to split the NSA into a spying and a cyber war unit.

    Now let me spin this a bit.

    Rogers obviously knew he was on the to-be-fired list and he had good relations with the Republicans.

    Now follows some plausible speculation:

    Some Rogers trusted dudes at the NSA (or in the Navy cyber arm which Rogers earlier led) hack into the DNC, Podesta emails and the Clinton private email server. An easy job with the tools the NSA provides for its spies. Whoever hacked the emails then pushes what they got to Wikileaks (and DCleaks , another "leak" outlet). Wikileaks publishes what it gets because that is what it usually does. Assange also has various reasons to hate Clinton. She was always very hostile to Wikileaks. She allegedly even mused of killing Assange by a drone strike.

    Rogers then accuses Russia of the breach even while the rest of the spying community finds no evidence for such a claim. That is natural to do for a military man who grew up during the cold war and may wish that war (and its budgets) back. It is also a red herring that will never be proven wrong or right unless the original culprit is somehow found.

    Next we know - Trump offers Rogers the Clapper job. He would replace the boss that wanted him fired.

    Rogers support for the new cold war will also gain him favor with the various weapon industries which will eventually beef up his pension.

    Some of the above is speculation. But it would make sense and explain the quite one-sided wave of leaks we saw during this election cycle.

    Even if it isn't true it would at least be a good script for a Hollywood movie on the nastiness of the inside fighting in Washington DC.

    Let me know how plausible you find the tale.

    Posted by b on November 19, 2016 at 02:14 PM | Permalink

    Comments woogs | Nov 19, 2016 2:29:47 PM | 1
    As the song goes, "Aim high, shoot low".

    Not sure about the speculation. There's justification for military spending beyond the cold war. Actually, the cold war could be sacrificed in order to re-prioritize military spending.

    In any case, Trump's proposed picks are interesting. I especially like the idea of Dana Rohrabacher as Secretary of State if it comes to pass.

    One thing for sure .... there's been so much 'fail' with the Obama years that there's an abundance of low-hanging fruit for Trump to feather his cap with success early on, which will give him a template for future successes. That depends largely on who his picks for key posts are, but there has seldom been so much opportunity for a new President as the one that greets Trump.

    It's there to be had. Let's hope that Trump doesn't blow it.

    jo6pac | Nov 19, 2016 2:36:32 PM | 2
    Sounds about right and this just means a new criminal class has taken over the beltway. That doesn't do anything for us citizens, just more of the same.

    Everything is on schedule and please there's nothing to see here.

    Jen | Nov 19, 2016 2:37:52 PM | 3
    I wonder if Rogers' statement appearing to implicate Russian government hackers in leaking DNC information to Wikileaks at that link to Twitter was made after the Democratic National Convention itself accused Russia of hacking into its database. In this instance, knowing when Rogers made his statement and when the DNC made its accusation makes all the difference.

    If someone at the NSA had been leaking information to Wikileaks and Rogers knew of this, then the DNC blaming Russia for the leaked information would have been a godsend. All Rogers had to do then would be to keep stumm and if questioned, just say a "nation state" was responsible. People can interpret that however they want.

    GoraDiva | Nov 19, 2016 2:38:45 PM | 4
    Any of the scenarios you mention could be right. The one thing that is certain - Russia was not the culprit. Not because Russians would not be inclined to hack - I think it is plausible that everyone hacks everyone (as someone said) - but Russians would not likely go to Wikileaks to publicize their prize. They'd keep it to themselves... in that way, they are probably like LBJ, who knew that Nixon had sabotaged the end-of-war negotiations in Paris in 1968, but said nothing for fear of shocking the "system" and the people's trust in it... (didn't work out too well in the end, though). Putin was right when he said (referring to the 2016 US election) that it all should somehow be ... more dignified.

    karlof1 | Nov 19, 2016 2:52:16 PM | 5
    Makes me wonder who populates the Anonymous group of loosely affiliated hackers and if they were used. The tale has probability; it would be even more interesting if the motive could be framed within the hacker's fulfilling its oath of obligation to the Constitution. Le Carre might be capable of weaving such a tale plausibly. But what about the Russia angle? IMO, Russia had the biggest motive to insure HRC wouldn't become POTUS despite all its denials and impartiality statements. Quien Sabe? Maybe it was Chavez's ghost who did all the hacking; it surely had an outstanding motive.

    PavewayIV | Nov 19, 2016 3:14:56 PM | 6
    I'll add some color on Rogers in another post, but I just want to preface any remarks with one overriding aspect of the leaks. From the details of most of these leaks, speculation on tech blogs (and as far as anyone knows for certain):

    There are many parties that had great incentive to acquire and leak the emails, but I have to insist with the utmost conviction (without a string of expletives) that a junior high school kid could have performed the same feat using hacking tools easily found on the internet . There was absolutely nothing technically sophisticated or NSA-like in someone's ability to get into the DNC server or grab Podesta's emails. It was a matter of opportunity and poor security. If anyone has a link to any other reasoning, I would love to see it. The DNC and Hillary leaks (among other hacks) were due to damn amateurish security practices. The reason you don't outsource or try to get by on the cheap for systems/network security is to reduce the risk of this happening to an acceptable cost/benefit level.

    So the presumption of Wikileaks source being (or needing to be) a state actor with incredibly sophisticated hacking tools is utter nonsense. Yes, it could have been the Russian FSB or any one of the five-eyes intelligence agencies or the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. But it could have just as plausibly been Bart Simpson pwning the DNC from Springfield Elementary School and sending everything to Wikileaks, "Cool, I just REKT the Clintons!"

    WikiLeaks doesn't care if the leak comes from the head of a western intel agency or a bored teenager in New Jersey. It cares that the material is authentic and carefully vets the content, not the source. At least until they kidnapped Assange and took over WikiLeaks servers a couple of weeks ago, but that's for a different tin-foil hat thread.

    Carol Davidek-Waller | Nov 19, 2016 3:18:02 PM | 7
    Is Trump that much of a deep thinker? Rebellious teenager who chooses anyone that the last administration didn't like seems more plausible to me. It doesn't matter who they are or what their record is. I don't think Trump plans to surrender any of his undeserved power to anyone. He'll be running the whole show. They'll do what he wants or be shown the door.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 3:42:42 PM | 8
    Here is another tale I find very plausible:

    rufus (aka "rufie") the MoA Hillbot uses a new persona - "Ron Showalter" - to attack Trump post-election. rufie/Ron conducts a false flag attack on MoA (making comments that are pages long) so that his new persona can claim that his anti-Trump views are being attacked by someone using his former persona.

    See here , here , and here .

    nmb | Nov 19, 2016 4:01:23 PM | 9
    One thing Trump could do immediately to signal that he is not with the establishment

    Qoppa | Nov 19, 2016 4:12:16 PM | 10
    I generally dislike "theories" that go too much into speculation, -- however this one sounds actually quite plausible!

    As for "Russia did it", this was obvious bullshit right from the start, not least because of what GoraDiva #4 says:
    I think it is plausible that everyone hacks everyone (as someone said) - but Russians would not likely go to Wikileaks to publicize their prize. They'd keep it to themselves

    Allegations against Russia worked on confusing different levels: hacking -- leaking -- "rigging".


    It was all like this :-)
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwI-ThzWIAApRki.jpg


    This picture encapsulates IMO the full absurdity this election campaign had come down to:
    MSM constantly bashing Trump for "lies", "post-factual", "populist rage", "hate speech", -- while themselves engaging in the same on an even larger level, in a completely irresponsible way that goes way beyond "bias", "preference" or even "propaganda".
    I understand (and like) the vote for Trump mainly as a call to "stop this insanity!"

    ~~~

    Some more on the issue:

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/really-really-upset-foreign-office-security-services/
    I left Julian [Assange] after midnight. He is fit, well, sharp and in good spirits. WikiLeaks never reveals or comments upon its sources, but as I published before a fortnight ago, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks.


    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/10/russia-hack-dnc-really.html


    And here about an inconspicuous detail suggesting one hacker actually planned to set up "Russians" as the source:
    https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/the-yandex-domain-problem-2076089e330b#

    Nice summary on Sputnik
    https://sputniknews.com/us/201610261046768902-dnc-hack-speculation-carr-interview/


    Qoppa | Nov 19, 2016 4:35:36 PM | 11
    btw, the "inside job" theory goes quite nicely with what we know about alleged traces to "Russians":

    https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/

    The following week, two cybersecurity firms, Fidelis Cybersecurity and Mandiant, independently corroborated Crowdstrike's assessment that Russian hackers infiltrated DNC networks, having found that the two groups that hacked into the DNC used malware and methods identical to those used in other attacks attributed to the same Russian hacking groups.

    But some of the most compelling evidence linking the DNC breach to Russia was found at the beginning of July by Thomas Rid, a professor at King's College in London, who discovered an identical command-and-control address hardcoded into the DNC malware that was also found on malware used to hack the German Parliament in 2015. According to German security officials, the malware originated from Russian military intelligence. An identical SSL certificate was also found in both breaches.

    Sooooo .... these "traces" all show known Russian methods (whether true or not). If they are known they can be faked and used by someone else.


    Now who is the no. 1 organisation, worldwide, in having and being capable to use such information?


    @b, your speculation gets better and better the more one thinks about it.


    IhaveLittleToAdd | Nov 19, 2016 4:58:27 PM | 12
    I'm out of my depth on cyber forensics, but would the NSA, and thus Clapper, know who hacked and leaked these documents? Or would the NSA be in the dark, as they suggest?

    Just watched Oliver Stone's "Snowden". Awesome. Can't believe after seeing it that Clapper has survived all these years. Just another Hoover.

    Posted by: Mina | Nov 19, 2016 5:18:42 PM | 13

    Just watched Oliver Stone's "Snowden". Awesome. Can't believe after seeing it that Clapper has survived all these years. Just another Hoover.

    Posted by: Mina | Nov 19, 2016 5:18:42 PM | 13

    Manne | Nov 19, 2016 6:35:17 PM | 14
    Sheer conspiracy talk, besides b are wrong on Assange, Assange know who leaked it and have denied that a nation is behind it!

    james | Nov 19, 2016 6:50:23 PM | 15
    thanks b.. i like the idea of it being an inside job.. makes a lot of sense too.

    i like @3 jens question about the timing as a possible aid to understanding this better.

    @4 gordiva comment - everyone hacks everyone comment..ditto. it's another form of warfare and a given in these times..

    i agree with @6 paveway, and while it sounds trite, folks who don't look after their own health can blame all the doctors.. the responsibility for the e mail negligence rests with hillary and her coterie of bozos..

    @7 carol. i agree.

    @8 jr.. did you happen to notice a few posts missing from the thread from yesterday and who it was that's been removed? hint : poster who made the comment "more popcorn" is no longer around. they have a new handle today..

    @20 manne.. you can say whatever you want and be speculative too, but i don't share your view on assange knowing who leaked it..

    stumpy | Nov 19, 2016 7:00:28 PM | 16
    Except that you have to consider the targeting. I've suspected an insider all along, given the pre-packaged spin points coordinated with the release vectors. Not that the Russies, Pakistanis, or Chinese wouldn't know more about the US than the US knows about itself, but the overall nuance really hits the anti-elitist spurned sidekick chord. This clashes a bit with b's interagency pissing match scenario, but, then again, you step on the wrong tail... Someone didn't get their piece of pie, or equally valid, someone really really disapproves of the pie's magnitude and relative position on the table.

    Curious how Weenergate led to the perfectly timed 650K emails on that remarkably overlooked personal device.

    MadMax2 | Nov 19, 2016 7:01:17 PM | 17
    @20 Manne
    Yes I think on this case Assange does know, if I remember correctly, he spoke to RT and said something to the effect of 'it's not Russia, we don't reveal our sources but if the DNC found out who it was they would have "egg on their faces"' ...and easy access, copy, paste, send job, my hunch it was the DNC staffer who was suicided.

    Manne | Nov 19, 2016 7:05:51 PM | 18
    James

    Its what Assange himself says, do your homework, as someone else said here, Wikileaks wont reveal the source, that doesnt mean they dont know who leaked it.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 19, 2016 7:05:53 PM | 19
    Is Trump that much of a deep thinker? Rebellious teenager who chooses anyone that the last administration didn't like seems more plausible to me. It doesn't matter who they are or what their record is. I don't think Trump plans to surrender any of his undeserved power to anyone. He'll be running the whole show. They'll do what he wants or be shown the door.
    Posted by: Carol Davidek-Waller | Nov 19, 2016 3:18:02 PM | 7

    I agree.
    Trump's got charm and a good memory and doesn't need to be a deep thinker in order to network efficiently and listen carefully. Nor does he need to be a mathematician to figure out that 1 + 1 = 2.

    james | Nov 19, 2016 7:07:22 PM | 20
    @24 manne.. okay, thanks..

    Oddlots | Nov 19, 2016 7:32:04 PM | 21
    Has anyone else got the feeling that much of the panic inside Washington is due to the possibility that the crimes of the Obama administration might be exposed?

    One of the most uncanny moments I've experienced watching the Syria crisis unfold is seeing the "Assad gasses his people" operation launched, fail miserably, then - mostly - interest is lost. I know: the lie, once asserted, has done most of its work already, debunked or not. I also understand that the western press is so in the tank for the establishment, so "captured" that it shouldn't surprise anyone that no follow up is offered. My point is, rather, that if you think back over just the Ukrainian and Syrian debacle the amount of dirt that could be exposed by a truly anti-establishment figure in the White House is mind boggling.

    Just off the top of my head:

    - the sabotage of the deal to save the Ukrainian constitutional order brokered by Putin, Merkel and Hollande c/o of the excuisitely timed and staged sniper shootings (otherwise known as the "most obvious coup in history")
    - the farce that is the MH17 inquiry (and the implication: another false flag operation with a cut-out that killed, what was it, 279 innocents?)
    - the Kherson pogrom and the Odessa massacre
    - the targeting of both Libya and Syria with outright lies and with all the propaganda perfectly reflecting the adage that, in dis- info operations, the key is to accuse your enemies of all the crimes you are committing or planning to
    - highlights of the above might include: Robert Ford's emails scheming to create "paranoia" in Damascus while completely justifying same; the "rat-lines" and Ghoutta gas operation; the farcically transparent White Helmets Psy-op *

    And on and on...

    If you or the institution that pays you had a closet full to bursting with skeletons like this and you were facing an incoming administration that seems to relish and flaunt it's outsider status wouldn't you be freaking out?

    To ice the cake the latest Freudian slip is the crusade against "fake news." Seriously, if I were in their shoes that's the last phrase I would want people ruminating over. I think it was R. D. Laing who said "we always speak the truth." One way or another.


    * This comes with the delicious irony that the operation's own success offers proof of the adage that sometimes you can succeed too well. The fact that the Omran photo was plastered across every paper in the west is good evidence of how completely "fake" our news has become. My favourite is this farcical interview between Amanpour and Lavrov: https://youtu.be/Tx8kiQyEkHc

    MadMax2 | Nov 19, 2016 7:53:11 PM | 22
    @27 Oddlots
    Most of those are pretty easy picking under a firm rule of law - plenty of underling rats willing to squeal with even gentle pressure, I'm sure.

    His legacy is horrific.

    Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years... It would be sweet, sweet poetry to see him nailed... his 'white papers', formed in secret courts that no one can see, no oversight in the light of day... phony legal documents that allowed him to incinerate fellow humans via drone without charge, without trial...

    Some brother, some nobel prize...

    Circe | Nov 19, 2016 8:37:46 PM | 23
    95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.

    And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for treason.

    Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".

    That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.

    Many of you here are extremely naïve regarding Trump.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 8:53:09 PM | 24
    James @21 I noticed the different handle but b hasn't commented on the attack. I assumed that this meant that b didn't know for sure who did the attack.

    As I wrote, rufus/Ron made himself the prime suspect when he described the attack as an attempt to shut down his anti-Trump message. Some of us thought that it might be a lame attempt to discredit rufus but only "Ron" thought that the attack was related to him.

    If one doesn't believe - as I do - that Ron = rufus then you might be less convinced that rufus did the deed.

    Gaianne | Nov 19, 2016 9:43:45 PM | 25
    @20 Manne--

    Yes, it is important to remember that Assange, though he did not state that he knew who provided the DNC emails, implied that he did, and further implied--but did not state--that it was Seth Rich. Assange's statement came shortly after Rich's death by shooting. Assange stated he specifically knew people had people had risked their lives uploading material, implying that they had in fact lost them.

    --Gaianne

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 10:20:57 PM | 26
    b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.
    Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon -unfriendly President was elected.

    Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and buy arms.

    And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.

    What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military) , the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.

    And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?

    The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:

    >> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?

    >> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that has produced a brittle social fabric.

    >> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?

    Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.

    ben | Nov 19, 2016 11:33:40 PM | 27
    Plausible as hell b.

    b said also.."Rogers support for the new cold war will also gain him favor with the various weapon industries which will eventually beef up his pension."


    That's the long game for most of the "Hawks" in DC. Perpetual war is most profitable.

    And, that game transcends both parties.

    Circe | Nov 19, 2016 11:52:44 PM | 28
    @32

    What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.

    Oh please! Trump is stacking his cabinet with Iran-obsessed Islam haters! Nominal enemy , my ass! And was every candidate for spending a Trillion more on defense??? Did you even read Trump's plan to build up the military?

    You do Netanyahu proud with your deflection. What? Nothing regarding Pompeo's blistering comments on Russia or Ed Snowden?

    Why are you trying to diminish the threat to Iran with the hawks, Islam-haters, and Iran-obsessed team that Trump cobbled together so far?

    Trump's Israel adviser David Friedman is known to be more extreme than even Netanyahu.

    No doubt Netanyahu has unleashed an army of IDF hasbara to crush criticism of Trump and his Iran-obsessed cabinet because he must be elated with his choices and wants to make them palatable to the American sheeple.

    Netanyahu is the first leader Trump spoke with on the phone. Trump praised Netanyahu from day one. PNAC and Clean Break were war manifestos for rearranging the Middle East with the ultimate goal of toppling Iran.

    Trump and his cabinet are all about tearing up the deal and assuming a much more hostile position with Iran. Tearing up the deal is a precursor to a casus belli. What more proof is there that Trump is doing the bidding of Zionist Neocons??? Oh, but you don't want more, do you?

    Your comment reeks of duplicity and sophistry.

    psychohistorian | Nov 20, 2016 1:28:45 AM | 29
    I always try to "follow the money" concept.

    As chipnik noted in a comment, Iran is one of the only countries that is yet to be under the control of private finance (see my latest Open Thread comments, please)

    I personally see all this as obfuscation covering for throwing Americans under the bus by the global plutocrats. The elite can see, just like us, that the US empire's usefulness is beyond its "sold by" date and are acting accordingly. America and its Reserve Currency status are about to crash and the elites are working to preserve their supra-national private finance base of power/control while they let America devolve to who knows what level.

    Too much heat and not enough light here...or if you prefer, the noise to signal ratio is highly skewed to noise.

    psychohistorian | Nov 20, 2016 1:31:46 AM | 30
    And in support of my noise to signal comment there is this comment I made recently in the MoA Fake News posting:

    So is this real or fake news? Trump meeting with folks this week to expand his personal business interests in India....EGAD!

    http://www.ebhsoc.org/journal/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/6/6

    Crimes involving moral turpitude have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general.

    Given the above Trump would not be allowed to immigrate to the US.....just saying...

    Manne | Nov 20, 2016 3:50:10 AM | 31

    Assange: No state actor behind the leak.
    http://fortune.com/2016/11/03/julian-assange-wikileaks-russia-podesta-emails/

    the pair | Nov 20, 2016 3:55:42 AM | 32
    the shadowbrokers say they have NSA malware/tools and to prove it after their auction was met with crickets riding tumbleweeds they released some teaser info on NSA servers used for proxy attacks and recon. of course a few just happened to be "owned" boxes in russia (and china and some other places for that matter). add their russian IP addresses to some (mostly useless) sigantures associated with supposedly russian-designed malware and you've got some good circumstantial evidence.

    also: an email address associated with one or more attacks is from a russian site/domain but whoever registered was directed to the .com domain instead of the .ru one. this probably means someone got sloppy and didn't remember to check their DNS for fail.

    in general these hacks look less like russians and more like someone who wants to look like russians. the overpaid consultants used by the DNC/clinton folks can put "bear" in the names and claim that a few bits of cyrillic are a "slam dunk" but all the "evidence" is easily faked. not that anyone in the "deep state" would ever fake anything.

    Harry | Nov 20, 2016 5:35:50 AM | 33
    @ Jackrabbit | 26

    Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran.

    I worry about it as well. Trump said he'll tear up nuclear agreement, and the people he is choosing also have rabid anti-Iranian agenda.

    Nice start for Trump:

    Thursday US House voted to stop civilian aircraft sales to Iran by both Boeing and Airbus.

    Few days before - US extending economic sanctions against Iran through 2026.

    Of course Trump can block it, but will he? Even if he does, he might blackmail Iran for something in return, etc. Iran is by no means off the hook for neocons and Israel, and I wouldnt be surprised if Trump follows the suit.

    Trump will (or might) have better relations with Russia, but this cordiality doesnt extend to Iran. Or as Jackrabbit says, US neocons will simply switch the targeted state and Iran may soon become "worse threat to humanity than ISIS", again.

    FecklessLeft | Nov 20, 2016 7:12:24 AM | 34
    @33

    I doubt separating the animosity towards Russia and Iran is even possible. Truth be told his comments towards Russia during the election seemed more like he was woefully unaware of the reality of the Russo-American situation in the Mideast than about being ready to negotiate major US power positions and accept Russia as anything more than enemy. Sounded very off the cuff to me. Maybe he thought he'd 'get along great with Putin' at the time but after realizing later that means making nice with Iran and giving up a large measure of US influence in the MENA he has reconsidered and taken the party line. It'd certainly be understandable for a noncareer politician. I'd imagine he'd be more interested now in currying favour with the MIC and the typical Republican party hawks than with Russia/Putin given his statements on military spending. Back when I saw him bow down at the altar of AIPAC earlier in the season I had trouble reconciling that with how he hoped to improve relationships with Russia at the same time given their radical differences wrt their allies. He's made a lot of those type of statements too, it was hard to read where he stood on most any issue during election season.

    I imagine as he's brought into the fold and really shown the reality of how US imperialist power projection he'll change his mind considerably. I think we, as readers and amateur analysts of this type of material, take for granted how hard some of this knowledge is to come by without looking for it directly. When we hear someone is going to make nice with Russia we want to think "well he says that as he must surely recognize the insanity and destructive forces at work." Maybe it's more of a case where the person speaking actually thinks we're in Syria to fight ISIS - that they have very little grasp of how things really work over there.

    In my eyes the names he's been considering are reason for much worry for those hoping Trump would be the one to usher in a multipolar world and end the cold war. I never had much hope in that regard (but I'm still praying for the best).

    Oui | Nov 20, 2016 7:45:56 AM | 35
    Figment of imagination ...

    Putin has been supporting right-wing movements across the West in order to weaken NATO

    Care to back this statement with arguments, examples ar a link to an excellent article?

    Looking at most of "New Europe", it's the other way around ... fascist states allied with Nazi Germany against communism, participating in massacres of Jewish fellow citizens and functioning as a spearhead for US intelligence against communism after the defeat of Nazi Germany – see Gladio. Now used by the CIA in the coup d'état in Ukraine in Februari 2014.

    Ahhh ... searched for it myself, a paper written earlier in 2016 ... how convenient!

    Putinism and the European Far Right | IMR|

    The paper, authored by Alina Polyakova , Ph.D., deputy director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council , was originally presented at the 2015 ASEEES Annual Convention.

    Policy set by the Atlantic Council years ago: make Russia a pariah state . Written about it many times. BS and more western propaganda. The West has aligned itself with jihadists across the globe, Chechnya included. Same as in Afghanistan, these terrorists were called "freedom fighters". See John McCain in northern Syria with same cutthroats.

    Absolutely outrageous! See her twitter account with followers/participants Anne Applebaum and former and now discredited Poland's FM Radoslaw Sikorski .

    Pitiful and so uninformed!

    Posted earlier @BT - To the Stake .. Burn the Heretic

    Yonatan | Nov 20, 2016 7:58:10 AM | 36
    "Emails of the DNC and of Clinton's consigliere John Podesta were hacked and leaked. Additionally emails from Clinton's private email server were released. All these influenced the election in favor of Trump."

    Not necessarily so. An informal poll of people in blue collar flyover country about their voting intentions prior to the election expressed 4 common concerns

    i) The risk of war.
    ii) The Obamacare disaster especially recent triple digit percent increase in fees.
    iii) Bringing back jobs.
    iv) Punishing the Democrat Party for being indistinguishable from the Republicans.

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html

    Newsboy | Nov 20, 2016 8:23:05 AM | 37
    Fascists usually start off doing a lot of good work in the honeymoon-period.
    Here we go!

    Jackrabbit | Nov 20, 2016 9:03:25 AM | 38
    Circe @28

    We shouldn't take Trump's bluster at face value. For example, Trump said that he'd eliminate Obamacare. Now he has backed off that saying that some elements of Obamacare are worthwhile.

    Trump called for a strong military while attacking Hillary as "trigger happy" . The implication is clear - Trump would not be looking for wars like Hillary would.

    That the Israeli head of state is one of the first foreign leaders that any President-elect speaks to is no surprise. That you harp on what is essentially nonsense is telling.

    In my view Trump is not anti-Jewish. He is anti-neocon/anti-Zionist. As Bannon said, America has been getting f*cked.

    john | Nov 20, 2016 9:18:04 AM | 39
    Oddlots @ 21 says:

    To ice the cake the latest Freudian slip is the crusade against "fake news."

    i see it more as another mindfucking meme than a Freudian slip. another paean to Discordia, the goddess of chaos. we've lived with 'fake news,' heretofore advertised by reliable sources , since forever. baptizing this bastardized melange only sinks us deeper into dissonant muck.

    Jules | Nov 20, 2016 10:12:03 AM | 40
    One would hope if that is true - Trump recognises this and fires him as well rather than promoting him.

    However, if he were instrumental in getting Trump elected it is understandable if Trump decided to promote him.

    It's well-known and clear Trump rewards those who have done him favours.

    Let us hope it is not true.

    The first thing Trump must do when elected is declassify all material related to MH17. This can be done in late January/ February as one of his first orders of business.

    It's important to do this quickly - at least before the Dutch Elections in March 2017.

    #MH17truth

    If Trump does this he will do a number of things.

    1 - Likely reveal that it was the Ukrainians who were involved in shooting down MH17. I say likely because it's possible this goes deeper than just Ukraine - if that's the case - more the better.

    2. He will destroy the liar Porky Poroshenko and his corrupt regime with him. He will destroy Ukraine's corrupt Government's relationship with Europe.

    3. He will destroy the sell-out traitor to his own people Mark Rutte of Netherlands. This will ensure an election win for a key Trump ally - Geert Wilders.

    If Rutte is discredited for using the deaths of 200 Dutch citizens for his own political gain - he is finished and might end up in jail.

    4. He will destroy Merkel utterly. Her chances of re-election (which she just announced she will stand!) will be utterly destroyed.

    5. He will restory Russia-USA relations in an instant.

    Trump must also do this ASAP because this is the kind of thing that could get him killed if he doesn't do it ASAP when he's inaugurated.

    Of course - until then - he should keep his mouth shut about it - but the rest of us should be shouting it all around the Internet.

    #MH17truth
    #MH17truth
    #MH17truth
    #MH17truth
    #MH17truth

    Then - after that - he can move to do the same for September 11.

    MH17 must come first ASAP because of the Dutch Elections and the chance to remove that globalist traitor to his own people Rutte.

    Denis | Nov 20, 2016 10:19:43 AM | 41
    b: "Let me know how plausible you find the tale."

    Very, very, very plausible. Yes! (Fist-pump)

    And very well documented, too. Sort of like the theory that 9/11 was carried out by the Boy Scouts of America. After all, the boost in jingoism and faux-patriotism gave the BSA a boost in revenue and membership, so that pretty well proves it, eh?

    And if you dig deep enough I'm sure you'll find that on 9/10 the BSA shorted their stocks in United.

    Yo! (Double fist-pump)

    Jules | Nov 20, 2016 10:35:24 AM | 42
    Re: Posted by: Oddlots | Nov 19, 2016 7:32:04 PM | 21

    Totally agree Oddlots and that is why Trump must be on the front foot immediately.

    Exposing MH17 and destroying Poroshenko, Rutte & Merkel - and Biden & Obama by the way and a bunch of others is absolutely key.

    Blow MH17 skyhigh and watch Russia-USA relations be restored in a nanosecond.

    It will be especially sweet to watch the Dutch traitor to his own people Rutte destroyed in the midst of an election campaign such that he might end up in jail charged with treason and replaced by Geert Wilders - the Dutch Donald Trump if ever there was one - within a matter of weeks.

    However, a word of caution, it is precisely because of these possibilities that there has to be a high chance Trump will be assassinated.

    Pence would not walk that line. Not at all.

    There is no doubt Trump's life is in danger. I hope he has enough good people around him who will point the finger in the right direction if and when it happens.

    Because frankly I doubt it.

    juliania | Nov 20, 2016 10:37:15 AM | 43
    I think it's a bit of a stretch. First of all, there are other, deeper areas of investigative matters concerning previous governments of the US, impeachable offenses and international crimes - remember when Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table? Not to mention, what did happen in Benghazi and why? It wouldn't matter who did that hacking of those emails- it's a bit like the exposure of the White House tapes in Nixon's presidency. We didn't worry about who revealed that - we went to the issues themselves. I think that is what Trump is doing as he brings people to his home for conversations. It is the opposite of Obama's 'moving forward, not looking back'. Trump is going to look back. It's not about reinstating the cold war; it's about gathering information.

    Do we want another Obama? I don't think so.


    Jules | Nov 20, 2016 10:43:57 AM | 44
    Re: Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 10:20:57 PM | 26

    I think Saudi Arabia are the ones who should be scared. Trump has implied before he knows who is responsible for September 11.

    My guess is he wants to expose Saudi Arabia and the Bush Family.

    Ever wondered why the Bushes hate and appear frightened of Trump? Because they understand he will expose their complicity in September 11 and potentially have them locked up.

    Or perhaps he'll let Dubya off claiming he didn't know in return for a favour and lock up Dick Cheney instead. Quite possible.

    The Saudis will get thrown down the river and lose any assets they hold in US Dollars - a significant amount I believe!

    Sucks to be a Saudi Royal right about now - they better liquidate their US assets ASAP if they have any brains.

    lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:49:04 AM | 45
    Retired UK ambassador Craig Murray said on his Web site, after meeting with Assange and then traveling to Washington where he met with former NSA officials, that he was 100 percent sure that Wikileaks's source was not the Russians and also suggested that the leaks came from inside the U.S. government.

    lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:52:19 AM | 46
    Pursue the truth about 9/11, and you'll also find guilty paties in Israel (as well as Pakistan). Is Trump willing to do that?

    lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:54:41 AM | 47
    Guilty parties

    Jules | Nov 20, 2016 11:02:05 AM | 48
    Re: Posted by: lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:52:19 AM | 46

    That would seem to be the truth wouldn't it, but I doubt he'd go that far down the rabbit hole? How would that serve him?

    He'd go as far down as Saudi Arabia & Pakistan - and yes, that would serve his purpose for "enemies".

    It would also serve Israel's interests. I can't imagine he'd go as far as to expose Israel - why would he? His life would then be in danger!

    james | Nov 20, 2016 11:49:01 AM | 49
    @24 jr.. i found the rs guy to be quite repugnant..rufus never came across quite the same way to me, but as always - i could be wrong! i see pac is gone today and been replaced with another name, lol.. and the beat goes on.. b has deleted posts and must be getting tired of them too.

    @31 manne.. thanks.. does that rule out an insider with the nsa/cia as well?

    @34 fecklessleft.. i agree with your last paragraph..

    @36 yonatan.. i agree with that alternative take myself..

    @40 jules.. would be nice to see happen, but most likely an exercise in wishful thinking.. sort of the same with your @44 too.. the saudis need to be taken down quite a few notches.. the usa/israel being in bed with the headchopper cult has all the wrong optics for suggesting anything positive coming from usa/israel..


    Robert Beal | Nov 20, 2016 12:04:35 PM | 50
    #1 election story, from 3 (indirectly 4) separate investigative journalists.

    Also, see Sputnik comments at bottom of:

    https://sputniknews.com/radio_the_bradcast/201611171047576289-us-election-exit-polls/

    h | Nov 20, 2016 12:11:40 PM | 51
    b says 'Next we [can speculate] - Trump offers Rogers the Clapper job. He would replace the boss that wanted him fired.' There, fixed it.

    There appears to be a growing canyon in the intelligence world with some wanting to rid the Office of the National Intelligence agency altogether, while others are lobbying for it to remain.

    Recall the 50+ intelligence analysts who went on record that the higher ups within the spying apparatus were cooking the books on Syria and the Islamic State - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html

    Remember when Obama referred to the rise of the Islamic State as the 'JV team'? That nonchalant attitude by Obama towards the growing threat of the head choppers in Iraq and Syria was squarely placed on senior management within the intelligence community -

    "Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration's public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda's branch in Syria, the analysts claim."

    Who knows, Rogers may very well have been one in senior management who encouraged these 50 analysts to come forward. Maybe the IG investigation is wrapping up and at least internally, the senior management who made intel reports to Obama full of 'happy talk' have been identified and are now leaving on their own.

    Maybe Rogers is a 'White Hat' as is being suggested by the CTH - https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/11/19/shadow-fight-angst-within-obama-admin-as-intel-community-white-hats-align-w-trump/

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 1:25:22 PM | 52
    @38

    We shouldn't take Trump's bluster at face value. For example, Trump said that he'd eliminate Obamacare. Now he has backed off that saying that some elements of Obamacare are worthwhile.

    For crying out loud! I don't give a rat's ass about Obamacare when he outlined a plan to boost the military by a trillion dollars and stacks his cabinet with crazy Iran-obsessed hawks who want to start a world war over effing Iran! And you're deflecting this with freakin' Obamacare -- It's speaks volumes about your credibility!

    Trump is anti-Zionist??? Ha! His adviser to Israel David Friedman is an extreme right-wing Zionist! Or do you just prefer to completely ignore fact and reality???

    And Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo can't stand Putin and their comments and record are there - FACT!

    And Trump didn't only tell Hillary he was going to build up the military; he outlined it later in his plan with facts and figures and it's going to cost about a Trillion dollars, so quit comparing it to a gradual phasing out of Obamacare!

    Okay, you know what? I see right through your little game. Unless you have something cogent with factual backup; I don't wanna read your responses based on pure fantasy and deflection. I look at the cold, hard facts and reality. I look at who Trump is surrounding himself with rabid Islam-haters obsessed with going after Iran and extremist Zionist loons and hawks like Pompeo and Pence making disturbing comments on Russia and Snowden and Trump's plan. So quit pretending you're not trying to obscure fact with fiction meant to deceive!

    Quadriad | Nov 20, 2016 1:37:31 PM | 53
    #23 Circe

    "...and not a regular war where 300,000 people die..."

    - Regular? So, you're calling an aggression on Syria just a 'Regular' war, on par with the course? The very least the Americans have to do, including those given the 'Nobel Peace Prize' (a bloody joke if there ever was one)? And those regular wars are needed to, what, regularly feed and the US MIC Beast? So... Obama and Hillary were just getting on with the inevitable?

    Your other observations regarding Pompeo are more meaningful, but I think you underestimate the power of groupthink under the Clinton-Bush-Obama continuous administration complex. Anyway, if Pompeo doesn't wish to get "reassigned", he might be better off unmounting the neocon horse mindset and getting on better with the Tea Party dogma, where the enemies of thy enemies are more likely to be seen as friends then frenemies.

    #34 Feckless Left

    In a sense you are right, he is not a career politician and he might be underestimating the depth of the abyss. Yet, he has far more street cred than you seem to be giving him credit for. An honest, naive idealist, he is certainly not...

    Lozion | Nov 20, 2016 1:51:14 PM | 54
    Circe, I have addressed your panic about Iran in another thread and you failed to reply so again:

    "Even if true that the future administration would shift its focus against Iran, what can they accomplish militarily against it? Nought. SAA & ISA would send militias to support Iran, nothing would prevent Russia from using Hamedan airbase just as it uses Hmeimim and deploy S-400 et al systems to bolster Iran's already existing ones. Plus on what grounds politically could they intervene? Nobody is buying Bibi's "Bomb" bs seriously anymore. Forget it, with Syria prevailing Iran is safe.."

    Jackrabbit | Nov 20, 2016 1:57:06 PM | 55
    @Circe

    If Trump is so friendly with Zionists, why did they go crazy when Bannon was named as a senior adviser?

    And, neocon angst about the Trump Administration is well summed up by Cohen's tweet :

    After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly.

    S.H.E. | Nov 20, 2016 2:03:31 PM | 56
    Oddlots #21. insightful. you ignored the entire list on the financial side, but they are linked through the profound mutual support between Israel and Wall Street.

    I have been really surprised at the lack of discussion of BHO's impromptu post-election tour of Germany and Greece. It seems to me Egypt flipped and it was met with silence, because WashDC must be secured before the neocons can respond. But the two countries that are game-set-match are Germany and Greece. The Greek navy with German support is a great power in the Mediterranean. How convenient to keep them at each other's throats for a decade. I think BHO was trying desperately to keep them onside. But he would either have to promise them something that he can no longer deliver after Jan 20th...or he has to clue them in to a different timeline than the one we think is playing out. Anyone have a idea why the Prez had to go and talk to Merkel and Tsipras *without intermediaries?*

    Nick | Nov 20, 2016 2:22:33 PM | 57
    Today Putin meeting Obama in Peru. Like, you lost nigga!
    https://cdnbr2.img.sputniknews.com/images/623/35/6233517.jpg

    TheRealDonald | Nov 20, 2016 2:47:05 PM | 58
    28

    Having now founded a central bank in every nation of the world, the Khazars have defeated the Pope and the Caliphate. Only Iran and North Korea don't have a Khazar central bank. And only Iran has the last stash of crown jewels and gold bullion that the Khazars don't already control.

    They want Iran as part of Greater Israel, and they hate Russia for driving them out after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Khazars control the American Union under a Red/Blue Star. Just talking ethnics, not race, religion or creed, since Hebrew is a religion of pure commercial convenience for the Khazars.

    US and IL are therefore aligned against IR and RU. Now we can get rid of all the race, religion or creed crap, and talk New Math set theory: {US,IL} ≠ {IR,RU}

    Who are {US,IL} sanctions against? {IR,RU}. In this new Trump' Administration: {TA} ⊆ {US,IL}, and {TA} ⊄ {IR,RU}. From a chess perspective, Putin just got Kieningered, because the Khazars would have everyone believe that {TA} ❤ {RU}, when in reality, {TA} ∩ {RU} = {Ø}.

    On to {IR}!!

    ben | Nov 20, 2016 2:55:01 PM | 59
    I'm fully expecting a radical change in rhetoric coming from Mr. Trump and his new team, but little else. The REAL movers and shakers who run the U$A have everything moving their direction right now, so why change? I expect "the Donald" to do as he's
    told, like every other POTUS in modern history. They'll let him screw the workers, but, not the REAL owners of the U$A( 1%).

    TheRealDonald | Nov 20, 2016 2:59:20 PM | 60
    55

    You don't know? Before he died, my father told me a trick. Once the bloom was off their marriage, his wife would deliberately provoke his heavy-handed management of the family, by doing whatever he didn't want. So he learned to always 'go crazy' over things, knowing that's exactly what she would do to spite him, ...and in that way, using 'reverse psychology', the Khazars would have you believe that they hate Trump, and Trump loves Russia. They're just putting the Maidan gears into motion.

    Like taking c__ from a (ಥ‸ಥ).

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:14:41 PM | 61
    If Trump is considering Mitt Romney for SoS then you can bet his policy towards Russia will be hostile because the only reason Trump would put someone between himself and Putin, who repeatedly called Russia, America's No. 1 enemy, is because he wants a bad cop on Russia in the State Department, in spite of his supposed good cop remarks regarding Putin. In other words, he wants someone who can put it straight to Putin so he himself can pretend to be the good cop. If Trump were being honest regarding a softening in policy with Russia do you really believe he would ever consider someone like Romney for SoS??? Again, Mitt Romney has made the most scathing comments of anyone against Putin, and then calling Russia the number one geopolitical enemy of the U.S. . Many on the Democratic and even Republican side felt he went overboard and many have since called his comment prophetic and today Romney feels vindicated.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/30/romney-again-makes-case-russia-most-dangerous-foe-amid-syrian-air-strikes.html

    Many analysts on the Democratic side and Republican side are calling Romney prophetic since he made that statement on Russia before Russia messed with U.S. plans for Syria.

    So, my point is this; it's possible, it's very possible that, Mike Pompeo, Trump's choice for CIA Director, who also has a hostile position towards Russia asked Trump to consider Romney because he know doubt also believes that Romney proved good foresight with that comment regarding Russia and urged Trump to give Romney a meeting.

    My 2nd point is this: quit trying to make Trump into what he's not when he's spelling it all out for you in black and white!

    It doesn't look good. This picture that's starting to develop is looking worse by the day. Look at who he's surrounding himself with; look at his actions and forget about his words. This man has sold ice to the eskimos in his business dealings. Look at the facts. Trump is not who you think he is and just because he made some comments favorable in Putin's regard doesn't mean he's not going to turn around and stick it to Putin a year or maybe a few years down the line. Kissinger told Fareed Zakaria today on GPS: One should not insist in nailing Trump to positions he took during the campaign.

    I already wrote that I believe Trump is using this fake softer strategy to get Russia to look sideways on a coming Resolution to invade Iran and then he's going to deal with Putin and Russia.

    If Trump picks someone like Romney for State; he'll have 3 individuals in the most important cabinet positions dealing with foreign policy and foreign enemies who will be hostile to Russia: VP, CIA Director and SoS. Therefore he would be sending his bad cop to deal with Russia and sending a message to Putin like: Don't put your money on whatever I said during the campaign, my positions are changing for the empire's benefit and strategic interests. And even if he doesn't choose Mitt, because on Breitbart where his base convenes they're up in arms about this meeting, I would still be wary of his direction because of the picks he's made already; the majority of his cabinet so far want war with Iran and his VP and CIA Director can't stand Putin and then looking at who's advising him, rabid Neocon Zionists like James Woolsey and David Friedman.

    Look at what Trump does, who he's meeting with, who he's choosing to surround himself with and quit hanging on what he said, because talk is cheap, especially coming from someone who's now in the inner circle of American power.

    @55

    Please don't give me one measly Cohen tweet as fact! The entire Zionist Organization of America came to Bannon's defense and he will be attending their gala! It's been made public everywhere; so quit obscuring the truth.

    @54

    Yes, Russia could come to Iran's defense considering Iran allowed for Russia's use of that air base for Syria and rescued one of the two Russian pilots shot down by Turkey, and is fighting al-Nusra shoulder to shoulder with Russia, but the empire has something up its sleeve to stop Russia from coming to the defense of Iran, should the U.S. and Israel decide to circumvent the Security Council. Something stinks; Trump is top loading his cabinet with crazy, Iran-obsessed hawks and his VP and CIA Direct also have no love for Putin. They're planning something against Iran and I know they're going to do something to tie Putin's hands. Something's up and it's going to lead to war beyond Syria. Look the Russians are already depleting resources in Syria; already that puts Russia in a weakened position. I don't know what they're planning but it's not good. The picture unfolding with Trump's cabinet is very disturbing.

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:35:38 PM | 62
    There's another aspect and maybe it's significant and maybe not that could influence a change in Trump's position on Russia that would have also made him take the extreme step of meeting with Romney while considering the SoS position. Trump is getting the highest level of security briefings now that he's President-elect. You wanna bet that Russia and Putin are mentioned in over 50% of those briefings and ISIS, Iran and others get the other 50% collectively???

    Jackrabbit | Nov 20, 2016 3:41:53 PM | 63
    @Circe

    Hasbara hysteria to undermine Trump. Unrelenting bullshit and innuendo.

    What was Bannon talking about when he said that America is getting f*cked? Globalism vs. Nationalism. Who equates nationalism with nazism? Zionists. Who is butt-hurt over Trump Presidency? Zionists and neocons.

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:47:15 PM | 64
    @63

    Unrelenting bullshit and innuendo.

    Yep, describes your weak deception to a T! ...like I'm going to hang on Bannon's word as gospel when he's going to be wining and dining with Zionists at the ZOA gala.

    Try again.

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:54:39 PM | 65
    Oh, and one more thing: Zionists, FYI, relate very well with nationalists and supremacists since they got their own nationalist, supremacist operation in ISRAEL! So I'm only too sure they'll be commiserating and exchanging ideas on how best to secure their nationalist, supremacist vision for the empire. There's a whole lot of common ground for them to cover during the gala, and YOU CAN'T AND DIDN'T DENY THAT BANNON IS ATTENDING THE ZIONIST GALA! Did you???

    So again, quit dogging me, quit presuming I'm some undercover hasbara, that maybe you are, and spare me the bullshit.

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 4:59:44 PM | 66
    As if we didn't need anymore proof of where Trump is taking the U.S.: Trump tweeted a comment highly praising General James Mattis after their meeting considering him for Secretary of Defense. This is a major, major red flag signalling a very troubling direction in Trump's foreign policy.

    Mattis served for two years as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Although, he served under Obama, he was against the Iran deal and considers Iran more dangerous that ISIS!

    Mattis is nicknamed "mad-dog mattis" for a reason: he is an extreme hawk and he is MIC incorporated.

    But here's the kicker, Mattis like Pompeo, Pence and Romney has also made blistering comments against Russia, stating that Putin wants to break up NATO, sent "dogs and thugs" into Georgia and has been very critical of Putin's actions in Ukraine and Syria.

    At the beginning of the primaries, Neocons wanted Mattis as a candidate for the Presidency on the Republican side. I like how the following article describes just how much Neocon war hawks salivated over the thought of Mattis in the White House:

    http://original.antiwar.com/daniel-mcadams/2016/04/25/neocons-panting-president-mad-dog-mattis/

    Well folks, Mattis, the darling of Neocons, will be in the White House next to Trump advising him on war strategy! And worst of all this mad-dog Neocon war hawk is going to run the Pentagon, oversee a trillion-dollar military expansion and command the next world war!

    So are you convinced yet that Trump is perpetuating the Neocon PNAC/Clean Break plan or are you still totally blind???

    Harry | Nov 20, 2016 5:17:23 PM | 67
    More and more troubling news from Trump camp and his party, but lets not make snap judgements. We'll see soon enough.

    jfl | Nov 20, 2016 5:24:10 PM | 68
    @34 fl, 'In my eyes the names he's been considering are reason for much worry for those hoping Trump would be the one to usher in a multipolar world and end the cold war. I never had much hope in that regard (but I'm still praying for the best).'

    Trump is in it for Trump. He's a solipsist. We and our 'real world' doesn't exist for Trump. He lives in Trump Tower. The only things he cares about are his personal interests. He'll put in people to 'run the government' who will insulate him and his interests from the consequences of their actions and that'll keep him happy and them in their jobs, no matter the consequences for our 'imaginary' real world. We're back to the mad Caesars. Our government has been steadily walking away from us since Bush XLI. It's on the run now, we're up to Nero. We 'barbarians' need to take care of our real world in its absence, prepare ourselves to pick up the pieces when it's become so unrecognizable that it's finally disappeared.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Trouble Ahead With Trump and For Him by Andrew Levine

    Notable quotes:
    "... The good news is that Hillary Clinton won't be starting World War III. Also, at least for now and probably forever, we are rid of the two most noxious political families in recent American history, the Bushes and the Clintons. ..."
    "... For this, thank Donald Trump. Remember him on Thanksgiving Day. ..."
    "... The Clintons didn't do the Bushes in; Trump did. Then, a few months later, he took care of the Clintons. Three cheers to him for that! ..."
    "... Will any more good come from the Donald's doings? The prospects are dimming. But if he does try to deliver on some of the positions he took during the campaign, there is a chance. ..."
    "... And his views on relations with Russia and China, regime change wars, and imperial overreach, as best they can be ascertained, are a lot wiser and less lethal than hers. These are not so much left-right issues as matters of common sense. ..."
    "... Clinton's overriding concern was and always has been to maintain and expand American world domination - in the face of economic decline, and at no matter what cost. Trump wants, or says he wants, to do business with other countries in the way that he did with sleaze ball real estate moguls and network executives, people like himself. He wants to make deals. ..."
    "... Better that, though, than a foreign policy dedicated to keeping America the world's hegemon. That is the foreign policy establishment's aim; it is therefore Clinton's too. It is the way of perpetual war. Trump's way is far from ideal, but it is less wasteful, less onerous and less reckless. ..."
    "... During the campaign, Trump would sometimes speak out against banksters and financiers, especially the too-big-to-fail and too-big-to-jail kind. For some time, though, the "populist" billionaire has been signaling to his class brothers and sisters in the financial "industry" that he is more likely to deregulate than to regulate their machinations. ..."
    "... Many of the rich and heinous were skeptical of Trump's candidacy at first; because he is such a loose cannon. But now that he has won, the bastards are sucking up; and glee is returning to Wall Street. ..."
    "... Trump is now starting too to allay the fears of the movers and shakers of the National Security State. He still has a way to go, however. We can therefore still hope that they are right to worry. What is bad for them is good for the country. ..."
    "... Clinton's defeat also seems to have unnerved their counterparts in European capitals, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, and in Japan, South Korea and other countries where the presence of the American military has been very very good for the few at the top, and disastrous for ordinary people. ..."
    "... Trump may not be quite the "isolationist" that some people think, but he has said repeatedly that the countries America "protects" should pay their own way. ..."
    "... Then there is Israel. Trump thinks that the blank check the ethnocratic settler state already gets from the United States isn't nearly enough. So much for allies paying their own way! ..."
    "... However, even if Trump leaves America's perpetual war regime and its military alliances intact, some good could come just from him being at the helm – not so much because, as a wheeler and dealer, he would be less inclined actually to start wars than has become the norm, but because he is vile enough, and enough of an embarrassment, to undermine America's prestige, hastening the day when the hegemon is a hegemon no more. ..."
    "... This is "exceptional," all right, but not in the way that exponents of "American exceptionalism" like Obama and Clinton have in mind. Perhaps their commitment to that illusion has something to do with the zeal with which those two, along with many others, are now promoting a fallback position. ..."
    "... Obama especially has been trumpeting the claim that, in the Land of the Free, when an election is over and the incumbent – or, as in this case, the continuator of his "legacy" - is out, we Americans transfer power not just peacefully but also cordially. Since this is the norm in much of the world these days, since there is nothing "exceptional" about it, it is not clear how this makes our "democracy" a model for the world. But leave that aside. ..."
    "... Whatever the explanation, it was remarkable how he had taken it upon himself to make nice with Trump even before the dust had settled. What a feat of moral and psychological abasement! ..."
    "... After all, the Donald has never had a kind word to say about the President; indeed, his line, from Day One, has been that Obama's presidency is illegitimate. ..."
    "... As it turned out, Hillary, the role model, is teaching a less edifying lesson: that when you flub badly, blame everybody but yourself. What a piece of work that woman is! If FBI Director James Comey had done nothing that she could blame her failure on, it would be Jill Stein or Julian Assange, or most likely (and most far-fetched) of all, Vladimir Putin - anybody but her or her husband or the corporate-infested rotting hulk that the Democratic Party has become. ..."
    "... The neoliberal world order that the Clintons did so much to fashion, and that Hillary was poised to take over and extend, is heading for a crash. Americans had better watch out. There are no soft landings for hegemons that insist on continuing to dominate the world after their time has passed. ..."
    "... A soft landing would be a blessing, though – for the peoples of the world and for the American people. It would spare a lot of people a lot of grief. ..."
    "... Until its Clintonism is expunged that opposition is not the Democratic Party. Far too many liberals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren among them, thought that it was – and look where that got us. ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    The good news is that Hillary Clinton won't be starting World War III. Also, at least for now and probably forever, we are rid of the two most noxious political families in recent American history, the Bushes and the Clintons.

    For this, thank Donald Trump. Remember him on Thanksgiving Day.

    Thank corporate media too. They loved Hillary, but they loved advertising revenue more; and the Donald was a godsend for their bottom lines. They showered him with enough free publicity to elect a dozen buffoons.

    Not long ago, when only the tabloids were reporting on Trump, it looked like the 2016 election would be a Hillary versus Jeb Bush affair that would do in one or the other of their respective dynasties, but not both.

    It didn't work out that way, however. The Clintons didn't do the Bushes in; Trump did. Then, a few months later, he took care of the Clintons. Three cheers to him for that!

    ***

    Will any more good come from the Donald's doings? The prospects are dimming. But if he does try to deliver on some of the positions he took during the campaign, there is a chance.

    ... ... ...

    On trade policy, though, job creation, and infrastructure development, the positions Trump took during the campaign beat anything Hillary promised. Trump outflanked her from the left.

    And his views on relations with Russia and China, regime change wars, and imperial overreach, as best they can be ascertained, are a lot wiser and less lethal than hers. These are not so much left-right issues as matters of common sense.

    Clinton's overriding concern was and always has been to maintain and expand American world domination - in the face of economic decline, and at no matter what cost. Trump wants, or says he wants, to do business with other countries in the way that he did with sleaze ball real estate moguls and network executives, people like himself. He wants to make deals.

    The Trump way is, as they say, "transactional." The idea is to wheel and deal on a case-by-case basis, with no further, non-pecuniary end in view.

    In the real estate world and in network television, that would mean wringing as much money out of each transaction as possible. What it would mean in world affairs is unclear – except perhaps to those who think that "making America great again" isn't meaningless cant.

    Better that, though, than a foreign policy dedicated to keeping America the world's hegemon. That is the foreign policy establishment's aim; it is therefore Clinton's too. It is the way of perpetual war. Trump's way is far from ideal, but it is less wasteful, less onerous and less reckless.

    During the campaign, Trump would sometimes speak out against banksters and financiers, especially the too-big-to-fail and too-big-to-jail kind. For some time, though, the "populist" billionaire has been signaling to his class brothers and sisters in the financial "industry" that he is more likely to deregulate than to regulate their machinations.

    This will become even clearer once Trump settles on key Cabinet posts and on his economic advisors. It is already plain, though, that the modern day counterparts of Theodore Roosevelt's "malefactors of great wealth" have little to fear; they and Trump are joined by indissoluble bonds of class-consciousness and solidarity.

    Many of the rich and heinous were skeptical of Trump's candidacy at first; because he is such a loose cannon. But now that he has won, the bastards are sucking up; and glee is returning to Wall Street.

    There is no doubt about it: whoever voted for the Donald for "populist" reasons is an out and out chump.

    Trump is now starting too to allay the fears of the movers and shakers of the National Security State. He still has a way to go, however. We can therefore still hope that they are right to worry. What is bad for them is good for the country.

    Clinton's defeat also seems to have unnerved their counterparts in European capitals, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, and in Japan, South Korea and other countries where the presence of the American military has been very very good for the few at the top, and disastrous for ordinary people.

    Trump may not be quite the "isolationist" that some people think, but he has said repeatedly that the countries America "protects" should pay their own way.

    If he means it, then more power to him. The United States and the rest of the world would be well rid of the American dominated military alliances now in place; NATO most of all. However, having talked with him, Obama is now telling the Europeans that Trump is fine with NATO. Time will tell.

    Then there is Israel. Trump thinks that the blank check the ethnocratic settler state already gets from the United States isn't nearly enough. So much for allies paying their own way!

    However, even if Trump leaves America's perpetual war regime and its military alliances intact, some good could come just from him being at the helm – not so much because, as a wheeler and dealer, he would be less inclined actually to start wars than has become the norm, but because he is vile enough, and enough of an embarrassment, to undermine America's prestige, hastening the day when the hegemon is a hegemon no more.

    This would be good for most Americans, and good for the world.

    The election he won has already done a lot to explode the idea, more widely believed at home than abroad, that American "democracy" is somehow a model for the world.

    What an odd idea! Leaving aside the inordinate influence of private money - political corruption that a "conservative" Supreme Court regards as Constitutionally protected free speech - and the fact our two major parties have concocted an electoral duopoly system that stifles even mildly reformist political expression, in what kind of model can Clinton garner at least two million more votes than Trump yet still lose the election?

    More glaringly undemocratic yet, Democrats routinely garner more votes than Republicans in House and Senate races, but only sometimes control either chamber. In the final years of the Obama presidency, Democrats controlled neither one. A fine model indeed!

    When he, like everyone else, was sure that he would lose, Trump would rail against how the system is "rigged." It was rigged – by Clinton and Company against Bernie Sanders. It was hardly rigged against Trump; at least not in any way that mattered. Quite to the contrary, the system worked to Trump's advantage to such an extent that, unlike Hillary, he didn't need to cheat.

    And what a system it is! After wasting prodigious quantities of money, time, and effort over more than a year and a half, it produced a contest between two of the most appalling and unpopular candidates ever to disgrace the political scene.

    This is "exceptional," all right, but not in the way that exponents of "American exceptionalism" like Obama and Clinton have in mind. Perhaps their commitment to that illusion has something to do with the zeal with which those two, along with many others, are now promoting a fallback position.

    Obama especially has been trumpeting the claim that, in the Land of the Free, when an election is over and the incumbent – or, as in this case, the continuator of his "legacy" - is out, we Americans transfer power not just peacefully but also cordially. Since this is the norm in much of the world these days, since there is nothing "exceptional" about it, it is not clear how this makes our "democracy" a model for the world. But leave that aside.

    Perhaps Obama had no overriding propaganda purpose in mind, and was only being gracious. Whatever the explanation, it was remarkable how he had taken it upon himself to make nice with Trump even before the dust had settled. What a feat of moral and psychological abasement!

    After all, the Donald has never had a kind word to say about the President; indeed, his line, from Day One, has been that Obama's presidency is illegitimate. Trump launched his campaign for the White House by championing birther nonsense, and it has been all downhill from there.

    Nevertheless, if Obama wants to take the high ground, he should go for it. As Hillary's campaign ads made clear, children need role models who are as unlike Trump as can be. Obama won't be fooling anybody about the "exceptional" magnanimity of American democracy; that ship sailed long ago. But a class act on his part now might at least be good for the kids.

    Obama is better positioned for that than Hillary, even though one of the few remotely plausible arguments for voting for her was that a woman President would be good for little girls – because it would show them that, like little boys, they could someday achieve the highest office in the land. Trump cut the ground out from that argument too - by devaluing the office.

    As it turned out, Hillary, the role model, is teaching a less edifying lesson: that when you flub badly, blame everybody but yourself. What a piece of work that woman is! If FBI Director James Comey had done nothing that she could blame her failure on, it would be Jill Stein or Julian Assange, or most likely (and most far-fetched) of all, Vladimir Putin - anybody but her or her husband or the corporate-infested rotting hulk that the Democratic Party has become.

    ***

    The neoliberal world order that the Clintons did so much to fashion, and that Hillary was poised to take over and extend, is heading for a crash. Americans had better watch out. There are no soft landings for hegemons that insist on continuing to dominate the world after their time has passed.

    A soft landing would be a blessing, though – for the peoples of the world and for the American people. It would spare a lot of people a lot of grief.

    Is it possible that, through sheer inadvertence, Trump could get us there? It is too soon, at this point to say what the chances are, but, by Inauguration Day, if not before, we should have a good idea.

    Since Trump knows little and cares less about governance, and since he is unfit for the job the Electoral College will bestow upon him, it will be up to the people he appoints to do, or not do, what he said he wanted to do during the campaign.

    On that score, the news so far has been, to say the least, troubling.

    Being as sure as everyone else that Trump would lose and therefore that they were not harming their careers by dissing the Donald – that they were instead making a cost free political statement that would benefit their careers in the long run - nearly all the usual suspects that a Republican President-elect might call upon when setting up a new administration rejected Trump a long time ago. Predictably, many of them want back in now, but the Donald is nothing if not vengeful.

    Therefore Trump's "transition team" will have no choice but to scrape the very bottom of the barrel. Even Sarah Palin has been mentioned. Even John Bolton.

    We already now that Reince Priebus of the RNC, the Republican National Committee, will be Trump's Chief of Staff and that Stephen Bannon, of Breitbart News, champion of the white nationalist "alt-right," will be his "chief strategist and senior counselor" - one mainstream mediocrity and one shameless epigone of "the darker angels of our nature," as a later-day Lincoln might call them.

    Eight years ago, when Obama's appointments also seemed hard to make sense of, pop historians would go on about how, like Lincoln, Obama, in his infinite wisdom, was assembling "a team of rivals." So far, no one has found anything similarly complimentary to say about what Trump and his inner circle are up to. The news oozing out of Trump Tower is too repugnant to spin.

    And the reasons for this are too evident to hide. They stem from Trump's egomania and insecurity. He is therefore now doing what others like him in similar circumstances have done before: making loyalty not just the main thing, but the only thing.

    ***

    Too bad for the Donald that governments are bigger and more multi-faceted than real estate operations. The "deep state" must be fed, and there aren't nearly enough people around who have a clue about what needs to be done whose loyalty Trump doesn't doubt.

    The evidence suggests too that Trump considers himself too important to worry about anything but the "commanding heights" of his administration; and that he is eager to delegate the authority to pick and choose underlings. If that authority can be delegated to someone he so far trusts, and whose office carries an air of political legitimacy, then so much the better.

    Enter Mike Pence.

    In recent years, it has become practically an axiom of American presidential politics that by their choices of Vice Presidents, ye shall know them.

    Anyone who is not quite sure what a dodo John McCain is, should reflect on Sarah Palin. And as if the support Obama got from Wall Street and corporate media wasn't enough to show which side he was on, his choice of Joe Biden for a running mate ought to have sealed the deal.

    Did Hillary really take a progressive turn, as she and her handlers wanted people to think when they still feared the wrath of Sanders' supporters? By picking Tim Kaine to run with her, she settled that question. How more eloquently could she have expressed contempt not just for people feeling the Bern, but also for everyone less retrograde than she!

    The best that can be said of the Vice President-elect, who famously described himself as "a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican in that order," is that he is a rock solid reactionary - in the Dick Cheney mold, with a little of Scott Walker, Wisconsin's union busting Governor, thrown in.

    That, after kicking Chris Christie out, Trump chose him to head his transition-team, suggests that the Trump administration will be less disruptive of ordinary Republican imbecility than those of us who are looking for silver linings in Trump's victory would like.

    We who underestimated the enormity of Hillary Clinton's ineptitude, and who still can't quite understand how any Democrat, even she, could lose to Donald Trump, were, and are, of one mind with Trump voters on that: many of them too were hoping that Trump would destroy or mortally wound the GOP. We will have to wait a while longer for that now.

    Ironically, the silver lining is that now the onus will be on Trump – for having given the Republican Party new life. That should teach those Trump voters who thought they were sending a message to the GOP establishment. It should also cause them to turn on Trump sooner than Clinton voters would have turned on her, and a lot sooner than millions of Obama supporters came to realize how wrong-headed Obamaphilia was.

    By winning, Trump has placed himself in an untenable situation.

    He cannot even begin to implement the agenda his base thought he would while relying only on his children and the handful of Republicans he knows and doesn't have it in for. But neither can he throw himself on the mercy of the establishment Republicans he ran against. That would go against his every instinct; and, as a man without principles or convictions, instincts are all he has.

    Also, it would cost him his base.

    He therefore has no choice but to muddle on as best he can, disappointing everyone.

    Obama ended up disappointing a lot of people too. When he ran in 2008, the people who voted for "hope" and "change" found that what they got was the same old same old.

    Now many Trump voters want change. They have fewer illusions; they don't expect their candidate to usher in a Golden Age; few of them even like the Donald. All they wanted was not Hillary and in her stead something, anything, different from what Democrats and Republicans have been handing them for as long as they could remember. They too will find that what they voted into office was what they thought they were voting out.

    Therefore, they too will despair and, when the time comes, revolt. But it will be worse this time because the President they voted into office is dangerously unhinged. Whatever else he may be, Obama is cautious, thoughtful, and emotionally mature; Trump, though shrewd and adept at self-promotion, is an ignoramus with the emotional maturity of a teenage boy.

    When the people who put him in office realize this, as they very soon will, watch out!

    Don't feel sorry for him, though. Whether or not his villainy is heartfelt or only a huckster-politician's gimmick, he merits all the condemnation his detractors can muster.

    And although many of the people who voted for him felt that there was no other way to tell the political class how justifiably pissed off they are, don't feel sorry for them either.

    Corporate media and the Commission on Presidential Debates and the National Committees of the Democratic and Republic Parties saw to it that most voters wouldn't take third party alternatives seriously, even if they somehow found out about them at all.

    But to express contempt for Hillary, they didn't have to vote for Trump. For example, they could have voted only in down-ticket contests, and not for President; or they could have not voted at all. Better that than voting for someone associated, fairly or not, with nativism, racism and Islamophobia.

    ***

    The tragic fact is that our democracy, or lack of it, made "deplorables" of us all. Trump enthusiasts are the worst, though, for different and less reprehensible reasons, Clinton enthusiasts too have a lot to answer for too. So do all the lesser evil and faute de mieux voters on both sides. And so do those who didn't bother to vote, whether out of conviction, indifference or laziness, and those of use who put integrity above efficacy by voting, as I did, for Jill Stein, or for Gary Johnson.

    Once it became clear that the election would be between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, all was lost. Even trying to jack up the Stein vote to the point where the Greens could get federal funding next time around was a fool's errand. This was clear from the moment Bernie Sanders made good on his pledge to support the Democratic ticket. Those of us who thought otherwise were deceiving ourselves.

    In the circumstances, is there anything to do now except put it all behind us and move on?

    The answer is emphatically Yes.

    The first order of business now is to do all we can to protect the people whose vulnerability Trump exploits and endangers: Muslims and undocumented Latinos, above all; to fight back in solidarity with them – against Trump and his minions and against the miscreants in the larger society whose nativism, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia and sexism Trump has unleashed.

    If Trump starts deporting people, the deportations must do all we can to stop him - by any means necessary. If he starts registering Muslims, we must insist on being registered too.

    We must never lose sight, however, of the underlying cause of the Trump phenomenon – the Clintonite (neoliberal, liberal imperialist, anti-working class) turn in American, especially Democratic Party, politics.

    Without making the mistake of going over to the opposite extreme, by forsaking the progressive side of identity politics, the Clintonite turn must be reversed, as quickly and definitively as possible.

    And so, the struggles ahead must be waged simultaneously on two fronts: in the first instance, against reactionaries of the Trumpian sort and against reactionary Trumpian initiatives, but also against the politics of Hillary and Bill and those who think like them.

    Each day brings news of opposition in the streets; and plans are afoot for massive demonstrations around Inauguration Day. This is all well and good. But it must not be forgotten that when there are no effective means for achieving political ends, actions become merely expressive, and often turn out badly. Even when the level of repression is minimal, there is always a backlash; and, when militant energies are exhausted, quiescence generally follows.

    Therefore act, but also think! And learn not just from experience, but also from the enemy.

    House and Senate Republicans are, as a rule, more loathsome than their Democratic Party counterparts, and they are not the brightest bulbs on the tree. But, through sheer obstinacy, they were able to prevail over a popular, albeit weak, President, and to block all but his most timid initiatives.

    The emerging anti-Trump resistance can learn a lot from their example.

    Needless to say, House and Senate Democrats are ill equipped to do anything of the sort; they are worse than useless. Many, maybe most, of them are no less politically retrograde than their Republican counterparts, and they are all a lot less capable of keeping a President at bay through obstinacy alone.

    But if they will not, or cannot, follow the lead of their Republican colleagues, "we, the people" can.

    We can obstruct, obstruct, and obstruct some more.

    But with a difference! House and Senate Republicans wanted only to cause Obama's presidency to fail. We can do better than that.

    Insofar as his administration actually does do some of the comparatively progressive things that Trump promised it would, "we, the people" should support it, even as we do our best to keep Trump and his followers from succumbing to their nefarious, quasi-fascist inclinations.

    There is no time to lose. It is very likely that Trump's team, once it takes shape, will start off with some spectacularly execrable displays of malice – intended to show that the Donald is indeed a man of his word.

    Trump has already said that he intends, right off, to deport some two to three million "illegal" aliens.

    Had Deporter-in-Chief Obama been taken on in the past, stopping Trump now would be a less daunting task. But it can still be done – if the opposition is sufficiently militant and united.

    Until its Clintonism is expunged that opposition is not the Democratic Party. Far too many liberals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren among them, thought that it was – and look where that got us.

    The opposition now, though huge, has no party – except perhaps the Greens, and they are still too marginal to count. Rectifying this situation is a matter of the utmost urgency, nearly as important, even in the short run, as defending the victims of the new order that the failed, Clintonized Democratic Party has foisted upon us. Join the debate on Facebook

    ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). More articles by: Andrew Levine

    [Nov 20, 2016] Trumps Appointment of Pompeo as CIA Chief is Major Fail

    Notable quotes:
    "... Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand. ..."
    "... It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 ..."
    "... If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia. ..."
    "... Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country. ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    CorneliuCodreanu Nov 20, 2016 1:30 AM ,

    Trump's Appointment of Pompeo as CIA Chief is Major Fail

    http://www.newnationalist.net/2016/11/20/trumps-appointment-of-pompeo-as...

    jfb CorneliuCodreanu Nov 20, 2016 8:42 AM ,
    Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand.

    What will eventually happen is an economic implosion and chaos. The "elite" won't be able to finance a repressive force since their "electronic money" will not be trusted, and everything will fall apart.

    And years after, small communities will gradually re-emerge since there will be a need to protect the people with a local police force. But the notion of a super-state or even more of a NWO will not survive, after an initial depopulation we'll have something similar than what you had at the begining of the middle age, a life organized around small independant comunities of 3,000 or 5,000 people.

    Setarcos jfb Nov 20, 2016 9:54 AM ,
    Very close to my thinking ... and a precedent is the demize of the Roman Empire, when Europe devolved into numerous small feudal regions, such as in England for over a thousand years, i.e after numerous internal wars, such as the Wars of the Roses and the reign of Henry VIII, it wasn't until the 1600s and the so-called "Enlightenment" that England was unified ... and it wasn't until the 1700s that Scotland was conquered and "Great Britain" existed, also having incorporated Wales and Ireland, with at least Eire having gained independence during the 1920s, Wales never being really integrated, nor Scotland now moving away from the centre of the whole shebang ... London always.

    It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 despite, or because(?) of Trump and similar phenonema in the West.

    francis scott f... Nov 20, 2016 2:09 AM ,

    BE CAREFUL, MR TRUMP

    If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia.

    And when that is picked up by the arch deceivers at the WaPo, NYT, WSJ etc, it will be embarrassing for Mr Trump and for the foreign policy he campaigned on.

    Lynn Trainor francis scott falseflag Nov 20, 2016 5:53 AM ,
    Mr. Trump, please move closer to Russia - Putin has longed for sane dialogue with the US for the last 8 or more years and has gotten the cold shoulder.
    GraveDancer Nov 20, 2016 3:24 AM ,
    Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country.

    Islam fundamentally is incompatible with a modern society.

    [Nov 20, 2016] President-Elect Donald Trump Stay Out Of Syria by Doug Bandow

    Notable quotes:
    "... To do so would be madness. President-Elect Donald Trump appears to recognize that Syria is not America's responsibility. Unfortunately, Vice President-Elect Mike Pence, as well as some of those mentioned for top administration positions, take a more militaristic perspective. Trump should announce that his administration will not get involved in Syria's civil war in any way. ..."
    "... President Barack Obama spent five years resisting pressure for direct military intervention. But he appointed war supporters John Kerry, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton to manage his foreign policy. Kerry acknowledged to a group of Syrian refugees in Beirut that he and other officials had advocated use of force but "lost the argument." ..."
    "... However, rather than clearly set a policy of non-involvement, President Obama attempted intervention-lite. The administration failed in both its major objectives: oust Bashar al-Assad as president and empower "moderate" opponents. ..."
    "... Republican warrior wannabes claim that Washington could have provided just the right form of aid to just the right groups at just the right time and thereby created a liberal, democratic, united Syria allied with America. ..."
    "... In Syria the Obama administration has pursued incompatible objectives and combatants. Washington remains committed to ousting the Assad regime, which remains the most important barrier to a triumph by the Islamic State. NATO ally Turkey spent the civil war's early years accommodating so-called Daesh, and now is battling Kurdish fighters, who have been America's staunchest allies against ISIS. ..."
    "... America's Gulf allies led by Saudi Arabia largely abandoned the campaign against the Islamic State in favor of a brutal attack on Yemen, dragging the U.S. into a dangerous proxy war with Iran. ..."
    "... Washington must set priorities. Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl argued that Russia "has proved that a limited use of force could change the political outcome, without large costs." However, that's because Moscow has one objective: keep Assad in power. Washington has a half dozen or more conflicting goals, none of are important enough to warrant the use of force. ..."
    "... Nor could the conflict be settled without using extraordinary force. Merely fudging the balance of military power won't end the killing. If jihadist groups took control after Assad's collapse and his allies' withdrawal, Washington would face pressure to "do something" to protect Alawites, Christians and perhaps even "moderate" insurgents and their supporters. The U.S. has neither the responsibility nor the resources to police the globe. ..."
    "... Finally, the administration has unfinished business involving anti-American radicals, the Islamic State and al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra/al-Sham. But Assad's ouster would empower both groups. They remain primarily insurgents which can be dealt with on the ground by the surrounding nations which they most threaten. ..."
    "... Donald Trump had only just been declared president-elect when those controlled U.S. foreign policy began urging him to conform to their disastrous designs in the Middle East. However, Trump appears to have learned from the past. He told the Wall Street Journal: "I've had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria." ..."
    "... I agree, Trump should stay out of the Middle East and start building the infrastructure for this third world country called the United States. As for John Kerry, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton, they are so over and yesterday's news in the fast pace of social media. ..."
    "... But their war mongering attitudes will carry a heavy burden when it comes to political history; this foursome was responsible for many civilian deaths are they responsible for the use of drones and every other killing machine that make the USA, as Eisenhower said the Military Industrial Complex. ..."
    "... now it is time for the USA to cut all IRS tax benefits for the religion business and use that for new airports and railroads. If someone wants to worship a God in an untaxed temple, make them pay an admission tax like when you go to the movies. ..."
    www.forbes.com

    The U.S. presidential election mercifully has ended. But global conflict continues. And American politicians are still attempting to drag America into another tragic, bloody Middle Eastern conflict.

    To do so would be madness. President-Elect Donald Trump appears to recognize that Syria is not America's responsibility. Unfortunately, Vice President-Elect Mike Pence, as well as some of those mentioned for top administration positions, take a more militaristic perspective. Trump should announce that his administration will not get involved in Syria's civil war in any way.

    President Barack Obama spent five years resisting pressure for direct military intervention. But he appointed war supporters John Kerry, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton to manage his foreign policy. Kerry acknowledged to a group of Syrian refugees in Beirut that he and other officials had advocated use of force but "lost the argument."

    However, rather than clearly set a policy of non-involvement, President Obama attempted intervention-lite. The administration failed in both its major objectives: oust Bashar al-Assad as president and empower "moderate" opponents. However, administration officials still have not given up. Even as the American people were voting on Obama's successor his appointees were pushing "kinetic actions against the regime," reported anonymous sources. The president remains at odds with his own appointees.

    Republican warrior wannabes claim that Washington could have provided just the right form of aid to just the right groups at just the right time and thereby created a liberal, democratic, united Syria allied with America. Even today Thanassis Cambanis of the Century Foundation argues the U.S. should "use its resources to manage conflicts like Syria's." That sounds good, but when was the last time Washington "managed" anything well in the Middle East?

    Even with a quick military victory Washington got Iraq disastrously wrong, empowering Iran while triggering the very sectarian conflict which spawned the Islamic State. U.S. intervention in Libya left chaos and conflict in its wake. American policymakers demonstrate no facility for global social engineering.

    In Syria the Obama administration has pursued incompatible objectives and combatants. Washington remains committed to ousting the Assad regime, which remains the most important barrier to a triumph by the Islamic State. NATO ally Turkey spent the civil war's early years accommodating so-called Daesh, and now is battling Kurdish fighters, who have been America's staunchest allies against ISIS.

    The U.S. has trained and armed so-called moderate insurgents, who have had only limited combat success, often surrendering, along with their U.S.-supplied equipment, to radical forces. One half billion dollar training program generated barely three score insurgents, most of whom were promptly killed or captured.

    Former Obama official Derek Chollet said the administration hoped its aid to insurgents would give Washington "leverage" in dealing with its Sunni "allies." Yet the latter have manipulated America to serve their interests, pressing Washington to oust the Assad regime while supporting radical insurgent groups opposed by the U.S. After providing symbolic aid in the early days, America's Gulf allies led by Saudi Arabia largely abandoned the campaign against the Islamic State in favor of a brutal attack on Yemen, dragging the U.S. into a dangerous proxy war with Iran.

    Extremist forces have threatened U.S. military personnel embedded with Syrian fighters. Arab and Kurdish insurgents trained and armed by Washington recently battled each other. Shia militias fighting with the Baghdad government against ISIS in Iraq are opposing U.S.-backed Sunni insurgents in Syria. Baghdad and Ankara neared war over Turkey's intervention in northern Iraq. Any attacks on Assad's forces threaten Russian military personnel and hardware.

    ... ... ...

    Washington must set priorities. Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl argued that Russia "has proved that a limited use of force could change the political outcome, without large costs." However, that's because Moscow has one objective: keep Assad in power. Washington has a half dozen or more conflicting goals, none of are important enough to warrant the use of force.

    Syria's civil war does not implicate any of Washington's traditional Middle Eastern interests, most importantly Israel and oil. America's chief concern should be the Islamic State, not Assad regime. Candidate Trump correctly opined: "our far greater problem is not Assad, it's ISIS."

    Advocates of regime change claim that only through Assad's ouster can Daesh be defeated. However, the existing government remains the biggest military barrier to the radicals. Moreover, the group grew out of Iraq's sectarian war and would continue to promote its "caliphate" in a post-Assad Syria. Alas, history is full of examples-Soviet Union, Nicaragua and Iran, among others-in which brutal radicals defeat decent liberals after they together depose a hated dictator. Unless the U.S. is willing to occupy the country, impose a new government, and remain until the state is rebuilt, the worst Syrians are likely to control a post-Assad future. And the results could be ugly even if Washington stuck around, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Retired Gen. John Allen and author Charles R. Lister argued that "the credibility of the United States as the leader and defender of the free world must be salvaged." But the Syrian tragedy has little to do with "the free world": brutal civil wars have occurred since the dawn of mankind. And Washington's chief duty is to defend America, not referee other nations' conflicts.

    Yet ivory tower warriors continue to urge greater U.S. military involvement. Some propose targeting Russia with additional sanctions, which would not likely dissuade Moscow from acting on behalf of what it perceives as its important interests. However, further penalties would discourage cooperation even where the two nations' interests coincided.

    Another option is more training and better weapons for so-called moderates. Yet even President Obama admitted that there were few past cases when support for insurgents "actually worked out well." In a recent interview President-Elect Trump contended that "we have no idea who these people are" and as a candidate complained that "they end up being worse" than the regime.

    The reality is nuanced-Syria's insurgents span the spectrum-but the administration's experience has been a cruel disappointment. An anonymous American official admitted to the Washington Post: U.S.-backed forces are "not doing any better on the battlefield, they're up against a more formidable adversary, and they're increasingly dominated by extremists." There's no reason to expect better under the new administration.

    Indeed, noted the BBC, "many of the more moderate rebel groups that the U.S. backs have formed a strategic alliance with Jabhat Fatah al-Sham [formerly al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra] and now fight alongside it." Weapons previously provided to the moderates often ended up in the hands of more radical forces. Greater aid might prolong the fighting but would be unlikely to give the "good guys" victory. Providing anti-aircraft missiles would threaten Russian as well as Syrian aircraft, risking a significant escalation if Moscow responded with greater force. And any leakage to radical jihadists could result in attacks on Western airliners.

    Establishing a "no-fly" and/or "safe" zone has become a panacea for many U.S. policymakers, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It is an obvious way to appear to do something. However, protecting civilians in this way would simultaneously immunize combatants-attracting insurgents who would use such areas as a sanctuary, encouraging further regime and Russian attacks.

    Moreover, Washington would have to do more than simply declare such a zone to exist. Enforcing it would be an act of war requiring continuous military action. U.S. officials have estimated that the effort would take hundreds of aircraft, thousands of personnel and hundreds of millions of dollars or more a month. Washington would have to destroy the Syrian anti-air defense system, no simple task. Indeed, in one of her conversations revealed by Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that imposing a no fly zone would "kill a lot of Syrians" and "a lot of civilians."

    A true "no-fly" zone also would require preventing Russian air operations as well. Trump complained to the Wall Street Journal that by attacking Assad "we end up fighting Russia, fighting Syria." Moscow officials have warned against strikes that would threaten Russian military personnel; Moscow already has introduced its advanced S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems. Nevertheless, several GOP presidential candidates advocated downing Russian aircraft, if necessary. Yet it would be mad to commit an unprovoked act of war against a nuclear-armed power over a third nation's conflict in which the U.S. has no substantial interest. Moscow would not likely yield peacefully.

    Why let this declining power "push around the United States, which has the world's biggest economy" and "greatest military," asked Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen? Because Moscow has far more at stake and as a result is willing to accept greater costs and take greater risks than is America. Worse, Moscow would feel pressure to maintain its credibility and preserve its international status against an overbearing United States.

    The result could be the very conflict America and the Soviet Union avoided during the entire Cold War. One anonymous U.S. official told the Washington Post: "You can't pretend you can go to war against Assad and not go to war against Russia." During the campaign Trump warned: "you're going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton," since fighting Syria would mean "fighting Syria, Russia and Iran."

    Direct military intervention also would be possible, but would raise the stakes dramatically. Special operations forces, drones, airstrikes, and even an Iraq-style invasion all are possible. But none would enjoy sustained public or allied support or end the ongoing murder and mayhem. Victory, whatever that meant, would simply trigger a new round of fighting for dominance in a post-Assad Syria, as occurred in Iraq. And conflict with Moscow could not easily be avoided.

    How would any of this serve U.S. interests? The American people have no meaningful stake in the outcome. The Assad regime's fate is largely irrelevant to Washington. For nearly a half century under both Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafez, who ruled previously, Damascus was hostile to the U.S. But Syria lost more than it won and never posed a threat to America or impeded Washington's dominance in the Middle East. Once the country dissolved into civil war the Assad regime's ability to harm others essentially disappeared. Even if the government survives, its influence will be much diminished for years.

    Washington worries about instability, but the U.S. has created greater chaos through its foolish war-making in the Mideast. Obviously, ending the Syrian civil war would be best for everyone, but a jihadist victory, likely if Assad is defeated, would threaten American interests more than continuing instability. Sen. John McCain, among others, claims that Assad's survival guarantees continuation of the war, but Washington cannot halt the conflict and is best served by staying out of the bloody imbroglio.

    "Moderate" insurgents would be angered by Washington's withdrawal, but they are unlikely ever to gain power. America might lose its "leverage" over such nominal allies as Riyadh and Ankara, but there is little evidence that Washington has gained anything from its supposed influence. Indeed, Saudi Arabia has essentially abandoned the fight against the Islamic State and Turkey is more often attacking Kurds than Daesh.

    Even if Assad fell, Washington would have no control over what followed. Without ongoing American support, the so-called "moderates" would do no better against the radical forces than they have done against the Syrian army. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died after the Bush administration blew up the country demonstrate that good intentions are an insufficient basis for U.S. policy.

    Clinton criticized "the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia" in Syria. But Moscow's objectives there do not threaten America. Russia's alliance with Syria goes back decades. Washington should do what is in America's interest, not what is against Russia's interest.

    Of course, Syria is a humanitarian horror. But the civil war is not as bad as other conflicts largely ignored by the U.S., such as the mass slaughter in the Democratic Republic of the Congo during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Moreover, Syria is not genocide, a la Rwanda or Cambodia, but a civil war, in which a most of the dead are combatants, and from all sides. The bombing of civilian areas is horrific, but hardly a new military tactic, and one which Washington has only recently come to reject.

    Nor could the conflict be settled without using extraordinary force. Merely fudging the balance of military power won't end the killing. If jihadist groups took control after Assad's collapse and his allies' withdrawal, Washington would face pressure to "do something" to protect Alawites, Christians and perhaps even "moderate" insurgents and their supporters. The U.S. has neither the responsibility nor the resources to police the globe.

    Finally, the administration has unfinished business involving anti-American radicals, the Islamic State and al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra/al-Sham. But Assad's ouster would empower both groups. They remain primarily insurgents which can be dealt with on the ground by the surrounding nations which they most threaten.

    Donald Trump had only just been declared president-elect when those controlled U.S. foreign policy began urging him to conform to their disastrous designs in the Middle East. However, Trump appears to have learned from the past. He told the Wall Street Journal: "I've had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria."

    The incoming administration should announce that the U.S. is staying out. Syria is a tragedy beyond America's control. Only the battling local factions and regional parties can reach a stable settlement. Washington should seek to make the best of a bad situation and encourage negotiations to end the killing and limit the activities of Islamic radicals.

    Michael Grace 2 days ago

    I agree, Trump should stay out of the Middle East and start building the infrastructure for this third world country called the United States. As for John Kerry, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton, they are so over and yesterday's news in the fast pace of social media.

    But their war mongering attitudes will carry a heavy burden when it comes to political history; this foursome was responsible for many civilian deaths are they responsible for the use of drones and every other killing machine that make the USA, as Eisenhower said the Military Industrial Complex.

    Syria was a beautiful country, safe to visit, and it is the victim of greed and religion. The latter probably being the worst thing man has ever created. The Christian, Judaic, and Muslim malarky about a judgemental "God in the sky." has brought 2000 years of wrath, now it is time for the USA to cut all IRS tax benefits for the religion business and use that for new airports and railroads. If someone wants to worship a God in an untaxed temple, make them pay an admission tax like when you go to the movies.

    waky wake 2 days ago

    @ Doug Bandow [:-{) I agree with your suggestion to the President-Elect Donald Trump and will put additional emphasizes on it !!!STAY OUT OF SYRIA AT ALL COST!!! I think Pence was probably the best choice Trump could have made for his VP, but maybe he needs to put him and one or two of his other "have to have" team members in a box and keep them there.

    I voted for "The Donald" to do three things he said he was going to do. 1} Regain control of our southern borders {BUILD THE WALL}, to include repatriating recent illegal intruders. 2} Renegotiate, resend, or cancel NAFTA, TPP and TTIP. 3} To totally transform our Foreign Policy objectives and focus, including but not limited to removing our military forces from the ME and non-NATO eastern European theaters and requiring our NATO and Asian-pacific partners to more consistently cover their portion of the tab, for providing their protection.

    After that, I'm willing to cut him some slack. That being said, adding the infrastructure rebuild efforts he mentioned being initiated, would guarantee my vote for a second Trump term.

    Darren Bruin 2 days ago

    BRAVO, the author has it 1,000% correct. It is asinine for the USA to get involved in Syria while wasting taxpayer's dollars as well as risking war with Russia. All for absolutely nothing to do with America's interests. While I did not vote for him I have high hope that Trump will keep to his promise and keep the USA out of Syria.

    Trung Jen 2 days ago

    Agree. Cant destroy something then leave what chaos that was created in our wake. If in the name of humanitarian goals, there are countless other missions to intervene. Politics/power shouldn't be hiding behind any veil

    Parham Noori-Esfandiari a day ago

    The problem is that U.S think-tanks that advise concessive U.S administration for long turn planning for U.S dominance do not have good intentions for the world. If some country claims leadership for the world it has to look what is good for the world but not what is good for bunch of criminal special interest. How many Islamic countries have been destroyed? Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen and .. How could the rulers in U.S and Western countries be Angels toward their own people when they are demons toward other nations? It seems like Trump wants to build up his nation and avoiding damage to the others. We have to wait how successful he will be against special interest groups to achieve his goals.

    wootendw 2 hours ago

    Bashar Assad is a secular Alawite married to a British born/raised Sunni. Both the husband and wife are highly intelligent. Bashar is an ophthalmologist; his wife, Asmi, has a degree in computer science and French literature and has worked as an investment banker. Bashar Assad is not his father (who sent troops to fight against Saddam during Iraq I). He accepted the Syrian Presidency because his older brother, groomed to replace Hafez, was killed. Compared to other ME leaders like Qatar's and Saudi Arabia's (whom the USG arms) the Assads are a decent couple. Yet, for 10 years, our deceitful, murderous foreign policy establishment has been vilifying them and trained terrorists to overthrow them. Yes, ISIS is a creation of the USG through its proxies, Turkey and the Gulf States. Please, Mr Trump, leave Syria alone and let its people choose their own leader even if it's Assad. This is the Russian position and the morally correct one.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Whether it is criminal to aid Al Qaeda terrorists – who also happen to be the enemy in the war on terror – may be a decision for courts

    mondoweiss.net
    Bandolero November 18, 2016, 5:35 pm
    With well-known blogger Jennifer Rubin Trump also raises red flags with his Flynn pick. She writes :

    Flynn's personal testiness, unhinged zealousness, rash judgment and anti-Muslim hysteria echo Trump's deficiencies.

    As far as I remember Jennifer Rubin was always a great friend of Muslims, wasn't she?

    So, what's going on? Maybe with his statement that the creation of an ISIS caliphate in Syria and Iraq happened due to a "willful decision" in Washington he hasn't made himself not only friends? I think that he wants to talk with Russia couldn't be it, because virtually nobody I know would prefer throwing nuclear missiles at each other instead.

    For people not familiar with Flynn I think an interview with Flynn by Sophie Shevardnadze from about a year ago can give some answers on what kind of worldview Flynn holds:

    https://youtu.be/4RIUE68cpGc Log in to Reply

    Bandolero November 18, 2016, 9:00 pm
    Trumps pick of Flynn not only raised red föags with Jennifer Rubin, but with the Washington Post "Editorial Board" aka Fred Hiatt, too. The Post's View it's called, the title is " Trump has made some dangerous appointments ," under the title is a picture of Flynn and then the Washington Post states:

    Mr. Flynn has attracted attention with his rhetorical assaults on Islam and Muslims. He has described Islam as not a religion but a "political ideology" that hides "behind what we call freedom of religion." He once tweeted that "Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL." the appointments of Mr. Flynn and Mr. Pompeo suggest a turn toward policies that could deeply alienate U.S. Muslim allies, including Sunni states whose assistance is critically needed to forge political alternatives to the terrorists in Iraq and Syria The general has accepted payment from the Russian propaganda network RT, and his consulting firm has lobbied for a businessman close to Turkey's autocratic president.

    So, if I may summarize that stance of the Washiongton Post. Mike Flynn is so anti-islamic, that he "could deeply alienate U.S. Muslim allies, including Sunni states whose assistance is critically needed to forge political alternatives to the terrorists in Iraq and Syria" – and his biggest sins are being on RT and lobbying for Erdogan – who happens to be the president of the most important U.S. Muslim ally, and of course Turkey is a Sunni majority state.

    The Washington Post can't decide: is Flynn ugly because he's anti-muslim or is he ugly because he's too cozy with muslim president Erdogan. It seems to me proof that the neocon Washington Post is hiding why they are really against Flynn.

    But I think I know a part of why the Washington Post is so much against Flynn. It's this story, and all what's linked with it: Former DIA Chief Michael Flynn Says Rise of Islamic State was "a willful decision" and Defends Accuracy of 2012 Memo . Flynn didn't shut up on this, even when pressed.

    Whether it is criminal to aid Al Qaeda terrorists – who also happen to be the enemy in the war on terror – may be a decision for courts. But I remember well the chants of "Lock her up" and it looks to me some people are scared it could happen – and not only to her.

    gingershot November 19, 2016, 4:58 pm
    'The End of Political Judaism and the Israel Lobby/Jewish Lobby Alt Right Movement' – The Israel Lobby's famous 'Islamophobia Cottage Industry' IS the 'Alt Right' birthplace – and Steve Bannon is a poster child for a 'Alt Right Pro-Israel' fascist

    Why do Steve Bannon and Frank Gaffney and other Israeli Firsters/Kahanists/Neocons get along so famously? Because they are both 'Alt Right' everybody clear? 'Alt Right Pro-Israel' targets MUSLIMS not Jews. Everybody got it?

    'Alt Right Pro-Israel' IS the Islamophobia cottage industry of the Israeli Lobby/Jewish Lobby/Neocons in the US – they promote racism TOWARDS Muslims, not Jews

    Dermer is having to explain Bannon to the rest of the Diaspora and America because they don't get it – Bannon ain't anti-semitic, he's 'Alt Right Pro-Israel' – in fact he LOVES Israel – just like Breivik Anders Breivik or Mike Huckabee or Gaffney or John Bolton or Pam Geller or Chuck Krauthammer or Naftali Bennett or Yvet Lieberman etc, etc

    Time to break America's trance SNAP! SNAP!

    Israel itself is 'Alt Right' – as well as all the Neocons

    David Horowitz, Pam Geller, Frank Gaffney, Cliff May, Anders Breivik, Charles Krauthammer, Geert Wilders, and Neocons writ large are all part of it and they have one thing in common – they target Muslims NOT Jews and love Israel

    The Islamophobia industry is worldwide now and heavily promoted by the Israeli Lobby and Israel. (David Horowitz donated $20K to Geert Wilder's party in 2014, Anders Breivik blogged at Pam Gellers site/Gates of Vienna and admired Avigdor Lieberman and Israel)

    The 'Alt Right' movement is a part of the Islamophobia Cottage industry of the Israel Lobby of the US and they identify with extreme Right Wing Israel (Bibi, Bennett, Lieberman and the rest of the true blue Kahanists)

    This new fascism is CREATED by the Jewish Lobby/Israel Lobby/Neocons (and Israel) and targets Muslims NOT Jews.

    Yes Virigina, it's Israeli Lobby-CREATED fascism towards Muslims, NOT Jews. The Israeli Lobby is famous for it – Gaffney is a poster child for it.

    International 'Alt Right' fascists like Wilders and Breivik hate Muslims NOT Jews Israel is 'Alt Right' – they hate Muslims NOT Jews
    Neocons like Frank Gaffney are 'Alt Right' – they hate Muslims not Jews

    Why do Steve Bannon and Frank Gaffney get along? Because they are both 'Alt Right' . 'Alt Righters' LOVE 'Neocons', these are INTERCHANGEABLE TERMS in my mind, or perhaps even clearer, Alt Right is synonymous with 'Kahanist'

    Why is the Trump appointments/campaign getting stuffed with 'Alt Right' type and 'extreme right wing Pro-Israel' appointments? Yep, you got it

    The American Israel Lobby/Jewish Lobby/Neocons target Muslims (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Palestine) NOT Jews
    The Israelis target Muslims (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, the rest of their Clean Break targets) NOT Jews
    The International Islamophobes (LePen, Geert Wilders, Breivik, etc) target Muslims NOT Jews

    Trump appointments are STUFFED with both the 'Alt Right' Gen Flynn, Mike Pompeo, Bannon – as well as the Kahanist/extreme Right Wing Israeli Kahanist-type picks like David Friedman, Greenblatt, maybe Frank Gaffney, etc.

    They all get along and they all go watch 'Homeland' together to get their 'Alt Right Kahanist' rocks off (Pompeo just met the 'Homeland' producers at Mike Rodger's house this week- can't make it up)

    Time to get this one fact clear – these new fascists ALL target Muslims, not Jews. The targets of the Alt Right are MUSLIMS not Jews, and it's promoted by the Jewish Lobby/Israel Lobby

    The collapse of Political Judaism in Israel (Zionism as practiced by it's Israeli enthusiasts, which is Apartheid) and in America (the 'Alt Right Movement and it's Israeli Lobby/Jewish Lobby/Neocon supporters') is in motion

    When America's High Schoolers find out Trump and his 'Alt Right are really the 'Kahanist Alt Right' it's gonna happen even faster.

    Humiliations Galore!

    [Nov 20, 2016] US ex-intelligence chief on ISIS rise It was a willful Washington decision - RT America

    Notable quotes:
    "... "turned a blind eye" ..."
    "... "I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision," ..."
    "... "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al- Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria," ..."
    "... "the West, Gulf countries and Turkey." ..."
    "... "If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime." ..."
    "... "dire consequences" ..."
    "... "ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq) could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards of unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory," ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.rt.com
    The US didn't interfere with the rise of anti-government jihadist groups in Syria that finally degenerated into Islamic State, claims the former head of America's Defense Intelligence Agency, backing a secret 2012 memo predicting their rise. Trends Islamic State

    An interview with retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), given to Al Jazeera's Mehdi Hasan, confirms earlier suspicions that Washington was monitoring jihadist groups emerging as opposition in Syria.

    'American foreign policy demands demons' (Op-Edge) http://t.co/nUsRpDeJAF pic.twitter.com/XhOcziLb7g

    - RT America (@RT_America) July 29, 2015

    General Flynn dismissed Al Jazeera's supposition that the US administration "turned a blind eye" to the DIA's analysis.

    Flynn believes the US government didn't listen to his agency on purpose.

    "I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision," the former DIA chief said.

    READ MORE: Iraq Diary, Day 8: Does the DIA report talk about ISIS roots?

    The classified DIA report presented in August 2012, stated that "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al- Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria," being supported by "the West, Gulf countries and Turkey."

    US wants to use ISIS for projects in Iraq – Shiite militia leader http://t.co/vGlEgbDx5r pic.twitter.com/Ge2mOkJF4J

    - RT (@RT_com) July 29, 2015

    The document recently declassified through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), analyses the situation in Syria in the summer of 2012 and predicts: "If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."

    Putin's initiative to create 'united front' to fight #ISIS intrigues US, allies – Lavrov http://t.co/IjV56XdUei pic.twitter.com/dLUvD0Qsta

    - RT (@RT_com) August 9, 2015

    The report warns of "dire consequences" of this scenario, because it would allow Al-Qaeda to regain its positions in Iraq and unify the jihadist Sunni forces in Iraq, Syria and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against all other Muslim minorities they consider dissenters.

    READ MORE: 'US created conditions for ISIS': RT talks to Iraqi Shia militia as they leave to fight

    "ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq) could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards of unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory," the DIA report correctly predicted at the time.
    Those groups eventually emerged as Islamic State (IS formerly ISIS/ISIL) and Al-Nusra Front, an Islamic group loyal to Al-Qaeda.

    [Nov 20, 2016] The fundamental problem is the leftes are playing the game of the neoliberals for them. Especially in the area of immigration

    Notable quotes:
    "... The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it. ..."
    "... Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers. ..."
    "... Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense. ..."
    "... Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution. ..."
    "... Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers. ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    Stillgrizzly 3d ago

    The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it.

    Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

    The liberal left are confusing the cries of alarm from those losing out with racism and bigotry, which have been ingrained in their psyche due to identity politics.

    RJB73 Stillgrizzly 3d ago

    Well put. Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense.

    Instead, they've labelled them racists and islamphobes etc. because they are not driven by (classical) liberalism but rather divisive identity politics focused on minority groups (e.g. transgender issues, which is not going to win many votes.)

    greenwichite Stillgrizzly 3d ago 22 23 Liberals and the Left are not the same thing, though.

    I think the liberals' horror at Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates this, as did the way liberals torpedoed Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.

    To be liberal is to let people do whatever they want, so long as they don't directly harm other people.

    Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution.

    Jaisans Stillgrizzly 3d ago

    Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

    you might be putting the cart before the horse a little bit there. the problem isn't freedom of movement (let's try not to use emotive terms like mass migration) is employers seeking cheap labour. better wages would attract more local labour, instead employers actively seek cheap labour from abroad. and that's a result of economic liberalism, which is very different to classical liberalism. classical liberals built houses for their workers to live in, rather than not paying them enough to live in their own house.

    [Nov 19, 2016] The Wall Street Journal Steve Bannon on Politics as War

    Notable quotes:
    "... He's proud that the first job offer-to former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security adviser-went to a "registered Democrat," and that the country is going to see "a lot of interesting choices." Mr. Trump "knows how to mix and match, get the best out of people, and I think it says something about what a historic figure he could be." ..."
    "... I never went on TV one time during the campaign. Not once. You know why? Because politics is war. General Sherman would never have gone on TV to tell everyone his plans. ..."
    "... Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    Stephen K. Bannon in a rare interview talks with Kimberley A. Strassel of the Wall Street Journal about the winning campaign of Donald J. Trump and his part in helping the president-elect accomplish his vision for America. Bannon also refutes charges of being antisemitic or a white nationalist saying the allegations, "just aren't serious. It's a joke."

    Below are a few excerpts from the interview:

    ... ... ... Why does he think that leftists are so fixated on him? "They were ready to coronate Hillary Clinton. That didn't happen, and I'm one of the reasons why. So, by the way, I wear these attacks as an emblem of pride." Mr. Bannon believes Mr. Trump to be uniquely suited to make the case, as "one of the best political orators in American history, rated with William Jennings Bryan." He's proud that the first job offer-to former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security adviser-went to a "registered Democrat," and that the country is going to see "a lot of interesting choices." Mr. Trump "knows how to mix and match, get the best out of people, and I think it says something about what a historic figure he could be."

    I never went on TV one time during the campaign. Not once. You know why? Because politics is war. General Sherman would never have gone on TV to tell everyone his plans.

    "Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States"

    [Nov 19, 2016] The Wall Street Journal Steve Bannon on Politics as War

    Notable quotes:
    "... He's proud that the first job offer-to former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security adviser-went to a "registered Democrat," and that the country is going to see "a lot of interesting choices." Mr. Trump "knows how to mix and match, get the best out of people, and I think it says something about what a historic figure he could be." ..."
    "... I never went on TV one time during the campaign. Not once. You know why? Because politics is war. General Sherman would never have gone on TV to tell everyone his plans. ..."
    "... Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    Stephen K. Bannon in a rare interview talks with Kimberley A. Strassel of the Wall Street Journal about the winning campaign of Donald J. Trump and his part in helping the president-elect accomplish his vision for America. Bannon also refutes charges of being antisemitic or a white nationalist saying the allegations, "just aren't serious. It's a joke."

    Below are a few excerpts from the interview:

    ... ... ... Why does he think that leftists are so fixated on him? "They were ready to coronate Hillary Clinton. That didn't happen, and I'm one of the reasons why. So, by the way, I wear these attacks as an emblem of pride." Mr. Bannon believes Mr. Trump to be uniquely suited to make the case, as "one of the best political orators in American history, rated with William Jennings Bryan." He's proud that the first job offer-to former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security adviser-went to a "registered Democrat," and that the country is going to see "a lot of interesting choices." Mr. Trump "knows how to mix and match, get the best out of people, and I think it says something about what a historic figure he could be."

    I never went on TV one time during the campaign. Not once. You know why? Because politics is war. General Sherman would never have gone on TV to tell everyone his plans.

    "Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States"

    [Nov 19, 2016] The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss of jobs. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun.

    It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
    "... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
    "... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
    "... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
    "... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
    "... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
    "... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
    "... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
    "... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
    "... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
    "... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
    "... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
    "... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
    "... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
    "... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
    "... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
    "... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
    "... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
    "... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
    "... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
    "... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
    "... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
    "... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
    "... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
    "... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
    "... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
    "... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
    "... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
    "... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
    "... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
    "... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
    "... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
    "... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
    "... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
    "... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs ..."
    "... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
    "... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
    "... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
    "... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
    "... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
    "... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
    "... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
    "... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
    "... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    dbk 11.18.16 at 6:41 pm 130

    Bruce Wilder @102

    The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?

    I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).

    The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.

    As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return, and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers; 8.7 in allied jobs).

    Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.

    In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.

    I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies. But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism.

    Also: Faustusnotes@100
    For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.

    And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?

    To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?

    kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:32 pm ( 135 )

    Thomas Pickety

    " Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this.

    Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "

    The Guardian

    kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:56 pm 137 ( 137 )

    What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.

    I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.

    Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA of Japan put crudely.

    I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election. The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.

    I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as 'inferiors.' Many do.

    Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong, I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.

    Faustusnotes 11.19.16 at 12:14 am 138

    Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics.

    It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.

    And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs? Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.

    basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am

    Did this go through?
    Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,

    The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present.

    I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters with chants of USA! USA!

    Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.

    --

    Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote.

    Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?

    I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.

    Why the Working Class was Never 'White'

    The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class' as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.

    .

    This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.

    Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders, including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).

    But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety, we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist, solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same working-class interests.

    Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves, weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal sectarian battles).

    To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable violence of climate change and corporate power.

    *To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference – Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race. And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.

    Hidari 11.19.16 at 8:16 am 152

    FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.

    Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent. If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better, more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .

    In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."

    Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."

    In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'

    http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed

    Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the camel's back.

    In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power.

    Eventually something is going to break.

    dbk 11.19.16 at 10:39 am ( 153 )

    nastywoman @ 150
    Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking for.

    No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall philosophy. (www.gp.org).]

    I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be tailored to individual communities and regions.

    To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay.

    Soullite 11.19.16 at 12:46 pm 156

    This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it).

    I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself, but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.

    You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all.

    You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.

    mclaren 11.19.16 at 2:37 pm 160

    One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.

    Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay? We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.

    Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.

    None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.

    Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.

    We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon, LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.

    Does anyone notice a pattern here?

    This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.

    Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but nobody else was getting anything.

    This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.

    And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will never, ever happen."

    C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the whole process on.

    So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.

    Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?

    Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered (maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves, and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
    Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.

    Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:

    "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election

    Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important. He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic elites toward their recent loss:

    "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.'

    "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken."

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/the-stark-contrast-between-the-gops-self-criticism-in-2012-and-the-democrats-blame-everyone-else-posture-now/

    Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:

    "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..)

    " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote.

    "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.

    "In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.

    "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-11-15/global-Trump_vs_deep_state

    efcdons 11.19.16 at 3:07 pm 161 ( 161 )

    Faustusnotes @147

    You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))

    If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood, a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to trump this year to give him his margin of victory).

    trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia) but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work.

    trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept.

    The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part due to the auto bailout.

    trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there.

    "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

    So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life, however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations through the Supreme Court.

    But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples' way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.

    Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/hillary-clinton-trade/

    [Nov 19, 2016] The American Conservative Movement Has Ended. The American Right Goes On by Peter Brimelow

    Both Republican Party and Democratic party degenerated into the racket. Neoliberal racket. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That's because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be conquered by Russians. ..."
    "... In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said: ..."
    "... I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our country. ..."
    "... it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional phase. And now it's over. ..."
    "... terrified of the neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their own ethnic agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and also because they have big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation. ..."
    "... I think that goes to what happened to the American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was bought . It was simply bought . I think the dominance of the Donorist class and the Donorist Party is one of the things that has emerged analytically within the past 10 years. ..."
    "... So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket. ..."
    "... But the good news is, as John Derbyshire said a few minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.unz.com
    The core of conservatism, it seems to me, is this recognition and acceptance of the elemental emotions. Conservatism understands that it is futile to debate the feelings of the mother for her child-or such human instincts as the bonds of tribe , nation , even race . Of course, all are painfully vulnerable to deconstruction by rationalistic intellectuals-but not, ultimately, to destruction. These commitments are Jungian rather than Freudian, not irrational but a-rational-beyond the reach of reason.

    This is one of the problems, by the way, with the American Conservative Movement. I was completely astonished when it fell apart at the end of the Cold War -- I never thought it would. That's because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be conquered by Russians.

    But, it turned out that there were people who had joined the anti-Communist coalition who harbored messianic fantasies about "global democracy" and and America as the first "universal nation" (i.e. polity. Nation-states must have a specific ethnic core.) They also had uses for the American military which hadn't occurred to me. But they didn't care about America-about America as a nation-state, the political expression of a particular people, the Historic American Nation. In fact, in some cases, it made them feel uneasy.

    I thought about this this spring when Trump was debating in New Hampshire. ABC's John Muir asked three candidates: "What does it mean to be Conservative?"

    I'm going to quote from John Kasich: blah, blah, blah, blah. Balanced budgets-tax cuts-jobs-"but once we have economic growth I believe we have to reach out to people who live in the shadows." By this he meant, not illegal aliens, although he did favor Amnesty , but "the mentally ill, the drug addicted, the working poor [and] our friends in the minority community."

    That's because the Republican Party has lots of friends in the minority community.

    Marco Rubio said:

    it's about three things. The first is conservatism is about limited government, especially at the federal level It's about free enterprise And it's about a strong national defense. It's about believing, unlike Barack Obama, that the world is a safer and a better place when America is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet. That's conservatism.

    Kasich and Rubio's answers, of course, are not remotely "conservative" but utilitarian, economistic, classical liberal. Note that Rubio even felt obliged to justify "strong national defense" in universalistic, Wilsonian terms: it will make the world "a safer and a better place."

    In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said:

    I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our country.

    Now, this caused a considerable amount of harrumphing among Conservative Inc. intellectuals and various Republican politicians. Somebody called John Hart , who writes a thing called Opportunity Lives -has anybody heard of it? It's a very well-funded Libertarianism Inc. website in Washington. Nobody has heard of it? Good. Hart said:

    Trump's answer may have been how conservatives described themselves once: in 1957. But today's modern conservative movement isn't a hoarding or protectionist philosophy. Conservatism isn't about conserving; it's about growth.

    [ Conservatism is Still A Second Language to Donald Trump Opportunity Lives, January 7, 2016]

    "Growth"? Well, I don't think so. And not just because I remember 1957 . As I said, I think it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional phase. And now it's over.

    Why did it end? After Buckley purged John O'Sullivan and all of us immigration patriots from National Review in 1997, we spent a lot of time thinking about why he had done this. And there were a lot of complicated psychological explanations: Bill was getting old, he was jealous of his successor, the new Editor, John O'Sullivan, he was terrified of the neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their own ethnic agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and also because they have big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation.

    darknessatnoonBut there was a similar discussion in the 1950s and 1960s, which I'm old enough to remember, about why the Old Bolsheviks all testified against themselves in the treason trials during Stalin's Great Purge . They all admitted to the most fantastic things-that they had been spies for the Americans and the British and the capitalist imperialists all along, that they'd plotted to assassinate Comrade Stalin. And there were all kinds of discussions as to why this was, and in fact a wonderful novel, Darkness At Noon [ PDF ] by Arthur Koestler , one of the most remarkable novels in the last century, describing the exquisite psychological process by which an old Bolshevik in prison came to the conclusion that he was going to have to say all these things in the long-term interest of the Revolution.

    Do you agree about Darkness At Noon , Paul? [ Paul Gottfried indicates assent ]

    Good.

    Well, when Nikita Khrushchev got up and denounced Stalin in at the party conference in 1956, he was asked about this. Why did all these Old Bolsheviks turn turtle like this? And his answer was: "Beat, beat, beat."

    In other words, there is no complex psychological explanation : they were just tortured. I think that goes to what happened to the American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was bought . It was simply bought . I think the dominance of the Donorist class and the Donorist Party is one of the things that has emerged analytically within the past 10 years.

    When I was first writing about American politics and got involved in American politics–and I started by working for John Ashbrook (not Ashcroft , Ash brook ) against Nixon in 1972 –nobody thought about donors. We have only gradually become conscious of them. And their absolute dominant role, and their ability to prohibit policy discussions, has really only become clear in the last five to ten years.

    I think, in retrospect, with Buckley , who subsidized his lifestyle out of the National Review to a scandalous extent, that there was some financial transaction. I think that now.

    It's an open secret that Rich Lowry did not want to come out and with this anti-Trump issue that they published earlier this year, but he was compelled to do it. That's not the type of thing that Lowry would normally do. He wouldn't take that kind of risk, he's a courtier, he would never take the risk of not being invited to ride in Trump's limousine in the case that Trump won. But, apparently, someone forced him to do it. And I think that someone was a donor and I think I know who it was.

    So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket.

    But the good news is, as John Derbyshire said a few minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up.

    So, I guess my bottom line here is: " Don't despair ."

    Peter Brimelow [ Email him ] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster , is now available in Kindle format.

    [Nov 19, 2016] Is Trump a Death Sentence for the Iran Deal

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another tactic is to discourage international companies from doing business with Iran, an effort coordinated by the Iran Project of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a premier anti-JCPOA lobbying center supported by Sheldon Adelson, a prominent donor to the Republicans and Trump. For instance, the FDD took a lead in denouncing the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for easing controls on dollar transactions between Iran and foreign banks and companies. ..."
    "... With so much at stake, Iranians followed the American election with great interest. The Hezb-e Etedal va Toseh (Moderation and Development Party) of President Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has the most to lose from the Trump presidency. ..."
    "... Rouhani came to power in 2013 with a promise to fix the Iranian economy broken by years of mismanagement and sanctions. He managed to push through the JCPOA with assurances that the economic benefits would outweigh the cost of giving up the nuclear project-so much so that the Moderation and Development Party gained a majority in the 2016 parliamentary election. ..."
    "... Even a cursory perusal of the Rouhani-affiliated media, such as Iran, Etemad and Arman newspapers, among others, indicates more than a passing level of anxiety about his chances in the wake of Trump's election. ..."
    "... Rouhani's normalization plan, more than the JCPOA, puts the moderates on a collision course with the Revolutionary Guards and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The former are incensed about Rouhani's new banking regulations, while the latter opposes the type of broad opening to the world that the moderates are pushing. The supreme leader is known to worry that liberalization and Westernization would further undermine the corroding legitimacy of the theocratic state. Not surprisingly, hard-liners have reacted to Trump's victory with glee. Depicting Trump's election as "a victory of the insane over the liar," Kayhan, representing the Supreme Leader, called Trump "a shredder of the JCPOA, an agreement which had zero benefit for Iran." Javan, a mouthpiece for the Revolutionary Guards, wrote that Trump is better for Iran because he would undermine the credibility of the moderates. ..."
    "... The hotly disputed ballistic-missile tests conducted by the Revolutionary Guards in the past year would also come under a review by the new administration; Congress is already crafting legislation that would further sanction implicated countries, companies and individuals. Even small infringements-like the recent incident in which the IAEA reported Iran exceeding the amount of heavy water allowed under the deal-can trigger more measures. ..."
    "... Under Obama, such disputes were resolved by a special team of State Department and National Security Council officials, working with the IAEA. Whether the Trump administration would retain the team is doubtful, especially as such a move would be opposed by Bolton or other hard-liners, should they join the administration. Bolton, who accused the IAEA of covering up for Iran, would be most likely press for a more vigilant oversight of Iran's compliance, creating additional friction. This, in turn, can trigger potentially damaging developments. Under the JCPOA terms, Iran is not due additional sanction relief until 2023, but the president is required to sign periodical waivers on sanctions that are on the books if Iran is judged to be in compliance. By refusing to issue the waivers, the Trump administration would essentially abrogate American participation in the accord. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | nationalinterest.org

    Overlooked in the speculations about Trump's future decisions is the dominant role that Congress would play in shaping American policy toward the JCPOA. In 2015, in conjunction with the government of Israel and the Israel lobby in Washington, congressional Republicans mounted an unprecedented but ultimately an unsuccessful campaign to derail the deal. Still, the lobby and its congressional patrons have not abandoned their effort to limit the economic benefits of the deal to Iran. One effective tool is new sanctions-generating legislation. Lawmakers from the House Republican Israel Caucus introduced several bills which would, among others provisions, extend the Iran Sanctions Act due to expire in December 2016, block the sale of eighty Boeing planes to Iran and prohibit the Export-Import Bank from financing business with Iran. Unlike President Obama, President-elect Trump is not expected to veto the anti-Iran legislation, setting a relatively low bar for its passage.

    ... ... ...

    Another tactic is to discourage international companies from doing business with Iran, an effort coordinated by the Iran Project of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a premier anti-JCPOA lobbying center supported by Sheldon Adelson, a prominent donor to the Republicans and Trump. For instance, the FDD took a lead in denouncing the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for easing controls on dollar transactions between Iran and foreign banks and companies.

    After initially banning all dollar-denominated transactions, OFAC reversed itself authorizing such dealings provided they are not processed by the American financial system. In yet another effort to spur international business with Iran, OFAC declared that foreign companies could transact business with non-sanctioned Iranian companies even if a sanctioned entity held a minority share of its assets. The Treasury also relaxed the requirement that foreign companies contracting with Iranian counterparts do automatic due intelligence. Since the Revolutionary Guards have operated numerous ventures with legitimate entities, the FDD decried this step as "green-lighting" business with the Guards.

    ... ... ...

    With so much at stake, Iranians followed the American election with great interest. The Hezb-e Etedal va Toseh (Moderation and Development Party) of President Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has the most to lose from the Trump presidency.

    Rouhani came to power in 2013 with a promise to fix the Iranian economy broken by years of mismanagement and sanctions. He managed to push through the JCPOA with assurances that the economic benefits would outweigh the cost of giving up the nuclear project-so much so that the Moderation and Development Party gained a majority in the 2016 parliamentary election. There is little doubt that a serious reduction of the economic benefits accruing from the deal would hurt Rouhani's chances in the 2017 presidential election. Even a cursory perusal of the Rouhani-affiliated media, such as Iran, Etemad and Arman newspapers, among others, indicates more than a passing level of anxiety about his chances in the wake of Trump's election.

    ... ... ...

    Under Obama, such disputes were resolved by a special team of State Department and National Security Council officials, working with the IAEA. Whether the Trump administration would retain the team is doubtful, especially as such a move would be opposed by Bolton or other hard-liners, should they join the administration. Bolton, who accused the IAEA of covering up for Iran, would be most likely press for a more vigilant oversight of Iran's compliance, creating additional friction. This, in turn, can trigger potentially damaging developments. Under the JCPOA terms, Iran is not due additional sanction relief until 2023, but the president is required to sign periodical waivers on sanctions that are on the books if Iran is judged to be in compliance. By refusing to issue the waivers, the Trump administration would essentially abrogate American participation in the accord.

    Even without a formal abrogation, an aggressive American policy would make it hard for Rouhani to protect all the aspects of JCPOA-mandated compliance. Hard-liners may be encouraged by the fact that the EU, Russia and China are not likely to agree on snapping back sanctions, because they would hold the Trump administration responsible for disrupting flourishing trade with Tehran. It is virtually impossible to predict whether Iran, under a hard-line leadership, would resume its nuclear project. It is equally difficult to foresee whether an Obama-type coalition behind the JCPOA could be recreated in the future, should the need arise.

    A Trump administration could let Tehran's hard-liners sabotage the JCPOA.
    Farhad Rezaei

    November 16, 2016

    Rouhani's normalization plan, more than the JCPOA, puts the moderates on a collision course with the Revolutionary Guards and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The former are incensed about Rouhani's new banking regulations, while the latter opposes the type of broad opening to the world that the moderates are pushing. The supreme leader is known to worry that liberalization and Westernization would further undermine the corroding legitimacy of the theocratic state. Not surprisingly, hard-liners have reacted to Trump's victory with glee. Depicting Trump's election as "a victory of the insane over the liar," Kayhan, representing the Supreme Leader, called Trump "a shredder of the JCPOA, an agreement which had zero benefit for Iran." Javan, a mouthpiece for the Revolutionary Guards, wrote that Trump is better for Iran because he would undermine the credibility of the moderates.

    ... ... ...

    The hotly disputed ballistic-missile tests conducted by the Revolutionary Guards in the past year would also come under a review by the new administration; Congress is already crafting legislation that would further sanction implicated countries, companies and individuals. Even small infringements-like the recent incident in which the IAEA reported Iran exceeding the amount of heavy water allowed under the deal-can trigger more measures.

    Under Obama, such disputes were resolved by a special team of State Department and National Security Council officials, working with the IAEA. Whether the Trump administration would retain the team is doubtful, especially as such a move would be opposed by Bolton or other hard-liners, should they join the administration. Bolton, who accused the IAEA of covering up for Iran, would be most likely press for a more vigilant oversight of Iran's compliance, creating additional friction. This, in turn, can trigger potentially damaging developments. Under the JCPOA terms, Iran is not due additional sanction relief until 2023, but the president is required to sign periodical waivers on sanctions that are on the books if Iran is judged to be in compliance. By refusing to issue the waivers, the Trump administration would essentially abrogate American participation in the accord.

    Even without a formal abrogation, an aggressive American policy would make it hard for Rouhani to protect all the aspects of JCPOA-mandated compliance. Hard-liners may be encouraged by the fact that the EU, Russia and China are not likely to agree on snapping back sanctions, because they would hold the Trump administration responsible for disrupting flourishing trade with Tehran. It is virtually impossible to predict whether Iran, under a hard-line leadership, would resume its nuclear project. It is equally difficult to foresee whether an Obama-type coalition behind the JCPOA could be recreated in the future, should the need arise.

    Dr. Farhad Rezaei is a research fellow at Middle East Institute, Sakarya University, Turkey. He is the author of the forthcoming Iran's Nuclear Program: A Study in Nuclear Proliferation and Rollback (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).

    [Nov 19, 2016] Steve Bannon Interviewed Its About Americans Not Getting disposed

    Notable quotes:
    "... " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ..."
    "... Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches, so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400 kids." ..."
    "... Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump" ..."
    "... " The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ." ..."
    "... ... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team ... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities ... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Bannon next discusses the "battle line" inside America's great divide.

    He absolutely - mockingly - rejects the idea that this is a racial line. "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist, " he tells me. " The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ."

    Bannon's vision: an "entirely new political movement", one which drives the conservatives crazy. As to how monetary policy will coexist with fiscal stimulus, Bannon has a simple explanation: he plans to "rebuild everything" courtesy of negative interest rates and cheap debt throughout the world. Those rates may not be negative for too long.

    " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement."

    How Bannon describes Trump: " an ideal vessel"

    It is less than obvious how Bannon, now the official strategic brains of the Trump operation, syncs with his boss, famously not too strategic. When Bannon took over the campaign from Paul Manafort, there were many in the Trump circle who had resigned themselves to the inevitability of the candidate listening to no one . But here too was a Bannon insight: When the campaign seemed most in free fall or disarray, it was perhaps most on target. While Clinton was largely absent from the campaign trail and concentrating on courting her donors, Trump - even after the leak of the grab-them-by-the-pussy audio - was speaking to ever-growing crowds of thirty-five or forty thousand. "He gets it, he gets it intuitively," says Bannon, perhaps still surprised he has found such an ideal vessel. "You have probably the greatest orator since William Jennings Bryan, coupled with an economic populist message and two political parties that are so owned by the donors that they don't speak to their audience. But he speaks in a non-political vernacular, he communicates with these people in a very visceral way. Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches, so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400 kids."

    Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump"

    At that moment, as we talk, there's a knock on the door of Bannon's office, a temporary, impersonal, middle-level executive space with a hodgepodge of chairs for constant impromptu meetings. Sen. Ted Cruz, once the Republican firebrand, now quite a small and unassuming figure, has been waiting patiently for a chat and Bannon excuses himself for a short while. It is clear when we return to our conversation that it is not just the liberal establishment that Bannon feels he has triumphed over, but the conservative one too - not least of all Fox News and its owners, the Murdochs. "They got it more wrong than anybody," he says. " Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump. To him, Trump is a radical. Now they'll go centrist and build the network around Megyn Kelly." Bannon recounts, with no small irony, that when Breitbart attacked Kelly after her challenges to Trump in the initial Republican debate, Fox News chief Roger Ailes - whom Bannon describes as an important mentor, and who Kelly's accusations of sexual harassment would help topple in July - called to defend her. Bannon says he warned Ailes that Kelly would be out to get him too .

    Finally, Bannon on how he sees himself in the administration:

    Bannon now becomes part of a two-headed White House political structure, with Reince Priebus - in and out of Bannon's office as we talk - as chief of staff, in charge of making the trains run on time, reporting to the president, and Bannon as chief strategist, in charge of vision, goals, narrative and plan of attack, reporting to the president too. Add to this the ambitions and whims of the president himself, and the novel circumstance of one who has never held elective office, the agenda of his highly influential family and the end runs of a party significant parts of which were opposed to him, and you have quite a complex court that Bannon will have to finesse to realize his reign of the working man and a trillion dollars in new spending.

    "I am," he says, with relish, "Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors."

    Life of Illusion nibiru Nov 18, 2016 2:32 PM ,
    now that is direct with truth

    " The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ."

    Deathrips Life of Illusion Nov 18, 2016 2:34 PM ,
    William Jennings Bryan!!!! Bonus Points.

    http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1876-1900/william-jennings-bryan-cro...

    Read cross of gold about bimetalism. Gold AND Silver

    PrayingMantis wildbad Nov 18, 2016 3:51 PM ,
    ... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team ... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities ... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet.

    ........ from wiki ...

    Stephen Kevin Bannon was born on November 27, 1953, in Norfolk, Virginia into a working-class, Irish Catholic, pro-Kennedy, pro-union family of Democrats. He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1976 and holds a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. In 1983, Bannon received an M.B.A. degree with honors from Harvard Business School.

    Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.

    After his military service, Bannon worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in the Mergers & Acquisitions Department. In 1990, Bannon and several colleagues from Goldman Sachs launched Bannon & Co., a boutique investment bank specializing in media. Through Bannon & Co., Bannon negotiated the sale of Castle Rock Entertainment to Ted Turner. As payment, Bannon & Co. accepted a financial stake in five television shows, including Seinfeld. Société Générale purchased Bannon & Co. in 1998.

    In 1993, while still managing Bannon & Co., Bannon was made acting director of Earth-science research project Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona. Under Bannon, the project shifted emphasis from researching space exploration and colonization towards pollution and global warming. He left the project in 1995.

    After the sale of Bannon & Co., Bannon became an executive producer in the film and media industry in Hollywood, California. He was executive producer for Julie Taymor's 1999 film Titus. Bannon became a partner with entertainment industry executive Jeff Kwatinetz at The Firm, Inc., a film and television management company. In 2004, Bannon made a documentary about Ronald Reagan titled In the Face of Evil. Through the making and screening of this film, Bannon was introduced to Peter Schweizer and publisher Andrew Breitbart. He was involved in the financing and production of a number of films, including Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman, The Undefeated (on Sarah Palin), and Occupy Unmasked. Bannon also hosts a radio show (Breitbart News Daily) on a Sirius XM satellite radio channel.

    Bannon is also executive chairman and co-founder of the Government Accountability Institute, where he helped orchestrate the publication of the book Clinton Cash. In 2015, Bannon was ranked No. 19 on Mediaite's list of the "25 Most Influential in Political News Media 2015".

    Bannon convinced Goldman Sachs to invest in a company known as Internet Gaming Entertainment. Following a lawsuit, the company rebranded as Affinity Media and Bannon took over as CEO. From 2007 through 2011, Bannon was chairman and CEO of Affinity Media.

    Bannon became a member of the board of Breitbart News. In March 2012, after founder Andrew Breitbart's death, Bannon became executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, the parent company of Breitbart News. Under his leadership, Breitbart took a more alt-right and nationalistic approach towards its agenda. Bannon declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016. Bannon identifies as a conservative. Speaking about his role at Breitbart, Bannon said: "We think of ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly 'anti-' the permanent political class."

    The New York Times described Breitbart News under Bannon's leadership as a "curiosity of the fringe right wing", with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist." The newspaper also noted how Breitbart was now a "potent voice" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

    Escrava Isaura The Saint Nov 18, 2016 6:11 PM ,

    Bannon: " The globalists gutted the American working class ..the Democrats were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ."

    Well said. Couldn't agree more.

    Bannon: " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan.

    Dear Mr. Bannon, it has to be way more than $1trillion in 10 years. Obama's $831 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) didn't make up the difference for all the job lost in 2007/08. Manufacturing alone lost about 9 million jobs since 1979, when it peaked.

    Trump needs to go Ronald Reagan 180% deficit spending. If Trump runs 100% like Obama, Trump will fail as well.

    [Nov 19, 2016] British neocons are frustrated that Trump does not consult US neocons

    Speaking to foreign heads of state without briefing papers from neocon bottom feeders from the State Department might be a wise move.
    And meaningful contact with such the nation's foreign policy professionals as Samantha Paul or Victoria Nuland is probably impossible ;-).
    "...turning a blind eye to Russia's designs on Ukraine and its support for the Assad regime in Syria." might be what is really needed for the USA foreigh policy.
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    From: Michael Flynn will be a disaster as national security adviser by Richard Wolffe

    Like his new boss, Flynn appears very comfortable with the current Russian regime, working with Russia Today , the Kremlin's propaganda TV network. He apparently received classified intelligence briefings while running a lobbying firm for foreign clients. He seems to favor working with Russia to combat Islamist terrorists while turning a blind eye to Russia's designs on Ukraine and its support for the Assad regime in Syria.

    ... ... ..

    In the brief time since he won the election, Trump's first call with a world leader was not with a trusted US ally but with the Egyptian dictator President al-Sisi. He sat with prime minister Abe of Japan this week, but his aides told the Japanese not to believe every word Trump said.

    He met with the populist right wing British politician Nigel Farage before meeting the British prime minister Theresa May. But he somehow found time to meet with several Indian real estate developers to discuss his property interests with them, and the Trump Organization signed a Kolkata deal on Friday.

    Amid his many interactions with foreign powers, Trump is speaking without briefing papers from the State Department because his transition team is in such chaos that they have yet to establish meaningful contact with the nation's foreign policy professionals.

    [Nov 19, 2016] The fundamental problem is the leftes are playing the game of the neoliberals for them. Especially in the area of immigration

    Nov 19, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    Stillgrizzly 3d ago 85 86 The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it.

    Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

    The liberal left are confusing the cries of alarm from those losing out with racism and bigotry, which have been ingrained in their psyche due to identity politics. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report RJB73 Stillgrizzly 3d ago 48 49 Well put. Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense. Instead, they've labelled them racists and islamphobes etc. because they are not driven by (classical) liberalism but rather divisive identity politics focused on minority groups (e.g. transgender issues, which is not going to win many votes.) Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report greenwichite Stillgrizzly 3d ago 22 23 Liberals and the Left are not the same thing, though.

    I think the liberals' horror at Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates this, as did the way liberals torpedoed Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.

    To be liberal is to let people do whatever they want, so long as they don't directly harm other people.

    Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Stillgrizzly greenwichite 3d ago 9 10 The liberals "horror" at Corbyn is because he is bringing out reactionary "hard" left elements amongst other things, which are destroying what was a kind of consensus.

    This is fracturing the opposition and driving people towards the right or "protest" parties. Corbyn is the best recruiting tool UKIP never had. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report icansee Stillgrizzly 3d ago 6 7 If you think that this was a universal backlash to the effects of immigration on jobs , then you are missing the point .
    My advise is for you to check the archives of mother jones and other blogs to find out how this faux rage developed .
    Trump's primary voters have an average income of $70,000. They are not affected by mass migration .
    This is a rage against Marriage equality ,Seperation of the church and state ,continuation of the war against affirmative action ,environmental protection ,union etc .

    The faux rage was engineered by l

    1 Remnants of Koch brothers tea party
    2 Fox news
    3 Alt right
    4 Evangelicals
    5 Gun manufacturers

    They created an hurricane and carried other unwilling groups like blue collar democrats with them .
    However , they wouldn't have stand any chance if progressives had turned up . Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Jaisans Stillgrizzly 3d ago 0 1 Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

    you might be putting the cart before the horse a little bit there. the problem isn't freedom of movement (let's try not to use emotive terms like mass migration) is employers seeking cheap labour. better wages would attract more local labour, instead employers actively seek cheap labour from abroad. and that's a result of economic liberalism, which is very different to classical liberalism. classical liberals built houses for their workers to live in, rather than not paying them enough to live in their own house. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Stillgrizzly icansee 3d ago 2 3 Trump is allied with the Republican party, people seem to have overlooked that. Therefore, shock horror, a lot of Republican voters voted for him.

    Also in the US, the level of non voting is huge, suggesting a level of ignorance / disillusionment with either of the choices. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Stillgrizzly Jaisans 3d ago 3 4 You're arguing for protectionism, just like Trump, effectively state subsidy of the incumbent population via tarriffs / subsidies / buy British / American campaigns / increased welfare etc, the net effect is the same.

    If you're arguing for better "welfare" for the incumbents also, you'd have to discriminate between the incumbents and migrants, something which is anathema to the left in particular and the EU. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Jaisans Stillgrizzly 2d ago 0 1 You're arguing for protectionism

    isn't controlled immigration also protectionism? employers exploiting foreign workers at the expense of local labour is just plain wrong, it's not market forces. and it's not the fault of freedom of movement. and it causes trouble...even keir hardie saw that

    better welfare would be a good idea. a better one would universal credit. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Its_me Stillgrizzly 2d ago 3 4 Yep, they hate Corbyn because he's rocking their cosy boat where they could wear Red while having Blue policies. The people who hate Corbyn are the same ones who were vociferous against UKIP, for the same reasons - they threatened to disrupt their LibLabCon club and the opportunities they think they deserve.

    [Nov 19, 2016] Battle brews over Trump's foreign policy as Americans are beginning to suffer from hegemony fatigue

    Notable quotes:
    "... "How many people sleep better knowing that the Baltics are part of NATO? They don't make us safer, in fact, quite the opposite. We need to think really hard about these commitments," said William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute. ..."
    "... Bolton has come under criticism from Sen. Rand Paul Rand Paul Battle brews over Trump's foreign policy Steve Bannon - what do you actually know about him? America's public servants: Our last, best hope MORE (R-Ky.), who was a skeptic of Bush's foreign policy. ..."
    "... Paul on Tuesday blasted Bolton in an op-ed in Rare as "a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose." ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | thehill.com

    ... The outsider group sees things differently. They want to revamp American foreign policy in a different direction from the last two administrations. The second camp is also more in line with Trump's views questioning the value of NATO, a position that horrified many in the establishment camp.

    "How many people sleep better knowing that the Baltics are part of NATO? They don't make us safer, in fact, quite the opposite. We need to think really hard about these commitments," said William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.

    Bolton has come under criticism from Sen. Rand Paul Rand Paul Battle brews over Trump's foreign policy Steve Bannon - what do you actually know about him? America's public servants: Our last, best hope MORE (R-Ky.), who was a skeptic of Bush's foreign policy.

    Paul on Tuesday blasted Bolton in an op-ed in Rare as "a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose."

    ...military historian and Retired Amy Col. Andrew Bacevich said there needs to be a rethink of American foreign policy. He said the U.S. must consider whether Saudi Arabia and Pakistan qualify as U.S. allies, and the growing divergence between the U.S. and Israel.

    "The establishment doesn't want to touch questions like these with a ten foot pole," he said at a conference on Tuesday hosted by The American Conservative, the Charles Koch Institute, and the George Washington University Department of Political Science.

    With some Trump advisers, it's not clear which camp they fall into. One example is retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who may become Trump's national security adviser.

    Flynn is a "curious case," said Daniel Larison, senior editor at The American Conservative. The retired Army general has said he wants to work with Russia, but also expressed contrary views in his book "Field of Fight."

    According to Larison, Flynn writes of an "enemy alliance" against the U.S. that includes Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

    It's also not crystal clear which camp Giuliani falls into. The former mayor is known as a fierce critic of Islamic extremism but has scant foreign policy experience.

    Most say what is likely is change.

    "Change is coming to American grand strategy whether we like it or not,' said Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security at Texas A&M University.

    "I think we are overdue for American retrenchment. Americans are beginning to suffer from hegemony fatigue," he said.

    [Nov 19, 2016] How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer

    Nov 19, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> anne... November 18, 2016 at 05:07 AM

    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    Introduction: Trading in Myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return.

    [Figure 1-1] Theoretical and actual capital flows.

    So the United States, Japan, and the European Union should be running large trade surpluses, which is what an outflow of capital means. Rich countries like ours should be lending money to developing countries, providing them with the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure while they use their own resources to meet their people's basic needs.

    This wasn't just theory. That story accurately described much of the developing world, especially Asia, through the 1990s. Countries like Indonesia and Malaysia were experiencing rapid annual growth of 7.8 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively, even as they ran large trade deficits, just over 2 percent of GDP each year in Indonesia and almost 5 percent in Malaysia.

    These trade deficits probably were excessive, and a crisis of confidence hit East Asia and much of the developing world in the summer of 1997. The inflow of capital from rich countries slowed or reversed, making it impossible for the developing countries to sustain the fixed exchange rates most had at the time. One after another, they were forced to abandon their fixed exchange rates and turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help.

    Rather than promulgating policies that would allow developing countries to continue the textbook development path of growth driven by importing capital and running trade deficits, the IMF made debt repayment a top priority. The bailout, under the direction of the Clinton administration Treasury Department, required developing countries to switch to large trade surpluses (Radelet and Sachs 2000, O'Neil 1999).

    The countries of East Asia would be far richer today had they been allowed to continue on the growth path of the early and mid-1990s, when they had large trade deficits. Four of the five would be more than twice as rich, and the fifth, Vietnam, would be almost 50 percent richer. South Korea and Malaysia would have higher per capita incomes today than the United States.

    [Figure 1-2] Per capita income of East Asian countries, actual vs. continuing on 1990s growth path.

    In the wake of the East Asia bailout, countries throughout the developing world decided they had to build up reserves of foreign exchange, primarily dollars, in order to avoid ever facing the same harsh bailout terms as the countries of East Asia. Building up reserves meant running large trade surpluses, and it is no coincidence that the U.S. trade deficit has exploded, rising from just over 1 percent of GDP in 1996 to almost 6 percent in 2005. The rise has coincided with the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs, roughly 20 percent of employment in the sector.

    There was no reason the textbook growth pattern of the 1990s could not have continued. It wasn't the laws of economics that forced developing countries to take a different path, it was the failed bailout and the international financial system. It would seem that the enemy of the world's poor is not Bernie Sanders but rather the engineers of our current globalization policies.

    There is a further point in this story that is generally missed: it is not only the volume of trade flows that is determined by policy, but also the content. A major push in recent trade deals has been to require stronger and longer patent and copyright protection. Paying the fees imposed by these terms, especially for prescription drugs, is a huge burden on the developing world. Bill Clinton would have much less need to fly around the world for the Clinton Foundation had he not inserted the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) provisions in the World Trade Organization (WTO) that require developing countries to adopt U.S.-style patent protections. Generic drugs are almost always cheap - patent protection makes drugs expensive. The cancer and hepatitis drugs that sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year would sell for a few hundred dollars in a free market. Cheap drugs would be more widely available had the developed world not forced TRIPS on the developing world.

    Of course, we have to pay for the research to develop new drugs or any innovation. We also have to compensate creative workers who produce music, movies, and books. But there are efficient alternatives to patents and copyrights, and the efforts by the elites in the United States and other wealthy countries to impose these relics on the developing world is just a mechanism for redistributing income from the world's poor to Pfizer, Microsoft, and Disney. Stronger and longer patent and copyright protection is not a necessary feature of a 21st century economy.

    In textbook trade theory, if a country has a larger trade surplus on payments for royalties and patent licensing fees, it will have a larger trade deficit in manufactured goods and other areas. The reason is that, in theory, the trade balance is fixed by national savings and investment, not by the ability of a country to export in a particular area. If the trade deficit is effectively fixed by these macroeconomic factors, then more exports in one area mean fewer exports in other areas. Put another way, income gains for Pfizer and Disney translate into lost jobs for workers in the steel and auto industries....

    reason : , November 18, 2016 at 05:14 AM

    I thought this from Dean Baker was interesting:
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/if-you-thought-a-trump-presidency-was-bad?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beat_the_press+%28Beat+the+Press%29

    It includes this interesting piece on international trade:

    "I'll start with my favorite, the complaint that the trade policy advocating by Warren and Sanders would hurt the poor in the developing world, or to use their words:


    "And their ostensible protection of American workers leaves no room to consider the welfare of poor people elsewhere in the world."

    I like this one because it turns standard economic theory on its head to advance the interests of the rich and powerful. In the economic textbooks, rich countries like the United States are supposed to be exporting capital to the developing world. This provides them the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure, while maintaining the living standards of their populations. This is the standard economic story where the problem is scarcity.

    But to justify trade policies that have harmed tens of millions of U.S. workers, either by costing them jobs or depressing their wages, the Post discards standard economics and tells us the problem facing people in the developing world is that there is too much stuff. If we didn't buy the goods produced in the developing world then there would just be a massive glut of unsold products.

    In the standard theory the people in the developing world buy their own stuff, with rich countries like the U.S. providing the financing. It actually did work this way in the 1990s, up until the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. In that period, countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia were growing very rapidly while running large trade deficits. This pattern of growth was ended by the terms of the bailout imposed on these countries by the U.S. Treasury Department through the International Monetary Fund.

    The harsh terms of the bailout forced these and other developing countries to reverse the standard textbook path and start running large trade surpluses. This post-bailout period was associated with slower growth for these countries. In other words, the poor of the developing world suffered from the pattern of trade the Post advocates. If they had continued on the pre-bailout path they would be much richer today. In fact, South Korea and Malaysia would be richer than the United States if they had maintained their pre-bailout growth rate over the last two decades. (This is the topic of the introduction to my new book, Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer, it's free.)"

    Not sure that I fully agree with him, but I do agree that trade imbalances and mercantilism is a large part of the problem.

    Oh I see Anne posted this in parallel.

    anne -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 05:59 AM
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/if-you-thought-a-trump-presidency-was-bad?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beat_the_press+%28Beat+the+Press%29

    November 15, 2016

    If You Thought a Trump Presidency Was Bad .

    The Washington Post editorial page decided to lecture readers * on the meaning of progressivism. Okay, that is nowhere near as bad as a Trump presidency, but really, did we need this?

    The editorial gives us a potpourri of neo-liberal (yes, the term is appropriate here) platitudes, all of which we have heard many times before and are best half true. For framing, the villains are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who it tells us "are embracing principles that are not genuinely progressive."

    I'll start with my favorite, the complaint that the trade policy advocating by Warren and Sanders would hurt the poor in the developing world, or to use their words:

    "And their ostensible protection of American workers leaves no room to consider the welfare of poor people elsewhere in the world."

    I like this one because it turns standard economic theory on its head to advance the interests of the rich and powerful. In the economic textbooks, rich countries like the United States are supposed to be exporting capital to the developing world. This provides them the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure, while maintaining the living standards of their populations. This is the standard economic story where the problem is scarcity.

    But to justify trade policies that have harmed tens of millions of U.S. workers, either by costing them jobs or depressing their wages, the Post discards standard economics and tells us the problem facing people in the developing world is that there is too much stuff. If we didn't buy the goods produced in the developing world then there would just be a massive glut of unsold products.

    In the standard theory the people in the developing world buy their own stuff, with rich countries like the U.S. providing the financing. It actually did work this way in the 1990s, up until the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. In that period, countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia were growing very rapidly while running large trade deficits. This pattern of growth was ended by the terms of the bailout imposed on these countries by the U.S. Treasury Department through the International Monetary Fund.

    The harsh terms of the bailout forced these and other developing countries to reverse the standard textbook path and start running large trade surpluses. This post-bailout period was associated with slower growth for these countries. In other words, the poor of the developing world suffered from the pattern of trade the Post advocates. If they had continued on the pre-bailout path they would be much richer today. In fact, South Korea and Malaysia would be richer than the United States if they had maintained their pre-bailout growth rate over the last two decades. (This is the topic of the introduction to my new book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer," ** it's free.)

    It is also important to note that the Post is only bothered by forms of protection that might help working class people. The United States prohibits foreign doctors from practicing in the United States unless they complete a U.S. residency program. (The total number of slots are tightly restricted with only a small fraction open to foreign trained doctors.) This is a classic protectionist measure. No serious person can believe that the only way for a person to be a competent doctor is to complete a U.S. residency program. It costs the United States around $100 billion a year ($700 per family) in higher medical expenses. Yet, we never hear a word about this or other barriers that protect the most highly paid professionals from the same sort of international competition faced by steelworkers and textile workers.

    Moving on, we get yet another Post tirade on Social Security.

    "You can expand benefits for everyone, as Ms. Warren favors. Prosperous retirees who live mostly off their well-padded 401(k)s will appreciate what to them will feel like a small bonus, if they notice it. But spreading wealth that way will make it harder to find the resources for the vulnerable elderly who truly depend on Social Security.

    "But demographics - the aging of the population - cannot be wished away. In the 1960s, about five taxpayers were helping to support each Social Security recipient, and the economy was growing about 6 percent annually. Today there are fewer than three workers for each pensioner, and the growth rate even following the 2008 recession has averaged about 2 percent . On current trends, 10 years from now the federal government will be spending almost all its money on Medicare, Social Security and other entitlements and on interest payments on the debt, leaving less and less for schools, housing and job training. There is nothing progressive about that."

    There are all sorts of misleading or wrong claims here. First, the economy did not grow "about 6 percent annually" in the 1960s. There were three years in which growth did exceed 6.0 percent, and it was a very prosperous decade, but growth only averaged 4.6 percent from 1960 to 1970.

    I suppose we should be happy that the Post is at least getting closer to the mark. A 2007 editorial *** praising The North American Free Trade Agreement told readers that Mexico's GDP "has more than quadrupled since 1987." The International Monetary Fund data **** put the gain at 83 percent. So by comparison, they are doing pretty good with the 6 percent growth number for the sixties.

    But getting to the demographics, we did go from more than five workers for every retiree to less than three today, and this number is projected to fall further to around 2.0 workers per retiree in the next fifteen years. This raises the obvious question, so what?

    The economy did not collapse even as we saw the fall from 5 workers per retiree to less than 3, so something really really bad happens when it falls further? We did raise taxes to cover the additional cost and we will probably have to raise taxes in the future.

    We get that the Post doesn't like tax increases (no one does), but this hardly seems like the end of the world. The Social Security Trustees project ***** that real wages will rise on average by more than 34 percent over the next two decades. Suppose we took back 5–10 percent of these projected wage gains through tax increases (still leaving workers with wages that are more than 30 percent higher than they are today), what is the big problem?

    Of course most workers have not seen their wages rise in step with the economy's growth over the last four decades. This is a huge issue which is the sort of thing that progressives should be and are focusing on. But the Post would rather distract us with the possibility that at some point in the future we may be paying a somewhat higher Social Security tax.

    The Post's route for savings is also classic misdirection. It tells how about high-living seniors who get so much money from their 401(k)s they don't even notice their Social Security checks. Only a bit more than 4.0 percent of the over 65 population has non-Social Security income of more than $80,000 a year. If the point is to have substantial savings from means-testing it would be necessary to hit people with incomes around $40,000 a year or even lower. That is not what most people consider wealthy.

    We could have substantial savings on Medicare by pushing down the pay of doctors and reducing the prices of drugs and medical equipment. The latter could be done by substituting public financing for research and development for government granted patent monopolies (also discussed in Rigged). These items would almost invariably be cheap in a free market. But the Post seems uninterested in ways to save money that could affect the incomes of the rich.

    One can quibble with whether the current benefits for middle income people are right or should be somewhat higher or lower, but it is ridiculous to argue that raising them $50 a month, as proposed by Senator Warren, will break the bank.

    Then we have the issue of free college. The Post raises the issue, pushed by Senator Sanders in his presidential campaign, and then tells readers:

    "Our answer - we would argue, the progressive answer - is that there are people in society with far greater needs than that upper-middle-class family in Fairfax County that would be relieved of its tuition burden at the College of William & Mary if Mr. Sanders got his wish."

    There are two points to be made here. First there is extensive research ****** showing that many children from low- and moderate-income families hugely over-estimate the cost of college, failing to realize that they would be eligible for financial aid that would make it free or nearly free. This means that the current structure is preventing many relatively disadvantaged children from attending college. Arguably better education on the opportunities to get aid would solve this problem, but the problem has existed for a long time and better education has not done much to change the picture thus far.

    The second point is that the process of determining eligibility for aid is itself costly. Many children have divorced parents, with a non-custodial parent often not anxious to pay for their children's college. Perhaps it is appropriate that they should pay, but forcing payment is not an easy task and it doesn't make sense to make the children in such situations suffer.

    In many ways, the free college solution is likely to be the easiest, with the tax coming out of the income of higher earners, the vast majority of whom will be the beneficiaries of this policy. There are ways to save on paying for college. My favorite is limiting the pay of anyone at a public school to the salary of the president of the United States ($400,000 a year). We can also deny the privilege of tax exempt status to private universities or other non-profits that don't accept a similar salary cap. These folks can pay their top executives whatever they want, but they shouldn't ask the taxpayers to subsidize their exorbitant pay packages.

    There is one final issue in the column worth noting. At one point it makes a pitch for the virtues of economic growth then tells readers:

    "It's not in conflict with the goal of redistribution."

    At least some of us progressive types are not particularly focused on "redistribution." The focus of my book and much of my other writing is on the way that the market has been structured to redistribute income upward, compared with the structures in place in the quarter century after World War II. Is understandable that people who are basically very satisfied with this upward redistribution of market income would not want this rigging of the market even to be discussed, but serious progressives do.

    * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-does-it-mean-to-be-progressive/2016/11/14/469662fe-9c8d-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html

    ** http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    *** http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/02/AR2007120201588.html

    **** http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=44&pr.y=2&sy=1987&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=273&s=NGDP_R&grp=0&a=

    ***** https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2015/index.html

    ****** http://www.allhallows.org/ourpages/auto/2012/9/7/43578201/Real%20and%20Imagined%20barriers.pdf

    -- Dean Baker

    anne -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 06:01 AM
    I thought this from Dean Baker was interesting...

    [ And, I think, especially important. ]

    reason -> anne... , November 18, 2016 at 06:19 AM
    Although I like much of what Dean Baker, I don't like his term "loser liberalism", nor do I think his de-emphasis on redistribution useful. Au contraire, I think talking about redistribution is absolutely essential if we are to move to sustainable world. We can no longer be certain that per person GDP growth will be sufficient to be able to ignore distribution or to rely on "predistribution".
    anne -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 06:35 AM
    "Although I like much of what Dean Baker, I don't like his term 'loser liberalism', nor do I think his de-emphasis on redistribution useful...."

    http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/ending-loser-liberalism-why-a-market-based-approach-makes-sense

    November 18, 2015

    Ending Loser Liberalism: Why a Market Based Approach Makes Sense

    -- Dean Baker

    [ Well worth arguing about. ]

    anne -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 07:19 AM
    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/End-of-Loser-Liberalism.pdf

    2011

    The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive
    By Dean Baker

    Upward Redistribution of Income: It Didn't Just Happen

    Money does not fall up. Yet the United States has experienced a massive upward redistribution of income over the last three decades, leaving the bulk of the workforce with little to show from the economic growth since 1980. This upward redistribution was not the result of the natural workings of the market. Rather, it was the result of deliberate policy, most of which had the support of the leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

    Unfortunately, the public and even experienced progressive political figures are not well informed about the key policies responsible for this upward redistribution, even though they are not exactly secrets. The policies are so well established as conventional economic policy that we tend to think of them as incontrovertibly virtuous things, but each has a dark side. An anti-inflation policy by the Federal Reserve Board, which relies on high interest rates, slows growth and throws people out of work. Major trade deals hurt manufacturing workers by putting them in direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. A high dollar makes U.S. goods uncompetitive in world markets.

    Almost any economist would acknowledge these facts, but few economists have explored their implications and explained them to the general public. As a result, most of us have little understanding of the economic policies that have the largest impact on our jobs, our homes, and our lives. Instead, public debate and the most hotly contested legislation in Congress tend to be about issues that will have relatively little impact.

    This lack of focus on crucial economic issues is a serious problem from the standpoint of advancing a progressive agenda....

    Johannes Y O Highness -> anne... , November 18, 2016 at 06:25 AM
    Awareness is the first step forward. Foreign workers is just another name for workers, just another

    name for My
    People --

    anne -> Johannes Y O Highness... , November 18, 2016 at 06:36 AM
    Foreign workers is just another name for workers...

    [ Nicely expressed. ]

    [Nov 19, 2016] The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics by Michael Hudson

    www.counterpunch.org

    What is the Democratic Party's former constituency of labor and progressive reformers to do? Are they to stand by and let the party be captured in Hillary's wake by Robert Rubin's Goldman Sachs-Citigroup gang that backed her and Obama?

    The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics. Its aim was to persuade voters not to think of their identity in economic terms, but to think of themselves as women or as racial and ethnic groups first and foremost, not as having common economic interests. This strategy to distract voters from economic policies has obviously failed...

    This election showed that voters have a sense of when they're being lied to. After eight years of Obama's demagogy, pretending to support the people but delivering his constituency to his financial backers on Wall Street. 'Identity politics' has given way to the stronger force of economic distress. Mobilizing identity politics behind a Wall Street program will no longer work."

    Michael Hudson

    [Nov 19, 2016] Break Up the Democratic Party

    Nov 19, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RGC : , November 17, 2016 at 07:38 AM

    Break Up the Democratic Party

    By Michael Hudson
    Tuesday, November 15, 2016
    ..................
    The danger of not taking this opportunity to clean out the party now

    The Democratic Party can save itself only by focusing on economic issues – in a way that reverses its neoliberal stance under Obama, and indeed going back to Bill Clinton's pro-Wall Street administration. The Democrats need to do what Britain's Labour Party did by cleaning out Tony Blair's Thatcherites. As Paul Craig Roberts wrote over the weekend: "Change cannot occur if the displaced ruling class is left intact after a revolution against them. We have proof of this throughout South America. Every revolution by the indigenous people has left unmolested the Spanish ruling class, and every revolution has been overthrown by collusion between the ruling class and Washington." Otherwise the Democrats will be left as an empty shell.
    Now is the time for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and the few other progressives who have not been kept out of office by the DNC to make their move by appointing their own nominees to the DNC. If they fail, the Democratic Party is dead.

    An indication of how hard the present Democratic Party leadership will fight against this change of allegiance is reflected in their long fight against Bernie Sanders and other progressives going back to Dennis Kucinich. The past five days of MoveOn demonstrations sponsored by Hillary's backer George Soros may be an attempt to preempt the expected push by Bernie's supporters, by backing Howard Dean for head of the DNC while organizing groups to be called on for what may be an American "Maidan Spring."

    Perhaps some leading Democrats preferred to lose with their Wall Street candidate Hillary than win with a reformer who would have edged them out of their right-wing positions. But the main problem was hubris. Hillary's coterie thought they could make their own reality. They believed that hundreds of millions of dollars of TV and other advertising could sway voters. But eight years of Obama's rescue of Wall Street instead of the economy was enough for most voters to see how deceptive his promises had been. And they distrusted Hillary's feigned embrace of Bernie's opposition to the TPP.

    The Rust Belt swing states that shifted away from backing Obama for the last two terms are not racist states. They voted for Obama twice, after all. But seeing his support Wall Street, they had lost faith in her credibility – and were won by Bernie in his primaries against Hillary.
    Donald Trump is thus Obama's legacy. Last week's vote was a backlash. Hillary thought that getting Barack and Michelle Obama to campaign as her surrogates would help, but it turned out to be the kiss of death. Obama egged her on by urging voters to "save his legacy" by supporting her as his Third Term. But voters did not want his legacy of giveaways to the banks, the pharmaceutical and health-insurance monopolies.

    Most of all, it was Hillary's asking voters to ignore her economic loyalty to Wall Street simply to elect a woman, and her McCarthy-like accusations that Trump was "Putin's candidate" (duly echoed by Paul Krugman). On Wednesday, Obama's former Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul tweeted that "Putin intervened in our elections and succeeded." It was as if the Republicans and even the FBI were a kind of fifth column for the KGB. Her receptiveness to cutting back Social Security and steering wage withholding into the stock market did not help – especially her hedge fund campaign contributors. Compulsory health-insurance fees continue to rise for healthy young people. This was the profit center Obamacare offered the health-insurance monopoly.

    The anti-Trump rallies mobilized by George Soros and MoveOn look like a preemptive attempt to capture the potential socialist left for the old Clinton divide-and-conquer strategy. The group was defeated five years ago when it tried to enlist Occupy Wall Street as part of the Democratic Party. It's attempt to make a comeback right now should be heard as an urgent call to Bernie's supporters and other "real" Democrats that they need to create an alternative pretty quickly so as not to let "socialism" be captured by Soros and his apparatchiks carried over from the Clinton campaign.

    http://michael-hudson.com/2016/11/break-up-the-democratic-party/

    RGC -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 08:42 AM
    "but without shutting out the wealthy, business interests, or US Corporations."

    A very large part needs to be shut out. Or at least FDR thought so:

    FDR: I Welcome Their Hatred

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjSTQwamo8M

    RGC -> RGC... , November 17, 2016 at 08:49 AM
    So does Bernie:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlmuKtyhDKg

    Dan Kervick -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 09:41 AM
    "Reconstructed" might be a better term. But barging full steam ahead with the Wall Street-friendly Chuck Schumer, as though nothing has happened, seems particularly obtuse on the part of the Democrats to me.

    There is now a growing movement among the Berniecrats to join the Democratic Socialists of America and build it up into a much larger and more influential organization capable of exerting real political pressure on the political process.

    im1dc -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 12:19 PM
    "without shutting out the wealthy, business interests, or US Corporations"

    I should have been less opaque and simply added that America is a Capitalist based nation and shutting out its Capitalists, who risk their capital for profit, is exactly like biting the hand that feeds.

    Obviously there are evil wealthy people such as that rich women who was caught asking Mitt Romney about 'eliminating, reducing or cutting off benefits to the 47% who refuse to work and earn a living' so her taxes would be cut. Obviously there are evil businesses that are predators and take and do not give back. Obviously there are evil MNC corporations, Apple is in my sites, that refuse to pay their fair share of taxes to run this nation.

    But, as obviously there are super kind and nice wealthy people, businesses, and corporations that go out of their way to give back to their communities and the vote for Democrats.

    The wealthy, American businesses, and MNC corporations will always be lead, in most places on earth, by those who want lower taxes and less regulation, that's built into the nature of having more and the desire to control it rather than give it to a government. IT IS NOT EVIL.

    Accept that concept and you know why I believe the Democrat Party must be a welcoming home for the Capitalist Risk Takers, without any acrimony or embarrassment, but with open arms and respect for what they've accomplished with their lives.

    Peter K. : , November 17, 2016 at 07:52 AM
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/why-liberals-should-support-a-trump-nomination.html

    Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination

    By Jonathan Chait

    February 5, 2016
    8:54 a.m.

    The initial stupefaction and dismay with which liberals greeted Donald Trump's candidacy have slowly given way to feelings of Schadenfreude- reveling in the suffering of others, in this case the apoplectic members of the Republican Establishment. Are such feelings morally wrong? Or can liberals enjoy the spectacle unleavened by guilt? As Republican voters start actually voting, is it okay to be sad - alarmed, even - by the prospect that the Trump hostile takeover of the GOP may fail?

    There are three reasons, in descending order of obviousness, for a liberal to earnestly and patriotically support a Trump Republican nomination. The first, of course, is that he would almost certainly lose. Trump's ability to stay atop the polls for months, even as critics predicted his demise, has given him an aura of voodoo magic that frightens some Democrats. But whatever wizardry Trump has used to defy the laws of political gravity has worked only within his party. Among the electorate as a whole, he is massively - indeed, historically - unpopular, with unfavorable ratings now hovering around 60 percent and a public persona almost perfectly designed to repel the Obama coalition: racial minorities, single women, and college-educated whites. It would take a landscape-altering event like a recession for him to win; even that might not be enough.

    Second, a Trump nomination might upend his party. The GOP is a machine that harnesses ethno-nationalistic fear - of communists, criminals, matrimonial gays, terrorists, snooty cultural elites - to win elections and then, once in office, caters to its wealthy donor base. (This is why even a social firebrand like Ted Cruz would privately assure the billionaire investor Paul Singer that he wasn't particularly concerned about gay-marriage laws.) As its voting base has lost college-­educated voters and gained blue-collar whites, the fissure between the means by which Republicans attain power and the ends they pursue once they have it has widened.

    What has most horrified conservative activists about Trump's rise is how little he or his supporters seem to care about their anti-government ideology. When presented with the candidate's previous support for higher taxes on the rich or single-payer insurance, heresies of the highest order, Trump fans merely shrug. During this campaign, Trump has mostly conformed to party doctrine, but without much conviction. Trump does not mouth the rote conservative formulation that government is failing because it can't work and that the solution is to cut it down to size. Instead, he says it is failing because it is run by idiots and that the solution is for it to instead be run by Trump. About half of Republicans favor higher taxes on the rich, a position that has zero representation among their party's leaders. And those Republicans are the most likely to support Trump.

    Trump's candidacy represents, among other things, a revolt by the Republican proletariat against its master class. That is why National Review devoted a cover editorial and 22 columns to denouncing Trump as a heretic to the conservative movement. A Trump nomination might not actually cleave the GOP in two, but it could wreak havoc. If, like me, you think the Republican Party in its current incarnation needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt anew, Trump is the only one holding a match.

    The third reason to prefer a Trump nomination: If he does win, a Trump presidency would probably wind up doing less harm to the country than a Marco Rubio or a Cruz presidency. It might even, possibly, do some good.

    The Trump campaign may feel like an off-the-grid surrealistic nightmare, The Man in the High Castle meets Idiocracy. But something like it has happened before. Specifically, it happened in California, a place where things often happen before they happen to the rest of us, in 2003, when Arnold Schwarzenegger won the governorship. At the time, the prospect of Schwarzenegger governing America's largest state struck many of us as just as ghastly as the idea of a Trump presidency seems now. Like Trump, Schwarzenegger came directly to politics from the celebrity world without bothering to inform himself about public policy. He campaigned as a vacuous Man of Action in opposition to the Politicians, breezing by all the specifics as the petty obsessions of his inferiors.

    ...

    Pinkybum -> Peter K.... , November 17, 2016 at 09:04 AM
    I think the takeaway is that Republican politicians lie and lie and lie and lie even about recent history. The exasperating thing to me is the complete inability of a Democratic politician to effectively counter these lies with facts. I wasn't that impressed with Sanders ability to argue effectively to be honest.

    My mind goes back to the abortion question in the last debate. Trump's accusation that Clinton wanted to rip babies out of mother's wombs at 9 months has no basis in medical science or actual practice. However, despite being someone who should be an "expert" on women's issues could not articulate accurately how medically preposterous this notion was or even the facts behind late term abortions and why women need them at all. Surely a politician of Clinton's "skill" would at least have an anecdote ready about a woman who had a late-term abortion.

    Peter K. -> Pinkybum... , November 17, 2016 at 09:38 AM
    " The exasperating thing to me is the complete inability of a Democratic politician to effectively counter these lies with facts. "

    Yes but the election isn't just about that. Hillary was the establishment candidate and the establishment isn't delivering. Trump was the outsider - he took over the Republican party - and it didn't matter that he lies or is obnoxious to a certain type of voter.

    I think either Sanders or Obama would have won.

    Pinkybum -> Peter K.... , November 17, 2016 at 10:14 AM
    Obama is the establishment candidate. However, Obama has charisma and I think we need more politicians like this. I'm past caring whether or not they are great at policy (apparently Hillary was and she still couldn't argue effectively against Trump!) I want someone who can effectively argue the case for progressive policies. We know progressive policies are the right ones we just need someone who can fight for those policies. They need an encyclopedic knowledge of the shit Republicans have done, why it is wrong and how progressive policies have worked for the betterment of the 99 percent.
    Peter K. -> Pinkybum... , November 17, 2016 at 10:48 AM
    Obama campaigned on hope and change, not that everything is great and shut up and don't complain. Plus he didn't have scandals hanging over him.

    My basic point is that center-left pundits like Chait were very wrong about Trump and the election. They were probably wrong about Sanders as well.

    RGC : , November 17, 2016 at 09:12 AM
    November 15, 2016
    The Roosevelt Institute

    The unheard winning and bold economic agenda
    Findings from Roosevelt Institute's Election night survey
    ....................
    Economic change election and the working class vote

    Throughout this election cycle, polling conducted on behalf of the Roosevelt Institute and others revealed the potential of a "rewrite the rules" narrative, message and bold policy agenda to win broad and deep public support. It fit the times where voters wanted change and were tired of corporate interests dominating politics at the expense of the middle class.

    It was also appealing to swing groups including white college graduates and white working class women. True, Trump always enjoyed big margins among the white working class men who identified with him, and they turned out for him early and in growing numbers. But there were points where Clinton was outperforming Obama with white working class women.

    The data does not support that idea that the white working class was inevitably lost, as polls showed fairly resilient support with white working class women, until the Clinton campaign stopped talking about economic change and asked people to vote for unity, temperament and experience and to continue on President Obama's progress. As we shall see, both the Democratic base and white working class voters are struggling economically and would demand change in their own ways.

    http://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Dcor_PE_RTR_Ealert_11.15.2016_for-release.pdf

    RGC -> RGC... , November 17, 2016 at 09:27 AM
    Three Myths About Clinton's Defeat in Election 2016 Debunked

    Posted on November 14, 2016
    By Lambert Strether

    This post is not an explainer about why and how Clinton lost (and Trump won). I think we're going to be sorting that out for awhile. Rather, it's a simple debunking of common talking points by Clinton loyalists and Democrat Establishment operatives; the sort of talking point you might hear on Twitter, entirely shorn of caveats and context. For each of the three talking points, I'll present an especially egregious version of the myth, followed by a rebuttal.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/three-myths-about-clintons-defeat-in-election-2016-debunked.html

    Tom aka Rusty -> RGC... , November 17, 2016 at 09:46 AM
    In Michigan and Ohio HRC was known as "Mrs. NAFTA."

    Probably not fair, but what about politics is fair?

    Pinkybum -> Tom aka Rusty... , November 17, 2016 at 12:31 PM
    Clinton's responses to the charges about NAFTA were incredibly weak. This is strange considering she must have known that topic was going to be raised - why was she so unprepared?
    ilsm -> Pinkybum... , November 17, 2016 at 01:05 PM
    The dead did not vote enough in Pa. Oh, Wi, Fl, etc

    She presumed the DNC could fix all those states.

    Pinkybum -> ilsm... , November 17, 2016 at 03:21 PM
    Did the dead also tell pollsters they were going to vote Democrat?
    Tom aka Rusty -> Pinkybum... , November 17, 2016 at 01:07 PM
    Lots of Dem post mortems reported in various media.

    Interesting for us sideline players.

    Peter K. : , November 17, 2016 at 09:34 AM
    http://theweek.com/articles/661872/why-hillary-clinton-lost

    Why Hillary Clinton lost

    by Ryan Cooper

    Nov. 16, 2016

    llary Clinton was an extraordinarily terrible candidate for the Democrats to run in 2016.

    Donald Trump's approval rating is 38 percent. President Obama's just bumped up to 57 percent. No amount of furious dissembling from humiliated Clinton partisans will convince me that Obama - and very probably Bernie Sanders* - wouldn't have beaten Trump handily.

    So what gives?

    Let me start by noting that the overall polls were off, but not by that much. They predicted a Clinton victory by about about 3 points. And in the popular vote, that prediction was reasonably close. Clinton is ahead by a bit less than 1 percent nationally, with many votes still to count.

    What tipped the election was about 100,000 votes spread across just three states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Here's where the polls did seriously botch things. Trump won these states by 1, 0.3, and 1.2 points respectively (assuming the close result in Michigan holds). The poll averages showed Clinton winning these states by roughly 6 points, 3 to 7 points, and 2 to 5 points respectively, depending on who you ask.

    Some people did correctly point to this outcome being a possibility. Remarkably, most of them relied heavily on gut-check analysis. Zach Carter and Ryan Grim wrote way back in February that Trump could win by peeling off Rust Belt states, based on little more than intuitions about trade and general voting patterns. Michael Moore hypothesized something similar. Nathan J. Robinson wrote around the same time that Clinton would lose because she is a wooden, uninspiring campaigner who was almost uniquely vulnerable to Trump-style attacks on character and integrity.

    Van Jones was perhaps most prescient of all. In June, he argued that Trump would not gaffe himself out of the election, because outrageous statements help him get attention on social media; that tut-tutting about his lack of realistic policy would not work, because voters neither know nor care about that; and that he could potentially win over Rust Belt whites attracted to Trump's anti-trade messaging, because "we're not paying attention to a big chunk of America that is hurting - that would accept any change, the bigger the better."

    With the benefit of hindsight, I think we can add a couple more factors to the pile. First is the self-deception of the Clinton campaign and its media sycophants. She did not visit Wisconsin at all between April and the election, and largely abandoned Obama's working-class message from 2012 in favor of portraying Trump as a dangerous, woman-hating maniac.

    They were enabled in this by pro-Clinton publications, which churned out endless slavish portrayals of Clinton as some kind of wizard of politics and policy, whose grasp of fine detail would surely deliver the electoral goods. In fact, it turned out that her vaunted algorithm-driven turnout machine was contacting tons of Trump voters. Paul Romer points to the problem of "mathiness" in economics, where complicated and intimidating theoretical symbolism is built up without establishing clear linkages to the real world. Lots of computers, theories, and datasets might be the most sophisticated way to attack voter turnout, or it might be a way to simply appear sophisticated while dismissing people whose ideas don't come packaged with a science-y veneer. (Something similar seems to have happened to the wonky election-simulator people.)

    Then there is the Clintons' omnipresent aura of scandal and corruption, which is about 50 percent unfair double standard and 50 percent totally their fault. The political media has been obsessed with the Clintons for 20 years to a frankly psychotic degree, particularly given how much worse the stories about Trump were. On the other hand, the Clintons enable that coverage with a paranoid and secretive attitude, and an obvious hatred of the press. The Clinton Foundation coverage was unfair compared to the much worse Trump Foundation, but then again, there was some genuinely skeezy stuff in there. There's a good chance that FBI Director James Comey's vague letter about emails to congressional Republicans, which led to an extremely ill-timed media firestorm, tipped the election to Trump. But then again, she might have avoided the whole story by following the dang rules in the first place.

    I always assumed that if Clinton were nominated for president, the race would be dominated by some weird quasi-scandal that dragged on for month after month. It's not fair, but it is simply the reality of the Clintons. At some point, one simply has to take that into account.

    That brings me to a final point: Clinton's general political affect. She is not a great campaigner (by her own admission), a rather robotic speaker, and most of all, a dynasty politician who very obviously got the nomination because the party elite cleared the decks for her. Given how the party has evolved, her political history was filled with devastating indictments of her judgment and priorities. Even after getting a reasonably good party platform (after just barely beating back about the most unlikely primary challenger imaginable), she was a non-credible vehicle for it. Without Obama's mesmerizing charisma and political energy, her image was defined by things like taking millions of dollars for secret speeches to Wall Street banks and refusing to release the transcripts. She simply was not a good fit for the party, and a terrible avatar of the party in a country furious at self-dealing elite institutions of all kinds.

    Hillary Clinton was a heavily compromised candidate and bad campaigner who grossly misjudged the political terrain, and thus bled just enough of the Obama coalition to let Trump sneak past. If we ever get to vote again, let's hope the party learns from this epic disaster.

    And that, now, is the key question: Where do the Democrats go from here?

    * https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/10/hillary-clinton-lost-bernie-sanders-could-have-won/?utm_term=.92d64f147de5

    ilsm -> Peter K.... , November 17, 2016 at 01:06 PM
    the split is 23%, 23% and 4% of registered voters. 50% sat it out.
    RGC : , November 17, 2016 at 09:42 AM
    Reading Keynes - Part 3
    L3 Impact of Keynes

    This 1000 word article traces the impact of Keynesian theories on the 20th century.

    The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has created awareness of the great gap between academic models and reality. IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard said that modern DSGE macroeconomic models currently used for policy decisions are based on assumptions which are profoundly at odds with what we know about consumers and firms. More than seven different schools of macroeconomic thought contend with each other, without coming to agreement on any fundamental issue. This bears a striking resemblance to the post-Depression era when Keynes set out to resolve the "deep divergences of opinion between fellow economists which have for the time being almost destroyed the practical influence of economic theory."

    Likewise, today, the inability of mainstream economists to predict, understand, explain, or find remedies for the Global Financial Crisis, has deeply damaged the reputation of economists and economic theories. Recently, World Bank Chief Economist Paul Romer stated that for more than three decades, macroeconomics has gone backwards. Since modern macroeconomics bears a strong resemblance to pre-Keynesian theories, Keynesian theories have fresh relevance, as described below.

    In the aftermath of the Great Depression, economic misery was a major factor which led to the Russian Revolution and the rise of Hitler in Germany. Conventional economic theory held that market forces would automatically and quickly correct the temporary disequilibrium of high unemployment and low production in Europe and USA. Keynes argued that high unemployment could persist, and government interventions in the form of active monetary and fiscal policy were required to correct the economic problems. Many have suggested that Keynes rescued Capitalism by providing governments with rationale to intervene on behalf of the workers, thereby preventing socialist or communist revolutions. There is no doubt that strong and powerful labor movements in Europe and USA derived strength from the economic misery of the masses, and also took inspiration from the pro-labor and anti-capitalist theories of Marx. While it is hard to be sure whether Keynes saved capitalism, we can be very sure that Keynes and Keynesian theories were extremely influential in shaping the economic landscapes of the 20th Century.

    Keynes actually met Roosevelt (FDR) to try to persuade him of the necessity of an aggressive fiscal policy and of running budget deficits, in order to lift the US economy out of recession. He was only partially successful. FDR, like nearly all political leaders as well as economists of the time, was convinced of the necessity of balancing budgets: this is the same 'austerity' being touted today as the cure for economic problems. Leading economists like Lionel Robinson and Friedrich Hayek argued in favor of austerity, and said that Keynesian remedies were dangerously wrong. They held the view that the Great Depression had been caused by excessively easy monetary policies in the pre-Depression period, and Keynesian interventions in the form of further easy monetary and fiscal policies would only prolong the agony.

    FDR was not quite convinced by Keynes, but was politically savvy enough to announce that he would not balance the budget on the backs of the American people. Accordingly, he did go against his personal convictions, as well as his campaign promises of balancing the budget, which he believed to be a sound and necessary economic policy. Keynes felt that the economic policies of FDR were timid and hesitant, and prolonged the recession un-necessarily. In light of contemporary experience of the tremendously aggressive expansionary monetary policy in the post-GFC era, we can see that bolder steps by FDR would not have caused the harms that he was afraid of. In fact, after the economy recovered somewhat, FDR went back to conventional wisdom and started reducing budget deficits in 1936. This created a mini-recession which has been labelled the "Roosevelt Recession of 1937". Duly chastened, FDR embraced Keynesian policies with greater conviction, and increased deficit spending right up to the second World War. It was the effectiveness of Keynesian policies that led even arch-enemy Friedman to state that "We are all Keynesians now," though he later recanted. Indeed, he master-minded the Monetarist counter-revolution in the 1970's which eventually led to a rejection of Keynesian insights, and a return to the pre-Keynesian ideas of austerity as a cure for recessions. Forgetting the hard-learned lessons of Keynes led to a recurrence of problems very similar to those faced by Keynes in the form of GFC 2007.

    Following the GFC, there has been a resurgence of interest in Keynes and Keynesian Theories. In the "Return of Depression Economics", Krugman argued for the continuing relevance of Keynes, and stated that we could end the Great Recession immediately by implementing Keynesian policies. China implemented Keynesian policies, and used a fiscal stimulus of $586 billion spread over two years, to successfully combat the global recession created by the GFC. Unlike countries forced to implement austerity, which further wrecked their economies, the Chinese economy was able to perform well in the aftermath of the GFC. The Shanghai index had been falling sharply since the September 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, but the decline was halted when news of the planned stimulus leaked in late October. The day after the stimulus was officially announced, the Shanghai index immediately rose by 7.3%, followed by sustained growth. Speaking at the 2010 Summer Davos, Premier Wen Jiabao also credited the Keynesian fiscal stimulus for good performance of the Chinese economy over the two years following the GFC.

    Meanwhile, even IMF acknowledged the failure of austerity, the anti-thesis of the Keynesian policy. Massive damage was caused to Greece, Ireland, Portugal and other economies which were forced to tighten budgets in response to the recession. In the see-saw battle between Keynesians and Monetarists, after three decades of darkness, the Keynesian star seems to be rising. Strange as it may seem, many fundamental insights of Keynes were never actually absorbed by conventional economists. Keynes himself said that he had the greatest difficulty in escaping the habits of thought created by an economics education. Mainstream economists never made this escape. As a result, Keynesian theories remain an undiscovered treasure offering deep insights into current economic conditions.

    https://sites.google.com/site/21stcenturymacroeconomics/keynes/l3

    Fred C. Dobbs : , November 17, 2016 at 10:25 AM
    The Glaring Contradiction at the Heart of Donald Trump's
    Economic Policy http://nyti.ms/2eJFsw4 via @UpshotNYT
    NYT - Neil Irwin - November 17

    Campaign promises are easy. Governing is hard.

    It is a truism that Donald J. Trump and his team will soon learn. And a fascinating example has emerged since the election, courtesy of global currency markets. It is a study in the kind of complex trade-offs that Mr. Trump rarely grappled with during his campaign but will face many times a day in the Oval Office.

    A centerpiece of Mr. Trump's campaign was the United States' trade deficits. He pledged to eliminate them and create a resurgence in American manufacturing.

    He has also pledged tax cuts, infrastructure spending and deregulation. That set of policies has led markets to expect speedier economic growth and thus higher interest rates in coming years. That, in turn, is driving the value of the dollar higher on currency markets. Since Election Day, the dollar is up 2.6 percent against an index of six other major currencies. The value of the Mexican peso has fallen 10 percent against the dollar, a remarkable swing for the United States' third-largest trading partner.

    You don't need to be an economist to see what that means: A pricier dollar makes it harder for American manufacturers to compete overseas; it gives an advantage to companies that locate operations elsewhere; and it will, all else being equal, tend to make the trade deficit higher rather than lower.

    This is not to suggest that the shift in the currency so far is a major disaster for American manufacturers and other exporters (though those that ship their goods to Mexico will feel the brunt of it). There was a bigger rise in the dollar in 2014 and 2015 that damaged export sectors even more.
    Photo

    A board displaying the exchange rate for the Mexican peso and the dollar in a bank in Mexico City this week. Credit Henry Romero/Reuters

    But let's imagine that Mr. Trump follows through on the policy mix he's hinted at so far: a combination of loose fiscal policy (think more spending on defense and infrastructure, and tax cuts) and tighter monetary policy (the Federal Reserve raising interest rates faster than
    had seemed likely before the election). At that point, the dollar could move more decisively higher, creating a tension that the president and his advisers would have to resolve one way or the other.

    As a rule of thumb, said Joseph Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a 10 percent rise in the dollar would be expected to increase the current account deficit (a broader concept than trade deficit, but closely related) by 1 to 1.5 percent of G.D.P. in the ensuing two to three years.

    In that scenario, Mr. Trump's pledge to eliminate the $500 billion United States trade deficit would have just become $180 billion to $270 billion harder.

    This is the kind of dilemma presidents face all the time. The Oval Office debate might go something like this: The Commerce Secretary complains, "Mr. President, this strong dollar is just killing our manufacturers; they can't compete with this kind of appreciation." The Treasury Secretary, who is in charge of the currency, responds, "It's a necessary evil, Mr. President; our economy is booming so much that global investors just can't get enough of United States assets."

    When there are these kinds of disputes, the president has to decide. And when a president tries to find a solution that answers both concerns, there are always complex ripples. For example, "let's appoint Fed officials who will cut interest rates" might temporarily let you have both a booming domestic economy and a competitive export sector, but would mean an increase in inflation - which will make both the bond market and many retired Americans living on fixed incomes unhappy.

    The tension between currency policy and trade policy is just one example. Mr. Trump's promises to repeal Obamacare while keeping some of its most popular features would be hard to carry out in practice. Virtually every issue in tax policy, diplomacy and regulatory policy features similar complex trade-offs.

    None of this is to say that these tensions are unsolvable, or that Mr. Trump won't overcome his lack of a policy background to arrive at good solutions. But he will almost certainly find out soon that "Make America Great Again" is a slogan, not an answer.

    RGC : , November 17, 2016 at 10:39 AM
    Jo Michell

    Economics, Ideology and Trump

    So the post-mortem begins. Much electronic ink has already been spilled and predictable fault lines have emerged. Debate rages in particular on the question of whether Trump's victory was driven by economic factors. Like Duncan Weldon, I think Torsten Bell gets it about right – economics is an essential part of the story even if the complete picture is more complex.

    Neoliberalism is a word I usually try to avoid. It's often used by people on the left as an easy catch-all to avoid engaging with difficult issues. Broadly speaking, however, it provides a short-hand for the policy status quo over the last thirty years or so: free movement of goods, labour and capital, fiscal conservatism, rules-based monetary policy, deregulated finance and a preference for supply-side measures in the labour market.
    Some will argue this consensus has nothing to with the rise of far-right populism. I disagree. Both economics and economic policy have brought us here.

    But to what extent has academic economics provided the basis for neoliberal policy? The question had been in my mind even before the Trump and Brexit votes. A few months back, Duncan Weldon posed the question, 'whatever happened to deficit bias?' In my view, the responses at the time missed the mark. More recently, Ann Pettifor and Simon Wren Lewis have been discussing the relationship between ideology, economics and fiscal austerity.
    I have great respect for Simon – especially his efforts to combat the false media narratives around austerity. But I don't think he gets it right on economics and ideology. His argument is that in a standard model – a sticky-price DSGE system – fiscal policy should be used when nominal rates are at the zero lower bound. Post-2008 austerity policies are therefore at odds with the academic consensus.
    This is correct in simple terms, but I think misses the bigger picture of what academic economics has been saying for the last 30 years. To explain, I need to recap some history.

    Fiscal policy as a macroeconomic management tool is associated with the ideas of Keynes. Against the academic consensus of his day, he argued that the economy could get stuck in periods of demand deficiency characterised by persistent involuntary unemployment. The monetarist counter-attack was led by Milton Friedman – who denied this possibility. In the long run, he argued, the economy has a 'natural' rate of unemployment to which it will gravitate automatically (the mechanism still remains to be explained). Any attempt to use activist fiscal or monetary policy to reduce unemployment below this natural rate will only lead to higher inflation. This led to the bitter disputes of the 1960s and 70s between Keynesians and Monetarists. The Monetarists emerged as victors – at least in the eyes of the orthodoxy – with the inflationary crises of the 1970s. This marks the beginning of the end for fiscal policy in the history of macroeconomics.

    In Friedman's world, short-term macro policy could be justified in a deflationary situation as a way to help the economy back to its 'natural' state. But, for Friedman, macro policy means monetary policy. In line with the doctrine that the consumer always knows best, government spending was proscribed as distortionary and inefficient. For Friedman, the correct policy response to deflation is a temporary increase in the rate of growth of the money supply.
    It's hard to view Milton Friedman's campaign against Keynes as disconnected from ideological influence. Friedman's role in the Mont Pelerin society is well documented. This group of economic liberals, led by Friedrich von Hayek, formed after World War II with the purpose of opposing the move towards collectivism of which Keynes was a leading figure. For a time at least, the group adopted the term 'neoliberal' to describe their political philosophy. This was an international group of economists whose express purpose was to influence politics and politicians – and they were successful.

    Hayek's thesis – which acquires a certain irony in light of Trump's ascent – was that collectivism inevitably leads to authoritarianism and fascism. Friedman's Chicago economics department formed one point in a triangular alliance with Lionel Robbins' LSE in London, and Hayek's fellow Austrians in Vienna. While in the 1930s, Friedman had expressed support for the New Deal, by the 1950s he had swung sharply in the direction of economic liberalism. As Brad Delong puts it:
    by the early 1950s, his respect for even the possibility of government action was gone. His grudging approval of the New Deal was gone, too: Those elements that weren't positively destructive were ineffective, diverting attention from what Friedman now believed would have cured the Great Depression, a substantial expansion of the money supply. The New Deal, Friedman concluded, had been 'the wrong cure for the wrong disease.'

    While Friedman never produced a complete formal model to describe his macroeconomic vision, his successor at Chicago, Robert Lucas did – the New Classical model. (He also successfully destroyed the Keynesian structural econometric modelling tradition with his 'Lucas critique'.) Lucas' New Classical colleagues followed in his footsteps, constructing an even more extreme version of the model: the so-called Real Business Cycle model. This simply assumes a world in which all markets work perfectly all of the time, and the single infinitely lived representative agent, on average, correctly predicts the future.
    This is the origin of the 'policy ineffectiveness hypothesis' – in such a world, government becomes completely impotent. Any attempt at deficit spending will be exactly matched by a corresponding reduction in private spending – the so-called Ricardian Equivalence hypothesis. Fiscal policy has no effect on output and employment. Even monetary policy becomes totally ineffective: if the central bank chooses to loosen monetary policy, the representative agent instantly and correctly predicts higher inflation and adjusts her behaviour accordingly.

    This vision, emerging from a leading centre of conservative thought, is still regarded by the academic economics community as a major scientific step forward. Simon describes it as `a progressive research programme'.
    What does all this have to with the current status quo? The answer is that this model – with one single modification – is the 'standard model' which Simon and others point to when they argue that economics has no ideological bias. The modification is that prices in the goods market are slow to adjust to changes in demand. As a result, Milton Friedman's result that policy is effective in the short run is restored. The only substantial difference to Friedman's model is that the policy tool is the rate of interest, not the money supply. In a deflationary situation, the central bank should cut the nominal interest rate to raise demand and assist the automatic but sluggish transition back to the `natural' rate of unemployment.

    So what of Duncan's question: what happened to deficit bias? – this refers to the assertion in economics textbooks that there will always be a tendency for governments to allow deficits to increase. The answer is that it was written out of the textbooks decades ago – because it is simply taken as given that fiscal policy is not the correct tool.
    To check this, I went to our university library and looked through a selection of macroeconomics textbooks. Mankiw's 'Macroeconomics' is probably the mostly widely used. I examined the 2007 edition – published just before the financial crisis. The chapter on 'Stabilisation Policy' dispenses with fiscal policy in half a page – a case study of Romer's critique of Keynes is presented under the heading 'Is the Stabilization of the Economy a Figment of the Data?' The rest of the chapter focuses on monetary policy: time inconsistency, interest rate rules and central bank independence. The only appearance of the liquidity trap and the zero lower bound is in another half-page box, but fiscal policy doesn't get a mention.
    The post-crisis twelfth edition of Robert Gordon's textbook does include a chapter on fiscal policy – entitled `The Government Budget, the Government Debt and the Limitations of Fiscal Policy'. While Gordon acknowledges that fiscal policy is an option during strongly deflationary periods when interest rates are at the zero lower bound, most of the chapter is concerned with the crowding out of private investment, the dangers of government debt and the conditions under which governments become insolvent. Of the textbooks I examined, only Blanchard's contained anything resembling a balanced discussion of fiscal policy.

    So, in Duncan's words, governments are 'flying a two engined plane but choosing to use only one motor' not just because of media bias, an ill-informed public and misguided politicians – Simon's explanation – but because they are doing what the macro textbooks tell them to do.

    The reason is that the standard New Keynesian model is not a Keynesian model at all – it is a monetarist model. Aside from the mathematical sophistication, it is all but indistinguishable from Milton Friedman's ideologically-driven description of the macroeconomy. In particular, Milton Friedman's prohibition of fiscal policy is retained with – in more recent years – a caveat about the zero-lower bound (Simon makes essentially the same point about fiscal policy here).

    It's therefore odd that when Simon discusses the relationship between ideology and economics he chooses to draw a dividing line between those who use a sticky-price New Keynesian DSGE model and those who use a flexible-price New Classical version. The beliefs of the latter group are, Simon suggests, ideological, while those of the former group are based on ideology-free science. This strikes me as arbitrary. Simon's justification is that, despite the evidence, the RBC model denies the possibility of involuntary unemployment. But the sticky-price version – which denies any role for inequality, finance, money, banking, liquidity, default, long-run unemployment, the use of fiscal policy away from the ZLB, supply-side hysteresis effects and plenty else besides – is acceptable. He even goes so far as to say 'I have no problem seeing the RBC model as a flex-price NK model' – even the RBC model is non-ideological so long as the hierarchical framing is right.
    Even Simon's key distinction – the New Keynesian model allows for involuntary unemployment – is open to question. Keynes' definition of involuntary unemployment is that there exist people willing and able to work at the going wage who are unable to find employment. On this definition the New Keynesian model falls short – in the face of a short-run demand shortage caused by sticky prices the representative agent simply selects a new optimal labour supply. Workers are never off their labour supply curve. In the Smets Wouters model – a very widely used New Keynesian DSGE model – the labour market is described as follows: 'household j chooses hours worked Lt(j)'. It is hard to reconcile involuntary unemployment with households choosing how much labour they supply.

    What of the position taken by the profession in the wake of 2008? Reinhart and Rogoff's contribution is by now infamous. Ann also draws attention to the 2010 letter signed by 20 top-ranking economists – including Rogoff – demanding austerity in the UK. Simon argues that Ann overlooks the fact that '58 equally notable economists signed a response arguing the 20 were wrong'.
    It is difficult to agree that the signatories to the response letter, organised by Lord Skidelsky, are 'equally notable'. Many are heterodox economists – critics of standard macroeconomics. Those mainstream economists on the list hold positions at lower-ranking institutions than the 20. I know many of the 58 personally – I know none of the 20. Simon notes:
    Of course those that signed the first letter, and in particular Ken Rogoff, turned out to be a more prominent voice in the subsequent debate, but that is because he supported what policymakers were doing. He was mostly useful rather than influential.
    For Simon, causality is unidirectional: policy-makers cherry-pick academic economics to fit their purpose but economists have no influence on policy. This seems implausible. It is undoubtedly true that pro-austerity economists provided useful cover for small-state ideologues like George Osborne. But the parallels between policy and academia are too strong for the causality to be unidirectional.

    Osborne's small state ideology is a descendent of Thatcherism – the point when neoliberalism first replaced Keynesianism. Is it purely coincidence that the 1980s was also the high-point for extreme free market Chicago economics such as Real Business Cycle models?
    The parallel between policy and academia continues with the emergence of the sticky-price New Keynesian version as the 'standard' model in the 90s alongside the shift to the third way of Blair and Clinton. Blairism represents a modified, less extreme, version of Thatcherism. The all-out assault on workers and the social safety net was replaced with 'workfare' and 'flexicurity'.

    A similar story can be told for international trade, as laid out in this excellent piece by Martin Sandbu. In the 1990s, just as the 'heyday of global trade integration was getting underway', economists were busy making the case that globalisation had no negative implications for employment or inequality in rich nations. To do this, they came up with the 'skill-biased technological change' (SBTC) hypothesis. This states that as technology advances and the potential for automation grows, the demand for high-skilled labour increases. This introduces the hitch that higher educational standards are required before the gains from automation can be felt by those outside the top income percentiles. This leads to a `race between education and technology' – a race which technology was winning, leading to weaker demand for middle and low-skill workers and rising 'skill premiums' for high skilled workers as a result.
    Writing in the Financial Times shortly before the financial crisis, Jagdish Bagwati argued that those who looked to globalisation as an explanation for increasing inequality were misguided:
    The culprit is not globalization but labour-saving technical change that puts pressure on the wages of the unskilled. Technical change prompts continual economies in the use of unskilled labour. Much empirical argumentation and evidence exists on this. (FT, January 4, 2007, p. 11)
    As Krugman put it:
    The hypothesis that technological change, by raising the demand for skill, has led to growing inequality is so widespread that at conferences economists often use the abbreviation SBTC – skill-biased technical change – without explanation, assuming that their listeners know what they are talking about (p. 132)
    Over the course of his 2007 book, Krugman sets out on a voyage of discovery – 'That, more or less, is the story I believed when I began working on this book' (p. 6). He arrives at the astonishing conclusion – '[i]t sounds like economic heresy' (p. 7) – that politics can influence inequality:
    [I]nstitutions, norms and the political environment matter a lot more for the distribution of income – and impersonal market forces matter less – than Economics 101 might lead you to believe (p. 8)

    The idea that rising pay at the top of the scale mainly reflect social and political change, strikes some people as too much at odds with Economics 101.
    If a left-leaning Nobel prize-winning economist has trouble escaping from the confines of Economics 101, what hope for the less sophisticated mind?
    As deindustrialisation rolled through the advanced economies, wiping out jobs and communities, economists continued to deny any role for globalisation. As Martin Sandbu argues,

    The blithe unconcern displayed by the economics profession and the political elites about whether trade was causing deindustrialisation, social exclusion and rising inequality has begun to seem Pollyannish at best, malicious at worst. Kevin O'Rourke, the Irish economist, and before him Lawrence Summers, former US Treasury Secretary, have called this "the Davos lie."

    For mainstream macroeconomists, inequality was not a subject of any real interest. While the explanation for inequality lay in the microeconomics – the technical forms of production functions – and would be solved by increasing educational attainment, in macroeconomic terms, the use of a representative agent and an aggregate production function simply assumed the problem away. As Stiglitz puts it:
    [I]f the distribution of income (say between labor and capital) matters, for example, for aggregate demand and therefore for employment and output, then using an aggregate Cobb-Douglas production function which, with competition, implies that the share of labor is fixed, is not going to be helpful. (p.596)
    Robert Lucas summed up his position as follows: 'Of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most seductive, and in my opinion the most poisonous, is to focus on questions of distribution.' It is hard to view this statement as more strongly informed by science than ideology.
    But while economists were busy assuming away inequality in their models, incomes continued to diverge in most advanced economies. It was only with the publication of Piketty's book that the economics profession belatedly began to turn its back on Lucas.

    The extent to which economic insecurity in the US and the UK is driven by globalisation versus policy is still under discussion – my answer would be that it is a combination of both – but the skill-biased technical change hypothesis looks to be a dead end – and a costly one at that.
    Similar stories can be told about the role of household debt, finance, monetary theory and labour bargaining power and monopoly – why so much academic focus on 'structural reform' in the labour market but none on anti-trust policy? Heterodox economists were warning about the connections between finance, globalisation, current account imbalances, inequality, household debt and economic insecurity in the decades before the crisis. These warnings were dismissed as unscientific – in favour of a model which excluded all of these things by design.
    Are economic factors – and economic policy – partly to blame for the Brexit and Trump votes? And are academic economists, at least in part, to blame for these polices? The answer to both questions is yes. To argue otherwise is to deny Keynes' dictum that 'the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood.'
    This quote, 'mounted and framed, takes pride of place in the entrance hall of the Institute for Economic Affairs' – the think-tank founded, with Hayek's encouragement, by Anthony Fisher, as a way to promote and promulgate the ideas of the Mont Pelerin Society. The Institute was a success. Fisher was, in the words of Milton Friedman, 'the single most important person in the development of Thatcherism'.
    The rest, it seems, is history.

    https://criticalfinance.org/2016/11/15/economics-ideology-and-trump/

    ilsm : , November 17, 2016 at 01:13 PM
    A feat Goebbels could hardly pull off.

    Obomber's new conference with Ms. Merkel. The peace prize winner who ordered 25000 bombing sorties in 2015 against places US is not warring against.

    Per Obomber Assad caused all that suffering in Syria, despite US arming al Qaeda since 2010 to replace him with the kind of guys who rammed a bayonet through Qaddafi's rectum, and sending assassinated Qaddafi's weaponry through Benghazi at the time Clinton got her envoy killed there.

    The greater threat to American democracy is the bizarre world of the US fighting for the Sunnis in the middle east. Also known as Obomber's Stalinist definitions of atrocities versus fictions about fascists.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , November 17, 2016 at 02:22 PM
    Why would one of Qadaffi's own
    citizens do such a nasty deed on the
    sadly misunderstood guy who brought down
    Pan Am flight #103 over Lockerbie Scotland
    killing 259 passenger & crew, previously
    killing three people & injuring around
    230 in La Belle discothèque in Berlin,
    & why do you keep bringing this up?)
    im1dc : , November 17, 2016 at 01:20 PM
    Predictions for a Trump Presidency from a black Democrat woman activist

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/17/president-elect-donald-trump-gets-to-work-betraying-his-backers.html

    "President-Elect Donald Trump Gets to Work Betraying His Backers"

    'Millions of voters who thought they'd elected a populist hero will soon find out that men who live in golden penthouses are rarely heroes'

    by Joy-Ann Reid...11.17.16...1:00 AM ET

    "I should probably get out of the predictions business, having so misjudged the country before the recent election. But I will hazard two more. The first: Donald Trump will turn on his supporters. The second: The Democrats will turn on theirs, too.

    Trump got a head start this week, floating the names of Iraq war supporters and promoters of a grand, global war with Islam like John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani for the job of secretary of state. Trump voters who claimed that Hillary Clinton would bring on World War III might be surprised by some of the views of Clinton and John Kerry's likely successor (and Giuliani is a vigorous neocon, too.)

    Trump is now part of a global ring of ethno-nationalist leaders of far-right parties in thrall to Vladimir Putin's Russia. National security experts are shuddering at the demeanor of the people surrounding the next president who are busy mounting what Republican leakers are calling a "Stalinesque purge" of the insufficiently loyal. With the transition team in chaos, and experienced hands reluctant to join such an administration, who knows what kind of bizarre cabinet he'll wind up assembling.

    Meanwhile, to the extent that he is doing something other than trying to figure out what a president does Trump-or rather the people around him who know how to take advantage of an opportunity-are preparing to stack his team with Wall Street and big-business friendly insiders and establishment cronies poised to raid the treasury on behalf of the one percent.

    Working-class voters who thought they'd elected a populist hero will soon find out that men who live in golden penthouses are rarely populists, and even more rarely heroic. Trump, who in his own history as a developer preferred mob concrete and Chinese steel to the variety produced in the Rust Belt, cannot bring back the steel and manufacturing jobs lost in Lorain, Ohio or western Pennsylvania. No president can force shuttered mills to reopen, or companies who've left in search of cheaper labor to relocate to the United States (or those who have come back to choose expensive humans over cheaper robots.) Even if he manages to slap massive tariffs on Chinese-made goods, the only outcome will be much higher prices at Wal-Mart.

    Meanwhile, anyone still wondering why Paul Ryan quietly slipped on his MAGA cap during the election will soon understand. On the off chance Trump pulled off an improbable win, Ryan knew he would be on track to enact his life's dream: turning Medicare into a voucher program and forcing future of the most popular government program since Social Security into private insurance HMOs. According to Josh Marshall, who cites Ryan's own website, the "phasing out" of Medicare begins in March.

    Trump's tax plan will sock it to single mothers, by ending the ability to file as head of household and thus raising taxes on unmarried filers. The tax hikes will be higher the more children you have. Anyone who doesn't itemize deductions will likely get a onetime check for a few hundred dollars, the way George W. Bush did his "middle class tax cut." Count that as bill money.

    Trump's trade and immigration policies will deliver an economic shock to states like Texas where trade produces a substantial share of the jobs, and which depend on high oil prices. Trump's North Dakota pipeline (in which he is personally financially invested) will flood more oil onto an already glutted world market, further forcing down prices and putting both the Lone Star state in an unpleasant economic position.

    But not to worry, Republicans have a fix, to ensure there is no voter backlash against them.

    They are already preparing to reverse their opposition to earmarks, with three red state Senators (from Florida, Alabama and of course, Texas) pushing to revive the kind of spending that helps members go back to their districts with something to show for their time in Washington, and which long greased the skids of congress. You see, most in the GOP never really objected to government spending. They just objected to government spending that might make their constituents look more favorably on Barack Obama's tenure.

    Also watch as the objections to raising the debt ceiling and to infrastructure spending-so vehement during the Obama years-vanish into thin air. This will be a big spending administration, with the full backing of congress. The small number of conservatives preparing to fight back are likely to cave, eventually, in the interests of party unity and maintaining total Republican control.

    All the while, Trump fans can maintain their euphoria over taking America back from the multiculturalists, the politically correct, leftie Hollywood and Beyoncé, by purchasing clothing and jewelry from Ivanka Trump's retail line, which she'll dutifully model during television appearances, after which her staff will inform the media on where faithful followers can "shop the look." The Trump children, armed with security clearances and still in charge of the family business and the ephemeral "foundation" will be in a position to stuff the family coffers for four years, African dictator style, with the possible aid of information marked "secret" and thus unavailable to their competitors. And if you expect the fearsome House Republicans who hounded Hillary Clinton over her emails to lift a finger to investigate what already look to be spiraling conflicts of interest, you don't understand the Republican Party.

    But it isn't just Trump who is poised to betray those who voted for him. Some Democrats and their allies are already rushing to get their Trump tattoos, knowing that the coming spending boom helps them too. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia excoriated Harry Reid, the out-going minority leader, who alone came out forthrightly to defend the black and brown women, men, children, businesses and even churches being brutalized by gleeful Trump supporters from the GOP's white supremacist wing, in cities around the country. Reid, whose Nevada Democratic Party operation was actually successful in the 2016 elections, including getting a Latina elected to his seat, has bravely called out the white nationalists and anti-Semites of the alt-right and stood against the normalization of people like soon-to-be Trump senior counselor Stephen Bannon. But Reid is a lonely voice standing athwart anti-history yelling, "stop," while his party and the mainstream media fall into a swoon of presidential succession pageantry.

    Even Bernie Sanders couldn't rush fast enough to get on the Trump side of the line, declaring himself a member of the white working class (his and his wife's three homes and high six-figure income aside) and cautioning Democrats-who belong to a party of which he is still not a member-to start focusing on these voters too. Sanders ran a campaign that echoed Trump's in many ways; appealing to a majority white, populist audience that hated Hillary Clinton more than it disdained Republicans. A majority of Black Americans were unimpressed, which is why he didn't become the nominee, and they should be unsurprised that he is dropping them faster than he and his supporters wrote off "the South" as insignificant during the primary campaign.

    Bernie is not alone. Think pieces are already being written admonishing Dems to throw black and brown, LGBT, Muslim and Hispanic voters and progressive women under the bus in favor of the never-ending chase for the Pabst Blue Ribbon vote. Democrats continue to practice "identity politics" at their peril, they say; demanding that issues around rape culture, Black Lives Matter and merciful immigration policy be scotched in favor of bucking up men, dialing back blunt talk on race, policing and DREAMers, and emphasizing things like border security. In other words, Democrats must learn to talk more like Republicans and marginalized groups must learn to be quiet. The party has been here before, and ironically, that kind of thinking is what produced Bill Clinton, whose surname, and wife, the very people hawking this prescription loathe.

    The message to African-Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, LGBT people (well, mostly Trans folks, since Trump has declared his movement can live with "the gays") and women, who stand in the crosshairs of the coming "retail authoritarian" presidency, is that you're on your own. Your party will not come to your aid. They'll be too busy trying to ride the Trump train, or to least avoid being tied to the tracks and run over by it in the next election.

    There are small green shoots of hope. The coming battle for DNC chair, which could come down to two black candidates: Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison and South Carolina Democratic Party chair Jamie Harrison, is a proxy for whether the party will push a message of Sandersian working class populism or press forward on the ongoing fight for racial justice, voting rights and the rights of the poor. Perhaps one of these men can help the party find a way to do both.

    And despite her immediate statement of conciliation to Trump, one can only hope Elizabeth Warren will hold strong on issues concerning Wall Street, once Republicans begin the process of dismantling restrictions on bankers' worst practices, restoring the robber baron era in lower Manhattan and on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, where the "tea party movement" was born amid furious presumptions that Obama would dare to help struggling homeowners instead of their mortgage note holders. We'll just have to wait and see.

    In the end, the lessons of American history, from Reconstruction to the Fusion movement of the late 19th century; that an openness to the aspirations of racial, ethnic and religious minorities will always produce a fierce backlash among the country's majority population and cost the party dearly, have proven thrice true in the modern era-in the bloody political aftermath of Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama. All three marched the country forward on race, culture and economics, only to cede federal and state governmental power for years to the Republican right, which quickly proceeded, each time, to reward the rich and the powerful on the backs of their working class supporters who just wanted to feel like winners again.

    In a sense, who can blame the Democrats for running away? But run they will. Count on it."

    im1dc -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 01:22 PM
    I very much like the idea of bringing back "earmarks", for the record.

    I did not know that Paul Ryan's website is proclaiming the end of Medicare as we know it to begin March 2017. That is ominous indeed.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 02:10 PM
    Trump pledges to earmark $20B for school choice
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295034-trump-to-earmark-20b-for-school-choice
    The Hill = Sep 8

    (Personally, I'll take a block
    grant over an earmark any day.)

    Fred C. Dobbs : , November 17, 2016 at 01:23 PM
    (Premium members only.)

    McDonald's gets fancy, says table
    service coming to US locations

    NEW YORK - McDonald's says it plans to offer table service across its U.S. stores to make the ordering process less stressful, but did not say when the overhaul will be complete.

    The world's biggest burger chain says about 500 of its more than 14,000 domestic stores have been testing table service and ordering kiosks for people who do not want to wait for the cashier. People in those stores order at the counter or kiosks, then sit and wait for an employee to bring them their food.

    Early next year, McDonald's says it will expand the offering in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C. ...

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/11/17/mcdonald-gets-fancy-says-table-service-coming-locations/xVHddwT9ZcZc1B24lzDYtL/story.html

    Fred C. Dobbs : , November 17, 2016 at 01:23 PM
    (Premium members only.)

    McDonald's gets fancy, says table
    service coming to US locations

    NEW YORK - McDonald's says it plans to offer table service across its U.S. stores to make the ordering process less stressful, but did not say when the overhaul will be complete.

    The world's biggest burger chain says about 500 of its more than 14,000 domestic stores have been testing table service and ordering kiosks for people who do not want to wait for the cashier. People in those stores order at the counter or kiosks, then sit and wait for an employee to bring them their food.

    Early next year, McDonald's says it will expand the offering in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C. ...

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/11/17/mcdonald-gets-fancy-says-table-service-coming-locations/xVHddwT9ZcZc1B24lzDYtL/story.html

    im1dc : , November 17, 2016 at 01:44 PM
    This goes together with RGC's post above whether it is time to "Break up the Democratic Party"

    This article suggests changing its message as well as its messengers would work better to seat Democrats in Elected Office

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/17/democrats-dig-deep-after-being-trump-d.html

    "Democrats Dig Deep After Being Trump'd"

    'Democrats on the Hill began soul searching this week-but the process appears to be longer for some than others'

    by Matt Laslo...11.17.16...1:00 AM ET

    "The Democratic Party is at a crossroads, but everyone on Capitol Hill seems to have a different roadmap.

    Democrats, still in shock over Hillary Clinton's surprise loss to president-elect Donald Trump, are faced with a stark new reality: they are not only the minority party in all corners of Capitol Hill and across the nation-but there are cracks in places where their foundation was thought to be very strong.

    The party is debating how it got here and whether it's time to tack left, in the Bernie Sanders' vein of populism, or to go back to the middle, which is how they won in the nineties and regained control of the House in 2006.

    The change didn't come overnight. The party has been devastated in the past three election cycles, losing more than 900 state legislative seats and 11 governorships since President Barack Obama took office.

    But it was Clinton's string of losses in the Rust Belt-Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio-that caused the soul searching in the party.

    "So you can't conclude anything else but that our message is wrong. Our values aren't wrong, but our message is wrong," Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) told The Daily Beast. "The one thing we must commit to is that whatever our message is going forward must be different than what we had in the past because that one has failed."...

    im1dc : , November 17, 2016 at 01:51 PM
    re Paul Ryan's fast track changes to Medicare

    Rep Price, Chairman of House Budget Committee is on it

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tom-price-reveals-republicans-eyeing-medicare-overhaul-in-2017

    "Rep. Tom Price Reveals Republicans Eyeing Medicare Overhaul In 2017"

    By Lauren Fox...November 17, 2016...12:13 PM EDT

    "Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), the chairman of the budget committee, told reporters on Thursday that Republicans are eyeing major changes to Medicare in 2017.

    Price, who is being floated as a possible Health and Human Services Secretary in the next administration, said that he expects Republican in the House to move on Medicare reforms "six to eight months" into the Trump administration.

    Privatization of Medicare has been a central feature of Speaker of the House Paul Ryan's budget proposal for years, and the House GOP has voted in favor of it multiple times. Ryan himself said last week that Medicare would be on the table in the new Congress, signaling it could be taken up early in the new year. Price's comments suggest privatization won't be part of the first round of legislative initiatives rolled out by the Trump administration and GOP-controlled Congress.

    Price also noted that Republicans are eyeing using a tactic known as budget reconciliation to make the change. That process allows Republicans to pass bills with a simple majority in the U.S. Senate.

    When asked by TPM about timing for changes to Medicare, Price said "I think that is probably in the second phase of reconciliation, which would have to be in the FY 18 budget resolution in the first 6-8 months."

    Republicans plan to tackle the Affordable Care Act in the first budget reconciliation process, which could take place as early as January. Tackling Medicare reform and Obamacare repeal at the same time could prove too high a risk for Republicans who have yet to reveal a clear plan to replace Obamacare with.

    During his weekly press conference House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) remained vague about the timing for such reforms, saying only that those discussions are still underway."

    im1dc -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 01:56 PM
    Why should the Democrat Party change now that the Republicans have begun over reaching by believing they have a mandate from the voters?

    Change Medicare? Was that on the ballot?

    Seriously was that what the Electorate wants from Donald Trump and the Republicans?

    Am I alone in seeing a huge opportunity for Democrats politically here?

    ilsm -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 03:51 PM
    I saw the idea of a Trump presidency as the best thing that could happen to progressive since Hoover.
    im1dc -> ilsm... , November 17, 2016 at 05:24 PM
    we still need an electable candidate to emerge from the ferment.
    Pinkybum -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 05:02 PM
    Privatizing Medicare will be a disaster it can only end in the service being worse. I'm sure they have plans to go after Social Security too. Getting rid of Obamacare won't hurt the white middle class too bad but even there too most people will know someone with a preexisting condition who can't get medical insurance. Good luck with all that Republicans!!
    anne : , -1
    https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/list#/mutual-funds/asset-class/month-end-returns

    November 17, 2016

    The 3 month Treasury interest rate is at 0.43%, the 2 year Treasury rate is 1.03%, the 5 year rate is 1.72%, while the 10 year is 2.29%.

    The Vanguard Aa rated short-term investment grade bond fund, with a maturity of 3.2 years and a duration of 2.6 years, has a yield of 1.63%. The Vanguard Aa rated intermediate-term investment grade bond fund, with a maturity of 6.4 years and a duration of 5.5 years, is yielding 2.37%. The Vanguard Aa rated long-term investment grade bond fund, with a maturity of 23.0 years and a duration of 13.6 years, is yielding 3.75%. *

    The Vanguard Ba rated high yield corporate bond fund, with a maturity of 5.6 years and a duration of 4.4 years, is yielding 5.40%.

    The Vanguard unrated convertible corporate bond fund, with an indefinite maturity and a duration of 4.1 years, is yielding 2.04%.

    The Vanguard A rated high yield tax exempt bond fund, with a maturity of 6.8 years and a duration of 6.4 years, is yielding 2.66%.

    The Vanguard Aa rated intermediate-term tax exempt bond fund, with a maturity of 5.4 years and a duration of 4.8 years, is yielding 1.59%.

    The Vanguard Government National Mortgage Association bond fund, with a maturity of 5.7 years and a duration of 3.4 years, is yielding 2.05%.

    The Vanguard inflation protected Treasury bond fund, with a maturity of 8.8 years and a duration of 8.3 years, is yielding - 0.21%.

    * Vanguard yields are after cost. Federal Funds rates are no more than 0.50%.

    anne : , November 17, 2016 at 02:53 PM
    http://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe/

    Ten Year Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings Ratio, 1881-2016

    (Standard and Poors Composite Stock Index)

    November 17, 2016 PE Ratio ( 27.08)

    Annual Mean ( 16.70)
    Annual Median ( 16.05)

    -- Robert Shiller

    anne : , November 17, 2016 at 02:53 PM
    http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend-yield/

    Dividend Yield, 1881-2016

    (Standard and Poors Composite Stock Index)

    November 17, 2016 Div Yield ( 2.06)

    Annual Mean ( 4.38)
    Annual Median ( 4.33)

    -- Robert Shiller

    im1dc : , November 17, 2016 at 03:26 PM
    "Consumer prices show big increase on rising gasoline costs and rents"

    Looks like a go for the FedRes to raise rates in December

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/consumer-prices-show-big-increase-on-rising-gasoline-costs-and-rents/2016/11/17/9cad99d2-accd-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html

    "Consumer prices show big increase on rising gasoline costs and rents"

    Reuters...November 17, 2016...5:27 PM

    'Consumer prices show big increase'

    "Consumer prices recorded their biggest increase in six months in October on rising gasoline costs and rents, suggesting a pickup in inflation that potentially clears the way for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates in December.

    Prospects for a rate hike next month also got a boost from other data on Thursday showing first-time applications for unemployment benefits tumbling to a 43-year low last week and housing starts surging to a nine-year high in October.

    The reports painted an upbeat picture of the economy early in the fourth quarter and came as Fed Chair Janet L. Yellen told lawmakers that the U.S. central bank could lift borrowing costs "relatively soon."

    The Labor Department said its consumer price index increased 0.4 percent last month after rising 0.3 percent in September. In the 12 months through October, the CPI advanced 1.6 percent, the biggest year-on-year increase since October 2014. The CPI increased 1.5 percent in the year to September.

    Underlying inflation continued to slow last month as health-care costs moderated after recent hefty gains. But with rents pushing higher, that trend is unlikely to be sustained.

    The so-called core CPI, which strips out food and energy costs, climbed 0.1 percent last month after a similar gain in September. That slowed the year-on-year increase in the core CPI to 2.1 percent from a 2.2 percent rise in September.

    The Fed has a 2 percent inflation target and tracks an inflation measure that is now at 1.7 percent.

    In another report, the Labor Department said initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 19,000 to a seasonally adjusted 235,000 for the week ended Nov. 12, the lowest level since November 1973.

    Claims have now been below 300,000, a threshold associated with a healthy labor market, for 89 straight weeks. That is the longest run since 1970, when the labor market was much smaller.

    With the labor market firming and rents rising, housing is getting a lift. In a third report, the Commerce Department said housing starts jumped 25.5 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 1.32 million units last month, the highest level since August 2007."

    Reuters

    im1dc : , November 17, 2016 at 03:36 PM
    This is what Chairman Yellen told Congress today

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/17/502480053/federal-reserve-chair-throws-cold-water-on-trump-economic-plan

    "Federal Reserve Chair Throws Cold Water On Trump's Economic Plan"

    by Chris Arnold...November 17, 2016...5:25 PM ET

    "President-elect Donald Trump has pledged a $1 trillion infrastructure spending program to help jump-start an economy that he said during the campaign was in terrible shape.

    Speaking on Capitol Hill Thursday, Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet Yellen warned lawmakers that as they consider such spending, they should keep an eye on the national debt. Yellen also said that while the economy needed a big boost with fiscal stimulus after the financial crisis, that's not the case now.

    "The economy is operating relatively close to full employment at this point," she said, "so in contrast to where the economy was after the financial crisis when a large demand boost was needed to lower unemployment, we're no longer in that state."

    Yellen cautioned lawmakers that if they spend a lot on infrastructure and run up the debt, and then down the road the economy gets into trouble, "there is not a lot of fiscal space should a shock to the economy occur, an adverse shock, that should require fiscal stimulus."

    In other words, lawmakers should consider keeping their powder dry so they have more options whenever the next economic downturn comes along.

    Trump was harshly critical of Yellen during his campaign. But testifying before the Joint Economic Committee, Yellen said she is not going to quit just because Trump won the election. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., asked Yellen, "Can you envision any circumstances where you would not serve out your term as chair of the Federal Reserve?" "No, I cannot," answered Yellen, "It is fully my intention to serve out that term." Yellen's appointment goes through January 2018.

    Another target of Trump's during the campaign came up at the hearing: the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Rep. Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio, cited Trump's criticism that the Dodd-Frank banking rules were stifling lending and stunting the economy. But Yellen gave her support to Dodd-Frank, saying:

    "We lived through a devastating financial crisis, and a high priority for all Americans should be that we want to see put in place safeguards through supervision and regulation that result in a safer and sounder financial system, and I think we have been doing that and our financial system as a consequence is safer and sounder and many of the appropriate reforms are embodied in Dodd-Frank."

    Yellen added, "We wouldn't want to go back to the mortgage lending standards that led to the financial crisis."

    She also said she thought banks were actually willing to lend to small businesses, but that sales haven't been growing sufficiently fast to justify borrowing, suggesting the demand for loans was the real problem.

    As far as the ever-present question about when the Fed will raise interest rates, Yellen signaled that she didn't see any reason to alter the Fed's prior guidance now that Trump has been elected as the next president."

    ilsm -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 03:52 PM
    What Humpty Dumpty : ......
    im1dc : , November 17, 2016 at 04:45 PM
    "What do the Amish lobby, gay wedding vans and the ban of the national anthem have in common?"

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-facebook-fake-news-donald-trump-wp-bsi-20161117-story.html

    "Facebook fake-news writer: 'I think Donald Trump is in the White House because of me'"

    by Caitlin Dewey...The Washington Post

    "What do the Amish lobby, gay wedding vans and the ban of the national anthem have in common? For starters, they're all make-believe - and invented by the same man.

    Paul Horner, the 38-year-old impresario of a Facebook fake-news empire, has made his living off viral news hoaxes for several years. He has twice convinced the Internet that he's British graffiti artist Banksy; he also published the very viral, very fake news of a Yelp vs. "South Park" lawsuit last year.

    But in recent months, Horner has found the fake-news ecosystem growing more crowded, more political and vastly more influential: In March, Donald Trump's son Eric and his then-campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, even tweeted links to one of Horner's faux-articles. His stories have also appeared as news on Google.

    In light of concerns that stories like Horner's may have affected the presidential election, and in the wake of announcements that both Google and Facebook would take action against deceptive outlets, The Washington Post called Horner to discuss his perspective on fake news.

    Q: You've been writing fake news for a while now - you're kind of like the OG Facebook news hoaxer. Well, I'd call it hoaxing or fake news. You'd call it parody or satire. How is that scene different now than it was three or five years ago? Why did something like your story about Obama invalidating the election results (almost 250,000 Facebook shares, as of this writing) go so viral?

    A: Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore - I mean, that's how Trump got elected. He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn't care because they'd already accepted it. It's real scary. I've never seen anything like it.

    Q: You mentioned Trump, and you've probably heard the argument, or the concern, that fake news somehow helped him get elected. What do you make of that?

    A: My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don't fact-check anything - they'll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.

    Q: Why? I mean - why would you even write that?

    A: Just 'cause his supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest at their rallies, and that's just insane. I've gone to Trump protests - trust me, no one needs to get paid to protest Trump. I just wanted to make fun of that insane belief, but it took off. They actually believed it.

    I thought they'd fact-check it, and it'd make them look worse. I mean that's how this always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it's false, then they look like idiots. But Trump supporters - they just keep running with it! They never fact-check anything! Now he's in the White House. Looking back, instead of hurting the campaign, I think I helped it. And that feels (bad).

    Q: You think you personally helped elect Trump?

    A: I don't know. I don't know if I did or not. I don't know. I don't know.

    Q: I guess I'm curious, if you believed you might be having an unfair impact on the election - especially if that impact went against your own political beliefs - why didn't you stop? Why keep writing?

    A: I didn't think it was possible for him to get elected president. I thought I was messing with the campaign, maybe I wasn't messing them up as much as I wanted - but I never thought he'd actually get elected. I didn't even think about it. In hindsight, everyone should've seen this coming - everyone assumed Hillary (Clinton) would just get in. But she didn't, and Trump is president.

    Q: Speaking of Clinton - did you target fake news at her supporters? Or Gary Johnson's, for that matter? (Horner's Facebook picture shows him at a rally for Johnson.)

    A: No. I hate Trump.

    Q: Is that it? You posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago that you had a lot of ideas for satirizing Clinton and other figures, but that "no joke in doing this for six years, the people who clicked ads the most, like it's the cure for cancer, is right-wing Republicans." That makes it sound like you've found targeting conservatives is more profitable.

    A: Yeah, it is. They don't fact-check.

    Q: But a Trump presidency is good for you from a business perspective, right?

    A: It's great for anybody who does anything with satire - there's nothing you can't write about now that people won't believe. I can write the craziest thing about Trump, and people will believe it. I wrote a lot of crazy anti-Muslim stuff - like about Trump wanting to put badges on Muslims, or not allowing them in the airport, or making them stand in their own line - and people went along with it!

    Q: Facebook and Google recently announced that they'd no longer let fake-news sites use their advertising platforms. I know you basically make your living from those services. How worried are you about this?

    A: This whole Google AdSense thing is pretty scary. And all this Facebook stuff. I make most of my money from AdSense - like, you wouldn't believe how much money I make from it. Right now I make like $10,000 a month from AdSense.

    I know ways of getting hooked up under different names and sites. So probably if they cracked down, I would try different things. I have at least 10 sites right now. If they crack down on a couple, I'll just use others. They could shut down advertising on all my sites, and I think I'd be OK. Plus, Facebook and AdSense make a lot of money from (advertising on fake news sites) for them to just get rid of it. They'd lose a lot of money.

    But if it did really go away, that would suck. I don't know what I would do.

    Q: Thinking about this less selfishly, though - it might be good if Facebook and Google took action, right? Because the effects you're describing are pretty scary.

    A: Yeah, I mean - a lot of the sites people are talking about, they're just total BS sites. There's no creativity or purpose behind them. I'm glad they're getting rid of them. I don't like getting lumped in with Huzlers. I like getting lumped in with the Onion. The stuff I do - I spend more time on it. There's purpose and meaning behind it. I don't just write fake news just to write it.

    So, yeah, I see a lot of the sites they're listing, and I'm like - good. There are so many horrible sites out there. I'm glad they're getting rid of those sites.

    I just hope they don't get rid of mine, too."

    im1dc -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 04:46 PM
    The takeaway: "Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore"

    [Nov 19, 2016] Top 5 Big Foreign Conflicts Donald Trump Will Inherit (And What He Might Do About Them)

    Nov 18, 2016 | nationalinterest.org

    The Defense Department reports that as of Aug. 31, the total cost of operations related to defeating ISIS is $9.3 billion and the average daily cost is $12.3 million.

    Printer-friendly version

    Even if ISIS loses Mosul and Raqqa, and Trump increases resources for the fight against the group, the terrorist danger won't go away, experts say. Indeed, like it or not, Trump will have to confront a complex "day after" scenario that has proved stubbornly enduring.

    "ISIS is not the problem, but a symptom of the problem," said Kenneth Pollack, a Middle East policy expert at the Brookings Institution, in an interview with The Daily Signal. "If you've learned anything over recent time, you can't get rid of terrorism by just killing terrorists, if you don't address the underlying grievances. Even if you kill them all, they will come back the next day."

    2. Afghanistan War:

    ...The U.S. continued military efforts in Afghanistan were underscored this weekend, when a suicide bomber snuck into the main American military base in the country, killing four Americans. The Taliban, the long-running Islamic group waging war against Afghanistan's government, took credit for the attack.

    Indeed, this grinding 15-year war, and the U.S. contribution to it, shows no signs of ending anytime soon.

    3. Ukraine-Russia War:

    ... ... ..

    Trump has not criticized Russia for its action in Ukraine, and has hinted he would accept the annexation of Crimea.

    The Republican-led House, meanwhile, approved a resolution for the U.S. to provide lethal arms to the Ukrainian government, but the White House has resisted, saying that it would only encourage more violence.

    Based on his public comments, it seems unlikely Trump will escalate the U.S. involvement in Ukraine, and perhaps back off from its current role.

    4. Saudi Arabia-Yemen War:

    ... ... ...

    The Houthis ousted Yemen's government and forced its U.S.-backed president, Abed Mansour Hadi, to flee to Saudi Arabia. The Houthis receive support from Iran, Saudi Arabia's rival in the Middle East.

    Obama decided to intervene in the fight because he wanted to reassure the U.S.' commitment to Saudi Arabia, a longtime ally that was troubled by the nuclear deal with Iran. In addition, the U.S. is concerned the chaos in Yemen could benefit the country's al-Qaeda affiliate.

    About 10,000 people, nearly half civilians, have been killed in the war, most of them by the Saudi military coalition, according to the United Nations.

    5. Campaigns Against Terrorists in Africa:

    What's Happening Now:

    Obama has described his efforts to destroy al-Qaeda's core leadership as one of the successes of his national security policy. But the terrorist threat has spread to new regions in recent years, prompting a U.S. military response, and Trump will have to decide how to proceed.

    Unrelated campaigns in Libya and Somalia are prime examples of the diffuse threat.

    In Libya, the U.S. has conducted more than 360 airstrikes in support of pro-government forces trying to expel ISIS from the coastal Libyan city, Sirte. A small number of U.S. special operations forces are also providing on-the-ground support.

    This first appeared in The Daily Signal here.

    [Nov 19, 2016] Robert Gibbs It Wasn't Racism, Hillary Lost Because She Had No Economic Message

    www.breitbart.com

    President Barack Obama's former press secretary Robert Gibbs faulted Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign for failing to have a dynamic economic message that applied to working class voters, and ridiculed the suggestion that voters voted for Donald Trump because they were racists.

    "The truth is, the party didn't have an economic message," Gibbs said. "The party didn't fight in places that it should have."

    Gibbs, who now works for McDonalds as the Global Chief Communications officer, explained that his biggest surprise was that Clinton failed so badly in Michigan, pointing out that Obama won the state by 16 points in 2008 and 10 points in 2012.

    "We have a lot of people that are going through economic strife and turmoil and the truth is we were going to elect a president who was going to represent all of those people so you got to go to those places," Gibbs said.

    He made his remarks as part of an ongoing post-election therapy session held by former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau and former senior adviser Dan Pfieffer on their Keepin' it 1600 podcast.

    Gibbs cited Bay County, Michigan - a county that was 95 percent white with a median household income of $45,000 and only four out of five people didn't have a college degree. He reminded the audience that Obama won the country by 3,000 votes in 2008, but that Clinton lost the county by 7,000 votes.

    "There's all this kind of, I think, commentary devoid of real reality that somehow there's this big racist vote that came out for Donald Trump," Gibbs said. "You talk about a 95 percent white county that voted twice for Barack Hussein Obama. They didn't become racist in the last four years."

    [Nov 19, 2016] Trump's Win, Brexit Vote Stem From Mishandling of Globalization, Obama Says

    www.wsj.com

    President Barack Obama said Wednesday that America's election of Donald Trump and the U.K.'s vote to leave the European Union reflect a political uprising in the West over economic inequities spawned by leaders' mishandling of globalization.

    [Nov 19, 2016] Globalizations Last Gasp by Barry Eichengreen

    Notable quotes:
    "... Already, motor-vehicle manufacturers ship an automotive transmission back and forth across the US-Mexican border several times in the course of production. At some point, unpacking that production process still further will reach the point of diminishing returns. ..."
    "... The story for cross-border flows of financial capital is even more dramatic. Gross capital flows – the sum of inflows and outflows – are not just growing more slowly; they are down significantly in absolute terms from 2009 levels. ..."
    "... ... cross-border bank lending and borrowing that have fallen. Foreign direct investment – financial flows to build foreign factories and acquire foreign companies – remains at pre-crisis levels. ..."
    "... This difference reflects regulation. Having concluded, rightly, that cross-border bank lending is especially risky, regulators clamped down on banks' international operations. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.project-syndicate.org

    Does Donald Trump's election as United States president mean that globalization is dead, or are reports of the process' demise greatly exaggerated? If globalization is only partly incapacitated, not terminally ill, should we worry? How much will slower trade growth, now in the offing, matter for the global economy?

    World trade growth would be slowing down, even without Trump in office. Its growth was already flat in the first quarter of 2016, and it fell by nearly 1% in the second quarter. This continues a prior trend: since 2010, global trade has grown at an annual rate of barely 2%. Together with the fact that worldwide production of goods and services has been rising by more than 3%, this means that the trade-to-GDP ratio has been falling, in contrast to its steady upward march in earlier years.

    ... the resurgent protectionism manifest in popular opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),

    Causality in economics may be elusive, but in this case it is clear. So far, slower trade growth has been the result of slower GDP growth, not the other way around.

    This is particularly evident in the case of investment spending, which has fallen sharply since the global financial crisis. Investment spending is trade-intensive, because countries rely disproportionately on a relatively small handful of producers, like Germany, for technologically sophisticated capital goods.

    In addition, slower trade growth reflects China's economic deceleration. Until 2011 China was growing at double-digit rates, and Chinese exports and imports were growing even faster. China's growth has now slowed by a third, leading to slower growth of Chinese trade.

    China's growth miracle, benefiting a fifth of the earth's population, is the most important economic event of the last quarter-century. But it can happen only once. And now that the phase of catch-up growth is over for China, this engine of global trade will slow.

    The other engine of world trade has been global supply chains. Trade in parts and components has benefited from falling transport costs, reflecting containerization and related advances in logistics. But efficiency in shipping is unlikely to continue to improve faster than efficiency in the production of what is being shipped. Already, motor-vehicle manufacturers ship an automotive transmission back and forth across the US-Mexican border several times in the course of production. At some point, unpacking that production process still further will reach the point of diminishing returns.

    The story for cross-border flows of financial capital is even more dramatic. Gross capital flows – the sum of inflows and outflows – are not just growing more slowly; they are down significantly in absolute terms from 2009 levels.

    ... cross-border bank lending and borrowing that have fallen. Foreign direct investment – financial flows to build foreign factories and acquire foreign companies – remains at pre-crisis levels.

    This difference reflects regulation. Having concluded, rightly, that cross-border bank lending is especially risky, regulators clamped down on banks' international operations.

    In response, many banks curtailed their cross-border business. But, rather than alarming anyone, this should be seen as reassuring, because the riskiest forms of international finance have been curtailed without disrupting more stable and productive forms of foreign investment.

    We now face the prospect of the US government revoking the Dodd-Frank Act and rolling back the financial reforms of recent years. Less stringent financial regulation may make for the recovery of international capital flows. But we should be careful what we wish for.

    [Nov 18, 2016] Meet Mike Pompeo, The New Director Of The CIA

    Notable quotes:
    "... Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. ..."
    "... Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran. ..."
    "... He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot Act from its inception through late last year. ..."
    "... He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its support of conservative candidates. ..."
    "... Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker. ..."
    "... Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear weapons program. ..."
    "... Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. ..."
    "... When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because Obama was up for re-election. ..."
    "... Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them. ..."
    "... Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer. ..."
    "... If Trump is smart he will engage detente with the Russians at the expense of all of his war mongering staff. ..."
    "... Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets. ..."
    "... The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly. For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately. He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period. ..."
    "... Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. ..."
    "... The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all the world to see. ..."
    "... Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Moments after Donald Trump offered the Attorney General spot to senator Jeff Sessions (which he promptly accepted), it was announced that Trump had also picked rep. Mike Pompeo as CIA director, who likewise accepted.

    Trump has offered position of CIA director to US Rep Mike Pompeo and Pompeo has accepted -transition official

    - Steve Holland (@steveholland1) November 18, 2016

    The selection of Pompeo, a three-term Republican from Wichita, started earlier this week when he met with Donald Trump, according to the president-elect's transition team. Now we know what the meetings were about. Courtesy of McClatchy , here is profile of the new director of America's top spy agency:

    * * *

    Pompeo originally supported Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's presidential bid. Like most of his Kansas colleagues, Pompeo backed Trump when it was clear the New York real-estate developer would become the Republican presidential nominee, though not enthusiastically.

    But Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.

    The most prominent Kansas elected official to endorse Trump early on was Secretary of State Kris Kobach, now a member of the Trump transition team and a possible candidate for U.S. Attorney General.

    Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and recently defeated Rep. Tim Huelskamp are both potential picks for agriculture secretary.

    Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran.

    He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot Act from its inception through late last year.

    He's a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and Harvard Law School. He's also a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    Pompeo, who grew up in the traditionally Republican enclave of Orange County, California, founded Thayer Aerospace, a company that made parts for commercial and military aircraft. After selling Thayer, he became president of Sentry International, a company that manufactures and sells equipment used in oil fields.

    He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its support of conservative candidates.

    Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker.

    Earlier this year, he briefly flirted with a primary challenge to Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran after the state's junior senator appeared to break with Senate Republican opposition to Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland.

    Joe Romance, an associate professor of political science at Fort Hays State University, said it makes sense for Pompeo to consider a job in the executive branch, given the way the stage is set from Kansas to Washington in the next several years.

    "He's ambitious," Romance said. "Jerry Moran just got reelected. Roberts is not up until 2020. So where do you need to move? And I don't think Ryan's going anywhere as speaker. So why not?"

    Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear weapons program.

    In February, Pompeo and two of his Republican House colleagues unsuccessfully sought visas to monitor the country's elections.

    When Iran detained a group of American sailors earlier whose ship had wandered into its territorial waters earlier this year, Pompeo introduced a bill requiring the Obama administration to investigate whether Iran violated the Geneva Convention. It didn't become law. The sailors were not harmed, and the Navy later concluded that the sailors had entered Iran's waters by mistake.

    Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. The special panel was created in 2014 to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. One of its key targets was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on whose watch the attack had occurred.

    When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because Obama was up for re-election.

    "Officials at the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," Pompeo and Jordan wrote. "With the presidential election just 56 days away, rather than tell the American people the truth and increase the risk of losing an election, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly."

    Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them.

    "When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in the last 20 years come overwhelmingly from people of a single faith, and are performed in the name of that faith, a special obligation falls on those that are the leaders of that faith," Pompeo said. " Instead of responding, silence has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit in these acts and more importantly still, in those that may well follow."

    But last month, three militiamen were arrested in western Kansas in an alleged plot to blow up an apartment complex that's home to Somali Muslim refugees.

    Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said statements like Pompeo's were detrimental to policies that keep all Americans safe.

    "We believe it's counterproductive to our nation's safety and security because they will act based on their faulty perceptions of Muslims and Islam," Hooper said, "and will not carry out policies based on accurate and balanced information."


    wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:25 AM ,
    I'm stunned by this....bulk collection proponent?
    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:30 AM ,
    Yep... Like all the rest that pass through the "revolving doors" of D.C. he'll feather his nest and continue "killing some folks" and "torturing some folks".

    Only not in Syria or Ukraine -that is for certain!

    wildbad -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 8:33 AM ,
    some of his opinions are concerning but a quick bio read in wikipedia showed some pretty well reasoned unorthodox stances.

    he's not a global warming sycophant, nor particularly doctrinaire in things energy. but a bulk collection fan..I was really hoping for someone with a track record of following the fourth amendment.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:42 AM ,
    Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer.

    We'll know these cocksuckers are sincere when they tell us the truth about the "riches of bakken oil" is 10 years and not 100 and that the systemic looting operation in the ME using our military is counter productive given the tradeoff of war with the Russians and the accumulated debt to fund our misadventures that will never find a buyer!

    Only time will tell.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:56 AM ,
    On the road less travelled.

    And why February of 2014 changed the calculus of everything including Russia's participation in the booting out of NATO from Syria. https://southfront.org/us-experts-offer-donald-trump-3-steps-for-normali...

    If Trump is smart he will engage detente with the Russians at the expense of all of his war mongering staff.

    Joe Davola -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 9:25 AM ,
    Let me preface this by saying I find bulk collection totally an affront to the constitution, however "private" companies already have bulk collection in place. It's only the slightest catalyst from there to the government requiring the companies hand over all that data. I'm surprised people advocate for bulk data openly, when they know the hurdle to cross to access private databases is very low. And that whole shooter's phone charade where Apple "stood up" to the FBI was so much bluster when both sides likely already had the capability that they claimed not to have.
    swmnguy -> Joe Davola, Nov 18, 2016 9:32 AM ,
    The "hurdle" is even lower than you state. The only "hurdle" is whether they can openly use that data in court. They already have it all. All the data goes through collection "checkpoints."
    Billy the Poet -> joeyman9, Nov 18, 2016 9:54 AM ,
    Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets.

    This is why I would have preferred seeing Hillary win despite the fact that I voted for Trump. It felt like a con and a con it was, apparently.

    lucitanian -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:22 AM ,
    When was it anything but a con. Madness, when you keep doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. The deep state has you suckered, and you still think its the land of the free. Reality is relative to your perception. Its an extension of what you want to believe. You live with your delusions, no one elses.
    froze25 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:02 AM ,
    Nice we can all be deluded together. I don't mind this choice its not for the CIA director to decide what is constitutional or not, that is for the Supreme court so we the people must challenge the collection and use of the collected data in the Supreme court. The CIA director is to obey the Law as it is presented to him.
    new game -> froze25, Nov 18, 2016 11:08 AM ,
    obey the Law

    lol

    Mr. Bones -> froze25, Nov 18, 2016 12:49 PM ,
    That's not how the CIA works. They do a mea culpa, then 10 years later the same mea culpa. The spooks were behind torture and secret prisons during the Bush admin, they're behind the not torture that doesn't happen in prisons that we don't admit to. Only the language changed. We all pretend to be offended when we find out that unspeakable acts are being committed in our names, or we deny it - that's been working for the left for 2 terms.
    PTR -> Mr. Bones, Nov 18, 2016 1:30 PM ,
    Yes, that's what's done to us. One via the Corporate, the other via the State. No lube, though.
    The Merovingian -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:10 AM ,
    The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly. For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately. He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period.

    Time will tell on this. If his appointments start going apeshit like OBungler's did, then we have a real problem. For individual citizens the choice is clear, hope for the best and keep planning for the worst, which is what I've been doing for the last 12 years+. If you and your family are not prepared for some major disruptions to your way of life and basic daily sustenance, then you better get on it.

    Lastly, the deep state is NEVER going away either. Not even sure they can be curbed. I honestly don't have an answer for that one yet except to be prepared to completely and totally unplug from everything, and become 'invisible, passive and benign' to the system itself at some point.

    Creepy Lurker -> The Merovingian, Nov 18, 2016 11:45 AM ,
    I logged in to thank you for this Voice Of Reason post. I don't know just what people expected. Was he supposed to start appointing random biker dudes to cabinet posts? Come on. To some extent one must work with the system if one is to have any hope of making changes to it.

    Like baba looey keeps saying, let the man work, FFS.

    Seer -> Creepy Lurker, Nov 18, 2016 12:35 PM ,

    Do people demand a really just system? Well, we'll arrange it so that they'll be satisfied with one that's a little less unjust ... They want a revolution, and we'll give them reforms -- lots of reforms; we'll drown them in reforms. Or rather, we'll drown them in promises of reforms, because we'll never give them real ones either!!

    DARIO FO, Accidental Death of an Anarchist

    Blankone -> The Merovingian, Nov 18, 2016 11:55 AM ,
    Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. But Trump's supporters are ok with it because it is "their guy" doing it, just like the Dems/liberals/whatever were ok with Obama shredding the constitution and killing hundreds of thousands because Obama was "their guy".

    The velvet glove will come off soon and you will only have the iron fist.

    Yes We Can. But... -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:30 AM ,
    With HRC22, I"d get about 2% of what I'd want.

    With Trump, perhaps 60%. I'm happy with that, and will try not to bitch about the 40%.

    Don't get me wrong... Putting HRC in a coffin, is a wonderful thing... But my sensibilities tell me that 'DRAINING A SWAMP' is too much of a task for Donald Trump (or anyone else)...

    f_s

    stacking12321 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:28 AM ,
    I almost agree with you about Hillary, would have been sweet to see the economy collapse on her watch instead of trumps.

    But with Hillary the risk of ww3 would be imminent.

    WordSmith2013 -> stacking12321, Nov 18, 2016 11:03 AM ,
    MP tore up Hillary during Benghazigate.

    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=57032

    Mike Pompeo destroys Hillary Clinton during prime time!
    Seer -> stacking12321, Nov 18, 2016 12:40 PM ,
    Not sure if it's going to be "sweet." For sure, though, it's going to collapse. ALL empires collapse (regardless of ideology/religion/leadership).
    madmax1965 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:32 AM ,
    Drain the swamp indeed! I can't believe people thought the Donald would change anything! Same shit different color(literally and figuratively) douchebags!
    PT -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:26 AM ,
    Billy: Who is going to help Trump drain the swamp? The current swamp monsters? Why would they want to ruin their own home? That was always the problem.

    Either way, I am glad he got in. You knew you were going nowhere with Hillary. If Trump fails then he will prove that outsiders are no good either. The election started out looking like insider vs insider - Clinton vs Bush. That was a good reason for all the voters to stay home, or to write "Me" or "None of the Above" on their ballots - for those who had paper ballots.

    If Trump was a Conspiracy then his job was to make the plebs think they had a choice, to drag them to the voting booth, to create the illusion of legitimacy for the new government. If Trump can not change anything then the next "outsider" will have to put on an even bigger show and let us remember, this election will be a hard act to follow. My biggest fear is post-election amnesia, everything is already forgotten, let alone remembered in four years time. Is Wikileaks still chugging away? Where is that fantastic leak that would supposedly send Hillary straight to jail? What came of the Podesta emails? Are his spirits truly cooked? Are all the FBI investigations to be forgotten? Come the next election, are we really going to see crimes greater than the Comet Pizza allegations bubble to the surface? If the alleged crimes of the past year, and especially the last month or week, are forgotten, does that mean they were simply elaborate theatre? Will people remember this past year and, come the next election, declare "Well, look what happened in 2016! If that meant nothing, then how on earth could any other news mean anything? Refuse to participate in the show."

    The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all the world to see.

    Worst thing about this election? I paid attention. Politicians lie, especially in the lead up to an election. Everything they say can be safely ignored. Damn shame I got sucked into paying attention to this one - for the first time in my life. But now, in order to gain the attention of people who think like me, the next election will have to have theatrics of an order of magnitude greater than this one. Scary, eh! ;)

    TruthHammer -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:39 AM ,
    Not every pick trump makes it going to please everyone. Trump is a hardliner on fighting Terrorism, that means you aren't going to get Assange/Snowden love-ins, or someone trying to destroy the intelligence overreach of the US. Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one.

    The guy is Half-TeaParty, with NeoCon leanings towards fighting terrorism. Trump is going to be libertarian on War and Interventionism, but Neo-Con on Islamic Terror.

    None of that has to do with "not draining the swamp"

    Seer -> TruthHammer, Nov 18, 2016 12:48 PM ,
    Perfect example of why all this SHIT is going to continue! Terrorism is an idea. It is the PERFECT tool for govts to exert control.

    "Islamic Terror?" CIA started it all and the western propaganda machine has churned it into something that morons suck up.

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke101109.html
    Argentumentum -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    You can ELECT but not SELECT - Trump to Israelis: Together we will stand up to Iran. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=141817

    If voting could change anything ... it would be illegal. Emma Goldman

    How many times will the monkeys push the button before they realize they never get the banana?

    Big Brother -> joeyman9, Nov 18, 2016 12:42 PM ,
    Thanks, man. Big Brother loves you too.
    VinceFostersGhost -> BennyBoy, Nov 18, 2016 10:55 AM ,

    he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them.

    Huh.....really?

    Chris Dakota -> BennyBoy, Nov 18, 2016 1:09 PM ,
    ...

    Neocon Invasion of Team Trump Fully Underway Trump must stop neocon takeover of his administration Wayne Madsen

    The purge of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie loyalists from the Donald Trump presidential transition team has little to do with Christie's Bridgegate scandal and everything to do with a battle between Bush-era neoconservatives and national security realists for control over key departments of the Trump administration.

    It appears that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner , the publisher of the New York Observer and someone who is aligned with the Likud Party of Israel, is now the de facto chair of the Trump transition team , especially when it comes to national security matters.

    Vice President-elect Mike Pence, the official chairman of the team, is concentrating on domestic policy appointments, such as the rumored appointment of Texas Senator Ted Cruz as Attorney General.

    Kushner fired Christie and Christie loyalist, former House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers, from the transition team and replaced them with the discredited neocon Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy.

    It is likely that Gaffney will seek to bring a host of neocons who championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq into the Trump administration.

    Also fired was Matthew Freedman, another Christie loyalist. Kushner never liked Christie because as a federal prosecutor in north Jersey, Christie successfully prosecuted Kushner's father, real estate tycoon Charles Kushner, who received a prison sentence at Christie's urging.

    Where one finds the likes of Gaffney, former CIA director James Woolsey, also a member of the Trump transition team, and John Bolton, rumored to be in consideration for Secretary of State or deputy Secretary of State, one will find the other neocons who drove the United States into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    These include Richard Perle, who claimed U.S. troops invading Iraq would be met with Iraqis throwing "flowers and candy." This editor wrote the following about Perle's fatuous claim in a March 31, 2003, article for CounterPunch: "Perle's military experience does not permit him to distinguish between flowers and candy and bullets and mortar rounds."

    There is someone far more sinister than Gaffney, Bolton, and Perle chomping at the bit to join the new administration.

    Wayne Madsen Reports has learned from multiple knowledgeable sources that the proponent of neo-fascism, Michael Ledeen, is working closely with former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, to ensure that as many neocons from the Bush 43 and Reagan eras find senior positions in the Trump administration.

    Flynn co-authored a book with Ledeen that was released in July and titled, "The Field of Flight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies."

    The book represents typical neocon pabulum more than it does realism.

    In July, Kushner's Observer, unsurprisingly, published a five-star review of the book.

    Flynn, who distinguished himself admirably by suggesting that the Obama administration was coddling the Islamic State and its allied jihadists in Syria, appears not to recognize that it has long been the desire of neocons like Ledeen, Perle, Woolsey, and Bolton to divide the Arab nation-states into warring factions so that Israel can hold ultimate sway over the entire Middle East.

    Breitbart launched his site in 2007 from Jerusalem, its a Mossad front.

    Most of the posters in the begining were Jews and Christian Zionists. They started to use white nationalists during the primary like they used them in Ukraine, then purged.

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/11/Screen-Shot-2015-11-17-at-09.04...

    I was struck by this photo of Ivanka in cocktail attire, or fox news chick look. She is being used as a distraction for the Jap guys.

    https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_small/public...

    YHC-FTSE -> Chris Dakota, Nov 18, 2016 1:25 PM ,
    +1 Once I saw the zionists rubbing shoulders in the thicket of Trump's cabinet, I was hoping for a 50/50 split. But I dare say the zionist neocons' takeover is complete. Mike Pompous-Ass is pure MIC through and through (See Thayer Aerospace).

    Another zionist cunt with Israel-first mentality whose only dubious virutes are hatred of muslims and Hillary.

    Zero change in domestic and foreign intelligence policies from Hitlery who was planning to go to war with Iran by way of war against the Russo-Syrian alliance.

    Any stupid fucker who is a proponent of blanket surveillance is a fucking traitor to every values in individual freedom and rights that I hold dear.

    BullyBearish -> Chris Dakota, Nov 18, 2016 1:32 PM ,
    The non-Semitic majority of Israel want to demonize the true Semitics (Arabs) by disparaging Islam in order to steal their land and its resources. Since they cannot or do not want to do all of the killing themselves, they use Christians to do their dirty work. The US Christian political leaders (e.g. Pence/Pompeo) have been targetted by Israel:

    One of the keys to AIPAC's success is its education arm, the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF). AIEF sponsors trips to Israel for Members of Congress and their staffs, and uses these trips generally relay Likud's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In all, AIEF spent $2,035,233 sponsoring congressional trips to Israel in 2011, according to data my blog, Republic Report , gathered through the Legistorm database. In contrast, the more moderate Israel lobby J Street - which launched in 2008 to provide an alternative to AIPAC's hawkish advocacy - spent only $45,954 on congressional trips to Israel. J Street's trips, included more extensive meetings with Palestinians and Israeli human rights groups. Which means that J Street was, in this area, outspent by a factor of 44: 1 in 2011. Republic Report has plotted this data into the following chart:

    Look at the itinerary (requires free registration with Legistorm) of a nine-day, $20,000 AIEF trip Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) took in August 2011. During his trip, Pompeo was treated to meals, information sessions, tours, and other activities with mostly hawkish high-ranking Israeli officials, academics, and non-profit leaders. The sessions included "Terror from Gaza and Sinai" and "Hamas Next Door." During the nine days, only an hour was spent with Palestinian officials, with a short meeting scheduled in with Salam Fayyad, a Palestinian Authority Prime Minister widely viewed as highly sympathetic to the Israeli government.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> Joe Davola, Nov 18, 2016 9:41 AM ,
    J D

    What you say is in fact true. But it's the "coordination" that takes place between government and industry with that information that is lethal. When NSA "cherry picks" and manipulates that date to remove it's "rivals" (perceived or otherwise) and uses the Justice Department acting as the "stick", you know anything becomes possible!

    Seer -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 12:49 PM ,
    Power corrupts.

    [Nov 18, 2016] Meet Mike Pompeo, The New Director Of The CIA

    Notable quotes:
    "... Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. ..."
    "... Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran. ..."
    "... He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot Act from its inception through late last year. ..."
    "... He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its support of conservative candidates. ..."
    "... Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker. ..."
    "... Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear weapons program. ..."
    "... Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. ..."
    "... When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because Obama was up for re-election. ..."
    "... Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them. ..."
    "... Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer. ..."
    "... If Trump is smart he will engage detente with the Russians at the expense of all of his war mongering staff. ..."
    "... Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets. ..."
    "... The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly. For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately. He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period. ..."
    "... Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. ..."
    "... The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all the world to see. ..."
    "... Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Moments after Donald Trump offered the Attorney General spot to senator Jeff Sessions (which he promptly accepted), it was announced that Trump had also picked rep. Mike Pompeo as CIA director, who likewise accepted.

    Trump has offered position of CIA director to US Rep Mike Pompeo and Pompeo has accepted -transition official

    - Steve Holland (@steveholland1) November 18, 2016

    The selection of Pompeo, a three-term Republican from Wichita, started earlier this week when he met with Donald Trump, according to the president-elect's transition team. Now we know what the meetings were about. Courtesy of McClatchy , here is profile of the new director of America's top spy agency:

    * * *

    Pompeo originally supported Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's presidential bid. Like most of his Kansas colleagues, Pompeo backed Trump when it was clear the New York real-estate developer would become the Republican presidential nominee, though not enthusiastically.

    But Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.

    The most prominent Kansas elected official to endorse Trump early on was Secretary of State Kris Kobach, now a member of the Trump transition team and a possible candidate for U.S. Attorney General.

    Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and recently defeated Rep. Tim Huelskamp are both potential picks for agriculture secretary.

    Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran.

    He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot Act from its inception through late last year.

    He's a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and Harvard Law School. He's also a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    Pompeo, who grew up in the traditionally Republican enclave of Orange County, California, founded Thayer Aerospace, a company that made parts for commercial and military aircraft. After selling Thayer, he became president of Sentry International, a company that manufactures and sells equipment used in oil fields.

    He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its support of conservative candidates.

    Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker.

    Earlier this year, he briefly flirted with a primary challenge to Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran after the state's junior senator appeared to break with Senate Republican opposition to Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland.

    Joe Romance, an associate professor of political science at Fort Hays State University, said it makes sense for Pompeo to consider a job in the executive branch, given the way the stage is set from Kansas to Washington in the next several years.

    "He's ambitious," Romance said. "Jerry Moran just got reelected. Roberts is not up until 2020. So where do you need to move? And I don't think Ryan's going anywhere as speaker. So why not?"

    Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear weapons program.

    In February, Pompeo and two of his Republican House colleagues unsuccessfully sought visas to monitor the country's elections.

    When Iran detained a group of American sailors earlier whose ship had wandered into its territorial waters earlier this year, Pompeo introduced a bill requiring the Obama administration to investigate whether Iran violated the Geneva Convention. It didn't become law. The sailors were not harmed, and the Navy later concluded that the sailors had entered Iran's waters by mistake.

    Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. The special panel was created in 2014 to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. One of its key targets was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on whose watch the attack had occurred.

    When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because Obama was up for re-election.

    "Officials at the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," Pompeo and Jordan wrote. "With the presidential election just 56 days away, rather than tell the American people the truth and increase the risk of losing an election, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly."

    Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them.

    "When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in the last 20 years come overwhelmingly from people of a single faith, and are performed in the name of that faith, a special obligation falls on those that are the leaders of that faith," Pompeo said. " Instead of responding, silence has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit in these acts and more importantly still, in those that may well follow."

    But last month, three militiamen were arrested in western Kansas in an alleged plot to blow up an apartment complex that's home to Somali Muslim refugees.

    Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said statements like Pompeo's were detrimental to policies that keep all Americans safe.

    "We believe it's counterproductive to our nation's safety and security because they will act based on their faulty perceptions of Muslims and Islam," Hooper said, "and will not carry out policies based on accurate and balanced information."


    wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:25 AM ,
    I'm stunned by this....bulk collection proponent?
    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:30 AM ,
    Yep... Like all the rest that pass through the "revolving doors" of D.C. he'll feather his nest and continue "killing some folks" and "torturing some folks".

    Only not in Syria or Ukraine -that is for certain!

    wildbad -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 8:33 AM ,
    some of his opinions are concerning but a quick bio read in wikipedia showed some pretty well reasoned unorthodox stances.

    he's not a global warming sycophant, nor particularly doctrinaire in things energy. but a bulk collection fan..I was really hoping for someone with a track record of following the fourth amendment.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:42 AM ,
    Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer.

    We'll know these cocksuckers are sincere when they tell us the truth about the "riches of bakken oil" is 10 years and not 100 and that the systemic looting operation in the ME using our military is counter productive given the tradeoff of war with the Russians and the accumulated debt to fund our misadventures that will never find a buyer!

    Only time will tell.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:56 AM ,
    On the road less travelled.

    And why February of 2014 changed the calculus of everything including Russia's participation in the booting out of NATO from Syria. https://southfront.org/us-experts-offer-donald-trump-3-steps-for-normali...

    If Trump is smart he will engage detente with the Russians at the expense of all of his war mongering staff.

    Joe Davola -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 9:25 AM ,
    Let me preface this by saying I find bulk collection totally an affront to the constitution, however "private" companies already have bulk collection in place. It's only the slightest catalyst from there to the government requiring the companies hand over all that data. I'm surprised people advocate for bulk data openly, when they know the hurdle to cross to access private databases is very low. And that whole shooter's phone charade where Apple "stood up" to the FBI was so much bluster when both sides likely already had the capability that they claimed not to have.
    swmnguy -> Joe Davola, Nov 18, 2016 9:32 AM ,
    The "hurdle" is even lower than you state. The only "hurdle" is whether they can openly use that data in court. They already have it all. All the data goes through collection "checkpoints."
    Billy the Poet -> joeyman9, Nov 18, 2016 9:54 AM ,
    Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets.

    This is why I would have preferred seeing Hillary win despite the fact that I voted for Trump. It felt like a con and a con it was, apparently.

    lucitanian -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:22 AM ,
    When was it anything but a con. Madness, when you keep doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. The deep state has you suckered, and you still think its the land of the free. Reality is relative to your perception. Its an extension of what you want to believe. You live with your delusions, no one elses.
    froze25 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:02 AM ,
    Nice we can all be deluded together. I don't mind this choice its not for the CIA director to decide what is constitutional or not, that is for the Supreme court so we the people must challenge the collection and use of the collected data in the Supreme court. The CIA director is to obey the Law as it is presented to him.
    new game -> froze25, Nov 18, 2016 11:08 AM ,
    obey the Law

    lol

    Mr. Bones -> froze25, Nov 18, 2016 12:49 PM ,
    That's not how the CIA works. They do a mea culpa, then 10 years later the same mea culpa. The spooks were behind torture and secret prisons during the Bush admin, they're behind the not torture that doesn't happen in prisons that we don't admit to. Only the language changed. We all pretend to be offended when we find out that unspeakable acts are being committed in our names, or we deny it - that's been working for the left for 2 terms.
    PTR -> Mr. Bones, Nov 18, 2016 1:30 PM ,
    Yes, that's what's done to us. One via the Corporate, the other via the State. No lube, though.
    The Merovingian -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:10 AM ,
    The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly. For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately. He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period.

    Time will tell on this. If his appointments start going apeshit like OBungler's did, then we have a real problem. For individual citizens the choice is clear, hope for the best and keep planning for the worst, which is what I've been doing for the last 12 years+. If you and your family are not prepared for some major disruptions to your way of life and basic daily sustenance, then you better get on it.

    Lastly, the deep state is NEVER going away either. Not even sure they can be curbed. I honestly don't have an answer for that one yet except to be prepared to completely and totally unplug from everything, and become 'invisible, passive and benign' to the system itself at some point.

    Creepy Lurker -> The Merovingian, Nov 18, 2016 11:45 AM ,
    I logged in to thank you for this Voice Of Reason post. I don't know just what people expected. Was he supposed to start appointing random biker dudes to cabinet posts? Come on. To some extent one must work with the system if one is to have any hope of making changes to it.

    Like baba looey keeps saying, let the man work, FFS.

    Seer -> Creepy Lurker, Nov 18, 2016 12:35 PM ,

    Do people demand a really just system? Well, we'll arrange it so that they'll be satisfied with one that's a little less unjust ... They want a revolution, and we'll give them reforms -- lots of reforms; we'll drown them in reforms. Or rather, we'll drown them in promises of reforms, because we'll never give them real ones either!!

    DARIO FO, Accidental Death of an Anarchist

    Blankone -> The Merovingian, Nov 18, 2016 11:55 AM ,
    Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. But Trump's supporters are ok with it because it is "their guy" doing it, just like the Dems/liberals/whatever were ok with Obama shredding the constitution and killing hundreds of thousands because Obama was "their guy".

    The velvet glove will come off soon and you will only have the iron fist.

    Yes We Can. But... -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:30 AM ,
    With HRC22, I"d get about 2% of what I'd want.

    With Trump, perhaps 60%. I'm happy with that, and will try not to bitch about the 40%.

    Don't get me wrong... Putting HRC in a coffin, is a wonderful thing... But my sensibilities tell me that 'DRAINING A SWAMP' is too much of a task for Donald Trump (or anyone else)...

    f_s

    stacking12321 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:28 AM ,
    I almost agree with you about Hillary, would have been sweet to see the economy collapse on her watch instead of trumps.

    But with Hillary the risk of ww3 would be imminent.

    WordSmith2013 -> stacking12321, Nov 18, 2016 11:03 AM ,
    MP tore up Hillary during Benghazigate.

    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=57032

    Mike Pompeo destroys Hillary Clinton during prime time!
    Seer -> stacking12321, Nov 18, 2016 12:40 PM ,
    Not sure if it's going to be "sweet." For sure, though, it's going to collapse. ALL empires collapse (regardless of ideology/religion/leadership).
    madmax1965 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:32 AM ,
    Drain the swamp indeed! I can't believe people thought the Donald would change anything! Same shit different color(literally and figuratively) douchebags!
    PT -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:26 AM ,
    Billy: Who is going to help Trump drain the swamp? The current swamp monsters? Why would they want to ruin their own home? That was always the problem.

    Either way, I am glad he got in. You knew you were going nowhere with Hillary. If Trump fails then he will prove that outsiders are no good either. The election started out looking like insider vs insider - Clinton vs Bush. That was a good reason for all the voters to stay home, or to write "Me" or "None of the Above" on their ballots - for those who had paper ballots.

    If Trump was a Conspiracy then his job was to make the plebs think they had a choice, to drag them to the voting booth, to create the illusion of legitimacy for the new government. If Trump can not change anything then the next "outsider" will have to put on an even bigger show and let us remember, this election will be a hard act to follow. My biggest fear is post-election amnesia, everything is already forgotten, let alone remembered in four years time. Is Wikileaks still chugging away? Where is that fantastic leak that would supposedly send Hillary straight to jail? What came of the Podesta emails? Are his spirits truly cooked? Are all the FBI investigations to be forgotten? Come the next election, are we really going to see crimes greater than the Comet Pizza allegations bubble to the surface? If the alleged crimes of the past year, and especially the last month or week, are forgotten, does that mean they were simply elaborate theatre? Will people remember this past year and, come the next election, declare "Well, look what happened in 2016! If that meant nothing, then how on earth could any other news mean anything? Refuse to participate in the show."

    The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all the world to see.

    Worst thing about this election? I paid attention. Politicians lie, especially in the lead up to an election. Everything they say can be safely ignored. Damn shame I got sucked into paying attention to this one - for the first time in my life. But now, in order to gain the attention of people who think like me, the next election will have to have theatrics of an order of magnitude greater than this one. Scary, eh! ;)

    TruthHammer -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:39 AM ,
    Not every pick trump makes it going to please everyone. Trump is a hardliner on fighting Terrorism, that means you aren't going to get Assange/Snowden love-ins, or someone trying to destroy the intelligence overreach of the US. Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one.

    The guy is Half-TeaParty, with NeoCon leanings towards fighting terrorism. Trump is going to be libertarian on War and Interventionism, but Neo-Con on Islamic Terror.

    None of that has to do with "not draining the swamp"

    Seer -> TruthHammer, Nov 18, 2016 12:48 PM ,
    Perfect example of why all this SHIT is going to continue! Terrorism is an idea. It is the PERFECT tool for govts to exert control.

    "Islamic Terror?" CIA started it all and the western propaganda machine has churned it into something that morons suck up.

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke101109.html
    Argentumentum -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    You can ELECT but not SELECT - Trump to Israelis: Together we will stand up to Iran. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=141817

    If voting could change anything ... it would be illegal. Emma Goldman

    How many times will the monkeys push the button before they realize they never get the banana?

    Big Brother -> joeyman9, Nov 18, 2016 12:42 PM ,
    Thanks, man. Big Brother loves you too.
    VinceFostersGhost -> BennyBoy, Nov 18, 2016 10:55 AM ,

    he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them.

    Huh.....really?

    Chris Dakota -> BennyBoy, Nov 18, 2016 1:09 PM ,
    ...

    Neocon Invasion of Team Trump Fully Underway Trump must stop neocon takeover of his administration Wayne Madsen

    The purge of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie loyalists from the Donald Trump presidential transition team has little to do with Christie's Bridgegate scandal and everything to do with a battle between Bush-era neoconservatives and national security realists for control over key departments of the Trump administration.

    It appears that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner , the publisher of the New York Observer and someone who is aligned with the Likud Party of Israel, is now the de facto chair of the Trump transition team , especially when it comes to national security matters.

    Vice President-elect Mike Pence, the official chairman of the team, is concentrating on domestic policy appointments, such as the rumored appointment of Texas Senator Ted Cruz as Attorney General.

    Kushner fired Christie and Christie loyalist, former House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers, from the transition team and replaced them with the discredited neocon Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy.

    It is likely that Gaffney will seek to bring a host of neocons who championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq into the Trump administration.

    Also fired was Matthew Freedman, another Christie loyalist. Kushner never liked Christie because as a federal prosecutor in north Jersey, Christie successfully prosecuted Kushner's father, real estate tycoon Charles Kushner, who received a prison sentence at Christie's urging.

    Where one finds the likes of Gaffney, former CIA director James Woolsey, also a member of the Trump transition team, and John Bolton, rumored to be in consideration for Secretary of State or deputy Secretary of State, one will find the other neocons who drove the United States into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    These include Richard Perle, who claimed U.S. troops invading Iraq would be met with Iraqis throwing "flowers and candy." This editor wrote the following about Perle's fatuous claim in a March 31, 2003, article for CounterPunch: "Perle's military experience does not permit him to distinguish between flowers and candy and bullets and mortar rounds."

    There is someone far more sinister than Gaffney, Bolton, and Perle chomping at the bit to join the new administration.

    Wayne Madsen Reports has learned from multiple knowledgeable sources that the proponent of neo-fascism, Michael Ledeen, is working closely with former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, to ensure that as many neocons from the Bush 43 and Reagan eras find senior positions in the Trump administration.

    Flynn co-authored a book with Ledeen that was released in July and titled, "The Field of Flight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies."

    The book represents typical neocon pabulum more than it does realism.

    In July, Kushner's Observer, unsurprisingly, published a five-star review of the book.

    Flynn, who distinguished himself admirably by suggesting that the Obama administration was coddling the Islamic State and its allied jihadists in Syria, appears not to recognize that it has long been the desire of neocons like Ledeen, Perle, Woolsey, and Bolton to divide the Arab nation-states into warring factions so that Israel can hold ultimate sway over the entire Middle East.

    Breitbart launched his site in 2007 from Jerusalem, its a Mossad front.

    Most of the posters in the begining were Jews and Christian Zionists. They started to use white nationalists during the primary like they used them in Ukraine, then purged.

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/11/Screen-Shot-2015-11-17-at-09.04...

    I was struck by this photo of Ivanka in cocktail attire, or fox news chick look. She is being used as a distraction for the Jap guys.

    https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_small/public...

    YHC-FTSE -> Chris Dakota, Nov 18, 2016 1:25 PM ,
    +1 Once I saw the zionists rubbing shoulders in the thicket of Trump's cabinet, I was hoping for a 50/50 split. But I dare say the zionist neocons' takeover is complete. Mike Pompous-Ass is pure MIC through and through (See Thayer Aerospace).

    Another zionist cunt with Israel-first mentality whose only dubious virutes are hatred of muslims and Hillary.

    Zero change in domestic and foreign intelligence policies from Hitlery who was planning to go to war with Iran by way of war against the Russo-Syrian alliance.

    Any stupid fucker who is a proponent of blanket surveillance is a fucking traitor to every values in individual freedom and rights that I hold dear.

    BullyBearish -> Chris Dakota, Nov 18, 2016 1:32 PM ,
    The non-Semitic majority of Israel want to demonize the true Semitics (Arabs) by disparaging Islam in order to steal their land and its resources. Since they cannot or do not want to do all of the killing themselves, they use Christians to do their dirty work. The US Christian political leaders (e.g. Pence/Pompeo) have been targetted by Israel:

    One of the keys to AIPAC's success is its education arm, the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF). AIEF sponsors trips to Israel for Members of Congress and their staffs, and uses these trips generally relay Likud's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In all, AIEF spent $2,035,233 sponsoring congressional trips to Israel in 2011, according to data my blog, Republic Report , gathered through the Legistorm database. In contrast, the more moderate Israel lobby J Street - which launched in 2008 to provide an alternative to AIPAC's hawkish advocacy - spent only $45,954 on congressional trips to Israel. J Street's trips, included more extensive meetings with Palestinians and Israeli human rights groups. Which means that J Street was, in this area, outspent by a factor of 44: 1 in 2011. Republic Report has plotted this data into the following chart:

    Look at the itinerary (requires free registration with Legistorm) of a nine-day, $20,000 AIEF trip Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) took in August 2011. During his trip, Pompeo was treated to meals, information sessions, tours, and other activities with mostly hawkish high-ranking Israeli officials, academics, and non-profit leaders. The sessions included "Terror from Gaza and Sinai" and "Hamas Next Door." During the nine days, only an hour was spent with Palestinian officials, with a short meeting scheduled in with Salam Fayyad, a Palestinian Authority Prime Minister widely viewed as highly sympathetic to the Israeli government.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> Joe Davola, Nov 18, 2016 9:41 AM ,
    J D

    What you say is in fact true. But it's the "coordination" that takes place between government and industry with that information that is lethal. When NSA "cherry picks" and manipulates that date to remove it's "rivals" (perceived or otherwise) and uses the Justice Department acting as the "stick", you know anything becomes possible!

    Seer -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 12:49 PM ,
    Power corrupts.

    [Nov 18, 2016] I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia. (My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.) ..."
    "... IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU. ..."
    "... 'Obama Urges Trump to Maintain Pointless, Hyper-Aggresive Encirclement of Russia Strategy, Acknowledge Nuclear Apocalypse "Inevitable"' ..."
    "... In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office. ..."
    "... The good people of the US are awaiting DHS' final report on Russia's attempts to hack our elections. We deserve as much. ..."
    "... If there's any basis to the allegations it's about time someone provided it. Up till now it's been unfounded assertions. Highly suspect at that. ..."
    "... My guess is the whole Russian boogeyman was a ploy to attract those "moderate Republicans" who liked Romney. ..."
    "... "My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow exactly our approach." ..."
    "... Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international norms ..."
    "... Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things like that without vomiting? ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Pat November 17, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia. (My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.)

    IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU.

    Which I am sure he will do once everyone recognizes that that is the appropriate thing to do. But as we well know everyone else will have to do the heavy lifting of figuring that out before he will even acknowledge the possibility.

    Katharine November 17, 2016 at 3:26 pm

    The Guardian headline struck me as hilarious:

    Obama urges Trump against realpolitik in relations with Russia
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/17/obama-urges-trump-against-realpolitik-in-relations-with-russia

    I mean, we can't have people actually taking our real interests into consideration in foreign relations, can we? That would be so–unexceptional.

    JSM November 17, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    Why not make it affirmative?

    'Obama Urges Trump to Maintain Pointless, Hyper-Aggresive Encirclement of Russia Strategy, Acknowledge Nuclear Apocalypse "Inevitable"'

    Knot Galt November 17, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office.

    In this case, Obama is probably too vain and Michelle being the saner of the two might rein him in? Best of any world would, as you say, STFU. (As the Ex Prez. Obamamometer, that is probably not in the cards.)

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL November 18, 2016 at 12:28 am

    Maybe he will end up like Geo Bush, sitting in the bathtub drooling while he paints childish self-portraits
    Or maybe he will end up like OJ, where he tries to go hang out with all his cool friends and they tell him to get lost

    Adamski November 18, 2016 at 5:18 am

    Ppl still mention him as a master orator, etc. Lots of post presidency speaking engagements I suppose. I'd prefer him not to but then again if he makes enough annually from it to beat the Clintons we might get the satisfaction of annoying them

    JTMcPhee November 17, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    "legal bases in foreign nations " Another reason why "we" are Fokked, thinking like that.

    JSM November 17, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    The good people of the US are awaiting DHS' final report on Russia's attempts to hack our elections. We deserve as much.

    Steve C November 17, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    If there's any basis to the allegations it's about time someone provided it. Up till now it's been unfounded assertions. Highly suspect at that.

    NotTimothyGeithner November 17, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    My guess is the whole Russian boogeyman was a ploy to attract those "moderate Republicans" who liked Romney.

    timbers November 17, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    "My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow exactly our approach." What Obama is saying is he wants Russia to join America in bombing hospitals, schools, children, doctors, public facilities like water treatment plants, bridges, weddings, homes, and civilians to list just few – while arming and supporting terrorists for regime change. And if anyone points this out, Russia like the US is supposed to say "I know you are but what am I?"

    RMO November 17, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international norms

    Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things like that without vomiting?

    Lemmy November 17, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Is this the same Russia that just hacked our election and subverted our fine democracy? Why, President Obama, I believe it behooves you to stand up to Russia yourself. Show President-Elect Trump how it is done sir!

    [Nov 18, 2016] Former US Intelligence Chief Admits Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support ISIS Rise

    Notable quotes:
    "... "US votes against UN resolution condemning Nazism": http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/11/18/494118/US-UN-Russia-Nazi ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    From The Hague | Nov 18, 2016 7:06:06 AM | 64

    THIS IS "CHANGE"

    The successor of Susan Rice:

    Hasan (Interviewer) (From 11.15 onwards into the interview): "In 2012, your agency was saying, quote: "The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in Iraq [(which ISIS arose out of)], are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." In 2012, the US was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups. Why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise of Islamic extremism?"

    Flynn: "Well I hate to say it's not my job, but my job was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be, and I will tell you, it goes before 2012. When we were in Iraq, and we still had decisions to be made before there was a decision to pull out of Iraq in 2011, it was very clear what we were going to face."

    Hasan (Interviewer): You are basically saying that even in government at the time, you knew those groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?"

    Flynn: "I think the administration."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"

    Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?"

    Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing."

    Former US Intelligence Chief Admits Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support ISIS Rise

    http://journal-neo.org/2015/08/13/former-us-intelligence-chief-admits-obama-took-willful-decision-to-support-isis-rise/

    POL | Nov 18, 2016 7:25:33 AM | 65

    Obama support nazis at the UN:

    "US votes against UN resolution condemning Nazism": http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/11/18/494118/US-UN-Russia-Nazi

    [Nov 18, 2016] Meet Mike Pompeo, The New Director Of The CIA

    Notable quotes:
    "... Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. ..."
    "... Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran. ..."
    "... He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot Act from its inception through late last year. ..."
    "... He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its support of conservative candidates. ..."
    "... Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker. ..."
    "... Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear weapons program. ..."
    "... Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. ..."
    "... When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because Obama was up for re-election. ..."
    "... Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them. ..."
    "... Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer. ..."
    "... If Trump is smart he will engage detente with the Russians at the expense of all of his war mongering staff. ..."
    "... Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets. ..."
    "... The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly. For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately. He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period. ..."
    "... Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. ..."
    "... The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all the world to see. ..."
    "... Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Moments after Donald Trump offered the Attorney General spot to senator Jeff Sessions (which he promptly accepted), it was announced that Trump had also picked rep. Mike Pompeo as CIA director, who likewise accepted.

    Trump has offered position of CIA director to US Rep Mike Pompeo and Pompeo has accepted -transition official

    - Steve Holland (@steveholland1) November 18, 2016

    The selection of Pompeo, a three-term Republican from Wichita, started earlier this week when he met with Donald Trump, according to the president-elect's transition team. Now we know what the meetings were about. Courtesy of McClatchy , here is profile of the new director of America's top spy agency:

    * * *

    Pompeo originally supported Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's presidential bid. Like most of his Kansas colleagues, Pompeo backed Trump when it was clear the New York real-estate developer would become the Republican presidential nominee, though not enthusiastically.

    But Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.

    The most prominent Kansas elected official to endorse Trump early on was Secretary of State Kris Kobach, now a member of the Trump transition team and a possible candidate for U.S. Attorney General.

    Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and recently defeated Rep. Tim Huelskamp are both potential picks for agriculture secretary.

    Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran.

    He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot Act from its inception through late last year.

    He's a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and Harvard Law School. He's also a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    Pompeo, who grew up in the traditionally Republican enclave of Orange County, California, founded Thayer Aerospace, a company that made parts for commercial and military aircraft. After selling Thayer, he became president of Sentry International, a company that manufactures and sells equipment used in oil fields.

    He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its support of conservative candidates.

    Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker.

    Earlier this year, he briefly flirted with a primary challenge to Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran after the state's junior senator appeared to break with Senate Republican opposition to Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland.

    Joe Romance, an associate professor of political science at Fort Hays State University, said it makes sense for Pompeo to consider a job in the executive branch, given the way the stage is set from Kansas to Washington in the next several years.

    "He's ambitious," Romance said. "Jerry Moran just got reelected. Roberts is not up until 2020. So where do you need to move? And I don't think Ryan's going anywhere as speaker. So why not?"

    Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear weapons program.

    In February, Pompeo and two of his Republican House colleagues unsuccessfully sought visas to monitor the country's elections.

    When Iran detained a group of American sailors earlier whose ship had wandered into its territorial waters earlier this year, Pompeo introduced a bill requiring the Obama administration to investigate whether Iran violated the Geneva Convention. It didn't become law. The sailors were not harmed, and the Navy later concluded that the sailors had entered Iran's waters by mistake.

    Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. The special panel was created in 2014 to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. One of its key targets was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on whose watch the attack had occurred.

    When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because Obama was up for re-election.

    "Officials at the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," Pompeo and Jordan wrote. "With the presidential election just 56 days away, rather than tell the American people the truth and increase the risk of losing an election, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly."

    Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them.

    "When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in the last 20 years come overwhelmingly from people of a single faith, and are performed in the name of that faith, a special obligation falls on those that are the leaders of that faith," Pompeo said. " Instead of responding, silence has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit in these acts and more importantly still, in those that may well follow."

    But last month, three militiamen were arrested in western Kansas in an alleged plot to blow up an apartment complex that's home to Somali Muslim refugees.

    Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said statements like Pompeo's were detrimental to policies that keep all Americans safe.

    "We believe it's counterproductive to our nation's safety and security because they will act based on their faulty perceptions of Muslims and Islam," Hooper said, "and will not carry out policies based on accurate and balanced information."


    wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:25 AM ,
    I'm stunned by this....bulk collection proponent?
    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:30 AM ,
    Yep... Like all the rest that pass through the "revolving doors" of D.C. he'll feather his nest and continue "killing some folks" and "torturing some folks".

    Only not in Syria or Ukraine -that is for certain!

    wildbad -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 8:33 AM ,
    some of his opinions are concerning but a quick bio read in wikipedia showed some pretty well reasoned unorthodox stances.

    he's not a global warming sycophant, nor particularly doctrinaire in things energy. but a bulk collection fan..I was really hoping for someone with a track record of following the fourth amendment.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:42 AM ,
    Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer.

    We'll know these cocksuckers are sincere when they tell us the truth about the "riches of bakken oil" is 10 years and not 100 and that the systemic looting operation in the ME using our military is counter productive given the tradeoff of war with the Russians and the accumulated debt to fund our misadventures that will never find a buyer!

    Only time will tell.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:56 AM ,
    On the road less travelled.

    And why February of 2014 changed the calculus of everything including Russia's participation in the booting out of NATO from Syria. https://southfront.org/us-experts-offer-donald-trump-3-steps-for-normali...

    If Trump is smart he will engage detente with the Russians at the expense of all of his war mongering staff.

    Joe Davola -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 9:25 AM ,
    Let me preface this by saying I find bulk collection totally an affront to the constitution, however "private" companies already have bulk collection in place. It's only the slightest catalyst from there to the government requiring the companies hand over all that data. I'm surprised people advocate for bulk data openly, when they know the hurdle to cross to access private databases is very low. And that whole shooter's phone charade where Apple "stood up" to the FBI was so much bluster when both sides likely already had the capability that they claimed not to have.
    swmnguy -> Joe Davola, Nov 18, 2016 9:32 AM ,
    The "hurdle" is even lower than you state. The only "hurdle" is whether they can openly use that data in court. They already have it all. All the data goes through collection "checkpoints."
    Billy the Poet -> joeyman9, Nov 18, 2016 9:54 AM ,
    Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets.

    This is why I would have preferred seeing Hillary win despite the fact that I voted for Trump. It felt like a con and a con it was, apparently.

    lucitanian -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:22 AM ,
    When was it anything but a con. Madness, when you keep doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. The deep state has you suckered, and you still think its the land of the free. Reality is relative to your perception. Its an extension of what you want to believe. You live with your delusions, no one elses.
    froze25 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:02 AM ,
    Nice we can all be deluded together. I don't mind this choice its not for the CIA director to decide what is constitutional or not, that is for the Supreme court so we the people must challenge the collection and use of the collected data in the Supreme court. The CIA director is to obey the Law as it is presented to him.
    new game -> froze25, Nov 18, 2016 11:08 AM ,
    obey the Law

    lol

    Mr. Bones -> froze25, Nov 18, 2016 12:49 PM ,
    That's not how the CIA works. They do a mea culpa, then 10 years later the same mea culpa. The spooks were behind torture and secret prisons during the Bush admin, they're behind the not torture that doesn't happen in prisons that we don't admit to. Only the language changed. We all pretend to be offended when we find out that unspeakable acts are being committed in our names, or we deny it - that's been working for the left for 2 terms.
    PTR -> Mr. Bones, Nov 18, 2016 1:30 PM ,
    Yes, that's what's done to us. One via the Corporate, the other via the State. No lube, though.
    The Merovingian -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:10 AM ,
    The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly. For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately. He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period.

    Time will tell on this. If his appointments start going apeshit like OBungler's did, then we have a real problem. For individual citizens the choice is clear, hope for the best and keep planning for the worst, which is what I've been doing for the last 12 years+. If you and your family are not prepared for some major disruptions to your way of life and basic daily sustenance, then you better get on it.

    Lastly, the deep state is NEVER going away either. Not even sure they can be curbed. I honestly don't have an answer for that one yet except to be prepared to completely and totally unplug from everything, and become 'invisible, passive and benign' to the system itself at some point.

    Creepy Lurker -> The Merovingian, Nov 18, 2016 11:45 AM ,
    I logged in to thank you for this Voice Of Reason post. I don't know just what people expected. Was he supposed to start appointing random biker dudes to cabinet posts? Come on. To some extent one must work with the system if one is to have any hope of making changes to it.

    Like baba looey keeps saying, let the man work, FFS.

    Seer -> Creepy Lurker, Nov 18, 2016 12:35 PM ,

    Do people demand a really just system? Well, we'll arrange it so that they'll be satisfied with one that's a little less unjust ... They want a revolution, and we'll give them reforms -- lots of reforms; we'll drown them in reforms. Or rather, we'll drown them in promises of reforms, because we'll never give them real ones either!!

    DARIO FO, Accidental Death of an Anarchist

    Blankone -> The Merovingian, Nov 18, 2016 11:55 AM ,
    Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. But Trump's supporters are ok with it because it is "their guy" doing it, just like the Dems/liberals/whatever were ok with Obama shredding the constitution and killing hundreds of thousands because Obama was "their guy".

    The velvet glove will come off soon and you will only have the iron fist.

    Yes We Can. But... -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:30 AM ,
    With HRC22, I"d get about 2% of what I'd want.

    With Trump, perhaps 60%. I'm happy with that, and will try not to bitch about the 40%.

    Don't get me wrong... Putting HRC in a coffin, is a wonderful thing... But my sensibilities tell me that 'DRAINING A SWAMP' is too much of a task for Donald Trump (or anyone else)...

    f_s

    stacking12321 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:28 AM ,
    I almost agree with you about Hillary, would have been sweet to see the economy collapse on her watch instead of trumps.

    But with Hillary the risk of ww3 would be imminent.

    WordSmith2013 -> stacking12321, Nov 18, 2016 11:03 AM ,
    MP tore up Hillary during Benghazigate.

    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=57032

    Mike Pompeo destroys Hillary Clinton during prime time!
    Seer -> stacking12321, Nov 18, 2016 12:40 PM ,
    Not sure if it's going to be "sweet." For sure, though, it's going to collapse. ALL empires collapse (regardless of ideology/religion/leadership).
    madmax1965 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:32 AM ,
    Drain the swamp indeed! I can't believe people thought the Donald would change anything! Same shit different color(literally and figuratively) douchebags!
    PT -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:26 AM ,
    Billy: Who is going to help Trump drain the swamp? The current swamp monsters? Why would they want to ruin their own home? That was always the problem.

    Either way, I am glad he got in. You knew you were going nowhere with Hillary. If Trump fails then he will prove that outsiders are no good either. The election started out looking like insider vs insider - Clinton vs Bush. That was a good reason for all the voters to stay home, or to write "Me" or "None of the Above" on their ballots - for those who had paper ballots.

    If Trump was a Conspiracy then his job was to make the plebs think they had a choice, to drag them to the voting booth, to create the illusion of legitimacy for the new government. If Trump can not change anything then the next "outsider" will have to put on an even bigger show and let us remember, this election will be a hard act to follow. My biggest fear is post-election amnesia, everything is already forgotten, let alone remembered in four years time. Is Wikileaks still chugging away? Where is that fantastic leak that would supposedly send Hillary straight to jail? What came of the Podesta emails? Are his spirits truly cooked? Are all the FBI investigations to be forgotten? Come the next election, are we really going to see crimes greater than the Comet Pizza allegations bubble to the surface? If the alleged crimes of the past year, and especially the last month or week, are forgotten, does that mean they were simply elaborate theatre? Will people remember this past year and, come the next election, declare "Well, look what happened in 2016! If that meant nothing, then how on earth could any other news mean anything? Refuse to participate in the show."

    The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all the world to see.

    Worst thing about this election? I paid attention. Politicians lie, especially in the lead up to an election. Everything they say can be safely ignored. Damn shame I got sucked into paying attention to this one - for the first time in my life. But now, in order to gain the attention of people who think like me, the next election will have to have theatrics of an order of magnitude greater than this one. Scary, eh! ;)

    TruthHammer -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:39 AM ,
    Not every pick trump makes it going to please everyone. Trump is a hardliner on fighting Terrorism, that means you aren't going to get Assange/Snowden love-ins, or someone trying to destroy the intelligence overreach of the US. Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one.

    The guy is Half-TeaParty, with NeoCon leanings towards fighting terrorism. Trump is going to be libertarian on War and Interventionism, but Neo-Con on Islamic Terror.

    None of that has to do with "not draining the swamp"

    Seer -> TruthHammer, Nov 18, 2016 12:48 PM ,
    Perfect example of why all this SHIT is going to continue! Terrorism is an idea. It is the PERFECT tool for govts to exert control.

    "Islamic Terror?" CIA started it all and the western propaganda machine has churned it into something that morons suck up.

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke101109.html
    Argentumentum -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    You can ELECT but not SELECT - Trump to Israelis: Together we will stand up to Iran. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=141817

    If voting could change anything ... it would be illegal. Emma Goldman

    How many times will the monkeys push the button before they realize they never get the banana?

    Big Brother -> joeyman9, Nov 18, 2016 12:42 PM ,
    Thanks, man. Big Brother loves you too.
    VinceFostersGhost -> BennyBoy, Nov 18, 2016 10:55 AM ,

    he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them.

    Huh.....really?

    Chris Dakota -> BennyBoy, Nov 18, 2016 1:09 PM ,
    ...

    Neocon Invasion of Team Trump Fully Underway Trump must stop neocon takeover of his administration Wayne Madsen

    The purge of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie loyalists from the Donald Trump presidential transition team has little to do with Christie's Bridgegate scandal and everything to do with a battle between Bush-era neoconservatives and national security realists for control over key departments of the Trump administration.

    It appears that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner , the publisher of the New York Observer and someone who is aligned with the Likud Party of Israel, is now the de facto chair of the Trump transition team , especially when it comes to national security matters.

    Vice President-elect Mike Pence, the official chairman of the team, is concentrating on domestic policy appointments, such as the rumored appointment of Texas Senator Ted Cruz as Attorney General.

    Kushner fired Christie and Christie loyalist, former House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers, from the transition team and replaced them with the discredited neocon Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy.

    It is likely that Gaffney will seek to bring a host of neocons who championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq into the Trump administration.

    Also fired was Matthew Freedman, another Christie loyalist. Kushner never liked Christie because as a federal prosecutor in north Jersey, Christie successfully prosecuted Kushner's father, real estate tycoon Charles Kushner, who received a prison sentence at Christie's urging.

    Where one finds the likes of Gaffney, former CIA director James Woolsey, also a member of the Trump transition team, and John Bolton, rumored to be in consideration for Secretary of State or deputy Secretary of State, one will find the other neocons who drove the United States into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    These include Richard Perle, who claimed U.S. troops invading Iraq would be met with Iraqis throwing "flowers and candy." This editor wrote the following about Perle's fatuous claim in a March 31, 2003, article for CounterPunch: "Perle's military experience does not permit him to distinguish between flowers and candy and bullets and mortar rounds."

    There is someone far more sinister than Gaffney, Bolton, and Perle chomping at the bit to join the new administration.

    Wayne Madsen Reports has learned from multiple knowledgeable sources that the proponent of neo-fascism, Michael Ledeen, is working closely with former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, to ensure that as many neocons from the Bush 43 and Reagan eras find senior positions in the Trump administration.

    Flynn co-authored a book with Ledeen that was released in July and titled, "The Field of Flight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies."

    The book represents typical neocon pabulum more than it does realism.

    In July, Kushner's Observer, unsurprisingly, published a five-star review of the book.

    Flynn, who distinguished himself admirably by suggesting that the Obama administration was coddling the Islamic State and its allied jihadists in Syria, appears not to recognize that it has long been the desire of neocons like Ledeen, Perle, Woolsey, and Bolton to divide the Arab nation-states into warring factions so that Israel can hold ultimate sway over the entire Middle East.

    Breitbart launched his site in 2007 from Jerusalem, its a Mossad front.

    Most of the posters in the begining were Jews and Christian Zionists. They started to use white nationalists during the primary like they used them in Ukraine, then purged.

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/11/Screen-Shot-2015-11-17-at-09.04...

    I was struck by this photo of Ivanka in cocktail attire, or fox news chick look. She is being used as a distraction for the Jap guys.

    https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_small/public...

    YHC-FTSE -> Chris Dakota, Nov 18, 2016 1:25 PM ,
    +1 Once I saw the zionists rubbing shoulders in the thicket of Trump's cabinet, I was hoping for a 50/50 split. But I dare say the zionist neocons' takeover is complete. Mike Pompous-Ass is pure MIC through and through (See Thayer Aerospace).

    Another zionist cunt with Israel-first mentality whose only dubious virutes are hatred of muslims and Hillary.

    Zero change in domestic and foreign intelligence policies from Hitlery who was planning to go to war with Iran by way of war against the Russo-Syrian alliance.

    Any stupid fucker who is a proponent of blanket surveillance is a fucking traitor to every values in individual freedom and rights that I hold dear.

    BullyBearish -> Chris Dakota, Nov 18, 2016 1:32 PM ,
    The non-Semitic majority of Israel want to demonize the true Semitics (Arabs) by disparaging Islam in order to steal their land and its resources. Since they cannot or do not want to do all of the killing themselves, they use Christians to do their dirty work. The US Christian political leaders (e.g. Pence/Pompeo) have been targetted by Israel:

    One of the keys to AIPAC's success is its education arm, the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF). AIEF sponsors trips to Israel for Members of Congress and their staffs, and uses these trips generally relay Likud's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In all, AIEF spent $2,035,233 sponsoring congressional trips to Israel in 2011, according to data my blog, Republic Report , gathered through the Legistorm database. In contrast, the more moderate Israel lobby J Street - which launched in 2008 to provide an alternative to AIPAC's hawkish advocacy - spent only $45,954 on congressional trips to Israel. J Street's trips, included more extensive meetings with Palestinians and Israeli human rights groups. Which means that J Street was, in this area, outspent by a factor of 44: 1 in 2011. Republic Report has plotted this data into the following chart:

    Look at the itinerary (requires free registration with Legistorm) of a nine-day, $20,000 AIEF trip Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) took in August 2011. During his trip, Pompeo was treated to meals, information sessions, tours, and other activities with mostly hawkish high-ranking Israeli officials, academics, and non-profit leaders. The sessions included "Terror from Gaza and Sinai" and "Hamas Next Door." During the nine days, only an hour was spent with Palestinian officials, with a short meeting scheduled in with Salam Fayyad, a Palestinian Authority Prime Minister widely viewed as highly sympathetic to the Israeli government.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> Joe Davola, Nov 18, 2016 9:41 AM ,
    J D

    What you say is in fact true. But it's the "coordination" that takes place between government and industry with that information that is lethal. When NSA "cherry picks" and manipulates that date to remove it's "rivals" (perceived or otherwise) and uses the Justice Department acting as the "stick", you know anything becomes possible!

    Seer -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 12:49 PM ,
    Power corrupts.

    [Nov 18, 2016] Ellison is a dud, Bernie tweets support for Schumer theres nobody I know better prepared and more capable of leading our caucus than Chuck Schumer -- Well theres a good

    Nov 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    chunder maker in that statement eh? Hope dashed! jo6pac November 17, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    Lambert you were on to something when you mention his twitter account.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/17/the-skeletons-in-keith-ellisons-display-case/

    I know my Muslim friends would never want to hurt anyone but this guy is as crazy as hillabillie.

    cocomaan November 17, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    Support for Syria and Libya interventions? Gross. No thanks.

    Who else do we got? Wait this is it? WHAT?!!

    uncle tungsten November 18, 2016 at 7:25 am

    Ellison is a dud, Bernie tweets support for Schumer "there's nobody I know better prepared and more capable of leading our caucus than Chuck Schumer"!
    Well there's a good chunder maker in that statement eh? Hope dashed!

    There are no doubt many who are better informed, more progressive and principled, more remote from Wall Street and oligarchic capture than Chuck Schumer and Ellison. So there you have it – this is reform in the Democrats after a crushing defeat.

    Vale democrats, and now the journey becomes arduous with these voices to smother hope. A new party is urgently needed (I know how difficult that is) and these voices of the old machine need to be ignored for the sake of sanity.

    [Nov 18, 2016] A very conservative butcher bill of US neocons that does not include the wounded, the homeless, the refugees, or the cost of the wars to you, who continue to believe that before Trump the world was a nice and comfortable place -- for you Dear Americans

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem to believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious safety and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me, a mirror does not lie. ..."
    "... https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter ..."
    "... Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to repeat history to assured extinction. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Killary PAC | Nov 17, 2016 5:18:20 PM | 33

    Dear Americans,

    I understand some of you are very worried about the election of Donald Trump. But I want you think about this:

    1. First they went for Yugoslavia, and you didn't worry: a country died
    2. Then they went for Afghanistan and you didn't worry: 220,000 Afghans have died.
    3. Then, they went for Iraq, and you didn't worry: 1 million Iraqis died.
    4. Then they went for Libya, and you didn't worry: 30,000 to 50,000 people died. Did you worry when Qaddafi was murdered with a bayonet up his rectum? No. And someone even laughed.
    5. Then they went for Ukraine, and you didn't worry: 10,000 people died and are dying.
    6. Then they went for Syria, and you didn't worry: 250,000 people died
    7. Then they went for Yemen: over 6,000 Yemenis have been killed and another 27,000 wounded. According to the UN, most of them are civilians. Ten million Yemenis don't have enough to eat, and 13 million have no access to clean water. Yemen is highly dependent on imported food, but a U.S.-Saudi blockade has choked off most imports. The war is ongoing.
    8. Then there is Somalia , and you don't worry

    Then there are the countries that reaped the fallout from the collapse of Libya. Weapons looted after the fall of Gaddafi fuel the wars in Mali, Niger, and the Central African Republic.

    Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem to believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious safety and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me, a mirror does not lie.

    Sincerely,

    One who does not worry about you.

    PS By the way the butcher bill I am here presenting is very conservative on the body count and does not include the wounded, the homeless, the refugees, or the cost of the wars to you, who continue to believe that before Trump the world was a nice and comfortable place--for you.

    okie farmer | Nov 17, 2016 5:35:10 PM | 34
    https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter
    Lochearn | Nov 17, 2016 5:35:11 PM | 35
    @ 33 Great comment, but remember the tribe. French revolution, Marxism, Russian revolution, Israel, neoliberalism. I am from the hard "Grapes of Wrath" left. Marxism was a brilliant Jewish ploy to split the left, then identity politics. Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...
    psychohistorian | Nov 17, 2016 7:07:27 PM | 36
    @ Lochearn

    Nice continuation of the Killary Pac comment. I want to take it further.

    Since the Marxism ploy to split the left the folks that own private finance have developed/implemented another ploy to redirect criticism of themselves/their tools by adding goyim to the fringes of private finance to make it look like a respectable cornerstone of our "civilization".

    Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...

    Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to repeat history to assured extinction.

    stumpy | Nov 17, 2016 9:37:19 PM | 45
    @32

    Nicely done. The other image that I find humorous is the dancing W at the Dallas police killings memorial.

    Ghostship | Nov 17, 2016 10:01:11 PM | 46
    >>>>virgile | Nov 17, 2016 3:24:07 PM | 14
    The finance sector and the medias that they support are having problems digesting the 105 millions wasted on Hillary.
    No they're not - that is chicken feed to them. A few hundred dollars each out of their bonuses will cover that, perhaps the cost of a meal out.

    [Nov 18, 2016] The statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes by Bruce Wilder

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance. ..."
    "... It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. ..."
    "... When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. ..."
    "... Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. ..."
    "... It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics. ..."
    "... This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints. ..."
    "... No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence. ..."
    "... If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. ..."
    "... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30

    At the center of Great Depression politics was a political struggle over the distribution of income, a struggle that was only decisively resolved during the War, by the Great Compression. It was at center of farm policy where policymakers struggled to find ways to support farm incomes. It was at the center of industrial relations politics, where rapidly expanding unions were seeking higher industrial wages. It was at the center of banking policy, where predatory financial practices were under attack. It was at the center of efforts to regulate electric utility rates and establish public power projects. And, everywhere, the clear subtext was a struggle between rich and poor, the economic royalists as FDR once called them and everyone else.

    FDR, an unmistakeable patrician in manner and pedigree, was leading a not-quite-revolutionary politics, which was nevertheless hostile to and suspicious of business elites, as a source of economic pathology. The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance.

    It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle.

    In retrospect, though the New Deal did use direct employment as a means of relief to good effect economically and politically, it never undertook anything like a Keynesian stimulus on a Keynesian scale - at least until the War.

    Where the New Deal witnessed the institution of an elaborate system of financial repression, accomplished in large part by imposing on the financial sector an explicitly mandated structure, with types of firms and effective limits on firm size and scope, a series of regulatory reforms and financial crises beginning with Carter and Reagan served to wipe this structure away.

    When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup.

    I don't know what considerations guided Obama in choosing the size of the stimulus or its composition (as spending and tax cuts). Larry Summers was identified at the time as a voice of caution, not "gambling", but not much is known about his detailed reasoning in severely trimming Christina Romer's entirely conventional calculations. (One consideration might well have been worldwide resource shortages, which had made themselves felt in 2007-8 as an inflationary spike in commodity prices.) I do not see a case for connecting stimulus size policy to the health care reform. At the time the stimulus was proposed, the Administration had also been considering whether various big banks and other financial institutions should be nationalized, forced to insolvency or otherwise restructured as part of a regulatory reform.

    Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. Accelerating the financialization of the economy from 1999 on made New York and Washington rich, but the same economic policies and process were devastating the Rust Belt as de-industrialization. They were two aspects of the same complex of economic trends and policies. The rise of China as a manufacturing center was, in critical respects, a financial operation within the context of globalized trade that made investment in new manufacturing plant in China, as part of globalized supply chains and global brand management, (arguably artificially) low-risk and high-profit, while reinvestment in manufacturing in the American mid-west became unattractive, except as a game of extracting tax subsidies or ripping off workers.

    It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics.

    It is conceding too many good intentions to the Obama Administration to tie an inadequate stimulus to a Rube Goldberg health care reform as the origin story for the final debacle of Democratic neoliberal politics. There was a delicate balancing act going on, but they were not balancing the recovery of the economy in general so much as they were balancing the recovery from insolvency of a highly inefficient and arguably predatory financial sector, which was also not incidentally financing the institutional core of the Democratic Party and staffing many key positions in the Administration and in the regulatory apparatus.

    This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints.

    No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence.

    bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:33 pm ( 31 )

    The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying.

    Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.

    likbez 11.18.16 at 4:48 pm 121

    bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30

    Great comment. Simply great. Hat tip to the author !

    Notable quotes:

    "… The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance. …"

    "… It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. …"

    "… When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. … "

    "… Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. …"

    "… It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics. …"

    "… This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints. …"

    "… No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence. …"

    "… If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. …"

    "… Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. …"

    [Nov 18, 2016] Flinn has been criticized by US neocon circles for refusing to take an anti-Russian stance

    www.moonofalabama.org
    x | Nov 18, 2016 7:30:36 AM | 66

    "President-elect Donald Trump has named retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as his new national security adviser, according to a close source. The former DIA chief has been criticized in US circles for refusing to take an anti-Russian stance."

    https://www.rt.com/usa/367375-trump-flynn-national-adviser/

    POL | Nov 18, 2016 7:50:32 AM | 67
    Obama going full speed with anti-russian tour in the EU, he seems to do everything to block Russia/US peace.
    https://www.rt.com/news/367381-obama-eu-sanctions-russia/

    [Nov 18, 2016] A "Grand Bargain" on Immigration Reform - The Unz Review

    Ethnically divided population is easier to control. This is what identity politics is about...
    Notable quotes:
    "... In the year 1915 America was over 85% white, and a half-century later in 1965, that same 85% ratio still nearly applied. But partly due to the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of that year, America's demographics changed very rapidly over the following five decades. By 2015 there had been a 700% increase in the total number of Hispanics and Asians and the black population was nearly 100% larger, while the number of (non-Hispanic) whites had grown less than 25%, with much of even that small increase due to the huge influx of Middle Easterners, North Africans, and other non-European Caucasians officially classified by our U.S. Census as "white." As a consequence of these sharply divergent demographic trends, American whites have fallen to little more than 60% of the total, and are now projected to become a minority within just another generation or two, already reduced to representing barely half of all children under the age of 10. ..."
    "... The answer is that for various pragmatic and ideological reasons, the ruling elites of both our major parties have largely either ignored or publicly welcomed the demographic changes transforming the nation they jointly control. Continuous heavy immigration has long been seen as an unabashed positive both by open borders libertarians of the economically-focused Right and also by open borders multiculturalists of the socially-focused Left, and these ideological positions permeate the community of policy experts, staffers, donors, and media pundits who constitute our political ecosphere. ..."
    "... Earlier this year, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an elderly individual with unabashed socialistic views, was interviewed by Vox ..."
    "... These notions scandalized his neoliberal interlocutor, and the following day another Vox ..."
    "... Wall Street Journal ..."
    www.unz.com
    I think this one short paragraph provides a better clue to the unexpected political rise of Donald Trump than would a hundred footnoted academic articles.

    In the year 1915 America was over 85% white, and a half-century later in 1965, that same 85% ratio still nearly applied. But partly due to the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of that year, America's demographics changed very rapidly over the following five decades. By 2015 there had been a 700% increase in the total number of Hispanics and Asians and the black population was nearly 100% larger, while the number of (non-Hispanic) whites had grown less than 25%, with much of even that small increase due to the huge influx of Middle Easterners, North Africans, and other non-European Caucasians officially classified by our U.S. Census as "white." As a consequence of these sharply divergent demographic trends, American whites have fallen to little more than 60% of the total, and are now projected to become a minority within just another generation or two, already reduced to representing barely half of all children under the age of 10.

    Demographic changes so enormous and rapid on a continental scale are probably unprecedented in all human history, and our political establishment was remarkably blind for having failed to anticipate the possible popular reaction. Over the last twelve months, Donald Trump, a socially liberal New Yorker, has utilized the immigration issue to seize the GOP presidential nomination against the vehement opposition of nearly the entire Republican establishment, conservative and moderate alike, and at times his campaign has enjoyed a lead in the national polls, placing him within possible reach of the White House. Instead of wondering how a candidate came to take advantage of that particular issue, perhaps we should instead ask ourselves why it hadn't happened sooner.

    The answer is that for various pragmatic and ideological reasons, the ruling elites of both our major parties have largely either ignored or publicly welcomed the demographic changes transforming the nation they jointly control. Continuous heavy immigration has long been seen as an unabashed positive both by open borders libertarians of the economically-focused Right and also by open borders multiculturalists of the socially-focused Left, and these ideological positions permeate the community of policy experts, staffers, donors, and media pundits who constitute our political ecosphere.

    Earlier this year, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an elderly individual with unabashed socialistic views, was interviewed by Vox's Ezra Klein, and explained that "of course" heavy foreign immigration-let alone "open borders"-represented the economic dream of extreme free market libertarians such as the Koch brothers, since that policy would obviously drive down the wages of workers and greatly advantage Capital at the expense of Labor.

    These notions scandalized his neoliberal interlocutor, and the following day another Vox colleague joined in the attack, harshly denouncing the candidate's views as "ugly" and "wrongheaded," while instead pointing to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal as the proper font of progressive economic doctrine. Faced with such sharp attacks by young and influential Democratic pundits less than half his age, Sanders soon retreated from his simple statement of fact, and henceforth avoided raising the immigration issue during the remainder of his campaign.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Russia would back down in face of military force, says Donald Trump aide in line for foreign policy job

    Nov 15, 2016 | telegraph.co.uk
    The United States should threaten Russia with military force in order to contain the Kremlin's growing power on the international stage, a top candidate to become Donald Trump's Secretary of State has said.

    Rudy Giuliani, the former New York Mayor who is believed to be the front runner to head Mr Trump's State Department, made the comments at a Washington event sponsored by the Wall Street Journal .

    In quotes | The Trump - Putin relationship Putin on Trump:

    • "He is a very flamboyant man, very talented, no doubt about that He is an absolute leader of the presidential race, as we see it today. He says that he wants to move to another level of relations, to a deeper level of relations with Russia. How can we not welcome that? Of course we welcome it." - December 2015

    Trump on Putin:
    • "It is always a great honour to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond." - December 2015
    • "I think I would just get along very well with Putin. I just think so. People say what do you mean? I just think we would." - July 2015
    • "I have no relationship with [Putin] other than he called me a genius. He said Donald Trump is a genius and he is going to be the leader of the party and he's going to be the leader of the world or something. He said some good stuff about me I think I'd have a good relationship with Putin, who knows." - February 2016
    • "I have nothing to do with Putin, I have never spoken to him, I don't know anything about him, other than he will respect me." - July 2016
    • "I would treat Vladimir Putin firmly, but there's nothing I can think of that I'd rather do than have Russia friendly as opposed to how they are right now so that we can go and knock out Isis together with other people. Wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along?" - July 2016
    • "The man has very strong control over a country. It's a very different system and I don't happen to like the system, but certainly, in that system, he's been a leader." - September 2016
    • "Well I think when [Putin] called me brilliant, I'll take the compliment, okay?" - September 2016

    [Nov 16, 2016] My impression is that Donald Trump might run the government as a business, choosing people as cabinet secretaries on the basis of past experience and on what they would bring to the position, as opposed to choosing cabinet secretaries because they have been loyal yes-people

    Notable quotes:
    "... News that Trump might work 4 days a week as President, or at least work the same work week as Congress does, would suggest he plans on running a lean government. ..."
    "... A counter-argument that could be put forward is that the Presidency doesn't (and shouldn't) define the office-holder's life and the Clintons themselves are an example of what can happen if the Presidency consumes their lives ..."
    "... If it's Trump's intention to reform the political culture in Washington and make it more accountable to the public, and bring the Presidency closer to the public, then defining the maximum limits of the position on his time and sticking to them, perhaps through delegating roles and functions to his cabinet secretaries, is one path to reform. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jen, November 15, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    My impression is that Donald Trump is planning or at least thinking of running the government as a business, choosing people as cabinet secretaries on the basis of past experience and on what they would bring to the position, as opposed to choosing cabinet secretaries because they have been loyal yes-people (as Hillary Clinton would have done)

    News that Trump might work 4 days a week as President, or at least work the same work week as Congress does, would suggest he plans on running a lean government. At present the prevailing attitude among Washington insiders and the corporate media is that Trump is not really that interested in being President and isn't committed to the job 24/7.

    A counter-argument that could be put forward is that the Presidency doesn't (and shouldn't) define the office-holder's life and the Clintons themselves are an example of what can happen if the Presidency consumes their lives: it can damage the individuals and in Hillary Clinton's case, cut her off so much from ordinary people that it disqualifies her from becoming President herself.

    If it's Trump's intention to reform the political culture in Washington and make it more accountable to the public, and bring the Presidency closer to the public, then defining the maximum limits of the position on his time and sticking to them, perhaps through delegating roles and functions to his cabinet secretaries, is one path to reform.

    [Nov 16, 2016] The New Red Scare: Reviving the art of threat inflation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reviving the art of threat inflation ..."
    "... "Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate, was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis. "I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little levity." ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , November 16, 2016 at 2:51 am
    Harpers Magazine via Antiwar.com: The New Red Scare
    http://harpers.org/archive/2016/12/the-new-red-scare/?single=1

    Reviving the art of threat inflation

    By Andrew Cockburn

    "Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate, was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis. "I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little levity."

    ####

    While I do have some quibbles with the piece (RuAF pilots are getting much more than 90 hours a year flight time & equipment is overrated and unaffordable in any decent numbers), it is pretty solid.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Being now a party of Wall street, neolibral democrats did not learn the lesson and do not want to: they attempt to double down on the identity politics, keep telling the pulverized middle class how great the economy is

    Notable quotes:
    "... I know what it is like to have to juggle creditors to make it through a week. I know what it is like to have to swallow my pride and constantly dun people to pay me so that I can pay others. ..."
    "... I know what it is like to dread going to the mailbox, because there will always be new bills to pay but seldom a check with which to pay them. I know what it is like to have to tell my daughter that I didn't know if I would be able to pay for her wedding; it all depended on whether something good happened. And I know what it is like to have to borrow money from my adult daughters because my wife and I ran out of heating oil ..."
    "... Two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with the money to cover a $1,000 emergency, according to an exclusive poll released Thursday, a signal that despite years after the Great Recession, Americans' finances remain precarious as ever. ..."
    "... These difficulties span all incomes, according to the poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Three-quarters of people in households making less than $50,000 a year and two-thirds of those making between $50,000 and $100,000 would have difficulty coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill. ..."
    "... Even for the country's wealthiest 20 percent - households making more than $100,000 a year - 38 percent say they would have at least some difficulty coming up with $1,000 ..."
    "... Chronicle for Higher Education: ..."
    "... Meanwhile, 91% of all the profits generated by the U.S. economy from 2009 through 2012 went to the top 1%. As just one example, the annual bonuses (not salaries, just the bonuses) of all Wall Street financial traders last year amounted to 28 billion dollars while the total income of all minimum wage workers in America came to 14 billion dollars. ..."
    "... "Between 2009 and 2012, according to updated data from Emmanuel Saez, overall income per family grew 6.9 percent. The gains weren't shared evenly, however. The top 1 percent saw their real income grow by 34.7 percent while the bottom 99 percent only saw a 0.8 percent gain, meaning that the 1 percent captured 91 percent of all real income. ..."
    "... Adjusting for inflation and excluding anything made from capital gains investments like stocks, however, shows that even that small gains for all but the richest disappears. According to Justin Wolfers, adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100 to $968,000 in that time period. For everyone else, average income actually fell from $44,000 to $43,900. Calculated this way, the 1 percent has captured all of the income gains." ..."
    "... There actually is a logic at work in the Rust Belt voters for voted for Trump. I don't think it's good logic, but it makes sense in its own warped way. The calculation the Trump voters seem to be making in the Rust Belt is that it's better to have a job and no health insurance and no medicare and no social security, than no job but the ACA (with $7,000 deductibles you can't afford to pay for anyway) plus medicare (since most of these voters are healthy, they figure they'll never get sick) plus social security (most of these voters are not 65 or older, and probably think they'll never age - or perhaps don't believe that social security will be solvent when they do need it). ..."
    "... It's the same twisted logic that goes on with protectionism. Rust Belt workers figure that it's better to have a job and not be able to afford a Chinese-made laptop than not to have a job but plenty of cheap foreign-made widgets you could buy if you had any money (which you don't). That logic doesn't parse if you run through the economics (because protectionism will destroy the very jobs they think they're saving), but it can be sold as a tweet in a political campaign. ..."
    "... The claim "Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent to overt racism" is incomplete. Trump's coalition actually consists of 3 parts and it's highly unstable: [1] racists, [2] plutocrats, [3] working class people slammed hard by globalization for whom Democrats have done little or nothing. ..."
    "... The good news is that Trump's coalition is unstable. The plutocrats and Rust Belters are natural enemies. ..."
    "... Listen to Steve Bannon, a classic stormfront type - he says he wants to blow up both the Democratic and the Republican party. He calls himself a "Leninist" in a recent interview and vows to wreck all elite U.S. institutions (universities, giant multinationals), not just the Democratic party. ..."
    "... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    mclaren 11.16.16 at 9:52 am 7

    Eric places the blame for this loss squarely on economics, which, it seems to me, gets the analysis exactly right. And the statistics back up his analysis, I believe.

    It's disturbing and saddening to watch other left-wing websites ignore those statistics and charge off the cliff into the abyss, screaming that this election was all about racism/misogyny/homophobia/[fill in the blank with identity politics demonology of your choice]. First, the "it's all racism" analysis conveniently lets the current Democratic leadership off the hook. They didn't do anything wrong, it was those "deplorables" (half the country!) who are to blame. Second, the identity politics blame-shifting completely overlooks and short-circuits any real action to fix the economy by Democratic policymakers or Democratic politicians or the Democratic party leadership. That's particularly convenient for the Democratic leadership because these top-four-percenter professionals "promise anything and change nothing" while jetting between Davos and Martha's Vineyard, ignoring the peons who don't make $100,000 or more a year because the peons all live in flyover country.

    "Trump supporters were on average affluent, but they are always Republican and aren't numerous enough to deliver the presidency (538 has changed their view in the wake of the election result). Some point out that looking at support by income doesn't show much distinctive support for Trump among the "poor", but that's beside the point too, as it submerges a regional phenomenon in a national average, just as exit polls do. (..)
    "When commentators like Michael Moore and Thomas Frank pointed out that there was possibility for Trump in the Rust Belt they were mostly ignored or, even more improbably, accused of being apologists for racism and misogyny. But that is what Trump did, and he won. Moreover, he won with an amateurish campaign against a well-funded and politically sophisticated opponent simply because he planted his flag where others wouldn't.

    "Because of the obsession with exit polls, post-election analysis has not come to grips with the regional nature of the Trump phenomenon. Exit polls divide the general electorate based on individual attributes: race, gender, income, education, and so on, making regional distinctions invisible. Moreover, America doesn't decide the presidential election that way. It decides it based on the electoral college, which potentially makes the characteristics of individual states decisive. We should be looking at maps, not exit polls for the explanation. Low black turnout in California or high Latino turnout in Texas do not matter in the slightest in determining the election, but exit polls don't help us see that. Exit polls deliver a bunch of non-explanatory facts, in this election more than other recent ones."
    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/11/11/23174/

    "Donald Trump performed best on Tuesday in places where the economy is in worse shape, and especially in places where jobs are most at risk in the future.

    "Trump, who in his campaign pledged to be a voice for `forgotten Americans,' beat Hillary Clinton in counties with slower job growth and lower wages. And he far outperformed her in counties where more jobs are threatened by automation or offshoring, a sign that he found support not just among workers who are struggling now but among those concerned for their economic future."

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-was-stronger-where-the-economy-is-weaker/

    Meanwhile, the neoliberal Democrats made claims about the economy that at best wildly oversold the non-recovery from the 2009 global financial meltdown, and at worst flat-out misrepresented the state of the U.S. economy. For example, president Obama in his June 1 2016 speech in Elkhart Indiana, said:

    "Now, one of the reasons we're told this has been an unusual election year is because people are anxious and uncertain about the economy. And our politics are a natural place to channel that frustration. So I wanted to come to the heartland, to the Midwest, back to close to my hometown to talk about that anxiety, that economic anxiety, and what I think it means. (..) America's economy is not just better than it was eight years ago - it is the strongest, most durable economy in the world. (..) Unemployment in Elkhart has fallen to around 4 percent. (Applause.) At the peak of the crisis, nearly one in 10 homeowners in the state of Indiana were either behind on their mortgages or in foreclosure; today, it's one in 30. Back then, only 75 percent of your kids graduated from high school; tomorrow, 90 percent of them will. (Applause.) The auto industry just had its best year ever. (..) So that's progress.(..) We decided to invest in job training so that folks who lost their jobs could retool. We decided to invest in things like high-tech manufacturing and clean energy and infrastructure, so that entrepreneurs wouldn't just bring back the jobs that we had lost, but create new and better jobs By almost every economic measure, America is better off than when I came here at the beginning of my presidency. That's the truth. That's true. (Applause.) It's true. (Applause.) Over the past six years, our businesses have created more than 14 million new jobs - that's the longest stretch of consecutive private sector job growth in our history. We've seen the first sustained manufacturing growth since the 1990s."

    None of this is true. Not is a substantive sense, not in the sense of being accurate, not in the sense of reflecting the facts on the ground for real working people who don't fly their private jets to Davos.

    The claim that "America's economy is the strongest and most durable economy in the world" is just plain false. China has a much higher growth rate, at 6.9% nearly triple the U.S.'s - and America's GDP growth is trending to historic long-term lows, and still falling. Take a look at this chart of the Federal Reserve board's projections of U.S. GDP growth since 2009 compared with the real GDP growth rate:

    http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/2015-03-2.png

    "[In the survey] [t]he Fed asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all. Four hundred dollars! Who knew?

    "Well, I knew. I knew because I am in that 47 percent.

    " I know what it is like to have to juggle creditors to make it through a week. I know what it is like to have to swallow my pride and constantly dun people to pay me so that I can pay others. I know what it is like to have liens slapped on me and to have my bank account levied by creditors. I know what it is like to be down to my last $5-literally-while I wait for a paycheck to arrive, and I know what it is like to subsist for days on a diet of eggs.

    I know what it is like to dread going to the mailbox, because there will always be new bills to pay but seldom a check with which to pay them. I know what it is like to have to tell my daughter that I didn't know if I would be able to pay for her wedding; it all depended on whether something good happened. And I know what it is like to have to borrow money from my adult daughters because my wife and I ran out of heating oil ."

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/

    " Two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with the money to cover a $1,000 emergency, according to an exclusive poll released Thursday, a signal that despite years after the Great Recession, Americans' finances remain precarious as ever.

    " These difficulties span all incomes, according to the poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Three-quarters of people in households making less than $50,000 a year and two-thirds of those making between $50,000 and $100,000 would have difficulty coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill.

    " Even for the country's wealthiest 20 percent - households making more than $100,000 a year - 38 percent say they would have at least some difficulty coming up with $1,000 .

    "`The more we learn about the balance sheets of Americans, it becomes quite alarming,' said Caroline Ratcliffe, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute focusing on poverty and emergency savings issues."

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/965e48ed609245539ed315f83e01b6a2

    The rest of Obama's statistics are deceptive to the point of being dissimulations - unemployment has dropped to 4 percent because so many people have stopped looking for work and moved into their parents' basements that the Bureau of Labor Statistics no longer counts them as unemployed. Meanwhile, the fraction of working-age adults who are not in the workforce has skyrocketed to an all-time high. Few homeowners are now being foreclosed in 2016 compared to 2009 because the people in 2009 who were in financial trouble all lost their homes. Only rich people and well-off professionals were able to keep their homes through the 2009 financial collapse. Since 2009, businesses did indeed create 14 million new jobs - mostly low-wage junk jobs, part-time minimum-wage jobs that don't pay a living wage.

    "The deep recession wiped out primarily high-wage and middle-wage jobs. Yet the strongest employment growth during the sluggish recovery has been in low-wage work, at places like strip malls and fast-food restaurants.

    "In essence, the poor economy has replaced good jobs with bad ones."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-has-created-far-more-low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html

    And the jobs market isn't much better for highly-educated workers:

    New research released Monday says nearly half of the nation's recent college graduates work jobs that don't require a degree.

    The report, from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, concludes that while college-educated Americans are less likely to collect unemployment, many of the jobs they do have aren't worth the price of their diplomas.

    The data calls into question a national education platform that says higher education is better in an economy that favors college graduates.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/underemployed-overeducated_n_2568203.html

    Don't believe it? Then try this article, from the Chronicle for Higher Education:

    Approximately 60 percent of the increase in the number of college graduates from 1992 to 2008 worked in jobs that the BLS considers relatively low skilled-occupations where many participants have only high school diplomas and often even less. Only a minority of the increment in our nation's stock of college graduates is filling jobs historically considered as requiring a bachelor's degree or more.

    http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-great-college-degree-scam/28067

    As for manufacturing, U.S. manufacturing lost 35,000 jobs in 2016, and manufacturing employment remains 2.2% below what it was when Obama took office.

    Meanwhile, 91% of all the profits generated by the U.S. economy from 2009 through 2012 went to the top 1%. As just one example, the annual bonuses (not salaries, just the bonuses) of all Wall Street financial traders last year amounted to 28 billion dollars while the total income of all minimum wage workers in America came to 14 billion dollars.

    "Between 2009 and 2012, according to updated data from Emmanuel Saez, overall income per family grew 6.9 percent. The gains weren't shared evenly, however. The top 1 percent saw their real income grow by 34.7 percent while the bottom 99 percent only saw a 0.8 percent gain, meaning that the 1 percent captured 91 percent of all real income.

    Adjusting for inflation and excluding anything made from capital gains investments like stocks, however, shows that even that small gains for all but the richest disappears. According to Justin Wolfers, adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100 to $968,000 in that time period. For everyone else, average income actually fell from $44,000 to $43,900. Calculated this way, the 1 percent has captured all of the income gains."

    https://thinkprogress.org/the-1-percent-have-gotten-all-the-income-gains-from-the-recovery-6bee14aab1#.1frn3lu8y

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/upshot/wall-street-bonuses-vs-total-earnings-of-full-time-minimum-wage-workers.html

    Does any of this sound like "the strongest, most durable economy in the world"? Does any of this square with the claims by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that "By almost every economic measure, America is better off "? The U.S. economy is only better off in 2016 by disingenuous comparison with the stygian depths of the 2009 economic collapse.

    Hillary Clinton tied herself to Barack Obama's economic legacy, and the brutal reality for working class people remains that the economy today has barely improved for most workers to what it was in 2009, and is in many ways worse. Since 2009, automation + outsourcing/offshoring has destroyed whole classes of jobs, from taxi drivers (wiped out by Uber and Lyft) to warehoues stock clerks (getting wiped out by robots) to paralegals and associates at law firms (replaced by databases and legal search algorithms) to high-end programmers (wiped out by an ever-increasing flood of H1B via workers from India and China).

    Yet vox.com continues to run article after article proclaiming "the 2016 election was all about racism." And we have a non-stop stream of this stuff from people like Anne Laurie over at balloon-juice.com:

    "While the more-Leftist-than-thou "progressives" - including their latest high-profile figurehead - are high-fiving each other in happy anticipation of potential public-outrage gigs over the next four years, at least some people are beginning to push back on the BUT WHITE WORKING CLASS HAS ALL THE SADS!!! meme so beloved of Very Serious Pundits."

    That's the ticket, Democrats double down on the identity politics, keep telling the pulverized middle class how great the economy is. Because that worked so well for you this election.

    Cranky Observer 11.16.16 at 12:34 pm ( 11 )

    = = = mclaren@9:52 am: The rest of Obama's statistics are deceptive to the point of being dissimulations -[ ] Only rich people and well-off professionals were able to keep their homes through the 2009 financial collapse. = = =

    Some food for thought in your post, but you don't help your argument with statements such as this one. Rich people and well-off professionals make up at most 10% of the population. US homeownership rate in 2005 was 68.8%, in 2015 is 63.7. That's a big drop and unquestionably represents a lot of people losing their houses involuntarily. Still, even assuming no "well-off professionals" lost their houses in the recession that still leaves the vast majority of the houses owned by the middle class. Which is consistent with foreclosure and sales stats in middle class areas from 2008-2014. Remember that even with 20% unemployment 80% of the population still has a job.

    Similarly, I agree that the recession and job situation was qualitatively worse than the quantitative stats depicted. Once you start adding in hidden factors not captured by the official stats, though, where do you stop? How do you know the underground economy isn't doing far better than it was in the boom years of the oughts, thus reducing actual unemployment? Etc.

    Finally, you need to address the fundamental question: assuming all you say is true (arguendo), how does destroying the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, and Medicare help those in the economically depressed areas? I got hit bad by the recession myself. Know what helped from 2010 forward? Knowing that I could change jobs, keep my college-age children on my spouse's heath plan, not get hit with pre-existing condition fraud, and that if worse came to worse in a couple years I would have the plan exchange to fall back on. Kansas has tried the Ryan/Walker approach, seen it fail, doubled down, and seen that fail 4x as badly. Now we're going to make it up on unit sales by trying the Ryan plan nationally? How do you expect that to "work out for you"?

    WLGR 11.16.16 at 4:11 pm

    mclaren @ 7: "high-end programmers (wiped out by an ever-increasing flood of H1B via workers from India and China)"

    I'm on board with the general thrust of what you're saying, but this is way, way over the line separating socialism from barbarism. The fact that it's not even true is beside the point, as is the (quite frankly) fascist metaphor of "flood" to describe human fucking beings traveling in search of economic security, at least as long as you show some self-awareness and contrition about your language. Some awareness about the insidious administrative structure of the H1-B program would also be nice - the way it works is, an individual's visa status more or less completely depends on remaining in the good graces of their employer, meaning that by design these employees have no conceivable leverage in any negotiation over pay or working conditions, and a program of unconditional residency without USCIS as a de facto strikebreaker would have much less downward pressure on wages - but anti-immigration rhetoric remaining oblivious to actual immigration law is par for the course.

    No, the real point of departure here from what deserves to be called "socialism" is in the very act of blithely combining effects of automation (i.e. traditional capitalist competition for productive efficiency at the expense of workers' economic security) and effects of offshoring/outsourcing/immigration (i.e. racialized fragmentation of the global working class by accident of birth into those who "deserve" greater economic security and those who don't) into one and the same depiction of developed-world economic crisis. In so many words, you're walking right down neoliberal capitalism's ideological garden path: the idea that it's not possible to be anticapitalist without being an economic nationalist, and that every conceivable alternative to some form of Hillary Clinton is ultimately reducible to some form of Donald Trump. On the contrary, those of us on the socialism side of "socialism or barbarism" don't object to capitalism because it's exploiting American workers , we object because it's exploiting workers , and insisting on this crucial point against all chauvinist pressure ("workers of all lands , unite!") is what fundamentally separates our anticapitalism from the pseudo-anticapitalism of fascists.

    marku52 11.16.16 at 5:01 pm 16

    Maclaren: I'm with you. I well remember Obama and his "pivot to deficit reduction" and "green shoots" while I was screaming at the TV 'No!! Not Now!"

    And then he tried for a "grand bargain" with the Reps over chained CPI adjustment for SS, and he became my active enemy. I was a Democrat. Where did my party go?

    politicalfootball 11.16.16 at 5:27 pm ( 17 )

    Just chiming in here: The implicit deal between the elites and the hoi polloi was that the economy would be run with minimal competence. Throughout the west, those elites have broken faith with the masses on that issue, and are being punished for it.

    I'm less inclined to attach responsibility to Obama, Clinton or the Democratic Party than some. If Democrats had their way, the economy would have been managed considerably more competently.

    Always remember that the rejection of the elites wasn't just a rejection of Democrats. The Republican elite also took it in the neck.

    I'll also dissent from the view that race wasn't decisive in this election. Under different circumstances, we might have had Bernie's revolution rather than Trump's, but Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent to overt racism.

    engels 11.16.16 at 7:12 pm 18

    I find the discussions over identity politics so intensely frustrating. A lot of people on the left have gone all-in on self-righteous anger

    Identity politics (and to some extent probably the rhetorical style that goes with it) isn't a 'left' thing, it's a liberal thing. It's a bête noire for many on the left-see eg. Nancy Fraser's work.

    The Anglo/online genus what you get when you subtract class, socialism and real-world organisation from politics and add in a lot of bored students and professionals with internet connections in the context of a political culture (America's) that already valorises individual aggression to a unique degree.

    Omega Centauri 11.16.16 at 7:15 pm ( 19 )

    As polticalfoorball @15 says. The Democrats just didn't have the political muscle to deliver on those things. There really is a dynamic thats been playing out: Democrats don't get enough governing capacity because they did poorly in the election, which means their projects to improve the economy are neutered or allowed through only in a very weakened form. Then the next election cycle the neuterers use that failure as a weapon to take even more governing capacity away. Its not a failure of will, its a failure to get on top of the political feedback loop.

    Manta 11.16.16 at 7:32 pm 20

    @15 politicalfootball 11.16.16 at 5:27 pm
    "Throughout the west, those elites have broken faith with the masses on that issue, and are being punished for it."

    Could you specify some "elite" that has been punished?

    nastywoman 11.16.16 at 7:36 pm ( 21 )

    @13
    'I'm not sure what the thinking is here.'

    The definition of 'Keynesianism' is:

    'the economic theories and programs ascribed to John M. Keynes and his followers; specifically : the advocacy of monetary and fiscal programs by government to increase employment and spending'

    – and if it is done wisely – like in most European countries before 2000 it is one of the least 'braindead' things.

    But with the introduction of the Euro – some governmental programs – lead (especially in Spain) to horrendous self-destructive housing and building bubbles – which lead to the conclusion that such programs – which allow 'gambling with houses' are pretty much 'braindead'.

    Or shorter: The quality of Keynesianism depends on NOT doing it 'braindead'.

    mclaren 11.16.16 at 8:28 pm ( 25 )

    Cranky Observer in #11 makes some excellent points. Crucially, he asks: "Finally, you need to address the fundamental question: assuming all you say is true (arguendo), how does destroying the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, and Medicare help those in the economically depressed areas?"

    There actually is a logic at work in the Rust Belt voters for voted for Trump. I don't think it's good logic, but it makes sense in its own warped way. The calculation the Trump voters seem to be making in the Rust Belt is that it's better to have a job and no health insurance and no medicare and no social security, than no job but the ACA (with $7,000 deductibles you can't afford to pay for anyway) plus medicare (since most of these voters are healthy, they figure they'll never get sick) plus social security (most of these voters are not 65 or older, and probably think they'll never age - or perhaps don't believe that social security will be solvent when they do need it).

    It's the same twisted logic that goes on with protectionism. Rust Belt workers figure that it's better to have a job and not be able to afford a Chinese-made laptop than not to have a job but plenty of cheap foreign-made widgets you could buy if you had any money (which you don't). That logic doesn't parse if you run through the economics (because protectionism will destroy the very jobs they think they're saving), but it can be sold as a tweet in a political campaign.

    As for 63.7% home ownership stats in 2016, vast numbers of those "owned" homes were snapped up by giant banks and other financial entities like hedge funds which then rented those homes out. So the home ownership stats in 2016 are extremely deceptive. Much of the home-buying since the 2009 crash has been investment purchases. Foreclosure home purchases for rent is now a huge thriving business, and it's fueling a second housing bubble. Particularly because in many ways it repeats the financially frothy aspects of the early 2000s housing bubble - banks and investment firms are issuing junks bonds based on rosy estimates of ever-escalating rents and housing prices, they use those junk financial instruments (and others like CDOs) to buy houses which then get rented out at inflated prices, the rental income gets used to fund more tranches of investment which fuels more buy-to-rent home buying. Rents have already skyrocketed far beyond incomes on the East and West Coast, so this can't continue. But home prices and rents keep rising. There is no city in the United States today where a worker making minimum wage can afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment and have money left over to eat and pay for a car, health insurance, etc. If home ownership were really so robust, this couldn't possibly be the case. The fact that rents keep skyrocketing even as undocumented hispanics return to Mexico in record numbers while post-9/11 ICE restrictions have hammered legal immigration numbers way, way down suggests that home ownership is not nearly as robust as the deceptive numbers indicate.

    Political football in #15 remarks: "I'll also dissent from the view that race wasn't decisive in this election. Under different circumstances, we might have had Bernie's revolution rather than Trump's, but Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent to overt racism."

    Race was important, but not the root cause of the Trump victory. How do we know this? Tump himself is telling us. Look at Trump's first announced actions - deport 3 million undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, ram through vast tax cuts for the rich, and end the inheritance tax.

    If Trump's motivation (and his base's motivation) was pure racism, Trump's first announced action would be something like passing laws that made it illegal to marry undocumented workers. His first act would be to roll back the legalization of black/white marriage and re-instate segregation. Trump isn't promising any of that.

    Instead Trump's (bad) policies are based around enriching billionaires and shutting down immigration. Bear in mind that 43% of all new jobs created since 2009 went to immigrants and you start to realize that Trump's base is reacting to economic pressure by scapegoating immigrants, not racism by itself. If it were pure racism we'd have Trump and Ryan proposing a bunch of new Nuremberg laws. Make it illegal to have sex with muslims, federally fund segregated black schools and pass laws to force black kids to get bussed to them, create apartheid-style zones where only blacks can live, that sort of thing. Trump's first announced actions involve enriching the fantastically wealthy and enacting dumb self-destructive protectionism via punitive immigration control. That's protectionism + class war of the rich against everyone else, not racism. The protectionist immigration-control + deportation part of Trump's program is sweet sweet music to the working class people in the Rust Belt. They think the 43% of jobs taken by immigrants will come back. They don't realize that those are mostly jobs no one wants to do anyway, and that most of those jobs are already in the process of getting automated out of existence.

    The claim "Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent to overt racism" is incomplete. Trump's coalition actually consists of 3 parts and it's highly unstable: [1] racists, [2] plutocrats, [3] working class people slammed hard by globalization for whom Democrats have done little or nothing.

    Here's an argument that may resonate: the first two groups in Trump's coalition are unreachable. Liberal Democrats can't sweet-talk racists out of being racist and we certainly have nothing to offer the plutocrats. So the only part of Trump's coalition that is really reachable by liberal Democrats is the third group. Shouldn't we be concentrating on that third group, then?

    The good news is that Trump's coalition is unstable. The plutocrats and Rust Belters are natural enemies. Since the plutocrats are perceived as running giant corporations that import large numbers of non-white immigrants to lower wages, the racists are not big fans of that group either.

    Listen to Steve Bannon, a classic stormfront type - he says he wants to blow up both the Democratic and the Republican party. He calls himself a "Leninist" in a recent interview and vows to wreck all elite U.S. institutions (universities, giant multinationals), not just the Democratic party.

    Why? Because the stormfront types consider elite U.S. institutions like CitiBank as equally culpable with Democrats in supposedly destroying white people in the U.S. According to Bannon's twisted skinhead logic, Democrats are allegedly race traitors for cultural reasons, but big U.S. corporations and elite institutions are supposedly equally guilty of economic race treason by importing vast numbers of non-white immigrants via H1B visas, by offshoring jobs from mostly caucasian-populated red states to non-white countries like India, Africa, China, and by using elite U.S. universities to trawl the world for the best (often non-white) students, etc. Bannon's "great day of the rope" includes the plutocrats as well as people of color.

    These natural fractures in the Trump coalition are real, and Democrats can exploit them to weaken and destroy Republicans. But we have to get away from condemning all Republicans as racists because if we go down that route, we won't realize how fractured and unstable the Trump coalition really is.

    bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:33 pm 31 ( 31 )

    The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying.

    Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.

    engels 11.16.16 at 10:33 pm 32

    Ps. Should prob add that identity politics isn't the same thing as feminism, anti-racism, LGBT politics, etc. They're all needed now more than ever.

    What we don't need more of imo is a particular liberal/middle-class form of those things with particular assumptions (meritocratic and individualist), epistemology (strongly subjectivist) and rhetorical style (which often aims humiliating opponents from a position of relative knowledge/status rather than verbal engagement).

    Helen 11.16.16 at 10:35 pm ( 33 )

    I don't know why I'm even having to say this, as it's so obvious. The "leftists" (for want of a better word) and feminists who I know are also against neoliberalism. They are against the selloff of public assets to enterprises for private profit. They want to see a solution to the rapidly shrinking job market as technology replaces jobs (no, it's not enough for the Heroic Workers to Seize the Means of Production – the means of production are different now and the solution is going to have to be more complex than just "bring back manufacturing" or "introduce tariffs".) They want to roll back the tax cuts for the rich which have whittled down our revenue base this century. They want corporations and the top 10% to pay their fair share, and concomitantly they want pensioners, the unemployed and people caring for children to have a proper living wage.

    They support a universal "single payer" health care system, which we social democratic squishy types managed to actually introduce in the 1970s, but now we have to fight against right wing governments trying to roll it back They support a better system of public education. They support a science-based approach to climate change where it is taken seriously for the threat it is and given priority in Government policy. They support spending less on the Military and getting out of international disputes which we (Western nations) only seem to exacerbate.

    This is not an exhaustive list.

    Yet just because the same people say that the dominant Western countries (and my own) still suffer from institutionalised racism and sexism, which is not some kind of cake icing but actually ruin lives and kill people, we are "all about identity politics" and cannot possibly have enough brain cells to think about the issues I described in para 1.

    I don't find it instructive or useful.

    Main Street Muse 11.16.16 at 10:54 pm 34

    The slow recovery was only one factor. Wages have been stagnant since Reagan. And honestly, if a white Republican president had stabilized the economy, killed Osama Bin Laden and got rid of pre-existing condition issue with healthcare, the GOP would be BRAGGING all over it. Let's remember that we have ONE party that has been devoted to racist appeals, lying and putting party over country for decades.

    Obama entered office as the economy crashed over a cliff. Instead of reforming the banks and punishing the bankers who engaged in fraudulent activities, he waded into healthcare reform. Banks are bigger today than they were in 2008. And tell me again, which bankers were punished for the fraud? Not a one All that Repo 105 maneuvering, stuffing the retirement funds with toxic assets – etc. and so on – all of that was perfectly legal? And if legal, all of that was totally bonusable? Yes! In America, such failure is gifted with huge bonuses, thanks to the American taxpayer.

    Meanwhile, homeowners saw huge drops the value of their homes. Some are still underwater with the mortgage. It's a shame that politicians and reporters in DC don't get out much.

    Concurrently, right before the election, ACA premiums skyrocketed. If you are self-insured, ACA is NOT affordable. It doesn't matter that prior to ACA, premiums increased astronomically. Obama promised AFFORDABLE healthcare. In my state, we have essentially a monopoly on health insurance, and the costs are absurd. But that's in part because the state Republicans refused to expand Medicaid.

    Don't underestimate HRC's serious issues. HRC had one speech for the bankers and another for everyone else. Why didn't she release the GS transcripts? When did the Democrats become the party of Wall Street?

    She also made the same idiotic mistake that Romney did – disparage a large swathe of American voters (basket of deplorables is this year's 47%.)

    And then we had a nation of voters intent on the outsider. Bernie Sanders had an improbable run at it – the Wikileaks emails showed that the DNC did what they could to get rid of him as a threat.

    Well America has done and gone elected themselves an outsider. Lucky us.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Trumps Opponents See Normal Americans as Deplorables

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because I was critical of the George W. Bush regime, the liberal-progressive-leftwing and homosexual/transgendered rights groups have me on their mailing lists. ..."
    "... Unless they provoke him beyond reason, Trump is not going to bother any of these people. Trump wants to bring middle class jobs back to Americans, including for all those paid to protest him. In order to avoid nuclear war, Trump wants to restore normal relations between the major nuclear powers. When there are no jobs for Americans that pay enough to support an independent existence, Trump doesn't see the point of massive legal and illegal immigration. This is only common sense. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.unz.com
    I guess we have all noticed that the holier-than-thou groups who whined that Trump wasn't going to accept the outcome of the election refuse to accept it themselves.

    Because I was critical of the George W. Bush regime, the liberal-progressive-leftwing and homosexual/transgendered rights groups have me on their mailing lists.

    And it is unbelievable. The entirety of "the other America" refuses to accept the people's decision. They think that their concerns are more important than the concerns of the American people, who they regard as nothing but a collection of racist homophobic rednecks.

    Unless they provoke him beyond reason, Trump is not going to bother any of these people. Trump wants to bring middle class jobs back to Americans, including for all those paid to protest him. In order to avoid nuclear war, Trump wants to restore normal relations between the major nuclear powers. When there are no jobs for Americans that pay enough to support an independent existence, Trump doesn't see the point of massive legal and illegal immigration. This is only common sense.

    Yet "the threatened people" see it as fascism. Who are "the threatened people?" As always, the most powerful. Tell me, what lobby is more powerful than the Israel Lobby? You can't. But the Jewish Lobby, J Street, has sent me a hysterical email at 5:11pm on 14 November. Unless "we all come together and oppose Trump's appointment of Breitbart editor Stephan Bannon as chief strategist and senior counselor" a "wave of hate will sweep across the land," consuming "Jews, Muslims, African-Americans, LGBT peoople (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered), immigrants, Hispanics, women and other groups."

    Really now! So is Trump's chief strategist, whatever position that is, going to attack the Jews and those with unusual sexual impulses with drones and cluster bombs, like the Zionist neoconservatives who controlled the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes did to millions of slaughtered and displaced peoples in 7 countries, and like Israel does to Palestinians? Or is the former Breitbart editor going to round them all up and torture them in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo like Bush and Obama did. And like Netanyahu does in Israel?

    Or will Trump simply shoot them down in the streets like Netanyahu does to the Palestinian women and children.

    How come J Street and the Oligarchy-funded fronts are only concerned with nonexistent threats and ignore all of the real threats?

    ... ... ...

    We must hope that Donald Trump understands the state of moral, cultural, legal, and political collapse that America is in. Two years ago at the Valdai International Discussion Club, Russian President Vladimir Putin said:

    "Many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilization. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities, national, cultural, religious, and even secular. They are implementing policies that equate families with same-sex partnerships, worship of God with worship of Satan. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis."

    Ordinary Americans know what he means. They are forced to accept blasphemous films about Jesus Christ and shameless newspaper caricatures of the Virgin Mary, but if one of them calls a homosexual a pervert, he has committed a hate crime.

    America is a country without an honest media. A country without an honest judiciary. Without an honest government. Without an honest legislature. Without honest schools and universities. A country whose morals are confused by propaganda. A country whose elites believe that they are entitled to all the income and wealth and that normal American people are the "deplorables," to use Hillary's term for ordinary Americans.

    (Reprinted from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)

    [Nov 16, 2016] Stemming the Rot in American Manufacturing May Defeat Even Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... All this means that, as a practical matter, China's contribution to a smartphone's total added-value may amount to little more than a few percentage points. Thus tariffs on China alone will, with the best will in the world, create remarkably few American jobs. ..."
    "... even if Trump succeeded in imposing massive tariffs on Chinese goods, Apple would presumably retain the right to move the work to other cheap-labor nations such as Vietnam, India, Mexico, and Brazil. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.unz.com
    Meanwhile as Trump has repeatedly pointed out, many American airports are so dysfunctional and badly served by ground transport that they would not be out of place in the Third World. According to the latest annual survey by the Skytrax company of the world's best airports, Denver placed highest among American airports – but ranked a mediocre 28 in the world. By comparison five East Asian airports, including two in Japan alone, made it into the top 10.

    Infrastructure apart, far bigger problems lurk just below the surface. They are summed up in one statistic, albeit a statistic that a perennially out-to-lunch American press rarely mentions: the trade deficit. Measured on a current account basis (which is the widest and most meaningful measure), the trade deficit last year was $463 billion. This represented a stunning 4.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). By comparison the worst figure in the 1970s – a decade when the United States was already seen, both at home and abroad, as losing out badly in global competition – was a mere 0.5 percent. The truth is that the United States has not run a trade surplus consistently since the 1960s, and in the last two decades the deficits have rarely fallen below 3 percent of GDP.

    Why does trade matter matter? For many reasons, not least because deficits have to be financed. In practice most of the financing has come from major sovereign investors, particularly the governments of China and Japan and to a lesser extent other East Asian nations. Typically it comes in the form of massive purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. So far, the money has kept flowing but there is evidently an implicit understanding: in return for doing their bit to keep both the U.S. dollar and U.S. financial markets on an even keel, the East Asians will brook no lectures from Washington on opening their markets to foreign trade. Hence a conspicuous silence in Washington in recent years on East Asian trade barriers. Washington has entered a Faustian bargain and it is hard to see how even Trump, with all his undoubted energy and determination, can break out of it.

    He has talked about reopening shuttered factories. That is easier said than done. Once a nation loses its position in any advanced manufacturing specialty, it finds it almost impossible to get back in.

    Take electronics. Trump seems to believe that by the simple expedient of imposing stiff tariffs on Chinese imports he can encourage Apple to make iPhones in America. In reality, this badly misdiagnoses the problem. Where the manufacture of sophisticated electronic consumer products is concerned, China is a much less significant player than meets the eye. The product may bear a "Made in China" label but this refers merely to the place of final assembly. Admittedly China does possess the knowhow to make some components but generally only the simpler ones such as the plastic housing for a smartphone. The serious components are made typically in high-wage nations like Japan and to a lesser extent Korea, Taiwan, and Germany. Meanwhile Japan reigns supreme as the source of many of the most important materials and production machinery used in the industry. Little noticed outside East Asia, such materials and machinery are the ultimate driver of the electronic revolution.

    All this means that, as a practical matter, China's contribution to a smartphone's total added-value may amount to little more than a few percentage points. Thus tariffs on China alone will, with the best will in the world, create remarkably few American jobs.

    Moreover such jobs would be labor-intensive and therefore fundamentally unsuitable for a high-wage economy. In any case it is highly debatable whether such jobs would be created in the first instance: the point is that even if Trump succeeded in imposing massive tariffs on Chinese goods, Apple would presumably retain the right to move the work to other cheap-labor nations such as Vietnam, India, Mexico, and Brazil.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Strong woman and her gay minion DESTROY mansplaining stale pale male

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'A big part of Bill's anger toward Hillary was that he was sidelined during the entire campaign by her advisers,' said the source. 'He can't be effective if he sees himself as just another hired hand. He wasn't listened to and that infuriated him. After all, he knows something about campaigns, and he told me in early October that Hillary and her advisers were blowing it. ..."
    "... 'Hillary wouldn't listen. She told Bill that his ideas were old and that he was out of touch. In the end, there was nothing he could do about it because Hillary and her people weren't listening to anything he said.' ..."
    www.unz.com

    'Bill always campaigned as a guy who felt your pain, but Hillary came across as someone who was pissed off at her enemy [Trump], not someone who was reaching out and trying to make life better for the white working class.'

    'Bill also said that many African Americans were deeply disappointed with the results of eight years of Obama,' the source continued.

    'Despite more and more government assistance, black weren't economically any better off, and black-on-black crime was destroying their communities. He said Hillary should have gone into the South Side of Chicago and condemned the out-of-control violence.'

    'A big part of Bill's anger toward Hillary was that he was sidelined during the entire campaign by her advisers,' said the source. 'He can't be effective if he sees himself as just another hired hand. He wasn't listened to and that infuriated him. After all, he knows something about campaigns, and he told me in early October that Hillary and her advisers were blowing it.

    'Hillary wouldn't listen. She told Bill that his ideas were old and that he was out of touch. In the end, there was nothing he could do about it because Hillary and her people weren't listening to anything he said.'

    [Nov 16, 2016] This is evidence that the elites in the Democrat Party would rather lose with their candidate than win with an outsider

    Notable quotes:
    "... Of course, the DNC was too busy trying to blow the Sanders campaign to smithereens and Hillary decided that comforting the Democrat Party's donor base was more important than attracting working class voters in the Rust Belt. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Greg T November 16, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    I read all of these points and conclude that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump in the general election. Sanders would have held all of the Democratic strongholds, and he would have beaten Trump in the Midwest.

    Of course, the DNC was too busy trying to blow the Sanders campaign to smithereens and Hillary decided that comforting the Democrat Party's donor base was more important than attracting working class voters in the Rust Belt.

    This is evidence that the elites in the Democrat Party would rather lose with a ' made ' candidate than win with an outsider.

    [Nov 16, 2016] By pure coincidence, the top three donors to McCains Campaigns: Defense Electronics, For-profit Education, Misc Defense

    Notable quotes:
    "... So remember, if Iraqis die by the hundreds of thousands – Birthpangs of Democracy. By pure coincidence, the top three donors to McCain's Campaigns: Defense Electronics, For-profit Education, Misc Defense ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | ucgsblog.wordpress.com
    ucgsblog says: November 15, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    He graduated at the bottom of his class, successfully got shot down in the Nam, and lobbied for Iraq, a war that cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and trillions of dollars, and now he's back to promote his favorite activity when he's not involved it in: warfare. Johnny "Rotten Judgement" McCain: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

    "Senator John McCain issued a blunt warning on Tuesday to President-elect Trump and his emerging foreign policy team: Don't try another "reset" with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. During the campaign, Mr. Trump described Mr. Putin as a strong leader and suggested that the United States and Russia might join forces in fighting the Islamic State. Mr. Putin congratulated Mr. Trump on his election in a phone call on Monday and discussed working together to combat terrorism and resolve the crisis in Syria, according to the Kremlin's account. That was too much for Mr. McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who cautioned the incoming administration not to be taken in by "a former K.G.B. agent." "When America has been at its best, it's when we've stood w/ those fighting tyranny- that's where we must stand again" McCain tweeted "The Obama administration's last attempt at resetting relations with Russia culminated in Putin's invasion of Ukraine and military intervention in the Middle East," Mr. McCain, the newly re-elected Arizona Republican, said in a statement."

    Got it everyone? Obama's reset in 2008 caused Ukraine in 2014. Because as we all know, nothing really happened between 2008 and 2014. There was coup in Ukraine, no Arab Spring, nothing.

    "At the very least, the price of another 'reset' would be complicity in Putin and Assad's butchery of the Syrian people," he added. "This is an unacceptable price for a great nation. When America has been at its greatest, it is when we have stood on the side of those fighting tyranny. That is where we must stand again."

    So remember, if Iraqis die by the hundreds of thousands – Birthpangs of Democracy. By pure coincidence, the top three donors to McCain's Campaigns: Defense Electronics, For-profit Education, Misc Defense

    https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00006424&type=I&newmem=N

    [Nov 16, 2016] The Rotation of Imperial Power by Manlio Dinucci

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency. ..."
    "... As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" – an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia. ..."
    "... Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. ..."
    "... Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. ..."
    "... Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income). ..."
    "... Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse. ..."
    "... It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich. ..."
    www.voltairenet.org

    Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency.

    How will this change of guard at the White House change US foreign policy? Certainly, the core objective of remaining the dominant global power will remain untouched. [Yet] this position is increasing fragile. The USA is losing ground both within the economic and the political domains, [ceding] it to China, Russia and other "emerging countries". This is why it is throwing the sword onto the scale. This is followed by a series of wars where Hillary Clinton played the [lead] protagonist.

    As her authorized biography reveals, she was the one as First Lady, to convince the President, her consort, to engage in war to destroy Yugoslavia, initiating a series of "humanitarian interventions" against "dictators" charged with "genocide".

    As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" – an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia.

    Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. But he will of course thump his fists on the table to secure a deeper commitment, particularly on military expenditure from the allies.

    Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

    Such decisions, that will surely open the door for further wars, do not depend on Trump's warrior-like temperament, but on centres of power wherein lies the matrix of command on which the White House itself depends.

    Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income).

    Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse.

    Then you have the giants of the war industry that extract profit from war.

    It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich.

    [Nov 16, 2016] This Trump speech is probably one of the finest political speeches from a major US politician

    This is a really anti-establishment position... FDR level speech... See also This Video Will Get Donald Trump Elected - YouTube
    Nov 16, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Patient Observer, November 15, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    In case no one has seen this Trump ad:

    Its probably one of the finest political speeches from a major US politician.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Two More Myths About Clintons Defeat in Election 2016 Debunked

    Notable quotes:
    "... "It's not a question of what happens in the last week. The question is that she should have won this election by 10 percentage points. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Talking Point: The Clinton Campaign Was Well-Managed

    Here are two examples of the talking point. From the Washington Post (November 10, 2016):

    At Brooklyn headquarters on Wednesday, Podesta expressed his gratitude and support for the team, and for Mook. "We have the No. 1 campaign manager," he said, in a staffwide gathering in the afternoon. "I've been doing this since 1968, and I've never seen a culture and a spirit like we created in this campaign." On the conference call with thousands of staff across the country, Clinton also called in [how kind] and thanked her team for their dedication.

    Mook tried to end the campaign on a high note.

    "What you've created is going to live on," he told his troops. "Leaders all over this country, local networks around the nation, future candidates who are going to step forward. Someone in this room is going to manage a presidential campaign one day."

    Talking Point: The Clinton Defeat Had Nothing To Do With Economics

    Here's an example of the talking point. From, naturally, Amanda Marcotte (November 11, 2016):

    Because this anger is so real and so palpable, there's been an unfortunate tendency in much of the media to assume that this anger must also be valid . The entire election cycle was a clusterfuck of articles demanding empathy for Trump voters , insisting that their rage must have some rational roots - perhaps economic insecurity ?

    The persistence of the "economic insecurity" angle in the face of overwhelming evidence against it was a testament to the power of hope over reason.

    (The subtext here is usually that if you don't retweet approvingly, you're a racist yourself, and possibly a racist Trump supporter.) There are four reasons why this talking point is false.

    ... .... ...

    To be fair, Clinton is correct that "there are lots of reasons," in an election this close. However, to me, blaming Comey is like blaming the last pebble in an avalanche of #FAIL. Sanders asks the right question. Talking about the Comey letters , Sanders said:

    "It's not a question of what happens in the last week. The question is that she should have won this election by 10 percentage points.

    [Nov 16, 2016] BBC hypocrisy knows no bounds!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s ..."
    "... "The arrest was big news on Russia's state-run TV channels." ..."
    "... Yesterday RBK economic channel (pro-liberast independent one) could not shut up – they were talking only about this. Ekho Moscvy was hysterical, as if it was not the crook arrested, but Lucavichev rabbi robbed and killed in his synagogue. ..."
    "... "News of the minister's arrest sparked a mixture of shock and bewilderment." ..."
    "... "Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s." ..."
    "... So… to become a "liberal victim of the Regime" instead of "Regime's lackey" you must steal lots of money and get caught? A-okey! ..."
    "... It's also charming when the article uses the tired cliché "some think" or "some people consider this" as a way of legitimizing their own speculations. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile , November 15, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    BBC hypocrisy knows no bounds!

    Russian Economy Minister Ulyukayev charged with $2m bribe

    The arrest was big news on Russia's state-run TV channels.

    However, sources told the Novaya Gazeta website that Mr Ulyukayev himself did not take any money, contradicting earlier reports, and there was no video footage of his arrest. [Novaya Gazeta said that? Well what a surprise! - ME]

    The economy ministry described the arrest as "strange and surprising".

    Show of state strength or payback? By Sarah Rainsford, BBC News, Moscow

    News of the minister's arrest sparked a mixture of shock and bewilderment.

    A stream of commentators on state TV have been telling viewers that this means that no-one is untouchable, or above the law. Even ministers.

    So on one level, the FSB operation is a clear show of state strength. A message to senior officials and far beyond.

    But elsewhere there are doubts, and questions about the possible politics behind this.

    Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s.

    He's against increasing state-control of the economy and opposed the Bashneft privatisation deal which was led by a close and powerful ally of President Putin.

    So some suggest this could be a dramatic form of payback. More effective, than simply sacking him.

    Others see a symbolic blow to the liberal camp in government.

    [my stress]

    State TV! State TV! State TV!

    D'ya hear me? - State TV!!!!!!!

    Unlike the British Broadcasting Corporation, of course.

    Lyttenburgh , November 15, 2016 at 11:33 pm
    "The arrest was big news on Russia's state-run TV channels."

    Yesterday RBK economic channel (pro-liberast independent one) could not shut up – they were talking only about this. Ekho Moscvy was hysterical, as if it was not the crook arrested, but Lucavichev rabbi robbed and killed in his synagogue.

    "News of the minister's arrest sparked a mixture of shock and bewilderment."

    Mainly a good cheer and hope that other liberal ministers will soon follow in his steps.

    "Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s."

    So… to become a "liberal victim of the Regime" instead of "Regime's lackey" you must steal lots of money and get caught? A-okey!

    It's also charming when the article uses the tired cliché "some think" or "some people consider this" as a way of legitimizing their own speculations.

    [Nov 16, 2016] The economic case for immigration may be attractive-and, for the moment at least, persuasive-but it is essentially a conservative argument, suggesting that human beings ought to be treated in a certain manner because it generates economic benefit, and not necessarily because it is morally required.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Liberal democracy has always depended on its relationships with an illiberal Other of one sort or another, and all too often "liberal progressivism" merely means responding to such relationships in one's own society, the capitalist exploitation of a domestic proletariat, by "outsourcing" our illiberal tendencies to consist largely of the imperial domination and subjugation of foreigners. ..."
    "... demand that we stop hiding our society's illiberal underbelly and acknowledge/celebrate it for what it is, a demand that may be the single most authentic marker of the transition from liberalism to fascism. ..."
    "... They very likely in our current regimes will not show up in the same places. Neoliberalism and neoimperialism show pretty much the contradictions of the older globalist orders (late 19th c), they are just now distributed so as re-intensify the differences, the combined etc, and concentrate the accumulation. ..."
    "... And elites are fighting over the spoils. ..."
    "... But there are also people who either liked Trump's economic rhetoric and just disregarded the racism/sexism stuff the same way Clinton voters like me disregarded her warmongering (Republicans:domestic minorities::Democrats:foreigners), and other people who didn't have their resentments channeled at all and just stayed home. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    WLGR 11.15.16 at 3:40 pm 115

    @ Chris Bertram , Brianna Rennix in Current Affairs (an altogether excellent rag) is quite right in warning us to be suspicious of such "obvious" points :

    The economic case for immigration may be attractive-and, for the moment at least, persuasive-but it is essentially a conservative argument, suggesting that human beings ought to be treated in a certain manner because it generates economic benefit, and not necessarily because it is morally required. Of course, liberals don't really want to look a gift horse in the mouth: with the political climate hostile to the humanitarian plight of even the most sympathetic of migrants, liberals are thrilled to have statistics and pie charts and suchlike to lay before a skittish American public. It isn't every day that the right thing to do is also the rationally self-interested thing to do, and we should certainly celebrate those joyous occasions when they arise. However, it's important not to lose sight of the moral dimension of the argument, and in that context there are a few questions worth asking.

    The left has something to learn from the moral clarity of the libertarian case for immigration, which asserts that human beings simply have a natural right to migrate freely. The moral argument is far more robust than the economic one, because it is true universally regardless of changing economic conditions. One doesn't need to prove that immigrants grow the GDP or that they will never compete for the same jobs as Americans. The better point is that there is no good moral reason for putting up walls and keeping people out. And just as Americans feel entitled to the freedom to go anywhere in the world they please (and would be surprised to be turned away at a border), so everyone else should be granted the same basic entitlement. It's also worth emphasizing the inherent arbitrariness of global inequality. Given that the earth's resources are unevenly apportioned, and people's life circumstances depend on the geographic accident of their birth, shouldn't we understand this to be a moral evil, and strive to correct it where we can? Perhaps such arguments will fail to persuade. But they are far more sound, and ultimately, far more honest. Increased immigration should be allowed because it is morally right, not because it is in our narrow economic self-interest.

    Point being, Dipper @ 108 has hit the nail quite squarely on the head.

    Liberal democracy has always depended on its relationships with an illiberal Other of one sort or another, and all too often "liberal progressivism" merely means responding to such relationships in one's own society, the capitalist exploitation of a domestic proletariat, by "outsourcing" our illiberal tendencies to consist largely of the imperial domination and subjugation of foreigners.

    (Which can even happen inside one's own borders, as long as it remains suitably "illegal"; notice how much less ideologically problematic it is to document the presence and labor of the most brutally exploited migrant workers in e.g. China or the Gulf Arab states than in more liberal societies like the US or EU.)

    It's the height of either hypocrisy or obliviousness for those who consider themselves liberal progressives to then act surprised when the people charged with carrying out this domination and subjugation on our behalf - our Colonel Jessups, if you will - demand that we stop hiding our society's illiberal underbelly and acknowledge/celebrate it for what it is, a demand that may be the single most authentic marker of the transition from liberalism to fascism. Is that easier to understand?

    bob mcmanus 11.15.16 at 4:31 pm

    I liked WLGR's at 115 a little better than Dipper, but there are many comments coming better than anything I can do.

    It may be that global manufacturing jobs are declining due to automation, but my recent reading has convinced me that capital is now able to move low wage low skill manufacturing jobs so fast that it is hard for analysis to keep up. LTV says that as long as the profits and wealth and accumulation (and political power) are showing up, somewhere there is superexploited labor. They very likely in our current regimes will not show up in the same places. Neoliberalism and neoimperialism show pretty much the contradictions of the older globalist orders (late 19th c), they are just now distributed so as re-intensify the differences, the combined etc, and concentrate the accumulation.

    And elites are fighting over the spoils.

    Consumatopia 11.15.16 at 3:54 pm

    There's a weird disconnect between the debate among online leftists/liberals and the debate among Democratic politicians now. Online it's socialists saying "they hate neoliberalism, reach out to them!", social justice activists saying "they're racists, screw them!" In party institutions, it's the same except the second group is saying "they're racists, we must avoid antagonizing them!" Seriously, they're arguing that Bernie would have lost because he's Jewish and his ally Keith Ellison shouldn't lead the DNC because he's Muslim.

    So I just hope the people saying "they're racists!" understand that if the Democratic party comes to agree with you then the party will move to the right on race–or at least it will pull back from some of the rhetoric Chris (merian) described at 76.

    Anyway, from the OP, "These have indeed failed people, and policies of austerity coupled with bailouts for the banks have enraged the voters, so that many people, nostalgic for a more equal and more functional society but confused about who to blame, have channelled their resentments against immigrants and minorities. "

    I think this is almost but not quite correct. There definitely exist some people for whom this is true. But there are also people who either liked Trump's economic rhetoric and just disregarded the racism/sexism stuff the same way Clinton voters like me disregarded her warmongering (Republicans:domestic minorities::Democrats:foreigners), and other people who didn't have their resentments channeled at all and just stayed home.

    More that that, I just don't think anyone has a good understanding of what moves the white working class to the right. It isn't just racism and sexism, and it ends up playing out differently in different regions. It's not necessarily true that they're ready for Sanders–look at Kentucky voting for a governor promising to end Medicaid expansion in 2015. This is a poor but very white state. Lower middle class whites turned against further downscale whites. Poor whites didn't show up. It wasn't racism that drove this, but it wasn't hatred of neoliberalism either–it may be a response to pain neoliberalism caused, but they haven't been prepared to point the finger there.

    Chris Bertram 11.15.16 at 4:14 pm

    @WLGR: I do not believe that the case for free movement depends on economic arguments; I do believe that when its opponents advance bogus economic arguments they should be rebutted.

    [Nov 16, 2016] We need the adoption of a federal job guarantee, a policy that would insure the option for anyone to work in a public sector program, similar to what the Works Progress Administration established in the 1930s.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Each job offered under a federal employment assurance would be at a wage rate above the poverty threshold, and would include benefits like health insurance. A public sector job guarantee would establish a quality of work and the level of compensation offered for all jobs. The program would be great for the country: It could meet a wide range of the nation's physical and human infrastructure needs, ranging from the building and maintenance of roads, bridges and highways, to school upkeep and the provision of quality child care services"" ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    financial matters November 16, 2016 at 8:30 am

    Not sure if Trump realizes this but there is already a blueprint for creating infrastructure jobs. (hat tip SK)

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/07/11/are-we-ready-for-the-next-recession/a-guaranteed-federal-jobs-program-is-needed

    ""A lot of this has to do with the fact that Americans continue to be subjected to bad jobs or unstable employment - and those who are employed often face stagnant or even declining wages. The fragility of Americans' economic well-being is epitomized by the National Coalition for the Homeless' estimate that 44 percent of homeless persons actually have jobs, albeit poorly paid jobs.

    The expansion of "flex work" arrangements, which make work hours uncertain, contribute significantly to income volatility for workers in low-pay sectors of the economy. Around 50 percent of Americans could not meet a $400 emergency expense by drawing upon their personal savings if they had to.

    An alternative to these conditions is the adoption of a federal job guarantee, a policy that would insure the option for anyone to work in a public sector program, similar to what the Works Progress Administration established in the 1930s.

    Each job offered under a federal employment assurance would be at a wage rate above the poverty threshold, and would include benefits like health insurance. A public sector job guarantee would establish a quality of work and the level of compensation offered for all jobs. The program would be great for the country: It could meet a wide range of the nation's physical and human infrastructure needs, ranging from the building and maintenance of roads, bridges and highways, to school upkeep and the provision of quality child care services""

    [Nov 16, 2016] The my way or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening. When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!" ..."
    "... On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us." ..."
    "... I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities." ..."
    "... And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    ucgsblog, November 14, 2016 at 3:50 pm
    Erm, atheist groups are known to target smaller Christian groups with lawsuits. A baker was sued for refusing to bake a cake for a Gay Wedding. She was perfectly willing to serve the couple, just not at the wedding. In California we had a lawsuit over a cross in a park. Atheists threatened a lawsuit over a seal. Look, I get that there are people with no life out there, but why are they bringing the rest of us into their insanity, with constant lawsuits. There's actually a concept known as "Freedom from Religion" – what the heck? Can you imagine someone arguing about "Freedom from Speech" in America? But it's ok to do it to religious folk! And yes, that includes Muslims, who had to fight to build a Mosque in New York. They should've just said it was a Scientology Center

    The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening. When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!"

    The problem with healthcare in the US deserves its own thread, but Obamacare did not fix it; Obamacare made it worse, especially in the rural communities. The laws in schools are fundamentally retarded. A kid was suspended for giving a friend Advil. Another kid suspended for bringing in a paper gun. I could go on and on. A girl was expelled from college for trying to look gangsta in a L'Oreal mask. How many examples do you need? Look at all of the new "child safety laws" which force kids to leave in a bubble. And when they enter the Real World, they're fucked, so they pick up the drugs. In cities it's crack, in farmvilles it's meth.

    Hillary didn't win jack shit. She got a plurality of the popular vote. She didn't win it, since winning implies getting the majority. How many Johnson votes would've gone to Trump if it was based on popular vote, in a safe state? Of course the biggest issue is the attack on the way of life, which is all too real. I encourage you to read this, in order to understand where they're coming from: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

    "Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their cocktail parties, blissfully unaware of where their food is grown. Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"

    On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us."

    "They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step outside of the city, and the suicide rate among young people fucking doubles. The recession pounded rural communities, but all the recovery went to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has utterly collapsed."

    ^ That, I'd say, is known as destroying their lives. Also this:

    "In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town - aspiring to that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks. There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic.

    I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities."

    And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above.

    [Nov 16, 2016] What Will Trumps Foreign Policy Mean for the World An Interview With Patrick Cockburn

    Notable quotes:
    "... Do you think Trump was serious when he called for a Russia détente? ..."
    "... PC: He might be. It's not so stupid. To some degree, that's what we already have had: negotiations and an attempted ceasefire with the Russians. You can justify that by saying that if there is going to be any peace agreement in Syria, it has to be negotiated by the biggest players which are the U.S. and Russia. They may not be enough to do it, they may not be able to control allies or proxies or something. [But] that's sort of feasible. ..."
    "... it's evident that within the U.S. government, different parts of the government have different policies; you know, the CIA arming various rebel factions, the Pentagon tried this. But the idea of arming factions that were supposedly moderate not only hasn't worked but it's been disastrous, it's been a joke. Whatever the state of the Syrian political opposition, the armed opposition is dominated by Islamists and has been a long time. So that might continue but I don't think it'll make much difference. When it comes to troops, soldiers, on the ground cooperating with the U.S., of course, the Pentagon did find people but it was the Kurds and various proxies supported by the Kurds. ..."
    "... I don't think it works that way at the moment because they tend to think of Americans, Europeans, not just non-Muslims but non-believers in that sort of Wahhabi variant of Islam that they believe in. So to them all the world's an enemy, whether it's a Shia Muslim who's worthy of immediate death or Yazidis, who many are enslaved. ..."
    "... Now we're getting to-the fighting is in East Mosul and that's full of people. This is an important question that's going to come up now in the next few weeks. The Iraqi army isn't making that much progress over the last week in those areas, so what'll they do? One option is much more bombing and disregard the civilian casualties. If that happens then the number of civilian casualties will soar vastly from what it is now. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Above all, what's the relationship to Iran? That's one thing Trump is very committed to, was denouncing the Iran deal. Now, does that fall apart? Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies would be very pleased if it did fall apart. If that falls apart then that further destabilizes the region and gives an incentive to the Iranians to maybe increase their intervention [in Iraq] and Syria. It has all sorts of repercussions.

    That's probably the most menacing thing, is whether the deal Obama did with the Iranians is dropped by Trump, which would probably delight the Israelis, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies. That's the most destabilizing thing that could happen and is perhaps the most likely thing that could happen.

    KK: What effect would killing the Iran deal have on the war against ISIS?

    PC: There has always been this funny mixture particularly in Iraq, of public rivalry and private cooperation between the Iranian army and the U.S. because for a long time they had the same enemies-initially in Saddam Hussein and then al-Qaeda in Iraq. You had a Shia government [in Iraq] supported by the U.S. after 2005 but it was also supported by Iran. They wanted to increase their influence and limit that of America but they had the same friends and the same enemies. The degree of cooperation would depend somewhat on this nuclear deal and has increased because of this nuclear deal.

    Also the current government of Iran that is committed to this deal could fall apart. It's all very negative if that goes.

    KK: If Trump tears up the agreement, will there be a government more like Ahmadinejad's in Iran?

    PC: That's one thing that could happen…a tougher U.S. line on Iran provokes the whole Shia coalition against the U.S., makes them look more towards war than diplomacy.

    KK: Do you think Trump was serious when he called for a Russia détente?

    PC: He might be. It's not so stupid. To some degree, that's what we already have had: negotiations and an attempted ceasefire with the Russians. You can justify that by saying that if there is going to be any peace agreement in Syria, it has to be negotiated by the biggest players which are the U.S. and Russia. They may not be enough to do it, they may not be able to control allies or proxies or something. [But] that's sort of feasible.

    It's also true that policies such as Hillary Clinton's -- or just the people around her who were talking about fighting Islamic State and fighting, getting rid of Assad-were never feasible. There isn't a moderate opposition faction that could've fought both. It barely exists. The problem about this is, what Trump has said, these are not defined policies. We don't know who the guys who are meant to implement them are. So it's pretty incoherent.

    KK: Do you think these attempts to arm the rebels will continue to happen?

    PC: Yeah, it's evident that within the U.S. government, different parts of the government have different policies; you know, the CIA arming various rebel factions, the Pentagon tried this. But the idea of arming factions that were supposedly moderate not only hasn't worked but it's been disastrous, it's been a joke. Whatever the state of the Syrian political opposition, the armed opposition is dominated by Islamists and has been a long time. So that might continue but I don't think it'll make much difference. When it comes to troops, soldiers, on the ground cooperating with the U.S., of course, the Pentagon did find people but it was the Kurds and various proxies supported by the Kurds.

    KK: Has Trump's victory helped jihadis in Syria in Iraq?

    PC: Potentially it could, but I don't think it works that way at the moment because they tend to think of Americans, Europeans, not just non-Muslims but non-believers in that sort of Wahhabi variant of Islam that they believe in. So to them all the world's an enemy, whether it's a Shia Muslim who's worthy of immediate death or Yazidis, who many are enslaved. One of the things about the siege of Mosul, down the road from where I am, is that there are different armies-all of whom are enemies of the Islamic state and all hate each other -- besieging the place at the moment.

    Now potentially, [if] Muslims start getting kicked out, if some people get killed and so forth, yeah that would play to their advantage. Any sort of communal punishment of Muslims anywhere is something that they can take advantage of in their propaganda. The degree to which that's successful and helps them of course depends on the degree of the communal punishment to which Muslims are subject.

    KK: Do you think the numbers we're seeing are vastly understated with respect to civilian casualties arising from the coalition airstrikes on ISIS territory?

    PC: They're probably understated; whether they're vastly understated I don't know. Areas I've been to between here and Mosul, most of the villages were uninhabited ever since ISIS took them over in 2014. There weren't many people living there, so they could bomb these ISIS positions without killing many civilians.

    Now we're getting to-the fighting is in East Mosul and that's full of people. This is an important question that's going to come up now in the next few weeks. The Iraqi army isn't making that much progress over the last week in those areas, so what'll they do? One option is much more bombing and disregard the civilian casualties. If that happens then the number of civilian casualties will soar vastly from what it is now.

    KK: Could Trump pursue that option?

    PC: Potentially, yeah, they could up the bombing, particularly in places like Mosul. But it's too early to say.

    [Nov 16, 2016] What Was the Election All About

    Nov 12, 2016 | www.independent.org

    ...In fact, the entire Democratic Party has mainly ceased to campaign on issues-choosing instead to invest heavily in identity politics. The message to black voters is: vote for us because you are black, not because of anything we are going to do. Ditto for Hispanics. And women. And the LGBT community. And others. Hillary does have an agenda. More on that in a future post. But she didn't campaign on it.

    As for the mainstream media, I have never seen an election in which the media was so biased. And not just biased. The media's entire view of the election was Hillary Clinton's view. Even on Fox News, the entire focus on election night and in the days that followed was on identity politics. How many blacks were voting? How many Hispanics? How many women?

    As if demography were destiny.

    Now, as it turns out, a greater percentage of blacks voted for Trump than voted for Romney. The same thing is true of Hispanics. In fact, Trump did better among minorities than any Republican since Ronald Reagan. He even got a majority of white female votes.

    Why were all these people doing something they weren't supposed to do? On network television and even on cable television, no one had an answer.

    Putting the media aside for the moment, do you know what Hillary's position is on trade deals with other countries? Of course, you don't. And neither does anyone else. When she spoke about the issue at all, she said one thing behind closed doors and another in public. The reason this doesn't matter on Wall Street (or to the editors of the New York Times ) is that they assume she has no real convictions and that money and special interest influence will always win out.

    What about Hillary's solution to the problem of illegal immigration? Do you know what that is? How about her position on corporate tax reform? Or school choice? Or Obamacare? Or opportunities for blacks in inner cities?

    I bet you don't know her positions on any of these topics. But I bet you do know Donald Trump's. Not in detail, of course. But I bet you know the general way in which he differs from Obama administration policies.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Will Trump really be Isolationist Or will he March us to War

    Notable quotes:
    "... Outgoing representative Randy Forbes of Virginia, a contender to be secretary of the Navy in the new administration, recently said that the president elect would employ "an international defense strategy that is driven by the Pentagon and not by the political National Security Council… Because if you look around the globe, over the last eight years, the National Security Council has been writing that. And find one country anywhere that we are better off than we were eight years [ago], you cannot find it." ..."
    "... Such a plan might actually blunt armed adventurism, since it was war-weary military officials who reportedly pushed back against President Obama's plans to escalate Iraq War 3.0. ..."
    "... Under President Obama, the U.S. has waged war in or carried out attacks on at least eight nations - Afghanistan, Iran , Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. A Clinton presidency promised more, perhaps markedly more, of the same - an attitude summed up in her infamous comment about the late Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi: " We came, we saw, he died ." ..."
    "... "Trump does not believe in war. He sees war as bad, destructive, death and a wealth destruction."... ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.juancole.com
    As Clinton's future in the Oval Office evaporated, leaving only a whiff of her stale dreams, I saw all the foreign-policy certainties, all the hawkish policies and military interventions, all the would-be bin Laden raids and drone strikes she'd preside over as commander-in-chief similarly vanish into the ether.

    With her failed candidacy went the no-fly escalation in Syria that she was sure to pursue as president with the vigor she had applied to the disastrous Libyan intervention of 2011 while secretary of state. So, too, went her continued pursuit of the now-nameless war on terror, the attendant " gray-zone " conflicts - marked by small contingents of U.S. troops, drone strikes, and bombing campaigns - and all those munitions she would ship to Saudi Arabia for its war in Yemen.

    As the life drained from Clinton's candidacy, I saw her rabid pursuit of a new Cold War start to wither and Russo-phobic comparisons of Putin's rickety Russian petro-state to Stalin's Soviet Union begin to die. I saw the end, too, of her Iron Curtain-clouded vision of NATO, of her blind faith in an alliance more in line with 1957 than 2017.

    As Clinton's political fortunes collapsed, so did her Israel-Palestine policy - rooted in the fiction that American and Israeli security interests overlap - and her commitment to what was clearly an unworkable "peace process." Just as, for domestic considerations, she would blindly support that Middle Eastern nuclear power, so was she likely to follow President Obama's trillion-dollar path to modernizing America's nuclear arsenal. All that, along with her sure-to-be-gargantuan military budget requests, were scattered to the winds by her ringing defeat.

    ... ... ....

    ...would he follow the dictum of candidate Trump who said , "The current strategy of toppling regimes, with no plan for what to do the day after, only produces power vacuums that are filled by terrorists."

    Outgoing representative Randy Forbes of Virginia, a contender to be secretary of the Navy in the new administration, recently said that the president elect would employ "an international defense strategy that is driven by the Pentagon and not by the political National Security Council… Because if you look around the globe, over the last eight years, the National Security Council has been writing that. And find one country anywhere that we are better off than we were eight years [ago], you cannot find it."

    Such a plan might actually blunt armed adventurism, since it was war-weary military officials who reportedly pushed back against President Obama's plans to escalate Iraq War 3.0. According to some Pentagon-watchers, a potentially hostile bureaucracy might also put the brakes on even fielding a national security team in a timely fashion.

    While Wall Street investors seemed convinced that the president elect would be good for defense industry giants like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, whose stocks surged in the wake of Trump's win, it's unclear whether that indicates a belief in more armed conflicts or simply more bloated military spending.

    Under President Obama, the U.S. has waged war in or carried out attacks on at least eight nations - Afghanistan, Iran , Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. A Clinton presidency promised more, perhaps markedly more, of the same - an attitude summed up in her infamous comment about the late Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi: " We came, we saw, he died ."

    Trump advisor Senator Jeff Sessions said , "Trump does not believe in war. He sees war as bad, destructive, death and a wealth destruction."...

    [Nov 16, 2016] The adoption of a federal job guarantee would insure the option for anyone to work in a public sector program, similar to what the Works Progress Administration established in the 1930s

    Notable quotes:
    "... Each job offered under a federal employment assurance would be at a wage rate above the poverty threshold, and would include benefits like health insurance. A public sector job guarantee would establish a quality of work and the level of compensation offered for all jobs. The program would be great for the country: It could meet a wide range of the nation's physical and human infrastructure needs, ranging from the building and maintenance of roads, bridges and highways, to school upkeep and the provision of quality child care services"" ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    financial matters November 16, 2016 at 8:30 am

    Not sure if Trump realizes this but there is already a blueprint for creating infrastructure jobs. (hat tip SK)

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/07/11/are-we-ready-for-the-next-recession/a-guaranteed-federal-jobs-program-is-needed

    ""A lot of this has to do with the fact that Americans continue to be subjected to bad jobs or unstable employment - and those who are employed often face stagnant or even declining wages. The fragility of Americans' economic well-being is epitomized by the National Coalition for the Homeless' estimate that 44 percent of homeless persons actually have jobs, albeit poorly paid jobs.

    The expansion of "flex work" arrangements, which make work hours uncertain, contribute significantly to income volatility for workers in low-pay sectors of the economy. Around 50 percent of Americans could not meet a $400 emergency expense by drawing upon their personal savings if they had to.

    An alternative to these conditions is the adoption of a federal job guarantee, a policy that would insure the option for anyone to work in a public sector program, similar to what the Works Progress Administration established in the 1930s.

    Each job offered under a federal employment assurance would be at a wage rate above the poverty threshold, and would include benefits like health insurance. A public sector job guarantee would establish a quality of work and the level of compensation offered for all jobs. The program would be great for the country: It could meet a wide range of the nation's physical and human infrastructure needs, ranging from the building and maintenance of roads, bridges and highways, to school upkeep and the provision of quality child care services""

    [Nov 16, 2016] Ultimately the Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one

    Notable quotes:
    "... Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders. ..."
    "... "Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will. ..."
    "... What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation, either. ..."
    "... What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common with working class people anywhere? ..."
    "... Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political power – because with power come blame. ..."
    "... I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and made it happen (such as TPP). ..."
    "... Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio. ..."
    "... Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g. Privateers at SSA. ..."
    "... My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor. ..."
    "... The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know, hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah. ..."
    "... The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips, a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part of the 1%). ..."
    "... The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted. ..."
    "... I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away. ..."
    "... If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that. ..."
    "... Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down. ..."
    "... The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. ..."
    "... White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America ..."
    "... Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own resources, and clung together for mutual assistance. ..."
    "... White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history, whether we like it or not". ..."
    "... "To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists " ..."
    "... working class white women ..."
    "... Obama is personally likeable ..."
    "... History tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the activist class there are identity purity battles going on. ..."
    "... Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen. ..."
    "... Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Altandmain November 15, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Ultimately the Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility for what happened.

    Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders.

    Class trumps race, to make a pun. If the left doesn't take the Democratic Party back and clean house, I expect that there is a high probability that 2020's election will look at lot like the 2004 elections.

    I'd recommend someone like Sanders to run. Amongst the current crop, maybe Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner seem like the best candidates.

    Carla November 15, 2016 at 10:42 am

    "Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will.

    Synoia November 15, 2016 at 10:13 am

    What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation, either.

    What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common with working class people anywhere?

    The same question applies to Hillary, to Trump and the remainder of our "representatives" in Congress.

    Without Unions, how are US Representatives from the working class elected?

    What we are seeing is a shift in the US for the Republicans to become the populist party. They already have the churches, and with Trump they can gain the working class – although I do not underestimate the contempt help by our elected leaders for the Working Class and poor.

    The have forgotten, if they ever believed: "There, but for the grace of God, go I".

    Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    > What would make Democrats focus on the working class?

    The quest for political power.

    Synoia November 15, 2016 at 11:19 pm

    Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political power – because with power come blame.

    I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and made it happen (such as TPP).

    James Dodd November 15, 2016 at 10:46 am

    What So Many People Don't Get About the U.S. Working Class – Harvard Business Review

    anonymouse November 15, 2016 at 11:07 am

    We know that class and economic insecurity drove many white people to vote for Trump. That's understandable. And now we are seeing a rise in hate incidents inspired by his victory. So obviously there is a race component in his support as well. So, if you, white person, didn't vote for Trump out of white supremacy, would you consider making a statement that disavows the acts of extremist whites? Do you vow to stand up and help if you see people being victimized? Do you vow not to stay silent when you encounter Trump supporters who ARE obviously in thrall to the white supremacist siren call?

    Brad November 15, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio.

    And I wouldn't worry about it. When I worked at the at the USX Fairless works in Levittown PA in 1988, I was befriended by one steelworker who was a clear raving white supremacist racist. (Actually rather nonchalant about about it). However he was the only one I encountered who was like this, and eventually I figured out that he befriended a "newbie" like me because he had no friends among the other workers, including the whites. He was not popular at all.

    Harold November 15, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Left-wing populism unites people of all classes and all identities by emphasizing policies. That was what Bernie Sanders meant to me, at least.

    Citizen Sissy November 15, 2016 at 11:38 am

    I've always thought that Class, not Race, was the Third Rail of American Politics, and that the US was fast-tracking to a more shiny, happy feudalism.

    Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g. Privateers at SSA.

    Gonna get interesting very quickly.

    rd November 15, 2016 at 11:47 am

    My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor.

    She also makes it clear to me that the Somali/Syrian/Iraqi etc. immigrant kids are going to do very well even though they come in without a word of English because they are working their butts off and they have the full support of their parents and community. These people left bad places and came to their future and they are determined to grab it with both hands. 40% of her class this year is ENL (English as a non-native language). Since it is an inner city school, they don't have teacher's aides in the class, so it is just one teacher in a class of 26-28 kids, of which a dozen struggle to understand English. Surprisingly, the class typically falls short of the "standards" that the state sets for the standardized exams. Yet many of the immigrant kids end up going to university after high school through sheer effort.

    Bullying and extreme misbehavior (teachers are actually getting injured by violent elementary kids) is largely done by kids born in the US. The immigrant kids tend to be fairly well-behaved.

    On a side note, the CSA at our local farmer's market said they couldn't find people to pick the last of their fall crops (it is in a rural community so a car is needed to get there). So the food bank was going out this week to pick produce like squash, onions etc. and we were told we could come out and pick what we wanted. Full employment?

    Dave November 15, 2016 at 11:55 am

    "Women and minorities encouraged to apply" is a Class issue?

    shinola November 15, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know, hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah.

    The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips, a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part of the 1%).

    The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted.

    I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away.

    Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    I'm recalling (too lazy to find the link) a poll a couple years ago that showed the number of American's identifying as "working class" increased, and the number as "middle class" decreased.

    Vatch November 15, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Here ya go!

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/182918/fewer-americans-identify-middle-class-recent-years.aspx

    jrs November 15, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    even working class is a total equivocation. A lot of them are service workers period.

    TarheelDem November 15, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    It is both. And it is a deliberate mechanism of class division to preserve power. Bill Cecil-Fronsman,

    Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina identifies nine classes in the class structure of a state that mixed modern capitalist practice (plantations), agrarian YOYO independence (the non-slaveowning subsistence farms), town economies, and subsistence (farm labor). Those classes were typed racially and had certain economic, power, and social relations associated with them. For both credit and wages, few escaped the plantation economy and being subservient to the planter capitalists locally.

    Moreover, ethnic identity was embedded in the law as a class marker. This system was developed independently or exported through imitation in various ways to the states outside North Carolina and the slave-owning states. The abolition of slavery meant free labor in multiple senses and the capitalist use of ethnic minorities and immigrants as scabs integrated them into an ethnic-class system, where it was broad ethnicity and not just skin-color that defined classes. Other ethnic groups, except Latinos and Muslim adherents, now have earned their "whiteness".

    One suspects that every settler colonial society develops this combined ethnic-class structure in which the indigenous ("Indians" in colonial law) occupy one group of classes and imported laborers or slaves or intermixtures ("Indian", "Cape Colored" in South Africa) occupy another group of classes available for employment in production. Once employed, the relationship is exactly that of the slaveowner to the slave no matter how nicely the harsh labor management techniques of 17th century Barbados and Jamaica have been made kinder and gentler. But outside the workplace (and often still inside) the broader class structure applies even contrary to the laws trying to restrict the relationship to boss and worker.

    Blacks are not singling themselves out to police; police are shooting unarmed black people without punishment. The race of the cop does not matter, but the institution of impunity makes it open season on a certain class of victims.

    It is complicated because every legal and often managerial attempt has been made to reduce the class structure of previous economies to the pure capitalism demanded by current politics.

    So when in a post Joe McCarthy, post-Cold War propaganda society, someone wants to protest the domination of capitalism, attacking who they perceive as de facto scabs to their higher incomes (true or not) is the chosen mode of political attack. Not standing up for the political rights of the victims of ethnically-marked violence and discrimination allows the future depression of wages and salaries by their selective use as a threat in firms. And at the individual firm and interpersonal level even this gets complicated because in spite of the pressure to just be businesslike, people do still care for each other.

    This is a perennial mistake. In the 1930s Southern Textile Strike, some organizing was of both black and white workers; the unions outside the South rarely stood in solidarity with those efforts because they were excluding ethnic minorities from their unions; indeed, some locals were organized by ethnicity. That attitude also carried over to solidarity with white workers in the textile mills. And those white workers who went out on a limb to organize a union never forgot that failure in their labor struggle. It is the former textile areas of the South that are most into Trump's politics and not so much the now minority-majority plantation areas.

    It still is race in the inner ring suburbs of ethnically diverse cities like St. Louis that hold the political lock on a lot of states. Because Ferguson to them seems like an invasion of the lower class. Class politics, of cultural status, based on ethnicity. Still called by that 19h century scientific racism terminology that now has been debunked - race - Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid. Indigenous, at least in the Americas, got stuck under Mongoloid.

    You go organize the black, Latino, and white working class to form unions and gain power, and it will happen. It is why Smithfield Foods in North Carolina had to negotiate a contract. Race can be transcended in action.

    Pretending the ethnic discrimination and even segregation does not exist and have its own problems is political suicide in the emerging demographics. Might not be a majority, but it is an important segment of the vote. Which is why the GOP suppressed minority voters through a variety of legal and shady electoral techniques. Why Trump wants to deport up to 12 million potential US citizens and some millions of already birthright minor citizens. And why we are likely to see the National Labor Review Board gutted of what little power it retains from 70 years of attack. Interesting what the now celebrated white working class was not offered in this election, likely because they would vote it down quicker because, you know, socialism.

    armchair November 15, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    Your comment reminded me of an episode in Seattle's history. Link . The unions realized they were getting beat in their strikes, by scabs, who were black. The trick was for the unions to bring the blacks into the union. This was a breakthrough, and it worked in Seattle, in 1934. There is a cool mural the union commissioned by, Pablo O'Higgins , to celebrate the accomplishment.

    barrisj November 15, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    Speaking of class, and class contempt , one must recall the infamous screed published by National Review columnist Kevin Williamson early this year, writing about marginalised white people here is a choice excerpt:

    If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that.

    Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down.

    The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.

    http://crasstalk.com/2016/03/poor-white-america-deserves-to-die-says-national-review/

    Now it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to state that Williamson's animus can be replicated amongst many of the moneyed elite currently pushing and shoving their way into a position within the incoming Trump Administration. The Trump campaign has openly and cynically courted and won the votes of white people similar to those mentioned in Williamson's article, and who – doubtlessly – will be stiffed by policies vigourously opposed to their welfare that will be enacted during the Trump years. The truly intriguing aspect of the Trump election is: what will be the consequences of further degradation of the "lower orders' " quality of life by such actions? Wholesale retreat from electoral politics? Further embitterment and anger NOT toward those in Washington responsible for their lot but directed against ethnic and racial minorities "stealing their jawbs" and "getting welfare while we scrounge for a living"? I sincerely doubt whether the current or a reconstructed Democratic Party can at all rally this large chunk of white America by posing as their "champions" the class divide in the US is as profound as the racial chasm, and neither major party – because of internal contradictions – can offer a credible answer.

    Waldenpond November 15, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    [In addition to the growing inequality and concomitant wage stagnation for the middle and working classes, 9/11 and its aftermath has certainly has contributed to it as well, as, making PEOPLE LONG FOR the the Golden Age of Managerial Capitalism of the post-WWII era,]

    Oh yeah, I noticed a big ol' hankerin' for that from the electorate. What definition could the author be using for Managerial Capitalism that could make it the opposite of inequality? The fight for power between administration and shareholders does not lead to equality for workers.

    [So this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of crony capitalist enablers,]

    I don't think it's an 'idea' that the govt is crony capitalists and enablers. Ds need to get away from emotive descriptions. Being under/unemployed, houseless, homeless, unable to pay for rent, utilities, food . aren't feelings/ideas. When that type of language is used, it comes across as hand waving. There needs to be a shift of talking to rather than talking about.

    If crony capitalism is an idea, it's simply a matter for Ds to identify a group (workers), create a hierarchy (elite!) and come up with a propaganda campaign (celebrities and musicians spending time in flyover country-think hanging out in coffee shops in a flannel shirt) to get votes. Promise to toss them a couple of crumbs with transfer payments (retraining!) or a couple of regulations (mandatory 3 week severance!) and bring out the obligatory D fall back- it would be better than the Rs would give them. On the other hand, if it's factual, the cronies need to be stripped of power and kicked out or the nature of the capitalist structure needs to be changed. It's laughable to imagine liberals or progressives would be open to changing the power and nature of the corporate charter (it makes me smile to think of the gasps).

    The author admits that politicians lie and continue the march to the right yet uses the ACA, a march to the right, as a connection to Obama's (bombing, spying, shrinking middle class) likability.

    [[But emphasizing class-based policies, rather than gender or race-based solutions, will achieve more for the broad swathe of voters, who comprehensively rejected the "neo-liberal lite" identity politics]

    Oops. I got a little lost with the neo-liberal lite identity politics. Financialized identity politics? Privatized identity politics?

    I believe women and poc have lost ground (economic and rights) so I would like examples of successful gender and race-based (liberal identity politics) solutions that would demonstrate that identity politics targeting is going to work on the working class.

    If workers have lost power, to balance that structure, you give workers more power (I predict that will fail as unions fall under the generic definition of corporatist and the power does not rest with the members but with the CEOs of the unions – an example is a union that block the members from voting to endorse a candidate, go against the member preference and endorse the corporatist candidate), or you remove power from the corporation. Libs/progs can't merely propose something like vesting more power with shareholders to remove executives as an ameliorating maneuver which fails to address the power imbalance.

    [This is likely only to accelerate the disintegration of the political system and economic system until the elephant in the room – class – is honestly and comprehensively addressed.]

    barrisj November 15, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    For a thorough exposition of lower-class white America from the inception of the Republic to today, a must-read is Nancy Isenberg's White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America . Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own resources, and clung together for mutual assistance.

    Thus became the economic and cultural subset of "crackers", "hillbillies", "rednecks", and later, "Okies", a source of contempt and scorn by more economically and culturally endowed whites. The anti-bellum white Southern aristocracy cynically used poor whites as cheap tenant farming, all the while laying down race-based distinctions between them and black slaves – there is always someone lower on the totem pole, and that distinction remains in place today. Post-Reconstruction, the South maintained the cult of white superiority, all the while preserving the status of upper-class whites, and, by race-based public policies, assured lower-class whites that such "superiority" would be maintained by denying the black populations access to education, commerce, the vote, etc. And today, "white trash", or "trailer trash", or poorer whites in general are ubiquitous and as American as apple pie, in the North, the Midwest, and the West, not just the South. Let me quote Isenberg's final paragraph of her book:

    White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history, whether we like it or not".

    Enquiring Mind November 15, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Also read Albion's Seed for interesting discussion about the waves of immigration and how those went on to impact subsequent generations.

    vegeholic November 15, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Presenting a plan for the future, which has a chance to be supported by the electorate, must start with scrupulous, unwavering honesty and a willingness to acknowledge inconvenient facts. The missing topic from the 2016 campaigns was declining energy surpluses and their pervasive, negative impact on the prosperity to which we feel entitled. Because of the energy cost of producing oil, a barrel today represents a declining fraction of a barrel in terms of net energy. This is the major factor in sluggish economic performance. Failing to make this case and, at the same time, offering glib and vacuous promises of growth and economic revival, are just cynical exercises in pandering.

    Our only option is to mange the coming decline in a way that does not descend into chaos and anarchy. This can only be done with a clear vision of causes and effects and the wisdom and courage to accept facts. The alternative is yet more delusions and wishful thinking, whose shelf life is getting shorter.

    ChrisAtRU November 15, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    Marshall is awesome.

    To be fair to the article, Marshall did in fact say:

    "To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists "

    IMO the point Marshall is making that race was not the primary reason #DJT won. And I concur.

    This is borne out by the vote tallies which show that the number of R voters from 2012 to 2016 was pretty much on the level (final counts pending):
    2016 R Vote: 60,925,616
    2012 R Vote: 60,934,407
    (Source: US Election Atlas )

    Stop and think about this for a minute. Every hard core racist had their guy this time around; and yet, the R's could barely muster the same amount of votes as Mittens in 2012. This is huge, and supports the case that other things contributed far more than just race.

    Class played in several ways:
    Indifference/apathy/fatigue: Lambert posted some data from Carl Beijer on this yesterday in his Clinton Myths piece yesterday.
    Anger: #HRC could not convince many people who voted for Bernie that she was interested in his outreach to the working class. More importantly, #HRC could not convince working class white women that she had anything other than her gender and Trump's boorishness as a counterpoint to offer.
    Outsider v Insider: Working class people skeptical of political insiders rejected #HRC.

    TG November 15, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    Kudos. Well said.

    If black workers were losing ground and white workers were gaining, one could indeed claim that racism is a problem. However, both black and white workers are losing ground – racism simply cannot be the major issue here. It's not racism, it's class war.

    The fixation on race, the corporate funding of screaming 'black lives matter' agitators, the crude attempts to tie Donald Trump to the KKK (really? really?) are just divide and conquer, all over again.

    Whatever his other faults, Donald Trump has been vigorous in trying to reach out to working class blacks, even though he knew he wouldn't get much of their vote and he knew that the media mostly would not cover it. Last I heard, he was continuing to try and reach out, despite the black 'leadership' class demanding that he is a racist. Because as was so well pointed out here, the one thing the super-rich fear is a united working class.

    Divide and conquer. It's an old trick, but a powerful one.

    Suggestion: if (and it's a big if) Trump really does enact policies that help working class blacks, and the Republicans peel away a significant fraction of the black vote, that would set the elites' hair on fire. Because it would mean that the black vote would be in play, and the Neoliberal Democrats couldn't just take their votes for granted. And wouldn't that be a thing.

    pretzelattack November 16, 2016 at 3:09 am

    that was good for 2016. I will look to see if he has stats for other years. i certainly agree that poor whites are more likely to be shot; executions of homeless people by police are one example. the kind of system that was imposed on the people of ferguson has often been imposed on poor whites, too. i do object to the characterization of black lives matter protestors as "screaming agitators"; that's all too reminiscent of the meme of "outside agitators" riling up the local peaceful black people to stand up for their rights that was characteristically used to smear the civil rights movement in the 60's.

    tongorad November 15, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    I might not have much in common at all with certain minorities, but it's highly likely that we share class status.
    That's why the status quo allows identity politics and suppresses class politics.

    Sound of the Suburbs November 15, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Having been around for sometime, I often wonder what The Guardian is going on about in the UK as it is supposed to be our left wing broadsheet.

    It isn't a left I even recognised, what was it?

    I do read it to try and find out what nonsense it is these people think.

    Having been confused for many a year, I think I have just understood this identity based politics as it is about to disappear.

    I now think it was a cunning ploy to split the electorate in a different way, to leave the UK working class with no political outlet.

    Being more traditional left I often commented on our privately educated elite and private schools but the Guardian readership were firmly in favour of them.

    How is this left?

    Thank god this is now failing, get back to the old left, the working class and those lower down the scale.

    It was clever while it lasted in enabling neoliberalism and a neglect of the working class, but clever in a cunning, nasty and underhand way.

    Sound of the Suburbs November 15, 2016 at 5:33 pm

    Thinking about it, so many of these recent elections have been nearly 50% / 50% splits, has there been a careful analysis of who neoliberalism disadvantages and what minorities need to be bought into the fold to make it work in a democracy.

    Women are not a minority, but obviously that is a big chunk if you can get them under your wing. The black vote is another big group when split away and so on.

    Brexit nearly 50/50; Austria nearly 50/50; US election nearly 50/50.

    giovanni zibordi November 15, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    So, 85% of Blacks vote Hillary against Sanders (left) and 92% vote Hillary against Trump (right), but is no race. It's the class issue that sends them to the Clintons. Kindly explain how.

    dk November 15, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    Obama is personally likeable

    Funny think about likeability, likeable people can be real sh*ts. So I started looking into hanging out with less likeable people. I found that they can be considerably more appreciative of friendship and loyalty, maybe because they don't have such easy access to it.

    Entertainment media has cautiously explored some aspect so fthis, but in politics, "nice" is still disproportionately values, and not appreciated as a possible flag.

    Erelis November 15, 2016 at 10:59 pm

    Watch out buddy. They are onto you. I have seen some comments on democratic party sites claiming the use of class to explain Hillary's loss is racist. The democratic party is a goner. History tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the activist class there are identity purity battles going on.

    Gaylord November 15, 2016 at 11:24 pm

    Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen.

    different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:47 am

    Well it certainly won't happen by itself. People are going to have to make it happen. Here in Michigan we have a tiny new party called Working Class Party running 3 people here and there. I voted for two of them. If the Democrats run somebody no worse than Trump next time, I will be free to vote Working Class Party to see what happens.

    Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Rand Paul: Will Donald Trump betray voters by hiring John Bolton?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles. ..."
    "... In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died." ..."
    "... All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded. ..."
    "... Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy." ..."
    "... But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | rare.us
    Bolton was one of the loudest advocates of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and still stupefyingly insists it was the right call 13 years later. "I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct," Bolton said just last year.

    Trump, rightly, believes that decision was a colossal mistake that destabilized the region. "Iraq used to be no terrorists," Trump said in 2015. "(N)ow it's the Harvard of terrorism."

    "If you look at Iraq from years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy," Trump said of Saddam Hussein, "but it was a lot better than it is right now."

    Trump has said U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 "helped to throw the region into chaos and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper." In contrast, Bolton has said explicitly that he wants to repeat Iraq-style regime change in Syrian and Iran.

    You can't learn from mistakes if you don't see mistakes.

    Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles.

    In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died."

    When Trump was asked last year if Libya and the region would be more stable today with Gaddafi in power, he replied "100 percent." Mr. Trump is 100 percent right .

    No man is more out of touch with the situation in the Middle East or more dangerous to our national security than Bolton.

    All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded.

    Woodrow Wilson would be proud, but the parents of our soldiers should be mortified. War should be the last resort, never the first. War should be understood to be a hell no one wishes for. Dwight Eisenhower understood this when he wrote, "I hate war like only a soldier can, the stupidity, the banality, the futility."

    Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy."

    But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us: "Even before the Iraq War, John Bolton was a leading brain behind the neoconservatives' war-and-conquest agenda," notes The American Conservative's Jon Utley.

    At a time when Americans thirst for change and new thinking, Bolton is an old hand at failed foreign policy.

    The man is a menace.

    Rand Paul is the junior senator from Kentucky.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Trump Needs Good Advice

    Notable quotes:
    "... Instead, by some accounts, we will quite possibly be getting Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Sarah Palin, Jose Rodriguez, Michael Ledeen, and Michael Flynn. Bolton, who is being tagged as a possible secretary of state, would be a one-man reactionary horror show, making one long for the good old days of Condi Rice and Madeleine Albright. ..."
    "... It is reported that associates from the conservative Heritage Foundation have been tasked with the search for suitable national-security candidates as part of the transition team. One candidate to head the CIA is Jose Rodriguez, who back under W headed the agency's torture program. ..."
    "... The White House could, however, de facto scuttle the agreement by imposing new sanctions on Iran and continuing to apply pressure on Iranian banks and credit through Washington's influence over international financial markets. ..."
    "... Someone has to try to convince Trump that the Iranian agreement is good for everyone involved, including Israel and the United States. ..."
    "... The president-elect is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders, so he has relied on a mixed bag of foreign-policy advisors. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch-neocon Michael Ledeen, and both are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should be laid at Tehran's door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran in his sights. Their solution to the Iran problem would undoubtedly entail the use of military force against the Islamic Republic. Given what is at stake in terms of yet another Middle Eastern war and possible nuclear proliferation, it is essential that Donald Trump hear some alternative views. ..."
    "... There are other foreign-policy areas as well where Trump will undoubtedly be receiving bad advice and would benefit from a broader vision. ..."
    "... The Trump Asia policy, meanwhile, consists largely of uninformed and reactionary positions that would benefit from a bit of fresh air provided through access to alternative viewpoints. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    I would very much like to see the White House revert to a George Marshall type of foreign policy, in which the United States would use its vast power wisely rather than punitively. As Donald Trump knows little of what makes the world go round, senior officials and cabinet secretaries will play a key role in framing and executing policy. One would like to see people like Jim Webb, Chas Freeman, Andrew Bacevich, or even TAC 's own Daniel Larison in key government positions, as one might thereby rely on their cool judgment and natural restraint to guide the ship of state. But that is unfortunately unlikely to happen.

    Instead, by some accounts, we will quite possibly be getting Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Sarah Palin, Jose Rodriguez, Michael Ledeen, and Michael Flynn. Bolton, who is being tagged as a possible secretary of state, would be a one-man reactionary horror show, making one long for the good old days of Condi Rice and Madeleine Albright. There are also lesser, mostly neocon luminaries lining up for supporting roles, résumés ready at hand. To be sure, we won't be seeing the Kagans, Eliot Cohen, Eric Edelman, or Michael Hayden, who defected to Hillary in dramatic fashion, but there are plenty of others who are polishing up their credentials and hoping to let bygones be bygones. They are eager to return to power and regain the emoluments that go with high office, so they will now claim to be adaptable enough to work for someone they once described as unfit to be president.

    It is reported that associates from the conservative Heritage Foundation have been tasked with the search for suitable national-security candidates as part of the transition team. One candidate to head the CIA is Jose Rodriguez, who back under W headed the agency's torture program. Another former CIA officer who is a particularly polarizing figure and is apparently being looked at for high office is Clare Lopez, who has claimed that the Obama White House is infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Lopez is regarded by the Trump team as "one of the intellectual thought leaders about why we have to fight back against radical Islam." She has long been associated with the Center for Security Policy , headed by Frank Gaffney, a fanatical hardliner who believes that Saddam Hussein was involved in both the 1993 World Trade Center attack and the Oklahoma City bombing, that Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist is a secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, that Gen. David Petraeus has "submitted to Sharia," and that the logo of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency reveals "official U.S. submission to Islam" because it "appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star."

    But if Rodriguez and Lopez and others like them can be either discarded or kept in a closet somewhere, let us hope for the best. If Trump appoints competent senior officials, they might actually undertake a serious review of what America does around the world. Such an examination would be appropriate, as Trump has more or less promised to shake things up. He has indicated that he would abandon the policy of humanitarian intervention so loved by President Barack Obama and his advisors, and has signaled that he will not be pursuing regime change in Syria. He will also seek détente with Russia, a major shift from the increasingly confrontational policy of the past eight years.

    Donald Trump rejects arming rebels as in Syria because we know little about whom we are dealing with and increasingly find that we cannot control what develops from the relationship. He is against foreign aid in principle, particularly to countries like Pakistan where the U.S. is strongly disliked. These are all positive steps, and the new administration should be encouraged to pursue them. The White House might also want to consider easing the United States out of Afghanistan through something like the negotiated Paris Peace talks arrangement that ended Vietnam. Fifteen years of conflict with no end in sight: Afghanistan is a war that is unwinnable.

    Apart from several easy-to-identify major issues, Trump's foreign policy is admittedly quite sketchy, and he has not always been consistent in explaining it. He has been slammed, appropriately enough, for being simple minded in saying that he would "bomb the [crap] out of ISIS" and that he is willing to put 30,000 soldiers on the ground if necessary to destroy the terrorist group, but he has also taken on the Republican establishment by specifically condemning the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq. He has more than once indicated that he is not interested in being either the world's policeman or a participant in new wars in the Middle East. He has repeatedly stated that he supports NATO, but not as a blunt instrument designed to irritate Russia. He would work with Putin to address concerns over Syria and Eastern Europe. He would demand that NATO countries spend more for their own defense and also help pay for the maintenance of U.S. bases, which many argue to be long overdue.

    Trump's controversial call to stop all Muslim immigration has been rightly condemned, but he has somewhat moderated that stance to focus on travelers and immigrants from countries that have been substantially radicalized or where anti-American sentiment is strong. And the demand to take a second look at some potential visitors or residents is not unreasonable in that the current process for vetting new arrivals in this country is far from transparent and apparently not very effective.

    Beyond platitudes, the Obama administration has not been very forthcoming on what might be done to fix the entire immigration process, but Trump is promising to put national security and border control first. If Trump were to receive good advice on the issue, he would indeed tighten border security and gradually move to repatriate most illegal immigrants, but he would also look at the investigative procedures used to examine the backgrounds and intentions of refugees and asylum seekers who come in through other resettlement programs. The United States has an obligation to help genuine refugees from countries that have been shattered through Washington's military interventions, but it also has a duty to know exactly whom it is letting in.

    Trump is also critical of the Iran nuclear agreement and the steps to normalize relations with Cuba, the two most notable foreign-policy successes of the Obama administration. Any change in the latter would have relatively little impact on the United States, but the Iran deal is important as it stopped potential proliferation by Iran, which likely would have produced a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Trump has called the agreement "horrible" because it stopped short of total capitulation by Tehran and has pledged to "renegotiate it," which might prove impossible given that the pact had five other signatories. Iran would in any event refuse to make further concessions, particularly as it would no longer be prepared to accept assurances that Washington would comply with any agreement.

    The White House could, however, de facto scuttle the agreement by imposing new sanctions on Iran and continuing to apply pressure on Iranian banks and credit through Washington's influence over international financial markets. If enough pressure were applied, Iran could rightly claim that the U.S. had failed to comply with the agreement and withdraw from it, possibly leading to an accelerated nuclear-weapons program justified on the basis of self-defense. It is precisely the outcome that many hardliners both in Washington and Iran would like to see, as it would invite a harsh response from the White House, ending any possibility of an accord over proliferation.

    Someone has to try to convince Trump that the Iranian agreement is good for everyone involved, including Israel and the United States. Even though such a suggestion is unlikely to come from the current group of advisors, who are strongly anti-Iranian, a good argument might be made based on what Trump himself has been urging vis-à-vis Syria, stressing that ISIS is America's real enemy and Iran is a major partner in the coalition that is actively fighting the terrorist group. As in the case of Russia, it makes sense to cooperate with Iran when it is in our interest, and it also is desirable to prolong the process, delaying Iran's possible decision to acquire a nuclear capability. Working with Iran might even make the country's leadership less paranoid and would reduce the motivation to acquire a weapon in the first place, an argument analogous to Trump's observations about dealing with Russia.

    But it all comes down to the type of "expert" advice Trump gets. The president-elect is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders, so he has relied on a mixed bag of foreign-policy advisors. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch-neocon Michael Ledeen, and both are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should be laid at Tehran's door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran in his sights. Their solution to the Iran problem would undoubtedly entail the use of military force against the Islamic Republic. Given what is at stake in terms of yet another Middle Eastern war and possible nuclear proliferation, it is essential that Donald Trump hear some alternative views.

    There are other foreign-policy areas as well where Trump will undoubtedly be receiving bad advice and would benefit from a broader vision. He has said that he would be an even-handed negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians, but he has also declared that he is strongly pro-Israel and would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem-which is a bad idea, not in America's interest, even if Benjamin Netanyahu would like it. It would produce serious blowback from the Arab world and would inspire a new wave of terrorism directed against the U.S. Someone should explain to Mr. Trump that there are real consequences to pledges made in the midst of an acrimonious electoral campaign.

    The Trump Asia policy, meanwhile, consists largely of uninformed and reactionary positions that would benefit from a bit of fresh air provided through access to alternative viewpoints. In East Asia, Trump has said he would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals to deter North Korea. That is a very bad idea, a proliferation nightmare, but Trump evidently eased away from that position during a recent phone call to the president of South Korea. Trump would also prefer that China intervene in North Korea and make Kim Jong Un "step down." He would put pressure on China to stop devaluing its currency because it is "bilking us of billions of dollars" and would also increase U.S. military presence in the region to limit Beijing's expansion in the South China Sea.

    It is to be hoped that Donald Trump and his transition team will be good listeners over the next 60 days. Positions staked out during a heated campaign do not equate to policy and should be regarded with considerable skepticism. American foreign policy, and by extension U.S. interests, have suffered for 16 years under the establishment-centric but nevertheless quite different groupthinks prevailing in the Bush and Obama White Houses. It is time for a little fresh advice.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Nov 16, 2016] This Changes Everything

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump promised to nominate a conservative to replace the late Antonin Scalia, and the possibilities he floated were well-received on the right. Assuming he keeps his promise, the only thing standing in the way is a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. ..."
    "... Obamacare has some highly popular provisions that cannot work without its other elements or some replacement for them. The ban on discrimination against those with preexisting conditions is a prime example-by itself, it would encourage people to wait until they got sick to sign up for insurance, setting off the dreaded "death spiral." ..."
    "... Here's an area where conservatives-at least conservatives in the "budget hawk" sense, as opposed to the "cut taxes and stick our kids with the tab" sense-should be worried. Trump's tax plan involved trillions of dollars of tax cuts targeted at the rich, with nowhere near enough spending cuts to pay for them. ..."
    "... But Republicans love irresponsible tax cuts. They can't help themselves. It will be a combination of sad and ironic if a signature achievement of a populist movement is to cut taxes for the rich. ..."
    "... We could certainly see, however, a variety of real reforms that have been held up for years by a Washington consensus that the American people don't share: things like more border fencing (which was already supposed to be built under a 2006 law ), an end to "deferred action" (accomplished through mere executive action to begin with), stronger enforcement against employers who hire illegal workers, reduced levels of low-skill immigration, and enhanced (even extreme!) vetting of immigrants from regions especially likely to send us terrorists. ..."
    "... A silver lining for immigration supporters: getting the illegal-immigration problem under control could eventually make it easier to amnesty those already here. ..."
    "... Rust Belt states hammered by free trade voted for Trump, and they will reap the policy rewards starting on day one . Phil Levy put it well in Foreign Policy : by now, "President Barack Obama once hoped to have completed both Atlantic and Pacific trade deals, as well as a Bilateral Investment Treaty with China. It now appears he will conclude none of these." Trump also would like to renegotiate NAFTA and pursue China more aggressively for unfair trade practices. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Pretty much everyone thought Hillary Clinton would be the president-elect right now. As a result, few spent much time gaming out the scenario we find ourselves in: next year, Donald Trump will be the president, accompanied by a Republican (though not filibuster-proof) Senate and a solidly GOP House.

    I'm as guilty as anyone. My last pre-election column was about what President Clinton would do to the Supreme Court. A month ago I tried to find Obamacare tweaks that Republicans could demand in exchange for helping to fix the law, because only a moron would think anything more dramatic might be possible.

    So here's an attempt to atone for my sins and outline the possibilities for a Trump presidency in a number of domestic-policy areas.

    The Supreme Court

    Trump promised to nominate a conservative to replace the late Antonin Scalia, and the possibilities he floated were well-received on the right. Assuming he keeps his promise, the only thing standing in the way is a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

    Problem is, Democrats eliminated the filibuster for non-Supreme Court nominations back in 2013 via the "nuclear option" -- setting a precedent that could easily be followed in a second bombing mission, this time directed at nominations for the high court. And to up the temptation, just weeks ago Tim Kaine was mouthing off about how Democrats were already prepping the nuke. "If these guys think they're going to stonewall the filling of that [Scalia] vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say, 'We're not going to let you thwart the law,'" he said.

    (It is not thwarting the law to stonewall a nomination.)

    Unless they wimp out-a possibility that should not be discounted -- Republicans are going to grab that bomb and set it off right in the Democrats' faces, to the immense enjoyment of conservatives everywhere. Any Trump nominee acceptable to Senate Republicans will be confirmed, both to replace Scalia and in the event that another justice retires or passes away during the time Republicans have the Senate and the presidency.

    In that case, everything I wrote last week is the opposite of reality. With Anthony Kennedy as the swing justice once again, there will be more victories for the conservative legal movement. And if Kennedy or a liberal justice is replaced with a conservative as well, some might get their hopes up about bigger wins, like overturning Roe v. Wade .

    Obamacare

    Here the politics are less straightforward. Obamacare has some highly popular provisions that cannot work without its other elements or some replacement for them. The ban on discrimination against those with preexisting conditions is a prime example-by itself, it would encourage people to wait until they got sick to sign up for insurance, setting off the dreaded "death spiral."

    And as with the Supreme Court, the Senate filibuster is an obstacle to any move Republicans might want to make. To get around this, the GOP has a few options: (1) pass the bill through the budget "reconciliation" process; (2) kill the filibuster for legislation too, not just nominations, which would be a drastic step; or (3) find some other creative workaround .

    They already did a dry run of the first approach, sending a (predictably vetoed) repeal bill to President Obama. There's an important limitation, though: only the parts of the law that affect the budget can be changed through the reconciliation process. The law's insurance regulations, for instance, would still stand .

    Another major question is whether to replace the law immediately, or sunset it gradually while a replacement is hammered out. Considering there's some intra-party disagreement about how to replace Obamacare, and considering no one has actual legislative language handy, the second option seems wise.

    (Both Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan do have health-care plans outlined, though. Like most conservative health-care plans, these are attempts to combine flexible subsides with consumer choice and deregulation to provide coverage at an affordable cost.)

    A note of caution will hang over the proceedings. Democrats passed Obamacare with zero Republican support, twisting the rules to avoid a filibuster after the election of Scott Brown. By the time problems with the law started cropping up, Republicans had gained some power back and refused to help fix the mess. If Republicans do what Democrats did in 2009 and 2010, Democrats will respond the way Republicans did when the tables turn once again.

    Budget

    Here's an area where conservatives-at least conservatives in the "budget hawk" sense, as opposed to the "cut taxes and stick our kids with the tab" sense-should be worried. Trump's tax plan involved trillions of dollars of tax cuts targeted at the rich, with nowhere near enough spending cuts to pay for them.

    With most of Trump's more harebrained ideas, we can hope that he'll back off a bit, that new advisors will be more serious (or influential) than the ones he listened to (or didn't) during the campaign, or that Republicans in Congress won't send him a bill to sign. But Republicans love irresponsible tax cuts. They can't help themselves. It will be a combination of sad and ironic if a signature achievement of a populist movement is to cut taxes for the rich.

    Immigration

    This is one of those areas where we can expect Trump to back off of his campaign rhetoric a bit. Mass deportations and a ban on Muslim immigration won't likely become a reality.

    We could certainly see, however, a variety of real reforms that have been held up for years by a Washington consensus that the American people don't share: things like more border fencing (which was already supposed to be built under a 2006 law ), an end to "deferred action" (accomplished through mere executive action to begin with), stronger enforcement against employers who hire illegal workers, reduced levels of low-skill immigration, and enhanced (even extreme!) vetting of immigrants from regions especially likely to send us terrorists.

    A silver lining for immigration supporters: getting the illegal-immigration problem under control could eventually make it easier to amnesty those already here.

    Trade

    Rust Belt states hammered by free trade voted for Trump, and they will reap the policy rewards starting on day one . Phil Levy put it well in Foreign Policy : by now, "President Barack Obama once hoped to have completed both Atlantic and Pacific trade deals, as well as a Bilateral Investment Treaty with China. It now appears he will conclude none of these." Trump also would like to renegotiate NAFTA and pursue China more aggressively for unfair trade practices.

    All of this just scratches the surface. Trump's election completely changes the picture, from climate-change and energy efforts to criminal-justice reform. The electorate's decision may prove right or wrong, but that it's exciting is undeniable.

    Robert VerBruggen is managing editor of The American Conservative. Follow @RAVerBruggen

    [Nov 15, 2016] Soros And Liberal Mega-Donors Plot For War With Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... A requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated ..."
    "... A five year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service ..."
    "... A lifetime ban on the White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government ..."
    "... A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    While focusing on preserving ObamaCare and other achievements of the Obama administration that are threatened by a Donald Trump presidency, the DA's agenda includes panels on rethinking polling and the left's approach to winning the working-class vote. The group will also stress funneling cash into state legislative policy initiatives and races where Republicans took over last week.

    President-elect Donald Trump has said his first 100 days will be dedicated to restoring "honesty, accountability and change to Washington" through the following seven steps:

    1. A Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress
    2. A hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health)
    3. A requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated
    4. A five year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service
    5. A lifetime ban on the White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government
    6. A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections
    7. Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure

    Billionaire George Soros immediately had fingers of blame pointing at him for the anti-Trump riots and protests that swept the nation since Nov. 9, as his group MoveOn.org has organized most of them .

    The billionaire committed $25 million to boosting the Clinton campaign and other Democratic candidates and causes in 2016.

    [Nov 15, 2016] Thomas Frank Clintons Led the Democratic Betrayal of the Average Working American For Big Money

    Notable quotes:
    "... We so easily forget. Once the cry of so-called prosperity is heard in the land, we all become so stampeded by the spirit of the god Mammon, that we cannot serve the dictates of social conscience. . . . We are here to serve notice that the economic order is the invention of man; and that it cannot dominate certain eternal principles of justice and of God... ..."
    "... The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." ..."
    "... You can fool all of the people, some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time- but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    "There are two theories of prosperity and of well-being: The first theory is that if we make the rich richer, somehow they will let a part of their prosperity trickle down to the rest of us. The second theory - and I suppose this goes back to the days of Noah - I won't say Adam and Eve, because they had a less complicated situation - but, at least, back in the days of the flood, there was the theory that if we make the average of mankind comfortable and secure, their prosperity will rise upward, just as yeast rises up, through the ranks...

    We so easily forget. Once the cry of so-called prosperity is heard in the land, we all become so stampeded by the spirit of the god Mammon, that we cannot serve the dictates of social conscience. . . . We are here to serve notice that the economic order is the invention of man; and that it cannot dominate certain eternal principles of justice and of God...

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

    Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    You can fool all of the people, some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time- but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

    Here is Youtube video ( Nov 2, 2016 )

    [Nov 15, 2016] Trump in the White House by Noam Chomsky

    Notable quotes:
    "... The angry and disaffected are victims of the neoliberal policies of the past generation, the policies described in congressional testimony by Fed chair Alan Greenspan ..."
    "... As Greenspan explained during his glory days, his successes in economic management were based substantially on "growing worker insecurity." Intimidated working people would not ask for higher wages, benefits, and security but would be satisfied with the stagnating wages and reduced benefits that signal a healthy economy by neoliberal standards. ..."
    "... in 2007, at the peak of the neoliberal miracle, real wages for non-supervisory workers were lower than they had been years earlier, or that real wages for male workers are about at 1960s levels while spectacular gains have gone to the pockets of a very few at the top, disproportionately a fraction of 1%. Not the result of market forces, achievement, or merit, but rather of definite policy decisions, matters reviewed carefully by economist Dean Baker in recently published work. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press
    According to current information, Trump broke all records in the support he received from white voters, working class and lower middle class, particularly in the $50,000 to $90,000 income range, rural and suburban, primarily those without college education. These groups share the anger throughout the West at the centrist establishment, revealed as well in the unanticipated Brexit vote and the collapse of centrist parties in continental Europe. The angry and disaffected are victims of the neoliberal policies of the past generation, the policies described in congressional testimony by Fed chair Alan Greenspan – St. Alan as he was called reverentially by the economics profession and other admirers until the miraculous economy he was supervising crashed in 2007-8, threatening to bring the whole world economy down with it. As Greenspan explained during his glory days, his successes in economic management were based substantially on "growing worker insecurity." Intimidated working people would not ask for higher wages, benefits, and security but would be satisfied with the stagnating wages and reduced benefits that signal a healthy economy by neoliberal standards.

    Working people who have been the subjects of these experiments in economic theory are, oddly, not particularly happy about the outcome. They are not, for example, overjoyed at the fact that in 2007, at the peak of the neoliberal miracle, real wages for non-supervisory workers were lower than they had been years earlier, or that real wages for male workers are about at 1960s levels while spectacular gains have gone to the pockets of a very few at the top, disproportionately a fraction of 1%. Not the result of market forces, achievement, or merit, but rather of definite policy decisions, matters reviewed carefully by economist Dean Baker in recently published work.

    The fate of the minimum wage illustrates what has been happening. Through the periods of high and egalitarian growth in the '50s and '60s, the minimum wage – which sets a floor for other wages – tracked productivity. That ended with the onset of neoliberal doctrine. Since then the minimum wage has stagnated (in real value). Had it continued as before, it would probably be close to $20 per hour. Today it is considered a political revolution to raise it to $15.

    With all the talk of near-full employment today, labor force participation remains below the earlier norm. And for a working man, there is a great difference between a steady job in manufacturing with union wages and benefits, as in earlier years, and a temporary job with little security in some service profession. Apart from wages, benefits, and security, there is a loss of dignity, of hope for the future, of a sense that this is a world in which I belong and play a worthwhile role.

    The impact is captured well in Arlie Hochschild's sensitive and illuminating portrayal of a Trump stronghold in Louisiana, where she lived and worked for many years. She uses the image of a line in which these people are standing, expecting to move forward steadily as they work hard and keep to all the conventional values. But their position in the line has stalled. Ahead of them, they see people leaping forward, but that does not cause much distress, because it is "the American way" for (alleged) merit to be rewarded. What does cause real distress is what is happening behind them.

    ... ... ...

    These are just samples of the real lives of Trump supporters, who are deluded to believe that Trump will do something to remedy their plight, though the merest look at his fiscal and other proposals demonstrates the opposite – posing a task for activists who hope to fend off the worst and to advance desperately needed changes.

    Exit polls reveal that the passionate support for Trump was inspired primarily by the belief that he represented change, while Clinton was perceived as the candidate who would perpetuate their distress. The "change" that Trump is likely to bring will be harmful or worse, but it is understandable that the consequences are not clear to isolated people in an atomized society lacking the kinds of associations (like unions) that can educate and organize. That is a crucial difference between today's despair and the generally hopeful attitudes of many working people under much greater duress during the great depression of the 1930s.

    [Nov 15, 2016] Break Up the Democratic Party Its Time for the Clintons and Rubin to Go – and Soros Too by Michael Hudson

    Notable quotes:
    "... Democrats still seem amazed that voters are more concerned about economic conditions and resentment against Wall Street (no bankers jailed, few junk mortgages written down). It is a sign of their wrong path that party strategists are holding onto the same identity politics they have used since the 1960s to divide Americans into hyphenated special-interest groups. ..."
    "... Obviously, the bottom 95 Percent realize that their incomes and net worth have declined, not recovered. ..."
    "... On the bright side, these "trade" agreements to enable corporations to block public laws protecting the environment, consumers and society at large are now presumably dead. ..."
    "... Instead of a love fest within the Democratic Party's ranks, the blame game is burning. The Democrats raised a reported $182 million dollars running up to the election. But when democratic candidates from Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and other candidates in Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania asked for help. Hillary monopolized it all for TV ads, leaving these candidates in the lurch. The election seemed to be all about her, about personality and identity politics, not about the economic issues paramount in most voters' minds. ..."
    "... Six months ago the polls showed her $1 billion spent on data polling, TV ads and immense staff of sycophants to have been a vast exercise in GIGO. ..."
    "... If the party is to be recaptured, now is the moment to move. The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics. Its aim was to persuade voters not to think of their identity in economic terms, but to think of themselves as women or as racial and ethnic groups first and foremost, not as having common economic interests. This strategy to distract voters from economic policies has obviously failed. ..."
    "... It did not work with women. In Florida, only 51 percent of white women are estimated to have voted for Hillary. It didn't even work very well in ethnic Hispanic precincts. They too were more concerned about their own job opportunities. ..."
    "... The ethnic card did work with many black voters (although not so strongly; fewer blacks voted for Hillary than had showed up for Obama). Under the Obama administration for the past eight years, blacks have done worse in terms of income and net worth than any other grouping, according to the Federal Reserve Board's statistics. But black voters were distracted from their economic interests by the Democrats' ethnic-identity politics. ..."
    "... This election showed that voters have a sense of when they're being lied to. After eight years of Obama's demagogy, pretending to support the people but delivering his constituency to his financial backers on Wall Street. "Identity politics" has given way to the stronger force of economic distress. Mobilizing identity politics behind a Wall Street program will no longer work. ..."
    "... The Rust Belt swing states that shifted away from backing Obama for the last two terms are not racist states. They voted for Obama twice, after all. But seeing his support Wall Street, they had lost faith in her credibility – and were won by Bernie in his primaries against Hillary. ..."
    "... Most of all, it was Hillary's asking voters to ignore her economic loyalty to Wall Street simply to elect a woman, and her McCarthy-like accusations that Trump was "Putin's candidate" (duly echoed by Paul Krugman). ..."
    "... The anti-Trump rallies mobilized by George Soros and MoveOn look like a preemptive attempt to capture the potential socialist left for the old Clinton divide-and-conquer strategy. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org
    In the week leading up to last Tuesday's election the press was busy writing obituaries for the Republican Party. This continued even after Donald Trump's "surprising" victory – which, like the 2008 bank-fraud crash, "nobody could have expected." The pretense is that Trump saw what no other politician saw: that the economy has not recovered since 2008.

    Democrats still seem amazed that voters are more concerned about economic conditions and resentment against Wall Street (no bankers jailed, few junk mortgages written down). It is a sign of their wrong path that party strategists are holding onto the same identity politics they have used since the 1960s to divide Americans into hyphenated special-interest groups.

    Obviously, the bottom 95 Percent realize that their incomes and net worth have declined, not recovered. National Income and Federal Reserve statistics show that all growth has accrued to just 5 percent of the population. Hillary is said to have spent $1 billion on polling, TV advertising and high-salaried staff members, but managed not to foresee the political reaction to this polarization. She and her coterie ignored economic policy as soon as Bernie was shoved out of the way and his followers all but told to join a third party. Her campaign speech tried to convince voters that they were better off than they were eight years ago. They knew better!

    So the question now is whether Donald Trump will really a maverick and shake up the Republican Party. There seems to be a fight going on for Donald's soul – or at least the personnel he appoints to his cabinet. Thursday and Friday saw corporate lobbyists in the Republican leadership love-bombing him like the Moonies or Hari Krishna cults welcoming a new potential recruit. Will he simply surrender now and pass on the real work of government to the Republican apparatchiks?

    The stock market thinks so! On Wednesday it soared almost by 300 points, and repeated this gain on Thursday, setting a DJIA record! Pharmaceuticals are way up, as higher drug prices loom for Medicaid and Medicare. Stocks of the pipelines and major environmental polluters are soaring, from oil and gas to coal, mining and forestry, expecting U.S. environmental leadership to be as dead under Trump as it was under Obama and his push for the TPP and TTIP (with its fines for any government daring to impose standards that cost these companies money). On the bright side, these "trade" agreements to enable corporations to block public laws protecting the environment, consumers and society at large are now presumably dead.

    For now, personalities are policy. A problem with this is that anyone who runs for president is in it partly for applause. That was Carter's weak point, leading him to cave into Democratic apparatchiks in 1974. It looks like Trump may be a similar susceptibility. He wants to be loved, and the Republican lobbyists are offering plenty of applause if only he will turn to them and break his campaign promises in the way that Obama did in 2008. It would undo his hope to be a great president and champion of the working class that was his image leading up to November 8.

    The fight for the Democratic Party's future (dare I say "soul"?)

    In her Wednesday morning post mortem speech, Hillary made a bizarre request for young people (especially young women) to become politically active as Democrats after her own model. What made this so strange is that the Democratic National Committee has done everything it can to discourage millennials from running. There are few young candidates – except for corporate and Wall Street Republicans running as Blue Dog Democrats. The left has not been welcome in the party for a decade – unless it confines itself only to rhetoric and demagogy, not actual content. For Hillary's DNC coterie the problem with millennials is that they are not shills for Wall Street. The treatment of Bernie Sanders is exemplary. The DNC threw down the gauntlet.

    Instead of a love fest within the Democratic Party's ranks, the blame game is burning. The Democrats raised a reported $182 million dollars running up to the election. But when democratic candidates from Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and other candidates in Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania asked for help. Hillary monopolized it all for TV ads, leaving these candidates in the lurch. The election seemed to be all about her, about personality and identity politics, not about the economic issues paramount in most voters' minds.

    Six months ago the polls showed her $1 billion spent on data polling, TV ads and immense staff of sycophants to have been a vast exercise in GIGO. From May to June the Democratic National Committee (DNC) saw polls showing Bernie Sanders beating Trump, but Hillary losing. Did the Democratic leadership really prefer to lose with Hillary than win behind him and his social democratic reformers.

    Hillary doesn't learn. Over the weekend she claimed that her analysis showed that FBI director Comey's reports "rais[ing] doubts that were groundless, baseless," stopped her momentum. This was on a par with the New York Times analysis that had showed her with an 84 percent probability of winning last Tuesday. She still hasn't admitted that here analysis was inaccurate.

    What is the Democratic Party's former constituency of labor and progressive reformers to do? Are they to stand by and let the party be captured in Hillary's wake by Robert Rubin's Goldman Sachs-Citigroup gang that backed her and Obama?

    If the party is to be recaptured, now is the moment to move. The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics. Its aim was to persuade voters not to think of their identity in economic terms, but to think of themselves as women or as racial and ethnic groups first and foremost, not as having common economic interests. This strategy to distract voters from economic policies has obviously failed.

    It did not work with women. In Florida, only 51 percent of white women are estimated to have voted for Hillary. It didn't even work very well in ethnic Hispanic precincts. They too were more concerned about their own job opportunities.

    The ethnic card did work with many black voters (although not so strongly; fewer blacks voted for Hillary than had showed up for Obama). Under the Obama administration for the past eight years, blacks have done worse in terms of income and net worth than any other grouping, according to the Federal Reserve Board's statistics. But black voters were distracted from their economic interests by the Democrats' ethnic-identity politics.

    This election showed that voters have a sense of when they're being lied to. After eight years of Obama's demagogy, pretending to support the people but delivering his constituency to his financial backers on Wall Street. "Identity politics" has given way to the stronger force of economic distress. Mobilizing identity politics behind a Wall Street program will no longer work.

    If we are indeed experiencing a revival of economic class consciousness, who should lead the fight to clean up the Democratic Party Wall Street leadership? Will it be the Wall Street wing, or can Bernie and perhaps Elizabeth Warren make their move?

    There is only one way to rescue the Democrats from the Clintons and Rubin's gang. That is to save the Democratic Party from being tarred irreversibly as the party of Wall Street and neocon brinkmanship. It is necessary to tell the Clintons and the Rubin gang from Wall Street to leave now . And take Evan Bayh with them.

    The danger of not taking this opportunity to clean out the party now

    The Democratic Party can save itself only by focusing on economic issues – in a way that reverses its neoliberal stance under Obama, and indeed going back to Bill Clinton's pro-Wall Street administration. The Democrats need to do what Britain's Labour Party did by cleaning out Tony Blair's Thatcherites. As Paul Craig Roberts wrote over the weekend: "Change cannot occur if the displaced ruling class is left intact after a revolution against them. We have proof of this throughout South America. Every revolution by the indigenous people has left unmolested the Spanish ruling class, and every revolution has been overthrown by collusion between the ruling class and Washington." [1] Otherwise the Democrats will be left as an empty shell.

    Now is the time for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and the few other progressives who have not been kept out of office by the DNC to make their move and appointing their own nominees to the DNC. If they fail, the Democratic Party is dead.

    An indication of how hard the present Democratic Party leadership will fight against this change of allegiance is reflected in their long fight against Bernie Sanders and other progressives going back to Dennis Kucinich. The past five days of MoveOn demonstrations sponsored by Hillary's backer George Soros may be an attempt to preempt the expected push by Bernie's supporters, by backing Howard Dean for head of the DNC while organizing groups to be called on for what may be an American "Maidan Spring."

    Perhaps some leading Democrats preferred to lose with their Wall Street candidate Hillary than win with a reformer who would have edged them out of their right-wing positions. But the main problem was hubris. Hillary's coterie thought they could make their own reality. They believed that hundreds of millions of dollars of TV and other advertising could sway voters. But eight years of Obama's rescue of Wall Street instead of the economy was enough for most voters to see how deceptive his promises had been. And they distrusted Hillary's pretended embrace of Bernie's opposition to TPP.

    The Rust Belt swing states that shifted away from backing Obama for the last two terms are not racist states. They voted for Obama twice, after all. But seeing his support Wall Street, they had lost faith in her credibility – and were won by Bernie in his primaries against Hillary.

    Donald Trump is thus Obama's legacy. Last week's vote was a backlash. Hillary thought that getting Barack and Michelle Obama to campaign as her surrogates would help, but it turned out to be the kiss of death. Obama egged her on by urging voters to "save his legacy" by supporting her as his Third Term. But voters did not want his legacy of giveaways to the banks, the pharmaceutical and health-insurance monopolies.

    Most of all, it was Hillary's asking voters to ignore her economic loyalty to Wall Street simply to elect a woman, and her McCarthy-like accusations that Trump was "Putin's candidate" (duly echoed by Paul Krugman). On Wednesday, Obama's former Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul tweeted that "Putin intervened in our elections and succeeded." It was as if the Republicans and even the FBI were a kind of fifth column for the KGB. Her receptiveness to cutting back Social Security and steering wage withholding into the stock market did not help – especially her hedge fund campaign contributors. Compulsory health-insurance fees continue to rise for healthy young people rise as the main profit center that Obamacare has offered the health-insurance monopoly.

    The anti-Trump rallies mobilized by George Soros and MoveOn look like a preemptive attempt to capture the potential socialist left for the old Clinton divide-and-conquer strategy. The group was defeated five years ago when it tried to capture Occupy Wall Street to make it part of the Democratic Party. It's attempt to make a comeback right now should be heard as an urgent call to Bernie's supporters and other "real" Democrats that they need to create an alternative pretty quickly so as not to let "socialism" be captured by the Soros and his apparatchiks carried over from the Clinton campaign.

    Notes.

    [1] Paul Craig Roberts, "The Anti-Trump Protesters Are Tools of the Oligarchy," November 11, 2016.

    Michael Hudson's new book, Killing the Host is published in e-format by CounterPunch Books and in print by Islet . He can be reached via his website, [email protected]

    [Nov 15, 2016] End of outsourcing of the USA elite illiberal tendencies to the areas of the imperial domination and subjugation of foreigners and hit of the USA population produced the current backlash and secured the election of Trump

    Nov 15, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez 11.15.16 at 6:09 pm 124

    @115

    Liberal democracy has always depended on its relationships with an illiberal Other of one sort or another, and all too often "liberal progressivism" merely means responding to such relationships in one's own society, the capitalist exploitation of a domestic proletariat, by "outsourcing" our illiberal tendencies to consist largely of the imperial domination and subjugation of foreigners.

    (Which can even happen inside one's own borders, as long as it remains suitably "illegal"; notice how much less ideologically problematic it is to document the presence and labor of the most brutally exploited migrant workers in e.g. China or the Gulf Arab states than in more liberal societies like the US or EU.)

    It's the height of either hypocrisy or obliviousness for those who consider themselves liberal progressives to then act surprised when the people charged with carrying out this domination and subjugation on our behalf - our Colonel Jessups, if you will - demand that we stop hiding our society's illiberal underbelly and acknowledge/celebrate it for what it is , a demand that may be the single most authentic marker of the transition from liberalism to fascism.

    In Pareto "elite rotation" terms, the election of Trump definitely means rotation of the US neoliberal elite. "Status quo" faction of the elite was defeated due to backlash over globalization and disappearance of meaningful well-paid jobs, with mass replacement of them by McJobs and temps/contractors.

    Whether openness about domination and subjugation is an "authentic marker of the transition from [neo]liberalism to fascism" remains to be seen, unless we assume that this transition (to the National Security State) already happened long ego.

    In a way illegal immigrants in the USA already represented stable and growing "new slaves" class for decades. Their existence and contribution to the US economy was never denied or suppressed. And even Greenspan acknowledged that Iraq war was about oil. So Trump put nothing new on the table other then being slightly more blunt.

    likbez 11.15.16 at 7:19 pm 125

    @120

    bob mcmanus 11.15.16 at 4:31 pm

    Neoliberalism and neo-imperialism show pretty much the contradictions of the older globalist orders (late 19th c), they are just now distributed so as re-intensify the differences, the combined etc, and concentrate the accumulation.

    And elites are fighting over the spoils.

    Yes, neoliberalism and neo-imperialism are much better and more precise terms, then fuzzy notions like "liberal progressivism" . May be we should use Occam razor and discard the term "[neo]liberal progressivism". The term "soft neoliberals" is IMHO good enough description of the same.

    As for contradictions of the "older globalist orders (late 19th c)" the key difference is that under neoliberalism armies play the role of "can opener" and after then the direct occupation were by-and-large replaced with financial institutions and with indirect "debt slavery". In many cases neoliberal subjugation is achieved via color revolution mechanism, without direct military force involved.

    Neo-colonialism creates higher level of concentration of risks due to the greed of financial elite which was demonstrated in full glory in 2008. As such it looks less stable then old colonialism. And it generates stronger backlash, which typically has elements of anti-Americanism, as we see in Philippines now. Merkel days might also be numbered.

    Also TBTF banks are now above the law as imposing judgments on them after the crisis can have disastrous economic externalities. At the same time the corruption of regulators via revolving door mechanisms blocks implementing meaningful preventive regulatory reforms.

    In other words, like with Soviet nomenklatura, with the neoliberal elite we see the impossibility of basic change, either toward taming the TBTF or toward modification of an aggressive neocolonial foreign policy with its rampant militarism.

    [Nov 15, 2016] M of A - Trump Rejects Neocon Turncoats - Russia Launches Aleppo Campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... Well, I will say this about President-Elect Trump, so far so good. Media justifiably discredited, neocons sucking air, Democratic Party doubling down on the stupid and self-destructing by selling out to Soros, what's not to like? ..."
    "... I was happy to hear that the old liberal Trump still exists. ..."
    "... I still have not heard any rumors about Lt. Gen. Flynn. I am very interested to know where he is assigned. I thought he would have 2nd pick after Sessions so either DoD, CIA or Head of the NSC. ..."
    "... As a lifelong liberal who voted for Trump primarily to keep to the warmongering wackjob Clinton out of power the early moves by Trump are promising. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Wikipedia: Eliot A. Cohen
    ... co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was a center for prominent neoconservatives. He has been a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, a committee of civilians and retired military officers that the U.S. Secretary of Defense may call upon for advice, that was instituted during the administration of President George W. Bush. He was put on the board after acquaintance Richard Perle put forward his name. Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as "World War IV". In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion.

    Cohen in WaPo May 3 2016:

    It's over. Donald Trump, a man utterly unfit for the position by temperament, values and policy preferences, will be the Republican nominee for president. He will run against Hillary Clinton, who is easily the lesser evil ...

    Cohen in the NYT on May 17 2016:

    Mr. Trump's temperament, his proclivity for insult and deceit and his advocacy of unpredictability would make him a presidential disaster - especially in the conduct of foreign policy, where clarity and consistency matter.
    ...
    Hillary Clinton is far better: She believes in the old consensus and will take tough lines on China and, increasingly, Russia.

    Cohen in The American Interest on November 10 2016 (immediately after Trump won):

    Trump may be better than we think. He does not have strong principles about much, which means he can shift. He is clearly willing to delegate legislation to Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. And even abroad, his instincts incline him to increase U.S. strength-and to push back even against Russia if, as will surely happen, Putin double-crosses him. My guess is that sequester gets rolled back, as do lots of stupid regulations, and experiments in nudging and nagging Americans to behave the way progressives think they should.

    Cohen on Twitter November 15 2016

    Eliot A Cohen @EliotACohen

    After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly.

    Retweets 3,719 Likes 3,204
    5:07 AM - 15 Nov 2016

    I find the above very funny. How could that turncoat think he would be greeted by the Trump organization with anything but derision? Cohen believed he and his ilk would be welcome with candies and roses after insulting Trump in all major media? Who is the arrogant one in the above?

    Oh, by the way. Here is a headline from October 2013: President Obama to Republicans: I won. Deal with it . I do not remember Cohen, or anyone else, calling that "arrogant".

    While the papers are full of (badly) informed rumors about who will get this or that position in a Trump administration let's keep in mind that 90% of such rumors are just self promotions by people like Cohen who shill for the rumored job. That is why I will not write about John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani as coming Secretary of State. Both are possible (unqualified) candidates. But others are just as likely to get that position. We will only know who it is after the official release.

    Meanwhile Trump yesterday had a phonecall with the Russian President Putin. They discussed bilateral relations, Syria and fighting terrorism. Today the Russian and Syrian military started the long expected big campaign against the "moderate" al-Qaeda in east-Aleppo city and Idleb governate. Air strikes on east-Aleppo had been held back for 28 days. Today missiles and cruise missiles were launched against fixed targets and dozens of carrier and land launched airplanes attacked Nusra position on the various front and in its rear. Long range bombers flown from Russia joined the campaign. Trump seems to have voiced no objections to this offensive.

    The Russian military has upped its air defense in Syria. Additional to the S-400 system around its airport in Latakia seven S-300 systems were deployed as a screen against U.S. cruise missile attacks. These are joined by rehabilitated Syrian S-200 system and Pantsyr S-1 short range systems for point defense. This should be enough to deter any stupid idea the Pentagon hawks, or dumb neocons like Eliot Cohen, might have.

    Posted by b on November 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

    kafkananda | Nov 15, 2016 12:30:47 PM | 2
    Well, I will say this about President-Elect Trump, so far so good. Media justifiably discredited, neocons sucking air, Democratic Party doubling down on the stupid and self-destructing by selling out to Soros, what's not to like?

    A lot sure to come, no doubt. But for now, go Donald!

    woogs | Nov 15, 2016 12:36:49 PM | 3
    I've never known a president-elect to have such an effect right after an election. It's like a house of cards falling. Hell, at this rate, Trump may be able to declare 'mission accomplished' before even taking office!!! j/k :)
    AnEducatedFool | Nov 15, 2016 12:39:17 PM | 4
    Thank you for this summary. Trump will be a mixed bag especially in domestic politics. I was happy to hear that the old liberal Trump still exists. He may appoint an openly gay man to a Cabinet position (I do not know if this is tokenism or not). If his appointments follow policy then I think a lot of Clinton crybabies in the streets will have a harder time gaining traction with the social justice warriors.

    I sometimes used Cohen's WWIV statement to see how strongly a person held their neo-conservative positions. Only a few knew what I was talking about during the 2nd Iraq War. I'm glad that is he gone. I hope Trump can pull in some realists but I do not know where these people exist anymore. People like that are typically weeded out at lower levels.

    I still have not heard any rumors about Lt. Gen. Flynn. I am very interested to know where he is assigned. I thought he would have 2nd pick after Sessions so either DoD, CIA or Head of the NSC.

    stumpy | Nov 15, 2016 12:43:45 PM | 5
    Ironic, shifting the balance of power over Syria means denial of both a successful coalition air campaign as well as opportunity for stupid bait operation to create pretext for retaliation. Queen against wall of pawns.
    Denis | Nov 15, 2016 12:46:07 PM | 6
    1
    Timelines are the most valuable tool of all in outing ponderous idiots. Thanks, b.
    Here's one for idiot Paul Krugman.

    Nov09 (day after election) – PK: The markets are in free-fall, the recession has begun, it will "never" end.

    Reality: the markets were going thought the roof. Dow Jones went straight up and past it's previous high.

    Nov11 – PK: I have rethought what I said on Nov09 and there's a chance the markets will take the elections results well.

    Nov14 – PK: After giving my Nov09 prediction some thought, I "quickly" retracted it.

    Yeah, you moran. You retracted it after seeing it was 180 degrees wrong and everyone can now see that your fear-mongering about markets was just more of your bullshit.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    2
    b: "That is why I will not write about John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani as coming Secretary of State. Both are possible (unqualified) candidates. "

    You just did.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    3.
    b: "Today the Russian and Syrian military started the long expected big campaign against the "moderate" al-Qaeda in east-Aleppo city and Idleb governate."

    I don't know about Aleppo. Here's RT earlier today:

    " The Russian military has launched a large-scale operation against terrorists stationed in Homs and Idlib provinces of Syria, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Tuesday."

    /snip

    "Journalists asked presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov about the possibility of the operation which started on Tuesday to be expanded to include Aleppo. 'Aleppo has not been mentioned in the report of the defense minister; it concerned other areas – Homs and Idlib [provinces],' Peskov told the press.

    /snip

    "Russian jets have not been in the vicinity of Aleppo for the last 28 days"

    Joanne Leon | Nov 15, 2016 1:05:50 PM | 7
    You just can't make this stuff up. The tantrum Cohen threw on Twitter was just amazing.

    Anyway, I look forward to the time when we, in America, stop providing such crazy entertainment for the world world.

    We're exhausted.

    okie farmer | Nov 15, 2016 1:07:45 PM | 8
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-idUSKBN13A16O
    Intense air strikes resumed in rebel-held districts of eastern Aleppo after a weeks-long pause on Tuesday, killing at least three people, residents and a war monitor said.
    Syrian state television said the Damascus government's air force took part in strikes against "terrorist strongholds" in Aleppo's Old City while Russia said it had struck Islamic State and former Nusra Front sites elsewhere in Syria, without mentioning Aleppo.
    The bombardment appeared to mark the end of a pause in strikes on targets inside the city declared by Syria's government and Russia on Oct 18.
    ~~~
    On Monday and early Tuesday, air strikes hit hospitals in three towns and villages in rebel-held areas to the west of Aleppo, putting them all out of action. Damascus and Moscow both deny targeting hospitals.
    Other strikes, including some by suspected Russian cruise missiles, hit Saraqeb in Idlib, a province near Aleppo where many of the rebel factions have a large presence.
    Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Tuesday Russia had launched attacks in Idlib and Homs provinces using missiles and jets from the country's only aircraft carrier, which recently arrived in the eastern Mediterranean.
    okie farmer | Nov 15, 2016 1:13:45 PM | 9
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-russia-mideast-idUSKBN13A2CN?il=0
    Russia has long-term ambitions in the Middle East: Israeli official
    By Luke Baker | JERUSALEM
    Israel should be concerned about the deepening disconnect between Russia's aims in the Middle East and its own goals, according to a senior Israeli official who held high-level meetings in Moscow last week.
    Avi Dichter, chairman of Israel's foreign affairs and defense committee and the former head of the Shin Bet intelligence agency, said Russia's views on Iran, Syria's Bashar al-Assad and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah were in sharp contrast to Israel's and a growing source of potential conflict.
    While he said Moscow appreciates the good ties it has with Israel and takes the diplomatic relationship seriously, it won't hesitate to impose actions that serve its interests on any countries in the Middle East, including Israel.

    "The gap between us and them is large and disturbing," Dichter said in summing up discussions with senior members of Russia's upper and lower houses of parliament, the deputy defense minister and the deputy head of national security.

    "Russia thinks and acts as a superpower and as such it often ignores Israeli interest when it doesn't coincide with the Russian interest," he said.

    Ron Showalter | Nov 15, 2016 1:19:02 PM | 10
    Wow, more insightful analysis about the US!!!! FAIL.

    Um, James Woolsey of PNAC was Trump's advisor. He was also financially backed by Adelson who is one of the people who FUNDS the neocons or are we not going to talk about the neocon's Zionist roots?

    Gee, b, could the neocons have everyone in their pocket or do thoughts like that get in the way of your devotion to this fascist girl-raping piece of garbage, Trump?

    I can't remember, did Berlusconi send a shiver down your spine as well, b?

    Erelis | Nov 15, 2016 1:28:20 PM | 13
    Does this mean that Victoria Nuland will be fired? Actually, can she be fired? or at at least transferred to the embassy in Outer Mongolia?
    Jackrabbit | Nov 15, 2016 1:29:54 PM | 14
    Judging solely by the evident hysterical efforts to undermine Trump since the election, I'd say b is very correct in his assessment.

    It appears that the Democrats and neocons have learned nothing (as I warned). They will double-down on bullshit and spite.

    psychohistorian | Nov 15, 2016 1:54:14 PM | 15
    Here is another example of folks trying get in front of the Trump train and turn it into a parade.

    "Trump has pledged to change things in Washington -- about draining the swamp. He is going to need some people to help guide him through the swamp -- how do you get in and how do you get out? We are prepared to help do that."
    -former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, speaking on behalf of Squire Patton Boggs, the lobbying firm he works for

    Yul | Nov 15, 2016 1:54:28 PM | 16
    @ 13 Erelis

    Nuland has managed to "burrow" herself - convert their political slot to permanent one at Foggy Bottom since Strobe Talbot after Bill Clinton's terms.
    There are quite a few Israel firsters like her: Jeffrey Feltman is another one.

    Yul | Nov 15, 2016 2:01:01 PM | 18
    This picture is enough to remove Giuliani, Bolton and Newt as prospects for Secretary of State:

    http://irananders.de/uploads/pics/PaMEK.jpg

    rg the lg | Nov 15, 2016 2:13:54 PM | 19
    What have the poor people of Outer Mongolia ever done to deserve this: "Does this mean that Victoria Nuland will be fired? Actually, can she be fired? or at at least transferred to the embassy in Outer Mongolia?" I think all of the neo-cons should replace current prisoners at Gitmo, along with BOTH Clintons, Obama, G W Bush, Cheney, et al. Then subjected to all sorts of 'information gathering techniques' ...

    I mean, fair is fair.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 15, 2016 2:19:52 PM | 20
    Ha ha.
    Obama has called a press conference to deliver a lecture about the consequences of a descent into 'tribalism'.
    One hopes that Bibi and the pro-"Israel" crowd are paying attention...
    chipnik | Nov 15, 2016 2:22:11 PM | 21
    Let's hope that all the radical rabbinical right-wing fascists like Cohen and Nuland and Bolton can be pressed to death with stones at Foggy Bottom Swamp.
    Very tiny stones, lol. Like Death of 3,035,795,900,000 Cuts they impose on US.

    I did some math on Mil.Gov.Fed. There are 6,800 banks in the US, and an average bank robbery in the US nets ~$10,000. If every bank in the US was robbed every 10 minutes, of every day, throughout every month, for the entire year, that would equal the yearly depredation of our last life savings by OneParty of Mil.Gov.Fed.

    That's 6,800 211A police bank robbery calls, every 10 minutes, forever, and that doesn't include $T a year interest-only forever payments on their odious 'debt'.

    Maybe pressed to death with damp pig dung would be more appropriate for them.

    Stevens | Nov 15, 2016 2:31:58 PM | 23
    @AnEducatedFool

    "Thank you for this summary. Trump will be a mixed bag especially in domestic politics. I was happy to hear that the old liberal Trump still exists. He may appoint an openly gay man to a Cabinet position (I do not know if this is tokenism or not). If his appointments follow policy then I think a lot of Clinton crybabies in the streets will have a harder time gaining traction with the social justice warriors."

    Yes.

    As a lifelong liberal who voted for Trump primarily to keep to the warmongering wackjob Clinton out of power the early moves by Trump are promising.

    As someone who lived lived through the 1980s I remember how telling people how concerned and fearful you were of nuclear war was most something you did in an attempt to make yourself look 'deep'.

    This past six month have been the first time in my life where I was found myself really being afraid. Sitting in my safe home that has never been touched by war it has been a sobering shock of just how close the frantic push for all out war with Russia by Clinton and her army of neocon cronies infesting the US government came to killing tens or hundreds of millions of people.

    It is going to be a painful four years for a large number of liberal issues but the avoidance of the horror of an actual all out war between two nuclear powers is worth the pain on many social and environmental issues.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 15, 2016 2:51:07 PM | 28
    ...
    I hope Trump can pull in some realists but I do not know where these people exist anymore. People like that are typically weeded out at lower levels.
    ...
    Posted by: AnEducatedFool | Nov 15, 2016 12:39:17 PM | 4

    Don't fret. Trump is a gifted personnel picker with a flair for innovation.
    In 1980 he (very unfashionably) appointed a woman as the construction project manager for Trump Tower, a task she performed with remarkable expertise.

    mauisurfer | Nov 15, 2016 2:54:59 PM | 29
    Bacevich for Secretary of State!
    Or at least Secretary of Defense.
    Would be great to see Chas Freeman nominated for Sec/State but
    GOP/Neocons/Zionists blocked him from lesser post under Obama.
    Circe | Nov 15, 2016 2:58:43 PM | 30
    Here we have a Zionist neocon think tank where both Woolsey, senior advisor to Trump since September, and Cohen are both on the Board.

    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/about/board-of-advisors/

    Here we have Woolsey quoting and adopting Cohen's WWIV theory (I wonder who they think the parties will be for WWIII) and Woolsey has even referred to Cohen as my friend just this month!

    I have adopted Eliot Cohen's formulation, distinguished professor at Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, that we are in World War IV, World War III having been the Cold War. And I think Eliot's formulation fits the circumstances really better than describing this as a war on terrorism.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/021116-ww4.htm

    His friend:

    http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/james-woolsey-discusses-cias-role-in-fighting-terrorism/

    But hey, keep on dreaming that Trump isn't all in with the Zionist/Neocon gang.

    Ron Showalter | Nov 15, 2016 3:00:05 PM | 33
    Yes, I do think you get your news from the MSM and what is worse is that you actually believe it just like b.

    Gee, do you think that having all of the neocons tell the MSM - and thus you - that they really support HRC had anything to do with how much you, b and the other bedwetters p!ssed themselves about OMG!1!! WWIII!!1!!1 especially as those announcements came out in March - now listen closely - when HRC WAS RUNNING AGAINST BS?

    Why, that sure was fuel to the fire for Bernie-bros, huh?

    By deception thou shall wage war, huh?

    Gee, I can't think of a worse poison pill for a fake-left Democratic candidate than to have the endorsements of the neocons, can you? Why, that might even sway some easily fooled MSM-imbibers as to whose string the neocons might end up pulling in the end, huh?

    Why, maybe do ya think they might sway even more people by PUBLICLY tweeting about just HOW MUCH they still hate that dastardly Trump, y'know, the same guy who was backed by the world's richest Zionist Jew and who was advised by James Woosley throughout his campaign?

    No one - but especially Israeli-backing neocons - would never think to use subterfuge to get their way, huh?

    But you and b and all the rest here don't pay attention to the MSM, huh? You all just happened to have been parroting the "neocons love HRC" line that was first found in the MSM, huh?

    Does not compute, scaredy cat.

    fintor | Nov 15, 2016 3:02:28 PM | 35
    Trump got 5million campaign money from Sheldon Anderson.. maybe he's just paying dues.. http://fortune.com/2016/09/20/donald-trump-donation/
    Ron Showalter | Nov 15, 2016 3:03:12 PM | 36
    @31

    Um, do you know who Sheldon Adelson is?

    Do you know where POTUS-elect Trump gave his first post-stolen-election interview?

    But that's ok, projection is so Zionist traitor sexy like.

    OleImmigrant | Nov 15, 2016 3:23:28 PM | 40
    Names have been floated for this and that positions in the Trump Administration but I haven't seen Pat Buchanan been named for anything; or have I skipped too much comments? I rather think much of Buchanan's world views are in line with Trump's, and he should make a sensible Secretary of State.
    ALberto | Nov 15, 2016 3:46:56 PM | 43
    Norm MacDonald the Canadian humorist was fired from Saturday Night Live in 1998 for allegedly telling to many O.J. Simpson jokes. This 25 minute compilation video illustrates that the real reason was most likely that Norm made fun of the Clinton's life of crime by actually stating their crime spree facts disguised as humor?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnw8JRpXdAc

    Ghostship | Nov 15, 2016 4:14:24 PM | 46
    Maybe Putin told Trump "the sooner we (Russia, Syria, etc. clear out Al Qaeda, the sooner we deal with ISIS". An offer Trump would be an idiot to refuse, not that I think he's an idiot. Hopefully, the moronic BS we had to put up with from Obama, Cameron, Hollande, The Grauniad, New York Times, etc. about how Russia, Syria, weren't attacking ISIS but were attacking "moderate" Al Qaeda will soon go away.
    B2 | Nov 15, 2016 4:31:44 PM | 48
    "Vice President-elect Mike Pence is the best person to shape the transition effort, with the president-elect's input, Trump spokesman Jason Miller said."

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-15/trump-transition-stalls-as-kushner-said-to-oust-christie-allies

    [Nov 15, 2016] The Trump Doctrine The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. … We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete." ..."
    "... They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. ..."
    "... At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world." ..."
    "... Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country. ..."
    "... The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    However Donald Trump came upon the foreign policy views he espoused, they were as crucial to his election as his views on trade and the border. Yet those views are hemlock to the GOP foreign policy elite and the liberal Democratic interventionists of the Acela Corridor. Trump promised an "America First" foreign policy rooted in the national interest, not in nostalgia. The neocons insist that every Cold War and post-Cold War commitment be maintained, in perpetuity.

    On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. … We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete."

    Yet the War Party has not had enough of war, not nearly.

    They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.

    They want to establish a no-fly zone and shoot down Syrian and Russian planes that violate it, acts of war Congress never authorized.

    They want to trash the Iran nuclear deal, though all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies told us, with high confidence, in 2007 and 2011, Iran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.

    Other hardliners want to face down Beijing over its claims to the reefs and rocks of the South China Sea, though our Manila ally is talking of tightening ties to China and kicking us out of Subic Bay.

    In none of these places is there a U.S. vital interest so imperiled as to justify the kind of war the War Party would risk.

    Trump has the opportunity to be the president who, like Harry Truman, redirected U.S. foreign policy for a generation.

    After World War II, we awoke to find our wartime ally, Stalin, had emerged as a greater enemy than Germany or Japan. Stalin's empire stretched from the Elbe to the Pacific.

    In 1949, suddenly, he had the atom bomb, and China, the most populous nation on earth, had fallen to the armies of Mao Zedong.

    As our situation was new, Truman acted anew. He adopted a George Kennan policy of containment of the world Communist empire, the Truman Doctrine, and sent an army to prevent South Korea from being overrun.

    At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world."

    A policy born of hubris.

    Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country.

    How did we expect Russian patriots to react?

    The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States.

    What should Trump say?

    Then Trump should move expeditiously to lay out and fix the broad outlines of his foreign policy, which entails rebuilding our military while beginning the cancellation of war guarantees that have no connection to U.S. vital interests. We cannot continue to bankrupt ourselves to fight other countries' wars or pay other countries' bills.

    The ideal time for such a declaration, a Trump Doctrine, is when the president-elect presents his secretaries of state and defense.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    [Nov 14, 2016] Clintons electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation

    Notable quotes:
    "... The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent. ..."
    "... Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation ..."
    "... Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.wsws.org
    The elections saw a massive shift in party support among the poorest and wealthiest voters. The share of votes for the Republicans amongst the most impoverished section of workers, those with family incomes under $30,000, increased by 10 percentage points from 2012. In several key Midwestern states, the swing of the poorest voters toward Trump was even larger: Wisconsin (17-point swing), Iowa (20 points), Indiana (19 points) and Pennsylvania (18 points).

    The swing to Republicans among the $30,000 to $50,000 family income range was 6 percentage points. Those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 swung away from the Republicans compared to 2012 by 2 points.

    The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent.

    Clinton was unable to make up for the vote decline among women (2.1 million), African Americans (3.2 million), and youth (1.2 million), who came overwhelmingly from the poor and working class, with the increase among the rich (1.3 million).

    Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation.

    Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender.

    [Nov 14, 2016] Note on the signs of decline of the US neoliberal empire

    crookedtimber.org

    likbez 11.15.16 at 1:19 am 93

    Salazar 11.14.16 at 12:11 am #18

    > How is the American Empire in decline? And how do we measure its decline?
    We can only speculate about signs of decline. From WaTimes ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/29/cal-thomas-america-shows-decline-signs-of-empires-/ )
    British diplomat John Glubb wrote a book called "The Fate of Empires and Search For Survival." Glubb noted that the average age of empires since the time of ancient Assyria (859-612 B.C.) is 250 years. Only the Mameluke Empire in Egypt and the Levant (1250-1517) made it as far as 267 years. America is 238 years old and is exhibiting signs of decline. All empires begin, writes Glubb, with the age of pioneers, followed by ages of conquest, commerce, affluence, intellect and decadence. America appears to have reached the age of decadence, which Glubb defines as marked by "defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state, [and] a weakening of religion."

    The most important is probably the fact that the ideology of the current US empire -- neoliberalism (called here "liberal progressivism") -- became discredited after 2008. What happened after the collapse of the Marxist ideology with the USSR is well known. It took 46 years (if we assume that the collapse started in 1945 as the result of victory in WWII, when the Soviet army has a chance to see the standard of living in Western countries). Why the USA should be different ? Decline of empires is very slow and can well take a half a century. Let's say it might take 50 years from 9/11 or October 2008.

    One telling sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. One telling sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. As Lupita hypothesized here Trump might be the last desperate attempt to reverse this process.

    Another, the deterioration of the standard of living of the USA population and declining infrastructure, both typically are connected with the overextension of empire. In Fortune ( http://fortune.com/2015/07/20/united-states-decline-statistics-economic/ ) Jill Coplan lists 12 signs of the decline.

    Trump election is another sign of turmoil. The key message of his election is "The institutions we once trusted deceived us" That includes the Democratic Party and all neoliberal MSM. Like was the case with the USSR, the loss of influence of neoliberal propaganda machine is a definite sign of the decline of empire.

    Degeneration of the neoliberal political elite that is also clearly visible in the current set of presidential candidates might be another sign. Hillary Clinton dragged to the car on 9/11 commemorative event vividly reminds the state of health of a couple of members of Soviet Politburo .

    See also:

    [Nov 14, 2016] Philip Pilkington Why the Pollsters Totally Failed to Call a Trump Victory, Why I (Sort Of) Succeeded – and Why You Should Lis

    Notable quotes:
    "... The second argument is the Bayesian vs frequentist debate on the foundations of probability theory, which has roots that go back centuries. Not that it matters, but I am in the Bayes-Laplace-Jeffreys-Jaynes camp. Evidently the author is a frequentist. But it is a vastly bigger intellectual issue than how some pollsters blew it and can't be settled in a blog post by someone proclaiming The Truth. ..."
    "... It's no secret that U.S. election results can't be audited - the integrity of the data is unknowable - and is subject to pre-election manipulation, in the form of widespread voter suppression. Post-election manipulation of vote totals also can't be discounted, because in many election districts it wouldn't be difficult and motive exists. ..."
    "... The general nature of humans is to "freak out" about big things and demand stuff like Brexit, then "calm down" and leave things roughly like they are maybe with a few touch-ups around the edges.* (This is the simplified basis of my "Brexit not gonna happen" stance. ..."
    "... But this is saying that people at the last moment decided the status quo was so bad they realized they just had to make a very scary leap into something new. That, if true, says quite a lot about the status quo. ..."
    "... "The Bradley effect" is the idea people are lying to pollsters. The problem is modeling, and unlike a few years ago, Gallup and others no longer do their daily tracking polls which give a better picture of the electorate. In the absence of a clear view of the electorate, the pollsters make up who will vote based on preconceived notions. ..."
    "... I think this is a good point. My understanding of the polling methodology is that they sample the electorate then break their sampled voters into demographic bins, then they weight the bins based on expected participation by demographic to get a final expected vote. ..."
    "... Putting blame for voter 'apathy' on Clinton's treatment of the Democratic base that supported Sanders, probably the most activist part of the party, or on Clinton's pivot to 'suburban republicans', or on the FBI, or Clinton's disastrous foreign policy record, or Clinton's unprecedentedly low favorability and trustworthiness numbers is difficult, but all of those problems were foreseen by Sanders supporters as well as by the DNC, but were ignored by the latter. That those problems were likely to depress turnout, which Democrats need to win elections was also fairly obvious, which is why I never believed the polls and believed Trump was indeed likely to win. ..."
    "... Polling organizations are really political organizations that get paid to influence public opinion rather than measure it. Their models are garbage. It's a complete joke of an industry. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    I have a very different explanation of why the pollsters got it so wrong. My argument is based on two statements which I hope to convince you of: That the pollsters were not actually using anything resembling scientific methodology when investigating the polls. Rather they were simply tracking the trends and calibrating their commentary in line with them. Not only did this not give us a correct understanding of what was going on but it also gave us no real new information other than what the polls themselves were telling us. I call this the redundancy argument . That the pollsters were committing a massive logical fallacy in extracting probability estimates from the polls (and whatever else they threw into their witches' brew models). In fact they were dealing with a singular event (the election) and singular events cannot be assigned probability estimates in any non-arbitrary sense. I call this the logical fallacy argument .

    Let us turn to the redundancy argument first. In order to explore the redundancy argument I will lay out briefly the type of analysis that I did on the polls during the election. I can then contrast this with the type of analysis done by pollsters. As we will see, the type of analysis that I was advocating produced new information while the type of approach followed by the pollsters did not. While I do not claim that my analysis actually predicted the election, in retrospect it certainly helps explain the result – while, on the other hand, the pollsters failed miserably.

    ... ... ...

    Probability theory requires that in order for a probability to be assigned an event must be repeated over and over again – ideally as many times as possible. Let's say that I hand you a coin. You have no idea whether the coin is balanced or not and so you do not know the probability that it will turn up heads. In order to discover whether the coin is balanced or skewed you have to toss it a bunch of times. Let's say that you toss it 1000 times and find that 900 times it turns up heads. Well, now you can be fairly confident that the coin is skewed towards heads. So if I now ask you what the probability of the coin turning up heads on the next flip you can tell me with some confidence that it is 9 out of 10 (900/1000) or 90%.

    Elections are not like this because they only happen once. Yes, there are multiple elections every year and there are many years but these are all unique events. Every election is completely unique and cannot be compared to another – at least, not in the mathematical space of probabilities. If we wanted to assign a real mathematical probability to the 2016 election we would have to run the election over and over again – maybe 1000 times – in different parallel universes. We could then assign a probability that Trump would win based on these other universes. This is silly stuff, of course, and so it is best left alone.

    So where do the pollsters get their probability estimates? Do they have access to an interdimensional gateway? Of course they do not. Rather what they are doing is taking the polls, plugging them into models and generating numbers. But these numbers are not probabilities. They cannot be. They are simply model outputs representing a certain interpretation of the polls. Boil it right down and they are just the poll numbers themselves recast as a fake probability estimate. Think of it this way: do the odds on a horse at a horse race tell you the probability that this horse will win? Of course not! They simply tell you what people think will happen in the upcoming race. No one knows the actual odds that the horse will win. That is what makes gambling fun. Polls are not quite the same – they try to give you a snap shot of what people are thinking about how they will vote in the election at any given point in time – but the two are more similar than not. I personally think that this tendency for pollsters to give fake probability estimates is enormously misleading and the practice should be stopped immediately. It is pretty much equivalent to someone standing outside a betting shop and, having converted all the odds on the board into fake probabilities, telling you that he can tell you the likelihood of each horse winning the race.

    There are other probability tricks that I noticed these pollsters doing too.

    ... ... ...

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church in discussing the first commandment repeats the condemnation of divination: "All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to 'unveil' the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. These practices are generally considered mortal sins.

    Of course I am not here to convert the reader to the Catholic Church. I am just making the point that many institutions in the past have seen the folly in trying to predict the future and have warned people against it. Today all we need say is that it is rather silly. Although we would also not go far wrong by saying, with the Church, that "recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings". That is a perfectly good secular lesson.

    I would go further still. The cult of prediction plays into another cult: the cult of supposedly detached technocratic elitism. I refer here, for example, to the cult of mainstream economics with their ever mysterious 'models'. This sort of enterprise is part and parcel of the cult of divination that we have fallen prey to but I will not digress too much on it here as it is the subject of a book that I will be publishing in mid-December 2016 – an overview of which can be found here . What knowledge-seeking people should be pursuing are tools of analysis that can help them better understand the world around us – and maybe even improve it – not goat entrails in which we can read future events. We live in tumultuous times; now is not the time

    Donald November 14, 2016 at 7:26 am

    The second argument is the Bayesian vs frequentist debate on the foundations of probability theory, which has roots that go back centuries. Not that it matters, but I am in the Bayes-Laplace-Jeffreys-Jaynes camp. Evidently the author is a frequentist. But it is a vastly bigger intellectual issue than how some pollsters blew it and can't be settled in a blog post by someone proclaiming The Truth.

    craazyman November 14, 2016 at 9:27 am

    Bayesian analysis is frequently cited as an alternative to frequentist schools, although only with prior awareness of the ontological challenges. Bwaaaaaaak!

    The Philster is back! Dude, you've been gone a while.

    If your title says we shouldn't listen to you, that might discourage readers before they read. That's a Bayesian prior. LOL. Sort of anyway.

    The probability of us reading, given the admonition not to read = the probability of the admonition given the probability of us reading, divided by the probability of us reading. Or something like that. ;-)

    When i do the math I get lost. I'll read it later. Right now i can't

    jake November 14, 2016 at 8:07 am

    It's no secret that U.S. election results can't be audited - the integrity of the data is unknowable - and is subject to pre-election manipulation, in the form of widespread voter suppression. Post-election manipulation of vote totals also can't be discounted, because in many election districts it wouldn't be difficult and motive exists.

    The arguments above are convincing in principle, but when the outcomes against which we measure polling predictions can't even be verified….

    a different chris November 14, 2016 at 8:10 am

    Letting others debate Bayesian models… this stood out:

    > This suggested to me that all of those that were going to vote Remain had decided early on and the voters that decided later and closer to the election date were going to vote Leave

    Wow. Just wow. The general nature of humans is to "freak out" about big things and demand stuff like Brexit, then "calm down" and leave things roughly like they are maybe with a few touch-ups around the edges.* (This is the simplified basis of my "Brexit not gonna happen" stance.)

    But this is saying that people at the last moment decided the status quo was so bad they realized they just had to make a very scary leap into something new. That, if true, says quite a lot about the status quo.

    *Yes I've been married for quite a long time now. Why do you ask? :)

    Anonymous November 14, 2016 at 8:58 am

    After some discussions about 'the inverse Bradley effect' some months ago, the press had been strangely silent about the effect and whether it applied to Trump. Theoretically, Trump, more than any other candidate I can name, should have enjoyed better support in the election than he was polling, as people were uncomfortable admitting that he was their preference for fear of condescension from pollsters. Ross Perot–to whom Trump is often compared– enjoyed a five point advantage 'inverse Bradley effect' in 1992 over his last and best poll numbers. Bill Clinton experienced a straight up 'Bradley effect' in both of his Presidential victories (off three points from his polling, as I recall), though he still did well enough to win.

    Nate Silver had an article that pretty much outlined what happened in the election back on Sept 15th. I'm not sure why he isn't referring to this as a fig leaf today, perhaps because so much of the rest of his reporting predicted Clinton's victory.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trump-could-win-the-white-house-while-losing-the-popular-vote/

    I thought Clinton would likely win, but that it would be a squeaker.

    NotTimothyGeithner November 14, 2016 at 10:03 am

    "The Bradley effect" is the idea people are lying to pollsters. The problem is modeling, and unlike a few years ago, Gallup and others no longer do their daily tracking polls which give a better picture of the electorate. In the absence of a clear view of the electorate, the pollsters make up who will vote based on preconceived notions.

    The LaT poll was very close this cycle and last cycle for the right reasons. Why didn't people lie to them? Are they special? They used a cross section of the country as a sample based on the census. They continued to talk to non voters or people who claimed to be non voters. They recognized people turning their backs on Team Blue. In 2012, they predicted the decline of the white vote for Team Blue and the rally of support from minorities because they talked to people.

    In the case of the famed "Bradley effect," the pollsters in that race didn't account for high republican turnout in connection to a statewide referendum expecting the usual city council turnout. The Republicans simply weren't counted. The "lying" of secret racists excuse was cooked up by pollsters and Bradley's campaign to avoid accountability for not working hard enough.

    Watt4Bob November 14, 2016 at 9:09 am

    I don't know if this fits in, but this what I've been pondering.

    For most of my life so far, lack of turnout has been assumed to be the result of 'voter apathy'.

    It looks to me as if the democratic party's behavior this year, especially in suppressing the Sanders campaign, had the ultimate effect of creating negative motivation on the part of many otherwise democratic voters, who were excoriated with the warning that any vote not-for-HRC was a vote for Trump.

    It would seem that many of those voters accepted that reality, and by refusing to show up at the polls, did indeed vote for Trump.

    From my perspective, this is both a complete repudiation of the Third-Way politics of the Clintons, and the beginning of a sea change.

    What I'm saying is that we no longer have voter apathy to blame, but real evidence of deepening engagement, which hopefully bodes well for Bernie's new project OR.

    This wasn't a mysterious failure to excite voters, it was an obvious and monumental case of ignoring the wishes of the electorate, and reaping a just reward.

    In the end, faced with the prospect of the SOS, voters elected to take a chance on Change, and this included many who could not bring themselves to vote for someone who obviously did not respect them, and for whom they held no respect.

    This is not your usual "poor turnout".

    FluffytheObeseCat November 14, 2016 at 9:57 am

    I don't know how much of the poor turnout over the past 2 decades was ever "your usual poor turnout". Third Way servitors to the powerful were never beloved of the people, except perhaps for the charismatic Bill Clinton. And there were many of us who never understood the love for him.

    Not voting has long been a conscious decision for many Americans, and when it's a conscious decision, it's essential a vote.

    Skip Intro November 14, 2016 at 10:30 am

    I think this is a good point. My understanding of the polling methodology is that they sample the electorate then break their sampled voters into demographic bins, then they weight the bins based on expected participation by demographic to get a final expected vote. The expected participation by demographic can really only be based on turnout from previous elections, though presumably pollsters tweak things to account for expected differences, like assuming women or latinos will be more motivated to vote in this election. If the actual turnout doesn't match the pollsters expectation, as happened in this election, where many traditional democratic demographics appeared to be demotivated, then the polls will all be systematically inaccurate.

    Putting blame for voter 'apathy' on Clinton's treatment of the Democratic base that supported Sanders, probably the most activist part of the party, or on Clinton's pivot to 'suburban republicans', or on the FBI, or Clinton's disastrous foreign policy record, or Clinton's unprecedentedly low favorability and trustworthiness numbers is difficult, but all of those problems were foreseen by Sanders supporters as well as by the DNC, but were ignored by the latter. That those problems were likely to depress turnout, which Democrats need to win elections was also fairly obvious, which is why I never believed the polls and believed Trump was indeed likely to win.

    And of course another major factor is that the polls were seemingly sponsored by media organizations which have pretty openly declared their opposition to Trump. The obvious suspicion was, then, that the polls were intended as campaign propaganda rather than objective information, and were tweaked (via turnout models?) to make Hillary seem inevitable. I also believed this was likely to lead to complacency among democrats, since Republicans are very reliable voters, and Trump-inspired indies would not believe anything coming from the MSM anyway.

    Most people I dared to explain this too were incredulous, and tended to write it off as more of my characteristic weird logic… and now they are shocked, the idiots.

    rich November 14, 2016 at 9:29 am

    Polling organizations are really political organizations that get paid to influence public opinion rather than measure it. Their models are garbage. It's a complete joke of an industry.

    David November 14, 2016 at 9:37 am

    Actually that just under 2 percent win in the national polls is going to be correct. Also many polls were vert close in PA were close as was FL and NC . Very few were done in Michigan which AP may never call because it is close enough for a recount. In the national number it looks like a 1 or 2 win

    casino implosion November 14, 2016 at 9:50 am

    Good to see that Phil is out of grad school and holding down a real job. Hope he posts to NC again soon.

    Joe November 14, 2016 at 10:37 am

    I thought the media and the both campaigns got it so wrong because they think everyone everywhere is on Facebook and Twitter. The people that helped elect the Trumpeter aren't on social media and didn't exist to those in power.

    Surprise.

    [Nov 14, 2016] Three Myths About Clintons Defeat in Election 2016 Debunked

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because the following talking points prevent a (vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons! ..."
    "... Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin. ..."
    "... These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump . ..."
    "... The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.) ..."
    "... And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me, I suppose, to sexism. ..."
    "... These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's. ..."
    "... pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum. They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same since his job at the factory went away" . ..."
    "... So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move in opposite directions? ..."
    "... First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair - college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale. ..."
    "... Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories ..."
    "... Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites. Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012. ..."
    "... "No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear. *snark ..."
    "... 'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets: ..."
    "... 1) Blacks for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't tell me what to think.' ..."
    "... Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture, pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted. So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of body and self. ..."
    "... My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    This post is not an explainer about why and how Clinton lost (and Trump won). I think we're going to be sorting that out for awhile. Rather, it's a simple debunking of common talking points by Clinton loyalists and Democrat Establishment operatives; the sort of talking point you might hear on Twitter, entirely shorn of caveats and context. For each of the three talking points, I'll present an especially egregious version of the myth, followed by a rebuttals.

    Realize that Trump's margin of victory was incredibly small. From the Washington Post :

    How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states

    Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states [Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania] effectively decided the election.

    Of course, America's first-past-the-post system and the electoral college amplify small margins into decisive results. And it was the job of the Clinton campaign to find those 107,000 votes and win them; the Clinton operation turned out to be weaker than anyone would have imagined when it counted . However, because Trump has what might be called an institutional mandate - both the executive and legislative branches and soon, perhaps, the judicial - the narrowness of his margin means he doesn't have a popular mandate. Trump has captured the state, but by no means civil society; therefore, the opposition that seeks to delegitimize him is in a stronger position than it may realize.

    Hence the necessity for reflection; seeking truth from facts, as the saying goes. Because the following talking points prevent a (vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons!

    Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Racism

    Here's a headline showing the talking point from a Vox explainer :

    Trump's win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism

    The subtext here is usually that if you don't chime in with vehement agreement, you're a racist yourself, and possibly a racist Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is false.

    First, voter caring levels dropped from 2012 to 2016, especially among black Democrats . Carl Beijer :

    From 2012 to 2016, both men and women went from caring about the outcome to not caring. Among Democratic men and women, as well as Republican women, care levels dropped about 3-4 points; Republican men cared a little less too, but only by one point. Across the board, in any case, the plurality of voters simply didn't care.

    Beijer includes the following chart (based on Edison exit polling cross-referenced with total population numbers from the US Census):

    Beijer interprets:

    White voters cared even less in 2016 then in 2012, when they also didn't care; most of that apathy came from white Republicans compared to white Democrats, who dropped off a little less. Voters of color, in contrast, continued to care – but their care levels dropped even more, by 8 points (compared to the 6 point drop-off among white voters). Incredibly, that drop was driven entirely by a 9 point drop among Democratic voters of color which left Democrats with only slim majority 51% support; Republicans, meanwhile, actually gained support among people of color.

    Beijer's data is born out by anecdote from Milwaukee, Wisconsin :

    Urban areas, where black and Hispanic voters are concentrated along with college-educated voters, already leaned toward the Democrats, but Clinton did not get the turnout from these groups that she needed. For instance, black voters did not show up in the same numbers they did for Barack Obama, the first black president, in 2008 and 2012.

    Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin.

    Second, counties that voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016 . The Washington Post :

    These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump .

    The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.)

    Here's the chart:

    And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me, I suppose, to sexism.

    Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Sexism

    Here's an article showing the talking point from Newsweek :

    This often vitriolic campaign was a national referendum on women and power.

    (The subtext here is usually that if you don't join the consensus cluster, you're a sexist yourself, and possibly a sexist Trump supporter). And if you only look at the averages this claim might seem true :

    On Election Day, women responded accordingly, as Clinton beat Trump among women 54 percent to 42 percent. They were voting not so much for her as against him and what he brought to the surface during his campaign: quotidian misogyny.

    There are two reasons this talking point is not true. First, averages conceal, and what they conceal is class . As you read further into the article, you can see it fall apart:

    In fact, Trump beat Clinton among white women 53 percent to 43 percent, with white women without college degrees going for [Trump] two to one .

    So, taking lack of a college degree as a proxy for being working class, for Newsweek's claim to be true, you have to believe that working class women don't get a vote in their referendum, and for the talking point to be true, you have to believe that working class women are sexist. Which leads me to ask: Who died and left the bourgeois feminists in Clinton's base in charge of the definition of sexism, or feminism? Class traitor Tina Brown is worth repeating:

    Here's my own beef. Liberal feminists, young and old, need to question the role they played in Hillary's demise. The two weeks of media hyperventilation over grab-her-by-the-pussygate, when the airwaves were saturated with aghast liberal women equating Trump's gross comments with sexual assault, had the opposite effect on multiple women voters in the Heartland.

    These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's.

    Missing this pragmatic response by so many women was another mistake of Robbie Mook's campaign data nerds. They computed that America's women would all be as outraged as the ones they came home to at night. But pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum. They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same since his job at the factory went away" .

    Second, Clinton in 2016 did no better than Obama in 2008 with women (although she did better than Obama in 2012). From the New York Times analysis of the exit polls, this chart...

    So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move in opposite directions?

    Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Stupidity

    Here's an example of this talking point from Foreign Policy , the heart of The Blob. The headline:

    Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally

    And the lead:

    OK, so that just happened. Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated, low-information white people. As Bloomberg Politics reported back in August, Hillary Clinton was enjoying a giant 25 percentage-point lead among college-educated voters going into the election. (Whether that trend held up remains to be seen.) In contrast, in the 2012 election, college-educated voters just barely favored Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Last night we saw something historic: the dance of the dunces. Never have educated voters so uniformly rejected a candidate. But never before have the lesser-educated so uniformly supported a candidate.

    The subtext here is usually that if you don't accept nod your head vigorously, you're stupid, and possibly a stupid Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is not true.

    First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair - college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale.

    Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories . From The Week :

    Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites. Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012.

    So, to believe this talking point, you have to believe that voters who were smart when they voted for Obama suddenly became stupid when it came time to vote for Clinton. You also have to believe that credentialed policy makers have an unblemished record of success, and that only they are worth paying attention to.

    Conclusion

    Of course, Clinton ran a miserable campaign, too, which didn't help. Carl Beijer has a bill of particulars :

    By just about every metric imaginable, Hillary Clinton led one of the worst presidential campaigns in modern history. It was a profoundly reactionary campaign, built entirely on rolling back the horizons of the politically possible, fracturing left solidarity, undermining longstanding left priorities like universal healthcare, pandering to Wall Street oligarchs, fomenting nationalism against Denmark and Russia, and rehabilitating some of history's greatest monsters – from Bush I to Kissinger. It was a grossly unprincipled campaign that belligerently violated FEC Super PAC coordination rules and conspired with party officials on everything from political attacks to debate questions. It was an obscenely stupid campaign that all but ignored Wisconsin during the general election, that pitched Clinton to Latino voters as their abuela, that centered an entire high-profile speech over the national menace of a few thousand anime nazis on Twitter, and that repeatedly deployed Lena Dunham as a media surrogate.

    Which is rather like running a David Letterman ad in a Pennsylvania steel town. It must have seemed like a good idea in Brooklyn. After all, they had so many celebrities to choose from.

    * * *

    All three talking points oversimplify. I'm not saying racism is not powerful; of course it is. I'm not saying that sexism is not powerful; of course it is. But monocausal explanations in an election this close - and in a country this vast - are foolish. And narratives that ignore economics and erase class are worse than foolish; buying into them will cause us to make the same mistakes over and over and over again.[1] The trick will be to integrate multiple causes, and that's down to the left; identity politics liberals don't merely not want to do this; they actively oppose it. Ditto their opposite numbers in America's neoliberal fun house mirror, the conservatives.

    NOTES

    [1] For some, that's not a bug. It's a feature.

    NOTE

    You will have noticed that I haven't covered economics (class), or election fraud at all. More myths are coming.

    Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration 24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com

    TK421 November 14, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    Yes, I'm a sexist because I voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary Clinton.

    Knot Galt November 14, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    "No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear. *snark

    IdahoSpud November 14, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    Is it sexist, racist, and/or stupid to conclude that one awful candidate is less likely to betray you than a different awful candidate?

    rwv November 14, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    Didn't feel the Bern, and if you burn your ass you'll have to sit on the blisters

    Steve H. November 14, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Stupidity

    'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets:

    1) Blacks for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't tell me what to think.'

    2) Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture, pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted. So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of body and self.

    My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book.

    Maybe not so stupid after all.

    Jason Boxman November 14, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Thanks so much for this!

    [Nov 14, 2016] Trump and Brexit Defeat Globalism, but For How Long

    Notable quotes:
    "... There are some who believe the elites are actually splintered into numerous groups and that domestic US elites have positioned themselves against the banking elites in London's City. ..."
    "... US elites are basically in the employ of a handful of families, individuals and institutions in our view. It is confusing because it is hard to tell if Hillary, for instance, is operating on her own accord or at the behest of higher and more powerful authorities. ..."
    "... It is probably a combination of both but at root those who control central banks are managing the world's move towards globalism. ..."
    "... The vote to propel Trump to the US presidency reflects a profound backlash against open markets and borders, and the simmering anger of millions of blue-collar white and working-class people who blame their economic woes on globalisation and multiculturalism. ..."
    "... If indeed Trump's election has damped the progress of TPP, and TTIP, this is a huge event. As we've pointed out, both agreements effectively substituted technocratic corporatism for the current sociopolitical model of "democracy." ..."
    "... one of the elite's most powerful, operative memes today is "populism vs. globalism" ..."
    "... No matter what, the reality of these two events, the victories of both Trump and Brexit, stand as signal proof that elite stratagems have been defeated, at least temporarily. Though whether these defeats have been self-inflicted as part of a change in tactics remains to be seen. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Via The Daily Bell

    ... ... ...

    Was Trump's victory actually created by the very globalist elites that Trump is supposed to have overcome? There are some who believe the elites are actually splintered into numerous groups and that domestic US elites have positioned themselves against the banking elites in London's City. We see no fundamental evidence of this.

    The world's real elites in our view may have substantive histories in the hundreds and thousands of years. US elites are basically in the employ of a handful of families, individuals and institutions in our view. It is confusing because it is hard to tell if Hillary, for instance, is operating on her own accord or at the behest of higher and more powerful authorities.

    It is probably a combination of both but at root those who control central banks are managing the world's move towards globalism. History easily shows us who these groups are – and they are not located in America.

    This is a cynical perspective to be sure, and certainly doesn't remove the impact of Trump's victory or his courage in waging his election campaign despite what must surely be death threats to himself and his family..

    But if true, this perspective corresponds to predictions that we've been making for nearly a decade now, suggesting that sooner or later elites – especially those in London's City – would have to "take a step back."

    More:

    The vote to propel Trump to the US presidency reflects a profound backlash against open markets and borders, and the simmering anger of millions of blue-collar white and working-class people who blame their economic woes on globalisation and multiculturalism.

    "There are a few parallels to Switzerland – that the losers of globalisation find somebody who is listening to them," said Swiss professor and lawyer Wolf Linder, a former director of the University of Bern's political science institute.

    "Trump is doing his business with the losers of globalisation in the US, like the Swiss People's Party is doing in Switzerland," he said. "It is a phenomenon which touches all European nations."

    ... ... ...

    If indeed Trump's election has damped the progress of TPP, and TTIP, this is a huge event. As we've pointed out, both agreements effectively substituted technocratic corporatism for the current sociopolitical model of "democracy." The elites were trying to move toward a new model of world control with these two agreements. ...

    Additionally, one of the elite's most powerful, operative memes today is "populism vs. globalism" that seeks to contrast the potentially freedom-oriented events of Trump and Brexit to the discarded wisdom of globalism. See here and here.

    No matter what, the reality of these two events, the victories of both Trump and Brexit, stand as signal proof that elite stratagems have been defeated, at least temporarily. Though whether these defeats have been self-inflicted as part of a change in tactics remains to be seen.

    Conclusion: But the change has come. One way or another the Internet and tens of millions or people talking, writing and acting has forced new trends. This can be hardly be emphasized enough. Globalism has been at least temporarily redirected.

    Editor's Note: The Daily Bell is giving away a silver coin and a silver "white paper" to subscribers. If you enjoy DB's articles and want to stay up-to-date for free, please subscribe here .

    spqrusa Nov 14, 2016 8:28 PM ,

    The analysis is flawed in that it fails to understand the context for power and influence in the western alliance. The Crowns in contest are seeking coordinated domination through political proxy, i.e. the force behind the EU and the UN. The problem is the most influential crown was not in a mind to destroy the fabric of their civilization and more importantly to continue to bail-out the "socialist" paradises in the continent and beyond. Britannia has its own socialism to support much less that of the world.

    Trump represents keeping the Colony in line with a growing interest in keeping traditions intact and in more direct control of Anglo values. Europe has this insane multi-culturalism that is fundamentally incompatible with a "free" and robust civilization. The whole goal of detente with China was to convert them to our values via proxy institutions and that is working in the long-run. In the short-run, the Empire must reunite and solidify its value bulwark against the coming storm from China and to a lesser extend from the expanded EU states. Russia is playing out on its own.

    [Nov 14, 2016] Bernie Sanders Indicting Hillary Would Be An Outrage Beyond Belief

    Nov 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    by Submitted by Stefanie MacWilliams via PlanetFreeWill.com,

    In his first post-election interview , Bernie Sanders has declared to should-be-disgraced Wolf Blitzer that Trump seeking to indict Hillary Clinton for her crimes would be "an outrage beyond belief".

    When asked if President Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton, Sanders seems almost confused as to why a pardon would even be needed.

    Blitzer notes that Ford pardoned Nixon before he could be charged, to which Bernie seemed again incredulous as to the comparison was even being made.

    He goes on to state:

    That a winning candidate would try to imprison the losing candidate – that's what dictatorships are about, that's what authoritarian countries are about. You do not imprison somebody you ran against because you have differences of opinion. The vast majority of the American people would find it unacceptable to even think about those things.

    Either Senator Sanders is a drooling idiot, or he is being willfully obtuse.

    No one wants to imprison Hillary Clinton because of her opinion. They want to imprison Hillary Clinton because she has committed criminal actions that any other person lacking millions of dollars and hundreds of upper-echelon contacts would be imprisoned for.

    Apparently, according to progressive hero Bernie Sanders, holding the elites to the same level of justice as the peons is undemocratic, authoritarian, and perhaps even dictatorial!

    Enough with the damn emails?

    Enough with any hope that the Democrats have retained a minute shred of credibility.

    You can watch the full interview below:

    [Nov 14, 2016] Thomas Frank Clintons Led the Democratic Betrayal of the Average Working American For Big Money

    jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    "There are two theories of prosperity and of well-being: The first theory is that if we make the rich richer, somehow they will let a part of their prosperity trickle down to the rest of us. The second theory - and I suppose this goes back to the days of Noah - I won't say Adam and Eve, because they had a less complicated situation - but, at least, back in the days of the flood, there was the theory that if we make the average of mankind comfortable and secure, their prosperity will rise upward, just as yeast rises up, through the ranks...

    We so easily forget. Once the cry of so-called prosperity is heard in the land, we all become so stampeded by the spirit of the god Mammon, that we cannot serve the dictates of social conscience. . . . We are here to serve notice that the economic order is the invention of man; and that it cannot dominate certain eternal principles of justice and of God...

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

    Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    You can fool all of the people, some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time- but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

    Here is Youtube video

    watch-v=L4VxmAIzKCM

    [Nov 14, 2016] Sanders Democrats Lost Elections Because They Focused On Liberal Elite, Not Working Class - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Democrats have focused too much with a liberal elite" while ignoring the working class. ..."
    "... How does it happen that they win elections and Democrats lose? I think what the conclusion is, is that that is raising incredible sums of money from wealthy people … but has ignored to a very significant degree, working class, middle class, and low income people in this country. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Sunday on CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said President-elect Donald Trump won because "Democrats have focused too much with a liberal elite" while ignoring the working class.

    Sanders said, " How does it happen that they win elections and Democrats lose? I think what the conclusion is, is that that is raising incredible sums of money from wealthy people … but has ignored to a very significant degree, working class, middle class, and low income people in this country. "

    [Nov 14, 2016] Clinton betrayal and the future of Democratic Party

    Nov 14, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    weejonnie Intheround 11h ago ...In the last 8 years the Democrat party.

    Lost control of the Senate
    Lost control of the House of Representatives
    Lost control of dozens of state legislatures and Governorships.
    The Republicans control 36 States of America - One more and they could in theory amend the Constitution.

    In Wisconsin (notionally Democrat) the Legislature and Governor are both Republican controlled. And Clinton didn't even campaign there when it was pretty obvious the State was not trending towards her.

    [Nov 14, 2016] Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people robbed of holiday and sickness pay

    Most commenters do not realise that it is neoliberalism that caused the current suffering of working people in the USA and elsewhere...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people robbed of holiday and sickness pay. Working people priced out of ever owning their own home. Our city centers socially cleansed of the working class. Poor people forced to fight like rats in sacks with even poorer foreigners for jobs, housing, school places and social and health services. ..."
    "... Keep going mate. Continue to pump out that snobbish attitude because every time you do you've bagged Mr Trump, Mr Farage and Ms LePen another few votes. ..."
    "... I recall a time when any suggestion that immigration may be too high was silenced by cries of racism, eventually that label was misused so often that it lost its potency, one gets the sense that this trend for dubbing those who hold certain opinions as somehow unintelligent will go the same way. People are beginning to see through this most hateful tactic of the Modern Left. ..."
    "... Which is why I think Mr D'Ancona and many others are wrong to say that Farage and Trump will face the whirlwind when voters realise that their promises were all unachievable. The promises were much less important than the chance to slap the political world in the face. Given another chance, a lot of voters will do the same again. ..."
    "... I think the author completely misses the most salient point from the two events he cites: simply that the *vast* majority of people have become completely disenfranchised with the utter corruption that is mainstream politics today. ..."
    "... It doesn't matter who is voted in, the status quo [big business and the super-rich get wealthier whilst the middle is squeezed and the poorest are destroyed] remains. ..."
    "... The votes for Brexit and Trump are as much a rejection of "establishment" as anything else. Politicians in both countries heed these warnings at their peril... ..."
    "... The majority of the people are sick and tired of PC ism and the zero hour, minimum wage economy that both Britain and America have suffered under "globalisation". And of the misguided "[neo]liberal" agenda of much of the media which simply does not speak to or for society. ..."
    "... People in western democracies are rising up through the ballot box to defeat PC [neo]liberalism and globalisation that has done so much to impoverish Europe and America morally and economically. To the benefit of the tax haven corporates. ..."
    "... Globalisation disembowelled American manufacturing so the likes of Blair and the Clintons could print money. The illimitable lives they destroyed never entered their calculus. ..."
    "... I have stood in the blue lane in Atlanta waiting for my passport to be processed; in the adjoining lane was a young British female student (so she said to the official). The computer revealed she had overstayed her visa by 48 hours the last time she visited. She was marched out by two armed tunics to the next plane home. That's how Europeans get treated if they try to enter America illegally. Why the demented furor over returning illegal Hispanics or anyone else? ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    IanPitch 12h ago

    Surely the people who voted for Trump and Farage are too stupid to realise the sheer, criminal folly of their decision...

    thoughtcatcher -> IanPitch 12h ago

    Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people robbed of holiday and sickness pay. Working people priced out of ever owning their own home. Our city centers socially cleansed of the working class. Poor people forced to fight like rats in sacks with even poorer foreigners for jobs, housing, school places and social and health services.

    But yeah, they voted against the elite because they are "stupid".

    attila9000 -> IanPitch 11h ago

    I think at some point a lot of them will realize they have been had, but then they will probably just blame immigrants, or the EU. Anything that means they don't have to take responsibility for their own actions. It would appear there is a huge pool of people who can be conned into acting against their own self interest.

    jonnyoyster -> IanPitch 11h ago

    Keep going mate. Continue to pump out that snobbish attitude because every time you do you've bagged Mr Trump, Mr Farage and Ms LePen another few votes. Most people don't appreciate being talked down to and this arrogant habit of calling those who hold views contrary to your own 'stupid' is encouraging more and more voters to ditch the established parties in favour of the new.

    I recall a time when any suggestion that immigration may be too high was silenced by cries of racism, eventually that label was misused so often that it lost its potency, one gets the sense that this trend for dubbing those who hold certain opinions as somehow unintelligent will go the same way. People are beginning to see through this most hateful tactic of the Modern Left.

    DilemmataDocta -> IanPitch 11h ago

    A lot of the people who put their cross against Brexit or Trump weren't actually voting for anything. They were just voting against this, that or the other thing about the world that they disliked. It was voting as a gesture.

    Which is why I think Mr D'Ancona and many others are wrong to say that Farage and Trump will face the whirlwind when voters realise that their promises were all unachievable. The promises were much less important than the chance to slap the political world in the face. Given another chance, a lot of voters will do the same again.


    Sproggit 12h ago

    I think the author completely misses the most salient point from the two events he cites: simply that the *vast* majority of people have become completely disenfranchised with the utter corruption that is mainstream politics today.

    It doesn't matter who is voted in, the status quo [big business and the super-rich get wealthier whilst the middle is squeezed and the poorest are destroyed] remains.

    The votes for Brexit and Trump are as much a rejection of "establishment" as anything else. Politicians in both countries heed these warnings at their peril...

    NotoBlair 11h ago

    OMG, the lib left don't Geddit do they?

    The majority of the people are sick and tired of PC ism and the zero hour, minimum wage economy that both Britain and America have suffered under "globalisation". And of the misguided "[neo]liberal" agenda of much of the media which simply does not speak to or for society.

    People in western democracies are rising up through the ballot box to defeat PC [neo]liberalism and globalisation that has done so much to impoverish Europe and America morally and economically. To the benefit of the tax haven corporates.

    The sour grapes bleating of the lib left who refuse to accept the democratic will of the people is a movement doomed failure.

    Frankincensedabit 11h ago

    Malign to whom? Wall Street and people who want us all dead?

    Globalisation disembowelled American manufacturing so the likes of Blair and the Clintons could print money. The illimitable lives they destroyed never entered their calculus.

    I have stood in the blue lane in Atlanta waiting for my passport to be processed; in the adjoining lane was a young British female student (so she said to the official). The computer revealed she had overstayed her visa by 48 hours the last time she visited. She was marched out by two armed tunics to the next plane home. That's how Europeans get treated if they try to enter America illegally. Why the demented furor over returning illegal Hispanics or anyone else?

    I likely wouldn't have voted at all. But all my life the occupants of the White House represented the interests of those nobody could ever identify. The owners of the media and the numbered accounts who took away the life-chances of U.S. citizens by the million and called any of them who objected a thick white-trash bigot. Whatever Trump is, he will be different.

    [Nov 14, 2016] No Soul-Searching by "Liberals" After Clinton's Defeat. Their Candidate Was the Embodiment of a Totally Corrupt Political System

    Notable quotes:
    "... So-called [neo]liberals and leftists in the US and around the world, are now wailing and gnashing their teeth in reaction to Hillary Clinton's crushing defeat. They are, however, the first to blame for the outcome of the US presidential elections. Their candidate, Hillary Clinton, was the embodiment of a totally corrupt political system. She is a hypocrite par excellence, talking to the bankiers of Wall Street behind closed doors differently than to the American people. Her rhetoric for the rights of women and blacks and other minorities sounded disingenuous. ..."
    "... The Clinton Foundation received large donations from Saudi-Arabia and Qatar, countries rewarded in return by huge arms transfers overseen by her as Secretary of State. Her involvement in this corruption was no theme for the media. ..."
    "... According to emails published by WikiLeaks, her campaign manager John Podesta was or is on the payroll of the Saudis. ..."
    "... the Clinton team stole the primary elections to prevent the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, the media demonized Donald Trump. ..."
    "... An American President is not a free and politically independent person. From day one, a President-elect can't anymore go around the corner and grab a hot dog or a hamburger. He is reigned in by a military and security establishment that holds the President fit for public consumption. Trump, as any other president, can be expected to follow their rule and political suggestions. ..."
    "... I doubt very much that Trump will keep the promises of his election campaign, such as building a wall along the American-Mexican border, deport all illegal immigrants or ban Muslims from immigrating into the US. I even doubt that he will go after Hillary Clinton and her husband's dubious foundation. There exists a code of honor among thieves. ..."
    "... Trump won precisely because of the shrill one-sided media propaganda and because of his rhetoric against the Washington establishment , including his own Republican Party. Now, this Republican establishment dominates both houses of Congress. Trump belongs also, however, to the US establishment but of another sort. Nobody should believe that the Washington establishment will follow Trump's lead. ..."
    "... Whether Trump will stop American adventurism in the Middle East remains to be seen. His close ties with Netanyahu do not bode well for the Palestinians ..."
    "... And while he has promised to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, I doubt that he will carry out this provocation against international law and the entire Muslim world. ..."
    "... Chancellor Angela Merke l sent the President-Elect Trump a warning in the guise of a congratulation. Her political impudence was garbed within obsequious blabber about the allegedly honorable nature of German-American ties ..."
    "... Germany's Foreign Minister Steinmeier called Trump a "preacher of hate" ..."
    "... During the election campaign, Trump called Merkel's mass-immigration policy "insane" and "what Merkel did to Germany" a "sad shame". ..."
    "... The media and the political class should at this point stop pontificating. Their double morals and unprofessional coverage of the US elections should prompt them to more humility. They should rather blame themselves for their biased reporting, which led directly to Clinton's defeat. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | www.globalresearch.ca

    So-called [neo]liberals and leftists in the US and around the world, are now wailing and gnashing their teeth in reaction to Hillary Clinton's crushing defeat. They are, however, the first to blame for the outcome of the US presidential elections. Their candidate, Hillary Clinton, was the embodiment of a totally corrupt political system. She is a hypocrite par excellence, talking to the bankiers of Wall Street behind closed doors differently than to the American people. Her rhetoric for the rights of women and blacks and other minorities sounded disingenuous.

    The Clinton Foundation received large donations from Saudi-Arabia and Qatar, countries rewarded in return by huge arms transfers overseen by her as Secretary of State. Her involvement in this corruption was no theme for the media.

    According to emails published by WikiLeaks, her campaign manager John Podesta was or is on the payroll of the Saudis. All of this was not considered worth reporting by the media. Virtually all national media in the United States supported Clinton's candidacy. Instead of reporting how the machinery of the Democratic Party and the Clinton team stole the primary elections to prevent the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, the media demonized Donald Trump.

    I do not wish here to defend Donald Trump. He made numerous stupid, racist, sexist, and anti-Islamic statements that were rightly criticized. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was treated with kid gloves while her huge criminal political record was glossed over. Instead of coming to grips with their abject failures, the liberals and their media continue in slandering Donald Trump. Trump's first declarations show already that he has conquered new frontiers.

    An American President is not a free and politically independent person. From day one, a President-elect can't anymore go around the corner and grab a hot dog or a hamburger. He is reigned in by a military and security establishment that holds the President fit for public consumption. Trump, as any other president, can be expected to follow their rule and political suggestions.

    I doubt very much that Trump will keep the promises of his election campaign, such as building a wall along the American-Mexican border, deport all illegal immigrants or ban Muslims from immigrating into the US. I even doubt that he will go after Hillary Clinton and her husband's dubious foundation. There exists a code of honor among thieves.

    Trump won precisely because of the shrill one-sided media propaganda and because of his rhetoric against the Washington establishment , including his own Republican Party. Now, this Republican establishment dominates both houses of Congress. Trump belongs also, however, to the US establishment but of another sort. Nobody should believe that the Washington establishment will follow Trump's lead. Even his positive statements about Vladimir Putin or his suggestion to discard NATO, will probably vanish. But what I do hope is that he stands to his rejection of TPP and TTIP and his pragmatic view of Vladimir Putin.

    Whether Trump will stop American adventurism in the Middle East remains to be seen. His close ties with Netanyahu do not bode well for the Palestinians. He sees Zionist colonization of the rest of Palestine as no hindrance to peace. And while he has promised to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, I doubt that he will carry out this provocation against international law and the entire Muslim world.

    The German political and media class was not only surprised by the results of the US elections, but did not even try to hide its revulsion against the choice of the American people. The entire political class in Germany perceived and presented the Trump campaign in the same one-sided manner as American media did. Chancellor Angela Merke l sent the President-Elect Trump a warning in the guise of a congratulation. Her political impudence was garbed within obsequious blabber about the allegedly honorable nature of German-American ties:

    "Germany and America are bound by common values - democracy, freedom, as well as respect for the rule of law and the dignity of each and every person, regardless of their origin, skin color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or political views. It is based on these values that I wish to offer close cooperation, both with me personally and between our countries' governments."

    Other German politicians did not even attempt to hide their disdain for American voters by diplomatic language. Germany's Foreign Minister Steinmeier called Trump a "preacher of hate", and Deputy Chancellor Gabriel cartooned Trump as a

    "trailblazer of a new authoritarian and chauvinist international movement… [who wants] a rollback to the bad old times in which women belonged by the stove or in bed, gays in jail and unions at best at the side table."

    During the election campaign, Trump called Merkel's mass-immigration policy "insane" and "what Merkel did to Germany" a "sad shame".

    The media and the political class should at this point stop pontificating. Their double morals and unprofessional coverage of the US elections should prompt them to more humility. They should rather blame themselves for their biased reporting, which led directly to Clinton's defeat. Ordinary Americans are not as stupid as the Establishment wants us to believe. Established parties and media would be well advised to give the new US President a chance to prove his worth. There will be, without doubt, many occasions in the future for fact-based criticism.

    The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © Dr. Ludwig Watzal , Global Research, 2016

    [Nov 13, 2016] Donald Trumps Foreign Policy is as interventionist as Clinton, Bush or Obama administrations

    Expectation of any change were just an illusion. Trump decided to practice gangster capitalism on international arena
    Nov 13, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
    That is why watching President-elect Trump's choices for his foreign policy team is so important. If he chooses primarily alumni of the Bush administration, we can be fairly certain that there will be few, if any, beneficial changes in Washington's security strategy. Indeed, it could conceivably be even more interventionist than that pursued by the Clinton, Bush or Obama administrations.

    The main difference might be that it would be conducted unilaterally rather than multilaterally, especially if someone like John Bolton gets a key position.

    If on the other hand, Trump begins to pick advisers who have little or no previous government service, it would be an encouraging step. Watch for appointments from realist enclaves like Defense Priorities, the Independent Institute and others. Also watch for the appointment of individual unorthodox or "rogue" scholars from such places as Notre Dame University, George Mason University, the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, and (ironically) the Bush School at Texas A&M University. Such moves would indicate that Trump was choosing new blood and really intending to make a meaningful change in the direction of U.S. foreign policy.

    For now, we can only wait and watch and hope.

    [Nov 13, 2016] The slogan drain the swamp proved to quite oppostite of what it initially meants. It now means bring all thos bottom feeded into the administration by Beverly Mann

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's not just corporate lobbyists who are playing early, visible roles in the new power structure. Some of Trump's biggest political donors are shaping the incoming administration, including Rebekah Mercer, a daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, who is figuring prominently in behind-the-scenes discussions, according to people familiar with the transition. ..."
    "... Mercer is among four major donors appointed by Trump Friday to a 16-person executive committee overseeing his transition. The others are campaign finance chairman Steven Mnuchin, New York financier Anthony Scaramucci and Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    The chant echoed through Donald Trump's boisterous rallies leading up to Election Day: "Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!"

    "We are fighting for every citizen that believes that government should serve the people, not the donors and not the special interests," the billionaire real estate developer promised exuberant supporters at his last campaign rally in Manchester, N.H.

    But just days later, there is little evidence that the president-elect is seeking to restrain wealthy interests from having access and influence in his administration.

    It's not just corporate lobbyists who are playing early, visible roles in the new power structure. Some of Trump's biggest political donors are shaping the incoming administration, including Rebekah Mercer, a daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, who is figuring prominently in behind-the-scenes discussions, according to people familiar with the transition.

    Mercer is among four major donors appointed by Trump Friday to a 16-person executive committee overseeing his transition. The others are campaign finance chairman Steven Mnuchin, New York financier Anthony Scaramucci and Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel.

    Meanwhile, top campaign fundraisers and a raft of lobbyists tied to some of the country's wealthiest industries have been put in charge of hiring and planning for specific federal agencies. They include J. Steven Hart, chairman of the law and lobbying shop Williams & Jensen; Michael McKenna, an energy company lobbyist who is overseeing planning for the Energy Department; and Dallas fundraiser Ray Washburne, was has been tapped to oversee the Commerce Department.

    Billionaires who served as Trump's policy advisers, such as Oklahoma oil executive Harold Hamm, are under consideration for Cabinet positions.

    Donors and lobbyists already shaping Trump's 'drain the swamp' administration , Matea Gold and Tom Hamburger, Washington Post, today

    LOL . LOL . So how about a new chant for protesters: DRAIN THE SWAP!?

    ... ... ...

    UPDATE:

    Asked about the tensions, and about Kushner's role in the leadership change at the transition team, Trump spokesman Jason Miller said, "Anybody seeing today's news about the appointment of Vice President-elect Mike Pence to run the Presidential Transition Team realizes that President-elect Donald J. Trump is serious about changing Washington whether the town likes it or not. This might ruffle the delicate sensitivities of the well-heeled two-martini lunch set, but President-elect Trump isn't fighting for them, he's fighting for the hard-working men and women outside the Beltway who don't care for insider bickering."

    It's not uncommon for rivalries to emerge inside campaigns and administrations as advisers jockey to place allies in key roles and advance their policy priorities. But the level of internecine conflict during Trump's drive toward the GOP nomination was so extreme that it sometimes resulted in conflicting directives for even simple hiring and spending decisions.

    Trump team rivalries spark infighting , Kenneth P. Vogel, Nancy Cook and Alex Isenstadt, Politico, late last night

    ... ... ...

    Anyone ?

    [Nov 13, 2016] Trump Dont Follow the Bush-Obama Foreign Policy Legacy

    Nov 13, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Eight years ago, President Obama had a chance to change the warmongering direction that outgoing President Bush and the U.S. national-security establishment had led America for the previous eight years. Obama could have said, "Enough is enough. America has done enough killing and dying. I'm going to lead our country in a different direction - toward peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people of the world." He could have ordered all U.S. troops in the Middle East and Afghanistan to return home. He could have ended U.S. involvement in the endless wars that Bush, the Pentagon, and the CIA spawned in that part of the world. He could have led America in a new direction.

    Instead, Obama decided to stay Bush's course, no doubt believing that he, unlike Bush, could win the endless wars that Bush had started. It was not to be. He chose to keep the national-security establishment embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq. Death and destruction are Obama's legacy, just as they were Bush's.

    Obama hoped that Hillary Clinton would protect and continue his (and Bush's) legacy of foreign death and destruction. Yesterday, a majority of American voters dashed that hope.

    Will Trump change directions and bring U.S. troops home? Possibly not, especially given he is an interventionist, just as Clinton, Bush, and Obama are. But there is always that possibility, especially since Trump, unlike Clinton, owes no allegiance to the U.S. military-industrial complex, whose survival and prosperity depends on endless wars and perpetual crises.

    If Clinton had been elected, there was never any doubt about continued U.S. interventionism in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Not only is she a died-in-the-wool interventionist, she would have been owned by the national-security establishment. She would have done whatever the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA wanted, which would have automatically meant endless warfare - and permanent destruction of the liberty and prosperity of the American people.

    It's obvious that Americans want a new direction when it comes to foreign policy. That's partly what Trump's election is all about. Americans are sick and tired of the never-ending wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. That includes military families, especially the many who supported Trump, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. Americans are also tired of the out of control spending and debt that come with these wars. By electing Trump, it is obvious that Americans are demanding a change on foreign policy.

    Imagine the benefits to American society if Trump were to change directions on foreign policy. No more anti-American terrorist blowback, which would mean no more war on terrorism. That means the restoration of a sense of normality to American lives. No more TSA checkpoints at airports. No more mass surveillance schemes to "keep us safe." No more color coded warnings. No more totalitarian power to round up Americans, put them into concentration camps or military dungeons, and torture them. No more power to assassinate people, including Americans. In other words, the restoration of American civil liberties and privacy.

    The Middle East is embroiled in civil wars - wars that have been engendered or magnified by U.S. interventionism. Continued interventionism in an attempt to fix the problems only pours gasoline on the fires. The U.S. government has done enough damage to Afghanistan and the Middle East. It has already killed enough people, including those in wedding parties, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Enough is enough.

    Will Trump be bad on immigration and trade? Undoubtedly, but Clinton would have been bad in those areas too. Don't forget, after all, that Obama has become America's greatest deporter-in-chief, deporting more illegal immigrants than any U.S. president in history. Clinton would have followed in his footsteps, especially in the hope of protecting his legacy. Moreover, while Trump will undoubtedly begin trade wars, Clinton would have been imposing sanctions on people all over the world whose government failed to obey the commands of the U.S. government. A distinction without a difference.

    Another area for hope under a Trump presidency is with respect to the drug war, one of the most failed, destructive, and expensive government programs in history. Clinton would have followed in Bush's and Obama's footsteps by keeping it in existence, if for no other reason than to cater to the army of DEA agents, federal and state judges, federal and state prosecutors, court clerks, and police departments whose existence depends on the drug war.

    While Trump is a drug warrior himself, he doesn't have the same allegiance to the vast drug-war bureaucracy that Clinton has. If we get close to pushing this government program off the cliff - and I am convinced that it is on the precipice - there is a good chance that Trump will not put much effort into fighting its demise. Clinton would have fought for the drug war with every fiber of her being.

    There is another possible upside to Trump's election: The likelihood that Cold War II will come to a sudden end. With Clinton, the continuation of the new Cold War against Russia was a certainty. In fact, Clinton's Cold War might well have gotten hot very quickly, given her intent to establish a no-fly zone over Syria where she could show how tough she is by ordering U.S. warplanes to shoot down Russian warplanes. There is no telling where that would have led, but it very well might have led to all-out nuclear war, something that the U.S. national-security establishment wanted with the Soviet Union back in the 1960s under President Kennedy.

    The danger of war with Russia obviously diminishes under a President Trump, who has said that he favors friendly relations with Russia, just as Kennedy favored friendly relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba in the months before he was assassinated.

    Indeed, given Trump's negative comments about NATO, there is even the possibility of a dismantling of that old Cold War dinosaur that gave us the crisis in Ukraine with Russia.

    How about it, President-Elect Trump? While you're mulling over your new Berlin Wall on the Southern (and maybe Northern) border and your coming trade wars with China, how about refusing to follow the 16 years of Bush-Obama when it comes to U.S. foreign interventionism? Bring the troops home. Lead America in a different direction, at least insofar as foreign policy is concerned - away from death, destruction, spending, debt, loss of liberty and privacy, and economic impoverishment and toward freedom, peace, prosperity, and harmony.

    Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation .

    [Nov 13, 2016] Ron Paul Neocons are Trying to Infiltrate Trump`s Administration

    Nov 13, 2016 | www.youtube.com

    archivesDave 1 day ago

    " TRYING" ???...That's a JOKE, Right? Gingrich, Giuliani, etc, etc, These Neocons already have a lot of the wild cards and 'Trump Cards'...Closet Globalists, even though they probably wouldn't admit it.

    Reference Carroll Quigley and Craig Hulet if you really want to get the REAL skinny!

    * Problem~Reaction~Solution

    [Nov 13, 2016] It is not an easy job to drain the swamp; it can pull you in by Beverly Mann

    Nov 12, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    The chant echoed through Donald Trump's boisterous rallies leading up to Election Day: "Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!"

    "We are fighting for every citizen that believes that government should serve the people, not the donors and not the special interests," the billionaire real estate developer promised exuberant supporters at his last campaign rally in Manchester, N.H.

    But just days later, there is little evidence that the president-elect is seeking to restrain wealthy interests from having access and influence in his administration.

    It's not just corporate lobbyists who are playing early, visible roles in the new power structure. Some of Trump's biggest political donors are shaping the incoming administration, including Rebekah Mercer, a daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, who is figuring prominently in behind-the-scenes discussions, according to people familiar with the transition.

    Mercer is among four major donors appointed by Trump Friday to a 16-person executive committee overseeing his transition. The others are campaign finance chairman Steven Mnuchin, New York financier Anthony Scaramucci and Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel.

    Meanwhile, top campaign fundraisers and a raft of lobbyists tied to some of the country's wealthiest industries have been put in charge of hiring and planning for specific federal agencies. They include J. Steven Hart, chairman of the law and lobbying shop Williams & Jensen; Michael McKenna, an energy company lobbyist who is overseeing planning for the Energy Department; and Dallas fundraiser Ray Washburne, was has been tapped to oversee the Commerce Department.

    Billionaires who served as Trump's policy advisers, such as Oklahoma oil executive Harold Hamm, are under consideration for Cabinet positions.

    Donors and lobbyists already shaping Trump's 'drain the swamp' administration , Matea Gold and Tom Hamburger, Washington Post, today

    LOL . LOL . So how about a new chant for protesters: DRAIN THE SWAP!?

    ... ... ...

    UPDATE:

    Asked about the tensions, and about Kushner's role in the leadership change at the transition team, Trump spokesman Jason Miller said, "Anybody seeing today's news about the appointment of Vice President-elect Mike Pence to run the Presidential Transition Team realizes that President-elect Donald J. Trump is serious about changing Washington whether the town likes it or not. This might ruffle the delicate sensitivities of the well-heeled two-martini lunch set, but President-elect Trump isn't fighting for them, he's fighting for the hard-working men and women outside the Beltway who don't care for insider bickering."

    It's not uncommon for rivalries to emerge inside campaigns and administrations as advisers jockey to place allies in key roles and advance their policy priorities. But the level of internecine conflict during Trump's drive toward the GOP nomination was so extreme that it sometimes resulted in conflicting directives for even simple hiring and spending decisions.

    Trump team rivalries spark infighting , Kenneth P. Vogel, Nancy Cook and Alex Isenstadt, Politico, late last night

    ... ... ...

    Anyone ?

    [Nov 13, 2016] Fears that Trump will be tamed by the deep state and neocons

    Nov 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:00 PM ,

    An Open Letter To Donald J. Trump

    THE ULTIMATE "APPRENTICE"

    November 12, 2016

    Dear Mr. President-Elect:

    I was one of the millions of people that believed in you. Believed what you said. Heard you.

    You got "hired" by 60 MILLION people. WE are your boss. YOU BECAME THE EMPLOYEE.

    Something you are not used to.

    I myself convinced nearly 20 people to vote for you over these last two years. Know what I said?

    "He's NOT a politician. He's a business man. He's an outsider – something Washington, D.C. SORELY needs. He's NOT the same 'business as usual' guy. Mr. Trump will change things for the better in Washington. Clean it up. Make peace with Russia – not war. Trump is a BUILDER – not a destroyer. He'll negotiate FAIR deals with countries. Install sensible immigration policies. Reverse the stranglehold on health care policies that have bankrupted millions." I made them see how biased the media was against you. How they lied by omission – and sometimes outright lied about you. (To a person, they NO LONGER WATCH, TRUST, OR HEED the media anymore.)

    He'll change the culture of Washington – because that's EXACTLY WHAT IT NEEDS. CHANGE."

    Washington has become a den of vipers. Self-enriching criminals that have sucked the life blood out of US – YOUR EMPLOYERS . The phrase; "You're FIRED" must be repeated often to MANY people over the next few years. People that have engorged themselves because of the previous employees, who have mismanaged the nation, and lied to it's people.

    Your very words from your speeches that convinced us to hire you. Your platform. Your slogans;

    "Make America Great Again." "I'll take back this country for you".

    You said that to 60 MILLION of us – and we hired you based on it.

    We hired you because we're SICK AND TIRED OF CAREER POLITICIANS. We hired you because we are sick of the GREED, DUPLICITY, THE CORRUPTION of Congress and the past administrations that have enriched the elite, while robbing from the American taxpayer.

    Already, the public has noticed that you have had a LOT of the old-guard/same ol' same ol' Republican Washington "insiders" advising you. We understand that you will need some guidance in the first few months. All "apprentices" do.

    However, we, as your employers, will NOT TOLERATE THE SAME OL' SAME OL' ANYMORE.

    We hired YOU to do the right THINGS. "Drain The Swamp" "Take Our Country BACK".

    Commencing January 21, 2017, that's exactly what we demand of you – our new employee.

    WE WILL WANT RESULTS. ACTIONS. CHANGE.

    WE WILL WANT INVESTIGATIONS. ARRESTS. PROSECUTIONS OF THE PEOPLE THAT WRONGED THIS NATION. STOLE FROM IT. CORRUPTED IT. DAMAGED IT.

    Just like you monitored your "apprentices", and judged them on their performances, WE ARE JUDGING YOU. And we are NOT going to be fooled, like the oppositions legions were and are; by a biased media that lies to them. No one is going to get a "pass" anymore. Especially like your immediate predecessor.

    That's over.

    On January 21, 2017, your official duties commence.

    We all wish you the best, and are with you.

    The last thing we want to do is tell you;

    You're Fired.

    blue51 BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:10 PM ,
    One fine letter.
    espirit blue51 Nov 12, 2016 9:20 PM ,
    Concern that President-Elect Trump may not have foreseen what a Medusas' head of Snakes the .gov is.

    Think Ron Paul has forewarned him.

    It's a nasty and corrupt business.

    Kirk2NCC1701 BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:20 PM ,
    What!? How does the last line jive with the rest above it?

    You must have meant "If you don't perform and deliver as promised, then You're Fired! In the meantime, You're Hired! Welcome Aboard."

    BabaLooey Kirk2NCC1701 Nov 12, 2016 9:28 PM ,
    Read it again.

    "On January 21, 2017, your official duties commence.

    We all wish you the best, and are with you.

    The last thing we want to do is tell you;

    You're Fired."

    -----------------------------

    IF Trump even reads it (doubtful), he'll get it.

    I get your point though Captain.

    dreihoden BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:28 PM ,
    hear! hear! i second that emotion sir!

    FIAT CON BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:30 PM ,
    it was just yesterday that I had posted the following to a friend... very similar.

    I know, well the Internet people that elected him may and can put tremendous pressure on him to do the right thing... And I expect that to happen...I expect the people to demand through social media that they keep their promises and that they do what they are told by the people that elected them.....can you imagine the damage that could happen if the trump supporters starting to Diss him because he didn't do what he was told by the people that elected him.

    I think in the very near future countries will be run by the people of the country via the Internet where everybody's voice counts and the people that want to share their voice will be the actual leaders of the country and the people that want to watch sports and stick their head in the sand will be sheeple.

    I think referendums will be a much more common item

    BabaLooey FIAT CON Nov 12, 2016 9:55 PM ,
    @ Fiat Con

    I wrote that in the hopes that someone on the "TTT" (Trump Transition Team) reads it, and maybe, maybe, shows Trump himself.

    We all know he trolls different sites - and I'll bet he trolls ZH.

    I agree with you; the "internet people" elected him. The "alt-right" (which IS the new media) elected him.

    If we had no internet, and had to rely on the MSM, Clinton would have been elected.

    Or worse.

    But they are now the "old guard ". It is funny....sickening...and sad to watch them flail away like they have relevancy -

    THEY don't.

    In a big way, this election was a wake up call to THEM (like the NYT piece on here shows), to clean up THEIR act.

    NO MORE business as usual. CFR meets and Washington insider parties of poo.

    I actually DID convince 18 people to switch from Clinton to Trump (really, it was 12 from Cruz/Bush/Sanders, and 6 outright flip Clinton to Trump).. and ALL of them HAD been a daily staple of watching the MSM.

    Getting them to stop was akin to getting a smoker off cigarettes. Some still do - but they NOW know how the MSM LIES.

    (One way I showed them? A tape on YouTube of 60 Minutes "editing techniques", linked below, which REALLY opened some eyes)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG8SjeeV7Y4

    MaxThrust BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 11:08 PM ,
    Babalooey

    I certainly hope Trump does get to read your post because I agree with it 100%.

    We Trump supporters will not be fooled. We will not accept Neocons, CFR members or Israeli Duals.

    May I suggest you send a copy of this post to all newspapers in the hope one will print it as an editorial.

    BabaLooey MaxThrust Nov 13, 2016 8:31 AM ,
    @ MaxThrust

    Cheers Max!

    The video embedded in this thread - when Ann Coulter was on Bill Maher and got mocked for her backing Trump - in several instances - was me in 2014 and 2015. I got laughed at by many for coming out for Trump back then.

    However, what I wrote is true. I literally changed 18 people into Trump supporters from then to now.

    The reasons are many - but the MAIN one is;

    I'm. PISSED. OFF.

    I'm angry as to the mis-management, lies and over-regulation that has killed the little guy in businesses. I'm angry as to the lies and deceit from the bought of main stream media. A whole LOT of other reasons as well.

    I am giving free reign for anyone here to re-post this on ANY internet forum they want; Brietbart, Drudge, and ANY online newspaper comment op-ed section they wish.

    I only am a commenter here. I choose not to become one on any other forum.

    Please copy and paste it anywhere you'd like.

    I'm just a little guy. A "peon". However, I did work hard for Trump. I expect no compensation. No recognition.

    I DO expect Trump however - to DO WHAT he said. As a political outsider.

    I am concerned as to the vipers, old guard Washington insiders, and of course, the Deep State - along with Israel - getting to Trump.

    WE didn't elect them. We elected HIM.

    So please - have at it. Post away.

    I hope my post inspires others to do their own "Apprentice" type open letters to Trump.

    He needs to hear from us (and I bet he does troll ZH and other finanical sites.)

    [Nov 13, 2016] Donald Trumps Foreign Policy What Will He Really Do

    Nov 13, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
    That is why watching President-elect Trump's choices for his foreign policy team is so important. If he chooses primarily alumni of the Bush administration, we can be fairly certain that there will be few, if any, beneficial changes in Washington's security strategy. Indeed, it could conceivably be even more interventionist than that pursued by the Clinton, Bush or Obama administrations.

    The main difference might be that it would be conducted unilaterally rather than multilaterally, especially if someone like John Bolton gets a key position.

    If on the other hand, Trump begins to pick advisers who have little or no previous government service, it would be an encouraging step. Watch for appointments from realist enclaves like Defense Priorities, the Independent Institute and others. Also watch for the appointment of individual unorthodox or "rogue" scholars from such places as Notre Dame University, George Mason University, the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, and (ironically) the Bush School at Texas A&M University. Such moves would indicate that Trump was choosing new blood and really intending to make a meaningful change in the direction of U.S. foreign policy.

    For now, we can only wait and watch and hope.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Donald Trump Is Picking His Cabinet

    Looks like Secretary of State shortlist is dominated by neocons. A couple of candidates would make Hillary Clinton proud... the head of CIA is an informal head of shadow government and as such is also very important. Allen Dulles example should still be remembered by all presidents, if they do not want to repeat the face of JFK ....
    Nov 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...

    Here's a Short List http://nyti.ms/2eNpI6a
    NYT - Nov 12

    (There are 5 women on the list, including Sarah Palin & NH's Kelly Ayotte, demonstrating that ilsm has some influence.
    For Sec/Defense - seriously. Alternatively for UN Ambassador. Right.)

    The list:

    Secretary of State

    John R. Bolton Former United States ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush [ neocon; one of the members of PNAC ; see About the PAC - John Bolton PAC BoltonPAC.com ]

    Bob Corker Senator from Tennessee and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [ See also Bob Corker on the Issues ]

    Newt Gingrich Former House speaker [former neocon; Political ally of Rand Paul recently]

    Newt Gingrich Abandons Neocons, Joins Rand Paul In GOP Foreign Policy Civil War

    [ Newt Gingrich's Deep Neocon Ties Drive His Bellicose Middle East Policy - The Daily Beast ; Newt Gingrich A Brilliant Neo-Con with a lot of Baggage Off The Grid News ]

    Zalmay Khalilzad Former United States ambassador to Afghanistan [ neocon; one of the members of PNAC ; See Washington's Neocon in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad Nominated as U.S. Ambassador Democracy Now! ]

    Stanley A. McChrystal Former senior military commander in Afghanistan [See neo-neocon " Blog Archive " Loose lips the McChrystal article ]

    Treasury Secretary

    Thomas Barrack Jr. Founder, chairman and executive chairman of Colony Capital; private equity and real estate investor
    Jeb Hensarling Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
    Steven Mnuchin Former Goldman Sachs executive and Mr. Trump's campaign finance chairman
    Tim Pawlenty Former Minnesota governor

    Defense Secretary

    Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
    Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (he would need a waiver from Congress because of a seven-year rule for retired officers)
    Stephen J. Hadley National security adviser under George W. Bush
    Jon Kyl Former senator from Arizona
    Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama who is a prominent immigration opponent

    Attorney General

    Chris Christie New Jersey governor
    Rudolph W. Giuliani Former New York mayor
    Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama

    Interior Secretary

    Jan Brewer Former Arizona governor
    Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
    Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company
    Forrest Lucas President of Lucas Oil Products, which manufactures automotive lubricants, additives and greases
    Sarah Palin Former Alaska governor

    Agriculture Secretary

    Sam Brownback Kansas governor
    Chuck Conner Chief executive officer of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
    Sid Miller Texas agricultural commissioner
    Sonny Perdue Former Georgia governor

    Commerce Secretary

    Chris Christie New Jersey governor
    Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company
    Lewis M. Eisenberg Private equity chief for Granite Capital International Group

    Labor Secretary

    Victoria A. Lipnic Equal Employment Opportunity commissioner and work force policy counsel to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce

    Health and Human Services Secretary

    Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
    Mike Huckabee Former Arkansas governor and 2016 presidential candidate
    Bobby Jindal Former Louisiana governor who served as secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals
    Rick Scott Florida governor and former chief executive of a large hospital chain

    Energy Secretary

    James L. Connaughton Chief executive of Nautilus Data Technologies and former environmental adviser to President George W. Bush
    Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
    Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company

    Education Secretary

    Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
    Williamson M. Evers Education expert at the Hoover Institution, a think tank

    Secretary of Veterans Affairs

    Jeff Miller Retired chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee

    Homeland Security Secretary

    Joe Arpaio Departing sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz.
    David A. Clarke Jr. Milwaukee County sheriff
    Michael McCaul Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee
    Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama

    White House Chief of Staff

    Stephen K. Bannon Editor of Breitbart News and chairman of Mr. Trump's campaign
    Reince Priebus Chairman of the Republican National Committee

    E.P.A. Administrator

    Myron Ebell A director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a prominent climate change skeptic
    Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner who was involved in drafting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
    Jeffrey R. Holmstead Lawyer with Bracewell L.L.P. and former deputy E.P.A. administrator in the George W. Bush administration

    U.S. Trade Representative

    Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company, and a critic of Chinese trade practices

    U.N. Ambassador

    Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
    Richard Grenell Former spokesman for the United States ambassador to the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration

    CIA Director / Director of National Intelligence

    Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
    Peter Hoekstra Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
    Mike Rogers Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
    Frances Townsend Former homeland security adviser under George W. Bush

    National Security Adviser

    Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... November 12, 2016 at 08:49 PM

    Trump's Hires Will Set Course of His Presidency http://nyti.ms/2eNUfRg
    NYT - MARK LANDLER =- Nov 12

    WASHINGTON - "Busy day planned in New York," President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Twitter on Friday morning, two days after his astonishing victory. "Will soon be making some very important decisions on the people who will be running our government!"

    If anything, that understates the gravity of the personnel choices Mr. Trump and his transition team are weighing.

    Rarely in the history of the American presidency has the exercise of choosing people to fill jobs had such a far-reaching impact on the nature and priorities of an incoming administration. Unlike most new presidents, Mr. Trump comes into office with no elective-office experience, no coherent political agenda and no bulging binder of policy proposals. And he has left a trail of inflammatory, often contradictory, statements on issues from immigration and race to terrorism and geopolitics.

    In such a chaotic environment, serving a president who is in many ways a tabula rasa, the appointees to key White House jobs like chief of staff and cabinet posts like secretary of state, defense secretary and Treasury secretary could wield outsize influence. Their selection will help determine whether the Trump administration governs like the firebrand Mr. Trump was on the campaign trail or the pragmatist he often appears to be behind closed doors. ...

    [Nov 13, 2016] Long Live the Establishment!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions, policies and decisions. ..."
    "... Trump will likely form a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts implicitly, in order to extend his capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his agenda. ..."
    "... The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck a blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping over their losses (see here and here .) ..."
    "... The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years. There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    What happens next in Washington? Trump fills out his administration.

    At the same time, Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions, policies and decisions. The presidency is an institution, not a man, not a president. The presidency is a network of enormous power with Trump now at its center. Washington insiders who live and breathe politics are now in a race for positions of power and influence. They hanker and vie for appointments. Trump must make appointments. He cannot operate alone. He must delegate power to make decisions. He cannot monitor all information pertinent to every issue in which the government has a hand.

    The presidency is not 100 percent centralized. Decision-making power is allocated to levels below the president himself and to levels surrounding him. It also lies outside the presidency in Congress. Trump has his ideas and desires for actions, but their realization depends on the people he appoints. He loses control and locks himself in with every appointment that he makes. People around him want his power and want to influence him. They have a heavy influence on what he hears, whom he sees, the options presented to him, and the evaluations of competing personnel. Trump will likely form a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts implicitly, in order to extend his capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his agenda.

    Power in Washington is not simply the apparatus of administering the presidency that will take up headlines for the next few months. After the U.S. Treasury robs the tax-paying Americans, new robbers (the Lobby) appear to rob the Treasury using every device they can get away with. There is a second contingent, the power-seekers. Those who covet the exercise of power unceasingly work toward their own narrow aims. As long as Washington remains the place that concentrates unbelievably large amounts of money and powers, it will remain the swamp that Trump has promised to drain but won't. He cannot drain it, not without destroying Washington's power and he cannot accomplish that, nor does he even hint that he wants to accomplish that. His stated aims are the redirection of money and powers, not their elimination for the sake of a greater justice, a greater right, and a truly greater people and country.

    The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck a blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping over their losses (see here and here .)

    But elections do not strike the roots of the presidency, the establishment or Washington. Neither will demonstrations against Trump.

    The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years. There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one.

    This gave way almost immediately (in 1787) to the constitutional seed that planted the enormous tree that now cuts out the sun of justice from American lives. A domestic war failed to uproot that tree. Long live the establishment, the Union, the American state, and may they be possessed of immense powers over our lives - these became the social and political reality. Trump isn't going to change it. He's a president administering a presidency. He's at the top of the heap. His credo is still "Long Live the Establishment!"

    Reprinted with permission from LewRockwell.com .

    [Nov 13, 2016] The Democratic Party establishment has beclowned itself and is finished MSM neoliberal pressitutes with thier unbearable smugness are shamed

    Notable quotes:
    "... Understand something, the caricature of Trump and his supporters is all fiction! It was the wallpaper inside the bubble of the elites that kept them from having to face the fact they are being rejected by the people of this country. ..."
    "... It is not racist to want to control our borders and stem the influx – for a period – of people from other lands. It is not racist to note that Islam has a violent element willing to kill innocents at any time and any place. Just like one bad cop can give all cops a bad rap, so can a handful of bloody insane Muslims. It is not racist or nativist to deport immigrants who have committed serious felonies. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | strata-sphere.com
    First, this from Slate :

    The Democratic Party establishment has beclowned itself and is finished.

    The party establishment made a grievous mistake rallying around Hillary Clinton. It wasn't just a lack of recent political seasoning. She was a bad candidate, with no message beyond heckling the opposite sideline. She was a total misfit for both the politics of 2016 and the energy of the Democratic Party as currently constituted. She could not escape her baggage, and she must own that failure herself.

    Theoretically smart people in the Democratic Party should have known that. And yet they worked giddily to clear the field for her. Every power-hungry young Democrat fresh out of law school, every rising lawmaker, every old friend of the Clintons wanted a piece of the action. This was their ride up the power chain. The whole edifice was hollow, built atop the same unearned sense of inevitability that surrounded Clinton in 2008, and it collapsed, just as it collapsed in 2008, only a little later in the calendar. The voters of the party got taken for a ride by the people who controlled it, the ones who promised they had everything figured out and sneeringly dismissed anyone who suggested otherwise. They promised that Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Electoral College. These people didn't know what they were talking about, and too many of us in the media thought they did.

    This is a grueling but necessarily treatise on how the Political Elite played God and got burned. The essence here is wake up and fix the Democrat Party.

    And here is another good assessment :

    The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.

    It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump's victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story , after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.

    This is all symptomatic of modern journalism's great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness . Had Hillary Clinton won, there's be a winking "we did it" feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.

    So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.

    And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.

    Understand something, the caricature of Trump and his supporters is all fiction! It was the wallpaper inside the bubble of the elites that kept them from having to face the fact they are being rejected by the people of this country.

    It is not racist to want to control our borders and stem the influx – for a period – of people from other lands. It is not racist to note that Islam has a violent element willing to kill innocents at any time and any place. Just like one bad cop can give all cops a bad rap, so can a handful of bloody insane Muslims. It is not racist or nativist to deport immigrants who have committed serious felonies.

    The media over stated the drivers behind these views to propel their candidate to victory. They were not reporting facts.

    The last good perspective was from the Morning Joe show:

    [Nov 13, 2016] The last thing Trump needs to do is start adopting the neocon, zionist, israeli first agenda after the total opposition of this folks during the presidential compaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump can renegotiate that Iranian treaty but he should never change the result: Iran loses its sanctions and joins the rest of the trading world. ditto with Russia. I have a feeling after trump has a long talk with Putin the Iranian deal will look somewhat different. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    jeff montanye justin423 Nov 13, 2016 10:56 AM ,
    Trump can renegotiate that Iranian treaty but he should never change the result: Iran loses its sanctions and joins the rest of the trading world. ditto with Russia. I have a feeling after trump has a long talk with Putin the Iranian deal will look somewhat different.

    the last thing, the very fucking last thing, trump needs to do is start adopting the neocon, Zionist, Israeli first agenda after the total opposite of those fucks elected him.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Long Live the Establishment!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions, policies and decisions. ..."
    "... Trump will likely form a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts implicitly, in order to extend his capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his agenda. ..."
    "... The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck a blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping over their losses (see here and here .) ..."
    "... The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years. There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    What happens next in Washington? Trump fills out his administration.

    At the same time, Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions, policies and decisions. The presidency is an institution, not a man, not a president. The presidency is a network of enormous power with Trump now at its center. Washington insiders who live and breathe politics are now in a race for positions of power and influence. They hanker and vie for appointments. Trump must make appointments. He cannot operate alone. He must delegate power to make decisions. He cannot monitor all information pertinent to every issue in which the government has a hand.

    The presidency is not 100 percent centralized. Decision-making power is allocated to levels below the president himself and to levels surrounding him. It also lies outside the presidency in Congress. Trump has his ideas and desires for actions, but their realization depends on the people he appoints. He loses control and locks himself in with every appointment that he makes. People around him want his power and want to influence him. They have a heavy influence on what he hears, whom he sees, the options presented to him, and the evaluations of competing personnel. Trump will likely form a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts implicitly, in order to extend his capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his agenda.

    Power in Washington is not simply the apparatus of administering the presidency that will take up headlines for the next few months. After the U.S. Treasury robs the tax-paying Americans, new robbers (the Lobby) appear to rob the Treasury using every device they can get away with. There is a second contingent, the power-seekers. Those who covet the exercise of power unceasingly work toward their own narrow aims. As long as Washington remains the place that concentrates unbelievably large amounts of money and powers, it will remain the swamp that Trump has promised to drain but won't. He cannot drain it, not without destroying Washington's power and he cannot accomplish that, nor does he even hint that he wants to accomplish that. His stated aims are the redirection of money and powers, not their elimination for the sake of a greater justice, a greater right, and a truly greater people and country.

    The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck a blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping over their losses (see here and here .)

    But elections do not strike the roots of the presidency, the establishment or Washington. Neither will demonstrations against Trump.

    The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years. There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one.

    This gave way almost immediately (in 1787) to the constitutional seed that planted the enormous tree that now cuts out the sun of justice from American lives. A domestic war failed to uproot that tree. Long live the establishment, the Union, the American state, and may they be possessed of immense powers over our lives - these became the social and political reality. Trump isn't going to change it. He's a president administering a presidency. He's at the top of the heap. His credo is still "Long Live the Establishment!"

    Reprinted with permission from LewRockwell.com .

    [Nov 13, 2016] The Middle East crises Trump inherits could still suck him in

    Notable quotes:
    "... Real foreign policy positions will only emerge with the formation of a Trump cabinet when it becomes clear who will be in charge. ..."
    "... But, if future policies remain unknowable, super-charged American nationalism combined with economic populism and isolationism are likely to set the general tone. ..."
    "... This sort of aggressive nationalism is not unique to Trump. All over the world nationalism is having a spectacular rebirth in countries from Turkey to the Philippines. It has become a successful vehicle for protest in Britain, France, Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe. ..."
    "... The most serious wars in which the US is already militarily involved are in Iraq and Syria and here Trump's comments during the campaign suggest that he will focus on destroying Isis, recognise the danger of becoming militarily over-involved and look for some sort of cooperation with Russia as the next biggest player in the conflict. This is similar to what is already happening. ..."
    "... Trump's instincts generally seem less well-informed but often shrewd, and his priories have nothing to do with the Middle East. ..."
    "... The region has been the political graveyard for three of the last five US presidents: Jimmy Carter was destroyed by the consequences of the Iranian revolution; Ronald Reagan was gravely weakened by the Iran-Contra scandal; and George W Bush's years in office will be remembered chiefly for the calamities brought on by his invasion of Iraq. Barack Obama was luckier and more sensible, but he wholly underestimated the rise of Isis until it captured Mosul in 2014. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | www.unz.com
    ...the election campaign was focused almost exclusively on American domestic politics with voters showing little interest in events abroad. This is unlikely to change.

    Governments around the world can see this for themselves, though this will not stop them badgering their diplomats in Washington and New York for an inkling as to how far Trump's off-the-cuff remarks were more than outrageous attempts to dominate the news agenda for a few hours. Fortunately, his pronouncements were so woolly that they can be easily jettisoned between now and his inauguration. Real foreign policy positions will only emerge with the formation of a Trump cabinet when it becomes clear who will be in charge.

    But, if future policies remain unknowable, super-charged American nationalism combined with economic populism and isolationism are likely to set the general tone. Trump has invariably portrayed Americans as the victims of the foul machinations of foreign countries who previously faced no real resistance from an incompetent self-serving American elite.

    This sort of aggressive nationalism is not unique to Trump. All over the world nationalism is having a spectacular rebirth in countries from Turkey to the Philippines. It has become a successful vehicle for protest in Britain, France, Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe. Though Trump is frequently portrayed as a peculiarly American phenomenon, his populist nationalism has a striking amount in common with that of the Brexit campaigners in Britain or even the chauvinism of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey. Much of this can be discounted as patriotic bombast, but in all cases there is a menacing undercurrent of racism and demonisation, whether it is directed against illegal immigrants in the US, asylum seekers in the Britain or Kurds in south east Turkey.

    In reality, Trump made very few proposals for radical change in US foreign policy during the election campaign, aside from saying that he would throw out the agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme – though his staff is now being much less categorical about this, saying only that the deal must be properly enforced. Nobody really knows if Trump will deal any differently from Obama with the swathe of countries between Pakistan and Nigeria where there are at least seven wars raging – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and South Sudan – as well as four serious insurgencies.

    The most serious wars in which the US is already militarily involved are in Iraq and Syria and here Trump's comments during the campaign suggest that he will focus on destroying Isis, recognise the danger of becoming militarily over-involved and look for some sort of cooperation with Russia as the next biggest player in the conflict. This is similar to what is already happening.

    Hillary Clinton's intentions in Syria, though never fully formulated, always sounded more interventionist than Trump's. One of her senior advisers openly proposed giving less priority to the assault on Isis and more to getting rid of President Bashar al-Assad. To this end, a third force of pro-US militant moderates was to be raised that would fight and ultimately defeat both Isis and Assad. Probably this fantasy would never have come to pass, but the fact that it was ever given currency underlines the extent to which Clinton was at one with the most dead-in-the-water conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment in Washington.

    President Obama developed a much more acute sense of what the US could and could not do in the Middle East and beyond, without provoking crises exceeding its political and military strength. Its power may be less than before the failed US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan following 9/11, but it is still far greater than any other country's. Currently, it is the US which is successfully coordinating the offensive against Isis's last strongholds in Mosul and Raqqa by a multitude of fractious parties in Iraq and Syria. It was never clear how seriously one should have taken Clinton's proposals for "safe zones" and trying to fight Isis and Assad at the same time, but her judgements on events in the Middle East since the Iraq invasion of 2003 all suggested a flawed idea of what was feasible.

    Trump's instincts generally seem less well-informed but often shrewd, and his priories have nothing to do with the Middle East. Past US leaders have felt the same way, but they usually end up by being dragged into its crises one way or other, and how they perform then becomes the test of their real quality as a leader. The region has been the political graveyard for three of the last five US presidents: Jimmy Carter was destroyed by the consequences of the Iranian revolution; Ronald Reagan was gravely weakened by the Iran-Contra scandal; and George W Bush's years in office will be remembered chiefly for the calamities brought on by his invasion of Iraq. Barack Obama was luckier and more sensible, but he wholly underestimated the rise of Isis until it captured Mosul in 2014.

    (Reprinted from The Independent by permission of author or representative)

    [Nov 13, 2016] Will Donald Trump Really Torpedo the Iran Deal

    Notable quotes:
    "... if the rumors are true and Trump nominates John Bolton as secretary of state, it's almost unfathomable to believe that Washington would continue to certify that Tehran is meeting its nuclear commitments. ..."
    "... This is the same guy who, during the tail-end of the P5+1 negotiating process for an interim, placeholder accord, wrote in the New York Times that the United States needed to bomb Iran's facilities or at least support the Israelis so they could do it themselves. ..."
    "... John Bolton for SoS? Criminality! ..."
    "... If the hardest core neocons are brought directly into the highest echelons of American government and institute the kinds of policies mentioned in this article there will be much destruction, and when the dust settles there will be a popularly mandated realignment of EU countries away from fast allegiance with the US, and finally, a functioning alternative monetary and financial system revolving around the BRICS countries. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | nationalinterest.org

    Trump's ambivalence and wishy-washiness isn't much comfort for people who worked on the negotiation tirelessly over a matter of years. Richard Nephew, the former sanctions official who helped put in place and implement nuclear-related economic restrictions on the Iranians, strongly believes that the JCPOA is a dead deal walking and will be slowly strangled to death as soon as Trump is sworn in. In many ways, he could be right;

    if the rumors are true and Trump nominates John Bolton as secretary of state, it's almost unfathomable to believe that Washington would continue to certify that Tehran is meeting its nuclear commitments.

    This is the same guy who, during the tail-end of the P5+1 negotiating process for an interim, placeholder accord, wrote in the New York Times that the United States needed to bomb Iran's facilities or at least support the Israelis so they could do it themselves.

    LavXolm a day ago

    John Bolton for SoS? Criminality!

    If the hardest core neocons are brought directly into the highest echelons of American government and institute the kinds of policies mentioned in this article there will be much destruction, and when the dust settles there will be a popularly mandated realignment of EU countries away from fast allegiance with the US, and finally, a functioning alternative monetary and financial system revolving around the BRICS countries.

    It doesn't have to happen, but if Trump brings in fire breathing nut jobs like Bolton, it WILL happen. Non-the-less, I do predict that Trump will be greatly coopted by "the establishment" he vilified and that the public largely hates. It's an irresistible force that will only be brought down with general social collapse.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Why Polls Fail

    Notable quotes:
    "... he Clinton camp, the media and the pollsters missed what we had anticipated as "not Clinton". A basic setting in a part of the "left" electorate that remember who she is and what she has done and would under no circumstances vote for her. Clinton herself pushed the "bernie bros" and "deplorables" into that camp. This was a structural change that was solely based in the personality of the candidate. ..."
    "... Even then polls and their interpretation will always only capture a part of the story. Often a sound grasp of human and cultural behavior will allow for better prediction as all polls. As my friend the statistician say: "The best prognostic instrument I have even today is my gut." ..."
    "... NeverHillary turned out to be bigger than NeverTrump. Hillary got less than 6 million votes compared to Obama. Trump got nearly as much as Romney. ..."
    "... A good indicator was the size of the crowds each candidate drew to their rallies. Clinton tended to show more "bought" TV-ready extras. Bernie blew the walls out at his rallies, as did Trump. You can't look at that and say the polls are even close to accurate. ..."
    "... When the Democrats unleashed thugs on Trump supporters while the media studiously looked away, it was not sensible to openly identify with Trump. ..."
    "... On Wednesday after the election, I heard an interview with a woman reporter who worked with the 538 polling group. She said that it was impossible for most reporters to really investigate how voters in certain areas of the country were feeling about the election bcz newspapers and other news organizations, including the Big Broadcasters, did not have the ability to pay for enough reporters to actually talk to people. ..."
    "... the Los Angeles Times polls were correct (although the paper was pro-Clinton); can't get the link now, but they explained how they weighted their polls on the basis of the enthusiasm displayed for the preferred candidate, and Trump supporters were more "charged" ..."
    "... I read many stories about how the polls were fixed for Clinton for months before the election. ..."
    "... The pollsters took the % of voters from the Obama election but they also added more Democrats than were representative in the 2012 election, thereby skewing the polls for Clinton. Many believed that the reason they did this was to try to manipulate the voting machines in Clinton's favour and have the polls match the result. ..."
    "... i go back to what my sociology of the media instructor said.. polls are for massaging people's brains.. unless one knows who pays for them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda tool for use.. ..."
    "... It has been known for a long time in the polling world that polling numbers are getting more and more unreliable because fewer and fewer people are willing to complete polls. ..."
    "... theory would also explain the newspaper polls largely rigged to correspond to the planned vote theft, as well as the idiotic magnitude of overconfidence seen in the Pol-Est/MS Media/Wall Street complex. ..."
    "... 1. IBD/TIPP (A collaboration of Investors Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence). TechnoMetrica was consistent throughout – final poll for election day had Trump leading by 2%. Also predicted the last presidential elections back to 2004. ..."
    "... This election candidates' crowd draw was a good indicator. It was very difficult to pre-program the Diebold machines. MSM polls were in the bag for Hillary, had her ahead. It backfired. ..."
    "... A bit about polling methodology explains the bias we've seen this election cycle. Typically, the polling samples are not big enough to be representative, so the results are corrected (weighted) based on the participant responses. The polls assume certain turnout percentages for different groups (Democrats, Republicans, Independents, rural, urban, ethnicity, gender etc.). A lot of the polls were weighting the polls with turnouts similar to 2012, corrected for the expected demographic changes over the last 4 years. ..."
    "... Poll weighing is a tricky business. This is why most polling has a 4% error margin, so it does not produce as accurate picture as is typically presented by the media. The error is not randomly distributed, it is closely related to the poll weighting. The weighting error was favouring Clinton in the polls as it assumed higher Democratic turnout, which ended up not being the case, she underperformed 2012 significantly and lost the election. ..."
    "... Are the polls done to discover "what's up", or are they done to project the view that one side is winning? ..."
    "... I go with the second view. That's what the 'corrections' are all about. The 'corrections' need to be dropped completely ..."
    "... This. There was a Wikiliks Podesta email in whdich Clinton operatives discussed oversampling certain groups to inflate the poll in her favor. ..."
    "... Hmm ... what can I say that no-one else has already said except to observe that the polling and the corporate media reporting the polling statistics were in another parallel universe and the people supposedly being polled (and not some over-sampled group in Peoria, Iowa, who could predict exactly what questions would be asked and knew what answers to give) live on planet Earth? ..."
    "... I most certainly did not predict Trump would win. But I did question the polls. What I questioned a few weeks ago was the margin of victory for Hillary. ..."
    "... This is because most of the polls were weighting more Democratic (based on the 2012 election), which overestimated Clinton's support. ..."
    "... So the difference between the poll and the actual result is 1.2% in favour of Trump (1.7% lead to Clinton in poll vs. 0.5% in the election). All are well within the error of the poll, so 1.2% difference between the election and the poll is well within the stated 3% error margin of the poll. ..."
    "... You assume public polls are conducted by impartial actors who wish to inform and illuminate..... your assumption is incorrect. ..."
    "... The New York Times recent admission that it writes the narrative first, then builds the story to suit says about everything for me regarding polls. ..."
    "... According to reports, the first leader Trump spoke to on the phone after his election victory was the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Sisi congratulated him on the election victory, a spokesman for the Egyptian leader said. ..."
    "... It may be unfortunate, but I can see Trump & Erdogan getting along very well. Although, if they bring Putin into that triumvirate that could actually be very beneficial for the Middle East. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Today I discussed the U.S. election with a friend who studied and practices statistics. I asked about the failure of the polls in this years presidential election. Her explanation: The polls are looking at future events but are biased by the past. The various companies and institutions adjust the polls they do by looking at their past prognoses and the real results of the past event. They then develop correcting factors, measured from the past, and apply it to new polls. If that correcting factor is wrong, possibly because of structural changes in the electorate, then the new polls will be corrected with a wrong factor and thus miss the real results.

    Polls predicting the last presidential election were probably off by 3 or 5 points towards the Republican side. The pollsters then corrected the new polls for the Clinton-Trump race in favor of the Democratic side by giving that side an additional 3-5 points. They thereby corrected the new polls by the bias that was poll inherent during the last race.

    But structural changes, which we seem to have had during this election, messed up the result. Many people who usually vote for the Democratic ticket did not vote for Clinton. The "not Clinton" progressives, the "bernie bros" and "deplorables" who voted Obama in the last election stayed home, voted for a third party candidate or even for Trump. The pollsters did not anticipate such a deep change. Thus their correction factor was wrong. Thus the Clinton side turned out to be favored in polls but not in the relevant votes.

    Real polling, which requires in depth-in person interviews with the participants, does not really happen anymore. It is simply to expensive. Polling today is largely done by telephone with participants selected by some database algorithm. It is skewed by many factors which require many corrections. All these corrections have some biases that do miss structural changes in the underlying population.

    The Clinton camp, the media and the pollsters missed what we had anticipated as "not Clinton". A basic setting in a part of the "left" electorate that remember who she is and what she has done and would under no circumstances vote for her. Clinton herself pushed the "bernie bros" and "deplorables" into that camp. This was a structural change that was solely based in the personality of the candidate.

    If Sanders would have been the candidate the now wrong poll correction factor in favor of Democrats would likely have been a correct one. The deep antipathy against Hillary Clinton in a decisive part of the electorate was a factor that the pseudo-science of cheap telephone polls could not catch. More expensive in depth interviews of the base population used by a pollster would probably have caught this factor and adjusted appropriately.

    There were some twenty to thirty different entities doing polls during this election cycle. Five to ten polling entities, with better budgets and preparations, would probably have led to better prognoses. Some media companies could probably join their poll budgets, split over multiple companies today, to have a common one with a better analysis of its base population.One that would have anticipated "not Hillary".

    Unless that happens all polls will have to be read with a lot of doubt. What past bias is captured in these predictions of the future? What are their structural assumptions and are these still correct? What structural change might have happened?

    Even then polls and their interpretation will always only capture a part of the story. Often a sound grasp of human and cultural behavior will allow for better prediction as all polls. As my friend the statistician say: "The best prognostic instrument I have even today is my gut."

    Oscar Romero | Nov 13, 2016 3:23:53 PM | 1

    An equally interesting question about polls: what about the exit polls? If Greg Palast and others are right, exit polls indicate that the voting was rigged. What does your statistics friend think about that?
    Andrea | Nov 13, 2016 3:28:21 PM | 2
    After the 1948 election, statisticians started to get rid of the quota sampling for electoral polls. After this election, it's time to reassess Statistics.

    https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case2.html

    ab initio | Nov 13, 2016 3:30:01 PM | 3
    NeverHillary turned out to be bigger than NeverTrump. Hillary got less than 6 million votes compared to Obama. Trump got nearly as much as Romney.
    stumpy | Nov 13, 2016 3:45:38 PM | 4
    A good indicator was the size of the crowds each candidate drew to their rallies. Clinton tended to show more "bought" TV-ready extras. Bernie blew the walls out at his rallies, as did Trump. You can't look at that and say the polls are even close to accurate.
    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 13, 2016 4:00:50 PM | 5
    I suspect that the future of polling isn't as dire as you're painting it, b. There was huge anti-Trump bias in the Jew-controlled Christian-West Media from the beginning of the campaign. You drew attention to negative MSM bias yourself in the post which pointed out how consistently wrong the Punditocracy had been in predicting the imminent failure of the Trump campaign - thereby rubbing their noses in their own ineptitude and tomfoolery.

    One factor which seemed important to me was occasionally hilighted at regular intervals by commenters here at MoA... The (apparent) fact that Trump addressed more, and bigger, crowds than Mrs Clinton. I accepted those claims as fact, and didn't bother to check their veracity. But nevertheless crowd size and frequency seems to have played a pivotal role in the outcome (as one would expect in a political campaign).

    Mudduck | Nov 13, 2016 4:01:15 PM | 6
    Exit polls have provided checks on the accuracy of the vote count -- but are liable to the same problem as the opinion pols, people who don't admit to their real position.
    Steve | Nov 13, 2016 4:03:18 PM | 7
    I'm not surprised that the polls fail badly in this presidential election. When the Democrats unleashed thugs on Trump supporters while the media studiously looked away, it was not sensible to openly identify with Trump. Even Trump was saying so through out the campaign.The Democrats together with their media partners truly believed that Donald Trump's alleged character flaws would be enough to win the election. Despite the fact that it was obvious to anyone without a blinker on that the momentum was on the side of Trump all along. Obama's phenomenon of 08 was nothing compared to Trump's phenomenon of this year, but because neither the MSM nor the Pollsters liked him they transferred their biases to their jobs. In any case I'm sure happy that the result of the election turned out different from the skewed prognosis.
    jawbone | Nov 13, 2016 4:08:45 PM | 8
    On Wednesday after the election, I heard an interview with a woman reporter who worked with the 538 polling group. She said that it was impossible for most reporters to really investigate how voters in certain areas of the country were feeling about the election bcz newspapers and other news organizations, including the Big Broadcasters, did not have the ability to pay for enough reporters to actually talk to people.

    Since statistics had worked so well, and were cheaper to deal with, they won the day. And lost the battle.

    Now, most people at this site seemed to base their decisions of whom to vote for based on stands on issues and known actions of the various candidates. But, even so, we probably paid attention to the polling results. I know I took into consideration that Hillary would win big in NJ, leaving me free to vote for Jill Stein. Based on known actions of Trump I could not vote for him, even tho' I hoped he would kill TPP and have better relations with Russia. I feared and still do fear his nominations to the Supreme Court. (I am not religious, but if I were I would pray daily, perhaps hourly, for the continued good health of the Justices Kennedy, GInsburg, and Breyer. I would hope the other Dem appointed justices would take care to avoid, oh, small airplanes....

    Would Hillary have adjusted her campaign if she could have seen the rising disappointment of the working class Dems (even middle class to higher income Dems)? I don't know. I do know that her husband ran his first campaign on the famous "It's the economy, stupid" reminder.

    Somehow, I don't think it would have registered enough.

    And Obama ran on Hope and Change, but was always the Corporatist Dem Wall Street wanted. What a waste. And now we have four more years of doing essentially nothing aboug climate change. It was have been a strategy to put off even regulatory actions to lessen CO2 emissions until near the end of his second term, but, dang, it makes it easier for Trump to negate those efforts.

    Again, what a waste. But I didn't vote for Obama for either term bcz I saw that his actions as IL state senator and as US senator were always looking out for the Big Money, Big Corporations, and seldom worked for anyone below the middle class, more the top of the middle class.

    virgile | Nov 13, 2016 4:12:32 PM | 9
    This Wasn't A Vote, It Was An Uprising
    Paul Craig Roberts • November 12, 2016 >

    Polls mean nothing when there is an uprising

    virgile | Nov 13, 2016 4:15:15 PM | 10
    No need of polls...say PBS

    How to (accurately) predict a presidential election

    joey | Nov 13, 2016 4:19:53 PM | 11
    A long explanatory report which signifies nothing critical. "The polls were wrong??" No. The polls reported by MSM were wrong.

    Big time, including from those from Clinton loving CBC here in Canada, which for an extended time was reporting Hillary with an 11% lead. That number was far beyond any minor adjustments, for sure.

    There were polls, such as Rasmussen, itself suspected of fiddling, which were reporting ups and downs of 2%, and ended up tied election day.

    So, please schemers, please do not try to cover up the MSM's deliberate attempt to influence results by using garbage numbers. Figures can lie, and liars can sure figure.

    claudio | Nov 13, 2016 4:23:05 PM | 13
    the Los Angeles Times polls were correct (although the paper was pro-Clinton); can't get the link now, but they explained how they weighted their polls on the basis of the enthusiasm displayed for the preferred candidate, and Trump supporters were more "charged"
    mischi | Nov 13, 2016 4:25:01 PM | 14
    I disagree with your friend, b. I read many stories about how the polls were fixed for Clinton for months before the election.

    The pollsters took the % of voters from the Obama election but they also added more Democrats than were representative in the 2012 election, thereby skewing the polls for Clinton. Many believed that the reason they did this was to try to manipulate the voting machines in Clinton's favour and have the polls match the result. I think that Trump crying foul so early got them worried that they might be caught. Remember, voting machines in 14 states are run by companies affiliated with Soros.

    james | Nov 13, 2016 4:26:58 PM | 15
    i go back to what my sociology of the media instructor said.. polls are for massaging people's brains.. unless one knows who pays for them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda tool for use..
    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 13, 2016 4:34:08 PM | 16
    ...
    Polls mean nothing when there is an uprising
    Posted by: virgile | Nov 13, 2016 4:12:32 PM | 9

    Well, the Clinton-ista's and Soro-fuls certainly wasted no time when they switched from Anticipated Gloat to Full Spectrum Panic Mode, did they?

    BraveNewWorld | Nov 13, 2016 4:35:07 PM | 17
    It has been known for a long time in the polling world that polling numbers are getting more and more unreliable because fewer and fewer people are willing to complete polls.
    Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 4:41:10 PM | 18
    I have a weird conspiracy hypothesis that I mainly made up on my own;

    The last FBI "reopening" and the quick subsequent "close-down" felt all too counter-intuitive and silly, when examined solely based on their face value.

    However, what if there was more to this? What if this was a final threat from FBI to the Soros-Clinton mafia to "quickly unrig the voting machines" OR we will arrest the lot of you? Which, once the promises were made by "allow fair play", required FBI to pull back as their part of the deal?

    Just an idea...

    Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 4:43:54 PM | 19
    This - admittedly conspiracy - theory would also explain the newspaper polls largely rigged to correspond to the planned vote theft, as well as the idiotic magnitude of overconfidence seen in the Pol-Est/MS Media/Wall Street complex.

    Sorry on the split-think and double-post.

    psychohistorian | Nov 13, 2016 5:02:02 PM | 20
    I find it interesting b that you and your friend didn't seem to talk at all about the polling questions....at least that you shared with us. It is my experience and education that even with a "beauty contest" that we just had, that the structure of the polling questions make all the difference in how people being polled respond.

    Polls are funded by parties with agendas and the questions, assumptions and biases are baked in to the result......IMO, they are all worthless or worse than that because folks see them, like the media as being something of an authority figure and therefore believable which we know is total BS.

    Polls are just another propaganda tool of those rich enough to use them in their quiver of control.

    Laguerre | Nov 13, 2016 5:15:19 PM | 21
    Timid Trumpists is the major factor, I would think. A factor already well known in UK. People who are going to vote for a non-PC solution hesitate to admit it to poll questions.

    somebody | Nov 13, 2016 5:15:50 PM | 22
    All of the above is true, but - in addition - polls are used to manipulate campaigns.

    People sympathize with someone who is considered a winner and when someone is considered likely to lose people lose interest.

    To get the vote out polls have to be tight. In addition to that polls are used to motivate donors. In the end there has to be a reason pollsters get paid.

    But even if polls would be done for purely scientific reasons, this election was impossible to poll. The correct question would have been "Do you hate/fear candidate x enough to motivate you to queue for voting for canditate y, or are you too disgusted to bother at all"

    In the end, it was not the wrong polls that sank Clinton but the strategy to leave the anti-elitist populist stuff to Trump and - unsuccessfully concentrate on winning the elitist Republican anti Trump vote. That way she lost more of the Democrat Sanders vote than she could gain right wing.

    The other factor was her reliance on television ads and media ties (they all backed her), a reluctance to talk to large audiences and an inability to communicate via social media.

    It is possible though she never had a chance against a well established reality show brand.

    The good news is that after this election campaigns will be done mainly low cost social media. The bad news is that these campaigns will be more fact free than ever and that the age of independent quality newspapers is over.

    Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 5:29:03 PM | 23
    #22 somebody

    So, you're saying that the age of independent quality newspapers has just ended, like about now. Interesting pov...

    Somehow, the last few years of the MSM coverage of the NATO-Salafist War on Syria have had me convinced that the "independent quality newspapers" have become a*rse-wipe material a long time ago. Instead, we get the Sorosoid ZioTakfirism.

    But, yeah, maybe it's all Trump's fault. Hey I also blame Hezbollah for kicking Yisrael's arse north of Litani in 2006. If they didn't piss of the Yivrim this much, maybe they wouldn't have punitively collapsed the faith in the Western Society from the inside.

    Ultimately, it's all Putin's fault. He started it all by beating the pro-Saudi Chechens into a pulp back in 1999, and started the NATOQAEDA self-destruction.

    likklemore | Nov 13, 2016 5:35:21 PM | 24
    In this election, Pollsters got it wrong.

    Two Exceptions:

    1. IBD/TIPP (A collaboration of Investors Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence). TechnoMetrica was consistent throughout – final poll for election day had Trump leading by 2%. Also predicted the last presidential elections back to 2004.

    Methodology

    "Traditional Telephone method" includes cell –live interviews by Region; Age; Gender; Race; Income; Education; Party; Ideology; Investor; Area Type; Parental Status; White – men, women; Black/Hispanic; Women-single, married; Household description –Upper/Middle-Middle, Working, Lower; Religion; Union Household; Intensity of Support.

    http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/

    and
    2. LATimes


    This election candidates' crowd draw was a good indicator. It was very difficult to pre-program the Diebold machines. MSM polls were in the bag for Hillary, had her ahead. It backfired.

    Is Newsweek embarrassed yet? They forgot some history. Truman-Dewey. Madam President! How appropriate.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 13, 2016 5:44:28 PM | 25
    Some of b's posts regarding US politics seems naive but I chalk that up to his not being American. But this technocratic excuse for the polling is just wrong. b, what happened to your skeptical view of Western media????

    ben | Nov 13, 2016 5:46:27 PM | 26
    virgile @ 9: An excerpt: " It was about the union men who refused to sell out their futures and vote for a Democrat who is an agent of the One Percent."

    And now, I fear, they still have no future.

    James @ 15 said.." polls are for massaging people's brains.. unless one knows who pays for them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda tool for use..

    How true..

    Trumps choices for his cabinet don't leave much room for positive change, for the millions of disaffected voters who put him in office. We'll see!

    voislav | Nov 13, 2016 6:13:07 PM | 27
    A bit about polling methodology explains the bias we've seen this election cycle. Typically, the polling samples are not big enough to be representative, so the results are corrected (weighted) based on the participant responses. The polls assume certain turnout percentages for different groups (Democrats, Republicans, Independents, rural, urban, ethnicity, gender etc.). A lot of the polls were weighting the polls with turnouts similar to 2012, corrected for the expected demographic changes over the last 4 years.

    Poll weighing is a tricky business. This is why most polling has a 4% error margin, so it does not produce as accurate picture as is typically presented by the media. The error is not randomly distributed, it is closely related to the poll weighting. The weighting error was favouring Clinton in the polls as it assumed higher Democratic turnout, which ended up not being the case, she underperformed 2012 significantly and lost the election.

    It is important to stress that the election results ended up within the margin of error (+-4%). The polls were not wrong, it is the media and the analyst who over-interpreted the data and gave Clinton the win where she did not have a statistically significant (<4%) lead. This is why if Nate Silver at 538 was consistently writing that the polls in many of the swing states were within the error margin, although favouring Clinton, and their election prediction still gave Trump a ~30% chance of victory. Other analysts were more careless (hello Huffington Post) and even made fun of 538 for giving Trump any chance of victory.

    There is no way to make more accurate polling for the future elections as the accuracy of the poll is tied in to poll weighing, which is guesswork (although somewhat educated by the historical data). Short of forcing everyone to vote, election-to-election turnout will change and affect the accuracy of the polls.

    jo6pac | Nov 13, 2016 6:18:04 PM | 28
    Some fun but sadly true.

    #8 this for you

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-5Y74FrDCc&index=25&list=WL

    #25 Yep

    Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 6:18:19 PM | 29
    #27 voio

    Instead of interpreting every single of those Polls as plausibly biased on one side, why don't you take the entire population of Western MSM Polls, and see if their median predicted outcome vs actual final outcome difference is statistically significant?

    I'd say you'd find their entire population to be likely biased at least to six-sigma level.

    (I have no time to show this myself, just proposing someone's hypothesis, as a research idea for someone's M Sci thesis for example)

    lysias | Nov 13, 2016 6:18:32 PM | 30
    I have lived in the D.C. area for the past 22 years with a land line phone and am listed in the White Pages. I have never been called by a pollster, although I am often called by political campaigns. I do not know anyone who has been called by a pollster.
    jdmckay | Nov 13, 2016 6:35:22 PM | 32
    Palast puts up good information that difference was good 'ole GOP voter purges.
    jfl | Nov 13, 2016 6:40:08 PM | 33
    Are the polls done to discover "what's up", or are they done to project the view that one side is winning?

    I go with the second view. That's what the 'corrections' are all about. The 'corrections' need to be dropped completely.


    Unless that happens all polls will have to be read with a lot of doubt.

    Mike Whitney posted a link to a guy who got it right ... Patrick Caddell; The Pollster Who 'Got it Right' . His methods were not those of the captive pollsters.


    More expensive in depth interviews of the base population used by a pollster would probably have caught this factor and adjusted appropriately.

    No more 'adjustments' allowed. A desire to actually discover the lay of the land and to publish it is what's required. Good luck on getting that from the political class and/or their captive msm. Everything they do is a lie, calculated to keep themselves in power.

    chipnik | Nov 13, 2016 6:42:19 PM | 34

    The polls were obviously blatantly skewed towards urban Blue zones, and did not include working adults in Red zones, then were 'massaged' by reporting media in clearly a Rodham-paid PAC marketing campaign to brand the sheeples 'Wear Rodham!'

    Only Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight even came close, but he had to rely on those same skewed polls. After all, since 1990, you can buy a CD set of American voting records by street address, it's not rocket science to be able to 'algo' that into a 'poll' that skews whichever way the highest bidder's (Rodham) quants tell you to.
    https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/

    ben | Nov 13, 2016 6:42:20 PM | 35
    jo6pak @28: Thanks for the videos.

    On Tuesday a democratic site was taken down. This video was put up in it's place.

    Strange and troubling. Seig heil anyone?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIgsHZSqy_g

    Adalbrand | Nov 13, 2016 6:53:27 PM | 36
    @likklemore #24:

    Glad you said that, and much better than I would have.

    @somebody #22:

    polls are used to manipulate campaigns.

    This. There was a Wikiliks Podesta email in whdich Clinton operatives discussed oversampling certain groups to inflate the poll in her favor.

    Demian is now known as Adalbrand .

    Adalbrand | Nov 13, 2016 7:08:31 PM | 37
    Oh Lookie – "Media Polls" Show Trump Back On Top, Go Figure…
    As if on cue, or something. All of a sudden, S.U.R.P.R.I.S.E,… a litany of polls released today show Donald Trump ahead in key battleground states (Ohio and Florida), and tied –or closer than the margin of error– in new national polls…. […]

    Remember what we stated on October 20th: […]

    The real battle is the battle for your mind. The peak U.S. media false polling cycle is thankfully in the rear-view mirror.

    It was because I followed that right-wing blog that I ignored all polls other than the LA Times tracking poll. (I didn't know about the IBD/TIPP poll until after the election.)
    Jen | Nov 13, 2016 7:12:20 PM | 38
    Hmm ... what can I say that no-one else has already said except to observe that the polling and the corporate media reporting the polling statistics were in another parallel universe and the people supposedly being polled (and not some over-sampled group in Peoria, Iowa, who could predict exactly what questions would be asked and knew what answers to give) live on planet Earth?
    ToivoS | Nov 13, 2016 7:18:03 PM | 39
    I most certainly did not predict Trump would win. But I did question the polls. What I questioned a few weeks ago was the margin of victory for Hillary.

    There were two big variables that the pollsters had to guess at. One was the voter turnout numbers for those precincts that had many working class people with a high school or less education level. As it turns out those people came out in higher numbers than they have in elections over the past two decades. The other was voter turnout for many precincts that supported Obama in 2008 and 2012. What happened here was many of those voters who did turn out voted for Trump, instead of the Democrat. There was a third uncertainty here that no on has yet figured out. That was those people who would never admit to a stranger that they were going to vote for Trump and simply lied to the pollster.

    In any case those three uncertainties worked in directions that none of the pollsters really picked up on.

    voislav | Nov 13, 2016 7:23:32 PM | 40
    #29 Quadriad

    This is because most of the polls were weighting more Democratic (based on the 2012 election), which overestimated Clinton's support. For example, the Rasmussen poll, which traditionally weights more Republican, gave Clinton 1.7% lead, 44.8% to 43.1% (3% margin of error), so fairly close to the election results (47.3% to 47.8%).

    So the difference between the poll and the actual result is 1.2% in favour of Trump (1.7% lead to Clinton in poll vs. 0.5% in the election). All are well within the error of the poll, so 1.2% difference between the election and the poll is well within the stated 3% error margin of the poll.

    When you mention 6 sigma, you really don't really know what you are talking about. Typical polling error is 3 - 4% and the election result was within this error for most polls in all of the states. Standard deviation (sigma) that you mention is a random uncertainty associated with a measurement and it does not apply here. As I tried to convey, the errors in polling tend to be systematic, not random, because they are tied to weighting of the polls, not to the sample of the population as this is mostly corrected by the weighting. So because most of the MSM polls use similar weighting methodology based on the same historical data, they will all be off, there will be no random distribution of some for Trump, some for Clinton. Weighing based on different historical data skews the whole picture one way, it's not a random error. This is why pollster slap a relatively large 3 - 4% error on their polls, it is meant to cover any systematic bias of the weighting as well as random errors.

    bigmango | Nov 13, 2016 7:23:48 PM | 41
    You assume public polls are conducted by impartial actors who wish to inform and illuminate..... your assumption is incorrect.
    Adalbrand | Nov 13, 2016 7:31:27 PM | 42
    @ToivoS #39:

    those three uncertainties worked in directions that none of the pollsters really picked up on.

    Have a loook at the LA Times tracking poll . It had Trump ahead by 3.2% on election day, which is close to the margin of error. The graph there is interesting, because dates of various events, such as the debates are marked. The poll figures moved in response to those events as one would expect.

    Before the election, the people who do that poll said that they did best at predicting the 2012 election. Oh, in a post about the election's outcome, Alexander Dugin singled out that poll for praise.

    Bill Hicks | Nov 13, 2016 7:44:37 PM | 43
    I have a better idea--how about we stop the stupid polling altogether since there is only one poll that really matters? Then the media would have to focus on the issues rather than the horserace. Oh, the humanity!

    Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 8:08:16 PM | 44
    I know exactly what I am talking about.

    Hypothesis A - that it's all explainable by random distribution of their samples.

    If you use Hypotethesis A, and then disprove it in it's own game (be it 3, or 6 sigma), then you have to suggest an alternative.

    I don't know what the alternative is. I don't even claim I do. But you can more easily disprove the veracity that the polls could have mostly been non-biased by showing that hypothesis is unlikely to be RIGHT. That's where sigmas make absolute sense.

    Nice try though, Voislave.

    Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 8:12:56 PM | 45
    Furthermore, what you are proving here is that the POPULATION of ALL COMBINED polls has a mean that must be different from the POPULATION of all actual voters, not of disproving the polls one by one.

    I think you've totally ignored my point, you keep looking at individual polls as trees, I am looking at the poll forest and saying the entire forest is buggered if almost all polls erred on one side, regardless of their individual margins of error.

    MadMax2 | Nov 13, 2016 8:14:16 PM | 46
    The New York Times recent admission that it writes the narrative first, then builds the story to suit says about everything for me regarding polls. 'Hey, my editor needs someone to come out and say something, can you say this...?' <-- Now, if that is standard practice in journalism at 'the paper of record', then skewing polls to suit a common agenda is a given, again in my opinion. This of course is great news for sites like MofA.

    Also impossible to capture The Don's campaign playing the electoral college system like an old mandolin, as it turns out. 306 Trump bts 232 Hillary it looks like in the wash up. That's old school work rate doing the job. Fair play. Great to see all the student debt laden brainwashed libtards out there doing there nut. They don't even know what a bullet they dodged + shite like the TPP is now dead. Some gratitude.

    Hopefully in 2020 there are some more scientific polls like the USC Dornslife/LA Times poll, each having their own differing methodologies preferably. This should give the punters a better 'feel' for the electorate.

    In other news...

    Assange is being interviewed tomorrow by Swedush police (for the 2nd time I should add). There are and were no charges laid. I suspect their will be no charges brought tomorrow.

    ...so what happened...? Did The Rule of Law just...magically appear...?

    Penelope | Nov 13, 2016 8:16:37 PM | 47
    The most extraordinary thing I learned about polls is that exit polls are altered as soon as the official election or primary vote is in-- to match it.

    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/tag/mathematical-proof-of-election-fraud/

    Penelope | Nov 13, 2016 8:42:14 PM | 49
    2 heartstopping items:
    -- http://phibetaiota.net/2016/11/robert-steele-the-accidental-president-will-he-resign-the-closed-system-is-still-rigged-and-likely-to-remain-so/ Challenging Trumps legitimacy.
    -- http://usdefensewatch.com/2016/11/putin-issues-international-arrest-warrant-for-george-soros-dead-or-alive/ This last-- like most overly dramatic news-- appears to be a scm but is widely dispersed across the web. Kind of curious. Of course I guess everybody knows that he's behind the protests in the US.

    Julian | Nov 13, 2016 8:54:34 PM | 50
    Who is Trump speaking to?
    According to reports, the first leader Trump spoke to on the phone after his election victory was the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Sisi congratulated him on the election victory, a spokesman for the Egyptian leader said.

    Ireland's government said the taoiseach, Enda Kenny, had a 10-minute call with Trump, and was invited to visit the White House on St Patrick's Day.

    Mexico's president, Enrique Peña Nieto, has said he and Trump agreed in their call to meet before Trump takes office, while Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was invited to the White House.

    Other leaders to have a chat with Trump so far include the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe – they reportedly talked for 20 minutes and agreed to meet soon in New York – and South Korea's president, Park Geun-hye.

    Australia's prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was reported to have chatted with Trump about security and trade in their call.

    No surprises there.

    It may be unfortunate, but I can see Trump & Erdogan getting along very well. Although, if they bring Putin into that triumvirate that could actually be very beneficial for the Middle East.

    Notably absent

    Adalbrand | Nov 13, 2016 8:55:25 PM | 51
    @MadMax2 #46:

    Concur with all your points. And yes, the timing of the Swedes finally deciding to interview Assange is funny.

    I never thought that Hillary would become president, btw., from the moment she declared for 2016. Which is not to say that I was not concerned that the demonization of Trump might throw the election. We'll never know, but it is possible that Trump wouldn't have won without Wikileaks. And the two sets of leaks were very well timed.

    To return to polls. It's not just most media polls that were off. The Clinton campaign's internal polls were off, too. They didn't have much doubt that they would win. (The same thing happened with Romney of course, but in their case, their internal polls differed from the media polls.) Apparently, they really did believe they have a firewall, with redundancies no less.

    Clinton staffers: Arrogance from the DNC leadership cost Clinton the election

    [Nov 13, 2016] Stoltenberg worried about the viability of his cushy position

    Nov 13, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile , November 12, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    Stoltenberg worried about the viability of his cushy number:

    Now is not the time for the US to abandon Nato – nor should its European allies go it alone

    We face the greatest challenges to our security in a generation. This is no time to question the value of the partnership between Europe and the United States.

    (And I need the money!)

    [Nov 13, 2016] I dont think it will be difficult for the US president-elect to tell the UK government where to go.

    Nov 13, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , November 12, 2016 at 10:10 pm
    Sound the alarm, Britannia!

    Trump Putin alliance sparks diplomatic crisis

    Britain is facing a diplomatic crisis with the US over Donald Trump's plans to forge an alliance with Vladimir Putin and bolster the Syrian regime.

    In a significant foreign policy split, officials admitted that Britain will have some "very difficult" conversations with the President-elect in coming months over his approach to Russia.

    I don't think it will be difficult for the US president-elect to tell the UK government where to go.

    marknesop , November 12, 2016 at 10:27 pm
    Donald Trump's plans to forge an alliance with Vladimir Putin and bolster the Syrian regime. When did he ever say he had any such plans? But now they are a fact in being, thanks to the Torygraph. Britain has evolved into an expert panicker.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Donald Trump Threatens Neocon War Lobby Five Principles To Develop A Foreign Policy For America

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump, to a degree previously matched only by such outlier presidential candidates as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, is challenging Washington's conventional wisdom that America must dominate the globe. ..."
    "... He also criticized nation-building. "We have a country that's in bad shape," he reasonably allowed: "I just think we have to rebuild our country." ..."
    "... Fifth, foreign policy is ultimately about domestic policy. "War is the health of the state," Randolph Bourne presciently declared a century ago. There is no bigger big government program war, no graver threat to civil liberties than perpetual conflict with the homeland the battlefield, no greater danger to daily life than blowback from military overreach. ..."
    Mar 24, 2016 | forbes.com/

    Still, Trump, to a degree previously matched only by such outlier presidential candidates as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, is challenging Washington's conventional wisdom that America must dominate the globe. The "usual suspects" who manage foreign policy in every administration, Republican and Democrat, believe that the U.S. must cow every adversary, fight every war, defend every ally, enforce every peace, settle every conflict, pay every bill, and otherwise ensure that the lion lies down with the lamb at the end of time, if not before.

    Not Donald Trump. He recently shocked polite war-making society in the nation's capital when he criticized NATO, essentially a welfare agency for Europeans determined to safeguard their generous social benefits. Before the Washington Post editorial board he made the obvious point that "NATO was set up at a different time." Moreover, Ukraine "affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we're doing all of the lifting." Why, he wondered? It's a good question.

    His view that foreign policy should change along with the world scandalized Washington policymakers, who embody Public Choice economics, which teaches that government officials and agencies are self-interested and dedicated to self-preservation. In foreign policy that means what has ever been must ever be and everything is more important today than in the past, no matter how much circumstances have changed.

    Trump expressed skepticism about American defense subsidies for other wealthy allies, such as South Korea and Saudi Arabia as well as military deployments in Asia. "We spent billions of dollars on Saudi Arabia and they have nothing but money," he observed. Similarly, he contended, "South Korea is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we're not reimbursed fairly for what we do." He also criticized nation-building. "We have a country that's in bad shape," he reasonably allowed: "I just think we have to rebuild our country."

    Unlike presidents dating back at least to George H.W. Bush, Trump appears reluctant to go to war. He opposed sending tens of thousands of troops to fight the Islamic State: "I would put tremendous pressure on other countries that are over there to use their troops." Equally sensibly, he warned against starting World War III over Crimea or useless rocks in East Asian seas. He made a point that should be obvious at a time of budget crisis: "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore."

    ... ... ...

    Fifth, foreign policy is ultimately about domestic policy. "War is the health of the state," Randolph Bourne presciently declared a century ago. There is no bigger big government program war, no graver threat to civil liberties than perpetual conflict with the homeland the battlefield, no greater danger to daily life than blowback from military overreach.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Ron Paul Neocons are Trying to Infiltrate Trump`s Administration

    Nov 13, 2016 | www.youtube.com

    archivesDave 1 day ago

    " TRYING" ???...That's a JOKE, Right? Gingrich, Giuliani, etc, etc, These Neocons already have a lot of the wild cards and 'Trump Cards'...Closet Globalists, even though they probably wouldn't admit it.

    Reference Carroll Quigley and Craig Hulet if you really want to get the REAL skinny!

    * Problem~Reaction~Solution

    [Nov 13, 2016] Comey did it hypothesys

    Nov 13, 2016 | nypost.com

    But Democrats had a simpler answer for why Clinton lost. As one Democratic strategist close to Clinton told The Post, it all came down to "one word: Comey." Too bad for Democrats there are zero electoral votes in the State of Denial. FBI Director James Comey didn't use a private e-mail server to conduct official State Department business and put 110 classified e-mails on that unsecured server. Comey didn't fail to turn over some 14,900 e-mails to the FBI after assuring Americans that "I turned over everything I was obligated to turn over."

    Comey didn't lie to the American people about Benghazi, publicly blaming the attacks on "inflammatory material posted on the Internet." Comey didn't tell Democratic voters he was against free-trade deals, but then tell Brazilian bankers that his dream was for "hemispheric . . . open trade and open borders."

    Comey didn't have a foundation that accepted millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments during his tenure as secretary of state. He didn't give, as I wrote last month, "special treatment to Clinton Foundation donors after the Haiti quake, asking for them to be identified as 'FOBs' (friends of Bill Clinton) or 'WJC VIPs' (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs)."

    Why did Hillary Clinton lose? Not because of Comey. She lost because exit polls showed that 54 percent of voters believe she is "corrupt."

    To the elites in Washington, her corruption was apparently no big deal, at least not compared with their horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency. But Americans correctly saw her corruption as corrosive to our democracy.

    This election was a popular repudiation of Clinton's corruption and deceit - and she owns that. But there is one person besides herself whom she can blame: President Obama. Because while Clinton may have lost to Donald Trump, it was Obama who created him.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Donald Trump Is Picking His Cabinet

    Looks like Secretary of State shortlist is dominated by neocons. A couple of candidates would make Hillary Clinton proud... the head of CIA is an informal head of shadow government and as such is also very important. Allen Dulles example should still be remembered by all presidents, if they do not want to repeat the face of JFK ....
    Nov 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...

    Here's a Short List http://nyti.ms/2eNpI6a
    NYT - Nov 12

    (There are 5 women on the list, including Sarah Palin & NH's Kelly Ayotte, demonstrating that ilsm has some influence.
    For Sec/Defense - seriously. Alternatively for UN Ambassador. Right.)

    The list:

    Secretary of State

    John R. Bolton Former United States ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush [ neocon; one of the members of PNAC ; see About the PAC - John Bolton PAC BoltonPAC.com ]

    Bob Corker Senator from Tennessee and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [ See also Bob Corker on the Issues ]

    Newt Gingrich Former House speaker [former neocon; Political ally of Rand Paul recently]

    Newt Gingrich Abandons Neocons, Joins Rand Paul In GOP Foreign Policy Civil War

    [ Newt Gingrich's Deep Neocon Ties Drive His Bellicose Middle East Policy - The Daily Beast ; Newt Gingrich A Brilliant Neo-Con with a lot of Baggage Off The Grid News ]

    Zalmay Khalilzad Former United States ambassador to Afghanistan [ neocon; one of the members of PNAC ; See Washington's Neocon in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad Nominated as U.S. Ambassador Democracy Now! ]

    Stanley A. McChrystal Former senior military commander in Afghanistan [See neo-neocon " Blog Archive " Loose lips the McChrystal article ]

    Treasury Secretary

    Thomas Barrack Jr. Founder, chairman and executive chairman of Colony Capital; private equity and real estate investor
    Jeb Hensarling Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
    Steven Mnuchin Former Goldman Sachs executive and Mr. Trump's campaign finance chairman
    Tim Pawlenty Former Minnesota governor

    Defense Secretary

    Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
    Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (he would need a waiver from Congress because of a seven-year rule for retired officers)
    Stephen J. Hadley National security adviser under George W. Bush
    Jon Kyl Former senator from Arizona
    Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama who is a prominent immigration opponent

    Attorney General

    Chris Christie New Jersey governor
    Rudolph W. Giuliani Former New York mayor
    Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama

    Interior Secretary

    Jan Brewer Former Arizona governor
    Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
    Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company
    Forrest Lucas President of Lucas Oil Products, which manufactures automotive lubricants, additives and greases
    Sarah Palin Former Alaska governor

    Agriculture Secretary

    Sam Brownback Kansas governor
    Chuck Conner Chief executive officer of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
    Sid Miller Texas agricultural commissioner
    Sonny Perdue Former Georgia governor

    Commerce Secretary

    Chris Christie New Jersey governor
    Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company
    Lewis M. Eisenberg Private equity chief for Granite Capital International Group

    Labor Secretary

    Victoria A. Lipnic Equal Employment Opportunity commissioner and work force policy counsel to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce

    Health and Human Services Secretary

    Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
    Mike Huckabee Former Arkansas governor and 2016 presidential candidate
    Bobby Jindal Former Louisiana governor who served as secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals
    Rick Scott Florida governor and former chief executive of a large hospital chain

    Energy Secretary

    James L. Connaughton Chief executive of Nautilus Data Technologies and former environmental adviser to President George W. Bush
    Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
    Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company

    Education Secretary

    Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
    Williamson M. Evers Education expert at the Hoover Institution, a think tank

    Secretary of Veterans Affairs

    Jeff Miller Retired chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee

    Homeland Security Secretary

    Joe Arpaio Departing sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz.
    David A. Clarke Jr. Milwaukee County sheriff
    Michael McCaul Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee
    Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama

    White House Chief of Staff

    Stephen K. Bannon Editor of Breitbart News and chairman of Mr. Trump's campaign
    Reince Priebus Chairman of the Republican National Committee

    E.P.A. Administrator

    Myron Ebell A director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a prominent climate change skeptic
    Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner who was involved in drafting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
    Jeffrey R. Holmstead Lawyer with Bracewell L.L.P. and former deputy E.P.A. administrator in the George W. Bush administration

    U.S. Trade Representative

    Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company, and a critic of Chinese trade practices

    U.N. Ambassador

    Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
    Richard Grenell Former spokesman for the United States ambassador to the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration

    CIA Director / Director of National Intelligence

    Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
    Peter Hoekstra Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
    Mike Rogers Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
    Frances Townsend Former homeland security adviser under George W. Bush

    National Security Adviser

    Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... November 12, 2016 at 08:49 PM

    Trump's Hires Will Set Course of His Presidency http://nyti.ms/2eNUfRg
    NYT - MARK LANDLER =- Nov 12

    WASHINGTON - "Busy day planned in New York," President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Twitter on Friday morning, two days after his astonishing victory. "Will soon be making some very important decisions on the people who will be running our government!"

    If anything, that understates the gravity of the personnel choices Mr. Trump and his transition team are weighing.

    Rarely in the history of the American presidency has the exercise of choosing people to fill jobs had such a far-reaching impact on the nature and priorities of an incoming administration. Unlike most new presidents, Mr. Trump comes into office with no elective-office experience, no coherent political agenda and no bulging binder of policy proposals. And he has left a trail of inflammatory, often contradictory, statements on issues from immigration and race to terrorism and geopolitics.

    In such a chaotic environment, serving a president who is in many ways a tabula rasa, the appointees to key White House jobs like chief of staff and cabinet posts like secretary of state, defense secretary and Treasury secretary could wield outsize influence. Their selection will help determine whether the Trump administration governs like the firebrand Mr. Trump was on the campaign trail or the pragmatist he often appears to be behind closed doors. ...

    [Nov 13, 2016] Martin Armstrong Exposes The Real Clinton Conspiracy Which Backfired Dramatically

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary lost not merely because she misread the "real" people, she decided to run a very divisive and nasty negative campaign, which has fueled the violence ever since. According to WikiLeaks emails from campaign John Podesta, Clinton colluded with the DNC and the media to raise what they thought would be the extreme right among Republicans to then make her the middle of the road to hide her agenda. ..."
    "... Clinton called this her "pied piper" strategy, that intentionally cultivated extreme right-wing presidential candidates and that would turn the Republicans away from their more moderate candidates. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee along with mainstream media all called for using far-right candidates "as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right." Clinton's camp insisted that Trump should be "elevated" to "leaders of the pack" and media outlets should be told to "take them seriously." ..."
    "... The Clinton strategy was all about manipulating the Republicans to nominate the worst candidate Clinton called for forcing "all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election." ..."
    "... It was not Putin trying to rig the elections, it was Hillary. Clinton saw the Republican field as crowded and she viewed as "positive" for her. "Many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right." Clinton then took the strategic position saying "we don't want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper' candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party." ..."
    "... "We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously." ..."
    "... This is by far the WORST campaign in history and it was all orchestrated by Hillary to be intentionally divisive for the nation all to win the presidency at all costs. She has torched the constitution and the country. ..."
    "... Any Democrat who is not angry at this is clearly just a biased fool. Wake up and smell the roses. You just got what you deserve. ..."
    "... It's one thing to be ruthless & evil. It's another to be ruthless, evil and stupid. Brexit should have been a huge eye-opener for the elites that they should seek to field two establishment candidates as usual at any cost rather than risk elevating an outsider. ..."
    "... It's incredibly fortunate they were too dumb to realise that the former middle class and independents cognisant of NWO would create huge momentum for exactly those type of candidates & that this was absolutely the worst time in history to attempt that strategy. Lack of competition at the top of the food chain has made her ilk slow and out of touch. Evolution is a bitch. ..."
    "... Personally, I find this hilarious. She schemes and connives to push forward the most "unelectable" republican, and that republican wins mostly because she vastly underestimates the dislike of Americans for her. ..."
    "... Excellent article. Truly, the definition of "hubris" was Hillary during this election. ..."
    "... What she underestimated was the ability for most to see thru her true contempt of people. That's the bottom line of Hillary- she just sees herself as royalty, and we just got tired of seeing it again and again. ..."
    "... from the tone of the leaked emails it is clear they realized she was the worst candidate ever. ..."
    "... This mirrors her naive approach to foreign policy of "create a controlled burn (Arab spring) and get rid of your enemy". Without realizing someone would move in to the void left afterwards. (I need to drink more - In whiskey, veritas). Or as in this case, the wind changes direction. ..."
    "... It is interesting that there is no mention of any strategy to promote her ideas or positive qualities. In fact the "muddy the waters" statement shows they knew scandals would come up and they'd have to play defense. ..."
    "... Remember how Hitlery called US working white men just a deplorable POS. Furthermore, her allies could easily falsify the voter counting process but again they were so arrogant and self confident that they fucked up themselves. ..."
    "... People, stop be so naive and stupid. The life is not fair to losers since only winners always write the history! ..."
    "... Finally, if Trump will follow an advice to be good to everybody being a unifier then he will be destroyed. This is why he must continue the strategy that brought his the victory. One never can win follow a defensive strategy! ..."
    "... unfortunately, the MSM is continuing without a break in cadence their lock-step call for bipartisan! compromise! and let's be "REASONABLE" . DAMMIT. The time for reasonable is past. ..."
    "... If Trump puts in a lot of NEOCON insiders in his cabinet I say we need to hammer it again home that this is our last chance. If trump doesn't deliver the JOBS and Economic turnaround then the conservatives are GONE. We won't get another chance. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Meanwhile, Hillary lost not merely because she misread the "real" people, she decided to run a very divisive and nasty negative campaign, which has fueled the violence ever since. According to WikiLeaks emails from campaign John Podesta, Clinton colluded with the DNC and the media to raise what they thought would be the extreme right among Republicans to then make her the middle of the road to hide her agenda.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton called this her "pied piper" strategy, that intentionally cultivated extreme right-wing presidential candidates and that would turn the Republicans away from their more moderate candidates. This enlisted mainstream media who then focused to Trump and raise him above all others assuming that would help Hillary for who would vote for Trump. This was a deliberate strategy all designed to propel Hillary to the White House.

    The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee along with mainstream media all called for using far-right candidates "as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right." Clinton's camp insisted that Trump should be "elevated" to "leaders of the pack" and media outlets should be told to "take them seriously."

    If we look back on April 23, 2015, just two weeks after Hillary Clinton officially declared her presidential campaign, her staff sent out a message on straregy to manipulate the Republicans into selecting the worse candidate. They included this attachment a "memo for the DNC discussion."

    The memo was addressed to the Democratic National Committee and stated bluntly, "the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field." Here we find that the real conspiracy was Clinton manipulating the Republicans. "Clearly most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing. This exercise is intended to put those ideas to paper."

    "Our hope is that the goal of a potential HRC campaign and the DNC would be one-in-the-same: to make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to a majority of the electorate."

    The Clinton strategy was all about manipulating the Republicans to nominate the worst candidate Clinton called for forcing "all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election."

    It was not Putin trying to rig the elections, it was Hillary. Clinton saw the Republican field as crowded and she viewed as "positive" for her. "Many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right." Clinton then took the strategic position saying "we don't want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper' candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party."

    Her manipulative strategy was to have the press build up Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. "We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously."

    This conspiracy has emerged from the Podesta emails. It was Clinton conspiring with mainstream media to elevate Trump and then tear him down. We have to now look at all the media who endorsed Hillary as simply corrupt. Simultaneously, Hillary said that Bernie had to be ground down to the pulp. Further leaked emails showed how the Democratic National Committee sabotaged Sanders' presidential campaign. It was Hillary manipulating the entire media for her personal gain. She obviously did not want a fair election because she was too corrupt.

    What is very clear putting all the emails together, the rise of Donald Trump was orchestrated by Hillary herself conspiring with mainstream media, and they they sought to burn him to the ground. Their strategy backfired and now this is why she has not come out to to speak against the violence she has manipulated and inspired.

    This is by far the WORST campaign in history and it was all orchestrated by Hillary to be intentionally divisive for the nation all to win the presidency at all costs. She has torched the constitution and the country. No wonder Hillary could not go to the stage to thank her supporters. She never counted on them and saw the people as fools. The entire strategy was to take the White House with a manipulation of the entire election process. Just unbelievable. Any Democrat who is not angry at this is clearly just a biased fool. Wake up and smell the roses. You just got what you deserve.

    Notveryamused -> Charles Wilson •Nov 12, 2016 9:12 PM

    It's one thing to be ruthless & evil. It's another to be ruthless, evil and stupid. Brexit should have been a huge eye-opener for the elites that they should seek to field two establishment candidates as usual at any cost rather than risk elevating an outsider.

    It's incredibly fortunate they were too dumb to realise that the former middle class and independents cognisant of NWO would create huge momentum for exactly those type of candidates & that this was absolutely the worst time in history to attempt that strategy. Lack of competition at the top of the food chain has made her ilk slow and out of touch. Evolution is a bitch.

    847328_3527 -> nmewn •Nov 12, 2016 9:33 PM

    That yootoob video of "When people laughed at the idea..." is excellent...a Must watch for all! Here is the yootoob link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT0Rjc6jKCg

    Automatic Choke -> 847328_3527 •Nov 12, 2016 9:34 PM

    Personally, I find this hilarious. She schemes and connives to push forward the most "unelectable" republican, and that republican wins mostly because she vastly underestimates the dislike of Americans for her.

    Could there be a more fitting slap in the face to someone of such enormous hubris and arrogance?

    jcaz -> Automatic Choke •Nov 12, 2016 9:47 PM

    Excellent article. Truly, the definition of "hubris" was Hillary during this election.

    What she underestimated was the ability for most to see thru her true contempt of people. That's the bottom line of Hillary- she just sees herself as royalty, and we just got tired of seeing it again and again.

    MalteseFalcon -> espirit •Nov 12, 2016 10:47 PM

    Hillary Rodent fashions herself as some kind of leader who is a Christian (Methodist) and loves America ("Need to unify!!"). So let the Rodent get on TV and tell these bought and paid for rioters to stop. "Not in my name" should be the Rodent's plea.

    <crickets>

    She's a fraud.

    Joe Davola -> MalteseFalcon •Nov 12, 2016 11:44 PM

    It truly was the worst campaign in history (topping Mondale 84). If only they'd put half the effort into their campaign that they put into dirty tricks. Then again, from the tone of the leaked emails it is clear they realized she was the worst candidate ever.

    They were so busy playing it like a parlor game, they forgot to actually provide real reasons to vote for her - beyond it was her turn.

    This mirrors her naive approach to foreign policy of "create a controlled burn (Arab spring) and get rid of your enemy". Without realizing someone would move in to the void left afterwards. (I need to drink more - In whiskey, veritas). Or as in this case, the wind changes direction.

    FreedomGuy -> Joe Davola •Nov 13, 2016 12:44 AM

    It is interesting that there is no mention of any strategy to promote her ideas or positive qualities. In fact the "muddy the waters" statement shows they knew scandals would come up and they'd have to play defense.

    It is never about how good they are. It is about how bad you/the other side is.

    caconhma -> jcaz •Nov 12, 2016 10:31 PM

    War is war. The goal is to win by destroying an opponent. Therefore, any actions and any strategy leading to a victory are totally justified!

    Consequently, one cannot blame Hitlery for her actions. Hitlery has done the right things but Jewish arrogance that guided and executed her election campaign negated and destroyed all advantages she had. Remember how Hitlery called US working white men just a deplorable POS. Furthermore, her allies could easily falsify the voter counting process but again they were so arrogant and self confident that they fucked up themselves.

    People, stop be so naive and stupid. The life is not fair to losers since only winners always write the history!

    Finally, if Trump will follow an advice to be good to everybody being a unifier then he will be destroyed. This is why he must continue the strategy that brought his the victory. One never can win follow a defensive strategy!

    hardmedicine -> caconhma •Nov 13, 2016 3:46 AM

    unfortunately, the MSM is continuing without a break in cadence their lock-step call for bipartisan! compromise! and let's be "REASONABLE" . DAMMIT. The time for reasonable is past.

    If Trump puts in a lot of NEOCON insiders in his cabinet I say we need to hammer it again home that this is our last chance. If trump doesn't deliver the JOBS and Economic turnaround then the conservatives are GONE. We won't get another chance.

    Grosvenor Pkwy -> Chris Dakota •Nov 13, 2016 6:29 AM

    Long-term drug and alcohol abuse slowly destroys the brain. She was definitely smarter 20 years ago. "first we have to bring them to heel..."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FnjXkHvYSY

    VinceFostersGhost -> Chris Dakota •Nov 13, 2016 8:23 AM

    for years the talk is that Hillary is a drunk.

    Heard the same thing.......Benghazi......she was knocked out.


    [Nov 13, 2016] Liberal Media Turns On Itself As NYT Promises To Rededicate Itself To Honest Reporting

    Notable quotes:
    "... Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably. ..."
    "... Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and "come together." ..."
    "... let those of us who know the score lead the way in stopping the meanness and the madness that's about to begin. ..."
    "... Everyone must stop saying they are "stunned" and "shocked". What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren't paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. ..."
    "... You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there's climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don't want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. ..."
    "... Finally, speaking of Saturday Night Live sketches, we can't wait to see how the liberal "comedy" show - which just like the NYT existed in a world of its own throughout the presidential campaign - spins the election results tonight. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    * * *

    Then there was ultraliberal Michael Moore, who in a facebook post urged to "Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and "come together." They will pull more hooey like that out of their ass in the days to come. Turn them off."

    Morning After To-Do List:

    1. Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably.

    2. Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and "come together." They will pull more hooey like that out of their ass in the days to come. Turn them off.

    3. Any Democratic member of Congress who didn't wake up this morning ready to fight, resist and obstruct in the way Republicans did against President Obama every day for eight full years must step out of the way and let those of us who know the score lead the way in stopping the meanness and the madness that's about to begin.

    4. Everyone must stop saying they are "stunned" and "shocked". What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren't paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. YEARS of being neglected by both parties, the anger and the need for revenge against the system only grew. Along came a TV star they liked whose plan was to destroy both parties and tell them all "You're fired!" Trump's victory is no surprise. He was never a joke. Treating him as one only strengthened him. He is both a creature and a creation of the media and the media will never own that.

    5. You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: "HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!" The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don't. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he's president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we'll continue to have presidents we didn't elect and didn't want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there's climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don't want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the "liberal" position. We just lack the liberal leadership to make that happen (see: #1 above).

    * * *

    There were countless more such examples of prominent liberals accusing the press of bias and propaganda long after the fact, even as the press itself refuses to admit any guilt, while itself blaming others, and so the circle continues to turn, and nothing changes in a world in which nobody knows what happens next now that the status quo has been crushed by the people.

    Finally, speaking of Saturday Night Live sketches, we can't wait to see how the liberal "comedy" show - which just like the NYT existed in a world of its own throughout the presidential campaign - spins the election results tonight.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Who Lost A Biased Media, Pundits, Pollsters, Political Parties, Warmongers, the Corporatocracy, Pay-to-Play Gritters

    www.oftwominds.com
    Sometimes who lost is more important than who won. Let's review who lost the election:

    1. Let's start with the Corporatocracy, which expected to once again wield unlimited influence by funding political campaigns with millions of dollars in contributions and speaking fees.

    2. A biased mainstream media. My mom-in-law was watching CBS all night, so that's what we watched. All the pundits/anchors spoke in the hushed tones of a funeral. For two hours, the only images of campaign workers shown were the sad faces of Clinton supporters; not one image of jubilant Trump supporters was broadcast until Trump gave his acceptance speech.

    When one of the talking heads noted that Hillary never generated the enthusiasm of the Sanders or Trump campaigns, his comment was followed by a stony silence. That he had given voice to a self-evident truth was not welcome.

    3. Mainstream punditry: they got it wrong from the start and remained close-minded and arrogant in their postured superiority.

    The punditry applied a double standard to Trump and Hillary. Trump's speeches and ethically questionable history were judged by moral standards, and he was declared unfit.

    Hillary's actions, on the other hand, were judged by strictly legalistic standards: well, you can't indict her, so she's fit for office.

    Dear punditry: you can't use double standards to promote your biases and retain any shred of credibility.

    4. Pollsters. Having rigged the polls via over-sampling and under-sampling, they were laughably wrong. Here is a typical headline from election night, from the New York Times: Trump Takes Florida, Closing In on a Stunning Upset.

    Only the pollsters and the MSM were stunned.

    5. Political parties. As my friend G.F.B. observed, both parties ran 20th century campaigns in the 21st century. Both parties lost for this reason; both are hopelessly out of touch with a rapidly changing America.

    Democrats upset with losing should look at their party's system of Super-Delegates that squelched Bernie Sander's bid.

    6. Warmongers. Many Americans are sick and tired of interventionist, globalist warmongering. The only possible way they could register their opposition to warmongering was to vote for Trump.

    7. Pay-to-Play Grifters. Let the investigations, indictments, prosecutions and convictions begin as soon as Trump is sworn in.

    8. Neoliberals. Globalization boils down to freeing mobile capital to rove the globe for opportunities to strip-mine cheap resources, assets and labor and then move on, leaving ruined communities behind.

    9. Bonus loser: Fake Progressives. Fake Progressives are perfectly fine with soaring inequality and corrupt governance, as long as everyone's public utterances are politically correct. So the oppressor class is acceptable as long as they speak respectfully while stepping on your neck.

    Real Progressives see jobs and community as solutions, not welfare and central planning. Real Progressives see the eradication of warmongering Imperial pretensions and corrupt pay-to-play grifting as the essential projects of liberty and democracy.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Avalanche of negative coverage from MSM backfired

    Notable quotes:
    "... The media and Clinton campaign created some sympathy for Donald Trump because the message was not subtle, it was an avalanche, indeed, an unprecedented deluge of negative, caustic, burn-it-to-the-ground anti-Trump messaging, and people don't respond to that ..."
    nypost.com

    "The media and Clinton campaign created some sympathy for Donald Trump because the message was not subtle, it was an avalanche, indeed, an unprecedented deluge of negative, caustic, burn-it-to-the-ground anti-Trump messaging, and people don't respond to that," Conway said.

    [Nov 13, 2016] We were told confidently by Clinton surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldnt happen again

    By John Cassidy conviniently forget that Hillary was/is a neocon warmonger, perfectly cable of unleashing WWIII. Instead he pushes "Comey did it" bogeyman"...
    Nov 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : November 13, 2016 at 03:48 AM

    EMichael and im1dc would rather have their head in the sand. We were told confidently by Clinton surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldn't happen again.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/media-culpa-the-press-and-the-election-result

    MEDIA CULPA? THE PRESS AND THE ELECTION RESULT

    By John Cassidy , NOVEMBER 11, 2016

    Since Tuesday night, there has been a lot of handwringing about how the media, with all its fancy analytics, failed to foresee Donald Trump's victory. The Times alone has published three articles on this theme, one of which ran under the headline "How Data Failed Us in Calling an Election." On social media, Trump supporters have been mercilessly haranguing the press for getting it wrong.

    Clearly, this was a real issue. It's safe to say that most journalists, myself included, were surprised by Tuesday's outcome. That fact should be acknowledged. But journalists weren't the only ones who were shocked. As late as Tuesday evening, even a senior adviser to Trump was telling the press that "it will take a miracle for us to win."

    It also shouldn't be forgotten that, in terms of the popular vote, Clinton didn't lose on Tuesday. As of 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, a tally by CNN showed that Hillary Clinton had received 60,617,062 votes, while Trump got 60,118,567. The margin in her favor-now at 498,495-is likely to grow as the remaining votes are counted in California. At the end of the day, Clinton may end up ahead by two per cent of the total votes cast. If the United States had a direct system of voting, Clinton would have been the one at the White House on Thursday meeting with President Obama. But, of course, Trump won the Electoral College. If the final count in Michigan remains in his favor, Trump will end up with three hundred and six Electoral College votes, to Clinton's two hundred and twenty-six.

    Still, as journalists and commentators, we all knew the rules of the game: if Trump got to two hundred and seventy votes in the Electoral College, he'd be President. Why did so few observers predict he'd do it? Many Trump supporters insist it was East Coast insularity and ideological bias, and many in the media are now ready to believe that. To be sure, it's easy to get sucked into the media bubble. But there are also strong professional incentives for journalists to get things right. Why did that prove so difficult this year?

    It wasn't because journalists weren't legging it to Michigan or Wisconsin or West Virginia. In this magazine alone, a number of writers-including Larissa MacFarquhar, Evan Osnos, George Packer, and George Saunders-published long, reported pieces about the Trump phenomenon in different parts of the country. Many other journalists spent a lot of time talking with Trump supporters. I'd point you to the work of ProPublica's Alec MacGillis and the photojournalist Chris Arnade, but they were just two among many. So many, in fact, that some Clinton supporters, such as Eric Boehlert, of Media Matters, regularly complained about it on social media.

    To the extent that there was a failure, it was a failure of analysis, rather than of observation and reporting. And when you talk about how the media analyzed this election, you can't avoid the polls, the forecasting models, and the organizing frames-particularly demographics-that people used to interpret the incoming data.

    It was clear from early in the race that Trump's electoral strategy was based on appealing to working-class whites, particularly in the Midwest. The question all along was whether, in the increasingly diverse America of 2016, there were enough alienated working-class whites to propel Trump to victory.

    Some analysts did suggest that there might be. Immediately after the 2012 election, Sean Trende, of Real Clear Politics, pointed out that one of the main reasons for Mitt Romney's defeat was that millions of white voters stayed home. Earlier this year, during the Republican primaries, Trende returned to the same theme, writing, "The candidate who actually fits the profile of a 'missing white voter' candidate is Donald Trump."

    The Times' Nate Cohn was another who took Trump's strategy seriously. In June, pointing to a new analysis of Census Bureau data and voter-registration files, Cohn wrote, "a growing body of evidence suggests that there is still a path, albeit a narrow one, for Mr. Trump to win without gains among nonwhite voters." As recently as Sunday, Cohn repeated this point, noting that Trump's "strength among the white working class gives him a real chance at victory, a possibility that many discounted as recently as the summer."

    Among analysts and political demographers, however, the near-consensus of opinion was that Trump wouldn't be able to turn back history. Back in March, I interviewed Ruy Teixeira, the co-author of an influential 2004 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," which highlighted the growing number of minority voters across the country, particularly Hispanics. Drawing on his latest data, Teixeira, who is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress, offered some estimates of how many more white working-class voters Trump would need to turn out to flip states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. "It's not crazy," he said. "But I think it would be very hard to pull off."

    Trump managed it, though. He enjoyed a thirty-nine-point advantage among whites without college degrees, according to the network exit poll, compared to the twenty-six-point advantage Romney saw in 2012. "What totally tanked the Democrats was the massive shift in the white non-college vote against them, particularly in some of the swing states," Teixeira told me by telephone on Thursday. "And that by itself is really enough to explain the outcome."

    In the lead-up to the election, the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote while losing the Electoral College was well understood but, in hindsight, not taken seriously enough. In mid-September, David Wasserman, an analyst at the Cook Political Report, laid out a scenario in which turnout among white non-college voters surged and turnout among some parts of the Democratic coalition, particularly African-Americans, fell. "Clinton would carry the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points," Wasserman wrote. "However, Trump would win the Electoral College with 280 votes by holding all 24 Romney states and flipping Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Maine's 2nd Congressional District."

    In the days and weeks leading up to the election, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver also considered the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote and losing the election. But he, Wasserman, and others who looked at the matter believed this was an unlikely outcome. On Tuesday, the FiveThirtyEight forecasting model estimated that the probability of such a scenario happening was about one in ten.

    There was a straightforward reason for all the skepticism about Trump's chances: when you looked at the state-level polling, it looked like Clinton's "blue wall" was holding. Take Wisconsin, which turned out to be a state that Trump won. The Huffington Post's polling database lists the results of more than thirty polls that were taken in the Badger State since June: Trump didn't lead in any of them. Three of the final four surveys showed Clinton ahead by six points or more, and the Huffpollster poll average put her lead at 6.3 percentage points. Trump carried the state by one point. In other key states, the pattern was similar. The final Huffington Post poll averages showed Trump losing by nearly six points in Michigan, and by four points in Pennsylvania.

    In a public statement issued on Wednesday, the American Association for Public Opinion Research said bluntly, "The polls clearly got it wrong this time." The organization announced that it had already put together a panel of "survey research and election polling experts" tasked with finding some answers. Several possible explanations have already been floated.

    First, it's possible there was a late swing to Trump among undecided voters, which the state polls, in particular, failed to pick up. Another possibility is that some Trump voters didn't tell the pollsters about their preferences-the "shy Trump supporter" hypothesis.

    A third theory, which I suspect may be the right one, is that a lot of Trump voters refused to answer the pollsters' calls in the first place, because they regarded them as part of the same media-political establishment that Trump was out railing against on the campaign trail. Something like this appears to have happened in Britain earlier this year, during the run-up to the Brexit referendum. Turnout wound up being considerably higher than expected among lower-income voters in the north of England, particularly elderly ones, and that swung the result.

    Whatever went wrong with the polls in this country, they inevitably colored perceptions. "The reason it surprised me was because, like everyone else, I was taken in by those pesky polls," Teixeira told me. "It didn't look like, by and large, that he was running up as big a margin as he needed among non-college whites."

    The prediction models didn't help things. On Tuesday morning, FiveThirtyEight's "polls-only" prediction model put the probability of Clinton winning the presidency at 71.4 per cent. And that figure was perhaps the most conservative one. The Times' Upshot model said Clinton had an eighty-five per cent chance of winning, the Huffington Post's figure was ninety-eight per cent, and the Princeton Election Consortium's estimate was ninety-nine per cent.

    These numbers had a big influence on how many people, including journalists and political professionals, looked at the election. Plowing through all the new polls, or even keeping up with all the state and national poll averages, can be a time-consuming process. It's much easier to click on the latest update from the model of your choice. When you see it registering the chances of the election going a certain way at ninety per cent, or ninety-five per cent, it's easy to dismiss the other outcome as a live possibility-particularly if you haven't been schooled in how to think in probabilistic terms, which many people haven't.

    The problem with models is that they rely so much on the polls. Essentially, they aggregate poll numbers and use some simulation software to covert them into unidimensional probabilistic forecasts. The details are complicated, and each model is different, but the bottom line is straightforward: when the polls are fairly accurate-as they were in 2008 and 2012-the models look good. When the polls are off, so are the models.

    Silver, to his credit, pointed this out numerous times before the election. His model also allowed for the possibility that errors in the state polls were likely to be correlated-i.e., if the polls in Wisconsin got it wrong, then most likely the Michigan polls would get it wrong, too. This was a big reason why FiveThirtyEight's model consistently gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models did. But the fact remains that FiveThirtyEight, like almost everyone else, got the result wrong.

    I got it wrong, too. Unlike in 2012, I didn't make any explicit predictions this year. But based on the polls and poll averages-I didn't look at the models much-I largely accepted the conventional wisdom that Clinton was running ahead of Trump and had an enduring advantage in the Electoral College. In mid-October, after the "Access Hollywood" tape emerged, I suggested that Trump was done.

    Clearly, he wasn't. In retrospect, the F.B.I. Director James Comey's intervention ten days before the election-telling Congress that his agency was taking another look at e-mails related to Clinton's private server-may have proved decisive. The news seems to have shifted the national polls against Clinton by at least a couple of points, and some of the state polls-in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and other places-also moved sharply in Trump's direction. Without any doubt, it energized Republicans and demoralized Democrats.

    One thing we know for sure, however, is that in mid-October, even some of the indicators that the Trump campaign relied on were sending out alarm signals. "Flash back three weeks, to October 18," Bloomberg News's Joshua Green and Sasha Issenberg reported on Thursday. "The Trump campaign's internal election simulator, the 'Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory,' showed Trump with a 7.8 percent chance of winning. That's because his own model had him trailing in most of the states that would decide the election, including the pivotal state of Florida."

    Of course, neither the Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory software nor I knew that fate, in the form of Comey, was about to take a hand.

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Clintons And Soros Launch Americas Purple Revolution

    Notable quotes:
    "... America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers. ..."
    "... Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team. ..."
    "... There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions. ..."
    "... Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. ..."
    "... PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle. ..."
    "... HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED... ..."
    "... Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil. ..."
    "... Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly... ..."
    "... We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... ..."
    "... JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world. ..."
    "... If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him) ..."
    "... Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

    Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

    The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin . President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.

    Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.

    There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.

    Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

    "Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".

    President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

    Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

    No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.

    President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

    One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

    Pinto Currency nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:37 PM ,

    Purple must be the color of pedophiles.

    Soros, Clintons, Podestas, amd apparently Obama are all into it as we are learning from Comet Ping Pong scandal:

    https://i.sli.mg/ayI6QF.jpg

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b1qtf/comet_ping_pong_pizz...

    https://dcpizzagate.wordpress.com/

    https://i.redd.it/3l20mhvrxtvx.png

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-from-the-anon-who-brought-you-th...

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1c_1478546206

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gord...

    http://www.newsdailystudio.com/2016/11/05/bill-clinton-wasnt-the-only-on...

    Keep your eye on Jared Kushner, who is Trump's son-in-law. He refused to have his newspaper the NY Observer endorse Trump. That is not a good sign.

    MalteseFalcon Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:39 PM ,
    "It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care."

    None of those "pressing issues" involve the DOJ or the FBI.

    Investigate, prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton and her crew.

    Trump is going to need a hostage or two to deal with these fucks.

    If he doesn't, they will deal with him.

    letsit Occident Mortal Nov 11, 2016 8:45 PM ,
    Netanyahu, the greatest neocon of all, endorsed Trump. All TRUE neocons love Trump.

    https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/views-of-news/#trumpmeans

    Husk-Erzulie nmewn Nov 12, 2016 9:48 AM ,
    Big series of protests being planned. Recruiting ads in Craigslist nationwide. Purple ties and dresses all over MSM this morning.

    This is when the Purple Hats, Flags, Balloons start coming out.

    Kill it before it grows.

    https://twitter.com/AustinChas/status/797445221122506752

    any_mouse californiagirl Nov 12, 2016 2:54 AM ,
    Purple and royalty? Purple in Rome?

    News for the Clintons, The R's and D's already united to vote against Hillary.

    I do not understand why they think street protests will bring down a POTUS? And that would be acceptable in a major nation.

    Why isn't the government cracking down the separatists in Oregon, California, and elsewhere? They are not accepting the legal outcome of an election. They are calling for illegal secession. (Funny in 1861 this was a cause for the federal government to attack the joint and seveal states of the union.) If a group of whites had protested Obama's election in 2008?

    The people living in Kalispell are reviled and ridiculed for their separatist views. Randy Weaver and family for not accepting politically correct views. And so on.

    This is getting out of hand. There will be no walking this back.

    Erek any_mouse Nov 12, 2016 7:47 AM ,
    Purple is the color of royalty! Are these fuckers proclaiming themselves as King and Queen of America? If so, get the executioner and give them a "French Haircut"!
    X_in_Sweden Grimaldus Nov 12, 2016 10:58 AM ,
    Grimaldus ,

    "Yes. And who are the neocons really? Progressives. Neocon is a label successfully used by criminal progressives to shield their brand."

    Well let's go a little bit deeper in examing the 'who' thing:

    "The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary , a media arm of the American Jewish Committee , which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward , the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: " If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it.... "

    From the article By Laurent Guyénot , Who Are The Neoconservatives?* http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35106.htm

    Are you connecting the dots.......folks......?

    . . . _ _ _ . . . Bendromeda Strain Nov 11, 2016 11:04 PM ,

    Great avatar!

    GROWTH IS THE ULTIMATE PONZI SCHEME

    Lavada Chupacabra-322 Nov 12, 2016 10:41 AM ,
    The idea of arresting the Clinton Crime, Fraud and Crime Family would be welcomed. BUT, who is going to arrest them? Loretta Lynch, James Comey, WHO? The problem here is that our so called "authorities" are all in the same bed. The tentacles of the Eastern Elite Establishment are everywhere in high office, academia, the media, Big Business, etc. The swamp is thoroughly infested with this elite scum of those in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, Club of Rome, Committee of 300, Jason Society and numerous other private clubs of the rich, powerful and influential. The Illuminati has been exposed, however they aren't going down lightly. They still have massive amounts of money, they own the media and the banking houses. Some have described it as MIMAC, the Military Industrial Media Academic Complex. A few months ago here at Zero Hedge, there was an article which showed a massive flow chart of the elites and their organization

    They could IF and WHEN Trump gets to Washington after 20 Jan 2017, simply implode the economy and blame t it on Trump. Sort of what happened to Herbert Hoover in the late 1920's. Unfortunately the situation in the US will continue to deteriorate. George Soros, a major financial backer of Hillary will see to that. Soros is a Globalist and advocate of one world government. People comment that Soros should be arrested. I agree, BUT who is going to do that?

    Grimaldus ShortCommonSense Nov 12, 2016 9:12 AM ,
    Agree. I think Trump will yank all the "aid" to Israel as well as "aid" to the Islamic murderers of the Palitrashian human garbage infesting the area. This "aid" money is simply a bribe to keep both from killing each other. F**k all of them. None of our business what they do.

    We got progressives ( lots and lots of Jews in that group) who are the enemy of mankind and then we got Islam who are also the enemy of mankind. Why help either of them? Makes no sense.

    Wile-E-Coyote Bastiat Nov 12, 2016 5:35 AM ,
    How come Soros never got picked up by Mossad for war crimes against his own people?

    And if he is such a subversive shit why hasn't a government given him a Polonium 210 enema.

    Martian Moon Wile-E-Coyote Nov 12, 2016 8:13 AM ,
    Always wondered about that

    Soros is hated in Israel and has never set foot there but his foundations have done such harm that a bill was recently passed to ban foreign funding of non profit political organizations

    Chupacabra-322 RopeADope Nov 11, 2016 9:03 PM ,
    The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says it all.

    The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.

    Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long, that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.

    King Tut Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 9:11 PM ,
    JFK made the mistake of publicly stating his intention of smashing the CIA instead of just doing it quickly and quietly
    Chupacabra-322 King Tut Nov 11, 2016 9:30 PM ,
    There are entirely way too many Intelligence Agencies. Plus the Contractors, some of who shouldn't have high level clearance to begin with which the US sub contracts the Intel / work out to.

    For Fucks sake, Government is so incompetent it can't even handle it own Intel.

    Something along the lines of Eurpoe's Five Eyes would be highly effective.

    Fuck those Pure Evil Psychopaths at the CIA They're nothing more than a bunch of Scum Fuck murdering, drug running, money laundering Global Crime Syndicate.

    HowdyDoody Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 10:59 PM ,
    Five Eyes isn't European, it is US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. If you note carefully, the NSA etc think we can't count.
    chubbar Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:46 PM ,
    The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation, Trump needs to encourage that through backdoor channels. Soro's needs to be investigated, he has been tied to a conspiracy to incite violence, this needs to be documented and dealt with. Trump can not ignore this guy. If any of these investigations come back with a recommendation to indict then that process needs to be started. Take the fight to them, they are vulnerable!
    Chupacabra-322 chubbar Nov 11, 2016 9:12 PM ,
    Make a National APB Warrent for the apprehension & arrest of George Sooros for inciting violence, endsrgerimg the public & calling for the murder of our Nations Police through funding of the BLM Group.

    Have every Law Informent Agency in the Nation on alert. Also, issue a Bounty in the Sum of $5,000,000 for his immediate apprehension.

    kwc chubbar Nov 12, 2016 4:50 AM ,
    Trump needs to replace FBI chickenshits & sellouts with loyal people then get the FBI counter-terrorism to investigate and shut down Soros & the various agencies instigating the riots. It's really simple when you quit over-thinking a problem. It's domestic terrorism. It's the FBI's job to stop it.
    Laddie nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:43 PM ,
    I read what Paul said this morning and thought, despite Paul's hostility to Trump during the primaries most likely due to his son, Rand's loss, that Paul gave good advice to Trump.
    Let's face it Donald Trump is a STOP GAP measure. And demographic change over the next 4 years makes his re-election very, very UNLIKELY. If he keeps his campaign promises he will be a GREAT president. However as ZH reported earlier he appears to be balking from repealing Obamacare, I stress the word APPEARS.

    Let us give him a chance. This is all speculation. His enemies are DEADLY as they were once they got total control in Russia, they killed according to Solzhenitsyn SIXTY-SIX MILLION Russian Christians. The descendants of those Bolsheviks are VERY powerful in the USSA. They control the Fed, Hollyweird, Wall Street, the universities...

    Professor Kevin MacDonald's 'The Culture of Critique' Reviewed

    Like the South Africans the Tribe TALKED us out of our nation.

    Mechanisms for Cuckservatives and Other Misguided White People by Dr. Kevin MacDonald September 22, 2016

    Much of the media and advertising exist by pushing buttons that trigger appropriate financially lucrative reflexes in their audiences, from pornography to romantic movies to team sports. Media profits are driven by competition over how best to push those buttons. But the effort to produce politically and racially cuckolded Whites adds a layer of complexity: What buttons do you push to make Whites complicit in their own racial and cultural demise?

    Actually, there are a whole lot of them, which shouldn't be surprising. This is a very sophisticated onslaught, enabled by control over all the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by the left. With all that high ground, there are a lot of buttons you can push.

    Our enemies see this as a pathetic last gasp of a moribund civilization and it is quite true for our civilization is dying. Identity Christians describe this phase as Jacob's Troubles and what the secular Guillaume Faye would, I think, describe as the catastrophe required to get people motivated. The future has yet to be written, however I cannot help but think that God's people, the White people, are stirring from their slumber.

    King Tut Laddie Nov 11, 2016 8:49 PM ,
    See: The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon- Rudyard Kipling
    Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey Nov 11, 2016 8:20 PM ,
    "PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle.

    JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. "explaining the link between U.S. national security and Israel's security" Served on JINSA's Advisory Board: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Perle."

    Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:18 PM ,
    If Trump has probable cause on the Soros crimes, have his DoJ request a warrant for all of Soros's communications via the NSA, empanel a grand jury, indict the bastard, and throw his raggedy ass in prison. It would be hard for him to run his retarded purple revolution when he's getting ass-raped by his cell mate.
    Hurricane Baby -> Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:41 PM ,
    I agree. Thing is, I think as president he can simply order the NSA to cough up whatever they have, just like Obama could have done at any point. The NSA is part of the Defense Department, right? What am I missing here?
    Dilluminati Nov 11, 2016 8:26 PM ,
    Funny: Clinton swears Comey did her in and the DNC blames arrogant Hillary.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-11-11/dnc-staff-ar...

    But in respect to Soro's money and the Dalas shooting or other incited events, there should be a grand jury empanelled and then charges brought against him. I think nothing short of him hiding in an embassy with all his money blocked by Swift is justice for the violence that he funded.

    ... ... ...

    Skiprrrdog Nov 11, 2016 8:57 PM ,
    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    And so it begins; I really hope that this is just some misinformation/disinformation, because HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED...

    johnwburns Nov 11, 2016 9:10 PM ,
    The likes of Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg get to catch up on their Torah for the forseeable future but the likes of Lloyd Blankfein will probably get to entertain the court since they have probably crossed paths doing business in NYC. The "real conservative" deeply introspective, examine-my-conscience crowd screwed themselves to the wall, god love them.
    Ms No Nov 11, 2016 9:05 PM ,
    Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil.
    Rebel yell Nov 11, 2016 9:36 PM ,
    Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly...
    Posa Nov 12, 2016 10:25 AM ,
    We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... (just in case you confused him with Mother Theresa).. But then again JFK took office with a set of initiatives that were far more bellicose and provocative (like putting huge Jupiter missile launchers on the USSR border in Turkey)... once he saw he light and fired the pro Nazi Dulles Gang , JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world.

    If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him)

    I'm guessing though that deep down Trump is quite comfortable with a neoCon cabinet... hell he already offered Jamie Diamon the office of Treasry Secretary... no doubt a calculated gesture to signal compliance with the Deep State.

    rocknrollinhone... Nov 11, 2016 9:59 PM ,
    Soros is heavily invested in the globalist agenda. Wouldn't be surprised if they don't take a shot at assassinating Trump.
    bsdetector Nov 11, 2016 11:10 PM ,
    The Clintons do not do things by accident. Coordination of colors at the concession speech was meant for something. Perhaps the purple revolution or maybe they want to be seen as royals. It doesn't really matter why they did it; the fact is they are up to something. They will not agree to go away and even if they offered to just disappear with their wealth we know they are dishonest. They will come back... that is what they do.

    They must be stripped of power and wealth. This act must be performed publicly.

    In order to succeed Mr. Trump I suggest you task a group to accomplish this result. Your efforts to make America great again may disintegrate just like Obamacare if you allow the Clintons and Co. to languish in the background.

    bsdetector Nov 12, 2016 12:06 AM ,
    The protestors are groups of individuals who may seek association for any number of reasons. One major reason might be the loss of hope for a meaningful and prosperous life. We should seek out and listen to the individuals within these groups. If they are truly desirous of being heard they will communicate what they want without use of violence. Perhaps individuals join these protest groups because they do not have a voice.

    Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen.

    The articles reporting that Mr. Trump has changed his response to the protestors is a good effort to discover the protestors' complaints and channel their energy into beneficial political activity. Something must be done quickly though, before the protests get out of hand, for if that happens the protestors will be criminals and no one will want to work with them.

    In order to make America great again we need input from all of America. Mr. Trump you can harness the energy of these protestors and let them know they are a part of your movement.

    Batman11 -> Batman11 Nov 12, 2016 3:09 AM ,
    Classical economists are experts on today's capitalism, it is 18th and 19th Century capitalism, it's how it all started.

    Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin.

    "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."

    Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?

    When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalizing itself by:

    1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future

    2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services.

    Got that wrong as well.

    Adam Smith wouldn't like today's lobbyists.

    "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

    OH NO, It's ALL WRONG

    dogismycopilot Nov 12, 2016 5:39 AM ,
    First five minutes of Alex Jones' video today is clips of people saying "Donald Trump will never be president".

    Full Show - Soros-Funded Goons Deployed to Overthrow America - 11/11/2016

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPH26ohO_DY

    CoCosAB Nov 12, 2016 7:04 AM ,
    AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge in her own country!

    lakecity55 -> CoCosAB •Nov 12, 2016 7:53 AM

    Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money. Trump will have to do some rough stuff, but he needs to, it's what we hired him for.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Neocons Trying to Sneak Into Trump Administration by Jason Ditz

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's a cliche to say that the cushiest positions of influence in any US administration go to figures who were seen to have brought something to the table during the campaign. ..."
    "... a lot of high-ranking neoconservatives are expecting the exact opposite, figuring that they can step right into positions of power and influence despite openly campaigning against Trump. ..."
    "... There are more than a few people who would normally be in line for top positions in a Republican White House, but who were very publicly part of the "Never Trump" crowd, attacking him throughout the primary and the general election. These same people are now making public their "willingness" to work with Trump. ..."
    "... In other words, they want the usual spoils of victory, but having positioned themselves as so firmly in opposition to Trump's worldview, and to Trump in general, it's not at all clear how willing Trump's transition team is to consider such candidates for important positions. ..."
    "... For many of the neocons, this is likely less about getting cushy jobs or fancy titles and more about ensuring that the US remains aggressively interventionist abroad. Indeed, many of these people split with Trump in the first place over concerns he was insufficiently hawkish, and now want jobs that would put them in a position to shift his new administration in those same hawkish directions. ..."
    news.antiwar.com
    Fiercely Opposed to His Election, 'Never Trump' Crowd Now Seeks Influence

    It's a cliche to say that the cushiest positions of influence in any US administration go to figures who were seen to have brought something to the table during the campaign. Yet with the election of Donald Trump, a lot of high-ranking neoconservatives are expecting the exact opposite, figuring that they can step right into positions of power and influence despite openly campaigning against Trump.

    There are more than a few people who would normally be in line for top positions in a Republican White House, but who were very publicly part of the "Never Trump" crowd, attacking him throughout the primary and the general election. These same people are now making public their "willingness" to work with Trump.

    In other words, they want the usual spoils of victory, but having positioned themselves as so firmly in opposition to Trump's worldview, and to Trump in general, it's not at all clear how willing Trump's transition team is to consider such candidates for important positions.

    The early indications are that a lot of the foreign policy-related positions are going to be led by high-ranking former military officials who backed Trump's candidacy, with officials noting that long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left them with a lot of such officials to choose from.

    For many of the neocons, this is likely less about getting cushy jobs or fancy titles and more about ensuring that the US remains aggressively interventionist abroad. Indeed, many of these people split with Trump in the first place over concerns he was insufficiently hawkish, and now want jobs that would put them in a position to shift his new administration in those same hawkish directions.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Donald Trump Is Poised to Overturn Generations of Liberal-Neocon Rule

    Notable quotes:
    "... What happened? Why is this clique's triumphant return to power erupting in massive scandal this time around? Probably because we are living in an era during which much that was mysterious is suddenly becoming clear. Probably because Trump's "silent majority" suddenly saw before them someone they had been waiting for for a long time – a man ready to defend their interests. ..."
    "... Perhaps also it is because the middle class is choking on its growing exasperation with the "elite caste" occupying its native country. And it finally became clear to the sober-minded American patriots in law enforcement that the return to power of the people responsible for the current global chaos could be a big threat to the US and rest of the world. Because, in the end, everyone has children and no one wants a new world war. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | russia-insider.com
    Today Trump represents an entirely new party made up of half of the American electorate, and they are ready for action. And whatever the eventual political structure of this new model, this is what is shaping America's present reality. Moreover, this does not seem like such a unique situation. It rather appears to be the final chapter of some ancient story, in which the convoluted plotlines finally take shape and find resolution.

    The circumstances are increasingly reminiscent of 1860, when Lincoln's election so enraged the South that those states began agitating for secession. Trump is today symbolic of a very real American tradition that during the Civil War (1860-1865) ran headlong into American revolutionary liberalism for the first time.

    Right up until World War I traditional American conservatism wore the guise of "isolationism." Prior to WWII it was known as "non-interventionism." Afterward, that movement attempted to use Sen. Joseph McCarthy to battle the left-liberal stranglehold. And in the 1960s it became the primary target of the "counter-cultural revolution."

    Its last bastion was Richard Nixon , whose fall was the result of an unprecedented attack from the left-liberal press in 1974. And this is perhaps the example against which we should compare the present-day Trump and his current fight.

    And by the way, the crimes of Hillary Clinton, who has failed to protect state secrets and has repeatedly been caught lying under oath, clearly outweigh the notorious Watergate scandal that led to Nixon's forced resignation under threat of impeachment. But the liberal American media remains silent, as if nothing has happened.

    By all indications it is clear that we are standing before a truly epochal moment. But before turning to the future that might await us, let's take a quick glance at the history of conflict between revolutionary liberalism and traditional white conservatism in the US.

    ***

    Immediately after WWII, an attack on two fronts was launched by the party of "expansionism" (we'll call it that). The Soviet Union and Communism were designated the number one enemy. Enemy number two (with less hype) was traditional American conservatism. The war against traditional "Americanism" was waged by several intellectual fringe groups simultaneously.

    The country's cultural and intellectual life was under the absolute control of a group known as the " New York Intellectuals ." Literary criticism as well as all other aspects of the nation's literary life was in the hands of this small group of literary curators who had emerged from the milieu of a Trotskyist-communist magazine known as the Partisan Review (PR). No one could become a professional writer in the America of the 1950s and 1960s without being carefully screened by this sect.

    The foundational tenets of American political philosophy and sociology were composed by militants from the Frankfurt School , which had been established during the interwar period in Weimar Germany and which moved to the US after the National Socialists took power. Here, retraining their sights from communist to liberal, they set out to design a "theory of totalitarianism" in addition to their concept of an "authoritarian personality" – both hostile to "democracy."

    The "New York Intellectuals" and representatives of the Frankfurt School became friends, and Hannah Arendt , for example, was an authoritative representative of both sects. This is where future neocons (Norman Podhoretz, Eliot A. Cohen, and Irving Kristol) gained their experience. The former leader of the Trotskyist Fourth International and godfather of the neocons, Max Shachtman , held a place of honor in the "family of intellectuals."

    The anthropological school of Franz Boas and Freudianism reigned over the worlds of psychology and sociology at that time. The Boasian approach in psychology argued that genetic, national, and racial differences between individuals were of no importance (thus the concepts of "national culture" and "national community" were meaningless).

    Psychoanalysis also became fashionable, which primarily aimed to supplant traditional church institutions and become a type of quasi-religion for the middle class.

    The common denominator linking all these movements was anti-fascism. Did something look fishy in this? But the problem was that the traditional values of the nation, state, and family were all labeled "fascist." From this standpoint, any white Christian man aware of his cultural and national identity was potentially a "fascist."

    Kevin MacDonald, a professor of psychology at California State University, analyzed in detail the seizure of America's cultural, political, and mental landscape by these "liberal sects" in his brilliant book The Culture of Critique , writing:

    "The New York Intellectuals, for example, developed ties with elite universities, particularly Harvard, Columbia, the University of Chicago, and the University of California-Berkeley, while psychoanalysis and anthropology became well entrenched throughout academia.

    "The moral and intellectual elite established by these movements dominated intellectual discourse during a critical period after World War II and leading into the countercultural revolution of the 1960s."

    It was precisely this intellectual milieu that spawned the countercultural revolution of the 1960s.

    Riding the wave of these sentiments, the new Immigration and Nationality Act was passed in 1965, encouraging this phenomenon and facilitating the integration of immigrants into US society. The architects of the law wanted to use the celebrated melting pot to "dilute" the "potentially fascist" descendants of European immigrants by making use of new ethno-cultural elements.

    The 60s revolution opened the door to the American political establishment to representatives from both wings of the expansionist "party" – the neo-liberals and the neo-conservatives.

    Besieged by the left-liberal press in 1974, Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment. In the same year the US Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik Amendment (drafted by Richard Perle ), which emerged as a symbol of the country's "new political agenda" – economic war against the Soviet Union using sanctions and boycotts.

    At that same time the "hippie generation" was joining the Democratic Party on the coattails of Senator George McGovern's campaign . And that was when Bill Clinton's smiling countenance first emerged on the US political horizon.

    And the future neo-conservatives (at that time still disciples of the Democratic hawk Henry "Scoop" Jackson) began to slowly edge in the direction of the Republicans.

    In 1976, Mr. Rumsfeld and his fellow neo-conservatives resurrected the Committee on the Present Danger , an inter-party club for political hawks whose goal became the launch of an all-out propaganda war against the USSR.

    Former Trotskyists and followers of Max Shachtman (Kristol, Podhoretz, and Jeane Kirkpatrick) and advisers to Sen. Henry Jackson (Paul Wolfowitz, Perle, Elliott Abrams, Charles Horner, and Douglas Feith) joined Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and other "Christian" politicians with the intention of launching a "campaign to transform the world."

    This is where the neocons' "nonpartisan ideology" originated. And eventually today's "inalterable US government" hatched from this egg.

    American politics began to acquire its current shape during the Reagan era. In economics this was seen in the policy of neoliberalism (politics waged in the interests of big financial capital) and in foreign policy – in a strategy consisting of "holy war against the forces of evil." The Nixon-Kissinger tradition of foreign policy (which viewed the Soviet Union and China as a normal countries with which is essential to find common ground) was entirely abandoned.

    The collapse of the USSR was a sign of the onset of the final phase of the "neocon revolution." At that point their protégé, Francis Fukuyama, announced the "end of history."

    ***

    As the years passed, the influence of the neo-conservatives (in politics) and neoliberals (in economics) only expanded. Through all manner of committees, foundations, "think tanks," etc., the students of Milton Friedman and Leo Strauss (from the departments of economics and political science at the University of Chicago) penetrated ever more deeply into the inner workings of the Washington power machine. The apotheosis of this expansion was the presidency of George W. Bush, during which the neocons, having seized the primary instruments of power in the White House, were able to plunge the country into the folly of a war in the Middle East.

    By the end of the Bush presidency this clique was the object of universal hatred throughout the US. That's why the middle-ground, innocuous figure of Barack Obama, a Democrat, was able to move into the White House for the next eight years. The neocons stepped down from their central rostrums of power and returned to their "influential committees." It is likely that this election was intended to facilitate the triumphant return of the neoconservative-neoliberal paradigm all wrapped up in "new packaging." For various reasons, the decision was made to assign this role to Hillary Clinton. But it seems that at the most critical moment the flimsy packaging ripped open

    What happened? Why is this clique's triumphant return to power erupting in massive scandal this time around? Probably because we are living in an era during which much that was mysterious is suddenly becoming clear. Probably because Trump's "silent majority" suddenly saw before them someone they had been waiting for for a long time – a man ready to defend their interests.

    Perhaps also it is because the middle class is choking on its growing exasperation with the "elite caste" occupying its native country. And it finally became clear to the sober-minded American patriots in law enforcement that the return to power of the people responsible for the current global chaos could be a big threat to the US and rest of the world. Because, in the end, everyone has children and no one wants a new world war.

    How will this new conservative revolt against the elite end? Will Trump manage to "drain the swamp of Washington, DC" as he has promised, or he will end up as the system's next victim? Very soon we can finally get an answer to these questions.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Ron Paul several neocons are getting closer to Trump

    Nov 12, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    Donald Trump's success or failure as the next US president will largely depend on his ability to keep his independence from the "shadow government" and elite structures that shaped the policies of previous administrations, former presidential candidate Ron Paul told RT.
    [...]
    " Unfortunately, there has been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump. And if gets his advice from them then I do not think that is a good sign, " Paul told the host of RT's Crosstalk show Peter Lavelle.
    The retired Congressman said that people voted for Trump because he stood against the deep corruption in the establishment, that was further exposed during the campaign by WikiLeaks, and because of his disapproval of meddling in the wider Middle East.
    " During the campaign, he did talk a little bit about backing off and being less confrontational to Russia and I like that. He criticized some the wars in the Middle East at the same time. He believes we should accelerate the war against ISIS and terrorism, " Paul noted.
    [...]
    " But quite frankly there is an outside source which we refer to as the 'deep state' or the 'shadow government'. There is a lot of influence by people which are actually more powerful than our government itself, our president, " the congressman said.
    " Yes, Trump is his own guy, more so than most of those who have ever been in before. We hope he can maintain an independence and go in the right direction. But I fear the fact that there is so much that can be done secretly, out of control of our apparent government and out of the view of so many citizens, " he added.
    More:
    https://www.rt.com/usa/366404-trump-ron-paul-crosstalk/

    [Nov 12, 2016] No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obamas lame- duck period and thereafter

    Notable quotes:
    "... No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014. ..."
    "... The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    kirill , November 12, 2016 at 5:12 am

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/11/11/clintons-and-soros-launch-america-purple-revolution.html

    " No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America."

    marknesop , November 12, 2016 at 10:46 am
    Realistically, how many more colour revolutions is George Soros going to be around for? Come on, he's 86. Let an old guy have some fun.
    kirill , November 12, 2016 at 11:52 am
    He will be staging them as long as he has enough health to try. Of course he is not the only player. Soros is just one of the agents of western imperialism. Reply

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Clintons And Soros Launch America s Purple Revolution

    Notable quotes:
    "... No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014. ..."
    "... One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

    Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

    The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin . President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.

    Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.

    There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.

    Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

    "Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".

    President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

    Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

    No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.

    President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

    One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there

    Notable quotes:
    "... The party elites--the superdelegates--committed to Clinton from the beginning. They decided it was her turn. And despite all the evidence showing they were supporting a weak, vulnerable, and heavily disliked candidate, they stuck with it anyway. This Trump presidency, and the Republican sweep in the House and Senate, is entirely on the shoulders of 300 insider Democrats. ..."
    "... Clinton's supporters among the media didn't help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation's papers, but it was the quality of the media's enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. ..."
    "... But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    thetowncrier -> NathAldridge 4d ago

    No shit, Sherlock. Sanders would have beaten Trump. We are living in extreme times, and in extreme times centrism and political 'triangulation' doesn't work.

    This result will be repeated next year in France with the National Front. Mark my words. And when it does, France will vote to leave the EU and the house of cards will come crashing down.

    You can thank the Democrats, a party that used to represent working people, for at least part of that. Their billionaire backers picked Clinton because she'd ensure their wealth would remain untouched. I wonder what they're feeling now?

    Aaron Jackson -> NathAldridge 4d ago

    How do you figure? Clinton won the Democratic primary by less than the margin of superdelegates. She had a MASSIVE lead in funding, institutional support, and (at the least) insider bias--though it was likely more than that, given that nearly every single election anomaly in that primary bounced her way.

    The DNC intentionally limited the debates and scheduled those they did have for off times to try to limit the damage Sanders could do to Clinton, and big media refused to cover Bernie Sanders except in the context of Clinton.

    And even with all of that, Sanders pulled within 300 delegates of winning the Democratic Nomination by working through a grassroots, positive campaign. The momentum was entirely on his side, too! And national polls showed him performing MUCH better against Trump than Clinton. And, of course, he had no scandals (real or imagined) to leverage.

    The party elites--the superdelegates--committed to Clinton from the beginning. They decided it was her turn. And despite all the evidence showing they were supporting a weak, vulnerable, and heavily disliked candidate, they stuck with it anyway. This Trump presidency, and the Republican sweep in the House and Senate, is entirely on the shoulders of 300 insider Democrats.


    NathAldridge 4d ago

    The Guardian in a nutshell!

    Clinton's supporters among the media didn't help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation's papers, but it was the quality of the media's enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here's what it consisted of:

    • Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.
    • Her scandals weren't real.
    • The economy was doing well / America was already great.
    • Working-class people weren't supporting Trump. And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate.

    dynamic22 4d ago

    "But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine."

    You said everything really.

    Watchman80 -> dynamic22 4d ago

    Yup.

    Also, see this. Note the date (and the imagined Trump speech)

    http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency


    Choller21 4d ago

    Maybe it's time to consider whether there's something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

    I couldn't have put it better. I could have put it with more swear words in though.

    BigBlue80 4d ago

    Maybe there is a bright side to a Trump victory. After all, there was a reason that tens of millions of good people voted for him yesterday, and maybe he will live up to their high regard for him.

    If you assume that election victory (not even a majority as apparently Clinton will win the popular vote) legitmises everything, you are right. But if you believe that there are western values that should not be sacrificed than you are wrong. Eventually, this will be the end of democracy - it will kill itself by electing a fascist. I happened before and it looks ever more likely. The you US with ist overbearing nationalism, its leader-orientation and glorification of the military was always close to fascism, but now it might have taken the final leap into the abyss.

    atuocool 4d ago

    "[Neo]Liberals" are a type of conservative who never convince me of the sincerity of their "progressive" values. What was progressive about Hillary? What would she have actually done for the poor? How would she have moved America away from being a corporate plutocracy? We all know the answer is nothing. Trump is a nightmare, but he represents a bizarre, retrograde change while Clinton represented a vacuous status quo.

    John Hunter 4d ago

    with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station


    Correct, it is censorship and suppression of contrary opinion and enormously biased towards "The Chosen One"

    Once again it proves that the Guardian is against the tide of History.

    It is not bad to be contrarian or representing an alternative opinion or "voice" however provided you still maintain some sense of integrity and journalistic professionalism, providing content, news and information that is fair, balanced without indulging in gratuitous character assassination, presenting controversial issues of public importance in a manner that is honest, equitable, and balanced.

    The Guardian during the American election as with Brexit and many other controversial issues has consistently aligned itself with policies and opinion that many would consider left-wing or liberal yet is neither as the viewpoints they support betrays the liberty and freedom of the ordinary citizen.

    As I said before the election regardless who win or lose the media has already lost by showing its hand and exposed itself as not a true independent source of news and information, but pursuing definite agendas and siding with corporate news media's opinions and politics.

    According to the Guardian's own view liberalism will have to be remade in a post-liberal age. It is their own peculiar set of values they believe that is important and not the very principles the left originally defended. Pursuing a certain "metropolitan liberal creed".

    An metropolitan liberal elite who believe they are more educated, more intelligent and talented, more enlightened, more able to comprehend what society needs than the slow, slobs, the wasters and good for nothings with their prejudices, that do not know what is good for them.

    Their brand of Liberalism has been the complete antithesis of allowing people to take control of their lives. It has been a dictatorial imposition of the beliefs of the least liberal nature.

    Equating the tendencies of so-called "social justice warriors" and so-called "identity politics" and equating them somehow with liberalism you're a long way from the truth have little to do with liberalism and no, that's not "left" either.

    The establishment in the mainstream media believe they are economically liberals - though privately they look more kindly on monopolies than old school liberals would have. Yet these "liberals" want to happily embrace Brussels' legalistic regime of rules that range from the petty and impractical to a punitive and autocratic dictatorship.

    Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.

    It is no secret what the problem is, lack of jobs, lack of opportunities, people who feel they have no future or rights in their own country anymore.

    Ask yourself is what you identify with or support contributing towards a more peaceful, harmonious society where all have a sense of having a place and a future in their own country where they feel they fit in and contribute towards a more safe, secure and prosperous society?

    Jerome Fryer John Hunter 4d ago 14 15

    An metropolitan liberal elite who believe they are more educated, more intelligent and talented, more enlightened, more able to comprehend what society needs than the slow, slobs, the wasters and good for nothings with their prejudices, that do not know what is good for them.

    This is not a new problem. The social elites (self-appointed) of all political persuasions are always bemoaning the stupidity of the plebs in not bowing to their superior understanding of all things. That this unfounded hubris is an amazing exemplar of denial of reality (who just won this election, for example) doesn't seem able to take root in the bubble of acceptable thought in their minds. How could they possibly be talking out of their bottom when it comes to damn near everything? (All evidence aside.)

    We need the voice of the 'common people' to be heard, without being filtered by the elites. Fake democracy is not going to work -- we'll end up with a bigger fiasco, such as Jamie Dimon vs Kim Kardashian in the next US Presidential contest. Way past time for those in power to wake up to the fact that they're not in control, and real change that involves the great unwashed in the process is necessary. Trump is one dumb guy, but he has managed to figure out how to use this frustration to get his misogynist, racist, backside into the chair in the Oval Office.

    Wise up, 'smart people'. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report _jhfta_ Jerome Fryer 4d ago 10 11

    We need the voice of the 'common people' to be heard, without being filtered by the elites.

    I give you: Boaty McBoatface. trp981 , 9 Nov 2016 11:2>
    Concluding Unscientific Postscripts (*)

    - Election of Trump is not just another routine changing of the guards in the US two-party system (although it is that too). This is a significant deviation in the business-as-usual model of politics, and there will be substantial repercussions that will explicitly manifest themselves somewhere down the line.

    - The Founding Dudes and the Framers of the US Constitution had set up the system so as to preclude the possibility of ascendance of someone like Trump.

    - The Founding Dudes and the Framers of the US Constitution had set up the system so as to eventually make possible the ascendance of someone like Trump.

    - Sanders was right. That having had had been said, he would have still lost to Drumpf if he were the D's nominee instead of HRC.

    - That is because RealAmerica_a spoke more vocally this time around, overwhelming the voice of RealAmerica_b.

    - Judging by geographical size alone, RealAmerica_a is Real America.

    - It is simply unimaginable that the enlightened citizenry will elect someone as destructive and unqualified as Reagan in 1980. Such a possibility is not conceivable in any logical space, and even fiction writers are wary to contemplate such an impossibility.

    - Election of Reagan is not just another routine changing of the guards in the US two-party system (although it is that too). This is a significant deviation in the business-as-usual model of politics, and there will be substantial repercussions that will explicitly manifest themselves somewhere down the line.

    - Trump's victory is a repeat of the interplay of the socioeconomic forces that made Dubya's presidency possible in 2000. Eight more years of this worldview and we will have another Obama-type candidacy afterwards to clean up the mess and make the world safe again for the staggering-but-still-dominant neoliberal order.

    - People will be just too exhausted after eight years of Trump's presidency, and they will be so relieved after the election of the next Obama-type president as to retreat to their homes and let the new savior continue cuddling the big economic players and attempting to reach a Grand Bargain with the Republicans to further erode the threadbare social safety net holding up the people, of course for the good of the people themselves and in the name of Serious Politics.

    -The dominant position in our society will continue to be the generalization of Alan Grayson's observation: Don't fall down, if you do disappear quickly.

    - Setting aside the status quo status of Clinton's policy prescriptions (she a competent steward of the Washington Consensus), Trump's victory also signals the provisional victory of the manly men of RealAmerica_a (and the women who love them) over women (and minorities, and the LGBT, and immigrants, and etc).

    - The same way that most people don't know or care about the wavelengths associated with colors, they don't know or care about the underlying forces affecting their lives as long as the politicians put on a good Reality TV show and pull effectively at their heartstrings.

    - In other words, F science, F reality.

    - In other words, long live Realty TV, the rule of Kardashians, the Apprentice, WWE/WWF , etc. Constant exposure to these things matter.


    - Constant exposure to these things don't matter.

    - Tomorrow the Sun will come up as before, and the Earth will go around it at a steady pace as before, and the already enfeebled welfare state will continue to fray as before, and millions of US citizens will continue their steady fall into precariousness as before (especially Trump supporters in RealAmerica_a), and millions will continue to lose steady jobs and be pushed into the the gig economy, and the 1% will continue raking in the loot as before under the benevolent gaze of their new leader.

    - If HRC had won, all above would still occur, but probably at a lower rate (except for the Sun and Earth thing).

    - Drumpf was the Smoker to HRC's Atoller .

    (*) Yesyes, I know.

    rasnip , 9 Nov 2016 11:2>
    I feel lots of parallels can be drawn with brexit, particularly the points made at the end. amazingly people dont like being insulted and talked down to by party elites, the gop base has been totally transformed by trumps campaign.

    that said has anyone else noticed that trump supporters only ever say 'hes going to do so much for us' and trump says we are going to reopen the mines/factories/get a better deal but never said how. he has promised unicorns and rainbows to people dealt a shit hand by the economic changes of the last 30 years.

    spotthelemon usini , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
    The political class amongst US liberals are neo-liberals

    Neoliberalism from Reagan to [Bill] Clinton .
    written in 1998 the review of this book ends with
    " Michael Meeropol's damning indictment of the economic direction of the Clinton presidency demonstrates that nowhere is the need for a new movement more pressing than in the United States".

    Well Bush & Obama & Hillary, had she been elected, were continuations of that economic direction. If America has needed a new movement to win since 1999 then I guess they got really desperate which is why they voted for something as bad as Trump. Yes , the liberals or more specifically neo-liberals an be held responsible

    Musicismath usini , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    Frank has been making exactly this point since 1997. Others worth reading on this issue include Walter Benn Michaels and Adolph L. Reed, Jr.

    Unfortunately, in a lot of fora where this message sorely needs to be heard right now, this article would be summarily dismissed on the basis that Frank used the word "shrill," which is out of bounds in liberal discourse. Which of course just illustrates Frank's point.

    Aboutface , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
    The DNC put President Trump into the White House. The DNC, fixated on the anointed, untouchable HRC, lost its moral compass and the good work of Bernie and Warren, now amounts to a big fat ZERO.
    Laughable, how out of touch - meaningless motherhood cliches cannot pay the bills.
    Pinback71 , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
    It is a case in point that the MSM have completely lost touch with a population that often relies on the internet for its news. In the old days, the newspaper that was closest to your political viewpoint was delivered to your door as your primary source of information, now every news outlet, blog and forum in the world is delivered directly to your tablet.
    The media, like the Government has considerably less influence than a decade or two ago.
    Ummmmm , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
    Good article and, as one poster put it, encapsulates the Guardian's editorial line in a nutshell.

    The FT seems to be to the left of this paper these days, forced to be more hard nosed about the world. This from its columnist Wolfgang Munchenau some days ago:

    "What led the centre-left on to such a self-destructive path? The answer is a combination of the following: a false belief that elections are won from the centre; the lure of ministerial limousines; an inferiority complex about not being able to run "responsible fiscal policies"; and a belief that voters of the left have nowhere else to go. .. The main issue is not whether a Keynesian policy response would be economically correct. The more important point is that if the centre-left does not offer it, the populists will. Unless the centre-left returns to its Keynesian roots, I think there is a good chance that the politics of insurrection will succeed."


    https://www.ft.com/content/dba252f8-a29c-11e6-82c3-4351ce86813f

    Same trends at play in UK, US and Europe. Any lessons to learn?

    Omoikani , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
    Excellent article. Perhaps the Guardian needs to do a whole lot of soul-searching.

    The one thing left out of the article is what Michael Moore said, which is really worth reading in full , but the nub of which is the following:

    You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human molotov cocktail that they've been waiting for. The human hand grande that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them.

    Persianwar , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>

    the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station.

    That's a very accurate summary. The first step to winning next time is to understand why you lost this time. The establishment view was that people were going to get Hillary Clinton whether they liked it or not. Next time try listening to people who are angry that their pay has fallen in real terms for 10 years. Try listening to people whose views you disagree with rather than 'no platform' them lest your delicate sensibilities be offended.

    MacWolf , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
    The list of celebrities and pundits and surrogates taking his side on the campaign trail was extremely short.

    I often wonder is having a celebrity endourse you counter productive. I saw many celebs appear on TV and social media telling people they shouldn't vote for Trump. Some went as far as to call people who might vote for Trump idiots. How many people got fed up with rich, famous people telling them how they should vote? If you're someone sitting in America's rust belt, no job or low paid crap job, being told by someone you think probably owns a Hollywood mansion and does very little work, would you not feel a little resentful being told by them how to vote? Wouldn't you take a dislike to a candidate who appears on stage with these celebs and yet you feel ignores you? Just a thought.

    dizzyalien MacWolf , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
    Rights come with responsibilities.

    If you have the right to vote, the responsibility is to think through the implications of using that vote for X or Y candidate, to work out for yourself what will happen to you, your family, your community and your country if you vote for X or Y.

    If you vote for Y because you feel "resentful" that someone is using their freedom of speech to urge voting for X rather than Y - perhaps you shouldn't really be voting at all. Just a thought.

    SqueakEMouse MacWolf , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    More than just an odd thought my friend. The sight of a procession of wealthy, smug and self entitled celebs, often utter hypocrites, expecting to deliver their Facebook followers to a politician is nauseating and angers more than a few. Few of these celebs are famous for their brains so being called an idiot by a halfwit with money hardly endears them. But still society is in thrall to the concept of celebrity following. It begs the question of what all these followers are actually following. Perhaps Lady Gaga et al have confused the pathological need for an entertainment fix with an adoration of their thoughts and outlook.
    MatthewRendall 4d ago

    Killing off the neo-liberal virus in the Democratic Party would be a start, but won't be enough, if the Democrats simply put the American equivalents of Jeremy Corbyn in its place. What's desperately needed here are fresh ideas--something analogous to the Keynesian ideas that gave intellectual underpinning to the New Deal.

    eken92 , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>

    The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn't all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn't accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it's time to consider whether there's something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

    I think this is a very succinct assessment and goes most of the way to explaining this result, and the Brexit result too. People don't want to be lectured, they want to be listened to (yes, even if you think they're wrong).

    MaoriSideStep , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
    'Liberals' created the grounds for Brexit too.

    You see, their sneering attitude to the British working class, their name-calling, their bogus judgements about the working class for not wanting any more of their rights and opportunities taken away from them.

    The 'liberals' are hated as much as the toffs. Brexit was a great example of the bile and hatred the 'liberals' spew out at the disadvantaged working class.

    It wasn't the 'liberals' housing and schools, communities and healthcare, employment rights and opportunities that was being eroded though was it? No. But that didn't stop the 'liberals' branding the working class as 'racists' and 'stupid' and 'blind' did it.

    Maybe you now can see yourself, on this poxy 'liberal' website and see how YOU have created a situation where the working class want ANYTHING other than more of your poison.

    Look at the people bleating about Brexit: the 'liberals', the politicians, the bankers, big business, the judges...my goodness, doesn't that tell a story of the haves and have nots. All the bleaters are the scum that have never had the working class' best interests in mind and yet you think we, the working class, should take heed of their fatuous, aquisitive, vile, whimpers? Really?

    It's only just beginning. Toodle pip.

    BayOfGiggs MaoriSideStep , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>

    The 'liberals' are hated as much as the toffs.

    Why you think you'll get a great deal from....

    Multi-Billionaire Media Barons controlling the news on both sides of the Atlantic (the same Baron in the case of Murdoch) and they in turn backed by the Trillionaire old and true establishment who are the exact same families as a hundred years ago and hundreds of years before that in many cases.

    ....baffles me however.

    Designcycle MaoriSideStep , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Very well written and I agree to a large extent - the problem is.. are people like Trump and blood Boris Johnson going to be any more cognisant of the lives and problems of the working class than the liberals? And are they likely to do anything about those problems unless they simultaneously line their own pockets? If, and it's a very big if, the interests of the working class and the interests of Trump et al align somehow then there is a silver lining. If not, then the best we can hope for is that liberals start to reconnect with the people they purport to represent.
    westcoaster Designcycle , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>

    the problem is.. are people like Trump and blood Boris Johnson going to be any more cognisant of the lives and problems of the working class than the liberals?


    No. But maybe, just maybe, the 'left-wing' parties will wake and remember what they are supposed to be for.
    Omoikani , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
    Here's the other thing. Clinton and her mates at the New York Times and the Guardian are always lecturing us on the need to be compassionate and welcoming towards refugees from faraway places who would like to come and live among us, but there's never a moment of compassion for the people who are already here and suffering miserably on the margins of our already unequal societies - the unemployed and badly employed, the badly housed and homeless, those working sixty hours a week on the minimum wage for some crappy agency. So, guess what. That's why people are voting for stuff like Brexit and Trump.

    If you lot in the metropolitan elite can't see this then you are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes.

    Voltaire21 , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
    Just like Silvio Berlusconi, Trumps opponents were incapable to escape the trap of trying to sling shit at a candidate made out of teflon.

    The Clinton camp tried to fight a war in the trenches...but Trump feeds of negativity, they should have learnt early that nothing was too outrageous or controversial to tarnish him.

    The closest they got was the misogyny accusations and even they didn't stick. Just like Berlusconi, Trump the lover of pageantry and beautiful women was being portrayed as a woman hater but he cleverly made it sound like he was hater of feminists instead of women.

    The problem with Clinton is that she tried to play the integrity card but that was easily debunked by Trump with email gate.

    hashtagthat Voltaire21 , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    "The Clinton camp tried to fight a war in the trenches.."

    Very apt, considering she's a warmonger.

    finnja , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
    The voice of sanity. Thank you, Mr. Frank.
    The Democratic Establishment didn't give a hoot about what Bernie had to say, because his presidency would not have served their ambitions. They're more interested in getting nice jobs at Goldman Sachs than controlling the finance industry. And their sons and daughters will not fight in all the wars Clinton&Co see as great business opportunity.
    The Dem establishment has failed the people, and now we all reep the whirlwind.
    Geoff Conway , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    I agree with Frank's analysis though not his use of the word 'liberal' which has confusingly different meanings. I think the same analysis could be used to explain Brexit.

    The problem is a political class which wishes to maintain the status quo of a neo-liberal, globalised economy. For 35 years this economy has redistributed wealth from the poor to the rich and massively damaged the environment. It has thus disadvantaged the great majority of the people in the USA, the UK and indeed people across the world. People are quite reasonably fed up with the lies behind this 'trickle-down' economics. They are angry and want something different. The vacuum created by the failure of the left to recognise this, and come up with a new solution, has resulted in Trump, UKIP, Marine LePen etc.

    shooglebunny forkintheroad , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    No. I really think liberals have been their own worst enemies during this election.

    They have treated ordinary white Americans as if they are shit, spoken about them in ways that should make them hang their heads in shame and behaved as if they are living in a oligarchy where they can call the shots instead of a democracy and now they are paying the price.

    You can only kick a dog so many times before it turns around and bites you.

    I would also question the term"liberals" to describe people who are happy seeing jobs moved offshore, causing unemployment at home and slave labour conditions abroad; encouraging mass immigration to bring wages down and create a powerless and easily exploitable servant class and globalisation that provides them with a luxury lifestyle on the cheap while making it harder for just about everyone else.

    The only "liberal" thing about these people is their attitudes towards trivial personal issues like sexuality and lifestyle choices.

    NathAldridge , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    Wise words from Frank - I hope the Guardian opinionators are made to read it

    Clinton's supporters among the media didn't help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation's papers, but it was the quality of the media's enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here's what it consisted of:

    Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.
    Her scandals weren't real.
    The economy was doing well / America was already great.
    Working-class people weren't supporting Trump.
    And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate.

    Craig Ross , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    I hope all the Democratic Party insiders who rigged the primary elections are happy now.
    SixHeads 4d ago

    Absolutely right. And I'm willing to wager the liberal response to this will be to double down on the identity politics, double down on the victimhood narratives, double down on the march toward globalism, and double down on the cries for open borders and ever-increasing levels of immigration. They simply never learn.

    It's very clear what happened this morning. Trump won because he picked up the white working class vote in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio, all of which had previously voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012. The people in these states didn't magically become racist over the past four years. They saw a candidate (Clinton) who represented "business as usual", and they rejected her.

    mrsmiow , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>

    Excellent article. Summarises both Brexit as well as Trump's victory.

    The stats are showing that Trump polled higher amongst African and Hispanic Americans. I am not surprised. The Democrats, like the UK Labour party, like to think they OWN ethnic voters and they are merely another 'special interest' group alongside women, gays, etc. They don't and us ethnic voters have the same concerns as any other working or middle class voters. And NO ONE appreciates being told they are wrong, racist and unintelligent.

    This shows Social liberialism is dead and rotten. Well past its used by date, time to chuck it out. It went off when supposed social justice warriors got into business with big business and fickle finance.

    The elites may be well educated but that they couldn't even bare to bring themselves to understand the perspectives of another reveals how broadminded they really are - the journalists, academics etc. They believed in democracy where only one way of thinking and the status quo could be permitted to flourish. This is the most intelligent article to capture the social change that far too many liberals are denying. How are they going deal with reality, ie. Are the majority of Americans and British really racists? The greatest irony is this article is published within the vanguard of what ordinary people are democratically retaliating against.

    Dustbowler , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    When you reach rock bottom the only way is to look up. The problem for the Liberalism of the Democratic Party of the last three decades is that it has become a social scientific morality of the well connected and completely unable to deal with the naked populism of Trump let alone the half baked morass of crony capitalism of George Bush.
    Lets be opportunistic. This gives it a chance to wipe the slate clean and at the very least rid themselves of the influence of the Clintons who from the removal of Glass-Steagal Act demonstrated their only concerns were with the needs of the Super Rich rather than the majority of the population. Unfortunately you have that feeling that they are not even capable of doing that.
    George Pratt , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    "Trump... a folly so bewildering, an incompetence so profound ..."

    Har, har, har, the foolish and incompetent Trump is now president elect and you are a wise and competent journalist who foresaw the future clearly.

    Maybe you're the foolish incompetent, not Trump. Maybe you should examine the foolish certainty which made you write your Guardian article headlined "With Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton" and many others based on foolish and incompetent assumptions, reasoning and conclusions

    Maybe you and all the rest of the useful idiots on the left should examine all of your convictions about the world. You might discover how often you have been hoodwinked by your own folly into believing trash like Trump will lose to Hillary, AGW is a real problem which can be corrected by funneling trillions to crony capitalist alternative energy companies, fracking is dangerous and the unlimited immigration of millions of young, able bodied, violent, low IQ men is a good thing.

    babyboomer1957 , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    Hillary can console herself with a new job at Goldman Sachs, rather like Barosso, Global ambassador sounds nice.
    notacarboncopy babyboomer1957 , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    And that is precisely a big part of why she lost.

    People are sick of that merry-go-round, proof of the cabal that rules over us.

    jennyjl90 , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    Trump will achieve nothing of what he's said he wants to do. Reversing the 'reverse colonisation' of the white western world will fail, especially in the USA where, after all, the Afro-black population didn't ask to move to in the first place (though I'll bet tend dollars dollars not a single Afro-black American would opt for emigrating back to Africa, however much they complain about racial prejudice in the USA - the financial advantages of living in the developed world are FAR too valuable for that!).

    As for the Hispanics, I doubt even a wall would stop them. The mass population of Central and South America is far, far greater than that of 'white western America' and their third world economics keep the USA and the developed world a desperate magnet for them (and I can't blame them - I'd fight tooth and nail to get in to the rich west as well!)

    Nope, the Trump victory is a sad, hopeless rearguard action against the triumph of twenty-first century 'reverse colonisation' and that is that. The white western world is finished - the only question is, can it 'westernise' the immigrant population in time to save the developed world, or are we doomed to another Dark Ages of Global Third Worldism? (Maybe China will take over as Islam did post Roman Empire, while Europe went savage...)

    White Western World - it's game over. Accept it.

    queequeg7 , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    When you separate identity politics - race and gender - from inequality and class, which is what Obama and Clinton both did, you end up with Donald Trump moving into the White House ......
    queequeg7 Joelee73 , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    The liberal argument has always been about the equality to exploit not an end to exploitation. It was at the heart of New Labour as well as Obama/Clinton Democrats ...
    tedthetopcat queequeg7 , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>
    For the last 30 odd years the liberal left have claimed class no longer mattered. Now the "white" working class have twice given them a kicking in 2016. When you're at the bottom class really matters!
    MereMortal , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>

    And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the fullest.

    I really like Thomas Frank, but I wish in this diatribe that he wouldn't cheapen the countless (because the Americans don't count them) who have paid the price for Hillary's 'fondness for war' by referring to it like that, in passing, as if it was a fondness for muffins.
    I wish that he had a bit more righteous fury about how the crazed neocon warmongers who effectively rule America and for whom Hillary was the latest acceptable face, with her almost total sense of entitlement, based on the fact that she was a woman, acted like she was heading for a coronation.
    Yes it would be great if a woman had been elected president, I can think of at least two others one running, and one not, but doesn't even the most basic tenet of critical thinking require us to ask searching questions, about the specific woman ?

    callaspodeaspode , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    He has run one of the lousiest presidential campaigns ever. In saying so I am not referring to his much-criticized business practices or his vulgar remarks about women. I mean this in a purely technical sense: this man fractured his own party.

    But did he really 'fracture' his own party? From the superficial point of view, one might have thought so. Many Democrats hope so.
    But I'll suggest this. Anybody who is holding out the faint hope that he will work badly with the GOP in Congress is going to be very disappointed. He's going to put his signature to virtually everything they want. They're going to have a lot of fun together.
    Even stuff which directly contradicts what he ran on and which upset many in the Republican establishment. I'm thinking foreign policy and trade agreements.

    And those in movement conservatism who didn't like him, like Glenn Beck and Erick Erickson? Watch them do a 180 over the next six months.

    I'll bet on it.

    Designcycle , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Excellent article, about six months late, but hopefully not too late for liberals everywhere to wake up to the idea that if you claim to want to help improve the lives of the working class you better listen to them first, and connect with them second. I always thought laughing and sneering at Trump and particularly his supporters was never going to work. And sure enough it didn't. Nobody likes being patronised.
    fragglerokk , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Sanders would have breezed it.

    The Democrats ultimatey feared change

    The Republicans didn't.

    Sometimes you've got to have the courage to move beyond a rotting status quo and into a brave new world. If you don't you leave the door open for something potentially much much worse to take that opportunity.

    How about doing a piece on how the press keep getting it wrong all the time, how you keep misjudging the mood of the people, the zeitgeist, how afraid you are of change and how as a result you keep siding with the establishment when the vast majority of people are fed up with its incessant inaction and bullshit?
    Youre letting the fascists in through the open door because youre too afraid to give up your priviledges and go towards healthy change. You deserve what youre going to get because you spent too much time on here waffling bullshit and not enough time on the streets listening to what people want. Total cognitive dissonance. Social media is no good for assessing the mood of the people, its for pussy cat photos and selfies.

    Franz Habsburg fragglerokk , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Would have? He could not even beat Clinton in the primaries! Americans overthrow democratic socialist governments, they don't elect them.
    edhemingway fragglerokk , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    The republicans feared change, but winning was more important to them. As incongruous as it may seem, a billionaire businessman reached out to voters disenfranchised by some 30 years of partisan parlour games. Maybe it'll dawn on the Democrats who they should be reaching out to and maybe it'll dawn on the Republicans that there's more to being a politician than banging on about God and being against abortion.

    I don't like the guy and find some of his views abhorrent and would even have preferred HC, but... but... this may be a wake up call for politics in America. Not sure it will be because after Brexit, the finger was pointed at the London middle classes and older voters whereas the strength of the vote came from the post-industrial heartland destroyed by Thatcher and virtually ignored by both parties ever since. Still, we'll see.

    Steve Giess , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    "With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. "

    Spot on analysis.
    Let the soul-searching amongst the mainstream journalistic elites begin.

    People have rspecially started to notice the "with nuance and all contrary views deleted" part. That is part of the problem and part of the reason Trump got elected as a sort of collective middle finger to the establishment by ordinary people who are sick of being told what to think and how to think by unelected elites whose job it is supposed to be to report the FACTS, and not to dictate what people are allowed to say or think. Because as a great person once said "Facts are sacred." And as JS Mill said in his famous essay 'On Liberty' - we should not censor unpopular views because even though the unpopular view may be incorrect we may come to a better understanding of why our own view is correct by seeing its collision with error. (Quite apart from the fact that the unpopular view is not always correct and by suppressing it we may never know the truth.)

    I hope the mainstream media learn from this disaster and start living up to the ideals of the intellectual founders of our liberal democracies such as JS Mill who would no doubt be appalled at the lerhaps well intentioned but counterproductive censorsgip of views which run counter to that of the prevailing orthodoxy.

    MustaphaMondeo Steve Giess , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>
    It's because they believe we are stupid. The intellectual snobbery of the oxbridge set, think they are better than us. Little suspecting that most of us can't be arsed with that shite.

    I blame education. It's turned their heads.

    AlpineJoe 4d ago

    The thing that keeps coming back to me with this election, as with Brexit, was the established candidates ignoring what people were saying. In Brexit, the remain side utterly ignored immigration, whilst the leave side focused on it. I don't think the remain side realised that immigration wasn't just conjured up by Daily Mail headlines but was a genuine issue for many people.

    In the US, Trump spoke openly about jobs; bringing them back and preventing outsourcing. Looking again at trade deals to make sure American jobs were protected. Clinton's team ignored this.

    Take heed for the future, politicians. Listen to what people actually say, not just the bits they say that you agree with.

    Stillgrizzly AlpineJoe , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>

    Indeed, that's the problem, a narrow political elite expecting the population to vote as they think, rather than as the population think. The disconnect between the consensus and the politicians is wide, the left in particular withdraws to the safety of it's narrow agenda when threatened leaving the centre wide open.
    Louis Raine , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    "Cold War propaganda station. Here's what it consisted of:

    - Hillary was virtually without flaws.
    - She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.
    - Her scandals weren't real.
    - The economy was doing well / America was already great.
    - Working-class people weren't supporting Trump.
    - If they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only
    conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate."

    Funny how all of these points were constantly touted in the Guardian... oh the ironny

    SlumVictim , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    The neoliberals weren't listening and probably still aren't listening. They will be blaming the white working class rednecks but there isn't enough of white working class rednecks to cause this upset. Professional neoliberal policians have neither the insight nor the intelligence to figure out they are the problem, they alienated the people they ignored while looking after the rich.

    We see the same problem in the Labour Party here. The neoliberal Blairites spent 13 years using identity politics as a way to pretend to be radical while showing utter contempt for the white (and black) working class. When they lost two elections and Scotland, they blamed the left, as though no one could reject neoliberalism. Sorry professional neoliberal politicians, your days of your front trotters in the trough are almost up, you are being rejected and anyone but you seems to be the preference.

    Inversnaid SlumVictim , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    You, Sir or Madam, are a genius. Your analysis - like the analysis of the article - is spot on and your prose is punchy, concise and grammatically correct. You should be pick of the day.
    SlumVictim , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    The neoliberals weren't listening and probably still aren't listening. They will be blaming the white working class rednecks but there isn't enough of white working class rednecks to cause this upset. Professional neoliberal policians have neither the insight nor the intelligence to figure out they are the problem, they alienated the people they ignored while looking after the rich.

    We see the same problem in the Labour Party here. The neoliberal Blairites spent 13 years using identity politics as a way to pretend to be radical while showing utter contempt for the white (and black) working class. When they lost two elections and Scotland, they blamed the left, as though no one could reject neoliberalism. Sorry professional neoliberal politicians, your days of your front trotters in the trough are almost up, you are being rejected and anyone but you seems to be the preference.

    Inversnaid SlumVictim , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    You, Sir or Madam, are a genius. Your analysis - like the analysis of the article - is spot on and your prose is punchy, concise and grammatically correct. You should be pick of the day.
    Spacebanj0 , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    Very interesting, and striking, parallels with Brexit. A disaffected majority, who don't believe they are listened to, rally round people who speak their language, engage with their fears and concerns and give them easy solutions to difficult problems.

    Both decisions are tragically wrong, in my view, but its clear there is a huge disconnect between those on the left (notional or otherwise) and their usual target voters.

    catherine Spacebanj0 , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    The description of the Democrats is reminding me of New Labour...
    iruka , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    Absolutely spot on. And broadly applicable right across the western world. It wasn't Hillary the personality, or Hillary the crook, or Hillary the incompetent who lost the election.

    It was the Hillary the archetypal representative of the smug 'n' shabby liberal stitch-up that's done us all over, basking in its meritocratic delusions, and raising all the ladders (and greasing the sides) to the lifeboats in which those delusions were acted out to delusional acclaim...

    ...even as it was busy handing the world over first (greedily) to transnational capitalism and now (stupidly) to the marauding squads of pinhead fascists that'll be everywhere in the US within weeks, maybe days. A couple of million George fucking pinhead Zimmermans.

    "Socialism or Barbarism" (rings truer and truer!) is a choice that excludes liberalism only because liberalism is too morally and aesthetically insubstantial to make the cut. Imagine the choice in the form of a movie, and liberalism would be the twitching little grass who betrays the hero for the price of a bottle of White Lighting.

    (In real life it's not a bottle of cider, of course: it's more likely a nice old house in a gentrified area that still holds on to the charming character of the people it displaced, some of whom spend 5 hours a day on the bus to come back and work in the charming shops and eateries, or as nannies and cleaners....).

    Musicismath , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    This is a very good piece (as you'd expect from a cultural critic as smart as Frank is), but it really needs to be read alongside Adolph L. Reed's excoriating article in Harper's from 2014, "Nothing Left: The Slow Surrender of American Liberals":

    The left has no particular place it wants to go. And, to rehash an old quip, if you have no destination, any direction can seem as good as any other. The left careens from this oppressed group or crisis moment to that one, from one magical or morally pristine constituency or source of political agency (youth/students; undocumented immigrants; the Iraqi labor movement; the Zapatistas; the urban "precariat"; green whatever; the black/Latino/LGBT "community"; the grassroots, the netroots, and the blogosphere; this season's worthless Democrat; Occupy; a "Trotskyist" software engineer elected to the Seattle City Council) to another. It lacks focus and stability; its métier is bearing witness, demonstrating solidarity, and the event or the gesture. Its reflex is to "send messages" to those in power, to make statements, and to stand with or for the oppressed.


    We are in a very bad place right now, in terms of ideas and arguments. The opposition, in pretty much every western hemisphere country, has been colonised by the same people: professional politicians, upper-middle-class in social background, educated at the same small group of elite universities, reflexively committed to meritocratic ideology. They're very good at expressing sympathy for the marginalised, at saying the right words, at, as Reed says, "sending messages" and engaging in representational politics. But all those gestures do nothing for the constituencies they supposedly represent. They're ultimately selfish -- focussed on their own career advancement and the narrow class interests of the meritocratic-professional elite itself. The opposition, as Frank himself once said, "has ceased to oppose" in any economically meaningful sense. (Although they're very good at symbolic forms of opposition on cultural and historical issues.)

    And now their constituencies have noticed and have withdrawn their votes.

    sarahsmith232 , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    according to exit polls every section of white America, old, young, affluent, low-income, educated/not voted Trump, all bar 'young college educated white females', older college educated white females also voted Trump.
    Same here with Brexit, voting patterns show the all white groups voted out, nothing to do with education levels, income or age.
    The pundits write about 'the crisis of liberalism',, hhmmm, I think it should more be 'the rejection of illiberal openess'. When we say 'immigration needs to be reduced' the 'elites' reach for the favourite fall back 'you're a white that's racist/fascist/backward/uneducated' etc etc etc response. Well, turns out, the white part is right, the rest is just class based ignorance. Clinton was the absolute embodiment of this type of ignorance and arrogance. That basket of deplorables thing was disgusting, I felt personally insulted by it myself (i'm in the UK). Absolute standard 'elite' arrogance and hatred of those that don't agree with you. She's just paid for that hate by alienating absolutely EVERY SINGLE section of white America.
    Trump's politics is a rejection of a globalism that has damaged the interests of so many, we're all far far too open to the forces of the world coming in at us from all directions, Catholics in Eastern Europe are not allowed their Christian values, are smeared as backward and ordered by foreign 'elites' in Brussels to drop all that they hold dear or face fines. We've all watched as the Remoaners showed to the world just exactly how 'tolerant' and 'accepting' they are of those they don't agree with, erupting into a torrent of class based ignorance and venomous hatred.
    Well, they've all been at all this for far too long, and we're all pushing back against it. Spew race based hate at those that don't agree with you, BBC journalists shouting 'Nazi, fascist, racist' at any slight tightening up of immigration, Hilary Clinton labelling most white working-class a basket of fascist deployarables and hey presto, you lose to a repulsive cartoon like Trump.
    They need to start thinking on about just exactly who it is in reality that's the race haters. Most are on the Left.
    alanredangel , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>

    A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.

    Good writing.

    Mr Baker , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    hflashman , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    Given that Republicans have been opposed to intervention by Big Government at least since the Great Depression if Trump gets the go ahead for some of his ideas it will be a case of 4 legs good 2 legs better.
    Omoikani , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>

    With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station.

    Quite so. And now the elitist corporate media which got everything wrong, including their highly confident predictions about the result, will now tell you in a highly confident manner all the things that are going to happen as a result of the thing they said wouldn't happen. First to dash off a thousand words of hyperventilating predictions? Jonathan Freedland , so top marks to him for speed, if nothing else.

    gipsymermaid , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    Interesting article, and in a way I sensed it coming unfortunately, at least in the meaning that I have always felt that certain liberal and "progressive" thoughts are just too alien from basic human nature, and are being forced to enter the mainstream a bit too fast, and that this is a huge risk in the sense that when people decide they are not ready for these and it's time to reject them properly, then all the valuable, truly liberating and forward-thinking ideas will be drained along with them and that means dark times ahead indeed.

    I am from Eastern-Europe, and, while I don't have a lot of personal memories of the communist times myself, most of the liberal bits of my cultural heritage comes from the counter-culture, a lot of the things we value today in my country were, albeit not necessarily all illegal as such, certainly more of the taboo sort, than they would have been in the West. Now it looks like that with all this Brexit and America, the West will have to learn to use the liberal thinking to serve as meaningful criticism of the system that will be built in the future by these new people. It's the Westerner's turn now, to learn to read between the lines and produce culture with purpose other than entertainment (if there is any positive side to this, then it should be the rise of new, creative movies and the end of the high-budget superhero era, and the birth of music with lyrics worth listening to lol, that's what I keep telling myself as my silver lining for now at least.)

    It's obviously difficult to compare, nothing, in the entire world at the time was this commercialised and business and technology and life and everything was obviously very different. And, crucially, whilst the commies declared themselves to be ruling in the name of the common working people, they had their own breed of intellectuals, at least in my country, there was an approved bunch of scientists, artists etc, who could stretch it and provide some sense. So, worryingly enough, from this point of view I wouldn't say they were comparable to the type of anti-intellectualist mob rule seemingly putting these people into power, and that is my real fear, that these new rulers will not even have their own bunch of approved scientists who might not approve the views of atheists or feminists or whatever, but would at least be ready to provide these new governments with sound advice on the environment, education, health, etc.

    I'm not sure how avoidable this could have been in reality, but it should have been, because we have no time for such ideological bullsh*t games (excuse my words), the damage we are doing to our own, living planet is becoming irreparable, and we really, absolutely, from all backgrounds and cultures must work together to basically stay alive.

    bobkolker , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    The arrogance and snotty mindedness of the progressive liberal establishment has be dealt a righteous slap in the face which they have been asking for, for decades. The Revolt of the Deplorables. This was the winter of our discontent. Now it is our turn.

    Time will tell whether this upset is the beginning of a much better era in the U.S.

    I voted for Trump not because I like him (personally I find him repulsive) but because he was a wrecking ball and a sledge hammer to be used against the liberal progressives that have been running the U.S. into the ground for decades.

    This the Moment of the Ticked Off Deplorables.

    This is also a surprise. This is the most exciting time since Truman defeated Dewey.

    Jamozki , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    Except it was the Republicans (not the "white collar liberals") who deregulated the Wall Street banks. It was the Republicans who gave tax breaks to the wealthy 1% and it was the Republicans who got rid of welfare. The biggest con of all? That the majority of uneducated Americans who just voted Republican, think that the GOP represent thier interests and it's all the fault of the "liberals". We are without doubt witnessing the beginning of the end of the American empire...
    Down2dirt Jamozki , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    Clinton kept all Bush Senior's 'experts' , loonies like Greenspan. Obama's candidate?

    Wake up! They are two cheeks of the same arse.

    grauniadreader101 Jamozki , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>

    We are without doubt witnessing the beginning of the end of the American empire...

    And about time, too! That said, you are right about the GOP being the party of deregulation, tax-breaks for the rich etc. but since in the 35 years since Reagan, when bank deregulation began in earnest (I know, Nixon repealed the Gold Standard), we have had 16 years of Democratic rule, and NOTHING has been done to reverse it; in fact, quite the opposite. Most of the damage was done between Clinton (who repealed Glass-Steigel) and his chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan.

    Thomas Fr

    grauniadreader101 Jamozki , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>

    We are without doubt witnessing the beginning of the end of the American empire...

    And about time, too! That said, you are right about the GOP being the party of deregulation, tax-breaks for the rich etc. but since in the 35 years since Reagan, when bank deregulation began in earnest (I know, Nixon repealed the Gold Standard), we have had 16 years of Democratic rule, and NOTHING has been done to reverse it; in fact, quite the opposite. Most of the damage was done between Clinton (who repealed Glass-Steigel) and his chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan.

    Thomas Frank is right on the money. People voted for Trump precisely because both parties represent business as usual and people are sick of it. Same with Brexit.

    ank is right on the money. People voted for Trump precisely because both parties represent business as usual and people are sick of it. Same with Brexit.

    ProperEnglishman 4d ago

    The silent majority,the ones who go to work pay their taxes and quietly get on with life have spoken. Don't underestimate us. We're intelligent, humble and caring. We're entitled to a view. We've had enough, we don't have to bully scream and shout to get our way, we go down to the polling station and we put a cross in the box we feel passionately about and we go home back to our quiet lives-job done.Well done the people of America,you have had the equivalent to our Brexit and now let's get the world back to how it should be. One of the most satisfying parts is listening to the Lefties,Luvvies and BBC crying their eyes out. The times they are a changing.

    mouchefisher , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>

    It is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has failed on its own terms of electability. Enough with these comfortable Democrats and their cozy Washington system. Enough with Clintonism and its prideful air of professional-class virtue. Enough!

    Amen to that. Thank you, Thomas Frank, for articles such as this one. A lone voice of progressive reason at the Guardian (neo)liberal circus.

    We need to overhaul the DNC, as well as the Guardian and NYT editorial boards.

    HenryGeorgeFan , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>

    She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch.

    Spot on. And this is exactly the misery that infects both wings of the Labour Party.

    People in politics jostling for power and status, like it's a hobby for them, a kind of shoot-em up where the consequences of policy affect only other people.

    Cameron and Johnson and all the slime of the Tory party suffer from the same disease.

    Why do you want to be prime minister, you spam faced Tefal foreheaded dilettante?

    "Well, I think I'd be rather good at it."

    Well, you weren't. You were awful at it, because you had no basic guiding principles, just like all the other dilettantes from Eton and all the other posh boy Petri dishes where hubris is cultivated.

    Buggin's turn.

    Well, bug off.

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Meaning of Melania's Photo Shoot

    Nov 12, 2016 | www.newyorker.com

    By Adam Gopnik

    , 12:00 A.M. Comment

    The story of Melania Trump's nude photos shows an unexpected maturity in American life, and the predictably depressing hypocrisy within it, too.
    The story of Melania Trump's nude photos shows an unexpected maturity in American life, and the predictably depressing hypocrisy within it, too. Credit Photograph by Eric Thayer / The New York Times / Redux

    The story of Melania Trump's old nude photos, and their odd blossoming into a fable of the trials of immigration, will probably remain as a footnote to this bizarre Presidential campaign, though footnotes to this campaign are rather like footnotes to "Finnegans Wake": the text itself is so confounding that there isn't a sentence that might not call for one. Still, it is worth ruminating over for a moment, before it passes away, for two reasons. It shows an unexpected maturity in American life, and then something predictably depressing about the hypocrisy within it, too.

    The nudes, alone and à deux, of Melania Knauss (to use her name when the photos were taken, back in the nineties), appeared in the New York Post the weekend before last. Melania's most notable previous appearance had occurred when she said a few words at the Republican Convention, which were quickly discovered to be, in part, actually Michelle Obama's words. This was a hard début in the role of the nominee's wife, though, in fact, she was treated extraordinarily gently, the assumption being that, despite her having declared that she had written the speech herself with as "little help as possible," she was not really responsible for it. (And another assumption being that her declaring that she'd written it was the kind of white lie that all political spouses are expected to tell, like saying that they love getting up early on winter mornings and campaigning in Iowa.)

    The appearance of the photos in the Post would, one might have thought in an earlier time, suggest that they were intended to shock or offend the Trump campaign. But to think this is to misunderstand the role of the Post as it exists today, which is as a sort of Potemkin tabloid. It looks like and poses as a populist paper, but it actually loses money (the sum, in recent years, has been estimated as being in the tens of millions) and exists principally to give its owner, Rupert Murdoch, a paper platform in New York City. (It does have a terrific sports section.) Since Murdoch's Post is the only paper in New York to be resolutely pro-Trump, there seems to be a decent chance that the pictures were published with Trump's acquiescence, if not his aid. This may seem odd, but in truth Trump has a long history of actively feeding information to the press that more normally constituted citizens might find embarrassing. And it did serve as a distraction from all the other, still more embarrassing things that were going on around the candidate. (There are always such things going on around Trump.) The publication of the photographs was obviously expected to outrage some and enrage others and distract everyone. In some other, earlier epochs in American life-specifically, in the eighties, to which Trump still spiritually belongs-they would indeed have served as a distraction from almost every other controversy going. (As Trump surely recognized, the pictures would have distracted him .)

    What was so strange and oddly cheering was that, on the whole, nobody took the bait. Did Trump expect his wife to be subjected to a storm of mockery, so that he could spring to her defense? Apart from some scattershot sneering, it didn't happen. Was he expecting his political rivals to publicly question him so that he could defend her, while simultaneously pointing out how much hotter she was than every other candidate's wife? Didn't happen. Did the Post and Trump both expect hooting from feminist Hillary supporters, or even from one Clinton or the other, thus revealing their hypocritical readiness to turn on a woman with the wrong politics? That didn't happen either. Nothing happened. The photographs were received almost entirely without scandal, because, well, because education does happen, and change does take place, and even the most benighted among us, Trump quite possibly aside, now understand that a woman's body is hers to pose and have photographed more or less as she chooses, and that it is for the rest of us to respect her choices and to look or not at the photographs as we choose. The wrongness of "slut shaming" women, as we call it now, for appearing in pictures, either artful or erotic, is apparent to all. We already knew that Melania had worked as a model , and that models take these kinds of pictures. (That objectifying yourself for money might still be an imprudent way to spend your youth, perhaps because it leaves you vulnerable when you're older, is another question worth pursuing, but one for the colleges more than for the tabloids.)

    Nobody blamed Melania. Most people understood that she had nothing to be ashamed of, though one might wonder how all those Christian evangelicals who support Trump could reconcile the pictures with their hard faith. Even given the desperate nature of people's anxiety about Trump, it was almost universally accepted that his wife's posing for nude pictures in the past was not a proper subject for political scrutiny. It must have been an enormous disappointment to him.

    This marks a genuine change, perhaps even a revolution, in America's ability not to be shocked by the not particularly shocking. Back in those same eighties during which Trump first crawled from the primal tabloid swamp, as some may recall, the gifted Vanessa Williams, having become the first black Miss America, was discovered to have posed for similar pictures, which, once passed to Penthouse , caused her to be stripped of her crown and cast out into the darkness. Williams proved resilient and made a fine career for herself as a singer and actress. The pageant has since apologized to her.

    And then, suddenly, something did happen. Looking past the pictures to the presumed date and circumstances of their creation, it appeared that the problem was not with Melania posing but with the visa she must have held while she was doing it. The question, after an inquiry by Politico, became not whether she was right or wrong to pose for such pictures but whether she had the proper working papers for posing at all, clothed or nude, in New York in 1995. Sexual shame cannot move the meter of our culture; questions of equal treatment before the law, it seems, always can.

    The subsequent story, about what working papers she would have had, and which she would have needed, to make the session kosher-and the subsequent curlicues about whether the shoot was paid or merely pro bono-is a complex one. (In brief, she might well have had the right kind of visa, a special one for people, like models, with special talents, though this may or may not square with her own account of travelling back and forth to Slovenia regularly to get her visa renewed and her papers stamped.) Whatever the truth that will eventually out, it is also here that the story stops being funny. For Melania Knauss's struggles to get the right papers to permit her to pose nude in a wholly legal manner are a more privileged version of what is, for millions of would-be immigrants, a desperate daily struggle. Donald Trump has made a central plank of his platform a plan to arrest, detain, and deport millions of people who have come here, like his wife, to work, and have found themselves in situations that are, at best, as ambiguous as hers. We can't be certain how close she danced to, or over, the edge of a confounding set of laws-but surely we should extend the same circumspect compassion to all those millions that one might ask for her. Immigrating to the United States is hard -anyone who has gone through, sponsored, assisted in, or simply attended to an immigration case knows how brutal and indifferent immigration procedures can be. Every immigrant has a story much like Melania's, and we should hear those stories, too, and make some allowances as well. Empathy for Melania is a good principle, but extending that circle of compassion to all caught in similar circumstances is a better one. The story of the old photos of the ambitious-to-be-American Mrs. Trump ends by underlining the cruelty of the Trump campaign toward those other, more helpless, ambitious-to-be-Americans. And that's not a pretty picture.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Trump Outsmarts Media, Aims to Destroy Obamas Divisive, Racialist Policies - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... He overcame all the odds, beat back both political parties, jumped around all the powerful special interest industries that own Washington and scored an unprecedented victory for the people. ..."
    "... And he did it all while circumventing the massive media machine that worked in lockstep unison to block him at every turn. Every mainstream newspaper and television outlet - after months of gorging themselves at the profit trough of his monster ratings - shirked all pretense of covering the election fairly. ..."
    "... Mr. Trump - excuse me, President-elect Trump - was smeared as a racist, xenophobic misogynist with tiny hands and a small bank account. ..."
    "... these people have no one to blame but themselves and the outgoing current President, Barack Obama, who promised them the world and promised all of us a healed country. "Post-racial" they were calling it in 2008. ..."
    "... Well, he has surely failed on that score. Race relations in this country have not been this ugly and strained in decades. The president's divisive, racialist language and posture throughout his presidency has set the country back many, many painful years. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    He overcame all the odds, beat back both political parties, jumped around all the powerful special interest industries that own Washington and scored an unprecedented victory for the people.

    And he did it all while circumventing the massive media machine that worked in lockstep unison to block him at every turn. Every mainstream newspaper and television outlet - after months of gorging themselves at the profit trough of his monster ratings - shirked all pretense of covering the election fairly.

    Mr. Trump - excuse me, President-elect Trump - was smeared as a racist, xenophobic misogynist with tiny hands and a small bank account.

    Then he beat the last GOP standard-bearer among blacks and Hispanics. Even Hillary Clinton's much ballyhooed appeal to women shrank a bit from President Obama's levels in the past two elections. Those right there are the single most devastating statistics out of the whole election. The mainstream media has cried wolf for the last time. Nobody is listening to any of them anymore.

    The only people left believing these liars and slime artists are these melting snowflakes calling in sick and hovering in safe places under their beds - the dopes marching in the streets demanding civility as they shout threats to grab Trump by his genitals.

    Or these thug criminals beating the tar out of a Trump voter at a street intersection.

    These snowflakes need to tread very, very carefully because these kinds of wild and violent and ugly demonstrations will only strengthen President-elect Trump and his now-vocal majority.

    Anyway, these people have no one to blame but themselves and the outgoing current President, Barack Obama, who promised them the world and promised all of us a healed country. "Post-racial" they were calling it in 2008.

    Well, he has surely failed on that score. Race relations in this country have not been this ugly and strained in decades. The president's divisive, racialist language and posture throughout his presidency has set the country back many, many painful years.

    Now we have a new president. He sweeps into office with a clear and bold mandate from the people.

    Godspeed.

    Charles Hurt can be reached at [email protected] ; follow him on Twitter via @charleshurt .

    [Nov 12, 2016] Ron Paul several neocons are getting closer to Trump

    Nov 12, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    Donald Trump's success or failure as the next US president will largely depend on his ability to keep his independence from the "shadow government" and elite structures that shaped the policies of previous administrations, former presidential candidate Ron Paul told RT.
    [...]
    " Unfortunately, there has been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump. And if gets his advice from them then I do not think that is a good sign, " Paul told the host of RT's Crosstalk show Peter Lavelle.
    The retired Congressman said that people voted for Trump because he stood against the deep corruption in the establishment, that was further exposed during the campaign by WikiLeaks, and because of his disapproval of meddling in the wider Middle East.
    " During the campaign, he did talk a little bit about backing off and being less confrontational to Russia and I like that. He criticized some the wars in the Middle East at the same time. He believes we should accelerate the war against ISIS and terrorism, " Paul noted.
    [...]
    " But quite frankly there is an outside source which we refer to as the 'deep state' or the 'shadow government'. There is a lot of influence by people which are actually more powerful than our government itself, our president, " the congressman said.
    " Yes, Trump is his own guy, more so than most of those who have ever been in before. We hope he can maintain an independence and go in the right direction. But I fear the fact that there is so much that can be done secretly, out of control of our apparent government and out of the view of so many citizens, " he added.
    More:
    https://www.rt.com/usa/366404-trump-ron-paul-crosstalk/

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Clintons And Soros Launch America s Purple Revolution

    Notable quotes:
    "... No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014. ..."
    "... One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

    Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

    The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin . President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.

    Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.

    There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.

    Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

    "Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".

    President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

    Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

    No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.

    President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

    One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Trumps infrastructure plan faces speed bumps

    Nov 12, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : November 12, 2016 at 08:15 AM , 2016 at 08:15 AM

    Trump's infrastructure plan faces speed bumps http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-infrastructure-plan-faces-speed-bumps-1478884989
    via @WSJ - David Harrison - Nov 11

    Donald Trump's proposal for $1 trillion worth of new infrastructure construction relies entirely on private financing, which industry experts say is likely to fall far short of adequately funding improvements to roads, bridges and airports.

    The president-elect's infrastructure plan largely boils down to a tax break in the hopes of luring capital to projects. He wants investors to put money into projects in exchange for tax credits totaling 82% of the equity amount. His plan anticipates that lost tax revenue would be recouped through new income-tax revenue from construction workers and business-tax revenue from contractors, making the proposal essentially cost-free to the government.

    Mr. Trump has made a $1 trillion infrastructure investment over 10 years one of his first priorities as president, promising in his victory speech early Wednesday morning to "rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals."

    The Trump team's $1 trillion infrastructure investment plan over 10 years is laid out in a description of the proposal on the website (#) of Peter Navarro, an adviser to Mr. Trump and a public-policy professor at the University of California, Irvine. A presidential transition website that went up this week (*) said Mr. Trump planned to invest $550 billion in infrastructure, without offering details on where that funding would come from. Top Trump aides couldn't be reached to comment on the proposal.

    Experts and industry officials, though, say there are limits to how much can be done with private financing. Because privately funded projects need to turn a profit, they are better suited for major projects such as toll roads, airports or water systems and less appropriate for routine maintenance, such as repaving a public street, they say.

    Officials also doubt that the nation's aging infrastructure can be updated without a significant infusion of public dollars. ...

    #- http://www.peternavarro.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/infrastructurereport.pdf

    *- https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/transportation-infrastructure.html

    [Nov 12, 2016] It was establishment versus the rest...... It did not help the establishment that their candidate was crooked. 5 states turned red overnight!

    Nov 11, 2016 | /economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> John San Vant... November 09, 2016 at 01:51 PM
    It was establishment versus the rest...... It did not help the establishment that their candidate was crooked. 5 states turned red overnight!

    mhd28 -> ilsm... November 10, 2016 at 09:34 AM

    It's hard to state that MI and WI turned Republican. Trump reviled R's as much as D's. They went for Trump, which is separate from Republicans.

    JF -> JF... November 08, 2016 at 10:54 PM

    Trump took what should have been democrats' issues. Clinton should simply have tried to take all of Sanders positions, working with Sanders, and then position Trump as the faker who was taking the dems positions. Alas, she did not.

    Many saw this possibility. Brexit.

    sglover -> JF... November 08, 2016 at 11:11 PM

    Clinton made her usual lame, transparent attempts to co-opt Sanders' positions, but being Clinton, few people **believe** her.

    Sanders backers always said that Clinton was almost uniquely capable of losing to a fraud like Trump, and here, apparently -- tragically -- we are.

    And believing Dems will learn not one goddam thing. Expect the special pleading and blame-shifting to amp up to jet engine levels. Already Saint Krugman has smeared the Greens for Clinton's loss in Florida, which seems to mathematically impossible by an order of magnitude.

    Clinton lost **Pennsylvania**, for Christ's sake! She seems to have lost Philly!! How does an even semi-competent candidate pull that off?!?!?

    Adamski -> mulp... November 09, 2016 at 02:24 AM

    ...And Clintonians spent decades claiming neoliberalism was necessary to get moderate voters who went for Reagan, and that liberalism is too unpopular to win an election. They stuck to that script in post-Great Recession America, which is not post-Reagan America.

    And they stuck with a candidate who has zero ability to get independent voters. Her leftward moves in response to Sanders on college tuition and more funding for health clinics (which Sanders said would achieve free primary care in the US) would have got out the vote, but she preferred to talk in infuriating platitudes and smear Trump as a Russian puppet to get the patriotic vote.

    srbarbour -> Adamski... November 09, 2016 at 04:45 AM

    "... but she preferred to talk in infuriating platitudes and smear Trump as a Russian puppet to get the patriotic vote."

    This, I think, is a valid criticism. Hillary and the older Dems were truly out of touch on this issue and failed to understand how poorly it played with the electorate (which is sad, because there are some real serious issues with Russia right now). Likewise, they failed to grasp how desperate Millennials / Rural whites have gotten and thus how important fixing the economy was for them.

    ilsm -> Mathew... November 09, 2016 at 04:04 PM

    Clinton morals....

    Fix that on "we came, we saw, he died......" with a post up his you know where! Or the no fly zone thing to give another country to the foundation donors' terrorists. You all missed the point!

    All the people don't see what you want us to! You could fool enough of the people when you needed to!

    sglover -> Billy Joe... November 09, 2016 at 12:11 AM

    The Russia nonsense was always overblown, typical Dem tactical ineptitude. I wouldn't be surprised if it backfired to Trump's advantage.

    Dems never stopped to consider that

    1. Any mention of foreign data leakage had to remind people of Clinton's FOIA-avoiding server escapades, and
    2. You can find lots of Dem "consultants" and "strategists" who themselves have lucrative histories with sleazy overseas characters (Podesta, Biden's son, etc.).

    srbarbour -> sglover... November 09, 2016 at 05:22 AM

    "The Russia nonsense was always overblown, typical Dem tactical ineptitude. I wouldn't be surprised if it backfired to Trump's advantage."

    From a campaign prospective, right conclusion. Wrong reason. Pushing the Russia connection damaged Hillary because it played up her "War Hawk" and "Military Industrial complex" ties for the public, which in turn strengthened the corporocrat accusation.

    Worse, to the informed it smelled like W's push for war, and thus reminded everyone of Hillary's vote on Iraq. And those things hurt.

    ilsm -> srbarbour... November 09, 2016 at 01:57 PM

    Clinton is with Bill unmitigated war mongering neoliberalNeocon/ The Clinton Iraq vote was purely animus! Stepping away is prevarication. What went into Qaddafi was pure evil sent by Obama and his SecState.

    ilsm -> Billy Joe... November 09, 2016 at 01:54 PM

    Clinton was more into Sunni/GCC money and influence peddling. The Russian/Putin thing was fantasy! The main stream media [Stalinist] propaganda did not sell in the 5 key states that went red from blue.

    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... November 09, 2016 at 02:30 PM

    No, the point is the dems are crooked, Clinton was selected by the DNC (calling it crooked is repeating myself). I am convinced the US dodged a very severe mistake by electing Trump!

    [Nov 12, 2016] Obama blew it in his first hundred days, when he refused to take on Wall Street, and instead played idiotic bipartisanship games with Republicans.

    Nov 12, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    George H. Blackford : November 09, 2016 at 12:05 AM , 2016 at 12:05 AM
    I said what I had to say back in 2009, http://www.rweconomics.com/blame.htm , and tried to explain it again during the primaries: http://www.rweconomics.com/Sanders1.htm . Now we will just have to wait and see, but I'm not hopeful.
    sglover -> George H. Blackford ... , November 09, 2016 at 12:52 AM
    Good essays. Sadly prescient.

    I thought Obama blew it in his first hundred days, when he refused to take on Wall Street, and instead played idiotic bipartisanship games with totally (and obviously) intransigent Republicans. But more recently I figured that at least he got the Iran deal going, and that looked like a significant gain for sanity. Now, if I understand Trump's ramblings on every other Tuesday, the deal is vulnerable.

    mulp -> sglover... , November 09, 2016 at 01:56 AM
    You mean declare martial law and send the Marines into capture Wall Street, and ship them to Gitmo? Or didn't you notice the Republicans legalizing financial fraud over the past 40 years?

    If you like I can detail the dozen major steps beginning circa 1970 like the camel nose unto the tent. Step one: retail money market funds as an alternative to bank savings accounts. They were a big fraud: "safer than FDIC bank savings accounts".

    George H. Blackford -> mulp... , November 09, 2016 at 01:20 PM
    Re: "If you like I can detail the dozen major steps beginning circa 1970 like the camel nose unto the tent." I'll do it for you:

    http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/Ch_1.htm
    http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/Ch_7.htm
    http://www.rweconomics.com/Deficit.htm

    JF -> sglover... , November 09, 2016 at 04:14 AM

    Yes, totally agree with the point that Obama did not understand the strategic moment and instead aligned himself in a way that legitimized the opposition's points.

    Simpson Bowles was benighted. TPP was senseless. How could a party that stood for working people give away social security and then try to give away jobs some more. Strategists should have been screaming that this was positioning the party in a way that was opposite to what the party had stood for in opposition to the republican elite.

    Of course, Clinton was the wrong candidate as she is a archetype, tied to Trade deals, Glass Steagel and even the Iraq war.

    I would like to see the democratic party stand fir work in the US.

    Alas.

    srbarbour -> JF... , November 09, 2016 at 05:31 AM
    "Simpson Bowles was benighted. TPP was senseless. How could a party that stood for working people give away social security and then try to give away jobs some more...."

    Just wanted to say, good tactical analysis there.

    srbarbour -> sglover... , -1
    "I thought Obama blew it in his first hundred days, when he refused to take on Wall Street, and instead played idiotic bipartisanship games with totally (and obviously) intransigent Republicans."

    Hard to say, 2009 had a very different atmosphere and there was a very real desire in the electorate to return to bipartisanship. Plus, bipartisanship was kind of a major Obama campaign promise.

    That said, the only gain Dems got from that was a general fuzzy, awareness the Republican partisanship is one-sided. A boon that is now tactically useless because the Republicans will control every branch of the government. So in hindsight, pure fail. However, forgiveable in context.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Chris Matthews stuns the neoliberal crowd with a takedown of HRCs campaign.

    Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Oliver Klozoff -> Oliver Klozoff Nov 12, 2016 9:26 AM ,
    I forgot to add a development, Chris Matthews stuns the liberal crowd with a takedown of hrc's campaign.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXxGPDBRUzs

    Anybody but the brain dead could see HRC ran a lazy campaign focused on a non-issue. It's clear she expected certain quarters of the population's loyalty in voting but offered them nothing. One hopes these libs begin to wake up.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Battle brewing for DNC leadership

    DemoRats lost working class votes. may be forever (or as long as they stay neoliberal DemoRats). This is an important defeats of Bill Clinton, who sold the party to wall Street.
    Notable quotes:
    "... On Thursday night, People for Bernie, a tech-savvy progressive group with ties to Sanders, told CNN it was backing Ellison as a first step in displacing Clinton loyalists with "a leadership untainted by cozy relationships to Wall St. moneymen, corporate behemoths, dictators, or monarchs." ..."
    "... In a jab at Dean, People for Bernie co-founder Charles Lenchner added, "Any 50-state strategy must begin with a 50-state accountability project; we reject any effort to unite the party behind the agents of a failed leadership." ..."
    www.cnn.com

    As Democrats reel in the wake of Donald Trump's stunning victory, a new storm is brewing inside the party as competing factions begin to grapple for its leadership.

    Howard Dean, who ran the Democratic National Committee from 2005 to 2009, announced on Thursday he would again seek its top role. Soon after he announced, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and his top allies began pushing Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison for the role.

    But other politicos expressed interest in the job Friday. Former presidential candidate Martin O'Malley announced that he is throwing his hat in the ring.

    "Since the election, I have been approached by many Democrats who believe our party needs new leadership," said the former Maryland Governor. "I'm taking a hard look at DNC Chair because I know how badly we need to reform our nominating process, articulate a bold progressive vision, recommit ourselves to higher wages and a stronger middle class, and return to our roots as a nationwide, grassroots party."

    New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman and DNC Vice Chair Ray Buckley is exploring a run, according to the Boston Globe.

    ... ... ...

    Sanders -- a registered independent who caucuses with Democrats and fought a lengthy primary battle for the party's nomination this year -- and top allies are touting Ellison for the job. The Muslim-American congressman currently co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

    ... ... ...

    On Thursday night, People for Bernie, a tech-savvy progressive group with ties to Sanders, told CNN it was backing Ellison as a first step in displacing Clinton loyalists with "a leadership untainted by cozy relationships to Wall St. moneymen, corporate behemoths, dictators, or monarchs."

    In a jab at Dean, People for Bernie co-founder Charles Lenchner added, "Any 50-state strategy must begin with a 50-state accountability project; we reject any effort to unite the party behind the agents of a failed leadership."

    The current head of the DNC is Donna Brazile, a longtime Democratic operative and former CNN contributor, who is leading in an interim capacity after Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned on the eve of the convention. Hacked emails appeared to show Wasserman Schultz and other since-departed DNC officials discussing ways to undermine Sanders' effort to oust Clinton in the primary.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Inside the Clinton loss Whos to blame

    DemoRats lost working class votes. may be forever (or as long as they stay neoliberal DemoRats). This is an important defeats of Bill Clinton, who sold the party to wall Street.
    Notable quotes:
    "... But aides said the Clinton campaign's top strategists largely ignored the former president, instead focusing on consolidating the base of voters that helped elect President Barack Obama to the White House. In the closing days of the campaign, Clinton targeted young people, Hispanics and African-Americans with laser like focus, casting Trump as a racist who only sought the presidency to benefit himself. ..."
    www.cnn.com

    The campaign communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, said in a statement Friday that "no one anticipated" losing. She said many factors were at work, but she listed Comey as chief among them.

    "We didn't blame everyone but ourselves," Palmieri said. "We acknowledged a lot of challenges we faced, plenty of mistakes made along the way, some challenges we weren't able to overcome."

    She added: "What changed in the last week that made his turn out go up and our's go down? The only thing apparent was Comey. It was one thing too many. Could not overcome it."

    Democrats close to Bill Clinton said Thursday that one mistake Clinton's top aides made was not listening to the former president more when he urged the campaign to spend more time focusing on disaffected white, working class voters.

    Many in Clinton's campaign viewed these voters as Trump's base, people so committed to the Republican nominee that no amount of visits or messaging could sway them. Clinton made no visits to Wisconsin as the Democratic nominee, and only pushed a late charge in Michigan once internal polling showed the race tightening.

    Bill Clinton, advisers said, pushed the campaign early on to focus on these voters, many of whom helped elected him twice to the White House. The former president, a Clinton aide said, would regularly call Robby Mook to talk about strategy and offer advice.

    But aides said the Clinton campaign's top strategists largely ignored the former president, instead focusing on consolidating the base of voters that helped elect President Barack Obama to the White House. In the closing days of the campaign, Clinton targeted young people, Hispanics and African-Americans with laser like focus, casting Trump as a racist who only sought the presidency to benefit himself.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Neocon bottomfeeders now are having the second thoughts

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. ..."
    "... Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history." ..."
    "... Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done. ..."
    www.cnn.com

    The extraordinary repudiation -- partly based on Trump's rejection of basic US foreign policy tenets, including support for close allies -- helped spark the hashtag #NeverTrump. Now, a source familiar with transition planning says that hard wall of resistance is crumbling fast.

    There are "boxes" of applications, the source said. "There are many more than people realize."

    Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. "Mea culpas" are being considered -- and in some cases being granted, the source said -- for people who did not go a step further in attacking Trump personally.

    ... ... ...

    Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history."

    Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done.

    It remains to be seen what kind of team Trump will pull together, how many "NeverTrumpers" will apply for positions and to what degree the President-elect will be willing to accept them.

    There's a fight underway within the Trump transition team about whether to consider "never Trumpers" for jobs, one official tells CNN. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is leading the transition team, has been working to persuade Trump and other top officials to consider Republicans who openly opposed his campaign. That has caused some friction with those who see no place for people who didn't support their candidate.

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Clintons And Soros Launch Americas Purple Revolution

    Notable quotes:
    "... America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers. ..."
    "... Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team. ..."
    "... There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions. ..."
    "... Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. ..."
    "... PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle. ..."
    "... HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED... ..."
    "... Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil. ..."
    "... Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly... ..."
    "... We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... ..."
    "... JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world. ..."
    "... If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him) ..."
    "... Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

    Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

    The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin . President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.

    Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.

    There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.

    Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

    "Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".

    President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

    Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

    No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.

    President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

    One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

    Pinto Currency nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:37 PM ,

    Purple must be the color of pedophiles.

    Soros, Clintons, Podestas, amd apparently Obama are all into it as we are learning from Comet Ping Pong scandal:

    https://i.sli.mg/ayI6QF.jpg

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b1qtf/comet_ping_pong_pizz...

    https://dcpizzagate.wordpress.com/

    https://i.redd.it/3l20mhvrxtvx.png

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-from-the-anon-who-brought-you-th...

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1c_1478546206

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gord...

    http://www.newsdailystudio.com/2016/11/05/bill-clinton-wasnt-the-only-on...

    Keep your eye on Jared Kushner, who is Trump's son-in-law. He refused to have his newspaper the NY Observer endorse Trump. That is not a good sign.

    MalteseFalcon Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:39 PM ,
    "It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care."

    None of those "pressing issues" involve the DOJ or the FBI.

    Investigate, prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton and her crew.

    Trump is going to need a hostage or two to deal with these fucks.

    If he doesn't, they will deal with him.

    letsit Occident Mortal Nov 11, 2016 8:45 PM ,
    Netanyahu, the greatest neocon of all, endorsed Trump. All TRUE neocons love Trump.

    https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/views-of-news/#trumpmeans

    Husk-Erzulie nmewn Nov 12, 2016 9:48 AM ,
    Big series of protests being planned. Recruiting ads in Craigslist nationwide. Purple ties and dresses all over MSM this morning.

    This is when the Purple Hats, Flags, Balloons start coming out.

    Kill it before it grows.

    https://twitter.com/AustinChas/status/797445221122506752

    any_mouse californiagirl Nov 12, 2016 2:54 AM ,
    Purple and royalty? Purple in Rome?

    News for the Clintons, The R's and D's already united to vote against Hillary.

    I do not understand why they think street protests will bring down a POTUS? And that would be acceptable in a major nation.

    Why isn't the government cracking down the separatists in Oregon, California, and elsewhere? They are not accepting the legal outcome of an election. They are calling for illegal secession. (Funny in 1861 this was a cause for the federal government to attack the joint and seveal states of the union.) If a group of whites had protested Obama's election in 2008?

    The people living in Kalispell are reviled and ridiculed for their separatist views. Randy Weaver and family for not accepting politically correct views. And so on.

    This is getting out of hand. There will be no walking this back.

    Erek any_mouse Nov 12, 2016 7:47 AM ,
    Purple is the color of royalty! Are these fuckers proclaiming themselves as King and Queen of America? If so, get the executioner and give them a "French Haircut"!
    X_in_Sweden Grimaldus Nov 12, 2016 10:58 AM ,
    Grimaldus ,

    "Yes. And who are the neocons really? Progressives. Neocon is a label successfully used by criminal progressives to shield their brand."

    Well let's go a little bit deeper in examing the 'who' thing:

    "The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary , a media arm of the American Jewish Committee , which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward , the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: " If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it.... "

    From the article By Laurent Guyénot , Who Are The Neoconservatives?* http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35106.htm

    Are you connecting the dots.......folks......?

    . . . _ _ _ . . . Bendromeda Strain Nov 11, 2016 11:04 PM ,

    Great avatar!

    GROWTH IS THE ULTIMATE PONZI SCHEME

    Lavada Chupacabra-322 Nov 12, 2016 10:41 AM ,
    The idea of arresting the Clinton Crime, Fraud and Crime Family would be welcomed. BUT, who is going to arrest them? Loretta Lynch, James Comey, WHO? The problem here is that our so called "authorities" are all in the same bed. The tentacles of the Eastern Elite Establishment are everywhere in high office, academia, the media, Big Business, etc. The swamp is thoroughly infested with this elite scum of those in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, Club of Rome, Committee of 300, Jason Society and numerous other private clubs of the rich, powerful and influential. The Illuminati has been exposed, however they aren't going down lightly. They still have massive amounts of money, they own the media and the banking houses. Some have described it as MIMAC, the Military Industrial Media Academic Complex. A few months ago here at Zero Hedge, there was an article which showed a massive flow chart of the elites and their organization

    They could IF and WHEN Trump gets to Washington after 20 Jan 2017, simply implode the economy and blame t it on Trump. Sort of what happened to Herbert Hoover in the late 1920's. Unfortunately the situation in the US will continue to deteriorate. George Soros, a major financial backer of Hillary will see to that. Soros is a Globalist and advocate of one world government. People comment that Soros should be arrested. I agree, BUT who is going to do that?

    Grimaldus ShortCommonSense Nov 12, 2016 9:12 AM ,
    Agree. I think Trump will yank all the "aid" to Israel as well as "aid" to the Islamic murderers of the Palitrashian human garbage infesting the area. This "aid" money is simply a bribe to keep both from killing each other. F**k all of them. None of our business what they do.

    We got progressives ( lots and lots of Jews in that group) who are the enemy of mankind and then we got Islam who are also the enemy of mankind. Why help either of them? Makes no sense.

    Wile-E-Coyote Bastiat Nov 12, 2016 5:35 AM ,
    How come Soros never got picked up by Mossad for war crimes against his own people?

    And if he is such a subversive shit why hasn't a government given him a Polonium 210 enema.

    Martian Moon Wile-E-Coyote Nov 12, 2016 8:13 AM ,
    Always wondered about that

    Soros is hated in Israel and has never set foot there but his foundations have done such harm that a bill was recently passed to ban foreign funding of non profit political organizations

    Chupacabra-322 RopeADope Nov 11, 2016 9:03 PM ,
    The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says it all.

    The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.

    Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long, that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.

    King Tut Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 9:11 PM ,
    JFK made the mistake of publicly stating his intention of smashing the CIA instead of just doing it quickly and quietly
    Chupacabra-322 King Tut Nov 11, 2016 9:30 PM ,
    There are entirely way too many Intelligence Agencies. Plus the Contractors, some of who shouldn't have high level clearance to begin with which the US sub contracts the Intel / work out to.

    For Fucks sake, Government is so incompetent it can't even handle it own Intel.

    Something along the lines of Eurpoe's Five Eyes would be highly effective.

    Fuck those Pure Evil Psychopaths at the CIA They're nothing more than a bunch of Scum Fuck murdering, drug running, money laundering Global Crime Syndicate.

    HowdyDoody Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 10:59 PM ,
    Five Eyes isn't European, it is US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. If you note carefully, the NSA etc think we can't count.
    chubbar Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:46 PM ,
    The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation, Trump needs to encourage that through backdoor channels. Soro's needs to be investigated, he has been tied to a conspiracy to incite violence, this needs to be documented and dealt with. Trump can not ignore this guy. If any of these investigations come back with a recommendation to indict then that process needs to be started. Take the fight to them, they are vulnerable!
    Chupacabra-322 chubbar Nov 11, 2016 9:12 PM ,
    Make a National APB Warrent for the apprehension & arrest of George Sooros for inciting violence, endsrgerimg the public & calling for the murder of our Nations Police through funding of the BLM Group.

    Have every Law Informent Agency in the Nation on alert. Also, issue a Bounty in the Sum of $5,000,000 for his immediate apprehension.

    kwc chubbar Nov 12, 2016 4:50 AM ,
    Trump needs to replace FBI chickenshits & sellouts with loyal people then get the FBI counter-terrorism to investigate and shut down Soros & the various agencies instigating the riots. It's really simple when you quit over-thinking a problem. It's domestic terrorism. It's the FBI's job to stop it.
    Laddie nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:43 PM ,
    I read what Paul said this morning and thought, despite Paul's hostility to Trump during the primaries most likely due to his son, Rand's loss, that Paul gave good advice to Trump.
    Let's face it Donald Trump is a STOP GAP measure. And demographic change over the next 4 years makes his re-election very, very UNLIKELY. If he keeps his campaign promises he will be a GREAT president. However as ZH reported earlier he appears to be balking from repealing Obamacare, I stress the word APPEARS.

    Let us give him a chance. This is all speculation. His enemies are DEADLY as they were once they got total control in Russia, they killed according to Solzhenitsyn SIXTY-SIX MILLION Russian Christians. The descendants of those Bolsheviks are VERY powerful in the USSA. They control the Fed, Hollyweird, Wall Street, the universities...

    Professor Kevin MacDonald's 'The Culture of Critique' Reviewed

    Like the South Africans the Tribe TALKED us out of our nation.

    Mechanisms for Cuckservatives and Other Misguided White People by Dr. Kevin MacDonald September 22, 2016

    Much of the media and advertising exist by pushing buttons that trigger appropriate financially lucrative reflexes in their audiences, from pornography to romantic movies to team sports. Media profits are driven by competition over how best to push those buttons. But the effort to produce politically and racially cuckolded Whites adds a layer of complexity: What buttons do you push to make Whites complicit in their own racial and cultural demise?

    Actually, there are a whole lot of them, which shouldn't be surprising. This is a very sophisticated onslaught, enabled by control over all the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by the left. With all that high ground, there are a lot of buttons you can push.

    Our enemies see this as a pathetic last gasp of a moribund civilization and it is quite true for our civilization is dying. Identity Christians describe this phase as Jacob's Troubles and what the secular Guillaume Faye would, I think, describe as the catastrophe required to get people motivated. The future has yet to be written, however I cannot help but think that God's people, the White people, are stirring from their slumber.

    King Tut Laddie Nov 11, 2016 8:49 PM ,
    See: The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon- Rudyard Kipling
    Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey Nov 11, 2016 8:20 PM ,
    "PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle.

    JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. "explaining the link between U.S. national security and Israel's security" Served on JINSA's Advisory Board: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Perle."

    Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:18 PM ,
    If Trump has probable cause on the Soros crimes, have his DoJ request a warrant for all of Soros's communications via the NSA, empanel a grand jury, indict the bastard, and throw his raggedy ass in prison. It would be hard for him to run his retarded purple revolution when he's getting ass-raped by his cell mate.
    Hurricane Baby -> Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:41 PM ,
    I agree. Thing is, I think as president he can simply order the NSA to cough up whatever they have, just like Obama could have done at any point. The NSA is part of the Defense Department, right? What am I missing here?
    Dilluminati Nov 11, 2016 8:26 PM ,
    Funny: Clinton swears Comey did her in and the DNC blames arrogant Hillary.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-11-11/dnc-staff-ar...

    But in respect to Soro's money and the Dalas shooting or other incited events, there should be a grand jury empanelled and then charges brought against him. I think nothing short of him hiding in an embassy with all his money blocked by Swift is justice for the violence that he funded.

    ... ... ...

    Skiprrrdog Nov 11, 2016 8:57 PM ,
    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    And so it begins; I really hope that this is just some misinformation/disinformation, because HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED...

    johnwburns Nov 11, 2016 9:10 PM ,
    The likes of Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg get to catch up on their Torah for the forseeable future but the likes of Lloyd Blankfein will probably get to entertain the court since they have probably crossed paths doing business in NYC. The "real conservative" deeply introspective, examine-my-conscience crowd screwed themselves to the wall, god love them.
    Ms No Nov 11, 2016 9:05 PM ,
    Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil.
    Rebel yell Nov 11, 2016 9:36 PM ,
    Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly...
    Posa Nov 12, 2016 10:25 AM ,
    We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... (just in case you confused him with Mother Theresa).. But then again JFK took office with a set of initiatives that were far more bellicose and provocative (like putting huge Jupiter missile launchers on the USSR border in Turkey)... once he saw he light and fired the pro Nazi Dulles Gang , JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world.

    If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him)

    I'm guessing though that deep down Trump is quite comfortable with a neoCon cabinet... hell he already offered Jamie Diamon the office of Treasry Secretary... no doubt a calculated gesture to signal compliance with the Deep State.

    rocknrollinhone... Nov 11, 2016 9:59 PM ,
    Soros is heavily invested in the globalist agenda. Wouldn't be surprised if they don't take a shot at assassinating Trump.
    bsdetector Nov 11, 2016 11:10 PM ,
    The Clintons do not do things by accident. Coordination of colors at the concession speech was meant for something. Perhaps the purple revolution or maybe they want to be seen as royals. It doesn't really matter why they did it; the fact is they are up to something. They will not agree to go away and even if they offered to just disappear with their wealth we know they are dishonest. They will come back... that is what they do.

    They must be stripped of power and wealth. This act must be performed publicly.

    In order to succeed Mr. Trump I suggest you task a group to accomplish this result. Your efforts to make America great again may disintegrate just like Obamacare if you allow the Clintons and Co. to languish in the background.

    bsdetector Nov 12, 2016 12:06 AM ,
    The protestors are groups of individuals who may seek association for any number of reasons. One major reason might be the loss of hope for a meaningful and prosperous life. We should seek out and listen to the individuals within these groups. If they are truly desirous of being heard they will communicate what they want without use of violence. Perhaps individuals join these protest groups because they do not have a voice.

    Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen.

    The articles reporting that Mr. Trump has changed his response to the protestors is a good effort to discover the protestors' complaints and channel their energy into beneficial political activity. Something must be done quickly though, before the protests get out of hand, for if that happens the protestors will be criminals and no one will want to work with them.

    In order to make America great again we need input from all of America. Mr. Trump you can harness the energy of these protestors and let them know they are a part of your movement.

    Batman11 -> Batman11 Nov 12, 2016 3:09 AM ,
    Classical economists are experts on today's capitalism, it is 18th and 19th Century capitalism, it's how it all started.

    Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin.

    "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."

    Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?

    When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalizing itself by:

    1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future

    2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services.

    Got that wrong as well.

    Adam Smith wouldn't like today's lobbyists.

    "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

    OH NO, It's ALL WRONG

    dogismycopilot Nov 12, 2016 5:39 AM ,
    First five minutes of Alex Jones' video today is clips of people saying "Donald Trump will never be president".

    Full Show - Soros-Funded Goons Deployed to Overthrow America - 11/11/2016

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPH26ohO_DY

    CoCosAB Nov 12, 2016 7:04 AM ,
    AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge in her own country!

    lakecity55 -> CoCosAB •Nov 12, 2016 7:53 AM

    Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money. Trump will have to do some rough stuff, but he needs to, it's what we hired him for.

    [Nov 12, 2016] NATO mulls worst-case scenario in case Trump pulls US troops out of Europe – report - RT News

    Nov 12, 2016 | www.rt.com
    NATO strategists are reportedly planning for a scenario in which Trump orders US troops out of Europe, as the shock result of the US presidential election sinks in, spreading an atmosphere of uncertainty. According to Spiegel magazine, strategists from NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg's staff have drafted a secret report which includes a worst-case scenario in which Trump orders US troops to withdraw from Europe and fulfills his threat to make Washington less involved in European security. Read more German defense minister says Trump should be firm with Russia as NATO stood by US after 9/11

    "For the first time, the US exit from NATO has become a threat" which would mean the end of the bloc, a German NATO officer told the magazine.

    During his campaign, Trump repeatedly slammed NATO, calling the alliance "obsolete." He also suggested that under his administration, the US may refuse to come to the aid of NATO allies unless they "pay their bills" and "fulfill their obligations to us."

    "We are experiencing a moment of the highest and yet unprecedented uncertainty in the transatlantic relationship," said Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador in Washington and head of the prominent Munich Security Conference. By criticizing the collective defense, Trump has questioned the basic pillar of NATO as a whole, Ischinger added.

    The president-elect therefore has to reassure the European allies that he remains firm on the US commitment under Article 5 of the NATO charter prior to his inauguration, the top diplomat stressed.

    Earlier this week, Stoltenberg lambasted Trump's agenda, saying: "All allies have made a solemn commitment to defend each other. This is something absolutely unconditioned."

    Fearing that Trump would not appear in Brussels even after his inauguration, NATO has re-scheduled its summit – expected to take place in early 2017 – to next summer, Spiegel said.

    The report might reflect current moods within the EU establishment as well, as Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, has called on the member states to establish Europe's own military.

    Washington "will not ensure the security of the Europeans in the long term... we have to do this ourselves," he argued on Thursday.

    If Trump is serious about reducing the number of US troops stationed in Europe, large NATO countries like Germany have little to offer, Spiegel said. Even major member states' militaries lack units able to replace the Americans, which in turn may trigger debate on strengthening NATO's nuclear arm, a sensitive issue in most European countries for domestic reasons.

    Still, an increase in defense spending has already been approved by the Europeans following pressure from the outgoing US administration. Over the past few days in Brussels, representatives of NATO states have been working on the so-called "Blue Book," a secret strategy paper which stipulates each member's contribution in the form of troops, aircraft, warships, and heavy armor until 2032, Spiegel reported.

    The document stipulates an increase in each NATO members' military spending by one percent of each nation's GDP, in addition to the current two percent.

    Uncertainty over Trump's NATO policy seems to be taking its toll; Germany, one of the largest military powers in Europe, plans to allocate 130 billion euros ($140bn) to military expenditures by 2030, but the remarkable figure may be a drop in the ocean.

    "No one knows yet if the one percent more would be enough," the German NATO officer told Spiegel.

    Nevertheless, the US is continuing to deploy troops to eastern Europe, justifying the move with the need to protect the region from "assertive Russia." Earlier this week, the largest arms shipment yet, 600 containers, arrived in Germany to supply the US armored and combat aviation brigades, expected to deploy in Europe by January 2017.

    Read more EU Commission president wants clarity from Trump on NATO, trade

    [Nov 12, 2016] Trump's national security guru

    Notable quotes:
    "... Better relations with Russia will encourage them to venture into Europe? How does that work? The more friendly they are with us, I'd think the less they'd want to upset us and destroy those gains. The alternative might end up in a war with Russia. Yeah, that's great! Good grief, CNN. ..."
    "... " ultranationalistic rhetoric". This sensationalist hyperbole is wrecking our language. Being against intervening in other countries affairs is not being "ultranationalistic" ..."
    "... When you [neo]liberals living in your bubble fly over middle America, over all the small towns, farms, factories and coal miners that you often forget about. Just remember that there is a big middle finger pointing up at you. ..."
    "... Well now a substancial portion of Americans know that free trade isn't so good. When it started to hit home for non working class folks, eyes opened up. ..."
    www.cnn.com

    Flynn, like Trump, sees Russian president Vladimir Putin as someone the US can do business with. In December, Flynn attended a banquet in Moscow where he sat next to Putin. He also has appeared on the Kremlin TV mouthpiece, Russia Today (which Flynn has compared to CNN).

    If Flynn is Trump's national security advisor or secretary of defense we can expect him to push for a closer relationship with the Russians; a punitive policy on Iran -- and a more aggressive war on Islamist militants around the world. These views mesh well with what we have heard from Donald Trump on the campaign trail.

    Daniel, 35 minutes ago

    Mr. Bergen : "American Islamists, Flynn claims, are trying to create "an Islamic state right here at home" by pushing to "gain legal standing for Sharia." Flynn cited no evidence for this claim." !!!?? Really ?? "German court lets off 'Sharia police' patrol in Wuppertal" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35059488

    SimpleStupid

    Not a bad article up until the last paragraph. Better relations with Russia will encourage them to venture into Europe? How does that work? The more friendly they are with us, I'd think the less they'd want to upset us and destroy those gains. The alternative might end up in a war with Russia. Yeah, that's great! Good grief, CNN.

    And "derail the deal that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons"? What is this, backwards day?

    Ron Lane

    " ultranationalistic rhetoric". This sensationalist hyperbole is wrecking our language. Being against intervening in other countries affairs is not being "ultranationalistic"

    hanklmarcus

    Iraq was a failure , But attacking IRAN will not be ??????????? FOOLS

    CNN User

    When you [neo]liberals living in your bubble fly over middle America, over all the small towns, farms, factories and coal miners that you often forget about. Just remember that there is a big middle finger pointing up at you.

    We don't accept your values and are tired of having ours oppressed.

    LizardKing

    @Lenny Good - Ukraine should clearly be dominated by Russia and who gives a s t about Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Call me when Russia is threatening Poland

    Dwright :

    Well now a substancial portion of Americans know that free trade isn't so good. When it started to hit home for non working class folks, eyes opened up.

    [Nov 11, 2016] The Working Class Won the Election What Kind of Trump Administration Global Research

    www.globalresearch.ca
    It also remains to be seen how the Oligarchy will respond to Trump's victory. Wall Street and the Federal Reserve can cause an economic crisis in order to put Trump on the defensive, and they can use the crisis to force Trump to appoint one of their own as Secretary of the Treasury. Rogue agents in the CIA and Pentagon can cause a false flag attack that would disrupt friendly relations with Russia. Trump could make a mistake and retain neoconservatives in his government.
    Centre for Research on Globalization
    With Trump there is at least hope. Unless Trump is obstructed by bad judgment in his appointments and by obstacles put in his way, we should expect an end to Washington's orchestrated conflict with Russia, the removal of the US missiles on Russia's border with Poland and Romania, the end of the conflict in Ukraine, and the end of Washington's effort to overthrow the Syrian government. However, achievements such as these imply the defeat of the US Oligarchy. Although Trump defeated Hillary, the Oligarchy still exists and is still powerful.
    Trump said that he no longer sees the point of NATO 25 years after the Soviet collapse. If he sticks to his view, it means a big political change in Washington's EU vassals. The hostility toward Russia of the current EU and NATO officials would have to cease. German Chancellor Merkel would have to change her spots or be replaced. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg would have to be dismissed.

    We do not know who Trump will select to serve in his government. It is likely that Trump is unfamiliar with the various possibilities and their positions on issues. It really depends on who is advising Trump and what advice they give him. Once we see his government, we will know whether we can be hopeful for the changes that now have a chance.

    If the oligarchy is unable to control Trump and he is actually successful in curbing the power and budget of the military/security complex and in holding the financial sector politically accountable, Trump could be assassinated.

    [Nov 11, 2016] The President of the U.S. cant pardon someone in advance for possible later crimes, but can give a pardon for any and all past crimes without specifying those crimes

    Notable quotes:
    "... Oh, what does anyone know about Pence? Folks have been saying he's going to be Trump's Cheney (and apparently Cheney is a Pence's avowed role model and personal hero). Cheney had a lifetime of insider experience and I'm guessing is both ambitious and intelligent (if evil). ..."
    "... Did anyone catch Peter Thiel's speech to the National Press Club? Listen to this and tell me it is not spot on. His is actually on Rumps transition team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfYLEPRiIyE ..."
    "... "The deep state ushered in Trump because he's clearly their most useful decoy. As the country hopes in vain, the crooked men behind the curtain will go on with business as usual. Trump is simply an Obama for a different demographic. Nothing will change for the better." ..."
    "... So is Trump Hope and Change for the Angry White Male demographic? ..."
    "... I doubt very much that the Obama is providing "continuity". IMO this is a naive reading. Obama has just created a smokescreen that allows for preparing to 'facts on the ground' that will force Trump to respond accordingly. ..."
    "... To claim the trump is more powerful and has more influence over the US deep state on day one is just ludicrous. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    "...the paradox problem is they'll have to charge Clinton before da boy can pardon her..."

    That's one of those facts that sounds right but isn't true. If the law was logical that might be correct, but then mathematicians would get the highest scores on the Law School Admission Test (which supposedly tests aptitude to "think like a lawyer.")

    The President of the U.S. can't pardon someone in advance for possible later crimes, but can give a pardon for any and all past crimes without specifying those crimes. That's how Ford was able to pardon Nixon, who had not been indicted, for any crimes "he might have committed."

    If Obama wants he can pardon the Clintons for everything and anything they MIGHT have done up to the final minutes of swearing in Trump. In that case they would never need to concede they had ever broken any laws at all.

    Remember, the U.S. Constitution was written by aristocrats who were still in many ways monarchists who didn't want to give up all their power. That mindset also put the electoral college process into the constitution.

    Susan Sunflower | Nov 11, 2016 2:07:03 PM | 48
    Are you saying that Obama could pardon Bill Clinton and his entire foundation for financial crimes (apparently) being investigated in New York wrt New York's laws regarding charitable foundation practices? That seems like it would be "bigger than Marc Rich" demonstration of Democratic misuse / abuse of power, cronyism, etc.

    If he can do it, he might do it ... if the punishment/threat for not doing it was sufficient. I've not been impressed by Obama's "brilliance" or "vision" ... I have been impressed rather by his self-promotion and self-interest -- Neither Bush or Bill Clinton had the sort of job opportunities that GHWB enjoyed.

    Oh, what does anyone know about Pence? Folks have been saying he's going to be Trump's Cheney (and apparently Cheney is a Pence's avowed role model and personal hero). Cheney had a lifetime of insider experience and I'm guessing is both ambitious and intelligent (if evil). Does Pence have genuine potential as Cheney II ... and where does the awkward relationship between the GOP establishment and Trump put "Pence as a new Cheney" ... The GOP might love it. Is Trump ideologically consistent enough (don't laugh) to recognize the contradictions?

    Trixie from Dixie | Nov 11, 2016 2:14:28 PM | 49
    Did anyone catch Peter Thiel's speech to the National Press Club? Listen to this and tell me it is not spot on. His is actually on Rumps transition team.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfYLEPRiIyE
    Yonatan | Nov 11, 2016 2:15:41 PM | 50
    Jack Smith @6

    Early days indeed. An alternative view of the recent events, by someone who said more or less the same about Obama when he was selected.

    "The deep state ushered in Trump because he's clearly their most useful decoy. As the country hopes in vain, the crooked men behind the curtain will go on with business as usual. Trump is simply an Obama for a different demographic. Nothing will change for the better."

    http://linhdinhphotos.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/the-trump-ploy.html

    So is Trump Hope and Change for the Angry White Male demographic?

    Jackrabbit | Nov 11, 2016 12:47:24 PM | 29
    I agree with Hoarsewhisperer @11: ... it's a crock and a trick.

    I doubt very much that the Obama is providing "continuity". IMO this is a naive reading. Obama has just created a smokescreen that allows for preparing to 'facts on the ground' that will force Trump to respond accordingly.

    We are at a very very dangerous point in time.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Also, giving ANY credence to 'Obama legacy' BS is misguided in the extreme. His 'legacy' is dissembling and treachery. Anything thing beyond that is just BS meant to keep adversary's off-balance.

    bbbb | Nov 11, 2016 12:47:39 PM | 30
    @22 Where do you get the idea that those countries are somehow bad for USA? If we ramp up industries in USA it will cost substantially more than in those countries. They've benefitted USA immensely. If the industries come back to USA it won't go over too well, unless slave wages are truly instituted
    Susan Sunflower | Nov 11, 2016 12:53:18 PM | 31
    I don't know if Trump can take credit ... but rather that the Clinton wing of the Pentagon and CIA, etc. has been defanged and the threat of a coup (if Obama acted in ways contrary to Clinton and the General's plans) is now neutralized ... Clinton's loss, I hope, will mean future books will be more candid than might have been possible if she were in office... yes, I wanna know how bad it's been these last 8 years.

    Obama's personal stock wrt his future as a consultant, motivational speaker and all around leader fell dramatically both with Clinton's campaign (and anticipated sharp turn from Obama's foreign policy) but also with her defeat (now his legacy). He was spared the ongoing shaming by a Clinton administration. Likely too little, too late ... when does Kerry get back from the Antarctica? He's got a chance at some legacy mending as well.

    I believe reports that the Clintons and the Obamas loathe each other ... particularly since the Clintons hate everyone/anyone who does not grovel perfectly. Did Obama sell-out to the DLC Democrats to secure his future $$$ with all their and the foundation's friends... it will be fun to watch and look for breadcrumbs, particularly if the foundation implodes under scrutiny.

    Peter AU | Nov 11, 2016 12:58:58 PM | 33
    Paveway 21

    I think your worst case senario is now off the table. I believe Turkey has been told to keep its planes out of Syria, and the US only conducts missions within reach of the Russian air defences with Russian approval.

    Turkey using only ground forces to achieve its aims? I suspect this is part of the reason the Russian naval force is loitering off the Syrian coast (apart from securing the area prior to constructing the naval base at Tartus).

    Cruise missiles would decimate any conventional ground forces, and I believe the Granit anti ship missiles have a land strike capability, also the S-300 S-400 may also have a ground strike capability.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 11, 2016 1:03:45 PM | 34
    That would be as part of the carveup that we are not supposed to talk about because it is a wicked "conspiracy theory"...
    Posted by: paul | Nov 11, 2016 12:12:44 PM | 17

    That's a mini-conspiracy compared with the one that the Fake War Of Terror has distracted people's attention from. The Privatisation of almost every Publicly-owned asset and piece of infrastructure in the West. The Neolib takeover was well-advanced in 1999 but slipped into overdrive in 2001.
    Banks, Insurance Cos, Telcos, Airlines, Childcare, Hospitals, Health Clinics (preventative), Roads, Rail, Electrical Generation and distribution.

    In Oz the Govt/people used to own all of the above, or a competitive participant in the 'market' in the case of banking, insurance, health clinics, airlines etc. In 2016 the govt owns only unprofitable burdens. Public Education is currently under extreme pressure to be Privatised for Profit.

    (The Yanks call it Anti-Communism but consumers call it an Effing Expensive way to get much crappier service than in the Good Old Days).

    Fuckus Assclown | Nov 11, 2016 1:11:07 PM | 35
    I think you give Barrack Obongo way too much credit. He is a "selfishly concerned" narcissist alright but that's about it. All his years at the bathhouses and public lavatories with his wookie-in-drag in Chicago, has not made him particularly smarter you know, rather the opposite...
    Mina | Nov 11, 2016 1:19:52 PM | 36
    Dropping AQ means dropping KSA, i.e. the 9/11 enquiry will probably go ahead. As for the MB/Qatar who run a bunch of other groups, this is left to the EU to decide what it want to do with Turkey. You bet the Eurocrats are having a headache. And Hollande shows his muscles (sic) and claims he will talk with Trump on the phone and gets some "clarifications" about his programme.

    MSM are reporting on a daily basis of the huge problems with the "Syrian refugees" crossing the Mediterranean Sea although there is just a handful of Syrians compared to Eritreans, Sudanese, Gambians etc.

    ALberto | Nov 11, 2016 1:23:12 PM | 37
    @35 Ahhh yes. Bath House Barry. The community ORGANizer.
    tom | Nov 11, 2016 1:25:03 PM | 38
    To claim the trump is more powerful and has more influence over the US deep state on day one is just ludicrous.

    b | Nov 11, 2016 1:33:18 PM | 41
    I had earlier reported here that Turkey was told by Russia not to enter Syrian airspace after it killed some 100 Kurds on their way to al-Bab.

    An Erdogan daily now confirms it: Turkish jets not participating in airstrikes in Syria

    According to the report, the last time Turkish jets participated in airstrikes against terrorists in Syria was on October 23, three days after around 200 PKK/PYD terrorists were killed.

    schlub | Nov 11, 2016 1:34:28 PM | 42
    Ash Carter is, together with John Brennan, the major anti-Russian force in the Obama administration. He is a U.S. weapon industry promoter and the anti-Russia campaign, which helps to sell U.S. weapons to NATO allies in Europe, is largely of his doing.

    https://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/john_mccain_visits_al_qaeda_isis_terrorists_in_syria_may2013.jpg

    Why did u leave out equal credit to Mad Dog McCain, aka Lawrence of Insania---short memory?
    https://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/john_bin_laden_mccain.jpg

    BTW, I do believe he re-won his senate seat, against the true patriot Arpaio there.
    Hence his absence from the public scene these months.

    So things have not changed much if at all, since still 70 days to Jan20, except for appearances as they've rearranged some furniture & color-matched the curtains to the upholstery in the act/play is all.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 11, 2016 1:40:45 PM | 43
    @11 Hoarsewhisperer - I think it's unrealistic to expect the US simply to leave..
    ...
    Posted by: Grieved | Nov 11, 2016 12:33:02 PM | 27

    Today, your guess is as good as mine (at least).
    But I regard FrUKUS as Ter'rism Central and if Russia & China et al think they can put a stop to TerCent without dislodging some teeth and kneecapping them, they're pissing into the wind/dreaming.

    It's a bit ambiguous but China, according to CCTV Nov 12, during a chat about Sun Yat Sen and China/Taiwan unity, seems to be issuing a Global reminder to Loyal Chinese Citizens overseas similar to the one that Russia issued a month ago.

    jo6pac | Nov 11, 2016 1:48:12 PM | 44
    I'm going with the new boss is the same as the old boss.

    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.3843587/will-trump-try-to-re-shape-the-world-former-cia-chief-and-trump-adviser-explains-how-1.3843590

    Susan Sunflower | Nov 11, 2016 1:48:15 PM | 45
    REuters: Saudi Arabia sets aside $26.7 billion to settle delayed private sector payments: document .
    Saudi Arabia's government has set aside 100 billion riyals ($26.7 billion) to pay debts that it owes to private sector companies after payment delays that have lasted months, an official document seen by Reuters shows.

    To help curb a huge budget deficit caused by low oil prices, the government of the world's largest oil exporter has slashed spending and reduced or suspended payments that it owes to construction firms, medical establishments and even some of the foreign consultants who helped to design its economic reforms.

    But the payment delays have seriously damaged some companies, slowing the economy, and earlier this week the government said it would make all delayed payments by the end of this year.

    This seems to suggest that Saudi mismanagement is or is about to cost citizens their paychecks even jobs ... KSA is such a black box police state, it's dangerous to speculate what public opinion "might be."

    The "loss of face" of retreating from Syria could be of smaller priority than Egypt's alleged pivot to Iran and Egypt finding new funding (2.7 billion) from the IMF after KSA's largess ... Middleeasteye (11/07/2016): Saudi Arabia halts $23bn oil aid deal to Egypt 'indefinitely' #EgyptTurmoil - Egypt and Iran deny talks over alternative deal after Riyadh pulls supplies under $23bn agreement which included handover of Red Sea islands .
    The interwebs are full of reports and denials, but big money as leverage. Financially, Egypt is completely dependent on the generosity of others and the Sinai has been "restive" recently ... Change is gonna come but no telling when or what it will look like.. or how US influences will shape it.

    I figured the "rebels" in Syria would keep fighting until the paychecks stopped coming, but I've wondered how many "rebels" were dislodged from relatively personally safe "rebel strongholds" recently and decided they'd rather quit than die.

    Yonatan | Nov 11, 2016 2:24:33 PM | 51
    Contra Obama's attempt to cleanse his legacy by using the US military to actually attack ISIS, Russian media report that Ass Carter has warned the president not to cooperate with Russia in Syria until they are sure Moscow will 'do the right thing'. The report is based on data avaialable at the af.mil website

    https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/content/201611112047-44ah.htm

    h | Nov 11, 2016 2:34:36 PM | 52
    O/T - Wall Street Heads Spin Over Trump Weighing Dimon for Treasury and Restoring Glass-Steagall - http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/11/wall-street-heads-spin-over-trump-weighing-dimon-for-treasury-and-restoring-glass-steagall/

    The last video details Trump's infrastructure plan.

    Mina | Nov 11, 2016 2:39:16 PM | 53
    maybe we could start a hall of fame for the craziest articles and declarations post US elections?
    these two should compete:
    http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2016/11/11/la-ministre-allemande-de-la-defense-demande-a-trump-de-s-expliquer-sur-l-otan-et-la-russie_5029172_829254.html
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/andrew-sullivan-president-trump-and-the-end-of-the-republic.html

    Elwood | Nov 11, 2016 2:49:45 PM | 54
    Haha. He has to start tying off loose ends. Some former friends are about to be on the receiving end of what other former friends received.

    Ken Nari | Nov 11, 2016 2:51:53 PM | 55
    Susan Sunflower @ 48

    Disgusting as it is, yes, my understanding is Obama can do exactly that. My guess is, want to or not, he probably will come under so much pressure he will have to pass out plenty of pardons. Or maybe Lynch will give everyone involved in the Clinton Foundation immunity to testify and then seal the testimony -- or never bother to get any testimony. So many games.

    For Obama, it might not even take all that much pressure. From about his second day in office, from his body language, he's always looked like he was scared.

    Instead of keeping his mouth shut, which he would do, being the lawyer he is, Giuliani has been screaming for the Clintons' scalps. That's exactly what a sharp lawyer would do if he was trying to force Obama to pardon them. If he really meant to get them he would be agreeing with the FBI, saying there doesn't seem to be any evidence of wrong doing, and then change his mind once (if) he's AG and it's too late for deals.

    With so many lawyers, Obama, the Clintons, Lynch, Giuliani, Comey, no justice is likely to come out of this.

    h | Nov 11, 2016 2:53:37 PM | 56
    Maybe I saw the question about a 9/11 investigation on the other thread, but someone here asked if this is true. Well, it appears to be on a burner -

    http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/trump-reopening-911-reversing-rome-in-bid-to-be-greatest-american-steward/

    jdmckay | Nov 11, 2016 2:58:20 PM | 57
    Ken Nari @ 55

    From what I've read, prez pardon comes with explicit admission of guilt. Highly questionable either (or both) Clintons would accept that.

    Mina | Nov 11, 2016 3:03:16 PM | 58
    Simply brilliant
    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/
    (it could be on the other thread, sorry)

    Susan Sunflower | Nov 11, 2016 3:12:12 PM | 59
    @ Posted by: Ken Nari | Nov 11, 2016 2:51:53 PM | 55

    I heard a podcast on Batchelor with Charles Ortel which explained some things -- even if there are no obvious likely criminal smoking guns -- given that foundations get away with a lot of "leniency" because they are charities, incomplete financial statements and chartering documents, as I recall. I was most interested in his description of the number of jurisdictions the Foundation was operating under, some of whom, like New York were already investigating; and others, foreign who might or might be, who also have very serious regulations, opening the possibility that if the Feds drop their investigation, New York (with very very strict law) might proceed, and that they might well be investigated (prosecuted/banned??) in Europe.

    The most recent leak wrt internal practices was just damning ... it sounded like a playground of favors and sinecures ... no human resources department, no written policies on many practices ...

    This was an internal audit and OLD (2008, called "the Gibson Review") so corrective action may have been taken, but I thought was damning enough to deter many donors (even before Hillary's loss removed that incentive) particularly on top of the Band (2011) memo. Unprofessional to the extreme.

    It's part of my vast relief that Clinton lost and will not be in our lives 24/7/365 for the next 4 years. (I think Trump is an unprincipled horror, but that's as may be, I'm not looking for a fight). After the mess Clinton made of Haiti (and the accusations/recriminations) I somehow thought they'd have been more careful with their "legacy" -- given that it was founded in 1997, 2008 is a very long time to be operating without written procedures wrt donations, employment

    from 11/08/2016, Batchelor segment page

    okie farmer | Nov 11, 2016 3:22:53 PM | 60
    Donald Trump and a World of Distrust
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/default/library/fc1bc22730c324ed2881f4874a20db40.square.jpg"

    [Nov 11, 2016] President Trump: Big Liar or Tribune of the People Going to Washington

    Notable quotes:
    "... HiIlary Clinton is a perfect enemy of Trump. She has become rich in office, and as Harry Truman said "anyone who gets rich in politics is a crook". She has dedicated her life to political power at the top while growing ever wealthier from its use. And she loves foreign wars. She has supported a long line of eco-genocidal attacks and bombings of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, all of them still in motion and waiting for her to be escalated further. ..."
    "... Know a man by his enemies. Trump has countless enemies, but most of them march to the drums of endless wars of aggression and care less about the casualties of tens of millions of lost good jobs in America. Most are neo-liberals in fact, the bipartisan doctrine of dispossession of citizens and foreign wars to grow the system further. The worst have been Washington servants of the world corporate machine looting the world. They above all condemn his peace overtures to Russia and his promise to repeal NAFTA – both unspeakable heresies on the US public stage until Trump's movement against them. ..."
    "... Where Trump agrees with the US money-and-war party is on Israel and Iran. He started with a policy of more neutrality towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, but soon backed out when the attack-dogs went into action with a $50 million gift for his campaign from a wealthy Zionist at the same time. Then he declared " Israel is America". So Trump can proclaim opposite positions without a blink, including on the continuous war crimes of Israel supported by the US. ..."
    "... When you join the dots to Trump preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the underlying meaning emerges. He wants to stop the non-productive transnational corporations from feasting on the public purse. At the beginning after 2008, he even dared to recognize that Wall Street should be nationalized, as it once was by the American Revolution, Abraham Lincoln and FDR's Federal Reserve. This would be as big a turn of US government in the people's interests as stopping ruinous foreign wars. ..."
    "... Trump also once said that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israel-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics. Big Pharma was also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices". He even confronted the more powerful HMO's with the possibility of a "one-payer system" far better than the Obamacare pork-barrel for ever higher insurance premiums. ..."
    www.globalresearch.ca
    Enrique Ferro's insight:
    HiIlary Clinton is a perfect enemy of Trump. She has become rich in office, and as Harry Truman said "anyone who gets rich in politics is a crook". She has dedicated her life to political power at the top while growing ever wealthier from its use. And she loves foreign wars. She has supported a long line of eco-genocidal attacks and bombings of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, all of them still in motion and waiting for her to be escalated further.
    Know a man by his enemies. Trump has countless enemies, but most of them march to the drums of endless wars of aggression and care less about the casualties of tens of millions of lost good jobs in America. Most are neo-liberals in fact, the bipartisan doctrine of dispossession of citizens and foreign wars to grow the system further. The worst have been Washington servants of the world corporate machine looting the world. They above all condemn his peace overtures to Russia and his promise to repeal NAFTA – both unspeakable heresies on the US public stage until Trump's movement against them.

    HiIlary Clinton is a perfect enemy of Trump. She has become rich in office, and as Harry Truman said "anyone who gets rich in politics is a crook". She has dedicated her life to political power at the top while growing ever wealthier from its use. And she loves foreign wars. She has supported a long line of eco-genocidal attacks and bombings of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, all of them still in motion and waiting for her to be escalated further.

    She wants a return to this bombing in Syria as a "free-fly zone" – free for US and NATO bombers – just as she led Libya's destruction from 2011 on. She abuses Russia and slanders Putin at every opportunity and she supported the neo-Nazi coup overthrowing the elected government of Ukraine and the civil war since. She has done nothing but advocate or agree to endless US-led war crimes without any life gain but only mass murder, social ruin and terror which she ignores. Like her mentor Madeleine Allbright , even the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq by Clinton-led bombing are "worth the price".

    Where Trump agrees with the US money-and-war party is on Israel and Iran. He started with a policy of more neutrality towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, but soon backed out when the attack-dogs went into action with a $50 million gift for his campaign from a wealthy Zionist at the same time. Then he declared " Israel is America". So Trump can proclaim opposite positions without a blink, including on the continuous war crimes of Israel supported by the US.

    Trump also bellows against on the giveaway of many billions of US money to Iran and prefers to bomb their nuclear facilities as Israel wants, and has already done in Syria. He does not tell his audience that all of this US money is Iran's money being returned to it from its US seizure in exchange for its nuclear disarmament never suggested for Israel which has enough nuclear weaponry to blow up the whole Middle East and beyond. Trump too is not to be trusted when it suits his run to be US President. Yet even here Trump still holds to his position that use of nuclear weapons means "game over". Clinton and the bipartisan money-and-war party express no such constraint.

    Why the Establishment Hates Trump, But Will Accept Him

    All of them have reason to hate Trump for a more basic reason. He is seemingly alone in the money-media-military establishment to publicly deplore the rigged electoral system in which big money and media rule – formerly unspeakable in the press and political discussion on stage. Trump has even voiced suspicion of the 9-11 killing spectacle and the "six-trillion- dollar" haemorrhage of US money on Middle East and Afghanistan wars propelled and justified by 9-11 from 2001 on.

    Yet here again the problem is that Trump backs off as soon as he thinks he will not be able to sell it. This is the art of political lying at which Trump, like Reagan, is a master. But the hard-line difference between Trump and Reagan and neo-con-lib rulers over the last 30 years is deep – Trump's denunciation of NAFTA and willingness to have peace with other nations not bowing to Uncle Sam.

    Before Trump, job-destroying edicts of transnational global corporations and captive states called 'free trade' have been anathema to oppose in official society. But Trump sticks to his heretical position. Right up to the election he has promised a "35% tariff" on products of US factories that disemploy workers to get cheaper labor elsewhere. No-one in the US political establishment has risked such a position, or blamed these corporate-rights treaties for hollowing out American society itself. It is apostasy in the corporate 'free press'.

    Trump is still hated for such deviations from the official corporate-state line. But the haters cannot say this. They stick to the politically correct repudiations, and call him "racist", "sexist", "bigot" and so on even if the conclusion does follow from what he says or does. Selected instances are the ruling fallacy here.

    Trump and the Media-Lie System

    Trump is unique in calling out the major mass media as continuous purveyors of lies and propaganda – although he centers it on himself and not global corporate rule across borders which they worship. Anyone not doing so is excommunicated from the press. This profound disorder is never allowed into the mass media as an issue, and Trump never raises it. He too is a believer, but one who sees the life costs of the sacrifice-workers rule inside the US. He also advocates job-creating public spending on physical infrastructure which is as crucial to his movement as it was to FDR. It is no longer taboo inside the dumkopfen party

    Trump is a first. Never before has anyone been able to denounce the mass media framing, half-truths and fabrications and still come out stronger The onslaught of ideological assassination by a hireling intelligentsia and media of record like the New York Times has always succeeded before. Trump reacts only as it affects his own position, but his raw defiance right into the cameras has been eye-popping and unique in America.

    This may be Trump's most remarkable achievement. He has been slandered and demonized more than Russia's Putin, and Russia-baiting him with McCarthy-like accusations of collaboration with Putin has been part of the attack by Hillary and the press. Yet passionate voter support of Trump has still grown in the face of all this denunciation by the political establishment.

    An underlying revolution in thinking has occurred. Trump has tapped the deep chords of worker rage at dispossession by forced corporate globalization, criminally disastrous Middle East wars, and trillions of dollars of bailouts to Wall Street. He never connects the dots on stage. But by Clinton's advocacy of all of them, she has made them her own and will go down because of it.

    Trump's unflinching vast ego and media savvy have been what she and the political establishment are too corrupted to defeat, The underlying contradiction that now raises its head pits the mass media against the President of the United States himself – against the long sacred office of the commander-in-chief of US power across the world, precisely what he is proposing to pacify with friendly relations instead of ruinous war invasions as in Iraq. Many observers think that Wall Street and big money won't let it happen. Or that Trump will like others before him will be determined by the office. Or that Clinton's billion dollars of PAC money will succeed work in the end. But the meaning is out and cannot be reversed out of sight.

    Whatever happens next in this saga it will be ground-shaking. The worst that can happen to Trump's enemies is that he wins despite the all-fronts attack. They define his underlying meaning, just as the Enemy they construct abroad defines them. If he loses, there will be a carnival of the money-war-media party pretending a healing of the great division that has come to view. But this is not a Republican-Democrat division. It is as deep as all the lost jobs and lives since 2001, and it is ultimately grounded in the tens of millions of dispossessed people which the life-blind global market system and its wars have imposed on America too.

    The Great Division Will Not Go Away

    Trump is the closest to an egomaniac that has ever run for the presidential office. If he were not, he could not have withstood the public shaming heaped upon him by the political establishment and dominant media everywhere.

    But the tens of millions of Americans for whom Trump speaks tend to have one thing in common more than anything else. They have been dispossessed and smeared by the neo-con/ neo-liberal alliance that has taken or traded away their life security and belittled them with political correctness – the establishment's patronizing diversion from their fallen state.

    All the while, the ruling money party behind the media and the wars is system-driven to seek limitlessly more money under masks of 'free trade' and "America's interests abroad'. The majority is left behind as the sacrificial living dead. Multiplying transnational money sequences of the very rich have bled the world into a comatose state, and perpetual wars against the next Enemy of the cancerous system have sown chaos across the world.

    Trump at least starts remission by seeing a criminally blind rule and chaos inside America itself. Before his campaign, there was helplessness against the invading wars and money sequences always profiting from the global ruin. The reality has been taboo to see in public. Only entertainments have appeared in ever new guises as the corporate money-and-war machine has rolled and careened on across all borders, now marching East through Ukraine into Russia, Brazil to Venezuela to the Caribbean, from the Congo to the South China Sea.

    The Trump entertainment, the most watched in the world, may be the long bridge to taking down the neo-liberal pillars of majority dispossession and war-criminal state.

    Trump is the Opposite to Reagan in Policy Directions

    On the face of it, Trump is an ideal leader for US empire. He is like Ronald Reagan on steroids. His long practiced camera image, his nativist US supremacism, his down-home talk, and his reality-show confidence all go one better. He is America come to meet itself decades down the road as its pride slips away in third-world conditions.

    But unlike Reagan and Bush who spoke to the rich becoming richer, Trump speaks to the losing white working class and those who have come to hate the money-corrupted Washington forging the policies of dispossession Reagan started.

    Washington has since ignored and patronized their plight over 30 years. Trump's constituency has been the disposable rejects from the corporate global system that it is rigged from top to bottom with rights only for the profits of transnational abroad and bought politicians at home.

    The Trump constituency may have no clear idea of this inner logic of the system. But they directly experience the unemployment, underemployment, ever lower pay, deprived pensions, degraded living conditions, public squalor, contempt from official society, and no future for their children.

    At the surface level, what drives them mad is the 'political correctness' that diverts all attention from their plight to pant-suit 'feminists' getting a leg up, racial rights with no life substance, sexual queers they had been conditioned to abhor, and other symbols of oppression changed as the actually ruling system of dispossession becomes inexorably worse all the way down to their grand children.

    Here too Hillary Clinton has been an embodiment of the smug ideology of the system that bleeds the unseen job-deprived into powerless humiliation: an existential crisi where the secure jobs and goods of US life have been stripped from them in continuous eviction from the American way with no notice.

    While Trump's narrative is that the American Dream seeks recovery again, the dominant media and political elite relentlessly denounce him for his message. He gives lots of ammunition to them. His most popular line is "build the wall", "build the great wall" between Mexico and the US. No political correctness cares that the biggest source of near-slave labor for the big businesses of the US South is Mexican 'illegals', and Trump himself never mentions this. He prefers to blame the Mexican illegals themselves for drugs, rape and violence, the standard lie of blame-the-poorer for your problems. Trump also wants to tax their slim earnings to pay for the wall. This is the still running sore of America beneath the lost jobs.

    Trump has thus attracted lots of votes. But many non-ignorant people too recognise that the tens of millions of illegal migrants seeking work in the richer USA cannot continue in any country with borders, or any nation that seeks to keep worker wages up not down by lower priced labor flooding in. The legal way must be the only way if the law of nations is to exist and working people are to be secure from dispossession by starvation wages illegal migrants can be hired for. Borders are, few notice, the very target of the carcinogenic neo-liberal program.

    Of course the political discourse never gets to this real and complex economic base of the problem. Nor does Trump. His choral promise is "'l'll fix it. Believe me". But something deeper than demagoguery and blaming the weak is afoot here. An untapped historic resentment is boiling up from underneath which has long been unspeakable on the political stage. Trump has mined it and proposed a concrete solution – one grand gate through which immigrants must pass.

    Is this really racist? It is rather that Trump is very good at bait and switch. From his now deserted promise to halve the Pentagon's budget to getting the Congress off corporate-donation payrolls, now by fixed congressional terms, the public wealth that the politicians and corporate lobbies stand to lose from a Trump presidency is very disturbing to them. The Mexican wall does not fit the borderless neo-liberal program either. But all of it is welcome to citizens' ears. That is why the establishment hates Trump for exposing all these issues long kept in the closet and covered over by politically correct identity politics.

    On the other hand, Trump leaves the halving of the Pentagon's budget behind as soon as he sees the massive private money forces against it. It is Reagan in reverse. He now promises hundreds of billions more to the military – but he still opposes foreign wars. That might even do it. But this most major issue of the election has been completely ignored by the media and opposing politicians alike. It is the historic core of his bid for the presidency.

    Yet the US political establishment across parties cannot yet even conceive it so used are they to the Reagan-led war state, the military corporate lobbies paying them off in every Senate seat, anti-union policies at macro as well as micro levels, and always designated foreign enemies to bomb for resistance. "Say Uncle" said Reagan to the Sandinistas when they asked what could stop the mercenary killers paid by US covert drug running from bombing their harbours, schools and clinics.

    Trump is going the opposite direction in foreign affairs, but the establishment commentators call it "isolationist" to discredit it. Clinton talks of overcoming the divisions in America, but has never mentioned holding back on foreign wars. On the contrary, she approves more war power against Russia and in Syria and in the Ukraine. This is the biggest danger that no media covers – ever more ruinous US wars on other continents. The formula is old and Reagan exemplified it. Russia is portrayed as the evil threat to justify pouring up to two billion dollars-a-day of public money into the US war-for-profit machine occupying across the world, now prepping for China.

    But the bipartisan war party backed by Wall Street is going down if Trump's policy can prevail. This may be the salvation of America and the world, but it is silenced up to election day.

    Trump Against the Special Interests

    At the beginning g of his public campaign, Trump's policy claims threatened almost every big lobby now in control of US government purse strings. And these policies grounded in no more foreign wars which have already cost over 'six trillion dollars' of US public money. At the same time, the country's physical infrastructures degrade on all levels, and its people's lives are increasingly impoverished and insecure for the majority. Trump promises to rebuild them all.

    Yet the cut-off of hundreds of billions of public giveaways to the Big Corps that Trump advocated did not end here. It hit almost every wide-mouthed transnational corporate siphon into the US Treasury, taxpayers' pockets and the working majority of America. Masses of American citizens increasingly without living wages and benefits and in growing insecurity listened to what the political establishment and corporate media had long silenced.

    Trump raised the great dispossession into the establishment's face, and this is why he will win. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage"."The grapes of wrath have risen from the long painful stripping of the people's livelihoods, their social substance and their cities by corporate globalization selecting for the limitless enrichment of the few living off an ever-growing takes from public coffers and the impoverishment of America's working citizens. A primal rage has united them across party lines in the public person of Donald Trump.

    Can he deliver? Well he certainly has shown the guts necessary to do so, most uniquely in facing down the corporate media and Washington politicians.

    Looking Past the Victory

    The issue still remains that Trump does not promise any fixing of the greatest transfer of wealth to the very rich in history that Reagan started. This great transfer of wealth includes his own. We may recall that his model Ronald Reagan started this Great Dispossession to "make America great again" too.

    Now Trump has promised a massive tax cut to the rich and private capital gains as Reagan did. In the meantime nothing has been less talked about in election commentary than the globally powerful interests Trump promised to rein back from the public troughs bleeding the country's capacities to build for and to employ its people. On this topic, there has been only silence from the media and politicians, and retreating vague generalizations from Trump.

    At the beginning, he not only went after the foreign wars, but the sweetheart deals of the government with Big Pharma, the health insurance racket, lobby-run foreign policy, off-shore tax evasion, and global trade taking jobs in the tens of millions from home workers. This is why the establishment so universally hated him. Most of their private interests in looting public wealth were named. He reversed the tables on the parasite rich in Washington lobbying and gobbling up public money faster than it could be bribed, printed and allocated to their schemes – except on real estate, his own big money 'special interest' not centered in Washington. Indeed Trump loves 'eminent domain', state seizure of people's private property for big developers like him.

    This is where Trump joins hands with those depending on the deep system corruptions he has promised to reverse. He even asked, in his loud way, how these huge private interests go on getting away with a corporate-lobby state transferring ever more public wealth and control to them at the expense of the American working majority and their common interest as Americans. But it had all pretty well slid away by election day except the hatred of self-enriching Washington fixers like Hillary, Mexican illegals, the Obamacare new charges (with no mention of the HMO's doing it), and the disrespect for people bearing arms by the second-amendment right.

    Do we have here the familiar positional determinism where political and economic class leaders desert what they promised as they enter into elected office or have sold the goods?

    Yet the victory Trump is about to reap is far from empty for America and the world if he keeps to the promises he made. The money-and media-rigged elections have stayed front and center where no-one in official politics dared say it before. The black-hole of US foreign wars has above all has remained his historic target.

    His entire strategy has been based on getting public attention, and he is a master at it. He is unbuyably rich, has energy beyond a rock star, and is the most watched person in America across the country and the world for months on end. He can't be shut up. Media stigmatization and slander without let-up do not work as always before.

    Trump is also capable of meeting perhaps the world's most important challenges, holding back the global US war machine from perpetual eco-genocidal aggression and investing back into public infrastructure and workers' productive jobs.

    Most importantly, Trump challenges "the Enemy" cornerstone of US ideology when he says "wouldn't it be nice to get along with Russia and China for a change?" And as he said to Canada whose branch-plant corporate state still plays minion to its US corporate masters, "congratulations. You have become independent".

    As for Trump's much publicized 'denial of climate change, it is not really accurate. He has said little on the topic, but has expressed his opposition to "bullshit government spending" on preventing climate. So does James Lovelock, the famous global ecologist behind 'the Gaia hypothesis '. Certainly the green-wash hoaxes of the private corporations (and Al Gore) becoming much richer than before on solutions that do not work to prevent the global market-led climate destabilization do need more astute appraisal.

    When you join the dots to Trump preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the underlying meaning emerges. He wants to stop the non-productive transnational corporations from feasting on the public purse. At the beginning after 2008, he even dared to recognize that Wall Street should be nationalized, as it once was by the American Revolution, Abraham Lincoln and FDR's Federal Reserve. This would be as big a turn of US government in the people's interests as stopping ruinous foreign wars.

    Trump also once said that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israel-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics. Big Pharma was also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices". He even confronted the more powerful HMO's with the possibility of a "one-payer system" far better than the Obamacare pork-barrel for ever higher insurance premiums.

    Trump is no working-class hero. He has long been a predatory capitalist with all the furies of greed, egoism and self-promotion that the ruling system selects for. But he is not rich from foreign wars of aggression, or from exporting the costs of labor to foreign jurisdictions with subhuman standards. He has not been getting richer or more smug by seeking high office in a context of saturating slander and denunciation from official society. He has initiated a long overdue recognition of parasite capitalism eating out and wasting the life capacities of the US itself as well as the larger world.

    Trump has now won the first major step that his enemies declared inconceivable, and he can now do what he has promised 'in the place where the buck stops'.

    Prof. John McMurtry is author of The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: From Crisis to Cure (available from University of Chicago Press) and an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.

    The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © Prof. John McMurtry , Global Research, 2016

    [Nov 11, 2016] Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more by Robert Reich

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want. ..."
    "... Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money. ..."
    "... Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. ..."
    "... Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency. ..."
    "... The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    What has happened in America should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure.

    At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties, their political operatives, and fundraisers; the major media, centered in New York and Washington DC; the country's biggest corporations, their top executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; and the wealthy individuals who invest directly in politics.

    At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. The presidency was won by Donald Trump, who made his fortune marketing office towers and casinos, and, more recently, starring in a popular reality-television program, and who has never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican party. Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, but not enough of the states and their electors secure a victory.

    Hillary Clinton's defeat is all the more remarkable in that her campaign vastly outspent the Trump campaign on television and radio advertisements, and get-out-the-vote efforts. Moreover, her campaign had the support in the general election not of only the kingpins of the Democratic party but also many leading Republicans, including most of the politically active denizens of Wall Street and the top executives of America's largest corporations, and even former Republican president George HW Bush. Her campaign team was run by seasoned professionals who knew the ropes. She had the visible and forceful backing of Barack Obama, whose popularity has soared in recent months, and his popular wife. And, of course, she had her husband.

    Trump, by contrast, was shunned by the power structure. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, actively worked against Trump's nomination. Many senior Republicans refused to endorse him, or even give him their support. The Republican National Committee did not raise money for Trump to the extent it had for other Republican candidates for president.

    What happened?

    There had been hints of the political earthquake to come. Trump had won the Republican primaries, after all. More tellingly, Clinton had been challenged in the Democratic primaries by the unlikeliest of candidates – a 74-year-old Jewish senator from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and who was not even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders went on to win 22 states and 47% of the vote in those primaries. Sanders' major theme was that the country's political and economic system was rigged in favor of big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.

    ... ... ...

    The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and, until recently, didn't take Trump seriously. A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. "The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better off than they've been in years."

    Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.

    Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.

    Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it.

    The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.

    Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

    They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy's gains.

    Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency.

    Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

    The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.

    gloriousrevolution , 11 Nov 2016 15:5

    I'm in agreement with RR, as far as he goes. He could have gone further, but it's probably not the time or place for that, anyway, that road is depressing.

    Trump's an opportunist, certainly, but a very, very, successful one indeed. He has, after all, made an awful lot of money that way, so he's not that lacking in intelligence and ruthlessness. If only Sanders had been more ruthless and willing to stick the knife into the Democratic Party when he had the chance.

    Trump, essentially ran as an independent. First he needed to defeat the Republican Party's establishment, which he did, take over the party and only then was he ready to challenge the Democrats and beat them down. He succeeded in his strategy, beating both of them, which is an astonishing feat, historic in character.

    It actually gets worse for liberals. Trump also took on the liberal media and despite their best efforts to destroy him, brazenly supporting Clinton and ridiculing Trump and his supporters... Trump didn't just survive the onslaught, but crushed the media as well. Vast swathes of the population hate and despise the media as much as they loathe the political elite. People simply don't believe the media anymore, so most of their attacks on Trump were useless and ineffective when they came.

    And it really isn't Trump that's important here. It's the character of the wave he surfed on and lifted him into the White House. But the media ignored the wave and have done for years and years. Now, the fascist chickens have really come home to roost and much of the responsibility lies with the incredible ignorance, arrogance and mind-numbing stupidity that characterizes so much of the media.

    zootsuitbeatnick , 11 Nov 2016 15:5
    "Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more."
    And they haven't since Bill Clinton had his way with the party in the 90s.
    As much as the right enjoys calling the Clintons liberals, they're not.
    They're neo-liberals, which is a whole different philosophy.
    The Dems abandoned those who supported them for generations and we are all living in the ever-worsening result of that betrayal.
    judyblue , 11 Nov 2016 14:2
    So Robert Reich spent the past year enthusiastically encouraging us to vote for a candidate who embodied every last bit of the formula that he now tells us was a sure loser. Should he perhaps have warned his long-time good friend Hillary that she was on the wrong road? That being the servant of Wall Street and promising the status quo with incremental progress was a recipe for failure?
    Dave Hobbs judyblue , 11 Nov 2016 15:4
    Except Reich was a Sanders supporter...
    twitty , 11 Nov 2016 14:1
    As you say, sir:
    "The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump."
    This includes Obama's role as enabler.
    Ironic, that Obama was a charismatic campaigner who failed entirely to become a charismatic president. And he lost to a candidate who had another sort of charisma: That of a lying, sneering, insulting, self-important clown.
    Shows how bad things have become for a once hard-working & productive middle class now set adrift.
    newsfrommars twitty , 11 Nov 2016 15:0
    The same power structure that has for decades ignored the plight of millions in favour of it's own elitist wealth building, little wonder this election result. The neo liberals by their arrogance and lack of empathy have brought us to this setting us back decades. Clinton was definately does not hold any sympathy for the downtrodden, she cannot, she's in another class, the billionaire type. That is why we must never trust them or ever look again to people with this background to help us. They are responsible for the descent towards fascism and the people are responsible for their utter gullability in believing them in the first place.
    morphy smith twitty , 11 Nov 2016 15:3
    Obama is the worst president and most divisive. he is the master race baiter as well.

    Nov 11, 2016 | Pinterest

    How the 2016 US election night unfolded

    The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and, until recently, didn't take Trump seriously. A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. "The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better off than they've been in years."

    Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.

    Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.

    Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it.

    The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.

    Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

    They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy's gains.

    Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency.

    Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

    The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.

    ga gamba , 11 Nov 2016 13:0
    I give Mr Reich his due. He recognised the the issue and foresaw this outcome when he wrote about it on 25 Jan 2016 .

    I've known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she's the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.

    But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he's leading a political movement for change.

    The upcoming election isn't about detailed policy proposals. It's about power – whether those who have it will keep it, or whether average Americans will get some as well. [...]

    Which explains a paradox I found a few months ago when I was on book tour in the nation's heartland: I kept bumping into people who told me they were trying to make up their minds in the upcoming election between Sanders and Trump.

    At first I was dumbfounded. The two are at opposite ends of the political divide. But as I talked with these people, I kept hearing the same refrains. They wanted to end "crony capitalism." They detested "corporate welfare," such as the Wall Street bailout.

    They wanted to prevent the big banks from extorting us ever again. Close tax loopholes for hedge-fund partners. Stop the drug companies and health insurers from ripping off American consumers. End trade treaties that sell out American workers. Get big money out of politics. [...]

    You don't care about the details of proposed policies and programs.

    You just want a system that works for you.

    If you click his name at the byline you'll see how many articles published in 2016. Now think about the number of pieces published that pushed the pro-Clinton argument of more of the same.

    Paul Eichhorn , 11 Nov 2016 12:4
    "Third-Way" Democrats made an art form of triangulating a position between the old-line liberal Democrats the positions made by the mainstream corporate Republican party. By tacking as far right as possible, these corporate Democrats could scrape off enough of the business friendly, socially progressive Independents and Republicans to stymie any sort of Republican Presidential bid. Corporate America gave to both parties, but loves first and foremost to be on the side of the winner, where its influence can manifest itself in business friendly legislation, politically friendly appointments, no prosecutions for criminal behavior. no enforcement of labor or business legislation and no break-ups of monopolies using the still existent anti-trust legislation.
    One of the things that made Republicans furious during Bill Clinton's term was that he was skilled in the extreme at taking issues the Republicans were pushing and getting out in front of them and making the issue his own, making the result at least somewhat palpable to the old liberals of the world.
    The Democrats became the other war party, the other big business party, the other big banking party, the other big agriculture party, the other big oil party, the other big communications party, the other international exploitation party, the other anti-union party the other big medical party, the other big pharmaceutical party, the other international trade deal party.
    Bill Clinton sat down with Alan Greenspan and agreed to be the other austerity party. He supported low tax rates on the billionaires and corporations and low tariffs. That led to lower services for the public and small businesses and the tax burden being borne by the long suffering middle class and working poor. The non-working poor suffered as well with no welfare, more stringent unemployment benefits, and a stagnant job market for meaningful jobs. At the same time, law enforcement was focusing on them, putting them in prison for extreme amounts of time for often trivial matters.
    But Bill had an overall good economy because of the Computer Generation, so the economy grew and he was able to deliver to George W. Bush a budget surplus, which, if maintained, would have entirely paid off the national debt by now.
    Unfortunately all those economic gains were being funneled to the top. Overall wages of working people actually declined since Ronald Reagan came in to begin the austerity measures while the wealth of the top 1% quadrupled. Working people were losing good paying jobs and having to have both wage earners in a family work lesser jobs to make up for hemorrhaging income. These lesser jobs not only had less wages, they had less benefits. Against an out of control health care industry, banking industry, communications industry and investment industry they were being sucked dry well before retirement. No amount of savings could stand up to catastrophic illness. People's 401K plans were repeatedly slaughtered while the big guys who precipitated the mess ended up owning more and more of the means of generating wealth in our country. Remember the absolutely sinful Republican law that made student debt unforgivable at the same time that school costs were skyrocketing? It was so unpopular, Republicans needed help from Joe Biden and other corporate Democrats to get it passed.
    Never mind the corporate media and Republican lies about Barack Obama being a "Liberal", he was, in fact, another version of corporate Democrat. Since he was black, the racist Republicans could do the unprecedented in America politics: they decided to block everything. For no good reason. Other than he was black and no one would hold them accountable. He went along with the austerity plan because he had no other option. Able enough manager, he was able to drastically reduce the national deficit virtually on his own. But he kept up the wars. Hell, he and Hillary Clinton started wars for oil and natural gas. Just like the Republicans. Along with the very expensive war and secret intelligence budget and police state budget. He has restarted the nuclear weapons program, never mind that we already have enough nukes to destroy the world 100 times over. He also longed for hanging his hat on another record-breaking Trans Pacific Partnership international trade deal encompassing 40% of the world's Gross Domestic Product. Like Bill Clinton/George HW Bush's NAFTA on steroids. Jobs would be flowing out to low wage countries and waves of filthy international profits would come flowing back in to: the top 1%, where presumably the fraud of trickle down economics would waged on the American worker once again.
    Iron Mike , 11 Nov 2016 11:1
    Yup the elites got hammered Tuesday. Even though they say they are for democracy, they aren't. The elites want open borders and the people at the bottom of the wage scale are having to compete against these low wage border jumpers.

    How can the elites say they are for open borders and for raising wages. It isn't possible. It is the law of supply and demand. Sure the government could pass minimum wage increases but that will drive businesses to automate as much as possible. That ain't going to help these people either!

    Rick LaBonte , 11 Nov 2016 09:3
    Wikileaks proved that the Democrat party is the party of the ruling class elites, no question. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders? Give me a break, These two phonies are owned lock stock and barrel by Wall Street and the Big Banks. Warren's Consumer Protection racket is like Dodd-Frank - a Potemkin village of fake reforms designed to kill off any competition to the ruling class oligarchs.
    molemen , 11 Nov 2016 08:2
    A better analysis than the hysterical white/kkk/racist/woman hater etc pieces that have been flooding the pages lately.

    Its "dont piss on my back and tell me its raining" stuff, Obamacare has stung those in work, in some cases badly, and those out of work see no hope or change either.
    No-one went to jail for screwing the world economy.
    Even the government agencies who had oversight, and failed to see one single indicator of trouble saw no-one demoted, just a call for more power.

    And lastly importing more people to compete for low skilled jobs from overseas does keep downward pressure on wages, and make jobs harder to find for the native born. Pretending otherwise in some misguided sense of international "solidarity" is punishing your own people for outsiders advantage.

    maryB_USA , 11 Nov 2016 08:0
    The roles of the two parties have been interchanged over the years, but they both ended up the same way -- serving the Davos community.

    Some have suggested the formation of a third party as a possible remedy. I don't think that is the solution. As long as campaigns are financed through private contributions, the politicians elected would be beholden to the rich, regardless of the number of parties involved. The voice of the less privileged voters will not be heard. To have a truly representative body of elected officials, private (including corporate) campaign contributions should be eliminated from politics. Candidates should disseminate their message and platform in publicly funded campaigns. So I would say don't worry about the number of parties. Just get rid of Citizens United and limit spending for political campaigns to public funding.

    The present Republican-controlled government will not do that. HRC had promised to get rid of Citizens United. The only remedy now is to organize and try to give the House in 2 years to whoever will do so.

    Matt Dillon , 11 Nov 2016 08:0
    If was the duffus you worked for Mr. Reich who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act ushering in the tech bubble, the housing bubble and now the 'everything' bubble. A financialization of our economy that has benefited only the top 10 to 15 percent of the population.
    valwayne , 11 Nov 2016 08:0
    I don't usually agree w Sex Reich but he mostly right here. The Democratic Party has been corrupted & a tool of Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, Big Banks, & Corrupt Democrat billionaires ...

    Wall Street does care if the kill growth & jobs as long as they keep interest rates at Zero & Print trillions to fuel the market & fill their pockets. Same w the banks.
    The Democrats have Total comtempt for working Americans out here in what they call flyover land. You know... IW WI MI OH. So Reich is right there but more Gov, more socialism is not the answers. Economic growth & free Enterprise w sound monetary policy to crest jobs & raise incomes is what we need & what Trump will provide.

    Maurith , 11 Nov 2016 06:3
    There's definitely a failure of government to do its job: to ensure that the market economy works to improve the lives of all people (they instead ensure that they get a job at a Goldman Sachs or a Morgan Stanley once they leave government). Robert Reich points out in the article that the government never steps in to prevent anti-monopoly practices. To his point, one has only to look at the over-valued market capitalizations of the financial and pharmaceutical sectors to see that these guys are getting a free ride. Since not everyone can be a Paul Volcker, one may have to raise the pay grade of civil servants to attract the best talents.

    Whether he's a Democrat or a Republican, the white voter is a bit lost, unable to find his way in a world where the white man no longer dominates. This doesn't apply to the working or middle class.

    This said, it's not because we want change that we're going to cast our vote for a monster like Trump. We know what happened in 1933 in Germany, in 1917 in Russia. Whether it's gas chambers or the Goulag, these psychopaths (Hitler, Stalin) can go very far. The worst ones are the toned-down versions: a Hitler Light. I sure won't vote for Marine Le Pen.

    frankelee , 11 Nov 2016 05:5
    It's truly a worrying time for the intelligent citizen. Democrats fail the middle class, yet for all my life there's only been one party who would throw their own mother on hot coals and walk over her body to give a rich man a tax cut: the Republican Party. I hope it's true that Trump represents their defeat just as much as the Democrats. They've sold out their base for decades now, peddling condescending lies and culture war excuses for their greed and cronyism. Not a single Republican used to be an expert scientist until reducing pollution was going to cost their donors a few dollars, then all of sudden they all knew better than a PhD how the climate worked. Their last President started a war and gave no-bid government contracts to his friends, and even tried to privatize Social Security so business associates could skim off the top of that too, consequences be damned. When neither side is either willing or able to save you, what can you do?
    Joe Daigle , 11 Nov 2016 05:5
    Mr. Reich, you can't see the forest for the trees. Hillary promised that AFTER you lost your job to bad trade deals, she'd help you to retrain to become a 7-11 night clerk. In essence, she was offering to bury your job in a fine casket. Donald offered to fight for your job and shake up America's trade deals if he had to in order to level the playing field and keep our manufacturing here. And oh yea, bring some jobs back home too. He also said he would protect them from cheap labor pouring across the border legally and illegally. Illegal Latinos don't all work picking lettuce - some drive trucks, do construction, are plumbers, carpenters, electricians, shipyard workers, you know - jobs our own citizens want. It's not about whether you can strangle another company with union demands, it's about the lack of jobs period. So in essence, Hillary wanted open borders and all of our jobs going to Latinos. Donald wants the opposite.
    BizaaroLand , 11 Nov 2016 04:4
    Wonder what makes you Einsteins think the republicans are now suddenly for the working man? Republicans have always been on the side of big money interests, and nothing has changed. Trump is just there to placate the mid western rubes. 'Mericuns are so naive. (no tolerance for propaganda like the Euros or Russians seem to have.) Trump is just a head fake. Its business as usual. He's just gonna pick up where Obama and Shrub left off. Seen this trick before.
    ceclas , 11 Nov 2016 03:5
    The Guardian needs to publish an editorial apologizing for being part of this problem. During the Sanders-Clinton race, the Guardian was nothing but derisive towards Sanders, and elevated Clinton as the responsible and adult choice to stop Donald Trump. They even compared Sanders to Nader as a spoiler from 2000, not realizing that all the warning signs were there that Clinton would play the role of John Kerry in 2004.

    There were comments in the comment section with people saying "I still don't fully understand the difference between Clinton and Sanders, can someone please explain it to me?" That was the Guardian's job. For the record, here is the correct explanation.

    For decades the Democratic Party has abandoned working people and embraced globalization at their expense. Clinton was the candidate of continuity with that policy, Sanders was the candidate of "Hey, that was actually a bad idea, our mistake, we'll start caring about your issues as well." It was obvious that Clinton would be vulnerable in a general election against anyone who ran a populist platform, which Trump was doing.

    This train wreck was obvious from a mile away. The DNC and the media need to own this blunder.

    DoyleSaylor ceclas , 11 Nov 2016 04:3
    You are correct. I would add that electing trump has ended the dlc Democratic party. Of course my conjecture remains to be proved by events going forward. Still this rightwing shift has a real chance now to remain in power like the collapsed dlc Clinton Obama clique for a considerable period ahead. And besides that a restive U.S. working class is in motion with little obvious direction to the left right now. I would expect though a left opposition is coming rather soon.
    PATROKLUS00 , 11 Nov 2016 03:1
    The US is a country with a lot of very angry and unhappy people. The nation is in decline and the people are fearful; they know something is terribly wrong but they do not have the political acumen to deal with the situation. The two political parties, co-opted if not largely owned by the plutocracy-, offer no respite from the oppression of which, in fact, they are the instruments being vassals of their plutocratic masters.

    Unfortunately, the plutocracy and their subservient mass media have convinced about half of the population to vote, to their own destruction, for continual transfer of wealth and power to the corporations and plutocrats-. The Trumpers, arguably less educated, politically ignorant and naive, easily manipulated, and riddled with fear fueled with bigotry, are the leading edge of the discontent and fright. However, their blindness to reality is a severe obstacle to any possibility of getting that nation back on the track. The plutocrats-, like all parasites, will drain the nation of its lifeblood and then move on to another country to exploit.

    As long as the Trumpeters and those of their ilk can be so easily duped and manipulated, it is unlikely that there will be any common ground. In fact, common ground is not what is needed. Rather, what is needed is an aggressively progressive agenda to restore democracy, economic recovery and re-establishment of a rapidly disappearing middle class.

    ViewFromTheUSA , 11 Nov 2016 03:0
    Politicians like Clinton and Obama give paid speeches behind closed doors on Wall St, whom they bailed out at the expense of the people. They throw $10k-a-plate fundraisers with celebrities, and cozy up to the profit-over-people industries like big pharmaceutical and big oil. They are for hedge fund managers, payday lenders, defense contractors, and credit card companies. Then they have the gall to send out "tweets" saying we must overturn Citizens United.

    I realize the Republicans are no better, in fact, they're even worse, but everyone knows who and what they are. They make no bones about it, they don't dress up in wolf's clothing and pretend they are for the working man.

    Democrats do. Democrats are like the Republicans from 30 years ago. Over the last 3 decades, the left has moved to the right and the right has moved into an insane asylum. So now it's the Democrats who do the red-baiting (see their treatment of Sanders) and the RNC are accusing neoliberal centre-right politicians like Obama of being a socialist. Socialist? He's not even a liberal.

    Julie Mendelsohn ViewFromTheUSA , 11 Nov 2016 05:4
    You are forgetting to add in the "for profit' colleges. How much did Debbie Dearest get from *that* lobby? How many millions did Bill get to sit on their boards? These political grifters got paid big money by the very entities which were foreclosing on homes, suffocating kids with student loan debt, and tanking the economy via Wall Street schemes. The Dems thought we weren't paying attention?
    mike1798 , 11 Nov 2016 02:0
    Trump is offering a solution, that's all. Can he implement it, probably not, but no one else is even talking about re negotiating NAFTA, penalizing China or anything else to bring back millions of good paying factory jobs.
    Our politicians are out of touch, and corrupted by the oceans of money thrown at them. The 58 million people who voted for Trump want anyone to talk to them about what has happened to their lives and opportunities and address their problems.
    Hillary may in fact be the most competent politician, but that is the problem. She never came across as a leader who would lead us out of our problems. So we elected a lying misogynist who is, at least, not a politician!
    rauch47 , 11 Nov 2016 02:0
    Reich debated Chris Hedges on democracynow before the election, Hedges pointed out
    to him that under Ronald Ray-Gun the levers of power were given over to all the
    corp's of the world, there isn't a DNC or a RNC, it's a less than one percent secure hold
    on all power, Trump is just another puppet --
    BehindBlurredLines , 11 Nov 2016 01:4
    The last two paragraphs are absolutely dead on with what happened. You can't cater to minorities and expect the majority to stick with you forever as they suffer. The Democrats are so blind they didn't understand why Bernie surged or why Trump won but this writer has real clarity and speaks the truth absolutely on it. If you ignore the majority, which is mostly working class or rural citizens, you lose election after election with never ever holding total power for long. Trump truly needs to be a Teddy Roosevelt up there and set the barn on fire to chase all of the rats out and rebuild it.

    That's what we need and at least there is the tiniest sliver of hope he will, whereas with Hillary we would have received more establishment politics which always include purposeful half-truths and omissions at the working class's expense. Seriously, Schumer and Pelosi need to be investigated with Hillary Clinton because the way they act up there is exactly what made America a stagnant decaying landscape.

    I think it's time we get to the real issues the majority and minority citizens face together and stop beating to death your four issues that are inconsequential to the other 90 % of us in one way or another. That goes for both parties too. It makes me wonder if they ever talk to anyone but the people who have money. It would seem so and it needs to change now because them people live in a bubble and bubbles always burst. Drag the swamp Donald on both sides of the isle and you will be my hero forever. Fail and you will be my most hated president yet.

    And on a final note, thank god the Guardian has pulled back from the left some now and is being a good news source again. Thank you for this article and a big thank you to this writer for telling it like it

    Imperialist , 11 Nov 2016 00:5
    The parties are realigning.

    Once the Democratic Party was the party of the working man. The union member. Blue collar. Trying to get higher wages for the working man.

    The Republican Party was the party of capital. Bankers. Corporate types. Millionaires.

    The Democrats abandoned the working man for the underclass.

    Now it seems to becoming that the Republicans are the party of people who work for a living at a private job, along with the business owners.

    The Democrats represent those who either don't work, or those who work for the State: welfare recipients, students, public union members, most every staffer in DC. Hollywood types. Millionaires, especially dot com ones.

    Despite calling it racist over and over, unfettered immigration holds wages down. Free trade with China and Mexico guts unions and makes the proposed $15/hr minimum wage a joke when factories have all moved to Mexico or China. It's a fine thing with Britain, Germany or Canada, but a big loser with low wage countries. Especially with China who puts barriers in place for OUR exports.

    It also didn't help when Katy Perry, Madonna and J.Lo endorsed Hillary. It sent more people towards the Republicans looking for people who looked like them. Who got up in the morning to go to work.

    Bill Gorrell Imperialist , 11 Nov 2016 03:4
    They are both the party of capital. The unleashed Repubs while destroy the working class.
    SomethingU8 Imperialist , 11 Nov 2016 04:0
    If U.S. Democrats have any sense, they'll kick the DNC leadership losers out and let Bernie and Elizabeth Warren lead the Party. Then we'll have at least one party that represents the interests of Workers.

    Trump has two years to make the lives of his supporters substantially better. Looking at the people around him, that's not likely to happen. I can't wait to see him make the case that more tax cuts for Huuge corporations will somehow help Working People! If they try more of the same, then the market crash will happen on their watch.

    Good luck in 2018 then. Dems re-take House & Senate, with Bernie & Elizabeth Warren leading the way...

    djsunset , 11 Nov 2016 00:5
    Robert Reich, the author of this article, fronted an excellent documentary in 2013 called "Inequality for All". It's well worth a watch.

    There's a ropey/poor quality copy on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-MmIV_JBRg , but it's definitely worth getting hold of a good copy.

    shazza618 , 11 Nov 2016 00:2
    OFFS Robert.. STFU... after Bernie bowed out you shilled for Hill all the way to the election singing her "imaginary" praises. Fecking hypocrite.
    sandyssanders , 11 Nov 2016 00:1
    We are living through the death of "growth", the death of capitalism. The 1% are using the 99% as human shields to buffer themselves from the collapse of their religion and their Gawd, horded wealth. Trump will sellout his Chumps worse than Obama... And the idea that the TwoParty will ever move to meet the social needs of humanity is a pipe dream. The only way we will get this is by Direct Democracy. The 99% votes policy. The government are employees who implement those policies... or they are fired.
    netizenk , 11 Nov 2016 00:0
    Nearly every single elected politician currently in office on both sides is bought and paid for and works in the best interest of large corporations, not in the best interest of we the people. A complete purge, a system flush is required if we are to take our country back.

    It seams like a monumental task, it looks like an impossible mission when you look at the sheer amount of money and power in play but it is actually simple and it's all on us, all we need to do is stop voting for Repocrats and start voting for people of integrity outside of these two establishment parties.

    That is the only way to quickly affect real change and if everyone did that we'd have our country back in no time. So stop bashing the people who are voting third party and independent, stop telling them that their vote is wasted or a vote for the "other side", realize that there are no two sides really and join them in voting the Repocrats out of everything and voting in the people who will overturn Citizens United, outlaw lobbying and pass a new campaign finance law that will take the money complete out of politics and allow us to elect the congress and the president that will work for us, not the Wall Street or MIC.

    Will Morgan , 10 Nov 2016 23:2
    Is Trump's election really a rejection of the "power structure"? How could that be since that power structure, whether Democrat or Republican, remains intact decade after decade? I don't think Trump's victory is a rejection of the power structure. The rejection of the power structure was embodied, if anywhere, by the Sanders campaign, but it was defied by the Clinton's and by actors like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and by the fraud employed by those actors during the primaries. In a system of only two parties voting for one or the other can simply be a vote based in anger about an excluded middle, or a non-existent "left". These frustrating complaints tell you more about the result than does "the power structure" who could care less which party wins, so long as their interests are served.
    ram Posthumus , 10 Nov 2016 23:1
    Some sanity at last amidst the demented ragings of the identity politics crowd that STILL does not understand that it was them who put Trump in the White House. Not white male rage. Not the shy white female vote. Not any other race/gender/sexuaity category that you wish to dream up.

    No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
    And no.

    What put Trump in the White House was a deeply dysfunctional political system. The fact that the symbol of this deeply dysfunctional political system happened to be female is neither here nor there. Understand this. Understand this and learn.

    Ditch the identity politics. Become a real progressive, not a fake progressive deriving fatally deluded ideas from exclusio

    raskolnikov88 , 10 Nov 2016 23:1
    Robert Reich is also no friend of the working class so why bother listen to him point his finger
    Gary Reber , 10 Nov 2016 23:1
    Robert Reich actually gets this right. Well stated.

    "Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it."

    Mikael Carpelan , 10 Nov 2016 22:2
    Reich has some points, but is ignoring several key circumstances, such as the 72K$ median income among Trump supporters, but mainly hostile legislators blocking anything more than incremental changes as to wealth redistribution such as the ACA. Neither Obama nor Clinton have supernatural powers to get progressive measures passed through republican congress.
    TheMediaSux , 10 Nov 2016 22:1
    The Guardian once represented the working class. Not any more.

    The next president had been decided. The elites, the lobbyists, the corporate bosses, and the media all decided the next president. Only one thing missing. The voters. They weren't playing ball! Those pesky working class voters! Now the media get to pretend they were with us all along!

    ImaHack , 10 Nov 2016 22:0
    Could Bernie Sanders have beaten Trump?

    https://newrepublic.com/minutes/138665/bernie-sanders-beaten-trump

    "In an article out today at The Washington Post, Freddie DeBoer makes this case. He points out that Sanders during the Democratic primary won in key states, like Michigan and Wisconsin, that Clinton lost in the general, and that Sanders was able to attract independent voters. He also notes Sanders's higher favorability and popularity ratings. Of course, such arguments are entirely speculative. We don't know how Sanders would have fared under Republican attacks. And we can't forget that Sanders lost the primary, by a not insignificant amount.

    "But one of the biggest arguments made by Clinton and her supporters was that she was pragmatic and electable-the safe candidate. Sanders's campaign, with its proposals for a $15 minimum wage and universal health care, was derided as pie-in-the-sky, and the candidate himself painted his platform as an electoral disaster. I suspect that more than a few Democrats went with their heads instead of their hearts when casting their votes for Clinton. But we found out that playing a safe and moderate campaign (i.e., picking Tim Kaine, the most forgettable man in existence) doesn't necessarily translate into a winning one. Clinton failed to pick up moderate Republicans and white women. And many of her supporters skated over her extreme unfavorability ratings and her inability to generate excitement.

    "There is no concrete evidence that Sanders would have won. But we were sold a candidate who we were told was electable, when most of the signs pointed to the fact that she wasn't."

    freeandfair , 10 Nov 2016 22:0
    Democratic party turned into a party of identity politics painting by the numbers. Here is how they assemble their base by pandering to each group specifically:
    *women - check
    *blacks - check
    *latino - check
    *lgbt -check
    *millenials - check
    *educated white collar progressives - check

    But then it turns out these groups are not one-dimensional and their voting is not based on just a single identity. They are complex people. And this is how the Democratic voting base splintered. There was no message unifying them.

    ID8584281 , 10 Nov 2016 21:5
    First Brexit, now Trump ... world politics are not going the way that Guardianistas envisaged!
    So where has it all gone wrong for the left?
    What Rubin says about the democrats abandoning the working class in the US could equally apply to Labour in the UK.
    Serves the Washington and London elites f***ing well right, you might say.
    But whereas the Washington/New York democrats will just have to lump it, the London elites don't want to accept Brexit because they didn't get the result they wanted, and they will try to do anything to stop it.
    If they do, and they might because they will stop at nothing, it will destroy any fleeting idea of democracy in Britain.
    And for what?
    To remain a member of a corrupt and bankrupt euro project that is running off the rails?
    The euro elite is as bent as they come. What they did and are doing to the greeks is unforgivable.
    Yanis Varoufakis was against Brexit not because he supports the Brussels autocrats, but because he thinks that the best way to combat the world's biggest threats - i.e., climate change - is through combined efforts (not much point in one country trying to combat climate change on its own if no one else bothers).
    The euro project is doomed. The 28 or 30 countries can agree on nothing (response to refugee crisis?), except to punish those that dissent
    ID8493055 , 10 Nov 2016 21:5
    Trump & the GOP don't represent the working class [either]. All the misguided "uneducated, poor white folk" will find that out soon enough when the new regime is allowed to ride roughshod over all the gov't support programs they've relied on.
    yelzohy gomarj , 10 Nov 2016 21:2
    Think he served one year and resigned. He was too much of an idealist as came from educational system and could not enough accomplished to justify himself being in that position as per what I saw him say many years ago.
    Theodore Svedberg gomarj , 10 Nov 2016 21:5
    Yes Reich was a Clinton appointee. He wrote a book about his four years as Secretary of Labor. It is an interesting read. My take from that book was how Bill gutted labor influence inside his admin.
    EsKiusmi , 10 Nov 2016 20:3
    The Clintos and Obama watched as their fellow blue-class and middle class workers were gobbled up by larger and larger corporations, and now they are surprised that they refuse to vote for them? Trumps message to African Americans was simple and so painfully true: "Vote for me, what do you have to lose?". In the end, most voters decided "what do I have to lose?"
    Beatsong EsKiusmi , 10 Nov 2016 20:3
    And now they're about to find out . . .
    Gorgon Mashovic ID8493055 , 10 Nov 2016 22:2
    Because four million people voted for someone even more right wing then trump. If you think Gary Johnson is a supporter of expanded government services, then you're entirely unfamiliar with his career as new mexico's governor.
    Bogdanich , 10 Nov 2016 20:2
    Thomas Ferguson granted an interview this morning. In it he said,

    (in a paper from 2014 he predicted that) "Hillary Clinton would have a lot of trouble putting together the old coalition of effectively Wall Street and if you'll allow me to speak quickly and directly for the sake of communication, identity politics. They're really interesting to study. You can see for example in the white college age women that Hillary only got 6% more of those than Trump did which is sort of unbelievable. But let me come to what I think is probably the heart of the matter. I think we really are at the end of the classical democratic formula of the Clinton period which was Wall Street plus identity politics. I think this is it. You're never going to be able to put that humpty dumpty back together again. If the democrats want to win they're going to actually have to make a strong appeal to working class Americans. Now you know the problem this is going to create. There's a ton of money in the democratic party. It is not going to sit there and tolerate candidates like Sanders. They just really despised and hated Sanders. So we're now going to have a very interesting situation where you've got a top heavy party with cash at the top and no mass at the base at all, or very little."

    The interesting thing about Ferguson is he doesn't speak or write that often as he dislikes arguing, but when he does come to a conclusion he is willing to share he is seldom wrong.

    Theodore Svedberg Bogdanich , 10 Nov 2016 20:5
    I think you, Reich and Ferguson are spot on. It is very hard to argue against "identity" politics since it is basically arguing that minorities (racial, sexual, religious, whatever) have rights. Unfortunately these "identity" groupings somehow left out the working class. So the Democratic Party ended up representing a coalition that involved Wall Street (at its center) and many other small minority groups. What was left out of this coalition was any voice for the working class. Now that is a classical example of divide and conquer. And yes this is a case of the big money of capitalism dividing America's workers.

    Fifty years ago organized labor unions had a seat at the table who could speak for American workers (whatever small group the individual worker may have belonged to). Today that is gone. Hopefully in the coming years the Democratic Party can restore its roots and begin to represent that class of Americans who actually work for a living. These workers can be divided into hundreds of different groups -- white, black, male, female, straight,gay, wonks, blue collar, hispanic, many others. But together they can have a voice in the national dialogue. If electing Trump is the way to educate the Democratic Party honchos on what is required then perhaps Trump's win will serve a useful purpose.

    macmarco , 10 Nov 2016 19:5
    Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the right. Although rejected by the GOP (racism) Obama continued that move. Hillary could have easily won the election by reaching out to the millions disenfranchised for more than 30 years, but failed to do so. What and who made her stick to a campaign of 'Not Trump' and elitism is puzzling but not an enigma.

    My guess is Bill and Wall Street created the plan, and it went down in a blaze.

    murnau , 10 Nov 2016 19:4
    "Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more".

    A good article which explains the route the Democrats have taken over the years. Faced with the Republican victories of Ronald Reagan from 1981-1989 the democrats chose to move to the right, the party having a previous lineage with ordinary workers back to FDR and further. Bill Clinton in 1992 took onboard the third way calling itself the New Democrats. In the UK Tony Blair copied this following on after the tories Margaret Thatcher and John Major with his New Labour transformation of the party into a virtual copy of the tories.

    Just like the 2010 election in the UK with Labour, many people who would have voted Democrat simply did not turn out for Hilary Clinton and did not vote at all. With complete establishment backing including Wall Street and the MSM she lost to Donald Trump. Many would have voted for him anyway but a sizeable percentage must have used him as an anti Clinton vote. Jill Stein called Hilary Clinton corrupt. Clinton is a war hawk she supported the Iraq war and doesn't appear to have learnt from the disaster as she was mainly responsible for the catastrophy in Libya. She loves to boast, we came, we saw, he died, meaning Col. Gaddafi she is more reserved about the later deaths of the ambassador Christopher Stevens and some of his colleagues in the Libyan embassy as a direct result of supporting the jihadis. While still secretary of state she said that she would arm anyone fighting against President Assad thats turned out well. She supported the coup in Honduras and was instrumental in laying the ground out for the coup in Ukraine. The recent wikileaks indicated she knew the Saudis were financing ISIS but she said nothing as they were contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

    Hillary Clinton Lies About Attending Bilderberg While In Denver

    http://wearechange.org/hillary-clinton-lies-attending-bilderberg-denver /

    Trigz , 10 Nov 2016 19:1
    An excellent analysis. Clinton was an awful candidate. She represents the establishment in every possible way; the same establishment that has stood shamelessly by while the US working and middle classes have been abandoned.

    She offered precisely nothing other than not being Donald Trump. Her campaign resembled a coronation. This sheer hubris and arrogance cost the Democrats the presidency. Forget the tiresome shrieks of racism and fascism for a minute: Trump won because Clinton failed to get support among the masses of underemployed and unemployed industrial working class in the Rust Belt; because she offered nothing new, no answers other than more of the same.

    They failed to address the very real concerns and fears of everyday Americans. They have no one to blame but themselves for this disaster.

    Mohammed Wong durable13 , 10 Nov 2016 18:3
    Nonsense.The article nails it. A failure to address the Economic Vampirism that Clinton champions.Sure, there are plenty of racists and misogynists in the GOP, but willfull ignorance couched in identity rhetoric is how the party lost so much.until establishment dems realize that, things will continue to get bleaker for them.
    Stefan Mochnacki , 10 Nov 2016 18:2
    This is a very good article, but it doesn't pay enough attention to the human, emotional aspect of political leadership. The really sad thing is that the Democrats had somebody in Bernie Sanders who could have beaten Trump, as all polls earlier this year indicated, but the determination of Hillary to be President combined with the vast web of Clinton connections led to the result we have. Everybody knew about her problems going into the primary campaign, but the attraction of electing a female President combined with unease with Sanders' roots and radicalism (actually, not such big difficulties) led to her rock-solid "super-delegate" support and sufficient voter support in the primaries. I doubt the DNC "dirty tricks" were quite enough to cause Sanders' defeat, but the Party establishment support no doubt swayed some voters, too. Unfortunately, Sanders will be too old to carry the torch, as is Elizabeth Warren; they should now lead the battle in the Senate and write the books so needed to shape American progressive thought in the coming years. The Democrats need to completely rebuild, so that in eight years they can be ready again for executive power, with the essential support of Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. It's not worth their while winning the Presidency without control of Congress. It means building a real party, a social movement and organization, not just a label, with leaders who can connect emotionally with citizens.
    voxusa , 10 Nov 2016 18:1
    "Bill Clinton and Barack Obama helped shift power away from the people towards corporations..."?

    What about the landslide shift of power to corporations, lobbyists, and the rich under the Bush and Reagan regimes?

    I always agree with you, Mr Reich, and gain insight from your writings/columns, but I think you're really missed the boat here. A demagogue told the big lie to people, and many bought it!

    For all the Democrats' (many shortcomings), the BLAME for the sad state of the middle-class, working class, and non-1% is on the Republicans' heads!

    And the war on unions is one of the right-wing's key rallying points

    Tucsonian OptPrime , 10 Nov 2016 19:3
    You need to explain that assertion.

    But let me make a related one:

    Clinton is at least partly responsible for Brexit.

    1) She led the US into invading Libya. Persuaded Obama, who was initially against it, and now calls it his biggest mistake as president.

    2) As Gaddafi predicted, his regime was the "cork in the bottle of Africa" (Assange's words) since Libya was patrolling the region. Removing him opened the first front of the European migrant crisis.

    3) Destabilizing Libya provided a base for ISIS and other factions, which helped destabilize Syria, opening the second front of the European migrant crisis.

    4) The European migrant crisis was one of the primary drivers of Brexit.

    dongerdo , 10 Nov 2016 16:4
    Well regular Joe Blow has been mocked and ignored for years. Joe Blow might not live in a trailer park, he might have some nice house but he and Jane Blow are working double shifts to pay for it. Joe and Jane have long given up on politics because 'it does not change a thing anyways', they have never seen a politician outside the election phase to descend to their rather unremarkable town in the middle of nowhere. Unions are nowhere to be seen, no one actually gives a damn about them and no one listens to their concerns.
    But they understand. They do not have a college degree so those people from NY or Detroit might be right that they do not understand the big picture, watching the news they see that their elected officials have much more important things to take care of. Gender neutral bathrooms, organizing community hours to paint the safe space at the nearby college, giving debt and tax reliefs to the same banks threatening the two of them to foreclose their house, apparently they are really busy.
    But now, after years, someone is coming around and listens. He might not really care and only pretend to but he DOES listen. For the first time ever.

    And we really wonder about the outcome of this election?!

    tigerfisch , 10 Nov 2016 16:3
    Reich's article pretty much nails it. The Democratic bigwigs preferred the company of corporate fat cats, facilitated their greed and lost touch with their base....
    Bob999 , 10 Nov 2016 16:1
    This is one of the few articles that provides any insight into the 2016 presidential election. The reality is that Americans don't like either political party and don't trust politicians. American voters identify with political parties far less than voters in other countries, and most Americans assume that politicians are crooks. That's just the way it is.

    Presidential candidates hire consultants to provide marketing expertise to their political campaigns. Trump, by contrast, is himself a marketing expert. As a young man in his twenties, he had the insight that he could increasing the value of real estate by branding it, just as luxury automobiles are branded.

    The people who have been mocking Donald Trump for being a real estate magnate and reality show TV impresario fail to realize that those are pursuits where it is impossible to succeed without understanding what the consuming public wants. Many people find Trump to be outrageously offensive, but that is part of a persona he has developed over decades in his property development and TV enterprises in order to attract large numbers of people to his golf courses and hotels, and to attract viewers to The Apprentice.

    In politics, Trump's persona translated into a vicious political style that led his opponents to focus on his persona rather than his message. The message was that the increasing deemphasis on national borders (in the form of globalized trade, illegal immigration, and arguably even international terrorism) should be dialed back because it is changing America for the worse. That message resonated with a large number of people and resulted in his election.

    Throughout the 2016 election cycle, Trump's opponents failed to address his message and focused instead on his persona. Every opponent who tried to take out Trump by attacking his outrageous and offensive persona was destroyed in the process. During the Republican primary, candidates were talking about Donald Trump so much that they were defining themselves in terms of Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake the 16 unsuccessful Republican primary candidates made. Her campaign was a social message that used Donald Trump as a bogeyman.

    The appeal to social interest groups did not address the objective and important issues that Trump was (arguably inarticulately) articulating, which are the issues that really attracted voters to him attracted voters to him. Like Britain, America has a lot of towns where the local economy has been destroyed by the closing of, for example, a steel mill. Trump knew how to address the voters in those towns, and that's how he got elected.

    TettyBlaBla Bob999 , 10 Nov 2016 21:1
    The missing piece from your comment is Trumps use of media that was relatively new compared to prior presidential elections. In Trump's case this was Twitter and Twitter bot accounts re-tweeting messages to smartphones. Obama did well harnessing social media, just as Reagan used taped video feeds appearing to be live (have to remember how primitive color transmissions were not that long ago), Kennedy used television, and earlier presidents won harnessing radio.
    Bob999 TettyBlaBla , 11 Nov 2016 15:2
    That is true, as well. Trump's campaign was arguably the American equivalent of the Twitter revolutions that swept North Africa and the Ukraine a few years ago. One question is whether that use of social media is why Trump won or whether it is more narrowly why his win was not predicted by pollsters. This may also be relevant to the unexpectedness of the results of the Brexit referendum.

    It's also a reminder to those who shout "power to the people" in the expectation that empowered people will return a particular result. With Trump, and with Brexit, the people appear to have repudiated those who see themselves as empowerers of the people. It's worth some reflection.

    saltchunkmary , 10 Nov 2016 16:1
    This is an excellent article. In a perverse way it was those zealously anti Trump wailers who unwittingly made him the 45th president of the USA.

    Words of wisdom for those disappointed by the result: Understand why those who voted for Trump did. Don't just write them all of as racist/xenophobic. The majority are not. They are angry because politicians, including and especially those Democrats who were supposed to be on their side, sold their souls to the devil - globalisation, big corporations etc.

    In fact one may argue that Bill Clinton signing the NAFTA free trade agreement back in 1994 sowed the seeds for this current situation. Think about it

    David Perry saltchunkmary , 10 Nov 2016 16:2
    Exactly! These people are suffering, and instead of getting help from the Democratic Party they were just all labeled as a bunch of racists, xenophobes. homophobes, etc. Most people who voted for Trump didn't vote for the man. They voted for the hope that they could take their country back from a bunch of elitist, corporatists, and rich bankers who have stolen it from them. You aren't going to win them back by denigrating them further.
    Michael McBrearty , 10 Nov 2016 16:1
    Yet the mainstream media will persist in explaining the Trump disaster in terms of race or gender issues, never in terms of economic class.
    This is how they keep us divided.
    Dunbar1999 , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
    Yes. I live in rural Missouri, and I absolutely agree with this analysis. The bit that worries me is that none of the embryonic "plans" suggested by Trump -- the wall, the deportations, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act -- will do anything but make the less well-off less well-off in every way. Does anyone really believe, for example, that lowering the tax on business will induce any businessman with any sense to rebuild an old factory in a small, crumbling midwestern town with an uneducated workforce? Let alone allow a union to form, provide decent salaries, pensions and healthcare like their grandfathers had from companies like Ford, General Motors, Caterpillar, John Deere etc? Of course, there's always a war as a last resort: that used to get the economy going, using up lots of materials and lots of surplus young men, didn't it? But I'm afraid the Chinese don't want to fight us, they want to buy us. There's still so much useable, badly-tended space in the middle of America ...
    Thatoneguyyouknow Dunbar1999 , 10 Nov 2016 16:1
    "The bit that worries me is that none of the embryonic "plans" suggested by Trump -- the wall, the deportations, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act -- will do anything but make the less well-off less well-off in every way."

    Actually, GETTING ELECTED was the best thing he could have done. At least it's a CHANCE for the Democratic Party to wake the **** up and see the working class (not the WHITE working class, the WHOLE working class) has been slipping away from them and at an accelerating rate. And they are FURIOUS at getting the shaft while their union "leaders" ORDER them to "vote blue no matter who" and are bullied and browbeaten if they so much as DARE to ask what happened to all those empty promises from last campaign season that have been DOWNGRADED yet again into something even smaller and less ambitious, only to be silenced with "the other guys will be the apocalypse so don't you dare ask any questions you dirty racists!"

    Laborequalswealth , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
    My husband and two friends and I traveled from SF to Philly to protest the DNC convention.

    The protestors - most of whom were under 35 - were corralled in FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT PARK. The delegates lounged in WELLS FARGO CENTER. They even shut down the subway station used by both groups so that only delegates could use it. They did this even though at the end of the day a torrential electrical storm was drenching the protesters. Nope, folks. That PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS FOR THE DNC ONLY.

    Did Hillary really think we didn't NOTICE?? Did she think that making FIVE TIMES the average annual income of Americans for a 45 minutes speech to Gold In Sacks would be ignored? That we didn't care that she and Bill RENEGED on the deal with Russia that Bush One made re NATO is pushing Europe to the brink of war? That she loves loves loves the TPP?

    Just how fucking stupid did Hillary think we were NOT to notice her Wall Street/MIC worshiping history and positions?

    Trump is a domestic disaster. We'll have to deal with that. But I am at least slightly comforted that he wants to stop this war machine (bon chance) and does not support the treasonous, sovereignty-killing TPP - which Hillary SUPPORTED.

    The only one who got Trump elected was HILLARY CLINTON and her arrogant followers.

    rentierDEATHcult , 10 Nov 2016 15:5
    i hope mr reich can help to clear out the faux liberal power elites from the democratic party ... the wall street apparatchiks and senior officials that preside over the various electoral 'plantations' for the clintons: millenials, blacks, lgbt/trans and hispanics

    this type of politics is regressive because it provides cover for vested interests (that derive their wealth through ownership of capital) to colonise democracy against the vast majority of people that depend upon wages for a living

    the power structure at the top of the democratic party is corrupt and corrupting ... the way this organisation has sought and cultivated minority votes (not in the pursuit of some higher class goal) but to enhance the career prospects of an 'out of touch' political class on capitol hill is the ultimate form of betrayal

    in particular, the way impoverished black communities across america have been used by a 'praetorian guard' of senior black democratic leaders to support the dynastic ambitions of the clinton family must come to an end

    it is down to enlightened thinkers like mr reich to ensure that the democratic party transitions from being the 'last plantation owner in america' (and trader in chief of minority votes) towards a champion of working people and their class interests

    this would be a good start: i would fire most senior black leaders in the democratic party ... (you know, the likes of donna brazile!) for activities incompatible with representing the class interests of working americans - period

    LeonardPynchon , 10 Nov 2016 15:5
    One problem the left has to overcome is the sheer seductiveness of the argument that the Farages and Trumps of this world put forward - they tell those who have not fared well under capitalism that the fault is not their own, that the real problem is immigrants - it is a cynical but effective lie that those who feel left behind find hard to resist.

    In truth the problem is that the system they - Trump and Farage - actually favour is utterly dependent on workers who will work for very little whether they are immigrants or not. The tragic irony is that the right has absolutely no intention of improving the lot of the poor fools who vote for them.

    ehmaybe , 10 Nov 2016 15:5
    In a multi party parliamentary system the US labor unions and the US' left-leaning social justice voters would not be represented by the same party.
    Too many people make the mistake of thinking labor in the US is a left-wing movement. It hasn't been for decades. US labor unions don't fight for workers rights, they fight for their workers pocketbooks and nothing else.
    In 1972 labor abandoned the Democrats when they chose a too-progressive candidate for president. Since that time the relationship between progressives and the working class has been a nothing but a marriage of convenience. That marriage seems to have broken up.
    Paul Loucks ehmaybe , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
    17% of American indusrtry is union. There wasn't much of a marriage to break up. Factory mechanization was accompanied by moving out of the rust belt into anti-union Southern states. Later, they left for China.
    ehmaybe Paul Loucks , 10 Nov 2016 16:2
    The value of unions to Democrats has little to do with the voters in their ranks. Unions have long been the Democrat's counterbalance against Republican wealth - they can't buy as many ads but they can provide nearly unlimited free labor to the Democrats canvassing and telephone campaigns.
    WIthout unions the Democrats would have even fewer seats in the House and Senate and Woodrow Wilson would probably have been their last president.
    60boy , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    No, the democrats no longer represent the working classes in the US . As the Labour party here no longer does. I listened to Ed Miliband this morning on the radio and when asked whether he supported Brexit he said he was worried about coloured people, Muslims, transgender and almost everyone else, but he didn't mention the working class at all.
    This is why the Tories can get away with doing whatever they want, because Labour is finished in most working class areas. They became a party for minorities and encouraged mass immigration. Now they mean less than nothing to most ordinary, indigenous people in this country!
    We don't need a Trump, we've got the Tories and UKIP instead!
    KrautOliver 60boy , 10 Nov 2016 16:0

    but he didn't mention the working class at all.

    That would be because the classical working class is an 1860s-1970s phenomenon. It's not describing any meaningful "class" of people anymore. Some people may "feel" working class, but the truth of the matter is that for everyone who feels that way, there's someone with similar living conditions who doesn't.

    ene Adair , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    While I find much to agree with in analyses like Reich's and Frank's, I find that they tend to romanticize the white working class and ignore the elephants in the room, those being racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and the rest. I feel I can say this because I come from a white working-class background in small-town Arkansas (Bill Clinton's hometown and mine were thirty-five miles apart). Believe me, Robert, there is a virulent strain of racism among many of those folks, and It's something that needs to be better addressed by analyses such as yours and Tom Frank's. It's not just something that GOP fear mongering conjured out of thin air. It has deep historical roots and cannot be brushed easily aside by discussions based solely on economic arguments. (See, for example, Stacy Patton's article: http://www.damemagazine.com/2016/11/01/why-i-have-no-sympathy-angry-white-men .)
    IamDolf Gene Adair , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
    My GF comes from a similar background. I posted this earlier on this thread.

    I know the "working classes" in the USA, especially the midwestern variety. Dumb, ill informed, incurious. Obsessed with macho posturing, weapons, military exploits.
    Rampant racism, misogyny, extreme religiosity. Birtherism, creationism, paranoia, you name it. You have to read the anti-Obama and Clinton vitriol from people lke that to believe it. From people who do not have a pot to piss in.
    My GF hails from some dot in the middle of nowhere in IA. She describes being raised there as living in a cult. She had to come to Long Island to realise that there actually were still jews alive today. She more or less thought they were like the Hittites and the Sumerians, something you read about in the bible. To this day she loves to watch documentaries on TV because the education she received in school was so poor and narrow minded.

    Duggi390 Gene Adair , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
    A lot of that rascism, xenophobia, homophobia etc is born out of the frustration that the working class find themselves in. Many believe, rightly or wrongly, that foreigners, the LGBTQ community, Arfrican Americans, Latino's, Asians and so on, are given special treatment. These groups have jumped to the front of the cue to reach the American Dream, while the working class have been stuck in line at the back for years and they have become frustrated and angry. It doesn't excuse those views, but if you look at it from their perspective you can see why they hit out.

    Additionally, these views are held right across the demographic makeup of the US, not just the Working Class.

    VinceDaFox , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    hopefully once the dust has died down this is the sort of considered writing that we will see in the Guardian - not the ludicrous outpourings of bile we have seen in the past few days.

    I listened to the live radio account from the BBC and noted the evident discomfiture as the result differed from the script. At the end of a presidential election the assembled studio experts should have more to say about a candidate than bewailing perceived racism, perceived misogyny (I doubt that Trump is a true misogynist!) and Mexican walls yet listening to the BBC since then it's as if the programme presenters are working to a script. Likewise. I'm afraid, The Guardian.

    What I find truly remarkable is the analogous positions of Trump and Corbyn: both outsider candidates who relied on votes from outside their respective Establishments to win through. Trump had little to do with the Republicans in the past. Corbyn was best known for voting against his party. Both have been reviled by their own party elites (and by the Guardian). Corbyn has faced a coup rumoured to have been organised from outside the PLP. Leading Republicans wore the fact that they had not voted for their own candidate as a badge of honour. Of course this was solely intended to save their political necks, but in the event did no harm whatsoever to Trump or Corbyn - indeed it may have positively assisted them. Had Corbyn been positively endorsed by say, Harriet Harman, he would possibly never have survived.

    The US and UK political elites set great store by their acceptance of other faiths and ethnicities yet seem curiously intolerant to the outsiders in their own milieu.

    BigPhil1959 , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    Clinton, Blair and Schroeder came up with the third way. Snake oil salesmen that all profited from sucking up to the corporations and selling their influence. Schroeder signed a deal with the Russians supply gas to Germany before joining Nordstream the company set up to do so. As for Clinton and Blair the list is long a sto how they have lined their pockets. The third way has never been about the ordinary working man. Wages have not risen in Germany in real terms for years as they havent in the US. In the UK easy credit has masked the real situation and now peple are suffering.

    What Robert Reich has written has hit the nail on the head.

    KrautOliver BigPhil1959 , 10 Nov 2016 16:1

    Schroeder signed a deal with the Russians supply gas to Germany before joining Nordstream the company set up to do so.

    Except he merely served on the supervisory board.

    The third way has never been about the ordinary working man. Wages have not risen in Germany in real terms for years as they havent in the US.

    "The working man" is waffling. Contrary to propaganda, Schroeder's reforms have contributed massively to Germany not being hit as hard by the financial crisis as others - and contrary to legends, it has improved the situation of the poor. It's the people peddling those legends, devoid of any understanding how the situation was before, who contribute to the unemployed feeling outcast.

    It's the 21st century. Wake up. Waffling about the "Working Man" is the same as waffling about Cowboys and believing cattle farming is still being done like in 1850.

    Loafervandross , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    Democrats are as much a part of the elite as republicans.
    muttley79 , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    Guardian columnists such as Hadley Freeman, Lucia Graves, Wolff, Abramson, Freedland and company should be forced to read this article. These columnists very rarely if ever talk about the Gilded Age style inequality levels in the West, and the USA in particular. Instead it is all about identity politics for them. Can these individuals start writing about the disastrous chasm between the very rich and the rest please?
    hexotic muttley79 , 10 Nov 2016 15:5
    Definitely. Identity politics has been coopted by the neoliberal technocracy to divert attention from wealth inequalities, the operation of big corporations in politics and the general lack of democratic accountability in governance.
    feenix07 , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    Thank you Mr Reich. Best article I have read for months.

    The vote for Trump was a protest vote. It was a non violent revolution. A significant part of the US electorate were angry. They saw their quality of life eroded. They saw little change of their children having a chance of a better life. Trump was the perfect outsider. He was not part of the "corrupt system". If you are living on your knees why not vote for someone who might bring the whole corrupt rotting edifice crashing down?

    THe usual media suspects have been trying to explain what happen in their normal closeted, university educated, urban, smug, condesending manner. But when people are angry, when they are protesting they want action, they want change , they don't want the status quo. During the French revolution the mobs didn't ask "whats your policy on gender based minorities?"...they just shouted "off with their heads"

    Until the media, the politicians, the policy makers, the wealthy elite start properly listening to the people left behind, then we will continue to see more Trumps and Brexits.

    Ahnaf15 , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    Excellent analysis . Mr Reich was Labour secretary under Clinton and so she shares the responsibility of his policies. Of note is media complicity including so called liberal progressive media no heavy weights. It seems that 'generating ' money / growth/ markets etc etc seem to be the all important factors . Citizens' solidarity and the needs of the most vulnerable are at the bottom of the checklist if it is ther at all. These progressives have fallen or perhaps fallen into the trap of believing that talking about 'progressive' topics e.g. misogyny and gender etc is enough to earn the badge of 'progressives and liberals '.

    It is very strange indeed in the midst of all this ther is no mention of JC and McDonnel and co and their ' old 'foolish' 'defunct' types of policies that no one wants to vote for because .......

    Finally it is curious to note that many US citizens voted for Trump because of the disillusionment with political establishment. The odd thing is that ' those in the know ' did not know about their anger -- To complicate matters further and using this an example does US and the West really know what ordinary citizens in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of ME Asia and Africa really think about the ruinous roles of the West in making their lives and their children's lives and their countries and their future a waste . Just because ther are strategic and national security and economic interests of West and their local reps. Do we have to believe the stories and features of the natives and their 'backgrward ' oppressors or just believe ( as US election showed ) what we want to believe that the natives, want , deserve and should get --

    And yes we are in 21 st century and using all the powers of Internet and modern society to be acquainted with the outside world -- Doh --

    corund , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    This article and simon Jenkins article on trump are the best two articles I've read in the guardian for a long time! Spot on .keep reminding people that gw bush supported h. Clinton ,bush whose personal vendetta against Saddam cost thousands of lives ,Iraqi ,us ,UK ,etc! And how million american workers were put on the dole by bill clinton !ill
    JacktheNat , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    Thanks for that, Robert.

    The Clintons also helped corrupt the Democratic party to deny Bernie Sanders the opportunity to put many of these popular views to the test on Tuesday.

    That also meant denying the voters the chance of having someone like Tulsi Gabbard as vice-president:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzYoDOXsNm8

    jeanshaw1 , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    Exactly. Messrs Thatcher/Major/Blair/Cameron followed the same path here and that is why we have decided that we , the people , want to take back control and showed it by voting to recover our sovereignty by leaving the EU .
    letrightbedone , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    Remember, Trump used to be a Democrat. The fact that he has led the Republicans to peers suggests very little difference between establishment parties, as in the U.K. Trump is a savvy enough schemer to play to the fears and feelings of the dispossed. Let's see what he can deliver. I doubt much. All I can hope is that he recruits right wing Us Supreme Court justices in the vein of Scalia.
    Hopeabandoned letrightbedone , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
    Mr Justice Scalia, by his verdict in the Citizens United case, sold US politics to the highest bidder. He and his devout followers have done more harm to their country than any other supreme Court Justice. A man who supposedly believed in the 10 commandments, but who lacked the integrity to hear any death penalty cases. A hypocrite.
    kjjng1 dvdmartin , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    Glass-Steagall, which was used to protect ordinary savers from high risk investment banking, was removed by Clinton, not GWB. Sure, Congress and House were dominated by Republicans, but the Democrats had Bill Clinton and could have filibustered (see how effective the Republicans have been since). Instead, Gramm-Leach-Biley passed with bipartisan support. And let's not even talk about NAFTA.
    FilthyRichBanker , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
    The Socialist bread van resprayed in a liberalism, neoliberalism, multiculturalism, political correctness, globalism and liberal interventionism pretty colour by the Blairites, the Clintonites and EU political elites, was still the same old failed product under the bonnet.

    Guaranteed whenever it is taken out on the roads to breakdown and take a Nation or Federal Superstate to the brink of bankruptcy before the passengers(electorate) see it for what it really is - they had been sold a clapped out old banger with a new coat of paint!

    UK Socialists, memorably described by Margaret Thatcher as people who when in power always run out of other peoples money, are mostly a well meaning lot, but their bread van which crashed spectacularly in the 1970's and got taken to the scrap yard as beyond repair, was years later deviously bought(hijacked) as a 'damaged repairable', by a small group of liberal metropolitan elite scam artists who had quietly infiltrated the Labour Party.

    After a little tinkering under the bonnet(parachuting their own candidates into Labour heartland seats) and a new touchy feely PR paint job, they relaunched it onto the streets as a New Model 'Green' Socialist vehicle, when in reality it just a bunch of second hand car dealers in sharp suits operating an industrial scale 'cut and shut' job scam of Madoff proportions on hoodwinked buyers(the electorate).

    Working hand in glove with Goldman Sachs and big business, they made themselves extremely rich but now have a lot to answer for, as they're responsible for the rise of the left and right wing populist genie out of the bottle. Once out, like the inflation genie it is a devilishly difficult task to put back in.

    As evidenced by the latest utterances of a beaming Nigel Farage, aka Mr Brexit, following the Trump Presidential winning campaign:

    "Brexit, and now Trump, and now the wagons roll on to the rest of Europe for all the elections next year," Farage said, smiling like a cheshire cat. "This is a really exciting time. As someone who has now become a demolitions expert I'm thoroughly enjoying what's going on."

    With bold, brash, crass, in your face characters like Trump and Farage at the forefront of the political stage, the next few years, like a fairground ride could be rather wild and bumpy, but never dull.

    We live in interesting times --

    Bilge FilthyRichBanker , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    What so you're saying Trump and Farage lied? ....They're not going to protect our lifestyles and western living standards using left wing socialist protectionism? ....who woulda thunk it?
    Sal2011 , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
    It may be a repudiation of the American power structure, or the result of building certain perceptions in the American public over the years by the mainstream media that Trump pounced upon and crudely exploited to the hilt. The US media couldn't steer the beast it had created when it wanted to. Think it's wishful thinking that we're not in for a period of great upheaval, possibly tragedy. We saw what happened during the Bush presidency, an ugly war with a tally of tens of thousands of lives and global financial meltdown. This time it could be much, much worse.
    Ummmmm , 10 Nov 2016 15:2

    The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.


    Change "Democratic" for "Labour", "Washington" for "Westminster", "Wall Street" for "the City", and it still rings true. Corbyn and the swing to the left isn't the cause of the crisis, it's a response. What happens with Sanders and his base next will be pivotal.
    CaptainHogwash Ummmmm , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    Change globalisation of "Trade" to "Rightwing Politicies" and I think you've hit a home run
    evaelbee537 , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
    Compulsory reading for all who formed & remain part of what is described with forensic precision, including many contributing journalist to this paper. To be taken seriously, not immediately denounced, Robert Reich could only put pen to paper with confidence after Trump won so decisively, & why we are still reeling from reality about to unfold from success of the Brexit campaign. Fundamental change in reactionary maverick hands.
    Both Trump & UKIP/Farage/ Tory right engaged willingly, without shame, in a campaign of authoritarian demagoguery, with elevation of racist, xenophobic sentiments to being new national virtue of saying it as it is.
    Existing power structures with their intricate connections, web of back rubbing fundraising, & legislation to enable profit accumulation to continue unhindered by challenges from 'shopfloor' labour groups, failed to see what was under their noses. Insulated, blinkered privileged they dismissed as unelectable what was coming down on them like a ton of bricks.
    Great piece, well worth reading more than once.
    Kurwenal , 10 Nov 2016 15:1
    It is more an indictment of the mainstream political parties than the electorates that politicians like Trump, Farage, Le Pen and all the other hate preachers are attracting so much support. It is equally an indictment of the leftist media that they cling to the discredited leaders of the so called centre left parties. But then they have personally done very nicely out of the cozy relationships they have with leaders who are held in as much contempt by the ordinary voters as the misnamed liberal media holds them.
    Maitreya2016 , 10 Nov 2016 15:1
    Democrats were once for slavery as well.
    leadballoon , 10 Nov 2016 15:0

    The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.

    That is the most relevant paragraph I've seen here in recent months. exactly the same for the UK Labour party, Nobody with any real prospect of power represents the working class. The only shadows left are the unrealistic promises of Trump, or Brexit that we know will be ignored once the vote is cast. But what else is there?
    IamDolf leadballoon , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
    The "lumpenproletariat" that brought the social democratic parties in europe to power and made the european communist political parties a force to reckon with no longer exist. The old working classes have been superseded by an underclass who do the truly unskilled work, and a middle class, the successful children of the former workingclass who now are nurses, administrators, middle managers, etc.
    Steel, mining, ship building, car manufacturing, etc, used to employ thousands or even tens of thousands of people in a single plant. Those days are over. Everywhere. To exclusively focus on the 20% of the population that are truly left behind is political suicide. And why a guy like Corbyn will never see an electoral win.
    And then one needs to keep in mind that the American working class are much more right leaning than their european counterparts.
    goto100 , 10 Nov 2016 15:0
    Fuck all globalist hellspawn. Fuck all neocons. Fuck all neoliberals. All of them.
    SoccerPundit WorrierQueen , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
    First past the post does have benefits e.g., stable governments that last 4-5 years, manifesto's printed up-front rather than debated behind closed doors, prevention of extremist parties achieving influence via balance of power.
    UK, USA main two parties are actually 'large tents/broad churches' where multiple views exist rather than narrow dogma.
    Democracy is not perfect - but the peaceful transfer of power - in the UK, US is to be commended and not taken for granted.
    (ps I agree with gerrymandering in US but that's a result of the States vs Federal system. Also one more thing - FPTP is the only way to choose a President whether by Electoral College or popular vote).
    BarrieJ SoccerPundit , 10 Nov 2016 16:2
    Stable governments that don't represent voter's views or needs. Manifestos that are manifestly ignored at the earliest convenience, policies that were never announced or publicised, pursued in the interests of political lobbyists, donors or corporations. Politicians whose default position is to lie if it serves them better than the truth and the electorate offered the only opportunity to dismiss them at the next election, when they can reliably expect to be rewarded with a seat in the Lords or any number of sinecures in the form of directorships and consultancies.
    The system is not fit for purpose and that's just the way our political class likes it.
    PerspectivesPlease , 10 Nov 2016 14:5
    Thank you! Thank you! Thank you, Secy. Reich. I cannot say enough!

    Yes, Sir no one can fool all the people all the time. The Clintons were masters at this game and believed they could get the people to believe that 2+2=5 assisted with their unlimited corporate money, Wall St. influence, and the dissemination of misinformation aided by the media.

    There would not have been any need for organizations like Wikileaks, if journalists had a modicum of integrity.

    As for the Guardian, it had to have their favorite, and the most corrupt, candidate defeated at the elections resoundingly in order to have voices, the like that of Secy. Reich express his views in this otherwise skewed newspaper. With the increase in corruption in public office, journalistic integrity followed that same path.

    The frustration of the people with establishment politics rose to such a level where they did not care even if the opposing non-establishment candidate was Donald Trump or Donald Duck who groped other ducklings.

    Omoikani , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
    The Guardian was one of Clinton's loudest barking dogs, following the Goldman Sachs playlist to the letter. Adverse comments BTL about her or the Guardian's election coverage were deleted.
    CaptainHogwash , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
    "Democrats once represented the working class. Not anymore "

    Republicans never represented the working class but the working classes continued to vote them into office.

    The destruction of the trade union movement has always been one of the highest priorities for Conservatives – the success they have had in large part due to the concerted efforts of Ronnie and Maggie (who are now engaged in a torrid posthumous affair).

    In the UK there is a sinister parallel between zero hour contracts and workers during the depression standing in the streets hoping to pick up a day's work.
    Apparently "job security" is a threat to the prosperity of the nation and so it goes on.
    Now that the unions have been dealt with the Tories in the UK have set their sights on dismantling the NHS (by incrementally starving it to death) and there is presently nothing to stop them.

    Trump clearly tailored his message to reach the disenfranchised but unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any evidence that (a) he really cares about them and (b) anything substantial is about to improve their lot.

    sylvesta34 , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
    Its quite ironic that right-wing, neo-lib ideology, created what we have now, and at the same time its the right and far right that are getting all the gains. The popularity of Trump. Farage and this movement tells you how utterly and totally the left and liberals in general have failed in connecting with the working classes and offer something different.
    Biblio , 10 Nov 2016 14:4

    Bill Clinton and Barack Obama helped shift power away from the people towards corporations. It was this that created an opening for Donald Trump

    Sums things up succintly. If you're concentrating on stealing their clothes, they can steal yours, especially when you only wave them about listlessly yet refuse to wear them.

    Trojans08 Biblio , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
    That's been happening since Reagan. I get the blame on Clinton & Obama in the context of "Dems played the same game as GOP", but not in a more open context. This has been happening for 35 years with trickle down economy. It also happens to "coincide" with the widening of wealth gap...
    Light_and_Liberty , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
    It was a repudiation of President Barack Obama and his leftist [neoliberal] policies that decimated middle class jobs, health insurance and the respect for the rule of law.

    A valid point can be stated in one sentence.

    Karl Holder , 10 Nov 2016 14:3
    Obama just nailed the whole working class with a massive Obamacare rate hike. What did they expect was going to happen? You cannot provide free healthcare to the poor on the backs of the working class while the upper mids and wealthy pay nothing. The upper mids already have employer insurance, people, and they do not get an opinion. OCare is hitting me for $400 a month for insurance with a $13,000 deductible! That is fraud! I am a working class liberal- Obama broke every campaign promise he ever made to us, and Clinton has done nothing to shed her 'corrupt DNC insider' image or distance herself from Obama's treacherous policies. ALL of the reasons the Trump people are giving for voting for Trump are VALID and we can blame this one on THE DNC. BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON.
    PDXtoNOLA , 10 Nov 2016 14:3
    I find it poetic that the Guardian, which seemed this past year to be competing with the other US majors in the grotesque sidelining and marginalizing of Bernie Sanders, is now On their hands and knees with their contribution drive. I will never give a dime to these hacks. What's funny is that had they stuck to their principles of fearless reporting I have no doubt a huuuge number of readers would have jumped at the opportunity to make a worthwhile contribution. Like the DNC, they had a clear thoroughbred in the stable and they drowned it in the backyard. i have no sympathy for this rag. I have contempt for it.
    Bilge , 10 Nov 2016 14:3
    Trump + brexit means the right have control. OK guys what happens next, what's the plan?
    RationalGuardianMan , 10 Nov 2016 14:2
    Just as after Brexit, this paper is flooded with articles claiming how 'minority' groups, BMEs, LGBTQ...s, and even women, are now being attacked in numbers and how vulnerable they feel.

    I follow the MSM and have seen nothing of substance that backs this up.

    Nor do I feel that Trump is going to mount major campaigns against such groups.

    Interestingly I believe it true that 29% of the 'Hispanic' minority actually voted for Trump.

    Similarly was the figure for white women not c.50% ?

    Many fewer blacks did, but should Trump's economics actually bring back jobs for the 'working class' why would blacks in this group of both (all ?) sexes not benefit also and if that is the case watch how their voting patterns change next time.

    NoSerf , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    Thankfully there are articles like this.
    Media other than Guardian who don't care to give this thought the time of the day, slip into irrelevance. I mean the MSMs here who all embody Trotzkism.
    Trotzkism dictates that the livelihoods of people ought to be taken away to make them pliable. China bought US-TBs (for US government aggrandizement) upon US shipping jobs over there. Feeding the hungry? With the Fed going into overdrive. Banks together with govt concocted the financial crisis to profit off bear strategies that mortals can't do. In following years, the elite coined high-flying ideals such as globalization, which is good for them because they sit in govt, teach in universities or are detached ueber-owners of businesses. Joe Blow was screamed at when he would ask: How am I gonna pay for stuff that the big wigs have now manufactured overseas, when we now make, or get as welfare, $10 instead of $25 an hour?
    Hard to reverse the destruction, but worth a try.
    Willbeck , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    I never thought I would be in agreement with Robert Reich but I am today. Every election cycle the Democratic Party spouts happy talk about being the people's party and the worker's party (in contrast to the supposedly blue blooded, monied Republican Party.) While that may once have been a somewhat accurate portrayal, it has long since become a sham of an image.

    Today's Democratic Party is the party of the corporate billionaires, the tech titans, and the globalist elitists who don't want a simplistic notion like that of national borders to get in the way of their profit seeking. Naturally, the entertainment and media stars gravitate toward their corporate masters and shill for the Democrats. Throw in a fixation on divisive identity politics and the Democratic establishment and its less loud and proud Republican counterpart thought that the authentic voice of the American people could forever be drowned out. The success of Bernie Sanders (done in by the rigged Democratic Party rules) and Donald Trump demonstrates that the people will no longer be silenced.

    biologixco , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    Hey GUARDIAN, where is that 99% chance of Hillary winning???
    I personally know three people that didnt vote because they thought she had a win in the bank.
    Shame on the Guardian.
    Those pollsters along with GUARDIAN should be summarily FIRED.
    And don't let the door hit them in the a$$.
    meggo56 , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    Thank you for your voice of intelligence & grounded wisdom. As I read elsewhere, the treaties that Mr. Clinton & Obama have backed have unravelled the middle class. And let's not forget Mr. Reagan who reversed high tax rates on the wealthy and broke the back of unions. Neither party represents working people anymore. Certainly Mr. Trump does not. And playing to that disenfranchisement won him the election---but I fear that he has no interest in redeeming the middle class. He was interested in getting elected and telling people anything they want to hear.
    Bilge , 10 Nov 2016 14:0
    The western first world dominance is coming to an end. People in the west like to think they are the top of the food chain but reality is the second world of Asia and the far east is rapidly stepping into their shoes. Capitalism dictates that maximum profits are returned for minimum outlay so if you can make a product for minimal cost i.e. wages, and sell for the maximum price then you have a successful business model. Protectionism has been tried before and Trump's version trying to roll back globalisation will be no more successful. ..same applies to brexit. It'll get even worse as robotics take over more and more, the only solution will be social control mechanisms to ensure that suppliers have consumers to sell their products to. It's going to take a while for this realism to sink in...but it's unavoidable.
    eminijunkie Bilge , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    Protectionism is working great in China, and it once did wonders for the US.

    Free trade is the pathway to poverty for all but the [already] rich.

    MalleusSacerdotum , 10 Nov 2016 14:0
    Sense at last in a Guardian article.
    But still not enough sense to say clearly what a weak campaigner and what a poor choice of candidate Hillary Clinton was.

    Oh well... maybe the Guardian will use the period between now and January 20 to reflect on how they cheer-led for a candidate who didn't have what it takes to win an election.
    Or maybe not. Maybe they will continue to print and post stories that are tinged with hurt surprise that democracy means one -and only one- vote for every citizen who cares to cast it. How can democracy function if all those white unemployed and immiserated vote against the candidates that the rich have prepared for them?

    LibertineUSA , 10 Nov 2016 13:5
    As is usual Mr. Reich hits the nail squarely on the head.

    The working class had long been the backbone of the Democratic Party electorate. They no longer are because the Democratic Party is no longer the party of the working class. The banks, the upscale suburban liberals, minorities and specific issue oriented groups are the people that matter most to the Democratic Party. The working class support has been taken for granted for far too long by the Dems. I can't remember how many times I have heard said, or seen written, by Democratic insiders "where else do they have to go (for candidates to support)?"

    The working class has to be a part, and an important part, of the left's coalition going forward or risk seeing more shock election results like this. Their lots have not improved in this brand new global economy championed by both parties. And while their numbers aren't as large as when Reagan was elected (and before) there are more than enough of them to be an election decider.

    It also will be helpful to choose candidates who will not to insult them like who, for example, call them all a "basketful of deplorables".

    coolook , 10 Nov 2016 13:5
    the biggest factor in the Trump victory,and in the Brexit mayhem,is quite simply Globalization. it is Globalization that has exported jobs,and skills out of the western world. it is responsible for ghost towns in the industrial and manufacturing heartlands. western governments have had no strategy for regeneration on anything like a great enough scale. unless the consequences of globalization are addressed and reversed, the West faces ever falling living standards and huge unrest.
    simpledino coolook , 10 Nov 2016 19:0
    Yes, what we call "globalization" is quite simply the universalizing of a certain set of relations between capital and labor -- it's clear that if the process is allowed to proceed without proper safeguards, capital will be greatly favored, while labor will be reduced to the lowest possible level. Marx pointed out a long time ago that the tendency of capitalism is to squeeze the greatest amount of "surplus value" out of the workforce while granting them only as much money as necessary for them to scrape by from day to day. Essentially, under capitalism, he wrote, people exist to produce things and are less important than the things they produce. Marx may have been wrong about the viability of "scientific socialism," but he was often spot-on as an analyst of the way capitalism works and who it really benefits.

    Trade is wonderful, but only when it doesn't proceed by reducing us all to wage slaves. Maybe Dems who keep supporting bullshit neoliberal trade deals need to go read some of old Uncle Karl's delightfully sarcastic works. Capital, Vol. 1 would be a fine start: see in particular the chapter, "The Fetishism of the Commodity and the Secret Thereof." It's a masterpiece.

    blackrocket2000 , 10 Nov 2016 13:4
    Can anyone turn back the tide of globalisation and power of the corporations? What is the role of MSM? Are they all part of the problem? Interesting times. Maybe Trump will be force for good. We certainly need stronger leadership from our politicians, on both sides of the pond.
    simpledino stupormundi , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    Yes, I think of lot of that sort of stuff is misplaced. True, there are some despicable people supporting Trump -- the Klan, neo-Nazi types, and so forth. But most people who voted for him aren't like that. It's probably more the case that they put aside considerable disdain for Trump's wretched behavior and voted for him based on his promise to "unforget" the working class. Personally, I think he's a brazen demagogue who doesn't give any more of a rat's bottom about the poor and the working class than Hitler did in Germany, what with all his "national socialist" promises of "two chickens in every pot." But it isn't hard to understand the appeal of such populist rhetoric when people are suffering and insecure. The American Left needs to rediscover its proper role as a moderator of the harsher side of capitalism -- it has forgotten that role, and the bill for that forgetfulness just came due. I don't blame Hillary personally -- Secretary Reich is right to frame the problem in much broader terms, i.e. as having to do with the Democratic leadership as a whole.
    Aboutface , 10 Nov 2016 13:3
    The business of government has morphed into the government for businesses.
    Take a hint from what President Xi of China is doing, in managing the PRC. A good yardstick of good governance comes from the analects of Confucius.
    Pyrophyte , 10 Nov 2016 13:3
    What an excellent article.

    It's the same almost everywhere.

    For instance, once upon a time in Germany, social democrats represented the working class. Not anymore. People couldn't care less about Germany's wonderful economic growth either, as most of the surplus goes to the top.*

    The "social democrat" Schröder demolished the welfare state and introduced a new low wage sector, much beloved by his corporate buddies. Thanks to his and Angela Merkel's efforts, numbers of working poor and food banks are increasing. So is the wealth gap.* Thanks to an ongoing media hate campaign against the meritocratic losers, most people suffered in silence. And now everyone acts shocked and confused that a right-winged populist party is on the rise.

    Well, thank you Angela Merkel, these are the fruits of your beloved austerity. The next vote in Germany is going to be interesting. And just for the record: austerity was employed by Brüning to boot. And that turned out so well, didn't it?

    http://www.dw.com/en/study-income-inequality-reaches-new-high-in-germany/a-36009472

    trundlesome1 , 10 Nov 2016 13:2
    Capitalism is the best economic system we have but it becomes increasingly self destructive and unstable if it is not managed properly. The moderate left and right would both agree on this normally but the left would prioritise the interests of workers and the right the interests of capitalists. However both, self interestedly, would support policies and institutions that kept the system stable and growing.

    Unfortunately hubris and market fundamentalism has turned the right's head and allowed the rich and greedy to destructively run rampant. This is in no-one's longer term interest as the impoverishment of the middle class and destruction of a prosperous mas market will eventually undermine even most of the wealthy. The economic elite need to be dragged back under control. Theodore Roosevelt broke up the trusts in the 20s and Franklin brought in the New Deal in the Great Depression. It has been done before. It needs to be done again.

    Russ Bestley , 10 Nov 2016 13:2
    Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

    Exactly, and the parallels with the Brexit vote and against an EU corporate bureaucracy set up to benefit the wealthy are stark. You could apply the same phrasing here in the UK:

    Now British voters have rebelled by supporting a campaign that wants to fortify the UK against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Brexit's isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most British workers couldn't care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

    trundlesome1 , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
    Great article.

    The Democrats have more or less sold out the working class to the rich and powerful. They are, in large part, the rich and powerful as this article points out. If the left wants to counter right wing populists such as Trump it will need to address the growing anger of the white working class towards policies that have put them in a position where they will be a minority in their own country where they have historically been a large majority. It will also have to look after the unemployed, working and middle classes at the expense of Wall Street, big tech and big business generally. Ironically the right needs to do exactly the same thing. And both need to do these things while protecting the well-being of minorities. Will these mainstream politicians be able to escape the orbit of the rich? It is difficult to be optimistic.

    ThomasD , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
    Maybe so, but the only solution offered here is more Unions... if you think that's a solution to the stagnating earnings of the bottom half of the population then I'm afraid you are way off the mark.

    The problem, and it's one that Trump will utterly fail to address and strikes at the heart of our beliefs, is that a modern economy has little use (and places little economic value) on low and unskilled labour. There is not a thing that can't be done cheaper by foreign factories and machines (computers/robots/automation). This is deeply unpalatable and I do not like it, but without a solution to how we ensure fair treatment of people who are, day by day, becoming less economically valuable to the modern economy, this issue will not go away. Trump is a reaction, but he is not the solution but he will set out to blame every minority, foreign government, trade agreement he can because he can't or won't address this issue, and that will be very bad for everyone.

    epidavros ThomasD , 10 Nov 2016 13:2
    Its much worse than that. The modern economy places no real value on labour at all. Over the coming years about 1/3 of all jobs are considered at risk of automation, including doctors, lawyers (already happening), journalists (already happening) etc. The liberal elite in some of these jobs are like lobsters in a slowly heating pot - they are too busy congratulating themselves on how toasty warm their situation is to realise what is going on, and so all too happy to applaud the status quo.
    ThomasD epidavros , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    Certainly it's a rising tide that threatens to wash away at everyone, though the higher skilled the safer you are likely to be, at least for now.

    I think the challenges are ultimately going to affect everyone, the question is going to be who benefits politically. The left (which is where my political sympathies lie) is currently in a real funk and lacks meaningful answers, the right is reducing it's message to 'blame the others, they take your job, benefit at your expense etc'. No real answers.

    P.S. I think your reference to the 'liberal elite' is misplaced, I'm not sure if the local GP or bloke who writes wills in the local high street really count as an elite, just ordinary people doing relatively well for themselves. The risk in this kind of language is that the tendency is to think they are some kind of other who are to blame for all this, when what's happening is actually far more wide ranging and fundamental.

    epidavros ThomasD , 10 Nov 2016 14:2
    Liberal elite is a slight. Its not misplaced at all. Wikipedia gets it spot on:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_elite

    And the liberal elite are by definition to blame for this because they are the ones whose privilege got them the managerial and leadership positions they hold yet whose ideology and political views have meant they have carried out these roles so badly.

    I agree that neither side has the answers because both sides are in effect faces of the same coin, cut from the same metal, imbued with the same flaws. Corbyn no more has answers than Trump.

    What Trump has done is prove that no politician can go forward ignoring the questions. Hillary firmly expected to.

    Josh Graver , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
    Mirrored exactly with the new labour. Billionaires and celebrities rubbing shoulders with the political elite, little wonder why we became disillusioned with them. For years now, the government neglected the working class. Industries and jobs vanished ever since replaced with ZHC jobs and low pay, keeping the broken system going on the back of a 'trickle-down effect' lie.

    The Democrats had their party, Perry turned up, endorsed by lines of celebrities, we are looking back with perplexed bemused expressions. If we elect her, it would be more of the same. The free market shite started off a few decades ago, heavily entrenched by corporations and billionaires, the scandal of offshore trust funds, we are dumped and forgotten.

    basalte , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
    What struck me as a tourist to San Francisco in 2014 were the sheer numbers of very visible homeless on the streets, begging or just looking beaten . Yet all around them there were mass preparations for the annual Gay Pride celebration. Obviously I am not decrying Gay Pride but the sense of priorities seemed strange and I was forced to think that America is a pretty insane place. It is going the same way here, a lot easier to celebrate identity than to tackle systemic injustice. That used to be Governments` job but they have largely abandoned their historic responsibilities. Time for Labour to bring those fundamental responsibilities back --
    TettyBlaBla basalte , 10 Nov 2016 22:0
    All told, San Francisco spends close to three quarters of a Billion dollars every year on "homeless" of which close to $200 million is a specific department and budget item. As such, many flock to San Francisco, which is also well known for lack of enforcement of many laws. Many of the beggars are already housed at taxpayer expense and prefer to generate additional income outdoors on a schedule of their choice, which is where they also purchase and consume items never sold in stores.
    lotusblue , 10 Nov 2016 12:4
    The working classes have been stripped of their dignity, whole communities have become wastelands and virtual ghettos. The working class don't trust the left to sort things out for them and that is why and how a figure like Trump can come along and say 'I will save you all' and become President. Meanwhile, the socialist left sit around scratching their heads, unable to work out what has happened and squabble about the spirit of socialism and ideology that in all honesty, most working class people don't give a toss about. They just want jobs that pay a decent wage, a nice house to own, nice food on the table, two cars and nice holidays. They want to be middle class in other words.
    marjane52 lotusblue , 10 Nov 2016 12:5
    But democrats are not left. They right wing too. If Americans think that Democrats are left, they don´t know what left is at all. And what socialist goverment has USA had. I see Americans saying tthat Democrats are socialists, really?.Hillary left and socialist?. Trump and Hillary are both right wing, only that Trump is more extreme.
    BlessedCheesemaker , 10 Nov 2016 12:4

    A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. "The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better off than they've been in years."

    The political elite of *both* parties are completely out of touch with the citizenry. The economy has been restructured over the last 20-30 years to completely de-value labor and prioritize the rich and corporations.

    Having said that, I believe people just want to be heard. Voting for Trump was seen as voting against the status quo, and voting for Hillary was voting for the big establishment. Much like Brexit, I don't think voters were thinking through the long-term consequences of their decision.

    petermhogan , 10 Nov 2016 12:3
    Monday morning quarterbacking of the worst kind. That the Democrats have lost the white working class is obvious. But to blame the Democrats, such as Hillary, is misplaced. It is the Dems who have attempted to help the working poor and propose improvements in health care and child care and tax redistribution. It is not a lack of concern that is the issue. What Reich ignores is that voters are voting an ideology and not self-interest. They have bought into the notion that getting rid of immigrants and taking care of the rich will solve all problems.
    The voters had a clear choice and they chose the demagogue peddling a non-solution. They wanted to believe that they are wonderful people and problems can be solved by a wealthy idiot who promises to turn the clock back. In Democracy sometimes it is the voters who get it wrong.
    Justanotherwageslave , 10 Nov 2016 12:3
    The analysis is correct more of less , the issue here is class , the Republicans and Democrats are the two wings of the same party. The party of property and money and the powerful , the vote for Trump is one of those events that happens much like Obama being elected twice after the Republicans stole the two previous elections via the supreme court and election fraud. It can happen but the system remains the same , there is no serious challenge to the supremacy of the ruling class.

    The one analysis you will not hear in the media is a class one and if it is then it will be howled down lest it gain currency and the wage slaves realise they have been conned yet again , Trump is not unusual in his attitudes or views , it's just that the campaign gave them wide publicity.

    In the UK the same kind of thing has happened to Labour , they lost Scotland and the 2010 election and the remain vote because ordinary working people are tired just as they are in the US of seeing the rich get every richer and their own living standards fall and nothing in the future but more pain and misery. They vote UKIP/SNP here as a cry in the wilderness and they voted for Trump for the same reason because they aren't what they've had before , the real problem will come when the right wing populists have been in power for a while and nothing has really improved.

    Minorityreported , 10 Nov 2016 12:1
    For the last thirty years, there has been no left or right wing governments - not economically or fiscally. Third way centrism (liberal progressiveness) embraced the primacy of unfettered market capitalism and corporate globalism, and focused exclusively on using political power as a tool to win the culture war instead. That's fine if you've done materially very well out of unfettered market capitalism and corporate globalism, and all that therefore matters to you is social justice issues. But if you were once in a secure job with a decent income and decent prospects for your children, and all of that has been ripped away from you by unfettered market capitalism and corporate globalism, and the people responsible for preventing that - or at least fixing it when it happens - are more concerned with policing the language you use to express your fears and pain, and demonstrating their compassion by trying to improve the life chances of people on other continents, then social justice issues become a source of burning resentment, not enlightenment. There has been a crushing rejection of globalism and corporate plutocracy by Western electorates. The Western progressive left will only survive if it has the courage to recognise that, and prioritises the fight for economic and fiscal policies that promote the interests and prospects of its own poor and middle class, over and above the cultural issues that have defined it for a quarter of a century. We should always remain vigilant, but the truth is that the culture war is won. It would be tragic beyond words if that victory was reversed by an explosion of resentment caused by the left's determination to guard old battle fields, while ignoring the reality that its thinkers and activists are needed to right new injustices. Trump's success doesn't represent the victory of hate over hope, it just represents the loss of hope. The left has to see that or its finished.
    HHeLiBe , 10 Nov 2016 12:1
    The Guardian had a very interesting article on Bill Clinton's culpability for mass incarceration of drug users, mainly Afro-Americans.

    It is really questionable whether they represent liberalism.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/15/bill-clinton-crime-bill-hillary-black-lives-thomas-frank

    ECullen DrMcNounVerber , 10 Nov 2016 16:4
    It's not quite as simple as that. Some things like clothes are certainly still made by people (in horrific conditions for terrible pay) but more and more factories are automated with a bare skeleton staff running the show. The BBC series 'Inside the Factory' was an eye opener for me. The UK food manufacturing industry for example is heading toward almost full automation - I'd imagine the US industry is even further down the automated road. This is why the UK and US have moved to services and these areas are the vast bulk of unskilled jobs now.
    Quint Red , 10 Nov 2016 12:1

    The Democratic party once represented the working class

    Now it sneers at them as a "basket of deplorables". The same has happened in the UK; only this morning Owen Jones was asking the left to reach out to the working class, and in the very same article labelled them as racist, misogynist homophobes.

    The consequences of this disdain are entirely predictable

    Bootsy_Collins Quint Red , 10 Nov 2016 12:3
    Re: "basket of deplorables" -- if you care about accuracy, she didn't sneer at them as a basket of deplorables; she sneered at *half* of them as a basket of deplorables. In the same paragraph, she described the other half as having legitimate concerns that weren't being addressed.

    As far as her criticisms of half of Trump's voting base -- politically, stupid as hell. But valid? Well, what do carefully-taken public opinion polls from the 15 months before the election tell us? 2/3 of Trump supporters believe Obama is a Muslim who was born in another country. 63% want to amend the Constitution to eliminate citizenship for people born in the U.S. 40% consider African-Americans lazier than white people. A third of Trump supporters believe that the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2 was a good thing. 31% believe in banning homosexuals from entering the United States. A quarter of them believe that Antonin Scalia was murdered in a conspiracy. A quarter believe that vaccines cause autism. 16% believe that whites are a superior race, and another 14% just aren't sure.

    I don't see a very strong case that she was wrong.

    EdmundLange , 10 Nov 2016 12:1
    It's the same problem the UK had with brexit. People feel squeezed, invariably because of neoliberalist policies that benefit the wealthy, and the rising wage and wealth gap drives resentment because of it.

    Suddenly, you get populists who spring up with "solutions" to such problems, but rather than being actual solutions seem to scapegoat totally unrelated factors, such as immigration, free trade, power blocs, specific groups of people who may be out of favour at the moment, rather than the actual correct causes in the first place.

    PSmd Captain_America , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
    Your post actually chimes with what I've been saying. There was a big moment for the left, that came in 2008 in the USA. A mixed race opponent of the Iraq War, sounding plausibly leftish leaning, praised public healthcare, accused relentlessly by the right of being a communist/socialist, of being a muslim, of not born in the USA. And he won. So only 8 years ago, there was a moment where American electorate shifted left, it'd seem. But instead Obama brought back Rubin, Summers, Geithner, same old 1990's wall street cabal. FDR he was not.

    There'll be a moment within a decade for things to move left, who will head 'the left' (Clinton and Blair types?) will tell whether things actually do move in that direction.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Trump voters want to get rid of the corruption in Washington. Specifically, the Clinton Foundation, with its $600,000 salary to Chelsea Clinton, and Hillarys receipt of cash from Saudi Arabia and Morocco

    Notable quotes:
    "... Specifically, she adduced the Clinton Foundation, with its $600,000 salary to Chelsea Clinton, and Hillary's receipt of cash from Saudi Arabia and Morocco, as well as complaining about Benghazi and something that I took to be death panels. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | http://crookedtimber.org/2016/11/09/what-can-we-do/#comment-697744
    Howard Frant 11.10.16 at 1:41 am 138

    I talked to an elated Trump voter today. She had little to say about Trump, other than "Give him a chance." No, her elation was at the defeat of Hillary, and the attendant possibility that opened up to get rid of the corruption in Washington. Specifically, she adduced the Clinton Foundation, with its $600,000 salary to Chelsea Clinton, and Hillary's receipt of cash from Saudi Arabia and Morocco, as well as complaining about Benghazi and something that I took to be death panels.

    ... ... ...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?_r=0

    [Nov 11, 2016] Chelsea Clinton was not paid $600 k from the Clinton Foundation. Chelsea Clinton was paid $600 k per year from 2011 by NBC for work as a special correspondent, whilst also pocketing $300 k per year plus stock options as a board member of IAC. Chelseas speaking fees were a mere 65 thousand dollars

    Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 11.10.16 at 10:39 am 161

    ... .. ...

    @138 The woman is wrong. Chelsea Clinton was not paid $600 k from the Clinton Foundation. Chelsea Clinton was paid $600 k per year from 2011 by NBC for 'work' as a special correspondent, whilst also pocketing $300 k per year plus stock options as a 'board member' of IAC. Chelsea's speaking fees were a mere $65 k per.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/chelsea-clinton-press-213596

    The NYT offers a more severe critique of the IAC board deal readable by clicking through the links. There will be those who see nothing improper about a fifth-estate firm paying a 31 year-old graduate student $600 k, or awarding her a board seat and stock options at $300k. Others may disagree, and perhaps with some good reason.

    The defeat of the democratic candidate by a rodeo clown is a slap in the face. Contra Manta @71 I do not believe that anything less than a slap in the face of this order would be enough to jar the successful and well-fed out of their state of complacency and indifference to the plight of both the blacks and whites left behind by 8 years of Democratic rule, and far longer when we're talking about urban African-Americans.

    As noted, I believe the Republican candidate to be far and away the more sober, safer choice both on domestic and foreign policy. Now we'll find out.

    Thanks for the kind words to Rich, Bruce, T, bob mc, and others.

    Best to you all.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Chalabi on US elections: another reasonable article from Guardian

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ... this commentary is fairly good:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/third-party-candidate-gary-johnson-jill-stein-clinton-loss

    The headline is "Did third-party candidates Jill Stein and Gary Johnson lose Clinton the election?" and the short answer is no, but Chalabi takes the time to point out the reasoning behind the answer.

    makedoanmend November 10, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    Thanks for the link. Don't get me wrong, there are 1 or 2 writers still worth reading and some articles that actually provide content.

    It's just that, overall, the jist the of paper seems to have established a deliberate policy of contradictory messaging to cloud important issues, or momentarily providing balance to only later use the apparent balance a to push a one-sided agenda.

    The Blairite faction's attack on Corbyn and the guardian's coverage comes to mind. It was pure hack journalism. The political careerists were so obviously in league with the hack journalist careerists.

    Life is just too short.

    best

    Katharine November 10, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    I hear you! You do what you need to do to be sane.

    JustAnObserver November 10, 2016 at 5:14 pm

    Apart from the Science & Tech stuff I've really only been reading the Graun recently (esp since its utterly scandalous treatment of Corbyn (*)) for the Thomas Frank pieces. Is he publishing these anywhere else on-line ?

    (*) They're probably kicking themselves for not labeling them as `deplorables' & letting the Clinton team get to this phrase first.

    pretzelattack November 10, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    i'm looking forward to their climate change articles sans references to how we must vote for clinton.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Carma proved to be bitch for Hillary

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    mcdee November 10, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    The savaging of the Rust Belt by NAFTA costs Clinton MI, OH, IN, WI and PA and Haitian refugees cost her FL. How fitting. Karma IS real.

    ProNewerDeal November 10, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    HClinton outspent (campaign + SuperPACs) Trump by 45% ($534M to $367M per the election Wiki page, given preliminary FEC reports currently available) in the election, yet lost. Perhaps the most clear sign as to what a horrible candidate HClinton was, both in policies & campaign tactics.

    When was the last Pres election the top fundraiser did NOT win? How many times has this happen, say since the 1980 Reagan election or since the 1948 post-WW2 election? IIRC, Thomas Ferguson with his Investment Theory of Politics shows that in the vast majority (90%+ ?) of US elections (Fed/State/Local), the biggest fundraiser wins.

    TK421 November 10, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    I don't think s happened in a presidential election since WWII.

    [Nov 11, 2016] The Democratic coalition of Wall Street (Silicon Valley) + Identity Politics is imploding, because it cant deliver populist goodies without losing part of its core base.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness. Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful, somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing." ..."
    "... "But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means "I feel unfree." ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bob mcmanus 11.10.16 at 1:45 pm I thought someone above talked about Trump's rhetoric

    1) Tom Ferguson at Real News Network post at Naked Capitalism says (and said in 2014) that the Democratic coalition of Wall Street (Silicon Valley) + Identity Politics is imploding, because it can't deliver populist goodies without losing part of it's core base.
    Noted no for that, but for my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street + Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological. Capital is Language.

    2) Consider the above an intro to

    Lauren Berlant at the New Inquiry "Trump or Political Emotions" which I think is smart. Just a phrase cloud that stood out for me. All following from Berlant, except parenthetical

    It is a scene where structural antagonisms - genuinely conflicting interests - are described in rhetoric that intensifies fantasy.

    People would like to feel free. They would like the world to have a generous cushion for all their aggression and inclination. They would like there to be a general plane of okayness governing social relations

    ( Safe Space defined as the site where being nasty to those not inside is admired and approved. We all have them, we all want them, we create our communities and identities for this purpose.)

    "Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness. Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful, somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing."

    (Wonderful, and a comprehension of New Media I rarely see. Cybernetics? Does noise increase the value of signal? The grammatically correct tight argument crowd will not get this. A problem I have with CT's new policy)

    "You watch him calculating, yet not seeming to care about the consequences of what he says, and you listen to his supporters enjoying the feel of his freedom. "

    (If "civil speech" is socially approved signal, then noise = freedom and feeling. Every two year old and teenage guitarist understands)

    "But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means "I feel unfree."

    The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " …my emp

    Noise again. Berlant worth reading, and thinking about.

    [Nov 11, 2016] In one of Trump last speeches before the election he said, Tomorrow, the working class takes back this country. I was struck. No contemporary Democratic politician would (or could, credibly) say those words. Afraid of scaring off their donors or being red-baited, most Democrats wont even utter the phrase working class -preferring the capacious and increasingly meaningless middle class or, at best, working families.

    Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    engels 11.11.16 at 1:43 am 243

    I watched one of Trump's last speeches before the election. In it, he said, "Tomorrow, the working class takes back this country." I was struck. No contemporary Democratic politician would (or could, credibly) say those words. Afraid of scaring off their donors or being red-baited, most Democrats won't even utter the phrase "working class"-preferring the capacious and increasingly meaningless "middle class" or, at best, "working families."

    But Trump said it. His rural and exurban white supporters have a class consciousness of sorts. They despise elites. They feel that the system is rigged. But that antipathy is entirely entangled with their fear of a black president, of eroding racial and gender hierarchies, and their perception that multi-cultural elites are helping minorities at their expense. Trump can say "working class" because everyone in his audience hears the unsaid word "white" preceding it. It is, as it has ever been, the left's task to build a mass political movement where there are no words silently preceding the term "working class." It's not hyperbole to say that everything depends on it.

    http://samadlerbell.com/trump-and-the-working-class/

    [Nov 11, 2016] Low black turn-out numbers in key states, such as Michigan, NC, and Florida came as no surprise to me because I watched Leslie Wimes one week before the election explain that it was already over for Hillary in Florida

    Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 11.11.16 at 10:19 am 265 ( 265 )

    I'm going to be as diplomatic as I can about the lack of gravitas clearly displayed in the comments here as I can, whilst at the same timing reviewing some of the data that many clearly missed.

    One of the key reasons I remained confident that Hillary would lose irrespective of what the FBI did, or did not do, if you're interested, is that I was keenly interested in the attitudes of African-American voters from the outset of this election. As I've said throughout, I do not regard Trump as a 'Republican' in anything like the conventional sense of the word, but rather see him as a New York celebrity vulgarian with liberal inclinations. Trump from the outset had a clear plan to appeal to African-American voters, even it was far from fleshed-out. And given the 'of course, African-American voters will support the Democrat' attitude of practically every white supporter of Hillary, I was confident Trump wouldn't need much of a plan beyond saying: 'vote for me, what have you got to lose?' to do fairly well no matter how badly he was smeared.

    Turns out I was right. Low black turn-out numbers in key states, such as Michigan, NC, and Florida came as no surprise to me because I watched Leslie Wimes one week before the election explain that it was 'already over' for Hillary in Florida.

    Not one to mince words, Ms. Wimes, who voted early for Clinton, reports that she warned the Clinton campaign and the DNC as early as September that black voters in Florida were not, repeat not, going to be turning out in sufficient numbers to permit Hillary to carry this critical state. But nobody wanted to hear. Funny, that.

    Maybe some would like to listen to Ms. Wimes now.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/01/dem_strategist_clinton_should_be_in_panic_mode_over_enthusiasm_gap_with_black_voters_nothing_she_can_do_now.html

    Layman 11.11.16 at 11:13 am 266 mclaren: "No, what I was pointing out is that the two candidates who set the electorate on fire were the two populist candidates, Trump and Sanders."

    You're abusing the term 'the electorate'. 'The electorate' in a primary (or a caucus!) is a different thing than 'the electorate' in a general election, and results in one don't translate into results in another. The point of the Obama Idaho 2008 example is this: Obama beat Clinton by 60 points in that caucus, but this did not mean he was going to win Idaho in a general election, and in fact he got trounced there in the general election. This is because, again, 'the electorate' is a different thing in those two contests. No one knows if Sanders would have done better in this general election, and primary results don't provide an answer to that question.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Hillary extreme militarism and jingoism as well as attempt to make Russophobia a part of the platform of the Democratic Party, effectively positioning it as yet another War Party were part of her downfall

    Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez 11.12.16 at 3:01 am 288

    Sorry, but I do not see in this thread any attempt to discuss Hillary extreme militarism and jingoism as well as attempt to make Russophobia a part of the platform of the Democratic Party, effectively positioning it as yet another War Party.

    In some areas of foreign policy Hillary looks like John McCain in the pantsuit. There is no military intervention that she did not like, and she was always prone to the most hawkish positions on any war related issues, trying to outdid her male counterparts in jingoism, as if overcompensating her hidden sense of inferiority.

    That might be another negative factor affecting the elections results. Few people outside military industrial complex lobbyists are exited about the possibility of unleashing WWIII (for example via enforcing "no fly zone" in Syria) even with conventional weapons. And a lot of people, especially among more educated part of electorate, still remember her role in the destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria. Especially the latter ( moonofalabama.org)

    The people loyal to the Syrian government are happy with Donald Trump winning the U.S. election:

    At the passport counter, a Syrian officer's face lit up when he saw an American traveler.

    "Congratulations on your new president!" he exclaimed, giving an energetic thumbs up. Mr. Trump, he said, would be "good for Syria."

    The first significant step of the new administration comes while Trump is not even in offices. Obama, selfishly concerned with his historic legacy, suddenly makes a 180 degree turn and starts to implement Trump polices. Lets consider the initial position:

    Asked about Aleppo in an October debate with Clinton, Trump said it was a humanitarian disaster but the city had "basically" fallen. Clinton, he said, was talking in favor of rebels without knowing who they were.

    The rebels fighting Assad in western Syria include nationalists fighting under the Free Syrian Army banner, some of them trained in a CIA-backed program, and jihadists such as the group formerly known as the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.

    The Obama administration, through the CIA led by Saudi asset John Brennan, fed weapons, training and billions of dollars to "moderate rebels". These then turned around (vid) and either gave the CIA gifts to al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al Nusra) or joined it themselves.

    The scheme was no secret at all and Russia as well as Syria pointed this out several times. The Russian foreign Minister Lavrov negotiated with the U.S. secretary of State Kerry who promised to separate the "moderate rebels" from al-Qaeda. But Kerry never delivered. Instead he falsely accuse Russia of committing atrocities that never happened. The CIA kept the upper hand within the Obama administration and continued its nefarious plans.

    continued its nefarious plans.

    likbez 11.12.16 at 3:20 am 289 Another interesting question that needs to be discussed is the "cleansing" of DNC from Clinton loyalists (the word "super delegate" smells of corruption) and thus weakening the dominant neoliberal wing of the party:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/10/liberal-democrats-lash-out-at-dnc-say-overhaul-needed-to-woo-back-working-class-voters/

    "You can't tell working people you're on their side while at the same time you're raising money from Wall Street and the billionaire class," Sanders said. "The Democratic Party has to be focused on grass-roots America and not wealthy people attending cocktail parties."

    Sanders acknowledged the need for the party to continue its function as a fundraising vehicle but suggested a model akin to his presidential campaign, which raised much of its money from small-dollar donors.
    … … …
    Leaders of several progressive groups, who had been courting Clinton as a potential ally on many of their causes, have expressed anger in the aftermath of the election, arguing that the result was a repudiation of a campaign driven by the Democratic establishment.

    "The Democratic establishment had their chance with this election," said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "It's time for new leadership of the Democratic Party - younger, more diverse and more ideological - that is hungry to do things differently, like leading a movement instead of dragging people to the polls."
    … … …
    Neil Sroka, a spokesman for the liberal group Democracy for America, said Ellison would be "a potentially phenomenal choice" as DNC chairman, but said the organization was open to other choices, provided they weren't part of the party establishment.

    "I think Tuesday night was a tremendous loss that must sit at the feet of the political establishment of a Democratic Party that preordained the primary process from the very beginning," said Sroka, whose group backed Sanders in the primaries. "The folks that enabled the loss need to step back and let the grass roots lead it."

    In a sign of tension at the DNC, a staff meeting there was interrupted Thursday by a staff member who stood up and blamed Trump's win on Brazile, the Huffington Post reported.

    One telling comment:
    PackersFanWisconsin

    The Democrats abandoned Midwestern working voters and now they want us back??? Dream on! My town voted Dem for years, they used to care about us, then they want all bonkers social justice white people are all bad and sent all our jobs overseas. We will never vote Democrat again, Democrats betrayed us and they had the nerve to think we wouldn't notice!

    [Nov 11, 2016] Clintons defeat can also be seen as a partial rejection of Obama, since traditionally putting the heir in power has been a marker for a popular presidency

    Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Suzanne 11.11.16 at 4:24 pm 284 Agreeing with everything said by LFC in#280. Certainly many people are still not in a good place after eight years of slow recovery; in this respect Clinton's defeat can also be seen as a partial rejection of her boss, since traditionally putting the heir in power has been a marker for a popular presidency.

    Also, @246, don't forget that some of us where also whingeing about sexism.

    @239: Clinton is a decent Democrat who ran to the left of Obama. She is not and never has been the superstar he was. The Democratic Party has a perennial issue with getting portions of their base out when it's an off-year election and also when the presidential candidate is okay but doesn't send a thrill up their leg.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Okay….post election discussion

    Nov 11, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    Dan Crawford | November 9, 2016 7:23 am

    Journalism Politics US/Global Economics Via Bill Black at Naked Capitalism and Thomas Frank at the Guardian .

    What we need to focus on now is the obvious question: what the hell went wrong? What species of cluelessness guided our Democratic leaders as they went about losing what they told us was the most important election of our lifetimes?

    [Nov 11, 2016] Trump Is Making the Same Mistake that Clinton Did: Hes Already Ignoring Working-Class Rust Belt Whites. Progressives Need to Start Illustrating This by Highlighting His Planned Court and Cabinet Nominees. Now.

    Nov 10, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    There are several excerpts from the news media since Tuesday night that help drive home the point I make in that title about Trump and the Democrats in the immediate future. But the excerpts are about Clinton, not Trump:

    There are several excerpts from the news media since Tuesday night that help drive home the point I make in that title about Trump and the Democrats in the immediate future. But the excerpts are about Clinton, not Trump:

    There are vast rural, small-town or post-industrial areas of the country where Barack Hussein Obama will have greatly outperformed Clinton

    – twitter.com/AlecMacGillis of Pro Publica, Nov. 8, late evening

    The left-behind places are making themselves heard, bigly

    – twitter.com/AlecMacGillis of Pro Publica, Nov. 8, late evening

    From Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, industrial towns once full of union voters who for decades offered their votes to Democratic presidential candidates, even in the party's lean years, shifted to Mr. Trump's Republican Party. One county in the Mahoning Valley of Ohio, Trumbull, went to Mr. Trump by a six-­point margin. Four years ago, Mr. Obama won there by 22 points.

    Donald Trump Is Elected President in Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment , Matt Flegenheimer and Michael Barbaro, New York Times, yesterday

    Clinton and her operatives went into the race predicting her biggest problems would be inevitability and her age, trying to succeed a two-term president of her own party. But the mood of the country surprised them. They recognized that Sanders and Trump had correctly defined the problem-addressing anger about a rigged economy and government-and that Clinton already never authentically could. Worse still, her continuing email saga and extended revelations about the Clinton Foundation connections made any anti-establishment strategy completely impossible.

    So instead of answering the question of how Clinton represented change, they tried to change the question to temperament, what kind of change people wanted, what kind of America they wanted to live in. It wasn't enough.

    Using Trump as a foil and a focus, she hit on a voice and an argument for why she should actually be president that perhaps only she could have, and that she'd struggled for so long to find on her own. That wasn't enough either.

    Meanwhile, her staff harnessed all the money and support they could to out organize, first in the primaries and then in the general, grinding out victories while her opponents had movements.

    None of it was enough, though all of it should have been, and likely would have been for another candidate. She couldn't escape being the wrong candidate for the political moment.

    Interviews over the closing weeks of the 2016 campaign with members of Clinton's innermost circle, close advisers and other aides reveal a deep frustration with their failure to make a dent, a consuming sense that their candidate's persecution paranoia might actually be right, and a devastating belief that they might never persuade Americans to vote for her.

    "There was no way to generate momentum," one top adviser said.

    Any positive storyline from Clinton "was always fragile," admitted that adviser, and issues related to the emails inevitably stripped away any uptick in Clinton's favorable ratings.

    Inside the Loss Clinton Saw Coming: Publicly they seemed confident, but in private her team admitted her chances were 'always fragile.' , Edward-Isaac Dovere, Politico, yesterday

    To several top aides, the best day of this whole campaign was a year ago, before the Sanders headache or the Trump threat really materialized, when the House of Representatives hauled Clinton and her emails in with the single aim of destroying her candidacy over Benghazi. …

    She delivered tirelessly [that day], knocking back the Republicans one by one, complete with facial expressions that have launched GIFs that have been all over Democrats' Facebook and Twitter feeds ever since. She renewed her shaken team's faith that she was the leader they wanted to follow into what was already shaping up to be a dejecting primary battle.

    "It reminded people of everything they like about her," said one of her senior advisers. "It's toughness, but also a calm, adult presence of someone you can actually see being president of the United States."

    Inside the Loss Clinton Saw Coming: Publicly they seemed confident, but in private her team admitted her chances were 'always fragile.'

    Bill Clinton had his own problems, but never that one [his gender], and neither did Trump, who openly disparaged women throughout his campaign and still prevailed. The result was at once unfathomably difficult for the Clintons and yet not entirely surprising to Bill. He saw the signs all along the way of this campaign. He knew the people who were voting for Trump, and also the people who during the primaries were voting not for his wife but for Bernie Sanders. He saw the anger and the feelings of disconnection, but he did not know how he, or his wife's campaign, could connect to it effectively without resorting to demagoguery or false populism, something Hillary was not good at even if she was disposed to try.

    The Clintons were undone by the middle-American voters they once knew so well , David Maraniss, Washington Post, today

    Last year, a prominent group of supporters asked Hillary Clinton to address a prestigious St. Patrick's Day gathering at the University of Notre Dame, an invitation that previous presidential candidates had jumped on. Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr. had each addressed the group, and former President Bill Clinton was eager for his wife to attend. But Mrs. Clinton's campaign refused, explaining to the organizers that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to spend time reaching out to.

    As it became clear on Tuesday night that Mrs. Clinton would lose to Donald J. Trump, supporters cast blame on everything from the news media to the F.B.I. director's dogged pursuit of Mrs. Clinton over her personal emails, and to a deep discomfort with electing a woman as president.

    But as the dust settled, Democrats recognized two central problems of Mrs. Clinton's flawed candidacy: Her decades in Washington and the paid speeches she delivered to financial institutions left her unable to tap into the anti­establishment and anti­-Wall Street rage. And she ceded the white working­-class voters who backed Mr. Clinton in 1992.

    Though she would never have won this demographic, her husband insisted that her campaign aides do more to try to cut into Mr. Trump's support with these voters. They declined, reasoning that she was better off targeting college­-educated suburban voters by hitting Mr. Trump on his temperament.

    Instead, they targeted the emerging electorate of young, Latino and African-American voters who catapulted Mr. Obama to victory twice, expecting, mistakenly, that this coalition would support her in nearly the same numbers. They did not.

    Hillary Clinton's Expectations, and Her Ultimate Campaign Missteps , Amy Chozick, New York Times, yesterday

    And then there is this:

    Clinton picked Mook, instead of promoting a campaign manager out of loyalty from her own inner circle. She persuaded Podesta, who had kept his distance in 2008 because he didn't get along with polarizing top strategist Mark Penn, to join as the guiding hand and the buffer for all the "friends of" who streamed in with advice and second-guessing.

    But that didn't mean there weren't serious problems. Bill Clinton complained throughout that Mook was too focused on the ground game and not enough on driving a message-based campaign. Without a chief strategist in the mold of Penn or David Axelrod, the campaign was run by a committee of strong-willed aides struggling to assert themselves in the same space. Longtime consultant Mandy Grunwald and Palmieri grappled at points over message control as Palmieri worked her way into the inner circle. Mook and strategist Joel Benenson barely spoke to each other for the month of April, battling over their roles.

    Inside the Loss Clinton Saw Coming: Publicly they seemed confident, but in private her team admitted her chances were 'always fragile.'

    And here it is, in summation of all of the above:

    Whoever takes over what's left of the Democratic Party is going to have to find a way to appeal to a broader cross section of the country. It may still be true that in the long term, Republicans can't win with their demographics, but we found out Tuesday that the long term is still pretty far away. Democrats have to win more white voters. They have to do so in a way that doesn't erode the anti-racist or anti-sexist planks of the modern party, which are non-negotiable. If only there were a model for this. [Link in original. Do click it.]

    The few Democratic leaders who remain are going to say that it was just a bad note struck here or there, or the lazy Bernie voters who didn't show up, or Jim Comey, or unfair media coverage of Clinton's emails, to blame for this loss. I am already seeing Democrats blaming the Electoral College, which until a few hours ago was hailed as the great protector of Democratic virtue for decades to come, and Republicans were silly for not understanding how to crack the blue "wall." They will say, just wait for Republicans to overreach. Then we'll be fine.

    Don't listen to any of this. Everything is not OK. This is not OK.

    The Democratic Party Establishment Is Finished , Jim Newell, Slate, yesterday

    Among all the email exchanges leaked from Podesta's hacked email account-the ones I read; I read a couple of articles quoting from each group of releases-the most revealing, in my opinion, were two sets of exchanges released about a week before the Comey outrage. Both were from early 2015, a few weeks before Clinton was scheduled, finally, to announce her candidacy in mid-April.

    One shows newly hired campaign manager Robby Mook asking for John Podesta's and Huma Abedin's help in persuading Clinton to ask her husband to cancel a $225,000 speech to Morgan Stanley scheduled for a few days after her announcement and while she was scheduled to be in Iowa on her inaugural campaign trip.

    The difficulty wasn't resistance from Bill; it was resistance from Hillary, at whose instance the speech had been arranged. The email exchanges indicate that Hillary could not be persuaded to all the cancellation, because it had been arranged personally by her and Tom Nides, a top aide to Clinton at the State Dept. and by then a top executive at Morgan Stanley.

    Finally it was decided that Abedin would get Bill to agree to cancel the speech, and she would tell Hillary that Bill (who apparently did have qualms about the speech) was the one who decided to cancel it. Abedin reported back to Podesta and Mook that Clinton was angry about it for a couple of days but then moved on.

    The other one is from about the same time and is somewhat similar. This series of exchanges was among Mook, Abedin, Podesta and Neera Tanden, and concerned Hillary's appearance in early May, shortly after her campaign announcement, at a massive Clinton Global Initiative gala in Morocco paid for by the king of Morocco, a friend of Clinton's, who all told would donate $12 million to the foundation. This, too, had been arranged by Hillary, and was not strongly supported by Bill or anyone else at the foundation.

    Abedin's emails suggest (without saying outright) that she and perhaps others had tried to dissuade Clinton from arranging this, and then, once Clinton had set the date of mid-April for her campaign announcement, tried to persuade Clinton to cancel it. But by the time of this email exchange with Mook and Podesta, Abedin said it was so late and Clinton had had earlier opportunities to cancel but instead had assured her presence there, that it will break a lot of glass" (or some such phrase) for Clinton to cancel. Mook did manage to get Clinton's agreement to have Bill attend instead of her.

    These instances illustrate what was a constant throughout: Mook and two or three others, including Podesta, having to put on a full court press to stop Clinton from acting as though she weren't a candidate for president. Or a candidate for anything. Both Podesta and Tanden complained about Clinton's "instincts," a euphemism for "I'm completely unaware of the overarching mood of the public in this election cycle. Or, I don't give a damn about the overarching mood of the public in this election cycle. And I certainly don't give a damn about down-ballot Dems. Or about Dems. Or about anything other than what I want to do."

    Clinton arranged to clear the Democratic field of anyone thought in early 2015 to have chance against her in the primaries. She just wasn't willing to swear off anything else she wanted, besides the presidency, in order to reduce the chance that she would lose the general election.

    This wasn't Lent, after all. And anyway, Clinton isn't Catholic.

    Had Mook not killed that $225,000 speech to Morgan Stanley by Bill Clinton in April 2015, Bernie Sanders-whom Clinton could not clear the field of until June 6, 2016-would have won the nomination and would be president-elect now, accompanied by a newly elected Senate, and maybe House, Democratic majority. That fee would have been identified in the Clintons' tax returns, filed presumably in last April and (presumably) released shortly afterward.

    In early 2015, when Hillary was arranging for Bill to give that speech-undoubtedly arrangements made shortly after Elizabeth Warren removed any doubt that she would run-Clinton looked to be free of any challenge from the left. So it didn't bother her one whit that this would be revealed during the primary season.

    Nor, since she expected her general election opponent to be Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, did it concern her that this would be known during the general election campaign. It wasn't as if Bush wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street. Or Rubio owned by other highly unpretty financial interests.

    And even if it did, well, it was worth the risk. After all, after the general election, the gravy train for both her and her husband would stop. And it wasn't blue collar workers in the Rust Belt who were her target votes, so it wasn't all that big a risk anyway.

    So we were saddled with a Democratic presidential nominee whose decades in Washington and the paid speeches she delivered to financial institutions left her unable to tap into the anti­establishment and anti­-Wall Street rage. Someone who had to cede the white working­-class voters who backed Barack Obama in 2008 and again in 2012, because the only way someone who'd taken so very much money from Wall Street as personal income for doing so very little-someone who was selling her anticipated presidency to Wall Street-had no avenue with which to connect effectively with working class Rust Belters without resorting to demagoguery or false populism, something she was not good at even if she was disposed to try.

    The answer then was to highlight her high status and the importance she placed on connections with celebrities and the pillars of the establishment in various venues, by campaigning hardly at all, by spending August secluded in the Hamptons, by parading with entertainment celebrities at the few rallies she had.

    And by incessantly rolling out ever more names of the most elite establishment people to endorse her or at least make clear that they, too, recognized that her opponent is unfit to hold the office of the presidency. Because even though the targeted audience has access to the same information on that the elite establishment did, and were reminded by Clinton and her ad campaign of these lowlights so often that they lost their resonance, there might be a few people whose decision would turn on the opinion of these elites.

    They just weren't the people the blue collar Rust Belters who, it seemed clear all along would play an outsize role in the outcome of the election. As they had in 2008 and 2012.

    Nor, apparently, did she have any avenue to point out whom Trump's financial campaign backers actually were, who was writing his budget and regulatory proposals, who was selecting his court and agency-head nominees, his SEC, FTC and NLRB member nominees, and why. They're not people with labor union backing, nor do they have the interests of blue collar folks at heart. Their interests are diametrically opposite those of blue collar workers. And Trump wasted not so much as a day in handing over to them the entire panoply of powers of the federal government.

    But having sold her avenue for informing people of this, to Wall Street and any other huge-money interest waiving a mega-check around in exchange for a 45-minute-long speech by or question-and-answer session with, the likely president she was limited to reminding voters of what they themselves saw, and assuring them that elites viewed him just as they did. Which may be why her campaign manager, Mook, wasn't as focused on messaging as Bill Clinton wished. Normally, a candidate has one. This candidate had foreclosed to herself the message she needed to have, and had nothing much filling in for it. That wasn't Mook's fault.

    Trump wasn't going to co-opt Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were going to co-opt Trump. All the indications were that that is what would happen. And that, Trump has made unabashedly clear now, is what will happen. Our nominee couldn't-or at least wouldn't campaign on this anything resembling consistency.

    The way to contain this is for high-profile Democrats to make clear to the public what is happening. And to threaten massive campaigns on this in none other than the Rust Belt, in the 2018 election cycle. And to start very, very soon. People who supported Obama in 2008 and 2012 aren't Donald Trump's base. Most of them would have flocked to Sanders or to Elizabeth Warren in this election.

    The latter should be shoved in anyone's face who starts blathering about sexism hurting Clinton among the hoi polloi . The former should answer the question about whether racism was part of the appeal to the voters who put Trump over the top, by one per cent, in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and came within barely more than a point of doing son in New Hampshire and, of all states, Minnesota. All states went comfortably for Obama, and all except Pennsylvania went for Sanders in the primary, as did Indiana. And had Warren instead of Sanders been Clinton's primary challenger, she like Sanders would have voted for her.

    People who claim otherwise on either point don't know the region. It is not the South and it is not the Southwest. Trump's racism and xenophobia did not win those states for Trump. Nor did Clinton's gender.

    The first step is to appoint a strong Sanders backer in charge of the DNC. Jeff Weaver, maybe. Or Jim Dean. No war for the soul of the party. That ship sailed on Tuesday.

    Recognize that.

    And join me in wishing Hillary and Bill Clinton a happy jaunt in their retirement as they luxuriate in the massive wealth that, while possibly still not quite enough to sate them, we are about to pay very dearly for.

    Links to be added later today.

    [Nov 11, 2016] It was the Democrats embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump by Naomi Klein

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    People have lost their sense of security, status and even identity. This result is the scream of an America desperate for radical change

    They will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry.

    But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by Hillary Clinton and her machine – is no match for Trump-style extremism. The decision to run one against the other is what sealed our fate. If we learn nothing else, can we please learn from that mistake?

    Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.

    At the same time, they have witnessed the rise of the Davos class, a hyper-connected network of banking and tech billionaires, elected leaders who are awfully cosy with those interests, and Hollywood celebrities who make the whole thing seem unbearably glamorous. Success is a party to which they were not invited, and they know in their hearts that this rising wealth and power is somehow directly connected to their growing debts and powerlessness.

    For the people who saw security and status as their birthright – and that means white men most of all – these losses are unbearable.

    Donald Trump speaks directly to that pain. The Brexit campaign spoke to that pain. So do all of the rising far-right parties in Europe. They answer it with nostalgic nationalism and anger at remote economic bureaucracies – whether Washington, the North American free trade agreement the World Trade Organisation or the EU. And of course, they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women. Elite neoliberalism has nothing to offer that pain, because neoliberalism unleashed the Davos class. People such as Hillary and Bill Clinton are the toast of the Davos party. In truth, they threw the party.

    Trump's message was: "All is hell." Clinton answered: "All is well." But it's not well – far from it.

    Neo-fascist responses to rampant insecurity and inequality are not going to go away. But what we know from the 1930s is that what it takes to do battle with fascism is a real left. A good chunk of Trump's support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive agenda on the table. An agenda to take on the billionaire class with more than rhetoric, and use the money for a green new deal. Such a plan could create a tidal wave of well-paying unionised jobs, bring badly needed resources and opportunities to communities of colour, and insist that polluters should pay for workers to be retrained and fully included in this future.

    It could fashion policies that fight institutionalised racism, economic inequality and climate change at the same time. It could take on bad trade deals and police violence, and honour indigenous people as the original protectors of the land, water and air.

    People have a right to be angry, and a powerful, intersectional left agenda can direct that anger where it belongs, while fighting for holistic solutions that will bring a frayed society together.

    Such a coalition is possible. In Canada, we have begun to cobble it together under the banner of a people's agenda called The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our largest trade unions.

    Bernie Sanders' amazing campaign went a long way towards building this sort of coalition, and demonstrated that the appetite for democratic socialism is out there. But early on, there was a failure in the campaign to connect with older black and Latino voters who are the demographic most abused by our current economic model. That failure prevented the campaign from reaching its full potential. Those mistakes can be corrected and a bold, transformative coalition is there to be built on.

    That is the task ahead. The Democratic party needs to be either decisively wrested from pro-corporate neoliberals, or it needs to be abandoned. From Elizabeth Warren to Nina Turner, to the Occupy alumni who took the Bernie campaign supernova, there is a stronger field of coalition-inspiring progressive leaders out there than at any point in my lifetime. We are "leaderful", as many in the Movement for Black Lives say.

    So let's get out of shock as fast as we can and build the kind of radical movement that has a genuine answer to the hate and fear represented by the Trumps of this world. Let's set aside whatever is keeping us apart and start right now.

    xpxpxp , 11 Nov 2016 14:5>

    Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously.

    You forgot to mention identity politics. Neoliberalism and identity politics go hand in hand. I don't think it's a surprise that after the 50's and the Second Red Scare, HUAC, McCarthyism and the John Birch Society the socialist, communist and other left-wingers were gone from the US and identity politics became ascendant.

    We don't see SJW being dragged in front of Congress and them losing their jobs, nor do we see the National Guard coming in to break up Slut Walks. Instead, we see them in the highest positions of power and with governments and corporations embracing their ideas. The reason is simple; identity politics and SJWs are no threat to people in power.

    Keep people divided into ever smaller identities and they can't fight back. Keep demonizing people for objecting, calling them sexist and racist for speaking up, and you muzzle the opposition. If someone wants to take on neoliberalism then they need to abandon identity politics.


    ngonyama , 11 Nov 2016 12:5>
    Glass-Steagal was repealed, Wall St. stole itself rich, people wanted change (Yes we can!). But not a single bankster megathief was even investigated and in the rust belt and elsewhere millions suffered. They were told that they needed to shut up because they were evil privileged white males who needed to be HRC's blue wall because she owned them. Refusal to comply meant they were racist misogynists.

    So now they are racist misogynists and proud of it.

    And why all this? Because Hillary's ego is so large that it bumps into the edges of the universe. She calls that her class ceiling.

    Thanks Hillary. You brought us Trump. You and that bunch of privileged DNC-ers that are in bed with Wall Street.

    Mark Linley , 11 Nov 2016 12:3>
    The left's reflections are getting closer, but we're still not quite there it seems.

    ... ... ...

    The visible, real-life consequences of globalisation and modern capitalism are those targets picked out (hardly by coincidence) by Trump and Farage. The most obvious sign of globalisation is not a billionaire's yacht, but that when you call to sort out being overcharged or crappy service, you finally get through to an outsourced offshored call centre. And when the right attacks them and the left inevitably and correctly defends them - that immigrants do contribute to the economy, but are still disadvantaged economically, that women are paid less for the same work, that muslims face discrimination every day - we're infact subliminally reinforcing Trump/Farage's blunter message: that the left's priority constituents are immigrants, people of colour, muslims and women.

    And then we criticise a 50 year old white unemployed or zero-hour-contract man for being "selfish" and "stupid" when he votes for the only candidate who *appears* to put him first, when we seem to ask him to put everyone else first.

    The left is losing the argument because our answers to modern problems are removed from everyday experience. Correct, but complex. Trump and Farage understand KISS. If we think the solution is to just keep saying the same thing louder, like an English tourist abroad, we'll carry on losing.

    Quistal , 11 Nov 2016 11:5>
    "It was the Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump"

    Yes indeed, I have seen this coming since the mid nineties, when the -fairly high tech- Company, where I worked for at the time, became a victim of globalization, 120 people got fired, a.o. me.

    Gladly I was able to still find a job at 50, a hell of a lot of others did not.

    Besides, I have been active in International business since the early 1960's until recently, so I know what I am talking about.

    We are spoiling 200 years of social economic improvement to the short term interests of capital at supersonic speed. (modern communication and transport, the free movement of capital)

    Both the republicans and the democrats made that happen (as their followers did in Europe)

    The Globalizing, Outsourcing, Monetary, Laissez-Faire, Supply side economy.

    That is the one thing that I was in agreement with, with Trump, for the rest, by the way he is talking now, it looks very much as if we will be having to deal with a liar. (and a cheat?)

    After all he did say a lot of different things while selling himself in the campaign from the image that he seems to depict now..

    The worst things are in my opinion his wish to destroy the livelyhood of lots of people world wide by not accepting the human influences on the climate, this besides lots of others things is in my opinion extremely selfish, especially seen the fact that a green economy can be -at least- as profitable (in work and money) as the fossil one was.

    And of course the repeal of Obamacare, one of the few successes that Obama could materialize in his mainly obstructed time in office.

    wariquari MarkAWilliams , 11 Nov 2016 10:5>

    What is 'Neoliberalism'
    Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector. It takes from the basic principles of neoclassical economics, suggesting that governments must limit subsidies, make reforms to tax law in order to expand the tax base, reduce deficit spending, limit protectionism, and open markets up to trade. It also seeks to abolish fixed exchange rates, back deregulation, permit private property, and privatize businesses run by the state.

    Liberalism, in economics, refers to a freeing of the economy by eliminating regulations and barriers that restrict what actors can do. Neoliberal policies aim for a laissez-faire approach to economic development.

    Investopedia

    Also: Steve Keen

    "It's a belief that the human social system works best if there's almost no government, and almost everything is done through markets... and also it says there should be no trade unions, no tariffs, remove all the controls and the economy will work better.

    Now that's only true of a system if it is inherently stabilizing, it's like saying 'this ship will go a lot faster if you take off all the stuff that's there to stabilize it.' Yeah it will but it'll go upside down at some point and sink."

    Jim987 , 11 Nov 2016 08:4>
    From the British perspective this is true here as well. After a number of high powered meetings over a fifteen year period, the Labour Party embraced NeoLiberalism and paid when it failed. Those meetings where pretty big and millions turned up. Those meetings took place in 19779, 983, 1987 and the final one was in 1992. The general public announced that no one would elect anyone who did not support wholesale privatisation, free markets at every turn with a special emphasis on labour market laws. Any devience, under any circumstances from Tory ideology was punished at the ballot box. Labour was forced to drop clause four as a sop to get elected.

    And when this neo liberal wet dream started to crumble in the form of crippling PFI schemes, light touch banking, zero hour agency work and possibly bigger than the light touch banking collapse, the free movement of Labour for the biggest companies in the UK. Who did the public blame for these Tory driven Liberalism? The Tories? Themselves for forcing the Labour Party to adopt these flawed policies? The Newspapers who condemned anything other than free market ideology? Nope, the blamed the very people who had been campaigning against Tory policies all along. The people who got blamed for the banking collapse was not the people who DEMANDEDbanks be deregulated, not the Party who carried out the deregulation, but the poor saps in power when it blew up.

    Who gets blamed for the importing of labour? The political ideology that people had supported for thirty years? Nope, again the Party that bent over backwards to accommodate the Tesco, ASDA and sports direct et al.

    And guess what? After punishing anything to the Left of Reagan or questioning free trade at the ballot box, and dismissing it as 'Socailism' it turns out they voted for a protectionist who is opposed to free trade and multi Nationals. The Party who are opposed to free trade, multinationals and 'What is good for GM is good for America'? The protector of jobs and regulated labour markets? Why the GOP of course. The Party whose DNA has all this time been at the heart of protecting jobs who shun free trade agreements and are at the very heart of the socialist movement are the Republican movement. And nobody even said anything. We all just moved into a parallel universe where the Republican movement have been campaigning against free trade for two hundred years.

    Jeff Miller , 11 Nov 2016 08:0>
    "The indisputable fact is that prevailing institutions of authority in the West, for decades, have relentlessly and with complete indifference stomped on the economic welfare and social security of hundreds of millions of people. While elite circles gorged themselves on globalism, free trade, Wall Street casino gambling, and endless wars (wars that enriched the perpetrators and sent the poorest and most marginalized to bear all their burdens), they completely ignored the victims of their gluttony, except when those victims piped up a bit too much - when they caused a ruckus - and were then scornfully condemned as troglodytes who were the deserved losers in the glorious, global game of meritocracy."

    - Glenn Greenwald

    Lily Ng , 11 Nov 2016 07:1>
    "Neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade..." Are you sure those are neoliberal policies? They sound exactly like conservative Republican mainstays to me. Didn't Trump run on these very things?
    phil100a Lily Ng , 11 Nov 2016 07:4>
    Exactly, they are virtually the same, with the difference being that the GOP adds "nostalgic nationalism and anger at remote economic bureaucracies – whether Washington, the North American free trade agreement the World Trade Organisation or the EU. And of course, they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women".

    In difficult times, people want relief as fast as possible and they want to blame *anyone* for their plight. This is what a demagogue offers; it's why Trump is in the White House. Prepare yourselves, and never give in to Trump's cynicism.

    epidavros Lily Ng , 11 Nov 2016 07:5>
    They sound like EU policy to me. And that is because they are EU policy, all backed by EU directives.
    reidlou , 11 Nov 2016 07:0>
    Warren sold Sanders out. Sanders sold his supporters out for Debbie Wasserman Shultz, who incidentally was reelected. Hillary was forced on the ticket by the oligarchy. Change will not come from Trudeau, or Obama, or Trump, or Sanders or Warren. These people have betrayed what they said. Where do we go from here? Which is the way that's clear? Dunno, but all of the above have shown to be frauds. Whose next?
    bernique , 11 Nov 2016 06:2>
    In this election, Donald Trump was the lesser evil, so I am glad that he won. There won't be nu clear war on Iran or wherever, and better relations with Russia, China, and hopefully, the rest of the world.

    As for domestic politics, we'll take care of those issues ourselves, forcefully protesting against, if necessary. It'll be few and far between, I project.

    bernique , 11 Nov 2016 06:2>
    In this election, Donald Trump was the lesser evil, so I am glad that he won. There won't be nu clear war on Iran or wherever, and better relations with Russia, China, and hopefully, the rest of the world.

    As for domestic politics, we'll take care of those issues ourselves, forcefully protesting against, if necessary. It'll be few and far between, I project.

    AnneGlenEden , 11 Nov 2016 05:1>
    "...a green new deal. Such a plan could create a tidal wave of well-paying unionised jobs, bring badly needed resources and opportunities to communities ... and insist that polluters should pay for workers to be retrained and fully included in this future."

    That is, at least, the only positive suggestion that's been made. I think it's a good one the needs to be developed. I'm far from an economist but perhaps we need also to start thinking about blended economic systems rather than just one type as well.

    What I don't agree with is the continuation of identity politics. It's suffering badly from overuse and also from its juxtaposition with the application of economic pain to those who are also consistently abused with every vile epithet known to man. In brief, people have been operant conditioned to either worship at its feet or loathe it with most or all of their being. It's past its use-by date and needs to grow into the real expression of its stated aims.

    As an example, Merkel is quoted as saying, ""Germany and America are connected by values of democracy, freedom, and respect for the law and the dignity of man, independent of origin, skin colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views."

    The words are just positive framing. We all know now that 'democracy' (defined by the UN as extreme terrorism to be fought and eliminated when iit involves public voting) refers to voting by an elite group. For the rest of it, Junckers right hand man was quoted this week as saying it's to be achieved by 'elimination of all national, cultural, ethnic, and faith identity'.

    There is a unbridgable gulf between those two concepts, and the first one is simply dishonest. But journalists never explain that.

    The way forward is to treat all people with dignity and respect, as long as they're not harassing or killing each other, and stop trying to brainwash them. If someone is a racist and content to keep that to themselves, leave them alone. Likewise with all the other -isms and -obias. The law and institutions need to treat people equally indeed. No negative and no positive discrimination. 'Indigenous peoples' could have a special role- but not to dispossess, sponge off, or lord it over others. Religious holidays need to be observed for all religions, not for none. I can hear the business howls now but the reality is we need to be decreasing industrial pollution and having less 'stuff', not increasing it.

    I wanted Trump to win but if I saw someone(including him) harassing someone else racially, homophobically, or any other -ism or -obia, I would defend the victim to the death as long as they were in my presence. That includes male victims of domestic violence. Everything has its day and identity politics is in that category.

    We need a new way and it needs to honour the reality described in the fraudelent rhetoric of the recent past globalist, multiculturalsit, and liberalist concepts. We need a completely new economic system or blend of the old which serves the needs of all the people, al the time. And we need democratic systems which empower constant feedback from those people on how far its succeeding.

    AhBrightWings , 11 Nov 2016 02:4>

    Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.

    Agree 100% with this, but am at an utter loss to grasp why this is chalked up to the hip new lingo of "neoliberalism." Bullshit. It's as pure a distillation of conservatism as has ever been penned.

    This obsession with renaming things for the sake of confusion serves no one well. This is prime Trickle Down and the Conservative Manifesto through and through.

    Woodenarrow123 AhBrightWings , 11 Nov 2016 03:1>
    I am afraid the author is correct in describing the problem as Neo Liberalism - It is not Conservatism or Capitalism.

    This is Neo Liberalism - You are the CEO of a plant employs 5,000 people that makes widgets. You don't know how to make a better widget but you want to increase profits so you decide to close down your plant and outsource 4,000 of the jobs to a low wage economy where workers don't have the same rights (remember China doesn't have democracy or freedom of speech).

    Now your making widgets cheaper but you still aren't making enough money so you offshore the tax liability to a tax haven - There goes schools, roads, hospitals.

    Now your making so much more money for the company what do you do? You give yourself a pay rise. Not any old pay rise. You pay yourself five or ten times as much.

    And then you buy shares because the share price goes way up.

    And then you donate to politicians and they tell the great unwashed (that's you and me) this wheeze is FREE TRADE, or conservatism or capitalism or trickle down.

    It isn't its Neo Liberalism and both left and right in most of Europe and the USA has embraced it to the detriment of its citizens.

    HolyInsurgent , 11 Nov 2016 02:4>

    Naomi Klein: The Democratic party needs to be either decisively wrested from pro-corporate neoliberals, or it needs to be abandoned.

    It starts by having the DNC follow its own rules. The superdelegates were dutifully counted as Hillary supporters from Day One of the primaries. Something like 507 to begin with! When Sanders won successive states, more and more superdelegates mysteriously appeared supporting Hillary. People understand what a rigged game means. This was Thumb-On-The-Scale tactics and people saw through it. The Party chose Hillary and that was that. That's not democracy. The Democratic Party needs a complete transformation from root to branch.

    But yes, the bigger picture must be a focus on institutional reform. Not just for America but everywhere.

    Excellent article.

    aulusmagnus , 10 Nov 2016 23:3>
    I agree with Klein's take on neoliberalism, its Panglossian economic model, as a cause of much angst in the world, but the remedy is simple in the US -- regulation. Break up the big banks, end monopolies based on third-party payments, licensing and credentialing (health care, the universities, etc.), and levy higher taxes on the wealthy. I truly believe that race relations among Americans have never been better, and that most "problems" have largely been manufactured. What America is crying out for is good, pragmatic government.
    Debra Smith , 10 Nov 2016 22:5>
    Naomi is spot on. She is speaking a truth that too many have no wish to hear because it tampers with their idealize status quo. They have theirs and to hell with everyone else. That time has past and the groaning of the privileged- people who do not CARE (which does not include many people with means- that is stupid to relegate the carers to hell with the criminals) is so LOUD right now. They are spinning bank reports and market doom and gloom.

    It has been said that HALF of the USA is a 'basket of deplorables' - WOW that is reductionist logic and it explains nothing.

    I am not American and yet, what I know is that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE- human beings- so please- what a bullshit argument- that you have tried all too often with Brexit (its not working for you so who is the insane one? Wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?

    RESEARCH says that people are usually very informed about the issues of their own lives. All they have left is their lives and the lives of their children. A LITTLE respect would be nice.

    Many creatures can only see things that are moving. Maybe some people are like that once they trust. WE ALL trusted government, police, agencies because we wanted to believe in a common good. That trust was ABUSED. The last grasping woke people up. They saw that grab very clearly.
    And this one:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNqMV4Bgs (I was married to a cop at that time and the interviewee is one of the most staid journalists in Canada with a program on public television.
    Someone has to OWN those facts before casting aspersions on mankind. The voters are not stupid ESPECIALLY when it comes to SURVIVAL and it is brink time.

    You expect them to DIE QUIETLY? Dream on in your precious nightmare.

    colddebtmountain , 10 Nov 2016 22:0>

    People have a right to be angry

    And people have been saying that for decades but no one has been listening, least of all the trendy neoliberals who thought they had found the final economic solution.

    You cannot strip away a person's identity, life and loves, without them losing their dignity -totally. You must prepare and assist every one of them for change over realistic time scales dealing with every consequence as it happened. None of that was done because all of what has happened is the product of opportunism - cash today think about it tomorrow.

    These trendy neoliberals have cheated us all, not once, not twice, but all the time, and they show no guild, no guilt at all. They will continue to pay the price until they listen to us and change.

    Debra Smith , 10 Nov 2016 22:5>
    Naomi is spot on. She is speaking a truth that too many have no wish to hear because it tampers with their idealize status quo. They have theirs and to hell with everyone else. That time has past and the groaning of the privileged- people who do not CARE (which does not include many people with means- that is stupid to relegate the carers to hell with the criminals) is so LOUD right now. They are spinning bank reports and market doom and gloom.

    It has been said that HALF of the USA is a 'basket of deplorables' - WOW that is reductionist logic and it explains nothing.

    I am not American and yet, what I know is that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE- human beings- so please- what a bullshit argument- that you have tried all too often with Brexit (its not working for you so who is the insane one? Wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?

    RESEARCH says that people are usually very informed about the issues of their own lives. All they have left is their lives and the lives of their children. A LITTLE respect would be nice.

    Many creatures can only see things that are moving. Maybe some people are like that once they trust. WE ALL trusted government, police, agencies because we wanted to believe in a common good. That trust was ABUSED. The last grasping woke people up. They saw that grab very clearly.
    And this one:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNqMV4Bgs (I was married to a cop at that time and the interviewee is one of the most staid journalists in Canada with a program on public television.
    Someone has to OWN those facts before casting aspersions on mankind. The voters are not stupid ESPECIALLY when it comes to SURVIVAL and it is brink time.

    You expect them to DIE QUIETLY? Dream on in your precious nightmare.

    Azul66 , 10 Nov 2016 21:0>
    Perfect. Thank you, Naomi, for the best column on the 2016 election. Democrats are proving to be sore losers but they can come around if they all or most read your take on the outcome of our presidential election. Neoliberal has been our downfall but still most Americans are not aware of even the word. Times to get explanation of the ideology and the negative effect on the world. It has been so cruel and so horrible since Jimmy Carter who started this whole thing but the Clintons were the cruelest of all. I am so glad Hillary did not win. I could not vote for Trump so voted for Jill Stein.
    ViewFromTheUSA , 10 Nov 2016 19:5>
    It was also their (and the left in general's) embrace of identity politics. Welcoming the whiny 'social justice warrior' attitude that puts everyone into little groups and puts those groups into little lanes, and no one can ever leave their group or lane. Calling people racist or bigoted, not for actual racism or bigotry, but for merely expressing a different opinion. White privilege- trying to shut down the opinions of white people. Cultural appropriation- witch-hunting people for wearing a certain hairstyle or costume. Safe spaces- creating echo chambers and segregating people from even hearing opposing opinions or ideas. Microagressions- claiming offense over perceived slights and insults in harmless remarks. not to mention trying to police, ban, and control speech.

    I'm a liberal, I lean left, my ideals and values and principles and what I stand for are more in line with left-wing ideology, but if they want to be taken seriously and have a chance at winning again, the left needs to let identity politics die.

    RobMorganAU Hubert Hammack , 10 Nov 2016 20:5>
    Yeah, you need to slow down a bit there, Hubert.

    Neoliberalism.

    An ideology that believes that if you give rich people absolutely unfettered ability to make even more money, they'll magically look after everyone else.

    American_Sniper , 10 Nov 2016 19:4>
    Davosland where Bill Clinton gets to hang out with Rupert Murdoch.
    Dominique2 , 10 Nov 2016 19:3>
    Not only the Democrats.

    The center left's shameful, braindead acceptance of Thatcher-Reaga, Dumbonomics has been a worldwide plague.

    The EU, supposedly a bulwark of common sense, is still officially austerian and neoliberal, even though some hard thinking is going on.

    Anger-fuelled adoption of far right policies and economics is a further lurch in the same direction: deregulation, unchecked corporate power, quashing of workers' rights.

    A bad time for the disenfranchised all over the world, now being used as electoral cannon fodder by their owners.

    AnnHodson , 10 Nov 2016 19:1>
    As an English woman who lived in America for some years, it was perfectly clear to me that voters there have a choice between cuddly-right and hard-right.

    There is no "left" in America, and there is none in the UK either in any meaningful, workable sense. All we have is the soft-right and an unreconstructed 70s Trot. Brilliant.

    Nice as it might seem, " The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our largest trade unions" sounds like yet another loose coalition of pressure groups with no cohesive platform or plan. Same old, same old.

    ilwudumass , 10 Nov 2016 18:4>
    Absolutely spot on. I remember, as a rare liberal working at a GOP-run Enron, how disheartened I was watching Bill Clinton pander to the GOP elites and shove NAFTA through a GOP-run Congress while the majority of Democrats voted against it. He also sought, for political expediency, many neoliberal solutions that doomed the working class to subsistence. The GOP crowed that Reagan won the Cold War when actually it was the shift of wealth from the West to the 3rd world as a bribe that ultimately brought us to the globalized mess we find ourselves in. This was during Clinton's presidency. Unfortunately Obama did a u-turn and continued GW's disastrous tenure in what really matters: wars, globalization, abandonment of the working class. Why didn't the Democratic elite not remind voters that the GOP was behind globalization and the shift of wealth from the middle class to overseas?
    JohnBinxBolling , 10 Nov 2016 18:3>
    A Message from the Rust Belt: It's the NAFTA, Stupid

    The road to President Trump began with the enactment of NAFTA, a heinous betrayal by the Democratic Party of its blue collar base and of it's most basic principles, taking it from the party of the New Deal to the party of the Brave New Global World Order Deal, screwing it's most loyal constituents in favor of Wall Street.

    The next step on the road to the Trump House was the Clinton's reckless deregulation, culminating in the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, yet again in the name of a bigger, more profitable, more powerful Wall Street at the peril of Main Street.

    But perhaps the most decisive factor in sending blue collar rust belt America into the arms of an orange-haired demon is what happened when they put their faith, heart and souls into electing Barack Obama, a man who ran as a progressive, promising hope and change, but who then immediately governed as a neo-lib.

    I know what some of you are saying right now, that given the fierce opposition he was up against, he accomplished what he could; but that's a bunch of bull, as we say in the Midwest.

    No one forced him to appoint, immediately upon taking office, Wall Street insiders to his cabinet and make Larry Summers (the architect of deregulation, neo-lib style) his chief economic adviser.

    No one forced him to appoint corporate toady, Common Core loving, privatization loving (through charter schools) Arne "teach to the test" Duncan to Secretary of Education.

    No one forced him to immediately abandon, in the fight for Obamacare, the public option.

    No one forced him to ultimately come up with a health care plan, that at its base, is of by and big Pharma and the insurance industry, one that lowers costs not by controlling them but by rationing care (that's what those huge deductibles and co-pays are for and they're working--working Americans, even while insured, don't dare visit the doctor, except when at death's door, for fear the doctor will order tests they can't afford to pay.)

    Most now use their insurance as catastrophic policies to be used only in emergencies. This is why Obamacare is so hated in America--not because it's socialist, but because it isn't. (Remember, they voted for hope and change)

    No Republican cabal forced Obama to embrace TPP, NAFTA on steroids and so univerally hated here in the heartland.

    Ah, but you say, Hillary has come out against it. But only after praising it and only in cagey language, about not approving it in its present form (and she has yet to comment on the viscerally hated NAFTA forever linked to the Clintons and the Democrats).

    Much is made (and rightly so) of Trump's threats to constitutionality and the rule of law. Yet Democrats seem blissfully unaware of their own full-frontal assaults on the Constitution.

    For elected officials who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, supporting NAFTA and TPP, which sign over US sovereignty to unelected, unaccountable (corporate controlled) international tribunals, giving them the power to, in essence, overturn any US, state or federal, is nothing less than an act of treason. You might as well just take the Constitution, rip it to shreds, and throw it up in the air like confetti.

    (It's so easy to see Trump's threats to the Constitution, so difficult for Democratic elites to see their own obliteration of it.)

    Why is the hatred of NAFTA, of TPP (and of the Clintons) so visceral in rust-belt America?

    I know people who watched the plants they worked in dismantled piece by piece and shipped off to Mexico. I've spoken to people who've had the humiliating experience of going to Mexico to train their replacements. I've talked to union members who've reported that employers, at the bargaining table, have demanded huge cuts in pay and benefits, saying that unless they concede, they're moving to Mexico.

    It's personal.

    It's not like blue collar, rust-belt America hasn't given the Democrats chance after chance. They've been voting Democratic since 1992.

    They gave Obama two chances, believing his promises of hope and change, only to witness his championing of TPP.

    Time and again, the Clintonian Democrats have deceived and betrayed their blue collar, rust-belt base. Time and again rust-belt blue collar America has supported them, nonetheless, hoping, like Charlie Brown, that this time they wouldn't have the football pulled away.

    But the accumulating decay, the devastation of the great recession (and the feeble, corporate oriented Democratic response) have left them with no hope left. The vote for Donald is a howl of rage and desperation. He was the only way left for them to vent their rage (after the Democratic elites dispensed with Bernie Sanders).

    The next four years are going to be hell. But for heartland rust-belt America, the last thirty-five years have been hell (and they have nothing left to lose).

    Welcome to their world.

    Tzctguar JohnBinxBolling , 10 Nov 2016 21:5>
    Some USians , trumpeters mostly, are very funny.

    On the one hand you don't want immigrants in your mist because they undercut local workers.

    And in the other hand you don't want those same people to get good jobs in their own country, because they undercut your own workers.

    You think you have a God given right to jobs for which you aren't productive enough.

    In other words you don't want to compete.

    You want to sell us your stuff allright ( NAFTA slaughtered the Mexican farming sector, specially subsistence farming) but you would rather don't buy Mexican stuff, unless it is raw materials so you can add value and sell it back to us.

    NAFTA has made countless articles cheaper to all of you, and has slowed down illegal immigration which has been in the decline for a while.

    But you want it all, no matter how unrealistic.

    Having you cake and eat it. While riding an unicorn please.

    Emma Rosenthal , 10 Nov 2016 18:1>
    Why Klein doesn't mention Jews in her list of targets of this right wing hate and reaction is surprising. In defining the reason neo-liberalism failed so many people, she states "At the same time, they have witnessed the rise of the Davos class, a hyper-connected network of banking and tech billionaires, elected leaders who are awfully cosy with those interests, and Hollywood celebrities who make the whole thing seem unbearably glamorous. Success is a party to which they were not invited, and they know in their hearts that this rising wealth and power is somehow directly connected to their growing debts and powerlessness." And this paragraph directly applies to how the Trumpettes, the KKK, who endorsed him, the Alt-right who he played a major role of normalizing, sees JEWS. Central to the ideology of the extreme right is their hatred of Jews. How Klein missed that is really baffling.
    ID4352889 rubagreta , 10 Nov 2016 18:2>
    Naive comment. The "lefts" criticism of Israel is largely unrelated to the growing right's hostility to Jews. It's the latter you need to be concerned about.
    rubagreta ID4352889 , 10 Nov 2016 18:3>
    What right's hostility in the US? Where are they. There isn't a single Republican member of Congress who is hostile to Israel. David Duke ran for senate in Lousiana and got 3% of the vote.
    WTIngle , 10 Nov 2016 18:0>
    Naomi: "But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism."

    Is this completely correct, leaving out as it does something that has grown since at least the last days of WWII and throughout the Cold War, something that some call the "Deep State?"

    Here's one view of it, written by a former Republican congressional staffer but in an essay found on the Bill Moyers and Company's website (Bill Moyers is definitely neither a Republican nor a conservative):

    http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/ .

    "Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day."

    Lofgren's description is not exhaustive, not really focusing on the darkest heart within the "military industrial complex" that is intimately associated with the deep state, namely the covert, classified areas of the intelligence and security components. (I find the fact that the present president recently renewed the illegal and unconstitutional 9/11 State of Emergency Act for the eighth year in a row, just as his predecessor did every year he was in office after the Act was first signed in September, 2001, telling.)

    Still, it's good starting point.

    It looks to me that this huge beast is more about empire than Neoliberalism (or even NeoConservatism -- it encompasses both; it's not necessarily "left" or "right" as most use the terms, not truly Democrat or Republican).

    bananakingdom , 10 Nov 2016 16:3>
    Hillary has promised to be a president for everyone…that is, everyone who contributes to 'The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation'.
    According to the Foundation's website, it is a 'non-profit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.'
    The easiest way to make an organisation non-profit is to pay out all earnings - seven-figure director fees, first class travel, Fifth Avenue offices…oh how you can spend your way to a luxurious non-profit outcome! And whatever is left over after your personal indulgences have been satisfied, you can spend on a few pet projects.
    The Clintons are seen as money grubbers who'd sell their own family members for the right price. Hillary is a despised person.

    Trump is no better. The only difference between him and Hillary is that he is openly corrupt. Whereas Hillary hides her corruption behind a cloak of establishment respectability.

    ArchibaldLeach , 10 Nov 2016 16:3>
    The dumbest thing about the response to this is is how everyone is just shoehorning their own narrative into this. If this was just about neoliberalism, nobody would have voted for the Republican party. Trump won for a variety of factors. It wasn't that he was against globalisation, it's that he lied that he could change it. These people believed his "we'll bring back all the jobs" over concrete plans.

    Such a coalition is possible. In Canada, we have begun to cobble it together under the banner of a people's agenda called The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our largest trade unions.

    I hang around in liberal circles in Toronto and even there, Black Lives Matter is hardly popular. I know socialists see the result and think that they can be next, but they won't be.

    MooseMcNaulty , 10 Nov 2016 16:2>
    The political class assiduously serves the needs of the wealthy, while the working people fend for themselves. The banks get a bailout, the bankers get a bonus, and the consumer gets his house foreclosed on. The oil companies and hedge funds get loopholes built into the tax code, and the middle class hears that they might not be able to draw their Social Security until they're seventy. It's not hard to see why people are unhappy, and Trump was unafraid to call the system rigged and the players corrupt. You can analyze the results of this election until you're blue in the face, but I think what it ultimately comes down to is that the working people have been thrown under the bus in favor of corporate profit for far too long.
    Bar4U MooseMcNaulty , 10 Nov 2016 16:3>
    True enough, but Trump's "solutions" will just make it worse for the same group of people and continue to support corporations and the wealthy. Sadly yet again the voters have been duped.
    MooseMcNaulty Bar4U , 10 Nov 2016 17:1>
    Probably. The only hope I have is that Trump is a vanity candidate, so I expect he really will try to do the best job he can for as many people as he can. He genuinely has no love for the political class and our campaign finance or lobbying systems. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that something half decent might yet come of his election. Probably not any of the big issues, and it's a shame about the environment and the Supreme Court, but you never know... Or so I'll keep telling myself.
    Alarcos , 10 Nov 2016 16:1>
    The problem with this stroy is two-fold:

    1] Since the Eighties the powerless left have been saying that the solutions are on the left ... while the voters kept moving right. Repeating the same thing but louder doesn't make it work any better.
    2] Since the Eighties every faction of the left has been calling unto the other flavours of left to 'unite' ... whereas as what they usually meant was 'join us'. Even now I see no evidence that the left is capable of running a 'united-self' ... let alone capable of uniting and healing the deep rift in the society of Trumpian-US or Brexit-UK.

    This ship has sailed! The Modern Left has failed to prevent this fascist take-over every bit as much as 'Old Left' failed to stand-up in the Europe of the 1930's and 'Older Left' failed to withstand the nationalist fervor of '14-'18. No, I am afraid that, as in all previous episode, this fascism must be fought. We better start preparing while we still can.

    formerlefty Alarcos , 10 Nov 2016 16:2>
    But the problem with your story is that the left were defeated some time back. What we've had since are liberals (i.e. the neo-liberal right) tacking ever-rightward, constantly insisting that's the only way to avert the hard populist right. The result has been complete failure, as all that right-ward movement by liberals has achieved is to further create the conditions that lead to the rise of the right.

    Its pretty much the same thing that happened in Russia post-communism. Neo-liberalism/liberalism (they are, in fact, the same thing) led to the rise of watered-down kind of fascism.

    The modern pro-capitalist/non-populist right has failed to prevent this fascist take-over every bit as much as 'Old Right' failed to stand-up in the Europe of the 1930's...

    Europa77 Alarcos , 10 Nov 2016 16:3>

    as much as 'Old Left' failed to stand-up in the Europe of the 1930's

    The 'old left' did stand up in the 1930s. The prison camps of mainland Europe were full of 'lefties' who stood up.

    DunedainRanger , 10 Nov 2016 16:1>
    This article is spot on. Neoliberalism creates its own hierarchy which has no place for the peole who voted for Trump. Two quotes from US voters (with acknowledgements to Sky News).
    1. A black man who voted for Trump...'most blacks have more in common with white woeking class families trying to make ends meet than they do with the democrats'
    2. A well heeled white democrat man in shock....'trying to come to terms with an election which has shown me a side of America I was unaware of...'
    Shock horror....Trump was elected by ordinary people.
    fmajor7 , 10 Nov 2016 16:1>
    It was interesting to see that nearly each and every newspaper in the US and the UK and everywhere else and nearly all the TV channels started a barrage of anti-Trump rhetoric always repeating his sexual escapades and his racist and sexist comments. Only a few alternative blogs or news channels dared to criticise Hillary or question her integrity.
    Now that Trump has won has shocked all these news channels and everybody is asking who voted for him ? All those "deplorable" people as mentioned by Hillary or all those sexist, racist or uneducated whites ? Were they angry ? If so, why ? Was it a protest vote ? Why ?
    It is interesting to read Charles Hugh Smith's writing "The source of our rage" below and wonder why all these "expert" commentators got it wrong --
    https://goo.gl/VuEGZy
    bananakingdom , 10 Nov 2016 16:0>
    Turn on your television or pick up a paper. Listen to a radio or read the online news. There's always someone telling us how we should think, and what we should do.
    The belief that they know better - that they are superior to the rest of us - permeates every corner of our lives. Those that disagree with and challenge the 'consensus' are considered ignorant or uneducated.

    This is the argument that's been trotted out since Brexit. The poor old folks didn't know what they were doing. That somehow, those who grew up under the black cloud shadowing post-Second World War Britain couldn't comprehend the implications of seeking to regain control of their economy and borders.

    That's the way society has gone - the megaphone minority blasting away in our ear. The elites who believe their values and opinions are the only ones that matter. Pity the poor taxpayer who picks up the tab.

    The international 'specialist' who flies in for a couple of days to lecture us on what they think we're doing wrong. From how farmers should manage their land, the type of energy we should use, through to how to control our borders. How these self-appointed experts love to enlighten the great unwashed. It happens at the local level as well. It could be the council dictating something as simple as the colour a homeowner is allowed to paint their fence.

    There's the local action group. After moving into an area and setting themselves up as they see fit, they seek to restrict who can join them, and what their fellow residents can do.
    A paddock that once held a herd of sheep has been subdivided, and then subdivided again. Yet the new owner places a placard on their new fence protesting against any future developments.

    The events of yesterday in the US have turned the world on its head. World leaders are struggling to know how to respond, to Trump's victory.
    While so much of the commentary and analysis by the experts has been about the two personalities involved, the US election results reflect something much more basic than that.

    It's that the ones who do the lifting - that is, those who set their alarms early and go off to work - are tired of subsidising those that are the recipients of the public purse. They've had enough of paying for the lifestyles of those who look down on them. This includes the political class who lecture them, and everyone else.

    The commentariat are putting their spin on the US election result. Much like Brexit, they're arguing that the poor uneducated folks didn't know what they were doing. The result is a two-fingered salute to the political elite who sign off on trade agreements with little regard for those that will lose their jobs. It's a protest against those elected to represent the voters' interests but rarely, if ever, visit the factory floor.

    But it's not only the political class who left the majority behind. The result also reflects the great chasm that continues to grow between the wealthy elite - Wall Street - and those on the other side where wages have gone nowhere for years.

    The post-GFC world has only pumped more money into the top few percent, while everybody else has been left a long way behind. While the Dow Jones Industrial Index has increased more than two-and-a-half times since the lows of 2009, real wages have barely increased a dime.

    Nobody knows how the Trump presidency will play out. I doubt he even knows himself. And as the elites predict, it might turn out to be one of the US' great follies.
    Some are calling the result a swing back to conservatism. But the result illustrates ever so strongly how the so-called 'silent majority' are deciding to reclaim the way their lives are governed. It's a major blow to elitism, and is a trend that will only grow.

    Matt Hibbard,
    For The Daily Reckoning

    Andrew Failes bananakingdom , 10 Nov 2016 16:1>
    Yeah because putting one of the elite in power a 'a major blow to elitism'. Maybe you actually should listen to an expert
    outkast1213 , 10 Nov 2016 16:0>
    Perhaps if The Guardian and every other major left media site would have been understanding this the past few years instead of ignoring Bernie, plugging for Clinton, and pushing the SJW stuff there wouldn't have been a Trump presidency. Everyone shares a bit of blame for his win. Hopefully we can not get so obsessed with blind Dem support and identity politics going forward.
    Bogdanich , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
    Ya think? Finally someone says something sensible. Neo-liberal economic policy and neo-con foreign policy I might add. There is a German blogger who is a polyglot. He speaks German, French, Italian, English and Russian. He reads the romance languages at least I don't know about Russian. He monitors how different news events are spun to the various populations. Which facts are presented, which omitted, obfuscations, lies and who's controlling the narrative. Because of the time difference he went to bed before the election results were known and woke up after. The opening sentence on his piece that morning was, "So I just woke up and found that the world has changed. World War III was called off."

    Which in my estimation is accurate. Perhaps not WWIII but certainly another major war. And what's the result over here in America? It's the Hillary supporters who are behaving violently. Rioting, destroying property, assaults, interfering with transportation etc. Not covered in your press of course because it is the republicans who were supposed to be the violent monsters and it doesn't fit the narrative.

    AmyInNH Bogdanich , 10 Nov 2016 16:4>
    First, neo-con warring, an essential subcomponent of neoliberalism, for when CIA manipulation of political strife isn't possible. Indonesia versus Iraq, for example.
    Second, Hillary supporters rebelling is in the news this morning, though they aren't a) airing it as an alarming event, nor b) having the same paramilitary police response to it.
    Third, R has been pushing for warring and I've no idea where you'd (they'd?) come up with an all R Washington isn't going to jump right in. Particularly, post election, when congress refuels the "campaign donation" money laundering machine, defense contractors (Northrop, etc.) and infrastructure (Parsons Brinckerhoff, etc.), with the gifting of federal contracts, which will no doubt run way over budget as cost plus contracts.
    Peter Wynn , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
    Many of those left seemingly disenfranchised by neo-liberalism are taking up scapegoating, rather than blaming the REAL cause of their problems.
    AmyInNH Peter Wynn , 10 Nov 2016 16:5>
    There's a whole lot of less than Whole Truth used to manipulate. Some intentional, some due to ignorance.
    Long ago I asked, what is the difference between ignorance and arrogance, and about the only thing I can come up with is ignorance is unintentional while arrogance is confident ignorance.
    Dean Myerson , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
    And people like Trump never went to Davos? Republicans don't do that? Yes, a lot of people are in economic pain, and the Democrats and Clinton share that blame. I agree that the Democratic party needs to be either decisively wrested from pro-corporate neoliberals, or it needs to be abandoned, but Trump's victory is not just about economic pain. It's also about fear of the diverse country we are becoming. You want to know who is to blame for the election of Donald Trump? The people who voted for him. They are the ones who fell for the con that he was their solution.
    mcstowy Dean Myerson , 10 Nov 2016 16:0>
    What you say is correct, but the point is that it is expected that the GOP will protect business interests and profit at the expense of people. That is why they exist. The Democrats have historically been the party that protects the working class. As the author points out, they have abandoned that role during the last 40 years, leaving the working class without protection from the concentration of corporate wealth, power and influence. Working class whites, Latinos and blacks should be allies, not competitors for the scraps left after the Davos party. The conservative right in America is successful because they have successfully pitted these natural allies against each other, but they have been aided the the embrace of corporate neoliberalism by the Democratic party leadership.
    PierreCorneille , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
    Bill Clinton gave us Bush the Younger thanks to having the self control of an adolescent chimpanzee. Now the Democrat establishment aided by another Clinton gave us Trump. When are we going to stop buying into the neo-liberal bullshit. They have played us like suckers since the revolution the French won for us. Speaking of the French, their revolution scared the shit out of the "founding fathers" especially the parts about equality and fraternity. I saw Trump coming a long time ago, but I thought someone would stand up. It wasn't as if we weren't warned. Instead all the talking fucking heads are telling us it's time to heal to work together. Right, like the way the Republicans worked with Obama. Are we going to work together, are we going to fight? Nah. We"ll find someone new to bomb in the name of liberty and some new shinny thing will come along and we'll just stay bent over. But never forget, we are the greatest and the most exceptional.
    evacarey PierreCorneille , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
    Good post. But it was also Obama who recently led us here. He didn't do anything. Sure he was stymied by the Republican congress. But he didn't even use the bully pulpit.
    He seemed to me to want to work for the rest of the world more than he did the U.S. He couldn't even see that the trade agreements are a problem for our citizens. And I supported him more than any previous presidential candidate, because I thought he cared.
    NoOneYouKnowNow , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
    Ironic that Ms Klein has published this in the Clintonista, neocon Guardian. Perhaps we can revive the media as well.
    nonsensefactory JulesBywaterLees , 10 Nov 2016 16:4>
    Generally speaking, American and British media supports neoconservative foreign policy (regime change in Libya and Syria, military confrontation with Russia and China, expanded funding for NATO, the Iraq War WMD lies, etc.). At the same time, it tends to support neoliberal trade policies (free flow of capital, offshoring manufacturing to sweatshop zones) that enrich billionaires while impoverishing the middle class.

    The only real difference between "conservative" and "liberal" media outlets is in their take on identity politics; this is why people view media as propaganda that tries to point people away from the more important issues of global war and wealth inequality. It's a distraction tactic.

    nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:2>
    Naomi Klein is right about the neoliberalism that played such a huge role in the creation of massive wealth inequality in the United States, but the other issue is that Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration.

    Obama shares much of the blame - despite coming in with Congress in Democratic hands, he quickly abandoned his populist base in favor of pro-Wall Street agendas; he expanded the domestic mass surveillance program and persecuted whistleblowers like nobody before him; and he was seduced by the CIA's regime change/drone assassination program. His peace prize is now the punchline of a joke. He didn't help out homeowners who'd been targeted by Wall Street; he instead pushed for a massive taxpayer bailout of Wall Street - and minority homeowners in particular were hit hard by the banks. As far as all the young people who supported him? He did nothing to alleviate student loan debt; that's not what Wall Street wanted. As far as renewable energy? He did little if anything on that front; instead he quietly OK'd offshore oil drilling, oil exports, and pipelines like Dakota Access. He betrayed his base and served Wall Street, and of course that's what Hillary Clinton would have done as well.

    Bernie Sanders, in contrast, had good policies on all these issues and would have won the primary if it hadn't been rigged by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the corporate media.

    The Democratic Party reforms needed are obvious:
    (1) A fixed number of debates in the primary (Sanders vs. Clinton? 9 debates. Obama vs. Clinton? 26 debates).
    (2) Elimination of the superdelegate system. (In Feb 2008, Clinton had 241 to Obama's 181; in Feb 2016, Clinton had 451 to Sander's 19)
    (3) Opening the primaries to independent voters in places like New York, at the very least allowing last-minute party registration for independent voters.

    That all takes power away from Wall Street-tied party elites, who will otherwise continue to pick losers that will serve Wall Street interests in exchange for big donations - but who are unpopular with the general public. That rigged process is why Bernie Sanders, who would obviously have beaten Trump with enthusiastic millenial support, was prevented from winning the Democratic Primary.

    The other party in this debacle, the corporate media - they deserve to be broken up by anti-trust legislation. TimeWarner, Disney, etc. should all be forced to break up into a hundred independently owned news outlets, otherwise it'll be an endless stream of Wall Street propaganda from them.

    mypets nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
    Sanders was far too radical and unrealistic to have carried the day. He lost fair and square.
    freeandfair nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
    " Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration."

    Very much so. Hillary Clinton to me was pretty indistinguishable from George Bush. I never voted for Bush and I wasn't going to vote for a female version of him.

    Dewsburian , 10 Nov 2016 15:1>
    "They will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry."
    And in the Guardian, of course, they'll work out some way to blame Jeremy Corbyn...
    Kevin Parcell , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    Wrong.

    We need to ask why the polling was wrong. People who normally vote did not, and people who normally don't vote did. Clinton really did rig the election as proven by Wikileaks, and lots of Bernie supporters could not bring ourselves to vote for her ; and Clinton called Trump's redneck base "a basket of deplorables", and many of those folks who would have watched the election from a bar stool got up to kick her ass. Naturally the same persons who pretended that Clinton did not rig the election want to continue to pretend. But Naomi, she really did.

    Mckim Kevin Parcell
    LYLEJAMES Mckim , 10 Nov 2016 16:5>
    I too believe Clinton and the DNC sealed their own fate. But the "bucket of losers" accusation has proved to be false, the product of a spoof Podesta email.
    ronaldadair , 10 Nov 2016 17:3>
    So in other words Naomi Klein admits that "rampant insecurity and inequality exist" and that something is required to be done to correct this - which I think many of us realise is a balancing of the needs of national autonomy and globalisation, but then Naomi has the audacity to attribute these "responses " to "neo fascists" So suffer on you poor under privileged unwashed. but should you rise up then we ( the enlightened) know that you are being prodded by neo fascists !! A totally ridiculous idea which can only be explained as the last desperate gasp of the politically correct whose credibility is not only on the line but is now clearly beyond the pale
    kleptco , 10 Nov 2016 17:2>
    Beautifully said. Eight years of neo-liberal acting/progressive talking Barack Obama and the prospect of more of the same from the deeply flawed Hillary Clinton was enough to hand the presidency to the grotesque Donald Trump. The Democratic party is smoldering and needs to be rebuilt as Naomi says by and for the 99%.

    http://www.snopes.com/hillary-calls-voters-bucket-of-losers /

    nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:2>
    Naomi Klein is right about the neoliberalism that played such a huge role in the creation of massive wealth inequality in the United States, but the other issue is that Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration.

    Obama shares much of the blame - despite coming in with Congress in Democratic hands, he quickly abandoned his populist base in favor of pro-Wall Street agendas; he expanded the domestic mass surveillance program and persecuted whistleblowers like nobody before him; and he was seduced by the CIA's regime change/drone assassination program. His peace prize is now the punchline of a joke. He didn't help out homeowners who'd been targeted by Wall Street; he instead pushed for a massive taxpayer bailout of Wall Street - and minority homeowners in particular were hit hard by the banks. As far as all the young people who supported him? He did nothing to alleviate student loan debt; that's not what Wall Street wanted. As far as renewable energy? He did little if anything on that front; instead he quietly OK'd offshore oil drilling, oil exports, and pipelines like Dakota Access. He betrayed his base and served Wall Street, and of course that's what Hillary Clinton would have done as well.

    Bernie Sanders, in contrast, had good policies on all these issues and would have won the primary if it hadn't been rigged by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the corporate media.

    The Democratic Party reforms needed are obvious:
    (1) A fixed number of debates in the primary (Sanders vs. Clinton? 9 debates. Obama vs. Clinton? 26 debates).
    (2) Elimination of the superdelegate system. (In Feb 2008, Clinton had 241 to Obama's 181; in Feb 2016, Clinton had 451 to Sander's 19)
    (3) Opening the primaries to independent voters in places like New York, at the very least allowing last-minute party registration for independent voters.

    That all takes power away from Wall Street-tied party elites, who will otherwise continue to pick losers that will serve Wall Street interests in exchange for big donations - but who are unpopular with the general public. That rigged process is why Bernie Sanders, who would obviously have beaten Trump with enthusiastic millenial support, was prevented from winning the Democratic Primary.

    The other party in this debacle, the corporate media - they deserve to be broken up by anti-trust legislation. TimeWarner, Disney, etc. should all be forced to break up into a hundred independently owned news outlets, otherwise it'll be an endless stream of Wall Street propaganda from them.

    freeandfair nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
    " Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration."

    Very much so. Hillary Clinton to me was pretty indistinguishable from George Bush. I never voted for Bush and I wasn't going to vote for a female version of him.

    Giancarlo Bruno , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    While I'm troubled by many of the implications of this electoral result, I think the main story is that the Democrats have bled so many votes that an extremely unpopular Republican candidate was able to win simply by holding on to most of the votes that Romney managed to get 4 years ago and flipping a few swing voters. When the final tally comes in, Hillary Clinton will likely have received over 8 million fewer votes than Obama in 2008 and nearly 5 million less than he got in 2012. Trump got fewer still, and he'll now be president because he managed to sway just enough voters in the rust belt to win several of those states.

    It could not be clearer that Sanders' approach would have been the better one for this election by far. He spoke to the anger at the economic hollowing out of so much of this country while offering prescriptions that were in the best interests of the vast majority of people and framed the discussion in a way that made it clear race was not at the center, that the unchecked pursuit of the class interests of the wealthy & well-connected was responsible for so much of the human devastation that can easily be observed in so many parts of the country.

    Anyone who zealously advocated for this view was derided as a "Bernie bro" or mocked with sneering suggestions that Bernie was only a viable candidate in white states. (Nevermind that being absolute bunkum) Clinton supporters and other DNC hacks falsely equated working class white people in states like Wisconsin and Ohio supporting a more left-leaning economic program that placed a lesser emphasis on racial & identity issues to engaging in some sort of insidious white male identity politics- and they did so deliberately, to muddy the waters.

    They forced a widely reviled, ethically challenged, evasive servant of the establishment who deemed TPP "the gold standard" of trade agreements, supported the Iraq war, was content to let the financial sector completely off the hook for the last financial meltdown and engineered the disastrous Libya intervention down everyone's throat on the premise that Americans didn't have a choice. Anyone who expressed their fear that this would result in a loss to Trump, much less voiced a slight preference for Trump over Clinton (even if absolutely de minimis), was vilified to such a degree that I am confident that it stifled some of the public discussion about how to electorally confront Trump. The only acceptable answer was voting for Hillary Clinton without reservation, even accepting that many criticisms of her were valid was tantamount to enabling fascism.

    Look where we are now. There's a lesson in this: you cannot rely on progressive issues on a few social positions as a fig leaf to cover up a massive failure to challenge the systemic rot of our economy, our governmental institutions and our legal system. Standing up for a person's right to peace, security and opportunity irrespective of race, ethnicity or creed is absolutely the right thing to do. Same goes for women's right to make family planning decisions or the rights of gay people to marry and live free of discrimination. None of these can begin to mask massive system-wide failures, that we are seemingly hopelessly chained to an economic paradigm that is grossly indifferent- even actively hostile- to the welfare of the majority of our citizens.

    I think Sanders' response to Trump's election is entirely appropriate. If Trump does follow through on some of his challenges to globalization, lobbyists or modernizing and improving our infrastructure, we should offer our qualified support. If he attempts to push through massive deregulation, lopsided tax cuts for the wealthy, stripping of environmental protections, or anything to stoke the flames of bigotry and division we should unite in principled, civil opposition.

    Laborequalswealth Giancarlo Bruno , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
    Excellent and intelligent post. I especially agree with your last sentence. Trump may have saved us from an insane war with Russia. But mass resistance is called for if he and the blood-red Congress try to turn us into Christo-fascist serfs.
    Ardnas1936 , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    Absolutely on target, thanks Naomi! The DLC (Democratic Leadership?? Council) won this for Trump. They may have taken a couple of presidencies--mostly on false promises--but their wishywashy presidents did nothing for real people and worked solely for the rich oligarchs and imperialists. The "Leadership" was only toward the Right. This election was the Revolt of the Rustbelt and the Dead Small Towns. But Drumpf will do nothing for them except postpone, then forget, and finally turn against any who dare complain.

    And just think--if not for the DLC stuffed shirts and Wall Street bootlickers who held power in the Dem establishment, we might be happy that Bernie & Jane Sanders--AUTHENTIC feminists and genuine reformers--were going to the White House. I'm 80 years old, may not be around to see the young people's victory, so I get sick thinking of how much we almost gained, but was lost by the DLC Beltway minds and the GOP (Greedy Oil Party) solipsists. We lost more than Trump can guess, until his Miami properties are all swallowed by the sea. It takes a heavy knock on his orange noggin to get that egomaniac's attention.

    I firmly believe that we must bring down BOTH of our over-age, limping, idiot-led political parties, or reform them from the grassroots up! (If they can be saved, which I doubt.) It's time to revive the LaFollette Progressive Republicans and the New Deal Democrats, but under different names--and this time NOT just for privileged, "entitled" white males. Yes, I know Bob LaFollette tried to be inclusive, but the time is way past when our children and grandchildren must support and empathize with the entire HUMAN race, not just the paleface branch who've grabbed all the goodies.

    As for the macho white males, offer the cowboys a chance to put their he-man cravings to work at the top of wind-powered electric generators 200 feet tall out in the deep ocean, or avoiding glass slashes from large solar trombe wall collectors or even small glass solar cells, or staying alive around unexpected flares of methane, or getting caught in the ebb of a massive tidal bore and swept out to sea. All of these are renewable energy generating systems, safe for the planet but requiring daredevils who would marvel at how comparably un-scary mining and lumberjacking were back in the Olden Days.

    John McManus , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    Trump was born into the 1% and has stayed there; inherited wealth don't ya know. His policies and those of the Republican hierarchy include : union busting, lower taxes at the top, austerity at the bottom, financial deregulation below 2008 levels, and privatization of government services. Democratic policies are the complete opposite in each of these cases.
    Trump doesn't stand for less neoliberalism but more.
    cielosdeazul , 10 Nov 2016 14:4>
    "People have lost their sense of security, status and even identity."

    That's about the only part that's correct. Globalisation and the threat of open borders is what does that. Everyone wants to feel secure in their home, individually or collectively, without the threat that anyone who likes your home better than theirs can invite themselves over and redecorate.

    Canada's elite smugly refuse to recognize that its seeming imperviousness to "ethnophobic nationalism" is precisely because it has secure borders and an immigration policy that selects immigrants.

    FooBar21 Nancy M Ruff , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    Obama was elected twice in very recent history. If the country consisted mostly
    of bigots, that would have never happened. To chalk this up to bigotry is
    exactly the wrong thing to do - it makes one feel all smug and superior without
    bothering to engage with the real issues, like the ones that Klein is discussing.
    The Democrats have failed as a party of the middle and working classes. They
    are the party of Wall Street bankers and the MIC and the Hollywood elite, who
    are more concerned with eating organic arugula and with the bathroom rights of
    transgender people than they are with the economic plight of the majority of
    people in this country. And they nominated the one person who almost perfectly
    embodies this establishment: Clinton - a war mongering, corrupt establishment neoconservative who revels in Hollywood fund raisers with $50,000/person
    tickets, gets paid a quarter of million dollars by Goldman Sachs for an 1-hour
    speech, and salivates at the prospect of starting more wars in the middle east
    and poking Putin in the eye. That's why the lost, not because of bigotry.


    It's not bigotry that got Trump elected,
    although

    richardbunning , 10 Nov 2016 14:3>
    This piece is exactly right. The infiltration of the neoliberals has poisoned mainstream politics and hijacked the left. It is given form by the Washington Consensus:

    1. Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;

    2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;

    3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;

    4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;

    5. Competitive exchange rates;

    6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;

    7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;

    8. Privatization of state enterprises;

    9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;

    10. Legal security for property rights.

    Trump is planning to tear up a lot of this, and he is quite right to do it, even if for the wrong reasons. Globalisation has screwed working people in the developed world and enabled multinationals to form an unholy alliance with the chinese communists to exploit the chinese people to make bigger profits, whilst the old manufacturing base in the developed economies has been hollowed out and sent to China.

    jackrousseau , 10 Nov 2016 14:2>
    The Democratic Party changed fundamentally under Carter/Clinton in the 1980s/1990s. Very much like Labour in the UK changed during the same period under Blair. During that period, both parties morphed from domestic worker's parties into global capitalist parties with (somewhat) progressive social agendas. In both instances, the move away from core left economic values was justified by electability. The sweeping elections of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair in the early 1990s won the argument and relegated the original base of the parties (workers) to the periphery.

    Now that neoliberals are no longer electable, what's the justification for their continued existence? No one on the left is happy with their core policies (deregulation, privatization, free trade, unfettered immigration, coziness with corporations/banks, etc.). If they aren't advancing progressive social issues y winning elections, why should we continue putting up with the neolibs co-opting our economic policies?

    Ideally, Democrats would use this opportunity to revert back into being a domestic worker's party with genuine progressive/leftist values (much like Labour did in the UK by electing Corbyn). It almost happened with Sanders. Given the enthusiasm/turnout he generated, that's clearly the way forward.

    Sadly, if I were betting, I'd imagine the Democratic establishment will do exactly what the Labour establishment did in the UK post Brexit...circle the wagons and double down. And with the anger being directed at Trump rather than the Democratic establishment's malpractice in this botched election, they may get away with it (unlike the Blairites in the UK).

    Diane Lake jackrousseau , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    The New Democrats (neoliberals) have been circuling the wagons for awhile now. They have tried to shoot down progressive candidates running in primaries for office and support the neoliberal ones.
    The guy who lost to Rubio was a former republican who became a New Democrat while the party shut down any progressives.
    It will take alot of battles to change the party back to their New Deal roots. The party saw the reaction to the true son of the New Deal, Bernie Sanders. Instead of taking lessons from that and what the democratic voters craved, they did everything to undermine him and shut him down.
    It will take very heavy equipment to remove the entrenched neoliberals from the party and put true democrats in their rightful place
    jackrousseau Diane Lake , 10 Nov 2016 15:2>
    It's strange to watch...the UK seems to be about half an election cycle ahead of us in its rejection of neoliberalism. Everything happening in UK politics is echoed over here about 6 month's later. Down to the fact that, in both countries, wealthy orange haired baboons somehow managed to speak to the disaffected working class. If Gove hadn't snaked Boris Johnson at the death, both countries would currently be led by said orange haired baboons. I mean, what are the odds?

    Granted, it is the Year of the Monkey per the Chinese calendar...so there might be something in that after all.

    Relatedly, I cannot wait until the UK's new Secretary of State has a photo op with our President elect. Which one is the doppelganger?

    wiggystardust , 10 Nov 2016 14:1>
    This is a very decent article, indeed the mainstream left made a deal with the devil and now he's getting his due. But on the other hand I think it's terribly optimistic to assume everything boils down to kick starting a new democratic-socialist movement, raking in all those votes that have just been waiting for it to happen(and only voted for a right wing populist because it didn't yet, sure) and fixing everybody's problems forever.
    For one, the neoliberals managed to singlehandedly to make the left look like even more of a villain in the eyes of those who already eschewed it, alienate those who believed in a left solution but were not diehard about it, and fracture the remaining group into niches who refuse to engage in dialogue or even in recognize each other as fellow lefties. Managing to form a stable coalition is a beginning but it only deals with the latter problem, the left still has a huge public image problem to solve before it can make a return.
    And for another, the very idea of safety nets and benefits seems to have fallen out of fashion with the electorate: the "I had to climb the hill both ways to get here, so nobody dare cut a tunnel through it" mentality has been on the rise lately. It seems the neoliberals' failures somehow managed to make us all even more individualist, if only a bit more tribal too. Thus, for a new left to rise it wouldn't be enough to restore trust among all the isolated left groups, but also among society as a whole.
    Diane Lake wiggystardust , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
    But, when you have people homeless, starving, falling through society's cracks you have a rise in crime.
    Many who are suffering are not shiftless. Many are working but, don't make enough to pay bills and put food on the table.
    Many do not have access to healthcare.
    Children go to bed without food.
    When society is uncaring, mean and causes undue suffering, society falls apart and into haves and have nots.
    All the money that went to help people is the same money that now lines the pockets of the uber wealthy.
    Our schools cannot teach with rats and cockroaches, ceillings falling in and no heat. When children cannot get a lunch anymore, how do they learn?
    When we cannot pay teachers or even support them, you end up with the bottom of the barrel teaching the upcoming generation inadequately.
    You can tell the strength of a society from how it cares for its poor and in need.
    Ours is a 'i got mine' selfish shallow society now.
    And it is violent and people are filled with hate.
    Maybe because we have stopped caring and making sure people have opportunities and jobs and education and help when they fall on hard times.
    MaryCurry , 10 Nov 2016 14:1>
    Agreed, except for the major actors who started this globalization's depression ofN. American and European workers-- the Reagan and the Bush corporate supporters and puppet masters. Clintons and other neolibs have followed suit because they wrongly believed that they could beat them by joining them yet still do a bit of good for their voters. Wrong. But yes, the Revolution continues. Whether it can save the planet -- the environment, however, is doubtful, and nothing matters nearly as much. For years on is far to late.
    Justthefactsman , 10 Nov 2016 14:0>
    Yes it was the Democrats promotion of neo-liberalsim aided by such claptrap as this opinion from another Guardian scribbler.

    "Centrism has failed these and many other voters. Clinton was not handpicked by the Democratic party's elite: she defeated an unexpectedly successful challenge by self-described socialist Bernie Sanders, partly because of his failure to inspire African Americans. "
    That a closet Clinton supporter should have the temerity to write something like this to explain Clintons defeat is beyond belief, when we know from Wikileaks e-mails that the DNC actively opposed Sanders.
    The reality is that all politics is dominated by the golden rule: he who has the gold rules.
    Well meaning scribblers like Naomi can scribble all they want it will never change the situation. Even revolution will not change the situation for the simple facts are "the oppressed are potential oppressors".
    The achievement of dominance and superiority seems to be built into human genes, and why not it is so in the rest of the animal world.

    Ardnas1936 Justthefactsman , 10 Nov 2016 15:2>
    Forget Richard Dawkins, dominance is certainly not universal among living creatures. If a species exists with a plentiful supply of food, domination and competition are unnecessary. Think of the cooperative bonobo and the symbiosis of insects and field flowers. On the other hand, where resources are scare, competition begins and we have social structures like the baboons and leafy trees that kill competitive seedlings by their own shade.

    However, throughout evolution cooperation outweighs competition. If it didn't we'd still be solitary single-celled amoebae. As things are, our own bodies are well-furnished with microscopic critters from RNA through viruses and bacteria, many of whom run the shop in the background. Cooperation, whether vestigial, symbiotic or by choice, is the way that leads to life. Competition is the way of violence and death. That's not Marxism. It's nature.

    Justthefactsman Ardnas1936 , 11 Nov 2016 04:1>
    "Forget Richard Dawkins, dominance is certainly not universal among living creatures. If a species exists with a plentiful supply of food, domination and competition are unnecessary."
    There is a plentiful supply of food for the human species.
    So how can you explain the general situation that exists on the planet whereby governing elites control and enjoy the major part of all that human labour creates to the detriment of over 50% of the human population ?
    Matt Wood , 10 Nov 2016 14:0>
    "Neo-fascist responses"? Get over yourself Klein. Trump won because the Clinton's "own" the Democrat Party and they and Goldman Sachs were confident she would be the nominee and millions of gullible Americans would vote for Hillary.

    By far the best candidate was Bernie Sanders but the Clintons had him run off the road by "Super Delegates". Oh and by the way is it not odd that the Democrats did not change the electoral system when they were in power?

    House of Cards comes close to showing us just how ruthless the Clintons really are.

    Karsten Scheibler , 10 Nov 2016 14:0>
    Well, that it is worthwhile reading. At the beginning I thought: good that someone pointed that out. People haven't forgotten NAFTA and Hillary's speeches in closed wall street circles and so on. I just wanted to remark that it was probably a multitude of reasons that explain the Democratic loss. Comey's interference and other stuff that is outright dismissed by the author also played a role. However, as I read on I couldn't help but realize that there seems to be another person who wasn't even aware that Bernie and Elizabeth supported Hillary and wasn't aware of their arguments or the Democratic platform Bernie Sanders fought so hard for. The last two paragraphs speak volumes of Ms. Klein's realism or rather the lack thereof.
    JTMcPhee gerrygoulde , 10 Nov 2016 14:3>
    And how clear does it have to be that "the Network" is and has been purely supra and post-national? How many trillions in dark loot in shadow banks and other asset dumps which the Panama Papers only show a fraction of?

    These Fokkers and Fuggers, what drives them? How much is enough? There's always been this cadre of people who figure out how to scam and manipulate and "transcend boundaries," but to the extent that exists today? With the habitability of the planet in question?

    But then I have to remember that these people are into self-pleasing on a gargantuan scale, are what we call sociopaths, who have been with the species since "we" figured out how to grow grains and build granaries and walls to protect the granaries and warriors to man the walls and attack the neighbors and take their stuff, and artisans to make the weapons and "improvements," and kings to issue the orders, and priests to justify it all as the Hand and Will of God -- what we call "civilization." And the people at the top have known since forever that if they insulate themselves adequately from the rabble, they face no consequences for their predations, and can live out their lives of looting and indulgence and die comfortably, cared for by loving nurses and doctors who will ease their passing (unlike what the rest of us now face). Because as they have known since forever, "Apres ils le deluge," "IBG-YBG," http://tradicionclasica.blogspot.com/2006/01/expression-aprs-moi-le-dluge-and-its.html ,

    And what are the rest of us going to do when they have passed on, or fled like the Nazis with the gold from the teeth of millions and the art treasures and other portable wealth of demolished and decimated nations, to live out their lives as CIA "assets" or in comfortable temperate South American and African places? Dig up their corpses and desecrate them, or try to find their "cremains" and burn them again? They do not care what happens to their children, even.

    I wish us ordinary people all the luck in the world trying to create and maintain a different order that will let everyone eat only to their honest hunger and drink only to their reasonable thirst...

    kakaran , 10 Nov 2016 13:3>
    Couldn't agree more. The neo-liberalism orthodoxy instead of suddenly knocking at the door has come silently home to roost. The Democrats in America and Labor in UK were hand in glove with elites in the greatest robbery the history has ever seen. The concentration of wealth in one percent which was rationalized as panacea of all economic ills has turned out to be an opening of mythical Pandora's box unleashing evils of racism, xenophobia, misogyny etc. The abhorrent echo of "too big to fail" is still heard by the those who were let down by the same oligarchs. I have yet to find an answer to the vexing question as to why enormous benefits of human knowledge and scientific advances be exclusively extracted by one percenters.
    vacuous , 10 Nov 2016 13:3>
    Guardian commentators use identity politics and cries of "racism, sexism and xenophobia" to try and distract the working class from noticing how internationalism, globalization and immigration has stagnated their wages, moved meaningful jobs oversees and stoked up asset prices allowing a homeowner in London to earn more by twiddling their thumbs than their Polish cleaner gets paid in a year.
    No matter how shrill the likes of Owen, Jonathan, Paul, Polly and Hadley try and distract us with their daily dribble of identity politics, we increasingly see them as just another faded facet of the corporatist, internationalist status quo.
    JTMcPhee glauben , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    The union excesses (which have largely been killed off and the union and former and would-be union workers looted and impoverished along with the rest of the "lower orders) are just part of the disease -- which is corruption, and self-pleasing at the expense of everyone else. Union "leaders," absent disinterested "regulation" by government (which has been mostly corrupted too) and thanks to cooptation by "capitalists," definitely screwed the ordinary people (who one must acknowledge included quite a few rank-and-file that aspired to leadership so they could join the looting).

    There probably is stuff that needs to be built and manufactured (not the 7,000 pound SUVs and big Dodge and GMC and Ford F-series and "TUNDRA" trucks) to try to keep the species and culture alive. But killing the ability of ordinary people to organize, essentially making unions illegal except in tiny niches, just makes the end-game even worse. And continuing to punch down on working people on account of some 1962 wages (NOT "salaries," these were hourly payrolls, with "benefits" that in may cases like pension funds were subsequently looted by "private equity" vampire-squids and captured-government actions) just makes it harder for ordinary people to come together AS A CLASS and fight the 0.01% for a decent future.

    Arnie Arnesen , 10 Nov 2016 13:1>
    my post on Facebook that mirrors Naomi:
    My thoughts about last night:
    Bill Clinton's New Democrats were incinerated last night...arrogant, ivy league, sleeping with Wall Street, multinational corporations, insurance companies... and thinking that if they wrap themselves in the social issues from abortion to gay marriage that wage starved workers with enormous bills and debts, evaporating opportunities, disappearing pensions, shit schools and deteriorating infrastructure wouldn't notice they were overlooked and forgotten. This election underscores that Economic injustice is color blind
    shooglebunny , 10 Nov 2016 13:1>
    Good analysis; and exceptionally honest.

    What I want to know though is that, given the reality of what you are saying, did none of this occur to the Democratic party prior t the election?

    If they knew all this why did they not respond to it instead of continuing to plough the same old furrow regardless of the likely consequences for ordinary voters?

    macktan894 shooglebunny , 10 Nov 2016 13:4>
    Why? Because the Dem Elites knew that with Hillary their perks, access, power, etc. was secure. They wanted status quo and, just as they have behaved the past years, failed to listen to their constituencies, ignored them. They should have known just by seeing Bernie's exceptional campaign and the enthusiasm that fueled it, giving him more money than what Hillary often raised from her wealthy donors each month, that no one was excited about more of the same. Arrogantly, they chose to ignore and minimize what was before their eyes.
    Mardak , 10 Nov 2016 13:1>
    The most cogent analysis I have read so far. Bravo Ms. Klein. In a year where the country was screaming for populist change, the Democratic party establishment who had their own highly effective populist candidate, CHOSE to offer up possibly the most "establishment" candidate in history. Fly-over America responded with a sharply erect, if ignorantly self-destructive middle finger.
    zenkaon , 10 Nov 2016 13:0>
    Spot on diagnosis. People are angry that neolibralism has failed them and does not given a damn about them. Clinton offered nothing but the same to too many people. Trump was a molotov cocktail, warts and all, that they got to throw into Washington.

    I don't buy the racist argument. People that elected Obama in 2008 and 2012, but Trump in 2016 are not racist. At the same time I acknowledge that all the KKK people did vote Trump.

    Question is, does the left have an answer that is palatable to the people? It would be good if it did, but I'm not holding my breath. Corbyn isn't it, that you can be certain of.

    tinguinha , 10 Nov 2016 13:0>
    Clinton was a comically bad choice that made no sense whatsoever. The left often gets told that it has to endlessly suffer centrist/neo-liberal "lesser evil" candidates in order to defeat the right as they're more electable, which is an argument that at least makes some logical sense under some circumstances, even if I disagree with it. But in the case of this election, everyone has known for years that Clinton is wildly unpopular, and there was a radical alternative to her available who consistently out-polled her against Trump in the form of Sanders.

    Now her backers, such as Hadley Freedman on here today, rather than admitting their massive and obvious mistake in supporting her against Sanders and generally backing the "centrist" policies that brought us to this point, are suggesting nonsense such as the idea that those who voted for Trump should be "held responsible." What does that even mean? What are you going to do, elect a new people? You could have had a radical candidate who unlike Clinton could have brought about real change, and unlike Clinton would have attracted many of Trump's blue collar supporters and, you know, won .

    All that lesser evil neoliberal politics gives us is a lack of change that allows the right to make even more radical changes during the periods they're in power and eventually leads to the rise of people like Trump, and it's particularly stupid when it throws up deeply unpopular and unelectable people like Clinton, Miliband or the various empty suits lined up against Corbyn. It's time this paper decisively turned its back on the concept.

    Lord Lew , 10 Nov 2016 13:0>
    I don't have a lot of confidence in the prospect of political ideologies forged in the Industrial Age - "left", "right", "conservative", liberal" - being able to meet the challenges of this post-Industrial age and the future beyond.

    Western societies are fracturing into ever-smaller social groups defined by different, complex combinations of social/economic/national/ethnic/topographical/sexual/religious factors which mushrooming sub-groups all create their own realities based on the unregulated information they they select from divisive, self-reflexive social media sources rather than inclusive "mainstream" news media which have become increasingly corrupted and not trusted.

    Fragmentation, disintegration of societies - these lead to paranoia and aggression aimed at the "other" - and we can see this on both the "left" and the "right" in the blame-games that have followed Brexit and Trump's victory. The 19th century liberals and conservative who provided the foundations for the institutions of Western Democracy didn't foresee the emergence of global corporations and banks with interests that could defy "the national good" or disrupt the moderately equitable distribution of wealth and replace it with a massive diversion of wealth to a tiny global elite (So long affluent workers! Goodbye aspiring middle-class!) - while placating most of the population with a consumerist, material lifestyle mostly funded by debt. The old system is broken.

    In both the Brexit referendum and the US election the most striking split was between the old - the over-50s, clinging to the past - and young people, disconnected in their social media silos, wanting a different future but, as a generation, not able to organize and politically express their unhappiness and their hopes for the future because inadequate conventional Left/Right political thinking doesn't chime with the reality of their lives.

    Not everyone who voted for Donald Trump is a racist or a misogynist. Not everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton has no sympathy with an unemployed factory worker in a mid-west town whose future has been written off. However, everywhere you look - people are anxious and fearful that "the others" are trying to stop them getting what they solipsistically feel they deserve.

    Donald Trump won't be able to get Apple of Walmart to switch their product sourcing from China to the US, nor will he be able to halt the long-term economic decline of the US any more than Theresa May will be able to prevent post-Brexit economic decline in the UK: the challenges our dysfunctional political institutions face are too complex for politicians who are strong on rhetoric and promises but intellectually feeble and cowardly when it comes to decision-making and execution.

    We need education, public-service-based information, new political ideas and new political parties that can cut through the destructive white noise of Twitter and Facebook and focus on values that bring people together and counter the greed of the supra-national elites - something more powerful than divisive, out-dated concepts like Left and Right.

    nooriginalthought Lord Lew , 10 Nov 2016 13:2>
    What a lot of words to say bugger all.
    Why do people with no answers always say we need more education ?

    We have to get rid of this notion that we US and UK are post industrial.
    We have made a huge mistake offshoring our industry and must relocate the more essential parts. We cannot be a service economy without making things.
    Bashing metal turning wood molding plastics must be part of our future.
    We cannot be a nation of management consultants and hairdressers.

    mzlizzi Lord Lew , 10 Nov 2016 14:3>
    The boom in population during the Boom didn't help. We are overpopulated, and our current economic structure cannot support the material lifestyles and the narratives of freedom that we grew up living with or dreaming about. That's the education that's needed.

    Until we accept our current situation, we cannot understand or construct new political ideas, parties, or narratives.

    goldshirt39 Kipwar , 10 Nov 2016 13:5>
    Neoliberal globalization is the worst kind of socialism, whether or not it is actually socialism. It's what we're going to get if young people don't become collectively more informed and quickly. There is an attitude of entitlement among young people that drives towards a socialist mentality and the left has picked up the scent. They're going to chase that vote and those disaffected voters are going to chase that lie right down the rabbit hole eventually. If Hillary and Obama have their way, the riots that are being orchestrated right now will start the process immediately.
    lochinverboy , 10 Nov 2016 12:3>
    A very confused article. Neo liberalism is unfettered Global Capitalism given a nice sounding name. It is an invention of the right. To think that the most extreme Republican President ever, will improve the lot of the common man is quite simply bizzare.
    onlythetruth1 , 10 Nov 2016 12:2>

    A good chunk of Trump's support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive agenda on the table. An agenda to take on the billionaire class with more than rhetoric, and use the money for a green new deal

    Particularly as Trump himself is a member of that billionaire class and clearly has no interest in redistributing wealth away from himself, or in doing anything to overhaul the economic system that has made him very rich.

    RutherfordFHEA , 10 Nov 2016 12:2>
    Trump was elected US President by riding the same wave of anger & disaffection that fuelled Brexit. Many of those who were disappointed by the result were quick to console themselves with the (wishful) thought that he will not attempt to implement his more radical proposals, or that, if he tries, he will be thwarted by the Republicans (who now hold majorities in both the House and the Senate). It is important to bear in mind however, that any who dare oppose him will know that they do so at the risk of their seats.
    WinkingJesus , 10 Nov 2016 12:1>
    The "Inconvenient Truth" is that the politics of Donald Trump has much in common with movements like Attack and Occupy Wall Street, and hence with Naomi Klein. They both want to stop, or put a break on, international trade. Donald Trump wants to revive local production through protectionism. Klein sees international trade as a source of both environmental and social degradation.

    Naomi, thus, carries some responsibility for Donald's success.

    The combined Trump/Klein policies would see the old rust belt workers boarding self driven electrical buses to go to work in the new windmill factories. These windmills, normally, would be both more expensive and less effective than if the business was subject to international competition, hence the electricity they produced would be more expensive, giving domestic business a disadvantage.

    The new environmental businesses would require support from the public purse (if not, we would already have had them). The taxpayers seem in no mood for such grand scale subsidies.

    History does not repeat itself, but in the 1930s the industrial nations raised barriers to trade in order to protect their work forces. As a result, everybody got poorer and reacted by electing extremist politicians.

    BonzoFerret , 10 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Michael Moore outlines his post-election strategy. Point 1 is Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably.

    Exactly the same as what is happening in the Labour Party. But in that case The Guardian supports neoliberalism and seeks to undermine the ones who are trying to change things.

    http://www.trueactivist.com/michael-moores-post-election-plan-is-being-shared-30000-times-an-hour/#.WCRDLir-FmI.facebook

    Nada89 , 10 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Klein's diagnosis is depressingly accurate.

    Sadly I think the electorate in some western societies are in danger of becoming just as ineffective as 'the proles' in 1984, while the vice like grip of the military/industrial complex is just as tenacious as that exerted by Big Brother and the party.

    Since the entire political class, or least those with any clout all sing from the same hymn sheet while moderate, or leftist figures, like Corbyn, or Sanders, are bound to be shredded by their own party and by the media, then what hope, eh, unless that hope is something new and outside of party politics?

    Tom Wessel , 10 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Thank you, thank you, thank you Naomi. Even after an unbelievable defeat, the neoliberals still don't get it. Blame game articles are starting already but no self reflection.

    The how and why:
    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit /

    Gem59 , 10 Nov 2016 11:3>
    The role of the media (The Guardian included big time) have a responsibility and offended people's intelligence and sensitivity about democracy, elites etc. Now they are running for cover. Today, Hadley Freeman writes "Misogyny won the US election – let's stop indulging angry white men". Disgrace, offensive and arrogant. Also, Hadley Freeman with "The US has elected its most dangerous leader"...No remorse, no responsibility, blaming American people for being angry, for swallowing the same medicine again...

    Compare the Guardian and AP (recall who called California early and rigged the pre-selection against Sanders?) and Waleed Aly here: ( http://www.theage.com.au/comment/us-election-2016-its-not-about-racism-or-sexism-its-about-class-warfare-20161109-gslxzs.html)...What options did the "forgotten", vast majority, the "insignificant other", the disadvantaged, the powerless have? When one is drowning, the relatively privileged onlooker has a duty to help rather than blame the one drowning for "pulling our hair". Of course the future looks terribly bleak for democracy, gender/racial relations etc...

    Seriously, could Clinton be an answer for the family that struggles to pay rent, the homeless, the unemployed, those scared of terrorism or a WWIII, the working poor, those in debt due to college fees, those who lost their house and jobs for the sake of "free trade"...These are many, many people folks...real people with flesh, dreams and humanity...

    Understanding their pain and their lack of options (thanks to NDC & the Media) does not mean one identifies with Trump and the ugly fascist monsters creeping behind him...It's not about us or one's dream about equality, freedom...It's about survival & human dignity for millions of US people...
    Did the demonizing of many working people send them straight to Trump land? Waleed Aly: "progressives have treated the working class largely as a source of xenophobia ... ignore it at our peril" --

    KillerMarmot Gem59 , 10 Nov 2016 11:5>
    I agree. The Freeman article was a disgrace.

    She fails to see that such arrogance was precisely what many Trump supporters were voting against.

    TheDudleyOmmer , 10 Nov 2016 11:2>
    Excellent article much of which could have been written during the past thirty years.

    We all know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I was puzzled as to why Mrs Clinton seemed to cold shoulder Bernie Sanders. He had already connected with many of the 'left behind' by putting a Social Democratic view opposite to Mr Trump's views. Both had identified the problems that the Chicago economists and neoliberalism had caused, but not having Mr Sanders involved or even accepting that his views would be part of her next administration, Mrs Clinton left the field open to her opponent. If only she had remembered her husband's slogan 'Its the economy, stupid', it may have turned fire on Trump's campaign.

    There is an irony that although it was right wing politicians who bought in the neo liberal policies which have impoverished working people, it is the social democratic parties on both sides of the Atlantic who have suffered by trying to make neoliberalism work. They could not demonstrate however how 'trickledown' benefitted the poorest and the image left was of rich people sucking up more wealth and more influence over politicians as Ms Klein points out.

    On our side of the Atlantic Mrs Thatcher ensured that the right have a strong supportive press due to her ownership reforms and the right is gradually weakening our BBC so that any opposition views will be stifled. Mr Corbyn has already been character assassinated. It remains to be seen if Mr Trump carries out his threats to the American press supporters of Mrs Clinton to reinforce only right wing views.

    The smell of authoritarian regimes is now appearing in many places.

    Whereangelsfear , 10 Nov 2016 11:1>
    There was an almost dynastic arrogance in the Clinton's assumption that they would carry the day. I have often been impressed with Bill's eloquence and Hillary's tough fight for a rational health and insurance system, but have never heard a word of self-criticism about the dire effects of deregulation and the financial crisis. The democrats missed their chance for radical measures when they had control of Congress just after Lehman Bros.
    Still, for international affairs, climate change, any sane kind of approach Trump is an unmitigated disaster. Hillary has much experience in international affairs, but her opportunism in the wake of 9/11 had led her to support the intervention in Iraq. Of course we were all opposed to Saddam's régime, but not with those means and in that kind of way, made much worse of course by Bush jr. Islamic State is a direct consequence of the chaos and unemployment in Iraq created under the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration.
    stuart6233 Marangaranga , 10 Nov 2016 11:4>
    "Neo-fascist responses"
    "Trump-style extremism"
    "they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women"

    You call my right to vote the way I choose "stupid".
    You just don't get it. Millions of Americans voted exactly this way. A big middle finger to the establishment, media, Wall Street, "experts", and yes moral posturing know-it-alls is a great way to use your vote.

    You completely misunderstand Trump. He is far more for the working man than Clinton. The poor voted for him in droves. And for good reason.

    KelvinYearwood , 10 Nov 2016 10:3>
    Well said Naomi.

    I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it.
    I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump.

    On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign.

    I am aware of how that machinery has been ramping up a situation of global conflict, shamelessly recreating an aggressive Cold war Mk II situation with Russia and China, which is simply cover for the US racist colonial assumption that the world and its resources belongs to it in its sense of itself as an exceptional entity fulfilling its manifest destiny upon a global stage that belongs to its exceptional, wealthy and powerful elites.

    And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite!

    Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up to company executives.

    What has this paper got to say about Hillary and the Democrat Party's class bigotry – its demonstrable contempt for 10s of millions of Americans whose lives are worse now than in 1973, while productivity and wealth overall has skyrocketed over those 43 years.

    What has this paper got to say about the lives of African American women, which have been devastated by Republican/Democrat bipartisan policy over the last 43 years?
    What has Hadley Freeman got to say about Hillary's comment that President Mubarek of Egypt was "one of the family? A president whose security forces used physical and sexualised abuse of female demonstrators in the Arab Spring?

    A feminist would need more than a peg on their nose to vote for Hillary – a feminist would need all the scented oils of Arabia. Perhaps Wahhabi funded Hillary can buy them up.

    bunkl , 10 Nov 2016 10:1>
    Great article, but Hilary was hardly responsible for privatization and austerity in the USA. She only had 2 terms in the senate (and was only one of 450+ in congress). She was in fact mildly center-left and at least nominally and aginst the TPPA. She could have led a progressive congress (as in the Johnson year) if her coattails were long enough.

    I have never in my long life ever seen a politician so demonized... not by the mainstream media, but by the new media run mostly by the alt-right and funded by the likes of the Koch brothers. It worked.

    The climate accord is now finished ..any movement towards single payer or paid parental leave, minimum wage increase ...gone. - military spending is now going up, and Trump is proposing tolls on all roads -all to be privatized to pay for tax cuts for the top earners. and this is tip of the iceberg...and not including the racist upswing.

    That said, the DNC has a lot to answer for with its undemocratic superdelegates and documented undemining of Sanders...as did the media who either ignored him or unfairly lambasted him. The RealClearPolitics average from May 6-June 5 had Sanders at 49.7% to Trump's 39.3%, a 10.4-point cushion...polling that included independents. In that same time frame, Trump was polling close to Clinton and was even ahead in multiple polls. Most people were well aware of Sander's so-called "socialist" label since October the previous year, so I'm unclear if that would have been a factor in the general election.

    Quiller , 10 Nov 2016 10:1>
    An analysis of the media is long over due : It was remarkable to see the media, including American media, go into shock mode and scramble to reorganise the script and the thinking to run a perspective on what was happening on the night the votes were counted. The media had conditioned themselves to a Clinton win. Clearly the editors and the reporters were not out on the streets and in the hustings getting all the messages. The Guardian is in shock mode after the British Referendum and the American Presidential Election. The most politically dangerous person is a discontented voter with a ballot paper. How could the media have not spotted in advance what was happening ? I do not buy the lazy perspective that the voters deceived the media into their voting intentions. Personally, I think the media have got fat and lazy and need to come out from behind their editorial desks.
    DaveLester FrankyJane , 10 Nov 2016 10:1>

    This article is brilliant. Truth in spades.

    Naomi, has omitted one very important detail: automation, i.e. the use of AI to replace jobs.

    This absolutely requires us to restructure society to provide security and purpose to each every one of us who is not part of the super rich owners.

    For example we will see driving jobs rapidly disappearing within the next five to ten years.

    I also notice that where the worst effects of rampant capitalism are ameliorated there appear to be fewer issues. I'm thinking of many Western European nations where the issues do not yet seem to have the over fifty percent traction that they have in the US and the UK. If Australia were suffering a similar economic slow down it may well join the US and UK. But what's happening in Canada and New Zealand?

    SlumVictim , 10 Nov 2016 09:2>
    The problem with centre left parties throughout the western world is that they sold out to corporate capitalism, which forced people who rejected neoliberalism to go to the extremes to protest. The question is, once someone's loyalty has been broken, it is that much more difficult to win loyalty back, if it is possible at all.
    empestteacup SlumVictim , 10 Nov 2016 11:5>
    Good, concise post.

    And you're right - the neoliberal capture of centre-left legacy parties from the Democrats to the German SPD and French Socialist Party has created an exceptionally unpromising landscape and public mood. Trust has been broken. Responsibilities betrayed. Intellectual traditions traduced, distorted, or simply cast aside.

    In moments of humiliation or defeat - and make no mistake, this was both - there needs to be reflection and a willingness to return to first principles as well as evolving new strategies and insights appropriate to the present.

    Economic realities shape cultural and social relations. The left should always listen to the experiences of people and build a consensus based on solidarity between groups and not the alienated support of different self-interested demographics. Exploitation is the corner-stone of capitalism when it is left to run unchecked. Without regulation, capitalism tends towards monopolies that end up subverting democracy itself.

    These are the issues Bernie Sanders raised and the enthusiasm with which it was greeted is testimony to the fact that there are white working class voters hungry for a politics of positive, radical social change. Intoning with robotic piety that the people have never had it so good despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a form of deceit; when it comes from the mouths of corporate Democrats, it is political obscenity.

    zephirine tempestteacup , 10 Nov 2016 12:1>

    In moments of humiliation or defeat - and make no mistake, this was both - there needs to be reflection and a willingness to return to first principles

    I think what I've realised from the Brexit and Trump results is how desperate people are for something to believe in. What used to be called 'the vision thing'.

    For decades we've had to choose between different forms of managerialism and variations on a theme of 'there is no alternative to rule by the market'. We just had to put up and shut up, there was nothing to get excited about. Nobody's ever jumped up and down shouting "What do want? Trickle-down economics! When do we want it? Now!"

    The thing about demagogues is they offer that emotional release. What we need is principled political movements that also enable it.

    tempestteacup zephirine , 10 Nov 2016 12:3>
    Absolutely right. One of the by-products of There Is No Alternative, though, is that managerialism and wonkiness have been fetishised. Hillary Clinton's devastatingly uninspiring offer to the American people was hailed by some as a mark of her "maturity", "experience", and "competence". Bernie Sanders, by contrast, was attacked for firing people up, for inspiring them to believe change was possible - by implication, of course, such attacks rest on the belief that change is in fact not possible at all. It is a bleak nihilism that states the best that can be hoped or organised for is a slightly better management of existing structures.

    There is a hypocrisy, too, when someone like Clinton derides Trump's economic plans as "Trumped-up trickle-down". In reality, they were arguing simply over who would offer the *bigger* tax cuts. The notion that there were alternative visions on the economy, on climate change, on racial equality or healthcare and education, not to mention foreign policies, was almost completely absent.

    This is why I wrote that in some ways Hillary Clinton was the greater evil in this election. It is one thing to hark backwards to a mythical past, as Donald Trump did. It is quite another to put such tight constraints on the entire notion of what is possible in the future. Trump offered nostalgia. Clinton offered the tyranny of low expectations - forever.

    But that is all in the past now - for the future, I agree with you that there needs to be a willingness to offer radical, inspirational and visionary alternatives to a system that has simply not worked for the majority of people who through no fault of their own find their quality of life, possibilities and security in decline while wealth flows ceaselessly upwards and into the pockets of those already insulated from the harm their favoured politicians unleash.

    Bernie showed what can be done - he also showed that people are willing to finance such campaigns and thus liberate the political process from the death-grip of corporate donations. Personally, I am sceptical of whether the Democratic Party is an appropriate vehicle for such politics (I know that Bernie doesn't agree with me!) Regardless, his campaign should provide somewhat of a model for what can be done - and likewise his statement from today. Amidst the headlong rush - in this paper as well - to denigrate and smear voters for failing to advance bourgeois liberal interests, it is imperative that deprived, working class voters of all races are listened to properly and not labelled racists and bigots. A few no doubt are. But these are, in many instances, the same people that helped elect Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. They are crying out for something to organise around. Hillary Clinton failed because she was not and never has been a person capable of, even interested in, offering that.

    eyelacesforyou , 10 Nov 2016 09:2>
    This is a great article. Alas, I fear it is all too late.

    Everyone knew what was wrong with Clinton and the whole rotten DNC operation, but they supported her anyway. When her flaws were pointed out, people kept saying 'but she's a woman.' As if that even mattered.

    Fundamentally the left has to abandon its obsession with identity politics, embrace national identity and individual liberty. Then it will be able to get over its economic message and win the day.

    [Nov 11, 2016] The Donald Trump victory is on the DNC establishment who rigged the primaries and eliminatd Sanders

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ironically, "respectability" is an intrinsically far-right notion in the first place. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    flora November 10, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    The Donald's victory is on the Dem estab who rigged the primaries. It's on the MSM who acted as Hillary's surrogate and cheerleader and who slandered Sanders' voters at every opportunity. And they're STILL slandering Sanders' voters. More important for the Dem estab to keep control of the party than to win against the GOP. Bernie would'a beat Trump, imo.

    marym November 10, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    would'a had some coat tails for House and Senate too, imo.

    hunkerdown November 10, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    But not "respectable" coat tails. Remember, the Democratic Party is the "respectable" left, not those hooligan socialists that want to make bosses and workmen peers (ew).

    Ironically, "respectability" is an intrinsically far-right notion in the first place.

    [Nov 11, 2016] The Democrats abandoned the only people that are paying the bills in this country - period! And the working class sent a message loud and clear.

    Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    sou812 3h ago 0 1 The Democrats abandoned the only people that are paying the bills in this country - period! And the working class sent a message loud and clear. The arrogance and ignorance of he left is astounding: focused on the novelty of getting a woman elected to the presidency even though she was the worst of choices. An arrogant, dishonest, bought and paid for Wall Street elitist like her husband, they thought that her experience was enough to seal her success. Ta!
    The Dem's have lost it all and it will take two decades to recover, if ever.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Betrayal is punished...

    Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    garfield08

    , 10 Nov 2016 12:4>
    After 8 years of "no change" Obama, a president totally owned by the corporations, banks, big money etc. and the man who failed to do anything about that huge and ever widening wealth gap the Democrats were obviously out of favour with the poor working class. But the voters seem to have forgotten than Trump still stands for the Republicans and thats where he will enrol his cabinet from, he can not act alone. Those same weak, ineffective ultra right loonies that stood against Trump and made him look special will now stand with him in government. Its still money politics.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Mutinous DNC Staffers Rage At Donna Brazile You Are Part Of The Problem... You Let This Happen

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Mutinous DNC Staffers Rage At Donna Brazile: "You Are Part Of The Problem... You Let This Happen"

    Tyler Durden Nov 11, 2016 2:55 PM 0 SHARES Liar, cheat, and fired CNN contributor Donna Brazile faced an angry crowd on Thursday night ... as Democratic Party officials held their first staff meeting since Hillary Clinton was crushed by the "least qualified candidate for President ever."

    As The Huffington Post reports, Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as "a rip-roaring speech" to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.

    "Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?" he asked, according to two people in the room. "You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself."

    Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.

    "You are part of the problem," he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump's victory by siding with Clinton early on . "You and your friends will die of old age and I'm going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy."

    Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to go outside and "tell people there" why she should be leading the party.

    Two DNC staffers confirmed the exchange, and Brazile appeared to confirm the exchange also...

    "As you can imagine, the individual involved is a member of the staff and I personally do not wish to discuss our internal meetings."

    Brazile could move to stay on as chair after March, but Thursday's meeting shows at least some party officials want fresh blood at the top.

    "The party is at a crossroads. They have been using the same playbook for decades, and now, they won't let anyone else come in and change it up," said one former longtime DNC staffer, who requested anonymity to speak freely.

    "The fact that Democrats just sat through a devastating defeat and now have to trust the leadership that not only contributed to Clinton's loss, but the crushing 2014 midterm losses, well, what do they expect?"

    Mutiny at the DNC? And where does Brazile go now? No TV network will hire a proven liar and cheat. There's no Democratic campaign for her to jump to like Wasserman-Schultz... So Brazile will probably find herself worling at The Clinton Foundation.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Obama can pardon Clinton Foundation players without specified which crimes they committed

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Ken Nari | Nov 11, 2016 2:51:53 PM | 55
    Susan Sunflower @ 48

    Disgusting as it is, yes, my understanding is Obama can do exactly that. My guess is, want to or not, he probably will come under so much pressure he will have to pass out plenty of pardons. Or maybe Lynch will give everyone involved in the Clinton Foundation immunity to testify and then seal the testimony -- or never bother to get any testimony. So many games.

    For Obama, it might not even take all that much pressure. From about his second day in office, from his body language, he's always looked like he was scared.

    Instead of keeping his mouth shut, which he would do, being the lawyer he is, Giuliani has been screaming for the Clintons' scalps. That's exactly what a sharp lawyer would do if he was trying to force Obama to pardon them. If he really meant to get them he would be agreeing with the FBI, saying there doesn't seem to be any evidence of wrong doing, and then change his mind once (if) he's AG and it's too late for deals.

    With so many lawyers, Obama, the Clintons, Lynch, Giuliani, Comey, no justice is likely to come out of this.

    h | Nov 11, 2016 2:53:37 PM | 56
    Maybe I saw the question about a 9/11 investigation on the other thread, but someone here asked if this is true. Well, it appears to be on a burner -

    http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/trump-reopening-911-reversing-rome-in-bid-to-be-greatest-american-steward/

    jdmckay | Nov 11, 2016 2:58:20 PM | 57
    Ken Nari @ 55

    From what I've read, prez pardon comes with explicit admission of guilt. Highly questionable either (or both) Clintons would accept that.

    Mina | Nov 11, 2016 3:03:16 PM | 58
    Simply brilliant
    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/
    (it could be on the other thread, sorry)

    Susan Sunflower | Nov 11, 2016 3:12:12 PM | 59
    @ Posted by: Ken Nari | Nov 11, 2016 2:51:53 PM | 55

    I heard a podcast on Batchelor with Charles Ortel which explained some things -- even if there are no obvious likely criminal smoking guns -- given that foundations get away with a lot of "leniency" because they are charities, incomplete financial statements and chartering documents, as I recall. I was most interested in his description of the number of jurisdictions the Foundation was operating under, some of whom, like New York were already investigating; and others, foreign who might or might be, who also have very serious regulations, opening the possibility that if the Feds drop their investigation, New York (with very very strict law) might proceed, and that they might well be investigated (prosecuted/banned??) in Europe.

    The most recent leak wrt internal practices was just damning ... it sounded like a playground of favors and sinecures ... no human resources department, no written policies on many practices ...

    This was an internal audit and OLD (2008, called "the Gibson Review") so corrective action may have been taken, but I thought was damning enough to deter many donors (even before Hillary's loss removed that incentive) particularly on top of the Band (2011) memo. Unprofessional to the extreme.

    It's part of my vast relief that Clinton lost and will not be in our lives 24/7/365 for the next 4 years. (I think Trump is an unprincipled horror, but that's as may be, I'm not looking for a fight). After the mess Clinton made of Haiti (and the accusations/recriminations) I somehow thought they'd have been more careful with their "legacy" -- given that it was founded in 1997, 2008 is a very long time to be operating without written procedures wrt donations, employment

    from 11/08/2016, Batchelor segment page

    [Nov 11, 2016] Of course it's pc to pretend that immigrants create jobs rather than taking them etc etc. But I would put this question to any economist, journalist or politician who doesn't believe that immigration hurts the working classes: how would you like it if a million workers arrived, all qualified to your level or above in economics/journalism/politics, and all willing to work for much less than you make?

    Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    Ed209 5h ago 2 3 Good article, but it fails to mention immigration as a further factor hammering the working class. Of course it's pc to pretend that immigrants create jobs rather than taking them etc etc. But I would put this question to any economist, journalist or politician who doesn't believe that immigration hurts the working classes: how would you like it if a million workers arrived, all qualified to your level or above in economics/journalism/politics, and all willing to work for much less than you make?

    Of course, in the case of the UK it hasn't been one million, but more than three million. And in the case of the USA, untold millions (illegals alone are thought to number 10 million).

    It's because economists, journalists and politicians never have to face this kind of competition for their own jobs that they are so keen on mass immigration. But low-skill/no-skill workers face this reality everyday. Nika2015 Ed209 4h ago 0 1 Telling it like it is...Bravo! Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Dana Todd Ed209 4h ago 0 1 There's a pretty in-depth analysis of immigration's effect on economy and workers/wages here http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature
    Bottom line is, it's complicated, and not all immigrants are the same - or the same value to a country. Immigrants with college degrees definitely add to the GDP of their new home, typically estimated in six figures cumulative per individual contribution. Immigrants without college degree do place a drain on the country, through depressed wages, because there's parity (and since we haven't invested as much in our educations here, we are not as competitive to outside labor). Illegal immigrants cause a definite deficit, albeit not so big as to threaten an entire economy - but by creating an artificial competition they drive wages down.
    I am by all measures a liberal and very open to immigration - I think we can't measure in dollars what we get in new ideas, new energy, culture, art, food, music - but for those who take a hard line look at the return/impacts, it's worth taking the time to understand the more complex story in the data.

    [Nov 11, 2016] The Democrats did a fine job of stomping out any enthusiasm by sabotaging Bernie Sanders

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Paid Minion November 10, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    The Democrats did a fine job of stomping out any enthusiasm by sabotaging Bernie Sanders.

    The DNC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Family Inc. starting in about 2008. Control the rulemakers/money flow, and you can control who the nominee is. At least that is the conventional thinking, and Clinton Inc. is nothing if not conventional.

    To buy the DNC, she chose to go to the Wall Street banksters, and others. Essentially an "up front" bribe. No smoking gun needed to be created. They knew what they were paying for, without it being said.

    (I'm curious to see how many "donations" the Clinton Foundation receives, now that she's been pushed out on an ice floe.)

    They never anticipated a challenger who didn't need the DNC, or it's cash.

    They ignored the stats showing how many people wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstance. Just call them racist/sexist/dumbazz hicks, and call them "deplorables". Ask Mitt Romney how that worked out for him.

    She lost an election to DONALD TRUMP. Even without the airwaves filled with Republican attack ads. (Lack of RNC enthusiasm for Trump? Or a recognition that Hillary's negatives couldn't be covered in a 30 second commercial?).

    If it wasn't for the Clinton's collective ego, and lust for power/money (after all, we all now that in the current state of affairs, the moneyed class drives policy), we'd all (well, all of us who don't live in the rarefied air of the 1%ers/Banksters) be celebrating the upcoming inauguration of President Sanders.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Keith Ellison, Howard Dean offered as possible DNC chairs as Democrats seek to regroup

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.washingtonpost.com

    In the wreckage of Hillary Clinton's unexpected loss, liberal lawmakers and advocacy groups have started plotting a major overhaul of the Democratic National Committee, with the aim of using the staid organization to reconnect the party with working-class voters it lost to President-elect Donald Trump.

    Much of the talk since Tuesday's election has focused on selecting a new chairman, with the most frequently mentioned successor being Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who backed the primary bid of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

    On Thursday afternoon, former Vermont governor Howard Dean (D) offered his service for a second tenure as DNC chairman, saying on Twitter: "The dems need organization and focus on the the young. Need a fifty State strategy and tech rehab. I am in for chairman again."

    Evil Incarnate1956

    I think the Republicans should get down on their knees and give thanks to God for Barack Obama. I'm serious.

    He did great at getting himself elected, and he had some coattails when he was on the ballot. When he wasn't on the ballot, the Dems' election performance has been one unmitigated disaster after another- midterm epic-fails in 2010 and 2014, and Tuesday's election the frosting on the cake.

    Where is the Democrats' bench strength? Where is their future? Besides Barack Obama, the face of their party today is Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Steny Hoyer.

    Obama, by cramming Obamacare down people's throats against their will, and his executive order overreach, has taken a wrecking ball to the Democrat Party.

    I hope the Democrats will adopt a strategy to continue the trend.

    NewbieWaDoobie
    Neat trick.....if you were to take the overtones of the media at large and the messaging coming from the HRC camp you can easily see why she lost the rust belt. I worked as a carpenter in South Bend, IN from about 2002-2008 and she was never going to win those people without a MESSAGE....when did she ELEVATE AND STUMP HARD for income equality and the platform....NEVER!!!! It was against her principles and the interests of the people who surrounded her and the DNC.....FOOLS!!!!!

    Neoliberalism is DEAD....even the IMF, published a report on this back in June 2016....take a look at Glen Greenwald's piece while you're at it.

    https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06...
    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trum...

    nealkaye, 8:46 PM EST


    The GOP has the White House, the Senate and the House, the 33 state Governerships and, for the next 30 years, the US Supreme Court (once Trump picks the next 3 Justices).

    Thank you Pres. Obama.

    [Nov 09, 2016] Neoliberal stooge and argent Hillary supported Paul Krugman is upset

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    What we do know is that people like me, and probably like most readers of The New York Times, truly didn't understand the country we live in. We thought that our fellow citizens would not, in the end, vote for a candidate so manifestly unqualified for high office, so temperamentally unsound, so scary yet ludicrous.

    We thought that the nation, while far from having transcended racial prejudice and misogyny, had become vastly more open and tolerant over time.

    We thought that the great majority of Americans valued democratic norms and the rule of law.

    It turns out that we were wrong. There turn out to be a huge number of people - white people, living mainly in rural areas - who don't share at all our idea of what America is about. For them, it is about blood and soil, about traditional patriarchy and racial hierarchy. And there were many other people who might not share those anti-democratic values, but who nonetheless were willing to vote for anyone bearing the Republican label.

    I don't know how we go forward from here. Is America a failed state and society? It looks truly possible.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Paul Krugman -- Hillary sycophant with anti-russian bent

    Notable quotes:
    "... If one "fact" is known to be false then one is inclined to think those "facts" one is unfamiliar with are also false. I'll always think of Clinton's behavior on hearing of Gadaffi's death. That's the thing you want running the most powerful corporation on earth. ..."
    "... I don't remember Krugman saying that Bush Sr. spent his days at the CIA so he trained as a professional assassin. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Murray Hobbs : November 07, 2016 at 09:50 AM

    If one "fact" is known to be false then one is inclined to think those "facts" one is unfamiliar with are also false. I'll always think of Clinton's behavior on hearing of Gadaffi's death. That's the thing you want running the most powerful corporation on earth.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Murray Hobbs... , November 07, 2016 at 09:58 AM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi

    ...International reactions...

    ... Hillary Clinton, laughed and expressed delight with Gaddafi's death, stating "We came. We saw. He died..."

    Richard A. -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , November 07, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    We came, we saw, he died https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , November 07, 2016 at 03:51 PM
    Before he died Qaddafi was sodomized.........
    anne -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 12:01 PM
    The election was rigged by Russian intelligence, which was almost surely behind the hacking of Democratic emails, which WikiLeaks then released with great fanfare. Nothing truly scandalous emerged, but the Russians judged, correctly, that the news media would hype the revelation that major party figures are human beings, and that politicians engage in politics, as somehow damning....

    -- Paul Krugman

    [ A wildly speculative, purposely inflaming even dangerous passage. And in keeping with previously expressed, inflaming Krugman stereotypes.

    I know, I know, the Russians are going to eat our children for breakfast but I am in no mood for another era of Cold War McCarthyism. Children for what? OMG. ]

    anne -> Jim Harrison ... , November 07, 2016 at 02:49 PM
    OMG, the Russians not being satisfied with eating the children of Cleveland are also going to eat the Baltics and we all know that Baltics are already endangered (climate change and all). Who knew?

    "Save the Baltics from hungry Russians," must be the cry through the land. Save the Baltics, I am ready.

    "Get me my net," Henry.

    anne -> Jim Harrison ... , November 07, 2016 at 02:51 PM
    I'm hearing is simply a recognition that Putin is a problem and that his agents are trying to influence the election, which they sure appear to be doing and have done in many other cases in many countries. It's SOP for this guy....

    [ https://twitter.com/vastleft/status/795234806422503424

    vastleft ‏@vastleft

    Can we be sure Putin isn't behind this changing-the-clocks thing?

    4:02 AM - 6 Nov 2016 ]

    anne -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 03:01 PM
    "Save the Baltics."

    Right, I'm there.

    [ I know, I have no idea how to portray this as absurd as it actually is. Remember though, I am always ready to go to the Baltics when called to battle. ]

    anne -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 12:03 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/opinion/donald-trump-the-siberian-candidate.html

    July 21, 2016

    Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate
    By Paul Krugman

    The Republicans' presidential nominee doesn't just admire Vladimir Putin.


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

    December 21, 2014

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

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

    Dan Kervick -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 03:13 PM
    "Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug...."

    That is a highly simplistic statement about the KGB. Putin worked in counter-intelligence. He wasn't a leg breaker.

    anne -> Dan Kervick... , November 07, 2016 at 04:36 PM
    What is important and saddening is the wild Cold War prejudice, a prejudice that extends to China and would readily descend to name-naming. I get this, fortunately I get the prejudice.

    No matter, when called as I have made clear I will be naming-names from A to Z, but I get this.

    Julio -> Dan Kervick... , November 08, 2016 at 06:37 AM
    Yes, exactly. I don't remember Krugman saying that Bush Sr. spent his days at the CIA so he trained as a professional assassin.
    anne -> Julio ... , November 08, 2016 at 06:44 AM
    I don't remember Krugman saying that Bush Sr. spent his days at the CIA so he trained as a professional assassin.

    [ Perfect:

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

    December 21, 2014

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

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

    [Nov 08, 2016] Like rapists neoliberals do not take no for the answer and will push Britain back in the EU again until the right result was achieved.

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Carolinian November 7, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Raimondo–globalism is the issue

    That's why a British court has effectively overturned the results of the Brexit vote – in a lawsuit brought by a hedge fund manager and former model – and thrown the fate of the country into the hands of pro-EU Tories, and their Labor and Liberal Democrat collaborators.

    This stunning reversal was baked in to the legislation that enabled the referendum to begin with, and is par for the course as far as EU referenda are concerned: in 1992,

    Danish voters rejected the EU, only to have the Euro-crats demand a rematch with a "modified" EU treaty which won narrowly. There have been repeated attempts to modify the modifications, which have all failed. Ireland voted against both the Lisbon Treaty and the Nice Treaty, only to have the issue brought up again until the "right" result was achieved.

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/11/06/bringing-globalist-monster/

    [Nov 08, 2016] Regardless of How America Votes, Americans Want a Different Foreign Policy by Ron Paul

    Notable quotes:
    "... We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. But this election and many recent polls demonstrate that their time has passed. They may not know it yet, but their failures are too obvious and Americans are sick of paying for them. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | original.antiwar.com

    Regardless of How America Votes, Americans Want a Different Foreign Policy

    , Print This | Share This I have said throughout this presidential campaign that it doesn't matter much which candidate wins. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are authoritarians and neither can be expected to roll back the leviathan state that destroys our civil liberties at home while destroying our economy and security with endless wars overseas. Candidates do not matter all that much, despite what the media would have us believe. Ideas do matter, however. And regardless of which of these candidates is elected, the battle of ideas now becomes critical.

    The day after the election is our time to really focus our efforts on making the case for a peaceful foreign policy and the prosperity it will bring. While we may not have much to cheer in Tuesday's successful candidate, we have learned a good deal about the state of the nation from the campaigns. From the surprising success of the insurgent Bernie Sanders to a Donald Trump campaign that broke all the mainstream Republican Party rules – and may have broken the Republican Party itself – what we now understand more clearly than ever is that the American people are fed up with politics as usual. And more importantly they are fed up with the same tired old policies.

    Last month a fascinating poll was conducted by the Center for the National Interest and the Charles Koch Institute. A broad ranging 1,000 Americans were asked a series of questions about US foreign policy and the 15 year "war on terror." You might think that after a decade and a half, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives lost, Americans might take a more positive view of this massive effort to "rid the world of evildoers," as then-president George W. Bush promised. But the poll found that only 14 percent of Americans believe US foreign policy has made them more safe! More than 50 percent of those polled said the next US president should use less force overseas, and 80 percent said the president must get authorization from Congress before taking the country to war.

    These results should make us very optimistic about our movement, as it shows that we are rapidly approaching the "critical mass" where new ideas will triumph over the armies of the status quo.

    We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. But this election and many recent polls demonstrate that their time has passed. They may not know it yet, but their failures are too obvious and Americans are sick of paying for them.

    What is to be done? We must continue to educate ourselves and others. We must resist those who are preaching "interventionism-lite" and calling it a real alternative. Claiming we must protect our "interests" overseas really means using the US military to benefit special interests. That is not what the military is for. We must stick to our noninterventionist guns. No more regime change. No more covert destabilization programs overseas. A solid defense budget, not an imperial military budget. US troops home now. End US military action in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on. Just come home.

    Americans want change, no matter who wins. We need to be ready to provide that alternative.

    Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity .

    [Nov 08, 2016] The US elections are a staged political farce with NO MATERIAL IMPACT on the US imperial policies, domestic or international

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is shockingly disappointing that MOA, this otherwise intelligent incisive, a deeply intellectual and factual blog's readership exhibit a trait common to overall American anti-intellectual sheeple constituency as Gore Vidal posited decades ago, having no shame expressing their utter confusion and ignorance about one fundamental fact of reality they are facing. ..."
    "... Those political puppets, stooges of oligarchy are no alternatives to the calcified imperial system itself, they never have been and they never will. They are new/old faces of the same old 240 y.o. Anglo-American imperial regime based on ancient and modern slavery and they already declared it by submitting to it via pledging to run in this farcical rigged electoral fallacy. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Kalen | Nov 8, 2016 3:21:04 AM | 73

    It is shockingly disappointing that MOA, this otherwise intelligent incisive, a deeply intellectual and factual blog's readership exhibit a trait common to overall American anti-intellectual sheeple constituency as Gore Vidal posited decades ago, having no shame expressing their utter confusion and ignorance about one fundamental fact of reality they are facing.

    THE FACT: The US elections are a staged political farce with NO MATERIAL IMPACT on the US imperial policies, domestic or international WHATSOEVER. And that's the fact based on rock solid empirical evidences also MOA proliferates that only a mental patient can deny.

    SO WHAT THE F.U.CK ALL OF YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT? "Voting" for this or that? NONSENSE;

    Those political puppets, stooges of oligarchy are no alternatives to the calcified imperial system itself, they never have been and they never will. They are new/old faces of the same old 240 y.o. Anglo-American imperial regime based on ancient and modern slavery and they already declared it by submitting to it via pledging to run in this farcical rigged electoral fallacy.

    All at the end will openly pledge unwavering support for the regime and their rotten deeply corrupted parties while abandoning their gullible voters.

    Supporters of any of these plastic puppets of oligarchy not unlike a cargo cult, are impatient, nervous, excited and scared sitting and waiting before an impregnable curtain of political deceit, lies and manipulation by the ruling elite in front of their wide shut eyes , turning to magic, superstition, appeasement, making up stories, poems out of their incoherent utterances filed with tautologies, innuendos and absurd, begging for mercy or praying for a caprice of good will to save them ultimately in a form of fake, meaningless political turds passing as empty "political" platform promises while blatantly abandoning their unalienable rights to independence, self-determination and democratic system of people's rule, based on equality in the law, and one voter one vote principle, for a role of a meddlesome spectators to their own execution.

    THE FACT: The democratic electoral system worth participating does not exist in the US but none of the candidates would utter this truth as long as they can benefit from the fraud and that includes third parties. If this was a true change or revolution, that we desperately need, honest leaders would not run their campaign within the corrupted system set up by and for two oligarchic parties but they would decry and utterly reject it.

    Think people, all the so-called candidates even third party candidates are just nibbling on the behemoth of abhorrent and brutal US imperial power mostly with utterances that they never intended to follow if they wanted to survive terror of the US security apparatus, while peddling the lies about small incremental changes and stealing ours and our children future by asking us to wait, be patient, and begging ruling elite for mercy and may be for some crumbs from an oligarchs' table after they are not able to gorge themselves anymore with our blood sweat and tears.

    Unfortunately, this time as well, millions of irrational, desperate and helpless in their daily lives electoral zombies such as those, under a spell of exciting political masquerade, regrettably also on this blog, will be aligning themselves with one or the other anointed by establishment winner [whoever it will be] of a meaningless popularity/beauty contest, in a delusional feat of transference of a fraction of elite's power to themselves just for a second of a thrill of illusion of power, illusion of feelings that something depends on me, that I can make a difference, a delusion of holding skies from falling and by that saving the world common among paranoid mental patients.

    And they will continue to authorize their own suicide mission, since even baseless, continually disproved hope of Sisyphus, of any chance of influencing of the political realm via means of begging is the last thing that dies.

    THE LOUD POLITICAL BOYCOTT OF THIS FARCE, UTTER REJECTION OF THIS FACADE OF DEMOCRATIC CHOICE, REJECTION OF ANY POLITICAL LEGITIMACY OF THIS SORRY SPECTACLE IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE TO ANY DECENT PERSON, INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN WHO TAKES A MORAL STAND REJECTING ENSLAVEMENT RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW.

    THE REST WILL JUST PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR OWN CHAINS.

    MAKE YOU CHOICE.

    Posted by: Kalen | Nov 8, 2016 3:21:04 AM | 73

    [Nov 08, 2016] Which way Utah falls

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think Mormons are ticked over Romney losing in 2012 and blame Evangelicals ask when there was fear Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Romney did as well as a non Mormon robber baron would have done in 2012. Trump trashing Romney annoyed Mormons who probably aren't going to get another shot at the Oval Office any time soon. ..."
    "... the Romney, Will, Kristol, McCain, Graham, Paulson, Blankfein NEVER TRUMP brigades are up to their sleazy behinds in the Clinton Foundation FRAUD. ..."
    "... The Foundation is under very very strict rules but has ignored all of them, putting all their contributors at risk. If Trump wins – a grand jury will have all the necessary ammunition to bring down a whole lot of people, here and abroad. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Vatch November 7, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    Shouldn't Utah be considered a swing state in 2016? Some Mormons are unhappy with aspects of Trump's behavior, and wild card McMullin is a member of the LDS church.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef November 7, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Can't be worse than Bill's behavior. Plus Trump doesn't drink.

    Vatch November 7, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    Nate Silver's site gives Trump an overwhelming advantage in Utah, but I still think that surprises are possible. See this article (which admittedly also shows a significant polling advantage for Trump):

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/11/evan-mcmullin-utah-donald-trump-161105032535083.html

    An Emerson College poll released on November 3 shows him at 28 percent to Trump's 40 percent and Clinton's 20 percent.

    Jason Perry, the director of Utah's bipartisan Hinckley Institute, says there is a large percentage of voters who do not even know who McMullin is, "but they know who he is not. He's not Trump, and he's not Hillary".

    With 67 percent of Utah voters viewing Trump unfavourably according to a Monmouth University poll, voting for the Republican candidate does not appear to sit well with Utah's value-minded voters.

    Becky Rasmussen, 37, of Highland City, is one such voter who could not see herself voting for Trump, in part because of her Mormon faith.

    While she also sees Clinton as unfit for the presidency, Trump, she says, is "completely morally bankrupt …You see framed in his office him on the cover of Playboy Magazine".

    But Porter Goodman, 28, from Provo – who believes that voting for McMullin "is the only way to not throw away your vote" – says it is not his Mormon beliefs that cause him to view Trump as having a "lack of morality".

    "I say he lacks morality because he lies and because he abuses other people with his words and actions," Goodman says. "Savour the magnificent irony of Trump supporters who say, 'Yeah, Trump may be a pathological liar, but set that aside and focus on the great things he says he'll do as president."

    NotTimothyGeithner November 7, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    I think Mormons are ticked over Romney losing in 2012 and blame Evangelicals ask when there was fear Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Romney did as well as a non Mormon robber baron would have done in 2012. Trump trashing Romney annoyed Mormons who probably aren't going to get another shot at the Oval Office any time soon.

    Nate doesn't do a why or how of trends and just focuses on raw numbers based on previous polls. It's why he never landed a baseball job when other Stat geeks did. If there was an usual trend in Utah, Nate would miss it.

    The key issue is are Mormons "Republicans" or "conservative" when they describe themselves. If their identity is "conservative," I could see them not voting for Trump. If being a "Republican" matters, they will vote. They voted for McCain, and the fundies hated that guy.

    GMoore November 7, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    the Romney, Will, Kristol, McCain, Graham, Paulson, Blankfein NEVER TRUMP brigades are up to their sleazy behinds in the Clinton Foundation FRAUD.

    The Foundation is under very very strict rules but has ignored all of them, putting all their contributors at risk. If Trump wins – a grand jury will have all the necessary ammunition to bring down a whole lot of people, here and abroad.

    It's the great untold story of this election. IT's also the spit and glue that holds the Clinton coalition of media, government, Wall St, Dems and Goper royalty together in this fight to the death to keep a "friendly" administration in DC. This is kill or be killed time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiFQkCSEUGE

    [Nov 08, 2016] The real danger of serious election-rigging: electronic voting machines. How do we know the machine *really* recorded everyones votes correctly? Insrtead we have anti-russian hysteria fed to us 24 x 7

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men." ... ..."
    "... poor pk a leader of the Stalinist press ..."
    "... the surprising success of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive commentators say. ..."
    "... "I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long to live! ..."
    "... Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid advertisements filling the remaining hours). ..."
    "... Killary Clinton got no closer than Ann Arbor this weekend, a message! ..."
    "... Mr. Krugman forgot to list the collusion of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to work against Sanders. ..."
    "... putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue. ..."
    "... Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of middle class... ..."
    "... Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 01:47 PM

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/the-truth-about-the-sanders-movement/

    May 23, 2016

    The Truth About the Sanders Movement
    By Paul Krugman

    In short, it's complicated – not all bad, by any means, but not the pure uprising of idealists the more enthusiastic supporters imagine.

    The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have an illuminating discussion of Sanders support. The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is this:

    "Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men." ...

    [ Yes, I do find defaming people by speculation or stereotype to be beyond saddening. ]

    ilsm -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 03:53 PM
    poor pk a leader of the Stalinist press
    anne -> Chris Lowery ... , November 07, 2016 at 10:28 AM
    The fact that Obama either won, or did so much better than Hillary appears to be doing with, the white working-class vote in so many key battleground states, as well as the surprising success of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive commentators say.

    And her opponent was/is incapable of debating on substance, as there was/is neither coherence nor consistency in any part of his platform -- nor that of his party....

    [ Compelling argument. ]

    JohnH : , November 07, 2016 at 10:26 AM
    Question is, will Krugman be able to move on after the election...and talk about something useful? Like how to get Hillary to recognize and deal with inequality...
    JohnH : , November 07, 2016 at 10:29 AM
    Barbara Ehrenreich: "Forget fear and loathing. The US election inspires projectile vomiting. The most sordid side of our democracy has been laid out for all to see. But that's only the beginning: whoever wins, the mutual revulsion will only intensify... With either Clinton or Trump, we will be left to choke on our mutual revulsion."
    JohnH -> JohnH... , November 07, 2016 at 10:29 AM
    Link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/us-election-projectile-vomiting-barbara-ehrenreich
    JohnH -> Bloix... , November 07, 2016 at 04:59 PM
    "I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long to live!
    ilsm -> JohnH... , November 07, 2016 at 03:54 PM
    the great mortification, these two.
    cm -> JohnH... , November 07, 2016 at 11:11 PM
    Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid advertisements filling the remaining hours).
    Tom aka Rusty : , November 07, 2016 at 11:17 AM
    Something interesting today.... President Obama came to Michigan. I fully expected him to speak in Detroit with a get out the vote message. Instead he is in Ann Arbor, speaking to an overwhelmingly white and white-collar audience. On a related note, the Dems have apparently written off the white blue collar vote in Michigan, even much of the union vote. the union leaders are pro Clinton, but the workers not so much. Strange year.
    ilsm -> Tom aka Rusty... , November 07, 2016 at 03:55 PM
    Killary Clinton got no closer than Ann Arbor this weekend, a message!
    John M : , November 07, 2016 at 11:26 AM
    The real danger of serious election-rigging: electronic voting machines. How do we know the machine *really* recorded everyone's votes correctly? (Did any Florida county ever give Al Gore negative something votes?)
    Julio -> John M ... , November 08, 2016 at 06:42 AM
    That's a big subject but you are right, that is the biggest risk of significant fraud. Not just the voting machines, but the automatic counting systems. Other forms of possible election fraud are tiny by comparison.
    Enquiring Mind : , November 07, 2016 at 11:48 AM
    Here is the transcript from 60 Minutes about the Luntz focus group rancor. Instructive to read about the depth of feeling in case you didn't see the angry, disgusted faces of citizens.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-american-voters-on-trump-clinton/

    ScottB : , November 07, 2016 at 12:08 PM
    Mr. Krugman forgot to list the collusion of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to work against Sanders.
    ilsm -> ScottB... , November 07, 2016 at 03:57 PM
    putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue.
    Before the 1970s the US was both rich and protectionist - no look at our horrible roads and hopeless people - the miracle of free trade! : , November 07, 2016 at 07:13 PM
    Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of middle class...

    Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia.

    [Nov 08, 2016] We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern nation.

    Notable quotes:
    "... We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern nation. ..."
    "... Fuck Hillary, Fuck the neolibcons, Fuck al-CIAda, Fuck the fascist banksters who eat our children for breakfast. ..."
    "... Vote Trump in swing states. Vote Jill everywhere else. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Perimetr | Nov 8, 2016 4:34:49 AM | 77

    The heartland of the US is RED, solid RED.
    The neolibcons are printing up their Newsweek mags with Madam President on the cover.

    They don't have a clue about how pissed off the people in the "flyover states" are.

    Fuck their rigged polls and lying news.

    Sure Trump is behind or neck-and-neck . . . Just like we have 5% unemployment.

    As long as you don't count the 1/3 of working age people who DON"T HAVE A JOB.

    The deplorables can think of 650,000 reasons why Hillary should be in PRISON, even if the FBI can't.

    We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern nation.

    Fuck Hillary, Fuck the neolibcons, Fuck al-CIAda, Fuck the fascist banksters who eat our children for breakfast.

    ProPeace | Nov 8, 2016 7:02:55 AM | 80
    @RayB | Nov 8, 2016 12:18:53 AM | 62 "The only real issue here is either war or peace."

    Yes, especially that the US has war-based, or "blood economy" (like diamonds).

    Interesting tidbits:

    ... ... ...

    rufus magister | Nov 8, 2016 7:26:46 AM | 81
    fairleft at 43 --

    Do not blow shit up, like the political system, without a clear idea where the pieces will land and how you will put them back together. Crisis would benefit the right, not the left, given the current correlation of class and political forces.

    The best result. sadly, would be a resounding win for Mrs. Clinton. As the comment at 11 shows, anything less than a crushing defeat will enable the alt-right and embolden the most reactionary and nativist elements in society.

    The notion that worsening conditions will automatically produce progressive revolution is a pipe-dream. Beaten-down folks struggling to survive don't have the time or energy to organize.

    Vote your conscience, your hopes. Takingg the long view, I am again voting, as I have for years, for the Socialist Workers Party.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 8, 2016 8:03:07 AM | 82
    rufus @81:
    Do not blow shit up ...
    The corrupt 'Third Way' Democrats blew up U.S. democracy years ago. "Do not blow shit up" = BOHICA.
    The best result. sadly, would be a resounding win for Mrs. Clinton.... I am again voting, as I have for years, for the Socialist Workers Party.
    Shameless, unadulterated bullshit.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Vote Trump in swing states. Vote Jill everywhere else.

    [Nov 08, 2016] The conflict with Russia is not one of economic systems. It's simply that America wants to control other countries and keep other countries within the dollar orbit. And what that means is that if the whole world saves in the form of dollars, that means saving by buying Treasury bonds.

    Notable quotes:
    "... What America objects to in Russia is that Americans couldn't buy control of their oil, couldn't buy control of their natural resources, couldn't buy control of their public utilities and charge economic rents and continue to make Russia the largest stock market boom in the world as it was from 1994 through 1998 when there was the crisis. ..."
    "... So the conflict is not one of economic systems. It's simply that America wants to control other countries and keep other countries within the dollar orbit. And what that means is that if the whole world saves in the form of dollars, that means saving by buying Treasury bonds. ..."
    "... And other countries are trying to withdraw from this and America says, "Well, we can smash you." ..."
    "... There really is no alternative, and that's the objective of control: to create a society in which there is no choice. That's what a free market [myth] is really all about: preventing any choice by the people except what the government gives them. ..."
    "... has the illusion of choice in choosing either between which is the lesser evil. They get to vote for the lesser evil when it's all really the same process. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    mauisurfer | Nov 8, 2016 12:02:23 AM | 60

    Michael Hudson says

    > Ashcroft: What sort of president then will Hillary Clinton be?

    > Hudson: A dictator. She… a vindictive dictator, punishing her enemies, appointing neocons in the secretary of state, in the defense department, appointing Wall Street people in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, and the class war will really break out very explicitly. And she'll-as Warren Buffet said, there is a class war and we're winning it.

    > Ashcroft: As in the one percent are winning it.

    > Hudson: The one percent are winning it. And she will try to use the rhetoric to tell people: "Nothing to see here folks. Keep on moving," while the economy goes down and down and she cashes in as she's been doing all along, richer and richer, and if she's president, there will not be an investigator of the criminal conflict of interest of the Bill Clinton Foundation, of pay-to-play. You'll have a presidency in which corporations who pay the Clintons will be able to set policy. Whoever has the money to buy the politicians will buy control of policy because elections have been privatized and made part of the market economy in the United States. That's what the Citizens United Supreme Court case was all about.

    > Hudson: Well, after 1991 when the Soviet Union broke up, it really went neoliberal. And Putin is basically a neoliberal. So there's not a clash of economic systems as there was between capitalism and communism. What America objects to in Russia is that Americans couldn't buy control of their oil, couldn't buy control of their natural resources, couldn't buy control of their public utilities and charge economic rents and continue to make Russia the largest stock market boom in the world as it was from 1994 through 1998 when there was the crisis.

    So the conflict is not one of economic systems. It's simply that America wants to control other countries and keep other countries within the dollar orbit. And what that means is that if the whole world saves in the form of dollars, that means saving by buying Treasury bonds.

    And that means lending all of the balance-of-payments surplus that Russia or China or other countries look at, by lending it to the U.S. Treasury, which will use that money to militarily encircle these countries and threaten to do to any country that seeks to withdraw from the dollar system exactly what they did to Iraq or Libya or Afghanistan, or now Syria.

    And other countries are trying to withdraw from this and America says, "Well, we can smash you." No country's going to invade any other country. There's not going to be a military draft in any country 'cause the students; the population would rise up. Nobody's going to invade, and you can't control or occupy a country if you don't have an army. So the only thing that America can do-or any country can do militarily-is drop bombs.

    And that's sort of the equivalent of, just like the European Central Bank told Greece, "We'll close down your banks and the ATM machines will be empty," America will say, "Well, we'll bomb you, make you look like Syria and Libya if you don't turn over your oil, your pipelines, your utilities to American buyers so we can charge rents; we can be the absentee landlords. We can conquer the world financially instead of militarily. We don't need an army; we can use finance. And the threat of military warfare and bombing you to achieve things." Other countries are trying to stay free of the mad bomber, and it's all about who's going to control the world's natural resources: water, real estate, utilities-not a question of economic systems so much anymore.

    > Well, President Obama, even though he's a tool of Wall Street, at least he says, "It's not worth blowing up the world to fight in the near east." Hillary says, "It is worth pushing the world back to the Stone Age if they don't let us and me, Hillary, tell the world how to behave." That's a danger of the world and that's why the Europeans should be terrified of a Hillary presidency and terrified of the direction that America is doing, saying, "We want to control the world." It's not control the world through a different economic philosophy. It's to control the world through ownership of their land, natural resources and essentially, governments and monetary systems. That's really what it's all about. And the popular press is not doing a good job of explaining that context, but I can assure you, that's what they're talking about in Russia, China and South America.

    > There really is no alternative, and that's the objective of control: to create a society in which there is no choice. That's what a free market [myth] is really all about: preventing any choice by the people except what the government gives them. That's what the Austrian school was all about in the 1920s, waging war and assassination against the labor leaders and the socialists in Vienna, and that's what the free marketers in Chile were all about in the mass assassinations of labor leaders, university professors, intellectuals, and that's exactly the situation in America today without the machine guns, because the population doesn't really feel that it has any alternative, but has the illusion of choice in choosing either between which is the lesser evil. They get to vote for the lesser evil when it's all really the same process.

    http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/michael_hudson_on_why_trump_is_the_lesser_evil_20161107

    [Nov 08, 2016] What Hath Trump Wrought

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bush I and II, Mitt Romney, the neocons and the GOP commentariat all denounced Trump as morally and temperamentally unfit. Yet, seven of eight Republicans are voting for Trump, and he drew the largest and most enthusiastic crowds of any GOP nominee. ..."
    "... How could the Republican establishment advance anew the trade and immigration policies that their base has so thunderously rejected? ..."
    "... Do mainstream Republicans think that should Trump lose a Bush Restoration lies ahead? The dynasty is as dead as the Romanovs. ..."
    "... The media, whose reputation has sunk to Congressional depths, has also suffered a blow to its credibility. ..."
    "... Its hatred of Trump has been almost manic, and WikiLeaks revelations of the collusion between major media and Clintonites have convinced skeptics that the system is rigged and the referees of democracy are in the tank. ..."
    "... But it is the national establishment that has suffered most. The Trump candidacy exposed what seems an unbridgeable gulf between this political class and the nation in whose name it purports to speak. ..."
    "... Middle America believes the establishment is not looking out for the nation but for retention of its power. And in attacking Trump it is not upholding some objective moral standard but seeking to destroy a leader who represents a grave threat to that power. ..."
    "... Moreover, they see the establishment as the quintessence of hypocrisy. Trump is instructed to stop using such toxic phrases as "America First" and "Make America Great Again" by elites... ..."
    "... While a Trump victory would create the possibility of a coalition of conservatives, populists, patriots and nationalists governing America, should he lose, America's future appears disunited and grim. ..."
    www.unz.com
    Herewith, a dissent. Whatever happens Tuesday, Trump has made history and has forever changed American politics.

    Though a novice in politics, he captured the Party of Lincoln with the largest turnout of primary voters ever, and he has inflicted wounds on the nation's ruling class from which it may not soon recover.

    Bush I and II, Mitt Romney, the neocons and the GOP commentariat all denounced Trump as morally and temperamentally unfit. Yet, seven of eight Republicans are voting for Trump, and he drew the largest and most enthusiastic crowds of any GOP nominee.

    Not only did he rout the Republican elites, he ash-canned their agenda and repudiated the wars into which they plunged the country.

    Trump did not create the forces that propelled his candidacy. But he recognized them, tapped into them, and unleashed a gusher of nationalism and populism that will not soon dissipate.

    Whatever happens Tuesday, there is no going back now.

    How could the Republican establishment advance anew the trade and immigration policies that their base has so thunderously rejected?

    How can the GOP establishment credibly claim to speak for a party that spent the last year cheering a candidate who repudiated the last two Republican presidents and the last two Republican nominees?

    Do mainstream Republicans think that should Trump lose a Bush Restoration lies ahead? The dynasty is as dead as the Romanovs.

    The media, whose reputation has sunk to Congressional depths, has also suffered a blow to its credibility.

    Its hatred of Trump has been almost manic, and WikiLeaks revelations of the collusion between major media and Clintonites have convinced skeptics that the system is rigged and the referees of democracy are in the tank.

    But it is the national establishment that has suffered most. The Trump candidacy exposed what seems an unbridgeable gulf between this political class and the nation in whose name it purports to speak.

    Consider the litany of horrors it has charged Trump with.

    He said John McCain was no hero, that some Mexican illegals are "rapists." He mocked a handicapped reporter. He called some women "pigs." He wants a temporary ban to Muslim immigration. He fought with a Gold Star mother and father. He once engaged in "fat-shaming" a Miss Universe, calling her "Miss Piggy," and telling her to stay out of Burger King. He allegedly made crude advances on a dozen women and starred in the "Access Hollywood" tape with Billy Bush.

    While such "gaffes" are normally fatal for candidates, Trump's followers stood by him through them all.

    Why? asks an alarmed establishment. Why, in spite of all this, did Trump's support endure? Why did the American people not react as they once would have? Why do these accusations not have the bite they once did?

    Answer. We are another country now, an us-or-them country.

    Middle America believes the establishment is not looking out for the nation but for retention of its power. And in attacking Trump it is not upholding some objective moral standard but seeking to destroy a leader who represents a grave threat to that power.

    Trump's followers see an American Spring as crucial, and they are not going to let past boorish behavior cause them to abandon the last best chance to preserve the country they grew up in.

    These are the Middle American Radicals, the MARs of whom my late friend Sam Francis wrote.

    They recoil from the future the elites have mapped out for them and, realizing the stakes, will overlook the faults and failings of a candidate who holds out the real promise of avoiding that future.

    They believe Trump alone will secure the borders and rid us of a trade regime that has led to the loss of 70,000 factories and 5 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA. They believe Trump is the best hope for keeping us out of the wars the Beltway think tanks are already planning for the sons of the "deplorables" to fight.

    Moreover, they see the establishment as the quintessence of hypocrisy. Trump is instructed to stop using such toxic phrases as "America First" and "Make America Great Again" by elites...

    ... ... ...

    While a Trump victory would create the possibility of a coalition of conservatives, populists, patriots and nationalists governing America, should he lose, America's future appears disunited and grim.

    But, would the followers of Donald Trump, whom Hillary Clinton has called "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … bigots," to the cheers of her media retainers, unite behind her should she win?

    No. Win or lose, as Sen. Edward Kennedy said at the Democratic Convention of 1980, "The work goes on, the cause endures."

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority."

    [Nov 08, 2016] Trump 'I Do Think a Lot of the Polls Are Purposefully Wrong' - Breitbart

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    Tuesday on Fox News Channel, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump offered his thoughts on how the campaign proceeded as Election Day has finally come.

    SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

    One of his criticisms was how the polls had been handled, which he called in some cases "phony" and "purposefully wrong."

    Partial transcript as follows:

    DOOCY: A couple of weeks ago you know it was revealed that part of Hillary Clinton's game plan was to try, you know, to talk up the polls and make it seem like the show's over, no way you can win. Then of course the polls for the most part right now are too close to call. Ultimately though do you think the polls that we've seen over the last week or two, going back, are wrong because the pollsters are not factoring in how many Democrats are going to be voting for you?

    You know all this early voting stuff, they say well this many Democrats requested ballots, this many Republicans. And also just the gigantic number of Republicans who have turned out to see you, the enthusiasm level. Do you think those things the pollsters are getting wrong?

    TRUMP: I do think a lot of the polls are purposefully wrong. I think I can almost tell you by the people that do it. The media is very dishonest, extremely dishonest. And I think a lot of the polls are phony. I don't even think they interview people.

    DOOCY: Right.

    TRUMP: I think they just put out phony numbers. I do think this, after the debates, I think my numbers really started to go up well. And then I did a series over the last two weeks, only of you know, really important speeches I think. 20,000, 25,000 people, 31,000 people were showing up to these speeches.

    You saw yesterday, you saw the kind of crowds we're getting. I said something's happening here. Something incredible is happening here. And tell you the enthusiasm and the love in those rooms, in those arenas, they're really arenas, I mean in New Hampshire last night it was a tremendous arena, beautiful arena. And same thing, we had a big convention center last night in Michigan. But they're packed. I mean we have thousands of people.

    DOOCY: Right.

    TRUMP: We had last night in Michigan we had 10,000 people outside that couldn't get in.

    DOOCY: Wow.

    EARHARDT: Wow.

    TRUMP: 10,000 people. It's been amazing. So I said something's happening. Something's really going on.

    [Nov 07, 2016] No, Hillary Clinton is not less Evil than Trump One has Funny Hair, the Other Wears Trouser-suits Global Research - Centre

    Nov 07, 2016 | www.globalresearch.ca
    After all, Clinton is not going to make it into the Oval Office unless she can secure the votes of those who backed the far-more progressive Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries.

    Clinton's camp have wielded various sticks to beat these voters into submission. Not least they have claimed that a refusal to vote for Clinton is an indication of one's misogyny . But it has not been an easy task. Actor Susan Sarandon, for example, has stated that she is not going to "vote with my vagina". As she notes, if the issue is simply about proving one is not anti-women, there is a much worthier candidate for president who also happens to be female: Jill Stein, of the Green Party.

    Sarandon, who supported Sanders in the primaries, spoke for a vast swath of voters excluded by the two-party system when she told BBC Newsnight:

    I am worried about the wars, I am worried about Syria, I am worried about all of these things that actually exist. TTP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] and I'm worried about fracking. I'm worrying about the environment. No matter who gets in they don't address these things because money has taken over our system.

    Given that both Donald Trump and Clinton represent big money – and big money only – Clinton's supporters have been forced to find another stick. And that has been the "lesser evil" argument. Clinton may be bad, but Trump would be far worse. Voting for a non-evil candidate like Jill Stein – who has no hope of winning – would split the progressive camp and ensure Trump, the more evil candidate, triumphs. Therefore, there is a moral obligation on progressive voters to back Clinton, however bad her track record as a senator and as secretary of state.

    There is nothing new about this argument. It had been around for decades, and has been corralling progressives into voting for Democratic presidents who have still advanced US neoconservative policy goals abroad and neoliberal ones at home.

    America's pseudo-democracy

    So is it true that Clinton is the lesser-evil candidate? To answer that question, we need to examine those "policy differences" with Trump.

    On the negative side, Trump's platform poses a genuine threat to civil liberties. His bigoted, "blame the immigrants" style of politics will harm many families in the US in very tangible ways. Even if the inertia of the political system reins in his worst excesses, as is almost certain, his inflammatory rhetoric is sure to damage the façade of democratic discourse in the US – a development not to be dismissed lightly. Americans may be living in a pseudo-democracy, one run more like a plutocracy, but destroying the politics of respect, and civil discourse, could quickly result in the normalisation of political violence and intimidation.

    On the plus side, Trump is an isolationist, with little appetite for foreign entanglements. Again, the Washington policy elites may force him to engage abroad in ways he would prefer not to, but his instincts to limit the projection of US military power on the international stage are likely to be an overall good for the world's population outside the US. Any diminishment of US imperialism is going to have real practical benefits for billions of people around the globe. His refusal to demonise Vladimir Putin, for example, may be significant enough to halt the gradual slide towards a nuclear confrontation with Russia, either in Ukraine or in the Middle East.

    Clinton is the mirror image of Trump. Domestically, she largely abides by the rules of civil politics – not least because respectful discourse benefits her as the candidate with plenty of political experience. The US is likely to be a more stable, more predictable place under a Clinton presidency, even as the plutocratic elite entrenches its power and the wealth gap grows relentlessly.

    Abroad, however, the picture looks worse under Clinton. She has been an enthusiastic supporter of all the many recent wars of aggression launched by the US, some declared and some covert. Personally, as secretary of state, she helped engineer the overthrow of Col Muammar Gaddafi. That policy led to an outcome – one that was entirely foreseeable – of Libya's reinvention as a failed state, with jihadists of every stripe sucked into the resulting vacuum. Large parts of Gadaffi's arsenal followed the jihadists as they exported their struggles across the Middle East, creating more bloodshed and heightening the refugee crisis. Now Clinton wants to intensify US involvement in Syria, including by imposing a no-fly zone – or rather, a US and allies-only fly zone – that would thrust the US into a direct confrontation with another nuclear-armed power, Russia.

    In the cost-benefit calculus of who to vote for in a two-party contest, the answer seems to be: vote for Clinton if you are interested only in what happens in the narrow sphere of US domestic politics (assuming Clinton does not push the US into a nuclear war); while if you are a global citizen worried about the future of the planet, Trump may be the marginally better of two terribly evil choices. (Neither, of course, cares a jot about the most pressing problem facing mankind: runaway climate change.)

    So even on the extremely blinkered logic of Clinton's supporters, Clinton might not be the winner in a lesser-evil presidential contest.

    Mounting disillusion

    But there is a second, more important reason to reject the lesser-evil argument as grounds for voting for Clinton.

    Trump's popularity is a direct consequence of several decades of American progressives voting for the lesser-evil candidate. Most Americans have never heard of Jill Stein, or the other three candidates who are not running on behalf of the Republican and Democratic parties. These candidates have received no mainstream media coverage – or the chance to appear in the candidate debates – because their share of the vote is so minuscule. It remains minuscule precisely because progressives have spent decades voting for the lesser-evil candidate. And nothing is going to change so long as progressives keep responding to the electoral dog-whistle that they have to keep the Republican candidate out at all costs, even at the price of their own consciences.

    Growing numbers of Americans understand that their country was "stolen from them", to use a popular slogan. They sense that the US no longer even aspires to its founding ideals, that it has become a society run for the exclusive benefit of a tiny wealthy elite. Many are looking for someone to articulate their frustration, their powerlessness, their hopelessness.

    Two opposed antidotes for the mounting disillusionment with "normal politics" emerged during the presidential race: a progressive one, in the form of Sanders, who suggested he was ready to hold the plutocrats to account; and a populist one, in the form of Trump, determined to deflect anger away from the plutocrats towards easy targets like immigrants. As we now know from Wikileaks' release of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's emails, the Democats worked hard to rig their own primaries to make sure the progressive option, Sanders, was eliminated. The Republicans, by contrast, were overwhelmed by the insurrection within their own party.

    The wave of disaffection Sanders and Trump have been riding is not going away. In fact, a President Clinton, the embodiment of the self-serving, self-aggrandising politics of the plutocrats, will only fuel the disenchantment. The fixing of the Democratic primaries did not strengthen Clinton's moral authority, it fuelled the kind of doubts about the system that bolster Trump. Trump's accusations of a corrupt elite and a rigged political and media system are not merely figments of his imagination; they are rooted in the realities of US politics.

    Trump, however, is not the man to offer solutions. His interests are too close aligned to those of the plutocrats for him to make meaningful changes.

    Trump may lose this time, but someone like him will do better next time – unless ordinary Americans are exposed to a different kind of politician, one who can articulate progressive, rather regressive, remedies for the necrosis that is rotting the US body politic. Sanders began that process, but a progressive challenge to "politics as normal" has to be sustained and extended if Trump and his ilk are not to triumph eventually.

    The battle cannot be delayed another few years, on the basis that one day a genuinely non-evil candidate will emerge from nowhere to fix this rotten system. It won't happen of its own. Unless progressive Americans show they are prepared to vote out of conviction, not out of necessity, the Democratic party will never have to take account of their views. It will keep throwing up leaders – in different colours and different sexes – to front the tiny elite that runs the US and seeks to rule the world.

    It is time to say no – loudly – to Clinton, whether she is the slightly lesser-evil candidate or not. The original source of this article is Jonathan Cook Blog Copyright © Jonathan Cook , Jonathan Cook Blog , 2016

    [Nov 07, 2016] 200PM Water Cooler 11-7-2016 naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberalism is a kind of statecraft. It means organizing state policies by making them appear as if they are the consequences of depoliticized financial markets. ..."
    "... It involves moving power from public institutions to private institutions, and allowing governance to happen through concentrated financial power. Actual open markets for goods and services tend to disappear in neoliberal societies. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism is not faith in free markets. Neoliberalism is not free market capitalism. Neoliberalism is a specific form of statecraft that uses financial markets as a veil to disguise governing policies. ..."
    "... The only consolation is that clearly a Dem or Repub president doesn't really matter, given the corporatocracy (or oligarchy, take your pick). So the bonus this year is that Drump destroyed the Bush dynasty and most of the RNC. And Clinton has burnt all her bridges and allies and the liberal MSM in getting to her (assumed) victory. ..."
    "... remember whatever happens the world will go on and one US president or another will screw the serfs domestically and bomb Middle Eastern countries. ..."
    "... Unless Hillary and the gung-ho neocons decide that we really should see just how far Putin can be pushed. ..."
    "... I don't care which one wins, all I know is that the rest of us in the 90% will be screwed either way. But I will settle down in the evening, have a cuppa, and hope that TV will provide me with some schadenfreude. ..."
    "... We cannot betray the ideal of a popular democracy by pretending this contrived political theater is free or fair or democratic. We cannot play their game. We cannot play by their rules. Our job is not to accommodate the corporate state…. ..."
    "... "I do not, in the end, fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists." ..."
    "... "It is not my job to support someone who makes for a better Republican than they can come up with themselves." ..."
    "... I will never again vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. Did it once for Obama (against Sarah Palin). Never again. It just encourages more crapification. ..."
    "... I've read exactly one compelling argument for voting Hillary, by Jim Kunstler, who thinks it best if the crew responsible for the mess is still holding the bag when things really go south. ..."
    Nov 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    The Trail

    Best pro-Trump piece I've seen: "The GOP's 'Ungrateful Bastard' Caucus" [ American Greatness ].

    Best pro-Clinton piece remains: "Vote for the Lying Neoliberal Warmonger: It's Important" [ Common Dreams ].

    The best reasons I can think of to vote for each candidate (as opposed to against the other candidates). In no particular order:

    These reasons are, of course, entirely incommensurate.

    "The American Conservative Presidential Symposium" [ The American Conservative ]. Michael Tracey: "Trump might be better than Hillary on foreign policy (my top issue), but he's far too volatile to conclude that with any certainty, and he may well end up being catastrophically worse. The Clintons' outrageous stoking of a war fervor over Russia is quite simply depraved and should disqualify them from reentering the White House…. Democrats deserve punishment for nominating a candidate with such severe legal problems, stifling a genuine populist insurgent in the most craven possible fashion (I supported Bernie Sanders but find his recent hectoring pro-Clinton conduct highly off-putting). Their shambolic, 'rigged' primary process can't be countenanced, nor can the 2016 electoral debacle as a whole, so I'll do my small part in rejecting this horror show by declining to vote."

    Realignment

    "America's Ruling Elite Has Failed and Deserves to Be Fired" [ Of Two Minds ]. "The last failed remnants of the state-cartel hierarchies left over from World War II must implode before we can move forward. Healthcare, defense, pharmaceuticals, higher education, the mainstream media and the systems of governance must all decay to the point that no one can be protected from the destructive consequences of their failure, and no paychecks can be issued by these failed systems." Tellingly, the author omits the FIRE sector. So I would say their definition of elite is odd.

    "[E]ducation levels are a more significant factor this year. Obama won a majority of those with a high school diploma (or less) in 2012, while Romney won college-educated voters. This year the numbers are reversed. Among white voters with only a high school education, Trump leads by over 25 points. Among whites with a college degree, Clinton leads by about 10 percent. This is the first time since serious polling began in 1952 that this has happened [ RealClearPoltiics ]. And when I ask myself who sent the United States heading toward Third World status, it's not those without college degrees. In fact, it's Clinton's base.

    "The Last Gasp of the American Dream" [ The Archdruid Report ].

    [M]illions of Americans trudge through a bleak round of layoffs, wage cuts, part-time jobs at minimal pay, and system-wide dysfunction. The crisis hasn't hit yet, but those members of the political class who think that the people who used to be rock-solid American patriots will turn out en masse to keep today's apparatchiks secure in their comfortable lifestyles have, as the saying goes, another think coming. Nor is it irrelevant that most of the enlisted personnel in the armed forces, who are the US government's ultimate bulwark against popular unrest, come from the very classes that have lost faith most drastically in the American system. The one significant difference between the Soviet case and the American one at this stage of the game is that Soviet citizens had no choice but to accept the leaders the Communist Party of the USSR foisted off on them, from Brezhnev to Andropov to Chernenko to Gorbachev, until the system collapsed of its own weight…

    If George W. Bush was our Leonid Brezhnev, as I'd suggest, and Barack Obama is our Yuri Andropov, Hillary Clinton is running for the position of Konstantin Chernenko; her running mate Tim Kaine, in turn, is waiting in the wings as a suitably idealistic and clueless Mikhail Gorbachev, under whom the whole shebang can promptly go to bits. While I don't seriously expect the trajectory of the United States to parallel that of the Soviet Union anything like as precisely as this satiric metaphor would suggest, the basic pattern of cascading dysfunction ending in political collapse is quite a common thing in history, and a galaxy of parallels suggests that the same thing could very easily happen here within the next decade or so. The serene conviction among the political class and their affluent hangers-on that nothing of the sort could possibly take place is just another factor making it more likely.

    "Why Trump Is Different-and Must Be Repelled" [Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker ].

    For the past months, and into this final week, as for much of the past year, many New Yorkers have been in a position that recalls parents with a colicky baby: you put the baby down at last, it seems safely asleep, grateful and unbelievably exhausted you return to bed-only to hear the small tell-tale cough or sob that guarantees another crying jag is on the way. The parents in this case, to fill in the metaphorical blanks, are liberal-minded folk; the baby's cries are any indicators that Donald Trump may not be out of the race for President-as he seemed to be even as recently as last week-and may actually have a real chance at being elected. Disbelief crowds exhaustion: this can't be happening. If the colicky baby is a metaphor too sweet for so infantile a figure as the orange menace, then let us think instead, perhaps, of the killer in a teen horror movie of the vintage kind: every time Freddy seemed dispatched and buried, there he was leaping up again, as the teens caught their breath and returned, too soon, to their teendom.

    Of course, Gopnik - who should really stick to writing sweetly atmospheric pieces about Paris - is both passive-aggressive and infuriatingly smug. To "fill in the metaphorical blanks," but for realz, both the "colicky baby" and the teen horror movie villain are infantilized and displaced versions of a working class Other: The Trump voter that Eurostar-rider Gopnik hates and fears, because he's afraid they're going to come and kill him and take his stuff. In short, he has the guilty conscience of a classic liberal.

    Democrat Email Hairball

    "Dow surges 300 points as FBI clears Clinton on eve of election" [ USA Today ]. Hmm. Insiders go to HappyVille!

    Our Famously Free Press

    "Vox Scams Readers Into Thinking Prescient World Series Tweet Was A Scam [Update]" [ DeadSpin ].

    Guillotine Watch

    "Too Smug to Jail" [Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone ]. "As we reach the close of an election season marked by anger toward the unaccountable rich, The Economist has chimed in with a defense of the beleaguered white-collar criminal."

    [T]his is the crucial passage:

    "Most corporate crime is the result of collective action rather than individual wrongdoing-long chains of command that send (often half-understood) instructions, or corporate cultures that encourage individuals to take risky actions. The authorities have rightly adjusted to this reality by increasingly prosecuting companies rather than going after individual miscreants."

    Yikes! This extraordinary argument is cousin to the Lieutenant Calley defense , i.e., that soldiers bear no responsibility for crimes they were ordered to execute. The Economist here would have you believe that there's no such thing as an individual crime in a corporate context.

    Class Warfare

    On neoliberalism [Matt Stoller, Facebook , via Atrios ].

    Neoliberalism is a kind of statecraft. It means organizing state policies by making them appear as if they are the consequences of depoliticized financial markets.

    It involves moving power from public institutions to private institutions, and allowing governance to happen through concentrated financial power. Actual open markets for goods and services tend to disappear in neoliberal societies.

    Financial markets flourish, real markets morph into mass distribution middlemen like Walmart or Amazon.

    Neoliberalism is not faith in free markets. Neoliberalism is not free market capitalism. Neoliberalism is a specific form of statecraft that uses financial markets as a veil to disguise governing policies.

    What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed. Stoller is paraphrasing his review of Greta Krippner's Capitalizing on Crisis , which sounds well worth a read.

    "Uncovering Credit Disparities among Low- and Moderate-Income Areas" [ Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis ]. "Eggleston found that LMI [lower abd middle-income] neighborhoods with relatively better credit tend to be in metros with a larger percentage of white residents, and they are typically found in the East, West and parts of the upper Midwest. They also tend to be in metros that have lower poverty rates."

    HopeLB November 7, 2016 at 4:15 pm

    Look at reddit r/politics. Did Hillary/Brock stop paying to downvote all anti-Hill posts/comments? Reaction to the Daily Beast telling readers "YOU MUST VOTE HILLARY" was at 11,000. Maybe, Hillary and Co are trying to get a handle on real voter sentiment?
    Or they don't care now that it is in the bag.

    Pavel November 7, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    LOL I was going to post (well, I guess I am doing so) that the finger I am counting down on is my middle finger, which I shall extend to the DNC, the RNC, the MSM, and the rest of the corrupt US oligarchy that brought us here. Especially the MSM - and note of course that it was Bill Clinton who deregulated the media so it went from one hundred or so to the SIX corporate behemoths that control 90%+ of the news that the average American consumes.

    FU!

    The only consolation is that clearly a Dem or Repub president doesn't really matter, given the corporatocracy (or oligarchy, take your pick). So the bonus this year is that Drump destroyed the Bush dynasty and most of the RNC. And Clinton has burnt all her bridges and allies and the liberal MSM in getting to her (assumed) victory.

    My humble advice for tomorrow: have a case of beer, wine, whiskey, or green tea at hand, relax, play some good music, ignore the MSM, and remember whatever happens the world will go on and one US president or another will screw the serfs domestically and bomb Middle Eastern countries.

    Norm November 7, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    Unless Hillary and the gung-ho neocons decide that we really should see just how far Putin can be pushed.

    OIFVet November 7, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Oh yeah, I will extend my own middle finger right back at them tomorrow. Voting for Stein will at least give me the inner peace and comfort of knowing that I did not vote for the "lesser evil" represented by Madame Secretary. I don't care which one wins, all I know is that the rest of us in the 90% will be screwed either way. But I will settle down in the evening, have a cuppa, and hope that TV will provide me with some schadenfreude.

    frosty zoom November 7, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    must be a glitch in putin's ipad.

    RabidGandhi November 7, 2016 at 5:20 pm

    He even changed all the clocks Saturday night. Is nothing sacred?

    Kim Kaufman November 7, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    A repost from a while ago that I saved and finally read over the weekend: Everything Is Broken https://medium.com/message/everything-is-broken-81e5f33a24e1#.voxbs0841

    Ulysses November 7, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    Thanks indeed!

    I apologize if these concluding thoughts on an exhausting electoral season, by Chris Hedges, have already been posted:

    "We cannot betray the ideal of a popular democracy by pretending this contrived political theater is free or fair or democratic. We cannot play their game. We cannot play by their rules. Our job is not to accommodate the corporate state….

    The state seeks to control us through fear, propaganda, wholesale surveillance and violence. [This] is the only form of social control it has left. The lie of neoliberalism has been exposed. Its credibility has imploded. The moment we cease being afraid, the moment we use our collective strength as I saw in Eastern Europe in 1989 to make the rulers afraid of us, is the moment of the system's downfall.

    Go into the voting booth on Tuesday. Do not be afraid. Vote with your conscience."

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/defying_the_politics_of_fear_20161106

    phred November 7, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    Thank you for that link. I particularly liked the last sentences of Hedges' piece:

    "I do not, in the end, fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists."

    Yep.

    BecauseTradition November 7, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    Sounds too much like the Demos fighting for the people but never winning. Also a bit narcissistic. And is Hedges a foe of, say, the government insurance of privately created deposits – a fascist invention if ever there was?

    cocomaan November 7, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Thanks for Correcting the Record! Glad that we can lump anyone who questions your narrative into four neat categories. There's no possible way someone could have an original thought.

    Knifecatcher November 7, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    Lifted verbatim from Deadspin. You'd think CTR could write their own propaganda rather than plagiarizing from a crappy sportswriter.

    Carolinian November 7, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    Gopnik/infuriatingly smug….lotta that going around. You hate what you fear?

    Waldenpond November 7, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    You only need to buy a plane etc. to hand out as favors, buy 4 or 5 dozen media personalities at mainstream outlets (a network is a must), get your sycophants in elections offices all over the country to purge your rival's voters and raise a billion dollars. Easy peasy.

    Code Name D November 7, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    Your assuming we don't get about a dozen Florida Hanging-chad scandals. If Trump wins the wrong states – this will land in court, and all end in tears.

    nippersdad November 7, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    That Reed column, "Vote for the lying neoliberal warmonger; it's important, has always struck me badly. His point that those who voted for a Democrat for President since '92 have done as badly or worse than they would in voting for Clinton is just false. No one in my memory has so slavishly supported finance capital and foreign wars. No one has made going to war with China, Russia or Iran a central plank in their candidacy.

    I, personally, can't get over that. Republicans will do what they will do, it is not my job to support someone who makes for a better Republican than they can come up with themselves.

    Ulysses November 7, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    "It is not my job to support someone who makes for a better Republican than they can come up with themselves."

    Very well said!!

    nycTerrierist November 7, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    +1

    I will never again vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. Did it once for Obama (against Sarah Palin). Never again. It just encourages more crapification.

    Escher November 7, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    I've read exactly one compelling argument for voting Hillary, by Jim Kunstler, who thinks it best if the crew responsible for the mess is still holding the bag when things really go south.

    I believe it was linked here when published.

    aab November 7, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    I'd be more inclined to value that possibility if it wasn't clear that the Executive Branch can now launch wars of choice at will. I have a draft age daughter.

    Foppe November 7, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    It's not a reference to Doing your Bit turning in family/friends/neighbors/coworkers who you "know" to be abusing the system, and thus Causing the Problem??

    Pat November 7, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    First violence is not the answer. Still that does make one want to find a way to march the people who came up with that along with the top management of Cigna to the stocks for some quality communing time with their customers. That there should also be a huge pile of rotten produce near the stocks would be merely coincidence.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL November 7, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    LOL and tomorrow a majority of Americans will vote back in the crowd that brought this down upon them. Wait til you see what they are gearing up to do to SocSec.

    Maybe it's a deep-seated Calvinist/Protestant self-loathing? Catholic self-flaggelation? Stockholm Syndrome?

    Joe Bageant wrote about the curious phenomenon of the Republican base voting year in and year out for candidates who acted in direct opposition to their own economic interests…maybe that's both "sides" of politics now?

    jrs November 7, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    I wish I had a benefit package :( Even a crappy one! They are throwing us on to some kind of exchange program this year. Things go from bad to worse …

    Jeremy Grimm November 7, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    An off-the-wall question - is your pseudonym related to Henrich Boll's story "Der Mann mit den Messern"?

    Knifecatcher November 7, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    Ha! Nope. Bought a house in 2009 and thought it was appropriate, and have been using it on finance / political forums ever since. Worked out OK for us, though.

    Oregoncharles November 7, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    that was good timing. We bought a duplex then, have done very well on it. A lot of work, though.

    Jeremy Grimm November 7, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    So you don't like to throw a knife over your head and catch it with a board over your head at the last minute?

    frosty zoom November 7, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    not only branding, but leeching as well.

    frosty zoom November 7, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    in response to "Knifecatcher".

    Oregoncharles November 7, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    " But lots of other states use electronic machines in some capacity" [Wired]. "

    Much depends on exactly how. For an example, Oregon uses paper ballots marked by the voter, but, at least in my county, electronic counters. But the paper ballots are audited and stored for years, so it's easy to check up. Everything happens at the courthouse, so there's no transmission from precincts, and transmission to the SOS is probably in person by phone, followed up by email.

    I'm confident in this system, not least because Oregon is a "clean" state. One county official has been caught cheating by filling in unvoted lines for Republicans, but went to jail. I can think of other ways for insiders to cheat, but it would be dangerous and pretty easy to catch.

    I'm not concerned about the electronic counters as long as they aren't connected to the internet – no reason for them to be – and the results are properly audited, the biggest if. I wonder a bit about very small rural counties, where everybody knows everybody else's business and there isn't much money for safeguards.

    In any case, from a national point of view Oregon's results are not in doubt. Now I have to do some campaign work for our Ranked Choice Voting initiative, and I look forward to finding out how it did in Maine.

    John k November 7, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Trump had big mo, maybe until yesterday…
    Today's Ibd puts T ahead by 2, best for some time… Plus generally favorable LATimes…
    And blacks not turning out nearly as 08/12.
    And Brexit and MI primary polls were far off because ungrateful deplorables.
    Regardless, FL is must win for T. If he gets that, then the following swings might fall into place:
    OH, NV, NC, IA, NM, (270), and maybe NH bonus.
    If he misses FL he would need PA plus CO, likely hopeless.

    I guess we deserve what we've got here… Vastly corrupt warmonger running for Obomber's third term vs loose racist/sexist cannon, albeit apparently the latter likes Putin and avoidsWWIII. Does seem harsh.

    Jeremy Grimm November 7, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    As I read the Archdruid's essay I could not but agree with everything he said about the soon past election.

    Though I usually read him for how to deal with what comes after.

    JSM November 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    Re: Vox Scams Readers Into Thinking Prescient World Series Tweet Was A Scam [Update]

    Time to correct the correction: 'This story was not up to our standards, and we deeply regret the error.'

    What standards?

    nobody November 7, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    Regarding "Best pro-Trump piece I've seen," this one is better:

    " Donald Trump and Empire: An Assessment ," by Max Forte.

    LT November 7, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    Dow surge…

    Of course, if Hillary wins the bubble wins. Everyone with a 401k thinks they hit a triple, but they were walked to third. They won't make it to "home" (comfy retirement).

    Meanwhile, Trump is of the 80s heyday of corporate raids…letting it fall and buying up cheap. Wall St knows.

    Hillary wins – ride the bubble and pray you know when to dump (and you can't trust the MSM info – otherwise suckers would have seen 2008 coming).

    Trump wins – being liquid rules the day.

    Ché Pasa November 7, 2016 at 4:17 pm

    The election will continue until the correct result is obtained.

    That could happen tomorrow; it could just as well drag into January if the EC is tied or, say, the "Russians" interfere and we have to have a cyberwar or something. Wouldn't it be interesting if the House of Rs had to pick the prez? Maybe if the Supremes hadn't lawlessly intervened in the 2000 election, we wouldn't be in this pickle now. But they did. And we are.

    The "correct result" one assumes is Hillary; one has assumed so since this morbid campaign began. As appealing as Bernie could be at times, there was no chance he would be allowed to stand as the Democratic nominee. And if the indications of chicanery are correct, he was actively prevented from becoming the nominee regardless of the "vote."

    At no time did those who rule us ever consider Trump for the Big Chair. He's just too open and uncouth, don'tchaknow. Can't have that. Might give the game away. But he's a sop to the so-called populists, and man does he run a masterful con. All the slick and perfumed members of his class only wish they had his skill at suckering the rubes. Whoa. Dude.

    Meanwhile, it's good to learn that there can be no corruption unless its name is Clinton (er, correction: "Clintoon") or can be linked somehow, if only tangentially, to the Clintoon Crime Syndicate, or it arises politically from the Democratic (er, correction: "Democrat") Party which is the ultimate source of all corruption, even that of the Clintoons.

    Nothing the Democrat Party or the Clintoons do is defensible; defenses for Trump, on the other hand, well. "It's just business." Or my favorite: "At least he hasn't killed anybody (sotto voce: yet… that we know of ") So let's give him a chance!

    Our Rulers are close to panicking because no matter who is ultimately selected, they fear there will be blood in the streets, and the unrest might get close to their compounds, lead to unpleasantness in their high-rises, interfere, perhaps, with some of their looting and destruction for pleasure.

    This election has, for once, discommoded the comfortable.

    I voted for Stein, the completely incorrect candidate, though I toyed with leaving the topline blank. Many people I know did that. But no, some of us feel the need to show solidarity with our leftish comrades. So few though, in the end.

    We'll get through this, but it'll get uglier.

    Tvc15 November 7, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    I'm finally coming to the conclusion I'll vote for Stein too for a similar reason. Have thought about voting the following ways ranked by likelihood.

    Leave the top of the ticket blank – not wanting to legitimize the charade
    Write-in Stein
    Write-in Bernie
    Trump – if "they" hate him so much…

    We are a 3 write-in family in Maine.
    Spouse, Bernie
    19 yr old male, Obama, I think absurist humor, but not certain.

    marym November 7, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    According to her website Stein is on the ballot in Maine.
    http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access

    Tvc15 November 7, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    Thanks, I'll find out tomorrow. My spouse received an absentee ballot and said Stein wasn't listed. Maybe she missed her.

    marym November 7, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    Also, if people are writing in a candidate to make a statement or as an act of personal conscience, that's their choice, but if they want the vote counted the rules vary by state. In most states, including Maine, the candidate has to file paperwork.

    https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Maine#Write-in_requirements

    curlydan November 7, 2016 at 5:58 pm

    What's your prediction of how many votes Stein will get nationwide? The Wiki god of knowledge says she got 470K in 2012. I'm going to say 3M in 2016 or about 2.5%.

    cocomaan November 7, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Interesting line from the Gopnik article:

    One need only track the past month's series of outrages, each quickly receding into the distance, to recall that he has done not one but almost innumerable things that in any previous election would have been, quaint word, "disqualifying."

    I don't know if it would ever occur to Gopnik, but perhaps people are tired of idiotic gaffes and meaningless scandals sinking candidates. Maybe, for a sizable portion of the country, the sex scandal has been overused as some kind of indicator for someone's ability to govern, or, even though Gopnik doesn't understand this, it isn't a reflection on their ability to speak about policies that mean something to them.

    Talking with Trump supporters I know, they are all very much influenced by: 1) his embracing of nationalism, 2) rejection of trade deals, 3) ideas about reforming government finance. Of course, their distrust for Hillary is just as strong.

    I haven't met any trump supporters saying, "Gee, I really think his misogyny lets me free my own inherent sexism." But then again, when identity politics is what you rely on to make your vote, anyone opposed to your candidate is part of a vast linked chain of ignorant brains and invisible connections that only they can see or appreciate.

    Also loved his closing line:

    For, as Shakespeare would have grasped at once, there is no explaining Trump.

    Isn't that your job, Adam? Put your keyboard down if you're unable to do it and spare us the columns.

    timbers November 7, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    The slightest bit of self-discipline on Trump's part, and Clinton is suddenly in the race of her life. Shows her extreme weakness as a candidate, and the decadence of the Democrat nomenklatura that forced her nomination through, not to mention the decadence of the political class…

    If Clinton wins by any margin that doesn't keep her up all night, will not be surprised if she and Team Blue will act as if this is the most awesome-est triumph ever because they are the most awesome-est ever. First women first couple both being Presidents etc etc. They don't seem to have any sense of just how weak and disliked she/they are, and why. They will arrogantly proceed to govern as if they received a powerful mandate and not give an inch anywhere on policy, confident that the methods they used to get elected will work again in 4 years. It will be their way or the highway.

    The increased volatility you predict makes sense.

    hamstak November 7, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    A cynic might also view another first in this election: the first time that a "charitable" foundation has been elected to the office! But perhaps I am being somewhat unfair in questioning the esteemed institution's charity, as it has indeed been charitable towards some.

    GMoore November 7, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    Taxable Donations to the Clinton Foundation could pay off the national debt – says Charles Ortel, should a Trump administration request a grand jury to assess the many many deficiencies and out and out crimes of that sham charity.

    That is the spit and glue that binds the never Trump coalition. There are billions and billions at stake. Wall St, foreign governments, world leaders and the Gates Foundation, Bezos, Slim, Geithner, Paulson - all the big boys. Ortel does a splendid job on you tube explaining how strict the rules are for charitable foundations.

    The FBI has the goods on the Clinton's and their phony baloney "foundation".

    All they need is a courageous and honest Atty General – state or federal – willing to literally risk life, limb, children, dogs, cats and extended family members should they file charges on the Royals and fail.

    "The onus is on the charity" – says Ortel, to prove their innocence, once charges are filed. And the Clinton Foundation has never EVER filed the proper paper work to do ANY of their activities. AGAIN, the rules state you may not raise money for AIDS, unless your charter was filed to do so. the Clintons have never filed the necessary paperwork. There is a 19 page expose on their failure to file or provide the necessary forms.

    Hundreds of billions in taxable penalties and interest will be due, should Trump prevail and ask for a grand jury. He doesn't have to threaten them. THEY KNOW

    When you see George Will, LInsay Graham, Bill Kristol and the Bush crime family pulling out all the stops to end this revolution – it's because of EXPOSURE.

    The Clinton Foundation is the GOLD MINE. Watch and listen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiFQkCSEUGE

    hreik November 7, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    thank you thank you thank you

    Waldenpond November 7, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    Media will call states early. They will have to call CA. Our numbers take too long to count.

    John Merryman November 7, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Looking at the market today, the adage; "Buy the rumor, sell the news," comes to mind.

    Jim Haygood November 7, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    It's over …

    Hillary Clinton's planned celebratory election night fireworks display over the Hudson River has been canceled, it was revealed Monday.

    "They do have a permit for fireworks, but at this point we believe the fireworks is canceled," NYPD chief of intelligence Tommy Galati said at a city press conference on Election Day security with Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner James O'Neill.

    When asked by a reporter why the fireworks were canceled, Galati responded, "I cannot tell you that."

    Clinton was planning aerial detonations for her potential victory that would last for two minutes starting as early at 9:30 p.m. - a half-hour after the polls close in New York.

    http://nypost.com/2016/11/07/clinton-calls-off-election-night-fireworks/

    Since when does the chief of intelligence get involved in a fireworks permit?

    Pat November 7, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    New York City is going to be a mess tomorrow. I do see that Clinton has messed up Philadelphia.

    Unfortunately after tomorrow there will just be a different form of awful….no matter who wins.

    UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    Since Latino Turnout has been up and AA down Trumps best shot is hoping that the Philly transit strike and Rain in Detroit and most of PA on tuesday suppress less enthusiastic Clinton voters. Both have low early voting. Then he has to cross his fingers for NC and NH.
    http://www.270towin.com/maps/EXyOo

    Waldenpond November 7, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    Transit strike is over as reported in links.

    UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    crud. Well maybe the rainstorm will blow in a little sooner then it is predicted, even then it will only hit Pittsburgh though. But it will hit Detroit all day.

    UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    Otherwise he needs to hold FL. Then it comes down to PA, NC, NV, and NH.
    http://www.270towin.com/maps/DOgzk

    He can lose PA and win the rest,
    http://www.270towin.com/maps/kmP8J

    Or he can win PA and any 1 other and win (NH would be a tie)
    http://www.270towin.com/maps/Ne9dp

    UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    Basically he needs either PA & Michigan or FL. Michigan is a stretch, even with the rain, and PA is a long shot without the strike. So it looks like his best hope is what I predicted ages ago.
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/thanks-for-vacation-coverage.html#comment-2667883

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/0AZYR

    UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    We'll know at 7pm, unless he wins both FL and NH at 7 my money is on him going down.

    ewmayer November 7, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    Gallup US Consumer Spending Measure, October 2016: " In October, Americans' daily self-reports of spending averaged $93, similar to September's $91 average. However, it is among the highest for the month of October in the survey's nine-year trend" [Econoday] - Was it too much to hope for an economists-trying-to-sound-smart subtitle along the lines of "Economists cite effect of Halloween falling in October this year" on this?

    (And I wonder how that yuuge $2 rise compares to the error bars on the survey. Also whether any portion can be attributed to all those new improved health insurance rates showering their blessings on the country.)

    Dave November 7, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    What about the idea that if we elect Trump, Americans' anger will be diffused and most people will be happy?
    If Clinton gets it, everyone, except her financiers will be unhappy, sooner or later.

    Four years of Hillary, continuing economic stagnation and more wars may usher in and elect a candidate in 2020 who will make Trump look like a meek-mannered gentleman.

    Will it really be worth it to the elite to elect Hillary and end up having to live behind locked gates and only venture out in public with a cadre of bodyguards? Will the wealthy see their Teslas and luxury cars stoned and trashed when they park them in public?

    Or, should they just live with Trump and like it? If I were an elite, I'd vote for Trump for that very reason.

    Karl Kolchack November 7, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    Electing Trump will not defuse the anger–it will just mean that for a little while at least the half of the population who owns most of the guns will be happier. That will give us a year or so until they realize that he was never serious about helping them, and lacks the political skills or even attention span to do so. By 2018, we'd be right back to the starting point–just in time to start the whole stupid cycle all over again.

    Yves Smith November 7, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    No, a lot of things would change. Clinton winning would be seen as validation of the status quo. Trump winning would be destabilizing. To pretend that the two outcomes are the same is wrongheaded.

    Trump winning would break the hold of the Clintons on the Democratic party, and since they've made the party overly concerned with the Presidency, at the expense of building a bench or capturing down-ticket races (all down the list, Congress, governorships, important state level posts), the damage to the party would be profound. They were already expected to lose the Senate in 2018 even if they recover it tomorrow.

    Trump winning would also throw a wrench into the Republicans, although not to quite as profound a degree, since him getting this far has already put them in disarray. It would put the orthodox corporate types and many of the evangelicals in a tizzy. The lineup that Trump wants to bring in as his team are either outsiders or not well like by the mainstream of the party. So you can expect Trump to have to fight with much of his own party, as well as the Dems keen to re-establish themselves in the face of their loss.

    If nothing else, Trump can do a lot on the trade front without Congress, based on the analyses I've seen so far. How far he would get in trying to wind down our over-involvement in the Middle East is questionable, but it does appear that he would at least stop further escalation with Russia. He also appears to have the ability to get INS rules enforced more strictly (Obama has deported more people than is widely acknowledged).

    In other words, the President has a fair bit of power to act unilaterally. That does not require "political skills" since you don't need to get Congress to go along. I agree Trump would have little success with Congress, based on the precedent of Jimmy Carter, who had been a governor and had a House and Senate that were both solidly Democratic, and thus in theory should have gotten some cooperation, but brought in a team of outsiders and acted as if being post-Watergate meant he could do things differently.

    John Steinbach November 7, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    I'm probably voting for Trump only because of TPP. Thanks to the trade traitors, fast track passage made it much easier to pass TPP with a simple majority during the lame duck session. Clinton will let it ride, but Trump will probably kill it, or at least try to.

    Otherwise I'd cast a feel good vote for Stein.

    Jeremy Grimm November 7, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    If DARPA's robotics program will only come up with some cool enough robots we might send a bot or two to closes down the flow of gated sewer lines or stop the flow of gated water - or add a little something.

    I never never even made these suggestions - a Russian spy working for PUTIN took over my keyboard.

    JustAnObserver November 7, 2016 at 7:12 pm

    After Hillary comes the Intifada of the "deplorables" ?

    Kim Kaufman November 7, 2016 at 6:43 pm

    I have absolutely no evidence that there's any manipulating of the polling data going on, or how that would work if it were, but it seems to me that this down to the wire close and flip-flopping polling data is hugely in the media's $$ interest. Gazillion$$ are being dumped into late media buys especially for senate races. I can't see how they could manipulate it but if the media could it's certainly in their $$ interest to do so.

    Fiver November 7, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    I raised this yesterday as a comment, but would like to re-phrase as a question. Bearing in mind that the Clinton 'team' had possession of all of her e-mails for 2 years prior to the original request for the records re the Benghazi investigation, and that the Admin was kind enough to allow Clinton's lawyers to be the ones who determined which e-mails were 'work-related' and which 'personal', and further bearing in mind that the focus has been on whether or not any of the 'personal' e-mails were classified or not, I'd like to ask everyone this:

    Did the FBI audit all of the e-mails that Clinton lawyers put in the 'work-related' basket? Given State is full of Clinton 'friendlies' would it not be possible that incriminating 'personal' e-mails were improperly slotted as 'work-related' to hide them with State until it all blows over? Alternately, was the FBI granted access to all Clinton's State Department '.gov' account messages, and those on the systems often referenced by Clinton and others that was used for all important, classified, secret stuff? Further, did FBI have access to all Clinton's (or others') communications using State Department (or other Government) systems that may have been sent to the Foundation, or to any of her usual suspects (Podesta, Mills, Abedin, Clinton lawyers, etc.)?

    Two years is a long time for someone to think about what to do with a pile of incriminating stuff – something a bit more selective than Podesta's 'dump it'.

    oho November 7, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    Comey to be fired post-election? (written by Edward Klein, author of "Blood Feud")

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914340/Senior-adviser-Valerie-Jarrett-convinced-President-Obama-FIRE-FBI-director-James-Comey-election.html

    allan November 7, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    Truly terrible NPR coverage of the start of the Dylann Roof trial in Charlestown on
    both the morning and evening shows.

    No mention of the fact that a charismatic black state senator, Clementa Pinckney, was assassinated.
    Pinckney is referred to, and not by name, only as the pastor of the Mother Emanuel A.M.E. Church.

    No breathless speculations or leaks from anonymous LE sources about how Roof was radicalized
    or who else might have been involved in the plot.

    No use of the phrase `domestic terrorism', which apparently is off limits in such cases.

    Oh those tote bag liberals.

    [Nov 07, 2016] Hillary Loses the Left

    Nov 07, 2016 | www.legitgov.org

    November 7, 2016 by legitgov

    Share Close

    Hillary Loses the Left | 06 Nov 2016 | While Donald Trump has been consolidating his base of support, the opposite appears to be happening for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who seems to be hemorrhaging supporters from her progressive base...[I]n the closing days of the 2016 campaign, the rift has been laid bare through a combination of WikiLeaks revelations, a series of high-profile endorsements for Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein from progressives like Marc Lamont Hill, Cornel West, and Susan Sarandon, as well as polling data that suggests Trump's broad populist messaging is resonating with Democrat-leaning voters. v Contrary to the narrative perpetuated by corporate media, many prominent liberals are now expressing their belief that installing Hillary Clinton, a " corporatist hawk ," in the White House is " the true danger " and would be " more dangerous " for progressive values, the well-being of the nation, and the stability of the world than would four years of a Donald Trump presidency.

    [Nov 07, 2016] Bernie Sanders was a Con Artist, had an 'Agreement' with Hillary Clinton – Wikileaks

    www.eutimes.net

    According to a new Wikileaks email, Bernie Sanders was just a Manchurian candidate and a Clinton puppet all along. We finally have confirmation of what we have suspected since Bernie said "people are sick of hearing about your damn emails" all the way back in 2015 during one debate. That was a big give-away and a huge red flag which many have raised back then but now we finally have irrefutable proof that Bernie Sanders was just a SCAM candidate and a con artist.

    [Nov 07, 2016] More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions

    Notable quotes:
    "... it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. ..."
    "... It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness. ..."
    "... Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked. ..."
    "... Economists told us that free trade deals and open borders would make us prosperous and yet that hasn't happens. ..."
    "... The technicians running trade policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy haven't held up their end of the bargain. ..."
    "... Wealth and power has been redistributed upwards. ..."
    "... The union movement has been destroyed in outright class war. ..."
    "... The corporate media spread lies and distraction. It induces both apathy and a rat race/dog-eat-dog mentality. ..."
    "... Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today. Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider. ..."
    "... Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*. ..."
    "... Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs." ..."
    "... Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply? ..."
    Nov 07, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Adam Davidson in the New Yorker:
    More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions : ...Institutions are significant to economists, who have come to see that countries become prosperous not because they have bounteous natural resources or an educated population or the most advanced technology but because they have good institutions. Crucially, formal structures are supported by informal, often unstated, social agreements. A nation not only needs courts; its people need to believe that those courts can be fair. ...

    Over most of history, a small élite confiscated wealth from the poor. Subsistence farmers lived under rules designed to tax them so that the rulers could live in palaces and pay for soldiers to maintain their power. Every now and then, though, a system appeared in which leaders were forced to accommodate the needs of at least some of their citizens. ... The societies with the most robust systems for forcing the powerful to accommodate some of the needs of the powerless became wealthier and more peaceful. ... Most nations without institutions to check the worst impulses of the rich and powerful stay stuck in poverty and dysfunction. ...

    This year's Presidential election has alarmed economists for several reasons. No economist, save one , supports Donald J. Trump's stated economic plans, but an even larger concern is that, were he elected, Trump would attack the very institutions that have provided our economic stability. In his campaign, Trump has shown outright contempt for courts, free speech, international treaties, and many other pillars of the American way of life. There is little reason to think that, if granted the Presidency, Trump would soften his stand. ...

    ...it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail.

    Alex S : , November 05, 2016 at 01:15 PM
    It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness.

    Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked.

    Peter K. : , November 05, 2016 at 01:23 PM
    "No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail."

    This is all true but let's provide a little more context than the totebaggers' paint-by-numbers narrative.

    The Democratic Party has been moved to right as the middle class has struggled.

    And more and more people become susceptible to demagogues like Trump as Democrats try to play both sides of the fence, instead of standing foresquarely behind the job class.

    Let's hope we don't find out what Trump does if elected. My guess is that he'd delegate foreign and domestic policy to Mike Pence as Trump himself would be free to pursue his own personal grudges via whatever means are available.

    Alex S -> Peter K.... , -1
    As we can see here, through leftist glasses, the only possible remedy for solving a problem is moving left.
    Julio -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:02 PM
    Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today.
    Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
    anne -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:26 PM
    Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today. Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.

    [ An important criticism. ]

    Alex S -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:50 PM
    We have moved left. The gays and blacks are treated better. We no longer tolerate wars like Vietnam. The Iraq war was an order of magnitude smaller. War helps scientific discovery and progress. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0 For more capable nations to help civilize weaker and more chaotic ones is helpful, but leftists won't accept that.
    Peter K. -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:12 PM
    As Julio points out, under any objective analysis, politics have moved to the right.

    Rightwing policy solutions have been tried: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, breaking of unions, etc.

    We've seen the results. Stagnation and slow growth.

    The social democratic post-war years were much better with shared prosperity for all citizens.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:53 PM
    "It's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts."

    When Obama refuses to jail torturers or those responsible for mortgage fraud, we the people are justified in having less confidence in the courts.

    Peter Liepmann -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 05:52 PM
    Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*.

    Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs."

    Tim Harford made a good case for trust accounting for 99% of the difference in per capita GNP between the US and Somalia.

    ""If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income (2006 figures). If you make $40,000 a year, then $200 is down to hard work and $39,800 is down to trust.

    How could that be? Trust operates in all sorts of ways, from saving money that would have to be spent on security to improving the functioning of the political system. But above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth." goo.gl/t3OqHc

    anne -> Peter Liepmann... , November 05, 2016 at 06:38 PM
    Precise references, including links are necessary.
    anne : , November 05, 2016 at 01:49 PM
    Adam Davidson in the essay refers to this paper, which is well worth reading:

    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20140913

    April, 2016

    Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration
    By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson

    Abstract

    The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.

    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 02:59 PM
    Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
    pgl -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:03 PM
    I was in college in the mid 1970's and we asked this question a lot. Some think this worry has gone away. I don't agree with those types. Which is why a green technology investment drive makes a lot of sense for so many reasons.
    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:03 PM
    Quote from the paper you linked to: "Arguably, oil shocks have more to do with US foreign policy than with US economic policy-the two Gulf Wars being prominent examples. That said, several economists have claimed that US monetary policy played an important role in bringing on the oil shocks. See, for example, Barsky and Kilian (2002)."
    anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:13 PM
    Do set down a link to a reference when possible:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w8389

    July, 2001

    Do We Really Know that Oil Caused the Great Stagflation? A Monetary Alternative
    By Robert B. Barsky and Lutz Kilian

    Abstract

    This paper argues that major oil price increases were not nearly as essential a part of the causal mechanism that generated the stagflation of the 1970s as is often thought. There is neither a theoretical presumption that oil supply shocks are stagflationary nor robust empirical evidence for this view. In contrast, we show that monetary expansions and contractions can generate stagflation of realistic magnitude even in the absence of supply shocks. Furthermore, monetary fluctuations help to explain the historical movements of the prices of oil and other commodities, including the surge in the prices of industrial commodities that preceded the 1973/74 oil price increase. Thus, they can account for the striking coincidence of major oil price increases and worsening stagflation.

    Alex S -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:22 PM
    My quote dragged on too long. I should have ended it with the first sentence. Monetary policy could play a role but foreign policy could still be the biggest factor.
    Peter K. -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 03:09 PM
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-25/fed-inclined-to-raise-rates-if-next-president-pumps-up-budget

    "Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.

    "She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small enough for the Fed practically to ignore it."

    PGL told us that Hillary's fiscal program would be YUGE.

    Like with Trump everything he says is a lie.

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:56 PM
    Dean Baker in "Rigged" * reminds me of the lasting limits to growth that appear to follow the sacrifice of growth, especially to the extent of allowing a recession, for the sake of budget balancing during a time of surrounding economic weakness:

    * http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    Simply excellent:

    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    Introduction: Trading in Myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return....

    pgl -> Peter K.... , November 06, 2016 at 03:37 AM
    It is yuuuuge - and no I did not say anything of the sort. Rather I noted it would be less than 1% of GDP. This is what I get for trying to get the facts right. It gets too complicated for you even when we simplify things so you get angry and start screaming "liar". Grow up.
    mrrunangun : , November 05, 2016 at 06:23 PM
    Per capta GDP grew from $51,100 to $51,400 between July 1 2015 and July 1 2016. This 0.6% growth does not seem to me to be a statistic supporting claims of improving employment and improving wage growth.

    Dean has suggested in one of his commentaries that wage growth may be an artifact of a decline in the quality of health insurance coverage. Wage growth is not figured net of increased outlays for deductibles and copays related to changes in health insurance. PPACA discourages low deductible and low copay health plans by placing a "Cadillac tax" on them, or at least threatening to do so. The consequent rise in wage workers' outlays for copays and deductibles are not captured in the statistics that claim to measure wage gains. This results in an income transfer from the well to the sick, but can produce statistics that can be interpreted in politically convenient ways by those so inclined

    anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:33 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpp

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

    (Percent change)


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpv

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

    (Indexed to 2007)

    anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:35 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bue

    January 15, 2016

    Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2007-2016

    (Percent change)


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bua

    January 15, 2016

    Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2002-2016

    (Percent change)

    pgl -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 03:38 AM
    Excellent perspective. Let me say well done before PeterK gets angry and calls you a liar.
    ilsm -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 05:10 AM
    I had a job offer about 15 years ago, the quoted salary was not to my liking so the HR type told me how much the Cadillac insurance was "worth".

    I do not think you 'get' why Cadillac plans are taxed............

    or

    'income transfers'......

    mrrunangun -> ilsm... , November 06, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    I get why the plans are taxed. I don't believe that the results of that policy have been beneficial for the bulk of the population. Most of the good done by PPACA was done by the expansion of Medicaid eligibility. I believe that requiring the working poor people to settle for high deductible high copay policies has had the practical effect of requiring them to choose between adequate medical and further impoverishment. I do not believe that the PPACA could not have been financed in a way less injurious to the working poor. As the insurers have been unable to make money in this deal, the hospital operators seem to have been the only winners in that their bad debt problems have been ameliorated.
    cm : , November 05, 2016 at 11:09 PM
    "people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas"

    And this is entirely rational, as in the situation described, the fruits of their efforts will likely be siphoned from their pockets by the elites and generally rent-seekers with higher social standing and leverage, or at best their efforts will amount to too little to be worth the risk (including the risk of wasting one's time i.e. opportunity cost). It also becomes correspondingly harder to convince and motivate others to join or fund any worthwhile efforts. What also happens (and has happened in "communism") is that people take their interests private, i.e. hidden from the view of those who would usurp or derail them.

    Chris G : , -1
    "Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it is to die.

    The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don't think about too carefully will still be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.

    What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric, but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where the unraveling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.

    Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation is nothing new.

    'Few men realise,' wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, 'that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings.' Conrad's writings exposed the civilisation exported by European imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that civilisation believed 'blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion,' but their confidence could be maintained only by the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls, the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, though the city-dweller was no longer equipped to face it directly.

    Bertrand Russell caught this vein in Conrad's worldview, suggesting that the novelist 'thought of civilised and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths.' What both Russell and Conrad were getting at was a simple fact which any historian could confirm: human civilisation is an intensely fragile construction. It is built on little more than belief: belief in the rightness of its values; belief in the strength of its system of law and order; belief in its currency; above all, perhaps, belief in its future.

    Once that belief begins to crumble, the collapse of a civilisation may become unstoppable. That civilisations fall, sooner or later, is as much a law of history as gravity is a law of physics. What remains after the fall is a wild mixture of cultural debris, confused and angry people whose certainties have betrayed them, and those forces which were always there, deeper than the foundations of the city walls: the desire to survive and the desire for meaning."

    Source - http://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/

    [Nov 07, 2016] How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer

    economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 04:01 PM

    Simply excellent:

    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    Introduction: Trading in Myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return....

    [Nov 07, 2016] Economists View More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions

    Nov 07, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Adam Davidson in the New Yorker:
    More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions : ...Institutions are significant to economists, who have come to see that countries become prosperous not because they have bounteous natural resources or an educated population or the most advanced technology but because they have good institutions. Crucially, formal structures are supported by informal, often unstated, social agreements. A nation not only needs courts; its people need to believe that those courts can be fair. ...

    Over most of history, a small élite confiscated wealth from the poor. Subsistence farmers lived under rules designed to tax them so that the rulers could live in palaces and pay for soldiers to maintain their power. Every now and then, though, a system appeared in which leaders were forced to accommodate the needs of at least some of their citizens. ... The societies with the most robust systems for forcing the powerful to accommodate some of the needs of the powerless became wealthier and more peaceful. ... Most nations without institutions to check the worst impulses of the rich and powerful stay stuck in poverty and dysfunction. ...

    This year's Presidential election has alarmed economists for several reasons. No economist, save one , supports Donald J. Trump's stated economic plans, but an even larger concern is that, were he elected, Trump would attack the very institutions that have provided our economic stability. In his campaign, Trump has shown outright contempt for courts, free speech, international treaties, and many other pillars of the American way of life. There is little reason to think that, if granted the Presidency, Trump would soften his stand. ...

    ...it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail.

    Alex S : , November 05, 2016 at 01:15 PM
    It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness. Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked.
    pgl -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 01:51 PM
    Agreed. You should have seen Peter Navarro latest performance. He may be ruder than Trump himself and he certainly babbles gibberish.
    Peter K. : , November 05, 2016 at 01:23 PM
    "No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail."

    This is all true but let's provide a little more context than the totebaggers' paint-by-numbers narrative.

    The Democratic Party has been moved to right as the middle class has struggled.

    And more and more people become susceptible to demagogues like Trump as Democrats try to play both sides of the fence, instead of standing foresquarely behind the job class.

    Let's hope we don't find out what Trump does if elected. My guess is that he'd delegate foreign and domestic policy to Mike Pence as Trump himself would be free to pursue his own personal grudges via whatever means are available.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 01:29 PM
    As Bernie Sanders's campaign demonstrated, there is still hope. In fact hope is growing.

    Lucky for us Sanders campaigned hard for Hillary, knowing what the stakes are.

    Given the way people like PGL treated Sanders during the campaign and given what Wikileaks showed, I doubt the reverse would have been true had Sanders won the primary.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 01:30 PM
    But then Sanders still would have beaten Trump easily.
    Gerri -> Peter K.... , November 06, 2016 at 06:39 AM
    The reverse would have been true, because we Democrats would have voted party above all else and especially in this election year. Remember "party" the thing that Bernie supporters and Bernie himself denigrated? I believe the term
    "elites" was used more than once to describe the party faithful.
    Alex S -> Peter K.... , -1
    As we can see here, through leftist glasses, the only possible remedy for solving a problem is moving left.
    Julio -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:02 PM
    Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today.
    Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
    anne -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:26 PM
    Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today.

    Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.

    [ An important criticism. ]

    Alex S -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:50 PM
    We have moved left. The gays and blacks are treated better. We no longer tolerate wars like Vietnam. The Iraq war was an order of magnitude smaller. War helps scientific discovery and progress. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0 For more capable nations to help civilize weaker and more chaotic ones is helpful, but leftists won't accept that.
    anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:08 PM
    Oh, I understand:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

    June 13, 2014

    The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
    By Tyler Cowen

    [ Who else could possibly have written such an essay? The guy is really, really scary. ]

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:20 PM
    http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/does-the-right-hold-the-economy-hostage-to-advance-its-militarist-agenda

    June 14, 2014

    Does the Right Hold the Economy Hostage to Advance Its Militarist Agenda?

    That's one way to read Tyler Cowen's New York Times column * noting that wars have often been associated with major economic advances which carries the headline "the lack of major wars may be hurting economic growth." Tyler lays out his central argument:

    "It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today's entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth."

    This is all quite true, but a moment's reflection may give a bit different spin to the story. There has always been substantial support among liberals for the sort of government sponsored research that he describes here. The opposition has largely come from the right. However the right has been willing to go along with such spending in the context of meeting national defense needs. Its support made these accomplishments possible.

    This brings up the suggestion Paul Krugman made a while back (jokingly) that maybe we need to convince the public that we face a threat from an attack from Mars. Krugman suggested this as a way to prompt traditional Keynesian stimulus, but perhaps we can also use the threat to promote an ambitious public investment agenda to bring us the next major set of technological breakthroughs.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

    -- Dean Baker

    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 05:15 PM
    Three points

    1. Baker's peaceful spending scenario is not likely because of human nature.

    2. Even if Baker's scenario happened, a given dollar will be used more efficiently in a war. If there is a threat of losing, you have an incentive to cut waste and spend on what produces results.

    3. The United States would not exist at all if we had not conquered the territory.

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:24 PM
    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    Summary

    Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

    As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.

    But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:27 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

    June 13, 2014

    The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
    By Tyler Cowen

    [ Guy is really, really, really scary. ]

    Peter K. -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:12 PM
    As Julio points out, under any objective analysis, politics have moved to the right.

    Rightwing policy solutions have been tried: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, breaking of unions, etc.

    We've seen the results. Stagnation and slow growth.

    The social democratic post-war years were much better with shared prosperity for all citizens.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:53 PM
    "It's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts."

    When Obama refuses to jail torturers or those responsible for mortgage fraud, we the people are justified in having less confidence in the courts.

    Peter Liepmann -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 05:52 PM
    Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*. Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs." Tim Harford made a good case for trust accounting for 99% of the difference in per capita GNP between the US and Somalia.
    ""If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income (2006 figures). If you make $40,000 a year, then $200 is down to hard work and $39,800 is down to trust.

    How could that be? Trust operates in all sorts of ways, from saving money that would have to be spent on security to improving the functioning of the political system. But above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth." goo.gl/t3OqHc

    anne -> Peter Liepmann... , November 05, 2016 at 06:38 PM
    Precise references, including links are necessary.
    anne : , November 05, 2016 at 01:49 PM
    Adam Davidson in the essay refers to this paper, which is well worth reading:

    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20140913

    April, 2016

    Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration
    By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson

    Abstract

    The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.

    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 02:59 PM
    Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
    pgl -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:03 PM
    I was in college in the mid 1970's and we asked this question a lot. Some think this worry has gone away. I don't agree with those types. Which is why a green technology investment drive makes a lot of sense for so many reasons.
    anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:40 PM
    Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?

    [ Having read and reread this question, I do not begin to understand what it means. There is oil here, there is oil all about us, there is oil in Canada and Mexico and on and on, and the supply of oil about us is not about to be disrupted by any conceivable war and an inconceivable war is never going to be fought. ]

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 03:50 PM
    Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?

    [ My guess is that this is a way of scarily pitching for fracking for oil right in my garden, but I like my azealia bushes and mocking birds. ]

    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:03 PM
    Quote from the paper you linked to: "Arguably, oil shocks have more to do with US foreign policy than with US economic policy-the two Gulf Wars being prominent examples. That said, several economists have claimed that US monetary policy played an important role in bringing on the oil shocks. See, for example, Barsky and Kilian (2002)."
    anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:13 PM
    Do set down a link to a reference when possible:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w8389

    July, 2001

    Do We Really Know that Oil Caused the Great Stagflation? A Monetary Alternative
    By Robert B. Barsky and Lutz Kilian

    Abstract

    This paper argues that major oil price increases were not nearly as essential a part of the causal mechanism that generated the stagflation of the 1970s as is often thought. There is neither a theoretical presumption that oil supply shocks are stagflationary nor robust empirical evidence for this view. In contrast, we show that monetary expansions and contractions can generate stagflation of realistic magnitude even in the absence of supply shocks. Furthermore, monetary fluctuations help to explain the historical movements of the prices of oil and other commodities, including the surge in the prices of industrial commodities that preceded the 1973/74 oil price increase. Thus, they can account for the striking coincidence of major oil price increases and worsening stagflation.

    Alex S -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:22 PM
    My quote dragged on too long. I should have ended it with the first sentence. Monetary policy could play a role but foreign policy could still be the biggest factor.
    Peter K. -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 03:09 PM
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-25/fed-inclined-to-raise-rates-if-next-president-pumps-up-budget

    "Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.

    "She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small enough for the Fed practically to ignore it."

    PGL told us that Hillary's fiscal program would be YUGE.

    Like with Trump everything he says is a lie.

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:56 PM
    Dean Baker in "Rigged" * reminds me of the lasting limits to growth that appear to follow the sacrifice of growth, especially to the extent of allowing a recession, for the sake of budget balancing during a time of surrounding economic weakness:

    * http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    Simply excellent:

    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    Introduction: Trading in Myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return....

    pgl -> Peter K.... , November 06, 2016 at 03:37 AM
    It is yuuuuge - and no I did not say anything of the sort. Rather I noted it would be less than 1% of GDP. This is what I get for trying to get the facts right. It gets too complicated for you even when we simplify things so you get angry and start screaming "liar". Grow up.
    mrrunangun : , November 05, 2016 at 06:23 PM
    Per capta GDP grew from $51,100 to $51,400 between July 1 2015 and July 1 2016. This 0.6% growth does not seem to me to be a statistic supporting claims of improving employment and improving wage growth.

    Dean has suggested in one of his commentaries that wage growth may be an artifact of a decline in the quality of health insurance coverage. Wage growth is not figured net of increased outlays for deductibles and copays related to changes in health insurance. PPACA discourages low deductible and low copay health plans by placing a "Cadillac tax" on them, or at least threatening to do so. The consequent rise in wage workers' outlays for copays and deductibles are not captured in the statistics that claim to measure wage gains. This results in an income transfer from the well to the sick, but can produce statistics that can be interpreted in politically convenient ways by those so inclined

    anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:33 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpp

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

    (Percent change)


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpv

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

    (Indexed to 2007)

    anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:35 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bue

    January 15, 2016

    Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2007-2016

    (Percent change)


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bua

    January 15, 2016

    Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2002-2016

    (Percent change)

    pgl -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 03:38 AM
    Excellent perspective. Let me say well done before PeterK gets angry and calls you a liar.
    ilsm -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 05:10 AM
    I had a job offer about 15 years ago, the quoted salary was not to my liking so the HR type told me how much the Cadillac insurance was "worth".

    I do not think you 'get' why Cadillac plans are taxed............

    or

    'income transfers'......

    mrrunangun -> ilsm... , November 06, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    I get why the plans are taxed. I don't believe that the results of that policy have been beneficial for the bulk of the population. Most of the good done by PPACA was done by the expansion of Medicaid eligibility. I believe that requiring the working poor people to settle for high deductible high copay policies has had the practical effect of requiring them to choose between adequate medical and further impoverishment. I do not believe that the PPACA could not have been financed in a way less injurious to the working poor. As the insurers have been unable to make money in this deal, the hospital operators seem to have been the only winners in that their bad debt problems have been ameliorated.
    cm : , November 05, 2016 at 11:09 PM
    "people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas"

    And this is entirely rational, as in the situation described, the fruits of their efforts will likely be siphoned from their pockets by the elites and generally rent-seekers with higher social standing and leverage, or at best their efforts will amount to too little to be worth the risk (including the risk of wasting one's time i.e. opportunity cost). It also becomes correspondingly harder to convince and motivate others to join or fund any worthwhile efforts. What also happens (and has happened in "communism") is that people take their interests private, i.e. hidden from the view of those who would usurp or derail them.

    Chris G : , -1
    "Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it is to die.

    The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don't think about too carefully will still be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.

    What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric, but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where the unraveling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.

    Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation is nothing new.

    'Few men realise,' wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, 'that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings.' Conrad's writings exposed the civilisation exported by European imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that civilisation believed 'blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion,' but their confidence could be maintained only by the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls, the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, though the city-dweller was no longer equipped to face it directly.

    Bertrand Russell caught this vein in Conrad's worldview, suggesting that the novelist 'thought of civilised and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths.' What both Russell and Conrad were getting at was a simple fact which any historian could confirm: human civilisation is an intensely fragile construction. It is built on little more than belief: belief in the rightness of its values; belief in the strength of its system of law and order; belief in its currency; above all, perhaps, belief in its future.

    Once that belief begins to crumble, the collapse of a civilisation may become unstoppable. That civilisations fall, sooner or later, is as much a law of history as gravity is a law of physics. What remains after the fall is a wild mixture of cultural debris, confused and angry people whose certainties have betrayed them, and those forces which were always there, deeper than the foundations of the city walls: the desire to survive and the desire for meaning."

    Source - http://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/

    [Nov 07, 2016] Donald Trump: Hillary Clintons policy for Syria would lead to world war three

    Nov 07, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    by Lauren Gambino

    Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Hillary Clinton's plan for Syria would "lead to world war three" because of the potential for conflict with military forces from nuclear-armed Russia.

    In an interview focused largely on foreign policy, the Republican presidential nominee said defeating Islamic State was a higher priority than persuading than Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, to step down, playing down a long-held goal of US policy.

    Trump questioned how his Democratic opponent would negotiate with Russia's president Vladimir Putin after having demonized him; blamed Barack Obama for a downturn in US relations with the Philippines under its new president, Rodrigo Duterte; bemoaned a lack of Republican unity behind his candidacy and said he would easily win the election if the party leaders supported him.

    "If we had party unity, we couldn't lose this election to Hillary Clinton," he said.

    On Syria's civil war, Trump said Clinton could drag the US into a world war with a more aggressive posture toward resolving the conflict.

    Clinton has called for the establishment of a no-fly zone and "safe zones" on the ground to protect noncombatants. Some analysts fear that protecting those zones could bring the US bring into direct conflict with Russian fighter jets.

    "What we should do is focus on Isis. We should not be focusing on Syria," said Trump as he dined on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. "You're going to end up in world war three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton," Trump said.

    "You're not fighting Syria any more, you're fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk," he said.

    Trump said Assad is much stronger now than he was three years ago. He said getting Assad to leave power was less important than defeating Isis.

    "Assad is secondary, to me, to Isis," he said.

    On Russia, Trump again knocked Clinton's handling of US-Russian relations while secretary of state and said her harsh criticism of Putin raised questions about "how she is going to go back and negotiate with this man who she has made to be so evil", if she wins the presidency.

    On the deterioration of ties with the Philippines, Trump aimed his criticism at Obama, saying the president "wants to focus on his golf game" rather than engage with world leaders.

    Since assuming office, Duterte has expressed open hostility towards the US, rejecting criticism of his violent anti-drug clampdown, using an expletive to describe Obama and telling the US not to treat his country "like a dog with a leash".

    The Obama administration has expressed optimism that the two countries can remain firm allies. Trump said Duterte's latest comments showed "a lack of respect for our country".

    [Nov 07, 2016] Clinton, Trump and foreign policy: global conflicts await the next president by Julian Borger World affairs editor and Oliver Milman in New York

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the presidential debates, Clinton talked of establishing a "no-fly zone" or a "safe zone" inside Syria. However, it is hard to see how that would be done without risking a direct clash with Russia, with all the risks that entails. The generals at the Pentagon, who have long argued against the feasibility of establishing such a zone, would work hard to block such a scheme. A Clinton White House is also likely to explore ways of increasing the flow of arms to moderate opposition groups. ..."
    "... Trump has indicated that he would seek to work with Assad and Putin in a combined fight against Isis, and has not voiced criticism of the bombardment of rebel-held areas such as eastern Aleppo. That policy would also have heavy costs. The Syrian opposition and the Gulf states would see it as a betrayal, and the new administration would have to deal with the reality that neither the regime nor Russia has much immediate interest in fighting Isis. ..."
    "... Trump is likely to take the opposite approach. He avoided criticism of Russia for its actions in Ukraine, hinted he might accept the annexation of Crimea, and ignored US intelligence findings that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic party's email. ..."
    "... Trump has suggested, by contrast, that Nato is obsolete and questioned whether its security commitments in Europe are worth what the US is currently spending on them. ..."
    "... Clinton first supported the TPP and then criticised it in the face of the primary challenge from Bernie Sanders. Her reservations may prolong the negotiations, but she is ultimately expected to pursue and seek completion of the ambitious multilateral trade deals. ..."
    "... Trump built his campaign on opposition to all such deals , which he has characterised as inherently unfavourable to the US. He has promised to seek bilateral trade deals on better terms and to punish other countries deemed to be trading unfairly with sanctions, ignoring the threat of retaliation. ..."
    Nov 07, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    ... ... ...

    China

    Within his or her first year in office, a new US president would also face a direct challenge to US power in the western Pacific. The Chinese programme of laying claim to reefs and rocks in the South China Sea and turning them into naval and air bases gives Beijing potential control over some the busiest shipping lanes in the world. US influence is under further threat by the rise of Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, who has threatened to eject US troops , casting doubt on his predecessor's agreement to allow new permanent American presence.

    Clinton's likely policy will be to continue Obama's faltering "pivot to Asia", and to prioritise restoring the faith of US allies in the region that Washington will help them resist Chinese attempts to dominate the South China Sea. It is a policy that is held hostage to some extent by Duterte's ultimate intentions, and it could lead to a rapid escalation of tension in the region.

    Trump has pointed to the Chinese reef-building programme as a reflection of US weakness but has not said what he would do about it. He has focused more on the threat posed to the US by its trade relations with China. In the transactional model of foreign relations Trump favours, he could agree to turn a blind eye to creeping Chinese takeover in the South China Sea in exchange for a bilateral trade deal with Beijing on better terms.

    Syria

    A new US president will arrive in office at a time of significant military advances against Islamic State in Syria and neighbouring Iraq, but diminishing options when it comes to helping shape the opposition battle against the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian backers. It is possible that the rebel stand in Aleppo will have fallen by then, giving the regime the upper hand and postponing yet again any hopes of a political transition.

    In the presidential debates, Clinton talked of establishing a "no-fly zone" or a "safe zone" inside Syria. However, it is hard to see how that would be done without risking a direct clash with Russia, with all the risks that entails. The generals at the Pentagon, who have long argued against the feasibility of establishing such a zone, would work hard to block such a scheme. A Clinton White House is also likely to explore ways of increasing the flow of arms to moderate opposition groups.

    Trump has indicated that he would seek to work with Assad and Putin in a combined fight against Isis, and has not voiced criticism of the bombardment of rebel-held areas such as eastern Aleppo. That policy would also have heavy costs. The Syrian opposition and the Gulf states would see it as a betrayal, and the new administration would have to deal with the reality that neither the regime nor Russia has much immediate interest in fighting Isis.

    Russia and Ukraine

    A Clinton administration is expected to take a tougher line with Moscow than the Obama White House, all the more so because of the substantial evidence of the Kremlin's efforts to try to intervene in the US presidential election in her opponent's favour. Clinton could well seek to take a leadership role in negotiations with Moscow over Ukraine and the stalled Minsk peace process, which have hitherto been left to Germany and France. She could also opt to send lethal aid to Ukraine as a way of increasing US leverage.

    Trump is likely to take the opposite approach. He avoided criticism of Russia for its actions in Ukraine, hinted he might accept the annexation of Crimea, and ignored US intelligence findings that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic party's email. A Trump administration is unlikely to contest Russian enforcement of its influence in eastern Ukraine.

    Europe and Nato

    Clinton aides have signalled consistently that one of her priorities would be to show US willingness to shore up EU and Nato cohesion, and will attend summits of both organisations in February.

    Trump has suggested, by contrast, that Nato is obsolete and questioned whether its security commitments in Europe are worth what the US is currently spending on them. He said he would check whether US allies "fulfilled their obligation to us" before coming to their defence , calling into question the purpose of the defence pact. Later in the campaign, he changed tack, saying he would seek to strengthen the alliance, but a win for Trump on Tuesday would nonetheless deepen anxiety in eastern European countries, such as the Baltic states, that a US-led Nato would come to their defence in the face of Russian encroachment.

    Trade

    The two major free trade projects of the Obama administration, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with the countries on the Pacific rim, will probably still be under negotiation when the new president comes into office, giving him or her the option of killing or completing them.

    Clinton first supported the TPP and then criticised it in the face of the primary challenge from Bernie Sanders. Her reservations may prolong the negotiations, but she is ultimately expected to pursue and seek completion of the ambitious multilateral trade deals.

    Trump built his campaign on opposition to all such deals , which he has characterised as inherently unfavourable to the US. He has promised to seek bilateral trade deals on better terms and to punish other countries deemed to be trading unfairly with sanctions, ignoring the threat of retaliation.

    ... ... ...

    [Nov 07, 2016] WikiLeaks DNC and CNN colluded on questions for Trump, Cruz

    www.washingtonexaminer.com

    Newly released emails from WikiLeaks suggest that the Democratic National Committee colluded with CNN in devising questions in April to be asked of then-Republican primary candidate Donald Trump in an upcoming interview.

    In an email to DNC colleagues on April 25 with the headline "Trump Questions for CNN," a DNC official with the email username [email protected] asked for ideas for an interview to be conducted by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer.

    "Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed. ... Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM tomorrow."

    The sender of the email would seem to be DNC Research Director Lauren Dillon, who was identified in previous reports of DNC emails released by WikiLeaks in July.

    [Nov 07, 2016] Sanders had non-aggression pact with Clinton who had leverage to enforce it. He basically handed her this nomination.

    Nov 07, 2016 | twitter.com

    WikiLeaks  Verified account
    ‏@wikileaks

    Sanders had non-aggression pact with Clinton who had "leverage" to enforce it Robby Mook ("re47") email reveals https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397#efmAAAAB2 …

    Robert. ‏@robbiemakestees · Nov 4

    @wikileaks the plot thickens. He basically handed her this nomination. What did he honestly think was gonna happen?

    [Nov 06, 2016] Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS - YouTube

    Nov 06, 2016 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Oct 1, 2015

    Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.

    dornye easton 2 hours ago

    The White house and and the CIA ARE THE ONES causing this !!

    Gilbert Sanchez 2 weeks ago

    from the U.S.. much love for you Putin. you really opened the eyes of many, even in our country. this man is the definition of president and the u.s hasnt had one for over 40 years... smh.

    IronClad292 2 weeks ago

    As an American I can say that all of this is very confusing. However, one thing I believe is true, Obama and Hillary are the worst thing to ever happen to my country !!!! Average Americans don't want war with Russia. Why would we ?? The common people of both countries don't deserve this !!!!

    lown baby 9 hours ago

    We need Trump to restore our ties with the rest of the world or we are screwed!

    david wood 3 months ago

    He pretty much [said] that the President is a complete fucking idiot. I can't argue with him.

    simon6071 6 days ago (edited)

    +Emanuil Penev Obama is a human puppet who chose to be controlled, He is therefore culpable for his action of supporting Islamic terrorists. Right now Islamic invasion of western countries is the real problem. The USA is now under the control of Obama the Muslim Trojan horse who wants the world to be under the rule of an Islamic empire. USA's military action in the Middle East is the result of USA being under occupation by a Muslim Trojan horse that wants to create tidal waves of Muslim refugees harboring Muslim radicals and terrorists for invading Europe and the USA. Watch video (copy and paste for search) *From Europe to America The Caliphate Muslim Trojan Horse The USA is a victim, not a culprit, in the Muslim invasion of western counties. Obama and his cohorts are the culprits.

    StarWarLean 38 minutes ago

    America has become the evil empire

    Nicholas Villegas 2 days ago

    I hope we get better president and will have better ties and relations with Russia

    machinist1337 1 month ago

    basically Russia wants to be friends with America again and America ain't having it. they have the capabilities to set up shop all around the world. it's like putting guard towers in everyone's lawn just in case somebody wants commit crime. but you never see inside the towers or know who is in them but they have giant guns mounted on them ready to kill. that's how Putin feels. I mean I get it but every other country has nukes. get rid of the nukes and the missile defense will go away. if the situation were reversed it would be out president voicing this frustration. but Putin said it, America is a good example of success that's what Russia needs to do is be more like America. they have been doing it in the last year or so. I think America will come around and we will have good relations with Russia again. so wait... did we support isis as being generally isis or support all Qaeda / Saddam's regime which lead to isis??

    Brendon Charles 2 months ago

    The US supported multiple Rebel Groups that fought against Syria, they armed them, gave them money, and members of those groups split up and formed more Rebel groups or joined different ones. ISIS (at the time, not as large) was supported by the rebel groups the US armed and they got weapons and equipment from said Rebel Groups, even manpower as well.. That is how ISIS came to be the threat it is today.

    benD'anon fawkes 3 months ago

    putin doesnt view the us as a threat to russia..?? he has said countless times that he considers the us as a threat.. and that russian actions are a result of us aggression

    indycoon 3 months ago (edited)

    US people are a threat for all the world because they are not interested in politics, they don't want to know truth, they believe to their one-sided media and allow their government and other warmongers in the US military industry to do whatever they wish all over the world. US politics are dangerous and lead to a new big war where US territory won't stay away this time. It''s time for Americans to understand it. If you allow your son to become a criminal, don't be surprised that your house will be burned some day.

    Wardup04 1 day ago

    Obama and Clinton are progressive evil cunts funded by Soros. Their decision making is calculated and they want these horrendous results because it weakens the US and benefits globalism. Putin kicked the globalists the fuck out, and when Trump wins he will do the same! They are scared shitless. TRUMP/PENCE 2016

    ThePoopMaster01 1 week ago

    It's pretty sad when RT is more trustworthy than all other mainstream news networks

    Michael Espeland 3 days ago

    Someone owns mainstream media, so. Yeah. The rest is kinda self-explanatory

    Daniel Gyllenbreider 1 month ago

    With a stupid and warmongering opponent such as the USA, Russia do not need to construct a narrative or think out some elaborate propaganda. Russia simply needs to speak the truth. And this is why the US and its puppets hates Russia and Putin so much.

    [Nov 06, 2016] Trump vs. the REAL Nuts -- the GOP Uniparty Establishment

    Notable quotes:
    "... An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty." ..."
    "... There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. ..."
    "... To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ..."
    "... Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.unz.com
    54 Comments Credit: VDare.com.

    A couple of remarks in Professor Susan McWillams' recent Modern Age piece celebrating the 25th anniversary of Christopher Lasch's 1991 book The True and Only Heaven , which analyzed the cult of progress in its American manifestation, have stuck in my mind. Here's the first one:

    In the most recent American National Election Studies survey, only 19 percent of Americans agreed with the idea that the government, "is run for the benefit of all the people." [ The True and Only Lasch: On The True and Only Heaven, 25 Years Later , Fall 2016]

    McWilliams adds a footnote to that: The 19 percent figure is from 2012, she says. Then she tells us that in 1964, 64 percent of Americans agreed with the same statement.

    Wow. You have to think that those two numbers, from 64 percent down to 19 percent in two generations, tell us something important and disturbing about our political life.

    Second McWilliams quote:

    In 2016 if you type the words "Democrats and Republicans" or "Republicans and Democrats" into Google, the algorithms predict your next words will be "are the same".

    I just tried this, and she's right. These guesses are of course based on the frequency with which complete sentences show up all over the internet. An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty."

    There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians.

    Which leads me to a different lady commentator: Peggy Noonan, in her October 20th Wall Street Journal column.

    The title of Peggy's piece was: Imagine a Sane Donald Trump . [ Alternate link ]Its gravamen: Donald Trump has shown up the Republican Party Establishment as totally out of touch with their base, which is good; but that he's bat-poop crazy, which is bad. If a sane Donald Trump had done the good thing, the showing-up, we'd be on course to a major beneficial correction in our national politics.

    It's a good clever piece. A couple of months ago on Radio Derb I offered up one and a half cheers for Peggy, who gets a lot right in spite of being a longtime Establishment Insider. So it was here. Sample of what she got right last week:

    Mr. Trump's great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party's leaders didn't know! They were shocked, so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn't happening.

    The party's leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn't want to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he'd opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn't want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.

    I'll just pause to note Peggy's use of Steve Sailer' s great encapsulation of Bush-style NeoConnery: "Invade the world, invite the world." Either Peggy's been reading Steve on the sly, or she's read my book We Are Doomed , which borrows that phrase. I credited Steve with it, though, so in either case she knows its provenance, and should likewise have credited Steve.

    End of pause. OK, so Peggy got some things right there. She got a lot wrong, though

    Start with the notion that Trump is crazy. He's a nut, she says, five times. His brain is "a TV funhouse."

    Well, Trump has some colorful quirks of personality, to be sure, as we all do. But he's no nut. A nut can't be as successful in business as Trump has been.

    I spent 32 years as an employee or contractor, mostly in private businesses but for two years in a government department. Private businesses are intensely rational, as human affairs go-much more rational than government departments. The price of irrationality in business is immediate and plainly financial. Sanity-wise, Trump is a better bet than most people in high government positions.

    Sure, politicians talk a good rational game. They present as sober and thoughtful on the Sunday morning shows.

    Look at the stuff they believe, though. Was it rational to respond to the collapse of the U.S.S.R. by moving NATO right up to Russia's borders? Was it rational to expect that post-Saddam Iraq would turn into a constitutional democracy? Was it rational to order insurance companies to sell healthcare policies to people who are already sick? Was the Vietnam War a rational enterprise? Was it rational to respond to the 9/11 attacks by massively increasing Muslim immigration?

    Make your own list.

    Donald Trump displays good healthy patriotic instincts. I'll take that, with the personality quirks and all, over some earnest, careful, sober-sided guy whose head contains fantasies of putting the world to rights, or flooding our country with unassimilable foreigners.

    I'd add the point, made by many commentators, that belongs under the general heading: "You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps." If Donald Trump was not so very different from run-of-the-mill politicians-which I suspect is a big part of what Peggy means by calling him a nut-would he have entered into the political adventure he's on?

    Thor Heyerdahl sailed across the Pacific on a hand-built wooden raft to prove a point, which is not the kind of thing your average ethnographer would do. Was he crazy? No, he wasn't. It was only that some feature of his personality drove him to use that way to prove the point he hoped to prove.

    And then there is Peggy's assertion that the Republican Party's leaders didn't know that half the party's base were at odds with them.

    Did they really not? Didn't they get a clue when the GOP lost in 2012, mainly because millions of Republican voters didn't turn out for Mitt Romney? Didn't they, come to think of it, get the glimmering of a clue back in 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary?

    Pat Buchanan is in fact a living counter-argument to Peggy's thesis-the "sane Donald Trump" that she claims would win the hearts of GOP managers. Pat is Trump without the personality quirks. How has the Republican Party treated him ?

    Our own Brad Griffin , here at VDARE.com on October 24th, offered a couple more "sane Donald Trumps": Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. How did they fare with the GOP Establishment?

    Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. Probably he's less well-informed about the world than the average pol. I doubt he could tell you what the capital of Burkina Faso is. That's secondary, though. A President has people to look up that stuff for him. The question that's been asked more than any other about Donald Trump is not, pace Peggy Noonan, "Is he nuts?" but, " Is he conservative? "

    I'm sure he is. But my definition of "conservative" is temperamental, not political. My touchstone here is the sketch of the conservative temperament given to us by the English political philosopher Michael Oakeshott :

    To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

    Rationalism in Politics and other essays (1962)

    That fits Trump better than it fits any liberal you can think of-better also than many senior Republicans.

    For example, it was one of George W. Bush's senior associates-probably Karl Rove-who scoffed at opponents of Bush's delusional foreign policy as "the reality-based community." It would be hard to think of a more un -Oakeshottian turn of phrase.

    Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment.

    I thank him for that, and look forward to his Presidency.

    [Nov 06, 2016] Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS - YouTube

    Nov 06, 2016 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Oct 1, 2015

    Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.

    dornye easton 2 hours ago

    The White house and and the CIA ARE THE ONES causing this !!

    Gilbert Sanchez 2 weeks ago

    from the U.S.. much love for you Putin. you really opened the eyes of many, even in our country. this man is the definition of president and the u.s hasnt had one for over 40 years... smh.

    IronClad292 2 weeks ago

    As an American I can say that all of this is very confusing. However, one thing I believe is true, Obama and Hillary are the worst thing to ever happen to my country !!!! Average Americans don't want war with Russia. Why would we ?? The common people of both countries don't deserve this !!!!

    lown baby 9 hours ago

    We need Trump to restore our ties with the rest of the world or we are screwed!

    david wood 3 months ago

    He pretty much [said] that the President is a complete fucking idiot. I can't argue with him.

    simon6071 6 days ago (edited)

    +Emanuil Penev Obama is a human puppet who chose to be controlled, He is therefore culpable for his action of supporting Islamic terrorists. Right now Islamic invasion of western countries is the real problem. The USA is now under the control of Obama the Muslim Trojan horse who wants the world to be under the rule of an Islamic empire. USA's military action in the Middle East is the result of USA being under occupation by a Muslim Trojan horse that wants to create tidal waves of Muslim refugees harboring Muslim radicals and terrorists for invading Europe and the USA. Watch video (copy and paste for search) *From Europe to America The Caliphate Muslim Trojan Horse The USA is a victim, not a culprit, in the Muslim invasion of western counties. Obama and his cohorts are the culprits.

    StarWarLean 38 minutes ago

    America has become the evil empire

    Nicholas Villegas 2 days ago

    I hope we get better president and will have better ties and relations with Russia

    machinist1337 1 month ago

    basically Russia wants to be friends with America again and America ain't having it. they have the capabilities to set up shop all around the world. it's like putting guard towers in everyone's lawn just in case somebody wants commit crime. but you never see inside the towers or know who is in them but they have giant guns mounted on them ready to kill. that's how Putin feels. I mean I get it but every other country has nukes. get rid of the nukes and the missile defense will go away. if the situation were reversed it would be out president voicing this frustration. but Putin said it, America is a good example of success that's what Russia needs to do is be more like America. they have been doing it in the last year or so. I think America will come around and we will have good relations with Russia again. so wait... did we support isis as being generally isis or support all Qaeda / Saddam's regime which lead to isis??

    Brendon Charles 2 months ago

    The US supported multiple Rebel Groups that fought against Syria, they armed them, gave them money, and members of those groups split up and formed more Rebel groups or joined different ones. ISIS (at the time, not as large) was supported by the rebel groups the US armed and they got weapons and equipment from said Rebel Groups, even manpower as well.. That is how ISIS came to be the threat it is today.

    benD'anon fawkes 3 months ago

    putin doesnt view the us as a threat to russia..?? he has said countless times that he considers the us as a threat.. and that russian actions are a result of us aggression

    indycoon 3 months ago (edited)

    US people are a threat for all the world because they are not interested in politics, they don't want to know truth, they believe to their one-sided media and allow their government and other warmongers in the US military industry to do whatever they wish all over the world. US politics are dangerous and lead to a new big war where US territory won't stay away this time. It''s time for Americans to understand it. If you allow your son to become a criminal, don't be surprised that your house will be burned some day.

    Wardup04 1 day ago

    Obama and Clinton are progressive evil cunts funded by Soros. Their decision making is calculated and they want these horrendous results because it weakens the US and benefits globalism. Putin kicked the globalists the fuck out, and when Trump wins he will do the same! They are scared shitless. TRUMP/PENCE 2016

    ThePoopMaster01 1 week ago

    It's pretty sad when RT is more trustworthy than all other mainstream news networks

    Michael Espeland 3 days ago

    Someone owns mainstream media, so. Yeah. The rest is kinda self-explanatory

    Daniel Gyllenbreider 1 month ago

    With a stupid and warmongering opponent such as the USA, Russia do not need to construct a narrative or think out some elaborate propaganda. Russia simply needs to speak the truth. And this is why the US and its puppets hates Russia and Putin so much.

    [Nov 06, 2016] The Podesta Emails - Undeniable proof that the lobbyists wanted to put Bernie out

    Notable quotes:
    "... WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. ..."
    "... if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000 -20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. " ..."
    "... But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. " ..."
    Nov 06, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.

    An email from Gary Hirshberg, chairman and former president and CEO of Stonyfield Farm , to John Podesta on March 13, 2016, confirms why the lobbyists strongly opposed Bernie Sanders.

    Hirshberg writes to a familiar person, as he was mentioned at the time as a possible 2008 Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, requesting Obama should not pass the Roberts bill because " if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000 -20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. "

    But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. "

    [Nov 05, 2016] Susan Sarandon DNC is completely corrupt

    Nov 05, 2016 | thehill.com
    Actress Susan Sarandon on Thursday tore into the Democratic National Committee (DNC), calling it "completely corrupt." "After my experience in the primary, it's very clear to me the DNC is gone," she told CNN's Carol Costello .

    "Every superdelegate is a lobbyist. The way that the system is set up in terms of trying of having superdelegates - you could win a state and not get the delegates. It's crazy."

    Sarandon backed Sen. Bernie Sanders Bernie Sanders Dem elector says he won't vote for Clinton A field guide to third-party prospects Susan Sarandon on refusing to back Clinton: 'I don't vote with my vagina' MORE (I-Vt.) for the Democratic nomination. She said she still respects Sanders even though he endorsed Hillary Clinton Hillary Rodham Clinton Trump seeks uptick in race's final days Trump touts 'contract' in GOP weekly address Beyonce, Jay Z rally young voters at Clinton concert MORE for president.

    "Look, Bernie has said 'don't ever listen to me if I tell you how to vote,' " she said.

    "What [Sanders] did is show people that they counted. He brought them hope. He's supporting a lot of candidates. It's very important to go and vote down the ticket."

    Sarandon predicted a surge in third-party support on Election Day, calling Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump Donald Trump Trump seeks uptick in race's final days Trump touts 'contract' in GOP weekly address Report: National Enquirer withheld story about Trump affair MORE "untrustable."

    "I think we've been voting the lesser of two evils for too long. The good news is everybody's so frustrated that at least we're awake."

    Sarandon on Monday endorsed Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

    "It's clear a third-party is necessary and viable at this time," she said in a letter posted on Stein's campaign website. "And this is the first step in accomplishing that end."

    Stein has about 2 percent support nationally, according to a RealClearPolitics average of polls . iv>

    [Nov 05, 2016] Economists View Paul Krugman Who Broke Politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail. ..."
    "... In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain, Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch brothers will primary them. ..."
    "... While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class? Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift? ..."
    "... I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years. I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument. ..."
    "... Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles. While we shredded the safety net. ..."
    "... Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population and they couldn't bear it. ..."
    "... Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. ..."
    Nov 05, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. : November 04, 2016 at 08:51 AM , 2016 at 08:51 AM
    This is all true but Krugman always fails to tell the other side of the story.

    I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail.

    The centrists always do this to push through centrist, neoliberal "solutions" which anger the left.

    In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain, Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch brothers will primary them.

    Let's hope Hillary does something about campaign finance reform and Citizen United and takes a harder line against obstructionist Republicans.

    Eric : November 04, 2016 at 09:28 AM

    While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class? Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift?

    I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years. I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument.

    Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles. While we shredded the safety net.

    Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population and they couldn't bear it.

    Perhaps the less partisan take-way would be - is it possible for any political candidate to get elected in this environment without bowing to the proper interests? How close did Bernie get? And, how do we fix it without first admitting that the policies of both political parties have not really addressed the social adjustments necessary to capture the benefits of globalization? We need an evolution of both political parties - not just the Republicans. If we don't get it, we can expect the Trump argument to take even deeper root.

    America was rich when it had tariff walls - now it's becoming poor - Thanks economists! : November 04, 2016 at 09:43 PM
    Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. East Asian economists including Ha Joon Chang among others debunked comparative advantage and Ricardianism long ago.

    Manufacturing is everything. It is all that matters. We needed tariffs yesterday. Without them the country is lost.

    [Nov 04, 2016] Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Presidential Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests. ..."
    "... A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him. ..."
    "... If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure? ..."
    "... "Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls." ..."
    Nov 04, 2016 | www.unz.com
    Yes they can ;-). that's how two party system is functioning by default. Rank-and-file are typically screwed. the only exception is so called "revolutionary situation", when the elite lost legitimacy and can't dictate its will on the people below.

    November 4, 2016

    The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the lead, the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal, and I have posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.

    Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.

    With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests.

    Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.

    Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them, and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could damage the oligarchs.

    In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.

    A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.

    Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee on oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be "a target-rich environment. Even before we get to day one, we've got two years worth of material already lined up." House Speaker Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.

    If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure?

    What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would lose all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that is not good for oligarchs.

    Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on stage. For example, last May Fox News reported:

    "Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" - even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.

    "Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls."

    Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for "solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service his friends on 'Orgy Island,' an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands." http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html
    Some Internet sites, the credibility of which is unknown to me, have linked Hillary to these flights. http

    [Nov 04, 2016] The Guardian WikiLeaks Reveals How Globalist Elites Run America for Their Own Interests

    Notable quotes:
    "... From The Guardian : ..."
    "... Read the rest here . ..."
    www.breitbart.com
    Thomas Frank writes in The Guardian that the WikiLeaks emails to and from Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta "offer an unprecedented view into the workings of the elite, and how it looks after itself." They provide "a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers."

    From The Guardian:

    This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of bank reform should "come from the industry itself". And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's careers, constantly.

    Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the "Global CEO Advisory Firm" that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out.

    Read the rest here.

    [Nov 04, 2016] Forget the FBI cache; the Podesta emails show how America is run

    Notable quotes:
    "... The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. ..."
    "... "What is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that". ..."
    "... Do they want more of the same + the Clinton's insatiable appetite for self-enrichmentand that permanent insincere smile? If not, why not give Trump a chance. If they don't like him, kick him out in four years' time. ..."
    "... My feeling is this sort of behaviour has its equivalents throughout history and that when it peaks we have upheaval and decline. ..."
    "... "Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out." ..."
    "... Of course you are quite correct, the Democratic Party is a fraud for working people and a collection of self serving elitist. If you have a solution to solve why people keep voting for them I would love to hear it. ..."
    "... I am sure the people of Syria and Libya are grateful to these amazing people for destroying their countries and stealing their resources. ..."
    "... What's left is a pretty ugly, self-righteous and corrupt crowd. Their attacks on Comey have been despicable, beneath contempt and absurd. I think they're going to lose and they will deserve to. ..."
    "... "Former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Bill Ivey says a leaked e-mail to Clinton deputy John Podesta did not reveal a 'master plan' for maintaining political power via 'an unaware and compliant citizenry.'" ..."
    "... I use work in these circles and the soul crushing thing is that elites look out for themselves and their careers and have no real personality, morals, values, character, backbone and certainly no interest in the people. They have personalities of wet fish and are generally cowardice and an embarrassment to mankind. In sort a waste of space ..."
    Nov 04, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. They are last week's scandal in a year running over with scandals, but in truth their significance goes far beyond mere scandal: they are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.

    The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied, pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are written. This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this class, the choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.

    They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

    ...I think the WikiLeaks releases furnish us with an opportunity to observe the upper reaches of the American status hierarchy in all its righteousness and majesty.

    The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work: financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement.

    ...Hillary's ingratiating speeches to Wall Street are well known of course, but what is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that. In one now-famous email chain, for example, the reader can watch current US trade representative Michael Froman, writing from a Citibank email address in 2008, appear to name President Obama's cabinet even before the great hope-and-change election was decided (incidentally, an important clue to understanding why that greatest of zombie banks was never put out of its misery).

    The far-sighted innovators of Silicon Valley are also here in force, interacting all the time with the leaders of the party of the people. We watch as Podesta appears to email Sheryl Sandberg. He makes plans to visit Mark Zuckerberg (who, according to one missive, wants to "learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action"). Podesta exchanges emails with an entrepreneur about an ugly race now unfolding for Silicon Valley's seat in Congress; this man, in turn, appears to forward to Podesta the remarks of yet another Silicon Valley grandee, who complains that one of the Democratic combatants in that fight was criticizing billionaires who give to Democrats. Specifically, the miscreant Dem in question was said to be:

    "… spinning (and attacking) donors who have supported Democrats. John Arnold and Marc Leder have both given to Cory Booker, Joe Kennedy, and others. He is also attacking every billionaire that donates to [Congressional candidate] Ro [Khanna], many whom support other Democrats as well."

    Attacking billionaires! In the year 2015! It was, one of the correspondents appears to write, "madness and political malpractice of the party to allow this to continue".

    There are wonderful things to be found in this treasure trove when you search the gilded words "Davos" or "Tahoe".

    ... ... ...

    Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which petitioners for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely appeal to Podesta – the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered in the ear of a powerful crony.

    This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of bank reform should "come from the industry itself". And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's careers, constantly.

    Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the "Global CEO Advisory Firm" that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.

    But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out.

    greatapedescendant 5d ago

    It's all polyarchy,plutocracy and powerful lobbyists for the arms and finance industries. The average US citizen counts for nothing. The higher up on the socio-economic scale you are, the more you count. Except for a brainwashed vote once every 4 years.

    From today's Guardian…

    "US politics tends to be portrayed as driven by geopolitical interests rather than personalities, and so most ordinary Russians assume that little will change, whoever wins."

    "And nothing will change for the average US citizen, just like in Britain. Looks like most ordinary Russians have got it spot on.

    greatapedescendant -> greatapedescendant 5d ago

    And as if that were not enough, the elections are 'rigged' in various ways.

    Americans have a great responsibility not only to their country but to other so-called advanced western democracies which follow they US model. A radical change in US politics to bring it in line with genuine concern for the interests of the average citizen would greatly assist efforts here on the other side of the Atlantic to do the same.

    SergeantPave 5d ago

    Astonishing that registered Democrats rejected one of the cleanest politicians in modern US history in order to nominate the Queen of Wall St. What do they hope to gain from expanded corporate globalism and entrenchment of the corporate coup d'etat at home?

    Matthew McNeany -> SergeantPave 5d ago

    Except that it was the same party grandees (Super-delegates - the very word sticks in your throat no?) who all but confirmed Clinton's appointment before a single ballot was cast by the party rank and file.

    djhurley , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
    "What is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that".

    Spot on. There's amnesia today about where the Democratic party historically stood in regard to Wall Street and its interests.

    Watchman80 -> djhurley , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
    Yep - very good article.

    I am surprised to find it in the Guardian.

    democratista -> Watchman80 , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    Beckow -> djhurley , 31 Oct 2016 15:1
    Real issues - like economic well-being for all - have been replaced by Democrats with mindless identity politics. Clinton is literally running on "I will spend half a billion to reduce bullying", on unisex bathrooms, and more women of color everywhere.

    Is that what democracy should be all about? FDR and other real Democrats would die laughing if they would see these current "progressive liberals" - they stand for nothing, they are a total waste of time, as Obama so amply demonstrated.

    ga gamba , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
    The warning signals were screaming months ago and the mass media concocted a smear campaign against Sanders because he wasn't owned and he was the wrong gender.

    Sanders would have destroyed Trump in this election.

    Oliver Elkington -> ga gamba , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    See, Trump is right when he says that the US media is corrupt
    DaveTheFirst -> ga gamba , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    Then Bernie endorsed Clinton... :\
    callaspodeaspode -> DaveTheFirst , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    Yes he did endorse her. Because it is customary for the losing candidate(s) in the nomination race to do so. He said he would endorse her if she won, right from the start of the process. For the patently obvious reason, which he repeated again and again, that even a compromised HRC is far better than Donald Trump.

    And he kept his word, but not before he did his level best during the convention to get some decent policies jammed into the Democratic Party platform.

    unclestinky , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
    And if the same sort of leakage had come from the Republicans you'd see exactly the same patronage and influence peddling. If there's one area of politics that remains truly bipartisan it's the gravitational pull of large sums of money.
    Chris Davison -> unclestinky , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    Which only goes to show that ALL of them are unfit for any position of Public Office, let alone any Public employment.
    gandrew -> unclestinky , 31 Oct 2016 15:1
    Except Citizens United failed because Republicans opposed it in the form of their Supreme Court judges.
    OhSuitsYouSir -> Chris Davison , 31 Oct 2016 17:1
    yawn yawn - what a profound comment
    callaspodeaspode , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
    We even read the pleadings of a man who wants to be invited to a state dinner at the White House and who offers, as one of several exhibits in his favor, the fact that he "joined the DSCC Majority Trust in Martha's Vineyard (contributing over $32,400 to Democratic senators) in July 2014".

    Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which petitioners for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely appeal to Podesta – the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered in the ear of a powerful crony.

    Something timeless about it all, isn't there? Like reading an account of court life in the era of Charles II.

    Mark Taylor -> callaspodeaspode , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    And to think that they had a revolution to get rid of all that nonsense.
    AIRrrww , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    gully_foyle , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
    There's nothing revelatory in the fact that this is happening among the Democrats, there is surely a carbon copy going on with the Republicans! But somehow I don't think Wikileaks will be releasing anything about that, until the GoP happens to do something that steps on Putin's toes...
    Banditolobster -> gully_foyle , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    Weak, the truth is the truth, ranting about reds under the beds is bollocks.
    sbmfc -> gully_foyle , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
    The Russian link is something made up by the Dems to take the heat off Clinton.

    Podesta was caught out by a simple phishing trick which could be carried out by anyone.

    gully_foyle -> Banditolobster , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    We'll find out the truth about how Wikileaks operates one day. The alignment between Wikileaks releases and interests of Russian foreign policy became suspicious a long time before you read on Breitbart that Clinton made it up. And I wasn't in any way denying or diminishing the activities described in the article. There are just better articles out there, which consider corruption in "the system" from all sides - which is exactly how it should be viewed, not more of this divide and conquer bullshit.
    Oliver Elkington , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    It is clear that rigging had taken place in the Democrat primaries, Bernie Sanders was more popular with a big chunk of the electorate including the young, here in the Guardian few people had a bad word to say about him, compare that to Hillary who's only strong point seems to be that she is a safer choice than Trump.
    jianhan q -> Oliver Elkington , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
    She's not.
    js1919 -> jianhan q , 31 Oct 2016 14:0
    I'm not so sure anymore either. For the world, maybe Trump is better in the end (ofc Clinton is by far better for the US). I knew what a hawk Clinton is but seeing her "obliterate Iran" comments made me think she might be even more dangerous than I thought.
    HotTomales -> Oliver Elkington , 31 Oct 2016 17:1
    The corollary is, Trump is the only candidate that Hillary can beat. That bares some thinking over, I believe, especially in the light of the way we know the political system and the Democrats in particular work. Oh well . . .
    greenwichite , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    It didn't matter so much when the right-wing parties were puppets of billionaires.

    The political crisis arrived when the supposedly "left-wing" parties sold out to them too.

    At which point, democratic choice evaporated.

    Financial interests have today captured the entire body-politic of Britain and America, and it really doesn't matter which party you vote for - Goldman Sachs will call the shots regardless.

    And they see you as simply a cash-cow to be milked for the benefit of the very rich, themselves included.

    ID904765 -> greenwichite , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    Your general point is broadly accurate - however I would have second thoughts before singling out Goldman Sachs any more than say Morgan Stanley , Citigroup or Bank of America.
    Fred Bloggs -> ID904765 , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    Goldman Sachs are the leader of the gang?
    BurgermaS -> ID904765 , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    I think he meant Goldman Sachs as a term for the larger banking group of interests (as you listed). Some call them the 'white shoe boys'. Everyone knows the banks control everything now.
    KateShade , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    Let me make sure I've got this right:

    you would prefer politicians who never speak to the people running businesses, finance, universities, hospitals etc etc.?

    Marjallche -> KateShade , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    I would prefer politicians who don't get paid by those whose power they are supposed to rein in.
    stormsinteacups -> KateShade , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    you've got it the wrong way round....it's the groups you mention that plead NOT speak with politicians. Please don't include those running hospitals and universities with the worldwide business and finance mafia.
    KateShade -> Marjallche , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
    paying politicians is definitely not the way to go... campaign funding rules are what is crippling the US....

    other countries have much better systems...

    or are you thinking of other forms of 'payment'?

    JennM , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    I see no way out of this mess
    ralphrooney -> JennM , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    hopefully it ends with hillary in jail
    LabourMess -> JennM , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    So you don't think that Trump will try to drain the swamp.
    Mates Braas -> ralphrooney , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    Hoping to see Clinton end up in jail is no different than hoping to see Bush at the ICC.
    Brownbread , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    "This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else."

    This is quite a mundane observation. To which social group does a tendency for in-group loyalty NOT apply? I think what it actually shows is that high status people mix together and are more confident in using such forms of communication with powerful people (with whom they assume a connection) for personal gain. Hardly surprising. And also only applies to the sample - those who emailed - rather than the general class. That is, it's a bad sample because it is self selecting, and therefore says something more about people who are willing to communicate in this way, rather than their broader class.

    MacCosham -> Brownbread , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    A tendency for in-group loyalty and loyalty overriding everything else are two very, very, very different things.
    Brownbread -> MacCosham , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    Okay, read as, 'a tendency for an in-group loyalty that, when acted out, overrides everything else' (as implied by the definition of 'loyalty').
    Brownbread -> MacCosham , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    So to be clear, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. One is about how often you are loyal to your group, and the other is about the nature of loyalty itself.
    soixantehuitard , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    waldoh , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    kelso77 , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    What has seemingly slipped under the radar is Podesta's emails withDr Edgar Mitchell, Tom Delonge and a couple of Generals.

    The truth is out there...

    PaulGButler -> kelso77 , 31 Oct 2016 12:2

    What has seemingly slipped under the radar is Podesta's emails withDr Edgar Mitchell, Tom Delonge and a couple of Generals.

    Looks like it's going to stay there as well, at least as far as you are concerned ...

    JustinNimmo , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    That the people at the very top of their industry and professions know each other and communicate with each other is hardly a surprise. Nor is it bad - it helps the world to function. Nor is it necessarily corrupt provided they operate within the law. What is important is that getting to the top of these professions is an opportunity open to everyone with the ability and the drive. That, sadly, is not the case. Nepotism does not help either.
    greenwichite -> JustinNimmo , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    These people at the top of their professions have a track-record of abysmal failure. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and the other banks should have been allowed to collapse in 2008, as fitting punishment for their greed and incompetence. Instead, they used their paid-for access to the Bush White House to demand and acquire a trillion-dollar bailout.

    That's not networking. It's corruption.

    infamy72 -> JustinNimmo , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    Who's laws , oh the ruling classes laws.
    z8000736 , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    [neo]Liberal may be a dirty word to call someone in America but the author of this piece seems unaware it doesn't work quite the same way the other side of the Atlantic. May I suggest panty-waisted pointy-head instead?
    1iJack -> z8000736 , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    Better yet: Globalist. Its an underlying theme that we have seen unite the Clintons and Bush/Romney families in this election cycle...we now know who the enemy is, and they have infiltrated both the Democrats and the Republicans. They have a secret badge they wear pledging an allegiance to a higher power: the Clinton/Bush/Romney families are the jack-booted thugs of the American globalists.
    Brownbread -> 1iJack , 31 Oct 2016 15:2
    Yeah, they are so much nastier than those cuddly protectionists.
    Ted_Pikul -> Brownbread , 31 Oct 2016 16:5
    The more the administrative class' borderless "humanism" aligns with the oligarchy's desire for cheap labor, the less objectionable those cuddly persons become.
    BobSlater , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    It's very easy to make a case that HRC is unfit for the presidency... Except for the fact the alternative is Trump. A clique arranges matters for themselves and the electorate is basically told to go to hell.

    What is over there is on it's way over here if it hasn't happened already. You can build big corporations with a flourishing financial sector or you can build a nation. I would say choose but you don't get a choice.

    kodicek , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    Good job in presenting Hillary as the poor victim, when she has the whole weight of the neo-liberal media-banking system behind her... Next up in Orwell land...
    flybow , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    here's a link to them. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774
    themandibleclaw , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    As George Carlin said "It's a big club and you ain't in it".
    Brownbread -> themandibleclaw , 31 Oct 2016 15:3
    He also said, "be excellent to each other."
    MitchellParker , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    "Along with the concept of American Dream runs the notion that every man and woman is entitled to an opinion and to one vote, no matter how ridiculous that opinion might be or how uninformed the vote. It could be that the Borderer Presbyterian tradition of "stand up and say your rightful piece" contributed to the American notion that our gut-level but uninformed opinions are some sort of unvarnished foundational political truths.

    I have been told that this is because we redneck working-class Scots Irish suffer from what psychiatrists call "no insight".

    Consequently, we will never agree with anyone outside our zone of ignorance because our belligerent Borderer pride insists on the right to be dangerously wrong about everything while telling those who are more educated to "bite my ass!"

    ― Joe Bageant, Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War

    Longerenong , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    There is still a week to go.

    The way this election has been going you'd have to be a fool not to expect yet another twist in the plot.

    HonourableMember , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    A meritocracy always crashes and crushes its actors and puppet masters whenever merit is neither exhibited nor warranted ...... for then is it too much alike a fraudulent ponzi to be anything else.
    noteasilyfooled , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    What Americans need to ask themselves is: Are they happy with things as they are after 8 years of Obama? Do they want more of the same + the Clinton's insatiable appetite for self-enrichmentand that permanent insincere smile? If not, why not give Trump a chance. If they don't like him, kick him out in four years' time.
    Elephantmoth -> noteasilyfooled , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    Are Americans happy with things as they are after 8 years of a Republican Congress stonewalling every attempt to improve things for ordinary people, even shutting down the whole government in pursuit of their partisan agenda? The childish antics of our 'democratic representatives' have diminished the ideals of democracy and would sink even further with Trump, who could do a lot of damage in four years.
    ID1906465 -> noteasilyfooled , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    four years is a very long time! Took less than that for the Nazis to get into power after having got into parliament.
    PaulGButler -> noteasilyfooled , 31 Oct 2016 12:1

    why not give Trump a chance.

    Bit ironic, given your user name "noteasilyfooled". You are aware that Donald Trump (in spite of several attempts to lose his fortune) is a billionaire?

    Bluejil , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    It has been ongoing through out history, ancient Greece and the beginning of democracy, Romans, Kings, Queens, courts and courtiers. Is it really a surprise that if you do not have a Harvard MBA, you won't rise through the ranks of Goldman's and McKinsey? It's no different here in England, £50,000 and up to dine with Dave and George last year.

    Most of the population trusts who they elect to do the jobs they themselves would not do or could not do, it's steeped in history that the well educated take the helm. Politics is nepotism and money has always played a very large part, for every party, not just the democrats. Let's not pretend the republicans are innocent saints in all of this, if Wikileaks were to delve into their actions there would be a shit storm, remember the NRA is part and parcel of the Republican party.

    Blenheim -> Bluejil , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    Most of the population trusts who they elect to do the jobs they themselves would not do or could not do

    Not sure we do .. We're totally apathetic and cynical in regards to politics, and certainly those who put themselves forward mostly aren't up to the job but are seemingly unemployable elsewhere; look no further than the last PM and his idiot chum, and now the current PM and her front bench. Would you employ 'em?..

    MacCosham -> Bluejil , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    Ehm, sorry, no. Remember there is a word, democracy , which is taken to mean that governments act according to the wishes of the people who elected them. Your petty partisanship is blinding you.
    haribol , 31 Oct 2016 11:4

    They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

    This is across the WHOLE of the West no matter whether right leaning or left leaning.

    moria50 -> elliot2511 , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    Also cousins albeit 19th cousins. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3210778/Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-revealed-distant-cousins-family-trees-share-set-royal-ancestors.html
    WhitesandsOjibwe , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    "Keep the American public compliant and unaware."

    Clinton's private and public face. Says it all.

    missuswatanabe , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    The really interesting question is whether it has always been like this (and we just don't have the emails to prove it) or whether this is a fairly new phenomenon. My feeling is this sort of behaviour has its equivalents throughout history and that when it peaks we have upheaval and decline.

    The current malaise goes back a long way but was catalysed by the end of the Cold War. Because the West 'won' with a system of liberal capitalist democracy, politics took a back seat to business interests. The Clintonian and Blairite 'third way' was billed as a practical compromise but the reality was an abdication of politics. Into this vacuum stepped the kind of self-serving elite the Podesta emails reveal. Arrangements are starting to break down and Michael Gove's much derided statement that people have 'had enough of experts' is actually the most insightful thing that has been said about 21st Century politics so far.

    dedalus77uk , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    Yes, yes, Thomas. But one click on your name reveals an approach to these elections which about as unbiased against Clinton as Comley's - it's pretty clear who you want to win.

    Among other things, if Trump wins, though, there will be war in Europe within 2 years, as Putin grabs the Baltic states and the USA sits back, arms folded - you heard it here first.

    1iJack -> dedalus77uk , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    Europe hates the U.S. and hasn't wanted us in NATO for decades. Goodbye.
    jean2121 -> dedalus77uk , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    You are delusional. It isn quite the contrary that will happen. the war monger is Hillary. what proof do you need?
    caseball -> dedalus77uk , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    If Clinton is elected itll be First Strike using nukes by the US. You heard it here first.
    1iJack , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    And by electing Trump, we are trying to fuck up all of the people you mention in your article above. We can't completely, but through things like term limits we can make Washington a city full of strangers to them. It is much more difficult to deal with strangers in the "back room" as you can't trust them.

    We need to make Washington as inaccessible to those folks as it is to Main Street America.

    We have to break America for these globalist elites before America will work for Main Street again.

    Because the American oligarchy has now turned globalist, their goals are now contrary to those of the American people, and that's why all Hillary has is empty slogans like "I'll fight for you" while Trump is saying tangible things like "I'll build a wall" and "I'll renegotiate or tear up NAFTA."

    We are done with them, and this is just getting started.

    TonyBlunt -> Raismail , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    Putin runs the only government that puts billionaires in jail. We put them in the House of Lords or let them run our media.
    AlfaBeta73 , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    fantastic ending to a great article:

    "Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out."

    traversecity , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    What's particularly interesting is to contrast the main-chance sleaziness of their internal jockeying with the overwhelming self-righteousness of their pronouncements on public issues. No wonder the voters want revenge.
    martinusher , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    This is just the class system in action. Or did everyone think that the US was a classless society?
    David Dougherty , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    Of course you are quite correct, the Democratic Party is a fraud for working people and a collection of self serving elitist. If you have a solution to solve why people keep voting for them I would love to hear it.
    mattblack81 -> David Dougherty , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
    I think the point is that all politics is the same, democrat or republican. These people are self serving leeches on the rest of society and they have us thanking them for it......well in the USA they have you mindlessly chanting USA USA USA over and over again but you get my drift.
    hammond , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    It's called globalisation and it's exactly the same in the Uk . neoliberal asset stripping while the citizenry get shafted
    WhitesandsOjibwe -> Longerenong , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    Wikileaks doesn't get 'directed'. It's very likely the leaks are from the inside of the Clinton campaign. They've been very sloppy and not very tech savvy by all accounts.
    Peter Kelly , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    That such a state of affairs exists is no surprise at all, especially as the whole proclaimed basis of society in America is designed to produce it exactly.

    They may couch it in different terms and dress it up to look like 'democracy and freedom', but it is a selfish, greedy stampede where only the lucky or the nasty succeed.

    We are forever told that anyone can achieve the 'American dream', but it is a complete myth. The idea that if everyone just puts in the effort they could all live in limitless luxury is such a false illusion you wonder why it hasn't been buried along with believing the world is flat and the sun is a god.

    Stechris Willgil , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    If you want to understand how American politics works then watch House of Cards on Netflix with Kevin Spacey . A brilliant series .
    Mates Braas , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    The best democracy money can buy indeed, and they want to export this sham to other countries using bombs.
    BurgermaS -> Mates Braas , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    no they don't! The freedom and democracy is just bullshot that cons the populace to not see that it's really "nick all your stuff under the threat of violence". They're gangsters. That's all they do.
    unedited , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    The state and big business are corruptly entangled.
    reluctanttorontonian , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    http://usuncut.com/politics/leaked-emails-confirm-clinton-campaign-worked-bloggers-smear-bernie-sanders /
    Freemoneyforeveryone , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    Seriously? Your story is powerful people associate with each other and do each other favours? Absent a pure dictatorship, that's how power works. Even then, I happen to know you're inferring too much design in some of the events you describe.
    Mates Braas -> Freemoneyforeveryone , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    Don't you find it strange for corporations to be selecting a cabinet?
    FattMatt , 31 Oct 2016 12:2

    This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else.

    All classes use nepotism to some degree.

    Elephantmoth , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    We all know how people in power act in their own interests and that goes for both Parties, not only the one singled out in this article.
    What is less clear is how all this hysteria about personalities makes any difference to ordinary people whose interests have been entirely sidelined in this election circus. Where is the discussion about how Americans can get affordable healthcare, or a job that pays more than the minimum, or how to respond to climate change, for instance?
    Nada89 , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    The US presidential race signifies the way the political process has become irrevocably debased.
    The e-mails merely highlight the cynicism of politicians who long ago ceded power to the financial and corporate world.

    Politicians don't really understand the complexities of finance, in the same way they are unable to fathom the Middle east, or even what life has become like for huge swathes of the American population. At the same time politicians have long ceased to be the engine of social progress, in fact more often than not their policies are more likely to do great harm rather than good.

    If anybody is surprised by the general tenor of these e-mails I assume they must have been the sort of children who were heartbroken when one day their parents gently sat them down to break it to them that Santa was actually Daddy in an oversized red suit.

    TheFireRises , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    And they wonder why Trump is doing so well, Dirty Media, Dirty Government.
    antipodes , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
    " The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work: financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement."

    I am sure the people of Syria and Libya are grateful to these amazing people for destroying their countries and stealing their resources.

    keynsean , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
    Just look over here as former politicians get on the gravy train as they lose their seats or retire. As for the Eton alumni - closer than the mafia ....
    pleasevotegordonout , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
    Yes ...just look at thsi stunning revent incisive Guardian journam=lism that has helped break this open

    "But if she wins, what an added bonus that, as the first woman to enter the White House, she will also step through the door as by far the most qualified and experienced arrival there for generations."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/09/demonise-hillary-clinton-careful-us-president


    "This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest"

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson


    "The Guardian view on the FBI's Clinton probe: exactly the wrong thing to do"

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/30/the-guardian-view-on-the-fbis-clinton-probe-exactly-the-wrong-thing-to-do

    Chuckman , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
    "Forget the FBI cache; the Podesta emails show how America is run"

    First, no, no one in his right mind should forget the FBI cache which very likely contains evidence of serious crimes by Clinton.

    At the very least, they can prove she did not comply with subpoenas and destroyed evidence and lied to the FBI.

    Second, yes, the Podesta e-mails do show us something of how America is run, but the picture is far from complete.

    We've not had a enough look into the Clinton Foundation and its intertwining with the affairs of a very senior official and the President himself.

    One very much suspects Hillary of playing "pay for play" with foreign governments, much the kind of corruption the US loves to accuse less-developed countries of.

    After all, when the Clintons were in the White House, fund-raising gimmicks reached unprecedented levels. President Bill came up with the offer of a sleep-over in the Lincoln Bedroom for rich supporters who coughed up a $250,000 campaign contribution.

    There are many indications, but no hard proof, of just how corrupt this foundation is. One analyst who has spent some time studying it has called it a huge criminal scheme.

    Let's not forget that Julian Assange, the man who gave us the Podesta material, has promised revelations "which could put Hillary in jail" before the election.

    Frogdoofus -> FattMatt , 31 Oct 2016 12:5
    It's more a country club. If you're in, you're in. If you're out, you're out. Most people are out and will stay that way forever.
    Wolly74 -> Chelli , 31 Oct 2016 12:5

    The cost of democracy is corruption.

    And that's different from autocracy or dictatorship how exactly?

    Williamthewriter -> Chelli , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
    You're right of course. All of politics is about doing favors for people high and low, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. In the entire article the one real scandalous thing is that it quotes from hacked personal emails that no on but those who wrote them have a right to see.
    LeCochon -> Chelli , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
    It depends. Hardcore technical knowledge can put you above the technically illiterate lawyers, economists and journalists of the political class.
    keepithuman , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    If anyone thinks that the immediate solution to not backing this type of behavior from one of the major political parties is to elect a huckster riding the wave of righteous revulsion to all of this, then they deserve everything that they will get when said huckster gets to the pinnacle of power.

    The solution does not lie with the other major political party either, boy would I love to see a release of emails detailing how that organization is run. It is already in collapse due to the eroding corruption resulting in downright robbery of the people, and on-going bigotry and constant war-mongering to rob the world of its assets.

    Nothing will happen to change any of this unless a realistic third party based on true service to the people of this country gains national acceptance. The best thing that could come from these emails and the fracturing of the Republican party would be that all disillusioned and disgruntled citizens unite to form this third party. This will take the emergence of some genuine, selfless leadership, but I have hopes that this can and will happen.

    Otherwise, the future is not rosy, and one day we may look back at this hateful campaign with nostalgia.

    Flagella , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    We have our own elite clubs in this country some of which have been here for centuries. All members regardless of Party are connected through elite school networks and by of course the class system which is copper fastened to keep the great unwashed out. Corruption, nepotism and cronyism are all present here too even if concealed by the veil of respectability and having the right postcode. From the comfort of their clubs, their marble homes and granite banks they rob the people of Britain and the world.
    Isaac_Blunt -> Flagella , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    LOL. Not at all paranoid then...
    QuebecCityOliver -> Flagella , 31 Oct 2016 12:5
    Yes. I am sure that explains John Major very well.

    Gordon Brown does not fit the mould , either.

    Talent can make it through more easily in the UK than the USA. That is simply a fact.

    Wolly74 -> Isaac_Blunt , 31 Oct 2016 12:5
    As they say 'Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean etc. etc.....'
    DoctorWibble , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    I'd recommend reading "The Unwinding - An Inner History of the new America" by George Packer who dissects this very well via potted biographies of several real people. The book also covers it's opposite - the rising unemployment, de-industrialisation, repossessions and other themes. A very useful background for understanding this election and whatever comes after. And a good read too which can't always be said about such books.
    jazzfan19605 , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    Trump supporters say that Trump is not a politician or part of the Washington "establishment" but he has built his empire by buying politicians for years. His flock is so fooled.
    ThaddeusTheBold , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    As someone who started in poverty and rose to do well through lots of hard work and lots of good luck, the "revelation" that this country is controlled by a smug elite is not news. I may be liberal but I have no illusions about the elitism and exclusionism that ruling cadres always exhibit. And if I could achieve one thing, politically, in this lifetime it would be to break the back of privilege in this country and on this planet forever, and make true meritocracy -- not cronyism, not nepotism, not herdeitary wealth and power -- the ONLY determinant of success.
    LeCochon -> ThaddeusTheBold , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
    Then setup/ join a grassroots party.
    I would like to see a pan-European, non-ideological party which will focus on getting people out of the debt economy into economic and financial freedom. The price of housing and transportation and education needs to be addressed. There needs to be less government, fewer MPs and more room for people who create value and employment. There is a lot of innovation out there online for example, but the mass of people are not being exposed to these options. A
    gjjwatson , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    This is how the rich, powerful and landed interest in all societies work. Constitutional democracy was supposed to counter it`s worst excesses.
    Voters everywhere understand how their governments have been subverted and that is why politicians are mistrusted.
    QuebecCityOliver -> LesterUK , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
    I was confused by your spelling for a second - David Icke.

    One theory states that society would have had to crate a similar model if Icke hadn't provided us with one. It is also, probably, better to blame alien overlords to human ones.

    Rainsborow , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    This is a pretty tame assessment. The more I see about HRC (who I once respected, not that long ago) the more angry and saddened I feel. The Dems have lost their connection with the people they were meant to represent. What's left is a pretty ugly, self-righteous and corrupt crowd. Their attacks on Comey have been despicable, beneath contempt and absurd. I think they're going to lose and they will deserve to.
    Andrius Ledas , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    The funniest thing about the comments of this article is the people who claim that electing Trump will be different somehow. Trump will demolish the system, Trump will shake things up! Please! Trump IS a part of this system, a system that has two clubs, A and B. Each club has its interests and each club wants to elect a figure that would represent its interests. Moreover, clubs A and B really work together, they are two groups of shareholders that are sometimes in disagreement in the distribution of profit, but at the bottom line they are working for the same goal, the enrichment of themselves and their associates. You have to be very naive to believe that POTUS, a mere public relations figure, would be allowed to make any significiant executive decisions in this company. That's not what a public relations officer does. The real decisions are with the executives of the club, and they are not elected, they are admitted into the club. The real question, however, is if it can be otherwise, if it has ever been otherwise, can we conceive of a system that would be different. This should be the concern of all political experts, scientists and journalists.
    CanWeNotKnockIt -> Andrius Ledas , 31 Oct 2016 12:5
    Yeah but he's going to build a wall, lock her up, tear up trade agreements with the neighbours, bar Muslims from coming to the USA, create millions of well-paid jobs, open up loads of coal mines, have a trade war with China, end lobbying, establish limited terms (if only a president could have a third term) and sue umpteen women for alleging sexual assault.
    Vidarr -> tobyjosh , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    "Just a bunch of expensive suits deciding on what's best for the world (and themselves)"

    That's the wrong emphasis based on the points made in this article; surely it is "Just a bunch of expensive suits deciding on what's best for the themselves (and the world)".

    Alun Jones , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
    Time to Drain the Swamp
    hadeze242 , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
    sanders said it and trump, an insider of independent means, are both right about the Clinton duo's sleazy corruption. thank you Wikileaks, thank you perv Weiner, thank you Huma for sharing (one of your) computers with your sex-fiend husband. thank you for sharing your total honesty and high morality, all deserving that we citizens pay your pensions and salaries.
    Akkarrin , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
    Its taken a while but i think I've decided. I genuinely want Clinton to lose, i think Trump will be a disastrous president and the worst in history by far, and worse then Clinton.

    That said Clinton and the DNC deserve to lose for the horrific way they treated Sanders in the nomination to see Clinton crowned the candidate... she does not deserve to win and i cannot face that smug arrogant speech which will come if she does much less the next 4-8 years.

    supercool , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
    Lobbying, influence then a thin line to break into corruption and the system being run for the selfish interest of the tiny few against the majority. The US is no exception to this, it is just done more subtly with a smokescreen and sleight of hand.
    AkwaIbom999 , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
    I'm not sure where the "news" is in this piece. The same rules of engagement apply during Republican administrations. The same rules of engagement apply in every administration in every country in every part of our benighted World .... and, sadly, always have done. The only response to the article that I can think of is that eternally useful Americanism ... "No s**t Sherlock."
    stevecammack , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
    it is the elite - both right and left wing who have accumulated all the power, know each other very well and have one aim in life - to retain the power and priviledge for themselves, their families and their peers - whether that is by social class, university, religion and yes race. Bitter - you bet people are bitter - ignorant people who don't see they are all much of the same. It's all about the power and the money that they have, you don't and you don't seem to care. Actually you probably do have right power, money, class and race hence the pathetically flippant comment.
    HarryArs -> stevecammack , 31 Oct 2016 13:5
    There is no left wing in power in DC. It would be apt to say "the right wing and the far right wing".
    gondwanaboy -> CanWeNotKnockIt , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    Well he's already aware of media bias and that a Deep State exists quietly in the background so it will be interesting to see what happens after the election.
    mattb1 , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
    This is old news. Anyone who knows The Golden Rule can tell you those with the gold make the rules.
    Phil Butler , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
    Brilliant. Absolutely and positively the best piece on the subject I have read. As an American, once a cable installer who visited all the cliche homes of social-strata USA, I find a ray of hope ij what you write. It is a hope that Americans will just admit the unbelievable folly of Hillary Clinton as a choice for dog catcher, much less Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. For God's sake, or the sake of Howard Hughes even, this group would nuke Idaho for not approving of a transexual-animal wedding ceremony, let along disagreeing on healthcare. You have framed and illuminated a portrait of the macabre aristocracy now in charge. I hope more people read this.
    smaguidhir , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    Ok, new line, US Military coup 2017!!

    Neither of the two main political parties have a candidate worth anyone's time. The choice is between a sexual predator and a serial liar to see who will lead the richest most powerful country on the face of the earth and these two are what the parties have puked up for us to choose between. I cant imagine a general or admiral sitting in front of either of these two specimens and thinking themselves proud to be led by them.

    This entire cycle is a disgrace, vote for Hillary, impeach her in a year stick Kaine in as a caretaker and then have a proper election in 2020, its the only sane way out of this disaster.

    Phil429 -> smaguidhir , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    There's no such thing as a military solution. A coup to dethrone the power, sure, but let's hope for one that's effective.
    Orr George -> smaguidhir , 31 Oct 2016 13:5
    "Sexual predator", really? You mean like Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton, 2 men with RAPE accusations following them around for decades? All Trump did was kiss women in show biz and beauty contests, and they LET him. I guess you never saw Richard Dawson on Family Feud?
    SlumVictim , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    You know damn well, people who get to the top in so called western capitalist representative democracy, only represent themselves. The very idea they care about the people in general is totally demolished by observing the evidence, how countries function and where the money flows to and where from.

    The people are no better than domesticated cattle being led out to graze and brought back in the evening to be milked. Marx was right when he talked about wage slavery. The slavers are those in the legislatures of the west.

    MereMortal , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    I really like Thomas Frank, author of the brilliant Pity the Billionaire.
    I can't help feeling here that he's really softballed the the US elite (the Democrats in this case) by only mildly calling them on their epic corruption.
    If seen from Main street, is it any wonder the US electorate have in their millions turned aournd and said "no, you're not going to ensnare us again with your bullshit promises because you want our vote, you are the problem and we're going to kick YOU out"
    I mean how many times can they hope to fool the electorate with bought and paid for contestants, all the while with the media having their back. When the media is as corrupt and 'owned' as the US mainstream media, people look elsewhere and there they find voices that are far far more critical of what their awful rulers get up to.
    Embracist -> MereMortal , 31 Oct 2016 13:4
    Trump and Clinton have been friends for years. So the electorate is fooled once again. Every time the public start to get wind of what's going on, the establishment just adds another layer to the onion. By the time the hoi polloi catch up, they've siphoned tens of billions, hundreds of billions for themselves, and created all new distractions and onion layers for the next election. People are undeniably stupid.
    Mauryan , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    This confirms the existence of a shadow government, made up of rich and powerful industrialists and bankers who control the way elections results turn out, so that they can help themselves. From their standpoint, Trump will be a wart in their rear end, because he basically lacks the sophistication needed to hide excretion under the carpet and walk over it smiling. He is already full of it and therefore is of no use to them. They did not expect him to come this far. There is a first time surprise for everything. They did not expect Sanders to gain momentum either. But they managed to contain it, phew! Now with Clinton, they can continue with their merry ways, earning billions more, settings fires across the globe and making more profits out them. It is not just the Democratic party that is full of stench. It includes the other party as well. Right wing and left wing belong to the same bird. All the campaign for voting, right to vote, participate etc. are just window wash. American democracy is buried deep in the Arlington cemetery. What runs now is Plutocracy, whose roots have cracked through the foundations and pillars of this country. Either a bloody revolution will happen one day soon or America will go the way of Brazil.
    pretendname , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    It's puzzling really

    The US public are pretty happy generally with extra-judicial killing (we call that murder in the UK, remember this for later on in the post), seems little concern about the on-record comments of Clinton regarding Libya.

    In fact the on-record comments of Clinton generally, that doesn't even involve hacked email accounts, are absolutely damning to most Europeans.

    However.. here in the UK what passes for satire comedy TV shows have rigorously stuck to the line Trump is an idiot, Clinton is a democrat.
    I can understand their fascination with Trump.. he's an easy target.. but nobody in the UK media seems to have the balls to call out the fact that Clinton is neck deep in 'extra judicial killing', which I find odd.. More importantly I find this to be an absolutely damning indictment of British media. This organ not withstanding.

    David Prince , 31 Oct 2016 13:4
    Interesting, but this just tells of the usual cronyism and nepotism; unedifying as it is. We see very little here though of her true masters; i.e. Goldman Sachs; or more specifically the people who own GS who are Hiliary's puppet masters. I would be more worried about Hiliarys ambition apparently to push for a conflict with Russia; a conflict that serves the Military industrial complex and the bankers that own it. DT may be a Narcicist but as Michael Moore says; "the enemy of my enemy....."
    BillFromBoston , 31 Oct 2016 14:0
    To be more precise these emails show how the US is run under the DEMOCRAT Party.
    Murdoch Mactaggart -> BillFromBoston , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
    These particular emails do, yes. You'd find exactly the same models were an equivalent lot released involving Reince Priebus or his ilk.
    seanwiddowson -> BillFromBoston , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
    As a Brit, I'd like to ask if the Republican Party is any different. I very much doubt it.
    ID9552055 , 31 Oct 2016 14:1

    It's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have XYZ's email address – you're out.

    Great article that makes you think as a reader. For instance, though more ethical, it makes you wonder how things are different in the BBC or The Guardian, or NYT, or other powerful organisations. How far does merit count, how far does having the right background, how far not rocking the boat?
    Hopefully the article will inspire others to look into the leaderships of American politics where "everything blurs into everything in this world'.

    W.R. Garvey , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    The most shocking emails to me were the ones that revealed the Democratic Party had a substantial role in creating and organizing groups like Catholics United, with the intent of using them to try to liberalize the Catholic Church on issues like abortion and same sex marriage.

    The same people who (rightly) cried foul over GW Bush crossing the church/state divide apparently had no problem doing the same thing when it suited their agenda. I tend to vote Democratic, but I don't know if I can continue to do that in the future. This kind of thing should not be happening in America.

    SuSucat , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    Sounds a bit like Italy to me or nearer to home Blair's cool Britannia.
    deFigueira , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    With a constitution like that of the US, with its establishment parties sharing a bought and sold executive evey few years, and in the absence of representative parliamentary democracy, the psuedo macarthyist insinuations of this article are as civilized as it can get.
    KendoNagasaki , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    An interesting article, offering snippets of the emails that have been released, all of which confirms two things, it seems to me:

    First, that the world operates as we might have suspected it to. In the control of, and in the interests of rich cliques.

    Second, that we are on the whole apathetic to our predicament.

    Mark Sutcliffe , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
    "And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging."

    And there is the thinking of the elite rolled into a few sentences.

    ImaHack -> Mark Sutcliffe , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    http://www.snopes.com/clinton-compliant-citizenry /

    "Former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Bill Ivey says a leaked e-mail to Clinton deputy John Podesta did not reveal a 'master plan' for maintaining political power via 'an unaware and compliant citizenry.'"

    BoomerLefty , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
    One might think that after reading this article, that a liberal/progressive like me would hate the Democratic Party and all of the elites in it. Well, you would be right (no pun intended), but the folks that I really despise are on the GOP side of the equation.

    My animosity begins with Eisenhower, who turned the Dulles brother lose on the world to start so many of the fires that still rage today. Then came Nixon, with his "southern strategy", to turn the hate and racism that existed in America since its founding into a political philosophy that only an ignorant, half-assed Hollywood actor could fully weaponize. Then there was GWB who threw jet fuel onto the still smoldering ashes left from the Dulles boys.

    (And if you think you can throw LBJ back at me, consider that he saw no way out of Vietnam simply because he knew the right was accuse him of being soft on communism - and so the big fool pushed ever deeper into the Big Muddy.)

    And the toxic fumes from those blazes then drifted over Donald J Trump and his fellow 16 clown car occupants - all trying to out-hate each other.

    There is simply no alternative to the Democratic Party because the GOP represents hate, misogyny, racism, and the zombie legions that catered to the corporatocracy and the Christian right. It was such a winning strategy that the Democratic Party created the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) - led by the likes of the Clinton's who out-repug'd the Repugnants, and stole their corporate lunches. And this is what we have left (no pun intended).

    It sucks!

    pierrependre , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
    First, Frank misunderstood Kansas. Now he says he was blind to the reality of the Democratic party until the Podesta emails enlightened him. He's right though that the Democrats are never out of power whether they win or lose elections (although it's always more convenient to win them, even with a Clinton and the knowledge that he or she means nasty baggage to come). Republicans have a lock on country clubs; Dems have a lock on government.
    Nobby Barnes -> pierrependre , 31 Oct 2016 15:2
    i understand that the republicans make up most of the governor positions as well as state houses plus the fed. senate and congress...that is why america is now a banana republic [re: see the fbi interference] and is why america is now an embarassment...run as it is by the republican duck dynasty intellectual class. stay tuned as fascism follows. please don't stand close to me...you're an american and embarrassing....
    guardiansek , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
    Trust me, middle and lower-class people also try to let eachother know that their kids need a job, and can you help out. And I don't mind the bank exec promoting the dinner of locally grown/caught produce with the tastesful wine pairing. Certainly pretty twee, but otherwise pretty normal.

    What should be concentrated on is the amount of "OMG, they are complaining about billionaires!" whining in these emails, and the amount of manipulative news cycle management and duplicitous skullduggery that takes place.

    And how about a law that prevents the Clintons from even stepping on Martha's Vineyard for at least 4-5 years?

    In all, a somewhat depressing but predictable confirmation that the Democratic party has embraced the donor class to the extent that the donors are now the party's true constituents.

    RichWoods -> guardiansek , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    Just like New Labour. It's not very cheering.
    SmartestRs , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
    A self-interested, self-promoting, self-protecting "Elite" seeks to control and dominate. Clinton is clearly integral to this abhorrent system. The USA is in desperate need of change yet the political system is the antidote to any change. Trump is not the answer. Americans should be very worried.
    TinTininAmerica -> SmartestRs , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    The only benefit to Trump winning is that both parties will be blown up and recreated with new, fresh faces - and Trump will be impeached within months.
    David Von Steiner -> SmartestRs , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    Why isn't Trump the answer? No one can give me a valid rational reason. He is one of the few who has shone light on the Swamp and is bringing the woke corrupt world down.
    Nobby Barnes -> SmartestRs , 31 Oct 2016 15:0
    that elite you speak of happen to be your fellow americans and live on your street..unless of course you live in a trailer park..in which case stop your whining and get yourself an education and a better job instead of spending all your time watching wrestling and celebrity apprentice and moaning about the elite...i notice trump hired his stupid kids instead of cracker jack executives...i guess thats some of the nepotism you're crying about....ya rube.
    David Von Steiner -> John Star , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    Trump is different though. He socialized in these environments...the politicians...use hit him up for donations....gossip too him about the goings on even try and sleep with him .
    Trump does not drink so at these events he probably heard unlimited stories maybe even Bill Clinton bragged to him.
    For what ever reason he wants to bring
    This scum down. Maybe they disgust him like they disgust us?
    Dean Alexander , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    If the current rumours are true, HC is in it up to her neck.
    helenamcg , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    'This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, ' I ss written as evidence of nepotism. But there is no mention of whether or not these requests were successful. Nepotism requires that the person requesting the favour is granted it.
    WallyWombat , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    Indeed, how could the Clintons go from "effectively broke" in 2001 to $140 million in 2007, and $200 million in 2015?
    pretzelattack -> MontyJohnston , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    lol no she doesn't. she doesnt want single payer, neither did obama. she doesnt want a liberal supreme court. she doesn't want the minimum wage raised to 15. she may support race gender lbgt "fairness" as long as it is to her political advantage. but when it isn't, she will throw anybody under the bus.
    makeinstall , 31 Oct 2016 14:3

    "Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's careers, constantly."

    As long as that class division exists, nothing will ever change, and that class will never relinquish that division of their own accord.

    hush632 , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    There appears to be an illusion to influencing the events that unfold, rather than responding to events. Conspiracy theorists may go knuts.
    Mafevema , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    How different is this from anywhere else on the planet? There will always be " elites" composed of well connected and/or powerful and/ or wealthy and/or famous people.

    I have a good job in a good firm and i am inundated by emails from clients or their friends trying to place their offspring. I decline politely, blame HR and PC, express my sincerest regrets and delete.

    As for wealthy and powerful people enjoying holidays in the company of other wealthy and powerful people, so what? I spend my holiday with my friends and my friends tend to have the same professional middle class background and outlook.

    What's new?

    uponthehill -> LuckyBob , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    She should have said ."You guys are a bunch of cowardly, greedy, malformed humans. You are the cream of everything wrong with society today.. And the worse of it all is,. you know it too. I can smell it in this very room."
    That's what!
    whiteblob -> LuckyBob , 31 Oct 2016 14:4

    Democratic government can save us from Hell.

    democracy should be about voting for the candidate you want to win, not who don't want to win!

    judyblue -> LuckyBob , 31 Oct 2016 15:1

    If we followed the likes of Frank Democrats would be out of power for ever.

    No, these Democrats would merely be members of the Republican Party, honestly declaring that the people with money make the rules to benefit themselves. What's the moral point of being in power if you have to be just as bad as the opposing party in order to stay in power?
    David Von Steiner , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    I use work in these circles and the soul crushing thing is that elites look out for themselves and their careers and have no real personality, morals, values, character, backbone and certainly no interest in the people. They have personalities of wet fish and are generally cowardice and an embarrassment to mankind. In sort a waste of space
    judyblue -> David Von Steiner , 31 Oct 2016 15:1
    You used to work in these circles? Not proof-reading their correspondence, I hope.
    Shane Johns , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    A meritocracy wouldn't have such hob-nobbing going on for positions of power. There'd be no reason to ask for special consideration for 'Johnny' -- since he would already have risen to the top based on his own MERIT. So I don't understand why this author keeps insisting that this is a meritocracy when the evidence is so clearly and so obviously the opposite.
    judyblue -> Shane Johns , 31 Oct 2016 15:1

    So I don't understand why this author keeps insisting that this is a meritocracy when the evidence is so clearly and so obviously the opposite.

    I think you missed the author's irony.
    SeanThorp , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    Once upon a time these emails would have been front and centre of Guardian reporting, headline news and leader columns, now a single opinion article tucked away from the front page. Truly the gatekeepers have lost just as much credibility as the political class that they shill for.
    Ambricourt , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    A secret "deep state" operated by a cabal of families? -Lizards on Martha's Vineyard? Is David Icke right, after all?
    muttley79 -> Ambricourt , 31 Oct 2016 16:2
    It is well known that there is a deep state operating in America, if you want to learn something instead of sneering and being ignorant, you could do worse than reading books such as these:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/American-Deep-State-Democracy-Library/dp/1442214244/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477931018&sr=1-1&keywords=the+american+deep+state

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Deep-State-Mike-Lofgren/dp/0143109936/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477931051&sr=1-3&keywords=the+american+deep+state

    MacSpeaker , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    Shocking. And nothing like the bonhomie shared betwen Oxbridge, The City and No. 10, I suppose?
    judyblue -> MacSpeaker , 31 Oct 2016 15:0
    This is happening in America, which has always claimed that there are no classes here and everything is done according to merit. So, yes, it's exactly like the triad you mention and it is the more offensive for occurring in a country that expressly repudiates it.
    DavidTheDude -> judyblue , 31 Oct 2016 15:1
    No classes in America? In a country that was built on the back of slavery and segregation?

    Please give your head a shake.

    DrChris , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    That article adds up to zero, it does not tell us anything. There are people with networks, and people promote other people they know. Nothing peculiar about this, it works like this in every walk of life. By and large people with high stakes will choose other people who they know can get very hard jobs done, otherwise their project becomes a failure. Can other talented people break into these networks? They can and they do.
    pretzelattack -> DrChris , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    they're so talented, it only took 9 emails for huma to explain to clinton how a fax machine worked.
    pretzelattack -> Nobby Barnes , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    he's pretty powerful yes. he just runs interference for clinton controlled foundations as far as i know, but i'm sure he will help out the big banks if called upon. your comment reeks of dishonesty.
    meggo56 -> SterlingPound , 31 Oct 2016 15:5
    It's called a "capitalist republic" for a reason.
    KissTheMoai -> meggo56 , 31 Oct 2016 15:5
    Plutocracy is a more fitting term.
    Paul Ryan , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    The Democrats are as bad if not worse than the Republicans at deceit, manipulation of the media, leaking false information, feeding out a narrative etc..

    Its basically become like an arms race between the 2 parties to win by any means necessary because they are so polarized.

    The system needs to be overhauled and changed because its not fit for the 21st century. The UK political system too needs to modernise because its creaking as well.

    matvox , 31 Oct 2016 15:0
    Frank (What's the matter with Frank? Frank) misses the point. completely. The amazing thing about all these emails is how absolutely squeaky clean Podesta is. How many of us could say the same if our personal emails from the last 10 years were blasted all over the internet?!? Not one -- not one! -- example of intemperate language, of bias, of unchained passions, of immaturity. I'm proud to be his fellow citizen and would gladly let him serve as Chief of Staff again if he so chose. Go Italian-Americans!
    tweenthetropics -> matvox , 31 Oct 2016 15:2
    Do you think he has just one email account?

    It seems that his emails expose 10 years of bias ... don't you get it?

    And why the hyphenated American thing?

    dig4victory , 31 Oct 2016 16:0
    The Democratic Party faces exactly the same problem as the Labour Party in the UK.

    They are both parties which are supposed to represent the interests of the working class and middle class but they have been infiltrated by corrupt right wing groups lining their own pockets and representing the interests of the oligarchy.

    The Labour and Democratic parties need to work together to get these poisonous people out of their organisations before they destroy they destroy them from within.

    shoey000 , 31 Oct 2016 16:1
    This is all fascinating, and disturbing, but sadly, not a surprise.
    It also isn't restricted to the upper echelons of political parties either.

    It is no coincidence we hear the same comedians/pundits/writers on Radio Four every week.
    It is no coincidence we see the same people on tv.
    It is no coincidence the sons and daughters of sons and daughters of the people who went to certain universities go the same universities.
    It is no coincidence certain arts grants go to a certain group of people a lot more than they go to others.
    It is no coincidence that European grants go to the same small groups of people running organisations.
    I'll wager it is no coincidence at the Guardian certain people get work experience and internships.
    Its the way the world works, and it stinks.

    ACloud , 31 Oct 2016 16:1
    Great essay. It is hard to get all the thoughts about the elite into words when so much anger and confusion exist now that all lines have blurred. No longer left and right, but top to bottom. Whereas the world is mostly very grey for the bulk of us, these emails shed a light very clearly on what is black and white and green all over for a few who are really in control. This election has certainly pulled back the curtain and left everyone exposed. For so long Americans could pretend there was virtue and dignity in the "democratic" foundation of our politics, but now with absolute certainly we can see that it is not so and likely never was. No pretending anymore.
    muttley79 , 31 Oct 2016 16:1
    The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied, pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are written. This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this class, the choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.

    They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

    This is a good point. A lot of people who torpedoed Bernie Sanders' campaign against Hillary Clinton in the primaries seem to be comfortable with little or no political change. They do not seem willing to admit that the political and economic system in the US (and elsewhere) is fundamentally broken, and effectively is in ruins.

    B

    JimHarrison -> redwhine , 31 Oct 2016 17:1

    You' re saying that one bad effect of hacks is that email security will be improved and it will be harder to have secure communications. In effect, you hate the idea that the NSA can read our emails, but you're worried that the Russians won't be able to. Personally, I don't want either the government or Wikileaks to invade my privacy. You apparently think that data theft is OK as long as Julian Assange does it.
    julianps , 31 Oct 2016 16:1

    Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy.

    As in, there's a merit to being in the clique.
    akacentimetre -> Kevin Skilling , 31 Oct 2016 17:1
    That's an ahistorical understanding of the party. Yes, in the runup to the Civil War, the 'Democratic' party was the party of proto-white supremacists, slave owners, and agriculturalists. But the party system as it exists today with its alignment of Dems = liberal and Republicans = conservative came into being around/after 1968. Claiming that today's 'Democrats' voted against slavery is like claiming that today's 'Republicans' are worthy of being lauded for being abolitionists - which would be high hypocrisy given their habits of racism and black voter suppression.
    sblejo , 31 Oct 2016 16:2
    Righteousness and majesty...They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

    Exactly what Bernie Sanders was against, just think what 'could' have happened if he were the nominee. The question is when will the email explicitly showing Clinton undermining him come out? Hillary deserves every bit of what is coming out against her, she asked for it, she wants the power and celebrity, but it comes with some pretty ugly stuff. As Mr. Sanders said, she is very 'ambitious', an understatement. If nothing comes out to prove her malice against Mr. Sanders, I will always be convinced it is there somewhere. Now because of what the Democrats did against him that was proven and oh by the way 'the Russians did it', we have her running neck and neck with Trump. They asked for it, they got it.

    MarkusKraut , 31 Oct 2016 16:3
    This is so depressing.

    Why is it that literally all Western democracies have developed totally incapable and immoral political elites at the same time who seem to be lacking any kind of ethical compass?

    It is blatantly obvious in the USA where both candidates are almost equally abysmal, but for different reasons. But the same is also true in Germany, Great Britain, France and most other Western countries I can judge on. How did that happen? Where are the politicians who are doing the job for other reasons than self-fulfillment and ideology?

    Trump, Clinton, May, Johnson, Farage, Hollande, Sarkozy, Le Pen, Merkel, Gabriel, Petry ... and the rest are all product of a political system that is in a deep crisis. And this comes from someone who has always and will always believe in democracy as such. But how can we finally get better representatives of our political system again?

    cyrilnorth -> MarkusKraut , 31 Oct 2016 16:4
    "all western democracies" are NOT democracies, but plutocracies
    Fitzoid -> MarkusKraut , 31 Oct 2016 16:4
    You can't put Corbyn in that group but look at the stick he gets. How dare he try and represent people when he's not part of the elite!
    Kevin Skilling -> MarkusKraut , 31 Oct 2016 17:0
    Start holding them to account for the lies they tell in a court of law, if they are running campaigns on bullshit, make them own it...
    gloriousrevolution , 31 Oct 2016 16:3
    What the writer is describing and what the e-mails reveal, is, for anyone with half a brain not too dumbed down by partisanship; is the structure of a system that isn't democracy at all, but clearly an oligarchy. The super-rich rule and the rest are occasionaly alowed to vote for a candidate chosen by the rich, giving the illusion of democracy.
    NarniScalo -> gloriousrevolution , 31 Oct 2016 16:5
    Yup, that about sums it up. Yet in the case the choice is truly awful.

    And whilst we are here let's remember that the European Parliament is very democratic. The US system or the UK System would never allow so many nut jobs from UKIP, FN, Lega Nord and various other facists have a voice. The EU parliament is very representative.

    ID8737013 , 31 Oct 2016 16:4
    Good read. Money is like manure and if you spread it around it does a lot of good. But if you pile it up in one place, like Silicon Valley or the banks, eventually it will smell pretty bad and attract a lot of flies, like the one that seems attracted to Hillary.
    Ubermensch1 , 31 Oct 2016 16:4
    You get some idea of just how batty the US electoral campaign system is when you consider that John Podesta is the guy who has hinted at 'exposing' the US government 'cover up' of UFOs...and even got Hillary Clinton making statements about looking into Area 51. Well, that's the vote of all the multitude of conspiracy loons nicely in the bag -- It only shows just how desperate the campaigns are.
    ev2rob , 31 Oct 2016 17:1
    world history has always provided that the wealthy look after themselves. What's new? Here, both American candidates are wealthy. But Clinton appears to want to look after others and other will look at and after her. I'm not sure what Trump can look after, perhaps his business dealings and bankruptcy triumphs, and lawsuits. Perhaps America is going through a new type of revolution, generational and the massive entry of the post-industrial age in America. How many Americans are screaming for the past, while at least one U.S. automakers shifts some of their factories to Mexico - e.g., Chrysler.
    occamslaser , 31 Oct 2016 17:2
    We get the candidates we deserve, in any so-called democracy. The west worships money and glitz and celebrity, willingly watches "reality" TV, and in general can aspire to nothing better than material superiority over the neighbours. The U.S., with its pathetic "American Dream," is the most egregious victim of its own obsessions. Bernie Sanders, who in Canada, Britain, or western Europe would be considered centrist, is vilified as a raving socialist. Genuinely well-disposed people with a more humane alternative political vision lack the necessary millions to gain public attention. And so one is left with Business-as-Usual Hillary Clinton (mendacious elitist one-percenter) or the duplicitous demagogue Donald Trump (mendacious vulgar one-percenter).

    The internet should be a democratic forum for intelligent discussion of alternatives but has become largely the province of trolls and wingnuts. We should be able to do better.

    ID1726608 , 31 Oct 2016 17:2
    I'm with MarkusKraut; not because of what the e-mails have discovered - I suspect we all suspected this kind of machinery from BOTH parties - but because their discovery is entirely one-sided.
    What does it prove? That the Republicans are any better? Or that Don is any more qualified to be president than he was two weeks ago?

    No. It proves one thing, and one thing only - that Republicans keep secrets better than Dems do. At least the important ones.

    And I say that as someone who was a security administrator for ten years. And I can guarantee you one thing (and one thing only): The Russians would NOT have got past any e-mail server that I built.

    My worry is now not who gets elected - this was always a ship of fools - or who's to blame (although I'm sure we'll be told in the first "hundred days"), but what it means for democracy.
    And don't worry, I'm not going to try to equate democracy with Hillary (although I still support her); but about secrecy .

    E-mail has always been the most likely medium to be cracked (the correct term for illegal hacking), and secrecy is anathema to democracy - always was, and always will be.
    And having been caught with their pants down, I'd like to see the Democratic party, win or lose this election, to say that ALL future e-mails will be a matter of public record. And challenge the GOP to do the same.

    Unfortunately, it'll simply be viewed as a failure of security that any administrator like me could tell you is almost impossible, and they'll simply buy better servers for 2020.

    oldworldwisdom , 31 Oct 2016 17:2
    How America is run? More like how the world has been hijacked by the oligarchs.
    Matt Wood , 31 Oct 2016 17:2
    For the 1% by the 1%?
    Soleprop , 31 Oct 2016 17:2
    I've never felt any of the mail to be particularly surprising, but merely a demonstration of what a NeoLiberal society, run by money, looks like at a more granular level. I won't vote for a Trump, but living in California I can vote Green without having to pull the lever for a Clinton. If California goes Trump, then every other state in the nation will have swirled down the drain with him.
    ElyFrog , 31 Oct 2016 17:3
    In the book 'Who Rules America" written by William Domhoff, first published in 1967, it laid out how the ruling class sits on each others boards of directors, (which he called 'interlocking directorates", inhabits certain think tanks and organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations or political parties, goes to the same clubs, intermarries, and knows one another. I.E. the ruling class is a coherent group of HUMAN BEINGS. People think they are some abstract, nameless wonder. They are not. Podesta's e-mails, as Frank rightly notices, show the Democratic Party elite. Another set will show the Republican Party elite, and how BOTH link to each other.
    piebeansMontrachet , 31 Oct 2016 17:3
    We are talking about the biggest war mongering outfit on the planet. An election. This ship is being driven by assholes no one elected...and as per, walk away with money and knighthoods while the fabric of our society is unravelling. Store water and tinned goods...or good luck on the help line
    MistaSyms , 31 Oct 2016 17:4
    Good comment except for the needless hand-wringing about reading "private" e-mails. The freak show that is the 2016 US general election is yet another clear sign that neo-liberalism is a scam run for and by bankers, corporate CEOs, kooky tech billionaires, corrupt politicians and other wealthy and amoral sociopaths.

    The media has become their propaganda arm and the divide between what people experience and see and what the media tells them is happening grows ever wider. Alternative media outlets (although some of these, such as VICE, are neo-lib shills also) and organisations like WikiLeaks are more important than ever as they still speak truth to power. Even some dissidents and media 'agitators' are coming down on the side of the establishment - I am thinking Snowden, Greenwald and Naomi Klein all of whom have wagged their fingers at Julian Assange for doing a job the media used to do.

    A good rule of thumb that tells you who the establishment worries about is looking at who is repeatedly denounced in the media. Trump, Assange and Putin currently have the powers that be worried because they are giving them the proverbial two fingers (or one finger, depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on) and exposing the rotten framework of lies and corruption that hold the rickety system together. Media darlings like Snowden present no real threat and are tolerated, even celebrated.

    [Nov 04, 2016] Julian Assange Says Trump Wont Be Allowed To Win, Clinton And ISIS Are Funded By The Same Money Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... In my opinion, the biggest thing to come out of these emails is the complete manipulation of the "news". ..."
    Nov 04, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment," said Assange. "Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves."

    He is right, but the same was said about Brexit.

    Cognitive Dissonance -> 1980XLS •Nov 4, 2016 8:10 AM

    It seems the Shadow Government has decided to go full banana republic.

    The sad fact is the vast majority of people simply don't believe this could happen 'here'.

    Joe Davola -> two hoots •Nov 4, 2016 9:09 AM

    In my opinion, the biggest thing to come out of these emails is the complete manipulation of the "news". The only thing I can attribute it to is that the media are just another form of the free-stuff crowd, because it's not as if Hillary offers a shining beacon of ideology. It's easy to write stories when they're written for you, and it appears that you're really smart because you "got the scoop".

    Sure the Saudi angle is quite damning, but for most that's just too deep and difficult to piece together - unless the news breaks it down to simple sound bytes (or an emoji). Heck, without Tyler combing these dumps and lining them up with the overall picture of what was going down at the time, it would be easy to just get swamped in the sheer volume. Much like the "we've printed out 50,000 emails" wasn't intended to help the investigation, it was intended to bog the process down.

    Mike in GA -> I am a Man I am Forty •Nov 4, 2016 8:28 AM

    Trump has pushed back on every issue that the establishment has thrown at him. Wikileaks has helped with their steady drip of revealing emails giving us all a behind-the-scenes look at the everyday thoughts of our "Leaders". The corruption, collusion and outright criminality thus exposed could only have been accomplished by Trump - certainly no establishment Uniparty candidate would so fearlessly take on the daily goring of everyone else's ox.

    Now exposed, this corruption and criminality HAS to be addressed and can only be addressed by an outsider, change-agent president. The opportunity to clean house so substantially does not present itself often and may never again. If properly executed, the halls of power could largely be purged of the criminal class so endemic in the wikileaked emails.

    This is where it gets pretty hairy for Trump, and for America. These criminals, living large, very large, on the taxpayer, will not go silently into the night. They will pull out every stop to stop Trump or at least limit the damage. People will start dying a little faster in DC now.

    Can anyone explain why that 55 y/o Major General, about to get the promotion of his lifetime into the Air Force Missile Command would commit suicide? And why it took 2 months for the AF to rule it a "suicide"? Rumor says he became privy to domestic EMP contingency plans and was unwilling to comply.

    When assassination becomes a tool of the ruling party, the Party has come to town.

    [Nov 04, 2016] the Podesta emails show compete corruption of democratic party

    Notable quotes:
    "... The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. ..."
    Nov 04, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. They are last week's scandal in a year running over with scandals, but in truth their significance goes far beyond mere scandal: they are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.

    The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied, pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are written. This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this class, the choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.

    They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

    [Nov 03, 2016] More Collusion With Donna Brazile Revealed As Hillary Campaign Sought Advice On Prepared Debate Answers Zero Hedge

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Donna Brazile was noticeably uncomfortable for every second of the following 10-minute interview with Megyn Kelly of Fox News. Kelly pushed hard on the recent Project Veritas undercover videos showing DNC operatives plotting to incite violence at Trump rallies and commit massive voter fraud and over Brazile's leaked email showing that she provided a CNN debate question to Hillary ahead of a March 2016 debate with Bernie. Brazile tried every trick in the book to deflect and pivot but Kelly held her feet to the fire.

    [Nov 03, 2016] And Now For Some Comic Relief by Jonathan V. Last

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.weeklystandard.com
    Presenting...the Clinton IT Department! This has not been an especially ennobling election. Or a rewarding one. Or even entertaining. Pretty much everything about 2016 has been boorish and grotesque. But finally it is time to laugh.

    This has not been an especially ennobling election. Or a rewarding one. Or even entertaining. Pretty much everything about 2016 has been boorish and grotesque. But finally it is time to laugh.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Clinton IT department.

    Over the weekend we finally found out how Clinton campaign honcho John Podesta's emails were hacked. But first a couple disclaimers:

    1) Yes, it's unpleasant to munch on the fruit of the poisoned tree. But this isn't a court of law and you can't just ignore information that's dragged into the public domain.

    2) We're all vulnerable to hackers. Even if you're a security nut who uses VPNs and special email encryption protocols, you can be hacked. The only real security is the anonymity of the herd. Once a hacker targets you, specifically, you're toast.

    I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy and if the Chinese decided to hack my emails tonight, you'd have everything I've ever written posted to Wikileaks before the sun was up tomorrow.

    But that is … not John Podesta's situation.

    What happened was this: On March 19, Podesta got what looked--kind of, sort of--like an email from Google's Gmail team. The email claimed that someone from the Ukraine had tried to hack into Podesta's Gmail account and that he needed to change his password immediately.

    This is what's called a "phishing" scam, where hackers send legitimate-looking emails that, when you click on the links inside them, actually take you someplace dangerous. In Podesta's case, there was a link that the email told him to click in order to change his password.

    This was not an especially good bit of phishing. Go have a look yourself. The email calls Podesta by his first name. It uses bit.ly as a link shortener. Heck, the subject line is the preposterous "*someone has your password*". Why would Google say "someone has your password?" They wouldn't. They'd say that there had been log-in attempts that failed two-step authentication, maybe. Or that the account had been compromised, perhaps. If you've spent any time using email over the last decade, you know exactly how these account security emails are worded.

    And what's more, you know that you never click on the link in the email. If you get a notice from your email provider or your bank or anyone who holds sensitive information of yours saying that your account has been compromised, you leave the email, open your web browser, type in the URL of the website, and then manually open your account information. Again, let me emphasize: You never click on the link in the email!

    But what makes this story so priceless isn't that John Podesta got fooled by an fourth-rate phishing scam. After all, he's just the guy who's going to be running Hillary Clinton's administration. What does he know about tech? And Podesta, to his credit, knew what he didn't know: He emailed the Clinton IT help desk and said, Hey, is this email legit?

    And the Clinton tech team's response was: Hell yes!

    No, really. Here's what they said: One member of the team responded to Podesta by saying "The gmail one is REAL." Another answered by saying "This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately."

    It's like the Clinton IT department is run by 90-year-old grandmothers. I half-expect the next Wikileaks dump to have an email from one Clinton techie to another asking for help setting their VCR clock.

    As the other guy likes to say, "only the best people."

    [Nov 03, 2016] Obama channels inner Pinocchio: "I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

    He completely forgot what he said about her in 2008. At that time he was much closer to truth.
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Fiver

    Further to throwing Comey under the bus yesterday, Obama had this to say:

    "I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

    No amount of Bleach-bit can remove that yellow streak running down his back and straight through the entirety of his 'legacy'. Not once did he come down on the side opposite entrenched power – in fact, we can now add major 'obstruction of justice' to his prior litany of failures to prosecute white collar criminals as the basis for its own section, splitting criminal activity into two parts, one domestic, the other for a raft of war crimes.

    [Nov 03, 2016] John Podesta and Mook conspiring to commit money laundering

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    oho November 3, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    John Podesta + Mook conspiring to commit money laundering. Not hyperbole.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794236216681992192/photo/1

    Portia November 3, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    3k/mo ok for you?

    why yes

    [Nov 03, 2016] Report Indictment likely in FBIs Clinton Foundation probe

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.thehill.com
    Two sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI's investigations told Fox News Wednesday that a probe of the Clinton Foundation is likely to lead to an indictment.

    Fox News's Bret Baier said Wednesday that the FBI probe into a possible pay-to-play scheme between Democratic presidential nominee and the Clinton Foundation has been going on for over a year. Sources told the news network that the investigation, which is conducted by the White Collar Crime division of the FBI, is a "very high priority."

    One source further stated that the bureau collected "a lot of" evidence, adding that "there is an avalanche of new information coming every day." Baier also said that the Clinton Foundation probe is more expansive than previously thought, and that many individuals have been interviewed several times throughout the course of the investigation. Sources said that they are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case" and that investigations are likely to continue. Baier added that when he pressed the sources about the details of both probes, they told him that they are likely to lead to an indictment. Additionally, Baier reported that according to Fox News's sources, Clinton's private email server had been breached by at least five foreign intelligence hackers. FBI Director James Comey said in July that he could not say definitively whether her server had been breached.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Robin's Reactionary Mind In The New Yorker – The Book That Didn't Predict Not-Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The outcome of the election remains in doubt despite one candidate's collapsing support. There are a number here who have been making similar arguments about the inefficacy of left-right labels. ..."
    "... The prospect of a gutting of the Democratic party seems far more likely to me, if Brent Baier is to be believed, and that is a big 'if,' I concede. We should see the donor class candidate triumph as we normally do. ..."
    "... The constituency that supports Trump is utterly indifferent to the Frums of the world, and even the Limbaughs. They are pissed-off, non-ideological, and highly-motivated. ..."
    "... electoral politics in this country has come to such a pass but the Left (or what passes for it in the US) is as much to blame as the Right in that they haven't offered real substantive alternatives to the NeoLib/NeoCon orthodoxy that seems to dominate US policymaking. ..."
    Crooked Timber

    kidneystones 11.03.16 at 12:15 pm

    Corey does deserve credit for all the reasons jh notes. The outcome of the election remains in doubt despite one candidate's collapsing support. There are a number here who have been making similar arguments about the inefficacy of left-right labels.

    ... ... ...

    The prospect of a gutting of the Democratic party seems far more likely to me, if Brent Baier is to be believed, and that is a big 'if,' I concede. We should see the donor class candidate triumph as we normally do. My basic read has not changed, however. The constituency that supports Trump is utterly indifferent to the Frums of the world, and even the Limbaughs. They are pissed-off, non-ideological, and highly-motivated.

    Frum still hasn't figured out that he's just as likely to find himself the target of their hostility as any Dem. And right now Trump supporters outnumber the Frums of the world by far from inconsequential numbers.

    I still say Trump edges it.

    DMC 11.03.16 at 7:27 pm

    There's just too many people in this country for whom "more of the same and harder" is a deal breaker. They'll go with the guy who tells them "one more throw of the dice" and who apparently scares the snot out of the Establishment types.

    The ruder he is, the more they like it. The more the "grown-ups" say this is going to be bad for the country, the better it sounds to people picking up cans off the road to make ends meet. Its utterly hateful that electoral politics in this country has come to such a pass but the Left (or what passes for it in the US) is as much to blame as the Right in that they haven't offered real substantive alternatives to the NeoLib/NeoCon orthodoxy that seems to dominate US policymaking.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Secret Recordings Fueled Mutinous FBI Investigation of Clintons Despite DOJ Orders To Stand Down

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    It's looking increasingly like there is an ongoing mutiny underway within the FBI as the Wall Street Journal is reporting that, according to "officials at multiple agencies", FBI agents felt they had adequate evidence, including "secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation" , to pursue an investigation of the Clinton Foundation but were repeatedly obstructed by officials at the Department of Justice.

    Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements as worthless hearsay, people familiar with the matter said.

    The roots of the dispute lie in a disagreement over the strength of the case, these people said, which broadly centered on whether Clinton Foundation contributors received favorable treatment from the State Department under Hillary Clinton.

    Senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI didn't think much of the evidence, while investigators believed they had promising leads their bosses wouldn't let them pursue , they said.

    Despite clear signals from the Justice Department to abandon the Clinton Foundation inquiries, many FBI agents refused to stand down. Then, earlier this year in February 2016, the FBI presented initial evidence at a meeting with Leslie Caldwell, the head of the DOJ's criminal division, after which agents were delivered a clear message that "we're done here." But, as the WSJ points out, DOJ became increasing frustrated with FBI agents that were " disregarding or disobeying their instructions" which subsequently prompted an emphatic "stand down" message from the DOJ to "all the offices involved."

    As 2015 came to a close, the FBI and Justice Department had a general understanding that neither side would take major action on Clinton Foundation matters without meeting and discussing it first. In February, a meeting was held in Washington among FBI officials, public-integrity prosecutors and Leslie Caldwell, the head of the Justice Department's criminal division. Prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York-Mr. Capers' office-didn't attend, these people said.

    The public-integrity prosecutors weren't impressed with the FBI presentation, people familiar with the discussion said. "The message was, 'We're done here,' " a person familiar with the matter said.

    Justice Department officials became increasingly frustrated that the agents seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions.

    Following the February meeting, officials at Justice Department headquarters sent a message to all the offices involved to " stand down ,'' a person familiar with the matter said.

    The FBI had secretly recorded conversations of a suspect in a public-corruption case talking about alleged deals the Clintons made , these people said. The agents listening to the recordings couldn't tell from the conversations if what the suspect was describing was accurate, but it was, they thought, worth checking out.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Former UK Army Chief Trump Might Make The World Safer

    www.breitbart.com
    In an interview with House magazine, Lord Richards of Herstmonceux – the former Chief of the Defence staff – said Mr. Trump is "wise enough to get good people round him and probably knows that he's got to listen to them and therefore I think we should not automatically think it will be less safe".

    He added: "It's non-state actors like Isis that are the biggest threat to our security. If countries and states could coalesce better to deal with these people – and I think Trump's instinct is to go down that route – then I think there's the case for saying that the world certainly won't be any less safe.

    "It's that lack of understanding and empathy with each other as big power players that is a risk to us all at the moment.

    "Therefore I think he would reinvigorate big power relationships, which might make the world ironically safer."

    During the interview Lord Richards also discussed the somewhat controversial view that the West should partner with Russia and Bashar al-Assad to take back the Syrian city of Aleppo.

    He said: "If the humanitarian situation in Syria is our major concern, which it should be – millions of lives have been ruined, hundreds of thousands have been killed – I believe there is a strong case for allowing Assad to get in there and take the city back.

    "The opposition groups – many of whom are not friends of ours, they're extremists – are now intermingled with the original good opposition groups, are fighting from amongst the people. The only quick way of solving it is to allow Assad to win. There's no way the opposition groups are going to win."

    Lord Richards added: "We want the humanitarian horror of Aleppo to come to a rapid halt. The best and quickest way of doing that is to encourage the opposition groups to leave. The Russians are undoubtedly using their weapons indiscriminately. If they're going to attack those groups then there is inevitably going to be civilian casualties.

    "The alternative is for the West to declare a no-fly zone and that means you've got to be prepared to go to war with Russia ultimately. I see no appetite for that and nor, frankly, do I see much sense in it. It sticks in my throat to say it because I have no love for Assad.

    "The fact is, the only way to get it to stop now is to allow Assad to win and win quickly and then turn on Isis with the Russians."

    [Nov 03, 2016] FBI Sources Tell Fox News An Indictment Is Likely In Clinton Foundation Case Video

    www.realclearpolitics.com

    RealClearPolitics

    Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips:

    [Nov 03, 2016] Podesta is also the appointed Congressional lobbyist for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    . . . _ _ _ . . . Nov 3, 2016 9:24 AM ,
    " Podesta is also the appointed Congressional lobbyist for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – for the modest amount of $200,000 per month."

    [Nov 03, 2016] If Trump wins, all the Democratic party elites should be given their pink slips and never allowed to run the DNC again.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Holding on to the White House in 2016 is extremely important. We can't afford to let party elites jeopardize that by ignoring the will of the voters. Join me and DFA in telling superdelegates to pledge to support the popularly-elected winner of the nomination now. ..."
    "... If Trump wins, all the Democratic party elites should be given their pink slips and never allowed to run the DNC again ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    nonsensefactory, 1h ago 3 4

    Recall this warning to the Democratic Party after Bernie Sander's landslide win in New Hampshire? Shockingly, all the superdelegates went over to Hillary Clinton:

    Holding on to the White House in 2016 is extremely important. We can't afford to let party elites jeopardize that by ignoring the will of the voters. Join me and DFA in telling superdelegates to pledge to support the popularly-elected winner of the nomination now.


    If Trump wins, all the Democratic party elites should be given their pink slips and never allowed to run the DNC again.

    [Nov 03, 2016] More Collusion With Donna Brazile Revealed As Hillary Campaign Sought Advice On Prepared Debate Answers Zero Hedge

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Donna Brazile was noticeably uncomfortable for every second of the following 10-minute interview with Megyn Kelly of Fox News. Kelly pushed hard on the recent Project Veritas undercover videos showing DNC operatives plotting to incite violence at Trump rallies and commit massive voter fraud and over Brazile's leaked email showing that she provided a CNN debate question to Hillary ahead of a March 2016 debate with Bernie. Brazile tried every trick in the book to deflect and pivot but Kelly held her feet to the fire.

    [Nov 03, 2016] The FBIs White Collar Crime Unit Is Probing The Clinton Foundation

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the latest update from Fox's Bret Baier , we learn that the Clinton Foundation investigation has now taken a "very high priority," perhaps courtesy of new documents revealed by Wikileaks which expressed not only a collusive element between Teneo, the Clinton Foundation and the "charitable foundation's" donors, which included the use of funds for personal gain, but also revealed deep reservations by people within the foundation about ongoing conflicts of interest. ..."
    "... FBI agents are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case," and will be going back and interviewing the same people again, some for the third time, Baier's sources said. Agents also are going through what Clinton and top aides have said in previous interviews as well as the FBI 302 documents, which agents use to report interviews they conduct, to make sure notes line up, according to sources. ..."
    "... As expected, the Clinton Foundation denied everything, and Foundation spokesman, Craig Minassian, told Fox news a statement: "We're not aware of any investigation into the Foundation by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any United States Attorney's Office and we have not received a subpoena from any of those agencies." ..."
    "... Now that details of the infighting between the DOJ and FBI regarding the Foundation probe have been made public, Loretta Lynch may have no choice but to launch an official probe, including subpoeans. ..."
    "... The information follows a report over the weekend by The Wall Street Journal that four FBI field offices have been collecting information about the foundation. The probes – in addition to the revived email investigation – have fueled renewed warnings from Republicans that if Clinton is elected next week, she could take office under a cloud of investigations. ..."
    "... Separately, Fox News reports that authorities also are virtually certain, i.e., "there is about a 99 percent chance", that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and taken emails from Hillary Clinton's private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations told Fox News. If so, it would suggest that the original FBI probe - which found no evidence of breach - was either incomplete or tampered with. ..."
    "... In other words, Anthony Weiner may be ultimately responsible not only for the downfall of Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, but also the collapse of the entire Clinton Foundation... which incidentally is just what Donald Trump warned could happen over a year ago. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Now that thanks to first the WSJ, and then Fox News, the public is aware that a probe into the Clinton Foundation is not only a hot topic for both the FBI and the DOJ (and has managed to split the law enforcement organizations along ideological party lines), but is also actively ongoing despite the DOJ's attempts to squash it.

    In the latest update from Fox's Bret Baier, we learn that the Clinton Foundation investigation has now taken a "very high priority," perhaps courtesy of new documents revealed by Wikileaks which expressed not only a collusive element between Teneo, the Clinton Foundation and the "charitable foundation's" donors, which included the use of funds for personal gain, but also revealed deep reservations by people within the foundation about ongoing conflicts of interest.

    As Baier also notes, the Clinton Foundation probe has been proceeding for more than a year, led by the White-Collar Crime division.

    White Collar Crime Unit pursuing @ClintonFdn case. pic.twitter.com/PLgNLfF08K

    - Fox News (@FoxNews) November 3, 2016

    Fox adds that even before the WikiLeaks dumps of alleged emails linked to the Clinton campaign, FBI agents had collected a great deal of evidence, and FBI agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people regarding the case.

    "There is an avalanche of new information coming in every day," one source told Fox News, adding some of the new information is coming from the WikiLeaks documents and new emails.

    FBI agents are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case," and will be going back and interviewing the same people again, some for the third time, Baier's sources said. Agents also are going through what Clinton and top aides have said in previous interviews as well as the FBI 302 documents, which agents use to report interviews they conduct, to make sure notes line up, according to sources.

    As expected, the Clinton Foundation denied everything, and Foundation spokesman, Craig Minassian, told Fox news a statement: "We're not aware of any investigation into the Foundation by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any United States Attorney's Office and we have not received a subpoena from any of those agencies."

    .@ClintonFdn on @WSJ report. pic.twitter.com/8ZqSTDP8sS

    - Fox News (@FoxNews) November 3, 2016

    Now that details of the infighting between the DOJ and FBI regarding the Foundation probe have been made public, Loretta Lynch may have no choice but to launch an official probe, including subpoeans.

    The information follows a report over the weekend by The Wall Street Journal that four FBI field offices have been collecting information about the foundation. The probes – in addition to the revived email investigation – have fueled renewed warnings from Republicans that if Clinton is elected next week, she could take office under a cloud of investigations.

    "This is not just going to go away … if she ends up winning the election," Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., told Fox News' "America's Newsroom" earlier this week.

    Donald Trump has referenced this scenario, repeatedly saying on the stump this past week that her election could trigger a "crisis."

    Separately, Fox News reports that authorities also are virtually certain, i.e., "there is about a 99 percent chance", that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and taken emails from Hillary Clinton's private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations told Fox News. If so, it would suggest that the original FBI probe - which found no evidence of breach - was either incomplete or tampered with.

    The revelation led House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul to describe Clinton's handling of her email system during her tenure as secretary of state as "treason."

    "She exposed [information] to our enemies," McCaul said on "Fox & Friends" Thursday morning. "Our adversaries have this very sensitive information. … In my opinion, quite frankly, it's treason."

    McCaul, R-Texas, said that FBI Director James Comey told him previously that foreign adversaries likely had gotten into her server. When Comey publicly discussed the Clinton email case back in July, he also said that while there was no evidence hostile actors breached the server, it was "possible" they had gained access.

    Clinton herself later pushed back, saying the director was merely "speculating."

    But sources told Fox News that Comey should have said at the time there is an "almost certainty" that several foreign intelligence agencies hacked into the server.

    The claims come as Comey's FBI not only revisits the email investigation following the discovery of additional emails on the laptop of ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner – the estranged husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin – but is proceeding in its investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

    In other words, Anthony Weiner may be ultimately responsible not only for the downfall of Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, but also the collapse of the entire Clinton Foundation... which incidentally is just what Donald Trump warned could happen over a year ago.

    A summary of Baier's latest reporting is in the clip below...

    [Nov 03, 2016] The FBI suddenly discloses dismissed Bill Clinton case

    speisa.com

    The FBI has unexpectedly published papers from an over ten-year-old investigation of former president Bill Clinton's controversial pardon of a financier, reports NTB.

    The case against Clinton was dismissed without charges in 2005, and several Democrats therefore question why the 129-page report of the investigation is published right now, a few days before the election, in which Bill Clinton's wife Hillary Clinton is trying to become president.

    The rage against the FBI is already great in the Democratic Party after the federal police last week announced they will investigate new emails relating to Hillary Clinton.

    Financier Marc Rich was indicted for tax fraud and lived in exile in Switzerland when Bill Clinton pardoned him on his last day as president on January 20, 2001. Several reacted to the pardon, especially since Rich's ex-wife was a major donor to the Democratic Party.

    The FBI started to investigate the pardon the year after.

    [Nov 03, 2016] What Trump represents is not crazy and it is not going away. Peter Thiel defends support for Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The support Trump has enjoyed is directly tied to the frustration many across the country feel toward Washington and its entrenched leaders, and they shouldn't expect that sentiment to dissipate regardless of whether Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins at the ballot box on Nov. 8, he said. ..."
    The Washington Post

    Billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel reiterated his support for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump Monday morning, telling a room of journalists that a Washington outsider in the White House would recalibrate lawmakers who have lost touch with the struggles of most Americans.

    Thiel said it was "both insane and somehow inevitable" that political leaders would expect this presidential election to be a contest between "political dynasties" that have shepherded the country into two major financial crises: the tech bubble burst in the early 2000s, and the housing crisis and economic recession later that decade.

    The support Trump has enjoyed is directly tied to the frustration many across the country feel toward Washington and its entrenched leaders, and they shouldn't expect that sentiment to dissipate regardless of whether Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins at the ballot box on Nov. 8, he said.

    "What Trump represents isn't crazy and it's not going away," he said.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Thousands of people eill vote for Trump as a cynical form of rebellion agaisnt neoliberal establishemnt which is hell-bent on globalization

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    redwhine zitan

    10h ago
    I'd actually argue the opposite. Thousands of people are turning to Trump as a cynical form of rebellion. They think that voting for him will be interesting/fun. If you were to ask them how a Hillary Clinton presidency would seriously make their lives worse, they'd have nothing serious to answer. At best they might say that they'll be fine, but that the rest of the country would suffer, and then spout of a bunch of nonsense as to why that would be. It's a luxury to be so reckless, which is where America is right now. If millions of lives literally depended on the outcome of this election, people would be much more careful about how they plan to vote.

    [Nov 03, 2016] A Divided US Sociologist Arlie Hochschild on the 2016 Presidential Election

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.truth-out.org

    ...they felt that mainstream America had left them and had gone by, didn't see them, didn't recognize who they were and neither political party spoke to their feelings and interests. In this sense, they felt like strangers in their own land.

    I'll give you an example of that. One woman I spoke to said, "I'm really glad you've come to interview us, because we are the fly-over-state and people think of the South that we're ignorant, backward, that we have old-fashioned attitudes, that we're pro-family, pro-life and that many people think we're racist when we're not, and so they write us off, they call us rednecks, so thanks for coming to see who we really are." You've said that, "The conservatives of yesterday seem moderate or liberal today" in the US. Can you elaborate on this move to the right in American politics?

    In 1968, Barry Goldwater was the first really radical anti-government national candidate for the Republican presidency. His wife was a founder of Planned Parenthood. Today, Republicans and the Tea Party want to defund Planned Parenthood, which offers contraception, abortion, cancer screening and other very important things.

    Again, former Republican President Richard Nixon brought us the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and now Republicans are calling for the end of the EPA.

    Yet again, former Republican President Eisenhower called for a minimum wage; now Republicans oppose this. Eisenhower called for investments in public infrastructure, now it's opposed. Today, the Republicans of the '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s look liberal. That's how far right we've become.

    [Nov 03, 2016] With Only Six Days Remaining, Trump Surges in the Polls as Hillary Supporters Abandon Ship Zero Hedge

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    johnwburns Nov 2, 2016 8:06 PM ,
    Fighting against total of the big ghetto states is a bitch. Looks like Trump needs to run the table as in FL,OH,GA,NC,AZ,CO,IA,NV. Not impossible but something resembling a real kill shot from Wikileaks sure would help.
    TuffsNotEnuff johnwburns Nov 2, 2016 8:23 PM ,
    Trump's big problem from the early exit interviews is a "balk" effect. That could be decisive in FL, GA, NC, AZ, UT.

    If you like Reagan, Bill Clinton, or a well mannered governor such as Kasich what does Trump do for you as president?

    roadhazard Nov 2, 2016 6:27 PM ,
    Amazing that Weiners laptop could make any difference after Bengaaahzi...
    robnume Nov 2, 2016 6:13 PM ,
    I have always believed that Trump is actually the elites choice and that they have been practicing reverse psychology on the voters. Nothing that has happened during this 'selection' season has put me off of that hypothesis. I told my husband months ago that there would be an October/November surprise and that Trump may very well end up in the White House. Hillary is just too broken to be able to pull it off. I've heard his economic policy speeches: privatize social security, etc., and they all line up with just what the elites have wanted for a long time. I know most ZHers don't feel this way, but politics is a bitch, my friends. Let the down voting commence.
    Burticus robnume Nov 2, 2016 7:54 PM ,
    Yes, I've also speculated that Sir Trumpalot could possibly be a "work" (choreographed by the Eleeches) instead of a "shoot" (sincere).

    Even so, there's no way he (or anyone else) could be worse than Hitlery and the Clinton Crime Family.

    Occams_Razor_Trader robnume Nov 2, 2016 7:27 PM ,
    Thumbs down- You got it Dude.

    Your theory is actually a theory - In politics NOTHING happens by chance.

    Mark Twain said: If voting really mattered- They wouldn't let us do it!

    I honestly believe that the PTB have every election sewn up through controlled opposition- yet Trump would move us to Totalitarianism at a much slower rate than the HitlerBeast. The Political Overton Window has shifted hard to the left over the last 30 years. Both parties are to the left of John F. Kennedy, sadly. Lesser of two evils is the new name of the game!

    Lyman54 robnume Nov 2, 2016 7:13 PM ,
    Evidence doesn't support your theory Rob. Ask yourself why every news organization in the English speaking world is busy trashing Trump? Odd way to for the elites to show support.
    skillyhog Nov 2, 2016 4:35 PM ,
    I'm an establishment hater and long to see Clinton's get their due, so support Trump by default. What I think is instructive, if nothing else interesting, is Brandon Smith's POV on Trump's potential "victory". The chess board is fascinating, but may not be R's and D's playing the game at all. For the planned crash, they'd rather have the "isolationist" (falsely painted term) than the Globalist at the helm for blame. "See?? Its these same Brexit and Trump voting "isolationist"! We need the SDR and the Big Boys back in charge!".......still, I'd have a thrill run up my leg to watch a long-time crook get her just comeuppance....
    JBPeebles Nov 2, 2016 4:34 PM ,
    BREAKING: Steve Pieczenik.com from infowars and youtube videos:
    2:40 in; Unedited
    "We've initiated a counter coup through Assange and Wikileaks."
    Comey's action reflected a response to the Silent Coup.
    "We're going to stop you from making HRC President of the U.S."
    Massive corruption under Clinton Foundation.
    "I am just a small part of something bigger than myself."
    "Brave men and women in the FBI, CIA,Director of Intelligence, Military Intelligence and 15 other intelligence agencies who were sick and tired of seeing this corruption in the White House, Justice Department, Intelligence Services (so we) decided that there was something we had to do to save the Republic so we initiated a Counter Coup through Julian Assange through emails that we gave to him in order to undermine Hillary and Bill Clinton."
    Pieczenik indicated this "Second American Revolution" had no guns, wapons, or intent to kill or harm." He says the Counter Coup is made up of veterans in the intelligence service like (himself.) He asserts that they will make sure Obama leaves office without a pardon or any other "act of treason."
    The coup "wants a peaceful transition."
    Pieczenik said this is a "moment of history occurring right now."
    gezley JBPeebles Nov 2, 2016 8:04 PM ,
    I'm sick of hearing about this Pieczenik guy. It's been non-stop here at ZH lately. There's no way this Tribe member is up to any good with his counter-coup distraction.
    Mazzy Nov 2, 2016 4:21 PM ,
    What happens when states like Maryland, New Jersey, Colorado and Iowa vote for Trump (because they didn't bother to rig in those areas), but Hilary still "wins" in super battle ground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania because those elections were rigged?

    [Nov 03, 2016] Off The Record dinner at Podestas with reporters covering Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary wouldn't even be close if the press weren't in the tank for her ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    JackMeOff Nov 3, 2016 9:37 AM

    Off The Record dinner at Podesta's with reporters covering Clinton:

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43604

    The goals of the dinner include:

    (1) Getting to know the reporters most closely c overing HRC and getting them comfortable with team HRC

    (2) Setting expectations for the announcement and launch period

    (3) Framing the HRC message and framing the race

    (4) Demystifying key players on HRC's campaign team

    (5) Having fun and enjoying good cooking

    I am a Man I am... JackMeOff Nov 3, 2016 10:01 AM ,
    REPORTERS RSVP (28) 1. ABC – Liz Kreutz 2. AP – Julie Pace 3. AP - Ken Thomas 4. AP - Lisa Lerer 5. Bloomberg - Jennifer Epstein 6. Buzzfeed - Ruby Cramer 7. CBS – Steve Chagaris 8. CNBC - John Harwood 9. CNN - Dan Merica 10. Huffington Post - Amanda Terkel 11. LAT - Evan Handler 12. McClatchy - Anita Kumar 13. MSNBC - Alex Seitz-Wald 14. National Journal - Emily Schultheis 15. NBC – Mark Murray 16. NPR - Mara Liassion 17. NPR – Tamara Keith 18. NYT - Amy Chozik 19. NYT - Maggie Haberman 20. Politico - Annie Karni 21. Politico - Gabe Debenedetti 22. Politico - Glenn Thrush 23. Reuters - Amanda Becker 24. Washington Post - Anne Gearan 25. Washington Post – Phil Rucker 26. WSJ - Colleen McCain Nelson 27. WSJ - Laura Meckler 28. WSJ - Peter Nicholas

    Pigeon •Nov 3, 2016 9:49 AM

    It bothers me these stories are constantly prefaced with the idea that Wikileaks is saving Trump's bacon. Hillary wouldn't even be close if the press weren't in the tank for her. How about Wikileaks evening the playing field with REAL STORIES AND FACTS?

    [Nov 03, 2016] FBI investigating Clinton Foundation pay for play scheme

    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people on the foundation case, which is looking into possible pay for play interaction between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. The FBI's White Collar Crime Division is handling the investigation. ..."
    "... Even before the WikiLeaks dumps of alleged emails linked to the Clinton campaign, FBI agents had collected a great deal of evidence, law enforcement sources tell Fox News. ..."
    "... "There is an avalanche of new information coming in every day," one source told Fox News, who added some of the new information is coming from the WikiLeaks documents and new emails. ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | speisa.com

    A second FBI investigation involving Hillary Clinton is ongoing. The investigation to uncover corruption by the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton, is given high priority and now runs parallel with the reopened FBI case of her using a private email server to avoid the Federal Records Act.

    The FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation that has been going on for more than a year has now taken a "very high priority," separate sources with intimate knowledge of the probe tell Fox News .

    FBI agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people on the foundation case, which is looking into possible pay for play interaction between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. The FBI's White Collar Crime Division is handling the investigation.

    Even before the WikiLeaks dumps of alleged emails linked to the Clinton campaign, FBI agents had collected a great deal of evidence, law enforcement sources tell Fox News.

    "There is an avalanche of new information coming in every day," one source told Fox News, who added some of the new information is coming from the WikiLeaks documents and new emails.

    FBI agents are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case," and will be going back and interviewing the same people again, some for the third time, sources said.

    Agents are also going through what Clinton and top aides have said in previous interviews and the FBI 302, documents agents use to report interviews they conduct, to make sure notes line up, according to sources.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Trump will simply pursue "saner, more sensible" immigration policies

    www.washingtonpost.com

    Thiel also criticized the media's coverage of Trump's bombastic remarks. He said that while the media takes Trump's remarks "literally" but not "seriously," he believes Trump supporters take them seriously but not literally. In short, Trump isn't actually going to impose religious tests on immigrants or build a wall along the Mexican border, as he has repeatedly said, but will simply pursue "saner, more sensible" immigration policies.

    "His larger-than-life persona attracts a lot of attention. Nobody would suggest that Donald Trump is a humble man. But the big things he's right about amount to a much needed dose of humility in our politics," Thiel said.

    While the Silicon Valley tech corridor and suburbs around Washington have thrived in the last decade or more, many other parts of the country have been gutted by economic and trade policies that closed manufacturing plants and shipped jobs overseas, Thiel said, reiterating a previous talking point.

    "Most Americans don't live by the Beltway or the San Francisco Bay. Most Americans haven't been part of that prosperity," Thiel said Monday. "It shouldn't be surprising to see people vote for Bernie Sanders or for Donald Trump, who is the only outsider left in the race."

    Thiel later said he had hoped the presidential race might come down to Sanders and Trump, two outsiders with distinct views on the root cause of the nation's economic malaise and the best course of action to fix it. "That would have been a very different sort of debate," he said.

    Thiel's prepared remarks seemed more of an admonishment of the state of the country today than a ringing endorsement of Trump's persona and policies. He decried high medical costs and the lack of savings baby boomers have on hand. He said millennials are burdened by soaring tuition costs and a poor outlook on the future. Meanwhile, he said, the federal government has wasted trillions of dollars fighting wars in Africa and the Middle East that have yet to be won.

    Trump is the only candidate who shares his view that the country's problems are substantial and need drastic change to be repaired, Thiel said. Clinton, on the other hand, does not see a need for a hard reset on some of the country's policies and would likely lead the U.S. into additional costly conflicts abroad, he said.

    A self-described libertarian, Thiel amassed his fortune as the co-founder of digital payment company PayPal and data analytics firm Palantir Technologies. He has continued to add to that wealth through venture capital investments in companies that include Facebook, Airbnb, Lyft and Spotify, among many others.

    [Nov 02, 2016] Donald Trump is no outsider: he mirrors our political culture by George Monbiot

    Trump mirrors resentment with the current political culture. Unfortunately very few readers in this forum understand that the emergence of Trump as a viable candidate in the current race, the candidate who withstand 24x7 air bombarment by corrupt neoliberabl MSM (like Guardian ;-) signify deep crisis of neoliberalsm and neoliberal globalization.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size." ..."
    "... That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power. ..."
    "... Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so." ..."
    "... Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes, one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters. ..."
    "... Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan was basically 'I am not a politician'. ..."
    "... The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of election rigging has now become an exact science. ..."
    "... Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades. ..."
    "... In 2010, Chomsky wrote : ..."
    "... The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. ..."
    "... Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve ..."
    "... The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror. ..."
    "... He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire. ..."
    "... I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting awareness. ..."
    "... Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances. ..."
    "... Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause. ..."
    "... Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3. ..."
    "... It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious reputational issues. ..."
    "... Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes finally toppling her, it's not going to happen... ..."
    "... The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal ..."
    "... And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich. ..."
    "... One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left. ..."
    "... When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even if he is part of how it got that way. ..."
    "... People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating moral superiority complex. ..."
    "... he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics ..."
    "... 'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.' ..."
    "... Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result, many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics of the world. ..."
    "... There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration. They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology. ..."
    "... I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world. ..."
    "... Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964 all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater. ..."
    "... As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump is good for world peace. ..."
    "... I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is not the answer ..."
    "... His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery, Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia? remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy) Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman. ..."
    "... Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor. ..."
    "... Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt? ..."
    "... When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin, he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria) and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS. ..."
    "... Clinton the war hawk, and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we can feel good about ourselves by hating the other. ..."
    "... It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations. ..."
    "... Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars in America and no one would buy them. ..."
    "... What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels! There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the Pentagon and NATO. ..."
    "... USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people . Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno . Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked by all the vested interests should make you take another look. And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot less power than most people imagine. ..."
    "... Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized, conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed? ..."
    "... I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us. ..."
    "... Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project ..."
    "... The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem. ..."
    "... They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid, better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars and the American empire. ..."
    "... The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. ..."
    "... Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have to wait till after November 8. ..."
    "... And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches -- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware. They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode of 'Rule by Plutocracy'. ..."
    "... The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party. ..."
    "... In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness. ..."
    "... Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force. ..."
    "... "Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant narratives of our age." ..."
    "... Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given up our power to do anything about it. ..."
    "... It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during campaigns. The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000. They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers. ..."
    "... Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this country in the ground. ..."
    "... We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is the Pentagon. ..."
    "... Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships' 4-1/2 acre flight deck. ..."
    "... There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and large swaths of the Indian subcontinent. ..."
    "... And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings with drones than feed our own children. ..."
    "... I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying them. There is no real enthusiasm. ..."
    "... The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves. Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling fibs. ..."
    "... Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have usually succeeded. ..."
    "... In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers. These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives. ..."
    "... Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves part of some elite. ..."
    "... It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years ago. ..."
    "... Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team. ..."
    "... One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two. ..."
    "... Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign? If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different by the MSM and the political establishment? ..."
    "... Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption. ..."
    "... Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tab5vvo0TJw ..."
    "... "I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this. ..."
    "... Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states. ..."
    "... Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist. ..."
    "... One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back', it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about. ..."
    "... Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger, which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so. ..."
    "... Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying a fraction of what they are legally obliged to). ..."
    "... Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them *everything* they want. ..."
    "... Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime? ..."
    "... Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc. Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem "Women are the primary victims of war". ..."
    "... Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet. ..."
    "... Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders. He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person or the other. ..."
    "... When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke, corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's conspiracy and what's reality? ..."
    "... Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda? ..."
    "... Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be ..."
    "... Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the 1 per cent ..."
    "... The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can continue the game ..."
    "... we near the end of the neoliberal model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all. ..."
    "... This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't closely follow politics is being misinformed. ..."
    "... The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed. All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law. ..."
    "... Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly what they are 'alleged'. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. ..."
    "... The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies, the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton. ..."
    "... Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the low-paid workers. ..."
    "... The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled by them, the truth is never revealed. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    America's fourth president, James Madison, envisaged the United States constitution as representation tempered by competition between factions. In the 10th federalist paper, written in 1787, he argued that large republics were better insulated from corruption than small, or "pure" democracies, as the greater number of citizens would make it "more difficult for unworthy candidates to practise with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried". A large electorate would protect the system against oppressive interest groups. Politics practised on a grand scale would be more likely to select people of "enlightened views and virtuous sentiments".

    Instead, the US – in common with many other nations – now suffers the worst of both worlds: a large electorate dominated by a tiny faction. Instead of republics being governed, as Madison feared, by "the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority", they are beholden to the not-so-secret wishes of an unjust and interested minority. What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size.

    For every representative, Republican or Democrat, who retains a trace element of independence, there are three sitting in the breast pocket of corporate capital. Since the supreme court decided that there should be no effective limits on campaign finance, and, to a lesser extent, long before, candidates have been reduced to tongue-tied automata, incapable of responding to those in need of help, incapable of regulating those in need of restraint, for fear of upsetting their funders.

    Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt? Turn to the demagogue who rages into this political vacuum, denouncing the forces he exemplifies. The problem is not, as Trump claims, that the election will be stolen by ballot rigging. It is that the entire electoral process is stolen from the American people before they get anywhere near casting their votes. When Trump claims that the little guy is being screwed by the system, he's right. The only problem is that he is the system.

    The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation tempered by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal. In other words, all that impedes the absolute power of money is the occasional exposure of the excesses of the wealthy.

    greatapedescendant 26 Oct 2016 4:11

    A good read thanks. Nothing I really disagree with there. Just a few things to add and restate.

    "What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size."

    That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power.

    Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so."

    Which recalls Madison over 200 years before… "The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."

    What the US has is in effect is not a democracy but a plutocracy run by a polyarchy. Which conserves some democratic elements. To which the US president is largely an obedient and subservient puppet. And which openly fails to consider the needs of the average US citizen.

    Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes, one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters.

    Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan was basically 'I am not a politician'. Though that didn't work out too well. No longer able to stomach more of the same, voters reach the stage of being willing to back anyone who might bring about a break with the status quo. Even Trump.

    The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of election rigging has now become an exact science.

    UltraLightBeam 26 Oct 2016 4:11

    Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades.

    The Guardian, among others, laments the loss of 'tolerance' and 'openness' as defining qualities of our societies. But what's always left unsaid is: tolerance of what? Openness to what? Anything? Everything?

    Is it beyond the pale to critically assess some of the values brought by immigration, and to reject them? Will only limitless, unthinking 'tolerance' and 'openness' do?

    Once self-described 'progressives' engage with this topic, then maybe we'll see a reversal in the momentum that Trump and the rest of the right wing demagogues have built up.

    petercookwithahook 26 Oct 2016 4:14

    In 2010, Chomsky wrote:

    The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response.

    Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve.

    DiscoveredJoys -> morelightlessheat 26 Oct 2016 6:11

    The most telling part for me was:

    The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror.

    Except that instead of

    He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire.

    I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting awareness.

    Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances.

    Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause.


    Gman13 26 Oct 2016 4:25

    Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3.

    These events will unfold if Hillary wins:

    1. No fly zone imposed in Syria to help "moderate opposition" on pretence of protecting civilians.

    2. Syrian government nonetheless continues defending their country as terrorists shell Western Aleppo.

    3. Hillary's planes attack Syrian government planes and the Russians.

    4. Russia and Syria respond as the war escalates. America intensifies arming of "moderate opposition" and Saudis.

    5. America arms "rebels" in various Russian regions who "fight for democracy" but this struggle is somehow hijacked by terrorists, only they are not called terrorists but "opposition"

    6. Ukranian government is encouraged to restart the war.

    7. Iran enters the war openly against Saudi Arabia

    8. Israel bombs Iran

    9. Cornered Russia targets mainland US with nuclear weapons

    10. Etc.


    snakebrain -> Andthenandthen 26 Oct 2016 6:54

    It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious reputational issues.

    If Hillary and the DNC hadn't fixed the primaries, we'd now be looking at a Sanders-Trump race, and a certain Democrat victory. As it is, it's on a knife edge as to whether we get Trump or Hillary.

    Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes finally toppling her, it's not going to happen...

    jessthecrip 26 Oct 2016 4:29

    Well said George.

    The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal

    And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich.

    Remko1 -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 7:43

    You're mixing up your powers. legislative, executive and judicial are the powers of law. Money and business are some of the keys to stay in command of a country. (there's also military, electorate, bureaucracy etc.)

    And if money is not on your side, it's against you, which gets quite nasty if your main tv-stations are not state-run.

    For example if the EU would (theoretically of course) set rules that make corruption more difficult you would see that commercial media all over the EU and notoriously corrupted politicians would start making propaganda to leave the EU. ;)

    yamialwaysright chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 4:38

    One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left.

    When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even if he is part of how it got that way.

    People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating moral superiority complex.

    Danny Sheahan -> chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 5:25
    That many people are so desperate for change that even being a billionaire but someone outside the political elite is going to appeal to them.

    Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 4:32

    I find this line of thinking unjust and repulsive: the implication that Trump is a product of the political establishment, and not an outsider, is to tar the entire Republican party and its supporters with a great big flag marked 'racist'. That is a gross over simplification and a total distortion.

    UnevenSurface -> Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 5:05

    But that's not what the article said at all: I quote:

    he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics

    No mention of the GOP.

    Tom1Wright -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 5:14

    and I quote

    'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.'

    HindsightMe 26 Oct 2016 4:33
    the truth is there is an anti establishment movement and trump just got caught up in the ride. He didnt start the movement but latched on to it. While we are still fixated on character flaws the undercurrent of dissatisfaction by the public is still there. Hillary is going to have a tough time in trying to bring together a divided nation
    leadale 26 Oct 2016 4:37
    Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result, many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics of the world.
    arkley leadale 26 Oct 2016 5:48
    As Wellington once said on reading the list of officers being sent out to him,
    "My hope is that when the enemy reads these names he trembles as I do"
    Some would argue however that the British system of bought commissions actually made the army more effective in part because many competent officers had to stay in the field roles of platoon and company commanders rather than get staff jobs and through the fact that promotion on merit did exist for non-commissioned officers but there was a block on rising above sergeant.

    Some would argue that the British class system ensured that during the Industrial Revolution charge hands and foremen were appointed from the best workers but there was no way forward from that, the result being that the best practices were applied through having the best practitioners in charge at the sharp end.

    rodmclaughlin 26 Oct 2016 4:37
    "he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics."

    Obviously, Donald Trump is not an "outsider" in the economic sense. Trump definitely belongs to the ruling "caste", or rather, "class". But he is by no means the perfect representative of it. "The global economy", or rather, "capitalism", thrives better with the free movement of (cheap) labour than without it. Economically, poor Americans would be better off with more immigration control.

    And there's more too it than economics. There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration. They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology.

    I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world.

    Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964 all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater.

    nishville 26 Oct 2016 4:40
    As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump is good for world peace. He might be crap for everything else but I for one will sleep much better if he is elected POTUS.
    dylan37 26 Oct 2016 4:40
    Agree, for once, with a piece by George. Trump is nothing new - we've seen his kind of faux-outsider thing before, but he's amplifying it with the skills of a carnival barker and the "what me?" shrug of the everyman - when we all know he's not. The election result can't be rigged because the game is fixed from the start. A potential president needs millions of dollars behind them to even think about running, and then needs to repay those bought favours once in office. Trump may just win this one though - despite the polls, poor human qualities and negative press - simply because he's possibly tapped into a rich seam of anti-politics and a growing desire for anything different, even if it's distasteful and deplorable. It's that difference that might make the difference, even when it's actually just more of the same. It's all in the packaging.
    greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:41
    Donald Trump is a clumsy, nasty opportunist who has got one thing right - people don't want globalisation.

    What people want, is clean, high-tech industries in their own countries, that automate the processes we are currently offshoring. They would rather their clothes were made by robots in Rochdale than a sweat-shop in India.

    Same goes for energy imports: we want clean, local renewables.

    What people don't want is large, unpleasant multinational corporations negotiating themselves tax cuts and "free trade" with corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton.

    Just my opinion, of course...

    TheSandbag -> greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:50
    Your right about globalisation, but I think wrong about the automation bit. People want Jobs because its the only way to survive currently and they see them being shipped to the country with the easiest to exploit workforce. I don't think many of them realize that those jobs are never coming back. The socioeconomic system we exist in doesn't work for 90% of the population who are surplus to requirements for sustaining the other 10%.
    Shadenfraude 26 Oct 2016 4:43
    I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is not the answer.

    ... ... ...


    oddballs 26 Oct 2016 5:24

    Trump threatened Ford that if they closed down US car plants and moved them to Mexico he would put huge import tariffs on their products making them to expensive.

    Export of jobs to low wage countries, how do you think Americans feel when they buy 'sports wear, sweater, t-shirts shoes that cost say 3 $ to import into the US and then get sold for20 or 50 times as much, by the same US companies that moved production out of the country.

    The anger many Americans feel how their lively-hoods have been outsourced, is the lake of discontent Trump is fishing for votes.

    His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery, Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia? remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy)
    Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman.

    onepieceman 26 Oct 2016 5:31

    Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor.

    One positive outcome that I hope will come of all of this is that people might think a little more carefully about how much power an incoming president (or any politician) should be given. The complacent assumption about a permanently benign government is overdue for a shakeup.

    peccadillo -> Dean Alexander 26 Oct 2016 5:43

    Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?

    Having missed that bit, I wonder if you actually read the article.

    tater 26 Oct 2016 5:46
    The sad thing is that the victims of the corrupt economic and political processes are the small town folk who try to see Trump as their saviour. The globalisation that the US promoted to expand its hegemony had no safeguards to protect local economies from mega retail and finance corporations that were left at liberty to strip wealth from localities. The Federal transfer payments that might have helped compensate have been too small and were either corrupted pork barrel payments or shameful social security payments. For a culture that prides itself on independent initiative and self sufficiency this was always painful and that has made it all the easier for the lobbyists to argue against increased transfer payments and the federal taxes they require. So more money for the Trumps of this world.

    And to the future. The US is facing the serious risk of a military take over. Already its foreign policy emanates from the military and the corruption brings it ever closer to the corporations. If the people don't demand better the coup will come.


    MrMopp 26 Oct 2016 6:12


    There's a reason turnout for presidential elections is barely above 50%.

    Wised up, fed up Americans have long known their only choice is between a Coke or Pepsi President.

    Well, this time they've got a Dr. Pepper candidate but they still know their democracy is just a commodity to be bought and sold, traded and paraded; their elections an almost perpetual presidential circus.

    That a grotesque like Trump can emerge and still be within touching distance of the Whitehouse isn't entirely down to the Democrats disastrous decision to market New Clinton Coke. Although that's helped.

    The unpalatable truth is, like Brexit, many Americans simply want to shake things up and shake them up bigly, even if it means a very messy, sticky outcome.

    Anyone with Netflix can watch the classic film, "Network" at the moment. And it is a film of the moment.

    "I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth. Banks are going bust. Shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.

    We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.'

    Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get MAD! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. [shouting] You've got to say: 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!'

    So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!

    I want you to get up right now. Sit up. Go to your windows. Open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE! Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first, get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

    And that was in 1976. A whole lot of shit has happened since then but essentially, Coke is still Coke and Pepsi is still Pepsi.

    Forty years later, millions are going to get out of their chairs. They are going to vote. For millions of Americans of every stripe, Trump is the "I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE", candidate.

    And he's in with a shout.


    André De Koning 26 Oct 2016 6:13

    Trump is indeed the embodiment of our collective Shadow (As Jung called this unconscious side of our Self). It does reflect the degeneration of the culture we live in where politics has turned into a travesty; where all projections of this side are on the Other, the usual other who we can collectively dislike. All the wars initiated by the US have started with a huge propaganda programme to hate and project our own Shadow on to this other. Often these were first friends, whether in Iran or Iraq, Libya: as soon as the oil was not for ""us" , they were depicted as monsters who needed action: regime change through direct invasion and enormous numbers of war crimes or through CIA programmed regime change, it all went according to shady plans and manipulation and lies lapped up by the masses.

    When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin, he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria) and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS.

    The Western culture has become more vile than we could have imagined and slowly, like the frog in increasingly hot water, we have become used to neglecting most of the population of Syria and focusing on the rebel held areas, totally unaware of what has happened to the many thousands who have lived under the occupation by terrorists who come from abroad ad fight the proxy war for the US (and Saudi and the EU). Trump dares to embody all this, as does Clinton the war hawk, and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we can feel good about ourselves by hating the other.

    It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations.


    tashe222 26 Oct 2016 6:28

    Lots of virtue signalling from Mr. M.

    Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars in America and no one would buy them.

    Trump has said many stupid things in this campaign, but he has some independence and is not totally beholden to vested interests, and so there is at least a 'glimmer' of hope for the future with him as Potus.


    DomesticExtremist 26 Oct 2016 6:28

    I never tire of posting this link:

    Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment

    Lindsay Went DomesticExtremist 26 Oct 2016 6:58

    Yes, when the Archdruid first posted that it helped me understand some of the forces that were driving Trump's successes. I disagree with the idea that voting for Trump is a good idea because it will bring change to a moribund system. Change is not a panacea and the type of change he is likely to bring is not going to be pleasant.


    Hanwell123 -> ArseButter 26 Oct 2016 6:59

    What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels! There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the Pentagon and NATO.

    unsubscriber 26 Oct 2016 6:43
    George always writes so beautifully and so tellingly. My favourite sentence from this column is:
    Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.
    Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 6:51
    Trump is not a misogynist, look the word up. He may be crude but that's not the same thing. He also represents a lot more people than a tiny faction. He is also advocating coming down on lobbying, which is good. He may be a climate change denier but that's because a lot of his supporters are, he'd probably change if they did. The way to deal with it is with rational argument, character assassination is counterproductive even if he himself does it. Although he seems to do it as a reaction rather than as an attack. He probably has a lot higher chance of winning than most people think since a lot of people outside the polls will feel represented by him and a lot of those included in the polls may not vote for Hilary.
    ID4755061 26 Oct 2016 6:52
    George Monbiot is right. Trump is a conduit for primal stuff that has always been there and never gone away. All the work that has been done to try to change values and attitudes, to make societies more tolerant and accepting and sharing, to get rid of xenophobia and racism and the rest, has merely supressed all these things. Also, while times were good (that hasn't been so for a long time) most of this subterranean stuff got glossed over most of the time by some kind of feel good factor and hope for a better future.

    But once the protections have gone, if there is nothing to feel good about or there is little hope left, the primitive fear of other and strange and different kicks back in. It's a basic survival instinct from a time when everything around the human species was a threat and it is a fundamental part of us and Trump and Palin at al before him have got this, even if they don't articulate it this way, and it works and it will always work. It's a pure emotional response to threat that we can't avoid, the only way out of it, whihc many of use use, is to use our intellects to challenge the kick of emotion and see it for what it is and to understand the consequences of giving it free reign. It's this last bit that Trump, Palin, Farage and their ilk just don't get and never will, we aill always be fighting this fight.

    PotholeKid 26 Oct 2016 6:56
    Political culture includes the Clintons and Bushes, the Democratic party and Republican party. exploring that culture using the DNC and Podesta leaks as reference, paints a much better picture of the depth of depravity this culture represents..Trump is a symptom and no matter how much the press focuses on maligning his character. The Clintons share a huge responsibility for the corruption of the system. Mr. Monbiot would serve us well by looking at solutions for cleaning up the mess, what Trumps likes to call "Draining the swamp"
    lonelysoul72 26 Oct 2016 6:59
    Trump for me , he is horrendous but Clinton is worse.

    nooriginalthought 26 Oct 2016 7:06

    "Democracy in the U.S. is so corrupted by money it is no longer recognisable as democracy." Sounds like a quote from Frank Underwood. To catch a thief sometimes you need the services of a thief. With a fair degree of certainty we can be sure a Clinton administration will offer us continuity .

    Your probably going to vote Trump. Looking forward to a long list of articles here in November prophecies of Armageddon a la brexit. You liberal lefties , you'll never learn. If you want to know what people are thinking , you got to get out of the echochamber.


    nooriginalthought -> aurlius 26 Oct 2016 7:45

    Sorry , hate having to explain myself to the dim witted.

    USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people . Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno .
    Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked by all the vested interests should make you take another look.
    And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot less power than most people imagine.

    Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 7:21

    While it is impossible to credibly disagree with the general thrust of this, some of Monbiot's assumptions exemplify problems with left-wing thinking at the moment.

    But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped of its pretences.

    Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized, conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed?

    I think Monbiot a principled, intelligent left-wing commentator, but at the same time he epitomises a left-wing retreat into pessimism in the face of a putatively global network of power and inevitable environmental catastrophe. In reality, while there is no shortage of perfidious, corrupt corporate interests dominating global economies, there is no organized system or shadowy establishment - only a chaotic mess rooted in complex political problems. Once you accept that reality, then it becomes possible to imagine political solutions to the quandaries confronting us. Rather than just railing against realities, you can envision a new world to replace them. And a new kind of world is something you very rarely get from the left these days. Unlike the utopian socialists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there is little optimism or imagination - just anger, pessimism and online echo chambers of 'clictivists'.

    Like the documentarian Adam Curtis says, once you conclude that all politics is corrupt then all you can do is sit there impotently and say: 'Oh dear'.

    deltajones -> Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 8:12

    I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us.

    Even the left has largely taken on that narrative and it's seen as common sense. Challenging this belief system is the toughest job that there is and we see that in the howling indignation hurled at Jeremy Corbyn if he makes the slightest suggestion of nationalisation of the railways, for instance.

    ianfraser3 26 Oct 2016 7:29

    Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project, the ultimate shopping spree, buy an election.

    furiouspurpose -> IllusionOfFairness 26 Oct 2016 8:08

    The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem.

    They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid, better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars and the American empire. None of these things were acceptable to their funders so that only left emotional issues – anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-god, pro-gun. And all of the emotional issues are on the wrong side of history as the US naturally grows more politically progressive. So the Republican party couldn't even deliver on the emotionally driven agenda. I think their base realised that they were being offered nothing – and that's why they turned to Trump. Perhaps a fascist blowhard could bulldoze the system to deliver on the emotional side of the offer. That's why Trump broke through

    The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. In the end the African Americans decided that Hillary could be relied upon to deliver some crumbs – so they settled for that. That's why Sanders couldn't break through.

    fairleft 26 Oct 2016 7:55

    Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have to wait till after November 8.

    Such commentary would be greatly aided the Podesta emails, which enlighten us as to the mind and 'zeitgeist' of the HIllary team. And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches -- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware. They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode of 'Rule by Plutocracy'.

    But, of course, opinion columns and think pieces on the Real Hillary and the Podesta emails will have to wait ... forever.

    toffee1 26 Oct 2016 7:58

    Trump shows the true face of the ruling class with no hypocrisy. He is telling us the truth. If we have a democracy, we should have a party representing the interests of the business class, why not. The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party.

    Kikinaskald Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 8:39
    In fact presidents don't usually have much affect, they're prey to their advisors. Generally true. But Obama was able to show that he was able to distance himself up to a certain point from what was around him. He was aware of the power of the establishment and of their bias. So, when the wave against Iran was as strong as never before, he made a deal with Iran. He also didn't want to intervene more actively in Syria and even in what concerns Russia, he seems to have moderate positions.

    In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness.


    Kikinaskald -> J.K. Stevens 26 Oct 2016 9:09

    She is considered to be highly aggressive, she pushed for the bombing of a few countries and intervening everywhere..

    Chris Williams 26 Oct 2016 8:20

    Unfortunately all politics in the west is based on a similar model with our own domestic landscape perhaps most closely resembling that in the US. We've always been peddled convenient lies of course, but perhaps as society itself becomes more polarised [in terms of distribution of wealth and the social consequences of that], the dissonance with the manufactured version of reality becomes ever sharper. It is deeply problematic because traditional popular media is dominated by the wealthy elite and the reality it depicts is as much a reflection of the consensual outlook of that elite as it is deliberate, organised mendacity [although there's plenty of that too].

    Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force.

    Meanwhile the electorate is become increasingly disaffected by this mainstream of politics who they [rightly] sense is no longer truly representative of their interests in any substantive way. To this backdrop the media has made notable blunders in securing the status quo. It has revealed the corruption and self-seeking of many in politics and promoted the widespread distrust of mainstream politicians for a variety of reasons. While the corruption is real and endemic, howls of protest against political 'outsiders' from this same press is met with with the view that the political establishment cannot be trusted engendered by the same sources.

    The narrative for Brexit is somewhat similar. For many years the EU was the whipping boy for all our ills and the idea that it is fundamentally undemocratic in contrast to our own system, so unchallenged that it is taken for fact, even by the reasonably educated. Whilst I'm personally deflated and not a little worried by our exit, it comes as little surprise that a distorted perspective on the EU has led to a revolt against it.

    There are of course now very many alternative narratives to those which are the preserve of monied media magnates, but they're disparate, fractured and unfocused.

    Only the malaise has any sort of consistency about it and it is bitterly ironic that figures like Trump and Farage can so effectively plug into that in the guise of outsiders, to offer spurious alternatives to that which is so desperately needed. It's gloomy stuff.

    Winstons1 Chris Williams 26 Oct 2016 9:27

    Very well written .

    Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force.

    I have been an advocate of this point for a long time.There is a saying in politics in America that'' the only difference between a Democrat and a Republican is the speed at which they drop to their knees when big business walks into the room''.

    How it is going to be stopped or indeed if there is the will to do so,I do not know. The proponents and those who have most to lose have been incredibly successful in propagating the myth that 'you to can have what I have'and have convinced a sizeable minority that there is no alternative.
    Until that changes and is exposed for the illusion that it is ,we are I fear heading for something far worse than we have now.

    trp981 26 Oct 2016 8:20 2 3

    "Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant narratives of our age."

    Because this is who we are and this is how we role. We got on rickety ships and braved the cowardly waters to reach these shores, with tremendous realworld uncertainty and absolute religious zeal. We are the manly men and womanly women who manifested our destiny, endured the cruel nature naturing, and civilized the wild wild west, at the same time preserving our own wildness and rugged individualism. Why should we go all soft and namby-pamby with this social safety nonsense? Let the roadkills expire with dignified indignity on the margins of the social order. We will bequeath a glorious legacy to the Randian ubermenschen who will inherit this land from us. They will live in Thielian compounds wearing the trendiest Lululemons. They will regularly admonish their worses with chants of: "Do you want to live? Pay, pal". If we go soft, if we falter, how will we ever be able to look in the eye the ghosts of John Wayne, Marion Morrison, Curtis LeMay, Chuck Heston, Chuck Norris, and the Great Great Ronnie Himself? Gut-check time folks, suck it up and get on with the program.

    "The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation tempered by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal."

    The Founders had a wicked sense of humor. They set up the structure of various branches so as to allow for the possibility of a future take-over by the Funders. That leaves room for the exorbitant influence of corporations and wealthy individuals and the rise of the Trumps, leading to the eventual fall into a Mad Max world.

    "Yes, [Trump] is a shallow, mendacious, boorish and extremely dangerous man. But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped of its pretences."

    It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys walking around naked now that it has absolute power.

    Lopedeloslobos -> trp981 26 Oct 2016 9:02

    'It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys walking around naked now that it has absolute power.'

    Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given up our power to do anything about it.


    chiefwiley -> Luftwaffe 26 Oct 2016 9:31

    It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during campaigns.
    The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000. They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers.

    It's sort of nice to have somebody looking after our interests in theory, but it would be at least polite if they deemed to ask us what we think our best interests are. Notice the nasty names and attributes being hurled at political "dissidents," especially around here, and there should be little wonder why many think the benevolent and somewhat single minded and authoritarian left is at least part of their problems.


    ghstwrtrx7 -> allblues 26 Oct 2016 14:02

    Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this country in the ground.

    We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is the Pentagon.

    Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships' 4-1/2 acre flight deck.

    And then there there's the most egregious waste of money our historically over-bloated defense budget has ever seen: The Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter. Quite a mouthful, isn't? When you hear how much this boondoggle costs the American taxpayer, you'll choke: $1.5 Trillion, with a t. What's even more retching is that aside from already being obsolete, it doesn't even work.

    There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and large swaths of the Indian subcontinent.
    And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings with drones than feed our own children.

    I can't speak for anyone else other than myself, but that, boys and girls, has a decided miasma of evil about it.

    transplendent 26 Oct 2016 9:49

    I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying them. There is no real enthusiasm.

    If Hillary doesn't win by a major landslide (and I mean BIGLY) as the MSM would lead us to believe she is going to, it could be curtains for the media, as what little credibility that is not already swirling around the plughole will disappear down it once and for all.

    The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves. Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling fibs.

    leftofstalin 26 Oct 2016 10:06

    Sorry George YOU and the chattering classes you represent are the reason for the rise of the far right blinded by the false promises of new labour and it's ilk the working classes have been demonized as striking troublemakers benefit frauds racists uneducated bigots etc etc and going by the comments on these threads from remainders you STILL don't understand the psyche of the working class

    Gary Ruddock 26 Oct 2016 10:07

    When Obama humiliated Trump at that dinner back in 2011 he may have set a course for his own destruction. Lately, Obama does not appear anywhere near as confident as he once did.

    Perhaps Trump has seen the light, seen the error of his ways, maybe he realizes if he doesn't stand up against the system, then no one will.


    transplendent 26 Oct 2016 10:38

    Trump's only crime, is he buys into the idea of national identity and statehood (along with every other nation state in the world mind you), and Hillary wants to kick down the doors and hand over the US to Saudi Arabia and any international vested interest who can drop a few dollars into the foundation coffers. I can't see Saudi Arabia throwing open the doors any day soon, unless it is onto a one way street.

    N.B. The Russians are not behind it.

    gjjwatson 26 Oct 2016 11:10

    Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have usually succeeded.

    In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers. These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives.

    I remember when President Reagan railed against government whilst he was in office, he said the worst words a citizen could hear were "I`m from the government, I`m here to help you".

    Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves part of some elite.

    All of this chimes of course with American history and it`s constitution written by slave owning colonists who proclaimed that "all men are created equal".

    bonhiver 26 Oct 2016 12:10

    It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years ago.

    Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team.

    Whereas it is fair to criticise Trump for a lot of stuff it does appear that there is no attempt at balance as Clinton's faults appear to get covered up om this paper.

    Whereas I can not vote in the US elections and therefore the partisan reporting has no substantive effect on how I may vote or act it is troubling that a UK newspaper does not provide the reader with an objective as possible reporting on the presidential race.

    It suggests biased reporting elsewhere.

    thevisitor2015 26 Oct 2016 12:46

    One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two.

    seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:37

    Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign? If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different by the MSM and the political establishment?

    Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption.


    CharlesPDXOr -> seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:58

    I think the answer to your question is in the article: because Trump has brought the truth of the monied class into the open. He is a perfect example of all that class is and tries to pretend it is not. And when the commoners see this in front of them, a whole lot of them are disgusted by it. That doesn't sit well back in the country club and the boardroom, where they work so hard to keep all of that behind closed doors. They hate him because he is one of them and is spilling the beans on all of them.

    bill9651 26 Oct 2016 13:01

    Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tab5vvo0TJw


    Frances56 26 Oct 2016 13:54

    Michael Moore explaining why a lot of people like him


    "I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this.

    Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states.

    You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human Molotov Cocktail that they've been waiting for; the human hand grande that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on November 8, although they lost their jobs, although they've been foreclose on by the bank, next came the divorce and now the wife and kids are gone, the car's been repoed, they haven't had a real vacation in years, they're stuck with the shitty Obamacare bronze plan where you can't even get a fucking percocet, they've essentially lost everything they had except one thing - the one thing that doesn't cost them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American constitution: the right to vote.
    They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be fucked over and fucked up it doesn't matter, because it's equalized on that day - a millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job: one. And there's more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire class. So on November 8 the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big fucking X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J Trump.

    They see that the elite who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved him and created him, and now hate. Thank you media: the enemy of my enemy is who I'm voting for on November 8.

    Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go and blow up the whole goddamn system because it's your right. Trump's election is going to be the biggest fuck you ever recorded in human history and it will feel good."

    Michael Moore


    Debreceni 26 Oct 2016 14:15

    Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist.

    Both candidates have serious weaknesses. Yet Trump is very much an American character, his vices and weaknesses are either overlooked, or widely shared, secretively respected and even admired (even by those who vote against him). Clinton's arrogance, elitism and hypocrisy, coupled with her lack of talent, charisma and personality, make her an aberration in American politics.


    BabylonianSheDevil03 26 Oct 2016 15:26

    One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back', it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about.

    Farage used the same tactics in the UK. Le Pen is the same.

    Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger, which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so.

    ProseBeforeHos 26 Oct 2016 15:45

    "But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics."

    Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying a fraction of what they are legally obliged to).

    Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them *everything* they want.

    Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime?

    aofeia1224 26 Oct 2016 16:09

    "What is the worst thing about Donald Trump? The lies? The racist stereotypes? The misogyny? The alleged gropings? The apparent refusal to accept democratic outcomes?"

    Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc.
    Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem "Women are the primary victims of war".

    Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet.

    Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders. He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person or the other.

    Besides that, who cares about his "refusal" to accept the outcome? The American people protested when Bush won in 2000 saying it was rigged. Same goes with Obama saying the same "anti democratic" shit back in 2008 in regards to the Bush Administration.

    Pot call kettle black

    caravanserai 26 Oct 2016 16:16

    Republicans are crazy and their policies make little sense. Neo-conservatism? Trickle down economics? Getting the poor to pay for the mess created by the bankers in 2008? Trump knows what sells to his party's base. He throws them red meat. However, the Democrats are not much better. They started to sell out when Bill Clinton was president. They pretend to still be the party of the New Deal, but they don't want to offend Wall Street. US democracy is in trouble.

    rooolf 26 Oct 2016 16:24

    When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke, corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's conspiracy and what's reality?

    Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda?

    Either way there seems to be some conspiring of some sort

    When is it no longer theory? And where does the guardian fit into this corrupted corporate media idea?

    Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/the-election-of-hillary-clinton-promises-a-more-dangerous-world/7966336

    rooolf 26 Oct 2016 16:35

    What the author overlooks is the media's own complicity in allowing this to develop

    Unfortunately the corruption of the system is so entrenched it takes an abnormality like trump to challenge it

    Hard to believe, but trump is a once in a lifetime opportunity to shake shit up, not a pleasant one, in fact a damn ugly opportunity, but the media shut him down, got all caught up in self preservation and missed the opportunity

    it what comes next that is scary


    BScHons -> rooolf 26 Oct 2016 17:09

    Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the 1 per cent

    rooolf BScHons 26 Oct 2016 17:17

    Totally agree

    The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can continue the game

    Talking about the environment and diversity doesn't cut it

    mrjonno 26 Oct 2016 17:02

    Well said as ever George. Humanity is in a total mess as we near the end of the neoliberal model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all.

    I would go further in your analysis - media controlled by these sociopaths has ensured that our society shares the same values - we are a bankrupt species as is.

    As long as you are here to provide sensible analysis, along with Peter Joseph, I have hope that we can pull out of the nosedive that we are currently on a trajectory for.

    Thank you for your sane input into an otherwise insane world. Thank you Mr Monbiot.


    annedemontmorency 26 Oct 2016 19:08

    We'll ignore the part about the inability to accept democratic outcomes since that afflicts so many people and organisations - Brexit , anyone?

    More to the point is how the summit of US politics produces candidates like Trump and Clinton.

    Clinton is suffering the same damage the LibDems received during their coalition with the Tories .Proximity to power exposed their inadequacies and hypocrisy in both cases.

    Trump - unbelievably - remains a viable candidate but only because Hillary Clinton reeks of graft and self interest.
    The obvious media campaign against Trump could also backfire - voters know a hatchet job when they see one - they watch House of Cards.

    But politics is odd around the whole world.
    The Guardian is running a piece about the Pirate party in Iceland.

    Why go so far? - the most remarkable coup in recent politics was UKIP forcing a vote on the EU which it not only won it did so in spite of only ever having ONE MP out of 630.

    Trump may be America's UKIP - he resembles them in so many ways.

    ID6209069 26 Oct 2016 20:35

    It's possible that something like this was inevitable, in a nation which is populated by "consumers" rather than as citizens. There are "valuable demographics" versus those that aren't worthy of the attention of the constant bombardment of advertising. I jokingly said last year that as I was turning 55 last year, I am no longer in the 'coveted 29-54 demo'. My worth as a consumer has been changed merely by reaching a certain age, so I now see fewer ads about cars and electronics and more about prescription medicines. The product of our media is eyeballs, not programs or articles. The advertising is the money maker, the content merely a means of luring people in for a sales pitch, not to educate or inform. If that structure sells us a hideous caricature of a successful person and gives him political power, as long as the ad dollars keep rolling in.

    GreyBags 26 Oct 2016 21:19

    This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't closely follow politics is being misinformed.

    The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed. All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law.

    We see the same corrupted philosophy in Australia as well.


    JamesCameron 7d ago

    Yet Trump, the "misogynist, racist and bigot"' has more women in executive and managerial positions than any comparable company, pays these women the same or more than their male counterparts and fought the West Palm Beach City Council to be allowed to open his newly purchased club to blacks and Jews who had been banned until then. I suspect his views do chime with Americans fed up with political correctness gone mad as well as the venality of the administration of Barak Obama, a machine politician with dodgy bagmen from Chicago – the historically corrupt city in Illinois, the most corrupt state in the Union. Finally, unlike The Hilary, he has actually held down a job, worked hard and achieved success and perhaps they are more offended by what she does than what he says.

    aucourant 7d ago

    Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly what they are 'alleged'.

    The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. This has become the nightly fare of the mainstream media in the USA. At the same time the media ignores the destruction of Clinton's emails, the bribing of top FBI officials who are investigating the destroyed tapes and the giving of immunity to all those who aided Clinton in hiding and destroying subpoenaed evidence.

    The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies, the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton.

    Anomander64 6d ago

    Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the low-paid workers.

    The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled by them, the truth is never revealed.

    mochilero7687 5d ago

    Perhaps next week George will write in detail about all the scandals Hildabeast has caused and been involved in over the past 40 years - which have cost the US govt tens of millions of dollars and millions of man hours - but I won't be holding my breath.

    [Nov 02, 2016] Donald gave a great speech a couple of weeks or so ago, and clearly is not the kind of puppet that occupied this high political office now

    Speeches does not matter much, especially in case of Hillary, who will forget about her election promises sooner then Obama and like Obama is able to turn around on a dime. But still there is some truth to that. Looks like the elite is slip. Look into NYPost -- it is strongly pro-Trump. Since 1993, Post has been owned by , Rupert Murdoch News Corporation and its successor, News Corp , which had owned it previously from 1976 to 1988. In 1976, Rupert Murdoch bought Post for US$30.5 million
    Nov 02, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Kayman billhicks Nov 2, 2016 5:51 PM ,
    The TPTB doesn't want Trump. They are just coming to the realization they are about to have their wrists handcuffed to their ankles.
    billhicks Kayman Nov 2, 2016 7:02 PM ,
    Not sure. And neither are u. As the proportion of red pillers increases, exponentially now perhaps, TPTB may change tact. Donald gave a great speech a couple of weeks or so ago, and clearly is not the kind of puppet who has been instilled into high political office thus far.

    However, is it not possible that TPTB realise all of this populism and moreover the insightful but significant minority is becoming an issue. And perhaps Trump can either placate or give them a scapegoat.

    It is also possible he's either an elaborately cloaked puppet or they think they can manipulate him eventually or worse. He is good, or rather better than what has come before. But is he the real deal? Possibly. Worth a try of course. He may save us. Economy will tank on the next POTUS.

    She will undoubtedly make it worse. He may make it better. Ron Paul would have saved us if we/they let him. That chance has gone. Am waiting for one of the new wave of populist anti-politicians to really lift the curtain. Trump has threatened to do it. Perhaps even the good ones realize that if they dish out red pills like smartest then it's game over...

    [Nov 02, 2016] Veterans, Feeling Abandoned, Stand by Donald Trump by NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

    Notable quotes:
    "... The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country. ..."
    "... After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience. ..."
    "... "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam." ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country.

    But as Election Day approaches, many veterans are instead turning to Donald J. Trump , a businessman who avoided the Vietnam draft and has boasted of gathering foreign policy wisdom by watching television shows.

    Even as other voters abandon Mr. Trump, veterans remain among his most loyal supporters, an unlikely connection forged by the widening gulf they feel from other Americans.

    After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience.

    Perhaps most strikingly, they welcome Mr. Trump's blunt attacks on America's entanglements overseas.

    "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam."

    In small military towns in California and North Carolina, veterans of all eras cheer Mr. Trump's promises to fire officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs . His attacks on political correctness evoke their frustrations with tortured rules of engagement crafted to serve political, not military, ends. In Mr. Trump's forceful assertion of strength, they find a balm for wounds that left them broken and torn.

    "He calls it out," said Joshua Macias, a former Navy petty officer and fifth-generation veteran who lives in the Tidewater region of Virginia, where he organized a "Veterans for Trump" group last year. "We have intense emotion connected to these wars. The way it was politicized, the way they changed the way we fight in a war setting - it's horrible how they did that."

    [Nov 02, 2016] Trump Slams Media in Miami - Crowd Chants CNN Sucks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Never before have so many media organizations, old and new, abandoned all pretense of fairness to take sides and try to pick a president. It is unbelievable. ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Trump called integrity in journalism an important issue, but then denounced the media as "dishonest" and cited a New York Post piece by Michael Goodwin.

    "Another important issue for Americans his integrity in journalism," Trump said. "These people are among the most dishonest people I have ever met, spoken to, done business with. These are the most dishonest people. There has never been dishonesty – there has never been dishonesty like we have seen in this election. There has never been anywhere near the media dishonesty like we have seen in this election. Don't worry, they won't spin the cameras to show the massive crowds. They won't do that.

    The very talented Michael Goodwin of the New York Post just wrote today that 2016 presidential race will mark the low watermark of journalism that is worthy, if you think of it, of the First Amendment. Never before have so many media organizations, old and new, abandoned all pretense of fairness to take sides and try to pick a president. It is unbelievable. Honestly. for instance, a great story given out to the media they'll make it look as bad as possible – as bad possible.

    [Nov 02, 2016] This presidential race is the low-water mark of American journalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... A survey covering 12 weeks of the campaign after the summer conventions found that 91 percent of Trump coverage on the three largest broadcast networks was "hostile." The Media Research Center also found that much of the focus was on Trump's personal life, while the networks downplayed investigations into Clinton's emails and her family foundation. ..."
    "... Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have irrefutable evidence that none of this is based on journalism standards. Rather, it reflects the incestuous relationship between liberal members of elite media organizations and the Democratic Party. The alliance mocks any claims that the media are independent. ..."
    "... John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, was caught fielding flattering comments from reporters and columnists and guiding coverage. One Politico reporter, Glenn Thrush, sent Podesta a story to review before it was published, calling himself a "hack" and pleading, "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this." ..."
    "... CNN proved that its nickname, the Clinton News Network, is deserved. Only after WikiLeaks showed that Democratic Party honcho Donna Brazile, a paid commentator, twice gave Clinton debate questions in advance did the network sever its ties with her. ..."
    "... Tellingly, Clinton never rejected the insider advantage against rival Bernie Sanders, nor seemed surprised by it. And CNN still shows no curiosity about whether anyone else participated in the scam. ..."
    "... When the New York Times crossed the Rubicon by allowing reporters to express their opinions in so-called news stories, the floodgates opened across the country as imitators followed suit. ..."
    "... The decision by editor Dean Baquet to dismantle the standards of the Times to try to elect Clinton will not be easy to reverse after the campaign. The standards were developed over decades to build public trust, and removing them elevates the editor's bias to policy. ..."
    Nov 01, 2016 | nypost.com

    In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned America about the "unwarranted influence" of a "military-industrial complex." Were he speaking today, Ike might be warning about a media-political complex.

    And for the same reason - the dangers to democracy and liberty of "the disastrous rise of misplaced power."

    However it ends, the 2016 presidential race will mark the low-water mark of journalism that is worthy of the First Amendment. Never before have so many media organizations, old and new, abandoned all pretense of fairness to take sides and try to pick a president.

    Their cozy confederacy with the incumbent political faction is largely in opposition to public will. Although polls show a tight race for the White House, studies find staggeringly lopsided coverage, with Donald Trump getting far more negative coverage than Hillary Clinton.

    A survey covering 12 weeks of the campaign after the summer conventions found that 91 percent of Trump coverage on the three largest broadcast networks was "hostile." The Media Research Center also found that much of the focus was on Trump's personal life, while the networks downplayed investigations into Clinton's emails and her family foundation.

    Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have irrefutable evidence that none of this is based on journalism standards. Rather, it reflects the incestuous relationship between liberal members of elite media organizations and the Democratic Party. The alliance mocks any claims that the media are independent.

    John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, was caught fielding flattering comments from reporters and columnists and guiding coverage. One Politico reporter, Glenn Thrush, sent Podesta a story to review before it was published, calling himself a "hack" and pleading, "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this."

    CNN proved that its nickname, the Clinton News Network, is deserved. Only after WikiLeaks showed that Democratic Party honcho Donna Brazile, a paid commentator, twice gave Clinton debate questions in advance did the network sever its ties with her.

    Tellingly, Clinton never rejected the insider advantage against rival Bernie Sanders, nor seemed surprised by it. And CNN still shows no curiosity about whether anyone else participated in the scam.

    It is hard to escape the conclusion that playing favorites, while pretending to be neutral, is business-as-usual. The only difference is that WikiLeaks exposed the ugly truth. Much of the media world has long tilted left, but this year, the bias became open and notorious war because the liberal bell cow decided that Trump was not deserving of basic fairness.

    When the New York Times crossed the Rubicon by allowing reporters to express their opinions in so-called news stories, the floodgates opened across the country as imitators followed suit.

    The decision by editor Dean Baquet to dismantle the standards of the Times to try to elect Clinton will not be easy to reverse after the campaign. The standards were developed over decades to build public trust, and removing them elevates the editor's bias to policy.

    As such, the decision establishes a political litmus test for hiring, and new employees likely will be expected to echo the party line in their "reporting." Let's see how many conservatives or even moderates get promoted, and whether religiously observant employees feel discriminated against.

    This "disastrous rise of misplaced power" is visible each and every day as the Times' front-page headlines read like editorials in slamming Trump and boosting Clinton. Tuesday's was a classic, with the top story accusing Trump of a "tax dodge" 30 years ago.

    See also The New York Times abandoned its integrity just to bash Donald Trump

    [Nov 02, 2016] The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party

    Nov 02, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    toffee1 26 Oct 2016 7:58

    Trump shows the true face of the ruling class with no hypocrisy. He is telling us the truth. If we have a democracy, we should have a party representing the interests of the business class, why not. The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party.

    [Nov 02, 2016] Cory Bernardi warns One Nation will rise if migration not halved

    Notable quotes:
    "... Actually there is a point about reducing migration that can be rationally made. It's not about racial purity or demonising refugees but the prospect of high population growth brings great challenges and a. Need to assess what population Australia can reasonably sustain. ..."
    "... It's interesting that Australia has benefited greatly by migration since WW2. The enriching of our economic and cultural fabric has been incontestable. But maybe we've reached the safe limits of population growth. Even the Bernadis and Abetz clans have reached here relatively recently. ..."
    "... Call me old fashioned but I thought it was the responsibility of Governments to develop sound policies in the interests of the country and EXPLAIN them to the voters so that they can get understanding and support. This seems to be way beyond our politicians now, they throw anything up in the air and abandon it when there is opposition. So much for integrity and conviction. ..."
    "... This morning an economic think tank recommended doubling the immigration intake, saying it would "increase per capita GDP" despite the fact that per capita GDP has gone backwards due to increased migration. ..."
    "... If you halved the current migration rate it would return to historical levels, and be better for the economy and for the well being of the people already here. ..."
    "... The problem is not with migration in this country, but with the 457 visa program where employers, like Caltex and 7Eleven, pay below award wages and provide poor working conditions. ..."
    "... This flows on into the broader community festering discontent amongst Australians who see their jobs and employment conditions disappearing. ..."
    "... Rather than focusing on immigrants, how about a thoughtful discussion of growth: what it means, how it ought to be measured, what's good and bad about it, and moving forward, what we as a society want in those terms. Immigration will assume a far more meaningful place in the context of a discussion of that kind, which would hopefully incorporate a strong environmental focus. But even in terms of the latter, issues of sustainability are not simply about raw population numbers but ultimately about lifestyle, modes of consumption, and energy use. ..."
    "... What's really interesting here are the telling contradictions within the governing party between its fundamental commitments to neo-liberalism and ever-increasing growth in GDP as absolute goods, and its stumbling attempts to also embrace political reaction against the economic consequences of both policies. ..."
    "... In that sense Bernardi is a useful idiot - plays to reaction through the red herring of prejudice (plus allowing the extreme right in the LNP to vent a bit of steam) while remaining rock-solid behind neo-liberalism and free markets -- at least, when it comes to the free movement of capital anyway (though the LNP has very astutely used various categories of working visa as an attempt to gradually entrench the movement of labour also, though not in any 'free' sense, just in the interests of maximizing profits). ..."
    "... Yes it has, but Australia is now a vastly different place to what it was in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Back then there was plenty of land and housing, jobs available to anyone who wanted them, and the roads and hospitals were virtually empty. ..."
    "... Australia isn't like that anymore and anyone living in the major cities knows how overcrowded they currently are. The 2 bedroom flat opposite me is being rented out and 7 people are living in it. Also, one of the garages downstairs is being occupied by a small family of three.. ..."
    "... We need pro family policies if we wish to reduce migration. Working women must be given bigger incentives. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Liberal senator, who has reiterated his support for Trump while on taxpayer-funded secondment to the UN, calls on government to 'reconsider' refugee intake

    quintal -> MadDuck

    Hi mad duck

    Actually there is a point about reducing migration that can be rationally made. It's not about racial purity or demonising refugees but the prospect of high population growth brings great challenges and a. Need to assess what population Australia can reasonably sustain.

    We are, Antarctica aside, the driest, ,soil poor of all the continents. To put further pressure on our resources by too great a population increase is not wise.

    It's interesting that Australia has benefited greatly by migration since WW2. The enriching of our economic and cultural fabric has been incontestable. But maybe we've reached the safe limits of population growth. Even the Bernadis and Abetz clans have reached here relatively recently.

    It's also instructive that those countries with relatively small populations that invest in people as opposed to mines are economically more successful than are we. Think Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland. Taken together they have about half of Austrlias population and are amongst the strongest economies in the world.

    So there's an irony that Senator BErnadi, detestable in so many of his statements, makes some common purpose with environmental groups .

    Ironic but I suppose that it is what it is and the issue needs some careful thought.

    Cheers

    Alpo88 1h ago

    "Cory Bernardi warns One Nation will rise if migration not halved"....

    Liberal Civil War- Dispatch from the front N. 22:

    General Bernardi, commander of the Third Infantry Division of the Confederate Army of the Australian Conservatives has sent an ultimatum to the besieged contingent of the Army of the Waffler in Canberra warning that an all out assault, with a taking-no-prisoners rule is being prepared unless the Waffler's Army surrenders immediately and unconditionally.

    Commander in Chief Gen. Turnbull is reported to be in his bunker, frantically thinking how to respond to the ultimatum: a task that he has described to his entourage as "squaring the circle in a way that nobody notices I have failed in the task"....
    A review of the young stormtroopers deployed to protect the bunker is planned for this afternoon....

    Facebook Twitter

    McMurdo 1h ago

    What an intelligent approach, there is criticism of policy so drop it quickly.

    Call me old fashioned but I thought it was the responsibility of Governments to develop sound policies in the interests of the country and EXPLAIN them to the voters so that they can get understanding and support. This seems to be way beyond our politicians now, they throw anything up in the air and abandon it when there is opposition. So much for integrity and conviction.

    Of course Bernardi is being opportunistic here and using scare tactics to get a policy change he wants for other reasons. That he even tries this stunt indicates the very low point our
    politics has reached. In a healthy system his views would be disowned and rejected instantly.
    Our brave pollies will spend days wafting in the wind waiting to see how much support he gets before they declare a position, if they manage that at all. Pathetic.


    ajostu 1h ago

    OK I loathe Bernardi, but it's time to look at a bit of history.

    John Howard has admitted that his "Stop The Boats" policy was a bait-and-switch scheme to soften the public's resistance to higher immigration. Other ministers from the period (Costello, Vanstone) have supported this version of history.

    So while pushing the we-hate-boat-people line, Howard doubled the regular immigration intake. Rudd, Gillard and Abbott have all gone along with this in a completely bipartisan fashion.

    Why? Because it's what lazy, uninnovative Australian business wants. More people, business expands, CEO bonus, that's all that matters.

    Meanwhile people (particularly in Sydney and Melbourne) are noticing that their quality of life has gone down. Cities are crowded, traffic appalling, and young people can't buy a house (though immigration is a small factor in that last one).

    Both Labour and Liberal have completely buggered up regular immigration. The 457 scheme is a disaster, below-minimum-wage pseudo-slavery is widespread, and "students" are rorting the system left right and centre.

    And the Greens do SFA because they'd have to choose between genuine sustainability (which is, you know, what Greens are supposed to be on about) and an open migration policy (because they don't have the political skills to separate refugees from the overall intake).

    This morning an economic think tank recommended doubling the immigration intake, saying it would "increase per capita GDP" despite the fact that per capita GDP has gone backwards due to increased migration.

    If you halved the current migration rate it would return to historical levels, and be better for the economy and for the well being of the people already here.

    Of course Bernardi doesn't care about any of that he only cares about One Nation. But if One Nation is the only party proposing a reduction in immigration, they'll get a lot of votes.

    FredLurk 1h ago

    I hate to agree with Bernadi, but he's dead right. Look at what is happening in Paris right now. Ask yourself, do we want this here?

    www.express.co.uk/news/world/727862/Migrant-crisis-club-wielding-refugees-running-battles-Stalingrad-Metro-Paris

    Suziekue

    The problem is not with migration in this country, but with the 457 visa program where employers, like Caltex and 7Eleven, pay below award wages and provide poor working conditions.

    This flows on into the broader community festering discontent amongst Australians who see their jobs and employment conditions disappearing.

    But Bernadi and his ilk choose to distract from corporate malfeasance by playing the racist card, and thereby protecting the vested interests of the Coalition.

    Filipio 1h ago

    I happen to be a fan of immigration to Australia. It's enriched Australian society enormously. At the same time can we please move on from seeing GDP as some kind of sacred measure of all that is holy and good, even in economic terms?

    Rather than focusing on immigrants, how about a thoughtful discussion of growth: what it means, how it ought to be measured, what's good and bad about it, and moving forward, what we as a society want in those terms. Immigration will assume a far more meaningful place in the context of a discussion of that kind, which would hopefully incorporate a strong environmental focus. But even in terms of the latter, issues of sustainability are not simply about raw population numbers but ultimately about lifestyle, modes of consumption, and energy use.

    What's really interesting here are the telling contradictions within the governing party between its fundamental commitments to neo-liberalism and ever-increasing growth in GDP as absolute goods, and its stumbling attempts to also embrace political reaction against the economic consequences of both policies.

    In that sense Bernardi is a useful idiot - plays to reaction through the red herring of prejudice (plus allowing the extreme right in the LNP to vent a bit of steam) while remaining rock-solid behind neo-liberalism and free markets -- at least, when it comes to the free movement of capital anyway (though the LNP has very astutely used various categories of working visa as an attempt to gradually entrench the movement of labour also, though not in any 'free' sense, just in the interests of maximizing profits).

    jack1878 -> Filipio 43m ago

    "I happen to be a fan of immigration to Australia. It's enriched Australian society enormously."

    Yes it has, but Australia is now a vastly different place to what it was in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Back then there was plenty of land and housing, jobs available to anyone who wanted them, and the roads and hospitals were virtually empty.

    Australia isn't like that anymore and anyone living in the major cities knows how overcrowded they currently are. The 2 bedroom flat opposite me is being rented out and 7 people are living in it. Also, one of the garages downstairs is being occupied by a small family of three..

    Is this what we really want? Just because a policy worked well 50 years ago doesn't mean it should be retained for eternity.

    jack1878 1h ago

    I hate to say it, but I agree with Bernardi on the issue of immigration--but not much else.

    To still be carrying out a policy of mass immigration in these disastrous economic times ie. no jobs, shortage of housing, overcrowded roads, hospitals etc. is a recipe for social unrest.

    To cause such social unrest merely to prop up an overheated housing market and create a large pool of cheap labour for the benefit of wealthy elites is about as irresponsible a policy as you can get.


    James Graham 45m ago

    We need pro family policies if we wish to reduce migration. Working women must be given bigger incentives.

    Abolish the tax breaks for novated lease vehicles for a start. Lift the GST on cars to 15%. And lets offer even higher incentives to have the 2nd and 3rd child.

    SisterRhino -> NambuccaBarry 34m ago

    I note even CNN ( Clinton Network News!) that has championed the same views of Donald Trump that you have just outlined, is starting to distance itself from Hillary.

    She's so tainted that she will be of no use to her benefactors if she does squeak across the line. Who'd be dumb enough to be asking for the favours they've paid for given the scrutiny she'd going to be under from hereon in?

    Just watch....as her backers desert the ship, one by one, then all at once.

    [Nov 01, 2016] The Media Hysteria And Dishonesty On Trump Has Backfired

    Notable quotes:
    "... That is the takeaway from the Trump candidacy. They fired every gun they could muster at him, and he's still standing. Standing, and even winning, if some polls are to be believed. ..."
    "... It's kind of disappointing that it took an outsized personality like Trump to bring straightforwardness into the mainstream. Ron Paul was straightforward, and did amazingly well, but he wasn't glitzy enough to avoid being marginalized. Bernie Sanders was straightforward, but he wasn't glamorous enough to avoid being steamrollered by a political machine. Nope, it took a guy with cutthroat business savvy and TV experience to let America in on the Big Secret. ..."
    "... Any hour now the NYT, WaPo, LAT, and Atlantic are going to publish poll results showing that among their selected samples, the Mainstream Media are viewed as the same MiniTru banners-flying young crusaders as liberated the people of the United States in the 1970s from marriage, ethics, societal trust, and the horror of a life lived without STDs, divorce, multiracial offspring, and stoner grandparents. ..."
    "... "Only one major newspaper has endorsed Donald Trump. Only one. And this is a man whom the American people might choose as their president. What better proof could we have of the stark difference between printed opinion and public opinion, between what Americans think and what our rulers want us to think? Donald Trump has ripped away whatever was left of the pretense of media objectivity." ..."
    "... "Despite the concerted shrieking of virtually the entire American ruling class" ..."
    "... Ironically, the same potential outcome the discredited mainstream media bloviates and fear mongers about. ..."
    "... Race is big issue in the US, since it is a country that had a 90%+ majority of people of white European ancestry as recently as the 1950′s, with an accompanying European foundation and Constitution. ..."
    "... Yeah, the stupidity of it all offends me more than the content sometimes. Fortunately things are improving and sites like Breitbart are promoting the message while dropping this stupidity. ..."
    "... On Unz.com, let me suggest reading Sailer, Mercer, Reed, and Derbyshire. Ron Unz also co-founded the more highbrow AmConMag.com. ..."
    The Unz Review
    Credit: VDare.com.

    From the start of Donald Trump's campaign, the media have covered him dishonestly. They have consistently portrayed him as a closet "white supremacist" who deliberately appeals to " racists ." They have tried to tie him to a wicked movement known as the "Alt-Right." They are now working on another dishonest angle: that Donald Trump is "mainstreaming hate" and bringing "racism" into public discourse. The media clearly want to stampede voters into Mrs. Clinton's camp so as to spare us the agony of a "racist" in the White House.

    The demonization campaign has backfired. By trying to hang racial dissidents around Donald Trump's neck, the media have given American Renaissance and other organizations far more publicity than ever before. At the same time, constant shouts of "racist" and "bigot" don't seem to hurt Mr. Trump: instead they are wrecking what is left of media credibility. The biggest irony, though, is that Donald Trump is probably not one of us at all. But even small deviations from the cast-iron orthodoxy of race are enough to plunge our rulers into dark fantasies about Donald Trump as a secret David Duke fan.

    Media dishonesty started immediately. When Mr. Trump pointed out that some immigrants from Mexico were criminals, the press acted as if he had said all Mexican immigrants are criminals. Then, when alert news hounds discovered that those of us they love to call "haters" and "white supremacists" liked Mr. Trump, there was no end of articles with titles such as : " Meet the Horde of Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and Other Extremist Leaders Endorsing Donald Trump ," " Top Racists And Neo-Nazis Back Donald Trump ," " 'Heil Donald Trump': Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists Show Support ," and " The White Nationalists Who Support Donald Trump ."

    These articles had a simpleminded purpose: discredit Mr. Trump by parading before the reader any Nazi, Kluxer, or racially conscious white person who had anything nice to say about the candidate. The implication was that if "racists" were going to vote for Donald Trump he must be "racist," too.

    This was deceitful and one-sided. When the chairman of the American Communist Party endorsed Hillary Clinton , no one suggested this meant she was a communist.

    It is true that Mr. Trump gave the media just enough of an excuse to pretend he really is a closet "bigot" because he did not repudiate "racists" with the snorts of indignation respectability requires. There was the famous exchange in February when a reporter pushed Mr. Trump to disavow an endorsement from David Duke. As The Hill reported it: " 'David Duke endorsed me? OK, alright. I disavow, OK?' Trump said, seeking to quickly move on to another question."

    That same month, there was another famous exchange with Jake Tapper of CNN :

    Tapper: Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don't want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?

    Donald Trump: Well just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know. I don't know, did he endorse me, or what's going on? Because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists.

    The media leaped on these exchanges with shouts of joy . "Trump refuses to disavow white supremacists! That's because he is one!"

    There are far better explanations. First, Donald Trump is a pugnacious man. He doesn't like being pushed around by anyone, especially not by journalists who hate him . If Mr. Tapper had belligerently demanded that Mr. Trump agree that the sky is blue, Mr. Trump would have bridled at that.

    Second, Donald Trump probably doesn't know anything about David Duke or white supremacy. I would be astonished if he has ever looked into the thinking of David Duke or any other alleged "white supremacist." It is his feistiness and his ignorance of white advocacy that explain his answers, not some carefully concealed racial consciousness.

    The press has also pounced on Donald Trump's retweets of "racist" material, which is supposed to be yet more proof that he is a secret supremacist. Business Insider, for example, published this shocking story: " 5 times Donald Trump has engaged with alt-right racists on Twitter ." Not one of these tweets is obviously "racist," and it would be surprising if Mr. Trump or his skeleton staff took the time to vet the sources of the thousands of tweets @realDonaldTrump has sent during the campaign.

    Now the press is working on another smear-Trump angle. Recently, I have been contacted by journalists from such places as Bloomberg News, Reuters, and the New York Times , who clearly want to write that Donald Trump is "mainstreaming hate," that he is responsible for a huge surge in the Alt-Right. They want to know about all the people who have been flocking to AmRen.com because of what Donald Trump says. They want me to tell them about people who have been "emboldened" to "speak out against minorities" because Donald Trump has led the way. They would love to find someone who now thinks he is free to run down the street shouting "nigger!" because Mr. Trump wants to take a hard look at Muslim immigrants.

    I have explained to them as patiently as I can that they have it the wrong way around. No one comes looking for AmRen.com because Donald Trump wants to build a wall. They come looking for us because the media have written about us in their attempt to convince the world that Mr. Trump is a "racist." They come looking for us because Mrs. Clinton kindly called attention to us by complaining about the Alt-Right and her "basket of deplorables." I also try to explain that if the media had not launched its malicious campaign of trying to hold Donald Trump responsible for the views of certain people who support him, few people would have heard of the Alt-Right. In their zeal to paint their enemy in the darkest colors, they are promoting the Alt-Right, not Donald Trump.

    I explain that racial dissent has been growing like never before, for reasons that have nothing to do with the campaign. It is Trayvon Martin , Michael Brown , Black Lives Matter, and black rioters who are sending hundreds of thousands of frustrated white people our way– not Donald Trump. This will not change whether Mr. Trump wins or loses. The top landing pages on AmRen.com are analyses of race and crime–something Mr. Trump never talks about.

    I also explain to reporters that it is idiotic to think Mr. Trump has mainstreamed "hate," by which they mean sensible observations about race. I ask them to name a single person who has been "emboldened" to say something "racist" just because Donald Trump is the GOP nominee. Of course, they can't. If anything, it is the opposite. Mr. Trump has been called every name under the sun for the mildest, most common-sense observations about Muslims and immigration. Anyone tempted to come out of the closet is likely to hesitate more than ever. Things could change if Mr. Trump becomes president, but the candidate himself has done very little to spread our ideas.

    What Donald Trump has done is spark an unprecedented interest in politics among disaffected young people who recognize that Mitt Romney and John McCain are no different from Barack Obama when it comes to preserving whites, their society, and their culture. I know a number of millennials who never bothered to vote before but who certainly will in November. I know some who have made their first political contribution or who have spent weekends volunteering for the Trump campaign.

    I point out to reporters that this is what elections are supposed to be all about: giving the voters real choices. I note that the Trump/Clinton contest will almost certainly produce a record voter turnout for a modern election. Haven't our rulers been wringing their hands over a lack of political engagement, especially among the young? Well, now they have engagement, alright, but they don't like it. They don't like it because so many people are stumping for the candidate they love to call a " threat to democracy ." Liberals are such transparent hypocrites. They claim to love democracy, but suddenly start worrying about its health if the people refuse vote the way they tell them to.

    The whole Trump-is-a-racist fracas shows just how painfully fragile orthodoxy has become. I may be wrong, but I have no reason to think Donald Trump thinks at all as we do. He has never said or done anything to suggest he is anything more than an ordinary American with normal instincts: He doesn't want criminals sneaking across the border, he thinks sanctuary cities for illegals are crazy, he doesn't see why we need more Muslims, and he is angry when immigrants go on welfare. Millions of ordinary Americans clearly agree with him, and not because they are racially aware. It is because they are decent, fair-minded people who also have a nagging sense that the country is changing in unwelcome ways.

    I am convinced that Mr. Trump does not have a sophisticated understanding of race. So far as I can tell, he doesn't have a sophisticated understanding of much of anything. He has stumbled by instinct onto a few sensible policies that white advocates have been promoting for a long time, but not because he is one of us.

    Maybe–just maybe–he will move in our direction. It's not impossible to imagine a President Trump asking, in an offhand way, "What's wrong with white people wanting to remain a majority in the United States?" Or he might casually note that you can't expect as many blacks as Asians in AP classes because they don't have the same levels of intelligence. But I can imagine the opposite, too: President Trump so bogged down in Beltway baloney that he never even builds the wall.

    There is one thing that Donald Trump has changed. He has proven that Republican bromides about taxes and small government don't excite people. He has proven that there is tremendous anger against political insiders of both parties. He has proven that Americans do want their country to come first. They don't want it to try to save the world or to be a dumping ground for people who have wrecked their own countries.

    And even if he has not "mainstreamed racism," he has shown that if you have a backbone you can withstand what is surely the most intense and concentrated program of hate ever directed at an American. On October 11, Roger Cohen wrote in the New York Times that Donald Trump is a "phony, liar, blowhard, cheat, bully, misogynist, demagogue, predator, bigot, bore, egomaniac, racist, sexist, sociopath," and a "dictator-in-waiting with a brat's temper and a prig's scowl." [ Trump_vs_deep_state After Trump ] This must be one of the most unhinged, hysterical outbursts in the history of American political journalism. And it is unusual only for its wordiness, not its tone.

    Don't the editors of the Times realize that this kind of frothing explains why more Americans believe in Bigfoot (29 percent) than trust newspapers (20 percent)? Virtually the entire industry is so consumed with rage at Donald Trump and contempt for his supporters that it cannot control itself. Open, petulant bias is driving more and more Americans to social media and to sites like AmRen.com for their news.

    Despite the concerted shrieking of virtually the entire American ruling class, Donald Trump is going to get close to half of the vote on November 8. Some 60 million people are going to vote for a man for whom Roger Cohen [ Email him ] has emptied his dictionary trying to insult. Only one major newspaper has endorsed Donald Trump. Only one . And this is a man whom the American people might choose as their president. What better proof could we have of the stark difference between printed opinion and public opinion, between what Americans think and what our rulers want us to think? Donald Trump has ripped away whatever was left of the pretense of media objectivity.

    Whether he wins or not, whether he is one of us or not, Donald Trump has laid bare the collusion between big media and a political system in which both parties collaborate to run the country in their interests and those of their big donors. Voters–finally–have a chance to vote against the entire corrupt system. On November 8th they could bring it crashing down, but even if it still stands, it is visibly weakened, badly discredited. These are the perfect conditions in which our ideas will flourish as never before.

    Jared Taylor [ Email him ] is editor of American Renaissance and the author of Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America . (For Peter Brimelow's review, click here .) His most recent book is White Identity .

    (Reprinted from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
    1. Demeter Last says: November 1, 2016 at 6:14 am GMT • 300 Words

      And even if he has not "mainstreamed racism," he has shown that if you have a backbone you can withstand what is surely the most intense and concentrated program of hate ever directed at an American.

      That is the takeaway from the Trump candidacy. They fired every gun they could muster at him, and he's still standing. Standing, and even winning, if some polls are to be believed.

      (I suspect that this kind of determination resonates well with Mr. Taylor. Taylor is one of the most inoffensive men to have ever put pen to paper, but his ideas and honor have been attacked for years. Yet still he stands.)

      It's kind of disappointing that it took an outsized personality like Trump to bring straightforwardness into the mainstream. Ron Paul was straightforward, and did amazingly well, but he wasn't glitzy enough to avoid being marginalized. Bernie Sanders was straightforward, but he wasn't glamorous enough to avoid being steamrollered by a political machine. Nope, it took a guy with cutthroat business savvy and TV experience to let America in on the Big Secret.

      The Big Secret is:

      1) For all the fait accompli chatter on TV, this is still America, and Americans still get to vote.

      2) America really is the land of the free and the home of the brave, and we defined those aspects in the first two Amendments to the Constitution.

      3) When you're free enough to be brave, some people are brave enough to be free.

      TL;DR: happy to see Mr. Taylor's article here.


    2. Wally says: • Website November 1, 2016 at 6:23 am GMT

      The 'media' attacks Trump for wanting to built a wall, while they ignore Israel's apartheid wall that is already built.

      http://217.218.67.233/photo/20160407/824d1b8f-4b1e-425d-8368-c17853d16df5.jpg

      https://www.youtube.com/embed/uSBxqzKoUoU?feature=oembed


    3. Wally says: November 1, 2016 at 6:29 am GMT @Anon

      The media make fun of conspiracy theories, but the more they lie, the more they are adding fuel to fire to alternative media.

      I still believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.

      But there have been so many lies about so many things that I wonder if future generations will trust anything. And if I were a millennial today, I wouldn't trust that Lee Oswald killed Kennedy either since the media are so surreal about everything. The 'new cold war' is the most ridiculous thing.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8MsA9xZJok

      Ah yes, the magic bullet.

      And how's your Big Foot fantasy coming along?

      • Replies: @Olorin Interesting you mention we PNWers' favorite evolutionary atavism. (Well, second-favorite, in Seattle and Portland.)

      I read somewhere in these pages (Derb?) recently that more Americans now believe in Bigfoot (29 percent) than believe the MSM are doing a good job (20 percent).

      You know what this means.

      Any hour now the NYT, WaPo, LAT, and Atlantic are going to publish poll results showing that among their selected samples, the Mainstream Media are viewed as the same MiniTru banners-flying young crusaders as liberated the people of the United States in the 1970s from marriage, ethics, societal trust, and the horror of a life lived without STDs, divorce, multiracial offspring, and stoner grandparents.


      Trust in US Media at All-Time High!

      Americans Praise NYT for Leading the Truth and Justice Vanguard against Fuhrer Trump and Generalissimo Pepe!

      Chocolate Rations Up 127%!

      Only Hillary Can Supply HerTurn Singularity!

      Coming Soon: Free Huma Abedin Action Figure!

      Turn in Your Parents for Likes, Upthumbs, and Game Upgrades!

    4. Miro23 says: November 1, 2016 at 7:41 am GMT • 100 Words

      "…. it (the MSM) is visibly weakened, badly discredited."

      This has to be one of the best articles on Unz.

      "Only one major newspaper has endorsed Donald Trump. Only one. And this is a man whom the American people might choose as their president. What better proof could we have of the stark difference between printed opinion and public opinion, between what Americans think and what our rulers want us to think? Donald Trump has ripped away whatever was left of the pretense of media objectivity."

      And this,

      "Despite the concerted shrieking of virtually the entire American ruling class"


    5. Miro23 says: November 1, 2016 at 8:21 am GMT • 100 Words @Fran Macadam Even Jared Taylor, like the proverbial broken clock, correctly calls out the times once in a while.

      "...whether he is one of us or not, Donald Trump has laid bare the collusion between big media and a political system in which both parties collaborate to run the country in their interests and those of their big donors."

      Momentarily accurate, but this isn't the way the hands of the clock point after that:

      "These are the perfect conditions in which our ideas will flourish as never before."

      Ironically, the same potential outcome the discredited mainstream media bloviates and fearmongers about.

      Ironically, the same potential outcome the discredited mainstream media bloviates and fear mongers about.

      Well, they could have tried having an open and frank discussion about RACE rather than just using it as a propaganda tool.

      Race is big issue in the US, since it is a country that had a 90%+ majority of people of white European ancestry as recently as the 1950′s, with an accompanying European foundation and Constitution. Now, as an open borders state, it is fast heading towards a country with a non-European racial majority. with the Establishment pushing them towards multiculturalism, identity politics and non-integration, probably to build a permanently fractured nation that they can easily dominate with their highly effective private system of patronage.

      • Replies: @Fran Macadam It's not skin color or ethnicity that counts, it's character and beliefs. I've no confidence in judging what policies or who to support by virtue of "race." I'd rather interact with a community of another ethnicity, which has compatible beliefs, than one whose individual physical characteristics most resemble mine, but reviles all I believe in. The fact is, there is a lot of the latter. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    6. Montefrío says: November 1, 2016 at 9:13 am GMT • 200 Words

      I'm one of those people who never paid any attention to the "alt-right" or any of the websites associated with it until the obviously-biased msm made such a fuss.

      "It is because they are decent, fair-minded people who also have a nagging sense that the country is changing in unwelcome ways." I like to believe I belong to this group and will remain in it, although with a somewhat harsher perspective than was previously the case. These sites have led me to read books I'd never considered reading and at 70, I've read a great deal.

      All things considered, I find the nazi stuff over the top, the racial slur stuff undignified, but much of the message spot on: the country (and not just the USA) has changed in "unwelcome ways", continues to do so based on observations from afar, and will continue to change for the worse for as long as falsely conscious folks of European origin play into the hands of their openly hostile enemies. I suggest visiting these sites to widen one's perspective if nothing else. One can discover literature effectively censored by the thought police for many years now, literature of far greater worth than much of what is promoted as "great" by others.

      • Replies: @jacques sheete
      ...literature of far greater worth than much of what is promoted as "great" by others.
      For sure. The garbage gets front page, Nobel prizes and Pulitzer prizes while tons of good stuff never sees the light of day or gets trashed. , @Lot Welcome aboard Montefrio! Please keep commenting. Since you are 70, I think this site's mostly under-40 readers will appreciate your perspective. Keep in mind though half of us have ADHD, so keep it brief too!
      I find the nazi stuff over the top, the racial slur stuff undignified, but much of the message spot on
      Yeah, the stupidity of it all offends me more than the content sometimes. Fortunately things are improving and sites like Breitbart are promoting the message while dropping this stupidity.

      On Unz.com, let me suggest reading Sailer, Mercer, Reed, and Derbyshire. Ron Unz also co-founded the more highbrow AmConMag.com.

      AmConMag is nice too because you can email article links to potential converts without having embarrassing anti-Semite crap all over the rest of the site that make you look like a nut. , @Schlock Trooper

      All things considered, I find the nazi stuff over the top
      But as Franz Stangl duly noted, they do have some really cool uniforms. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    7. WorkingClass says: November 1, 2016 at 9:32 am GMT • 100 Words

      "….he has shown that if you have a backbone you can withstand what is surely the most intense and concentrated program of hate ever directed at an American."

      It ain't just Trump. The continuous blizzard of hate is directed at me. Joe sixpack. Imperial Washington is a steaming heap of excrement. Theft, lies, treason and murder are it's stock in trade. Yet it is Trump who is vulgar and I who am deplorable. All I need to know about Trump is he stands up to these dirtbags.

      • Replies: @jacques sheete
      The continuous blizzard of hate is directed at me. Joe sixpack.
      Actually it's also directed at anyone who smells a rat, and there are plenty of mangy rodents in the steaming heaps of excrement in D.C., New Yawk and Chicago to name a few.And it appears to be an inviolable rule that "Sixpackians" smell rats long before the masses of White Collar Princes do.
      Theft, lies, treason and murder are it's stock in trade.
      And they always have been and shall continue, despite the silly mythology to the contrary. There's a reason Patrick Henry boycotted the cornstitutional convention in Philly in 1787, giving as a reason that he "smelt a rat." The rats have been spreading their droppings for centuries, and it will take a true Hercules to clean up the Augean cesspool they've made of the world, and it won't be done in one day, if ever.

      Nevertheless, we have no choice but to maintain the struggle! Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    8. Randal says: November 1, 2016 at 10:36 am GMT • 500 Words

      I may be wrong, but I have no reason to think Donald Trump thinks at all as we do. He has never said or done anything to suggest he is anything more than an ordinary American with normal instincts: He doesn't want criminals sneaking across the border, he thinks sanctuary cities for illegals are crazy, he doesn't see why we need more Muslims, and he is angry when immigrants go on welfare. Millions of ordinary Americans clearly agree with him, and not because they are racially aware. It is because they are decent, fair-minded people who also have a nagging sense that the country is changing in unwelcome ways.

      This seems to me to be a reasonable assessment of the man and his broad politics.

      Maybe–just maybe–he will move in our direction. It's not impossible to imagine a President Trump asking, in an offhand way, "What's wrong with white people wanting to remain a majority in the United States?" Or he might casually note that you can't expect as many blacks as Asians in AP classes because they don't have the same levels of intelligence. But I can imagine the opposite, too: President Trump so bogged down in Beltway baloney that he never even builds the wall.

      This, too, seems to be a reasonable assessment of the prospects were Trump to win.

      Though I have a general interest in the politics of identity and a more immediate interest in the ongoing demonization and criminalisation of traditionalist dissent by the dominant left, my primary interest in the US presidential election is in relation to foreign policy, and the extent to which the next president is likely to continue the bipartisan interventionist idiocies of the past 20 years. Clinton clearly will, having played a big part in driving said idiocies in her career to date. Trump, though, is an unknown quantity. Much as Taylor sees the possibilities in relation to his own area of particular interest, so it goes for my own area. It's possible to imagine a President Trump presiding over a draw back from the aggressive confrontation of Russia and China, and if not actually shutting down then at least deprioritising the various US "democracy promotion" and other programs designed to try to spread US ideology around the world. But it's also possible to imagine him going the other way, either leaving foreign policy to the US "experts" while he concentrates on the pressing domestic issues he would undoubtedly have in dealing with implacable sabotage of his time in office by the media, judicial and legislative branches of the US regime, or worse, letting himself be convinced by the same interventionist lobbyists as filled George W Bush's empty head after he took office.

      Sill, for both of us an unknown with at least the possibility of sensible policy is clearly better than the certainty of disaster the world would get with Clinton.


    9. Greg Bacon says: • Website November 1, 2016 at 10:45 am GMT • 100 Words

      Trump is 'Hope an Change,' v 2.o. Or, if you like, Obama in 'white-face' to give the rubes some entertainment while their world collapses around them and Wall Street pickpockets are nicking what money they have left while watching the show.

      The TBTF banks really run the show. Do you seriously think they'd let someone get into the WH who might actually do their job of protecting the USA and not Wall Street casinos?

    10. Authenticjazzman says: November 1, 2016 at 1:43 pm GMT • 100 Words

      Here's the solution :

      Interview : Mr Trump you are a racist.

      Mr trump answers : No you are a racist.

      Back and forth no matter how long.

      This is the only way to handle this distorted issue : DT and his folks must turn it around on them, as they are the real racists, but nobody dares to say it out loud.

      Detroit is a result of their racism.

      Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years.

    11. Randal says: November 1, 2016 at 2:01 pm GMT • 100 Words

      Here's the solution :

      Interview : Mr Trump you are a racist.

      Mr trump answers : No you are a racist.

      I think the best response to the assertion that one is a racist is to reply: "And?", and to make the case that being racist is not necessarily a bad thing, if all the things that antiracists claim are racist are to be included in the definition.

      • Replies: @Authenticjazzman "And"

      Nope it won't work, because agreeing with them, would be construed as a "Confession" and would simply turn potential allies against us.
      I would, if I had a say in campaign policy , I would accuse them, the leftists, the democrats right back of every fucking thing they have accused us of, and I would be right, as they in reality are the fucking racists, mysogenists, even the homophobes,as they now claim that a gay person cannot bonafibably ever be a Republican,which simply indicates that they have no respect for the self-determination of gay folks.

      The dumb-ass nice-guy Republicans have taken everything sitting down for the last half century
      and we see the results, and I am convinced that most of the turn-coats have done so because they are terrified of being hit with the "Racist" label.
      We need more allies and not a tedious redefinition of various labels.

      Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years, and pro jazz performer. , @RadicalCenter You know that most people aren't ready for that, especially "swing voters". If trump said that, he would surely lose. Counterproductive, if satisfying momentarily.

      But trump should call Dems racist for treating black Americans like serfs, and he absolutely should call out Clinton et al. on their fomenting racial hatred and division, and their apologism for widespread racially-targeted violence and intimidation against white and Asian people.

    12. highrpm says: November 1, 2016 at 2:16 pm GMT

      in their current state, the MSM are just evangelists pushing their religions, the crazy unfounded irrational beliefs that racism is evil and egalitarians are good. where are the independently verifiable clinical tests? just like all the other myriad religions, creating gods in their own image.

    [Nov 01, 2016] Conspiracy Vs. Government Is Elite Propaganda Justifying Violent Repression Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... With US belief in "conspiracy theory" over 50 percent (see our previous article here ) elites are showing increasingly concern that they have lost control of their narrative. ..."
    "... The article explains that if people grow paranoid about government, then the "norms" of government will collapse. ..."
    "... The article also has parallels to an article we analyzed recently here by Cass Sunstein. His Bloomberg editorial suggested that nothing was more important from a political standpoint than returning "civility" to Congress and politics generally. ..."
    "... The NeoCons will take the United States in the same direction it is going until its' bust. Endless war, run down infrastructure and poverty is the future. Tax receipts are falling fast and government can't pay the big bills with service sector jobs. ..."
    "... Decommissioning the plethora of foreign airbases and dismantling NATO would see the Bankster/MIC die a death. Gotta starve those beasts pronto. ..."
    "... "Conspiracy theory is called "paranoid politics" in this article but it amounts to the same thing." ..."
    "... "conspiracy theory" ..."
    "... "paranoid" ..."
    "... "we should" ..."
    "... "paranoid politics" ..."
    "... "good" ..."
    "... necessarily controlled ..."
    "... "The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are." ..."
    "... "dishonest, insane and intolerable," ..."
    "... "paranoid politics," ..."
    "... "We need" ..."
    "... justifiably paranoid ..."
    Nov 01, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    With US belief in "conspiracy theory" over 50 percent (see our previous article here ) elites are showing increasingly concern that they have lost control of their narrative.

    This article again illustrates elite push back. The article explains that if people grow paranoid about government, then the "norms" of government will collapse.

    Conspiracy theory is called "paranoid politics" in this article but it amounts to the same thing.

    The article also has parallels to an article we analyzed recently here by Cass Sunstein. His Bloomberg editorial suggested that nothing was more important from a political standpoint than returning "civility" to Congress and politics generally.

    This article runs along the same lines: Negative perceptions of the US government can make the process of "governing" dysfunctional.

    Herdee •Nov 1, 2016 12:13 AM

    The NeoCons will take the United States in the same direction it is going until its' bust. Endless war, run down infrastructure and poverty is the future. Tax receipts are falling fast and government can't pay the big bills with service sector jobs.

    WTFUD •Oct 31, 2016 11:14 PM

    Major Civil Unrest is required in the USSofA to alleviate the pressure on Russia, the Elites' would be bogeyman. The rest of the world would benefit too.

    Decommissioning the plethora of foreign airbases and dismantling NATO would see the Bankster/MIC die a death. Gotta starve those beasts pronto.

    PoasterToaster •Oct 31, 2016 10:30 PM

    Bankers hiding behind "government" and using the moral authority it carries in people's heads to carry out their dirty deeds. But now the people have seen behind the curtain and the dope at the controls has been found wanting. Writing is on the wall for them and they know it.

    "The rise of paranoid politics could make America ungovernable"

    We in America aren't supposed to be "governed". And our state of mind is none of your goddamned business.

    medium giraffe Oct 31, 2016 9:55 PM
    "Conspiracy theory is called "paranoid politics" in this article but it amounts to the same thing."

    There is a huge difference between critical thought and lack of education.

    The Telegraph author's unwillingness to seperate the two is telling.

    Radical Marijuana -> medium giraffe Oct 31, 2016 11:45 PM
    One of the most delightful ironies (to those with a sufficiently macabre sense of humour) is that declassified CIA documents from the 1960s have proven that the mass media promotion of the "conspiracy theory" meme was deliberately developed by the CIA, using their media assets.

    Many people have developed ways to discuss the relatively slim differences between being "paranoid" versus being realistic. After several decades of enjoying the luxury to spend most of my time attempting to understand the political processes, my conclusion has always been that THE MORE I LEARNED, THE WORSE IT GOT.

    It is barely possible to exaggerate the degree to which "we should" seriously consider "paranoid politics" as being the most realistic. Governments are only "good" in the sense that they are the biggest forms of organized crime, dominated by the best organized gangs of criminals. In my view, that conclusion can both be derived from the basic principles of the ways that general energy systems operate, as well as empirically confirmed by an overwhelming abundance of well-documented evidence. Indeed, more rational evidence and logical arguments result in that any deeper analysis of politics ALWAYS discovers and demonstrates the ways that civilization is necessarily controlled by applications of the methods of organized crime, whose excessive successfulness are more and more spinning out of control.

    As H.L. Menchen stated:

    "The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are."

    The important things which most governments DO,

    that are "dishonest, insane and intolerable,"

    are ENFORCE FRAUDS by private banks.

    Given those social FACTS, it is barely possible to develop a sufficiently "paranoid politics," to encompass the degree to which the existing political economy, based upon enforcing frauds, is being driven by advancing technologies towards becoming exponentially more fraudulent. The problem is NOT that some people are becoming too critical, but that the majority of them have not yet become critical enough ... "We need" to go beyond being merely superficially cynical, in order to become profoundly cynical enough to perhaps cope with how and why governments ARE the biggest forms of organized crime, dominated by the best organized gangs of criminals.

    In my view, most of the content published on Zero Hedge, which engages in various superficially correct analyses of those problems, tends to never engage in deeper levels of analysis, due to the degree to which the resulting conclusions are way worse than anything which could be adequately admitted and addressed. Rather, it is barely possible to exaggerate the degree to which one is justifiably paranoid about the ways that the ruling classes in Globalized Neolithic Civilization are becoming increasingly psychotic psychopaths:

    THE EXCESSIVE SUCCESSFULNESS OF CONTROLLING CIVILIZATION

    BY APPLICATIONS OF THE VARIOUS METHODS OF ORGANIZED CRIME

    HAS RESULTED IN CIVILIZATION MANIFESTING CRIMINAL INSANITY!

    Radical Marijuana -> medium giraffe •Nov 1, 2016 12:25 AM

    Yes, mg, the CIA, in ways which were, of course, ILLEGAL, attempted to discredit those who did not believe the official story regarding the assination of President Kennedy.

    You may well already be familiar with this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM

    JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick

    The most relevant conclusion of that documentary was that, at the highest levels, there is no difference, because they blend together, between organized crime and government agencies such as the CIA, which was effectively the American branch of the secret police employed by the international bankers.

    jeff montanye Oct 31, 2016 9:08 PM
    i believe i've said it before but bust 9-11 and these fucks shut up for eternity, many of them incarcerated eventually.

    http://www.whale.to/b/israel_did_911.html

    https://sites.google.com/site/onedemocraticstatesite/archives/-solving-9...

    http://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_Ezjm7xDg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsoY3AIRUGA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhROd7Jt3-w

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgM6hjNedE0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj_AL4OlmHc&feature=iv&src_vid=rnbMjAN7B...

    http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticl...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVHstSrC1CQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE.

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/everything-rich-man-trick/

    https://smile.amazon.com/dp/098213150X/sr=1-1/qid=1467687982/ref=olp_pro...

    http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

    [Nov 01, 2016] Chris Hedges Its Our Bombs, Not Trumps Comments, that Fuel Hatred Towards the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... HEDGES: Well what feeds the hatred toward the west has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It has to do with the one-thousand-pound iron fragmentation bombs and cruise missiles and 155 artillery shells that are being dropped all over areas that ISIS controls. ..."
    "... That is a far more potent engine of rage than anything Trump says and I think sometimes we forget what we' re doing and the state terror that is delivered day in and day out on Muslims in areas that have been opened up by these failed states because of our military adventurism in countries like Libya and Iraq. ..."
    "... : Chris the recently released WikiLeaks indicate that Hillary Clinton is involved in conspiring in maintaining Israels nuclear dominance in the region and containing Irans nuclear development program. ..."
    "... Yea, I mean shes quite upfront. I have to give her credit on that in terms of her militantly pro-Israel stance. She of course has courted quite successfully wealthy pro-Israeli donors attacking the Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement. ..."
    "... So one of the dangers of Clinton and shes called for a no fly zone over Syria. Well, people forget that when you institute a no fly zone, that is patrolled and that requires very heavy presence of US forces. ..."
    therealnews.com
    ... ... .. ...

    HEDGES: Well what feeds the hatred toward the west has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It has to do with the one-thousand-pound iron fragmentation bombs and cruise missiles and 155 artillery shells that are being dropped all over areas that ISIS controls.

    That is a far more potent engine of rage than anything Trump says and I think sometimes we forget what we' re doing and the state terror that is delivered day in and day out on Muslims in areas that have been opened up by these failed states because of our military adventurism in countries like Libya and Iraq.

    PERIES: So connect those two for us. Give us some examples of how the war on terror in the Middle East, Syria in particular, is causing this kind of islamophobia here and our hesitancy about doing humanitarian work by accepting refugees that are fleeing these wars and how it manifests itself in the form of islamophobia here.

    HEDGES: Well, islamophobia here is a doctrine that plays quite conveniently into the goals of the corporate state in the same way that anti-communism once played into the goals of our capitalist democracy. So the caricature of threats from the Muslim world independent of the actual possibility of those threats has especially since 9/11, one of the corner stones of the argument that has been used by the security and surveillance state to strip us of basic civil liberties, including for instance, under the Obama administration, misinterpreting the 2001 authorization to use military force act as giving the executive branch to right to assassinate American citizens. Of course I'm talking about Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son.

    So the rise of islamophobia has been largely independent of anything Muslims have done other than perhaps initially the attacks of 9/11. The continued over 15 years of indiscriminate violence, industrial violence, delivered on whole swaps of the Muslim world has stirred up the kind of hornet' s nest that we' re seeing enraged not only among Muslims in the Muslim world but Muslims in Europe and many other parts of the globe who despite Clinton' s rhetoric see this as a war against Muslims. I think that although she speaks in kind of a softer and more tolerate tone, Clinton has been one of the main architects of the attacks for instance in Libya that have given or empowered or given rise to groups like ISIS. While Clinton' s rhetoric is certainly more palatable, she has been an enthusiastic supporter that we are going to bomb our way into peace in the Muslim world.

    PERIES: Chris give us a sense of the climate created by what both candidates eluded to that Muslims in this country has to help us in terms of identifying potential terrorists and any kind of activities in the community that might feed terrorists attacks here. What does this do to a society?

    HEDGES: Well it turns us into a society of informers. I think we have to acknowledge how pervasive the harassment is of Muslim Americans when they go through the airport, intrusive invasions of their privacy by Homeland Security, the FBI, and others. We have to acknowledge that almost all of the homegrown terrorist attacks that the FBI have broken have been orchestrated by the FBI usually with people of marginal means and sometimes marginal intelligence being prodded and often provided supposed equipment to carry out terrorist attacks. The racial profiling that has gone on coupled with the rhetoric and this is very dangerous because if you take already an alienated youth and subject it to this kind of unrelenting harassment, then you provide a recipe for homegrown radicalism.

    So yes it' s once again an effort in this case on part of the Trump rhetoric to blame the Muslims for not only their own victimhood but for terrorist attacks that are being driven by jihadist whom the vast majority, 99 plus percent of the Muslim world has no contact with and probably very little empathy for, I mean there' s 4 to 5 million Muslims, I think I have that right, in the United States. Most of them have integrated quite successfully into American. Unlike in Britain because Muslim immigrants in the United States whereas in Europe, France, they came over as laborers, we largely absorbed Muslim professional classes, doctors, engineers, and others and the Muslim community in the United States is pretty solidly middle class and professional.

    ... ... ...

    PERIES: Chris the recently released WikiLeaks indicate that Hillary Clinton is involved in conspiring in maintaining Israels nuclear dominance in the region and containing Irans nuclear development program. Your comments on those WikiLeaks.

    HEDGES: Yea, I mean shes quite upfront. I have to give her credit on that in terms of her militantly pro-Israel stance. She of course has courted quite successfully wealthy pro-Israeli donors attacking the Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement. And she has and will continue what are considered Israeli interests in the region which are not our interest. Israel pushed very heavily for an invasion of Iraq as a way to destroy a powerful state within the region. That did not serve our interests at all. In fact, it elevated to the dominant position within the region, Iran and out of these vacuums gave birth to these jihadist groups and got us embroiled in wars that we can never win.

    So one of the dangers of Clinton and shes called for a no fly zone over Syria. Well, people forget that when you institute a no fly zone, that is patrolled and that requires very heavy presence of US forces. Not just air forces but ground stations, radar stations, anti-aircraft missile batteries. Shes quite openly calling for a further escalation for American involvement in the Syrian quagmire which of course again we did so much to create by along with our allies, the Saudis and Qataris and others pumping so many arms in them. I think we gave a billion dollars worth of arms to Syrian rebels as if you can control where those arms go, just in the last year.

    [Oct 31, 2016] As Hillary Clintons Campaign Falters, Progressive Presidential Nominee Jill Stein Has Opening to Rise - Breitbart

    Oct 31, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Jill Stein to win over the hearts of some progressives and jump start her far-left " people-powered " movement.

    "This is Jill Stein's moment," said longtime Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor Pat Caddell.

    "There are many Clinton voters who would rather vote their conscience than vote for a major party. According to the latest Breitbart/Gravis poll, when given the choice of whether you should vote for a major party candidate or vote your conscience, 44% of Clinton voters said you should vote your conscience," Caddell explained.

    Even before the FBI director's dramatic announcement on Friday, the ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll indicated that "loosely affiliated or reluctant Clinton supporters"- which includes white women and young voters under the age of 30- seem to be floating off and "look less likely to vote."

    Caddell explained that the polling data suggests "there are many people who are ambivalent about Clinton who don't want to vote for Trump. Given these new revelations from WikiLeaks and the re-intensity of the concern regarding the corruption of her emails, these ambivalent voters need a place to go and Jill Stein-being not only a progressive woman, but an honest progressive woman-is the obvious choice for so many of these voters, particularly for those who supported Bernie Sanders."

    Indeed, nearly 60 percent of voters- including 43 percent of Democrats- believe America needs a third major political party, according to a Gallup poll released late last month.

    As one former Bernie Sanders supporter told Breitbart News, "It's come to this: voting for Hillary Clinton is voting for the lesser of two evils. But voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and I'm tired of voting for evil. That's why I'm voting for Jill Stein. "

    This sentiment has been echoed by Stein herself who has argued, "it's time to reject the lesser of two evils and stand up for the greater good."

    Stein seems ready to capitalize on the FBI's announcement as well as the steady stream of WikiLeaks revelations that have exposed, what Stein has characterized as, the Clinton camp's "hostility" to progressives.

    "The FBI has re-opened the Clinton investigation. Will the American people rise up and vote for honest change?" Stein asked on Friday, via Twitter.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton's strained relationship with progressives has been well documented and could present Stein– who has demonstrated a remarkable ability to articulately prosecute the progressive case against Clinton– with an opening, especially as polling reveals a significant chunk of Clinton voters believe voting their conscience ought to trump voting for a major political party.

    As Politico reported in a piece titled "WikiLeaks poisons Hillary's relationship with left" :

    Some of the left's most influential voices and groups are taking offense at the way they and their causes were discussed behind their backs by Clinton and some of her closest advisers in the emails, which swipe liberal heroes and causes as "puritanical," "pompous", "naive", "radical" and "dumb," calling some "freaks," who need to "get a life." […] among progressive operatives, goodwill for Clinton - and confidence in key advisers featured in the emails including John Podesta, Neera Tanden and Jake Sullivan - is eroding…

    Even before the FBI's announcement, many noted that it was becoming increasingly difficult to view a vote for Clinton as anything other than a vote to continue the worst aspects of political corruption.

    As columnist Kim Strassel recently wrote , the one thing in this election of which one can be certain is that "a Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law." As such, "anyone who pulls the lever for Mrs. Clinton takes responsibility for setting up the nation for all the blatant corruption that will follow," Strassel concludes . "She just doesn't have a whole lot of integrity," said far-left progressive Cornel West.

    West endorsed Stein over Clinton explaining Stein is "the only progressive woman in the race."

    "The Clinton train- [of] Wall Street, security surveillance, militaristic- is not going in the same direction I'm going," West told Bill Maher earlier this year.

    She's a neoliberal… [I] believe neoliberalism is a disaster when it comes to poor people and when it comes to people in other parts of the world dealing with U.S. foreign policy and militarism. Oh, absolutely. Ask the people in Libya about that. Ask the people in the West Bank about that.

    West has separately explained that Clinton's "militarism makes the world a less safe place" and that her globalist agenda created the "right-wing populism" that has fueled Trump's rise.

    Clinton policies of the 1990s generated inequality, mass incarceration, privatization of schools and Wall Street domination. There is also a sense that the Clinton policies helped produce the right-wing populism that we're seeing now in the country. And we think she's going to come to the rescue? That's not going to happen.

    "It's too easy to view him [Trump] as an isolated individual and bash him," West told Maher. "He's speaking to the pain in the country because white, working class brothers have been overlooked by globalization, by these trade deals"– trade deals which Stein also opposes.

    Stein has railed against the passage of TPP, which she and her party have described as "NAFTA on steroids" that would "enrich wealthy corporations by exporting jobs and pushing down wages." They have argued that the deal essentially amounts to a "global corporate coup" that "would give corporations more power than nations" by letting them "challenge our laws".

    #ImVoting4JillBecause she is the only positive choice for our children's future #votegreen #Election2016 #JillStein @DrJillStein pic.twitter.com/ui1RsqQyrz

    - Beebz the Squirrel (@SquirrelBeebz) October 25, 2016

    Stein is against the "massive expanding wars," "the meltdown of the climate," "the massive Wall Street bailouts," and "the offshoring of our jobs."

    Pointing to Clinton's "dangerous and immoral" militarism, Stein has warned that "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war" and has explained how under a Clinton presidency, "we could very quickly slide into nuclear war" or could start an air-war with Russia.

    "No matter how her staff tries to rebrand her" Clinton is "not a progressive," Stein has said -rather Clinton is a "corporatist hawk" that " surrounds herself with people who are hostile progressives" such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz "after she sabotaged Bernie [Sanders]." Stein has warned progressives that the role of corporate Democrats like Clinton is to "prevent progressives from defying corporate rule."

    #ImVoting4JillBecause pic.twitter.com/bg05RTdHI9

    - Canary Coalminer (@BigTinyBird) October 23, 2016

    Stein has made a point to highlight the fact that "we're now seeing many Republican leaders join Hillary Clinton in a neoliberal uni-party that will fuel right-wing extremism," by continuing to push its "neoliberal agenda [of] globalization, privatization, deregulation, [and] austerity for the rest of us."

    In contrast to Clinton's corporatist "uni-party", Stein and her party have explained that their campaign represents a "people's party with a populist progressive agenda" that-unlike Democrats and Republicans- is not "funded by big corporate interests including Wall St. Banks, fossil fuel giants, & war profiteer."

    Stein is a Harvard Medical School graduate, a mother to two sons, and a practicing physician, who became an environmental-health activist and organizer in the late 1990s. As the Green Party's 2012 presidential candidate, Stein already holds the record for the most votes ever received by a female candidate for president in a general election.

    In Jill Stein, her party writes, "progressives have a peace candidate not beholden to the billionaire class."

    [Oct 31, 2016] Eight days before the election: Overview of political situation

    Notable quotes:
    "... For Comey to do what he did, when and how he did it, I gotta believe there is some extinction-level event inside those emails. Something so toxic that even Obama is throwing up his hands, or at least easing hiimself way, way back on the periphery. ..."
    "... If Comey is playing politics with such an important job or can't even handle a mutiny us department, why did Obama nominate a life long Republican to the post of FBI Director? ..."
    "... Interesting to literally see where Obama draws the line in the sand. "Sorry, you're on your own (smug Barry laugh meme)." ..."
    Oct 31, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Corruption

    "Clinton Foundation: Inurement" [ Amy Sterling Cassill ]. Word of the day: "The concept of "inurement" is one that most nonprofit organization board members should be familiar with. In common language, "inurement" is a concept that means a board member, donor, or employee can't benefit excessively from the organization's funds."

    "Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders" [Kurt Eichenwald, Newsweek ]. Oppo garbage truck unloads….

    War Drums

    "Harry Reid's incendiary claim about 'coordination' between Donald Trump and Russia" [ WaPo ].

    But there is no public evidence to support Reid's claim of actual "coordination" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. And were that to be the case, it would be a scandal of epic proportions. Asked what evidence exists of such a connection, Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson cited classified briefings. "There have been classified briefings on this topic," Jentleson said. "That is all I can say."

    Nudge nudge wink wink. Say no more! Say no more!

    The Voters

    "Signs Grow of Another Third-Party Fizzle" [ Wall Street Journal ]. "But it appears increasingly likely that no outside candidate will take a meaningful chunk of the national vote, as seemed plausible in the early summer. The combined clout of Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein fell from 17% of registered voters in July to 9% in the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. The running RealClearPolitics polling average of all four candidates is even less generous, showing Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein dropping from around 12% at various times this summer to just 7% now."

    Realignment

    "Would Trump "Make a Deal" With The Left?" [ Michael Tracey ]. I doubt it. And would the Left make a deal with Trump? Still, if the deal were to prevent a war…

    The Trail

    UPDATE "CNN says it is 'completely uncomfortable' with hacked emails showing former contributor and interim DNC chair Donna Brazile sharing questions with the Clinton campaign before a debate and a town hall during the Democratic primary, and has accepted her resignation" [ Politico ]. Too funny! Instant karma, and Brazile turns out to be just as clumsy and dishonest a hack as Wasserman-Shultz. No doubt there will be a place for her in the Clinton administration.

    "FT endorsement: For all her weaknesses, Clinton is the best hope" [ Financial Times ].

    "Donald Trump has a path to victory again thanks to Florida" [ WaPo ]. "Remember that winning Florida isn't a luxury for Trump - it's a necessity. If Clinton wins the 18 states (plus D.C.) that every Democratic presidential nominee has carried between 1992 and 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 to that total and Clinton is at 271 and the election is over."

    Democrat Email Hairball

    "How Clinton plans to deal with Comey's October surprise" [ Politico ]. "Projecting confidence" and "galvanizing supporters." Those are the talking points? Really? Seems a little meta.

    Corruption

    "A $72-million apartment project. Top politicians. Unlikely donors." [ Los Angeles Times ]. "No one is registered to vote at the run-down house on 223rd Street. The living room window has been broken for months. A grit-covered pickup sits in the dirt front yard with a flat tire. Yet dozens of donations to local politicians - totaling more than $40,000 - have come from four of the people who have lived there over the last eight years." That's so dumb. If you want to launder money, you set up a family foundation. What's wrong with these people?

    "When CIA and NSA Workers Blow the Whistle, Congress Plays Deaf" [ The Intercept ].


    Jim Haygood, October 31, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    '7' years:

    One could add a few more. The Panic of 1907. The bear market of 1917. The recession and bear market (50% decline) of 1937. The recession and bear market of 1957. The bear market of 1977.

    Not that I would trade on this decadal pattern alone. But "7" years see more than their fair share of calamities.

    hunkerdown, October 31, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    Christine Lagarde said something about sevens six months before MH17 was downed by drunken Ukies. 7 is one of the more common digits coerced into weak passwords by password "diversity" standards.

    It's bisyllabic and sibilant, therefore powerful and mystical to the ear.

    Jim Haygood, October 31, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    This ought to shut up Harry Reid.

    But then again, who cares what a lame duck thinks?

    White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Monday said President Obama does not believe FBI Director James Comey was meddling in the presidential election by announcing Friday that his agency discovered new emails that may be related to its investigation of Hillary Clinton's private server.

    In his daily press briefing, Earnest said Obama believes Comey "is a man of principle and good character," and "doesn't believe that Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of the election."

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/josh-earnest-on-comey-letter

    Tom, October 31, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Hillary Clinton 10/28/16:

    "We've heard these rumors. We don't know what to believe. I'm sure there will be even more rumors," she explained about the new emails being connected to Abedin and Weiner. "That's why it is incumbent upon on the FBI to tell us what they're talking about."

    Obama 10/31/16:

    Who is this we you're talking about?

    hunkerdown, October 31, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    Incumbent. I do not think that word means what you think it means, Madame Secretary.

    Jen October 31, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    Well, well. Another feud breaking out in the open?

    Pat October 31, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    Interesting. Obama going high, or deciding where the chips may fall.

    Tom October 31, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    I think the latter.

    For Comey to do what he did, when and how he did it, I gotta believe there is some extinction-level event inside those emails. Something so toxic that even Obama is throwing up his hands, or at least easing hiimself way, way back on the periphery.

    temporal October 31, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    Personal briefing perhaps? Most likely this is just as it appears. It's all going to be about the Weiner and the person that shared his hardware.

    NYPaul October 31, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    I'd like to know more about the folder, "life insurance."

    NotTimothyGeithner October 31, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Don't forget Obama can't be embarrassed or make mistakes. Comey as an Obama appointee will always be defended by Obama until there is a risk of the stench reaching Obama or missing a round of golf.

    If Comey is playing politics with such an important job or can't even handle a mutiny us department, why did Obama nominate a life long Republican to the post of FBI Director?

    Roger Smith October 31, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Interesting to literally see where Obama draws the line in the sand. "Sorry, you're on your own (smug Barry laugh meme)."

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 31, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Does it mean that the Russians have Comey and Obama working for them?

    Who can you trust but Hillary?

    [Oct 31, 2016] Hillary Clinton took money from and supported nations that she KNEW funded ISIS and terrorists

    Notable quotes:
    "... "…the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region." ..."
    "... "Clintons should know better than to raise money from folks whose primary concern has been supporting the NIAC, a notorious supporter of the Radical Islamic Mullahs. "The Clinton's have thrown principle out the window in exchange for cold hard cash…putting money ahead of principle." ..."
    "... If these revelations don't completely terminate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, certainly four straight years of Congressional Emailgate hearings will, should she outright steal the election from Donald Trump on November 8th, or shortly thereafter. ..."
    Oct 31, 2016 | stateofthenation2012.com

    _ _ _

    If these revelations don't completely terminate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, certainly four straight years of Congressional Emailgate hearings will, should she outright steal the election from Donald Trump on November 8th, or shortly thereafter.

    [Oct 31, 2016] Trump Id Get Electric Chair for Cheating Debates Like Hillary

    Oct 31, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Trump was commenting on the revelation by Wikileaks on Monday that CNN commentator Donna Brazile, who is now the chair of the Democratic National Committee, had been caught again passing debate questions from the network to the Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary.

    Brazile had been exposed earlier doing the same - passing a question to the Clinton campaign in advance of a town hall debate against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

    At the time, Brazile was not yet DNC chair, but was a regular CNN contributor.

    CNN fired Brazile on Monday, releasing a statement: ""We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor."

    [Oct 31, 2016] Rats are starting to leave the sinking ship

    Oct 31, 2016 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    Tyler said... Rats are starting to leave the sinking ship:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-kass-1030-20161028-column.html

    Again, if you really believed that Hillary ever had a 12 point lead over Trump I've got news for you. Functionally tied even with a +8 Dem oversampling. Brace for a Trumpslide. This was even BEFORE the FBI announcement.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3885770/Trump-wipes-Clinton-s-seven-point-lead-loses-steam-polls-carried-FBI-announced-reopening-emails-investigation.html Reply 30 October 2016 at 12:07 PM Joe100 said in reply to Tyler... Tyler -

    I found a surprisingly good article on BBC news this morning addressing whether Trump can pull off the election. The poor predictions of Brexit vote outcome have clearly raised concerns about polling accuracy. A key point was that "Some 2.8 million people - about 6% of the electorate - who had not voted for decades, if ever, turned up at the polling stations on 23 June and almost all of them voted to leave the EU."

    The article covers a broad range of issues raising uncertainty in elections like the impact of cellphone use and the increasing reluctance of the public to answer surveys.

    It suggests that there is probably more uncertainty in all of the presidential race polling than is being admitted – with some emphasis on the limits of "proprietary 'likely voter' models used by most polling companies. The article ends quoting Nate Silver suggesting that many pollsters have not factored enough uncertainty into their models..

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37736161 Reply 30 October 2016 at 02:38 PM

    [Oct 30, 2016] Computer seized in Weiner probe prompts FBI to take new steps in Clinton email inquiry

    Why thousands of emails were forwarded to unsecured computer shared by Abedin with her husband?
    How they were forwarded, were they forwarded individually or as a batch operation ?
    How many of them are those 30K deleted by Hillary "private" emails ?
    Does this batch contains any of previously discovered classified emails?
    What was the purpose of forwarding those emails to home computer.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Somebody at the F.B.I. must have picked up on the fact that the "FIX" was exposed hence on Friday an announcement was made by the F.B.I. that they had found further e-mails, I suspect that all the e-mails will have to be re-examined in the light of the lenient views taken by some F.B. I. Officers taken at the first pass or some more deletions will of necessity have to take place. ..."
    "... Meanwhile Clinton is shouting and screaming at the F.B.I. because she now knows that a new fix will be very difficult or impossible in the light of the revealed information and her "charity donations" of over $800,000 have not only been wasted but have exposed her flank! ..."
    "... ...the agents discovered the existence of tens of thousands of emails, some of them sent between Ms. Abedin and other Clinton aides, according to senior law enforcement officials ..."
    "... Nevertheless, how do you forward tens of thousands of emails? I don't think it can be a batch operation, they must have been forwarded individually. And what of the 30,000 destroyed (by Clinton) emails? ..."
    "... "We don't know what this means yet except that it's a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation. So that's where we are..." ..."
    Oct 30, 2016 | www.washingtonpost.com
    Don Smith 4:38 PM EDT
    The other day I was reading an article which was talking about two "charity donations" given to the wife of an F.B.I. Officer involved in the e-mail investigation by "friends of the Clinton's".

    The article was very low key it's author briefly wondered if the officer concerned should have excused himself from the investigation. I also thought it strange that the officers interest had not been declared. Some time later I was reading about details concerning the e-mails sent from Clinton's staff to members of the F.B.I. ,basically what was happening was that the security rating of the information contained in non deleted mails was being talked down, at which point for me at least alarm bells were ringing loud and clear but I did not expect there to be any reaction. O.K. So I'm that cynical.

    Somebody at the F.B.I. must have picked up on the fact that the "FIX" was exposed hence on Friday an announcement was made by the F.B.I. that they had found further e-mails, I suspect that all the e-mails will have to be re-examined in the light of the lenient views taken by some F.B. I. Officers taken at the first pass or some more deletions will of necessity have to take place.

    Meanwhile Clinton is shouting and screaming at the F.B.I. because she now knows that a new fix will be very difficult or impossible in the light of the revealed information and her "charity donations" of over $800,000 have not only been wasted but have exposed her flank!

    CanardNoir 2:20 PM EDT [Edited]
    My Fellow Americans - Here is what the NYT is reporting in contrast to the WaPost's email count of more than 1,000, in terms of an actual number of emails to be reviewed:

    "...the agents discovered the existence of tens of thousands of emails, some of them sent between Ms. Abedin and other Clinton aides, according to senior law enforcement officials."

    Subsequently, that could change what the initial investigation by the Bureau had to look at this summer, and the understanding that all of the parties acknowledge that about 30k emails were deleted. So the "tens of thousands" may be duplicates or perhaps copies of the "thumb-drive" that one of HRC's lawyers was said to have been given?

    At any rate, this must bring into play at least 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally - and raise the question about whether conflicting DOJ internal "policy" has any affect on any of the Administration's current or former appointees, in terms of their "oath of office" or moving forward. And that would bring 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office - into play as well as the 5-year statute of limitations.

    We're likely still "Doomed" - so don't get too happy just yet, because EPA could still disallow "draining" anything as a result of the Clean Water Act, as amended.

    CanardNoir 2:41 PM EDT
    And here's the Sec. 2071 reason "why":

    (b) "Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States..."

    Rick B. 1:57 PM EDT
    Time to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald as special counsel
    9:57 AM EST

    [Edited] Lynch had to recuse herself after meeting with Bill Clinton. Had there not been information showing intent to violate espionage laws, Comey would have never acted. The fact is she is a criminal and cannot be elected . Image an elected Hillary who is impeached. The USA deserves better than a this and must turn the Clintons out to pasture forever.

    Avatar666 8:23 AM EST

    The FBI used to be a respected agency. Now, not so much. Working for, and in collusion with Obama, Loretta Lynch, the Clinton's and the media makes their "investigation" suspect, to say the least.

    Avatar666 8:07 AM EST

    Hillary "will say anything and do anything" (Obama's words, not mine) to get elected. Trying to blame her malfeasance on the FBI is simply stupid. She is so obsessed with money and power that she openly states "I have spent my life helping children and women". Right. Like when she was an 8 year Senator who only introduced 3 bills naming a couple highways and a bank. Her followers are dupes and dunces and we can only hope they don't outnumber rationally thinking people.

    Kathleen Galt 5:31 AM EST

    To think that Weiner and who knows who else had access to U.S. National Security information on the Weiner/Abedin computer. Sure sounds like the FBI is after Abedin not Clinton.

    Dems loved Comey when he slapped Clinton on the wrist for playing loose with U.S. National Security on her email server. Now those same Dems want to burn Comey at the stake.

    Let's not forget how Comey has come to be such a respected official
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
    In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.
    ad_icon

    The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, wheresthechow 2:27 AM EST The Clinton's are just so amazing in their cavalier above-the-law attitude that they can't even renovate their house without breaking the law.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/chap...

    wwrfla 2:59 AM EST

    [Edited] "The Case Against Hillary Clinton"...as written by Christopher Hitchens.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...

    Truer words have never been written.

    #NeverHillary!!! #BernieOrBust!!!

    dcammer 10/29/2016 9:31 PM EST

    Mr. Weiner has not aged well.....and it is not over....avoid park benches do not visit remote areas.....People you and I know may have a Boat moored in a slip at a Dock or a Yacht club that's Normal Americana....Yet A.G.Loretta Lynch was waiting on the Tarmac in her Jet Plane as Bill Clinton leaves His Jet Plane to chat with Loretta ....this is an area of privilege far above yacht club status....and this meeting broke several laws very quickly...so the A.G. has no authority to comment on what the head of F.B.I. has done regarding The Weiner Email discovery and whatever Bill had swindled for future favors or past I.O.U's has now become a waste of AA jet fuel for the,"IN", crowd.....Hillary is starting to look a little like Mr.Weiner; facial tension ,gaunt,hollow cheeks,terse lips,Bill was supposed to take care of all this....right?Now Mr. Comey had taken the J. Edgar Hoover pledge to Serve and protect and that would have been us under all other circumstances.....but he has to be loyal to his associates for they are the top 2% of the entire population and they deserve to be treated as the most important the bureau has....what transpired on the first pass left them in Mayberry P.D. limbo and will never happen could someone help Loretta Lynch to see the light or the exit sign ....Please

    711810943 10/29/2016 10:56 PM EST

    Yep, we're definitely talking about the battle of the twin dumpster fires here...

    Celebrity gossip trumps policy, if you'll forgive the expression. But what can you expect in a country that can name three Kardashian sisters, but not one foreign head of state.

    Hmmm... Those deck chairs need rearranging... See ya...

    canaffordit 10/29/2016 9:09 PM EST

    Laptop or PC is property of US once claissified info discovered. 18USC 798, right? Who says a warrant is needed to seize, protect? No so. And, for sure, they will read, use of which may or may not be impeded thereby. Still, there is allot to investigate, incl. numerous apparent violations of ethics in govt. act, etc, failures to disclose gifts / income, etc.

    RTDP 10/29/2016 8:29 PM EST

    The Clintons run a morally corrupt RICO that holds itself above the law. With Obama's support, the Justice Dept., IRS, FBI, State Dept. have aided and abetted the Clinton corruption of our government. This illustrates Hayek's point in The Road To Serfdom that when very powerful government institutions are created, "the worst rise to the top". Public power and money attract the least scrupulous, least honest, most power hungry, and most determined. Though Clinton's cabal publicly poses themselves as humanitarian progressives, the Doug Band statement of operations among Teneo, CGI, the Foundation, and the Clintons presents the underlying purpose of selling influence and the crony capital structure devised to split the proceeds. The Clinton Foundation operates outside the law. So where's the MSM, the IRS, the FBI, Justice...what justice?

    See: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/a_...

    Kathleen Galt 5:31 AM EDT

    To think that Weiner and who knows who else had access to U.S. National Security information on the Weiner/Abedin computer. Sure sounds like the FBI is after Abedin not Clinton.

    Dems loved Comey when he slapped Clinton on the wrist for playing loose with U.S. National Security on her email server. Now those same Dems want to burn Comey at the stake.

    Let's not forget how Comey has come to be such a respected official
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
    In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.
    ad_icon

    The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, he said.

    "I was angry," Comey testified. "I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

    tjonathan 10/29/2016 7:38 PM EDT

    Watergate's Carl Bernstein: FBI Wouldn't Reopen A Probe Unless It Is "A Real Bombshell"

    HappyInSF 10/29/2016 7:09 PM EDT

    [Edited] In a previous release of information as a result of a Freedom of Information suit, it became known that Huma Abedin had forwarded emails from Clinton's private email server, to Ms. Abedin's personal yahoo email account.

    The new bit of news today, is that the FBI found TENS OF THOUSANDS of Clinton related emails on Weiner's (shared with Abedin?) laptop. I understand that Mrs. Clinton was SOS for four years.

    Nevertheless, how do you forward tens of thousands of emails? I don't think it can be a batch operation, they must have been forwarded individually. And what of the 30,000 destroyed (by Clinton) emails?

    The only thing that makes sense, is that the newly discovered emails include some of the missing emails. As Carl Bernstein (one of the two original Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, which led to Nixon's resignation) said yesterday:

    "We don't know what this means yet except that it's a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation. So that's where we are..."

    [Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven reviews 'The New American Militarism' by Andrew Bacevich

    Amazingly insightful review !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. ..."
    "... The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. ..."
    "... The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems. ..."
    "... Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US. ..."
    "... And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'. ..."
    "... The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. ..."
    "... To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension. ..."
    "... They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. ..."
    "... Wall Street Journal ..."
    "... Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. ..."
    "... Red Storm Rising ..."
    "... Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus. ..."
    "... Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society. ..."
    "... British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America. ..."
    "... As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. ..."
    "... Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so. ..."
    "... The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy. ..."
    Oct 20, 2005 | LRB

    The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by Andrew Bacevich
    Oxford, 270 pp, £16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4

    A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet, as Andrew Bacevich points out in one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United States itself is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:

    at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The skepticism about arms and armies that informed the original Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamoured with military might.

    The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue.

    The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American variant is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and widely differing motives:

    The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems.

    Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US.

    And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.

    The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.

    That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict which might ruin the international economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees had to override the objections of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah, and so naturally have a more relaxed attitude.

    To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the Iraq war one has to look for deeper explanations. They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because they are spreading 'freedom'. Also of great importance – at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed American noses in the horrors of war – has been the development of an aesthetic that sees war as waged by the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry, painlessly victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania in militarist quarters. The amazing Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal – an armchair commentator, not a frontline journalist – declared that the US victory had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of talk restricted to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic establishment were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically unlimited.'

    Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. Take Bacevich on the popular novelist Tom Clancy:

    In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats. The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.' Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.

    Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess. They reflect a belief – genuine or assumed – in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum: the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline and sacrifice, and explicitly or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign affairs commentator of the ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people. They are so much better than the country they are fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister pedigree in modern history.

    In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see his past generalship alone as qualifying him for the presidency – and gain the support of leading liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president was a general and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed military have real power over policy-making, even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking guy on the planet', but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls Clemenceau and Churchill – or Hitler and Stalin.

    Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.

    Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is a real and living force. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratization has had a disastrous effect on the party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic language of 'freedom' – supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies in the US – has been all too successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand, the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the heart of civic nationalism places certain limits on American imperialism – weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible for the US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik. This has been demonstrated recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov tyranny in Uzbekistan.

    The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much of American culture and the equally widespread unwillingness of most Americans – elites and masses alike – to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied their stated admiration for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed services, then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich notes,

    having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude, Friedman in the course of a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits. His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge, ever so briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things. Nothing has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique, reassuring encounter with an alien world.

    Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society.

    This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course new. It characterized most of British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today, the overwhelming rejection of conscription – until 1916 – meant that, appearances to the contrary, British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America.

    Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying overwhelming technological superiority, American military power is actually quite limited. As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is coming to seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland China.

    In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where it has been for several decades. Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military detests, and which politicians are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire several steps closer. Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so.

    Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from empire and towards genuine national security. It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking now dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals would seem nothing short of revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.

    They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force, except where a solid international consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution but shamefully surrendered in recent years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and a decision that the military should focus on the defense of the nation, not the projection of US power. As a means of keeping military expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten countries, just as in the 19th century the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets – it is an index of the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.

    This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity of its author. Colonel Bacevich's views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell in the conflict's bleak latter stages long after an odor of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is dedicated to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.

    Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the outside world, so the Cold War in Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military. For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, defending the West from possible Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing', was 'the American soldier's true and honorable calling'.

    In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic conservative, and intensely patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and still situates himself culturally on the right:

    As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the Clinton years, my relationship with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable one But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the Bush administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering foreign policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values.

    On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives, who define the problem The Republican and Democratic Parties may not be identical, but they produce nearly identical results.

    Bacevich, in other words, is skeptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration with a Democrat one would lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.

    Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in which it has been sacrificed, and its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep private concern of senior officers that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed military that has characterized the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds from which they are drawn. For if the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some of its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on the old idea of the citizen soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind the military more closely into American society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only at the start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.

    Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a revolutionary and highly unlikely transformation of American mass culture, any political party that wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment to the defense of the country. The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents, and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened the US. The left needs to heed Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative. It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the respectable aspects of military culture. The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged the threats facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed by military force. And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.

    In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting moments took place at a Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz – another warmonger who has never served himself – mistook, by a margin of hundreds, how many US soldiers had died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly, unceasingly, to win the next election. The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy.

    Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania, soldiers and veterans of the army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship with its military to the old limited, rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against the Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed the military desperately on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.


    Vol. 27 No. 20 · 20 October 2005 " Anatol Lieven " We do not deserve these people
    pages 11-12 | 3337 words

    [Oct 30, 2016] Speaking also of Pedesta email it is interesting that it was Podesta who make mistake of assessing phishing email link, probably accidentally

    turcopolier.typepad.com

    mistah charley, ph.d. said... 30 October 2016 at 09:13 AM

    Speaking also of Podesta's email, not Huma's, the following is interesting:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/phishing-email-hack-john-podesta-hillary-clinton-wikileaks/index.html

    Briefly, it seems Podesta received an email "You need to change your password", asked for professional advice from his staff if it was legit, was told "Yes, you DO need to change your password", but then clicked on the link in the original email, which was sent him with malicious intent, as he suspected at first and then was inappropriately reassured about - rather than on the link sent him by the IT staffer.

    Result - the "phishing" email got his password info, and the world now gets to see all his emails.

    Personally, my hope is that Huma and HRC will be pardoned for all their crimes, by Obama, before he leaves office.

    Then I hope that Huma's divorce will go through, and that once Hillary is sworn in she will at last be courageous enough to divorce Bill (who actually performed the Huma-Anthony Weiner nuptials - you don't have to make these things up).

    Then it could happen that the first same-sex marriage will be performed in the White House, probably by the minister of DC's Foundry United Methodist Church, which has a policy of LBGQT equality. Or maybe Hillary, cautious and middle-of-the-road as usual, will go to Foundry UMC sanctuary for the ceremony, recognizing that some Americans' sensibilities would be offended by having the rite in the White House.

    As Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan wrote, "Love is all there is, it makes the world go round, love and only love, it can't be denied. No matter what you think about it, you just can't live without it, take a tip from one who's tried."

    [Oct 30, 2016] FBI Investigation Into Bribery With Clinton Foundation Spans Nation, Multiple Field Offices, Says WSJ

    Notable quotes:
    "... It appears there was rift between the FBI and the DOJ with how to move forward with the investigation. Agents in the Washington office were directed to focus on a separate issue relating to the actions of former Virginia Governor and Clinton Foundation Board Member Terry McAuliffe. Agents inside the FBI believed they could build a stronger case if the investigation of McAuliffe and the foundation were combined. ..."
    "... FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe seemed to be caught in the middle of the fight between DOJ officials who appeared to want to slow down or shut down the investigation and FBI agents who were eager to pour more resources into the investigation. ..."
    "... The story gets more complicated when you factor in that McCabe's wife, Dr. Jill McCabe had received a $467,500 campaign contribution in 2015 for a state senate race from McAuliffe . ..."
    "... CNN also reported that multiple field offices were "in agreement a public corruption investigation should be launched" with Clinton Foundation officials as a target. The cable news network reported the investigation would have looked at "conflicts of interest by foreign donors and official acts by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. ..."
    Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    FBI investigators from across the country have been following leads into reports of bribery involving the Clinton Foundation. Multiple field offices have been involved in the investigation.

    A report in Sunday's Wall Street Journal (WSJ) by Devlin Barrett revealed that agents assigned to the New York field office have been carrying the bulk of the work in investigating the Clinton Foundations. They have received assistance from the FBI field office in Little Rock according to "people familiar with the matter, the WSJ reported. Other offices, including Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., have been collecting evidence to regarding "financial crimes or influence-peddling."

    As far back as February 2016, FBI agents made presentation to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the WSJ's sources stated. "The meeting didn't go well," they wrote. While some sources said the FBI's evidence was not strong enough, others believed the DOJ had no intention from the start of going any further. Barrett wrote that the DOJ officials were "stern, icy and dismissive of the case."

    Barrett wrote, "'That was one of the weirdest meetings I've ever been to,' one participant told others afterward, according to people familiar with the matter."

    It appears there was rift between the FBI and the DOJ with how to move forward with the investigation. Agents in the Washington office were directed to focus on a separate issue relating to the actions of former Virginia Governor and Clinton Foundation Board Member Terry McAuliffe. Agents inside the FBI believed they could build a stronger case if the investigation of McAuliffe and the foundation were combined.

    FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe seemed to be caught in the middle of the fight between DOJ officials who appeared to want to slow down or shut down the investigation and FBI agents who were eager to pour more resources into the investigation.

    Barrett wrote, "'Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?' Mr. McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official replied, 'Of course not,' these people said."

    Some of the WSJ sources told Barrett that a "stand down" order had been given to the FBI agents by McCabe. Others denied that no such order was given.

    Preet Bharara, an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, appears to have taken in interest in moving forward from the DOJ side, the Daily Caller's Richard Pollock reported in August.

    Pollock wrote:

    The New York-based probe is being led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bharara's prosecutorial aggressiveness has resulted in a large number of convictions of banks, hedge funds and Wall Street insiders.

    He said prosecutorial support could come from multiple U.S. Attorneys Offices and stated this was a major departure from other "centralized FBI investigations."

    The story gets more complicated when you factor in that McCabe's wife, Dr. Jill McCabe had received a $467,500 campaign contribution in 2015 for a state senate race from McAuliffe .

    CNN also reported that multiple field offices were "in agreement a public corruption investigation should be launched" with Clinton Foundation officials as a target. The cable news network reported the investigation would have looked at "conflicts of interest by foreign donors and official acts by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

    [Oct 30, 2016] House Committee Chairmen Lay Out Case For Perjury Against Hillary

    Aug 15, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, may have committed perjury in testimony before Congress, two separate U.S. House committee chairmen detailed late Monday.

    In a letter from House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Channing Phillips, the two top House Republicans made their case that Clinton committed perjury.

    Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote to Phillips:

    On August 2, 2016, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik confirmed that you received the Committees' request for an investigation regarding certain statements made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her testimony before Congress and will 'take appropriate action as necessary. To assist the investigation, this letter identifies several pieces of Secretary Clinton's testimony that appear to implicate 18 U.S.C. §§1621 and 1001 the criminal statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements, respectively. The evidence collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony, which are described in greater detail below.

    Before detailing at least four specific instances in which Clinton allegedly committed perjury, the House Republicans explained the matter a bit further:

    During a House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing on October 22, 2015, Secretary Clinton testified with respect to (1) whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time; (2) whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system; (3) whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State; and (4) whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State. Although there may be other aspects of Secretary Clinton's sworn testimony that are at odds with the FBI's findings, her testimony in those four areas bears specific scrutiny in light of the facts and evidence FBI Director James Comey described in his public statement on July 5, 2016 and in testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016.

    The first of four main areas where Hillary Clinton allegedly perjured herself before the U.S. Congress was with her claim in sworn testimony that she never sent or received emails on her illicit home-brew email server-which was in violation of State Department guidelines, and according to FBI director James Comey "extremely careless."

    "With respect to whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time, Secretary Clinton testified under oath to the Select Committee that she did not," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote to the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. "Specifically, during questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan, Secretary Clinton stated 'there was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received.'"

    Chaffetz and Goodlatte further quoted from Clinton's testimony by including this quote:

    [M]any Americans have no idea how the classification process works. And therefore I wanted to make it clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department . . . where material that is thought to be classified is marked such, so that people have the opportunity to know how they are supposed to be handling those materials . . . and that's why it became clearer, I believe, to say that nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.

    The two House Committee chairmen detail in the letter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. that Clinton, according to the FBI Director, was not telling the truth in that testimony before Congress:

    The FBI, however, found several of Secretary Clinton's emails did in fact contain markings that identified classified information therein. In Director Comey's public statement on July 5, 2016, he said, 'a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore the markings indicating the presence of classified information.' When Director Comey testified on July 7, 2016, he specifically addressed this issue. Rep. Trey Gowdy asked, 'Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified either sent or received. Was it true?' He said it was not. Director Comey also stated, 'There was classified material emailed.' Specifically, he stated that three documents on Secretary Clinton's private server contained classified information clearly marked 'Confidential.' He further testified, 'In the one involving 'top secret' information, Secretary Clinton not only received but also sent emails that talked about the same subject.'

    The second claim on which Hillary Clinton appears to have been caught perjuring herself according to the two top House Republicans was with regard to her statements that her lawyers read all of her emails.

    "With respect to whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system, Secretary Clinton testified that her attorneys used search terms and reviewed every single email to identify any that were work-related and should therefore be returned to the Department of State," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before quoting directly from Clinton's transcript from when she testified under oath:

    Rep. Jordan: But I'm asking how - I'm asking how it was done. Was

    - did someone physically look at the 62,000 e-mails, or did you use search terms, date parameters? I want to know the specifics.

    Mrs. Clinton: They did all of that, and I did not look over their shoulders, because I thought it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did.

    Rep. Jordan: Will you provide this committee - or can you answer today, what were the search terms?

    Mrs. Clinton: The search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.

    "The FBI found, however, that Secretary Clinton's lawyers did not in fact read all of her emails-they relied exclusively on a set of search terms to identify work-related messages," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before quoting from Comey's July 5 testimony:

    The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

    The third area where Hillary Clinton seems to have perjured herself according to the two House Committee chairmen is when she testified that she only used one server or device.

    "With respect to whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton testified there was only one server," Goodlatte and Chaffetz wrote to the D.C. U.S. Attorney, before pulling another transcript of congressional testimony:

    Rep. Jordan: In March, you also said this: your server was physically located on your property, which is protected by the Secret Service. I'm having a hard time figuring this out, because this story's been all over the place. But - there was one server on your property in New York, and a second server hosted by a Colorado company in - housed in New Jersey. Is that right? There were two servers?

    Mrs. Clinton: No.

    Rep. Jordan: OK.

    Mrs. Clinton: There was a - there was a server…

    Rep. Jordan: Just one?

    Mrs. Clinton: . . . that was already being used by my husband's team. An existing system in our home that I used, and then later, again, my husband's office decided that they wanted to change their arrangements, and that's when they contracted with the company in Colorado.

    Rep. Jordan: And so there's only one server? Is that what you're telling me? And it's the one server that the FBI has?

    Mrs. Clinton: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service.

    Goodlatte and Chaffetz also wrote:

    The FBI, however, found Secretary Clinton stored work-related emails on several servers. In Director Comey's public statement, he said, 'Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.' In Director Comey's testimony on July 7, 2016, he stated that Secretary Clinton used several devices to send and receive work-related emails during her tenure as Secretary of State. He testified, 'She used multiple devices during her four years as secretary of state.'

    The fourth and final area where Clinton seems to have, according to Chaffetz and Goodlatte, perjured herself while under oath was during her claim that she provided all of her work-related emails to the Department of State.

    "Finally, with respect to whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State, Secretary Clinton testified to the Select Committee that she had," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before again pulling a transcript of Clinton's testimony before Congress.

    Mrs. Clinton: Well, Congressman, I have said repeatedly that I take responsibility for my use of personal e-mail. I've said it was a mistake. I've said that it was allowed, but it was not a good choice. When I got to the department, we were faced with a global financial crisis, major troop decisions on Afghanistan, the imperative to rebuild our alliances in Europe and Asia, an ongoing war in Iraq, and so much else. E-mail was not my primary means of communication, as I have said earlier. I did not have a computer on my desk. I've described how I did work: in meetings, secure and unsecured phone calls, reviewing many, many pages of materials every day, attending . . .

    Rep. Jordan: I - I - I appreciate (inaudible).

    Mrs. Clinton: . . . a great deal of meetings, and I provided the department, which has been providing you, with all of my work-related e-mails, all that I had. Approximately 55,000 pages. And they are being publicly released.

    Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote:

    The FBI found, however, 'several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.' In the course of its investigation, the FBI recovered 'still others . . . from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.' When Director Comey appeared before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016, he confirmed that Secretary Clinton did not turn over all work-related emails to the FBI. He stated, 'We found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.'

    Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrapped their letter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. by noting that the FBI's findings prove Hillary Clinton was not telling the truth when she testified under oath before Congress.

    "The four pieces of sworn testimony by Secretary Clinton described herein are incompatible with the FBI's findings," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote.

    [Oct 30, 2016] Report Huma Abedin Doesnt Know How Her Emails Wound Up on Her Husbands Computer - Breitbart

    Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's top aide Huma Abedin said she doesn't know how her emails wound up on a device she said was her husband's computer, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

    The person, who requested anonymity, said Abedin was not a regular user of the computer and her lawyers did not search it for materials, thinking no messages would be there even after she agreed to turn over her messages to the State Department for record-keeping, the Washington Post reported.

    On June 28, 2016, Abedin swore under oath that she looked for all devices containing work information so the records could be given to the State Department, the Daily Beast reported.

    In the sworn oath, she said she "looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned - returned - gave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents."

    Investigators found thousands of emails on Weiner's computer that they believe to be relevant to the Clinton investigation, according to federal law enforcement officials.

    It is still unknown how the emails are relevant or whether or not they are significant.

    Officials say it is possible that the messages could be duplicates of already investigated emails, but that will not be determined until a computer program goes through the emails to weed out the duplicates so officials can closely examine the emails for classified information.

    [Oct 30, 2016] Former FBI Official Calls Bill, Hillary Clinton a Crime Family

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that." ..."
    "... Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau. ..."
    "... "The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said. ..."
    Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    A former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a "crime family" and added that top officials impeded the investigation into Clinton's email server while she was secretary of state.

    Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom praised Donald Trump before he offered a take down of the Clintons in a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, The Hill reported.

    "The Clintons, that's a crime family, basically," Kallstrom said. "It's like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool."

    Kallstrom, best known for spearheading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late '90s, called Clinton a "pathological liar" and blamed Attorney General Loretta Lynch for botching the Clinton email server investigation.

    "The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that."

    "God forbid we put someone like that in the White House," he added of Clinton.

    Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau.

    "The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said.

    [Oct 30, 2016] Clinton Foundation FBI Investigation Confirmed By Former Assistant FBI Director

    Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Saturday on CNN while discussing the FBI reopening the investigation into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's use of a private unsecured email server during her tenure as secretary of state, former Assistant Director of the FBI Thomas Fuentes said, "The FBI has an intensive investigation ongoing into the Clinton Foundation."

    He added, "The FBI made the determination that the investigation would go forward as a comprehensive unified case and be coordinated, so that investigation is ongoing and Huma Abedin and her role and activities concerning secretary of state in the nature of the foundation and possible pay to play, that's still being looked at and now."

    [Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven · The Push for War The Threat from America

    [Oct 29, 2016] Why such the abrupt reversal by Comey, who by all indications is Obama man and helped to squash the investigation?

    Notable quotes:
    "... So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : October 29, 2016 at 02:08 PM
    (You would suppose that the FBI director is under the control of the Justice Department, but evidently not.)

    Officials warned FBI head about decision on e-mails
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/29/officials-warned-fbi-head-about-decision-mails/AsSTVmOMuZFsg7xnOTmcSK/story.html?event=event25

    Sari Horwitz - Washington Post - October 29, 2016

    WASHINGTON - Senior Justice Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey's decision to notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

    ... ... ...

    im1dc -> Fred C. Dobbs... , October 29, 2016 at 02:13 PM
    Comely went off the farm all on his own and must answer for his actions. Simple as that.

    BTW, imo this will not impact the outcome of the Election November 8th.

    likbez -> im1dc... October 29, 2016 at 05:29 PM
    "Comely went off the farm all on his own and must answer for his actions. Simple as that."

    IMHO that's extremely naïve. Such a "career limiting move"(CLM) in Washington-speak almost never done "on his own". Exception are whistleblowers like William Binney, who already decided for themselves that "this is the last stand" and are ready to face consequences.

    Few Washington bureaucrats want to became outcasts within the administration, even the lame duck administration. Bureaucracy, at the end, is just another flavor of a political coalition and they tend to cling to power by whatever means possible including criminal.

    Moreover, Comey so far was viewed as an "Obama man" who abruptly squashed the "emailgate" investigation instead of expanding it investigating Bill Clinton for his "accidental" meeting with Loretta Lynch and possibly putting the old fogey on the bench for the obstruction of justice. And who at the end granted immunity to all key members of Clinton entourage including Huma Abedin who proved to be, security wise, not the sharpest tool in the shed.

    See http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/Hillary/Emailgate/understanding_hillary_clinton_email_scandal.shtml

    So why such the abrupt reversal?

    The only plausible explanation that I see is that Comey action reflects a deep split within the USA elite including internal cracks and pressure within FBI brass (possibly from rank-and-file investigators, who understand what's going on) as for viability Hillary as the next POTUS.

    I would ask you a very simple question: do you really want a POTUS that has, say, 80% probability to be impeached by the House during the first year of his/her administration?

    And any security specialist will tell you that Hillary creation of "shadow IT" within the State Department is a crime. The behavior that would never be tolerated not only in super-secretive State Department (which recently assumed some functions previously performed by CIA), but in any large corporation.

    It also might well be that there are new highly compromising evidence (not necessary from Wiener case) which changed the "grand calculation".

    Here is an interesting post that I recently come across:
    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/27/team-clinton-head-emails-published-wikileaks-mood/#comment-2971488944

    DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ

    Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):

    So here's the REAL story.​ ​

    Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission.

    Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway.

    An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA

    Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.

    Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not.

    Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

    So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS.

    Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Dont worry, Lloyd Blankfein is checking Comeys work

    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI today placed the Weiner investigation under their crack Special Agent for Witness Liquidation, Aaron McFarlane ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Cleanup October 28, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Don't worry, Lloyd Blankfein is checking Comey's work.

    FBI today placed the Weiner investigation under their crack Special Agent for Witness Liquidation, Aaron McFarlane.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked.

    People started to demand Hillary scalp...
    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI agents looking at Weiners weiner on his laptop, sees tons of Huma emails and Clinton emails, turn and tell their boss they are disgusted with all this and he needs to disrupt her winning office or they are going public. That's what happened! ..."
    "... I think you are spot on with that observation. Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked. ..."
    "... I agree, it is all puppet theatre with some humor added. The more outrageous the more believable, right? ..."
    "... It achieves some "unity" around Trump when there wasn't enough going down the home stretch, it became OBVIOUS she's not a winner, which anyone with half a brain has known since she announced? So maybe they are pulling the plug and she's been beat officially? Which leaves the question is Trump for real? ..."
    "... I must say, fake or not he fought hard? I like Trump. I hope he realizes if he did decide to do GOOD, he could become very powerful. Why these leaders get to these positions and give it all up for a little greed is beyond me? They could be 10 times more powerful by just being GOOD? You've got the money Trump, if your GOOD, you'll obtain the power? Trump has some political capital and makes him more attractive to the establishment. My guess is, im being too optimistic for good things to happen? I hope Im wrong. ..."
    "... The Clintons are a great success story. They never set out to be legal, only not to get sent to jail. By this standard they have succeeded. They have wealth and power and are 2 of the most admired people on earth. Lawyers and fines are just businesses expenses. ..."
    "... I want to share my intentions with my fellow ZH Bloggers and Patriots, beginning today, I am going to be sending a series of communications directly to Paul Ryan by using his WEBSITE found at the following URL: http://www.speaker.gov/contact ..."
    "... I plan to both encourage and challenge the Speaker. I know many on ZH look at Paul Ryan as a hypocrite. I understand why you may hold this position. I too am very disappointed with recent REPUBLICAN positions and communications. However, now is the time to unite as "WE THE PEOPLE". All of the data is suggesting that leadership within US Government Agencies is corrupted by special interests and their own fleshly nature. We see evidence of TREASON everywhere. But I believe brighter days lie ahead for America at least in the short term. ..."
    "... AMERICA has lost her way and this needs to be corrected. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    TahoeBilly2012 Rubicon Oct 29, 2016 9:46 AM ,
    FBI agents looking at Weiners weiner on his laptop, sees tons of Huma emails and Clinton emails, turn and tell their boss they are disgusted with all this and he needs to disrupt her winning office or they are going public. That's what happened!
    Tarjan TahoeBilly2012 Oct 29, 2016 10:18 AM ,
    I think you are spot on with that observation. Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked.
    joego1 Tarjan Oct 29, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    Check this out;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgbEj-YyEIQ

    The FBI's hand was forced by Anonymous.

    Wow72 lil dirtball Oct 29, 2016 11:07 AM ,
    I agree, it is all puppet theatre with some humor added. The more outrageous the more believable, right?

    It achieves some "unity" around Trump when there wasn't enough going down the home stretch, it became OBVIOUS she's not a winner, which anyone with half a brain has known since she announced? So maybe they are pulling the plug and she's been beat officially? Which leaves the question is Trump for real?

    I must say, fake or not he fought hard? I like Trump. I hope he realizes if he did decide to do GOOD, he could become very powerful. Why these leaders get to these positions and give it all up for a little greed is beyond me? They could be 10 times more powerful by just being GOOD? You've got the money Trump, if your GOOD, you'll obtain the power? Trump has some political capital and makes him more attractive to the establishment. My guess is, im being too optimistic for good things to happen? I hope Im wrong.

    I've been burned so many times by BIG GOV. both DEM & REP? I just cant trust anyone that is near it?

    They take lots of ideas from ZH these days, and its not good..... ZH offers them the ideas, the power, and the creativity of the crowd. They use it against us, a very powerful tool.

    Kidbuck Fester Oct 29, 2016 10:56 AM ,
    The Clintons are a great success story. They never set out to be legal, only not to get sent to jail. By this standard they have succeeded. They have wealth and power and are 2 of the most admired people on earth. Lawyers and fines are just businesses expenses.
    GUS100CORRINA Fester Oct 29, 2016 11:07 AM ,
    I want to share my intentions with my fellow ZH Bloggers and Patriots, beginning today, I am going to be sending a series of communications directly to Paul Ryan by using his WEBSITE found at the following URL: http://www.speaker.gov/contact

    I plan to both encourage and challenge the Speaker. I know many on ZH look at Paul Ryan as a hypocrite. I understand why you may hold this position. I too am very disappointed with recent REPUBLICAN positions and communications. However, now is the time to unite as "WE THE PEOPLE". All of the data is suggesting that leadership within US Government Agencies is corrupted by special interests and their own fleshly nature. We see evidence of TREASON everywhere. But I believe brighter days lie ahead for America at least in the short term.

    AMERICA has lost her way and this needs to be corrected.

    I encourage everyone who reads this message to send a note to the SPEAKER encouraging him to do four things:

    1. Get on board the TRUMP/PENCE train no matter what it takes which includes eating "HUMBLE PIE".
    2. Go after Hillary R. Clinton and press for swift and immediate justice.
    3. Enforce existing laws for TREASON that are on the books.
    4. Do whatever it takes to ensure the integrity of the American POTUS Election process. MAKE OUR VOTE COUNT.

    I plan to do this today and will be sending the speaker notes and comments from ZH.

    If everyone contacts the SPEAKER, he will get the POINT.

    GOD's SPEED in whatever you decide to do as a CITIZEN of these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Im With Her - Against Hillarys Malevolent Matriarchy

    Notable quotes:
    "... In recent interviews, Donald Trump's wife, Melania Trump, observed wryly that almost every malicious, lie-filled article about herself or he husband was written by a … female. ..."
    "... On the Soviet-style witch-hunt launched against her husband with media mediation, she said this: "All sexual assault allegations should be handled in a court of law. To accuse someone, man or woman, without evidence is damaging and unfair." ..."
    "... The very embodiment of the malevolent liberal matriarchy rising is the sainted Michelle Obama. The First Lady was lauded for an unhinged anti-Trump address to the nation's women. ..."
    Oct 26, 2016 | www.unz.com

    In recent interviews, Donald Trump's wife, Melania Trump, observed wryly that almost every malicious, lie-filled article about herself or he husband was written by a … female.

    ... ... ...

    When a liberal woman declares she's a strong woman (usually uttered in a tart-like, staccato inflection), she's using a cliché. Look at her actions. You'll see that "strong" to liberal distaff means kicking and screaming until she brings others into compliance with her worldview and ways.

    ... ... ...

    More material than her mien were Melania Trump's words of reason. On the Soviet-style witch-hunt launched against her husband with media mediation, she said this: "All sexual assault allegations should be handled in a court of law. To accuse someone, man or woman, without evidence is damaging and unfair."

    This was the exact verdict of famed defense attorney Tom Mesereau, about the Bill Cosby pile-on. Quit the feeding frenzy. Give the man his due process. Investigate the women, counseled Mesereau, Esq., at the time.

    ... ... ...

    The very embodiment of the malevolent liberal matriarchy rising is the sainted Michelle Obama. The First Lady was lauded for an unhinged anti-Trump address to the nation's women. In a world where Americans have been beheaded on camera, women raped en masse on Europe's streets, and Christians exterminated in the Middle East-the First Lady bewailed being "shaken" to her shallow core by raunchy words. "I can't stop thinking about it," groaned Michelle about Mr. Trump's Access Hollywood indiscretion. It "has shaken me to my core in a way I could not have predicted."

    [Oct 29, 2016] Sometimes Bill And Hillary Have The Worst Judgment Wikileaks Releases Part 22 Of Podesta File

    Notable quotes:
    "... and concludes by saying that " Sometimes HRC/WJC have the worst judgement ." In retrospect, she is right. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    In the aftermath of one of the most memorable (c)october shocks in presidential campaign history, Wikileaks continues its ongoing broadside attack against the Clinton campaign with the relentless Podesta dump, by unveiling another 596 emails in the latest Part 22 of its Podesta release, bringing the total emails released so far to exactly 36,190, leaving less than 30% of the total dump left to go.

    RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 22 #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails22 #HillaryClinton https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm pic.twitter.com/QnWewcpPbf

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 29, 2016

    As usual we will go parse through the disclosure and bring you some of the more notable ones.

    * * *

    In a February 2012 email from Chelsea Clinton's NYU alias, [email protected] , to Podesta and Mills, Bill and Hillary's frustrated daughter once again points out the "frustration and confusion" among Clinton Foundation clients in the aftermath of the previously noted scandals plaguing the Clinton consultancy, Teneo:

    Over the past few days a few people from the Foundation have reached out to me frustrated or upset about _____ (fill in the blank largely derived meetings Friday or Monday). I've responded to all w/ essentially the following (ie disintermediating myself, again, emphatically) below. I also called my Dad last night to tell him of my explicit non-involvement and pushing all back to you both and to him as I think that is indeed the right answer. Thanks

    Sample: Please share any and all concerns, with examples, without pulling punches, with John and Cheryl as appropriate and also if you feel very strongly with my Dad directly. Transitions are always challenging and to get to the right answer its critical that voices are heard and understood, and in the most direct way - ie to them without intermediation. Particularly in an effort to move more toward a professionalism and efficiency at the Foundation and for my father - and they're the decision-makers, my Dad most of all

    * * *

    A February 2015 email from Neera Tanden lashes out at David Brock of the Bonner Group, profiled in this post: " Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicated ." As a reminder, the Bonner Group, as we showed last month, may be a money laundering front involving various SuperPACs and non-profit institutions:

    In the email Tanden says that:

    "Brock/Bonner are a nightmare: Really, Suzie Buell isn't giving to the superpac? I wonder how that got in this story " Big donors holding off making pledges to pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC ",

    and concludes by saying that " Sometimes HRC/WJC have the worst judgement ." In retrospect, she is right.

    * * *

    Speaking of "donor advisor" Mary Pat Bonner , the following email from March 2009 hints at potential impropriety in shifting money from one democratic donor group to another, the Center for American Progress :

    I have moved all the sussman money from unity '09 to cap and am reviewing the others . I will assess it and keep you informed

    Something else for the DOJ to look into after the elections, perhaps?

    * * *

    And then there is this email from August 2015 in which German politician Michael Werz advises John Podesta that Turkish president Erdogan "is making substantial investments in U.S. to counter opposition (CHP, Kurds, Gulenists etc.) outreach to policymakers" and the US Government.

    John, heard this second hand but more than once. Seems Erdogan faction is making substantial investments in U.S. to counter opposition (CHP, Kurds, Gulenists etc.) outreach to policymakers and USG. Am told that the Erdogan crew also tries to make inroads via donations to Democratic candidates, including yours. Two names that you should be aware of are *Mehmet Celebi* and *Ali Cinar*. Happy to elaborate on the phone, provided you are not shopping at the liquor store.

    The email :

    This should perhaps explain why the US has so far done absolutely nothing to halt Erdogan's unprecedented crackdown on "coup plotters" which has seen as many as 100,000 workers lose their jobs, be arrested, or otherwise removed from Erdogan's political opposition.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Only 29% of those who said that they would vote for Clinton said their vote was intended to stop Trump from getting to the White House. By contrast, 43% of Trump voters said their decision was a defensive vote against Clinton

    Oct 29, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Polling offers some clues . Last week, George Washington University released the results of a survey of 1,000 adults who said they were registered and likely to vote. Only 29% of those who said that they would vote for Clinton said their vote was intended to stop Trump from getting to the White House. By contrast, 43% of Trump voters said their decision was a defensive vote against Clinton.

    That doesn't necessarily get us any closer to forecasting the results. It's a fact that voter turnout will shape this election outcome but it's much harder to predict how human nature might affect that turnout. What drives people to action more – support for a set of values or fear of the alternatives? Love or hate?

    [Oct 29, 2016] The level of militarism in the current US society and MSM is really staggering. anti-war forces are completely destroyed (with the abandonment of draft) and are limited for

    Oct 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and paleoconservatives.

    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... October 28, 2016 at 04:37 PM , 2016 at 04:37 PM

    >"Plus, she's very nasty towards Vlad Putin."

    What I do not get is how one can call himself/herself a democrat and be jingoistic monster. That's the problem with Democratic Party and its supporters. Such people for me are DINO ("Democrats only in name"). Closet neocons, if you wish. The level of militarism in the current US society and MSM is really staggering. anti-war forces are completely destroyed (with the abandonment of draft) and are limited for libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and paleoconservatives. There is almost completely empty space on the left. Dennis Kucinich is one of the few exceptions
    (see http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/10/27/must-read-of-the-day-dennis-kucinich-issues-extraordinary-warning-on-d-c-s-think-tank-warmongers/ )

    I think that people like Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney can now proudly join Democratic Party and feel themselves quite at home.

    BTW Hillary is actually very pleasant with people of the same level. It's only subordinates, close relatives and Security Service agents, who are on the receiving end of her wrath. A typical "kiss up, kick down personality".

    The right word probably would not "nasty", but "duplicitous".

    Or "treacherous" as this involves breaking of previous agreements (with a smile) as the USA diplomacy essentially involves positioning the country above the international law. As in "I am the law".

    Obama is not that different. I think he even more sleazy then Hillary and as such is more difficult to deal with. He also is at his prime, while she is definitely past hers:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-usa-idUSKCN12R25E

    == quote ==
    Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.

    Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people chose, and to discuss any problem.
    == end of quote ==

    Syria is an "Obama-approved" adventure, is not it ? The same is true for Libya. So formally he is no less jingoistic then Hillary, Nobel Peace price notwithstanding.

    Other things equal, it might be easier for Putin to deal with Hillary then Obama, as she has so many skeletons in the closet and might soon be impeached by House.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Stein war with Russia is not an option

    Notable quotes:
    "... She [Hillary Clinton] has concurrently this Clinton Foundation business, where she is granting special favors, special partnerships, special government contracts, weapons deals, etc., to Clinton Foundation donors. So, there's just a lot here that represents how the economic and political elite are very much represented, I think, by both of these candidates, and underscores why it's really important for us to exercise our power in a democracy . ..."
    "... To present a no-fly zone here as a solution is extremely dangerous. A no-fly zone means we are going to war with Russia, because it means we will be shooting down planes in the sky in order to create this no-fly zone, which is where Russia has a commitment to defending the Assad government. So, remember, there was a ceasefire, which was very hard-won, and that ceasefire was destroyed by the action of the Americans bombing, apparently by mistake, although some people say not by mistake, but it was our bombing of the Syrian troops that destroyed that ceasefire . ..."
    "... That was our part, the U.S., in allowing the nuclear arms race to re-engage . Mikhail Gorbachev, the former premier of the Soviet Union, said last week that we are now at a more dangerous period regarding nuclear war than we have ever been. So, it's really important for the warmongers in the Democratic and Republican parties to be cooling their jets now and for us to be moving forward towards a weapons embargo and a freeze on the funding of those countries that are continuing to fund terrorist enterprises . ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    'There was a ceasefire, which was very hard-won, and that ceasefire was destroyed by the action of the Americans bombing, apparently by mistake, although some people say not by mistake, but it was our bombing of the Syrian troops that destroyed that ceasefire'

    via globinfo freexchange

    After our call to independent media for a 'counter-debate' with the US third parties , the independent news network Democracy Now! made a first revolutionary step to break the US bipartisan debate monopoly.

    Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! explains again the process, in this second presidential debate: " We spend the rest of today's show airing excerpts of the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton debate and give Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein a chance to respond to the same questions posed to the major-party candidates. Again, Dr. Stein and Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson were excluded from the debate under stringent rules set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties. We invited both Stein and Johnson to join us on the program; only Stein took us up on the offer. "

    In this last part of the second debate, Jill Stein, again, was the only presidential candidate that told the whole truth to the American people without hesitation.

    Concerning the Syrian mess and the Russian intervention, Hillary Clinton showed again why she is the most dangerous to be the next US president. She avoided again to admit the huge responsibility of the US intervention and their allies in Libya and the Middle East which created absolute chaos. She blamed again the Russians, although - as Jill Stein stated very correctly - it was the US that destroyed the hard-won ceasefire in Syria. Hillary showed again her absolute devotion to the neocon/neoliberal agenda, therefore, start a war with Russia. She showed again how dangerous she is.

    On the contrary, Jill Stein stated very clearly that war with Russia is out of question.

    Key points:

    She [Hillary Clinton] has concurrently this Clinton Foundation business, where she is granting special favors, special partnerships, special government contracts, weapons deals, etc., to Clinton Foundation donors. So, there's just a lot here that represents how the economic and political elite are very much represented, I think, by both of these candidates, and underscores why it's really important for us to exercise our power in a democracy . We have a right to know who we can vote for, as well as a right to vote.

    Syria is a disaster, and it's a very complicated disaster. It is a civil war. It is a proxy war among many nations. It is a pipeline war also between Russia and the Gulf states, who are competing to run their pipelines with fracked gas into Europe across Syria. So, this is a very complicated situation, and there is a hornets' nest, a real circular firing squad of alliances here that's, you know, extremely, extremely complicated.

    To present a no-fly zone here as a solution is extremely dangerous. A no-fly zone means we are going to war with Russia, because it means we will be shooting down planes in the sky in order to create this no-fly zone, which is where Russia has a commitment to defending the Assad government. So, remember, there was a ceasefire, which was very hard-won, and that ceasefire was destroyed by the action of the Americans bombing, apparently by mistake, although some people say not by mistake, but it was our bombing of the Syrian troops that destroyed that ceasefire .

    We need to redouble our efforts here. And we need to acknowledge that war with Russia is not an option. There are 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. And who was it that dropped out of the nuclear arms control? That was George Bush. That was our part, the U.S., in allowing the nuclear arms race to re-engage . Mikhail Gorbachev, the former premier of the Soviet Union, said last week that we are now at a more dangerous period regarding nuclear war than we have ever been. So, it's really important for the warmongers in the Democratic and Republican parties to be cooling their jets now and for us to be moving forward towards a weapons embargo and a freeze on the funding of those countries that are continuing to fund terrorist enterprises .

    [Oct 29, 2016] Sharon Day Rescind your Clinton Endorsement

    Notable quotes:
    "... After weeks of revealing information behind the Clinton Foundation and their self-motivated fundraising tactics, there is no other word to describe the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. She's engaged in behavior that is disqualifying to be a candidate for the highest office, and yet dozens of American legislators, leaders and even media outlets have endorsed her candidacy. ..."
    "... She's swindled countries out of donations, she's swindled corporate America with her lofty promises and she's swindled the American people – over and over and over again. ..."
    "... So why now, after the knowledge that top-tier corporations and other wealthy supporters paid to meet with both the former president and the now Democratic presidential nominee should we believe that she would change her behavior to act in the best interest of the country? In fact, one could argue that this information is a window into how Clinton would rule the land. She'd have an eye out for only herself and her family, while leaving the American people - who so desperately want a change - with the same old Clinton-first approach. ..."
    "... Beyond her blatant disregard for the American public, Clinton's cavalier approach to national security has come into question from a myriad of angles. From the secret server in her home basement that received hundreds of confidential email communications, to the lack of response she paid to the Congress when asked about the issue, to the suggestion that she made promises to the FBI that would cause them to "look the other way" when ruling on the secret email server. And then how about the millions of dollars the Clinton Foundation took from countries that are of disrepute, not to mention those that show little concern for women's rights. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    It was 25 years ago that Martin Scorsese delighted audiences with his movie rendition of the Jim Thompson novel, "The Grifters."

    The story is an ingenious tale of deception and betrayal. By definition a grifter is someone who has made money dishonestly, in a swindle or a confidence game.

    After weeks of revealing information behind the Clinton Foundation and their self-motivated fundraising tactics, there is no other word to describe the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. She's engaged in behavior that is disqualifying to be a candidate for the highest office, and yet dozens of American legislators, leaders and even media outlets have endorsed her candidacy.

    She's swindled countries out of donations, she's swindled corporate America with her lofty promises and she's swindled the American people – over and over and over again.

    So why now, after the knowledge that top-tier corporations and other wealthy supporters paid to meet with both the former president and the now Democratic presidential nominee should we believe that she would change her behavior to act in the best interest of the country? In fact, one could argue that this information is a window into how Clinton would rule the land. She'd have an eye out for only herself and her family, while leaving the American people - who so desperately want a change - with the same old Clinton-first approach.

    Beyond her blatant disregard for the American public, Clinton's cavalier approach to national security has come into question from a myriad of angles. From the secret server in her home basement that received hundreds of confidential email communications, to the lack of response she paid to the Congress when asked about the issue, to the suggestion that she made promises to the FBI that would cause them to "look the other way" when ruling on the secret email server. And then how about the millions of dollars the Clinton Foundation took from countries that are of disrepute, not to mention those that show little concern for women's rights.

    The most recent set of Clinton emails that have come to light are of such great concern to national security that the FBI has announced they will conduct a new investigation of Clinton's emails. This is just ELEVEN days before the country goes to the polls and decides on our next president.

    Where has the leadership gone in this country? Since when do reputable news outlets stand behind candidates who have proven themselves over and over to be out for themselves and dangerous, even? It used to be that newspapers and legislators and leaders who speak from a platform would find themselves offering wisdom. Wisdom about which candidate was best for the job – based on the facts. Instead we find ourselves sifting through the list of endorsements for Clinton with little or no mention of her disregard for the law, her lack of concern for those she serves, and the careless nature in which she has proven herself to lead.

    Now that the newspapers know better and have written about the truth in their own words, how can the media and elected officials stand by their decision to endorse her? They need to rescind their endorsement. That includes President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.

    In a quote from his book Thompson describes one of the characters, "Anyone who deprived her of something she wanted, deserved what he got."

    Sounds all too familiar to the Democratic nominee for grifter-in-chief. If she's not changed by now, who is to say she'd be any different when she was the most powerful elected official in the United States. Once a grifter, always a grifter.

    Sharon Day is the Republican National Committee Co-Chair.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Hallelujah! here it guys! the internal Clinton Foundation attachment that connects the shady dots!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Wow, they clearly state Bill Clinton uses golfing to establish communication with donors ..."
    "... "People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before." - source ..."
    "... In total, The Wall Street Journal reports, two dozen companies and groups, plus the Abu Dhabi government, gave Bill more than $8 million for speeches, even as they were hoping for favorable treatment from Hillary's bureaucracy. And 15 of them also gave at least $5 million total to the foundation. ..."
    "... Can someone help me see the shadiness, what am I missing? unless the "foundation donors require significant maintenance to keep them engaged and supportive of the foundation" means they are giving them political favors then it just looks like the clinton foundation is accepting donations and that is it. ..."
    "... so pro-clinton sources have been propping up the Clinton Foundation for years as the pinnacle of charity while not really being able to explain where all the money goes; ..."
    "... This shows that they require 20 million a year to operate with 8 employees. It shows they have to raid the Clinton Global Initiative for $6M to $11M every year to cover that budget hole... ..."
    "... This is useful information that is probably not reflected on tax returns. Most importantly it shows that when Bill was offered a shady $8 million dollar over 2 year deal that would appear to be a conflict of interest while Hillary was Sect of State, Podesta and Band suggested hiding the money as payment for speeches. This boosts the accusation that the speeches are payments for quid pro quo. ..."
    "... Does any of it contradict the MOU she signed when appointed Sec State? https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34993 ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.reddit.com

    Wow, they clearly state Bill Clinton uses golfing to establish communication with donors

    beccairene 2 points 3 points 4 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    Wait, isn't golfing what Loretta Lynch claimed to have discussed with WJC on the plane?

    robaloie 2 points 3 points 4 points 8 hours ago * (0 children)

    He also said they were talking about golf when he called Donald trump last year before trump decided to run.

    "People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before." - source

    Not_a_Fake 8 points 9 points 10 points 18 hours ago (0 children)

    Question-Are we to assume that any OTHER speaking engagements that WJC did were not because of the foundation, but from when his wife was SOS?

    In total, The Wall Street Journal reports, two dozen companies and groups, plus the Abu Dhabi government, gave Bill more than $8 million for speeches, even as they were hoping for favorable treatment from Hillary's bureaucracy. And 15 of them also gave at least $5 million total to the foundation.

    soupy_scoopy 113 points 114 points 115 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Has this been cleared by CNN for me to view?

    BigLizardz 2 points 3 points 4 points 19 hours ago (0 children)

    Lol I'm actually too scared to click in wikileak/dikileak links. #1984?

    OldDirtyPlastered 14 points 15 points 16 points 22 hours ago (0 children)

    Good question. I don't want to do anything illegal.

    Uncle_Touchy_ 17 points 18 points 19 points 1 day ago (0 children)

    You'll have to ask Downy McDaterape or whatever that anchor's name is. You know the one.

    moreoverhereafter 4 points 5 points 6 points 1 day ago * (5 children)

    Can someone help me see the shadiness, what am I missing? unless the "foundation donors require significant maintenance to keep them engaged and supportive of the foundation" means they are giving them political favors then it just looks like the clinton foundation is accepting donations and that is it.

    5pointlight [ S ] 81 points 82 points 83 points 1 day ago * (4 children)

    so pro-clinton sources have been propping up the Clinton Foundation for years as the pinnacle of charity while not really being able to explain where all the money goes; because it sure doesn't seem to be going to Haiti or many other charities.

    This shows that they require 20 million a year to operate with 8 employees. It shows they have to raid the Clinton Global Initiative for $6M to $11M every year to cover that budget hole... so this gives credence to the suspicion that the CF is hiding money somewhere (laundering money to Clintons and friends). Also this document shows how teneo made Bill Clinton " more than $50 million in for-profit activity we have personally helped to secure for President Clinton to date or the $66 million in future contracts" as of 2011.

    This is useful information that is probably not reflected on tax returns. Most importantly it shows that when Bill was offered a shady $8 million dollar over 2 year deal that would appear to be a conflict of interest while Hillary was Sect of State, Podesta and Band suggested hiding the money as payment for speeches. This boosts the accusation that the speeches are payments for quid pro quo.

    Fake_Unicron comment score below threshold -12 points -11 points -10 points 16 hours ago (0 children)

    Any sources on that, like the foundation spending?

    How have you compared their spending reports to those from other charities?

    In contrast to your unsourced allegations:

    https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=2284

    How would the charity donations allow the CF to launder money for the donors? Any evidence or is this just guesswork auditing?

    Why do you think this is "probably not reflected on tax returns"?

    driusan 10 points 11 points 12 points 23 hours ago (0 children)

    Does any of it contradict the MOU she signed when appointed Sec State? https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34993

    [Oct 29, 2016] A Presidency From Hell by Patrick J. Buchanan

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she had reportedly been sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them. During her first two years as secretary of state, half of her outside visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Yet there was not a single quid pro quo, Clinton tells us. ..."
    "... Pat is oh-so right: "This election is not over." In fact it's likely that Donald Trump will continue to surge and will win on November 8th. ..."
    "... Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton. ..."
    "... The problem facing the donor class and the party elites is that Trump supporters are not swayed by the media bias. A recent Gallup poll shows Americans trust in journalists to be at its lowest level since Gallup began asking the question. ..."
    "... Americans are savvy to the media's rigging of election reporting. Election Day, Nov. 8th, will show that the dishonest reporting of the mainstream media and the cooked samplings of their polls were all for naught. ..."
    "... More years of bank favoritism, corporate socialism, political corruption, failed social programs, deindustrialization, open borders lawlessness, erosion of liberties, interventionism and wage stagnation is all adding more steam to the pressure cooker. ..."
    "... A Trump presidency would back the pressure off, a Clinton presidency would be a disaster. ..."
    "... Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential "greatness" is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war? ..."
    "... Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets. ..."
    "... Hillary is probably guilty of a lot of things. However, evidence from the counter-media and/or Congress means nothing to the MSM. In fact the MSM will actually conjure up a multitude of baseless red herrings to protect Hillary. E.g., the Trump as Putin puppet meme as a diversion away from documented Clinton corruption. ..."
    "... The anti-Hillary elements can only mutually reinforce in their internet ghettos. Those ghettos do not provide enough political leverage to move against a President Hillary no matter how compelling the evidence of the Clinton's collective criminality. In that context, Hillary will be politically inoculated by the protective MSM against Republican congressional inquiries and attacks. ..."
    "... Hillary's presidency will almost certainly be a catastrophe because it will manifest the haggard, corrupt, cronied-up, parasitic and mediocre qualities of the hack sitting in the Oval Office. Expect a one term fiasco and then Hillary will stumble out of the White House as even more of a political and personal wreck. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    ... ... ...

    Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she had reportedly been sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them. During her first two years as secretary of state, half of her outside visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Yet there was not a single quid pro quo, Clinton tells us.

    Yesterday's newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill's speeches.

    What were the corporations buying if not influence? What were the foreign contributors buying, if not influence with an ex-president, and a secretary of state and possible future president?

    Did none of the big donors receive any official favors?

    "There's a lot of smoke and there's no fire," says Hillary Clinton.

    Perhaps, but there seems to be more smoke every day.

    If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, to a grand jury, or before Congress, Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special prosecutor, as was Nixon's.

    And, with the election over, the investigative reporters of the adversary press, Pulitzers beckoning, would be cut loose to go after her.

    The Republican House is already gearing up for investigations that could last deep into Clinton's first term.

    There is a vast trove of public and sworn testimony from Hillary, about the server, the emails, the erasures, the Clinton Foundation. Now, thanks to WikiLeaks, there are tens of thousands of emails to sift through, and perhaps tens of thousands more to come.

    What are the odds that not one contains information that contradicts her sworn testimony? Rep. Jim Jordan contends that Clinton may already have perjured herself.

    And as the full-court press would begin with her inauguration, Clinton would have to deal with the Syrians, the Russians, the Taliban, the North Koreans, and Xi Jinping in the South China Sea-and with Bill Clinton wandering around the White House with nothing to do.

    This election is not over. But if Hillary Clinton wins, a truly hellish presidency could await her, and us.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority


    Kurt Gayle , says: October 27, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    Pat is oh-so right: "This election is not over." In fact it's likely that Donald Trump will continue to surge and will win on November 8th.

    Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton.

    On the other hand, several polls with a history of accuracy have consistently shown either a Trump lead or a statistical dead-heat.

    The problem facing the donor class and the party elites is that Trump supporters are not swayed by the media bias. A recent Gallup poll shows Americans trust in journalists to be at its lowest level since Gallup began asking the question.

    Americans are savvy to the media's rigging of election reporting. Election Day, Nov. 8th, will show that the dishonest reporting of the mainstream media and the cooked samplings of their polls were all for naught.

    Thus, fortunately, the American people will avoid the spectacle of a "truly hellish" Clinton presidency.

    Matt , says: October 28, 2016 at 12:58 am
    More years of bank favoritism, corporate socialism, political corruption, failed social programs, deindustrialization, open borders lawlessness, erosion of liberties, interventionism and wage stagnation is all adding more steam to the pressure cooker.

    A Trump presidency would back the pressure off, a Clinton presidency would be a disaster.

    William N. Grigg , says: October 28, 2016 at 1:13 am
    James Polk, no charmer, was a one-term president, but a great one, victorious in the Mexican War, annexing California and the Southwest, negotiating a fair division of the Oregon territory with the British.

    Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential "greatness" is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war?

    Michael Bienner , says: October 28, 2016 at 1:36 am
    Tyranny is upon us…
    Brian J. , says: October 28, 2016 at 7:17 am
    The only people responsible for that "cloud" are conservatives. If you wish to prevent the horrid fate that you're describing, Pat, you need to apologize and concede that these investigations are groundless. You can't say "where there's smoke, there's fire" if we can all see your smoke machine.
    PAXNOW , says: October 28, 2016 at 7:29 am
    The Visigoths will continue their advance on Rome by the millions. The Supreme Court and Fed will shy away from diversity in their numbers. The alternative media will go bonkers, but to no avail. The military will provide employment (endless wars) to those displaced by a permissive immigration policy. Elizabeth I – will look down (up) in envy.
    David , says: October 28, 2016 at 7:46 am
    "Cloud" is an understatement.
    SteveM , says: October 28, 2016 at 8:34 am
    Re: "Yesterday's newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill's speeches."

    Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets.

    Hillary is probably guilty of a lot of things. However, evidence from the counter-media and/or Congress means nothing to the MSM. In fact the MSM will actually conjure up a multitude of baseless red herrings to protect Hillary. E.g., the Trump as Putin puppet meme as a diversion away from documented Clinton corruption.

    The anti-Hillary elements can only mutually reinforce in their internet ghettos. Those ghettos do not provide enough political leverage to move against a President Hillary no matter how compelling the evidence of the Clinton's collective criminality. In that context, Hillary will be politically inoculated by the protective MSM against Republican congressional inquiries and attacks.

    Hillary's presidency will almost certainly be a catastrophe because it will manifest the haggard, corrupt, cronied-up, parasitic and mediocre qualities of the hack sitting in the Oval Office. Expect a one term fiasco and then Hillary will stumble out of the White House as even more of a political and personal wreck.

    Agree with Pat though that it's going to be a wild ride for the rest of us – straight down.

    P.S. A Republican Congress does have the power of the purse and could shave away Clinton's Imperial use of the executive branch. But the feckless Congress has never been intelligent enough to utilize that power effectively.

    Mike Schilling , says: October 28, 2016 at 9:31 am
    And if anyone would know about clouds of mistrust, it's a Nixon staffer/
    Kurt Gayle , says: October 28, 2016 at 9:58 am
    SteveM makes excellent points about the mainstream media cover-up of the Wikileaks revelations:

    "Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets."

    Alex Pfeiffer (The Daily Caller) expands upon SteveM's critique in "The Anatomy Of A Press Cover-Up." Great stuff:

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/27/the-anatomy-of-a-press-cover-up/

    Viriato , says: October 28, 2016 at 10:14 am
    @William N. Grigg: "Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential "greatness" is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war?"

    Yes, that's one aspect of PJB's thought that has long disturbed me. Granted, PJB is a nationalist, and I can see why an old-fashioned nationalist would admire Polk. But PJB also advocates an "enlightened nationalism." There's nothing enlightened about stealing someone else's land. Frankly, I fail to see how Polk's actions are any different from Hitler's actions a century later. I don't want to offend anyone but, I'm sorry… this needs to be said.

    Viriato , says: October 28, 2016 at 10:24 am
    I greatly admire Pat Buchanan, but this article is rather ridiculous.

    "If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, to a grand jury, or before Congress, Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special prosecutor, as was Nixon's."

    Translation: "I want revenge for Watergate."

    Look, I admire Nixon. I think he was one of our greatest Presidents. I really mean that. I also think that he was unfairly subjected to a witch hunt and that there was no valid reason for him to have faced the prospect of impeachment (and the same is true, in my view, for both of the Presidents who were actually impeached, interestingly enough). Nixon should have been allowed to finish his second term.

    I think Hillary Clinton is also facing a witch hunt. I don't agree with her foreign policy views or with many of her domestic policy views, but this vicious attempt by the GOP to take her down needs to stop. There is no evidence that she is any more corrupt than anybody else.

    And, in any case, if she gets elected, she will be entitled to serve as President. To deliberately try to sabotage her Presidency by hounding her with these investigations would be to show profound contempt for democratic norms.

    Enough already. I don't support Clinton or Trump. Jill Stein is my gal now. But I hope that whoever wins does a great job and that all goes well for them. Nothing else would be in the best interests of the country or the world.

    KevinS , says: October 28, 2016 at 10:43 am
    "Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton.
    On the other hand, several polls with a history of accuracy have consistently shown either a Trump lead or a statistical dead-heat."

    We heard this in 2012. Go back and read the Free Republic election night thread to see how such comforting thoughts came crashing down as the night went on. Then read the posts today…all the exact same people saying all the exact same things.

    Karel , says: October 28, 2016 at 12:53 pm
    For a society to work well and to succeed, the good-will (trust and support) of it's productive, tax-paying citizens is of paramount importance. The corrupt politics in DC for the last 25 years has used up this good-will. Only few trust these elitists , as evidenced by the success of the socialist, Sanders, and Trump.

    With the election of the corrupt, lying, unaccomplished politician, the legitimacy of the D.C. "Leaders" will be gone. It would be a disaster!

    KennethF , says: October 28, 2016 at 1:05 pm
    " She would enter office as the least-admired president in history, without a vision or a mandate. She would take office with two-thirds of the nation believing she is untruthful and untrustworthy. "

    Funny you should go there. Sure, HRC has historically high unfavorability ratings. Fact: DJT's unfavorability ratings are even higher. Check any reasonably non-partisan site such as RCP or 538.

    Pretty much all the negatives about HRC are trumped by Trump. His flip-flopping makes hers look amateur: he used to be a pro-choice Democrat; has publicly espoused admiration for HRC and declared that WJC was unfairly criticized for his transgressions. Integrity: he's stiffed countless businesses, small and large; he's been sued by his own lawyers for non-payment. Character: he behaves like a child, 'nuff said.

    Corruption: his daddy illegally bailed him out of a financial jam; Trump's foundation makes the Clintons' look legit by comparison.

    With HRC, the GOP had a huge chance to take back the WH: she has plenty of genuine baggage to go along with the made-up stuff. However the GOP managed to nominate the one candidate who makes her transgressions appear tolerable. The end result is that a significant number of moderate Republicans are supporting no one, Johnson, or even HRC. Trump is so toxic that very few progressive Dems will stray from HRC, despite being horrified by her corporate connections.

    Susan , says: October 28, 2016 at 2:46 pm
    Re today: The FBI is not investigating her server. Servers don't send emails on their own. They are investigating Hillary Clinton. They just don't like to say that. I wonder if it's in order to – once again – announce Hillary's "innocence," just before the end of early voting and voting day. We'll see.
    GeneTuttle , says: October 28, 2016 at 2:52 pm
    Once again, Pat shows prescience. The bombshell about the reopened FBI investigation was dropped minutes after I read this article.
    jeff , says: October 28, 2016 at 3:14 pm
    For those interested in a functional government, note that this is three straight elections – over twelve years – where the incoming president is a priori deemed illegitimate, regardless of the scale of the victory, and the opposing political party has no interest in working with that president.

    In fact, some senators and representatives (Cruz, Gowdy, Issa, etc.) seem to take joy and pride in noting the extent and length of these investigations, regardless of what they find. It is the very process of governmental obstruction they seek, not necessarily justice or truth.

    KD , says: October 28, 2016 at 3:26 pm
    Looks like the FBI discovered some new emails:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/

    Could we have a new historic first if Hillary wins, the First Woman President to be impeached by Congress? And the first couple in the history of the Republic to both be impeached?

    dave , says: October 28, 2016 at 3:27 pm
    At some point the Republicans have to be for something. I suppose they will be tempted to go after Ms. Clinton for what she has elided or attempted to, but I think that is a major mistake. You wrote: "Yet the hostility Clinton would face the day she takes office would almost seem to ensure four years of pure hell.
    The reason: her credibility, or rather her transparent lack of it."

    There are a few assumptions in this – first, that any investigations into her past behavior will be impartial. True or not, the impression will be hard to pull off – I expect they will easily be framed as misogynist. And some most likely will be, so it takes a bit of thought and study to determine which are motivated by misogyny and which are not. News cycles are too fast for that sort of reflection, and in any event more or less all the major papers and television networks are in her camp, so can't really expect journalism out of them anymore. It will be a called a misogynist, partisan investigation and that will be the end of it.

    Second, it assumes that the people doing the investigation have credibility. That's a big if – the GOP went from Bush 43's two terms of military adventurism, increasing income inequality and economic catastrophe to no introspection or admission of error in the ensuing 8 years of apparently mindless, vindictive opposition. That is a long time of being kind of – well – less than thoughtful.

    And it's had tremendous costs. Mr. Obama presents as a decent man in his profiles, but he was very inexperienced when elected and in my opinion has more or less been bumbling around for almost 8 years now, kind of like Clouseau in those old Pink Panther movies. Only a lot of people of died, lost their homes or have seen their communities consumed by despair. Government has been very ineffective for many Americans, and the Republicans have a lot to answer for with the way they've chosen to spend their time and direct their energy over the last 8 years. It's been a waste going after Obama, and going after Clinton will just be more of the same.

    And the last assumption is that with all that might be going on in the next few years, this is important. Ms. Clinton has made some statements, some good, some bad. The bad, though, are remarkably bad – she's for invading a Middle Eastern country and establishing control over their airspace, as an example. In 2017. It's pure crazy. She has Democratic support. Hate to think if she is elected the Republicans will be focusing on email.

    [Oct 29, 2016] More journalists to add to the presstitutes list. They were all obvious Clinton hacks though.

    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    More journalists to add to the shit list. They were all obvious Clinton hacks though.
    https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/792026046191300608

    Lambert Strether Post author October 29, 2016 at 1:45 am

    Why, it's Neera Tanden to John Podesta :

    when bloomberg was having problems w the times he called Arthur schulzburger and asked for coffee. He made the case that they were treating him like a billionaire dilettante instead of Third term mayor. It changed the coverage moderately but also aired the issues in the newsroom so people were more conscious of it. But Arthur is a pretty big wuss so he's not going to do a lot more than that.

    Hillary would have to be the one to call.

    He also thinks the brown and women pundits can shame the times and others on social media. So cultivating Joan Walsh, Yglesias, Allen, perry bacon, Greg Sargent , to defend her is helpful. They can be emboldened. Fwiw - I pushed pir to do this a yr ago.

    "brown and women pundits". Neera so woke.

    aab October 29, 2016 at 3:08 am

    I'm guessing Harvard graduate Matt Yglesias is thrilled to find out that Clintonland views his usefulness primary through the prism of his skin color, particularly given that his family background not actually all that "brown."

    [Oct 29, 2016] Eleven days before the election: Overview of political situation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Let's see: Promoting the notion that it's okay for one country to interfere with and influence a democratic election of another country. I need to see if I can figure out what the implications of this might be in a current context. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Money

    "The Clinton campaign raked in $101 million this month, pressing its cash advantage in the final stretch to election day" [ Politico ]. "Only about $18 million of the haul came in checks of less than $200." Ka-ching.

    Policy

    "From the outset, I've argued that without a public option - a Medicare-like plan that would be available to all Americans buying health insurance - insurance competition would dwindle and premiums would skyrocket. Now that they have, it's time to do now what we should have done then: take the simplest route to a more stable and affordable health care system." [Jacob Hacker, New York Times ]. "Critics of the public option are convinced it's a one-way ticket to single payer (the government alone provides coverage). History suggests the opposite: The public option isn't a threat to a system of broad coverage through competing private plans. Instead, it's absolutely critical to making such a system work." Notice the equivocation on "Medicare- like plan," setting up exactly the same kind of bait and switch operation that career "progressives" and Hacker personally ran in 2009 .

    War Drums

    "Political Airpower, Part I: Say No to the No-Fly Zone" [ War on the Rocks ].

    The Voters

    "This market barometer says Trump still has a chance at the White House" [ MarketWatch ]. "The slump [of the Mexican peso, a] key barometer of Trump's chances represents 'recognition that the election may be closer than polls suggest and growing fears U.S. political uncertainty may be on the rise,' [Colin] Cieszynski says."

    Downballot

    "'There's a danger the dike could break for Republicans,' says Tim Storey, who analyzes politics for the National Conference of State Legislatures. He found that there has been a sea change in expectations on both sides since Oct. 7 when The Washington Post reported on the existence of the 'Access Hollywood' tapes… Republicans have become increasingly concerned that they could lose statehouse majorities in as many as 10 states, Storey said" [ RealClearPolitics ].

    The Trail

    "Clinton lead shrinks, even as nearly 6 in 10 expect her to win, Post-ABC tracking poll finds" [ WaPo ]. Only one poll, so FWIW. "Trump saw his biggest gains among political independents, favoring Trump by a 12-point margin in the latest tracking poll, 49 to 37 percent, after giving Clinton a narrow edge in late last week." Now that's volatile!

    Funny:

    Democrat Email Hairball

    "Clinton campaign manager John Podesta apparently thinks Eric Garner's death was justified" [ Mic ].

    Erica Garner reacts:


    Check the responses…

    And then this happened:


    Oopsie.

    UPDATES Good heavens!

    "FBI to take new 'investigative steps' on Clinton emails" [ WaPo ]. "The FBI will investigate whether additional classified material is contained in emails sent using Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was secretary of state, FBI Director James B. Comey informed congressional leaders Friday. The announcement appears to restart the FBI's probe of Clinton's server, which previously ended in July with no charges…"

    "New Emails in Clinton Case Came From Anthony Weiner's Electronic Devices" [ New York Times ]. "Federal law enforcement officials said Friday that the new emails uncovered in the closed investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server were discovered after the F.B.I. seized electronic devices belonging to Huma Abedin, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, and her husband, Anthony Weiner… The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case - one federal official said they numbered in the thousands." Then again, if Weiner runs true to form, classification won't be an issue. But that most definitely does not mean Clinton's home free .

    Quite the Friday afternoon news dump. And not a good week for the Clinton campaign, despite the triumphalism.

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    This may get overshadowed by the FBI's reopened investigation of Hillary. But it shouldn't:

    On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.

    The tape was never released and has only been heard by the small handful of staffers in the room. According to Chomsky, his old-school audio cassette is the only existent copy and no one has heard it since 2006, until today when he played it for the Observer.

    Speaking about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council, Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).

    "I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win. "

    http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

    All the Clintons learned from Bush v. Gore in 2000 was, "We need to steal more votes than they do."

    Biil Smith October 28, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    Did the FBI actually re-open the probe? Some reports, CBS seem to be saying they are they just thinking about it?

    What the heck was the other investigation?

    Some reports are saying it had nothing to do emails from Wikileaks.

    Something else that has been ongoing.

    MDBill October 28, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    Let's see: Promoting the notion that it's okay for one country to interfere with and influence a democratic election of another country. I need to see if I can figure out what the implications of this might be in a current context.

    WheresOurTeddy October 28, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    This is who she is. This is who they are. #DownWithTheOligarchy

    JohnnyGL October 28, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Wow, that's a bombshell…no doubt media will ignore.

    Tom Denman October 28, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    "no doubt media will ignore." You can count on it.

    Donald October 28, 2016 at 5:58 pm

    The famine in Yemen caused by our Saudi allies is receiving very little attention in the US, so I would expect our great American liberals to agree with Clinton that we have every right to rig the elections of furriners.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millions-starving-as-saudi-bombs-tear-yemen-apart-xdxb23cbb

    I keep expecting that right after Clinton wins, the great humanitarian liberals will let out their outrage, suppressed up to this point because of the need to stop Trump. Just kidding.

    WJ October 28, 2016 at 11:36 pm

    This is extraordinarily forthright. No wonder why her aides ensure that all her interviews are scripted in advance. Don't miss the part where she seems to allude to the revenge-escalation of "these cultures."

    Synoia October 28, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    The narrow and arguably outdated conception of sovereignty in the European framework raises new democratic dilemmas.

    Quite. With that attitude is certainly does raise new (democratic) dilemmas. To whom is the quote attributed?

    Torsten October 28, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    Found it here ..

    Pirmann October 28, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    Time for Bill Clinton to head back out to the ole tarmac. Comey is reopening the FBI email investigation!

    Synoia October 28, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    Bribe was too small.

    Waldenpond October 28, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    I expect to see some hard work….. finding FBI Agent spouses to run for office, appoint to think tanks and scam foundations so they can funnel some of that sweet, sweet repressive regime laundered money. A corrupt political party's work is never done.

    Code Name D October 28, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    More like the white-wash didn't take. Clinton needs another coat.

    edmondo October 28, 2016 at 5:06 pm

    Does the House have to wait until after the November election to start impeachment proceedings?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    Kennedy was absolutely right on this: Ask not what the House can do for you; ask what you can do for the House.

    Stop Hillary on Nov. 8.

    Do not risk a battle between Congress and a commander in chief with the Executive branch under her control.

    We the Little People can do it!!!

    nippersdad October 28, 2016 at 6:03 pm

    No, as a former SoS (and Senator, for that matter) they can impeach her after she left office if it is connected to anything she did whilst she held the position.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    Can the FBI investigate itself as well?

    "Let's look into what happened the last time."

    timbers October 28, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    I'm skeptical. Maybe this is just about throwing Huma under the bus and a pretext to restore FBI morale while diverting attention from the abundant evidence the FBI is sitting on which easily proves Clinton's many crimes?

    jgordon October 28, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    Surprising. I had assumed that we could have video footage of Hillary barbecueing babies and the FBI would just say "There was no intent! Nothing to see here folks, move along".

    thoughtful person October 28, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    K think that something along those lines is operative here. When I heard Trump in NH on npr saying how maybe 'the system' was not that bad….

    Don't want they losing side about to launch a revolution after all!

    UserFriendly October 28, 2016 at 11:17 pm

    This is by Eichenwald, so take with salt… but it seams plausible.
    http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-comey-donald-trump-anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-514918

    You never know though, they could find an email that Clinton bleach bit after Huma printed it.

    grayslady October 28, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    It looks as though an "October surprise" is coming from an unexpected place– the FBI. There are numerous articles about this on the web now, but this one contains a decent analysis.

    Sandy October 28, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    I've been saying something big would happen before Election Day, as it would be uncharacteristic of this crazy cycle to have a quiet home stretch. Kim Dotcom was claiming a couple of days ago that he has her emails and sent them on to Wikileaks and Gowdy.

    But I'm unsure of how this FBI investigation plays out. Obviously, the FBI won't release findings on the new emails for months. And, FBI is not Wikileaks, they don't dump the emails for the public to review.

    Something tells me this is Comey covering his (and FBI) ass. Perhaps he's been made aware that an outside source, e.g., Wikileaks, has the emails and is going to release soon, so he's trying to get ahead of it.

    I have no doubt that her emails are out there somewhere, I'm certain the NSA has had them all along and has been using them for leverage. Any script kiddie could have hacked that joke of a server they were running in their closet, let alone the NSA.

    Waldenpond October 28, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    The response is the investigation has nothing to do with WL or hacking. So yes, I'd go with it's him trying to get out in front of what he knows is coming.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    Putin has gotten to the Republican bureau director.

    Krugman: "Comey needs to provide full info immediately..otherwise, it's partisan."

    nippersdad October 28, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    And did you see this?

    http://finance.yahoo.com/chart/%5EDJI#eyJtdWx0aUNvbG9yTGluZSI6ZmFsc2UsImJvbGxpbmdlclVwcGVyQ29sb3IiOiIjZTIwMDgxIiwiYm9sbGluZ2VyTG93ZXJDb2xvciI6IiM5NTUyZmYiLCJtZmlMaW5lQ29sb3IiOiIjNDVlM2ZmIiwibWFjZERpdmVyZ2VuY2VDb2xvciI6IiNmZjdiMTIiLCJtYWNkTWFjZENvbG9yIjoiIzc4N2Q4MiIsIm1hY2RTaWduYWxDb2xvciI6IiMwMDAwMDAiLCJyc2lMaW5lQ29sb3IiOiIjZmZiNzAwIiwic3RvY2hLTGluZUNvbG9yIjoiI2ZmYjcwMCIsInN0b2NoRExpbmVDb2xvciI6IiM0NWUzZmYiLCJyYW5nZSI6IjFkIn0%3D

    I'll bet that Wall Street thought that Clinton's e-mail scandals had already been baked in. They have recovered some, but that is one mighty jumpy graph.

    craazyboy October 28, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    If the FBI wanted to speed things up, they should have the HFT computers read Hillary's e-mails.

    abynormal October 28, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    a 2fer…flash crash assets back to reality! actually a 3fer…global citizens would thank us…hell a 4fer…remove the growing target off US --

    nippersdad October 28, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Looking at it again, it looks like they have managed to quantify Hillary's value in (to?) the markets; still looking shaky.

    abynormal October 28, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    TisTis: Trump Hopes "Justice Will Finally Be Done" As FBI Reopens Probe Into Hillary Clinton Emails
    JUSTICE WITHIN 2 WEEKS? i don't think soooo Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. ~Wendell Berry

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 3:26 pm

    AP tweet:

    BREAKING: US official: Newly discovered emails related to Clinton investigation did not come from her private server.

    That takes Platte River Networks and Datto out of the picture.

    So what are we talkin' about here … some kinda whistle blower?

    Kim Dotcom and the NSA dropped a dime on her?

    LZFR October 28, 2016 at 3:30 pm

    Apparently it is from none other than , wait for it, Anthony Weiner.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Agent Danger … you are being decommissioned.

    Barmitt O'Bamney October 28, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    The weiner that just keeps on giving.

    abynormal October 28, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    i swear i saw today where the DOJ was giving a 'speech' about Whistleblowers…can't find it. maybe i saw it yesterday…DOJ getting in front of this??

    abynormal October 28, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    OOPS i saw it HERE AT THE COOLER…my apologies Lambert…i'm sleep deprived

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Should Hillary be working on 'due to stress and bad health, I am quitting' speech?

    From Nixon's last speech:

    I would have preferred to carry through to the finish whatever the personal agony it would have involved, and my family unanimously urged me to do so. But the interest of the Nation must always come before any personal considerations.

    jgordon October 28, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    Considering who her VP is, maybe the goal all along was for her to somehow crawl across the finish line then turn over all the evil doing to Kaine while she enjoys her lavish rewards in the nursing home.

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    NYT: "the F.B.I. seized electronic devices belonging to Huma Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner."

    Ah ha … wouldn't it be a hoot if the FBI's probe of Carlos Danger sexting a 15-year-old turned up evidence that was right under their noses … if they'd only bothered to convene a grand jury and subpoena it.

    Heads gonna roll.

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Fortune teller Trump on Twitter, Aug 3rd:

    It came out that Huma Abedin knows all about Hillary's private illegal emails. Huma's PR husband, Anthony Weiner, will tell the world.
    11:50 AM – 3 Aug 2015

    Whoa that's just spooky.

    abynormal October 28, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    oh this Cat Fight will be over in Sugar Ray seconds!!!
    this is fuckingunbelieveable…Huma knows ALLLLL

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    Trump relies on Russian astrologers, I think.

    HopeLB October 28, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    Remember in the debate (2?) when he forcasted a financial crash?

    craazyboy October 28, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    Trump: I call your pussy and raise you a Weiner!

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Can you imagine the headline writers at the New York Post right now--their heads must be exploding.

    allan October 28, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    Check out the photo ménage à trois currently up at the Post.

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    Hillary Shafted by Weiner Device

    Waldenpond October 28, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    For those who don't look, it's very 2016….
    On your left is Abedin leaning her head away with a face palm. In the center is Weiner, shirtless, dopey wide eyed expression taking a selfie. On the right is Clinton, squinting with a hand up blocking the glare of the bright lights being shone on her.

    petal October 28, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    hahahaha that's brilliant! Great for a laugh on this dark and rainy Friday afternoon.

    dale October 28, 2016 at 6:25 pm

    hahahaha. That's the funniest thing I've read in a week.

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    craazyboy outdid the NY Post, whose cover luridly trumpets "Dickileaks" and "STROKING GUN" with the infamous Weiner selfie:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv4wr2pVUAILBd6.jpg

    Arizona Slim October 28, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    Wait a minute. Huma is still married to that guy?

    Huma, what's the matter with you? Got a touch of the Stockholm Syndrome?

    abynormal October 28, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    i caught his documentary with her in it…found it strange myself that she's still around…then a toddler waddled into the frame.
    can't help ponder they hadn't planned this for awhile…

    hunkerdown October 28, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    It seems reasonable to assume that all "power couples" are sham marriages for the salt-of-the-earth quaintsters. I have no idea how one might objectively rebut that conjecture regarding any particular case.

    pretzelattack October 28, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    what if he attempted to send a 15 yr old a picture a selfie, and accidentally sent the detailed plans for attacking syria one week after the election.

    Waldenpond October 28, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    I think the punishment was to be the ones to go through all of Weiner's pictures.

    Barmitt O'Bamney October 28, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    If there is an email from Hillary, whether containing top secret info or not, which was pertinent to Clinton's performance at State (and thus pertinent to the FBI inquiry,) but FBI never received it or recovered it, then that shouldould make an open and shut case of obstruction and lying to the FBI against her. Of course it's too late to stop her legally. But politically she could be kneecapped. Impeachment proceedings launching during Inaugural speeches and balls are a real turd in the punch bowl.

    Waldenpond October 28, 2016 at 6:04 pm

    Could it be Abedin sending receiving on her computer with an address through Clinton's server not involving Clinton at all? It is all exempt under the 'I don't recall' principle anyway.

    different clue October 28, 2016 at 8:56 pm

    If the OverClass has the power to prevent that impeachment, the OverClass will prevent that impeachment.

    Hillary is the designated Obama 2.0 President. Her job is to cement the Obama legacy just as Obama's job was to cement the Bush legacy.
    Don't expect any impeachment anytime soon.

    The only way to stop Hillary is to vote for Trump and get Hillary defeated.

    Alex morfesis October 28, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    Can't remove a sitting president…unless you have the votes to impeach…the comey show…announce something..and gosh darn it…got timed out by the election…

    temporal October 28, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    And yet the timing is awkward.

    New on Friday usually means that the majority of Americans will have forgotten everything but their name by the time Monday rolls around. All the MSM has to do is find another bright shiny object to write about together on the weekend. Their past open collusion with HRC's campaign makes that a foregone conclusion.

    Chances are the FBI will ask Hillary which of the Weiner's emails she deems important.

    NotTimothyGeithner October 28, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    I think Comey overestimated his standing and the standing of "FBI Director" with the populace at large and expected everyone to just applaud when he criticized Clinton and expected Clinton to win big or Republican voters to sour on Trump providing him protection going forward.

    Heres what I believe scares Comey, the GOP base hasn't soured on Trump, Hillary won't big, and the GOP House will remain intact with me ears under pressure for not supporting the elected GOP leader. No one has really voted for Paul Ryan (Veep doesn't count) outside of one congressional district.

    The "left" (everyone who isn't a Republican and isnt on the CGI payroll is what I mean) won't defend Hillary or actions to protect her past the 8th. If Comey has acted in anyway inappropriately and has mutininous agents, he will be in trouble.

    Jen October 28, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    Or the proverbial horse's head just showed up on his desk. And it ain't from Clinton, Inc.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    Is this the weekend (many) people set aside some time to think about the coming election?

    jrs October 28, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    "Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta criticised the FBI's "extraordinary" timing.

    He said on Friday: "The (FBI) Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining."

    oh you silly fool, the only way we ever get the full details of anything is on Wikileaks.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Be careful what you ask for…

    Waldenpond October 28, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    hmmm… Clinton's had the inside dirt on the first round of the investigation. Seems like an Abedin issue.

    Waldenpond October 28, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    Further… didn't she get immunity? Seems like Comey needs to re-open, re-question and cover these items under the immunity also so she can't be prosecuted for them in the future.

    Synoia October 28, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Why do we hear so much about the racism of the white working class and so little about the racism of the ruling class?

    Well, the Ruling Class remained silent in Public until Trump. Then the ugly truth was revealed was revealed on TV, by both Trump (Mexicans) and Clinton (Deplorables).

    And possibly by Romney as wee in his comment about the 49% who don't pay (income) taxes, and the republican meme of Makers and Takers (stated in the wrong order I believe).

    armchair October 28, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    Front page of the Seattle Times had side-by-side articles of a Dakota Pipeline story (dozens arrested) beside the story of the acquittal of Bundy's bunch. They're so factually different though. One story involves powerful interests using and abusing the land to their own economic advantage and squandering the land resources for future generations and the other story involves . . .

    Carolinian October 28, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    Or the racism of the middle class. People are tribal and arguably it is baked into our DNA. That doesn't excuse the mental laziness of trafficking in stereotypes but one could make a case that racism is as much a matter of ignorance as of evil character. Obama with his "bitter clingers" and HIllary with her "deplorables" are talking about people about whom they probably know almost nothing. One of the long ago arguments for school integration was that propinquity fosters mutual understanding. This met with a lot of resistance. And for people like our Pres and would be Pres a broader view of the electorate would be inconvenient. They might have to turn into actual liberals.

    lb October 28, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    The McClatchy article on 'digital fingerprints' has a wonderful quote that should be hammered into everyone's minds:

    "We do freely make available information about ourselves episodically that we may think isn't terribly revealing but aggregated, it reveals a whole lot." - Rebecca Weiner, New York City Police Department

    People who don't worry about what's actually lost in information disclosure and leakage simply lack creativity. They don't conjure up the broader (or lateral) contexts for simple data to take on broader meaning. It's actually nice to see this admitted openly and clearly by someone from the NYPD. The next time someone speaks apologetically of surveillance because they have, "nothing to hide," I may use this as part of a retort and pivot to a discussion on naivete and trust of authority.

    Vatch October 28, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    "Jury acquits Ammon Bundy, six others for standoff at Oregon wildlife refuge" [WaPo].

    Were any of the defendants Black? I rather doubt it. Just as Driving-While-Black can be a capital offense, I would assume that the penalty for Seizing-Federal-Property-While-Black is quite severe also. The sentencing stage for Driving-While-Black is sometimes reached before there has even been a trial.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 28, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    I think you have impunity if you're white and right wing ; a distinction that's lost on my Twitter feed, at least.

    Occupy, after all, was the target of a 17-city paramilitary crackdown orchestrated by the Federal government.

    cocomaan October 28, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    Weren't many of the bundy gang FBI informants? I think this was the FBI and DOJ covering their own asses.

    I think WaPo has an agenda to push on this one. Here's an Oregon paper: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/oregon_standoff_verdicts_annou.html

    Defense lawyers also raised questions about the FBI informants at the refuge. Prosecutors confirmed there were 15 informants involved in the case, nine of whom were at the refuge – including three who were identified at the trial. Six others at the refuge remained unidentified.

    Without knowing who they were or what they did during the occupation, the lawyers didn't know if any of the informants conspired with the defendants to commit any of the crimes alleged in the indictment, defense lawyers argued. They revealed that one of the informants at the refuge was a man who went by the alias "John Killman" but was really Fabio Minoggio of Las Vegas, who was asked to oversee the shooting range at the refuge.

    Sounds like some shenanigans.

    pretzelattack October 28, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    i suspect they had informants in the occupy movement, too. somehow that wasn't a defense there, though.

    cocomaan October 28, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    Judging from Comey's ineptitude, it wouldn't surprise me if there was some garbage going on in the background that they had to let them walk.

    That said, I give him props for not pulling a Janet Reno/ATF/Waco.

    Andrew Watts October 28, 2016 at 10:08 pm

    The prosecution dropped the ball and was incredibly complacent. They barely spent any time laying out the charges. The whole trial amounted to the defense sucking up all the oxygen in the courthouse.

    It's disappointing but I'm even more disappointed by the fact the migrating birds didn't return early and attack the yeehadists. After they come north they're all horny and mate. It makes them particularly aggressive against puny humans who get in their way.

    The last time I was at Malheur a kindly Federal employee warned me away from the tower the yeehadists were using as a sniper nest. Owls have been known to attack insignificant humans in Oregon. It's their nesting ground.

    Carolinian October 28, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    Great….another Comey cockup.

    JerseyJeffersonian October 28, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    Ah, yes, the old Entrapment Ploy, wherein some of the illegality comes about through incitement by informers/agents provocateur. Works wondrously well if you can keep the identities of the informers/agents provocateur a secret, but no so well if you can't. I should imagine that the Bundy folks might have been on the lookout for tells, such as when the individual who generally is passive, or stays in the background starts making, uh, suggestions . Counter-intelligence 101.

    bunko October 28, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    Are you making a suggestion?

    Andrew Watts October 28, 2016 at 10:21 pm

    Hah! If you can't spot a agent provocateur you're probably stupid enough to do something that should land you in prison. The Department of Homeland Security's fusion centers in Portland and Salem were busy during the wildlife refuge takeover. All those radicalized hipsters and lefties supporting/harassing the yeehadists with their edible sex products et cetra.

    -_^

    Gotta help the white people collecting welfare via the US Intelligence community to keep receiving those checks. I gotta wonder though if activists were targeted for inflammatory internet speech/actions or if their Mormon co-religionists in the federal government didn't appreciate what amounted to a crowdsourced psychological warfare campaign.

    Oh well.

    JSM October 28, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    Re: "This market barometer says Trump still has a chance at the White House" et al.

    The polls – Rasmussen, LA Times & IBD – say that Trump has a 50% (or more, since electoral votes=independent-minded states determine the winner of the presidential race) chance at the White House. The race continues to be a dead heat nationally, just as it has been for two or three weeks now.

    The FBI is making news at this hour, but is this going to be the Podesta email that makes the largely worthless & discredited press wake up and take notice?

    https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/59vhcy/hallelujah_here_it_guys_the_internal_clinton/

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    If Trump doesn't win it, we all have to bow down to the magnificent greatness of our media.

    Waldenpond October 28, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Bezzle Airbnb: [a fine of up to $7,500 on advertising short-term rentals of less than 30 days. This means users can still list a room in their home, but cannot advertise entire apartments."]

    Won't people just code their advertisements…. bdrm 900 sq ft, own kitchen and bath, sleeps 6. Owner travels.

    ekstase October 28, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    Talking in pix or emojis gives a certain latitude, even deniability, which words, with their specific meanings, (confound it,) just can't offer. Words can be tracked down, and mean specific things, and hold you to account. We don't need that anymore. What we need in today's world is cover for our vague jumble of impressions and our nagging feeling that global warming is simply going to solve all of our problems for us – panic. Calm down, I say. Stop thinking in words, and things will get a lot simpler for you.

    Waldenpond October 28, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    Talk about everything old is new again…. we're so advanced we're using pictographs (on tablets) again.

    temporal October 28, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    re: Apple, it seems, is angling for the 'amateur creative' and isn't interested in anything else anymore.

    A few years back I bought a used 2009 Mac Pro for $800, upgraded the firmware to 2010-12, upgraded the CPUs to two 2.8 ghz 6 cores for $400 and the memory to 24 GB 1333 MHz DDR3. I suspect that when I shuffle off this mortal coil this machine will still be the fastest and most functional Mac I'll ever have owned. Too bad the PCIe bus is old-timey but I'm not much of a game player.

    For the last few years all of the released Macs have been a letdown.

    I hope that one day I can get one of those 2013 trashcans for cheap but calling them Mac Pros is completely inappropriate. Where I somewhat disagree with the author of the article is that the trashcans were the proof that Apple had no interest in making a highly functional, professional machines. These new, slower, unrepairable MacBook Pros are just more of the same for the portable crowd.

    Moore's law is dead and buried but no one wrote an obit. Apple is a bank wannabe that sells some other products.

    Arizona Slim October 28, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    "Please re-elect Gerald. Please."

    Now, THAT is a political ad I would enjoy watching more than once. Matter of fact, I just did.

    Waldenpond October 28, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    Is there a more accurate term than militarized police? They are former military, military equipment, military training, military practices etc. They went around the constitution to put military on the streets… They are more accurately mercenaries. Anyone familiar with any terms for the backdoor military?

    voteforno6 October 28, 2016 at 8:28 pm

    The irony is that, in the military, the cops have some of the worst discipline problems.

    flora October 28, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    Thanks for the Apple IT links. Looks like the Touchbar was especially designed to sync with Adobe graphics programs and other camera/photo programs, which would have been a nice addition to the function keys. A Touchbar as a replacement to the function keys? Privileging app users over program developers? (shakes head, mutters inaudibly)

    Bjornasson October 28, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    Apple began to lose me with the MacBook Pro when they made it un-openable and replaced the nice metal power button with just another key. Now it just seems like they have run out of incremental things to "improve" with a machine that really has no huge issues, other than the need to keep up with ongoing technological changes.

    flora October 28, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    My guess: Apple bought a lot of tech properties before it knew how it would integrate them, and before it had a project for them (e.g. bought wireless headphone maker Wi-Gear) . In this new release Apple seemed to let the parts drive the project; to kludge together a few of these acquired techs. Just a guess.

    UserFriendly October 28, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Robby Mook just deleted all his tweets….
    https://twitter.com/RobbyMook

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 3:17 pm

    Anticipatory obstruction of justice.

    Book him, Dan-o!

    UserFriendly October 28, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    New emails were from Weiner's sexting. investigation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

    KurtisMayfield October 28, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Wow… Did she really get herself involved in the Weiner mess? I really, really can't wait to read those.

    Roger Smith October 28, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    Are we sure he had tweets prior to this?

    cocomaan October 28, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Just did a search for "Robby mook tweeted" and had plenty of results.
    http://www.voanews.com/a/donald-trump-gun-owners-hillary-clinton/3457799.html

    "What Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook tweeted.

    Roger Smith October 28, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    You had better luck than I did with my search. thanks! The one tweet left on his account makes it sound like he just joined, even though the joined date says August 2015. Very odd.

    allan October 28, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    Just a reminder: all the tweets that have ever been tweeted are available … for a price:

    How Despots Use Twitter to Hunt Dissidents [Bloomberg]

    Foppe October 28, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    I'm not from belgium, but the belgian SP/PS = basically neoliberal, while the Belgian labor party (PvdA) is more properly thought of as Socialist (i.e., well to Bernie's left). (For reference, in NL it's the other way around: the SP is actually socialist, while the PvdA is neolib with a bleeding heart contingent that carps ineffectually from the sidelines, always accepting that "the revolution will happen mañana". It may be that this was an act by Magnette, in the hope that he could pacify that contingent, in or outside his party; I don't know who organized the reading + discussion of CETA in the Wallonian Parliament.)

    Unorthodoxmarxist October 28, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    It looks like the Walloon SP is a typical social dem party that has become neoliberal, but they are being pushed hard in the regional elections by the Workers' Party of Belgium (PvdA-PTB). I think this is an attempt by them to square the circle and give in to the demands of the EU ruling class and attempt to head off the growing threat to their left. Seems incredibly cynical to me, rather than coming from any genuine place. It remains to be seen what would happen if the Workers' Party gained regional control after this: would they, too, capitulate or would they force a confrontation?

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    Hillary's speaking live in Cedar Rapids Iowa … playing the woman card; just yammering on and on about it.

    It's as obnoxious as if her opponent asserted, you should vote for me because I've got a big schlong and she don't.

    Off with their heads!

    abynormal October 28, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    hey Jim…if she gets a heckle about the fbi, let us know if she responds. (i'll gladly pay you tuesday as i cannot bring myself to EVER listen to her)

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Friday, 2:25 p.m.

    Hillary Clinton isn't saying anything yet about the FBI decision to investigate new emails linked to her private email server.

    Clinton ignored shouted questions from reporters about the FBI investigation as she walked off her plane Friday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

    She smiled and waved to reporters gathered on the tarmac, but made no comments.

    Clinton spent about 25 minutes on the plane after it landed before she emerged. Following Clinton off the plane was famed photographer Annie Leibovitz. She was shooting photos of the candidate for at least part of the time reporters were waiting for the candidate.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_THE_LATEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-10-28-14-46-15

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Like Sanders, Trump should ask for one more debate.

    timotheus October 28, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    "Should the Walloon parliament, representing 3.5 million people, be entitled to prevent a policy affecting 510 million Europeans?"

    Of course not! Ridiculous. The 510 million Europeans should be represented by a gaggle of "free-trade" experts in Brussels instead.

    abynormal October 28, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    "The Army said Friday it has determined that suicide was the cause of death of a two-star general who was found dead in his home on a military base in Alabama, the AP reports. Maj. Gen. John Rossi was found dead July 31 at Redstone Arsenal, two days before he was to assume command of Army Space and Missile Defense Command . He is the first Army general to commit suicide on active duty since record-keeping began in 2000, according to the Army; USA Today reports that he is "the highest-ranking soldier ever to have taken his own life."" hmmm

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    I'm worried about "Bill." Hope he's got a food taster up in Chappy.

    (Just think what's on his phone.)

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    Do they screen pilots more rigorously than commanders of Space and Missile Defense Command?

    How many can a suicidal pilot take down compared with this?

    Vatch October 28, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    "the highest-ranking soldier ever to have taken his own life."

    I assume they're referring to U.S. soldiers. For suicides by higher ranking officers, here are some examples, derived from this Wikipedia category:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_personnel_who_committed_suicide

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hataz%C5%8D_Adachi Lieutenant General

    Marcus Antonius. I don't know what his rank was, but it was certainly higher than Major General

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Powlett,_5th_Duke_of_Bolton Lieutenant General

    Which reminds me: why is a Lieutenant general higher in rank than a Major general? That has long confused me.

    Tom Bradford October 28, 2016 at 10:17 pm

    Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, took his own life on Oct. 14, 1944.

    They don't come any higher ranking than a Field Marshall.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 10:28 pm

    Brutus fell on his own sword.

    Was Brutus lower in rank than a field marshal?

    War minister Anami when Imperial Japan surrendered, also killed himself (this time, by seppukku) and left a cryptic note.

    No one ranks higher than the Leader though.

    TarheelDem October 28, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    It's Bill Clinton's interstate emergency management agreement (then pitched for FEMA-type emergencies) and not the PATRIOT Act's DHS Fusion Centers that are managing law enforcement response to #NoDAPL, eh? That means that the federal agencies are not particularly involved yet, doesn't it?

    RWood October 28, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    Might be interesting:

    Counterspin interview w/Color of Change/Brandi Collins
    http://fair.org/home/brandi-collins-on-black-lives-surveillance/
    et
    Standing Rock commentaries
    http://www.nativeamericacalling.com/friday-october-28-2016-october-news/

    KurtisMayfield October 28, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    If anyone hasn't enjoyed the #draftourdaughters meme yet, this might make you chuckle.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/28/draftourdaughters-is-the-perfect-hashtag-for-todays-military-social-engineering/

    What a perfect combination of opening up the selective service to women with a warmongering neoconservative HRC. Some of them hit hard, so be careful.

    Waldenpond October 28, 2016 at 8:30 pm

    They are good. [Grandma always wished she died with Grandpa in WWII. Now my daughter can fulfill her dream. I'm with her.] I'm still waiting for one with a "Stand with ISIS" theme.
    https://twitter.com/hashtag/draftourdaughters?f=tweets&vertical=news&src=hash

    Bjornasson October 28, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    People shake their heads when Trump says that he took advantage of tax loopholes like any other businessman, but they are okay with the same law compliance bullshit that Hillary resorts to with the emails, Clinton foundation etc.
    this election has just really hammered in the message that people will simply ignore any logical or factual realities if they contradict their own prejudices, even as they loudly proclaim their moral and intellectual superiority in choosing the "right" candidate.

    abynormal October 28, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    "The IRS rule apparently used by Trump and many others dates back to 1918. Put simply, businesses can "carry forward" tax losses to future years. In other words, if a business loses $50,000 one year, and makes the same amount the following year, it is considered to have "broken even." If a business takes a loss of $1 million, it could theoretically make $100,000 for the next ten years and pay no taxes.

    In fact, in 1995 (the same year of Trump's tax return), 500,000 people used the same tax advantages that Trump apparently used. However, unlike Trump's losses of nearly a billion dollars, the average American's claimed loss was $97,500.

    These losses are allowed to flow through the business to the benefit of the business owner. So, the loss of the business can be used to offset personal income of the business owners.

    Using the rule is perfectly legal, assuming of course that the losses claimed are legitimate losses under the tax code. Losses must be real net operating loss, enough to cancel out any profit made.

    Advantages for Real Estate Owners

    Real estate has a number of losses that can be claimed, including depreciation of the value of real estate assets, real estate taxes, and costs to maintain the property. Real estate owners also can use losses in real estate, to offset non-real estate gains in certain cases. So, for example, if property depreciates, those losses can cover not only any profits made from the real estate itself, but also any other business ventures the real estate owner may be involved in. Owners of investment real estate, however, may be subject to the "passive activity" rules, which limit the owner's ability to use real estate losses against other business income.

    Real estate owners can also defer taxes by flipping property. If a developer exchanges property routinely, the losses can be continually carried forward so that no taxes are actually paid."http://www.davidtobacklaw.com/what-is-the-trump-tax-loophole/

    "Clinton foundation etc." would take up too much bandwith and unfair to other NC posters BUT YOU GET THE POINT, RIGHT?

    if not let's settle this with her own record… Forbes: Christopher Preble points out "Clinton supported every one of the last seven U.S. military interventions abroad, plus two others we ended up fighting." For instance, while First Lady she pushed for U.S. intervention in the Balkans-attacking the Bosnian Serbs and then Serbia. She was an enthusiastic war advocate, explaining: "I urged him [her husband] to bomb." Alas, Bosnia remains badly divided while Kosovo has turned into a gangster state which, according to the New York Times, is "a font of Islamic extremism and a pipeline for jihadists."
    "Sen. Hillary Clinton supported the overbroad Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, which 15 years later the Obama administration claims as warrant for its very different war against the Islamic State. She strongly backed the Iraq invasion. Only after it turned out badly and threatened to damage her political career did she acknowledge her mistake. Of course, that was too late to retrieve the thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and trillions of dollars squandered. At the same time, she said she was sorry for opposing the 2007 "surge" of troops, despite what Iraq became. Worse, a former State department aide reported that Clinton later announced she would not feel "constrained" in the future by the failure in Iraq."

    Bjornasson October 28, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    That information on the trump tax was clarifying- thanks! It will help me in discussions with Clinton supporters.

    Waldenpond October 28, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    #DraftOurDaughters (First we take down Trump, then we take down Putin) (It's Our Turn)…. Buzzfeed picked it up? and then dropped it. Please tell me BF did not actually do a write up.
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/tylerbrandon/hillary-clinton-wants-to-get-more-women-in-the-mil-2nrn5
    This came back at the Buzzfeed site with page not found. Now, file not found.

    MtnLife October 28, 2016 at 5:07 pm

    It's working but I can't tell if they are serious or if that is some epic level trolling. That seems to be consistent with the theme of this election though.

    dcblogger October 28, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    James Comey was on the Board of Directors of HSBC while they were money laundering for drug runners and terrorists, he has done squat to stop GamerGate, he has a horrible record as director of the FBI and should have never been nominated, never been confirmed, and is a completely horrible person.

    Arizona Slim October 28, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    Mark Felt was of the same mind when it came to being passed over after J. Edgar Hoover died. And recall that he gained notoriety as Deep Throat.

    Andrew Watts October 28, 2016 at 9:57 pm

    Mark Felt had already gained notoriety before Watergate because he was one of the FBI's special agents who was charged for conducting illegal surveillance on American leftists. It's one of those things all those conspiracy theorists don't emphasis about COINTELPRO and other programs. The only people actually charged and convicted in the matter were FBI agents.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    Here is a chance to redeem himself and stop Hillary.

    The race is Trump's to lose now.

    kimsarah October 28, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    Sounds perfectly qualified.

    allan October 28, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    He was also general counsel of the largest defense contractor in the world (Lockheed Martin) and
    general counsel of the largest hedge fund / personality cult in the world (Bridgewater).
    Just a small town lawyer. If the town is Davos.

    polecat October 28, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    Perhaps that's part and parcel to our current heroin epidemic …….

    Bea Braun October 28, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    I read the comments earlier in the day so not sure if this has been noted. In a new emergency procedure, the Left Party is still trying to block the CETA agreement in the final hours before the agreement. It is not clear whether the application has reached the court in time. I think it would be called the Federal Constitutional Court. Preventatively the Left Party has also submitted an alternative claim should the first one be too late to be considered
    site in German http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2016/10/28/wagenknecht-reicht-in-karlsruhe-eilantrag-gegen-ceta-ein/

    JohnnyGL October 28, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    This could be interesting…Clinton campaign sitting on Trump tapes since March 2016? It's not specific, though.

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/791831793884286976

    WJ October 28, 2016 at 10:38 pm

    Email from late February of 2016 also to Palmieri discusses status of "swift boat" attack against Trump..,

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/27434

    jawbone October 28, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    I began to read today's Water Cooler and went, "What? Is this a parody?", about a link I no longer recall, BUT I kept saying that to myself as I read on And felt the same about some other reports I came across today. Have we passed some "red line" into another dimension?

    These really are real links?

    (Yeah, I know they are…it's just that they seem like they shouldn't be….)

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    Penny ante but completely typical:

    Bill and Hillary Clinton failed to get required permits for a rushed renovation of the house and grounds they recently bought next to their original Westchester home, it was reported Friday.

    Records show that the Clintons' contractors filled in an in-ground pool, covering it with gravel, and extensively remodeled the interior of the property - all without applying for permits and paying the required fees to the town of New Castle.

    Building Inspector William Maskiell inspected the Chappaqua property after getting the tip about the pool work and then discovered the other renovations that were underway.

    Attached to the building inspector's letter was a document titled Clinton Violation Inspection Report in which Maskiell said the contractor told him the Clintons "were quite adamant about [the Thanksgiving deadline] and what had started as a paint job turned into this," meaning the major renovation.

    http://nypost.com/2016/10/28/clintons-failed-to-get-permits-for-rushed-home-renovation/

    When Hillary becomes "adamant," nobody dares to confront her, even if her demands are illegal.

    Building permits are for little people. Hillary can grant herself a retroactive permit with an executive order.

    grayslady October 28, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    An acquaintance of mine said of the Clintons: "They define success as how much they can get away with." Clearly, this is just the latest example.

    abynormal October 28, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    "The pain is not about having cheap people around…. real pain is the fact that there are some people with a price to start with." Sameh Elsayed

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 8:17 pm

    Or as Dorothy Parker presciently quipped about the Clintons:

    Q: What's the difference between an enzyme and a hormone?

    A: You can't hear an enzyme.

    Tom October 28, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    Crazy - there are more problems than just the lack of building permits:

    The Clintons also have outstanding zoning and Building Department problems at their residence next door at 15 Old House Lane,

    They obtained variances in 2000 for a guard house on the property, for a higher fence and for "lot coverage," or the amount of space buildings take up on the property.

    The variances must be renewed every five years - but the Clintons never showed up before the Zoning Board of Appeals.

    "Consequently, they are null and void. They should have come back in 2005, 2010 and 2015. So the variances have expired and they have to start from scratch" and reapply, said the inspector.

    The original home and a combination library and gym in an outbuilding still have outstanding building permit issues as well, including a sprinkler "sign off" by the town engineer and an electrical inspection in the library/gym

    I'm not seeing much basic competency here in executing home ownership responsibilities. Next I'll hear Bill steals the neigbor's Sunday newspaper off their porch.

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    More likely he steals the neighbor's teenage daughter for a midnight ride.

    jawbone October 28, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    Interesting tidbit about the Illinois US senate race. The incumbent, the Republican Mark Kirk, had a stroke and since then has made notably non-PC comments. Last night he made a comment about Tammy Duckworth's Chinese heritage (her mother is Chinese born in Thailand), and that comment has drawn attention to his overall neurological health.

    A friend of mine had a stroke which deeply affected the part of the brain responsible for impulse control. He used to be highly organized, extremely conscious of ramifications of his actions, spent carefully, prepared for exigencies, etc. Since the stroke, and especially when he's feeling more energetic, he spends like a drunken sailor, swears like one, has no care about consequences of his actions. If he's feeling under pressure this is even more exaggerated.

    Kirk's recovery from his stroke has won him some sympathy, but I gather there's has not been much reporting about any personality changes. The debate made this change a bit more open to scrutiny and other examples are apparently being discussed.

    Anyone from Illinois know more?

    http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/28/senator-mark-kirk-mocks-disabled-war-vet-tammy-duckworth-mixed-race-heritage.html

    During a debate between Rep. Tammy Duckworth and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) for his U.S. Senate seat in Springfield, Illinois, Kirk mocked Duckworth's ancestry, saying in rebuttal of her comments on the true cost of war,
    "I had forgotten that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington."

    His remark came in response to her statement that, "My family has served this nation in uniform going back to the Revolution. I am a Daughter of the American Revolution."

    schultzzz October 28, 2016 at 5:14 pm

    NC started the "Thanks Ms. Lewinsky for saving Social Security" meme ;
    I don't think this scandal alone will sink Clinton, but if it does, would that make Anthony the 'boy Monica'?

    craazyboy October 28, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    Trump's yuuuge Weiner?

    TheCatSaid October 28, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    In line with the Corruption theme, check out the election fraud documentation at Fraction Magic – Short Version video recently released. It shows manipulation of actual vote files (Statement of Votes Cast) and how locations selected for audit were not tampered with.

    The hero of the story is Bennie Smith, a soft-spoken Memphis TN-based genius who has skills in computer programming and databases; accounting; and political demographic analysis. By luck those are the same skills that convicted felon Jeffrey Dean had. (Dean wrote the software for the Diebold voting machines–and I've been told they can now prove that Dean was the originator of the fractionalized vote-counting software for the central tabulators.)

    A longer version of the video is due out in days–in the meantime, the 9 min. excerpt on the Short Version is amazing. Check out the tips at the end–how the public can help.

    Paid Minion October 28, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    Lanny Breuer……Nathan Thurm. Twins separated at birth?

    http://tinyurl.com/nnccu6o

    nowhere October 28, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    Still not sure I get all the hubbub about context sensitive function keys. The ESC key will still be available for everyone's vi/Vim sessions.

    kimsarah October 28, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    And Bernie's comment would be …

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    "I should have persisted as the Not-Hillary choice…a higher ethical demand than keeping my promise to the D party???"

    Instead, now it's Trump?

    craazyboy October 28, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    I am very, very tired of hearing about Hillary's e-mails.

    Synoia October 28, 2016 at 8:49 pm

    I'm more tired of Hillary's females (Nuland, Huma, etc)..

    Tom October 28, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    Nice!

    Cleanup October 28, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Don't worry, Lloyd Blankfein is checking Comey's work. FBI today placed the Weiner investigation under their crack Special Agent for Witness Liquidation, Aaron McFarlane.

    abynormal October 28, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    Hello …According to Reuters , the European Union on Friday lifted limits on Gazprom's use of a link from its offshore Nord Stream pipeline to Germany, allowing Russia to pump more gas to Europe and bypass its usual routes via Ukraine.

    …soooooo they're going to begin rebuilding Syria

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 8:04 pm

    Hillary's 4-minute apologia pro vida sua in response to Comey's volte face :

    https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/792142514471907329

    Two word summary: CORNERED RAT

    Can't get over the Nuremberg rally massed flags behind her.

    The future's so bright, she shoulda wore shades. ;-)

    abynormal October 28, 2016 at 8:14 pm

    UHH @4:30…State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Friday that the department knows nothing about why the FBI reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server just hours earlier.

    Toner began the State Department daily press briefing by telling Associated Press reporter Matt Lee that he already knew what the topic of the first question would be. Lee asked Toner what the State Department knew of the FBI's actions and what may be involved in the reopened investigation. http://freebeacon.com/politics/state-department-knows-nothing-about-fbi-reopening-clinton-email-probe/

    "First, what do we know? Not much more than you know, in fact. About the same," Toner said. "We just learned about this when we saw news reports of the letter."

    "What emails they may be looking at, what they're looking for, any more details at all, we just don't know anything about the scope of this new–I'm not even sure it's an investigation, but this effort to look at additional emails," Toner continued.

    Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 8:20 pm

    Just like 0bama finding out about HRC's private email from the press … after he'd been corresponding with her from his own private email address.

    With daily practice, the faux naif act comes easy. :-)

    Arizona Slim October 28, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    Like the Zeiss shades?

    VietnamVet October 28, 2016 at 8:05 pm

    Cyberspace opened up the Clinton Foundation's Pay for Play scams for scrutiny despite the best efforts of corporate media and the connected elite to keep it closed; the endless wars at Saudi Arabia and Israel's bequest, the purposeful burdening of debt on anyone who needs housing, medical care or education, and the utter contempt for the little people. Corruption so inept that missing Hillary Clinton e-mails are in Carlos Danger's explicit underage passion filled smartphone in FBI's possession.

    Stalingrad October 28, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/10/u-n-rights-expert-urges-nations-not-sign-flawed-ceta-treaty.html

    The international community considers backroom corporate trade deals as one example of the general problem of fragmentation. The US government tries to end-run the UN Charter with NATO. It tries to end-run ILO conventions with the WTO. It tries to end-run economic and social rights with ISDS. It tries to end-run sovereign debt principles (e.g. A/69/L.84) with the Paris Club and the IMF. In response, the international community has been working to synthesize the different legal regimes in an objective way.

    http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf

    Corporate special pleading gets subsumed in old-time diplomacy, finding common ground, so the pitched-battle narrative is absent, but when Zayas comes out and says ISDS cannot negate human rights, this is the context. They're trying to preserve a non-hierarchical regime in which the only absolute is the purposes and principles of the UN: peace and development, which comes down to human rights.

    allan October 28, 2016 at 9:15 pm

    Feds, Utahns worry that Oregon standoff verdicts will set violent tone for land battle [SLC Trib]

    And so it begins:

    … One key Utah proponent of land transfer affirmed the importance of respectful dialogue and seeking change through legal channels.

    "I would hope there would never be a green light to act outside the rule of law. I can understand the frustration, but in Utah we do things different. We honor the law," said Rep. Keven Stratton, R-Orem. "Guns on either side would never be appropriate."

    But when it comes to land management, Stratton said, the federal government has strayed from "constitutional anchors of state sovereignty and equal footing." Restoring balance between federal and state authority would help resolve issues before they lead to confrontations like those at Bunkerville and Malheur. …

    `Restoring balance … resolve issues' is Sage Brush Rebel for `My way or the RS 2477 highway '.

    UserFriendly October 28, 2016 at 9:16 pm

    Clinton blows off DAPL concerns by promising to 'listen' which might as well be 'have a conversation' or completely ignor.

    https://twitter.com/SimonMoyaSmith/status/791773651007746048

    UserFriendly October 28, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    More journalists to add to the shit list. They were all obvious Clinton hacks though.
    https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/792026046191300608

    Jay M October 28, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    hard to believe Clinton is stumbling this weekend over another unleashed member

    allan October 28, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    Phishing for Fools, Hipster Edition:

    Emails show how Clinton campaign chairman apparently hacked [AP]

    New evidence appears to show how hackers earlier this year stole more than 50,000 emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, an audacious electronic attack blamed on Russia's government and one that has resulted in embarrassing political disclosures about Democrats in the final weeks before the U.S. presidential election.

    The hackers sent John Podesta an official-looking email on Saturday, March 19, that appeared to come from Google. It warned that someone in Ukraine had obtained Podesta's personal Gmail password and tried unsuccessfully to log in, and it directed him to a website where he should "change your password immediately."

    Podesta's chief of staff, Sara Latham, forwarded the email to the operations help desk of Clinton's campaign, where staffer Charles Delavan in Brooklyn, New York, wrote back 25 minutes later, "This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately."

    But the email was not authentic. …

    UserFriendly October 28, 2016 at 10:35 pm

    DOJ Complaint Filed Against FBI Director James Comey For Interfering In Presidential Election
    http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/28/doj-complaint-filed-fbi-director-james-comey-interfering-presidential-election.html

    LOL he had no choice
    http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-reviewing-more-clinton-emails-514825

    pretzelattack October 28, 2016 at 10:46 pm

    i wouldn't think the clinton campaign would welcome that complaint, unless they're more desperate than i think.

    UserFriendly October 28, 2016 at 11:39 pm

    They probably got someone to file it. It just reeks of holier then thou temper tantrum. But Comey had no choice, he had to amend his testimony.

    pretzelattack October 28, 2016 at 11:45 pm

    maybe clinton made the decision unilaterally, which is quite possible. seems like the campaign would want to bury the email scandal instead of going on the offensive. i do so hope this means their internal polling is scaring them.

    skippy October 28, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    I think my 1st year university student daughter [business with high distinctions] summed up the election in the car whilst taking her to work – its stupid – and can't believe these are adults running for president of America of all places….

    [Oct 28, 2016] Howard Stern: Trump Has Always Been Sexist

    Oct 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc :

    Howard Stern: Trump Has Always Been Sexist

    "I, certainly, in a million years, I didn't expect Trump to seriously run for president,"

    Tonight's LOL funnee

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/26/media/howard-stern-on-trump-interviews/index.html

    "Howard Stern: Trump Has Always Been 'Sexist'"

    "Because he interviewed Donald Trump so many times over the years, Howard Stern has become an unlikely central figure in this year's presidential election, most notably by getting Trump to go on the record in favor of the Iraq War in 2002. But the SiriusXM host rarely discusses politics, which makes his latest comments this week about the Republican nominee and his own role in the race significant. "None of this was hidden," Stern said on his show Tuesday about Trump's most outrageous statements. "This is who Trump is. He was always bombastic. He always rated women. He always talked in a misogynistic, sexist kind of way, but he did it sort of proudly and out in the open; and he still won the Republican primary. In one sense, the fact that we do an interview and people's personalities come out, I'm very proud of that."

    "I, certainly, in a million years, I didn't expect Trump to seriously run for president," Stern added..."

    [Oct 27, 2016] Hillary camp recruted Howard Stern to attack Trump

    Oct 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : , 2016 at 05:39 PM

    "I, certainly, in a million years, I didn't expect Trump to seriously run for president,"

    Tonight's LOL funnee

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/26/media/howard-stern-on-trump-interviews/index.html

    "Howard Stern: Trump Has Always Been 'Sexist'"

    "Because he interviewed Donald Trump so many times over the years, Howard Stern has become an unlikely central figure in this year's presidential election, most notably by getting Trump to go on the record in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.

    But the SiriusXM host rarely discusses politics, which makes his latest comments this week about the Republican nominee and his own role in the race significant. "None of this was hidden,"

    Stern said on his show Tuesday about Trump's most outrageous statements. "This is who Trump is. He was always bombastic. He always rated women. He always talked in a misogynistic, sexist kind of way, but he did it sort of proudly and out in the open; and he still won the Republican primary. In one sense, the fact that we do an interview and people's personalities come out, I'm very proud of that."

    "I, certainly, in a million years, I didn't expect Trump to seriously run for president," Stern added..."

    [Oct 27, 2016] When mentioning undemocratic nature of Putin regime please mention current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance sociopathy. ..."
    "... "Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do." ..."
    "... There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows. No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    phenomenal cat 10.26.16 at 6:55 pm

    "So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"

    No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia.

    "I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."

    Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.

    "Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great."

    If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance sociopathy.

    "Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."

    There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows. No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.

    [Oct 27, 2016] Washington Post Press Telling Trump Supporters Your Candidate Is Virtually Certain to Lose - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are accurate, statistically sound statements. But they are something else, too. Declarations that Trump is highly unlikely to win also serve as counters to the Republican nominee's warning that the "rigged" election could be " stolen from us ." ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Callum Borchers, author at the Washington Post blog The Fix, admits that the press is declaring victory for Hillary Clinton - to discredit claims that the election is rigged.

    From the Washington Post :

    Since the final presidential debate last week, many news outlets have been delivering an unvarnished message to Donald Trump supporters: Your candidate is virtually certain to lose the election Nov. 8.

    " Clinton probably finished off Trump last night ," FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver wrote the day after the debate. " Hillary Clinton is almost certain to be president ," Guardian columnist and former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson added.

    A day later, the Times's Upshot blog increased Clinton's chances of winning to 93 percent , an all-time high. On Monday, Politico's Ben Schreckinger wrote that " Donald Trump's path to an election night win is almost entirely closed ." Here at The Fix, Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake wrote that " Donald Trump's chances of winning are approaching zero ."

    These are accurate, statistically sound statements. But they are something else, too. Declarations that Trump is highly unlikely to win also serve as counters to the Republican nominee's warning that the "rigged" election could be " stolen from us ."

    Read the rest of the article here .

    Read More Stories About:

    2016 Presidential Race , Big Journalism , Hillary Clinton , Callum Borchers , Donald Trump , Washington Post

    [Oct 27, 2016] Twelve days before the election: Overview of political situation

    Notable quotes:
    "... "As secretary of state, Clinton was an early supporter of arming and training members of the Syrian opposition to fight Assad, a plan that faced resistance out of concern that it would be difficult to appropriately vet fighters and ensure that weapons didn't fall into the hands of extremists. Today, the program is off to a slow start, with only 54 graduates from the first class, several of whom scattered after coming under attack by an al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. As commander-in-chief, Clinton would dramatically escalate the program, she said. " Who was in charge of the training program? Ira Magaziner? ..."
    "... Trump leads Clinton by 2 in Florida" [ Politico ]. Of course, it's madness to track individual polls, but since the miasma of Clinton trumphalism has grown so thick, people may need a breath of fresh air. ..."
    "... "Hillary's 33,000 emails might not be 'missing' after all" Like a MacGuffin in a Hitchcock movie? [ New York Post ]. Important! ..."
    "... "Richard Nixon could only wish he got Hillary's FBI treatment" [ New York Post ]. True! Sadly, I have to quote the New York Post twice in a row. It is what it is. We are where we are. ..."
    "... Lordie. There are entire cultures where women are not at all liked….start with India. ..."
    "... I could suggest American Black culture is similarly biased in general. The American Black antipathy to 'Gays' is a known ..."
    "... Turning the argument on it's head, I would argue that so called 'feminine' characteristics on the part of Trump are a positive for his character. The less confrontational and more cooperative aspects of Trump's personality being dominant are good signs for a position where the gentle arts of politics are needed. ..."
    "... Finally, well now, Trump is a complicated mess. So what. It's what he will do, and more importantly, what he will not do, when in office that are of interest. He can be as 'gay' as he wants. If he keeps us out of war with Russia, I'll back him as much as I can. Then he can compete in the Miss America pageant in drag for all I care. ..."
    "... Personally, I think a corrupt woman warmonger claiming to speak for all women is an insult to all women, but maybe we both know different sets of women. ..."
    "... Within one or two weeks after the fall of Libya, a central bank was established by the "rebels" there, whereby they immediately adopted the US dollar as their base currency. (Ghadaffi had been working with other African countries towards adopting an Afro-centric currency to trade in oil and commodities, and dropping the USD.) ..."
    "... This is why all of the polls are BS. People do not want to be questioned incessantly nor bullied. But when it's just the voter and the ballot, watch what happens. ..."
    "... I find the whole hysteria over Russian hacking very one-sided. If the US takes it upon itself, out of sincere concern, to help out "moderates" in overthrowing a repressive, evil government in Syria, Libya and Iraq, maybe the same thing happening to the US itself is not that weird? Here is a tyrannical government with little regard for its demotivated and demoralized citizens who can not on their own displace it. This government threatens nuclear war and kills an unjustified number of its own citizens. Its public infrastructure is in ruins and oligarchy is everywhere. In the past the US has set the example for dealing with such troubled states; its time the doctor took his own medicine. ..."
    "... The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is complete Clinton bullshit. I'm kind of amazed that journalists are now stating this as fact. ..."
    "... Love the headline for the Bay News article you linked to - "Hillary calls for unity." Old miss "basket of deplorables" - also known as Miss "hire bird dogs to incite violence at rallies and blame her opponent" - is getting all squishy to extol the virtues of unity. Seriously - does anyone still believe a word that comes out of her mouth? ..."
    "... I believe her line she constantly repeats: "Celebrating diversity" is code for destroying the middle class! ..."
    "... DNC Mantra: Unity in Diversity. ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    2016

    Days until: 12. That's less than two weeks!

    Corruption

    "But Trump's biggest local political donation [in Chicago] was the $50,000 he donated to Emanuel's first mayoral campaign" [ Chicago Reader (DG)]. "That donation came on December 23, 2010, a couple months before Rahm was elected. In 2011, Emanuel's administration approved the god-awful 20-foot-high "T-R-U-M-P" sign that the Donald felt compelled to plaster on his building overlooking the Chicago River. But Mayor Emanuel's not Trump's only Democratic pal in town. Trump also hired Alderman Burke's law firm to handle his tax appeals to Assessor Berrios's office. Burke then won Trump several million dollars worth of property tax breaks." There don't seem to be many degrees of separation between the elites. I suppose that's why they're elites…

    Policy

    "A hotelier's guide to the 2016 presidential election" [ Hotel News Now ]. "Many hotels in the U.S. rely on a flow of legal immigrants to fill a variety of positions. Hoteliers want that pipeline of potential employees to remain open, while avoiding additional red tape to verify their statuses."

    "Battlegrounds: The Fight for Mosul and Election Day Disruptions" (podcast) [ Foreign Policy Editor's Roundtable ]. If you want to get a good reading on the insanity that is The Blob , this is the podcast for you. The speakers spend a good twenty minutes discussing the details of Syria and Iraq, concluding that historians will look back on it as "a forty year's war," without ever once giving a reason for us to be there . Soothing NPR voices, no anger, a lot of laughter. Smart people.

    War Drums

    "Hillary Clinton Promises A More Muscular Foreign Policy As President" [ HuffPo ]. "As secretary of state, Clinton was an early supporter of arming and training members of the Syrian opposition to fight Assad, a plan that faced resistance out of concern that it would be difficult to appropriately vet fighters and ensure that weapons didn't fall into the hands of extremists. Today, the program is off to a slow start, with only 54 graduates from the first class, several of whom scattered after coming under attack by an al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. As commander-in-chief, Clinton would dramatically escalate the program, she said. " Who was in charge of the training program? Ira Magaziner?

    The Voters

    "What Do Trump and Marx Have in Common?" [Jochen Bittner, New York Times ]. This is another piece along the lines of the article from the Manhattan Institute's City Journal that Yves linked to this morning, although it's not a piece of outright hackery. For example: "When Hillary Clinton calls half of Mr. Trump's voters a 'basket of deplorables,' she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling French subjects who had no bread to 'eat cake.'" But both articles deploy the "angry populists of left and right" vs. the "sensible center" trope (remember that in the Beltway you should never display anger; it's a strong taboo). Bittner concludes: "Mrs. Clinton has the chance to change, by leading a political establishment that examines and processes anger instead of merely producing and dismissing it." Obama destroyed hope by not delivering change. And now Clinton is holding the bag for the anger that caused. From the Department of Schadenfreude…

    UPDATE "Clinton's image has improved 9 percentage points since the summer in the 18-29 age group, while Trump's has remained the same" [ McClatchy ]. "But the survey also found that half of young voters are more 'fearful' about the future than 'hopeful.' This was true across all demographic groups, with the highest level of anxiety among whites. Under a third of white women thought they would better off financially than their parents. More than a third of white men agreed."

    The Trail

    UPDATE "Poll: Trump leads Clinton by 2 in Florida" [ Politico ]. Of course, it's madness to track individual polls, but since the miasma of Clinton trumphalism has grown so thick, people may need a breath of fresh air.

    UPDATE "Hillary Clinton has a small lead in New Hampshire, according to the results of a Monmouth University poll released Wednesday, but Donald Trump has shrunk her advantage since the university's last survey of the battleground state" [ Politico ]. Same caveat, same rationale.

    UPDATE "No, Texas' balky machines aren't switching Trump votes to Clinton" [ McClatchy ]. Electronic voting sucks and should be abolished in favor of hand-marked paper ballots counted in public, but they don't suck for that reason .

    "But academic research has picked up something that thousands of hours of campaign punditry has missed completely: Donald Trump talks like a woman" [ Politico ]. "Donald Trump is a stunning outlier. His linguistic style is startlingly feminine, so much so that the chasm between Trump and the next most feminine speaker, Ben Carson, is about as great as the difference between Carson and the least feminine candidate, Jim Webb. And Trump earns his ranking not just because he talks a lot about himself or avoids big words (both of which are true); according to Jones, he also shows feminine patterns on the more subtle measures, such as his use of prepositions and articles. The key then is not what Trump talks about-making Mexico pay for the wall or bombing the hell out of ISIL-but rather how he says it." Readers?

    Well, well:


    Realignment

    "This party was dead before Lincoln got here" [ USA Today ]. "Pity the poor Republican Party, which has been on its deathbed since the age of 2. Never mind that Republicans currently control both houses of Congress, 30 state legislatures and 31 governors' mansions - this split between Establishment Republicans and Trump Republicans is a sure sign the party will be flatlining any day now. Aaaaaany day now …"

    Democrat Email Hairball

    "Hillary's 33,000 emails might not be 'missing' after all" Like a MacGuffin in a Hitchcock movie? [ New York Post ]. Important!

    "Richard Nixon could only wish he got Hillary's FBI treatment" [ New York Post ]. True! Sadly, I have to quote the New York Post twice in a row. It is what it is. We are where we are.

    And then there's this:


    Hopefully, Our Neena can kiss that chief of staff position goodbye.

    "New Research Blames Insiders, Not North Korea, for Sony Hack" [ Time ]. The obvious parallel being…

    Police State Watch

    "AT&T Is Spying on Americans for Profit, New Documents Reveal" [ Daily Beast ]. "The telecom giant is doing NSA-style work for law enforcement-without a warrant-and earning millions of dollars a year from taxpayers." Not sure what's new here….

    "The day when police zap suspects from the sky with drones carrying stun guns may be nearing" [ Wall Street Journal ].

    Black Injustice Tipping Point

    "The U.N. Caused Haiti's Cholera Epidemic. Now the Obama Administration Is Fighting the Victims" [ The New Republic ]. 2014, still relevant today.

    Geographic Information Systems can be empowering:


    Class Warfare

    "Don't Diss the Dark Ages" [ Of Two Minds ]. " New modes of production and new social /political orders do not arise fully formed. They are pieced together by trial and error and numerous cycles of adaptation, innovation and failure." Salutary reminder!

    "This issue brief explains how monopsony, or wage-setting power, in the labor market can reduce wages, employment, and overall welfare, and describes various sources of monopsony power. It then reviews evidence suggesting that firms may have wage-setting power in a broad range of settings and describes several trends in recent decades consistent with a growing role for monopsony power in wage determination. It concludes with a discussion of several policy actions taken by the Obama Administration to help promote labor-market competition and ensure a level playing field for all workers" [ Council of Economic Advisors ]. How I hate that dead "level playing field" metaphor. Generally, playing fields are level. It's the refs and the crooked guys with their hands in the till in the front office that I worry about.

    "In late 2007, before the recession started, the prime-age employment-to-population ratio in the U.S. was about the same as in other Group of Seven developed nations (which also include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.K.). The U.S., however, experienced a much larger decline during the recession, and remains much farther from undoing the damage. As of June, the G-7 as a whole had recovered almost completely, while the U.S. was only 60 percent back from its lowest point" [ Bloomberg ]. "Prime-age" like "prime beef"…

    About Lambert Strether

    Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration 24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com

    diptherio October 26, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Sign the #WeAreTwitter petition here (available in English, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano & Portugués):

    https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/wearetwitter

    A community-owned Twitter would result in new revenue streams, since we users would have a chance to buy in as co-owners. We could re-open the platform's data to spur innovation. We could set more transparent, accountable rules for handling abuse. And we would no longer merely be fickle users; we'd be invested in your sustainability and success. The very meaning of success would change. Without the short-term pressure of the stock markets, we believe we can realize Twitter's full value-which the current business model has struggled to do for years now.

    So, here's the situation. A group of us wants to set up a cooperative to gather fellow Twitter users in the hope that we'll be able to make a deal. A fair deal-one that rewards and includes the people who helped create the Twitter we love. We hope they'll work with us. And Twitter is only the start, a chance to flex our thinking and organizing around co-owning a major platform utility; our cooperative is cooking up plans for bringing shared ownership elsewhere on the internet, too.

    We, the undersigned, call on Twitter to work with us to share the future of the company with those who love and rely on it most.

    reslez October 26, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    Twitter, Inc. has shown they can't be trusted with control of a major communication platform. Their management or other employees routinely censor trending hashtags to suit their own political preferences. I don't know if a community managed version would be any better, but at least it would be in different hands. Come to think about it, that sums up a lot of elections, too.

    Synoia October 26, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    ____. n. The despondency that steals over you when you're committed to inventing an election drinking game but have just realized that no rules can possibly be adequate to the task.

    TheThirdWay.

    Tom Stone October 26, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    I'm sure the FBI will be all over this Email thingy just as soon as they hear about it!

    Tom October 26, 2016 at 2:46 pm

    Yes, Comey certainly covered himself in glory on that one, didn't he?

    Lambert Strether October 27, 2016 at 2:12 am

    Yep. Worth a couple of board directorships, for sure.

    dcblogger October 26, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    The Onion: Trump Holds Strategy Meeting With Campaign's Top Militia Leaders Ahead Of Election Day

    more from The Onion: Trump Campaign Training Poll Watchers To Spot Any Suspicious Skin Colors On Election Day

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 26, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    That onion is pungent.

    pricklyone October 26, 2016 at 4:32 pm

    Is orange one of the suspicious colors?

    WheresOurTeddy October 26, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    Who owns the Onion? Follow the money.

    Mark Gisleson October 26, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    Thought you might be interested in TechDirt's reporting on the Copyright Office:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161025/23255535886/reason-copyright-office-misrepresented-copyright-law-to-fcc-hollywood-told-it-to.shtml

    There's an earlier article here:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161024/14573835875/shake-up-copyright-office-possible-preview-to-fight-over-copyright-reform.shtml

    No credit necessary (I'm a recovering blogger).

    Yves Smith October 27, 2016 at 5:31 am

    Lordie. There are entire cultures where women are not at all liked….start with India.

    And I don't buy this analysis at all.

    If you are a guy with a high sex drive, you are thinking about sex a ton. One study said men think about sex anywhere from twice a minute to twice a day. That means if you aren't getting laid frequently, you are basically thinking about how you aren't getting enough sex. And there is clearly more male appetite for sex than women willing to provide it, whether due to genetics or cultural programming. That's why "prostitute" mean a female prostitute; you need to state otherwise if male.

    So if you are a guy not getting enough sex and you perceive women to be withholding sex from you (which is a big undercurrent of male/female relations, women trading sex for security and/or money), it isn't hard to imagine that the men are low or even high grade angry with women all the time . The only women who would be exempt would be the ones too old to be sex partners, except they may be guilty by association.

    ambrit October 27, 2016 at 6:19 am

    I could suggest American Black culture is similarly biased in general. The American Black antipathy to 'Gays' is a known, (at least the segment of said culture observable here Down South.) I might go so far as to posit this characteristic of the culture as having been inculcated by White Southern culture in the past as a means of 'managing' the black population. Such trends are generational in duration. Notice that Ben Carson was the next most 'effeminate' on the list.

    Turning the argument on it's head, I would argue that so called 'feminine' characteristics on the part of Trump are a positive for his character. The less confrontational and more cooperative aspects of Trump's personality being dominant are good signs for a position where the gentle arts of politics are needed.

    Finally, well now, Trump is a complicated mess. So what. It's what he will do, and more importantly, what he will not do, when in office that are of interest. He can be as 'gay' as he wants. If he keeps us out of war with Russia, I'll back him as much as I can. Then he can compete in the Miss America pageant in drag for all I care.

    Lambert Strether October 27, 2016 at 2:21 am

    Surely you know that's not true . Save the rah-rah pom-pom waving for your Facebook page.

    Personally, I think a corrupt woman warmonger claiming to speak for all women is an insult to all women, but maybe we both know different sets of women.

    Yves Smith October 26, 2016 at 11:28 pm

    This is such garbage.

    1. Women apologize all the time. Just listen. Does Trump ever apologize?

    2. Most women phrase orders as questions. Trump loves giving orders, famously, "You're fired!" If you give orders like a guy as a woman, people get pissed with you.

    3. Men interrupt women like crazy. Women are loath to interrupt and usually apologize when they do. Trump has no inhibitions about interrupting.

    Yves Smith October 27, 2016 at 5:08 am

    I suspect the "talking like a man" is about professional class markers. If you talk like a lawyer or an accountant, you are talking like a man, in what they depict as depersonalized and distant and "complex" ergo masculine. Trump pointedly talks in a borderline lower class manner.

    And Trump is a salesman. The "personal" style is a selling technique.

    Ché Pasa October 27, 2016 at 7:13 am

    A "salesman"? Huh. He's a conman. His style is that of a con-artist - without the art part.

    Waldenpond October 26, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    Pat: why we need to essentially recruit and train people for a civil war?

    I always thought it was to create customers for weapons manufacturers. Profit. Growth. GDP. Why do you hate GDP?

    sgt_doom October 26, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Because it is not a civil war. Because financial hegemony is the ultimate goal.

    Within one or two weeks after the fall of Libya, a central bank was established by the "rebels" there, whereby they immediately adopted the US dollar as their base currency. (Ghadaffi had been working with other African countries towards adopting an Afro-centric currency to trade in oil and commodities, and dropping the USD.)

    uncle tungsten October 27, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    The north African states intended that the new currency would be backed by gold. It was ready to implement (ex Egypt) and the French went berserk (again) about their disobedient (ex) colonies. The president of France was also mindful of having accepted a large donation from Ghadaffi to assist his re-election, he got caught out. That is illegal in France. He is running for re-election again.

    Pirmann October 26, 2016 at 10:02 pm

    This is why all of the polls are BS. People do not want to be questioned incessantly nor bullied. But when it's just the voter and the ballot, watch what happens.

    Pat October 26, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    If I were uber wealthy I might have done a flyer that says "Voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil. When you vote for X, your vote is for X regardless of who X is, it is not a vote for A or B. People claiming otherwise are trying to prop up a weak candidate they know is unacceptable by using scare tactics. They have the problem you do not. Never forget that any party can nominate awful people and it is not limited to only one at a time. And this is a wonderful example of both major Parties throwing a finger at the people of America and nominating vastly disliked and distrusted people who are unfit for the office of President. Vote for who you want and tell the whiners they screwed themselves and might want to nominate a better candidate next time."

    John k October 27, 2016 at 2:01 am

    It never occurred to them to pick Bernie, an anti neolib, anti neocon. They are the opposite of Bernie on absolutely every issue. Guess he doesn't agree? Seems odd…

    Bjornasson October 26, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    I find the whole hysteria over Russian hacking very one-sided. If the US takes it upon itself, out of sincere concern, to help out "moderates" in overthrowing a repressive, evil government in Syria, Libya and Iraq, maybe the same thing happening to the US itself is not that weird? Here is a tyrannical government with little regard for its demotivated and demoralized citizens who can not on their own displace it. This government threatens nuclear war and kills an unjustified number of its own citizens. Its public infrastructure is in ruins and oligarchy is everywhere. In the past the US has set the example for dealing with such troubled states; its time the doctor took his own medicine.

    reslez October 26, 2016 at 5:07 pm

    The "evidence" for Russian hacking is so suspect that anyone who repeats the story instantly stamps themselves as either a con or a mark. It's depressing to see media corruption so blatantly displayed. Now I know what 2003 must have felt like (I was too young to have much of an opinion back then).

    WJ October 26, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    What more evidence do you need than the word of Hillary and CNN? They both say that 17 intelligence agencies have confirmed it. Which makes me think that maybe we have too many intelligence agencies.

    Gareth October 26, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is complete Clinton bullshit. I'm kind of amazed that journalists are now stating this as fact. I could say I'm shocked but nothing the presstitutes do surprises me anymore.

    They are busy preening for their future White House access. It kind of makes me want to get drunk and vote for the orange haired guy.

    Kokuanani October 26, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    Just finished trying to "re-educate" my husband after he listened to [and apparently believed] a report in the CBS Evening News on the "Russian hacking of Clinton's e-mails." They reported it as complete "fact," without even a perfunctory "alleged."

    Too difficult to do this correction one person at a time, while the networks have such massive reach.

    tony October 26, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    How to spot a liar

    I watched a few videos of Clinton surrogates and there was duping delight all over. I suggest watching the linked video about lie spotting.

    Pat October 26, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Outdoor rally, no mention of numbers but info about early voting numbers:

    http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2016/10/26/hillary_clinton_rall.html

    Also no attendance number estimate in this one, but a mention of the 15,000 at Trump's most recent visit

    http://www.tbo.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-plans-rally-today-in-downtown-tampa-20161026/

    Tom October 26, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Love the headline for the Bay News article you linked to - "Hillary calls for unity." Old miss "basket of deplorables" - also known as Miss "hire bird dogs to incite violence at rallies and blame her opponent" - is getting all squishy to extol the virtues of unity. Seriously - does anyone still believe a word that comes out of her mouth?

    sgt_doom October 26, 2016 at 6:35 pm

    I believe her line she constantly repeats: "Celebrating diversity" is code for destroying the middle class!

    hunkerdown October 26, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    She probably wasn't talking to you. She was probably talking to the history textbooks yet to be written.

    Lambert Strether October 27, 2016 at 2:29 am

    "Hillary calls for unity"

    Rather like: "Honey, I've changed!"

    when you think about it.

    ambrit October 27, 2016 at 11:19 am

    DNC Mantra: Unity in Diversity.

    [Oct 27, 2016] Trumps Foreign Policy Is Sane While Clintons Is Belligerent

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reality dictates ...abstaining or voting for anyone other than Donald Trump is a de facto vote for Hillary Clinton. As POTUS she has declared her intentions of imposing a (Libyan style) "NO FLY" zone over Syria, to "Obliterate" "Iran" and "Russia", confront China and expand the globalization of the American economy. ..."
    "... For the sake of all humanity, criminal warmonger Hillary must be voted out on Nov.8 2016 ..."
    "... While what you say may be half true, you miss the point entirely. It's irrelevant weather or not Trump keeps his words as we have no control over that anyway. What we do have control over however is not giving a mandate to Hillary's criminal war making intentions and the only way to do that under the circumstances, is to vote her out, by voting Trump in period. ..."
    "... The clever economic left realizes that although Trump has some of dem ebul GOP economic ideas, he's more sensible than Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... I think b should've taken note of the Hillary camp's attempt in recent days to play down her militarism. ..."
    "... IMO the best strategy is to vote Trump in battleground states and vote Green everywhere else. ..."
    "... Very early on, I was of the opinion that Hillary's negatives were so high that her run should be seen as electing the Republican. But neocon defections, DNC collusion, 'sheepdog' Sanders, and more convinced me that the establishment really does want a Hillary coronation. ..."
    "... The lesser-evilists are assuming that there aren't enough votes, so you are just taking votes from the lesser evil and helping the greater evil. True if their assumption is true, that there aren't enough votes for a third party to win. ..."
    "... Another third-party argument is sending a signal to party leaders and the public that there are voters who despise the oligarchy candidates. That would improve growth of a third party (it would also attract oligarchy influence to them). ..."
    "... We need to stop letting the corporate press goad us into fighting over trivia - transgenders in bathrooms! Trump's hair! Clinton's smile! - and focus on what is truly crucial. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton is a monster and God help us all if she wins. I envision President Clinton with perfectly coiffed hair with a rosy plastic smile (kudos to her mortician) giving a perfectly written speech with all the trendy buzzwords (celebrating diversity, helping the middle class, sustainable energy, etc.etc.) while outside the world burns. ..."
    "... Whatever you do, no matter how much the corporate press tells you that Trump is 'finished,' go to the polls and vote. Because for the first time in decades, a US presidential election matters. ..."
    "... Trump will meet with much resistance from the establishment. His worst instincts will be constrained. That is not true for Hillary & Co. ..."
    "... A loss for a corrupted Democratic Party is best for the country. A strong showing by Greens is a further embarrassment. The left can then build on a solid foundation. ..."
    "... Chomsky advocated for voting for Hillary in battleground states and Greens elsewhere. ..."
    "... I do not believe that the 'Third Way' Democratic Party can be changed from within. The example of Obama and Hillary should have disabused any progressive of such fantasies. ..."
    "... Trump, both domestically and internationally is the best breath of fresh air in American politics since FDR. Of course purists and utopians might disagree, but when he wins on Nov.8,I'll treat that day as the second 4th of July. America first, at long last, instead of traitors for zion. Hoo haw. Todays Wapoo intimates Trump anti-Semite. And Colin liar Powell is for the Hell Bitch. ..."
    "... This elections cycle almost all fake leftist and NeoCon, both Democratic Party and Republicans voting for Hillary. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is taken straight out of "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" by Oded Yinon, also known as The Yinon Plan. ..."
    "... I am a spectator outside the USSA. USSA policies affect all of humanity on planet earth. A vote for the Clinton adds another potential 16 years reign in the WH, a continuation of the corruption, death, destruction and endless wars. ..."
    "... Since the 1990s in Arkansas then in D.C., their retirement is long overdue. Stop the Clintons from enriching themselves on the public purse…foreign and domestic. ..."
    "... OMg Illary cares about women's rights but takes $millions in donations from such likes as KSA, Qatar. Not to mention, countries that are steeped in poverty. Take a look at the donors to the Clinton Foundation. ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Some highlights of a recent Donald Trump interview with Reuters:
    U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Democrat Hillary Clinton's plan for Syria would "lead to World War Three," because of the potential for conflict with military forces from nuclear-armed Russia.

    In an interview focused largely on foreign policy, Trump said defeating Islamic State is a higher priority than persuading Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down,..

    Trump questioned how Clinton would negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin after demonizing him; blamed President Barack Obama for a downturn in U.S. relations with the Philippines under its new president, Rodrigo Duterte;...

    Trump's foreign policy talk is far more sane than Clinton's and her camp's. It is ludicrous to event think about openly attacking Russian (or Syrian) troops in Syria with an al-Qaeda supporting "no-Fly-Zone". Russia would respond by taking down U.S. planes over Syria. The Russian government would have to do so to uphold its authority internationally as well as at home.

    The U.S. could respond by destroying all Russian assets in and around Syria. It has the capabilities. But then what? If I were Putin my next step would be a nuclear test shoot in Siberia - a big one - to make a point and to wake up the rest of the world. I would also provide secret support to any indigenous anti-U.S. movement anywhere. China would support Russia as its first line of self defense.

    "What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria," said Trump as he dined on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. "You're going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton.

    "You're not fighting Syria any more, you're fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk," he said.
    ...
    On Russia, Trump again knocked Clinton's handling of U.S.-Russian relations while secretary of state and said her harsh criticism of Putin raised questions about "how she is going to go back and negotiate with this man who she has made to be so evil," if she wins the presidency.

    On the deterioration of ties with the Philippines, Trump aimed his criticism at Obama, saying the president "wants to focus on his golf game" rather than engage with world leaders.

    The last two points are important. Trump, despite all his bluster, knows about decency. What is the point of arrogantly scolding negotiation partner who have the power to block agreements you want or need?

    Why blame Russia for hacking wide open email servers when no Russian speakers were involved? Why blame Duterte? It is the U.S. that has a long history of violent racism in the Philippines and FBI agents committed false flag "terrorism" is Duterte's home town Davao. Bluster may paper over such history for a moment but it does not change the facts or helps solving problems.

    Trump's economic policies would be catastrophic for many people in the U.S. and elsewhere. But Hillary Clinton would put her husband, the man who deregulated Wall Street, back in charge of the economy. What do people expect the results would be?

    The points above may be obvious and one might be tempted to just pass them and dig into some nig-nagging of this or that election detail. But the above points as THE most important of any election. The welfare of the people is not decided with some "liberal" concession to this or that niche of the general society. The big issues count the most. Good or evil flow from them. Trumps principle, and I think personal position, is leaning towards peaceful resolution of conflicts. Clinton's preference is clearly, as her history shows, escalation and general belligerence. It is too risky to vote for her.

    RayB | Oct 26, 2016 4:14:08 AM | 1
    What's to be done?

    Reality dictates ...abstaining or voting for anyone other than Donald Trump is a de facto vote for Hillary Clinton. As POTUS she has declared her intentions of imposing a (Libyan style) "NO FLY" zone over Syria, to "Obliterate" "Iran" and "Russia", confront China and expand the globalization of the American economy.

    Thus all Americans by default and their own actions will have given her a mandate to do her will and thereby become complicit in their own economic destruction, war crimes and potentially starting world war three and a planetary thermonuclear holocaust.

    Striped of all the other none issue nonsense and distractions the critical choice we are all faced with making is that simple. And one that will for all eternity weigh on our collective souls conscience.

    For the sake of all humanity, criminal warmonger Hillary must be voted out on Nov.8 2016

    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26, 2016 5:31:47 AM | 4
    @ jfl | Oct 26, 2016 4:32:57 AM | 2

    Why are you still beating on that worn out tin drum of yours, Dr. Jill Stein isn't going anywhere, not even if she politically walks on water. You keep at it like the dog in a manger, gnawing on the remains of some desiccated bone. What you (and others maintaining your OPINIONS) have become is stool pigeons to land some herd of discontents into the position of self inflicted voter suppression, their votes without effect on the outcome of the election. If you and the others weren't so completely innumerate, you would realise the first division in the election was between elegible participants and non-participants. Of the participants only voters for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will decide the eventual winner (with the highly probable event of assisted voting machine fraud). All other votes are the effete delusions of some morally deranged cult. There Is No Alternative (TINA) is the illusion of your political kindred is saying there is an alternative. You cannot point out even one city commission in the top thousand that either the 'Greens' or 'Libertarians' exercise control over, at best there may be a Communist mayor somewhere in that number. If perchance Dr Stein were to win, where is the political support necessary to conduct governance at any level? No your ideas come from Walt Disney directly - they are cartoon delusions. You need to carry a warning whenever you express your opinions, like those posted on nuts - My opinion may contain delusions.

    About the only ability for today's voter to have any effect on the voting system is to provide an unexpected aggregate that would draw back the curtains to expose the expectations and machinations of the vote counters. Voting as you suggest will only allow those manipulations to remain hidden - not effective voting by any measure, nor is it voting one's interests. If any of your ilk have a counter argument that will stand scrutiny, please have at it, otherwise your silence after once stating your opinion might be your best course to follow.

    RayB | Oct 26, 2016 6:25:20 AM | 5
    @2

    While what you say may be half true, you miss the point entirely. It's irrelevant weather or not Trump keeps his words as we have no control over that anyway. What we do have control over however is not giving a mandate to Hillary's criminal war making intentions and the only way to do that under the circumstances, is to vote her out, by voting Trump in period.

    Anything else amounts to a dereliction of patriotic duty and criminal negligence.

    The idea that there is any real "choice" here to be had, other than doing what's of a critical necessity at this point in time, is totally delusional in and of itself buying into the illusion that we have any real freedom of choices here. Sorry we don't have that luxury.

    We don't have a choice, other than to resister our protest vote against the political establishment which clearly doesn't want to see Trump win the presidency of the US empire under any circumstances.

    Given how close trump has gotten to within the reach of taking real power as commander in chief of the worlds most powerful imperial empire, the deep state and political establishment will make sure that, that threat will never happen again, if they even allow him to live very much longer.

    So no second chances here for us all in another 4-8 years down the road, nor for all the men, women and children victims to be killed by wars in all the countries Hillary has set her cross-hair sights on as soon as she takes control of the entire state apparatus from the white house.

    Time to get off our asses and get real here, and back on the right side of history, if but for once in our lifetimes.

    Talk is cheep but action is not. As in Trump's Gettysburg address he said "we have now crossed the Rubicon" and heaven or hell there's no going back to the status quo, as he's already declared war on the corrupt state department, the media and the whole of the elite's political establishment.

    "So there's but one choice left to make here, and it's which side are you fighting on?"

    somebody | Oct 26, 2016 6:31:50 AM | 6
    The paper of Trump's son in law tells it as it is .
    According to an email from Marissa Astor, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook's assistant, to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, the campaign knew Trump was going to run, and pushed his legitimacy as a candidate.

    WikiLeaks' release shows that it was seen as in Clinton's best interest to run against Trump in the general election. The memo, sent to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) also reveals the DNC and Clinton campaign were strategizing on behalf of their candidate at the very beginning of the primaries. "We think our goals mirror those of the DNC," stated the memo, attached to the email under the title "muddying the waters."

    The memo named Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson as wanted candidates. "We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously," the memo noted.

    Clinton was widely presumed to be the Democratic presidential nominee long before the primaries began. This assumption was held by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party leadership. Expecting Clinton to be the nominee, the DNC and Clinton campaign developed strategies for the general election.

    In June, hacker Guccifer 2.0 released an opposition research dossier on Trump, dated December 19, 2015. Coincidentally, no other opposition research dossiers were released by Guccifer 2.0 from the DNC hacks.

    It was in the best interest of Clinton, and therefore the Democratic Party, that Trump was the Republican presidential nominee. Polls indicated Sen. Rubio, Gov. Kasich, or almost any other establishment Republican would likely beat Clinton in a general election. Even Cruz, who is reviled by most Republicans, would still maintain the ability to rally the Republican Party-especially its wealthy donors-around his candidacy. Clinton and Democrats expected the FBI investigation into her private email server would serve as a major obstacle to Clinton's candidacy, and the public's familiarity with her scandals and flip-flopping political record put her at a disadvantage against a newcomer. Donald Trump solved these problems.

    All the Clinton campaign had to do was push the mainstream media in the general direction of covering and attacking Trump as though he was the star of the Republican presidential primaries. As the presumed Democratic nominee, whomever she decided to dignify by responding to-whether the comments were directed at her or not-would be presumed to be the spokesperson, or nominee, of the Republican Party.

    "Clinton, Trump trade insults as rhetoric heats up between front-runners," read the headline from a CNN article in September 2015. "Hillary Clinton Seizes On Donald Trump's Remarks to Galvanize Women," read a New York Times headline from December. Several media outlets criticized the mainstream media obsession with Trump, but despite a few concerns that the media was propping up his legitimacy as a candidate with their constant news coverage, it continued unabatedly.

    The mainstream media was more than willing to do the Clinton campaign and DNC's work for them by creating a narrative that the 2016 presidential elections was about Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump.

    Was Trump in on it? You decide .

    Americans, you have been cheated.

    RayB | Oct 26, 2016 6:34:35 AM | 7
    @2

    (Sorry typo, let's try that again)

    Question being.....

    "So there's but one choice left to make here, and it's which side are you fighting on?"

    lemur | Oct 26, 2016 7:04:37 AM | 10
    "Trump's economic policies would be catastrophic for many people in the U.S. and elsewhere."

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/trump-keynesian-causes-libertarian.html

    The clever economic left realizes that although Trump has some of dem ebul GOP economic ideas, he's more sensible than Hillary Clinton.

    col | Oct 26, 2016 7:28:09 AM | 12
    Hey T bear are you Aussie, their was a poster T bear banging on in Aussie press, quite liked your arguments as of now.
    As Trump policy I predicted it (quite like Alexander Mercouris ) by 1. observation of what is said, what was not said and what you can tease out of the rest. After the 2 debate i was convinced that Trump would not declare "Assad must go " Just for this he has my consent to be POTUS.
    RayB | Oct 26, 2016 8:25:08 AM | 17
    @6

    Re: "You decide".

    How does the saying go?... 'oh what a tangled web we weave when we seek to deceive". Hence I don't believe that if Hillary actually chose Trump to be who she ran against, that she (nor all the expert politico's around her)had any real idea of what a Pandora's box they were opening.

    Same thing go's for Trump, whom I don't think understood how fate and destiney would seize him and transform his role in life into a renegade against the systemic corruption of the deep state's political establishment.

    Now only a year back, I would never have thought and sooner die and be the last person on earth to be plumbing for a megalomaniac character like billionaire Trump.

    But when faced with the real prospect of a criminally indictable and clinically insane, maniacal psychopathic personality like Hillary, having her finger on the red nuclear button, my instincts for survival and that of all humanity, informs my rational judgements and actions.

    And that's essentially the basis on which I've decided that voting for Trump is the only sane option left to try and avert more wars and the possibility of a thermonuclear disaster.

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 8:26:08 AM | 18
    I think b should've taken note of the Hillary camp's attempt in recent days to play down her militarism.
    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 8:27:24 AM | 19
    IMO the best strategy is to vote Trump in battleground states and vote Green everywhere else.
    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 8:30:32 AM | 20
    Very early on, I was of the opinion that Hillary's negatives were so high that her run should be seen as electing the Republican. But neocon defections, DNC collusion, 'sheepdog' Sanders, and more convinced me that the establishment really does want a Hillary coronation.
    Killary PAC | Oct 26, 2016 8:36:52 AM | 21
    http://www.veteranstoday.com = Gordon Duff = Bob Foote

    Stew Webb Reveals Gordon Duff's Real Identity on PressTV (5-10-15) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHNLOopOAbU

    Here is an exact quote from Gordon Duff AKA Bob Foote .

    Joe | Oct 26, 2016 8:47:01 AM | 22
    @jfl 15 and 16 and third-partyists

    Your points are good but there is no need for this vitriol: the opposing points are also good as far as they go.

    You believe that a third party is the only way out of the 2-party oligarchy sham. True only if it works, which it hasn't. You are assuming that there are, or eventually would be enough voters. That argument is missing so far. Provide that evidence and you beat the lesser-evilists.

    The lesser-evilists are assuming that there aren't enough votes, so you are just taking votes from the lesser evil and helping the greater evil. True if their assumption is true, that there aren't enough votes for a third party to win.

    You both need to get that evidence before getting angry.

    Another third-party argument is sending a signal to party leaders and the public that there are voters who despise the oligarchy candidates. That would improve growth of a third party (it would also attract oligarchy influence to them).

    I think that your anger would be better directed at the problem (take out MSM stations and staff and oligarchy generally). Between ourselves, let's get the evidence on vote effects.

    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26, 2016 8:55:20 AM | 23
    @ 19 Jackrabbit

    Consider each state a 'battleground' state, there are national aggregates to consider that, if nothing else, shed light on the historical contest for future historians to inspect and pass judgement, particularly should the qualified 'not participating' outnumber the qualified participants. No telling what future criteria will be about the validity of sub-median voter turnout, in some places it is enough to invalidate a poll, that could easily spread.

    @ 12

    No, not Aussie but have friends who were. I hold the Australian government to be the hiding place for the 3rd Reich, so not likely any beneficial relationship will exist.

    @ fairleft | Oct 26, 2016 8:05:28 AM | 14

    Experience informs those who rely on 'ad hominem' as defence against another's argument are incapable of mounting a counter argument using facts. Furthermore, with few exception most so doing have developmental problems and have not matured much past adolescence, they going through life as man-children. Check back when you have matured. And that is definitely an ad hominem - to the person.

    TG | Oct 26, 2016 8:55:40 AM | 24
    Well and clearly said.

    We need to stop letting the corporate press goad us into fighting over trivia - transgenders in bathrooms! Trump's hair! Clinton's smile! - and focus on what is truly crucial.

    It's rational to worry about Trump. Yes, he has a good track record of getting along with business partners when it counts, but he has no track record in governance. But Hillary Clinton is a monster and God help us all if she wins. I envision President Clinton with perfectly coiffed hair with a rosy plastic smile (kudos to her mortician) giving a perfectly written speech with all the trendy buzzwords (celebrating diversity, helping the middle class, sustainable energy, etc.etc.) while outside the world burns.

    Whatever you do, no matter how much the corporate press tells you that Trump is 'finished,' go to the polls and vote. Because for the first time in decades, a US presidential election matters.

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 9:22:55 AM | 27
    fairleft @25

    The fact is that the Greens can not/will not win.

    Trump will meet with much resistance from the establishment. His worst instincts will be constrained. That is not true for Hillary & Co.

    A loss for a corrupted Democratic Party is best for the country. A strong showing by Greens is a further embarrassment. The left can then build on a solid foundation.

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 9:30:30 AM | 29
    @fair
    Chomsky advocated for voting for Hillary in battleground states and Greens elsewhere.

    I do not believe that the 'Third Way' Democratic Party can be changed from within. The example of Obama and Hillary should have disabused any progressive of such fantasies.

    dahoit | Oct 26, 2016 9:40:25 AM | 30
    Trump, both domestically and internationally is the best breath of fresh air in American politics since FDR. Of course purists and utopians might disagree, but when he wins on Nov.8,I'll treat that day as the second 4th of July. America first, at long last, instead of traitors for zion. Hoo haw. Todays Wapoo intimates Trump anti-Semite. And Colin liar Powell is for the Hell Bitch.

    What the hell do people need?

    SmoothieX12 | Oct 26, 2016 9:45:56 AM | 31
    The U.S. could respond by destroying all Russian assets in and around Syria. It has the capabilities. But then what? If I were Putin my next step would be a nuclear test shoot in Siberia - a big one - to make a point and to wake up the rest of the world.

    Russia's "deescalation" procedure (in reality it could be viewed both ways) is a take off of several strategic bombers (TU-160 from Engels) and deployment into the Arctic Region with subsequent launch of salvo of cruise missiles (Kh-102) armed with nuclear warheads into the polygons or uninhabited spaces. Putting all RVSN (nuclear strategic missile forces) on the immediate readiness (Combat Station) is also an option.

    There are certain ways, including diplomatic ones, to make "partners" more attentive to the events. Plus, most likely, the price, which US and NATO would pay in case some moron will decide to eliminate Russian Forces in Syria, will be very high purely militarily and, especially, reputation-wise.

    Attack on Russian Forces in Syria will also be the beginning of the end of NATO, if not the outright collapse. In the end, Russia has means to directly conventionally counter US, just this last quarter alone Russian Navy took delivery of 100+ cruise and ASMs of Kaliber and Onyx-classes. Contingencies have been counted and planned for.

    x | Oct 26, 2016 10:38:55 AM | 35
    Trump's foreign policy summed up in a 35% levy threat on Ford exporting jobs to Mexico. Read my lips ...! Nails the underlying tensions in the Race for the Place. The Big "F__k You!" election... Even the spinless Bernie S. is slithering into criticism of Klinton and the Wall St Gang. "Michael Moore Explains Why TRUMP Will Win"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc

    [Published on Oct 24, 2016, 3:55m]

    dh | Oct 26, 2016 10:52:50 AM | 36
    James Clapper thinks the Russians just might be serious..... '...says he wouldn't put it past Russia to "to shoot down an American aircraft" if a no-fly zone is imposed over Syria.'

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/b70e5508-7db2-385a-b250-d3a28cafb5f6/ss_us-official%3A-russia-might.html

    Not to worry. Hillary was only kidding about a no fly zone. Talking tough to keep up with the boys. It's an empowerment thing.

    Jack Smith | Oct 26, 2016 11:38:53 AM | 37
    @Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 9:22:55 AM | 27

    A loss for a corrupted Democratic Party is best for the country. A strong showing by Greens is a further embarrassment. The left can then build on a solid foundation.

    We are on the same wavelength. YES , we can't have Green and Democratic Party at the same time. First eliminates the Democratic party in this election cycle. You can't eat your cake and have it too . Therefore, voting against Democratic Party is my first priority.

    This elections cycle almost all fake leftist and NeoCon, both Democratic Party and Republicans voting for Hillary.

    anon | Oct 26, 2016 11:47:31 AM | 38
    Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is taken straight out of "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" by Oded Yinon, also known as The Yinon Plan.

    Here are are a few illustrative excerpts:

    "The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.

    Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible."

    Now compare this to what Gen. Wesley Clarke revealed about the lead-up to the Iraq War. Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: "Are we still going to attack Iraq?" He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."

    This document, and the events which have followed its publication, should lay to rest once and for all any illusions we might have harboured in relation to the various wars in the Middle East.


    The depths of the associated treason and treachery are simply breathtaking and will continue in overdrive should Hillary Rodent Clinton be elected President.

    likklemore | Oct 26, 2016 11:56:13 AM | 39
    @ jfl 2 and all commenters echoing

    No to Clinton, No to Trump?

    The only answer is eliminating the pre-selection mechanism that delivers the 2-candidate, elephant/jackass non-choice every election.
    This is the election to do so: No to Clinton, no to Trump

    jfl, I have always admired and read your comments here on MoA.

    Sadly your posit means either of these two candidates will be (s)elected. Third Party rise in the USSA Will. Not. Happen. Anytime .Soon. Third Party candidates will not attract the ->$7 + billions required to run for the presidency. The status quo prevails.
    So, in this very close election, wherein Soros told Bloomberg Hillary is a done deal,
    http://toprightnews.com/the-fix-is-in-george-soros-says-hillary-election-a-done-deal-despite-trump-landslide/ Amerikans are left with these two options; voting for the least dangerous of the two:

    (a) the brain damaged corrupt Illary as Huma, her sidekick, noted –"She is Still Not Perfect in Her Head"
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/huma-abedin-hillary-she-still-not-perfect-her-head

    or

    (b) Trump, the blabber.

    Derek Hunter, Radio Host, from the "Never Trump" camp:

    "Why I Now Feel Compelled To Vote For Trump"
    http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/10/23/why-i-now-feel-compelled-to-vote-for-trump-n2235899

    [.]
    The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for Trump won't do it, it's something. Essentially, I am voting for Trump because of the people who don't want me to, and I believe I must register my disgust with Hillary Clinton.

    I am not of the mindset that any vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary, but a vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary. And I need to vote against Hillary. I need to vote against the media.

    After the last debate, when no outlet "fact checked" Hillary's lie that her opposition to the Heller decision had anything to do with children, or her lie that the State Department didn't lose $6 billion under her leadership, I couldn't hold out any longer.

    A Trump administration at least will include people I trust in positions that matter. I don't know if they will be able to hold him completely in check, but I know a Clinton administration will include people who have been her co-conspirators in corruption, and there won't even be a media to hold her accountable.

    The Wikileaks emails have exposed an arrogant cabal of misery profiteers who hold everyone, even their fellow travelers deemed not pure enough, in contempt. These bigots who've made their fortune from government service should be kept as far away from the levers of power as the car keys should be kept from anyone named Kennedy on a Friday night. My one vote against it will not be enough, but it's all I can do and I have to do all I can do.

    I won't stop being critical of Trump when he deserves it; I won't pretend someone is handing out flowers when they're shoveling BS. But I'd rather have BS shoveled out of a president than our tax dollars shoveled to a president's friends and political allies.

    The Project Vertias videos exposed a corrupt political machine journalists would have been proud to expose in the past. The Wikileaks emails pulled back the curtain on why that didn't happen – journalists are in on it. I can't pretend otherwise, and I have no choice but to oppose it. [.]

    I oppose much of what Donald Trump has said, but I oppose everything Hillary Clinton has done and wants to do. And what someone says, no matter how objectionable, is less important than what someone does, especially when it's so objectionable. A personal moral victory won't suffice when the stakes are so high. As such, I am compelled to vote against Hillary by voting for the only candidate with any chance whatsoever of beating her – Donald Trump.


    ~ ~ ~
    I am a spectator outside the USSA. USSA policies affect all of humanity on planet earth. A vote for the Clinton adds another potential 16 years reign in the WH, a continuation of the corruption, death, destruction and endless wars.

    Since the 1990s in Arkansas then in D.C., their retirement is long overdue. Stop the Clintons from enriching themselves on the public purse…foreign and domestic.

    OMg Illary cares about women's rights but takes $millions in donations from such likes as KSA, Qatar. Not to mention, countries that are steeped in poverty. Take a look at the donors to the Clinton Foundation.

    The Clintons have no shame, no conscience and they can't grow one.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 26, 2016 11:56:25 AM | 40
    @ 12
    No, not Aussie but have friends who were. I hold the Australian government to be one of the hiding place s for the 3rd Reich, so not likely any beneficial relationship will exist.
    ...
    Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26, 2016 8:55:20 AM | 23

    There, fixed it.
    ALL of the Christian Colonial countries have pro-AmeriKKKan fascist governments which studiously ignore the Will Of the People.
    I can't think of a single X-tian government which has NOT fallen into lockstep with the US - in flagrant defiance of the electorate.
    Since we can't outbid the ppl who are bribing them to defy us, the only practical solution is rg the lg's pitchforks.

    AnEducatedFool | Oct 26, 2016 12:05:00 PM | 41
    I don't post here much anymore but Dr. Stein is the head of an NGO called the Green Party not a political party. She is busy protesting in North Dakota to get on Democracy Now instead of camping out in Bernie States pushing those voters to continue our political revolution with her. It's a shame really.

    I've never had much respect for the Green Party and they have shown that they are incapable of becoming an oppisition party in the U.S.

    If you are interested in 3rd parties take some time to check out the Justice Party and Rocky Anderson. They are not active this cycle. The Justice Party does not have an International Party which is problematic for the Greens in the U.S. The name Justice is much better in rhetorical fights than Green and they are not riddled with former Democratic whores.

    With that said vote for Trump in swing states. He is the Lesser of Two Evils and this time we are talking about Nuclear War with Russia. Clinton is still a Goldwater Girl.

    anon | Oct 26, 2016 12:06:04 PM | 42

    The Green Party should, for all intents and purposes, be opposed to a billionaire lobbyist like Soros, however Jill Stein's running mate, Baraka, was also a board member at the Center for Constitutional Rights, CCR.

    Which happens to be funded by George Soros.

    http://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/center_for_constitutional_rights/

    There are other connections between the Green Party and George Soros, but I haven't got time to pursue this....

    Anyone interested should look into the period from 2004 to 2011, when Baraka was the Executive Director of the US Human Rights Network, and look at who was funding the HUNDREDS of NGOs that make up the Human Rights Network.

    ArthurGilroy | Oct 26, 2016 12:12:22 PM | 43
    You are all wrong.

    Anyone who seriously considers that voting...or NOT voting...for either of these creatures will change a goddamned thing is totally asleep to what has happened in the U.S. over the past 60+ years.

    Gor read this article on today's Counterpunch:

    A Deep State of Mind: America's Shadow Government and Its Silent Coup

    =======================================================================================

    Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system … a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state…. The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization… It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government…. This group … is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable."

    - Senator William Jenner, 1954 speech

    Unaffected by elections. Unaltered by populist movements. Beyond the reach of the law.

    Say hello to America's shadow government.

    A corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country, this shadow government represents the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry.

    No matter which candidate wins the presidential election, this shadow government is here to stay. Indeed, as recent documents by the FBI reveal, this shadow government-also referred to as "The 7th Floor Group"-may well have played a part in who will win the White House this year.

    ---snip---

    ==========================================================================================

    Read the rest of the article.

    All of it.

    And then go take care of your own business as best you can. The status quo will remain...hidden in various ways as it has been hidden since the late '40s/early '50s...until it fails of its own doing. No amount of talky talk talk, no amount of organizing, no amount of anything is going to change what is up here. The best any of us can do is to try to reach one mind at a time.

    Eisenhower tried to warn us in his farewell speech:

    ==========================================================================================

    The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

    But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

    Of these, I mention two only.

    A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

    Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

    Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
    American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.

    This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

    ==========================================================================================

    It didn't work then and it will work even less well now, in what we laughingly refer to as our "Information Age."

    It's all over but the failing, and that could take a long, long while.

    Or...it could be over in a nuclear instant.

    Deal wid it.

    Deal wid 'em both, and every other possibility in between.

    All of the constant political jerking off in the media?

    Just that.

    A virtual reality constructed for the entertainment...and thus silencing and control of...the proles, using other ignorant proles as Judas goats.

    Politics porn.

    Fuggedaboudit!!!

    Go do something real.

    Please.

    AG

    Shadyl | Oct 26, 2016 12:28:53 PM | 44
    Hillary's last no fly zone was Libya, just saying....
    Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 26, 2016 12:56:44 PM | 45
    "It is ludicrous to event think about openly attacking Russian (or Syrian) troops in Syria with an al-Qaeda supporting "no-Fly-Zone". Russia would respond by taking down U.S. planes over Syria. The Russian government would have to do so to uphold its authority internationally as well as at home."

    It is ludicrous. And stupid. It would also be tantamount to a declaration of war. And the chickenshit US Military does NOT want a war with Russia, no matter what the daydreamers might say.

    Tobin Paz | Oct 26, 2016 1:11:21 PM | 46
    Stating that the Green Party can not win does not take reality into account. Only 18% of voters participated in the primaries, the majority of voters are neither Democrats nor Republicans, and the population of Millennials has surpassed that of the Baby Boomers.

    Of course this doesn't change the fact that it is still very unlikely that Jill Stein will win, but to imply that it's impossible is dishonest. I have always voted for the candidate that I liked... never for the lesser of two evils. How different would the world be if Nader had either won or gained popular support in 2000? Voting for the lesser of two evils has pushed the Republican Party into crazy town with the Democratic Party taking their place.

    I'm not arrogant enough to tell people how to vote, however I am arrogant enough to inform. The lack of information and the inability to process more than one thought by both the voters and the media, alternative included, is astounding.

    I'm pretty sure that people on this site know what imposing a no-fly zone in Syria would entail.
    How is this not advocating a war of aggression? Have we forgotten what the Nuremberg Tribunal declared as the supreme international crime:

    War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

    Not only do you have the current administration committing war crimes, you also have it's presidential candidate openly advocating a war crime.

    likklemore | Oct 26, 2016 1:20:59 PM | 47
    My post, which I did not save, fell into a deep cyber hole.

    To All commenters echoing "No to Clinton no to Trump" voting third party will result in either of the two.

    It appears as we close in on the last weeks of the (s)election, Independents and Never Trumpers are breaking away for the Donald.

    From Derek Hunter, Radio Host, of the "Never Trump" camp

    Why I Now Feel Compelled To Vote For Trump
    http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/10/23/why-i-now-feel-compelled-to-vote-for-trump-n2235899


    [.] The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for Trump won't do it, it's something. Essentially, I am voting for Trump because of the people who don't want me to, and I believe I must register my disgust with Hillary Clinton.

    I am not of the mindset that any vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary, but a vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary. And I need to vote against Hillary. I need to vote against the media.

    After the last debate, when no outlet "fact checked" Hillary's lie that her opposition to the Heller decision had anything to do with children, or her lie that the State Department didn't lose $6 billion under her leadership, I couldn't hold out any longer.

    A Trump administration at least will include people I trust in positions that matter. I don't know if they will be able to hold him completely in check, but I know a Clinton administration will include people who have been her co-conspirators in corruption, and there won't even be a media to hold her accountable.

    The Wikileaks emails have exposed an arrogant cabal of misery profiteers who hold everyone, even their fellow travelers deemed not pure enough, in contempt. These bigots who've made their fortune from government service should be kept as far away from the levers of power as the car keys should be kept from anyone named Kennedy on a Friday night. My one vote against it will not be enough, but it's all I can do and I have to do all I can do.

    I won't stop being critical of Trump when he deserves it; I won't pretend someone is handing out flowers when they're shoveling BS. But I'd rather have BS shoveled out of a president than our tax dollars shoveled to a president's friends and political allies.

    The Project Vertias videos exposed a corrupt political machine journalists would have been proud to expose in the past. The Wikileaks emails pulled back the curtain on why that didn't happen – journalists are in on it. I can't pretend otherwise, and I have no choice but to oppose it. [.]

    I oppose much of what Donald Trump has said, but I oppose everything Hillary Clinton has done and wants to do. And what someone says, no matter how objectionable, is less important than what someone does, especially when it's so objectionable. A personal moral victory won't suffice when the stakes are so high. As such, I am compelled to vote against Hillary by voting for the only candidate with any chance whatsoever of beating her – Donald Trump.

    ~ ~ ~ ~
    It is long past due and time to stop the corrupt Clintons from continuing to enrich themselves off the backs of taxpayers; domestic and foreign.
    Illary professes to care about women's rights yet her Clinton Family Foundation takes in $millions from the likes of KSA and Qatar. Moreover, there is no shame in taking donations from small countries steeped in poverty. It is high time to retire the Clintons. They have no conscience. If you haven't a conscience you can't grow one.

    h | Oct 26, 2016 1:29:32 PM | 48
    RayB - well stated arguments to vote for Trump. Thank you for taking the time to post them.

    As folks here already know, Hillary's stated commitment to impose a No-Fly Zone in Syria is a show stopper for me. There is no way I can support more tragedy in Syria let alone elsewhere.

    Any who don't think such a policy position does not matter tells me you are a supporter of the neoliberal/neocon imperial building for which I cannot support. This is what a vote for Clinton means.

    I may have had a different opinion or thought about the U.S. morphing into the world's top cop had I ever been asked, but I wasn't. I never was asked to vote on it or for/against it. These sneaky rastards intentions were never spelled out, never communicated succinctly to the populous let alone debated on the merits. Nope. These rastards are hell bent on shoving their neoliberal/neocon/third way/nwo crap down American's throats.

    And no, Donald is and always will be an outsider. If you believe otherwise you've obviously not been paying much attention to him over the last four years. That man did not win the primaries by chance, he won them handily through skill and out maneuvering his opponents. He has spent the last four years learning up close the plethora of challenges an open border presents to the security of the U.S. He gets the issues revolving around policing and the growing police state. He has formiddable experience making, losing and making money again. He's had a front seat to big business and its multiple machinations for decades.

    And a vote for Hillary is a vote for the Establishment and their utopian new world order, which includes WAR, WAR, and MORE WAR!

    Lisa | Oct 26, 2016 1:42:00 PM | 49
    Touching naivety about Trump however the probability of him being 'different', given his record, doesn't support it.

    The problem with Trump is he made a #1 strategic mistake in supporting and giving in to the religious right.

    Apart from anything else this gives zero confidence that he'd stand up to the far more powerful neo-liberal, neo-con 'war party' establishment if he got into power. If he caves totally to a bunch of fundamentalist nutjobs, who themselves are neo-liberal and neo-conservative to the core, it doesn't actually inspire any confidence whatsoever. Take one example Mike Pence is a neo-conservative 'Israel firster'... through and through.

    Somehow I can't see the world being a safer place if the US tears itself to pieces trying to become a fundamentalist religious 'state', dominated by a bunch of people wanting 'the end of times'....

    Despite the "with some "liberal" concession to this or that niche of the general society." comment, he has threatened the rights of the majority of voters and even the very existence of some.
    In case no one had noticed 50% of the population are women, add in all the other minorities and you have a healthy 60-70% he is directly threatening.

    Religious right candidates (like Cruz and Pence) are unelectable, ever more so with time as organised religion dies in the US and their policies on women and LGBTI people, plus let's not forget their endemic racism, become every more unacceptable.

    And note ALL the 'religious right' people are total neo-conservatives, that almost make Clinton look like a pacifist.

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 1:50:53 PM | 50
    Tobin Paz @45

    Trump has nearly destroyed the Republican Party. And he has done so by speaking truths that are rarely heard in "polite company": our politicians are puppets and our elections are "rigged".

    Sanders spoke against inequality but he didn't go as far as Trump. He couldn't because he was merely a sheepdog, leading his young 'flock' to Hillary.

    If Trump wins, it would be a body blow to the Democrats who play on peoples fears to get elected but never deliver workable solutions. Rinse. Repeat.

    The Greens can win in 2020 after Trump fails and both parties are in disarray.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    I'm not telling people how to vote. I encourage people to think for themselves. This is only MY opinion.

    ThatDamnGood | Oct 26, 2016 2:00:41 PM | 51
    Its hard to emotionally accept the occurrence of a nuclear war today.
    You should see how Saker couldn't cope with it at first.

    If Russian assets in Syria get destroyed. The response will not to be nuking that little island in the Indian ocean far away from everything or Hawaii that is in the middle of nowhere.

    An act of war was done.

    WW3 begins.

    Ody | Oct 26, 2016 2:05:09 PM | 52
    "The U.S. could respond by destroying all Russian assets in and around Syria. It has the capabilities. But then what?" Then the US activates also activates phase D which is NATO invasion of Russia (from Ukraine, the Baltics, Scandinavia) and China (from South Korea, Japan + other US bases scatered all over the US empire).

    I don't believe Trump's domestic and foreign policy will be any more different or peacefull. I think he would just be facing a lot more resistance. Either way, unless Hillary dies there is no doubt she will be the next POTUS.

    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26, 2016 2:23:11 PM | 53
    @ Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 26, 2016 11:56:25 AM | 39

    Bartender, please set up a drink for the hoarsewispererer, should have watched the p's and q's a bit more closely and been a bit more inclusive.

    h | Oct 26, 2016 2:23:42 PM | 54

    Hey Lisa, how old are you?

    As a 50 something adult who lives in a state where we have a healthy voter population of Christian Right, which you refer to as religious right, folk let me assure you that your description of them is way the hell out of line. Your distasteful comment shows just how inexperienced and ignorant you are about this very American voting block.

    Why are you even weighing in here? You seem more of a DailyKos kinda poster. Posters around here tend to avoid language that is as divisive as yours and that all knowing punkish tone you are using.

    NemesisCalling | Oct 26, 2016 2:31:26 PM | 55
    Hey Lisa @48

    Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but these neoconservative you are talking about have been leaving his camp in droves in the preceeding months. Please do not lecture us on some secret collusion between Trump and those wicked shits. There is no doubt they will be crawling back to the Donald when he sits on the throne. But make no mistake: he will not forget the treachery of these subjects, just as the constituents of these jokers will not forget how they abandoned the Donald and revealed their obedience to the uniparty. These are the voters that hate "politicians," remember? I can't wait to see Paul Ryan squirm.

    And GTFO with your lgbtq trolling nonsense. Time to relegate these babies to their safe spaces so we can all breathe a sigh of relief to be rid of their loud, obnoxious mental anguish over their own petty insignificance. Remember, too, that Syrian lives matter. Once the culture of death is curtailed anroad, we can tackle the culture of death at home. Ancient Chinese wisdom for dumb trolls.

    ToivoS | Oct 26, 2016 2:47:27 PM | 56
    40

    #40. Good points.

    Trump sounds very scary in many ways but most of the stuff he babbles on about should not worry anybody. The President of the US does not rule the US. Power in the US is distributed into the three branches of government -- the executive, Congress and the judiciary. Most of Trump's worst ideas will have to pass through Congress and the judiciary. There is only one area where the President has total dominion and that is foreign policy and making war.

    The question should come down to who do we want want as the next President -- a candidate that seeks war with Russia or one who wants to negotiate and make deals? Given that question we will be better off with Trump.

    If Trump wins he will not have any support in Congress so it makes no sense that he will succeed in cutting taxes for the richest or build the Mexican wall or any of the other nutty things he advocates. But making peace with the Russians is the one thing he could accomplish.

    Also I support Trump because the Democratic National Committee has been completely taken over by the Hillary and neocon wing of the Democratic Party. As long as they control the Democratic Party (which they do today) any US president that is a Democrat means that WWIII is a real option always on the table. Tax cuts for the rich, increased monopolization of the economy, increased poverty rates, restrictions on abortions, etc, are quite secondary. [BTW, I have served on a county Democratic central committee for the last two decades and worked on presidential campaigns for Democrats going back to Eisenhower-Stevens in 1956 (except for Humphrey in 1968). What I have witnessed is that the entire party has been taken over by the big money contributions going down to city council elections.] A Trump victory will give us a small chance for the grass roots Democrats to regain some influence in national Party affairs -- today we have none.

    john | Oct 26, 2016 2:49:16 PM | 57
    ArthurGilroy

    NOT voting requires no amount of talky talk talk, no amount of organizing, no amount of anything. but if everyone did it the central government would become immediately irrelevant and collapse, and if the central government collapsed, its attendant institutions would unravel, the primary grifters would atrophy on the vine, and the deep state would be in deep shit.

    Tom Murphy | Oct 26, 2016 2:57:26 PM | 58
    @1 I think it makes little sense to convince progressives that the should vote for Hillary. And it is absurd to insist that a vote for anyone other than Trump is "a de facto vote for Hillary Clinton." The more people that don't vote for Hillary the better. And a vote for Jill Stein builds up the Green Party. If we could get the message out that Hillary is just too dangerous and that a real progressive choice is Jill Stein, then it is possible that a good number of people who may have voted for Hillary (and who can't stomach Trump) could take away Clinton's margin of victory . I am voting for Jill Stein, I live in NY, it is not practical, given past elections, to think Trump could win NY. I would be wasting my vote to vote for Trump in NY. When I vote for Jill Stein, that is another vote NOT going to Hillary Clinton. see video: VIDEO
    ALberto | Oct 26, 2016 2:58:21 PM | 59
    WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In the U.S., 13% approve of the job Congress is doing, in line with approval ratings ranging from 11% to 16% since August. The current rating is just four percentage points above the record low of 9% recorded in November 2013.

    'Selection' 2016 is a clown show. Trump, Hill & Bill, Bu$h I, Bu$h II even Romney are all heavily involved is the drug money laundry business. A vote is a vote that legitimises the system.

    I just cannot bring myself to vote for any of these criminals. Every vote legitimises this freak show.

    ***Last letter of the alphabet does not work on my keyboard.

    PEACE OUT

    Tom Murphy | Oct 26, 2016 3:01:29 PM | 60
    Donald Trump as the front runner and then candidate of the Republican Party didn't just happen. This was by design, it was what the DNC and the Hillary campaign wanted and what they told the media to do, to elevate him to leader of the pack. ( Wikileaks reveals
    ArthurGilroy | Oct 26, 2016 3:08:34 PM | 61
    @56
    ===========================================================================================================================================================
    NOT voting requires no amount of talky talk talk, no amount of organizing, no amount of anything. but if everyone did it the central government would become immediately irrelevant and collapse, and if the central government collapsed, its attendant institutions would unravel, the primary grifters would atrophy on the vine, and the deep state would be in deep shit.

    ===========================================================================================================================================================

    Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.

    But it ain't gonna happen .

    A huge majority of the U.S. population is still caught up in the wonderful political virtual reality game so generously provided for free by the Deep State-controlled media. They will clomp-clomp-clomp on out of their zombified dwellings and vote for whichever of the two-dimensional VR candidates for whom they root.

    So it goes.

    Would it were otherwise.

    AG

    tom | Oct 26, 2016 3:12:28 PM | 62
    Ludicrous propaganda once again from b. B sure is trying his darndest to want to work for the Russian state under his lord and saviour Putin the irresistible.

    Trump himself said that China is a threat to the US. And he refuses to rule out no war with China. Therefore Trump is likely wanting to start world War three by attacking China. How is that worse than Hitlery wanting to attack Russia in Syria.

    Trump will take Iraqs oil, make Mexico pay for a wall on the US side starting a war with them, and so much more horrendous criminality

    And Trumps foreign policy is "sane". What despicable ludicrous lies

    ALberto | Oct 26, 2016 3:15:11 PM | 63
    My opinion

    Trump and KKKillary popular vote split 50/50. Electoral College goes to $hillary.

    Like the 'Talking Heads' said "Same as it ever was."

    fast freddy | Oct 26, 2016 3:18:51 PM | 64
    I predicted that JEB! would be the next President. I still don't understand why I was so far off the mark. He's crooked enough...He's smart enough...
    ben | Oct 26, 2016 3:28:11 PM | 65
    Seriously people. If anyone believes either candidate means what they say, with all due respect, you're delusional. No matter what, whomever "wins", they'll do as they're instructed to do.

    Sorry b, with all due respect and gratitude for what you do, that includes you. Living up to one's rhetoric is difficult, for anyone running for POTUS, impossible.

    From The Hague | Oct 26, 2016 3:33:36 PM | 66
    The only relevant vote against that crazy bitch from hell?
    Of course:
    Trump
    A number of commentators have pointed out that the US could destroy Russia's assets - what they don't point out is that this would expose US assets to destruction - which is why WW3 is almost inevitable if the US escalates in Syria

    Posted by: paul | Oct 26, 2016 3:49:28 PM | 67

    A number of commentators have pointed out that the US could destroy Russia's assets - what they don't point out is that this would expose US assets to destruction - which is why WW3 is almost inevitable if the US escalates in Syria

    Posted by: paul | Oct 26, 2016 3:49:28 PM | 67

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 4:03:45 PM | 68
    Those who say: Its all a charade, voting changes nothing, Trump will do what he's told, etc. have
    either given up in disgust or are purposely ignoring reality. The establishment is afraid of a
    Trump win. There are numerous instances of their manipulating or attempting to manipulate the election.

    Vote Trump in swing states. Vote Green everywhere else.

    NemesisCalling | Oct 26, 2016 4:10:33 PM | 69
    @59 Tom

    So what? I've read that leak. Doesn't speak or reference in any way complicity of Trump's campaign or even the repubs. I think you are framing that to fit your perspective that the DNC is the main powerbroker, here. Whereas, the more hilarious conclusion to draw would be that, through their arrogance and complete and utter disdain for the disaffected, they underestimated the threat of a "fringe" candidate. Talk about the most fuckin' shortsighted political decision (all-time bone head plays #1) this side of Joe Liebermann. God it makes me smile. And to think, the media played right into Trump's tiny hands. That's showmanship. Face it: he is smarter and crafter and he knows the people just a hair more.

    john | Oct 26, 2016 4:12:02 PM | 70
    ArthurGilroy says:

    But it ain't gonna happen

    no, Arthur, it ain't, but, presumably, you won't be voting either.

    NemesisCalling | Oct 26, 2016 4:20:45 PM | 71
    @Ben 64

    Yes, we all want Trump to save the whales, make cake healthy, unite the Muslim world, make college free, fix health-care, restore the rust-belt, solve climate - change while delivering more jobs to energy sector, defeat Isis while not upsetting KSA, Qatar, et.al, and not go into Syria.

    I'll take one of those at least for my vote. Can you guess which one?

    Pascal | Oct 26, 2016 4:22:03 PM | 72
    Lately I can understand why most people hate trump and love Clinton or vise versa. But I have to say that both party's have great and solid points that needs to be taken serious the voting will be harder then before that is for sure the only thing I hate about the politics is that when the candidate has won all point's they have made in the election round will go out the window.

    My dutch boyfriend just ask me why do they always put one man in the seat to control all why not join forces will this not be a better option what do you think those he has a point or is it just wrong thinking on his part.

    ArthurGilroy | Oct 26, 2016 4:25:33 PM | 73
    @69

    John...

    True dat.

    AG

    They weren't just talking tough about a no-fly zone in Libya.

    Posted by: lysias | Oct 26, 2016 4:43:07 PM | 74

    They weren't just talking tough about a no-fly zone in Libya.

    Posted by: lysias | Oct 26, 2016 4:43:07 PM | 74

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 5:13:07 PM | 75
    Love Him or Hate Him, Trump is the Revolution Against the Establishment

    Look at Greece. The progressives/socialists could not win. It seems that we need a nationalist.

    It is a hard truth for progressives. The left has failed miserably to check the tyranny of neolibcon Centrists who sell us all out to the highest bidder.

    We need a Trump, like Russia needed a Putin. To right the ship.

    When the dust settles, and lessons are learned, real progressives with integrity can rebuild.

    dh | Oct 26, 2016 5:24:20 PM | 76
    @73 Libya was a piece of cake. No nasty Russians to worry about. If Hillary tries that in Syria she'll be sorry. We all will.
    schlub | Oct 26, 2016 5:50:54 PM | 77
    Jimbo is giving a good daily rundown of the fraud coming in from the advance polls, & other things.
    I like the one where the poll station workers are filling in the paper ballot votes after, for those not voting.
    http://82.221.129.208/basepageq5.html

    http://thumbs4.ebaystatic.com/d/l800/pict/322160913590_1.jpg

    dan | Oct 26, 2016 6:02:30 PM | 78
    I don't know about Trump. But Hillary is a fucking nightmare. I don't live in America and I can't vote there, but to those who do and can, please don't vote for that psycho bitch. Anyone else. Anybody. But to cast a vote for her would be an exhibition of ignorance and willful sociopathy. The world is begging you, please... Pleeeeeeeease. Do not vote for whole countries to be flushed down the same toilet of meglomaniacal greed. Be nice. There are a lot of other people living on this planet. We don't wanna kill anybody, we just wanna relax and thrive. Get with the program....
    ALberto | Oct 26, 2016 6:04:08 PM | 79
    Just my opinion

    Trump loses in the Electoral College. Gets his own TV network and proceeds to preempt and co opt 3rd party Constitution Party. Just like Dr. Ron Paul's campaign was co opted by supposed Tea Party people who were in fact Conservative paid stooges. Right off the top the Cock brothers come to mind.

    MadMax2 | Oct 26, 2016 6:16:17 PM | 80
    @Jackrabbit 74
    The Nationalist response is a natural one in the face of this unseen, centralising, globalist beast. UK just had theirs with Brexit, and now we see the battle lines redrawn and subsequent rally behind Corbyn. France could be next in Europe.

    The left seems not to know where it is in the states... I agree it needs to fall into disarray before rediscovering itself.

    Trump has the momentum going down the straight, no one knows what the fuck is going on amongst all the monkey shit being flung in the cage...but no one is oblivious to the the fact that the establishment, from the neocon flight to the unprecedented MSM collusion and everything in-between, is so OTT Trump. Too much so. It's what the progressive left always wanted, a hero like this, to stand up to the machine.

    All that money and all Hillary cam come up with is a naughty word and 'Never Trump' - almost as if Trump goaded them into a shitfight by making idiotic, outlandish statements alongside his more thoughtful output that doesn't make primetime cable news. Now the Dems have less than two weeks to attack some real issues to quiet the silent majority's upcoming 'fuck you' vote...

    I'd even go as far to say there will be plenty of silent Dems voting Trump if the election was right now. No wonder Trump wants a 4th debate.

    MadMax2 | Oct 26, 2016 6:24:30 PM | 81
    @78 ALberto
    Good call, its not The Don or Hillary, Hillary's toast either way. The November question is: President Trump or TrumpTV...?
    karlof1 | Oct 26, 2016 6:32:41 PM | 82
    The only recourse the citizenry of the Outlaw US Empire has in attempting to restore its freedoms and regain control of the national government is to revolt. Unfortunately, such a dire action requires a high degree of solidarity amongst a body of citizens large enough to make the attempt and there's no sign of such a body anywhere to be seen. Thus we'll see the selection of HRC and the last gasp of the Neoliberalcons attempt to establish Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet and its people that will likely escalate the already existing Hybrid WW3 to a hot war. In other words, it doesn't matter who you vote for, so you ought to vote your conscience so you can be right with yourself. Our household's voting Stein.
    dumbass | Oct 26, 2016 6:42:57 PM | 83
    >> He's crooked enough...He's smart enough...

    Stuart Smalley??

    Sigil | Oct 26, 2016 6:55:14 PM | 84
    'The big issues count the most. Good or evil flow from them. Trumps principle, and I think personal position, is leaning towards peaceful resolution of conflicts.' - b

    The latter sentence contrasts with trump's determination to kill ISIS and take their oil. Sounds like occupation to me. And his manner of fighting them - with unrestrained torture and bullets dipped in pig's blood - is likely to catalyse supporty for them else where in the muslim world (and the muslim parts of the west), even if ISIS is stomped flat in Syria/Iraq. Coup[led with his blanket ban on muslim immigration, this sounds like a recipe for more conflict, not less.

    Likewise with some other big issues: climate change and world trade. As shitty as the WTO system can be, simply withdrawing and erecting huge tariffs would have catastrophic effects on world trade that wwe comparable to if not worse than the 1931 Smoot-Hawley tariffs that crippled world trade and set the stage for WW2. Worse, Trump's 100% opposition to acting on climate change, and his determination to allow all fossil fuel extraction projects to go ahead, will guarantee catastrophic global warming that will make WW2 itself look insignificant in the long run.

    I agree that Hillary is a menace. But that doesn't make Trump less of one.

    lysias | Oct 26, 2016 6:59:27 PM | 85
    Climate change is indeed a threat, but not an immediate one.

    WW3 is an immediate threat.

    It made sense to ally with Stalin, a long-term threat, against Hitler, an immediate one.

    fairleft | Oct 26, 2016 7:31:04 PM | 86
    Perfect legacy of Obama is the just announced Obamacare insurance premium 25℅ avg rate increases. Covered at WSWS but can't link from this phone. How about a $10,000 deductible for a family of 4 making $40,000? Things will get worse on several fronts next year, according to bipartisan plans published in the NYT. Trump's 'solution' is going back to what we had before, ie he has no solution. Wants to turn Medicaid, aid for our poor, into a voucher program. Don't vote for austerity, don't vote for HillTrump.
    rufus magister | Oct 26, 2016 7:39:36 PM | 87
    I knew there would be further need of this. Once again, the facts strongly suggest why he's a bigger hawk than Hillary Clinton.
    Trump isn't a leftist, nor is he a pacifist. In fact, Trump is an ardent militarist, who has been proposing actual colonial wars of conquest for years. It's a kind of nationalist hawkishness that we haven't seen much of in the United States since the Cold War - but has supported some of the most aggressive uses of force in American history.

    You'll see a robust bill of particulars in the article; I've cited some of them earlier. To little effect of course; Red Hats and Green Tea Bags make excellent counter-factual filters.

    The author, Zack Beauchamp, quite helpfully puts The Day-Glo Orange Duckhead in historical context. He quotes the historian Walter Russell Mead on the Jacksonian tradition in American foreign policy. He's from Bard College, BTW, which rates fairly high up on the uber-liberal university scale. So they don't be doin' too many Orange Jello Shots, know what I mean?

    Jacksonians, according to Mead, are basically focused on the interests and reputation of the United States. They are skeptical of ... idealistic quests removed from the interests of everyday Americans. But when American interests are in question, or failing to fight will make America look weak, Jacksonians are more aggressive than anyone.

    "The Gulf War was a popular war in Jacksonian circles because the defense of the nation's oil supply struck a chord with Jacksonian opinion.... With them it is an instinct rather than an ideology - a culturally shaped set of beliefs and emotions rather than a set of ideas," Mead writes. Sound familiar?

    Historically - and here's the important part - the Jacksonian tradition has been partly responsible for a lot of what we see today as American atrocities....

    Jackson himself is responsible for the "Trail of Tears."

    On the campaign trail, Trump routinely cites Gens. George Patton and Douglas MacArthur as foreign policy models - uber-Jacksonians both. Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union after World War II to head off perceived future threats to America. And President Harry Truman fired MacArthur, despite his strategic genius, for publicly and insubordinately advocating total war against China during the Korean War.

    This is the tradition Trump's views seem to fit into. But while Patton and MacArthur at least had real military expertise and intellectual heft animating their hawkishness, Trump is just a collection of angry impulses. There's no worked-out strategic doctrine here, just an impulse to act aggressively when it seems like America's interests and/or reputation are at stake.

    Just a bundle of anger, driven by emotion, no set plan, aggressive with poor impulse control. What could possibly go wrong?

    So he doesn't want the present wars in the Ukraine and Syria, he says, now. But all the better to bomb Iraq and Iran into a pulp, it would seem.

    Sigil | Oct 26, 2016 7:43:02 PM | 88
    Climate change is already affecting the world, and it will take a concerted effort over a much, much longer period to get it under control, when compared to the Nazi threat.
    This is scientifically certain. The prospect of WW3 under Hillary's presidency is very far from being certain.
    james | Oct 26, 2016 7:54:57 PM | 89
    thanks b.. i agree..

    what oligarch will those pesky amerikkans vote for?

    oligarch 1 - hillary

    or oligarch 2 - trump

    if it was me, i would be voting 2.. but being in canada, i don't get to vote.. i just get to listen to bullshite 2016 election usa 24/7 any time i venture onto the internut..

    blues | Oct 26, 2016 8:11:10 PM | 90
    What are we facing now? WE ARE FACING WW-III!

    I don't now recall if i've posted these pieces here yet, but they do involve a matter of life and death for ALL OF US! So here they are:

    Jill Stein Slams Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy As "Scarier Than Trump's"
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-20/jill-stein-slams-hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-scarier-trumps

    BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP [Sort Of][1 min., 15 sec.]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBqvhafoUBY

    The third - and final - presidential debate between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump was held Oct. 19 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and moderated by Fox News' Chris Wallace.

    At one point Hillary said: "....and I'm going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria"

    Listen at: 1 hour, 20 minutes in:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/19/watch_live_final_presidential_debate_between_hillary_clinton__donald_trump.html

    A No Fly Zone means we shoot down Russian planes. And THAT MEANS WW-III.

    = = = = Furthermore = = = =

    With single-bid ("plurality") voting you only have two candidates to choose from.

    I have described the strategic hedge simple score election method all over the Internet, and it has been known of for many years. It is simple in the sense that does not require easily hackable voting machines, and can easily work with hand counted paper ballots at non-centralized poling stations. It is not hampered by any requirement to cater to so-called "sincere," "honest" (actually artless and foolish) voters. It easily thwarts both the spoiler effect and the blind hurdle dilemma (the "Burr Dilemma"), which prevents voters from exercising the strategies that they need to use to defeat the big bosses. It just works.

    Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from five to ten votes for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, twelve candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.

    Both IRV-style and approval voting methods suffer from the blind hurdle dilemma, which can be overcome with the hedge voting strategy. An example of usage of the hedge strategy, presuming the (most famous) case of a "leftist" voter, would be casting ten votes for Ralph Nader, and only eight or nine "hedge votes" for Al Gore. This way, the voter would only sacrifice 20 or 10 percent of their electoral influence if Nader did not win.

    Don't be fooled by fake "alternatives" like "IRV" and "approval voting". Ranked choice voting is supported by the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Open Society Foundations (of Soros), and on and on.

    Ranked choice voting is just as bad,or worse than out present single-bid ("plurality") method with regard to enforcing the two party syndrome, and this has been demonstrated repeatedly in history.

    Score voting is fundamentally distinct from ranked choice voting, and does not promote the two party syndrome. That's probably why it doesn't get hundreds of millions of promotion dollars as the "Green" Party's ranked choice system does.

    PLEASE look at the truth for yourself:

    http://www.fairvote.org/financials

    http://www.fairvote.org/rcv

    Very hard to believe, huh?

    And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers".

    We are stuck with this miserable system because of a surprisingly large array of people who I call the "election methods cognoscenti". Over many years, these cognoscenti have assembled an enormous collection of distracting, unworkable election methods. This "intellectual subject" has, for instance, consumed perhaps hundreds of pages in works such as the Wikipedia. These cognoscenti have created a gigantic Glass Bead Game which serves no real purpose other than to facilitate intellectual speculation. In nearly every instance where their election methods have been employed, disaster has ensued, although in a few cases, their systems have languished on, providing no better results than the choose-one voting system. Millions, perhaps tens of millions of dollars, have been spent promoting the "IRV" method, which has been tried and abandoned in several venues where it caused massive chaos.

    We cannot afford any more of this intellectual masturbation, which has lead to this absurd 2016 "election". All we should be doing is protesting for safe, easy-to-understand strategic hedge simple score voting.

    And I will be voting for Donald Trump, even though I know that my "ballot" is going to be fed into an infernal machine.

    schlub | Oct 26, 2016 8:18:01 PM | 91

    Clinton advised the mainstream media to push his legitimacy as a "pied piper" candidate because she realized, after looking at the poll numbers, that she wouldn't stand a chance at winning the presidency against any of the establishment republicans without making them "pied pipers" – it just so happened that Donald was the easiest to play the role considering his long history of friendship with the Clintons.
    https://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2016/10/25/rigged-election-hillary-trump-caught-partying-like-bffs-kissinger-jesuit-gala.html

    Caption this!:
    https://dollarvigilante.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/donald-hillary-800.jpg

    or this:
    https://dollarvigilante.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/cardinalhillanddon.jpg

    jdmckay | Oct 26, 2016 8:50:23 PM | 92
    blues @ 89

    > BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP

    Oh c'mon. Stooping pretty low on that one. One of election's sicker sideshows: Briebert's site covering Stein more then almost anyone else... when they can twist one of Jill's criticism's of Hillary into and endorsement of Trump. Jill is most certainly a NASTY woman. :)

    This is bottom feeding stuff.

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 8:56:56 PM | 93
    I get it. I really do.

    Trump has some strange ideas. And he'll cause some real harm in some areas.

    But again, his strong medicine is what is needed. We can spill loads of electronic ink debating the
    reasons why and talking about how he sucks but that won't change the reality.

    I am very much against the duopoly. But one of these two will win. A win by Trump and a strong
    showing by the Greens is the best we can hope for.It sends a clear message. What message does
    voting for Hillary send? That we will allow ourselves to be compromised yet AGAIN?

    Trump says: "either you have a country, or you don't". So what are the 'borders' that the left will
    defend? Just how much will the Left allow its so-called leaders to compromise and marginalize us?

    There is a natural alliance between the principled left and principled right that the mercenary,
    mendacious establishment fears. Don't be fooled by Hillary/DNC scare tactics and media manipulation!

    Hillary tells some voters that she will continue Obama's policies and other voters that she will be
    different. She assures Goldman Sacks that her private positions differ very much from her public
    positions. She runs pay to play scams via the Clinton Foundation, takes tons of money from Wall Street
    and pretends that none of that influences her. The Chair of the DNC joined her campaign after her
    work against Sanders was revealed! And Sanders response? He endorsed Hillary!!

    The Democrats believe that YOU and your family, friends, and neighbors are confused and scared or just
    plain dumb and foolish enough to vote for Hillary and other Democrats that will ride her coattails.
    Prove them wrong. Stand up for yourself! Vote for Trump in swing states and Jill Stein in other states.

    Sigil | Oct 26, 2016 9:09:07 PM | 94
    @92 What message does voting for Hillary send?

    That the establishment candidate is not automatically the worst possible candidate. Not when the other is an unrepentant racist determined to castrate the First Amendment and incinerate the climate. What message does it send when a candidate whose campaign took off at the point he called most - if not all - illegal immigrants 'rapists' wins the White House? Besides, you sound more like a Sanders supporter than a Trump supporter - so maybe his thoughts are worth taking into account here.

    metamars | Oct 26, 2016 9:10:12 PM | 95
    @ rufus magister 86


    I had assumed your link would be garbage, but took a look, anyway. In fact, it raises significant points. In particular, previously unknown (to me) details about his views about "taking the oil".

    I'm definitely for Trump, consider him far safer and saner than Clinton wrt foreign policy with most of the world (I suspect he could be worse wrt N Korea, than Clinton; also, no better wrt Africa, than Clinton).

    I have never been impressed with the Trumpian "take the oil" position that I learned of during the campaign, and have described it as "goofy" and "sure sounding like a war crime". That this particular stupidity (or hawkish stupidity, if you prefer) is nothing new, and extended to Libya, is disappointing.

    Still, on balance, compared to the endless hemming in and provocation of nuclear super-power Russia (not to mention smearing of Putin), by the neocon class of which Hillary is an obvious example of, the author's claim that Trump is more of a hawk than her still sounds absurd. Even if the argument has some merits.

    Foreign affairs editor of Chronicles Magazine, srdja Trifkovic rated Trump's foreign policy speech of April a B+. From https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/america-first-controversy/ :

    "Donald Trump's foreign policy speech last Wednesday deserves at least a solid B+ and you can read my take on it in the June issue of Chronicles. It offered an eloquent argument for offensive realism, based on the fact that the international system-composed of sovereign nation-states pursuing their interests-is still essentially competitive and Hobbesian. Trump is the only candidate who understands this cardinal fact, and who unambiguously states America is not and should not be an exception to that timeless principle."

    A key guy who has Trump's ear (and for whom there was speculation would be VP) was former DIA head Mike Flynn. See "Trump's favorite general" @ http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-general-michael-flynn-vp-225253 From that article:

    "Since leaving government, Flynn has angered U.S. officials over his friendly ties to Russia, with which he has publicly advocated better relations and military cooperation in the Middle East - a departure from the official Pentagon line. He even recently sat at the head table at a dinner in Moscow with President Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has praised."

    This same article also says,

    "Much as Trump likes to keep things in the family, Flynn's son, Michael G. Flynn, serves as a chief adviser."


    The idea that Trump wouldn't consult with the likes of Flynn - who might be his Secretary of Defense - also seems goofy. Of course he will.

    The Obama Administration, of which Hillary was an integral part, deliberately allowed ISIS to flourish, in it's early stages. Trump's incompetence as a political candidate is amply demonstrated by the fact that, even given 3 national debate audiences, he FAILED to pin the US non-interdiction of the mega ISIS oil trade, run through Turkey, on the Obama administration (thus, to one degree or another, also on Clinton). See "Russian intel spots 12,000 oil tankers & trucks on Turkey-Iraq border - General Staff" for photos that Trump should have (pardon the expression) trumpeted during all 3 national debates. Had he done so, in stead of being politically inept and inarticulate, he would have cemented in the public's mind just HOW evil the foreign policy of both Obama and Clinton were. (Of course, he should have also mentioned the wikileaks tick tock memos, crediting uber SoS failure Hilary Clinton with steps on the road to the destruction of Libya).

    Hillary has not just spouted militaristic, imperialistic hokum. She was also in the decision loop, as war crimes against Libya, in particular, were being decided on, then perpetrated. She has a history that is far more evidential of catastrophic militarism than goofy statements about "taking the oil".

    Jay M | Oct 26, 2016 9:20:36 PM | 96
    Even if you are going to pick the other guy's pocket, you have to view him as human
    I wonder about the digital scum
    rufus magister | Oct 26, 2016 9:27:52 PM | 97
    metamars at 94 --

    Very kind of you to note your new-found concerns, anytime.

    Trump has net yet been in the loop. I do not want him there, he would be bad for the country and planet. His public statements suggest he would make far worse decisions.

    blues | Oct 26, 2016 9:29:50 PM | 98
    re: jdmckay | Oct 26, 2016 8:50:23 PM | 91

    {quote} > BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP

    Oh c'mon. Stooping pretty low on that one. {end quote}

    You are misquoting me intensionally. I put: "BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP [Sort Of][1 min., 15 sec.]" And that is because YouTube links often break up while their titles remain searchable.

    You ignored that I added "[Sort of]"!

    I think there are likely a lot of DailyKos zombies around here tonight.

    Trump may be a bullheaded semi-thug, but I'll vote for him before I join the "die with Hillary" movement.

    metamars | Oct 26, 2016 10:35:59 PM | 99
    "His public statements suggest he would make far worse decisions."

    On balance, no, they don't. Even if Flynn couldn't talk any sense into him regarding "taking the oil", and a President Trump somehow managed to pull that off, and it turned into an endless conflict, the $$ cost of which exceeded the oil profits thus obtained, that would still be preferable to nuclear exchanges with Russia.

    I read just today about a Russian nuke, called "Satan", that supposedly can destroy a country the size of France (or the state of Texas). I had to read it twice, since the claim seemed preposterous. (I assume it's some sort of multiple warhead device, and what the claim really means is that it can destroy all cities in an area the size of France.)

    Peace with Russia is, to use a Star Trek phrase, the "prime directive". Trusting that to Clinton is a fool's errand. Trusting that to Trump is not.

    ab initio | Oct 26, 2016 10:41:58 PM | 100
    No matter the facts, and b has laid it out as clearly as one can, the left and the urban classes in America will vote for the proven warmonger. Why? For them virtue signalling is more important than the existential threat of riding up an escalatory ladder to a nuclear exchange with Russia.
    Shadow Nine | Oct 26, 2016 10:47:29 PM | 101
    After listening to right-wingers howl and whine today, droning on about big bad gumint and the only salvation is their guy and/or the free market. I say we end the misery that the capitalist system produces once and for all by throwing all support for Hillary. An anti-war vote for Trump helps preserve the madness, how could any sane person help capitalism, that to me is abnormal behaviour that Hillary can rectify. Death is an inevitable human condition, Right-wing evangelists are nothing but cowards. Viva Hillary and cheers to accelerating the process!
    james | Oct 26, 2016 11:10:05 PM | 102
    @100.. interesting approach..
    blues | Oct 26, 2016 11:27:08 PM | 103
    This website has been hacked.

    Someone has made it so that the site cannot be read unless the text is shrunk to be too small to read.

    psychohistorian | Oct 26, 2016 11:42:46 PM | 104
    @ blues

    Hacked is a bit strong....somebody messed up their attempt at HTML

    Shadow Nine | Oct 26, 2016 11:44:30 PM | 105
    @101, Just spitballing back into the Janus fascist face. Imagine the Borg exporting this capitalist madness , while proselytizing it's religious virtues to the masses?
    Julian | Oct 27, 2016 12:01:24 AM | 106
    Interesting, yes it is Reuters, but it's a quote of what Erdogan apparently said.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-idUSKCN12Q0GV

    President Tayyip Erdogan said Turkey's military operations in Syria aimed to secure al-Bab and the town of Manbij, which a group of Kurdish and Arab militias seized from Islamic State in August, but were not intended to stretch to Aleppo.

    "Let's make a joint fight against terrorist organizations. But Aleppo belongs to the people of Aleppo ... making calculations over Aleppo would not be right," he said in a speech in Ankara.

    Turkey launched "Operation Euphrates Shield" two months ago, sending tanks and warplanes into Syria in support of the largely Turkmen and Arab rebels.

    Erdogan signaled Turkey could target the Afrin region of northwest Syria, which is controlled by Kurdish YPG forces and lies just west of the "Euphrates Shield" area of operations.

    "In order to defeat threats directed at our nation from Kilis to Kirikhan, we are also putting that area on our agenda of cleansing from terror," he said, referring to two Turkish towns across the border from Afrin.

    Looks fairly clear the objectives are Al-bab & Manbij, and then the Afrin pocket. Definitely if the Syrians/Russians don't intervene to "save" Afrin, then that would push the Kurds into the arms of the Americans, but if that's all the Turks do, then that solidifies the Turkish-Russian pact at the same time.

    schlub | Oct 27, 2016 12:03:51 AM | 107
    Inching ever closer, one reported death at a time, to the current world record holder who is either Mark Twain or perhaps Binny himself.

    http://en.alalam.ir/news/1877644
    26 October 2016 14:48
    Iraqi Analyst Discloses S.Arabia, Turkey's Plot to Transfer Al-Baghdadi to Libya
    A prominent Iraqi military analyst disclosed that Riyadh and Ankara had hatched plots to transfer ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi from Mosul to Libya but the massive presence of the popular forces and Russian fighter jets at the bordering areas of Iraq and Syria dissuaded them.

    schlub | Oct 27, 2016 12:07:17 AM | 108
    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/filipino-president-wants-expel-us-forces-next-two-years/

    Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has said he wants all foreign troops, in which the majority are American, out of the Philippines in the next two years.

    This comes amidst his desire to realign his country with China and Russia, and further from the grasps of Washington.

    schlub | Oct 27, 2016 12:10:20 AM | 109
    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/10/26/490849/russia-black-sea-fleet-stealth-submarine

    Russia has launched the latest addition to its series of super-stealth diesel-electric submarines, the Veliky Novgorod, which sports advanced stealth technologies and increased combat range.

    The latest addition to the Black Sea Fleet is capable of striking land, sea and underwater targets and was officially launched from St. Petersburg's Admiralty Shipyard on Wednesday in the presence of Russian Navy Deputy Commander Vice-Admiral Aleksandr Fedotenkov, and Admiralty Shipyard CEO Alexander Buzakov.

    schlub | Oct 27, 2016 12:11:37 AM | 110
    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/10/27/490856/Trumps-antiIran-message-on-Mount-Zion-settlements-East-Jerusalem-alQuds

    GOP nominee Donald Trump does not believe that settlements built by the Zionist regime of Israel in Palestine are illegal, his advisor on Israel says.

    David Friedman, who was campaigning for the New York billionaire at a restaurant on Mount Zion (Jabel Sahyoun) in East Jerusalem al-Quds, made the comments to AFP after the Wednesday rally.

    Jack Smith | Oct 27, 2016 12:24:00 AM | 111
    Tom Hayden, Courageous Warrior for Peace. October 26, 2016 (BULL SHIT)

    Former antiwar sellout becomes a warmonger and support endless wars: warmongers - Obomo, Hillary.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/26/tom-hayden-courageous-warrior-for-peace/

    Remember on November 8, vote for any party, but not The Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is the war party.

    For me still undecided - Donald Trump or Jill Stein.

    Dr. William Wedin | Oct 27, 2016 12:48:06 AM | 112
    I agree with Moon of Alabama's predictions up to the point that he asserts that Putin's "best" or "most likely" response (I am not clear which) to having all of Russia's military assets in Syria destroyed is the meek test-firing of a "big" tactical nuclear weapon in Siberia by way of a non-lethal display of "shock and awe." Neither Putin nor his generals would ever let things get so one-sided in America's father. Rather, the Russian military would respond the way Putin, the 8th-degree black-belt Judoka has responded in every match that led to his becoming the Judo Champion of Leningrad in 1976. Namely, they would attack, attack, attack--no matter the cost. That's how General Zhukov defeated Hitler. The same way Grant won the Civil War. Zhukov never let up the pressure. Putin learned his lesson on that score when he tried to teach the US the Judo principle of Jita Kyoei (or the "mutual benefit") in mutual self-restraint in his acceptance of a ceasefire and a partial pull-out of Russian forces back in March; followed by another betrayed ceasefire last month. No more. Now if he is hit, he's going to hit back harder--in unexpected places and ways. He has vowed to never fight another war on Russian soil. So he may well carry the attack early to the US homeland. Study the way he won Judo matches--with lightning speed and startling moves. The Saker would argue that Putin would go for lateral rather than vertical escalation. But I think that Hillary's transsexual desire (I speak as a psychologist here) to prove herself the "tougher man" may force Putin to launch a First Strike in the expectation she's about to. Indeed he tells us that the first lesson he learned as a street fighter at the age of 10 was: "Strike First." I think he will.
    Jack Smith | Oct 27, 2016 12:59:30 AM | 113
    I can never under understand why so many 60s and 70s antiwar become warmongers today?

    Amerika drops more than 7 millions tons of bombs, about 20 to 30% unexploded. They knew millions innocent civilians perished and many more will die of unexploded bombs. Further Napalm & Agent Orange was used and still causing deforms children today.

    How can anyone vote for The Democratic Party is beyond common sense? The Democratic Party had always been a warmonger party, yesterday, today and tomorrow....

    Ike | Oct 27, 2016 1:32:14 AM | 114
    With the Clinton's long list of shady deals Hillary would be an easy target for blackmail by some organisation such as a security service that wants to control the policies of the president.
    Shadow Nine | Oct 27, 2016 1:35:48 AM | 115
    @112 Jack Smith,

    It's not funny how hypocritical the right-wing have become just to get their guy in office. Fuck 'em I say. For those same fucktards that believe Obama a communist/socialist, they're simply invoking a red scare tactic. The love to scapegoat the other, ie. teacher's, immigrants because their brainwashed minds love their servitude and criticism of the capitalist system is beyond the pale.

    Both parties represent what you nominally call warmonger in one form or the other, serving their corporate paymasters. Any minds reconciling the differences would be well advised to check up on Glen Ford, Omali Yeshitela and the world socialist website periodically.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 27, 2016 1:48:59 AM | 116
    This is a formal request to b...

    Would you please delete ArthurGilroy's comments
    at #42 and #60?
    #42 could have been an accident caused by
    failure to Preview.
    But #60 was a deliberate margin wrecker, imo.

    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 27, 2016 3:29:37 AM | 117
    @ psychohistorian | Oct 26, 2016 11:42:46 PM | 103

    No they did not mess up their HTML, they put ==== well beyond the wrap limits. It happens when commentators use any lengthy address that does not have hyphens incorporated. If the programming were to put in a virtual hyphen, that changes the address for using, it seems. HTML is the tool to use to get around that problem. The problem is few commentators are tool users; the result is the reader suffers from one: stupid, inattention or intent. The perpetrator:

    ArthurGilroy | Oct 26, 2016 3:08:34 PM | 60

    ProPeace | Oct 27, 2016 3:29:40 AM | 118
    How about a few bombs dropped on the Yellowstone caldera?

    Or artificial tsunamis flooding military bases on/in Diego Garcia, Guam, Hawaii, Norfolk,...

    The Atlantist Thalassocracy is quite vulnerable actually.

    The Kalibr missiles installed in Kaliningrad could reach London easily...

    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 27, 2016 3:32:59 AM | 119
    @ 115

    One upped. Should finish reading before sounding off.

    From The Hague | Oct 27, 2016 3:34:18 AM | 120
    @Jack Smith #110,112

    Yes, it's unbelieveble to read what for example the popstars say.

    'Look, America is like the best idea the world ever came up with. But Donald Trump is potentially the worst idea that ever happened to America, potentially,' Bono replied. 'It could destroy it,' the rocker added.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3798784/Donald-Trump-destroy-America-U2-s-Bono-uses-Clinton-Initiative-deliver-hysterical-lecture-Republican-candidate.html

    She compared him to Hitler, likened his campaign to a "racist" version of "Fun with Dick and Jane" and even said he evoked the murderous child star in "The Bad Seed."
    "I just think he's" an idiot, Cher said of Donald J. Trump, adding a decidedly unprintable modifier.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/us/politics/cher-hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html?_r=0

    With Hillary Clinton in the audience, singer Adele told her fans at a Miami concert Tuesday night not to vote for Donald Trump.
    "Don't vote for him," the Grammy Award winner said on stage, according to a Clinton aide. "I can't vote but I am 100% for Hillary Clinton, I love her, she's amazing."
    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/hillary-clinton-adele-concert/

    And so on.
    Also for example:
    Elton John
    John Fogerty
    Neil Young
    Paul mcCartney
    Roger Waters

    Corrupt?
    Braindead?
    Just stupid and ignorant?

    MadMax2 | Oct 27, 2016 4:07:32 AM | 121
    @119 FTH
    Holier than thou superstars wrapped in the warm bosom of capitalism that is the 1%. Can't blame them, they're being looked after. They just hear the un-pc bleating.
    Working Class Nero | Oct 27, 2016 4:21:36 AM | 122
    What makes me happiest about this election is that we are finally seeing some left/right cooperation in the fight against the corporate oligarchy. I follow both sides closely and it is great to see right wingers cheering Jill Stein, Julian Assange, and even Bernie Sanders.

    In order for the left/right combination to work both sides have to make compromises. Certainly we see the Trumpian right dumping the warmongering. as MoA is pointing out. Trumpsters are also open to universal health care, and are less insistent on divisive social issues. And the rejection of job-killing "free" trade is another great evolution towards sanity on the right.

    The left are goig to have to abandon the idea of remaking America by pumping in millions of 3rd world immigrants. This is the largest wedge still existing between the left and right. if you have not seen Bernie Sanders denouncing Open Borders as a Koch Borthers scam to lower wages then you need to get busy on Google right now. Besides universal health care is absolutely impossible without very tight borders -- just ask Canada who have far more Draconian immigration laws than even Trump is proposing.

    But the most important reason to vote Trump is because if he wins the Powers-That-Be will never let him take power! Remember the Electoral College? TPTB can and will strip the victory away from Trump and give it to someone else. This will do more to destroy the current capitalist system than anything else.

    Yeah, Right | Oct 27, 2016 6:17:06 AM | 123
    @105, quoting Reuters: "Erdogan signaled Turkey could target the Afrin region of northwest Syria"

    When Turkey launched "Operation Euphrates Shield" there was much commentary about how this would end the Kurdish plan to link Kobane with the Afrin pocket.

    At the time I thought to myself: OK, so does that leave the Afrin pocket exposed, or is it pretty secure even when left to its own devices?

    Nobody else seemed the slightest bit interested in pondering that though, apparently, Erdogan has now decided that it is a blister that needs to be lanced.

    @105: "then that would push the Kurds into the arms of the Americans"

    Err, no, I suspect not. After all, it was Biden who ordered the Kurdish forces to withdraw back behind the Euphrates once Erdogan started his little adventure, so it's pretty obvious that if the choice is between (a) Turkey and (b) the Kurds then good ol' Uncle Sam is going to side with the Turks.

    fast freddy | Oct 27, 2016 7:04:22 AM | 124
    Surprised to see Roger Waters on that list. WTF, Roger?

    His condemnation of Israel and his love for Palestine has been clear.

    Expressing his staunch I/P political views, Roger has consistently angered warmongering wingnuts at his concerts. (They like his music, but they wish he would shut up about " his politics".)

    Waters should know clearly that Hillary Rotten Clinton will explicitly follow the Yinon Plan dictates for Greater Israel; and feed our sons and daughters (not hers) into the military meat grinder.

    fast freddy | Oct 27, 2016 7:06:40 AM | 125
    Neil Young is another one - should know better. Sir McCartney is no surprise. He's a suck-up, milquetoast douchebag.
    Wwinsti | Oct 27, 2016 7:24:47 AM | 126
    Russia wants to join forces with the US to take Raqqa.

    The story is the third one down, so you have to scroll a little.

    http://tass.com/pressreview/908986

    -- | Oct 27, 2016 7:26:35 AM | 127
    Sick motherf*cker is on again!

    Clinton adviser Chris Morell, wants US to intercept Iranian ships to help Saudi Arabia
    https://www.rt.com/usa/364286-iran-saudi-morell-clinton/

    pantaraxia | Oct 27, 2016 7:39:17 AM | 128

    @119 From The Hague

    "Yes, it's unbelieveble to read what for example the popstars say."


    Madonna offers oral sex to Clinton voters
    https://www.rt.com/usa/363357-madonna-offers-fellatio-clinton-voters/


    Nuff said.

    Jack Smith | Oct 27, 2016 8:40:02 AM | 129
    Blowin' In the Wind

    Many thanks for those who read and comments.. I can never under understand why so many 60s and 70s antiwar become warmongers today?

    I'm from the sixties - baby boom generation, not antiwar but leaning from anti commie to warmonger. I cannot understands why antiwar movements were against Vietnam war . America, land of the free leading the fighting against the commies spreading from the North moving southward to the two Korea, (Indochina) Laos, Cambodia, North &South Vietnam, Thailand, Malaya (independent), Singapore British Crown colony, Hong Kong British Crown colony, Indonesia, The Philippines. The warmonger was Lyndon B. Johnson a Democrat.

    Blowin' In the Wind sang by leftist's antiwar singers. I'm especially touched by Peter, Paul and Mary, Joan Baez... Where are they today? Warmongers for Hillary?

    Enjoy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld6fAO4idaI
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFvkhzkS4bw

    Sorrie, Eng not my mother tongue.

    dahoit | Oct 27, 2016 9:13:31 AM | 130
    The red zionist leader pretend hates Trump.
    Hee hee,the vitriol from the serial liars should be enough for sane human to vote Trump.
    Imagine the debt that the HB will owe the zionists if they manage to steal this election for her,their obvious chosen whore.
    The zionists aint going to like the heartlands response to the fix.
    The raw deal they are issuing to Trump will be rejected.
    dahoit | Oct 27, 2016 9:15:21 AM | 131
    They found the deed at last;700 BC papyrus mentions Jerusalem!
    sheesh.They hate us all for not believing their bs.
    h | Oct 27, 2016 9:48:44 AM | 132
    112 said

    "But I think that Hillary's transsexual desire (I speak as a psychologist here) to prove herself the "tougher man" may force Putin to launch a First Strike in the expectation she's about to. Indeed he tells us that the first lesson he learned as a street fighter at the age of 10 was: "Strike First." I think he will."

    So do I. He did not go into Syria without a long-range strategy. And when he and China and others use the term "multi-polar" they mean it. Their commitment/strategy is at the cellular level which makes them unpredictable and dangerous to their adversary. Putin is all business.

    ----------------

    Here's a vid of Podesta's think tank - Center for American Progress - where Mike Morrell NOT Chris Morrell along with others discuss the Middle East and U.S. partners -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa8q_g66DU8&feature=youtu.be&t=1m38s


    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 27, 2016 9:53:27 AM | 133
    This may be priceless:

    https://www.rt.com/usa/364288-us-election-international-standards-osce/

    From Russia with LOVE.

    Noirette | Oct 27, 2016 11:33:18 AM | 134
    I've written along this line before, apologies for the repeat.

    The US has lost power, particularly economic power, and some soft power -not military power- in the last 20 or ++ years. An uncomfortable situation. This has disturbed, and will continue to disrupt, nay shatter, the PTB (Shadow Gvmt., fake duopoly, corporate rule, neo-fascism, slot in yr perso description) control.

    The selection of Obama was a simplistic move: he could be ushered in as representing 'change', and seemingly 'win' an 'election' twice, with biz as usual (hopefully) maintaining itself, continuing with a puppet President. (As is organised 'abroad', see Poroshenko for ex.)

    A crack on the political scene was the Tea Party, within Repub. circles, and it was genuine (if wacky), unlike Occupy Wall Street, or the present Black Lives Matter, which are more or less 'fake color revol.' controlled splinters that can be turned on or off. The Sanders candidacy split the Dem. base, and was either a nasty surprise for the neo-libs (they brought it on themselves, read Podesta e-mails) or an 'allowed' move to maintain the pretense of real political options.

    The Repubs. could not turn up a convincing candidate (anyone with brains would avoid this situation like the plague, and the Rubio, Cruz type personas were just 'place holders') so the plan morphed into letting Trump win the nomination and lose the election to the neo-lib-con (HRC) faction. This plan was born out of arrogance, hubris, 'bubble' blindness and ignorance, and the supposed iron grip control of the MSM, aka 'the narrative.'

    Trump did much better than expected, went on doing so. CNN at first gave him a 1% chance of winning the nomination, what a laugh. Imho Trump played the MSM masterfully, but that is neither here nor there - the PTB were shocked to see their hold erode, they never imagined losing control of the 'opposition' or the discontents, aka the rabble, the compliant sheeples: many different strands: Greens, e.g. Stein, whose vicious tweets against HRC are something to behold, libertarians, BernieBros for 'social democracy' and free college, now turned to Cleaning Out the Swamp, law -n- order types, gun toters, Blacks for Trump, and on and on ..unimaginable.

    As no reasoned politically argued response was available, the PTB went into attack mode which completely backfired, as could readily be predicted. This is the post-Democracy Age (if it ever existed and the term 'democracy' is of course BS.)

    Trump appears to confusedly propose a way of dealing with the US loss of economic domination, of power and place on the World Stage: nationalistic retrenchment, "better deals", OK, plus "a stronger military," a double-pronged sword, not pacifist, on the face of it.

    Makes a kind of hopeful sense, and appeals greatly. HRC (she is just a propped up figure) in a corrupt circuit of PTB-NWO - the top 20% globalist class - has to push the agenda of the MIC, of Wall Street, Big Corps, Silicon Valley, etc. for personal position. Donors who give mega-cash get corp. and pol. favors, etc.

    Mina | Oct 27, 2016 12:09:36 PM | 135
    French MSM report as if it was the most natural thing in the world that Erdogan made a speech to say he intends to get back Manbij from the Kurds and participate in getting back Northern Syria, in cooperation with the US.
    If the Turks enter that far, there is no doubt it will lead to a wider war ... Could that be the reason Hollande is so sure of being reelected in May?
    5 dancing shlomos | Oct 27, 2016 12:32:21 PM | 136
    stopped going to VT several years ago during their grand support of the slaughter of Libya. duff wrote I was posting from tel aviv.
    have to be careful with vt. what is a lie and what is decent.

    trump is hated/feared by repubs/dems, the establishment, wall st, the crooks, cronies, pedophiles, liars, warmongers, creepers in the dark, rich beggars with hands out, culture-destroyers.

    supporting legal immigration is sound national policy as is not wanting to fight wars for jewry. supporting soc sec and medicare and spending tax dollars on repairing infrastructure in America not Israel is also sound.

    i support trump.

    Piotr Berman | Oct 27, 2016 12:57:36 PM | 137
    My take is similar to rufus magister, namely that Trump (a) talks a lot of nonsense, but unlike a disciplined robot like Marco Rubio, he is eclectic and mixes that nonsense with surprisingly reasonable statements.

    Many attacks on Trump almost convince me that he is the best candidate out there. But his own web site is much less convincing, and his personal appearances may be outright scary.

    On domestic issues, he more or less follows all bad aspects of GOP model. His trade policy ideas are so unworkable that nothing will come out of them. Not that I disagree that there is too much of "free trade", but like with any complex system, it is much easier to make it worse that to make it better.

    Back to Trump as an architect of new, improved foreign policy. Here the room for improvement is much more clear, because so much of the current policy is to effectively do little shits here and there, and to sell more arms than before, so totally ineffective policy would be a plus. It does not even need to be particularly consistent etc. But "greedy merchant" mentality exhibited by Trump in many quotes, like "take their oil", "those allies do not pay their dues", and "why did we give [returned!!!] money to Iran", make me genuinely worried that he would continue selling weapons to Gulfies and help them bombing Yemen and smuggling weapons to Syria: if they pay us that this is OK. Secondly, he was abjectly pandering to AIPAC. Thirdly, some mad statements about decisive direct intervention and using torture. The only change that I would be sure under Trump presidency is that CIA would be out of the loop, or at least, much less visible than now. And he would probably stop pressing EU to maintain and expand sanctions on Russia. But he would restore sanctions on Iran??

    In other words, a mixed bag at best on foreign policy, probably ineffectual nonsense on trade policy and very retrograde changes in domestic policy. To name the few, green light to all possible abortion restriction, if not outlawing the abortion by SCOTUS, advocacy of police brutality, regressive taxation, letting people with chronic diseases die as uninsurable etc. So one has to consider how scary HRC is.

    My estimate is that she would be basically Obama with inferior rhetoric. Leaked e-mails show that her decision making is quite deliberative, and the circle of opinions that are included not particularly insular. It is too neocon to my liking, and "Obama as is" happened to be much less appealing than "Obama before elected". Since there is no consensus to attack the Russians, she would not hammer it through.

    Thus one can reasonably hope that HRC will be relatively harmless. And it is not even clear that Russia is harmed by sanctions. They restrict somewhat the access to goods and financial services, but during cheap oil, the top issues for Russia is import substitution, development of domestic production, and curtailing the capital flight. Good access to financial services can be quite detrimental to a country, as we can study on the example of Greece: joining Eurozone vastly improved the access to the financial markets and enabled to borrow much more that prudent. As Russia remains a net exporter by a quite large margin, keeping money at home is much more important than access to credit.

    That said, a reasonable hope does not exactly dispel the fears described above. Moreover, it is predicated on the lack of "imperialist/neo-con consensus", and wobbly results of the elections would help. Thus, everybody here who can vote should vote as she/he damn pleases. If you do not like Clinton, I would suggest Stein, because she actually spells out a coherent and sensible position, and not patches of senses and horror, so this is Trump's policy and this is Stein's policy.

    somebody | Oct 27, 2016 1:54:09 PM | 138
    Posted by: Working Class Nero | Oct 27, 2016 4:21:36 AM | 122

    Yeah, in Germany this is called "querfront" strategy. Problem is that fascism is a captialist scam for authoritarian rule.

    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 27, 2016 1:56:17 PM | 139
    Over at ZeroHedge a headline reads:

    Putin Asks: "Is America Now A Banana Republic"

    Politically yep, 'fraid so.

    somebody | Oct 27, 2016 2:13:19 PM | 140
    Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 27, 2016 12:57:36 PM | 137

    Actually, for breaking up the two party system I would probably vote the libertarian ticket.

    [Oct 27, 2016] Krugman on Trump TV and the Future of Right-Wing Media (Video)

    Oct 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Tuesday, October 25, 2016

    Krugman on Trump TV and the Future of Right-Wing Media (Video)

    Posted by Mark Thoma on Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 04:01 PM in Economics , Video | Permalink Comments (23)
    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post. JohnH : , October 25, 2016 at 04:19 PM

    I thought I'd never say this, but Glenn Beck gave a very thoughtful interview with Charley Rose last night. He raised a lot of issues that the other Glenn (Glenn Greenwald) has been raising--the moral bankruptcy of each political party and the tendency of each to attack the other for things that they themselves would deny, excuse, and say that it doesn't
    matter when their own party does it.

    Glenn is not supporting Trump. But he gives the example of the many Republicans who viciously attacked Bill Clinton for his sexual behavior but now deny, excuse and say that it doesn't matter when Trump does it.

    The flip side, of course, is found with the many Democrats who viciously attack Trump but denied, excused, and said that it didn't matter when Bill Clinton did it.

    Glenn says that to restore trust with the American people, both parties need to clean their houses and become parties that put laws and principles first, which implies criticizing their own instead of shielding them when
    they misbehave.

    reason -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 12:01 AM
    The big difference with Trump is that he is the guy in the glass house throwing stones.
    Kenneth Almquist -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 12:36 AM
    This sounds like another attempt to claim the two parties are equivalent. Your claim that "many Democrats...viciously attack Trump but denied, excused, and said that it didn't matter when Bill Clinton did it," would be a bit more credible if you actually named a few of the alleged "many Democrats."

    Most of the attacks on Trump are the result of Trump boasting about sexually assaulting women, which Clinton has not done. In any case, to claim that the Democratic party needs to "clean its house" you need evidence that there is a problem today, not merely one two decades ago when Bill Clinton was in office.

    JohnH -> Kenneth Almquist... , October 26, 2016 at 08:34 AM
    Thanks for providing a great example of a Democrat trying to deny, explain away, and say that Bill Clinton's behavior in the 1990s didn't matter!

    Of course, Bill Clinton's radical deregulation of the 1990s (ending Glass-Steagall, commodities deregulation, etc.) and ending welfare as we knew it doesn't matter either...because it was done by a Democrat.

    Nor did his attack on Serbia, which set the precedent for the pointless and futile war in Iraq. It's OK when Democrats wage war, as long as it's papered over with claims of 'humanitarian bombing.'

    And Barack Obama's refusal to prosecute bankers and torturers doesn't matter, though Democrats would have cried 'bloody murder' if a Republican had behaved this way. Nor does his embrace of NSA spying really matter. Nor his proposed cuts to Social Security and social programs in general...because his is a Democrat.

    This is why economic elites love to have Democrats in power...because they can push through horrible reforms...and rest confident that many of the party faithful will deny, excuse, and even claim that it didn't matter...because a Democrat did it.

    Chris Lowery -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 09:57 AM
    John, speaking only for myself, the defense of Bill Clinton in the 1990's had nothing to do with excusing his atrocious behavior -- it had to do with the opposition engaging in a witch hunt to destroy a sitting president. and exploiting the vehicle of a special prosecutor's authority, granted to look into entirely different and unrelated matters, to do so. This was a gross misuse of official power. Clinton's mistake was in refusing to answer questions unrelated to the authorized inquiry.

    As to the other items on your list of objections to Bill Clinton's actions, a few I'd agree with, and others I'd disagree with; but they are all unrelated to the issue of equivalence that you and Beck raise.

    JohnH -> Chris Lowery ... , October 26, 2016 at 01:36 PM
    I'd agree that Democrats never organized a witch hunt against any sitting Republican since Nixon.

    Problem is, they never organized a serious opposition either, and readily bought into the opposition's tax cuts, budget cuts, and pointless and futile wars.

    If Democrats won't organize a serious opposition to the likes of Cheney/Bush43, how can you take them seriously as an opposition party?

    IMO Democrats are just Republicans-lite...

    JohnH -> Kenneth Almquist... , October 26, 2016 at 09:23 AM
    Kenneth Almquist claims that Bill Clinton never assaulted anyone, which provides yet more evidence of a Democratic denial of charges against their guy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick

    Did Juanita Brodderick's name ever register among the Democratic faithful, staunch defenders of Bill Clinton, right or wrong?

    Brodderick's claim of rape was met with the typical denial and disbelief, which is still commonplace today...particularly when rape might have been done by someone rich or powerful...

    DeDude -> Kenneth Almquist... , October 26, 2016 at 06:49 PM
    Yes the big difference is that Clinton never ran around and said that sexual assault is OK, and he could get away with it. He was accused but never convicted of sexual assaults. You don't condemn a person for being accused of something. The only actual sex was consensual sex with a young woman.
    pgl : , October 25, 2016 at 05:49 PM
    Unlike JohnH - I actually bother to listen to the link our host provided. Krugman makes 3 claims:

    (1) Breitbart does not need the Donald.

    (2) Breitbart appeals to the racist crazies in our nation.

    (3) Faux News will try to survive by becoming less establishment Republican and more like Breitbart - a bunch of Tea Party racists.

    I have no crystal ball but this sounds about right.

    cm -> pgl... , October 25, 2016 at 06:52 PM
    The for-profit media thrive and depend on controversy and generally content that is emotionally engaging. Racism is only a small part of it, it is much more broadly appealing - it is essentially "addressing", channeling, amplifying, and redirecting existing grievances of a large part of the public. If economy and society would be doing great and a large majority of people would be happy/contented, these anger-based media formats wouldn't find an audience.

    The same underlying causes as the success of Trump. The reason why he can maintain considerable success despite of grave shortcomings is because he continues to be a channel for the anger that is not disappearing. (With the support of the media, who are also interested in an ongoing controversy with details as scandalous as possible.)

    EMichael -> cm... , October 26, 2016 at 07:48 AM
    I disagree.

    This "anger that is not disappearing" has been based on racism for decades. None of these Trump supporters are newly minted Rep voters; they have voted Rep their entire lives.

    This is not so new group based on outrage over the problems of our "rigged system", this is the base that has voted consistently against their economic well being for decades.

    EMichael -> EMichael... , October 26, 2016 at 09:01 AM
    AS in,

    "But holy hell, Republicans still refuse to be convinced.

    According to a new NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll, seventy-two percent of registered Republicans "still doubt" the President's place of birth. Forty-one percent outright disagreed with the statement, "Barack Obama was born in the United States," while only twenty-seven percent of Republicans agree.

    As NBC News blatantly states in the poll's findings, "Only slightly more than one in four Republican voters agreed that the president was born in the United States."

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-poll-shows-that-41-of-republicans-still-dont-think-obama-was-born-in-the-u-s/

    Let me know when you can come up with a reason that this kind of thought process is not dictated by racism.

    DeDude -> cm... , October 26, 2016 at 06:36 PM
    The main area where Faux needs to make a decision, is how far it will move with the GOP base on closed borders. The interest of the corporates is for open borders, whereas the xenophobe GOP base is strongly against. If Faux decide to remain on the corporates side of that issue, a Trump/Breibart media would have a chance. The GOP will face the same choice, but there is no way they split from the corporates that owns them. So the question is whether Faux will split with GOP on the issues that divide the GOP corporates from the GOP base. Their business office would say yes (hold on to the viewers), but they are not just a business.
    JohnH -> pgl... , October 25, 2016 at 09:31 PM
    I'd love to know exactly how pgl 'read' the video that our host provided...transcript please!

    The left needs media that
    1) Does not need Hillary
    2) Does not engage in cold war fearmongering
    3) Becomes less establishment and more progressive.

    Will Krugman talk about that?

    BTW Here's an address on inequality by Stiglitz, given two weeks ago. When was the last time that Krugman, whose day job at CUNY is allegedly about studying inequality, even talked about the subject?

    pgl -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 01:18 AM
    Read??? Try "listen". Lord - you can't read.
    anne -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 07:06 AM
    "Here's an address on inequality by Stiglitz, given two weeks ago...."

    Which would be the address in question?

    https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/press

    Interviews with and Articles about Professor Stiglitz
    2016

    forgotten ghost of American protectionism : , October 25, 2016 at 06:44 PM
    The trade deficit will continue to explode; the US will lose most of its remaining industrial base over the next few years and the population of new poor and unemployed will grow sharply. Trump will be in a strong position to say "I told you so" and pick up the pieces of our broken society in 2020. You can't destroy the livelihood of 150-300 million people without some kind of political movement emerging to restore the economy to its industrial age prosperity.
    reason -> forgotten ghost of American protectionism... , -1
    Where does 150-300 million people come from? And why aren't you looking at what is happening in finance which is just as important in driving the demise of US industry (an overvalued currency is exactly the same as a cut in tariffs).

    [Oct 27, 2016] Hillary Clinton's infrastructure investment plans are too small as she Wall Street stooge

    Oct 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : October 26, 2016 at 08:20 AM , Hillary Clinton's infrastructure investment plans are too small as she Wall Street stooge

    Sanjait and PGL tell us that Hillary plans about $1.65 trillion in additional spending over the next ten years.

    Wow that sounds like a lot! No wonder conservative web sites are all up in arms about the new spending. (No doubt they're trying to fan the flames of their already enflamed readers.)

    Alan Blinder is a smart economist. He says otherwise:

    "Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.

    "She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small enough for the Fed practically to ignore it.""

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-25/fed-inclined-to-raise-rates-if-next-president-pumps-up-budget

    But PGL bashed Bernie Sanders supporters and supported centrist Clinton during the primary. What gives?

    Why is he lying about her fiscal plans now?

    And what about Hillary's endorsement of the centrist view that we are not allowed to discuss the Fed during a Presidential election. The deplorable voters aren't to be trusted (when the experts like PGL and Bobby Rubin did such a fine job with the housing bubble and financial crisis).

    As the Blinder quote shows, Fed policy is very important especially if it can "brush off" fiscal policy's effects on employment levels and aggregate demand.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , -1
    Larry Summers and Krugman argue that Hillary Clinton's infrastructure investment plans are "substantially" too small. And they supported her!

    Krugman went so far as to lie about Sanders and his supporters. Summers called them populist authoritarians.

    And yet PGL just outright ignores what they have to say when he brown-noses them on every other occasion.

    We know Sanjait is a centrist at heart the way he bad-mouths Dean Baker on a regular basis.

    [Oct 27, 2016] Eleven days before election,: the overview of political situation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Societies Under Siege is a sophisticated account of how, and why, economic sanctions applied in recent years to South Africa, Iraq and Myanmar affected the politics of those three countries without achieving the goals that the Western politicians which dictated them intended ..."
    "... Precisely… The whole idea that "this is not the time for reform" Is complete crap. If these people are the best we've got, we are screwed. ..."
    "... I do not believe "revolutions purity" means much more than continued bribes for access and favors for the Clinton Foundation, or its members. Or does it mean "clean money"? ..."
    "... or they could create a character like Emmanuel Goldstein. they've sort of overlaid him on trump, but virtual reality is the bestest. ..."
    "... I voted the straight republican ticket. If HRC wins I want her to get impeached immediately. Prior to this election, I never voted for any Republican. ..."
    "... I voted for NO incumbents …. If that meant voting for Republican candidates ..well then, so be it … ..."
    "... A good reason to vote for Stein is that if she gets 5+% of the vote, the Greens could get federal matching funds in 2020. We have to have more choices than the Republicrats! ..."
    "... And would that mean that the Greens would start acting like a real political party? Instead of the ecology club for misfits? ..."
    "... Forget the Easter Bunny. She can't win. But that's not the point, is it? The point is to send a multi-part message: (1) You're disgusted with the two big parties and (2) presumptive winner H had better keep looking over her left shoulder, because you are out there. ..."
    "... Honestly, this is one of the best explanations of people voting against Hillary I have seen. Well worth the read. (I give it an A+ FWIW) jacobinmag.com ..."
    "... Another must-read from Jacobin: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/haiti-clinton-guantanamo-hiv-aristide-constant/ I wasn't aware of this terrible chapter. Anyone who cares about Haiti should shun the Clintons. ..."
    "... The fact that the Haitians seem to be so unanimously against them (in my observations) should be a clear WARNING to voters regarding their foreign affairs and personal character… Alas, so should so much of the other evidence. ..."
    "... I wonder if Hillary will out herself as a Republican after the election… "No more hiding my private positions in a closet for me." ..."
    "... These aren't health, labor and consumer groups - these are simply anti-American and anti-worker swine! No parsing about the TPP, it is a solid crapfest of which no portion should be passed, and any group which claims otherwise should be deported! ..."
    "... Like it or not, only change candidate, now and for the foreseeable future, is trump. On the plus side, we avoid emptying out the Ibm silos. And maybe, just maybe, he really gets bills passed for infrastructure spending. Best of all, dems might actually move left. ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Lambert Strether

    Corruption

    "As a longtime Bill Clinton adviser came under fire several years ago for alleged conflicts of interest involving a private consulting firm and the Clinton Foundation, he mounted an audacious defense: Bill Clinton's doing it, too" [ Politico ].

    "The unusual and brash rejoinder from veteran Clinton aide and Teneo Consulting co-founder Doug Band is scattered across the thousands of hacked emails published by WikiLeaks, but a memo released Wednesday provides the most detailed look to date at the intertwined worlds of nonprofit, for-profit, official and political activities involving Clinton and many of his top aides.

    The memo at one point refers bluntly to the money-making part of Clinton's life as 'Bill Clinton Inc.' and notes that in at least one case a company - global education firm Laureate International Universities - began paying Clinton personally after first being a donor to the Clinton Foundation.

    I think it's important for young women and girls to see that a corrupt dynasty can occupy the White House a second time.

    "Inside 'Bill Clinton Inc.': Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income" [ WaPo ]. Gives "intersectionality" a new twist, eh? Rather a lot of detail in this; well worth a read.

    War Drums

    "Societies Under Siege is a sophisticated account of how, and why, economic sanctions applied in recent years to South Africa, Iraq and Myanmar affected the politics of those three countries without achieving the goals that the Western politicians which dictated them intended" [ Asian Affairs ].

    The Voters

    "Goldman Sachs: Election Won't End Like Brexit" [Barrons, via Across the Curve ]. "We think that the upcoming U.S. election won't end up as another Brexit-styled surprise for for two reasons."

    First, and most importantly, whole both situations represented an opportunity for voters to endorse a change in the status quo, voters in the UK were asked to decide on an idea whereas in the US they are being asked to decide on a person. The distinction is illustrated in US polling by the difference between the small share of Americans who believe the country is moving in the right direction (29%) and majority who approve of the job President Obama is doing (52%).

    Second. While the polls conducted on the eve of the referendum vote showed "remain" with a 4.6pp lead, in contrast to the 3.8pp actual vote margin in favor of "leave", an average of polls published by the Economist magazine the day before the election showed a tied race, and showed "leave" leading for much of the prior month. As much as 10% of the public in many of these surveys was also undecided. By contrast, Sec. Clinton has led the average of presidential polls consistently for more than a year, with the exception of one week in late July following the Republican convention, and for most of the last year her lead has been substantial, averaging 4pp since the last primary elections were held.

    Includes a wrap-up of polling methodologies as well.

    "Laboratories of change" [Tim Canova, Medium ]. Florida referendum proposals. Interesting!

    Downballot

    "Less than two weeks from Election Day, Democrats are on track to pick up between 10 and 20 House seats, a slight uptick in their fortunes, but still well short of the 30 seats they need for the majority. Low enthusiasm for the top of the GOP ticket remains a concern for down-ballot Republicans, but Trump isn't as much of a drag outside of well-educated suburbs, which could limit Democrats' gains" [ Cook Political Report ].

    The Trail

    "Win or lose, the Republican candidate and his inner circle have built a direct marketing operation that could power a TV network-or finish off the GOP" [ Bloomberg ]. And Trump controls a lot of data. Fascinating article. Son of Berlusconi?

    "Texas: Trump 45%, Clinton 42%, Johnson 7% (UT/Texas Tribune); Texas: Trump 45%, Clinton 38%, Johnson 7% (Austin American Statesman); Florida: Clinton 43%, Trump 39%, Johnson 6% (University of North Florida); Pennsylvania: Clinton 46%, Trump 39% (NYT/Siena)" [ Political Wire ]. FWIW!

    UPDATE "20 percent of Florida voters have already cast their ballots" [ McClatchy ]. The breathless coverage of early voting, and its "historic levels," is making me crazy. Early voting seems like a terrible idea to me. For some large percent of the population, it renders the last part of the race irrelevant, incentivizing earlier "surprises." The real answer is to make Election Day a national holiday. Why the heck not?

    Realignment

    "For decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been making steady gains among upper income whites and whites with college and postgraduate degrees. This year, however, is the first time in at least six decades that the Democratic nominee is positioned to win a majority of these upscale voters" [ New York Times ]. "What these figures suggest is that the 2016 election will represent a complete inversion of the New Deal order among white voters. From the 1930s into the 1980s and early 1990s, majorities of downscale whites voted Democratic and upscale whites voted Republican. Now, looking at combined male and female vote totals, the opposite is true."

    "Elizabeth Warren, the Democrats' Madame Defarge, and Bernie Sanders, winner of 22 millennial-fueled primaries, are going to guarantee the revolution's purity in any Clinton presidency" [ Wall Street Journal , "The Warren-Sanders Presidency"]. "For starters, they have a list. Politico reported in early September that Sen. Warren and progressive policy groups such as the Roosevelt Institute are 'developing a hit list of the types of people they'll oppose-what one source called 'hell no' appointments-in a Clinton administration. '" Well, we can but hope that the Roosevelt Institute has improved since 2011 . Readers?

    Democrat Email Hairball

    UPDATE "Podesta tops Clinton's short list for chief of staff" [ Politico ]. "Podesta, the architect of President Barack Obama's climate initiatives, is also rumored to be interested in a potential Cabinet post, such as energy secretary. But that road would require Senate confirmation, which could be an opening for hearings on the WikiLeaks release of his hacked email - in total, the site plans to release 50,000 emails revealing behind-the-scenes dealmaking going back 10 years."

    ... ... ...

    Our Famously Free Press

    "Facebook's Trending Algorithm Can't Stop Fake News, Computer Scientists Say" [ Buzzfeed ].

    By scaling internationally, Facebook is creating a situation whereby future Trending failures will potentially occur at a scale unheard of in the history of human communication. Fake stories and other dubious content could reach far more people faster than ever before.

    For Trending to become a reliable, global product, it will need to account for the biases, bad actors, and other challenges that are endemic to Facebook and the news media. Put another way, in order to succeed, the Trending algorithm needs to be better than the very platform that spawned it. That's because fake news is already polluting the platform's News Feed organically. A recent BuzzFeed News analysis of giant hyperpartisan Facebook pages found that 38% of posts on conservative pages and 19% of posts on liberal pages featured false or misleading content

    Imperial Collapse Watch

    "Rise of the American Mercenary" [ The American Conservative ]. " [T]he rise of the contractor to wage America's military operations is Obama's silent national-security legacy, with more dead contractors on his watch (1,540 as of March) and little or no transparency about who these contractors are and what they do. [Foreign Policy writer Micah Zenko] scoffed at Obama's insistence that he has pursued a 'fight U.S. footprint' across these lonflict zones. "Were it not for these contractors, Obama's 'light footprint' would suddenly be two or three times as large,' Zenko wrote."

    Gaia

    " Globalization has greased the slippery slope from factory to landfill by enabling the global distribution of defective parts. Whether they are pirated, designed to fail or just the result of slipshod quality control, the flood of defective parts guarantee that the entire assembly they are installed in–stoves, vacuum cleaners, transmissions, electronics, you name it–will soon fail and be shipped directly to the landfill, as repairing stuff is far costlier than buying a new replacement" [ Of Two Minds ].

    "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was slated to hold four days of public meetings, Oct. 18-21, focused on essentially one question: Is glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide, safe?" [ Alternet ]. "However, the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meetings were 'postponed,' just four days before they were suppose to meet, after intense lobbying by the agrichemical industry, including Monsanto."

    Guillotine Watch


    Class Warfare

    "Iowans on their wages: 'I'm not stupid or lazy. It's just not there'" [ Des Moines Register ].

    rich October 27, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    When CIA and NSA Workers Blow the Whistle, Congress Plays Deaf

    Do the committees that oversee the vast U.S. spying apparatus take intelligence community whistleblowers seriously?

    Do they earnestly investigate reports of waste, fraud, abuse, professional negligence, or crimes against the Constitution reported by employees or contractors working for agencies like the CIA or NSA?

    For the last 20 years, the answer has been a resounding "no."

    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/27/when-cia-and-nsa-workers-blow-the-whistle-congress-plays-deaf/

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 27, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    Did George really cut down that the cherry tree?

    Looking deeper, were our founding fathers without personal faults? Perhaps some were rude, with too much ego, didn't say acceptable nice things about many people, etc.

    But none tried to get into the White House (not sure it existed then) through a personal foundation.

    DJG October 27, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    What could possibly go wrong with the empire hiring Germanic mercenaries to patrol the borderlands?

    WJ October 27, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    Hahaha +100

    nippersdad October 27, 2016 at 2:23 pm

    Something else y'all might care to see; Nomi Prins' predictions for Wall Street during a Clinton Presidency: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nomi-prins/will-hillary-clintons-america-confront-wall-street_b_12673250.html

    shinola October 27, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    Great article – thanks for the link! A snippet:

    " So let's recap Hillary's America, past, present, and future. It's a land lacking in meaningful structural reform of the financial system, a place where the big banks have been, and will continue to be, coddled by the government. No CEO will be jailed, no matter how large the fines his bank is saddled with or how widespread the crimes it committed. Instead, he's likely to be invited to the inaugural ball in January. "

    Contains many other good observations; good enough that I hope Yves or Lambert consider it for tomorrow's Links or Water-cooler.

    Vatch October 27, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    "Elizabeth Warren, the Democrats' Madame Defarge, and Bernie Sanders, winner of 22 millennial-fueled primaries, are going to guarantee the revolution's purity in any Clinton presidency"

    I have serious doubts that Warren and Sanders will be able to veto any of Clinton's choices for office. I think we can expect to see plenty of clones of Eric Holder, Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, and Mary Jo White in a Clinton administration. Similarly, we'll clones of Donald Rumsfeld, Hank Paulson, and Alberto Gonzales in a Trump administration.

    We missed our chance during the Democratic primaries - the oligarchs saved themselves.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 27, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Then we'll mark them up good. Remember, campaign 2020 begins in November 9.

    polecat October 27, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    there won't BE a campaign in 2020 at the rate things are going --

    …at least not one that would matter to the 99%

    polecat October 27, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    …..and Warren & Sanders … they aren't going to achieve shit …..

    The time for either of them to stand on principle was THIS election …. not four years from now …

    it's all a pantomime --

    Roger Smith October 27, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    Precisely… The whole idea that "this is not the time for reform" Is complete crap. If these people are the best we've got, we are screwed.

    Synoia October 27, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    Elizabeth Warren, the Democrats' Madame Defarge, and Bernie Sanders, winner of 22 millennial-fueled primaries, are going to guarantee the revolution's purity in any Clinton presidency

    I do not believe "revolutions purity" means much more than continued bribes for access and favors for the Clinton Foundation, or its members. Or does it mean "clean money"?

    AnEducatedFool October 27, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    The only people that can stop Clinton in DC are Jason Chaffetz and Trey Gowdy. Sanders and Warren are going to play ball. They may hold up a nominee or two but Clinton is already working with Republicans to form a unity Cabinet. Sanders and Warren will have no clout if Clinton is able to bring on Republican and Democratic neo-cons/neo-liberals. Granted Warren is a politician now and has clearly embraced Clinton on the trail…too the point that I get sick when I see her. I really really really hope that Berniecrats primary her.

    JTMcPhee October 27, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    Even the Walloons can be brought to heel. Corporations rule, corruption triumphs, everyone has their price or vulnerability to one lever or another.

    Jolly good show, fellow humans!

    grizziz October 27, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    Guaranteeing the revolutions purity: As I recall, the presidential election is winner-takes-all and to quote Alec Baldwin from the movie Glengary-Glenross, "second place gets a set of steak knives."

    I suppose that in terms of leverage, it will depend on the outcome of the Senate races to see if Warren or Sanders will get committee chairmanships and thus be able to control legislation. If the Senate does not trun over, Warren and Sanders will be seen as weak.

    Link to Glengary-Glenross – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVQPY4LlbJ4

    Pat October 27, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    In truth it depends on the numbers AND how obstructionist the Republicans choose to be. Will the oligarchs demand that their most rewarded Senators support the usual suspects for confirmation even though they are Clinton nominees regardless of party OR will the Republicans need to continue obstructing the Dems for the base? If it is the former, you are right that the Progressive wing will have little say, the latter could mean that they have some bargaining power, especially if the Dems have the majority and it is embarassing to Clinton.

    Frankly I figure it will be the former for anything the oligarchs care about (which will be pretty much everything Warren cares about) and obstruction for everything else.

    craazyboy October 27, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    My greatest fear is that the next 4 years will be exactly the same as the last 6 months, including Trump is still running for prez and the media is idolizing Hillary to stop the Trump threat. The Deep State and oligarchs convince Congress they are "stronger together". WikiLeaks hacks the FBI and deletes the FBI copies of Hillary's e-mails. 'Course I could be wrong about that.

    jrs October 27, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    wow that is a scary thought. Hillary v Trump 2020. I think the Republican party might try to stop any Trump threat in the future, but it does a world of good for Hillary and the oligarchs.

    pretzelattack October 27, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    or they could create a character like Emmanuel Goldstein. they've sort of overlaid him on trump, but virtual reality is the bestest.

    Daryl October 27, 2016 at 4:15 pm

    It's been a long time since there has been a congressional group with enough solidarity to push things around like this, I have many doubts. (Well, except most of Congress regularly acting to do horrible things like the TPP).

    DJG October 27, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    I have been wondering if the Democrats are just holding Warren and Sanders out as bait. In a sense, they are bait to the voting public. In a sense, they are bait to see which politicians will be foolhardy enough to make a movement to join them. I suspect that they are being set up to be purged. I'm surprised that the WSJ was so temperate (maybe the editorial board is waiting for the elections). Why didn't WSJ signal better by calling him Bernie Robespierre and her the Charlotte Corday of the Democratic Party?

    Vatch October 27, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    they are bait to see which politicians will be foolhardy enough to make a movement to join them. I suspect that they are being set up to be purged.

    Ha! Yes, like Mao's "Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom" campaign.

    Yves Smith October 27, 2016 at 5:57 pm

    Warren has blocked two Obama appointments and that was before Sanders had a national name and an independent funding base.

    ekstase October 27, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    "Lambert: 2016 Days until: 11. That's only one more than ten days!"

    Wow! Gosh. I'd forgotten about that election thing. Here's another helpful countdown:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xpMUSUmSsX8

    EndOfTheWorld October 27, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    I voted the straight republican ticket. If HRC wins I want her to get impeached immediately. Prior to this election, I never voted for any Republican.

    Massinissa October 27, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    Im in a red state, so I think Im going to vote straight ticket Democrat (except not Hillary) just for that reason.

    polecat October 27, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    I voted for NO incumbents …. If that meant voting for Republican candidates ..well then, so be it …

    Carla October 27, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    A good reason to vote for Stein is that if she gets 5+% of the vote, the Greens could get federal matching funds in 2020. We have to have more choices than the Republicrats!

    Arizona Slim October 27, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    And would that mean that the Greens would start acting like a real political party? Instead of the ecology club for misfits?

    nippersdad October 27, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    You might look up the process for tabulating undervotes in your state. IIRC, those are pretty closely watched by the state parties.

    ChiGal in Carolina October 27, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    thanks, all I could find were old articles about how NC's straight-party ballot that excludes prez resulted in undervoting – assumed to be in error. but will keep looking. to be safe, guess I'll vote Stein.

    JeffC October 27, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Forget the Easter Bunny. She can't win. But that's not the point, is it? The point is to send a multi-part message: (1) You're disgusted with the two big parties and (2) presumptive winner H had better keep looking over her left shoulder, because you are out there.

    dk October 27, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    After the election, counties and states publish a canvass of the total number of ballots cast, and how many votes each candidate got. The sum of votes for candidates minus the vote total shows disengagement for that race. Political researchers and campaign strategists examine these numbers, and they work their way into future campaign strategies. PACs, lobbyist firms, and other donor-funded groups also consider these figures along with others to determine candidate viability.

    Here's one from NM 2012:
    http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Pages%20from%20ALLNMG12%20CAN%20STATEWIDE.pdf

    Total Voters: 786522
    Sum of all Presidential votes: 783757
    Difference: 2765 (~0.35%)

    But the NM Secretary of State's office did not publish total ballot numbers for 2014. The current trend is for counties and state to publish fewer and fewer details (and not just of elections). This is why state and county seats are important.

    ChiGal in Carolina October 27, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    Thank you, that is helpful.

    Waldenpond October 27, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    Imperial Collapse Watch…. increasingly used on the domestic front also. I don't believe the attack dogs used on the NoDAPL watchers were law enforcement.

    Democracy Now is covering the military ramp up today but it looks like that is police agencies (out of the area). Use of multiple MRAPs, sound cannon, armored truck, bulldozer.

    https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/791711237491023872

    rich October 27, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    An interview about Money Laundering
    By Golem XIV on October 27, 2016 in latest

    Here is a 9 minute interview I did recently for Real Media about Money Laundering and what happened to me when I wrote about it. It's an extract from a much longer and wide ranging interview.

    In case you're interested I wrote in more length about the incident in "Making the Truth Illegal – revisited"

    http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2016/10/interview-money-laundering/

    fresno dan October 27, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    'the UK lobbied the US not to prosecute UK banks'
    Well, the US doesn't prosecute US bank money launderers, so clean, clean money must be the most important factor in making an economy successful*

    * and by successful, I mean the 1% ever richer….

    DWD October 27, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    I may have missed it, but I did not see this link to Conner Kilpatrick in the Jacobin Magazine listed at this site.

    Honestly, this is one of the best explanations of people voting against Hillary I have seen. Well worth the read. (I give it an A+ FWIW) jacobinmag.com

    nycTerrierist October 27, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Another must-read from Jacobin: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/haiti-clinton-guantanamo-hiv-aristide-constant/ I wasn't aware of this terrible chapter. Anyone who cares about Haiti should shun the Clintons.

    Roger Smith October 27, 2016 at 4:32 pm

    The fact that the Haitians seem to be so unanimously against them (in my observations) should be a clear WARNING to voters regarding their foreign affairs and personal character… Alas, so should so much of the other evidence.

    john October 27, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    NPR reported the Clinton Foundation reported they distributed half of all HIV drugs globally. So what are the odds she'll really fix Obama/Affordable care? She's already sold us to the pharma's.

    Kurt Sperry October 27, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Depressing, but must read.

    dcblogger October 27, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    I wrote this more than a year ago, but it seems more relevant than ever. Waiting for the attack on Fort Sumter

    b. October 27, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    "Elizabeth Warren, the Democrats' Madame Defarge, and Bernie Sanders, winner of 22 millennial-fueled primaries, are going to guarantee the revolution's purity in any Clinton presidency"

    Here's a good example of somebody missing the point:
    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50066/why-bernie-sanders-matters/

    The four "reports" below are the trial balloons so far for the post-election counter-purity campaign to inoculate Clinton against her "supports". Beneath the BS, there is the same derogatory message, belittling and denying any Warren/Sanders agency under the new regime – at a point when it is not at all clear whether they actually have any, anyway.

    The hit pieces:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/10/26/in-the-coming-battle-between-elizabeth-warren-and-bernie-sanders-im-with-her/
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-is-prepared-to-be-a-liberal-thorn-in-clintons-side/2016/10/24/aaf6dd88-97eb-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren.html
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-warren-sanders-presidency-1477524314

    Bonus item – is Sanders going to run as D in 2018?

    Arizona Slim October 27, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Sanders went back to being an Independent. And, as far as his running for re-election to the Senate, my prediction is NO.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 27, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    I wonder if Hillary will out herself as a Republican after the election… "No more hiding my private positions in a closet for me."

    Synoia October 27, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    Belgium will ask the European Court of Justice to clarify the proposed investment court system,

    Hmm, I wonder if the Court will preserve it prerogative of being the Court of last resort? I also wonder about a constitutional challenge to ISDS in the US, based on Marbury V Madison.

    DJG October 27, 2016 at 4:59 pm

    Synoia: I have a feeling that the Walloons know that it will, which is why they are kicking the matter upstairs. The E C of J has overruled whole piles of national law, sending legislators scurrying.

    Vatch October 27, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    "Inside 'Bill Clinton Inc.': Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income" [WaPo].

    According to this article , as of 2012, the pension for ex U.S. Presidents is $199,700 per year, which explains why Bill Clinton needs so much money from other sources. He held that job for a full 8 years, and he gets less than $200,000 per year from the U.S. government! Some folks might think that a six figure pension like that should only be given to a person who has worked a full career of 30 to 40 years.

    Oops, another article says that the current pension is $205,700 - my bad. According to page 5, George W. Bush ($214,000) and Bill Clinton ($218,000) received more the statutory pension. There's no explanation as to why. Former Presidents also get office allowances.

    allan October 27, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    @Gaius_Publius:

    Note difference betw the ARMED Bundy standoffs in Oregon & Nevada vs. the unarmed standoff in North Dakota. Full media coverage vs Silence.

    And sure enough, currently no story on the front pages of the NYT or WaPo about either the encampment in ND
    or the occupation of the HRC campaign headquarters in Brooklyn.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 27, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    Thanks. Didn't know about the occupation of Hillary's campaign headquarters.

    sgt_doom October 27, 2016 at 6:44 pm

    TPP: "Health, labor and consumer groups are warning President Barack Obama to refrain from including a 12-year monopoly period for biological drugs in legislation to implement the TPP as a means for addressing congressional concerns over the pact. . .

    These aren't health, labor and consumer groups - these are simply anti-American and anti-worker swine! No parsing about the TPP, it is a solid crapfest of which no portion should be passed, and any group which claims otherwise should be deported!

    John k October 27, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    Obama McCain 2008… McCain possibly more belligerent, but Obama did smash Libya, now Yemen.
    Obama Romney 2012… Didn't matter who won. Identical policies.
    Clinton trump 2016… Clinton more of same, trump?

    People wanting change are waiting for an ideal changer. Not gonna happen. Bernie one such, but wouldn't get into the mud with opponent. Imagine she wins and runs again in 2020… Which of the 16 reps on the stage would be an improvement? Or imagine she retires for health, or is impeached… Look who she selected for veep… Might even be worse. And don't bleet the supremes… We know she's considering a rep Texan.

    Like it or not, only change candidate, now and for the foreseeable future, is trump. On the plus side, we avoid emptying out the Ibm silos. And maybe, just maybe, he really gets bills passed for infrastructure spending. Best of all, dems might actually move left.

    [Oct 26, 2016] Over-sampling issue in Podesta emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... The simplest explanation is usually best. All the indicators, especially the support of the donor class, elites of all kinds etc. points towards a Democratic victory, perhaps a very strong victory if the poll numbers last weekend translate into electoral college numbers. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.25.16 at 11:07 am ( 55 )

    I stopped by to check if my comment had cleared moderation. What follows is a more thorough examination (not my own, entirely) on Corey's point 1, and some data that may point towards a much narrower race than we're led to believe.

    The leaked emails from one Democratic super-pac, the over-sampling I cited at zerohedge (@13o) is part of a two-step process involving over-sampling of Democrats in polls combined with high frequency polling. The point being to encourage media to promote the idea that the race is already over. We saw quite a bit of this last weekend. Let's say the leaked emails are reliable.

    This suggests to me two things: first – the obvious, the race is much closer than the polls indicated, certainly the poll cited by Corey in the OP. Corey questioned the validity of this poll, at least obliquely. Second, at least one super-pac working with the campaign sees the need to depress Trump turn-out. The first point is the clearest and the most important – the polls, some at least, are intentionally tilted to support a 'Hillary wins easily' narrative. The second allows for some possibly useful speculation regarding the Clinton campaigns confidence in their own GOTV success.

    The simplest explanation is usually best. All the indicators, especially the support of the donor class, elites of all kinds etc. points towards a Democratic victory, perhaps a very strong victory if the poll numbers last weekend translate into electoral college numbers.

    That's a big if. I suggest Hillary continues to lead but by much smaller margins in key states. It's also useful to point out that Trump's support in traditionally GOP states may well be equally shaky.

    And that really is it from me on this topic barring a double digit swing to Hillary in the LA Times poll that has the race at dead even.

    Layman 10.25.16 at 11:31 am

    kidneystones:

    "The leaked emails from one Democratic super-pac, the over-sampling I cited at zerohedge (@13o) is part of a two-step process involving over-sampling of Democrats in polls combined with high frequency polling."

    Excellent analysis, only the email in question is eight years old. And it refers to a request for internal polling done by the campaign. And it suggests over-sampling of particular demographics so the campaign could better assess attitudes among those demographics.

    And this is a completely normal practice which has nothing to do with the polling carried out by independent third parties (e.g. Gallup, Ipsos, etc) for the purposes of gauging and reporting to the public the state of the race.

    And when pollsters to over-sample, the over-sampling is used for analysis but is not reflected in the top-line poll results.

    [Oct 25, 2016] Dean Baker: Rigged – How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer

    Notable quotes:
    "... Geithner's comments about his sacrifices in public service did not elicit any outcry from the media at the time because his perspective was widely shared. The implicit assumption is that the sort of person who is working at a high level government job could easily be earning a paycheck that is many times higher if they were employed elsewhere. In fact, this is often true. When he left his job as Treasury Secretary, Geithner took a position with a private equity company where his salary is likely several million dollars a year. ..."
    "... The CEOs who are paid tens of millions a year would like the public to think that the market is simply compensating them for their extraordinary skills. A more realistic story is that a broken corporate governance process gives corporate boards of directors - the people who largely determine CEO pay -little incentive to hold down pay. Directors are more closely tied to top management than to the shareholders they are supposed to represent, and their positions are lucrative, usually paying six figures for very part-time work. Directors are almost never voted out by shareholders for their lack of attention to the job or for incompetence. ..."
    "... We also have done little to foster medical travel. This could lead to enormous benefits to patients and the economy, since many high cost medical procedures can be performed at a fifth or even one-tenth the U.S. price in top quality medical facilities elsewhere in the world. In this context, it is not surprising that the median pay of physicians is over $250,000 a year and some areas of specialization earn close to twice this amount. In the case of physicians alone, if pay were reduced to West European-levels the savings would be close to $100 billion a year (@ 0.6 percent of GDP). ..."
    "... As a technical matter, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private bank. It is owned by the banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System in the New York District. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Yves here. We are delighted to feature an excerpt from Dean Baker's new book Rigged , which you can find at http://deanbaker.net/books/rigged.htm via either a free download or in hard copy for the cost of printing and shipping. The book argues that policy in five areas, macroeconomics, the financial sector, intellectual property, corporate governance, and protection for highly paid professionals, have all led to the upward distribution of income. The implication is that the yawning gap between the 0.1% and the 1% versus everyone else is not the result of virtue ("meritocracy") but preferential treatment, and inequality would be substantially reduced if these policies were reversed.

    I urge you to read his book in full and encourage your friends, colleagues, and family to do so as well.

    By Dean Baker, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

    Chapter 1: Introduction: Trading in myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). [1] After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt.

    In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. [2] Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. [3] Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return (Figure 1-1).

    So the United States, Japan, and the European Union should be running large trade surpluses, which is what an outflow of capital means. Rich countries like ours should be lending money to developing countries, providing them with the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure while they use their own resources to meet their people's basic needs.

    This wasn't just theory. That story accurately described much of the developing world, especially Asia, through the 1990s. Countries like Indonesia and Malaysia were experiencing rapid annual growth of 7.8 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively, even as they ran large trade deficits, just over 2 percent of GDP each year in Indonesia and almost 5 percent in Malaysia.

    These trade deficits probably were excessive, and a crisis of confidence hit East Asia and much of the developing world in the summer of 1997. The inflow of capital from rich countries slowed or reversed, making it impossible for the developing countries to sustain the fixed exchange rates most had at the time. One after another, they were forced to abandon their fixed exchange rates and turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help.

    Rather than promulgating policies that would allow developing countries to continue the textbook development path of growth driven by importing capital and running trade deficits, the IMF made debt repayment a top priority. The bailout, under the direction of the Clinton administration Treasury Department, required developing countries to switch to large trade surpluses (Radelet and Sachs 2000, O'Neil 1999).

    The countries of East Asia would be far richer today had they been allowed to continue on the growth path of the early and mid-1990s, when they had large trade deficits (Figure 1-2). Four of the five would be more than twice as rich, and the fifth, Vietnam, would be almost 50 percent richer. South Korea and Malaysia would have higher per capita incomes today than the United States.

    In the wake of the East Asia bailout, countries throughout the developing world decided they had to build up reserves of foreign exchange, primarily dollars, in order to avoid ever facing the same harsh bailout terms as the countries of East Asia. Building up reserves meant running large trade surpluses, and it is no coincidence that the U.S. trade deficit has exploded, rising from just over 1 percent of GDP in 1996 to almost 6 percent in 2005. The rise has coincided with the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs, roughly 20 percent of employment in the sector.

    There was no reason the textbook growth pattern of the 1990s could not have continued. It wasn't the laws of economics that forced developing countries to take a different path, it was the failed bailout and the international financial system. It would seem that the enemy of the world's poor is not Bernie Sanders but rather the engineers of our current globalization policies.

    There is a further point in this story that is generally missed: it is not only the volume of trade flows that is determined by policy, but also the content. A major push in recent trade deals has been to require stronger and longer patent and copyright protection. Paying the fees imposed by these terms, especially for prescription drugs, is a huge burden on the developing world. Bill Clinton would have much less need to fly around the world for the Clinton Foundation had he not inserted the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ) provisions in the World Trade Organization (WTO) that require developing countries to adopt U.S.-style patent protections. Generic drugs are almost always cheap -patent protection makes drugs expensive. The cancer and hepatitis drugs that sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year would sell for a few hundred dollars in a free market. Cheap drugs would be more widely available had the developed world not forced TRIPS on the developing world.

    Of course, we have to pay for the research to develop new drugs or any innovation. We also have to compensate creative workers who produce music, movies, and books. But there are efficient alternatives to patents and copyrights, and the efforts by the elites in the United States and other wealthy countries to impose these relics on the developing world is just a mechanism for redistributing income from the world's poor to Pfizer, Microsoft, and Disney. Stronger and longer patent and copyright protection is not a necessary feature of a 21 st century economy.

    In textbook trade theory, if a country has a larger trade surplus on payments for royalties and patent licensing fees, it will have a larger trade deficit in manufactured goods and other areas. The reason is that, in theory, the trade balance is fixed by national savings and investment, not by the ability of a country to export in a particular area. If the trade deficit is effectively fixed by these macroeconomic factors, then more exports in one area mean fewer exports in other areas. Put another way, income gains for Pfizer and Disney translate into lost jobs for workers in the steel and auto industries.

    The conventional story is that we lose manufacturing jobs to developing countries because they have hundreds of millions of people willing to do factory work at a fraction of the pay of manufacturing workers in the United States. This is true, but developing countries also have tens of millions of smart and ambitious people willing to work as doctors and lawyers in the United States at a fraction of the pay of the ones we have now.

    Gains from trade work the same with doctors and lawyers as they do with textiles and steel. Our consumers would save hundreds of billions a year if we could hire professionals from developing countries and pay them salaries that are substantially less than what we pay our professionals now. The reason we import manufactured goods and not doctors is that we have designed the rules of trade that way. We deliberately write trade pacts to make it as easy as possible for U.S. companies to set up manufacturing operations abroad and ship the products back to the United States, but we have done little or nothing to remove the obstacles that professionals from other countries face in trying to work in the United States. The reason is simple: doctors and lawyers have more political power than autoworkers. [4]

    In short, there is no truth to the story that the job loss and wage stagnation faced by manufacturing workers in the United States and other wealthy countries was a necessary price for reducing poverty in the developing world. [5] This is a fiction that is used to justify the upward redistribution of income in rich countries. After all, it is pretty selfish for rich country autoworkers and textile workers to begrudge hungry people in Africa and Asia and the means to secure food, clothing, and shelter.

    The other aspect of this story that deserves mention is the nature of the jobs to which our supposedly selfish workers feel entitled. The manufacturing jobs that are being lost to the developing world pay in the range of $15 to $30 an hour, with the vast majority closer to the bottom figure than the top. The average hourly wage for production and nonsupervisory workers in manufacturing in 2015 was just under $20 an hour, or about $40,000 a year. While a person earning $40,000 is doing much better than a subsistence farmer in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is difficult to see this worker as especially privileged.

    By contrast, many of the people remarking on the narrow-mindedness and sense of entitlement of manufacturing workers earn comfortable six-figure salaries. Senior writers and editors at network news shows or at the New York Times and Washington Post feel entitled to their pay because they feel they have the education and skills to be successful in a rapidly changing global economy.

    These are the sort of people who consider it a sacrifice to work at a high-level government job for $150,000 to $200,000 a year. For example, Timothy Geithner, President Obama's first treasury secretary, often boasts about his choice to work for various government agencies rather than earn big bucks in the private sector. His sacrifice included a stint as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York that paid $415,000 a year. [6] This level of pay put Geithner well into the top 1 percent of wage earners.

    Geithner's comments about his sacrifices in public service did not elicit any outcry from the media at the time because his perspective was widely shared. The implicit assumption is that the sort of person who is working at a high level government job could easily be earning a paycheck that is many times higher if they were employed elsewhere. In fact, this is often true. When he left his job as Treasury Secretary, Geithner took a position with a private equity company where his salary is likely several million dollars a year.

    Not everyone who was complaining about entitled manufacturing workers was earning as much as Timothy Geithner, but it is a safe bet that the average critic was earning far more than the average manufacturing worker - and certainly far more than the average displaced manufacturing worker.

    Turning the Debate Right-Side Up: Markets Are Structured

    The perverse nature of the debate over a trade policy that would have the audacity to benefit workers in rich countries is a great example of how we accept as givens not just markets themselves but also the policies that structure markets. If we accept it as a fact of nature that poor countries cannot borrow from rich countries to finance their development, and that they can only export manufactured goods, then their growth will depend on displacing manufacturing workers in the United States and other rich countries.

    It is absurd to narrow the policy choices in this way, yet the centrists and conservatives who support the upward redistribution of the last four decades have been extremely successful in doing just that, and progressives have largely let them set the terms of the debate.

    Markets are never just given. Neither God nor nature hands us a worked-out set of rules determining the way property relations are defined, contracts are enforced, or macroeconomic policy is implemented. These matters are determined by policy choices. The elites have written these rules to redistribute income upward. Needless to say, they are not eager to have the rules rewritten which means they have no interest in even having them discussed.

    But for progressive change to succeed, these rules must be addressed. While modest tweaks to tax and transfer policies can ameliorate the harm done by a regressive market structure, their effect will be limited. The complaint of conservatives - that tampering with market outcomes leads to inefficiencies and unintended outcomes - is largely correct, even if they may exaggerate the size of the distortions from policy interventions. Rather than tinker with badly designed rules, it is far more important to rewrite the rules so that markets lead to progressive and productive outcomes in which the benefits of economic growth and improving technology are broadly shared

    This book examines five broad areas where the rules now in place tend to redistribute income upward and where alternative rules can lead to more equitable outcomes and a more efficient market:

    In each of these areas, it is possible to identify policy choices that have engineered the upward redistribution of the last four decades.

    In the case of macroeconomic policy, the United States and other wealthy countries have explicitly adopted policies that focus on maintaining low rates of inflation. Central banks are quick to raise interest rates at the first sign of rising inflation and sometimes even before. Higher interest rates slow inflation by reducing demand, thereby reducing job growth, and reduced job growth weakens workers' bargaining power and puts downward pressure on wages. In other words, the commitment to an anti-inflation policy is a commitment by the government, acting through central banks, to keep wages down. It should not be surprising that this policy has the effect of redistributing income upward.

    The changing structure of financial regulation and financial markets has also been an important factor in redistributing income upward. This is a case where an industry has undergone very rapid change as a result of technological innovation. Information technology has hugely reduced the cost of financial transactions and allowed for the development of an array of derivative instruments that would have been unimaginable four decades ago. Rather than modernizing regulation to ensure that these technologies allow the financial sector to better serve the productive economy, the United States and other countries have largely structured regulations to allow a tiny group of bankers and hedge fund and private equity fund managers to become incredibly rich.

    This changed structure of regulation over the last four decades was not "deregulation," as is often claimed. Almost no proponent of deregulation argued against the bailouts that saved Wall Street in the financial crisis or against the elimination of government deposit insurance that is an essential part of a stable banking system. Rather, they advocated a system in which the rules restricting their ability to profit were eliminated, while the insurance provided by the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and other arms of the government were left in place. The position of "deregulators" effectively amounted to arguing that they should not have to pay for the insurance they were receiving.

    The third area in which the rules have been written to ensure an upward redistribution is patent and copyright protection. Over the last four decades these protections have been made stronger and longer. In the case of both patent and copyright, the duration of the monopoly period has been extended. In addition, these monopolies have been applied to new areas. Patents can now be applied to life forms, business methods, and software. Copyrights have been extended to cover digitally produced material as well as the internet. Penalties for infringement have been increased and the United States has vigorously pursued their application in other countries through trade agreements and diplomatic pressure.

    Government-granted monopolies are not facts of nature, and there are alternative mechanisms for financing innovation and creative work. Direct government funding, as opposed to government granted monopolies, is one obvious alternative. For example, the government spends more than $30 billion a year on biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health - money that all parties agree is very well spent. There are also other possible mechanisms. It is likely that these alternatives are more efficient than the current patent and copyright system, in large part because they would be more market-oriented. And, they would likely lead to less upward redistribution than the current system.

    The CEOs who are paid tens of millions a year would like the public to think that the market is simply compensating them for their extraordinary skills. A more realistic story is that a broken corporate governance process gives corporate boards of directors - the people who largely determine CEO pay -little incentive to hold down pay. Directors are more closely tied to top management than to the shareholders they are supposed to represent, and their positions are lucrative, usually paying six figures for very part-time work. Directors are almost never voted out by shareholders for their lack of attention to the job or for incompetence.

    The market discipline that holds down the pay of ordinary workers does not apply to CEOs, since their friends determine their pay. And a director has little incentive to pick a fight with fellow directors or top management by asking a simple question like, "Can we get a CEO just as good for half the pay?" This privilege matters not just for CEOs; it has the spillover effect of raising the pay of other top managers in the corporate sector and putting upward pressure on the salaries of top management in universities, hospitals, private charities, and other nonprofits.

    Reformed corporate governance structures could empower shareholders to contain the pay of their top-level employees. Suppose directors could count on boosts in their own pay if they cut the pay of top management without hurting profitability, With this sort of policy change, CEOs and top management might start to experience some of the downward wage pressure that existing policies have made routine for typical workers.

    This is very much not a story of the natural workings of the market. Corporations are a legal entity created by the government, which also sets the rules of corporate governance. Current law includes a lengthy set of restrictions on corporate governance practices. It is easy to envision rules which would make it less likely that CEOs earn such outlandish paychecks by making it easier for shareholders to curb excessive pay.

    Finally, government policies strongly promote the upward redistribution of income for highly paid professionals by protecting them from competition. To protect physicians and specialists, we restrict the ability of nurse practitioners or physician assistants to perform tasks for which they are entirely competent. We require lawyers for work that paralegals are capable of completing. While trade agreements go far to remove any obstacle that might protect an autoworker in the United States from competition with a low-paid factory worker in Mexico or China, they do little or nothing to reduce the barriers that protect doctors, dentists, and lawyers from the same sort of competition. To practice medicine in the United States, it is still necessary to complete a residency program here, as though there were no other way for a person to become a competent doctor.

    We also have done little to foster medical travel. This could lead to enormous benefits to patients and the economy, since many high cost medical procedures can be performed at a fifth or even one-tenth the U.S. price in top quality medical facilities elsewhere in the world. In this context, it is not surprising that the median pay of physicians is over $250,000 a year and some areas of specialization earn close to twice this amount. In the case of physicians alone, if pay were reduced to West European-levels the savings would be close to $100 billion a year (@ 0.6 percent of GDP).

    Changing the rules in these five areas could reduce much and possibly all of the upward redistribution of the last four decades. But changing the rules does not mean using government intervention to curb the market. It means restructuring the market to produce different outcomes. The purpose of this book is to show how.

    [1] See also Weissman (2016), Iacono (2016), Worstall (2016), Lane (2016), and Zakaria (2016).

    [2] As explained in the next chapter, this view is not exactly correct, but it's what you're supposed to believe if you adhere to the mainstream economic view.

    [3] There can be modest changes in employment through a supply-side effect. If the trade deal increases the efficiency of the economy, then the marginal product of labor should rise, leading to a higher real wage, which in turn should induce some people to choose work over leisure. So the trade deal results in more people choosing to work, not an increased demand for labor.

    [4] For those worried about brain drain from developing countries, there is an easy fix. Economists like to talk about taxing the winners, in this case developing country professionals and rich country consumers, to compensate the losers, which would be the home countries of the migrating professionals. We could tax a portion of the professionals' pay to allow their home countries to train two or three professionals for every one that came to the United States. This is a classic win-win from trade.

    [5] The loss of manufacturing jobs also reduced the wages of less-educated workers (those without college degrees) more generally. The displaced manufacturing workers crowded into retail and other service sectors, putting downward pressure on wages there.

    [6] As a technical matter, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private bank. It is owned by the banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System in the New York District.

    fresno dan October 25, 2016 at 7:24 am

    "Markets are never just given. Neither God nor nature hands us a worked-out set of rules determining the way property relations are defined, contracts are enforced, or macroeconomic policy is implemented. These matters are determined by policy choices. The elites have written these rules to redistribute income upward. Needless to say, they are not eager to have the rules rewritten which means they have no interest in even having them discussed."

    ======================================================
    It is one of those remarkable hypocrisies that free "unregulated" trade requires deals of thousands of pages .
    but if these deals weren't so carefully structured to help the 1%, support would melt like snowmen in Fresno on a July day

    Kokuanani October 25, 2016 at 8:05 am

    Any other way to buy a paperback copy than via Amazon [which is where the link takes me]?

    I refuse to use them/it.

    JeffC October 25, 2016 at 9:15 am

    It's also at BarnesandNoble.com .

    Katharine October 25, 2016 at 11:15 am

    Or check your local indy, or one of those that take orders (I refrain from naming my favorite co-op in Chicago, and anyway I admit there are others). Nice to support those when you can.

    RickM October 25, 2016 at 10:55 am

    I downloaded the complete pdf directly from the link time to make a donation to the CEPR, I reckon.

    Vatch October 25, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    There's also this, which can help to find an independent bookseller in your area:

    http://www.indiebound.org/book/9780692793367

    Carolinian October 25, 2016 at 9:05 am

    Almost no proponent of deregulation argued against the bailouts that saved Wall Street in the financial crisis or against the elimination of government deposit insurance that is an essential part of a stable banking system.

    Actually I believe there were some Republicans who denounced the Wall Street bailout as a violation of capitalist principles. My state's Mark Sanford comes to mind. It was the Dems at the urging of Pelosi who saved the bailout. On the other hand many of my local politicians are big on "public/private" partnerships which would be a violation of laissez-faire that they approve. Perhaps it was simply that there are no giant banks headquartered in SC.

    The truth is there is no coherent intellectual basis to how the US economy is currently run. It's all about power and what you can do with it. Which is to say it is our politics, above all, that is broken.

    Sound of the Suburbs October 25, 2016 at 9:34 am

    "That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem.[2] Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment.[3] Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem."

    Unbelievable.

    By the 1920s they realised the system produced so much stuff that extensive advertising was needed to shift it all.

    One hundred year's later, we might take this on board.

    What is the global advertising budget?

    The amount necessary to shift all the crap the system produces today.

    Sound of the Suburbs October 25, 2016 at 9:45 am

    Demand has to be manufactured through advertising due to chronic over-supply.

    Sound of the Suburbs October 25, 2016 at 9:40 am

    We need to move on from Milton Freidman's ideas and discover what trade in a globalized world is really about.

    We are still under the influence of Milton Freidman's ideas of a globalised free trade world.

    These ideas came from Milton Freidman's imagination where he saw the ideal as small state, raw capitalism and thought the public sector should be sold off and entitlement programs whittled down until everything must be purchased through the private sector.

    "You are free to spend your money as you choose"

    Not mentioning its other meaning:

    "No money, no freedom"

    After Milton Freedman's "shock therapy" in Russia, people were left with so little money they couldn't afford to eat and starved to death. In Greece people cannot afford even bread today.

    But this is economic liberalism, the economy comes first.

    Milton Freidman used his imagination to work out what small state, raw capitalism looked like whereas he could have looked at it in reality through history books of the 18th and 19th centuries where it had already existed.

    The Classical Economists studied it and were able to see its problems first hand and noted the detrimental effects of the rentier class on the economy. They were constantly looking to get "unearned" income from doing nothing; sucking purchasing power out of the economy and bleeding it dry.

    Adam Smith observed:

    "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers."

    Adam Smith saw landlords, usurers (bankers) and Government taxes as equally parasitic, all raising the cost of doing business.

    He sees the lazy people at the top living off "unearned" income from their land and capital.

    He sees the trickle up of Capitalism:
    1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
    2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.

    He differentiates between "earned" and "unearned" income.

    Today we encourage a new rentier class of BTL landlords who look to extract the "earned" income of generation rent for "unearned" income. If you have a large BTL portfolio you can become a true rentier, do nothing productive at all and live off "unearned" income extracted from generation rent, the true capitalist parasite. (UK)

    The Classical Economists realised capitalism has two sides, the productive side where "earned" income is generated and the unproductive, parasitic, rentier side where "unearned" income is generated.

    You should tax "unearned" income to discourage the parasitic side of capitalism.
    You shouldn't tax "earned" income to encourage the productive side of capitalism.

    You should provide low cost housing, education and services to create a low cost of living, giving a low minimum wage making you globally competitive. This is to be funded by taxes on "unearned" income.

    The US has probably been the most successful in making its labour force internationally uncompetitive with soaring costs of housing, healthcare and student loan repayments.

    These all have to be covered by wages and US businesses are now squealing about the high minimum wage.

    That's Milton Freidman's imagined small state, raw capitalism.

    What he imagined bears little resemblance to the reality the Classical Economists saw firsthand.

    We need to move on from Milton Freidman fantasy land.

    Sound of the Suburbs October 25, 2016 at 9:42 am

    Milton Freidman fantasy land:

    Businesses should maximise profit.

    Small state, raw capitalism as observed by Adam Smith:

    "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."

    When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
    1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
    2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services

    In the 18th Century they would have understood today's problems with growth and demand.

    Luckily Jeff Bezos didn't inhabit Milton Freidman fantasy land.

    He re-invested almost everything to turn Amazon onto the global behemoth it is today.

    Jim Haygood October 25, 2016 at 9:47 am

    ' The commitment to an anti-inflation policy is a commitment by the government, acting through central banks, to keep wages down. '

    This is strikingly silly. Insert the word 'nominal' before wages, and it's not a howler anymore.

    Anti-inflation policy in fact has little influence on real wages (the variable of concern, not nominal wages). But it has a lot to do with preventing the social chaos of constantly rising prices, strikes for higher wages, inability of first-time home buyers to borrow at affordable rates, and so on.

    Inflationism is greasy kid stuff not to mention a brazen fraud on the public.

    Anonymous2 October 25, 2016 at 10:18 am

    As one who walked the corridors of power in a very modest capacity in my country in the early to mid 1990s, can I just say that people with power or influence then were aware that globalisation would create winners and losers. I recall the consensus of those I knew then was that steps would need to be taken to compensate the losers. The tragedy is that these steps were never taken, or, if they were, only to a wholly inadequate degree.

    Alejandro October 25, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    The always elusive referents for cost, price and value the flip-side of social chaos would seem the entropic degradation of wasted lives, excluded from participating {either-OR} abandoned as irredeemable

    Katharine October 25, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    Higher interest rates slow inflation by reducing demand, thereby reducing job growth, and reduced job growth weakens workers' bargaining power and puts downward pressure on wages.

    Your assertion that anti-inflation policy has little influence on real wages does not address Baker's statement about the mechanism by which he says it does. Given an argument between two people, one of whom cites a mechanism he is probably prepared to document with numbers and one of whom merely declares his belief, which are people more likely to trust? Granted always, they should go look for the numbers before they fully accept the statement, his credibility is currently higher than yours on this subject.

    Jim Haygood October 25, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Real wages roughly doubled from 1947 (when BLS data begins) through the late 1970s:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wages#/media/File:US_productivity_and_real_wages.jpg

    Over this same period, the nominal yield on 10-year Treasury notes rose from 2.5% to over 10%:

    https://staticseekingalpha.a.ssl.fastly.net/uploads/2010/3/29/saupload_10_yr_treasury_yields_25_.jpg

    By contrast, since the 1970s real wages stalled, while interest rates round-tripped back to 2 percent.

    Over nearly seven decades, the correlation is quite the opposite from that made up claimed by Dean Bonkers. Namely, real wages soared under a regime of steadily rising nominal interest rates.

    Numbers - they can be crunchy sometimes.

    Katharine October 25, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    Since my original reply has disappeared in limbo, I will merely note that numbers are probably even crunchier when you don't generalize across a span of decades: first there was A, then there was B, nothing else happened. It's a sure way to obscure patterns.

    And Jim, please quit the ad hominem stuff! It's ugly and needless. If you really have an argument you don't need it, and if you don't you don't gain by it. You know perfectly well he's not making things up and he's not bonkers. When you say stuff like that, the obvious presumption is that you just don't want to consider his arguments because they lead somewhere you don't want to go.

    Paul Art October 25, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Don't feed the troll

    Smell of Sulfur October 25, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    Perhaps I am missing the point being made, but if you are suggesting that increases in real wages in the 1945-1975 period caused inflation, why not provide the data on inflation which would in fact show that inflation was essentially tame for 20 years in this period (1952-1972, with a slight hiccup in 1969-1971), thereby contradicting your point? And if you are suggesting that Fed increases in interest rate have not resulted in suppression of wages you will have to demonstrate that using analysis that takes into account the lag in time between increase in rate and transmission to wages, and in that case would you not also use the Fed Funds Rate itself as a variable?

    sgt_doom October 25, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Bulltwacky, they have been globalizing wages downwards while globalizing housing prices upwards!

    Every time some stupid and moronic newsy floozy on one of the CorporateNonMedia outlets claims housing purchases may be going down because consumer confidence is plummeting, they CHOOSE to ignore the foreign buyers of said houses!

    It's all connected - it's all rigged . . . .

    Minnie Mouse October 25, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    Did I get this right? Full employment is an assumed boundary condition and so is fixed balance of trade? If the model is to work as advertised then the boundary conditions must be hard wired to be true, right?

    sgt_doom October 25, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    Dean hits it out of the park once again!

    Sounds like a great book on every level.

    If the top 25 hedge fund managers saved around $5 billion per year in being taxed on their income at capital gains rate (carried interest ruling in tax code - utterly corrupt), then think of the amount that is being robbed from the tax base when one considers ALL the hedge fund people, and ALL the private equity types (who also do this), a conservative amount of tax revenues remitted should be around $100 billion per year!

    Now that would go far . . .

    [Oct 25, 2016] Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!

    Oct 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Sandwichman : , October 24, 2016 at 09:50 AM
    Not to worry. The "Intelligence Community" (USIC) has it all figured out.
    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia.

    Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight

    Step three: ??

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , -1
    DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
    WASHINGTON, DC 20511

    October 07, 2016

    Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
    and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

    The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , -1
    is confident that... are consistent with...

    Wait just a damn minute.

    Why is the DNI telling THE RUSSIANS what the USIC suspects? Wouldn't that blunt the capability for taking counter measures? Unless... red herring?

    Look! Over there!

    likbez -> Sandwichman ... , -1
    Sandwinchment,

    First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc.

    This might be a sigh of complete disorganization of executive branch with intelligence agencies becoming a power players. Kind of "Deep State" morphing into "surface state".

    There are might be also multiple valid reasons for disclosing such a sensitive information:

    1. I want your money stupid Pinocchio.

    2. Smoke screen to hide their own nefarious activities and/or blunders within the USA. Actually existence of Hillary private server is somewhat incompatible with the existence of NSA.

    This is one thing when Podesta using gmail. It's quite another when the Secretary of state uses "bathroom server" with incompetent or semi-competent tech staff and completely clueless entourage.

    3. Pre-emptive strike reflecting some internal struggle within US Intelligence community itself with a neocon faction going "all in" to force the viewpoint, and more aggressive toward Russia stance, which might not be shared by others.

    Please note that CIA and DOD are fighting each other in Iraq and Syria to a certain extent.

    4. Increase Anti-Russian hysteria, which helps Hillary as a candidate of neocon establishment.

    5. Russians might recently uncover some nefarious activities (I heard FSB did discover compromised computers in some ministries) and this is the preparation for the blowback.

    There might be more. You never know.

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts....

    -- Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
    and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    [ "Consistent with the methods and motivations..." is a shocking supposition to be made public, but we have been subject to such suppositions, seemingly with increasing frequency, for these last 15 years. ]

    Sandwichman -> anne... , October 24, 2016 at 10:30 AM
    Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!

    Keith B. Alexander:"Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense."

    ...

    Senator Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

    DNI Clapper"No, sir."

    Senator Wyden: "It does not?"

    DNI Clapper:"Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

    The [IN]operative word there was "collect" which in NSAspeak does not mean... collect.

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/10/donald-loves-trikileaks.html

    DeDude -> anne... , -1
    Not shocking at all unless you are ignorant about tracing and analyzing hacks. The traces and approaches are like fingerprints. Nobody in the business have any doubts that the Russians did this - but they will never give you the details of how they got to that conclusion, because this is a public website and the hacking wars are like the missile wars, if the other side knows what you got they can counter it and make your job harder.
    likbez -> DeDude... , -1
    You might be a little bit naïve as for traces.

    The first rule of such activities on state level is to pretend that you are somebody else deliberately leaving false clues (IP space, keyboard layout, etc), everything that you call traces.

    Historically it was the USA that started cyberwar and who developed the most advanced capabilities in this space. Remember the worm which tried to subvert functionality of Iranian centrifuges electronics using specially designed malware and Trojans like Flame?

    So the first suspect should internal(kind of Snowden II), not external. There was also a story with an alternative viewpoint: http://www.amtvmedia.com/why-nsa-may-have-leaked-dnc-emails/

    There were also rumors about FOXACID - The NSA's hacking program getting into DNC hands. http://investmentwatchblog.com/warning-trump-fans-be-careful-possible-leaked-info-on-plans-to-attack-trump-supporters/

    Using botnets essentially gives anybody substantial freedom about what IP space you want to use. You can pretend to be Russian if you want to and use computers from Russian IP space.

    Sandwichman -> Sanjait... , -1
    More "paranoid claptrap" (or should that be Clappertrap?):

    Edward Snowden: "...the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back."

    Sanjait -> DrDick... , October 24, 2016 at 10:43 AM
    That's not untrue, but it seems to me to be getting worse.

    Or at least, we had been making progress, but now we are seeing a massive regression. There have always been racists and misogynists but they used to be hidden under rocks, and the GOP used to take pains to make their dog whistles to them subtle.

    Trump really has brought them out and given the gen a sense of validation and community.

    Though my working theory is that he merely hopped on to an existing trend, driven by the way digital media allows people to create their own comfortable ideological bubbles and find community for whatever spiteful, paranoid or asinine beliefs people have. This includes left and right, though pretty obviously the wingnuts on the right dominate their party and have more numbers and power.

    DrDick -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 10:51 AM
    Speaking as someone who grew up under segregation in Oklahoma in the 50s and 60s, it has been getting progressively worse since the 1980s (it did did significantly better from 1968- the early 80s). Nixon started this with his "Southern Strategy" and Reagan dialed it up with his "Welfare Queens" and "strapping young bucks." All Trump did was replace the dog whistles with a bullhorn.
    Peter K. -> DrDick... , October 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM
    But for the country as a whole we've had a black President re-elected, gay marriage and legalized pot.

    Could you imagine those things back in the 1950s and 1960s?

    And Bernie Sanders beat the spread and did very well for a self-proclaimed democratic socialist who engaged in "class war" talk.

    Hillary prefers the grow together "everybody wins" narrative we see in the hacked email and speeches.

    Peter K. -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 11:48 AM
    "That's not untrue, but it seems to me to be getting worse."

    Because of economic stagnation and anxiety among lower class Republicans.

    Trump blames immigration and trade unlike traditional elite Republicans. These are economic issues.

    Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt which is partly true.

    They've been backing Nixon, Reagan, Bush etc and things are just getting worse. They've been played.

    Granted it's complicated and partly they see their side as losing and so are doubling down on the conservatism, racism, sexism etc.

    But Trump *brags* that he was against the Iraq war. That's not an elite Republican opinion.

    likbez -> DrDick... , -1
    My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders.

    Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude.

    Looks like they have found were to go this election cycle and this loss of the base is probably was the biggest surprise for neoliberal Democrats.

    Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me.


    Some data suggest that among unions which endorsed Hillary 3 out of 4 members will vote against her. And that are data from union brass. Lower middle class might also demonstrate the same pattern this election cycle.

    In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh.

    We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise.

    That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks.

    [Oct 25, 2016] The Clinton Foundation contributed to the February coup in Ukraine, having longstanding ties to Ukrainian oligarchs who pushed the country to European integration.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman and ex-parliamentarian. ..."
    "... Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration. In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004. ..."
    "... Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk. ..."
    May 17, 2015 | sputniknews.com

    A sinister atmosphere surrounds the Clinton Foundation's role in Ukrainian military coup of February 2014, experts point out.

    It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman and ex-parliamentarian.

    Remarkably, among individual donors contributing to the Clinton Foundation in the period between 1999 and 2014, Ukrainian sponsors took first place in the list, providing the charity with almost $10 million and pushing England and Saudi Arabia to second and third places respectively.

    It is worth mentioning that the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation alone transferred at least $8.6 million to the Clinton charity between 2009 and 2013. Pinchuk, who acquired his fortune from a pipe-making business, served twice as a parliamentarian in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada and was married to the daughter of ex-president of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma.

    Although the Clinton's charity denies that the donations were somehow connected with political matters, experts doubt that international private sponsors received no political support in return. In 2008 Pinchuk pledged to make a five-year $29 million contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative in order to fund a program aimed at training future Ukrainian leaders and "modernizers." Remarkably, several alumni of these courses are current members of Ukrainian parliament. Because of the global financial crisis, the Pinchuk Foundation sent only $1.8 million.

    Experts note that during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Viktor Pinchuk was introduced to some influential American lobbyists. Curiously enough, he tried to use his powerful "friends" to pressure Ukraine's then-President Viktor Yanukovych to free Yulia Tymoshenko, who served a jail term.

    Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration. In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004.

    No one would argue that proponents of Ukraine's pro-Western course played the main role in organizing the coup of February 2014 in Kiev. Furthermore, the exceptional role of the United States in ousting then-president Viktor Yanukovich has also been recognized by political analysts, participants of Euromaidan and even by Barack Obama, the US President.

    Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk.

    So far, experts note, the recent "game of thrones" in Ukraine has been apparently instigated by a few powerful clans of the US and Ukraine, who are evidently benefitting from the ongoing turmoil. In this light the Clinton Foundation looks like something more than just a charity: in today's world of fraudulent oligopoly we are facing with global cronyism, experts point out, warning against its devastating consequences.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150323/1019905665.html#ixzz3YT3FykcI

    See also: US Intelligence Services Behind 2014 Ukraine Coup – EU Parliament Member

    [Oct 25, 2016] The two-party system is a political monopoly of the capitalist class. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are political instruments of big business. The claims of Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left apologists that it is possible to reform or pressure the Democrats-and even carry out a political revolution through it-have proven to be lies

    Notable quotes:
    "... This outcome has an objective character. The two-party system is a political monopoly of the capitalist class. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are political instruments of big business. The claims of Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left apologists that it is possible to reform or pressure the Democrats-and even carry out a "political revolution" through it-have proven to be lies ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    "The 2016 election campaign was dominated for many months by explosive popular disaffection with the whole political and corporate establishment. But it has concluded in a contest between two candidates who personify that establishment-one a billionaire from the criminal world of real-estate swindling, the other the consensus choice of the military-intelligence apparatus and Wall Street.

    This outcome has an objective character. The two-party system is a political monopoly of the capitalist class. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are political instruments of big business. The claims of Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left apologists that it is possible to reform or pressure the Democrats-and even carry out a "political revolution" through it-have proven to be lies."

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/28/pers-s28.html

    And of course….some warmonger gibberish from:

    [Oct 25, 2016] Welcome To The George Orwell Theme Park Of Democracy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Their grievances about a grift-maximized political economy were genuine, and Trump managed to make them look like a claque of sinister clowns. This cartoon of a rich kid with no internal boundaries was unable to articulate their legitimate complaints. His behavior during the so-called debates verged on psychotic. ..."
    "... The "tell" in these late stages of the campaign has been the demonization of Russia - a way more idiotic exercise than the McCarthyite Cold War hysteria of the early 1950s, since there is no longer any ideological conflict between us and all the evidence indicates that the current state of bad relations is America's fault, in particular our sponsorship of the state failure in Ukraine and our avid deployment of NATO forces in war games on Russia's border. Hillary has had the full force of the foreign affairs establishment behind her in this war-drum-banging effort, yet they have not been able to produce any evidence, for instance, in their claim that Russia is behind the Wikileaks hack of Hillary's email. They apparently subscribe to the Joseph Goebbels theory of propaganda: if you're going to lie, make sure it's a whopper, and then repeat it incessantly. ..."
    "... The media has been on-board with all this. The New York Times especially has acted as the hired amplifier for the establishment lies - such a difference from the same newspaper's role in the Vietnam War ruckus of yesteryear. Today (Monday) they ran an astounding editorial "explaining" the tactical necessity of Hillary's dishonesty: "In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools," The Times editorial board wrote. Oh, well, that's reassuring. Welcome to the George Orwell Theme Park of Democracy. ..."
    "... Of course neither Trump nor Hillary show any signs of understanding the real problems afflicting the USA. They don't recognize the basic energy equation that has made it impossible for industrial economies to keep growing, or the deformities in banking and finance that result from official efforts to overcome these implacable conditions, namely, the piling up of ever-greater debt to "solve" the problem of over-indebtedness. ..."
    "... Hillary would bring a more measured discredit to the system with the chance that our institutions might be rehabilitated - with the cherry-on-top being Hillary's eventual impeachment for lying, a fate that her husband and the late Richard Nixon both wiggled out of one way or another. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by James Howard Kunstler via kunstler.com

    It's getting hard to give a shit about this election, though you might still care about this country. The damage has been done to the two long-reigning political parties and perhaps that's a good thing. They deserved to be dragged into the gutter and now they can either go through a severe rehab or be replaced by as-yet-unformed coalitions of reality-based interests.

    Trump did a greater disservice all-in-all to the faction he supposedly represented. Their grievances about a grift-maximized political economy were genuine, and Trump managed to make them look like a claque of sinister clowns. This cartoon of a rich kid with no internal boundaries was unable to articulate their legitimate complaints. His behavior during the so-called debates verged on psychotic. If Trump loses, I will essay to guess that his followers' next step will be some kind of violence. For the moment, pathetic as it is, Trump was their last best hope.

    I'm more comfortable about Hillary - though I won't vote for her - because it will be salutary for the ruling establishment to unravel with her in charge of it. That way, the right people will be blamed for the mismanagement of our national affairs. This gang of elites needs to be circulated out of power the hard way, under the burden of their own obvious perfidy, with no one else to point their fingers at. Her election will sharpen awareness of the criminal conduct in our financial practices and the neglect of regulation that marked the eight years of Obama's appointees at the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    The "tell" in these late stages of the campaign has been the demonization of Russia - a way more idiotic exercise than the McCarthyite Cold War hysteria of the early 1950s, since there is no longer any ideological conflict between us and all the evidence indicates that the current state of bad relations is America's fault, in particular our sponsorship of the state failure in Ukraine and our avid deployment of NATO forces in war games on Russia's border. Hillary has had the full force of the foreign affairs establishment behind her in this war-drum-banging effort, yet they have not been able to produce any evidence, for instance, in their claim that Russia is behind the Wikileaks hack of Hillary's email. They apparently subscribe to the Joseph Goebbels theory of propaganda: if you're going to lie, make sure it's a whopper, and then repeat it incessantly.

    The media has been on-board with all this. The New York Times especially has acted as the hired amplifier for the establishment lies - such a difference from the same newspaper's role in the Vietnam War ruckus of yesteryear. Today (Monday) they ran an astounding editorial "explaining" the tactical necessity of Hillary's dishonesty: "In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools," The Times editorial board wrote. Oh, well, that's reassuring. Welcome to the George Orwell Theme Park of Democracy.

    Of course neither Trump nor Hillary show any signs of understanding the real problems afflicting the USA. They don't recognize the basic energy equation that has made it impossible for industrial economies to keep growing, or the deformities in banking and finance that result from official efforts to overcome these implacable conditions, namely, the piling up of ever-greater debt to "solve" the problem of over-indebtedness.

    The beginning of the way out of this quandary will be recognition that the federal government is the greatest obstacle for America making the necessary adjustments to a world that has changed. If Trump got elected, I'm convinced that he would be removed from office by a military coup inside of a year, which would be an epic smash-up of our political machinery per se, comparable to the period 44 BCE in Rome, when the republic crashed. Hillary would bring a more measured discredit to the system with the chance that our institutions might be rehabilitated - with the cherry-on-top being Hillary's eventual impeachment for lying, a fate that her husband and the late Richard Nixon both wiggled out of one way or another.

    J S Bach BabaLooey Oct 24, 2016 5:03 PM ,

    This is nothing new.

    Hitler is accused of being the evil practitioner of the "Big Lie" technique, but as usual, he was misquoted. Here's the entire idea in context:

    "In this they [the Jews] proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others.…" (p. 231 of the Manheim translation)

    Hitler is accusing the Jews of the Vienna press of this strategy. It is often taken as evidence that Hitler advocated the "Big Lie." He is, in fact, accusing his enemies of lying.

    One might say, rightly, that Trump and Hitler ARE on the same page here... both accusing the jews of bearing grand false witness. (Trump implicitly)

    BabaLooey Captain Chlamydia Oct 24, 2016 4:46 PM ,
    BOYCOTT Hollywhack!

    www.genvideos.org

    If you must watch movies.

    Antenna TV - DUMP CABLE.

    IGNORE ANYTHING "Main Stream" - ALL THE CHANNELS

    Here's my own message to Hollywhackers

    Dear Hollywood celebrities:

    You exist for my entertainment. Some of you are great eye candy. Some of you can deliver a line with such conviction that you bring tears to my eyes. Some of you can scare the hell out of me. Others make me laugh.

    But you all have one thing in common, you only have a place in my world to entertain me. That's it. You make your living pretending to be someone else . Playing dress up like a 6 year old. You live in a make believe world in front of a camera.

    And often when you are away from one too. Your entire existence depends on my patronage. I'll crank the organ grinder; you dance. I don't really care where you stand on issues.

    Honestly, your stance matters far less to me than that of my neighbor. You see, you aren't real. I turn off my TV or shut down my computer and you cease to exist in my world . Once I am done with you, I can put you back in your little box until I want you to entertain me again.

    Get back into your bubble. I'll let you know when I'm in the mood for something blue and shiny. And I'm also supposed to care that you will leave this great country if Trump becomes president? Ha. Please don't forget to close the door behind you.

    We'd like to reserve your seat for someone who loves this country and really wants to be here. Make me laugh, or cry. Scare me. But realize that the only words of yours that matter are scripted. I might agree with some of you from time to time, but it doesn't matter. In my world, you exist solely as entertainment So, shut your pie hole and dance, monkey!

    beemasters Four chan Oct 24, 2016 5:09 PM ,
    "In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools," but she has made it a way of life that nobody knows if her campaign promises are essentially a "doublespeak". If only the criteria is being the best liar, she would win the presidency hands down.
    HopefulCynical beemasters Oct 24, 2016 5:15 PM ,
    This gang of elites needs to be circulated out of power the hard way, under the burden of their own obvious perfidy, with no one else to point their fingers at.

    Ahh, but you think they'll be "circulated out of power" under Hillary?! No chance. The bitch will have tanks in the street first. And after the financial collapse, the soldiers will cooperate, because they won't want their families starving like everybody else's will be.

    Mr. Bones HopefulCynical Oct 24, 2016 5:52 PM ,

    "Trump was their last best hope."

    Trump isn't a hope, he's a gesture. Woe unto those who don't recognize it.

    The Alarmist Mr. Bones Oct 24, 2016 7:04 PM

    "I'm more comfortable about Hillary - though I won't vote for her - because it will be salutary for the ruling establishment to unravel with her in charge of it."

    Sorry, but that is a leap of faith I can't make. It's like being at the event horizon of a black hole and deciding to jump into the hole because you look forward to seeing what is on the other side. Chances are you will be spaghettified so that your atoms might arrive elsewhere, but not in particular relation to the you that jumped into the hole, so you will not survive to see any change of scenery.

    There will be a USA after Hillary, but it will not be your father's USA, and getting to this new promised land will be a very painful process. Rome lived on until 1453 in the form of the Byzantine empire, but the Republic died well before the birth of Christ.

    yippee kiyay The Alarmist Oct 24, 2016 11:28 PM ,
    "This gang of elites"

    And who are they? These elusive "elites"? https://goo.gl/bFYusM

    [Oct 25, 2016] Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    Notable quotes:
    "... Wait just a damn minute. Why is the DNI telling THE RUSSIANS what the USIC suspects? Wouldn't that blunt the capability for taking counter measures? Unless... red herring? ..."
    "... The problem with "the Russians" tale is that the Podesta emails are rather weak sauce. Is there anyone paying close attention that didn't know HRC's camp had influential contacts in the media and the DNC and used them to their advantage? ..."
    "... Indeed. So far there is a little of note in the leaked emails. They confirm, among the other things we already knew: ..."
    "... The Clintonites don't think very highly of Sanders. ..."
    "... They have a lot of trusted friends in the media - some *very* trusted embeds. ..."
    "... There is a difference between what Clinton says in public and what she really believes. ..."
    "... They didn't want to release the content of the Goldman Sachs speeches because the contents included a lot of Clinton pandering and rear-kissing to banksters. ..."
    "... Podesta is an influential man, and a lot of people email him to use his influence and for help them. ..."
    "... Presumably, if US intelligence is so confident about Russian government methods, motivations, tactics, tic tacs and techniques they also should have a pretty damn good idea about what is still out there and also would have the means to disrupt its dissemination, if necessary. ..."
    "... In other words, don't hold yer breath. ..."
    "... "First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange." ..."
    "... Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake! ..."
    "... Keith B. Alexander:"Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false… From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." ..."
    "... "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony." ..."
    "... We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise. ..."
    "... That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... October 24, 2016 at 09:58 AM

    DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
    WASHINGTON, DC 20511

    October 07, 2016

    Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

    The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ...

    is confident that... are consistent with...

    Wait just a damn minute. Why is the DNI telling THE RUSSIANS what the USIC suspects? Wouldn't that blunt the capability for taking counter measures? Unless... red herring?

    Look! Over there!

    Sandwichman -> EMichael... , October 24, 2016 at 10:39 AM
    The problem with "the Russians" tale is that the Podesta emails are rather weak sauce. Is there anyone paying close attention that didn't know HRC's camp had influential contacts in the media and the DNC and used them to their advantage?

    I'm shocked, shocked that there is backroom power politics going on in a political campaign!

    The upshot of the WikiLeaks Podesta emails is to DISCREDIT WIKILEAKS as an independent source of disclosure.

    Why would Putin want to do that?

    Why would CLAPPER want to do that?

    Dan Kervick -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 01:54 PM
    Indeed. So far there is a little of note in the leaked emails. They confirm, among the other things we already knew:

    1. The Clintonites don't think very highly of Sanders.

    2. They have a lot of trusted friends in the media - some *very* trusted embeds.

    3. There is a difference between what Clinton says in public and what she really believes.

    4. They didn't want to release the content of the Goldman Sachs speeches because the contents included a lot of Clinton pandering and rear-kissing to banksters.

    5. Podesta is an influential man, and a lot of people email him to use his influence and for help them.

    DeDude -> EMichael... , October 24, 2016 at 10:52 AM
    Here is a better outline of the whole thing

    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/

    "One of the first leaked files had been modified on a computer using Russian-language settings by a user named "Feliks Dzerzhinsky." Dzerzhinsky was the founder of the Cheka, the Soviet secret police"

    The Russian connect was not "revealed" by NSA alone and the evidence for anybody who understand computers and "trails" is quite strong.

    The fact that the initial "leaks" were not such a big deal was no surprise. Given Julian's desperate need to not get Clinton into the white house, you would expect him to save the most juicy stuff until a few days before the election.

    Sandwichman -> DeDude... , October 24, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    From the Esquire article: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator... was particularly prolific. Hours after the first Guccifer 2.0 dump, on the evening of June 15, Tait found something curious."

    For the record, "GCHQ" does not refer to the magazine, Gentlemen's Quarterly.

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 12:40 PM
    For the record, "GCHQ" does not refer to the magazine, Gentlemen's Quarterly.

    [ I prefer to think it does, and even if not it probably should so refer. ]

    Dan Kervick -> DeDude... , October 24, 2016 at 01:11 PM
    I wonder what those juicy leaks are?
    Sandwichman -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 02:10 PM
    Presumably, if US intelligence is so confident about Russian government methods, motivations, tactics, tic tacs and techniques they also should have a pretty damn good idea about what is still out there and also would have the means to disrupt its dissemination, if necessary.

    In other words, don't hold yer breath.

    Dan Kervick -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 03:52 PM
    Well, I assume Podesta has given somebody all of his emails, so they can compare against what is already released and see what is to come. I think their only defense against it is to try to discredit whatever it is ahead of time.
    DeDude -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 04:00 PM
    Only your imagination is the limit - since they are not real. But we will most likely never know since even Assange knows that he can only lose this one.
    Dan Kervick -> DeDude... , October 24, 2016 at 02:09 PM
    Wow, amazing that the founder of the "secret" police would leak emails with his digital fingerprints all over them.
    Sandwichman -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 02:12 PM
    That Dzerzhinsky! Such a joker!
    DeDude -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 03:54 PM
    No he would be the exact person to make such a mistake. After looking at them he would not have the technical expertise to understand that he had left a fingerprint.
    likbez -> Sandwichman ... , -1
    Sandwinchment,

    First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc.

    This might be a sigh of complete disorganization of executive branch with intelligence agencies becoming a power players. Kind of "Deep State" morphing into "surface state".

    There are might be also multiple valid reasons for disclosing such a sensitive information:

    1. I want your money stupid Pinocchio.
    2. Smoke screen to hide their own nefarious activities and/or blunders within the USA. Actually existence of Hillary private server is somewhat incompatible with the existence of NSA.
    3. This is one thing when Podesta using gmail. It's quite another when the Secretary of state uses "bathroom server" with incompetent or semi-competent tech staff and completely clueless entourage.
    4. Pre-emptive strike reflecting some internal struggle within US Intelligence community itself with a neocon faction going "all in" to force the viewpoint, and more aggressive toward Russia stance, which might not be shared by others.
    5. Please note that CIA and DOD are fighting each other in Iraq and Syria to a certain extent.
    6. Increase Anti-Russian hysteria, which helps Hillary as a candidate of neocon establishment.
    7. Russians might recently uncover some nefarious activities (I heard FSB did discover compromised computers in some ministries) and this is the preparation for the blowback.

    There might be more. You never know.

    Sandwichman -> likbez... , October 24, 2016 at 12:31 PM
    "First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange."

    Yep.

    Second, the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange.

    Last but not least, the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange.

    Did I mention that the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange?

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts....

    -- Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
    and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    [ "Consistent with the methods and motivations..." is a shocking supposition to be made public, but we have been subject to such suppositions, seemingly with increasing frequency, for these last 15 years. ]

    Sandwichman -> anne... , October 24, 2016 at 10:30 AM
    Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!

    Keith B. Alexander:"Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false… From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense."

    ...

    Senator Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

    DNI Clapper"No, sir."

    Senator Wyden: "It does not?"

    DNI Clapper:"Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

    The [IN]operative word there was "collect" which in NSAspeak does not mean... collect.

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/10/donald-loves-trikileaks.html

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 06:12 PM
    Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you KEEP IT A SECRET!

    Why didn't you tell the world, eh?

    [ Worth reading and reading and reading. ]

    Julio -> anne... , October 24, 2016 at 01:24 PM
    Not shocking anymore. It is, after all, consistent with the methods and motivations of our rulers.
    anne -> Julio ... , October 24, 2016 at 02:52 PM
    [ "Consistent with the methods and motivations..." is a shocking supposition to be made public, but we have been subject to such suppositions, seemingly with increasing frequency, for these last 15 years. ]

    Not shocking anymore. It is, after all, consistent with the methods and motivations of our rulers.

    [ Understood. ]

    Sanjait -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 10:35 AM
    Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.

    Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something that does relate to Krugmans post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately though the Democratic Party hasn't been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.

    Sandwichman -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 10:42 AM
    I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations.
    likbez -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 06:05 PM
    "I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."

    Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protected it, everybody else be damned.

    Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class".

    Essentially the behavior the we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".

    Sandwichman -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 10:47 AM
    More "paranoid claptrap" (or should that be Clappertrap?):

    Edward Snowden: "...the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. … Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back."

    Peter K. -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 11:43 AM
    "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper

    Oliver Stone's movie was pretty good.

    I agree with you that the hacked email are pretty "weak sauce" for the Russians to risk a confrontation with the sole super power.

    It's possible given that Putin was upset over Hillary backing the pro-democracy movement publically in recent elections.

    likbez -> DrDick... , October 24, 2016 at 11:55 AM
    My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders.

    Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude.

    Looks like they have found were to go this election cycle and this loss of the base is probably was the biggest surprise for neoliberal Democrats.

    Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me.


    Some data suggest that among unions which endorsed Hillary 3 out of 4 members will vote against her. And that are data from union brass. Lower middle class might also demonstrate the same pattern this election cycle.

    In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh.

    We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise.

    That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks.

    [Oct 25, 2016] The polls are wrong. The battle against Trump is for many a rejection of what they see in the mirror transposed onto Trump, as far as males go. Many women, including some who support him, see in Trump a dangerous predator who offers the promise of protection and wealth, but at a cost.

    Oct 25, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 11:15 am ( 13 )

    Make that 4 and 2

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

    I disagree with the basic premise of the post in that the right has been beaten because it has won.

    That's certainly not how the right sees the landscape. The tea party of 2010 was co-opted by Richard Armey and the Kochs on the one hand and buried under a mountain of forms by Lois Lerner on the other. The Armey group rallies to Ted Cruz, who is sure to have something to say about America and the future of the Republican party should Trump be undone because of his lewd behavior and actions.

    The media is certain to be savaged no matter what the outcome. The number of artists and musicians who both profit from and promote misogyny and violence invited to the WH over the last 8 years to serve as role models for America's youth should raise nary an eyebrow. The prudery of the moment is going to be the template for 'social reform' under the Republicans. If Hillary and her media allies succeed in derailing the Trump insurgency via his mouth, his hands, and his zipper they're going to face an extremely hostile electorate. Cruz is certain to try to step into Trump's shoes as leader, preaching that Trump was a flawed messenger undone by an unforgiving god. This will make sense for too many Americans to completely ignore. The unhappy white males who have yet to self-identify as angry white males, rather than simply as Americans, may well decide to do so.

    Whatever few victories the Democrats enjoy lower down the ticket are unlikely to survive skyrocketing Affordable Care Act premiums, some form of amnesty, and an extension of America's wars in the ME. The Democrats are betting the farm that Republicans will never unlock the padlock Democrats maintain over socially-conservative minorities. Cruz's ground game and networking with the evangelical community didn't get the job done in 2016, but we can be sure that he and his team are already mapping 2020.

    Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade. Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet.

    I've no idea whether those supporting the Democratic candidate expect her to wake up on November 9, should she win, and suddenly decide to abandon the practices that got her this far. I certainly don't. If you're nauseated at the prospect of 4-8 more years of secrecy, war, lies, and corruption you're going to need to keep more than barf bags at hand, however. The polarization that has divided America over the last 8 years is, imho, far more likely to become much more corrosive and damaging with Democrats in charge.

    Ted Cruz will literally be burning crosses and probably books, pornography, and anyone/thing else that strikes his fancy. The donor class is praying that Hillary/Bush can stamp out the fires. With rising unemployment, stagnating wages, and more and more Americans feeling that the system isn't interested in them, or their children, there may very well be a little hell to pay, or a lot.

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 12:37 pm 16

    @ 14 It won't surprise you to learn I think you're wrong about Trump. The battle against Trump is for many a rejection of what they see in the mirror transposed onto Trump, as far as males go. Many women, including some who support him, see in Trump a dangerous predator who offers the promise of protection and wealth, but at a cost. Good thing no woman would ever sell herself, or her principles, to such a man – and if Bill Clinton pops into your head, please don't blame me.

    Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.

    I like your question re: Cruz. I find him such a phenomenally transparent phony that I can't quite believe anyone trusts him. With Trump, and Bill Clinton, what you see is what you get – Slick Willie.

    At the moment Americans are being told they don't like what they see in Trump, but if that were the case, why was he so popular back when he was actually on the Howard Stern show and otherwise acting out? I frankly don't think most Americans give a toss what Trump did or said this week, much less ten years ago. The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not.

    Like I said. I think it will be close and right now I still say Trump edges it.

    [Oct 25, 2016] Whatever it is, its a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes

    "One of your prime objectives," J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime F.B.I. director, said in one memo, "should be to neutralize ... the New Left movement."
    Notable quotes:
    "... First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc. ..."
    "... Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and intelligence services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and resilient prior. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    likbez said in reply to Sandwichman... October 24, 2016 at 11:21 AM

    Sandwinchment,

    First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc.

    This might be a sigh of complete disorganization of executive branch with intelligence agencies becoming a power players. Kind of "Deep State" morphing into "surface state".

    There are might be also multiple valid reasons for disclosing such a sensitive information:

    1. I want your money stupid Pinocchio.
    2. Smoke screen to hide their own nefarious activities and/or blunders within the USA. Actually existence of Hillary private server is somewhat incompatible with the existence of NSA.
    3. This is one thing when Podesta using gmail. It's quite another when the Secretary of state uses "bathroom server" with incompetent or semi-competent tech staff and completely clueless entourage.
    4. Pre-emptive strike reflecting some internal struggle within US Intelligence community itself with a neocon faction going "all in" to force the viewpoint, and more aggressive toward Russia stance, which might not be shared by others.
    5. Please note that CIA and DOD are fighting each other in Iraq and Syria to a certain extent.
    6. Increase Anti-Russian hysteria, which helps Hillary as a candidate of neocon establishment.
    7. Russians might recently uncover some nefarious activities (I heard FSB did discover compromised computers in some ministries) and this is the preparation for the blowback.

    There might be more. You never know.

    Reply Monday,

    Dan Kervick -> likbez... October 24, 2016 at 01:14 PM

    I can't claim that a mere mortal like me actually has the slightest clue what is really going on. All I will hazard is that, whatever it is, it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes.

    Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and intelligence services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and resilient prior.

    [Oct 25, 2016] Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt which is partly true

    Notable quotes:
    "... My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders. ..."
    "... Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude. ..."
    "... Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me. ..."
    "... In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh. ..."
    "... We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 11:48 AM

    "That's not untrue, but it seems to me to be getting worse."

    Because of economic stagnation and anxiety among lower class Republicans. Trump blames immigration and trade unlike traditional elite Republicans. These are economic issues.

    Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt which is partly true. They've been backing Nixon, Reagan, Bush etc and things are just getting worse. They've been played.

    Granted it's complicated and partly they see their side as losing and so are doubling down on the conservatism, racism, sexism etc. But Trump *brags* that he was against the Iraq war. That's not an elite Republican opinion.

    likbez -> DrDick... , -1
    My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders.

    Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude.

    Looks like they have found were to go this election cycle and this loss of the base is probably was the biggest surprise for neoliberal Democrats.

    Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me.

    Some data suggest that among unions which endorsed Hillary 3 out of 4 members will vote against her. And that are data from union brass. Lower middle class might also demonstrate the same pattern this election cycle.

    In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh.

    We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks.

    likbez : , October 24, 2016 at 12:00 PM
    My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles.

    She is way too militant, and is not that different in this respect from Senator McCain. That creates a real danger of unleashing the war with Russia.

    Trump with all his warts gives us a chance to get some kind of détente with Russia.

    In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Soros-Linked Voting Machines Cause Concern Over Rigged Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama said back in 2008: "I want to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too." ..."
    "... hillary goes along with CIA and the neocon/zionist/MIC agenda but she's replaceable. ..."
    "... An out of control, above the law, criminal mafia acting on behalf of the Saudis and Israelis (if you think Syria is about the petrodollar or a Qatari pipeline... Think again - it's about Iran and Russia and about Greater Israel and its Leviathan and Golan gas most of all - Zbig et al would prefer to be full battle rattle in Ukraine and Chechnya...) is stopped how? ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    A U.K. based company that has provided voting machines for 16 states, including important battleground states like Florida and Arizona, has direct ties with billionaire leftist and Clinton crusader George Soros.

    With recent WikiLeaks emails showing that Hillary Clinton received foreign policy directives and coordinated on domestic policy with Soros , along with receiving tens of millions of dollars in presidential campaign support from the billionaire, concerns are growing that these shadowy players may pull the strings behind the curtains of the upcoming presidential election.

    As Lifezette reports , the fact that the man in control of voting machines in 16 states is tied directly to the man who has given millions of dollars to the Clinton campaign and various progressive and globalist causes will surely leave a bad taste in the mouth of many a voter.

    The balloting equipment tied to Soros is coming from the U.K. based Smartmatic company, whose chairman Mark Malloch-Brown is a former UN official and sits on the board of Soros' Open Society Foundation.

    According to Lifezette , Malloch-Brown was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia and also is a member of the executive committee of the International Crisis Group, an organization he co-founded in the 1990s and built with funds from George Soros' personal fortune.

    In 2007 Soros appointed Malloch-Brown vice-president of his Quantum Funds, vice-chairman of Soros Fund Management, and vice-chairman of the Open Society Institute (former name of OSF).

    Browns ties also intertwine with the Clintons as he was a partner with Sawyer-Miller, the consulting firm where close Clinton associate Mandy Grunwald worked. Brown also was also a senior advisor to FTI Consulting, a firm at which Jackson Dunn, who spent 15 years working as an aide to the Clintons, is a senior managing director.

    When taking that into account, along with the poor track record Smartmatic has of providing free and fair elections, this all becomes quite terrifying.

    An astonishing 2006 classified U.S. diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks reveals the extent to which Smartmatic may have played a hand in rigging the 2004 Venezuelan recall election under a section titled "A Shadow of Fraud." The memo stated that "Smartmatic Corporation is a riddle both in ownership and operation, complicated by the fact that its machines have overseen several landslide (and contested) victories by President Hugo Chavez and his supporters."

    "The Smartmatic machines used in Venezuela are widely suspected of, though never proven conclusively to be, susceptible to fraud," the memo continued. "The Venezuelan opposition is convinced that the Smartmatic machines robbed them of victory in the August 2004 referendum. Since then, there have been at least eight statistical analyses performed on the referendum results."

    "One study obtained the data log from the CANTV network and supposedly proved that the Smartmatic machines were bi-directional and in fact showed irregularities in how they reported their results to the CNE central server during the referendum," it read.

    With such suspicion and a study which claims to prove that the U.K. firm's equipment tampered with the 2004 Venezuelan recall election, should be enough for states to reject these machines if they desire a fair election.

    Smartmatic is providing machines to Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington DC, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, which means these Soros and Clinton linked machines are going to take the votes of thousands of Americans.

    While GOP nominee Donald Trump has been voicing his opinion that the elections are indeed rigged due to media bias, and the proof that mainstream polls are heavily weighted to favor Clinton , it is needless to say that if the results show Hillary as a winner in November, there is going to a mess to shuffle through to find signs of honesty.

    MillionDollarBonus_ Ghost of PartysOver Oct 24, 2016 10:57 AM ,

    MSNBC are reporting that Hillary is absolutely surging and now leading by double digits! America is going absolutely wild for Hillary!! This is very exciting – I can sense victory, and I see that bitter right-wingers can sense defeat as they pre-emptively blame their loss on vote rigging. There is no such thing as election rigging, unless we're talking about Al Gore losing to Bush – there was clear evidence of rigging during this election. But Republicans are known for rigging elections. Democrats have never, and will never rig an election.

    HOW TO FACT CHECK THE LIES AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES OF THE ALT RIGHT

    Cliff Claven Cheers BaBaBouy Oct 24, 2016 11:02 AM
    We the people ask congress to meet in emergency session about removing George Soros owned voting machines from 16 states

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/we-people-ask-congress-meet-e...

    Signed the Deplorably Dicked

    DD

    Beam Me Up Scotty Cliff Claven Cheers Oct 24, 2016 11:29 AM ,
    Two words: PAPER BALLOTS!!! How anyone with 3 brain cells or more can't see that paper ballots are the way to go when voting is beyond me. There is a paper trail, and they cannot be hacked. They can be recounted. Machines are easily manipulated and there is NO PAPER trail to recount. Use paper ballots and tell Gerge Soros to go fuck himself.
    Notveryamused Manthong Oct 24, 2016 12:11 PM ,
    The Soros voting machine issue is one of the largest problems with this election. Trump has mentioned him by name twice during the debates and has also talked openly about a 'rigged' election. I hope he will address this directly.

    We're already seeing the polls skew in Clinton's direction in unusual states like Arizona so even that is on the cards to be stolen.

    Mroex Beam Me Up Scotty Oct 24, 2016 11:54 AM ,
    Yes you are Damn right. Paper ballots were used in the Brexit vote and surprise surprise the people won

    I can wait a day or two for results, I do not need instant results

    Paper ballots would be kept under lock and quarded by representives of both parties

    then when the time has come they would be counted and verified by both party reps

    FUCK any form of voting machine, be it electronic or be it mechanical

    fx MillionDollarBonus_ Oct 24, 2016 11:18 AM ,
    LOL, not even your big hero Barry would claim that. To wit: Obama said back in 2008: "I want to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too."

    And this time, it seems to be more than some monkeying on part of Hitlery and Barry. Rather "we rigged some votes and screwed some folks." Go figure.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-22/obama-warned-rigged-elections-b...

    AViewFromDublin fx Oct 24, 2016 11:26 AM ,

    Speaking at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, Million Dollar Bonus said: "To say you won't respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy.

    "The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that makes America America.

    And look, some people are sore losers, and we just got to keep going" It was actually Hillary Clinton who said that, same difference lol,
    War Machine crossroaddemon Oct 24, 2016 11:29 AM ,
    You make a good point, and to distill the matter to its essence, apart from a controlled media and well established and entrenched special, foreign and banking interests in DC... The CIA is a CRIMINAL MAFIA acting under color of law, currently taking Saudi money to pay jihadi and 'blackwater' type mercs in Syria, and by the way Yemen, and elsewhere, to include the slow ramp up in E Ukraine.

    hillary goes along with CIA and the neocon/zionist/MIC agenda but she's replaceable.

    No they can and will steal this election if, in fact, Trump were to get a majority of votes (which by the way is unlikely - study the demographics... trump can not beat hillary when she has 70/80% of women, the latinos, blacks, leftists, and so on) - but the underlying issue remains:

    An out of control, above the law, criminal mafia acting on behalf of the Saudis and Israelis (if you think Syria is about the petrodollar or a Qatari pipeline... Think again - it's about Iran and Russia and about Greater Israel and its Leviathan and Golan gas most of all - Zbig et al would prefer to be full battle rattle in Ukraine and Chechnya...) is stopped how?

    Considering that US military personnel may quite literally be killed by CIA provided weapons, one might posit that one scenario is CIA personnel being hunted down and arrested (or not) by elements of the US special forces although this doesn't happen without either strong and secure leadership or some paradigm-shifting revelation.

    For example- if more knew how exceedingly likely it is that 9/11 was an inside/Israeli job... Knew it... Things might change.

    but I'm not optimistic.

    hillary means ww3, and we are not the good guys. If we ever were..

    Mroex crossroaddemon Oct 24, 2016 11:39 AM ,
    Things were way different back when JFK was killed, I know I was around then.

    For one thing there was no internet, and people trusted and respected the media (TV and Newspapers) This trust made it very easy to coverup and / or bury details.

    People overwhelmingly trusted government officials, Very few people questioned what government and media told them, again this makes it super easy to lie and coverup

    I repect your question, and I hope you consider what I said. I am trying to make the case that assasination is no longer an option, not unless they want to truly start a real civil war. Which I would not rule out. But if they wish to keep the status quo and the sheep silent, assasination is way way to risky for the reasons I mentioned above

    [Oct 24, 2016] Ruling elite has a crook for a candidate appealing to fears and prefers her wars for oil to be with Russia.

    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> DrDick...October 23, 2016 at 04:10 AM
    Greed is a unifier.

    What they said on SNL opening skit...... Klinton is the republican.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!

    This strange statement of DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE means direct involvement of Us intelligence agencies in the US election.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Not to worry. The "Intelligence Community" (USIC) has it all figured out. ..."
    "... Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia. Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight Step three: ?? anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 12:10 PM Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia. Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight Step three: ?? [ Step three could be terrifying if the new Washington and media Cold Warriors and McCarthyists continue on their way. Democrats have become wild, militarist Republicans on foreign affairs, so where is any counter to come from? ..."
    "... TIME, the Economist, and the New Yorker have all now published covers portraying Putin as a scary, Evil menace ..."
    "... This could be a poster for a horror movie. But it's just the sane, sober, centrist @TheEconomist, doing what they do best ..."
    "... The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities. ..."
    "... The problem with "the Russians" tale is that the Podesta emails are rather weak sauce. Is there anyone paying close attention that didn't know HRC's camp had influential contacts in the media and the DNC and used them to their advantage? ..."
    "... The upshot of the WikiLeaks Podesta emails is to DISCREDIT WIKILEAKS as an independent source of disclosure. ..."
    "... http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/ "One of the first leaked files had been modified on a computer using Russian-language settings by a user named "Feliks Dzerzhinsky." Dzerzhinsky was the founder of the Cheka, the Soviet secret police" ..."
    "... From the Esquire article: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator... was particularly prolific. Hours after the first Guccifer 2.0 dump, on the evening of June 15, Tait found something curious." For the record, "GCHQ" does not refer to the magazine, Gentlemen's Quarterly. ..."
    "... First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. ..."
    "... The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.... ..."
    "... Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake! ..."
    "... Keith B. Alexander: "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false… From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." ..."
    "... Senator Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" ..."
    "... DNI Clapper "No, sir." ..."
    "... Historically it was the USA that started cyberwar and who developed the most advanced capabilities in this space. Remember the worm which tried to subvert functionality of Iranian centrifuges electronics using specially designed malware and Trojans like Flame? ..."
    "... So the first suspect should internal (kind of Snowden II), not external. There was also a story with an alternative viewpoint: http://www.amtvmedia.com/why-nsa-may-have-leaked-dnc-emails/ ..."
    "... There were also rumors about FOXACID - The NSA's hacking program getting into DNC hands. http://investmentwatchblog.com/warning-trump-fans-be-careful-possible-leaked-info-on-plans-to-attack-trump-supporters/ ..."
    "... Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protected it, everybody else be damned. ..."
    "... Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class". ..."
    "... More "paranoid claptrap" (or should that be Clappertrap?): Edward Snowden: "...the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. … Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back." ..."
    "... "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony." ..."
    "... My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles. ..."
    "... In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    It's Trump's party, so cry if you want to:
    It's Trump's Party, by Paul Krugman, NY Times : ...Everyone who endorsed Mr. Trump in the past owns him now... And voters should realize that voting for any Trump endorser is, in effect, a vote for Trump_vs_deep_state, whatever happens at the top of the ticket.

    .... ... ...

    Sandwichman : , October 24, 2016 at 09:50 AM

    Not to worry. The "Intelligence Community" (USIC) has it all figured out.
    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia.

    Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight

    Step three: ??

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 12:10 PM
    Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia.

    Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight

    Step three: ??

    [ Step three could be terrifying if the new Washington and media Cold Warriors and McCarthyists continue on their way. Democrats have become wild, militarist Republicans on foreign affairs, so where is any counter to come from? ]

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 12:12 PM
    Crazily preparing us for Step three:

    https://twitter.com/barryeisler/status/789620951663063040

    Barry Eisler ‏@barryeisler

    This could be a poster for a horror movie. But it's just the sane, sober, centrist @TheEconomist, doing what they do best

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvVLw8PVYAAaLQX.jpg

    5:14 PM - 21 Oct 2016

    anne -> anne... , October 24, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    When I need to be reminded of just how afraid of the new McCarthyists I have to be, I will look to the crazily prejudiced cover of The Economist and remember that I have yet to come across a complaint by any academic economist.

    No matter though, as I keep promising I will be naming names. I have my list, and am steadily writing down names to name and name names from morning to evening I surely will.

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 12:13 PM
    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/789839468933025796

    Michael Tracey @mtracey

    TIME, the Economist, and the New Yorker have all now published covers portraying Putin as a scary, Evil menace

    Barry Eisler @barryeisler

    This could be a poster for a horror movie. But it's just the sane, sober, centrist @TheEconomist, doing what they do best

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvVLw8PVYAAaLQX.jpg

    7:42 AM - 22 Oct 2016

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 09:58 AM
    DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
    WASHINGTON, DC 20511

    October 07, 2016

    Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
    and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

    The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 10:03 AM
    is confident that... are consistent with...

    Wait just a damn minute.

    Why is the DNI telling THE RUSSIANS what the USIC suspects? Wouldn't that blunt the capability for taking counter measures? Unless... red herring?

    Look! Over there!

    Sandwichman -> EMichael... , October 24, 2016 at 10:39 AM
    The problem with "the Russians" tale is that the Podesta emails are rather weak sauce. Is there anyone paying close attention that didn't know HRC's camp had influential contacts in the media and the DNC and used them to their advantage?

    I'm shocked, shocked that there is backroom power politics going on in a political campaign!

    The upshot of the WikiLeaks Podesta emails is to DISCREDIT WIKILEAKS as an independent source of disclosure.

    Why would Putin want to do that? Why would CLAPPER want to do that?

    DeDude -> EMichael... , October 24, 2016 at 10:52 AM
    Here is a better outline of the whole thing

    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/ "One of the first leaked files had been modified on a computer using Russian-language settings by a user named "Feliks Dzerzhinsky." Dzerzhinsky was the founder of the Cheka, the Soviet secret police"

    The Russian connect was not "revealed" by NSA alone and the evidence for anybody who understand computers and "trails" is quite strong.

    The fact that the initial "leaks" were not such a big deal was no surprise. Given Julian's desperate need to not get Clinton into the White house, you would expect him to save the most juicy stuff until a few days before the election.

    Sandwichman -> DeDude... , October 24, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    From the Esquire article: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator... was particularly prolific. Hours after the first Guccifer 2.0 dump, on the evening of June 15, Tait found something curious." For the record, "GCHQ" does not refer to the magazine, Gentlemen's Quarterly.
    likbez -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 11:21 AM
    Sandwinchmen,

    First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc.

    This might be a sigh of complete disorganization of executive branch with intelligence agencies becoming a power players. Kind of "Deep State" morphing into "surface state".

    There are might be also multiple valid reasons for disclosing such a sensitive information:

    1. I want your money stupid Pinocchio.
    2. Smoke screen to hide their own nefarious activities and/or blunders within the USA. Actually existence of Hillary private server is somewhat incompatible with the existence of NSA.
    3. This is one thing when Podesta using gmail. It's quite another when the Secretary of state uses "bathroom server" with incompetent or semi-competent tech staff and completely clueless entourage.
    4. Pre-emptive strike reflecting some internal struggle within US Intelligence community itself with a neocon faction going "all in" to force the viewpoint, and more aggressive toward Russia stance, which might not be shared by others.
    5. Please note that CIA and DOD are fighting each other in Iraq and Syria to a certain extent.
    6. Increase Anti-Russian hysteria, which helps Hillary as a candidate of neocon establishment.
    7. Russians might recently uncover some nefarious activities (I heard FSB did discover compromised computers in some ministries) and this is the preparation for the blowback.

    There might be more. You never know.

    DeDude -> likbez... , October 24, 2016 at 11:29 AM
    "such a sensitive" "Russians might recently uncover"

    Holy Moly - why don't you just write it in Russian and let us use a translation app to get your peddling straightened out.

    This is so funny even "Sandwinchment" will have to admit the Russian connection.

    likbez -> DeDude... , October 24, 2016 at 12:03 PM
    Don't be a Hillary shill. This is a serious issue that need real pro and contra arguments not your Ad Hominum attacks
    Sandwichman -> likbez... , October 24, 2016 at 12:31 PM
    "First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange."

    Yep.

    Second, the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange.

    Last but not least, the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange.

    Did I mention that the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange?

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts....

    -- Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
    and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    [ "Consistent with the methods and motivations..." is a shocking supposition to be made public, but we have been subject to such suppositions, seemingly with increasing frequency, for these last 15 years. ]

    Sandwichman -> anne... , October 24, 2016 at 10:30 AM
    Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!

    Keith B. Alexander: "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false… From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense."

    ...

    Senator Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

    DNI Clapper "No, sir."

    Senator Wyden: "It does not?"

    DNI Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

    The [IN]operative word there was "collect" which in NSAspeak does not mean... collect.

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/10/donald-loves-trikileaks.html

    DeDude -> anne... , October 24, 2016 at 11:00 AM
    Not shocking at all unless you are ignorant about tracing and analyzing hacks. The traces and approaches are like fingerprints. Nobody in the business have any doubts that the Russians did this - but they will never give you the details of how they got to that conclusion, because this is a public website and the hacking wars are like the missile wars, if the other side knows what you got they can counter it and make your job harder.
    likbez -> DeDude... , October 24, 2016 at 11:42 AM
    You might be a little bit naïve as for traces.

    The first rule of such activities on state level is to pretend that you are somebody else deliberately leaving false clues (IP space, keyboard layout, etc), everything that you call traces.

    Historically it was the USA that started cyberwar and who developed the most advanced capabilities in this space. Remember the worm which tried to subvert functionality of Iranian centrifuges electronics using specially designed malware and Trojans like Flame?

    So the first suspect should internal (kind of Snowden II), not external. There was also a story with an alternative viewpoint: http://www.amtvmedia.com/why-nsa-may-have-leaked-dnc-emails/

    There were also rumors about FOXACID - The NSA's hacking program getting into DNC hands. http://investmentwatchblog.com/warning-trump-fans-be-careful-possible-leaked-info-on-plans-to-attack-trump-supporters/

    Using botnets essentially gives anybody substantial freedom about what IP space you want to use. You can pretend to be Russian if you want to and use computers from Russian IP space.

    Sanjait -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 10:35 AM
    Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.

    Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something that does relate to Krugmans post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately though the Democratic Party hasn't been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.

    Sandwichman -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 10:42 AM
    I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations.

    likbez -> Sandwichman... October 24, 2016 at 06:05 PM

    "I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."

    Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protected it, everybody else be damned.

    Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class".

    Essentially the behavior the we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".

    Sandwichman -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 10:47 AM
    More "paranoid claptrap" (or should that be Clappertrap?): Edward Snowden: "...the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. … Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back."
    DeDude -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 11:43 AM
    Private hackers may be tired of all this Russia friendly "measured response" from the US government and take the matter of retaliation into their own hands.

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/22/technology/russian-foreign-ministry-hacked/index.html

    Peter K. -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 11:43 AM
    "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper

    Oliver Stone's movie was pretty good. I agree with you that the hacked email are pretty "weak sauce" for the Russians to risk a confrontation with the sole super power. It's possible given that Putin was upset over Hillary backing the pro-democracy movement publically in recent elections.

    likbez : , October 24, 2016 at 12:00 PM
    My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles.

    She is way too militant, and is not that different in this respect from Senator McCain. That creates a real danger of unleashing the war with Russia.

    Trump with all his warts gives us a chance to get some kind of détente with Russia.

    In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Donna Brazile accused about leaking a town hall question to the Clinton campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I did not receive any questions from CNN, let's just be very clear," a shaky Brazile told Kelly. ..."
    "... "I never got documents from CNN," she reiterated, adding that "a lot of those emails I would not give them the time of the day. I've seen so many doctored emails. I've seen things that come from me at two in the morning that I don't even send." (RELATED: DNC Chair Now Says Podesta Emails Were 'Doctored') ..."
    "... Brazile then offered to share whatever documents she has. "If there is anything that I have I will share," she said. ..."
    "... Martin, the TV One host suspected of giving Brazile the question, gave a convoluted answer last week when asked if he coordinated with Brazile. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | dailycaller.com

    Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile complained during an interview on Wednesday that she is being "persecuted" by being asked questions about leaking a town hall question to the Clinton campaign.

    And during the interview, conducted on Fox News after the presidential debate, Brazile said that her interviewer, Megyn Kelly, was "like a thief" because her questions cited emails that were stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and released by Wikileaks.

    Kelly grilled Brazile, who was a CNN and ABC News contributor prior to taking over the DNC in July, about an email revealed by Wikileaks showing her providing a tip about a March 13 town hall question to the Clinton campaign. (RELATED: Donna Brazile Leaked CNN Town Hall Question To Clinton Campaign)

    "From time to time I get the questions in advance," Brazile wrote in a March 12 email to Clinton's communications director, Jennifer Palmieri.

    The question, which was about the death penalty, was asked of Clinton by Roland Martin, a host with TV One, which co-hosted the debate with CNN.

    "I did not receive any questions from CNN, let's just be very clear," a shaky Brazile told Kelly.

    "Where did you get it?" the host shot back.

    "First of all what information are you providing to me that will let me see what you are talking about?" said Brazile.

    She grew more defensive.

    "As a Christian woman I understand persecution, but I will not sit here and be persecuted because your information is totally false," the operative said.

    "Podesta's emails were stolen. You're like the thief that what's to bring into the night what you found in the gutter," she continued.

    Kelly then referred to an interview CNN anchor Jake Tapper gave last week in which he said that it was his understanding that the question came from Roland Martin or TV One. He called the leak "very, very troubling." (RELATED: Jake Tapper Says DNC Chair's Leak To Clinton Campaign Is 'Very, Very Troubling)

    "I am not going to try to validate falsified information. I have my documents, I have my files," Brazile told Kelly.

    "I never got documents from CNN," she reiterated, adding that "a lot of those emails I would not give them the time of the day. I've seen so many doctored emails. I've seen things that come from me at two in the morning that I don't even send." (RELATED: DNC Chair Now Says Podesta Emails Were 'Doctored')

    Brazile then offered to share whatever documents she has. "If there is anything that I have I will share," she said.

    Brazile did not return an email from The Daily Caller asking how she plans to prove that she did not send the question to Palmieri.

    Martin, the TV One host suspected of giving Brazile the question, gave a convoluted answer last week when asked if he coordinated with Brazile.

    Update: Brazile responded to TheDC's questions about the town hall questions and about her comments in the interview with Megyn Kelly.

    Asked if she would make good on her pledge to share the information she has and why she refused to say that TV One was not the source of the town hall question, she responded: "You're so unprofessional."

    TheDC followed up on the questions. "Ask where the doctored videos were made. Chinese or Russians," Brazile responded.

    susan the other October 24, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    It was painful watching Donna Brazile get caught in Megan Kelly's cross examination. She (Donna) was loyal to a fault, making herself look like an idiot, a very sad idiot, when she claimed the emails had been doctored.

    [Oct 24, 2016] I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of Committee to Defend the Liberal Order when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato ..."
    "... A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior. ..."
    "... it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Dan Kervick -> Sandwichman ...

    I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato. Reply Monday, October 24, 2016 at 02:11 PM

    likbez -> Dan Kervick..., October 24, 2016 at 06:34 PM

    Dan,

    > ...some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato.

    A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior.

    Thank you --

    Dan Kervick -> likbez... October 24, 2016 at 01:14 PM , 2016 at 01:14 PM
    I can't claim that a mere mortal like me actually has the slightest clue what is really going on. All I will hazard is that, whatever it is, it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes.

    Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and intelligence services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and resilient prior.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Six reasons for optimism (and one big one for pessimism) - Crooked Timber

    Notable quotes:
    "... the discontent that motivates the Trump voters seems less likely to just vanish. We seem to be in the midst of a realignment of both UK and US politics, of which Trump and Farrage are just symptoms ..."
    "... Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade. Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet. ..."
    "... Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald. ..."
    "... The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not. ..."
    "... On most wedge issues, Trump is running as a bog-standard Republican conservative, and he's losing on those issues. ..."
    "... Indeed I see the synthesis of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism as the final consolidation of conservatism and the end of what we have understood as history – the final triumph of capitalism as it dies. ..."
    "... The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.) before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone. Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people. ..."
    "... On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin. ..."
    "... The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes. ..."
    "... she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close. A party built around the principles of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage in any non-gerrymandered election. ..."
    "... It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention' has been hugely successful in that effort. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    SusanC 10.24.16 at 11:00 am

    Trump himself will go away, I think. But the discontent that motivates the Trump voters seems less likely to just vanish. We seem to be in the midst of a realignment of both UK and US politics, of which Trump and Farrage are just symptoms. Farrage has already made an attempt at retiring from politics, and I could easily see Trump going back to reality television after the election. The real question is: what will their supporters do next?

    I am also surprised that Corey thinks feminism and the civil rights movement has been defeated. These seem to me to be areas in which some progress has been made (along with other forms of identity politics, e.g. gay marriage). It's been the class-based labour/union movement that's been the real loser.

    Possibly it depends on which time scale you're talking about, and that some of us now count as old people, in that our implicit timescale is over our lifetimes. Maybe young college students think that all the progress made by feminism happened before they were even born, and things have slowed down of late. (With a slight hat-tip to Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions , I could easily see some further progress on feminist issues being made simply by the older guys in management positions dying off, and being replaced by younger people who grew up in a different culture),

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 11:15 am ( 13 )

    Make that 4 and 2

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

    I disagree with the basic premise of the post in that the right has been beaten because it has won.

    That's certainly not how the right sees the landscape. The tea party of 2010 was co-opted by Richard Armey and the Kochs on the one hand and buried under a mountain of forms by Lois Lerner on the other. The Armey group rallies to Ted Cruz, who is sure to have something to say about America and the future of the Republican party should Trump be undone because of his lewd behavior and actions.

    The media is certain to be savaged no matter what the outcome. The number of artists and musicians who both profit from and promote misogyny and violence invited to the WH over the last 8 years to serve as role models for America's youth should raise nary an eyebrow. The prudery of the moment is going to be the template for 'social reform' under the Republicans. If Hillary and her media allies succeed in derailing the Trump insurgency via his mouth, his hands, and his zipper they're going to face an extremely hostile electorate. Cruz is certain to try to step into Trump's shoes as leader, preaching that Trump was a flawed messenger undone by an unforgiving god. This will make sense for too many Americans to completely ignore. The unhappy white males who have yet to self-identify as angry white males, rather than simply as Americans, may well decide to do so.

    Whatever few victories the Democrats enjoy lower down the ticket are unlikely to survive skyrocketing Affordable Care Act premiums, some form of amnesty, and an extension of America's wars in the ME. The Democrats are betting the farm that Republicans will never unlock the padlock Democrats maintain over socially-conservative minorities. Cruz's ground game and networking with the evangelical community didn't get the job done in 2016, but we can be sure that he and his team are already mapping 2020.

    Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade. Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet.

    I've no idea whether those supporting the Democratic candidate expect her to wake up on November 9, should she win, and suddenly decide to abandon the practices that got her this far. I certainly don't. If you're nauseated at the prospect of 4-8 more years of secrecy, war, lies, and corruption you're going to need to keep more than barf bags at hand, however. The polarization that has divided America over the last 8 years is, imho, far more likely to become much more corrosive and damaging with Democrats in charge.

    Ted Cruz will literally be burning crosses and probably books, pornography, and anyone/thing else that strikes his fancy. The donor class is praying that Hillary/Bush can stamp out the fires. With rising unemployment, stagnating wages, and more and more Americans feeling that the system isn't interested in them, or their children, there may very well be a little hell to pay, or a lot.

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 12:37 pm @ 14

    It won't surprise you to learn I think you're wrong about Trump. The battle against Trump is for many a rejection of what they see in the mirror transposed onto Trump, as far as males go. Many women, including some who support him, see in Trump a dangerous predator who offers the promise of protection and wealth, but at a cost. Good thing no woman would ever sell herself, or her principles, to such a man – and if Bill Clinton pops into your head, please don't blame me.

    Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.

    I like your question re: Cruz. I find him such a phenomenally transparent phony that I can't quite believe anyone trusts him. With Trump, and Bill Clinton, what you see is what you get – Slick Willie.

    At the moment Americans are being told they don't like what they see in Trump, but if that were the case, why was he so popular back when he was actually on the Howard Stern show and otherwise acting out? I frankly don't think most Americans give a toss what Trump did or said this week, much less ten years ago.

    The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not.

    Like I said. I think it will be close and right now I still say Trump edges it.

    Layman 10.24.16 at 12:55 pm

    "Clinton will win easily, but it could easily be argued that the victory will be over Trump the man than over any ideology. If Clinton were running against Cruz – who on any reasonable measure is well to the right of Trump – would she be 20 points ahead with women?"

    Hard to find more recent polling than this; but based on this, women would solidly still prefer Clinton over Cruz.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/190403/seven-women-unfavorable-opinion-trump.aspx

    I also doubt that notion that it is Trump's vulgarity, on its own, rather than Republican conservative ideology which is driving the likely result. Trump does himself no favors, but Clinton's negatives hold her back, too. On most wedge issues, Trump is running as a bog-standard Republican conservative, and he's losing on those issues.

    infovore 10.24.16 at 1:30 pm

    @13 "Oversampling" is jargon with a specific technical meaning. Pew describes what it is in its discussion of http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/sampling/

    Jerry Vinokurov 10.24.16 at 1:30 pm ( 21 )

    Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.

    What odds would you accept on this outcome?

    SusanC 10.24.16 at 2:26 pm @20.

    Indeed. There's a difference between a biased sample and the oversampling technique. The difference being that with oversampling you statistically correct for the fact that you've intentionally sampled some subpopulation more frequently than you would have done if you just chose members of the whole population uniformly at random (while a biased sample just ignores or is ignorant of the problem…)

    (I hope this isn't too much of a derail. There is a grand CT tradition of yawn-not-that-again OPs with derails where you might learn something).

    Waiting for Godot 10.24.16 at 3:38 pm ( 23 )

    I am not sanguine about the apparent collapse of this version (Trump) of American fascism. If conservatism can be said to be that which argues for the preservation of traditional social institutions and traditional political values then conservatism is far from dying. Indeed I see the synthesis of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism as the final consolidation of conservatism and the end of what we have understood as history – the final triumph of capitalism as it dies.

    Bernard Yomtov 10.24.16 at 3:59 pm

    the reason I think the right has not much of a future is that it has won. If you consider its great animating energies since the New Deal-anti-labor, anti-civil rights, and anti-feminism-the right has achieved a considerable amount of success.

    I agree with dd that this is just wrong. Are labor, the civil rights movement, women's rights, worse than they were at the end of the New Deal? I don't see how.

    efcdons 10.24.16 at 4:16 pm ( 25 )

    The right has won or is winning in an some ways on labor and civil rights issues by changing the procedure by which one can assert the rights that may exist.

    The number of strikes are down as someone else mentioned. But the Right has also largely succeeded in reducing the ability of individual employees to engage in private actions to vindicate their rights. E.g. the huge increase in enforceable arbitration agreements in what are essentially contracts of adhesion. The Right has solidified the ability of business to prevent employees from using the independent, publicly funded judiciary, and instead forces them to use private, secretive, arbitrators who essentially work for the companies (because the business is a repeat player and the arbitrators rely on being chosen to arbitrate in order to make their money).

    The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.) before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone. Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people.

    In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues. It is from April, 2016 so not the freshest data. But it might indicate Trump's bog standard GOP policies are not what is driving votes to Clinton/away from Trump.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/dvsr.htm

    On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin.

    bruce wilder 10.24.16 at 5:04 pm

    Among the most successful projects of the Right was financialization of the economy.

    The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes.

    In the current election, the Democratic Party has split on financial reform issues, with the dominant faction represented by the Party's candidate prioritizing issues of race and gender equality.

    Layman 10.24.16 at 5:06 pm ( 29 )

    "In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues."

    I imagine any poll pitting 'generic Republican' against Hillary Clinton in April of this year would have shown 'generic Republican' winning. The problem is, you can't run 'generic Republican'.

    I'm hard pressed to point at any prominent Republican who I think would be handily beating Clinton now. Once you name them, they have to say what they're for and against, and she takes her shot at them, and they're fighting an uphill battle. And she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close. A party built around the principles of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage in any non-gerrymandered election.

    PGD 10.24.16 at 6:28 pm

    It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention' has been hugely successful in that effort.

    One of the most depressing things about this election campaign to me has been to see the Democrats using their full spectrum media dominance not to fight for a mandate for left policies, but to run a coordinated and effective propaganda campaign for greater U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, focusing on demonizing Putin and on humanitarian intervention rhetoric around Aleppo and the like.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Qatar, like most Muslim countries, treats women as second-class citizens, but champion-of-women Hillary never lets a little thing like that stop her from doing business

    nypost.com

    Qatar, like most Muslim countries, treats women as second-class citizens, but champion-of-women Hillary never lets a little thing like that stop her from doing business. (See: "On favors.") And a far greater threat than murderous Muslims adhering to a fanatical 7th-century religious ideology lurks right here at home - those pesky Roman Catholics and their silly 2,000-year-old faith. (See: "On Catholics.")

    [Oct 24, 2016] Dont Repeat That To Anybody - Hillary Clinton And Donna Brazile Personally Implicated In Latest Project Veritas Video

    Oct 24, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Last week, Jame O'keefe and Project Veritas Action potentially altered the course of the U.S. election, or at a minimum raised serious doubts about the practices of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, after releasing two undercover videos that revealed efforts of democrat operatives to incite violence at republican rallies and commit "mass voter fraud." While democrats have vehemently denied the authenticity of the videos, two democratic operatives, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval, have both been forced to resign over the allegations.

    Many democrats made the rounds on various mainstream media outlets over the weekend in an attempt to debunk the Project Veritas videos. Unfortunately for them, O'Keefe fired back with warnings that part 3 of his multi-part series was forthcoming and would implicate Hillary Clinton directly.

    Anything happens to me, there's a deadman's switch on Part III, which will be released Monday. @HillaryClinton and @donnabrazile implicated.

    - James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 21, 2016

    Now, we have the 3rd installment of O'Keefe's videos which does seemingly reveal direct coordination between Hillary Clinton, Donna Brazile, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval to organize a smear campaign over Trump's failure to release his tax returns. Per Project Veritas :

    Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton's campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it's all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. " In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground," says Creamer in one of several exchanges. "So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground." It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: "Don't repeat that to anybody."

    Within the video both Clinton and Brazile are directly implicated by Creamer during the following exchange:

    "The duck has to be an Americans United for Change entity. This had to do only with some problem between Donna Brazile and ABC, which is owned by Disney, because they were worried about a trademark issue. That's why. It's really silly.

    We originally launched this duck because Hillary Clinton wants the duck .

    In any case, so she really wanted this duck figure out there doing this stuff, so that was fine. So, we put all these ducks out there and got a lot of coverage. And Trump taxes. And then ABC/Disney went crazy because they thought our original slogan was 'Donald ducks his taxes, releasing his tax returns."

    They said it was a trademark issue. It's not, but anyway, Donna Brazile had a connection with them and she didn't want to get sued. So we switched the ownership of the duck to Americans United for Change and now our signs say 'Trump ducks releasing his tax returns.' And we haven't had anymore trouble."

    As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation of federal election laws:

    "The ducks on the ground are likely 'public communications' for purposes of the law. It's political activity opposing Trump, paid for by Americans United For Change funds but controlled by Clinton/her campaign."

    Here is the full video just released:

    As a reminder, below are parts 1 & 2 of the Project Veritas series in case you missed them.

    Video 1 revealed DNC efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies:

    Video 2 provided the democrat playbook on how to committ "mass voter fraud":

    RawPawg Oct 24, 2016 1:10 PM ,
    i'm waiting for SHTF

    And all I get is Ducks

    nope-1004 RawPawg Oct 24, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    Throw the scumbag Hillary in Jail!!!!

    It's time people acknolwedge the deep corruption and headed down to the Capital on foot.

    remain calm nope-1004 Oct 24, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    Comey will get right on it.
    Duane Norman remain calm Oct 24, 2016 1:16 PM ,
    And this is why the people want Trump, because he isn't above Comey!

    http://fmshooter.com/real-reasons-people-will-vote-for-trump/

    Occident Mortal nyse Oct 24, 2016 1:45 PM ,
    What's the bets Comey ends up at Goldman Sachs?

    e.g. VP without portfolio?

    NoDebt Occident Mortal Oct 24, 2016 2:01 PM ,
    "As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation of federal election laws "

    Yeah, you pretty much got the head shot there. Unfortunately, no gun to shoot it from. The enforcement authorities all work FOR the Democrat party.

    Full spectrum dominance. It's a bitch. Even if you catch them red-haned there's no "authorities" to report it to that will listen to you.

    Remember what happened to Planned Parenthood when they were caught red-handed selling human tissue for profit (which is also illegal)? That's right. Nothing. Same thing here.

    Son of Loki NoDebt Oct 24, 2016 2:02 PM ,
    Clinton attack featuring Miss Universe was months in the making, email shows

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-attack-featuring-miss-uni...

    The Saint froze25 Oct 24, 2016 5:22 PM ,
    The problem is that the MSM isn't reporting on any of this stuff about Hillary. And, the Republicans in office aren't on the news at all to talk about any of this. So, the only place it is reported is on the Trump campaign trail where just a few thousand hear about.

    If the media won't report it and the Republicans won't talk about it, Hillary gets a pass. The audience for sites like ZH and Drudge are just preaching to the chior and not reaching the people who could change their minds or haven't made up their minds.

    froze25 -> ImGumbydmmt •Oct 24, 2016 3:40 PM
    What this video is, is evidence of collusion between a campaign and a SuperPac. That is illegal in a criminal court. This is enough to open an investigation, problem is nothing will be done by Nov 8th. All we can do is share it non-stop.
    Bastiat d Haus-Targaryen •Oct 24, 2016 2:11 PM
    Don't discount the Enquirer: remember who took down Gary Hart and John Edwards:

    Hillary Clinton's shady Mr. Fix It will tell all on TV tonight, just days after his explosive confession in The National ENQUIRER hit the stands.

    The man who's rocked Washington, D.C., will join Sean Hannity on tonight's episode of "Hannity" - airing on the FOX News Channel at 10 p.m. EST - to reveal his true identity at last.

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/politics/hillary-clinton-lesbian-trysts-...

    [Oct 24, 2016] Peace Through Trump The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... US-Russia-China cooperation will eliminate for the US the threat of war with the only two powers whose nuclear capabilities could pose existential threats to the US. ..."
    "... Simultaneously, Trump will put an end to "the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow…a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population…Instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. 'leadership,' [Trump] will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness." ..."
    "... President Trump will rebuild the decimated US manufacturing sector and return to Americans those tens of millions of jobs that America's globalist elites were allowed to ship overseas. Rebuilding the US economy – and jobs! – will be the centerpiece of a Donald Trump presidency. ..."
    "... The problem is that everyone wants to call themselves a Realist, even the Neocons. The Neocons proclaim that promoting Democracy, nation building, and being the world's policeman is 'realism' because if you withdraw from the world the problems follow you home. Tom Rogan bellowed that we needed to destroy Syria in the name of realism. They are totally wrong but the point is that everyone wants to claim this mantle which is why I tend to avoid this term. ..."
    "... I think we should embrace the Putin Doctrine but that name is toxic. Basically, he eschews destroying standing govts because it is highly destabilizing. This is common sense. ..."
    "... Oh, when I hear 'Bush kept us safe' it tears my heart out when I see guys in their 20/30's walking around with those titanium prosthetics. Do the 4,000+ men who died in Iraq and 10,000+ severely wounded count? And this does not even start to count the chaos and death in the M.E. ..."
    "... Mainstream media are besides themselves at the prospect of their masters having to relinquish their special entitlements; namely, designer wars, selection of the few to govern the many (Supreme Court and the Fed), and putting foreign dictates over American interests at an incredible cost to the U.S. in human and non-human resources. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Donald Trump played a wily capitalistic trick on his Republican opponents in the primary fights this year-he served an underserved market.

    By now it's a cliché that Trump, while on his way to the GOP nomination, tapped into an unnoticed reservoir of right-of-center opinion on domestic and economic concerns-namely, the populist-nationalists who felt left out of the reigning market-libertarianism of the last few decades.

    Indeed, of the 17 Republicans who ran this year, Trump had mostly to himself the populist issues: that is, opposition to open borders, to free trade, and to earned-entitlement cutting. When the other candidates were zigging toward the familiar-and unpopular-Chamber of Commerce-approved orthodoxy, Trump was zagging toward the voters.

    Moreover, the same sort of populist-nationalist reservoir-tapping was evident in the realm of foreign affairs. To put it in bluntly Trumpian terms, the New Yorker hit 'em where they weren't.

    The fact that Trump was doing something dramatically different became clear in the make-or-break Republican debate in Greenville, S.C., on February 13. Back in those early days of the campaign, Trump had lost one contest (Iowa) and won one (New Hampshire), and it was still anybody's guess who would emerge victorious.

    During that debate, Trump took what seemed to be an extraordinary gamble: he ripped into George W. Bush's national-security record-in a state where the 43rd president was still popular. Speaking of the Iraq War, Trump said, "George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East."

    And then Trump went further, aiming indirectly at the former president, while slugging his brother Jeb directly: "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that."

    In response, Jeb intoned the usual Republican line, "He kept us safe." And others on the stage in Greenville that night rushed to associate themselves with Bush 43.

    In the aftermath of this verbal melee, many thought that Trump had doomed himself. As one unnamed Republican "strategist" chortled to Politico , "Trump's attack on President George W. Bush was galactic-level stupid in South Carolina."

    Well, not quite: Trump triumphed in the Palmetto State primary a week later, winning by a 10-point margin.

    Thus, as we can see in retrospect, something had changed within the GOP. After 9/11, in the early years of this century, South Carolinians had been eager to fight. Yet by the middle of the second decade, they-or at least a plurality of them-had grown weary of endless foreign war.

    Trump's victory in the Palmetto State was decisive, yet it was nevertheless only a plurality, 32.5 percent. Meanwhile, Sen. Marco Rubio, running as an unabashed neocon hawk, finished second.

    So we can see that the Republican foreign-policy "market" is now segmented. And while Trump proved effective at targeting crucial segments, they weren't the only segments-because, in actuality, there are four easily identifiable blocs on the foreign-policy right. And as we delineate these four segments, we can see that while some are highly organized and tightly articulate, others are loose and inchoate:

    First, the libertarians. That is, the Cato Institute and other free-market think tanks, Reason magazine, and so on. Libertarians are not so numerous around the country, but they are strong among the intelligentsia.

    Second, the old-right "isolationists." These folks, also known as "paleocons," often find common ground with libertarians, yet their origins are different, and so is their outlook. Whereas the libertarians typically have issued a blanket anathema to all foreign entanglements, the isolationists have been more selective. During World War I, for example, their intellectual forbears were hostile to U.S. involvement on the side of the Allies, but that was often because of specifically anti-English or pro-German sentiments, not because they felt guided by an overall principle of non-intervention. Indeed, the same isolationists were often eager to intervene in Latin America and in the Far East. More recently, the temperamentally isolationist bloc has joined with the libertarians in opposition to deeper U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

    Third, the traditional hawks. On the proverbial Main Street, USA, plenty of people-not limited to the active-duty military, veterans, and law-enforcers-believe that America's national honor is worth fighting for.

    Fourth, the neoconservatives. This group, which takes hawkishness to an avant-garde extreme, is so praised, and so criticized, that there's little that needs be added here. Yet we can say this: as with the libertarians, they are concentrated in Washington, DC; by contrast, out beyond the Beltway, they are relatively scarce. Because of their connections to big donors to both parties, however, they have been powerful, even preeminent, in foreign-policy circles over the last quarter-century. Yet today, it's the neocons who feel most threatened by, and most hostile to, the Trump phenomenon.

    We can pause to offer a contextual point: floating somewhere among the first three categories-libertarians, isolationists, hawks-are the foreign-policy realists. These, of course, are the people, following in the tradition of the great scholar Hans Morgenthau, who pride themselves on seeing the world as it is, regarding foreign policy as just another application of Bismarckian wisdom-"the art of the possible."

    The realists, disproportionately academics and think-tankers, are a savvy and well-credentialed group-or, according to critics, cynical and world-weary. Yet either way, they have made many alliances with the aforementioned trio of groups, even as they have usually maintained their ideological flexibility. To borrow the celebrated wisdom of the 19th-century realpolitiker Lord Palmerston, realists don't have permanent attachments; they have permanent interests. And so it seems likely that if Trump wins-or anyone like Trump in the future-many realists will be willing to emerge from their wood-paneled precincts to engage in the hurly-burly of public service.

    Returning to our basic quartet of blocs, we can quickly see that two of them, the libertarians and the neocons, have been loudly successful in the "battle of ideas." That is, almost everyone knows where the libertarians and the neocons stand on the controversies of the moment. Meanwhile, the other two groups-the isolationists and the traditional hawks-have failed to make themselves heard. That is, until Trump.

    For the most part, the isolationists and hawks have not been organized; they've just been clusters of veterans, cops, gun owners, and like-minded souls gathering here and there, feeling strongly about the issues but never finding a national megaphone. Indeed, even organized groups, such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, sizable as they might be, have had little impact, of late, on foreign affairs.

    This paradoxical reality-that even big groups can be voiceless, allowing smaller groups to carry the day-is well understood. Back in 1839, the historian Thomas Carlyle observed of his Britain, "The speaking classes speak and debate," while the "deep-buried [working] class lies like an Enceladus"-a mythological giant imprisoned under a volcano. Yet, Carlyle continued, the giant under the volcano will not stay silent forever; one day it will erupt, and the inevitable eruption "has to produce earthquakes!"

    In our time, Trump has provoked the Enceladus-like earthquake. Over the past year, while the mainstream media has continued to lavish attention on the fine points of libertarianism and neoconservatism, the Peoples of the Volcano have blown up American politics.

    Trump has spoken loudly to both of his groups. To the isolationists, he has highlighted his past opposition to the Iraq and Libya misadventures, as well as his suspicions about NATO and other alliances. (Here the libertarians, too, are on board.) At the same time, he has also talked the language of the hawks, as when he has said, "Take the oil" and "Bomb the [bleep] out of them." Trump has also attacked the Iran nuclear agreement, deriding it as "one of the worst deals ever made."

    Thus earlier this year Trump mobilized the isolationists and the hawks, leaving the libertarians to Rand Paul and the neocons to Rubio.

    Now as we move to the general election, it appears that Trump has kept the loyalty of his core groups. Many libertarians, meanwhile, are voting for Gary Johnson-the former Republican governor at the top of the Libertarian Party's ticket-and they are being joined, most likely as a one-off, by disaffected Republicans and Democrats. Meanwhile, the neocons, most of them, have become the objective allies, if not the overt supporters, of Hillary Clinton.

    Even if Trump loses, his energized supporters, having found their voice, will be a new and important force within the GOP-a force that could make it significantly harder for a future president to, say, "liberate" and "democratize" Syria.

    ♦♦♦

    Yet now we must skip past the unknown unknowns of the election and ask: what might we expect if Trump becomes president?

    One immediate point to be borne in mind is that it will be a challenge to fill the cabinet and the sub-cabinet-to say nothing of the thousands of "Schedule C" positions across the administration-with true Trump loyalists. Yes, of course, if Trump wins that means he will have garnered 50 million or more votes, but still, the number of people who have the right credentials and can pass all the background checks-including, for most of the top jobs, Senate confirmation-is minuscule.

    So here we might single out the foreign-policy realists as likely having a bright future in a Trump administration: after all, they are often well-credentialed and, by their nature, have prudently tended to keep their anti-Trump commentary to a minimum. (There's a piece of inside-the-Beltway realist wisdom that seems relevant here: "You're for what happens.")

    Yet the path to realist dominion in a Trump administration is not smooth. As a group, they have been in eclipse since the Bush 41 era, so an entire generation of their cadres is missing. The realists do not have long lists of age-appropriate alumni ready for another spin through the revolving door.

    By contrast, the libertarians have lots of young staffers on some think-tank payroll or another. And of course, the neocons have lots of experience and contacts-yes, they screwed up the last time they were in power, but at least they know the jargon.

    Thus, unless president-elect Trump makes a genuinely heroic effort to infuse his administration with new blood, he will end up hiring a lot of folks who might not really agree with him-and who perhaps even have strongly, if quietly, opposed him. That means that the path of a Trump presidency could be channeled in an unexpected direction, as the adherents of other foreign-policy schools-including, conceivably, schools from the left-clamber aboard. As they say in DC, "personnel is policy."

    Still, Trump has a strong personality, and it's entirely possible that, as president, he will succeed in imprinting his unique will on his appointees. (On the other hand, the career government, starting with the State Department's foreign service officers, might well prove to be a different story.)

    Looking further ahead, as a hypothetical President Trump surveys the situation from the Sit Room, here are nine things that will be in view:

    1.

    Trump will recall, always, that the Bush 43 presidency drove itself into a ditch on Iraq. So he will surely see the supreme value of not sending U.S. ground troops-beyond a few advisors-into Middle Eastern war zones.

    2.

    Trump will also realize that Barack Obama, for all his talk about hope and change, ended up preserving the bulk of Bush 43's policies. The only difference is that Obama did it on the cheap, reducing defense spending as he went along.

    Obama similar to Bush-really? Yes. To be sure, Obama dropped all of Bush's democratic messianism, but even with his cool detachment he kept all of Bush's alliances and commitments, including those in Afghanistan and Iraq. And then he added a new international commitment: "climate change."

    In other words, America now has a policy of "quintuple containment": Russia, China, Iran, ISIS/al-Qaeda, and, of course, the carbon-dioxide molecule. Many would argue that today we aren't managing any of these containments well; others insist that the Obama administration, perversely, seems most dedicated to the containment of climate change: everything else can fall apart, but if the Obamans can maintain the illusion of their international CO2 deals, as far as they are concerned all will be well.

    In addition, Uncle Sam has another hundred or so minor commitments-including bilateral defense treaties with countries most Americans have never heard of, along with special commitments to champion the rights of children, women, dissidents, endangered species, etc. On a one-by-one basis, it's possible to admire many of these efforts; on a cumulative basis, it's impossible to imagine how we can sustain all of them.

    3.
    A populist president like Trump will further realize that if the U.S. has just 4 percent of the world's population and barely more than a fifth of world GDP, it's not possible that we can continue to police the planet. Yes, we have many allies-on paper. Yet Trump's critique of many of them as feckless, even faithless, resonated for one big reason: it was true.

    So Trump will likely begin the process of rethinking U.S. commitments around the world. Do we really want to risk nuclear war over the Spratly Islands? Or the eastern marches of Ukraine? Here, Trump might well default to the wisdom of the realists: big powers are just that-big powers-and so one must deal with them in all their authoritarian essentiality. And as for all the other countries of the world-some we like and some we don't-we're not going to change them, either. (Although in some cases, notably Iraq and Syria, partition, supervised by the great powers, may be the only solution.)

    4.

    Trump will surely see world diplomacy as an extension of what he has done best all his life-making deals. This instinct will serve him well in two ways: first, he will be sharply separating himself from his predecessors, Bush the hot-blooded unilateralist war-of-choicer and Obama the cool and detached multilateralist leader-from-behind. Second, his deal-making desire will inspire him do what needs to be done: build rapport with world leaders as a prelude to making things happen.

    To cite one immediate example: there's no way that we will ever achieve anything resembling "peace with honor" in Afghanistan without the full cooperation of the Taliban's masters in Pakistan. Ergo, the needed deal must be struck in Islamabad, not Kabul.

    Almost certainly, a President Trump will treat China and Russia as legitimate powers, not as rogue states that must be single-handedly tamed by America.

    Moreover, Trump's deal-making trope also suggests that instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. "leadership," he will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness.

    5.

    Trump will further realize that his friends the realists have had a blind spot of late when it comes to eco nomic matters. Once upon a time-that is, in the 19th century-economic nationalism was at the forefront of American foreign-policy making. In the old days, as America's Manifest Destiny stretched beyond the continental U.S., expansionism and Hamiltonianism went together: as they used to say, trade follows the flag. Theodore Roosevelt's digging of the Panama Canal surely ranks as one of the most successful fusions of foreign and economic policy in American history.

    Yet in the past few decades, the economic nationalists and the foreign-policy realists have drifted apart. For example, a Reagan official, Clyde Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Institute, has been mostly ignored by the realists, who have instead embraced the conventional elite view of free trade and globalization.

    So a President Trump will have the opportunity to reunite realism and economic nationalism; he can once again put manufacturing exports, for example, at the top of the U.S. agenda. Indeed, Trump might consider other economic-nationalist gambits: for example, if we are currently defending such wealthy countries as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Norway, why aren't they investing some of the trillions of dollars in their sovereign-wealth funds into, say, American infrastructure?

    6.

    Trump will also come into power realizing that he has few friends in the foreign-policy establishment; after all, most establishmentarians opposed him vehemently. Yet that could turn out to be a real plus for the 45th president because it could enable him to discard the stodgy and outworn thinking of the "experts." In particular, he could refute the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow. That was always, of course, a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population-and maybe Trump can come up with a better and fairer vision.

    7.

    As an instinctive deal-maker, Trump will have the capacity to clear away the underbrush of accumulated obsolete doctrines and dogmas. To cite just one small but tragic example, there's the dopey chain of thinking that has guided U.S. policy toward South Sudan. Today, we officially condemn both sides in that country's ongoing civil war. Yet we might ask, how can that work out well for American interests? After all, one side or the other is going to win, and we presumably want a friend in Juba, not a Chinese-affiliated foe.

    On the larger canvas, Trump will observe that if the U.S., China, and Russia are the three countries capable of destroying the world, then it's smart to figure out a modus vivendi among this threesome. Such practical deal-making, of course, would undermine the moralistic narrative that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are the potentates of new evil empires.

    8.

    Whether or not he's currently familiar with the terminology, Trump seems likely to recapitulate the "multipolar" system envisioned by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. Back then, the multipolar vision included the U.S., the USSR, Western Europe, China, and Japan.

    Yet multipolarity was lost in the '80s, as the American economy was Reaganized, the Cold War grew colder, and the Soviet Union staggered to its self-implosion. Then in the '90s we had the "unipolar moment," when the U.S. enjoyed "hyper-power" primacy.

    Yet as with all moments, unipolarity soon passed, undone by the Iraq quagmire, America's economic stagnation, and the rise of other powers. So today, multipolarity seems destined to re-emerge with a slightly upgraded cast of players: the U.S., China, Russia, the European Union, and perhaps India.

    9.

    And, of course, Trump will have to build that wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.

    ♦♦♦

    Some might object that I am reading too much into Trump. Indeed, the conventional wisdom, even today, maintains that Trump is visceral, not intellectual, that he is buffoonish, not Kissingerian.

    To such critics, this Trump supporter feels compelled to respond: when has the conventional wisdom about the New Yorker been proven correct?

    It's not easy to become president. In all of U.S. history, just 42 individuals have been elected to the presidency-or to the vice presidency and succeeded a fallen president. That is, indeed, an exclusive club. Or as Trump himself might say, it's not a club for dummies.

    If Trump does, in fact, become the 45th president, then by definition, he will have proven himself to be pretty darn strategic. And that's a portent that bodes well for his foreign policy.

    James P. Pinkerton is a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

    Kurt Gayle , October 24, 2016 at 12:03 am
    Among James Pinkerton's most compelling reasons to hope for a Trump presidency are these two:

    [1] "Almost certainly, a President Trump will treat China and Russia as legitimate powers, not as rogue states that must be single-handedly tamed by America…Trump will observe that if the U.S., China, and Russia are the three countries capable of destroying the world, then it's smart to figure out amodus vivendi among this threesome…"

    US-Russia-China cooperation will eliminate for the US the threat of war with the only two powers whose nuclear capabilities could pose existential threats to the US.

    [2] Simultaneously, Trump will put an end to "the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow…a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population…Instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. 'leadership,' [Trump] will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness."

    President Trump will rebuild the decimated US manufacturing sector and return to Americans those tens of millions of jobs that America's globalist elites were allowed to ship overseas. Rebuilding the US economy – and jobs! – will be the centerpiece of a Donald Trump presidency.<

    Chris Chuba , October 24, 2016 at 8:28 am
    The problem is that everyone wants to call themselves a Realist, even the Neocons. The Neocons proclaim that promoting Democracy, nation building, and being the world's policeman is 'realism' because if you withdraw from the world the problems follow you home. Tom Rogan bellowed that we needed to destroy Syria in the name of realism. They are totally wrong but the point is that everyone wants to claim this mantle which is why I tend to avoid this term.

    I think we should embrace the Putin Doctrine but that name is toxic. Basically, he eschews destroying standing govts because it is highly destabilizing. This is common sense.

    Oh, when I hear 'Bush kept us safe' it tears my heart out when I see guys in their 20/30's walking around with those titanium prosthetics. Do the 4,000+ men who died in Iraq and 10,000+ severely wounded count? And this does not even start to count the chaos and death in the M.E.

    PAXNOW , October 24, 2016 at 10:13 am
    Trump just came across as different while maintaining conservative, albeit middle-American values. Mainstream media are besides themselves at the prospect of their masters having to relinquish their special entitlements; namely, designer wars, selection of the few to govern the many (Supreme Court and the Fed), and putting foreign dictates over American interests at an incredible cost to the U.S. in human and non-human resources.

    The song goes on. Trump hit a real nerve. Even if he loses, the American people have had a small but important victory. We are frustrated with the ruling cabal. A sleeping giant has been awoken. This election could be the political Perl Harbor….

    Ed Johnson , October 24, 2016 at 10:41 am
    Pinkerton has spent thousands of words writing about someone who is not the Donald Trump anyone has ever seen.

    In this, he joins every other member of the Right, who wait in hopeful anticipation to see a Champion for their cause in Donald Trump, and are willing to turn a blind eye to his ignorance, outright stupidity, lack of self-discipline, and lack of serious intent.

    Pinkerton, he will only follow your lead here if he sees what's in it for HIM, not for the Right and certainly not for the benefit of the American people.

    w vervin , October 24, 2016 at 1:00 pm
    Flawed premise. This opine works its way through the rabbit hole pretzel of current methodologies in D.C. The ones that don't work. The city of NY had a similar outcome building a certain ice skating facility within the confines of a system designed to fail.

    What Trump does is implode those failed systems, implements a methodology that has proven to succeed, and then does it. Under budget and before the deadline. Finding the *right* bodies to make it all work isn't as difficult as is surmised. What that shows is how difficult that task would be for the author. Whenever I hear some pundit claim that Trump can't possibly do all that means is the pundit couldn't possibly do it.

    The current system is full of youcan'tdoits, what have you got to lose, more of the same?

    [Oct 24, 2016] Eli Lake a dork who used to be the National Security Correspondent for the Daily Beast exercises in Russophobia on Bloomberg

    Notable quotes:
    "... So… Russia is already isolated, its economy is in shreds… or not? Because you can't have isolation (as you, pressitudes, claimed since 2014) of Russia and demand it at the same time! At the same time, no – ignoring Russia completely and talking only about "plox, don't use nukes, m'cay?" is not a "diplomacy". ..."
    "... Absolutely schizophrenic Clinton-McFoul (yes, I know that his surname is spelled differently), which is still dominants in the alls of power of the West boils down to the following: ..."
    "... 1) Talk harsh (really harsh!) with Russia on things we don't like ..."
    "... 2) Cooperate with Russia when it possible as if never happened. ..."
    "... And when Russia says that there are direct links between 1) and 2), that you can't expect to get 2) after doing 1) – there is no use to fake a hurt innocence of Ukrainians from this old anecdote with the "А на за що?!" punchline, ..."
    "... You want war? You will have one! Want peace? Then behave yourself accodringly. ..."
    "... Eli Lake is a dork who used to be the 'National Security Correspondent' for the Daily Beast. You know what a rag that is. Also, he was educated at Trinity College, a private liberal-arts school. ..."
    "... I know how we can reach a compromise – me and the Russian government. Every year on the day that article was published, they could have "Eli Lake Day". On that day, an American company could be chosen at random to be kicked out of the country and have all its assets confiscated. The documents could lead off with, "Congratulations! You have been selected to receive the Eli Lake Award for Bankruptcy. You can thank Eli Lake and his big fucking mouth". ..."
    Oct 22, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Lyttenburgh , October 14, 2016 at 6:24 am

    Unsurprisingly – this article is from the Blub-blub-bloomberg. What is surprising – it's not by Lyonya Bershidski. It's by another titan of handshakability – Eli Lake.

    Treat Russia Like the International Poison It Is

    Why, surely with the name like that the article must be honest, objective and answer to all standards of the journalism (in the West)?

    I was again surprised when the now standard litany of Kremlin sins suddenly became an accusation of "Murder, Kidnapping and Jaywalking":

    "Russia also poisons the international system in small ways… It continues to support Kirsan Ilyumzhinov as head of the International Chess Federation, despite his chummy visits to rogue states like North Korea and Iran. His recent plan to hold the international chess championship in Iran has drawn protest from the U.S. women's chess champion, Nazi Paikidze-Barnes, because Iran requires women to cover their heads with a hijab."

    Wow. Yet another bottom is crushed successfully and the standards of journalism in the Free West get new way to fall! Or was it a secret way to endorse a "legitimate" head of the Chess Federation – fearless Gary Kimovich Kasparov?

    With new way to fall achieved by crashing yet another bottom the article takes a plunge:

    "Browder last month proposed a plan for Interpol to create a two-tiered system. Speaking before a human-rights commission in Congress, he said that transparent countries like the U.S. would have their red notice requests processed immediately, whereas countries like Russia, known to abuse the system, would have their requests reviewed by a panel of objective and independent experts before being sent out to member states."

    How handshakable! Surely, such approach will demonstrate the equality of countries in the international relations and the true value of the Rule of Law!

    The article ends in – now traditional for all Westie journos – couple of self-contradicting paragraphs:

    "None of this should preclude diplomacy with Russia. The U.S. and Russia should still have channels to discuss nuclear stockpiles and other matters. But as Secretary of State John Kerry has learned in his fruitless engagements, Russian promises are worthless. Everyone in U.S. politics, with the exception of Donald Trump and a few other extremists on the left and right, understands this. Russia is a pariah.

    Pariahs are not asked to cooperate on challenges to the global commons. They shouldn't get to host events like the World Cup, as Russia is scheduled to do in 2018. They should not be diplomatic partners in U.S. policy to disarm other pariahs like Iran. No, pariahs should be quarantined. With Russia, it's the very least the U.S. and its allies can do to save the international system from a country that seeks to destroy it."

    So… Russia is already isolated, its economy is in shreds… or not? Because you can't have isolation (as you, pressitudes, claimed since 2014) of Russia and demand it at the same time! At the same time, no – ignoring Russia completely and talking only about "plox, don't use nukes, m'cay?" is not a "diplomacy".

    Absolutely schizophrenic Clinton-McFoul (yes, I know that his surname is spelled differently), which is still dominants in the alls of power of the West boils down to the following:

    1) Talk harsh (really harsh!) with Russia on things we don't like

    2) Cooperate with Russia when it possible as if never happened.

    Now imagine that your neighbour decided to harm you in some nasty, really mean way. Imagine him throwing seeds on you car, parked outside, and then filming how birds land (and shit) o your car on his phone – with lots, and lots of really "smart" comments. Then your neighbor uploads this video on YouTube, his Facebook page, Twitter, Instagram etc, etc. Here he engages with other commenters in the vein of "Yeah, I know – he's a total douche! He got what he deserved! But wait, guys – I have more plans for my neighbour!!!:)".

    Next week he asks you to borrow him a landmover – as if nothing has ever happened before. And when Russia says that there are direct links between 1) and 2), that you can't expect to get 2) after doing 1) – there is no use to fake a hurt innocence of Ukrainians from this old anecdote with the "А на за що?!" punchline,

    You want war? You will have one! Want peace? Then behave yourself accodringly.

    marknesop , October 14, 2016 at 9:06 pm

    Eli Lake is a dork who used to be the 'National Security Correspondent' for the Daily Beast. You know what a rag that is. Also, he was educated at Trinity College, a private liberal-arts school. But the day will come when it is Russia's choice to punish Americans for the ignorant things people like Eli Lake said. I would do it in a heartbeat; I would chortle with glee as I tore up American proposals for joint ventures, and send balaclava-sporting kids dressed like Voina around to paint giant dicks on their office doors with the message, "This is for Eli", until they fled for the airport gibbering with terror. But that's me. Russia probably won't do it, because they are pragmatic and like business and profit.

    I know how we can reach a compromise – me and the Russian government. Every year on the day that article was published, they could have "Eli Lake Day". On that day, an American company could be chosen at random to be kicked out of the country and have all its assets confiscated. The documents could lead off with, "Congratulations! You have been selected to receive the Eli Lake Award for Bankruptcy. You can thank Eli Lake and his big fucking mouth".

    [Oct 23, 2016] Rigged Elections Are An American Tradition

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased. ..."
    "... Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary. ..."
    "... The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft. ..."
    "... Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting. ..."
    "... Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Paul Craig Roberts • October 21, 2016

    Do Americans have a memory? I sometimes wonder.

    It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased.

    The current cause celebre against Trump is his conditional statement that he might not accept the election results if they appear to have been rigged. The presstitutes immediately jumped on him for "discrediting American democracy" and for "breaking American tradition of accepting the people's will."

    What nonsense! Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary.

    So what's the big deal about Trump's suspicion of election rigging?

    The black civil rights movement has fought vote rigging for decades. The rigging takes place in a number of ways. Blacks simply can't get registered to vote. If they do get registered, there are few polling places in their districts. And so on. After decades of struggle it is impossible that there are any blacks who are not aware of how hard it can be for them to vote. Yet, I heard on the presstitute radio network, NPR, Hillary's Uncle Toms saying how awful it was that Trump had cast aspersion on the credibility of American election results.

    I also heard a NPR announcer suggest that Russia had not only hacked Hillary's emails, but also had altered them in order to make incriminating documents out of harmless emails.

    The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft.

    Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting.

    Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want.

    [Oct 23, 2016] Rigged Elections Are An American Tradition

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased. ..."
    "... Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary. ..."
    "... The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft. ..."
    "... Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting. ..."
    "... Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Paul Craig Roberts • October 21, 2016

    Do Americans have a memory? I sometimes wonder.

    It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased.

    The current cause celebre against Trump is his conditional statement that he might not accept the election results if they appear to have been rigged. The presstitutes immediately jumped on him for "discrediting American democracy" and for "breaking American tradition of accepting the people's will."

    What nonsense! Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary.

    So what's the big deal about Trump's suspicion of election rigging?

    The black civil rights movement has fought vote rigging for decades. The rigging takes place in a number of ways. Blacks simply can't get registered to vote. If they do get registered, there are few polling places in their districts. And so on. After decades of struggle it is impossible that there are any blacks who are not aware of how hard it can be for them to vote. Yet, I heard on the presstitute radio network, NPR, Hillary's Uncle Toms saying how awful it was that Trump had cast aspersion on the credibility of American election results.

    I also heard a NPR announcer suggest that Russia had not only hacked Hillary's emails, but also had altered them in order to make incriminating documents out of harmless emails.

    The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft.

    Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting.

    Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want.

    [Oct 23, 2016] When security agencies are crying about Russians, that means they want more cash and might stage attacks themselves to justify the claims

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes if next week motherland security and other 3 letter govt. are crying they need more cash to fight this then just maybe they did to themselves. ..."
    "... Internet hacks - it's this election cycle's white power in an envelope! ..."
    "... I would laugh so hard if a selection of sites [that] were shut down. ..."
    "... We so need to officially declare this whole bloody mess a parody: ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    jo6pac October 21, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Funny they were warned that this could happen months ago

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161021/09440935851/nice-internet-youve-got-there-you-wouldnt-want-something-to-happen-to-it.shtml

    Yes if next week motherland security and other 3 letter govt. are crying they need more cash to fight this then just maybe they did to themselves.

    RT is reporting the 3rd attack is underway.

    Tom October 21, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    Internet hacks - it's this election cycle's white power in an envelope!

    hunkerdown October 21, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    I trust the D involvement is meant to be implied by its conspicuous absence.

    Kokuanani October 22, 2016 at 1:55 am

    Do you mean white POWDER???

    Waldenpond October 21, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    I would laugh so hard if a selection of sites [that] were shut down. Waaah! Assange won't shut up! So Twitter, WL.org, Reddit, where else would make good spots to shut down discussion in these last days before the election. WL thought they had a good marketing gimmick going with the drip, drip and who knows maybe a special event for C's birthday? or creating a November surprise (I really liked that idea as it reflects how quickly info moves)

    The petty back and forth between C and WL on top is a sight.

    Steve H. October 21, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    We so need to officially declare this whole bloody mess a parody:

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/250

    [Oct 23, 2016] Did The White House Just Declare War On Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Submitted by Darius Shahtamasebi via TheAntiMedia.org, ..."
    "... Consider the source. Biden is a blowhard and an embarassment. He said it for domestic consumption. Obama knows the Russians are not responsible and he will do nothing. ..."
    "... > ... "... Joe Biden's statement that the White House was preparing to send Vladimir Putin a "message" ..." ..."
    "... Absolutely. If the US and Russia got together - talk about a SUPERPOWER. The NeoCons are way too stupid to realize what a win-win this could be ..."
    "... "Americans marvel at the level and effectiveness of brainwashing in North Korea, and express shock that North Koreans revere Kim Jung-un as god, but the truth is that Americans are every bit as brainwashed and just as effectively. The god most Americans worship today is materialism." ..."
    "... the patriot VA state Senator who knows the truth as well https://www.sott.net/article/318592-Virginia-State-Senator-Richard-Black... ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    Submitted by Darius Shahtamasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

    This past week, America's oldest continuously published weekly magazine, the Nation, asked the question : has the White House declared war on Russia?

    As the two nuclear powers sabre-rattle over conflicts within Syria, and to some extent, over the Ukrainian crisis, asking these questions to determine who will pull the trigger first has become more paramount than it was at the peak of the Cold War.

    The Nation's contributing editor, Stephen F. Cohen, reported Vice President Joe Biden's statement that the White House was preparing to send Vladimir Putin a "message" - most likely in the form of a cyber attack - amounted to a virtual "American declaration of war on Russia" in Russia's eyes. Biden's threat is reportedly in response to allegations that Russia hacked Democratic Party offices in order to disrupt the presidential election.

    Chuck Todd, host of the "Meet the Press" on NBC, asked Joe Biden: "Why haven't we sent a message yet to Putin?"

    Biden responded, "We are sending a message [to Putin] We have a capacity to do it, and "

    "He'll know it?" Todd interrupted.

    "He'll know it. It will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact," the U.S. vice president replied.

    What are the effects of this kind of rhetoric when dealing with international relations? Western media decided to pay little attention to Biden's statements, yet his words have stunned Moscow. As reported by the Nation:

    " Biden's statement, which clearly had been planned by the White House, could scarcely have been more dangerous or reckless - especially considering that there is no actual evidence or logic for the two allegations against Russia that seem to have prompted it."

    The statements will not come without any measured response from Russia. According to presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov, Russia's response is well underway:

    "The fact is, US unpredictability and aggression keep growing, and such threats against Moscow and our country's leadership are unprecedented, because the threat is being announced at the level of the US Vice President. Of course, given such an aggressive, unpredictable line, we have to take measures to protect our interests, somehow hedge the risks."

    The fact that our media refuses to pay attention to the dangers of our own establishment in sending warnings to adverse nuclear powers based on unasserted allegations shows our media is playing a very dangerous game with us - the people. This attempt to pull the wool over our eyes and prepare us for a direct confrontation with Russia can be seen clearly in the battle for Aleppo, Syria.

    As the Nation astutely noted:

    "Only a few weeks ago, President Obama had agreed with Putin on a joint US-Russian military campaign against 'terrorists' in Aleppo. That agreement collapsed primarily because of an attack by US warplanes on Syrian forces. Russia and its Syrian allies continued their air assault on east Aleppo now, according to Washington and the mainstream media, against anti-Assad 'rebels.' Where, asks Cohen, have the jihad terrorists gone? They had been deleted from the US narrative, which now accused Russia of 'war crimes' in Aleppo for the same military campaign in which Washington was to have been a full partner."

    So where is this conflict headed? A top U.S. general, Marine General Joseph Dunford, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in September of this year that the enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in Syria would mean a U.S. war with both Syria and Russia. Hillary Clinton is well aware of the repercussions of this war, as she acknowledged in a secret speech to Goldman Sachs (recently released by Wikileaks):

    "To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk - you're going to kill a lot of Syrians So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians."

    This is the same establishment that has been calling out Russia for allegedly committing war crimes in Aleppo even though Clinton's proposal would result in far more civilian deaths and likely lead to a direct war with Russia.

    As the war against Syria transitions into a much wider global conflict that could include nuclear powers Russia and China, our own media is deceiving us by dishonestly reporting on the events leading up to the activation of the doomsday clock.

    History doesn't occur in a vacuum; when the U.S. and Russia confront each other directly, it won't be because of a mere incident occurring in Syrian airspace.

    It will be because the two nuclear powers have been confronting each other with little resistance from the corporate media, which keeps us well entertained and preoccupied with political charades , celebrity gossip , and outright propaganda .


    manofthenorth -> TeamDepends •Oct 23, 2016 8:17 PM

    So this Jester has no connection to CIA/NSA ?

    This hack after the threat from short bus Joe is a pure coincidence right ?

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/jester-hacks-russian-ministry/

    847328_3527 -> manofthenorth •Oct 23, 2016 8:24 PM

    Zacktly. It's the NSA who is leaking the crooked DNC emails. Not Vlad.

    MalteseFalcon d 847328_3527 •Oct 23, 2016 8:50 PM

    "What are the effects of this kind of rhetoric when dealing with international relations? "

    Consider the source. Biden is a blowhard and an embarassment. He said it for domestic consumption. Obama knows the Russians are not responsible and he will do nothing.

    PrayingMantis -> TeamDepends Oct 23, 2016 8:37 PM

    > ... "... Joe Biden's statement that the White House was preparing to send Vladimir Putin a "message" ..."

    ... it might've been the other way around ... Mother Russia had already sent them a "message" in Sept but they failed to respond ...

    >>> "... 30 Israeli, Foreign Intelligence Officers Killed in Russia's Caliber Missile Attack in Aleppo ..." >>> http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950631000607

    ... "... Several US, Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and British officers were also killed along with the Israeli officers. The foreign officers who were killed in the Aleppo operations room were directing the terrorists' attacks in Aleppo and Idlib. ..."

    Jim in MN -> jmack Oct 23, 2016 8:05 PM

    This is why Israhell is furious with this Prez. And why they are seen in the Podesta emails making sure that none of 'those two-state solution' people get into key foreign/defense posts under Her Fury.

    It's going to be all war, all the time, boys, according to Israeli timetables and objectives.

    Unless We The People say NO on Nov. 8 and make it stick.

    General Titus -> Jim in MN Oct 23, 2016 8:16 PM

    Interesting that you bring up the "two-state solution" speculation along those lines goes like this. Clinton & Rabin were working on a two-state solution Rabin was assinated and Clinton was trolled by a modern day "Esther" to ensnare Clinton and destroy the two-state solution. You heard it here first on ZH my friend

    jmack -> Jim in MN Oct 23, 2016 8:24 PM

    Fuck all you anti-semetic trolls, probably all false flag fags anyway. Your ramblings don't make sense.

    Jim in MN -> jmack Oct 23, 2016 8:27 PM

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2649

    Suck it. We have proof.

    Jethro -> jmack •Oct 23, 2016 8:14 PM

    Anti-colonial agenda. Plus, Barry was bottom bitch to his Paki lover back in the day.

    Mandel Bot -> jmack •Oct 23, 2016 8:33 PM

    Absolutely. If the US and Russia got together - talk about a SUPERPOWER. The NeoCons are way too stupid to realize what a win-win this could be.

    ebworthen •Oct 23, 2016 7:59 PM

    Hitlary and the M.I.C. (and Wall Street/D.C. Imperial City) have no idea how much at risk they put themselves and the rest of us.

    Russia has been here and where America never has been, and they have defeated many, many, a foe. Abject stupidity to poke the Russian bear and disrespect our agreements post WWII and Cold War.

    Shameful, absolutely shameful! Rot in HELL you D.C. Vichy!

    RawPawg •Oct 23, 2016 7:59 PM

    Meanwhile...in 'Merica. Sunday afternoon Football stands are Full. very surreal given the times we live in,eh?

    Lost in translation -> RawPawg •Oct 23, 2016 8:23 PM

    After I explained that Americans don't care about the Podesta emails as long as the NFL is on, and have no idea what WikiLeaks is but can tell you everything about the NLCS, Mrs. Lost said...

    "Americans marvel at the level and effectiveness of brainwashing in North Korea, and express shock that North Koreans revere Kim Jung-un as god, but the truth is that Americans are every bit as brainwashed and just as effectively. The god most Americans worship today is materialism."

    General Titus Oct 23, 2016 8:02 PM

    The native Orthodox Christian Russian people took back their nation when they collapsed the Soviet Union and drove the mass murdering Bolsheviks out, many of whom came to the US & EU nations

    ""You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred, they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated, Bolshevism committed the greatest slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators"""

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    General Titus -> i poop pink ice cream Oct 23, 2016 8:59 PM
    Just spreading awareness my friend. TYVM for the gratz. Here's a great one for the truth about the war to destroy secular Syria.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/

    and the patriot VA state Senator who knows the truth as well https://www.sott.net/article/318592-Virginia-State-Senator-Richard-Black...

    lakecity55 •Oct 23, 2016 8:07 PM

    Hey, Russians, We The People are not mad or at war with you. If you want to whack the Assholes in Vichy, however, go ahead!! You will have our thanks!

    evildimensions -> lakecity55 •Oct 23, 2016 8:19 PM

    Agreed. Just because we have a mad president, please don't think that we Americans are mad (in the British sense of the word). We wish the Russian people no harm. In fact, many of us, myself included, cheer your efforts in Syria to wipe out the rabid dogs of ISIS.

    Please keep bombing the living shit out of them. And this is important, so please listen carefully...

    Not degrade...Not diminish...Not contain...

    Wipe out. AS IN WIPE THEM THE FUCK OUT.

    [Oct 23, 2016] Putin on Hillary or Trump

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    https://twitter.com/rodriQuez/status/789555582663479296

    Posted by: From The Hague | Oct 22, 2016 12:51:37 PM | 9

    [Oct 23, 2016] Clintonism is wedge politics directed against any class or populist upheaval that might threaten neoliberalism

    That's explains vicious campaign by neoliberal MSM against Trump and swiping under the carpet all criminal deeds of Clinton family. They feel the threat...
    Notable quotes:
    "... It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism. ..."
    "... That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    An excellent article

    It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism.

    That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.[…]

    There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.

    In other words it's all part of a grand plan when the Clintonoids aren't busy debating the finer points of her marketing and "mark"–a term normally applied to the graphic logo on a commercial product.

    http://www.unz.com/plee/trump-we-wish-the-problem-was-fascism/

    [Oct 23, 2016] The USA now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang

    Notable quotes:
    "... I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite. ..."
    "... But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid. ..."
    "... In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    likbez October 22, 2016 11:20 pm

    The key problems with Democratic Party and Hillary is that they lost working class and middle class voters, becoming another party of highly paid professionals and Wall Street speculators (let's say top 10%, not just 1%), the party of neoliberal elite.

    It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and lower middle class works this time. I think it will not. Even upper middle class is very resentful of Democrats and Hillary. So many votes will be not "for" but "against". This is the scenario Democratic strategists fear the most, but they can do nothing about it.

    She overplayed "identity politics" card. Her "identity politics" and her fake feminism are completely insincere. She is completely numb to human suffering and interests of females and minorities. Looks like she has a total lack of empathy for other people.

    Here is one interesting quote ( http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/10/how-trump-and-clinton-gave-bad-answers-on-us-nuclear-policy-and-why-you-should-be-worried.html#comment-2680036 ):

    "What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html ) revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited. "

    Usually people are resentful about Party which betrayed them so many times. It would be interesting to see how this will play this time.

    Beverly Mann October 23, 2016 12:00 pm

    It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and lower middle class works this time?

    Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust Division)-to name only some.

    And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed proxies of big business.

    And then there's the incessant push to privatize Social Security and Medicare. It ain't the Dems that are pushing that.

    You're drinking wayyy too much Kool Aid, likbez. Or maybe just reading too much Ayn Rand, at Paul Ryan's recommendation.

    beene October 23, 2016 10:31 am

    I would suggest despite most of the elite in both parties supporting Hillary, and saying she has the election in the bag is premature. In my opinion the fact that Trump rallies still has large attendance; where Hillary's rallies would have trouble filling up a large room is a better indication that Trump will win.

    Even democrats are not voting democratic this time to be ignored till election again.

    likbez October 23, 2016 12:56 pm

    Beverly,

    === quote ===
    Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust Division) -- to name only some.

    And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed proxies of big business.
    === end of quote ===

    This is all true. But Trump essentially running not as a Republican but as an independent on (mostly) populist platform (with elements of nativism). That's why a large part of Republican brass explicitly abandoned him. That does not exclude that he easily will be co-opted after the election, if he wins.

    And I would not be surprised one bit if Dick Cheney, Victoria Nuland, Paul Wolfowitz and Perle vote for Hillary. Robert Kagan and papa Bush already declared such an intention. She is a neocon. A wolf in sheep clothing, if we are talking about real anti-war democrats, not the USA brand of DemoRats. She is crazy warmonger, no question about it, trying to compensate a complete lack of diplomatic skills with jingoism and saber rattling.

    The problem here might be that you implicitly idealize Hillary and demonize Trump.

    I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite.

    But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid.

    That's what classic neoliberal DemoRats "bait and switch" maneuver (previously executed by Obama two times) means. And that's why working class now abandoned Democratic Party. Even unions members of unions which endorses Clinton are expected to vote 3:1 against her. Serial betrayal of interests of working class (and lower middle class) after 25 years gets on nerve. Not that their choice is wise, but they made a choice. This is "What's the matter with Kansas" all over again.

    It reminds me the situation when Stalin was asked whether right revisionism of Marxism (social democrats) or left (Trotskyites with their dream of World revolution) is better. He answered "both are worse" :-).

    In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook.

    Of course, we need also remember about existence of "deep state" which make each of them mostly a figurehead, but still the power of "deep state" is not absolute and this is a very sad situation.

    Beverly Mann, October 23, 2016 1:57 pm

    Good grace.

    Two points: First, you apparently are unaware of Trump's proposed tax plan, written by Heritage Foundation economists and political-think-tank types. It's literally more regressively extreme evn than Paul Ryan's. It gives tax cuts to the wealthy that are exponentially more generous percentage-wise than G.W. Bush's two tax cuts together were, it eliminates the estate tax, and it gives massive tax cuts to corporations, including yuge ones.

    Two billionaire Hamptons-based hedge funders, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, have been funding a super PAC for Trump and since late spring have met with Trump and handed him policy proposals and suggestions for administrative agency heads and judicial appointments. Other yuge funders are members of the Ricketts family, including Thomas Ricketts, CEO of TD Ameritrade and a son of its founder.

    Two other billionaires funding Trump: Forrest Lucas, founder of Lucas Oil and reportedly Trump's choice for Interior Secretary if you and the working class and lower middle class folks whose interests Trump has at heart get their way.

    And then there's Texas oil billionaire Harold Hamm, Trump's very first billionaire mega-donor.

    One of my recurring pet peeves about Clinton and her campaign is her failure to tell the public that these billionaires are contributing mega-bucks to help fund Trump's campaign, and to tell the public who exactly they are. As well as her failure to make a concerted effort to educate the public about the the specifics of Trump's fiscal and deregulatory agenda as he has published it.

    As for your belief that I idealize Clinton, you obviously are very new to Angry Bear. I was a virulent Sanders supporter throughout the primaries, to the very end. In 2008 I originally supported John Edwards during the primaries and then, when it became clear that it was a two-candidate race, supported Obama. My reason? I really, really, REALLY did not want to see another triangulation Democratic administration. That's largely what we got during Obama's first term, though, and I was not happy about it.

    Bottom line: I'm not the gullible one here. You are.

    likbez, October 23, 2016 2:37 pm

    You demonstrate complete inability to weight the gravity of two dismal, but unequal in their gravity options.

    All your arguments about Supreme Court justices, taxes, inheritance and other similar things make sense if and only if the country continues to exist.

    Which is not given due to the craziness and the level of degeneration of neoliberal elite and specifically Hillary ("no fly zone in Syria" is one example of her craziness). Playing chickens with a nuclear power for the sake of proving imperial dominance in Middle East is a crazy policy.

    Neocons rule the roost in both parties, which essentially became a single War Party with two wings. Trump looks like the only chance somewhat to limit their influence and reach some détente with Russia.

    Looks like you organically unable to understand that your choice in this particular case is between the decimation of the last remnants of the New Deal and a real chance of WWIII.

    This is not "pick your poison" situation. Those are two events of completely difference magnitude: one is reversible (and please note that Trump is bound by very controversial obligations to his electorate and faces hostile Congress), the other is not.

    We all should do our best to prevent the unleashing WWIII even if that means temporary decimation of the remnants of New Deal.

    Neoliberalism after 2008 entered zombie state, so while it is still strong, aggressive and bloodthirsty it might not last for long. And in such case the defeat of democratic forces on domestic front is temporary.

    That means vote against Hillary.

    [Oct 23, 2016] The 30 Seconds After The Last Debate That CNN Would Rather You Did not See

    Notable quotes:
    "... And continued and constant propaganda-peddling that the race is over because Trump's sexual assault allegations are "sucking all the air out of the room" compared to Hillary's stream of WikiLeaks facts. ..."
    "... CNN made the mistake of asking its focus group of real Americans who won the final debate... and instantly regretted it... ..."
    "... The media is just going to claim a winner on election night no matter what happens. You can't know otherwise. ..."
    "... I know that in my day to day dealings, as a businessman and as a private individual, I am taking every opportunity to fuck over the main stream media and anyone that works in it, hard and without mercy. ..."
    "... As Trump said CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Wash Post, NYT working hard to elect Hillary Rodent. ..."
    "... Rep Sheila Jackson (D) continues to embarrass herself by denouncing Wikipedia for engaging in espionage. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    And continued and constant propaganda-peddling that the race is over because Trump's sexual assault allegations are "sucking all the air out of the room" compared to Hillary's stream of WikiLeaks facts.

    CNN made the mistake of asking its focus group of real Americans who won the final debate... and instantly regretted it...

    Catullus Oct 22, 2016 5:30 PM ,

    The media is just going to claim a winner on election night no matter what happens. You can't know otherwise.
    hedgeless_horseman Catullus Oct 22, 2016 5:39 PM ,

    I know that in my day to day dealings, as a businessman and as a private individual, I am taking every opportunity to fuck over the main stream media and anyone that works in it, hard and without mercy.

    These opportunities are many and significant. I am enjoying it. Consequences, bitchezzz!!!

    Chris Dakota Crisismode Oct 22, 2016 8:43 PM ,
    As Trump said CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Wash Post, NYT working hard to elect Hillary Rodent.

    Rep Sheila Jackson (D) continues to embarrass herself by denouncing Wikipedia for engaging in espionage.

    She is the congresswoman from Mars

    Claimed we sent a man to Mars

    We won the Vietnam war

    Hurricanes need more diverse names

    Wore a gold Hillary Clinton campaign pin Wednesday to a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the FBI investigation into Clinton's private email server.

    http://tammybruce.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sheila-jackson-lee-1.png

    [Oct 23, 2016] From a speech given today in PA

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    J S Bach Never One Roach Oct 22, 2016 10:22 PM ,
    From a speech given today in PA...

    If you still can't decide which candidate the "best policies", you're the enemy.

    Here is the list of the "Contract with the American Voter" policies detailed by Trump:

    1. Propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress
    2. Institute a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health)
    3. Require for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
    4. Institute a five year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service
    5. Create a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
    6. Institute a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
    7. Announce intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205.
    8. Announce withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
    9. Direct Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.
    10. Direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately.
    11. Lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
    12. Lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward.
    13. Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure.
    14. Cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.
    15. Begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
    16. Cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities.
    17. Begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back.
    18. Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.
    19. Work with Congress on a Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act.An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.
    20. Work with Congress on a End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.
    21. Work with Congress on a American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.
    22. Work with Congress on a School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to gives parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.
    23. Work with Congress on a Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
    24. Work with Congress on a Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act.Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.
    25. Work with Congress on an End Illegal Immigration Act. Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
    26. Work with Congress on a Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
    27. Work with Congress on a Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values
    28. Work with Congress on a Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

    [Oct 23, 2016] Trump Unloads in Pennsylvania Speech Hillary Clinton Should Be in Prison - Breitbart

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    In a lengthy speech on Saturday night in Manheim, Pennsylvania, Republican nominee for president Donald J. Trump lambasted his opponent Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton for a secret tape recording of her bashing supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont-and even called for Clinton to be placed in prison and questioned as to whether she has been loyal to her husband former President Bill Clinton.

    Trump said in the speech on Saturday night:

    A new audio tape that has surfaced just yesterday from another one of Hillary's high roller fundraisers shows her demeaning and mocking Bernie Sanders and all of his supporters. You know, and I'll tell you something we have a much bigger movement that Bernie Sanders ever had. We have much bigger crowds than Sanders ever had. And we have a more important movement than Bernie Sanders ever had because we're going to save our country, okay? We're going to save our country. But I can tell you Bernie Sanders would have left a great, great legacy had he not made the deal with the devil. He would have really left a great legacy. Now he shows up and 120 people come in to hear him talk. Bernie Sanders would have left a great legacy had he not made the deal, had he held his head high and walked away. Now he's on the other side perhaps from us and we want to get along with everybody and we will-we're going to unite the country-but what Bernie Sanders did to his supporters was very, very unfair. And they're really not his supporters any longer and they're not going to support Hillary Clinton. I really believe a lot of those people are coming over and largely because of trade, college education, lots of other things-but largely because of trade, they're coming over to our side-you watch, you watch. Especially after Hillary mocks him and mocks all of those people by attacking him and his supporters as 'living in their parents' basements,' and trapped in dead-end careers. That's not what they are.

    Also in his speech on Saturday night, Trump summed up exactly what came out in the latest Hillary Clinton tapes in which she mocks Sanders supporters:

    She describes many of them as ignorant, and [that] they want the United States to be more like Scandinavia but that 'half the people don't know what that means' in a really sarcastic tone because she's a sarcastic woman. To sum up, and I'll tell you the other thing-she's an incompetent woman. She's an incompetent woman. I've seen it. Just take a look at what she touches. It never works out, and you watch: her run for the presidency will never ever work out because we can't let it work out. To sum up, Hillary Clinton thinks Bernie supporters are hopeless and ignorant basement dwellers. Then, of course, she thinks people who vote for and follow us are deplorable and irredeemable. I don't think so. I don't think so. We have the smartest people, we have the sharpest people, we have the most amazing people, and you know in all of the years of this country they say, even the pundits-most of them aren't worth the ground they're standing on, some of that ground could be fairly wealthy but ground, but most of these people say they have never seen a phenomenon like is going on. We have crowds like this wherever we go.

    WATCH THE FULL SPEECH:

    Later in the speech, Trump came back to the tape again and hammered her once more for it.

    "Hillary Clinton all but said that most of the country is racist, including the men and women of law enforcement," Trump said. "She said that the other night. Did anybody like Lester Holt? Did anybody question her when she said that? No, she said it the other night. [If] you're not a die hard Clinton fan-you're not a supporter-from Day One, Hillary Clinton thinks you are a defective person. That's what she's going around saying."

    In the speech, Trump questioned whether Clinton has the moral authority to lead when she considers the majority of Americans-Trump supporters and Sanders supporters-to be "defective" people. And he went so far as saying that Clinton "should be in prison." He went on:

    How on earth can Hillary Clinton try to lead this country when she has nothing but contempt for the people who live in this country? She's got contempt. First of all, she's got so many scandals and she's been caught cheating so much. One of the worst things I've ever witnessed as a citizen of the United States was last week when the FBI director was trying so hard to explain how she away with what she got away with, because she should be in prison. Let me tell you. She should be in prison. She's being totally protected by the New York Times and the Washington Post and all of the media and CNN-Clinton News Network-which nobody is watching anyway so what difference does it make? Don't even watch it. But she's being protected by many of these groups. It's not like do you think she's guilty? They've actually admitted she's guilty. And then she lies and lies, 33,000 emails deleted, bleached, acid-washed! And then they take their phones and they hammer the hell out of them. How many people have acid washed or bleached a Tweet? How many?

    He returned to the secret Clinton tape a little while later:

    Hillary Clinton slanders and attacks anyone who wants to put America First, whether they are Trump Voters or Bernie Voters. What she said about Bernie voters amazing. Like the European Union, she wants to erase our borders and she wants to do it for her donors and she wants people to pour into country without knowing who they are.

    Trump later bashed the media as "dishonest as hell" when calling on the reporters at his event to "turn your cameras" to show the crowd that came to see him.

    "If they showed the kind of crowds we have-which people can hear, you know it's interesting: you can hear the crowd when you hear the television but if they showed the crowd it would be better television, but they don't know much about that. But it would actually be better television," Trump said.

    Trump also questioned whether Hillary Clinton has been loyal to her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton has been known to cheat on Hillary Clinton with a variety of mistresses and has been accused of rape and sexual assault by some women.

    "Hillary Clinton's only loyalty is to her financial contributors and to herself," Trump said. "I don't even think she's loyal to Bill, if you want to know the truth. And really, folks, really: Why should she be, right? Why should she be?"

    Throughout the speech, Trump weaved together references to his new campaign theme about Clinton-"Follow The Money"-with details about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. He said:

    We're going to take on the corrupt media, the powerful lobbyists and the special interests that have stolen your jobs, your factories, and your future-that's exactly what's happened. We're going to stop Hillary Clinton from continuing to raid the industry from your state for her profit. Hillary Clinton has collected millions of dollars from the same global corporations shipping your jobs and your dreams to other countries. You know it and everybody else knows it. That's why Clinton, if she ever got the chance, would 100 percent approve Trans Pacific Partnership-a total disastrous trade deal. She called the deal the 'gold standard.' The TPP will bring economic devastation to Pennsylvania and our campaign is the only chance to stop that and other bad things that are happening to our country. She lied about the Gold Standard the other night at the debate. She said she didn't say it-she said it. We want to stop the Trans Pacific Partnership and if we don't-remember this, if we don't stop it, billions and billions [of dollars] in jobs and wealth will be vacuumed right out of Pennsylvania and sent to these other countries. Just like NAFTA was a disaster, this will be a disaster. Frankly I don't think it'll be as bad as NAFTA. It can't get any worse than that-signed by Bill Clinton. All of us here in this massive room here tonight can prevent this from happening. Together we can stop TPP and we can end the theft of American jobs and prosperity.

    Trump praised Sanders for being strongly opposed to the TPP:

    I knew one man-I'm not a big fan-but one man who knew the dangers of the TPP was Bernie Sanders. Crazy Bernie. He was right about one thing, only one thing, and that was trade. He was right about it because he knew we were getting ripped off, but he wouldn't be able to do anything about it . We're going to do a lot about it. We're going to have those highways running the opposite direction. We're going to have a lot of trade, but it's going to come into our country. We are going to start benefitting our country because right now it's one way road to trouble. Our jobs leave us, our money leaves us. With Mexico, we get the drugs-they get the cash-it's that simple.

    Hillary Clinton, Trump noted, is "controlled by global special interests."

    "She's on the opposite side of Bernie on the trade issue," Trump said. "She's totally on the opposite side of Bernie."

    He circled back to trade a bit later in the more-than-hour-long speech, hammering TPP and Clinton cash connections. Trump continued:

    Three TPP member countries gave between $6 and $15 million to Clinton. At least four lobbyists who are actively lobbying for TPP passage have raised more than $800,000 for her campaign. I'm just telling you Pennsylvania, we're going to make it. We're going to make it. We're going to make it if we have Pennsylvania for sure. It'll be easy. But you cannot let this pass. NAFTA passed. It's been the worst trade deal probably ever passed, not in this country but anywhere in the world. It cleaned out New England. It cleaned out big portions of Pennsylvania. It cleaned out big portions of Ohio and North Carolina and South Carolina-you can't let it happen.

    Trump even called the politicians like Clinton "bloodsuckers" who have let America be drained out of millions upon millions of jobs.

    "These bloodsuckers want it to happen," Trump said. "They're politicians that are getting taken care of by people that want it to happen. Other countries want it to happen because it's good for them, but it's not good for us. So hopefully you're not going to let it happen. Whatever Hillary's donors want, they get. They own her. On Nov. 8, we're going to end Clinton corruption. Hillary Clinton, dishonest person, is an insider fighting for herself and for her friends. I'm an outsider fighting for you. And by the way, just in case you're not aware, I used to be an insider but I thought this was the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do, believe me."

    [Oct 23, 2016] How political novice Trump ascended the obviously rigged primary system to become the Republican nominee and might win while Ron Paul knocked on this same door for decades and was quickly dispatched each time

    Notable quotes:
    "... in accordance with the prevailing American ideology, one can complain all they want about the system and pose limited questions why things are the way they are. But one is not allowed to seriously question the basis of the system without being labeled a heretic and banished to the hinterlands where demons and dragons reside. ..."
    "... A perfect example is the setup we all witnessed during the final debate between Clinton and Trump. The Presidential Debates are long established ideological rituals designed to reinforce and affirm faith and belief in the system. They are part and parcel of the supporting façade the election process represents to the controlling meme. "We the People" select one of 'us' to travel to the capital city where rules and laws are enacted to protect 'us' from enemies foreign and domestic while at the same time enriching 'our' lives. ..."
    "... It was no accident of chance the last question posed to both 'candidates' (would they accept and support the election results if they lose) was essentially a pledge of allegiance to the ideological ethos. And for Trump, the self appointed establishment heretic, it was a trap designed to fully ensnare and expel him, and his heathen campaign, into the fires of faithless hell. But by doing so the heretics are also affirmed in their belief both in their leader and their cause. ..."
    "... Nor was it an accident Trump was chosen first to answer while the priest's favored candidate (whom I suspect was already alerted to the deception) sat ready to embrace the system and reject the wrong thinking dissenter. ..."
    "... Of all the barbs and venom exchanged between the two candidates, is it really surprising at all that every major mainstream news outlet, known collectively as the mouthpiece of the ideological priests, led the next morning's ' news ' with huge headlines about the final nonconforming utterance from Trump? ..."
    "... Burn the bastard at the stake, the angry priests wail in agony ..."
    "... The more a prevailing political meme strays from its founding ideology, meaning in this case crony corruption and political favoritism, the tighter the screws must be turned to drive the antithetical strays back toward the center. And the place to begin this process is with its leadership, either established or budding. Uncharacteristically, the heretical plebes have long been without acknowledged leadership until Trump arrived on the scene. ..."
    "... Whether he is controlled opposition, useful puppet or exactly who he appears to be, Trump has succeeded in flushing the misfits and malcontents from the redoubt woodpile and out into the open. This may be precisely why Trump was allowed to get this far and not promptly buried under the end zone in the new Giants Stadium when he first appeared on the political scene. ..."
    "... How is it that political novice Trump not only appeared on the scene, but ascended the obviously rigged primary system to become the Republican nominee? Ron Paul (and others) knocked on this same door for decades and were quickly dispatched each time using time honored control techniques. Why not Trump? Because his time has come? Because he's the one? ..."
    "... This is not to say Hillary Clinton isn't also being propelled forward by the very same mechanism that has empowered Trump. If " The Donald " is flawed, Hillary Clinton is mortally impaired. And it would made perfect sense from the control system's perspective to match or exceed the glaring imperfections of one candidate (Trump) with an even more egregious example of crony capitalism run riot in the other (Clinton). The great white hope verses establishment lackey and career criminal. The choice couldn't be both clearer and more obscure than as presented for your electoral blessing. ..."
    "... This is the principal reason why I expect Trump to ' win ' this election, if not by hook then by mainstream crook. The crony capitalists represented by Clinton have had their fill at the public feeding trough and are more than capable of fending for their selves during the next spiraling leg downward. But those who had previously abandoned all hope, and thus were primed for more drastic (read destructive) measures if not properly corralled, have once again been engaged in the political system and have thrown their support behind the white knight. ..."
    "... The golden rule of dying ideological Empires is simplicity itself. What it cannot subvert or corrupt it destroys. Significant and healing change cannot, and therefore will not, originate from within the Empire for that would disenfranchise the powerful priests, the hanger-on's and sycophants. ..."
    "... Orders of magnitude hotter than burning magnesium, any effort made to dampen or disperse the white hot insanity of the dying Empire, either from within or externally, only succeeds in spreading and intensifying the Luciferian conflagration. Simply stated, madness breeds more madness. ..."
    "... In my opinion this is the only explanation for the blatant media bias against Trump combined with the obviously scripted non media responses to all things Clinton, the in-your-face rigging and distortions of the political process ..."
    "... Plato described the inability of a group of (ideological) prisoners chained in a cave to interpret reality based solely upon the play of shadows projected upon the stone wall in front of them. The utter futility of their efforts is only revealed when one prisoner frees himself, enabling him to fully view the puppeteers behind them creating the illusion. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    This is why, in accordance with the prevailing American ideology, one can complain all they want about the system and pose limited questions why things are the way they are. But one is not allowed to seriously question the basis of the system without being labeled a heretic and banished to the hinterlands where demons and dragons reside.

    A perfect example is the setup we all witnessed during the final debate between Clinton and Trump. The Presidential Debates are long established ideological rituals designed to reinforce and affirm faith and belief in the system. They are part and parcel of the supporting façade the election process represents to the controlling meme. "We the People" select one of 'us' to travel to the capital city where rules and laws are enacted to protect 'us' from enemies foreign and domestic while at the same time enriching 'our' lives.

    It was no accident of chance the last question posed to both 'candidates' (would they accept and support the election results if they lose) was essentially a pledge of allegiance to the ideological ethos. And for Trump, the self appointed establishment heretic, it was a trap designed to fully ensnare and expel him, and his heathen campaign, into the fires of faithless hell. But by doing so the heretics are also affirmed in their belief both in their leader and their cause.

    Nor was it an accident Trump was chosen first to answer while the priest's favored candidate (whom I suspect was already alerted to the deception) sat ready to embrace the system and reject the wrong thinking dissenter.

    Of all the barbs and venom exchanged between the two candidates, is it really surprising at all that every major mainstream news outlet, known collectively as the mouthpiece of the ideological priests, led the next morning's 'news' with huge headlines about the final nonconforming utterance from Trump?

    Burn the bastard at the stake, the angry priests wail in agony, their power and prestige coming under serious attack from the process itself. Or so they piously claim.

    The more a prevailing political meme strays from its founding ideology, meaning in this case crony corruption and political favoritism, the tighter the screws must be turned to drive the antithetical strays back toward the center. And the place to begin this process is with its leadership, either established or budding. Uncharacteristically, the heretical plebes have long been without acknowledged leadership until Trump arrived on the scene.

    Regardless of who or what Donald Trump truly is, the long suffering and rapidly increasing ranks of the disenfranchised and disillusioned have rallied around The Donald, elevating him to the revolutionary figurehead of 'The Movement' determined to drain the ideological swamp that is present day Washington DC.

    Whether he is controlled opposition, useful puppet or exactly who he appears to be, Trump has succeeded in flushing the misfits and malcontents from the redoubt woodpile and out into the open. This may be precisely why Trump was allowed to get this far and not promptly buried under the end zone in the new Giants Stadium when he first appeared on the political scene.

    Since one must never be allowed to seriously question the system (because the doubt it raises is threatening to the system) if one does question and is allowed to continue and even flourish (ala Trump) there must be a hidden reason for this heretical event to occur 'naturally'.

    Therefore to naively believe the priest's controllers have lost mastery over their ideology simply because a heretic has appeared and is growing amongst their ranks is to misunderstand the methods employed, honed and refined over thousands of years by those very same priests and their descendants, regardless of the prevailing controlling meme. They've been doing this for thousands of years folks and are quite accomplished at their craft.

    How is it that political novice Trump not only appeared on the scene, but ascended the obviously rigged primary system to become the Republican nominee? Ron Paul (and others) knocked on this same door for decades and were quickly dispatched each time using time honored control techniques. Why not Trump? Because his time has come? Because he's the one?

    Really?

    I do not disagree with those who carefully document the growing instability of the dominant socioeconomic/political system. There is little doubt large and widening cracks are appearing in the carefully constructed and nurtured ideological façade.

    But to believe the Empire is so close to collapse that a revolutionary could slip between the cracks and come within a few weeks of ascending to the throne is, in my humble opinion, pushing it just a wee bit too far. Those shadows on the cave wall have little to no relation to reality.

    Take the time to study the disruptive techniques used by the ideological establishment to co-opt and control the last attempted American revolution, that of the anti war generation of the 60's and early 70's. Nearly every counter cultural uprising during that period of time was thoroughly infiltrated and sometimes directly controlled by operatives. To think this isn't happening today with the massive increase in intrusive spy technology is to remain firmly planted in La-La Land.

    Trump's popularity among the great unwashed is a product of the mainstream media, the very same control device used on a daily basis to feed the indentured population its ration of Soma. However, in an effort to turn Trump into a super magnet for the downtrodden, the mainstream media needed to employ reverse psychology and condemn that which they wished to empower with credibility. Quite frankly, this only works if the population is so desperate for salvation to appear they would accept such a psychologically flawed and egotistic front man as Donald Trump.

    Don't ever forget Donald Trump's media presence was honed and refined by the control mechanism itself, Hollywood and its various offshoots and tentacles. Best known as the billionaire producer and 'actor' in The Apprentice, Trump has a total of 19 credits as a producer, 20 credits as an actor and an incredible 222 credits as 'self'. This is a man who clearly knows how to play an audience, with his ego the star attraction.

    That alone doesn't necessarily make Trump an establishment 'made man'. But while he wasn't breast fed at the political nipple, he certainly isn't an 'outsider' by any stretch of the imagination. And yet here he is……the embodiment of all the hopes and dreams of a vast cross section of disaffected and disenfranchised. It just doesn't get any better than this.

    This is not to say Hillary Clinton isn't also being propelled forward by the very same mechanism that has empowered Trump. If "The Donald" is flawed, Hillary Clinton is mortally impaired. And it would made perfect sense from the control system's perspective to match or exceed the glaring imperfections of one candidate (Trump) with an even more egregious example of crony capitalism run riot in the other (Clinton). The great white hope verses establishment lackey and career criminal. The choice couldn't be both clearer and more obscure than as presented for your electoral blessing.

    And ultimately this may be the purpose for this obviously concocted and orchestrated charade. The last stage of a dying Empire is the looting of the weak from within by the elite. When the barbarians finally break through the outer gates, all they will find are empty vaults and the scattered remains of a desperate native population, the valuables having long ago been strip-mined and spirited away.

    But before this point in the end game can be reached, the natives must be held in place long enough for the final rape to commence. As public confidence in a political solution dissipates and restlessness (some might say desperation) grows, a false hope and belief must be re-instilled in various sub factions of the population in order to draw them back in, ultimately imprisoned by their own ideological bent.

    This occurred in 2008 with the great black hope, Barrack Obama, and once again is happening in 2016 with the great white hope, Donald Trump. Both of these individuals, while presenting as one would expect political outsiders to appear, were/are deeply conflicted and entangled. Don't forget Obama was a political newbie with only a few years in public office before being miraculously elevated to the highest office in the land. It is more than coincidence they both talk a thoroughly convincing game to the sub-set they were created to enthrall.

    This is the principal reason why I expect Trump to 'win' this election, if not by hook then by mainstream crook. The crony capitalists represented by Clinton have had their fill at the public feeding trough and are more than capable of fending for their selves during the next spiraling leg downward. But those who had previously abandoned all hope, and thus were primed for more drastic (read destructive) measures if not properly corralled, have once again been engaged in the political system and have thrown their support behind the white knight.

    White Knight

    All the king's horse's and all the king's men couldn't put the Empire back together again.

    Emotionally stabilized and increasingly mesmerized, the plebes are now ripe for the rape if for no other reason than they will wait and see if the revolution is actually tweeted and originates from the White House.

    I suspect 'they' will be severely disappointed.

    The golden rule of dying ideological Empires is simplicity itself. What it cannot subvert or corrupt it destroys. Significant and healing change cannot, and therefore will not, originate from within the Empire for that would disenfranchise the powerful priests, the hanger-on's and sycophants.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely and power in the hands of the corrupt is never relinquished, only forcefully taken and then passed from one dirty hand to the next. This renders any discussion of a positive healthy change from within moot and a non starter.

    This is an insanity very few understand when viewed from a distance, an all encompassing madness that is always underestimated in its ferocity and velocity. When face to face with this evil phenomenon, few have the strength of will to stand their ground, let alone survive the encounter. Evil madness of this magnitude always self consumes and can never be extinguished by an external force.

    Orders of magnitude hotter than burning magnesium, any effort made to dampen or disperse the white hot insanity of the dying Empire, either from within or externally, only succeeds in spreading and intensifying the Luciferian conflagration. Simply stated, madness breeds more madness. To engage the madness is to feed the insanity.

    In my opinion this is the only explanation for the blatant media bias against Trump combined with the obviously scripted non media responses to all things Clinton, the in-your-face rigging and distortions of the political process and the incomprehensible capitulation by so many previously withdrawn and cynical ideological escapees who are willingly walking back into the belly of the political beast to support a critically flawed and conflicted Trump.

    Plato described the inability of a group of (ideological) prisoners chained in a cave to interpret reality based solely upon the play of shadows projected upon the stone wall in front of them. The utter futility of their efforts is only revealed when one prisoner frees himself, enabling him to fully view the puppeteers behind them creating the illusion.

    Unless and until "We the Individuals" engage in a determined and consistent effort to see beyond our ideological horse blinders and fully grasp the true nature of our reality, "We the People" will remain at best mere spectators, and at worst indentured servants, to the reality puppeteers behind us.

    As much as I wish this insanity would just end, I fear we have many miles to go before the final awakening.

    [Oct 23, 2016] Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts.

    Notable quotes:
    "... From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"? ..."
    "... When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    From The Hague | Oct 22, 2016 12:48:39 PM | 8

    Option two: Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"?

    When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives.

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-us-is-about-to-face-the-worst-crisis-of-its-history-and-how-putins-example-might-inspire-trump/

    [Oct 23, 2016] Exclusive - Trump Economic Adviser Donald Will Tell Wall Street to 'Go to Hell' While He Fixes Economy for American Workers

    While trump idea of cutting taxes for business might work in a sort term, the whole neoliberal system is so corrupt that any attempt to make distribution more fair will be sabotaged. and Trump appeal to small business owners is somewhat fake. When political in the USA talks about small business owners typically he is a Wall Street stooge.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, is in a unique position to be able to tell the Wall Street lobbyists and special interests to "go to hell" while he actually fixes the U.S. economy, his senior economic adviser Peter Navarro told Breitbart News Saturday. ..."
    "... The basic problem is for a congressman or a president to get elected, they need obscene amounts of money. And the only place you can get obscene amounts of money is from Wall Street and the big corporations who benefit from shipping our jobs and our factories overseas-that's the fundamental political problem. That's the beauty of Donald Trump. He's the change agent. He can tell Wall Street and these big people and corporations that want to ship our jobs overseas to go to hell. He stands up for our workers. ..."
    "... Navarro's interview came just an hour before Trump's address in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, where he laid out what he will do in his first 100 days as president if elected on Nov. 8, and made his closing argument to the American people in the campaign. ..."
    "... What happens is there will be a major speech that goes on for 40 minutes laying out in precise detail exactly what's going to get done and then the media will take a clip from that that's unrelated to the policy agenda and make that the news. It's difficult to push through that when so much of the media has a NeverTrump agenda. ..."
    "... For every one percent of GDP growth that we have lost over the last 15 years, we've lost 1.2 million jobs. If you add that up over the 15-year period, that would be over 20 million jobs, which is about what we need to put everybody back to work at a decent wage. So that's the grim reality. ..."
    "... Clinton is part of the problem. In fact, it's extraordinary to me-you cannot name a presidential candidate in history who has singlehandedly through bad trade deals destroyed more American jobs and more American factories than Hillary Clinton. She did NAFTA, she did China's entry into the World Trade Organization, she did the South Korean 2012 deal, every single one of those. We're talking about millions and millions and millions of jobs and just misery in all of the swing states in this election. ..."
    www.breitbart.com

    Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, is in a unique position to be able to tell the Wall Street lobbyists and special interests to "go to hell" while he actually fixes the U.S. economy, his senior economic adviser Peter Navarro told Breitbart News Saturday.

    Navarro said on the program, which aired on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturday:

    The basic problem is for a congressman or a president to get elected, they need obscene amounts of money. And the only place you can get obscene amounts of money is from Wall Street and the big corporations who benefit from shipping our jobs and our factories overseas-that's the fundamental political problem. That's the beauty of Donald Trump. He's the change agent. He can tell Wall Street and these big people and corporations that want to ship our jobs overseas to go to hell. He stands up for our workers.

    Navarro's interview came just an hour before Trump's address in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, where he laid out what he will do in his first 100 days as president if elected on Nov. 8, and made his closing argument to the American people in the campaign.

    Navarro told Breitbart News Saturday of the speech:

    This is basically a broad overview of the whole Trump policy agenda for America. It's very exciting news. If you think about what's going on this year in America, we've got the slowest growth since World War II. We've got a national security mess in every theater in the world from Asia to the Middle East, and we've got a healthcare plan that is imploding, and we've got an immigration plan that is overwhelming this country, so in the remaining days until Nov. 8 Mr. Trump is going to lay all of this out and it's going to be exciting to hear positive policies talked about to the American people instead of anything but policy.

    Trump, Navarro noted, has been giving detailed policy-oriented speeches across the United States over the past several months while his Democratic opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton has been running a policy-free campaign focused on insults and the politics of personal destruction. Nonetheless, the media completely ignores Trump's solutions-focused campaign. So what Trump plans to do now is circumvent the media while taking his message directly to the American people. Navarro said:

    What happens is there will be a major speech that goes on for 40 minutes laying out in precise detail exactly what's going to get done and then the media will take a clip from that that's unrelated to the policy agenda and make that the news. It's difficult to push through that when so much of the media has a NeverTrump agenda.

    So what Mr. Trump's going to do is just take the case to the American people between now and election day that his agenda is the right one on the economy, immigration, healthcare, and everything on down-national security-this is a critical election.

    Hillary Clinton's agenda, Navarro said, would devastate the United States on every front. He said:

    In fact, if we turn the country over to Hillary Clinton at this point we know the following: We know that she can't possibly be better at economically than we've been doing and she'll probably do worse. We know that she will continue with the Obamacare agenda which is collapsing before our eyes. We know that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy agenda will continue to be weakness and chaos in places like the Middle East. We know all of this and it's important for the American people to learn more in more granular detail about the competing policies of each of the candidates and that's the mission between now and Nov. 8.

    One of the key points he brought up during the interview was Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in the United States, which since the early 2000s has significantly slowed down compared with the latter half of the 20th century. That crushes Americans' chances of getting a good job with high-paying wages, as the slowdown in the 21st century has cost the United States around 20 million jobs, maybe more. Navarro went on:

    Let me give you just the central statistic of American life right now: From 1947 to 2001, our economy grew at an average rate of 3.5 percent a year. Since 2002, that rate's fallen to 1.9 percent a year. For every one percent of GDP growth that we have lost over the last 15 years, we've lost 1.2 million jobs. If you add that up over the 15-year period, that would be over 20 million jobs, which is about what we need to put everybody back to work at a decent wage. So that's the grim reality.

    Navarro said the reason this has happened is because of a "structural problem" in the U.S. economy that people like Hillary Clinton refuse to solve:

    Now, the question is: Why has this happened? The answer is simply that we have a deep structural problem in our economy and the basic answer is we don't invest on American soil like we used to. That's a major problem. We invest in Mexico and China and Vietnam and Cambodia instead. That drains our GDP directly, and then we also run a massive trade deficit: $766 billion a year, which alone probably takes a point off our growth rate. Now, Donald Trump recognizes this. He recognizes that two of the most important things are to get more investment on domestic soil by corporations and businesses and to eliminate the trade deficit.

    Trump will solve the problem on four separate fronts, Navarro said, something that will take bold leadership and courage in Washington. Navarro continued:

    So what do you do? You attack that on four different fronts: regulatory, trade directly, energy, and basically what we need to do is realign the incentives of corporations so that it's better to invest in Michigan than Mexico. One of the ways to do that is to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent down to 15 percent, which would make us competitive with all of those countries which have lower corporate tax rates and are basically running huge surpluses with us: Germany, Japan, South Korea, China, Mexico. These are the countries that are just killing us strategically. So, if we want to get better growth-stronger growth-we have to attack this structurally. Now, what Obama and Clinton have been doing is treating the problem not structurally but as a cyclical phenomenon that you can simply use what we call Keynesian stimulus - named after John Maynard Keynes, famous economist: the idea that if you simply spend a bunch of government money and print a bunch of government money that somehow that will stimulate the economy. Well, we've had eight years of that. Barack Obama has doubled our debt from $10 to $20 trillion using fiscal stimulus and our Federal Reserve balance sheet has been totally destroyed and what do we have to show for it? We have one percent growth instead of 3.5 or 4.

    Navarro said Clinton has two separate ideas to "stimulate the economy," both of which he said won't work.

    "One is to basically tax the rich and give the money to everybody else," he said, noting that that is essentially classic leftist redistribution of wealth that will "depress savings and investment from the people who save the most and allow the most investment." Navarro added:

    And the other is this wacky thing to significantly raise business taxes to get a pot of money and then build some infrastructure. It might sound good to some people-we definitely need the infrastructure-but the last thing we want to do is reallocate funds in America from the efficient private sector to the less efficient public sector. Trump has an infrastructure plan which will produce twice as much spending without having to raise any taxes. He uses an elegant system of a tax credit to incentivize the private sector to build this stuff.

    Navarro said the problem is, in addition to cheap labor overseas, a number of government policies that strangle business development in the United States while encouraging offshoring of U.S. companies. He elaborated:

    Cheap labor is a small part of the problem at work here. If it were only cheap labor, America would be in trouble. Because it's other things too, we have a great chance to turn it around. Here's the problem: Our high corporate tax rate pushes our companies offshore. Our high regulatory burden pushes our companies offshore. To the extent we put our coal miners and oil and gas industry out of business and raise electricity costs and energy costs, that pushes our corporations offshore. To the extent that we allow China to illegally subsidize goods and sell them into this country, that pushes our jobs and factories offshore. To the extent we don't hold the World Trade Organization and Mexico accountable for manipulating the rules of the VAT versus income tax is very injurious to this country.

    Navarro added that if someone is elected president with the "will and the intelligence" to take on the special interests and fix the problems, America can survive this threat. He concluded:

    All of this stuff is in our hands. It simply takes the will and the intelligence to do it, and the ability to resist the special interests who are on the other side of that equation. Trump will solve this problem, Clinton is part of the problem. In fact, it's extraordinary to me-you cannot name a presidential candidate in history who has singlehandedly through bad trade deals destroyed more American jobs and more American factories than Hillary Clinton. She did NAFTA, she did China's entry into the World Trade Organization, she did the South Korean 2012 deal, every single one of those. We're talking about millions and millions and millions of jobs and just misery in all of the swing states in this election. If anybody is listening to this in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, North Carolina, please recognize that Hillary Clinton bears a major responsibility for whatever misery your state is going through.

    LISTEN TO PETER NAVARRO'S FULL INTERVIEW ON BREITBART NEWS SATURDAY:

    R

    [Oct 23, 2016] An Establishment in Panic

    Notable quotes:
    "... Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: its [neoliberal] ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed. ..."
    "... After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools began to teach. ..."
    "... Today, Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy" among the "lesser breeds without the Law." ..."
    "... By suggesting he might not accept the results of a "rigged election," Trump is committing an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy, and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots. ..."
    "... For none of the three-diversity, equality, democracy-is to be found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic. ..."
    "... Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of it. ..."
    "... Consider: six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November. ..."
    "... Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion": "We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution." ..."
    "... Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained. ..."
    The American Conservative
    What explains the hysteria of the establishment? In a word, fear. The establishment is horrified at the Donald's defiance because, deep within its soul, it fears that the people for whom Trump speaks no longer accept its political legitimacy or moral authority. It may rule and run the country, and may rig the system through mass immigration and a mammoth welfare state so that Middle America is never again able to elect one of its own. But that establishment, disconnected from the people it rules, senses, rightly, that it is unloved and even detested.

    Having fixed the future, the establishment finds half of the country looking upon it with the same sullen contempt that our Founding Fathers came to look upon the overlords Parliament sent to rule them.

    Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: its [neoliberal] ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed.

    Trump is "talking down our democracy," said a shocked Clinton.

    After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools began to teach.

    Half a millennia ago, missionaries and explorers set sail from Spain, England, and France to bring Christianity to the New World.

    Today, Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy" among the "lesser breeds without the Law."

    Unfortunately, the natives, once democratized, return to their roots and vote for Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood, using democratic processes and procedures to reestablish their true God. And Allah is no democrat.

    By suggesting he might not accept the results of a "rigged election," Trump is committing an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy, and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots.

    For none of the three-diversity, equality, democracy-is to be found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic.

    When Ben Franklin, emerging from the Philadelphia convention, was asked by a woman what kind of government they had created, he answered, "A republic, if you can keep it."

    Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of it.

    Consider: six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November.

    If that is democracy, many will say, to hell with it. And if felons decide the electoral votes of Virginia, and Virginia decides who is our next U.S. president, are we obligated to honor that election?

    In 1824, Gen. Andrew Jackson ran first in popular and electoral votes. But, short of a majority, the matter went to the House. There, Speaker Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams delivered the presidency to Adams-and Adams made Clay secretary of state, putting him on the path to the presidency that had been taken by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Adams himself. Were Jackson's people wrong to regard as a "corrupt bargain" the deal that robbed the general of the presidency? The establishment also recoiled in horror from Milwaukee Sheriff Dave Clarke's declaration that it is now "torches and pitchforks time."

    Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion": "We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution."

    Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained.

    What goes around comes around.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.

    [Oct 22, 2016] The only way Hillary could be stopped would be if the Republican Party elite stood with Trump, so Soros and the other donor who owns voting machines could be blocked from flipping/fractionalizing votes.

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The only way Hillary could be stopped would be if the Republican Party elite stood with Trump, so Soros and the other donor who owns voting machines could be blocked from flipping/fractionalizing votes. But that isn't happening. Soros machines are in key swing states like Colorado and Pennsylvania, and we already have data from the primary that a good 15% (at least) can be flipped, compared to exit polls/hand counts/paper trail or non-donor machines.

    I guess it's still possible, like what happened in the Michigan Democratic primary, that the real numbers are more like a 10% lead for Trump and they come out in force in unexpected locations, and Clinton's small, unenthusiastic base stays home, thus making it too difficult to successfully flip. But I'm trying not to count on something like that, because it seems too close optomism bias driven "poll unskewing" – I mean, the polls clearly ARE skewed in favor of Hillary, but I doubt they're off by 15%.

    Stein could never take over the Democratic Party. It isn't even clear to me that the Greens could replace the Democrats, although I do think their massive increase in ballot access this year is a credit to the party and to Stein. That shows real organizing and management effectiveness.

    I started this campaign season advocating for purging Clintonians out of the now hollow Democratic Party and taking it over. That still seems like the most efficient path to an actual left national party, in part because our current system is so corrupted and calcified. But I'm not sure it's possible. At this point, I can imagine a cataclysmic revolution happening during Clinton's term more easily than a reformed, citizen friendly Democratic Party.

    Is it gin o'clock yet?

    [Oct 22, 2016] Clinton re Russia: Is it hubris, stupidity, or conspiracy, or some combination of the three?

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    WJ October 21, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    So what are people's sense of Clinton re Russia? Is it hubris, stupidity, or conspiracy, or some combination of the three? I ask because her Wall Street speeches and foreshadowed Grand Bargain are clearly conspiratorial; while her nonchalant violation of every security protocol seems pure hubris; I guess I don't see how war with Russia could really benefit her that much, unless she thinks it's the one thing that can keep her from being impeached; is that it, or is it something else that's driving this, or just stupidity?

    Harry October 21, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    All the very serious people know the Russians are gonna cave. Who would fight a nuclear war for Syria/ukraine? They can't match the US conventionally so we can just bleed them till they let go.

    What could go wrong?

    LifelongLib October 22, 2016 at 3:27 am

    "They can't match the U.S. conventionally "

    It's been pointed out here that wargame scenarios of Russia vs NATO usually come out with Russia winning. Why wouldn't that apply to other areas as well?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 21, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    It's much simpler: it's money.

    The War on Terra is getting tiresome and as pointed out above doesn't justify the really big hardware, aircraft carriers, tanks etc.

    They need a bigger enemy to keep the $$$ flowing from the chump taxpayer's pockets to billionaire Raytheon shareholders' accounts in Panama. She serves Money and Death, and does a really good job of it. You'd even say she's an expert.

    And one point: GE owns NBC, and GE makes billions from war machines. Can't have a president who might slow down the revenue stream, better yet to get a woman to put a friendly face on WW III and why we need it so badly. Kinda like getting a young African American to sell health care extraction and bank crimes and how they're really good, if just more young people would sign up and if people would just stop "peddling fiction" about how awesome the economy is.

    Sandy October 21, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    GE has not owned NBC for almost six years now.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 21, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    Oops! Good news then, I guess we really do have a diverse and unbiased press with no interest is furthering the prospects of one candidate over another.

    aab October 21, 2016 at 7:37 pm

    Comcast owns NBC Universal now.

    Its CEO golfs with Obama on the regular.

    Roland October 21, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    WJ wrote about Clinton on Russia: " Is it hubris, stupidity, or conspiracy, or some combination of the three?"

    Or is it that she thinks that the USA can fight a war against Russia, and win?

    I suspect that a lot of the US foreign policy establishment are feeling bullish about their BMD systems. They feel sure that they have finally escaped the toils of MAD. In other words, they feel convinced, if it comes down to it, the USA can affordably prevail over Russia in a war at any level of escalation, even though that would demand that the USA launch first strike.

    If you want to see arrogance, just wait to see how that US elite behaves after they win a major war, and come to enjoy truly unchecked power.

    Pat October 21, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    I'm sure. Luckily odds are most of us will be dead before that happens. Because it will either be a long long time from now OR most of the country will be destroyed before victory can be declared long enough to gloat.

    If it weren't for the fact that it is a such a godawful idea for everyone BUT the elites, I'd almost like to see the latter possibility which includes the loss of a whole lot of very expensive "toys". But there are still humans attached to those toys, it will take a lot for them to get they aren't winning, and even then they won't take responsibility for the massive amounts of damage their hubris and sociopathy have caused – see Clinton in re either Honduras or Libya or both.

    craazyboy October 21, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    I'm pretty sure the Pentagon does NOT believe that our BMD systems can protect against a full scale Russian ICBM attack on the US mainland. I would hope if any foreign policy types believed so, they would be quickly garroted from behind with piano wire.

    Then again, maybe they did go ahead and convert a bunch of West Virginia coal mines to luxury condos, like Dr. Strangelove suggested.

    Harry October 21, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    And that's why a first strike is so important!

    Let's hope the Russians havnt worked this out.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 21, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    Russia has re-stated their policy not to strike first. By contrast, in 2012 Obama reversed America's long-standing commitment not to do so.
    That we are even discussing this shows just how far the War Party and their money pig-men have descended into true clinical mental illness territory, Dr. Strangelove has nothing on the levels of reality-bending criminal insanity of our Dear Leaders.

    Wj October 21, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    No idea if this is accurate or not, but Wikipedia states that BMD systems are not effective against ICBMs, which can now travel at hypersonic (Mach 5-6) speeds delivering up to eight separate warheads (!) with pinpoint accuracy. So that's something to look forward to.

    jo6pac October 21, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    True and amazing enough Russia can take ours out before reenter.

    ewmayer October 21, 2016 at 8:14 pm

    That depends on whether one's definition of "effective" refers to actual antimissile defense or, say, raking in buttloads of $ in DoD contracts.

    uncle tungsten October 21, 2016 at 11:17 pm

    I do like the piano wire remedy :-{). There are a bunch of people in the State Department that signed a memo recently that clearly fit the requisite description for its use.

    [Oct 22, 2016] People see the elite lying over the Iraq war - which Trump brags he opposed - and then they see the elite Hillary and DNC using Russia interference as a way to distract for the content of the leaked emails

    Oct 22, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. -> EMichael... October 22, 2016 at 09:44 AM

    "In the run up to the Iraq War when false intelligence abounded and dominated the discussion,"

    The problem is that you see everything through a Donkey vs Elephant prism in stark Manichean terms.

    People see the elite lying over the Iraq war - which Trump brags he opposed - and then they see the elite Hillary and DNC using Russia interference as a way to distract for the content of the leaked emails.

    They don't see Hillary as their champion, just another lying elite.

    Obama's NSA chief blatantly lied to the American people and said they weren't spying on us en masse.

    Why should we trust them about anything?

    If (when) Hillary is elected I'm sure she'll make Russia pay if it's behind these hacks. Otherwise Russia is an excuse not to discuss the hacked email.

    Maybe Putin is that stupid and he feels threatened over the way Hillary championed the democratic opposition in a recent election, but it seems to me to be colossally stupid for Russia to pick a fight with the U.S.

    You don't think Hillary is going to push back if (when) she's elected? Given that she's a hawk and was courting the support of hawks like Paul Wolfowitz during the election she was probably going to push Russia anyway no matter the hacking.

    Dan Kervick -> Peter K.... , October 22, 2016 at 09:54 AM
    I think many Americans are deeply skeptical by now of the competence, aims and basic good will of much of the US foreign policy establishment. Faced with a choice between the Putin approach to global security and stability, and that represented by the zealot, neocon-tilting HRC wing of the US establishment, it's a tough call.

    Clinton has had abundant opportunity to attempt to distance herself from the many Iraq-era neocons who are embracing her campaign. She hasn't. That is telling and worrisome.

    Dan Kervick -> Dan Kervick... , October 22, 2016 at 09:56 AM
    And yeah, just to redouble Peter's point, few citizens instinctively trust the US government when they say, "We have intelligence that ..."
    ilsm -> EMichael... , October 22, 2016 at 10:21 AM
    WW III is major part of Hillary job creation plan.
    anne -> Julio ... , October 22, 2016 at 10:31 AM
    The crazily prejudiced disdain * that folks at the Economist have for Russia by the way extends to China. The Economist reflects perfectly the British regret that China is no longer part of what was a sun-never-sets empire. As for Russia, the prejudiced disdain that has been fostered by the foreign policy establishment is blinding.

    What was the position of the economist on invading Iraq? Right.

    * Precisely so.

    [Oct 22, 2016] HRC and her cronies think it is a good idea to stir up trouble with Russia! Talk about opportunity cost at the very least.

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Pat October 21, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Someone who a few months ago told me "no one is stupid enough to want war with Russia", just this week changed that to "no one wants a hot war" and "we don't have the troops for a hot war" because well it turns out that Clinton knows the no fly zone will mean war with Russia.
    Sadly this is one of the many who think that Clinton is the sane one.

    Everything tells me that whatever the real goal (and no it is not obvious what that is) Hillary Rodham Clinton is stupid enough to not care about war with Russia, doesn't understand that we don't have the troops for a hot war, and frankly is perfectly willing to play chicken with a nuclear power killing this country in the process. So far, Putin has been far saner than Hillary Clinton has ever been, but I'm pretty damn sure his patience is wearing out. I can only hope that Europe begins to wake up and realize that America following the wishes of SA and Israel are causing their refugee problems NOT Russia. And sanely decide that following America further down the rat hole is a loser for them and the world, because that might be the only thing that wakes them up from their fevered dream.

    Pavel October 21, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    Luckily (for the planet) I suspect Putin is content to play the long game - increase the alliance (especially economic) with China, build up relationships with e.g. Iran and Turkey (and now cf Philippines), and most of all court the EU states who are most terrified of increased sabre-rattling by the US.

    It is so bizarre that in such an unstable world with such critical issues - global warming, horrific global debt and faltering bubble-based economies, Mideast chaos - HRC and her cronies think it is a good idea to stir up trouble with Russia! Talk about "opportunity cost" at the very least.

    Mark P. October 21, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    The War on Terror has never really been profitable enough for the military-industrial complex, and anyway may be approaching its sell-by date. The MIC wanted a return to big-platform - aircraft carriers, big ships, enormously expensive new planes, and missile systems, big artillery - programs and spending.

    For big-platform spending you need a big-platform enemy to justify it. Hence, the Russkies. Patrick Cockburn is good on this.

    Not incidentally, the arms industry of the early 20th century was a big reason for WWI; probably including in July 1914 being behind the assassination of Jean Jaurès, a top French socialist, who was blocking it.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 21, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    The fun one to watch today is the US Army versus the CIA (Milo Minderbinder would be thrilled).
    In Iraq the US Army is supporting the government against al-Qaeda in Mosul. In Syria of course the CIA is backing al-Qaeda in Aleppo against the government.

    So the breathless press coverage of the son et lumiere of the Mosul push is turning into a dud. Why? Because al-Qaeda is slinking away out of Mosul. But where are they going? Oh, look, the US is helpfully providing buses to take 6000 of them to the fight in Syria, once they cross that imaginary line known as "the border" they magically turn into good guys again.

    Cue John McCain high-fiving! And cue Lurch our Secretary of State, telling the UN and the world that Russia is the one that is guilty of war crimes. LOLOLOLOL

    [Oct 22, 2016] Hillarys Puppet Screed

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    What a nasty, corrupt and dishonest woman is running for PORUS...

    The American Conservative

    For months she had only intimated it, or delegated the real dirty work to her surrogates and campaign staff, but at the final televised debate this week Hillary Clinton finally let loose: Donald Trump is "a puppet" of the Kremlin, she declared.

    It's worth pausing to consider just how extreme and incendiary that allegation is. For Trump to be a "puppet" of a hostile foreign power-especially Russia, arguably America's oldest continuous adversary-would be an event of earth-shaking magnitude, unrivaled in all U.S. history. It would mean that by some nefarious combination of subterfuge and collusion, the sinister Russian leader Vladimir Putin had managed to infiltrate our political system at its very core, executing a Manchurian Candidate -style scheme that would've been dismissed as outlandish in even the most hyperbolic 1960s-era espionage movie script.

    Trump is often accused of violating the "norms" that typically govern the tenor of U.S. presidential campaigns. And these accusations very often have validity: at the same debate, he declined to preemptively endorse the legitimacy of the election outcome, which appears to be without precedent. As everyone is now keenly aware, he's unleashed a constant torrent of brash histrionics that defy discursive standards and violate "norms" of many kinds-You're rigged! I'm rigged! We're all rigged!

    But Hillary too violated a longstanding norm this week with her "puppet" screed, which was the culmination of her campaign's months-long effort to tarnish Trump as a secret Russian lackey using the kind of retrograde nomenclature ("Puppet"? Really?) that would've made even the most hardened old-time Cold Warrior blush. Because of Hillary's barb, there will henceforth be a precedent for accusing a rival major-party nominee of being a stealth agent of a fearsome foreign power, based on only the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.

    Extrapolating from Trump's stated belief that cooperation, rather than antagonism, with nuclear-armed Russia is desirable, Hillary's boosters have long surmised that he must therefore be under the spell of a devious foreign spymaster: it can't be that he genuinely prefers to be friendly with Russia and forge an alliance with their military. The only tenable explanation by their lights is this harebrained mind-control conspiracy theory.

    One central irony to all this is that Trump basically has the same position vis-à-vis Russia as Barack Obama. As Trump pointed out in the Wednesday night debate, Obama attempted to broker a military alliance with Putin's Russia only a few weeks ago; it fell through after American forces in Syria bombed soldiers loyal to Assad in direct contravention of the terms of the agreement. But it was an instance of deal-making nevertheless, so if Trump is guilty of accommodating the dastardly Russian menace, Obama must be similarly guilty.

    Hillary's increasingly hostile rhetoric on the homefront also likely contributed to "nuking" the accord with Russia, as she's repeatedly accused Putin of subverting the American electoral process by way of hacks, as well as lambasting him as the "grand godfather'' of global extremist movements-including the U.S. "alt-right."

    It would be one thing if these fantastic claims were ever substantiated with ample evidence, but they're just not. At the debate, Hillary attributed her theory regarding the Russian orchestration of recent hacks on her campaign and the Democratic National Committee to unnamed "intelligence professionals." These unspecified individuals have also failed to produce tangible evidence linking Russia to Trump, or Russia to the hacks. They are also the same sorts of people whose proclamations about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq were uncritically parroted by media allies.

    She launched into the "puppet" rant after moderator Chris Wallace quoted an excerpt from one of her speeches delivered to a foreign bank, which had been published by WikiLeaks. It should be reiterated that Hillary had actively concealed these speech transcripts over the course of the entire presidential campaign, and the only reason the American public can now view them is thanks to WikiLeaks. But in an effort to change the subject from her newly revealed (and damning) comments before admiring cadres of financial elites, Hillary accused the rogue publishing organization of being party to a Russian plot. "This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself," Hillary proclaimed.

    What evidence has been furnished that demonstrates "Putin himself" directed such efforts? Absolutely none that we are yet aware of. One could feasibly posit that such a blithe willingness to launch baseless attacks against foreign leaders is indicative of a poor temperament on Hillary's part; it's exactly the kind of bluster that could escalate into hot conflict, and will likely sour the U.S.-Russia bilateral relationship for years to come under a prospective Clinton Administration.

    In addition to accusing Putin of hacking the U.S. election, Hillary again announced her staunch support for a "no-fly zone" in Syria, which would necessitate the deployment of thousands more U.S. ground troops to the war-torn country and provoke direct, hostile confrontation with Russia, which is sustaining its client Assad. When asked by Wallace if she would authorize the shoot-down of Russian warplanes, Hillary evaded the question. (A simple "no" would've been nice.)

    It's long been known that Hillary is a hawk; she is supported by many of the same neoconservatives who once gravitated to George W. Bush. But her bellicosity toward Russia, which climaxed with the "puppet" diatribe, demonstrates that her hawkish tendencies are far from conventional; they are extreme. Hillary seems to be at her most animated (and one might say, perhaps even crazed) when she is aiming ire at supposed foreign adversaries, which of late has almost entirely been Russia, Russia, Russia. (Russia was the number-one topic broached at all this year's debates, according to a tally by Adam Johnson of the media-watchdog organization FAIR.)

    The tenor of the international situation has gotten exceptionally dire. Last Friday it was reported that the CIA is preparing to launch an "unprecedented" cyberattack on Russia; relations between the two states are at a dangerous nadir not seen in decades, to the point that former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has warned that a nuclear exchange is perilously likely.

    Trump, for all his faults, has long advocated a sort of détente .

    So why aren't these developments front-and-center in media coverage of the campaign? Instead, it's still a relentless focus on Trump's many foibles, notwithstanding what appears to be Hillary's steady sleepwalk into a potentially catastrophic war.

    Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Trump We Wish the Problem Was Fascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing. ..."
    "... Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, ..."
    "... Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you . ..."
    "... Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life. ..."
    "... In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives. ..."
    "... The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign. ..."
    "... The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics. ..."
    "... White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages. ..."
    "... The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy. ..."
    "... The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics." ..."
    "... The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders ..."
    "... In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill. ..."
    "... Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens. ..."
    "... That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump. ..."
    "... "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism. ..."
    "... Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement. ..."
    "... By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests. ..."
    "... Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power. ..."
    "... Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him. ..."
    "... Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices. ..."
    Oct 22, 2016 | www.unz.com

    I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing.

    For one thing, liberals don't crush fascism. Liberals appease fascism, then they exploit fascism. In between there's a great big war, where communists crush fascism. That's pretty much the lesson of WWII.

    Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, which is pretty much indistinguishable from old-fashioned racist when considering the subjugation of native Americans and African-Americans and Asian immigrants, but requires that touch of "nativist" nuance when considering indigenous bigotry against Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants and citizens.

    Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you .

    And for anybody who doesn't believe the US government does not already engage in intensive "extreme" vetting and targeting of all Muslims immigrants, especially those from targeted countries, not only to identify potential security risks but to groom potential intelligence assets, I got the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you right here:

    Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life.

    In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives.

    The need to seize state power and hold it while a fascist or Bolshevik agenda is implemented dictates the need for a military force loyal to and subservient to the party and its leadership, not the state.

    The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign.

    It's a little premature to throw dirt on the grave of the Trump candidacy, perhaps (I'll check back in on November 9), but it looks like he spent too much time glorying in the adulation of his white male nativist base and too little time, effort, and money trying to deliver a plausible message that would allow other demographics to shrug off the "deplorable" tag and vote for him. I don't blame/credit the media too much for burying Trump, a prejudice of mine perhaps. I blame Trump's inability to construct an effective phalanx of pro-Trump messengers, a failure that's probably rooted in the fact that Trump spent the primary and general campaign at war with the GOP establishment.

    The only capital crime in politics is disunity, and the GOP and Trump are guilty on multiple counts.

    The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics.

    It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen . It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism.

    That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.

    That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.

    White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages.

    If anyone harbors illusions concerning the kumbaya solidarity between white and black labor in the post-World War II era, I think the article The Problem of Race in American Labor History by Herbert Hill ( a freebie on JSTOR ) is a good place to start.

    The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy.

    However, in this campaign, the race wedge has cut the other way in a most interesting fashion. White conservatives are appalled, and minority liberals energized, by the fact that the white guy, despite winning the majority white male vote, lost to a black guy not once but twice, giving a White Twilight/Black Dawn (TM) vibe to the national debate.

    The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups.

    The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics."

    The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders.

    My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders while announcing the Black Congressional Caucus endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Bear in mind that during the 1960s, Sanders had affiliated his student group at the University of Chicago with Lewis' SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; during the same era, Hillary Clinton was at Wellesley condemning "the snicks" for their excessively confrontational tactics.

    Ah, politics.

    To understand the significance of this event, one should read Fracture by the guru of woke Clintonism, Joy Reid. Or read my piece on the subject . Or simply understand that after Hillary Clinton lost Lewis's endorsement, the black vote, and the southern Democratic primaries to Barack Obama in 2008, and she was determined above all to secure and exploit monolithic black support in the primaries and, later on, the general in 2016.

    So, in order to prevent Sanders from splitting the black vote to her disadvantage on ideological/class lines, Clinton played the race card. Or, as we put it today when discussing the championing of historically disadvantaged a.k.a. non white male heterosexual groups, celebrated "identity politics".

    In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill.

    Trump's populism draws its heat from American nativism, not "soak the rich" populism of the Sandernista stripe, and it was easily submerged in the "identity politics" narrative.

    Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens.

    As an indication of the fungible & opportunistic character of the "identity politics" approach, as far as I can tell from a recent visit to a swing state, as the Clinton campaign pivoted to the general, the theme of Trump's anti-black racism has been retired in favor of pushing his offenses against women and the disabled. Perhaps this reflects the fact that Clinton has a well-advertised lock on the African-American vote and doesn't need to cater to it; also, racism being what it is, playing the black card is not the best way to lure Republicans and indies to the Clinton camp.

    The high water mark of the Clinton African-American tilt was perhaps the abortive campaign to turn gun control into a referendum on the domination of Congress by white male conservatives. It happened a few months ago, so who remembers? But John Lewis led a sit-in occupation of the Senate floor in the wake of the Orlando shootings to highlight how America's future was being held hostage to the whims of Trump-inclined white pols.

    That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump.

    There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.

    In my view, a key tell is Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement.

    By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests.

    Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power.

    In my view, the Trump and Clinton campaigns are both protofascist.

    Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him.

    Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices.

    But the bottom line is race. U.S. racism has stacked up 400 years of tinder that might take a few hundred more years, if ever, to burn off. And until it does, every politician in the country is going to see his or her political future in flicking matches at it. And that's what we're seeing in the current campaign. A lot. Not fascism.

    (Reprinted from China Matters by permission of author or representative)

    [Oct 22, 2016] Rigged Debates Questions Arise Again Over Lighted Screen At Hillarys Podium Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Just remember, Hillary is honest. All Democrats are good. Hillary has your best interests in mind. Hillary never lies. ..."
    Oct 22, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    After the first debate, numerous videos surfaced alleging that Hillary was using some sort of teleprompter built into her podium to assist with answering questions or to offset whatever medical condition she's dealing with. The videos were largely dismissed as "cooky alt-right conspiracy theories" and didn't get much attention outside of those spheres.

    But, when similar abnormalities surfaced on Hillary's podium in the third debate, combined with the fact that she spent an awkward amount of time during her answers peering down rather than at the camera, we grew a bit more curious.

    With that said, here is a video analyzing the abnormalities from debate 1. Notice that around 18 seconds into this video one can very clearly see a light shut off on Hillary's podium even though there is no such light at Trump's podium.

    But, you don't have to take that guy's word for it. Here is the actual debate footage from NBC.. .fast forward to the 1:38:30 mark at the very end of this video and you can see the exact same phenomenon.

    And here is a screen capture from the end of the debate. Notice there is a light on Hillary's podium while Trump's is completely dark.

    But where things get really interesting is that the exact same phenomenon occurred at debate 3 this week as pointed out by the following video posted by Anonymous.

    Again, as you can see, there seems to be a light on Hillary's podium...

    ...but none at Trump's.

    And here is one more angle...

    And the two together...

    But again, no need to take our word for it as you can simply scan through the full debate footage posted by USA Today and see the phenomenon for yourself. Also note that, at numerous points while answering questions throughout the debate, Hillary seems to be looking down at her podium for extended periods of time rather than at the camera...to the point that it was actually awkward for people watching the debate live.

    Don't believe it? In the following video, fast forward to the 42:25 mark and watch Hillary's eyes as she responds to the question... where is she looking?

    Now, recall that debate 2 was structured as a town hall discussion so this type of cheating would not have been feasible. That said, oddly enough, debate 2 was the one that almost everyone universally thought she lost.

    Duc888 Oct 21, 2016 6:58 PM ,

    Just remember, Hillary is honest. All Democrats are good. Hillary has your best interests in mind. Hillary never lies.

    back to basics PrayingMantis Oct 21, 2016 7:08 PM ,
    At this point, all I can master energy to do anymore is shake my head in disgust.
    Al Gophilia back to basics Oct 21, 2016 7:24 PM ,
    If this is rigged then so will the vote. All Trump supporters should stay at the booth on the day as a show of force. That could be our only chance at non-violent revolution. Identify with the group, T shirts (Bill is a Rapist!), placards, hats etc.

    Turn up!

    Rise Up!

    Escrava Isaura swmnguy Oct 21, 2016 9:07 PM ,

    It's fascinating watching the America far right (libertarians, nationalists, ultraconservatives) all in this election. Even the kitchen sink "teleprompter" they're throwing into our political and our social systems. Now, are they right or wrong in doing so? Or, does it really matter?

    On the surface one would not think so. But I think it matters a lot. Wonder why?

    What will happen if they lose?

    Or worse, let's imagine that Trump won.

    Will the "vast majority" of clueless Americans know, or have a clue what will be coming in either case?

    Trump doesn't know how to lose unless there's something for him to gain. I do wonder what the system will have to offer the Devil for his concession speech? And good luck to them post election, because it will be impossible to govern, especially for the Republicans.

    Now, the picture is much clear if Trump wins, and below is a good take, in my opinion. Found it very insightful. It's by Norman Pagett: The "weimar Period" puts it very neatly

    It really is worth reading up on Hi-ler's speeches in the 30s-Trump word for word pretty much. HRC cant deliver any more than trump can, because the resources do not exist to "make America great again" or even to sustain the economy at its current level.

    when Hit-ler was saying exactly the same thing he had to invade Poland to sustain his fantasy, and despite the wailing and contrition in 1945-the German people cheered him on when he was initially successful. The same millions are cheering Trump now.

    When the system collapses, as it must (as Hit-ler's ponzi scheme), the chaos that will ensure will demand the takeover by a dictator, because faced with breakdown of society, governments have no option but to introduce martial law and in US political terms-that means a theofascism-the godbotherering wannabe dictators are waiting in the wings.
    The military will fall in behind whoever pays their wages. There's no Poland to invade, and subjugate therefore the only "masses" to subjugate will be the American people-at least that section of them who are "unbelievers"-ie any kind of minority-and ultimately political opponent.
    We all know what happened to minorities in Germany in the 30s. The same thing will happen again-someone has to take the blame for what's gone wrong wth the country and its economy. The parallels are exact.

    The constitution?

    Democracy is the child of affluence. It ends when democracy ends.

    https://ourfiniteworld.com/2016/10/11/why-energy-prices-are-ultimately-headed-lower-what-the-imf-missed/comment-page-5/#comment-103139

    philipat toro Oct 21, 2016 11:18 PM ,

    Hey toro , previously mofio then santafe then Aristotle of Greece then Gargoyle then bleu then oops then lance-a-lot then most recently Loftie . Looks like Loftie got banned or just outed. I shall miss him! Let's see how long toro survives, shall we?

    You are a serial spammer and a serial pain in the ass. Might I politely suggest that you go fuck yourself? And get a life.

    PS. You might have noticed that my attempt to expose you for what you are is always the same. That's because your Spam is always the same (Using fake links to your BS site which has no connection to your comments; which are deliberately dramatic to mislead people into responding or clicking on the fake link) so it seems only fair that my exposure of your crap should also always be the same. An eye for an eye.

    PrayingMantis philipat Oct 22, 2016 12:41 AM ,

    ... check out the scumbag john poo desta trying his best while he struggled to explain, lie some more and stuttered to deflect wikileaks facts exposed on his hacked emails and being called out for his lies while being heckled non-stop by the public ... >>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bce_1477088736

    ... and while you're at the site, take a look at this ... hiliary insults barack hussein at the al smith 2016 dinner ... too funny ... >>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea3_1477070639 ...

    ... and btw, for libertarians, ..."... VIDEO: Rand Paul tells every Libertarian why they need to vote for TRUMP! " ... >>> http://endingthefed.com/video-rand-paul-tells-every-libertarian-why-they-need-to-vote-for-trump.html

    jeff montanye PrayingMantis Oct 22, 2016 4:01 AM ,
    that al smith dinner sounds like it was quite the do; will have to see both speeches.

    http://qz.com/813971/final-presidential-debate-2016-all-of-the-questions...

    the part of hillary's third debate performance that seeemed the oddest was the "surprise" question at the end as to why the voters should support them. hillary was first and ripped into it with nary a glance down, like she was expecting it.

    trump went second and gave a worse performance on that question, imo.

    Offthebeach Escrava Isaura Oct 22, 2016 4:08 AM ,
    Not well educated.

    Upton Sinclair, author 'Grapes of Wrath, The Jungle,. ' wrote ' It Can't Happen Here' in the 1930s.

    Leonard Piekoff wrote 'The Ominous Parallels' in 1982.

    The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America is a 1982 book by philosopher Leonard Peikoff, in which Peikoff compares the culture of the United States with the culture of Germany leading up to the Nazis......

    Chris Dakota swmnguy Oct 22, 2016 1:38 AM ,
    I said it was very dangerous Oct 16-21 with Mars conjunct Pluto at 15* Capricorn.

    That is where the elites get the knife in the heart.

    It happened at that Catholic dinner in NYC with media and Wall St bailout recipients.

    Donald delivered it for us.

    The Ruling Elite Has Lost the Consent of the Governed

    Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe they have lost the consent of the governed.

    Every ruling Elite needs the consent of the governed: even autocracies, dictatorships and corporatocracies ultimately rule with the consent, however grudging, of the governed.

    The American ruling Elite has lost the consent of the governed.

    I was wrong, it wasn't a act of war between global powers, it is an act of war declared by Donald Trump on our behalf.

    With the money channel whore dressed in scarlet with her tits out and white leather gloves on behind The Donald. The whole thing has been a magic lantern show put on by Hollywood to entertain the sheep. While wages go down, jobs shipped out and cheap labor flooding in.

    The Catholics support Hillary's rape of Haiti and phony chairty that she enriched herself with. They were even uneasy with Donalds statement that "we need to celebrate the culture of life" meaning don't use abortion as birth control. Tim Kaine a Jesuit, which is basically a Jewish organization and Hillary 24 hrs before saying she supports partial birth abortion. They couldn't wait to congradulate her and fawn all over her.

    Dying Killer Kissinger melting behind the white funeral flowers in the pyramid table arrangement.

    I should have known at 15* Capricorn it would be this. Watching them boo and hiss at him, he was us and that was the knife in the heart with all masks down.

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

    -Willam Butler Yeats

    This party is just getting started, I said it was going to start now and the real action (Execution of French King, Execution of English King) takes place at the Pluto/Uranus opposition in 2046-2048.

    Jewish power is hanging by a thread, that's only 30 yrs.

    I won't be here in this form, but maybe you will be.

    fattail Soul Glow Oct 22, 2016 9:30 AM ,
    Good point. Nothing left to chance. I was so frustrated with Trump and his stupid, banal, vapid speeches, and the fact that I could make all of the arguments against clinton better than him. Now it makes sense.
    charms Soul Glow Oct 22, 2016 11:41 AM ,
    Could very well be.

    How do you get an incompetent corrupt, and malignant candidate elected? You stand them off against some other tainted character that will be just as controllable.

    The pupetmasters have run this model to ground. They are not prepared to lose.

    janus Occident Mortal Oct 21, 2016 8:33 PM ,
    The fall of legacy media has assumed about it the hue of 'epic saga'. The People are really rooting for us. Legacy media, so thoroughly detested among the masses as it is, having in this last election permanently offended over 80% of their audience with demonstrative hostility to both of The People's candidates (Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders), will NEVER regain any semblance of trust or veneration in the broader public's sentiments. This David & Goliath epic being all the more heroic as The People know, in their heart of hearts, that these scheming gremlins in the media are rotten to the core, and they similarly know that we're pure of heart and motive. It truly is good vs. evil story-book heroics...and the crowd is roaring for us with each blow stricken. This is serious; The People not only want to see them defeated, they seek a punitive spectacle, they demand a grand finale -- the ornery and agitated mob lusts for its pound of flesh. Gotta give the people what they want.

    A servant to all is mastered by none -- this has been my governing philosophy since declaring war on this establishment some five years ago. Before initiating phase one of my campaign and this adventure in Boston, I owned a restaurant back in Alabama. In that time, I learned a little bit about satisfying the public's appetite...in a distinct and idiosyncratic way. I've gone about revolution is just such a fashion -- iconaclastic and idiosyncratic. I've often had to improvise, but have always adhered to an overarching strategy...or i should say 'recipe'. I've been working on a formula of sorts...cooking up something for The People's consumption. I've been sorta chronicling my adventures within the broader context of this societal/political shift -- a seismic rearrangement of prevailing paradigm so profound and absolute you won't see anything like it for another millennia. Yes, I knew something BIG was abrew in the machinations of this species back in Hickstick, Alabama. Feeling janus had the wherewithal and talents sufficient to make some contribution to this great turning, I devoted myself wholly to it. I'm not alone. There are many who've risked everything. And it makes for a great story. But beyond the story, and regarding phase two, I have a bit of surprise up my sleeve for tptb: the truth is, janus is a more effective and persuasive speaker than writer. Please forgive me for saying so, and I do say this from a sense of rational modesty, but I have something of a gift for words and their arrangement. Again, I'm not attempting to boast -- I mean really, I would not keep going if I didn't know what kind of impact we're having on the Hedge... janus has from the beginning pledged his gifts to this campaign...us vs. them...good vs. evil. All the while I'd been hiding the greater talent under a bushel, preparing to make of it another donation.

    tptb, you will soon be forced to deal with my perspicacity in an extemporaneous setting. There will be no way to mitigate the damages nor prepare. Imagine if you will the fearlessness, confidence and courage of Donald Trump but from a manner imminently polite and courteous -- even to a fault. Think about the quick and nimble thinking of Trump expressed with a command of language and erudition that would make Cicero jealous. Throw into this the ability to instantly structure highly complex arguments that are both cogent and stimulating to a wise mind. all of which is to say -- and pardon my french -- tptb, you're fucked. One way or another, janus will soon start speaking...you have my permission to start freaking. I told you all from the beginning, ain't a goddam thing you can do to stop me. I'm better than you all...you used to laugh and now you gulp. What's that ole saying about laughing last?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKuSoaIbpFU

    heh heh heh

    Meanwhile, as I rest and prepare my vocal chords, chef janus will carve another pound of flesh from the carcass of a freshly slain legacy-media, slicing off a hunk while the beast still simpers and serve it to the public rare, with the blood still in it. (just wait till I rip their heart out while it beats for the grande finale) I've entitled it:

    As The Pendulum Swings

    The ponderous procession of Providence is subject to the laws of stasis and extremes. All things tend to extremes and then return, ever so temporarily, to the equilibrium of stasis -- this is the pattern of dynamism in nature; the inertia intrinsic to this swing back to stasis has a value slightly greater than the force which propelled it to the most recent and retreating extreme. As this relates to the mass-sentiments governing the hive-mind of mankind, we are just now starting the descent from a peak of institutional perfidy. The political pendulum is edging ever so slightly away from a totalitarian control matrix so absolute it would make stalin blush. We will soon pick up speed and then accelerate quickly to arrests and trials. But the extreme to which these devils have pushed The People being so far beyond what's ever been done in the civilized world, I feel that by the time this is all over, we will see guillotines. Understand, this pitch of acrimony is still only nascent. Once the dollar goes and everyone's investments, jobs, food stamps, etc., we are going to see a ferocity within the masses unique in all of history.

    yes, media clowns, you are in great peril. The people will be calling for your hides. Sure, you won't be the only targets, but you'll most certainly be a focus. How do you like it now that it's your emails being hacked and scrutinized? How will you like it when your sordid private lives are exposed? You thought it was funny when you were on the inside; but now that things are turning inside out, do you feel so insulated? Think you're protected? hardly...your masters will happily throw you to the baying mob hoping your hide will sate their appetite. Your fates are only these: prison, death or, if you're lucky, menial service sector jobs. Yes, those of you wise enough to start speaking the truth now will be spared prison or something more severe. I recommend you exercise this option. Perhaps you think janus is exaggerating...but after everything that's happened, do you think it wise to bet on tptb? janus has peered into the future. Predictable outcome: Good Guys win. Not even close. In fact, you could call it a blood-bath:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D97OxHZzBeQ

    You reap what you sow in this world. The metaphysical concept of equilibrium is what we call justice; justice necessarily involves punitive measures. You journalists are the custodians of democracy. You have abrogated your end of the social contract. You have betrayed The Public in service to wickedness. Whether you did so from fear or to curry favor with The People's enemies is largely immaterial, you cast your lot with evil which has for a while flourished -- you just so happen to be involved in the time of its denoument...sucks to be you. In aiding and abetting the deception and fleecing of the public, you have several wars to your credit, rivers of blood stain you hands, the mass poisoning of the people has been undertaken as you advanced it...you have not only sat back and watched The People suffer, you have contributed your life's work to that end.

    Same as Nuremberg, 'just following orders' will not be a permissible defense. As to this equilibrium and its relationship to the concept of justice, when the punishments are meted out, they will be far more severe than you can now fathom, but they will be proportionate to the sentiments of the time. When the pendulum reaches the other extreme of its travel, when The People discover the level of your involvement and participation, an eye for an eye won't do -- they'll be demanding two. Mark my words, legacy media. Be ye therefore wise and know the signs of the times.

    Donald Trump is just the beginning...there are several more volumes to this story...and the best part is, there's a very happy ending.

    The little seeds cast about here on the Hedge have germinated and are starting to take root in The Public...just wait till they bloom:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSzdXjwHACo

    {btw, the above song is from a band to which i give a five star recommendation...first such honor since Houndmouth...and so, i introduce the Hedge to Shovels and Rope (gotta love that name)}

    janus

    [Oct 22, 2016] The alternative to trump is not a progressive candidate. It is a corrupt neocon warmonger with health problems

    Oct 22, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm : , -1
    The alternative to trump is not progressive.

    A theme among trump supporters is "lack of trust". Who knows what Hillary* stands for and how the dnc spins.

    The distrust flows with the progressive alliance with librul morals.

    * aside from more bombing than bushco.

    marcus nunes : , October 22, 2016 at 03:55 AM
    Kocherlakota:"Another possibility, highlighted in Yellen's speech, is that the recovery engineered by the Fed was so slow that it did (possibly reversible) damage to the supply side -- for example, as long-term unemployment eroded the skills and motivation of workers"
    Unfortunately they won´t give up their favorite Phillips Curve Model:
    https://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/the-fomc-its-forecasts/
    anne -> marcus nunes ... , October 22, 2016 at 05:35 AM
    Really nice argument with which I agree, however I have also been wondering just how damage to the supply side has been done by these years of war:

    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    ilsm -> anne... , October 22, 2016 at 06:00 AM
    The sovereign could blow things up to assure a fiction called 'security' or it could build things that are real.

    Bastiat wrote about this 160 years ago, when Frances was building fortresses that failed 3 times from 1870.

    marcus nunes -> anne... , October 22, 2016 at 06:35 AM
    Anne, wars are certainly "destructive", but why should this one damage the supply side so much more than all the other wars?
    anne -> marcus nunes ... , -1
    Anne, wars are certainly "destructive", but why should this one damage the supply side so much more than all the other wars?

    [ I would argue that the unprecedented amount of time taken by the wars, the important actual spending and what was not spent as a result of the constraint of spending on the wars. Also, while there was spending on the wars which bolstered the economy, I would argue this spending did relatively little to build a productive base for the economy.

    We could properly argue that digging ditches and filling them in provides needed work and support for the economy in a recession, but we were lots better off productively because of New Deal ditch digging and filling designed for the Tennessee Valley Authority. ]

    anne -> Global Famine Cannibalism... , October 22, 2016 at 08:14 AM
    But just think what all of our pre-emptive invasions did to the global environment....

    [ A refrain that I have often read, but have no reference just now, is that American militarism has been the price of economic advance or well-being. Likely because I am bothered by militarism and such a generality, I have never set down a reference. But, I have not thought about the environmental effects of war since 2001. ]

    JohnH -> anne... , October 22, 2016 at 08:44 AM
    The other problem with foreign wars is that, to the extent that money is spent abroad and stays there, they represent leakage to the US economy...IOW they are a contractionary force. Of course, there is no reporting on how much of the DOD budget gets spent abroad and stays there. However, leasing alone of 800 plus military bases can't be cheap...

    OTOH digging ditches and filling them in keeps money in the economy and probably even has a positive multiplier.

    anne -> JohnH... , -1
    The money spent abroad argument is faulty as such, since dollars spent in abroad on development programs will in turn be spent in the United States. China has begun a "one belt, one road" program in which large, large sums will be spent on infrastructure from Russia and Mongolia to Laos and Cambodia to Pakistan and Bangladesh... to build an Asian trading network.

    Money spent abroad on fighting however is another matter.

    anne -> marcus nunes ... , -1
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105628

    November, 2003

    The Most Technologically Progressive Decade of the Century
    By Alexander J. Field

    Abstract

    There is now an emerging consensus that over the course of U.S. economic history, multifactor productivity grew fastest over a broad plateau between 1905 and 1966, and within that period, in the two decades following 1929. This paper argues that the bulk of the achieved productivity levels in 1948 had already been attained before full scale war mobilization in 1942. It was not principally the war that laid the foundation for postwar prosperity. It was technological progress across a broad frontier of the American economy during the 1930s.

    Ghost of Christmas Future : , -1
    $800 billion trade deficit still not a major topic in economics. This is incredible. The US has only 5% of the world's population yet we are absorbing more than a third of the global trade surplus of surplus economies.

    Is it easier for 5% of the world to absorb $800 billion a year in annual trade deficits or would it be easier for 95% of the world able to do that? A trade surplus for the US of $800 billion is much more reasonable. A swing of $1.6 trillion in aggregate demand would have enormous consequences for US development, stability and unemployment levels. A commitment to industry, combined with low interest loans, government contracts and high tariffs would lead to a boom in industrial investment rather than its virtual absence. The working class could actually find jobs working again rather than being forced into the drug trade and prison - even people in the destroyed cities of Camden, Chicago and Buffalo could find hope again. We could get 10-14% annual GDP growth as 25-50 factories were built a day. (We lost 15 a day from 2000-2010 with our economists not noticing or caring) Why does the US settle for economic destruction when Vietnam, Singapore, China, Israel etc. etc. show that growth and development are easy? Why must we accept poverty and deindustrialization? Why do Americans need to be forced to return to stone age subsistence agriculture, street commerce, prostitution, begging, the drug trade?

    The pointless destruction of the US as an economy, center of wealth and technology continues apace without attracting any attention from our serious economists. Trump should continue to focus on his message - Clinton won't fix anything, and things may very well collapse between now and November 2020. At which point Trump will be ideally positioned to champion the 40-70% of the population that is "new poor". Our last hope is that Trump wins in November 2016 or Nov. 2020 and as soon as he takes office both disbands all economics departments and raises tariffs to the necessary 300-400% range. Anything else is continued insane economic suicide.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Hegemon needs all the tools it can scrape up to perpetrate its evil.

    Obama was going to end Iraghistan, now US has done Libya, is doing Syria and still losing lives and wasting treasure in Iraghistan.

    Obama advocated a nuclear free world until someone offered a reason to add $30B a year to the pentagon trough.

    Safety and reliability is a sham in the pentagon trough.

    The only use of nuclear weapons is extending the terror bpmbing which Le May and Bomber Harris perfected.

    Smaller nuclear yields add the the useless but very expensive read profitable strategy of bombing them "into the stone age".

    If the only strategy is count body bags then small nukes fit.

    Bottom line hegemon war is immoral.

    Adding $30B a year is adding opportunity cost to the immoral!

    Love of "security" (cash for the trough) is the root of all evil.

    ilsm -> anne... , -1
    $30B a year for nuclear arms modifications on top of the spending keeping the existing A-bombs ready to blow away the world for the hege0mon!!!!!

    Russia and China spending less than half the pentagon core budgets which do not include the munificent war supplements.

    Between Russia's $78B a year and China's $140B per year they have a long way to go with the US putting $500B a year in the core pentagon trough and adding plus ups for bombing Assad.

    However, if China is as efficient in war as in manufactures the $500B riddled with waste and welfare is concerning.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Green Party leader Jill Stins views

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Waldenpond October 21, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    QCenk: Russia destroying Aleppo.

    Stein: Stop beating war drums. NATO surround Russia, war games around russia, fake nucs as prep for war, Clinton virtual declaration of war no fly zone, Brzyenski neo-con has changed, Aleppo horrible US broke cease fire, we are not the bad guys, no good guys or bad guys, need honest brokers instead of tools of defense industry (Kerry good).

    QCenk: less war footing, were would you use force. Ex. Syria: Bagdadi, can we drone strike?
    A: Israel had Eichmann, they did not take him out, they complied w/inter law, captured, tried, paid price, world of laws or bullies, I would use a force were int law, when under imminent threat or under attack.
    Q: Special forces like they did with Bin Laden or no?
    A: SF acceptable in policing.
    Q:Judgment in court would you enforce.
    A: Inter respected rules Yes. Drones are assassination program. Mobilize population against us. No drones as a weapon of war.
    Q: Iraq/Syria: Our allies say they are advancing on Iraq what would you do. Brinkmanship, engage weapons embargo, US, Russia, allies. ISIS success supported by allies, cut that support by Saudis, hold Baghdad for weeks but reversed, blindly continue? Fails and creates next generation.
    Q: If Russia goes into Estonia to protect some Russians, what would you do?
    Communicate starting now, brinkmanship, surrounding Russia, reverse of Cuban missile crisis.
    Q: That's long term, what is short term plan.
    A: Estonia member of NATO. Obliged by NATO contract. Bacevich-let NATO take care of Europe. Create truly defensible policy.

    RWood October 21, 2016 at 7:00 pm

    Who is on her cabinet list?

    Lambert Strether Post author October 22, 2016 at 2:06 am

    My question, too. For example, if Stephanie Kelton were Stein's nominee for Treasury, I wouldn't worry so much about Stein's views on what quantitiative easing can and cannot do.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 22, 2016 at 2:47 am

    I went looking. The official GP site links to the "Green Shadow Cabinet" site ("The Green Shadow Cabinet of the United States is a civic project not sponsored by or affiliated with any political party," so who knows whether it's really authoritative, despite the GP link). From the Cabinet Members page:

    Ellen Brown, Secretary of the Treasury

    Oh, dear…

    Yves Smith October 22, 2016 at 2:55 am

    I hate to be a critic of someone who has her heart in the right place. but agreed in spades. Brown so does not understand the Fed, money and banking that I sometimes wonder if she's a plant to make people on the left spout ideas that will discredit them.

    meeps October 22, 2016 at 3:36 am

    The Green Shadow Cabinet was around during the 2012 elections. They are placeholders for these positions though not yet official. I don't know if all the 'appointments' are current (I see 2015 dates), so some of them may have changed.

    Yves, I know you don't need homework (thanks for all you do here), but if you have a moment and are so inclined, maybe contact the campaign with your concerns about Brown and offer an opinion as to why the choice discredits them or their aims? Or don't. I realize your time and experience is valuable and more suited to remunerated advising than free opining.

    In any case, didn't Kelton endorse Clinton?

    Waldenpond October 21, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    Q6: Energy from coal etc. Stein: green new jobs etc.
    Q: push.. short term would you shut down the coal mines? Stein? 17 years to zero out fossil fuels. Emergency put people to work in other industries, solar, transportation, rail, or light rail or it's curtains in a matter of decades. 2060 10,20,30 feet of sea rise. Goodbye population centers, nuclear plants will go Fukashima, where does money come from? 1/2 T essential for our survival. Organizer in the white house instead of bloated military, or tax wall street .2%.
    Q: cenk still pushing. European countries limit coal mines, so would you say no more coal mines, no oil drilling?
    Stein: you can't negotiate with environment, climate. More jobs to be created by doing what science says to do. zero mean zero. Scientists say play with fire. EPA to protect environment and health, extinction is not compatible with health.
    Taking a break and then back to : are you a spoiler?

    Waldenpond October 21, 2016 at 7:01 pm

    Q7: can't hear, hopefully someone will repeat?
    Stein: dealing with congress that doesn't get anything done and a Pres that does opposite of elected purpose? Turn the wh into the Green house. Political house of cards is falling down. Dislike, distrusted candidates. When? organize for life saving, civiliZation saving event. Organizer and chief. Lobbyists calling the shots, predatory banks etc, we the public locked out, vast number to mobilize end student debt, health care, agenda doable, flood offices insisting (she's meandering) on green new deal, phone, e-mail, show up. Quaking in boots, organized political power we have.
    Q8: Campaign finance, lobby etc seems rigged, how to overcome?
    Stein: passed Camp finance reform thru referendum as 85% D legislature wouldn't do it. Public financing, money no longer in control can't buy elections, holding airwarve hostage to corp profiteering, not rocket science. Mass. Ds repealed public finance on voice vote, worser evil to make themselves inevitable. (At least she admits what her state did was an ultimate failure)
    Cenk: Constitutional amendment, what would it say? Stein: Yes, CU not only problem, distorted constitution, money is not speech, 1$ 1 Vote, corps not people, we have the right to democratically decide.
    Cenk: Clinton too, within first 30 days?
    Stein: Clinton only refers to unaccountable money pretends to support, ok declared money,
    Q9: If someone doesn't want Trump, vote for you instead of Clinton?
    Stein: 4 out fo 10 don't vote, it will be 6 out of 10, stand up, what is exit strategy of greater and lesser evil, Trumps' statements, Clinton's acts Libya, bombing Muslims, D, unfathomable hr vilations against immigration, coup in Honduras and refugees, R hate and fear, D deportation and night raids, they get worse more corp, more militarist, interrupt the downward spiral. Trump scumbag smokescreen for economic predators once Clinton wins, SS privatization, fool me once, twice, three, vote like your lives depend on it because they do.
    Cenk: T or C, who would you pick?
    Difference not enough to save your job, environment, climate etc. I will not sleep wll if T elected. I will not sleep well if C elected either, war with Russia. This is a democracy.
    Q10: drug war, 160,000 died against cartels, 1T$, drug use hasn't dropped. Alcohol prohibition makes more powerful, drug also. Lack of regulation, arrests (every 25 seconds) legalize, tax, regulate all drugs as prohibition makes it work?
    Stein: Instruct DEA to use science what will and won't be scheduled. Marijuana off, pulls rug out from under mafioso industry. Decriminalize, health issue, needs more study. Legalize marijuana.
    MCR for all discussion.

    Waldenpond October 21, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    Ooh, here we go: Sam Seder question: Some are voting to get the GP to 5%, 100 in office but that is less statewide. Do you have a plan for off years and what is it? (I'm betting she won't answer)

    Stein: So much we can do, fear campaign delivers what we're afraid of, this democracy not for us, stand up, (still no plan) make most progressive vote, rank choice voting, politics of fear, moral compass, raise up local candidates, go to website, donate, independent parties lead the way, abolition spoilers, (still no plan) Abraham Lincoln, stand up like your lives depend on it…… nope, no plan.

    [Oct 22, 2016] payments for some of Bill and Hillary's activities (non-speech related and easier to hide), ie lobbying for foreign governments and corporations, were structured through holding companies in Singapore, Hong Kong

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Cry Shop October 22, 2016 at 4:10 am

    Bill Clinton has a mysterious shell-company

    Trump could not be the only candidate under reporting family income. It's been pretty common talk among the chambers of commerce in Asia that payments for some of Bill and Hillary's activities (non-speech related and easier to hide), ie lobbying for foreign governments and corporations, were structured through holding companies in Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/bill-black-the-clintons-have-not-changed-the-clintonian-war-on-the-ig-watchdogs.html

    Certainly having a on-shore tax shell is an important part of repatriation, just in time for Hillary's promised tax holiday.
    https://newrepublic.com/article/117763/clinton-proposes-repatriation-tax-holiday-fund-infrastructure-bank

    [Oct 22, 2016] Nationalists and Populists Poised to Dominate European Balloting

    Oct 21, 2016 | www.bloomberg.com

    As Europeans assess the fallout from the U.K.'s Brexit referendum , they face a series of elections that could equally shake the political establishment. In the coming 12 months, four of Europe's five largest economies have votes that will almost certainly mean serious gains for right-wing populists and nationalists. Once seen as fringe groups, France's National Front, Italy's Five Star Movement, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands have attracted legions of followers by tapping discontent over immigration, terrorism, and feeble economic performance. "The Netherlands should again become a country of and for the Dutch people," says Evert Davelaar, a Freedom Party backer who says immigrants don't share "Western and Christian values."

    ... ... ....

    The populists are deeply skeptical of European integration, and those in France and the Netherlands want to follow Britain's lead and quit the European Union. "Political risk in Europe is now far more significant than in the United States," says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays.

    ... ... ...

    ...the biggest risk of the nationalist groundswell: increasingly fragmented parliaments that will be unable or unwilling to tackle the problems hobbling their economies. True, populist leaders might not have enough clout to enact controversial measures such as the Dutch Freedom Party's call to close mosques and deport Muslims. And while the Brexit vote in June helped energize Eurosceptics, it's unlikely that any major European country will soon quit the EU, Morgan Stanley economists wrote in a recent report. But they added that "the protest parties promise to turn back the clock" on free-market reforms while leaving "sclerotic" labour and market regulations in place. France's National Front, for example, wants to temporarily renationalise banks and increase tariffs while embracing cumbersome labour rules widely blamed for chronic double-digit unemployment. Such policies could damp already weak euro zone growth, forecast by the International Monetary Fund to drop from 2 percent in 2015 to 1.5 percent in 2017. "Politics introduces a downside skew to growth," the economists said.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Those who vote for Hillary for the sake of stability need to be reminded that according to the Minsky Theory stability sometimes can be very destabilizing

    Oct 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... October 21, 2016 at 02:12 PM

    Please note that Hillary's path to the top was marked by proved beyond reasonable doubt DNC fraud. With information contained in recent email leaks some DNC honchos probably might go to jail for violation of elections laws. So for them this is a death match and people usually fight well when they are against the wall. The same in true about Obama and his entourage.

    And while this Nobel Peace Price winner managed to bomb just eight countries, Hillary might improve this peace effort, which was definitely insufficient from the point of view of many diplomats in State Department. Also the number of humanitarian bombs could be much greater. Here Hillary election can really help.

    From the other point of view this might well be a sign of the crisis of legitimacy of the US ruling neoliberal elite (aka financial oligarchy).

    After approximately 50 years in power the level of degeneration of the US neoliberal elite reached the level when the quality of candidates reminds me the quality of candidates from the USSR Politburo after Brezhnev death. Health-wise Hillary really bear some resemblance to Andropov and Chernenko. And inability of the elite to replace either of them with a more viable candidate speaks volumes.

    The other factor that will not go away is that Obama effectively pardoned Hillary for emailgate (after gentle encouragement from Bill via Loretta Lynch). Otherwise instead of candidate to POTUS, she would be a viable candidate for orange suit too. Sure, the rule of law is not applicable to neoliberal elite, so why Hilary should be an exception? But some naive schmucks might think that this is highly improper. And be way too much upset with the fruits of neoliberal globalization. Not that Brexit is easily repeatable in the USA, but vote against neoliberal globalization (protest vote) might play a role.

    Another interesting thing to observe is when (and if) the impeachment process starts, if she is elected. With some FBI materials in hands of the Congress Republicans she in on the hook. A simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article of impeachment, or the resolution as a whole, to pass.

    All-in-all her win might well be a Pyrrhic victory. And the unknown neurological disease that she has (Parkinson?) makes her even more vulnerable after the election, then before. The role of POTUS involves a lot of stress and requires substantial physical stamina as POTUS is the center of intersection of all important government conflicts, conversations and communications. That's a killing environment for anyone with Parkinson. And remember she was not able to survive the pressure of the role of the Secretary of State when she was in much better health and has an earlier stage of the disease.

    POTUS essentially does not belong to himself/herself for the term of the office (although Obama managed to slack in this role; was he on drugs the night of Benghazi killings ? http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/plausible-theory-was-president-obama-high-on-coke-while-benghazi-burned-video)

    Another interesting question, if the leaks continue after the election. That also can contribute to the level of stress. Just anticipation is highly stressful. I do not buy the theory about "evil Russians." This hypothesis does not survive Occam razor test. I think that there some anti-Hillary forces within the USA ruling elite, possibly within the NSA or some other three letter agency that has access to email boxes of major Web mail providers via NSA.

    If this is a plausible hypothesis, that makes it more probable that the leaks continue. To say nothing about possible damaging revelations about Bill (especially related to Clinton Foundation), who really enjoyed his retirement way too much.

    Those who vote for Hillary for the sake of stability need to be reminded that according to the Minsky Theory stability sometimes can be very destabilizing

    Jay : October 21, 2016 at 01:36 PM , 2016 at 01:36 PM
    When Krugman is appointed to a top government post by Hillary Clinton we will be able to FOIA his pay and attach a value to all the columns "electioneering" Krugman has written.
    likbez -> anne...
    Anne,

    "An intolerably destructive essay that should never have been posted, and I assume no such essay will be posted again on this blog. Shameful, shameful essay."

    You mean that voting for the female warmonger with some psychopathic tendencies ("We came, we saw, he died") is not shameful ?

    An interesting approach I would say.

    I am not fun of Trump, but he, at least, does not have the blood of innocent women and children on his hands. And less likely to start WWIII unlike this completely out of control warmonger.

    With the number of victims of wars of neoliberal empire expansion in Iraq, Libya and Syria, you should be ashamed of yourself as a women.

    Please think about your current position Anne. You really should be ashamed.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Dennis Kucinich FBI Investigation of Hillary Clinton Was Fixed in Her Favor

    Notable quotes:
    "... Instead of the investigative process being focused on achieving justice, Kucinich says it was "a very political process" that had "everything to do with the 2016 presidential election" in which Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Kucinich elaborates that "the executive branch of government made an early determination that no matter what came up that there was no way that Hillary Clinton was going to have to be accountable under law for anything dealing with the mishandling of classified information." ..."
    Oct 18, 2016 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    Speaking Monday on Fox News with host Neil Cavuto, former Democratic presidential candidate and United States House of Representatives Member from Ohio Dennis Kucinich opined that, from early on, the US government's investigation of Hillary Clinton for mishandling confidential information while she was Secretary of State was fixed in her favor.

    Instead of the investigative process being focused on achieving justice, Kucinich says it was "a very political process" that had "everything to do with the 2016 presidential election" in which Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Kucinich elaborates that "the executive branch of government made an early determination that no matter what came up that there was no way that Hillary Clinton was going to have to be accountable under law for anything dealing with the mishandling of classified information."

    Watch Kucinich's complete interview here: watch-v=K00frqv-XI8

    [Oct 21, 2016] Hillary is running against locker room talk and the Russians

    Notable quotes:
    "... criminal record had to be suppressed by the Obama regime in order to move the oligarchs' candidate in the direction of the White House. So here we are on the verge of nuclear war with Russia and China, and the important issue before the American people is Trump's lewd comments with Billy Bush about sexually attractive women. ..."
    "... why is lewd talk about women more important than military conflict with Russia, which could mean nuclear war and the end of life on earth? ..."
    "... For Killary-Hillary the Russian issue is the unsupported and false allegation that the Russian government, in league with Donald Trump, hacked her emails and released them to WikiLeaks. The purpose of this absurd claim is to focus voters' attention away from the damning content of the emails. ..."
    "... The real issue is that the idiots in Washington have convinced the Russian government that Russia is going to be the target of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Once a nation is convinced of this, it is unlikely that they will just sit there waiting, especially a powerful nuclear power like Russia, which appears to have a strategic alliance with another major nuclear power-China. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | Information Clearing House

    Russia's very able Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said that the US presidential campaign is "simply some sort of a global shame" unworthy of the American people. She certainly hit the nail on the head.

    Hitlery's criminal record had to be suppressed by the Obama regime in order to move the oligarchs' candidate in the direction of the White House. So here we are on the verge of nuclear war with Russia and China, and the important issue before the American people is Trump's lewd comments with Billy Bush about sexually attractive women.

    I mean really. Men's talk about women is like their fish and hunting stories. It has to be taken with a grain of salt. But this aside, why is lewd talk about women more important than military conflict with Russia, which could mean nuclear war and the end of life on earth?

    Trump has declared that he sees no point in conflict with Russia and that he sees no point in NATO a quarter century after the demise of the Soviet Union.

    Is Trump's lewd talk about women worse than Hitlery's provocative talk about Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom Hitlery calls "the new Hitler"? What kind of utter fool would throw gratuitous insults at the President of a country that can wipe the US and all of Western Europe off of the face of the earth in a few minutes?

    Would you rather face a situation in which a few women were groped, or be vaporized in nuclear war? If you don't know the correct answer, you are too stupid to be alive.

    Are the American women really going to elect Hillary as a rebuff to Trump's lewd talk? If so, they will confirm that it was a mistake to give women the vote, although there will be no one left alive to record the mistake in the history books.

    Hitlery, with the aid of the presstitutes-the whores who lie for a living and who constitute the American print and TV media-have succeeded in focusing America's election of a president on issues irrelevant to the dangerous situation with which Hitlery and her neoconservative colleagues confront the world.

    For Killary-Hillary the Russian issue is the unsupported and false allegation that the Russian government, in league with Donald Trump, hacked her emails and released them to WikiLeaks. The purpose of this absurd claim is to focus voters' attention away from the damning content of the emails.

    The real issue is that the idiots in Washington have convinced the Russian government that Russia is going to be the target of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Once a nation is convinced of this, it is unlikely that they will just sit there waiting, especially a powerful nuclear power like Russia, which appears to have a strategic alliance with another major nuclear power-China.

    A vote for the crazed killer bitch Hitlery is a vote for the end of life on earth.

    Dr. Paul Craig Roberts editor of was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are Dissolution of The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

    [Oct 21, 2016] This Election Circus Is A Disservice To The People

    Notable quotes:
    "... Once again, during the last hour of the third debate, Clinton reiterated her position on a 'no fly zone' and 'safe zones' in Syria. She is absolutely committed to this policy position which aligns with the anonymous 50+ state dept lifers and Beltway neocons stance. ..."
    "... Trump's candidacy = sovereignty - NO War. Clinton's candidacy = Globalism - WAR. Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple... ..."
    "... Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore. ..."
    "... It will be a 'fuck you' vote more than a vote for The Don. ..."
    "... The dems forgot to switch off the internet. The anti-Trump MSM campaign is so total and over the top because it has to be --> CNN is so last century. No one is getting out of bed to vote Hillary. ..."
    "... Step away from your TVs, smartphones and computers with your brains in the air. Let them breathe freely. ..."
    "... Clinton seems to have had some of the questions ahead of time. She seemed to be reading the answers off a telepromter in her lecturn. ..."
    "... He should declare that Hillary helped arm Al Qaeda to topple Assad for her banker buddies (cant mention the Jewishness/Israeli Firsterism of the 'neocons' of course, not because false but because true) and will be happy to send African Americans and Latinos to die for 'oil companies' and her 'banker friends' and after decades of establishment Dems promising the sky, maybe they dont need an inveterate liar who arms Islamic terrorists. ..."
    "... Hillary armed Al Qaeda and possibly ISIS - both AngloZionist proxies. How in the fuck is she not in jail??? ..."
    "... As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, duopolistic elections are merely mechanisms of manufactured consent. When each of the major parties are controlled by the different factions of the oligarchy, there is only afforded the option to vote for the ideology put forth by each oligarchic group. ..."
    "... What fascinates me is how Obama went all public about Trumps assertions of rigged elections. It appears the puppet masters are very afraid of a "cynical" (realistic) population. Manufactured consent only works if people play the game. As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up to vote, the government collapsed. ..."
    "... "Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple." Is this being lost sight off amongst all the noise? I hope not, for the sake of the Ukrainians and the Syrians. And for the sake of the countries yet to be destabilised. ..."
    "... A vote for Clinton = War and a vote for Trump = NO war ..."
    "... Don't know when WH was created but the whitehelmets.org domain name was registered (in Beirut not Syria) in August 2014 and it is hosted on Cloudflare in Texas. Maybe it took some time get the brand recognition going? ..."
    "... she also tends to repeat the same talking points 900 times so i knew what she'd say before she said it. did catch her whining about imaginary "russian rigging". again; no surprise there. ..."
    "... as for trump, he mentioned abortion stuff more than usual in what i'm guessing is an attempt to win back any jesus freaks he lost with the billy bush tape. ..."
    "... For the first time I listened to a Trump speech - delivered in Florida on the 13th of this month. What struck me is how much the media attacks on him and his family have got to him. He mentions how he could have settled for a leisurely retirement, but that he felt he had to do something for his country. ..."
    "... perhaps he hadn't quite realized the array of power that is lined up against him. They are not going to let one dude wreck their party. ..."
    "... It examines Trump through the prism as a likely "Jacksonian Conservative", who are not dissimilar to traditional conservatives but are not non-interventionists as such, just far more honest about their interventionism (as they are unburdened by the neocon bullshit about "killing them to make them barbarians more civilised") and really only likely to want to apply aggression where they feel that fundamental American interests are threatened. ..."
    "... Getting Julian Assange's internet connection cut off just makes the Obama regime look even more stupid and pathetic now. The document dumps keep on coming. Did they really think they would stop that by shutting off the LAN in the Ecuadoran embassy? ..."
    "... The underlying problem seems to be that John Podesta bought into the marketing bullshit about The Cloud. So he kept all his very sensitive correspondence at his Gmail account, apparently using it as the archive of his correspondence. ..."
    "... I don't know if we'll ever know who hacked his account. It is not that hard to do, so it doesn't really require a "state actor". Google only gives you a few tries at entering your password, so Podesta's account couldn't have been hacked by randomly trying every possibility. Somehow, the hacker got the actual password. Either it was exposed somewhere, or it was obtained by spear phishing . That involves sending your target an email that directs him to a Web page that asks him to enter his password. All that's required to do that is being able to write a plausible email, and setting up a Web site to mimic the Web site where the account you want to hack resides, Gmail in this case. ..."
    "... Nearly all information technology security breaches are insider jobs, genuine crackers/hackers are rare. Wikileaks is by far the most likely being fed from the inside of the DNC etc. and/or from their suppliers or security detail by people that are disgusted, have personal vendettas, and so on. It's the real Anonymous, anyone anywhere, not the inept CIA stooges or the faux organized or ideological pretenders. In addition any analyst at the NSA with access to XKeyScore can supply Wikileaks with all the Podesta emails on a whim in less than half an hour of "work" and the actual data to be sent would be gotten with a single XKeyScore database query. That sort of query is exactly what the XKeyScore backend part was built to do as documented by Snowden and affirmed by Binney and others. ..."
    "... Duterte may well be flawed but he has a keen nose for where things are heading, Filipinos should be proud of him. ..."
    "... 'Hillary "We will follow ISIS to Raqqa to take it "back"' (take Raqqa back from the Syrians?) ..."
    "... The crazy hyper-entitled White Supremacist bi*ch is beyond any belief. ..."
    "... Jesus Christ, Adolf F. Hitler would've blushed if he said some of her shit. This woman admits she is a war criminal in real time. ..."
    "... If Hillary is elected, she will be haunted by her 'mistakes' and by the exposure of her double face by Wikileaks. She is stigmatized as 'crooked Hillary' and as an unreliable decision maker. From now on, all her decisions will be tainted with suspicion. I doubt that she'll be able to lead the country properly during the 4 years she hopes to stay in power. ..."
    "... the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate plutocracy. ..."
    Oct 21, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Via Adam Johnson:

    "Total mentions all 4 debates:

    The candidates are not the first to blame for this. The first to blame are the moderators of such debates, the alleged journalists 8and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course. The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner's) special-interest hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight for the attention of these media and adopt to them.

    I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.

    Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is that both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of those low ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better their campaign finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they are both east coast elite and don't give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.

    As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality. Her disliked rate (like Trump's) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past. Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like. Calling this back into mind again and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is a major political disruption . He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever reason.

    The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was.

    rg the lg | Oct 20, 2016 10:19:53 AM | 10
    I watched a couple of minutes of the Hillary&Donald show. Then got a book and read instead.

    Granted the Queen of Chaos will now have an empire to rule over ... but there will be no honeymoon - there are a lot of issues that will dog her heels irrespective of the so-called press trying to help cover-up. The good news in that is the probability of political gridlock. The bad news is that the QoC will have almost no control over her neo-con handlers, the military nor the CIA ...

    It's going to be a helluva ride. The DuhMurriKKKan people have little to do with anything ... and it is possible the economy may show a slight increase as the DuhMurriKKKan people do what they've been trained to do: go on a shopping spree for shit they don't need on the grounds that it'll make them feel better.

    Plus, the DNC bus did dump shit in the street in Georgia ... a fitting symbol for politics in Dumb-shit-MurriKKKah. Doh!

    chipnik | Oct 20, 2016 10:41:32 AM | 12

    "In this venue, your honours, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States," Duterte said to applause at a Chinese forum in the Great Hall of the People attended by Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli. "Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has lost."

    Obviously, TheRealDonald's missing Minot nuke will be visiting the Duterte presidential compound shortly after the Trump-Clinton fraud selection, then Der Decider, whoever plays that 'hope and chains' spox role for Deep State, will announce it was a 'Russian strike', against US 'peace-keeping' forces in the Western Pacific, and then proceed accordingly to attack and occupy Crimea, to 'protect our BFF in the Middle East, Israel'.

    Deep State has already cued up a SCOTUS decision on Citizens United Ultra for 2017. QEn+ already cued up to support junk T-bonds for 'The Wall' or 'The Infrastructure'. US national 'debt' (sic) will hit $25,000,000,000,000 by 2020, then it's game over.

    Diana | Oct 20, 2016 10:42:18 AM | 13
    Suggestion: never report on a debate you didn't watch. Trump came out very strongly against abortion.
    Danny801 | Oct 20, 2016 10:47:48 AM | 15
    as an American citizen, I am truly terrified of this election. Hillary Clinton will most likely start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek to eliminate Iran and Russia. Most of us who read this page see Russia as the country fighting terrorist and the US as the one supporting terrorism. Not good. The problem is Trump does himself no favors with the women voters. This election I think also put the world and the normally clueless and self centered American citizens that we are in alot of trouble. The fact that these are the two candidates means we are in serious decline. The world has known that for a while and to be honest, a multi polar world is a good thing
    dahoit | Oct 20, 2016 10:48:48 AM | 16
    And the Russian stuff, Trump had to be somewhat combative vs Russia, as the meme is Russia is helping him. So simple to read.
    SmoothieX12 | Oct 20, 2016 10:55:06 AM | 17
    @15, Danny801
    Hillary Clinton will most likely start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek to eliminate Iran and Russia

    Saudis are dumb, it was about them, now famous, Lavrov's phrase--debily, blyad' (fvcking morons), but even they do understand that should the shit hit the fan--one of the first targets (even in the counter-force mode) will be Saudi territory with one of the specific targets being Saudi royal family and those who "serve" them. It is time to end Wahhabi scourge anyway.

    rg the lg | Oct 20, 2016 11:12:29 AM | 18
    For the Eric Zeuss haters amongst the commentariat - give him hell: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/10/20/realists-view-us-presidential-contest.html

    For the open minded, This is an article worth mulling: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/10/20/realists-view-us-presidential-contest.html

    PokeTheTruth | Oct 20, 2016 11:43:56 AM | 22

    Neither candidate is even remotely qualified to be the executive. Declare "None of The Above" and stay home and don't vote on November 8th.
    Qoppa | Oct 20, 2016 11:50:24 AM | 23
    I watched, it was boring. And I agree, Trump should have been more on the offensive, but with more precision, not just his usual rambling.

    jdmckay | Oct 20, 2016 10:26:19 AM | 11
    He tried to distance himself from Putin, oddly the only thing he had going for him in my book (realization Putin's got things done right, things we should have done, and US has lied about it). Trump backed off...
    YES, major point.

    Here is a good take
    http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/trumps-lonely-moment-of-truth/

    h | Oct 20, 2016 11:56:00 AM | 24
    Once again, during the last hour of the third debate, Clinton reiterated her position on a 'no fly zone' and 'safe zones' in Syria. She is absolutely committed to this policy position which aligns with the anonymous 50+ state dept lifers and Beltway neocons stance.

    This irresponsible, shortsighted, deadly position alone disqualifies her completely from serving as Commander in Chief.

    Imagine, if you will, she wins. She convenes her military advisors and they discuss how to implement this policy - no fly zone. Dunsford tells her, again, if said policy were to be implemented we, the US, would risk shooting down a Russian fighter jet(s) who is safeguarding, by invitation, the air space of the sovereign state of Syria. She says that is a risk we must take b/c our 'clients' Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel are demanding such action and Assad must go.

    Kaboom - we either have a very real WWIII scenario on our hands OR a complete revolt by our armed forces...nobody in their right mind wants to go to war with Russia...and I'm no longer convinced she's in her right mind.

    So, what if Hillary wants WWIII?

    What if this is in her and her fellow travelers long-term game 'Global' plan?

    What if she's insane enough to believe the U.S. and our allies could beat Russia and their allies?

    What if she gets back into the WH and we spend the next four years poking, taunting, propagandizing pure hate and fear at the bear all the while brainwashing the American psyche to hate, loathe and fear all things Russian? How maddening will that be? Haven't we already been through enough psychological warfare?

    What if one of the next steps in the New World Order or Global governments game plan is to untether the U.S. military from the shores of the U.S. and grow it into a Global government military force? You know, the world's police force.

    What if they scenario'd out WWIII plans and the implementation of a no fly zone in Syria is where it all begins?

    What if this is the reason Clinton isn't budging from her 'no fly zone' position? She wants war. She believes we can win the war. If we win the war the American Globalists morph into 'World' leaders.

    Who in the hell would want this other than those that are quietly leading and championing this monster. I don't. Do you?

    This election is about one thing and one thing only. The people of the United States, our founding documents, our sovereignty vs the American Globalist class, their control and their Global government wet dream.

    Trump's candidacy = sovereignty - NO War. Clinton's candidacy = Globalism - WAR. Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple...

    MadMax2 | Oct 20, 2016 12:18:04 PM | 26
    Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore.

    dahoit | Oct 20, 2016 10:47:07 AM | 14

    I believe your assertion is correct. A low turn out, monster win is out there. It will be a 'fuck you' vote more than a vote for The Don. I would imagine a lot of people are in for a shock - and a bigger shock than the public backlash against austerity that Brexit was, where 'respected' polling was off by 10 points by election day.

    The dems forgot to switch off the internet. The anti-Trump MSM campaign is so total and over the top because it has to be --> CNN is so last century. No one is getting out of bed to vote Hillary.

    ArthurGilroy | Oct 20, 2016 12:34:11 PM | 27
    Scylla and Charybdis. Does it really matter much which one wins? I await the collapse of this empire and pray that it does not totally explode. What we say and/or think will make absolutely no difference to the final result. The controllers are in control and have been so since the assassination '60s.

    Step away from your TVs, smartphones and computers with your brains in the air. Let them breathe freely.

    May you be born(e) into interesting times.

    AG

    PokeTheTruth | Oct 20, 2016 12:43:53 PM | 28
    @27 I completely agree, Arthur.

    The Strait of Messina is dangerous waters so the American public's only logical recourse is to steer the ship of democracy towards sense and sensibility and let go the anchor of "None of The Above". The people must demand new candidates who are worthy of holding the Office of the President. The federal bureaucracy will continue to run the government through September of 2017, plenty of time for a new election.

    Declare Tuesday, November 8th a national day of voter independence and stay home!

    chipnik | Oct 20, 2016 12:44:41 PM | 29
    24

    That's a simply ludicrous position to take! Trump's 'The Wall' together with 'Defeat ISIS' together with 'Stand with Israel' is EXACTLY the same Yinon Plan as Clinton's, although it probably spares the poor folks in Crimea, now under the Russian Oligarchy, and does nothing at all for the poor folks of Ukraine, now under the Israeli Junta Coup.

    Either candidate is proposing soon $TRILLION Full Battle Rattle NeoCon DOD-DHS-NSA-CIA There's zero daylight between them. The only difference is Trump will make sure that the Exceptionals are relieved of any tax burden, while Clinton will make sure the burden falls on the Middle Class. Again, there is zero daylight between them. For every tax increase, Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz receives the equivalent salary increase or annual bonus.

    This whole shittery falls on the Middle Class, and metastasizes OneParty to Stage Five.

    Trump won't win in any case. His role was to throw FarRightRabbinicals off the cliff, and make Hillary appear to voters to be a Nice Old Gal Centrist. She's not. The whole thing was rigged from the 1998 and 9/11 coup, from Bernie and Donald, on down the rabbit hole.

    Piotr Berman | Oct 20, 2016 12:58:10 PM | 31
    Debates are to convince, not to illuminate. What a person did not figure out before the debates, it is rather hopeless to explain.

    Thus the stress on issues that are familiar even to the least inquisitive voters, heavily overrepresented among the "undecided voters" who are, after all, the chief target. Number one, who is, and who is not a bimbo?

    The high position of Putin on the topic list is well deserved. This is about defending everything we hold pure and dear. We do not want our daughters and our e-mail violated, unless we like to read the content. Daughters are troublesome enough, but the threat to e-mails is something that is hard to understand, and that necessitates nonsense. Somehow Putin gets in the mix, rather than Microsoft, Apple, Google and other companies that destroyed the privacy of communications with crappy software.

    But does it matter? It is like exam in literature or history. It does not matter what the topic is, but we want to see if the candidates can handle it to our satisfaction. For myself, I like Clinton formula: "You will never find me signing praises of foreign dictators and strongmen who do not love America". It is so realistic! First, given her age and fragile throat, I should advise Mrs. Clinton to refrain from singing. And if she does, the subject should be on the well vetted list, "leaders who love America". That touches upon some thorny issues, like "what is love", but as long as Mrs. Clinton does not sing, it is fine.

    Trump, if I understand him, took a more risky path, namely, the he is more highly regarded by people who count, primarily Putin, than schwartzer Obama and "not so well looking chick" Clinton. Why primarily Putin? It is a bit hard to see who else. The person should have some important leadership position. And he/she should be on the record saying something nice about Trump. At that point the scope of name-dropping is narrow.

    Nur Adlina | Oct 20, 2016 1:00:32 PM | 32
    Wasn't ''PEOPLES GET THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESERVE'',the regime change war cry of so called ''US''?.Dont see why Madame ''we came we saw he died'' become POTUS approves ''no fly'' wet dream of war mongers gets shot down by ''evil '' putin and aliies from the skies of Syria onto the ground in pieces.Than discrimination for hundreds of years while ''americans'' figure out what happened withdrawing into a shell like a wounded animal leaving the rest of the world to live in peace!
    Blue | Oct 20, 2016 1:11:34 PM | 34
    Clinton seems to have had some of the questions ahead of time. She seemed to be reading the answers off a telepromter in her lecturn.
    mike k | Oct 20, 2016 1:15:02 PM | 35
    What Trump should say?:

    He should declare that Hillary helped arm Al Qaeda to topple Assad for her banker buddies (cant mention the Jewishness/Israeli Firsterism of the 'neocons' of course, not because false but because true) and will be happy to send African Americans and Latinos to die for 'oil companies' and her 'banker friends' and after decades of establishment Dems promising the sky, maybe they dont need an inveterate liar who arms Islamic terrorists.

    Hillary armed Al Qaeda and possibly ISIS - both AngloZionist proxies. How in the fuck is she not in jail???

    Michael | Oct 20, 2016 1:16:58 PM | 36
    As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, duopolistic elections are merely mechanisms of manufactured consent. When each of the major parties are controlled by the different factions of the oligarchy, there is only afforded the option to vote for the ideology put forth by each oligarchic group.

    Each party defines their ideology to distinguish itself from the other to assure a divided population. They also manipulate the population via identity politics and state it in such a way that voters decisions are not rationally resolved but emotionally so, to assure that sufficient cognitive dissonance is developed to produce a risky shift to a make a decision in favor of a candidate that would otherwise be unacceptable.

    Rigged from the get go is definitely true.

    What fascinates me is how Obama went all public about Trumps assertions of rigged elections. It appears the puppet masters are very afraid of a "cynical" (realistic) population. Manufactured consent only works if people play the game. As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up to vote, the government collapsed.

    EnglishOutsider | Oct 20, 2016 1:41:59 PM | 37

    h, 24

    "Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple." Is this being lost sight off amongst all the noise? I hope not, for the sake of the Ukrainians and the Syrians. And for the sake of the countries yet to be destabilised.

    h | Oct 20, 2016 1:49:33 PM | 38
    29

    My position is not ludicrous!

    Where has Trump once advocated for a no fly zone let alone war? Links and sources please. Enlighten me.

    The only candidate who has been steadfast in support of a no fly zone in Syria is Clinton. Trump avoids the entire Syrian mess like the plague. Have you not heard him attack Hillary on her Iraq vote, Libyan tragedy, Syria etc? He's not only attacking her for her incompetence and dishonesty, but b/c he finds these wars/regime changes abominable. As do I.

    A vote for Clinton = War and a vote for Trump = NO war

    TG | Oct 20, 2016 2:00:36 PM | 39
    I share your frustration. In my opinion televised 'debates' should be banned, and we should go back to the time-honored technique of looking at the record. Whether Clinton is smooth or has a weird smile, or Trump is composed or goes on a rant, makes no difference to me.

    I know what Hillary Clinton will do, which is, what she has done for the past 20+ years. She will aggressively fight even more wars, maybe even attacking Russian forces in Syria (!). She will spend trillions on all this 'nation-destroying' folly, and of course, that will necessitate gutting social security because deficits are bad. She will throw what's left of our retirement funds to the tender mercies of Wall Street, and after they are through with us we will be lucky to get pennies on the dollar. She will open the borders even more to unchecked third-world immigration, which will kill the working class. She will push for having our laws and judiciary over-ruled by foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret (TPP etc. are not about trade - tariffs are already near zero - they are about giving multinational corporations de-facto supreme legislative and judicial power. Really). She will remain the Queen of Chaos, the candidate of Wall Street and War, who never met a country that she didn't want to bomb into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

    Trump? He says a lot of sensible things, and despite his mouthing off in public, he has a track record of amicably cooperating with people on long-term projects. But he has no track record in governance, so of course, I don't really know. He's a gamble.

    But right now I am so fed up with the status quo that I am willing to roll the dice. Trump 2016.

    Erelis | Oct 20, 2016 2:08:01 PM | 41
    I agree Trump has had chance after chance to effectively attack Clinton. But here is the problem. Much of that attack would have had to be done from a leftist angle. Outside of Russia, Trump looks to be as much a militarist as Obama at least. The gop money daddies are just as militarist as the democratic party money daddies. The gop is pro-war just they don't want democrats running them.

    Benghazi is a perfect example. They refuse to attack Clinton on her pro-war, destroy everybody policies, so they they make up attacks about the handling of the Benghazi attacks, rather than the reason why Americans were there--to send arms to jihadist terrorists in Syria. (By the way this is why silence on Obama letting criminal banksters go--they would have done the same thing.)

    Trump is intellectually challenged. He could have seen what was happening and brought along his base to an anti-war position and attracted more people. His base was soft clay in his hands as even he noticed. However he had no skills as political leader to understand nor the ability to sculpt his base and win the election, which was given Clinton's horrible numbers, his to lose.

    Mike | Oct 20, 2016 2:11:46 PM | 42
    h, 29

    Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?

    TRUMP: I love a safe zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming. What they should do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states, who have nothing but money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria and they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country, go back to where they came from.

    Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?

    TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.

    Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 interview on Syrian Refugee crisis , Oct 11, 2015

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Foreign_Policy.htm#Political_Hotspots

    john | Oct 20, 2016 2:25:23 PM | 43
    Michael says:

    As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up to vote, the government collapsed

    bingo!

    boycott, divest(disinvest), sanction(ratify)

    h | Oct 20, 2016 2:44:42 PM | 45
    42

    Thanks for the resource, Mike.

    I don't know about your read of Trump's response, but I don't think he's talking about the same kind of safe zone the Brookings Institute has in mind aka carving up Syria. His answer suggests he's thinking a 'safe zone' as more in terms of a temporary refugee zone/space/camp...'they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country, go back to where they came from.'

    39

    Awesome comment!

    Qoppa | Oct 20, 2016 3:01:33 PM | 46
    Here is an excellent overview on the White Helmets: http://theduran.com/the-continuing-story-of-the-white-helmets-hoax

    .... while Mr Raed Saleh has a truely humanistic piece in the NYT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/opinion/we-have-tried-every-kind-of-death-possible.html
    (comments disallowed, I wonder why)

    btw, does anyone know which exact month in 2013 the WH were founded?
    It´s a minor detail, but it would fit so neatly if it is after the first week of September '13 when the "humanitarian" airstrike for the false-flag Ghouta attack was called off. Demonstrating it was conceived as Project R2P Intervention 2.0 after the first one failed.

    ben | Oct 20, 2016 3:14:41 PM | 47
    Wizzy @ 2: Ditto!

    Not only a disservice b, but, by design, a distraction. All hail the empire's newest pawn, HRC.

    Yonatan | Oct 20, 2016 3:23:53 PM | 49
    Qoppa @46.

    Don't know when WH was created but the whitehelmets.org domain name was registered (in Beirut not Syria) in August 2014 and it is hosted on Cloudflare in Texas. Maybe it took some time get the brand recognition going?

    Le Mesurier claims that he persoanlly trained the first group of 20 volunteers in early 2013. It seems these 20 'carefully vetted moderate rebels' each went on to train further groups of 20. So, if we allow 1-2 months training, it looks like mid-late 2013 might be a reasonable date for them to take an effective role in the PR business.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/qa-syria-white-helmets-150819142324132.html

    jfl | Oct 20, 2016 3:24:25 PM | 50
    b, 'The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was.'

    No 'maybe' ... the 'political' process in the US is a complete fraud. The present political class must be removed and replaced. People term 3rd Party/Write-in votes as 'protest votes' but they can - must in my view - be more than that. They must be the first step taken to simply seize power and control of the USA by US citizens. We cannot have a democracy - anywhere - without an engaged demos. That's just the way it is. No to Clinton, no to Trump . No to the elephants and the jackasses and the menagerie. It will take a decade/a dozen years. If we had begun in 2004 we'd be there by now.

    ben | Oct 20, 2016 3:26:18 PM | 51
    P.S.---As Wizzy alluded to, Trump, for whatever reason, is the only candidate almost guaranteed to funnel votes to HRC, the empire's choice.
    the pair | Oct 20, 2016 3:59:45 PM | 53
    downloaded it from youtube late last night. that gave me the option of skimming past hillary and her WASPy passive aggressive act. she also tends to repeat the same talking points 900 times so i knew what she'd say before she said it. did catch her whining about imaginary "russian rigging". again; no surprise there.

    as for trump, he mentioned abortion stuff more than usual in what i'm guessing is an attempt to win back any jesus freaks he lost with the billy bush tape. the fact that he supposedly went so far down in the polls from that tape makes the whole thing seem pointless ("who can pander to uptight morons with moronic priorities more") but saying silly stuff about overturning roe v wade seemed desperate. even if he got to appoint more than the one judge replacing the fat dead greaseball he probably won't get another. and even in that case he would need approval from a congress that agrees on nothing but their hatred for him.

    even the things that got more mentions didn't matter. all i saw on the screeching MSM (especially CliNtoN) was "oh mah gerd he said he's waiting until election day to comment on the election! that means riots and bloodshed cuz that's what goes on in our dumb fuck heads all day!"

    at least canada will be spared all the rich whining hipster pieces of trash like lena dunham. small consolation.

    jo6pac | Oct 20, 2016 4:59:42 PM | 54
    Did someone say pawn.

    https://www.sott.net/article/331606-The-woman-behind-the-curtain-WikiLeaks-show-Lynn-Forester-de-Rothschild-helped-groom-Killary-for-Presidency

    Then no reason to vote because GS is going to do it for you. http://theduran.com/rigged-election-george-soros-controls-voting-machines-16-us-states/

    jo6pac | Oct 20, 2016 5:00:54 PM | 55
    Pawn

    https://www.sott.net/article/331606-The-woman-behind-the-curtain-WikiLeaks-show-Lynn-Forester-de-Rothschild-helped-groom-Killary-for-Presidency

    Voting
    http://theduran.com/rigged-election-george-soros-controls-voting-machines-16-us-states/

    I hope this doesn't double post

    Lochearn | Oct 20, 2016 5:29:04 PM | 56
    For the first time I listened to a Trump speech - delivered in Florida on the 13th of this month. What struck me is how much the media attacks on him and his family have got to him. He mentions how he could have settled for a leisurely retirement, but that he felt he had to do something for his country.

    It's almost as if he'd already decided to back off, convincing himself that maybe he can do more outside the White House. There is a resigned tone to his voice especially the way he finishes sentences. Maybe he just knows, or was told, that he'd be assassinated if he ever got elected. Or perhaps he hadn't quite realized the array of power that is lined up against him. They are not going to let one dude wreck their party.

    Here is the link to the speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3hJjWTLRB0

    jdmckay | Oct 20, 2016 6:41:56 PM | 60
    Good, substantive interview with Jill Stein . Includes insightful discussion on ME, Syria & relations with Putin/Russia. Especially for those not familiar with her may find this interesting. Conducted yesterday (10/19).
    rufus magister | Oct 20, 2016 7:43:23 PM | 65
    in re 38 --

    Nah, it's ludicrous. 'Cuz this is like the gazillionth time I posted this. And will sadly have to do it a few more times in the next three weeks. The Donald Trump dove myth dies hard.

    In the past five years, Trump has consistently pushed one big foreign policy idea: America should steal other countries' oil....

    "In the old days when you won a war, you won a war. You kept the country," Trump said. "We go fight a war for 10 years, 12 years, lose thousands of people, spend $1.5 trillion, and then we hand the keys over to people that hate us on some council." He has repeated this idea for years, saying during one 2013 Fox News appearance, "I've said it a thousand times."

    ....To be clear: Trump's plan is to use American ground troops to forcibly seize the most valuable resource in two different sovereign countries. The word for that is colonialism.

    Trump wants to wage war in the name of explicitly ransacking poorer countries for their natural resources - something that's far more militarily aggressive than anything Clinton has suggested.

    This doesn't really track as "hawkishness" for most people, mostly because it's so outlandish. A policy of naked colonialism has been completely unacceptable in American public discourse for decades, so it seems hard to take Trump's proposals as seriously as, say, Clinton's support for intervening more forcefully in Syria....

    He also wants to bring back torture that's "much tougher" than waterboarding. "Don't kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work," he said at a November campaign event. But "if it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for what they're doing."

    ....The problem is that Trump's instincts are not actually that dovish. Trump... has a consistent pattern of saying things that sound skeptical of war, while actually endorsing fairly aggressive policies.

    ....In a March 2011 vlog post uncovered by BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski and Christopher Massie, Trump full-throatedly endorsed intervening in the country's civil war - albeit on humanitarian grounds, not for its oil.

    "Qaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we're sitting around," Trump said. "We should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives." In a later interview, he went further, endorsing outright regime change: "if you don't get rid of Gaddafi, it's a major, major black eye for this country."

    Shortly after the US intervention in Libya began in March 2011, Trump criticized the Obama administration's approach - for not being aggressive enough. Trump warned that the US was too concerned with supporting the rebels and not trying hard enough to - you guessed it - take the oil.

    "I would take the oil - and stop this baby stuff," Trump declared. "I'm only interested in Libya if we take the oil. If we don't take the oil, I'm not interested."

    Throw in a needy, fragile ego -- the braggadocio is overcompensation -- and a hairtrigger temper, and the invasion scenarios write themselves.

    And by the way, he's apparently not really that good a businessman either. Riches-to-Riches Trump Spins Fake Horatio Alger Tale . If he'd put his money into S&P 500 index fund, he'd be worth about eight times what he likely is now. Which is very likely substantially less than what he says he is. Good reason to withhold the tax returns, no?

    So I guess his only recommendation is a reality show with the tagline "You're fired!" All surface, no depth, the ultimate post-modernist candidate. No fixed mean to that text, alright, he both invites you to write your interpretation but polices "the other" outside of it.

    Interesting that the first post-modern candidate is a bloodthirsty fascist (given his refusal to accept the electoral results, I would now consider this not wholly inappropriate).

    But then again, someone as innocent as Chauncey Gardiner was unlikely to emerge from the media.

    stumpy | Oct 20, 2016 8:31:10 PM | 66

    Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
    " Obama: Vote Rigging Is Impossible - If In Favor Of Hillary Clinton | Main
    October 20, 2016
    This Election Circus Is A Disservice To The People

    Via Adam Johnson:

    "Total mentions all 4 debates:

    Russia/Putin 178
    ISIS/terror 132
    Iran 67
    ...
    Abortion 17
    Poverty 10
    Climate change 4
    Campaign finance 3
    Privacy 0"
    The candidates are not the first to blame for this. The first to blame are the moderators of such debates, the alleged journalists 8and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course. The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner's) special-interest hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight for the attention of these media and adopt to them.

    I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.

    Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is that both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of those low ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better their campaign finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they are both east coast elite and don't give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.

    As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality. Her disliked rate (like Trump's) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past. Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like. Calling this back into mind again and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is a major political disruption. He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever reason.

    The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was.

    Posted by b on October 20, 2016 at 09:11 AM | Permalink

    Comments
    I didn't watch too.

    Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 20, 2016 9:22:12 AM | 1

    I don't follow US elections closely, but my take on this - Trump had made a deal. He pretends to be fighting, but he is not. Dunno what was that - either he was intimidated, blackmailed, bought off, or any combination of thereof, and it doesn't matter actually.
    Hail to the first Lady President of the United States. Best luck to Middle East, Eastern Europe and SE Asia - they all gonna need it. Oh, and dear US voters - don't blame yourself, you don't have any influence on the election, so it's not your fault. You'll pay the price too, though.

    Posted by: Wizzy | Oct 20, 2016 9:27:47 AM | 2

    "But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was"

    It was when the League of Women Voters ran the show but when they wouldn't agree to selling out the citizens in Amerika is when we got this dog and phoney show.

    I didn't watch and I'll be Voting Green.

    rg the lg | Oct 20, 2016 10:19:53 AM | 10

    Strictly speaking, if the voters aren't getting what they want from the politicians in a democracy, and they're too chickenshit to demand reform or else - then they should blame themselves because it IS their fault.

    We're getting really, really sick of the bullshit that passes for politics in 2 Party Oz. We sent them a subtle message in 2015 by voting for independents and splinter groups and the "Government" governs with a majority of 1 seat. Next election there will either be a responsive non-traitorous Government, or a revolution. Some of them are starting to wake up and others are pretending not to notice. But the writing is on the wall...

    Quadriad | Oct 20, 2016 8:31:16 PM | 67
    #65 Doofus Minister

    I've had a good look at your "The Donald Trump dove myth" article and I must admit that its quality far exceeds your own verbal rubbish.

    It examines Trump through the prism as a likely "Jacksonian Conservative", who are not dissimilar to traditional conservatives but are not non-interventionists as such, just far more honest about their interventionism (as they are unburdened by the neocon bullshit about "killing them to make them barbarians more civilised") and really only likely to want to apply aggression where they feel that fundamental American interests are threatened.

    To me, that's a big step up from the NEOCON/NEOLIB false pretense garbage. I'd far rather have an honest RATIONAL and RISK ASSESSING thug than a two faced snake, which better describes your C**tory and her Kissenger/Albright gang of perfectly murderable certified war criminals. You can call him a "fascist" if you like. You obviously prefer the 1984 thuggery to more honest, above the table varieties. To each one his own.

    One last note. Those goons that the Dems kept sending to Trump's rallies to stir violence up, there's now the fucking Himalayas of evidence that it's entirely real and beyond any doubt.

    Guess who was the historical king of criminal spamming of shit stirring goons at political adversaries' rallies? The Bolsheviks and your own fixated Fascists/Nazis. Looks like your Hillary learned from the best, inspired by the best, via her fascist mentor Klitsinger et num al.

    So, enjoy your Clintory, dear Pom, and good luck as you and yer Britannia're gonna need it if that discard of a dementia stricken half-human wins the elections.

    Demian | Oct 20, 2016 8:32:32 PM | 69
    Wikileaks has now progressed to emails sent to Obama:

    Wikileaks Releases Barack Obama's 'Binders of Women,' Minorities

    Getting Julian Assange's internet connection cut off just makes the Obama regime look even more stupid and pathetic now. The document dumps keep on coming. Did they really think they would stop that by shutting off the LAN in the Ecuadoran embassy?

    The underlying problem seems to be that John Podesta bought into the marketing bullshit about The Cloud. So he kept all his very sensitive correspondence at his Gmail account, apparently using it as the archive of his correspondence.

    I don't know if we'll ever know who hacked his account. It is not that hard to do, so it doesn't really require a "state actor". Google only gives you a few tries at entering your password, so Podesta's account couldn't have been hacked by randomly trying every possibility. Somehow, the hacker got the actual password. Either it was exposed somewhere, or it was obtained by spear phishing . That involves sending your target an email that directs him to a Web page that asks him to enter his password. All that's required to do that is being able to write a plausible email, and setting up a Web site to mimic the Web site where the account you want to hack resides, Gmail in this case.

    Outsider | Oct 20, 2016 8:50:36 PM | 70
    Nearly all information technology security breaches are insider jobs, genuine crackers/hackers are rare. Wikileaks is by far the most likely being fed from the inside of the DNC etc. and/or from their suppliers or security detail by people that are disgusted, have personal vendettas, and so on. It's the real Anonymous, anyone anywhere, not the inept CIA stooges or the faux organized or ideological pretenders. In addition any analyst at the NSA with access to XKeyScore can supply Wikileaks with all the Podesta emails on a whim in less than half an hour of "work" and the actual data to be sent would be gotten with a single XKeyScore database query. That sort of query is exactly what the XKeyScore backend part was built to do as documented by Snowden and affirmed by Binney and others.

    The powers that be can cheat but people can ignore their efforts, it's what happens in every revolution and civil war. It's hard to see how a second Clinton presidency will have any shred of legitimacy in the US or in the world.

    Duterte may well be flawed but he has a keen nose for where things are heading, Filipinos should be proud of him.

    Don't believe anyone who says what you do or don't do doesn't matter.

    Quadriad | Oct 20, 2016 8:57:12 PM | 71
    @Stumpy - 'Hillary "We will follow ISIS to Raqqa to take it "back"' (take Raqqa back from the Syrians?)

    The crazy hyper-entitled White Supremacist bi*ch is beyond any belief.

    I blame Trump's old age and slow wit for not noticing this verbal Nazism and pointing it directly back at that brown-shirt ad hoc.

    Jesus Christ, Adolf F. Hitler would've blushed if he said some of her shit. This woman admits she is a war criminal in real time.

    stumpy | Oct 20, 2016 10:46:59 PM | 76
    Again I apologize for reposting the whole thread--

    Anyway, here is link to the most disturbing quote from HRC, imo ...

    https://youtu.be/84cJdY8wkV8?t=1h10m10s


    CLINTON: Well, I am encouraged that there is an effort led by the Iraqi army, supported by Kurdish forces, and also given the help and advice from the number of special forces and other Americans on the ground. But I will not support putting American soldiers into Iraq as an occupying force. I don't think that is in our interest, and I don't think that would be smart to do. In fact, Chris, I think that would be a big red flag waving for ISIS to reconstitute itself.

    The goal here is to take back Mosul. It's going to be a hard fight. I've got no illusions about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters.

    I am hopeful that the hard work that American military advisers have done will pay off and that we will see a real - a really successful military operation. But we know we've got lots of work to do. Syria will remain a hotbed of terrorism as long as the civil war, aided and abetted by the Iranians and the Russians, continue.

    I'll be quiet, now.

    Piotr Berman | Oct 20, 2016 11:26:04 PM | 79
    From the link of jo6pac:

    Considering Lynn Forester de Rothschild's apparent hand in potential President Hillary Clinton's economic policy, such theories don't appear so far from the truth - and only further prove the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate plutocracy.

    This is a bit misinformed conclusion. Some of you may know "Wizard of Oz". It is a famous novel for children that was used for the screenplay of an adorable movie with the same title. Not everybody knows that it was also a novel for the adults, with a key: a political satire against banking and corporate plutocracy that controlled the government of USA around 1900. If I recall, the title figure of the Wizard was Mark Hanna, and Wicked Witch of the East stood for eastern banks which at that time included the largest banks that were behind Mark Hanna (who in turn was the puppeteer of the President). Certain things change in the last 120 years, for example, the rich and famous largely abandoned the mansions in Rhode Island, but New York remains the financial capital. I somewhat doubt that Rothschild secretly have the sway over this crowd, if one would have to point to the most powerful financial entity I would pick Goldman Sachs. Yes, it helped that Lady de Rothschild was sociable, amiable and communicated well with Hillary and numerous gentlemen who could drop 100,000 on a plate to please the hostess, but at the end of the day, things were quite similar when Rothschild largely sticked to Europe.

    The structural problem is not a conspiracy, but simply, capitalism. Any way you cut it, democracy relies on convincing the citizens what is good and what is bad for them, and that still requires money. Money can come from numerous small donors or few large ones, or some combination. Unfortunately, large donors have disproportional influence, until a politician creates his/her brand, too few small donors would know about him/her. Nice thing about Sanders was that he operates largely outside the circle of large donors. That said, both Clintons and Obama entered the political scene as "outsiders".

    I met rich people only few times in my life, and I must admit, it is a pleasant experience. Sleeping is comfortable, food is good, when you go to restaurant the owner greets your party very politely and explains the best dishes of the day and so on. In politics, there are reactionary fat cats and progressive fat cats, but needless to say, they tend to share certain perspective and they skew the media, the academia and the policies in a certain direction.

    virgile | Oct 20, 2016 11:31:02 PM | 80
    If Hillary is elected, she will be haunted by her 'mistakes' and by the exposure of her double face by Wikileaks. She is stigmatized as 'crooked Hillary' and as an unreliable decision maker. From now on, all her decisions will be tainted with suspicion. I doubt that she'll be able to lead the country properly during the 4 years she hopes to stay in power.
    psychohistorian | Oct 21, 2016 12:26:22 AM | 82
    @ Piotr Berman who wrote: The structural problem is not a conspiracy, but simply, capitalism.

    I heartily disagree. Capitalism is a myth created to cover for decisions made by those who own private finance.....part of my undergraduate degree is in macro economics. Your assertion that the Rothschild influence is restricted to Europe is laughable.

    Joe6pac has it right......the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate plutocracy.

    I believe that it is Piotr Berman that is misinformed.

    blues | Oct 21, 2016 12:31:59 AM | 83
    People Who Control America ? Mind Blowing Documentary HQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzrYMEvAEyw

    The Only Realistic Democracy:
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/10/obama-vote-rigging-is-impossible-if-in-favor-of-hillary-clinton.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8a4a821970b

    With single-bid ("plurality") voting you only have two candidates to choose from.

    I have described the strategic hedge simple score election method all over the Internet. It is simple in the sense that does not require easily hackable voting machines, and can easily work with hand counted paper ballots at non-centralized voting places. It is not hampered by any requirement to cater to so-called "sincere," "honest" (actually artless and foolish) voters. It easily thwarts both the spoiler effect and the blind hurdle dilemma (the "Burr Dilemma"). It just works.

    Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from five to ten votes for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, twelve candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.

    Both IRV-style and approval voting methods suffer from the blind hurdle dilemma, which can be overcome with the hedge voting strategy. An example of usage of the hedge strategy, presuming the case of a "leftist" voter, would be casting ten votes for Ralph Nader, and only eight or nine for Al Gore. This way, the voter would only sacrifice 20 or 10 percent of their electoral influence if Nader did not win.

    Don't be fooled by fake "alternatives like "IRV" and "approval voting".

    And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers".

    TheRealDonald | Oct 21, 2016 12:44:45 AM | 84
    35

    Reagan delivered Stingers to the Northern Alliance and Taliban, why is Reagan not in prison? Because of people like Ollie North and Dick Armitage. Because the Deep State is in control under Continuance of Government, ever since the 2001 military coup.

    Trump may have gone to Catholic prep school, but he's no choir boy either.

    TheRealDonald | Oct 21, 2016 12:51:20 AM | 85
    80

    Hillary will win, it's in the bag, and she won't be haunted by anything at all, she doesn't have an introspective bone in her hagsack. She will be our Nero for 21st C.

    "We came, we saw, he died, haww, haww, haww."

    Should have been bodybagged and tagged and disposed of at sea, her, not M.

    [Oct 21, 2016] The main issue in this election is that the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance

    Notable quotes:
    "... Point being that not only would The Clintons have the Democratic Party machine to rely on for potential vote rigging in this stage of the process (distinguishing vs. primaries simply for rhetorical focus), ..."
    "... but with the clear reality of the Republican Party elite also backing her, she can rely on at least some of the Republican Party machine also being available for potential vote rigging, and who have their experience in Florida, Ohio, etc to bring to the table. ..."
    "... The longer term issue is the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance. And everybody in the system is tainted by that, both parties, media, etc. It has overtly collapsed to the reality of a single Party of Power (per the term Oligarch media like to use re: Russia for example). ..."
    "... the Clinton faction is 100% "bi-partisan" and about confluence of both Oligarchic parties. ..."
    "... I would say the Democratic primary was even a mirror of this, I would guess that Clinton had hoped to win more easily vs Sanders without rigging etc... essentially between Sanders and Trump turning anything but "radical status quo" into boogymen. ..."
    "... That just reveals how close to the line the Imperial Oligarchy feels compelled to play... and, I suppose, how confident they are in the full spectrum of tools at their disposal to manipulate democracy. ..."
    "... But that is also shown merely by the situation we are in, with the collapse of the two party system in order to maintain the strength of Imperial Oligarchy. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    yup yeah uh huh | Oct 19, 2016 8:12:06 PM | 96

    Point being that not only would The Clintons have the Democratic Party machine to rely on for potential vote rigging in this stage of the process (distinguishing vs. primaries simply for rhetorical focus),

    but with the clear reality of the Republican Party elite also backing her, she can rely on at least some of the Republican Party machine also being available for potential vote rigging, and who have their experience in Florida, Ohio, etc to bring to the table.

    The longer term issue is the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance. And everybody in the system is tainted by that, both parties, media, etc. It has overtly collapsed to the reality of a single Party of Power (per the term Oligarch media like to use re: Russia for example).

    And the craziest thing of course is not that this all happened by accident because some "scary clown" appeared, but that this was nearly exactly planned BY The Clinton faction themselves (promoting Trump in order to win vs. "scary clown"). Most notably, not simply as a seizure of power by Democratic Party "against" Republicans... They are very clear the Clinton faction is 100% "bi-partisan" and about confluence of both Oligarchic parties.

    I would say the Democratic primary was even a mirror of this, I would guess that Clinton had hoped to win more easily vs Sanders without rigging etc... essentially between Sanders and Trump turning anything but "radical status quo" into boogymen. Only surprise was how well Sanders did, necessitating fraud etc, with polls in fact showing Sanders was BETTER placed to defeat Trump than Clinton.

    That just reveals how close to the line the Imperial Oligarchy feels compelled to play... and, I suppose, how confident they are in the full spectrum of tools at their disposal to manipulate democracy.

    But that is also shown merely by the situation we are in, with the collapse of the two party system in order to maintain the strength of Imperial Oligarchy.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Washington moves to silence WikiLeaks

    Washington forgot his role in color revolutions in Ukraine, Russia, Serbia and other countries, when Washington controlled neoliberal media served as air support for local fifth column. Now boomerang returned...
    www.wsws.org

    On Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador confirmed WikiLeaks' charge that Ecuador itself had ordered the severing of Assange's Internet connection under pressure from the US government. In a statement, the ministry said that WikiLeaks had "published a wealth of documents impacting on the US election campaign," adding that the government of Ecuador "respects the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states" and "does not interfere in external electoral processes." On that grounds, the statement claimed, the Ecuadorian government decided to "restrict access" to the communications network at its London embassy.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Trump booed as he rips into Clinton at Catholic charity dinner

    Looks like Yahoo commentariat is definitely anti-Hillary and did not buy the Yahoo story. the first pro-hillary comment was in the second dozen of comments by ratings from Yahoo readers.
    www.yahoo.com

    [Oct 21, 2016] The Debate Between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Showed the True Nature of the Two Candidates by Robert W. Merry

    Pro-Clinton interpretation, but with some interesting insights....
    Notable quotes:
    "... But Trump demonstrated greater self-control early in the debate than he has displayed at times previously, and he didn't take the bait. He countered by saying Clinton wanted "open borders" and emphasizing the necessity any sovereign nation has for clearly delineated borders. "Either we have a country or we don't," he said. "Either we have borders or we don't." ..."
    "... "Look," he said at one point, "she's been proven to be a liar. This is just another lie." And he reverted to form late in the debate when he interjected into one of her perorations, "What a nasty woman!" ..."
    "... In supporting his allegation that the election is "rigged," Trump cited three elements of concern. First, the mainstream media - "so bad, so dishonest, so corrupt; it is poisoning the minds of the voters." Second, he said millions of unqualified people have been added to the voter rolls when they shouldn't be registered. Third, he said Clinton "should not be allowed to run," presumably because of previous allegations of wrongdoing related to her private email server and the machinations of the Clinton Foundation. ..."
    "... the suggestion that the media have poisoned the minds of citizens evinces a lack of faith in the voters' ability to sort through the events of the day and arrive at sound political judgments... ..."
    Oct 21, 2016 | www.strategic-culture.org

    ... ... ..

    The two existential challenges of any long-term government-democracy, dictatorship, oligarchy, royalty-are the necessity of legitimacy and the dangers of succession. The American Founders crafted a system designed to ensure both legitimacy and peaceful succession through a complex and delicately balanced system of popular sovereignty. That system is healthy only when the nation at large accepts its sanctity. Trump signaled that he might not accept it in the face of defeat.

    The refusal was stunning in its revelation that this man who seeks the presidency wouldn't perceive how incendiary - and, in the view of millions of Americans, disqualifying-such a pronouncement would be. Perhaps Trump didn't really mean it. Perhaps he thought he was merely introducing "suspense" into the race, as he put it, when he said, "I will look at it at the time." And no doubt his core supporters will defend the position, tossing out comparisons to Al Gore in 2000 or Andrew Jackson in 1824. But, in the annals of recent American presidential politics, it is difficult to think of a candidate pronouncement more guaranteed to stymie that candidate's path to the White House.

    Clinton, studied and pugnacious, avoided any such gaffe. After her first two outings with Trump, she had mastered the art of delivering body blows at every opportunity, citing specific episodes and anecdotes that she portrayed as demonstrating his unfitness for office-the controversy over his alleged mistreatment of women, his rough language toward illegal immigrants, his criticisms of a gold star family and a Hispanic federal judge, his purchase of Chinese steel to build his buildings. She chided him for not mentioning the border wall he wants to build during a recent visit with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. "He didn't raise it," she declared, clearly seeking to get Trump's goat. "He choked."

    But Trump demonstrated greater self-control early in the debate than he has displayed at times previously, and he didn't take the bait. He countered by saying Clinton wanted "open borders" and emphasizing the necessity any sovereign nation has for clearly delineated borders. "Either we have a country or we don't," he said. "Either we have borders or we don't."

    But, when debate moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News, queried Clinton about a recent WikiLeaks revelation that she extolled "open borders" to foreign bankers, the candidate deftly elided the thrust of the question by saying she was talking merely about the transfer of electrical energy across borders through an international grid system. Then she pounced on the WikiLeaks mention to slam Trump for not condemning the Russians, considered by U.S. intelligence services to be behind the WikiLeaks revelations.

    Trump drew a smattering of laughter by calling her segue "a great pivot" and suggested nobody really knows who is behind the ongoing WikiLeaks revelations. He repeated his call for better U.S. relations with Russia, particularly in combatting the Islamic State, or ISIS, in Syria.

    Clinton also demonstrated her rhetorical dexterity in avoiding any direct response to Wallace's question about allegations of "pay to play" practices at the controversial Clinton Foundation, viewed by many as an institution designed primarily to bolster the Clintons' political clout and generate huge speaking fees for both Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Democratic candidate launched into an extensive defense of the foundation's lofty good works that proved so long and off-point that Wallace repeatedly sought to get her back to the question at hand. Clinton ignored him.

    Trump seemed to enter the debate bent on avoiding the kind of jarringly harsh attacks he had engaged in previously, and he succeeded for the most part. But he still reached for his blunderbuss from time to time. "Look," he said at one point, "she's been proven to be a liar. This is just another lie." And he reverted to form late in the debate when he interjected into one of her perorations, "What a nasty woman!"

    Wallace, who seemed resolved to get the candidates into some substantive discussions on major issues facing the nation, elicited serious exchanges on the role of the Supreme Court in the American constitutional system, abortion, immigration, economic policy, trade and the burgeoning national debt, fueled significantly by unchecked entitlement spending. On the latter question, neither candidate demonstrated much credibility as someone who particularly cares about reining in federal spending. Clinton said she would "go where the money is"-the corporations and the rich-and placed unrealistic expectations on the capacity of this fiscal approach to address the debt problem. Trump, without much detail, said his policies, including big tax cuts, would generate so much economic growth, and federal revenue, that entitlement spending won't be a problem.

    Clinton seized every opportunity to direct her rhetoric to the constituent elements of her party women , minorities, the LBGT community, affluent liberals. Hers was a program of expanded entitlements, including federal support for college students, greater aid to education, and a solution to the Affordable Care Act that would entail greater federal intervention into health care. She said little that separated her from her socialist opponent in the primaries, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

    In supporting his allegation that the election is "rigged," Trump cited three elements of concern. First, the mainstream media - "so bad, so dishonest, so corrupt; it is poisoning the minds of the voters." Second, he said millions of unqualified people have been added to the voter rolls when they shouldn't be registered. Third, he said Clinton "should not be allowed to run," presumably because of previous allegations of wrongdoing related to her private email server and the machinations of the Clinton Foundation.

    While many observers, including some liberals, agree that the media establishment is largely against Trump, and probably more overtly than we have seen in recent memory, the suggestion that the media have poisoned the minds of citizens evinces a lack of faith in the voters' ability to sort through the events of the day and arrive at sound political judgments...

    nationalinterest.org

    [Oct 21, 2016] Trump got the best final line ever of a final presidential debate: you want another Obama term, vote for her (words to that effect).

    Notable quotes:
    "... Also, Wallace has kept control of this thing... asked good questions to both of them and been the best moderator (IMO) by far of the 3 previous debates. At least tonight, both of them have been able to actually talk about some relevant policy... although nothing close to enlightening from either. ..."
    "... Basically you have a treacherous but effective salesman that stiffs contractors versus a treacherous career politician. Two of the top in their class, respectively. Ultimately Russia, Iran and China will need to assess the future threats and assert the defense of their interests in anticipation of whatever the result may be, while being diplomatically astute. ..."
    "... He was constantly on-topic and superior ..."
    "... In the debate, Trump came across to me as someone who would make a welcome change to the phoniness of Reagan and Obama (Bill Clinton and Bush 2 came across not so much as phonies as hicks), while Hillary came across as someone playing her on Saturday Night Live. ..."
    "... And Trump got the best final line ever of a final presidential debate: you want another Obama term, vote for her (words to that effect). ..."
    "... Ultimately I think Trump made Hillary look worse to me than she made him, so he won the debates based upon their respective records. That's me however, and not the general voting public. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    jdmckay | Oct 19, 2016 10:13:16 PM | 108
    Surprisingly civilized debate tonight, given these 2.

    Also, Wallace has kept control of this thing... asked good questions to both of them and been the best moderator (IMO) by far of the 3 previous debates. At least tonight, both of them have been able to actually talk about some relevant policy... although nothing close to enlightening from either.

    stumpy | Oct 19, 2016 10:20:01 PM | 109
    Hillary sez USA will take back Mosul and then go into Syria to take back Raqqa. Take back? When did USA have it to begin with?
    From The Hague | Oct 19, 2016 10:45:42 PM | 110
    3th debate

    Just Looked and listened to Trump and that crazy bitch from hell.

    Saudi-Arabia
    Trump:
    Throwing from towers
    Women rights
    Why don't you give the money back?
    Kill from Hell:
    - - > no reaction

    Jackrabbit | Oct 19, 2016 11:01:01 PM | 111
    Trump seemed subdued. Trying to be more Presidential?

    - He should've:

    - spoken of the connection between the Khans and the Democratic Party;

    - talked about Hillary's having lied to the Benghazi families about why the reasons for the Benghazi attack? (She says she has made working for families her life's work) ;

    - discussed the failure of the Obama Administration to protect us from terrorism and the heroin epidemic - most heroin comes from Afghanistan where we have had troops for years;

    - mentioned Hillary's public/private stance on issues (from Hillary's Goldman speeches) .

    I think Trump made Hillary look worse to me than she made him, so he won the debates based upon their respective records. That's me however, and not the general voting public.

    bbbb | Oct 19, 2016 11:06:06 PM | 112

    The debate got particularly nasty. Trump went at her hard, but came off as being a bully. Hillary dodged and weaved through some treacherous waters, and both continued to affirm their positions, however good or bad.

    Basically you have a treacherous but effective salesman that stiffs contractors versus a treacherous career politician. Two of the top in their class, respectively. Ultimately Russia, Iran and China will need to assess the future threats and assert the defense of their interests in anticipation of whatever the result may be, while being diplomatically astute.

    From The Hague | Oct 19, 2016 11:06:36 PM | 113
    - He should've:

    He was constantly on-topic and superior

    Demian | Oct 19, 2016 11:16:42 PM | 115
    In the debate, Trump came across to me as someone who would make a welcome change to the phoniness of Reagan and Obama (Bill Clinton and Bush 2 came across not so much as phonies as hicks), while Hillary came across as someone playing her on Saturday Night Live.

    And Trump got the best final line ever of a final presidential debate: you want another Obama term, vote for her (words to that effect).

    bbbb | Oct 19, 2016 11:34:28 PM | 116
    @111 But his bullying attitude possibly turns off many (female) voters, and he's most definitely stiffed workers and investors. He is very very salesmanish, which is not such a good thing. Hillary doesn't change her tune, despite how awful it is. I can't say the same about Trump.

    Ultimately I think Trump made Hillary look worse to me than she made him, so he won the debates based upon their respective records. That's me however, and not the general voting public.

    I think people will hold their nose and vote for Hillary, while others will be scared to associate themselves with Trump by voting for him. That's how I see it anyway. Perhaps the level of anger with the status-quo will be substantial enough to tip the scales for Trump.

    ben | Oct 20, 2016 12:10:20 AM | 119
    On e-voting. worth a listen... http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545#newsletter1

    [Oct 20, 2016] The end of US-Russia detente

    Notable quotes:
    "... President Obama acknowledged that danger at the end of the Nuclear Security Summit meeting in Washington early this month. He warned of the potential for "ramping up new and more deadly and more effective systems that end up leading to a whole new escalation of the arms race." ... ..."
    "... United States' first 'smart' nuclear bomb signals new arms race with China and Russia: analysts South China Morning Post - August 18 ..."
    "... Washington's green light for a new generation of steerable and smart tactical nuclear weapons may signal the start of a new US nuclear arms race with China and Russia, military analysts say. ..."
    "... Russia and China are believed to have been developing similar weapons for decades, but Chinese experts are apparently keen to learn the lessons of the former Soviet Union's failed attempt to keep up with the United States in the cold war. ..."
    "... Tactical nuclear weapons, known as non-strategic nuclear weapons, are designed to support naval, land and air forces in areas close to friendly forces and perhaps even on contested friendly territory. ..."
    "... The new US weapon, the B61-12, is America's first guided, or "smart" nuclear bomb. It weighs 350kg and can penetrate fortified structures several metres underground. ..."
    "... These nuclear happenings are why I think Hillary Clinton's labeling of Donald Trump as 'Putin's Puppet' is the more important takeaway for last night's debate, much more so than Trump's refusal to go on record as accepting the results of the election. ..."
    "... The American Voting Public has 19 days to discover the loss of detente, the three way nuclear weapon build up ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : October 20, 2016 at 09:13 AM

    The end of US-Russia detente

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-says-russia-broke-nuclear-missile-treaty-2016-10-19

    " U.S. says Russia broke nuclear missile treaty"

    By Paul Sonne & Julian E. Barnes & Gordon Lubold...Oct 19, 2016...5:47 p.m. ET

    "The U.S. has summoned Russia to a mandatory meeting before a special treaty commission to answer accusations that Moscow has violated a Cold War-era pact that bans the production, maintenance or testing of medium-range missiles, according to U.S. and Western officials.

    The U.S. for years has alleged that Russia is breaching the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF Treaty, an agreement Washington and Moscow signed in 1987 to eliminate land-based nuclear and conventional missiles with ranges from 500 to 5,500 kilometers, as well as their launchers.

    Russia, in turn, has accused the U.S. of violating the pact.

    Now the U.S. is convening the treaty's so-called Special Verification Commission to press its case against Russia, triggering the compliance body's first meeting in 16 years, according to the U.S. and Western officials. They said the SVC meeting would take place in the coming weeks."

    Reply Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 09:13 AM pgl -> im1dc... , October 20, 2016 at 09:24 AM
    And yet Trump trusts Putin.
    likbez -> pgl... , -1
    Putin is one of the few sane politicians left in Europe. I would not object importing him and putting him as a POTUS here instead of one psychically debilitated neocon warmonger (who is definitely in the pocket of Wall Street, if not Russians, due to the amount of "compromat" on her and Bill floating around) and another bombastic know-nothing billionaire who is unable to neither clearly articulate, no capitalize on his winning anti-globalization position against such a compromised, widely hated opponent.

    Especially after the dirty details of her sinking Sanders became known. Why on the Earth he can't just de-legitimize her by stressing that she obtained her position as the candidate from Democratic Party by proven fraud by DNC is beyond me.

    Looks like you might not understand that and the fact that neocons have had driven the US into another useless war in Syria to protect not so much our own but Israeli and Saudi interests (the key idea is partitioning of Syria and establishing a Sunni state as the counterweight the loss of Iraq to Shiites, which means Iran) .

    Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc... , October 20, 2016 at 09:27 AM
    Looks like a new Arms Race is *on*.
    Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc... , October 20, 2016 at 09:37 AM
    Race for Latest Class of Nuclear Arms Threatens
    to Revive Cold War http://nyti.ms/268HJT6
    NYT - WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER - APRIL 16, 2016

    The United States, Russia and China are now aggressively pursuing a new generation of smaller, less destructive nuclear weapons. The buildups threaten to revive a Cold War-era arms race and unsettle the balance of destructive force among nations that has kept the nuclear peace for more than a half-century.

    It is, in large measure, an old dynamic playing out in new form as an economically declining Russia, a rising China and an uncertain United States resume their one-upmanship.

    American officials largely blame the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, saying his intransigence has stymied efforts to build on a 2010 arms control treaty and further shrink the arsenals of the two largest nuclear powers. Some blame the Chinese, who are looking for a technological edge to keep the United States at bay. And some blame the United States itself for speeding ahead with a nuclear "modernization" that, in the name of improving safety and reliability, risks throwing fuel on the fire.

    President Obama acknowledged that danger at the end of the Nuclear Security Summit meeting in Washington early this month. He warned of the potential for "ramping up new and more deadly and more effective systems that end up leading to a whole new escalation of the arms race." ...

    ---

    United States' first 'smart' nuclear bomb signals new arms race with China and Russia: analysts South China Morning Post - August 18

    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2005491/united-states-first-smart-nuclear-bomb-signals-new-arms

    Washington's green light for a new generation of steerable and smart tactical nuclear weapons may signal the start of a new US nuclear arms race with China and Russia, military analysts say.

    Russia and China are believed to have been developing similar weapons for decades, but Chinese experts are apparently keen to learn the lessons of the former Soviet Union's failed attempt to keep up with the United States in the cold war.

    Tactical nuclear weapons, known as non-strategic nuclear weapons, are designed to support naval, land and air forces in areas close to friendly forces and perhaps even on contested friendly territory.

    The new US weapon, the B61-12, is America's first guided, or "smart" nuclear bomb. It weighs 350kg and can penetrate fortified structures several metres underground.

    Unlike banned weapons of mass destruction, the B61-12 is designed to be carried by high-speed stealth fighter jets to hit targets precisely with limited damage to structures and lives nearby. ...

    im1dc -> im1dc... , -1
    These nuclear happenings are why I think Hillary Clinton's labeling of Donald Trump as 'Putin's Puppet' is the more important takeaway for last night's debate, much more so than Trump's refusal to go on record as accepting the results of the election.

    The American Voting Public has 19 days to discover the loss of detente, the three way nuclear weapon build up , and connect Trump to Putin as Putin's Puppet.

    This is far more important going forward than Trump being seen as a whiner and sore loser.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Russian comments on US elections

    www.defenddemocracy.press

    Defend Democracy Press

    Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said she believes the US presidential campaign is not worthy of the nation's people, calling it a "catastrophe" and "simply some sort of a global shame" during a meeting with students on Tuesday.

    Commenting on the heated 2016 presidential race in the US, Zakharova lamented that by accusing Moscow of mounting cyber-attacks with an alleged aim of meddling in American politics, Washington has turned Russia into a "real, serious factor of pre-election rhetoric."

    They are constantly saying that Russia is carrying out cyber-attacks on certain US facilities," she said. Zakharova stressed that the US side provided no proof or any other data on the alleged hackers' links to Moscow, which she says makes the allegations appear to be a "smokescreen" to cover up serious domestic issues.

    According to the spokeswoman, this "public bickering on Russia"as well as "locker-room jokes" are "unworthy of a great power, [and] great people" of America.

    "I simply believe that this campaign is not worthy of their people. As a person who was engaged in information technologies when studying at the university, I believe that this is a catastrophic campaign. May the colleagues of all kinds and countries forgive me, but I believe that this is simply some sort of a global shame," Zakharova said at a meeting with students at the Moscow Aviation Institute, Life.ru reported.

    Earlier in October, the US government claimed it was "confident" that Russia was behind the hacking attacks on US officials and organizations, alleging that revelations by WikiLeaks, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0. were directly authorized by the Russian government with the intention to "interfere with the US election process."

    "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities," read the report, published by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The accusations were based on the fact that attacks "in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company."

    Moscow, for its part, completely dismissed the allegations, denying any involvement in the attacks. Commenting on the report, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov labeled the accusations "yet another fit of nonsense,"adding that while many cyber-attacks Russia faces on a daily basis can be traced back to US services, Russia refrains from calling US government responsible for cybercrimes.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Hillary Clinton Putin, WikiLeaks, Trump Plot to Hack the Election

    This crazy warmonger Hillary Insists Putin Wants a 'Puppet' as US President. The truth is that with the amount of "compromat" against her she is a puppet.
    Oct 19, 2016 | news.antiwar.com

    It didn't take long for the final presidential debate in the US to be shifted to the Clinton campaign's favorite topic: accusing the Trump campaign of being involved in a Russian plot to hack the US election to his benefit. Indeed, it didn't even wait until the brief foreign policy segment.

    During questions about immigration, the moderator asked a question of Hillary Clinton regarding her comments at a closed-door speech to a Brazilian bank about open borders. Clinton quickly and dramatically changed focus, noting that the quote came from WikiLeaks and declaring "what's really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans."

    She went on to declare that it was "clearly" Russian President Vladimir Putin behind the WikiLeaks releases, and insisted that the entire intelligence community had confirmed Putin was doing so "to influence our election." She then demanded Republican nominee Donald Trump "admit" to it.

    When Trump noted that Clinton has "no idea" who was behind the hacks, and that he'd never even met Putin, Clinton declared that Putin wanted Trump elected to be his puppet as US president. Trump insisted it was Clinton, by contrast, who was the puppet.

    Trump went on to say he'd condemn any foreign interference in the US election, no matter who it was, but did say that he thought if the US and Russia got along it "wouldn't be so bad." Clinton accused him of spouting "the Putin line."

    The Clinton campaign has been accusing Russia of trying to hack the election since their summer convention, blaming them for materially every leak that proved embarrassing to her campaign. Since then, the allegations have gone hand-in-hand with claims that Trump is in on the matter. Russia denies any involvement in the hacking, and has noted there is no public evidence to support the claims.

    Beyond continuing to advance these allegations, the debate touched on foreign policy in a limited fashion, with Clinton reiterating promises to impose a no fly zone in Syria to "gain some leverage on the Russians." When asked about the possibility of that starting a war with Russia, she shifted focus again to her confidence the no-fly zone would "save lives."

    [Oct 20, 2016] Washington Post says bipartisan foreign policy elite glad Obama leaving because hes not assertive enough as he bombed just eight countries

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post says "bipartisan foreign policy elite" glad Obama leaving because he's not "assertive" enough (he bombed 8 countries) ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne said ... October 20, 2016 at 11:59 AM

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/789168107956731905

    Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald

    Washington Post says "bipartisan foreign policy elite" glad Obama leaving because he's not "assertive" enough (he bombed 8 countries)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-foreign-policy-elites-not-sorry-to-see-obama-go/2016/10/20/bd2334a2-9228-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html

    Washington's foreign policy elite breaks with Obama over Syrian bloodshed

    [Oct 20, 2016] Obama Vote Rigging Is Impossible - Unless In Favor Of Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is high time for the U.S. to return to paper-ballots and manual vote counting. The process is easier, comprehensible, less prone to manipulations and reproducible. Experience in other countries show that it is also nearly as fast, if not faster, than machine counting. There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all. ..."
    "... There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all." Of course there is - to rig elections. What do you think they are used for. ..."
    "... The price to pay is the ability to be alerted when vote rigging is going on. Bush won in 2000 because his people controlled the processes that mattered in Florida. ..."
    "... There are the same allegations about 2004 in regards to Ohio. ..."
    "... Here's the best statistical analysis of US vote count irregularities to date. Not a pretty picture. ..."
    "... There is more needed than just paper ballots. A proportional system, a limit on donations and partisan/donor government posts, a stop to the corporate and lobbyist revolving doors. ..."
    "... At present the US seem to be on their way to a one party system. Any democratic process will take place within this "private" club including a very small part of the population. ..."
    "... for the 1 percent the system is not rigged, they have a preferred globalization candidate, and a police state fall back should the peasants rebell. ..."
    "... US citizens are reduced to vote in a block to this power in the Senate and the House in continuous cycles. In the end that blocks any political progress there might be. ..."
    "... There's lots of evidence that the 2004 election was stolen for Bush in Ohio. ..."
    "... "smartmatic" is obviously the right choice. it's a name we know and trust. Like Deibold, Northrup, KBR, and Bellingcat. The integrity stands for itself. ..."
    "... Just think of how many residents of graveyards will be voting their consciences (or lack thereof) this year. Remember Chicago advise - vote early, vote often. ..."
    "... obomber has a friend in the vote rigging business. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-18/robert-creamer ..."
    "... Concerted media campaign (scripted) against Trump portrays him as hysterical. Recall the trumped-up "(Howard) Dean Scream". ..."
    "... Hillary is as nasty and hysterical as Trump or worse. She uses the F bomb regularly. Screams at her subordinates and she annihilated several countries worth of women and children. ..."
    "... We should all be aware of what occurred in the two Baby Bush elections as far as voter machine tabulations and judicial fraud in his becoming president in both elections and the likely murder(s) to cover the fraud up. Small plane crashes being almost untraceable. ..."
    "... paper vote or bust. Everything else hides an attempt at control and ultimately fraud. ..."
    "... How does that help Trump? Most DNC *and* RNC Deep State insiders favor Hillary. ..."
    "... Who is leaking all this stuff so well-timed together? Might just be the FBI, finding itself unable to prosecute officially, not only for fear of retribution, but also because the heap of shit that would get uncovered could be enough for the rest of the world to declare war on the US. ..."
    "... In Vietnam, as in Iraq, the U.S. government pushed hard to get an election to sanctify its puppet regime. Ellsberg, who spent two years in Vietnam after his time in the Pentagon, aided some of the key U.S. officials in this effort who sought an honest vote. But when U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge heard their pitch, he replied, "You've got a gentleman in the White House right now [Johnson] who has spent most of his life rigging elections. I've spent most of my life rigging elections. I spent nine whole months rigging a Republican convention to choose Ike as a candidate rather than Bob Taft." Lodge later ordered, "Get it across to the press that they shouldn't apply higher standards here in Vietnam than they do in the U.S." ..."
    "... Why is policy discussion absent from this election cycle? Its all Trump bashing,wo one iota of his policies being broadcast? ..."
    "... Obomba, the most un-criticised POTUS in American history, is a laughable pos concerned about his terrible corrupt legacy of death war and division which Trump will reveal, once in. ..."
    "... Election Fraud within the Outlaw US Empire has a long history. One very intrepid investigator and expert on this is Brad Friedman who runs the Brad Blog, whose current lead item is about this very topic. ..."
    "... The Vote 'No Confidence' movement is growing. It's being actively discussed on FB and ZH now ..."
    "... Trump say the election is rigged ? Obama's setting up a straw mam by changing the story to election fraud. There may well be fraud in the voting process but we are unlikely to ever know how much. But as to the election being rigged , that's so plainly obvious it's painful. ..."
    "... And Germany doesn't allow electronic voting machines. Gotta be a clue there somewhere. ..."
    "... There is ample evidence of election fraud, vote fraud, and various types of 'rigging' or 'organising' in the US it is just too long to go into in a short post. ..."
    "... Poll Pro-HRC results are not trustworthy. They aren't necessarily outright fabricated (is easy to do and very hard to detect / prosecute), nor even fraudulently carried out, but 'arranged' to give the desired result, which might even, in some cases, be perfectly unconscious, just following SOP. (I could outline 10 major problems / procedures that twist the results.) ..."
    "... Then, the media take it up, and cherry-pick the results, pro HRC. That includes internet sites like real clear politics, which I noticed recently is biased (paid?) in favor of HRC. ..."
    "... It is amazing to me, yet very few ppl actually dig into the available info about the polls. (Maybe 300 ppl in the world?) HRC needs these fakelorum poll results because they will 'rig' the election as best as they can, they need to point back to them: "see we were winning all the time Trump deplorables yelling insults who cares" - Pathetic. Also, of course, controlling the polls while not the same as 'riggin' the election is part of the same MO. (See Podesta e-mails from Wikileaks.) ..."
    "... I think things could get pretty ugly on Nov 9 if Trump wins because i don't see Hillary going quietly into the night and the dems have seeded "putin is rigging" the election idea to contest the results. Plus the establishment that wants Hillary controls the media and the executive office. ..."
    "... Trump's delegitimizing the election before it takes place is definitely color revolution stuff - the carrot revolution? ..."
    "... "Hillary Clinton now says her "number one priority" in Syria is the removal of Bashar al-Assad, putting us on the path of war with Syria and Russia next year. ..."
    "... no-fly zone" over Syria will certainly be followed by the shooting down of both Russian and U.S. jets, in an unpredictable escalation that could easily spread ..."
    "... Note the sums are shards of chewed peanuts and their shells. MSM are bought, controlled and are put in a lowly position, and pamper to power, any.… They will go where the money is but it takes them a long time to figure out who what where why etc. and what they are supposed to do. They cannot be outed as completely controlled, so have to do some 'moves' to retain credibility, and their clients/controllers understand that. Encouraging a corrupt 4th Estate has its major downsides. ..."
    "... Rigged. Right. Let me tell you about rigged. The US system is rigged in a far larger sense than any Americans realize. It's rigged to blow off the Constitution. ..."
    "... the idea of the Electoral College was that every four years communities vote for a local person who could be trusted to go to Washington and become part of the committee that chooses a president and vice-president. ..."
    "... The process is "supposed" to be more akin to the Holy See choosing a pope. The electors were to meet in Washington, debate the possibilities, come up with short list, go to the top person on the list and ask if they would be willing to be president (or vice-president, as the case may be), and if they agreed, the deal was done. If not, go to the second person. ..."
    "... And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers". It's called simple score because it is almost the same as other well-known forms of score (and "range") voting, except it's optimized for hand counted paper ballots (i.e. no machines). ..."
    "... Need to comb through the propositions carefully. Against big business and self serving liberals.. BTW, I'm a Californian from the Central Valley. Oh! How I wish there is a proposition. Should Hussein Obomo II charge for crimes against humanity? ..."
    "... it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the viciously dishonest Mainstream Media." ..."
    "... "When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party's presidential candidate? What does that say about the media?" ..."
    "... Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us?" ..."
    "... It looks like ALL of the Neocon war criminals and architects of the mass slaughters in Iraq (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc) are standing with Hillary Clinton: ..."
    "... Here's a partial list of neocon war criminals supporting Miss Neocon: Paul Wolfowitz (aka, the Prince of Darkness), Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Marc Grossman, David Frum, Michael Chertoff, John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, etc ..."
    "... All neocons stand with the CrookedC*nt because there hasn't been nearly enough pointless war, slaughter, dismemberment, death or trauma, it needs to go on FOREVER. ..."
    "... To be blunt. It is not only MSM who are prostitutes of oligarchic ruling elite but all or most even so called left-leaning or independent media are all under guise of phony "opposition" or diversity of opinion where there is none. ..."
    "... MSM even lacks this basic foundation of a rational thought and must be dismissed entirely. ..."
    "... The freedom of speech and press, democracy and just simple decency are simply not allowed in these US under penalty of social marginalizing or even death as Assange and Manning are facing. The entire message of MSM propaganda false flag soldiers is fear. ..."
    "... The US Elections themselves are regularity defrauded (read Greg Palast) for decades in thousands of well-documented different and additional ways to polls such as: ..."
    "... No independent verification of the vote or serious reporting by international observers about violations, or independent exit polls, and many, many more ways every election is stolen as anybody who opens eyes can see. ..."
    "... "The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an overpowering and distant oligarchy, while simultaneously "participating" in sham democracy." ..."
    "... Remember this is a person that actually publicly admits he took 6 months off (from what?) to campaign for Mr Changey Hopey, The drone Bombing Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's not like he could ever 5have any political insights worth listening to, now is it? ..."
    "... Oddly, I looked to Russia for inspiration. RF believes in international law so greatly that she strives mightily at every turn to make it the way nations interact. And what we can see if we choose, is that this effort is paying off. The world is changing because of what Russia believes in. ..."
    "... Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored Bernie Sanders by 17% ..."
    "... Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results, may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines. 68 out of the state's 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by 1.42 %. ..."
    "... In the Dominican Republic's last elections (May 2016) voters forced the Electoral Office to get rid of the electronic count in favor of paper ballots, which were counted both, by scanner and by hand, one by one, in front of delegates from each party. This action avoided a credibility crisis and everything went smooth. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Is rigging the U.S. election possible?

    Obama says it is not possible:

    Obama was asked about Trump's voter fraud assertions on Tuesday [..] He responded with a blistering attack on the Republican candidate, noting that U.S. elections are run and monitored by local officials, who may well be appointed by Republican governors of states, and saying that cases of significant voter fraud were not to be found in American elections.

    Obama said there was "no serious" person who would suggest it was possible to rig American elections , adding, "I'd invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."

    That is curious. There are a lot of "non serious" persons in the Democratic Party who tell us that Russia is trying to manipulate the U.S. elections. How is it going to that when it's not possible?

    Moreover - Obama himself suggested that Russia may interfere with the U.S. elections: Obama: 'Possible' Russia interfering in US election

    Is rigging the election only impossible when it is in favor of Hillary Clinton? This while rigging the elections in favor of Donald Trump, by Russia or someone else, is entirely possible and even "evident"?

    Curious.

    That said - I do believe that the U.S. election can be decided through manipulation. We have evidently seen that in 2000 when Bush was "elected" by a fake "recount" and a Supreme Court decision.

    The outcome of a U.S. presidential election can depend on very few votes in very few localities. The various machines and processes used in U.S. elections can be influenced. It is no longer comprehensible for the voters how the votes are counted and how the results created. *

    The intense manipulation attempts by the Clinton camp, via the DNC against Sanders or by creating a Russian boogeyman to propagandize against Trump, lets me believe that her side is well capable of considering and implementing some vote count shenanigan. Neither are Trump or the Republicans in general strangers to dirty methods and manipulations.

    It is high time for the U.S. to return to paper-ballots and manual vote counting. The process is easier, comprehensible, less prone to manipulations and reproducible. Experience in other countries show that it is also nearly as fast, if not faster, than machine counting. There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all.

    * (The German Constitutional Court prohibited the use of all voting machines in German elections because for the general voters they institute irreproducible vote counting which leads to a general loss of trust in the democratic process. The price to pay for using voting machines is legitimacy.)

    Posted by b on October 19, 2016 at 01:54 AM | Permalink

    wj2 | Oct 19, 2016 2:00:43 AM | 1
    I just found out that many states in the US use electronic voting systems made by Smartmatic which is part of the SGO Group. Lord Mark Malloch-Brown is the chairman of SGO. This man is heavily entangled with Soros. Hillary is Soros' candidate. You simply can't make this sh*t up
    Blue | Oct 19, 2016 2:27:24 AM | 2
    " There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all." Of course there is - to rig elections. What do you think they are used for.
    Erast Fandorin | Oct 19, 2016 2:40:48 AM | 4
    So much for Smartmatic: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06CARACAS2063_a.html
    Julian | Oct 19, 2016 2:50:37 AM | 5
    No. The price to pay is the ability to be alerted when vote rigging is going on. Bush won in 2000 because his people controlled the processes that mattered in Florida.

    There are the same allegations about 2004 in regards to Ohio.

    Adjuvant | Oct 19, 2016 3:36:40 AM | 6
    Here's the best statistical analysis of US vote count irregularities to date. Not a pretty picture.
    http://www.electoralsystemincrisis.org/

    And here's a broader analysis of voting integrity issues this year.
    http://electionjustice.net/democracy-lost-a-report-on-the-fatally-flawed-2016-democratic-primaries-table-of-contents/

    But don't worry: the Department of Homeland Security wants to step in to protect our elections -- with a new Election Cybersecurity Committee that has no cybersecurity experts, but plenty of people embroiled in election fraud lawsuits!
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160902/06412735425/dhss-new-election-cybersecurity-committee-has-no-cybersecurity-experts.shtml
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrloTS3p-fY

    somebody | Oct 19, 2016 5:09:02 AM | 7
    There is more needed than just paper ballots. A proportional system, a limit on donations and partisan/donor government posts, a stop to the corporate and lobbyist revolving doors.

    And diverse political parties that present voters with a choice. At present the US seem to be on their way to a one party system. Any democratic process will take place within this "private" club including a very small part of the population.

    But democracy never meant the power of the poor. So, no, for the 1 percent the system is not rigged, they have a preferred globalization candidate, and a police state fall back should the peasants rebell.

    And in the end, this is the way things are run in Russia and China, with a lot less media circus.

    somebody | Oct 19, 2016 5:20:28 AM | 8
    Posted by: somebody | Oct 19, 2016 5:09:02 AM | 7

    Add - a limit to presidential power for one person. US citizens are reduced to vote in a block to this power in the Senate and the House in continuous cycles. In the end that blocks any political progress there might be. The US are the oldest modern democracy. It is like being stuck in the age of steam engines.

    nmb | Oct 19, 2016 5:51:09 AM | 9
    Stein: this so-called debate is a sad commentary on what our political system has become
    Seamus Padraig | Oct 19, 2016 6:44:12 AM | 10
    @ wj2 (Oct 19, 2016 2:00:43 AM | 1):

    Good one, wj2! Here's some more info on Lord Malloch-Brown and George Soros, courtesy of WikiPedia:

    Malloch Brown has been closely associated with billionaire speculator George Soros. Working for Refugees International, he was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia in 1993–94, formed by George Soros. He has since kept cordial relations with Soros, and rented an apartment owned by Soros while working in New York on UN assignments. In May 2007, Soros' Quantum Fund announced the appointment of Sir Mark as vice-president. In September 2007, The Observer reported that he had resigned this position on becoming a government minister in the UK. Also in May 2007, Malloch Brown was named vice-chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute, two other important Soros organisations.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Malloch_Brown,_Baron_Malloch-Brown#Association_with_George_Soros

    lysias | Oct 19, 2016 8:10:37 AM | 11
    There's lots of evidence that the 2004 election was stolen for Bush in Ohio.
    shh | Oct 19, 2016 8:50:59 AM | 14
    DOOOOOOOOOM! "smartmatic" is obviously the right choice. it's a name we know and trust. Like Deibold, Northrup, KBR, and Bellingcat. The integrity stands for itself. With a population so gleefully ignorant and self centered as D'uhmerica, you should be lowering your expectations significantly.
    Ken Nari | Oct 19, 2016 8:57:45 AM | 15
    Are honest elections even legal in Texas and Louisiana? How about Massachusetts and New York? They may be legal there but it would be dangerous to try to enforce that.
    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 19, 2016 9:06:36 AM | 16
    Just think of how many residents of graveyards will be voting their consciences (or lack thereof) this year. Remember Chicago advise - vote early, vote often.
    jo6pac | Oct 19, 2016 9:19:36 AM | 17
    obomber has a friend in the vote rigging business. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-18/robert-creamer

    Voting Green in Calif.

    fastfreddy | Oct 19, 2016 9:45:56 AM | 18
    PB 13 "Concerning attacks from both sides, Trump is definitely more hysterical."

    Concerted media campaign (scripted) against Trump portrays him as hysterical. Recall the trumped-up "(Howard) Dean Scream".

    Trump's hysterical rants (and the smear campaign) are played up in a organized attempt to knock him out. People are getting kneecapped (Billy Bush) to demonstrate to others the wrath that may be visited upon them for supporting the wrong candidate.

    Take Bill O'Reilly for example, He told a subordinate female employee (documented court record) that he wanted to "get a few wines in her and soap up her tits in the shower with a loofah and falafel. There was a settlement and the story was under-reported. Forgotten and forgiven. In fact Bill O stands as an arbiter of moral virtue.

    Hillary is as nasty and hysterical as Trump or worse. She uses the F bomb regularly. Screams at her subordinates and she annihilated several countries worth of women and children.

    It is simply "not in the script" to malign Hillary with her own words and obnoxious behavior. By the way, she is also a drunk.

    john | Oct 19, 2016 10:06:05 AM | 19
    rufus magister says: Y'all keep on diggin' well, there's this , and i didn't even have to break ground.
    BRF | Oct 19, 2016 10:16:56 AM | 20
    We should all be aware of what occurred in the two Baby Bush elections as far as voter machine tabulations and judicial fraud in his becoming president in both elections and the likely murder(s) to cover the fraud up. Small plane crashes being almost untraceable. https://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/bushs-it-guy-killed-in-plane-crash/
    Northern Observer | Oct 19, 2016 10:21:48 AM | 21
    paper vote or bust. Everything else hides an attempt at control and ultimately fraud.
    dumbass | Oct 19, 2016 10:22:18 AM | 22
    >> "The vast majority of battleground states have Republicans overseeing their election systems," These officials actually count the votes,

    How does that help Trump? Most DNC *and* RNC Deep State insiders favor Hillary.

    > and they, like Ohio's Husted, have criticized the Day-Glo Duckhead.

    Yes.

    persiflo | Oct 19, 2016 10:29:06 AM | 23
    Here's another one: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/politico-reporter-sends-story-to-hillary-aide-for-approval-admits-hes-a-hack/

    Who is leaking all this stuff so well-timed together? Might just be the FBI, finding itself unable to prosecute officially, not only for fear of retribution, but also because the heap of shit that would get uncovered could be enough for the rest of the world to declare war on the US.

    lysias | Oct 19, 2016 10:54:38 AM | 25
    Daniel Ellsberg, in his book Secrets , recounts what he had learned during his government service about the honesty of U.S. elections. As reported in Counterpunch :
    In Vietnam, as in Iraq, the U.S. government pushed hard to get an election to sanctify its puppet regime. Ellsberg, who spent two years in Vietnam after his time in the Pentagon, aided some of the key U.S. officials in this effort who sought an honest vote. But when U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge heard their pitch, he replied, "You've got a gentleman in the White House right now [Johnson] who has spent most of his life rigging elections. I've spent most of my life rigging elections. I spent nine whole months rigging a Republican convention to choose Ike as a candidate rather than Bob Taft." Lodge later ordered, "Get it across to the press that they shouldn't apply higher standards here in Vietnam than they do in the U.S."

    But Lodge's comments were downright uplifting compared with a meeting that Ellsberg attended with former Vice President Richard Nixon, who was visiting Vietnam on a "fact-finding mission" to help bolster his presidential aspirations. Former CIA operative Edward Lansdale told Nixon that he and his colleagues wanted to help "make this the most honest election that's ever been held in Vietnam." Nixon replied, "Oh, sure, honest, yes, honest, that's right … so long as you win!" With the last words he did three things in quick succession: winked, drove his elbow hard into Lansdale's arm, and slapped his own knee.

    dahoit | Oct 19, 2016 11:00:42 AM | 26
    12,13,will you clowns keep your zippers closed? Your propaganda is unseemly, and we'll see just whose victory will be huge Nov.8,won't we? Why does anyone put any credence in serial liar polls? Why is policy discussion absent from this election cycle? Its all Trump bashing,wo one iota of his policies being broadcast?

    That is his vote rigging angle, that the MSM is corrupt and is politically assassinating him daily,not the polls themselves being a major factor in the rigging accusations.

    Obomba, the most un-criticised POTUS in American history, is a laughable pos concerned about his terrible corrupt legacy of death war and division which Trump will reveal, once in. And only commie morons would oppose that.

    karlof1 | Oct 19, 2016 11:46:58 AM | 27
    Election Fraud within the Outlaw US Empire has a long history. One very intrepid investigator and expert on this is Brad Friedman who runs the Brad Blog, whose current lead item is about this very topic. I suggest those interested in learning more take the time to investigate his site and its many years of accumulated evidence proving Election Fraud a very big problem, http://bradblog.com/
    TheRealDonald | Oct 19, 2016 11:50:32 AM | 28
    The Vote 'No Confidence' movement is growing. It's being actively discussed on FB and ZH now. A bloviating bunko artist vers a grifting crypto neocon is not a 'choice', it's a suicide squad lootfest it's taking America down.

    ... ... ..

    Nobody | Oct 19, 2016 12:17:59 PM | 30
    In Humboldt County California we still use paper ballots. Our polling place also has one electronic voting machine sitting in a corner for voters who can't use the paper ballots. I have never seen it being used. There was a transparency program that I think they still do where all ballots were scanned and the images made available online for the public to double check results. I'm no wiz with machine vision but I think I could knock together enough code to do my own recount.

    I'm not paying much attention but doesn't Trump say the election is rigged ? Obama's setting up a straw mam by changing the story to election fraud. There may well be fraud in the voting process but we are unlikely to ever know how much. But as to the election being rigged , that's so plainly obvious it's painful.

    And Germany doesn't allow electronic voting machines. Gotta be a clue there somewhere.

    Noirette | Oct 19, 2016 12:43:09 PM | 31
    There is ample evidence of election fraud, vote fraud, and various types of 'rigging' or 'organising' in the US it is just too long to go into in a short post. (See for ex. Adjuvant @ 6, john @ 18)

    Ideally, one would have to divide it into different types. It is also traditional, which some forget, I only know about that from 'realistic' novels, I recently read Dos Passos' Manhattan Transfer, and was amazed how little things change (despite horse-drawn carriages, rouge, spitoons, cigars, sauerkraut, etc.) - see karlof1 @ 25.

    Poll Pro-HRC results are not trustworthy. They aren't necessarily outright fabricated (is easy to do and very hard to detect / prosecute), nor even fraudulently carried out, but 'arranged' to give the desired result, which might even, in some cases, be perfectly unconscious, just following SOP. (I could outline 10 major problems / procedures that twist the results.)

    Then, the media take it up, and cherry-pick the results, pro HRC. That includes internet sites like real clear politics, which I noticed recently is biased (paid?) in favor of HRC.

    It is amazing to me, yet very few ppl actually dig into the available info about the polls. (Maybe 300 ppl in the world?) HRC needs these fakelorum poll results because they will 'rig' the election as best as they can, they need to point back to them: "see we were winning all the time Trump deplorables yelling insults who cares" - Pathetic. Also, of course, controlling the polls while not the same as 'riggin' the election is part of the same MO. (See Podesta e-mails from Wikileaks.)

    This is also the reason for the mad accusations of Putin interference in US elections - if somebody is doing illegit moves it is Trump's supporter Putin and so the 'bad stuff' is 'foreign take-over' and not 'us', and btw NOT the Republicans, or Trump circle, which is very telling.

    I didn't see the O Keefe, Project Veritas, vids mentioned. Here the first one. There is a second one up and more coming.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

    alaric | Oct 19, 2016 12:49:20 PM | 32
    I think things could get pretty ugly on Nov 9 if Trump wins because i don't see Hillary going quietly into the night and the dems have seeded "putin is rigging" the election idea to contest the results. Plus the establishment that wants Hillary controls the media and the executive office.

    Oh boy.

    somebody | Oct 19, 2016 1:05:09 PM | 33
    Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 19, 2016 12:11:35 PM | 27

    Trump's delegitimizing the election before it takes place is definitely color revolution stuff - the carrot revolution?

    It is an interesting experiment if you can make people vote for a candidate they don't like by it being the only way to prevent a candidate they dislike even more. You just showed you aren't able to.

    Petri Krohn | Oct 19, 2016 1:49:49 PM | 37
    My link collection on the elections is here: US presidential elections - ACLOS

    Topics discussed:

    anon | Oct 19, 2016 2:03:32 PM | 39

    "Hillary Clinton now says her "number one priority" in Syria is the removal of Bashar al-Assad, putting us on the path of war with Syria and Russia next year.

    Any "no-fly zone" over Syria will certainly be followed by the shooting down of both Russian and U.S. jets, in an unpredictable escalation that could easily spread

    Russia will not back down if we start shooting down its aircraft. Is Hillary willing to risk nuclear war with Russia in order to protect al-Qaeda in Syria?

    Mina | Oct 19, 2016 2:07:19 PM | 40
    latest fisk
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/saudi-arabia-human-rights-imprisonment-every-decent-man-who-speaks-out-in-jail-robert-fisk-a7369276.html
    Noirette | Oct 19, 2016 2:32:17 PM | 46
    96% of disclosed campaign contributions from journalists went to the Clinton campaign. From the MSM: TIME.

    Note the sums are shards of chewed peanuts and their shells. MSM are bought, controlled and are put in a lowly position, and pamper to power, any.… They will go where the money is but it takes them a long time to figure out who what where why etc. and what they are supposed to do. They cannot be outed as completely controlled, so have to do some 'moves' to retain credibility, and their clients/controllers understand that. Encouraging a corrupt 4th Estate has its major downsides.

    http://time.com/money/4533729/hillary-clinton-journalist-campaign-donations/

    Denis | Oct 19, 2016 2:53:54 PM | 48
    Rigged. Right. Let me tell you about rigged. The US system is rigged in a far larger sense than any Americans realize. It's rigged to blow off the Constitution.

    If you want to know how badly rigged, ask any voter when they leave the voting venue: "What is the name of the elector you just voted for?" You'll get either: 1) a dumb stare; 2) a laugh, or 3) a "WTF is an elector?"

    Under the Constitution, Americans vote for electors. They do not vote for presidents, and there's a reason for that. It's called "mass stupidity."

    The Fondling Fathers were smart enough to know that the people are too stupid to choose their own leader. So the idea of the Electoral College was that every four years communities vote for a local person who could be trusted to go to Washington and become part of the committee that chooses a president and vice-president.

    There is not "supposed" to be any campaign, candidates, or polls. The process is "supposed" to be more akin to the Holy See choosing a pope. The electors were to meet in Washington, debate the possibilities, come up with short list, go to the top person on the list and ask if they would be willing to be president (or vice-president, as the case may be), and if they agreed, the deal was done. If not, go to the second person. Pretty much how the CEO of a large corporation is chosen.

    Having the people of a community vote for the local person who would be the most trustworthy to deliberate on who should be president is a reasonable objective. I mean, essentially the question for the voter would be reduced to: "What person in our community would be least likely to be bought off?" But having a gang-bang of 60 million voting Americans who don't really know shit about the morons they are voting into office . . . that, on its face, is a sign of mass self-deception and insanity. It is mass stupidity perpetuating itself.

    The circus that the US presidential election has turned into – including the grotesque primaries – just goes to show how fucking stupid Americans are. The system is an embarrassment to the entire country. And it is an act of flipping-off the Fondling Fathers and their better judgment every four years. But worst of all, the present system is virtually certain to eventually produce the most powerful person in the world who is a complete moron, and who will precipitate a global catastrophe – economic, or military, or both.

    Two names come immediately to mind.

    blues | Oct 19, 2016 2:59:19 PM | 50

    ... ... ...

    And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers". It's called simple score because it is almost the same as other well-known forms of score (and "range") voting, except it's optimized for hand counted paper ballots (i.e. no machines).

    Jack Smith | Oct 19, 2016 3:09:23 PM | 52
    Hey MoA,

    Just got my mail-in ballots from the postman. Voting against all Democrats except, for POTUS. Take a few days and vote either Jill Stein or Donald Trump.

    Need to comb through the propositions carefully. Against big business and self serving liberals.. BTW, I'm a Californian from the Central Valley. Oh! How I wish there is a proposition. Should Hussein Obomo II charge for crimes against humanity?

    anon | Oct 19, 2016 3:16:23 PM | 53

    "For any minimally conscious American citizen, it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the viciously dishonest Mainstream Media."

    -Boyd D. Cathey, "The Tape, the Conspiracy, and the Death of the Old Politics", Unz Review

    "When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party's presidential candidate? What does that say about the media?"

    Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us?"

    from Mike Whitney, Counterpunch

    To read more:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/19/trump-unchained/

    Bruno Marz | Oct 19, 2016 3:26:32 PM | 54
    If Jill Stein needs 5% of the vote in order to be considered a legitimate candidate (or to bring the Green party up to legitimate third-party status for the 2020 election), then you can rest assured that no matter how many votes she actually gets, her percentage will never be above 4.99%. Just like when Obama swept into office in 2008, the powers-that-be made sure the Democrats never had a filibuster-proof majority. Give 'em just enough to believe that the system works, but never enough to create a situation where the lack of change can't be explained away by "gridlock". Brilliant in its malevolence, really.
    anon | Oct 19, 2016 3:32:17 PM | 55

    It looks like ALL of the Neocon war criminals and architects of the mass slaughters in Iraq (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc) are standing with Hillary Clinton:

    Here's a partial list of neocon war criminals supporting Miss Neocon: Paul Wolfowitz (aka, the Prince of Darkness), Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Marc Grossman, David Frum, Michael Chertoff, John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, etc

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2016/10/15/neocon-architects-of-illegal-war-in-iraq-stand-with-hillary-clinton/

    All neocons stand with the CrookedC*nt because there hasn't been nearly enough pointless war, slaughter, dismemberment, death or trauma, it needs to go on FOREVER.

    Kalen | Oct 19, 2016 3:35:05 PM | 56
    To be blunt. It is not only MSM who are prostitutes of oligarchic ruling elite but all or most even so called left-leaning or independent media are all under guise of phony "opposition" or diversity of opinion where there is none.

    Actually MOA is one of few, more or less independent, aligning itself with any sane ideology, a welcome island of order in the ocean of media cacophony and I often disagreed with MOA but I appreciate its logical consistency and integrity, hard facts based journalism,no matter from what moral stand MOA writings are coming from. MSM even lacks this basic foundation of a rational thought and must be dismissed entirely.

    But there is much, much more rigging going on, on massive, even global scale. The fraud is so massive and so visible that blinds people from the truth about it. From the truth of how massively they are being controlled in their opinions and thoughts.

    The freedom of speech and press, democracy and just simple decency are simply not allowed in these US under penalty of social marginalizing or even death as Assange and Manning are facing. The entire message of MSM propaganda false flag soldiers is fear.

    It may seem shocking for people under spell of overwhelming propaganda, but this government run by Global oligarchs is dangerous to our physical and mental health and must be eradicated as a matter of sanitary emergency.

    Let's sweep all those political excretions into the sewage pipes where they belong. But first we have to recognize the scale of their influence and their horrifying daily routine subversion of social order, gross malfeasance or even horrendous crimes also war crimes covered up by MSM.

    Only after we get rid of this abhorrent, brutal regime, cut the chains of enslavement we can have decent democracy or voting, not before.

    John Stuart Mill - "Government shapes our character, values, and intellect. It can affect us positively or negatively. When political institutions are ill constructed, "the effect is felt in a thousand ways in lowering the morality and deadening the intelligence and activity of the people"

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "I had come to see that everything was radically connected with politics, and that however one proceeded, no people would be other than the nature of its government.

    And here we are, believing the shit those mofos and feeding us about freedom and democracy citing bought and sold lies as "scientific research" concocted for one reason alone, to fuck us up , exploit and discard when not needed.

    Here is, in a small part, about how they do it, starting from phony polls that suppose to sway you one way or another into following supposed projected winner anointed by the establishment.

    Polls are routinely skewed, even MSM pundits say use polls they can trust i.e. which give them results their bosses seek.

    Now over hundred top newspapers and media outlets endorsed Hillary so you can safely remove them from your list of polls you can rely on.

    Anyway most polls are rigged even more than elections themselves, mostly by skewing the content of a poling sample like in the above example. If you poll Dems about Reps that exactly you get what you seek. But they are more insidious like doubling or tripling polling sample and then pick an choose what answers they like, or focus sample on the area you know there is overall support for your thesis or assertion of candidate regardless of official affiliation, and many more down to raw rigging by fixing numbers or adjustments.

    The US Elections themselves are regularity defrauded (read Greg Palast) for decades in thousands of well-documented different and additional ways to polls such as:

    By limiting selection of possible candidates and their access to statewide or national ballot box via rigged undemocratic caucuses and primaries and other unreasonable requirements, goal-seeking ad-hoc rules. by eliminating and/or confusing voters about voting at proper physical location often changed in last moments, forcing into never counted provisional vote by purposely hiding registered lists, purging made up "felons" from voter lists, requiring expensive or unavailable or costly to obtain due to extensive travel, identifying documents, threatening citizen (of color) with deportation, accusing them of voter fraud [baseless challenging that automatically pushes voter into provisional vote], or strait offering meaningless provisional ballots instead of proper ballot for people who can't read (English) well, eliminating students and military vote when needed on phony registration issues, signature, pictures, purposefully misspelled names, mostly non-British names etc., reducing number of polling places where majority votes for "rouge" candidate, forcing people to stand in line for hours or preventing people from voting al together.

    Selecting remote polling locations with obstructed public access by car or transit, paid parking, exposed to weather elements, cold, wind and rain in November.

    Hacking databases before and after vote, switching votes, adding votes for absent voters, and switching party affiliations and vote at polling places as well up in the data collating chain, county, state, filing in court last minute frivolous law suits aimed to block unwanted candidates or challenging readiness of the polling places in certain neighborhoods deemed politically uncertain, outrageous voting ON a WORKING DAY (everywhere else voting is on Sunday or a day free of work) skewing that way votes toward older retired people.

    Massive lying propaganda of whom we vote for, a fraudulent ballot supposedly voting for "candidates" but in fact voting on unnamed electors, party apparatchiks instead, violating basic democratic principle of transparency of candidates on the ballot and secrecy of a voter, outrageous electorate college rules design to directly suppress democracy. Requirement of approval of the electoral vote by congress is an outrageous thing illegal in quasi-democratic western countries due to division of powers.

    Outrageous, voting day propaganda to discourage voting by phony polling and predictions while everywhere else there is campaigning ban, silence for two to three days before Election Day.

    No independent verification of the vote or serious reporting by international observers about violations, or independent exit polls, and many, many more ways every election is stolen as anybody who opens eyes can see.

    All the above fraud prepared by close group of election criminals on political party payroll, months/years before election date often without any contribution from ordinary polling workers who believe that nothing is rigged.

    If somebody thinks that they would restrain themselves this time, think again. The regime, in a form of mostly unsuspecting county registrars are tools of the establishment and will do everything, everything they can and they can a lot, to defraud those elections and push an establishment candidate down to our throats, without a thought crossing their comatose minds. "Just doing their jobs like little Eichmanns of NAZI regime".

    One way or another your vote will be stolen or manipulated up and down the ticket at will and your participation would mean one thing legitimizing this abhorrent regime.

    We must reject those rigged elections and demand that establishment must go, all of them GOP, DNC and that including Hillary before any truly democratic electoral process worth participating may commence.

    "The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an overpowering and distant oligarchy, while simultaneously "participating" in sham democracy."
    C. Wright Mills,"The Power Elite" (1956)

    and here is why:
    https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/faux-elections-and-american-insanity-of-fear/

    Any sane person must thus conclude that an act of voting in the current helplessly tainted and rigged political system is nothing but morally corrupting tool that divides us, conflicts us, extorts from us an approval for the meaningless political puppets of the calcified, repugnant oligarchic US regime, in a surrealistic act of utter futility aimed just to break us down, to break our sense of human dignity, our individual will and self-determination since no true choice is ever being offered to us and never will.

    Idea of political/electoral boycott, unplugging from the system that corrupts us and ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL PROCESS designed, developed and implemented for benefit of 99% of population is the only viable idea to express our political views that are absent from official regime candidates' agendas and from the rigged ballots. Let's not be afraid, it was already successfully done in the past. It works." Without courage there is only slavery.

    jdmckay | Oct 19, 2016 3:50:06 PM | 57
    Bo Dacious @ 41
    Remember this is a person that actually publicly admits he took 6 months off (from what?) to campaign for Mr Changey Hopey, The drone Bombing Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's not like he could ever 5have any political insights worth listening to, now is it?

    Grow up.

    I took the time off (I'm a software engineer) after the primaries (having supported neither BO or HRC) because that's who get got. We were coming off 8 years of BushCo which was, in summary... a horror. The republicans were 100% unrepentant, and McCain was a far louder and steadfast supporter of Iraq then Hillary... wasn't even close. McCain burried his Abramhoff investigation, sealed their findings for 50 years. And his running mate was not just bereft of any policy expertise, she was a loudmouth loon... even FOX canceled her post election show.

    I was well aware of BO's questions/limitations. He didn't put his time in as a Senator and sponsored no meaningful legislation. He played it safe. He had no real policy track record. And as a Senator he quietly slipped away and hob-nobbed with Bush several times (no other Dem Senator at the time did this that I was aware). So yeah, Obama was on open question.

    But he was the guy we got....

    ALAN | Oct 19, 2016 4:20:32 PM | 65
    The Best of Joachim Hagopian https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/10/joachim-hagopian/war-us-russia/
    Grieved | Oct 19, 2016 4:27:54 PM | 66
    I was going to pass on this election, but I've read a lot here about it and started to consider what as a US voter I might do.

    Oddly, I looked to Russia for inspiration. RF believes in international law so greatly that she strives mightily at every turn to make it the way nations interact. And what we can see if we choose, is that this effort is paying off. The world is changing because of what Russia believes in.

    I believe in voting. I believe in multiple parties. I believe the game is totally rigged but sometimes you can win, except that you have to play for this to happen. I believe that you have to be the thing you want.

    I believe in a Green Party and I admire the sanity that comes from Dr. Jill Stein every time I encounter her position. This is the world I believe in. This is the world I'll vote for and support, with all tools that comes to hand, forever.

    ~~

    I don't believe in the view that aspiring for betterment is foolish or naive, or the view that current status cannot change or be changed. Such views fail to acknowledge the physical reality of a new universe manifesting in each moment, always different in some way from that of the previous moment. Such views are lost, bewildered, behind the curve, forever.

    blues | Oct 19, 2016 4:45:09 PM | 69
    Term limits are useless. There could never be a Cynthia McKinney or a Dennis Kucinich -- Ever! Term limited representatives would by definition be track record-free representatives. If you really would like positive change, you simply need to get strategic hedge simple score voting:
    SHSV

    Nothing else can possibly help.

    Jackrabbit | Oct 19, 2016 4:58:09 PM | 72
    The Donald describes what this election is about (ht Saker)
    lysias | Oct 19, 2016 5:19:33 PM | 74
    I am disappointed in how critical of Assange Glenn Greenwald and Naomi Klein are in this piece: IS DISCLOSURE OF PODESTA'S EMAILS A STEP TOO FAR? A CONVERSATION WITH NAOMI KLEIN .
    Wat | Oct 19, 2016 6:07:24 PM | 77
    http://sweetremedy.tv/electionnightmares/archives/278

    Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored Bernie Sanders by 17%

    Mar 06 2016

    J.T. Waldron

    Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results, may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines. 68 out of the state's 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by 1.42 %.

    Malvin | Oct 19, 2016 6:15:15 PM | 78
    In the Dominican Republic's last elections (May 2016) voters forced the Electoral Office to get rid of the electronic count in favor of paper ballots, which were counted both, by scanner and by hand, one by one, in front of delegates from each party. This action avoided a credibility crisis and everything went smooth.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Theres a reason Trumps rigged election claims resonate. Heres why

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think that Trump is referring to Clinton's use of her private, insecure server for confidential e-mails of which she ordered 30,000 to be deleted and had Obama intervene to stop an FBI investigation. Honest and transparent, I think not. ..."
    "... In "normal" circumstances she would have been disqualified as a candidate and possibly be facing criminal proceedings. Let's face it, neither candidate is at all suitable as leader of the western world. ..."
    "... The current bedrocks of the capitalist system are at breaking point. Parliamentary democracy and the nation state are crumbling under various pressures. They may be saves but I think we are entering the period when they will be replaced. I have no idea what with though. ..."
    "... Remember when U.S. NGOs were "respected" bodies around the world. Now we know they were spies and subverters, now banned from all self respecting countries around the world. ..."
    "... Remember how the U.S. went into Iraq for De4mocracy. Now we know it was oil and deliberate mayhem. ..."
    "... Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, and their failed attempt to lay waste Syria. ..."
    "... Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S., lied about by them, down to the downing of MH17 ..."
    "... If you want lies and deceit, look at the U.S ..."
    "... Not to be too critical, but most of what you mentioned was perpetrated under a single presidential administration. Cheney was dividing Iraqi oilfields way before the "invasion". Bush was just a puppet. You know, the kind of guy you would like to have a beer with. Just a good ole'boy. ..."
    "... Is Hillary trying to stir up her own counter revolution in case she loses too? It seems like a fatally flawed attempt. People barely have the energy to turn out to vote for her, let alone take up arms for her. ..."
    "... The DNC rigged the vote to nominate Clinton over Sanders. Why wouldn't they employ the same tricks in the election itself? ..."
    "... Any individual with a shred of decency should be extremely disturbed by the actions of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. They privately discussed methods of discrediting Sanders based SOLELY on his religious affiliation. ..."
    "... Despite having a tonne of shit thrown at him and the msm and big money donors squarely in Clinton's corner, Trump's still standing. Polls released today: LA Times +2 Trump; NBC +6 Clinton; Rasmussen +1 Clinton ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Kate Aronoff

    The fight over vote rigging in 2016 is a proxy war for a much deeper crisis: the legitimacy of American democracy

    Nearly 90% of Trump supporters agreed with a Rand Corporation survey statement that "people like me don't have any say about what the government does." The irony here is that Trump voters are historically some of the most enfranchised, with some of his strongest support coming from white protestant men. A study done during the primaries also found that Trump backers make an average of $72,000 per year, compared with a $61,000 average among likely Clinton voters.

    ... ... ...

    Corporate citizens – as defined by Citizens United – now have an easier time getting a hold of their elected representative than just about any other American. In other words, money talks in Washington, and Super Pacs have spend just under $795m this election cycle. Because lobbying money courses through every level of politics, the most successful candidates are the best at making friends in the Fortune 500.

    Meanwhile, just six in 10 Americans are confident their votes will be accurately cast and counted. And unlike in systems based on proportional representation, our winner-take-all electoral model creates some of the highest barriers to entry for political outsiders of any democracy on earth.

    Americans' distrust of politics is about more than just elections, though. Congressional approval ratings have declined steadily since 2009 , and now sit at just 20% – a high in the last few years. Unions – which used to cudgel Democrats into representing working people's interests – are at their weakest point in decades, and lack the sway they once held at the highest levels of government.

    Declines in organized labor have been paired with the disappearance of steady and well-paid work, either succumbed to automation or shipped overseas by free trade agreements. A jobless recovery from the financial crisis has left many adrift in the economy, while executives from the firms that drove it got golden parachutes courtesy of the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.

    On the table now are to very different responses to these crises. Using an apocryphal quote from Frederich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg once wrote : "Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism."


    SmartestRs 2d ago

    I think that Trump is referring to Clinton's use of her private, insecure server for confidential e-mails of which she ordered 30,000 to be deleted and had Obama intervene to stop an FBI investigation. Honest and transparent, I think not.

    In "normal" circumstances she would have been disqualified as a candidate and possibly be facing criminal proceedings. Let's face it, neither candidate is at all suitable as leader of the western world.

    furiouspurpose

    When Mrsfuriouspurpose got a gig as a poll clerk on the EU referendum she offered everyone who came through the door a pencil to write their cross.

    Many brought their own pens and a fair few explained that they were concerned that pencil could be rubbed out and wanted to make sure – just in case.

    It ain't only the yanks who are getting suspicious about how honest our democracy has become.

    davidc929 -> furiouspurpose

    The current bedrocks of the capitalist system are at breaking point. Parliamentary democracy and the nation state are crumbling under various pressures. They may be saves but I think we are entering the period when they will be replaced. I have no idea what with though.


    Kholrabi

    Remember when U.S. NGOs were "respected" bodies around the world. Now we know they were spies and subverters, now banned from all self respecting countries around the world.

    Remember how the U.S. went into Iraq for De4mocracy. Now we know it was oil and deliberate mayhem.

    Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, and their failed attempt to lay waste Syria.

    Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S., lied about by them, down to the downing of MH17.

    If you want lies and deceit, look at the U.S.

    Trump is right in his accusations. Idle chatter is just that, wasteful of time and distracting idle chatter,

    Thomas Hosking -> Kholrabi

    Not to be too critical, but most of what you mentioned was perpetrated under a single presidential administration. Cheney was dividing Iraqi oilfields way before the "invasion". Bush was just a puppet. You know, the kind of guy you would like to have a beer with. Just a good ole'boy.

    DaanSaaf -> Kholrabi

    Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S.,

    tbf, that was as much the handiwork of the EU as it ever was the US

    leadale

    For better or for worse, the 2016 presidential campaign was all about him.

    Not about his policies. Not about calm analysis of what was wrong and how it could be fixed.

    It was always about him. And now, the nation's attention is still focused on him and his peccadillos…rather than Ms Clinton and her scams, corruptions, and Deep State flimflams.

    'Remember, it's a rigged system. It's a rigged election,' said the candidate over the weekend.

    Is the election really rigged? Probably not in the way Mr Trump intends listeners to believe. But the 'system' is so rigged that the election results hardly matter.
    A real conservative would shift the debate away from fanny pinching and other ungentlemanly comportment to how it is rigged. Americans want to know. How come the economy no longer grows as it used to? How come most Americans are poorer today than they were in 1999? How come we no longer win our wars?

    He would explain to listeners that much of the rigging took place while Hillary and Bill Clinton were collecting more than $150 million in speaking fees, telling us how to improve the world!

    Then, he would help listeners put two and two together - explaining how the fake dollar corrupted the nation's economy…and its politics, too.

    And he would offer real solutions. As it is, nobody seems to care. Not the stock market. Not the bond market. Not commentators. Not Hillary. Not Donald. Nobody.

    Bill Bonnar - Daily reckoning


    Ken Weller -> leadale

    Actually, he did address those issues quite frequently, including during the debate. It's the media that is trying to dictate what the important issues are.

    Ken Weller

    I recall that in previous elections, notably the 2004 presidential, progressive voices rightly pointed to possible election rigging. I even remember DNC chair Howard Dean interviewing Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org about how this could be achieved. Now that Trump's people are concerned about the issue, it's suddenly crazy.

    Meanwhile, Clinton's camp has put forth there own conspiracy theory that Russia may somehow rig it for Trump, never mind that that the voting machines are disconnected from the internet and thus hackers.

    Brett Hankinson -> Ken Weller

    Is Hillary trying to stir up her own counter revolution in case she loses too? It seems like a fatally flawed attempt. People barely have the energy to turn out to vote for her, let alone take up arms for her.

    Trump is far more effective and newsworthy because he's inciting violence during the US election and it actually seems plausible that violence could result. He doesn't even need to win the popular vote to wreck the place.


    Whodeaux Brett Hankinson

    It's win/win for Trump and his ilk. Or rather, if he wins then obviously he wins. If he loses he can just say he won, his fanbois will take over bird sanctuaries left and right, and when FBI and National Guard inevitably kill some of them he can screech about how Real Mericans® are being picked on by those nasty Globalist Bankers and the Entitlement Class, those two terms being the current dog whistles for what the John Birchers used to call Jews and Blacks.

    Trump doesn't seem to realize actual people are going to be actually dead before this is all over. One cannot untoast bread.

    MountainMan23

    The DNC rigged the vote to nominate Clinton over Sanders. Why wouldn't they employ the same tricks in the election itself?
    Our voting machines & tabulators are insecure - that's a known fact.
    So the concern among all voters (not just Trump supporters) is real & justified.

    HiramsMaxim MountainMan23

    If I were a Sanders supporter I would be furious.

    Hell, I'm not a Sanders supporter, and I am still furious. What matters an individual's vote, if the outcome has already been determined by The Powers That Be?

    Todd Owens HiramsMaxim

    Any individual with a shred of decency should be extremely disturbed by the actions of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. They privately discussed methods of discrediting Sanders based SOLELY on his religious affiliation.

    "It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist," Bradley Marhsall, former CFO of the DNC.

    This is identity politics at its absolute worst.

    HiramsMaxim ButtChocolate

    Its a little more sophisticated than that.

    In the Podesta email dumps, there is plenty of evidence of particular members of the Press actively colluding with the Clinton campaign, and even submitting articles for review by the campaign before publishing.

    So, he is taking what are, at the very least, journalistic standards lapses, and spins it into something larger. He takes a little fear, and makes a big story out of it. And, because these media organisations cannot admit what they are doing, or deny the generally accepted verity of the Wikileaks dumps, he gets a free shot.

    Remember, to all the good progressives out there, Trump is not trying to appeal to you, convince you, or make you like him. In fact, the more you hate him, the more "ideologically pure" he looks to his supporters.

    Example: Look at The Guardian reporting of the firebombing at the Republican office here in NC. Any reasonable person would agree that firebombing is wrong. But, TG could not even use that word. The article they published bent over backwards to minimise the action, and blame it on Trump.

    Sure, that plays well to The Guardian readership. But, it just confirms (well, at least it appears to confirm) the loud cries of media bias that Trump and his supporters rail against. The irony is that when the same types of things happen domestically, by a Press that thinks it is "helping" their preferred candidate, it only confirms the worst suspicions of the opposition. And, it only taked one or two examples to give Trump room to condemn all media.

    Trump has one overwhelming skill on display here. He is able to bait the media, and they cannot resist rising to that bait. He is, for lack of a better term, a World Class Troll.

    Harryy

    "as his support slips"

    Despite having a tonne of shit thrown at him and the msm and big money donors squarely in Clinton's corner, Trump's still standing. Polls released today: LA Times +2 Trump; NBC +6 Clinton; Rasmussen +1 Clinton

    HiramsMaxim Harryy

    It is facinating that the last two weeks of ugliness on both sides has had just about zero effect on people.

    Its as if both sides have already made up their minds, and refuse to pay attention to the Media.

    [Oct 20, 2016] The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is notable for its deliberately bizarre policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is a registered political party established in the United Kingdom in 1983 by the musician David Sutch, better known as "Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow" or simply "Screaming Lord Sutch". It is notable for its deliberately bizarre policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics, and to offer itself as an poignant alternative for protest voters, especially in constituencies where the party holding the seat is unlikely to lose it and everyone else's vote would be quietly wasted. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    EMichael : , October 20, 2016 at 08:31 AM

    Meanwhile, for those who are considering voting third party, perhaps this information would be useful.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/see-john-oliver-expose-third-party-platforms-huge-problems-w445178

    pgl -> EMichael... , October 20, 2016 at 08:36 AM
    I watched that yesterday. Funny and a complete take down of Jill Stein. How come a British comedian knows more about our issues than one of our candidates for the White House? Oh wait - even Jill Stein knows more than Donald Trump. If it were not for that Constitutional matter, I'd say Oliver for President.
    Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl... , -1
    All politics is 'wacky',
    the third-party kind is
    the wackiest of all.

    Maybe the UK does it best.

    The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is a registered political party established in the United Kingdom in 1983 by the musician David Sutch, better known as "Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow" or simply "Screaming Lord Sutch". It is notable for its deliberately bizarre policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics, and to offer itself as an poignant alternative for protest voters, especially in constituencies where the party holding the seat is unlikely to lose it and everyone else's vote would be quietly wasted.
    (Wikipedia)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frivolous_political_parties

    [Oct 20, 2016] One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness

    Notable quotes:
    "... a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF) the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly even WWIII. ..."
    "... One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness. ..."
    "... Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of TBTF to rip people another four years. ..."
    "... The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers, who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism to survive. ..."
    "... And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the elections. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Adamski -> Peter K.... , October 20, 2016 at 07:35 AM
    Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials do. That plus voter suppression may hand this to Trump yet. There was an LA Times poll this month that showed a small Trump lead. An outlier, sure, but the same poll was right about Obama in 2012 when other polls were wrong. Just saying
    likbez -> Adamski... , -1
    > "Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials do."

    Yes. Thank you for making this point.

    Also people over 50 have more chances to understand and reject all the neoliberal bullshit MSM are pouring on Americans.

    As well as a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF) the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly even WWIII.

    One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness.

    Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of TBTF to rip people another four years.

    Not that Trump is better, but on warmongering side he is the lesser evil, for sure.

    The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers, who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism to survive.

    And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the elections.

    That's why they supposedly pump Hillary with drugs each debate :-).

    [Oct 20, 2016] Donald Trump accuses Hillary Clinton of being given the debate questions

    Notable quotes:
    "... claims that the election is rigged, putting officials on the defense weeks before most voters head to the polls. ..."
    "... Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions - she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.bostonglobe.com

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump added one more accusation against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton: "inappropriately" getting the debate questions.

    Trump's tweet with the latest allegation comes the day after the final presidential debate in which he refused to commit to the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.

    Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions - she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.
    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016

    Less than two hours after sending the tweet, the real estate mogul told a rally in Ohio that he would accept the results of the election - if he wins.

    "I would like to promise and pledge . . . that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election if I win."

    Trump later said in the rally that he would accept a clear result but reserves the right to contest a questionable outcome.

    Trump's comments about the election results during the debate were blasted by politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Governor Charlie Baker and Libertarian vice presidential candidate Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts. Weld called the debate remarks "the death knell for [Trump's] candidacy."

    Senator John McCain of Arizona, a top Republican who withdrew his support of Trump earlier this month, said he conceded defeat "without reluctance" in 2008 when then-Senator Barack Obama won the presidential election. McCain said the loser has always congratulated the winner, calling the person "my president."

    "That's not just the Republican way or the Democratic way. It's the American way. This election must not be any different," McCain said in a statement.

    Trump and his supporters have been making unsubstantiated claims that the election is rigged, putting officials on the defense weeks before most voters head to the polls. Civil rights activists have called some of the accusations a thinly veiled racist attack.

    Fred C. Dobbs said... October 20, 2016 at 10:37 AM
    (As if!)

    Trump accuses Clinton of being
    secretly given debate questions
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/20/donald-trump-accuses-hillary-clinton-being-given-debate-questions/ilt6tiNdDQxRsB7jldMB2I/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe - Nicole Hernandez - October 20, 2016

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump added one more accusation against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton: "inappropriately" getting the debate questions.

    Trump's tweet with the latest allegation comes the day after the final presidential debate in which he refused to commit to the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.

    Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump

    Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions - she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.

    10:55 AM - 20 Oct 2016

    Less than two hours after sending the tweet, the real estate mogul told a rally in Ohio that he would accept the results of the election - if he wins.

    "I would like to promise and pledge ... that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election if I win."

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...

    (But he didn't want the job anyway.)

    President? It would be a demotion, says
    Donald Trump Jr http://dailym.ai/2eJLQ71
    via @MailOnline - Oct 20

    Donald Trump Jr said last night moving into the White House would be a 'step down' for his father.

    Trump Jr was being interviewed on Fox News after the third presidential debate in Las Vegas and was asked how he thought the Republican candidate had performed during the final presidential debate. ...

    [Oct 20, 2016] The Ruling Elite Has Lost the Consent of the Governed

    Notable quotes:
    "... As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word for maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political fixing, price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated version of Medieval feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines of wealth and governs the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit cards, mortgages and taxes--all of which benefit the financiers and political grifters. ..."
    "... The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the privileged ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry ) and political influence. ..."
    "... If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    Information Clearing House - ICH

    Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe they have lost the consent of the governed.

    Every ruling Elite needs the consent of the governed: even autocracies, dictatorships and corporatocracies ultimately rule with the consent, however grudging, of the governed.

    The American ruling Elite has lost the consent of the governed. This reality is being masked by the mainstream media, mouthpiece of the ruling class, which is ceaselessly promoting two false narratives:

    1. The "great divide" in American politics is between left and right, Democrat/Republican
    2. The ruling Elite has delivered "prosperity" not just to the privileged few but to the unprivileged many they govern.

    Both of these assertions are false. The Great Divide in America is between the ruling Elite and the governed that the Elite has stripmined. The ruling Elite is privileged and protected, the governed are unprivileged and unprotected. That's the divide that counts and the divide that is finally becoming visible to the marginalized, unprivileged class of debt-serfs.

    The "prosperity" of the 21st century has flowed solely to the ruling Elite and its army of technocrat toadies, factotums, flunkies, apparatchiks and apologists. The Elite's army of technocrats and its media apologists have engineered and promoted an endless spew of ginned-up phony statistics (the super-low unemployment rate, etc.) to create the illusion of "growth" and "prosperity" that benefit everyone rather than just the top 5%. The media is 100% committed to promoting these two false narratives because the jig is up once the bottom 95% wake up to the reality that the ruling Elite has been stripmining them for decades.

    As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word for maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political fixing, price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated version of Medieval feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines of wealth and governs the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit cards, mortgages and taxes--all of which benefit the financiers and political grifters.

    The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the privileged ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry ) and political influence.

    The cold truth is the ruling Elite has shredded the social contract by skimming the income/wealth of the unprivileged. The fake-"progressive" pandering apologists of the ruling Elite--Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and the rest of the Keynesian Cargo Cultists--turn a blind eye to the suppression of dissent and the looting the bottom 95% because they have cushy, protected positions as tenured faculty (or equivalent). They cheerlead for more state-funded bread and circuses for the marginalized rather than demand an end to exploitive privileges of the sort they themselves enjoy.

    Consider just three of the unsustainably costly broken systems that enrich the privileged Elite by stripmining the unprivileged:

    While the unprivileged and unprotected watch their healthcare premiums and co-pays soar year after year, the CEOs of various sickcare cartels skim off tens of millions of dollars annually in pay and stock options. The system works great if you get a $20 million paycheck. If you get a 30% increase in monthly premiums for fewer actual healthcare services--the system is broken.

    If you're skimming $250,000 as under-assistant dean to the provost for student services (or equivalent) plus gold-plated benefits, higher education is working great. If you're a student burdened with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt who is receiving a low-quality, essentially worthless "education" from poorly paid graduate students ("adjuncts") and a handful of online courses that you could get for free or for a low cost outside the university cartel--the system is broken.

    If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great.

    If you joined the Armed Forces to escape rural poverty and served at the point of the spear somewhere in the Imperial Project--your perspective may well be considerably different.

    Unfortunately for the ruling Elite and their army of engorged enablers and apologists, they have already lost the consent of the governed.

    They have bamboozled, conned and misled the bottom 95% for decades, but their phony facade of political legitimacy and "the rising tide raises all boats" has cracked wide open, and the machinery of oppression, looting and propaganda is now visible to everyone who isn't being paid to cover their eyes. Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe they have lost the consent of the governed. The disillusioned governed have not fully absorbed this epochal shift of the tides yet, either. They are aware of their own disillusionment and their own declining financial security, but they have yet to grasp that they have, beneath the surface of everyday life, already withdrawn their consent from a self-serving, predatory, parasitic, greedy and ultimately self-destructive ruling Elite.

    Charles Hugh Smith, new book is #8 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition) For more, please visit the book's website . http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.mx

    [Oct 20, 2016] Guest-post-essential-rules-tyranny

    Notable quotes:
    "... At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. ..."
    "... The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. ..."
    "... People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. ..."
    "... They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled. ..."
    "... The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism. ..."
    "... In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state. ..."
    "... Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism. ..."
    "... Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them. ..."
    "... When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile. ..."
    "... Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses. ..."
    "... Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone. ..."
    "... Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. ..."
    "... Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think ..."
    "... Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace". Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt Market

    The Essential Rules Of Tyranny

    As we look back on the horrors of the dictatorships and autocracies of the past, one particular question consistently arises; how was it possible for the common men of these eras to NOT notice what was happening around them? How could they have stood as statues unaware or uncaring as their cultures were overrun by fascism, communism, collectivism, and elitism? Of course, we have the advantage of hindsight, and are able to research and examine the misdeeds of the past at our leisure. Unfortunately, such hindsight does not necessarily shield us from the long cast shadow of tyranny in our own day. For that, the increasingly uncommon gift of foresight is required…

    At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. They must abandon all responsibility for their destinies, and lose all respect for their own humanity. They must, indeed, become domesticated and mindless herd animals without regard for anything except their fleeting momentary desires for entertainment and short term survival. For a lumbering bloodthirsty behemoth to actually sneak up on you, you have to be pretty damnably oblivious.

    The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. Once dishonest governments accomplish an atmosphere of inaction and condition a sense of frailty within the citizenry, the sky is truly the limit. However, a murderous power-monger's day is never quite done. In my recent article 'The Essential Rules of Liberty' we explored the fundamentally unassailable actions and mental preparations required to ensure the continuance of a free society. In this article, let's examine the frequently wielded tools of tyrants in their invariably insane quests for total control…

    Rule #1: Keep Them Afraid

    People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. Brute strength is calculable. It can be analyzed, and thus, eventually confronted and defeated.

    Thriving tyrants instead utilize not just harm, but the imminent THREAT of harm. They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled.

    In other cases, our fear is evoked and directed towards engineered enemies. Another race, another religion, another political ideology, a "hidden" and ominous villain created out of thin air. Autocrats assert that we "need them" in order to remain safe and secure from these illusory monsters bent on our destruction. As always, this development is followed by the claim that all steps taken, even those that dissolve our freedoms, are "for the greater good". Frightened people tend to shirk their sense of independence and run towards the comfort of the collective, even if that collective is built on immoral and unconscionable foundations. Once a society takes on a hive-mind mentality almost any evil can be rationalized, and any injustice against the individual is simply overlooked for the sake of the group.

    Rule #2: Keep Them Isolated

    In the past, elitist governments would often legislate and enforce severe penalties for public gatherings, because defusing the ability of the citizenry to organize or to communicate was paramount to control. In our technological era, such isolation is still used, but in far more advanced forms. The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism.

    Through co-option, modern day tyrant's can direct and manipulate opposition movements. By creating and administrating groups which oppose each other, elites can then micromanage all aspects of a nation on the verge of revolution. These "false paradigms" give us the illusion of proactive organization, and the false hope of changing the system, while at the same time preventing us from seeking understanding in one another. All our energies are then muted and dispersed into meaningless battles over "left and right", or "Democrat versus Republican", for example. Only movements that cast aside such empty labels and concern themselves with the ultimate truth of their country, regardless of what that truth might reveal, are able to enact real solutions to the disasters wrought by tyranny.

    In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state.

    Rule #3: Keep Them Desperate

    You'll find in nearly every instance of cultural descent into autocracy, the offending government gained favor after the onset of economic collapse. Make the necessities of root survival an uncertainty, and people without knowledge of self sustainability and without solid core principles will gladly hand over their freedom, even for mere scraps from the tables of the same men who unleashed famine upon them. Financial calamities are not dangerous because of the poverty they leave in their wake; they are dangerous because of the doors to malevolence that they leave open.

    Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism.

    Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them.

    Rule #4: Send Out The Jackboots

    This is the main symptom often associated with totalitarianism. So much so that our preconceived notions of what a fascist government looks like prevent us from seeing other forms of tyranny right under our noses. Some Americans believe that if the jackbooted thugs are not knocking on every door, then we MUST still live in a free country. Obviously, this is a rather naïve position. Admittedly, though, goon squads and secret police do eventually become prominent in every failed nation, usually while the public is mesmerized by visions of war, depression, hyperinflation, terrorism, etc.

    When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile.

    As tyranny grows, this behavior is encouraged. Good men are filtered out of the system, and small (minded and hearted) men are promoted.

    At its pinnacle, a police state will hide the identities of most of its agents and officers, behind masks or behind red tape, because their crimes in the name of the state become so numerous and so sadistic that personal vengeance on the part of their victims will become a daily concern.

    Rule #5: Blame Everything On The Truth Seekers

    Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses.

    All disasters, all violent crimes, all the ills of the world, are hoisted upon the shoulders of activist groups and political rivals. They are falsely associated with fringe elements already disliked by society (racists, terrorists, etc). A bogus consensus is created through puppet media in an attempt to make the public believe that "everyone else" must have the same exact views, and those who express contrary positions must be "crazy", or "extremist". Events are even engineered by the corrupt system and pinned on those demanding transparency and liberty. The goal is to drive anti-totalitarian organizations into self censorship. That is to say, instead of silencing them directly, the state causes activists to silence themselves.

    Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone.

    Rule #6: Encourage Citizen Spies

    Ultimately, the life of a totalitarian government is not prolonged by the government itself, but by the very people it subjugates. Citizen spies are the glue of any police state, and our propensity for sticking our noses into other peoples business is highly valued by Big Brother bureaucracies around the globe.

    There are a number of reasons why people participate in this repulsive activity. Some are addicted to the feeling of being a part of the collective, and "service" to this collective, sadly, is the only way they are able to give their pathetic lives meaning. Some are vindictive, cold, and soulless, and actually get enjoyment from ruining others. And still, like elites, some long for power, even petty power, and are willing to do anything to fulfill their vile need to dictate the destinies of perfect strangers.

    Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. People who lean towards citizen spying are often outwardly and inwardly unimpressive; physically and mentally inept. For the average moral and emotional weakling with persistent feelings of inadequacy, the allure of finally being given fifteen minutes of fame and a hero's status (even if that status is based on a lie) is simply too much to resist. They begin to see "extremists" and "terrorists" everywhere. Soon, people afraid of open ears everywhere start to watch what they say at the supermarket, in their own backyards, or even to family members. Free speech is effectively neutralized.

    Rule #7: Make Them Accept The Unacceptable

    In the end, it is not enough for a government fueled by the putrid sludge of iniquity to lord over us. At some point, it must also influence us to forsake our most valued principles. Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think. If they can mold our very morality, they can exist unopposed indefinitely. Of course, the elements of conscience are inborn, and not subject to environmental duress as long as a man is self aware. However, conscience can be manipulated if a person has no sense of identity, and has never put in the effort to explore his own strengths and failings. There are many people like this in America today.

    Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace". Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it.

    All tyrannical systems depend on the apathy and moral relativism of the inhabitants within their borders. Without the cooperation of the public, these systems cannot function. The real question is, how many of the above steps will be taken before we finally refuse to conform? At what point will each man and woman decide to break free from the dark path blazed before us and take measures to ensure their independence? Who will have the courage to develop their own communities, their own alternative economies, their own organizations for mutual defense outside of establishment constructs, and who will break under the pressure to bow like cowards? How many will hold the line, and how many will flee?

    For every American, for every human being across the planet who chooses to stand immovable in the face of the very worst in mankind, we come that much closer to breathing life once again into the very best in us all.

    [Oct 20, 2016] The third debate wrapup

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Now we have the three [Goldman] transcripts. Everyone can read them, and everyone should. What they show is Clinton's extraordinary understanding of our world - its leaders and their politics, terrorist groups and their vulnerabilities, the interplay of global forces, and the economic well-being of Americans" ..."
    "... I think this debate especially was "priced in" - any Trump supporter at this stage has lost the capacity for changing minds, especially as so much of it is anti-Hillary. ..."
    "... It is astounding that with all her money and MSM support/collusion HRC is only a few digits ahead in the polls. I still see a slim chance that Trump will win, if his hidden and shy voters go out and some of Hillary's stay home (lazy and complacent). ..."
    "... Having said that, the establishment is terrified of a Trump win, and so many of those voting machines don't leave an audit trail… ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Days until: 18.

    Debate Wrapup

    I can tell what how the press stories will read from the headlines and the writers, so I won't bother to link to them. See the NC debate live blog for a rice bowl-free discussion.

    "Trump had done well, delivering his best prepared and most substantive performance, but it wasn't nearly good enough to reshape the race. He came into Las Vegas trailing big time, and surely leaves the same way" [ New York Post ]. "Absent an unforeseeable black swan event that tips the table in his favor, Hillary Clinton is headed to the White House." Although I'd bet the terrain is quite different today from the terrain Clinton imagined back when she was influence peddling at Goldman in 2015.

    ... ... ..

    And then there's this, which does seem to under cut the bizarre "our electoral system is perfection itself" narrative that Democrat loyalists are pushing:

    ... ... ...

    UPDATE "But the negativity in this campaign has been something else, and the debates have been very heavy on character attacks. In terms of the overall impact on the health of American democracy, I think there's one thing that's particularly concerning: These two candidates, whose personal conduct and character have been impugned over and over, both went through competitive primaries. There were other candidates. Clinton and Trump both won their nominations, fairly and decisively. But for people who might tune in sporadically, the conclusion that this is the best we can do might produce real dismay." [ FiveThirtyEight ]. Yes, it's called a legitimacy crisis.

    "The stream posted on his Facebook wasn't anything different than what people saw on CNN or Fox News or MSNBC, just a livestream of the debate, but more than 170,000 watched it at once. By the time the broadcast ended, more than 8.7 million had tuned in at some point. Compare that to the half a million views Time posted for its debate lifestream, or the nearly 900,000 who watched BuzzFeed News'" [ Independent Journal Review ]. "Welcome to the first broadcast of Trump TV."

    War Drums

    "Anyone who believes the United States is not fighting enough wars in the Middle East can be happy this week. We have just plunged into another one. Twice in recent days, cruise missiles fired from an American destroyer have rained down on Yemen. The Pentagon, a practiced master of Orwellian language, calls this bombing 'limited self-defense'" [ Boston Globe ]. "American forces were already involved in Yemen's civil war. Since 2002, our drone attacks have reportedly killed more than 500 Yemenis, including at least 65 civilians. We are also supplying weapons and intelligence to Saudi Arabia, which has killed thousands of Yemenis in bombing raids over the last year and a half - including last week's attack on a funeral in which more than 100 mourners were killed." But I'm sure none of the mourners were women or people of color. So that's alright, then.

    Wikileaks

    "Now we have the three [Goldman] transcripts. Everyone can read them, and everyone should. What they show is Clinton's extraordinary understanding of our world - its leaders and their politics, terrorist groups and their vulnerabilities, the interplay of global forces, and the economic well-being of Americans" [ RealClearPolitics ].

    This is the line the Moustache of Understanding took. Which is all you need to know, really Although this writer is a little vague on just how they are "extraordinary."

    "Walmart, Wendy Clark, Target and Apple: More WikiLeaked Clinton Campaign Messaging Secrets" [ Advertising Age ].

    The Trail

    "Trump Holds On To 1-Point Lead As Debate Sparks Fly - IBD/TIPP Poll" [ Investors Business Daily ]. Incidentally, IBD sounds like the sort of publication Trump would read.

    allan October 20, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Washington's foreign policy elite breaks with Obama over Syrian bloodshed [WaPo]

    There is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump's scorched-earth presidential campaign is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama's departure from the White House - and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton - is being met with quiet relief.

    The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House. …

    This consensus is driven by broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the limits of American power, especially in the Middle East. "There's a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits of American power has costs," said Philip Gordon, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama until 2015. "So the normal swing is to be more interventionist." …

    Smart investors will go long producers of canned food and manufacturers of fallout shelter materials.

    Bunk McNulty October 20, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Who Are All These Trump Supporters? (New Yorker)

    George Saunders strives mightily to have us believe our economic situation has nothing to do with the attractiveness of The Donald to certain constituencies. But even he has to acknowledge what people are angry about (emphasis added):

    "All along the fertile interstate-highway corridor, our corporations, those new and powerful nation-states, had set up shop parasitically, so as to skim off the drive-past money , and what those outposts had to offer was a blur of sugar, bright color, and crassness that seemed causally related to more serious addictions. Standing in line at the pharmacy in an Amarillo Walmart superstore, I imagined some kid who had moved only, or mostly, through such bland, bright spaces, spaces constructed to suit the purposes of distant profit, and it occurred to me how easy it would be, in that life, to feel powerless, to feel that the local was lame, the abstract extraneous, to feel that the only valid words were those of materialism ("get" and "rise")-words that are perfectly embodied by the candidate of the moment.

    Something is wrong, the common person feels, correctly: she works too hard and gets too little; a dulling disconnect exists between her actual day-to-day interests and (1) the way her leaders act and speak, and (2) the way our mass media mistell or fail entirely to tell her story. What does she want? Someone to notice her over here, having her troubles. "

    Pavel, October 20, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    I blissfully ignored the televised "debate" last night though I followed the comments here at NC and on Twitter for a while. Not sure my blood pressure would survive 90 mins of Hillary's voice and smug smile or anything about Trump.

    It is amusing to note the OUTRAGE that Trump might dare question the election results. Jesus H Christ the media are just taking us all for amnesiac idiots, aren't they?

    I think this debate especially was "priced in" - any Trump supporter at this stage has lost the capacity for changing minds, especially as so much of it is anti-Hillary.

    It is astounding that with all her money and MSM support/collusion HRC is only a few digits ahead in the polls. I still see a slim chance that Trump will win, if his hidden and shy voters go out and some of Hillary's stay home (lazy and complacent).

    Having said that, the establishment is terrified of a Trump win, and so many of those voting machines don't leave an audit trail…

    [Oct 20, 2016] Van Jones Can Empathize With Trump Voters

    Yet another attempt to explain Trump success... and Democratic Party disintegration because Dems lost working class voters and substantial part of middle class voters.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I have a great deal of empathy for the Donald Trump voters. ..."
    "... The elites have failed the people so thoroughly that tens of millions of people, on any side of any issue, can legitimately say they don't think the system is working for them anymore, if it ever did. ..."
    "... There are elements of racism, xenophobia and misogyny in the Trump movement, and there's also all kinds of legitimate of anxieties. ..."
    "... The rise of Trump is a judgment on the progressive movement that has adopted a style that doesn't leave much room for a 55-year-old heterosexual white Republican living in a red state to feel that he has any place of honor or dignity in the world progressives are trying to create. We see the disrespect coming from them, but there's a subtle disrespect coming from us, the NPR crowd, that is intolerant of intolerance. Nobody wants to feel as though they don't count. ..."
    www.nytimes.com
    I also believe that people are fundamentally good, but this election cycle has tried that hypothesis for me.

    I have a great deal of empathy for the Donald Trump voters. When you listen to them talk about feeling hurt, scared and left behind, they sound like the Black Lives Matter activists.

    How so? The elites have failed the people so thoroughly that tens of millions of people, on any side of any issue, can legitimately say they don't think the system is working for them anymore, if it ever did. ...

    ... ... ...

    A lot of people are mocking the idea that you can explain the bigotry at a Trump rally by writing it off as simply a response to economic anxiety.

    There are elements of racism, xenophobia and misogyny in the Trump movement, and there's also all kinds of legitimate of anxieties.

    The rise of Trump is a judgment on the progressive movement that has adopted a style that doesn't leave much room for a 55-year-old heterosexual white Republican living in a red state to feel that he has any place of honor or dignity in the world progressives are trying to create. We see the disrespect coming from them, but there's a subtle disrespect coming from us, the NPR crowd, that is intolerant of intolerance. Nobody wants to feel as though they don't count.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Interesting read on what got discussed and what didn't get discussed in the three debates

    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    JohnH -> pgl... , October 20, 2016 at 08:59 AM
    Interesting read on what got discussed and what didn't get discussed in the three debates:

    Russia/Putin: 137
    Social Security: 15
    Poverty/the Poor: 8
    Climate Change: 3
    NSA/Privacy/Surveillance: 0

    Basically the debates consisted of a lot of noise with very little substance...a pathetic performance in a democracy.

    An informed citizenry is a threat to a corrupt duopoly...

    pgl -> JohnH... , October 20, 2016 at 09:21 AM
    They talked about poverty 8 times in one night? Krugman only mentioned it 6 times yesterday. Krugman NEVER talk about income inequality. Seriously - do you not get why your own dog says you are a stupid bore?
    JohnH -> JohnH... , -1
    Link to above:
    http://fair.org/home/russia-terror-and-taxes-dominate-debates-climate-poverty-abortion-barely-mentioned/

    [Oct 20, 2016] The third Presidential debate: Trump should clearly delineate himself from HRC by saying he wants no war with Russia. People hate war.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump should be ready for the Russia thing. I expect him to clearly delineate himself from HRC by saying he really really really wants no war with Russia. in fact, he's already said if he's elected he will meet with Putin before he's even inaugurated. It's a winning position for Trump. People hate war. ..."
    "... I am skeptical of how much that will win over people in Hillary's base, since many well-to-do liberals I know swallow the Putin-is-evil propaganda without question and consider the threat of nuclear war as a distant, impossible thing. For them Trump is an immediate, concrete threat and bad relations with Russia leading to nuclear war a considerably more abstract proposition. ..."
    "... Clinton: Citizens United "undermined" our democratic system. So, in other words, the system is indeed rigged. Glad they agree on something. ..."
    "... I'm watching with a former TV producer who just pointed out that they've got soft light on her and hard light on him. ..."
    "... I noticed that too, this debate and the last one. She has that Doris Day'ish type of look and he looks pale. The lighting – ..."
    "... The heroin use is from having no jobs. ..."
    "... and from doctors and Big Pharma pushing it. Marijuana appears to be better for pain and less harmful. ..."
    "... That "she always supported the wall, never gets anything done so no wall" was quite adroit ..."
    "... Clinton can't resist gleeful smirk, she can throw in some of her prepared remarks. ..."
    "... Wikleaks=Russians=PayNoAttentionToThoseSpeechesToTheBanks PUTIN!!!! ..."
    "... ooh-Clinton's already on wikileaks and Russia and Putin. 17 intelligence people have supposedly confirmed they were trying to change the election. ..."
    "... Trump–great calling her out on her pivot off the borders. ..."
    "... "You encouraged espionage of our people" I remember Hillary calling for a bolstering of NSA surveillance efforts after Orlando? ..."
    "... Of course no mention that Obama has deported more people than any other president. ..."
    "... Clinton's pivot from "hemisphere without borders" to Wikileaks/Russia/Putin interfering with out democracy. Pathetic. The audience found it laughable. ..."
    "... she just lied about nuclear weapons…the secty of defense has to approve…she…is…well…she always lies so what else is new… ..."
    "... Hillary's eyes are very glassy, She's doped up ..."
    "... Trump saying jobs are stagnant, last report so bad "I should win the election". ..."
    "... Your 30 years of experience coincide with the utter screwing over of the working people. ..."
    "... Amen. I just watched about two minutes… all I could take. Her smirk and lies drive me nuts. ..."
    "... Her basic narrative is she is the single most qualified person in the history of things to ever be deign to run for President and then she mumbles about one thing she did between being a lawyer for Wal-Mart and the governor's wife. It's a terrible narrative. Oh, and being on the wrong side of every foreign policy decision for 25 years. ..."
    "... American bombs and bullets are humanitarian, dontcha know? ..."
    "... NBC set up the Billy Bush tape, if that's what's being referred to. The Clintons set up the big frontpage NYT 'accusers,' or whatever it was. ..."
    "... These agents provacateurs accusations against Clinton are quite plausible (hey, they were on PBS Newshour) even if the source is shady. They just feel very Clintonesque. ..."
    "... Dirty politics Clinton style. ..."
    "... There is a lot of evidence dug up by reddit amateur investigators after the tape leaked. They found people on the tape in a few protest videos as well as a woman on the Clinton payroll. I don't trust the voter fraud tape at all, but the inciting violence at riots tapes looks like the real deal. ..."
    "... They go along well with the shots fired into and the burglary/ransacking of Sander's Nevada campaign headquarters, and the firebombings of Republican campaign offices in swing states. ..."
    "... well done $hillary…the question was for her to respond about bill and his stuff…good diversion…congrats… ..."
    "... "America is great because America is good." We kill because we love… ..."
    "... She twists everything. Chubby Checker would be proud of Shillary. ..."
    "... Now he's bringing up her emails. What happened to the FBI, he asks? Talks about 1 guy getting 4 yrs in jail for 1 lie to the FBI, a 4-star general, but she makes hundreds of lies. ..."
    "... Has Hillary Clinton ever apologized for anything? Or just said "I misspoke." ..."
    "... Hillary did not respond to Trump's charge that she paid for people to riot in Chicago before his rally. Instead she began to speak very slowly to eat up her time. ..."
    "... Oooh, Clinton uses rhetoric–says Trump is "dark, divisive, dangerous". She practiced that one. There was no context. ..."
    "... Wallace is pressing her more on pay to play. Trump says it's a criminal enterprise, Saudi & Qatar giving lots of money. They kill women & treat them horribly, push gays off buildings, but Clinton takes their money. He says she should give their money back. He says in Haiti they hate Clinton, what the foundation did was a disgrace. ..."
    "... Clinton claims they spend 90% of donations on their programs. (Pinocchio moment, anyone?) ..."
    "... Spending money on programs is lawyerly language. From what I have read, CF runs events but does little that benefits people "on the ground" ..."
    "... Too bad Trump doesn't have any facts on Haiti. He could have buried her. This is so boring. Just low grade snipes at each other. ..."
    "... Almost focusing on Haiti, almost a good point, then narcissism derails Trump … ..."
    "... Media dishonest & corrupt, NYT wrote about it, poisoned the minds of voters but he thinks people can see through it. ..."
    "... the fbi did a one year investigation or a three day cover up…? ..."
    "... Clinton claims we've had "free and fair elections". Now there's a huge lie. Bigger lie than about her emails. ..."
    "... Oh noes, Trump is denigrating our democracy. So did the DNC by rigging the primaries. ..."
    "... She's appalled? What hypocrisy! ..."
    "... Grabbing women. Nine came forward, said you groped them. Why would so many women all make up these stories, and Clinton, what your husband, was that worse? ..."
    "... Hey, it's the best democracy that Organized Money can buy! ..."
    "... "Intelligence surge." Sounds bad and worse. ..."
    "... I do have to say without Trump in this election the lid would not have been blown off the criminality of the government in Washington. Mouthing off about it all the time every chance he gets. Not that Trump will do anything to change it. But still. ..."
    "... Good point. He's exposing this fraud for what she is. ..."
    "... This election would have been all about transgender bathrooms. ..."
    "... Trump: Sanders supporting Clinton is a big mistake. Amen. ..."
    "... To Americans of either side who are sick of our failed foreign policy and wondering whether it's intentionally duplicitous, yah, I think it's a winner. Keep reading, you'll see. ..."
    "... Hillary sticking to technicals and official truths – "FBI cleared me after a year-long investment"; "Google Trump Iraq – all these sources" etc. If she can validate it, it must be true! ..."
    "... He should have mentioned wikileaks. They found her own oppo research said his Iraq war opposition would be a huge problem for her. ..."
    "... Trump is kicking butt. Stein or Trump… Can't stomach Bill in the WH again. ..."
    "... Wallace asks Clinton about no fly zone, risk of starting a war. She says those are genuine risks, but thinks she could "strike a deal". ..."
    "... Oh god, she says no-fly zone would save lives…. ..."
    "... Trump occasionally emits MMT-like sounds, but I'm not sure that he believes them. For example, he has previously accurately noted that US can't be forced to default on USD-denominated debt, since it prints its own currency. Then he suggested that we could reduce the outstanding debt by negotiating down the price of previously issued Treasury bonds (not sure the details; perhaps threaten to default, hammer the price by terrifying bond-holders, and buy the depressed price bonds.) ..."
    "... Hillary has become a traditional Republican with regard to American exceptionalism. ..."
    "... I couldn't believe it when she was appalled Trump criticized Reagan. All Obama did was say Reagan had some "good ideas." ..."
    "... Liberal talking heads are hyperventilating about the Donald dissing Reagan. Tells me all I need to know. ..."
    "... She's gonna create two classes of SS/Medicare recipients. Great. Some will get a fraction more, most will be screwed. ..."
    "... I guess you could say Donald at least can learn. He's gotten better in each debate in terms of not appearing to be a drug addict with anger issues. ..."
    "... "Because neo-liberalism. Because I like the idea, a lot, of catching the Mount Pelerin Society, Pinochet, Diane Rehm, the Friedmans, Joe Biden, Rush Limbaugh, and the people who drafted the Democratic platform in one big net, and then deep-sixing the entire squirming and gesticulating political class with language that's "exceptionally bloggy and aggressively casual and implicitly ironic." ..."
    "... Media all freaking out about the "respect the results of the election" question. Strange that nobody has brought up Al Gore - it certainly would have been better for the country if Al had pushed harder in 2000. ..."
    "... Wow ABC, the elections ain't rigged but Russia hacked them?! Make up your damned minds already, this is more schizophrenia in a single sentence than I can handle… ..."
    "... #Breaking: Trump's lead advisor Roger Ailes has left the Trump campaign. According to reports: "[Fox] said the pair had a falling out, with both sides saying debate prep had not gone the way they wanted. The report came just hours before Wednesday's third presidential debate in Las Vegas, where Trump will try to dig out of a recent polling hole. ..."
    "... The report said that Ailes had concerns that Trump could not focus and that preparation would be a "waste of time," while Trump thought Ailes spent too much prep time telling old stories." ..."
    "... And Hillary is against Citizens United, now that she has been the one who has benefited the most and won't need it anymore. ..."
    "... Just in terms of tone, whenever Clinton says something appalls her, it makes me think "Gee, that might be a good idea!" Not that it is, but that's my reaction at this point. ..."
    "... With that forced smile of HER's …. I wouldn't get within 5 kilometers of the bloody white hag -- ..."
    "... 'families' …. Cosa Nostra ?? ..."
    "... The Clinton dynasty needs to be brought down asap. Their grip and influence is even more than most realize, I suspect. ..."
    "... I thought Trump did pretty well, said more about "jobs" than Clinton, which is usually a smart move. Not a lot of specifics. Closing minute was a flop though. Clinton spent far too long accusing Russian hackers, which she can't substantiate, and people care less about than the content of the leaked information. ..."
    "... And Hillary, do you promise then not to rig the elections with your allies like you did the Democratic primaries? "Bernie Sanders will not be a factor in N.J." 9/22/2015. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9846 ..."
    "... Biggest muffed issue: Wallace asks Clinton if she'd shoot down a Russian plane that violated her no-fly zone. Clinton dodges, Wallace does not press her, Trump does not press her either. "No, Hillary, I'm anxious to know. How badly do you want a new war, this time with Russia?" or some such. ..."
    "... I stand by my opinion of chris wallace being the best and this is really awkward but fox has great post-debate commentary. ..."
    "... Fox is probably more free to push Clinton because their networks of political access are less tied to her campaign than all the other outlets, who seem scared shitless of being thought to cause the slightest embarrassment for her. ..."
    "... actually, mr. wallace did the best job by far of any of these "moderators". ..."
    "... The fact that wallace hit both sides hard made trump loom better. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    EndOfTheWorld October 19, 2016 at 8:49 pm

    Trump should be ready for the Russia thing. I expect him to clearly delineate himself from HRC by saying he really really really wants no war with Russia. in fact, he's already said if he's elected he will meet with Putin before he's even inaugurated. It's a winning position for Trump. People hate war.

    Bjornasson October 19, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    I am skeptical of how much that will win over people in Hillary's base, since many well-to-do liberals I know swallow the Putin-is-evil propaganda without question and consider the threat of nuclear war as a distant, impossible thing. For them Trump is an immediate, concrete threat and bad relations with Russia leading to nuclear war a considerably more abstract proposition.

    jrs October 19, 2016 at 9:04 pm

    Agreed, they swallow it.

    Tom Allen October 19, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    …[T]he 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years.

    - Barack Obama to Mitt Romney, in the final presidential debate of 2012.

    Lee October 19, 2016 at 8:56 pm

    I may switch to watching Call the Midwife on PBS after the first hour so as to restore my faith in humanity and universal national healthcare, instituted in the UK seven decades ago during the years of extreme postwar austerity while we trudge along here in "never ever" land.

    John October 19, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    Fitting as it's a crap shoot for the country no matter who "wins".

    Lee October 19, 2016 at 9:09 pm

    Clinton: Citizens United "undermined" our democratic system. So, in other words, the system is indeed rigged. Glad they agree on something.

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 9:11 pm

    Supreme Court….

    CLINTON Clinton Need Supreme Court stand up for women LBTQ, stand up on Citiznes United [chutzpah]

    Not reverse Roe v Wade, not reverse marriage inequality, stand up and say Supreme Court should represent all of us

    TRUMP What it's all about. Imperative have right justice. Ginsberg forced to apologize for statements she made

    Uphold Second Amendment, which is under seige. Justices I name pro-life, great scholars, interpret the way the Founders waned it interpreted. Constitution way it was meant to be…

    * * *

    Clinton "stand up" often punched…

    optimader October 19, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    LBTQ didn't say Q….she's not all inclusive

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:14 pm

    Is it just me, or does this seem like nothing related to what either one would do as president? Just a show. A weird kind of reality show.

    Clinton's doing word soup about 2nd amendment etc. saying nothing.

    Wallace sounds a little nervous. Trump sounds calm, portrays Clinton as "extremely upset". Painting her as overly emotional. Sexist.

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 9:16 pm

    CLINTON Respect Second Amendment. But 33K year die, need background checks, close loopholes, sensible reforms that do not conflict.

    Heller: Disagree with SC application in that case. DC wanted to protect toddlers, a reasonable regulation

    WALLACE How will you ensure 2A protected?

    TRUMP SHe was angry when Heller came down. Scalia well-crafted.

    W Were you upset?

    CLINTON Yes bc toddlers kill people with guns. No doubt I respect 2A and right to bear arms. No conflict w sensible regulation. I understand Donald is funded by NRA and running millions of ads against me.

    W You support a national right to carry law?

    TRUMP Chicago toughest laws, more violence than any other city. I support 2A, very proud to have the NRA endorsement. We are going to appoint justices that will feel strongly about 2A, won't damage it.

    Synoia October 19, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    Because in DC speak "open" = "speaking in the open" (as opposed to closed doors).

    3.14e-9 October 19, 2016 at 9:30 pm

    I'm watching with a former TV producer who just pointed out that they've got soft light on her and hard light on him.

    Susan C October 20, 2016 at 12:07 am

    I noticed that too, this debate and the last one. She has that Doris Day'ish type of look and he looks pale. The lighting –

    John October 19, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    The heroin use is from having no jobs.

    Bob October 19, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    In central Indiana (Gov. Pence's bailiwick) another 350 union manufacturing jobs are going to Mexico. Yesterday it was announced that Rexnord will close its local plant. That's on top of the 1400 jobs lost with the departure of Carrier announced months ago. http://www.wthr.com/article/mayor-hogsett-announces-task-force-for-carrier-rexnord-jobs

    Kim Kaufman October 19, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    and from doctors and Big Pharma pushing it. Marijuana appears to be better for pain and less harmful.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:23 pm

    Trump fear mongering immigrants people kill people. Sheesh. Talking about heroin flooding across the southern border. I bet he won't mention the prescription opiate issue.

    jrs October 19, 2016 at 9:24 pm

    And why are we in Afghanistan anyway?

    IowanX October 19, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    +1

    John October 19, 2016 at 9:24 pm

    There is no way the 11 million figure is real. No way. They have been telling us it's 11 million for over 3 decades. It's got to be over 30 million by now.

    Bjornasson October 19, 2016 at 9:25 pm

    Hillary totally glossing over Obama-era deportations

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:25 pm

    Trump says "bad bad bad". Clinton – on immigration starts with things that sound sane then goes all cerebral, just more word soup. She doesn't know when to shut up.

    Bjornasson October 19, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    That "she always supported the wall, never gets anything done so no wall" was quite adroit

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    Both trying so hard to be controlled. Clinton can't resist gleeful smirk, she can throw in some of her prepared remarks.

    Lee October 19, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    Okay, get the current 15 million out of the shadows so as to eliminate their downward pressure on wages. Then what?

    jrs October 19, 2016 at 9:32 pm

    She's crazy can't vote for her. Stein or bust.

    John October 19, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    Everyone these two know uses illegals as their nannies, cooks, drivers, house cleaners, gardeners etc.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:29 pm

    He says she'll be a disaster with open borders and she gets her big grin again. It's a game of facial expression and emotive words.

    allan October 19, 2016 at 9:30 pm

    Wikleaks=Russians=PayNoAttentionToThoseSpeechesToTheBanks PUTIN!!!!

    Patricia October 19, 2016 at 9:30 pm

    "Russians", twice! And Putin!

    Bjornasson October 19, 2016 at 9:30 pm

    Ding! Russia/Putin deflection of WikiLeaks. Took longer than I thought.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:31 pm

    ooh-Clinton's already on wikileaks and Russia and Putin. 17 intelligence people have supposedly confirmed they were trying to change the election.

    Trump–great calling her out on her pivot off the borders.

    Bjornasson October 19, 2016 at 9:33 pm

    "You encouraged espionage of our people" I remember Hillary calling for a bolstering of NSA surveillance efforts after Orlando?

    jrs October 19, 2016 at 9:33 pm

    She's on that when the topic is immigration, she's WAY off topic.

    Lee October 19, 2016 at 9:37 pm

    Was this the same outfit that confirmed WMDs in Iraq?

    HBE October 19, 2016 at 9:34 pm

    These debates seem to be mainly focused on scaring each tribe into showing up to vote there is certainly no appeal to independents by either side.

    Hillary really gave the liberals a good he's Hitler scare on immigration, "round them up", "put them on trains", hmm I wonder what focus groups said those phrases reminded them of.

    Of course no mention that Obama has deported more people than any other president.

    John k October 19, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Any job an illegal gets is a job a legal could have had, albeit at a higher wage. This includes apple picking and all the others. And the legal Hispanics and others have all worked this out.

    John Zelnicker October 19, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    When Alabama passed laws against undocumented immigrants, the tomatoes rotted on the plants because no one else would do the work, even at higher wages.

    Yves Smith October 19, 2016 at 11:28 pm

    I've pointed that out, but that is because the wages weren't high enough because….drumroll….those farmers competed with farmers in other states that can and do hire illegal workers.

    So this isn't a valid test of what would happen if you shut down the seasonal worker flow on a widespread basis. You probably would have a very painful transition the first year as farmers tried bidding for workers and bid too low.

    When I was a kid, lots of kids picked strawberries in the summer. Not terribly pleasant work but reasonably paid and only a few weeks. You could probably get teenagers in the summer for crops that had short harvest windows.

    Ivy October 20, 2016 at 12:17 am

    Picking various crops meant new school clothes and a new bicycle for many kids back in the day. There was a sense of camaraderie and shared experience that made the work seem easier, and some brought transistor radios to provide background music. People generally had a good time and kids saw the work ethic in action.

    John October 19, 2016 at 10:57 pm

    Guess you never had to work those jobs to survive; manual labor jobs like construction and working in a restaurant and just about anything else that the little people do. Now most Americans can't get hired at those jobs.They go to illegals.

    ggm October 19, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    Clinton wants to rip babies from their mother's wombs and Trump wants to tear families apart through deportation. Who are these people??

    Trump did finally mention Hillary's border wall vote and Obama's deportations. Literally Hitlers.

    Lee October 19, 2016 at 9:34 pm

    Clinton's pivot from "hemisphere without borders" to Wikileaks/Russia/Putin interfering with out democracy. Pathetic. The audience found it laughable.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:34 pm

    Trump's digs are more effective–short, clear words. "She's the puppet" Clinton's ideas are sometimes better but it's overly cerebral and too word-soupy. Trump – "Putin has outsmarted her in Syria", etc. etc.

    just_kate October 19, 2016 at 9:37 pm

    this is insane. hillary upset about foreign interference ??

    alex morfesis October 19, 2016 at 9:37 pm

    she just lied about nuclear weapons…the secty of defense has to approve…she…is…well…she always lies so what else is new…

    Jolly Tommo October 19, 2016 at 9:37 pm

    As in first debate Trump holds it together for about half an hour and then starts to throw a wobbly.

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    W Immigration. Trump wall, Clinton 100 days include pathway to citizenship

    TRUMP Amnesty unfair to people waiting in line for years. In audience 4 mothers killed by illegal immigrants. We have no country if we have no borders. Border control and ICE endorsed me. It means their job is tougher. They want strong borders. Up NH, single biggest problem heroin, poisoning the blood of our youth. Strong borders, amnesty, ICE, they all want the wall [Trump starts sniffing]. When the border is secured, we'll make a determination [about the rest of it]

    CLINTON Carla, worried she was born here, parents were not. I don't want to see parents separated from children. 11M undocumented, 4 million children. Would need a massive law enforcement presence to round up the undocumented, then put them on trains and buses. Not in keeping with who we are, would rip our country apart. Voted for border security. My comprehensive plan includes border security. Get rid of violent. Trump went to Mexico, didn't mention the wall, got into a twitter war

    TRUMP Mexican President nice man, CLinton fought for the wall in 2006 but she never gets anything done so naturally it was't built

    WALL I voted for border security. It is clear what Donald has a different view of what to do. Bring undocumented out of the shadows. Donald used undocumented workers to build Trump tower. Don't want employers to exploit.

    TRUMP Under Obama millions have already been moved out. We're a country of laws. We either have a border or we don't. MIllions in line and waiting and unfair to have open borders, also a disaster on trade. Obama has deported millions

    CLINTON Open borders a rank mistatement. Used to be partisan

    W $225K from bank stpeech, "my dream is open trade and open borders"

    CLINTON I was talking about energy [!!]. I want an electric grid. Wikileaks has engaged in espionage against Americans. Hacked and given info. Clearly from Putin himself, as 17 intel officials say Most important question: Will Trump admit and condemn Russians have done this. Those are the questions we need answered

    TRUMP Big pivot she wants open borders. How'd we get to Putin

    W [dithers]

    TRUMP She wants open borders, 550% [more Syrians]. If Russia and US got along and went after ISIS that would be good.

    TRUMP 1800 nuclear warheads and she's playing chicken.

    CLINTON He's rather have a puppet

    TRUMP You're the puppet

    CLINTON You are willing to sign up for Putin's wish list. He has a clear favorite. We've never had a foreign govt try to interfere. 17 agencies all conclude highest levels Russian

    TRUMP SHe has no idea if it's Russia or China

    CLINTON 17 agents sworn to protect

    TRUMP Putin has outsmarted her every step of the way. In Syria–

    W Even if you don't know who, do you condemn?

    TRUMP Of course I condemn. If we were friends with Russian. Putin has outsmarted them at every step of the way. All you have to do is look at the Middle East. We've spent six trillion dollars and they've taken over the middle east

    CLINTON I find it ironiic she's raised nuclear weapons since he's been cavalier. Bottom line on nuclear weapons When President gives order it must be followed. 4 minutes between order and launch. 10 people who had responsibility would not trust Turmp

    TRUMP 200 generals endorse. As far as Japan and other countries, all I said is we have to renegotiate [can't afford].

    Look, she's been proven to be a liar in so many ways.

    CLINTON US has kept the peace through our alliances. They've made us safer.

    otis October 19, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    Hillary's eyes are very glassy, She's doped up

    Ivy October 20, 2016 at 12:21 am

    Clinton seemed to almost tear up a little when she heard a particularly damning salvo, as when Wallace asked about Bill, and then she pivoted. Her wet eyes were a tell.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    Wallace is nervous. You can tell he feels what happens in the election will depend on his performance as moderator.

    John October 19, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    Still can't believe he's Mike Wallace's son.

    Qrys October 19, 2016 at 9:42 pm

    Wallace is doing a good job framing the questions as polarities subtly favoring the conservative position.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    Weird that after Trump had mentioned twice he'd want to work with Russia, then Clinton said he'd want to tear up his agreements.

    ggm October 19, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    I'm biased against her admittedly, but I think he is kicking her ass here.

    Bjornasson October 19, 2016 at 9:43 pm

    Both are really solidifying their anti-status quo and pro-status quo credentials. No one who still professes to be undecided is going to be convinced beyond their own pre-conceived tendencies.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:43 pm

    It's so surreal. now Trump is on about horrible deals, how to get paid by foreign countries like Saudi Arabia. Making a great deal with NAFTA.

    Now Clinton "will translate"–he says "You can't".

    jrs October 19, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    He really should push on the TPP, not decades old deals, but he's just not that smart. Where the ball is going to be and all that.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    Clinton now talking about how to control the debt, do it like Big Bill.

    John October 19, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    Not what was "happening", what Wall Street CAUSED.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    Trump says Wallace is "correct" (during his debt/bailout related question to Clinton), with big grin/smirk, some laughter from audience at how he got that in there.

    Clinton feels like she's on the defensive about her budget's ability to get the economy moving.

    alex morfesis October 19, 2016 at 9:47 pm

    $hillary…has there ever been an economic crash anywhere in the world where the clowns who were running the show/economy into the ground were allowed and continue to be allowed to run the show…??

    usually it is off with their heads…even if it is symbolic…

    here…not so much…

    John October 19, 2016 at 9:47 pm

    What both of them want is for Americans to work for 3 bucks a day.
    Truth

    dcblogger October 19, 2016 at 9:48 pm

    I am only following this on Twitter, but it does not look like Trump is doing at all well.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    Depends what you mean by "doing well". He's holding his own, getting in a good few zingers, not losing it. She keeps going on and on and on and sounds more defensive, he's more confident.

    sleepy October 19, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    I think he's doing well as far as these things go.

    Yves Smith October 19, 2016 at 10:00 pm

    Unless you also have right wing political commentators on your Twitter feed, you are suffering from sample bias. The MSM is all in for Clinton. Ditto any political sites in the center and left save the pretty far left ones like Counterpunch and Black Agenda Report, which are willing to entertain the idea that Clinton is the more effective evil.

    Now here is a different slice of sample bias: my only mother in law survey has been of the guys in my gym. Upscale Upper East Side (I get a big break by having been a charter member 21 years ago). They chat at night like hens, even about their love lives (which is kinda cute, particularly given that the youngest guy is in his late 30s). So I am highly confident that only one guy there is right wing (and he's the only guy who knows what I do, he's a Zero Hedge reader with a classic libertarian mindset). Most were Sanders voters.

    They are all gonna vote for Trump, including one of the trainers (who is clearly of a lower-class background from the way he speaks, and he is one of the Sanders supporters). And what surprises me more is that they are wiling to say this out loud in this neighborhood (heavy Clinton supporters) when there are women (besides me) within earshot.

    Just sayin'.

    Now Trump may indeed not be doing all that well, but my Twitter feed is dominated by journalists, and I don't even need to look to tell you that they would declare Clinton the winner, as they did in debates with Sanders when polls later deemed Sanders to have come out on top.

    dcblogger October 19, 2016 at 11:02 pm

    I always follow these events via hashtag, so it is whoever is using the hashtag.

    jonf October 19, 2016 at 11:46 pm

    You said upscale. That kinda gives it away. My experience in this neighborhood is those with higher incomes generally are in or near management and generally vote republican even though they may have little idea of the issues. Sanders may have tickled their fancy but Hillary, after all, is a felon. Right? It says so right here all over my FB.

    MojaveWolf October 19, 2016 at 11:10 pm

    Was not on twitter during debate so I don't know what it was like there but I thought he did both well and horrifically, depending on when/what. He was decent at the infighting part (very good at the non-policy infighting), not so good at the policy part (granted, he has to get the horrible-at-policy base to turn out, and what will work for them will not work for me).

    He actually did a good job pointing out real (and some possibly not-real, I dunno about some of it) corruption. If his allegations were false, Clinton certainly didn't seem in a hurry to make impossible to walk back flat denials.

    Clinton was on her game to begin with and cleaning his clock, except when she went stupid/scary w/the anti-Russia stuff, but her evasions were glaringly obvious in places and he got better the first third of the debate.

    Debate also started w/Supreme Court, which was the one area the Dems have always been able to reliably scare people into voting for candidates they don't want. And choice, where HIllary was great and Trump was awful. Rest of debate occasionally appeared to have been sponsored by the Peterson Foundation.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:48 pm

    Trump saying jobs are stagnant, last report so bad "I should win the election".

    John October 19, 2016 at 9:48 pm

    Clinton got Trump on the Chinese steel.

    frosty zoom October 19, 2016 at 9:49 pm

    "doesn't add a penny to the debt." hmmm…

    John October 19, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    The Pentagon is missing 9 TRILLION. Talk about that Trump, Clinton.

    homeroid October 19, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    Anyone notice that Trump looks just like that puppet Jeff Dunham used. You know the grumpy one.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    He has a new facial expression–lips in a straight line, quasi-smile it looks like he's practiced it–like his stately version of her gleeful smirk.

    otis October 19, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    If I can't say her red glassy eyes are red and glassy you can not have the donation I planned. I'm disappointed in the moderation of this thread. Will not forget.

    OIFVet October 19, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    Your 30 years of experience coincide with the utter screwing over of the working people.

    JCC October 19, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    Amen. I just watched about two minutes… all I could take. Her smirk and lies drive me nuts.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:52 pm

    Now Trump is attacking her about losing $6 Billion from the State Department. Criticizes her record, her "bad experience". Oh no she's going on about Children's Defense Fund again. But she's on the defensive. Trying to build up her experience–the trouble is she hasn't really done much.

    NotTimothyGeithner October 19, 2016 at 10:00 pm

    Her basic narrative is she is the single most qualified person in the history of things to ever be deign to run for President and then she mumbles about one thing she did between being a lawyer for Wal-Mart and the governor's wife. It's a terrible narrative. Oh, and being on the wrong side of every foreign policy decision for 25 years.

    Then of course, there are the weekly introductions to the real Hillary her crooked friends really like.

    oh October 19, 2016 at 9:53 pm

    look st her silly (S___ Eating) grin/

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 9:53 pm

    W econonomy

    CLINTON I want biggest jobs program since WWII. New jobs and clean energy [she goes all singsong when emitting talking points.] Raise minimum wage, equal pay. You will not get a tuition bill from public college or u if plan Sanders and I worked out. Most gains gone to the top, and the rich will pay for their share. Plan analyzed by experts, would gain 10 million jobs. Trump tax cuts trickle down economics on steroids, cost us jobs, lead to recession

    TRUMP Her plan will raise and even double your taxes. The rest of the public will pay for her tuition.

    Start off where we left. Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia. They're very rich, why aren't they paying? Since I questioned, they've all started to pay up. She says "We love our allies," but that makes it hard for them to pay up. DUring his regime, deficit doubled.

    Look at all the places I just left, our jobs have fled. I'm going to renegotiate NAFTA, and if we can't, walk away. Bring offshore taxes back into the country

    CLINTON Let me translate that if I can.

    TRUMP You can't

    CLINTON He wants tax cuts. I have said no tax increase $250K. He mentioned the debt. We went from deficit to surplus. Obama has cut the deficit by two-third. One of the ways you create jobs is by investing in people. We've tried cutting taxes on the weathy

    W Your plan similar to Obama stim plan, slowest growth

    TRUMP Corrent

    W Is your plan a continuation of Obama stimulus plan?

    CLINTON Never seen people as physically distraught as Bushies. Obama doesn't get credit he deserves for hard decisions. I'm proposed we invest from the middle out and the ground up. My proposal won't add a penny to the debt. We're beginning to see increasing wages.

    W Trump, even conservative economists say your numbers don't add up?

    TRUMP India is growing at 8%, China at 7%. We are growing at 1% and I think it's going down. Is that the last jobs report before the election? I should win easily! We've lost our jobs, products pouring in from all over the world. I pass factories that were thriving 20 years ago. It's horrible what happened. She can say her husband did well. Now she wants to sign TPP. She lied when she said it wasn't gold standard

    CLINTON When I saw the TPP, I was against. There's only one of us that's shipped jobs to China and that's Donald. I fought Chinese dumping steel, but Donald bought Chinese steel. Crocodile tears!

    TRUMP She's been doing this for 30 years, why the hell didn't she do it for the last 15 years? You have experience over me, but it's bad experience. The problem is you talk and don't do anything. At State, $6 billion dollars is missing. Where did it go?

    CLINTON State Dept untrue and debunk. [Deploys Children's Defense Fund]. On the day I was in the briefing room [watching OBL get whacked], he was on the Apprentice

    TRUMP I think I did a better job. I built a phenomenal company with that million dollar loan. Take a look at Syria, Look at ISIS. She and Obama created a vacuum. She gave us ISIS as sure as you're sitting there.

    Anonymous October 19, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    So does this mean the private colleges–except for Ivies and those in like financial condition–are all going to be forced out of business?

    Lee October 19, 2016 at 9:53 pm

    Clinton: "Trump has bought Chinese steel." So have we all, along with a lot of other substandard stuff. Bridge Comes to San Francisco With a Made-in-China Label http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/business/global/26bridge.html

    OIFVet October 19, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    American bombs and bullets are humanitarian, dontcha know?

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    He accused Clinton of setting up the sexual harassment tapes.

    JSM October 19, 2016 at 10:28 pm

    NBC set up the Billy Bush tape, if that's what's being referred to. The Clintons set up the big frontpage NYT 'accusers,' or whatever it was. The latter story was written by Haberman & Jonathan Martin, two of the Clinton campaign's favorite hacks named in the Wikileaks emails. Interesting, no?

    (PS. With all due respect to site policy it is not a certainty that the NYT allegations are false, but they are certainly suspicious for the reason given.)

    Lee October 19, 2016 at 9:56 pm

    These agents provacateurs accusations against Clinton are quite plausible (hey, they were on PBS Newshour) even if the source is shady. They just feel very Clintonesque.

    oh October 19, 2016 at 9:59 pm

    Dirty politics Clinton style.

    ggm October 19, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    There is a lot of evidence dug up by reddit amateur investigators after the tape leaked. They found people on the tape in a few protest videos as well as a woman on the Clinton payroll. I don't trust the voter fraud tape at all, but the inciting violence at riots tapes looks like the real deal.

    JSM October 19, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    They go along well with the shots fired into and the burglary/ransacking of Sander's Nevada campaign headquarters, and the firebombings of Republican campaign offices in swing states.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/sanders-shots-were-fired-into-my-campaign-office-in-nevada/article/2002438

    Everything is random people, just listen to Clinton's measured, dulcet tones and fasten on her innocent smile…

    alex morfesis October 19, 2016 at 9:57 pm

    well done $hillary…the question was for her to respond about bill and his stuff…good diversion…congrats…

    donald donald donald…

    when she said you had a problem with what you did with these women and could not apologize…

    you could have asked her… are you talking about me or your husband bill…

    OIFVet October 19, 2016 at 9:57 pm

    "America is great because America is good." We kill because we love…

    oh October 19, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    She twists everything. Chubby Checker would be proud of Shillary.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    Clinton is calling out Trump's criticism of women, their appearance, etc. She's on stronger ground here. Now she's losing it again, word soup about what our country is. Why can't she stay on a topic? She keeps weakening her points by going on and saying nothing. Making America great again. Using his memes.

    Trump saying no one respects women more than here.

    Now he's bringing up her emails. What happened to the FBI, he asks? Talks about 1 guy getting 4 yrs in jail for 1 lie to the FBI, a 4-star general, but she makes hundreds of lies.

    frosty zoom October 19, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    my god, grab her by the pushiness, donald!

    Kim Kaufman October 19, 2016 at 9:59 pm

    Has Hillary Clinton ever apologized for anything? Or just said "I misspoke."

    Susan C October 19, 2016 at 9:59 pm

    Hillary did not respond to Trump's charge that she paid for people to riot in Chicago before his rally. Instead she began to speak very slowly to eat up her time.

    Lee October 19, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    She does not refute. This one may have legs.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:01 pm

    Oooh, Clinton uses rhetoric–says Trump is "dark, divisive, dangerous". She practiced that one. There was no context.

    frosty zoom October 19, 2016 at 10:02 pm

    more wikileaks?!? go, chris, go!

    Lee October 19, 2016 at 10:03 pm

    Trump is playing the hypocrisy card against Clinton rather well.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:03 pm

    Wallace asks her questions about Foundation, donation. Wallace is nervous. (When questioning Trump, he uses a different tone – he's not as scared, he's more deprecating.)

    Wallace is pressing her more on pay to play. Trump says it's a criminal enterprise, Saudi & Qatar giving lots of money. They kill women & treat them horribly, push gays off buildings, but Clinton takes their money. He says she should give their money back. He says in Haiti they hate Clinton, what the foundation did was a disgrace.

    Clinton claims they spend 90% of donations on their programs. (Pinocchio moment, anyone?)

    Samuel Conner October 19, 2016 at 10:11 pm

    Spending money on programs is lawyerly language. From what I have read, CF runs events but does little that benefits people "on the ground"

    Kim Kaufman October 19, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    Too bad Trump doesn't have any facts on Haiti. He could have buried her. This is so boring. Just low grade snipes at each other.

    jrs October 19, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    Almost focusing on Haiti, almost a good point, then narcissism derails Trump …

    OIFVet October 19, 2016 at 10:06 pm

    Trump: "You gave us these tax loopholes." True. They both suck

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:06 pm

    Trump talks about his foundation, 100% used. Wallace asks if the money was used to pay his debts. Trump says it went to building houses for veterans and disabled.

    Clinton says we won't know cuz he won't release his tax returns, so we can't prove anything. She claims her tax returns reveal something. (Ha ha ha ha–Clinton Foundation docs don't reveal much.)

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:08 pm

    Trump says Clinton should have changed the law, she gets lots of money. He mentions his beautiful hotel and she says again "built with Chinese steel", audience laughs. Wallace asks Trump about rigged election, will he commit to accept the result of the election, he says he'll look at it at the time.

    Media dishonest & corrupt, NYT wrote about it, poisoned the minds of voters but he thinks people can see through it.

    Voter roles – people on the register who shouldn't be.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:09 pm

    Trump says she should never have been allowed to run because she's guilty of serious things, the emails and more.

    Wallace returns to ask if he'll go along with the election result, Trump says he'll let him know.

    Clinton says Trump always claims things are rigged if they don't go his way.

    alex morfesis October 19, 2016 at 10:10 pm

    the fbi did a one year investigation or a three day cover up…? but the question or statement was the transition of power… donald…just respond since he is not in power there is no issue here

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:11 pm

    Clinton claims we've had "free and fair elections". Now there's a huge lie. Bigger lie than about her emails.

    OIFVet October 19, 2016 at 10:11 pm

    Oh noes, Trump is denigrating our democracy. So did the DNC by rigging the primaries.

    oh October 19, 2016 at 10:21 pm

    She's appalled? What hypocrisy!

    Kim Kaufman October 19, 2016 at 10:11 pm

    well, of course, that's why Gore and Kerry conceded, It would have been impolite not to.

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    W Grabbing women. Nine came forward, said you groped them. Why would so many women all make up these stories, and Clinton, what your husband, was that worse?

    TRUMP Debunked. I think she made them come forward. My rally in Chicago violent because them. I didn't even apologize to my wife, sitting right here, bc I didn't do it. I don't know why. I believe she got these people to step forward, or 10 minutes of fame. Lies or fiction

    CLINTON At the last debate, we heard what Donald did. Others come forward. He went on to say "Look at her." Donald thins belittling women makes him bigger. So we now know how Donald thinks of women. That's who Donald is. It's up to all of us to say who we are. We want to celebrate our diveristy. America is great because America is good….

    TRUMP Nobody has more respect for women than I do. I want to talk about something slightly different. What isn't fictionalized are her emails, where she destroyed 33K emails after getting a subpoena. We have a general going to jail for 1 lie. She's A four star general. And she gets away with it, and she can run for President.

    CLINTON Every time Donald is pushed, he goes for denying responsibility. [Kahn, McCain…] It's not onte thing, it's a pattern of divisiness, a dark vision where he incites violence at his rallies.

    TRUMP So sad when she talks about violence at my rallies when she incites it!

    W Clinton, in 2009 you promised to avoid appearance of Clinton with CF. Can you really say you kept your pledge? WHy is this not "pay to play"

    CLINTON Everything I did in furtherance of our country. CF is a world-renowned charity. 11M get HIV treatment. We have made environment

    W The question went to pay to play

    TRUMP It's a criminal enterprise. Saudis gave millinos. These are people who kill gays. Why don't you give back the money? In Little Haiti and they hate the Clintons because of what the CF did in Clinton

    CLINTON Happy to compare to Donald's foundation, portrait. Haiti is the poorest country. CF raised 30 million. We're going to keep working to help.

    TRUMP They don't want your help.

    CLINTON Hasn't released his tax returns, so we don't know anything about his charities. Half of all immigrants actually pay income taxes

    TRUMP We're entitled to depreciate because of laws you passed. Most of her donors have done what I did. You should have changed the law when you were a Senator. But you want change the law because you've taken so much ad. I sat there and watched ad after ad after ad paid for by your friends on Wall Street

    W Trump, warned election rigged. Pence pledges will accept, Ivanka said will accept.

    TRUMP I will look at it at the time. What I've seen is so bad. The media is so corrupt and the pile-on is so amazing. If you look at your voter rolls you will see millions that are registered to vote that shouldn't be. She's guilty of a serious crime and should not be allowed be to run. In that respect it's rigged!

    W A tradition is the peaceful transition of power. The country comes together.

    TRUMP What I'm saying is that I'll tell you at the time.

    CLINTON Donald always says everything was rigged. Trump U, claims judge is rigged. There was even a time he didn't an Emmy three times. This is mindset, it's how he things. Funny but troubling. We've been around 240 years, we've had free and fair elections [!!!!!]. Obama said, when you're whining, you're not up to doing the job! He is denigrating, talking down to our democracy. I am appalled.

    TRUMP What the FBI did and the Justice did, including meeting with the AG on the tarmac in Arizona, is a disgrace.

    frosty zoom October 19, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    how dare you insult democracy, donald?

    John October 19, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    Especially the fake, rigged kind we have in this country.

    OIFVet October 19, 2016 at 10:14 pm

    Hey, it's the best democracy that Organized Money can buy!

    John October 19, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    Did anyone hear a word about how these two would create the 50 million jobs
    we need at half decent wages?

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    Trump brings up Big Bill's mtg with AG in plane on tarmac–audience claps him enthusiastically.

    Qrys October 19, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    IF only Clinton would use her moments of impassioned rhetoric to talk about doing things for the American people rather than pushing to shame Trump or defending the FBI… Now back to droning Clinton on protecting soldiers and conflict in Syria (yawn)

    Kim Kaufman October 19, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    "Intelligence surge." Sounds bad and worse.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:14 pm

    Clinton says we have a lot of work to do. Syria etc. We have to keep our eye on ISIS, we need an "intelligence surge". Continue to push for no fly zone and gain leverage on Syrian gov't and the Russians to bring the conflict to an end.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:16 pm

    Trump – we had Mosul, she left, her fault. No secrecy, people talking about Mosul for 3 months. Clinton wants to look good for the election. The leaders we wanted to get (in Mosul) are all gone. Iran is taking over Iraq, we've made it easy for them. We'll take Mosul and Iran will benefit.

    John October 19, 2016 at 10:17 pm

    I do have to say without Trump in this election the lid would not have been blown off the criminality of the government in Washington. Mouthing off about it all the time every chance he gets. Not that Trump will do anything to change it. But still.

    oh October 19, 2016 at 10:24 pm

    Good point. He's exposing this fraud for what she is.

    ggm October 19, 2016 at 10:29 pm

    This election would have been all about transgender bathrooms.

    Qrys October 19, 2016 at 10:18 pm

    Trump name drops "Bernie Sanders" x2… Clinton x1 everybody Drink, Drink, Drink!

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    Clinton about Trump supported the Iraq invasion, he says "wrong".

    Trump says she's unfit, says Podesta says horrible things about her and he was right. Says Sanders was right about her, bad judgment.

    OIFVet October 19, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    Trump: Sanders supporting Clinton is a big mistake. Amen.

    johnnygl October 19, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    Clinton: 'safe zones in syria to get leverage on russia and assad' - wtf?!?!!!??

    Trump with this 'element of surprise' thing is so dumb! Does he think this is a winner?!!?? Also, the guy is so scatter-brained!???

    Trump's as bad as the first debate. Maybe worse.

    jgordon October 19, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    Oh I don't know. I thought that when Trump pointed out the objective fact that Hillary is a criminal who should be in prison right now rather than running for president that was pretty much all that needed to be said for him to win.

    JSM October 19, 2016 at 10:36 pm

    To Americans of either side who are sick of our failed foreign policy and wondering whether it's intentionally duplicitous, yah, I think it's a winner. Keep reading, you'll see.

    Bjornasson October 19, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    Hillary sticking to technicals and official truths – "FBI cleared me after a year-long investment"; "Google Trump Iraq – all these sources" etc. If she can validate it, it must be true!

    Trump, on the other hand, is winging it with "homebaked" truths – some bald lies, some half-truths, some actual truths. However, if it resonates with the gut feeling of enough people, it is much better basis for argument than pure technicality.

    She just giggled after calling him the most dangerous man to have ever run for the Presidency. Wtf.

    John October 19, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    Yes, her laughing and smiling never help

    ggm October 19, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    He should have mentioned wikileaks. They found her own oppo research said his Iraq war opposition would be a huge problem for her.

    I noticed she stopped plugging her website. Afraid he will reply with a plug for wikileaks?

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    Wallace says Aleppo has fallen, Trump says it's still there, still happening. Wallace sounds shaky. Trump again "it's so sad". Says Assad is tougher than Clinton & Obama. Says it's our fault Iran is powerful, we gave them bundles of cash, $1.7 Billion.

    We're backing the rebels, but we don't know who the rebels are. If they ever did overthrow Assad, they might end up with something worse than Assad. Causes Great Migration, in many cases they are ISIS-aligned, great Trojan horse, "Thanks a lot Hillary for doing a great job."

    tawal October 19, 2016 at 10:23 pm

    Trump is kicking butt. Stein or Trump… Can't stomach Bill in the WH again. Even though I'm in CA, and should vote Stein; what if, Trump gets the majority???

    Bjornasson October 19, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    On the contrary, I think he did a good job – kinda recast it as a sequel to Iraq.

    johnnygl October 19, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    Wallace is the best moderator yet! Thanks for asking about no fly zone meaning war with russia!

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    Wallace asks Clinton about no fly zone, risk of starting a war. She says those are genuine risks, but thinks she could "strike a deal".

    Re: refugees, they will be vetted, but not close our doors, that boy with blood coming down his face is haunting. Orlando Pulse Nightclub killer born in Queens just like Donald. (Wow that's a low blow.)

    OIFVet October 19, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    "We will make it very clear to Russia" ain't exactly 'striking a deal.'

    polecat October 19, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    a real kidney punch that one …. i think she turn virtually all of Queens … HIS WAY --

    WJ October 19, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    Clinton: This great country of America is good because greatness of our good people. I don't believe that Donald has greatness good enough for America because of his ungood comments about women reporters I've disabled in defense of Children's Defense Fund. That's not the kind of double plus goodness of America I want to fight for.

    Trump: I have the highest regard for all overweight and disabled women. Always have. I will let them speak for my successes. But Hillary is trying to distract from emails. Lots of generals are in prison for breaking security but the FBI has to look the other way, because 6 billion is lost in Syria and there is no action. I will renegotiate the Missouri Compromise, and the Louisiana Purchase if I have to. They were bad deals for America's workers, and I have a lot of money.

    OIFVet October 19, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    "Nobody can believe how stupid our leadership is." Wrong!

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    W If we push ISIS out, you put troops into that vacuum?

    CLINTON I am encouraged there is an effort by Iraq in Syria. Will not support American troops "as an occupying force" [ZOMG, the lawerly parsing!] Hopeful that the hard work military advisors. Intelligence surge… I'm going to continue to push for a no-fly zone. Need serious negotation to bring conflict to an end.

    TRUMP I've been reading about Mosul for three months. What about the element of surprise? They've all left. Why are we doing it? So she can look tough for the election. So Mosul is going to be a wonderful thing, and Iran should write us a letter of thanks.

    CLINTON Once again, Donald is implying he dind't support Iraq. I just want everybody to Google "Donald Trump Iraq" and you can hear the audio [thank you Eric Schmidt]. What's really important is to understand all the interplay. We need to go after the leadership, "get rid of them" in Mosul, then move on to Rakka. I'm amazed to see Donald thinks all these governments [colluded to elect me].

    TRUMP Wikileaks. Podesta said some horrible things about you and boy was he right. "Terrible instincts." Sanders "bad judgment" I agree with both.

    CLINTON Sanders says you're the most dangerous person to run and I think he's right

    W Aleppo? Said some wrong things about Alepp

    TRUMP It's a disaster

    W ALso said Syria and Russia fighting ISIS but they've been been bombing.

    TRUMP By fighting Assad, he was tougher and smarter than her and Obama. Now he's aligned with Russia, and Iran, who we made stronger. They don't want ISIS. We're backing rebels. We don't know who the rebels are. If the rebels overthrow Assad, could be worse. If she did nothing, we would be better off. And she caused the Great Migration. What 'til you see what happens. Lots of luck Hillary. Great job

    W No-fly, Obama has refused to do. What if a Russian plane violates, shoot it down?

    CLINTON I am aware of the legitimate concerns you have expressed. I think we could strike a deal and make it clear that this was something in the best interests of people on the ground.

    I am not going to get anybody into the country not vetted. Picture of the 4-year-old haunting. We have [Doesn't answer about shooting the plane down]

    TRUMP Had a ceasefire, Russia took over land, ceasefire ends. We are so outplayed by Putin and Assad and Iran. Nobody can believe how stupid our leadership is.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    Trump says ISIS never should have happened. No one can believe how stupid our leadership is. (He's probably right about that. Can't imagine what foreigners make of this crazy election.)

    Bjornasson October 19, 2016 at 10:36 pm

    I can contribute my two cents!

    Four years ago I would have been surprised to see that the rhetoric and tactics are quite similar to those frequently employed in Indian politics; I somehow thought that the developed, Enlightened West would be above that. The thing that surprises me is not the abysmal quality of the candidates, but the attitude of Americans towards this election.

    They are much better informed than their developing world counterparts and much better (or longer) educated – on average. And yet, they are either enthusiastic for their candidate or unable to grasp just how truly broken their political system is. They joke about it, post memes and get self-righteous on social media and in-person, but they seem to have little to no concern about what it means in the big picture. They have no willingness to be open-mindedness (although all of them worship the innovation and out-of-the-box thinking of Silicon Valley and Steve Jobs) and consider points of view that may not align with their preferences. As you may have guessed, I live on a University campus – which is not representative of the USA, but is definitely the pool of people from which the "future leaders of the free world" are expected to be drawn. I am not enthusiastic about that prospect.
    This then, to me, is perhaps the most disappointing aspect of life in America and the most clarifying aspect of this election.

    Lee October 19, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    "I somehow thought that the developed, Enlightened West would be above that."

    Patricia October 19, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    Oh god, she says no-fly zone would save lives….

    allan October 19, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    And now a message from Peter Peterson.

    frosty zoom October 19, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    jeezus frickin' murphy! please, please, please let me debate this vile woman.

    John October 19, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    So cutting taxes on the rich is going to create tremendous jobs. Heard that so many times I can't count.

    Micky9finger October 19, 2016 at 10:28 pm

    Hard to take. One suggestion, put a switch on the microphones and switch them off when they won't stop talking.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:28 pm

    Trump "I'm going to create the kind of country we used to be".

    [Well God save us from someone who wants to take us backwards.]

    We have to use our great people. We will create an economic machine, the likes of which we haven't seen in many decades, companies that will grow and expand and start from new.

    Qrys October 19, 2016 at 10:29 pm

    National Debt now = 77% of GDP

    Clinton = Ndebt to 86% of GDP
    Trump = Ndebt to 105% of GDP

    Trump: "We will have created a tremendous … machine once again"
    Clinton: "I will not add one penny to the National debt"

    So is Trump more MMT than Clinton?!

    "

    Samuel Conner October 19, 2016 at 10:43 pm

    Trump occasionally emits MMT-like sounds, but I'm not sure that he believes them. For example, he has previously accurately noted that US can't be forced to default on USD-denominated debt, since it prints its own currency. Then he suggested that we could reduce the outstanding debt by negotiating down the price of previously issued Treasury bonds (not sure the details; perhaps threaten to default, hammer the price by terrifying bond-holders, and buy the depressed price bonds.)

    At other times Trump has criticized the level of debt, for example the fact that the nominal public debt doubled under Obama (after doubling under Bush II, it must be admitted). It appears to me that Trump favors lower nominal debt as a good thing in itself, without consideration of the effect of lowering the debt on other sectors.

    I'm not confident that Trump actually believes any MMT principles.

    OTOH, I'm pretty confident that HRC rejects MMT completely. She boasts of WJC's surpluses, for example. She evidently doesn't know elementary accounting facts such as the sectoral balances identity.

    alex morfesis October 19, 2016 at 10:29 pm

    back in 1987…he basically said then what he says now…because her beltway buddies have been doing fine since 1987….the folks in youngstown ohio and johnstown pennsylvania….not so much…

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    Clinton criticizes a $100,000 ad Trump took out in 1987 criticizing things.

    Clinton says she doesn't add a penny to the national debt. How we'll pay for education, infrastructure, get prescription drug costs down–ask wealthy & corporations to pay their fair share, it won't diminish growth.

    We have to get back to building the middle class, I want to invest in you. (wonder who she means by that)

    Trump–"we've heard this before" He says he disagreed with Reagan on trade.

    John October 19, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    Cut the military and spook budgets in half and we are good to go on Social Security.

    frosty zoom October 19, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    holy crap, she reaganed!

    donald, wake up, she's out-americanning you big time.

    allan October 19, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    CFRB approves of this message.

    Starveling October 19, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    Puppies are great because puppies are good…. ugh. Hillary has become a traditional Republican with regard to American exceptionalism.

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 10:51 pm

    > Reagan had ten thousand golden retriever puppies, all of them named America.

    Well, that wins the Internet! I couldn't believe it when she was appalled Trump criticized Reagan. All Obama did was say Reagan had some "good ideas."

    OIFVet October 19, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    Liberal talking heads are hyperventilating about the Donald dissing Reagan. Tells me all I need to know.

    Kim Kaufman October 19, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    OK, here comes the Grand Bargain. Isn't this over yet? He's punting to Obamacare.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    Wallace on entitlements, 60% of the budget, neither one has a plan to deal with this.

    Trump – says cut taxes, grow the economy. Repeal & replace Obamacare, it's destroying out businesses. It'll probably die of his own weight, premiums going up 70 80 100%. He says Clinton wants to make it worse.

    Kim Kaufman October 19, 2016 at 10:33 pm

    Her snarky side comments are not really helping her, at least for me.

    Lee October 19, 2016 at 10:33 pm

    Trump: Repeal and replace Obamacare. A lot of sticker shocked Americans nodding their heads.

    John October 19, 2016 at 10:34 pm

    Nothing is making premiums go down but ending the health insurance extortion racket once and for all.

    dbk October 19, 2016 at 10:33 pm

    I don't understand how people accepted referring to SS and Medicare as "entitlements".

    T: Obamacare has to go – increase in premiums – bad health care at most exp. price.

    W: Same question: will you +taxes /-benefits to save SS?

    C: I want to increase benefits for those who have been disadvantaged.
    ACA extended solvency of Medicare Trust Fund. Have to get costs down, increase value (???), emphasize wellness.

    Depressing topic.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:34 pm

    Wallace's question is really limiting the framing of the question about benefits, taxes, entitlements. No room in his world for MMT or any kind of non-austerity approach.

    Kim Kaufman October 19, 2016 at 10:34 pm

    They have not "agreed" to closing statements? Weird.

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 10:35 pm

    W Clinton debt/GRP ratio to 86% and debt to 105%. Why aren't you dealing with the problem?

    TRUMP They're wrong, because I'm going to create jobs. We could get to 1% growth to 5%. Have business people not political hacks making trade deals. We will create an economic machine like we haven't seen for decades. People will get back to work

    CLINTON When did he think the country was great? Trump has been criticizing our government for decades. He was criticizing President Reagan. To the debt, I won't add a penny to the debt. We are going where the money is. Ask the rich and corps to pay their fair share. What economists call "middle-out growth" [they do?]

    TRUMP I disagreed with Reagan on trade. Now we're going to do it right.

    W Biggest driver is entitlements, neither has a serious plan on Medicare and Social Security running out of money?
    Would President Trump do a Grand Bargain?

    TRUMP Cutting taxes and grow economy. Repeal and replace ObamaCare. It's probably going to die of its own weight. Premiums. "Bad health care at the most expensive price."

    CLINTON I am on record as saying we need to put more money in SS Trust Fund, taxing rich, assuming Donald doesnt' get out of them.

    TRUMP Such a nasty woman

    CLINTON I will not cut benefits. I want to enhance benefits for poor and women who have been disadvantages.

    CLINTON Trump tax cuts disaster effect on debt.

    John October 19, 2016 at 10:35 pm

    1 Trillion a year is a depleted military according to Trump. Gag

    OIFVet October 19, 2016 at 10:38 pm

    Don't handshake, I want a steel cage grudge match!

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:37 pm

    Wallace gives them each 1 minute closing statement why they should be elected.

    Clinton- everyone watching, I'm reaching out to everyone to help make our country what it should be, make it fairer for everyone, we need your talents, energy, ambition. (Yeah she'll suck out our energy for sure.) I'll stand up for your interests against powerful corporations. (Really???)

    Trump–she's raising money from the people she wants to control. I'll take care of veterans better than our immigrants. Law & order. Take care of everyone. I'll take better care of African Americans & Latinos, better than she could do in a hundred years. We can't take 4 more years of Barack Obama and that is what we would get with her.

    ginnie nyc October 19, 2016 at 10:38 pm

    She's gonna create two classes of SS/Medicare recipients. Great. Some will get a fraction more, most will be screwed.

    John October 19, 2016 at 10:40 pm

    You'll wish you were dirt poor. You'll be better off.

    Come to think of it, that's already how it works.
    If you have nothing you are taken care of.
    If you have a tiny bit you are on your own.

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 10:38 pm

    W Asks for closing statements, one minute

    CLINTON Reaching out to all Americans because we need everybody to make country what it should be. I've been privileges to see presidency up close. I will stand up for families against powerful interests, good jobs, rising incomes. Hope give me a chance to server.'

    TRUMP She's raising money from people she wants to control. It doesn't work that way. Military, police, law and order and justice. Inner cities a disaster. I will do more for AAs than she can do in ten lifetimes. We are going to make America great again. We cannot take four more years of Obama and that's what you get with her.

    Qrys October 19, 2016 at 10:38 pm

    Did Clinton just hug Meg Whitman in the audience???

    John October 19, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    Yes. Who was that man behind her that shook Clinton's hand next?

    Kim Kaufman October 19, 2016 at 10:39 pm

    I guess you could say Donald at least can learn. He's gotten better in each debate in terms of not appearing to be a drug addict with anger issues.

    polecat October 19, 2016 at 10:59 pm

    It's too bad that Hillary had a bigger boat -- …she was floating in a leaky dinghy at this debate, however …

    Skippy October 19, 2016 at 10:40 pm

    In the immortal words once electronically presented here on NC….

    "Because neo-liberalism. Because I like the idea, a lot, of catching the Mount Pelerin Society, Pinochet, Diane Rehm, the Friedmans, Joe Biden, Rush Limbaugh, and the people who drafted the Democratic platform in one big net, and then deep-sixing the entire squirming and gesticulating political class with language that's "exceptionally bloggy and aggressively casual and implicitly ironic."

    Whats that thingy again about being oblivious about irony…. oh yeah….

    Excessive examples

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irony

    ... ... ...

    Octopii October 19, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    Media all freaking out about the "respect the results of the election" question. Strange that nobody has brought up Al Gore - it certainly would have been better for the country if Al had pushed harder in 2000.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:43 pm

    Yes the defending of our crap election systems and crap democracy is beyond belief. People have no idea how bad it is.

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:45 pm

    And Podesta is claiming it was a "low moment" for Trump that he said he'd wait and see. Why should anyone accept results in advance with so much election rigging past & present? Podesta again talks about "a dark place"–same wording Clinton used. That must be the new meme.

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Trump won't buy a pig in a poke. That speaks well of him.

    frosty zoom October 19, 2016 at 11:16 pm

    agreed. that was a trap and he wouldn't budge.

    OIFVet October 19, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    Wow ABC, the elections ain't rigged but Russia hacked them?! Make up your damned minds already, this is more schizophrenia in a single sentence than I can handle…

    Skippy October 19, 2016 at 10:43 pm

    #Breaking: Trump's lead advisor Roger Ailes has left the Trump campaign. According to reports: "[Fox] said the pair had a falling out, with both sides saying debate prep had not gone the way they wanted. The report came just hours before Wednesday's third presidential debate in Las Vegas, where Trump will try to dig out of a recent polling hole.

    The report said that Ailes had concerns that Trump could not focus and that preparation would be a "waste of time," while Trump thought Ailes spent too much prep time telling old stories."

    Go Green or go HOME October 19, 2016 at 10:47 pm

    The statements re: wikileaks no doubt were discussed, and Ailes couldn't support that. Has Trump been to enough shitty mid-western and southern towns with empty factories and had an epiphany? Perhaps he's not just going to throw the election to H->

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 10:45 pm

    My hot take:

    Nothing we didn't know before. She's a corrupt, lying warmonger with a record of policy debacles. He's a stew of conservative talking points and failed policy nostrums, personal behaviors perhaps no worse than many other billionaires, spiced with occasional sharp perceptions. Neither of them are nice people. I wouldn't want to have a beer with him, and if I had coffee with her, I'd be sure to bring a taster.

    Tactically, Trump did well (although the Beltway is going to go nuts on Putin and Trump not rolling over for a stolen election* like Gore did). If Trump had brought his game to this level in debates one and two, he'd be a lot closer.

    NOTE * Not that Trump is correct to say that voter fraud is significant; that's one of the many conservative talking points that are just wrong.

    jgordon October 19, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    I would have gone along with you on that a few days ago. However please explain why Democrats are systematically engaging in election fraud, as proven by videos over the past two days, if it has no impact. I changed my opinion on this subject specifically because of these videos by the way.

    johnnygl October 19, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    Welcome to the party! Did you sleep through the dem primaries?

    WJ October 19, 2016 at 11:08 pm

    Problem is that if Trump calls out election fraud, he won't be understood by his base, who for various reasons prefer to believe that elections are rigged by busloads of sweaty brown people with fake ID's rather than by a well-dressed white man sitting at a computer.

    kimsarah October 20, 2016 at 12:20 am

    And Hillary is against Citizens United, now that she has been the one who has benefited the most and won't need it anymore.

    HBE October 19, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    It really seemed both were focused on appealing to their tribes and not much else. There certainly appeared to be no attempt to reach "undecideds" or independents. Maybe because internal polls show they are mostly staying home or voting third party? So no point (al la CNN changing 3Rd party to "undecideds"). Basically, scare your tribe into showing up to vote, but only your tribe. Not even a passing shout out to independents on positions (except trump on Russia)

    polecat October 19, 2016 at 11:27 pm

    Again, I say they should've both been given skateboards … and a choice of the trident or a pike ..and then allowed to go at it …..

    ….while answering to the moderator's questions .. of course -- ':]

    Double-plus good if Chris was decked out in a Roman Centurion's gear ….. holding a staff

    OIFVet October 19, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    Celebrity deathmatch is the only acceptable format given the current crop of candidates.

    polecat October 20, 2016 at 12:05 am

    well, yeah .. it is what it is …. a bad spectacle !!

    and we're living it …..

    frosty zoom October 19, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    voter fraud is not significant, but election fraud sure is.

    alex morfesis October 19, 2016 at 10:46 pm

    on c-span…huma keeps whispering to her…we have to go…we have to go…and $hillary is not going…interesting dynamic…

    finally she is off camera….

    uncle tungsten October 19, 2016 at 10:47 pm

    Listening to Hilary is like wearing a cilice on the inner ear.

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    Just in terms of tone, whenever Clinton says something appalls her, it makes me think "Gee, that might be a good idea!" Not that it is, but that's my reaction at this point.

    polecat October 19, 2016 at 11:15 pm

    With that forced smile of HER's …. I wouldn't get within 5 kilometers of the bloody white hag --

    TheCatSaid October 19, 2016 at 10:47 pm

    Media showing Clintont & Podesta, not showing Trump. Says it all.

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 10:54 pm

    I watched CBS, saw both families.

    polecat October 20, 2016 at 12:10 am

    'families' …. Cosa Nostra ??

    crittermom October 20, 2016 at 12:04 am

    I watched a prime time show (on my computer) recently and noted it had a several second shot of a street sign named Clinton that had no bearing whatsoever to the story. (Having become a cynic during this election, I now notice small things like that) Swell. Subliminal messaging it seems, since apparently all the in-your-face-naming ('Clinton, Clinton'!) wasn't judged to be sufficient.

    The Clinton dynasty needs to be brought down asap. Their grip and influence is even more than most realize, I suspect.

    Qrys October 19, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    I thought Trump did pretty well, said more about "jobs" than Clinton, which is usually a smart move. Not a lot of specifics. Closing minute was a flop though. Clinton spent far too long accusing Russian hackers, which she can't substantiate, and people care less about than the content of the leaked information.

    Clinton also tried too hard to show she's knowledgeable about foreign policy getting too far into the weeds on Middle East strategy, so basically talking over the heads of most people. Her closing statement was pretty good and well rehearsed (has she used this elsewhere?)

    JSM October 19, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    *Unasked question (after asking Trump whether he'll accept results).

    And Hillary, do you promise then not to rig the elections with your allies like you did the Democratic primaries? "Bernie Sanders will not be a factor in N.J." 9/22/2015. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9846

    WJ October 19, 2016 at 11:14 pm

    But what does this really mean? It sounds like state-party politics in-speak but I am not certain I understand what is being said. Here's the fuller quote from the email you link to:

    "Presently the Chair has given the line to Hillary in 20 of the 21 counties which only assures that Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders will not be a factor in N.J. Also, all of the major city mayors are aligned with us as well."

    Could mean lots of things, not all of them shady, no?

    Lambert Strether October 19, 2016 at 10:59 pm

    Biggest muffed issue: Wallace asks Clinton if she'd shoot down a Russian plane that violated her no-fly zone. Clinton dodges, Wallace does not press her, Trump does not press her either. "No, Hillary, I'm anxious to know. How badly do you want a new war, this time with Russia?" or some such.

    johnnygl October 19, 2016 at 11:13 pm

    That is why i think trump lost. He cannot afford to miss those opportunities. I've got a few beers in me so i'm missing dodges. Trump should have smelled blood and hammered those dodges. He only picked at her over the 'open borders'

    I stand by my opinion of chris wallace being the best and this is really awkward but fox has great post-debate commentary. Am i just wasted? I swear they really are being fair and balanced. Maybe they are doing their job because of their mixed feelings on trump?

    WJ October 19, 2016 at 11:35 pm

    Fox is probably more free to push Clinton because their networks of political access are less tied to her campaign than all the other outlets, who seem scared shitless of being thought to cause the slightest embarrassment for her. One upside to her presidency will be watching Wolf Blitzer and Chuck Todd try to outdo one another like two beaten dogs in performing the requisite rituals of submission.

    frosty zoom October 19, 2016 at 11:07 pm

    actually, mr. wallace did the best job by far of any of these "moderators".

    johnnygl October 19, 2016 at 11:24 pm

    The fact that wallace hit both sides hard made trump loom better.

    Edward October 19, 2016 at 11:20 pm

    I thought the questions in this debate were better then the last one. The answers from the candidates were still mostly hot air. How many nanoseconds would a President Clinton need to decide she actually likes trade agreements and Wall Street giveaways and the resulting contributions after all? I liked that fact that Trump was calling out Clinton on her miserable record, even though his facts/critique often seemed garbled/superficial. I was also glad he was questioning the validity of our elections, although his reasons sounded wrong. I found Wallace's suggestion that questions of election fraud should be ignored for the sake of unity disturbing. When a journalist says something like this you have to wonder what crimes they are covering up in their own reporting for "unity". I agreed with Clinton that Trump's economic and immigration plans are bogus nonsense.

    If Trump becomes president I expect his truth-telling will end. As an outsider, speaking "truth to power" helps him nut it would hurt him as an insider.

    Qrys October 19, 2016 at 11:33 pm

    Looks like John T. Harvey didn't waste any time: Another Thing Donald Trump And Hillary Clinton Get Wrong In This Election: The National Debt
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2016/10/19/one-more-reason-to-be-depressed-about-this-years-election/#2f6ba3ae3ae2

    5. The private sector cannot consistently generate sufficient demand to create jobs for everyone who wants one. As technology and productivity have increased, so it has become more difficult. Entrepreneurs cannot be blamed for adding self-checkout lanes, they have families and stockholders. But it means the store can sell the same volume of output with fewer employees–unemployment therefore rises. (For more, see "Why the Private Sector NEEDS the Government to Spend Money.")

    Hence, we need the public sector to spend in deficit so that a.) the private sector can net save and b.) jobs are created to supplement those generated by the market system. And it creates neither a default risk nor inflation–unless we are already at full-employment, which means we don't need to be spending that much in the first place! It is noteworthy that when, in the midst of the Great Depression, the government decided to try to reduce the deficit, unemployment jumped from 14% (after having fallen from nearly 25%) to 19%. Once WWII hit, however, any worries about government spending went right out the window and unemployment plummeted to 1.9%. There's no reason we can't be there right now. Only bad policy can stand in our way.

    Eleanor Rigby October 20, 2016 at 12:08 am

    I may have to re-watch to make sure I have this right, but I was shocked that Chris Wallace said it would be 2-minute answers and then 10 minutes of free discussion.

    But, with the first topic about the Constitution, after the 2-minute answers, he immediately asked Clinton a question about partial-birth abortion …. wth did that come from? I have not heard either candidate talking much about this … Trump has been tongue-tied about that earlier in the year, and it's not one of his big points, anyway. Now, watching the C-Span post-debate calls, people are harranguing Clinton for wanting to kill babies in the days before birth, when she wouldn't do anything to touch Roe v. Wade, so it's a false issue. That didn't come from Trump; it came from the moderator!!!!!

    I feel the whole debate as sandbagged at that point, and it freed the topic about women to get pivoted to Russia.

    PhilU October 20, 2016 at 12:12 am

    George Soros owns voting machines in 16 states!
    http://www.smartmatic.com/case-studies/article/united-states-elections/
    https://www.smartmatic.com/news/article/smartmatic-announces-the-sale-of-its-subsidiary-sequoia-voting-systems/
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/smartmatic-sgo-malloch-brown-soros-operative-buys-election-cj-wilson

    Or at least is tied to some shady business that does.

    [Oct 20, 2016] The Third Presidential Debate

    Notable quotes:
    "... To this day, I am dumbfounded that the Trump campaign has never used "We came, we saw, he died!" or "What difference, at this point, does it make?" against Clinton. To not replay these gaffes over and over again is quite possibly the worst case of political amateurism I have ever seen. ..."
    "... At least Trump *started,* however haltingly, to put the Washington foreign policy consensus under scrutiny. That was a small but unprecedented step for a major-party presidential candidate. ..."
    "... This election has focused so (word removed by author) much on scandals about foundations and emails and groping and "OMG he said this" and "OMG she said that" that there's no room left to talk about actual policy. ..."
    "... Trump is leading a voice desperate to be heard and needing to be heard, but he's the worst man for the job. ..."
    "... His record and past is incredibly flawed and wide open to character attacks. This allowed Clinton to pivot every question she didn't like right into a character issue. Free trade issues? Trump used illegal Chinese Steel. Taxes? Trump never paid any. Jobs? Trump hires illegals and doesn't pay his contractors. Foreign policy? Trump worships Putin and wants to nuke and grab all the oil. So on so on. ..."
    "... the folks of TAC and other conservative areas have plenty of good ideas of how he could do it, Trump doesn't do it. He just makes the same generic insults ("she's a disaster, it's a disaster, everything is a disaster, and everyone is smarter too") but beyond the initial quote-worthy line he doesn't press hard on specifics nor does he focus on enough specifics on what makes him better. ..."
    "... Clinton is a candidate that started out with a lot of flaws and very low support from her base. A strong Republican Candidate would've either forced Clinton to clean up her act and pivot more into a populist stance or resulted in a stronger Democratic primary due to a desperate need to put up a more electable contender to follow up on Obama. ..."
    "... Trump was put up as an alternative to Clinton. And after we saw him a hawkish extremely pro-life perfect example of "typical politician" with a lot of skeletons doesn't seem all that bad anymore. ..."
    "... Look at this and tell me all he ways Trump is demonstrating his blatantly obvious dementia. Wandering speech. Inability to concentrate. Irrelevant replies to specific questions. Inability to remember his own talking points. Inability to recognize the meaning of what is said to him and around him. Inability to distinguish fact from fancy, his own fantasies from reality. The man is senile. ..."
    "... let's remember that the three biggest crackpots in the primaries – Carson, Cruz, and Trump – got more than 60% of the votes. So, before we go around trying to make ourselves feel better by telling ourselves that, without Trump, everything would have been fine, just imagine what a disaster the GOP would be facing if Ted Cruz were the nominee. ..."
    "... The alternative to Trump wasn't Rubio the lightweight, Jeb the retread, or Kasich. It was Cruz. Just ruminate on that a bit. ..."
    "... Clinton lied through her teeth on the issue of the Clinton Foundation; which she made sound like God's personal charity. He didn't lay a glove on her on that issue. Why? ..."
    "... As a Christian, I find Hillary Clinton unacceptable. I also find Donald Trump unacceptable. I think most people who are not Christians feel the same way. 2016 is a loss for everyone. ..."
    "... Our republic– I'm sorry, our oligarchy - is in bad shape. But to the debate: The election isn't rigged if you are such an idiot that you are clearly losing it by your own fault. ..."
    "... Cruz pokes all sorts of people (including people he needs as allies and voters) in their eyes, repeatedly, and then tells them it's for their own good, when it's perfectly apparent that his ego is so needy he will abandon his principles when the right opportunity arises (viz his endorsement of Trump as Trump looked likely to overtake HRC). ..."
    "... Rubio is an empty suit for the Israel-Saudi Arabia neocon set. ..."
    "... Because Cruz is a Dominist. Meaning he specifically wants to establish a Christian theocracy in America and thinks he was sent by God to create it. Claiming that the first amendment only applies to Christians is so antithetical to the American foundation it scares this even of us who dont share his beliefs. ..."
    "... Foreign Policy is an area where Trump could have scored some points on Hillary Clinton's rather flawed record, Libya, Syria, etc. However, Trump is so undisciplined and unfocused that he failed to really nail her. ..."
    "... On top of all of this, the Republican Party is fractured between the GOP Establishment and the GOP Base. The GOP Base strongly supports Trump, the the GOP Establishment is weak at best. Indeed, many of the GOP elite, such as the Bush Family cannot stand him and refuse to support him. ..."
    "... He knew the question about his accepting the outcome of the election should he lose was going to come up, and he know he could only hurt himself by the answer he gave. He intentionally shot himself in the foot, once again. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The third presidential debate was arguably the most substantive of the general election, but that wasn't a high bar to clear. It was also probably Trump's best performance against Clinton, but it still wasn't nearly good enough to close the gap between them. His refusal to say simply that he would accept the result of the election became the main takeaway from the debate and the banner headline in practically every newspaper. Trump was very likely to lose the election anyway at this point, but he seems determined to lose it in a way that will bring even more discredit on him and his supporters. He managed to overshadow everything else he said during the debate with that one answer, and anything else he said–for good or ill–will receive very little attention. Since Trump was already trailing Clinton going into the debate, the onus was on him to score a clear victory. He did not, and he missed his last major chance to make the election more competitive. That failure is his, and no one else did it to him.

    Clinton was forced to dodge questions about donors to the Clinton Foundation and her support for a "no-fly zone" in Syria, but that was the result of tough questioning from the moderator. Her answers to these questions were woefully inadequate and evasive, but her opponent didn't take advantage of them. Trump never really managed to get the better of Clinton the entire night, and he tended to ramble aimlessly in response to questions that might have worked to his advantage. On more than one occasion, he ended up railing against the nuclear deal with Iran in response to questions that had nothing to do with it. This not only kept him from giving a coherent answer to the questions he was asked, but it also showed how heavily he relied on discredited hawkish talking points when he ran into difficulty. At one point, Trump tried to attack Clinton over New START, which he laughably called "the start-up." Even if there had been merit to Trump's criticism, he made such a hash of it as to make his attack useless.

    The result of all this was that Clinton was able to escape scrutiny of most of her record. She was never asked to defend her support for the Libyan war, nor did she really have to answer for anything else that she did as Secretary of State. Once again, her opponent didn't know enough to know how to use her record against her. Despite her poor record on foreign policy, Clinton was able to get off almost completely scot-free.

    Posted in foreign policy , politics . Tagged Donald Trump , Hillary Clinton , Iran , Libyan war , New START , Syria

    Viriato , says: October 20, 2016 at 8:13 am

    "The result of all this was that Clinton was able to escape scrutiny of most of her record. She was never asked to defend her support for the Libyan war, nor did she really have to answer for anything else that she did as Secretary of State."

    Yes. I would have expected this if Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush had been the GOP nominee, but I truly expected better from Trump.

    To this day, I am dumbfounded that the Trump campaign has never used "We came, we saw, he died!" or "What difference, at this point, does it make?" against Clinton. To not replay these gaffes over and over again is quite possibly the worst case of political amateurism I have ever seen. Just think back to 2008: one of the Obama campaign's most devastating tactics was to constantly remind voters of McCain's "The fundamentals of the economy are strong" gaffe.

    The GOP had a golden opportunity this year. Clinton is an incredibly flawed candidate. Yet the GOP blew it by nominating a bad person who is totally unqualified to be President. My only consolation is that Rubio or Bush would have been even worse candidates than Trump… and probably worse Presidents than Clinton.

    At least Trump *started,* however haltingly, to put the Washington foreign policy consensus under scrutiny. That was a small but unprecedented step for a major-party presidential candidate. Hopefully, it will pave the way for a more serious, profound, and systematic critique of the Washington consensus from a major-party candidate in the future. Right now, I don't see who that could possibly be, but then I never imagined Trump would ever actually throw his hat into the ring, much less win the GOP nomination.

    Dakarian , says: October 20, 2016 at 8:26 am
    Firstly, let me start up with a suggestion for the country: Figure out a way to clone Wallace twice and have each one of them run a debate. The only reason why this debate actually had a bit of meat to it is because of what Wallace put into it and I loved how he kept both candidates feet on the fire while actually letting them debate and go after each other at times.

    The problem is that he had far too many issues to go over and not enough time to do it. This election has focused so (word removed by author) much on scandals about foundations and emails and groping and "OMG he said this" and "OMG she said that" that there's no room left to talk about actual policy. That's part of the problem.

    The main part, though, is Trump. Not his original platform, which I've repeatedly said is appealing (even if I disagree with a good portion of it, it brings points of discussion that need to be addressed) or his voter base (some of which are crazy, but as we've seen, the crazies of the democrats are also fully active). Trump is leading a voice desperate to be heard and needing to be heard, but he's the worst man for the job.

    His record and past is incredibly flawed and wide open to character attacks. This allowed Clinton to pivot every question she didn't like right into a character issue. Free trade issues? Trump used illegal Chinese Steel. Taxes? Trump never paid any. Jobs? Trump hires illegals and doesn't pay his contractors. Foreign policy? Trump worships Putin and wants to nuke and grab all the oil. So on so on.

    Of course you can do similar against Hillary and she's just as open. But while the folks of TAC and other conservative areas have plenty of good ideas of how he could do it, Trump doesn't do it. He just makes the same generic insults ("she's a disaster, it's a disaster, everything is a disaster, and everyone is smarter too") but beyond the initial quote-worthy line he doesn't press hard on specifics nor does he focus on enough specifics on what makes him better. Or he's hitting points that hurt him more than help. He based his claim that Clinton wants open boarders on immigration on a wikileaks document that was about energy policy? He's attacking the Clinton Foundation while holding a similarly shady Foundation of his own?

    Though really all of this is moot since he tends to take ALL of the air out of the room with talking points that have nothing to do with Clinton's policy issues or his benefits on policy but are all about Trump. I take note that everyone, from the analysis after the debate to the news sites to even TAC's first point to bring up about the debate was Trump's answer when asked if he'll respect the results of the election. He could've spent the entire debate pinning Clinton to the wall with a powerful performance and it'll all be useless because:

    "Trump won't commit to accepting election results if he loses"

    is the big takeaway.

    And that's why I cringed when I saw what Republicans were selecting during the primaries. It wasn't just because Trump is Trump, but also because a weak Republican candidate results in a weak Democratic candidate that wins anyway. Clinton is a candidate that started out with a lot of flaws and very low support from her base. A strong Republican Candidate would've either forced Clinton to clean up her act and pivot more into a populist stance or resulted in a stronger Democratic primary due to a desperate need to put up a more electable contender to follow up on Obama.

    But we got Trump. Which, I remind myself, was still the best option from the primary (given that Rand Paul fell off a cliff somehow). And because we got Trump THIS is the election we got.

    Honestly the folks I feel worst about are his voting base, and I mean in a "I feel for your loss" way. It's full of people who are either losing their way of life, such as blue collars that used to be in manufacturing, and those who fear they are going to lose it, such as the evangelicals. They have real issues, and this election realized their party isn't going to solve them, so they looked for an alternative that would help.

    And they got someone who, after wooing them by showing how little he's related to the GOP, spent all his time with a horribly managed campaign, attacks that don't hold water even when they are valid, presents enough material to easily feed a political media hungry for viewers, and who pivots to become more like the GOP when he needs to get to specifics.

    It's like Samsung and Apple. Apple brings out an expensive, disliked phone, Samsung decides to throw a phone thinking "any phone will do that's not Apple." and now not only did it blow up in their face but the public isn't as bothered about a phone with no headphone jack.

    And so here. Trump was put up as an alternative to Clinton. And after we saw him a hawkish extremely pro-life perfect example of "typical politician" with a lot of skeletons doesn't seem all that bad anymore. Perhaps she also needs an election win rivaling Reagan and supreme court slot left open just for her and her newly minted Democratic Senate?

    I would say "perhaps this will result in a better, more reasonable, and stronger Republican party come next time" but I said that in 2008 with McCain. And instead I get Trump.

    So I don't know. Maybe folks like me who are left-of-center will be considered conservatives now after this Left-shift is over. I'm already on the TAC more than I'm in the more leftward sites.

    But if there's still hope for the current Right in 2020, please PLEASE, no more "anyone buts". And seriously. Wallace Clones. 10 of them. THAT would help Make America Great Again.

    Rugeirn Drienborough , says: October 20, 2016 at 8:37 am
    Look at this and tell me all he ways Trump is demonstrating his blatantly obvious dementia. Wandering speech. Inability to concentrate. Irrelevant replies to specific questions. Inability to remember his own talking points. Inability to recognize the meaning of what is said to him and around him. Inability to distinguish fact from fancy, his own fantasies from reality. The man is senile.
    Brooklyn Blue Dog , says: October 20, 2016 at 9:58 am
    Before we get too much into ego-salving revisionism about which candidates would have been better opponents to Hillary, let's remember that the three biggest crackpots in the primaries – Carson, Cruz, and Trump – got more than 60% of the votes. So, before we go around trying to make ourselves feel better by telling ourselves that, without Trump, everything would have been fine, just imagine what a disaster the GOP would be facing if Ted Cruz were the nominee.

    The alternative to Trump wasn't Rubio the lightweight, Jeb the retread, or Kasich. It was Cruz. Just ruminate on that a bit.

    Carl , says: October 20, 2016 at 9:59 am
    Clinton lied through her teeth on the issue of the Clinton Foundation; which she made sound like God's personal charity. He didn't lay a glove on her on that issue. Why?
    DanJ , says: October 20, 2016 at 10:17 am
    Overseas reader here. A little bit off topic, but I'd really like to have TAC's writers (and commenters) take on how the political processes would work if Trump in fact won the election. A President totally unacceptable to all Democrats and many establishment Republicans, would he face a majority working against him on all issues? Would we see the office of the President cut down to the bare minimum the Constitution permits, or beyond? Would he be the lamest of lame ducks?
    Mac61 , says: October 20, 2016 at 10:22 am
    As a Christian, I find Hillary Clinton unacceptable. I also find Donald Trump unacceptable. I think most people who are not Christians feel the same way. 2016 is a loss for everyone. My hope is that a chastened Republican Party regroups and finds better leaders for 2018 and 2020. Trump is an idiot savant at best. You can't assign thoughtful strategy to him. Our republic– I'm sorry, our oligarchy - is in bad shape. But to the debate: The election isn't rigged if you are such an idiot that you are clearly losing it by your own fault.
    Liam , says: October 20, 2016 at 11:28 am
    "I really don't understand why no one likes Cruz. He seems like a well-spoken, principled social and fiscal conservative that has a healthy skepticism of U.S. interventions abroad."

    In case you forget or never understood, it's because Cruz pokes all sorts of people (including people he needs as allies and voters) in their eyes, repeatedly, and then tells them it's for their own good, when it's perfectly apparent that his ego is so needy he will abandon his principles when the right opportunity arises (viz his endorsement of Trump as Trump looked likely to overtake HRC).

    It doesn't help that his personality screams that he has Daddy Issues (his father treats him like a new Messiah). People see him and go "eew" in a different way than they go "eew" with Trump.

    Rubio is an empty suit for the Israel-Saudi Arabia neocon set.

    Cruz and Rubio were even worse than Trump. Which is saying a ton.

    GregR , says: October 20, 2016 at 11:34 am
    "I really don't understand why no one likes Cruz. He seems like a well-spoken, principled social and fiscal conservative that has a healthy skepticism of U.S. interventions abroad."

    Because Cruz is a Dominist. Meaning he specifically wants to establish a Christian theocracy in America and thinks he was sent by God to create it. Claiming that the first amendment only applies to Christians is so antithetical to the American foundation it scares this even of us who dont share his beliefs.

    And this isn't some light weight Anglican theocracy, he wants to bring back Old Testament punishments for crimes… a woman who gets raped must be stoned to death and all of that.

    Then Cruz wraps his amazingly scary theocracy nonsense in a creepy, slimy exterior.

    Uncle Billy , says: October 20, 2016 at 12:48 pm
    Foreign Policy is an area where Trump could have scored some points on Hillary Clinton's rather flawed record, Libya, Syria, etc. However, Trump is so undisciplined and unfocused that he failed to really nail her.

    He has some good ideas, but he fails to follow up and get specific on anything. He has this hard core of supporters who think he is great, but he has not captured many moderates or undecided voters.

    On top of all of this, the Republican Party is fractured between the GOP Establishment and the GOP Base. The GOP Base strongly supports Trump, the the GOP Establishment is weak at best. Indeed, many of the GOP elite, such as the Bush Family cannot stand him and refuse to support him.

    I really cannot see him winning. The math is simply not there. When you consider that African-Americans, Hispanics and educated women are strongly against him, it will be unusually difficult for him to win swing states.

    So it looks like President Hillary Clinton.

    EarlyBird , says: October 20, 2016 at 12:59 pm
    Trump has simply never been serious about this election. Last night only provided the 1,001st piece of evidence of that.

    He knew the question about his accepting the outcome of the election should he lose was going to come up, and he know he could only hurt himself by the answer he gave. He intentionally shot himself in the foot, once again.

    He has never, ever been interested in responsibility of the presidency. He alluded to that some months ago when he intimated that he may not be inaugurated should he win.

    He went into this for attention, adulation and power, mostly attention. He is a deeply sick man, who I honestly feel some pity for.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Clinton Aide Asks If Hillary Should Return The Money To Banks If She Loses Badly

    Money for speeches were simultaneously a bribe and a bank's contributions to Hillary campaign, which Hillary "privatized".
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    In the latest, 13th daily Podesta email release, one particular email sticks out : on February 2, 2016 Neera Tanden, a close confidante of Hillary Clinton and according to many one of the key organizers of her presidential campaign asks John Podesta a question which may be interpreted that banker money received by Hillary can be deemed equivalent to a bribe.

    Specifically, Tanden asks Podesta that " speaking at the banks... don't shoot me but if we lose badly maybe she should just return the money ." To which she then adds "say she gets the anger and moves on. Feels a little like an open wound."

    The exchange may be one of the more clear indications of a tentative "quid-pro-quo" arrangement, in which cash is provided in exchange for 'services' which naturally would not be rendered if Hillary were to "lose badly."

    Luckily for Tanden and Podesta, not to mention Hillary, at least according to the latest scientific polls, losing badly is not a contingency that should be a major consideration, at least not as of this moment.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Christopher R Barron: 'Trump stuck to the issues and forced Hillary to talk policy'

    Oct 20, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Christopher Barron
    Donald Trump came to this behind in the polls and reeling after weeks of negative media coverage. He needed a big night – and he got one.

    For a campaign that prides itself on its mastery of policy, Hillary spent much of the night trying trying to get Trump to take the bait on sideshow issues.

    In previous debates, Trump took the bait. Tonight, however, we saw a much more disciplined candidate. Trump stuck to the issues and forced Hillary to talk policy and – quite frankly – she had her worst debate performance.

    Unlike previous moderators, Chris Wallace was willing to properly challenge both Trump and Clinton. His line of questioning, particularly when it came to the Clinton Foundation, kept Hillary off balance.
    Clinton also found herself on the defensive on foreign policy, where she seemed more like a George W Bush Republican than a Democrat.

    As a result, this ended up being Trump's best debate. For far too long, the Republican candidate has let the campaign be about the circus and not about policy. If this race is about the circus then Hillary Clinton wins. If its about policy then Trump has a shot. It's frustrating for me, as a Trump supporter, that it has taken this long for him to focus on where his opponent stands on the issues.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Foreign Policy and the Third Presidential Debate The American Conservative

    Oct 20, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Foreign policy has received relatively little attention so far in the debates, but we might hear a bit more about a wider range of these issues tonight. One of the announced topics for the final 2016 presidential debate is "foreign hot spots," which suggests that the candidates will be pressed for their views on various conflicts and flashpoints around the globe. It is almost a given that one question will be on the recently announced Mosul offensive against ISIS, and I assume there will be more of the same leading Syria questions that we heard last time.

    Ideally, we should also hear questions about at least two of the following: the ongoing war in Afghanistan, heightened tensions between India and Pakistan following the attack in Uri, the war on Yemen and the U.S. role in it, the supposed firing of missiles at U.S. ships in the Red Sea related to that role, the Russian deployment of Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, and the public rift between the U.S. and the Philippines under its new president.

    All of these involve U.S. policies and relationships in one way or another, and we have not heard much of anything from either candidate about any of them. I doubt that any of these additional topics will come up tonight, but Wallace may surprise me.

    Tonight will be Trump's last chance to challenge Clinton on her lackluster foreign policy record. He has mostly failed to do this in the last two debates, and I don't expect him to do any better this time. If he could spell out the dangerous implications of Clinton's Syria policy, that could finally put her on the defensive and possibly put a dent in her support, but to do that he would have to know what he's talking about. Meanwhile, Clinton has been allowed to skate through the entire campaign without facing much scrutiny on foreign policy at all, and there is almost no time left. For all the talk of how this was going to be a foreign policy election, the subject has mostly been ignored for the duration of the general election. Considering that the next president will take office while the U.S. is fighting and/or supporting at least three wars after fifteen years of being at war somewhere in the world, this is a major failure on the part of the candidates and the media. Americans are electing another wartime president, but the candidates have had to answer remarkably few questions about how and why they would continue America's entanglements in foreign conflicts.

    P.S. As usual, I will be covering the debate on Twitter ( @DanielLarison ). The debate begins at 9:00 p.m. Eastern.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Immigration Reform and Bad Hombres

    www.npr.org

    Trump's promise to deport illegal immigrants and build a massive wall along the Mexican border has been one of his signature issues of this campaign. "They are coming in illegally. Drugs are pouring in through the border. We have no country if we have no border. Hillary wants to give amnesty, she wants to have open borders," the GOP nominee argued.

    And he also argued that the border problem was contributing to the drug and opioid crisis in the country by allowing them to pore over the border.

    "We're going to get them out, we're going to secure the border, and once the border is secured, at a later date, we'll make a determination as to the rest, but we have some bad hombres here, and we're going to get them out," Trump said.

    Clinton said she didn't want to "rip families apart. I don't want to be sending parents away from children. I don't want to see the deportation force that Donald has talked about in action in our country." She pointed she voted for increased border security and that any violent person should be deported.

    "I think we are both a nation of immigrants and we are a nation of laws, and that we can act accordingly and that's why I am introducing comprehensive immigration reform within the first hundred days with a path to citizenship," Clinton promised.

    [Oct 19, 2016] Internal Anger At The FBI Over Clinton Investigation Continues To Grow

    Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Michael Krieger via Liberty Blitzbrieg blog,

    This is a story that refuses to go away. Recall the post from earlier this month, Backlash Grows Months After the FBI's Sham Investigation Into Hillary Clinton , in which we learned:

    Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, "So if I blew it, they blew it, too."

    But agents say Comey tied investigators' hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

    "In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews," said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI's computer investigations unit.

    Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets.

    What's more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a "voluntary" witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation.

    Agreed retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello: "Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization."

    Comey made the 25 agents who worked on the case sign nondisclosure agreements. But others say morale has sunk inside the bureau.

    "The director is giving the bureau a bad rap with all the gaps in the investigation," one agent in the Washington field office said. "There's a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country."

    While the above article focused on the opinions of retired agents, today's article zeros in on the growing frustrations of current agency employees.

    The Daily Caller reports:

    FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey deciding not to suggest that the Justice Department prosecute Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.

    According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey's leadership.

    "This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not. That is appalling," an FBI special agent who has worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. "We talk about it in the office and don't know how Comey can keep going."

    Another special agent for the bureau that worked counter-terrorism and criminal cases said he is offended by Comey's saying: "we" and "I've been an investigator."

    After graduating from law school, Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate in a law firm in the city. After becoming a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Comey's career moved through the U.S. Attorney's Office until he became Deputy Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration.

    After Bush left office, Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed Martin, among other private sector posts. President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director Robert Mueller.

    "Comey was never an investigator or special agent. The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that Comey included them in 'collective we' statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to prosecute," the second agent said. "All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to prosecuted but he stood in the way."

    Indeed, there were many red flags surrounding Comey from the beginning. So much so that I wrote an article in 2013 titled, So Who is James Comey, Obama's Nominee to Head the FBI?

    In light of the latest revelations that the NSA is spying on the communications of millions of Verizon customers courtesy of information provided by the FBI, it probably makes sense to know a little more about Obama's nominee to head that Bureau. That man is James Comey, and he was a top Department of Justice attorney under John Ashcroft during the George W. Bush Administration (since then he has worked at Lockheed Martin and at the enormous Connecticut hedge fund Bridgewater Associates). This guy defines the revolving door cancer ruining these United States.

    Now back to The Daily Caller.

    According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova, more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at bureau and specifically the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena.

    DiGenova told WMAL radio's Drive at Five last week, "People are starting to talk. They're calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away."

    He explained, "It's not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack but more than that that they think he's a crook. They think he's fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau inside right now is a mess."

    He added, "The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk."

    Corruption in the USA has now reached the level where it starts destroying the entire fabric of society itself. This is a very dangerous moment.

    hedgeless_horseman , Oct 18, 2016 3:54 PM

    Is this the same FBI that released the 5 dancing israelis?

    fleur de lis -> wombats , Oct 18, 2016 7:38 PM
    It's already been done. After the Boston Marathon false flag, a number of FBI agents were assigned to the case. Two in particular probably got too close to the hoax because suddenly they were sent on a naval training assignment. The FBI on a naval training assignment in the middle of an investigation?

    ... ... ...

    Debt-Is-Not-Money -> fleur de lis , Oct 18, 2016 9:04 PM
    Comey said not to call him a "weasel". "He is not a weasel"! He's right, he is not a weasel. That would be an insult to all weasels!
    Bay Area Guy -> pods , Oct 18, 2016 5:17 PM
    Excellent post pods. These agents are using the Nazi excuse of "just following orders". We'll, a corrupt order is corrupt.....and so are you if you blindly follow it.
    gmrpeabody -> Bay Area Guy , Oct 18, 2016 5:23 PM
    "There's a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country."

    Perception, my ass.., try reality.

    The Billy Blaze -> pods , Oct 18, 2016 8:06 PM
    The NDAs were obviously procured through fraud thereby nullifying their binding nature. Dirty hands all over the Washington D.C. cesspool. Are we ready to clean house yet?
    CheapBastard -> StychoKiller , Oct 18, 2016 11:26 PM
    The FBI has lost total street cred first after failing to indict Crooked Hillary, and then granting immunity to her co-conspirators. the icing on the cake was Comey blaming other FBI.

    When I was wanering thru the sports store yesterday, the feeling of animosity toward the FBI was very high. Once they were highly respected...Comey has trashed that agency badly...People like John Malone 9who once heade the NYC FBI office), Tompkins in the louisville area, etc would be revolted by Crooked Comey.

    Occident Mortal -> BaBaBouy , Oct 18, 2016 4:32 PM
    If I was in the FBI and anywhere near this cover up, I would be worried about landing up in jail.

    Even if she wins this isn't going away. The Dems don't have congress.

    PrayingMantis -> BaBaBouy , Oct 18, 2016 4:37 PM

    ... I'm sure the FBI agents have been angry <nudge, wink> since June 1996 >>> https://epic.org/privacy/databases/fbi/filegate/ >>> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/fbi.files/index.orig.html >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy ...

    ... I'm not implying that those 900(?) FBI files of prominent Americans given by the FBI to the Klinton Krime Kartel were being used for blackmail ... and perhaps the reason why the dynamic duo keeps getting "get-out-of-jail-free" cards whenever they need it ...

    Omen IV -> jcaz , Oct 18, 2016 7:38 PM
    The personnel are "angry" but no whistleblowers and therefore no one wants to do their job

    Cops double up in Chicago sit on the sidelines and let the gangs kill each other and the FBI let's the Clintons steal everything and rape the citizens

    This is a ...... Movie script

    Dabooda -> SomethingSomethingDarkSide , Oct 18, 2016 4:43 PM
    @hedgeless horseman: The FBI did not release the "Dancing Israelis." It was Judge Michael Chertoff. He was in charge of the Criminal Division in the Justice Department on 9/11. Essentially responsible for the 9/11 non-investigation. He let hundreds of Israeli spies who were arrested prior to and on 9/11 go back home to Israel. He was also a prosecuting judge in the first terrorist attack on the WTC in 1993. Chertoff purportedly holds dual citizenship with the US and Israel. His family is one of the founding families of the state of Israel and his mother was one of the first ever agents of the Mossad, Israel's spy agency. His father and uncle are ordained rabbis and teachers of the Talmud.

    He was subsequently named head of the Dept of Homeland Security. His company arranged for placement of Rapascan nude scanners in American airports. Who says crime doesn't pay?

    brain_glitch -> Dabooda , Oct 18, 2016 4:48 PM
    "and co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act"
    Creative_Destruct -> InjectTheVenom , Oct 18, 2016 4:03 PM

    ..... Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, "So if I blew it, they blew it, too."

    ...... agents say Comey tied investigators' hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

    ...... In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews," said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI's computer investigations unit.

    Time for Comey, Bill, Hillary, Lynch, Obama, MSM Media, and on, and on, to ALL

    DANCE ON THE FUCKING AIR !!!

    (Method of neck suspension, NOT rope.....piano wire..)

    chubbar -> InjectTheVenoM , Oct 18, 2016 6:52 PM
    I get a kick out of these career FBI agents worrying that Comey has sullied the reputation of the FBI (he has). Here is a fucking news flash for you assholes, if Clinton gets elected there is an almost certain chance that she starts a fucking thermo nuclear war with Russia. You, your families and the precious FBI won't exist 30 minutes after that starts seeing that you are sitting at ground zero. Does that do anything to get you off your asses and perhaps do your fucking jobs?

    There is now about 30 minutes of video that proves the Clinton campaign conspired to incite violence at Trump rallys. How about you fuckers get off your ass and start investigating this and the "pay to play" shit the Podesta tapes came out with? Or, how about the email that indicates POTUS illegally influenced the Supreme Court Justice on ACA??? Christ, it's a target rich environment for felony convictions out there and you guys are doing what????

    fishpoeM -> hedgeless_horseman , Oct 18, 2016 5:14 PM
    Allegedly, there was a much larger contingent of Mossad agents that were detained immediately after 9/11. An additional 100 or so were in the States "studying art" and similar cover stories when in fact they were carefully casing various buildings including banks and Federal sites. For reasons never made public, the FBI let them all go back to Israel. Without waterboarding Dick Cheney, the public will never know the truth.
    Mustafa Kemal -> Calmyourself , Oct 18, 2016 4:38 PM
    " Sorry, intentions are one thing actions another at least among adults."

    Actually, it can also be part of the game. Eisenhower is well known for his MIC warning on TV just as he was leaving office. However, if you look at what he did, and what he allowed Allen Dulles to do, he was part of it. Making fake apologies after the fact provides some balm but doesnt undo the damage.

    Dr. Bonzo , Oct 18, 2016 3:58 PM
    I'm tellin ya.... rank-and-file aren't sitting around giggling that this fucking cunt is walking on water on shit they would be hung out to dry for. The Podesta leaks are NSA standard intercepts. Anyone could have grabbed them from a standard intercept. Tja, that's the problem when you go hooovering up the entire internet. Pretty fucking hard to compartmentalize collection efforts on that scale.

    We applaud and support the members of our armed forces and intelligence community who take their oath of office seriously and refuse to let these murderous internationalists tear down our country without a fucking fight.

    Bay of Pigs -> Dr. Bonzo , Oct 18, 2016 4:23 PM
    Agreed. I emailed Trey Gowdy with the James Okeefe DNC video.

    Somebody in Wash DC needs to grow a set of balls and get on that story now, including the FBI.

    PS I just had my cousin ask me if I had "fact checked" the Okeefe video. I was like, WTF are you talking about?

    Joebloinvestor , Oct 18, 2016 3:58 PM
    Evidently, the National Enquirer is doing Hillary like they did Edwards.

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-cl...

    Rainman , Oct 18, 2016 3:59 PM
    When Hillary gets in there all these old FBI white boyz will be shown the door and replaced with pussylesbo power. These are the good old days,be afraid.

    [Oct 19, 2016] Toxic Politics Versus Better Economics by Mohamed A. El-Erian

    This guy is die hard neoliberal. That's why he is fond of Washington consensus. He does not understand that the time is over for Washington consensus in 2008. this is just a delayed reaction :-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... after years of unusually sluggish and strikingly non-inclusive growth, the consensus is breaking down. Advanced-country citizens are frustrated with an "establishment" – including economic "experts," mainstream political leaders, and dominant multinational companies – which they increasingly blame for their economic travails. ..."
    "... Anti-establishment movements and figures have been quick to seize on this frustration, using inflammatory and even combative rhetoric to win support. They do not even have to win elections to disrupt the transmission mechanism between economics and politics. ..."
    "... They also included attacks on "international elites" and criticism of Bank of England policies that were instrumental in stabilizing the British economy in the referendum's immediate aftermath – thus giving May's new government time to formulate a coherent Brexit strategy. ..."
    "... The risk is that, as bad politics crowds out good economics, popular anger and frustration will rise, making politics even more toxic. ..."
    "... At one time, the people's government served as a check on the excesses of economic interests -- now, it is simply owned by them. ..."
    "... The defects of the maximalist-globalist view were known for years before the "consensus began to break down". ..."
    "... In at least some of these cases, the "transmission" of the consensus involved more than a little coercion and undermining local interests, sovereignty, and democracy. This is an central feature of the "consensus", and it is hard to see how it can by anything but irredeemable. ..."
    "... However it is not bad politics crowding out out good economics, for the simple reason that the economic "consensus" itself, in embracing destructive and destabilizing economic policy crowded out the ostensibly centrist politics... ..."
    "... The Inclusive Growth has remained only a Slogan and Politicians never ventured into the theme. In the changed version of the World.] essential equal opportunity and World of Social media, perspective and social Political scene is changed. Its more like reverting to mean. ..."
    Oct 19, 2016 | www.project-syndicate.org

    In the 1990s and 2000s, for example, the so-called Washington Consensus dominated policymaking in much of the world...

    ... ... ...

    But after years of unusually sluggish and strikingly non-inclusive growth, the consensus is breaking down. Advanced-country citizens are frustrated with an "establishment" – including economic "experts," mainstream political leaders, and dominant multinational companies – which they increasingly blame for their economic travails.

    Anti-establishment movements and figures have been quick to seize on this frustration, using inflammatory and even combative rhetoric to win support. They do not even have to win elections to disrupt the transmission mechanism between economics and politics. The United Kingdom proved that in June, with its Brexit vote – a decision that directly defied the broad economic consensus that remaining within the European Union was in Britain's best interest.

    ... ... ...

    ... speeches by Prime Minister Theresa May and members of her cabinet revealed an intention to pursue a "hard Brexit," thereby dismantling trading arrangements that have served the economy well. They also included attacks on "international elites" and criticism of Bank of England policies that were instrumental in stabilizing the British economy in the referendum's immediate aftermath – thus giving May's new government time to formulate a coherent Brexit strategy.

    Several other advanced economies are experiencing analogous political developments. In Germany, a surprisingly strong showing by the far-right Alternative für Deutschland in recent state elections already appears to be affecting the government's behavior.

    In the US, even if Donald Trump's presidential campaign fails to put a Republican back in the White House (as appears increasingly likely, given that, in the latest twist of this highly unusual campaign, many Republican leaders have now renounced their party's nominee), his candidacy will likely leave a lasting impact on American politics. If not managed well, Italy's constitutional referendum in December – a risky bid by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to consolidate support – could backfire, just like Cameron's referendum did, causing political disruption and undermining effective action to address the country's economic challenges.

    ... ... ...

    The risk is that, as bad politics crowds out good economics, popular anger and frustration will rise, making politics even more toxic. ...

    john zac OCT 17, 2016

    Mr El-Erian, I know you are a good man, but it seems as though everyone believes we can synthetically engineer a way out of this never ending hole that financial engineering dug us into in the first place.

    Instead why don't we let this game collapse, you are a good man and you will play a role in the rebuilding of better system, one that nurtures and guides instead of manipulate and lie.

    The moral suasion you mention can only appear by allowing for the self annihilation of this financial system. This way we can learn from the autopsies and leave speculative theories to third rate economists

    Curtis Carpenter OCT 15, 2016

    It is sadly true that "the relationship between politics and economics is changing," at least in the U.S.. At one time, the people's government served as a check on the excesses of economic interests -- now, it is simply owned by them.

    It seems to me that the best we can hope for now is some sort of modest correction in the relationship after 2020 -- and that the TBTF banks won't deliver another economic disaster in the meantime.

    Petey Bee OCT 15, 2016
    1. The defects of the maximalist-globalist view were known for years before the "consensus began to break down".

    2. In at least some of these cases, the "transmission" of the consensus involved more than a little coercion and undermining local interests, sovereignty, and democracy. This is an central feature of the "consensus", and it is hard to see how it can by anything but irredeemable.

    In the concluding paragraph, the author states that the reaction is going to be slow. That's absolutely correct, the evidence has been pushed higher and higher above the icy water line since 2008.

    However it is not bad politics crowding out out good economics, for the simple reason that the economic "consensus" itself, in embracing destructive and destabilizing economic policy crowded out the ostensibly centrist politics...

    Paul Daley OCT 15, 2016
    The Washington consensus collapsed during the Great Recession but the latest "consensus" among economists regarding "good economics" deserves respect.
    atul baride OCT 15, 2016
    The Inclusive Growth has remained only a Slogan and Politicians never ventured into the theme. In the changed version of the World.] essential equal opportunity and World of Social media, perspective and social Political scene is changed. Its more like reverting to mean.

    [Oct 19, 2016] Emails Show Hillary Struggled To Draft Bribery Corruption Reforms - She May Be So Tainted She is Really Vulnerable

    Notable quotes:
    "... The news was released that Hillarnazi had lesbian lovers, paid for sexual encounters, has had memory issues so severe going back to 2009 that her own people aren't sure if she knows what planet she is on, can't walk without getting massively fatigued, a new rape victim came forward, the Clinton Foundation stole over $2 billion in Haitian relief funds, the Clinton Foundation has a pay gap between men and women of $190,000 and she referred to blacks repeatedly as the dreaded "n" word . ..."
    "... Again, that is from YESTERDAY Yet there has been no movement in the polls. She is the most criminal and unethical candidate in the history of America, and is likely to win. There is no greater indictment about our citizens than her candidacy. if thise was 1920, she would be in front of a firing squad. ..."
    "... But we have 2016. This is not breaking news at the main media outlets. Only people actively digging know this. All this pales in comparison with the fact of bussing people around different states to vote. If elections can be rigged then nothing else actually matters. Nothing will change because the only tool to repair the country is the election. ..."
    "... The ballot box is not the last remedy to fix things. Just saying. Voting is more to bring you into the system than you changing the system. What better way to keep you happy inside the system than to give you the ability to "vote the bums out" at the next (s)election? ..."
    "... Europe is also facing the problem of not enough breeding to keep up the exponential expansion of their currency (debt issued with interest) so they import people to keep the ponzi going. Not going to work as the people you bring in are not going to be expanding it at the rate that someone born into that system is going to. ..."
    "... Sucks to be them - the humillatiion and embarrassment of the cockroaches as they all scurry for cover. Not to mention the career nose-dives en masse for all the selfsame scum floating around the turd herself. I'm surprised Hillary hasn't told Podesta to eat a bullet (or nail-gun) yet, given the damage he has caused by being hacked. Err...rewind, eh Hillary? Because it is not as if you are an angel in this respect, you dumb fucking senile cunt. ..."
    "... Neocons are IT illiterate, and this must be their primary weakness, given how fucking useless they are at securing their insidious evil shit (now in the public domain - eh, Poddy, old chum, you evil CUNT). It must be a fucking disease given how utterly bereft of intelligence with respect to IT security they collectively are. ..."
    "... It definitely sucks to be Hillary when even the help knows you're crooked. It sucks to be the help too. HILLARY FOR PRISON 2017!!!! ..."
    "... As if. Former Lousiana Governor Edwin Edwards in 1983 said "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." In 2016, neither of those conditions is a bar to election to the presidency. ..."
    "... Evidently the rats have been assured the ship isn't sinking. Besides it's insured if crossing is successful. ..."
    "... Americans have the attention span of a gnat these days. The hypocrisy is stunning and has no bounds. ..."
    "... The best part of waking up is realizing that TPTB had been pissing in our cup while we weren't looking. ..."
    "... Another body to add to the Clinton Death List, this time the doctor who treated her for a concussion and knew about her glioma. A devout Hindu, this doctor supposedly committed suicide after threatening to reveal Hillary medical information if prosecutors continued to go after him for bogus criminal charges. http://www.govtslaves.info/clinton-doctor-who-confirmed-hillarys-brain-t... ..."
    "... Neera Tanden must be suicidal by now. She probably doesn't even realise it yet. ..."
    "... I was thinking the same thing. With so many on the "team" having such critical positions on their own "leader", why the fuck are they supporting her, and why do they still have jobs? ..."
    "... Power. Money. The belief that they will be able to run things themselves once she goes full brain clot. One thing I do know, Hillary would be very unwise to let any of them pick her nursing home for her. ..."
    "... Neera Tanden: "It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment." https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18353 ..."
    "... I imagine cankle's inner circle are gobling a lot off drugs about now. Their paranoia is no doubt palpable. I hope they devour one another. ..."
    "... It ain't just the US where free press is extinct. Had Wiki dropped the lot, it would simply have sunk without a trace with respect to the MSM reporting it to the sheeple, as we have seen in the last 12 days. ..."
    "... Free Shit and open borders and speaking well while lying. The stupidity of the average person, particularly those who only get their news from the corporate controlled media, is fuckin' amazing. Only a military coup could hunt down and arrest the Deep State... The Kagans and Powers and Jarretts and every cunt who has given HRC money. ..."
    "... Short of a coup, massive desertion would be very helpful. ..."
    "... you hit the nail on the head - "speaking well while lying". Middle class English people speak very well - appear attractive to Americans - when in fact they have zero monopoly on honesty, brains or ability ..."
    "... just because someone speaks well does not mean they are legal, decent, honest and truthful - in fact clinton fails on all four of these positives and is illegal, indecent, crooked and a liar ..."
    "... The no fly zone doesn't like questions not preprogrammed. I hope his brother gets a chance to rip Obama a new asshole. ..."
    "... rule by criminals REQUIRES deep knowledge and primary experience with criminal exploits. She is the ONLY candidate who is qualified to run Gov-Co. ..."
    "... Comey is a Dirty Cop – Former US Attorney. How Crooked Clinton Got Off. ..."
    "... Juan Williams email to John Podesta found here: https://twitter.com/hashtag/DrainTheSwamp?src=hash ..."
    "... How does it feel working for a total scumbag just to get a paycheck? ..."
    Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    The latest WikiLeaks dump reveals yet another bombshell from the outspoken, an likely soon to be unemployed, Neera Tanden. The email chain comes from March of this year and begins when Neera distributes a memo on proposals for reform policies relative to bribery and corruption of public officials . That said, apparently the folks within the Hillary campaign were aware that this was a very dicey topic for their chosen candidate as even Tanden admits " she may be so tainted she's really vulnerable. "

    Meanwhile, Hillary advisor Jake Sullivan provided his thoughts that he really liked the following proposal on strengthening bribery laws...

    "Strengthen bribery laws to ensure that politicians don' change legislation for political donations."

    ...but subsequently admits that it might be problematic given Hillary's history.

    "The second idea is a favorite of mine, as you know, but REALLY dicey territory for HRC, right?"

    Even a month before these internal campaign discussions, Stan Greenberg, a democrat strategist of Democracy Corps, wrote to Podesta highlighting that "reform of money and politics is where she is taking the biggest hit." That said, Stan was quick to assure Podesta that there was no reason for concern as a specially crafted message and a little help from the media could make the whole problem go away.

    "We are also going to test some messages that include acknowledgement of being part of the system , and know how much has to change. "

    Finally, perhaps no one has better summarized why the Clinton camp may be worried about corruption charges than Obama:

    Syrin PrayingMantis Oct 19, 2016 12:58 PM ,
    The news was released that Hillarnazi had lesbian lovers, paid for sexual encounters, has had memory issues so severe going back to 2009 that her own people aren't sure if she knows what planet she is on, can't walk without getting massively fatigued, a new rape victim came forward, the Clinton Foundation stole over $2 billion in Haitian relief funds, the Clinton Foundation has a pay gap between men and women of $190,000 and she referred to blacks repeatedly as the dreaded "n" word .

    Again, that is from YESTERDAY Yet there has been no movement in the polls. She is the most criminal and unethical candidate in the history of America, and is likely to win. There is no greater indictment about our citizens than her candidacy. if thise was 1920, she would be in front of a firing squad.

    WTFRLY Syrin Oct 19, 2016 1:04 PM ,
    2 Years After This American Journalist Was Killed, Her 'Conspiracy Theories' on Syria are Proven as Facts
    nibiru WTFRLY Oct 19, 2016 1:05 PM ,
    But we have 2016. This is not breaking news at the main media outlets. Only people actively digging know this. All this pales in comparison with the fact of bussing people around different states to vote. If elections can be rigged then nothing else actually matters. Nothing will change because the only tool to repair the country is the election.

    In Europe they ship people from Africa and the Middle East to become multicultural societies ( look at Blair multicultural effort, Swedish no-go zones and Merkel's last effort with immigration crisis) . We are in deep shit here and the processes to repair the state are not there anymore. Now we only have Wikileaks doing the job of media - watching politicians' hands.

    pods nibiru Oct 19, 2016 1:16 PM ,
    The ballot box is not the last remedy to fix things. Just saying. Voting is more to bring you into the system than you changing the system. What better way to keep you happy inside the system than to give you the ability to "vote the bums out" at the next (s)election?

    Europe is also facing the problem of not enough breeding to keep up the exponential expansion of their currency (debt issued with interest) so they import people to keep the ponzi going. Not going to work as the people you bring in are not going to be expanding it at the rate that someone born into that system is going to.

    But, it is a plausible explanation for why they are trying it. The moneychangers have their very lives depending on keeping this going, so they have to try it.

    pods

    CuttingEdge pods Oct 19, 2016 1:21 PM ,
    All I know is, most the cunts behind the curtain have been completely compromised pre-election.

    Sucks to be them - the humillatiion and embarrassment of the cockroaches as they all scurry for cover. Not to mention the career nose-dives en masse for all the selfsame scum floating around the turd herself. I'm surprised Hillary hasn't told Podesta to eat a bullet (or nail-gun) yet, given the damage he has caused by being hacked. Err...rewind, eh Hillary? Because it is not as if you are an angel in this respect, you dumb fucking senile cunt.

    The fucking irony is palpable.

    Neocons are IT illiterate, and this must be their primary weakness, given how fucking useless they are at securing their insidious evil shit (now in the public domain - eh, Poddy, old chum, you evil CUNT). It must be a fucking disease given how utterly bereft of intelligence with respect to IT security they collectively are.

    Theosebes Goodfellow CuttingEdge Oct 19, 2016 2:17 PM ,
    It definitely sucks to be Hillary when even the help knows you're crooked. It sucks to be the help too. HILLARY FOR PRISON 2017!!!!
    junction Syrin Oct 19, 2016 1:05 PM ,

    As if. Former Lousiana Governor Edwin Edwards in 1983 said "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." In 2016, neither of those conditions is a bar to election to the presidency.

    Arnold Syrin Oct 19, 2016 1:09 PM ,
    Evidently the rats have been assured the ship isn't sinking. Besides it's insured if crossing is successful.
    Bay of Pigs PrayingMantis Oct 19, 2016 1:01 PM ,
    Americans have the attention span of a gnat these days. The hypocrisy is stunning and has no bounds.
    PTR erkme73 Oct 19, 2016 1:43 PM ,
    The best part of waking up is realizing that TPTB had been pissing in our cup while we weren't looking.
    junction PrayingMantis Oct 19, 2016 1:30 PM ,
    Another body to add to the Clinton Death List, this time the doctor who treated her for a concussion and knew about her glioma. A devout Hindu, this doctor supposedly committed suicide after threatening to reveal Hillary medical information if prosecutors continued to go after him for bogus criminal charges. http://www.govtslaves.info/clinton-doctor-who-confirmed-hillarys-brain-t...
    Croesus PrayingMantis Oct 19, 2016 1:31 PM ,
    ZH Readers in Germany: Read this: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/angela-merkel.pdf Merkel trying to hide money in offshore accounts! Print it, spread it, and wreck that bitch.
    whatamaroon Oct 19, 2016 12:53 PM ,
    Lock her up!!
    medium giraffe Oct 19, 2016 12:54 PM ,
    Neera Tanden must be suicidal by now. She probably doesn't even realise it yet.
    ShrNfr medium giraffe Oct 19, 2016 12:58 PM ,
    Don't worry, for her it will just be a walk in the park.
    Ranger4564 -> medium giraffe Oct 19, 2016 12:59 PM ,
    I was thinking the same thing. With so many on the "team" having such critical positions on their own "leader", why the fuck are they supporting her, and why do they still have jobs?
    tarabel -> Ranger4564 Oct 19, 2016 1:18 PM ,

    Power. Money. The belief that they will be able to run things themselves once she goes full brain clot. One thing I do know, Hillary would be very unwise to let any of them pick her nursing home for her.

    medium giraffe -> Occams_Chainsaw Oct 19, 2016 1:13 PM ,
    Neera Tanden: "It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment." https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18353
    pine_marten -> medium giraffe Oct 19, 2016 2:00 PM ,
    I imagine cankle's inner circle are gobling a lot off drugs about now. Their paranoia is no doubt palpable. I hope they devour one another.
    CuttingEdge -> indaknow Oct 19, 2016 1:34 PM ,
    Assange has played a blinder, and all those who bitched about him "not dropping everything at once" give some thought to the fact that even in the UK barely one reference to the deluge of shit landing on Hillary thus far has been reported in the MSM. They have killed virtually everything, and are mainlining Trump the mad man (for insinuating election fraud) shit.

    It ain't just the US where free press is extinct. Had Wiki dropped the lot, it would simply have sunk without a trace with respect to the MSM reporting it to the sheeple, as we have seen in the last 12 days.

    Better a death by a thousand cuts to build up momentum, and give EVERYONE the chance to absorb the full criminallity of this fundamentally evil bitch and her cohorts. There is way too much to take in one hit.

    War Machine Oct 19, 2016 1:02 PM ,
    sadly, most Americans are going to vote based on which candidate they think is least 'offensive' to them, and ISMism prevails in the corporate MSM and Regressive Left:

    Why?

    Free Shit and open borders and speaking well while lying. The stupidity of the average person, particularly those who only get their news from the corporate controlled media, is fuckin' amazing. Only a military coup could hunt down and arrest the Deep State... The Kagans and Powers and Jarretts and every cunt who has given HRC money.

    Short of a coup, massive desertion would be very helpful.

    hooligan2009 -> War Machine Oct 19, 2016 1:39 PM ,
    you hit the nail on the head - "speaking well while lying". Middle class English people speak very well - appear attractive to Americans - when in fact they have zero monopoly on honesty, brains or ability

    just because someone speaks well does not mean they are legal, decent, honest and truthful - in fact clinton fails on all four of these positives and is illegal, indecent, crooked and a liar

    SharkBit Oct 19, 2016 1:02 PM ,
    Anyone else disgusted to hear Obozo speak anymore? What an embarrassment.
    Atomizer SharkBit Oct 19, 2016 1:13 PM ,
    The no fly zone doesn't like questions not preprogrammed. I hope his brother gets a chance to rip Obama a new asshole.
    Mango327 Oct 19, 2016 1:04 PM ,
    If Donald Trump Acted Like Hillary Clinton... http://youtu.be/K8JUpM97VZE
    Madcow Oct 19, 2016 1:05 PM ,
    Authoritarian rule by criminals REQUIRES deep knowledge and primary experience with criminal exploits. She is the ONLY candidate who is qualified to run Gov-Co.
    SidSays Oct 19, 2016 1:07 PM ,
    Comey is a Dirty Cop – Former US Attorney. How Crooked Clinton Got Off.
    Miss Expectations Oct 19, 2016 1:11 PM ,
    Juan Williams email to John Podesta found here: https://twitter.com/hashtag/DrainTheSwamp?src=hash
    vegas Oct 19, 2016 1:13 PM ,
    Is this from "The Onion"? Seriously, these people are so fucking tone deaf and out of touch it's amazing. Throw 'em all in prison. How does it feel working for a total scumbag just to get a paycheck?

    [Oct 19, 2016] Wikileaks Releases Another 1803 Podesta Emails In Part 12 Of Data Dump; Total Is Now 18953

    Notable quotes:
    "... Among the initial emails to stand out is this extensive exchange showing just how intimiately the narrative of Hillary's server had been coached. The following September 2015 email exchange between Podesta and Nick Merrill, framed the "core language" to be used in response to questions Clinton could be asked about her email server, and the decision to "bleach" emails from it. The emails contain long and short versions of responses for Clinton. ..."
    Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    The daily dump continues. In the now traditional daily routine, one which forces the Clinton campaign to resort to ever more stark sexual scandals involving Trump to provide a media distraction, moments ago Wikileaks released yet another 1,803 emails in Part 12 of its ongoing Podesta Email dump, which brings the total number of released emails to 18,953.

    RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 12 https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm #HillaryClinton #imWithHer #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails12 pic.twitter.com/druf7WQXD5

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2016

    As a reminder among the most recent revelations we got further insights into Hillary's desire to see Obamacare " unravel" , her contempt for "doofus" Bernie Sanders, staff exchanges on handling media queries about Clinton "flip-flopping" on gay marriage, galvanizing Latino support and locking down Clinton's healthcare policy. Just as notable has been the ongoing revelation of just how "captured" the so-called independent press has been in its "off the record" discussions with John Podesta which got the head Politico correspondent, Glenn Thrush, to admit he is a "hack" for allowing Podesta to dictate the content of his article.

    The release comes on the day of the third and final presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and as a result we are confident it will be scrutinized especially carefully for any last minute clues that would allow Trump to lob a much needed Hail Mary to boost his standing in the polls.

    As there is a total of 50,000 emails, Wikileaks will keep the media busy over the next three weeks until the elections with another 30,000 emails still expected to be released.

    * * *

    Among the initial emails to stand out is this extensive exchange showing just how intimiately the narrative of Hillary's server had been coached. The following September 2015 email exchange between Podesta and Nick Merrill, framed the "core language" to be used in response to questions Clinton could be asked about her email server, and the decision to "bleach" emails from it. The emails contain long and short versions of responses for Clinton.

    "Because the government already had everything that was work-related, and my personal emails were just that – personal – I didn't see a reason to keep them so I asked that they be deleted, and that's what the company that managed my server did. And we notified Congress of that back in March"

    She was then presented with the following hypothetical scenario:

    * "Why won't you say whether you wiped it?"

    "After we went through the process to determine what was work related and what was not and provided the work related emails to State, I decided not to keep the personal ones."

    "We saved the work-related ones on a thumb drive that is now with the Department of Justice. And as I said in March, I chose not to keep the personal ones. I asked that they be deleted, how that happened was up to the company that managed the server. And they are cooperating fully with anyone that has questions."

    * * *

    Another notable email reveals the close relationship between the Clinton Foundation and Ukraine billionaire Victor Pinchuk, a prominent donor to the Clinton Foundation , in which we see the latter's attempt to get a meeting with Bill Clinton to show support for Ukraine:

    From: Tina Flournoy < [email protected] >
    Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:58:55 AM
    To: Amitabh Desai
    Cc: Jon Davidson; Margaret Steenburg; Jake Sullivan; Dan Schwerin; Huma Abedin; John Podesta
    Subject: Re: Victor Pinchuk

    Team HRC - we'll get back to you on this

    > On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Amitabh Desai < [email protected] > wrote:
    >
    > Victor Pinchuk is relentlessly following up (including this morning) about a meeting with WJC in London or anywhere in Europe. Ideally he wants to bring together a few western leaders to show support for Ukraine, with WJC probably their most important participant. If that's not palatable for us, then he'd like a bilat with WJC.
    >
    > If it's not next week, that's fine, but he wants a date. I keep saying we have no Europe plans, although we do have those events in London in June. Are folks comfortable offering Victor a private meeting on one of those dates? At this point I get the impression that although I keep saying WJC cares about Ukraine, Pinchuk feels like WJC hasn't taken enough action to demonstrate that, particularly during this existential moment for the county and for him.
    >
    > I sense this is so important because Pinchuk is under Putin's heel right now, feeling a great degree of pressure and pain for his many years of nurturing stronger ties with the West.
    >
    > I get all the downsides and share the concerns. I am happy to go back and say no. It would just be good to know what WJC (and HRC and you all) would like to do, because this will likely impact the future of this relationship, and slow walking our reply will only reinforce his growing angst.
    >
    > Thanks, and sorry for the glum note on a Monday morning...

    * * *

    We find more evidence of media coordination with Politico's Glenn Thrush who has an off the record question to make sure he is not "fucking anything up":

    From: [email protected]
    To: [email protected]
    Date: 2015-04-30 17:06
    Subject: Re: sorry to bother...

    Sure. Sorry for the delay I was on a plane.
    On Apr 30, 2015 9:44 AM, "Glenn Thrush" < [email protected] > wrote:

    > Can I send u a couple of grafs, OTR, to make sure I'm not fucking
    > anything up?

    * * *

    Another notable moment emerges in the emails, involving Hillary Clinton's selective memory. Clinton's description of herself as a moderate Democrat at a September 2015 event in Ohio caused an uproar amongst her team. In a mail from Clinton advisor Neera Tanden to Podesta in the days following the comment she asks why she said this.

    "I pushed her on this on Sunday night. She claims she didn't remember saying it. Not sure I believe her," Podesta replies. Tanden insists that the comment has made her job more difficult after "telling every reporter I know she's actually progressive". " It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment ," she adds.

    * * *

    We also get additional insight into Clinton courting the Latino minority. A November 2008 email from Federico Peña , who was on the Obama-Biden transition team, called for a "Latino media person" to be added to the list of staff to appeal to Latino voters. Federico de Jesus or Vince Casillas are seen as ideal candidates, both of whom were working in the Chicago operations.

    "More importantly, it would helpful (sic) to Barack to do pro-active outreach to Latino media across the country to get our positive message out before people start spreading negative rumors," Peña writes.

    * * *

    Another email between Clinton's foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan and Tanden from March 2016 discussed how it was "REALLY dicey territory" for Clinton to comment on strengthening "bribery laws to ensure that politicians don't change legislation for political donations." Tanden agrees with Sullivan:

    " She may be so tainted she's really vulnerable - if so, maybe a message of I've seen how this sausage is made, it needs to stop, I'm going to stop it will actually work."

    * * *

    One email suggested, sarcastically, to kneecap bernie Sanders : Clinton's team issued advise regarding her tactics for the "make or break" Democratic presidential debate with Sanders in Milwaukee on February 11, 2016. The mail to Podesta came from Philip Munger, a Democratic Party donor. He sent the mail using an encrypted anonymous email service.

    "She's going to have to kneecap him. She is going to have to take him down from his morally superior perch. She has done so tentatively. She must go further," he says.

    Clearly, the desire to get Sanders' supporters was a key imperative for the Clinton campaign. In a September 2015 email to Podesta , Hill columnist Brent Budowsky criticized the campaign for allegedly giving Clinton surrogates talking points to attack Bernie Sanders. "I cannot think of anything more stupid and self-destructive for a campaign to do," he says. "Especially for a candidate who has dangerously low levels of public trust," and in light of Sanders' campaign being based on "cleaning up politics."

    Budowsky warns voters would be "disgusted" by attacks against Sanders and says he wouldn't discourage Podesta from sharing the note with Clinton because "if she wants to become president she needs to understand the point I am making with crystal clarity."

    "Make love to Bernie and his idealistic supporters, and co-opt as many of his progressive issues as possible."

    Budowsky then adds that he was at a Washington university where " not one student gave enough of a damn for Hillary to open a booth, or even wear a Hillary button. "

    * * *

    One email focused on how to address with the topic of the TPP. National Policy Director for Hillary for America Amanda Renteria explains, "The goal here was to minimize our vulnerability to the authenticity attack and not piss off the WH any more than necessary."

    Democratic pollster Joel Benenson says, "the reality is HRC is more pro trade than anti and trying to turn her into something she is not could reinforce our negative [sic] around authenticity. This is an agreement that she pushed for and largely advocated for."

    * * *

    While claiming she is part of the people, an email exposes Hillary as being " part of the system ." Clinton's team acknowledges she is "part of the system" in an email regarding her strategies. As Stan Greenberg told Podesta:

    " We are also going to test some messages that include acknowledgement of being part of the system, and know how much has to change ,"

    * * *

    Some more on the topic of Hillary being extensively coached and all her words rehearsed, we find an email which reveals that Clinton's words have to be tightly managed by her team who are wary of what she might say. After the Iowa Democratic Party's presidential debate in November 2015 adviser Ron Klain mails Podesta to say, "If she says something three times as an aside during practice (Wall Street supports me due to 9/11), we need to assume she will say it in the debate, and tell her not to do so." Klain's mail reveals Sanders was their biggest fear in the debate. "The only thing that would have been awful – a Sanders break out – didn't happen. So all in all, we were fine," he says.

    The mail also reveals Klain's role in securing his daughter Hannah a position on Clinton's team. "I'm not asking anyone to make a job, or put her in some place where she isn't wanted – it just needs a nudge over the finish line," Klain says. Hannah Klain worked on Clinton's Surrogates team for nine months commencing in the month after her father's mail to Podesta, according to her Linkedin.

    CuttingEdge X_in_Sweden Oct 19, 2016 9:18 AM

    Is Podesta authorised to be privy to confidential information?

    Only Hillary sends him a 9-point assessment of the ME with this at the top:

    Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.

    I would assume Intelligence Services intel based assessments would be a bit confidential, Mr Comey? Given their source? Nothing to see here, you say?

    Fuck Me.

    https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18917

    Bubba Rum Das samjam7 Oct 19, 2016 9:02 AM

    I love this...Assange is incommunicado, yet the data dumps keep coming!
    Horse face looks like such a fool to the world as a result; & due to John Kerry's stupidity which is drawing major attention to the whole matter; Americans are finally beginning to wake up & pay attention to this shit!

    Looks like the Hitlery for Prez ship is starting to take on MASSIVE amounts of water!

    I believe they are beyond the point where any more news of 'pussy grabbing' will save them from themselves (and Mr. Assange)!

    Oh, yeah...-And THANK YOU, MR. O'KEEFE!

    css1971 Oct 19, 2016 9:04 AM

    Dems!! Dems!! Where are you. You need 2 more bimbos to accuse Trump of looking at them!!

    DEMS you need to get that nose to the grindstone!!

    Hobbleknee GunnerySgtHartman Oct 19, 2016 8:48 AM

    Fox is controlled opposition. They dropped the interview with O'Keefe after he released the latest undercover report on Democrat voter fraud.

    JackMeOff Oct 19, 2016 10:16 AM

    Wonder what "docs" they are referring?

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/17978

    monad Oct 19, 2016 1:14 PM The FBI had no difficulty convicting Obugger's crony Rod Blagegovitch.

    The new lowered expectations federal government just expects to get lucre + bennies for sitting on their asses and holding the door for gangsters. Traitors. Spies. Enemies foreign and domestic. Amphisbaegenic pot boiling.

    california chrome Oct 19, 2016 11:03 AM

    With Creamer's tricks effective in Obama's re-election, it now makes sense why Obama was so confident when he said Trump would never be president.

    Trump is still ahead in the only poll I track. But i conduct my own personal poll on a daily basis and loads of Trump supporters are in the closet and won't come out until they pull the lever for Trump on election day.

    http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

    whatamaroon Oct 19, 2016 1:04 PM https://pageshot.net/qLjtSLje2gBJ1Mlp/twitter.com ,

    This supposedly directly implicates Podesta and voter fraud. If it will open here

    [Oct 19, 2016] Hillary Clinton Linked To Mysterious Front Associated with Julian Assange Pedophile Smear

    Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    The DailyKos put out a report on Oct. 17 that WikiLeaks describes as a "smear campaign plot to falsely accuse Julian Assange of pedophilia."

    "An unknown entity posing as an internet dating agency prepared an elaborate plot to falsely claim that Julian Assange received US$1M from the Russian government and a second plot to frame him sexually molesting an eight year old girl," WikiLeaks said in a press release Tuesday.

    The press release went on: "The second plot includes the filing of a fabricated criminal complaint in the Bahamas, a court complaint in the UK and laundering part of the attack through the United Nations. The plot happened durring WikiLeaks' Hillary Clinton related publications, but the plot may have its first genesis in Mr. Assange's 16 months litigation against the UK in the UN system, which concluded February 5 (Assange won. UK and Sweden lost & US State Dept tried to pressure the WGAD according to its former Chair, Prof. Mads Andenas)."

    The DailyKos reported that a Canadian family holidaying in the Bahamas reported to the police that their 8-year-old daughter was "sexually molested online" by Assange on Toddandclare.com.

    Julian Assange's legal team provided a timeline in the press release which showed that the self-claimed dating agency ToddAndClare.com contacted WikiLeaks' defense team offering one million dollars for Assange to appear in a video advertisement for the "dating agency".

    Assange's defense wrote back, stating that the proposal appeared to be an "elaborate scam designed to entrap Mr. Assange's reputation into unwanted and unwarranted publicity."

    WikiLeaks was able to trace down the address of the front, posting an image on twitter of what appears to be a warehouse or garage.

    Here is the "headquarters" of the front (PAC?) behind the Assange "took US$1M from Russia" plot

    More: https://t.co/xOjTy15Mkf pic.twitter.com/ukcZ6O9URv

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2016

    Internet sleuths from Reddit were able to dig up some information about the dating service pushing the attacks on Assange, finding that the company shares the address with a private intelligence corporation named Premise Data Corporation.

    Interestingly, Larry Summers, who is connected to the Clinton Campaign , is on the board of directors of Premise Data Corporation.

    Here is the Reddit post that lays out the findings:

    As other Redditors point out, the Center for American Progress was founded by Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and was funded by billionaire and pro-Clintonite George Soros.

    Connecting the front to Clinton further, co-founder of Premise Data David Soloff has met with both Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine this year.

    Internet sleuths connect Clinton to mysterious intelligence contractor associated with Assange false accusations https://t.co/NhOyO5xbZ7 pic.twitter.com/Np8yW1ckDT

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2016

    Internet sleuths connect Clinton to mysterious intelligence contractor associated with Assange false accusations 2 https://t.co/idKuVC1BoD pic.twitter.com/ueX2JKhpOw

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2016

    With Julian Assange spearheading the Podesta leaks, which have revealed and highlighted many shady dealings of both the Clinton campaign and Clinton Foundation , it is highly unlikely that it's a coincidence a Clinton connected group shares the same address of the smear pushing front.

    As one Redditor so laughably put it, "If this was merely a coincidence, then I'm the queen of England."

    As we reported yesterday , Fox News had told its audience Tuesday morning that Assange would be arrested "maybe in a matter of hours," leading to the speculation that there could have been a plot to arrest Assange over the pedophilia accusations.

    WikiLeaks revealed yesterday that multiple U.S. sources had told them that Secretary of State John Kerry demanded that Ecuador stop Wikileaks from publishing documents damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign back in September, which, if true, proves that there has been previous attempt to silence Assange by the U.S. establishment.

    [Oct 18, 2016] In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots

    Notable quotes:
    "... zero suggestion in the article, let alone evidence, that any WikiLeaks email was doctored ..."
    "... wants to believe that this is true: ..."
    theintercept.com
    But come January, Democrats will continue to be the dominant political faction in the U.S. - more so than ever - and the tactics they are now embracing will endure past the election, making them worthy of scrutiny. Those tactics now most prominently include dismissing away any facts or documents that reflect negatively on their leaders as fake, and strongly insinuating that anyone who questions or opposes those leaders is a stooge or agent of the Kremlin, tasked with a subversive and dangerously un-American mission on behalf of hostile actors in Moscow.

    To see how extreme and damaging this behavior has become, let's just quickly examine two utterly false claims that Democrats over the past four days - led by party-loyal journalists - have disseminated and induced thousands of people, if not more, to believe. On Friday, WikiLeaks published its first installment of emails obtained from the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Despite WikiLeaks' perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents, MSNBC's favorite ex-intelligence official, Malcolm Nance, within hours of the archive's release, posted a tweet claiming - with zero evidence and without citation to a single document in the WikiLeaks archive - that it was compromised with fakes:

    As you can see, more than 4,000 people have re-tweeted this "Official Warning." That includes not only random Clinton fans but also high-profile Clinton-supporting journalists, who by spreading it around gave this claim their stamp of approval, intentionally leading huge numbers of people to assume the WikiLeaks archive must be full of fakes, and its contents should therefore simply be ignored. Clinton's campaign officials spent the day fueling these insinuations, strongly implying that the documents were unreliable and should thus be ignored. Poof: Just like that, unpleasant facts about Hillary Clinton disappeared, like a fairy protecting frightened children by waving her magic wand and sprinkling her dust over a demon, causing it to scatter away.

    Except the only fraud here was Nance's claim, not any of the documents published by WikiLeaks. Those were all real. Indeed, at Sunday night's debate, when asked directly about the excerpts of her Wall Street speeches found in the release, Clinton herself confirmed their authenticity. And news outlets such as the New York Times and AP reported - and continue to report - on their contents without any caveat that they may be frauds. No real print journalists or actual newsrooms (as opposed to campaign operatives masquerading as journalists) fell for this scam, so this tactic did not prevent reporting from being done.

    But it did signal to Clinton's most devoted followers to simply ignore the contents of the release. Anyone writing articles about what these documents revealed was instantly barraged with claims from Democrats that they were fakes, by people often pointing to "articles" like this one.

    That article was shared almost 22,000 times on Facebook alone. In Nance's defense, it is true that some unknown, random person posted a doctored email on the internet and claimed it was real, but that did not come from the WikiLeaks archive and has nothing to do with assessing the reliability of the archive (any more than fake NYT stories on the internet impugn the reliability of articles in that paper). Not one person has identified even a single email or document released by WikiLeaks of questionable authenticity - that includes all of the Clinton officials whose names are listed as their authors and recipients - yet these journalists and "experts" deliberately convinced who knows how many people to believe a fairy tale: that WikiLeaks' archive is pervaded with forgeries.

    More insidious and subtle, but even worse, was what Newsweek and its Clinton-adoring writer Kurt Eichenwald did last night. What happened - in reality, in the world of facts - was extremely trivial. One of the emails in the second installment of the WikiLeaks/Podesta archive - posted yesterday - was from Sidney Blumenthal to Podesta. The sole purpose of Blumenthal's email was to show Podesta one of Eichenwald's endless series of Clinton-exonerating articles, this one about Benghazi. So in the body of the email to Podesta, Blumenthal simply pasted the link and the full contents of the article. Although the purpose of Eichenwald's article (like everything he says and does) was to defend Clinton, one paragraph in the middle acknowledged that one minor criticism of Clinton on Benghazi was possibly rational.

    Once WikiLeaks announced that this second email batch was online, many news organizations (including The Intercept, along with the NYT and AP) began combing through them to find relevant information and then published articles about them. One such story was published by Sputnik, the Russian government's international outlet similar to RT, which highlighted that Blumenthal email. But the Sputnik story inaccurately attributed the text of the Newsweek article to Blumenthal, thus suggesting that one of Clinton's closest advisers had expressed criticism of her on Benghazi. Sputnik quickly removed the article once Eichenwald pointed out that the words were his, not Blumenthal's. Then, in his campaign speech last night, Trump made reference to the Sputnik article (hours after it was published and spread on social media), claiming (obviously inaccurately) that even Blumenthal had criticized Clinton on Benghazi.

    That's all that happened. There is zero suggestion in the article, let alone evidence, that any WikiLeaks email was doctored: It wasn't. It was just Sputnik misreporting the email. Once Sputnik realized that its article misattributed the text to Blumenthal, it took it down. It's not hard to imagine how a rushed, careless Sputnik staffer could glance at that email and fail to realize that Blumenthal was forwarding Eichenwald's article rather than writing it himself. And while nobody knows how this erroneous Sputnik story made its way to Trump for him to reference in his speech, it's very easy to imagine how a Trump staffer on a shoddy, inept campaign - which has previously cited InfoWars and white supremacist sites, among others - would have stumbled into a widely shared Sputnik story that had been published hours earlier on the internet and then passed it along to Trump for him to highlight, without realizing the reasons to be skeptical.

    In any event, based on the available evidence, this is a small embarrassment for Trump: He cited an erroneous story from a non-credible Russian outlet, so it's worth noting. But that's not what happened. Eichenwald, with increasing levels of hysteria, manically posted no fewer than three dozen tweets last night about his story, each time escalating his claims of what it proved. By the time he was done, he had misled large numbers of people into believing that he found proof that: 1) the documents in the WikiLeaks archive were altered; 2) Russia put forgeries into the WikiLeaks archive; 3) Sputnik knew about the WikiLeaks archive ahead of time, before it was posted online; 4) WikiLeaks coordinated the release of the documents with the Russian government; and 5) the Russian government and the Trump campaign coordinated to falsely attribute Eichenwald's words to Blumenthal.

    In fact, Eichenwald literally has zero evidence for any of that. The point is not that his evidence for these propositions is inconclusive or unpersuasive; the point is that there is zero evidence for any of it. It's all just conspiracy theorizing and speculation that he invented. Worse, the article, while hinting at these claims and encouraging readers to believe them, does not even expressly claim any of those things. Instead, Eichenwald's increasingly unhinged tweets repeatedly inflated his insignificant story from what it was - a misattribution of an email by Sputnik that Trump repeated - into a five-alarm warning that an insidious Russian plot to subvert U.S. elections had been proven, with Trump and fake WikiLeaks documents at the center.

    By itself, this is not so notable: All journalists are tempted to hype their stories. But Eichenwald went way, way beyond that, including - as demonstrated below - demonstrable lies. But what makes it so significant is how many reasoned, perfectly smart journalists - just as they did with Nance's "Official Warning" - started falling prey to the dual hysteria of Twitter group dynamics and election blinders, to the point where CNN featured Eichenwald this morning to highlight his major scoop linking Putin, Trump, and WikiLeaks in the plot to feed Americans heaps of Russian disinformation.

    Just watch how this warped narrative played out in a very short period of time, with nobody wanting to get in the way of the speeding train for fear of being castigated as a Trump supporter or Putin stooge (accusations that are - yet again - inevitably on their way as a result of this article):

    To call all this overwrought deceit is to understate the case. In particular, the repeated claim that his story has anything to do with, let alone demonstrates, that "wikileaks is working w/Putin" or "wikileaks is compromised" is an outright fraud. The assertion in the second tweet - that "only those two [Trump and Russia] knew" about the article - is an outright lie, since by the time Trump cited it, it had been published hours earlier on the internet and shared widely on social media. Moreover, none of the documents released by WikiLeaks have yet to be identified as anything but completely authentic.

    But look at his tweets: Each has been re-tweeted by close to 1,000 people, and in the case of the most sensationalistic ones, many more. And they were quickly hyped by people who should know better because anyone supporting Hillary Clinton wants to believe that this is true:

    Been uncertain about trusting #Wikileaks emails? Here's one indicator that you've been right to be wary. https://t.co/JTIIzWN87h

    - Diane Duane (@dduane) October 11, 2016

    This is why you should never believe anything coming from Russia and/or WikiLeaks. And why it's dumb to quote them: https://t.co/d8c4HEy9Ly

    - Georg Kleine (@GeorgKleine) October 11, 2016

    Russsia leaked hacked emails but created forgeries first plagiarizing a reporter. Only Russian news posted the lie. Yet, @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/mGizfPpHWF

    - Chris Sacca (@sacca) October 11, 2016

    Literally none of that happened. Or at least there is zero evidence that it did. These are smart, rational people falling for a scam. Why? It's in part because Twitter fosters this group-think and lack of critical thought - you just click a button and, with little effort, you've spread whatever you want people to believe - but it's also because they're so convinced of the righteousness of their cause (electing Clinton/defeating Trump) that they have cast all limits and constraints to the side, believing that any narrative or accusation or smear, no matter how false or conspiratorial, is justified in pursuit of it.

    But while Donald Trump's candidacy poses grave dangers, so does group-think righteousness, particularly when it engulfs those with the greatest influence. The problem is that none of this is going to vanish after the election. This election-year machine that has been constructed based on elite unity in support of Clinton - casually dismissing inconvenient facts as fraudulent to make them disappear, branding critics and adversaries as tools or agents of an Enemy Power bent on destroying America - is a powerful one. As is seen here, it is capable of implanting any narrative, no matter how false; demonizing any critic, no matter how baseless; and riling up people to believe they're under attack.

    For a long time, liberals heralded themselves as part of the "reality-based community" and derided conservatives as faith-based victims of "epistemic closure." The dynamics seen here are anything but byproducts of reason.

    [Oct 18, 2016] For starters, many Americans are economically worse off* than they were a quarter-century ago. The median income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42 years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you insist on focusing on individuals, you may miss the connection, because the worst off within communities - actual chronic discouraged workers, addicts - are likely to express no opinion to the degree they can be polled at all. Trump primary voters are white Republicans who vote, automatically a more affluent baseline* than the white voters generally. ..."
    Oct 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : October 17, 2016 at 10:13 AM

    EMichael quotes Steve Randy Waldman and Dylan Matthews in today's links:

    ""Trump voters, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver found, had a median household income of $72,000, a fair bit higher than the $62,000 median household income for non-Hispanic whites in America."

    ...

    ""But it is also obvious that, within the Republican Party, Trump's support comes disproportionately from troubled communities, from places that have been left behind economically, that struggle with unusual rates of opiate addiction, low educational achievement, and other social vices."

    I followed the link and failed to find any numbers on the "troubled communities" thing. It seems strange to me that the two comments above are in conflict with each other."

    It seems like you are missing the point of Waldman's blog post (and Stiglitz and Shiller)

    You didn't quote this part:

    "... If you insist on focusing on individuals, you may miss the connection, because the worst off within communities - actual chronic discouraged workers, addicts - are likely to express no opinion to the degree they can be polled at all. Trump primary voters are white Republicans who vote, automatically a more affluent baseline* than the white voters generally.

    * [ http://election.princeton.edu/2016/05/07/among-republican-voters-trump-supporters-have-the-lowest-income/

    "Among Republicans, Trump supporters have slightly lower incomes. But what really differentiates them?"]

    "At the community level**, patterns are clear. (See this*** too.) Of course, it could still all be racism, because within white communities, measures of social and economic dysfunction are likely correlated with measures you could associate with racism."

    [** http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/upshot/the-geography-of-Trump_vs_deep_state.html?_r=1

    "The Geography of Trump_vs_deep_state"

    *** http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

    "How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind"]

    Of course, it could still all be racism, because within white communities, measures of social and economic dysfunction are likely correlated with measures you could associate with racism. Social affairs are complicated and the real world does not hand us unique well-identified models. We always have to choose our explanations,**** and we should think carefully about how and why we do so. Explanations have consequences, not just for the people we are imposing them upon, but for our polity as a whole. I don't get involved in these arguments to express some high-minded empathy for Trump voters, but because I think that monocausally attributing a broad political movement to racism when it has other plausible antecedents does real harm....

    **** http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6602.html

    [Oct 17, 2016] FBI Agents Angry at Comey for Not Charging Clinton

    EUTimes.net

    The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

    The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said Obama appointee FBI Director James Comey's dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General's office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ's National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

    "No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute - it was a top-down decision," said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

    A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, "It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton's] security clearance yanked."

    "It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted," the senior FBI official told Fox News. "We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said 'but we are doing nothing,' which made no sense to us."

    The FBI declined to comment directly, but instead referred Fox News to multiple public statements Comey has made in which he has thrown water on the idea that politics played a role in the agency's decision not to recommend charges.

    [Oct 17, 2016] CNN is telling viewers it is illegal to read the Podesta Wikileaks.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Everything Wikileaks is putting out on this simply continues to CONFIRM the verifiable existence of this vast network of Clinton MSM Media Mafia that Hill-Billery have constructed over the years. The MSM is absolutely IN THE TANK for the war-whore. ..."
    "... AMAZING how the "Objective", "Fact-Checking" MSM is shown to be totally tainted, but the very stranglehold that the MSM mafia have on the information flow prevents these clear facts form being widely disseminated to the (sometimes willfully) stupid masses. ..."
    "... George H.W. Bush - Potus - CIA, Bill Clinton - Potus - CIA, George W. Bush - Potus - CIA, Barack Obama - Potus - CIA, Hillary Clinton - CIA Is Trump toast or what? ..."
    "... As an aside, the sheeples are easily persuaded by simple catchy headlines and seldom read deeper into the articles to separate fact from fiction. Look at how many facts have been released proving the massive widespread fraud by Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, yet there is not one indictment...yet. ..."
    "... As corporate control of media outlets has tightened, the Democrats have become the party of hot-money Corporate America. As our economy disintegrates, most corporate interests are moving to finance as their main activity. The Clinton Democrats realized this faster than the Republicans did, and pivoted to represent Finance above all other sectors of the economy. So the Clintons have safely positioned themselves in alignment with the interests that control the media, and any opponents have to take on the media to get to the Clintons. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Creative_Destruct MagicHandPuppet Oct 16, 2016 6:20 PM

    Everything Wikileaks is putting out on this simply continues to CONFIRM the verifiable existence of this vast network of Clinton MSM Media Mafia that Hill-Billery have constructed over the years. The MSM is absolutely IN THE TANK for the war-whore.

    AMAZING how the "Objective", "Fact-Checking" MSM is shown to be totally tainted, but the very stranglehold that the MSM mafia have on the information flow prevents these clear facts form being widely disseminated to the (sometimes willfully) stupid masses.

    Loftie Creative_Destruct Oct 16, 2016 8:31 PM

    George H.W. Bush - Potus - CIA, Bill Clinton - Potus - CIA, George W. Bush - Potus - CIA, Barack Obama - Potus - CIA, Hillary Clinton - CIA Is Trump toast or what?

    Son of Loki Robert Trip Oct 16, 2016 3:31 PM

    As an aside, the sheeples are easily persuaded by simple catchy headlines and seldom read deeper into the articles to separate fact from fiction. Look at how many facts have been released proving the massive widespread fraud by Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, yet there is not one indictment...yet. Add to that the corrupt FBI cheif 0Comey) and DOJ AG (Lowrenta) and Americans are royally screwed unless they read deeper and thoughtfully AND vote!

    I will admit I used to be that simply way (pretty stupid) and seldom read analytically ... when I was 6 years old. But a person needs to educate themselves for their own survival and read and listen critically.

    swmnguy y3maxx Oct 16, 2016 1:05 PM

    Simple. Two reasons, actually. As corporate control of media outlets has tightened, the Democrats have become the party of hot-money Corporate America. As our economy disintegrates, most corporate interests are moving to finance as their main activity. The Clinton Democrats realized this faster than the Republicans did, and pivoted to represent Finance above all other sectors of the economy. So the Clintons have safely positioned themselves in alignment with the interests that control the media, and any opponents have to take on the media to get to the Clintons.

    Also, the Clintons have had to face the weakest and least media-attractive opponents available. Trump is a little different, as he's a complete media creation and probably the most media-savvy public figure out there, but what the media create, they can tear down also. When the media have to choose between their paymasters and their creations, their paymasters win every time.

    Global Hunter y3maxx Oct 16, 2016 1:06 PM "In layman's terms...how have the clintons been so successful controlling MSM?"

    Clinton's are the public and political front and in return they have been given license to loot whatever they can. The people the Clinton's represent control the MSM and pretty much all the people who work in the MSM will do or say anything for not only money but esteem of their peers (or to feel superior or better than their peers).

    IMO.

    Bay of Pigs y3maxx Oct 16, 2016 1:14 PM

    There are six big corporations that own 90% of the MSM, including Time Warner, Comcast and Disney. Thus, they tightly control the CONTENT asnd FLOW of the news. They work together controlling the NARRATIVE for the candidate they wish to promote.

    sushi y3maxx Oct 16, 2016 2:53 PM Look at her advertising budget. It is in the hundreds of millions. Look at Trumps advertising budget. It is the cost of his Twitter account.

    The corporate media are bleeding. Advertisers are leaving for new media. The Clinton ad money is manna from heaven. Would you risk being cut off the gravy train by running a negative story? No way. This is why NBC holds a negative tape on Clinton but happily releases a negative tape on Trump.

    This campaign shows the 1% all talking to themselves and assuring each other they are victorius. Outside the 1% who counts? Nobody. They are all deplorable. I think the results on November 8th could be shocker.

    opport.knocks sushi Oct 16, 2016 9:36 PM

    The world's biggest harvester of Ad revenue is Google, and they are in bed with the Democrats.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-relationshi...

    There will be none of those pesky anti-trust lawsuits, like the ones in Europe, as long as Google plays along.

    Whoa Dammit 38BWD22 Oct 16, 2016 1:09 PM

    CNN is telling viewers it is illegal to read the Podesta Wikileaks.

    AtATrESICI Whoa Dammit Oct 16, 2016 2:25 PM

    FUCK CNN SHILLS, SEE BELOW TAKEN FROM THE FOLLOWING LINK https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/465/case.html

    United States, 232 U. S. 383 ; Johnson v. United States, 228 U. S. 457 ; Perlman v. United States, 247 U. S. 7 ; Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 ; Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298 .

    The Fourth Amendment gives protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and, as shown in the previous cases, its protection applies to governmental action. Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies; as against such authority, it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property, subject to the right of seizure by process duly issued.

    In the present case, the record clearly shows that no official of the federal government had anything to do with the wrongful seizure of the petitioner's property or any knowledge thereof until several months after the property had been taken from him and was in the possession of the Cities Service Company. It is manifest that there was no invasion of the security afforded by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, as whatever wrong was done was the act of individuals in taking the property of another. A portion of the property so taken and held was turned over to the prosecuting officers of the federal government. We assume that petitioner has an unquestionable right of redress against those who illegally and wrongfully took his private property under the circumstances herein disclosed, but with such remedies we are not now concerned.

    The Fifth Amendment, as its terms import, is intended to secure the citizen from compulsory testimony against himself. It protects from extorted confessions, or examinations in court proceedings by compulsory methods.

    The exact question to be decided here is: may the

    Page 256 U. S. 476

    government retain incriminating papers coming to it in the manner described with a view to their use in a subsequent investigation by a grand jury where such papers will be part of the evidence against the accused, and may be used against him upon trial should an indictment be returned?

    We know of no constitutional principle which requires the government to surrender the papers under such circumstances. Had it learned that such incriminatory papers, tending to show a violation of federal law, were in the hands of a person other than the accused, it having had no part in wrongfully obtaining them, we know of no reason why a subpoena might not issue for the production of the papers as evidence. Such production would require no unreasonable search or seizure, nor would it amount to compelling the accused to testify against himself.

    The papers having come into the possession of the government without a violation of petitioner's rights by governmental authority, we see no reason why the fact that individuals, unconnected with the government, may have wrongfully taken them should prevent them from being held for use in prosecuting an offense where the documents are of an incriminatory character.

    It follows that the district court erred in making the order appealed from, and the same is

    Reversed.

    MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS dissenting with whom MR. JUSTICE HOLMES concurs.

    Plaintiff's private papers were stolen. The thief, to further his own ends, delivered them to the law officer of the United States. He, knowing them to have been stolen, retains them for use against the plaintiff. Should the court permit him to do so?

    Page 256 U. S. 477

    That the court would restore the papers to plaintiff if they were still in the thief's possession is not questioned. That it has power to control the disposition of these stolen papers, although they have passed into the possession of the law officer, is also not questioned. But it is said that no provision of the Constitution requires their surrender, and that the papers could have been subpoenaed. This may be true. Still I cannot believe that action of a public official is necessarily lawful because it does not violate constitutional prohibitions and because the same result might have been attained by other and proper means. At the foundation of our civil liberty lies the principle which denies to government officials an exceptional position before the law and which subjects them to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. And, in the development of our liberty, insistence upon procedural regularity has been large factor. Respect for law will not be advanced by resort, in its enforcement, to means which shock the common man's sense of decency and fair play.

    [Oct 17, 2016] All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another monster before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region

    Notable quotes:
    "... The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming 2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn. ..."
    "... All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region. ..."
    "... This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') ..."
    "... Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable. ..."
    "... Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has actually driven me to turn off the nets ..."
    "... Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars ..."
    Oct 17, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 2:31 pm 240

    Clinton meets impartial press to discuss repackaging Hillary over cocktails hosted by Diane Sawyer:

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/10/your-moral-and-380.html

    bruce wilder 10.15.16 at 3:39 pm 244
    ks @ 240:

    Reading thru the link, my favorite part was the stated purpose of the cocktail party for elite NY reporters: "Give reporters their first thoughts . . ."

    kidneystones 10.17.16 at 1:06 pm 339
    @244 Good eye, Bruce. The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming 2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn.

    All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region.

    This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') .

    Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable.

    Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has actually driven me to turn off the nets .

    Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars .

    I learned that reading the pro-Hillary 'liberal' press.

    [Oct 17, 2016] Jill Stein On Fire "Crooked Corporate Democrats! Waste of Votes! Traitors! Monsters!"

    EUTimes.net

    WOW! Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is on fire! After previously blasting Hillary Clinton, accusing her of basically being a scary psychopath who "would start World War 3 with Russia", Jill is now warning liberal progressives not to throw away their vote by supporting corporatist Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton because she is a "two faced public and private position, corporatist who takes Wall Street special interest big donor money, traitor who would betray you, a crook who controls the media, a monster and your votes would be wasted on her" in what is basically a summary of what Jill Stein said.

    "Don't waste your vote on corporate Democrats. #InvestYourVote," Stein wrote on Twitter on Wednesday:

    "If Trump's campaign is flailing, does a "spoiler" vote even exist anymore? Don't waste your vote on corporate Democrats."

    Stein then retweeted a statement from the Green Party's official Twitter account which read, "It's time to #InvestYourVote in building a people's party – not waste your vote on corporate party candidates that continue to betray you."

    "Unlike the Democrats and Republicans, we don't cuddle up to Wall Street and special interests with our 'public' and 'private' positions," Stein added in a separate tweet, referring to the recent WikiLeaks revelation that Hillary Clinton said that politicians need to have "both a public and private position" on every issue:


    "Unlike the Democrats and Republicans, we don't cuddle up to Wall Street and special interests with our "public" and "private" positions."

    she's right the Republicans are in the same boat! People like Paul Ryan, John McCain, there's no doubt about it, they are just as corrupt as the Democrats. Its only Donald Trump himself who is not bound to any Wall Street special interests and who doesn't accept donations from big banks, but other Republicans are just as corrupt as your average Democrats. That's why GOP elites are not endorsing Trump. Trump himself is also at war with the GOP establishment.

    Stein observed that "corporations were originally chartered to serve the public good, but they've become monsters that dominate our government."

    Stein has previously explained that the liberal progressive agenda–on health care, crime, climate change, trade, etc.– cannot be accomplished under a corporatist like Hillary Clinton. Stein argued that a Clinton presidency will simply be the continuation of the policies supported by Washington's "uniparty," which is controlled by special interest donors–and will not in any way advance the goals of liberal progressives.

    Seeming to borrow Trump's moniker for Clinton, Stein also attacked DNC chair Donna Brazile for her "crooked" behavior– providing Clinton's campaign with a question in advance for a town hall as Clinton was trying to defeat Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary:


    "Invest your vote in a movement party, not in more crooked behavior from the Democrats! PodestaEmails4 http://thehill.com/media/300427-emails-donna-brazile-gave-town-hall-questions-to-clinton-camp-in-advance "

    Stein is a Harvard Medical School graduate, a mother to two sons, and a practicing physician, who became an environmental-health activist and organizer in the late 1990s. As the Green Party's 2012 presidential candidate, Stein holds the record for the most votes ever received by a female candidate for president in a general election.

    While third party Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson has received quite a bit of media attention throughout this election, Stein said that she has experienced a virtual media blackout. Stein urged supporters to help her "#BreakTheBlackout from corporate media."

    Stein suggested that the reason for the media blackout stems is because she is an effective messenger against Washington's "uniparty."

    "I debated @MittRomney in 2002 and was declared the winner by viewers. After that they locked me out of the debates," Stein tweeted. "The Democratic and Republican candidates + @GovGaryJohnson refuse to debate me because they're scared. #OccupyTheDebate":


    "Help us #BreakTheBlackout from corporate media – go to http://Jill2016.com and sign up to join our team! #GreenTownHall"

    WOW! Her anti-Hillary rants have been really strong lately! Its nice to finally see someone else take on the crooked Democrats with such anger. Seeing Trump doing all the ranting all by himself is really nice but now its even better. Perhaps the two should meet and discuss some sort of alliance. Jill Stein could be an effective messenger to the Bernie voters. Perhaps Trump could make her the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or something, since she's Green.

    In exchange Jill should of course drop out and ask her 2% voter base to vote Trump. She should also keep bashing the Democrats and target Bernie Sanders's people to vote Trump. Wouldn't be such a bad idea, wouldn't it??

    Yeah, it's too far-fetched… we agree!

    [Oct 16, 2016] In a way Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called The pot calling the kettle black as she is exactly the specialist in this area. BTW there is a documented history of the US interference into Russian elections of 2011-2012

    Notable quotes:
    "... Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the U.S. officials making the attribution. Clearly, someone thinks it matters, because the attribution is being made. I doubt that getting hold of Podesta's email password required the mysterious skillz of Russian super hackers, but sure ymmv. Why does the NSA spend billions and billions again? I mock because it is impossible to make sense of any of it. ..."
    "... Yes, apparently, you think that the U.S. should be in there blowing up hospitals and civilians instead. The Russians just cannot handle the job, while the U.S. has its Afganistan and Iraq training and experience in bringing an end to those horrific civil wars in a few short Friedman units. Proven expertise! ..."
    "... The history of humanitarian intervention is long and glorious. Only just last week, America's great and good ally, the Saudi monarchy, was blowing up a funeral in Yemen with American munitions, killing over 100. But, I indulge in irrelevancies, the better to mock you. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 12:43 pm 305

    LFC: We do have Bruce Wilder mocking the notion that the Russians hacked into the DNC email. Cyber specialists think it was the Russians to a 90 percent certainty, but of course Wilder knows better. Anyway, who cares whether the Russians hacked the ******* email?

    Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the U.S. officials making the attribution. Clearly, someone thinks it matters, because the attribution is being made. I doubt that getting hold of Podesta's email password required the mysterious skillz of Russian super hackers, but sure ymmv. Why does the NSA spend billions and billions again? I mock because it is impossible to make sense of any of it.

    LFC: I'm more concerned w the fact that Russian planes are deliberately blowing up hospitals and civilians.

    Yes, apparently, you think that the U.S. should be in there blowing up hospitals and civilians instead. The Russians just cannot handle the job, while the U.S. has its Afganistan and Iraq training and experience in bringing an end to those horrific civil wars in a few short Friedman units. Proven expertise!

    Oh, I'm so sorry I mocked you again, didn't I?

    The history of humanitarian intervention is long and glorious. Only just last week, America's great and good ally, the Saudi monarchy, was blowing up a funeral in Yemen with American munitions, killing over 100. But, I indulge in irrelevancies, the better to mock you.

    Follow events in Syria day by day if you like, but don't pretend you are a humanitarian cheering for the underdog rather than a voyeur entertained by mass tragedy.

    likbez 10.16.16 at 2:43 pm
    @305
    bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 12:43 pm
    LFC: We do have Bruce Wilder mocking the notion that the Russians hacked into the DNC email. Cyber specialists think it was the Russians to a 90 percent certainty, but of course Wilder knows better. Anyway, who cares whether the Russians hacked the ******* email?

    Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the U.S. officials making the attribution.

    It looks like LFC is completely clueless about such notion as Occam's razor.
    Why we need all those insinuations about Russian hackers when we know that all email boxes in major Web mail providers are just a click away from NSA analysts.

    Why Russians and not something like "Snowden II".

    And what exactly Russians will get politically by torpedoing Hillary candidacy. They probably have tons of "compromat" on her, Bill and Clinton Foundation. Trump stance on Iran is no less dangerous and jingoistic then Hillary stance on Syria. Aggressive protectionism might hurt Russian exports. And as for Syria, Trump can turn on a dime and became a second John McCain anytime. Other then his idea of avoiding foreign military presence (or more correctly that allies should pay for it) and anti-globalization stance he does not have a fixed set of policies at all.

    Also you can elect a dog as POTUS and foreign policy will be still be the same as it is now controlled by "deep state" ( http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-deep-state/ ):

    Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.

    In view of all this, LFC anti-Russian stance looks extremely naïve and/or represents displaced anti-Semitism.

    likbez 10.16.16 at 4:18 pm 311
    In a way Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called "The pot calling the kettle black" as she is exactly the specialist in this area. BTW there is a documented history of the US interference into Russian elections of 2011-2012.

    In which Hillary (via ambassador McFaul and the net of NGOs) was trying to stage a "color revolution" (nicknamed "white revolution") in Russia and prevent the re-election of Putin. The main instrument was claiming the fraud in ballot counting.

    Can you imagine the reaction if Russian ambassador invited Trump and Sanders to the embassy and offered full and unconditional support for their noble cause of dislodging the corrupt neoliberal regime that exists in Washington. With cash injections to breitbart.com, similar sites, and especially organizations that conduct polls after that.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/observers-detail-flaws-in-russian-election.html

    And RT covered staged revelations of "Hillary campaign corruption" 24 x 7. As was done by Western MSM in regard to Alexei Navalny web site and him personally as the savior of Russia from entrenched corruption ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny )

    http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-duma-elections-navalny-pamfilova-resignation/28007404.html

    Actually the USA has several organizations explicitly oriented on interference in foreign elections and promotion of "color revolutions", with functions that partially displaced old functions of CIA (as in Italian elections of 1948). For example, NED.

    Why Russia can't have something similar to help struggling American people to have more honest elections despite all the blatantly undemocratic mechanisms of "first to the post", primaries, state based counting of votes, and the United States Electoral College ?

    It would be really funny if Russians really resorted to color revolution tricks in the current presidential elections :-)

    Here is a quote that can navigate them in right direction (note the irony of her words after DNC throw Sanders under the bus ;-)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/world/europe/russian-parliamentary-elections-criticized-by-west.html?_r=0

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized what she called "troubling practices" before and during the vote in Russia. "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said in Bonn, Germany.

    With 99.9 percent of ballots processed, election officials said that United Russia had won 238 seats in Parliament, or about 53 percent, from 315 seats or 70 percent now. The Communist Party won 92 seats; Just Russia, a social democratic party, won 64 seats and the national Liberal Democratic Party won 56 seats.

    bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 4:35 pm 312
    RP: I mean, people pretty much have to take its effects seriously.

    Do they? LFC can probably lecture us on our "complete lack of understanding that the world contains moral ambiguities and that not everything is black-and-white and open-and-shut" while hypernormalizing anything with imperative non sequiters.

    @ 307, he apparently thinks my use of the Saudi attack in Yemen in my mockery of him is due to a failure of reading comprehension on my part. He thinks he had criticized U.S. support for the Saudi's war against Yemen, while arguing that American "standing to object . . . when blatant, obvious war crimes are being committed" is unaffected when America itself or American allies commit blatant obvious war crimes. He took the futility express, Rich, and arrived ahead of you, don't you see? Things are complicated and we must not let our committing blatant obvious war crimes prevent us from acting to intervene where we can stop blatant obvious war crimes with blatant obvious war crimes of our own!

    Hopefully, this little addendum to my previous mockery is not even worth a response. What are the chances?

    [Oct 16, 2016] Clinton denounces Russian interference in US elections, calls for escalation in Syria

    Clinton is converting Democratic Party into party of war with Russia...
    Hillary was the Secretary of State when the USA tried to implement color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Clinton told a press conference Monday there were now "credible reports about Russian interference in our elections," adding, "I want everyone-Democrat, Republican, Independent-to understand the real threat that this represents." ..."
    "... Clinton's suggestion of a Trump-Putin axis was followed up Tuesday in a speech in North Carolina by her vice-presidential running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, which was billed as a "major national security address" by the Democratic campaign. ..."
    "... Clinton appeared Monday at several Labor Day rallies, but she chose to focus her attack on Trump on national security issues, where she has consistently attacked the billionaire real estate speculator from the right. ..."
    "... Asked by a reporter if the alleged Russian actions amounted to a cyberwar, Clinton replied, "I'm not comfortable using the word 'war'." This demurral was only to disguise her intentions from the American people. However, in a speech last week to the American Legion convention, Clinton declared that cyberattacks on the United States should be answered by military force. ..."
    "... Clinton claimed that Putin had all but confirmed Russia's role in the hacking of the DNC-a flat-out lie-adding, "The team around him certainly believe that there is some benefit to them to doing this." She then declared that the prospect of additional hacking into the state government systems used to conduct the November 8 elections represented "a threat from an adversarial foreign power." ..."
    "... The Democratic candidate also criticized the role of the Russian government in Syria, in backing the regime of President Bashar al-Assad against Islamist forces armed and financed by the United States and the Gulf monarchies. She denounced "the refusal of the Russians and the Iranians to put the kind of pressure on Assad that is necessary " ..."
    "... The article published Monday by the Washington Post ..."
    "... As in previous reports by the Post ..."
    "... Meanwhile, the claims of Russian hacking are being used to whip up a crisis atmosphere about the administration of the election itself. Earlier this summer the FBI issued a "flash" alert to election officials in all 50 states over the threat of cyber intrusions. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson suggested that the entire US election system, including 9,000 polling places and 50 separate state election authorities, should be declared "critical infrastructure" subject to the same counterterrorism efforts as nuclear power plants and electrical power grids. ..."
    Sep 01, 2007 | www.wsws.org

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton this week publicly accused the Russian government of intervening in the American election on behalf of her Republican opponent Donald Trump.

    She cited an investigation by US intelligence agencies, first reported Monday night by the Washington Post , into alleged Russian government hacking into the computer systems of the state election officials in the United States.

    Clinton told a press conference Monday there were now "credible reports about Russian interference in our elections," adding, "I want everyone-Democrat, Republican, Independent-to understand the real threat that this represents."

    Clinton referred both to the Post report about hacking into state government computers in Arizona and Illinois, and to the alleged Russian hacking of the emails of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which revealed backroom efforts by top DNC officials to ensure Clinton's victory.

    Clinton's suggestion of a Trump-Putin axis was followed up Tuesday in a speech in North Carolina by her vice-presidential running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, which was billed as a "major national security address" by the Democratic campaign.

    Kaine contrasted Clinton's going "toe-to-toe with Putin" as US secretary of state, to Trump's suggestion that NATO was outmoded and that he could negotiate more successfully with Russia. He then raised the question "why Trump seems to support Russian interests at the expense of American ones," suggesting that the billionaire real estate speculator was keeping his tax returns secret because they might shed light on his financial ties to Russia. He concluded by citing the claim of former acting CIA Director Michael Morell that Trump is an "unwitting agent" of the Russian intelligence services.

    Clinton appeared Monday at several Labor Day rallies, but she chose to focus her attack on Trump on national security issues, where she has consistently attacked the billionaire real estate speculator from the right.

    Asked by a reporter if the alleged Russian actions amounted to a cyberwar, Clinton replied, "I'm not comfortable using the word 'war'." This demurral was only to disguise her intentions from the American people. However, in a speech last week to the American Legion convention, Clinton declared that cyberattacks on the United States should be answered by military force.

    Clinton claimed that Putin had all but confirmed Russia's role in the hacking of the DNC-a flat-out lie-adding, "The team around him certainly believe that there is some benefit to them to doing this." She then declared that the prospect of additional hacking into the state government systems used to conduct the November 8 elections represented "a threat from an adversarial foreign power."

    The Democratic candidate also criticized the role of the Russian government in Syria, in backing the regime of President Bashar al-Assad against Islamist forces armed and financed by the United States and the Gulf monarchies. She denounced "the refusal of the Russians and the Iranians to put the kind of pressure on Assad that is necessary "

    Clinton reiterated her support for imposing a no-fly zone over parts of Syria held by the US-backed "rebels," which would require US air strikes against Syrian anti-aircraft positions and could lead to confrontations between Russian and American warplanes, which both conduct air strikes in the country.

    "I think we need leverage," she said. "I've always believed that if that were on the table and it were clear we were going to pursue it, that would give us the leverage we don't have now." Coming just after the well-publicized failure of talks last weekend between Obama and Putin at the G20 summit in China, Clinton was clearly seeking to stake out a more aggressive position on Syria than that of the Obama administration.

    The Democrat's claim to have discovered a Trump-Putin axis has two purposes: first, to cement Clinton's standing as the consensus choice of the US military-intelligence apparatus; and second, to integrate the election campaign itself into the war preparations by US imperialism, both in the Middle East and against Russia (as well as China).

    If Clinton wins the November 8 election over Trump, she will claim this to be a mandate for the escalation of US military operations in Iraq and Syria, as well as the continued NATO military buildup throughout Eastern Europe, openly aimed at preparing for war with Russia, a country with the world's second-largest nuclear arsenal.

    In her complaints about Russian interference in the US elections, Clinton is joining in the campaign waged by the Pentagon and CIA to prepare US public opinion for such a conflict.

    The article published Monday by the Washington Post is little more than a handout from the intelligence agencies. It reports that the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security have started an investigation, led by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, into a "broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in US political institutions."

    In addition to discrediting the election among the American people-hardly necessary given that the entire political system is deeply despised and the two main candidates hated-Russian officials allegedly seek to "provide propaganda fodder to attack US democracy-building policies around the world," the Post claimed.

    As in previous reports by the Post and the New York Times about alleged Russian hacking of the DNC, no evidence of any kind is cited in the article, only the unsupported claims of intelligence officials, who even the Post reporters admit lack "definitive proof" of either cyberattacks or even plans for cyberattacks.

    Apparently the public is expected to treat such claims as the gospel, despite the decades of lying by these agencies to cover up assassinations, coup plots and other conspiracies abroad, and the systematic violation of the democratic rights of the American people at home.

    Meanwhile, the claims of Russian hacking are being used to whip up a crisis atmosphere about the administration of the election itself. Earlier this summer the FBI issued a "flash" alert to election officials in all 50 states over the threat of cyber intrusions. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson suggested that the entire US election system, including 9,000 polling places and 50 separate state election authorities, should be declared "critical infrastructure" subject to the same counterterrorism efforts as nuclear power plants and electrical power grids.

    [Oct 16, 2016] Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called The pot calling the kettle black as she is the specialist in fixing election and was instrumental in organizing color revolution in Russia to prevent reelection of Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Can you imagine the reaction if Russian ambassador invited Trump and Sanders to the embassy and offered full and unconditional support for their noble cause of dislodging the corrupt neoliberal regime that exists in Washington. With cash injections to breitbart.com, similar sites, and especially organizations that conduct polls after that. ..."
    "... Why Russia can't have something similar to help struggling American people to have more honest elections despite all the blatantly undemocratic mechanisms of "first to the post", primaries, state based counting of votes, and the United States Electoral College ? ..."
    "... It would be really funny if Russians really resorted to color revolution tricks in the current presidential elections :-) ..."
    "... Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized what she called "troubling practices" before and during the vote in Russia. "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said in Bonn, Germany. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez 10.16.16 at 4:18 pm 310

    In a way Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called "The pot calling the kettle black" as she is exactly the specialist in this area. BTW there is a documented history of the US interference into Russian elections of 2011-2012.

    In which Hillary (via ambassador McFaul and the net of NGOs) was trying to stage a "color revolution" (nicknamed "white revolution") in Russia and prevent the re-election of Putin. The main instrument was claiming the fraud in ballot counting.

    Can you imagine the reaction if Russian ambassador invited Trump and Sanders to the embassy and offered full and unconditional support for their noble cause of dislodging the corrupt neoliberal regime that exists in Washington. With cash injections to breitbart.com, similar sites, and especially organizations that conduct polls after that.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/observers-detail-flaws-in-russian-election.html

    And RT covered staged revelations of "Hillary campaign corruption" 24 x 7. As was done by Western MSM in regard to Alexei Navalny web site and him personally as the savior of Russia from entrenched corruption ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny )

    http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-duma-elections-navalny-pamfilova-resignation/28007404.html

    Actually the USA has several organizations explicitly oriented on interference in foreign elections and promotion of "color revolutions", with functions that partially displaced old functions of CIA (as in Italian elections of 1948). For example, NED.

    Why Russia can't have something similar to help struggling American people to have more honest elections despite all the blatantly undemocratic mechanisms of "first to the post", primaries, state based counting of votes, and the United States Electoral College ?

    It would be really funny if Russians really resorted to color revolution tricks in the current presidential elections :-)

    Here is a quote that can navigate them in right direction (note the irony of her words after DNC throw Sanders under the bus ;-)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/world/europe/russian-parliamentary-elections-criticized-by-west.html?_r=0

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized what she called "troubling practices" before and during the vote in Russia. "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said in Bonn, Germany.

    With 99.9 percent of ballots processed, election officials said that United Russia had won 238 seats in Parliament, or about 53 percent, from 315 seats or 70 percent now. The Communist Party won 92 seats; Just Russia, a social democratic party, won 64 seats and the national Liberal Democratic Party won 56 seats.

    [Oct 16, 2016] There is world of difference between harassing woman and killing women and children.

    Groupinggate was essentially an attempt to distract votes from a more serious issue, especially Hillary warmongering, her role in mass rape of women in Syria and Libya, and latest Podesta emails leaks. This was a defensive strike with material that was specifically reserved for this purpose.
    Notable quotes:
    "... there are many more than two sides in Syria's civil war. First of all the civil war is not limited to Syria. ISIL, Hezbollah, and arguably Kurdish Rojava are belligerents not particularly invested in the borders of long defunct Mandate Syria. ..."
    "... The rebel forces arrayed against or for Assad in any particular area are various in their motivations and political identities and they never divide neatly into two opposed camps. ..."
    "... In short, you either support US violent regime change in the ME, or you do not. ..."
    "... All who are voting for Hillary Clinton are voting for US violent regime change in Syria. That's been the stated policy of the Obama administration for some years, Hillary was played a key role in formulating that policy as Secretary of State. Now, as candidate for President she has explicitly promised more US violent regime change in Iraq. ..."
    "... Violent regime change in Syria is the stated policy of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate most US members of the CT community plan to vote for in November. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    bruce wilder 10.15.16 at 7:35 am
    intervene in a civil war on the side of the rebels

    I apologize if anyone feels I am harping on this too much, but there are many more than two sides in Syria's civil war. First of all the civil war is not limited to Syria. ISIL, Hezbollah, and arguably Kurdish Rojava are belligerents not particularly invested in the borders of long defunct Mandate Syria.

    The rebel forces arrayed against or for Assad in any particular area are various in their motivations and political identities and they never divide neatly into two opposed camps.

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 8:06 am
    @ 190 There aren't many times you're this wrong, Bruce. There are only two sides. The side that holds a UN seat; votes or abstains on UN resolutions; borrows or does not borrow from the World Bank; has the authority to sign, or abrogate international treaties along, for example, the Golan heights – and the forces not aligned with the government.

    The CT community evidently wants to 'confuse itself' and the issues. You are either in favor of the US using US military power to unilaterally intercede in a civil war against the Assad government, which as you and Peter T note, is inextricably linked to Iraq and other regional disputes, or you oppose the unilateral use of US military power to topple governments in the ME.

    In short, you either support US violent regime change in the ME, or you do not.

    All who are voting for Hillary Clinton are voting for US violent regime change in Syria. That's been the stated policy of the Obama administration for some years, Hillary was played a key role in formulating that policy as Secretary of State. Now, as candidate for President she has explicitly promised more US violent regime change in Iraq.

    Violent regime change in Syria is the stated policy of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate most US members of the CT community plan to vote for in November.

    [Oct 16, 2016] Donald Trumps Fall and Rise

    Notable quotes:
    "... Regarding Clinton, the revelation was the latest batch of WikiLeaks disclosures. It included excerpts of her speeches before Wall Street audiences, which she had refused to make public. Now we know why. They show her making nice-nice with her billionaire benefactors-no surprise there. After all, they paid her a standard fee of $225,000 per speech, for 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015, earning her $21.6 million in less than two years. How many of us could resist being nice-nice to nice people like that? ..."
    "... Stop the presses! Trump is a misogynist! ..."
    "... Friends of mine know that I am no fan, at all, of Ted Cruz. But he is the only person I've seen so far, before the second debate, who has stated the obvious. He tweeted: "NBC had tape 11 yrs. Apprentice producer says they have more & worse. So why not release in 2015? In March? Why wait till October? #MSMBias" ..."
    "... As the saying goes, "Give me a break!" Presidents like Kennedy and Clinton did more than talk about groping women, they practiced it-and worse. But now people who voted for, or defended, these Presidents-and other politicians like the woman-killing Ted Kennedy-can strike poses of shock and horror at Trump's words. Politically correct philanderers and models of progressive sexual attitudes like Arnold Schwarzenegger can refuse to endorse the scoundrel. Politics is indeed a hothouse of fertilizer for hypocrisy. ..."
    "... The difference in this debate, however, is that Trump fought back with passion, limiting her advantage with both zingers and policy contrasts. His policy positions are muddled, but hers are disingenuous at best. And with the possible exception of college and high-school debate contests, debates are rarely won on points. They are won with passion and-especially in the case of presidential debates-how you motivate your backers. And here Trump won the debate hands-down. ..."
    "... Above all, we must remember that the election is mostly bread and circuses to distract us from issues that aren't being discussed-the disposition of over $150 trillion in sovereign state debt, the largest bubble in the history of the world; how our own $20 trillion in debt is exploding at a rate that is unsustainable; the role of the Deep State in making the concept of "democracy" a joke; and how the neocons' (Hillary included) policy of perpetual war is threatening us not only with national bankruptcy but the risk of a nuclear World War III. As Mark Twain or Emma Goldman said (take your pick as to who the real author was), "If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it." ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Regarding Clinton, the revelation was the latest batch of WikiLeaks disclosures. It included excerpts of her speeches before Wall Street audiences, which she had refused to make public. Now we know why. They show her making nice-nice with her billionaire benefactors-no surprise there. After all, they paid her a standard fee of $225,000 per speech, for 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015, earning her $21.6 million in less than two years. How many of us could resist being nice-nice to nice people like that?

    But the excerpts from her speeches also show her saying she is for "open borders," which will not endear her to the majority of American voters. They show her admitting she often has a private position on issues (one satisfactory to her benefactors) different from her public position on those issues, which does nothing to repair her reputation as a liar (though it could not have come as a surprise to her benefactors, who are used to paying off two-faced politicians).

    These and other revelations were potentially damning to Clinton's chances in a deadlocked race, so the leftist media did what it had to do under the circumstances: it ignored the Clinton revelations and went unhinged on the Trump "revelation." As a result, about the only place in the mainstream media where you will find discussion of the Clinton speeches is Fox News. Thankfully, as many people watch that cable news network as watch its two competitors combined, that is, the Clinton News Network (CNN) and MSDNC.

    Stop the presses! Trump is a misogynist!

    ... ... ...

    Friends of mine know that I am no fan, at all, of Ted Cruz. But he is the only person I've seen so far, before the second debate, who has stated the obvious. He tweeted: "NBC had tape 11 yrs. Apprentice producer says they have more & worse. So why not release in 2015? In March? Why wait till October? #MSMBias"

    ... ... ...

    As the saying goes, "Give me a break!" Presidents like Kennedy and Clinton did more than talk about groping women, they practiced it-and worse. But now people who voted for, or defended, these Presidents-and other politicians like the woman-killing Ted Kennedy-can strike poses of shock and horror at Trump's words. Politically correct philanderers and models of progressive sexual attitudes like Arnold Schwarzenegger can refuse to endorse the scoundrel. Politics is indeed a hothouse of fertilizer for hypocrisy.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary Clinton will always be able to out-point Donald Trump on policy matters. That is the advantage of being a politician for more than 30 years. "Slick Willie" has now been supplanted by slick Hillary. But most Americans expected that.

    The difference in this debate, however, is that Trump fought back with passion, limiting her advantage with both zingers and policy contrasts. His policy positions are muddled, but hers are disingenuous at best. And with the possible exception of college and high-school debate contests, debates are rarely won on points. They are won with passion and-especially in the case of presidential debates-how you motivate your backers. And here Trump won the debate hands-down.

    ... ... ...

    Above all, we must remember that the election is mostly bread and circuses to distract us from issues that aren't being discussed-the disposition of over $150 trillion in sovereign state debt, the largest bubble in the history of the world; how our own $20 trillion in debt is exploding at a rate that is unsustainable; the role of the Deep State in making the concept of "democracy" a joke; and how the neocons' (Hillary included) policy of perpetual war is threatening us not only with national bankruptcy but the risk of a nuclear World War III. As Mark Twain or Emma Goldman said (take your pick as to who the real author was), "If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it."

    David Franke was a founder of the conservative movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s. He is currently writing his magnum opus on the trajectory of conservatism and American politics during his lifetime.

    [Oct 16, 2016] I dont buy the left neoliberal hysteria over Trump as the scariest reactionary dude evah

    Notable quotes:
    "... I don't buy the left neoliberal hysteria over Trump as the scariest reactionary dude evah. I think that's just to prevent the dissatisfaction that Trump has tapped into blending with the dissatisfaction Sanders tapped into. ..."
    "... And, I tend to think that strategy has been successful in keeping the left v right neoliberal monopoly of power intact. The Republicans may take a hit, but it will only result in a slight shuffling among the seats of power. The left neoliberals will keep the right neoliberal seats warm for them. ymmv ..."
    "... This really is another post 9/11 moment for the chattering classes. All their claims of expertise, clear eyed analysis, logic above emotion, has come crashing down around their hysterical, emotion driven response to the current political situation. There is, at this stage, basically zero willingness among these groups to do their Job of explaining the world, all they want to achieve is a combination of political signalling and intense personal satisfaction. ..."
    "... The best analyses I've read were a couple of essays from 2015 comparing Trump to Berlusconi. Those interested will need to insert 2015 into the search string to skip past the more breathless 2016 versions. The 2015 essays are largely free of tbe breathless need to stop Trump cold that mar 2016 comparisons. ..."
    "... middle-class unhappy with the rapine corruption and self-serving nature of the elites. ..."
    "... The problem is that Trump is an entertainer/marketer and his product is him. Van Jones remains the single best pundit on Trump because Jones understands that the elections are about stagecraft, more than politics. ..."
    "... the college-educated white new middle class (professionals and managers), is approximately 30 percent of the population, but are overrepresented, at 40 percent, among Trump supporters. Not surprisingly, the median household income of Trump voters is around $70,000 annually. ..."
    "... More importantly, the category "non-college educated whites" includes both wage workers and the self-employed - the traditional middle class. The Economist found that "better-paid and better-educated voters have always formed as big a part of Mr. Trump's base as those at the lower end of the scale for income and education." ..."
    "... 'I don't know, so I assume' is kind of the defining characteristic of reactions to the Trump Candidacy. Maybe he will, continue with neoliberalism. Or maybe he will go full communism now, or perhaps at least anti-imperialism, as one prolific poster here repeatedly claims. It all depends on which 10% of his statements you believe are not lies, and what you project into the gap left by the rest. ..."
    "... But it could equally plausibly lead to a stable regime that would have European political scientists in lively debate as to whether or not it is most accurately called fascist. ..."
    "... Clearly, Trump's right-wing opposition to neoliberal trade and tax policies resonates with a minority of older, white workers, including a minority of union members." ..."
    "... these sectors have experiencing declining living standards and are fearful about their children's prospects of remaining in the middle class." ..."
    "... The developments of late capitalism have to do with the transition of these decisions from the elite capitalist class as such to a group of managers. These managers can not and do not go against the traditional interests of capital as such. But their decisions characteristically favor their class in ways that a traditional class analysis can not fathom, and their ideology appeals to a group variously called "professionals", "technocrats", "the 10%" etc. who more broadly control the levers of power in society. ..."
    "... The managerial class operates a world system - the system of trade agreements, monetary agreements, etc. This system keeps the world economy going as it is going through the cooperation of American economists, Eurocrat bureaucratic appointees, Chinese Communist Party higher-ups, important people in the financial industry (whether bankers or at central banks), CEOs of multinationals, and even the leaders of important NGOs. These interactions are observable and not a matter of conspiracy theory. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.14.16 at 9:15 pm

    soru: "Precisely because it is not left neoliberalism versus right neoliberalism, but left neoliberalism versus something that is:

    a: worse
    b: a predictable consequence of neoliberalism.

    I think there is something to the thesis that Trump ripped the scab off the place where Luttwak's "perfect non-sequitur" had rubbed the skin off the connection between the tax-cut loving Republican establishment leadership and the Republican electoral base of male reactionary ignoramuses.

    But, I don't know what actual policy follows from Trump_vs_deep_state, if not Mike Pence brand right neoliberalism. A little light flavoring of theocracy on the tax cuts in other words.

    I don't buy the left neoliberal hysteria over Trump as the scariest reactionary dude evah. I think that's just to prevent the dissatisfaction that Trump has tapped into blending with the dissatisfaction Sanders tapped into.

    And, I tend to think that strategy has been successful in keeping the left v right neoliberal monopoly of power intact. The Republicans may take a hit, but it will only result in a slight shuffling among the seats of power. The left neoliberals will keep the right neoliberal seats warm for them. ymmv

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 8:49 am 200
    Some food for thought: Trump tied LA Times poll.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/14/why_pay_attention_to_the_la_times_poll.html

    " The national polls (though not so much the state polls) were off in 2012. During the closing month of the campaign, they showed, on average, a 0.3 point Romney lead. The RAND poll [LA Times], by contrast, showed a 3.8 point Obama lead – which was almost exactly correct."

    Sean Trende throws a big bucket of salt on the LA Times poll, before getting to the accuracy of the poll in 2012.

    Ronan(rf) 10.15.16 at 12:11 pm 208
    This really is another post 9/11 moment for the chattering classes. All their claims of expertise, clear eyed analysis, logic above emotion, has come crashing down around their hysterical, emotion driven response to the current political situation. There is, at this stage, basically zero willingness among these groups to do their Job of explaining the world, all they want to achieve is a combination of political signalling and intense personal satisfaction.
    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 12:42 pm 214
    @208 I generally agree. Thanks for the link to the Nation piece. I earlier skimmed this Guardian piece by JJ which features an extended essay from the reviewed text. John has been beating this drum for more than a year trying to wear his two hats: partisan Dem and serious social critic. The first serious undermines the second.

    The best analyses I've read were a couple of essays from 2015 comparing Trump to Berlusconi. Those interested will need to insert 2015 into the search string to skip past the more breathless 2016 versions. The 2015 essays are largely free of tbe breathless need to stop Trump cold that mar 2016 comparisons.

    The Judis essay marries Trump too closely to George Wallace, another populist, but critically also a professional politician, a Democrat, and a New Dealer.

    Judis has a good quote, or two, from Wallace that definitely fit the Tea Party/Silent Majority profile – rule followers, middle-class unhappy with the rapine corruption and self-serving nature of the elites.

    The problem is that Trump is an entertainer/marketer and his product is him. Van Jones remains the single best pundit on Trump because Jones understands that the elections are about stagecraft, more than politics. Both the Nation and the Guardian piece function as much as thinly disguised GOTV arguments as academic assessments of the Trump phenomena.

    What both get right, along with many others, is that removing Trump from the equation removes nothing from the masses of ordinary folks who a/will not apologize for who they are and in fact celebrate themselves and their values b/aren't interested in the approval, or the explications of elites c/are completely determined to burn down this mess irrespective of whether Trump is elected, or not.

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 12:43 pm
    And the link: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/13/birth-of-populism-donald-trump?CMP=fb_us
    Ronan(rf) 10.15.16 at 12:48 pm 217
    Thanks for the link kidneystones, I'll check.it out. I'm working through Judis' book at the moment and find larger parts, of it convincing.
    Who. Is van Jones? Is it this lad?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/magazine/van-jones-can-empathize-with-trump-voters.html

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 1:12 pm 220
    Tell me this isn't better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNk3Jdck7nY Two minutes should do it, but the rest is great, too.
    engels 10.15.16 at 1:13 pm 221
    The people v. the 'global managerial class'

    …while approximately 55 percent of Trump supporters do not have a bachelor's degree, this demographic makes up approximately 70 percent of the US population - they are underrepresented among Trump voters. However, the college-educated white new middle class (professionals and managers), is approximately 30 percent of the population, but are overrepresented, at 40 percent, among Trump supporters. Not surprisingly, the median household income of Trump voters is around $70,000 annually.

    More importantly, the category "non-college educated whites" includes both wage workers and the self-employed - the traditional middle class. The Economist found that "better-paid and better-educated voters have always formed as big a part of Mr. Trump's base as those at the lower end of the scale for income and education."

    A systematic review of Gallup polling data demonstrates, again, that most Trump supporters are part of the traditional middle class (self-employed) and those sectors of the new middle class (supervisors) who do not require college degrees. They tend to live in "white enclaves"…

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/trump-gop-republicans-tea-party-populism-fascism/

    Ronan(rf) 10.15.16 at 1:33 pm 226
    Kidney stones I'll check out the link above when by a laptop.

    Personally I don't know how j feel about the managerial class argument (I still have to read both Hayes and Frank ) but it's becoming quite clear that large parts of the left and right "establishment" (which is just a shorthand way of saying those with high profile journalistic, political and cultural positions) are going out of their way to not acknowledge what is right in from of their eyes, that there are political and economic (as well as racial and cultural) reasons behind the rise of right wing populism.

    RichardM 10.15.16 at 1:34 pm 227
    > But, I don't know what actual policy follows from Trump_vs_deep_state, if not Mike Pence brand right neoliberalism.

    'I don't know, so I assume' is kind of the defining characteristic of reactions to the Trump Candidacy. Maybe he will, continue with neoliberalism. Or maybe he will go full communism now, or perhaps at least anti-imperialism, as one prolific poster here repeatedly claims. It all depends on which 10% of his statements you believe are not lies, and what you project into the gap left by the rest.

    If he was elected, things would be different from what they are, or at least are understood to be. And things being different, they would continue to be so, taking a different path from the continuation of a status quo. My personal evidence-free assumption is that this would likely take the nature of a decade-long crisis that would end with a return to a weakened version of the pre-Trump regime. A pale echo of the rosy days of Obama, Bush and Clinton.

    But it could equally plausibly lead to a stable regime that would have European political scientists in lively debate as to whether or not it is most accurately called fascist.

    Ronan(rf) 10.15.16 at 1:38 pm 228
    For those not wager to read the link, here are the bits engels cut. From the beginning.

    "Who are Trump's voters? Despite claims that he has won the "white working class," the vast majority of Trump's supporters, like those of the Tea Party, are drawn from the traditional and new middle classes, especially the older, white male and less well-off strata of these classes. Clearly, Trump's right-wing opposition to neoliberal trade and tax policies resonates with a minority of older, white workers, including a minority of union members."

    And after enclave

    "isolated from immigrants and other people of color, have worse health than the average US resident, and are experiencing low rates of intergenerational mobility. While not directly affected either by the decline of industry in the Midwest or by immigration, these sectors have experiencing declining living standards and are fearful about their children's prospects of remaining in the middle class."

    engels 10.15.16 at 1:40 pm 229
    Roman, I already said I broadly agreed with you (is it the case you literally zzzzzzzzzzz)- I'm delighted that via Luttwak you're groping towards a class analysis of fascism that has been standard on the left since at least Trotsky…
    Rich Puchalsky 10.15.16 at 1:45 pm 231
    Ronan(rf): "Personally I don't know how j feel about the managerial class argument"

    There are certain decision makers who make all of the important decisions, or who at least get a tremendously inordinate amount of power over those decisions. If they aren't making a decision in a positive sense, their power often controls decisions in a negative sense by restricting the available choices to those that are all acceptable to them.

    The developments of late capitalism have to do with the transition of these decisions from the elite capitalist class as such to a group of managers. These managers can not and do not go against the traditional interests of capital as such. But their decisions characteristically favor their class in ways that a traditional class analysis can not fathom, and their ideology appeals to a group variously called "professionals", "technocrats", "the 10%" etc. who more broadly control the levers of power in society.

    The managerial class operates a world system - the system of trade agreements, monetary agreements, etc. This system keeps the world economy going as it is going through the cooperation of American economists, Eurocrat bureaucratic appointees, Chinese Communist Party higher-ups, important people in the financial industry (whether bankers or at central banks), CEOs of multinationals, and even the leaders of important NGOs. These interactions are observable and not a matter of conspiracy theory.

    [Oct 16, 2016] The Deep State

    Notable quotes:
    "... "deep state" - the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you think ..."
    "... Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. ..."
    "... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ..."
    Feb 28, 2014 | The American Conservative

    Steve Sailer links to this unsettling essay by former career Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren, who says the "deep state" - the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you think. The partisan rancor and gridlock in Washington conceals a more fundamental and pervasive agreement.

    Excerpts:

    These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 million to keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least £100m to the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country's intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.

    Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.

    More:

    Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." This, from the chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically abolished the constitutional right to trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee. [3]

    The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at theBelfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.

    Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus. More:

    The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face."

    Read the whole thing.

    ... I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically, I'd be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at all. I'm only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a conspiracy; it's in the nature of the thing. Lofgren:

    Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

    A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: "You mean the number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.

    When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely traumatized by the events.

    Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's a final quote, one from the Moyers interview with Lofgren:

    BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat or republican, not left or right, what is it?

    MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a kind of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.

    This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.

    [Oct 16, 2016] The pattern of current events is the pattern of a global hegemon approaching imperial collapse.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I would not precisely characterize the recognizable pattern of American choices and strategies - that is, of American policy - as that of "an imperial power bent on maintaining its global hegemony" without further qualification. I would say the pattern is that of a global hegemon approaching imperial collapse. There are important differences, with immediate relevance. ..."
    "... When commenters decry the failure to observe the norms of international law, they are not just being moralists in an immoral world; they are decrying the erosion of international order, an erosion that has been accelerated by the U.S. turn toward futile expedience as a foreign policy justified by groundless self-righteousness. ..."
    "... And, the R2P doctrine has been ruined not just by hypocrisy but by the demonstrated incapacity to match means to putative ends. It is not just suspicious that the impulse to humanitarianism emerges only when an opportunity to blow things up arises, it's criminal. Or should be. (sarcasm) But, of course, it is not criminal, because atrocities are only a problem when it is the other guy committing them. Then, we can exercise our righteousness for the good, old cause. (end sarcasm) ..."
    "... This chaos, I repeat, is inherent in the organization of U.S. policy - it is an observable pattern, not a property by axiomatic definition as your strawman would have it, but it is very worrisome. It is a symptom of what I rather dramatically labeled "imperial collapse". That the next President of the U.S. cannot work out why a no-fly zone in a country where the Russians are flying might be a bad idea is not a good sign. That the same person was a proponent of the policy that plunged Libya into chaos is another not-good sign. That's not an argument for Trump; it is an argument that Trump is another symptom. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 8:00 pm 328

    LFC @ 317

    Dropping the heavy mockery for a moment to get at the logic of my view:

    I think that if Y wants to stop Z from happening, Y might consider as a first expedient, self-restraint: not doing Z, itself. That is, discipling its own forces and reforming its own strategies, when it finds itself either doing Z or creating the conditions where Z happens.

    Your strawman summation of my view is actually not half-bad:

    . . . we know a priori that X [the U.S.] cannot act without committing war crimes because X [the U.S.] is an imperial power bent on maintaining its global hegemony, therefore any employment of any military force in any way by X [the U.S.] anywhere necessarily constitutes a war crime, because every aspect of X's [the U.S.'s] foreign policy is criminal and therefore every act taken by X is criminal.

    What makes this a strawman is the "we know a priori ". I don't think we know this a priori . I think we know this, a posteriori , that is, from ample recent experience and observation. I think there's a pattern of choice and strategy that we ought to recognize and, if we recognize it, there might actually be an opportunity to choose differently and realize less horrific consequences.

    I would not precisely characterize the recognizable pattern of American choices and strategies - that is, of American policy - as that of "an imperial power bent on maintaining its global hegemony" without further qualification. I would say the pattern is that of a global hegemon approaching imperial collapse. There are important differences, with immediate relevance.

    A global hegemon in its prime is all about reducing the risks and costs of armed conflicts and coordinating the cooperation of allied, nominally neutral and even rival states with the elaboration of international law, norms, conventions and other agreements. The U.S. in its prime as global hegemon was all about sponsoring the formation of organizations for global and regional multilateral cooperation, even where its direct participation was not welcome. It is true that the political autonomy of states was respected only to the extent that they adopted sufficiently reactionary and economically conservative or authoritarian governments and the political costs to any other course could be large. Back in the day, a Gaddafi or an Assad or a Saddam had to balance on an international tightrope as well as a domestic one, but it was doable and such regimes could last a long-time. Anyway, I do not want to litigate the mixed virtues and vices of (Anglo-)American hegemony past, just to point out the contrast with our present circumstances.

    The turn toward a palsied expedience is a distinct symptom of impending imperial collapse. That the U.S. cannot seem to win a war or bring one to a conclusion in any finite period of time is relevant. That a vast "deep state" is running on auto-pilot with no informed instruction or policy control from Congress is a problem.

    When commenters decry the failure to observe the norms of international law, they are not just being moralists in an immoral world; they are decrying the erosion of international order, an erosion that has been accelerated by the U.S. turn toward futile expedience as a foreign policy justified by groundless self-righteousness.

    "It's complicated" shouldn't be a preface to ungrounded simplification and just rounding up the usual policy suspects: let's declare a no-fly zone, then find and train some moderate faction of fierce fighters for liberal democracy (as if such exist). If we demonstrate the will and commitment and stay the course . . . blah, blah, blah.

    And, the R2P doctrine has been ruined not just by hypocrisy but by the demonstrated incapacity to match means to putative ends. It is not just suspicious that the impulse to humanitarianism emerges only when an opportunity to blow things up arises, it's criminal. Or should be. (sarcasm) But, of course, it is not criminal, because atrocities are only a problem when it is the other guy committing them. Then, we can exercise our righteousness for the good, old cause. (end sarcasm)

    The situation in Syria is chaotic, but the chaos is in U.S. policy as well as on the ground. But, the immediate question is not whether the U.S. will intervene, because, as other commenters have pointed out, the U.S. has already involved itself quite deeply. The creation of ISIS, one belligerent in the Syrian conflict is directly attributable to the failure of U.S. policy in Iraq and the U.S. is actively attacking ISIS directly in Syrian as well as Iraqi territory. The U.S. provides military support to multiple factions, including both Turkish-backed forces and the forces of a Kurdish belligerent, which are in conflict with each other. Meanwhile, our great good allies, the Saudis and Qataris are apparently funding Al Qaeda in Syria and maybe ISIS as well.

    This chaos, I repeat, is inherent in the organization of U.S. policy - it is an observable pattern, not a property by axiomatic definition as your strawman would have it, but it is very worrisome. It is a symptom of what I rather dramatically labeled "imperial collapse". That the next President of the U.S. cannot work out why a no-fly zone in a country where the Russians are flying might be a bad idea is not a good sign. That the same person was a proponent of the policy that plunged Libya into chaos is another not-good sign. That's not an argument for Trump; it is an argument that Trump is another symptom.

    The chaos, the breakdown of rational, deliberate and purposive control of policy, means that policy and its rationales are often absurd. I mock the absurdity as a way of drawing attention to it. Others seek to normalize. So, there you have it.

    likbez 10.16.16 at 2:43 pm 310

    @305
    bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 12:43 pm
    LFC: We do have Bruce Wilder mocking the notion that the Russians hacked into the DNC email. Cyber specialists think it was the Russians to a 90 percent certainty, but of course Wilder knows better. Anyway, who cares whether the Russians hacked the ******* email?

    Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the U.S. officials making the attribution.

    It looks like LFC is completely clueless about such notion as Occam's razor.
    Why we need all those insinuations about Russian hackers when we know that all email boxes in major Web mail providers are just a click away from NSA analysts.

    Why Russians and not something like "Snowden II".

    And what exactly Russians will get politically by torpedoing Hillary candidacy. They probably have tons of "compromat" on her, Bill and Clinton Foundation. Trump stance on Iran is no less dangerous and jingoistic then Hillary stance on Syria. Aggressive protectionism might hurt Russian exports. And as for Syria, Trump can turn on a dime and became a second John McCain anytime. Other then his idea of avoiding foreign military presence (or more correctly that allies should pay for it) and anti-globalization stance he does not have a fixed set of policies at all.

    Also you can elect a dog as POTUS and foreign policy will be still be the same as it is now controlled by "deep state" ( http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-deep-state/ ):

    Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.

    In view of all this, LFC anti-Russian stance looks extremely naïve and/or represents displaced anti-Semitism.

    likbez 10.16.16 at 4:18 pm 311

    In a way Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called "The pot calling the kettle black" as she is exactly the specialist in this area. BTW there is a documented history of the US interference into Russian elections of 2011-2012.

    In which Hillary (via ambassador McFaul and the net of NGOs) was trying to stage a "color revolution" (nicknamed "white revolution") in Russia and prevent the re-election of Putin. The main instrument was claiming the fraud in ballot counting.

    Can you imagine the reaction if Russian ambassador invited Trump and Sanders to the embassy and offered full and unconditional support for their noble cause of dislodging the corrupt neoliberal regime that exists in Washington. With cash injections to breitbart.com, similar sites, and especially organizations that conduct polls after that.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/observers-detail-flaws-in-russian-election.html

    And RT covered staged revelations of "Hillary campaign corruption" 24 x 7. As was done by Western MSM in regard to Alexei Navalny web site and him personally as the savior of Russia from entrenched corruption ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny )

    http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-duma-elections-navalny-pamfilova-resignation/28007404.html

    Actually the USA has several organizations explicitly oriented on interference in foreign elections and promotion of "color revolutions", with functions that partially displaced old functions of CIA (as in Italian elections of 1948). For example, NED.

    Why Russia can't have something similar to help struggling American people to have more honest elections despite all the blatantly undemocratic mechanisms of "first to the post", primaries, state based counting of votes, and the United States Electoral College ?

    It would be really funny if Russians really resorted to color revolution tricks in the current presidential elections :-)

    Here is a quote that can navigate them in right direction (note the irony of her words after DNC throw Sanders under the bus ;-)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/world/europe/russian-parliamentary-elections-criticized-by-west.html?_r=0

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized what she called "troubling practices" before and during the vote in Russia. "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said in Bonn, Germany.

    With 99.9 percent of ballots processed, election officials said that United Russia had won 238 seats in Parliament, or about 53 percent, from 315 seats or 70 percent now. The Communist Party won 92 seats; Just Russia, a social democratic party, won 64 seats and the national Liberal Democratic Party won 56 seats.


    Rich Puchalsky 10.16.16 at 9:26 pm

    LFC: "Would a multilateral action - not unilateral by the U.S. alone, but multilateral - undertaken in response to, e.g., the current situation in Aleppo necessarily violate international law if it lacked UN sanction?"

    This would be a kind of coalition - only of willing countries, of course - maybe we could call it something catchy, like The Willing Coalition. Are we allowed to bring up recent history at all, or does that make us America haters? It's strange how these hard cases just keep coming up. Alternatively, we could go for Reset Theory. We need to look forwards instead of looking backwards.

    So let's avoid recent history, and just go to ancient history, like that long-outmoded relic, the Security Council. I'd had some vague impression that the chance of military conflict between Security Council members was supposed to be Very Very Bad and by definition worse than any other result, so much so a lot of the legalities that you're casually thinking of writing into the law books later were intended to prevent exactly the kinds of situations that you're proposing, in which members of the Security Council started to think about gathering coalitions to shoot down each other's planes.

    But I'm a crazy anarchist, and you're an international affairs expert. So why don't you tell me.

    [Oct 16, 2016] Revenge of the White Working-Class Woman

    Notable quotes:
    "... In a June/July national survey by GQRR, white working-class women put Trump 23 points ahead of Clinton in a three-way ballot ..."
    www.politico.com

    POLITICO Magazine

    Donald Trump's solid core of support comes from white working-class America. As the blue-collar voter has become central to the political conversation, a clear picture of who we're talking about has emerged: He's likely male and disillusioned with the economy and loss of industry. He's a coal miner that's been laid off in Hazard, Kentucky, and is scraping by off his wife's income; a machinists' union member in a Pennsylvania steel town who says "a guy like Donald Trump, he's pushing for change." Through the campaign, we've seen endless portraits of Trump support in the heart of Appalachian coal country, and a recent spate of books documents white working-class alienation and the history of the white underclass in America. Trump's iron grip on the support of blue-collar white Americans has been one of the most striking threads of his unprecedented campaign.

    ... ... ...

    ...Thomas Frank, who recently published Listen, Liberal, about the Democratic Party's abandonment of the working class and Robert Reich, public policy professor at the University of California at Berkeley and former secretary of labor in the Clinton administration. They both have outlined a series of Democratic moves to elevate free trade and an inability to defend unions as proof that Democrats created a platform that left no room for the white working class.

    Marginalized for years without working-class candidates or elected officials, "the white working class found their voice in Trump," says Justin Gest, assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of The New Minority: White Working Class Politics in an Age of Immigration and Inequality. "He speaks directly to conspiracy, frustration and a sense of powerlessness, and they're grateful he speaks to them." Trump, too, has worked hard to burnish his working-class cred, telling a crowd in Pennsylvania on Tuesday that he considers himself "in a certain way to be a blue-collar worker."

    ...In terms of the economy, white working-class women also differ from their male counterparts. While manufacturing concerns and the white working class may be linked in our cultural narrative (especially in Trump's campaign), the women were focused on different economic concerns-in particular, the cost of higher education and preschooling.

    .... Single women tend to lean to the left, and in recent years white working-class marriage rates have fallen more sharply than those of their more educated and affluent counterparts, who are more likely to delay marriage than not get married at all, according to FiveThirtyEight's analysis of Census data. (Roughly 45 percent of white working-class women are unmarried, according to GQRR's Nancy Zdunkewicz). In a June/July national survey by GQRR, white working-class women put Trump 23 points ahead of Clinton in a three-way ballot, but when you looked at only unmarried white non-college-educated women, that gap was only 11 percent-a preview, if current trends continue, of a gap likely to grow in the future.

    ..For Democrats hoping to capitalize on this group, it's not obvious they can just swoop in and grab alienated women. For one thing, white working-class women don't necessarily trust Hillary Clinton any more than men do.

    ,,,For now, though, if Democrats continue bleeding white working-class men and women, the party's white base will be mostly highly educated and white collar, a perhaps uncomfortable shift for the so-called party of the people

    Julia Sonenshein is California-born writer and editor living in New York City. Her work focuses on social-political issues like reproductive rights, American gun culture and intersectional feminism.

    [Oct 15, 2016] Whats Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews): The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics. ..."
    "... Yes, that would seem transparently obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in defending the neoliberal programme. ..."
    "... The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution. Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for the short term. ..."
    "... The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox. ..."
    "... However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other with random farm implements. ..."
    "... The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy or their deputies... ..."
    "... I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt. ..."
    "... Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World. ..."
    "... Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism" where none is to be found in reality ..."
    "... the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks ..."
    "... Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of a recourse usually). ..."
    "... external factors are much more significant in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may have. It is not even luck. ..."
    "... People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success. Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality. ..."
    "... The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself." ..."
    Oct 15, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Robert Shiller:
    What's Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism? Maybe the Economy : Global economic weakness and a rise in inequality appear to be causing a disturbing growth in ethnic nationalism. ...

    In the United States, despite his attempts to woo minority voters, Donald J. Trump appears to derive support from such sentiment. In Moscow, Vladimir V. Putin has used Russian nationalist sentiment to inspire many of his countrymen. And we see growing ethnic political parties inspired by national identity in countless other countries.

    It is natural to ask whether something so broad might have a common cause, other than the obvious circumstantial causes like the gradual fading of memories about the horrors of ethnic conflict in World War II or the rise in this century of forms of violent ethnic terrorism.

    Economics is my specialty, and I think economic factors may explain at least part of the trend. ...

    anne : Friday, October 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM

    'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews): The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics.

    drb48 -> anne... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:06 PM
    Yes, that would seem transparently obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in defending the neoliberal programme.
    JohnH -> anne... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:37 PM
    The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution. Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for the short term.
    Gibbon1 -> JohnH... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 11:32 PM
    The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox.

    However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other with random farm implements.

    pgl : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 11:45 AM
    Trump is now saying Mexican Carlos Slim wants to control our election. No worries Donald - Putin the Russian is trying really hard for you.
    JohnH -> pgl... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 02:02 PM
    Putin is just returning the favor...

    The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy or their deputies...

    pgl -> JohnH... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 03:31 PM
    Thank so much for the Pravda insights.
    likbez -> pgl... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 07:43 PM
    Paradoxically Pravda in old times did have real insights into the US political system and for this reason was widely read by specialists. Especially materials published by the Institute of the USA and Canada -- a powerful Russian think tank somewhat similar to the Council on Foreign Relations.

    As for your remark I think for many people in the USA Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.

    JohnH remark is actually very apt and you should not "misunderestimate" the level of understanding of the US political system by Russians. They did learn a lot about machinations of the neoliberal foreign policy, especially about so called "color revolutions." Hillary&Obama has had a bloody nose when they tried to stage a "color revolution" in 2011-2012 in Russia (so called "white revolution). A typical US citizen probably never heard about it or heard only about "Pussy riot", Navalny and couple of other minor figures. At the end poor ambassador Michael McFaul was recalled. NED was expelled. Of course Russia is just a pale shadow of the USSR power-wise, so Obama later put her on sanctions using MH17 incident as a pretext with no chances of retaliation. They also successfully implemented regime change in Ukraine -- blooding Putin nose in return.

    But I actually disagree with JohnH. First of all Putin does not need to interfere in a way like the USA did in 2011-2012. It would be a waist of resources as both candidates are probably equally bad for Russia (and it is the "deep state" which actually dictates the US foreign policy, not POTUS.)

    The US political system is already the can of worms and the deterioration of neoliberal society this time created almost revolutionary situation in Marxists terms, when Repug elite was not able to control the nomination. Democratic establishment still did OK and managed to squash the rebellion, but here the level of degeneration demonstrated itself in the selection of the candidate.

    Taking into account the level of dysfunction of the US political system, I am not so sure the Trump is preferable to Hillary for Russians. I would say he is more unpredictable and more dangerous. The main danger of Hillary is Syria war escalation, but the same is true for Trump who can turn into the second John McCain on a dime.

    Also the difference between two should not be exaggerated. Both are puppets of the forces the brought them to the current level and in their POTUS role will need to be subservient to the "deep state". Or at least to take into account its existence and power. And that makes them more of prisoners of the position they want so much.

    Trump probably to lesser extent then Hillary, but he also can't ignore the deep state. Both require the support of Republican Congress for major legislative initiatives. And it will very hostile to Hillary. Which is a major advantage for Russians, as this excludes the possibility of some very stupid moves.

    Again, IMHO in no way any of them will control the US foreign policy. In this area the deep state is in charge since Allen Dulles and those who try to deviate too much might end as badly as JFK. I think Obama understood this very well and did not try to rock the boat. And there are people who will promptly explain this to Trump in a way that he understands.

    In other words, neither of them will escape the limit on their power that "deep state" enforces. And that virtually guarantee the continuity of the foreign policy, with just slight tactical variations.

    So why Russians should prefer one to another? You can elect a dog as POTUS and the foreign policy of the USA will be virtually the same as with Hillary or Trump.

    In internal policy Trump looks more dangerous and more willing to experiment, while Hillary is definitely a "status quo" candidate. The last thing Russians needs is the US stock market crush. So from the point of internal economic policy Hillary is also preferable.

    A lot of pundits stress the danger of war with Russia, and that might be true as women in high political position try to outdo men in hawkishness. But here Hillary jingoism probably will be tightly controlled by the "deep state". Hillary definitely tried to be "More Catholic then the Pope" in this area while being the Secretary of State. That did not end well for her and she might learn the lesson.

    But if you think about the amount of "compromat" (Russian term ;-) on Hillary and Bill that Russians may well already collected, in "normal circumstances" she might be a preferable counterpart for Russians. As in "devil that we know". Both Lavrov and Putin met Hillary. Medvedev was burned by Hillary. Taking into account the level of greed Hillary displayed during her career, I would be worried what Russians have on her, as well as on Bill "transgressions" and RICO-style actions of Clinton Foundation.

    And taking into account the level of disgust amount the government officials with Hillary (and this is not limited to Secret Service) , new leaks are quite possible, which might further complicate her position as POTUS. In worst case, the first year (or two) leaks will continue. Especially if damaging DNC leaks were the work of some disgruntled person within the USA intelligence and not of some foreign hacker group. That might be a plus for Russians as such a constant distraction might limit her possibility to make some stupid move in Syria. Or not.

    As you know personal emails boxes for all major Web mail providers are just one click away for NSA analysts. So "Snowden II" hypothesis might have the right to exist.

    Also it is quite probably that impeachment process for Hillary will start soon after her election. In the House Republicans have enough votes to try it. That also might be a plus for s for both Russia and China. Trump is extremely jingoistic as for Iran, and that might be another area were Hillary is preferable to Russians and Chinese over Trump.

    Also do not discount her health problems. She does have some serious neurological disease, which eventually might kill her. How fast she will deteriorate is not known but in a year or two the current symptoms might become more pronounced. If Bill have STD (and sometime he looks like a person with HIV; http://joeforamerica.com/2016/07/bill-clinton-aids/) that further complicates that picture (this is just a rumor, but he really looks bad).

    I think that all those factors make her an equal, or even preferable candidate for such states as Russia and China.

    JohnH -> likbez... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 09:46 PM
    I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt.

    Procopius -> likbez... October 16, 2016 at 05:01 AM

    Your analysis does give me some comfort. My greatest fear is that the Deep State seems to currently be in disarray. Their actions in Syria are divided, contradictory, foolish, counterproductive, and without direction.

    Obama has mostly obviously obeyed the Deep State but has seemed to sometimes "nudge" them in a direction that seems to me better for the country. The deal with Iran is an exception. It's significant, but it is both sensible and pragmatic. It's hard to believe anything as important as that was not sanctioned by the Deep State, in defiance of Israel, and yet it is quite uncharacteristic of the Deep State's behavior over the last fifteen years.

    DrDick : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:05 PM
    The existing research literature on ethnonationalism would generally support this, though rising inequality around the world is at least as important.
    likbez -> to anne...
    Anne,

    You probably can start with

    https://www.amazon.com/Ethnonationalism-Walker-Connor/dp/0691025630

    There are useful pages on the Web related to particular flavors, for example Ukrainian nationalism.

    The term "American exceptionalism" is a politically correct term for American nationalism so any literature on that will give you overview too.

    anne -> likbez...

    https://www.amazon.com/Ethnonationalism-Walker-Connor/dp/0691025630

    1993

    Ethnonationalism
    By Walker Connor

    Walker Connor, perhaps the leading student of the origins and dynamics of ethnonationalism, has consistently stressed the importance of its political implications. In these essays, which have appeared over the course of the last three decades, he argues that Western scholars and policymakers have almost invariably underrated the influence of ethnonationalism and misinterpreted its passionate and nonrational qualities....

    [ I do appreciate the reference, which strikes me as fine since I would like to read older essays or essays extending over a few decades for perspective on the matter. I will begin here. ]

    JohnH -> anne... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:43 PM
    I think that the rise of Nazi Germany would be ample proof of the power of ethnic nationalism during an economic crisis. Now we get Trump...
    Peter K. : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 01:05 PM
    Brexit. Theresa May's recent speeches at the Conservative conference was very nationalistic and Little Englander. See Benjamin Friedman's book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.

    Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World.

    kthomas -> Peter K.... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 01:32 PM
    Your usual theatrics, but I largely agree with you lattermost statement. Things are always best when we share. Tribesman can be especially selfish, even amongst themselves.
    Ben Groves : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 01:50 PM
    Frankly, I am not seeing it. Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism" where none is to be found in reality or manipulated like half-jew Donald Trump, who is being run by the rothschild flank in Russia due to his disaster when he went with fellow jews during the post-Soviet Oligarch scam. Much like all his businesses, it flopped. He owes the bank of russia(owned by rothschild) 100's of millions of dollars. They own him.

    The point? The "monied elite" tell you what they want you to believe. The dialectical illusion and collision of the duelism is how they stay in power. I feel bad for Trump supporters, most are old and not very smart. But I also feel bad for Trump opposition who refuse to bring this up, mainly because they are financed by the same crowd(aka the Clinton have worked with Rothschild as well, they come from the same cloth).

    Growth adjusted for population was not overly impressive in the 70's or 90's. Yet...............

    likbez : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 02:47 PM
    Neoliberalism creates an impulse for nationalism in several ways:

    1. It destroys human solidarity. And resorting to nationalism in a compensational mechanism to restore it in human societies. that's why the elite often resorts to foreign wars if it feels that it losing the control over peons.

    2. Neoliberalism impoverishes the majority of population enriching top 1% and provokes the search for scapegoats. Which in the past traditionally were Jews. Now look like MSM are trying to substitute them for Russians

    3. Usually the rise of nationalism is correlated with the crisis in the society. There is a crisis of neoliberalsm that we experience in the USA now: after 2008 neoliberalism entered zombie state, when the ideology is discredited, but forces behind it are way too strong for any social change to be implemented. Much like was the case during "Brezhnev socialism" in the USSR.

    So those who claim that we are experiencing replay of late 1920th on a new level might be partially right. With the important difference that it does not make sense to establish fascist dictatorship in the USA. Combination of "Inverted totalitarism" and "national security state" already achieved the same major objectives with much less blood and violence.

    spirit of forgotten American protectionism : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 09:46 PM
    the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks
    cm -> cm... , -1
    Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of a recourse usually).

    cm -> Longtooth... October 15, 2016 at 02:19 PM

    This analysis totally misses the point that often external factors are much more significant in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may have. It is not even luck.

    Procopius -> cm... October 16, 2016 at 05:22 AM

    I think you miss Longtooth's point. You are, of course, right that personal virtues or failings usually have no effect on success or lack of it, but if I understand Longtooth correctly, he is saying that's irrelevant. People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success. Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality.

    cm -> Procopius...

    The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself."

    [Oct 15, 2016] Support for Trump is concentrated in the middle-income categories

    Oct 15, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Ronan(rf) 10.14.16 at 4:02 pm 148

    This has added some much needed complexity to the VOX narrative

    http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/13/13259860/twilight-elites-trump-meritocracy

    this part seems to support those of us who have been saying that those adopting a blinkered class/income based argument to 'disprove' the economic insecurity arguments are not even trying to get at the truth(imo, theyre purposely working backwards from their conclusions towards a conventional answer)

    "Hayes argues that the angriest voters are not going to be the people at the bottom, but the people in the middle, who used to expect that they and their kids could do well through enterprise and don't believe that anymore. Experts have disagreed over whether Trump supporters are richer or poorer than the average. Yet emerging evidence is beginning to portray a more nuanced portrait of Trump's supporters than those earlier takes.

    Jonathan Rothwell, a senior economist at Gallup, has used survey data on nearly 113,000 Americans to ask what really drives Trump support. He finds that support for the mogul turned politician is concentrated in the middle-income categories; in contrast, those who are relatively rich and those who are relatively poor are less likely to support him. Furthermore, economic insecurity is a huge factor – those who worry about their economic future are much more likely to vote for Trump. Rothwell builds on work by Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren at Harvard to find that people in living in areas with weak mobility for kids from middle-class families are more likely to vote for Trump.

    These findings are only the start of what is likely to be a long debate. Nonetheless, they support Hayes's argument. People seem to be more likely to support an anti-system candidate like Donald Trump when they have a middling income, when they feel economically insecure, and when they live in places where middle-class kids have worse prospects for getting ahead."

    Ronan(rf) 10.14.16 at 4:04 pm

    towards a *convenient* answer (ie an answer they want to be true, as it supports their worldview ).

    [Oct 15, 2016] How Trump Happened by Joseph E. Stiglitz

    He missed the foreign policy aspect of Hillary vs Trump candidacy. A vote for Hillary is vote for continuation of wars of expansion of neoliberal empire.
    Notable quotes:
    "... reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both). ..."
    "... Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so. ..."
    "... Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. ..."
    "... The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth. ..."
    Project Syndicate

    But several underlying factors also appear to have contributed to the closeness of the race. For starters, many Americans are economically worse off than they were a quarter-century ago. The median income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42 years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages.

    Indeed, real (inflation-adjusted) wages at the bottom of the income distribution are roughly where they were 60 years ago. So it is no surprise that Trump finds a large, receptive audience when he says the state of the economy is rotten. But Trump is wrong both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last six decades: GDP has increased nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top – people like Trump, owing partly to massive tax cuts that he would extend and deepen.

    At the same time, reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both).

    Trump wants to blame all of America's problems on trade and immigration. He's wrong. The US would have faced deindustrialization even without freer trade: global employment in manufacturing has been declining, with productivity gains exceeding demand growth.

    Where the trade agreements failed, it was not because the US was outsmarted by its trading partners; it was because the US trade agenda was shaped by corporate interests. America's companies have done well, and it is the Republicans who have blocked efforts to ensure that Americans made worse off by trade agreements would share the benefits.

    Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so.

    Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. But Trump's proposed policies would make a bad situation much worse. Surely, another dose of trickle-down economics of the kind he promises, with tax cuts aimed almost entirely at rich Americans and corporations, would produce results no better than the last time they were tried.

    In fact, launching a trade war with China, Mexico, and other US trading partners, as Trump promises, would make all Americans poorer and create new impediments to the global cooperation needed to address critical global problems like the Islamic State, global terrorism, and climate change. Using money that could be invested in technology, education, or infrastructure to build a wall between the US and Mexico is a twofer in terms of wasting resources.

    There are two messages US political elites should be hearing. The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth.

    This leads to the second message: we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon – and more than a few similar political developments in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened.

    [Oct 14, 2016] 18 US 2071: Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    hooligan2009 Oct 14, 2016 9:18 AM

    still no mention of the clincher - that proves the entire democrat party has no respect for the office of president - or any other government office for that matter..

    stay on target!!!

    (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be

    disqualified from holding any office under the United States .

    As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States."
    (Source: 18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally )

    [Oct 14, 2016] American intelligence claims (without providing evidence) that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks is nothing less that attempts of American intelligence to manipulate the election

    Notable quotes:
    "... the danger that he presents is shaking the rats from under the carpet. ..."
    "... Yet the NYT keeps reporting that American intelligence asserts (without providing evidence) that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks, and this is nothing less that attempts of American intelligence to manipulate the election. ..."
    "... I'm afraid, when it comes to end-of-the-Republic stuff, it's worse when your own intelligence guys are trying to manipulate the election than when their intelligence guys are. ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    dax 10.14.16 at 7:52 am 141

    I'll begin with the necessary avowal that I think Trump is a clown, and dangerous, and I hope he goes down to a record defeat.

    But still… the danger that he presents is shaking the rats from under the carpet.

    How many times have I read that Russian intelligence is trying to manipulate the American election? And that this is a Very Bad Thing?

    Yet the NYT keeps reporting that American intelligence asserts (without providing evidence) that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks, and this is nothing less that attempts of American intelligence to manipulate the election.

    And I'm afraid, when it comes to end-of-the-Republic stuff, it's worse when your own intelligence guys are trying to manipulate the election than when their intelligence guys are.

    [Oct 14, 2016] To all Sanders supporters.  Your hero sold out to the devil.

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    SharkBit Oct 14, 2016 9:20 AM To all Sanders supporters. Your hero sold out to the devil. Your party is corrupt to the core. If you care about America, voting Trump is the only way out of this Shit Show. Otherwise, we all die as that corrupt bitch of your party is crazy enough to take the USA into WWIII. You may not like Trump but he is nothing compared to the Clinton Crime Family and all its globalist tenacles.

    [Oct 14, 2016] "Is he remaining quiet because they promised him something?"

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Crash Overide Paul Kersey Oct 14, 2016 10:16 AM "Is he remaining quiet because they promised him something?"

    I mean I don't know, you tell me...

    Bernie Sanders buys his 3rd home worth $600,000 shortly after he left the presidential race...

    zuuma Crash Overide Oct 14, 2016 11:04 AM Nicely done for a man who never had a paying job until age 40.

    And then only government jobs. Bastiat Crash Overide Oct 14, 2016 11:11 AM "Cha-ching!"

    "Money, it's a hit

    Don't give me none of that do-goody good bullshit"

    Pink Floyd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhX5W7JoWI

    Oldwood Crash Overide Oct 14, 2016 11:41 AM bought and paid for

    [Oct 14, 2016] Donald Trump tells Ohio crowd that Hillary Clinton, media threaten nation

    Notable quotes:
    "... "This is a struggle for the survival of our nation. This election will determine whether we are a free nation, or whether we have only the illusion of democracy but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system." ..."
    "... "Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed," Trump said. "They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and reputation. And they will lie, lie and lie even more." ..."
    "... "It is not coincidence that these attacks come at the exact same moment, and all together at the same time, as the WikiLeaks documents expose the massive international corruption of the Clinton machine," he said. ..."
    "... Before thousands in U.S. Bank Arena in Cincinnati, Trump said the email leaks have shown that Clinton and the Democrats "raped the system" to keep Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination. ..."
    "... The enthusiastic crowd responded loudly as Trump repeated his pledge to seek a special prosecutor on Clinton if he becomes president - a move constitutional experts have said would be dubious - to "investigate the investigation" of Clinton by the FBI. ..."
    "... "A vote for me is a vote for you, and it's a vote for change," he said. "I honestly believe this is the last chance we'll ever get. … Either we win this election or we lose this country." ..."
    The Columbus Dispatch

    After describing this year's election in apocalyptic terms earlier in the day, Donald Trump was down to merely alleging Hillary Clinton is a criminal by the time he made a pair of stops Thursday in Ohio.

    "This is not simply another four-year election. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization," Trump said early Thursday afternoon in Palm Beach, Fla.

    "This is a struggle for the survival of our nation. This election will determine whether we are a free nation, or whether we have only the illusion of democracy but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system."

    Trump said Clinton and media co-conspirators are at the heart of the effort against him.

    "Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed," Trump said. "They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and reputation. And they will lie, lie and lie even more."

    In the Florida speech, Trump elaborated for the first time on both an 11-year-old video of him describing his sexual advances and new allegations that he groped women.

    "It is not coincidence that these attacks come at the exact same moment, and all together at the same time, as the WikiLeaks documents expose the massive international corruption of the Clinton machine," he said.

    "These claims about me of inappropriate conduct with women are totally and absolutely false - and the Clinton machine knows it is. It's all fabricated. It's pure fiction and outright lies. These events never happened …

    "We already have substantial evidence to dispute these lies, and it will be made public in the appropriate way and at the appropriate time."

    In Columbus, Trump told about 500 young adults and college students at the Renaissance Columbus Downtown, "The greatest weapon wielded by crooked Hillary is the media. She has nothing else."

    When the crowd began chanting "Lock her up, lock her up!" Trump chuckled. "So young and jaded already," he said. "You understand life at a young age."

    Before thousands in U.S. Bank Arena in Cincinnati, Trump said the email leaks have shown that Clinton and the Democrats "raped the system" to keep Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination.

    The enthusiastic crowd responded loudly as Trump repeated his pledge to seek a special prosecutor on Clinton if he becomes president - a move constitutional experts have said would be dubious - to "investigate the investigation" of Clinton by the FBI.

    But the biggest response from the Queen City audience came after this Trump pledge: "I am going to keep radical Islamic terrorists the hell out of our country."

    The crowd in heavily Republican southwestern Ohio was probably Trump's largest rally in the Buckeye State. Three days earlier, Clinton had her biggest crowd of the entire campaign on the South Oval of Ohio State University.

    Near the end of his 45-minute talk, Trump said, "You are going to remember this rally for the rest of your life."

    And once he wins the election, Trump said, his supporters will look back and regard it as the most important vote ever because that's when the country started turning around.

    "A vote for me is a vote for you, and it's a vote for change," he said. "I honestly believe this is the last chance we'll ever get. … Either we win this election or we lose this country."

    ... ... ....

    [Oct 14, 2016] His speech yesterday was unbelieveable

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Bay of Pigs SPONGE Oct 14, 2016 11:21 AM

    His speech yesterday was unbelievable. I never thought Id hear someone running for POTUS saying these kinds of things to a cheering American crowd.

    A mass awakening in the USA has begun...

    SoilMyselfRotten foodstampbarry Oct 14, 2016 9:50 AM

    The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story

    The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, dutifully devoting its front pages to the Trump story

    There, fixed it for ya

    847328_3527 JRobby Oct 14, 2016 10:36 AM

    Hillary is cracking up and becoming paranoid:

    Clinton Tells DeGenerate: Trump 'Stalked' Me During Debate

    https://gma.yahoo.com/clinton-tells-degeneres-trump-stalked-during-debat...

    Max Cynical VinceFostersGhost Oct 14, 2016 9:45 AM

    As soon as the Clinton campaign hears about this editorial, 404 page not found coming in 3...2...1

    [Oct 14, 2016] Just imagine the kind of damage he could have done if he'd been wicked smart

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Renfield Dien Bien Poo Oct 14, 2016 10:51 AM << But Trump is a fucking moron .>>

    Yes, yes he is. That's why he's pretty much single-handedly 1) multiplied his large inheritance into a much larger fortune; 2) broken the Bush political machine (Jeb!); 3) repeatedly humiliated the MSM news for its US election coverage; 4) broken the careers of 16 status-quo RNC pretenders and certain ex-pretenders such as Romney; 5) split the establishment Repub party itself and driven out several of its worst offenders (now voting Democrat!); 6) raised probably the biggest army of citizen supporters since Reagan; 7) dominated news stories for free coverage that tends to bring him more support; and 8) spent relatively little money doing it.

    All totally and completely by accident! Beginner's luck!

    Thank God he's such a fucking moron, right? Just imagine the kind of damage he could have done if he'd been wicked smart!

    Renfield WillyGroper Oct 14, 2016 12:58 PM << herd redirection. any press is good press. jerry springer reality show politics. if this was the real deal he'd have been ron paul'd in the press from the beginnning. ZERO time. >>

    Could well be. I have no strong opinion on Trump since he has no record in office yet, so since I'm not an American citizen & cannot vote in those elections anyway I have to sit back and wait, see what the truth turns out to be. I apologise for commenting on your elections, and normally I'd keep out of it, but there's this:

    The reason I have lately become a foreign 'Trump supporter' is that the alternative is Hillary, a known war criminal. Living next door to you guys I stand a much better chance of seeing old age if the Washington string-puller for Canada's subsidiary of the Corporation isn't, you know, already a known war criminal with a hard-on for Russia. Not that thrilled with the prospect of an immediate & 'voter-supported' nuclear WW3. Hence, I'm a Trump supporter now... as a foreign commenter the only current US pollies I've a really strong opinion on are Jeb!, Barky, and Cankles. That's b/c people (or in Jeb's case their immediate families) who've already demonstrated their willingness to commit war crimes become very relevant to those even outside American borders, especially when they call the shots for my own, err, 'leaders'. (I know, that's our own damn fault, too.)

    I am very, very FOR your remaining non-war-criminal candidate since it prevents Hillary as getting in as CEO of the US corporate office, with "nuclear war" as her first order of business.

    So here, just pointing out that DT, while he is and may be a lot of things, is certainly not stupid! That particular MSM myth always makes me giggle and reply flippantly (as above). Whether he's also evil, in my foreigner's eyes, still remains to be seen from his record in office, if he gets one. (Back to lurking, and let you better-informed Americans get on with things!)

    [Oct 14, 2016] The well deserved hatred for Hillary and the globalists is so great, that at least 40% of the males in this country would back anyone who went up against the Clintons.

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    dsty balolalo Oct 14, 2016 11:53 AM Thank You Vladimir Putin

    The Hillary Clinton campaign says the hackers behind the leaked email evidence of their collusion with the major media are from Russia and linked to the Russian regime. If so, I want to publicly thank those Russian hackers and their leader, Russian President Vladimir Putin, for opening a window into the modern workings of the United States government-corporate-media establishment.

    We always knew that the major media were extensions of the Democratic Party. But the email evidence of how figures like Maggie Haberman of The New York Times, Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post, and John Harwood of CNBC worked hand-in-glove with the Democrats is important. The Daily Caller and Breitbart have led the way in digging through the emails and exposing the nature of this evidence. It is shocking even to those of us at Accuracy in Media who always knew about, and had documented, such collusion through analysis and observation.

    The Clinton campaign and various intelligence officials insist that the purpose of the Russian hacking is to weaken the confidence of the American people in their system of government, and to suggest that the American system is just as corrupt as the Russian system is alleged to be. Perhaps our confidence in our system should be shaken. The American people can see that our media are not independent of the government or the political system and, in fact, function as an arm of the political party in control of the White House that wants to maintain that control after November 8.

    In conjunction with other evidence, including the ability to conduct vote fraud that benefits the Democrats, the results on Election Day will be in question and will form the basis for Donald J. Trump to continue to claim that the system is "rigged" against outsiders like him.

    The idea of an American system of free and fair elections that includes an honest press has been terribly undermined by the evidence that has come to light. We are not yet to the point of the Russian system, where opposition outlets are run out of business and dissidents killed in the streets. That means that the Russians have not completely succeeded in destroying confidence in our system. But we do know that federal agencies like the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are poised to strike blows against free and independent media. Earlier this year the three Democrats on the FEC voted to punish filmmaker Joel Gilbert for distributing a film critical of President Barack Obama during the 2012 campaign.

    The New York Times is reporting that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta has been contacted by the FBI about the alleged Russian hackers behind the leaks of his emails. This is what Podesta and many in the media want to talk about.

    But the Russians, if they are responsible, have performed a public service. And until there is a thorough house-cleaning of those in the major media who have made a mockery of professional journalism, the American people will continue to lack confidence in their system. The media have been caught in the act of sabotaging the public's right to know by taking sides in the presidential contest. They have become a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, coordinating with the Hillary Clinton for president campaign, which apparently was being run out of Georgetown University, where John Podesta was based. Many emails carry the web address of [email protected] , a reference to the Georgetown University position held by the chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Podesta is a Visiting Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. His other affiliations include the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and the United Nations High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda.

    Podesta and the other members of this U.N. panel had proposed " A New Global Partnership for the World ," which advocated for a "profound economic transformation" of the world's economic order that would result in a new globalist system. Shouldn't the American people be informed about what Podesta and his Democratic allies have planned for the United States should they win on November 8?

    That Podesta would serve the purposes of the U.N. is not a surprise. But it is somewhat surprising that he would use his base at Georgetown University to run the Hillary campaign. On the other hand, Georgetown, the nation's oldest Catholic and Jesuit university, describes itself as preparing "the next generation of global citizens to lead and make a difference in the world."

    In a previous column, "The Sad Demise of a Once-Catholic University," we noted that the university launched a " Hillary Rodham Clinton Fellowship Program ," and that Mrs. Clinton is the Honorary Founding Chair of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security . Georgetown is even giving awards named after the former Secretary of State, designated the " Hillary Rodham Clinton Awards for Advancing Women in Peace and Security ."

    When a Catholic university serves as the base for the election of a Democratic Party politician committed to taxpayer-funded abortion on demand and transgender rights, you know America's political system and academia are rotten to the core. The disclosure from WikiLeaks that Podesta used his Georgetown email to engage in party politics only confirms what we already knew.

    If the Russians are ultimately responsible for the release of these emails, some of which show an anti-Catholic animus on the part of Clinton campaign officials, we are grateful to them. The answer has to be to clean out the American political system of those who corrupt it and demonstrate to the world that we can achieve higher standards of integrity and transparency.

    For its part, Georgetown University should be stripped of its Catholic affiliation and designated as an official arm of the Democratic Party.

  • Read more: " Thank You Vladimir Putin http://americasurvival.org/2016/10/thank-you-vladimir-putin.html#ixzz4N4iiqCrc

    Paul Kersey balolalo Oct 14, 2016 12:02 PM The well deserved hatred for Hillary and the globalists is so great, that at least 40% of the males in this country would back anyone who went up against the Clintons. That's just not the same thing as "BUYING TRUMPS BULLSHIT HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER".

    Trump is exposing the corruption and the hypocrisy of the Clintons in a way that no one has ever had the guts to do in the past. He's doing it on national TV with a large national audience. With Trump we may get anarchy, but with the Clintons, Deep State is guaranteed. It is Deep State that is working overtime to finish building the expressway to neofeudalism.

    [Oct 14, 2016] why are all these suckers using gmail anyway?

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Lumberjack Oct 14, 2016 9:18 AM Wikileaks dump #7 has arrived:

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?new&q=&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=...

    Lumberjack Lumberjack Oct 14, 2016 9:26 AM Has it leaked yet?

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9252

    Tom Servo Lumberjack Oct 14, 2016 9:47 AM why are all these cocksuckers using gmail anyway?

    [Oct 14, 2016] Hillary Clinton asks for landslide victory to rebuke Trumps bigotry and bullying

    Killary only can beg that voters hold their noses and vote for her. Guardian neoliberal presstitutes still don't want to understand that Hillary is more dangerous then trump, Sge with her attempt that she is more militant then male neocons can really provoke a confrontation with Russia or China.
    Notable quotes:
    "... War at home versus another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third party all the way for me. ..."
    "... Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may push more people towards Trump. ..."
    "... Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy... ..."
    "... Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not win in an landslide?! ..."
    "... We came, we saw, and he grabbed some pussy. ..."
    "... It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff ..."
    "... The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more. ..."
    "... This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or the sustainability of globalization. ..."
    "... These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation. ..."
    "... But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization. ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Julian Kelley , 14 Oct 2016 02:47

    The vast majority of her support comes from people that will be holding their noses as they vote for her. Seems to me that convincing those same people that you have it in the bag will just cause them to think voting isn't worth their time since they don't want to anyway.

    I know Trump's supporters, the real ones, and the anyone-but-Hillary club will show up as well. Funny if this backfires and he wins.

    I won't be voting for either one and couldn't care less which one wins. War at home versus another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third party all the way for me.

    Apache287 -> Julian Kelley , 14 Oct 2016 02:57

    War at home versus another foreign war

    Yes because War in the US will be so great.

    ... ... ...

    AQuietNight -> playloro , 14 Oct 2016 02:56
    "Trump has to be the limit, and there has to be a re-alignment"

    Trump has shown one must fight fire with fire. The days of the meek and mild GOP are over. Twice they tried with nice guys and failed. Trump has clearly shown come out with both fists swinging and you attract needed media and you make the conversation about you. Trump's mistake was not seeking that bit of polish that leaves your opponent on the floor.

    Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may push more people towards Trump.

    taxhaven , 14 Oct 2016 02:50
    Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy...
    tugend49

    For every woman that's been sexually harassed, bullied, raped, assaulted, catcalled, groped, objectified, and treated lesser than, a landslide victory for Clinton would be an especially sweet "Fuck You" to the Trumps of this world.

    DJROM -> tugend49 , 14 Oct 2016 03:17

    Tell that to Juanita Brodrick, Katherine Willie, or Paula Jones
    SwingState , 14 Oct 2016 02:53

    Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not win in an landslide?!

    It might be a reaction against Trump, but it's also a depressing example of the power of the establishment, and their desire for control in democracy. Just look at how they squealed at Brexit.

    chuckledog -> SwingState , 14 Oct 2016 03:06
    Rather low opinion of people's ability to decide for themselves.
    AlvaroBo -> chuckledog , 14 Oct 2016 03:13
    That low opinion is justified. See also: Asch experiment.
    Kieran Brown -> SwingState , 14 Oct 2016 03:52
    "squealed at Brexit" hahaha...hasnt happened yet and your currency is in the toilet. the squealing from england gonna be deafening...
    Boojay , 14 Oct 2016 02:54
    It takes a horrible man to make Clinton look good. We came, we saw, and he grabbed some pussy.
    SeenItAlready , 14 Oct 2016 02:55
    It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff

    There is a report from two years ago, July 2014, before the candidates had even been selected, by the economist Branko Milanovic for Yale 'Global' about the impact of Globalisation on the Lower Middle Classes in the West and how this was basically going to turn into exactly the choice the American electorate is facing now

    http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/tale-two-middle-classes

    Why won't the media discuss these issues instead of pushing this pointless circus?

    These are the penultimate paragraphs of the article on the report (there is a similar one for the Harvard Business Review here ):

    The populists warn disgruntled voters that economic trends observed during the past three decades are just the first wave of cheap labor from Asia pitted in direct competition with workers in the rich world, and more waves are on the way from poorer lands in Asia and Africa. The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more.

    This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or the sustainability of globalization.

    If globalization is derailed, the middle classes of the West may be relieved from the immediate pressure of cheaper Asian competition. But the longer-term costs to themselves and their countries, let alone to the poor in Asia and Africa, will be high. Thus, the interests and the political power of the middle classes in the rich world put them in a direct conflict with the interests of the worldwide poor.

    These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation.

    But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization.

    Martin51 -> SeenItAlready , 14 Oct 2016 09:19
    Globalisation will continue to happen. It has pulled a large part of the world population out of poverty and grown the global economy.

    Sure on the downside it has also hugely benefitted the 1%, while the western middle classes have done relatively less well and blue collar workers have suffered as they seek to turn to other types (less well paid) of work.

    The issue is the speed of change, how to manage globalisation and spread the wealth more equitably. Maybe it will require slowing but it cannot and should not be stopped.

    ozbornzadick , 14 Oct 2016 02:56
    Ah, the lesser of two evils.

    [Oct 14, 2016] The real deplorable are US neoliberal press corps and Hillarys fellow financial, political, economic, and military elites who wrecked the economy, got us mired in endless unwinnable foreign wars

    Notable quotes:
    "... Meanwhile, between journalism's insiders and outsiders-between the ones who are rising and the ones who are sinking-there is no solidarity at all. Here in the capital city, every pundit and every would-be pundit identifies upward, always upward. ..."
    "... We cling to our credentials and our professional-class fantasies, hobnobbing with senators and governors, trading witticisms with friendly Cabinet officials, helping ourselves to the champagne and lobster ..."
    "... "The real "deplorables" generally aren't the people whom Hillary denounced as wholly "irredeemable," or at whom economically secure commentators fulminate on a regular basis. More obviously "deplorable" are Hillary's fellow financial, political, economic, and military elites who wrecked the economy, got us mired in endless unwinnable foreign wars, and erected a virtually impenetrable cultural barrier between everyday Americans trying to live fruitful lives and their pretentious, well-heeled superiors ensconced in select coastal enclaves. It is thanks to the actions of this "basket of deplorables" that we're in the situation we're in" ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Vatch October 13, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    I skimmed the Harpers article by Thomas Frank on the media's extermination of Bernie Sanders. It's a good article about an unpleasant topic. One point that is not clear from the blurb is that Frank isn't writing about the media's treatment of Sanders, but rather about the Washington Post's treatment of Sanders. Occasionally other media outlets are mentioned (I saw a reference to the Associated Press), but it's almost all about the Bezos Washington Post's unfairness to Sanders. A lot of other newspapers mistreated him as well.

    PlutoniumKun October 13, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    The article is excellent, but if anyone doesn't have the time to read it, I'd suggest going straight to the last page, its a brilliant demolition of modern punditry journalism. The last two paragraphs in particular:

    Meanwhile, between journalism's insiders and outsiders-between the ones who are rising and the ones who are sinking-there is no solidarity at all. Here in the capital city, every pundit and every would-be pundit identifies upward, always upward.

    We cling to our credentials and our professional-class fantasies, hobnobbing with senators and governors, trading witticisms with friendly Cabinet officials, helping ourselves to the champagne and lobster. Everyone wants to know our opinion, we like to believe, or to celebrate our birthday, or to find out where we went for cocktails after work last night.

    Until the day, that is, when you wake up and learn that the tycoon behind your media concern has changed his mind and everyone is laid off and that it was never really about you in the first place. Gone, the private office or award-winning column or cable-news show. The checks start bouncing. The booker at MSNBC stops calling. And suddenly you find that you are a middle-aged maker of paragraphs-of useless things-dumped out into a billionaire's world that has no need for you, and doesn't really give a damn about your degree in comparative literature from Brown. You start to think a little differently about universal health care and tuition-free college and Wall Street bailouts. But of course it is too late now. Too late for all of us.

    Chauncey Gardiner October 13, 2016 at 5:06 pm

    Yes, thanks for the link to Thomas Frank's essay in Harpers about the efforts of corporate media, particularly the Washington Post and New York Times, to kill Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign for the presidency.

    Yesterday NC linked to an article from the American Conservative by Michael Tracey titled "The Real Deplorables". In his article Tracey observed: …

    "The real "deplorables" generally aren't the people whom Hillary denounced as wholly "irredeemable," or at whom economically secure commentators fulminate on a regular basis. More obviously "deplorable" are Hillary's fellow financial, political, economic, and military elites who wrecked the economy, got us mired in endless unwinnable foreign wars, and erected a virtually impenetrable cultural barrier between everyday Americans trying to live fruitful lives and their pretentious, well-heeled superiors ensconced in select coastal enclaves. It is thanks to the actions of this "basket of deplorables" that we're in the situation we're in"

    Clearly Michael Tracey overlooked a group. But what is particularly troubling me was Thomas Frank's observation: …"for the sort of people who write and edit the opinion pages of the Post, there was something deeply threatening about Sanders and his political views. He seems to have represented something horrifying, something that could not be spoken of directly but that clearly needed to be suppressed."

    I find myself wondering why this is so?

    [Oct 13, 2016] PUSSY has been rediscovered and resurrected by the Democrat Digital Archaeologists

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    clarky90 October 13, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    Now that the most terrifyingly potent word in the English language, "PUSSY" has been rediscovered and resurrected by the Democrat Digital Archaeologists, it is time for reflection. "Pussy" has been detonated over the Trump campaign. Hillary Clinton will be elected. Nuclear War with Russia and China now seems likely.

    War may break out after Hillary's election but before she takes office (think June 22, 1941)

    I am recommending downloading and securely storing as many recipes and photos of meals as possible! Also war movies and series (Band of Brothers etc). Digital survivalists, the new reality.

    Also, we MUST organize battalions of Social Justice Warriors
    to pull the dead and dying from the smoking rubble, rebuild the electricity grid, maintain social order and establish food supplies.

    Most likely, the "deplorables" and the "irredeemables" will be otherwise occupied in their own communities (that probably were not directly targeted)

    [Oct 13, 2016] New evidence that the hacks were not carried out by an elite team of state-sponsored cyber experts

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ggm October 13, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    Podesta's twitter account and i-devices were hacked yesterday using a password found in the emails. See here .

    That is pretty good evidence that the emails are authentic, unless you believe the hackers managed to guess his password by an astronomically lucky coincidence.

    I think this is also evidence that the hacks were not carried out by an elite team of state-sponsored cyber experts. Podesta was emailing his password in plain text, using a simple password, using that password across multiple accounts. Further, he didn't bother to change his password despite his mailbox being hacked and the contents spreading all over the internet!

    This man is a dingbat on computer security matters. Literally anyone could have hacked him using very simple techniques. That password (Hunter4567) could have been brute forced quickly using tools available to everyone.

    Have to go with Occam's razor and say this was probably not a massive Russian plot to influence the election and install Trump, just an incompetent person getting caught with their pants down by someone poking around.

    OIFVet October 13, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    The Putin doctored the email to include Podesta's password. Duh! Debunked in a nanosecond! /Sarc

    [Oct 13, 2016] Stockman: I do not think she won the debate. I think the media destroyed Donald Trump as a candidate

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think the media destroyed Donald Trump as a candidate ..."
    "... I have to say I am truly disappointed by this blog post. The election is a clear choice. Hillary has a confirmed track record of war, the death of muslim, laws that incarcerated black people, stumping for banks, stumping for Monsanto, stealing aid money, corruption and slut-shaming raped women. ..."
    "... Socialists, Progressives, the Left, HATE corrupt HRC's actions, policies, behavior, and record. Why can't people get the terminology and concepts correct? ..."
    "... HRC is the OPPOSITE of progresssive, socialist, leftist. Hillary Clinton is a NeoLiberal NeoCon. She wants reckless regime change, war, trade agreements that decimate US jobs and wages, etc. ..."
    "... Mish is acting like some gal looking for the perfect man as a husband. There is no perfect man in either love or politics. Trump is the closest thing to it given what I see of the puppets of politics so far. The central bankers / globalists appear to hate him. That alone should be enough for Mish who has railed against both to vote for Trump. Imagine the heat Trump has already taken? An Mish just blithely jumps ship. And what for? Because of some imagined stampeded because Trump is hetero. ..."
    "... Hillary destroyed evidence she was subpoenaed to turn over to criminal investigators. She should lose her law license just as Bill had. Instead, she will become president. ..."
    "... I recently registered to vote for the first time in over 15 years. I'm voting for Trump and I've never voted for a Republican before in my life. I'm completely ignoring all the polls, all the talking heads, all of the 'smart' people, alt or otherwise. I'm going to vote for what I see as the only option for not *more of the same*. ..."
    "... It is a fraud to reject Trump for his failures to make the best case against Hillary. It really doesn't matter as we have seen just in the last few days that the media is not covering the issues, no matter how much he brings them up. He has massive rallies and goes through all of this, yet NOTHING in the media ..."
    "... Sure they will cover his vulgarities while saying NOTHING of Hillary's issues other than to claim the content of her emails is less relevant than a potential Trump/Russia conspiracy. Birther my ass, will they apologize for inferring Trump is a traitor or spy? I doubt it. ..."
    "... The corrupt FBI cover-up of Clintons violations of the espionage act has convinced me that Clinton should be in prison. She wants to appoint left-wing ideological Supreme Court justices who further destroy the law and move us down the road to tyranny. She will not repeal the ACA. She will further destabilize the world just as she did Libya. ..."
    "... Trump is a very flawed individual who really has no business being President. I disagree with many of his policies, but at this point, we all we have left is damage control. As much as I hate it, I will vote for Trump. ..."
    "... Disagree. Voting for the 2 party system is what has got us where we are today. It's people like you, who will always vote for who the oligarchs give you, that has put the country in this position. ..."
    "... Trump, even if elected, cannot do anything without an agreeable Congress. ..."
    "... Trump may call himself a republican (as Ron Paul did) but in fact he is an independent. ..."
    "... The oligarchs most certainly did not give us Trump, the people voted for Trump in spite of the oligarchs continuously trying to destroy him and supporting establishment professional politicians. ..."
    "... Likely, if Hillary wins, they will attempt to change the laws and structure of party politics to make sure we NEVER see another Trump like candidacy. ..."
    "... Trump is not a nation builder, which is why the neocons are against him. Wake up Mish – any vote against Trump is a vote for Hitlary, AND YOU KNOW IT, and would be a vote for what you despise. ..."
    "... Oh please it's hardly over. Polls don't matter when a wikileak, 11 year-old tape, or bad debate performance could potentially swing sentiment overnight from one candidate to another. ..."
    "... I conclude no one wants to admit who they support. The only reason anyone would vote for HIllary is to stop Trump. Now, if the polls show an easy win for Hillary, those people may figure their vote is not needed, and since they don't really care for her, not vote at all. By contrast, Trump supporters are more likely to be angry by how the press has treated him, and vote anyway. ..."
    "... I expect record low turnout. It's possible that with a record low turnout that Trump might actually win. It's also possible that Johnson might get 15% of the vote and surprise everyone. It's a shame, honestly, that the Libertarians didn't nominate a more qualified nominee this year as this would have been the year for him to be taken seriously. ..."
    "... If I put a 'Trump' sticker on my car, it would be vandalized. If I put a Trump sign on my building, it would be vandalized if not outright fire bombed. I live in a very blue district in a very blue state. ..."
    "... Trump was not my first choice, but he is the better choice. I have warmed to him a bit seeing how he has upset the party oligarchs.. and not just in the USA ..."
    "... It's easy to do. There is no chance in Hell that she will win, and you can set back and watch it all burn down with a clear conscience, right? This is what I love about principles. We pretend our principles are about the greater good…like we are sacrificing ourselves, when in reality, we are simply trying to shield our own delicate sensibilities from any thought of responsibility. ..."
    "... The USA is not a nation (at least not in the traditional nation-state sense). It's too fractured and too diverse, it doesn't even have its own language and culture. How can one say "we"? How many of you can find enough people in your area with the same interests to form any organized group? ..."
    "... Gary Johnson is the one expressing this "romantic" view, of an America that doesn't exist, never existed, has no chance of existing because it's too diverse and fractured in its social core, and it's against all global plans and policies of all other countries. He can only fracture the republican party even more, until republicans become "the other democrats" on the table. ..."
    "... The same happened in Greece with the third party "To Potami", which helped bring Syriza in power after fracturing the center-right. It was a "catalyst" party that played its role and then almost vanished. ..."
    "... I read Stockman's article in full, and he gets even more preposterous and unhinged from reality than that sentence you disagree with, Mish. Stockman seems to think the ruination of the USA under Hillary will be a good thing that leads to a Utopian paradise arising out of the financial ashes and radioactive rubble. Bolsheviks in 1917 and more recent Marxists such as Paul Pot in Cambodia have had that same vision of a Utopian society arising from the ashes and killing fields. I think Stockman needs to rethink that part of his narrative. Anyway, the Media did not kill Trump. Rather, the Media Have Made Trump. ..."
    "... 40 million or so Trump supporters watching debate number two on TV saw it for themselves, and now more than ever know the falseness of the mainstream media narrative, both in its spin and coverage deletions. The media has been 99% anti-Trump from Day One, and ditto the GOP elite who are touted by the media as now ditching Trump. In that sense, what Trump and Bill Clinton have in common is that they both get stronger when under attack. If the media and GOP elite suddenly embraced Trump, that might confuse Trump's supporters into bolting. ..."
    "... The Bush cousin, Billy, and NBC were a month too soon releasing the trash talking tape, and timing counts. People who watched the debate, including the Hillary voters, now have too much time to talk and reconsider. The danger to Hillary is that some of the robotic drones who vote Democratic by rote will agree that Hillary is all talk and empty words and that nothing will be done under her rule to help the black, Latinos and inner city people who robotically vote the Democratic ticket. That is the defection that could hurt Hillary on election day, defections among her own core believing that They Have Nothing to Lose by Voting Trump. The media cannot sustain the Bush family/NBC tape frenzy much longer. It will soon be old news, and something else will emerge to turn the election. ..."
    "... My research shows evidence of poll fixing to make hillary look good. My independant polls and questions show trump will win election by a large margin. My guess he will beat Hillary by 6 million votes if not more. Media is so wrong on this. ..."
    "... Whatever the media says is a lie, I have no doubt. My prediction is Hilary's team will know that she can't win, so they'll play the poor health card so that Obama will stall the election (with him in power) for another year. ..."
    "... They hope that Clinton builds some kind of commanding position in the polls and they convince a significant number of voters that Trump will lose anyway. The problem is that everyone knows that the polls are rigged, and the more people see of Hillary and the more questions are asked, the more the people don't like her. The polls are still too close for comfort. ..."
    "... But if there is one thing I have learned about neo-liberals (or whatever these creatures call themselves) over the past decade or so – that is they make and break the rules to suit themselves. Done in Europe all the time. We will see. ..."
    "... Hillary will lead the polls but lose the election which will be proclaimed fraudulent due to Russian hacking at the behest of Trump. Its all set up. ..."
    "... They keep bringing up all of these leaked and hacked emails, claiming they are all tracked back to Russia, which is impossible to actually verify WHO did it, but none the less, this will be their plan if ballot box stuffing and election fraud are not enough to get her across the finish line. They keep TELLING us that Hillary is the WINNER. They claim its not even close. ..."
    "... I am not so sure that Trump will lose. People are so anti-establishment that it is likely the media by defiling Trump almost on a daily basis and their visible bias towards Hillary may be helping Trump along. However I do accept Trump can lose it with his foot-in-mouth disease but even now I do not think it is sure thing. If the anti-establishment crowd land up in droves to vote, it might well be Trump. ..."
    "... I like David Stockman and enjoy what he has to say but it looks like he is trying to put some lipstick on the cover of his new book. He hoped that Trump would get to the left of Hillary on Wall Street and ruffle Janet's feathers. ..."
    "... Basically David is saying that it will be a good thing that Hillary will be our next President because she will preside over the next recession. He also more or less said up to this point that it would be great if she gets "Trumped". ..."
    "... We are ruled by largely a false consensus. Exactly what these polls are about…creating the perception of what the public believes in an effort to direct that perception. ..."
    "... Trump has gotten to this point despite a massive push back from Republicans and an almost universal opposition from the mainstream media….and yet we still hear those proclaiming his candidacy is dead. If just a few more people would show a spine instead of running away from each and every Political correct attack, we MIGHT still have a democratic republic rather than a world ruled by powerful elites through political and corporate mouthpieces. ..."
    "... I guess like many others, I slapped my forehead when the "tape" was released and initially thought it would be the last we saw of Donald Trump. Over the next few days I re-evaluated and came to the conclusion that it was inevitable that something like this would occur. TPTB will never allow Trump to ascend to the presidency willingly and if it can't be stopped by character assassination, they may well try another way. ..."
    "... Personally I hope Donald wins by a good margin and Clinton, who couldn't keep the grin from her face, will be consigned to where she should be. ..."
    "... Hillary will get the election simply by how the votes get counted. The character assassinations are a prelude and necessary part of the story as to why Trump lost. The faked vote counts for Hillary will be the reason Trump lost. But that won't be discussed. ..."
    "... Hillary was a vote canvasser in Chicago in 1960 and learned a lot about vote fraud (she said so herself). I'm sure that will come in handy, no wonder she switched to the Vote Fraud Party. ..."
    "... The way things are heating up between Washington and Russia, there's a lot more than the market to worry about, especially if Hillary is elected because she will not be able to control the Pentagon nor her neocon advisers like Paul Wolfowitz and Mike Morell. Simply put, they will get US into a war with Russia and Russia will defend itself with nukes because, for Russia, the 'conventional' alternative to nuclear war would be far worse. ..."
    "... Russia will not likely allow that to happen. As part of the USSR, they lost 20m people during WWII, ejecting the Germans from their own territory while the Germans were fighting on multiple fronts. That represents as much of a "never again" tragedy for Russia as the holocaust represents for Jews. ..."
    "... US military planners know this and will try to take out Russia's nukes as soon as the hostilities begin. The Russians know this and that they must launch as quickly as possible. It will be all out and all over, with little chance of negotiating a cease fire. ..."
    "... As Lavrov said, we cannot even negotiate anymore. As soon as Kerry and he made their agreement last month, the Pentagon trashed it and attacked a Syrian base – as ISIS was attacking a nearby mountain. The Syrians even claim to have a recording of communications between US forces and ISIS – which 'our' government has yet to deny. We know now from Hillary's emails that the Saudis and Qataris were funding ISIS in 2014. There's surely more than that. ..."
    "... I'm still voting for Trump as my big FU to the current way things are done. I still think a Trump presidency will result in something tangible being done to either our infrastructure needs or to causing everyone to re-engage in their local politics. Both positives in my mind. The World will take care of itself without the United States for a few years. ..."
    "... Trump is still in the race and come Nov. 9 we will have our own version of Brexit. The dominant ruling minority have overstepped their bounds with the voting majority, who now see through all of the Zioglobalist falsehoods. ..."
    "... The best we can hope for is Trump represents a different faction of our masters that realize a leech can't survive on a corpse. ..."
    "... In the last debate I think I heard Trump say "oh so it's 3 against one again?" I was thinking the same thing before he said it. ..."
    "... Only the MSM seem to be unaware of female sexuality – perhaps they think of them all as saints and mothers. I doubt that Trump has suffered lasting damage by the Bush inc. attack. Normal people are realists. ..."
    "... Trump has many flaws and yes he has hurt himself but it is the media that is attempting to destroy him. Even Nixon got treated better then Trump. They cover up for Clinton, they work with Clinton. The media is doing a total hatchet job on Trump. ..."
    "... According to my state Secretary of State, the second debate generated a flood of last minute new voter registrations, so it isn't over. ..."
    "... I do agree Donald could have done way better in the first debate, and somewhat better in the second although he still won the second debate. We can also still hope the Most Evil Bitch will have a heart attack. If she is elected I am going to build a fallout shelter. ..."
    "... And people are going to vote for Gary Johnson? Jesus Christ. Hope you're living on 10 acres of arable land in the middle of nowhere, Mish! ..."
    "... The other problem for Bush was a short, mild recession during the election. Slick Willy made a big deal out of it; Bush said "don't worry, it won't amount to anything". Bush was right, but The Weasel won. ..."
    "... Mish you are so wrong. I think Trump he will win solidly. The 2nd debate was a master stoke. If the election was over, you wouldn't have OBAMA and his wife, GORE, Sanders, Bill Clinton and assortment of idiotic actors all campaign wildly. ..."
    "... Debates are never very memorable, statements are. The one-statement that will stay with everyone is you would be in Jail if I were president. ..."
    "... A vote for Gary Johnson now is without a doubt a vote for Hillary, which in turn is a vote for WW3. That is not hyperbole. ..."
    "... Political consultant Dick Morris knows the Clintons better than anybody and is vigorous in his support of Trump. He has been lambasting third party voters as Hillary votes and says it's really a wasted vote. ..."
    "... Not sure why I would have to say this, but what Trump said into that hot mic was accurate. I lived in Miami for several years. Wealth purchases people and beauty is DEFINITELY purchaseable. They let him do it just the same as all of the athletes and celebs in the VIP sections of the clubs I frequented in SoBe. We used to joke that buying a bottle and getting a table in VIP increased our likelihood of hooking up by ~300%. Groping willing participants is not sexual assault. ..."
    "... Don't be silly. If Trump loses this, he will be DONE. He has flown into the face of every power group in America, and if there is one thing we know about progressives, they do not forgive or forget. ..."
    "... Personal destruction is their game. ..."
    "... People want to think that Trump is just in it for publicity, which to me is to assume he is stupid, which I think is far from true. I think he truly does believe he can make a difference. He is probably wrong, but he is NOT stupid. This is his end. ..."
    "... If anyone in the media had a clue about how voters feel, voters wouldn't be disconnecting their overpriced cable TV. 500 channels and they are all crap. ..."
    "... Of course Trump will wreck Washington DC. That is the point. Of course Paul Ryan hates voters as much as Nancy Pelosi and Obama and McCain do - our public servants have made their hatred of the public quite clear. ..."
    "... Believe it or not, Hillary started out as a conservative republican. At age 13 she canvassed for Nixon in Chicago in the 1960 election and saw vote fraud firsthand (seems to have made an impression!). In '64 she campaigned for Goldwater! Then in '65 she went to college and started drifting to the left. Her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky. Enrolling at Yale in '69 she met Bill Clinton and joined the Dark Side. ..."
    "... Clinton is still the Republican candidate. She is certainly to the right of Nixon or Eisenhower. Pro big business, pro free trade, pro immigration, pro defense spending. The only non-alignment is with the Christian-right. But they were just a play thing for votes by the GOP anyway. ..."
    "... Go back and read Eisenhower's Farewell Address again Jon. It's the opposite of Hellary. ..."
    "... The thing about Trump is that he hasn't got a plan. Lowering taxes and spending more on defense is not a plan. Saying you will do better deals is not a plan. Voters are just hoping that once he was in he would achieve things but really we don't know what he will do. ..."
    "... Trump does not have a plan and it is obvious. But no plan is better than Hillary's bad plan. ..."
    "... But he really lost me when he degenerated into pandering to every minority race, religion and special interest group that yelled the loudest… just like all the other politicians. And the most recent revelation about his vulgar views of women didn't help either. Nothing to love there. ..."
    "... "Trump was asked several pointed questions. Hillary was asked none." ..."
    "... Never mind preparing for a biased moderator, accepting the conditions of such a debate at all makes him look like failed leadership. He could have demanded better conditions, especially if he were slightly ahead as he may have been at the time. ..."
    "... One more thing that struck me was that if the election was in the bag why would they release the tape? They might as well be preparing for the coronation. ..."
    "... IMO, the establishment is still running scared and thus using all the dirty tricks that they are capable of and which they think will win them the election. The crux of the issue is that they do not want to acknowledge that people might prefer a discredited Trump to the establishment at this stage of the game. Establishment is the problem but they are masquerading as the solution. This is the problem with gaming people. At some point the game is up. ..."
    "... Exactly. And why release polls with a so called 11% lead, polls conducted by a company connected to Clinton? That has an overweight in left/democratic voters? ..."
    "... Brexit was supposed to be over before the final result came in. How quickly people forget. It is the people vs Wall Street/corrupt politicians. The latter is represented by Clinton. the former by Trump. We will see how angry the U.S. people really are at the current clique of career politicians, bought and paid for by the big companies. ..."
    "... Why indeed would they send out Obama only yesterday to wag his finger in dire warning? The powers to be know it's NOT all over. The problem is that each time they send one of these 'asshat extrodinaires' out To preach to the public they simply cause MORE dissent, more mocking, and more retrenchment. ..."
    "... Does anyone actually think that Obama, who has done more to divide the nation than anyone can make the blindest bit of difference at this stage? Respectfully, a curious Englishman. ..."
    "... PS! It's not as though Obama has anything better to do with his time, is it? Enjoy 18 holes of golf, or go out campaigning for a woman he (allegedly) loathes and despises. Tough call, that one! ..."
    "... "We will see how angry the U.S. people really are at the current clique of career politicians, bought and paid for by the big companies." ..."
    "... I hope they are angry enough to come and vote for him in such numbers that it assures a Trump victory. Anybody but establishment is all I ask! What is happening is too nauseating to stomach any longer. ..."
    "... Unfortunately Gary Johnson will split the anti-establishment vote, helping to elect the Soros and banksters funded candidate. ..."
    "... This is not a vote for election. It is a vote against election. ..."
    Oct 11, 2016 | mishtalk.com

    Stockman: "This election is over. Trump made a game defense of himself, enough to keep him in the race, but it is going to descend deeper into the gutter from here, than ever before in American history. And the people of America are going to be disgusted. And they're not going to come out and vote. And a lot of them now feel free to vote their conscience and their conviction for the third party candidate. So Hillary will have no mandate. And I think that's good. Because she stands for everything that's wrecking this country. We're gonna now have a crisis; there will be a market crash; there will be a recession. She will be a 45 percent politically-crippled mandate-less president, and we are going to finally show the American people that this fantasy that both parties have been projecting has to end. … I do not think she won the debate. I think the media destroyed Donald Trump as a candidate."

    General Agreement

    There is very little I disagree with, until the final sentence.

    It's pretty clear the election is over, but that was clear after the first debate.

    I would not go so far as to say the markets will "crash", but that depends on the definition. I actually suspect more like a 40-50% decline over seven to ten years with nothing much worse than a 15-20% decline.

    No year may look like a "crash" but the end result for pension plans will be worse.

    Hillary certainly is damaged goods, but she will be able to damage the country with help of her Republican neocon friends who would rather see her in the White House than Trump.

    All things considered, that's a lot of agreements. But, if a "crash" is coming, however one defines it, Donald Trump would not have stopped it either.

    Media Destroyed Trump?

    My main disagreement with Stockman is his statement " I think the media destroyed Donald Trump as a candidate ." Certainly the media tried to destroy Trump, but the media failed every step of the way.

    Trump Destroyed Trump

    It is Trump who destroyed Trump. The man finally imploded.

    Heading into the first debate, it was Trump's election to lose, and he lost it with an amazing set of gaffes.

    When asked about taxes, he had an easy answer: "I pay may taxes according to the law, just as I presume Hillary does. Warren Buffet complained his secretary pays more in taxes than he does. But does Buffet voluntarily pay extra taxes? Does Hillary? If Hillary does not like the law, why didn't she change it when she was a senator?"

    How hard was that?

    Why didn't Trump ever bring up the Clinton Foundation? Why didn't he press harder on Libya?

    In regards to the "birther" issue, all Trump had to say was "I changed my mind once I saw the birth certificate. Am I not allow to change my mind? Didn't Hillary change her mind on the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement (TPP)? Of course she did. She now agrees with me. If she can change her, mind why can't I?

    Trump was asked several pointed questions. Hillary was asked none. Trump could have and should have, after the third pointed question, gone after the moderator with a comment "Doesn't Hillary get any hard questions? Whose side are you on?" That would have brought lots of laughs.

    Such a response to the moderator by Trump would have required some quick thinking, but there is no excuse for Trump flat out not being prepared for the debate.

    Ahead of the first debate, Trump was one state away from pulling into the lead, and a moderately good debate would likely have done that. Answers like the above, easily worked out in advance, may have been a knock out blow to Hillary.

    Finally, and in regards to all the new sexual allegations, Trump should simply have said something along the lines "I made a mistake. So did Hillary when she married Bill."

    The bottom line is the medial did not destroy Trump, his own arrogance, lack of humility, and total lack of preparation for the first debate did.

    Barring a medical or other type of disaster, this election is indeed over.

    I am voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

    Mike "Mish" Shedlock

    thoughts on "Trump Destroyed Trump, Not the Media: "This Election is Over""

    michael said:

    October 11, 2016 8:44:34 at 8:44 PM Trump has not lost yet, although the mainstream media would suggest otherwise. Of course they also predicted Brexit to fail. It is not over until the votes are counted. It will be a travesty if Hillary is elected.

    Gary Johnson believes Wall Street has committed no crimes. Hard rhetoric to stand behind.

    Arvind Damarla

    October 12, 2016 4:04:38 at 4:04 AM I have to say I am truly disappointed by this blog post. The election is a clear choice. Hillary has a confirmed track record of war, the death of muslim, laws that incarcerated black people, stumping for banks, stumping for Monsanto, stealing aid money, corruption and slut-shaming raped women.

    Trump has made fast and loose comments because he is not a slick politician. However I challenge you to tell us what you find so objectionable about the *substance* of his statements (not the media spin) that you would vote to allow Clinton in. Maybe you're in California and your vote doesn't matter, but still … very disappointing.

    CJ

    October 12, 2016 12:37:29 at 12:37 PM The election "should" be a clear choice, but unfortunately the democrat/liberal/progressive/socialist/fascist/communist fans of Hillary will not view, read or discuss anything that is not favorable to their queen. The new voting block generation Y is grossly uninformed, and being brainwashed by the MSM. Best thing to do is try to educate them.

    mg

    October 12, 2016 9:28:01 at 9:28 PM @CJ, Socialists, Progressives, the Left, HATE corrupt HRC's actions, policies, behavior, and record. Why can't people get the terminology and concepts correct?

    HRC is the OPPOSITE of progresssive, socialist, leftist. Hillary Clinton is a NeoLiberal NeoCon. She wants reckless regime change, war, trade agreements that decimate US jobs and wages, etc.

    phxfreddyii

    October 13, 2016 7:50:33 at 7:50 AM Mish is acting like some gal looking for the perfect man as a husband. There is no perfect man in either love or politics. Trump is the closest thing to it given what I see of the puppets of politics so far. The central bankers / globalists appear to hate him. That alone should be enough for Mish who has railed against both to vote for Trump. Imagine the heat Trump has already taken? An Mish just blithely jumps ship. And what for? Because of some imagined stampeded because Trump is hetero.

    For those of you who think what Trump said is "bad". Well I guess it is considered bad. But it is true. Women like powerful males and they drop their panties quite easily for them. I have experience this. If you have not perhaps you think it is a myth. It is not. Even being relatively fit and tall you would be surprised what a prim and proper lady will do if you intone that you can keep a secret. Reality is those cloths come off quite rapidly.

    So let's all stop the Victorian tongue clucking.

    Diogenes

    October 11, 2016 9:26:23 at 9:26 PM Exactly. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. It was/is a mistake. He is unable to identify Aleppo as a Syrian city and flashpoint of ISIS terror.

    Trump got a ton of free publicity in the primary. Hard to sit there now and gripe over how he got treated.

    Hillary destroyed evidence she was subpoenaed to turn over to criminal investigators. She should lose her law license just as Bill had. Instead, she will become president.

    The world recoils in horror as President What-Difference-Does-It-Make takes office.

    the_gardener

    October 11, 2016 8:52:36 at 8:52 PM I recently registered to vote for the first time in over 15 years. I'm voting for Trump and I've never voted for a Republican before in my life. I'm completely ignoring all the polls, all the talking heads, all of the 'smart' people, alt or otherwise. I'm going to vote for what I see as the only option for not *more of the same*.

    And I don't discuss it with anyone. I don't get into political arguments or discussions. I don't have a lawn sign or a bumper sticker. I don't go to rally's.

    I'm betting there are plenty more people just like me and there is a big surprise awaiting all of the pundits.

    madashellowell

    October 12, 2016 7:56:30 at 7:56 AM So why do you believe Johnson is superior to Trump? Have you seen the beat-downs he has given people for the use of the term "illegal Alien". Are you good with open borders? Do you think he is anything close to a libertarian in hs views? Do you think there is a chance in hell he can win?

    It is a fraud to reject Trump for his failures to make the best case against Hillary. It really doesn't matter as we have seen just in the last few days that the media is not covering the issues, no matter how much he brings them up. He has massive rallies and goes through all of this, yet NOTHING in the media .

    Sure they will cover his vulgarities while saying NOTHING of Hillary's issues other than to claim the content of her emails is less relevant than a potential Trump/Russia conspiracy. Birther my ass, will they apologize for inferring Trump is a traitor or spy? I doubt it.

    Mish, you are still free and can do as you wish, but you KNOW a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary. YOU KNOW THINS, so please do us all a favor and not pretend it is some principled stand. You are willing to vote for a loser because you think trump will lose…..ensuring he WILL lose if others follow you path.

    Blacklisted

    October 12, 2016 7:57:06 at 7:57 AM We are partially in this mess because of people like you that don't take responsibility. Life is full of hard choices – make one. Sorry Mish, a vote for Johnson, who does not have a plan for our biggest financial issue, healthcare spending, is also spineless, or worse, because it helps an even bigger bag of horse sh*t – CROOKED Hitlary.

    DesertRat

    October 11, 2016 8:58:28 at 8:58 PM When Mike several months ago asked who his readers would vote for, I replied that I could not imagine a universe that could exist in which I would vote for Trump. Well I have found that universe.

    The corrupt FBI cover-up of Clintons violations of the espionage act has convinced me that Clinton should be in prison. She wants to appoint left-wing ideological Supreme Court justices who further destroy the law and move us down the road to tyranny. She will not repeal the ACA. She will further destabilize the world just as she did Libya.

    Trump is a very flawed individual who really has no business being President. I disagree with many of his policies, but at this point, we all we have left is damage control. As much as I hate it, I will vote for Trump.

    Richard

    October 11, 2016 9:17:36 at 9:17 PM Gee thanks. After cheerleading for Trump all through the Republican primaries, now you bail. Nothing that's happened wasn't predictable, in fact wasn't predicted. Where were you when something could be done about it?

    Richard

    mishgea

    October 12, 2016 12:33:44 at 12:33 AM Please tell me what could have been done besides nothing. If you say vote Cruz or Rubio I would throw up. The least warmonger will get my vote actually. That may be Stein. I have to look. But it sure aint Cruz or Rubio. They are as bad as Hillary

    vooch

    October 12, 2016 7:01:37 at 7:01 AM respectfully disagree – Trump is currently winning and slowly extending his lead.

    Hillary is unable to hit her numbers in key demographics

    madashellowell
    October 12, 2016 8:06:58 at 8:06 AM Mish will vote for someone he KNOWS will lose rather than risk his vote for someone who MIGHT lose. If Trump does lose it will be the result of people like Mish. For someone who lives in alternate media, he sure swallows the main stream media's crap whole.
    It's sad. It's disappointing, but we live in a world of choices, one that ALWAYS revolves around choosing the lesser of evils. The role of the media is ALWAYS to incentivize us to choose poorly, be it in our consumption or politics. Humans have an inner need to self destruct and media and the commercial interests they ultimately represent seek to push us a long, to buy what we don't need and as ALWAYS lure us with "something for nothing" which is ALWAYS the most expensive "purchase" we could have made.
    "Buy" Johnson and get Hillary and all that comes with her.WAR and financial depression in perpetude.
    Jon Sellers

    October 12, 2016 11:41:14 at 11:41 AM Disagree. Voting for the 2 party system is what has got us where we are today. It's people like you, who will always vote for who the oligarchs give you, that has put the country in this position.

    Trump, even if elected, cannot do anything without an agreeable Congress.

    Mish is a self-professed Libertarian and is taking the reasonable and responsible stand. He is voting his conscious. Everyone should.

    CJ
    October 12, 2016 12:56:47 at 12:56 PM And I disagree with you, Jon. Trump may call himself a republican (as Ron Paul did) but in fact he is an independent. Look at all the repubs that won't support "their" candidate. The oligarchs most certainly did not give us Trump, the people voted for Trump in spite of the oligarchs continuously trying to destroy him and supporting establishment professional politicians.
    I am fine with Washington getting nothing done. What they do get done usually does more harm than good. Do you want to have Hillary impose her 75% tax plan? Are you happy that Obama brought back the Cold War, and Hillary intends to raise the temperature?
    madashellowell
    October 12, 2016 1:23:32 at 1:23 PM What CJ said.
    What good are your principles if they have no effect on the outcome? A vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary. Are you so deluded to think that Hillary will care, or ANYONE will care, that Johnson got 10% of the vote? What good did it do to vote for Perot? WE got Clinton and what we have today. IT IS THE MEDIA that controls the elections, and the two main parties are in league with them. One reason they hate Trump so much is he has not spent the money Hillary has and his political power is a public demonstration to other potential candidates that maybe they too do not have to suckle at that tit of donors and media buys. This is a MAJOR threat to those running our country. NO donors, OH SHIT!, No advertising, OH HELL NO! Trump is no hero, no savior, but he is PROVING to be the only effective adversary to the powers that be. Only an fool would not see this. Third parties are a waste of effort, always have been. With Trump, even if he loses, it will change the political process for years to come.

    Likely, if Hillary wins, they will attempt to change the laws and structure of party politics to make sure we NEVER see another Trump like candidacy. There is SO MUCH riding on this election and people are so caught up with the media shilling and traditional cognitive capture that they just don't realize. The system IS the system and when you are inside of it it is invisible, but when you are on the outside, trying to break in, you realize, be it business or politics, that there are walls built to prevent you from doing so, and typically the only way in is to pay tribute to the system, bend to its will, accept the corruption, fraud and criminality designed specifically to limit access.

    Blacklisted

    October 12, 2016 8:10:18 at 8:10 AM Trump is not a nation builder, which is why the neocons are against him. Wake up Mish – any vote against Trump is a vote for Hitlary, AND YOU KNOW IT, and would be a vote for what you despise.

    Norman
    October 12, 2016 8:43:40 at 8:43 AM You could vote for Trump and use your platform here to encourage every 3rd party, undecided and uninterested citizen to also vote for Trump.

    Everyone understands he is flawed but the alternative is the end of the United States as we know it…the simple demographics of a Clinton presidency – likely 8 years followed by more Democratic dictatorship will bring in millions of Syrian and other Muslims, tens of millions more illegal aliens and we will become Greece/France/Germany/Sweden.

    There are millions of Americans with young children who will be fighting the civil war and bear the brunt of the violence that will occur – and in many places is already occurring but being completely blacked out by the media.

    Thanks for nothing pal.

    Bayleaf

    October 11, 2016 9:18:27 at 9:18 PM Oh please it's hardly over. Polls don't matter when a wikileak, 11 year-old tape, or bad debate performance could potentially swing sentiment overnight from one candidate to another.

    Carl R

    October 12, 2016 11:39:53 at 11:39 AM Or, maybe polls do matter, but not in the way most think. In the last two weeks I have been keeping a count of yard signs I see for Presidential candidates. There are many for local issues, but for President I have counted 0 for Hillary, 0 for Trump, 5 for Johnson. On bumper stickers I counted 1 for Bernie, and none for anyone else.

    I conclude no one wants to admit who they support. The only reason anyone would vote for HIllary is to stop Trump. Now, if the polls show an easy win for Hillary, those people may figure their vote is not needed, and since they don't really care for her, not vote at all. By contrast, Trump supporters are more likely to be angry by how the press has treated him, and vote anyway.

    I expect record low turnout. It's possible that with a record low turnout that Trump might actually win. It's also possible that Johnson might get 15% of the vote and surprise everyone. It's a shame, honestly, that the Libertarians didn't nominate a more qualified nominee this year as this would have been the year for him to be taken seriously.

    On the whole of politics, I'll make one final comment. Back in the 60's politics was a dirty business, featuring guys like LBJ and Nixon. After Watergate the mood changed, and instead we got nice guys, and who could be nicer than Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford? It's taken 30 years, but we're right back where we were.

    madashellowell
    October 12, 2016 1:31:14 at 1:31 PM Not if it is a Johnson Libertarian platform.
    Free trade? does he even know what that is? Because none of us do as we haven't had any in our history. We PAY tariffs to just about every country we hope to export to and charge none at all. Free my ass.
    Open borders and citizenship for all? Does he understand supply and demand principles, does he not look at the number of people out of the workforce? Does he have even the slightest clue how economics works? He is a Utopian that is completely clueless. I'm sure he is smart enough to run a business, but he has no business running mine. How many illegals did he hire when he had his own business anyway? Here in Texas there are lots of successful businesses profiting from illegal employment. Doesn't make it right.
    Hell_Is_Like_Newark

    October 12, 2016 3:06:15 at 3:06 PM If I put a 'Trump' sticker on my car, it would be vandalized. If I put a Trump sign on my building, it would be vandalized if not outright fire bombed. I live in a very blue district in a very blue state.

    Trump was not my first choice, but he is the better choice. I have warmed to him a bit seeing how he has upset the party oligarchs.. and not just in the USA . H

    Robert

    October 11, 2016 9:33:34 at 9:33 PM They're trying to set the narrative before anything happens like a soothsayer. Nobody can say with certainty that Trump is finished. He isn't. He's still attracting massive crowds and money.

    Blacklisted

    October 12, 2016 8:27:48 at 8:27 AM Your young readers, and the older ones suffering from De Niro dementia, may want to take the 'Anonymous' refresher course – http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11/anonymous-remembers-hillary-clinton-career-criminal .

    The captured pollsters are like the credit rating agencies during the financial crisis. They are putting a AAA-rating on a pile of dog crap. Buy it at your own risk.

    Just as I have done with Trump, I am not going to judge you Mish on one bad call, but please re-think your position. You are way too smart to come to your conclusion. The other smart people coming to your decision are either 'useful idiots' or are establishment hacks, who benefit some way from selling their soul.

    mishgea

    October 12, 2016 12:30:44 at 12:30 AM Hillary without a doubt will carry Illinois. I never really looked much beyond Trump. I heard today that Ron Paul said Stein had the best foreign policy. So I will investigate.

    madashellowell

    October 12, 2016 8:10:20 at 8:10 AM I heard that Jesus had the BEST platform. Maybe we should all vote for HIM.
    It will be at least as effective as voting for Stein or Johnson, and if you are going for a principled vote, how can you do better? At least we may have an express lane to heaven when Hillary's policies will have us evaporated in a fireball from Russia.

    madashellowell
    October 12, 2016 1:47:08 at 1:47 PM

    It's easy to do. There is no chance in Hell that she will win, and you can set back and watch it all burn down with a clear conscience, right?
    This is what I love about principles. We pretend our principles are about the greater good…like we are sacrificing ourselves, when in reality, we are simply trying to shield our own delicate sensibilities from any thought of responsibility.

    ***don't look at me, I didn't vote for her/him/undecided***

    It is like the way that radical Islamist shoot their rifles. They avoid aiming directly and instead simply point their rifles in the general direction of who they want dead, but by not aiming directly, they can claim that the resultant death was not their fault but Allah's will.

    It is the typical progressive stance that they defend themselves from the destruction their policies create by claiming that it was okay because they only had good intentions. People voting for people that they know cannot win are no different. Our every action AND inaction has consequence that only our deluded minds can shield us from. Every vote and non vote counts. Throwing your vote away or not voting is but a delusion from accepting that responsibility, a pretense of "principles".

    Real principles require personal sacrifice. You have to give up something for them, not receive something (like absolution). No one is forcing you to vote (yet), but life is nothing else BUT a choice of lesser evils, and to pretend it is not, to believe that simply not participating does anything positive, flies in the face of the notion that all that evil requires to succeed is for good people to do nothing (and voting for a third party is doing NOTHING). Half the country doesn't vote now, and we are in the worst position ever. Voting for a sure loser is no different

    Lefteris

    October 11, 2016 9:37:50 at 9:37 PM There's a lot of "we" in the end of the video clip. Who's "we"?

    The USA is not a nation (at least not in the traditional nation-state sense). It's too fractured and too diverse, it doesn't even have its own language and culture. How can one say "we"? How many of you can find enough people in your area with the same interests to form any organized group?

    The Democrats know this very well, and that is why they have been fracturing it further by creating artificial "communities" (such as the "gay community" etc.).
    What's over with this election is not Trump (who will go back to his business and find some peace), but the very underlying "romantic" concept of America.

    Gary Johnson is the one expressing this "romantic" view, of an America that doesn't exist, never existed, has no chance of existing because it's too diverse and fractured in its social core, and it's against all global plans and policies of all other countries. He can only fracture the republican party even more, until republicans become "the other democrats" on the table.

    The same happened in Greece with the third party "To Potami", which helped bring Syriza in power after fracturing the center-right. It was a "catalyst" party that played its role and then almost vanished.

    kevinmackay

    October 12, 2016 8:24:31 at 8:24 AM My son has a history book that says things like "We went into world war two…", "America wanted to build a better…" and "Americans wanted more equality".

    I asked him to define who "We", "America" and "Americans" were. He said he thought the book was boring and repetitive and he only studied to get the grade. I said "good boy, keep the math grade up."

    Soon I'll have to explain what nonsense to write to slip under the literature teacher's radar.

    Diogenes
    October 12, 2016 1:37:24 at 1:37 PM Trump was responsible for Super Bowl sized audiences during the GOP debates. The question is : can he get them to get off their butts and vote?

    If he can, this is going to be very interesting indeed.

    Atossa
    October 12, 2016 1:44:11 at 1:44 PM .

    The historic concept of nation… where the people share the same race, religion, culture, language, history and territory… is dying. TPTB want all nations to die to further their evil globalist agenda. If a nation won't die a natural death, it will be given a lethal dose of diversity via massive immigration.

    joelg5
    October 11, 2016 9:39:26 at 9:39 PM

    I read Stockman's article in full, and he gets even more preposterous and unhinged from reality than that sentence you disagree with, Mish. Stockman seems to think the ruination of the USA under Hillary will be a good thing that leads to a Utopian paradise arising out of the financial ashes and radioactive rubble. Bolsheviks in 1917 and more recent Marxists such as Paul Pot in Cambodia have had that same vision of a Utopian society arising from the ashes and killing fields. I think Stockman needs to rethink that part of his narrative. Anyway, the Media did not kill Trump. Rather, the Media Have Made Trump.

    40 million or so Trump supporters watching debate number two on TV saw it for themselves, and now more than ever know the falseness of the mainstream media narrative, both in its spin and coverage deletions. The media has been 99% anti-Trump from Day One, and ditto the GOP elite who are touted by the media as now ditching Trump. In that sense, what Trump and Bill Clinton have in common is that they both get stronger when under attack. If the media and GOP elite suddenly embraced Trump, that might confuse Trump's supporters into bolting.

    The Bush cousin, Billy, and NBC were a month too soon releasing the trash talking tape, and timing counts. People who watched the debate, including the Hillary voters, now have too much time to talk and reconsider. The danger to Hillary is that some of the robotic drones who vote Democratic by rote will agree that Hillary is all talk and empty words and that nothing will be done under her rule to help the black, Latinos and inner city people who robotically vote the Democratic ticket. That is the defection that could hurt Hillary on election day, defections among her own core believing that They Have Nothing to Lose by Voting Trump. The media cannot sustain the Bush family/NBC tape frenzy much longer. It will soon be old news, and something else will emerge to turn the election.

    dan
    October 11, 2016 10:38:08 at 10:38 PM My research shows evidence of poll fixing to make hillary look good. My independant polls and questions show trump will win election by a large margin. My guess he will beat Hillary by 6 million votes if not more. Media is so wrong on this.
    mattson01
    October 12, 2016 5:55:34 at 5:55 AM Whatever the media says is a lie, I have no doubt. My prediction is Hilary's team will know that she can't win, so they'll play the poor health card so that Obama will stall the election (with him in power) for another year.
    Roger

    October 12, 2016 12:22:39 at 12:22 PM Hmm – nearly right. I've been thinking a lot about this. Either …

    A/ They get rid of Trump now and Clinton gets some kind of coronation. That is why they are pulling out all of the stops with the current smear campaign. (Some geezer in the UN is the latest to wag his finger), or

    B/ They hope that Clinton builds some kind of commanding position in the polls and they convince a significant number of voters that Trump will lose anyway. The problem is that everyone knows that the polls are rigged, and the more people see of Hillary and the more questions are asked, the more the people don't like her. The polls are still too close for comfort.

    Roger
    October 12, 2016 1:34:30 at 1:34 PM Well CJ, you are probably right. But if there is one thing I have learned about neo-liberals (or whatever these creatures call themselves) over the past decade or so – that is they make and break the rules to suit themselves. Done in Europe all the time. We will see.
    madashellowell
    October 12, 2016 1:58:06 at 1:58 PM Hillary will lead the polls but lose the election which will be proclaimed fraudulent due to Russian hacking at the behest of Trump. Its all set up.

    They keep bringing up all of these leaked and hacked emails, claiming they are all tracked back to Russia, which is impossible to actually verify WHO did it, but none the less, this will be their plan if ballot box stuffing and election fraud are not enough to get her across the finish line. They keep TELLING us that Hillary is the WINNER. They claim its not even close.

    Hillary is laughing at Trump supporters and denigrating them as she believes she is the heir apparent. Look at the polls and see very lopsided democrat/republican sampling as well as other metrics. Look at those running the polling companies who are also on Hillary's payroll. Its blatant and it is sad, but they don't care because they own the media and will spin the story to their ends. Most if not many will see through it, but they don't care, because no one will push back, especially not from rank and file republicans. Only the Deplorables would be so crass. And we know how much respect they get.

    KPL
    October 11, 2016 9:57:26 at 9:57 PM I am not so sure that Trump will lose. People are so anti-establishment that it is likely the media by defiling Trump almost on a daily basis and their visible bias towards Hillary may be helping Trump along. However I do accept Trump can lose it with his foot-in-mouth disease but even now I do not think it is sure thing. If the anti-establishment crowd land up in droves to vote, it might well be Trump.
    akiddy111

    October 11, 2016 9:58:13 at 9:58 PM I like David Stockman and enjoy what he has to say but it looks like he is trying to put some lipstick on the cover of his new book. He hoped that Trump would get to the left of Hillary on Wall Street and ruffle Janet's feathers.

    Basically David is saying that it will be a good thing that Hillary will be our next President because she will preside over the next recession. He also more or less said up to this point that it would be great if she gets "Trumped".

    Enough said…

    madashellowell
    October 12, 2016 8:18:56 at 8:18 AM Yeah, well I said that about Obama…TWICE, and look at what we have. The dream that this will EVER blow back on progressives is pure delusion as the "public" opinion as created by the media is the rule, not facts or reality. Conservatives have been waiting for progressives to get slapped with the consequences of their actions for a hundred years and still NOTHING. The PROOF is to look at where we are right NOW!

    We are ruled by largely a false consensus. Exactly what these polls are about…creating the perception of what the public believes in an effort to direct that perception.

    Trump has gotten to this point despite a massive push back from Republicans and an almost universal opposition from the mainstream media….and yet we still hear those proclaiming his candidacy is dead. If just a few more people would show a spine instead of running away from each and every Political correct attack, we MIGHT still have a democratic republic rather than a world ruled by powerful elites through political and corporate mouthpieces.

    DCMCM
    October 11, 2016 10:00:51 at 10:00 PM While I have no vote in the US election, it doesn't mean I have no interest. On the contrary, I have followed it closely.

    I guess like many others, I slapped my forehead when the "tape" was released and initially thought it would be the last we saw of Donald Trump. Over the next few days I re-evaluated and came to the conclusion that it was inevitable that something like this would occur. TPTB will never allow Trump to ascend to the presidency willingly and if it can't be stopped by character assassination, they may well try another way.

    What I am not seeing from Trump is humility. If anyone expects him to be a supernatural leader in the event he does win, I suspect they will be very disappointed. He needs to come out with a statement to the effect that he has said and done many silly things in his life and many of them have come back to haunt him, however his love of America is much greater than his personal failings and he will be able to make America GREAT AGAIN. To this end he will need to spell out that he has a great vision of how to do this and that he knows how to find the right people for his team to oversee the various changes that need to be made. He needs to stress that it will not be easy and there will be pain, but that pain is on the way anyway and his plan will make it as soft as possible.
    In the event he does make it, the scene is set for undoing him. Maybe those pesky Russians will hack the electronic voting so Obama can call the election a fraud and invalidate it. Personally I hope Donald wins by a good margin and Clinton, who couldn't keep the grin from her face, will be consigned to where she should be.

    Jon Sellers
    October 12, 2016 11:57:20 at 11:57 AM Hillary will get the election simply by how the votes get counted. The character assassinations are a prelude and necessary part of the story as to why Trump lost. The faked vote counts for Hillary will be the reason Trump lost. But that won't be discussed.
    CJ
    October 12, 2016 1:18:53 at 1:18 PM Hillary was a vote canvasser in Chicago in 1960 and learned a lot about vote fraud (she said so herself). I'm sure that will come in handy, no wonder she switched to the Vote Fraud Party.
    wootendw
    October 11, 2016 10:01:05 at 10:01 PM "I would not go so far as to say the markets will "crash"…"

    The way things are heating up between Washington and Russia, there's a lot more than the market to worry about, especially if Hillary is elected because she will not be able to control the Pentagon nor her neocon advisers like Paul Wolfowitz and Mike Morell. Simply put, they will get US into a war with Russia and Russia will defend itself with nukes because, for Russia, the 'conventional' alternative to nuclear war would be far worse.

    Russia, whose population is 1/6 of NATO's and whose economy is 1/20 of NATO's, has a long and easily penetrable border. In a strictly conventional war, once its air defenses are gone, NATO bombers will have field day, after field day, carpet-bombing Russian cities and towns, laying waste that Chechen and other Muslims will scavenge. It would be far worse than the quick death of nuclear war. They might hold out for a while, and make it costly for US, but they know they would not hold out forever.

    Russia will not likely allow that to happen. As part of the USSR, they lost 20m people during WWII, ejecting the Germans from their own territory while the Germans were fighting on multiple fronts. That represents as much of a "never again" tragedy for Russia as the holocaust represents for Jews.

    US military planners know this and will try to take out Russia's nukes as soon as the hostilities begin. The Russians know this and that they must launch as quickly as possible. It will be all out and all over, with little chance of negotiating a cease fire.

    As Lavrov said, we cannot even negotiate anymore. As soon as Kerry and he made their agreement last month, the Pentagon trashed it and attacked a Syrian base – as ISIS was attacking a nearby mountain. The Syrians even claim to have a recording of communications between US forces and ISIS – which 'our' government has yet to deny. We know now from Hillary's emails that the Saudis and Qataris were funding ISIS in 2014. There's surely more than that.

    Each day a new war tidbit is in the news. Today, we hear that Russia is advising government officials to bring home their children who are studying abroad. Yesterday, Gorbachev warned of the growing nuclear threat. But no one is paying attention, except those think the US can win.

    So before the election, I shall stock up on needed items, drop my class and head for somewhere safer than Phoenix. I hope I am wrong but this time it really could be doomsday.

    kevinmackay
    October 12, 2016 5:00:18 at 5:00 PM Somebody state a plausible reason the USA and the USSR go to non-proxy war. Not how. Why.
    Taperwood
    October 11, 2016 10:20:42 at 10:20 PM I'm still voting for Trump as my big FU to the current way things are done. I still think a Trump presidency will result in something tangible being done to either our infrastructure needs or to causing everyone to re-engage in their local politics. Both positives in my mind. The World will take care of itself without the United States for a few years.
    Seychelles
    October 11, 2016 10:27:01 at 10:27 PM Trump is still in the race and come Nov. 9 we will have our own version of Brexit. The dominant ruling minority have overstepped their bounds with the voting majority, who now see through all of the Zioglobalist falsehoods.
    Stuki Moi
    October 11, 2016 11:02:23 at 11:02 PM No politician, least of all a Clinton, will tax their biggest potential donors. "The rich" that stand to get taxed, are small business people and professionals who have more important tings do do with their money than act as "job creators" for Clinton Foundation jobs.
    CzarChasm Reigns
    October 12, 2016 6:32:15 at 6:32 PM "No politician, least of all a Clinton, will tax their biggest potential donors."

    Correct.

    But you have to admit, tax RATE plans make for an excellent TALKING point… to the PERCEPTION of the sacrificial Middle Class: a politician feels THEIR pain… but the reality is: the rich protected their asse(t)s with LOOPHOLES long ago.

    Stuki Moi
    October 12, 2016 8:37:59 at 8:37 PM No doubt that's how it will be done. Straight out of the Pancho Villa playbook: Kill off competent men after stealing all their stuff. Arrange grandiose public spectacles where you publicly toss a small fraction of what you stole from her now deceased husband to the starving, starry eyed, widow. Demonstrating what a "great leader" you are.
    daddysteve
    October 11, 2016 10:38:31 at 10:38 PM The best we can hope for is Trump represents a different faction of our masters that realize a leech can't survive on a corpse.
    prinjon
    October 11, 2016 10:41:03 at 10:41 PM I love it to study psychological cases through comments.
    People express their reactions and never their cold reasoning
    CJ

    October 11, 2016 11:20:38 at 11:20 PM In the last debate I think I heard Trump say "oh so it's 3 against one again?" I was thinking the same thing before he said it.

    greg
    October 12, 2016 12:03:39 at 12:03 AM Yaknow, really, the next debate should be done with swords. Just put the 2 of them out on the stage in separate corners, with Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz on the floor, front stage, tied to chairs and several winds of duct tape over their mouths, a bell rings and they have at it. May the best man win.
    Eric Coote
    October 12, 2016 8:14:34 at 8:14 PM Yes Paul – I think most women realise that there are quite a few (women) who line up for the attention of alpha males – so male hubris is somewhat encouraged. It has been reported for instance that the lines outside the Beetles (pop group) hotel rooms in Australia anyway, were very long, unruly and overheated to the extent that one Beetle told them all to go and 'get *ucked' to which came the obvious reply.

    Only the MSM seem to be unaware of female sexuality – perhaps they think of them all as saints and mothers. I doubt that Trump has suffered lasting damage by the Bush inc. attack. Normal people are realists.

    For the record – I do not agree with molestation of women or forgive it. Nor do I agree with men using their power position to enforce female compliance – but we should all be aware that there are fuzzy lines and women are better than men at drawing them.

    Genada (@Genada5)

    October 11, 2016 11:01:46 at 11:01 PM No one knows who is going to win. The polls are all over the place and they are all different based on who is taking them. We will not know the outcome of this election till election night or maybe even later.

    Trump has many flaws and yes he has hurt himself but it is the media that is attempting to destroy him. Even Nixon got treated better then Trump. They cover up for Clinton, they work with Clinton. The media is doing a total hatchet job on Trump.

    I think this election is going to have higher turnout numbers then we have seen in a very long time and it's the reason Trump can still win. There is a lot of people that have given up on the system that he's going to bring out to the polls and it can turn this election in his way. It would also be something not counted in polls and would lead to a surprise victory.

    Paul Niemi
    October 11, 2016 11:13:50 at 11:13 PM According to my state Secretary of State, the second debate generated a flood of last minute new voter registrations, so it isn't over.

    The last time the media were so unanimous in depreciating a presidential candidate, I think, was 1968, when Nixon was written off early. He won, and the mainstream press lost.

    This telling voters the winner, before the election, can backfire, and I think it will. Voters like to show their independence, and most do not make up their minds until just a few days before the election. People know the polling methodologies are flawed or rigged. Only the exit polls have any real validity, so we won't know the outcome until the election is over. What we do know about polls, is that they consistently predict outcomes that underestimate the closeness of individual races.

    CJ
    October 11, 2016 11:17:40 at 11:17 PM It ain't over until it's over. I like Mish's blog, but really he is not a great forecaster. I forecast that wikileaks is saving the most damaging exposures until just before the election. All political types know that just before has the greatest effect. The MSM tried to withhold the Trump locker room talk tapes until as close to the election as possible for the most damage, but had to release them now because they found out they were about to get scooped.

    I do agree Donald could have done way better in the first debate, and somewhat better in the second although he still won the second debate. We can also still hope the Most Evil Bitch will have a heart attack. If she is elected I am going to build a fallout shelter.

    R G
    October 11, 2016 11:37:50 at 11:37 PM LOL yep, spot on. People think it's a cute game to "vote your conscience". I remember being naive enough to do that. I did it in 2008 for God's sake. But this election is for all the marbles. This country has no moral compass right now. It's enraged; a race war appears to be shaping up; we're drowning in debt; we're deployed all over the planet; and there's not a single country that's not sick to death of us.

    Now, if a Black Friday event can turn Americans into raving loons, think about what a Black Swan would do.

    And people are going to vote for Gary Johnson? Jesus Christ. Hope you're living on 10 acres of arable land in the middle of nowhere, Mish!

    Anonymous
    October 11, 2016 11:22:24 at 11:22 PM Mish, you just lost my respect with your decision on who to vote for. Did you also vote for Perot?
    mishgea

    October 12, 2016 12:25:14 at 12:25 AM Nope

    CJ
    October 12, 2016 2:47:20 at 2:47 PM Bush The First would probably have been re-elected in '92 had it not been for his incredibly stupid "Read my lips, no new taxes" and then he raised taxes. Since I am always against more of my earnings being confiscated and wasted, it sure soured me on Bush.

    The other problem for Bush was a short, mild recession during the election. Slick Willy made a big deal out of it; Bush said "don't worry, it won't amount to anything". Bush was right, but The Weasel won.

    Tony of CA
    October 11, 2016 11:24:38 at 11:24 PM Mish you are so wrong. I think Trump he will win solidly. The 2nd debate was a master stoke. If the election was over, you wouldn't have OBAMA and his wife, GORE, Sanders, Bill Clinton and assortment of idiotic actors all campaign wildly.

    As for the 1st debate, no one can even remembers it. Debates are never very memorable, statements are. The one-statement that will stay with everyone is you would be in Jail if I were president.

    R G
    October 11, 2016 11:26:15 at 11:26 PM All I can say is that I truly hope people are prepared for the ramifications of a Hillary presidency if they vote for anyone other than Trump. I have never voted for a Republican POTUS. It's always been third party for me, with the exception of 2000, when my girlfriend and I neutralized each other's votes. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 and Bob Barr in 2008.

    A vote for Gary Johnson now is without a doubt a vote for Hillary, which in turn is a vote for WW3. That is not hyperbole.

    R G
    October 12, 2016 11:47:31 at 11:47 AM Then you're not thinking this thing through to its conclusion. Throughout American history, which is the political party that ultimately splits the vote, or even splinters? We could discuss political party history in this country but it would be out of place. The Demo-Reps were NOT present-day Democrats. Bull Moose were NOT liberals. Libertarian voters are generally NOT present-day Democrats.

    I know this because I've been one of those voters from Perot onwards. This is no time in our nation's history to be rolling the dice on a no-shot. Even if he were the next George Washington (he's far from it), he stands no mathematical shot. Only a vote for one of the two major party candidates does. We do not have a parliamentary system in this country. And even if we did, human beings generally fall into one of two camps: Makers and Takers, or hard money guys (Gold Standard Republicans) versus easy money guys (Silver Democrats).

    I'm not trying to convince you to vote for someone else. My wife is debating a vote for Johnson as well. But what I am saying is that not acknowledging the facts is unacceptable to me, and as far as I'm concerned, third party voters in this election will be treated the same as Democrats when we look back 10 years from now.

    Diogenes
    October 12, 2016 4:10:16 at 4:10 PM Sorry Ash, I gotta go with R G on this one.

    Political consultant Dick Morris knows the Clintons better than anybody and is vigorous in his support of Trump. He has been lambasting third party voters as Hillary votes and says it's really a wasted vote.

    R G
    October 12, 2016 9:32:39 at 9:32 AM Not sure why I would have to say this, but what Trump said into that hot mic was accurate. I lived in Miami for several years. Wealth purchases people and beauty is DEFINITELY purchaseable. They let him do it just the same as all of the athletes and celebs in the VIP sections of the clubs I frequented in SoBe. We used to joke that buying a bottle and getting a table in VIP increased our likelihood of hooking up by ~300%. Groping willing participants is not sexual assault.

    This race boils down to all of the marbles. Vote Johnson, a guy who mathematically stands no chance of winning, and you're voting for Hillary. Johnson pulls more support from paleo-cons who are so far right they're left. Been there, done that.

    Recessions happen on average every 7-8 years. We're due. Imagine the state of this country during the next recession with 7 years of ZIRP, a race war, and neocons fomenting world war.

    Carl R
    October 12, 2016 11:54:11 at 11:54 AM Well, first of all, Libertarians are normally isolationists, so it isn't really relevant that he doesn't know Aleppo. In any case, I one voted for a Presidential Candidate that confused Eastern Europe with Western Europe when questioned during a debate. If the matter came up in a discussion were the topic was not taken out of context, I don't think it would be an issue. I personally don't care for Johnson, but the "Aleppo" question would be a stupid reason for deciding whether or not to vote for him.
    CJ
    October 12, 2016 1:28:31 at 1:28 PM Yes Libertarians tend to be isolationist, but that is not an excuse for not knowing what is going on in the world. Aleppo is only one example. The presidency is half foreign policy and half domestic policy. I wish the libertarians had a better candidate, but then again if they got more votes it would just increase Hellary's chances.
    madashellowell
    October 12, 2016 2:31:26 at 2:31 PM Don't be silly. If Trump loses this, he will be DONE. He has flown into the face of every power group in America, and if there is one thing we know about progressives, they do not forgive or forget. When you cross a line with progressives, they do not seek to just defeat you, they will DESTROY YOU. Personal destruction is their game.

    The youo not debate or argue on policies, they dig up dirt and then try to bury you in it. This is especially true with those they see as traitors, people who were formally aligned with the left, or are from a deomgraphic that they fell they OWN. Look at how they beat Herman Cain…not policy, personal. Look at Bill Cosby who was their hero until he spoke out against black ignorance….does anyone really think that only after decades of silence these women just "decided" to go public? Ben Carson, they went after his history, not his policies. They we smart enough to bow out before any lasting damage was done, but Trump? I believe they have hell waiting for him. Do you think he will get any of his real estate deals done in these big cities. Do you not think they will be digging up everything they can from his past to bedevil him to the grave? I do.

    People want to think that Trump is just in it for publicity, which to me is to assume he is stupid, which I think is far from true. I think he truly does believe he can make a difference. He is probably wrong, but he is NOT stupid. This is his end.

    Freddie
    October 11, 2016 11:54:09 at 11:54 PM If anyone in the media had a clue about how voters feel, voters wouldn't be disconnecting their overpriced cable TV. 500 channels and they are all crap.

    If anyone in the media could forecast elections (DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN, AGAIN!) - they have been forecasting the end of Trump's campaign for over a year.

    With markets all but disabled from inept central planning, Mish hasn't been able to talk about economics in a long time. Unfortunately, he decided to try his hand at driverless cars (which only work under ideal circumstances, and only when manufacturers "forget" to report accidents). And now Mish is just parroting really bad media nonsense.

    Mish's own polling posts show Trump is very much in the race. Hilary is out campaigning and soliciting bribes (campaign contributions isn't fooling anyone) as though her career depends on it - because her crime syndicate knows it is far from over.

    No one believes or ever did believe that Trump is a saint. A giant ego, a giant hair pile, a real estate empire that depends on cheap borrowing, two wildly popular TV shows (Miss universe and Celeb Apprentice) that aren't exactly "high society".

    Of course Trump will wreck Washington DC. That is the point. Of course Paul Ryan hates voters as much as Nancy Pelosi and Obama and McCain do - our public servants have made their hatred of the public quite clear.

    Whether its ObamaCare, obeying illegal searches, lopsided prosecutions, or just plain arrogance and greed - Washington DC doesn't eat its own cooking.

    That is why "Trump" will win.

    The federal government will be severely cash constrained for decades to come no matter who wins. Anyone who can read the GAO reports on Medicare and Obamacare knows that.

    Only a fool believes a parasite (government) can grow faster than its host (the tax base).

    CJ
    October 11, 2016 11:57:45 at 11:57 PM Believe it or not, Hillary started out as a conservative republican. At age 13 she canvassed for Nixon in Chicago in the 1960 election and saw vote fraud firsthand (seems to have made an impression!). In '64 she campaigned for Goldwater! Then in '65 she went to college and started drifting to the left. Her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky. Enrolling at Yale in '69 she met Bill Clinton and joined the Dark Side.
    Jon Sellers
    October 12, 2016 12:16:21 at 12:16 PM Clinton is still the Republican candidate. She is certainly to the right of Nixon or Eisenhower. Pro big business, pro free trade, pro immigration, pro defense spending. The only non-alignment is with the Christian-right. But they were just a play thing for votes by the GOP anyway.
    CJ
    October 12, 2016 1:31:10 at 1:31 PM Go back and read Eisenhower's Farewell Address again Jon. It's the opposite of Hellary.
    RH
    October 12, 2016 12:52:08 at 12:52 AM The thing about Trump is that he hasn't got a plan. Lowering taxes and spending more on defense is not a plan. Saying you will do better deals is not a plan.
    Voters are just hoping that once he was in he would achieve things but really we don't know what he will do.

    Clinton is conservative and will retain the status quo. Hope she proves me wrong.

    mishgea
    October 12, 2016 1:18:12 at 1:18 AM Trump does not have a plan and it is obvious. But no plan is better than Hillary's bad plan.
    Mish
    Atossa

    October 12, 2016 3:02:44 at 3:02 AM ,

    I voted for Trump in the GOP primary. Since then, he has said and done too much [or too little] and lost my vote in the general election. He was terrible in the first debate. His Arizona immigration speech was great. But he really lost me when he degenerated into pandering to every minority race, religion and special interest group that yelled the loudest… just like all the other politicians. And the most recent revelation about his vulgar views of women didn't help either. Nothing to love there.

    Diogenes
    October 12, 2016 3:17:23 at 3:17 AM "Trump was asked several pointed questions. Hillary was asked none."

    Yet you say the media didn't destroy him? His lack of preparation for the first debate destroyed him?

    Never mind preparing for a biased moderator, accepting the conditions of such a debate at all makes him look like failed leadership. He could have demanded better conditions, especially if he were slightly ahead as he may have been at the time.

    KPL
    October 12, 2016 3:17:24 at 3:17 AM From… https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/am-i-biased-for-trump/

    "This battle is really the PEOPLE v CAPITOL HILL. It is a shame it has to be Trump leading the charge." – But then someone is leading.
    "This is also the end of the press. They have lost all credibility." – I am sure by now the bias is obvious to anyone. This should also aid Trump IMHO.
    "About 99% of donations to Trump come from small people" – These small people are definitely going to vote for him. Also there could be equal number who did not donate but will be voting for him.

    I am not sure whether he will win but this is one election where people are likely to try and land a good punch on the establishment's face and this definitely should work in his favor.

    KPL
    October 12, 2016 3:34:50 at 3:34 AM One more thing that struck me was that if the election was in the bag why would they release the tape? They might as well be preparing for the coronation.

    IMO, the establishment is still running scared and thus using all the dirty tricks that they are capable of and which they think will win them the election. The crux of the issue is that they do not want to acknowledge that people might prefer a discredited Trump to the establishment at this stage of the game. Establishment is the problem but they are masquerading as the solution. This is the problem with gaming people. At some point the game is up. (Like interest rates.. you cannot ram it beyond a point)

    Stockmarket
    October 12, 2016 6:00:40 at 6:00 AM "One more thing that struck me was that if the election was in the bag why would they release the tape?"

    Exactly. And why release polls with a so called 11% lead, polls conducted by a company connected to Clinton? That has an overweight in left/democratic voters?

    Brexit was supposed to be over before the final result came in. How quickly people forget. It is the people vs Wall Street/corrupt politicians. The latter is represented by Clinton. the former by Trump. We will see how angry the U.S. people really are at the current clique of career politicians, bought and paid for by the big companies.

    Roger
    October 12, 2016 6:11:52 at 6:11 AM Why indeed would they send out Obama only yesterday to wag his finger in dire warning? The powers to be know it's NOT all over. The problem is that each time they send one of these 'asshat extrodinaires' out To preach to the public they simply cause MORE dissent, more mocking, and more retrenchment.

    Does anyone actually think that Obama, who has done more to divide the nation than anyone can make the blindest bit of difference at this stage? Respectfully, a curious Englishman.

    Roger
    October 12, 2016 6:24:24 at 6:24 AM PS! It's not as though Obama has anything better to do with his time, is it? Enjoy 18 holes of golf, or go out campaigning for a woman he (allegedly) loathes and despises. Tough call, that one!
    KPL
    October 12, 2016 7:33:51 at 7:33 AM "We will see how angry the U.S. people really are at the current clique of career politicians, bought and paid for by the big companies."

    I hope they are angry enough to come and vote for him in such numbers that it assures a Trump victory. Anybody but establishment is all I ask! What is happening is too nauseating to stomach any longer.

    CJ
    October 12, 2016 10:48:49 at 10:48 AM Unfortunately Gary Johnson will split the anti-establishment vote, helping to elect the Soros and banksters funded candidate.
    JP
    October 12, 2016 5:39:33 at 5:39 AM The problem with "voting your conscious" (Libertarian, etc.) is you'll put Crooked Hillary in the Whitehouse. How bad could that be for the country? Watch the video:

    'Anonymous' Remembers "Hillary Clinton, Career Criminal" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11/anonymous-remembers-hillary-clinton-career-criminal

    If Rotten Clinton is elected it's time to move to Italy or another Banana Republic. At least the food is good and the citizens less ignorant.

    Stockmarket
    October 12, 2016 5:50:45 at 5:50 AM "I would not go so far as to say the markets will "crash", but that depends on the definition. I actually suspect more like a 40-50% decline over seven to ten years with nothing much worse than a 15-20% decline."

    So you expect that rates on government bonds will drop to, let's say minus 3%? Minus 5%? Minus 10%? Why don't you show a historical graph of bonds vs stocks? Then you will see that stocks have never been cheaper relative to bonds since….. WWII! The crash will be in bonds, not stocks. Furthermore, capital from Europe will flow to the dollar, adding to a RISE in the stock market.

    You make the crucial mistake to view the stock market in isolation. If big capital has to make a decision to go for negative rates in bonds, or 3%-5% on blue chip stocks, what will they choose? It is the bond market that is reaching the limit of 0% interest rates, after which there is only one possibility for bonds to go: down.

    Hence we will get a run up for the stock market first, with Dow at least 22,000-23,000. If we exceed that, 30,000 – 35,000 becomes possible. Only THEN do we have a bubble and a crash. Big money all over the world will scramble to buy the dollar and U.S. assets. A capital flow you also don't see coming, because you only look at the domestic picture.

    EVERYBODY is negative about stocks. And the majority is running to bonds. It is clear where the bubble is going to be first. The majority is ALWAYS wrong.

    Stockmarket
    October 12, 2016 5:55:39 at 5:55 AM I don't think it is over yet. Just as with Brexit. The polls giving Clinton a 11% lead, are seriously flawed. You can read it over here:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11/first-post-debate-poll-gives-hillary-significant-lead-and-familiar-problem-emerges

    Thus what the media are telling you, is that there is a 11% lead. But those polls were held by a company that is actually helping Clinton to get elected:

    Zerohedge is correct: this is a mind game to make you think it is all over.

    Tuberville
    October 12, 2016 5:57:23 at 5:57 AM We had the same comments during Brexit, I waited for the price to get upto 6/1 and took the price and I will do the same with Trump. Never forget the global trends
    Garry Gentry
    October 12, 2016 6:07:38 at 6:07 AM Mish. hopefully after the election you can go back to writing about economics instead of cheer-leading for Trump and Republicans in general. Reading your economic writings is why I started reading your blog and I will be glad when this one is over for a while and the Republicans can get on with obstructing everything and keep the gridlock going until people are so feed-up they rebel.
    Felix
    October 12, 2016 6:17:24 at 6:17 AM Did anyone else get the feeling the 2nd debate was "Brought to you by Facebook, the leading social network?" Lots of band plugs. Rather like modern news articles filled with images of Tweets.
    Robert
    October 12, 2016 6:33:44 at 6:33 AM Everyone I know is voting for Trump. So am I.
    Gary who ?
    jc
    October 12, 2016 6:42:45 at 6:42 AM Trump was grossly unprepared for the first debate, "I'm a great negotiator" isn't the correct answer to every question.

    Instead of becoming more presidential as the campaign progressed he became more reality TV. The digression into Trump vs Clinton pussy scores was lethal.

    Hillary has a ton of political flaws and Trump didn't do his homework to inform the voters.

    There is a huge disconnect between the RNC and Repub voters, the RNC acts like they're entitled to veto power over the people's choice, once the unwashed masses chose Trump the RNC needed to support him completely. If there's a congressional blowout they deserve it.

    The silver lining is that Hillary isn't healthy enough for two terms, maybe not even one. The bad news is that she'll probably continue/accelerate the pattern of Bush/Obama neo colonial wars.

    PS The wildcard is a major mohammedan attack prior to the election. The Russians always had General Winter to aid them, Trump has General Isis

    R G
    October 12, 2016 10:06:54 at 10:06 AM In all fairness, I don't think a terror attack will change Americans' minds for more than a week. Look at Clinton…even one vote for her shows you how grossly lost America is. She has overtly committed more crimes than any high level politician in American history. Nixon, Grant, and Harding look like Marcus Aurelius when compared to her.

    The most recent Wikileaks show you she wants no more America based on her views of borders and markets…if you have open borders and markets, you have no nation-state. Her views of "irredeemables" and her spokesman's views of Catholics are just more examples. I could write a book on this witch.

    And yet people would vote for her. The unfortunate circumstance of that is that if she gets in, it won't be just them glowing green.

    CJ
    October 12, 2016 11:09:16 at 11:09 AM I have found that many Generation Y types (born '77-'94) have no clues about all the Clinton's lies and scandals. They weren't watching politics when much of it happened. They are being misled by the MSM propaganda. When you have a chance, please educate them, they are a big voting block now.
    As for Hillary's health, keep in mind that Wilson and FDR were incapable of carrying out the duties of president before their terms ended. In FDR's case, he was severely disabled even during his last campaign in '44. They used the war as an excuse for not campaigning. However these issues were kept secret from the public, and spouses and aides pretty much ran the country. I could see the same thing happening with Hillary. It may have already begun.
    teapartydoc
    October 12, 2016 6:51:31 at 6:51 AM You are a handy source of information that many of us otherwise would not have easy access to. If someone else did the job as well, you would be disposable. I will continue to visit this site, but I think you are a political idiot.
    Brian E Considine (@e_considine)
    October 12, 2016 8:49:10 at 8:49 AM Trump did indeed lose the election but not because he failed to come up with snappy responses in the debates. He lost the election because he captured one group of voters, those who have drunk the Hillary is the sum of all evil kool-aide. Instead of backing down from that and moving into the space where he could accumulate voters who have not geeked out on Obama/Clinton conspiracy trivia, he choose to double down.

    And he did so because his character weakness is obvious to almost everyone who watches him for an extended period of time. His absurdly inflated ego will not accept any criticism, any change, and openness to collect facts and evaluate what should be done rather than deciding what should be done and then making up the facts that support that.

    Bashing Hillary over her marriage isn't flying now and wouldn't have flown better in the debates. To those not in the conspiracy geek band wagon, what does that look like? "You're a bad person for having a husband who had affairs, so voters should support me since I have affairs" Yea that really worked well. 'Doubling down' just looks pathetic, like an aging rock star releasing new songs that are just variations on the old hit song the guy had in the 80's.

    Bill Fawell

    October 12, 2016 8:51:03 at 8:51 AM You fucked up Mish on this one…. Gary Johnson? Really?? When did he become a Libertarian???

    Tony Bennett
    October 12, 2016 8:51:08 at 8:51 AM "Barring a medical or other type of disaster, this election is indeed over."

    The polls are already tightening (again).

    And if you read the methodology the polls are done on a rolling basis of some sort. With the latest polls including data PRIOR to second debate.

    When the smoke clears (with data only from post debate) I expect polls to tighten further.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    Blacklisted
    October 12, 2016 8:54:47 at 8:54 AM Your young readers, and the older ones suffering from De Niro dementia, may want to take the 'Anonymous' refresher course – http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11/anonymous-remembers-hillary-clinton-career-criminal .

    The captured pollsters are like the credit rating agencies during the financial crisis. They are putting a AAA-rating on a pile of dog crap. Buy it at your own risk.

    Just as I have done with Trump, I am not going to judge you Mish on one bad call, but please re-think your position. You are way too smart to come to your conclusion. The other smart people coming to your decision are either 'useful idiots' or are establishment hacks, who benefit some way from selling their soul.

    I don't know about people like Stockman, Jim Rickards, Paul Craig Roberts, Jim Sinclair, and other seamingly well intention fellows, who accurately descibe the problems, but get the solution and markets reaction wrong. Are they just US-centric in their analysis, disregarding the overwhelming influence of global capital flows, or is it as simple as them being gold bugs, who always say " buy, buy, buy", say good by to your hard earned money?

    Tony Bennett
    October 12, 2016 9:21:01 at 9:21 AM Virginia's last governor's race (2013) was between Ken Cuccinelli (wayy right social conservative) and Clintons' best bud Terry McAuliffe .

    Virginia used to be red and has turned blue the past 10 to 12 years. Well, Cuccinelli way behind in the polls all along. So much so that RNC wasted no money (yeah yeah social conservative … but off year election and not much else going on … and if you can score a win helps Republicans going into 2014 election season) on him. Guess what? Cuccinnelli lost by only 2.5 points … and McAuliffe got less than 50% of the vote. ANY sort of help from national party and KC might have won.

    Just don't trust polls. Just another data point to be goal seeked by TPTB (see the embarrassing methodology on the nbc/wsj poll post second debate).

    Tony Bennett
    October 12, 2016 1:16:08 at 1:16 PM Found a Huffington post on final polls before that election

    had McAuliffe winning by almost 7 points.

    45.2 to 38.3

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/virginia-governor-polls_n_4212084.html

    Brian E Considine (@e_considine)
    October 12, 2016 12:20:50 at 12:20 PM "The captured pollsters are like the credit rating agencies during the financial crisis. They are putting a AAA-rating on a pile of dog crap. Buy it at your own risk."

    Only internet commentators are more protected from bad calls than rating agencies.

    Let's recall it wasn't too long ago a certain chap around here was hawking a theory that Hillary is in late stage Parkinson's disease. No doubt when Trump loses the election, those here telling us the polls are rigged will disappear from accountability until the next big election rolls around.

    Ron J
    October 12, 2016 9:39:22 at 9:39 AM Trump has not destroyed Trump.

    When did the democratic party ever denounce John Kennedy?
    When did the democratic party ever denounce Bill Clinton?

    Joy Bahar just called one of Bill's victims a tramp, on The View.

    Democrats have a double standard.

    Polls are over sampling democrats, to skew the data. Polling fraud.
    Why is there any need for polling fraud, if people have actually changed their vote?

    They have all been out to get Trump, from the beginning. The government, the media, even the republican party elitists.

    My vote has not changed.

    [email protected]
    October 12, 2016 9:45:18 at 9:45 AM Mish,

    Hardly any one in the media is talking about Venezuela. Given all of the other issues that you touch on, would you keep us up to date on how things are evolving in Venezuela. Thanks,

    Chuck

    CJ
    October 12, 2016 11:23:01 at 11:23 AM Here is some Venezuela news for you, Chuck: Socialist paradise has the world's highest crime rate:
    https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp
    Brian E Considine (@e_considine)
    October 12, 2016 12:29:52 at 12:29 PM I'd be happy to supporting Trump flying south and running for President of Venezuela.
    Atossa
    October 12, 2016 1:03:51 at 1:03 PM .

    Wouldn't that be a hoot.

    Trump makes Venezuela great again and it becomes the next world power.

    Seenitallbefore
    October 12, 2016 10:56:40 at 10:56 AM This is not a vote for election. It is a vote against election. Any vote other than trump is a vote for Hillary. Now I know how hitler got into power, he run against a failed establishment. Luckily we have trump instead of hitler. If we don't turn this around in a few elections, a hitler type will rise to power in America. Remember this is a country who rounded up,and jailed an entire race of people at the start of WWII. It could happen again when the final dictator emerges who crushes the constitution once and for all.
    R G
    October 12, 2016 11:32:45 at 11:32 AM Marty Armstrong as usual sums it up well.

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/am-i-biased-for-trump/

    mishgea
    October 12, 2016 11:57:13 at 11:57 AM This is not a vote for election. It is a vote against election.

    That is a very reasonable point of view. Is Trump more of an anti-establishment candidate than Johnson?

    CJ
    October 12, 2016 1:42:09 at 1:42 PM "Is Trump more of an anti-establishment candidate than Johnson?" If you rate the answer to that interesting question by how many establishment people are bashing Johnson or Trump, Donald wins the anti-establishment rating by a landslide.
    Blacklisted
    October 12, 2016 2:32:41 at 2:32 PM Yes
    CzarChasm Reigns
    October 12, 2016 11:03:18 at 11:03 AM This will work itself out if Trump supporters would just listen to what he actually says:

    "'Make sure you get out and vote,' Trump told supporters on Tuesday at rally in Florida. 'November 28th.'"

    Quote from "Trump tells supporters to go vote on 'November 28th'"
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tells-supporters-to-go-vote-on-november-28th/ar-BBxjl3n?ocid=ansmsnnews11

    The self-proclaimed "genius" has spoken.

    R G
    October 12, 2016 11:12:03 at 11:12 AM Slip-ups happen. You don't really think Obama thought there were 57 states, do you? When you're campaigning 20 hours a day, it's bound to happen.
    madashellowell
    October 12, 2016 8:03:20 at 8:03 PM One of your strongest arguments yet.
    Dave
    October 12, 2016 11:17:27 at 11:17 AM '… all Trump had to say was "I changed my mind once I saw the birth certificate.'

    Well that would have been another obvious lie, since he was on the record multiple times saying he didn't believe it was genuine.

    Trump tweeted in August 2012 that "An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that Barack Obama's birth certificate is a fraud." In September of that year, Trump shared via Twitter an article claiming the birth certificate was fake. In a June 2014 tweet, Trump boasted, "I was the one who got Obama to release his birth certificate, or whatever that was!" And in 2013 he retweeted someone who alleged the long-form birth certificate was "a computer generated forgery."

    mishgea
    October 12, 2016 11:55:00 at 11:55 AM OK – I changed my mind once I was convinced the birth certificate was real.
    There are easy alternatives to not look like a fool.
    Bobby Hill
    October 12, 2016 1:07:57 at 1:07 PM "How amazing, the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama's "birth certificate" died in plane crash today. All others lived"

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2013

    Trump should have simply leveled with us by quoting Goebbels,"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle."

    Mike
    October 12, 2016 11:56:28 at 11:56 AM Doesn't matter which of the two wins if the bank's war on the majority and pension plans continues regardless. Perhaps the libertarians will protect us.
    Jon Sellers
    October 12, 2016 12:26:09 at 12:26 PM Yah, I'm sure the Libertarians will get right on that!
    Jon Sellers
    October 12, 2016 12:29:07 at 12:29 PM Mish,

    Gutsy call on coming out with your personal vote. You'll probably lose half of your readership. People have become so wildly caught up with the day to day b.s. of the federal government that their entire world-view and personal self-esteem are on the line. It's a tragedy.

    Anyhow, my neighborhood now has 3 Trump signs, 2 Johnson signs, and 0 Clinton signs.

    Atossa
    October 12, 2016 12:34:50 at 12:34 PM .

    For those who might have a Biblical prophecy perspective… Trump may symbolize the "last trump" that occurs when the power of the holy people is totally broken [Daniel 12:7] and heralds the resurrection of the dead [1 Corinthians 15:52.]

    Bobby Hill
    October 12, 2016 12:39:24 at 12:39 PM "Heading into the first debate, it was Trump's election to lose … ." I disagree. It has always been HRC's election to lose. Trump was never ahead. Sure, he was gaining on her, but to say that he could actually have overtaken her but for this mistake or that miscalculation is hyper-speculative. Clinton had not and has not even unleashed her GOTV ops.

    Trump has a ceiling of support, not much greater than his share of the primary electorate. Peak Trump was right before the debate. Peak Hillary hasn't arrived. Her final assault armada hasn't even landed.

    Johnson is the best candidate. But he gets my vote only if the polls show HRC is 100% safe. Trump is worse than Johnson is good. I'd consider writing-in Mish or Rand Paul, but again, only if there is zero chance of Trump. NeverTrump

    Bobby Hill
    October 12, 2016 12:50:28 at 12:50 PM "Heading into the first debate, it was Trump's election to lose … ." I disagree. It has always been HRC's election to lose. Trump was never ahead. Sure, he was gaining on her, but to say that he could actually have overtaken her but for this mistake or that miscalculation is hyper-speculative.

    Trump has a ceiling of support, not much greater than his share of the Republican primary electorate. Peak Trump was right before the debate. Peak Hillary hasn't arrived. Her final assault armada (GOTV operations) hasn't even landed.

    I agree that Johnson is the best candidate. But he gets my vote only if the polls show HRC is 100% safe. Trump is worse than Johnson is good. I'd consider writing-in Mish or Rand Paul, but again, only if there is zero chance of Trump. Mish is better than Paul on war and peace. Main reservation on Mish for President is immigration, and refugees.
    NeverTrump

    Blacklisted
    October 12, 2016 2:26:10 at 2:26 PM …then never peace or prosperity.
    Winston
    October 12, 2016 2:20:48 at 2:20 PM Bill Clinton, serial philanderer and alleged rapist. Impeached as prez, but not removed from office ("Bad president! Bad!") during his last term. Trump makes locker room talk, it's the end of the world. Policy specifics don't matter. The entire series of Clinton scandals, no problem at all. Teflon.

    US voters get the results they deserve, simple as that.

    Tuberville
    October 12, 2016 2:33:42 at 2:33 PM

    Time to stand up for what you believe in

    LFOldTimer
    October 13, 2016 12:43:58 at 12:43 AM Nigel Farage is a very intelligent and dynamic man. No teleprompter needed for him! Quite an orator for sure. And quite a fighter. If we had a handful of Nigel Farage's in the US Congress we could turn the corner and restore America back to the beautiful, vigorous and envy of the world we once were. But I can't name even one Nigel Farage that walks the hall of the Nation's Capital Building. We only have puppets driven by power and money. And that's why we continue in decline mode – sliding down the slippery slope. What a travesty for our younger and unborn generations.
    CJ
    October 13, 2016 11:32:38 at 11:32 AM Rand Paul comes pretty close to Nigel.
    CJ
    October 12, 2016 2:57:09 at 2:57 PM ~ and stand up against evil! (Hellary)
    LouisM
    October 12, 2016 3:26:47 at 3:26 PM I agree with you that Hillary is going to be a disaster. Its going to be 1 scandal after another. Hillary has more enemies than the republicans…and she has accumulated them over years.
    Trump would not have been a utopia either. The same forces against him in his campaign would be with him causing scandal for his entire administration.

    However, we got more racial, gender, religious, sexual orientation, etc hatred while Obama / Clinton have been in office than ever in our history. Obama and Clinton have been using govt law and victimization for democratic vote farming. People were pleading for Trump to win because there were large segments of society that have been blamed, demeaned and targeted with massive vitriol by the left simply for not being a member of their victimized minority (aka non-union, white, religious, married, mother/father, husband/wife, straight, single gender, etc). Trump speak was cutting right thru the straight jacket of political correctness, trigger warnings, safe spaces, cultural Marxism, etc. People called Trump every name in the book and it amounted to nothing. Trump was like Toto pulling the curtain back and exposing the wizard as a charlatan. Many people hooked their star to Trump for that single reason.

    Hillary said that if Trump wins, that she would use her political office to undermine him into a failed presidency. I would be very very surprised if Trump goes away and doesn't do the exact same thing to Hillary. The Trump-Rosie feud lasted what a decade. I think Trump now has a vendetta against the republican establishment and a vendetta with Hillary. If true, expect the new GOP to be much much more aggressive…worse than fascist radical democratic leftists. No matter who wins or loses…its going to stay mean for a decade. Bill Clinton has already lost his legacy by Hillary running for President…and before its all thru…I think there is going to be a lot more destroyed on the Clinton side. Chelsea is no Hillary and no Bill Clinton BUT Trump has 3 children and any one of those 3 could be a presidential contender. You know what happens when a dam cant hold the water back any longer. what do you think will happen when the Clintons don't have the money or power to deflect their crimes. do you think they will fade away into retirement or do you think the wolves will circle. Before Trump, they would have faded into retirement. Now, I think the wolves will circle them.

    DFC
    October 12, 2016 3:28:36 at 3:28 PM Hi Mish,
    Our knowledge of what's happening in the electorate is imperfect. We can't make easy judgments about this election based on available data. BUT, we do now know that the " elitist establishment' has taken over large swaths of our government, media and popular culture for its own narrow and largely selfish benefits. Our best bet is to vote for an anti-establishment candidate that has a shot at making changes and providing a future where the electorate's influence can grow, not shrink. That is still Donald Trump and, yes, there is still some doubt about how anti-establishment he is. It's not a perfect world and we often have to make choices that are far from optimal or certain. This election is one such example.
    I urge you to reconsider.
    Dave
    mishgea

    October 12, 2016 11:15:35 at 11:15 PM I may indeed reconsider
    But it will not matter. My personal vote is meaningless.
    I was very upset at Trump following the first debate. It is clear he did not bother to prepare for it.
    Nadda. Not at all.
    He could have won this thing. Easily. All he had to do was act presidential for 90 minutes, and prepare for some obvious questions.
    He did neither. Now it is all but over.
    While we do not "know" what will happen, Hillary could have a massive medical attack for example. But I do think for the first time all in 18 months Silver has the odds about right. They stand today at 13% or so.
    Yes, I am bitter over this. It was only at the last second I wrote I was voting for Johnson. I do not remember precisely, but I may have even done it as an edit after I made the post.
    Note to self, do not write when you are angry.
    Mish

    DFC
    October 13, 2016 11:35:43 at 11:35 AM Thanks Mish – we are all frustrated. And I suspect that will only get worse after 11/8 no matter who wins. But nothing gets us more frustrated than witnessing the array of forces lines up against Trump. Particularly the media which has long been held up as a centerpiece of liberty in America. No longer, their ethics have been laid bare for all to see….. I for one believe that this race is much closer than the establishment would have us believe – yes, even with Trump's warts and foibles. In large measure this is a reaction to the overplayed hand in the media. Americans are fundamentally a fair people who love the underdog – even more so if he is bullied. On that basis alone Trump enjoys widespread support IMHO. And it may be growing. We won't know for sure until 11/9 as there is so little public trust left in the American media. Pravda must be proud.
    Dave
    LFOldTimer
    October 12, 2016 3:38:10 at 3:38 PM This blog really changed my opinion of Mish.

    Mish always seem like a down-to-earth, sensible and logical communicator of the news.

    Then he wrote this.

    The media has treated Hillary and Bill with kid gloves and lambasted Trump for the smallest of things from the very start. The media is tremendously influential over public opinion. This election was fixed by the establishment. And the media are card carrying members of the establishment. For Mish not to see that is willful blindness.

    Then to add insult to injury – he says he's going to vote for Gary Johnson, the GOP retread who endorses illegal immigration and told us no crimes were committed on Wall Street.

    Sorry, Mish. I can't take you seriously anymore, sir. You've stepped over the line.

    CJ
    October 12, 2016 4:20:56 at 4:20 PM Sometimes you can get both sides of the news from one MSM source, which is why most liberals I know will not look at anything at Fox News:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html#.V_6ea4XLMpE.email
    LFOldTimer
    October 12, 2016 4:38:56 at 4:38 PM They're all in on it, CJ.

    There's no possible way that Trump can fight all of them off.

    The entire thing was fixed, start to finish.

    Apparently Mish can't see that.

    Now I've lost faith in him too.

    CJ
    October 12, 2016 4:45:21 at 4:45 PM Don't give up on Mish just yet LF, he hasn't voted yet and I don't think he is firmly committed to his (this week's) position.
    ;Winston
    October 12, 2016 6:42:29 at 6:42 PM As pointed out elsewhere, there were some big names who communicated with her via emails to and from her unauthorized, unsecured server. One of them was the POTUS. There be why there was no prosecution or even what was claimed as the unanimous FBI and lawyer opinion according to that Fox article that her security clearance be pulled, something which would have made her ineligible to serve at any decent level in government.
    David
    October 12, 2016 5:06:24 at 5:06 PM Mish, I've followed your blog for many years. Did I or any of your blg followers ever say. "Hey. Mish was wrong about calling the top or the bottom in anything. So therefore I will no longer follow him." You are too smart to see the obvious, have you been at the rallies of Trump and compated them to Hillary's? Well, there's something an analyst geek can't measure. it's called. PASSION! Go Trump!
    Carl R
    October 12, 2016 7:35:34 at 7:35 PM Going back to the primary, Mish predicted that Trump was the only Republican who could win. I predicted that Trump could lose badly enough to cost both the House and Senate as well as a number of states. I hope I'm wrong. I don't fear a Hillary presidency so long as she doesn't control Congress, too.
    Blacklisted
    October 12, 2016 7:57:13 at 7:57 PM You really don't get it, do you? Hillary is the the establishment and CONgress is too. Look how much damage Obama did with a Republican Congress. It's the establishment (D's, R's, the mainstream media, the military and healthcare industrial complexes, etc.), versus the rest of us.
    madashellowell
    October 12, 2016 8:08:37 at 8:08 PM Not to mention decades and possibly permanent damage by SCOTUS.
    Sheep do not lament their lost freedoms as long a feeding time is reliable.
    LFOldTimer
    October 12, 2016 9:35:16 at 9:35 PM You're forgetting the fact that the next President will likely appoint 4 Supreme Court Justices. We know SCJ's vote down ideological lines. The law be damned. And those appointments could live another 20-30 years. It will be an overwhelmingly LIBERAL SCOTUS.

    If that happens all of us and our kids are screwed, blued and tattooed.

    And if that happens you won't recognize this country in 20 years. We'll be a socialist hellhole full of indigent illiterates from 3rd world nations.

    Anybody with any aspirations in life will have an albatross tied around their necks. For every dollar you earn the government will get 70 cents of it.

    What you are watching is the continued DECLINE of an empire. And Hillary will only accelerate that DECLINE.

    Sorry, Carl R. Your theory is greatly flawed.

    Carl R
    October 13, 2016 12:36:12 at 12:36 PM My "best possible outcome" for this election is a Hillary win, along with Republicans continuing to hold congress. Yes, there are problems with that outcome, the the other possible outcomes are much worse. As far as the Supreme Court, Hillary would make it more liberal, but her choices would be tempered by the need to get them by a Republican Senate. If Hillary wins, and also wins the Senate, just think then how liberal her appointees will be? Just think how many more crazy things she can get pushed through than Obama ever was able to. Yes, the Republican Congress sucked, and didn't limit him as much as they should have, but they did limit him.

    The worst alternative is for Trump to completely divide and destroy the Republican party, which I think is his true agenda. The result will be a repeat of the 30s and 40s, with Republicans being irrelevant.

    LFOldTimer
    October 13, 2016 2:39:10 at 2:39 PM Thank you for your response, Carl R.

    But you've missed an obvious weakness in your argument.

    We have a Republican majority House and Senate now. Have they protected us from Obama? The answer to that is "no". Obama got all his budget increases, debt ceiling increases, no realistic pushback on Obamacare (when the Republicans had that opportunity), illegals continue to pour over the border forcing innocent American to pay for them, the top Republicans support Obama's push for TPP sending millions of more US jobs to the third world and allowing more foreigners to come to America to steal ours, etc….

    So if Hillary is elected it will be another replay. Every time the budget issue comes up the GOP will use the excuse that we can't shut down the government because it will hurt the reputations of the conservatives. So we can't win for losing, Carl R.

    With Trump in the oval office we would have a veto vote. And he would NOT hesitate to use it and his executive orders to start enforcing the damn laws again!!!

    So while I appreciate your articulate response – I don't agree with it. If Hillary makes it into the White House this nation is done. It is the end of America as we've know it. More government control. Less for the ordinary citizens. More for the pigs who run the show.

    No doubt you love your sons. And I'm sure that they are productive and valued citizens. Hillary in the White House would ruin their lives prematurely. Please keep that in mind.

    Carl R
    October 13, 2016 12:52:55 at 12:52 PM Re: "What you are watching is the continued DECLINE of an empire. And Hillary will only accelerate that DECLINE. "

    Of course. We all know that the US is in decline, and can not be saved. Once the limitations on the Federal Government were removed (1913 – Enactment of 16th Amendment, 1913 – Creation of the Federal Reserve, 1937 – FDR Court Packing plan), the end of the US has been inescapable. That's proven by history. Nevertheless, the decline will be much faster with Hillary in power, and with a Democratic Congress along with her. Just remember the irreparable damage that FDR and LBJ (Great Society) were able to do, and contrast that with the 90's under Bill Clinton.

    Obama, unfortunately, only had to deal with the feckless Boehner, rather that Newt Gingrich, and was able to do more things than he should have been able to, but even a Boehner led Congress slowed him down quite a bit. With all the other limitations gone (the Federal Government now has the power to tax, spend, and print money), the separation of powers is all that's left, and it is only a delaying tactic, slowly the inevitable collapse somewhat.

    I have told my sons since they were born that they will live to see the end of the United States as we know it, and that I may very well live long enough, too. I'm 62. I have predicted that we will get through this economic downturn, but not the next one. Thus I expect the end in 2037 or so, which I may live to see. If the US makes it one more cycle after that, I'll be gone, however.

    Lest we think that the end of the US is some great tragedy, yes, it is sad for those that follow us, but it is unavoidable. Even our founding fathers knew that a Republic was only a temporary form of government. We should consider ourselves lucky that we lived in such a wonderful time.

    I don't begrudge those who dream that they can stop the inevitable. It's a noble goal, and I admire you for your goal. To me, however, it's as futile as tilting at windmills.

    Atossa
    October 13, 2016 1:21:23 at 1:21 PM .

    The rabbit hole goes even deeper and darker. T Roosevelt and Taft administrations teamed up with Russian revolutionaries to undermine Russia's Tsar. In his April 1917 war speech to congress, Wilson said the Russian revolutionaries [who weeks before had forced the Tsar to abdicate and destroyed the Russian empire] were America's "partner." A few months later the Bolsheviks continued the revolution to its horrific end.

    Art Izagud
    October 12, 2016 7:54:34 at 7:54 PM I find this post to be very disappointing. It is worth watching the PBS Frontline episode that aired yesterday http://www.pbs.org/video/2365861606/ that shows just how inept this administration has been in the Middle East. Now you want to vote for someone who doesn't even know what Aleppo is, over a wise and decisive leader.

    Mish, your post is typical of the Boomer mentality that knows what is right, yet is weak enough not to choose it. You'd rather carry on about the end of the world than do anything to really change things. I once regarded you as a source of wisdom, yet now can't help but see an old crank.

    Grow a pair!

    Respectfully.

    Blacklisted
    October 12, 2016 8:07:56 at 8:07 PM Mish – I do want to thank you for your tolerance. There are MANY sites that "moderate" comments, giving the host the opportunity to not post comments they don't like. Other sites actually ban people that have a point of view and evidence that conflicts with their beliefs and biases.
    Eric Coote
    October 12, 2016 9:36:51 at 9:36 PM Blacklist I support your comment. Also this site is reasonably restrained and has not degenerated into rank abuse like happens on zero hedge sometimes. Mish does a good job of bringing facts to attention of all even if we don't all agree with him
    LFOldTimer
    October 12, 2016 10:53:56 at 10:53 PM The primaries and this presidential runoff should have taught an observer with working neurological synapses that your vote has been discounted and devalued down to virtually nothing.

    There's a small group of power brokers in the back room pulling the strings and deciding where your vote will go.

    The trick was to get you so disgusted with Trump that you would change your mind and waste your vote on some goofball who didn't even know what "Allepo" is. And they've been successful in many cases.

    Trump was the first (and likely the last) candidate in many decades who wasn't formed and molded by the corrupted establishment to ensure the status quo is strictly followed. And they've stepped on the accelerator with a huge push for centralized globalization that is the main ingredient for the New World Order and One-World Government.

    Trump never had a chance from the beginning. Until you realize that you've missed the entire point.

    If you look around at the events occurring around the world and can't see what's coming get your vision checked. It's as obvious as the nose on your face.

    Trump was not in that plan. So he's been eliminated.

    Hillary was selected President well over 2 years ago. You're just finding that out now.

    CJ
    October 12, 2016 11:06:18 at 11:06 PM I am just adding this comment because I want it to be comment number 200.
    LFOldTimer
    October 13, 2016 12:00:08 at 12:00 AM Rumors are being floated that Wikileaks has the 33,000 emails as the Trump card – so to speak.

    If those get released it's a game changer.

    Sure, they'll blame the Russians for it even without a scintilla of evidence.and it'll cause an international incident. Maybe even halt the elections. Who knows?

    Putin's the kind of guy who'll say "bring it on".

    I don't think Obama has the nads – to be quite honest.

    This could get interesting.

    Don't leave the theater quite yet.

    Sam Stovall
    October 13, 2016 12:48:24 at 12:48 AM if you vote Johnson, in effect you are voting for crooked and corrupt Hillary. If you do not understand that, you are dumber than my Lhasa Apso.
    mishgea
    October 13, 2016 12:51:28 at 12:51 AM Don't be delusional. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson because the election is effectively over.
    The only question left at this point is: Which is the bigger protest vote?
    Mish
    R G
    October 13, 2016 8:27:11 at 8:27 AM Mish, it sounds like you're climbing a wall of worry. Buy low, sell high. I agree that it appears there is nothing Trump can do to get elected in this system. It doesn't matter what he would or would not have said. There is too much at stake for the establishment to allow it. If it wasn't the latest nonsense which is so clearly a hatchet job, it would have been something else.

    But that doesn't mean you just capitulate.

    LFOldTimer
    October 13, 2016 1:33:53 at 1:33 AM I agree, Sam.

    A vote diverted away from Trump is effectively a vote for Hillary.

    This isn't over until the fat lady sings.

    Anything could happen between now and Nov 08. Particularly with all those bleached emails floating around somewhere in cyberspace.

    With all due respect, Mish….I believe claiming it's effectively over on Oct 12 is delusional.

    If Johnson wasn't such an assclown I would halfway comprehend your position.

    I simply don't understand your reasoning, Sir.

    I have to be honest.

    JayTe
    October 13, 2016 4:47:41 at 4:47 AM Mish, You're not even close to correct. The establishment is panicked. The locker room talk is a minor issue. You seem to have a short memory because I remember another candidate who was accused of cheating on his wife (who is now running for president) during the campaign who still won the election. And now you're saying that a candidate caught talking trash in private about women cannot win the election?!?

    Since the establishment know that there will be a steady stream of disclosures on Hilary up to election day, there are looking high and low on anything that they can find to compromise Trump. They even descended to putting out overtly biased polls saying Hilary now has a wide lead by a Clinton operative who works for a Clinton Superpac where the selection processed was already biased towards Democrats by 7% before the question of who they were voting for was even asked! And it's given a veneer of acceptability by NBC and the Wall Street Journal. What you fail to grasp is that large parts of the population are not going to come out and say anything in public about who they really support. But you will discover who they really support (Trump) on election day. That's why the establishment (Democrats and Republicans, the media, the intelligence services who issue completely bogus statements about Russia being behind the hacks when they know very well from the tools NSA talked about by Edward Snowden, etc) is going full tilt to get him to drop out. Because otherwise they will be forced to stoop to open rigging of the election in order to get Clinton into power. And if that happens, you will see open revolt.

    Finally as concerns David Stockman, I respect him but is from time to time completely off in terms of his opinions. A couple of weeks ago, he made the statement that the US infrastructure was absolutely fine despite the fact that the American Society of Civil Engineers had given a D grade about the USA's Infrastructure.

    R G
    October 13, 2016 8:10:39 at 8:10 AM Certain Russian politicians, no matter how bombastic they are, are hinting toward what to expect in that Hillary may be our last POTUS if she were elected. My caveats would be:

    – Hillary would be the last woman POTUS just as Obama was likely the last black POTUS, fortunate or unfortunate as that may be. Both Obama and Clinton have permanently tarnished even the consideration of a future woman or minority POTUS for at least a generation. They would have been by far the worst two POTUSes in American history. And that is saying something, because Twiggy was horrific. Demographic trend won't make my caveat any less likely, because…
    – Clinton as POTUS will either foment nuclear war, secession, or both. It should be obvious to any discerning viewer that America like all "diverse" nations is ungovernable. Nation-states survive and thrive based on conformity, common language, and common culture. When you have entire states (CA) whose culture and language are not the foundational culture and language, regardless of official language status, you have problems. It's like the Tower of Babel.

    Such is the nature of history. It's cyclical like any good historian will attest to.

    R G
    October 13, 2016 8:14:34 at 8:14 AM P.S.

    The more I think about it, I'm torn. In a warped way I am hoping for a Clinton Presidency. Anything she does will be ultimately rendered null and void if my reasoning above pans out. And, given the macroeconomic indicators, we shall know pretty doggone soon. We could get it over with in a couple of years.

    But on the flipside, what would fill that power vacuum? History teaches us that a Washington is much, much less likely than a Napolean. That scares me.

    CJ
    October 13, 2016 9:55:20 at 9:55 AM I saw a study that found that if only women voted, Clinton would win in a landslide. But if only men voted, Trump would win in a landslide. The women may get what they want – the first woman president, but they may come to regret what they wished for. Clinton being Clinton, it will be 4 years of scandals and investigations, and she will be blamed for the inevitable economic failure. Add to that her dismal record of foreign policy failure. Hillary will be the worst thing that ever happened to the Women's Movement.
    LFOldTimer
    October 13, 2016 11:18:44 at 11:18 AM Women tend to think with their hearts and not with their minds.

    When you think with your heart in politics you foment disaster.

    Many would probably vote for the wicked witch of the west just to put a woman in the White House.

    I have NOTHING against a female President. Give me someone like a Thatcher and I would voter for her in a heartbeat.

    Women who are honest and think with their minds would agree with me.

    I refuse to be politically correct at my age.

    CJ
    October 13, 2016 11:29:59 at 11:29 AM I am proud to say I have been politically incorrect since before there was political correctness.
    ;Atossa
    October 13, 2016 1:54:15 at 1:54 PM .

    I would never vote for a woman president. In the Bible, women rulers are a form of national punishment. I prefer going back in time when only White male landowners could vote. Now that is really un-PC, considering I am a woman.

    LFOldTimer
    October 13, 2016 2:15:49 at 2:15 PM I have no idea whether you're being serious or just sacastic, Atossa.

    But your comment makes me look like a dyed in the wool liberal socialist to the left of Bill Ayers.

    Let me guess…you're not in favor of equal pay for women in the workplace either. Right?

    I respect your political incorrectness. But honestly, if you ran for President I probably wouldn't vote for you.

    Atossa
    October 13, 2016 2:55:17 at 2:55 PM .

    I am totally serious. If you think I would run for president, you missed my point.

    From an historical perspective, women voting is a recent travesty as are the majority of women who have sacrificed family [allowing institutions to raise their children] to be in the workplace. Many of these women prefer to be homemakers and be at home with their babies. But they are forced to work because TPTB have destroyed society and the economy.

    STEPHANE CAUSSADE
    October 13, 2016 10:40:01 at 10:40 AM THE BEST PRESIDENT FOR THE USA WOULD BE MIKE SHEDLOCK AKA MISH

    AS HE IS A FAMOUS INVESTMENT ADVISOR HE HAS A LONG EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FINANCIAL MARKETS SO HE COULD IMPLEMENT GOOD APPROPRIATE ECONOMIC REFORMS IN ORDER TO BOOST AMERICAN GROWTH AND THE STXX MARKETS

    LFOldTimer
    October 13, 2016 11:20:27 at 11:20 AM I would agree with you up until Oct 11 when this article was published, Stephane.

    When the facts change – my opinion follows.

    Atossa
    October 13, 2016 12:47:37 at 12:47 PM .

    Trump is giving a great speech right now.

    Why can't he be this great all the time ?

    Why is it that sometimes he can speak well and other times he acts goofy ?

    Atossa
    October 13, 2016 1:09:38 at 1:09 PM .

    Trump did a great job attacking Hillary in his West Palm Beach, Florida speech today… it is well worth watching.

    LFOldTimer
    October 13, 2016 2:21:05 at 2:21 PM Now the women are coming out of the woodwork accusing Trump of sexually assaulting them 20-30 years ago. The NY Times is having a field day.

    Isn't it strange that none of these women apparently filed police reports?

    If I were a woman and some guy started grabbing my breasts and trying to put his hand up my skirt I wouldn't be able to call 911 fast enough – whether it happened today or in 1975.

    Just the fact that these stories get legs should tell anyone with any intelligence that the media is crooked and trying to throw the election.

    They are maliciously interfering with the electoral process by floating these stories. IMO there should be a law against it. It damages whatever sanctity remains in the electoral system – which is supposed to be above reproach.

    economicsjunkie
    October 13, 2016 3:11:05 at 3:11 PM Trump's already threatened to sue them. He'll come out confident and honest and the media as the usual crooked lying pieces of trash they are. It'll only help him.
    economicsjunkie
    October 13, 2016 3:11:56 at 3:11 PM Landslide in sight.
    Atossa
    October 13, 2016 4:38:42 at 4:38 PM .

    Below is a link to a video and transcript of Trump's great speech today in West Palm Beach, Florida. I thought I remember hearing him also say the word, cabal… but maybe that was just wishful thinking.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/10/13/donald-trump-speech-the-coordinated-clintonian-politics-of-personal-destruction/

    Atossa
    October 13, 2016 5:30:08 at 5:30 PM .

    Liberal globalists are having a hissy-fit over Trump's speech.. they are using the words "bizarre & frightening". One journalist said "Trump has gone nuts", that he has gone "full Breitbart."

    Pi314
    October 13, 2016 2:29:56 at 2:29 PM Mish, you may be jumping the gun in this case. I have mostly ignored all polls except the USC tracking poll for obvious reasons. The USC tracking poll showed Trump leading by 3.9% pre 1st debate. As of today, Trump leads by 0.1%. So Trump has lost 'merely' 3.8% after the debates and the tape. The poll appears to be trending up in Trump's favor now. I believe we have seen the worst for Trump. If the rumored release of 33,000 emails is true, it will have an impact on the poll.

    This is a ridiculous election. We are electing president based on one locker room tape over national issues.

    LFOldTimer
    October 13, 2016 2:43:09 at 2:43 PM It's not just ridiculous, Pi314.

    IT'S ORCHESTRATED AT THE VERY TOP!!!!

    That's what's scary.

    Intelligent people can see this.

    Deceitful people see it but won't say it.

    Essentially, we've lost our country.

    RH
    October 13, 2016 6:42:27 at 6:42 PM The obvious reason you ignore all the other polls is that they don't give the result you want.
    This is going to be a massive loss, worse than the one that got Obama elected. If Trump had a bit more depth (developed policies) and wasn't so lazy (prepared for debates) he could have won but he is the wrong guy at the right spot in history, Clinton must be the luckiest politician in US history. Unfortunately. I find all these media blaming a bit pathetic.Mish is right.

    Check out this link, very funny take (Clarke and Dawe who Mish has previously published) from the Australian viewpoint of this election. They are both hopeless candidates.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-1 …ace-is/7929574

    Chris
    October 13, 2016 4:36:04 at 4:36 PM Trump lost with his mouth. End of story.
    Michael Griffith
    October 13, 2016 5:34:29 at 5:34 PM The MSM has given 15x as much coverage to Trump's 10 yr old Locker Room remarks than to emails that prove Hilary is bought and paid for by the people who crashed our economy.

    Shame on the voters if they vote the way teh MSM tells them too. It's no wonder Millenials have zero trust for the MSM,

    [Oct 13, 2016] The Clintons sure were working the Haiti angle any way that they could. I wonder how that's playing in Florida?

    Notable quotes:
    "... [Qatar] would like to see WJC 'for five minutes' in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011," an employee at The Clinton Foundation said to numerous aides, including Doug Brand ..."
    "... No doubt! The Clintons sure were working the Haiti angle any way that they could. I wonder how that's playing in Florida? ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.washingtontimes.com

    "[Qatar] would like to see WJC 'for five minutes' in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011," an employee at The Clinton Foundation said to numerous aides, including Doug Brand [isc]. "Qatar would welcome our suggestions for investments in Haiti - particularly on education and health. They have allocated most of their $20 million but are happy to consider projects we suggest. I'm collecting input from CF Haiti team."

    No doubt! The Clintons sure were working the Haiti angle any way that they could. I wonder how that's playing in Florida?

    [Oct 13, 2016] Debate Wrapup

    Notable quotes:
    "... +A large part of the uproar over the Trump tapes is driven not by the fact that Trump's comments are shocking but because they are so familiar. We've heard similar, perhaps even more rancid, things from our fathers, uncles, brothers, coaches, teachers, pastors, teammates, and friends. Perhaps we've even made similar comments ourselves. Now the public wants to project its own shame onto Trump. His humiliation serves as a kind catharsis for the nation's own systemic sexism. Perhaps NOW will give him a medal one day for his "sacrifice"… ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Until a second Hunter Thompson comes along, the appropriately jaded Jeffrey St. Clair will have to do [ Counterpunch ].

    +A large part of the uproar over the Trump tapes is driven not by the fact that Trump's comments are shocking but because they are so familiar. We've heard similar, perhaps even more rancid, things from our fathers, uncles, brothers, coaches, teachers, pastors, teammates, and friends. Perhaps we've even made similar comments ourselves. Now the public wants to project its own shame onto Trump. His humiliation serves as a kind catharsis for the nation's own systemic sexism. Perhaps NOW will give him a medal one day for his "sacrifice"…

    Cf. Luke 18:11 .

    [Oct 13, 2016] Our Famously Free Press helped to exterminate Sanders like unwannted pest using all kind of dirty tricks

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have never before seen the press take sides like they did this year, openly and even gleefully bad-mouthing candidates who did not meet with their approval. ..."
    "... This shocked me when I first noticed it. It felt like the news stories went out of their way to mock Sanders or to twist his words, while the op-ed pages, which of course don't pretend to be balanced, seemed to be of one voice in denouncing my candidate. ..."
    "... I propose that we look into this matter methodically, and that we do so by examining Sanders-related opinion columns in a single publication: the Washington Post, ..."
    "... its practitioners have never aimed to be nonpartisan. They do not, therefore, show media bias in the traditional sense. But maybe the traditional definition needs to be updated. We live in an era of reflexive opinionating and quasi opinionating, and we derive much of our information about the world from websites that have themselves blurred the distinction between reporting and commentary, or obliterated it completely. ..."
    "... Washington Post, ..."
    "... Post ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Neoliberal press serves its neoliberal paymasters. As simple of that. There is no even hint of Us press being press. In certain aspects US jounalists are more "solgers of the Party" then their colleagues in the Brezhnev time Pravda and Izvesia.

    From [Essay] Swat Team, by Thomas Frank Harper's Magazine - Part 3 By Thomas Frank

    For once, a politician like Sanders seemed to have a chance with the public. He won a stunning victory over Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, and despite his advanced age and avuncular finger-wagging, he was wildly popular among young voters. Eventually he was flattened by the Clinton juggernaut, of course, but Sanders managed to stay competitive almost all the way to the California primary in June.

    His chances with the prestige press were considerably more limited. Before we go into details here, let me confess: I was a Sanders voter, and even interviewed him back in 2014, so perhaps I am naturally inclined to find fault in others' reporting on his candidacy. Perhaps it was the very particular media diet I was on in early 2016, which consisted of daily megadoses of the New York Times and the Washington Post and almost nothing else. Even so, I have never before seen the press take sides like they did this year, openly and even gleefully bad-mouthing candidates who did not meet with their approval.

    This shocked me when I first noticed it. It felt like the news stories went out of their way to mock Sanders or to twist his words, while the op-ed pages, which of course don't pretend to be balanced, seemed to be of one voice in denouncing my candidate. A New York Times article greeted the Sanders campaign in December by announcing that the public had moved away from his signature issue of the crumbling middle class. "Americans are more anxious about terrorism than income inequality," the paper declared-nice try, liberal, and thanks for playing. In March, the Times was caught making a number of post-publication tweaks to a news story about the senator, changing what had been a sunny tale of his legislative victories into a darker account of his outrageous proposals. When Sanders was finally defeated in June, the same paper waved him goodbye with a bedtime-for-Grandpa headline, hillary clinton made history, but bernie sanders stubbornly ignored it.

    I propose that we look into this matter methodically, and that we do so by examining Sanders-related opinion columns in a single publication: the Washington Post, the conscience of the nation's political class and one of America's few remaining first-rate news organizations. I admire the Post 's investigative and beat reporting. What I will focus on here, however, are pieces published between January and May 2016 on the paper's editorial and op-ed pages, as well as on its many blogs. Now, editorials and blog posts are obviously not the same thing as news stories: punditry is my subject here, and its practitioners have never aimed to be nonpartisan. They do not, therefore, show media bias in the traditional sense. But maybe the traditional definition needs to be updated. We live in an era of reflexive opinionating and quasi opinionating, and we derive much of our information about the world from websites that have themselves blurred the distinction between reporting and commentary, or obliterated it completely. For many of us, this ungainly hybrid is the news. What matters, in any case, is that all the pieces I review here, whether they appeared in pixels or in print, bear the imprimatur of the Washington Post, the publication that defines the limits of the permissible in the capital city.

    ... ... ...

    On January 27, with the Iowa caucuses just days away, Dana Milbank nailed it with a headline: nominating sanders would be insane . After promising that he adored the Vermont senator, he cautioned his readers that "socialists don't win national elections in the United States." The next day, the paper's editorial board chimed in with a campaign full of fiction , in which they branded Sanders as a kind of flimflam artist: "Mr. Sanders is not a brave truth-teller. He is a politician selling his own brand of fiction to a slice of the country that eagerly wants to buy it."

    Stung by the Post 's trolling, Bernie Sanders fired back-which in turn allowed no fewer than three of the paper's writers to report on the conflict between the candidate and their employer as a bona fide news item. Sensing weakness, the editorial board came back the next morning with yet another kidney punch, this one headlined the real problem with mr. sanders . By now, you can guess what that problem was: his ideas weren't practical, and besides, he still had "no plausible plan for plugging looming deficits as the population ages."

    ... ... ...

    After the previous week's lesson about Glass Steagall, the editorial board now instructed politicians to stop reviling tarp -i.e., the Wall Street bailouts with which the Bush and Obama Administrations tried to halt the financial crisis. The bailouts had been controversial, the paper acknowledged, but they were also bipartisan, and opposing or questioning them in the Sanders manner was hereby declared anathema. After all, the editorial board intoned:

    Contrary to much rhetoric, Wall Street banks and bankers still took losses and suffered upheaval, despite the bailout-but TARP helped limit the collateral damage that Main Street suffered from all of that. If not for the ingenuity of the executive branch officials who designed and carried out the program, and the responsibility of the legislators who approved it, the United States would be in much worse shape economically.

    As a brief history of the financial crisis and the bailout, this is absurd. It is true that bailing out Wall Street was probably better than doing absolutely nothing, but saying this ignores the many other options that were available to public officials had they shown any real ingenuity in holding institutions accountable. All the Wall Street banks that existed at the time of TARP are flourishing to this day, since the government moved heaven and earth to spare them the consequences of the toxic securities they had issued and the lousy mortgage bets they made. The big banks were "made whole," as the saying goes. Main Street banks, meanwhile, died off by the hundreds in 2009 and 2010. And average home owners, of course, got no comparable bailout. Instead, Main Street America saw trillions in household wealth disappear; it entered into a prolonged recession, with towering unemployment, increasing inequality, and other effects that linger to this day. There has never been a TARP for the rest of us.

    ... ... ...

    Charles Krauthammer went into action on January 29, too, cautioning the Democrats that they "would be risking a November electoral disaster of historic dimensions" should they nominate Sanders-cynical advice that seems even more poisonous today, as scandal after scandal engulfs the Democratic candidate that so many Post pundits favored.

    ... ... ...

    The Iowa caucuses came the next day, and Stephen Stromberg was at the keyboard to identify the "three delusions" that supposedly animated the campaigns of Sanders and the Republican Ted Cruz alike. Namely: they had abandoned the "center," they believed that things were bad in the United States, and they perceived an epidemic of corruption-in Sanders's case, corruption via billionaires and campaign contributions. Delusions all.

    ... ... ...

    On and on it went, for month after month, a steady drumbeat of denunciation. The paper hit every possible anti-Sanders note, from the driest kind of math-based policy reproach to the lowest sort of nerd-shaming-from his inexcusable failure to embrace taxes on soda pop to his awkward gesticulating during a debate with Hillary Clinton ("an unrelenting hand jive," wrote Post dance critic Sarah L. Kaufman, "that was missing only an upright bass and a plunky piano").

    The paper's piling-up of the senator's faults grew increasingly long and complicated. Soon after Sanders won the New Hampshire primary, the editorial board denounced him and Trump both as "unacceptable leaders" who proposed "simple-sounding" solutions. Sanders used the plutocracy as a "convenient scapegoat." He was hostile to nuclear power. He didn't have a specific recipe for breaking up the big banks. He attacked trade deals with "bogus numbers that defy the overwhelming consensus among economists." This last charge was a particular favorite of Post pundits: David Ignatius and Charles Lane both scolded the candidate for putting prosperity at risk by threatening our trade deals. Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer grew so despondent over the meager 2016 options that he actually pined for the lost days of the Bill Clinton presidency, when America was tough on crime, when welfare was being reformed, and when free trade was accorded its proper respect.

    ... ... ...

    The danger of Trump became an overwhelming fear as primary season drew to a close, and it redoubled the resentment toward Sanders. By complaining about mistreatment from the Democratic apparatus, the senator was supposedly weakening the party before its coming showdown with the billionaire blowhard. This matter, like so many others, found columnists and bloggers and op-ed panjandrums in solemn agreement. Even Eugene Robinson, who had stayed fairly neutral through most of the primary season, piled on in a May 20 piece, blaming Sanders and his noisy horde for "deliberately stoking anger and a sense of grievance-less against Clinton than the party itself," actions that "could put Trump in the White House." By then, the paper had buttressed its usual cast of pundits with heavy hitters from outside its own peculiar ecosystem. In something of a journalistic coup, the Post opened its blog pages in April to Jeffrey R. Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, so that he, too, could join in the chorus of denunciation aimed at the senator from Vermont. Comfort the comfortable, I suppose-and while you're at it, be sure to afflict the afflicted.

    ... ... ...

    It should be noted that there were some important exceptions to what I have described. The paper's blogs, for instance, published regular pieces by Sanders sympathizers like Katrina vanden Heuvel and the cartoonist Tom Toles. (The blogs also featured the efforts of a few really persistent Clinton haters.) The Sunday Outlook section once featured a pro-Sanders essay by none other than Ralph Nader, a kind of demon figure and clay pigeon for many of the paper's commentators. But readers of the editorial pages had to wait until May 26 to see a really full-throated essay supporting Sanders's legislative proposals. Penned by Jeffrey Sachs, the eminent economist and professor at Columbia University, it insisted that virtually all the previous debate on the subject had been irrelevant, because standard economic models did not take into account the sort of large-scale reforms that Sanders was advocating:

    It's been decades since the United States had a progressive economic strategy, and mainstream economists have forgotten what one can deliver. In fact, Sanders's recipes are supported by overwhelming evidence-notably from countries that already follow the policies he advocates. On health care, growth and income inequality, Sanders wins the policy debate hands down.

    It was a striking departure from what nearly every opinionator had been saying for the preceding six months. Too bad it came just eleven days before the Post, following the lead of the Associated Press, declared Hillary Clinton to be the preemptive winner of the Democratic nomination.

    What can we learn from reviewing one newspaper's lopsided editorial treatment of a left-wing presidential candidate?

    For one thing, we learn that the Washington Post, that gallant defender of a free press, that bold bringer-down of presidents, has a real problem with some types of political advocacy. Certain ideas, when voiced by certain people, are not merely debatable or incorrect or misguided, in the paper's view: they are inadmissible. The ideas themselves might seem healthy, they might have a long and distinguished history, they might be commonplace in other lands. Nevertheless, when voiced by the people in question, they become damaging.

    ... ... ...

    Clinging to this so-called pragmatism is also professionally self-serving. If "realism" is recognized as the ultimate trump card in American politics, it automatically prioritizes the thoughts and observations of the realism experts-also known as the Washington Post and its brother institutions of insider knowledge and professional policy practicality. Realism is what these organizations deal in; if you want it, you must come to them. Legitimacy is quite literally their property. They dole it out as they see fit.

    There is the admiration for consensus, the worship of pragmatism and bipartisanship, the contempt for populist outcry, the repeated equating of dissent with partisan disloyalty. And think of the specific policy pratfalls: the cheers for TARP, the jeers aimed at bank regulation, the dismissal of single-payer health care as a preposterous dream.

    This stuff is not mysterious. We can easily identify the political orientation behind it from one of the very first pages of the Roger Tory Peterson Field Guide to the Ideologies. This is common Seaboard Centrism, its markings of complacency and smugness as distinctive as ever, its habitat the familiar Beltway precincts of comfort and exclusivity. Whether you encounter it during a recession or a bull market, its call is the same: it reassures us that the experts who head up our system of government have everything well under control.

    It is, of course, an ideology of the professional class, of sound-minded East Coast strivers, fresh out of Princeton or Harvard, eagerly quoting as "authorities" their peers in the other professions, whether economists at MIT or analysts at Credit Suisse or political scientists at Brookings. Above all, this is an insider's ideology; a way of thinking that comes from a place of economic security and takes a view of the common people that is distinctly patrician.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Donald Trump Is Accusing the Clintons of Cashing In on Haiti's 2010 Earthquake

    That should have been done long ago.
    fortune.com

    Donald Trump is accusing the Clintons of cashing in on Haiti's deadly 2010 earthquake.

    The Republican nominee cited State Department emails obtained by the Republican National Committee through a public records request and detailed in an ABC News story.

    At issue is whether friends of former President Bill Clinton, referred to as "friends of Bill," or "FOB," in the emails, received preferential treatment or contracts from the State Department in the immediate aftermath of the 7.0-magnitude earthquake on Jan. 12, 2010. More than 230,000 people died, the U.S. has said.

    [Oct 13, 2016] You can bet that from the intelligence community to querying everyone hes ever been in contact with has been covered. The best they could come up with was an 11 year old video of him preening his feathers

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    williambanzai7 tbd108 Oct 12, 2016 4:14 AM

    I got news for you, Trump has enough enemies that if there was anything that could be pinned on him he would have been in the slammer long ago; competitors , ex-wives, casino regulators, you name it.

    All they can come up with is Miss Universe, locker room banter and net operating loss carryforwards.

    The Jackal williambanzai7 Oct 12, 2016 5:05 AM
    Absolutely spot on assessment. You can bet that from the intelligence community to querying everyone he's ever been in contact with has been covered. The best they could come up with was an 11 year old video of him preening his feathers.

    There's nothing to be found.

    ImGumbydmmt williambanzai7 Oct 12, 2016 12:39 PM
    +1000 Banzai! logged in just to upvote your coment.

    Was thinking the same thing. is this the best dirt they got on him?

    I see Trump's warts, I'm not blind.He's not Ron Paul, ok ok, we get it. and still I will vote for Trump becasue i see how much opposition is being hurled at him everyday.

    PLUS we see what a vile menace, murdering sack of fecal matter wrapped in corruption that "Die Furher Hitlery" is.

    And Because i've got two little kids that i dont want to die in Hitlery's nuclear war.

    Stanley Lord tbd108 Oct 12, 2016 7:39 AM
    I dont think the Neocon pounding is working at all.
    kellys_eye Rodders75 Oct 12, 2016 5:34 AM
    The Trump vs Clinton debacle seems to follow the UK's own pre-Brexit debate where the 'evil' (leavers) were on the wrong end of a constant onslaught by the 'good' (remainers).

    What was disregarded by the media and establishment alike was the undercurrent of disillusionment of the PEOPLE with the system that was widely perceived to be betraying the public for the good of a few - corporates, politicians, banksters et al - and they almost took it for granted that remain would win the day.

    Look how THAT turned out. The establishment line, backed by virtually all the media and the apallingly corrupt BBC, were bitch-slapped the morning after the vote and it was a pleasure to watch!

    Parallels - right up to the 'bitch slapping' - this is what you may yet see.

    Fireman Oct 12, 2016 3:36 AM
    Rape, pillage and plunder; it's as amerikan as apple pie. So whether you be a chump on da stump for oligarch Trump or a psychopathic moron into the Clinton Crime Organization of sexual deviants and murderers, in the end one of these bums is the real face of the USSAN thug state. Like NAZI Germany before it (that other anglozionazi project) USSA will be "cured" from the outside and that process is already well underway.

    Onward to the inevitable mushroom clouds.

    froze25 Fireman Oct 12, 2016 7:28 AM
    Besides having money why is Trump an "Oilgarch"?
    SillySalesmanQu... froze25 Oct 12, 2016 7:50 AM
    Good point. The Don has only "gamed the system," by using the rules and laws available to him. He plays the press like a fiddle, therefore, generating free publicity, he would otherwise have to pay for. The perpetual smirk, sneer, arrogance and disdain he has, is for many others, who have done far worse, for far less, than he has.
    poeg froze25 Oct 12, 2016 9:22 AM
    Because the average citizen sees the term as a "Russian" one and the Russians are "bad men" like Trump. It plays to the morons.
    chindit13 Oct 12, 2016 3:40 AM
    Watching the video, I am reminded of one of George Orwell's famous quotes:

    Before age forty, your face is up to God; after age forty, your face is up to you.

    Fluorideinthewater chindit13 Oct 12, 2016 7:07 AM

    At 50, everyone has the face he deserves. -George Orwell

    [Oct 13, 2016] 'Anonymous' Remembers Hillary Clinton, Career Criminal Zero Hedge

    Oct 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Unlike Reuters' political "reporters" , it seems the hacker collective "Anonymous" is less impressed by Hillary Clinton's awesomeness. Following Wikileaks' recent release of leaks, Anonymous reminds Americans of the 'career criminal' in a video containing a well researched list of wrong-doings, exposing the actions of Hillary over her career .

    This includes things like:

  • fraud investigations
  • conflicts of interest
  • political corruption
  • wrongful pardons
  • campaign and finance law violations
  • business & political scandals
  • This is only a small list of what is explored in the video below...

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/wK2K5v5bm0Q

    AnoNews explains Why This Matters

    With so much exposed already, why do we continue to follow, allow, and accept people like Hillary and Trump as potentials to be country leaders? Truly think about it. Can we even take a system that puts these two so high up in the ranks seriously?

    Is this not the perfect storm to allow us to wake up to the reality of our current state? We should be thankful that this is going on so we can help wake up the world and begin a conversation about what we can legitimately do next.

    This isn't about Trump vs Clinton. That is merely the illusion we are being invited to believe. This is about awakening to the fact that our system is absurd and that it's time to do something different. What is the answer? That is what we must discuss instead of playing this broken political game of dividing and choosing who to "vote" for.

    Occident Mortal Kidbuck Oct 12, 2016 3:41 AM Any journalist should feel enormous professional humilation and deep personal shame at the fact a bunch of teenagers are offering more scrutiny on this presidential candidate than the entire press industry.

    What a pathetic weak press this country has. All bought, every last one of them. CuttingEdge Occident Mortal Oct 12, 2016 4:12 AM Its not a matter of tolerance, it is a matter of wilfull ignorance.

    Guided and also manufactured to a great degree by an MSM-fabricated matrix of misinformation at the behest of the fuckers pulling the strings. The disinterest in the morals of policy and action and their effect on millions of people both at home and abroad is quite jaw-dropping, and a sad reflection on how low society (not just in the US) has fallen.

    However Brexit proved all hope is not lost and sheeple can develop an awareness (probaly as a result of the intimidating bullshit they were being fed).

    Vote Trump 2016 sun tzu Occident Mortal Oct 12, 2016 6:00 AM Presstitutes have no shame or morals quadraspleen Occident Mortal Oct 12, 2016 6:17 AM Anonymous aren't any single bunch of anything, let alone a bunch of teenagers. That's the point. They are everyone and no-one. Lots of milsec white hats use their cover. Hell, a few of them are deep NSA and .gov peeps just pissed at the way their erstwhile "honourable" (yeah, right) agencies have been co-opted by crooks like her We no longer have statesmen. We have technocrats or "temporarily displaced bankers." Stranger_in_a_S... crazzziecanuck Oct 12, 2016 11:00 AM

    I wish you could say that was happening. I just don't see it at all. I see things getting worse, and it's this "business" mentality that is sucking the rest of us all down beneath the waves to drown.

    I tend to agree.

    Though just personal anecdote, in my career, I've seen this 'business mentality' at work, and it can be ugly.

    For instance, I was in the room, to hear the CFO and COO discuss how to 'reach the numbers' so that the COO would get his bonus. The decision in this case was to rid 100+ employees, many with decades of experience and accumulated skillsets, to reduce costs, hit the 'correct' bottom line for a quarter or two, and voila! Company 'hit the numbers' and COO gets his bonus...in addition to the already lucrative salary, well beyond what most would 'need'. Within a week of the bonus, he drives up in a flashy, new, red sportscar. Should have witnessed the rage many of the remaining, spared employees that had watched their friends/coworkers get axed and still remain unemployed; there were literally conversations about lighting that car on fire in the parking lot.

    There were similar decisions to gobble up local and other national competitor shops. Some were immediately shut down and everyone axed, but some with more glowing numbers that could be used to pad forecasts, were kept on for a short while. After saddling the company with immense debt to cover the acquisitions, boosting the sales and forecast figures 'on paper' for the foreseeable near future, he penned himself a nice, shiny résumé about 'increasing sales 4x in just a year' landed himself a different COO job in California and left. Soon thereafter, when the weight of everything crashed down (scarce employees, with little skill left to efficiently accomplish a quality product...both measures suffering/declining), those acquisitions were shut down and the original company is now scarcely a shadow of what it was, thereby causing more layoffs and terminations. Now the $150 million +/year company, with 900 employees, is a $10 million/year company, with 200 employees.

    But that COO? He's living it up in CA, several companies later, and my periodic checkup on the 'net shows he's done similarly a few more times, yet entrenched in the network of corporate boards/COOs that still perpetuate this scheme. Contrary to 'building' anything, they construct a false narrative and tear everyone down in the process. But he and his cohorts get rich.

    No, not everyone at that level does this, but the incentives are such that it is very tempting to follow suit and a review of corporate history in this nation shows it is/was quite typical over many decades...because it works for those that engage this behavior.

    Sound familiar to U.S. policy abroad? michelp luckylongshot Oct 12, 2016 10:37 AM "The answer is to start studying what it takes to apply power productively and use the findings to select and train appropriate leaders."

    Sorry but! In the currupt USA run by zio and war machines any 'appropriate leader' is DOA (Dead on Arrival.) Donald J. Trump tbd108 Oct 12, 2016 3:58 AM As I'm sure there are some that put Ttump on a high horse, I think most Trump supporters are supporting him because of the exact reason they are fed up with system as aanonymous says. Trump is a big middle finger to the status quo of Washington politics. I for one hope he does as he says he will do to hopefully right the ship of the US. He may even sink the ship but it's going down already, he's our only chance to right it. What he's done takes a certain level of celebrity, balls, and money, and I can't think of another person who could do what he has done. As great a cure Trump may be for our country, there are some side effects so talk to your doctor to see if Trump is right for you. Dial 1(844)LIB-TARD or (855)LIB-TARD for a free sample of Trump.

    Btw- those phone numbers are available if someone could actually make a good use for it. I'm also interested if the other exchanges that are already taken have anything to with libtards.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Sexism and bigotry is probably ALL wrapped up in peoples economic plights

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    jrs October 12, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    of course sexism and bigotry is probably ALL wrapped up in people's economic plights. Back in the real world women put up with sexual harassment at work etc. because they need the income. Yes it's illegal, but it's not always enforced especially in the blue collar workplace. And yes Trumps comments were mostly about consensual stuff and if so arent' harassment. But sexism as such isn't actually separable from economics.

    ggm October 12, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    I heard it as consensual, too. Women "let me" grab them. Maybe I am more forgiving than others because I worked for a famous musician when I was younger and witnessed women throwing themselves at him constantly. Are we taking away the agency of women by assuming this was unwanted attention? Is it possible there are women who might have enjoyed the contact with him? Assuming he was even telling the truth in his statements.

    Monist Lisa October 13, 2016 at 12:46 am

    jrs and ggm
    +1000

    (didn't see yours before I posted above)

    hunkerdown October 12, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    You want people to be more concerned with sexism and bigotry than they are with their own economic plight.

    In other words, evangelicals starving people in order that they pray correctly for a bearable afterlife. Frankly, I'm getting sick of them too.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Will, Aggression and Plenty of Ignorance is exactly what it takes to put a good scar on the face of the most organized, high-level, well-connected, mob-operation run by the US government since the Shah of Iran

    Notable quotes:
    "... Do you want the willfully, aggressively ignorant on your side? ..."
    "... Would you choose purposely to select the most willfully wrong person to do any task for you for pay? ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    fajensen October 13, 2016 at 4:10 am

    Do you want the willfully, aggressively ignorant on your side?

    Would you choose purposely to select the most willfully wrong person to do any task for you for pay?

    1)Certainly: Will, Aggression and Plenty of Ignorance is *exactly* what it takes to put a good scar on the face of the most organized, high-level, well-connected, mob-operation run by the US government since the Shah of Iran.

    Trump "going over the top", thus attracting all the "fire", has set in motion a flood of leaks. Soon we will see defections when the rats see that the ship is indeed leaking and the water is getting close to their nest. Then there will be congress hearings, the hyenas sizing up which parts of the carcass they like to have when it dies, impeachment, several years of some progress for the little folks while the new management rebuilds the enterprise and re-tune the neglected Engine of Looting at the core.

    2)The only people doing any task for *me* *for pay* are the carpenter and the guy cleaning the drain. We have a deal: I don't care about their opinions and they don't complain over my coffee.

    You are a bit naive if you think any kind of leadership works for you. In the best situation, your interests are aligned with theirs, it looks like "working together". And since one does not look in the mouth of a gift horse, everyone are happy. Right now, "our interests" and "theirs" are blatantly opposed.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Anyone that says that Trump can not be in the White House better vote for Stein or Johnson otherwise they are giant hypocrites. Bill Clinton is a rapist and Hillary Clinton aided and abetted his history of abuse

    Notable quotes:
    "... I've never heard anyone say "grab them by the pussy" but I have heard young college males talk about porn in a college library loud enough for me to hear them 2 tables over. I've heard detail accounts of what they want to do w/ girls they no. I just stared out them for a few minutes but it was clear that they did not care about my opinion or that they were in the library. ..."
    "... St. Claire is right. Anyone that says that Trump can not be in the White House better vote for Stein or Johnson otherwise they are giant hypocrites. Bill Clinton is a rapist and Hillary Clinton aided and abetted his history of abuse. ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    AnEducatedFool October 12, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    Who has said that it was right?

    I've never heard anyone say "grab them by the pussy" but I have heard young college males talk about porn in a college library loud enough for me to hear them 2 tables over. I've heard detail accounts of what they want to do w/ girls they no. I just stared out them for a few minutes but it was clear that they did not care about my opinion or that they were in the library.

    I spent much of my childhood around athletes. The higher you go up the food chain the more crass the comments. I was never in a football locker room but baseball and basketball were pretty terrible. I played at the national level in AAU and spent a lot of time around traveling baseball players. They were into drugs and girls. The comments were reprehensible and they have not changed much behind closed doors. I'm 34 now.

    My brother is older and his friends have all said horrible things when no women were around. I was typically the voice of reason which made me a target for gay bashing. I'm straight but since I did not see the need to devalue women I was asked if I was gay.

    St. Claire is right. Anyone that says that Trump can not be in the White House better vote for Stein or Johnson otherwise they are giant hypocrites. Bill Clinton is a rapist and Hillary Clinton aided and abetted his history of abuse.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Were the US intelligence agencis the source of grabbing pussy tape for Clinton compaign as a way to protect funding

    Notable quotes:
    "... 2018 and 2020 will be interesting indeed, assuming HRC hasn't started WW3 by then. ..."
    "... Speaking of which, Ray McGovern warns against the sabre-rattling over Syria and the calls for "no fly zones" in CounterPunch today: ..."
    "... For instance, Russian defense spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov warned on Oct. 6 that Russia is prepared to shoot down unidentified aircraft – including any stealth aircraft – over Syria. It is a warning that I believe should be taken seriously ..."
    "... It's true that experts differ as to whether the advanced air defense systems already in Syria can bring down stealth aircraft, but it would be a mistake to dismiss this warning out of hand. Besides, Konashenkov added, in a telling ex-ante-extenuating-circumstance vein, that Russian air defense "will not have time to identify the origin" of the aircraft. ..."
    "... In other words, U.S. aircraft, which have been operating in Syrian skies without Syrian government approval, could be vulnerable to attack with the Russian government preemptively warning that such an incident won't be Moscow's fault. ..."
    "... Bush & Cheney & Co were horrific enough with their neocon games in the Mideast, but their actions seem mild compared with the latest anti-Russian lunatic talk by Clinton and her neocon pals. Really scary. ..."
    "... Yes the entire situation with out-of-touch imperialist aristocrats blindly blundering their way to Sarajevo Aleppo has a very reminiscent feel to it…an easy chapter to write in the future history books. ..."
    "... This should terrify everyone. I wish we would elect someone who says we should sit down and talk to our biggest rivals, not just provoke them to world war. But oh I forgot he said vulgar things about women 15 years ago. ..."
    "... sexual misconduct in the oval office-while president ..."
    "... while being the leader of our country! ..."
    "... I have a hierarchy of reactions to issues and I just can't seem to put vulgar language above the ultimate vulgarity of world war for profit. ..."
    "... I can't seem to care more about people with hurt feelings than people with their heads blown off because a Saudi billionaire or arms manufacturer just had to have some more ka-ching. There is nothing more vulgar than that. ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Bush family tranditionaly is very well connnected with CIA and they are not fund of Trump, that's for sure...

    Pavel October 12, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    re WikiLeaks: adding to the endless hypocrisy and double standards over Trump's "grabbing pussy" remarks and HRC & Co's behaviour:

    * Hillary herself wondered about extrajudicially killing Assange by droning. In what world is that considered permissible?

    * It seems that the Clinton campaign's Catholic "outreach" person was involved in a prostitution ring. So that's all good.

    I'm starting to think Trump might yet pull this off. The Clinton camp must be terrified and trying desperately to see what else might come out. If only Bernie had agreed to run with Jill Stein… I honestly think they might have won. In any case the Republican party is going down in flames, and after the Podesta leaks the Dems will have absolutely ZERO credibility and not much of a mandate. 2018 and 2020 will be interesting indeed, assuming HRC hasn't started WW3 by then.

    Speaking of which, Ray McGovern warns against the sabre-rattling over Syria and the calls for "no fly zones" in CounterPunch today:

    We analysts were responsible for picking up warnings from Moscow and other key capitals that the U.S. news media often missed or downplayed, much as the major news outlets today are ignoring the escalation of warnings from Russia over Syria.

    For instance, Russian defense spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov warned on Oct. 6 that Russia is prepared to shoot down unidentified aircraft – including any stealth aircraft – over Syria. It is a warning that I believe should be taken seriously .

    It's true that experts differ as to whether the advanced air defense systems already in Syria can bring down stealth aircraft, but it would be a mistake to dismiss this warning out of hand. Besides, Konashenkov added, in a telling ex-ante-extenuating-circumstance vein, that Russian air defense "will not have time to identify the origin" of the aircraft.

    In other words, U.S. aircraft, which have been operating in Syrian skies without Syrian government approval, could be vulnerable to attack with the Russian government preemptively warning that such an incident won't be Moscow's fault.

    –Russian Throws Down the Gauntlet: Fly at Your Own Risk

    Bush & Cheney & Co were horrific enough with their neocon games in the Mideast, but their actions seem mild compared with the latest anti-Russian lunatic talk by Clinton and her neocon pals. Really scary.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 12, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    Yes the entire situation with out-of-touch imperialist aristocrats blindly blundering their way to Sarajevo Aleppo has a very reminiscent feel to it…an easy chapter to write in the future history books.

    This should terrify everyone. I wish we would elect someone who says we should sit down and talk to our biggest rivals, not just provoke them to world war. But oh I forgot he said vulgar things about women 15 years ago.

    Jess October 12, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    "Why do so many men claim that's what men do typically (not universally)?"

    Because it's usually true of most men at one time or another in their lives. For all the talk (and the reality) about women being treated as second rate, they do have enormous power; the power to reject. And reject they do. You can be the nicest guy in the world, but if you're not her type, if there's no chemistry or you're not her "caliber", down in flames you go. It's not necessarily mean on her part, it's just reality. And it's not just looks or money that is a consideration. You can be a nice, successful guy at a time in her life when she's attracted to the rebellious, slightly "dangerous", exciting "bad boy".

    This can be frustrating. And it's magnified when you grow up being taught that you can do anything if you just try hard enough. But that's just it; you can't. Guys want to be rich and successful (like Trump) or rich/successful/famous, because that's the inside track to the most elite women. Except that even then, it's no guarantee. Look at all the women who wouldn't get involved with Trump if they were marooned on an island and he was the only man. All his fame, all his money, and They. Just. Aren't. Interested. And it's the same with virtually every guy whose name isn't Tom Brady. So like I said, it breeds frustration - sometimes soul-crushing frustration - which is displayed in crude anger.

    hunkerdown October 12, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    Jess, and, thanks to political correctness, there are a dwindling number of venues where one might seek to build lateral relationships, especially of the romantic or life partner sort, and a dwindling amount of discretionary time to spend in those venues. Never mind the most elite women - ten-year-olds with bottle-blonde updos and optional silicone-enhanced "chopped chicken parts" are actually kinda gross - the less elite but still very aspirational Modern woman's standards and policies are too high (unrealistic, as the less aspirational might put it) for the life partner market to clear without externalizing something.

    "Because it's usually true of most men at one time or another in their lives."

    And therefore SIN, or whatever the symbol manipulators might prefer to call it, and therefore PENANCE (payable in 3 easy installments), and THEN absolution. We do know how path dependence cramps the American liberal's style and their group narcissism.

    "When we're an empire, we create our own reality."

    crittermom October 12, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    Jess–
    It works both ways. Men also have the power to reject, & they do.

    Your own wording of "that's the inside track to the most elite women" (my emphasis) seems to say that a woman must be beautiful in figure and face to attract a man.
    So what's different about a woman wanting a man who is nice looking with a nice body?
    None.
    It's just two different views, depending on gender.

    Regarding what Trump supposedly said/did many years ago, even as a woman, I still find the fact Hellary's husband was engaged in sexual misconduct in the oval office-while president -even more disgusting.

    I saw/see that as a huge slap in the face and a big FU to the entire nation that he would conduct himself in such a way while being the leader of our country!
    He couldn't even keep it zipped while sitting in the WH? How dare he!

    At least Trump wasn't our freakin' PRESIDENT when he said/did those things.

    Yet Bill's behavior is still a 'hush-hush' subject because he's a Clinton, it seems. (Or because people don't want to be on that 'Clinton' list and disappear?)

    No, I do not support Trump or his actions or manners or ego.
    But since it's being made such a big deal, then I'd like to see all the facts about Bill brought up again in the way he acted while leading this country.

    THEN maybe all these 'distractions' would end and we could get down to policies!
    Until then, which it appears will never happen, this 'election' is a sick joke, at best.

    JTMcPhee October 12, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    Just for fun and some context, "Philandering Presidents": http://www.funtrivia.com/en/World/Philandering-Presidents-13741.html

    human October 12, 2016 at 4:52 pm

    It's a great big, diverse world out there. Saudi women can be beheaded for saying, "no," and western women are castigated for saying, "yes."

    Once again, it's all about the distraction.

    Pavel October 12, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Yes, but at least Hillary has come out boldly against the Saudi persecution of women, gays, and other races, has denounced the Saudi genocide in Yemen, and fought vigorously as Secretary of State to ensure arms including cluster bombs and white phosphorus were not sold to a regime with such a dreadful human rights record. And the Clinton Foundation displayed their "whiter than white" sense of ethics by returning the millions of dollars of Saudi donations.

    And Trump's words from 11 years ago were much worse than anything the Saudis did, in any case.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 12, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    I have a hierarchy of reactions to issues and I just can't seem to put vulgar language above the ultimate vulgarity of world war for profit.

    Try as I might, I can't seem to care more about people with hurt feelings than people with their heads blown off because a Saudi billionaire or arms manufacturer just had to have some more ka-ching. There is nothing more vulgar than that.

    [Oct 13, 2016] I am surprised that Trump is not making the Podesta Wikileaks into a major story.

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ProNewerDeal October 12, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    I am surprised that Trump is not making the Podesta Wikileaks into a major story. Perhaps Trump is not earnestly trying to actually win, or Trump is a Bush43/Palin level low IQ person.

    Trump & his media spokeshacks could repeat "Podesta Wikileaks show HClinton's actual 'private position' is cut SS & MC, & pro-TPP. Trump will not cut SS & MC, & will veto TPP. Vote for Trump". Even if Trump is lying, Trump could "pull an 0bama 2008 on NAFTA" & privately tell PRyan/Trump BigFunders/Owners Trump's actual plan.

    IMHO Trump could possibly win if he took such an approach. Why isn't he doing so?

    [Oct 12, 2016] Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Oct 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    (Busy with nurturing some illness, please bear with me.)

    Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via The Intercept ):

    [Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...

    Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.

    The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an 2014 email to Clinton. As introduction Podesta notes:"Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.":

    While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

    Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.

    [Oct 12, 2016] There are so many pussies around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Lavrov: Well, I don't know whether this would ... English is not my mother's tongue and I don't know whether - I don't know - whether I would sound - I mean - decent. There are so many pussies around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment. ..."
    "... Reflecting different national usages, cunt is described as "an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, whereas Merriam-Webster indicates that it is a "usually disparaging and obscene" term for a woman[1] or an "offensive way to refer to a woman" in the United States. ..."
    "... So Lavrov's not only a diplomat, he knows a little comedy too. :) He's one of the most interesting people in government today. ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    ... ... ...

    The Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in a recent interview with CNN's Amanpour:

    Amanpour: Russia had its own Pussy Riot moment. What do you think of Donald Trump's pussy riot moment?

    Lavrov: Well, I don't know whether this would ... English is not my mother's tongue and I don't know whether - I don't know - whether I would sound - I mean - decent. There are so many pussies around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment.

    Ghostship | Oct 12, 2016 1:22:10 PM | 11

    CitizenKane123 | Oct 12, 2016 12:02:27 PM | 4
    Pussies are soft, warms and comfortable. I think what Lavrov really meant was:
    There are so many cunts around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment.
    It should be noted that British English and American English have different definitions for the C word, and I suspect Lavrov understands that. From Wikipedia:
    Reflecting different national usages, cunt is described as "an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, whereas Merriam-Webster indicates that it is a "usually disparaging and obscene" term for a woman[1] or an "offensive way to refer to a woman" in the United States.
    Although I would suggest that the OED does understate the strength of the word somewhat.
    Qoppa | Oct 12, 2016 1:23:23 PM | 12
    PS I really start liking Lavrov. He has class!
    JethroZeppelin | Oct 12, 2016 2:18:52 PM | 19
    "There are so many pussies around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment."

    So Lavrov's not only a diplomat, he knows a little comedy too. :) He's one of the most interesting people in government today.

    bbbb | Oct 12, 2016 2:35:12 PM | 22
    Podesta - what a clown! Is there some rulebook about Presidents having to be protestant, while all the shady puppetmasters are zionist catholics or zionist zionists?

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-podesta-left-wing-activist-plot-catholic-spring/

    [Oct 12, 2016] NYT, WaPo, CNN and friends are not press . They are propaganda outlets of the neoliberal elite

    Notable quotes:
    "... They were in active collusion with the 1990s Clinton campaigns too, but I didn't have Wikileaks around to confirm it, or the internets for alternative sources of information. I suspected it anyway. I finally cut the cord after 2002. ..."
    "... Well the NYT, WaPo, CNN et al have shot themselves in the foot with this blatant collusion with the Clinton campaign. They've pissed off their most intelligent readers & viewers, shown themselves to be knaves and fools, and what are they going to say when HRC is president and investigated up the wazoo for corruption? ..."
    "... If you defeat Trump, you prevail over one guy. When Clinton is defeated, you win over all those 'with her.' ..."
    "... Yes… But leverage much higher than 100:1… Not just MSM, but banks, neocons, corrupt ceo's, and all these alphabet groups keeping us safe… Hopefully he'd be vindictive against all the elites trying to defeat him. ..."
    "... Some combination of "it's a Russian plot" and "we told you so." The MSM - they know everything. ..."
    "... NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public. If Hillary can get an 11 point lead over a salacious story that affects almost nobody and yet get no drop in popularity over revelations that will affect everyone's lives, I don't think there is much hope that the NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al, will get their comeuppance. But Americans who drink in what these MSM sites are feeding them WILL get the President they so obviously deserve, won't they? ..."
    "... Yes, it's the public's fault… despite being subject to the most brutal propaganda campaign in history and being assaulted by years of neoliberalism that barely gives them time to breathe between their three zero-hour contract jobs, it's their fault and they deserve a president who will grand-bargain away their social security benefits, TPP away the few remaining good jobs and start a civilisation-threatening war with Russia. ..."
    "... And just for the record (/sarc), HRC only has an 11-point lead because most people won't be voting anyway, as they've correctly surmised that the system is completely rigged against them. ..."
    "... I have not seen the data on that poll but I doubt that it is a "scientific poll". Many of the polls that I have taken the time to look at the data shows that they avoid asking 35 and under voters and heavily skew the data set to democrats. Lee Camp from Redacted Tonight has also shown this on his TV show on RT. Those even ruskies. ..."
    "... Stupid Bloomberg headlines I never clicked on: The Trump Video Would Get Most CEOs Ousted. No doubt. But so would running their own private server outside the company system, then destroying emails in response to a Congressional subpoena. ..."
    Oct 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 7:05 am

    Stupid NYT headlines I never clicked on:

    Trump's Bluster Erodes Democracy, Experts Say

    When I hear the trigger word "experts," I reach for my revolver.

    jgordon October 11, 2016 at 7:45 am

    NYT: the toilet paper of record. In yet another Wikileaks dump it's come out that they're in active collusion with Hillary's campaign. How anyone is still dumb enough to believe the lies they're alwaus putting out is beyond me.

    Really, it's fine to be biased lackeys for the rich and powerful as long as you're honest about it. Pretending to be unbiased arbiters of truth while doing that though is pathetic.

    These media presstitutes are so rancidly despicable that I want to throw up whenever I think of them. Newspapers and the rest of the media: want to know why you're going bankrupt? It's not the internet–it's because every day more and more people are clued into the fact that you are pathetic lying scum. In my mind these media people are in the same exact category as child molesters.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 7:52 am

    If it were a little softer, yeah, it would work for that. But it's disgusting getting ink on your butt.

    Ed October 11, 2016 at 8:32 am

    They were in active collusion with the 1990s Clinton campaigns too, but I didn't have Wikileaks around to confirm it, or the internets for alternative sources of information. I suspected it anyway. I finally cut the cord after 2002.

    Pavel October 11, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Well the NYT, WaPo, CNN et al have shot themselves in the foot with this blatant collusion with the Clinton campaign. They've pissed off their most intelligent readers & viewers, shown themselves to be knaves and fools, and what are they going to say when HRC is president and investigated up the wazoo for corruption?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 11, 2016 at 10:06 am

    If you defeat Trump, you prevail over one guy. When Clinton is defeated, you win over all those 'with her.'

    For any leverage kind of person, that's a potential 100-bagger right there.

    John k October 11, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    Yes… But leverage much higher than 100:1… Not just MSM, but banks, neocons, corrupt ceo's, and all these alphabet groups keeping us safe…
    Hopefully he'd be vindictive against all the elites trying to defeat him.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Some combination of "it's a Russian plot" and "we told you so." The MSM - they know everything.

    justanotherprogressive October 11, 2016 at 10:23 am

    NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public. If Hillary can get an 11 point lead over a salacious story that affects almost nobody and yet get no drop in popularity over revelations that will affect everyone's lives, I don't think there is much hope that the NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al, will get their comeuppance. But Americans who drink in what these MSM sites are feeding them WILL get the President they so obviously deserve, won't they?

    RabidGandhi October 11, 2016 at 11:54 am

    Yes, it's the public's fault… despite being subject to the most brutal propaganda campaign in history and being assaulted by years of neoliberalism that barely gives them time to breathe between their three zero-hour contract jobs, it's their fault and they deserve a president who will grand-bargain away their social security benefits, TPP away the few remaining good jobs and start a civilisation-threatening war with Russia.

    And just for the record (/sarc), HRC only has an 11-point lead because most people won't be voting anyway, as they've correctly surmised that the system is completely rigged against them.

    AnEducatedFool October 11, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    I have not seen the data on that poll but I doubt that it is a "scientific poll". Many of the polls that I have taken the time to look at the data shows that they avoid asking 35 and under voters and heavily skew the data set to democrats. Lee Camp from Redacted Tonight has also shown this on his TV show on RT. Those even ruskies.

    polecat October 11, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    'Little Big Horn' (Wurlitzer) Syndrome …..

    ggm October 11, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Just watched a documentary on the murder of Kitty Genovese. It sure made me think there has been a culture of corruption at the New York Times for decades, enabled by outside journalists refusing to question them for whatever reason (intimidation, careerism…).

    beth October 11, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    jgordon, did I miss a link above or could you give me a link to the Wikileaks reference? Thanks. I need to pass this along to a friend.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 7:49 am

    Stupid Bloomberg headlines I never clicked on: The Trump Video Would Get Most CEOs Ousted. No doubt. But so would running their own private server outside the company system, then destroying emails in response to a Congressional subpoena.

    [Oct 12, 2016] Breaking: DNC Chief Donna Brazile Leaked Sanders Info to Clinton Campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | observer.com
    WikiLeaks hack reveals DNC's favoritism as Clinton staff in damage control over Hillary's support for DOMA

    On October 10, Wikileaks released part two of their emails from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.

    Friday, Wikileaks released their first batch of Podesta's emails, which included excerpts from Clinton's Wall Street transcripts that reaffirmed why Clinton refused to release them in full. During the second presidential debate, Clinton confirmed their authenticity by attempting to defend one statement she made in the speech about having a public and private stance on political issues. She cited Abraham Lincoln, a defense comparable to her ridiculous invocation of 9/11 when pressed on her ties to Wall Street during a Democratic primary debate.

    The latest release reveals current DNC chair Donna Brazile, when working as a DNC vice chair, forwarded to the Clinton campaign a January 2016 email obtained from the Bernie Sanders campaign, released by Sarah Ford, Sanders' deputy national press secretary, announcing a Twitter storm from Sanders' African-American outreach team. "FYI" Brazile wrote to the Clinton staff. "Thank you for the heads up on this Donna," replied Clinton campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod.

    The second batch of emails include more evidence of collusion between the mainstream media and Clinton Campaign.

    One email , received by prolific Clinton donor Haim Saban, was forwarded to Clinton staff, praising the friendly moderators in the early March 2016 Democratic primary debate co-hosted by Univision in Florida. "Haim, I just wanted to tell you that I thought the moderators for last nights Debate were excellent. They were thoughtful, tough and incisive. I thought it made Hilary appear direct and strong in her resolve. I felt it advanced our candidate. Thanks for Univision," wrote Rob Friedman, former co-chair of the Motion Picture Group.

    Another email discusses planting a favorable Clinton story in The New York Times in March 2015. "NYT heroine. Should she call her today?" Podesta wrote to other Clinton campaign staffers with the subject line 'Laura Donohoe.' "I do think it's a great idea! We can make it happen," replied Huma Abedin. The story they referred to is likely " In New Hampshire, Clinton Backers Buckle Up," published in The New York Times on March 12, 2015 about Laura Donohoe, a retired nurse and Clinton supporter in New Hampshire.

    John Harwood, New York Times contributor and CNBC correspondent, regularly exchanged emails with Podesta-communicating more as a Clinton surrogate than a journalist.

    In an October 2015 email thread, Clinton staff were in damage control over Hillary's support for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Hillary Clinton would not disavow her support for it. "I'm not saying double down or ever say it again. I'm just saying that she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance."

    Former Clinton Foundation director, Darnell Strom of the Creative Artist Agency, wrote a condescending email to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard after she resigned from the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders , which he then forwarded to Clinton campaign staff. "For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton," wrote Strom.

    A memo sent from Clinton's general counsel, Marc Elias of the law firm Perkins Coie, outlined legal tricks to circumvent campaign finance laws to raise money in tandem with Super Pacs.

    In a March 2015 email , Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook expressed frustration DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired a Convention CEO without consulting the Clinton campaign, which suggests the DNC and Clinton campaign regularly coordinated together from the early stages of the Democratic primaries.

    [Oct 12, 2016] If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to record the conversations we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedys attitudes toward poontang . Meanwhile, nary a word about we came, we saw, he died , as it apparently is just peachy to destroy a country if you want to tick killing an autocrat who is not in the USs pocket off your bucket-list.

    Notable quotes:
    "... If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to get a hidden tape spool running, we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedy's attitudes toward "poontang". ..."
    "... Anyway, if HRC actually broke the law… shouldn't she face prosecution? I know some people (at amconmag, as it happens) have called for members of the Bush administration to be put on trial. Over here, the demand for Blair to be tried at the Hague for war crimes is now a tired old Left cliche. Obviously, it would be new to demand punishment for the loser just for losing, but that isn't the context here. ..."
    "... Looking at the FB timelines of my 'professional class' milquetoast 'progressive' acquaintances in the US (who all gravitas/te towards Vox), who have since this weekend become unglued, this is very much a case of people deliberately goading themselves into frenzies, tumbling over one another in their attempts to win an apparent virtue-signalling-contest. ..."
    Oct 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    casmilus 10.11.16 at 8:59 am 17
    "For months, I've been beating the drum of the non-novelty of Donald Trump, but try as I might, even I can't remember a presidential candidate caught on tape bragging about assaulting women and grabbing pussy."

    If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to get a hidden tape spool running, we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedy's attitudes toward "poontang".

    Anyway, if HRC actually broke the law… shouldn't she face prosecution? I know some people (at amconmag, as it happens) have called for members of the Bush administration to be put on trial. Over here, the demand for Blair to be tried at the Hague for war crimes is now a tired old Left cliche. Obviously, it would be new to demand punishment for the loser just for losing, but that isn't the context here.

    Foppe 10.11.16 at 9:39 am 19
    Looking at the FB timelines of my 'professional class' milquetoast 'progressive' acquaintances in the US (who all gravitas/te towards Vox), who have since this weekend become unglued, this is very much a case of people deliberately goading themselves into frenzies, tumbling over one another in their attempts to win an apparent virtue-signalling-contest.

    Meanwhile, nary a word about "we came, we saw, he died", as it apparently is just peachy to destroy a country if you want to tick 'killing an autocrat who is not in the US's pocket' off your bucket-list.

    Foppe 10.11.16 at 10:14 am 20
    To put it bluntly, looking away and excusing evils one "understands" and thinks one can "contain" (except insofar as it affects non-nationals and the bottom 30-40% , anyway, but who cares about them) because the "other side" is perceived to be "more" evil/disruptive/threatening to the status quo is a pattern of behavior that disturbs me far more than the behavior of the other side, however nasty that may be.

    [Oct 12, 2016] Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Oct 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    (Busy with nurturing some illness, please bear with me.)

    Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via The Intercept ):

    [Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...

    Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.

    The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an 2014 email to Clinton. As introduction Podesta notes:"Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.":

    While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

    Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.

    [Oct 12, 2016] Yes, Trump Has Destroyed The GOP

    Rod Dreher hysterics became pretty annoying. He dooes not want to understand that Hillary Clinton is a stuach neocon warmonger, has poor helath, can be impeached even after winning due to emailgate and her platform is actually more of a moderate republican, then a democrat. She is completly in the pcket of major Walll street bank and enjoys this status.
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Back in May, Michael Lind penned what I still think is the most insightful essay describing what's happening, and what is going to happen, in US politics after this year. With the Left having won the culture war, the parties of the future will be a nationalist GOP vs. a multiculturalist, globalist Democratic Party. Excerpt:

    The outlines of the two-party system of the 2020s and 2030s are dimly visible. The Republicans will be a party of mostly working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort-programs like Social Security and Medicare. But they will tend to oppose means-tested programs for the poor whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.

    They will oppose increases in both legal and illegal immigration, in some cases because of ethnic prejudice; in other cases, for fear of economic competition. The instinctive economic nationalism of tomorrow's Republicans could be invoked to justify strategic trade as well as crude protectionism. They are likely to share Trump's view of unproductive finance: "The hedge-fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky."

    The Democrats of the next generation will be even more of an alliance of upscale, progressive whites with blacks and Latinos, based in large and diverse cities. They will think of the U.S. as a version of their multicultural coalition of distinct racial and ethnic identity groups writ large. Many younger progressives will take it for granted that moral people are citizens of the world, equating nationalism and patriotism with racism and fascism.

    The withering-away of industrial unions, thanks to automation as well as offshoring, will liberate the Democrats to embrace free trade along with mass immigration wholeheartedly. The emerging progressive ideology of post-national cosmopolitanism will fit nicely with urban economies which depend on finance, tech and other industries of global scope, and which benefit from a constant stream of immigrants, both skilled and unskilled.

    [Oct 12, 2016] If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to get a hidden tape spool running, we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedy's attitudes toward "poontang". Meanwhile, nary a word about "we came, we saw, he died", as it apparently is just peachy to destroy a country if you want to tick 'killing an autocrat who is not in the US's pocket' off your bucket-list.

    Oct 12, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    casmilus 10.11.16 at 8:59 am 17

    "For months, I've been beating the drum of the non-novelty of Donald Trump, but try as I might, even I can't remember a presidential candidate caught on tape bragging about assaulting women and grabbing pussy."

    If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to get a hidden tape spool running, we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedy's attitudes toward "poontang".

    Anyway, if HRC actually broke the law… shouldn't she face prosecution? I know some people (at amconmag, as it happens) have called for members of the Bush administration to be put on trial. Over here, the demand for Blair to be tried at the Hague for war crimes is now a tired old Left cliche. Obviously, it would be new to demand punishment for the loser just for losing, but that isn't the context here.

    Foppe 10.11.16 at 9:39 am 19

    Looking at the FB timelines of my 'professional class' milquetoast 'progressive' acquaintances in the US (who all gravitas/te towards Vox), who have since this weekend become unglued, this is very much a case of people deliberately goading themselves into frenzies, tumbling over one another in their attempts to win an apparent virtue-signalling-contest.

    Meanwhile, nary a word about "we came, we saw, he died", as it apparently is just peachy to destroy a country if you want to tick 'killing an autocrat who is not in the US's pocket' off your bucket-list.

    Foppe 10.11.16 at 10:14 am 20

    To put it bluntly, looking away and excusing evils one "understands" and thinks one can "contain" (except insofar as it affects non-nationals and the bottom 30-40% , anyway, but who cares about them) because the "other side" is perceived to be "more" evil/disruptive/threatening to the status quo is a pattern of behavior that disturbs me far more than the behavior of the other side, however nasty that may be.

    [Oct 12, 2016] The Case for a Two-Faced Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent." ..."
    "... Even the liberal Harvard Law School … ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The New Republic

    "In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making.

    Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."

    timbers October 11, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    The Trail

    "The Case for a 'Two-Faced' Hillary Clinton" [The New Republic]. "In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making. Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."

    I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent."

    Yikes:

    "We therefore hold that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured,' the court said" … PHH said the law creating the CFPB gave an unaccountable director too much authority."

    Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any case brought regarding NSA spyiny?

    allan October 11, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    "Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any case brought regarding NSA spyiny?"

    Unfortunately, this very same judge has a long history on those issues,
    including time in the Bush Cheney White House before getting a lifetime appointment on the bench,
    and for the most part it's not pretty. Emptywheel has an entire archive devoted to him.

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    This segues into an argument in favor of voting for Hillary Clinton that I can't rebut: Republicans appoint bad people to both the Executive branch and to the Judiciary, but Democrats only appoint bad people to the Executive branch. Therefore, one should vote for Hillary Clinton, Democrat. I've oversimplified the argument, but in general, that's what some people have told me, and I don't have a good counter argument.

    That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Clinton. She's a crook. I'll either leave the Presidential part of the ballot blank, or vote for Stein, despite my great annoyance over some of the things that Ajamu Baraka has said.

    nippersmom October 11, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    Merrick Garland, Obama's latest nominee, is pro-Ciizen's United, so not sure how "good" he is. Conventional wisdom about Democratic vs. Republican appointees to the bench would seem suspect to me in a day when the Overton window has shifted so far to the right that the Democratic candidate for President is more conservative, more pro-business, more hawkish, and less environmentally responsible than Richard Nixon,

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    I challenge you to find any Democratic judicial appointments of the past 3 decades that are as bad as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or Samuel Alito.

    As for Garland, he's not good, but he's certainly not as bad as any Republican nominee would be. And he hasn't even been confirmed.

    nippersmom October 11, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    Hillary is surrounding herself with exactly the same cast of characters as those who appointed the judges you name. Why do you think her taste in justices will be any different than her taste in policy advisors or potential cabinet members?

    After Clinton signs the TPP, the Supreme Court will be moot anyway.

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Obama's Executive branch appointments have been dismal, but his judicial appointments seem to be better - Sotomayor and Kagan. Bill Clinton appointed Breyer and Ginsburg. None of these 4 judges is remotely like Scalia.

    I strongly suspect that Hillary Clinton would nominate similar judges.

    We definitely don't want the TPP to pass. We need to keep the pressure on Congress, so we don't have to worry about what a President might do.

    I reiterate: there are many things wrong with Clinton, and I will not vote for her.

    I appreciate the feedback.

    allan October 11, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    Sotomayor has been great, but Kagan has been a mixed bag. She voted (in a losing dissent, along with Scalia, Kennedy and Silent Clarence) , to allow Sarbanes-Oxley to be used against a fisherman for throwing his catch overboard. She was to the right of Roberts on this one.
    Even the liberal Harvard Law School …

    marym October 11, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    Clinton's first "appointment," first in the line of succession, Tim Kaine, is pro-TPP, pro-Hyde Amendment, anti-labor (pro-right-to-work-for-nothing), and pro-intervention in Syria.

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 4:51 pm

    Tim Kaine would be in the Executive branch, not the Judiciary.

    timbers October 11, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    Know what you mean but try asking people who bring up judges as the reason to vote blue, why should we believe that when Dems can't even deliver on judges when their nominee is a REPUBLICAN for goodness sakes? Then take exaggerated offense at being expected to settle for so LITTLE .

    Just a suggestion.

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    I appreciate the feedback. However, I don't think it's clear that Garland is a Republican. Prior to nominating him, there were trial balloons from the White House suggesting that Republican Brian Sandoval of Nevada would be chosen.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 11, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    A good counter argument is this: Hillary is a Republican.

    WJ October 11, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    The New Republic piece is a festering pile of shit, and I intend that phrase as purely descriptive account of the object.

    This is a woman who with her husband earned over $139 MILLION DOLLARS in paid speeches to the .1%–the OLIGARCHY–between 2007-2014 ALONE!

    And yet the cretin of a human being calling himself the author of this "piece" [of shit] chooses to insult my intelligence–yea, even perpetrate fraud upon the species!–by pretending as if this UNQUESTIONABLE FACT is simply IRRELEVANT to Clinton's "nuanced"–[insert sounds of my heaving vomit]–distinction between her public and private position. A DISTINCTION THAT WOULD ITSELF HAVE BEEN WITHHELD FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD IF IT HAD NOT BEEN LEAKED BY WIKILEAKS, THE FOUNDER OF WHOM SHE HAS PROPOSED BE MURDERED BY DRONE STRIKE!!

    No, MY PROBLEM, YOUR PROBLEM, ANYBODY'S PROBLEM with this avaricious sociopathic warmongering ulcerous wretch is–MUST BE–that she is a WOMAN?!

    "As substantively defensible-even virtuous-as dealmaking can be, taking this tack runs the risk of confirming the public's worst fears about Clinton: that she's dishonest and lacking in core conviction. That notion, which has a gendered element to it…." [but might also perhaps not be unrelated to her long history of manipulation, lying, stealing, backstabbing, fraud, embezzlement, fraud, more lying, murder, more murder, more fraud]…

    Fuck it. The oligarchy doesn't even have to be good at "public relations" anymore. Might as well get ahead of the curve and move to Brazil.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    The "gendered element" canard hyperlinks to a WaPo article containing this statement from one of the interviewees:

    "Research on gender stereotypes has shown that women are often perceived as more honest than their male counterparts."

    Meaning that even with a head start thanks to favorable bias, Hillary is still perceived as deceitful.

    Heckuva job, Hillary.

    Prufrock October 11, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    PHH is horrible. They purchased my mortgage last year, and started forclosure proceedings within the 60 day grace period while my autopayment was still going to the previous servicer (as allowed by law). Their customer support in Asia lied repeatedly, and when I starting informing them that I would record the calls, they would hang up or refuse to talk to me.

    They finally acknowledged their error after 3-4 calls (particularly once I found out I had to keep asking for a supervisor until I was connected to the US), but it was a huge waste of my time.

    john k October 11, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    It was actually a great investment of your time.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Four legs good, two legs bad - photo of a fetching young centaur from Comic Con in NYC:

    http://tinyurl.com/zyujq3q

    Not to be confused with COMECON, the trade pact among the eastern bloc during Soviet days.

    allan October 11, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Nor to be confused with ECOMCON .

    ambrit October 11, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Nor the 'Necrotelecomnicon.' The handy guide to contacting H Clinton's core advisor circle. As for which precise 'circle' (of H-,) H Clintons advisors come from; opinions are divided.

    [Oct 11, 2016] The US Surrendered Its Right To Accuse Russia Of War Crimes A Long Time Ago

    Looks like Obama in working overclock to ensure the election of Trump ... anti-Russian hysteria might have results different that he expects. Whether we are to have a world of sovereign nation-states or one in which a single imperial superpower contends with increasingly fragmentary post-national and sub-national threats around the globe will depend on the decisions that are made in the near future: in the next few years.
    Oct 11, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Renowned journalist Glenn Greenwald recently tweeted the three rules of American exceptionalism :

    3 rules of US Exceptionalism: 1) Our killing is better than theirs; 2) Nothing we do can be "terrorism"; 3) Only enemies are "war criminals"

    - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 6, 2016

    Greenwald's astute observations were presumably made in response to Secretary of State John Kerry's recent remarks that both Russia and Syria should face war crimes investigations for their recent attacks on Syrian civilians.

    "Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals, and medical facilities, and women and children," Mr. Kerry said in Washington, where he spoke alongside French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, as reported by the Independent .

    Unsurprisingly, Russia responded by urging caution regarding allegations of war crimes considering the United States has been waging wars in a number of countries since the end of World War II. It has picked up a number of allegations of war crimes in the process.

    Kerry's continuous accusations that Russia bombed hospital infrastructure are particularly hypocritical in light of the fact the United States has bombed hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan on more than one occasion over past decade.

    Further, former congressman Ron Paul's Institute for Peace and Prosperity hit back at Kerry, accusing him of completely fabricating the most recent alleged hospital attack. As the Institute noted :

    " In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution, he said ( vid @1:00) about Syria:

    "'Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women. These are acts that beg for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held accountable for these actions.'

    " No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every claimed casualty and is frequently cited in 'western media,' has not said anything about such an event anywhere in Syria. "

    However, the most disturbing aspect of Kerry's allegation is that the accusations against Russia run in tandem with Saudi Arabia's brutal assault on Yemen. Saudi Arabia, with the aid of a few regional players - and with ongoing American and British assistance (not to mention billion dollar arms sales ) - has been bombing Yemen back into the Stone Age without any legal basis whatsoever. Often, the Saudi-led coalition has completely decimated civilian infrastructure, which has led a number of groups to accuse the coalition of committing war crimes in the process.

    Civilians and civilian infrastructure have been struck so routinely that the world has become increasingly concerned the actual targets of the coalition strikes are civilians (what could be a greater recruitment tool for al-Qaeda and ISIS in Yemen?) As noted by Foreign Policy :

    "The Houthis and their allies - armed groups loyal to Saleh - are the declared targets of the coalition's 1-year-old air campaign. In reality, however, it is the civilians, such as Basrallah and Rubaid, and their children, who are predominantly the victims of this protracted war. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in airstrikes while asleep in their homes, when going about their daily activities, or in the very places where they had sought refuge from the conflict. The United States, Britain, and others, meanwhile, have continued to supply a steady stream of weaponry and logistical support to Saudi Arabia and its coalition."

    Yemen is the poorest , most impoverished nation in the Arab world . The Saudi-led coalition has been striking refugee camps , schools , wedding parties and well over 100 hospitals to date . The coalition has been strongly suspected of using banned munitions such as cluster bombs. The country now has more than half a million children at serious risk of malnutrition . More than 21 million out of the total population of 25 million are in serious need of basic humanitarian assistance .

    Just take one example of the cruel and disproportionate use of force that Saudi Arabia has used in Yemen (using American-made and supplied aircraft and weapons) - against Judge Yahya Rubaid and his family. As Foreign Policy reported in March of this year:

    "According to family members, Rubaid was a judge on a case against Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, for treason in absentia. It is unclear whether his house was attacked for this reason. What is clear, however, is that there was no legally valid basis for bombing his home, as he and his family were civilians and under international law should not have been deliberately targeted."

    At the time this article's publication, over 140 Yemenis had been killed and another 500 injured in a Saudi-coalition aerial attack on a funeral over the weekend. The civilian death toll continues to rise in Yemen, completely unchallenged by any major players at the U.N. When the U.N. does attempt to quell Saudi actions , the Saudis threaten severe economic retaliation.

    How Kerry can accuse Russia of committing war crimes in Syria with a straight face is unclear, as reports of atrocious crimes committed in Yemen continue to surface.

    This is not to say Russia and Syria should not be investigated for war crimes – but maybe, just maybe, we could live in a world where everyone responsible for committing these gross acts could be held accountable, instead of just those who pose an economic threat to the West . Mango327 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 3:47 PM

    If Russia Acted Like The USA...
    http://youtu.be/uhqZFWDeaB4
    SidSays 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 3:50 PM
    All wars are, well...

    All wars are banker's wars .

    Katos 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 4:35 PM
    Madeline Albright, "Yes, I think the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 years old by US sanctions, was a good price that had to be paid so we could get to Sadam Hussein "??? This bitch along with Kissinger, Soros, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and all the news organizations who have been cheerleaders for the slaughter of innocents should all be charged with Crimes against humanity and SHOT!
    PrayingMantis Oct 11, 2016 3:39 PM

    ... US: "Who you gonna believe, us or your own eyes" ~ Groucho Marx

    Ignatius PrayingMantis Oct 11, 2016 3:58 PM

    "Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- John Kerry, 197x

    That was the supposed anti-war Kerry speaking of the Vietnam War, who rode such comments into a congressional seat. We didn't know then that he was Skull and Bones or what it might mean. Now we know it in spades.

    Now it's clear he's just a lying sack of war mongering, deep state shit.

    crazybob369 Oct 11, 2016 3:45 PM
    To quote Goebbels:

    "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

    Chupacabra-322 crazybob369 Oct 11, 2016 4:44 PM
    Goebbels used "Gas Lighting" as a form of Psychological manipulation on a population on a mass scale. Operation Mocking Bird. It continues on today. 365 days a year, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week. The Psyche Warefare / PsyOp War does not clos
    Felix da Kat Oct 11, 2016 4:03 PM
    There is an assumption that Russia would never go to war with the US over the Syrian dispute. But yet, Russia is preparing for war. It has both first-strike and counter-strike capability in the event the west (US State Dept.) continues with its bullying tactics and further escalates its hostility. Russia is a sovereign nation; it has both the right and the power to do what is in the best interests of its citizenry and its allies (Assad).

    The US used to be that way until it was over-run in a silent, but effective liberal-coup that has taken full control and stupidly re-newed the cold war with Russia.

    And now America has been left more vulnerable that it ever has been. A simple shut-down of the electric grid for several months, will, by itself, cut the population in half.

    Ultra-liberalism is ultra self-destructive... we're about to see just how destructive that really is.

    Kyddyl Oct 11, 2016 4:07 PM
    Well this is a refreshing start, but only a start. Russia certainly had nothing to do with the gunships that bombed the hospitals in Afghanistan into powder, killing patients including children, doctors, nurses and other personell.

    I for one would like to know who it was who flew those planes and have them explain to all of us why they did not refuse orders? What sort of morals have Americans got to behave ths way? The hospitals bombed in Syria, ditto. The Saudis are the beasts they are and somebody needs to bomb them into oblivion. (Perhaps take out some other smug financial centers too!) But Yemen is a very poor sandy country to begin with and Saudi must think there's oil or something there. If some of the weapons used there weren't tactical nukes they sure looked like them. Gee. Wonder where they got them?

    . . . _ _ _ . . . Oct 11, 2016 4:16 PM
    Chomsky's been saying it for decades, "If they do it, they're terrorists; if we do it, we're freedom fighters."

    My take is that if you are the head of a government, you are a psychopath and any categorization beyond this is moot.

    Clinton / Trump, Obama / Putin, Assad / Erdogan, UN / Nationalism, whoever it may be, they're all playing the same game, and we're not even allowed to watch, much less comment.

    The only thing trickling-down (through a historical perspective) should be blood.

    taketheredpill Oct 11, 2016 4:26 PM

    A cynical person might suggest that the volume of US War Drums is inversely proportional to the strength of the US economy.

    It's as if the boys at the top

    1) know the economy is already in the toilet

    2) know that the next financial meltdown is going to be a real hum-dinger

    3) know that the unwashed masses will need a really big distraction when the next meltdown hits

    [Oct 11, 2016] On the ongoing demise of globalisation

    Notable quotes:
    "... But if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking advantage of cheap labour not commodities - whilst simultaneously reducing industrial capacity at home - today's global imbalances could result in a very different type of correction (something which may or may not be happening now). ..."
    "... The immediate consequence may be the developed world's desire to engage in significant industrial on-shoring. ..."
    "... I'm not convinced the end of globalization and the retrenchment of banking industry are the same thing. There are some things that can't be exp/imported. Maybe we just got to the point where it didn't make sense to order moules marinieres from Brussels!? ..."
    "... You forget the third leg - reducing the price of labour for services via immigration of labour from poorer countries. On top of the supply-and-demand effects, it reduces social solidarity (see Robert Putnam) - of which trades union membership and activity is one indicator. It's a win-win for capital. ..."
    Oct 11, 2016 | ftalphaville.ft.com
    10 comments
    According to strategists Bhanu Baweja, Manik Narain and Maximillian Lin the elasticity of trade to GDP - a measure of wealth creating globalisation - rose to as high as 2.2. in the so-called third wave of globalisation which began in the 1980s. This compared to an average of 1.5 since the 1950s. In the post-crisis era, however, the elasticity of trade has fallen to 1.1, not far from the weak average of the 1970s and early 1980s but well below the second and third waves of globalisation.

    ... ... ...

    The anti-globalist position has always been simple. Global trade isn't a net positive for anyone if the terms of trade relationships aren't reciprocal or if the trade exists solely for the purpose of taking advantage of undervalued local resources like labour or commodities whilst channeling rents/profits to a single central beneficiary. That, they have always argued, makes it more akin to an imperialistic relationship than a reciprocal one.

    If the latest wave of "globalisation" is mostly an expression of American imperialism, then it does seem logical it too will fade as countries wake-up to the one-sided nature of the current global value chains in place.

    Back in the first wave of globalisation, of course, much of the trade growth was driven by colonial empires taking advantage of cheap commodity resources abroad in a bid to add value to them domestically. When these supply chains unravelled, that left Europe short of commodities but long industrial capacity - a destabilising imbalance which coincided with two world wars.

    Simplistically speaking, resource rich countries at this point were faced with only two options: industrialising on their own autonomous terms or be subjugated by even more oppressive imperialist forces, which had even grander superiority agendas than their old colonial foes. That left those empires boasting domestic industrial capacity but lacking natural resources of their own, with the option of fighting to defend the rights of their former colonies in the hope that the promise of independence and friendly future knowledge exchanges (alongside military protection) would be enough to secure resource access from then on. But if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking advantage of cheap labour not commodities - whilst simultaneously reducing industrial capacity at home - today's global imbalances could result in a very different type of correction (something which may or may not be happening now).

    The immediate consequence may be the developed world's desire to engage in significant industrial on-shoring.

    But while reversing the off-shoring trend may boost productivity in nations like the US or even in Europe, it's also likely to reduce demand for mobile international capital as a whole. As UBS notes, global cross border capital flows are already decelerating significantly as a share of GDP post-crisis, and the peak-to-trough swing in capital inflows to GDP over the past ten years has been much more dramatic in developed markets than in emerging ones:

    Related likes:
    How do you solve a problem like de-globalisation? – FT Alphaville
    As goes correspondent banking, so goes globalisation – FT Alphaville
    There is a war for capital coming, says UBS – FT Alphaville
    Prepare for the Post Pax-Americana era, says Citi – FT Alphaville

    Refractious

    To note, in China trade as a % of GDP fell from 65% in 2006 to 42% in 2014. The relationship between trade and GDP is in reality more variable than is usually claimed.

    Knockmacool

    I'm not convinced the end of globalization and the retrenchment of banking industry are the same thing. There are some things that can't be exp/imported. Maybe we just got to the point where it didn't make sense to order moules marinieres from Brussels!?

    labantall

    "if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking advantage of cheap labour not commodities - whilst simultaneously reducing industrial capacity at home"

    You forget the third leg - reducing the price of labour for services via immigration of labour from poorer countries. On top of the supply-and-demand effects, it reduces social solidarity (see Robert Putnam) - of which trades union membership and activity is one indicator. It's a win-win for capital.

    Terra_Desolata 5pts Featured
    11 hours ago

    The simple problem with globalization is that it was based off economic views which looked at things in aggregate - but people are individuals, not aggregates. "On average, GDP per person has gone up" doesn't do anything for the person whose income has gone down. "Just think about all the people in China who are so much better off than they used to be" isn't going to do much for an American or European whose standard of living has slipped from middle class to working class to government assistance.

    "Redistribution" is routinely advertised as the solution to all of this. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out how to redistribute wealth from the areas that have prospered the most (Asia, particularly China) to the individuals (primarily in the West) who have lost the most. In the absence of any viable redistribution scheme, though, I suspect the most likely outcome will be a pulling back on globalization.

    Meh... 5pts Featured
    11 hours ago

    @ Terra_Desolata The aggregates also do apply to countries - i.e. the US on aggregate has benefited from globalisation, but median wages have been stagnant in real terms, meaning that the benefits of globalisation have not been well distributed across the country (indeed, companies like Apple have benefited hugely from reducing the costs of production, while you could make the case that much of the benefits of lower production costs have been absorbed into profit margins).

    That suggests that redistribution can occur at the country level, rather than requiring a cross-border dimension.

    Terra_Desolata 5pts Featured
    8 hours ago
    @ Meh... @ Terra_Desolata Yes, there has been uneven distribution of income within countries as well as between them - but as the Panama Papers revealed, in a world of free movement of capital, incomes can also move freely between borders. (See: Apple.) While the U.S. has lower tolerance than Europe and Asia for such games, any attempts at redistribution would necessarily include an effort to keep incomes from slipping across national borders, which would have the same effect: a net reduction in globalization.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Why is the electorate seemingly more concerned with someone who is antagonistic towards certain women than someone whose policies are antagonistic to whole nations and regions

    Notable quotes:
    "... If nothing else, the I'm-with-her whole hog approach of the media to this election should put the lie to the notion that we have anything resembling a functioning press. ..."
    "... Additionally, the blind adherence by the press to Hillary's spin that Trump would put her in jail amounts to a dictatorship ignores the fact that previous to that statement Trump had said he would push for a special prosecutor. IOW, a completely legalized, judicially approved criminal investigation. ..."
    "... I agree about the press becoming so bought over by Hillary. Watched some speech Trump was giving a month or so ago and he talked about Iraq as I recall and the press totally spun it into some different meaning altogether. Funny thing was the next day Trump was giving another speech which I also happened to see and made mention of what he said the day before and what the press turned his comment into – from that point on I became very leery of believing anything they tell me. I too was amazed that almost immediately last night the press began reporting that Trump was talking to a dictatorship by saying he wanted her in jail when in fact that was completely taken out of context as well (as you mentioned above). ..."
    "... I think the press has become very scary with all the power it has to twist the truth or what has been said as easily and quickly as they do. They must be very frightened by Trump. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    David Carl Grimes October 10, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    Why is the electorate seemingly more concerned with someone who is antagonistic towards certain women than someone whose policies are antagonistic to whole nations and regions. Why aren't the Wikileaks email revelations getting more traction or generating more outrage?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 10, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    Um do you think the fact that Pravda CNN is extolling the virtues of the One Party Candidate nonstop has anything to do with it?

    pretzelattack October 10, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    oh i thought the post was pravda and the nyt izvestia. but then there's the guardian and cnn and the rest of the sad industry.

    OIFVet October 10, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    That's capitalism for ya :)

    ProNewerDeal October 10, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    True. BigMedia is barely covering the Wikileaks story. My summary is that HClinton has a fake "public position" & a genuine private position, that is pro-Grand Ripoff SS & MC cuts, & pro-TPP. It should be a huge story, in that it calls as questionable any of HClinton's stated policies, & given that Sanders repeatedly made the Wall $treet transcripts a major issue in the Primaries.

    It takes a USian with intellectual curiosity, some free time, & enough critical thinking to go to one of the few internet sources like nakedcapitalism or SecularTalk that actually will cover the Wikileaks story honestly. IMHO sadly this is a small minority of the US eligible voter population.

    BTW for Sanders to maintain my respect, he needs to "make news" in BigMedia by saying something like "my support of HClinton is contingent on her 'public position' the approves the 2016 D party platform, which is anti-TPP & anti-SS & MC cuts. If HClinton is elected & signs the TPP or SS/MC cuts, she will be strongly primary challenged in 2020, & I will not support her if the Rs ever impeach her"

    sleepy October 10, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    If nothing else, the I'm-with-her whole hog approach of the media to this election should put the lie to the notion that we have anything resembling a functioning press.

    Just one example–I listened to some Clinton operative on msnbc radio today who was giving his weaselly spin on Hillary's private position v. public position statement and who said that it was only a few sentences out of an entire speech and needed to be viewed in context. Chuck Todd, I think it was, never made note of the fact that there is no context to those statements since the speeches have not and will not be released. There is no available context and Chuck just muttered uh huh and let it pass.

    Additionally, the blind adherence by the press to Hillary's spin that Trump would put her in jail amounts to a dictatorship ignores the fact that previous to that statement Trump had said he would push for a special prosecutor. IOW, a completely legalized, judicially approved criminal investigation.

    Susan C October 10, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    I agree about the press becoming so bought over by Hillary. Watched some speech Trump was giving a month or so ago and he talked about Iraq as I recall and the press totally spun it into some different meaning altogether. Funny thing was the next day Trump was giving another speech which I also happened to see and made mention of what he said the day before and what the press turned his comment into – from that point on I became very leery of believing anything they tell me. I too was amazed that almost immediately last night the press began reporting that Trump was talking to a dictatorship by saying he wanted her in jail when in fact that was completely taken out of context as well (as you mentioned above).

    I think the press has become very scary with all the power it has to twist the truth or what has been said as easily and quickly as they do. They must be very frightened by Trump.

    [Oct 10, 2016] She made millions using the power of her office. Why dont you put some of your own money into your campaign? Just curious

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Lambert Strether Post author October 9, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    TRUMP She made millions using the power of her office. Why don't you put some of your own money into your campaign? Just curious

    optimader October 9, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    smile (grimace)

    Titus Pullo October 9, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    That was probably the best attack of the night, and Clinton looked completely flummoxed, almost like she couldn't believe he went there with her. And then she jumped up so quick to re-direct.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 9, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    I lost most of that exchange because the damn video cut out.

    > She made millions using the power of her office

    Teachout's operational definition of corruption. I imagine we'd see plenty of crony capitalism under Trump (thinking back to Halliburton, et al, under Bush II). I don't know whether that would be more or less corrosive than Clinton's style of corruption.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Trump for all Americans even those who are deplorables in the eyes of Wall street banksters

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 9, 2016 at 10:16 pm

    Trump for all Americans?

    Even those Deplorables? He says he is for them.

    John October 9, 2016 at 10:16 pm

    Clinton knows he is wounding her.
    You can see it in her face.

    Sammy Maudlin October 9, 2016 at 11:23 pm

    The most telling moment in that regard for me was when he brought up Sidney Blumenthal. She looked, "anticipatory?" When he said he was a "bad guy" her eyes opened wide, got a visible lump in her throat and had to swallow the nervous energy. That relationship is a weak point for her.

    JohnnyGL October 10, 2016 at 1:10 am

    You might be right. That makes some sense. I believe the original Guccifer hack was on Sidney Blumenthal's email address and he found out about Clintonemail by reading Sid's emails back and forth with her.

    Also, keep in mind Sidney Blumenthal's son Max is involved in the BDS movement (I think) or at least speaks out against Israeli apartheid (using that term) and does do some interesting reporting.

    With Clinton openly courting Netanyahu, might be a sore point.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Question to Radditz: Do you know there is a humanitarian crisis in Libya

    Notable quotes:
    "... Cooper consistently tried to cross-examine Trump with follow up questions and "so your saying" statement characterizations. Trump generally wouldn't let him. I saw nary an example of said behavior with HRC. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    Question to Radditz: Do you know there is a humanitarian crisis in Libya????????????
    How do you think that happened?????
    If not,your a disgrace.
    If you do, your biased ..
    Why don't you ask about libya

    Its not the questions asked, its the ones not asked

    optimader October 9, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    alleppo is already rubble
    http://www.boredpanda.com/before-after-war-photos-aleppo-syria/

    Sammy Maudlin October 9, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    Cooper consistently tried to cross-examine Trump with follow up questions and "so your saying" statement characterizations. Trump generally wouldn't let him. I saw nary an example of said behavior with HRC.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 9, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    [outage]

    RADDATZ Quotes Pence, we should be prepared to use military force.

    TRUMP We haven't spoken and I disagree.

    [That's actually reasonably clear].

    [Oct 10, 2016] O thank God – finally, finally Trump makes an intelligent, irrefutable point -- our policy of supporting rebels in Syria is stupid.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I've also seen an interview where Hersh praised Obama for not going through with the planned airstrikes (which were apparently going to be massive as drawn up). But he also criticized Obama for not coming clean with the public and saying "we're not attacking Assad because the rebels launched the gas attack, not Assad." ..."
    "... Did you use the loophole? ..."
    "... Of course. Just like her friends. I understand the tax code better than anyone. Hillary has friends that want all these provisions. Hillary is leaving carried interest. I used it. As did Buffet, Soros . I love depreciation. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Lambert Strether Post author October 9, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    Q Images out of Aleppo. State Dept calls for war crimes investigation

    FB If you were President, what about Aleppo. Isn't it like the Holocaust?

    CLINTON We need leverage with the Russians because they won't come to the table w no leverage. Work more closely with partners and allies on the ground.

    Issue is ambition and aggressiveness of Russia. They've decided who they want to be President, and its not me. I did cooperate, which is how we got the nuke treaty. But I do support a war crimes investigation.

    TRUMP The so-called line in the sand.

    CLINTON I was gone

    TRUMP Obama draws the line in the sand, laughed at. She talks tough but our nuclear program is old and tired [!!!]. Bad thing. Every time we take rebels we're arming people. And they end up being worse! Almost everything she's done has been a disaster ..

    A treaty with Russia, look at the deal, Iran and Russia are against us. I don't like Assad at all. But he's killing ISIS. As is Russian and

    RADDATZ What would you do? Pence: Provocations by Russian need to be met. Should be prepared to use force.

    TRUMP He and I haven't spoken and I disagree (!!)

    TRUMP I believe we have to get ISIS.

    RADDATZ What happen if Aleppo falls?

    TRUMP Already has. Look at Mosul. We telegraphed our attack and all the leaders left!

    RADDATZ Some times there are reasons military does things [drips contempt]

    TRUMP Why would we tell them? All I say is this: Patton and MacArthur are spinning in their graves

    RADDATZ You want Assad to go, arming rebels, too late for Aleppo, would you introduce force?

    CLINTON Not American ground forces. Our troops should not hold territory. Use special forces. Use enablers and trainers.

    RADDATZ What would you do different?

    CLINTON I hope we will have pushed ISIS out of Iraq. A lot of planning going on. To signal Sunnis and Peshmerga they need to be involved. I would target Bagdadi. Let's arm the Kurds. Kurdish and Arab fighters on the ground.

    JohnnyGL October 10, 2016 at 12:53 am

    Can we call in Sy Hersh for a "fact check" on Obama's "red line"? http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

    I've also seen an interview where Hersh praised Obama for not going through with the planned airstrikes (which were apparently going to be massive as drawn up). But he also criticized Obama for not coming clean with the public and saying "we're not attacking Assad because the rebels launched the gas attack, not Assad."

    none October 9, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    This one never gets old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc

    Jeremy Grimm October 9, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Sorry - I still won't vote for Hillary even if she did kill the terrorist with her personal weapon. Can she disassemble and and reassemble that weapon wearing a blindfold!?

    Lambert Strether Post author October 9, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    COOPER Did you use the loophole?

    TRUMP Of course. Just like her friends. I understand the tax code better than anyone. Hillary has friends that want all these provisions. Hillary is leaving carried interest. I used it. As did Buffet, Soros . I love depreciation.

    If she has a problem, for thirty years she hasn't been doing anything. It's all talk. Again, Bernie Sanders, bad judgment. Her and Obama, the vacuum they left, that formed ISIS. Congratulations.

    CLINTON Here we go again. In favor of getting rid of 30 years.

    TRUMP If you were an effective Senator you could have gotten it done.

    CLINTON Under our constitution we have a thing called veto power [drips contempt].

    CLINTON CHIP, 10 millino kids. Adoption. First responder help after 9/11. Kids medicine (dosage?). As SoS go around the world advocate. Negotiated Russian nuke treaty. 400 pieces of legislation have my name on ias sponsor or co-sponsor.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Oh those Democrats, always searching for moderates such as moderate republicans, moderate syrian rebels .

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    jonf October 9, 2016 at 10:28 pm

    Scalia was a great justice. Trump will select more like him. Oh goody, That seals my vote.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 9, 2016 at 10:45 pm

    Ugh. Scalia. Of course, Obama nominated a moderate Republican

    JohnnyGL October 10, 2016 at 1:17 am

    Oh those Democrats, always searching for 'moderates' .moderate republicans, moderate syrian rebels .

    RUKidding October 9, 2016 at 10:28 pm

    Trump: Scalia was a great judge. Ugh.
    2d Amendment is under siege

    jaaaaayceeeee October 9, 2016 at 10:29 pm

    Hillary Clinton praises about not raising taxes on those who make $250,000, about cutting deficits, surpluses, the USA getting Russia and Syria prosecuted for war crimes, and I think didn't mention the public option for ACA.

    Trump is pathetic and Clinton is scary.

    [Oct 10, 2016] . Looks like the political class has made up its mind on Aleppo.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton stated "no fly zone" in Syria. Could no one prepare Trump for this so he could make the simple point that a NFZ means shooting down Russian planes? Then he could have asked Americans: "do you want Clinton as President and gamble she won't start a nuclear war?" ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    reslez October 9, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    And what's the deal with the female moderator debating Trump on Syria? That seemed really out of line.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 9, 2016 at 10:29 pm

    Yes, Raddatz became a participant there. Looks like the political class has made up its mind on Aleppo.

    EoinW October 9, 2016 at 10:43 pm

    Clinton stated "no fly zone" in Syria. Could no one prepare Trump for this so he could make the simple point that a NFZ means shooting down Russian planes? Then he could have asked Americans: "do you want Clinton as President and gamble she won't start a nuclear war?"

    Trump did well on the supreme court question – someone who will follow the Constitution. Such an old fashion sentiment.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Where were the questions to Hillary?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Chekov said something like: "If you show a gun in Act One, make sure it goes off in Act Three." So, Act One was bringing in Bill Clinton's accusers. But then nothing. Odd. ..."
    "... * Interesting comment from the analyst after, something like: "I was talking to Trump voters in Ohio. They say they know exactly who he is" (and from the analyst's tone, that wasn't positive with respect to his character. I think a lot of voters, across the spectrum, are appalled by the choices, which is what the trust/likeability numbers are telling us) ..."
    "... In retrospect, all the media questioning whether or not Trump would be effective in this kind of venue seems silly. Of course Trump can work a room. ..."
    "... When Trump says he will put Hillary in jail, what do you think his kids and wife see regarding a Clinton presidency? Will she go after her enemies? ..."
    "... Media going blatantly in the tank prob boosts turnout for trump. Cnn concedes trump did pretty well. Fox seems contented with him. Glad to see him break with pence on russia. Glad to see him say get isis, not assad. Aleo enjoyed him zinging clinton. ..."
    "... With all the Russian efforts to undermine our democracy I can only hope we return to paper ballots hand counted in front of skeptical witnesses to the process. ..."
    "... No mention of any laws broken by any previous presidents. No concerns about droning us citizens, no sweating any wars of opportunity. ..."
    "... Trump absolutely dominated this debate. Hillary was on the ropes all night. The moderation was pretty good too. ..."
    "... CNN directs us dweebs that this was a "contentious, nasty debate". It was contentious but aren't most debates like that? Nasty? Not that much. Sometimes but not as much as I thought it could be. ..."
    "... HuffPo headline: "Don in Flames" I think, all things considered, he did fine. Neither one is offering any serious or meaningful solutions to anything we need. ..."
    "... On the other had, HRC kept treating the debate like the white-shoe lawyer she is. "Refer to my website" = "I filed a brief on this." No one reads either. Too much relying on subtle distinctions. Worst of all, most of the time she speaks with no passion or genuineness. This is death to a lawyer speaking to a jury. ..."
    "... She wants the debate to be like a federal class action case with multiple motions and lengthy affidavits and briefs that the Judge's top-of-their-law-school-class clerks will dissect and recommend a decision upon. ..."
    "... The genius of this is that Trump is the device through which all of the real arguments against Clinton, the ones relating to criminal conduct and atrocious policy, are symbolically cleansed, ritually bled out. Trump as the public's cry for contrition and oh, how she has suffered for her vanity! Yet she is redeemed through him. She has crossed the pit of burning hard drives and she is sorry for her sins, but after all, America is nothing if not a forgiving nation. ..."
    "... Once again we see America will get the president it deserves. The world? Not so much. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    John October 9, 2016 at 10:40 pm

    Where were the questions about the 30 million illegals?
    About the H-1B sand Greencard foreigners taking our jobs?
    About health care we can't afford?
    About corporations paying no taxes?
    About people killing themselves with heroin because they have no hope,
    no way out of poverty?

    Kurt Sperry October 9, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Trump did better than the first debate, where I thought he was destroyed. I'm not sure who won, both were pretty repulsive. I really, really dislike the both of them, whether on policies or on personality.

    RUKidding October 9, 2016 at 10:44 pm

    Agree. Both are liars. Trump handled himself better than expected.

    justanotherprogressive October 9, 2016 at 10:45 pm

    It doesn't matter who won. The pundits will spend several days telling you who won and that your eyes and ears are lying again….
    Frankly, from the comments above, it is pretty obvious America was embarrased again……glad I didn't watch it……

    Lambert Strether Post author October 9, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    No contrition from Trump, either, even though that's what the establishment wants (not that any amount of contrition would work).

    Which makes sense: 1) His base doesn't care 2) Backing down would be worse than gutting it out, because backing down would make him look weak, destroying his brand.*

    Chekov said something like: "If you show a gun in Act One, make sure it goes off in Act Three." So, Act One was bringing in Bill Clinton's accusers. But then nothing. Odd.

    * Interesting comment from the analyst after, something like: "I was talking to Trump voters in Ohio. They say they know exactly who he is" (and from the analyst's tone, that wasn't positive with respect to his character. I think a lot of voters, across the spectrum, are appalled by the choices, which is what the trust/likeability numbers are telling us).

    John October 9, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    It was to rattle Hillary. And she did look uncomfortable, uneasy, all night. Didn't help her.

    relstprof October 9, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Once the crowd reacted positively to his "33K emails" attacks, he calmed down. I got the sense he decided he didn't have to go low, since there were some in the room still on his side.

    In retrospect, all the media questioning whether or not Trump would be effective in this kind of venue seems silly. Of course Trump can work a room.

    I'd score it a tie, though.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 9, 2016 at 11:45 pm

    When Trump says he will put Hillary in jail, what do you think his kids and wife see regarding a Clinton presidency? Will she go after her enemies?

    Is that kabuki or profile in courage?

    Kim Kaufman October 9, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    NPR doing "fact check." They hate Trump.

    johnnygl October 9, 2016 at 10:51 pm

    Media going blatantly in the tank prob boosts turnout for trump. Cnn concedes trump did pretty well. Fox seems contented with him. Glad to see him break with pence on russia. Glad to see him say get isis, not assad. Aleo enjoyed him zinging clinton.

    He's still an idiot and has terrible policy ideas.

    Jeremy Grimm October 9, 2016 at 11:30 pm

    With all the Russian efforts to undermine our democracy I can only hope we return to paper ballots hand counted in front of skeptical witnesses to the process.

    crittermom October 10, 2016 at 12:34 am

    With all the talk about 'the Russians did it", I'm tempted to write in Putin just to p*ss off the Dems! (but I won't) Both candidates suck worse than a tornado.

    johnnygl October 9, 2016 at 11:10 pm

    Cnn people very much on edge. Dana bash breathless at trump saying he'd put her in jail. Said that's what makes us different than African dictators, stalin and hitler. I'm not kidding.

    No mention of any laws broken by any previous presidents. No concerns about droning us citizens, no sweating any wars of opportunity.

    RUKidding October 9, 2016 at 11:17 pm

    You expected truth from CNN? Good effen luck w that.

    Roger Smith October 9, 2016 at 11:10 pm

    Trump absolutely dominated this debate. Hillary was on the ropes all night. The moderation was pretty good too.

    RUKidding October 9, 2016 at 11:20 pm

    CNN directs us dweebs that this was a "contentious, nasty debate". It was contentious but aren't most debates like that? Nasty? Not that much. Sometimes but not as much as I thought it could be.

    megamike48 October 9, 2016 at 11:24 pm

    The clearest indication of character is what people find laughable. J.W. von Goethe

    Kim Kaufman October 9, 2016 at 11:36 pm

    HuffPo headline: "Don in Flames" I think, all things considered, he did fine. Neither one is offering any serious or meaningful solutions to anything we need. It was, unfortunately, just some lame entertainment and both remain equally unlikable and untrustworthy and unhelpful.

    Sammy Maudlin October 10, 2016 at 12:02 am

    Watching this I kept thinking that Trump has been working with trial lawyers to prepare.

    He used a lot of tricks trial lawyers use to influence juries. One, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story (i.e. Why didn't you as one of 100 senators change the tax code? Answer: "if she was an effective senator she could have"). Another is make the jury think the judge is biased against you. The main one is put the black hat on your opponent and keep it there. Jury trials are pretty simple affairs that way, the big thing is to make the other side the bad guy.

    On the other had, HRC kept treating the debate like the white-shoe lawyer she is. "Refer to my website" = "I filed a brief on this." No one reads either. Too much relying on subtle distinctions. Worst of all, most of the time she speaks with no passion or genuineness. This is death to a lawyer speaking to a jury.

    She wants the debate to be like a federal class action case with multiple motions and lengthy affidavits and briefs that the Judge's top-of-their-law-school-class clerks will dissect and recommend a decision upon.

    But it's not. It's an afternoon trial in front of a bunch of bored people sitting in a jury box in a hot county courthouse. "Smart" lawyers get creamed by savvy ones in that situation all the time. That's what I saw tonight.

    Fiver October 10, 2016 at 12:26 am

    Some low-watt bulb writing tomorrow is going to say 'This is how America does politics, does democracy. We let it all hang out. A big old barn burner. A national catharsis, a venting of pent-up emotion and frustration at some things in America and the world that just haven't worked out for everybody, no matter how hard we try. This is good for America, even necessary, in fact it's what makes us Americans. We deal with things and move on. Let all that poison out. And we move on. I'm inclined to think the third debate will be a much more civil affair.'

    The genius of this is that Trump is the device through which all of the real arguments against Clinton, the ones relating to criminal conduct and atrocious policy, are symbolically cleansed, ritually bled out. Trump as the public's cry for contrition and oh, how she has suffered for her vanity! Yet she is redeemed through him. She has crossed the pit of burning hard drives and she is sorry for her sins, but after all, America is nothing if not a forgiving nation.

    Raise your right hand, Mrs. Clinton, and repeat after me….no, your right hand, please…

    Tertium Squid October 10, 2016 at 1:17 am

    Once again we see America will get the president it deserves. The world? Not so much.

    [Oct 10, 2016] There's a lawsuit out there accusing Trump of raping somebody with known pederast Jeff Epstein

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    NY Union Guy October 10, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Not sure if this has made the rounds on NC yet, but there's a lawsuit out there accusing Trump of raping somebody with known pederast Jeff Epstein.

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/30/rape-allegations-refiled-against-trump.htm

    Will there be a November surprise in addition to the customary October surprise?

    Pat October 10, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Possibly, it will be interesting to see if the Clinton camp is going to use this, and if so how Bill will be protected. Could be a case of Mutually Assured Destruction.

    Kim Kaufman October 10, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Don't think Clinton can use this:

    The One Percent

    The Billionaire Pedophile Who Could Bring Down Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton

    "Trump's supporters have long wondered whether he'd use billionaire sicko Jeffrey Epstein as ammo against the Clintons-until a lurid new lawsuit accused The Donald of raping one of Epstein's girls himself."

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/30/the-billionaire-pedophile-who-could-bring-down-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton.html

    There's plenty other stuff if you google "Jeff Epstein" and "Bill Clinton"

    It's all pretty vile but not at all surprising for what these overage, entitled "stars" do behind the scenes.

    I never got a chance to respond to Yves' comment to my comment about Schwarzenegger a few days ago. Three women came forward to accuse him of groping (or whatever – I, mercifully, forget the details now). Arnold, with Maria standing dutifully by his side, publicly apologized and it all went away.

    My contention is that: 1) there were many, many more women who didn't come forward (the threat of never working again in Hollywood is very real – Arnold was represented by one of the most powerful and nastiest law firms) and 2) it all disappeared quickly from the media because Arnold was able to buy off and intimidate the media.

    But the stories I read in alternate media at the time were pretty awful. I can only imagine the lewd bragging Arnold did behind the scenes. Don't forget that Arnold was screwing the nanny and sired a child with her while the nanny was living under the same roof as him and Maria. "The rich are different than you and I."

    [Oct 10, 2016] DNC cronies bullying (that is the Democrat buzzword right?) Rep.Tulsi Gabbard

    Notable quotes:
    "... "You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign." ..."
    "... "How DARE you not give our Crown Princess the respect she deserves!" ..."
    "... financially squeeze those not with status quo… guess they object to woman patriots that want to serve "all the people"??…..telling ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Roger Smith October 10, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    DNC cronies bullying (that is the Democrat buzzword right?) Rep.Tulsi Gabbard for deciding to support Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. Dated February 29th, 2016

    "For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton."

    "You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign."

    Plenue October 10, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    "How DARE you not give our Crown Princess the respect she deserves!"

    Kim Kaufman October 10, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    How DARE you have an independent thought.

    Pat October 10, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    I sort of enjoy the typo in Podesta's intro to the forward, if not the sentiment aka gloating that a couple of CAA agents decided to punish Gabbard for supporting the better candidate. I mean they are clearly a couple of pigs.

    Roger Smith October 10, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    What was he trying to say? I was not familiar with that expression.

    Pat October 10, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    First off I got it wrong, it was Storm who forwarded his own email to Podesta and Clinton,
    but what he was trying to say was "Hammer dropped!"

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=drop%20the%20hammer

    But like I said Hammed as in hams works for me.

    Roger Smith October 10, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Oooooh! now that makes sense! I was wondering where the heck "Ham" came in haha

    rich October 10, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    financially squeeze those not with status quo… guess they object to woman patriots that want to serve "all the people"??…..telling

    [Oct 10, 2016] Now that we have in writing that Hillary has 2 positions on issues which she called a public and private position

    Notable quotes:
    "... For example, IMO now that we have in writing that Hillary has 2 positions on issues (a public and private position) it is 100% fair that debate moderators and the media ask Clinton aggressively which position she is giving in her responses – her public or private position? ..."
    "... If the media won't focus on the public/private position issue (and Obama did the same in 2008 regarding NAFTA, I recall), then Trump can force them to by putting that front and center in the debate. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    timbers October 9, 2016 at 11:31 am

    Not surprised, no. But IMO has definite implications.

    For example, IMO now that we have in writing that Hillary has 2 positions on issues (a public and private position) it is 100% fair that debate moderators and the media ask Clinton aggressively which position she is giving in her responses – her public or private position?

    Won't happen with our media, but IMO this should now be standard operating procedure for the media with regard to Hillary and would be completely fair, prudent, and necessary to inform the public and voters.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 9, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    The debate is setting up to be the mother of all debates.

    If the media won't focus on the public/private position issue (and Obama did the same in 2008 regarding NAFTA, I recall), then Trump can force them to by putting that front and center in the debate.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Debate Post-Mortem Trump Crushes Clinton - You Should Be In Jail

    Notable quotes:
    "... As a college educated white, I'm not thrilled with Trump; however I will vote for him as the last chance to prevent WW3 (that would begin almost immediately), thousands of Waco's and Ruby Ridge's, and the final clamp down by the American Stasi. As will my asian, latino, black, american indian, and other ethnic co-workers...college degree or not. ..."
    "... Hillary is the embodiment of the establishment evil. WE, my co-workers and I, want to kill it...by any means possible. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Brief Transcript:

    TRUMP: "Bernie Sanders and between super delegates and Debra Wassermann Schultz and I was surprised to see him sign on with the devil. The thing that you should be apologizing for are the 33,000 e-mails that you deleted and you acid washed and the two boxes of e-mails and other things last week that were taken from an office are are now missing. I didn't knowledge I would say this, but I'm going to and I hate to say it. If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation. There has never been so many lies, so much exception. There has never been anything like it. We will have a special prosecutor. I go out and speak and the people of this country are furious. The long time workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this with e-mails. You get a subpoena and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 e-mails and acid watch them or bleach them. An expensive process . We will get a special prosecutor and look into it. You know what, people have been -- their lives have been destroyed for doing 1/5 of what you have done. You should be a shamed."

    COOPER: "Secretary Clinton, I will let you respond."

    CLINTON: "Everything he said is absolutely false . It would be impossible to be fact checking Donald all the time. I would never get to talk and make lives better for people. Once again, go to Hillary clinton.com. You can fact check trump in realtime. Last time at the first debate we had millions of people fact checking and we will have millions more fact checking. It's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country."

    TRUMP: "Because you would be in jail."

    COOPER: " We want to remind the audience to please not talk out loud. Do not applaud. You are wasting time. "

    markmotive Pladizow Oct 9, 2016 11:24 PM

    Christine Hughes: Confidence in the establishment is eroding

    http://www.planbeconomics.com/2016/10/confidence-in-establishment-erodin...

    HedgeJunkie TheLooza Oct 10, 2016 12:39 AM

    As a college educated white, I'm not thrilled with Trump; however I will vote for him as the last chance to prevent WW3 (that would begin almost immediately), thousands of Waco's and Ruby Ridge's, and the final clamp down by the American Stasi. As will my asian, latino, black, american indian, and other ethnic co-workers...college degree or not.

    Hillary is the embodiment of the establishment evil. WE, my co-workers and I, want to kill it...by any means possible.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Hillary represents corrupt and half-competent status quo

    Notable quotes:
    "... I'll admit, as a woman, I was disgusted by the tapes, but I turned on the debate just in time for the question on Syria, and his answer won me back. Pence's foreign policy had me worried, but Trump was willing to disagree with him and once again be the only person talking any sense about this situation. The contrast of his Supreme Court answer to hers ("real world experience" can only be code for social justice activist judges) was icing on the cake. I think John Gruskos' theory may be right. Next debate, Trump needs to point out that Clinton has all the neocon war hawk endorsements, and that tells you all you need to know on foreign policy. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Anand , says: October 10, 2016 at 12:31 am
    Rod,

    I like the phrase corrupt and half-competent status quo . It captures the real problem we have- society has good reason for not trusting those of us in the elite, but in a real sense the very survival of society depends on experts… (how long would most of the country last if our systems for distributing food, water, power and money crashed?).

    -Anand

    CJ , says: October 9, 2016 at 11:16 pm
    Trump certainly won tonight. I don't know that it changes the trajectory of the race (he was losing before GEBTP) but it changes the speed. Hillary is counting on oppo dumps and ground game to see her through.
    Charles Cosimano , says: October 9, 2016 at 11:25 pm
    The answer to why Hillary did not deliver a knockout blow is simple. She doesn't have one. There is nothing Hillary could bring up that could end it for Trump.

    Or is anyone really stupid enough to think that tape matters to the voters? People have real things to worry about.

    John Gruskos , says: October 9, 2016 at 11:38 pm
    The establishment wants a war with Syria and Russia.

    They would prefer Hillary as their tool, but they they want to be 100% sure.

    So they tried to bluff Trump into dropping out, right after Pence announced his support for their planned war.

    But Trump can't be bluffed. He's holding a winning hand – his America First platform.

    Skeptic , says: October 9, 2016 at 11:39 pm
    One thing is clear: all networks should fire their political commentators and hire Scott Adams. And perhaps less clear, but is Trump delivering a death blow to political correctness with his bizarre persona and performance-art campaign? (Not to excuse him for being a grotesque human being.)
    Alex , says: October 9, 2016 at 11:44 pm
    I am not sure Trump won. He survived tonight. We have two liars: one is an idiot and another one is the most corrupted politician in the US history. Any other Democrat would have destroyed Trump. Any other Republican would have destroyed Hillary. What a nightmare.
    David B , says: October 9, 2016 at 11:48 pm
    Brit Hume tweeted something about Trump's performance making the lewd tape controversy "fade" and he got hammered by anti-Trumpers for saying so, but I think he's right. That's just the nature of our times–both the acceptance of coarseness, and the short memory of TV/Internet culture. Remember how people speculated that if Bill Clinton had been eligible to run for a third term he very well might have been elected? Heck his approval ratings were sky-high after the impeachment hearings aired all the sordid details out for public view!

    The main way Trump won was just by moving the debate forward from the tape stuff everyone was expecting. We were back to Muslim vetting, and fossil fuel energy, and the email scandals…. It really makes it feel like it's all just business as usual again.

    Rebecca , says: October 9, 2016 at 11:59 pm
    I'll admit, as a woman, I was disgusted by the tapes, but I turned on the debate just in time for the question on Syria, and his answer won me back. Pence's foreign policy had me worried, but Trump was willing to disagree with him and once again be the only person talking any sense about this situation. The contrast of his Supreme Court answer to hers ("real world experience" can only be code for social justice activist judges) was icing on the cake. I think John Gruskos' theory may be right. Next debate, Trump needs to point out that Clinton has all the neocon war hawk endorsements, and that tells you all you need to know on foreign policy.

    [Oct 10, 2016] An Election Of Leaks And Counter-Leaks

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's an election for and among the ruling class. ..."
    "... Scott Adams who has been right so far says Trump still has a clear path to victory. The media is just trying to blackpill everyone. Why should we believe them? They are saying Trump can't win because they said he can't win. ..."
    "... Somehow Clinton bragging about getting a pedophile off the hook is OK? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc CLinton will start WW III. Trump may do so. What a choice. ..."
    "... For nearly a generation now there have been decent candidates for US president who would, to a greater or lesser degree, have opposed our increasingly corrupt and violent oligarchy. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jill Stein, Rick Santorum ... and many more you haven't heard of. The elites have perfected a system of taking them down, with no messy assassination. Ridicule them in the press, don't cover their positions, just their style, find a flaw or mis-statement and hammer hammer hammer until people believe that they are ridiculous, then ban them from the media. ..."
    "... now the establishment is doubling down on the only thing it knows how to do. They are 'reporting' that Trump is finished. ..."
    "... Donald Trump has said unfortunate off-the-cuff things. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, has actually DONE some things so crazy that if I wrote her up as a character in a work of fiction my editor would reject it as unbelievable. ..."
    "... The Podesta e-mails show Killary in her true colors (see b.) The few I read though were unsurprising and boring, because she is mentally challenged, as is her staff, they are in a bubble. The leaks re. her speeches to Banksters ditto, and anyway the speeches are immaterial, they are just empty, fakelorum, performances carried out to legitimise bribery in a completely corrupt circuit. ..."
    "... I concur with the very first post...it will be a Trump landslide. The silent majority- the plurality of voters who are neither D nor R. We have no voice in politics and no voice in the media. We already see through the lies and the hypocracy. That is Trumps target audience. Even if it is just a show at least Trump talks about policies ..."
    "... Trump and his supporters must henceforth be more vigilant and pull no punches in exposing the Clintons' perfidy. ..."
    "... And on other fronts - the Vice News vid I just watched was titled 'the US/Russia Proxy War in Ukraine'. I was shocked. Their prior coverage was 200% neocon blather. (Aka Simon Otrovsky IIRc) Could it be a beginning of a revolt by the MSM? If CNN begins to refer to Syria and Ukraine as proxy wars, it means the Empire's control of MSM is slipping. And that would spell the end for them. ..."
    "... "This is a very dangerous game given that Russia, being in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government of this country and having two bases there, has got air defense systems there to protect its assets," Lavrov said, according to Reuters. ..."
    "... IMO Sanders is worst among all the POTUS hopefuls. He lied repeatedly, In a debate with Hillary on Edward Snowden "He broke the law … but what he did [exposing the NSA surveillance] should be taken into consideration," Edward Snowden wanna fair trial, but can he get it? Dun Forget Assange afraid of assassinated, to speak from Ecuador embassy balcony to exposed Hillary. Can you trust Obomo's Justice Dept. or anyone in his administration? ..."
    "... Outrage Can No Longer Be Ignored. The elections methods enterprise consists of an imposing compilation of distracting, unworkable feints, erroneously purported to constitute viable election methods. Get strategic hedge simple score voting. No More Two-Party!!! No more!!! ..."
    "... The social theorist Zygmunt Bauman argues that the age of nations states, which was born with the treaty that ended the Thirty Years War, and which we all take for granted, is now over. Nation States made decisions through politics and then used power to implement their wishes. Now, however, power no longer resides with the state, but instead is in the hands of international entities -- corporations, banks, criminal enterprises -- that are above, beyond and indifferent to any nation's political decisions. ..."
    "... Although American presidents, the congress, the courts still pretend otherwise, it's pretty clear they know they have no real power, and so go through charades of legislating meaningless issues. Allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia, for example, when there's not the slightest chance of pinning 911 on the Saudis. ..."
    "... The election is a circus meant to distract and entertain a powerless public. Might as well enjoy it. The Dems and Repugs like to strut and posture, rake in dollars and enjoy prestige, and try to make us believe they can still shape the future, but really it out of their control. ..."
    "... Of course the U.S. has tremendous military power, but the "elected" government has no control over it, how it is used or where. JFK's murder ended that era, ..."
    "... Many here think the U.S., and hence the U.S. military, is controlled by Israel, but Israel too is a nation state, and supra-national institutions ($$$$) seem to be running it as well, ..."
    "... My take as an outsider. Use Trump to take down the elite. His foreign policy basics are consistent and solid - non intervention, pull back of US military to the US, protection of local manufacturing. ..."
    "... US involvement in Libya began at Hillary's urging shortly after Hillary received this advice from her confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Note that the advice that the overthrow of Qaddafi needed to be connected with "an identifiable rebellion" in Syria means that it needs to be connected with civil war in Syria. US involvement in Libya was, of course, coordinated out of Benghazi, as the advice to Hillary suggested. ..."
    "... Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary's State Department advocated the overthrow of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel so that President Barrack Obama could accomplish his legacy nuclear pact with Iran without Israel blowing Iran up before the deal was sealed. ..."
    "... No. Planning for overthrow of Assad - and use of extremists as a weapon of State - was begun in earnest in 2006; as described by Seymour Hersh in "The Redirection". ..."
    "... Anyone else notice that Hillary couldn't remember what she did while in office? Major mistake. ..."
    "... Clinton insisted she had retired from the government by the time that happened. Not so: Obama dared Assad to cross his line in August 2012, six months before Clinton's term ended. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The tape of Trump talking dirty was released just in time to sidetrack from the release of more of Clinton's dirty secrets by Wikileaks. Trump's talk was juvenile and sexist bragging in front of other "boys". Surprising it was not. There will more releases like that, all timed to run cover for Clinton.

    The just released emails of her campaign chairman John Podesta about Clinton's talk to Wall Street and other Clinton related issues are indeed revealing. She is the sell-out you would expect her to be:

    *CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY*

    Clinton: "But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position."

    It is funny how the U.S. electorate has a deeper "very negative" view of Trump (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) than of the much vilified Russian President Putin (-38%).

    When Trump will come back in the polls (not "if"), it will be a devious fight with daily "leaks" followed by counter leaks and a lot of dirty laundry washed in front of the public. Good.

    Many of the people who will vote will vote against a candidate, not for the one that they will mark on their ballot. I expect a very low turn out election, barely giving a mandate, to whomever may win or get selected to have won. Elwood | Oct 9, 2016 9:26:03 AM | 1

    Uh no. The silent majority that swept Reagan into office will speak again this year.
    Ron Showalter | Oct 9, 2016 9:37:47 AM | 2
    Please stick to geo-politics and quit embarrassing yourself re: domestic US politics. Trump is done and the longer it takes for you and the rest of the fake-left - both domestically and abroad - to get their heads around that fact, the longer the rest of us have to witness the frightfully shameful mental contortions your Trump-love takes.

    Please stop. It's one thing to have to deal with shallow and inaccurate fake-left analysis without a healthy dose of butt-hurt b/c Hillary will be POTUS.

    Grow up and quit being a victim of the US propaganda arsenal.

    tsuki | Oct 9, 2016 9:40:53 AM | 3
    In other words, I shall lie to the "Deplorables" to keep you safe from regulation and incarceration. Give me money. I am a corrupt and experienced liar.
    Rich | Oct 9, 2016 9:52:39 AM | 5
    I had a home inspector come to my place last week, intelligent and skilled working class guy, who didn't even know who Trump was. He knew Clinton was running and hates her. But had zero clue who her opponent was. And he's never voted before. There are very few election signs on yards. It's an election for and among the ruling class.
    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 9, 2016 9:54:09 AM | 7
    This may become the most transparent election - ever. May necessitate the most outrageous vote counting schemes also.
    Take Me | Oct 9, 2016 9:57:39 AM | 8
    BURN. IT. DOWN. That was the WHOLE point of Trump voters from the get-go. And his slide toward zionist scumbags was a HUUUGE problem. To me at least. Now he SEES. And he won't be shut down by the fukwits. And regardless of what happens. He is likely carefully considering having his son-in-law fall down a VERY deep hole. His daughter and grandchildren will thank him one day. Et tu Brutus?

    Here's what the Deplorables will be doing. On election day. 1) Bring black sharpie. 2) Demand PAPER ballot. 3) Vote Trump. 4) Vote I or D down-ballot. 5) Fill in all blanks.

    And by-the-way. To #2 Ron. We do this for Syria. And Yemen. And all the OTHER people the USG, MIC, MSM ZIOthugs have been murdering and enslaving for the past 50+ years. Not just for ourselves and our children. It's the absolute LEAST we can do. But its a start.

    lemur | Oct 9, 2016 9:57:44 AM | 9
    Scott Adams who has been right so far says Trump still has a clear path to victory. The media is just trying to blackpill everyone. Why should we believe them? They are saying Trump can't win because they said he can't win.

    Ron is obviously a Clinton groupie.

    Btw, how is what Trump said sexist? It's just real dude talk with the lads. Plenty of people say that behind closed doors.

    Blk | Oct 9, 2016 10:00:28 AM | 10
    @2. I happen to think Trump is another wolf in a sheep's clothe and won't deliver any significant part of his promises, so like you, I am baffled that someone like b could actually buy into this. However unlike you, I don't think the election is predictable, I think it actually bodes well for Trump, why? It seems clear from the polls, that Hillary isn't a preferred choice for majority of the voters. If he was, she should be polling close to the 50 point mark by now, yet she's in the low 40s, someone with her resume running against a political light weight like Trump should be doing much better. So what does that mean? It means (at lest to me) voters have rejected Hillary as a firs choice, she may be second or third but she's definitely not most voters first choice. So Trump has a chance, although he's working his darnes to ruin it, Imagine if it was someone else had Trumps message without the baggage?

    The polls wouldn't be close, I think the undecided (who don't have Hillary has their first choice) will decide this election at the last minute, if Trump has more recordings leaked (not about his tryst) but for instance the NYT interview where he supposedly said he's not going to build a wall? ( I think that will be leaked soon if the polls don't move in Hillary's favor, the establishment clearly has their preference). If there are no more damages to Trump, he may very well win this thing, but I suspect the empire has more leaks coming.

    I for one thinks a third party candidate is where its at, but what do I know?

    From The Hague | Oct 9, 2016 10:10:49 AM | 13
    Breaking: A photo has surfaced of Donald Trump grabbing a pussy.

    https://twitter.com/Writeintrump/status/784811133370667008

    The MSM, social medias and Internet are making any election a new Pokemon game but dirtier. Is this the 21th century "exercise of democracy?"

    Davis | Oct 9, 2016 10:44:30 AM | 18

    Want to read some original observations? (1) The Pence-Is-So-Presidential vp debate win was a complete set-up, with the DNC complicit in instructing Tim Kaine to play the obvious heavy, a movie caricature villian, complete with raised eyebrows, crazy expressions, and interrupting 70+ times. Made Pence a new hero. Reason? (2) GOP Rinos and DNC have been co-ordinating for months on "perfect time" to release Trump's Naughty Audio Tape (sharp ears can also detect it was edited), and this was reported by DC Whispers and journalists Mr/Mrs Bill & Beth Still in a recent video. (3) Media had their 'talking points' to conclude with NBC's Chuck Todd yesterday: "The election is over. Hillary has won." (4) GOP Paul Ryan did high-profile dis-invitation of Trump to Wisconsin; and then Pence substitution at event (vetoed by Trump) was to support GOP Establishment plot to replace Trump with Pence on the ticket, which they will still try to do when the DNC floats false pedophile charges against Trump w/o Oct. 9 (DNC whistleblowers gave full plan to Alex Jones because even there, some people are too disgusted with all this dirt to 'carry on camping'). Pence was in on the conspiracy from the very beginning. Another smiling choirboy.
    Yonatan | Oct 9, 2016 10:53:03 AM | 19
    Somehow Clinton bragging about getting a pedophile off the hook is OK? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc CLinton will start WW III. Trump may do so. What a choice.
    TG | Oct 9, 2016 10:53:58 AM | 20
    For nearly a generation now there have been decent candidates for US president who would, to a greater or lesser degree, have opposed our increasingly corrupt and violent oligarchy. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jill Stein, Rick Santorum ... and many more you haven't heard of. The elites have perfected a system of taking them down, with no messy assassination. Ridicule them in the press, don't cover their positions, just their style, find a flaw or mis-statement and hammer hammer hammer until people believe that they are ridiculous, then ban them from the media.

    Trump's big mouth and complete lack of shame has, for now, made him relatively immune to this treatment. So now the establishment is doubling down on the only thing it knows how to do. They are 'reporting' that Trump is finished. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But it would be wise to remember that the corporate press doesn't report the news any more, it is attempting to create the news, out of whole cloth. Remember how many times they said that Trump was 'finished' during the primary?

    I mean, how come what Trump said ten years ago in a private conversation, is headline news, while Hillary Clinton's decision to ALLY THE UNITED STATES WITH AL QAEDA AND RISK WAR WITH RUSSIA TO DEFEND THEM is somehow a minor detail? It's crazy when you think about it.

    Donald Trump has said unfortunate off-the-cuff things. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, has actually DONE some things so crazy that if I wrote her up as a character in a work of fiction my editor would reject it as unbelievable.

    So I am voting for Trump even if the New York Times says he is doomed. We don't really know what he will do as president, but in the business world he has proven the ability to actually get along with disparate people in a constructive way. Hillary Clinton is a bona fide monster who should scare any sane person. We know exactly what she will do as president, and attacking Russian forces in Syria will be just the start...

    Better a chance on a wildcard, then certain doom. IMHO.

    Noirette | Oct 9, 2016 11:11:29 AM | 21
    The Podesta e-mails show Killary in her true colors (see b.) The few I read though were unsurprising and boring, because she is mentally challenged, as is her staff, they are in a bubble. The leaks re. her speeches to Banksters ditto, and anyway the speeches are immaterial, they are just empty, fakelorum, performances carried out to legitimise bribery in a completely corrupt circuit.

    One e-mail (idk who wrote it and can't find it back): a campaign manager who had his head screwed on stated that most likely one needs to add 10 points to Trump re. polls. Details were a bit bizarre and convoluted...no matter...

    It reminded me that in France all the 'official' polls use an 'algorithm' based on 'hunches dressed up in fancy pyscho-babble verbiage' that add between 2 and 5% to NF votes (depending on election, region, first/second round, etc.) Necessary for maintaining their credibility, to come closer to what the real results will show.

    As for Trump's locker-room bragaddacio, not one single Trump supporter will flip, and undecideds etc. may switch to Trump, finding such an 'attack' illegit, frivolous, etc. It throws light on the fact that what Killary is being accused of - e-mails, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, pay to play, etc. - is extremely serious, whereas smutty chat is part-o-life.

    Imho the underlying aim of the release (first, serving to create buzzz! to cover over the leaks natch) was to furnish a reason for segments of the PTB establishment base, nominally Repubs., to come forward and support HRC, after they were subjected to pressure, arm-twisting, possibly even blackmail.

    McCain withdraws his support for DT:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/presidential-election.html

    Paul Ryan annouced Friday that Trump was no longer welcome at the rally after a recording was released… and he gets heckled:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paul-ryan-heckled-by-trump-supporters-in-his-district/ar-BBxbeIT

    The Atlantic gives some kind of mealy-mouthed overview:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/where-republicans-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/

    The 'duopoly' power-structure has been exposed.

    Phodges | Oct 9, 2016 11:49:07 AM | 24
    I concur with the very first post...it will be a Trump landslide. The silent majority- the plurality of voters who are neither D nor R. We have no voice in politics and no voice in the media. We already see through the lies and the hypocracy. That is Trumps target audience. Even if it is just a show at least Trump talks about policies
    Steve | Oct 9, 2016 12:11:25 PM | 28
    Trump is still going to "win" the election. I put the win in quotations because that will not mean that he would be declared winner. The plan to rig the election has always been part of the plan, what this leak provides is a way to persuade the gullible people that the tape cost Trump the election. The oligarchs in both parties and all over the Western world are truly terrified of a Trump presidency but equally terrified of the reaction of the masses, should the election be brazenly rigged with no plausible reasons. They have tried to manipulate the polls and it is not succeeding. But now they can go back to their pseudo pollsters and start dishing out dubious polls until the election. That would appear credible to the credulous voters who by and large are, frankly, dim. The two parties and the global oligarchs and their media shoeshine crew have now found a convenient talking point to prepare the ground for an eventual rigging of the election. Trump and his supporters must henceforth be more vigilant and pull no punches in exposing the Clintons' perfidy.
    NoOneYouKnow | Oct 9, 2016 12:14:23 PM | 30
    #22 I'd say "war criminals who rule us" is Hillary's job title to a T. So many Hillary supporters are giving off the scent of mixed rage and panic these days.
    O'Coner | Oct 9, 2016 12:33:07 PM | 31
    And on other fronts - the Vice News vid I just watched was titled 'the US/Russia Proxy War in Ukraine'. I was shocked. Their prior coverage was 200% neocon blather. (Aka Simon Otrovsky IIRc) Could it be a beginning of a revolt by the MSM? If CNN begins to refer to Syria and Ukraine as proxy wars, it means the Empire's control of MSM is slipping. And that would spell the end for them.
    Take Me | Oct 9, 2016 12:52:20 PM | 35
    To 31. Nah. It's not the end of 'em. Just controlled opposition. Cuz thru all this miasma. LOTS of decent folks are hip to what's happening in Yemen and Syria. The muppets are rubbing sleep from their tired little eyes. And SEE what the MSM has been neglecting to tell them. The MSM aren't stupid. They hope feeding the muppets some bit of truthiness, we'll fall back into an MSM-stupor. Sadly. The MSM has lost too many muppets. Gone for good. This CIVIL WAR won't be fought carnally. But it will be just as bloody. Cuz metaphysical warfare is something for which they are NOT prepared to battle.
    schlub | Oct 9, 2016 1:20:57 PM | 39
    I think the term used here refers to any form of modern mass release of bombs or missiles.
    Each B-52 which of course can refuel so fly from anywhere, & is ponderously slow, can release about 24 cruise missiles, serially, from a rotary dispenser inside, from standoff distances.

    So the problem becomes "How many 'rounds' do the russians have for each & every one of their missile batteries there?"

    "This is a very dangerous game given that Russia, being in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government of this country and having two bases there, has got air defense systems there to protect its assets," Lavrov said, according to Reuters.
    http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/10/09/1208996/russia-says-can-protect-its-syria-assets-if-us-carpet-bombs

    dumbass | Oct 9, 2016 1:32:44 PM | 40
    >> Scott Adams

    Except that he didn't inherit or steal his money, he demonstrated he's nearly perfect example of the 1% when he mocked any voter who has a opinion about anything except for his own opinion that estate taxes are theft (though so would be Trump's inflation-based tax -- thereby demonstrating Mr. Scott 1%-er Adams is less informed than he is rich) and that (according to Scott Adams himself) is far and away the issue that matters to Scott Adams in this election.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-25/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-explains-why-he-switched-his-endorsement-trump

    I've not chuckled over a Dilbert in a while. Now that I know how Scott prioritizes the issues of the world, it'll be even more difficult.

    Jack Smith | Oct 9, 2016 2:43:45 PM | 51
    @Michael | Oct 9, 2016 11:49:08 AM | 25

    Who gave you or the Democrats the right to demand changes after the Primaries? .....believe Gallup's polls and anyone who happen to disagree with you a troll?

    IMO Sanders is worst among all the POTUS hopefuls. He lied repeatedly, In a debate with Hillary on Edward Snowden "He broke the law … but what he did [exposing the NSA surveillance] should be taken into consideration," Edward Snowden wanna fair trial, but can he get it? Dun Forget Assange afraid of assassinated, to speak from Ecuador embassy balcony to exposed Hillary. Can you trust Obomo's Justice Dept. or anyone in his administration?

    Sanders said "Well, as somebody who spent many months of my life when I was a kid in Israel, who has family in Israel, of course Israel has a right not only to defend themselves, but to live in peace and security without fear of terrorist attack." Did you look at Google's Palestine map (taken down after protests)?

    Your comments are flaws and an apologist!

    blues | Oct 9, 2016 2:51:34 PM | 53
    You have, perhaps, heard me mention "strategic hedge simple score voting" here before. Here are two short pieces I have posted at the website "The Center for Election Science", at:
    https://electology.org/forums/theory

    /~~~~~~~~~~
    They tend to fall back on a Google+ Groups "site" which I do not use since I refuse to join (corporate) "social media" at:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/electionscience
    Outrage Can No Longer Be Ignored. The elections methods enterprise consists of an imposing compilation of distracting, unworkable feints, erroneously purported to constitute viable election methods. Get strategic hedge simple score voting. No More Two-Party!!! No more!!!

    ... ... ...

    Ken Nari | Oct 9, 2016 5:55:42 PM | 75
    Giving Americans a choice of candidates no one wants is a way of humiliating them, of showing them they have no say in how they are ruled. It's much like Caligula appointing his horse to the Roman Senate to show his power and his contempt for the senators who might still have thought they had a say in running Rome.

    The social theorist Zygmunt Bauman argues that the age of nations states, which was born with the treaty that ended the Thirty Years War, and which we all take for granted, is now over. Nation States made decisions through politics and then used power to implement their wishes. Now, however, power no longer resides with the state, but instead is in the hands of international entities -- corporations, banks, criminal enterprises -- that are above, beyond and indifferent to any nation's political decisions.

    Although American presidents, the congress, the courts still pretend otherwise, it's pretty clear they know they have no real power, and so go through charades of legislating meaningless issues. Allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia, for example, when there's not the slightest chance of pinning 911 on the Saudis.

    If WW3 or anything else is in the cards it will happen no matter who is elected, Clinton, Trump or someone else.

    The election is a circus meant to distract and entertain a powerless public. Might as well enjoy it. The Dems and Repugs like to strut and posture, rake in dollars and enjoy prestige, and try to make us believe they can still shape the future, but really it out of their control.

    Indeed, according to Bauman, things may be spinning out of anyone's control. That's everywhere, not just in the U.S.

    Ken Nari | Oct 9, 2016 7:45:45 PM | 82
    The Hague @ 77

    Of course the U.S. has tremendous military power, but the "elected" government has no control over it, how it is used or where. JFK's murder ended that era,

    Many here think the U.S., and hence the U.S. military, is controlled by Israel, but Israel too is a nation state, and supra-national institutions ($$$$) seem to be running it as well,

    Recently there have been plenty of posts here pointing out the contradictions and inexplicable behavior of American leaders concerning Syria -- is the military opposing the State Department? Is the "CIA" opposing both and calling the shots? I think Bauman would agree (?) that in the final analysis, none of them are running things. Americans, including their supposed leaders, have lost control of their destiny and can only do as they are told.

    I'm not qualified to judge Bauman's assertion. I'm only suggesting it gives a plausible explanation for the current insanity we're living through. "The State of Crisis" (2014). A great work (only 150 pages) that you'll be glad to read if you haven't already read it.

    Peter AU | Oct 9, 2016 9:17:48 PM | 90
    My take as an outsider. Use Trump to take down the elite. His foreign policy basics are consistent and solid - non intervention, pull back of US military to the US, protection of local manufacturing.
    These are the two best policies to break the globalised elite, US would go through some hard times for a bit re-adjusting, then take off again as part of this world rather than wannabe ruler of this world.
    stumpy | Oct 9, 2016 10:45:06 PM | 98
    Trump's line about Gens. Macarthur and Patton rolling over in their graves was masterful. Telling Hil that she doesn't know who Isis is. Declaring Aleppo lost. Scored some points. The Trump of yesterday's news is not the Trump in the debate. I find this strangely reassuring. Got her on the 3:00AM phone call in res Benghazi. Whoever ran Trump's prep gets a free drink on me.
    schlub | Oct 9, 2016 11:17:57 PM | 100
    WackyLeaks latest analysis on $hitlary:

    US involvement in Libya began at Hillary's urging shortly after Hillary received this advice from her confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Note that the advice that the overthrow of Qaddafi needed to be connected with "an identifiable rebellion" in Syria means that it needs to be connected with civil war in Syria. US involvement in Libya was, of course, coordinated out of Benghazi, as the advice to Hillary suggested.

    Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary's State Department advocated the overthrow of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel so that President Barrack Obama could accomplish his legacy nuclear pact with Iran without Israel blowing Iran up before the deal was sealed.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-09/hillary%E2%80%99s-wars-pt-2-wikileaks-proves-syria-about-iran-israel

    Jackrabbit | Oct 9, 2016 11:45:58 PM | 101
    shlub @100:
    Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary's State Department advocated the overthrow of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel.
    No. Planning for overthrow of Assad - and use of extremists as a weapon of State - was begun in earnest in 2006; as described by Seymour Hersh in "The Redirection".
    Perimetr | Oct 10, 2016 12:11:18 AM | 103
    Anyone else notice that Hillary couldn't remember what she did while in office? Major mistake.

    Trump recalled that Clinton was secretary of state when President Barack Obama drew his now-infamous rhetorical 'red line' in Syria, ineffectively warning Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians.

    Clinton insisted she had retired from the government by the time that happened. Not so: Obama dared Assad to cross his line in August 2012, six months before Clinton's term ended.

    She can't even remain standing during a presidential debate, and can't remember what she did, either.

    Temporarily Sane | Oct 10, 2016 1:19:44 AM | 106
    @ 31 Vice "news" is a bad joke. All their Syria and Libya coverage is 200% pro al-Qaeda/DoS policy. They even had a "journalist" embedded with al-Nusra in Aleppo in 2014 and portrayed them in a favourable light. It doesn't surprise me that their Ukraine coverage follows a similar pattern.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Trump is the first non-establishment presidential candidate to get this far, and he landed lots of painful punches on Hillary during this debate.

    Notable quotes:
    "... He hit on her every issue he wanted to. Repeatedly and strongly. ..."
    "... On that, his taking on one of the hardest gigs in the business/political world tonight after the last few days, and dealing with it, and winning, he may have convinced a swathe of undecideds that he has what it takes. ..."
    "... Sad for all Trump haters, but he demolished the incredibly boring HRC. Trump says it how it is, even if he mixes in fibs and exaggerations. ..."
    "... The Guardian's view of the debate is a predictable one, considering the complete lack of objectivity in covering the election. ..."
    "... There has been no questioning of the fact that Hillary has received millions of dollars, for "speeches" given to Wall st banks. And of course, no questioning of the millions spent by the Clintons as "hush money" to women, in order that they keep quiet about Bill's sexual proclivities. Yep, no objectivity and little attempt at unbiased reporting here. ..."
    "... Do you want to know why Trump won tonight? It's because all Hillary has to offer is the same pre-canned answers over and over again. She comes off as less genuine than any other candidate in history and it's dispicable. ..."
    "... Saddam Hussein was a leader who did not have WMDs and whose orchestrated removal and subsequent murder opened the door to the biggest infestation of mass-murderers and islamic terrorism in the history of the world; Gadaffi was a popular leader who had turned Libya into the most prosperous and the only truly independent Arab nation in Africa, and Putin is the democratically elected leader of his country with a wide national mandate. Neither of the three can hold the candle to the menagerie of tyrannical and maniacal baboons and banana republic chipmonks who paraded and goose-stepped through Obama White House over the past eight years. ..."
    "... I'm no fan of the United States since their criminal actions around the globe post '9-11' but I actually feel some pity for it at this point. ..."
    "... Many of us are sickened more than you may realize. The unfortunate part is the entire system in the US is rigged against its own people. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton in favour of a no-fly zone in Syria, which basically means a hot war with Russia. Now, rebels are armed by Saudi Arabia amongst others. And Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest donors Clinton Foundation. Coincidence? ..."
    "... This is terrifying. Hillary might put sons and husbands of American women in harm's way on behalf of interests of Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... hillary's biggest weakness in my opinion is that she is the "goldman sachs candidate" ..."
    "... Then the debate switched to other topics and Trump landed blow after punishing blow. Hillary's non-answer to the question about whether she had public positions and private ones was (for her) uncharacteristically bizarre and rambling. Trump's Honest Abe retort was gold. ..."
    "... On tax issues he noted she had 30 years to do something about the tax code and did nothing. Why? Because all of her billionaire donors use the same tax loopholes she accuses Trump of using, which is also why it won't change if she is elected. ..."
    "... Trump is the first non-establishment presidential candidate to get this far, and he landed lots of painful punches on Hillary during this debate. ..."
    "... The current administration has repeatedly taken unrealistic positions based on ideology and clung to them until the reality on the ground made them utterly untenable to hold onto. As exhibit one, does anyone remember Obama's big speech to the nation when he announced his plan to arm moderate Syrian rebels? That turned out to be one of the most ineffective flops in history, a complete waste of time, money, and resources. ..."
    "... Instead of a debate that was focused on Trump's vulgar comments, the debate was focused on policy issues, and despite all of Clinton's "preparation" when it came to the nuts and bolts of policy, Trump managed to not only go toe-to-toe with Clinton, he often got the best of her. ..."
    "... Finally, finally someone actually asked the question that had to be asked on Syria, despite all the pointless hand wringing. Those rebels, what do we actually know about them, that we are willing to go to war for them? Are they islamists? How will they govern? Do they have any popular support of any kind? ..."
    "... And its not even the whole of Alleppo we are talking about. 2/3rds is already in govt control, Sorry but there is the bitter truth about civil wars. IF they cant come to an agreement, then the best thing that can happen is if one part wins and the fighting stops. ..."
    "... Not many people could face off against a highly skilled politician like Hillary, and win - especially when all the media and grandees have extrapolated from a "locker room" recording to woman-hater/sex pervert. ..."
    "... Trump showed up HRC as unexciting and mediocre. DT could still win. ..."
    "... I fear the Presidency of Hillary Clinton as I believe that she is VERY capable of initiating a nuclear war with Russia. I truly believe that for Donald Trump, this would be a last alternative and that he would insist upon speaking, rather than acting, as HRC would. ..."
    "... I just can not believe a word she utters. She has proven me correct with her "one position for public, and one position for private" quote. Two-faced liar. On the other hand is Trump. There are many laws or positions he endorses which would NEVER survive the two houses of Congress needed to implement them. ..."
    "... You may like or loathe Trump, but it's impressive what he achieved tonight. They had him on the ropes, it was the middle of this fight and he knocked his opponent out tonight. ..."
    "... Here's why. her record! She boasts of so many sponsored bills as senator, yet when you actually look at what she ACHIEVED - 3 meaningless bills - named a museum, a road and a post office! As for her SOS "achievements" are there any? The only things we can say for certain she did, ultimately she has admitted they were mistakes - experience is meaningless if you have poor judgement, and she has prove to have terrible judgement. ..."
    "... And ultimately at the end of the day, IF the will is there, Trump can be prevented from causing ANY damage. Clinton on the other hand has openly stated that she will cooperate with the republicans, thus only right wing conservative bills will get passed! ..."
    "... So she has proven poor judgement, a proven record of incompetence, and is desperate to raise the stakes with the Russians! Can anyone explain to me how she is better in any way. Remember Trump is disgusting, but she is a war criminal - her actions should have put her in the hague yet alone the whitehouse! ..."
    "... Hillary's tough talk against Russia and regime change in Syria scare the crap out of me. She's talking nuclear war, and she and the media lie about Russia. ..."
    "... Modern politics is all about have media houses in your pocket to promote your side of the story. For the life of me i cannot believe the presidential race is still so close even though there is a clear bias against trump. ..."
    "... It's been rather stunning as to how far the Guardian has gone to blanket it's news with pro-hilly propaganda. The most shameful moments came when Bernie was running in the primary. ..."
    "... of the two, Hillary represents the most acute, immediate threat to humanity with her calling for a no fly zone over Syria and her neo-McCarthy Russia bashing, demonizing Putin. ..."
    "... The the recent events in Syria witness this threat, with the US openly protecting (supplying) the misogynist, stoneage Al Nusra in Eastern Alleppo, bombing Syrian soldiers who are actively engaged in combat against ISIS, and now bombing bridges leading to the ISIS capital of Raqqa thus preventing the advancing Syrian army from attacking ISIS. ..."
    "... She is backed by the debt slavery banksters, the planet destroying fossil fuel parasites, the fascist military industrial security prison complex and the whole corporate fascist shadow state, not to mention the MSM (including this journal). At least Trump has said this, which is much saner than any of HIlliary's comments regarding Syria, (not to mention Lybia): ..."
    "... Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. Iran is killing ISIS. And those three have now lined up together because of our weak policy," he said. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    newyorkred , 10 Oct 2016 04:45)>
    Terrible summary by Tom McCarthy of the debate completely omits the main event, namely Trump promising to prosecute Clinton should he become President. WTF.

    There's a job waiting for him at the NYT, the number 1 newspaper for anyone who wants to miss what's actually going on in this election.

    BlueberryCompote , 10 Oct 2016 04:48)>
    Trump won this debate because Clinton wanted to make the issue personal and the fact is that even though Trump is disgusting, she hasn't got a great record to defend. It's shameful that the Democrats chose her and the Republicans chose him.
    Uncle Putin -> jrakoske001 , 10 Oct 2016 05:35)>
    I agree with you to a point, but to be entirely honest, I don't think any of the politicians have more than a surface level knowledge of any of these issues. They rely on experts and advisors to come up with solutions to complex problems and then they make decisions after weighing the options presented. Politicians who have been in the game a long time know all the generic buzzwords and slogans to use, whereas Trump doesn't have the lingo down. It's actually part of his charm. Obama had almost no real world experience with any of this stuff and especially when it comes to foreign policy it would be hard to argue that anyone could do much worse (and Hillary was part of his administration).
    samuraiblue , 10 Oct 2016 04:51)>
    Success of debates can only be based on their effectiveness or otherwise in improving a candidate's position. Trump`s position was almost untenable before the debate. He`s now in an election. By any standards that is a massive win for him.

    Given that the only relevant audience are undecideds (and consider the politics of people as yet undecided about voting for Trump), Trump played a blinder. He hit on her every issue he wanted to. Repeatedly and strongly.

    On that, his taking on one of the hardest gigs in the business/political world tonight after the last few days, and dealing with it, and winning, he may have convinced a swathe of undecideds that he has what it takes.

    I am non-partisan. But I can`t see how anybody can conclude he didn`t win that big time. His position now V before the debate? Answers itself.

    Still don`t see an electoral path to victory for him. That was monumental television. Ugly America. But it is ugly, that`s the reality.

    DomesticExtremist , 10 Oct 2016 04:54)>
    She should be in jail.
    finalcurtain , 10 Oct 2016 04:58)>
    Sad for all Trump haters, but he demolished the incredibly boring HRC. Trump says it how it is, even if he mixes in fibs and exaggerations.

    Unless evidence comes to light of rape or attempted rape by Trump, I can definitely accept the "locker room" dismissal by DT.

    Go Trump --

    MustafaFart , 10 Oct 2016 04:58)>
    The Guardian's view of the debate is a predictable one, considering the complete lack of objectivity in covering the election. Much has been made of Trump's sexist comments, yet not even a raised eyebrow at the Clinton foundation receiving tens of millions in "donations" from Saudi Arabia, a nation that bans women from driving, voting or having human freedoms.

    There has been no questioning of the fact that Hillary has received millions of dollars, for "speeches" given to Wall st banks. And of course, no questioning of the millions spent by the Clintons as "hush money" to women, in order that they keep quiet about Bill's sexual proclivities. Yep, no objectivity and little attempt at unbiased reporting here.

    SNAFU5001 -> BG Davis , 10 Oct 2016 05:05)>
    Not everyone is a political junky and not everyone lives in a black and white world.

    Telling people they are not qualified to vote because they haven't made up their minds yet is an elitist statement. One of the main reasons I refuse to vote for Hillary or Bernie is because of all the elitist people who like to demean others simply because they disagree with the progressive or neo-liberal talking points.

    BehindBlurredLines , 10 Oct 2016 04:59)>
    Do you want to know why Trump won tonight? It's because all Hillary has to offer is the same pre-canned answers over and over again. She comes off as less genuine than any other candidate in history and it's dispicable. It was bad in the Democratic debates and it is atrocious in the presidential debates. Is it really so hard to just speak what she is actually thinking that she just robots out the same rhetoric over and over again? It seems so.

    I was going to vote for her but after this debate, the level of disgust with her is too much. Be a damn person for a change instead of this thing that makes me shudder when she opens her mouth. I just can't do it, Bernie, sorry. Trump repulses me to think of voting for but she makes me physically sick to think about voting for. They say I will be throwing my vote away to vote for a third party candidate but I just don't care. To throw it away is better than to cast it for someone I would forever regret voting for the rest of my like. That goes for the both of them.

    HerrPrincip -> Stetson Meyers , 10 Oct 2016 07:59)>
    Saddam Hussein was a leader who did not have WMDs and whose orchestrated removal and subsequent murder opened the door to the biggest infestation of mass-murderers and islamic terrorism in the history of the world; Gadaffi was a popular leader who had turned Libya into the most prosperous and the only truly independent Arab nation in Africa, and Putin is the democratically elected leader of his country with a wide national mandate. Neither of the three can hold the candle to the menagerie of tyrannical and maniacal baboons and banana republic chipmonks who paraded and goose-stepped through Obama White House over the past eight years.

    Stay on topic. This thread is about alleged Trump's camaraderie with dictators which is now totally and permanently debunked.

    RickyBastardo , 10 Oct 2016 05:17)>
    It was an awful display from any conceivable point of view. There were no winners; none at all.

    I'm no fan of the United States since their criminal actions around the globe post '9-11' but I actually feel some pity for it at this point. The fact that most Americans appear not to be completely sickened and ashamed by their farce of an election speaks volumes about how far their country as fallen on so very many fronts.

    A very sad night for the world, but none more so than for the United States and their people.

    Rich LD -> RickyBastardo , 10 Oct 2016 05:27)>
    Many of us are sickened more than you may realize. The unfortunate part is the entire system in the US is rigged against its own people. We're fucked, we know it, if we try to do anything, they shit all over us with lies and propaganda and wave their corruption in our faces like a damn battle flag. It won't be long before the people finally stand up to this. Trouble is, it may already be too late...
    mike_johnston , 10 Oct 2016 05:21)>
    Hillary Clinton in favour of a no-fly zone in Syria, which basically means a hot war with Russia. Now, rebels are armed by Saudi Arabia amongst others. And Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest donors Clinton Foundation. Coincidence?

    This is terrifying. Hillary might put sons and husbands of American women in harm's way on behalf of interests of Saudi Arabia.

    This is terrifying.

    merle2006 , 10 Oct 2016 05:22)>
    hillary's biggest weakness in my opinion is that she is the "goldman sachs candidate". and trump was able to exploit that. trump said that he was only taking advantage of the same tax laws that hillary's campaign-financing friends take advantage of. and he said that it had been within hillary's powers to change those laws but she wouldn't because of her friends. all hillary has to do is declare that she will stop big tax avoidance and claw bag these avoided taxes and she would have the bernie sanders'
    Uncle Putin , 10 Oct 2016 05:22)>
    Christopher R Barron is not too far off the mark in scoring this one. Trump started the debate with the same awkward and uncomfortable manner as he finished the last one. Hillary's line of attack about Trump being unfit to be president was delivered with maximum skill and effectiveness, and Donald's rebuttal was a bit flat and floundering. Things were looking gloomy in Trumpville.

    Then the debate switched to other topics and Trump landed blow after punishing blow. Hillary's non-answer to the question about whether she had public positions and private ones was (for her) uncharacteristically bizarre and rambling. Trump's Honest Abe retort was gold. He killed her on Obamacare, a real sore spot with middle class voters, pointing out that the premiums and deductibles are so high you have to get hit by a Mack truck before it actually pays off. Foreign policy, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria--all he had to do was point to 8 years of Obama and her own tenure as Secretary of State leading to the present unmitigated disaster. Our friends don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us.

    On tax issues he noted she had 30 years to do something about the tax code and did nothing. Why? Because all of her billionaire donors use the same tax loopholes she accuses Trump of using, which is also why it won't change if she is elected. You can argue pro or con on everything Trump said, but there is no question that this was a much stronger debate performance from him than the first and the final question in which he complimented Hillary actually helped soften his image quite a bit and ended the night on a perfect note.

    wing and some credibility truly back on her side.

    finalcurtain 10h ago
    Trump is the first non-establishment presidential candidate to get this far, and he landed lots of painful punches on Hillary during this debate.

    Hillary hardly touched Trump.

    If no more serious revelations come to light, don't be surprised if he gets a Brexit victory in one month: Americans are sick of polished elite politicians like the Clintons and Bush's.

    tangibletruth 10h ago
    I disagree with everyone here, every poll I've seen has had Trump on top in that debate by a majority. I'd like to see links to other polls, always welcome! I have read the CNN poll was a majority Democrat demographic, which many have stated render that poll biased. I don't know if this is still the case?

    The key thing is - IS TRUMP a lesser of two evils?

    Simply, in my view, YES. Because I believe a less aggressive US foreign policy is essential for global well-being in general The current war party in the white house, whose views Clinton clearly espoused tonight in her accusations, denigration and aggressive stance toward Russia, can only lead one way. It is archaic, medieval and dangerous.

    If there can possibly be a turnaround in attitude from the barbaric, 1980s-style foreign policy hysterically issuing forth from US Military officials atm I would very much recommend we encourage it.

    Trump did not fudge his words regarding the middle east and ISIS. He praised Russian and Syrian combat of ISIS, he stated he did not hate Russia, unlike his rival. His message was altogether one of more solidarity.

    I am not a Trump butt-monkey, Putinbot or an idiot. But Clinton and her War Party are openly arming moderate rebels in Syria, fighting a two-faced phoney war in order to unseat Assad - causing a massive humanitarian disaster out there. The moderate rebels and, at one time, ISIS (I get the impression they've gone out of control now) are nothing more than mercenaries, paid for and armed out of US coffers. Can we wake up to the implications of this? Russia threatened to shoot down US aircraft in Syrian airspace the other day! Are you not alarmed by Clintons gung-ho attitude in this climate?

    This is not a perspective much agreed on in the MSM, but I happen to believe it is the single most important thing in the world today.

    Uncle Putin -> 123Anderson 9h ago
    "He also obviously has no idea what is going on in Syria."

    He said Allepo is probably already lost. There is a reality check for you.

    The current administration has repeatedly taken unrealistic positions based on ideology and clung to them until the reality on the ground made them utterly untenable to hold onto. As exhibit one, does anyone remember Obama's big speech to the nation when he announced his plan to arm moderate Syrian rebels? That turned out to be one of the most ineffective flops in history, a complete waste of time, money, and resources.

    The sad thing is that I remember numerous military commentators in the media who immediately predicted it would be an utter failure and they were right.

    Commentator6 9h ago

    Instead of a debate that was focused on Trump's vulgar comments, the debate was focused on policy issues, and despite all of Clinton's "preparation" when it came to the nuts and bolts of policy, Trump managed to not only go toe-to-toe with Clinton, he often got the best of her.

    Trump needed to win tonight to stay alive. Clinton did not. Trump won, and he lives to fight another day. This race is far from over.

    An accurate analysis.

    The CNN Democrat commentators were shell-shocked after the debate and were trying to convince themselves and the viewers that it was a tie.

    StrategyKing 9h ago
    Neither Richard nor Jessica have actually given an analysis of who one the debate. Both are just rehashing their own personal opinions about Trump, and Jessica, as she usually does, threw in some complaints about men in general. Terrible journalism.

    Hillary won on temperament but Trump won on the issues. He is an awful candidate, and it sucks that such a terrible candidate is the message bearer but that is what it is.

    Finally, finally someone actually asked the question that had to be asked on Syria, despite all the pointless hand wringing. Those rebels, what do we actually know about them, that we are willing to go to war for them? Are they islamists? How will they govern? Do they have any popular support of any kind?

    He should have also shouted out loudly when asked what are the consequences of Alleppo falling. The answer is none! There is nothing in Alleppo that is worth a single American life. If anything there might be good consequences. The civil war will end, people will go back to work and rebuilding will begin. Alleppo falling could be the best thing that happens to Syria.

    And its not even the whole of Alleppo we are talking about. 2/3rds is already in govt control, Sorry but there is the bitter truth about civil wars. IF they cant come to an agreement, then the best thing that can happen is if one part wins and the fighting stops.

    Trump is a desperately poor candidate, but you lot on the left are not making it easy to defeat him.
    And he should have shouted

    finalcurtain 10h ago
    Not many people could face off against a highly skilled politician like Hillary, and win - especially when all the media and grandees have extrapolated from a "locker room" recording to woman-hater/sex pervert.

    Trump showed up HRC as unexciting and mediocre. DT could still win.

    Timothy Everton 10h ago
    This was actually a reasonably decent debate, as far as these two candidates are concerned. Trump maintained his composure, Clinton came close to losing hers. And yes, I DID watch it.

    I fear the Presidency of Hillary Clinton as I believe that she is VERY capable of initiating a nuclear war with Russia. I truly believe that for Donald Trump, this would be a last alternative and that he would insist upon speaking, rather than acting, as HRC would.

    I just can not believe a word she utters. She has proven me correct with her "one position for public, and one position for private" quote. Two-faced liar.
    On the other hand is Trump. There are many laws or positions he endorses which would NEVER survive the two houses of Congress needed to implement them.

    HRC, on the other hand, has the "connections" which would give her the ability to do so. That scares me. She is someone. two-faced, who can not be trusted.

    Puro 10h ago
    You may like or loathe Trump, but it's impressive what he achieved tonight. They had him on the ropes, it was the middle of this fight and he knocked his opponent out tonight.

    It was the "rumble in the jungle" all over again - Trump absorbed all kinds of punishment, he absorbed it all and then ended up in triumph. "Trump bomaye! Trump bomaye! :-)

    Paul Marston 10h ago
    What I found amusing was her line about keeping the high ground - immediately after making several low blows and saying he was unqualified! She claimed she never says that about other candidates, yet said it about both Obama and Sanders - and no doubt every other opponent she has faced!

    This is the fundamental problem with Clinton. Because so many people despise her, she has always campaigned negatively, and apart from the virtually uncontested NY senate positions (bought by her wall street donors), she has lost each time! Now you can sling all the charges at Trump, and I will not disagree with any other them. Trump is indeed unfit to be president. However Clinton is infinitely less qualified.

    Here's why. her record! She boasts of so many sponsored bills as senator, yet when you actually look at what she ACHIEVED - 3 meaningless bills - named a museum, a road and a post office! As for her SOS "achievements" are there any? The only things we can say for certain she did, ultimately she has admitted they were mistakes - experience is meaningless if you have poor judgement, and she has prove to have terrible judgement.

    And ultimately at the end of the day, IF the will is there, Trump can be prevented from causing ANY damage. Clinton on the other hand has openly stated that she will cooperate with the republicans, thus only right wing conservative bills will get passed!

    And as for SCOTUS picks, Obama has proven there is no guarantee of progressive picks, and AGAIN if Trump picks an awful SCOTUS judge he CAN be blocked!

    So she has proven poor judgement, a proven record of incompetence, and is desperate to raise the stakes with the Russians! Can anyone explain to me how she is better in any way. Remember Trump is disgusting, but she is a war criminal - her actions should have put her in the hague yet alone the whitehouse!

    But this is all moot as Clinton shills simply refuse to be honest with themselves and refuse to look at her record. I have asked elsewhere dozens of times to Clinton supporters to name a crime / charge against Trump that cannot be said against Clinton - STILL waiting.

    Frankly it matters not who you vote for as they are both ubfit, but Clinton has a proven record of incompetence and war crimes whereas Trump has not. Personally it is way over time to stuff the 2 party nonsense and vote 3rd party - if they get 5% they get funding next time. Personally I

    Eric Batt 10h ago
    Trump today had to show that he, not the GOP leadership, was master of his base. And his base is by far the largest component of Republican voters so he is master of the party in the month before an election. He is not going to drop out and if the party wants to push that fight, Donald is going to decisively win it. His base wanted Hillary's blood and he gave it to them. In that sense he won. But winning undecideds, no. In that sense he lost.

    Hillary was addressing mainly women voters according to a statistical demographic profile. Don't confront too much, stay calm and collected, and let him have it on his 2005 tape. She saw the debate as a means to finally move women, maybe especially white women, to her side. She absolutely did not need to nail down her actual base, and was out to decisively pick up undecided voters. She probably succeeded. In that sense she won. And it is by far the bigger victory. And mostly because it was already mission accomplished in the 48 hours before the debate.

    In a week we will see the polling for the tape and for the debate. Hillary is going to increase her lead by 2 points if not more. And that includes the battlegrounds. And Trump will very definitely still be the candidate.

    DJoandark 10h ago
    Hillary's tough talk against Russia and regime change in Syria scare the crap out of me. She's talking nuclear war, and she and the media lie about Russia.

    Trump was correct to point out that if the US really wanted to knock out ISIS, they'd have to join forces with Russia. That was the most intelligent thing he said all night. I will not vote for either of them. Because as much as Trump is offensive, she has a sh*t eating grin which makes me sick. I think I'll write in Vladimir Putin, as he is 'currently' along with Xi in China working to make their countries true super-powers with science and technology.

    juascar 9h ago
    A "pearl" from Hilarious : "Russia (when not) is hacking our mails". Then again, she kill the messenger, but don't say 'what' was the contents of those e-mails. Especially those of the pre-campaign against Sanders.
    HindsightMe 9h ago
    Modern politics is all about have media houses in your pocket to promote your side of the story. For the life of me i cannot believe the presidential race is still so close even though there is a clear bias against trump. As an observer i am curious to know why?
    joeblow9999 9h ago
    It's been rather stunning as to how far the Guardian has gone to blanket it's news with pro-hilly propaganda. The most shameful moments came when Bernie was running in the primary.

    Guardian bias is bordering on the bizarre. There are few news sites reporting that Hillary won. So Trump won this debate and didn't take Anderson Coopers bate..... big deal.

    I think an article on how this late comeback won't help Trump at this late stage in the election would be more interesting.

    LitlBludot 9h ago
    They are both disgusting human beings. Though, of the two, Hillary represents the most acute, immediate threat to humanity with her calling for a no fly zone over Syria and her neo-McCarthy Russia bashing, demonizing Putin.

    The the recent events in Syria witness this threat, with the US openly protecting (supplying) the misogynist, stoneage Al Nusra in Eastern Alleppo, bombing Syrian soldiers who are actively engaged in combat against ISIS, and now bombing bridges leading to the ISIS capital of Raqqa thus preventing the advancing Syrian army from attacking ISIS.

    Then you have her history -to name just a few of her callous, inhumane, and cruel in the name of the 1%- of starving hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to death, her admiration of Henry Kissinger, her recent coup of a progressive, honest and legitimate president in Honduras and its replacement with corporate controlled puppets using death squads to kill environmentalists, journalists, etc.

    She is backed by the debt slavery banksters, the planet destroying fossil fuel parasites, the fascist military industrial security prison complex and the whole corporate fascist shadow state, not to mention the MSM (including this journal). At least Trump has said this, which is much saner than any of HIlliary's comments regarding Syria, (not to mention Lybia):

    ""Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. Iran is killing ISIS. And those three have now lined up together because of our weak policy," he said.

    "I think it would be great if we got along with Russia. We could fight ISIS together," Trump had said earlier in the evening."

    https://www.rt.com/usa/362184-trump-pence-syria-disagree

    [Oct 10, 2016] Trump just neutralized his tape scandal and has made Hillary's emails an issue again

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Titus Pullo October 9, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    Trump just neutralized his tape scandal and has made Hillary's emails an issue again. His talking about the inner city isn't about getting the black vote, but keeping it home on election day. The 30 years bit is effective, which even for someone like me, an unrepentant leftist, made me smile and think so true.

    Clinton could have sunk the knife tonight, but instead, she comes out of this more wounded than him, I believe.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Hillary scrubs sexual assault pledge after allegations against Bill resurface

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Kim Kaufman October 9, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    She definitely had a weasel word response ready for the deplorable comment she made. Did they give Trump some meds to keep his temper in line?

    Hillary scrubs sexual assault pledge after allegations against Bill resurface

    http://nypost.com/2016/08/15/hillarys-site-edits-sexual-assault-pledge-after-rape-claims-against-bill-resurface/

    [Oct 10, 2016] Is it OK for politicians to be two-faced

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Lambert Strether Post author October 9, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    RADDATZ On Wikikeasl, you need both a public and a private position. Is it OK for politicians to be two-faced

    CLINTON As I said, it was about Lincoln getting Congress getting the 13th Amendment approved. It was principled and strategic.

    CLINTON But lets talk about what's really going on. It's Russian hacking. We don't know if its accurate. We have never been in a situation where an adversary is working so hard to infuence the election. They're not doing it to elect me. We deserve answers. Clinton should release tax returns.

    TRUMP Caught in a lie. She lied. Now she's blaming the lie on Honest Abe. I think it would be great if we got along with Russians. We could fight ISIS together. I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia, no loans from Russia. Segues into the glories of his balance sheet [!!!]. I have no loans from the Russians, got govt work. Many of our friends took bigger deductions: Soros, Buffet, take massive deductions. I pay 100s of millions. When audit released…

    [Oct 10, 2016] Trump Defies Critics, Signals Attack On Bill Clinton Ahead Of Crucial Debate Zero Hedge

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    While the Trump Tape scandal may end up far less damaging to the Trump campaign than many pundits predicted, confirmed by several polls this morning which showed rank-and-file Trump supporters barely changed their opinion of the candidate in the aftermath of the hot mic recording leaked on Friday afternoon, he will have to pull off a strong debate performance while ignoring loud calls from both the press and top elected republicans to step aside, in order to offset a decline in polls has suffered since the first debate.

    That may be easier said than done, especially since over the past 24 hours Trump has seen a barrage of attacks not only from the left but also from his own party, with dozens of GOP lawmakers calling for him to stand down. As Fox wrote earlier , Trump was already struggling through a tough couple of weeks, after the first debate with Clinton, in which she argued Trump was verbally abusive to a 1996 Miss Universe winner. Still, trying to appear unfazed, Trump struck a defiant tone on Sunday in the face of calls for him to abandon the U.S. presidential race, attacking prominent Republicans and saying he has "tremendous support."

    As he so often has done in times of campaign stress, Trump took to social media to try to squelch any speculation that he could leave the race. "Tremendous support (except for some Republican leadership"). Thank you," Trump wrote on Twitter.

    "So many self-righteous hypocrites. Watch their poll numbers - and elections - go down!" Trump tweeted, apparently referring to Republican lawmakers seeking re-election who have withdrawn their support for him over a 2005 video that emerged on Friday.

    The negative speculation over the fate of Trump's campaign was the bulk of Saturday's news cycle, and continued on Sunday.

    As Reuters writes, Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri told reporters on Clinton's campaign plane: "We understand that this is uncharted territory ... to face an opponent that is in the grips of a downward spiral in terms of his own party belatedly walking away from him." A source close to the campaign of Trump's vice presidential running mate, Mike Pence, dismissed talk among some political analysts the Indiana governor might bolt the ticket in the uproar over Trump's comments. "Absolutely not," the source told Reuters.

    Meanwhile, as noted above, with Republican Party leaders in crisis mode and doubts emerging over Trump's ability to draw support from crucial undecided voters, it appeared that many of Trump's core supporters would remain loyal despite the hot mic incident. A public opinion poll by POLITICO/Morning Consult, taken just after news broke of the video, found 39 percent of voters thought Trump should withdraw, and 45 percent said he should stay. Of those who said Trump should leave, only 12 percent identified themselves as Republicans.

    Suggesting blowback may be in store for some Republicans who attacked Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan was heckled by Trump supporters at a rally in his congressional district in Wisconsin on Saturday, after having disinvited Trump following the release of the recording of Trump making lewd remarks. "You better back Trump!" they yelled. "You turned your back on him!" "Shame on you!"

    But while there has been much verbal speculation about the future of the Trump campaign, now one month ahead of the election, in practice it would be virtually impossible to replace Trump. As we reported previously, in what have been largely symbolic moves, at least two Republican governors, 10 senators and 11 House of Representatives members withdrew their support of Trump, with some advising him to drop out of the race, including John Thune of South Dakota, a member of the Senate Republican leadership. But, as Reuters notes, any attempt to replace Trump on the ballot would face huge legal and logistical hurdles. The Trump campaign fought back, circulating "talking points" to a core of high-profile Republicans who promote Trump in the news media. The points sought to undermine establishment Republicans who have abandoned Trump.

    "They are more concerned with their political future than they are about the future of the country," said a copy of the talking points, described to Reuters by two sources close to the campaign.

    It might work: as we noted previously, Trump has made his battle against the establishment a central campaign theme: what better way of underscoring that than by showcasing that not only do Democrats hate his brand, as of this moment a vast majority of Republicans do too.

    "Phones have been blowing up for the past 24 hours," said a prominent Republican political operative in Washington, referring to a heavy volume of calls among party officials and Republican members of Congress.

    There could be financial complications for Trump however. As we reported last night , Trump's troubles could steer campaign donations away from him and to Republican candidates for Congress and other down-ballot offices.

    But money may be the least of Trump's worries if he is unable to keep his head in tonight's debate.

    What should one expect?

    According to one Reuters source, Trump could help himself if he himself quickly addressed the video and the Oct. 1 New York Times report that he took so substantial a tax deduction on a declared $916 million loss in 1995 that he could legally have avoided paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.

    Altternatively, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Trump adviser, told Sunday talk shows that at the debate Trump might choose to go on the offensive against Clinton by bringing up past infidelities of her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press," Giuliani said both presidential contenders were flawed but that Trump feels he owes it to his supporters to stay in the race. Republicans have attacked Clinton, 68, over what they say is her role in trying to discredit women who accused her husband of sexual misconduct decades ago, and have wondered why Trump ignored to approach the topic during the first debate.

    According to the WSJ, which writes that " Trump Signals Attack on Bill Clinton in Coming Days " a taste of what may be to come was unveiled on Saturday when Bill Clinton was midway through a remark about climate change Saturday when a heckler gave a taste of what he and his wife's presidential campaign might get from Republican Donald Trump in coming days. "Nobody can dispute the fact..." Mr. Clinton started to say at a rally in a union hall, "... that you're a rapist!" the protester shouted, finishing the sentence for the 42nd president.

    Bill Clinton responds after heckler calls him a "rapist" during rally in Wisconsin pic.twitter.com/eTJxMeKqOK

    - NBC News (@NBCNews) October 9, 2016

    Previewing a hard-line attack on Clintons' sexual past, Trump on Sunday morning tweeted an interview given by Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed Mr. Clinton sexually assaulted her in the late 1970s.... Ms. Broaddrick tearfully recounts the episode in the videotaped interview and said "I'm afraid of him."

    As the WSJ adds, "Trump, facing fierce blowback for his lewd comments about women, is signaling that he will target Mr. Clinton's behavior as he tries to stabilize a campaign coping with its biggest crisis to date."

    In weekend apologies for his remarks, the Republican nominee invoked Mr. Clinton repeatedly, saying he had "abused women" and talked about them in ways that were more offensive than his own in a 2005 video in which he boasted of sexual aggression.

    He also claimed Mrs. Clinton attacked the women who accused her husband of sexual misconduct.

    "I've said some foolish things, but there's a big difference between the words and actions of other people," Mr. Trump said in a Saturday morning video. "Bill Clinton has actually abused women and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims. We will discuss this more in the coming days."

    That line of attack threatens to yank Mr. Clinton directly into the campaign scrum, a space the former two-term president has largely avoided since his wife launched her campaign a year and half ago.

    The WSJ notes that according to strategists in both parties, a tactic where Trump goes for Clinton's past infidelities may backfire.

    Rudolph Giuliani, a Trump campaign surrogate, said Sunday on NBC that he didn't expect his candidate to raise Mr. Clinton's past during an evening presidential town hall meeting in St. Louis, Missouri.

    Additionally, the WSJ notes that Bill Clinton remains a popular figure, outshining his wife and her Republican opponent.

    A recent Wall Street Journal/ NBC News poll found that 45% of voters said they have very positive or somewhat positive feelings about the former president, compared with 38% who have very negative or somewhat negative feelings.

    The same survey found that 37% of voters have positive feelings about Mrs. Clinton, while 52% have negative feelings. Meanwhile, just 28% of voters have very positive or somewhat positive feelings about Mr. Trump; 61% have very negative or somewhat negative feelings about him.

    Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster, said Mr. Trump would be playing to his base of hard-core supporters by attacking Mr. Clinton, but he isn't winning over any new voters. "If he were running a Republican primary race, this could be an effective strategy," Mr. Newhouse said. Now, "it's a failed strategy to try to bring Bill Clinton to this." Lashing out at the former president and saying that he has done something worse is "like an argument that a third-grader might make," Mr. Newhouse said. " When you use an apology to turn around and attack your opponent, you lose ground," he said.

    A democratic strategist, Joe Trippi, believes that "there's no way out for him other than to be humble and apologize", which on the other hand some say would show weakness and give Hillary the offensive. He also pointed out that Trump now needs to somehow win over women and college-educated white voters and that "taking aim at Mr. Clinton is only going to "repulse them further."

    * * *

    While nobody has any idea what Trump's best angle of attack may be, or what the republican presidential contender will say in under three hours when the townhall-styled debate begins, it is certain that following a brief courteous open, the mudslinging on both sides will promptly escalate, resulting in one of the most memorable, "deplorable" yet entertaining slow-motion trainwrecks observed in primetime history. The biggest unknown, however, is how America will respond to it: and for Trump that particular gamble could mean the difference between victory and defeat.

    [Oct 09, 2016] The way DNC handling the public v. private comments by Hillary Clinton is to declare all the leaked material suspect because it is postmarked Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... the DNC is handling the public v. private comments of one Hillary Clinton is to declare all the leaked material suspect because it's "postmarked Russia," according to Donna Brazile, whom I just watched on This Week – so she says she hasn't read them, and is advising that no one read them. If you don't read them, that ends the discussion, which obviously was her goal. ..."
    "... And it worked, as near as I can tell. Brazile hammered the public remarks only, so there you have it: just like the DNC hack that showed the games being played with the Sanders candidacy, the Wikileaks release on the paid speeches is delegitimized with one word: Russia. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Anne October 9, 2016 at 10:33 am

    Well, and just so you know, the way the DNC is handling the public v. private comments of one Hillary Clinton is to declare all the leaked material suspect because it's "postmarked Russia," according to Donna Brazile, whom I just watched on This Week – so she says she hasn't read them, and is advising that no one read them. If you don't read them, that ends the discussion, which obviously was her goal.

    And it worked, as near as I can tell. Brazile hammered the public remarks only, so there you have it: just like the DNC hack that showed the games being played with the Sanders candidacy, the Wikileaks release on the paid speeches is delegitimized with one word: Russia.

    Not that Stephanopolous seemed all that reluctant to let her off the hook – he can say he brought it up, but we all know today isn't about Clinton, it's once again about Trump.

    I will say this: the town hall debate could be pretty interesting.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Russia Responds To Formal Cyberattack Accusations, Calls Them Unprecedented Anti-Russian Hysteria

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Following the first official accusation lobbed at Russia on Friday by the Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence on Election Security, in which US intelligence services formally stated they were "confident" that the Russian government "directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations", today Russia responded to this latest diplomatic escalation by saying that U.S. accusations that Russia was responsible for cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations lack any proof and are an attempt by Washington to fan "unprecedented anti-Russian hysteria", the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said.

    After late on Friday the Kremlin called the U.S. allegations "nonsense", on Saturday Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, cited by Reuters , said on the ministry's website that "this whipping up of emotions regarding 'Russian hackers' is used in the U.S. election campaign, and the current U.S. administration, taking part in this fight, is not averse to using dirty tricks."

    "There is no proof whatsoever for such grave accusations," Ryabkov said. "(They are) ...fabricated by those who are now serving an obvious political order in Washington, continuing to whip up unprecedented anti-Russian hysteria."

    Ryabkov reiterated an offer to Washington, first made last year, to hold consultations on fighting cyber crime together, but he also criticized John Kerry after the U.S. Secretary of State said late on Friday that Russian and Syrian actions in the Syrian civil war, including bombings of hospitals, "beg for" a war crimes investigation.

    Such remarks are unacceptable and Moscow is disappointed to hear "new typically U.S. claims for being a global judge", Ryabkov said in comments to Interfax news agency published on Saturday.

    As Reuters adds, referring to a resolution on Syria proposed by France for debate at the United Security Council later on Saturday, he said: "Unfortunately, we see less and less common sense in the actions of Washington and Paris". The draft resolution demands an end to air strikes and military flights over Aleppo. Moscow has already said this draft is unacceptable.

    So with hopes of any joint Syrian action in tatters, and the US formally accusing Russia of being a state sponsor of cyber attacks against the US, with the chairman of the US senate cyber hacking subcommittee going so far as introducing a bill imposing sanctions on Russia after the political hacking allegations, which Russia has duly denied, the ball is now again in Obama's court, where the next step is most likely to be even more diplomatic tensions, and military escalations.

    pods: Oct 8, 2016 11:00 AM

    US policy: "When did you stop beating your wife?"

    jcaz -> RagaMuffin: Oct 8, 2016 11:14 AM

    Don't sweat it, Vlad- real America knows what this is about, and who did what.....

    [Oct 09, 2016] Banner of Russias Putin hung from New York City bridge

    Notable quotes:
    "... paging the late Sen. Joe McCarthy, we have a fifth-column crisis! I blame the Donald for mollycoddling evil commies like the Putin. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ewmayer October 7, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Banner of Russia's Putin hung from New York City bridge | Reuters

    Ha, the article actually uses 'the Putin', as in ' featuring the Putin dressed in a suit in front of the Russian flag with the word "Peacemaker" in capital letters' paging the late Sen. Joe McCarthy, we have a fifth-column crisis! I blame the Donald for mollycoddling evil commies like the Putin.

    polecat October 7, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    VOTE PUTIN . 'Cause he'll DO IT !'

    ewmayer October 7, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    Update on the "banner day for the Putin" – Russian friend notes similar banner was hung in Dresden, and the occasion is the Putin's birthday, 64th years young today.

    Jay M October 7, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Hillary: Huma dear, pour me another double Stoli & tonic, stat!
    Huma: What if the schlubs hear you drink Stoli, maybe we should switch to Skyy?
    Hillary: It's what Blankfein serves, only the best.
    Huma: Maybe we should reconsider first strike, considering the caviar situation. Some VIP donors will be sucking their thumbs.
    Hillary: Memo to Blumenthal, we need a strategic caviar stockpile to last until the rubble is sorted out.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Saw less than a dozen Trump Signs. Not a single Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... Saw less than a dozen Trump Signs. Not a single Hillary. And this one that I meant to steal, but we came back a different route: 2016 EVERYONE SUCKS ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    DWD October 7, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Lambert,

    Last week we spent a couple of days in Traverse City, MI (Red Wing's Camp) and I noted the yard signs in the 150 miles or so we traveled.

    Saw less than a dozen Trump Signs. Not a single Hillary. And this one that I meant to steal, but we came back a different route: 2016 EVERYONE SUCKS

    Katharine October 7, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    Don't steal it, reproduce it!

    [Oct 09, 2016] Trump has promised to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act . That would take an act of Congress, but would not be necessary.

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Science Officer Smirnoff October 7, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    David Dayen reenforces the point that Paul Ryan is party ideologist (and has been for years) in bringing up Ryan's Wednesday statement that "he intends to jam through the Ryan budget next year under a procedure that bypasses Democratic opposition in Congress-and make that vow without fear of reprisal, right in the heat of election season":

    . . . Even today, the media assists Ryan when he tries to distance himself from Donald Trump-when in reality, Trump would likely be little more than an autopen as president , signing whatever noxious policy Ryan shuttled through the House and put on his desk. Despite this, the media almost affords him sympathy for his plight about dealing with Trump (he's campaigning with Trump on Saturday, so it can't be that wrenching), rather than recognizing his role as the author of the agenda the next Republican president will carry out.

    The normalization of Ryan as a serious, honest figure allows him to put out as radical a budget as would ever be initiated in American history without anyone batting an eyelash. This may not come back to sting the country next year, if Trump falls the way his poll numbers currently suggest. But at some not-too-distant point, when conservatives capture the entire government, they'll be able to implement this blueprint, the Ryan budget, that should have been made into nuclear waste long ago.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/137553/detoxified-paul-ryans-budget

    Grover Norquist would put it slightly differently: Republicans only need a dead man walking to sign their bills.

    cwaltz October 7, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Isn't it nice that Ryan's plan is to save the Democratic Party in 2018 when they face challenges in keeping their seats at the same level the GOP is facing this year?

    If Ryan thinks there won't be consequences in ramming through changes to Social Security or Medicare, he's bleeping insane and clearly hasn't been paying attention.

    I almost wonder if he can get the rest of his coalition to sign his little suicide pact. If Trump doesn't implode him then Ryan's budget just might.

    Science Officer Smirnoff October 7, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    Consequences?

    Republicans merely can cherry-pick Ryan's budget-but they're a monolith on core doctrine, tax cuts on income from wealth and deregulation, eh?

    . . . or this bonus–Robert Kuttner in American Prospect:

    Trump has promised to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act . That would take an act of Congress, but would not be necessary. He'd need only to appoint stooges to several key Treasury positions, or repeal existing regulations and not write new ones. The same is true of a broad swath of environmental, civil-rights, and labor regulation, not to mention rights of immigrants. . . Trump could reach out to such relatively conservative unions as police, fire, and building trades with a blend of carrots and sticks. He could try to enlist industrial unions such as the Steelworkers and the United Auto Workers that are most threatened by trade, and ask for their explicit support. Then he could concentrate his fire on left unions like the Service Employees International Union, which has a heavily black and Latino membership. His white working-class bona fides would be strengthened-and the labor movement's alliance with the Democratic Party sundered.

    Consequences?

    NY Union Guy October 7, 2016 at 7:36 pm

    As a white union guy in an AFL union who knows plenty of other white guys in other AFL unions, I find your whole scenario entirely plausible.

    Trump is very popular among my cohorts, which I find rather ironic since he spent years on TV playing the role of boss. It wouldn't take much, maybe a federal pre-emption of state right-to-work laws, to get the union factions you spoke of on board. Cardcheck seems to be more of an SEIU/UFCW type of issue and those definitely aren't Trump unions.

    cwaltz October 7, 2016 at 10:00 pm

    As the wife of a white union guy I don't,

    The union leadership is quite often lazy and self serving. They"ll continue to back Democrats even though they get very little from the alliance,

    As a matter of fact I got my first anti Trump mailer today, It was from the SMART PAC(railroad union)

    hunkerdown October 7, 2016 at 8:47 pm

    Even today, the media assists Ryan when he tries to distance himself from Donald Trump

    Curiously, he fails to mention - or mentioned but editors cut - allegations that to do so was official Hillary policy. The impending flame-out of this Party system can be hung right on her and her mooks' shoulders.

    Benedict@Large October 7, 2016 at 9:20 pm

    I have no fear of Ryan enacting his budget. Any party that enacts that budget will be removed from power for the following three generations. Everyone that was alive when that happened would have to die before that party ever got another chance.

    No doubt that party would then repeat that same mistake.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Comparing Bernie's rallies with Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... Zach Bee Of all the words you could chant, in the entire english language, they pick the ONE that rhymes with liar? What does Hillary! Fire! Even mean? I thought that was a joke at first. Wow. ..."
    "... Moh Moony Spot on mate. No one ever accused Hillbots of being very bright. beidoll I kept thinking it should have been "Fire Hillary". I'd fire her before I'd hire her. ..."
    "... Thanet Taout LOLOLOLOL ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 10:40 am

    For those who want a few laughs in these grim times, check out the excellent Jimmy Dore's video (6 minutes) comparing Bernie's rallies with Hillary's. There is a truly cringeworthy episode of HRC cheerleading in the clip.

    Bernie Crowds vs Hillary Crowds - A Depressing, Hilarious Comparison

    integer October 9, 2016 at 10:59 am

    Heh. I liked this little exchange in the comments:

    Zach Bee
    Of all the words you could chant, in the entire english language, they pick the ONE that rhymes with liar? What does Hillary! Fire! Even mean? I thought that was a joke at first. Wow.

    Moh Moony
    Spot on mate. No one ever accused Hillbots of being very bright.

    beidoll
    I kept thinking it should have been "Fire Hillary". I'd fire her before I'd hire her.

    Thanet Taout
    LOLOLOLOL

    BecauseTradition October 9, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    What does Hillary! Fire! Even mean?

    Liar, liar pants on fire?

    [Oct 09, 2016] Bernie is the Biggest Frigging Sellout, if you ask me. He spends 6 months railing against HRC's policies and now is out promoting her. He is dead to me now.

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    edmondo October 9, 2016 at 9:53 am

    So even after Hillary says she's going to renounce every campaign promise she made two hours after the polls close, Bernie can't wait to get out on the campaign trail urge us to vote for our own extinction?

    Donald may be "The Apprentice" but Bernie has got to be "The Biggest Loser"

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Bernie is the Biggest Frigging Sellout, if you ask me. He spends 6 months railing against HRC's policies and now is out promoting her. He is dead to me now.

    I can see the expediency of a reluctant endorsement at the convention, but he's lost his credibility with this behaviour. They must've threatened him with loss of his Senate committee positions or something.

    DarkMatters October 9, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    …or offered to fund his foundation and invite hi to expensive lectures. Carrot or stick, carrot or stick; so hard to tell. I imagine the stick is avoided when possible; no point in bringing needless ugliness into what could be a nice relationship.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Trump will prove to be the Republican Boris Yeltsin

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    John Merryman October 9, 2016 at 12:36 pm

    A prediction and question; Trump will prove to be the Republican Boris Yeltsin. Any guesses as to who will be the Putin? Chaffetz?

    [Oct 09, 2016] tomorrow, their subscription office will be flooded with cancellations

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    John Zelnicker October 9, 2016 at 10:13 am

    BREAKING: The Alabama Media Group, publisher of the Mobile Press-Register, The Birmingham News, The Huntsville Times and other publications, as well as one of the most right wing publishers in the South, has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.

    For those who are familiar with Alabama politics (Yves?) this is yuuge.

    http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/10/endorsement_hillary_clinton.html#incart_2box

    NotTimothyGeithner October 9, 2016 at 10:50 am

    And tomorrow, their subscription office will be flooded with cancellations. The GOP hive mind simply doesn't work this way.

    When people buy newspapers for the op-eds, they want to read what they already think. The newspapers themselves are largely purchased as local papers of record or status symbols. The Union Leader endorsed Hillary, and New Hampshire isn't breaking for Hillary. The Union Leader is a huge deal.

    I know Team Blue is excited, but Palin, McCain (Team Blue seems to love his deranged positions), Shrub, Jeb, Reagan, Nixon, Rick Scott, Graham, Thurmond, Helms, Mittens…do you see where I am going?…haven't destroyed the GOP. Partisan politics matters, believe it or not. By the end of the week, every Republican outside of the ones close to retirement will have apologized and declare war on "micro aggressions."

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:56 am

    John Zelnicker
    October 9, 2016 at 10:13 am

    Once you get past the BRANDING (repub versus dem) isn't it just obvious that Hillary would have been to the comfortable with most of the repub candidates, on most issues, except for a very, very few social issues, and even there not significantly outside repub suburban norms???

    The parties in my view are the biggest impediment to critical thinking there is – their downfall can't happen soon enough.

    But I agree – this is YUUGE! Its kinda like the death of Sears.

    lyman alpha blob October 9, 2016 at 11:39 am

    I get where you coming from but is it really that surprising that an ultra right wing paper endorses an ultra right winger?

    Also breaking: water wet

    Do we still need more proof that Nader was right?

    And isn't it ironic that it took a master of kayfabe reality TV star like Trump to get so many of these supposedly partisan hacks to play it straight?

    [Oct 09, 2016] Donald Trump lewd tape is just words, while Hillary defense of 40 year old rapist of 12 girl girl is a fact

    Notable quotes:
    "... Citizens United ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Donald Trump Says Campaign Not in Crisis, and There Is 'Zero Chance I'll Quit' WSJ. Trump: "Go behind closed doors of the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits and see what they're saying. I look like a baby."

    Sex, Dice, and the Trump Tapes Corey Robin

    Can You Believe Donald Trump Did That Thing? McSweeney's

    Many men talk like Donald Trump in private. And only other men can stop them. WaPo. The difference between these many men (at least the elite ones) and Trump is that Trump aspired to political power. The implicit Democrat narrative that Trump is a uniquely pernicious outlier is ludicrous on its face, as indeed this article urges.

    Lewd Donald Trump Tape Is a Breaking Point for Many in the G.O.P. NYT. Except… This is the Republican establishment that (a) fielded 17 candidates none of whom could be bothered to do oppo even to the extent of listening to Trump's public tapes on Howard Stern, that (b) failed to fund or unify behind a candidate to stop Trump when they had the chance, and that (c) is hated by the most powerful factions in its own base. I think they're going to have to carry Trump to term.

    GOP repudiation of Trump before 11/8? If so, then what? PrawfsBlog

    Analysis: Republicans dropping Trump must answer: Why now? AP

    RNC lawyers look at options for replacing Trump Politico and RNC halts Victory project work for Trump Politico

    Paul Ryan heckled at Wisconsin festival over criticism of Trump Yahoo News.

    Donald Trump, Ohio & the GOP meltdown Cincinatti Enquirier

    Donald Trump's pastor problem: 40 percent of Protestant ministers are still undecided WaPo

    How the Golden State Became the Intellectual Capital of Trump's GOP The American Interest (Re Silc).

    Clinton-Trump battle too close to call in four swing states McClatchy. This is before Trump's hot mike eruption; in terms of peeling off Trump voters, I would like to whether non-college-educated white women have shifted.

    TV Ad Spending Reveals the States Where Trump and Clinton Are Fighting Hardest Bloomberg

    Bernie Sanders Packs Schedule With Campaign Stops for Hillary Clinton Wall Street Journal

    Hillary Clinton Is in Her Own Form of Climate Denial In These Times
    The Disastrous Failure of Lesser Evilism Counterpunch

    Howard Dean: How to Move Beyond the Two-Party System NYT. Oh, Hoho

    AP Exclusive: Job hunt substantial part of Bayh's last year AP. "Evan Bayh spent substantial time during his last year in the Senate searching for a private sector job even as he voted on issues of interest to his future corporate bosses, according to the former Indiana lawmaker's 2010 schedule." So what? Both party establishments accept the central doctrine of Citizens United , that absent a showing of quid pro quo , there's no corruption. Move along, people, move along. There's no story here.

    The Last 100 Days: Obama's Nobel Peace Prize edition Yahoo News

    temporal October 9, 2016 at 8:31 am

    I'm shocked that Trump would say rude things in private. Men (and women, don't fool yourself) being rude. Huh. Never would have seen that coming. An entire entertainment industry called comedy, especially standup, based on levels of rudeness. Can't be.

    World leaders like LBJ watching movies of animals copulating in the White House or bragging about having a Senator doing his bidding indicated by having the man's p*cker in his pocket.

    Shocked.

    Tom Denman October 9, 2016 at 9:12 am

    Yesterday John McCain again showed that he is a national treasure when he assailed Donald Trump's "demeaning comments about women." This voice of decency and reason in 1998 told a meeting of Republicans: "Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." [1]

    McCain was joined in withdrawing support from Trump by his fellow neocon Condoleezza Rice. Rice demonstrated her superior judgement during the summer of 2001 when she systematically devalued intel that explicitly warned of an impending major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

    The Republican hawks repudiating Trump are motivated not by his attitude towards women but by his refusal to kowtow to a War Machine that has bought and paid for Hillary Clinton.

    And given that it was already universally known that Trump is a despicable lout, these defections look a lot more like part of a larger orchestrated outrage than a spontaneous reaction to the Trump tape.

    [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/02/women.johnmccain

    mad as hell. October 9, 2016 at 9:21 am

    That is a good find! If only it would go viral!

    hreik October 9, 2016 at 9:30 am

    And then there's this:

    Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/07/report-mccains-profane-ti_n_95429.html

    Jim Haygood October 9, 2016 at 10:23 am

    So where's Ann Kirkpatrick, McCain's opponent? She hasn't even tweeted for a couple of days:

    https://twitter.com/RepKirkpatrick?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Enews%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    Nothing there but policy wonkery. *yawn*

    McShame is not even mentioned.

    clinical wasteman October 9, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair ran a great demolition series on MCain during his presidential campaign, with a lot about his disgusting behaviour towards his wife and general gilded misogyny. No link here because the theme recurred through too many articles, a lot of them the late Cockburn's wonderful Friday 'Diary' column (if you missed those at the time, look them up and start reading anywhere; also St Clair has lately revived the tradition, and his diary is almost as good), but they should be easily searchable in the Counterpunch archive. Or you could find them in AC's final book, 'A Colossal Wreck'.

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:22 am

    Tom Denman
    October 9, 2016 at 9:12 am

    I could go all Plato and shadows on the cave walls, but everything we see is filtered. Or emphasized.
    Very, very rich people, with very, very specific agendas, do the filtering and decide what you see, but more IMPORTANTLY, what you don't.

    jrs October 9, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    maybe they are just repudiating for a reason Trump if anyone on earth would understand. They don't want to be seen with a loser (when Trump loses the election).

    Robert Hahl October 9, 2016 at 8:33 am

    Re: Badgers. From Hunter S. Thompson's Rolling Stone obituary for Richard Nixon"

    "It was Richard Nixon who got me into politics, and now that he's gone, I feel lonely. He was a giant in his way. As long as Nixon was politically alive - and he was, all the way to the end - we could always be sure of finding the enemy on the Low Road. There was no need to look anywhere else for the evil bastard. He had the fighting instincts of a badger trapped by hounds. The badger will roll over on its back and emit a smell of death, which confuses the dogs and lures them in for the traditional ripping and tearing action. But it is usually the badger who does the ripping and tearing. It is a beast that fights best on its back: rolling under the throat of the enemy and seizing it by the head with all four claws.

    "That was Nixon's style - and if you forgot, he would kill you as a lesson to the others. Badgers don't fight fair, bubba. That's why God made dachshunds.

    mad as hell. October 9, 2016 at 8:53 am

    I haven't watched him in a while but I gotta feel concerned for CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Having to acknowledge the Russian punk band Pussy Riot on the air a couple of years ago. Now he has to acknowledge " grab them by the pussy" has to be causing him some anguish. Because I'm sure he has never heard that before. Then again a seven figure salary will undoubtedly sooth some of that faux disgust.

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 9:56 am

    mad as hell.
    October 9, 2016 at 8:53 am

    You know, on PBS Gwen Ifil's Washington Week in Review, a woman correspondent ACTUALLY quoted the audio tape that has Trump saying he grabs a women's "P" – except she SAID, apparently to "clean it up" a woman's "kitty cat."
    I spit up my Cabernet!!!

    Language – funny how the common name we use to name that small mammalian predator, star of countless Youtube videos, that we keep as pets also refers to womens's sexual organs – except apparently the other name we use for the small mammalian predator can also be used (at least in hip hop videos), but isn't as DIRTY…yet

    (hmmm, I thought you could only say kitty cat if you were actually referring to a…."cat" but you can't say "kitty cat" if your referring to a "P" – odd…)

    I imagine I could saaaaay any word in such a way to make it sound dirty…

    Angry Panda October 9, 2016 at 8:57 am

    Quick hits on the Trump thing.

    a) Trump's comments are, of course, deplorable. But I do not see how they are at all unexpected or out of character for Trump, especially given all the preceding stories about how he behaved on the set of The Apprentice, etc. I mean, what's next, Breaking News – Sun Rises in East as Previously Thought?

    b) If you look at the electoral map (e.g. at RealClearPolitics) and make some reasonable poll-based assumptions (e.g. Virginia and Indiana break for Kaine and Pence, respectively), you end up with exactly three contested areas of the country.

    The Southwest – Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada. Let's say those are split 50/50, although so long as Trump keeps flogging the "illegal brown rapists" horse, who knows.

    The Rust Belt-ish – the Pennsylvania-to-Wisconsin arc around the Great Lakes (Penn, Ohio, Michigan, WI, MN, minus Indiana).

    Florida.

    So basically you're looking at something like six states that are likely going to decide the whole contest, because everything else breaks 200-180 or 210-170 or some combination thereof.

    Are Trump's comments going to have any influence whatsoever on his Rust Belt vote? Or are those people voting for him because of anti-trade, anti-establishment, anti-Clinton, whatever other factors? More bluntly, are the pro-Trump women in those states going to shriek in horror at his latest crudeness, or say something like "boys will be boys, but Clinton is still worse"? I don't know. I doubt anyone in the media knows either. Maybe we'll have an inkling in 1-2 weeks with fresh sets of polls.

    Are Trump's comments going to really change the Florida-white-senior-citizen vote, or whatever bloc over there is (reportedly, per Politico) breaking 2:1 for him? I don't know. I doubt anyone in the world knows. Maybe we'll have a better view in 1-2 weeks (again).

    c) Given (a) and (b), as well as the similarly-timed Wikileaks release, as well as the similarly-timed "evil Russians are evil" release by the White House, as well as the upcoming debate…nah, I'm just going to call the whole thing a big set of coincidences and say the media is rightly focusing on the most important story of the hour and not at all willfully ignoring anything else of substance.

    NotTimothyGeithner October 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Lambert noted Trump is already an ugly billionaire who has made horrid statements and noted it's likely this is priced in.

    Three issues stand put:
    -it's a claim from a very bizarre person with a history of ugly statements not an accusation
    -Bill is a serial predator. Lewinsky was an intern under his power. Hillary has been part of smear campaigns and is a purveyor of violence to boot. I recall Gaddafi was widely seen being raped before his death which produced laughter. Also how many people laughed at Shrub's correspondents video where he looks for WMDs. First hand accounts of the occupations and wars have been spread for a long time now.
    -the glee from the uni-party and msm can only backfire when they are widely distrusted.

    Virginia is breaking for military contracts. Northern Virginia is largely "military Keynesianism" run amok. The vote there will break for whoever is least likely to move federal spending to other locations. They have to lay the mortgage on government salaries. Northern Virginia outside of a few small enclaves is such a dump. Without the spending, no industry will relocate there.

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 11:31 am

    British blogger John Ward (self-exiled to France, I believe) made similar and useful points today:

    * The recording is eleven years old.

    * It takes place in a locker room, where 97% of those mouthing off this morning have never been in their lives. It was the sort of male fantasy-boasting I listened to every Saturday before getting changed into my footie kit.

    * Nobody died. The US Ambassador wasn't anally raped and dragged through the streets to a grisly demise. No whistleblower was taken out with a drone.

    * It didn't take place in the offices of Goldman Sachs, it didn't take place in the Oval Office, and there were no cigars involved.

    * If American men are shocked by this kind of talk, they're either deaf or just never played sports.

    * From the day he first opened his mouth in this campaign, anyone with an iota of sensitivity could discern what kind of bloke he is: crude, narcissistic and misogynist. This tape is, therefore, not news.

    * The behaviour of his running mate evokes suspicion, I think. Mike Pence voted for Cruz in his home State, and is renowned for his nose being able to sniff a populist soundbite. Both he and Ryan (another Trump-hater in private) were quick to condemn Trump's remarks unequivocally. Senior GOP movers, however, are reputed to have told the Vice-Presidential nominee that if he dumped Trump, they would make him the Republican candidate "by acclamation".

    * The source of the story – the Washington Post – is the biggest non-surprise of all of all: the journalist involved there, David Fahrenthold, has written several stories about Trump's charitable foundation (but ignored the infinitely more septic Clinton Foundation) while casting aspersions on his mental capacity to be President (while ignoring Clinton's consistent inability to stand upright unaided.

    * Fellow Washpost blogger Richard Cohen wrote two months ago (with remarkable prescience) 'The way to hurt Trump is to ridicule him. He is a man of immense pride, a pompous bloviator and a locker-room towel-snapper. Either ignore him or ridicule him.'

    * According to the Post, Farenthold knows the identity of the person who leaked the video to him, but will not disclose it. It seems the person works for NBC, who had a team working full-time to find lewd tapes of Trump during production of their programming featuring him. I understand, however, that NBC were going to leave airing the featured extract until Monday – after the Second TV Debate – and so an activist Democrat supporter downloaded the tape and gave it to Farenthold.

    –FARENTHOLD 451: Trump's bonfire of vanities, or smoke blown in our eyes?

    I just cannot believe the level of outrage over this comments compared to the real outrages and crimes going on in the world today. Ironically, if Trump implodes, HRC will go on to win but more voters - assuming she has it safely in the bag - may vote 3rd party. In any case the victory will be a poisoned chalice. The most corrupt, dishonest, and disliked candidate as POTUS?

    Jim Haygood October 9, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Probably the best political analogy is "Bill's" Monica moment. The institutional D party reaction was, "It's just about sex."

    As for "Bill," so for Trump. If it's "just about sex," Trump's supporters (including women) will rationalize it away, just as their Democratic sisters did for "Bill."

    Those for whom it's a deal killer were opponents anyway. So nothing has really changed, except that the Clintons could end up getting hoisted on their own petard if the counterattack includes some really damning fresh dirt.

    Baby Gerald October 9, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Incredible set of links, as always and nice work by our own Richard Smith. SLPs being used to front illegal operations– who would've thought? Excellent investigative work.

    The revelations being sussed-out from the Goldman Sachs speeches could be the last straw for Hillary's campaign, tipping undecideds and ex-Sanders supporters further away from her. Public and private position, indeed. It's also an apt term to describe people who answer polls and tell their friends and colleagues they're voting for candidate A, while in fact voting for B,C, or D.

    The Trump hot-take comes as another deflection, but it seems that his base supporters could care less.

    On a lighter note, the Onion hits the nail on the head once again:

    Poll Finds 30% Of Americans Still Undecided Whether To Vote Out Of Fear Or Spite

    Tom October 9, 2016 at 9:43 am

    The selective outrage regarding Trump's boorish behavior and Hillary Clinton's bloodthirtsy and dangerous policy stances is profound.
    In 2013, Clinton says,

    "To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defenses, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk- you're going to kill a lot of Syrians," Clinton admitted. She then expressed concern that would make that "intervention that people talk about so glibly" a full-fledged "American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians."

    3 days ago, a Rueters report says:

    "In a departure from the Obama administration, [Clinton] supports the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria and has called for an intensified air campaign by the U.S.-led coalition."

    See, it's okay when Clinton 'glibly' advocates for military escalation that is guaranteed - by her own admission - to kill innocent civilians. Like a Hindu goddess of death, she is in her rights to decide when it is acceptable to "take" civilians.

    But god forbid Trump mentions wanting to f*ck someone who he thinks is attractive. There is no place for that kind of talk in Hillary's civilized world!

    voteforno6 October 9, 2016 at 9:59 am

    Hillary Clinton said something rather vile about Gaddafi's death:

    "We Came, We Saw, He Died"

    katiebird October 9, 2016 at 10:03 am

    And this is why I will vote out of spite against her and the DNC for nominating her

    ProNewerDeal October 9, 2016 at 10:04 am

    Trump admitted to past sexual assualts, "hitting on married women by kissing them & grabbing their p***y".

    Far worse than expressing sexual desire towards another person. Agreed that HClinton is worse. Trump sexually assaulting 10s of women, is lower on the scale of moral atrocities than killing 1000s of innocent civilians.

    Speaking of killing innocent civilians, your friendly reminder that the entire Real Basket of Deplorables cohort of US politicians, including 0bama, P Ryan, HClinton, Trump; kill 45K USians/yr per Harvard Public Health Profs, by their continual blockage of Canada-style MedicareForAll, e.g. another ANNUAL killing of 1000 of innocent (USian) civilians.

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 11:35 am

    I believe part of the context is that Trump is boasting how his fame gets him a lot of beautiful women and sex. This is undoubtedly true - just look at Rupert Murdoch's recent marital history. The boasting (and vulgarity) are such a part of his personality. It's odious and I wouldn't want any of my female friends to associate with him, but compared to killing 500,000 kids with Iraqi sanctions, I'd say it's relatively unimportant in the scheme of things.

    JTMcPhee October 9, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Henry Kissinger: "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." He got to screw Jill St. John, and a whole lot of Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, and me and my fellow troops, among others.

    We're all screwed, us ordinary people. Don't even have the option of "laying back and enjoying it." Too bad we don't have an organizing principle we can coalesce around, to defeat the parasites and mass murderers and enable a world of decency and comity and viable stability…

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 9:47 am

    So I just went to the NY Times "Politics" page at 9:30AM (Eastern Time). Here is a list of the articles, in order. For your reading pleasure or convenience, I have bolded the articles not about Donald Trump. Note their position in the list.

    Lewd Donald Trump Tape Is a Breaking Point for Many in the G.O.P.
    By JONATHAN MARTIN, MAGGIE HABERMAN and ALEXANDER BURNS

    Inside Trump Tower in Manhattan. Donald J. Trump is facing increasing pressure in his own party to end his candidacy.
    Pressure built on the candidate to withdraw from the presidential campaign as party leaders urged the G.O.P. to shift its focus to down-ballot contests.

    Donald J. Trump waves to supporters outside Trump Tower in New York on Saturday.
    NEWS ANALYSIS

    Donald Trump's Conduct Was Excused Again and Again. But Not This Time.
    By MICHAEL BARBARO and PATRICK HEALY
    It turns out that even the most self-interested members of the political class, the true weather vanes swinging in the wind, have their limits.

    Why Republicans Are Probably Stuck With Donald Trump
    By ALAN RAPPEPORT
    Unless he becomes incapacitated or quits, getting rid of him is, legally and logistically, "the equivalent of a triple bank shot."

    Donald Trump the Showman, Now Caught in the Klieg Lights
    By JIM RUTENBERG 5:00 AM ET
    Donald J. Trump deftly used the blending of news and entertainment to build a brand, and then a campaign. But all that drama has turned into a big, messy show.

    Graphic: More Than 150 Republican Leaders Don't Support Donald Trump. Here's When They Reached Their Breaking Point.
    By KAREN YOURISH, LARRY BUCHANAN and ALICIA PARLAPIANO
    Which statements caused Republicans to bail on Donald Trump.

    Presidential Debate: What to Watch For
    By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE 5:00 AM ET
    To achieve anything resembling a victory, Donald J. Trump needs to focus on the most compelling parts of his message: trade, the threat of terrorism, and the creation of jobs.

    Women React With Fury to Donald Trump's Remarks, but Some Offer Support
    By ABBY GOODNOUGH and WINNIE HU
    What to tell a 10-year-old daughter? Why hasn't Mr. Trump outgrown the locker-room talk? These are among the questions being asked across the country.

    Men Say Trump's Remarks on Sex and Women Are Beyond the Pale
    By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
    Men of many backgrounds and parts of the country had varied opinions on how men talk, but they agreed that Mr. Trump's version was unacceptable.

    Donald Trump's Long Record of Degrading Women
    By THE NEW YORK TIMES
    The candidate has a history of insulting or unwelcome conduct that goes back several decades, The New York Times has found.

    John McCain Withdraws Support for Donald Trump After Disclosure of Recording
    By ALAN RAPPEPORT
    Mr. McCain became the latest party leader to distance himself from the nominee after a recording showed Mr. Trump speaking about women in lewd and degrading terms.

    Paul Ryan, Reluctant Supporter, Weighs Response to Donald Trump's Remarks
    By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
    Mr. Ryan uninvited Mr. Trump from a rally on Saturday, and said he was "sickened" by Mr. Trump's remarks about women. But he did not withdraw his support.

    Graphic: Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell Reject Donald Trump's Words, Over and Over, but Not His Candidacy
    By LARRY BUCHANAN, ALICIA PARLAPIANO and KAREN YOURISH
    How the two top Republicans in Congress have responded to Mr. Trump's comments.

    Donald Trump Apology Caps Day of Outrage Over Lewd Tape
    By ALEXANDER BURNS, MAGGIE HABERMAN and JONATHAN MARTIN
    A vulgar discussion recorded in 2005 on a soap opera set added to evidence that Mr. Trump has a record of sexist behavior.

    Donald Trump's Apology That Wasn't
    By MAGGIE HABERMAN
    In a video expressing regret over his lewd comments, Mr. Trump remained defiant, calling the disclosure a "distraction" and used it to renew political and personal attacks on Hillary Clinton.

    Donald Trump: King of the Old Boys' Club, and Perhaps Its Destroyer
    By SUSAN DOMINUS
    A taped conversation involving the Republican nominee shows a world women rarely see, and may not forget before Election Day.

    Can't Find a Plan on HealthCare.gov? One May Be Picked for You.
    By ROBERT PEAR
    Under a new policy to make sure people maintain insurance coverage in 2017, the government may automatically enroll them.

    What Options Does the U.S. Have After Accusing Russia of Hacks?
    By DAVID E. SANGER and NICOLE PERLROTH
    Pentagon and intelligence officials have been debating how to deter future attacks while controlling the potential escalation of a cyberconflict.

    To Redefine Homestretch, Hillary Clinton Cues the Children
    By NICK CORASANITI
    "Measure," a new ad that begins with girls checking their heights against wall rulers, aims to stand out near the end of a negative campaign season.

    Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at Ease With Wall Street
    By AMY CHOZICK, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL BARBARO
    According to documents posted online by WikiLeaks, Mrs. Clinton displayed an easy comfort with business and embraced unfettered trade in paid speeches to financial firms.

    Newly Released Hillary Clinton Emails Offer Glimpse at Husband's Advice
    By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ERIC LICHTBLAU
    The State Department began releasing emails the F.B.I. collected during its investigation into her use of a private email server.

    Billy Bush, a cousin of former President George W. Bush, in August.
    Billy Bush Says He's Ashamed by Lewd Talk With Donald Trump
    By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM and JOHN KOBLIN
    Mr. Bush, a cousin of President George W. Bush, said he was "less mature, and acted foolishly" in a 2005 conversation with Mr. Trump about women.

    http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/

    Imagine if the sexual harassment and rape claims against Bill Clinton were given the same amount of exposure? We know Trump is a lewd, sexist, buffoon, but it was Bill who lied for six months about getting blowjobs from a 20 year old intern in the Oval Office.

    The Guardian this morning has a huge front page spread about Trump but not a mention of the Wikileaks release of the Podesta emails.

    The MSM just don't give a shit about their credibility.

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:10 am

    Pavel
    October 9, 2016 at 9:47 am

    I just have to note this. I remember how well argued and coordinated the defense of Bill Clinton was. I believed it at first. Do you remember that he couldn't have possibly had sex in the oval office because it is sooooo busy??? (I still think the most outrageous lie is trying to convince people that the president works hard). I could imagine the president having a tryst…but in the Oval office!?!!?? don't be ridiculous.

    That people come in and out (dirty side long glance) of the oval office all day unexpectedly????
    And of course, the despicable character assassination of Monica …by "pro women" people.

    HBE October 9, 2016 at 10:44 am

    Guess what every single one of those trump articles have in common. Comments are turned off.

    Wouldn't want the plebs muddying the narrative or bringing up bill clinton would we now NYT.

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 11:37 am

    I noticed that as well. Same at the Guardian - their main anti-Trump pieces today have comments turned off. Mustn't have the "plebs" mention Bill Clinton's past or bring up the Wikileaks Podesta emails!

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 9, 2016 at 11:46 am

    Like a school lecture.

    You listen until the class is over.

    Only when you're lucky do you get a chance to ask some questions.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Clinton and Podesta Wikileaks Release

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    by Lambert Strether

    naked capitalism


    From: Links 10-9-16 naked capitalism

    The WikiLeaks material is highly relevant to how Clinton would actually govern, as opposed to how she says she will govern. Because of the oddly timed release of the Trump hot mike tape, this story seems to be getting buried, so I'll go into it in some detail. First some links:

    Hillary Clinton's Wall St speeches published by Wikileaks BBC. "Published," and not "allegedly published," or "appear to reveal" (WaPo) .

    In paid speeches, Hillary Clinton said she "represented" and "had great relations" with Wall Street Salon

    Sanders supporters seethe over Clinton's leaked remarks to Wall St. Reuters

    Contradicting FBI view, Clinton's leaked speeches portray her as computer savvy McClatchy

    How the Clinton campaign decisions get made Politico

    And now some quotes. Just to underline what we aleady know :

    *CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY*

    *Clinton: "But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position."*

    (The email is a compilation of quotes from Clinton's paid speeches, not otherwise available. It begins: "Attached are the flags from HRC's paid speeches we have from HWA." The asterisked material is how the Clinton campaign staffer "flagged" the quotes they considered dangerous.) Since these quotes are from paid speeches, we can expect Clinton's private position - expect, that is, if we assume that Clinton isn't cheating her clients by failing to deliver value for money in terms of services to be rendered - to be a more accurate representation of her views than her public one. In other words, we're looking at a pitch to the donor class, when Clinton was laying the groundwork for her campaign. In an oligarchy , this would be natural.

    I believe I've mentioned to readers that my vision of the first 100 days of a Clinton administration includes a Grand Bargain, the passage of TPP, and a new war. So you can read the following as confirmation bias, if you will.

    On the Grand Bargain and Social Security (Morgan Stanley, 2013):

    But Simpson-Bowles - and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today - put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending , we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It's a three-part formula. The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or not [!!].

    Readers will of course be aware that the fiscal views intrinsic to Simpson-Bowles have been the perennial justification for Social Security cuts ( "the progressive give-up formula" ) and austerity generally. And if you think Democrat orthodoxy on SImpson Bowles has changed, see Robert Rubin today (below). If you buy Simpson-Bowles, you buy Social Security cuts. The policy is bad enough, but "depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or not" is, to me, the real mind-boggler.

    On trade (Banco Itau, 2013):

    Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders , some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."

    On "green," see Clinton below on climate change. On trade, anybody with a "dream" like that will not surrender TPP lightly.

    On war , Clinton said (Goldman Sachs, 2013):

    Hillary Clinton Said One Of The Problems With A No Fly Zone Would Be The Need To Take Out Syria's Air Defense, And "You're Going To Kill A Lot Of Syrians." "So we're not as good as we used to be, but we still-we can still deliver, and we should have in my view been trying to do that so we would have better insight. But the idea that we would have like a no fly zone-Syria, of course, did have when it started the fourth biggest Army in the world. It had very sophisticated air defense systems. They're getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports. To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk-you're going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians." [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, 6/4/13]

    Not that there's anything wrong with that .

    And speaking of beating the war drums, there's this gobsmacking quote on climate change (tinePublic, 2014):

    Clinton Talked About "Phony Environmental Groups" Funded By The Russians To Stand Against Pipelines And Fracking. "We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I'm a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia." [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14]

    Wowsers. I wonder what 350.org thinks about that?

    Avoiding Viruses in DNC/DCCC/CF Excel Files Another Word For It. For readers playing alone at home.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Bernie Sanders Supporters Furious Over Hillarys Leaked Wall Street Speeches

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    With the media exclusively attuned to every new, or 11-year-old as the case may be, twist in the Trump "sex tape" saga, it appeared that everyone forgot that a little over 24 hours ago, Wikileaks exposed the real reason why Hillary was keeping her Wall Street speech transcripts - which we now know had always been within easy reach for her campaign - secret. In her own words : "if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position." In other words, you have to lie to the general public while promising those who just paid you $250,000 for an hour of your speaking time something entirely different, which is precisely what those accusing Hillary of hiding her WS transcripts had done; and as yesterday's hacked documents revealed, they were right.

    The Clinton campaign refused to disavow the hacked excerpts, although it quickly tired to pin the blame again on Russia: "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton," spokesman Glen Caplin said in a prepared statement. Previous releases have "Guccifer 2.0 has already proven the warnings of top national security officials that documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign."

    Ironically, it was literally minutes before the Wikileaks release of the "Podesta Files" that the US formally accused Russia of waging a hacking cyber attack on the US political establishment, almost as if it knew Wikileaks was about to make the major disclosure, and sought to minimize its impact by scapegoating Vladimir Putin.

    And while the Trump campaign tried to slam the leak, with spokesman saying "now we finally get confirmation of Clinton's catastrophic plans for completely open borders and diminishing America's influence in the world. There is a reason Clinton gave these high-paid speeches in secret behind closed doors - her real intentions will destroy American sovereignty as we know it, further illustrating why Hillary Clinton is simply unfit to be president", Trump's campaign had its own raging inferno to deal with.

    So, courtesy of what Trump said about some woman 11 years ago, in all the din over the oddly coincident Trump Tape leak, most of the noise created by the Hillary speeches was lost.

    But not all.

    According to Reuters , supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Saturday " seethed ", and "expressed anger and vindication over leaked comments made by Hillary Clinton to banks and big business that appeared to confirm their fears about her support for global trade and tendency to cozy up to Wall Street. "

    Clinton, who last it emerged had slammed Bernie supporters as "basement dwellers" in a February fundraiser, with virtually no media coverage, needs Sanders' coalition of young and left-leaning voters to propel her to the presidency, pushes for open trade and open borders in one of the speeches, and takes a conciliatory approach to Wall Street , both positions she later backed away from in an effort to capture the popular appeal of Sanders' attacks on trade deals and powerful banks.

    Needless to say, there was no actualy "backing away", and instead Hillary did what he truly excels in better than most: she told the public what they wanted to hear, and will promptly reneg on once she becomes president.

    Only now, this is increasingly obvious to America's jilted youth: " this is a very clear illustration of why there is a fundamental lack of trust from progressives for Hillary Clinton," said Tobita Chow, chair of the People's Lobby in Chicago, which endorsed Sanders in the primary election.

    " The progressive movement needs to make a call to Secretary Clinton to clarify where she stands really on these issues and that's got to involve very clear renunciations of the positions that are revealed in these transcripts," Chow said.

    Good luck that, or even getting a response, even though Hillary was largely spared from providing one: as Reuters correctly observes, the revelations were immediately overshadowed by the release of an 11-year-old recording of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, making lewd comments about women. In fact, the revelations were almost entirely ignored by the same prime time TV that has been glued to the Trump slow-motion trainwreck over the past 24 hours.

    Still, the hacked speeches could lead to further erosion in support from the so very critical to her successful candidacy, young American voter.

    Clinton has worked hard to build trust with so-called progressives, adopting several of Sanders' positions after she bested him in the primary race. The U.S. senator from Vermont now supports his former rival in the Nov. 8 general election against Trump. Still, Clinton has struggled to win support from young "millennials" who were crucial to Sanders' success, and some Democrats expressed concern that the leaks would discourage those supporters from showing up to vote.

    "That is a big concern and this certainly doesn't help," said Larry Cohen, chair of the board of Our Revolution, a progressive organization formed in the wake of Sanders' bid for the presidency, which aims to keep pushing the former candidate's ideas at a grassroots level. "It matters in terms of turnout, energy, volunteering, all those things."

    Still, despite the Trump media onslaught, the message appeared to filter through to those who would be most impacted by Hillary selling out her voters if she were to win the presidency.

    "Bernie was right about Hillary," wrote Facebook user Grace Tilly cited by Rueters, "she's a tool for Wall Street."

    "Clinton is the politicians' politician - exactly the Wall Street insider Bernie described," wrote Facebook user Brian Leach.

    Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf said progressive voters would still choose the former first lady, even with misgivings. "I'd like to meet the Bernie Sanders supporter who is going to say, 'Well I'm a little worried about her on international trade, so I'm going to vote for Donald Trump'," he said.

    He just may meet a few, especially if Bernie's supporters ask themselves why Bernie's support for Hillary remained so unwavering despite a leak confirming that Hillary was indeed all he had previously railed against.

    In a statement earlier, Sanders responded to the leak by saying that despite Hillary's paid speeches to Wall Street in which she expressed an agenda diametrically opposite to that espoused by the Vermont socialist, he reiterated his his support for the Democratic Party platform.

    "Whatever Secretary Clinton may or may not have said behind closed doors on Wall Street, I am determined to implement the agenda of the Democratic Party platform which was agreed upon by her campaign," he said in a statement.

    "Among other things, that agenda calls for breaking up the largest financial institutions in this country, re-establishing Glass-Steagall and prosecuting those many Wall Street CEOs who engaged in illegal behavior. "

    In retrospect we find it fascinating that in the aftermath of October's two big surprises served up on Friday, Sanders actually believes any of that having read through Hillary's Wall Street speeches, certainly far more fascinating than the staged disgust with Trump who, the media is suddenly stunned to find, was no more politically correct 11 year ago than he is today.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Disgusting as Trump is, I am sure not looking forward to the howls of misogyny that will be coming from the Clinton camp

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Kokuanani October 7, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    I'm surprised not to see anything here about the "political bombshell" of Trump's latest sexist remarks.

    As I listen to the talking heads bloviate about what a "death blow" this is to the Trump campaign, it occurs to me that if the Repubs could engineer Trump's withdrawal from the top of the ticket, they could probably beat Hillary with Pence. They would have to arrange it so that Trump goes agreeably - should not be too hard to do, since many doubt if he WANTS to be president - and Pence could pledge that he would carry forward all of Trump's wonderful Screw the Establishment policies. Trump without the messy Trump_vs_deep_states.

    Disgusting as Trump is, I'm sure not looking forward to the howls of misogyny that will be coming from the Clinton camp. And, just another distraction from talking about policy.

    Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    1. Clinton is corrupt (again), liar (still), dishonest (again), warmonger (still) etc. Trump is racist(still), bigot (again), misogynist (still), Hitler (Putin, Ahmedinejad)…. gets tedious after the 20th time.

    2. I think Trump does it on purpose as a response to a Clinton dump. It looks like her GS speeches are out today so the networks can cover Trump's latest bigoted statement and ignore Clinton insulting the voters and sucking up to the oligarchs.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Hillary Camp Worked With Reporter On Anti-Sanders Story

    Notable quotes:
    "... Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics. ..."
    "... "We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | dailycaller.com
    Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign collaborated with Bloomberg reporter Jennifer Epstein to create an anti-Bernie Sanders story prior to the Nevada caucus.

    In the vast trove of Clinton emails leaked Thursday by the organization DCLeaks, there is an email exchange between Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and Emily Ruiz, head of the campaign's Nevada operation. In the exchange, Ruiz and Mook discuss rumors that Sanders volunteers were posing as Clinton operatives and engaging in irritating behavior like knocking on voters' doors at 11 pm.

    Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics.

    "We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Trump angst looms over economic elite at IMF meetings

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In my lifetime I cannot remember anything like the scepticism about these values that we see today," said Suma Chakrabarti, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. ..."
    "... There was much discussion this week about the underlying causes of that scepticism - low growth, stagnant wages and other scars of the 2008 global financial crisis - together with calls for governments to do more to ensure the benefits of globalisation are distributed more widely. ..."
    "... Lou Jiwei, China's finance minister, told reporters on Friday, the current "political risks" would in the immediate future lead only to "superficial changes" for the global economy. But underlying them was a deeper trend of "deglobalisation". ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.ft.com
    The world's economic elite spent this week invoking fears of protectionism and the existential crisis facing globalisation

    .... ... ...

    Mr Trump has raised the possibility of trying to renegotiate the terms of the US sovereign debt much as he did repeatedly with his own business debts as a property developer. He also has proposed imposing punitive tariffs on imports from China and Mexico and ripping up existing US trade pacts.

    ... ... ...

    "Once a tariff has been imposed on a country's exports, it is in that country's best interest to retaliate, and when it does, both countries end up worse off," IMF economists wrote.

    It is not just angst over Mr Trump. There are similar concerns over Brexit and the rise of populist parties elsewhere in Europe. All present their own threats to the advance of the US-led path of economic liberalisation pursued since Keynes and his peers gathered at Bretton Woods in 1944.

    "In my lifetime I cannot remember anything like the scepticism about these values that we see today," said Suma Chakrabarti, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

    There was much discussion this week about the underlying causes of that scepticism - low growth, stagnant wages and other scars of the 2008 global financial crisis - together with calls for governments to do more to ensure the benefits of globalisation are distributed more widely.

    Lou Jiwei, China's finance minister, told reporters on Friday, the current "political risks" would in the immediate future lead only to "superficial changes" for the global economy. But underlying them was a deeper trend of "deglobalisation".

    ... ... ...

    [Oct 09, 2016] The Week Globalists Started to Panic

    Notable quotes:
    "... Weak global trade, fears that the U.K. is marching towards a hard Brexit , and polls indicating that the U.S. election remains a tighter call than markets are pricing in have led a bevy of analysts to redouble their warnings that a backlash over globalization is poised to roil global financial markets-with profound consequences for the real economy and investment strategies. ..."
    "... From the economists and politicians at the annual IMF meeting in Washington to strategists on Wall Street trying to advise clients, everyone seems to be pondering a future in which cooperation and global trade may look much different than they do now. ..."
    "... "The main risk with potentially tough negotiating tactics is that trade partners could panic, especially if global coordination evaporates." ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.bloomberg.com
    Weak global trade, fears that the U.K. is marching towards a hard Brexit , and polls indicating that the U.S. election remains a tighter call than markets are pricing in have led a bevy of analysts to redouble their warnings that a backlash over globalization is poised to roil global financial markets-with profound consequences for the real economy and investment strategies.

    From the economists and politicians at the annual IMF meeting in Washington to strategists on Wall Street trying to advise clients, everyone seems to be pondering a future in which cooperation and global trade may look much different than they do now.

    Brexit

    Suggestions that the U.K. will prioritize control over its migration policy at the expense of open access to Europe's single market in negotiations to leave the European Union-a strategy that's being dubbed a "hard Brexit"-loomed large over global markets. The U.K. government is "strongly supportive of open markets, free markets, open economies, free trade," said Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond during a Bloomberg Television interview in New York on Thursday. "But we have a problem-and it's not just a British problem, it's a developed-world problem-in keeping our populations engaged and supportive of our market capitalism, our economic model."

    Trade

    Citing the rising anti-trade sentiment, analysts from Bank of America Merrill Lynch warned that "events show nations are becoming less willing to cooperate, more willing to contest," and a backlash against inequality is likely to trigger more activist fiscal policies. Looser government spending in developed countries-combined with trade protectionism and wealth redistribution-could reshape global investment strategies, unleashing a wave of inflation, the bank argued, amid a looming war against inequality.

    U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew did his part to push for more openness. During an interview in Washington on Thursday, he said that efforts to boost trade, combined with a more equitable distribution of the fruits of economic growth, are key to ensuring U.S. prosperity. Rolling back on globalization would be counterproductive to any attempt to boost median incomes, he added.

    Trump

    Without mentioning him by name, Lew's comments appeared to nod to Donald Trump, who some believe could take the U.S. down a more isolationist trading path should he be elected president in November. "The emergence of Donald Trump as a political force reflects a mood of growing discontent about immigration, globalization and the distribution of wealth," write analysts at Fathom Consulting, a London-based research firm. Their central scenario is that a Trump administration might be benign for the U.S. economy. "However, in our downside scenario, Donald Dark, global trade falls sharply and a global recession looms. In this world, isolationism wins, not just in the U.S., but globally," they caution.

    Analysts at Standard Chartered Plc agree that the tail risks of a Trump presidency could be significant. "The main risk with potentially tough negotiating tactics is that trade partners could panic, especially if global coordination evaporates." They add that business confidence could take a big hit in this context. "The global trade system could descend into a spiral of trade tariffs, reminiscent of what happened after the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 , and ultimately a trade war, possibly accompanied by foreign-exchange devaluations; this would be a 'lose-lose' deal for all."

    Market participants are also concerned that populism could take root under a Hillary Clinton administration. "We believe the liberal base's demands on a Clinton Administration could lead to an overly expansive federal government with aggressive regulators," write analysts at Barclays Plc. "If the GOP does not unify, Clinton may expand President Obama's use of executive authority to accomplish her goals."

    [Oct 09, 2016] Why I Am Having Nightmares About the Coming Election

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The American Conservative

    Thus my nightmares about the coming election. Consider:

    Trump: He promises to "make America great again." ("Deutschland uber alles," anyone?) He rants against immigrants and Muslims and conniving foreign nations like Mexico and China. (Jews and gypsies get a pass this time.) He is a bully. He promises hope to those who have been left behind economically and socially. He attracts huge and very devoted crowds at his rallies. He has no coherent program, at least yet-you have to believe in him as a great leader.

    Whom does he remind you of, at least vaguely?

    Clinton: She is secretive to a fault, perhaps paranoid in her pursuit of power. There are hints of hidden illnesses, so reminiscent of Uncle Joe. An unhidden lust for money at any cost. Considering "two for the price of one" (Bill and Hill), there are the key operatives who conveniently die when in disfavor. They do not hesitate to use the Justice Department, and especially the IRS, to persecute opponents. She runs a tight operation, as secretive as she is personally, and has an ideological platform for totally transforming America.

    Whom does she remind you of, at least vaguely?

    Again, let me be clear. I do not think Trump has a holocaust in mind; he is just an opportunist using "the other" both domestically and abroad to gain power. And I do not think Clinton has the stamina for sustained great purges and great gulags. Yes, she has a lust for power, but she has even more lust for getting rich through politics. She can be bought, and has been, constantly.

    It is these characteristics, however, that are so disturbing. They build on what has come before, but suggest a revolutionary escalation. Every president during my lifetime has added to the power of the American empire and the deep state, but now we seem to be at an unprecedented and transformative junction.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Stop the presses: Donald has no problem with acting like a classless pig!

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    cwaltz October 7, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/ar-BBx95Fw?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

    Just in case anyone was disabused of the idea that Donald has no problem with acting like a classless pig!

    NY Union Guy October 7, 2016 at 8:44 pm

    This may actually help the Donald mobilize his base of pissed-off white guys. I mean, how do you think they talk about women in their locker rooms, truck stops, and on the unemployment line?

    polecat October 7, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    ..And of course women NEVER engage in harsh or lewd conversations ….. when referencing the male of the species .. am I right ?

    cwaltz October 7, 2016 at 9:21 pm

    I don't recall those women actually being on the ballot for president.

    Good to know you wouldn't be offended to hear a bunch of women treat you like a piece of meat and brag about how they attempted to "nail you" even ignoring the fact that you were married? Nothing offensive there right? You'd love it if women spent their time looking at your pants straining to figure out the size of the bulge so they can discuss it in detail instead of I don't know, actually listening to you? It's classy and professional behavior(and yes Donald was there for work).

    Hey, I do have to respect that you've adopted his strategy also of excusing his behavior by making this all about everyone else too- incredibly adult. The "mommy they did it first" defense utilized by Donald Trump, his defenders and 3 to 7 year olds throughout the US.

    *shakes head at the immaturity*

    cwaltz October 7, 2016 at 9:24 pm

    Women are half the electorate. He already had the male vote. He needs the female vote.

    I'd like to congratulate him for showing the female half of the species how absolutely disrespectful and creepy he is.

    Otis B Driftwood October 7, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    Right. Stop the presses. Trump is lascivious. That's news to who, exactly?

    And what's next? We learn that Trump sometimes farts in public? Or worse, lets go the occasional SBD? "Revealed" to deflect the latest revelation of Clinton greed and corruption, I'm sure.

    Sheesh … what a low, debased and sad spectacle all around.

    [Oct 09, 2016] But for all Trump's many faults and flaws, he saw things that were true and important-and that few other leaders in his party have acknowledged in the past two decades

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.theatlantic.com

    "But for all Trump's many faults and flaws, he saw things that were true and important-and that few other leaders in his party have acknowledged in the past two decades" [David Frum, The Atlantic ].

    Trump saw that Republican voters are much less religious in behavior than they profess to pollsters. He saw that the social-insurance state has arrived to stay. He saw that Americans regard healthcare as a right, not a privilege. He saw that Republican voters had lost their optimism about their personal futures-and the future of their country. He saw that millions of ordinary people who do not deserve to be dismissed as bigots were sick of the happy talk and reality-denial that goes by the too generous label of "political correctness." He saw that the immigration polices that might have worked for the mass-production economy of the 1910s don't make sense in the 2010s. He saw that rank-and-file Republicans had become nearly as disgusted with the power of money in politics as rank-and-file Democrats long have been. He saw that Republican presidents are elected, when they are elected, by employees as well as entrepreneurs. He saw these things, and he was right to see them.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Hillary is not clobbering Donald because we have a moribund democracy

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    hreik October 7, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Lol. Hillary isn't clobbering Donald b/c we have a moribund democracy.
    http://ahtribune.com/us/2016-election/1232-hillary-clinton-democracy.html?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default

    shinola October 7, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    Thanks for the link. Interesting and depressing. A snippet:

    " Oligarchy is rule by the few. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy. Corporatocracy is a society governed or controlled by corporations. We have all three."

    [Oct 09, 2016] A Real Life House of Cards - The Most Striking WikiLeaks Revelations From The Podesta Files Zero Hedge

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Yesterday we pointed out the many amazing one-liners offered up by Hillary as she was out collecting millions of dollars for her "Wall Street speeches." Here is an expanded sample:

    Hillary Clinton: "I'm Kind Of Far Removed" From The Struggles Of The Middle Class "Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy." "And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]

    Hillary Clinton Said There Was "A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful And/Or Complicated Lives," Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks. "SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small -- MR. BLANKFEIN: That's how you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

    Hillary Clinton Noted President Clinton Had Spoken At The Same Goldman Summit Last Year, And Blankfein Joked "He Increased Our Budget." "SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, thanks for having me here and giving me a chance to know a little bit more about the builders and the innovators who you've gathered. Some of you might have been here last year, and my husband was, I guess, in this very same position. And he came back and was just thrilled by- MR. BLANKFEIN: He increased our budget. SECRETARY CLINTON: Did he? MR. BLANKFEIN: Yes. That's why we -- SECRETARY CLINTON: Good. I think he-I think he encouraged you to grow it a little, too. But it really was a tremendous experience for him, so I've been looking forward to it and hope we have a chance to talk about a lot of things." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

    Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees "Were Not Mostly Permitted To Have Handheld Devices." "You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices. I mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I can't expect people to change if I don't try to model it and lead it." [Clinton Speech For General Electric's Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]

    Clinton Joked It's "Risky" For Her To Speak To A Group Committed To Futures Markets Given Her Past Whitewater Scandal. "Now, it's always a little bit risky for me to come speak to a group that is committed to the futures markets because -- there's a few knowing laughs -- many years ago, I actually traded in the futures markets. I mean, this was so long ago, it was before computers were invented, I think. And I worked with a group of like-minded friends and associates who traded in pork bellies and cotton and other such things, and I did pretty well. I invested about a thousand dollars and traded up to about a hundred thousand. And then my daughter was born, and I just didn't think I had enough time or mental space to figure out anything having to do with trading other than trading time with my daughter for time with the rest of my life. So I got out, and I thought that would be the end of it." [Remarks to CME Group, 11/18/13]

    Hillary Clinton Said Jordan Was Threatened Because "They Can't Possibly Vet All Those Refugees So They Don't Know If, You Know, Jihadists Are Coming In Along With Legitimate Refugees." "So I think you're right to have gone to the places that you visited because there's a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism and particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it's on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can't possibly vet all those refugees so they don't know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason." [Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]

    Hillary Clinton Said The Saudis Opposed The Muslim Brotherhood, "Which Is Kind Of Ironic Since The Saudis Have Exported More Extreme Ideology Than Any Other Place On Earth Over The Course Of The Last 30 Years." "And they are getting a lot of help from the Saudis to the Emiratis-to go back to our original discussion-because the Saudis and the Emiratis see the Muslim Brotherhood as threatening to them, which is kind of ironic since the Saudis have exported more extreme ideology than any other place on earth over the course of the last 30 years." [2014 Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner, 10/28/13]

    Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

    Meanwhile, there are plenty of other great email exchanges as well.

    The following exchange comes from the President of the Soros-funded " Open Society Foundation " (we previously wrote about the society's plan to "Enlarge electorate by at least 10 million voters" here ) who offers some advice on "police reform." The email points Podesta to an article previously written by the Open Society Foundation , ironically titled " Get the Politics Out of Policing ." Surprisingly, Stone points out that the problem isn't a lack of independence by police but by politicians:

    The problem is not a lack of independence just from the police , but independence from city politics. Since 2007, Chicago has had an agency separate from the police to investigate officer-involved shootings, but the "independent" agency (the Independent Police Review Authority, or IPRA) is still under the mayor, and generally retreats from any investigation that might lead to criminal charges. Until we get investigations of cases like this out of the hands of politicians, even the best policies a police chief can impose won't change the culture.

    Well that seemed to backfire. To summarize, Stone says don't do exactly what the FBI did in its investigation of Hillary's email scandal.

    [Oct 08, 2016] If Trump is all talk, why are all the establishment neocons as hysterical over him

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's because they couldn't get assurances from him that his anti-globalization talk was just talk, unlike Hillary whom they have gotten assurances that the outsourcing bloodbath will continue unabated. ..."
    "... If Trump tears up NAFTA and the TPP then Americans will, at least, have gotten SOMETHING out of "their" government over the past 35 years. Some little morsel of democratic representation. Something that can be marked as a turning point from 35 years of escalating political and economic corruption that has put civilization on the verge of implosion into fascist revolutions and world war repeating, verbatim, the history of the 1920s and 30s. ..."
    "... For a $10-million donation to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary gave the thumbs up for the use of child soldiers in South Sudan as SoS. A shady businessman had an eye on African mining rights and regime change. (Hillary data-shredded "business" related emails on an illegal private server; smashed her smartphones with a hammer; to destroy evidence.) ..."
    "... Really? Stiffing his employees. Stiffing his creditors. Stiffing the tax man. All "perfectly legal". ..."
    "... Is not this is what neoliberalism is about? Especially for the employees part ..."
    Oct 07, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Ron Waller -> Ben Groves... October 07, 2016 at 12:58 PM , October 07, 2016 at 12:58 PM
    If Trump is all talk, why are all the establishment neocons as hysterical over him as the PC pearl clutchers?

    It's because they couldn't get assurances from him that his anti-globalization talk was just talk, unlike Hillary whom they have gotten assurances that the outsourcing bloodbath will continue unabated.

    If Trump tears up NAFTA and the TPP then Americans will, at least, have gotten SOMETHING out of "their" government over the past 35 years. Some little morsel of democratic representation. Something that can be marked as a turning point from 35 years of escalating political and economic corruption that has put civilization on the verge of implosion into fascist revolutions and world war repeating, verbatim, the history of the 1920s and 30s.

    Ron Waller -> pgl... , -1
    Trump is a weasel of a businessman and a weasel of a politician (par for the course on the latter.) But he made all his money legally.

    The concept of pure corruption, however, might suit the Clintons, given they have pocketed over $100-million in bribe-related wealth.

    They deregulated the banks for kickbacks from Wall Street. Set the stage for the 2000s Bust Out - a complex web of fraud among all manner of banker including cheerleading central banker - that culminated in global economic collapse.

    For money from the burgeoning private prison industry, they labeled African American youth "super predators" with "no conscience; no empathy" (a most vicious of racist dog whistle that blows anything Trump has said out of the water.) Hillary called for a police crackdown ("we can talk about how they ended up that way, but they first must be brought to heel") that kicked off the era of mass incarceration; produced a militant police force filled with racist thugs and cowards; and created the Black Lives Matter movement.

    For a $10-million donation to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary gave the thumbs up for the use of child soldiers in South Sudan as SoS. A shady businessman had an eye on African mining rights and regime change. (Hillary data-shredded "business" related emails on an illegal private server; smashed her smartphones with a hammer; to destroy evidence.)

    All this (and MOAR) might not be pure corruption. But something around 99.99% pure. Like Ivory soap, except evil.

    pgl -> Ron Waller ... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 02:37 PM
    "But he made all his money legally."

    Really? Stiffing his employees. Stiffing his creditors. Stiffing the tax man. All "perfectly legal".

    Ron Waller -> pgl... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 05:38 PM
    Trump is small potatoes compared to what the real Wolves of Wall Street did to the global economy. But if he did break the law he should be thrown in jail, right along with the Clintons and all the other bribe-taking criminals.
    nikbez -> pgl... , -1
    Is not this is what neoliberalism is about? Especially for the employees part

    [Oct 08, 2016] Strategic timing of release of Trump sex tapes

    Oct 08, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Tom aka Rusty : Saturday, October 08, 2016 at 07:01 AM
    HRS'c speech transcripts should be front page news today.

    However.....

    The Donald certainly took care of that!

    [Oct 08, 2016] Barry and the spooks make it official today – Putin did it! re: the DNC email leaks.

    Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    lyman alpha blob October 7, 2016 at 5:59 pm

    Barry and the spooks make it official today – Putin did it! re: the DNC email leaks.

    But as you note, the Dems are not coming off as particularly trustworthy. Checking the comments of that article, the dogs aren't eating the dogfood and seem to have noticed the claims are still based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

    [Oct 08, 2016] Democrat Email Hairballs

    Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Wikileaks' Julian Assange to release 'significant' documents on US election, Google, arms trading over next 10 weeks" [ International Business Times ]. Oh, not the next 31 days?

    PhilU October 7, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    Wikileaks dumped #ThePodestaEmails. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/

    Complete with a copy of everything problematic in her wall street spaces.
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmAIuAMKAViAXv
    THEY ARE BAD
    "But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position ."
    -100% pro trade
    -Shits on single payer
    -Wall Street should regulate itself… sigh.

    And her Uranium One cover might have just died.
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release

    Titus Pullo October 7, 2016 at 9:11 pm

    Don't worry, the CTR shills are already on Reddit and social media framing this as another "nothing burger," or that it is actually good for her. The campaign's pals in the MSM are sure to follow, especially considering the reprehensible recording of Trump that was released earlier today (granted, as a man, I have heard many men say things as bad or worse than Trump has said at various stages in my life) gives them a foil to wrap this hot potato in.

    [Oct 06, 2016] Former Miss Universe Alicia Machado says shes done talking about Trump Daily Mail Online

    Oct 06, 2016 | dailymail.co.uk

    A former Miss Universe who says Donald Trump 'fat-shamed' her and called her 'Miss Piggy' says she's done battling the billionaire.

    Alicia Machado will not give any more interviews on the way Trump treated her, representatives for the Venezuelan-born beauty queen told DailyMail.com.

    'We will not be discussing the Trump subject any further,' an email from her reps at Anderson Public Relations Group said.

    A statement from Machado that accompanied to the message blasted Trump and his campaign for 'launching insults and are attempting to revive slanders and false accusations about my life, in order to humiliate, intimidate, and unbalance me.

    'These attacks are cheap lies with bad intentions,' she said.

    A former Miss Universe who says Donald Trump 'fat-shamed' her and called her 'Miss Piggy' says she's done battling the billionaire. Alicia Machado says she will not give any more interviews on the way Trump treated her

    Machado blasted Trump in a statement for 'launching insults and are attempting to revive slanders and false accusations about my life, in order to humiliate, intimidate, and unbalance me.' She's pictured fighting off the press on Oct. 1 at a Fashion Week event in California

    After Hillary Clinton put a spotlight on Machado's strife with Trump in the first general election debate, the 39-year-old's dirty laundry spilled out into the public.

    Video from a Spanish reality TV show Machado participated in showed her having sex with another contestant while she was engaged to baseball star Bobby Abreu.

    It was further revealed that she was listed as an accomplice in an attempted murder in 1998, two years after she carried the Miss Universe crown.

    Machado allegedly drove the getaway car and threatened to kill the judge overseeing the case. Her then-boyfriend was indicted in the criminal case.

    Clinton's campaign has been unwilling to admit to knowing, or not knowing, about Machado's past.

    'I don't think that in any way excuses what Trump has said about her,' Clinton's national press secretary, Brian Fallon, told DailyMail.com.

    Alicia Machado appears topless on reality show The Farm Loaded:

    ROLE (IN THE HAY) MODEL: Machado had sex in front of the cameras – and moaned about Spanish TV host Fernando Acaso's 'p***a' – during a 2005 episode of 'La Granja'

    Trump last week accused Machado of making a 'sex tape' as he lashed out at Clinton in a 3 AM Twitter rant for propping her up.

    That was a reference to a 2005 reality TV show modeled after 'Big Brother,' in which Machado was filmed having intercourse on camera with a fellow contestant.

    In the 2005 episode of 'La Granja,' she had sex in front of the cameras with Spanish TV host Fernando Acaso.

    Machado was engaged to Philadelphia Phillies right fielder Abreu at the time. The Venezuelan major-leaguer called off the wedding after clips of the show appeared online.

    The broadcast showed Acaso on top of her, with Machado whispering in Spanish about his manhood.

    'Oh your d***, my love, what a tasty d***! Your d*** is divine,' she moans while they go at it.

    Later during the broadcast replay, the show's host read aloud what Machado had written about the man.

    CRINGE: Machado's sex scene in the reality-show fun house was relived frame by frame complete with mortified squirming, and her fiancé Bobby Abreu later called off their engagement

    Interviewed about sex scene: Machado was interviewed about what she did in bed with Fernando Acaso, appearing to be embarrassed as an interviewer revealed she had said: 'He f***s me like a b****.'

    'Really, that guy is cute, he loves me, he understands me, he accepts me, he protects me, he supports me, he respects me,' read her testimonial.

    'He treats me like a goddess, he f***s me like a b****!'

    Machado told Univision when she returned to Miami that 'I felt fine as a person, as a human being.'

    'It was a very strong experience, very difficult in all senses, and I feel very happy with the events in Spain. I had people's support once more and I gained respect for what I am as a person and that was the purpose.'

    Trump has also suggested that Clinton's campaign obtained U.S. citizenship for Machado. The Democrat's aides say that's not true. Machado became a citizen on her own.

    The scrutiny appears to have taken a toll on the actress and mother.

    RELATED ARTICLES Share this article

    Share 1.3k shares

    Hillary Clinton made Machado's strife with Trump over her weight the focal point of her charge in last week's general election debate that the Republican is a sexist

    In response to DailyMail.com's request for an interview, Machado's representatives said: 'Thank you for reaching out regarding Alicia. At this point in time Alicia has said her comments about the trump situation (please see her statement below) and we are no longer discussing the subject.

    'If you are interested in talking about Alicia's career, her businesses and her philanthropy we are open to discussing, however we will not be discussing the Trump subject any further.'

    A long statement from Machado said Trump is 'attempting to distract from his campaign's real problems and his inability to be the leader of this great country' by 'discrediting her.'

    'When I was young, the now candidate, humiliated me, insulted me, disrespected me both publicly and privately in the cruelest way. The same way this happened to me, it's clear that throughout the years, he's continued his actions and behavior with other women.

    'Therefore, I will continue to stand on my feet, sharing my story and my absolute support for Secretary Clinton, on behalf of all women.'

    Machado's commitment to spreading the word about the public humiliation she says the Republican presidential nominee caused her does not, apparently, extend to interviews on the topic, however.

    As of Wednesday evening, Hillary Clinton was still using Machado as an example of her opponent's 'lack of respect for women.'

    'The list is long. He insulted Alicia Machado, the former Miss Universe. He said that pregnancy is an inconvenience for a woman's employer,' Clinton said at a Women's Leadership Forum in Washington, D.C..

    She said, 'Recently, more than 20 people who worked on his TV show have come forward to say he was frequently inappropriate with the cast and crew members – another reason why he is temperamentally unfit to be president.'

    Clinton was referring to an Associated Press report from Monday in which contestants and crew members from The Apprentice claimed the married Trump rated participants by the size of their breasts and talked about having sex with them.

    Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said in response, 'These outlandish, unsubstantiated, and totally false claims fabricated by publicity hungry, opportunistic, disgruntled former employees, have no merit whatsoever.'

    Defending his comments about women's looks Wednesday in a TV interview with Las Vegas channel KSNV Trump said 'a lot of that was done for the purpose of entertainment.'

    'I can tell you this: There is nobody – nobody,' he said, that has more respect for women than I do.'

    A spokesman for Clinton's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Machado's decision to stop doing interviews on Trump and how that might affect the Democratic candidate's own speeches.

    Clinton has no public events on her schedule between now and Sunday's presidential debate. Her next rally is on Monday in Michigan.

    FULL ALICIA MACHADO STATEMENT ON DONALD TRUMP

    'The Republican candidate and his campaign are, once again launching attacks, insults and are attempting to revive slanders and false accusations about my life, in order to humiliate, intimidate, and unbalance me. These attacks are cheap lies with bad intentions. This, of course, is not the first time the candidate insists on discrediting someone or insists on demoralizing women, minorities, and people of certain religions through his hateful campaign. This is definitely one of his most frightful characteristics. Through his attacks, he's attempting to distract from his campaign's real problems and his inability to be the leader of this great country.

    When I was young, the now candidate, humiliated me, insulted me, disrespected me both publicly and privately in the cruelest way. The same way this happened to me, it's clear that throughout the years, he's continued his actions and behavior with other women. Therefore, I will continue to stand on my feet, sharing my story and my absolute support for Secretary Clinton, on behalf of all women -- my sisters, aunts, grandmothers, cousins, women within the community. I want to thank all of my Latinas and those who have supported me and given me love and respect for my career, and as a human being. I became a United States citizen because my daughter was born here and because I wanted to exercise my rights, among them, I wanted to vote.

    I will continue standing firm in my lived experience as Miss Universe and even stronger with your support. I've been so pleased and honored by so many kind and heartfelt words. I'm focusing on my career and my work as a mother, and I will continue taking positive steps for the Latino community. I will continue being an activist for women's rights and fighting for the respect we deserve. I appreciate all your love and thank you again for your support.'

    [Oct 06, 2016] Neoliberal MSM bottomfeeders try to damage Trump calaiming he insulted voters while in reality Democrat did is in cold blood

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's a pattern not just for the Clinton campaign, but liberals generally: the "irredeemable" "basket of deplorables"; the basement dwelling millenials. ..."
    "... Worse, the Democrat approach is calculated: As Bernard Shaw says: "A blow in cold blood neither can nor should be forgiven." ..."
    "... It's difficult to convince someone whose life is objectively worse that their life is better. And it's disengenuous to try. ..."
    "... Neoliberal capitalism is not sustainable for these people. ..."
    "... Neither party seems to be aligned with the interests of my union brothers and sisters. I'm sick and tired of hearing the kayfabe crap every election season about how I should vote dem to keep the evil GOPers from busting unions, when in reality both parties seem more or less committed to the corporate agenda of employment crapification. ..."
    "... I believe in union's, but part of the decline can be directly laid at the feet of leadership that either knowingly or stupidly help elect people who aren't with their union members in any meaningful fashion. ..."
    "... Some of the unions are straight out sell outs (I'm looking at you AFL/CIO – but the AFL kind of always has been, that's it's history, but now it's pretty appalling the positions being taken). Not sure about Teamsters and smaller unions are hit and miss I guess only a few are radical. The unions were defanged long ago in order to have un-threatening corporate unions and of course labor was the loser. But that still doesn't excuse their horrible political choices. ..."
    "... Why in the hell are the Democrats parading around like they are the default? Oh my! The Republicans could get the White House snatched from the Dems! Why should an independent give a damn if the Democrats lose? If they are so freaking important, change your policies to win their votes legitimately you HACKs! ..."
    Oct 06, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Debate Wrapup

    Next presidential debate: Sunday, October 9.

    "Fact-checking the vice-presidential debate between Kaine and Pence" [ WaPo ]. On the "insult-driven campaign" back-and-forth, where WaPo proffers a lovingly compiled list of Trump's insults: If smearing an entire cohort of disfavored voters as racist and sexist #BernieBros isn't an insult, I don't know what is. And that approach isn't isolated: It's a pattern not just for the Clinton campaign, but liberals generally: the "irredeemable" "basket of deplorables"; the basement dwelling millenials.

    Worse, the Democrat approach is calculated: As Bernard Shaw says: "A blow in cold blood neither can nor should be forgiven." So miss me with the insult discussion.

    ... ... ...

    "I Listened to a Trump Supporter" [ Extra News Feed ]. The foreclosure crisis destroyed her landscraping business. Then she lost her own house. "She told me that every week, it seemed there was another default letter, another foreclosure, another bank demanding more blood from her dry veins. To her, that pile of default notices and demands for payment looked suspiciously similar to Hillary Clinton's top donor list." And she's not wrong.

    "The Trump candidacy succeeded because of a massive revolt among rank-and-file Republicans against their leaders. Should the Trump candidacy fail, as now seems likely, those leaders stand ready to deny that the revolt ever happened. Instead, they'll have a story of a more or less normal Republican undone only because (as Pence said last night) 'he's not a polished politician.' The solution for 2020? Bring back the professionals-and return to business as usual" [David Frum, The Atlantic ]. "It's unlikely to work. But you can understand why it's an attractive message to a party elite that discovered to its horror that it had lost its base and lost its way."

    "Trump faces new battleground threat from steelworkers: The United Steelworkers union is pledging to make sure every one of its workers in make-or-break states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio are well aware that the Republican presidential candidate may have circumvented U.S. laws to import Chinese steel" [ Politico ].

    Roger Smith October 5, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    "I Listened to a Trump Supporter" [Extra News Feed].

    Thank the heavens the Banks made it out okay though. All those nice people might have had to go through the same thing.

    "It's difficult to convince someone whose life is objectively worse that their life is better. And it's disengenuous to try. You can break down the specifics, sure.

    What is the author talking about? Their lives ARE NOT better.

    "Neoliberal capitalism is not sustainable for these people."

    It is not sustainable period! What do you think will happen when all these people disappear?

    dcblogger October 5, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Since The Beltway Democratic Establishment Refuses To Back Progressives Candidates, Why Should Grassroots Dems Unite Behind Their Crap Candidates?

    NY Union Guy October 5, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    EXACTLY!!!

    My primary political concern is labor so why should I get behind a dem or a GOPer?

    Neither party seems to be aligned with the interests of my union brothers and sisters. I'm sick and tired of hearing the kayfabe crap every election season about how I should vote dem to keep the evil GOPers from busting unions, when in reality both parties seem more or less committed to the corporate agenda of employment crapification.

    Pat October 5, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    My union's bulletin arrived yesterday with a full color cover of Hillary touting how they are with her.

    I believe in union's, but part of the decline can be directly laid at the feet of leadership that either knowingly or stupidly help elect people who aren't with their union members in any meaningful fashion.

    jrs October 5, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    Some of the unions are straight out sell outs (I'm looking at you AFL/CIO – but the AFL kind of always has been, that's it's history, but now it's pretty appalling the positions being taken). Not sure about Teamsters and smaller unions are hit and miss I guess only a few are radical. The unions were defanged long ago in order to have un-threatening corporate unions and of course labor was the loser. But that still doesn't excuse their horrible political choices.

    Higgs Boson October 5, 2016 at 8:35 pm

    Leaked Audio of Hillary Speaking to "the Grown Ups"

    Maybe HRC should ask Seattle CM Kshama Sawant what the problem is.

    Roger Smith October 5, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Al Gore: "The former vice president, a climate activist, will speak about not just Clinton's plan to address global warming, but also the idea that voting for an independent presidential candidate could deliver the White House to Republicans in the same way that Ralph Nader's candidacy helped undermine his presidential bid in 2000."

    Why in the hell are the Democrats parading around like they are the default? Oh my! The Republicans could get the White House snatched from the Dems! Why should an independent give a damn if the Democrats lose? If they are so freaking important, change your policies to win their votes legitimately you HACKs!

    Nah, just parade around an old loser… that will get those kids and independents invigorated for sure! He made a movie! - ARGHH!!!! (this infuriates me).

    [Oct 06, 2016] Some atypical pro Trump comments from Guardian

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Military Industrial Complex with the Saudi/Qatari/Gulf Mafia in cahoots with The Religious Cult We're No Longer Allowed To Mention, have it in the bag. ..."
    "... Expect another war in the Middle East shortly after she's crowned. ..."
    "... Oh please. Yeah I'd sooner eat a cyanide sandwich than vote for that corrupt witch. ..."
    "... It's amusing to see the Guardian claim that it has "no bias", like when Marxists argue that their doctrine is a 'science' instead of a set of political beliefs. ..."
    "... Do the 1%ers and biased media believe that even if Clinton wins that the Trump supporters will just shrug their shoulders? Not a chance. ..."
    "... 2020 is going to be the most epic fought POTUS election in the history of America, that's if CLinton can stay upright and read the teleprompter for 4 years. ..."
    "... The only winner here will be globalist bankers and mega multinationals, the losers will, as usual, be all of the common people. ..."
    "... The Guardian will be 3 times a loser, despite it's supersonic propaganda campaign. 1) Brexit vote 2) Corbyn re-elected 3) Trump will win ..."
    "... In terms of comparing how much they are working Trump is simply working harder. He was campaigning yesterday and is today as well. It shows how dedicated he is for this whilst Hillary is in hiding and no doubt will be until Sunday !!! ..."
    "... At a townhall two days ago in Pennsylvania the Hillary Clinton campaign used a child actor, a daughter of a democrat state senator from Pennsylvania, to further her narrative. ..."
    "... The American people are like a sleeping elephant, sedated by a tame and corrupt media, yet when awoken with the truth they will trample everything in their path. Clinton is running out of tranquilisers. ..."
    Oct 06, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    ID4352889 1h ago
    The Warmonger Candidate will win.

    The Military Industrial Complex with the Saudi/Qatari/Gulf Mafia in cahoots with The Religious Cult We're No Longer Allowed To Mention, have it in the bag.

    AgentC ID4352889 1h ago

    The Warmonger Candidate will win.
    ...

    Expect another war in the Middle East shortly after she's crowned.
    Bitty31985 1h ago
    Oh please. Yeah I'd sooner eat a cyanide sandwich than vote for that corrupt witch. Go Jill Stein!! Defeat The She Devil!!
    cato8203 2h ago

    The Guardian is an independent voice in this year's election. That means no bias

    It's amusing to see the Guardian claim that it has "no bias", like when Marxists argue that their doctrine is a 'science' instead of a set of political beliefs.

    Thebrexiteer1234 2h ago
    Do the 1%ers and biased media believe that even if Clinton wins that the Trump supporters will just shrug their shoulders? Not a chance.

    2020 is going to be the most epic fought POTUS election in the history of America, that's if CLinton can stay upright and read the teleprompter for 4 years.

    Trump and Sanders supporters are just getting started.

    imperviouspizza 3h ago
    The only winner here will be globalist bankers and mega multinationals, the losers will, as usual, be all of the common people.
    MikeHuntByrnes 3h ago
    A link to Donald Trump's new plan to make America Great Again: Read and weep, all you Hillary-lovers! Trump 4 President!

    http://tinyurl.com/2fcpre6

    Alex J Campbell 4h ago
    The Guardian will be 3 times a loser, despite it's supersonic propaganda campaign. 1) Brexit vote 2) Corbyn re-elected 3) Trump will win
    rosey011 4h ago
    In terms of comparing how much they are working Trump is simply working harder. He was campaigning yesterday and is today as well. It shows how dedicated he is for this whilst Hillary is in hiding and no doubt will be until Sunday !!!
    fedback 4h ago
    At a townhall two days ago in Pennsylvania the Hillary Clinton campaign used a child actor, a daughter of a democrat state senator from Pennsylvania, to further her narrative.

    Unfortunately all about Hillary is fake and as the media don't even pretend to practice journalism concerning Hillary Clinton, citizen researchers have to do the media's job. Here is a video explaining what took place.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEqU71k0zAc

    ThomasFareye 4h ago
    The American people are like a sleeping elephant, sedated by a tame and corrupt media, yet when awoken with the truth they will trample everything in their path. Clinton is running out of tranquilisers.

    [Oct 06, 2016] They can't admit Trump is partly right about anything?

    Oct 06, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. -> anne... October 06, 2016 at 06:21 AM , October 06, 2016 at 06:21 AM

    Center left economist ignore what Dean is pointing out. Why is that?

    They can't admit Trump is partly right about anything?

    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/the-high-dollar-president-clintons-unaffordable-tax-cut

    he High Dollar: President Clinton's Unaffordable Tax Cut

    by Dean Baker

    Truthout, November 15, 2006

    Everyone knows about George W. Bush's unaffordable tax cuts, the big tax breaks that gave millions to millionaires and billions to billionaires, but few people are aware of the even more unaffordable tax cut from the Clinton administration. That is because President Clinton's tax cut took a somewhat different form: an over-valued dollar.

    While few people recognize it, the effect of an over-valued dollar on the US economy is very similar to the effect of large tax cuts. Tax cuts reduce revenue, which leads to deficits and a growing debt, which will impose a larger interest burden on the country in the future. In the same way, an over-valued dollar leads to a trade deficit, which results in borrowing from abroad. In future years, the country will have to pay interest on the money it borrows from abroad today, leading to lower living standards in the future. In fact, the most important difference between the two is that the trade deficit is much larger, clocking in at more than $800 billion in 2006 (6.1 percent of GDP), while the budget deficit is a comparatively modest $260 billion (2.0 percent of GDP).

    Clinton did not start his administration with a high dollar policy. Lloyd Bentsen, his first Treasury Secretary, deliberately allowed the dollar to weaken in the first years of the Clinton administration, with the hope of keeping the trade deficit at a manageable level. When he left office in 1994, the trade deficit was less than 1.5 percent of GDP, a level that could be sustained indefinitely.

    The high dollar policy came into being under Bentsen's replacement, Robert Rubin. Rubin argued that a high dollar would help control inflation. He made it the official policy of the Clinton administration to support a high dollar.

    As a short-term measure, Rubin is exactly right; a high dollar does help to control inflation by making imports available at a lower cost. This has the effect of keeping prices lower in the United States and putting US manufacturing firms at an enormous competitive disadvantage. The basic story is relatively simple - if the dollar is over-valued by 20 percent, then this is equivalent to providing a 20 percent subsidy to imports, while placing a 20 percent tariff on all goods exported from the United States. With the high dollar policy in place, it should not be a surprise that we have lost more than 3 million manufacturing jobs in the last decade.

    But, it is important to realize that the feel good part of the high dollar policy is only a short-term story. Just as a tax cut can put more money in people's pockets until the interest burden starts to exceed the size of the tax cut, eventually the foreign debt builds to the point where it is no longer possible to sustain the over-valued dollar. At some point in the future, the dollar will fall, and it will hit a level that is much lower than would have been the case if we had not built up a massive foreign debt (now more than $3 trillion) during the years of the high dollar. As a result future generations will be paying much more for everything that the country imports from abroad - oil, other raw materials, manufactured goods and services. In other words, future generations will experience lower standards of living because of today's high dollar, and the impact is more than three times as large as the impact of the budget deficit.

    The blame for the high dollar policy is bi-partisan. It started under Clinton-Rubin, but it has continued in the Bush years, even as the trade deficit exploded to more than twice its previous record (measured relative to the size of the economy). The Bush administration could have taken steps to bring down the value of the dollar and thereby reduce the trade deficit, but this would have meant sharp increases in import prices, which would lower living standards. This would be no more popular than tax increases - it is not surprising that Bush would not choose to go this route.

    Instead, President Bush continued the high dollar policy that he inherited from Clinton, obviously hoping that its collapse occurs when someone else is sitting in the White House. For the politicians, this is a convenient pass the buck story; only the person sitting there at the time will have to take the blame when the bill from the high dollar policy comes due. But, those of us who will have to pay this bill should be clear, it was Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin who started the tab running and George W. Bush who lacked the courage to close the account.

    [Oct 06, 2016] Donald Trump, Economic Theory, and Trade Deficits

    Oct 06, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : , Thursday, October 06, 2016 at 06:07 AM

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/economic-theory-and-trade-deficits

    October 6, 2016

    Donald Trump, Economic Theory, and Trade Deficits

    The desire to beat up on Donald Trump is understandable, but it is important to realize that not everything he says is wrong. For example, according to press accounts he adheres to the belief that the world is round.

    Anyhow, Greg Ip goes a bit over board in a Wall Street Journal piece where he argues that Trump's claim that a trade deficit can be reduced or eliminated with tariffs is wrong. Referring to Trump's approach to the trade deficit, Ip tells readers:

    "But that is out of step with standard economics, which predicts that a country's trade balance is determined by the gap between what it invests and saves, not by tariffs."

    As an accounting identity a country's trade balance is always equal to the gap between what it invests and what it saves. This means that if the U.S. invests $200 billion a year more than it saves, then it will by definition be true that it has a trade deficit of $200 billion.

    However this accounting identity tells us nothing about causation. If we are below the full employment level of output, and Donald Trump's tariffs or threats of tariffs, reduce our annual trade deficit by $200 billion (@ 1.1 percent of GDP), then this would lead to additional employment, output, and savings in the United States. A standard multiplier would suggest that a $200 billion reduction in the size of the trade deficit would lead to a $300 billion increase in GDP. This higher GDP would lead to more corporate and individual savings, as well as more tax revenue, which also count as savings. (The growth in GDP would also led to more imports, partially offsetting the initial improvement in the trade deficit.)

    In other words, it is totally possible to reduce the size of the trade deficit as long as the economy is below its full employment level of output. This is basic economic theory. Folks should be clear on this point, even if it suggests that Trump might be partly right on something.

    -- Dean Baker

    [Oct 06, 2016] Trump and global trade

    Notable quotes:
    "... Policy makers and politicians, Goodman writes, "failed to plan for the trauma that has accompanied the benefits of trade. When millions of workers lost paychecks to foreign competition, they lacked government supports to cushion the blow. As a result, seething anger is upending politics in Europe and North America.' ..."
    "... Along these lines, Trump has successfully appropriated an issue - the distributional impact of free trade - that was, in recent years, the turf of Democrats. ..."
    "... 'The story of Trump's amazingly successful movement is also the story of how Democrats turned their backs on their working-class roots and sided with the elites on the crucial economic question of our times: Who would win from globalization, and who would lose? ..."
    "... 'I don't want you to do that. And if you do it, you're not going to have any cars coming across the border unless you pay a 35 percent tax.' ..."
    "... 'I'm going to tell the head of Carrier: "I hope you enjoy your stay in Mexico folks. But every single unit that you make and send across our border, which now will be real, you're going to pay a 35 percent tax."' ..."
    Oct 06, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : October 06, 2016 at 05:28 AM

    Global Trade War, Trump Edition
    http://nyti.ms/2dGGS9a
    NYT - Thomas Edsall - Oct 6

    Let's take Donald Trump's trade policies at face value.

    If he is elected, "The era of economic surrender will finally be over," Trump declared, repeating a favorite theme in a July speech in Monessen, Pa., once the heart of the state's steel industry. (#) "I want you to imagine how much better your life can be if we start believing in America again."

    As the world knows, Trump's rhetoric has found a receptive audience among angry white working-class voters who have lost well-paying jobs to automation and outsourcing.

    Legions of Trump supporters have legitimate grounds for discontent. As my colleague Peter Goodman wrote last week:

    'Trade comes with no assurances that the spoils will be shared equitably. Across much of the industrialized world, an outsize share of the winnings has been harvested by people with advanced degrees, stock options and the need for accountants. Ordinary laborers have borne the costs and suffered from joblessness and deepening economic anxiety.'

    Policy makers and politicians, Goodman writes, "failed to plan for the trauma that has accompanied the benefits of trade. When millions of workers lost paychecks to foreign competition, they lacked government supports to cushion the blow. As a result, seething anger is upending politics in Europe and North America.'

    Along these lines, Trump has successfully appropriated an issue - the distributional impact of free trade - that was, in recent years, the turf of Democrats.

    On Sept. 30, Rex Nutting, a columnist at MarketWatch.com, wrote "How Donald Trump hijacked the Democrats' best issue":

    'The story of Trump's amazingly successful movement is also the story of how Democrats turned their backs on their working-class roots and sided with the elites on the crucial economic question of our times: Who would win from globalization, and who would lose?

    The downside of Trump's trade policy proposals is, however, considerable. Trump's protectionist policies would negatively affect overall American economic performance and further aggravate the harsh distributional consequences of globalization for just those workers who support him.

    ( https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/trade/ )

    Gordon Hanson, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, emailed me his analysis of Trump's economic scheme:

    'Trump's strategy is essentially one of withdrawal from the world economy. He wants less trade and less outward foreign investment. He offers no plans for how to improve our export performance. This is protectionism, pure and simple.'

    Erik Brynjolfsson, an economist at M.I.T.'s Sloan School of Management, was more forceful:

    'No nation can succeed by trying to protect the past from the future. We will succeed by having the confidence to embrace competition, and leveraging our comparative strengths, which are numerous. We have the largest, most productive and most technologically advanced economy that's ever existed on this planet. The more open the world economy is, the more we have an opportunity to leverage our many strengths.'

    Looked at this way, Trump's stance is an implicit admission that he and his followers do not "believe in America" - an argument that the United States cannot compete successfully in the world arena unless protected by the imposition of high tariffs and punitive taxes on foreign production and foreign competitors.

    Robert Reich, an economist at Berkeley, former secretary of labor under Bill Clinton and a leading supporter of Bernie Sanders during the primaries, agrees.

    Trump's trade proposals, Reich argues, 'assume the U.S. can't compete and must erect trade barriers lest other countries flood America with better and cheaper products. That's the opposite of believing in America.'

    On Jan. 7, Trump told The New York Times that he would impose a 45 percent tax on goods imported from China. "I would tax China on products coming in," he told the paper's editorial board. "The tax should be 45 percent."

    When Ford proposed building new manufacturing facilities in Mexico, Trump declared in a September 2015 speech that he would call the president of Ford and tell him:

    'I don't want you to do that. And if you do it, you're not going to have any cars coming across the border unless you pay a 35 percent tax.'

    Trump said the same thing in March after the Carrier Corporation announced plans to move air-conditioning production facilities to Mexico:

    'I'm going to tell the head of Carrier: "I hope you enjoy your stay in Mexico folks. But every single unit that you make and send across our border, which now will be real, you're going to pay a 35 percent tax."'

    Andrew McAfee, a director of M.I.T.'s Initiative on the Digital Economy and co-author of "The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies," was sharply critical of Trump. In an email, McAfee wrote:

    'There's a reason that all good economists support free trade, and that none of them are supporting Trump's proposals. The reason is that trade gives us more and better access to goods and services than we could produce on our own. It also provides jobs for exporters, people working in airports and ports, and so on.

    Free trade is not surrender, and not something that only suckers do. In fact, just the opposite. Closing our borders would be surrender to a nonexistent enemy. It would make us poorer without bringing back the jobs.'

    Sean Wilentz, a historian at Princeton, contends that Trump's proposal is only slightly less drastic than the Smoot-Hawley Tariff - a law passed over the objection of more than 1,000 economists and signed by Herbert Hoover in June 1930. Smoot-Hawley is largely acknowledged as one of the principle causes of the subsequent worldwide economic catastrophe. In an email, Wilentz wrote:

    'Smoot-Hawley raised tariffs across the board, with every trading partner. The results were disastrous for the world economy, let alone for the U.S. at the opening stage of the Great Depression. A worldwide trade war commenced, and international trade was shattered. Trump so far has proposed only sharp tariff hikes with Mexico and China - but these are two of the three largest sources of U.S. imports.' ...

    #- Newsweek investigation: How Donald Trump
    ditched U.S. steel workers in favor of China
    http://www.newsweek.com/how-donald-trump-ditched-us-steel-workers-china-505717
    Kurt Eichenwald - 10/3/16

    ... A Newsweek investigation has found that in at least two of Trump's last three construction projects, Trump opted to purchase his steel and aluminum from Chinese manufacturers rather than United States corporations based in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. ...

    Reply Thursday,

    [Oct 05, 2016] The VP Debate and Syria The American Conservative

    Oct 05, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The vice presidential debate was an irritating and boring event. One notable part was when Mike Pence outlined his views of what the U.S. should do in Syria:

    Asked how a Trump-Pence administration would stop the civil war carnage in Aleppo, Pence said that he, at least, "truly believe(s) that what America ought to do right now is immediately establish safe zones, so that families and children can work out of those areas," and "work with our partners [to] make that happen. Provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength." If Russia "continues to be involved" in airstrikes along with the Syrian government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, he said, "the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military forces of the Assad regime" and "prevent this crisis in Aleppo."

    Trump has said very little about Syria's civil war–and advocated none of the measures Pence outlined.

    That last part is not really true. Trump has endorsed creating safe zones in Syria on more than one occasion . While I don't believe Trump has a clear idea of what establishing a safe zone requires, he has had no problem voicing support for the idea several times. The fact that Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate suggests that Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said when I was watching the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened to initiate hostilities with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences this would have. He kept invoking "American leadership" and "American strength," as if uttering these phrases was all that mattered. Pence's advocacy for much more U.S. involvement in Syria could have been an easy target for Kaine, but of course he and Clinton have no disagreements with the Republican ticket on this issue. For all the quarreling between the two campaigns, both tickets apparently support U.S. escalation in Syria. As bad as the moderator for the debate was, she did at least manage to get both candidates to take positions on an issue that was completely ignored in the first presidential debate.

    Overall, Kaine's performance was shaky and didn't seem all that impressive to anyone that didn't know much about him. Despite arguably having better foreign policy experience than Pence, he did a worse job of demonstrating his readiness to be president if needed. His constant interruptions of Pence were jarring and off-putting, and created the impression of being an overly loyal terrier trying to defend his master. Pence's repeated failure to come to Trump's defense in response to Kaine's many jabs presumably hurt Trump, but it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled. Neither VP nominee significantly harmed his running mate, but Pence did a better job of making the case for his party's ticket.

    Who Stole The Strawberries?, says: October 4, 2016 at 11:48 pm
    " it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled"

    I agree. Kaine's nervousness, grimacing, and non-stop interruptions were annoying and a bit flaky. Pence seemed more composed and stable, even if some of what he said was a lot of nonsense straight out of the Interventionist Handbook.

    Temperamentally, Pence is the guy you'd want a heartbeat away from taking that 3:00AM call Kaine looked like he'd still be awake, jabbering into a dictaphone while vacuuming the Oval Office for the fifth time.

    Dakarian , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:13 am
    As far as Syria, and the middle east in general, this is sort of why I glossed over the statements that Hillary is a hawk: because I don't see any doves (that don't have far too many other problems to support). Trump started out sounding like he was but as time went on it sounded more and more like the regular republican "more money to the military. World Police! WIN!" talk.

    So at this point it sounds like both are going to keep us in the middle east. Though it seems Trump may mess with the Iran deal (though it might be less attacking it as it is just poking at the administration any chance you get).

    As far as the debate, Pence wanted a debate about policy while Kaine wanted a debate about Trump. if this was a presidential debate Pence probably would've been in a better standing.

    But I think Kaine wasn't even fighting him. He wasn't after policy. Beyond stating his points and a token defense his primary purpose was one thing, to say "remember, you aren't voting for Pence, but for Trump." He's picturing the public saying "Oh, Pence seems pretty coo..oh yeah, but he's with Trump..ewww."

    It pretty much sums up the entire deal with the republican side of the campaign. Take Trump out of it and you have a strong platform and an actual attempt at trying to extend somewhat past the old GOP mindset while evoking that Need For Change that pushed democrats back in '08. It's an actual strong case.

    The issue is that it's all on the hopes of Trump. And THAT is the hard sell. I don't even see many supporters defending him. It's like Pence: they bypass him and either focus on the dream or the enemy.

    Which leads to something interesting: If the roles were reversed: same platform, same general message, but Pence as President and Trump as VP, would it be hard for folks not two-feet in the Democratic ticket to vote R? Would there be a questioin as to who would win?

    I have a feeling that many would say : " I don't know. But I would have liked that campaign I would have liked that campaign very much.

    Old Dominionite , says: October 5, 2016 at 2:51 am
    If you'd told me that one of the two gentlemen debating last night was a Virginian and asked me who it was, I would have said Pence, solely because of his demeanor.

    Pence's thoughts on Syria were dumb (and dangerous), but I find it hard to hold that against run-of-the-mill politicians these days because they're getting such rotten information and advice from establishment "experts" and mainstream pundits. The country needs a changing of the guard when it comes to "experts".

    Kaine struck me as a third stringer trying to compensate for his own weaknesses by poking a stick in the other fellow's spokes. And no better on Syria, that's certain.

    furbo , says: October 5, 2016 at 7:29 am
    The way the question was phrased, evoking endangered children and the classic what should America 'do' .doesn't really allow a candidate to say 'nothing – we have no vital interests in Syria'.
    VikingLS , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:40 am
    If Pence is pushing that same "get tough with Russia and Assad" idea he's taking the opposite tack than Trump. Either they aren't communicating, the campaign figured that they could get away with completely altering their position from one debate to the next, or Pence doesn't really care what Trump thinks and is an unreformed GOP hawk.

    Either way this is very disappointing and stupid.

    collin , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:52 am
    Isn't the joke here Pence had a great debate running for President? In reality, it is very likely Pence does all the real work and all Donald really wants is the national audience to take the credit. So it was a goo debate for Pence that has minimal effect on the polls because the headliners personality are dominant this cycle.

    Tim Kaine was overly-aggressive and appeared to be not ready for Prime time.

    Nestor , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:54 am
    Take Trump out of it and you have a strong platform

    Idiotic.

    Take Trump out of it, and you have more of the same GOP neoconservatism as ever:

    -more pretend-resistance-but-actual-enabling of illegal immigration
    -more wars-on-behalf-of-Israel neocon interventionism
    -more manufacturing-base-killing free trade

    Trump is the ONLY reason these three toxic policies are even being challenged.

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 5, 2016 at 9:04 am
    "The fact that Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate suggests that Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said when I was watching the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened to initiate hostilities with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences this would have. He kept invoking"

    I didn't watch the debate. This morning, when I was asked about it - I didn't think it would be a contest. Gov. Pence, should have no issues.

    But if I had watched and heard the above comments. I might have had conniptions. I am not going to say more at the moment. I would sound like I am abandoning my candidate. I like Gov. Pence, but that response is rife with campaign and policy self inflicting damages - good grief.

    Steve in Ohio , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:22 am
    Pence is a fine Christian man and I'm glad he did well last night. However, his hawkishness was disturbing. Somebody who is pro life should be wary of policies that lead to wars and thousands dying.

    As somebody who wants our borders secured, I don't feel I have a choice on Nov. 8. I will be praying, though, that Trump doesn't delegate the FP heavy lifting to his vice president as Bush 43 did to his.

    Uncle Billy , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:35 am
    "Safe Zones" sound all well and good, but the only way to guarantee a safe zone is to have US troops on the ground in Syria. You cannot enforce a safe zone from the air.

    So, it sounds like both parties are willing to commit US ground troops to Syria and risk a possible confrontation with Russian troops who are already there.

    This is more Neocon nonsense being foisted on the American people by politicians who do not really understand the ramifications of their actions.

    LHM , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:50 am
    Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands of american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes completely against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat ISIS we would have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia. This whole election is cluster .How the heck did we end up with these two choices?
    RadicalCenter2 , says: October 5, 2016 at 11:21 am
    LHM: exactly. I'd just add that war with Russia conventionally would probably costs hundreds of thousands of us soldier lives and could cripple our military for subsequent actual DEFENSE against the country that actually will have the means to threaten the very existence or freedom of the USA:

    China, with an economy vastly bigger and more diversified than Russia's, a population eight times as numerous as Russia's, and for that matter a far, far larger diaspora to influence politics, culture, and economics in the formerly white western countries (USA, Canada (especially "British" Columbia), and Australia, in particular).

    Also, as pointed out in columns on Unz and elsewhere, conventional war could escalate to nuclear exchange more easily than many people think. God help us.

    Anonne , says: October 5, 2016 at 11:34 am
    Pence did a better job selling his party because Pence thoroughly invented a different running mate.
    Chris Chuba , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:06 pm
    How many safe zones do we need in Syria, we already have 3.
    1. Govt held areas (unless we bomb them).
    2. Kurdish territory (unless Turkey bombs them).
    3. The Turkish zone in N. Syria.

    In fact weren't we begging Turkey to establish a zone just for this purpose?

    Of course, what we really want is an Assad free zone that covers all of Syria and filled with Al Qaeda groups that we pretend are moderates.

    EdK , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:56 pm
    Trump needs to state clearly that he is not in agreement with Pence position on Russia & Syria. To beat ISIS we need to be on the same side as Russia. If Pence is a fine Christian, how can he be so carless to be on side of ISIS in Syria like Obama is, and have hand in destroying Syria the cradle of Christianity.
    Dakarian , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:18 pm
    @LHM

    "Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands of american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes completely against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat ISIS we would have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia."

    it's the problem with being involved with the entire middle east without a firm desire of exactly what we want from there. We started out fighting Sunni threats, then took out the big Sunni country that we earlier set up to hold back the big Shi'a country we felt was a threat. So when said Shi'a country gained power we stood against them. And..well, that sort of ended up with us fighting both sides at the same time depending on the location.

    It's much more complicated than that, which is why jumping in there without really understanding the region was a bad idea.

    " This whole election is cluster .How the heck did we end up with these two choices?"

    My belief.

    Democratic voters are used to 'playing it safe' instead of going for more Left choices since "liberal" triggers a BIG backlash in this country. Thus why you get candidates like Clinton instead of candidates like Sanders and why you keep getting things like Obamacare's quasi-private insurance instead of single-payer.

    Republican voters are sick of the GOP and wanted someone, anyone, who wasn't a democrat but wasn't holding the GOP platform. Remember how, other than Trump, the other Republican candidates were all trying to "Out Right" each other? Trump was the only one that did more than outright ignore them.

    So in a way, the GOP caused it all by putting so much hate against the Left that the Left always plays it safe and caring so little about their base that they eloped to the first man that told them they were pretty and deserved better.

    Clinton was the 'safe pick'. Trump smiled. And here we are.

    It actuslly sounds less stupid when you see it that way. It's less that we're all idiots and more just a set of unfortunate events caused by a political scene that looked a lot like a youtube comment section.

    DES , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm
    I tend to discount Pence's comments on Syria in the debate. If Trump manages to win, he rather than Pence will be calling the shots on foreign policy. And to the extent that Trump has any coherent ideas on foreign policy, how could he come down hard on the mistake of invading Iraq and support getting deeply involved in Syria?

    In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he becomes president.

    the danger of reinfestation , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:37 pm
    "In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he becomes president."

    Altogether too close to the Bush-Cheney parallel for comfort. The last thing we want is for the neocons to come creeping back in through the Blair House back door.

    Paul Asay , says: October 5, 2016 at 3:35 pm
    Thought Pence was the superior of the two. Considering the options in Syria while running for President/VP you have to show a position of strength. My thought is that Trump wants to play nice with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out of Syria. You just can't say that during an election or you look weak.
    Steve in Ohio , says: October 5, 2016 at 4:30 pm
    @EdK

    Pence is a fine Christian -- I admire his courage in bringing up abortion in such an important debate. Unfortunately, most conservatives have a blind spot toward Christians in the Mideast. Part of it might be bias–Orthodox Christians aren't "true" Christians. Also many Evangelicals have been brain washed into believing that support of Israel is the only thing that counts.

    rayray , says: October 5, 2016 at 5:29 pm
    @Paul Asay

    "My thought is that Trump wants to play nice with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out of Syria."

    One thing Trump has successfully done is to launch a campaign so free of any real policy that anything you want to believe can be projected onto him. Play nice with Putin and then pull out? Sure! He's never said that, and in fact he's said the exact opposite but why not?

    [Oct 05, 2016] How Trump and Clinton Gave Bad Answers on US Nuclear Policy and Why You Should Be Worried

    Notable quotes:
    "... I usually remark that one must look at the 'second tier' of a political cabal to predict future actions by a 'candidate.' The people surrounding the 'candidate' and their track records on issues in their sphere of expertise tell the mind sets that 'drive' policy. Trump comes from the business world, where delegation of responsibility is standard for larger enterprises. His 'advisors' are key to future performance. Clinton seems to be encapsulated in a bubble of sycophants. So, the same rationale applies to her as applies to Trump. Who are her main 'advisors?' ..."
    "... As anyone possessed of discernment would have noticed in the 2008 campaign, Obama surrounded himself with 'less than progressive' advisors. His subsequent governance followed suit so that we find the nation in the mess it is in today. ..."
    "... Finally, all signs are that the Russians are not taking this slide towards bellicosity lightly. The Russians are demonstrating a clear sighted view of Americas dysfunctions. For the Russians to hold massive Civil Defense drills now is a clear message; "We are preparing for the worst. How about you?" ..."
    "... The tone of this piece is remarkably similar to a long article Bacevich headed in a recent Harper's article on US foreign policy. Presented as a roundtable discussion, it centered on the dogged insistence of some State Department-tied clown that Russia is The Aggressor, while Bacevich and a two other participants nicked away at her position, largely, as I recall, by granting the Russians some right to a regional interest. While they slowed her down, the great missing element was a characterization of global aims of the US her position reflected. ..."
    "... In short, Bacevich, a good liberal, will not name the beast of US imperialism. As a result he makes it seem as though any policy can be judged on a truncated logic of its own, and so policy debates fragment into a disconnected series of arguments that bid for "fresh thinking" without daring to consider the underlying drivers. It's one of the reasons Eisenhower, with his criticism of the military-industrial complex, still comes across as a guiding light. ..."
    "... I'll put it out there: We have too many upper-middle-class white women who claim to understand foreign policy who should have been subject to a draft to concentrate their minds on what happens when a person is forced into the military and sent off to drive around with a rifle as people lob bombs at them. Madeleine Albright is the classic case: "What good is our exquisite military, if I, a compassion-challenged expert, can't waste a lot of lives on my follies?" Bacevich's personal history means that he knows what war is about (as did Gen. Sherman). ..."
    "... Perry is forthright when he says: "Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger." He also tells us that the nuclear danger is "growing greater every year" and that even a single nuclear detonation "could destroy our way of life." ..."
    "... Perry does not use his memoir to score points or settle grudges. He does not sensationalize. But, as a defense insider and keeper of nuclear secrets, he is clearly calling American leaders to account for what he believes are very bad decisions, such as the precipitous expansion of NATO, right up to the Russian border,* and President George W. Bush's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, originally signed by President Nixon. ..."
    "... Interesting comments by Mr. Perry who had a starring role in 1979's "First Strike" propaganda film where he advocated for the MX ICBM system. ..."
    "... So what's a voter to do? ..."
    "... Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief. ..."
    "... Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party. ..."
    "... But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off. ..."
    "... What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always ..."
    "... All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone" she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia. ..."
    "... Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear ..."
    "... How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued participation in NATO. ..."
    "... Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on. ..."
    "... At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! " ..."
    "... As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did not like. ..."
    "... Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the financial corruption of his administration. ..."
    "... If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement, perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice, and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation) ..."
    "... HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious contender for a position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job". Therefore she believes she must not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled to "out-macho" the macho guys. ..."
    "... The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for the Mark I body double is coming? ..."
    "... On the other hand, why should anyone think that a bubble-headed blowhard like Trumpet has the intelligence or gumption to have any effect upon the operations of the Warfare State? When the opinion makers of his own party and the neoliberal leaders of Klinton's party are all riding on the Military-Industrial gravy train looking for the next enemy to keep business booming? ..."
    "... And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?" ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ambrit October 5, 2016 at 4:08 am

    Prof. Bacevitch has bought up the one overriding problem with this election cycle: Lack of substance.

    I usually remark that one must look at the 'second tier' of a political cabal to predict future actions by a 'candidate.' The people surrounding the 'candidate' and their track records on issues in their sphere of expertise tell the mind sets that 'drive' policy. Trump comes from the business world, where delegation of responsibility is standard for larger enterprises. His 'advisors' are key to future performance. Clinton seems to be encapsulated in a bubble of sycophants. So, the same rationale applies to her as applies to Trump. Who are her main 'advisors?'

    As anyone possessed of discernment would have noticed in the 2008 campaign, Obama surrounded himself with 'less than progressive' advisors. His subsequent governance followed suit so that we find the nation in the mess it is in today.

    Finally, all signs are that the Russians are not taking this slide towards bellicosity lightly. The Russians are demonstrating a clear sighted view of Americas dysfunctions. For the Russians to hold massive Civil Defense drills now is a clear message; "We are preparing for the worst. How about you?"

    As always, Prof. Bacevitch is a joy to read. Live long, prosper, and hope those in positions of power take his message to heart.

    hemeantwell October 5, 2016 at 8:52 am

    The tone of this piece is remarkably similar to a long article Bacevich headed in a recent Harper's article on US foreign policy. Presented as a roundtable discussion, it centered on the dogged insistence of some State Department-tied clown that Russia is The Aggressor, while Bacevich and a two other participants nicked away at her position, largely, as I recall, by granting the Russians some right to a regional interest. While they slowed her down, the great missing element was a characterization of global aims of the US her position reflected.

    That's pretty much what's going on here. "Do we really need a trillion dollar upgrade to US nuclear capability?" Good question. But why, oh why, Andrew is it being proposed in the first place? (Actually O has been pursuing the preliminaries for some time.) There's nothing about feeding a military-industrial complex, nothing about trying to further distort the Russian economy to promote instability, nothing about trying to capitalize on the US' military superiority as its economic hegemony slips away.

    In short, Bacevich, a good liberal, will not name the beast of US imperialism. As a result he makes it seem as though any policy can be judged on a truncated logic of its own, and so policy debates fragment into a disconnected series of arguments that bid for "fresh thinking" without daring to consider the underlying drivers. It's one of the reasons Eisenhower, with his criticism of the military-industrial complex, still comes across as a guiding light.

    DJG October 5, 2016 at 9:48 am

    The round-table in Harper's, for background. One of the "takeaways" that I had is that both of the women who participated are gratuitously hawkish. I am now tending to favor a universal draft.

    I'll put it out there: We have too many upper-middle-class white women who claim to understand foreign policy who should have been subject to a draft to concentrate their minds on what happens when a person is forced into the military and sent off to drive around with a rifle as people lob bombs at them. Madeleine Albright is the classic case: "What good is our exquisite military, if I, a compassion-challenged expert, can't waste a lot of lives on my follies?" Bacevich's personal history means that he knows what war is about (as did Gen. Sherman).

    http://harpers.org/archive/2016/09/tearing-up-the-map/

    hemeantwell October 5, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    Knowing what war's all about doesn't help much with knowing why wars come about, I'm afraid. Bacevich is not helpful here. This reminds me of a great article by Graham Allison on bureaucratic drivers in the Cuban Missile crisis, set out as three competing/complementary theories. Within its mypoic scope, excellent, but as far as helping with the Cold War context, nada. He went on to scotomize away in a chair at Harvard, gazing out his very fixed Overton window of permissible strategic critique.

    Wow. I just went to the TomDispatch site to look at Bacevich's work there. He does have a piece criticizing Trump and HRC in light of Eisenhower, but slaps Eisenhower, appropriately, for various crap, including the military-industrial complex takeoff. Why is it missing from this article? At least Eisenhower criticized it.

    Science Officer Smirnoff October 5, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Surprised that Bacevitch omits the thrust of Jerry Brown's important review:

    My Journey at the Nuclear Brink
    by William J. Perry, with a foreword by George P. Shultz
    Stanford Security Studies, 234 pp., $85.00; $24.95 (paper)

    I know of no person who understands the science and politics of modern weaponry better than William J. Perry, the US Secretary of Defense from 1994 to 1997. When a man of such unquestioned experience and intelligence issues the stark nuclear warning that is central to his recent memoir, we should take heed. Perry is forthright when he says: "Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger." He also tells us that the nuclear danger is "growing greater every year" and that even a single nuclear detonation "could destroy our way of life."

    [emphasis added]

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/07/14/a-stark-nuclear-warning/

    Science Officer Smirnoff October 5, 2016 at 9:16 am

    Further down a nugget from the review:

    Perry does not use his memoir to score points or settle grudges. He does not sensationalize. But, as a defense insider and keeper of nuclear secrets, he is clearly calling American leaders to account for what he believes are very bad decisions, such as the precipitous expansion of NATO, right up to the Russian border,* and President George W. Bush's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, originally signed by President Nixon.

    *"The descent down the slippery slope began, I believe, with the premature NATO expansion, and I soon came to believe that the downsides of early NATO membership for Eastern European nations were even worse than I had feared" (p. 152).

    [emphasis added]

    hemeantwell October 5, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    Good catch, thanks. It's good to see establishment figures trying to build up a headwind against this stupidity/insanity.

    NY Union Guy October 5, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    Interesting comments by Mr. Perry who had a starring role in 1979's "First Strike" propaganda film where he advocated for the MX ICBM system.

    James Kroeger October 5, 2016 at 8:02 am

    So what's a voter to do?

    Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief.

    Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party.

    But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off.

    What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited.

    All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone" she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia.

    Her willingness to roll the dice, to gamble with other people's lives, is ingrained within her political personality, of which she is so proud.

    Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear . That fear is what drives her to the most extreme of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in front of the criticism she anticipates.

    It is what we can count on. She will most assuredly get America into a war within the first 6-9 months of her Presidency, since she will be looking forward to the muscular response she will order when she is 'tested', as she expects.

    How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued participation in NATO.

    These differences alone are enough to move me to actually vote for someone I find politically detestable, simply because I fear that the alternative is a high probability of war, and a greatly enhanced risk of nuclear annihilation-through miscalculation-under a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

    Quite simply, she scares the hell out of me.

    Lupemax October 5, 2016 at 8:09 am

    Vote for Green Party this time and hope we make it to 2018 and 2020. http://www.jill2016.com/plan

    Otis B Driftwood October 5, 2016 at 8:18 am

    Yep. In the meantime, you have to wonder just how bad the false choice between the GOP / Dem has to be before people vote in numbers for a better third-party candidate? Really, can it possible get any worse than Trump v. Clinton?

    Wait don't answer that.

    Anyway, I'm voting for Jill Stein, too.

    Jeremy Grimm October 5, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    Between this post and the VP debate I am growing comfortable with a decision to vote Green and will probably continue voting Green in future elections.

    Foppe October 5, 2016 at 4:25 am

    Not that this isn't an important issue, but I disagree on the desirability of posing wonkish questions in presidential debates, in the hopes of proving that someone didn't do enough homework. Far too much policy is hidden by the constant recourse to bureaucratic language, which often rests on other policy positions that remain undiscussed. One example: "chained CPI". Talking about it / taking it seriously presupposes that you subscribe to the notion that poor people may be told to eat cardboard if some economist / committee member designated such an adequate replacement for food. Yet most listeners will not catch on to that fact, were it ever to even come up in a debate.

    jgordon October 5, 2016 at 6:57 am

    Words are just words, especially for politicians. If you want an idea of how they would govern, go by what they did in the past. Right now we have the choice between a touchy blowhard with bad hair and a mendacious conniver with bad judgement; you'd be foolish take anything either says too seriously, even aside from the fact that they're wannabe politicians.

    George Dawson October 5, 2016 at 8:03 am

    The response to why the nuclear arsenals need to be so large and constantly updated would have been an interesting one if it had materialized. The fact is even a fairly limited exchange between other nuclear powers with much smaller arsenals has the potential for rapid climate change that renders Earth unlivable.

    The Cold War notion that you just have to hole up a few days to avoid fallout doesn't really make any more sense than using these weapons in the first place.

    nowhere October 5, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    Just along these line, I did some order of magnitude calculations based on the US SLBM fleet. Since the MIRV warheads are dial a yield, I calculated a range of 1210 – 1915 Megatons.

    I know your point is more on the limited exchange scenario; just wanted to point out the destructive potential of one country's submarine nuclear capability.

    DJG October 5, 2016 at 9:39 am

    Thanks just for this:

    Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.

    And when a person keeps pointing out the importance of keeping one's word, it almost always means that he or she is lying.

    John Wright October 5, 2016 at 10:30 am

    If only Clinton could be like Warren G. Harding.

    At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! "

    As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did not like.

    Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the financial corruption of his administration.

    The Presidency was pushed on him, and he admitted felt he was not qualified.

    I believe Harding gets a bad rap because he was not the leader of bold actions (wars) and the corruption of people in his administration was well-documented.

    His death was widely mourned in the USA.

    As far as long term harm to the country, the do-nothing Harding was not bad for the country.

    If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement, perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice, and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation)

    Clinton is probably well coached by well paid advisors in her oratory.

    Probably Harding wrote his own..

    I would prefer Clinton to be like the old Harding, and the country would muddle through.

    polecat October 5, 2016 at 11:18 am

    All it would take would be for a couple of strategically placed EMPs over the north american continent ..
    and poof . nothing functions anymore . while we get to stand and watch our 'supreme' military launch their roman candles .

    shinola October 5, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    When it comes to war & nukes, I believe that HRC is the more dangerous of the two.

    Before I explain, I would like to invite Yves or any female NC reader to consider & give their POV on what I'm about say.

    HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious contender for a position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job". Therefore she believes she must not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled to "out-macho" the macho guys.

    Obviously this could have serious implications in any situation involving escalating tensions. Negotiation or compromise would be off the table if she thought it could be perceived as soft or weak (and she contemplates being a 2 term pres.)

    What say you NC readers? Is this a justified concern or am I letting male bias color my view?

    BecauseTradition October 5, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    My own misgivings too, but I'm a male also.

    polecat October 5, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    Just like obama HAD to show everyone that he was 'the man' ..

    and to think our lives are in the hands of these psychopaths

    duck and cover --

    Thor's Hammer October 5, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for the Mark I body double is coming?

    On the other hand, why should anyone think that a bubble-headed blowhard like Trumpet has the intelligence or gumption to have any effect upon the operations of the Warfare State? When the opinion makers of his own party and the neoliberal leaders of Klinton's party are all riding on the Military-Industrial gravy train looking for the next enemy to keep business booming?

    And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?"

    [Oct 05, 2016] The computers and the internet sped outsourcing to countries like China

    Notable quotes:
    "... Average US wages rose 350% in the 40 years between 1932 and 1972, but only 22% over the next 40 years. The pattern holds similar across the developed world. In other words, for all their hype, the computer and the internet have done less to lift economic growth than the flush toilet. ..."
    "... ahem… the computer and the internet sped outsourcing to countries like China. Ask China or India how their economic growth has been since 1972. The author is mixing up several things at once. ..."
    "... When so many of our jobs, technology and investment is offshored to China (and elsewhere), the future for innovation is certainly not bright, and this should be obvious to everyone, including the author. ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    flora October 4, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    " Average US wages rose 350% in the 40 years between 1932 and 1972, but only 22% over the next 40 years. The pattern holds similar across the developed world. In other words, for all their hype, the computer and the internet have done less to lift economic growth than the flush toilet."

    ahem… the computer and the internet sped outsourcing to countries like China. Ask China or India how their economic growth has been since 1972. The author is mixing up several things at once.

    sgt_doom October 4, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    Great comments, and please allow me to piggyback off them:

    When so many of our jobs, technology and investment is offshored to China (and elsewhere), the future for innovation is certainly not bright, and this should be obvious to everyone, including the author.

    When so many have contributed so much, only to see their jobs and livelihoods offshored again and again and again, that great jump the others have will then zero out OUR innovation!

    [Oct 04, 2016] Derailing The Trump Revolution

    Oct 04, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    cheech_wizard Oct 4, 2016 6:24 PM The proper comparison, the one Trump should be using...

    I took a $915 million loss on my taxes in 1995, while you, Hillary CLinton, lost $6 billion in taxpayer's money during your tenure as Secretary of State.

    grunk Oct 4, 2016 7:52 PM

    Clinton Son-in-Law's Firm Is Said to Close Greece Hedge Fund

    "two years later, the Greece-focused fund is shutting down, after losing nearly 90 percent of its value..."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/business/dealbook/clinton-son-in-laws-...

    Last paragraph of the article:

    " The one silver lining for the fund's investors from all of this is that they will have a somewhat larger tax loss on investments to claim next year. "

    Further...

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/03/clinton-sought-secret-info-on...

    "During 2011, Secretary of State Clinton lobbied the leaders of European governments to bail out the Greek financial system. She advocated imposing austerity measures on Greece-raising taxes, cutting public employee salaries and eliminating social welfare programs-to make the investors holding the debt happy." are we there yet Oct 4, 2016 9:09 PM Interesting, google is highly opinionated in its search engine about Hillary and trump. Google trump news and Hillary news. Its selection is heavily slanted to Hillary is great, Trump is falling off a cliff. Alternate reality.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Hillary Clinton Willie-Hortoned Donald Trump by using Alicia Machado

    The question was an obvious trap and looks like selected by Huma Abedin. Trump could decimate Hillary responding with the questin about her defence of 12 years old girl rapist, but shoose not to.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I've been writing here for years about the question "What makes large parts of the white working class vote for the GOP?" and my main answer is that people who are a step up from the bottom will do a lot to preserve their sense that they have someone to look down on, which racism functions socially to preserve. Social wages of whiteness, etc. ..."
    "... Believe it or not, many strands of conservatism are / were critical of capitalism. If you view conservatism as wanting to preserve or reinstate a kind of aristocracy, it's pretty easy to see why. Aristocracies like hereditary lands, preserving them, etc. Conservatism has been captured by pro-capitalists for, again, historically path-dependent reasons. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Rich Puchalsky 10.02.16 at 11:22 am 323

    In the U.S., at least, perceived threats to social status obviously have something to do with it. I've been writing here for years about the question "What makes large parts of the white working class vote for the GOP?" and my main answer is that people who are a step up from the bottom will do a lot to preserve their sense that they have someone to look down on, which racism functions socially to preserve. Social wages of whiteness, etc.

    Since you can't really do much about educating people out of racism that hasn't already been done, maybe you can do something about the "step up from the bottom" part by making society less precarious.

    But whenever people here wrote something like this around the election, they were told that they only wrote this because they were white, that they only cared about white people, and that they supported white supremacy. That is the intellectual heritage that the HRC supporters here will leave behind. It's tremendously stupid and they've added nothing.

    merian: "Overall, though, you need to be at least to some degree critical of capitalism to mount a coherent ecological political theory, I think."

    Believe it or not, many strands of conservatism are / were critical of capitalism. If you view conservatism as wanting to preserve or reinstate a kind of aristocracy, it's pretty easy to see why. Aristocracies like hereditary lands, preserving them, etc. Conservatism has been captured by pro-capitalists for, again, historically path-dependent reasons.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Neither HRC nor Trump has said much of anything about the worldwide network of U.S. bases

    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    LFC 10.04.16 at 2:41 am 37 9

    Afaict, neither HRC nor Trump has said much of anything about the worldwide network of U.S. bases. HRC doesn't talk about (this aspect of) the U.S. global military footprint, and while Trump rambles on about making S Korea and Japan shoulder more (or all) of their own security (and ponders aloud whether it might be a good idea for both to acquire their own nuclear weapons), I haven't heard him address the issue of bases: a question is whether Trump even knows that the base network exists.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Debate microphone problem was probably intentional

    See also Girl Talk at Trump Tower MoDo, NYT. "After working with psychologists to figure out how to goad Trump into an outburst in the first debate, the commanding Hillary saved the Machado provocation until the end."
    Oct 04, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Swb Roger Smith October 2, 2016 at 9:25 am

    Re: Trump Was Apparently Right About the Debate Microphone The Atlantic

    This was such garbage from the get go. Anyone with minor audio production experience would have known that was a mic problem. It isn't the kind of thing I would wonder if someone did intentionally. They certainly could have tried to correct the problem at the soundboard as the debate went on.

    Jim Haygood October 2, 2016 at 10:12 am

    At the soundboard, Bryan Pagliano and Paul Combetta were frantically posting for advice on Reddit.

    But all the Reddit readers were watching the debate. :-(

    [Oct 02, 2016] The First Presidential Debate

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the goal for both candidates was to avoid self-inflicted wounds , Clinton certainly had the better showing. Trump showed how easily he could be baited and distracted by criticism ..."
    "... the only attack on Clinton that really landed was when he hit her on her cynical maneuvering on TPP, and that attack worked because it happened to be true and reminded voters why Clinton isn't trustworthy, but the vast majority of Americans don't know or care about TPP and so the effect of this attack will likely be minimal. ..."
    "... Remarkably, Trump mostly failed to use Clinton's foreign policy record against her, and he spent more of his time having to clarify or defend his own "positions" with little success. ..."
    "... He mentioned the Libyan war only in passing, but never even tried to explain why Clinton was responsible for any of it. Clinton was able to deflect this by pointing out that Trump backed intervention in Libya, and that was the end of it. Foreign policy is one of Clinton's biggest liabilities and one of the most obvious ways to question her judgment, but Trump isn't prepared enough to talk about policy to use it against her. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | The American Conservative

    Ross Douthat's assessment of last night's debate makes sense:

    So she won the debate on points, and probably won it in the court of public opinion, and in the process eased liberal anxiety and pushed the race back toward its "Hillary by four" equilibrium.

    What she didn't do, however, was goad Trump into a true meltdown or knock him out with a truly devastating attack.

    If the goal for both candidates was to avoid self-inflicted wounds, Clinton certainly had the better showing. Trump showed how easily he could be baited and distracted by criticism, and even when he was gesturing in the direction of talking about policy he fell back on many of his worst arguments (e.g., "take the oil," inane complaints about the nuclear deal, etc.). As I recall, the only attack on Clinton that really landed was when he hit her on her cynical maneuvering on TPP, and that attack worked because it happened to be true and reminded voters why Clinton isn't trustworthy, but the vast majority of Americans don't know or care about TPP and so the effect of this attack will likely be minimal.

    Remarkably, Trump mostly failed to use Clinton's foreign policy record against her, and he spent more of his time having to clarify or defend his own "positions" with little success.

    He mentioned the Libyan war only in passing, but never even tried to explain why Clinton was responsible for any of it. Clinton was able to deflect this by pointing out that Trump backed intervention in Libya, and that was the end of it. Foreign policy is one of Clinton's biggest liabilities and one of the most obvious ways to question her judgment, but Trump isn't prepared enough to talk about policy to use it against her.

    Clinton also avoided having to say very much about her position on what should be done in Syria. The candidates were never asked about it, and she mentioned the country briefly as part of an answer about the war on ISIS. Overall, the foreign policy section of the debate touched on only a handful of issues, most of which were related to U.S. policies in the Near East. If anyone wanted to know about something other than the candidates' views on Iran and Russia, last night's debate wouldn't have provided many answers.

    [Oct 02, 2016] Donald Trump is an American Ahmadinejad

    Guardian is firmly in Hillary camp. Neoliberal media defends neoliberal candidate. What can you expect?
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Some people insist on disguising this Great Satan as the savior angel." -- Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, referring to the United States, 2015. ..."
    "... The US has already been doing that for a long time. Your country is currently allied with al Qaeda in Syria and other so called moderates whose intention is to create a sharia law fundamentalist society as aopposed to Assad who is euro centric and secular. ..."
    "... From the article: We know from Wikileaks that she believed privately in the past that Saudi Arabia was the largest source for terrorist funding worldwide, and that the Saudi government was not doing enough to stop that funding. ..."
    "... and yet the Clinton Foundation benefits massively from KSA donations ..."
    "... I heard that Donald Trump speaks out against the USA funding extremists to overthrow leaders like Assad, while they couldn't care about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Tourists are being shot in Tunisia from extremists in Libya since we became involved in killing Gaddafi. ..."
    "... The USA armed and trained extremists in Afghanistan to get one over on Russia, and despite more British troops and civilians being killed by USA friendly fire than the 'enemy' our media never make the same fuss about the USA. ..."
    "... The USA didn't care for years when the government they helped implement in Afghanistan made women walk around in blue tents and banned them from education. ..."
    "... Different political systems; two people who come from very different backgrounds with different views and experiences. Ahmadinejad was a social conservative with a populist economic agenda. Trump is all over the map, but in terms of his staff and advisers and his economic plans he's much more of a conventional Republican. David Duke's admiration is the main thing the two have in common. ..."
    "... Clinton is tripe. She, and her kin, have a ponderous history of talk, and either inaction, or actions that generate disastrous results. Zero accomplishments across the board. Those who'd vote for Hillary must have a "horse" in this race. ..."
    "... Yawn... The Guardian has Trump and Putin bashing on the brain. ..."
    "... John Bolton as possible Secretary of State? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-bolton-no-regrets-about-toppling-saddam/article/2564463 Unless you're not talking about the guy who looks like a dead ringer for Mr Pastry that is a really terrifying proposition. ..."
    "... USA and Britain are very directly responsible for Iran being ruled by the Islamic mafia which has been in power in Iran since 1979. Iran had a democratic government which for the benefit of its people and against the stealing of its oil by Britain, nationalised the oil. Britain then, desperate to carry on stealing the Iranian oil persuaded USA to collaborate with it to covertly organise a coup by MI5 and CIA to topple the legitimate democratic government and install a puppet dictatorship. ..."
    "... All that happened in 1953, and Britain and USA totally admitted to all that 30 years later when the official secrets were declassified. ..."
    "... ..., forgot to mention, Jimmy C1arter recently admitted that while he was the president, they contributed to the funding of the Khomeini gang against their own installed ally, the Shah in 1979 to topple him ..."
    "... Trump makes George W Bush seem like an intellectual heavyweight and Hillary Clinton makes Bush seem as honest and truthful as a Girl Scout! ..."
    "... What a shitty choice Americans have to make this time round. A compulsive liar warmonger or an ignorant buffoonish bigot.... ..."
    "... US hatred for Iran is hard to fathom. Other adversaries have been forgiven: Germany, Italy, Japan, Vietnam, China. Iran is an outlier. ..."
    "... I think it's mainly to keep US allies happy. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel regard Iran as their greatest enemy and the Syrian Civil War is largely a proxy conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians over their respective oil supplies, regional clout and religious affinity. ..."
    "... Vote Clinton and absolutely nothing changes or improves. Hillary might as well take golf lessons from Barack, and saxophone lessons from bonking Bill, every day of her presidency. ..."
    "... I wouldn't be at all surprised if the CIA and/or the US Armed Forces do that sort of thing too actually! The CIA, after all, toppled the then democratically elected PM of Iran in 1953, forcibly installing the Shah in his place, the CIA helped bring the Taliban and Saddam to power in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively in the first place, unleashing decades of death and destruction on the peoples of those two countries ..."
    "... When the Iraqi people rose up against Saddam's brutal dictatorship back in 1991, the US actually helped him crush the rebellion, thus ensuring he stayed in power. ..."
    "... One of Trump's top advisors John Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" calling for a joint US-Israel strike on Iran, including regime change. He could well end up being Sec. Of State if Trump wins. ..."
    "... Meanwhile Clinton is on record as saying that Iran are the world's main sponsor of terrorism and that if she became president she would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. Given that Hezbollah are always involved in tit for tat encounters with Israel, and Clinton feels Hezbollah is effectively the state of Iran, it wouldn't take much. ..."
    "... Bolton is a vile neocon of the lowest order, what a charade if he gets a senior post and they call Hillary a warmonger? Just wait for Bolton, you mugs ..."
    "... Let's hope the Saudis defeat the Houthi uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Yemen. Oh, sorry this is the Guardian: let's hope the Russians defeat the Sunni uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Syria... ..."
    "... Yes. Trump is going to steal ISIS's oil. Only slight hole in that theory is that ISIS doesn't own any phucking oil. They aren't a nation state, just thieves. Stealing a thief's stolen goods is still stealing. ..."
    "... I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. They were complicit in 9/11, they hate the west and despise us. ..."
    "... >I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. Oil. Oil. And more Oil. ..."
    "... There's nothing bizarre about working with Russia on Middle Eastern issues unless you're married to the idea of a new Cold War. Why Washington is so hell-bent on making Russians the enemies again is beyond me. ..."
    "... Russia - does it really need all that land? Wouldn't it be better if Vladivostok was Obamagrad and Ekaterinburg was Katemiddletown? ..."
    "... What exactly is the US now? a supplier of sophisticated weaponary to "rebels" or rather terrorists that the legitimate governnent ( with Russian help thankfully) is trying to defeat... ..."
    "... There is no moral equivalence here. Once you look at what western intel has been upto all these decades, nowhere could Russia be close to the evil that the US and UK are. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Gman13 2016-09-29

    Donny is the best chance for the lasting world peace and stability because he is more likely to work with Russians on key geopolitical issues.

    Hillary is the best chance for ww3 and nuclear anihilation of the mainland American cities because she is russophobic, demonizer of Russia, hell bent on messing with them and unexplicably encouraged to do so by supposedly "normal" people in mainstream media.

    vaclavers , 2016-09-29 01:12:44
    "Some people insist on disguising this Great Satan as the savior angel." -- Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, referring to the United States, 2015.
    TruthOrBust , 2016-09-29 00:58:27
    Trump secretly encourages Muslim extremists. Trump is banking, and likely funding, ISIS, to propel him to WH out of fear.
    fragglerokk -> TruthOrBust , 2016-09-29 01:23:38
    The US has already been doing that for a long time. Your country is currently allied with al Qaeda in Syria and other so called moderates whose intention is to create a sharia law fundamentalist society as aopposed to Assad who is euro centric and secular.

    http://theduran.com/how-the-us-israel-al-qaeda-and-isis-work-together-in-the-war-against-syria/

    DogsLivesMatter , 2016-09-29 00:41:44
    From the article: We know from Wikileaks that she believed privately in the past that Saudi Arabia was the largest source for terrorist funding worldwide, and that the Saudi government was not doing enough to stop that funding.

    You know who else believes that about the KSA? Joe Biden.

    fragglerokk -> DogsLivesMatter , 2016-09-29 01:24:30
    and yet the Clinton Foundation benefits massively from KSA donations
    Charlie Lee , 2016-09-29 00:38:18
    I heard that Donald Trump speaks out against the USA funding extremists to overthrow leaders like Assad, while they couldn't care about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Tourists are being shot in Tunisia from extremists in Libya since we became involved in killing Gaddafi.

    The USA armed and trained extremists in Afghanistan to get one over on Russia, and despite more British troops and civilians being killed by USA friendly fire than the 'enemy' our media never make the same fuss about the USA. It wasn't long ago that many doctors were killed in a hospital by a USA bomb, but I only found out about it on the Doctors Without Borders facebook page.

    The USA didn't care for years when the government they helped implement in Afghanistan made women walk around in blue tents and banned them from education.

    JVRTRL , 2016-09-29 00:31:47
    The Ahmadinejad - Trump comparison is a weak comparison.

    Different political systems; two people who come from very different backgrounds with different views and experiences. Ahmadinejad was a social conservative with a populist economic agenda. Trump is all over the map, but in terms of his staff and advisers and his economic plans he's much more of a conventional Republican. David Duke's admiration is the main thing the two have in common.

    nicacio , 2016-09-29 00:10:06
    Clinton is tripe. She, and her kin, have a ponderous history of talk, and either inaction, or actions that generate disastrous results. Zero accomplishments across the board. Those who'd vote for Hillary must have a "horse" in this race.

    I won't be specific, but that horse, or horses, are generally the disenfranchised ones. What to say: I get their plight. But Hillary? Elected, she only make sure they stay that way so she'll be elected again. Time to wake up. There ain't no "pie in the sky", but with perserverance, all's possible, and likely. Trump's the guy.

    sokkynick , 2016-09-28 23:50:23
    Yawn... The Guardian has Trump and Putin bashing on the brain.
    ComradeSueII , 2016-09-28 23:41:21
    John Bolton as possible Secretary of State? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-bolton-no-regrets-about-toppling-saddam/article/2564463 Unless you're not talking about the guy who looks like a dead ringer for Mr Pastry that is a really terrifying proposition.
    oldsunshine , 2016-09-28 23:25:02
    USA and Britain are very directly responsible for Iran being ruled by the Islamic mafia which has been in power in Iran since 1979. Iran had a democratic government which for the benefit of its people and against the stealing of its oil by Britain, nationalised the oil. Britain then, desperate to carry on stealing the Iranian oil persuaded USA to collaborate with it to covertly organise a coup by MI5 and CIA to topple the legitimate democratic government and install a puppet dictatorship.

    All that happened in 1953, and Britain and USA totally admitted to all that 30 years later when the official secrets were declassified. One of the consequences of that criminal act was that it lead to the Islamic revolution which brought the Islam clergy to power which turned this most strategically, economically, and culturally important country of the region into an enemy of the west, supporter of terrorism, human rights abuser, arch enemy of Israel, total economic ruin, and eternal nuclear threat to the region- not to mention the Shia-Sunni sectarian division that it has perpetrated which to the large extent has contributed to the mighty mess that the Middle East is in now and potentially spreading to the outside of the region.

    oldsunshine -> oldsunshine , 2016-09-28 23:31:45
    ..., forgot to mention, Jimmy C1arter recently admitted that while he was the president, they contributed to the funding of the Khomeini gang against their own installed ally, the Shah in 1979 to topple him
    Carlb1501 -> oldsunshine , 2016-09-28 23:45:34
    Where do I find this reference?
    oldsunshine -> Carlb1501 , 2016-09-28 23:50:49
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
    Apollo2134 , 2016-09-28 23:22:17
    Trump makes George W Bush seem like an intellectual heavyweight and Hillary Clinton makes Bush seem as honest and truthful as a Girl Scout!

    What a shitty choice Americans have to make this time round. A compulsive liar warmonger or an ignorant buffoonish bigot....

    Fraxby , 2016-09-28 22:56:52

    Trump has said directly that the 2015 nuclear deal was "disastrous" and he would repudiate it, doubling and tripling sanctions

    He probably thinks he can point at it and tell it that it's fired.

    caravanserai , 2016-09-28 22:45:10
    US hatred for Iran is hard to fathom. Other adversaries have been forgiven: Germany, Italy, Japan, Vietnam, China. Iran is an outlier.
    ComradeSueII -> caravanserai , 2016-09-29 01:41:50
    I think it's mainly to keep US allies happy. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel regard Iran as their greatest enemy and the Syrian Civil War is largely a proxy conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians over their respective oil supplies, regional clout and religious affinity.

    Though the continuance of PNAC's schema shouldn't be discounted either. US policy hawks close to both Clinton and Trump still aim for dominance in Central Eurasia. I expect if they could press a button and magically summon up a new Shah for Iran they'd jump at the chance.

    Cuba spent over half a century living beneath the shadow of American wrath too for different reasons. Though perhaps burning revenge at the loss of a compliant puppet also played a role.

    finalcurtain , 2016-09-28 22:44:50
    Vote Clinton and absolutely nothing changes or improves. Hillary might as well take golf lessons from Barack, and saxophone lessons from bonking Bill, every day of her presidency.

    Vote Trump and things are going to change in America. No more pussyfooting around.

    HNS1684 -> UCManhattanP1945 , 2016-09-28 23:49:33
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if the CIA and/or the US Armed Forces do that sort of thing too actually! The CIA, after all, toppled the then democratically elected PM of Iran in 1953, forcibly installing the Shah in his place, the CIA helped bring the Taliban and Saddam to power in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively in the first place, unleashing decades of death and destruction on the peoples of those two countries.

    When the Iraqi people rose up against Saddam's brutal dictatorship back in 1991, the US actually helped him crush the rebellion, thus ensuring he stayed in power. So the US is arguably at least partly responsible for the crimes Saddam and the Taliban committed (in the case of Iraq, as well as murdering at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the US is probably also partly responsible for Saddam's DRAINING OF THE MARSHLANDS OF SOUTHER IRAQ).

    WalterCronkiteBot , 2016-09-28 21:49:48
    One of Trump's top advisors John Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" calling for a joint US-Israel strike on Iran, including regime change. He could well end up being Sec. Of State if Trump wins.

    Meanwhile Clinton is on record as saying that Iran are the world's main sponsor of terrorism and that if she became president she would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. Given that Hezbollah are always involved in tit for tat encounters with Israel, and Clinton feels Hezbollah is effectively the state of Iran, it wouldn't take much.

    Whoever wins Iran loses.

    jimcee33 -> WalterCronkiteBot , 2016-09-28 22:11:21
    Bolton is a vile neocon of the lowest order, what a charade if he gets a senior post and they call Hillary a warmonger? Just wait for Bolton, you mugs
    okthen , 2016-09-28 21:43:04
    Let's hope the Saudis defeat the Houthi uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Yemen. Oh, sorry this is the Guardian: let's hope the Russians defeat the Sunni uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Syria...
    StrangerInParadise -> okthen , 2016-09-28 21:46:13
    Have you ever actually read The Guardian? Look at Shaun Walker's Twitter if you think it is pro-Russian.
    nmccf -> okthen , 2016-09-28 22:21:51
    Yes. Trump is going to steal ISIS's oil. Only slight hole in that theory is that ISIS doesn't own any phucking oil. They aren't a nation state, just thieves. Stealing a thief's stolen goods is still stealing.
    wyngwili , 2016-09-28 21:31:27
    I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. They were complicit in 9/11, they hate the west and despise us.
    ID8701745 wyngwili , 2016-09-28 21:43:53
    >I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. Oil. Oil. And more Oil.
    PrinceVlad , 2016-09-28 21:23:25
    There's nothing bizarre about working with Russia on Middle Eastern issues unless you're married to the idea of a new Cold War. Why Washington is so hell-bent on making Russians the enemies again is beyond me.
    StrangerInParadise -> PrinceVlad , 2016-09-28 21:43:47
    Russia - does it really need all that land? Wouldn't it be better if Vladivostok was Obamagrad and Ekaterinburg was Katemiddletown?
    wallwoodgreen , 2016-09-28 21:22:07
    What exactly is the US now? a supplier of sophisticated weaponary to "rebels" or rather terrorists that the legitimate governnent ( with Russian help thankfully) is trying to defeat...
    Carlb1501 -> wallwoodgreen , 2016-09-28 22:39:01
    Both America and Russia have been supplying arms to terrorists or to destabilise elected Govts. Since the end of WW2. Neither country has a right to take the moral high ground especially not Russia at this time with the revelations coming out about shooting down passenger aircraft. You're both as bad as each other.
    GovernmentSin Carlb1501 , 2016-09-28 23:12:40
    There is no moral equivalence here. Once you look at what western intel has been upto all these decades, nowhere could Russia be close to the evil that the US and UK are.

    [Oct 01, 2016] The Soviets are coming! Hammer Sickle strike again, courtesy of Clinton camp

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Progress for USA Political Action Committee" ..."
    "... "time bomb" ..."
    "... "We lost to the losing party, a unique case in history," ..."
    "... "tyrant." ..."
    "... The arguments presented are as light-weight as the production is heavy-handed. The Clinton side claims that Trump made millions selling Russian rights for Miss Universe. That may be true, but Trump owned the organization for 19 years and sold entitlements in dozens of other countries, holding the actual event in Russia only once during that time. ..."
    "... "Russian language promotional video (which) attracted people to buy Condos in Florida." ..."
    "... Then Mike Morrell appears and declares that someone who doesn't want to pursue an aggressive military policy toward Russia is an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
    "... Did Joseph McCarthy even go this far? ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Sometimes it is downright stunning to witness American election campaigners creating, and promoting, websites like " PutinTrump.org ." Paid for by the pro-Clinton "Progress for USA Political Action Committee" it collates media stories which connect the Republican candidate and the Russian president. That could be dismissed as merely slightly odd behavior, until you see the logo, which is drumroll a hammer and sickle!

    Yes, that eternally recognizable communist symbol. Reds in the Bed

    In case Team Clinton is reading this: it looks like it might be time for a bit of a world history refresher. Any person even moderately informed about Russian affairs can tell you that Putin's government is far from communist. Hell, most decently educated school children can tell you the same. The Russian government has promoted a pro-business agenda for well over a decade and has long maintained a flat income tax rate of 13 percent.

    Indeed, only this year, the Russian president has denounced socialist hero Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik government for their brutal repression and accused him of having placed a "time bomb" under the state. He also admonished the Bolsheviks for making Russia suffer defeat at the hands of Germany in the First World War. "We lost to the losing party, a unique case in history," the President said. Furthermore, Putin is no big fan of Stalin either. While recognizing his contribution to defeating the Nazis, he also described him as a "tyrant."

    It's just as doubtful that Trump – a man who just boasted about not paying any federal taxes! – is a fan of Karl Marx's theories. The idea of distributing wealth to labor, from financiers, is surely alien to a man who has essentially admitted to not paying people he has hired because he wasn't happy with their work.

    Put plainly, these commie associations are absurd. But of course, Team Clinton knows this. That's the big reveal. The idea is to conflate the fading memory of the 'Red Menace' of Soviet communism with modern Russia. The purpose of this is pretty obvious too: to instill fear of the 'Big Bad' Putin in vulnerable American hearts and minds.

    The Green Logo Menace

    You need to go no further for proof than Clinton campaign's official messaging. Take a look at this video, where Hillary's team flings Russia slanders like they going out of fashion.

    Cue the foreboding music - you could ask why they didn't just license the tunes from 'Jaws' and have done with it – multiple RT logos and, no joke, Russian mafia references. You know the clichés that Bond films have dropped for being too crude.

    The arguments presented are as light-weight as the production is heavy-handed. The Clinton side claims that Trump made millions selling Russian rights for Miss Universe. That may be true, but Trump owned the organization for 19 years and sold entitlements in dozens of other countries, holding the actual event in Russia only once during that time.

    The video also implies that Trump is bad because he produced a "Russian language promotional video (which) attracted people to buy Condos in Florida." Hold on here, what is so unusual about that? During the oil boom of the mid-to late 00's, Russians were well known for buying property all over the world. Indeed, if you walk around hot spots like London, Nice or Dubai, you will still see Russian language signs outside many high-end estate offices. Probably all homes for the sleeper agents, huh.

    Then Mike Morrell appears and declares that someone who doesn't want to pursue an aggressive military policy toward Russia is an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." And at this point, we probably reach peak preposterous. Essentially the message is that if you don't want to saber rattle with Moscow, you are working for it.

    Did Joseph McCarthy even go this far?

    Read more:

    [Oct 01, 2016] Clinton describes Sanders supporters as basement-dwellers baristas in leaked recording - RT America

    Notable quotes:
    "... "There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something that they deeply feel," ..."
    "... "bewildered" ..."
    "... "populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory" ..."
    "... "I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there. Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum labels. ..."
    "... "understanding" ..."
    "... "Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future," ..."
    "... "If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing." ..."
    "... "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation in history." ..."
    "... People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead. ..."
    "... She is the definition of implicit bias. ..."
    "... After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war monger to ever grace American politics. ..."
    "... Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch. ..."
    "... Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.rt.com

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made forthright remarks about Bernie Sanders' supporters during a private meeting with fundraisers, an audio from which has been leaked following an email hack.

    "There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something that they deeply feel," Clinton said during a Q&A with potential donors in McLean in Virginia, in February, when she was still in a close primary race with Sanders.

    The frontrunner to become the next US President said that herself and other election observers had been "bewildered" by the rise of the "populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory" Republican candidates, presumably Donald Trump, on the one side, and the radical left-wing idealists on the other.

    Clinton painted herself as a moderate and realistic contrast to the groundswell.

    "I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there. Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum labels.

    According to the Washington Free Beacon, which posted the audio of Clinton's remarks, the recording was attached to an email sent out by a campaign staffer, which has been hacked. It is unclear if the leak is the work of the same hackers who got hold of a trove of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in July.

    ... ... ...

    In the session, Clinton called for an "understanding" of the motives of Sanders' younger backers, while describing them in terms that fluctuate between patronizing and unflattering.

    "Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future," said Clinton, who obtained the support of about 2,800 delegates, compared to approximately 1,900 for Sanders, when the results were tallied in July.

    "If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing."

    Despite well-publicized tensions, particularly between the more vocal backers, Sanders endorsed Clinton at the Democratic National Convention two months ago, and the two politicians have campaigned together this week, sharing the stage.

    Following the leak, the Clinton campaign has not apologized for the audio, insisting that it shows that the nominee and is "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation in history."

    "As Hillary Clinton said in those remarks , she wants young people to be idealistic and set big goals," said her spokesman Glen Caplin. "She is fighting for exactly millennial generation cares more about – a fairer, more equal, just world."

    In other parts of the 50-minute recording, Clinton spoke about US capacity to "retaliate" against foreign hackers that would serve as a "deterrence" and said she would be "inclined" to mothball the costly upgrade of the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) missile program.

    Read more

    PurpleSeaMan87
    And more votes for Trump it seems. Good
    Olive Sailboat 2h

    The more she runs her mouth the more support she loses.

    Gold Carrot -> Olive Sailboat 6m

    Well if somebody is supported by Soros, Warren Buffet, Walmart family, Gates, Moskowitz, Pritzker, Saban and Session what do you expect. Give me 8 names of other Americans who can top their money worth. And even so called financial supporters of Republican party like Whitman and Koch brothers are not supporting Trump. Whitman actually donate to Clinton. In fact most of the donation for Trump campaign is coming from people who donate at average less than 200 dollars. Clinton represent BIG MONEY that... See more

    GA 2h

    Clinton has a supremacist problem, she considers all americans under deserving people, she thinks she is a pharaoh and we are little people. Reply Share 15

    Red Ducky -> GA 23m

    you think trump is different? ask yourself this question: Why do Rich people spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that only pays $400K a year?

    Rabid Rotty -> Red Ducky 9m

    And Trump has stated several times that he will not take the Presidential Salary

    pHiL SwEeT -> Rabid Rotty 8m

    Uh, yah, Red Ducky just explained how it's not about the money, they're already rich. It's about power, status, control and legacy.

    Green Weights 2h

    if Clinton sends her followers and their families to concentration camps, they'll still continue supporting her. yes, that's how stupid they really are.

    Olive Basketball -> Green Weights 55m

    People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead.

    Cyan Beer 2h

    She is the definition of implicit bias.

    Norm de Plume
    Sure enough. The real Americans. Not people, like her, who have dedicated their lives to aggrandizing themselves living effectively tax-free at the people's expense.
    Seve141 7m
    After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war monger to ever grace American politics.
    Tornado_Doom 12m
    Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch.
    Green Band Aid -> Tornado_Doom 12m
    Sanders will be getting paid. All he does is for money.
    Tornado_Doom -> Green Band Aid 11m
    Does an old rich man like him need money?
    Green Leaf 43m
    Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State during Barack Obama's first term was an unmitigated disaster for many nations around the world. The media has never adequately described how a number of countries around the world suffered horribly from HC's foreign policy decisions. Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative.

    Countries adversely impacted by HC's foreign policy decisions include Abkhazia, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Malaysia, Palestine, Paraguay, South Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela, Western Sahara, Yemen - one would think they had a visit from the anti-Christ instead of HC. Or is HC the anti-Christ in disguise?

    Green Leaf 45m
    The majority of American's will vote Trump for 3 primary reasons.

    1. National Security: They trust him when it comes to protecting national security and to stop illegal aliens from entering US boarders along with stopping the mass importation of un-vetted refugees from the middle east.

    2. Economy: They know he knows how to get things done under budget and ahead of schedule.. and he knows how to make money. They want a successful businessman in office, not another political who is out to enrich his or herself at their expense. In addition he knows how to create jobs and he has a major plan to cut taxes to help the poor - no tax for anyone earning less then $50,000 and

    3. Hillary's severe covered-up health problems: With all of the problems that the US is experience they don't want someone who passes out from a seizure in the middle of the day running the country. This is a severely ill woman is, evidently, of the rare kind that requires a permanent traveling physician and a "mystery man" who rushes to her side whenever she has one of her frequent and uncontrollable seizure "episodes" (or otherwise freezes up with a brain "short-circuit" during a speech). She has Parkinson's. The pneumonia was just a symptom for something much more serious. She even had a mini seizure during the debate for those with a medical background to see.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Krugman trashed Sanders relentlessly using his soap box and now he is horrified the Hillary might lose. What a jerk

    Notable quotes:
    "... But Paul Krugman I have lost a lot of respect for. There was a candidate that people believed in and that stood up for working people and liberal values and that motivated people to come out and support him and his goals for the U.S.A. A candidate that would have neutralized Trump's appeal to the working class (which is mostly where I am). Krugman trashed him relentlessly using his very large soap box. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Jerry Brown : September 30, 2016 at 05:31 PM
    I won't say bad things about Clinton. Because she is far better than the alternative at this point. But Paul Krugman I have lost a lot of respect for. There was a candidate that people believed in and that stood up for working people and liberal values and that motivated people to come out and support him and his goals for the U.S.A. A candidate that would have neutralized Trump's appeal to the working class (which is mostly where I am). Krugman trashed him relentlessly using his very large soap box.

    Now he is horrified that the polls are so close.

    I can't say anything more without being negative. Except vote for Clinton- she's better than Trump. Which is a pathetic endorsement.

    [Oct 01, 2016] HillaryBots are misconstruing Trumps positions and framing his behaviour as the corrupt neoliberal media wishes to frame it.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have noticed a pattern with you where you are misconstruing Trump's positions and framing his behaviour as the corrupt media wishes you to frame it. Trump is not great, but he's also not nearly as awful as you're thinking he is. Don't be so influenced by the propaganda coming from Hillary and her devoted lackeys in the MSM. ..."
    "... As a female voter I don't give a crap how bad he is, I'd still rather watch Congress go nuts impeaching him than I would Hillary taking us to war with Russia. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    cwaltz October 1, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Uh that only happens if someone manages to duct tape Trump's mouth shut.

    Trump's got his own brand of offensive and apparently his goal this week was to alienate female voters even more with his antics.

    I hear that at the next debate his big idea is to blame Hillary for Bill's wandering penis. That should go over like a lead balloon (because believe it or not women don't like to be blamed for the times men act like dogs.)

    jgordon October 1, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    I have noticed a pattern with you where you are misconstruing Trump's positions and framing his behaviour as the corrupt media wishes you to frame it. Trump is not great, but he's also not nearly as awful as you're thinking he is. Don't be so influenced by the propaganda coming from Hillary and her devoted lackeys in the MSM.

    cwaltz October 1, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Spare me, I'm misconstruing nothing.

    You want to run on the fact the guy has no public record per se (Look! He didn't bomb anybody! Yeah, that's probably because he didn't have the means to do so either.). That's great.

    However, he does have a very real past and I refuse to wallpaper over that past. It's completely unacceptable and unprofessional to call your employees Miss Piggy. Acknowledge it. Move on.

    Romancing The Loan October 1, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    Oh like anyone is left who wasn't already aware that Trump's a misogynist gasbag. As a female voter I don't give a crap how bad he is, I'd still rather watch Congress go nuts impeaching him than I would Hillary taking us to war with Russia.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Trump would actually make all those issues you mention far worse

    Notable quotes:
    "... The race baiting has to stop. Krugman should travel to Camden, Rochester, East St. Louis or any of the thousands of towns and cities that were stripped of their wealth thanks to free trade policies he championed. ..."
    "... It is close because Trump offers hope. People remember that times were much, much better when their cities had factories before the so-called globalization hurricane just "naturally" swept everything away. ..."
    "... Twenty years of protectionism and an undervalued currency will turn the US into a star trek land like Singapore. 10 more years on our current free trade trajectory and we'll be Haiti, another free trade paradise. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Joseph Chamberlain's ghost : September 30, 2016 at 03:07 PM

    The race baiting has to stop. Krugman should travel to Camden, Rochester, East St. Louis or any of the thousands of towns and cities that were stripped of their wealth thanks to free trade policies he championed.

    It is close because Trump offers hope. People remember that times were much, much better when their cities had factories before the so-called globalization hurricane just "naturally" swept everything away.

    Twenty years of protectionism and an undervalued currency will turn the US into a star trek land like Singapore. 10 more years on our current free trade trajectory and we'll be Haiti, another free trade paradise.

    DrDick -> Joseph Chamberlain's ghost ... September 30, 2016 at 04:21 PM
    "It is close because Trump offers hope."

    Only to relatively prosperous, uneducated, old white men who are terrified by watching their privilege slip away. Trump would actually make all those issues you mention far worse.

    [Oct 01, 2016] David Brock (Hilary Super-PAC) apparently got access to FoxAcid, the top secret NSA software Snowden exposed.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Forget the Bernie hack, this one shows David Brock (Hilary Super-PAC) in action. Apparently they got access to FoxAcid, the top secret NSA software Snowden exposed. ..."
    "... Honey for the conspiracy bears but this does smell right, and if it's real it's a bombshell: ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 1, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Forget the Bernie hack, this one shows David Brock (Hilary Super-PAC) in action. Apparently they got access to FoxAcid, the top secret NSA software Snowden exposed.

    Honey for the conspiracy bears but this does smell right, and if it's real it's a bombshell:

    http://www.realtruenews.org/single-post/2016/09/27/Inside-Correct-the-Record-Post-Debate-PLOT

    [Oct 01, 2016] Did Trump Support The Iraq War Or Not

    www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    The way Lester Holt "corrected" Donald Trump at Monday's debate (as he was clearly instructed to do) regarding the Iraq War, you'd think the answer to whether he supported it or not was clear-cut. The truth is, it may not be that simple.

    Joe Concha (who has been doing some great work by the way), just wrote an excellent article at The Hill exploring the topic in detail. Here's what he found:

    Question: Did Donald Trump oppose or support the Iraq War?

    Before answering, a quick note on why providing clarity around a relatively simple question: It's rare that cooler heads can prevail in this media world we live in. Lines in the sand have never been drawn between blue and red media as vividly as they are now. And as a result, simple logic and lucidity is supplied less and less to drawing a verdict on whether a story is true or not.

    Exhibit A today is the aforementioned question: Did Trump - as he insists - oppose the Iraq War?

    At first, given that Trump wasn't a politician in 2002 and therefore had no official vote on the war authorization (as is the case with Hillary Clinton 's support of it), the press simply took him at his word on the matter with no evidence readily available to provide otherwise.

    Except there was evidence, albeit flimsy at best, thanks to the dogged work of Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski and Nathan McDermott in unearthing a 2002 interview Trump did with Howard Stern.

    Here's what Trump said when asked by Stern during a typically long interview (Howard can go more than an hour without taking a break) if he was for going into Iraq.

    "Yeah, I guess so," Trump responded. "I wish the first time it was done correctly."

    So to review, Trump, a businessman at that time, didn't broach the topic. There are no other public statements by him on the matter in 2002.

    "Yeah, I guess so" isn't what one would call someone absolutely advocating the invasion of another country.

    Instead, a reasonable person listening could only conclude that Trump probably hadn't given the matter even a passing thought and answered matter-of-factly. Because if Trump was so pro-Iraq War at the time, as he's being portrayed of being by the media in 2016, one would think he - who seemingly shares every perspective that enters his head - would be mentioning it every chance he got in other interviews, which never happens.

    Trump's next interview occurred with Fox's Neil Cavuto in February 2003, just weeks before the invasion occurred.

    In the video, Cavuto asks Trump how much time President Bush should spend on the economy vs. Iraq.

    "Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy," Trump said. "They're getting a little bit tired of hearing 'We're going in, we're not going in.' Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don't do it."

    Trump continued: "Perhaps he shouldn't be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations."

    But during Monday night's debate, Lester Holt followed the lead of many in the media who had come to a definitive conclusion on Trump's (at first) apathetic-turned-ambiguous stance.

    "The record shows it," Lester Holt pushed back on Trump after the candidate challenged the moderator's assertion that Trump absolutely was for the Iraq War. The record also shows Trump cautioning that the United Nations needs to be on board.

    The Secretary-General of the United Nations at the time, Kofi Annan, said this when speaking on the invasion:

    "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

    So if following Trump logic in his interview with Cavuto, if the U.S. and its allies had waited for U.N. approval, the war likely never happens.

    But here's an important nugget few are speaking about: On March 26, 2003, just one week after the invasion began, Trump says at an Academy Awards after-party, "The war's a mess," according to The Washington Post. One day earlier, a Gallup poll showed public support for the war at 72 percent.

    The "war's a mess" quote is even included in Politifact's verdict before coming to the conclusion that Trump is absolutely false in stating he opposed the war.

    In the end, the solution here is simple: Politifact needs to change its "False" rating on Trump's claim. That isn't to say it should be not characterized as "True" or "Mostly True" either.

    Instead, in a suggestion likely to send the usual suspects in our polarized media crazy, the rating of "Half True" needs to be applied here.

    The Hill reached out to Politifact for comment but did not get a response.

    As for media organizations (and this applies to almost every one), who keep insisting that Trump supported the Iraq War so definitively, not every situation lives in absolutes. Not every question has an absolute "yes" or "no" as a final verdict.

    In the case of businessman Donald Trump circa 2002 and 2003, chalk up his perspective on the Iraq War before it started as the following:

    - At first - months before it began to get any real traction in the American mindset - Trump's thought process was one of ambivalence via having not given it almost any thought before being asked about it by Stern, which was nothing more than a quick tangent in an interview focusing on 20 other things.

    - And then in January 2003, Trump's public "stance" was one of caution-before-proceeding by stating a need to wait for the United Nations before rushing in. Note: There weren't declarations around the threat of weapons of mass destruction, spreading democracy or the need to remove a brutal dictator. Trump never cites any of those common arguments for war even once, as Republicans and even some Democrats did.

    In March of 2003, as the war just began, Trump declares "the war's a mess."

    Bottom line: There's was nothing to indicate Trump supported the war, as the so-called record showed.

    He didn't seem 100 percent against it either.

    "On the fence" would be another apt way to describe it.

    Cooler heads need to prevail here.

    But "sanity," "media," and "this year's election" are five words rarely seen in the same sentence anymore.

    Meanwhile, we know for sure which candidate absolutely loves war and leaves a trail of death and destruction in her wake: Hillary Clinton.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Clinton should be beating Trump easily in the polls. Sanders would be. Trump is the worst candidate in history.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not because of policy, but because they *hate* Clinton's dishonest scumbags like Debbie Wasserman Shultz... They know them and hate them. ..."
    "... Clinton brags about how much she's done for the children meanwhile she's a millionaire who gives speeches to Goldman Sachs and does nothing but attend fundraisers thrown by rich donors. ..."
    "... a lot of Sanders supporters have a visceral dislike of Sanders people who lied to them and about us... The dishonesty is blatant, just how Hillary lied about Sanders during the primary. ..."
    "... wait until the election is over. The hatred toward Clinton and surrogates ... will come pouring out. That is if she wins. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : September 30, 2016 at 06:35 AM Clinton should be beating Trump easily in the polls. Sanders would be. Trump is the worst candidate in history.

    Why isn't she don't better? It's because Clinton surrogates like PGL are hateful and obnoxious. The voters hate these people and don't agree with Clinton's centrism. The voters hate the BS we're expected to believe like how corporate trade is nothing but beneficial or that the Obama years were great.

    It's not simply because she's a woman or because of the media (which the Clintonites were happy to use against Sanders.)
    Reply Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:35 AM Peter K. -> Peter K.... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:47 AM

    That's why Trump is appealing to Sanders voters.

    Not because of policy, but because they *hate* Clinton's dishonest scumbags like Debbie Wasserman Shultz... They know them and hate them.

    Clinton brags about how much she's done for the children meanwhile she's a millionaire who gives speeches to Goldman Sachs and does nothing but attend fundraisers thrown by rich donors.

    I'll vote for Hillary but a lot of Sanders supporters have a visceral dislike of Sanders people who lied to them and about us... The dishonesty is blatant, just how Hillary lied about Sanders during the primary. But Sanders knows policywise Trump is much, much worse than Hillary even if she's not that good.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , -1
    That's why Sanders is campaigning for Hillary. But wait until the election is over. The hatred toward Clinton and surrogates ... will come pouring out. That is if she wins.

    [Oct 01, 2016] "They had somebody modulating the microphone, so when I was speaking, the mike would go up and down," Mr. Trump said. "I spent 50 percent of my thought process working the mike."

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : September 30, 2016 at 05:36 PM

    (Aha!)

    Actually, a Malfunction Did Affect Donald Trump's
    Voice at the Debate http://nyti.ms/2cGN1m8
    NYT - NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and PATRICK HEALY - SEPT. 30

    The Commission on Presidential Debates said Friday that the first debate on Monday was marred by an unspecified technical malfunction that affected the volume of Mr. Trump's voice in the debate hall.

    Mr. Trump complained after the debate that the event's organizers had given him a "defective mike," contributing to his widely panned performance against Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton lampooned Mr. Trump's claim, telling reporters on her campaign plane, "Anybody who complains about the microphone is not having a good night."

    Mr. Trump was clearly audible to the television audience. And there is no evidence of sabotage. But it turns out he was on to something.

    "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," the commission said in its statement.

    The commission, a nonprofit organization that sponsors the presidential debates, released no other information about the malfunction, including how it was discovered, which equipment was to blame, or why the problem was admitted to only on Friday, four days after the debate.

    Reached by phone, a member of the commission's media staff said she was not authorized to speak about the matter.

    Some members of the audience, held at Hofstra University in New York, recalled in interviews that the amplification of Mr. Trump's voice was at times significantly lower than that for Mrs. Clinton. And at times Mr. Trump appeared to be hunching down to get his face closer to his microphone.

    Zeke Miller, a reporter for Time Magazine who attended the debate, mentioned the difference on Monday in a report to the traveling press pool for Mr. Trump. From his vantage point, Mr. Miller wrote, Mr. Trump was sometimes "a little quieter" than Mrs. Clinton.

    In an interview, Mr. Trump said he had tested out the audio system two hours before the event and found it "flawless." Only during the debate did he notice the problem, Mr. Trump said, and he tried to compensate by leaning down more closely to the microphone. He complained that the changing volume had distracted him and alleged again that someone had created the problem deliberately.

    "They had somebody modulating the microphone, so when I was speaking, the mike would go up and down," Mr. Trump said. "I spent 50 percent of my thought process working the mike." ...

    [Oct 01, 2016] Donald is at least pointing out the problem and proposing tax and tariff measures to partially restore manufacturing jobs to the Rust Belt. Hillary offers platitudes

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton was told over eight years ago that a huge number of Americans are in pain with good reason. See John Edwards' Two Americas… She was ignoring it then, she planned on ignoring it again. Unfortunately Trump came along and recognized the pain. Sanders felt it. Clinton doesn't feel diddly except her own personal greed, ambition, entitlement, and anger at anyone who thinks her being a public servant means actually working in the public interest not her own. ..."
    "... Yeah but Donald is at least pointing out the problem and proposing tax and tariff measures to partially restore manufacturing jobs to the Rust Belt. Hillary offers platitudes and attacks on Donald as her solution to the Dispossessed Americans. ..."
    "... The Republican party is almost a monolith on core doctrine. Let's see Congressional Republicans move to upend the current trade regime or, indeed, give any indication. ..."
    "... These 2 utterly wretched candidates do not cancel out each others' flaws at all. They both stink like rotten meat. The Trump-cheerleading that now typifies this comments section is as pitiable as the slavish Hillary boosting crap that tars the pages of the New York Times. ..."
    "... It's not cheerleading. It's the reasonable assessment that Trump MIGHT be a disaster, but Clinton WILL be a disaster. ..."
    "... OK. You're comparing a heel to a known mass murderer who took petty bribes to destroy entire countries. I don't really understand how you arrived at your conclusion, but ok. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Pat October 1, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    Clinton was told over eight years ago that a huge number of Americans are in pain with good reason. See John Edwards' Two Americas… She was ignoring it then, she planned on ignoring it again. Unfortunately Trump came along and recognized the pain. Sanders felt it. Clinton doesn't feel diddly except her own personal greed, ambition, entitlement, and anger at anyone who thinks her being a public servant means actually working in the public interest not her own.

    For that alone she needs to be dropped kicked into obscurity and a future where she and Bill really do find out what being broke and looking forward to the Social Security Check is like.

    nycTerrierist October 1, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Amen

    Dave October 1, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    Yeah but Donald is at least pointing out the problem and proposing tax and tariff measures to partially restore manufacturing jobs to the Rust Belt. Hillary offers platitudes and attacks on Donald as her solution to the Dispossessed Americans.

    Science Officer Smirnoff October 1, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    He proposes, but who disposes?

    If we had journalism instead of Poodledom there would be first a laying out of what are presidential powers-given the limited possibilities of who controls the other branches of government. And secondly, a replay of recent history of the two parties' actions on the major issues affecting the common good (which admittedly doesn't exist for libertarians and Thatcherites).

    The Republican party is almost a monolith on core doctrine. Let's see Congressional Republicans move to upend the current trade regime or, indeed, give any indication.

    FluffytheObeseCat October 1, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    Donald Trump is not a "much better candidate" than Clinton. More's the pity. The Donald is a heel; a frivolous egotist who has screwed up many times over the decades. His money and showman's cunning allowed him to prosper despite all the screw overs and screw ups. He's been a heel for decades and there is no likelihood he'll improve if he attains high office. Hillary Clinton - by contrast, not - is a supercilious elitist with more baggage than the cargo compartment of a fully loaded 747.

    These 2 utterly wretched candidates do not cancel out each others' flaws at all. They both stink like rotten meat. The Trump-cheerleading that now typifies this comments section is as pitiable as the slavish Hillary boosting crap that tars the pages of the New York Times.

    Plenue October 1, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    It's not cheerleading. It's the reasonable assessment that Trump MIGHT be a disaster, but Clinton WILL be a disaster.

    jgordon October 1, 2016 at 5:07 pm

    OK. You're comparing a heel to a known mass murderer who took petty bribes to destroy entire countries. I don't really understand how you arrived at your conclusion, but ok.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Oddly, after outsourcing jobs CEO pay never decreases.

    Oct 01, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    jellybelly21 5h ago 3 4 Why are Trump supporters under the illusion that DT can bring jobs back? Carrier will move production abroad because 'Most of its Indianapolis workers make about $26 an hour. Their Mexican replacements make $3 an hour'. DT products are manufactured overseas for the same reason: low production costs = higher profits. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Facebook Twitter | Pick Report WillKnotTell jellybelly21 3h ago 2 3 Oddly, CEO pay never decreases.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Doing what contemporary American economists suggest: eliminate tariffs, dont worry about huge capital inflows or a ridiculously overvalued dollar, has led the US from being the envy of the world to being a non-developed economy with worse roads than Cuba or Ghana.

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Friederich List : September 30, 2016 at 05:29 PM

    Doing what contemporary American economists suggest: eliminate tariffs, don't worry about huge capital inflows or a ridiculously overvalued dollar, has led the US from being the envy of the world to being a non-developed economy with worse roads than Cuba or Ghana.

    That US economists are still treated with any degree of credibility it totally appalling. They are so obviously bought-and-paid for snake oil salesmen that people are finally tuning them out.

    TRUMP 2016: Return America to Protectionism - Screw globalism

    [Oct 01, 2016] Get real! No alumni of the Peterson Institute and IMF is going to go all mushy on the down sides of globalization and wealth distribution.

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : September 30, 2016 at 07:07 AM RE: The State of Advanced Economies and Related Policy Debates: A Fall 2016 Assessment

    https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/state-advanced-economies-and-related-policy-debates-fall-2016-assessment

    [There is a pdf at the link. Olivier Blanchard has surprised me again. As establishment economists go he is not so bad. There is plenty that he still glosses over but insofar as status quo establishment macroeconomics goes he is thorough and coherent. One might hope that those that do not understand either the debate for higher inflation targets or the debate for fiscal policy to accomplish what monetary policy cannot might learn from this article by Olivier Blanchard, but I will not hold my breath waiting for that. In any case the article is worth a read for anyone that can.] RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:07 AM

    Get real! No alumni of the Peterson Institute and IMF is going to go all mushy on the down sides of globalization and wealth distribution.
    anne -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:13 AM
    https://piie.com/system/files/documents/pb16-14.pdf

    September, 2016

    The State of Advanced Economies and Related Policy Debates: A Fall 2016 Assessment
    By Olivier Blanchard

    Perhaps the most striking macroeconomic fact about advanced economies today is how anemic demand remains in the face of zero interest rates.

    In the wake of the global financial crisis, we had a plausible explanation why demand was persistently weak: Legacies of the crisis, from deleveraging by banks, to fiscal austerity by governments, to lasting anxiety by consumers and firms, could all explain why, despite low rates, demand remained depressed.

    This explanation is steadily becoming less convincing. Banks have largely deleveraged, credit supply has loosened, fiscal consolidation has been largely put on hold, and the financial crisis is farther in the rearview mirror. Demand should have steadily strengthened. Yet, demand growth has remained low.

    Why? The likely answer is that, as the legacies of the past have faded, the future has looked steadily bleaker. Forecasts of potential growth have been repeatedly revised down. And consumers and firms-anticipating a gloomier future-are cutting back spending, leading to unusually low demand growth today....

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> anne... , -1
    THANKS!

    [Sep 30, 2016] Neoliberal media are just stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush." ..."
    "... "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing." ..."
    "... Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish. ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    "I think it's entirely understandable that what Clinton will try to do is avoid criticizing Obama, because she desperately needs to recreate the Obama coalition on November the 8th," said Bolton. "She has gone out of her way, including in her 600-page-long tedious memoir about her days at the State Department, failing to distance herself from Obama."

    This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush."

    "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing."

    Bolton thought Trump "did what he needed to do" at the first presidential debate:

    Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish.

    My critique of his performance would be that he missed opportunities. For example, you mentioned the foreign policy section, when they were asked about cyber warfare, and the dangers to the United States of hacking, and that gave Clinton a chance to give a little college-type lecture on Russia – by the way, omitting China, Iran, North Korea, and others – I thought at that point Trump could have talked about her email homebrew server for his entire time, and just drilled that point home.

    But, you know, people at home aren't sitting there grading on that basis. I think the second debate, and the third debate, will be very different, and those – particularly in the media – who now confidently predict the outcome of the election, based on their take of this debate, are smoking something.

    ...Listen to the full audio of Bolton's interview above.

    [Sep 30, 2016] Neoliberal media are just stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush." ..."
    "... "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing." ..."
    "... Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish. ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    "I think it's entirely understandable that what Clinton will try to do is avoid criticizing Obama, because she desperately needs to recreate the Obama coalition on November the 8th," said Bolton. "She has gone out of her way, including in her 600-page-long tedious memoir about her days at the State Department, failing to distance herself from Obama."

    This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush."

    "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing."

    Bolton thought Trump "did what he needed to do" at the first presidential debate:

    Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish.

    My critique of his performance would be that he missed opportunities. For example, you mentioned the foreign policy section, when they were asked about cyber warfare, and the dangers to the United States of hacking, and that gave Clinton a chance to give a little college-type lecture on Russia – by the way, omitting China, Iran, North Korea, and others – I thought at that point Trump could have talked about her email homebrew server for his entire time, and just drilled that point home.

    But, you know, people at home aren't sitting there grading on that basis. I think the second debate, and the third debate, will be very different, and those – particularly in the media – who now confidently predict the outcome of the election, based on their take of this debate, are smoking something.

    ...Listen to the full audio of Bolton's interview above.

    [Sep 30, 2016] Trump vs. the GOP Elite by Rep. John J. Duncan Jr.

    Sep 26, 2016 | The American Conservative

    ... ... ...

    2) Trade. With only 4 percent of the world's population, we buy almost one-fourth of the world's goods. Every country is champing at the bit to get into our markets. We have tremendous leverage on trade that we have not used. We do not want or need trade wars. But we should, in a friendly way, tell other countries-especially the Chinese-"We want to trade with you, but we can't sustain our huge trade deficit. You are going to have to find some things to buy from us, too."

    3) Immigration. With 58 percent of the world's population-almost 4 billion people-having to get by on $4 or less a day, hundreds of millions would come here over the next few years if we simply opened our borders. Our entire infrastructure-our schools, jails, sewers, hospitals, roads-and our economy as a whole could not handle such a massive, rapid influx of people. The American people are the kindest, most generous people in the world, and we have already allowed many millions more than any other country to immigrate here, legally and illegally. But we must do a much better job enforcing our immigration laws.

    4) Wars. I am now the only Republican left in Congress who voted against going to war in Iraq. For the first three of four years, it was the most unpopular vote I ever cast. I even once was disinvited to speak at a Baptist church. Now, it is probably the most popular vote I ever cast. The American people are tired of permanent, forever wars. While everyone wants a friendly relationship with Israel, I do not believe the American people will continue to support wars that primarily benefit Israel but cause thousands of young Americans to be killed or horribly maimed for life.

    5) Jobs. Almost any member of Congress, if asked what is the greatest need in their district, would probably say more good jobs. Radical environmentalists have caused many thousands of U.S. businesses to go to other countries or close for good. We have ended up with the best-educated waiters and waitresses in the world. When I was in Vietnam a few years ago, I was told if you wanted to start a business there, you just went out and did it. The place was booming. It is now apparently easier to start a small business in some former communist countries than in the supposedly free-enterprise U.S.

    ... ... ...

    Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. represents the 2nd district of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.represents the 2nd district of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    [Sep 30, 2016] Myth that neoliberal globalization reduces poverty

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true, according to World Bank data, but the story of how it happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that this progress is a result of the "globalization" that Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period China was really the counterexample to the "principles of open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward, not backward." ..."
    "... If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China accounted for even more of the reduction of the world population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would indicate that other parts of the developing world increased their economic and social progress during the 21st century, relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did (as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century). But China played an increasingly large role in reducing poverty in other countries during this period. ..."
    "... It was so successful in its economic growth and development - by far the fastest in world history - that it became the largest economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible 0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3 percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.) ..."
    "... the "principles of open markets" that Obama refers to is really code for "policies that Washington supports." ..."
    "... In his defense of a world economic order ruled by Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also asserted that "we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself; and it left Washington and its traditional rich country allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an American. It should not be surprising if these institutions do not look out for the interests of the developing world. ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : September 30, 2016 at 04:55 AM

    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/president-obama-inadvertently-gives-high-praise-to-china-in-un-speech

    September 29, 2016

    President Obama Inadvertently Gives High Praise to China in UN Speech
    By Mark Weisbrot

    President Obama's speech at the UN last week was mostly a defense of the world's economic and political status quo, especially that part of it that is led or held in place by the US government and the global institutions that Washington controls or dominates. In doing so, he said some things that were exaggerated or wrong, or somewhat misleading. It is worth looking at some of the things that media reports on this speech missed.

    "Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true, according to World Bank data, but the story of how it happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that this progress is a result of the "globalization" that Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period China was really the counterexample to the "principles of open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward, not backward."

    China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the economy. State control over investment, technology transfer, and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to international trade and investment, and rapid privatization of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition, over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role. Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016 (as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the economy.

    If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China accounted for even more of the reduction of the world population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would indicate that other parts of the developing world increased their economic and social progress during the 21st century, relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did (as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century). But China played an increasingly large role in reducing poverty in other countries during this period.

    It was so successful in its economic growth and development - by far the fastest in world history - that it became the largest economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible 0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3 percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.)

    Of course, the "principles of open markets" that Obama refers to is really code for "policies that Washington supports." Some of them are the exact opposite of "open markets," such as the lengthening and strengthening of patent and copyright protection included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. President Obama also made a plug for the TPP in his speech, asserting that "we've worked to reach trade agreements that raise labor standards and raise environmental standards, as we've done with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so that the benefits [of globalization] are more broadly shared." But the labor and environmental standards in the TPP, as with those in previous US-led commercial agreements, are not enforceable; whereas if a government approves laws or regulations that infringe on the future profit potential of a multinational corporation - even if such laws or regulations are to protect public health or safety - that government can be hit with billions of dollars in fines. And they must pay these fines, or be subject to trade sanctions.

    In his defense of a world economic order ruled by Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also asserted that "we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself; and it left Washington and its traditional rich country allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an American. It should not be surprising if these institutions do not look out for the interests of the developing world.

    "We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration," President Obama told the world at the UN General Assembly. "Or we can retreat into a world sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion."

    But the rich country governments led by Washington are not offering the rest of the world any better model of cooperation and integration than the failed model they have been offering for the past 35 years. And that is a big part of the problem....

    RGC -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:57 AM

    Excellent commentary by Mark Weisbrot.
    anne -> RGC... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:09 AM
    Excellent commentary by Mark Weisbrot.

    [ Really so. ]

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 09:23 AM
    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/president-obama-inadvertently-gives-high-praise-to-china-in-un-speech

    September 29, 2016

    China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the economy. State control over investment, technology transfer, and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to international trade and investment, and rapid privatization of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition, over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role. Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016 (as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the economy....

    -- Mark Weisbrot

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 10:04 AM
    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/president-obama-inadvertently-gives-high-praise-to-china-in-un-speech

    September 29, 2016

    Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016 (as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the economy....

    -- Mark Weisbrot


    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/14/yale-professors-offer-economic-prescriptions/

    October 14, 2011

    Yale Professors Offer Economic Prescriptions
    By Brenda Cronin - Wall Street Journal

    Richard C. Levin, president of Yale - and also a professor of economics - moderated the conversation among Professors Judith Chevalier, John Geanakoplos, William D. Nordhaus, Robert J. Shiller and Aleh Tsyvinski....

    An early mistake during the recession, Mr. Levin said, was not targeting more stimulus funds to job creation. He contrasted America's meager pace of growth in gross domestic product in the past few years with China's often double-digit pace, noting that after the crisis hit, Washington allocated roughly 2% of GDP to job creation while Beijing directed 15% of GDP to that goal....

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 10:13 AM
    Repeatedly there are warnings from Western economists that the Chinese economy is near collapse, nonetheless economic growth through the first 2 quarters this year is running at 6.7% and the third quarter looks about the same. The point is to ask and describe how after these last 39 remarkable years:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7uKv

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, 1976-2015

    (Percent change)

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7uKu

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, 1976-2015

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 10:16 AM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7uKF

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, 1976-2014

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7uKE

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)

    jonny bakho : , -1
    Before the crash, complacent Democrats, ... tended to agree with them that the economy was largely self-correcting.

    Who is a complacent Democrat? Obama ran as a fiscal conservative and appointed a GOP as his SecTreas. Geithner was a "banks need to be bailed out" and the economy self corrects. Geithner was not in favor of cram down or mortgage programs that would have bailed out the injured little folks.

    Democrats like Romer and Summers were in favor a fiscal stimulus, but not enough of it. I expect to see the Clinton economic team include a lot more women and especially focus on economic policies that help working women and families.

    I have always thought that a big reason for the Bush jobless recovery was his lack of true fiscal stimulus. Bush had tax cuts for the wealthy, but the latest from Summers shows why trickle down does not work.

    Full employment may have been missing from the 1992 platform, but full employment was pursued aggressively by Bill Clinton. He got AG to agree to allow unemployment to drop to 4% in exchange for raising taxes and dropping the middle class tax cuts. Bill Clinton used fiscal policy to tax the economy and as a break so monetary policy could be accommodating.

    He should include raising the MinWage. Maybe that has not changed but it is a lynchpin for putting money in the pockets of the working poor.

    [Sep 30, 2016] Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright monopolies the results of a free market? ..."
    "... The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good piece on the devastation to millions of working class people and their communities from the flood of imports of manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part of a free trade. ..."
    "... First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of the decision of China and other developing countries to buy massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our goods and services less competitive internationally. This problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury Department and the I.M.F. ..."
    "... The second point is political leaders are constantly working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer. This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a 10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000 percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except the impact is far larger in the later case.) ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... September 30, 2016 at 05:30 PM

    Dean Baker:

    Why are none of the "free trade" members of Congress pushing to change the regulations that require doctors go through a U.S. residency program to be able to practice medicine in the United States? Obviously they are all protectionist Neanderthals.

    Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright monopolies the results of a free market?

    The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good piece on the devastation to millions of working class people and their communities from the flood of imports of manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part of a free trade.

    First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of the decision of China and other developing countries to buy massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our goods and services less competitive internationally. This problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury Department and the I.M.F.

    If we had a more competent team in place, that didn't botch the workings of the international financial system, then we would have expected the dollar to drop as more imports entered the U.S. market. This would have moved the U.S. trade deficit toward balance and prevented the massive loss of manufacturing jobs we saw in the last decade.

    The second point is political leaders are constantly working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer. This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a 10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000 percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except the impact is far larger in the later case.)

    Finally, the fact that trade has exposed manufacturing workers to international competition, but not doctors and lawyers, was a policy choice, not a natural development. There are enormous potential gains from allowing smart and ambitious young people in the developing world to come to the United States to work in the highly paid professions. We have not opened these doors because doctors and lawyers are far more powerful than autoworkers and textile workers. And, we rarely even hear the idea mentioned because doctors and lawyers have brothers and sisters who are reporters and economists.

    Addendum:

    Since some folks asked about the botched bailout from the East Asian financial crisis, the point is actually quite simple. Prior to 1997 developing countries were largely following the textbook model, borrowing capital from the West to finance development. This meant running large trade deficits. This reversed following the crisis as the conventional view in the developing world was that you needed massive amounts of reserves to avoid being in the situation of the East Asian countries and being forced to beg for help from the I.M.F. This led to the situation where developing countries, especially those in the region, began running very large trade surpluses, exporting capital to the United States. (I am quite sure China noticed how its fellow East Asian countries were being treated in 1997.)

    [Sep 29, 2016] Ann Coulter How to Avoid Immigration, Terrorism and Health Care for 90 Minutes - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ha ha! We prevented Trump from talking about issues that matter to the American people! ..."
    www.breitbart.com

    Hillary supporters, or "the media," had reason to be happy: She looked healthy! She probably could have kept reciting her snarky little talking points for another hour.

    In fact, it was the best I've ever seen Hillary. She avoided that honking thing she does, smiled a lot - a little too much, actually (maybe ease up on the pep pills next time) - and, as the entire media has gleefully reported, she managed to "bait" Trump.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary - with assists from the moderator - "baited" Trump on how rich he is, the loan from his father, a lawsuit in 1972, the birther claims, who he said what to about the Iraq War from 2001 to 2003, and so on.

    ... ... ...

    For the media, their gal was winning whenever precious minutes of a 90-minute debate were spent rehashing allegations about Trump. Ha ha! We prevented Trump from talking about issues that matter to the American people! That was scored as a "win."

    [Sep 29, 2016] If you're a geopolitical rival of the United States, Trump is a delight.

    Sep 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl... September 29, 2016 at 06:49 AM Last Night, Donald Trump Showed Why
    He's Dangerous http://bit.ly/2czfGEM
    Nat'l Review - David French - September 27

    ... in foreign policy, the modern American president has become a virtual monarch. He or she can launch military actions without congressional approval (just ask Presidents Clinton and Obama), reach agreements with foreign nations, and establish or rescind diplomatic relations. The Constitution is supposed to check the power of the president to declare war or to enter treaties, but presidents have been shedding those restraints for generations. The president holds the power of war and peace in his or her hands, and the entire world - including our enemies - pays attention to the president's every word and deed.

    If you're a geopolitical rival of the United States, Trump is a delight. He's America's leading Putin apologist, wasting several agonizing turns in the debate defending Russia from the charge of meddling in U.S. elections and bizarrely wondering if a "400-pound" man "sitting on their bed" hacked Democratic National Committee e-mails. He said he hasn't "given lots of thought to NATO" and then went ahead and proved the truth of that statement by fundamentally misunderstanding the alliance. He treats it as a glorified protection racket whereby NATO countries allegedly pay us to defend Europe and they're not paying what they owe. He even doubled down on his claim - an incredibly bizarre claim given Russia's military resurgence - that NATO "could be obsolete." ... Reply Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 06:49 AM pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 07:05 AM

    I agree Gary Johnson is not ready to be commander in chief but he is far more ready than Trump. A low bar.
    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Why you are reproducing neocon garbage in this blog ?

    "He's America's leading Putin apologist"

    That's pretty idiotic statement, even taking into account the abhorrent level of Russophobia of the US elite for whom Russophobia by-and-large replaced anti-Semitism. .

    Anybody who blabber such things (and that includes Ms. Goldman Sachs) should not be allowed to approach closer then 10 miles to Washington, DC, to say nothing about holding any elected government position.

    [Sep 28, 2016] It is not that we do not trust the agents, we do not trust the FBI leadership

    Notable quotes:
    "... Only three references to Comey as a "Treas-Weasel" appear in a Google search. ..."
    "... Are there no longer any "deep throats" left at the FBI? Because now would be an excellent opportunity for one of them to start making phone calls – but to who? Greenwald maybe? He seems to be the only investigative journalist left but he doesn't even live in this country .. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Roger Smith September 28, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    Re: (Pop Goes the) Weasels

    "I knew there were going to be all kinds of rocks thrown, but this organization and the people who did this are honest, independent people."

    Well Comey, it is not that we do not trust the agents, we do not trust the leadership. If any of the underground reports I have seen are indications, the agents were trying and struggling to do their jobs.

    Reply
    Jim Haygood September 28, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Only three references to Comey as a "Treas-Weasel" appear in a Google search.

    All three are on naked capitalism in July 2016. And I know who did it.

    *peers out window for suspicious unmarked vehicles*

    Reply
    justanotherprogressive September 28, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Are there no longer any "deep throats" left at the FBI? Because now would be an excellent opportunity for one of them to start making phone calls – but to who? Greenwald maybe? He seems to be the only investigative journalist left but he doesn't even live in this country ..

    Jen September 28, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Just do a data dump on Reddit. We already know the FBI won't look there.

    crittermom September 28, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    Roger Smith–

    " it is not that we do not trust the agents, we do not trust the leadership."

    Perfectly stated. Nailed it!

    Sooo ..I wonder how those low-ranking soldiers in the military are faring using the same defense?

    I remain infuriated that nothing happened to her. I now have yet another head (Comey) I want to see in my front yard guillotine. Grrrrrrr

    Reply
    cwaltz September 28, 2016 at 5:57 pm

    http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-693407.html

    Still seeing jail time ..they aren't super special snowflakes like Clinton.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Comey on Clinton email probe 'Don't call us weasels'

    Notable quotes:
    "... GOP lawmakers focused in particular on the Justice Department's decision to give a form of immunity to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to obtain computers containing emails related to the case. ..."
    "... Republicans also questioned why Mills and Samuelson were allowed to attend Clinton's July 2 interview at FBI headquarters as her attorneys, given that they had been interviewed as witnesses in the email probe. ..."
    "... "I don't think there's any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation," said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview. ..."
    "... Ratcliffe said Clinton and the others should have been called to a grand jury, where no one is allowed to accompany the witness. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | POLITICO

    "You can call us wrong, but don't call us weasels. We are not weasels," Comey declared Wednesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. "We are honest people and whether or not you agree with the result, this was done the way you want it to be done."

    ... ... ...

    "I would be in big trouble, and I should be in big trouble, if I did something like that," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). "There seems to be different strokes for different folks. I think there's a heavy hand coming from someplace else."

    Comey insisted there is no double standard, though he said there would be serious consequences - short of criminal prosecution - if FBI personnel handled classified information as Clinton and her aides did.

    ... ... ...

    Republicans suggested there were numerous potential targets of prosecution in the case and repeatedly questioned prosecutors' decisions to grant forms of immunity to at least five people in connection with the probe.

    "You cleaned the slate before you even knew. You gave immunity to people that you were going to need to make a case if a case was to be made," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

    GOP lawmakers focused in particular on the Justice Department's decision to give a form of immunity to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to obtain computers containing emails related to the case.

    "Laptops don't go to the Bureau of Prisons," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. "The immunity was not for the laptop, it was for Cheryl Mills."

    The FBI director repeated an explanation he gave for the first time at a Senate hearing Tuesday, that the deal to get the laptops was wise because subpoenaing computers from an attorney would be complex and time consuming.

    "Anytime you know you're subpoenaing a laptop from a lawyer that involved a lawyer's practice of law, you know you're getting into a big megillah," Comey said.

    Republicans also questioned why Mills and Samuelson were allowed to attend Clinton's July 2 interview at FBI headquarters as her attorneys, given that they had been interviewed as witnesses in the email probe.

    "I don't think there's any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation," said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview.

    "I don't think there's any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation," said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview.

    "If colleagues of ours believe I am lying about when I made this decision, please urge them to contact me privately so we can have a conversation about this," Comey said. "The decision was made after that because I didn't know what was going to happen during the interview. She would maybe lie in the interview in a way we could prove."

    Comey also said it wasn't the FBI's role to dictate who could or couldn't act as Clinton's lawyers. "I would also urge you to tell me what tools we have as prosecutors and investigators to kick out of the interview someone that the subject says is their lawyer," the FBI chief said, while acknowledging he'd never encountered such a situation before.

    Ratcliffe said Clinton and the others should have been called to a grand jury, where no one is allowed to accompany the witness.

    Comey did say there was no chance of charges against Mills or Samuelson by the time of the Clinton interview.

    [Sep 28, 2016] I cant think of a single thing that would make Clinton appear more attractive, compared to pretty much anyone. But, I can think of at few things that make Trump more attractive to me in comparison to Clinton. One being his lack of interest in war with Russia, and his ability to understand that regime change has been a loser for American interests, and the other being that he gets that our current trade policy has been a loser

    Notable quotes:
    "... I can give you a list of things that I can't stand about Clinton – a long one – but given the likelihood that my state will be solidly in the tank for Clinton, I won't have to vote for her to save the world from President Trump. But where I am coming to is that, if that's what it came down to, I don't think I could participate in anything that aided his election. ..."
    "... Funny, I can think of at few things that make Trump more attractive to me in comparison to Clinton. One being his lack of interest in war with Russia, and his ability to understand that 'regime change' has been a loser for American interests, and the other being that he gets that our current trade policy has been a 'loser'. ..."
    "... That said, both are disastrous choices, it may be for different reasons, but both are despicable. Neither one of them should be allowed to enter the White House in a tour group, much less live there. And I for one do not want to participate in anything that elects Hillary Rodham Clinton or Donald Trump to dog catcher, much less President. I'm going to vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may. I would be doing it no matter where I live. See, there is a point where you figure out that you are going to lose out no matter what. There are no softer landings available. ..."
    "... One being his lack of interest in war with Russia ..."
    "... In contrast with the (admittedly horrific) Trump, HRC has surrounded herself with anti-Russia, neocon advisors. ..."
    "... I recognize that voting for him would be a knee jerk reaction. However, I do understand why I have that knee jerk reaction. For years now, average Americans, like myself, have seen the media collude with the DC insiders and watched as we've seen our standard of living decline. We've watched our children struggle with unaffordable college. We've watched our parents struggle with unaffordable health care. We've watched our neighbors struggle to afford housing. We've watched our work weeks increase to 60 hours to pay for basics and heard them tell us that we need to work from cradle to grave(and let's be clear for lower middle class and middle class 70 is until grave) with little to no respite(we don't even have a mandatory vacation or sick policy in this country.) With that in mind, why should I want their standard bearer of status quo to win? I DON'T. I want Hillary Clinton to lose, not because I like Trump, but because I hate what these people have done and will continue to do to this country if allowed to remain in power. That's his case. ..."
    "... I can't think of a single thing that would make Clinton appear more attractive, compared to pretty much anyone. ..."
    "... I find it ironic that the HRC supporters are now desperately pleading with third-party supporters to vote Hillary BECAUSE TRUMP. Let's not forget it was Hillary herself who tweeted to all "Vote your conscience". ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    curlydan September 28, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Yes, the media and the DC insiders are all begging us to drag HRC across the finish line in an effort to defeat TRUMP. Normally, a candidate might inspire and give voters reasons to go the polls, but we've been asked to do all the work and heavy lifting this year to prevent TRUMP.

    Reply
    cwaltz September 28, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    The funny thing is because of WHO is asking, it makes Trump appear more attractive and almost makes me want to vote for the guy out of spite.

    After all, what exactly have the media or the DC insiders done for the American people? Ignored issues and blatantly supported policies that have harmed Americans? It's rather audacious of them to even bother asking most of us when most of us don't see the answer to the question of what has been done for us as a net positive. Most from the left and the right might even go so far as to say media and DC insiders have lined their pockets on the backs of average Americans' pain. Beg us to do something for them? They deserve to be kicked in the teeth in the same manner they've been doing it to average Americans for years.

    Reply
    FluffytheObeseCat September 28, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    Yes. As indicated by the telling finish of the quote above:

    " We need to think about information policies - including media literacy programs - that can offer urgently needed counterweights to the echo chambers and conspiracy factories of the internet."

    Gutless, hackneyed drivel topped off with an urgent plea to the policy-making class to up their propaganda game.

    Reply
    Anne September 28, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    I can't think of a single thing that would make Trump appear more attractive, outside of seeing the back of him slowly disappearing from view – forever. Yes, I get that it's totally galling to be inundated with begging pleas from the likes of Hillary Clinton and some of her cronies – I routinely mail back to her every last shred of paper she sends me, in the postage-paid envelope, so I know that teeth-clenching, migraine-inducing rush of ire that she can induce.

    I can give you a list of things that I can't stand about Clinton – a long one – but given the likelihood that my state will be solidly in the tank for Clinton, I won't have to vote for her to save the world from President Trump. But where I am coming to is that, if that's what it came down to, I don't think I could participate in anything that aided his election.

    I came away from that debate wanting to stick needles in my eyes. Trump is a thin-skinned, prevaricating, floridly egotistical, vindictive, bigoted, misogynistic bully whose flaws will only expand and possibly explode if he is elected.

    There is nothing even remotely attractive about Trump – I can't even contemplate just how bad Clinton would need to be to make him look like the better choice.

    Reply
    Pat September 28, 2016 at 4:23 pm

    Funny, I can think of at few things that make Trump more attractive to me in comparison to Clinton. One being his lack of interest in war with Russia, and his ability to understand that 'regime change' has been a loser for American interests, and the other being that he gets that our current trade policy has been a 'loser'.

    That said, both are disastrous choices, it may be for different reasons, but both are despicable. Neither one of them should be allowed to enter the White House in a tour group, much less live there. And I for one do not want to participate in anything that elects Hillary Rodham Clinton or Donald Trump to dog catcher, much less President. I'm going to vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may. I would be doing it no matter where I live. See, there is a point where you figure out that you are going to lose out no matter what. There are no softer landings available.

    Reply
    Pavel September 28, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Thank you, Pat. From my POV this is key:

    One being his lack of interest in war with Russia

    In contrast with the (admittedly horrific) Trump, HRC has surrounded herself with anti-Russia, neocon advisors.

    Needless to say, Putin isn't perfect, but how does further upgrading the conflict and risking WW3 and global destruction help matters? The NATO exercises on the Russian border and Syrian escalations are truly scary.

    Reply
    cwaltz September 28, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Trump isn't attractive to me either. However, defeating the DC insiders and media that have brought us to this point in history where my choices are bad and worse is attractive to me

    I recognize that voting for him would be a knee jerk reaction. However, I do understand why I have that knee jerk reaction. For years now, average Americans, like myself, have seen the media collude with the DC insiders and watched as we've seen our standard of living decline. We've watched our children struggle with unaffordable college. We've watched our parents struggle with unaffordable health care. We've watched our neighbors struggle to afford housing. We've watched our work weeks increase to 60 hours to pay for basics and heard them tell us that we need to work from cradle to grave(and let's be clear for lower middle class and middle class 70 is until grave) with little to no respite(we don't even have a mandatory vacation or sick policy in this country.) With that in mind, why should I want their standard bearer of status quo to win? I DON'T. I want Hillary Clinton to lose, not because I like Trump, but because I hate what these people have done and will continue to do to this country if allowed to remain in power. That's his case.

    I live in a swing state and I'll be voting for Stein. Screw the pundits and their *begging*. They deserve this loss.

    Reply
    Pavel September 28, 2016 at 5:58 pm

    Excellent comment, thank you. I only wish the MSM pundits would grasp what you describe in just a paragraph or two.

    Reply
    nippersmom September 28, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    I can't think of a single thing that would make Clinton appear more attractive, compared to pretty much anyone. I'll be voting Stein, the only remaining candidate who aligns with my views and reflects my interests. If she hadn't made it onto the ballot here in Georgia, I would not be voting in the presidential election for the first time since I became eligible to vote in 1980. Neither of the two ruling-party sociopaths is at all palatable.

    Reply
    Pavel September 28, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    I find it ironic that the HRC supporters are now desperately pleading with third-party supporters to vote Hillary BECAUSE TRUMP. Let's not forget it was Hillary herself who tweeted to all "Vote your conscience".

    Jill Stein is anti-war, anti-greed, pro-environment. Rather the opposite of HRC.

    [Sep 28, 2016] The debate was very scripted, organised, funelled, etc. Much much more so than the public realises, by the promoters (network), the PTB, etc. Viperous bitter discussions take place about what can or cannot be mentioned

    Notable quotes:
    "... HRC, the PTB, deep state, neo-lib-cons, still think they can 'win' by using these kinds of blatant domineering tactics. ..."
    "... I was surprised, while watching the debate, at how subdued it all was. The subject matter was clearly circumscribed by previous agreement. The public can never escape the scripted product they receive; and another way of saying this, is that the agreed-upon lies, always make up the bulk of the debate. ..."
    "... The narrative is sanitized to an important degree, and just shows the effect of suffocating control. Neither person won the debate after all, for the oppressively scripted event was only meant to impress the public with the idea that the race is still a close one. And who, after all, knows what will happen. ..."
    "... To anyone awake and questioning the legitimacy of the 'arrangements' made for the election, especially the 'newborn' skeptics who abound at this point, this whole 'show' is just confirmation of their worst fears. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Noirette

    A last point about the debate. They are very scripted, organised, funelled, etc. Much much more so than the public realises, by the promoters (network), the PTB, etc. Viperous bitter discussions take place about what can or cannot be mentioned. (I presume as that is the case in other countries besides the US.) Trump tweeted he 'held back' because he did not want to embarass HRC, but imho he was muzzled in part by the ''deals' as the show itself illustrated, softball to HRC and interrupting DT etc. Imho HRC was given the questions beforehand, DT not (but who knows?) and basically everything was organised beforehand to put him at a disadvantage.

    HRC, the PTB, deep state, neo-lib-cons, still think they can 'win' by using these kinds of blatant domineering tactics. The point has been made by many: all these standard coercitive controlling moves can now backfire badly, they only serve to show up that the Establishment creeps use illegit. actions, and in any case Trump supporters won't be moved an inch, he could give out a recipe for Texas BBQ (as one pol I saw did but for rabbit, see previous posts), or flat out ask the moderator, well IDK, what do you think? and that would be peachy..

    Trump followed the no. 1 rule (campaign for myself not against the other), as he was surely advised to do. Various excuses, rationalisations are put forward for it: he wanted to appeal to the conventional Repub base, appear as a legit candidate to ppl who had never seen him 'live' before, he is holding back for the next debates, etc. Still, his performance was not tops, in the sense of a maverick breaking the mold, he fell down, was a disapointment. He was shown up to be low man on the pole, constrained by negotiations which he could not dominate, rules which he could not transgress. Of course many DT supporters and possible new ones perceived the manipulations quite clearly, and were thus on his side, so a mixed bag. (It's all optics so i wrote nothing about the real issues.)

    Copeland | Sep 28, 2016 4:35:03 PM | 95

    I agree with Noirette @ 94

    I was surprised, while watching the debate, at how subdued it all was. The subject matter was clearly circumscribed by previous agreement. The public can never escape the scripted product they receive; and another way of saying this, is that the agreed-upon lies, always make up the bulk of the debate.

    The narrative is sanitized to an important degree, and just shows the effect of suffocating control. Neither person won the debate after all, for the oppressively scripted event was only meant to impress the public with the idea that the race is still a close one. And who, after all, knows what will happen.

    jfl | Sep 28, 2016 7:01:02 PM | 96
    @94 n, @95 c

    Bruce Dixon recounts his experience outside the debate itself, Hundreds of Cops Divert and Foil Thousands of Protesters Outside NY Presidential Debate

    While inside the debate moderator Lester Holt failed to ask questions about joblessness, medical care, student loans, police murder or mass incarceration, New York police outside the debate showed the world how to suppress free speech with a soft hand, diverting more than two thousand protesters into "free speech zones" long lines and checkpoints and spaces artfully designed to prevent groups from concentrating in one place or finding each other.
    And Glen Ford points up its obvious, mobbed-up circumstances The Great Debate That Never Was on the inside
    If the Green Party's Jill Stein had been allowed in this week's presidential debate, it would have transformed the discussion and altered the race. That's why Democrats and Republicans kept it a duopoly-only affair. "The only circumstances in which either Trump or Clinton can muster a minimally compelling argument, is against each other."
    To anyone awake and questioning the legitimacy of the 'arrangements' made for the election, especially the 'newborn' skeptics who abound at this point, this whole 'show' is just confirmation of their worst fears.

    The Powers That Are can't do anything right any longer. Everything they do is wrong, and is immediately apparent as wrong, on the big screen and booming through the big megaphone. They'd do better just to lay off but, like all the extras brought on to push Xmas after Thanksgiving, there are just too many of them wound-up and let loose, stepping and slipping from one pile of dog-doo to another, as they tear down the streets of NYC and Hollywood.

    I think there's a very good chance that this is the year the extravaganza implodes.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Why Donald Trump is winning

    Notable quotes:
    "... Both were highly disciplined, one being a billionaire who has made it mostly on his own and the other having survived in public life for at least 45 years with no jail time. ..."
    "... Hillary's response was that Donald had used bad language in public, lacked the proper "temperament" to be president, and favored the rich whom she would hit with higher taxes to pay for her giveaways. That last line about the rich is a bit much given the fact that Hillary is the creature of Wall Street, Hollywood, and large donations. Whereas Donald relies on mostly modest donations. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.washingtontimes.com

    After Hillary's coughing spells, after her wobbly display at the Sept. 11 ceremony in New York City (she almost fell face forward on the running board of her van), after her admission to pneumonia and all the rumors that admission gave rise to, you had expected something highly dramatic. Perhaps the cough would return. Perhaps she might pass out under Donald Trump 's relentless barbs, possibly to be wheeled out on a gurney. Or perhaps you thought Donald might explode or go into a wild rant. Well, it did not happen. Both debaters pretty much played to form. Both were highly disciplined, one being a billionaire who has made it mostly on his own and the other having survived in public life for at least 45 years with no jail time.

    ... Donald had things under control. As he has done for weeks he was talking directly to the American public through the awkward stage prop of Hillary. He would start up the economy from its measly growth rate of barely 2 percent. He would get Americans working again. He would tear up trade agreements that favor crony capitalists and foreign governments. He would prevent companies from leaving America unscathed. Hillary had been a part of this system for decades. She was a standpatter and defender of the status quo. She had revealed bad judgment.

    Hillary's response was that Donald had used bad language in public, lacked the proper "temperament" to be president, and favored the rich whom she would hit with higher taxes to pay for her giveaways. That last line about the rich is a bit much given the fact that Hillary is the creature of Wall Street, Hollywood, and large donations. Whereas Donald relies on mostly modest donations. Oh, yes, and her needling him on his "temperament" - who was the last presidential candidate to be attacked for his temperament? Does the name Ronald Reagan come to mind?

    ... ... ...

    Perhaps Hillary did not notice it because Donald talks like an ordinary American rather than a standard-issue politician, but he was talking to America and she was talking to official Washington. Official Washington claimed he "missed opportunities." He could have done more with the Wall, Obamacare in free-fall, immigration and immigrant criminals, terrorism and Benghazi. He should have done more with her errant emails, the Clinton Foundation, her mishandling of classified documents. He could have cited her lies to Congress, the FBI and how FBI Director James Comey has contradicted her on her lies.

    [Sep 28, 2016] fairleft

    Notable quotes:
    "... The neoliberalist denial that anything was wrong with their economic model before or after 2008 could well create the perfect storm for chaos with either result ..."
    "... Trump was Trump, Hillary was Hillary, but the real Trump is a New York blowhard 'type' most Americans are very familiar with, a bit annoyed by, but definitely not 'scared' of. That's a very tough sale Hillary the mainstream media has for itself. On the other hand Hillary was Hillary. Same old same old Washington insider politician yada yada that most people are tired of, especially in these endless hard economic times. 'Cancel that show' is the natural reaction, as Demian says. ..."
    "... Who's Scarier: This has to be Clinton. Of course we know both will be obedient to the deep state, the militarist and financial elites, Israel, and so on. But look at the difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama sensibly held back from full on rape of Syria, he's been non-belligerent toward Iran. ..."
    "... So there are different grades of Neocon. Clinton would be the full on "we lied, we lied, he died" sort. My guess is that Trump, a know-nothing feeling his way, would be a less confident neocon and therefore more cautious, if not much more cautious, and would continue forward with the 'normal relations with Russia' concept he has made a big deal of. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | twitter.com
    | Sep 27, 2016 11:00:06 PM | 81
    ...The colluding media-commercial-complex getting properly rogered by one of the monsters it gave birth to. Poetic really.

    The neoliberalist denial that anything was wrong with their economic model before or after 2008 could well create the perfect storm for chaos with either result .

    Posted by: MadMax2 | Sep 27, 2016 8:26:25 PM | 79

    The main emotion of any sane and well-informed leftist is disgust after watching 45 minutes of the debatoid, and that's how I felt.

    Horserace Talk:

    Demian's point at 49 is excellent: "But Trump did not come across as beyond the pale in this debate. Thus, he took away the narrative that the public needs to believe in order not to do what it would usually do – vote out the incumbent party when it is unhappy with the status quo."

    Trump was Trump, Hillary was Hillary, but the real Trump is a New York blowhard 'type' most Americans are very familiar with, a bit annoyed by, but definitely not 'scared' of. That's a very tough sale Hillary the mainstream media has for itself. On the other hand Hillary was Hillary. Same old same old Washington insider politician yada yada that most people are tired of, especially in these endless hard economic times. 'Cancel that show' is the natural reaction, as Demian says.

    Who's Scarier: This has to be Clinton. Of course we know both will be obedient to the deep state, the militarist and financial elites, Israel, and so on. But look at the difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama sensibly held back from full on rape of Syria, he's been non-belligerent toward Iran.

    So there are different grades of Neocon. Clinton would be the full on "we lied, we lied, he died" sort. My guess is that Trump, a know-nothing feeling his way, would be a less confident neocon and therefore more cautious, if not much more cautious, and would continue forward with the 'normal relations with Russia' concept he has made a big deal of.

    But hey, his 'cut the taxes for the rich' insanity is a pretty horrible deform from an already horrible status quo. Anyway, vote for Jill as a protest is my half-hearted advice. It's depressing and disgusting and we are helplessly watching it roll on.

    /div>
    nothing will change | Sep 28, 2016 1:27:22 AM | 83
    The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said American support for the entity would remain strong regardless of who is elected president in November.
    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/netanyahu-us-presidential-vote-candidates-will-support-israel/

    Unfortunately he is right, and he knows that Iran will be the next target, "regardless of who is elected president in November"

    Eight yaars ago, Obama, "hope and change", the Nobel Prize... but Guantanamo is still open.

    /div>
    t
    t
    dahoit | Sep 28, 2016 9:03:20 AM | 89
    The Hell Bitch was nothing more than an edition of the Enquirer, bringing up long ago attacks on Trump, that have absolutely nothing to do with policy or Americas future.
    And her face was just too made up,with her false eyelashes fluttering behind a wall of pancake makeup,her eyes glittering with some demonic presence,as she lashed out like a furriner extolling all immigrants,weirdos and fat foreign beauty queens and not appealing one iota to US deplorables.
    And yeah,both genuflected to Israel,but is there a more powerful influential force in America than the dual citizen traitors?A sad and terrible fact,but they own every media outlet,witnessed by the fact there is not one MSM outlet pro Trump,a never before scenario in our history.
    And of course world leaders don't like Trump,as he will cut off the spigots and make them pay for their own defense,instead of US.
    But only those prejudiced rufus and America haters fail to note that.

    juliania | Sep 28, 2016 9:54:20 AM | 90
    Forgive me if this is a repeat, but it wouldn't hurt if so, since so rarely does a third candidate get mentioned. Amy Goodman did the American public a great service by publishing the transcript of the debate, with Jill Stein's answers (had she been permitted to attend) within the transcript - you really, really all should read this:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/27/expanding_the_debate_jill_stein_debates

    ProPeace | Sep 28, 2016 9:54:38 AM | 91
    So Hitlary is apparently alive and not in jail contrary to previous rumors.

    Lame-scream media announced her win in the debate as 1-0 - does it mean the establishment is not behind Trump, who received some strange endorsements recently from former enemies like Ted Cruz?

    What I consider interesting is that being that far in the game still any options seem to be opened:

    1) Killary wins (trough rigged votes or claim of Russian hacking in favor of Trump)

    2) Trump wins

    3) Congress appoints the president because of tie in the electoral votes

    4) Obama continues his presidency because of some "emergency": "Russian hackers" attacking the election systems, false flag massacre in the US, ME, Ukraine, "natural" disaster (is the constitution still suspended after 9/11 and COG in play? NDAA?)

    5) Bernie Sanders joins the race as an independent because of new grave evidence against Hitlary

    6) Hitlary withdraws "because of her sudden health problems" - Demockrats appoint Biden, Pence, Michelle Obama, ...?

    7) Military organizes a coup against Obama

    8) Security apparatus organizes a coup against Hitlary after her election

    9) Deep state organizes a coup against Trump after his election (remember "business plot" against FDR headed by Prescott Bush and defused by general Butler?)

    10) Third party wins because Trump and Clinton become unelectable

    Anyway many signals indicate that we are to see an "October Surprise" for sure.

    It seems that the plan is the keep people guessing until the very end.

    The crucial question is - which people?

    From The Hague | Sep 28, 2016 10:18:46 AM | 92
    The Debate: Trump's Three Points for Peace

    Better on nukes, better on entangling alliances, better on Russia

    http://russia-insider.com/en/debate-trumps-three-points-peace/ri16701

    Demian | Sep 28, 2016 2:15:47 PM | 93
    Ted Rall (author of the book Snowden ):
    The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
    Trump did great for a guy who has never run for political office before – and didn't cram for the debate. Hillary has debated at the presidential level so many times she could probably do it half of it in her sleep. If I go into the ring with heavyweight boxing champion Tyson Fury and manage to survive a round with all but one of my teeth, it's fair to say that I won. …

    Maybe the herd is right. Maybe it's a simple matter of she did better, he did worse. But I keep thinking, debates are graded on a curve. She was supposed to kick his ass. Yet there he is, dead even in the polls with her.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Occupy the DNC: A Bernie Delegate's account of the 2016 Democratic National Commercial

    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Kim Kaufman September 28, 2016 at 2:23 pm

    Occupy the DNC: A Bernie Delegate's account of the 2016 Democratic National Commercial

    https://medium.com/@5cottBrown/occupy-the-dnc-a-bernie-delegates-account-of-the-2016-democratic-national-commercial-85406db8cac7#.3a53g0q5q

    This is a very long read… and I haven't finished it yet but so far lots of good details.

    [Sep 28, 2016] THE NEW COMMON GROUND BETWEEN POPULIST LEFT AND RIGHT

    Sep 28, 2016 | baselinescenario.com

    Annie | August 27, 2016 at 7:26 pm |

    Well, "We The People" still have some time before the election to get the psycho-ops weapons we do not have – mental masturbators on behalf of our "populist" issues…

    From Robert Reich:

    THE NEW COMMON GROUND BETWEEN POPULIST LEFT AND RIGHT

    The old debate goes something like this:

    'You don't believe women have reproductive rights."

    "You don't value human life."

    Or this:

    "You think everyone should own a gun."

    "You think we're safer if only criminals have them."

    Or this:

    "You don't care about poor people."

    "You think they're better off with handouts."

    Or this:

    "You want to cut taxes on the rich."

    "You want to tax everyone to death."

    But we're seeing the emergence of a new debate where the populist left and right are on the same side:

    Both are against the rich to spend as much as they want corrupting our democracy.

    Both are against crony capitalism.

    Both are against corporate welfare.
    Both are against another Wall Street bailout.
    Both want to stop subsidizing Big Agriculture, Big Oil, and the pharmaceutical industry.

    Both want to close the tax loophole for hedge fund partners.
    Both want to ban inside trading on Wall Street.

    Both want to stop CEOs from pumping up share prices with stock buy-backs … and then cashing in their stock options.

    Both want to stop tax deductions of CEO pay over $1 million.

    Both want to get big money out of politics, reverse Citizens United, and restore our democracy,

    If we join together, we can make these things happen.

    1. publiustex | August 28, 2016 at 9:54 am | Hey Ray,

      Lots of words in your response, but I don't see where you identified the model candidate who meets your high standards. You just told us that HRC doesn't, which we already knew. Does no one meet your standards, or is there a reason you won't say who?

      Re "lesser of two evils"–if you don't like Trump or HRC, the election boils down to three choices:

      – you vote for the greater evil
      – you vote for someone who can't win, or you stay home, which is effectively a half vote for the greater evil
      – you vote for the lesser evil

      Not choosing is essentially half-ass choosing the greater evil.

    2. skunk | August 28, 2016 at 10:24 am | Pub, I don't think she has eight years left in her, she's about to croak on stage, limiting her ability to forget what happened yesterday so she or (another democrat) can carry the democratic mantra tomorrow. She has passed out, fallen, tripped like a Ford just not going down hill yet, had her intestines ripped out because of bad behavior, and this is just in public.
      Imagine how many blunders have occurred with her in private. She is a disaster just waiting to happen, a Nixon at a Kennedy debate. She hasn't held a press conference in almost 3/4 of a year, is trying to ride to the rescue of her own created problems under the guise of the Clinton foundation. 8 years, I want to see her survive the next eight weeks.
      Plus there is nothing left to choose from except 100% pure unadulterated, political evil.
    3. publiustex | August 28, 2016 at 11:10 am | Hahaha. You've mistaken her for Bill. He's the one on her left. She'll live to 90.

      Now, who's your ideal politician? We'll loosen the requirements. You can choose from life or literature. :-)

    4. skunk | August 28, 2016 at 11:56 am | I don't think so, I know her and Bill too well. She even got mad when I was going to send somebody over there to have Bill take the drug test. Like we really need politicians who are beholden to their drug dealers.
      As for ideal politician, I can't say we have ever had one beyond the founders, and life so is different today that the comparison is moot.
      Buddy Haley was on the right track, but since the wrong track is the majority it just goes to show how doomed politics really is.

      This country got outsmarted by the Germans and had to retaliate by out gunning them and never recognizing their grievances. Now that the tables have turned and we are the guilty ones, we turn to denial and war as the end of all solutions.
      Their is no political solution, hence the beating of the dead horse as it gets pitch black outside. And it's hard to fight the reaper coming up behind you with his surprise execution when you can no longer see where you are going.

    5. publiustex | August 28, 2016 at 12:50 pm | Which founder? Burr?
    6. skunk | August 28, 2016 at 1:23 pm | Haven't looked into it that closely. I first thought that the three 2 term succession administrations since the founding of the country was the greater consideration of the end of all, now that i've been proved wrong, I aint so sure what's goin on next.
    7. Ray LaPan-Love | August 28, 2016 at 6:26 pm | Pub,
      So, if only 25% of the eligible voters participate, as opposed to the usual 40something%, you believe that the additional non-voters are saying little or nothing?
      "Not choosing is essentially half-ass choosing the greater evil".

      But doesn't choosing the lesser of two evils simply perpetuate evil? Saying something like "yea, we know this is not really a democracy, the political parties do of course decide who we vote for, but ah shucks, it is fun to pretend, and yea, the system is obviously corrupt but my candidate promises that he/she will change that. And just because he/she takes money from bad people doesn't mean he/she'll do just like every other politician has done, always, my candidate will be different. To heck with Einstein's theory of insanity."

      So is it not conceivable that the lessor of two evil votes "is essentially half-ass choosing" to be duped over and over again? While a non-vote might say enough is enough?

      Anyway, you seem to represent living proof that the conditioning in regards to what a non-vote truly means is working quite well. The following being a solid example of that conditioning:

      "three choices:

      – you vote for the greater evil
      – you vote for someone who can't win, or you stay home, which is effectively a half vote for the greater evil
      – you vote for the lesser evil"

      But what if nobody voted other than a small number of political zombies, and of course the establishment?

    8. publiustex | August 28, 2016 at 7:19 pm | Ray,

      "Anyway, you seem to represent living proof that the conditioning in regards to what a non-vote truly means is working quite well. The following being a solid example of that conditioning"

      You know how self-righteous and condescending this is, right? And from what I've seen of your logic and the evidence you muster to support you're opinion, I see little reason for such arrogance other than possibly insecurity.

      If you can't name a single political leader from anywhere in time or space that meets your standards of righteousness, that says a lot. And I suspect I know what it says. You don't want to show your true colors, or you feel you can't back up your choice.

      Which is it?

    9. Ray LaPan-Love | August 28, 2016 at 8:44 pm | Wow, pub, you are even more of a zombie than I thought. I write ten times as many words on this board as you do, teeming with contentions that you could challenge, but you ignore nearly all of those opportunities to defend your champion of less evil only to keep coming back with some lame nonsense about who I might support.
      And by "condescending" do you mean like this:"Lots of words in your response, but I don't see where you identified the model candidate who meets your high standards".
      But of course telling me what we 'should' be talking about after suggesting that my "words" are not worthy of any effort on your part, is not just condescending but rudely so and evasive. As if the topic here is what you say it is, not HRC's questionable behavior, but instead this all important quest of yours to discover my "single political leader from anywhere in time or space". As if such folly matters in the actual time and space that we can do something about.
      And questioning my "true colors" as if suggest that I'm trolling or whatever. Should I now expect the name-calling and context tweaking to follow? Or must the moaning and chanting simply go on until election day.

      who is your dreammm can-di-da-te?", lessor of two evils, do you have an ideal can-di-date? you only have 3 choices, ya 'know. lessor of two evils. lessor of two evils. All leaders have flaws. not voting as I do is half-ass. wanna talk about the best candidate taken from all of history. lessor of two evils. don't be half-ass. lessor of two evils. I like standing in line, do you?

      But then too there is the big tell of big tells:
      "And from what I've seen of your logic and the evidence you muster to support you're opinion, I see little reason for such arrogance other than possibly insecurity".
      Do have any notion of how hypocritical and low-integrity it is to not provide 'any' support for such a claim? What logic! What evidence! What reason do you 'actually' see? Where be the 'why'? Did you flunk English all through school?

      I've written enough on this board that even the laziest blogger at the worst site could of found at least some sort of an example, or shred of evidence, to back up at least something. Crap like your comment just says "hey look, I don't know the first rule of sound analysis, or good writing in general, but I've analyzed you using low standards and I don't like you because you don't agree with me and that makes you insecure". Wow again.

    10. publiustex | August 28, 2016 at 10:43 pm | Ray,
      Sorry, man. the ratio of IQ to word count is too low to bear. Over and out.
    11. BRUCE E. WOYCH | August 29, 2016 at 1:46 pm | Closer to Homebase: "WHO CARES?"
      Department of Homeland Security Has Surprise for Bernie Supporters at DNC Lawsuit Hearing
      By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: August 29, 2016
      There are political issues not being covered by mainstream media http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/08/department-of-homeland-security-has-surprise-for-bernie-supporters-at-dnc-lawsuit-hearing/ …that have more to do with election questions concerning the DNC and its efforts to evade accountability for its conduct, along with certain too close for comfort insider support to keep things confused:
      (QUOTED)
      The lawsuit against the DNC is Wilding et al v DNC Services Corporation and Deborah 'Debbie' Wasserman Schultz. The case is being heard in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (Case Number 16-cv-61511-WJZ.) The Sanders supporters are being represented in the lawsuit by the following law firms: Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers of Miami; Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A. of Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and Antonino G. Hernandez P.A. of Miami.
      (QUOTED):
      "the first hearing on August 23 in the Federal lawsuit that has been filed by Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters against the Democratic National Committee and its former Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The lawsuit, which currently has more than 100 plaintiffs and more than a thousand in the wings with retainer agreements, is charging the DNC with fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence."

      MAINSTREAM MEDIA FAILED TO COVER IT.
      Regardless of the voting; the exposure of corrupting political practice must be considered equal to the election voting itself.

    12. skunk | August 29, 2016 at 2:26 pm | Somebody get the 1984 air controllers on the phone, we're runnin on empty.
    13. thoughtful person | August 29, 2016 at 9:27 pm | "Some progressives seem to prefer purity over progress. This puts a millstone around the necks of pragmatic progressives, like HRC, who are warriors and make the compromises necessary to gain and then exercise power for progressive ends"

      The ends justify the means right? Barf!!!

    14. publiustex | August 29, 2016 at 11:02 pm | Person, yes. Thoughtful, no.
    15. Annie | August 31, 2016 at 8:50 pm | Donations and ideas….

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-bill-clinton-rebuild-detroit-with-syrian-refugees.html

    16. Bob Snodgrass | September 1, 2016 at 1:19 pm | Wow, I found your article OK although too much in the all pure or all evil genre. We can't deal with this kind of problem in isolation from the rest of our culture and government, any more than we can impose a nationally funded Medicare for all without changing our NASCAR, celebrity/millionaire worshipping, racialist- tribalist (not the same as racist which has lost most of its meaning, closer to Barry Goldwater's viewpoint) controlling central core. That's a tall order, not even Bernie has the answer although reducing financialization & imposing a security transaction tax would be a start. If we somehow snuck in Medicare for all or an improved and expanded Obamacare, the controlling central core which includes the Koch brothers, would ensure that it failed because of their stranglehold on Washington and federal + state budgets.

      Turing to the comments, there are many that make me cringe. This is a harmful side of the Internet, reading comments makes me feel that Armageddon is nigh. It is not in reality.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Battling Apple and the Giants naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reuters reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50 biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax. So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun. ..."
    "... Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions ..."
    "... Those who support globalisation support this power disparity. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    The case of Apple's Irish operations is an extreme example of such tax avoidance accounting. It relates to two Apple subsidiaries Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe. Apple Inc US has given the rights to Apple Sales International (ASI) to use its "intellectual property" to sell and manufacture its products outside of North and South America, in return for which Apple Inc of the US receives payments of more than $2 billion per year. The consequence of this arrangement is that any Apple product sold outside the Americas is implicitly first bought by ASI, Ireland from different manufacturers across the globe and sold along with the intellectual property to buyers everywhere except the Americas. So all such sales are by ASI and all profits from those sales are recorded in Ireland. Stage one is complete: incomes earned from sales in different jurisdictions outside the Americas (including India) accrue in Ireland, where tax laws are investor-friendly. What is important here that this was not a straight forward case of exercising the "transfer pricing" weapon. The profits recorded in Ireland were large because the payment made to Apple Inc in the US for the right to use intellectual property was a fraction of the net earnings of ASI.

    Does this imply that Apple would pay taxes on these profits in Ireland, however high or low the rate may be? The Commission found it did not. In two rather curious rulings first made in 1991 and then reiterated in 2007 the Irish tax authority allowed ASI to split it profits into two parts: one accruing to the Irish branch of Apple and another to its "head office". That "head office" existed purely on paper, with no formal location, actual offices, employees or activities. Interestingly, this made-of-nothing head office got a lion's share of the profits that accrued to ASI, with only a small fraction going to the Irish branch office. According to Verstager's Statement: "In 2011, Apple Sales International made profits of 16 billion euros. Less than 50 million euros were allocated to the Irish branch. All the rest was allocated to the 'head office', where they remained untaxed." As a result, across time, Apple paid very little by way of taxes to the Irish government. The effective tax rate on its aggregate profits was short of 1 per cent. The Commissioner saw this as illegal under the European Commission's "state aid rules", and as amounting to aid that harms competition, since it diverts investment away from other members who are unwilling to offer such special deals to companies.

    In the books, however, taxes due on the "head office" profits of Apple are reportedly treated as including a component of deferred taxes. The claim is that these profits will finally have to be repatriated to the US parent, where they would be taxed as per US tax law. But it is well known that US transnationals hold large volumes of surplus funds abroad to avoid US taxation and the evidence is they take very little of it back to the home country. In fact, using the plea that it has "permanent establishment" in Ireland and, therefore, is liable to be taxed there, and benefiting from the special deal the Irish government has offered it, Apple has accumulated large surpluses. A study by two non-profit groups published in 2015 has argued that Apple is holding as much as $181 billion of accumulated profits outside the US, a record among US companies. Moreover, The Washington Post reports that Apple's Chief Executive Tim Cook told its columnist Jena McGregor, "that the company won't bring its international cash stockpile back to the United States to invest here until there's a 'fair rate' for corporate taxation in America."

    This has created a peculiar situation where the US is expressing concern about the EC decision not because it disputes the conclusion about tax avoidance, but because it sees the tax revenues as due to it rather than to Ireland or any other EU country. US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew criticised the ruling saying, "I have been concerned that it reflected an attempt to reach into the U.S. tax base to tax income that ought to be taxed in the United States." In Europe on the other hand, the French Finance Minister and the German Economy Minister, among others, have come out in support of Verstager, recognizing the implication this has for their own tax revenues. Governments other than in Ireland are not with Apple, even if not always for reasons advanced by the EC.

    ... ... ...

    Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions. The costs of garnering that difference are, therefore, often missed. Reuters reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50 biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax. So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun.

    JEHR September 28, 2016 at 10:42 am

    Greed has no boundaries!

    Ranger Rick September 28, 2016 at 10:43 am

    I think the common misconception that multinational corporations exist because "they are big companies that happen to operate in more than one country" is one of the biggest lies ever told.

    From the beginning (e.g. Standard Oil, United Fruit) it was clear that multinational status was an exercise in political arbitrage.

    tegnost September 28, 2016 at 11:23 am

    " Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions "

    Those who support globalisation support this power disparity.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Who Cares About the Clinton Foundation?

    Sep 28, 2016 | baselinescenario.com
    by James Kwak Posted on August 25, 2016 The Baseline Scenario | 59 comments By James Kwak

    Imagine that while George W. Bush was governor of Texas and president of the United States, various people and companies decided to write him checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, just because they thought he was a great guy. Those people and companies, just coincidentally, happened to have interests that were affected by the policies of Texas and the United States. But when he thanked them for their money, Bush never promised to do anything in particular for them. You would be suspicious, right?

    Now, that's roughly what has been happening with the Clinton Foundation. Various people and companies have been writing checks for millions of dollars to the Foundation during the same time that Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and, following that, the most likely next president of the United States-a title she has held since the day Barack Obama's second term began. (The Clintons finally decided to scale back the Foundation earlier this week.)

    ... ... ...

    So the real question is this: Do you think it would be appropriate for people and companies affected by U.S. policy to be writing $1 million checks directly to the Clintons? If the answer is yes, then you should be against any campaign finance rules whatsoever. If the answer is no, you should be worried about the Clinton Foundation.

    1. Vinny Idol | August 25, 2016 at 8:02 pm | I disagree whole heartedly with this post. The clinton foundation is a big deal, because its proof positive that America was founded on Money laundering, the elite that run this country make and made their money through money laundering; and no one wants that in the White House. Thats ok for the rest of America sociery, but not the government where peoples lives hang on the balance through every speech, law and policy that is conducted on capitol hill.

      The Clintons destroyed Libya, Honduras, Haiti through their money laundering scheme called the clinton foundation. Theres no justification for that.

    1. Ray LaPan-Love | August 26, 2016 at 12:40 am | Trump thinks very highly of Reagan, but very lowly of Mexicans, so if Trump were to win I suspect he will secretly sell some of our nukes, this finally giving him the financial boost needed to overtake Carlos Slim on the list of the world's richest men. This 'deal of deals' then also harkens back to another historical 'deal' (Iran/Contra), and of course Reagan, while simultaneously eliminating Trump's deepest regret which is that of being bested by a Mexican. This being the real reason that he decided to run in the first place.

      Probably though, HRC will win. The problem there being that all of the scrutiny that she has been receiving for so long, coupled with Bills' infidelities, and other various setbacks and slights, have left her very angry and bitter. Combining this seething hatred of all humans, especially men, with the fact that there has never been a women president to look up to, HRC's only influence is a secretary who worked for Woodrow Wilson by the name of Mildred Jingowitz, or Ms. Jingo as she was called. Ms. Jingo stands out for HRC because she actually wrote the Espionage Act of 1917 and the the Sedition Act of 1918. Those combining to "cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds."
      "The Sedition Act of 1918 stated that people or countries cannot say negative things about the government or the war."
      "It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt." Most importantly though, these acts gave the Government the legal right to prosecute draft dodgers, and …these could bring an end to at least some of the scrutiny that has plagued HRC for so long just so long as we remain at war.
      So, if you are wondering what any of this has to do with the Clinton Foundation, well, HRC used the Foundation to facilitate at least one very large arms deal with at least one Royal Gulfie. But it matters little whether she used the foundation or not, HRC used her tenure at Foggy Bottom to arrange a record number of weapons deals, and of course she is mad as hell and determined to prove just how tough women can be (and there is of course one man who she respects, H. Kissinger).

      Anyway, it doesn't take a historian specializing in the build-up leading to the two World Wars to figure out the rest. BOOM!!!

    2. Philip Diehl | August 26, 2016 at 12:46 am | Dear James,

      I'm a long-time reader. I admire what you and Simon have done educating us about the financial crisis and its aftermath, and I agree with most of your political positions, especially related to the corrupting influence of money in politics. I have seen this first hand over my years in politics and government, and I believe it is the single most important issue we face because progress on all others depends on it.

      But in taking yet another hack at Hillary Clinton in this post, you've contradicted yourself in a way that unravels your argument, while engaging in false equivalencies and blowing a key fact out of proportion. First, the internal contradiction:

      "Bill and Hillary are getting on in years, they only have one child, and she is married to a hedge fund manager. When you have that much money, a dollar in your foundation is as good as a dollar in your bank account. Once you have all your consumption needs covered, what do you need money for?"

      You imply, here, that the Clintons' wealth and Marc Mezvinsky's hedge fund income have made the marginal value of another dollar in income de minimis for the Clintons' personal finances. Then you write, paraphrasing, that a dollar donated to the Foundation is as good as a dollar deposited in their personal bank account; therefore, you imply, money that goes to their foundation is as corrupting as money that goes into their personal accounts.

      You see the problem in claiming that a contribution to the Clinton Foundation is a powerful incentive for HRC to tilt her foreign policy positions, right? You just made the case for why a donation to the Foundation has little personal value to the Clintons:

      MV of $ to bank account = 0.
      MV of $ to Foundation = MV of $ to bank account.
      But you don't proceed to: Therefore, MV of $ to Foundation = 0. So, according to your logic, there can be no corrupting influence.

      You follow this, writing:

      "If you're a Clinton, you want to have an impact in the world, reward your friends, and burnish your legacy. A foundation is an excellent vehicle for all of those purposes, for obvious reasons. It is also an excellent way to transfer money to your daughter free of estate tax, since she can control it after you die."

      Your imply that the Clintons give equal weight to their desires to reward their friends, burnish their legacy, and have an impact on the world. What evidence do you have of this? Also, you implicitly denigrate their charitable motives by describing them as a desire "to have an impact on the world" without a nod to their clear intent to have an impact that is profoundly constructive. You also speculate, without providing any support, that the Foundation is a tax avoidance scheme to enrich their daughter. I think you've crossed a line here.

      Now for the false equivalencies:

      "Imagine that while George W. Bush was governor of Texas and president of the United States, various people and companies decided to write him checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, just because they thought he was a great guy. Those people and companies, just coincidentally, happened to have interests that were affected by the policies of Texas and the United States. But when he thanked them for their money, Bush never promised to do anything in particular for them. You would be suspicious, right?"

      Why imagine? We have the real-world case of the Saudis bailing out George W's Harken Energy while his father was president. Of course, this is only one example of how the lucrative Bush-Saudi relationship generated income that went straight into the Bush "coffers".

      So you implicitly compare HRC's alleged conflict related to the family's charity with the Bush family conflict related to their own personal bank accounts. While HW Bush, as president, made use of his long friendship with the Saudis for the family's personal gain, HRC gave access to the likes of the crown prince of Bahrain and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Muhammad Yunus. Not equivalent. Not even close. I wonder how routine it is for a Secretary of State to meet with the crown prince of an oil-producing nation or a Nobel Prize winner versus how routine is it for foreign oligarchs friendly to a president to bailout his son.

      But at least the Saudis were allies of the US. Today, the GOP nominee has undisclosed but apparently significant business ties to close allies of the president of our greatest strategic adversary, and expresses his admiration for an autocrat who is seizing territory in Europe and terminating his opponents. I've missed your post on this one, though I'm sure there is one.

      One last point: This controversy involved some 85 meetings or telephone calls HRC granted to Foundation donors. The media have morphed this into 85 meetings, dropping the "and telephone calls," and made this out to be a pretty big number. Naive readers and Hillary haters have accepted it as such. If fact, 85 meetings and telephone calls over four years are, well, de minimis.

      Many of these donors had standing sufficient to get them in the door whether they gave to the Foundation or not. But let's say all of them gained access solely as a result of their donations. Over the four years HRC was Secretary of State, 85 meetings and telephone calls work out to 1.8 meetings/calls per month. Let's make a guess that she met or talked on the phone with an average of 15 people a day. So, one of every 250 people HRC met or had a phone call with each month, or 21 out of 3000 each year, would have secured their contact with her by donating to the Foundation. 85 doesn't look so big in context, especially since no one has presented any evidence of any quid pro quos.

    3. Ray LaPan-Love | August 26, 2016 at 2:42 am | Philip,
      The 85 meetings occurred during about half of HRC's term and I've not heard anyone else dilute things with "phone calls".

      Plus, the Bahrainis were approved for a major arms deal after donating. The Prince tried to make an appointment with HRC privately, but was made to go through State Dept. channels before being allowed a meeting.

      HRC was also involved in the selling of more weapons in her term than all of those occurring during the Bush 43 terms combined.

    1. Ray LaPan-Love | August 26, 2016 at 2:50 am | Philip.
      Also, there is this:
      "You had a situation, that The Wall Street Journal reported, where Hillary Clinton herself intervened in a case dealing with taxes with UBS, a Swiss bank, and then, suddenly, after that, UBS began donating big to the Clinton Foundation. So there are many examples of-I mean, there's oil companies-that's another one I should mention right now, which is that oil companies were giving big to the Clinton Foundation while lobbying the State Department-successfully-for the passage of the Alberta Clipper, the tar sands pipeline."
      David Sarota, interview: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/25/weapons_pipelines_wall_st_did_clinton
    2. Ray LaPan-Love | August 26, 2016 at 9:40 am | Other noteworthy donors to the Clinton Foundation:
      $1,000,000-$5,000,000

      Carlos Slim
      Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder

      James Murdoch
      Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox

      Newsmax Media
      Florida-based conservative media network

      Thomson Reuters
      Owner of the Reuters news service

      $500,000-$1,000,000

      Google

      News Corporation Foundation
      Philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company

      $250,000-$500,000

      Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
      Publisher

      Richard Mellon Scaife
      Owner of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

      $100,000-$250,000

      Abigail Disney
      Documentary filmmaker

      Bloomberg Philanthropies

      Howard Stringer
      Former CBS, CBS News and Sony executive

      Intermountain West Communications Company
      Local television affiliate owner (formerly Sunbelt Communications)

      $50,000-$100,000

      Bloomberg L.P.

      Discovery Communications Inc.

      George Stephanopoulos
      ABC News chief anchor and chief political correspondent

      Mort Zuckerman
      Owner of New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report

      Time Warner Inc.
      Owner of CNN parent company Turner Broadcasting

      $25,000-$50,000

      AOL

      HBO

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228#ixzz4IRfGoJcr
      Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

    1. publiustex | August 26, 2016 at 10:11 am | Hello Ray,

      First, I'd appreciate it if you could provide a cite supporting the statement that move arms sales occurred during HRC's four years than during W's eight years. I'd like to look under the cover of that one.

      Also, it's important to note that a lot more people are involved in approving arms sales than the SoS, including Republicans on the Hill.

      Second, the AP touted its original story as being "meetings" but when you read the story itself you found it was "meetings and phone calls." Subsequently, the media and commentariat referred to 85 meetings, dropping reference to phone calls.

      Now for the arms sales to Bahrain. This one is especially juicy because it's an excellent example of how HRC is being tarred.

      The US has massive military assets in Bahrain, which hosts the largest US military outpost in the Gulf. We've been making massive arms sale to Bahrain for many years. So no surprise that we'd make some when HRC was SoS.

      And considering the strategic importance of Bahrain, there's no surprise in HRC meeting with the crown prince. The surprise would be if she declined to do so.

      Now, if memory serves, and I encourage you to check me on this, the US suspended arms sales to Bahrain while HRC was SoS in response to the Bahrain's suppression of dissent among its Shia minority. Later, we partially lifted the suspension to allow sales of arms Related to protecting our huge naval base in Bahrain. I think this decision also came while HRC was SoS.

      So, the arm sales to Bahrain illustrates my objections to the facile claims that contributions to the CF suggest that HRC is corrupt. These claims bring one sliver of information to the discussion: so and so donated money to the CF and then talked to HRC on the phone (or got a meeting). No evidence is produced that there's a causal relationship between the two much less a quid pro quo in which the donation and meeting led HRC to act in an official capacity to benefit the contributor.

      All of the examples I've seen so far, the oil companies, UBS, etc. are like this. No context, no evidence of a quid pro quo, all inuendo.

    2. publiustex | August 26, 2016 at 10:20 am | I consider some of these contributors to be unsavory, and I wish they'd give the Clinton Foundation a lot more money so they'd have less to sink into GOP House and Senate races.
    1. Philip Diehl | August 26, 2016 at 11:05 am | Ray LaPan-Love: You left out this quote from the interview with David Sirota. Context matters.

      'DAVID SIROTA: Well, my reaction to it is that I think that if you look at some of these individual examples, I think Paul is right that it's hard to argue that their donations to the foundation got them access. They are - a lot of these people in the AP story are people who knew her."

    2. Ray LaPan-Love | August 26, 2016 at 11:21 am | Pub,
      I can't remember where I saw the comparison between the arms sales of HRC and the shrub. But, if it comes to me I'll add it later. Meanwhile, here is a link to lots of related info:

      https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Arms+sales+under+obama

      And yes, "no context, no evidence of a quid pro quo", and almost as if she knew she might run for the prez job.

    3. Ray LaPan-Love | August 26, 2016 at 11:41 am | Sorry Phillip, but gee whiz, am I to assume that nobody else has any 'context' on a story that is difficult to miss. Where does one draw such lines? And the spin you are hoping for is somewhat unwound by David using the phrase "hard to argue". That could be interpreted to simply mean that the CF is good at obfuscating. And as someone who has worked in politics and even for a large NPO, I can atably assure you
    4. Ray LaPan-Love | August 26, 2016 at 11:59 am | ….!!!!!! my cursor got stuck on the previous comment as I tried to use spell-check.
      Anyway, I was trying to comfratably assure you that these organizations are commonly structured to allow for deceptive practices. The Sierra Club for example has affiliates that collect donations and then those funds are used to pay the overhead of the affiliate 'before' any money is donated to the Sierra Club. Thus, the Sierra club's solicitation costs are not reflected in the percentage of funds used toward whatever cause. This is not of course very subtle, and a Foundation such the CF could not likely get away something this obvious, but…schemes such those exposed by the Panama Papers should make us all hesitant to assume anything.
    5. RICK | August 26, 2016 at 12:20 pm | Dear James -

      I'm a long-time fan of your smart writing and the important work that you (and Simon) do. But what's with this constant Clinton Derangement Syndrome? Why look so hard to find some morsel of "scandal" with the Clintons when there's an entire herd of elephants in the room with the Republican candidate??

      As a wealth manager of many years, I must disagree with your dismissive assessment of the Clintons' personal philanthropy as a personal piggy bank. For sure, in a regular family foundation (many of my clients!) the grants and donations are entirely at the discretion of the controlling family, and very often it's all about shiny brass plaques and photo ops with museum directors or mayors. Fine, that's our system, and at least something gets done. And then the donors die and the plaques fade. A shawl has no pockets.

      But the Clinton operation is unique: they choose specific issues, partner with competent outside groups, and then direct enormous extra outside funds - not just their own meager foundation money - to tackle the problems. This is only possible because of their international status; not a Gates nor a Slim nor a Zuckerberg could engineer the same.

      One can certainly speculate about who got access (a phone call, seriously?) or who was schmoozed in what way in order to secure their donations. But to broad-brush the whole of the Clinton philanthropy as personal corruption is truly unfair. And it sure doesn't make sense when there's so much worse and genuinely scandalous material on the other side just waiting to be uncovered.

      Keep the faith!

    1. Bruce E. Woych | August 27, 2016 at 2:39 pm | Note: (from Global Research critique @ (eg: https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/suite ) cited above: "Philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist, Andre Vltchek has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: "Exposing Lies Of The Empire" and "Fighting Against Western Imperialism". Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: "Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear". Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV.
    2. Ray LaPan-Love | August 27, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Bruce, (been awhile),
      High grade stuff there. Yet, I'm not as taken by Caros' comment as you seem to be. Near the end, this part: "The Clinton family business is benefiting themselves AND OTHERS by way of their prominence."
      To begin with, the Clinton's influence in arming the royal gulfies may get us all killed, and so his comparison to the Bushs, while apt in a current sense, it may well be…dangerously premature. Then too, Caro is of course taking sides as if the Clintons don't fully realize the P.R. benefits of giving away other peoples money. Which segs the question of how could the Clintons have put so much time and effort into Hillary's run, while creating so many pitfalls for themselves? Did they think the Repubs might get nice? Are they stupid, arrogant maybe? Or just so corrupt that they just can't stop like so many kleptomaniacs? In any case, it isn't only Trump's fitness that we should be questioning.

    [Sep 28, 2016] there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.:

    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Vatch September 28, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    I'm all for reducing the unmanageably high levels of total immigration into the U.S., and I strongly believe in penalizing illegal employers, but I think you have exaggerated the number of illegal immigrants. According to Numbers USA, there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.:

    https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/illegal-aliens-us

    The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the total immigrant population of the U.S. is about 42 million people:

    http://cis.org/Immigrant-Population-Hits-Record-Second-Quarter-2015

    [Sep 28, 2016] Heres a semi-CT saying that NBC tipped Clinton off to the debate questions a week in advance

    Notable quotes:
    "... Here's an interesting analysis someone posted to reddit (in annoying gif screenshot form) about Holt being biased in favor of Clinton: https://i.redd.it/jixd3s8d05ox.png ..."
    "... And here's a semi-CT saying that NBC tipped Clinton off to the debate questions a week in advance: http://baltimoregazette.com/clinton-received-debate-questions-week-debate/ ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    none September 27, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    Here's an interesting analysis someone posted to reddit (in annoying gif screenshot form) about Holt being biased in favor of Clinton: https://i.redd.it/jixd3s8d05ox.png

    And here's a semi-CT saying that NBC tipped Clinton off to the debate questions a week in advance: http://baltimoregazette.com/clinton-received-debate-questions-week-debate/

    I have no idea how partisan the Baltimore Gazette is, but it's apparently been around a long time.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Why I Switched My Endorsement from Clinton to...

    Notable quotes:
    "... To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn't look sufficiently healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country. If you disagree, take a look at the now-famous " Why aren't I 50 points ahead " video clip. Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too, and Hillary wouldn't be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side. ..."
    "... So when Clinton supporters ask me how I could support a "fascist," the answer is that he isn't one. Clinton's team, with the help of Godzilla, have effectively persuaded the public to see Trump as scary. The persuasion works because Trump's "pacing" system is not obvious to the public. They see his "first offers" as evidence of evil. They are not. They are technique. ..."
    "... The battle with ISIS is also a persuasion problem. The entire purpose of military action against ISIS is to persuade them to stop, not to kill every single one of them. We need military-grade persuasion to get at the root of the problem. Trump understands persuasion, so he is likely to put more emphasis in that area. ..."
    "... Most of the job of president is persuasion. Presidents don't need to understand policy minutia. They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public. Trump sells better than anyone you have ever seen, even if you haven't personally bought into him yet. You can't deny his persuasion talents that have gotten him this far. ..."
    Sep 25, 2016 | blog.dilbert.com

    As most of you know, I had been endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety, because I live in California. It isn't safe to be a Trump supporter where I live. And it's bad for business too. But recently I switched my endorsement to Trump, and I owe you an explanation. So here it goes.

    1. Things I Don't Know: There are many things I don't know. For example, I don't know the best way to defeat ISIS. Neither do you. I don't know the best way to negotiate trade policies. Neither do you. I don't know the best tax policy to lift all boats. Neither do you. My opinion on abortion is that men should follow the lead of women on that topic because doing so produces the most credible laws. So on most political topics, I don't know enough to make a decision. Neither do you, but you probably think you do.

    Given the uncertainty about each candidate – at least in my own mind – I have been saying I am not smart enough to know who would be the best president. That neutrality changed when Clinton proposed raising estate taxes. I understand that issue and I view it as robbery by government.

    I'll say more about that, plus some other issues I do understand, below.

    ... ... ...

    4. Clinton's Health: To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn't look sufficiently healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country. If you disagree, take a look at the now-famous " Why aren't I 50 points ahead " video clip. Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too, and Hillary wouldn't be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side.

    5. Pacing and Leading: Trump always takes the extreme position on matters of safety and security for the country, even if those positions are unconstitutional, impractical, evil, or something that the military would refuse to do. Normal people see this as a dangerous situation. Trained persuaders like me see this as something called pacing and leading . Trump "paces" the public – meaning he matches them in their emotional state, and then some. He does that with his extreme responses on immigration, fighting ISIS, stop-and-frisk, etc. Once Trump has established himself as the biggest bad-ass on the topic, he is free to "lead," which we see him do by softening his deportation stand, limiting his stop-and-frisk comment to Chicago, reversing his first answer on penalties for abortion, and so on. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump look scary. If you understand pacing and leading, you might see him as the safest candidate who has ever gotten this close to the presidency. That's how I see him.

    So when Clinton supporters ask me how I could support a "fascist," the answer is that he isn't one. Clinton's team, with the help of Godzilla, have effectively persuaded the public to see Trump as scary. The persuasion works because Trump's "pacing" system is not obvious to the public. They see his "first offers" as evidence of evil. They are not. They are technique.

    And being chummy with Putin is more likely to keep us safe, whether you find that distasteful or not. Clinton wants to insult Putin into doing what we want. That approach seems dangerous as hell to me.

    6. Persuasion: Economies are driven by psychology. If you expect things to go well tomorrow, you invest today, which causes things to go well tomorrow, as long as others are doing the same. The best kind of president for managing the psychology of citizens – and therefore the economy – is a trained persuader. You can call that persuader a con man, a snake oil salesman, a carnival barker, or full of shit. It's all persuasion. And Trump simply does it better than I have ever seen anyone do it.

    The battle with ISIS is also a persuasion problem. The entire purpose of military action against ISIS is to persuade them to stop, not to kill every single one of them. We need military-grade persuasion to get at the root of the problem. Trump understands persuasion, so he is likely to put more emphasis in that area.

    Most of the job of president is persuasion. Presidents don't need to understand policy minutia. They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public. Trump sells better than anyone you have ever seen, even if you haven't personally bought into him yet. You can't deny his persuasion talents that have gotten him this far.

    In summary, I don't understand the policy details and implications of most of either Trump's or Clinton's proposed ideas. Neither do you. But I do understand persuasion. I also understand when the government is planning to confiscate the majority of my assets. And I can also distinguish between a deeply unhealthy person and a healthy person, even though I have no medical training. (So can you.)

    I will be live streaming my viewing of the debate Monday night, with my co-host and neighbor, Kristina Basham . Tune your television to the debate and use your phone or iPad with the Periscope app, and look for me at @ScottAdamsSays.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations

    Notable quotes:
    "... Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and with all nations. ..."
    "... No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does. ..."
    Sep 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Katniss Everdeen

    RE: I Was RFK's Speechwriter. Now I'm Voting for Trump. Here's Why. Politico (RR)

    Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and with all nations.

    No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does.

    But for anyone who is the slightest bit aware of how the maniac imperialists have hijacked the public means of persuasion for a generation to the detriment of countless foreign countries as well as our own, the obsession with turning Trump into a cartoon character with joke "policies" should sound an alarm.

    No "politician" was ever going to buck this system. Bernie Sanders, fiery and committed though he was, proved that. It was always going to take an over-sized personality with an over-sized ego to withstand the shit storm that a demand for profound change would create, and some "incivility" seems a small price to pay to break the vice grip of the status quo.

    I, for one, have no intention of squandering this opportunity to throw sand in the gears. There has never been a third candidate allowed to plead their case in a presidential "debate" since Ross Perot threw a scare into TPTB in 1992. Should clinton manage to pull this one out, the lesson of Trump will be learned, and we may not be "given" the opportunity to choose an "outsider" again for a very long time. It's worth taking a minute to separate the message from the messenger.

    subgenius September 25, 2016 at 11:33 am

    No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does.

    [Sep 28, 2016] TPP implies the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections. which are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses might be huge.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession, employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research ** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment. ..."
    "... It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore, his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner of last night's Yankees' game. ..."
    "... The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA. ..."
    "... It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    anne said... \ September 28, 2016 at 04:55 AM

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/nyt-editorial-in-news-section-for-tpp-short-on-substance

    September 28, 2016

    NYT Editorial In News Section for TPP Short on Substance

    When the issue is trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the New York Times throws out its usual journalistic standards to push its pro-trade deal agenda. Therefore it is not surprising to see a story * in the news section that was essentially a misleading advertisement for these trade deals.

    The headline tells readers that Donald Trump's comments on trade in the Monday night debate lacked accuracy. The second paragraph adds:

    "His aggressiveness may have been offset somewhat by demerits on substance."

    These comments could well describe this NYT piece.

    For example, it ostensibly indicts Trump with the comment:

    "His [Trump's] first words of the night were the claim that "our jobs are fleeing the country," though nearly 15 million new jobs have been created since the economic recovery began."

    It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession, employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research ** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment.

    The NYT piece continues:

    "[Trump] singled out Ford for sending thousands of jobs to Mexico to build small cars and worsening manufacturing job losses in Michigan and Ohio, but the company's chief executive has said 'zero' American workers would be cut. Those states each gained more than 75,000 jobs in just the last year."

    It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore, his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner of last night's Yankees' game.

    The next sentence adds:

    "Mr. Trump said China was devaluing its currency for unfair price advantages, yet it ended that practice several years ago and is now propping up the value of its currency."

    While China has recently been trying to keep up the value of its currency by selling reserves, it still holds more than $4 trillion in foreign reserves, counting its sovereign wealth fund. This is more than four times the holdings that would typically be expected of a country its side. These holdings have the effect of keeping down the value of China's currency.

    If this seems difficult to understand, the Federal Reserve now holds more than $3 trillion in assets as a result of its quantitative easing programs of the last seven years. It raised its short-term interest rate by a quarter point last December, nonetheless almost all economists would agree the net effect of the Fed's actions is the keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise be. The same is true of China and its foreign reserve position.

    The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA.

    In later discussing the TPP the piece tells readers:

    "Economists generally have said the Pacific nations agreement would increase incomes, exports and growth in the United States, but not significantly."

    It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trade-tpp-nafta.html

    ** http://www.nber.org/papers/w21906

    *** http://economics.mit.edu/files/6613

    -- Dean Baker

    [Sep 28, 2016] Mook Spooked Clinton Campaign Manager, Other Top Dems Dodge Questions on Whether Hillary Wants Obama to Withdraw T

    www.breitbart.com
    Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook and other top Democrats refused to answer whether Clinton wants President Barack Obama to withdraw the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) from consideration before Congress during interviews with Breitbart News in the spin room after the first presidential debate here at Hofstra University on Monday night.

    The fact that Mook, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon, and Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman Donna Brazile each refused to answer the simple question that would prove Clinton is actually opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership now after praising it 40 times and calling it the "gold standard" is somewhat shocking.

    After initially ignoring the question entirely four separate times, Mook finally replied to Breitbart News. But when he did respond, he didn't answer the question:

    BREITBART NEWS: "Robby, does Secretary Clinton believe that the president should withdraw the TPP?"

    ROBBY MOOK: "Secretary Clinton, as she said in the debate, evaluated the final TPP language and came to the conclusion that she cannot support it."

    BREITBART NEWS: "Does she think the president should withdraw it?"

    ROBBY MOOK: "She has said the president should not support it."

    Obama is attempting to ram TPP through Congress as his last act as president during a lame duck session of Congress. Clinton previously supported the TPP, and called it the "Gold Standard" of trade deals. That's something Brazile, the new chairwoman of the DNC who took over after Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) was forced to resign after email leaks showed she and her staff at the DNC undermined the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and in an untoward way forced the nomination into Clinton's hands, openly confirmed in her own interview with Breitbart News in the spin room post debate. Brazile similarly refused to answer if Clinton should call on Obama to withdraw the TPP from consideration before Congress.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Wolf Richter Negative Growth of Real Wages is Normal for Much of the Workforce, and Getting Worse – New York Fed naked cap

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you're wondering why a large portion of American consumers are strung out and breathless and have trouble spending more and cranking up the economy, here's the New York Fed with an answer. And it's going to get worse. ..."
    "... That the real median income of men has declined 4% since 1973 is an ugly tidbit that the Census Bureau hammered home in its Income and Poverty report two weeks ago, which I highlighted in this article – That 5.2% Jump in Household Income? Nope, People Aren't Suddenly Getting Big-Fat Paychecks – and it includes the interactive chart below that shows how the real median wage of women rose 36% from 1973 through 2015, while it fell 4% for men... ..."
    "... Nominal wages are sticky downwards but not real wages. That is why the FED, the banks, the corporate sector and the economists support persistent inflation, i.e. it lowers real wages. The "study" correlating wage growth with aging is one of those empirical pieces by economists to obscure the role of inflation in lowering real wages. ..."
    "... Real Wage Growth chart very interesting, crossing negative at about 55 for no college, and 43 for a Bachelor's degree. 43!! Not even halfway through a work-life, and none better since 2003 at best. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street.

    The New York Fed published an eye-opener of an article on its blog, Liberty Street Economics , seemingly about the aging of the US labor force as one of the big economic trends of our times with "implications for the behavior of real wage growth." Then it explained why "negative growth" – the politically correct jargon for "decline" – in real wages is going to be the new normal for an ever larger part of the labor force.

    If you're wondering why a large portion of American consumers are strung out and breathless and have trouble spending more and cranking up the economy, here's the New York Fed with an answer. And it's going to get worse.

    The authors looked at the wages of all employed people aged 16 and older in the Current Population Survey (CPS), both monthly data from 1982 through May 2016 and annual data from 1969 through 1981. They then restricted the sample to employed individuals with wages, which boiled it down to 7.6 million statistical observations.

    Then they adjusted the wages via the Consumer Price Index to 2014 dollars and divide the sample into 140 different "demographic cohorts" by decade of birth, sex, race, and education. As an illustration of the principles at work, they picked the cohort of white males born in the decade of the 1950s.

    That the real median income of men has declined 4% since 1973 is an ugly tidbit that the Census Bureau hammered home in its Income and Poverty report two weeks ago, which I highlighted in this article – That 5.2% Jump in Household Income? Nope, People Aren't Suddenly Getting Big-Fat Paychecks – and it includes the interactive chart below that shows how the real median wage of women rose 36% from 1973 through 2015, while it fell 4% for men...

    Sally Snyder September 28, 2016 at 7:22 am

    Here is an interesting article that looks at which Americans have left the workforce in very high numbers:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/08/exiting-workforce-growing-pastime-for.html

    The current real world employment experience of millions of Americans has shown little improvement since the end of the Great Recession.

    Damian September 28, 2016 at 7:35 am

    The number of public companies have been cut in half in the last 20 years. Just for one metric.

    So for those born in the 50's, reaching middle or senior management by the time they were in their mid 40's (1999) was increasingly harder as the probability of getting squeezed out multiplied. In the last ten years, the birth / death rate of startups / small business has reversed as well.

    There is probably ten other examples of why age is not the mitigating criteria for the decline in wages. It's not skill sets, not ambition, not flexibility. Pure number of chances for advancement and therefore associated higher wages has declined precipitously.

    Anti Trust Enforcement went out the window as Neo-Liberal policies converted to political donations for promoting consolidation.

    Now watch even those in their 20-30 age group will experience the same thing as H-1b unlimited takes hold with the Obama / Clinton TTP burning those at younger demographics. Are you going to say they are "too old" as well to write software?

    Tell me where you want to go, and I will focus on selective facts and subjective interpretation of those selective facts to yield the desired conclusions.

    Barack Peddling Fiction Obama – BS at the B.L.S. – has a multiplicity of these metrics.

    Jim A. September 28, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Hmm…Because wages are "sticky downwards" it would be helpful to see the inflation rate on that first chart.

    Reply
    Ignim Brites September 28, 2016 at 8:35 am

    Nominal wages are sticky downwards but not real wages. That is why the FED, the banks, the corporate sector and the economists support persistent inflation, i.e. it lowers real wages. The "study" correlating wage growth with aging is one of those empirical pieces by economists to obscure the role of inflation in lowering real wages.

    Steve H. September 28, 2016 at 8:05 am

    Real Wage Growth chart very interesting, crossing negative at about 55 for no college, and 43 for a Bachelor's degree. 43!! Not even halfway through a work-life, and none better since 2003 at best.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Trump was right about VAT subsidizing exports

    Sep 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    "The VAT export rebate is a huge subsidy to exporters who are exporting to non-VAT countries such as the US."
    MacAuley : , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 02:14 PM
    The VAT export rebate is a huge subsidy to exporters who are exporting to non-VAT countries such as the US. That's why nearly every large country has VAT. VAT rebates also give foreign producers a competitive advantage over US manufacturers in third-country markets.
    It's also a major incentive for US companies to supply the US market via Mexico or other VAT countries, since VAT countries rely on VAT for a huge chunk of their tax base. Since foreign profits of US companies are not taxed unless repatriated, the incentives against US production are compounded.
    sanjait -> MacAuley... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 02:42 PM
    Or ... VAT is just a sales tax collected on the production side. It's not like importers to the US get to avoid US sales taxes.
    MacAuley -> sanjait... , -1
    The difference is that VAT countries tend to rely much more heavily on the VAT than the US relies on sales taxes, so sales taxes are much less than VAT. Sales taxes in the US range from Zero in Indiana to 7.5% in California. VAT rates in the EU range between 20% and 25%. The VAT is 16% in Mexico and 17% in China.

    There may be some intellectual equivalence in your argument, but the real-world difference is huge.

    Dave Maxwell : , -1
    The VAT indirectly subsidizes exports. If you have country A that relies 100% on VAT for tax revenue then the exporting corporation in that country incurs and pays zero taxes on exports. If the company exports 100% of its product that company pays zero in taxes.

    In the US states generally exclude sales tax on materials purchased for manufacturing and on products sold for resale and for export outside that state (including to other states)so there is similarity with the VAT. The big difference is magnitude of the tax. States sales taxes average around 7% compared to VAT in the 15% to 20% range. VAT is a much bigger subsidy.

    Sanjait -> Dave Maxwell... , -1
    Well, I should have scrolled down before expressing disbelief.

    But if you want to talk facts, then note that no country relies 100% on a VAT. No country is even close:

    http://taxfoundation.org/article/sources-government-revenue-oecd-2014

    Mexico is actually the highest in reliance on consumption taxes generally (which is how the OECD classifies a VAT), but as the report notes, only part of the consumption tax mix is VAT. It also includes other excise taxes and fees. In Mexico I'd assume this includes oil industry revenues going to the government, which as of recently made up a third of the national government's total revenue mix.

    Anyway, what is the point you guys are really trying to make? Is it that the policy mix of taxes has some effect on export incentives? Well, yeah that's true. But consumption taxes aren't even the whole story there. How about the way the US handles international transfer pricing? Lots of things factor in.

    reason -> Dave Maxwell... , -1
    Actually most countries have VAT and when two countries with VAT trade, then VAT is always raised on all goods where they are sold to an end consumer. Simple. The issue comes when a country has no VAT and relies almost only on income tax. Income tax is then levied on exports but not on imports, so that the exports from such a country are at a relative disadvantage UNLESS the real exchange rate adjusts (as it should). Because the real exchange rate should adjust to equalize such effects, this argument is really just hot air. But of course, if he really wanted to do something about it, he could offer to institute a VAT himself, as most countries have.

    [Sep 27, 2016] Clinton-Trump debate shows emptiness, vapidity of US political election cycle

    Notable quotes:
    "... "They have a few pro-Trump voices, but pretty much the CNN as a network is for Clinton – just like Fox is for Trump. They are not really media outlets; they are echo chambers for the respective political campaign," ..."
    "... "The debate showed how vapid, how sensationalized, how empty the American political election cycle is – very expensive, but very long, and very empty. Both of them tried to outdo each other to show who had more support from the generals and admirals. It is not a good harbinger of where things are going in terms of American politics," ..."
    "... "unwitting agent" ..."
    "... "US national security." ..."
    "... "The attack on Russia, the attempt to blame Russia for all things, including for the hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] files that showed the DNC was violating its own rules and trying to tilt the election for Clinton, which happened on the first day of the Democratic national convention. Russia became a convenient punching bag, so that the Democratic Party could divert attention from its own wrongdoing. But it's manifested itself into something more than just a diversion," ..."
    "... "Clinton has the support of all of the neoconservatives: Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria Nuland; a hundred of Republican foreign policy elites. I think they represent the mainstream Washington consensus, which is the consensus of the military industrial complex, which wants to incentivize American public opposition or even hatred toward Russia as a pretext for building up the military armaments business. The expansion or escalation of tension with Russia is very good for the arms business, very good for the military industrial complex. So it is not just electoral politics. I think this is the Hillary Clinton presidency we see in the making. If she is elected, I think this bodes very badly for US- Russian relations," ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.rt.com

    RT Op-Edge

    The debate has shown how sensationalized, vapid and empty the US election cycle is, said Brian Becker, from the anti-war Answer Coalition, adding that the candidates' attempts to outdo each other on military support is not a good harbinger for US politics.

    A CNN/ORC poll shows that majority of voters feel Hillary Clinton won Monday night's debate over Donald Trump.

    According to Brian Becker of the anti-war Answer Coalition, one cannot judge who won by CNN polls as it has been actively campaigning for Clinton.

    "They have a few pro-Trump voices, but pretty much the CNN as a network is for Clinton – just like Fox is for Trump. They are not really media outlets; they are echo chambers for the respective political campaign," he told RT.

    "The debate showed how vapid, how sensationalized, how empty the American political election cycle is – very expensive, but very long, and very empty. Both of them tried to outdo each other to show who had more support from the generals and admirals. It is not a good harbinger of where things are going in terms of American politics," Becker said.

    Ahead of the election, Clinton and her supporters have been repeatedly using anti-Russia rhetoric and accusing Trump of being "unwitting agent" of President Putin and posing a threat to "US national security." On Monday, Clinton played her Russian card again to attack her opponent.

    In Becker's view, it's an attempt to divert public attention from the party's own wrongdoing and, also, the escalation of tensions with Moscow will only benefit the US military industrial complex who supports Clinton.

    "The attack on Russia, the attempt to blame Russia for all things, including for the hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] files that showed the DNC was violating its own rules and trying to tilt the election for Clinton, which happened on the first day of the Democratic national convention. Russia became a convenient punching bag, so that the Democratic Party could divert attention from its own wrongdoing. But it's manifested itself into something more than just a diversion," he said.

    "Clinton has the support of all of the neoconservatives: Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria Nuland; a hundred of Republican foreign policy elites. I think they represent the mainstream Washington consensus, which is the consensus of the military industrial complex, which wants to incentivize American public opposition or even hatred toward Russia as a pretext for building up the military armaments business. The expansion or escalation of tension with Russia is very good for the arms business, very good for the military industrial complex. So it is not just electoral politics. I think this is the Hillary Clinton presidency we see in the making. If she is elected, I think this bodes very badly for US- Russian relations," Becker added.

    .... .... ...

    [Sep 27, 2016] DeLong on helicopter money

    Sep 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : September 27, 2016 at 06:45 AM DeLong on helicopter money: "The swelling wave of argument and discussion around "helicopter money" has two origins:

    First, as Harvard's Robert Barro says: there has been no recovery since 2010.

    The unemployment rate here in the U.S. has come down, yes. But the unemployment rate has come down primarily because people who were unemployed have given up and dropped out of the labor force. Shrinkage in the share of people unemployed has been a distinctly secondary factor. Moreover, the small increase in the share of people with jobs has been neutralized, as far as its effects on how prosperous we are, by much slower productivity growth since 2010 than America had previously seen, had good reason to anticipate, and deserves.

    The only bright spot is a relative one: things in other rich countries are even worse.
    ..."

    I thought Krugman and Furman were bragging about Obama's tenure.

    "Now note that back in 1936 [John Maynard Keynes had disagreed][]:

    "The State will have to exercise a guiding influence... partly by fixing the rate of interest, and partly, perhaps, in other ways.... It seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself.... I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative..."

    By the 1980s, however, for Keynes himself the long run had come, and he was dead. The Great Moderation of the business cycle from 1984-2007 was a rich enough pudding to be proof, for the rough consensus of mainstream economists at least, that Keynes had been wrong and Friedman had been right.

    But in the aftermath of 2007 it became very clear that they-or, rather, we, for I am certainly one of the mainstream economists in the roughly consensus-were very, tragically, dismally and grossly wrong."

    DeLong sounds very much left rather than center-left. His reasons for supporting Hillary over Sanders eludes me.

    Hillary's $275 billion over 5 years is substantially too small as center-leftist Krugman put it.

    Now we face a choice:

    Do we accept economic performance that all of our predecessors would have characterized as grossly subpar-having assigned the Federal Reserve and other independent central banks a mission and then kept from them the policy tools they need to successfully accomplish it?

    Do we return the task of managing the business cycle to the political branches of government-so that they don't just occasionally joggle the elbows of the technocratic professionals but actually take on a co-leading or a leading role?

    Or do we extend the Federal Reserve's toolkit in a structured way to give it the tools it needs?

    Helicopter money is an attempt to choose door number (3). Our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to choose door number (1)-and then to tell us that the "cold douche", as Schumpeter put it, of unemployment will in the long run turn out to be good medicine, for some reason or other. And our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to argue that in reality there is no door number (3)-that attempts to go through it will rob central banks of their independence and wind up with us going through door number (2), which we know ends badly..."

    ------------

    Some commenters believe more fiscal policy via Congress is politically more realistic than helicopter money.

    I don't know, maybe they're right. I do know Hillary's proposals are too small. And her aversion to government debt and deficit is wrong given the economic context and market demand for safe assets.

    Some pundits like Krugman believe helicopter money won't be that effective "because the models tell him." We should try it and find out. Reply Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 06:45 AM

    reason -> Peter K.... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 08:40 AM

    "Moreover, the small increase in the share of people with jobs has been neutralized, as far as its effects on how prosperous we are, by much slower productivity growth since 2010 than America had previously seen, had good reason to anticipate, and deserves."

    ?????? The rate of (measured) productivity growth is not all that important. What has happened to real median income.

    And why are quoting from Robert Barro who is basically a freshwater economist. Couldn't you find somebody sensible?

    pgl -> reason ... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 09:08 AM
    Barro wants us to believe we have been at full employment all along. Of course that would mean any increase in aggregate demand would only cause inflation. Of course many of us think Barro lost it years ago.

    These little distinctions are alas lost on PeterK.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 01:05 PM
    run a long stupid troll.

    Go read some hack Republican analyses.

    Peter K. -> reason ... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 01:06 PM
    DeLong is quoting Barro.
    Paine -> Peter K.... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 09:57 AM
    Really it's Delong on the context that has produced a return to HM fantasies

    I'm sure u agree

    He doesn't endorse HM in this post does he ?

    Peter K. -> Paine ... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 01:09 PM
    Sounds to me like he does:

    "Now we face a choice:

    [1] Do we accept economic performance that all of our predecessors would have characterized as grossly subpar-having assigned the Federal Reserve and other independent central banks a mission and then kept from them the policy tools they need to successfully accomplish it?

    [2] Do we return the task of managing the business cycle to the political branches of government-so that they don't just occasionally joggle the elbows of the technocratic professionals but actually take on a co-leading or a leading role?

    [3] Or do we extend the Federal Reserve's toolkit in a structured way to give it the tools it needs?

    Helicopter money is an attempt to choose door number (3). Our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to choose door number (1)-and then to tell us that the "cold douche", as Schumpeter put it, of unemployment will in the long run turn out to be good medicine, for some reason or other. And our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to argue that in reality there is no door number (3)-that attempts to go through it will rob central banks of their independence and wind up with us going through door number (2), which we know ends badly...""

    ---------------------
    Conservatives want 1 and 2 ends badly, so 3 is the only choice.

    [Sep 27, 2016] Was NAFTA smart? Smart for whom?

    Sep 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    jonboinAR September 27, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    Lambert: " "Smart" is one of those 10%-er weasel words. Was NAFTA smart? Why or what not? Smart for whom?"
    ----
    Indeed. Whether a deal is smart to make depends on one's real objective. Hows'about clearing that question up, Mrs C?

    [Sep 27, 2016] Globalization is gone as a main driving force, pan-European unity is gone, and whether the United States will stay united is far from a done deal

    Notable quotes:
    "... Global is gone as a main driving force, pan-European is gone, and whether the United States will stay united is far from a done deal. We are moving towards a mass movement of dozens of separate countries and states and societies looking inward. All of which are in some form of -impending- trouble or another. ..."
    "... And of course it's confusing that the protests against the 'old regimes' and the growth and centralization -first- manifest in the rise of faces and voices who do not reject all of the above offhand. That is to say, the likes of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may be against more centralization, but none of them has a clue about growth being over. They don't get that part anymore than Hillary or Hollande or Merkel do. ..."
    "... Dems in the US, Labour in the UK, and Hollande's 'Socialists' in France have all become part of the two-headed monster that is the political center, and that is (held) responsible for the deterioration in people's lives. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    fresno dan September 27, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    Why There is Trump ~Ilargi

    But nobody seems to really know or understand. Which is odd, because it's not that hard. That is, this all happens because growth is over. And if growth is over, so are expansion and centralization in all the myriad of shapes and forms they come in.

    Global is gone as a main driving force, pan-European is gone, and whether the United States will stay united is far from a done deal. We are moving towards a mass movement of dozens of separate countries and states and societies looking inward. All of which are in some form of -impending- trouble or another.

    What makes the entire situation so hard to grasp for everyone is that nobody wants to acknowledge any of this. Even though tales of often bitter poverty emanate from all the exact same places that Trump and Brexit and Le Pen come from too.

    That the politico-econo-media machine churns out positive growth messages 24/7 goes some way towards explaining the lack of acknowledgement and self-reflection, but only some way. The rest is due to who we ourselves are. We think we deserve eternal growth.

    And of course it's confusing that the protests against the 'old regimes' and the growth and centralization -first- manifest in the rise of faces and voices who do not reject all of the above offhand. That is to say, the likes of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may be against more centralization, but none of them has a clue about growth being over. They don't get that part anymore than Hillary or Hollande or Merkel do.

    So why these people? Look closer and you see that in the US, UK and France, there is nobody left who used to speak for the 'poor and poorer'. While at the same time, the numbers of poor and poorer increase at a rapid clip. They just have nowhere left to turn to. There is literally no left left.

    Dems in the US, Labour in the UK, and Hollande's 'Socialists' in France have all become part of the two-headed monster that is the political center, and that is (held) responsible for the deterioration in people's lives. Moreover, at least for now, the actual left wing may try to stand up in the form of Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders, but they are both being stangled by the two-headed monster's fake left in their countries and their own parties.
    ================================================
    This is from today's Links, but I didn't have a chance to post this snippet.
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1A225NBEA

    Long time since we had 5% – if the whole system is financial scheme is premised on growth, and there is less and less of it ever year, it doesn't look sustainable. How bad http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/200pm-water-cooler-9272016.html#comment-2676054does it have to get for how many before the model is chucked???

    In the great depression, even the bankers were having a tough time. If the rich are exempt from suffering, I think history has shown that a small elite can impose suffering on masses for a long time…

    'there is nobody left who used to speak for the 'poor and poorer'.

    Actually, there are plenty who SPEAK for the poor, there just is NONE who ACT.

    Reply
    jrs September 27, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    How would we measure this growth that is supposed to be over? Yes of course there are the conventional measurements like GDP, but it's not zero. Yes of course if inflation is understated it would overstate GDP, and yes GDP measurements may not measure much as many critics have said. But what about other measures?

    Is oil use down, are CO2 emissions down, is resource use in general down? If not it's growth (or groath). This growth is at the cost of the planet but that's why GDP is flawed. And the benefit of this groath goes entirely to the 1%ers, but that's distribution.

    The left failed, I don't know all the reasons (and it's always hard to oppose the powers that be, the field always tilts toward them, it's never a fair fight) but it failed. That's what we see the results of.

    fresno dan September 27, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    I agree

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 27, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    Someone very smart said "the Fed makes the economy more stable".
    He also quoted The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think".
    Definition of stable: firm; steady; not wavering or changeable.
    As in: US GDP growth of a paltry 1.22% per year.
    But hey it only took an additional trillion $ in debt per year to stay "stable".

    Softie September 27, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    there are plenty who SPEAK for the poor, there just is NONE who ACT.
    ========
    That's why in 1992 Francis Futurama refirmed the end of history that was predicted by Hegel some 150 years earlier.

    Lee September 27, 2016 at 5:58 pm

    Time to revisit Herman Daly's Steady-State Economy.

    [Sep 27, 2016] The Morning After the Debate, Donald Trump Goes on the Attack

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's home all the time." ..."
    "... Better late then never. This issue should be raised during the debates. Serious neurological disease that Hillary is suffering from should be a campaign issue. It is a fair game. ..."
    "... That does not make Trump immune from counter-attacks as he is older then Clinton and might have skeletons in the closet too, but voters have right to know the real state of health of candidates. ..."
    "... "Khan Gambit" was the most shameful part of Clinton attacks on Trump. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : September 27, 2016 at 12:58 PM

    The Morning After the Debate, Donald Trump Goes on the Attack
    http://nyti.ms/2cSvOlO
    NYT - ALEXANDER BURNS - SEPT. 27, 2016

    A defensive Donald J. Trump lashed out at the debate moderator, complained about his microphone and threatened to make Bill Clinton's marital infidelity a campaign issue in a television appearance on Tuesday just hours after his first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton.

    And defying conventions of civility and political common sense, Mr. Trump leveled cutting personal criticism at a Miss Universe pageant winner, held up by Mrs. Clinton in Monday night's debate as an example of her opponent's disrespect for women.

    Mr. Trump insisted in the Fox News appearance that he had been right to disparage the beauty queen, Alicia Machado, for her physique.

    "She was the winner and she gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem," said Mr. Trump, who was the pageant's executive producer at the time. "Not only that - her attitude. And we had a real problem with her."

    Mrs. Clinton mentioned Ms. Machado by name, quoting insults that Ms. Machado has attributed to Mr. Trump and noting that the pageant winner had become a citizen to vote in the 2016 election. During the debate, he showed disbelief at the charge that he had ridiculed Ms. Machado, asking Mrs. Clinton repeatedly, "Where did you find this?"

    But Mr. Trump abruptly shifted course a few hours later, with comments that threatened to escalate and extend an argument that appeared to be one of his weakest moments of the debate.

    Mrs. Clinton assailed him late in the debate for deriding women as "pigs, slobs and dogs." Mr. Trump had no ready answer for the charge of sexism, and offered a muddled reply that cited his past feud with the comedian Rosie O'Donnell.

    His comments attacking Ms. Machado recalled his frequent practice, during the Republican primaries and much of the general election campaign, of bickering harshly with political bystanders, sometimes savaging them in charged language that ended up alienating voters. In the past, he has made extended personal attacks on the Muslim parents of an Army captain killed in Iraq and on a Hispanic federal judge.

    Trump aides considered it a sign of progress in recent weeks that the Republican nominee was more focused on criticizing Mrs. Clinton, and less prone to veering off into such self-destructive public feuds.

    Going after Ms. Machado may be especially tone deaf for Mr. Trump, at a moment in the race when he is seeking to reverse voters' ingrained negative views of his personality. Sixty percent of Americans in an ABC News/Washington Post poll this month said they thought Mr. Trump was biased against women and minorities, and Mrs. Clinton has been airing a television commercial highlighting his history of caustic and graphic comments about women.

    Mrs. Clinton pressed her advantage on Tuesday, telling reporters on her campaign plane that Mr. Trump had raised "offensive and off-putting" views that called into question his fitness for the presidency.

    "The real point," she said, "is about temperament and fitness and qualification to hold the most important, hardest job in the world."

    Both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton will strike out on the campaign trail on Tuesday with the goal of framing the debate's outcome to their advantage. While Mr. Trump is in Florida, Mrs. Clinton plans to campaign in North Carolina, a traditionally Republican state where polls show her and Mr. Trump virtually tied.

    It will likely take a few days to measure any shift in the race after the candidates' clash at Hofstra University on Long Island. Polls had shown the presidential race narrowing almost to a dead heat on the national level, with Mr. Trump drawing close to Mrs. Clinton in several swing states where she had long held an advantage.

    But Mr. Trump appeared thrown on Tuesday by his uneven performance the night before, offering a series of different explanations for the results. On Fox, he cited "unfair questions" posed by the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC News, and insinuated that someone might have tampered with his microphone.

    Moving forward in his contest with Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump said he might "hit her harder," perhaps raising the issue of "her husband's women." Should Mr. Trump opt for that risky approach, he could begin to do so during a campaign swing in Florida on Tuesday.

    And in another indication that Mr. Trump has little intention of shifting his tone, the Republican nominee repeated the attack on Mrs. Clinton that spurred their Monday exchange about gender in the first place: that she lacks the physical vigor to be president.

    "I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's home all the time."

    Mrs. Clinton was dismissive on Tuesday of Mr. Trump's barbs, shrugging off a question about his threat to go after Mrs. Clinton and her husband personally and his dismay about the microphone. "Anybody who complains about the microphone is not having a good night," she said. ...

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... Shamed and Angry: Alicia Machado, a Miss Universe
    Mocked by Donald Trump http://nyti.ms/2cSGwsk
    NYT - MICHAEL BARBARO and MEGAN TWOHEY - Sep 27

    For 20 years, Alicia Machado has lived with the agony of what Donald J. Trump did to her after she won the Miss Universe title: shame her, over and over, for gaining weight.

    Private scolding was apparently insufficient. Mr. Trump, at the time an executive producer of the pageant, insisted on accompanying Ms. Machado, then a teenager, to a gym, where dozens of reporters and cameramen watched as she exercised.

    Mr. Trump, in his trademark suit and tie, posed for photographs beside her as she burned calories in front of the news media. "This is somebody who likes to eat," Mr. Trump said from inside the gym. ...

    (The Donald is clearly no slouch in that department.)

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/728297587418247168

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... September 27, 2016 at 02:03 PM

    Trump, 'the candidate who almost always flies home in his private Boeing 757 to Trump Tower in New York or to his palatial Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.' ...

    Donald Trump Means Business in Iowa: Night in Motel, and a Day in Church http://nyti.ms/1UlcJI3

    NYT - MAGGIE HABERMAN - JAN. 24, 2016

    MUSCATINE, Iowa - Donald J. Trump spent the last seven months saying he wanted to win. Now he is really acting like it. ...

    On Friday night, the candidate who almost always flies home in his private Boeing 757 to Trump Tower in New York or to his palatial Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., instead slept in a Holiday Inn Express in Sioux Center, Iowa. ("Good mattress," he said afterward. "Clean.") ...

    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 02:57 PM
    "I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's home all the time."

    Better late then never. This issue should be raised during the debates. Serious neurological disease that Hillary is suffering from should be a campaign issue. It is a fair game.

    That does not make Trump immune from counter-attacks as he is older then Clinton and might have skeletons in the closet too, but voters have right to know the real state of health of candidates. This is a fair game.

    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 03:01 PM
    "Khan Gambit" was the most shameful part of Clinton attacks on Trump.

    See http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/Candidates/Trump/khan_gambit_at_democratic_convention.shtml

    [Sep 27, 2016] David Cay Johnston The Making of Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The manner is which she secured the Democratic nomination is a signature of the Clinton style. The Clinton 'charitable foundation' is a beacon for everything that is wrong with the American economic and political system today. ..."
    "... I consider this upcoming national election to be the signal failure of the two party political system as it is today, choked by a self-referential elite, corrupted by a lust for power and big money. ..."
    Sep 25, 2016 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    "The narcissist devours people, consumes their output, and casts the empty, writhing shells aside."

    Sam Vaknin


    I make it no secret that I find Hillary Clinton to be both morally repugnant and appallingly dishonest.

    The manner is which she secured the Democratic nomination is a signature of the Clinton style. The Clinton 'charitable foundation' is a beacon for everything that is wrong with the American economic and political system today.

    But that does not mean that I am blind to what is being offered by The Donald.

    I consider this upcoming national election to be the signal failure of the two party political system as it is today, choked by a self-referential elite, corrupted by a lust for power and big money.

    watch-v=19KI_2X2Sfs

    [Sep 27, 2016] What Krugman doesnt get is that trade is resonating as a an issue and its resonating for a reason. Look at Brexit. Preaching to the choir that we should it ignore it - it makes corporations and the donor class happy - doesnt change that fact.

    Sep 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. -> anne... September 27, 2016 at 06:11 AM

    What Krugman doesn't get is that trade is resonating as a an issue and it's resonating for a reason. Look at Brexit. Preaching to the choir that we should it ignore it - it makes corporations and the donor class happy - doesn't change that fact.

    pgl -> Peter K.... September 27, 2016 at 07:01 AM

    Maybe you missed the simple point. Having a sales tax is not trade protection. Trump is either an idiot or he is playing people to be idiots. I guess you are OK with this.
    Paine -> Peter K.... , September 27, 2016 at 08:01 AM
    Yes

    The de bots need to jump on this hard if they want the wage class back

    Maybe not

    After all the MNC class might not donate as much

    Note they'll always donate something
    It's a hedge if nothing else

    But the collateral jobs and deals can be denied to a naughty Dembotic party

    Peter K. -> Paine ... , September 27, 2016 at 01:02 PM
    "After all the MNC class might not donate as much"

    And yes ignore PGL. He's not worth the time or energy.

    paine -> Peter K.... , September 27, 2016 at 01:55 PM
    I will
    reason -> anne... , September 27, 2016 at 06:23 AM
    I have repeatedly pointed out that if country A mostly uses VAT (which taxes imports but not exports) and country B mostly uses income tax (which taxes exports but not imports) then that affects the effective exchange rate.

    IN PRINCIPLE the exchange rate should adjust for this. The question is whether it does (but note also the incentive to export effects). The problem with all these issues is that it is complicated and for people who can't think in terms of more than 15 words at a time it is difficult.

    pgl -> reason ... , September 27, 2016 at 07:02 AM
    The US$ and Mexican peso do float with respect to each other so you are correct. Besides, the Republican plan to replace those massive income tax cuts for the rich that Trump wants is to hit the rest of us with sales (aka VAT) taxes.
    pgl -> pgl... , September 27, 2016 at 07:33 AM
    The peso appreciated after the debate. Wonder why!
    Paine -> reason ... , September 27, 2016 at 08:04 AM
    Yes. Pk should have attacked trump for blowing the try benefit of a vat in global market wars

    The corporate elites road block to a US vat is a great story in narrow class interests

    [Sep 27, 2016] The reason to win elections is not just to prevent disastrous conservative policies. Its to enact good policies.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bill Clinton's tenure wasn't all good. He said the "era of big government was over." He enacted Republican lite policies which helped lead to the financial crisis. He didn't enact policies that helped globalization's losers. The Clinton years ended in a tech-stock bubble and financial crisis in East Asia. ..."
    "... The reason to win elections is not just to prevent disastrous conservative policies. It's to enact good policies. Left policies are better than center-left. Hillary is center-left as Krugman pointed out. Corbyn is left. Yes the next 40 days has a contest between between the center-left and insane right, but that doesn't mean we cant' fact check the center-left pundits like Krugman. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : September 27, 2016 at 06:31 AM

    Trump was proud he evaded taxes and yet he complains about the state of American infrastructure? He babbled incoherently about Yellen and the Fed.

    Yes Republicans and Bush squandered the fact that Clinton/Gingrich balanced the budget with tax cuts for the rich.

    Krugman has made the distinction between center-left and left in the context of attacking Bernie Sanders. Read Simon Wren-Lewis's blog post on UK Labour.

    Hillary rightly lambasted trickle-down economics last night and contrasted Republican economics with Democrats' "middle class" economics. But she mostly went after Trump at a personal level and I thought she was effective. Maybe in the next debates she'll talk more about economics.

    Her description of what caused the financial crisis wasn't really accurate but so what, it was close enough.

    She did brag about her husband's tenure (and how many times during the primary we were told by supporters that it wasn't fair to equate her with her husband.

    Which is where Trump would go off on NAFTA. Bill Clinton's tenure wasn't all good. He said the "era of big government was over." He enacted Republican lite policies which helped lead to the financial crisis. He didn't enact policies that helped globalization's losers. The Clinton years ended in a tech-stock bubble and financial crisis in East Asia.

    Simon Wren-Lewis's blog post doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe it's my fault. All he does is link to the Owen Smith piece which says Labour doesn't poll well and SWL complains Corbyn won't win elections.

    The reason to win elections is not just to prevent disastrous conservative policies. It's to enact good policies. Left policies are better than center-left. Hillary is center-left as Krugman pointed out. Corbyn is left. Yes the next 40 days has a contest between between the center-left and insane right, but that doesn't mean we cant' fact check the center-left pundits like Krugman.

    As even Krugman pointed out, Hillary's "investment" of $275 billion over 5 years is substantially too small. It will lead to a reliance on monetary policy from a shaky Fed which may create more asset bubbles if regulators and regulations aren't up to the task of preventing them.

    It was very center-left of Hillary to brag that her plan is revenue neutral. Maybe that's the smart thing to do politically, but not economically and it's not being honest with the voters.

    Reply Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 06:31 AM

    [Sep 27, 2016] Presidential Debate Part 1 Achieving prosperity in the U.S. economy - YouTube

    Sep 27, 2016 | www.youtube.com
    Jim Bob 4 hours ago
    I hate how shes smiling and at one part almost laughed at something serious like this is a game. she never directly responds to what lester or trump asks, but you see trump directly answering or responding to what she asks. One thing i want to know is, but will never know, does she want to destroy this country or is she so ignorant that she will destroy it by trying to help. Her views are wrong on economy, there may be somethings that i will agree with her but when it comes to economy she will wreck this country.
    somuchkooleronline. 30 minutes ago
    If Hillary is in the White House then we may as well has the Islamic flag above it instead of the stars & stripes. Craigslist has ads for protesters to be paid to show where there's a Trump rally to harass. In the paper a few months back a man woke to find windows of his car bashed in. The car had a Trump sticker. The anti Trump climate in networks NBC & MSNBC & CNN & Morning CBS. On YouTube Hillary is bringing 65K rufugees to US next year.
    dag let 7 hours ago
    This debate sealed it. I'm voting trump. Hillary just came across as an emotionless conniving snake. Trump at least looked somewhat human.

    [Sep 27, 2016] I don't think Trump was vastly different in the R primary debates (he was unfocused and narcissistic then as well), but I always suspected somehow that he would play softball rather than hardball when it came to the REAL showdown with Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes, people kept saying how they wish Trump would win the R primaries because it would be so exciting when he took his attack to Hillary and gave her what she may very well deserve. And I was always "I'll believe it when I see it, not until then". ..."
    "... May be… He could easily bury her, but preferred not to. He was definitely unprepared. Also he might be afraid of Clinton clan. ..."
    "... He's 70 years old and can be knocked off balance defending !insults! about a beauty queen. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    jrs

    Yes, people kept saying how they wish Trump would win the R primaries because it would be so exciting when he took his attack to Hillary and gave her what she may very well deserve. And I was always "I'll believe it when I see it, not until then".

    I don't think Trump was vastly different in the R primary debates (he was unfocused and narcissistic then as well), but I always suspected somehow that he would play softball rather than hardball when it came to the REAL showdown with Clinton (no "little Rubio" here). Well I told ya so. Although there are 3 more debates so I guess I could still be proved wrong. But it's looking like I told you so.

    What so great or even fun and entertaining about Trump again? These circuses are completely boring!!! Well he's not Clinton I suppose there is always that.

    ----

    I guess the 10% think they got there by doing well on tests and not sheer luck and choosing the right parents. Hmm well screw em.

    likbez

    "I have seen people say he is saving it….?dry powder?"

    May be… He could easily bury her, but preferred not to. He was definitely unprepared. Also he might be afraid of Clinton clan.

    "A lot of people check out after the first 30 minutes of one debate and never come back."

    True -- It was pretty disgusting performance on both sides.

    ChiGal in Carolina

    Just had my first in-person encounter with an apparent Trump supporter, 40ish lifeguard at the community pool down here. He was very pleased with last night's debate, thought Trump showed he has self-control and was generally presidential (!).

    All my friends and family thought Clinton "won" but it's not gonna matter.

    charles leseau

    He's 70 years old and can be knocked off balance defending !insults! about a beauty queen.

    Amen. It takes very little wit to point out immediately how irrelevant such a thing is to a presidential debate, but instead he walked right into it like a rattled kid who doesn't think half a second before responding.

    [Sep 27, 2016] Hillary enters, as the Woman in Red. The stains of Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Syria and Yemen.

    Sep 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Carolinian September 27, 2016 at 7:12 pm

    Here's St. Clair's liveblog of the big debate. Sampler

    + Lester Holt needs to be extremely cautious tonight. Lots of police and armed security in the debate hall. No sudden movements. Holt must keep his hands firmly on the podium at all times.

    + Bill and Melania shake hands at center stage. Bill whispers something in her ear. I think it was: "Text me."

    + No national anthem. Kaepernick wins!

    + Hillary enters, as the Woman in Red. The stains of Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Syria and Yemen.

    Etc.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/27/idiot-winds-at-hofstra/

    [Sep 27, 2016] Economist's View Trump On Trade

    Sep 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RueTheDay : , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:07 AM
    "Gah. A VAT is basically a sales tax. It is levied on both domestic and imported goods, so that it doesn't protect against imports - which is why it's allowed under international trade rules, and not considered a protectionist trade policy."

    I think what Trump was getting at was that exports are typically exempt from VAT. So while Krugman is correct that Mexican VAT applies equally to Mexican goods sold in Mexico and US goods imported into Mexico, it doesn't apply to Mexican goods exported to the US.

    But honestly, who cares? Trump is not espousing any sort of realistic solution to the problems facing the middle class. Imposing tariffs, tearing up trade agreements, and kicking out immigrants is baby talk intended to placate the ill-informed.

    Paine -> RueTheDay ... , -1
    Yes I think trump garbled his point
    In the briefing he got from his brain trust
    I suspect he heard something like this

    The vat advantage is more like an undervalued peso effect on lowering "the cost "
    of US exports
    But without the protectionist effect of raising the cost of US imports

    Perhaps his apparent ADHD
    Betrayed him here
    He heard the word protectionist and forgot the details and the precise fact
    There is no protectionist effect of the vat export rebate

    PRD -> pgl... , -1
    Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the arithmetic I'm picking up from Krugman which shows Trump's fallacy.

    If you have a $10,000 Mexican car that paid a $2,000 VAT, the exporter gets reimbursed for the $2,000 dollar paid in VAT which would normally get passed along to the consumer, thus making the price that it is exported at $8,000. That $8,000 dollar car would subsequently pay sales tax in the USA.

    If you have a $10,000 USA car being exported to Mexico, it would get the VAT tax added on to be passed along to the consumer, thus making it $12,500. That same car would pay sales tax in the United States on it being worth $10,000.

    So basically, the Mexican car is actually only worth $8,000 because the VAT that would have been passed along to the consumers (and had been paid already) is reimbursed to the exporter. The American car is worth $10,000 and must pay the VAT, because the Mexican car would pay the VAT in Mexico as well. Essentially he's equating an $8,000 Mexican car with a $10,000 American car.

    Shah of Bratpuhr : , -1
    I highly doubt Trump considers people that understand economics to be his target audience. Trump speaks only to his target audience not about issues, but rather how they feel right now at this exact moment. Perhaps his strategy is to keep people angry and fearful enough by Election Day?

    His message to his audience: "you feel badly because you're not rich", audience nods, "it's this scapegoat's fault", audience cheers, "Only I can rid you of this scapegoat and when I do, you'll feel better"

    Paine -> Shah of Bratpuhr... , -1
    Yes

    He has learned the devil can easily hide in the details

    JohnH : , -1
    "Trump's whole view on trade is that other people are taking advantage of us - that it's all about dominance, and that we're weak."

    You have to admit, Trump was right...he just doesn't understand who's taking advantage of whom. He really should understand this (and probably does)...the winners are all around him on Park Ave, Fifth Ave, and Wall Street. Of course, you'd never expect Trump to admit that he's part of the predatory class, would you?

    Ben Groves : , -1
    Trade agreements hurt a lot of country's that American "businesses" deal with more than America a good deal of the time. NAFTA killed Mexican farming. It was part of the package along with the 2002 subsidy agreement after 9/11 that started nationalizing agri-business. This also allowed drug production to take off and cartels to expand quickly, using the increased volume of business transactions to ship more drugs across the borders into Donald Trump supporters noses and veins.

    [Sep 27, 2016] I have seen people say he is saving it for later

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    fresno dan September 27, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    "After a shaky start, Clinton was mostly prepared, disciplined, and methodical in her attacks. By contrast, after landing some early blows on trade, Trump was mostly winging it" [NBC]. That's how it felt to me. Of course, 10%-ers like preparation. Preparation leads to passing your test! But in this case, they are right to do so.

    ====================================================
    Trump could have brought up:

    • deplorables – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
    • Goldman Sachs – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
    • email – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
    • bankers – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground

    I have seen people say he is saving it….?dry powder? A lot of people check out after the first 30 minutes of one debate and never come back.
    And I'm really into it – and I doubt I will waste my time again. Even though I am a big believer in judging people/politicians by what they do and not what they say, Trump's immaturity has frayed my last nerve. He's 70 years old and can be knocked off balance defending !insults! about a beauty queen.

    [Sep 27, 2016] No chief executive at the nation's 100 largest companies had donated to Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign through August,

    Notable quotes:
    "... Should Trump succeed in renegotiating US trade deals, corporations - currently at their most indebted level in history - will be deprived of revenues to service their debts. Some will default. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, realizing whatever benefits accrue from more domestic production takes time and capital to construct plants. That's a problem, when corporate leverage already is too high. ..."
    "... Most likely, the Business Roundtable will sit down for The Talk with Trump, and his wacky promises to restructure the global trade system will quickly be forgotten. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Haygood September 27, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    It's unanimous:

    No chief executive at the nation's 100 largest companies had donated to Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign through August, a sharp reversal from 2012, when nearly a third of Fortune 100 CEOs supported Mitt Romney.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/no-fortune-100-ceos-back-republican-donald-trump-1474671842

    One executive is quoted taking offense at Trump's ethnic slurs. But that doesn't explain the complete unanimity. What does explain it: overseas sales account for a third of large companies' revenues. Chart:

    http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/559eac5969bedd0d06679458-1200-900/cotd-sp500-foreign-revenue.png

    Should Trump succeed in renegotiating US trade deals, corporations - currently at their most indebted level in history - will be deprived of revenues to service their debts. Some will default.

    Meanwhile, realizing whatever benefits accrue from more domestic production takes time and capital to construct plants. That's a problem, when corporate leverage already is too high.

    Most likely, the Business Roundtable will sit down for The Talk with Trump, and his wacky promises to restructure the global trade system will quickly be forgotten.

    If Donnie's serious, then he's Herbert Hoover II, and the long-suffering Dr Hussman becomes a billionaire after the Crash Heard Round the World.

    [Sep 27, 2016] Trump supporters will not be converted

    Notable quotes:
    "... This is an impossible task. She is a war criminal, a stanch neoliberal (like her husband, who sold Democratic Party to Wall Street) and unrepentant neocon. ..."
    "... My feel is that Democrats lost the support of rank and file union members in this election cycle. Serial betrays starting from Bill Clinton "triangulation" and "third way" scams finally got under the skin of workers and they do not any longer consider Democratic Party as a political entity representing their interests. And financial oligarchy and professional classes voters are not numerous enough to secure the victory. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Chris G : September 27, 2016 at 07:59 AM

    Trump supporters will not be converted. What we need to do is 1) get people who lean Clinton to show up and vote for her and 2) convince fence-sitters that she's the better choice and to show up and vote for her. Towards that end, we need to establish what's important to them: policy positions, nice clothes, likes dogs? Find out what appeals to THEM, not necessarily you, and if Clinton has those traits even a little bit then make the pitch for her based on those traits. Engage those voters. Don't just speculate on what might or should appeal to them. Ask them what is important to them and ASK FOR THEIR VOTE!
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Chris G ... , September 27, 2016 at 12:52 PM
    I have come across a few Trump supporters in my travels and what they all have in common is what they have to say about Hillary, while about Trump they are mostly mute.
    Chris G -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , September 27, 2016 at 01:55 PM
    Hillary hate is strong.* It's not as widespread in eastern MA as it is in other parts of the country but where it exists it looks like it's just as intense.

    *There's no intellectual consistency to it. It's visceral.

    likbez -> Chris G ... , -1
    "convince fence-sitters that she's the better choice and to show up and vote for her"

    This is an impossible task. She is a war criminal, a stanch neoliberal (like her husband, who sold Democratic Party to Wall Street) and unrepentant neocon.

    Trump might be a crook and as bad as she is, but in a larger scale of things he did not committed the crimes she committed. Yet. And at least on the surface he is against neoliberal globalization.

    My feel is that Democrats lost the support of rank and file union members in this election cycle. Serial betrays starting from Bill Clinton "triangulation" and "third way" scams finally got under the skin of workers and they do not any longer consider Democratic Party as a political entity representing their interests. And financial oligarchy and professional classes voters are not numerous enough to secure the victory.

    And that might well spells doom for Demorats.

    On the other hand Trump could bury Clinton but choose do not even touch her most vulnerable points (Iraq war vote, emailgate, Libya, Clinton Foundation scam. health issues, Bill Clinton "legacy"). Is he afraid of something or just saving the shots ? Also he looked completely unprepared. Clinton relied on notes and pre-defined gambits, while Trump relied on intuition. It did not play well for him.

    [Sep 27, 2016] Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe it or not.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe it or not. I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him. ..."
    "... Same with "you had 30 years to solve it." Undeniably true; Clinton's whole "let's build on our success" schtick is such a steaming lot of 10%-er-ness. But if Trump wants to make this election a referendum on the political class, he's going to have to do a lot better than this ..."
    "... Hillary gave no indication she is going to change the course we are on now; in fact, reading between the lines, she thinks things are going great and there is no reason to change anything. ..."
    "... I think there is a better chance that Trump will actually try to fix things, but tax policy and several other things did not give me great hope that he has any idea how to fix things, or will learn & adapt quickly enough. On the plus side, some people talk better than they deliver; some people deliver better than they talk. At least there's a chance he's one of the latter. ..."
    "... I can't find where he would refuse "trade deals", only ones "These Morons running things" have negotiated. I'm betting he would push them with minor changes, as will HRC. ISDS is a foregone conclusion, with either. Jesus, one of his advisors is Larry f'n Kudlow. If the regulars here are not appalled by the guys he has surrounded himself with, I sure am. I can see it coming… ..."
    "... I think Trump's probably serious about trade. But if I understand the structural issues correctly, it doesn't really matter whether he is serious or not. Apparently the Republican base is now strongly opposed to free trade. ..."
    "... If my assessment is correct, TPP dies with a Trump win. There isn't an option to reopen negotiations, is there? A brand new "Trump style" treaty would take years to negotiate, and he has "one term" written all over him. This also would kill TISA, right? Is it technically contingent on TPP passing first? ..."
    "... The Democrats in opposition will be just as feckless as the Republicans have been effective. ..."
    "... One particular provision of TISA is as bad as anything in TPP (bar ISDS) and that is the prohibition on remunicipalization of privatized public resources. Governments would not be allowed to take back things such as British Rail that have been sold off to the private sector, and would be prohibited from nationalizing any other public good now in private hands. It's another hit to national sovereignty. ..."
    "... HRC, you knew from the beginning, who she was tied to/advised by/paid for by. She is a "known known". We are all seeking to know what or who DT represents, as he is harder to pin down. ..."
    "... I don't think Clinton won every category just most. I think Trump won on "there is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC". ..."
    "... How are we gonna survive 4 years with either of them at the helm? ..."
    "... That was my take exactly. Since I don't honestly think Stein is going to win, and I think Johnson might be worse than either of these, I was hoping one of them would give me a reason to feel optimistic that they would do a decent job. They … both failed horribly. ..."
    "... What universe are they living in? Half of these people used to be Bernie supporters. Are people that easily manipulated? Did I used to be that easily manipulated? Or have I gone completely insane now. This was some kind of masterful performance? She mouthed a lot of decent sounding platitudes with no specifics re: policy (while everyone praises her for specifics, and I think she championed the ideas of specifics themselves) while doing a decent but not great job of hitting Trump on some areas where he's very vulnerable. ..."
    "... He did a great job finding areas where she's vulnerable, but a terrible job of hitting her on them. ..."
    "... "Are people that easily manipulated?" Yes. Was I that easily manipulated? Probably. Don't feel bad though most of us were naïve enough to believe the BS for at least some period of time. ..."
    "... Uh it's scripted reality TV. The "debates" are vetted and agreed upon by the two parties who sponsored the darn thing via their little pretend front group. Anyone, at this point, who thinks these things matter is fooling themselves. It's a 90 minute infomercial, so if you find infomercials masterful then I guess. ..."
    "... Thank you for pointing out that as usual, the unconstitutional and illegitimate two-party duopoly has excluded other candidates who will be on the ballot. Who exactly gave them this privilege of exclusion? ..."
    "... Private enterprise, Jim. You can always put up the money for third party candidates to debate on prime time. Thought that was how the market "works". ..."
    "... I disagree strongly that Trump is incoherent; I saw him in Bangor. What he is, is discursive and improvisational. He has his main points that he always ..."
    "... However, that style doesn't work for him in this debate. He doesn't get to determine the structure, there's no time in a two minute answer to do the kind of excursions he likes to do, and the crowd was told not to react. ..."
    "... The format works very much against Trump, and very much for Clinton. Delivering bullet points successfully is a marker that a candidate is president-y. Considering what PowerPoint has done to the Pentagon, that might not be such a great idea, but it is what it is and we are where we are. ..."
    "... I'm surprised that no one mentioned the one best line to the non political junkie. They HATE political commercials. He nailed her on spending Millions attacking him and he came across gentlemanly saying he wouldn't / hasn't done that to her. ..."
    "... Honestly, I've seen 5 years olds who could resist the bait better than Trump… ..."
    "... I don't know why this is surprising, Trump is the narcissist he is regardless of what people want to project on him. Of course none of that makes Clinton any better. Whether it's effective, eh who knows, if it's authoritarians voting for him maybe that is what they like, but I don't think there are enough of them for him to win on that alone. If people are just casting random angry votes for anything but the status quo then maybe. ..."
    "... I disagree. I think both candidates are isolated within elite bubbles, leading to behaviors we consider narcissistic (armchair diagnosis, when you think about it. I mean, "I'm with her….") ..."
    "... So which one is the Grandiose and the other an Insecure type ..."
    "... ….Did anyone else notice how consistently Hillary looked down at the podium? I believe she was being fed "Cliff Notes" ON AN IPAD by her staff re every topic that was bought up….she was ALWAYS looking down and, I assume she was being fed CUES AND WORDS OR PHRASES that she should use….she not only looked down a lot before the time she was supposed to speak but also looked down a lot during her responses…… ..."
    "... OTOH, Trump was "winging it" and "shooting from the hip"…..Hillary won because the notes kept her on track….If trump had done any serious prep and could take advice, he could have destroyed her…But, he doesn't do prep, so he can't effectively respond……. ..."
    "... Hillary's closing comments were stronger, but by then I don't think their were many left watching who were "Persuadables"….those of us left were "political junkies" hoping for a last lap NASCAR worthy Candidate Crash….. ..."
    "... I think Trump had the opportunity to win the debate handed to him on a silver platter by Hillary, but his failure to Prepare and Do the Little Things that would have helped him be ready for her totally expected responses/statements/stalking points cost him dearly….. ..."
    "... He remains the Rich Guy, who does what he wants….. She remains the Robotic Gal, who will probably get what she wants…. ..."
    "... Yes she was looking down a lot. Were they allowed to have iPads to look at? ..."
    "... I think one of the CBS commentators said that Hillary appeared to be using notes. She did look down a lot, and I also thought she seemed unusually subdued. At times she appeared to look sleepy and bored. I don't think this "debate" changed anyone's mind. I think Trump was trying to "dial it back", and he did miss several opportunities to zing Clinton. It did confirm one thing for me – we're all screwed. ..."
    "... I don't think in the great scheme of things this matters much. If there was an iPad and it worked for Clinton, then why the heck didn't the Trump team give their guy an equivalent advantage? ..."
    "... Two impressions, on the bus where I could just hear them, it was pretty equal. Both spouted nonsense and both had decent points regarding the other. Home where I had visuals, before I switched, she looked relaxed and yes healthy. She even appeared amused by him.He was flustered and floundering. There were at least two opportunities where he could have landed blows on her policies which he lost by being defensive. His judgment is better than her's, but that is an incredibly low bar. Based on 2, she won. ..."
    "... Ironic that in this post-democratic world I watched my first political debate ever. Give the credit to the great entertainer: Donald Trump. Problem was: he wasn't the least bit entertaining tonight. I thought Clinton did well, however she is playing a losing hand. Trump is on the right side of all the issues that matter. Unfortunately(for everyone) the only reality Clinton and the entire western political establishment cares about is how many of the 1% will pay $500 a plate for a dinner and a speech. ..."
    "... Bottom line is, all Murica could do was cough up these two turds. Yeah, deliberately mixed metaphor. Main difference is, if Trump gets elected it will certify Murica before the whole world as a country full of arseholes who've finally got to elect their very own Arsehole in Chief. ..."
    "... One point made by a friend of the blog: Neither candidate appealed to anyone other than their base. And it's hard to see why anyone undecided would be moved. It's even harder to see why a voter committed to Johnson or Stein would move. ..."
    "... Watched the whole thing. Trump missed a good opportunity to respond to Hillary's comment that trickle down was the reason for the financial crisis. Trump could have spoken up and said it was Goldman Sachs and big banks that played the key role in bringing on the financial crisis – which would have lead many to think again about her speeches at GS. Outside of the fact that Hillary's comment made me super confused – and maybe Trump as well – it would have been great if he could have mentioned the banks and what did she promise the big banks during her speeches. ..."
    "... I was wondering if he's holding the GS speech transcripts in reserve? I was hoping for more of a pounding. I wonder if his team will do polling to determine how hard-hitting he can go before it gets too negative? The history of Glass-Steagall repeal is pretty damning. I'm also hoping to hear her defence of her cattle futures trading, but perhaps that is too ancient of history? ..."
    "... Also, was interesting wrt his usage of the word "secretary" - a la Scott Adams, I suspect he's hoping the average viewer will subconsciously associate Hillary with the office secretary, rather than Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Before I forget, Trump was very strong on trade, early. Nailed Clinton on NAFTA, nailed her on TPP. Fits right in with "you've had 30 years," but (B team, not top tier school) he didn't keep hammering that point. An early win (on the theory that debates are won early) but for me overshadowed by the rest of it). ..."
    "... Absolutely. If it had been a 35 minute debate, Trump would have won hands down. Of course, the minute they moved to taxes, the incoherence of Trump's economic policy becomes apparent. ..."
    "... Among others, 3 mistakes by Trump that a seasoned politician wouldn't have made. First, Clinton accuses him of not paying maids, contractors, architects, etc. and Trump basically agrees. He doesn't dispute this, instead says "maybe they didn't do the work." In a time of economic stagnation, this was a miss. (A seasoned politician would have just lied and said "not true.") Second, the tax stuff where Clinton outlines possible reasons he isn't releasing and he didn't do the simple thing and say "none of those are true." Instead, maybe not paying taxes is a "smart thing." Third, Trump can't even do the short work to memorize a story tying the creation of ISIS to Clinton's interventionism (and thus refugee crisis). Instead he bloviates about the Iran deal that very few Americans know enough about to judge good or bad. ..."
    "... Not having watched one second of this "debate," I think it's important to note that there are many different kinds of communication. As far as I can tell, Trump's a decent salesman. That's a very specific type of communication, that specifically is NOT about delivering information or or enhancing understanding. It's about establishing control of your target and leading them to do/buy what you want them to do/buy. It doesn't sound like he figured out a way to make this very different situation work for him, the way he apparently did the very different Republican debates. Note that I'm not claiming he IS a master communicator. I don't think either of them are. ..."
    "... Trump is giving mixed messages - that's his communication failure. We're supposed to be disgusted by Obama/Clinton foreign policy, but it's never clear why. Because the policy is failed at the start - intervening in Middle Eastern affairs is foolish? Or, we should be intervening for the sake of American power? Trump never articulates a policy goal either way. This is the empty rhetoric of "America first." He never argues a long term strategy of foreign policy for America or the world at large ..."
    "... I don't consider Hillary Clinton very smart. Her complete lack of morals and empathy are a far more significant factor in her success than her intelligence. Trump seems fairly bright in some ways, and he's certainly good at understanding certain kinds of non-verbal communication. (For example, all that gold that seems so vulgar to one audience is very appealing to another.) Beyond that, I have no strong opinion about him in this regard. Do I think he's a sizzling intellect? No. ..."
    "... I'm basically with Lambert: the best we can hope for is gridlock. But since Clinton is running as an efficient, bloodthirsty Republican, and what she really wants to do is wage war, which requires no Congressional action, Trump's the better bet for gridlock, even with a Republican majority. We'll get Democrats forced to playact the role of "Democrat;" it's something. ..."
    "... Clinton doesn't have her thumbs on the button yet she's just threatened Russia with a cyber-war in retaliation for purported Russian attacks on the DNC etc., 'hacks' for which there is less proof than there is an interest on Clinton's part in changing the channel away from what the 'hacks' revealed about her own nefarious doings. So, in retaliation for something that may not have happened at all Clinton's instinct is to hit what could well be the wrong guy because it suits her personal interest – more egregious still, in this instance the wrong guy happens to be engaged in an existential struggle for independent, sovereign survival on the same planet as the US Empire and quite desperately needs an American leader of calibre. ..."
    "... If he'd wanted to win he could've sat down with any high school coach to map out a strategy and a set of talking points that would not just defeat Clinton, but quite possibly send a bunch of people to jail. That's why it's Trump (or could've been Cruz). You could not draw a more perfect stereo-typically encumbered character beside which to contrast Clinton, whose entire public career persona has been premised on 'breaking down' same – even if her husband did send a million poor, mostly young black Americans away to rot in fantastically lucrative private prisons working for slave wages. ..."
    "... Trump doesn't have to play that "arrest the banker" card to win, and there are plenty of reasons why he would not, including he wants to stay alive. Plus, there's selling and then there's giving away. ..."
    "... Senior Romney strategist: Trump brought 20 minutes of material to a 90 minute show. ..."
    "... Personally, I'm not sure laziness is a disqualifying characteristic in a Presidential candidate. If a machine is so broken that all its outputs are bad, then it behooves one to turn the crank more slowly than faster. ..."
    "... This was a pathetic performance all around. Hillary looked like a polished turd in the debate, compared to Trump who came off as an unpolished turd. My feeling is that Hillary was the "winner" though that word doesn't seem suitable. ..."
    "... Yes she jabbed him to death, while Trump held his punches. The question is: why? Having already done the Foreman trick of KOing five guys in one night, was he guarding against punching himself out? Seeing he's already won debates with aggression, was he trying to win by playing defense? Am I simply reading into it what I want to – spinning for Trump to excuse a mediocre performance? ..."
    "... Did Trump suffer a mini-stroke on stage? After slurring a word, he began to answer questions for a while with incoherent, freely associated chains of slogans and phrases. This, about the time he blurted out about Hillary's stamina–, psychological projection perhaps? Then he began to list to his left and lean pronouncedly on his podium. After the debate, he left the hall rather too promptly. Was the elderly Trump physically fit enough to withstand a one-on-one 90 minute debate? ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    September 27, 2016 at 12:11 am

    I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him.

    Yes, and connects the $6 trillion invested in blowing up the Middle East to what it could have been used for instead, and repeatedly called out big bureaucracy for big mistakes.

    MojaveWolf September 27, 2016 at 12:15 am

    Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe it or not. I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him.

    Same with "you had 30 years to solve it." Undeniably true; Clinton's whole "let's build on our success" schtick is such a steaming lot of 10%-er-ness. But if Trump wants to make this election a referendum on the political class, he's going to have to do a lot better than this

    Agreed here. My SO put it better than me: Hillary gave no indication she is going to change the course we are on now; in fact, reading between the lines, she thinks things are going great and there is no reason to change anything. " And Trump did do a good job of identifying a number of things that are wrong, even if he wasn't particularly articulate in discussing them.

    I think there is a better chance that Trump will actually try to fix things, but tax policy and several other things did not give me great hope that he has any idea how to fix things, or will learn & adapt quickly enough. On the plus side, some people talk better than they deliver; some people deliver better than they talk. At least there's a chance he's one of the latter.

    Hillary… we know what we are getting. She won't deliver better than she talks. I have nothing kind to say here, other than she did a good job of finishing her sentences, and her tax policy is better than Trump's. And that she used to be much, much better in debates. I remain flummoxed that people are giving her credit for doing well in this one.

    ilporcupine September 27, 2016 at 12:49 am

    Trump makes an occasional noise in that direction, IF there has been a related segment on the talk shows or one of the conservative sites. Where in his stated policy (ie on his website or in positions in writing) is anything to suggest he will fix any of that misery? Tax cuts and deregulation? Letting him negotiate trade deals, instead of Obama people?

    I can't find where he would refuse "trade deals", only ones "These Morons running things" have negotiated. I'm betting he would push them with minor changes, as will HRC. ISDS is a foregone conclusion, with either. Jesus, one of his advisors is Larry f'n Kudlow. If the regulars here are not appalled by the guys he has surrounded himself with, I sure am. I can see it coming…

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:35 am

    > if the regulars here are not appalled

    Henry Kissinger and George W. Bush set a pretty high bar not being appalled, amiright?

    aab September 27, 2016 at 1:53 am

    At least Trump has the good taste not to have Kudlow sit on his lap. Or vice versa.

    Reading liberals explain how George W. Bush is just a misunderstood patriot has been…educational. Not in the way they intend.

    I think Trump's probably serious about trade. But if I understand the structural issues correctly, it doesn't really matter whether he is serious or not. Apparently the Republican base is now strongly opposed to free trade. (I think most already were, but now they have permission to affirmatively say so, and pick up stragglers.)

    I know Obama is counting on getting votes from people thrown out of office and looking for lobbying work. But I don't think there will be enough of them, will there? The Dems aren't going to flip either house, it looks like - certainly not by large numbers. That means there won't be tons of "loose" Republican votes, Republicans returning won't be incentivized to betray their incoming President for Obama, and Democrats on their way out may see shrinking lobbying opportunities, as the Democratic Party - IF Clinton doesn't take power - will be very weak at both the federal and state level.

    If my assessment is correct, TPP dies with a Trump win. There isn't an option to reopen negotiations, is there? A brand new "Trump style" treaty would take years to negotiate, and he has "one term" written all over him. This also would kill TISA, right? Is it technically contingent on TPP passing first?

    I am looking forward to Democratic Senators using secret holds and such to stop Republican tax plans that benefit corporations and the wealthy.

    Okay, now that I've stopped laughing, I'll correct this. I'm assuming BERNIE will use holds and such to stop this stuff. But it will be entertaining to watch the Democrats explain why the Republican can top from the bottom, but they never can.

    Steve C September 27, 2016 at 6:53 am

    The Democrats in opposition will be just as feckless as the Republicans have been effective.

    John Zelnicker September 27, 2016 at 9:21 am

    @aab – "This also would kill TISA, right? Is it technically contingent on TPP passing first?"

    I don't think TISA depends on TPP being passed. As I understand it, they are being negotiated separately.

    One particular provision of TISA is as bad as anything in TPP (bar ISDS) and that is the prohibition on remunicipalization of privatized public resources. Governments would not be allowed to take back things such as British Rail that have been sold off to the private sector, and would be prohibited from nationalizing any other public good now in private hands. It's another hit to national sovereignty.

    ilporcupine September 27, 2016 at 3:07 am

    You are right, indeed. I just think DT is getting more "benefit of the doubt" than is warranted, given what I know of his past, and the sources he apparently uses, and the advisors he surrounds with.

    HRC, you knew from the beginning, who she was tied to/advised by/paid for by. She is a "known known". We are all seeking to know what or who DT represents, as he is harder to pin down.

    HRC and Bill are the most successful organized crime outfit since Wall St., and that is enough to categorize them, even without the obvious foreign policy horrors .

    jrs September 27, 2016 at 1:00 am

    I don't think Clinton won every category just most. I think Trump won on "there is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC".

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:36 am

    And trade.

    OIFVet September 26, 2016 at 11:25 pm

    Time to relax and forget the debate's ugliness: Pachelbel's Canon In D Major

    fresno dan September 26, 2016 at 11:40 pm

    OIFVet
    September 26, 2016 at 11:25 pm

    thanks for that – very soothing – and in the scheme of eternity, it doesn't much matter. And the pictures are great!

    MojaveWolf September 26, 2016 at 11:27 pm

    How are we gonna survive 4 years with either of them at the helm?

    That was my take exactly. Since I don't honestly think Stein is going to win, and I think Johnson might be worse than either of these, I was hoping one of them would give me a reason to feel optimistic that they would do a decent job. They … both failed horribly.

    And what is up with all the people on NBC and now in my twitter feed repeating this mantra that "We had high expectations for Hillary, and she exceeded them!"

    What universe are they living in? Half of these people used to be Bernie supporters. Are people that easily manipulated? Did I used to be that easily manipulated? Or have I gone completely insane now. This was some kind of masterful performance? She mouthed a lot of decent sounding platitudes with no specifics re: policy (while everyone praises her for specifics, and I think she championed the ideas of specifics themselves) while doing a decent but not great job of hitting Trump on some areas where he's very vulnerable.

    He did a great job finding areas where she's vulnerable, but a terrible job of hitting her on them.

    She did a better job of finishing her sentences, but … wow. That was the bar for coherence and specificity here.

    Meanwhile, my twitter feed is full of people who think one or the other landed telling blows. The pundits all think she was terrif. His partisans seem to think he did well.

    He looked like he was posing half the time. I don't even know what to say about her expressions. I hate when people talk about stuff like that but what else is there to say here?

    My SO and I were constantly covering our eyes and putting our heads down and occasionally laughing at each others expressions and occasionally laughing so hard we had tears running down our eyes at what (both) the candidates were saying. Now it's over I just want to cry.

    I know a lot of people here are not fans of the Green Party, but hate on Jill all you want, she would have almost certainly been better up there tonight than either of these people. It would have been hard to be worse.

    cwaltz September 26, 2016 at 11:43 pm

    "Are people that easily manipulated?" Yes. Was I that easily manipulated? Probably. Don't feel bad though most of us were naïve enough to believe the BS for at least some period of time.

    This was some kind of masterful performance?

    Uh it's scripted reality TV. The "debates" are vetted and agreed upon by the two parties who sponsored the darn thing via their little pretend front group. Anyone, at this point, who thinks these things matter is fooling themselves. It's a 90 minute infomercial, so if you find infomercials masterful then I guess.

    Personally, I'm boycotting these things until they actually allow ALL the candidates that qualify for the ballot on stage.

    Jim Haygood September 27, 2016 at 12:04 am

    Thank you for pointing out that as usual, the unconstitutional and illegitimate two-party duopoly has excluded other candidates who will be on the ballot. Who exactly gave them this privilege of exclusion?

    ilporcupine September 27, 2016 at 12:22 am

    Private enterprise, Jim. You can always put up the money for third party candidates to debate on prime time. Thought that was how the market "works".

    ilporcupine September 26, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    Trump can go off on 5 tangents in each sentence. I keep waiting for him to make his damn point, already. It all comes off as gibberish. I cannot wait for a verbatim transcript of this cluster****. It will be largely incomprehensible. As for "HER", I aint with her either. We are screwwwed.

    jrs September 27, 2016 at 12:44 am

    It was like that in the Republican debates for anyone who bothered to read the transcripts. Trump was incoherent, the other candidates were basically coherent (wrong, liars and horrible many of them, but able to form a coherent sentence. Trump stood out).

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:59 am

    I disagree strongly that Trump is incoherent; I saw him in Bangor. What he is, is discursive and improvisational. He has his main points that he always circles back to, but he riffs and reacts to the crowd.

    However, that style doesn't work for him in this debate. He doesn't get to determine the structure, there's no time in a two minute answer to do the kind of excursions he likes to do, and the crowd was told not to react.

    The format works very much against Trump, and very much for Clinton. Delivering bullet points successfully is a marker that a candidate is president-y. Considering what PowerPoint has done to the Pentagon, that might not be such a great idea, but it is what it is and we are where we are.

    Meteor2016 September 26, 2016 at 11:30 pm

    hmmm, time online poll says trump won 56-44.

    http://time.com/4506217/presidential-debate-clinton-trump-survey/

    Yves Smith September 26, 2016 at 11:58 pm

    Prediction markets are saying she killed him. I would look to see the results of multiple online polls. Both Hillary and Trump fans will be trying to game them but it will be hard to skew results across the entire web.

    Nelson Lowhim September 27, 2016 at 12:19 am

    how accurate were these during the primary?

    Yves Smith September 27, 2016 at 5:29 am

    Dunno with Rs, but the online polls showed Sanders to be a winner in debates where the MSM called him a loser, and Sanders continued gains in later, conventional polls v. Clinton seemed way more in line with the online polls than MSM takes.

    PhilU September 27, 2016 at 9:34 am

    I'm surprised that no one mentioned the one best line to the non political junkie. They HATE political commercials. He nailed her on spending Millions attacking him and he came across gentlemanly saying he wouldn't / hasn't done that to her.

    Frenchguy September 27, 2016 at 1:24 am

    Since the Brexit fiasco, I'm extremely skeptical when it comes to prediction markets (at least on political subjects…).

    fresno dan September 26, 2016 at 11:37 pm

    All I can think after I watched this is that I could have dismembered, dissected, discombobulated, and reduced Hillary not only to cells, not just to molecules, but to quarks.
    looking at it, I just can't see how anybody could think Trump is actually very smart, or smart, or much above ANY New York cabbie…or any or those horses in central park….or the south end of any of those horses….

    Honestly, I've seen 5 years olds who could resist the bait better than Trump…

    ilporcupine September 27, 2016 at 12:04 am

    The Donald can't even shut up for the HRC time allotment. "Debate?" Schoolyard tiff!

    EGrise September 27, 2016 at 12:13 am

    This.

    jrs September 27, 2016 at 12:17 am

    I don't know why this is surprising, Trump is the narcissist he is regardless of what people want to project on him. Of course none of that makes Clinton any better.

    Whether it's effective, eh who knows, if it's authoritarians voting for him maybe that is what they like, but I don't think there are enough of them for him to win on that alone. If people are just casting random angry votes for anything but the status quo then maybe.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:38 am

    > narcissist

    I disagree. I think both candidates are isolated within elite bubbles, leading to behaviors we consider narcissistic (armchair diagnosis, when you think about it. I mean, "I'm with her….")

    Skippy September 27, 2016 at 4:48 am

    So which one is the Grandiose and the other an Insecure type – ??????

    John S September 26, 2016 at 11:49 pm

    I watched the debate on CSPAN, where a split screen was used that showed the candidates at all times…

    ….Did anyone else notice how consistently Hillary looked down at the podium? I believe she was being fed "Cliff Notes" ON AN IPAD by her staff re every topic that was bought up….she was ALWAYS looking down and, I assume she was being fed CUES AND WORDS OR PHRASES that she should use….she not only looked down a lot before the time she was supposed to speak but also looked down a lot during her responses……

    OTOH, Trump was "winging it" and "shooting from the hip"…..Hillary won because the notes kept her on track….If trump had done any serious prep and could take advice, he could have destroyed her…But, he doesn't do prep, so he can't effectively respond…….

    She was told to smile when he attacked….she did this……this response aggravated me, but didn't hurt her with the public of "Undecideds"

    He was told to refrain from interrupting…he did an excellent job of interjecting comments at the beginning, but lost control as the night wore on…..

    Lester was about the worst Moderator I have listened/watched/prayed for during a Debate…..of course, the job is "thankless"

    Hillary's closing comments were stronger, but by then I don't think their were many left watching who were "Persuadables"….those of us left were "political junkies" hoping for a last lap NASCAR worthy Candidate Crash…..

    I think Trump had the opportunity to win the debate handed to him on a silver platter by Hillary, but his failure to Prepare and Do the Little Things that would have helped him be ready for her totally expected responses/statements/stalking points cost him dearly…..

    He remains the Rich Guy, who does what he wants….. She remains the Robotic Gal, who will probably get what she wants….

    Sad…….

    (and, thanks, Lambert)

    TheCatSaid September 27, 2016 at 12:06 am

    Yes she was looking down a lot. Were they allowed to have iPads to look at?

    I felt she was listening a lot–she had that look some newscasters have when their producers are telling them updated news or giving suggestions through an ear device. Could she have been wired up? Are there rules about this?

    Elizabeth September 27, 2016 at 12:31 am

    I think one of the CBS commentators said that Hillary appeared to be using notes. She did look down a lot, and I also thought she seemed unusually subdued. At times she appeared to look sleepy and bored. I don't think this "debate" changed anyone's mind. I think Trump was trying to "dial it back", and he did miss several opportunities to zing Clinton. It did confirm one thing for me – we're all screwed.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:47 am

    > Trump was trying to "dial it back"

    Yes, you could tell that from his tone of voice. I've heard him deliver the same talking points, but with more verve.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:33 am

    I don't think in the great scheme of things this matters much. If there was an iPad and it worked for Clinton, then why the heck didn't the Trump team give their guy an equivalent advantage?

    (If true, this shows the dangers of an overly lean campaign team.)

    Pat September 26, 2016 at 11:51 pm

    Two impressions, on the bus where I could just hear them, it was pretty equal. Both spouted nonsense and both had decent points regarding the other. Home where I had visuals, before I switched, she looked relaxed and yes healthy. She even appeared amused by him.He was flustered and floundering. There were at least two opportunities where he could have landed blows on her policies which he lost by being defensive. His judgment is better than her's, but that is an incredibly low bar. Based on 2, she won.

    Based on the nonsense they both reeled off the biggest loser tonight, election day and the future are the American people either way.

    Jim Haygood September 27, 2016 at 12:18 am

    J-Yel must be shocked that Trump ripped her early on. The earnest bureaucrats at the Fed are not used to being fodder for campaign criticism.

    Trump went on to call today's economy a "big fat Bubble." (I call it Bubble III.) He implied that one rate hike will be the pin that pops it, and he's probably right.

    Knowing this does not mean he can do anything about it. Currently J-Yel plans to hike in December during the interregnum, when the US political system is inert and the MSM is all focused on cabinet picks.

    Almost certainly, the next president will have a close-up, personal encounter with a harsh recession. The only advice from pros is "get it behind you early." That's why I have it penciled in for 2017-18.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:38 am

    > 2017-2018

    That's what the hotel people think (see yesterday's water cooler). Hotel bookings being a fine indicator of the animal spirits of the managing and investing classes. Whether they are a leading indicator remains to be seen….

    cm September 27, 2016 at 12:39 am

    Fed is political, no doubt about that:

    I quote :

    And in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson, who wanted cheap credit to finance the Vietnam War and his Great Society, summoned Fed chairman William McChesney Martin to his Texas ranch. There, after asking other officials to leave the room, Johnson reportedly shoved Martin against the wall as he demanding that the Fed once again hold down interest rates. Martin caved, the Fed printed money, and inflation kept climbing until the early 1980s.

    EoinW September 27, 2016 at 12:19 am

    Ironic that in this post-democratic world I watched my first political debate ever. Give the credit to the great entertainer: Donald Trump. Problem was: he wasn't the least bit entertaining tonight. I thought Clinton did well, however she is playing a losing hand. Trump is on the right side of all the issues that matter. Unfortunately(for everyone) the only reality Clinton and the entire western political establishment cares about is how many of the 1% will pay $500 a plate for a dinner and a speech.

    Regarding tonight's shenanagans, I thought Lester Holt was the winner. A good moderator should be virtually invisible, let the candidates do their thing. Clinton scored her debating points but I'm not convinced that won her any votes. Was Trump performing in a strait jacket? Seemed like he was more worried about appearing reserved and presidential. And holy repetitive! I was looking forward to Tyson-Spinks, instead I got Tyson-Douglas! Yet I wouldn't be surprised if it all worked and Trump comes out ahead in the polls. He certainly didn't look scary tonight. Boring yes, however doesn't boring deflate these ideas that he's an out of control amateur who can't be trusted?

    Brad September 27, 2016 at 12:34 am

    Bottom line is, all Murica could do was cough up these two turds. Yeah, deliberately mixed metaphor. Main difference is, if Trump gets elected it will certify Murica before the whole world as a country full of arseholes who've finally got to elect their very own Arsehole in Chief.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:44 am

    One point made by a friend of the blog: Neither candidate appealed to anyone other than their base. And it's hard to see why anyone undecided would be moved. It's even harder to see why a voter committed to Johnson or Stein would move.

    Therefore, we would not expect the polls to move. And what matters is a tiny population of voters in swing counties in swing states (not national polls), which data is not available to us.

    Of course, since the political class is all in for Clinton, they will portray it as an overwhelming win for Clinton (as did I, since I am a 10%-er manqué ). However, exactly as with TV advertising, the pronouncements of the political class have had greatly diminished returns this year….

    I'll be interested what old-school people like Nooners have to say….

    manymusings September 27, 2016 at 2:54 am

    I don't see them as playing only to their respective bases - it seems like they also were trying to affect overarching narratives. Clinton's case against Trump is that he's monstrous. I think he cut against that indictment tonight (and it wasn't a foregone conclusion that he would). Trump's case against Clinton is that she's a corrupt and dishonest version of politics as usual, which already is corrupt and dishonest. I don't know whether she moved the dial on that. Apart from immediate reactions, wonder if there will be any shifts.

    Susan C September 27, 2016 at 12:46 am

    Watched the whole thing. Trump missed a good opportunity to respond to Hillary's comment that trickle down was the reason for the financial crisis. Trump could have spoken up and said it was Goldman Sachs and big banks that played the key role in bringing on the financial crisis – which would have lead many to think again about her speeches at GS. Outside of the fact that Hillary's comment made me super confused – and maybe Trump as well – it would have been great if he could have mentioned the banks and what did she promise the big banks during her speeches.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:53 am

    Very good point on Goldman. In a way, it seems that Clinton threw the kitchen sink on Trump (her assault on his business dealings, using the income tax thing as a hook, was prepared but highly effective). But Trump didn't throw the kitchen sink back at her. Odd.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 27, 2016 at 2:56 am

    Rope-a-dope? There are still two more debates. America loves an underdog

    aab September 27, 2016 at 6:01 am

    Voting has already started. I don't see any benefit to going soft on her. He relied on free media in the primary, and he has much less money than she does. If he's serious about winning, this was an important opportunity that he apparently blew. The next one isn't even a pseudo-debate, is it? I read today it's a Town Hall - i.e., completely useless. Actually less than useless; it should be a very poor format for him, and a very protected format for her.

    By the time they get to the next direct confrontation, a lot of votes will have been banked.

    pretzelattack September 27, 2016 at 6:12 am

    i'm starting to try to mentally prepare myself for a clinton win. or steal, or whatever. "i survived reagan, i didn't totally lose it during the time of the chimp, i can do this. happy thoughts".

    aab September 27, 2016 at 6:52 am

    I can't. I'm too afraid of her. I can picture surviving Trump. But Clinton really scares me. I have a draft age child; that's a not insignificant element. That plus TPP.

    Sorry if I'm harshing your buzz.

    John Zelnicker September 27, 2016 at 9:39 am

    @aab – I feel your pain about your kid and the draft. I was in the first draft lottery in 1969 and came out with #27. Fortunately, I was able to avoid being drafted due to it being suspended for the first 90 days of 1972 because they had enough soldiers and were beginning to draw down the forces in Viet Nam.

    cm September 27, 2016 at 1:02 am

    I was wondering if he's holding the GS speech transcripts in reserve? I was hoping for more of a pounding. I wonder if his team will do polling to determine how hard-hitting he can go before it gets too negative? The history of Glass-Steagall repeal is pretty damning. I'm also hoping to hear her defence of her cattle futures trading, but perhaps that is too ancient of history?

    Also, was interesting wrt his usage of the word "secretary" - a la Scott Adams, I suspect he's hoping the average viewer will subconsciously associate Hillary with the office secretary, rather than Secretary of State.

    Old news (from May), but sad to see the "fact checkers" on the birther origins

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:50 am

    Before I forget, Trump was very strong on trade, early. Nailed Clinton on NAFTA, nailed her on TPP. Fits right in with "you've had 30 years," but (B team, not top tier school) he didn't keep hammering that point. An early win (on the theory that debates are won early) but for me overshadowed by the rest of it).

    relstprof September 27, 2016 at 1:07 am

    Absolutely. If it had been a 35 minute debate, Trump would have won hands down. Of course, the minute they moved to taxes, the incoherence of Trump's economic policy becomes apparent.

    relstprof September 27, 2016 at 1:03 am

    Among others, 3 mistakes by Trump that a seasoned politician wouldn't have made. First, Clinton accuses him of not paying maids, contractors, architects, etc. and Trump basically agrees. He doesn't dispute this, instead says "maybe they didn't do the work." In a time of economic stagnation, this was a miss. (A seasoned politician would have just lied and said "not true.") Second, the tax stuff where Clinton outlines possible reasons he isn't releasing and he didn't do the simple thing and say "none of those are true." Instead, maybe not paying taxes is a "smart thing." Third, Trump can't even do the short work to memorize a story tying the creation of ISIS to Clinton's interventionism (and thus refugee crisis). Instead he bloviates about the Iran deal that very few Americans know enough about to judge good or bad.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:11 am

    Trump's team needs to slap some sense into him (if that's possible and he can listen). So many winning arguments left on the table (and ripe for Trump's simple language, too).

    relstprof September 27, 2016 at 3:33 am

    Upon a second watch of the debate (ok, I'm crazy), he actually does make the point about the creation of ISIS. Unfortunately, his rhetoric ends on "we should have taken the oil." So he doesn't distinguish the story as the failure of Obama/Clinton foreign policy as a policy of interventionism . His argument is that interventionism must pay out in some way.

    Trump didn't help himself by claiming earlier that Clinton has been fighting ISIS her whole life. That obvious gaffe makes it hard to hear anything he says later in the debate.

    I'm in agreement with Corey Robin - Trump is not a master communicator. Pace Scott Adams.

    Also, it's not nice that Hillary buys negative ads

    aab September 27, 2016 at 3:54 am

    Not having watched one second of this "debate," I think it's important to note that there are many different kinds of communication. As far as I can tell, Trump's a decent salesman. That's a very specific type of communication, that specifically is NOT about delivering information or or enhancing understanding. It's about establishing control of your target and leading them to do/buy what you want them to do/buy. It doesn't sound like he figured out a way to make this very different situation work for him, the way he apparently did the very different Republican debates. Note that I'm not claiming he IS a master communicator. I don't think either of them are.

    So many people are saying she was obviously looking down a lot and reading from notes or possibly an iPad. If so, why wouldn't he call her out on it?

    relstprof September 27, 2016 at 4:32 am

    Trump is giving mixed messages - that's his communication failure. We're supposed to be disgusted by Obama/Clinton foreign policy, but it's never clear why. Because the policy is failed at the start - intervening in Middle Eastern affairs is foolish? Or, we should be intervening for the sake of American power? Trump never articulates a policy goal either way. This is the empty rhetoric of "America first." He never argues a long term strategy of foreign policy for America or the world at large .

    NATO is just a tool. For what? Not clear.

    If you think, well: America shouldn't be articulating a strategy for global politics. Fine. I'm happy to listen, but so far, Trump hasn't even made this idea coherent.

    relstprof September 27, 2016 at 4:38 am

    But I'm an internationalist socialist, so what do I know?

    aab September 27, 2016 at 5:12 am

    Bear in mind, I didn't watch tonight. I'm not an expert on Trump. But I'm so sick of all this discourse around "intelligence" and "communication" that defines both concepts in extremely limited and fundamentally false ways that align with the proclivities of those in the position to do the defining. I don't consider Hillary Clinton very smart. Her complete lack of morals and empathy are a far more significant factor in her success than her intelligence. Trump seems fairly bright in some ways, and he's certainly good at understanding certain kinds of non-verbal communication. (For example, all that gold that seems so vulgar to one audience is very appealing to another.) Beyond that, I have no strong opinion about him in this regard. Do I think he's a sizzling intellect? No.

    Again, salesmanship has nothing to do with messaging per se. In fact, one sales technique would be to using contradictory messaging at differing points in the sales path, to confuse the target. Salesmanship is about control and manipulation.

    Persuasion is a different process, where messaging, as the term is generally used, matters.

    I would have liked him to take her out tonight. But beyond the strategic goal of keeping her out of power, I don't know whether I'd prefer a smart and/or disciplined Trump over a less smart, less disciplined one. I'd like him to be smart enough not to be a stooge for the existing "bipartisan" elite, since merely resisting their desires and goals seems like it would good for the rest of us. But it's possible (probable?) he means all or part of that noxious traditional Republican swill he's offering up. In which case, being less smart and less disciplined might be better in terms of him acting as an obstacle to business as usual - as long as he's stubborn.

    I'm basically with Lambert: the best we can hope for is gridlock. But since Clinton is running as an efficient, bloodthirsty Republican, and what she really wants to do is wage war, which requires no Congressional action, Trump's the better bet for gridlock, even with a Republican majority. We'll get Democrats forced to playact the role of "Democrat;" it's something.

    That's why I focus mostly on the structural stuff. We know what Clinton is and will do, and it's horrendous. That's why throwing the Trump spanner into the works is worth doing. I would love for him to govern way to the left of how he ran, just as Obama governed way to the right of how he ran. But there really aren't a lot of incentives for Trump to do that, unlike for Obama. I'm not naive enough to count on Trump's human decency, although I do get the impression he may have a sliver of it, unlike both Obama and Clinton. But I also think he's sincerely racist. If Clinton wasn't such a profound and effectively violent racist, Trump's racism would really give me pause.

    Anyway, my key point is that doing very badly in the format and conditions of tonight's event does not prove he is a bad communicator in some overarching sense.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:12 am

    Corey Robin:

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:16 am

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:18 am

    Fiver September 27, 2016 at 1:19 am

    Now that's what I call talent. But as one of them is going to be President, I just want to point out the one thing worth noting she said all night.

    Clinton doesn't have her thumbs on the button yet she's just threatened Russia with a cyber-war in retaliation for purported Russian attacks on the DNC etc., 'hacks' for which there is less proof than there is an interest on Clinton's part in changing the channel away from what the 'hacks' revealed about her own nefarious doings. So, in retaliation for something that may not have happened at all Clinton's instinct is to hit what could well be the wrong guy because it suits her personal interest – more egregious still, in this instance the wrong guy happens to be engaged in an existential struggle for independent, sovereign survival on the same planet as the US Empire and quite desperately needs an American leader of calibre.

    I know it's hard to look past the enormous frozen smile, still, close your eyes and try to remember the look in her eyes, the downward cut of her mouth and clamped jaw when Trump briefly brushed past a sore spot – that person in there, that is the person who will be the next Leader of The Free World, that is to say, the woman who will lead the revolution of the globalists over the tyranny of nations. The effort to re-assert US hegemony will prove calamitous.

    jrs September 27, 2016 at 1:24 am

    It does seem to me that the voice that can proclaim with little evidence that Russia hacked into the DNC can easily become the same voice that can proclaim with little evidence that Iraq has WMDs (that is the modern version of that for the enemy du jour of course).

    Skippy September 27, 2016 at 4:55 am

    Yet Trump clearly said the – WORLD – owes tribute to America and some trade wars with them including China…

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:23 am

    TheCatSaid September 27, 2016 at 2:21 am

    mtaibbi : "This will go down as one of the signature events in the history of cocaine"

    John k September 27, 2016 at 1:40 am

    All trump has to do to win handily is say 'I will jail bankers that break the law'.

    Fiver September 27, 2016 at 2:54 am

    That's actually brilliant, and the fact he didn't/hasn't so far supports my thesis – so don't expect him to try it. Trump doesn't want to win – what he wants is to lose without being a 'loser'. It's been evident for a long time now.

    If he'd wanted to win he could've sat down with any high school coach to map out a strategy and a set of talking points that would not just defeat Clinton, but quite possibly send a bunch of people to jail. That's why it's Trump (or could've been Cruz). You could not draw a more perfect stereo-typically encumbered character beside which to contrast Clinton, whose entire public career persona has been premised on 'breaking down' same – even if her husband did send a million poor, mostly young black Americans away to rot in fantastically lucrative private prisons working for slave wages.

    jrs September 27, 2016 at 2:59 am

    I suspect if he wanted to win he would spend on advertising, just saying. It may or may not pan out, but why not make use of things that might help him win if winning was what he wanted?

    Fiver September 27, 2016 at 3:25 am

    Not to mention avoiding things clearly marked 'high explosives'.

    Cry Shop September 27, 2016 at 3:36 am

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-special-1474910731
    Trump doesn't have to play that "arrest the banker" card to win, and there are plenty of reasons why he would not, including he wants to stay alive. Plus, there's selling and then there's giving away.

    If he wanted to loose and yet come out a winner, then I'd expect him to take the high ground or stake a claim in a way that would allow him to claim the vote was rigged. Not seeing that at all.

    Steve C September 27, 2016 at 7:53 am

    No way is Cruz interested in jailing banksters.

    John k September 27, 2016 at 1:51 am

    The critical issue is, we're undecideds moved?
    How about this blog? By definition, undecideds don't much like either… Pretty much like NC. So who here is now decided? And which way?

    megamike48 September 27, 2016 at 1:53 am

    Senior Romney strategist: Trump brought 20 minutes of material to a 90 minute show.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 2:36 am

    Personally, I'm not sure laziness is a disqualifying characteristic in a Presidential candidate. If a machine is so broken that all its outputs are bad, then it behooves one to turn the crank more slowly than faster.

    OK, tongue in cheek, but not 100%

    eleanor rigby September 27, 2016 at 3:05 am

    Just finished watching. She cleaned his clock, and I wanted to see him prevail. The exchange early in the debate about Trump not paying people … that really came back to mind when he started talking about how the countries we support don't pay their fair share. Really hypocritical. Bad night for DT; he will be hopping mad, kind of like after that trip to Mexico. I wonder what his reaction will be in next day or two.

    ewmayer September 27, 2016 at 3:21 am

    Scott Adams on one particular claim Trump made tonight: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150979891156/trumps-african-american-reframing

    I think Adams is prone to tunnel vision – focusing on one thing he especially likes or dislikes – as exemplified by his recent switch in endorsement from Hillary ("for my safety, as I live in CA") to Trump, based on Hillary's endorsement (hard to tell if genuine or mere triangulation) of the estate tax.

    In tonight's case, I suspect any points Trump may have won for the statement Adams focuses on were more than negated by his stop-and-frisk inanity, but being white like Adams, I can't claim to speak for the AA community in any way.

    On a separate-but-related note, my sister – who strongly supported Bernie during the primaries – does seem to fit Adam's claim that subjective impressions rule, and we humans busily construct rational-sounding narratives to justify our gut takes. In her case, she appears to have been as off-put by Hillary's Martin-Shkreli-esque smug smirking as Yves was:

    I watched almost all of it and thought he did pretty well, in fact i thought he totally trounced her in many areas. I'm shocked to see every single mainstream media outlet say she was the clear winner and he was the total loser and unprepared. She was smug and ingenuous [sic – she clearly meant 'dis'-], can't stand her.

    Yves Smith September 27, 2016 at 5:51 am

    Sanders supporters are not representative of anything other than Sanders supporters…but they do constitute a decent chuck of Dem voters and bigger chunk of independents. The ones who were paying attention were painfully of the MSM misrepresentations re Sanders, the DNC putting its finger on the scale (confirmed only by Wikileaks), Clinton campaign totally bogus attacks (BernieBros, when he had more female millennial supporters than male AND Clinton supporters were more aggressive in social media than Sanders supporters), and the rampant cheating in NY and even worse in CA. So there is a burning resentment of Clinton in many Sanders voters looking for continued proof of Clinton's dishonesty and bad character.

    Having said all that, a contact who is a "pox on both their houses" type said the comments re Clinton's smugness were widespread. The question is then how big a demerit that is to different voters.

    jgordon September 27, 2016 at 3:52 am

    This was a pathetic performance all around. Hillary looked like a polished turd in the debate, compared to Trump who came off as an unpolished turd. My feeling is that Hillary was the "winner" though that word doesn't seem suitable.

    I will preface this by saying that substance and issues are completely irrelevant now. If you are someone who cares about that stuff then you're out of luck this time around.

    1) All the people who already like Trump thought he was great, while everyone who hates him will stick with Hillary. Independents, I don't know. I can't imagine that people are going to be motivated to do much of anything either way after that.

    2) Trump had multiple opputinites to destroy Hillary and end the race but passed them all up. The consequence is that this will continue dragging out. Hillary did about as well as she could have considering how compromised she is; she is lucky that Trump is was so unprepared.

    3) Trump had shown an ability to learn from his mistakes. I want to believe that he will immediately start doing preparation for the next debate rather than blowing this off. If he fails to, whether or not he can win will be in doubt.

    4) As someone else mentioned the one thing of actual import said tonight was by Hillary: she reiterated that she wants to get belligerent with Russia over these these cyber attacks, even though there is zero evidence of Russian involvement in them. This is a reaffirmation of of why Hillary scares the crap out of me, and the reason she is unfit to be president.

    5) We know something more about Trump's character now: He's a smart, lazy, loudmouthed braggart who relies on his very good intuition and people skills decide things. He wings everything because he can't be bothered to study anything too deeply. Hillary? She is a very well scripted psychopath with bad people skills. And she enjoys war. Lots and lots of war.

    6) I'm going to call this debate a wash even if it was slightly in Hillary's favor. Trump is still on a trajectory to win, he's just going to have to put in actual effort accomplish that–which he should realize now.

    7) We are screwed no matter who is president in 2017, but simply as a matter of survival we have to support Trump.

    8) surprisingly Hillary didn't keel over tonight. This is both good and bad. Good for Trump because Hillary is someone he's likely to win against, bad for us because there is still a slight chance that Hillary could win, meaning that war war and more war, including nuclear war, could be on the agenda from 2017 on. I don't believe we'll survive that.

    Lambert Strether September 27, 2016 at 3:53 am

    One more:

    Trump is talking about problems… Hillary is talking about solutions. Voters always want to hear solutions. #DebateNight - Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) September 27, 2016

    So Clinton stole Trump's clothes on law and order (which she would do; "super-predators," for-profit prisons).

    jrs September 27, 2016 at 4:00 am

    If voters always want to hear solutions Bernie Sanders would be on that stage tonight.

    aab September 27, 2016 at 4:20 am

    The reason Bernie is not on the stage is because Clinton stole the primary.

    Ian September 27, 2016 at 8:39 am

    + however many votes were stolen and however many voters disenfranchised.

    Michael Fiorillo September 27, 2016 at 6:23 am

    To use a boxing metaphor, Hillary by decision.

    EoinW September 27, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Yes she jabbed him to death, while Trump held his punches. The question is: why? Having already done the Foreman trick of KOing five guys in one night, was he guarding against punching himself out? Seeing he's already won debates with aggression, was he trying to win by playing defense? Am I simply reading into it what I want to – spinning for Trump to excuse a mediocre performance?

    I guess all politicians and non-politicians have their limitations. Trump's talent is he's a salesman and what he sells is himself. He's not an intellectual. He's likely not even a thoughtful person. What amused me most tonight was his egotism. Compared to Trump, if Narcissus looked at his reflection he'd be filled with self loathing.

    Hana M September 27, 2016 at 7:20 am

    "Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe it or not. I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him. Same with "you had 30 years to solve it." Undeniably true; Clinton's whole "let's build on our success" schtick is such a steaming lot of 10%-er-ness. But if Trump wants to make this election a referendum on the political class, he's going to have to do a lot better than this. If you regard success in the debate as emitting presidential markers (like NATO Article 5), then Clinton unquestionably won."

    Well said and thanks for doing this, Lambert. I went to bed right after the debate so it's great to get a recap with this excellent comment thread. I watched on C-Span and after the debate the candidates went down to the foot of the stage and it seemed that apart from family no one wanted to shake Trump's hand. The whole crowd was around Clinton. Trump and his family just looked at each other and headed for the exit. It was weird and sad.

    stefan September 27, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Did Trump suffer a mini-stroke on stage? After slurring a word, he began to answer questions for a while with incoherent, freely associated chains of slogans and phrases. This, about the time he blurted out about Hillary's stamina–, psychological projection perhaps? Then he began to list to his left and lean pronouncedly on his podium. After the debate, he left the hall rather too promptly. Was the elderly Trump physically fit enough to withstand a one-on-one 90 minute debate?

    [Sep 27, 2016] Bruce Springsteen calls Donald Trump a 'moron'

    Sep 27, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Springsteen, who has dramatised the plight of working-class Americans in his music, said he understands how Trump could seem "compelling" to people who are economically insecure.

    "The absurdity is beyond cartoon-like. But he's gotten close enough [to the White House] so it can make you nervous," he told the talk show Skavlan.

    "I don't think he's going to win, but even him running is a great embarrassment if you're an American," he said.

    Trump knows how to tell voters "some of the things they want to hear," he added, including to people "uncomfortable with the 'browning' of America."

    "We have certain problems in the United States – tremendous inequality of wealth distribution. That makes for ripe ground for demagoguery," Springsteen said.

    "He has a very simple answer to all these very, very complex problems."

    Springsteen recorded the interview with the talk show ahead of next week's release of his memoir, Born to Run, which describes his childhood in New Jersey and rise to fame.

    The singer, famous for his onstage stamina, has drawn a diverse field of devoted fans for decades, including New Jersey governor Chris Christie, one of Trump's most public backers.

    Springsteen insisted for years that he would let his music speak for him but has been more openly political since the election in 2004, when he campaigned for John Kerry in his unsuccessful bid to win the White House from George W Bush.


    370530e , 2016-09-26 08:04:36
    I like Springsteen but I don't look to pop stars for political insights.
    Mark Newman , 2016-09-26 07:23:30
    One hit wonder boy who climbed to fame on the back of his jingoistic melody 'Born in the USA.' What he knows about politics could be written on a stamp!
    Brian Wozniak , 2016-09-25 05:01:56
    Finally. Poverty in the US could have been wiped out completely by the amount of money Hilary spent on her campaign. 300 million dollars.

    Her priorities are already overspending, not conservative values.

    jaget80 Brian Wozniak , 2016-09-25 06:03:49
    Poverty in US could have been wiped out any year for 40 years if 1% of the military budget would have gone to creating jobs.
    ID4909056 Brian Wozniak , 2016-09-25 08:12:14
    By giving everyone in USA a $1 candy bar? = $300m.
    Brian Wozniak , 2016-09-25 05:00:10
    I don't know too about Hilary being the ebb and flow of this countrys future. She outspent Trump 3 to 1. She spent a wooping 360 million dollars on this campaign alone. The Libertarian party also spent it up up to 7 million for their parties choice of President.

    Some are saying that Hilary is not so popular with the vulture class. Those who feel that her 300,000 a plate dinners to raise huge wads of cash could be spent on the poor.

    PREP58 , 2016-09-25 02:47:14
    1. Springsteen is eminently qualified to comment on being in a moronic state. (Huh?)
    2. The issue doesn't revolve around the candidates' intelligence , but rather the ability to make sound, timely and balanced judgments on many things with which you may or may not have requisite familiarity. THOSE DECISIONS MUST BE MADE WITH COURAGE and sometimes almost instantly.
    3. Then, there is there are the issues of Trust, Honesty, Openness and the SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.
    But, then, I'm a Yank. (I hold 2 MBA's, I'm a Senior, a former executive with a major international corporation, a father and grandfather, and a Veteran.), so what do I know?
    Surrealistic PREP58 , 2016-09-25 04:42:32

    ... so what do I know?

    Very little about Trump by the sound of it. Trust? Honesty? Openness? You have a nerve using those words in the same sentence as Trump.
    hadeze242 , 2016-09-24 23:05:21
    against Sanders (who gave up far too soon) neither Hillary nor Trump would have a chance. But the DNC, in its corrupt establishment wisdom, cf. Mme Wassermann-Schultz... undermined his fair chances of raising real questions of why America is slipping economically, socially, morally.
    aucontraire2 , 2016-09-24 18:26:52
    Who of the two is going to be less destructive for the US and the world ?
    Well , I am not ready to say the lady is.
    A professional politician and a non professional one. By the look of what the present has to offer, I would be inclined to go for the non professional.
    ConBrio SidekickSimon , 2016-09-24 18:59:19
    SidekickSimon ConBrio 6m ago

    Goldman Sachs made Hillary's tie? Does she even wear a tie?
    ===============
    $675,000.00 says Goldman Sachs has her tied around their chubby greedy finger.

    Washingtonian , 2016-09-24 17:37:49
    Springsteen and Trump are alike in that they are both cowards when it came time for them to do their duty in Vietnam. Springsteen told his draft board he was homosexual (funny he hasn't been acting homosexual), whereas Trump got deferments for heel spurs. Dick Cheny is like Springsteen and Trump as well in this regard.
    ironlion Washingtonian , 2016-09-24 17:45:42
    A coward for not wanting to go and kill people eh? You're a goof buddy, stick your war mongering beliefs- moron
    Crot0001 Washingtonian , 2016-09-24 19:15:20
    I thought you Americans had finally decided that the Vietnam campaign was a bad error of political judgement. Nothing cowardly about saying "no" to a draft that included, inter alia, carpet bombing of innocents and applications of agent orange where the fall out is still happening.

    [Sep 27, 2016] A highly predictable debate between the worst US bipartisan couple for decades

    Notable quotes:
    "... Tonight's first US presidential debate involves two candidates who actually depict emphatically the high degree of the US politics degeneration: deeply pro-establishment, war-thirsty Hillary Clinton, against the reserve of the establishment , racist billionaire Donald Trump. ..."
    "... She knows that these voters, and especially the American youth, had enough of the neoliberal establishment in previous years, and therefore, it would be very hard to be persuaded that the warmongering Hillary has been "relocated" further to the Left. There is no need to expose her absolute commitment to conduct more dirty wars because the US deep state and the neocons know very well that she will focus on this policy, in case that she will be the next US president. Furthermore, it seems that she does not expect anything from the most conservative voters to the Right, who are clearly determined to support Trump. ..."
    "... It appears that after Sanders, the US voters are left with zero options, again. Yet, they do have options which the corporate media don't want to become known. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens

    ...Tonight's first US presidential debate involves two candidates who actually depict emphatically the high degree of the US politics degeneration: deeply pro-establishment, war-thirsty Hillary Clinton, against the reserve of the establishment, racist billionaire Donald Trump.

    No matter how they act, no matter what they say and what rhetoric they use, they can both be identified, more or less, by the few characteristics above. It would be rather pointless for someone to expect anything better from both.

    As we approach the day of the US elections, time is running out and the two candidates will naturally focus on one thing: fix their picture to attract more voters and increase their chances to win. As polls show that it will be a tight race, the two will try to attract as many voters as possible from the huge tank of undecided US citizens.

    Hillary took a good taste from the fight for the Democratic nomination against Bernie Sanders. She will probably try to retain a more progressive profile which was forced to exhibit during the race against Bernie, in order to gain voters from the tank of the mass movement he created. She knows that these voters, and especially the American youth, had enough of the neoliberal establishment in previous years, and therefore, it would be very hard to be persuaded that the warmongering Hillary has been "relocated" further to the Left. There is no need to expose her absolute commitment to conduct more dirty wars because the US deep state and the neocons know very well that she will focus on this policy, in case that she will be the next US president. Furthermore, it seems that she does not expect anything from the most conservative voters to the Right, who are clearly determined to support Trump.

    Trump has also a difficult job. He has to find a balance between the highly conservative audience, which is the core of his voters, and the more moderate, undecided ones, who may determine the outcome of the elections. Therefore, he is expected to smooth his extremely patriotic (to the point that becomes racist) rhetoric, in order to become "more presidential", as actually warned recently by the establishment. He knows that he can't win without taking a crucial percentage of the more moderate tank.

    It appears that after Sanders, the US voters are left with zero options, again. Yet, they do have options which the corporate media don't want to become known.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 27, 2016] An Inconsequential Debate

    Notable quotes:
    "... My hunch is still that this election will come down to a deeply felt "not-Clinton" attitude in the general U.S. electorate. ..."
    "... Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly knows some very selective facts ..."
    "... The fate of the world should not be left in the hands of some Intellectuals but Idiots , to people who can not see beyond their noses, to "thinkers" for whom human history starts with their high school prom. ..."
    "... Trump started off horribly. He went after Hillary on foreign policy at the end which was pretty decent.. ..."
    "... Both went after each others shadiness. Very fun to watch. I'm not sure if it will amount to much of anything, but I at least enjoyed that she was gotten after for her atrocious policymaking. ..."
    "... Nothing of substance is allowed to be discussed. Their main function is to convince Americans that these two are the only possible choices to vote for on 8 November. ..."
    "... Spending energy on discussing presidential elections only feeds the established political psycopathy, and energizes the inherently corrupt status quo. I feel that my energy would be better spent reinforcing my local community, where a much higher degree of open democracy manifests. ..."
    "... The only countries I know about that still apply true and open democracy are Iceland and to a lesser degree Costa Rica. In Iceland at least, there is still a very valid reason to vote in the national elections. For the rest of us unfortunate souls I'm afraid that ship has sailed. ..."
    "... The idea that cataclysmic change is necessary for improvement is madness. A dramatic collapse of the Western economies will likely lead to the evil elite thrusting us into WW3. From which humanity may never recover. Collapse of the US economy has a good chance of them lashing out with their military to retain their hegemony, also leading to WW3, or a cataclysmic nuclear war. ..."
    "... Any dramatic political change will far more likely lead to the eventual rise of a fascist demagogues across western politics. The way US politics is headed, with Trump and Hitlery. ..."
    "... She fully intends to finish the annihilation of the Shia crescent from one end to the other for her Israeli/Saudi masters. The U.S. will be at war with Iran within a year if she is elected ..."
    "... If Trump wins, he too will eventually be convinced to start a war with them at the behest of his Israeli/Saudi/CIA handlers, but I expect that 'project' to take years before he's confident enough to commit to it. The U.S. might be gone by then. You would think Iranians would be a little more inclined to go with him in the interests of a few more years of Iranian self-preservation. ..."
    "... I'm somewhat convinced that if Clinton wins office (not an election); 2017 will make the last 15 years seem peaceful. My only question is; will it go nuclear? Given the insane development of small nukes, stupidly called tactical, too many have themselves convinced there is justification for their use. ..."
    "... You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for Clinton? yeah, that one threw me for a loop as well, but as you pointed out, 17 or so votes for Clinton out of 79 million Iranians is pretty much meaningless. probably just a cluster of 'progressive' exchange students. ..."
    "... Forcefully resisting the brand of globalization imposed on us by the thugs and slave drivers of disaster capitalism is a moral obligation all world citizens should embrace. When people in power live in the castle of their own lies, it is time to dismantle the fortress. When governance has lost all moral ground and reason, it is time to call for a revolution ..."
    "... The foundational myths of the United States are becoming less and less credible by the day. As more people stop believing them and, even more importantly, realize that others do not believe them either, compliance in the system becomes less and less. ..."
    "... People do not even need to think in terms of self sacrifice for some greater good, or in terms of being part of a revolution. They actually only have to realize that their own best interests are served better by non compliance than compliance. ..."
    "... In recent history 19.6% of Americans voted for neither Clinton nor Bush in 1992. A hard hurdle to beat I reckon, and frankly I can't see it happening. ..."
    "... Wrong, catalysmic collapse is what lies in stall for the US and probably Europe but it's not annihilation. Just that they got no money for hegemony anymore but they are still alive. And they still chose to remain alive just like in the Soviet Union. ..."
    "... The whole debate was unreal. Trump was bragging about his business successes with a sad grim while Hillary with a forever ironic botoxed smile and an empty look in her eyes looked like a worn out robot. It was more a scene from the Muppets show than a presidential debate! ..."
    "... I like Trump because he is hated by all the right people. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    From the first reactions I see the show made no difference to the outcome of the U.S. election. Both sides spin that their paymasters won.

    My hunch is still that this election will come down to a deeply felt "not-Clinton" attitude in the general U.S. electorate.

    Would that be good or bad? I don't know. Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly knows some very selective facts . Her general plans can be inferred from her political history. They would be mostly bad for this world. Trump doesn't care about facts, nor do most voters. Nobody seems to know what his real plans would be. With him we all are in for a lot of surprises - likely bad ones.

    From a global perspective the election again shows why U.S. global influences must be cut to size. The fate of the world should not be left in the hands of some Intellectuals but Idiots , to people who can not see beyond their noses, to "thinkers" for whom human history starts with their high school prom. Their linear analysis, their inexperience with real life, their linear solutions are inadequate for our complex, non-linear world. This needs to change.

    Such a change requires some cataclysmic events. Both candidates seem well positioned to achieve such.

    From The Hague | Sep 27, 2016 2:22:58 AM | 1
    Hillary Clinton Lost? Or was that the other one?
    Penelope #93 in:
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/09/hillary-clinton-knows-that-she-lost.html
    lemur | Sep 27, 2016 2:30:48 AM | 2
    "Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly knows some very selective facts. Her general plans can be inferred from her political history. They would be mostly bad for this world. Trump doesn't care about facts, nor do most voters."

    good argument against democracy.

    bbbb | Sep 27, 2016 2:33:23 AM | 3
    Trump started off horribly. He went after Hillary on foreign policy at the end which was pretty decent.. All and all it was cringworthy but entertaining. I think I'll be writing Harambe instead of voting for these 2
    bbbb | Sep 27, 2016 2:39:33 AM | 4
    Trump also kept pimping his business.. He clearly wants to advertise! Both went after each others shadiness. Very fun to watch. I'm not sure if it will amount to much of anything, but I at least enjoyed that she was gotten after for her atrocious policymaking.
    jfl | Sep 27, 2016 2:54:02 AM | 5
    Missed the 'debate'. In the USA the Amalgamated Republicrat/Demoblican Party controls the debates and limits participation in them to themselves ... the Republicrat and Demoblican candidates. Nothing of substance is allowed to be discussed. Their main function is to convince Americans that these two are the only possible choices to vote for on 8 November.

    I hope that more of us than ever before choose a candidate other than one of these two, ideally that both of these trail the aggregate vote cast for candidates other than themselves. That's the cataclysmic event I'd like to see happen.

    dan | Sep 27, 2016 3:26:58 AM | 6
    These people and this system depend entirely on power that we the people give them. Spending energy on discussing presidential elections only feeds the established political psycopathy, and energizes the inherently corrupt status quo. I feel that my energy would be better spent reinforcing my local community, where a much higher degree of open democracy manifests.

    I am not from the US, but the same principle applies here. The only countries I know about that still apply true and open democracy are Iceland and to a lesser degree Costa Rica. In Iceland at least, there is still a very valid reason to vote in the national elections. For the rest of us unfortunate souls I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

    tom | Sep 27, 2016 4:08:43 AM | 7
    The idea that cataclysmic change is necessary for improvement is madness. A dramatic collapse of the Western economies will likely lead to the evil elite thrusting us into WW3. From which humanity may never recover. Collapse of the US economy has a good chance of them lashing out with their military to retain their hegemony, also leading to WW3, or a cataclysmic nuclear war.

    Any dramatic political change will far more likely lead to the eventual rise of a fascist demagogues across western politics. The way US politics is headed, with Trump and Hitlery.

    And if it's not as bad as the next to worst outcomes, then the time lost necessary over the short to midterm of combating climate change, Will mean chronic food and water shortages in the frayed will see humans are reverting to selfish struggle.

    john | Sep 27, 2016 4:23:20 AM | 8
    here's some more inconsequentness.
    jfl | Sep 27, 2016 4:25:28 AM | 9
    @6 dan

    Putting your head in a hole in the sand is not going to make your or my national government go away.

    Yes, certainly work at the more democratic, more local levels of government. But if we want to stop the wars - I do - we have to (re)gain control of the national government to do so. At least we citizens of the US - author of all war in this century - must do so.

    Paying attention to these two is a waste of time. The only way to deal with them, and their endless replacements, is to deal them out of the popular vote. No to Clinton, no to Trump on 8 November ... and every election year thereafter to their elephant and jackass replacements and to those in the House and Senate as well, until we can select a minimalist platform acceptable to us in our majority and replace such candidates from the menagerie with spokespeople chosen from among ourselves.

    It's a multiyear program, but that's what it will take, it seems to me. Alternatives welcome. But it does seem to me that change is essential, and that we're the only ones who can bring it about. I'm going to do my part. I hope my 229,000,000 fellows will too.

    PavewayIV | Sep 27, 2016 4:51:42 AM | 10
    john@8 - You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for Clinton? That's hard to believe. She fully intends to finish the annihilation of the Shia crescent from one end to the other for her Israeli/Saudi masters. The U.S. will be at war with Iran within a year if she is elected (and I regretfully but sincerely expect both to happen). Drinking the blood of live infants is only going to keep her corpse alive for - what - maybe a year or two? She is going to hit the ground running, and will not be satisfied until the Iranian death toll cracks two million. She came, she saw, they died [cackle, cackle!].

    If Trump wins, he too will eventually be convinced to start a war with them at the behest of his Israeli/Saudi/CIA handlers, but I expect that 'project' to take years before he's confident enough to commit to it. The U.S. might be gone by then. You would think Iranians would be a little more inclined to go with him in the interests of a few more years of Iranian self-preservation.

    Since the on-line fantasy election is in English and only 31 Iranians have voted so far, it's probably too early to tell. I'm thinking they are not representative of the other 78 million Iranians, but who really knows?

    V. Arnold | Sep 27, 2016 4:56:53 AM | 11
    dan | Sep 27, 2016 3:26:58 AM | 6

    Indeed, left port a decade ago.
    Posted by me @ Ian Welsh's;
    Didn't watch any of "it" (not a debate).
    With all that's going on in the world today, militarily,

    I'm somewhat convinced that if Clinton wins office (not an election); 2017 will make the last 15 years seem peaceful. My only question is; will it go nuclear? Given the insane development of small nukes, stupidly called tactical, too many have themselves convinced there is justification for their use.

    Us humans are not the brightest bulbs in the known universe; I've removed optimistic/optimism from my vocabulary.
    In my definition of intelligence; humans are not even in the top 100…
    That's my view at this time; voting is a very bad joke.

    nmb | Sep 27, 2016 5:40:53 AM | 14
    A highly predictable debate between the worst US bipartisan couple for decades
    john | Sep 27, 2016 6:12:19 AM | 15
    PavewayIV says:

    You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for Clinton? yeah, that one threw me for a loop as well, but as you pointed out, 17 or so votes for Clinton out of 79 million Iranians is pretty much meaningless. probably just a cluster of 'progressive' exchange students.

    john | Sep 27, 2016 6:29:10 AM | 16
    jfl says:

    It's a multiyear program,...

    blah, blah, blah

    All members of the fake left advocate that the system must be changed progressively from within and that a collapse would be mainly a disaster for the poor and weak. This notion is as valid as to claim that a building destroyed by an earthquake is in need of some fresh window dressing. Regardless of the global elite's arrogance, a systemic collapse is on its way and will exponentially take hold of the planet within two or three decades. The super-rich will eventually have nowhere to run or hide, and no private armies to protect them from the wrath of nature.

    Forcefully resisting the brand of globalization imposed on us by the thugs and slave drivers of disaster capitalism is a moral obligation all world citizens should embrace. When people in power live in the castle of their own lies, it is time to dismantle the fortress. When governance has lost all moral ground and reason, it is time to call for a revolution ( Gilbert Mercier )

    so vote however the fuck you want, but please spare us your tedious proselytizing.

    Lysander | Sep 27, 2016 7:17:48 AM | 19
    Dan's point in 12 is an excellent one. The foundational myths of the United States are becoming less and less credible by the day. As more people stop believing them and, even more importantly, realize that others do not believe them either, compliance in the system becomes less and less.

    People do not even need to think in terms of self sacrifice for some greater good, or in terms of being part of a revolution. They actually only have to realize that their own best interests are served better by non compliance than compliance.

    One early example is the housing crisis back in 2008. People simply stopped paying their mortgages while continuing to live in the houses. Banks were able to force a bailout, but that only encouraged more people to feel justified in defaulting. Ignore your debts to credit card companies, banks, etc and you are striking a serious blow against the system. While actually freeing yourself.

    That is just one more example of resistance. Dan mentioned many others. The system's best weapon is that they got most people to believe in it, which encourages semi voluntary obedience.

    Jules | Sep 27, 2016 7:19:57 AM | 20
    Re: Posted by: jfl | Sep 27, 2016 2:54:02 AM | 5
    I hope that more of us than ever before choose a candidate other than one of these two

    In recent history 19.6% of Americans voted for neither Clinton nor Bush in 1992. A hard hurdle to beat I reckon, and frankly I can't see it happening.

    What is Aleppo anyway?

    ThatDamnGood | Sep 27, 2016 7:48:58 AM | 21
    #7

    Wrong, catalysmic collapse is what lies in stall for the US and probably Europe but it's not annihilation. Just that they got no money for hegemony anymore but they are still alive. And they still chose to remain alive just like in the Soviet Union.

    ... .... ...

    virgile | Sep 27, 2016 8:00:27 AM | 23
    The whole debate was unreal. Trump was bragging about his business successes with a sad grim while Hillary with a forever ironic botoxed smile and an empty look in her eyes looked like a worn out robot. It was more a scene from the Muppets show than a presidential debate!
    Secret Agent | Sep 27, 2016 8:06:27 AM | 24
    I like Trump because he is hated by all the right people.

    [Sep 27, 2016] The Trump-Clinton Debate

    Sep 26, 2016 | The American Conservative
    That's it. Trump blew this thing, in my view. Hillary caught her stride about a half-hour in, and showed herself to be presidential. He came off as extremely unprepared. I cannot believe Trump helped himself tonight, though for all I know, the voters loved him. Hillary didn't have a big win, but she did win, and I believe that she stopped the bleeding for her campaign.

    I know that everybody has a different standard for Trump, but if Trump ends up judged the winner of this debate in the polls, I don't know what to say anymore. There is no way Donald Trump is ready to be President of the United States. No way. And I don't believe many undecided voters changed their mind to vote for Trump based on his performance tonight.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Clinton Campaign Manager Unable to Answer Questions on Hillary Coverup Operation

    It was a cover up operation. No questions about that. Such instruction by a person under any investigation clearly mean tha attempt of cover up...
    Notable quotes:
    "... There was a document dump on Friday, that we learned from the FBI that an IT contractor managing Hillary Clinton's private email server made reference to the "Hillary coverup operation" in a work ticket. He used those words after a senior Clinton aide asked him to automatically delete emails after 60 days. This IT worker certainly sounded like he was covering something up, no? ..."
    "... The FBI dumped another 189 pages of documents pertaining to Clinton's use of an unsecured private server during her time as Secretary of State online Friday, with one note about a "coverup" raising eyebrows: ..."
    "... After reviewing an email dated December 11, 2014 with the subject line 'RE: 2 items for IT support,' and a December 12, 2014 work ticket referencing email retention changes and archive/email cleanup, [redacted] stated his reference in the email to ' the Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation ' was probably due to the requested change to a 60 day email retention policy and the comment was a joke. ..."
    "... "The fact an IT staffer maintaining Clinton's secret server called a new retention policy designed to delete emails after 60 days a 'Hillary coverup operation' suggests there was a concerted effort to systematically destroy potentially incriminating information. It's no wonder that at least five individuals tied to the email scandal, including Clinton's top State Department aide and attorney Cheryl Mills, secured immunity deals from the Obama Justice Department to avoid prosecution," said Trump spokesman Jason Miller in a statement on Friday. ..."
    "... Comey told the House Oversight Committee on July 7 that the FBI "did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that - the intent standard" while claiming that prosecuting Clinton for gross negligence would perpetuate a "double standard." ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | Breitbart
    CNN anchor Jake Tapper confronted Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook Sunday over an IT worker handling her private email server joking in a 2014 email about a "Hillary coverup operation," with Mook dodging the question and blaming Republicans for "selectively leaking documents."

    TAPPER: There was a document dump on Friday, that we learned from the FBI that an IT contractor managing Hillary Clinton's private email server made reference to the "Hillary coverup operation" in a work ticket. He used those words after a senior Clinton aide asked him to automatically delete emails after 60 days. This IT worker certainly sounded like he was covering something up, no?

    MOOK: Look, Jake, I'm - first of all I'm glad you asked that question. A lot of this stuff is swirling around in the ether. It's important to pull back and look at the facts here. The FBI did a comprehensive and deep investigation into this. And at the conclusion of that, FBI Director Comey came out and said to the world that there was no case here, that they have no evidence of wrongdoing on Hillary's part.

    TAPPER: So what's the "Hillary coverup operation" that the IT worker was referring to?

    MOOK: Well, well, but this is - but this is - this is the perfect example of what's going on here. Republicans on the House side are selectively leaking documents for the purpose of making Hillary look bad. We've asked the FBI to release all information that they've shared with Republicans so they can get the full picture. But again, I would trust the career professionals at the FBI and the Justice Department who looked into this matter, concluded that was no case, than I would Republicans who are selectively leaking information.

    The FBI dumped another 189 pages of documents pertaining to Clinton's use of an unsecured private server during her time as Secretary of State online Friday, with one note about a "coverup" raising eyebrows:

    After reviewing an email dated December 11, 2014 with the subject line 'RE: 2 items for IT support,' and a December 12, 2014 work ticket referencing email retention changes and archive/email cleanup, [redacted] stated his reference in the email to ' the Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation ' was probably due to the requested change to a 60 day email retention policy and the comment was a joke.

    The Trump campaign quickly leapt on the FBI's findings.

    "The fact an IT staffer maintaining Clinton's secret server called a new retention policy designed to delete emails after 60 days a 'Hillary coverup operation' suggests there was a concerted effort to systematically destroy potentially incriminating information. It's no wonder that at least five individuals tied to the email scandal, including Clinton's top State Department aide and attorney Cheryl Mills, secured immunity deals from the Obama Justice Department to avoid prosecution," said Trump spokesman Jason Miller in a statement on Friday.

    Comey told the House Oversight Committee on July 7 that the FBI "did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that - the intent standard" while claiming that prosecuting Clinton for gross negligence would perpetuate a "double standard."

    [Sep 26, 2016] It was Obama who pardoned Hillary by exerting pressure on FBI

    Notable quotes:
    "... Were I advising Trump I would have him cite the two criminal codes the FBI decided not to pursue..... by title and section. The rest of the questioning is inconsequential in relation to the huge favor the FBI gave Mrs. Clinton. ..."
    "... Might be a wrong advice. This would be more directed at Obama, then Hillary. It was Obama who pardoned Hillary by exerting pressure on FBI. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 09:39 AM
    Were I advising Trump I would have him cite the two criminal codes the FBI decided not to pursue..... by title and section. The rest of the questioning is inconsequential in relation to the huge favor the FBI gave Mrs. Clinton.
    likbez -> ilsm... , -1
    ilsm,

    "...two criminal codes the FBI decided not to pursue....."

    Might be a wrong advice. This would be more directed at Obama, then Hillary. It was Obama who pardoned Hillary by exerting pressure on FBI.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Why would Putin want to get to the table when he knows very well the menu consists solely of a sh*t sandwich and the dinner host is calling you Hitler ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Right there Clinton proves that she has absolutely no idea how basic diplomacy or negotiation (what the democrats like to call "compromise") works. You start from your best possible outcome (without treating your partner as a subhuman piece of trash or calling them by 3rd grade slanderous names) and work your way down to an agreement. You don't start from the worst possible outcome and work your way up like some crazy sadist. No wonder her judgement is so terrible. Her "success" measure is set just above " complete and utter failure, destruction". ..."
    "... "Get Russia to the table"? Why would Putin want to "get to the table" when he knows very well the menu consists solely of a sh*t sandwich and the dinner host is calling you "Hitler"? ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Roger Smith September 25, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    From the Clinton Foreign Policy article: From Reset to Realpolitik, Clinton's New Hard Line on Moscow

    "I'm trying to figure out what leverage we have to get Russia to the table. You know, diplomacy is not about getting to the perfect solution. It's about how you balance the risks."

    Right there Clinton proves that she has absolutely no idea how basic diplomacy or negotiation (what the democrats like to call "compromise") works. You start from your best possible outcome (without treating your partner as a subhuman piece of trash or calling them by 3rd grade slanderous names) and work your way down to an agreement. You don't start from the worst possible outcome and work your way up like some crazy sadist. No wonder her judgement is so terrible. Her "success" measure is set just above " complete and utter failure, destruction".

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 25, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    "Get Russia to the table"? Why would Putin want to "get to the table" when he knows very well the menu consists solely of a sh*t sandwich and the dinner host is calling you "Hitler"?

    [Sep 26, 2016] The key to winning debate might be touching deep emotional level of voters resentment with the neoliberal social system

    Notable quotes:
    "... The real standard will be, as it was for Obama in 2008, the capacity to touch people on an emotional level. Policy does not matter. Obama touched our desire for positive human solidarity (black and white together) The foundation of Trump's appeal is also on a emotional level. Trump, at his best, exudes a powerful resentment–a type of negative solidarity based on anger and contempt. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim September 25, 2016 at 11:37 am

    "What standards do you think will matter for who really wins the debate, as in does better with voters."

    The real standard will be, as it was for Obama in 2008, the capacity to touch people on an emotional level. Policy does not matter. Obama touched our desire for positive human solidarity (black and white together) The foundation of Trump's appeal is also on a emotional level. Trump, at his best, exudes a powerful resentment–a type of negative solidarity based on anger and contempt.

    pretzelattack September 25, 2016 at 9:45 am

    i just saw a good comment at the guardian comparing trump to chemo, the "poison that we take to cure us of the dnc/rnc cancer in hope they don't kill us first".

    Reply
    fresno dan September 25, 2016 at 9:56 am

    pretzelattack
    September 25, 2016 at 9:45 am

    That is a very interesting observation and certainly strikes me as hitting the mark

    [Sep 26, 2016] Is Trump a Republican Obama which will be easily cooped by Republican establishment

    Notable quotes:
    "... Supposedly, per this Social Security Works advocate, Trump's advisor told Paul Ryan he will agree to cutting Social Security, ala 2008 0bama's advisor telling Canadian officials that 0bama wouldn't really negotiate NAFTA. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ProNewerDeal September 25, 2016 at 10:45 am

    Supposedly, per this Social Security Works advocate, Trump's advisor told Paul Ryan he will agree to cutting Social Security, ala 2008 0bama's advisor telling Canadian officials that 0bama wouldn't really negotiate NAFTA.

    fw http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-altman/trump-and-ryan-agree-lets_b_9992656.html

    Similarly, I wonder if Trump will flip-flop & support TPP, & cut Medicare?

    tgs September 25, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    I hope that Hillary and Trump are forced to come clean about their plans for SS in the debate.

    [Sep 26, 2016] http://time.com/4504004/men-without-work/

    Sep 26, 2016 | time.com

    "In 2015, the work rate (or employment-to-population ratio) for American males ages 25 to 54 was slightly lower than it had been in 1940, at the tail end of the Great Depression. If we were back at 1965 levels today, nearly 10 million additional men would have paying jobs. The collapse of male work is due almost entirely to a flight out of the labor force-and that flight has on the whole been voluntary. The fact that only 1 in 7 prime-age men are not in the labor force points to a lack of jobs as the reason they are not working."

    Uh Nick – thanks for telling us what we already knew – labor force participation is down. But do you realize how you just contradicted yourself. Keynesians like myself would agree that is due to a lack of jobs (aka low aggregate demand). So is this a voluntary thing?

    Let's read on:

    "these unworking men are floated by other household members (wives, girlfriends, relatives) and by Uncle Sam. Government disability programs figure prominently in the calculus of support for unworking men-ever more prominently over time."

    Since government provided benefits have not been scaled up by our policy makers – he must think the hard working ladies are cuddling young men for their good lucks or something. Uh Nick – come to NYC and you will see that the ladies here think this is so stupid. His next excuse is all those dudes in prison. Seriously? Does this AEI clown not realize crime is much lower than it was a generation ago? This piece was dumb even by AEI "standards". But at least he did not dwell on the Tyler Cowen porn thing.And at the risk of repeating myself (and Noah Smith) if their thesis that young men had suddenly decided to loaf, then the inward shift of the labor supply curve would mean higher real wages than we are seeing.
    Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 09:37 AM pgl said in reply to pgl... I decided to put these thoughts in the following Econospeak post which goes a little further debunking the misrepresentations from the AEI hack:

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-new-men-without-jobs-conservative.html Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:43 AM RC AKA Darryl, Ron said... [A reply from Paine:

    "paine said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...


    Joe playing hill
    courtier

    Who knows what he thinks

    Reply Friday, September 23, 2016 at 01:29 PM"

    Reminded me of this entirely by accident or maybe incident:]

    http://unionsong.com/u017.html


    Joe Hill

    A song by Alfred Hayes, Music by Earl Robinson©1938 by Bob Miller, Inc.

    I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
    Alive as you or me
    Says I, But Joe, you're ten years dead
    I never died, says he
    I never died, says he

    In Salt Lake, Joe, says I to him
    Him standing by my bed
    They framed you on a murder charge
    Says Joe, But I ain't dead
    Says Joe, But I ain't dead

    The copper bosses killed you, Joe
    They shot you, Joe, says I
    Takes more than guns to kill a man
    Says Joe, I didn't die
    Says Joe, I didn't die

    And standing there as big as life
    And smiling with his eyes
    Joe says, What they forgot to kill
    Went on to organize
    Went on to organize

    Joe Hill ain't dead, he says to me
    Joe Hill ain't never died
    Where working men are out on strike
    Joe Hill is at their side
    Joe Hill is at their side

    From San Diego up to Maine
    In every mine and mill
    Where workers strike and organize
    Says he, You'll find Joe Hill
    Says he, You'll find Joe Hill

    I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
    Alive as you or me
    Says I, But Joe, you're ten years dead
    I never died, says he
    I never died, says he


    [More about Joe Hill and Alfred Hayes at the link.] Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:10 AM RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... Fortunately I will have very little spare time for idle or addle minded leisure now until well after the election and even well after the subsequent coronation save those days so rainy that outdoor activity is entirely impractical. Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:14 AM pgl said... I never liked Ross Douhart. The political right thinks he has written something very important:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/campaign-stops/clintons-samantha-bee-problem.html?_r=0

    "At the same time, outside the liberal tent, the feeling of being suffocated by the left's cultural dominance is turning voting Republican into an act of cultural rebellion - which may be one reason the Obama years, so good for liberalism in the culture, have seen sharp G.O.P. gains at every level of the country's government. This spirit of political-cultural rebellion is obviously crucial to Trump's act."

    Vote for a racist like Trump because liberals are suffocating. Did I say I really do not like Ross Douhart?
    Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:55 AM Peter K. said in reply to pgl... Again we agree. (Signs of the apocalypse? I guess Trump is going to win.)

    Douchehat is the worst hypocrite. He wants readers to believe he's an expert in morality and morale rectitude and that's what conservative should be known for when in reality Republicans chose Trump as their candidate, one grand example of immorality and dishonesty.

    And still Douthat turns on the liberals as behaving badly. Suffocating? Howabout the insanity of the Republican convention? That was suffocating.

    He even quotes Internet Troll Steve Sailor!!!

    *rubs eyes*

    "(The alt-right-ish columnist Steve Sailer made the punk rock analogy as well.)"

    It's like Douthat writing about JohnH or BINY. Every one of Sailor's Internet comments would be racist ones about immigration. He's mentally unhinged.

    "But it remains an advantage for the G.O.P., and a liability for the Democratic Party, that the new cultural orthodoxy is sufficiently stifling to leave many Americans looking to the voting booth as a way to register dissent."

    Clueless Douthat. The culture is getting better in certain ways because the TV executives just want to sell advertising and these performers are popular. It's capitalism at work.

    Kudos to John Oliver for winning an Emmy.

    "Among millennials, especially, there's a growing constituency for whom right-wing ideas are so alien or triggering, left-wing orthodoxy so pervasive and unquestioned, that supporting a candidate like Hillary Clinton looks like a needless form of compromise."

    Note the disdain for millennials. "Triggering."

    Conservative like Douthat and Bobo Brooks "trigger" the hate and anger centers of my brain.

    The fact is that Samantha Bee is right and NBC facilitated the rise of Trump with the Apprentice and treating him well on other shows like Jimmy Fallon and SNL.

    Here's the offending video.

    September 25, 2016 at 01:38 PM

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/samantha-bee-slams-jimmy-fallon-nbc-for-softball-donald-trump-interview_us_57e12dbbe4b0071a6e095c1f Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 01:38 PM anne said in reply to Peter K.... --------- is the worst hypocrite....

    [ Do not use sickening language on this blog. Never ever use such language here. ] Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 02:44 PM pgl said... I have provided this link to some of the papers by Michael Bruno – many co-authored by Jeffrey Sachs – for a couple of reasons:

    http://www.nber.org/authors/michael_bruno

    The minor reason is they have a nice paper on the Dutch Disease – something JohnH thinks he understands but he needs to read up on this topic. But the main reason has to do with a stupid comment from Paine on my Econospeak post, which goes to show how very little Paine actually learned in graduate school.

    I was try to paint a picture of some Real Business Cycle claim that Bruno and Sachs emphasized when I was in graduate school. I never truly bought their story as I was (and still am) a die hard Keynesian. But here is how it went as applied to the early 1980's (the period I was talking about). If a nation enjoys a massive real appreciation and if aggregate demand does not matter (the New Classical view which we Keynesians do not buy) then the real wages of its domestic workers rise. These workers supply more labor driving down wages relative to domestic prices. So domestic firms hire more workers.

    That is their story. I do not buy it as I was clearly mocking it. Alas Paine never learned this. And so he mocks someone who did. Just another day at the EV comment section. Aals.
    Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 12:24 PM anne said in reply to pgl... Just another day at the -- ------- section.

    [ I assume there will never again be such a comment. ] Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 02:58 PM

    [Sep 26, 2016] Trump's Economic Policies

    Sep 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : September 23, 2016 at 09:42 AM , September 23, 2016 at 09:42 AM

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dont-believe-trumps-tax-and-spending-plans/

    September 22, 2016

    Don't believe Trump's tax and spending plans
    By Mark Thoma

    [ Excellent essay in each case. ]

    anne : , Friday, September 23, 2016 at 09:42 AM
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/excellent-nyt-reporting-on-trump-energy-plan

    September 23, 2016

    Excellent NYT Reporting on Trump Energy Plan

    The New York Times did what we should expect newspapers to do when reporting on presidential campaigns, it told readers that Donald Trump's energy plans don't make any sense. In the first paragraph of a piece * on a speech Donald Trump gave in Pittsburgh, the NYT told readers that his promise to increase production of both coal and natural gas is "impossible." This is of course true, since the fuels are substitutes. In fact, the main reason coal production has fallen sharply in the last five years has been the boom in low cost natural gas from fracking. If we increase the latter further, then it is almost inevitable that it will result in a further drop in coal production.

    Mr. Trump may not know he is promising the impossible, but now NYT readers do.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/us/politics/donald-trump-fracking.html

    -- Dean Baker

    pgl -> anne... , -1
    Dean seems to be saying that coal production fell as a result of a fall in its demand curve which would lower coal prices along the supply curve. This chart of coal prices confirms this story:

    https://www.quandl.com/collections/markets/coal

    What part of basic economics does Trump not understand?

    pgl : , Friday, September 23, 2016 at 09:59 AM
    All excellent points but let me expand on one that I have blogged about:

    "his estimates of the additional growth we would get from cutting taxes and deregulating are wildly inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would amount to cuts of approximately 25 percent over 10 years which is not politically feasible."

    Cutting nondefense Federal purchases by 25% would be very bad policy. At the same time, it would not reduce spending by nearly the made up numbers Trump is claiming even if this really bad policy were passed.

    Of course Trump is not as bad as Paul Ryan whose magic astericks if actually turned into a real policy proposal would mean eliminating all nondefense Federal purchases. And for some reason people consider Ryan a serious policy person. No? He is nothing more than a lying clown.

    Anon. : , -1
    How do you reconcile these views with the lack of reaction from the stock market as Trump's chances improve?
    reason -> Anon.... , -1
    Maybe they are(or were) better at assessing Trump`s chances than you are.
    pgl -> reason ... , -1
    Nate Silver's probabilities over time:

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

    Clinton's chances > 60%.

    Lord : , Friday, September 23, 2016 at 02:49 PM
    For being an outsider he seems devoid of new ideas and other than some distinctions in defense, immigration, and trade, mostly conventional. Hardly a change candidate, only more of the same.
    jonny bakho -> Lord... , -1
    Trump: Many criticisms of current government.
    No workable solutions.
    Trump is a pure outsider. He knows almost nothing about what it takes to govern.
    Trump would speechify and present bread and circuses while Pence or Bannon would do the real work in the shadows

    The question people should ask?: Will Trump policy help my situation?

    [Sep 26, 2016] Neoliberal globalization had already run its course and a reversal is in cards. Trump or Hillary the problems facing nation are really huge

    Sep 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    jonny bakho -> Lord... September 24, 2016 at 12:17 AM

    Trump: Many criticisms of current government.
    No workable solutions.
    Trump is a pure outsider. He knows almost nothing about what it takes to govern.
    Trump would speechify and present bread and circuses while Pence or Bannon would do the real work in the shadows

    The question people should ask?: Will Trump policy help my situation?

    Reply Saturday, likbez -> jonny bakho ... , Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 01:58 PM
    "Trump is a pure outsider. He knows almost nothing about what it takes to govern."

    Does not the absence of Washington experience make him preferable by definition? ;-)

    Because we know the results of those who supposedly "knew something" (the son of previous President with English language problems and "change we can believe in" -- junior senator with questionable biography and very little experience in governing as well as Joe Lieberman as his Senate mentor).

    But in more serious mode it is unclear whether he can be worse then Hillary, who is "status quo" candidate.

    My hope is that with his paleoconservaive inclinatins, he might be able to suppress excessive financization and slightly tame Wall Street sharks. Looks like he does not like Wall Street and that might be huge positive.

    While Hillary is definitely is in the pocket (like her husband Bill).

    According to Mark Thoma for internal economic policy Trump is a more questionable choice. And that might well be true. But neoliberalism is now in deep internal crisis anyway, so all choices are bad.

    As for foreign policy he is definitely preferable over more jingoistic and reckless neocon Hillary.

    Looks like we have a very difficult choice here folks.

    RueTheDay : , Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 01:58 PM
    I'm shocked at how quickly the GOP has fallen in line behind his anti free trade policies. It appears that the official platform of the GOP is now in favor of protectionism and subsidies. The silence from the small-l libertarian wing of the GOP has been deafening.
    likbez -> RueTheDay ... , -1
    That's all pretense. They are still behind "free trade" but now need to hide that from the electorate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
    Casablanca gambling? I'm shocked!

    Neoliberal globalization had already run its course and a reversal is in cards. Brexit was the first swan.

    That means "Free traders" now are under the gun as the results of their policies are pretty evident and different from the promise that "a rising tide lifts all boats". Republicans attitude reflect this reality -- that's why Trump managed to get into position he is now.

    "Peak (or more correctly Plato) Oil" is another big factor here and if the price dynamics is up this will be another nail in the coffin of neoliberal globalization.

    As Obama put it in different context "I am the only one who is standing between you and pitchforks". And he really served this role for eight long years.

    But the mood of electorate changed dramatically. That's why both parties now try to distance themselves from this idea at least for the period of elections.

    With Trump election pitchforks might really move closer to their targets. That's why Wall Street and "Clinton's Demorats" are so firmly behind Hillary candidacy.

    Hillary is a "status quo" candidate and has two additional advantages over Trump:

    -- her failing health which might prevent serving her the full term,

    -- there is a possibility of her impeachment for "emailgate", which really would be a "skeleton in the closet" for her administration.

    So it is unclear who is the best candidate.

    Pick your poison.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Hillary preaches one dollar one vote rule via her huge advertizing spendings

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In terms of booked TV and radio ad time from today through election day, Team Clinton is tracking at roughly 33 times the outlay of Team Trump" [ Advertising Age ]. "To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PACs." Wowsers. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "In terms of booked TV and radio ad time from today through election day, Team Clinton is tracking at roughly 33 times the outlay of Team Trump" [ Advertising Age ]. "To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PACs." Wowsers.

    "Trump's ads last ran nearly a week ago in four battleground states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Since then, the GOP presidential nominee has ceded the airwaves to Hillary Clinton - and is only poised to launch a limited, less-targeted ad campaign in the days before next week's debate" [ Politico ].

    "Hillary Clinton is reserving $30 million in digital advertising as she seeks to connect with young voters" [Business Insider]. The quotes in this thing are pathetic, both Michelle Obama and Clinton's. Anybody who uses the trope "I get that" automatically doesn't.

    [Sep 25, 2016] 4 Reasons Trump's Economic Policies Would Be a Disaster

    Notable quotes:
    "... In many ways, Donald Trump follows the Republican playbook on fiscal policy. He believes in low taxes for the wealthy, and he wants to scale back or eliminate social insurance programs such as Obamacare. But there are two programs he has indicated he will try to protect, Social Security and Medicare. The question is whether he is serious about insulating these programs from cuts or saying whatever is needed to get votes, and whether these programs can be protected if he implements his tax cut plans. ..."
    "... However, his estimates of the additional growth we would get from cutting taxes and deregulating are wildly inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would amount to cuts of approximately 25 percent over 10 years which is not politically feasible. If his plan were implemented, the debt would likely go up by trillions leaving Republicans with just three choices, reverse the tax cuts, make cuts to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, or accept the higher debt numbers. ..."
    "... Many people struggling to make ends meet each month believe that it doesn't matter much for their lives who is elected president; their lives will go on much the same. But that is not true. Despite Trump's attempt to convince you otherwise, the working class has a lot to lose if he makes it to the White House. ..."
    Sep 23, 2016 | The Fiscal Times

    Donald Trump's chances of becoming president are higher than I ever expected them to be, and there is a chance that he will be able to put his economic plans into place. He claims his economic policies will be good for the working class, but in reality his plans for high income tax cuts and deregulation adhere closely to standard Republican ideology that has favored the wealthy and powerful. Even his plans for international trade, an area where he claims populist support, would hurt far more people than it would help. Here are the four areas where Trump's economic plans concern me the most:

    Social Security and Medicare: In many ways, Donald Trump follows the Republican playbook on fiscal policy. He believes in low taxes for the wealthy, and he wants to scale back or eliminate social insurance programs such as Obamacare. But there are two programs he has indicated he will try to protect, Social Security and Medicare. The question is whether he is serious about insulating these programs from cuts or saying whatever is needed to get votes, and whether these programs can be protected if he implements his tax cut plans.

    Donald Trump's latest tax plan does not increase the national debt as much as his original plan, revenues will "only" fall between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion over a decade instead of $9.5 trillion. Trump has claimed that all of the lost revenue will be made up through the plan's impact on economic growth, cuts to nondefense appropriations (essentially everything except defense, Social Security, and Medicare), and deregulation.

    However, his estimates of the additional growth we would get from cutting taxes and deregulating are wildly inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would amount to cuts of approximately 25 percent over 10 years which is not politically feasible. If his plan were implemented, the debt would likely go up by trillions leaving Republicans with just three choices, reverse the tax cuts, make cuts to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, or accept the higher debt numbers.

    Republican members of Congress, who would almost surely be in control if Trump wins the election, will not reverse the tax cuts. But they have been eager to cut entitlement programs, only the threat of a veto from Obama stood in their way. Would Trump allow the debt to skyrocket, or would he, as I believe, end up signing legislation from Congress that includes large cuts to Social Security and Medicare? Despite his promises, two key programs the working class relies upon would be vulnerable with Trump as president.

    Deregulation: I've already mentioned Trump's plan to reduce regulation, to the point of calling for severe reductions in the budgets of agencies such as the EPA, the Education Department, food safety enforcement, and a reversal of Dodd-Frank and other financial regulation. Deregulation of the magnitude Trump is proposing would be a disaster waiting to happen.

    There are obvious dangers to areas such as the environment and food safety, but sticking with economics it would also make the financial system, which needs more regulation not less, more likely to crash again. There would be more tolerance of monopoly power – a source of rising inequality, and less protection generally of workers and consumers from powerful business interests. Trump claims that deregulation will create economic growth, but that didn't happen when Reagan and Bush deregulated and there's no reason to think it will be different this time.

    Federal Reserve Composition and Independence: Trump's statements about the Fed have been inconsistent. In November he said that Janet Yellen hasn't raised interest rates "because the Obama administration and the president doesn't want her to." But in May he said, "I'm not a person that thinks Janet Yellen is doing a bad job. I happen to be a low-interest rate person unless inflation rears its ugly head," which he added he doesn't see happening anytime soon. But more recently he has gone back to a critical stance, saying that Fed Chair Yellen is "obviously political," that "She's doing what Obama wants her to do," and that she "should be ashamed of herself."

    Trump has said he would replace Yellen if he is elected, and given his obvious lack of knowledge about monetary policy he would likely rely upon his advisors to select a new Fed Chair and make appointments to the Federal Reserve Board. That means we are likely to get a Chair and Board members who are hawkish on inflation, opposed to financial regulation, more likely to base policy on strict adherence to a Taylor rule (according to this framework, interest rates should have already been increased), and less likely to take aggressive action if the economy crashes (except perhaps to bail out cronies on Wall Street).

    That would be bad enough, especially for the working class who would take a back seat to concerns about inflation and the interests of the financial sector, but my biggest worry is that Trump would compromise the independence of the Fed. Trump's personality is such that he will want to be in control of policy, and he will likely appoint people who are willing to do his bidding. The Fed's reputation with the public is has fallen in recent years, and Trump's false accusation that the Fed is working to serve Obama's political interests hasn't helped. If he further politicizes the Fed by appointing Board members who will implement policy at his direction, it could do damage to the Fed as an institution that would be very difficult to reverse.

    International Trade: Trump's plans to renegotiate trade deals and impose tariffs on countries that will not bend to his will have been discussed at length, and most economists believe it would be very harmful for the economy. So let me just note that the most recent estimate of the consequences of his trade policy from the Peterson Institute is that his plan would cost the economy 4 million jobs, send us into a recession, and be "horribly destructive." That's just an estimate, the actual number could be larger or smaller, but whatever the actual number it would be very costly for workers.

    There is little doubt that international trade has had a negative impact on workers in recent decades, but the loss of millions of jobs and a recession is not the solution to this problem. We need tax and transfer policies that ensure the gains from trade are widely shared, enhanced social protections for workers who lose their jobs, and a concerted effort to attract more businesses that offer decent employment opportunities. Trump's plans do not address these important issues.

    Many people struggling to make ends meet each month believe that it doesn't matter much for their lives who is elected president; their lives will go on much the same. But that is not true. Despite Trump's attempt to convince you otherwise, the working class has a lot to lose if he makes it to the White House.

    Related: How Hillary Can Win the First Debate

    Related: Hillary Lied, Withheld Evidence, Traded Power for Money, and Could Be President

    Related: Trump Is Trouncing Clinton When It Comes to Running Up the Debt

    Related: Abolish Social Security? Gary Johnson's Libertarian Party Gets a Closer Look

    [Sep 24, 2016] Hillary Emailgate How One Twitter User Proved The Intent That The FBI Missed After Months Investigating

    Sep 24, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Zero Hedge

    Earlier this week, a twitter user named " Katica " seemingly proved the "intent" of the Hillary campaign to destroy and/or tamper with federal records by revealing the Reddit thread of Paul Combetta (aka the "Oh Shit" guy; aka "stonetear"). But what's most crazy about this story is that "Katica" was able to discover the greatest "bombshell" of the entire Hillary email scandal with just a couple of internet searches while the FBI, with unlimited access to government records, spent months "investigating" this case and missed it all . The only question now is whether the FBI "missed" this evidence because of gross incompetence or because of other motivating factors ?

    Now, courtesy of an opinion piece posted on The Daily Caller , we know exactly how "Katica" pieced her "bombshell" discovery together... the folks at the FBI may want to take some notes.

    Per the twitter discussion below with @RepStevenSmith , "Katica" discovered Combetta's Reddit thread on September 16th. But while she suspected that Paul Combetta and the Reddit user known as "stonetear" were, in fact, the same person, she had to prove it...

    [Sep 24, 2016] The Meaning of the Trump Surge

    Notable quotes:
    "... telling pollsters that they now favor the Donald seems to be the only way many people have to tell Hillary and the people around her what they think of them. ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    And Jill Stein is eager to do so now. She could do a far better job than Sanders too, because her progressive vision, unlike his, doesn't end at the country's borders. She, unlike he, would at least try to take American imperialism on.

    But in the actual world, Jill Stein is still "Jill who?," and telling pollsters that they now favor the Donald seems to be the only way many people have to tell Hillary and the people around her what they think of them.

    [Sep 24, 2016] Democracy's Last Chance

    Notable quotes:
    "... More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century. ..."
    "... The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump , is hated by the political establishment, by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are hated. ..."
    www.unz.com
    More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century.

    Russia with its very limited democracy is still better off: their nobility of discourse polled less than three per cent of the votes in the last elections, though they are still heavily represented in the government.

    The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump , is hated by the political establishment, by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are hated.

    [Sep 24, 2016] Income Inequality in a Globalising World

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
    "... See original post for references ..."
    "... John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it. ..."
    "... Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic waste dump in the process. ..."
    "... The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple. ..."
    "... The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except for a polluted planet. ..."
    "... Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy? ..."
    Sep 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ...if you look at absolute inequality, as opposed to relative inequality, inequality has increased around the world. This calls into question one of the big arguments made in favor of globalization: that the cost to workers in advanced economies are offset by gains to workers in developing economies, and is thus virtuous by lowering inequality more broadly measured.

    By Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published at VoxEU

    Since the turn of the century, inequality in the distribution of income, together with concerns over the pace and nature of globalisation, have risen to be among the most prominent policy issues of our time. These concerns took centre stage at the recent annual G20 summit in China. From President Obama to President Xi, there was broad agreement that the global economy needs more inclusive and sustainable growth, where the economic pie increases in size and is at the same time divided more fairly. As President Obama emphasised, "[t]he international order is under strain." The consensus is well founded, following as it does the recent Brexit vote, and the rise of populism (especially on the right) in the US and Europe, with its hard stance against free trade agreements, capital flows and migration.

    ... ... ...

    The inclusivity aspect of growth is now more imperative than ever. Globalisation has not been a zero sum game. Overall perhaps more have benefitted, especially in fast-growing economies in the developing world. However, many others, for example among the working middle class in industrialised nations, have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years. It is unsurprising that this has bred considerable discontent, and it is an urgent priority that concrete steps are taken to reduce the underlying sources of this discontent. Those who feel they have not benefitted, and those who have even lost from globalisation, have legitimate reasons for their discontent. Appropriate action will require not only the provision of social protection to the poorest and most vulnerable. It is essential that the very nature of the ongoing processes of globalisation, growth, and economic transformation are scrutinised, and that broad based investments are made in education, skills, and health, particularly among relatively disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable – economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.

    See original post for references

    tony , September 23, 2016 at 7:20 am

    http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2013/11/china-world-poverty.html

    John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it.

    cnchal , September 23, 2016 at 7:32 am

    Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable – economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.

    Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic waste dump in the process.

    The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple.

    The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except for a polluted planet.

    Sustainable economic growth is an oxymoron.

    Sally Snyder , September 23, 2016 at 7:35 am

    Here is an article that looks at the relationship between wealth and ethnicity/race in the United States:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-growing-ethnicracial-wealth-gap.html

    The notable presence of public policies that exacerbate racial and economic inequality and the lack of will by Washington to change the system mean that the ethnic/racial wealth gap is becoming more firmly entrenched in society.

    tegnost , September 23, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Good article but standard policy prescription…

    "broad based investments are made in education, skills, and health, particularly among relatively disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable – economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come."

    …I guess if the skills were sustainable low chemical and diverse farming in 5 acre lots or in co-ops then I might have less complaint, however the skills people apparently are going to need are supervising robots and going to non jobs in autonomous vehicles and being fed on chemical mush shaped like things we used to eat, a grim dystopia.

    Yesterday I had the unpleasant experience of reading the hard copy nyt wherein kristof opined that hey it's not so bad, extreme poverty has eased (the same as in this article, but without this article's Vietnamese example where 1 v. 8 becomes 8 v. 80),ignoring the relative difference while on another lackluster page there was an article saying immigrants don't take jobs from citizens which had to be one of the most thinly veiled press releases of some study made by some important sounding acronym and and, of course a supposed "balance" between pro and anti immigration academics. because in this case, they claim we're relatively better off.

    So there you have it, it's all relative. Bi color bird cage liner, dedicated to the ever shrinking population of affluent/wealthy who are relatively better off as opposed to the ever increasing population of people who are actually worse off…There was also an article on the desert dwelling uighur and their system of canals bringing glacier water to farm their arid land which showed some people who were fine for thousands of years, but now thanks to fracking, industrial pollution and less community involvement (kids used to clean the karatz, keeping it healthy) now these people can be uplifted into the modern world(…so great…) that was reminiscent of the nyt of olde which presented the conundrum but left out the policy prescription which now always seems to be "the richer I get the less extreme poverty there is in the world so stop your whining and borrow a few hundred thousand to buy a PhD "

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/world/asia/china-xinjiang-turpan-water.html

    timotheus , September 23, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy?

    sgt_doom , September 23, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    Great comments, timotheus , great comments!

    Three reading recommendations for anyone who doesn't grasp your sentiment, shared by millions: Sold Out , by Michelle Malkin Outsourcing America , by Ron Hira America: Who Stole the Dream? , by Donald L. Barlett Reply

    [Sep 24, 2016] Conservative Christians aren't going to stop voting Republican

    Notable quotes:
    "... If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee. ..."
    "... We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables." ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Troy , says: September 18, 2016 at 11:33 am

    VikingLS It's been decades since there was a white riot in this country.

    That is such a funny meme I had to share this.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/white-people-rioting-for-no-reason.html

    Joseph , says: September 18, 2016 at 12:16 pm
    "Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting Republican. They're just going to offer a different reason for doing it, when asked. I will bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in Rod's pockets that there will NEVER, in either of our lifetimes, be a time when he feels compelled by his principles to vote for a Democratic candidate for federal office over a Republican one.

    And finally, I note that someone above asked a version of the same question I've periodically had: What does Dreherdom look like? If orthodox Christians controlled the levers of power, what do you propose to DO with your (cultural AND legal) authority? And what will be the status of the "other" in that brave new world?

    [NFR: They will be captured and enslaved and sent to work in the boudin mines. And I will spend whatever percentage of the Gross National Product it takes to hire the Rolling Stones to play "Exile On Main Street" live, from start to finish, in a national broadcast that I will require every citizen to watch, on pain of being assigned to hard labor in the boudin mines. Also, I will eat boudin. - RD]

    WAB , says: September 18, 2016 at 1:15 pm
    [Connor: While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics. The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.]

    That's interesting. Well, I think you're right that about 3/4 of the readers would lose their minds if that was stated as an explicit political goal. It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that the primary strategy of the religious right is the establishment of an anti-democratic, theocracy or Caesaropapist regime. I would consider that the extreme "utopian" or some would even say "totalitarian" position of religious conservatives and not "conservative" in any sense that I understand "Conservatism".

    Saltlick's minimal requirement seems to moderate that goal to "a national reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health.", but even in that he regards it as only a half-measure for Saltlick. Needless to say, what a "traditional" family is would need some definition.

    If nothing short of establishing the City of God on earth would secure the comfort of some Christians then that is a pretty high bar and you have every right to feel insecure… as do the rest of us.

    I would be curious to know how many of your co-religionists on these boards share your view? And how many would reject it?

    Conserving What? , says: September 18, 2016 at 2:27 pm
    Mr Dreher, I always read your articles with great interest, although I often disagree with you. For example, I don't think anybody of any political persuasion is going to try to stamp out Christianity or those who espouse it. Indeed, I think many people will be delighted if all Christians would exercise the Benedict Option. A lot of people are tired of the Religious Right's attempt to gain political power in order to impose Christian views of morality. A lot of people believe that there should be a separation of church and state, not only in the Constitutional sense of having no state-established religion, but also in the general sense that morality should be a private matter, not the subject of politics.

    [NFR: That's incredibly naive. Aside from procedural laws, all laws are nothing but legislated morality. Somebody's morality is going to be reflected in law. It is unavoidable. - RD]

    William Burns , says: September 18, 2016 at 2:50 pm
    Amazing how people write about the Atlantic Coast as if South Carolina wasn't on it.
    Michelle , says: September 18, 2016 at 4:05 pm
    Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?

    Sharpton isn't running for president and I didn't vote for him when he was. Same for Jesse Jackson. I'm well aware of antisemitism within the black community but doubt it comes anywhere close to that of the alt-right and nationalist groups, who foment hate against both blacks and Jews. And duh, of course there's plenty of anti-semitism among Muslims. Who's pretending otherwise. It also appears that you didn't read what I wrote.

    I favor strong borders but think you can do so without demagoguery and appealing to people's baser instincts and hatreds, which is what Trump does. I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to recognize the danger the man poses. I don't care as long as there are enough people who do to keep him out of the presidency.

    Neguy , says: September 18, 2016 at 4:29 pm
    Rod, you clearly have unresolved cognitive dissonance, because if your vote is based on which candidate is best with religious liberty and the right of Christians to live as Christians, the answer is clear and unambiguous: Trump. Yet you refuse to vote for him.

    The author of this piece actually has you nailed perfectly, which is why it makes you so uncomfortable. He sees that you are absolving yourself from the consequences of political engagement by acting like you can stay firm on your principles, while refusing to choose from the only two real sides on offer. That choice is the messy business of politics, and inevitably imperfect because politics is a human practice and humans are fallen. Because you are unwilling to make that choice, you are out of the politics business whether you realize it or not.

    What you have not abandoned, but I believe should when it comes to the topics of politics, is the public square.

    You recognize that your generation failed to fight. You very clearly have no intention of fighting even now. You have decided to build a Benedict Option because you think that's the only viable option. That's fine. In fact, I heartily approve.

    But other people have chosen differently. They have chosen to fight. Donald Trump for one. You might not like his methods. But he's not willing to see his country destroyed without doing everything he can to stop it. He's not alone. Many people are standing up and recognizing that though the odds are long, they owe it to their children and grandchildren to stand up and be counted. That choice deserves respect too, Rod.

    The problem with you is not the BenOp, but your active demonization of those who actually have the temerity to fight for their country instead of surrendering it to go hide in your BenOp bunker with you.

    Trump, the alt-right, etc. may be wrong metaphysically and they may be wrong ethically, but they are right about some very important things – things that you, Rod Dreher, and your entire generation of conservatives were very, very wrong on. Rather than admit that, you want to stand back from the fight, pretending you're too gosh darned principled to soil your hands voting for one of the two candidates who have a shot to be our president, and acting like you're a morally superior person for doing so.

    You should focus on the important work of building and evangelizing for BenOp, and leave the field of political discourse to those who are actually willing to engage in the business of politics.

    VikingLS , says: September 18, 2016 at 10:47 pm
    "I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to recognize the danger the man poses. I don't care as long as there are enough people who do to keep him out of the presidency." So basically this boils down to you asking us to trust that your gut is right in spite of what we can see with our lying eyes? Yeah, no thanks.
    Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: September 17, 2016 at 10:55 am
    So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity?
    Skip , says: September 17, 2016 at 10:56 am
    Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?
    Skip Rigney , says: September 17, 2016 at 11:03 am
    Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly why I have reluctantly become a libertarian:

    -"On a practical level, that means that I will no longer vote primarily on the social issues that have dictated my vote in the past, but I will vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's right to be left alone."-

    Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian America. I wrote about why I believe this to be so at http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/

    I don't believe for a minute that the majority of elected officials in the Republican Party have the backbone to stand up for religious liberty in the face of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how the Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the protection of religious liberty.

    There are many libertarians who are going to work to protect the rights of people to do things that undermine the common good. But, I have more faith that they'll protect the rights of a cultural minority such as traditionalist Christians than I have in either the Republicans or the Democrats.

    Egypt Steve , says: September 17, 2016 at 11:29 am
    It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics. It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There are white people, and there are blah people. White people will be in charge, and blah people can have a piece of the pie to the extent they agree to pretend to be white people.
    Viriato , says: September 17, 2016 at 11:44 am
    Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?"

    My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly being outsourced as well.

    If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will see that the vast majority of new jobs are in retail trade, health care and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders, and government. Most of these jobs are part-time jobs. None of these jobs produce any goods than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive independently. This is why more Americans aged 25-34 live with their parents than independently with spouses and children of their own. It is also why many people now must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. As for government jobs, they are tax-supported, and thus a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian. I recognize that government provides many crucial services. But it is unproductive to have too many bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.

    Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.

    Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this. Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued by radical ideologies like communism, regional separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism had its following as well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain, though it was not really fascist, as it was profoundly Christian and rejected Nietzschean neo-paganism) was irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one of the three pillars that supported the regime (the other two being monarchists and Catholics), but it was never the most influential pillar.] When Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in Spain.

    To get back to the US, we now have a Third World economy. We can't too surprised that our politics also look increasingly like those of a Third World country. Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the SJW's, Black Lives Matter, etc.

    connecticut farmer , says: September 17, 2016 at 12:11 pm
    @ Michael in Oceania

    The evolution of the MSM into an American version of Pravda/Izvestia has been a lengthy process and dates back at least to the days of Walter Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom Roosevelt, Truman and JFK had no qualms about calling for advice).

    With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon of the blogosphere, the MSM has no choice but to cast off whatever pretensions to objectivity they may have had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can keep themselves viable in an increasingly competitive market where more people get their news from such as Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the WaPo

    dan , says: September 17, 2016 at 12:35 pm
    Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the PC police, and generally stood for these same 6 principles, and did so in a much more coherent and rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished within no time at all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle instead of capturing an undefined spirit, if he tried to answer the charges against him in a rational manner, all it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC charges to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model for future conservative candidates when running in a nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them. If you engage in the argument with them, they'll destroy you.
    BlairBurton , says: September 17, 2016 at 12:45 pm
    @Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him. Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump ?

    Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine about? By any standard, conditions then were worse for the white working class than is the case today, and yes, my grandparents were working class: one grandfather worked for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes, there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and suicide amongst the populace in the 1930s. The role of religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth, I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe that is true for most Christians throughout history.

    Just what is different about today, that brings all this rage and resentment? Could it be that racial and ethnic and religious minorities, and women now have a piece of the pie and a good part of the white working class cannot stand it?

    And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the fact that so very many Americans support him, whether wholeheartedly swallowing his poison, or because they close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind of a man he is.

    Nate , says: September 17, 2016 at 1:12 pm
    The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift and complete.
    Abelard Lindsey , says: September 17, 2016 at 1:28 pm
    How can anyone right in the head argue against entreprenuership and decentralization? All of our problems are due to a lack of these two things.
    Baldy , says: September 17, 2016 at 1:58 pm
    "You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it."

    If we all accept your definition then we can't argue with you. Whatever you want to call it, there is an entire industry (most conservative media) that feeds a victimization mentality among whites, conservatives, evangelicals etc (all those labels apply to me by the way) that closely resembles the grievance outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is taken seriously. Why else do so many of us get so bent out of shape when employees have the audacity to say "happy holidays" at the department store. As made apparent on this blog we do need to be realistic and vigilant about the real threats and the direction the culture is going, but by whining about every perceived slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of "Christian America" (while anointing a vile figure like Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting the legitimate grievances we do have.

    Roland P. , says: September 17, 2016 at 2:05 pm
    Everyone has heard how far is moving small car production to Mexico and forwarded saying no one in America will lose their jobs because the production will be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.

    That's not the problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not helping Americans.

    I'm all for a 35% tariff on those cars.

    Roland P. , says: September 17, 2016 at 2:06 pm
    Darn predictive text program it should say Ford.
    Greg in PDX , says: September 17, 2016 at 2:14 pm
    "BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."

    Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.

    Clint , says: September 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm
    What happens when the status quo media turns a presidential election into a referendum regarding the media's ability to shape public opinion and direct "purchasing" choices?

    The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it.

    Nelson , says: September 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    This will almost always mean voting for the Republicans in national elections, but in a primary situation, I will vote for the Republican who can best be counted on to defend religious liberty, even if he's not 100 percent on board with what I consider to be promoting the Good. If it means voting for a Republican that the defense hawks or the Chamber of Commerce disdain, I have no problem at all with that.

    How is this different than cultural conservatives voted before Trump?

    WAB , says: September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm
    We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. Now whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very particular program pursued by conservatives, traditionalists and the religious right. It is certain that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent and whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot low, one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents anything it is the fact that the base of the party was not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian values we thought they were representing are hardly recognizable now.

    What truly puzzles me more and increasingly so is Rod's vision of what America is supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what that regime looks like? Behind all the theological underpinning and high-sounding abstractions what does a ground-level political and legislative program for achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly participate in look like?

    Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is responsive to politics. What political order does the Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the one we have now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect our life and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He says Christians just want to be left alone but they seem to have made and are still making a lot of noise for people who want to be left alone so I have to assume they want something over and above being left alone.

    I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: September 17, 2016 at 4:41 pm
    a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no value in speculating or establishing a number) are deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad) Trump's we don't have time to be politically correct mantra is ignored when his opponent (a politician who helped establish the concept of politically correctness) steals a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the "irony" hammer from the toolbox? ever the shrewd, calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny barker, Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like any politician) put his finger in the air and decided to "run" from the "nationalist, racist, nativist, side of the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable folks on the Clinton bandwagon; it's just (obviously) not in her interests to expose these "boosters" at HER rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to the lesser of two evils is still evil "idea". politics – especially national campaigns are not so much about which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather which is less deplorable.
    Annek , says: September 17, 2016 at 5:01 pm
    Michelle:

    "Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks globalism has left behind."

    One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily quelled.

    Ben H , says: September 17, 2016 at 5:52 pm
    The most interesting part of the essay is near the end, where he briefly discusses how non-whites might react to our political realignment.

    After all, will the white liberal be able to manipulate these groups forever?

    For example, we are seeing the 'official black leaders' who represent them on TV shift from being activist clergymen to being (white paid and hosed) gay activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of black culture. How long can this continue?

    Connor , says: September 17, 2016 at 6:12 pm
    Red brick, September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    "Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.

    "thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."

    They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them."

    The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign peoples for the better part of 2 millennia, have always been on the receiving end of racial hatred. As a result many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of nationalist movements and have a natural tendency towards globalism.

    The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump as the next Hitler, so, understandably, there's a lot of fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified of the man.

    I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue) will probably vote for Trump, even though I have no love for the man himself. I think the "Trump the racist" meme is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I understand where the fear comes from.

    Connor , says: September 17, 2016 at 6:26 pm
    John Turner
    September 17, 2016 at 7:46 am

    "I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into irrelevant enclaves.

    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite cultural institutions."

    Bingo.

    If you want to fundamentally transform the culture, you have to withdraw from it, at least partially. But there's no need to wall yourself off. A Benedict Option community can and should be politically active, primarily at the local level, where the most good can be done.

    The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls, and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ.

    Mapache , says: September 17, 2016 at 6:31 pm
    "Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known.

    I never cared much for Trump but he has all the right enemies and is growing on me.

    VikingLS , says: September 17, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    "It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics. It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There are white people, and there are blah people. "

    They love Ben Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men were white.

    Viriato , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:02 pm
    "Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine about?"

    Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.

    JR , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:22 pm
    The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
    "…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same."

    Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.

    Michael Guarino , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily quelled.

    And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well, evidence that is not stale by nearly a century). It wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in San Jose. And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen in America, things start looking far, far worse.

    Connor , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:37 pm
    WAB
    September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    "I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?"

    While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics. The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.

    I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly, or laid out a concrete plan, because he is writing a book for Christians in general. And if you get into too many specifics, you are going to run right into the enormous theological and philosophical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

    Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social Reign of Christ the King", 3/4 of you would lose your minds.

    Of course, the current prospect for a Christian culture and state look bleak, to say the least. But we can play the long game, the Catholic Church is good at that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman Empire. It was 700 years from the founding of the first Benedictine monastery until St. Thomas Aquinas and the High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.

    ludo , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:52 pm
    I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that Trump is a simulacrum within a simulacrum with a simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic" presidential electoral race (if limited to the two "mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no presidential election tout court, ergo there is no democracy at the presidential election level in the U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in any case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.

    http://www.juancole.com/2016/09/parrot-presidential-election.html

    Howard , says: September 17, 2016 at 8:08 pm
    All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a different favorite deadly sin. We've had pride, avarice, and the current favorite is lust; the new favorite appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not been absent, but they have not been the driving force in politics recently.
    Viriato , says: September 17, 2016 at 8:42 pm
    To add to my previous comment:

    Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke the fires of class conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's goal was not to overturn the existing social order but rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR was the moderate leader the country needed at the time. Without him, we might well have succumbed to a demagogic or perhaps even dictatorial government under Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast, Hillary and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM, alt-right) for their own agendas. Let's hope whoever wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained, but courting extremists is always a risky business. Indeed, Hillary may be worse than Trump in this respect, since there appears to be no daylight between her and the SJW's.

    Siarlys Jenkins , says: September 17, 2016 at 8:43 pm
    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    Ben Op or not, its always a great notion. And you don't have to withdraw from the culture, THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We just need to reaffirm it.

    So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity?

    Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid contractors suing her… of course that's because she never built hotels, and I don't think she ever declared bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in Milwaukee who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for building violations, declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of thousands of dollars buying up distressed property at sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all of them have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I wouldn't vote for any of them for dogcatcher, much less president.

    That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze, and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against almost anyone but Trump.

    Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a white riot in this country.

    There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite a while. And no, that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't count. A few dozen thugs burning four black-owned businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood denounces then falls short of a riot.

    I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing "white" mobs posing much of a threat to anyone… they're mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it is true that until the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging through a black neighborhood. And there have been very few black riots that went deep into a "white" neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods too.

    This is an election about feeling under siege.

    But we're not, and most of the adults in the room know it.

    Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits peddling a point of view.

    I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its not who he is, what he says, or what he does or will do, its what they think they SEE in him. I have to admit, I did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in a long time, but that's a rather low bar.

    M_Young , says: September 17, 2016 at 8:50 pm
    Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis!
    EliteCommInc. , says: September 17, 2016 at 9:10 pm
    "There are, then, two developments we are likely to see going forward. First, cultural conservatives will seriously consider a political "Benedict Option," dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining their "principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the battle for the political soul of America. …"

    You know, people spout this stuff as if the Republican party is conservative. It started drifting from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an entrenched band of strategics concerned primarily with winning to advance policies tat have little to do with conservative thought.

    I doubt that I will become a member of a book club. And I doubt that I will stop voting according to my conservative view points.

    I generally think any idea that Christians are going to be left to their own devices doubtful or that they would want to design communities not already defined by scripture and a life in Christ.

    _______________
    "If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon politics altogether, it does call on them to recalibrate their (our) understanding of what politics is and what it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than statecraft. Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a post-Christian culture - that is, a culture that no longer shares some key basic Christian values . . ."

    I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who claims to live in Christ already calibrates their lives in the frame of Christ and led by some extent by the Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to become more worldly will change that. What may happen is that a kind of christian spiritual revival and renewal will occur.

    " . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as threats to the common good, simply because of the views we hold and the practices we live by out of fidelity to our religion. . ."

    If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat to the state, unless that threat is just to their participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres christians hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a realistic. If christians are considered a threat – then most likely the ultimate goal will be to get rid of them altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or you do what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on the campuses. You inundate them with how backward their thinking until the student and then proceed to tell them they are just like everyone else.

    Believers are expected to be in the world and not of it. And by in it, I think Christ intended them to be active participants.

    Mia , says: September 17, 2016 at 9:45 pm
    "Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but National Review has a small piece about Archbishop Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become more engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as well."

    Let me answer it for him. Perhaps just like not everyone is called to the contemplative life in a monastery but are called to the secular world, so is the church as a whole these days individually called to different arenas. That said, the basic principles of the Ben Op are hardly opposed to being active in the broader community. It just means there has to be some intentionality in maintaining a Christian worldview in a hostile larger culture.

    Mia , says: September 17, 2016 at 9:55 pm
    "The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls, and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ."

    Just a technical comment. You have to pay attention to which orders you are referring to, because many of them were indeed founded to retreat from the world. At one time, the idea of a monk wandering outside of the monastery, or a nun particularly, was considered scandalous. I read alot of monastic history about 20 years ago, and I seem to recall the Benedictines were actually focused on prayer and manual labor/work within the monastery area. It was later with orders like the Dominicans that were sent out into the community, and they caused the bishops a lot of headaches because they competed with priests and bishops in preaching publicly. It took awhile to sort out who was allowed to do what. Modern religious orders founded since the 18th century are quite different from the old orders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Order

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Saint_Benedict

    Another area of interest you could check out, besides reading some of the religious rules of life of many of these old orders just for the sake of comparison, is the differences between the cenobitic and eremitic monastic communities of the very early church. The original founding of religious orders even back then was also considered a direct challenge to the church hierarchy and took a lot of time sorting out that they weren't some kind of troublemakers, too. Modern Catholics have entirely too little knowledge of the development and maybe too pious a view of it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermit

    Stephen Gould , says: September 17, 2016 at 10:24 pm
    @Mapache: Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd.

    It is not hypocrisy for someone in favour of gun control to think that the greater the actual risk, the more acceptable the carrying of guns.

    Stephen Gould , says: September 17, 2016 at 10:30 pm
    The question is this: what do you do when the policies or ideas you stand for or at least, agree with, are advanced by someone with as appalling a character as Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well.

    I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards, Trump's fans said "Vote for the swindler, it's important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity to defend him.

    Richard Williams , says: September 18, 2016 at 12:12 am
    I read this on Friday and have thought much about it since. I came by earlier this evening and had about half of a long post written in response, but got too caught up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also determined that it wouldn't matter what I said. The conservatives would continue to harp about the evils of identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long history of conservatives engaging in identity politics in both Europe and America from roughly the high Middle Ages to the present. It seemed more rational to delete what I had written rather than save it and come back to finish it.

    It just so happened that as the game ended, I clicked on Huffingtonpost to check the headlines. Lo and behold, the top story was this one about Jane Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics in the animal kingdom:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-chimpanzee_behavior_us_57ddb84fe4b04a1497b4e512?section=&amp ;

    As the kicker to the headline says, "Well, she's the expert."

    Maryland My Maryland , says: September 18, 2016 at 12:13 am
    "What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well."

    I don't defend his vile character. I readily admit it. So do most of those I know who intend to vote for him.

    It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.

    For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character" issue is at best a wash, so the choice boils down to other things.

    The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton.

    Elijah , says: September 18, 2016 at 7:01 am
    "I'm all for a 35% tariff on those cars."

    I would agree with you, except who will that hurt? Ford? Mexico? Why not just legislate manufacturing jobs back into existence?

    saltlick , says: September 18, 2016 at 7:02 am
    WAB
    September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    "I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?"
    ------
    I think those are good questions, and read in the best light possible, might be interpreted as being asked by someone honestly seeking to understand the concerns of traditional Christians today.

    I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers are,

    "1) In present America, I don't think there are any "cultural change" possible which might reassure Christians, because we are in a downward spiral which has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary posted here by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak of what government and technology will do to the lives of believing Christians.

    2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future - vision that would allow me to relax would be a national reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health. I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.

    Clint , says: September 18, 2016 at 8:13 am
    Re:DavidJ,

    In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton defended partial-birth abortions again and voiced her support for late-term abortions up until birth, too.

    She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund these abortions by repealing the Hyde Amendment. The amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that 33,000 more babies will be aborted every year in the U.S.

    Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.

    EliteCommInc. , says: September 18, 2016 at 9:40 am
    "Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any fertile soil to grow in."

    I think far too much credit is being given to Mr. Trump. The reason he can stand is because the people he represents have been fed up with the some of what he stands for long before he entered the fray.

    If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee.

    There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a supporter. As a supporter, I would be curious to know what lies I have used to support him. We have some serious differences, but I think my support has been fairly above board. In fact, i think the support of most have been fairly straight up I am not sure there is much hidden about Mr. Trump.

    EliteCommInc. , says: September 18, 2016 at 9:46 am
    The only new issue that has been brought up is the issue of staff accountability. Has he neglected to pay his staff, is this just an organizational natter or complete nonsense.

    The other factor that has played out to his advantage are the news stories that repeatedly turn out false, distorted or nonexistent.

    The media already in the credibility hole seems very content to dig themselves in deeper.

    VikingLS , says: September 17, 2016 at 10:40 am
    @Michelle

    I didn't see the post where you disavowed liberals as well, so I was too hasty with the "your side"

    Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a white riot in this country.

    VikingLS , says: September 17, 2016 at 10:49 am
    "For thise who think Trump is harmless, here he is, tonight, riffing on his Clinton assassination fantasies. "

    That's a pretty common point about the hypocrisy of anti-gun politicians who have the luxury of armed professionals to protect themselves.

    Herenow , says: September 17, 2016 at 10:53 am
    fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the snippets that you have shared with usm particularly in the posts on Norcia and other communities already pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of conservative Christians to a more healthy, hands-off relationship with national politics. Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time, but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and the MIC mainly). Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other side of Mammon (big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed. But the point is I think you are returning to a better place, reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange infatuation that wasn't going to sustain anyway.
    Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: September 17, 2016 at 10:55 am
    So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity?
    Skip , says: September 17, 2016 at 10:56 am
    Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?
    Skip Rigney , says: September 17, 2016 at 11:03 am
    Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly why I have reluctantly become a libertarian:

    -"On a practical level, that means that I will no longer vote primarily on the social issues that have dictated my vote in the past, but I will vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's right to be left alone."-

    Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian America. I wrote about why I believe this to be so at http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/

    I don't believe for a minute that the majority of elected officials in the Republican Party have the backbone to stand up for religious liberty in the face of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how the Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the protection of religious liberty.

    There are many libertarians who are going to work to protect the rights of people to do things that undermine the common good. But, I have more faith that they'll protect the rights of a cultural minority such as traditionalist Christians than I have in either the Republicans or the Democrats.

    Egypt Steve , says: September 17, 2016 at 11:29 am
    It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics. It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There are white people, and there are blah people. White people will be in charge, and blah people can have a piece of the pie to the extent they agree to pretend to be white people.
    Viriato , says: September 17, 2016 at 11:44 am
    Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?"

    My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly being outsourced as well.

    If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will see that the vast majority of new jobs are in retail trade, health care and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders, and government. Most of these jobs are part-time jobs. None of these jobs produce any goods than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive independently. This is why more Americans aged 25-34 live with their parents than independently with spouses and children of their own. It is also why many people now must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. As for government jobs, they are tax-supported, and thus a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian. I recognize that government provides many crucial services. But it is unproductive to have too many bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.

    Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.

    Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this. Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued by radical ideologies like communism, regional separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism had its following as well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain, though it was not really fascist, as it was profoundly Christian and rejected Nietzschean neo-paganism) was irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one of the three pillars that supported the regime (the other two being monarchists and Catholics), but it was never the most influential pillar.] When Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in Spain.

    To get back to the US, we now have a Third World economy. We can't too surprised that our politics also look increasingly like those of a Third World country. Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the SJW's, Black Lives Matter, etc.

    connecticut farmer , says: September 17, 2016 at 12:11 pm
    @ Michael in Oceania

    The evolution of the MSM into an American version of Pravda/Izvestia has been a lengthy process and dates back at least to the days of Walter Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom Roosevelt, Truman and JFK had no qualms about calling for advice).

    With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon of the blogosphere, the MSM has no choice but to cast off whatever pretensions to objectivity they may have had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can keep themselves viable in an increasingly competitive market where more people get their news from such as Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the WaPo

    dan , says: September 17, 2016 at 12:35 pm
    Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the PC police, and generally stood for these same 6 principles, and did so in a much more coherent and rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished within no time at all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle instead of capturing an undefined spirit, if he tried to answer the charges against him in a rational manner, all it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC charges to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model for future conservative candidates when running in a nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them. If you engage in the argument with them, they'll destroy you.
    BlairBurton , says: September 17, 2016 at 12:45 pm
    @Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him. Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump ?

    Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine about? By any standard, conditions then were worse for the white working class than is the case today, and yes, my grandparents were working class: one grandfather worked for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes, there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and suicide amongst the populace in the 1930s. The role of religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth, I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe that is true for most Christians throughout history.

    Just what is different about today, that brings all this rage and resentment? Could it be that racial and ethnic and religious minorities, and women now have a piece of the pie and a good part of the white working class cannot stand it?

    And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the fact that so very many Americans support him, whether wholeheartedly swallowing his poison, or because they close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind of a man he is.

    Nate , says: September 17, 2016 at 1:12 pm
    The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture,religion, and autonomy at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift and complete.
    Abelard Lindsey , says: September 17, 2016 at 1:28 pm
    How can anyone right in the head argue against entreprenuership and decentralization? All of our problems are due to a lack of these two things.
    Baldy , says: September 17, 2016 at 1:58 pm
    "You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it."

    If we all accept your definition then we can't argue with you. Whatever you want to call it, there is an entire industry (most conservative media) that feeds a victimization mentality among whites, conservatives, evangelicals etc (all those labels apply to me by the way) that closely resembles the grievance outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is taken seriously. Why else do so many of us get so bent out of shape when employees have the audacity to say "happy holidays" at the department store. As made apparent on this blog we do need to be realistic and vigilant about the real threats and the direction the culture is going, but by whining about every perceived slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of "Christian America" (while anointing a vile figure like Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting the legitimate grievances we do have.

    Roland P. , says: September 17, 2016 at 2:05 pm
    Everyone has heard how far is moving small car production to Mexico and forwarded saying no one in America will lose their jobs because the production will be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.

    That's not the problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not helping Americans.

    I'm all for a 35% tariff on those cars.

    Roland P. , says: September 17, 2016 at 2:06 pm
    Darn predictive text program it should say Ford.
    Greg in PDX , says: September 17, 2016 at 2:14 pm
    "BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."

    Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.

    Clint , says: September 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm
    What happens when the status quo media turns a presidential election into a referendum regarding the media's ability to shape public opinion and direct "purchasing" choices?

    The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it.

    Nelson , says: September 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    This will almost always mean voting for the Republicans in national elections, but in a primary situation, I will vote for the Republican who can best be counted on to defend religious liberty, even if he's not 100 percent on board with what I consider to be promoting the Good. If it means voting for a Republican that the defense hawks or the Chamber of Commerce disdain, I have no problem at all with that.

    How is this different than cultural conservatives voted before Trump?

    grumpy realist , says: September 17, 2016 at 2:35 pm
    If we elect Trump as POTUS, we deserve everything that happens to us.

    Don't blame the progressives when Trump says something about defaulting on the US debt and the stock market crashes.

    Don't blame the progressives when China moves ahead us by leaps and bound in science and technology because we pull a Kansas and cut taxes left right and center, then decide to get rid of all government-funded research.

    Don't blame the progressives when The Wall doesn't get built, Trump says "who, me? I never promised anything!" Ditto for the lack of return of well-paid coal-mining jobs.

    And don't blame the progressives when you discover Trump has sold you down the river for a song, refuses to appoint "conservatives" as SCOTUS judges, and throws the First Amendment out the window.

    WAB , says: September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm
    We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. Now whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very particular program pursued by conservatives, traditionalists and the religious right. It is certain that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent and whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot low, one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents anything it is the fact that the base of the party was not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian values we thought they were representing are hardly recognizable now.

    What truly puzzles me more and increasingly so is Rod's vision of what America is supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what that regime looks like? Behind all the theological underpinning and high-sounding abstractions what does a ground-level political and legislative program for achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly participate in look like?

    Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is responsive to politics. What political order does the Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the one we have now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect our life and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He says Christians just want to be left alone but they seem to have made and are still making a lot of noise for people who want to be left alone so I have to assume they want something over and above being left alone.

    I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: September 17, 2016 at 4:41 pm
    a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no value in speculating or establishing a number) are deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad) Trump's we don't have time to be politically correct mantra is ignored when his opponent (a politician who helped establish the concept of politically correctness) steals a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the "irony" hammer from the toolbox? ever the shrewd, calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny barker, Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like any politician) put his finger in the air and decided to "run" from the "nationalist, racist, nativist, side of the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable folks on the Clinton bandwagon; it's just (obviously) not in her interests to expose these "boosters" at HER rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to the lesser of two evils is still evil "idea". politics – especially national campaigns are not so much about which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather which is less deplorable.
    Liam , says: September 17, 2016 at 4:41 pm
    Btw, Rod, as my mind goes in stray places as I battle as I on my fourth day of a strep infection, I had the following idea for you:

    New Age Trump.

    Imagine The Possibilities.

    Way.

    Donald Trump as the avatar of the Human Potential Movement.

    est, Landmark Forum, the Rule of Attraction, the Secret: Eat your empty hearts out.

    Annek , says: September 17, 2016 at 5:01 pm
    Michelle:

    "Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks globalism has left behind."

    One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily quelled.

    Ben H , says: September 17, 2016 at 5:52 pm
    The most interesting part of the essay is near the end, where he briefly discusses how non-whites might react to our political realignment.

    After all, will the white liberal be able to manipulate these groups forever?

    For example, we are seeing the 'official black leaders' who represent them on TV shift from being activist clergymen to being (white paid and hosed) gay activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of black culture. How long can this continue?

    Connor , says: September 17, 2016 at 6:12 pm
    Red brick
    September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    "Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.

    "thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."

    They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them."

    The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign peoples for the better part of 2 millennia, have always been on the receiving end of racial hatred. As a result many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of nationalist movements and a natural tendency towards globalism.

    The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump as the next Hitler, so, understandably, there's a lot of fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified of the man.

    I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue) will probably vote for Trump, even though I have no love for the man himself. I think the "Trump the racist" meme is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I understand where the fear comes from.

    Connor , says: September 17, 2016 at 6:26 pm
    John Turner
    September 17, 2016 at 7:46 am

    "I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into irrelevant enclaves.

    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite cultural institutions."

    Bingo.

    If you want to fundamentally transform the culture, you have to withdraw from it, at least partially. But there's no need to wall yourself off. A Benedict Option community can and should be politically active, primarily at the local level, where the most good can be done.

    The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls, and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ.

    Mapache , says: September 17, 2016 at 6:31 pm
    "Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known.

    I never cared much for Trump but he has all the right enemies and is growing on me.

    VikingLS , says: September 17, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    "It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics. It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There are white people, and there are blah people. "

    They love Ben Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men were white.

    Viriato , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:02 pm
    "Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine about?"

    Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.

    JR , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:22 pm
    The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
    "…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same."

    Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.

    Michael Guarino , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily quelled.

    And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well, evidence that is not stale by nearly a century). It wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in San Jose. And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen in America, things start looking far, far worse.

    Connor , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:37 pm
    WAB
    September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    "I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?"

    While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics. The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.

    I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly, or laid out a concrete plan, because he is writing a book for Christians in general. And if you get into too many specifics, you are going to run right into the enormous theological and philosophical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

    Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social Reign of Christ the King", 3/4 of you would lose your minds.

    Of course, the current prospect for a Christian culture and state look bleak, to say the least. But we can play the long game, the Catholic Church is good at that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman Empire. It was 700 years from the founding of the first Benedictine monastery until St. Thomas Aquinas and the High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.

    ludo , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:52 pm
    I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that Trump is a simulacrum within a simulacrum with a simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic" presidential electoral race (if limited to the two "mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no presidential election tout court, ergo there is no democracy at the presidential election level in the U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in any case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.

    http://www.juancole.com/2016/09/parrot-presidential-election.html

    Howard , says: September 17, 2016 at 8:08 pm
    All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a different favorite deadly sin. We've had pride, avarice, and the current favorite is lust; the new favorite appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not been absent, but they have not been the driving force in politics recently.
    Viriato , says: September 17, 2016 at 8:42 pm
    To add to my previous comment:

    Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke the fires of class conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's goal was not to overturn the existing social order but rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR was the moderate leader the country needed at the time. Without him, we might well have succumbed to a demagogic or perhaps even dictatorial government under Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast, Hillary and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM, alt-right) for their own agendas. Let's hope whoever wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained, but courting extremists is always a risky business. Indeed, Hillary may be worse than Trump in this respect, since there appears to be no daylight between her and the SJW's.

    Siarlys Jenkins , says: September 17, 2016 at 8:43 pm
    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    Ben Op or not, its always a great notion. And you don't have to withdraw from the culture, THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We just need to reaffirm it.

    So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity?

    Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid contractors suing her… of course that's because she never built hotels, and I don't think she ever declared bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in Milwaukee who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for building violations, declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of thousands of dollars buying up distressed property at sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all of them have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I wouldn't vote for any of them for dogcatcher, much less president.

    That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze, and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against almost anyone but Trump.

    Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a white riot in this country.

    There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite a while. And no, that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't count. A few dozen thugs burning four black-owned businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood denounces then falls short of a riot.

    I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing "white" mobs posing much of a threat to anyone… they're mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it is true that until the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging through a black neighborhood. And there have been very few black riots that went deep into a "white" neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods too.

    This is an election about feeling under siege.

    But we're not, and most of the adults in the room know it.

    Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits peddling a point of view.

    I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its not who he is, what he says, or what he does or will do, its what they think they SEE in him. I have to admit, I did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in a long time, but that's a rather low bar.

    M_Young , says: September 17, 2016 at 8:50 pm
    Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis!
    EliteCommInc. , says: September 17, 2016 at 9:10 pm
    "There are, then, two developments we are likely to see going forward. First, cultural conservatives will seriously consider a political "Benedict Option," dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining their "principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the battle for the political soul of America. …"

    You know, people spout this stuff as if the Republican party is conservative. It started drifting from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an entrenched band of strategics concerned primarily with winning to advance policies tat have little to do with conservative thought.

    I doubt that I will become a member of a book club. And I doubt that I will stop voting according to my conservative view points.

    I generally think any idea that Christians are going to be left to their own devices doubtful or that they would want to design communities not already defined by scripture and a life in Christ.

    _______________
    "If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon politics altogether, it does call on them to recalibrate their (our) understanding of what politics is and what it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than statecraft. Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a post-Christian culture - that is, a culture that no longer shares some key basic Christian values . . ."

    I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who claims to live in Christ already calibrates their lives in the frame of Christ and led by some extent by the Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to become more worldly will change that. What may happen is that a kind of christian spiritual revival and renewal will occur.

    " . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as threats to the common good, simply because of the views we hold and the practices we live by out of fidelity to our religion. . ."

    If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat to the state, unless that threat is just to their participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres christians hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a realistic. If christians are considered a threat – then most likely the ultimate goal will be to get rid of them altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or you do what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on the campuses. You inundate them with how backward their thinking until the student and then proceed to tell them they are just like everyone else.

    Believers are expected to be in the world and not of it. And by in it, I think Christ intended them to be active participants.

    Mia , says: September 17, 2016 at 9:45 pm
    "Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but National Review has a small piece about Archbishop Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become more engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as well."

    Let me answer it for him. Perhaps just like not everyone is called to the contemplative life in a monastery but are called to the secular world, so is the church as a whole these days individually called to different arenas. That said, the basic principles of the Ben Op are hardly opposed to being active in the broader community. It just means there has to be some intentionality in maintaining a Christian worldview in a hostile larger culture.

    Mia , says: September 17, 2016 at 9:55 pm
    "The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls, and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ."

    Just a technical comment. You have to pay attention to which orders you are referring to, because many of them were indeed founded to retreat from the world. At one time, the idea of a monk wandering outside of the monastery, or a nun particularly, was considered scandalous. I read alot of monastic history about 20 years ago, and I seem to recall the Benedictines were actually focused on prayer and manual labor/work within the monastery area. It was later with orders like the Dominicans that were sent out into the community, and they caused the bishops a lot of headaches because they competed with priests and bishops in preaching publicly. It took awhile to sort out who was allowed to do what. Modern religious orders founded since the 18th century are quite different from the old orders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Order

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Saint_Benedict

    Another area of interest you could check out, besides reading some of the religious rules of life of many of these old orders just for the sake of comparison, is the differences between the cenobitic and eremitic monastic communities of the very early church. The original founding of religious orders even back then was also considered a direct challenge to the church hierarchy and took a lot of time sorting out that they weren't some kind of troublemakers, too. Modern Catholics have entirely too little knowledge of the development and maybe too pious a view of it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermit

    Stephen Gould , says: September 17, 2016 at 10:24 pm
    @Mapache: Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd.

    It is not hypocrisy for someone in favour of gun control to think that the greater the actual risk, the more acceptable the carrying of guns.

    Stephen Gould , says: September 17, 2016 at 10:30 pm
    The question is this: what do you do when the policies or ideas you stand for or at least, agree with, are advanced by someone with as appalling a character as Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well.

    I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards, Trump's fans said "Vote for the swindler, it's important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity to defend him.

    Richard Williams , says: September 18, 2016 at 12:12 am
    I read this on Friday and have thought much about it since. I came by earlier this evening and had about half of a long post written in response, but got too caught up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also determined that it wouldn't matter what I said. The conservatives would continue to harp about the evils of identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long history of conservatives engaging in identity politics in both Europe and America from roughly the high Middle Ages to the present. It seemed more rational to delete what I had written rather than save it and come back to finish it.

    It just so happened that as the game ended, I clicked on Huffingtonpost to check the headlines. Lo and behold, the top story was this one about Jane Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics in the animal kingdom:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-chimpanzee_behavior_us_57ddb84fe4b04a1497b4e512?section=&amp ;

    As the kicker to the headline says, "Well, she's the expert."

    Maryland My Maryland , says: September 18, 2016 at 12:13 am
    "What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well."

    I don't defend his vile character. I readily admit it. So do most of those I know who intend to vote for him.

    It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.

    For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character" issue is at best a wash, so the choice boils down to other things.

    The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton.

    Elijah , says: September 18, 2016 at 7:01 am
    "I'm all for a 35% tariff on those cars."

    I would agree with you, except who will that hurt? Ford? Mexico? Why not just legislate manufacturing jobs back into existence?

    saltlick , says: September 18, 2016 at 7:02 am
    WAB
    September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    "I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?"
    ------
    I think those are good questions, and read in the best light possible, might be interpreted as being asked by someone honestly seeking to understand the concerns of traditional Christians today.

    I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers are,

    "1) In present America, I don't think there are any "cultural change" possible which might reassure Christians, because we are in a downward spiral which has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary posted here by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak of what government and technology will do to the lives of believing Christians.

    2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future - vision that would allow me to relax would be a national reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health. I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.

    Clint , says: September 18, 2016 at 8:13 am
    Re:DavidJ,

    In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton defended partial-birth abortions again and voiced her support for late-term abortions up until birth, too.

    She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund these abortions by repealing the Hyde Amendment. The amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that 33,000 more babies will be aborted every year in the U.S.

    Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.

    EliteCommInc. , says: September 18, 2016 at 9:40 am
    "Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any fertile soil to grow in."

    I think far too much credit is being given to Mr. Trump. The reason he can stand is because the people he represents have been fed up with the some of what he stands for long before he entered the fray.

    If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee.

    There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a supporter. As a supporter, I would be curious to know what lies I have used to support him. We have some serious differences, but I think my support has been fairly above board. In fact, i think the support of most have been fairly straight up I am not sure there is much hidden about Mr. Trump.

    Clint , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    Hillary Clinton,
    "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

    Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.

    Matt in AK , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:07 pm
    That's a shame RD, because I was looking forward to joining a like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining our "principles." With fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the battle for the political soul of America.

    [NFR: You can still have your Ben Op book group. - RD]

    T.S.Gay , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:18 pm
    I'm going to start and end with globalization by referring to G.K.Chesterton in Orthodoxy(pg 101).
    "This is what makes Christendom at once so perplexing and so much more interesting than the Pagan empires;…If anyone wants a modern proof of all this, let him consider the curious fact that, under Christianity, Europe has broken up into individual nations. Patriotism is a perfect example of this deliberate balance of one emphasis against another emphasis. The instinct of the Pagan empire would have said, 'You shall all be Roman citizens, and grow alike; let the German grow less slow and reverent; the Frenchmen less experimental and swift.' But the instinct of Christian Europe says, 'Let the German remain slow and reverent, that the Frenchman may the more safely be swift and experimental. We will make an equipoise out of these excesses. The absurdity called Germany shall correct the insanity called France."
    Isn't it interesting that has Christianity has left the northern hemisphere for the southern, that Europe has tried union, the USA has been into interventionism, and globalization has become so mainstream. You shall all be one world citizens doesn't have a balancing instinct. And Chesterton was deliberating about the balancing instinct.
    Viriato , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:22 pm
    I think Mitchell is basically right. Aside from his jab at the Benedict Option, I have just one quibble with his analysis: "And Trump is the first American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his formulations have been."

    Wrong. Trump is definitely not the first candidate to do this. He was preceded by Pat Buchanan, who also brought (and still brings) much more coherence to the six ideas than Trump. Clearly, Buchanan ran at a time when the post-1989 order was in its infancy, and so few saw any fundamental problem with it. He was ahead of his time. But he was a candidate that presented the six ideas and attracted a non-negligible amount of support. Trump is not a pioneer in this regard. People should give Buchanan his due.

    German_reader , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:26 pm
    I hope Trump wins; he's rather bizarre and not very likable as a person, but the last 25 years have been disastrous politically in Western nations and it's time to repudiate the ruling orthodoxy. The US still is the Western hegemon and exports its ideas across the Atlantic (most unfortunate in cases like "critical whiteness studies"); if there's change in the US towards a (soft, civic) nationalism, it might open up new options in Europe as well.
    In any case these are exciting times…however it turns out, we may well be living through years which will be seen as decisive in retrospect.
    Viriato , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:28 pm
    This comment on the Politico article stood out to me: "It is its very existence, and mantra, for a religion the advertise itself, something that is frowned upon as being Incredibly un-American under the Constitution, and contrary to our core beliefs. Yes Republicans not only embrace this, they help their religion advertise."

    In other words, this commenter admits that he believes it "incredibly un-American" for religions to "advertise," and, by extension, to even exist (he says advertising is religion's "very existence.")

    The comment has a high number of "thumbs-up."

    We really are in trouble. America has become Jacobin country.

    Adamant , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:28 pm
    Red brick
    September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm
    Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.'

    Perhaps due to very recent memories that herrenvolk regimes are not good for the Jews. The online troll army of out and proud anti-semites can't help but contribute to this.

    WillW , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:32 pm
    Re "the DC elites are clueless" what ABOUT John Kasich up there on the podium advocating for the latest free trade deal? Yessir, that'll get us in our "states that begin with a vowel" to totally change our minds on that, you betcha!
    Anne , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:33 pm
    Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits peddling a point of view. Funny how he proves so many intellectuals right about so many contradictory things, all without having to take responsibility for any particular idea.
    T.S.Gay , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:39 pm
    Nobody has remained more adamant than the writer of this blog that there is something sacred about sex between one woman and one man, and them married. God bless him for staying true.
    So I am going to try to say( G.K Chesterton please forgive me)…..Let the LBGTQIA remain true to their identity, that the married male/female may be more safely true to their identity. We can make an equipoise out of these excesses( despite those who want us to be all the same). The absurdity called LBGTQIA shall correct the insanity called one man/one woman.
    K. W. Jeter , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:39 pm
    Per JonF:

    Trump is certainly not unraveling identity politics. He's adding another identity to the grievance industry, that of (downscale) whites.

    You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it. Whether you agree with white identity politics or not, its proponents are obviously not adding to the grievance industry, but attempting to defend against it, i.e. stating that white people are not to blame for everything, and no, they shouldn't continue to pay for it. To merely maintain that position is sufficient to be labeled as a white supremacist by the grievance industry hacks.

    MJR , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:47 pm
    Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but National Review has a small piece about Archbishop Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become more engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as well.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440124/archbishop-chaput-notre-dame-lecture-christians-must-engage-politics

    I just brought it up because I'm curious if you've spoken to Christians like Archbishop Chaput, who want to go the opposite direction you do.

    Michael in Oceania , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:51 pm
    Here is a related story by Charles Hugh Smith:

    The Mainstream Media Bet the Farm on Hillary–and Lost

    Relevant quote:

    Dear mainstream media: you have lost your credibility because you are incapable of skeptical inquiry into your chosen candidate or official statistics/ pronouncements. Your dismissal of skeptical inquiries as "conspiracies" or "hoaxes" is nothing but a crass repackaging of the propaganda techniques of totalitarian state media.

    Dear MSM: You have forsaken your duty in a democracy and are a disgrace to investigative, unbiased journalism. You have substituted Orwellian-level propaganda for honest, skeptical journalism. We can only hope viewers and advertisers respond appropriately, i.e. turn you off.

    Here's the mainstream media's new mantra: "skepticism is always a conspiracy or a hoax." The Ministry of Propaganda and the MSM are now one agency.

    The curtain is being pulled back on the Wizard of Oz. How soon before the Wicked Witch starts to melt?

    Rossbach , says: September 16, 2016 at 8:07 pm
    Do people who are willing to accept characterization as "angry, provincial bigots" still have any right to political self-expression? Believe it or not, it's an important question.
    Pepi , says: September 16, 2016 at 8:17 pm
    Identity politics definition: a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

    I find it odd that the party of older white straight Christian men accuses the party of everyone else to be guilty of "identity politics". It just doesn't make any sense.

    Wes (the original) , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:28 pm
    The majority of folks who work for a living do not want globalization – it's that simple. They will find a party who acquiesces.
    Siarlys Jenkins , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:37 pm
    (1) borders matter; Ok, but they're not all that.
    (2) immigration policy matters; Ditto. We should have a policy.
    (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; Depends. National interests matter, but if they are all that matters… I think you just stepped outside the Gospels.
    (4) entrepreneurship matters; It can, for good OR for evil.
    (5) decentralization matters; Another thorny one… SOME things need to be more decentralized, some don't, and we need to have an honest conversation about which is which.
    (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ABSOLUTELY!

    All in all, I think this Georgetown prof has done the usual short list of The Latest Attempt To Reduce Reality To a Nice Short Checklist.

    Not much of a guide to the future. We could all write our own lists.

    Michelle , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:43 pm
    You can largely agree with Mitchell's six points (and, for the most part I do) and nonetheless recognize that an unprincipled, ruthless charlatan like Trump–a pathological liar and narcissist interested in nothing but his own self-promotion–will do nothing meaningful to advance them. His latest birther charade shows him for the lying, unprincipled scum bucket he is.

    The cultural ground is shifting as the emptiness of advanced consumer capitalism and globalism becomes ever more apparent. Large scale organizations are, by their very nature, dehumanizing, demoralizing, and corrupt. I've believed so for the better part of my life now. It's that belief that lead me to the University of Rochester and Christopher Lasch in the 1980s and, subsequently to MacIntyre, Rieff, and Berry. It's also a belief that has lead me to distrust both the corporate order and politics as a means to salvation. I certainly don't consider myself a conservative, at least not in the shallow American sense of the term, and the chances that I will ever vote for a Republican again are nil. But I'm not a liberal in the American sense of the term either because agreeing with Mitchell's six points pretty much pretty much rules me out of that tribe. I have, for a long time, felt pretty homeless in the American wilderness.

    I suppose that's one reason I keep reading your blog, Rod, though I disagree deeply with many of your views. As a Jew, I'm not much interested in the Benedict Option, but I do agree that our society suffers from a certain soul sickness that politics, consumption, and technology can't cure.

    Michelle , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:56 pm
    Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.

    As one of those American Jews who feels a deep hatred for Trump, perhaps I can shed some light on the reasons. It has nothing to do with his alleged desire to enforce borders. Nations require them. Nor does it have anything to do with his lip service to Christianist values. He's no Christian. He's pure heathen.

    Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks globalism has left behind.

    Robert Levine , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:06 pm
    Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump…They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them.

    Or it could be that Trump reminds them of some historical figure who was rather bad for the Jews. I wonder who that could be?

    And saying all the Jews that the commenter knows feel an "uncontrollable" emotion is a touch anti-Semitic.

    But to talk about the OP: Joshua Mitchell gives the game away by consistently referring to 1989 as the state of a "new order," which he thinks is a combination of globalization and identity politics. Of course neither was new. Admittedly globalization received a boost by the end of the Cold War, but it's been well underway for a century or so. Mitchell wants to return to Reagan's "morning in America." But there was no such morning.

    "Identity politics" is what the suffragettes and abolitionists would have been accused of, if the term had been invented back in their day. Are there stupid things done and said under the umbrella of "identity politics"? Of course. That doesn't make the discrimination and mistreatment that led to such politics any less real.

    The fundamental flaw in Mitchell's argument, though, is that the Trump he describes (or, more accurately, wishes for) simply doesn't exist. The Trump he describes has ideas and beliefs. It's a little ironic that Mitchell thinks that Trump "expressly opposes" the ideas of Marx and Nietzsche, because the real-world Trump has no beliefs other than he is an ubermensch.

    JS , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:10 pm
    I prefer Nassim Taleb's take on what's going on – see here https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.680ftln6w
    KD , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:18 pm
    What's wrong with Politico?

    I read an entire article on Trump in which Hitler wasn't mentioned once.

    It wasn't even smug, and there was no list of liberal cliches and denunciations of heretics so between drooling I never knew whether shout "Boo!" or "Hurah!"

    Couldn't they throw in one "racist, sexist, homophobic" so I could feel morally superior to stupid white people in fly-over country?

    The whole article was completely deplorable.

    Michelle , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:45 pm
    Having now read Mitchell's article, all I can say is that while I agree with his six points, his hope that Trump is some kind of pragmatist is deeply misguided. Like most political scientists, he knows little about history.

    For thise who think Trump is harmless, here he is, tonight, riffing on his Clinton assassination fantasies. Where is Leni Reifenstahl when you need her? Trump is no pragmatist. He's no Christian. And he's no leader.

    Evan , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:49 pm
    If Mitchell is correct–and I believe that he is–how does this bode poorly for conservative Christians? If the BenOp is primarily a reaction to the post-1989 culture, shouldn't the crumbling of that culture obviate the need for a BenOp?

    [NFR: Well, if there were a candidate advocating these positions who WASN'T Donald Trump, I would eagerly vote for him or her. I think Trump is thoroughly untrustworthy and demagogic. But I would not be under any illusion that casting a vote for that person - again, even if he or she was a saint - would mean any kind of Christian restoration. The Ben Op is premised on the idea that we are living in post-Christian times. The Ben Op is a religious movement with political implications, not a political movement. Liquid modernity will not suddenly solidify depending on a change of government in Washington. - RD]

    Charles Cosimano , says: September 16, 2016 at 11:07 pm
    This is an election about feeling under siege. Once that is understood all else makes sense. It is also a manifestation about what happens when a word is overused, in this case racism. It creates a reaction of, "Ask us if we care," which becomes, "Yeah, we are, and we like it."

    It backfires.

    The Ben Op may prove to be in better position that it looks.

    Craig , says: September 17, 2016 at 12:06 am
    I think populists who haven't gotten much attention from either party are projecting an awful lot onto a seriously flawed candidate who doesn't have firm convictions on anything, beyond making the sale. This objective he pursues by being willing to say whatever he thinks will get him the sale, with no regard for decency or truth or consistency. If he gets himself elected, who knows what he will do to retain his popularity with what he perceives to be the majority view. Those hoping for a sea change are engaged in some pretty serious wishful thinking, I think.
    Nicholas , says: September 17, 2016 at 12:46 am
    @T.S.Gay, You are correct that this election is a battle of Nationalism vs Globalism. But, Nationalism is Identity Politics in its purest form and that is why the Globalist oppose it.

    Globalists use identity politics, that is true. However, they bear no love for the identities they publicly promote. Rather, they dehumanize them, using them as nothing more than weapons against Nationalism.

    As a Nationalist I will support and promote my Nation(People), but I also recognize the inherent right of other Nations(Peoples) to support and promote themselves.

    Fran Macadam , says: September 17, 2016 at 1:06 am
    I'm absolutely sure Donald Trump isn't going to do to us, what that other person has planned for us deplorables:

    "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

    After her shot across the bow promises to marginalize us in society, complete with cheers from those at her back, that is just about all that counts.

    Reflectionephemeral , says: September 17, 2016 at 2:36 am
    Mitchell's description echoes Oliver Stone's comments from Oct. 2001: "There's been conglomeration under six principal princes-they're kings, they're barons!-and these six companies have control of the world! … That's what the new world order is. They control culture, they control ideas. And I think the revolt of September 11 was about 'F- you! F- your order!'"

    "Trump '16: 'F- you! F- your order!"

    KD , says: September 17, 2016 at 5:16 am
    Hey Rod:

    Speaking of the New Age and 4th Generational Warfare, I wonder if you can do anything with the offering by John Schindler of the XX Committee:

    http://observer.com/2016/09/were-losing-the-war-against-terrorism/

    Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: September 17, 2016 at 6:50 am
    It is quite amusing to contemplate how it works. An average progressive (I mean average progressive with brains, not SJW) comes with a genuine desire to criticize Trump for his ideas. But he faces something "deplorable" almost at once. "Deplorable" things are known to immediately trigger the incessant spouting of words like "bigot", "racist", logically impossible "white nationalist", "chovinist", fascist and on, and on, and on. No way to control it, completely automatic. A deep-seated emotional reaction all the way long from uncle Freud's works. And, as a result, Trump's actual ideas remain largely uncriticized. And the ideas that are often mentioned but seldom confronted with a coherent critical response are almost impossible to defeat. So yes, his ideas are thinly buried in his rhetoric. There are simply too many of them for being suddenly blurted out even without all of the above, especially when similar ideas simultaneously blossom all around Europe. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, American Progressivism – the West is simply tired of two centuries of modernist and postmodernist experiments. And now the giant starts awakening. Though, instead of "thinly buried", I would rather prefer "subtly woven" metaphor.
    cecelia , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:00 am
    sure the ground is moving – it was inevitable. Everything changes.

    But is Trump a harbinger of the change? Or is he – or rather his supporters – simply hoping to stop change – to bring back some nostalgic notion of 1950's America?

    Trump is a con man who seeks only his own aggrandizement. He is not really committed to any refutation of the existing order. He lies constantly and when one set of lies stops working he switches to a new set of lies. He was forced to back down on birtherism – which is what propelled him to the attention of the Fox News conspiracy folks. And let us be clear – birtherism is fundamentally racist. Now he has to give up his birther position so he can get the votes of a few soccer Moms. So he creates new lies – Hilary started birtherism. It becomes impossible to keep up with his lies. And as he bounces from one new set of realities to another – he takes his supporters along with him. He is playing a con – making a sale.

    Now he suggests that the Secret Service detail give up their guns and then "Let's see what happens to her". There is no great movement with him – just a demented man who thrives on the adoration of the crowds and will say anything however obscene to get those cheers.

    The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him. Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump ?

    Elijah , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:08 am
    Very interesting piece, and I had not really connected the Brexit and EU jitters to what's going on in the US – and I think Mitchell is right about that. When we were still in primary season and Trump was ahead, I recall one author – probably on The Corner – wondered how a Trump presidency might look. He figured Trump would be very pragmatic, perhaps actually fixing Obamacare, and focusing on our interests here at home.

    "I will vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's right to be left alone."

    I've been voting that way for years; mostly Republicans, but a good sprinkling of Democrats as well.

    Al Bundy , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:25 am
    Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right ideas buried within Trump's rhetoric. But even if it were true that Trump had no ideas, I would still vote for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us lately?

    "Conservative principles" espoused by wonks and political scientists culminated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy was a divine right, transferable across time and culture.

    Moreover, do we really want our politicians playing with ideas? Think back to George W. Bush's speech at the 2004 Republican convention, perhaps the most idea-driven speech in recent history. The sight of W. spinning a neo-Hegelian apocalyptic narrative was like watching a gorilla perform opera.

    Brett , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:34 am
    "decentralization matters" is an odd idea to ascribe to Trump. He seems to want power centralized on himself ("I alone can fix it").
    John Turner , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:46 am
    I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into irrelevant enclaves.

    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite cultural institutions.

    bacon , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:47 am
    A recently heard description of Trump – a fat, orange, poorly educated, intellectually shallow pathologic liar, bigot, and narcissistic jerk.

    Well, I don't know that much about the guy, but some of that description seems correct. He rarely reads, he says, gets his information from "the shows", so if there are intellectual preparations which we should expect in a presidential candidate he falls short, but those preparations usually create some intellectual bias, which he doesn't seem to have on any important matter. So maybe just "muddling through" problems as they arise will work. One has to hope so, because whatever ability to do that he has is all he's got.

    Neal , says: September 17, 2016 at 7:59 am
    "cavalierly undermining decades worth of social and political certainties"

    Sorry, that is just silly. Only political junkies and culture warriors even care about stuff like this. In my life… in my experience of living in the USA every day, none of this matters. It just doesn't.

    People don't live their lives thinking about any of those things cited. What would it mean to you or me to have "borders matter"? Ford just announced they were moving some more production to Mexico. That decision WILL affect the lives of those who lose their jobs. Does anyone honestly think that anyone… even a President Trump, would lift a finger to stop them? Of course not. It is silly to assert otherwise.

    TR , says: September 17, 2016 at 9:30 am
    Very good essay and commentary, but I caution against the notion that you are looking at permanent change. JonF's two 20th century ideas (Free Trade benefits everyone and Supply Side economics) are not going away. In fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both those ideas is one of Trump's economic advisors.

    BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up.

    Matt , says: September 17, 2016 at 9:44 am
    Great. He's got six ideas. Six ideas with either no detailed policy or approach attached to them, policies or approaches that seemingly change on a whim (evidence that at best he hasn't given much thought to any of them), or has no realistic political path for making those ideas a reality.

    His ideas are worthless.

    saltlick , says: September 17, 2016 at 9:47 am
    "That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads us toward: A future where states matter."

    With that sentence, I think Mitchell stumbles into a truth he might not have intended - The "state" - as in "administrative state" - is going to continue growing even under Trump.

    Given the increasing intolerance of our society for traditional values, that's all Christians need to know.

    DavidJ , says: September 17, 2016 at 9:49 am
    Clint writes:
    "Hillary Clinton,
    'L;aws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious bel:efs and structural biases have to be changed.

    Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables."

    Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/clinton-christians-must-deny-faith/

    Christians, we?

    VikingLS , says: September 17, 2016 at 10:16 am
    "He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially if, he loses."

    Given the amount violence and disruption your side has caused this year this accusation really should be laughable. Trump supporters aren't out beating up Clinton supporters and making sure they can't have a rally in the wrong neighborhood. Members of the alt-right aren't threatening student journalists with violence on their own campuses, or getting on stage with speakers they dislike and slapping them.

    It's your own side that has been perpetuating the mob violence while the liberal establishment denies it or excuses it.

    CAPT S , says: September 17, 2016 at 10:18 am
    This post is spot-on; thank you for sharing the preliminary BenOp talking points.

    We need Thomas Paine's Common Sense for our age, for these are times that try men's souls. Problem is this: Paine's citizenry were 90% literate, unified by culture, and cognitively engaged … today we're 70% literate (at 4th grade reading level), multicultural, and amused to death.

    [Sep 23, 2016] Rise Of The Deplorables

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Deplorables! ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | strata-sphere.com
    Published by AJStrata under 2016 Elections , All General Discussions Update : Many more Proud Deplorables here – End Update

    Hillary just can't help herself. Her political instincts (and those of her campaign) are just plain stupid. Everything backfires on her, probably because she is living in a fantasy bubble called the Political Industrial Complex (PIC).

    The Political Industrial Complex encompasses all those elites whose livelihoods are predicated on central-control of resources and who determine who is allowed to succeed in society. It is a bipartisan exclusive club. It includes the Politicians and their career staffers. It includes crony donors and lobbyists who reap government windfalls and special treatment that average citizens cannot obtain. It includes the PIC industrial base of pollsters, consultants, etc. And it includes the pliant news media, whose success rest on access to those in power, and in return for access making sure no bad news will disrupt said power.

    This strange and bizarre parallel universe is where all the political elites hang out – isolated from Main Street America (and the commoner world as well). The denizens of the PIC are very wealthy, very cozy with each other and one of they live in the most dense echo chamber on the planet.

    Hillary is just the epitome of Political Correctness dripping from the center of the PIC.

    But now Hillary has created a massive movement in the country, outside the PIC. She has created " The Deplorables! ".

    It is becoming a badge of honor to be feared and attacked by the PIC. It is becoming fun to watch members of the PIC just collapse into lick-spittle rage, as the voters reject their self-anointed brilliance. For example :

    Hillary, you recently labeled me - and millions of Americans like me - "deplorable."

    I am not deplorable. What I am is your worst nightmare: a woman, a mother and a voter who sees right through you.

    In your remarks to an LGBT group, with liberal millionaire mouthpiece Barbra Streisand hosting your appearance, you waved your invisible scepter and banished millions of people from respectable society, just because you felt like it.

    "Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it," you said last Friday. "There are people like that, and [Trump] has lifted them up."

    Well, I'm concerned about national security, supportive of law enforcement, and a believer in traditional marriage. How does that make me "deplorable?"

    There is even a great riff on how to determine if you too are "A Deplorable!" (similar to Foxworthy's "you might be a redneck, if…")

    You may be a deplorable if you just got your car inspected.

    If you're deployable, you're definitely deplorable.

    If you wake before noon, if you call Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists, if you don't have an Obamaphone and you don't believe that global warming is "settled science" - can you say deplorable?

    Or if while watching the second Monday night NFL game you were less irritated by the streaker than you were by all the fawning coverage of Colin Kaepernick on the pre-game show.

    You may be a deplorable if you resent training your H1-B replacement.

    Or the fact that the Earned Income Tax Credit is NOT earned.

    Nothing says deplorable like the National Rifle Association.

    Hillary wanted to brand Trump Voters as subhuman (well, at least below the standards of the PIC). But by giving them a name, she gave them a rallying point, a joint cause.

    Honestly, how could she have helped Trump even more? Given her political skills I am sure we will find out soon enough.

    Image from The Conservative Treehouse

    Tags: Clinton , Deplorable , Election 2016 , Trump

    [Sep 22, 2016] The Hidden Smoking Gun the Combetta Cover-Up Clinton Email Investigation Timeline

    This is a really outstanding article.
    Notable quotes:
    "... When Samuelson described the sorting process in her FBI interview , she said that her first step was to find all the emails to or from Clinton and the people she regularly worked with in the State Department, and put all of those emails in the "work-related" category. ..."
    "... But from the Abedin emails released so far, about 200 are previously unreleased emails between her and Clinton . Anyone who looks at these can see that the vast majority, if not all, of them are work-related. ..."
    "... The Abedin emails released so far are only a small percentage of all her emails that are going to be released on a monthly basis well into 2017 . It is likely that Clinton's supposed 31,000 "personal" emails contain thousands of work-related emails to and from Abedin alone. Consider that only about 15% of the 30,000 Clinton emails released so far were between her and Abedin. ..."
    "... It is further worth noting that these emails were not handed over with the rest of Clinton's 30,000 work-related emails, despite clearly being work-related, but were somehow uncovered by the State Department inspector general 's office. Those very emails are good examples of the kind of material Clinton may have tried to keep secret by controlling the sorting process. ..."
    "... How many more headlines like that would there be if all 31,000 deleted emails became public before the November 2016 presidential election? It's easy to imagine a political motive for Clinton wanting to keep some work-related emails secret. ..."
    "... on or around December 2014 or January 2015 , Mills and Samuelson requested that [Platte River Networks (PRN) employee Paul Combetta] remove from their laptops all of the emails from the July and September 2014 exports. [Combetta] used a program called BleachBit to delete the email-related files so they could not be recovered." ..."
    "... With the emails of Mills and Samuelson wiped clean, and the old version of the server wiped clean, that left just two known copies of the emails: one on the new server, and one on the back-up Datto SIRIS device connected to the new server. ..."
    "... Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 . She claimed that in December 2014 , Clinton decided she no longer needed access to any of her emails older than 60 days . Note that this came not long after the State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails, on October 28, 2014 . Mills told the FBI that she instructed Combetta to modify the email retention policy on Clinton's clintonemail.com email account to reflect this change. Emails older than 60 days would then be overwritten several times, wiping them just as effectively as BleachBit. ..."
    "... So although the retention policy change sounds like a mere technicality, in fact, Clinton passed the message through Mills that she wanted all her emails from when she was secretary of state to be permanently wiped. ..."
    "... Think about Clinton wanting to delete all her old "personal" emails. As a politician with a wide network of contributors and supporters, the information in them could be highly valuable for her. For instance, if a major donor contacted her, she probably would want to review their past correspondence before responding. She'd preserved these emails for nearly two years, but just when investigators started to demand to see them, she decided she didn't want ANY of them, and all traces of them should be permanently wiped. And yet we're supposed to believe the timing is just a coincidence? ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... According to what Combetta later told the FBI, at some point between these two calls, he had an "Oh shit!" moment and remembered that he'd forgotten to make the requested retention policy change back in December . So, even though he told the FBI that he was aware of the emails from Mills mentioning the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails, he took action. ..."
    "... the Datto backups of the server were also manually deleted during this timeframe ." ..."
    "... Already, Combetta's behavior is damning. He didn't just change the data retention policy, as Mills had asked him to do, causing them to be permanently deleted 60 days later. He immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails and then wiped them for good measure, and almost certainly deleted them from the Datto back-up device too. ..."
    "... To make matters worse for Combetta, on March 20, 2015 , the House Benghazi Committee sent a letter to Clinton's lawyer Kendall , asking Clinton to turn her server over to a neutral third party so it could be examined to see if any work-related emails were still on it. This was reported in the New York Times ..."
    "... However, despite all these clear signs that the emails should be preserved, not only did Combetta confess in an FBI interview that "at the time he made the deletions in March 2015 , he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's email data on the [server]," he said that " he did not receive guidance from other PRN personnel, PRN's legal counsel or others regarding the meaning of the preservation request." So he confessed to obstruction of justice and other possible crimes, all to the apparent benefit of Clinton instead of himself! ..."
    "... The FBI interviewed PRN's staff in September 2015. This almost certainly included Combetta and Bill Thornton, because they were the only two PRN employees actively managing Clinton's server. ..."
    "... The fact that the FBI falsely claimed Combetta was only interviewed twice grows in importance given a recent New York Times ..."
    "... Then, in May 2016 , he completely changed his story. He said that in fact he did make the deletions in late March 2015 after all, plus he'd wiped her emails with BleachBit, as described earlier. He also confessed to being aware of the Mills email with the preservation request. ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... For the FBI to give Combetta an immunity deal and then still not learn if he had been told to delete the emails by anyone working for Clinton due to a completely legally indefensible "attorney-client privilege" excuse is beyond belief. It would make sense, however, if the FBI was actually trying to protect Clinton from prosecution instead of trying to find evidence to prosecute her. ..."
    "... In one Reddit post , he asked other server managers: "I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a .pst file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out. Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?" ..."
    "... Recall how Clinton allegedly claimed she didn't want to keep any of her deleted emails. It looks like that wasn't true after all. It sounds exactly as if Mills or someone else working for Clinton told him to make it look like all the "personal" emails were permanently deleted due to the 60 day policy change, while actually keeping copies of emails they still wanted. ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... First off, it's interesting that he said he did "a bunch" of "email filters and cleanup," because what has been reported by the FBI is that he only made a copy of all of Clinton's email and sent them off to be sorted in late July 2014 . That fits with his July 2014 Reddit post where he was trying to modify somebody's email address. ..."
    "... For now, let us turn back to events in the fall of 2015 . In mid-August 2015 , Senator Ron Johnson (R) asked for and got a staff-level briefing from PRN about the management of Clinton's server, as part of Republican Congressional oversight of the FBI's investigation. It seems very likely that Combetta was a part of that briefing, or at least his knowledge heavily informed the briefing, because again only two PRN employees actively managed her server, and he was one of them. ..."
    "... The dishonesty or ignorance of PRN in this time period can be clearly seen due to a September 12, 2015 Washington Post ..."
    "... Datto expressed a willingness to cooperate. But because Datto had been subcontracted by PRN to help manage Clinton's server, they needed PRN's permission to share any information relating to that account. When PRN was first asked in early October 2015 , they gave permission. But about a week later, they changed their mind , forcing Datto to stay quiet. ..."
    "... But more importantly, consider what was mentioned in an NBC News ..."
    "... In an August 18, 2015 email, Combetta expressed concern that CESC, the Clinton family company, had directed PRN to reduce the length of time backups, and PRN wanted proof of this so they wouldn't be blamed. But he said in the email, "this was all phone comms [communications]." ..."
    "... On September 2, 2016 , the FBI's final report of their Clinton email investigation was released (along with a summary of Clinton's FBI interview). This report revealed the late March 2015 deletions for the first time. Combetta's name was redacted, but his role, as well as his immunity deal, was revealed in the New York Times ..."
    "... Chaffetz also wants an explanation from PRN how Combetta could refuse to talk to the FBI about the conference calls if the only lawyers involved in the call were Clinton's. ..."
    "... PRN employees Combetta and Thornton were also given subpoenas on September 8 , ordering them to testify at a Congressional hearing on September 13, 2016 . Both of them showed up with their lawyers, but both of them pled the Fifth , leaving many questions unanswered. ..."
    "... In a Senate speech on September 12, 2016 , Senator Charles Grassley (R) accused the FBI of manipulating which information about the Clinton email investigation becomes public . He said that although the FBI has taken the unusual step of releasing the FBI's final report, "its summary is misleading or inaccurate in some key details and leaves out other important facts altogether." He pointed in particular to Combetta's deletions, saying: "[T]here is key information related to that issue that is still being kept secret, even though it is unclassified. If I honor the FBI's 'instruction' not to disclose the unclassified information it provided to Congress, I cannot explain why." ..."
    "... Regarding the FBI's failure to inform Congressional oversight committees of Combetta's immunity deal, Representative Trey Gowdy (R) recently commented, "If there is a reason to withhold the immunity agreement from Congress-and by extension, the people we represent-I cannot think of what it would be." ..."
    "... The behavior of the FBI is even stranger. Comey was a registered Republican most of his life, and it is well known that most FBI agents are politically conservative. Be that as it may, if Comey made a decision beforehand based on some political calculation to avoid indicting Clinton no matter what the actual evidence was, that the FBI's peculiar behavior specifically relating to the Combetta deletions make much more sense. It would be an unprecedented and bold move to recommend indicting someone with Hillary Clinton's power right in the middle of her presidential election campaign. ..."
    "... In this scenario, the FBI having Combetta take the fall for the deletions while making a secret immunity deal with him is a particularly clever move to prevent anyone from being indicted. Note that Combetta's confession about making the deletions came in his May 2016 FBI interview, which came after Mills' April 2016 interview in which she claimed she'd never heard of any deletions. Thus, the only way to have Combetta take the fall for the deletions without Mills getting caught clearly lying to the FBI is by dodging the issue of what was said in the March 31, 2015 conference with a nonsensical claim of "attorney-client privilege." ..."
    "... I believe that criminal behavior needs to be properly investigated and prosecuted, regardless of political persuasion and regardless of the election calendar. Combetta clearly committed a crime and he even confessed to do so, given what he admitted in his last FBI interview. If he got a limited immunity deal instead of blanket immunity, which is highly likely, it still would be possible to indict and convict him based on evidence outside of his interviews. That would help explain why he recently pled the Fifth, because he's still in legal danger. ..."
    "... But more importantly, who else is guilty with him? Logic and the available evidence strongly suggest that Clinton's lawyer Cheryl Mills at least knew about the deletions at the time they happened. Combetta has already confessed to criminal behavior-and yet somehow hasn't even been fired by PRN. If he didn't at least tell Mills and the others in the conference call about the deletions, there would be no logical reason to assert attorney-client privilege in the first place. Only the nonsensical assertion of this privilege is preventing the evidence coming out that should lead to Mills being charged with lying to the FBI at a minimum. And if Mills knew, can anyone seriously believe that Clinton didn't know too? ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.thompsontimeline.com
    To understand the 2015 deletions , we have to start further back in time, in June 2013 . Clinton had ended her four-year tenure as secretary of state earlier in 2013 , and she hired the Platte River Networks (PRN) computer company to manage her private email server. This was a puzzling hire, to say the least, because PRN was based in Denver, Colorado, far from Clinton's homes in New York and Washington, DC, and the company was so small that their office was actually an apartment in an ordinary apartment building with no security alarm system. The company wasn't cleared to handle classified information, nobody in it had a security clearance, and it hadn't even handled an important out of state contract before.

    PRN assigned two employees to handle the Clinton account: Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton . In late June 2013 , these two employees moved Clinton's server from her house in Chappaqua, New York, to an Equinix data center in Secaucus, New Jersey. They removed all the data from the server, moved it to a new server, and then wiped the old server clean. Both the new and old server were kept running at the data center. At the same time, PRN subcontracted Datto, Inc. , to back up the data on the new server. A Datto SIRIS S2000 was bought and connected to the server , functioning like an external hard drive to make periodic back-ups.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton's emails get sorted

    Fast forward to the middle of 2014 . The House Benghazi Committee was formed to investigate the US government's actions surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya , and soon a handful of emails were discovered relating to this attack involving Clinton's [email protected] email address. At this point, nobody outside of Clinton's inner circle of associates knew she had exclusively used that private email account for all her email communications while she was secretary of state, or that she'd hosted it on her own private email server.

    The Benghazi Committee began pressing the State Department for more relevant emails from Clinton. The State Department in turn began privately pressing Clinton to turn over all her work-related emails.

    Cheryl Mills (left) David Kendall (center) and Heather Samuelson (Credit: public domain)

    Cheryl Mills (left) David Kendall (center) and Heather Samuelson (Credit: public domain)

    Instead of turning over all her emails, Clinton decided to have them sorted into work-related and personal, and then only turn over the work-related ones. She gave this task to three of her lawyers : Cheryl Mills (Clinton's former chief of staff), David Kendall (Clinton's longtime personal lawyer), and Heather Samuelson (a relatively inexperienced State Department staffer during Clinton's tenure). It seems Samuelson did most of the sorting , even though she had no experience for this task nor any security clearance .

    It was decided that over 30,000 emails were work-related, and those were turned over to the State Department on December 5, 2014 . These have all since been publicly released, though with redactions. Another over 31,000 emails were deemed personal , and Clinton kept those. They were later deleted in controversial circumstances that this essay explores in detail.

    It has become increasingly clear in recent months that this sorting process was highly flawed. Clinton has said any emails that were borderline cases were given to the State Department, just to be on the safe side. But in fact, the FBI later recovered about 17,500 of Clinton's "personal" emails . It is probable no government agency has yet gone through all of these to officially determine which ones were work-related and which ones were not, but FBI Director James Comey has said that " thousands " were work-related.

    We can get a glimpse of just how flawed the sorting process was because hundreds of emails from Huma Abedin have been released in recent months, as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit . Abedin was Clinton's deputy chief of staff and still is one of her closest aides.

    When Samuelson described the sorting process in her FBI interview , she said that her first step was to find all the emails to or from Clinton and the people she regularly worked with in the State Department, and put all of those emails in the "work-related" category.

    But from the Abedin emails released so far, about 200 are previously unreleased emails between her and Clinton . Anyone who looks at these can see that the vast majority, if not all, of them are work-related. Many involve Abedin's state.gov government address, not her clintonemail.com private address, so how on Earth did Samuelson's sorting process miss those? It has even come to light recently that a small number of emails mentioning "Benghazi" have been found in the 17,500 recovered by the FBI, but Samuelson told the FBI she had specifically searched for all emails using that word.

    A sample of an email between Clinton and Abedin using her state.gove address. (Credit: public domain)

    A sample of an email between Clinton and Abedin using her state.gov address. (Credit: public domain)

    The Abedin emails released so far are only a small percentage of all her emails that are going to be released on a monthly basis well into 2017 . It is likely that Clinton's supposed 31,000 "personal" emails contain thousands of work-related emails to and from Abedin alone. Consider that only about 15% of the 30,000 Clinton emails released so far were between her and Abedin. If the rest of her deleted emails follow the same pattern as the Abedin ones, it is highly likely that the majority, and maybe even the vast majority, of Clinton's deleted "personal" emails in fact are work-related.

    ... ... ...

    FBI Director Comey has said he trusts that Clinton had made a sincere sorting effort, but the sheer number of work-related emails that keep getting discovered suggests otherwise. Furthermore, logic and other evidence also suggest otherwise. For instance, in home video footage from a private fundraiser in 2000 , Clinton talked about how she had deliberately avoided using email so she wouldn't leave a paper trail: "As much as I've been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I? I don't even want Why would I ever want to do email? Can you imagine?"

    Practical considerations forced her to start using email a few years later. But what if her exclusive use of a private email address on her own private server was not done out of " convenience " as she claims, but so she could retain control of them, only turning over emails to FOIA requests and later government investigators that she wanted to?

    Note also that in a November 2010 email exchange between Clinton and Abedin, Abedin suggested that Clinton might want to use a State Department email account due because the department computer system kept flagging emails from her private email account as spam. Clinton replied that she was open to some kind of change, but " I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible ." It is further worth noting that these emails were not handed over with the rest of Clinton's 30,000 work-related emails, despite clearly being work-related, but were somehow uncovered by the State Department inspector general 's office. Those very emails are good examples of the kind of material Clinton may have tried to keep secret by controlling the sorting process.

    Consider that out of the relatively small number of deleted emails that have been made public due to the Abedin monthly releases, a handful of them have created headlines about possible conflicts of interest between Clinton's secretary of state job and the Clinton Foundation . How many more headlines like that would there be if all 31,000 deleted emails became public before the November 2016 presidential election? It's easy to imagine a political motive for Clinton wanting to keep some work-related emails secret.

    ... ... ...

    The deletions begin

    Heather Samuelson (Credit: Getty Images)

    Heather Samuelson (Credit: Getty Images)

    This essay will explore this possibility more later. But if it is the case that she wanted to keep those 31,000 "personal" emails out of the public eye, she had obstacles to overcome. In 2014 , PRN had managerial control of both Clinton's new and old server. Thus, in July 2014 and again in September 2014 , PRN employee Combetta had to send copies of all the emails to the laptop of Clinton lawyer Cheryl Mills, and another copy to the laptop of Clinton lawyer Heather Samuelson, to be used for the sorting process.

    With the sorting done, if Clinton didn't want the public to ever see her deleted emails, you would expect all these copies of those emails to be permanently deleted, and that's exactly what happened. According to a later FBI report, " on or around December 2014 or January 2015 , Mills and Samuelson requested that [Platte River Networks (PRN) employee Paul Combetta] remove from their laptops all of the emails from the July and September 2014 exports. [Combetta] used a program called BleachBit to delete the email-related files so they could not be recovered."

    The FBI report explained, "BleachBit is open source software that allows users to 'shred' files, clear Internet history, delete system and temporary files, and wipe free space on a hard drive. Free space is the area of the hard drive that can contain data that has been deleted. BleachBit's 'shred files' function claims to securely erase files by overwriting data to make the data unrecoverable." BleachBit advertises that it can "shred" files so they can never be recovered again.

    With the emails of Mills and Samuelson wiped clean, and the old version of the server wiped clean, that left just two known copies of the emails: one on the new server, and one on the back-up Datto SIRIS device connected to the new server.

    Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 . She claimed that in December 2014 , Clinton decided she no longer needed access to any of her emails older than 60 days . Note that this came not long after the State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails, on October 28, 2014 . Mills told the FBI that she instructed Combetta to modify the email retention policy on Clinton's clintonemail.com email account to reflect this change. Emails older than 60 days would then be overwritten several times, wiping them just as effectively as BleachBit.

    Clinton essentially said the same thing as Mills when she was interviewed by the FBI . Clinton also was interviewed by the FBI. According to the FBI summary of the interview, she claimed that after her staff sent the 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department on December 5, 2014 , "she was asked what she wanted to do with her remaining [31,000] personal emails. Clinton instructed her staff she no longer needed the emails."

    So although the retention policy change sounds like a mere technicality, in fact, Clinton passed the message through Mills that she wanted all her emails from when she was secretary of state to be permanently wiped.

    Think about Clinton wanting to delete all her old "personal" emails. As a politician with a wide network of contributors and supporters, the information in them could be highly valuable for her. For instance, if a major donor contacted her, she probably would want to review their past correspondence before responding. She'd preserved these emails for nearly two years, but just when investigators started to demand to see them, she decided she didn't want ANY of them, and all traces of them should be permanently wiped. And yet we're supposed to believe the timing is just a coincidence?

    But there was a problem with deleting them. Combetta later claimed that he simply forgot to make this change.

    More than two months passed, which meant all of Clinton's deleted emails should have been permanently wiped already. Meanwhile, the House Benghazi Committee and others were making more requests to see her emails . In January 2015 , a reporter even filed a FOIA request in court for all of her emails .

    Then, on March 2, 2015 , the headline on the front page of the New York Times was a story revealing that while Clinton was secretary of state, she had exclusively used a private email address hosted on her private server, thus keeping all of her email communications secret. This became THE big story of the month, and the start of a high-profile controversy that continues until today.

    On December 2, 2014 , the House Benghazi Committee had asked Clinton for all Benghazi-related emails from her personal email address. But one day after the New York Times blockbuster story, the committee sent Clinton a letter asking her to preserve ALL her emails from that address.

    Then, a day after that, on March 4, 2015 , the committee issued two subpoenas to her . One subpoena ordered her to turn over all emails relating to the Benghazi attack. The committee had already received about 300 such emails from the State Department in February 2015 , but after the Times story, the committee worried that the department might not have some of her relevant emails. (That would later prove to be the case, given the small number of Benghazi emails eventually recovered by the FBI.) The second subpoena ordered her to turn over documents it requested in November 2014 but still has not received from the State Department, relating to communications between Clinton and ten senior department officials.

    Cheryl Mills (Credit: Twitter)

    Cheryl Mills (Credit: Twitter)

    If Clinton had already deleted her emails to keep them from future investigators, these requests shouldn't have been a problem. On March 9, 2015 , Mills sent an email to PRN employees , including Combetta, to make sure they were aware of the committee's request that all of Clinton's emails be preserved. One can see this as a CYA ("cover your ass") move, since Mills would have believed all copies of Clinton's "personal" emails had been permanently deleted and wiped by this time. The Times story and the requests for copies of Clinton's emails that followed had seemingly come too late.

    But that wasn't actually the case, since Combetta had forgotten to make the deletions!


    Combetta deletes everything that is left

    Sitting behind Combetta is co-founder of Platte River Brent Allshouse (left) and PRN attorney, Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)

    Sitting behind Combetta is co-founder of Platte River Brent Allshouse (left) and PRN attorney, Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)

    According to a later Combetta FBI interview, he claimed that on March 25, 2015, there was a conference call between PRN employees , including himself, and some members of Bill Clinton's staff. (Hillary Clinton's private server hosted the emails of Bill Clinton's staff too, and one unnamed staffer hired PRN back in 2013 .) There was another conference call between PRN and Clinton staffers on March 31, 2015 , with at least Combetta, Mills, and Clinton lawyer David Kendall taking part in that later call.

    According to what Combetta later told the FBI, at some point between these two calls, he had an "Oh shit!" moment and remembered that he'd forgotten to make the requested retention policy change back in December . So, even though he told the FBI that he was aware of the emails from Mills mentioning the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails, he took action. Instead of simply making the retention policy change, which would have preserved the emails for another two months, he immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails from her server. Then he used BleachBit to permanently wipe them.

    The Datto SIRIS S2000 was used for back-up services. (Credit: Datto, Inc.)

    The Datto SIRIS S2000 was used for back-up services. (Credit: Datto, Inc.)

    However, recall that there was a Datto SIRIS back-up device connected to the server and periodically making copies of all the data on the server. Apparently, Combetta didn't mention this to the FBI, but the FBI found "evidence of these [server] deletions and determined the Datto backups of the server were also manually deleted during this timeframe ." The Datto device sent a records log back to the Datto company whenever any changes were made, and according to a letter from Datto to the FBI that later became public, the deletions on the device were made around noon on March 31, 2015 , the same date as the second conference call. (Although the server and Datto device were in New Jersey and Combetta was working remotely from Rhode Island, he could make changes remotely, as he or other PRN employees did on other occasions.)

    A recent Congressional committee letter mentioned that the other deletions were also made on or around March 31, 2015 . So it's probable they were all done at the same time by the same person: Combetta.

    Already, Combetta's behavior is damning. He didn't just change the data retention policy, as Mills had asked him to do, causing them to be permanently deleted 60 days later. He immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails and then wiped them for good measure, and almost certainly deleted them from the Datto back-up device too.

    The FBI's Clinton email investigation didn't formally begin until July 10, 2015 -more than two months after Combetta took those actions. However, State Department inspector general Steve Linick began investigating Clinton's email usage in April 2015 , and he could have given her an order to preserve all her documents-we don't know. Furthermore, CNN has reported that the FBI investigation actually began informally in late May 2015 , which is less than two months after the deletions. So Combetta could have prevented the State Department and/or the FBI from easily recovering all the emails in time.

    To make matters worse for Combetta, on March 20, 2015 , the House Benghazi Committee sent a letter to Clinton's lawyer Kendall , asking Clinton to turn her server over to a neutral third party so it could be examined to see if any work-related emails were still on it. This was reported in the New York Times and other media outlets.

    Then, on March 27, 2015 , Kendall replied to the committee in a letter that also was reported on by the Times and others that same day. Kendall wrote, "There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the secretary's IT [information technology] support that no emails for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server."

    David Kendall (Credit: Above the Law)

    David Kendall (Credit: Above the Law)

    When Kendall mentioned Clinton's IT support, that had to have been a reference to PRN. So what actually happened? Did Kendall or someone else working for Clinton ask Combetta and/or other PRN employees if there were any emails still on the server in the March 25, 2015 conference call, just two days before he sent his letter? Did Combetta lie in that call and say they were already deleted and then rush to delete them afterwards to cover up his mistake? Or did someone working for Clinton tell or hint that he should delete them now if they hadn't been deleted already? We don't know, because the FBI has revealed nothing about what was said in that conference call or the one that took place a week later.

    However, despite all these clear signs that the emails should be preserved, not only did Combetta confess in an FBI interview that "at the time he made the deletions in March 2015 , he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's email data on the [server]," he said that " he did not receive guidance from other PRN personnel, PRN's legal counsel or others regarding the meaning of the preservation request." So he confessed to obstruction of justice and other possible crimes, all to the apparent benefit of Clinton instead of himself!


    Investigations and cover-ups

    This is perplexing enough already, but it gets stranger still, if we continue to follow the behavior of Combetta and PRN as a whole.

    An inside look at the Equinix facility in Secaucus, NJ. (Credit: Chang W. Lee / New York Time)

    An inside look at the Equinix facility in Secaucus, NJ. (Credit: Chang W. Lee / New York Time)

    By August 2015 , the FBI's Clinton investigation was in full swing, and they began interviewing witnesses and confiscating equipment for analysis. Because the FBI never empanelled a grand jury, it didn't have subpoena power, so it had to ask Clinton for permission to seize her server. She gave that permission on August 11, 2015 , and the server was picked up from the data center in New Jersey the next day . But remember that there actually were two servers there, an old one and a new one. All the data had been wiped from the old one and moved to the new one, so the new one was the more important one to analyze. But the FBI only picked up the old one.

    According to the FBI's final report, "At the time of the FBI's acquisition of the [server], Williams & Connolly [the law firm of Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall] did not advise the US government of the existence of the additional equipment associated with the [old server], or that Clinton's clintonemail.com emails had been migrated to the successor [server] remaining at [the] Equinix [data center]. The FBI's subsequent investigation identified this additional equipment and revealed the email migration." As a result, the FBI finally picked up the new server on October 3, 2015 .

    It was bad enough that Clinton's lawyer wasn't forthcoming about this, especially since Clinton and her staff had switched to using new email accounts located on a different server with a different domain name in late 2014 , so the servers in question weren't urgently needed anymore. But who else could have told the FBI about the data getting transferred to the new server? PRN.

    A snippet from the invoice published by Complete Colorado on October 19, 2015. (Credit: Todd Shepherd / Complete Colorado) (Used with express permission from CompleteColorado.com. Do not duplicate or republish.)

    The FBI interviewed PRN's staff in September 2015. This almost certainly included Combetta and Bill Thornton, because they were the only two PRN employees actively managing Clinton's server.

    It's particularly important to know if Combetta was interviewed at this time. The FBI's final report clearly stated that he was interviewed twice, in February 2016 and May 2016 , and repeatedly referred to what was said in his "first interview" and "second interview." However, we luckily know that he was interviewed in September 2015 as well, because of a PRN invoice billed to Clinton Executive Service Corp. (CESC), a Clinton family company, that was made public later in 2015 . The invoice made clear that Combetta, who was working remotely from Rhode Island, flew to Colorado on September 14, 2015, and then "federal interviews" took place on September 15 . Combetta's rental car, hotel, and return airfare costs were itemized as well. As this essay later makes clear, PRN was refusing to cooperate with anyone else in the US government but the FBI by this time, so "federal interviews" can only mean the FBI.

    Bryan Pagliano (Credit: public domain)

    Bryan Pagliano (Credit: public domain)

    The fact that the FBI falsely claimed Combetta was only interviewed twice grows in importance given a recent New York Times report that the Justice Department gave Combetta some form of legal immunity .

    One other person in the investigation, Bryan Pagliano, was given immunity as well. But his immunity deal was leaked to the media and had been widely reported on since March 2016 . By contrast, Combetta's immunity wasn't even mentioned in the FBI's final report, and members of Congress were upset to first read about it in the Times , because they had never been told about it either.

    The mystery of this situation deepens when one looks at the FBI report regarding what Combetta said in his February 2016 and May 2016 interviews. In February 2016 , he claimed that he remembered in late March 2015 that he forgot to make the change to the email retention policy on Clinton's server, but that was it. He claimed he never did make any deletions. He also claimed that he was unaware of the March 9, 2015 email from Mills warning of the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails.

    Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

    Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

    Then, in May 2016 , he completely changed his story. He said that in fact he did make the deletions in late March 2015 after all, plus he'd wiped her emails with BleachBit, as described earlier. He also confessed to being aware of the Mills email with the preservation request.

    It still hasn't been reported when Combetta's immunity deal was made. However, it seems probable that this took place between his February 2016 and May 2016 interviews, causing the drastic change in his account. Yet, it looks that he still hasn't been fully honest or forthcoming. Note that he didn't confess to the deletion of data on the Datto back-up device, even though it took place at the same time as the other deletions. The FBI learned that on their own by analyzing the device.


    Attorney-client privilege?!

    More crucially, we know that Combetta has not revealed what took place in the second conference call between PRN and Clinton employees. Here is all the FBI's final report has to say about that: "Investigation identified a PRN work ticket, which referenced a conference call among PRN, Kendall, and Mills on March 31, 2015. PRN's attorney advised [Combetta] not to comment on the conversation with Kendall, based upon the assertion of the attorney-client privilege ."

    Paul Combetta (left) Ken Eichner (right) (Credit: CSpan)

    Sitting behind Paul Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing on September 13, 2016, is Platte River Networks attorney Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)

    This is extremely bizarre. What "attorney-client privilege"?! That would only apply for communications between Combetta and his lawyer or lawyers. It's clear that Combetta's lawyer isn't Mills or Kendall. The New York Times article about the immunity deal made a passing reference to his lawyer, and, when Combetta showed up for a Congressional hearing on September 12 , he was accompanied by a lawyer who photographs from the hearing make clear is Ken Eichner, who has been the legal counsel for PRN as a whole regarding Clinton's server.

    Even if Combetta's lawyer Eichner was participating in the call, there is no way that should protect Combetta from having to tell what he said to Clinton employees like Mills or Kendall. If that's how the law works, criminals could simply always travel with a lawyer and then claim anything they do or say with the lawyer present is inadmissible as evidence due to attorney-client privilege. It's absurd.

    For the FBI to give Combetta an immunity deal and then still not learn if he had been told to delete the emails by anyone working for Clinton due to a completely legally indefensible "attorney-client privilege" excuse is beyond belief. It would make sense, however, if the FBI was actually trying to protect Clinton from prosecution instead of trying to find evidence to prosecute her.


    Combetta's Reddit posts

    A side-by-side shot of Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing (left) and a captured shot of Combetta as Stonetear (right). (Credit: CSpan and public domain)

    A photo comparison of Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing (left) and a captured shot of Combetta as stonetear (right). (Credit: CSpan and public domain)

    Furthermore, how much can Combetta be trusted, even in an FBI interview? It has recently come to light that he made Reddit posts under the username "stonetear." There can be no doubt this was him, because the details match perfectly, including him signing a post "Paul," having another social media account for a Paul Combetta with the username "stonetear," having a combetta.com website mentioning his "stonetear" alias, and even posting a photo of "stonetear" that matches other known photos of Combetta.

    In one Reddit post , he asked other server managers: "I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a .pst file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out. Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?"

    The date of the post- July 24, 2014 -is very significant, because that was just one day after Combetta sent CESE (the Clinton family company) DVDs containing some of Clinton's emails , so Clinton's lawyers could start the sorting process. Also on July 23, 2014 , an unnamed PRN employee sent Samuelson and Mills the same emails electronically directly to their laptops.

    A response captured in the Reddit chat warning Combetta that what he wants to do is illegal. (Credit: Reddit)

    A response captured in the Reddit chat warning stonetear aka Combetta that what he wants to do could result in major legal issues. (Credit: Reddit)

    Popular software made by companies like Microsoft have tried to make it impossible for people to change email records, so people facing legal trouble can't tamper with emails after they've been sent. Thus, when Combetta posed his problem at Reddit, other Reddit users told him that what he wanted to do "could result in major legal issues." But that didn't deter him, and he kept asking for various ways to get it accomplished anyway.

    It isn't clear why Clinton would have wanted her email address removed from all her emails, since her exact address had already been exposed in the media back in March 2013 by the hacker known as Guccifer. One Gawker reporter even used it to email Clinton on March 20, 2013 : "[W] ere your emails to and from the [email protected] account archived according to the provisions of the President Records Act and Freedom of Information Act?" (Clinton never replied, maybe because it's clear in hindsight that an honest answer would have been "no.") But the fact that Combetta was willing to at least try to do this raises questions, especially his seeming willingness to do something illegal for his "VIP" customer Hillary Clinton.

    Combetta made another important Reddit post a few months later:

    "Hello- I have a client who wants to push out a 60 day email retention policy for certain users. However, they also want these users to have a 'Save Folder' in their Exchange folder list where the users can drop items that they want to hang onto longer than the 60 day window. All email in any other folder in the mailbox should purge anything older than 60 days (should not apply to calendar or contact items of course). How would I go about this? Some combination of retention and managed folder policy?"

    Another sample captured of Combetta as 'stonetear' asking Reddit users for help. (Credit: Reddit)

    Another question was captured of 'stonetear' aka Combetta asking Reddit users for technical help. (Credit: Reddit)

    Again, the timing is telling, because this post was made on December 10, 2014 . Recall that December 2014 (or January 2015 ) was when he deleted and then wiped Clinton's emails from the laptops of Mills and Samuelson. December also was the month that Mills asked him to change the retention policy on Clinton's server to 60 days , which is precisely the issue he was asking about in his Reddit post.

    A captured shot of Combetta's 'stonetear' GMail account with picture included. (Credit: public domain)

    A captured shot of Combetta's 'stonetear' Gmail account with picture included. (Credit: public domain)

    Recall how Clinton allegedly claimed she didn't want to keep any of her deleted emails. It looks like that wasn't true after all. It sounds exactly as if Mills or someone else working for Clinton told him to make it look like all the "personal" emails were permanently deleted due to the 60 day policy change, while actually keeping copies of emails they still wanted.

    Looking at Combetta's two Reddit posts detailed above, there are only two possibilities. One is that Combetta failed to disclose crucial information to the FBI, despite his immunity deal. The second is that he did, but the FBI didn't mention it in its final report. Either way, it's already clear that the FBI has failed to present the full story of Combetta's actions to the public. And how much of what Combetta has said can be trusted, even in his most recent and supposedly most forthcoming FBI interview?

    David DeCamillis (Credit: Twitter)

    David DeCamillis (Credit: Twitter)

    Remarkably, there is a hint that Combetta was being dishonest even before his late March 2015 deletions. On March 3, 2015 , one day after the front-page New York Times story revealing Clinton's use of a private server, PRN's vice president of sales David DeCamillis sent an email to some or all of the other PRN employees. The email has only been paraphrased in news reports so far, but he was already wondering what Clinton emails the company might be asked to turn over .

    Combetta replied to the email , "I've done quite a bit already in the last few months related to this. Her [Clinton's] team had me do a bunch of exports and email filters and cleanup to provide a .pst [personal storage file] of all of HRC's [Hillary Rodham Clinton's] emails to/from any .gov addresses. I billed probably close to 10 hours in on-call tickets with CESC related to it :)."

    First off, it's interesting that he said he did "a bunch" of "email filters and cleanup," because what has been reported by the FBI is that he only made a copy of all of Clinton's email and sent them off to be sorted in late July 2014 . That fits with his July 2014 Reddit post where he was trying to modify somebody's email address.

    But also, assuming that there aren't important parts to his email that haven't been mentioned by the media, consider what he didn't say. The topic was possibly turning over Clinton's emails, and yet by this time Combetta had already deleted and wiped all of Clinton's emails from the laptops of two Clinton lawyers and been asked to change the email retention policy on Clinton's server so that all her emails would be permanently deleted there too, and yet he didn't bother to mention this to anyone else at PRN. Why?

    We can only speculate based on the limited amount of information made public so far. But it seems as if Combetta was covering up for Clinton and/or the people working for her even BEFORE he made his late March 2015 deletions!


    Who knows about the deletions, and how?

    Senator Ron Johnson (Credit: John Shinkle / Politico)

    Senator Ron Johnson (Credit: John Shinkle / Politico)

    For now, let us turn back to events in the fall of 2015 . In mid-August 2015 , Senator Ron Johnson (R) asked for and got a staff-level briefing from PRN about the management of Clinton's server, as part of Republican Congressional oversight of the FBI's investigation. It seems very likely that Combetta was a part of that briefing, or at least his knowledge heavily informed the briefing, because again only two PRN employees actively managed her server, and he was one of them.

    Regardless of whether he was there or not, it is clear that PRN was not honest in the briefing. Almost nothing is publicly known about the briefing except that it took place. However, from questions Johnson asked PRN in later letters, one can see that he knew nothing about the March 2015 deletions by Combetta. In fact, just like the FBI, there is no indication he knew anything about the transfer of the data from the old server to the new in that time period, which would be a basic fact in any such briefing.

    Andy Boian (Credit: public domain)

    The dishonesty or ignorance of PRN in this time period can be clearly seen due to a September 12, 2015 Washington Post article. In it, PRN spokesperson Andy Boian said, " Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped ." He added, "All the information we have is that the server wasn't wiped." We now know that not only was this untrue, but a PRN employee did the wiping!

    This leads to two possibilities. One is that Combetta lied to his PRN bosses, so in September 2015 nobody else in PRN knew about the deletions he'd made. The other is that additional people at PRN knew, but they joined in a cover-up.

    At this point, it's impossible to know which of these is true, but one of them must be. PRN employees created work tickets and other documentary evidence of the work they made, so one would think the company leadership would have quickly learned about the deletions if they did any examination of their managerial actions to prepare for investigative briefings and interviews.

    But either way, PRN as a whole began acting as if there was something to hide. Although the company agreed to the briefing of Congressional staffers in mid-August 2015 , when Senator Johnson wanted to follow this up with interviews of individual PRN employees in early September, PRN said no . When Congressional committees began asking PRN for documents, they also said no, and kept saying no. Recently, as we shall see later, they've even defied a Congressional subpoena for documents.

    Austin McChord, founder and CEO of Datto, Inc. (Credit: Erik Traufmann / Hearst Connecticut Media)

    Austin McChord, founder and CEO of Datto, Inc. (Credit: Erik Traufmann / Hearst Connecticut Media)

    At the same time Congressional committees began asking PRN for documents and interviews, they made those requests to Datto as well.

    Datto expressed a willingness to cooperate. But because Datto had been subcontracted by PRN to help manage Clinton's server, they needed PRN's permission to share any information relating to that account. When PRN was first asked in early October 2015 , they gave permission. But about a week later, they changed their mind , forcing Datto to stay quiet.

    To make matters worse, in early November 2015 , PRN spokesperson Andy Boian gave a completely bogus public excuse about this, saying that PRN and Datto had mutually agreed it was more convenient for investigators to deal with just one company. Datto immediately complained in a letter sent to PRN and Senator Johnson that no such discussion or agreement between PRN and Datto had ever taken place.

    What is PRN hiding?


    The Datto cloud mystery

    There is another strange twist to Datto's involvement. Back in June 2013 when Datto was first subcontracted to help with backing up the server data, the Clinton family company CESC made explicit that they didn't want any of the data to be stored remotely . But due to some snafu or miscommunication, it turns out that in addition to local back-ups being stored on the Datto device connected to the server, Datto had been making periodic copies of the server data the whole time in the "cloud!" That means back-up copies of the data were being transferred over the Internet and stored remotely, probably on other servers controlled by Datto.

    Co-founders of PRN are Brent Allshouse (left) and Treve Suazo (right) (Credit: PRN)

    Co-founders of PRN are Brent Allshouse (left) and Treve Suazo (right) (Credit: PRN)

    PRN only discovered this in early August 2015 , around the time the roles of PRN and Datto had with the server began to be made public. PRN contacted Datto, told them to stop doing this, put all the data on a thumb drive, send it to them, and then permanently wipe their remote copies of the server data.

    It is unclear what happened after that. The FBI's final report mentions a Datto back-up made on June 29, 2013 , just after all the data had been moved from the old server to the new sever with the back-up, had been useful to investigators and allowed them to find some Clinton emails dating all the way back to the first two months of her secretary of state tenure. However, it isn't clear if this is due to the local Datto SIRIS device or the accidental Datto cloud back-up. Congressional committee letters show that they don't know either and have been trying to find out.

    Adding to the mystery, one would think that if Datto was making periodic back-ups either or both ways, the FBI would have been able to recover all of Clinton's over 31,000 deleted emails and not just 17,000 of them. Consider that when PRN employees sent Clinton's lawyers all of Clinton's emails to be sorted in July and September 2014 , they simply copied what was on the server at the time, which presumably was the same amount of emails from years earlier than had been there in June 2013 , and thus backed up by Datto many times.

    It's likely there are more twists to the cloud back-up story that have yet to be revealed.


    What did Clinton and her aides know about the deletions?

    Meanwhile, let's consider what Clinton and her aides may have known and when they knew it. When Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 , according to the FBI, "Mills stated she was unaware that [Combetta] had conducted these deletions and modifications in March 2015 ." Then, when Clinton was interviewed by the FBI in July 2016 , "Clinton stated she was unaware of the March 2015 email deletions by PRN."

    This is pretty hard to believe. Mills was and still is one of Clinton's lawyers, and even attended Clinton's FBI interview. So why wouldn't she have mentioned the deletions to Clinton between April and July 2016 , after she learned about them from the FBI's questions to her? One would think Clinton would have been extremely curious to know anything about the FBI's possible recovery of her deleted emails.

    Clinton making a joking wipe gesture while speaking at a town hall on August 18, 2015, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Credit: John Locher / The Associated Press)

    Clinton making a joking wipe gesture while speaking at a town hall on August 18, 2015, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Credit: John Locher / The Associated Press)

    But more importantly, consider what was mentioned in an NBC News report on August 19, 2015 . Clinton's campaign acknowledged "that there was an attempt to wipe [Clinton's] server before it was turned over last week to the FBI. But two sources with direct knowledge of the investigation told NBC News that the [FBI] may be able to recover at least some data."

    Is it plausible that people within Clinton's campaign knew this, and yet neither Mills nor Clinton did? How could that be? Note that just one day before the NBC News report, Clinton had been directly asked if her server had been wiped. She dodged the question by making the joke , " What-like with a cloth, or something?" Then she said she didn't "know how it works digitally at all." Despite the controversy at the time about the cloth joke, her spokesperson claimed one month later, "I don't know what 'wiped' means."

    It's highly likely the issue had to have been discussed with Clinton at the time, but there was a conscious effort not to have her admit to knowing anything, due to the on-going FBI investigation.

    But more crucially, how could anyone at all working for Clinton know about the deletions as far back as August 2015 ? Recall that this was within days of PRN giving a briefing to Congressional staffers and not telling them, and several weeks prior to a PRN public comment that there was no evidence the server had been wiped.

    Moreover, we have no evidence that the FBI knew about the deletions yet. Datto conducted an analysis of its device that had been attached to Clinton's new server, and in an October 23, 2015 email, told the FBI for the first time that deletions had taken place on that device on March 31, 2015 . Keep in mind that even in his February 2016 FBI interview, Combetta claimed that no deletions had taken place in that time frame. Does it make sense that he would have said that if he had reason to believe that PRN had been talking to Clinton's staff about it in the months before? (None of the interviews in the FBI"s investigations were done under oath, but lying to the FBI is a felony with a maximum five-year prison sentence.)

    A sample of the letter sent to the FBI by Datto attorney, Steven Cash on October 23, 2015. (Credit: House Science Committee)

    A sample of the email sent to the FBI by Datto attorney, Steven Cash on October 23, 2015. (Credit: House Science Committee)

    So, again, how could Clinton's campaign know about the wiping in August 2015 ? The logical answer is that it had been discussed in the conference call on March 31, 2015 , that took place within hours of the deletions.

    Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

    Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

    Perhaps Mills, Kendall, or someone else working for Clinton told Combetta to make the deletions, possibly during the first conference call on March 25, 2015 . If that is the case, there should be obstruction of justice charges brought against anyone involved. Or maybe Combetta did that on his own to cover his earlier mistake and then mentioned what he'd done in the second conference call. If either scenario is true, Mills should be charged with lying to the FBI for claiming in her FBI interview that she knew nothing about any of this. Clinton might be charged for the same if it could be proved what she knew and when.


    "Shady shit" and "Hillary's cover-up operation"

    But there's still more to this strange story. Somehow by October 5, 2015 , Senator Johnson got hold of a curious email exchange between Combetta and Thornton , and he mentioned it in a letter to PRN that got leaked to the public the next day. (Recall that Bill Thornton is the other PRN employee who actively managed Clinton's server.)

    Just as the email retention policy on the Clinton server was changed on the orders of people working for Clinton, so was the retention policy on the Datto device connected to the server, in the same time period.

    In an August 18, 2015 email, Combetta expressed concern that CESC, the Clinton family company, had directed PRN to reduce the length of time backups, and PRN wanted proof of this so they wouldn't be blamed. But he said in the email, "this was all phone comms [communications]."

    Paul Combetta (left) Bill Thornton (right) (Credit: AP)

    Paul Combetta (left) Bill Thornton (right) (Credit: The Associated Press)

    The next day , there was another email, this one written by Thornton to Combetta and possibly others in PRN . The email has the subject heading "CESC Datto." Thornton wrote: "Any chance you found an old email with their directive to cut the backup back in Oct-Feb. I know they had you cut it once in Oct-Nov, then again to 30 days in Feb-ish." (Presumably this refers to October 2014 through February 2015 .)

    Thornton continued: "If we had that email, then we're golden. [ ] Wondering how we can sneak an email in now after the fact asking them when they told us to cut the backups and have them confirm it for our records. Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shady shit. I just think if we have it in writing that they [CESC] told us to cut the backups, and we can go public with our statement saying we have had backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30 days, it would make us look a WHOLE LOT better."

    Combetta replied: "I'll look again, but I'm almost positive we don't have anything about the 60 day cut. [ ] It's up to lawyer crap now, so just sit back and enjoy the silly headlines."

    As an aside, it's curious that Combetta made some unsolicited additional comments in that same email that was supportive of Clinton's position in the email controversy: "It wasn't the law to be required to use government email servers at the State Department, believe it or not. Colin Powell used an AOL address for communicating with his staff, believe it or not."

    If we take this email exchange at face value, then it appears that Clinton employees requested an email retention policy change that would result in more deletion of data on the Datto back-up device in the October to November 2014 time range. Keep in mind that the State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails , on October 28, 2014 , after informally asking starting in July 2014 . Then, around February 2015 , Clinton employees asked for another change that would have resulted in more deletions. Plus, they did this on the phone, leaving no paper trail. Is it any wonder that Thornton wrote, "Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shady shit?"

    Details are lacking, but roughly around this time period, one unnamed PRN employee made a joke that they were "Hillary's cover-up operation ." That may have been much more accurate than they realized.


    The FBI speaks up, only raising more questions

    News about PRN went quiet for the first half of 2016 . Congressional committees kept asking PRN and Datto for more information (including another request for interviews in January 2016 ), and PRN kept saying no as well as not giving Datto permission to respond.

    James Comey (Credit: Fox News)

    James Comey (Credit: Fox News)

    Then, on July 5, 2016 , FBI Director James Comey gave a surprise public speech in which he announced he wouldn't recommend any criminal charges against Clinton or anyone else in the investigation. In the course of his speech, he said it was "likely" that some emails may have disappeared forever because Clinton's lawyers "deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery." But he said that after interviews and technical examination, "we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort."

    Trey Gowdy (Credit: Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images)

    Trey Gowdy (Credit: Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images)

    Two days later, on July 7, 2016 , Comey had to explain his decision in front of a Congressional committee. During that hearing, he was asked by Representative Trey Gowdy (R), "Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?"

    Comey replied: "That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work-related emails in-on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when the server was changed out, something happened to them. There's no doubt that the work-related emails were removed electronically from the email system."

    Consider that response. By the time Comey made those comments, the FBI's final report had already been finished, the report that detailed Combetta's confession of deliberately deleting and then wiping all of Clinton's emails from her server. Comey was explicitly asked if "anyone" had made such deletions, and yet he said he wasn't sure. Comey should be investigated for lying to Congress! Had he revealed even the rough outlines of Combetta's late March 2015 deletions in his July 5, 2016 public speech or his Congressional testimony two days later , it would have significantly changed the public perception of the results of the FBI investigation. That also would have allowed Congressional committees to start focusing on this two months earlier than they did, enabling them to uncover more in the limited time before the November presidential election.

    The SECNAP Logo (Credit: SECNAP)

    Despite the fact that the Combetta deletions were still unknown, Congressional committees began putting increasing pressure on PRN anyway. On July 12, 2016 , two committees jointly wrote a letter to PRN , threatening subpoenas if they still refused to cooperate. The letter listed seven PRN employees they wanted to interview, including Combetta and Thornton. Similar letters went out to Datto and SECNAP. (SECNAP was subcontracted by PRN to carry out threat monitoring of the network connected to Clinton's server.)

    On August 22, 2016 , after all three companies still refused to cooperate, Representative Lamar Smith (R), chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, issued subpoenas for PRN, Datto, and SECNAP .

    On September 2, 2016 , the FBI's final report of their Clinton email investigation was released (along with a summary of Clinton's FBI interview). This report revealed the late March 2015 deletions for the first time. Combetta's name was redacted, but his role, as well as his immunity deal, was revealed in the New York Times article published a few days later.


    Congressional investigators fight back

    160918ChanningPhillipspublic

    Channing Phillips (Credit: public domain)

    Since the report has been released, Congressional Republicans have stepped up their efforts to get answers about the Combetta mystery, using the powers of the committees they control. On September 6, 2016 , Representative Jason Chaffetz (R), chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote a letter to Channing Phillips , the US attorney for the District of Columbia. He asked the Justice Department to "investigate and determine whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statutes that prohibit destruction of records, obstruction of congressional inquiries, and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation." Clearly, this relates to the Combetta deletions.

    House Oversight Committee Chair Representative Jason Chaffetz. (Credit: Cliff Owen / The Associated Press)

    Representative Jason Chaffetz. (Credit: Cliff Owen / The Associated Press)

    On the same day , Chaffetz sent a letter to PRN warning that Combetta could face federal charges for deleting and wiping Clinton's emails in late March 2015 , due to the Congressional request to preserve them earlier in the month that he admitted he was aware of. Chaffetz also wants an explanation from PRN how Combetta could refuse to talk to the FBI about the conference calls if the only lawyers involved in the call were Clinton's.

    Chaffetz serves the FBI a subpoena during a House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee hearing on September 9, 2016. (Credit: ABC News)

    Chaffetz serves the FBI a subpoena during a House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee hearing on September 9, 2016. (Credit: ABC News)

    On September 9 , Chaffetz served the FBI a subpoena for all the unredacted interviews from the FBI's Clinton investigation, especially those of Combetta and the other PRN employees. This came after an FBI official testifying at a hearing remarkably suggested that Chaffetz should file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get the documents, just like any private citizen can.

    On September 8, 2016 , Congressional committees served the subpoenas they'd threatened in August. PRN, Datto, and SECNAP were given until the end of September 12 to finally turn over the documents the committees had been requesting for year. Datto complied and turned over the documents in time. However, PRN and SECNAP did not.

    Representative Lamar Smith (Credit: public domain)

    Representative Lamar Smith (Credit: public domain)

    The next day, September 13 , Representative Lamar Smith (R) said , "just this morning SECNAP's [legal] counsel confirmed to my staff that the Clinton's private LLC [Clinton Executive Service Corp.] is actively engaged in directing their obstructionist responses to Congressional subpoenas."

    PRN employees Combetta and Thornton were also given subpoenas on September 8 , ordering them to testify at a Congressional hearing on September 13, 2016 . Both of them showed up with their lawyers, but both of them pled the Fifth , leaving many questions unanswered.


    An FBI cover-up?

    In a Senate speech on September 12, 2016 , Senator Charles Grassley (R) accused the FBI of manipulating which information about the Clinton email investigation becomes public . He said that although the FBI has taken the unusual step of releasing the FBI's final report, "its summary is misleading or inaccurate in some key details and leaves out other important facts altogether." He pointed in particular to Combetta's deletions, saying: "[T]here is key information related to that issue that is still being kept secret, even though it is unclassified. If I honor the FBI's 'instruction' not to disclose the unclassified information it provided to Congress, I cannot explain why."

    Senator Charles Grassley takes to the Senate floor on September 12, 2016. (Credit: CSpan))

    Senator Charles Grassley takes to the Senate floor on September 12, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)

    He also said there are dozens of completely unclassified witness reports, but even some of his Congressional staffers can't see them "because the FBI improperly bundled [them] with a small amount of classified information, and told the Senate to treat it all as if it were classified." The normal procedure is for documents to have the classified portions marked. Then the unclassified portions can be released. But in defiance of regulations and a clear executive order on how such material should be handled, "the FBI has 'instructed' the Senate office that handles classified information not to separate the unclassified information." As a result, Grassley claims: "Inaccuracies are spreading because of the FBI's selective release. For example, the FBI's recently released summary memo may be contradicted by other unclassified interview summaries that are being kept locked away from the public."

    He said he has been fighting the FBI on this, but without success so far, as the FBI isn't even replying to his letters.

    Thus, it seems that Comey failing to mention anything about the Combetta deletions in the July 7, 2016 Congressional hearing, even when directly asked about it, was no accident. Having the FBI report claim that Combetta was only interviewed twice when there is clear evidence of three interviews also fits a pattern of concealment related to the deletions.

    James Comey testifies to the House Benghazi Committee on July 7, 2016. (Credit: Jack Gruber / USA Today)

    James Comey testifies to the House Benghazi Committee on July 7, 2016. (Credit: Jack Gruber / USA Today)

    Regarding the FBI's failure to inform Congressional oversight committees of Combetta's immunity deal, Representative Trey Gowdy (R) recently commented, "If there is a reason to withhold the immunity agreement from Congress-and by extension, the people we represent-I cannot think of what it would be."

    Gowdy, who is a former federal prosecutor, also said on September 9 that there are two types of immunity Combetta could have received : use and transactional. "If the FBI and the Department of Justice gave this witness transactional immunity, it is tantamount to giving the triggerman immunity in a robbery case." He added that he is "stunned" because "It looks like they gave immunity to the very person you would most want to prosecute."

    This is as much as we know so far, but surely the story won't stop there. PRN has been served a new subpoena. It is likely the requested documents will be seized from them soon if they continue to resist.


    Taking the fall and running out the clock

    But why does PRN resist so much? Computer companies often resist sharing information with the government so their reputation with their clients won't be harmed. But defying a subpoena when there clearly are legitimate questions to be answered goes way beyond what companies normally do and threatens PRN's reputation in a different way. Could it be that PRN-an inexplicable choice to manage Clinton's server-was chosen precisely because whatever Clinton aide hired them had reason to believe they would be loyal if a problem like this arose?

    David DeCamillis (Credit: public domain)

    David DeCamillis (Credit: public domain)

    There is some anecdotal evidence to support this. It has been reported that PRN has ties to prominent Democrats . For instance, the company's vice president of sales David DeCamillis is said to be a prominent supporter of Democratic politicians, and once offered to let Senator Joe Biden (D) stay in his house in 2008 , not long before Biden became Obama's vice president. The company also has done work for John Hickenlooper, the Democratic governor of Colorado. And recall the email in which Combetta brought up points to defend Clinton in her email controversy, even though the email exchange was on a different topic.

    The behavior of the FBI is even stranger. Comey was a registered Republican most of his life, and it is well known that most FBI agents are politically conservative. Be that as it may, if Comey made a decision beforehand based on some political calculation to avoid indicting Clinton no matter what the actual evidence was, that the FBI's peculiar behavior specifically relating to the Combetta deletions make much more sense. It would be an unprecedented and bold move to recommend indicting someone with Hillary Clinton's power right in the middle of her presidential election campaign.

    It's naive to think that political factors don't play a role, on both sides. Consider that virtually every Democratic politician has been supportive of Clinton in her email controversy, or at least silent about it, while virtually every Republican has been critical of her about it or silent. Comey was appointed by Obama, and if the odds makers are right and Clinton wins in November , Comey will continue to be the FBI director under President Clinton. (Comey was appointed to a ten-year term, but Congress needs to vote to reappoint him after the election.) How could that not affect his thinking?

    Comey could be trying to run out the clock, first delaying the revelations of the Combetta's deletions as much as possible, then releasing only selected facts to diminish the attention on the story.

    In this scenario, the FBI having Combetta take the fall for the deletions while making a secret immunity deal with him is a particularly clever move to prevent anyone from being indicted. Note that Combetta's confession about making the deletions came in his May 2016 FBI interview, which came after Mills' April 2016 interview in which she claimed she'd never heard of any deletions. Thus, the only way to have Combetta take the fall for the deletions without Mills getting caught clearly lying to the FBI is by dodging the issue of what was said in the March 31, 2015 conference with a nonsensical claim of "attorney-client privilege."

    Unfortunately, if that is Comey's plan, it looks like it's working. Since the FBI's final report came out on September 2, 2016 , the mainstream media has largely failed to grasp the significance of Combetta and his deletions, focusing on far less important matters instead, such as the destruction of a couple of Clinton's BlackBerry devices with hammers-which actually was better than not destroying them and possibly letting them fall into the wrong hands.

    The House Benghazi Committee in session in 2015. (Credit: C-SPAN3)

    The House Benghazi Committee in session in 2015. (Credit: C-SPAN3)

    What happens next appears to largely be in the hands of Congressional Republicans, who no doubt will keep pushing to find out more, if only to politically hurt Clinton before the election. But it's also in the hands of you, the members of the general public. If enough people pay attention, then it will be impossible to sweep this controversy under the rug.

    I believe that criminal behavior needs to be properly investigated and prosecuted, regardless of political persuasion and regardless of the election calendar. Combetta clearly committed a crime and he even confessed to do so, given what he admitted in his last FBI interview. If he got a limited immunity deal instead of blanket immunity, which is highly likely, it still would be possible to indict and convict him based on evidence outside of his interviews. That would help explain why he recently pled the Fifth, because he's still in legal danger.

    Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton plead the Fifth on September 13, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)

    Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton plead the Fifth on September 13, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)

    But more importantly, who else is guilty with him? Logic and the available evidence strongly suggest that Clinton's lawyer Cheryl Mills at least knew about the deletions at the time they happened. Combetta has already confessed to criminal behavior-and yet somehow hasn't even been fired by PRN. If he didn't at least tell Mills and the others in the conference call about the deletions, there would be no logical reason to assert attorney-client privilege in the first place. Only the nonsensical assertion of this privilege is preventing the evidence coming out that should lead to Mills being charged with lying to the FBI at a minimum. And if Mills knew, can anyone seriously believe that Clinton didn't know too?

    As the saying goes, "it's not the crime, it's the cover up." This is an important story, and not just election season mudslinging. The public needs to know what really happened.

    Note to Readers!

    If you found this essay informative, check out the Clinton email investigation timeline , as well as the Clinton Foundation timeline , written and updated daily by the same author. Stay up to date with the newest timeline entries by checking out our Recently Added Entries page , and join our Facebook group for intelligent discussions about the latest breaking news throughout the day.

    [Sep 22, 2016] Negative Effects of Immigration on the Economy

    Notable quotes:
    "... I wonder if there is a simpler explanation. US immigration policy has come to be about suppressing wages. The suppressing wages operation has been great for those at the top of the food chain at the cost of overall growth. ..."
    "... As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social systems or resolve ongoing conflicts. In fact, there is every incentive to maintain the status quo. ..."
    "... And when will the Wester polity finally figure out that if you destabilize a metastable regime by force, the result isn't stability but inevitably chaos and a further flood of refugee/immigrants? ..."
    "... Now most of the net immigration across the US-Mexican border comes from Central America: countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala destabilized by the Reagan regime in the 1980s. Now they're dominated by violent gangs trained in California prisons and repatriated to Central America. ..."
    "... Immigration across the U.S.-Mexican border is driven by Central American refugees fleeing gross instability, crime and violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala; not by Mexicans. The U.S. played a deep long-term role in creating the mess that Central America is today. ..."
    "... U.S. creates instability (war, coup) in a region. ..."
    "... The ensuing instability creates a class of desperate folks, who then seek bodily, economic, and political safety within the borders of the empire. This leads to a class of desperate workers, often undocumented and constantly at risk of deportation, willing to work for far less compensation than the native population. ..."
    "... Poorer countries suffer brain drain. They do receive large amount of remittances, but an economy which sends its best and the brightest to benefit the industrial countries and receives industrial products in exchange does not seem like it can develop very easily. ..."
    "... Here's a somewhat interesting backgrounder on American immigration. The author's premise is that US immigration policies were always about race (white Europeans welcome to stay, brown Mexicans welcome to do manual labor and leave) but this is undoubtedly a simplification as the discrimination in favor of high skills–talked about in the above post–undoubtedly a factor. ..."
    "... most other countries do not offer citizenship unless you have something valuable to offer them. An acquaintance who thought about becoming Canadian found this out. ..."
    "... It is dangerous for Trump to demonize undocumented immigrants without holding the corporations that attracted and hired them responsible and the system that allowed it. ..."
    "... I would argue that migration has both positive and negative impact on the receiving country. But at some point I believe the 'self' is selfish and not necessarily selfless. In a world of limited resources and opportunities it is normal for the 'self' to be highly selfish hence the contradictory nature of the theory of free market economy under globalization. ..."
    "... So the UK National Health system nurtured me through my early years, and the UK education system gave me primary, secondary and degree level education. I have spent most of my working life doing an R&D job in the US. The US has benefited from my work during my working life. If I should choose to retire back to the UK, I will remit my pension income back there, and because of the tax treaty, pay income taxes there, which I claim as a full credit against the US tax return. So I'm "taking money out of the US, to the detriment of social cohesion and economic growth". ..."
    "... H1-B visas tap larger, typically Asian populations than the U.S. for their best & brightest. ..."
    "... Roughly 50% of the undocumented are from Asia. Yet 90% of the deportations are Hispanic. ..."
    "... My experience is that the Asian population is either native or here on student visas. The chinese student population is quite large in Los Angeles. Student visas don't allow foreign students to work off-campus, so many of them are family-funded. So they're not taking jobs, but do impact the housing/rental market. (The California colleges love them for their out-of-state fees and strong study habits.) ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on September 21, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. I wonder if there is a simpler explanation. US immigration policy has come to be about suppressing wages. The suppressing wages operation has been great for those at the top of the food chain at the cost of overall growth.

    By Mike Kimel. Originally published at Angry Bear

    In a recent post , I showed that looking at data since 1950 or so, the percentage of the population that is foreign born is negatively correlated with job creation in later years. I promised an explanation, and I will attempt to deliver on that promise in this post.

    I can think of a few reasons for the finding, just about all of which would have been amplified since LBJ's Presidency due to two things: the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act and the launch of the Great Society. The Hart-Cellar Act may be better known as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It phased out country quotas in existence since the 1920s. As a result of these quotas, about 70% of all immigrants were coming from England, Germany and Ireland, with most of the remainder coming from elsewhere in Western Europe and from Latin America. The Great Society, of course, included a number of welfare programs, many of which (or their descendants) are still in existence.

    With that, reasons why the foreign born population is negatively correlated with subsequent job creation include:

    1. Immigrants who are sufficiently similar to the existing population when it comes to language, culture, skillsets and expectations will integrate more smoothly. Slower and more imperfect integration necessarily requires more expenditure of resources, resources which otherwise could go toward economic development.

    2. Naturally, skills and values that are more productive and efficient than those of the existing population are conducive toward growth. Conversely, bringing inferior technology and processes does not improve the economy. As the source of immigrants shifted away from sources of sources of high technology like England and Germany and toward the developing and not-developing world, the likelihood that a randomly selected new immigrant will improve productivity diminishes.

    3. Eligibility for welfare can change the incentive structure for existing and potential immigrants. An immigrant arriving in the US in 1890 certainly had no expectation of being supported by the state. It may be that most immigrants arriving in the US now also don't have that expectation. However, it is no secret that welfare exists so some percentage of potential immigrants arrive expecting to be supported to some degree by the state. In some (many?) cases, the expectation increases post-arrival. (Like any great economist, Milton Friedman got a lot of things wrong about how the economy works but he had a point when he said you can have a welfare state or open borders but not both.)

    4. Rightly or wrongly, reasons 1 – 3 above may combine to create resentment in the existing population. Think "my grandparents came to this country with nothing and nobody gave them anything " Resentment can break down trust and institutions necessary for the economy to function smoothly.

    5. Over time, transportation has become cheaper and easier. As a result, the likelihood that an immigrant has come to the US to stay has diminished. Many immigrants come to the US for several years and then go back to their country of origin. This in turn leads to four issues that can have negative impacts on the economy:

    5a. Immigrants that expect to leave often send back remittances, taking resources out of the US economy. For example, in 2010, remittances from workers in the US amounted to 2.1% of Mexican GDP .

    5b. Relative to many non-Western countries, the US taxpayer invests heavily in the creation of a state that is conducive toward acquiring useful skills and education. Often, the acquisition of such skills and education is heavily subsidized. When people acquire those tools and then leave without applying them, the value of the resources could have been better spent elsewhere.

    5c. Immigrants who don't expect to stay can have less reason to integrate culturally and economically; any real estate investor can tell you that all else being equal, a neighborhood made up largely of homeowners is almost always nicer than a neighborhood made up largely of renters.

    5d. Immigrants who arrive with a non-negligible expectation of leaving are, on average, more likely to take risks which generate private gains and social losses. If the bet goes well, congratulations. If the bet goes bad, "so long suckers!" The bet may even involve a crime.

    6. (This one is more conjecture than the others – I think it is true, but I haven't given it enough thought, particularly whether it is entirely separate from the previous reasons.) The non-existence of a lump of labor does not mean there isn't a population to labor multiplier, or that the multiplier cannot change over time. In an era of relatively slow economic growth, economies of scale, and outsourcing abroad, the number of new employment opportunities per new customer (i.e., job creation per resident) can shrink. We've certainly seen something resembling that since about 2000.

    None of this is to say that immigration is good or bad, or even that it should be opposed or encouraged. In this post I simply tried to explain what I saw in the data. I will have one or more follow-up posts.

    financial matters , September 21, 2016 at 6:13 am

    I think one of the best things the US can do re immigration is to develop policies that make it easier for people to stay in their country of origin which many probably want to do. Our policies have tended to have the opposite effect such as

    NAFTA "An influx of highly subsidized corn flooding the Mexican market has displaced millions of rural farmers" ( http://economyincrisis.org/content/illegal-immigration-and-naftaz )

    and Syria/Libya etc "An estimated 11 million Syrians have fled their homes since the outbreak of the civil war in March 2011. Now, in the sixth year of war, 13.5 million are in need of humanitarian assistance within the country. " ( http://syrianrefugees.eu/ )

    We are also very much in need of a job guarantee paying a living wage which would put pressure on major employers such as Walmart and McDonalds and get their executives off of government subsidies. (they pay a wage so low their workers are forced into food stamps and medicaid) (One of the major beneficiaries of the nation's food-stamp program is actually a hugely profitable company: Walmart .) ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/walmart-food-stamps_n_4181862.html )

    Hayek's Heelbiter , September 21, 2016 at 6:15 am

    Another great post, read word-for-word, and I very much look forward your subsequent ones.

    You've cogently explored the "yin" of immigration, but what about the "yang"?

    As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social systems or resolve ongoing conflicts. In fact, there is every incentive to maintain the status quo.

    And when will the Wester polity finally figure out that if you destabilize a metastable regime by force, the result isn't stability but inevitably chaos and a further flood of refugee/immigrants?

    IMHO

    Jim Haygood , September 21, 2016 at 7:25 am

    'As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social systems or resolve ongoing conflicts.'

    After a mere ten years, NAFTA succeeded in reversing net immigration from Mexico.

    http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

    Now most of the net immigration across the US-Mexican border comes from Central America: countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala destabilized by the Reagan regime in the 1980s. Now they're dominated by violent gangs trained in California prisons and repatriated to Central America.

    Increasingly Mexico will focus on its own southern border with Guatemala, as it becomes more of a destination country rather than simply a transit country, as detailed here:

    https://www.wola.org/files/mxgt/report/

    Immigration across the U.S.-Mexican border is driven by Central American refugees fleeing gross instability, crime and violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala; not by Mexicans. The U.S. played a deep long-term role in creating the mess that Central America is today.

    Mark John , September 21, 2016 at 9:20 am

    Yes. It is a pernicious cycle with something like these dimensions. . .

    1. U.S. creates instability (war, coup) in a region.
    2. The ensuing instability creates a class of desperate folks, who then seek bodily, economic, and political safety within the borders of the empire. This leads to a class of desperate workers, often undocumented and constantly at risk of deportation, willing to work for far less compensation than the native population.
    3. Native population sees the contours of its society change with the influx along with a lessening in quality of living standards, which leads to dangerous, xenophobic mental associations. Xenophobic politics begin to take root and thrive.

    The real solution is for our country to stop doing step 1.

    tony , September 21, 2016 at 8:03 am

    Poorer countries suffer brain drain. They do receive large amount of remittances, but an economy which sends its best and the brightest to benefit the industrial countries and receives industrial products in exchange does not seem like it can develop very easily.

    Its clear that the emigree benefits, and the receiving country receives a subsidy in the form of valuable human capital. But how does the originating country develop? Invest in education and the best leave. Invest in industry and you compete with the products of the developed countries.

    And of course, the rich in unstable countries have little reason to care about the long term consequences of their actions if they can take their loot and run. There is a reason so many rich Chinese are emigrating.

    David Harvey once told a story about how he warned investment bankers that if things keep getting worse, the US could end up a failed state like Mexico. In typical Wall Street fashion they asked Harvey if they should buy villas in France.

    Mark John , September 21, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    And now climate change will only increase the numbers of those seeking refuge, most likely fueling xenophobia in the west further.

    fresno dan , September 21, 2016 at 7:16 am

    I think this is the first article I have EVER read that even supposes there might be negative ECONOMIC effects of immigration.

    I would note that if there ever was a jobs program with the explicit goal of reducing unemployment to 4% (and not pretending the people who have dropped out don't want a job because they CAN'T get a job) and providing a job to any and all applicants – well, I think the immigration from South America that has slowed would amp right up again – of course.

    You know, I have been reading some of the Davos Man class going on and on about how they didn't really do enough to ameliorate the negative effects of "free" trade on those who don't benefit from trade. But NAFTA is going on a quarter of a century – and in every subsequent trade deal such promises are either never kept or never effectively implemented.

    I suspect that to REALLY provide jobs of equal pay and equal benefits is not economically feasible. Think of it this way – people who worked as landscapers, when displaced by immigrants, may not have the aptitude, skills, or even desire to change careers – if you work outside, why in the hell do you want to have to start working indoors???
    Go to college and become a computer programmer .H1b .

    What are you gonna do keep these people employed – have the same lawn mowed twice every week? Have the same computer code written twice?????

    Again, the whole scenario has struck me as not being ever critically thought through. The benefits to consumers getting low prices are endlessly pointed out, but the negative effect of fewer jobs at low pay are glossed over or NOT ACKNOWLEDGED. The whole deal is that less income to workers and more income to capital – is it REALLY unforseeable that eventually there will be a demand dearth?? Decades of experience of jobs shipped overseas and not replaced are not acknowledged. Ever growing inequality. We have been sold a load of bullsh*t because it benefited a very, very narrow slice at the top only.

    Northeaster , September 21, 2016 at 7:38 am

    Go to college and become a computer programmer .H1b .

    Over 100K H-1B Visas issued so far for 2016 alone, over 10% of those were issued in my state of Massachusetts. The Mathworks Inc. of Natick was given a $3 million dollar state tax subsidy in return for "creating" 600 new jobs – they created jobs alright, 386 H-1B jobs so far, Americans need not apply.

    nowhere , September 21, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    Hmmm a reason to stop using MATLAB?

    timbers , September 21, 2016 at 7:27 am

    The HB-1 Indian workers that have flooded Boston's labor market seem to fit this part because they get on and off Public transportation enmass at stops with clusters of rental buildings -- "5c. Immigrants who don't expect to stay can have less reason to integrate culturally and economically; any real estate investor can tell you that all else being equal, a neighborhood made up largely of homeowners is almost always nicer than a neighborhood made up largely of renters."

    gardener1 , September 21, 2016 at 8:04 am

    Some first person anecdotal observances –

    As a lifelong blue collar worker for nearly 40 years, I found my ability to remain employed competing against a never-ending influx of 22 year old immigrants to be a sinking, and finally sunk quagmire. I lost. I cannot be 22 forever.

    Coming up in the 1970's many of my acquaintances and I were skilled laborers, we got up in the morning and went out everyday to work hard for a living. None of us would even be considered for any of those entry level positions any more. They all go to immigrants from somewhere else or another. As a native born white American you don't even get a chance at those jobs anymore, no employer would even bother talking to you.

    The US has all but done away with apprenticeship programs for the skilled trades. We just bring in exploitable people from all over the world to build our stuff, and then when we're done with them, they go back to where they came from. I know this is true because I've asked them, I've worked with them – they have no intention of staying in America longer than it takes to educate their kids, build up a nest egg, and go back home. A lot of them don't really like it here.

    But we Americans don't have those options. We can't go to Guatemala or Germany or the Philippines to work for 10 or 20 years to return to America with saved money on which we can survive for the rest of a lifetime.

    This deal is a one-way street.

    As an American, I challenge you to get a job abroad. I challenge you to get a foreign residency visa or a work visa. I challenge you to do any of the things that immigrants do in our country. You can't.

    I'm not anti-immigrant. I'm pro- our people first. Us first, and then when we need other folks they're welcome too. But that's not what has been happening in my work lifetime of the last 40 years.

    Carolinian , September 21, 2016 at 8:31 am

    Here's a somewhat interesting backgrounder on American immigration. The author's premise is that US immigration policies were always about race (white Europeans welcome to stay, brown Mexicans welcome to do manual labor and leave) but this is undoubtedly a simplification as the discrimination in favor of high skills–talked about in the above post–undoubtedly a factor.

    For example most other countries do not offer citizenship unless you have something valuable to offer them. An acquaintance who thought about becoming Canadian found this out.

    In any case the below author does talk about how the notion of "illegal" immigrants is a more recent phenomenon and in earlier periods Mexicans were freely allowed to come across and work.

    http://mondediplo.com/openpage/is-trump-an-aberration

    financial matters , September 21, 2016 at 9:07 am

    I think it's also useful to consider private prison labor. This article notes that half this revenue comes from undocumented immigrants but that means the other half comes from US citizens. private prisons

    ""Private prisons bring in about $3 billion in revenue annually, and over half of that comes from holding facilities for undocumented immigrants. Private operations run between 50% to 55% of immigrant detainment facilities. The immigration bill battling its way through Washington right now might also mean good things for private prisons. Some estimate that the crackdown on undocumented immigrants will lead to 14,000 more inmates annually with 80% of that business going to private prisons.

    The prison industry has also made money by contracting prison labor to private companies. The companies that have benefited from this cheap labor include Starbucks (SBUX), Boeing (BA), Victoria's Secret, McDonalds (MCD) and even the U.S. military. Prison laborers cost between 93 cents and $4 a day and don't need to collect benefits, thus making them cheap employees.""

    Ping , September 21, 2016 at 10:11 am

    It is dangerous for Trump to demonize undocumented immigrants without holding the corporations that attracted and hired them responsible and the system that allowed it.

    Now that they are here and have settled with families, it is deplorable to speak of mass deportation. As has been noted with the Walmart expample, those that massively profit from this abberation should bear the major cost of public services required for a 'Shadow Workforce'.

    And Hillary Clinton and her neocon crowd, whose policies have created chaos resulting in mass immigration of refugees offers no apology but more of the same. Insanity doing the same thing over and over for a different result?

    Huruyadzo Chikwanha , September 21, 2016 at 10:17 am

    I would argue that migration has both positive and negative impact on the receiving country. But at some point I believe the 'self' is selfish and not necessarily selfless. In a world of limited resources and opportunities it is normal for the 'self' to be highly selfish hence the contradictory nature of the theory of free market economy under globalization.

    I argue that the theory is self contradictory because it is normal human nature being selfish hence anti competition. When threatened by the influx of seemingly hard working, creative and passive immigrants, I tend to gravitate towards conservatism. I start taking necessary steps towards protecting myself, my immediate family and hence my domestic market. These rules are typically borrowed from nature. How to balance the impulsive theory of free market economics vs the reality of limited resources and opportunities is a unique challenge to governments, policy and decision makers worldwide hence globalization in the short run presents unique challenges (conflicts) sometimes.

    Vatch , September 21, 2016 at 10:22 am

    Johnson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Private_prisons

    Johnson supports private, for-profit prisons. As Governor of New Mexico he dealt with overcrowded prisons (and approximately seven hundred prisoners held out-of-state due to a lack of available space) by opening two private prisons, later arguing that "building two private prisons in New Mexico solved some very serious problems – and saved the taxpayers a lot of money."

    He could have saved the taxpayers even more money by releasing non-violent prisoners convicted of minor crimes. But that would have offended some of his campaign donors.

    Clinton: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-ban-private-prisons_b_9297568.html

    Bernie's goal is to ban private prisons. Hillary has a similar goal, but takes money from prison lobbyists. Does this make sense to you?

    According to Lee Fang of The Intercept, Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary Clinton.

    After pressure from civil rights groups, Vice News explains Hillary Clinton Shuns Private Prison Cash, Activists Want Others to Follow Suit.

    The Huffington Post writes "Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC, according to Vice."

    Do you trust Clinton?

    I guess this means that we should vote for Sanders in the primary. Oh gosh, there's a minor problem. The primaries are over, and Clinton is the nominee.

    Trump: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/why-trumps-support-for-private-prisons-and-mass-incarceration-should-worry-you/

    "I do think we can do a lot of privatizations, and private prisons it seems to work a lot better," said Trump when asked how he planned to reform the country's prison system.

    Stein: http://www.jill2016.com/fb_ad_cannabis_legalization_landing_page

    As president, Jill Stein will:

    3.) Abolish private prisons

    So Stein of the Green Party is best on this issue.

    no one in particular , September 21, 2016 at 11:19 am

    For more research on the topic – I found the following very readable, gave me a lot of insight into the factors influencing whether or when immigration is good or bad from which point of view:

    Paul Collier Exodus, ca. 2011 .

    efschumacher , September 21, 2016 at 11:55 am

    So the UK National Health system nurtured me through my early years, and the UK education system gave me primary, secondary and degree level education. I have spent most of my working life doing an R&D job in the US. The US has benefited from my work during my working life. If I should choose to retire back to the UK, I will remit my pension income back there, and because of the tax treaty, pay income taxes there, which I claim as a full credit against the US tax return. So I'm "taking money out of the US, to the detriment of social cohesion and economic growth".

    Question is, how much of the pension and/or social security and/or investment gains do I owe to the US, and how much to the UK? I think I owe more there than I do here. Particularly in light of the fact that the UK paid for my college education, but my nephews and nieces have to pay for their own, so I have hitherto been a drain on the UKs social investment strategy.

    I see it as much a moral question as an economic one that I should help support my family's education directly, and the UK social system through future taxes paid from pension. I have after all supported the US social and military-industrial systems through work done and taxes paid during my working life.

    Adam Eran , September 21, 2016 at 11:56 am

    1. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for welfare they can barely get emergency room care.

    2. H1-B visas tap larger, typically Asian populations than the U.S. for their best & brightest. Could India actually make use of its intelligent people? Is it moral for the U.S. to, in effect, bribe them to leave their native country? (A point made by Ralph Nader in answering a libertarian at his Google talk )

    3. Roughly 50% of the undocumented are from Asia. Yet 90% of the deportations are Hispanic.

    Anon , September 21, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Roughly 50% of the undocumented are from Asia .

    Got a link on this? My experience is that the Asian population is either native or here on student visas. The chinese student population is quite large in Los Angeles. Student visas don't allow foreign students to work off-campus, so many of them are family-funded. So they're not taking jobs, but do impact the housing/rental market. (The California colleges love them for their out-of-state fees and strong study habits.)

    Gary , September 21, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    I can only speak for Texas, but the nail salons, massage parlors, dry cleaners, restaurants, fishing boats and electronics refurbishing can't ALL be H1-B visas. And that isn't even counting all the people from India I see. Most of them are too old to be students.

    Dave , September 21, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Trump's statement that he will issue an executive order forcing employers to use E-Verify for all new employees is a good start. While that program has a few flaws, the net effect would be massive for favoring citizens over illegals.

    To be fair, employers should still have the option of using illegals, however, they should put their money where their mouths and labor savings are, by not being able to deduct the non E-Verifiable wages from their income for taxation purposes.

    sgt_doom , September 21, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    Add to the author's stuff from Johnson Administration: his Border Industrialization Program.

    Interesting article.

    [Sep 22, 2016] A deep schism in the Republican Party: neocon and neolib wings of the Republican Party are adamantly anti-Trump by Michael Tracey

    The author fails to distinguish between two (intermixed) faction so of Repugs -- neocons and neolib.
    Neoconservatives and neoliberals are "enemy within" the Republican Party as they have nothing to do with either republicanism or conservatism. They are Empire builders. Neocons should be purged as they definitely do not belong. They already started moving to Democratic party (Robert Kagan is a typical case) ...
    Neoliberals are more complex and difficult case. They are the essence of the current republican establishment, the face of the party. Here a Stalin-type purge (Trotskyites were very influential before the purge) is necessary to get rid of this faction, in order to return the Party to Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt roots...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Only one outcome in November would forestall a complete, likely irreversible fracturing: the election of Hillary Clinton. Thus, many elite Republican operators-including lobbyists, elected officials, and pundits-are desperately hoping that Trump loses. Some are limited to expressing this desire privately, for fear of alienating the conservative voters on whom their continued electoral (or business) prospects depend. ..."
    "... Republicans who were especially devoted to Marco Rubio during the primary-whose interests align with the perpetuation of the party's status quo-are perhaps the most strident in their wish for a Trump defeat. ..."
    "... Under a President Trump, such establishmentarian actors would lose power. Maybe they'd retain some measure of influence within the administration, as Trump exerted his deal-making prowess to bring them into the fold, but their interests would no longer be paramount. Other forces would have propelled Trump to victory, and he would likely prioritize them in governance. ..."
    "... "True conservatives" of the Cruz variety could feasibly come to include the free marketeers and conventional national-security hawks who cannot countenance Trump. ..."
    "... It should also be noted that while this schism is especially pronounced among elites-such as those with sinecures at prestigious think tanks, or lobbyists with powerful clients to please-the divisions are far less evident at the voter level. Support for Trump among Republicans is around 90 percent , according to recent polling. ..."
    "... those whose livelihood depends on conservative-movement institutions have added incentive to root for a Trump loss. ..."
    "... In sum, Trump poses an existential threat to American movement [neo]conservatives. Hillary is their only hope. ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    From: Why Movement Conservatives Are Rooting for Hillary by Michael Tracey

    Obviously there is . It has been developing for years, and could be seen to some extent in earlier presidential cycles, but was opened fully and dramatically by the improbable candidacy of Donald Trump. Only one outcome in November would forestall a complete, likely irreversible fracturing: the election of Hillary Clinton. Thus, many elite Republican operators-including lobbyists, elected officials, and pundits-are desperately hoping that Trump loses. Some are limited to expressing this desire privately, for fear of alienating the conservative voters on whom their continued electoral (or business) prospects depend.

    Republicans who were especially devoted to Marco Rubio during the primary-whose interests align with the perpetuation of the party's status quo-are perhaps the most strident in their wish for a Trump defeat. (Recall that the few areas where Rubio prevailed earlier this year included Washington, D.C., and its Northern Virginia suburbs-locations that have profited immensely from the post-9/11 military-industrial buildup.)

    Under a President Trump, such establishmentarian actors would lose power. Maybe they'd retain some measure of influence within the administration, as Trump exerted his deal-making prowess to bring them into the fold, but their interests would no longer be paramount. Other forces would have propelled Trump to victory, and he would likely prioritize them in governance.

    After Trump's election, many conservative organs and their congressional allies would position themselves as Trump's enemies, coordinating with Democrats on key initiatives to block his agenda. At the same time, other conservative organs, in tandem with Trump-sympathetic factions of the Republican congressional caucus, would coalesce around the sitting president and support his agenda. Eventually, these factions' coexistence within the same movement would prove untenable, practically and philosophically.

    The result would be less overall leverage for traditional Republican institutions in Washington, the kind whose existence is premised on the maintenance of the decades-old "three-legged stool" formula-social conservatism, free markets, and hawkish foreign policy-for entrenching conservative political power. Trump would saw off one or two of the stool's legs, and there would be no replacing them, at least not in the short term.

    Though a Trump win would necessitate a realignment, it would not happen overnight. Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation would not undergo a sudden ideological makeover; institutional inertia precludes such rapid transformation. Change would happen slowly, but surely. A president always influences the ideological composition of the body politic-within his own party and the opposition. For instance, Obama's eight-year term has reshaped the Democratic Party coalition, and also engendered commensurate shifts within internal Republican dynamics.

    Under a President Trump, the Republican congressional caucus and affiliated movement-conservative entities would be constantly wracked by internecine warfare of the type that was on vivid display during the GOP primaries. No doubt Ted Cruz would be at the forefront of whatever organized conservative opposition to Trump emerged as he positioned himself for a likely presidential primary challenge in 2020. Cruz would be well situated to pick up the mantle of "true conservatism"-however that ended up getting defined-and he would be able to (convincingly) blame establishment-GOP squishes for fostering the conditions that gave rise to Trump. "True conservatives" of the Cruz variety could feasibly come to include the free marketeers and conventional national-security hawks who cannot countenance Trump.

    Conversely, under a President Hillary, movement conservatives could comfortably unify the party in opposition to their longstanding enemy, papering over the ideological divisions exposed by Trump. Such divisions would still exist, but dealing with them would be subordinated to the overriding task of undermining Hillary. Movement conservatives could easily discount Trump's nomination and failed general-election run as an aberration, and revert more or less back to form. They'd probably proffer some superficial initiatives to address "Trump_vs_deep_state" at the urging of prominent columnists-the somber panel discussions would be manifold-but "Trump_vs_deep_state" as a political program is so ill-defined and malleable that, in practice, any remedial actions wouldn't amount to much.

    It should also be noted that while this schism is especially pronounced among elites-such as those with sinecures at prestigious think tanks, or lobbyists with powerful clients to please-the divisions are far less evident at the voter level. Support for Trump among Republicans is around 90 percent , according to recent polling. In addition to keeping the traditional movement-conservative coalition intact, a Trump loss would narrow the gap between ordinary Republican voters and conservative elites, who could unite in their disdain for Hillary. Thus, those whose livelihood depends on conservative-movement institutions have added incentive to root for a Trump loss.

    In sum, Trump poses an existential threat to American movement [neo]conservatives. Hillary is their only hope.

    Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.

    [Sep 22, 2016] Conservative Christians arent going to stop voting Republican. Theyre just going to offer a different reason for doing it, when asked

    BenOp is unrealistic. conservative Christians will not stop voting Republicans.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting Republican. They're just going to offer a different reason for doing it, when asked. ..."
    "... Well, I think you're right that about 3/4 of the readers would lose their minds if that was stated as an explicit political goal. It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that the primary strategy of the religious right is the establishment of an anti-democratic, theocracy or Caesaropapist regime. ..."
    "... A lot of people are tired of the Religious Right's attempt to gain political power in order to impose Christian views of morality. ..."
    "... A lot of people believe that there should be a separation of church and state, not only in the Constitutional sense of having no state-established religion, but also in the general sense that morality should be a private matter, not the subject of politics. ..."
    "... So basically this boils down to you asking us to trust that your gut is right in spite of what we can see with our lying eyes? Yeah, no thanks. ..."
    "... Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time, but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and the MIC mainly). ..."
    "... Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other side of Mammon (big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed. But the point is I think you are returning to a better place, reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange infatuation that wasn't going to sustain anyway. ..."
    "... So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity? ..."
    "... Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over? ..."
    "... Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian America. ..."
    "... "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?" ..."
    "... My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly being outsourced as well. ..."
    "... Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces. ..."
    "... Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this ..."
    "... When Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in Spain. ..."
    "... The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift and complete. ..."
    "... "You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it." ..."
    "... "BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up." ..."
    "... Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses. ..."
    "... The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it. ..."
    "... We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. ..."
    "... "Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known. ..."
    "... Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump. ..."
    "... The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast": "…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same." ..."
    "... Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence. ..."
    "... If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee. ..."
    "... Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right ideas buried within Trump's rhetoric. But even if it were true that Trump had no ideas, I would still vote for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us lately? ..."
    "... "Conservative principles" espoused by wonks and political scientists culminated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy was a divine right, transferable across time and culture. ..."
    "... In fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both those ideas is one of Trump's economic advisors. ..."
    "... We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables." ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Troy, September 18, 2016 at 11:33 am

    VikingLS: It's been decades since there was a white riot in this country.

    That is such a funny meme I had to share this http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/white-people-rioting-for-no-reason.html

    Joseph , September 18, 2016 at 12:16 pm

    "Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting Republican. They're just going to offer a different reason for doing it, when asked.

    I will bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in Rod's pockets that there will NEVER, in either of our lifetimes, be a time when he feels compelled by his principles to vote for a Democratic candidate for federal office over a Republican one.

    And finally, I note that someone above asked a version of the same question I've periodically had: What does Dreherdom look like? If orthodox Christians controlled the levers of power, what do you propose to DO with your (cultural AND legal) authority? And what will be the status of the "other" in that brave new world?

    [NFR: They will be captured and enslaved and sent to work in the boudin mines. And I will spend whatever percentage of the Gross National Product it takes to hire the Rolling Stones to play "Exile On Main Street" live, from start to finish, in a national broadcast that I will require every citizen to watch, on pain of being assigned to hard labor in the boudin mines. Also, I will eat boudin. - RD]

    WAB , September 18, 2016 at 1:15 pm [

    Connor:

    While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics. The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.]

    That's interesting. Well, I think you're right that about 3/4 of the readers would lose their minds if that was stated as an explicit political goal. It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that the primary strategy of the religious right is the establishment of an anti-democratic, theocracy or Caesaropapist regime. I would consider that the extreme "utopian" or some would even say "totalitarian" position of religious conservatives and not "conservative" in any sense that I understand "Conservatism".

    Saltlick's minimal requirement seems to moderate that goal to "a national reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health.", but even in that he regards it as only a half-measure for Saltlick. Needless to say, what a "traditional" family is would need some definition.

    If nothing short of establishing the City of God on earth would secure the comfort of some Christians then that is a pretty high bar and you have every right to feel insecure… as do the rest of us.

    I would be curious to know how many of your co-religionists on these boards share your view? And how many would reject it?

    Conserving What? , September 18, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Mr Dreher, I always read your articles with great interest, although I often disagree with you. For example, I don't think anybody of any political persuasion is going to try to stamp out Christianity or those who espouse it. Indeed, I think many people will be delighted if all Christians would exercise the Benedict Option.

    A lot of people are tired of the Religious Right's attempt to gain political power in order to impose Christian views of morality.

    A lot of people believe that there should be a separation of church and state, not only in the Constitutional sense of having no state-established religion, but also in the general sense that morality should be a private matter, not the subject of politics.

    [NFR: That's incredibly naive. Aside from procedural laws, all laws are nothing but legislated morality. Somebody's morality is going to be reflected in law. It is unavoidable. - RD]

    William Burns , September 18, 2016 at 2:50 pm
    Amazing how people write about the Atlantic Coast as if South Carolina wasn't on it.
    Michelle , September 18, 2016 at 4:05 pm
    Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?

    Sharpton isn't running for president and I didn't vote for him when he was. Same for Jesse Jackson. I'm well aware of antisemitism within the black community but doubt it comes anywhere close to that of the alt-right and nationalist groups, who foment hate against both blacks and Jews.

    And duh, of course there's plenty of anti-semitism among Muslims. Who's pretending otherwise. It also appears that you didn't read what I wrote. I favor strong borders but think you can do so without demagoguery and appealing to people's baser instincts and hatreds, which is what Trump does.

    I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to recognize the danger the man poses. I don't care as long as there are enough people who do to keep him out of the presidency.

    Neguy , September 18, 2016 at 4:29 pm
    Rod, you clearly have unresolved cognitive dissonance, because if your vote is based on which candidate is best with religious liberty and the right of Christians to live as Christians, the answer is clear and unambiguous: Trump. Yet you refuse to vote for him.

    The author of this piece actually has you nailed perfectly, which is why it makes you so uncomfortable. He sees that you are absolving yourself from the consequences of political engagement by acting like you can stay firm on your principles, while refusing to choose from the only two real sides on offer. That choice is the messy business of politics, and inevitably imperfect because politics is a human practice and humans are fallen. Because you are unwilling to make that choice, you are out of the politics business whether you realize it or not.

    What you have not abandoned, but I believe should when it comes to the topics of politics, is the public square.

    You recognize that your generation failed to fight. You very clearly have no intention of fighting even now. You have decided to build a Benedict Option because you think that's the only viable option. That's fine. In fact, I heartily approve.

    But other people have chosen differently. They have chosen to fight. Donald Trump for one. You might not like his methods. But he's not willing to see his country destroyed without doing everything he can to stop it. He's not alone. Many people are standing up and recognizing that though the odds are long, they owe it to their children and grandchildren to stand up and be counted. That choice deserves respect too, Rod.

    The problem with you is not the BenOp, but your active demonization of those who actually have the temerity to fight for their country instead of surrendering it to go hide in your BenOp bunker with you.

    Trump, the alt-right, etc. may be wrong metaphysically and they may be wrong ethically, but they are right about some very important things – things that you, Rod Dreher, and your entire generation of conservatives were very, very wrong on. Rather than admit that, you want to stand back from the fight, pretending you're too gosh darned principled to soil your hands voting for one of the two candidates who have a shot to be our president, and acting like you're a morally superior person for doing so.

    You should focus on the important work of building and evangelizing for BenOp, and leave the field of political discourse to those who are actually willing to engage in the business of politics.

    Ralph , September 18, 2016 at 5:41 pm
    No lengthy cerebral essay will cover up the fact that Trump is a crude, belligerent, and unethical con-artist. Clinton for her part has her own problems but both are a blot on American history. No amount of blabber will put a shine on Trump's character. He is for himself, and no one else.
    mrscracker , September 18, 2016 at 5:43 pm
    I guess Mrs. Clinton is still not feeling well and/or on medication, but her reaction to the bombing in NYC was like someone sleepwalking.
    VikingLS , September 18, 2016 at 10:47 pm
    "I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to recognize the danger the man poses. I don't care as long as there are enough people who do to keep him out of the presidency."

    So basically this boils down to you asking us to trust that your gut is right in spite of what we can see with our lying eyes? Yeah, no thanks.

    Herenow , September 17, 2016 at 10:53 am
    fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the snippets that you have shared with us particularly in the posts on Norcia and other communities already pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of conservative Christians to a more healthy, hands-off relationship with national politics.

    Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time, but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and the MIC mainly).

    Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other side of Mammon (big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed. But the point is I think you are returning to a better place, reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange infatuation that wasn't going to sustain anyway.

    Alex (the one that likes Ike) , September 17, 2016 at 10:55 am
    So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity?
    Skip , September 17, 2016 at 10:56 am
    Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?
    Skip Rigney , September 17, 2016 at 11:03 am
    Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly why I have reluctantly become a libertarian:

    -"On a practical level, that means that I will no longer vote primarily on the social issues that have dictated my vote in the past, but I will vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's right to be left alone."-

    Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian America.

    I wrote about why I believe this to be so at http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/

    I don't believe for a minute that the majority of elected officials in the Republican Party have the backbone to stand up for religious liberty in the face of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how the Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the protection of religious liberty.

    There are many libertarians who are going to work to protect the rights of people to do things that undermine the common good. But, I have more faith that they'll protect the rights of a cultural minority such as traditionalist Christians than I have in either the Republicans or the Democrats.

    Egypt Steve , September 17, 2016 at 11:29 am
    It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics. It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There are white people, and there are blah people. White people will be in charge, and blah people can have a piece of the pie to the extent they agree to pretend to be white people.
    Viriato , September 17, 2016 at 11:44 am
    Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?"

    My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly being outsourced as well.

    If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will see that the vast majority of new jobs are in retail trade, health care and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders, and government. Most of these jobs are part-time jobs. None of these jobs produce any goods than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive independently. This is why more Americans aged 25-34 live with their parents than independently with spouses and children of their own. It is also why many people now must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. As for government jobs, they are tax-supported, and thus a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian. I recognize that government provides many crucial services. But it is unproductive to have too many bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.

    Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.

    Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this. Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued by radical ideologies like communism, regional separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism had its following as well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain, though it was not really fascist, as it was profoundly Christian and rejected Nietzschean neo-paganism) was irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one of the three pillars that supported the regime (the other two being monarchists and Catholics), but it was never the most influential pillar.] When Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in Spain.

    To get back to the US, we now have a Third World economy. We can't too surprised that our politics also look increasingly like those of a Third World country. Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the SJW's, Black Lives Matter, etc.

    connecticut farmer , September 17, 2016 at 12:11 pm
    @ Michael in Oceania

    The evolution of the MSM into an American version of Pravda/Izvestia has been a lengthy process and dates back at least to the days of Walter Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom Roosevelt, Truman and JFK had no qualms about calling for advice).

    With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon of the blogosphere, the MSM has no choice but to cast off whatever pretensions to objectivity they may have had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can keep themselves viable in an increasingly competitive market where more people get their news from such as Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the WaPo

    dan , September 17, 2016 at 12:35 pm
    Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the PC police, and generally stood for these same 6 principles, and did so in a much more coherent and rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished within no time at all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle instead of capturing an undefined spirit, if he tried to answer the charges against him in a rational manner, all it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC charges to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model for future conservative candidates when running in a nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them. If you engage in the argument with them, they'll destroy you.
    BlairBurton , September 17, 2016 at 12:45 pm
    @Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him. Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump ?

    Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine about?

    By any standard, conditions then were worse for the white working class than is the case today, and yes, my grandparents were working class: one grandfather worked for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes, there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and suicide amongst the populace in the 1930s.

    The role of religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth, I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe that is true for most Christians throughout history.

    Just what is different about today, that brings all this rage and resentment? Could it be that racial and ethnic and religious minorities, and women now have a piece of the pie and a good part of the white working class cannot stand it?

    And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the fact that so very many Americans support him, whether wholeheartedly swallowing his poison, or because they close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind of a man he is.

    Nate , September 17, 2016 at 1:12 pm
    The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift and complete.
    Abelard Lindsey , September 17, 2016 at 1:28 pm
    How can anyone right in the head argue against entreprenuership and decentralization? All of our problems are due to a lack of these two things.
    Baldy , September 17, 2016 at 1:58 pm
    "You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it."

    If we all accept your definition then we can't argue with you. Whatever you want to call it, there is an entire industry (most conservative media) that feeds a victimization mentality among whites, conservatives, evangelicals etc (all those labels apply to me by the way) that closely resembles the grievance outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is taken seriously. Why else do so many of us get so bent out of shape when employees have the audacity to say "happy holidays" at the department store. As made apparent on this blog we do need to be realistic and vigilant about the real threats and the direction the culture is going, but by whining about every perceived slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of "Christian America" (while anointing a vile figure like Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting the legitimate grievances we do have.

    Roland P. , September 17, 2016 at 2:05 pm
    Everyone has heard how far is moving small car production to Mexico and forwarded saying no one in America will lose their jobs because the production will be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.

    That's not the problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not helping Americans.

    I'm all for a 35% tariff on those cars.

    Roland P. , September 17, 2016 at 2:06 pm
    Darn predictive text program it should say Ford.
    Greg in PDX , September 17, 2016 at 2:14 pm
    "BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."

    Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.

    Clint , September 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm
    What happens when the status quo media turns a presidential election into a referendum regarding the media's ability to shape public opinion and direct "purchasing" choices?

    The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it.

    Nelson , September 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    This will almost always mean voting for the Republicans in national elections, but in a primary situation, I will vote for the Republican who can best be counted on to defend religious liberty, even if he's not 100 percent on board with what I consider to be promoting the Good. If it means voting for a Republican that the defense hawks or the Chamber of Commerce disdain, I have no problem at all with that.

    How is this different than cultural conservatives voted before Trump?

    WAB , September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm
    We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost.

    Now whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very particular program pursued by conservatives, traditionalists and the religious right. It is certain that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent and whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot low, one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents anything it is the fact that the base of the party was not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian values we thought they were representing are hardly recognizable now.

    What truly puzzles me more and increasingly so is Rod's vision of what America is supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what that regime looks like? Behind all the theological underpinning and high-sounding abstractions what does a ground-level political and legislative program for achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly participate in look like?

    Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is responsive to politics. What political order does the Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the one we have now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect our life and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He says Christians just want to be left alone but they seem to have made and are still making a lot of noise for people who want to be left alone so I have to assume they want something over and above being left alone.

    I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?

    Joe the Plutocrat , September 17, 2016 at 4:41 pm
    a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no value in speculating or establishing a number) are deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad) Trump's we don't have time to be politically correct mantra is ignored when his opponent (a politician who helped establish the concept of politically correctness) steals a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the "irony" hammer from the toolbox? ever the shrewd, calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny barker, Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like any politician) put his finger in the air and decided to "run" from the "nationalist, racist, nativist, side of the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable folks on the Clinton bandwagon; it's just (obviously) not in her interests to expose these "boosters" at HER rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to the lesser of two evils is still evil "idea". politics – especially national campaigns are not so much about which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather which is less deplorable.
    Annek , September 17, 2016 at 5:01 pm
    Michelle:

    "Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks globalism has left behind."

    One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily quelled.

    Ben H , September 17, 2016 at 5:52 pm
    The most interesting part of the essay is near the end, where he briefly discusses how non-whites might react to our political realignment.

    After all, will the white liberal be able to manipulate these groups forever?

    For example, we are seeing the 'official black leaders' who represent them on TV shift from being activist clergymen to being (white paid and hosed) gay activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of black culture. How long can this continue?

    Connor , September 17, 2016 at 6:12 pm
    Red brick
    September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    "Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.

    "thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."

    They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them."

    The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign peoples for the better part of 2 millennia, have always been on the receiving end of racial hatred. As a result many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of nationalist movements and a natural tendency towards globalism.

    The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump as the next Hitler, so, understandably, there's a lot of fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified of the man.

    I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue) will probably vote for Trump, even though I have no love for the man himself. I think the "Trump the racist" meme is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I understand where the fear comes from.

    Connor , September 17, 2016 at 6:26 pm
    John Turner
    September 17, 2016 at 7:46 am

    "I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into irrelevant enclaves.

    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite cultural institutions."

    Bingo.

    If you want to fundamentally transform the culture, you have to withdraw from it, at least partially. But there's no need to wall yourself off. A Benedict Option community can and should be politically active, primarily at the local level, where the most good can be done.

    The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls, and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ.

    Mapache , September 17, 2016 at 6:31 pm
    "Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known.

    I never cared much for Trump but he has all the right enemies and is growing on me.

    VikingLS , September 17, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    "It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics. It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There are white people, and there are blah people. "

    They love Ben Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men were white.

    Viriato , September 17, 2016 at 7:02 pm
    "Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine about?"

    Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.

    JR , September 17, 2016 at 7:22 pm
    The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast": "…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same."

    Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.

    Michael Guarino , September 17, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily quelled.

    And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well, evidence that is not stale by nearly a century). It wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in San Jose. And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen in America, things start looking far, far worse.

    Connor , September 17, 2016 at 7:37 pm
    WAB
    September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    "I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?"

    While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics. The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.

    I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly, or laid out a concrete plan, because he is writing a book for Christians in general. And if you get into too many specifics, you are going to run right into the enormous theological and philosophical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

    Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social Reign of Christ the King", 3/4 of you would lose your minds.

    Of course, the current prospect for a Christian culture and state look bleak, to say the least. But we can play the long game, the Catholic Church is good at that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman Empire. It was 700 years from the founding of the first Benedictine monastery until St. Thomas Aquinas and the High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.

    ludo , September 17, 2016 at 7:52 pm
    I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that Trump is a simulacrum within a simulacrum with a simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic" presidential electoral race (if limited to the two "mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no presidential election tout court, ergo there is no democracy at the presidential election level in the U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in any case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.

    http://www.juancole.com/2016/09/parrot-presidential-election.html

    Howard , September 17, 2016 at 8:08 pm
    All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a different favorite deadly sin. We've had pride, avarice, and the current favorite is lust; the new favorite appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not been absent, but they have not been the driving force in politics recently.
    Viriato , September 17, 2016 at 8:42 pm
    To add to my previous comment:

    Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke the fires of class conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's goal was not to overturn the existing social order but rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR was the moderate leader the country needed at the time. Without him, we might well have succumbed to a demagogic or perhaps even dictatorial government under Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast, Hillary and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM, alt-right) for their own agendas. Let's hope whoever wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained, but courting extremists is always a risky business. Indeed, Hillary may be worse than Trump in this respect, since there appears to be no daylight between her and the SJW's.

    Siarlys Jenkins , September 17, 2016 at 8:43 pm
    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    Ben Op or not, its always a great notion. And you don't have to withdraw from the culture, THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We just need to reaffirm it.

    So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity?

    Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid contractors suing her… of course that's because she never built hotels, and I don't think she ever declared bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in Milwaukee who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for building violations, declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of thousands of dollars buying up distressed property at sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all of them have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I wouldn't vote for any of them for dogcatcher, much less president.

    That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze, and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against almost anyone but Trump.

    Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a white riot in this country.

    There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite a while. And no, that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't count. A few dozen thugs burning four black-owned businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood denounces then falls short of a riot.

    I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing "white" mobs posing much of a threat to anyone… they're mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it is true that until the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging through a black neighborhood. And there have been very few black riots that went deep into a "white" neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods too.

    This is an election about feeling under siege.

    But we're not, and most of the adults in the room know it.

    Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits peddling a point of view.

    I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its not who he is, what he says, or what he does or will do, its what they think they SEE in him. I have to admit, I did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in a long time, but that's a rather low bar.

    M_Young , September 17, 2016 at 8:50 pm
    Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis!
    EliteCommInc. , September 17, 2016 at 9:10 pm
    "There are, then, two developments we are likely to see going forward. First, cultural conservatives will seriously consider a political "Benedict Option," dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining their "principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the battle for the political soul of America. …"

    You know, people spout this stuff as if the Republican party is conservative. It started drifting from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an entrenched band of strategics concerned primarily with winning to advance policies tat have little to do with conservative thought.

    I doubt that I will become a member of a book club. And I doubt that I will stop voting according to my conservative view points.

    I generally think any idea that Christians are going to be left to their own devices doubtful or that they would want to design communities not already defined by scripture and a life in Christ.

    _______________
    "If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon politics altogether, it does call on them to recalibrate their (our) understanding of what politics is and what it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than statecraft. Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a post-Christian culture - that is, a culture that no longer shares some key basic Christian values . . ."

    I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who claims to live in Christ already calibrates their lives in the frame of Christ and led by some extent by the Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to become more worldly will change that. What may happen is that a kind of christian spiritual revival and renewal will occur.

    " . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as threats to the common good, simply because of the views we hold and the practices we live by out of fidelity to our religion. . ."

    If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat to the state, unless that threat is just to their participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres christians hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a realistic. If christians are considered a threat – then most likely the ultimate goal will be to get rid of them altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or you do what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on the campuses. You inundate them with how backward their thinking until the student and then proceed to tell them they are just like everyone else.

    Believers are expected to be in the world and not of it. And by in it, I think Christ intended them to be active participants.

    Stephen Gould , September 17, 2016 at 10:24 pm
    @Mapache: Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd.

    It is not hypocrisy for someone in favour of gun control to think that the greater the actual risk, the more acceptable the carrying of guns.

    Stephen Gould , September 17, 2016 at 10:30 pm
    The question is this: what do you do when the policies or ideas you stand for or at least, agree with, are advanced by someone with as appalling a character as Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well.

    I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards, Trump's fans said "Vote for the swindler, it's important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity to defend him.

    Richard Williams , September 18, 2016 at 12:12 am
    I read this on Friday and have thought much about it since. I came by earlier this evening and had about half of a long post written in response, but got too caught up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also determined that it wouldn't matter what I said. The conservatives would continue to harp about the evils of identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long history of conservatives engaging in identity politics in both Europe and America from roughly the high Middle Ages to the present. It seemed more rational to delete what I had written rather than save it and come back to finish it.

    It just so happened that as the game ended, I clicked on Huffingtonpost to check the headlines. Lo and behold, the top story was this one about Jane Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics in the animal kingdom:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-chimpanzee_behavior_us_57ddb84fe4b04a1497b4e512?section=&amp ;

    As the kicker to the headline says, "Well, she's the expert."

    Maryland My Maryland , September 18, 2016 at 12:13 am
    "What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well."

    I don't defend his vile character. I readily admit it. So do most of those I know who intend to vote for him.

    It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.

    For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character" issue is at best a wash, so the choice boils down to other things.

    The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton.

    Elijah , September 18, 2016 at 7:01 am
    "I'm all for a 35% tariff on those cars."

    I would agree with you, except who will that hurt? Ford? Mexico? Why not just legislate manufacturing jobs back into existence?

    saltlick , September 18, 2016 at 7:02 am
    WAB
    September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    "I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?"
    ------
    I think those are good questions, and read in the best light possible, might be interpreted as being asked by someone honestly seeking to understand the concerns of traditional Christians today.

    I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers are,

    "1) In present America, I don't think there are any "cultural change" possible which might reassure Christians, because we are in a downward spiral which has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary posted here by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak of what government and technology will do to the lives of believing Christians.

    2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future - vision that would allow me to relax would be a national reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health. I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.

    Clint , September 18, 2016 at 8:13 am
    Re:DavidJ,

    In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton defended partial-birth abortions again and voiced her support for late-term abortions up until birth, too.

    She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund these abortions by repealing the Hyde Amendment. The amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that 33,000 more babies will be aborted every year in the U.S.

    Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.

    EliteCommInc. , September 18, 2016 at 9:40 am
    "Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any fertile soil to grow in."

    I think far too much credit is being given to Mr. Trump. The reason he can stand is because the people he represents have been fed up with the some of what he stands for long before he entered the fray.

    If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee.

    There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a supporter. As a supporter, I would be curious to know what lies I have used to support him. We have some serious differences, but I think my support has been fairly above board. In fact, i think the support of most have been fairly straight up I am not sure there is much hidden about Mr. Trump.

    EliteCommInc. , September 18, 2016 at 9:46 am
    The only new issue that has been brought up is the issue of staff accountability. Has he neglected to pay his staff, is this just an organizational natter or complete nonsense.

    The other factor that has played out to his advantage are the news stories that repeatedly turn out false, distorted or nonexistent.

    The media already in the credibility hole seems very content to dig themselves in deeper.

    VikingLS , September 17, 2016 at 10:40 am
    @Michelle

    I didn't see the post where you disavowed liberals as well, so I was too hasty with the "your side"

    Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a white riot in this country.

    VikingLS , September 17, 2016 at 10:49 am
    "For thise who think Trump is harmless, here he is, tonight, riffing on his Clinton assassination fantasies. "

    That's a pretty common point about the hypocrisy of anti-gun politicians who have the luxury of armed professionals to protect themselves.

    Herenow , September 17, 2016 at 10:53 am
    fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the snippets that you have shared with usm particularly in the posts on Norcia and other communities already pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of conservative Christians to a more healthy, hands-off relationship with national politics. Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time, but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and the MIC mainly). Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other side of Mammon (big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed. But the point is I think you are returning to a better place, reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange infatuation that wasn't going to sustain anyway.
    Alex (the one that likes Ike) , September 17, 2016 at 10:55 am
    So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity?
    Skip , September 17, 2016 at 10:56 am
    Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?
    Skip Rigney , September 17, 2016 at 11:03 am
    Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly why I have reluctantly become a libertarian:

    -"On a practical level, that means that I will no longer vote primarily on the social issues that have dictated my vote in the past, but I will vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's right to be left alone."-

    Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian America. I wrote about why I believe this to be so at http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/

    I don't believe for a minute that the majority of elected officials in the Republican Party have the backbone to stand up for religious liberty in the face of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how the Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the protection of religious liberty.

    There are many libertarians who are going to work to protect the rights of people to do things that undermine the common good. But, I have more faith that they'll protect the rights of a cultural minority such as traditionalist Christians than I have in either the Republicans or the Democrats.

    Egypt Steve , September 17, 2016 at 11:29 am
    It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics. It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There are white people, and there are blah people. White people will be in charge, and blah people can have a piece of the pie to the extent they agree to pretend to be white people.
    Viriato , September 17, 2016 at 11:44 am
    Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?"

    My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly being outsourced as well.

    If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will see that the vast majority of new jobs are in retail trade, health care and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders, and government. Most of these jobs are part-time jobs. None of these jobs produce any goods than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive independently. This is why more Americans aged 25-34 live with their parents than independently with spouses and children of their own. It is also why many people now must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. As for government jobs, they are tax-supported, and thus a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian. I recognize that government provides many crucial services. But it is unproductive to have too many bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.

    Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.

    Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this. Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued by radical ideologies like communism, regional separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism had its following as well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain, though it was not really fascist, as it was profoundly Christian and rejected Nietzschean neo-paganism) was irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one of the three pillars that supported the regime (the other two being monarchists and Catholics), but it was never the most influential pillar.] When Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in Spain.

    To get back to the US, we now have a Third World economy. We can't too surprised that our politics also look increasingly like those of a Third World country. Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the SJW's, Black Lives Matter, etc.

    connecticut farmer , September 17, 2016 at 12:11 pm
    @ Michael in Oceania

    The evolution of the MSM into an American version of Pravda/Izvestia has been a lengthy process and dates back at least to the days of Walter Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom Roosevelt, Truman and JFK had no qualms about calling for advice).

    With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon of the blogosphere, the MSM has no choice but to cast off whatever pretensions to objectivity they may have had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can keep themselves viable in an increasingly competitive market where more people get their news from such as Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the WaPo

    dan , September 17, 2016 at 12:35 pm
    Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the PC police, and generally stood for these same 6 principles, and did so in a much more coherent and rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished within no time at all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle instead of capturing an undefined spirit, if he tried to answer the charges against him in a rational manner, all it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC charges to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model for future conservative candidates when running in a nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them. If you engage in the argument with them, they'll destroy you.
    BlairBurton , September 17, 2016 at 12:45 pm
    @Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him. Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump ?

    Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine about? By any standard, conditions then were worse for the white working class than is the case today, and yes, my grandparents were working class: one grandfather worked for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes, there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and suicide amongst the populace in the 1930s. The role of religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth, I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe that is true for most Christians throughout history.

    Just what is different about today, that brings all this rage and resentment? Could it be that racial and ethnic and religious minorities, and women now have a piece of the pie and a good part of the white working class cannot stand it?

    And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the fact that so very many Americans support him, whether wholeheartedly swallowing his poison, or because they close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind of a man he is.

    Nate , September 17, 2016 at 1:12 pm
    The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture,religion, and autonomy at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift and complete.
    Abelard Lindsey , September 17, 2016 at 1:28 pm
    How can anyone right in the head argue against entreprenuership and decentralization? All of our problems are due to a lack of these two things.
    Baldy , September 17, 2016 at 1:58 pm
    "You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it."

    If we all accept your definition then we can't argue with you. Whatever you want to call it, there is an entire industry (most conservative media) that feeds a victimization mentality among whites, conservatives, evangelicals etc (all those labels apply to me by the way) that closely resembles the grievance outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is taken seriously. Why else do so many of us get so bent out of shape when employees have the audacity to say "happy holidays" at the department store. As made apparent on this blog we do need to be realistic and vigilant about the real threats and the direction the culture is going, but by whining about every perceived slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of "Christian America" (while anointing a vile figure like Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting the legitimate grievances we do have.

    Roland P. , September 17, 2016 at 2:05 pm
    Everyone has heard how far is moving small car production to Mexico and forwarded saying no one in America will lose their jobs because the production will be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.

    That's not the problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not helping Americans.

    I'm all for a 35% tariff on those cars.

    Roland P. , September 17, 2016 at 2:06 pm
    Darn predictive text program it should say Ford.
    Greg in PDX , September 17, 2016 at 2:14 pm
    "BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."

    Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.

    Clint , September 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm
    What happens when the status quo media turns a presidential election into a referendum regarding the media's ability to shape public opinion and direct "purchasing" choices?

    The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it.

    Nelson , September 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    This will almost always mean voting for the Republicans in national elections, but in a primary situation, I will vote for the Republican who can best be counted on to defend religious liberty, even if he's not 100 percent on board with what I consider to be promoting the Good. If it means voting for a Republican that the defense hawks or the Chamber of Commerce disdain, I have no problem at all with that.

    How is this different than cultural conservatives voted before Trump?

    grumpy realist , September 17, 2016 at 2:35 pm
    If we elect Trump as POTUS, we deserve everything that happens to us.

    Don't blame the progressives when Trump says something about defaulting on the US debt and the stock market crashes.

    Don't blame the progressives when China moves ahead us by leaps and bound in science and technology because we pull a Kansas and cut taxes left right and center, then decide to get rid of all government-funded research.

    Don't blame the progressives when The Wall doesn't get built, Trump says "who, me? I never promised anything!" Ditto for the lack of return of well-paid coal-mining jobs.

    And don't blame the progressives when you discover Trump has sold you down the river for a song, refuses to appoint "conservatives" as SCOTUS judges, and throws the First Amendment out the window.

    WAB , September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm
    We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. Now whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very particular program pursued by conservatives, traditionalists and the religious right. It is certain that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent and whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot low, one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents anything it is the fact that the base of the party was not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian values we thought they were representing are hardly recognizable now.

    What truly puzzles me more and increasingly so is Rod's vision of what America is supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what that regime looks like? Behind all the theological underpinning and high-sounding abstractions what does a ground-level political and legislative program for achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly participate in look like?

    Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is responsive to politics. What political order does the Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the one we have now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect our life and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He says Christians just want to be left alone but they seem to have made and are still making a lot of noise for people who want to be left alone so I have to assume they want something over and above being left alone.

    I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?

    Joe the Plutocrat , September 17, 2016 at 4:41 pm
    a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no value in speculating or establishing a number) are deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad) Trump's we don't have time to be politically correct mantra is ignored when his opponent (a politician who helped establish the concept of politically correctness) steals a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the "irony" hammer from the toolbox? ever the shrewd, calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny barker, Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like any politician) put his finger in the air and decided to "run" from the "nationalist, racist, nativist, side of the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable folks on the Clinton bandwagon; it's just (obviously) not in her interests to expose these "boosters" at HER rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to the lesser of two evils is still evil "idea". politics – especially national campaigns are not so much about which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather which is less deplorable.
    Liam , September 17, 2016 at 4:41 pm
    Btw, Rod, as my mind goes in stray places as I battle as I on my fourth day of a strep infection, I had the following idea for you:

    New Age Trump.

    Imagine The Possibilities.

    Way.

    Donald Trump as the avatar of the Human Potential Movement.

    est, Landmark Forum, the Rule of Attraction, the Secret: Eat your empty hearts out.

    Annek , September 17, 2016 at 5:01 pm
    Michelle:

    "Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks globalism has left behind."

    One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily quelled.

    Ben H , September 17, 2016 at 5:52 pm
    The most interesting part of the essay is near the end, where he briefly discusses how non-whites might react to our political realignment.

    After all, will the white liberal be able to manipulate these groups forever?

    For example, we are seeing the 'official black leaders' who represent them on TV shift from being activist clergymen to being (white paid and hosed) gay activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of black culture. How long can this continue?

    Connor , September 17, 2016 at 6:12 pm
    Red brick
    September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    "Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.

    "thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."

    They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them."

    The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign peoples for the better part of 2 millennia, have always been on the receiving end of racial hatred. As a result many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of nationalist movements and a natural tendency towards globalism.

    The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump as the next Hitler, so, understandably, there's a lot of fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified of the man.

    I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue) will probably vote for Trump, even though I have no love for the man himself. I think the "Trump the racist" meme is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I understand where the fear comes from.

    Connor , September 17, 2016 at 6:26 pm
    John Turner
    September 17, 2016 at 7:46 am

    "I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into irrelevant enclaves.

    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite cultural institutions."

    Bingo.

    If you want to fundamentally transform the culture, you have to withdraw from it, at least partially. But there's no need to wall yourself off. A Benedict Option community can and should be politically active, primarily at the local level, where the most good can be done.

    The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls, and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ.

    Mapache , September 17, 2016 at 6:31 pm
    "Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known.

    I never cared much for Trump but he has all the right enemies and is growing on me.

    VikingLS , September 17, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    "It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics. It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There are white people, and there are blah people. "

    They love Ben Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men were white.

    Viriato , September 17, 2016 at 7:02 pm
    "Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine about?"

    Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.

    JR , September 17, 2016 at 7:22 pm
    The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
    "…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same."

    Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.

    Michael Guarino , September 17, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily quelled.

    And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well, evidence that is not stale by nearly a century). It wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in San Jose. And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen in America, things start looking far, far worse.

    Connor , September 17, 2016 at 7:37 pm
    WAB
    September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    "I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?"

    While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics. The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.

    I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly, or laid out a concrete plan, because he is writing a book for Christians in general. And if you get into too many specifics, you are going to run right into the enormous theological and philosophical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

    Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social Reign of Christ the King", 3/4 of you would lose your minds.

    Of course, the current prospect for a Christian culture and state look bleak, to say the least. But we can play the long game, the Catholic Church is good at that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman Empire. It was 700 years from the founding of the first Benedictine monastery until St. Thomas Aquinas and the High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.

    ludo , September 17, 2016 at 7:52 pm
    I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that Trump is a simulacrum within a simulacrum with a simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic" presidential electoral race (if limited to the two "mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no presidential election tout court, ergo there is no democracy at the presidential election level in the U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in any case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.

    http://www.juancole.com/2016/09/parrot-presidential-election.html

    Howard , September 17, 2016 at 8:08 pm
    All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a different favorite deadly sin. We've had pride, avarice, and the current favorite is lust; the new favorite appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not been absent, but they have not been the driving force in politics recently.
    Viriato , September 17, 2016 at 8:42 pm
    To add to my previous comment:

    Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke the fires of class conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's goal was not to overturn the existing social order but rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR was the moderate leader the country needed at the time. Without him, we might well have succumbed to a demagogic or perhaps even dictatorial government under Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast, Hillary and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM, alt-right) for their own agendas. Let's hope whoever wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained, but courting extremists is always a risky business. Indeed, Hillary may be worse than Trump in this respect, since there appears to be no daylight between her and the SJW's.

    Siarlys Jenkins , September 17, 2016 at 8:43 pm
    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    Ben Op or not, its always a great notion. And you don't have to withdraw from the culture, THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We just need to reaffirm it.

    So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity?

    Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid contractors suing her… of course that's because she never built hotels, and I don't think she ever declared bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in Milwaukee who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for building violations, declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of thousands of dollars buying up distressed property at sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all of them have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I wouldn't vote for any of them for dogcatcher, much less president.

    That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze, and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against almost anyone but Trump.

    Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a white riot in this country.

    There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite a while. And no, that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't count. A few dozen thugs burning four black-owned businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood denounces then falls short of a riot.

    I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing "white" mobs posing much of a threat to anyone… they're mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it is true that until the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging through a black neighborhood. And there have been very few black riots that went deep into a "white" neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods too.

    This is an election about feeling under siege.

    But we're not, and most of the adults in the room know it.

    Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits peddling a point of view.

    I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its not who he is, what he says, or what he does or will do, its what they think they SEE in him. I have to admit, I did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in a long time, but that's a rather low bar.

    M_Young , September 17, 2016 at 8:50 pm
    Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis!
    EliteCommInc. , September 17, 2016 at 9:10 pm
    "There are, then, two developments we are likely to see going forward. First, cultural conservatives will seriously consider a political "Benedict Option," dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining their "principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the battle for the political soul of America. …"

    You know, people spout this stuff as if the Republican party is conservative. It started drifting from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an entrenched band of strategics concerned primarily with winning to advance policies tat have little to do with conservative thought.

    I doubt that I will become a member of a book club. And I doubt that I will stop voting according to my conservative view points.

    I generally think any idea that Christians are going to be left to their own devices doubtful or that they would want to design communities not already defined by scripture and a life in Christ.

    _______________
    "If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon politics altogether, it does call on them to recalibrate their (our) understanding of what politics is and what it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than statecraft. Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a post-Christian culture - that is, a culture that no longer shares some key basic Christian values . . ."

    I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who claims to live in Christ already calibrates their lives in the frame of Christ and led by some extent by the Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to become more worldly will change that. What may happen is that a kind of christian spiritual revival and renewal will occur.

    " . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as threats to the common good, simply because of the views we hold and the practices we live by out of fidelity to our religion. . ."

    If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat to the state, unless that threat is just to their participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres christians hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a realistic. If christians are considered a threat – then most likely the ultimate goal will be to get rid of them altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or you do what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on the campuses. You inundate them with how backward their thinking until the student and then proceed to tell them they are just like everyone else.

    Believers are expected to be in the world and not of it. And by in it, I think Christ intended them to be active participants.

    Mia , September 17, 2016 at 9:45 pm
    "Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but National Review has a small piece about Archbishop Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become more engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as well."

    Let me answer it for him. Perhaps just like not everyone is called to the contemplative life in a monastery but are called to the secular world, so is the church as a whole these days individually called to different arenas. That said, the basic principles of the Ben Op are hardly opposed to being active in the broader community. It just means there has to be some intentionality in maintaining a Christian worldview in a hostile larger culture.

    Mia , September 17, 2016 at 9:55 pm
    "The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls, and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ."

    Just a technical comment. You have to pay attention to which orders you are referring to, because many of them were indeed founded to retreat from the world. At one time, the idea of a monk wandering outside of the monastery, or a nun particularly, was considered scandalous. I read alot of monastic history about 20 years ago, and I seem to recall the Benedictines were actually focused on prayer and manual labor/work within the monastery area. It was later with orders like the Dominicans that were sent out into the community, and they caused the bishops a lot of headaches because they competed with priests and bishops in preaching publicly. It took awhile to sort out who was allowed to do what. Modern religious orders founded since the 18th century are quite different from the old orders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Order

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Saint_Benedict

    Another area of interest you could check out, besides reading some of the religious rules of life of many of these old orders just for the sake of comparison, is the differences between the cenobitic and eremitic monastic communities of the very early church. The original founding of religious orders even back then was also considered a direct challenge to the church hierarchy and took a lot of time sorting out that they weren't some kind of troublemakers, too. Modern Catholics have entirely too little knowledge of the development and maybe too pious a view of it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermit

    Stephen Gould , September 17, 2016 at 10:24 pm
    @Mapache: Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd.

    It is not hypocrisy for someone in favour of gun control to think that the greater the actual risk, the more acceptable the carrying of guns.

    Stephen Gould , September 17, 2016 at 10:30 pm
    The question is this: what do you do when the policies or ideas you stand for or at least, agree with, are advanced by someone with as appalling a character as Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well.

    I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards, Trump's fans said "Vote for the swindler, it's important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity to defend him.

    Richard Williams , September 18, 2016 at 12:12 am
    I read this on Friday and have thought much about it since. I came by earlier this evening and had about half of a long post written in response, but got too caught up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also determined that it wouldn't matter what I said. The conservatives would continue to harp about the evils of identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long history of conservatives engaging in identity politics in both Europe and America from roughly the high Middle Ages to the present. It seemed more rational to delete what I had written rather than save it and come back to finish it.

    It just so happened that as the game ended, I clicked on Huffingtonpost to check the headlines. Lo and behold, the top story was this one about Jane Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics in the animal kingdom:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-chimpanzee_behavior_us_57ddb84fe4b04a1497b4e512?section=&amp ;

    As the kicker to the headline says, "Well, she's the expert."

    Maryland My Maryland , September 18, 2016 at 12:13 am
    "What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well."

    I don't defend his vile character. I readily admit it. So do most of those I know who intend to vote for him.

    It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.

    For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character" issue is at best a wash, so the choice boils down to other things.

    The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton.

    Elijah , September 18, 2016 at 7:01 am
    "I'm all for a 35% tariff on those cars."

    I would agree with you, except who will that hurt? Ford? Mexico? Why not just legislate manufacturing jobs back into existence?

    saltlick , September 18, 2016 at 7:02 am
    WAB
    September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    "I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?"
    ------
    I think those are good questions, and read in the best light possible, might be interpreted as being asked by someone honestly seeking to understand the concerns of traditional Christians today.

    I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers are,

    "1) In present America, I don't think there are any "cultural change" possible which might reassure Christians, because we are in a downward spiral which has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary posted here by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak of what government and technology will do to the lives of believing Christians.

    2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future - vision that would allow me to relax would be a national reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health. I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.

    Clint , September 18, 2016 at 8:13 am
    Re:DavidJ,

    In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton defended partial-birth abortions again and voiced her support for late-term abortions up until birth, too.

    She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund these abortions by repealing the Hyde Amendment. The amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that 33,000 more babies will be aborted every year in the U.S.

    Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.

    EliteCommInc. , September 18, 2016 at 9:40 am
    "Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any fertile soil to grow in."

    I think far too much credit is being given to Mr. Trump. The reason he can stand is because the people he represents have been fed up with the some of what he stands for long before he entered the fray.

    If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee.

    There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a supporter. As a supporter, I would be curious to know what lies I have used to support him. We have some serious differences, but I think my support has been fairly above board. In fact, i think the support of most have been fairly straight up I am not sure there is much hidden about Mr. Trump.

    Clint , September 16, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    Hillary Clinton,
    "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

    Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.

    Matt in AK , September 16, 2016 at 7:07 pm
    That's a shame RD, because I was looking forward to joining a like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining our "principles." With fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the battle for the political soul of America.

    [NFR: You can still have your Ben Op book group. - RD]

    T.S.Gay , September 16, 2016 at 7:18 pm
    I'm going to start and end with globalization by referring to G.K.Chesterton in Orthodoxy(pg 101).
    "This is what makes Christendom at once so perplexing and so much more interesting than the Pagan empires;…If anyone wants a modern proof of all this, let him consider the curious fact that, under Christianity, Europe has broken up into individual nations. Patriotism is a perfect example of this deliberate balance of one emphasis against another emphasis. The instinct of the Pagan empire would have said, 'You shall all be Roman citizens, and grow alike; let the German grow less slow and reverent; the Frenchmen less experimental and swift.' But the instinct of Christian Europe says, 'Let the German remain slow and reverent, that the Frenchman may the more safely be swift and experimental. We will make an equipoise out of these excesses. The absurdity called Germany shall correct the insanity called France."
    Isn't it interesting that has Christianity has left the northern hemisphere for the southern, that Europe has tried union, the USA has been into interventionism, and globalization has become so mainstream. You shall all be one world citizens doesn't have a balancing instinct. And Chesterton was deliberating about the balancing instinct.
    Viriato , September 16, 2016 at 7:22 pm
    I think Mitchell is basically right. Aside from his jab at the Benedict Option, I have just one quibble with his analysis: "And Trump is the first American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his formulations have been."

    Wrong. Trump is definitely not the first candidate to do this. He was preceded by Pat Buchanan, who also brought (and still brings) much more coherence to the six ideas than Trump. Clearly, Buchanan ran at a time when the post-1989 order was in its infancy, and so few saw any fundamental problem with it. He was ahead of his time. But he was a candidate that presented the six ideas and attracted a non-negligible amount of support. Trump is not a pioneer in this regard. People should give Buchanan his due.

    German_reader , September 16, 2016 at 7:26 pm
    I hope Trump wins; he's rather bizarre and not very likable as a person, but the last 25 years have been disastrous politically in Western nations and it's time to repudiate the ruling orthodoxy. The US still is the Western hegemon and exports its ideas across the Atlantic (most unfortunate in cases like "critical whiteness studies"); if there's change in the US towards a (soft, civic) nationalism, it might open up new options in Europe as well.
    In any case these are exciting times…however it turns out, we may well be living through years which will be seen as decisive in retrospect.
    Viriato , September 16, 2016 at 7:28 pm
    This comment on the Politico article stood out to me: "It is its very existence, and mantra, for a religion the advertise itself, something that is frowned upon as being Incredibly un-American under the Constitution, and contrary to our core beliefs. Yes Republicans not only embrace this, they help their religion advertise."

    In other words, this commenter admits that he believes it "incredibly un-American" for religions to "advertise," and, by extension, to even exist (he says advertising is religion's "very existence.")

    The comment has a high number of "thumbs-up."

    We really are in trouble. America has become Jacobin country.

    Adamant , September 16, 2016 at 7:28 pm
    Red brick
    September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm
    Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.'

    Perhaps due to very recent memories that herrenvolk regimes are not good for the Jews. The online troll army of out and proud anti-semites can't help but contribute to this.

    WillW , September 16, 2016 at 7:32 pm
    Re "the DC elites are clueless" what ABOUT John Kasich up there on the podium advocating for the latest free trade deal? Yessir, that'll get us in our "states that begin with a vowel" to totally change our minds on that, you betcha!
    Anne , September 16, 2016 at 7:33 pm
    Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits peddling a point of view. Funny how he proves so many intellectuals right about so many contradictory things, all without having to take responsibility for any particular idea.
    T.S.Gay , September 16, 2016 at 7:39 pm
    Nobody has remained more adamant than the writer of this blog that there is something sacred about sex between one woman and one man, and them married. God bless him for staying true.
    So I am going to try to say( G.K Chesterton please forgive me)…..Let the LBGTQIA remain true to their identity, that the married male/female may be more safely true to their identity. We can make an equipoise out of these excesses( despite those who want us to be all the same). The absurdity called LBGTQIA shall correct the insanity called one man/one woman.
    K. W. Jeter , September 16, 2016 at 7:39 pm
    Per JonF:

    Trump is certainly not unraveling identity politics. He's adding another identity to the grievance industry, that of (downscale) whites.

    You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it. Whether you agree with white identity politics or not, its proponents are obviously not adding to the grievance industry, but attempting to defend against it, i.e. stating that white people are not to blame for everything, and no, they shouldn't continue to pay for it. To merely maintain that position is sufficient to be labeled as a white supremacist by the grievance industry hacks.

    MJR , September 16, 2016 at 7:47 pm
    Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but National Review has a small piece about Archbishop Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become more engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as well.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440124/archbishop-chaput-notre-dame-lecture-christians-must-engage-politics

    I just brought it up because I'm curious if you've spoken to Christians like Archbishop Chaput, who want to go the opposite direction you do.

    Michael in Oceania , September 16, 2016 at 7:51 pm
    Here is a related story by Charles Hugh Smith:

    The Mainstream Media Bet the Farm on Hillary–and Lost

    Relevant quote:

    Dear mainstream media: you have lost your credibility because you are incapable of skeptical inquiry into your chosen candidate or official statistics/ pronouncements. Your dismissal of skeptical inquiries as "conspiracies" or "hoaxes" is nothing but a crass repackaging of the propaganda techniques of totalitarian state media.

    Dear MSM: You have forsaken your duty in a democracy and are a disgrace to investigative, unbiased journalism. You have substituted Orwellian-level propaganda for honest, skeptical journalism. We can only hope viewers and advertisers respond appropriately, i.e. turn you off.

    Here's the mainstream media's new mantra: "skepticism is always a conspiracy or a hoax." The Ministry of Propaganda and the MSM are now one agency.

    The curtain is being pulled back on the Wizard of Oz. How soon before the Wicked Witch starts to melt?

    Rossbach , September 16, 2016 at 8:07 pm
    Do people who are willing to accept characterization as "angry, provincial bigots" still have any right to political self-expression? Believe it or not, it's an important question.
    Pepi , September 16, 2016 at 8:17 pm
    Identity politics definition: a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

    I find it odd that the party of older white straight Christian men accuses the party of everyone else to be guilty of "identity politics". It just doesn't make any sense.

    Wes (the original) , September 16, 2016 at 9:28 pm
    The majority of folks who work for a living do not want globalization – it's that simple. They will find a party who acquiesces.
    Siarlys Jenkins , September 16, 2016 at 9:37 pm
    (1) borders matter; Ok, but they're not all that.
    (2) immigration policy matters; Ditto. We should have a policy.
    (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; Depends. National interests matter, but if they are all that matters… I think you just stepped outside the Gospels.
    (4) entrepreneurship matters; It can, for good OR for evil.
    (5) decentralization matters; Another thorny one… SOME things need to be more decentralized, some don't, and we need to have an honest conversation about which is which.
    (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ABSOLUTELY!

    All in all, I think this Georgetown prof has done the usual short list of The Latest Attempt To Reduce Reality To a Nice Short Checklist.

    Not much of a guide to the future. We could all write our own lists.

    Michelle , September 16, 2016 at 9:43 pm
    You can largely agree with Mitchell's six points (and, for the most part I do) and nonetheless recognize that an unprincipled, ruthless charlatan like Trump–a pathological liar and narcissist interested in nothing but his own self-promotion–will do nothing meaningful to advance them. His latest birther charade shows him for the lying, unprincipled scum bucket he is.

    The cultural ground is shifting as the emptiness of advanced consumer capitalism and globalism becomes ever more apparent. Large scale organizations are, by their very nature, dehumanizing, demoralizing, and corrupt. I've believed so for the better part of my life now. It's that belief that lead me to the University of Rochester and Christopher Lasch in the 1980s and, subsequently to MacIntyre, Rieff, and Berry. It's also a belief that has lead me to distrust both the corporate order and politics as a means to salvation. I certainly don't consider myself a conservative, at least not in the shallow American sense of the term, and the chances that I will ever vote for a Republican again are nil. But I'm not a liberal in the American sense of the term either because agreeing with Mitchell's six points pretty much pretty much rules me out of that tribe. I have, for a long time, felt pretty homeless in the American wilderness.

    I suppose that's one reason I keep reading your blog, Rod, though I disagree deeply with many of your views. As a Jew, I'm not much interested in the Benedict Option, but I do agree that our society suffers from a certain soul sickness that politics, consumption, and technology can't cure.

    Michelle , September 16, 2016 at 9:56 pm
    Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.

    As one of those American Jews who feels a deep hatred for Trump, perhaps I can shed some light on the reasons. It has nothing to do with his alleged desire to enforce borders. Nations require them. Nor does it have anything to do with his lip service to Christianist values. He's no Christian. He's pure heathen.

    Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks globalism has left behind.

    Robert Levine , September 16, 2016 at 10:06 pm
    Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump…They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them.

    Or it could be that Trump reminds them of some historical figure who was rather bad for the Jews. I wonder who that could be?

    And saying all the Jews that the commenter knows feel an "uncontrollable" emotion is a touch anti-Semitic.

    But to talk about the OP: Joshua Mitchell gives the game away by consistently referring to 1989 as the state of a "new order," which he thinks is a combination of globalization and identity politics. Of course neither was new. Admittedly globalization received a boost by the end of the Cold War, but it's been well underway for a century or so. Mitchell wants to return to Reagan's "morning in America." But there was no such morning.

    "Identity politics" is what the suffragettes and abolitionists would have been accused of, if the term had been invented back in their day. Are there stupid things done and said under the umbrella of "identity politics"? Of course. That doesn't make the discrimination and mistreatment that led to such politics any less real.

    The fundamental flaw in Mitchell's argument, though, is that the Trump he describes (or, more accurately, wishes for) simply doesn't exist. The Trump he describes has ideas and beliefs. It's a little ironic that Mitchell thinks that Trump "expressly opposes" the ideas of Marx and Nietzsche, because the real-world Trump has no beliefs other than he is an ubermensch.

    JS , September 16, 2016 at 10:10 pm
    I prefer Nassim Taleb's take on what's going on – see here https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.680ftln6w
    KD , September 16, 2016 at 10:18 pm
    What's wrong with Politico?

    I read an entire article on Trump in which Hitler wasn't mentioned once.

    It wasn't even smug, and there was no list of liberal cliches and denunciations of heretics so between drooling I never knew whether shout "Boo!" or "Hurah!"

    Couldn't they throw in one "racist, sexist, homophobic" so I could feel morally superior to stupid white people in fly-over country?

    The whole article was completely deplorable.

    Michelle , September 16, 2016 at 10:45 pm
    Having now read Mitchell's article, all I can say is that while I agree with his six points, his hope that Trump is some kind of pragmatist is deeply misguided. Like most political scientists, he knows little about history.

    For thise who think Trump is harmless, here he is, tonight, riffing on his Clinton assassination fantasies. Where is Leni Reifenstahl when you need her? Trump is no pragmatist. He's no Christian. And he's no leader.

    Evan , September 16, 2016 at 10:49 pm
    If Mitchell is correct–and I believe that he is–how does this bode poorly for conservative Christians? If the BenOp is primarily a reaction to the post-1989 culture, shouldn't the crumbling of that culture obviate the need for a BenOp?

    [NFR: Well, if there were a candidate advocating these positions who WASN'T Donald Trump, I would eagerly vote for him or her. I think Trump is thoroughly untrustworthy and demagogic. But I would not be under any illusion that casting a vote for that person - again, even if he or she was a saint - would mean any kind of Christian restoration. The Ben Op is premised on the idea that we are living in post-Christian times. The Ben Op is a religious movement with political implications, not a political movement. Liquid modernity will not suddenly solidify depending on a change of government in Washington. - RD]

    Charles Cosimano , September 16, 2016 at 11:07 pm
    This is an election about feeling under siege. Once that is understood all else makes sense. It is also a manifestation about what happens when a word is overused, in this case racism. It creates a reaction of, "Ask us if we care," which becomes, "Yeah, we are, and we like it."

    It backfires.

    The Ben Op may prove to be in better position that it looks.

    Craig , September 17, 2016 at 12:06 am
    I think populists who haven't gotten much attention from either party are projecting an awful lot onto a seriously flawed candidate who doesn't have firm convictions on anything, beyond making the sale. This objective he pursues by being willing to say whatever he thinks will get him the sale, with no regard for decency or truth or consistency. If he gets himself elected, who knows what he will do to retain his popularity with what he perceives to be the majority view. Those hoping for a sea change are engaged in some pretty serious wishful thinking, I think.
    Nicholas , September 17, 2016 at 12:46 am
    @T.S.Gay, You are correct that this election is a battle of Nationalism vs Globalism. But, Nationalism is Identity Politics in its purest form and that is why the Globalist oppose it.

    Globalists use identity politics, that is true. However, they bear no love for the identities they publicly promote. Rather, they dehumanize them, using them as nothing more than weapons against Nationalism.

    As a Nationalist I will support and promote my Nation(People), but I also recognize the inherent right of other Nations(Peoples) to support and promote themselves.

    Fran Macadam , September 17, 2016 at 1:06 am
    I'm absolutely sure Donald Trump isn't going to do to us, what that other person has planned for us deplorables:

    "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

    After her shot across the bow promises to marginalize us in society, complete with cheers from those at her back, that is just about all that counts.

    Reflectionephemeral , September 17, 2016 at 2:36 am
    Mitchell's description echoes Oliver Stone's comments from Oct. 2001: "There's been conglomeration under six principal princes-they're kings, they're barons!-and these six companies have control of the world! … That's what the new world order is. They control culture, they control ideas. And I think the revolt of September 11 was about 'F- you! F- your order!'"

    "Trump '16: 'F- you! F- your order!"

    KD , September 17, 2016 at 5:16 am
    Hey Rod:

    Speaking of the New Age and 4th Generational Warfare, I wonder if you can do anything with the offering by John Schindler of the XX Committee:

    http://observer.com/2016/09/were-losing-the-war-against-terrorism/

    Elijah , September 17, 2016 at 7:08 am
    Very interesting piece, and I had not really connected the Brexit and EU jitters to what's going on in the US – and I think Mitchell is right about that. When we were still in primary season and Trump was ahead, I recall one author – probably on The Corner – wondered how a Trump presidency might look. He figured Trump would be very pragmatic, perhaps actually fixing Obamacare, and focusing on our interests here at home.

    "I will vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's right to be left alone."

    I've been voting that way for years; mostly Republicans, but a good sprinkling of Democrats as well.

    Al Bundy , September 17, 2016 at 7:25 am
    Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right ideas buried within Trump's rhetoric. But even if it were true that Trump had no ideas, I would still vote for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us lately?

    "Conservative principles" espoused by wonks and political scientists culminated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy was a divine right, transferable across time and culture.

    Moreover, do we really want our politicians playing with ideas? Think back to George W. Bush's speech at the 2004 Republican convention, perhaps the most idea-driven speech in recent history. The sight of W. spinning a neo-Hegelian apocalyptic narrative was like watching a gorilla perform opera.

    Brett , September 17, 2016 at 7:34 am
    "decentralization matters" is an odd idea to ascribe to Trump. He seems to want power centralized on himself ("I alone can fix it").
    John Turner , September 17, 2016 at 7:46 am
    I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into irrelevant enclaves.

    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite cultural institutions.

  • Neal , September 17, 2016 at 7:59 am
    "cavalierly undermining decades worth of social and political certainties"

    Sorry, that is just silly. Only political junkies and culture warriors even care about stuff like this. In my life… in my experience of living in the USA every day, none of this matters. It just doesn't.

    People don't live their lives thinking about any of those things cited. What would it mean to you or me to have "borders matter"? Ford just announced they were moving some more production to Mexico. That decision WILL affect the lives of those who lose their jobs. Does anyone honestly think that anyone… even a President Trump, would lift a finger to stop them? Of course not. It is silly to assert otherwise.

    TR , September 17, 2016 at 9:30 am
    Very good essay and commentary, but I caution against the notion that you are looking at permanent change. JonF's two 20th century ideas (Free Trade benefits everyone and Supply Side economics) are not going away. In fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both those ideas is one of Trump's economic advisors.

    BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up.

    Matt , September 17, 2016 at 9:44 am
    Great. He's got six ideas. Six ideas with either no detailed policy or approach attached to them, policies or approaches that seemingly change on a whim (evidence that at best he hasn't given much thought to any of them), or has no realistic political path for making those ideas a reality.

    His ideas are worthless.

    saltlick , September 17, 2016 at 9:47 am
    "That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads us toward: A future where states matter."

    With that sentence, I think Mitchell stumbles into a truth he might not have intended - The "state" - as in "administrative state" - is going to continue growing even under Trump.

    Given the increasing intolerance of our society for traditional values, that's all Christians need to know.

    DavidJ , September 17, 2016 at 9:49 am
    Clint writes:
    "Hillary Clinton,
    'L;aws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious bel:efs and structural biases have to be changed.

    Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables."

    Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/clinton-christians-must-deny-faith/

    Christians, we?

    VikingLS , September 17, 2016 at 10:16 am
    "He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially if, he loses."

    Given the amount violence and disruption your side has caused this year this accusation really should be laughable. Trump supporters aren't out beating up Clinton supporters and making sure they can't have a rally in the wrong neighborhood. Members of the alt-right aren't threatening student journalists with violence on their own campuses, or getting on stage with speakers they dislike and slapping them.

    It's your own side that has been perpetuating the mob violence while the liberal establishment denies it or excuses it.

    CAPT S , September 17, 2016 at 10:18 am
    This post is spot-on; thank you for sharing the preliminary BenOp talking points.

    We need Thomas Paine's Common Sense for our age, for these are times that try men's souls. Problem is this: Paine's citizenry were 90% literate, unified by culture, and cognitively engaged … today we're 70% literate (at 4th grade reading level), multicultural, and amused to death.

    [Sep 22, 2016] Political family roulette: A Kennedy says George H.W. Bush is voting for Clinton

    Sep 22, 2016 | www.salon.com

    Politico pulls an exclusive from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's Facebook page; Bush flack says vote is "private" VIDEO

    Grace Guarnieri Tuesday, Sep 20, 2016 08:35 PM +0300 0

    [Sep 22, 2016] Trump's the new face of paleo-conservatism - Orlando Sentinel

    Notable quotes:
    "... Joseph R. Murray II is a civil-rights attorney, a conservative commentator and a former official with Pat Buchanan's 2000 campaign. ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.orlandosentinel.com

    Joseph R. Murray II Guest columnist Political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye: Columnist. When the term paleo-conservative is floated in conversation, most folks imagine a creature out of Jurassic World. But paleo-conservatism - a near extinct brand of conservatism that heralds limited government, nonintervention, economic nationalism and Western traditions - is finding a comeback in an unlikely spokesperson.

    The history-making campaign of Donald Trump is turning the clock of U.S. politics back to a time when hubris was heroic and the truth, no matter how blunt, was king. It is resurrecting a political thought that does not play by the rules of modern politics.

    And as the nation saw the top-tier GOP candidates take the stage for the first time, they saw Trump, unapologetic and confident, alongside eight candidates clueless on how to contain him and a tongue-lashed Rand Paul.

    The debate itself highlighted the fear a Trump candidacy is creating throughout the political establishment. The very first question asked the candidates to pledge unconditional support to the eventual GOP nominee and refrain from a third-party run. Trump refused.

    But why should he blindly accept the party's unknown nominee? If Jeb Bush receives the nomination, the GOP will put forth a candidate who favors amnesty and is weak on trade, supportive of Common Core and unable, if not unwilling, to come out from under his brother's failed foreign policy.

    In refusing to take the pledge, Trump was honest, and it is his honesty that has made his campaign endearing. Trump has no secrets and turns what many consider mistakes into triumphs.

    The incident with Megyn Kelly is a prime example. When moderator Kelly confronted Trump about his past comments about women, Trump refused to apologize and told Kelly there is no time for political correctness.

    In the aftermath, Trump blasted Kelly's performance and landed in hot water. In an interview with CNN's Don Lemon, Trump said that "[y]ou could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her - wherever."

    The "wherever" part created a firestorm. Though vague, Trump detractors claimed that the "wherever" part meant Trump was implying Kelly was menstruating, while Trump claimed he was referring to her nose. Trump's version made more sense, but to a political class desperate to derail him, the headlines went with the former.

    Those in the Beltway resumed drafting Trump's political obituary. But while they were busy scribbling, post-debate polls showed Trump jumped in the polls. Republicans are ignoring their orders from headquarters and deflecting to the Donald.

    Shell-shocked, his foes, unwilling to admit their politically correct system has tanked, failed to understand that political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye.

    "So many 'politically correct' fools in our country," Trump tweeted. "We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!"

    Is he not correct? Days before the nation started debating Kelly's metaphorical blood, an unauthorized immigrant in New Jersey pleaded guilty to actually spilling the blood of 30-year-old Sviatlana Dranko and setting her body on fire. In the media, Dranko's blood is second fiddle. This contrast is not lost on the silent majority flocking to Trump.

    Trump's candidacy is about so much more than personality. Once the media are forced to report Trump's positions, instead of his persona, even more Americans will see that Trump is the sole Republican who rejects a "free trade" that gives away the keys to the store and opposed the ill-fated Iraq war. He is the type of candidate Americans always wanted but the party establishments are too afraid to provide.

    The last time America saw a strong paleo-conservative was Pat Buchanan in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first in New Hampshire

    Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment in Arizona and, in terms of paleo-conservatism, many thought he was the Last of the Mohicans.

    Trump's campaign is Buchananesque with one difference: Trump has money, and loads of it. He can fend off any attack and self-finance his campaign. He is establishment kryptonite.

    This reality is what makes him the new face of paleo-conservativism. It might also make him president.

    Joseph R. Murray II is a civil-rights attorney, a conservative commentator and a former official with Pat Buchanan's 2000 campaign.

    [Sep 21, 2016] When Capitalism Becomes an Act of War Alternet

    Notable quotes:
    "... traditional ways of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape. ..."
    "... It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated. ..."
    Mar 04, 2015 | AlterNet

    Inside the trauma of globalization.

    Novelist Rana Dasgupta recently turned to nonfiction to explore the explosive social and economic changes in Delhi starting in 1991, when India launched a series of transformative economic reforms. In Capital: The Eruption of Delhi, he describes a city where the epic hopes of globalization have dimmed in the face of a sterner, more elitist world. In Part 1 of an interview with the Institute for New Economic Thinking, Dasgupta traces a turbulent time in which traditional ways of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape.

    Lynn Parramore: Why did you decide to move from New York to Delhi in 2000, and then to write a book about the city?

    Rana Dasgupta: I moved to be with my partner who lived in Delhi, and soon realized it was a great place to have landed. I was trying write a novel and there were a lot of people doing creative things. There was a fascinating intellectual climate, all linked to changes in society and the economy. It was 10 years since liberalization and a lot of the impact of that was just being felt and widely sensed.

    There was a sense of opportunity, not any more just on the part of business people, but everyone. People felt that things were really going to change in a deep way - in every part of the political spectrum and every class of society. Products and technology spread, affecting even very poor people. Coke made ads about the rickshaw drivers with their mobile phones -people who had never had access to a landline. A lot of people sensed a new possibility for their own lives.

    Amongst the artists and intellectuals that I found myself with, there were very big hopes for what kind of society Delhi could become and they were very interested in being part of creating that. They were setting up institutions, publications, publishing houses, and businesses. They were thinking new ideas. When I arrived, I felt, this is where stuff is happening. The scale of conversations, the philosophy of change was just amazing.

    LP: You've interviewed many of the young tycoons who emerged during Delhi's transformation. How would you describe this new figure? How do they do business?

    RD: Many of their fathers and grandfathers had run significant provincial businesses. They were frugal in their habits and didn't like to advertise themselves, and anyway their wealth remained local both in its magnitude and its reach. They had business and political associates that they drank with and whose weddings they went to, and so it was a tight-knit kind of wealth.

    But the sons, who would probably be now between 35 and 45, had an entirely different experience. Their adult life happened after globalization. Because their fathers often didn't have the skills or qualifications to tap into the forces of globalization, the sons were sent abroad, probably to do an MBA, so they could walk into a meeting with a management consultancy firm or a bank and give a presentation. When they came back they operated not from the local hubs where their fathers ruled but from Delhi, where they could plug into federal politics and global capital.

    So you have these very powerful combinations of father/son businesses. The sons revere the fathers, these muscular, huge masculine figures who have often done much more risky and difficult work building their businesses and have cultivated relationships across the political spectrum. They are very savvy, charismatic people. They know who to give gifts to, how to do favors.

    The sons often don't have that set of skills, but they have corporate skills. They can talk finance in a kind of international language. Neither skill set is enough on its own by early 2000's: they need each other. And what's interesting about this package is that it's very powerful elsewhere, too. It's kind of a world-beating combination. The son fits into an American style world of business and finance, but the thing about American-style business is that there are lots of things in the world that are closed to it. It's very difficult for an American real estate company or food company to go to the president of an African country and do a deal. They don't have the skills for it. But even if they did, they are legally prevented from all the kinds of practices involved, the bribes and everything.

    This Indian business combination can go into places like Africa and Central Asia and do all the things required. If they need to go to market and raise money, they can do that. But if they need to sit around and drink with some government guys and figure out who are the players that need to be kept happy, they can do that, too. They see a lot of the world open to themselves.

    LP: How do these figures compare to American tycoons during, say, the Gilded Age?

    RD: When American observers see these people they think, well, we had these guys between 1890 and 1920, but then they all kind of went under because there was a massive escalation of state power and state wealth and basically the state declared a kind of protracted war on them.

    Americans think this is a stage of development that will pass. But I think it's not going to pass in our case. The Indian state is never going to have the same power over private interests as the U.S. state because lots of things have to happen. The Depression and the Second World War were very important in creating a U.S. state that was that powerful and a rationale for defeating these private interests. I think those private interests saw much more benefit in consenting to, collaborating in, and producing a stronger U.S. state.

    Over time, American business allied itself with the government, which did a lot to open up other markets for it. In India, I think these private interests will not for many years see a benefit in operating differently, precisely because continents like Africa, with their particular set of attributes, have such a bright future. It's not just about what India's like, but what other places are like, and how there aren't that many people in the world that can do what they can do.

    LP: What has been lost and gained in a place like Delhi under global capitalism?

    RD: Undeniably there has been immense material gain in the city since 1991, including the very poorest people, who are richer and have more access to information. What my book tracks is a kind of spiritual and moral crisis that affects rich and poor alike.

    One kind of malaise is political and economic. Even though the poorest are richer, they have less political influence. In a socialist system, everything is done in the name of the poor, for good or for bad, and the poor occupy center stage in political discourse. But since 1991 the poor have become much less prominent in political and economic ideology. As the proportion of wealth held by the richest few families of India has grown massively larger, the situation is very much like the break-up of the Soviet Union, which leads to a much more hierarchical economy where people closest to power have the best information, contacts, and access to capital. They can just expand massively.

    Suddenly there's a state infrastructure that's been built for 70 years or 60 years which is transferred to the private domain and that is hugely valuable. People gain access to telecommunication systems, mines, land, and forests for almost nothing. So ordinary people say, yes, we are richer, and we have all these products and things, but those making the decisions about our society are not elected and hugely wealthy.

    Imagine the upper-middle-class guy who has been to Harvard, works for a management consultancy firm or for an ad agency, and enjoys a kind of international-style middle-class life. He thinks he deserves to make decisions about how the country is run and how resources are used. He feels himself to be a significant figure in his society. Then he realizes that he's not. There's another, infinitely wealthier class of people who are involved in all kinds of backroom deals that dramatically alter the landscape of his life. New private highways and new private townships are being built all around him. They're sucking the water out of the ground. There's a very rapid and seemingly reckless transformation of the landscape that's being wrought and he has no part in it.

    If he did have a say, he might ask, is this really the way that we want this landscape to look? Isn't there enormous ecological damage? Have we not just kicked 10,000 farmers off their land?

    All these conversations that democracies have are not being had. People think, this exactly what the socialists told us that capitalism was - it's pillage and it creates a very wealthy elite exploiting the poor majority. To some extent, I think that explains a lot of why capitalism is so turbulent in places like India and China. No one ever expected capitalism to be tranquil. They had been told for the better part of a century that capitalism was the imperialist curse. So when it comes, and it's very violent, and everyone thinks, well that's what we expected. One of the reasons that it still has a lot of ideological consensus is that people are prepared for that. They go into it as an act of war, not as an act of peace, and all they know is that the rewards for the people at the top are very high, so you'd better be on the top.

    The other kind of malaise is one of culture. Basically, America and Britain invented capitalism and they also invented the philosophical and cultural furniture to make it acceptable. Places where capitalism is going in anew do not have 200 years of cultural readiness. It's just a huge shock. Of course, Indians are prepared for some aspects of it because many of them are trading communities and they understand money and deals. But a lot of those trading communities are actually incredibly conservative about culture - about what kind of lifestyle their daughters will have, what kinds of careers their sons will have. They don't think that their son goes to Brown to become a professor of literature, but to come back and run the family business.

    LP: What is changing between men and women?

    RD: A lot of the fallout is about families. Will women work? If so, will they still cook and be the kind of wife they're supposed to be? Will they be out on the street with their boyfriends dressed in Western clothes and going to movies and clearly advertising the fact that they are economically independent, sexually independent, socially independent? How will we deal with the backlash of violent crimes that have everything to do with all these changes?

    This capitalist system has produced a new figure, which is the economically successful and independent middle-class woman. She's extremely globalized in the sense of what she should be able to do in her life. It's also created a set of lower-middle-class men who had a much greater sense of stability both in their gender and professional situation 30 years ago, when they could rely on a family member or fellow caste member to keep them employed even if they didn't have any marketable attributes. They had a wife who made sure that the culture of the family was intact - religion, cuisine, that kind of stuff.

    Thirty years later, those guys are not going to get jobs because that whole caste value thing has no place in the very fast-moving market economy. Without a high school diploma, they just have nothing to offer. Those guys in the streets are thinking, I don't have a claim on the economy, or on women anymore because I can't earn anything. Women across the middle classes - and it's not just across India, it's across Asia -are trying to opt out of marriage for as long as they can because they see only a downside. Remaining single allows all kinds of benefits – social, romantic, professional. So those guys are pretty bitter and there's a backlash that can become quite violent. We also have an upswing of Hindu fundamentalism as a way of trying to preserve things. It's very appealing to people who think society is falling apart.

    LP: You've described India's experience of global capitalism as traumatic. How is the trauma distinct in Delhi, and in what ways is it universal?

    RD: Delhi suffers specifically from the trauma of Partition, which has created a distinct society. When India became independent, it was divided into India and Pakistan. Pakistan was essentially a Muslim state, and Hindis and Sikhs left. The border was about 400 kilometers from Delhi, which was a tiny, empty city, a British administrative town. Most of those Hindis and Sikhs settled in Delhi where they were allocated housing as refugees. Muslims went in the other direction to Pakistan, and as we know, something between 1 and 2 million were killed in that event.

    The people who arrived in Delhi arrived traumatized, having lost their businesses, properties, friends, and communities, and having seen their family members murdered, raped and abducted. Like the Jewish Holocaust, everyone can tell the stories and everyone has experienced loss. When they all arrive in Delhi, they have a fairly homogeneous reaction: they're never going to let this happen to them again. They become fiercely concerned with security, physical and financial. They're not interested in having nice neighbors and the lighter things of life. They say, it was our neighbors that killed us, so we're going to trust only our blood and run businesses with our brother and our sons. We're going to build high walls around our houses.

    When the grandchildren of these people grow up, it's a problem because none of this has been exorcised. The families have not talked about it. The state has not dealt with it and wants to remember only that India became independent and that was a glorious moment. So the catastrophe actually becomes focused within families rather than the reverse. A lot of grandchildren are more fearful and hateful of Muslims than the grandparents, who remembered a time before when they actually had very deep friendships with Muslims.

    Parents of my generation grew up with immense silence in their households and they knew that in that silence was Islam - a terrifying thing. When you're one year old, you don't even know yet what Islam is, you just know that it's something which is the greatest horror in the universe.

    The Punjabi businessman is a very distinct species. They have treated business as warfare, and they are still doing it like that 70 years later and they are very good at it. They enter the global economy at a time when it's becoming much less civilized as well. In many cases they succeed not because they have a good idea, but because they know how to seize global assets and resources. Punjabi businessmen are not inventing Facebook. They are about mines and oil and water and food -things that everyone understands and needs.

    In this moment of globalization, the world will have to realize that events like the Partition of India are not local history anymore but global history. Especially in this moment when the West no longer controls the whole system, these traumas explode onto the world and affect all of us, like the Holocaust. They introduce levels of turbulence into businesses and practices that we didn't expect necessarily.

    Then there's the trauma of capitalism itself, and here I think it's important for us to re-remember the West's own history. Capitalism achieved a level of consensus in the second half of the 20th century very accidentally, and by a number of enormous forces, not all of which were intended. There's no guarantee that such consensus will be achieved everywhere in the emerging world. India and China don't have an empire to ship people off to as a safety valve when suffering become immense. They just have to absorb all that stuff.

    For a century or so, people in power in Paris and London and Washington felt that they had to save the capitalist system from socialist revolution, so they gave enormous concessions to their populations. Very quickly, people in the West forgot that there was that level of dissent. They thought that everyone loved capitalism. I think as we come into the next period where the kind of consensus has already been dealt a huge blow in the West, we're going to have to deal with some of those forces again.

    LP: When you say that the consensus on capitalism has been dealt a blow, are you talking about the financial crisis?

    RD: Yes, the sense that the nation-state - I'm talking about the U.S. context - can no longer control global capital, global processes, or, indeed, it's own financial elite.

    It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated. Then, if you have 30-40 percent unemployment in America, which has always been the ideological leader in capitalism, America will start to re-theorize capitalism very profoundly (and maybe the Institute of New Economic Thinking is part of that). Meanwhile, I think the middle class in India would not have these kinds of problems. It's precisely because American technology and finance are so advanced that they're going to hit a lot of those problems. I think in places like India there's so much work to be done that no one needs to leap to the next stage of making the middle class obsolete. They're still useful.

    Lynn Parramore is contributing editor at AlterNet. She is cofounder of Recessionwire, founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of "Reading the Sphinx: Ancient Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture." She received her Ph.D. in English and cultural theory from NYU. Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore.

    [Sep 20, 2016] Two-Party Tyranny Ralph Nader on Exclusion of Third-Party Candidates From First Presidential Debate

    www.truth-out.org

    In a minute, we'll be joined by former third-party presidential candidate Ralph Nader. But first, this is George Farah, the founder and executive director of Open Debates, speaking on Democracy Now! about how the Democrats and Republicans took control of the debate process.

    GEORGE FARAH: GEORGE FARAH: The League of Women Voters ran the presidential debate process from 1976 until 1984, and they were a very courageous and genuinely independent, nonpartisan sponsor. And whenever the candidates attempted to manipulate the presidential debates behind closed doors, either to exclude a viable independent candidate or to sanitize the formats, the league had the courage to challenge the Republican and Democratic nominees and, if necessary, go public.

    In 1980, independent candidate John B. Anderson was polling about 12 percent in the polls. The league insisted that Anderson be allowed to participate, because the vast majority of the American people wanted to see him, but Jimmy Carter, President Jimmy Carter, refused to debate him. The league went forward anyway and held a presidential debate with an empty chair, showing that Jimmy Carter wasn't going to show up.

    Four years later, when the Republican and Democratic nominees tried to get rid of difficult questions by vetoing 80 of the moderators that they had proposed to host the debates, the league said, "This is unacceptable." They held a press conference and attacked the campaigns for trying to get rid of difficult questions.

    And lastly, in 1988, was the first attempt by the Republican and Democratic campaigns to negotiate a detailed contract. It was tame by comparison, a mere 12 pages. It talked about who could be in the audience and how the format would be structured, but the league found that kind of lack of transparency and that kind of candidate control to be fundamentally outrageous and antithetical to our democratic process. They released the contract and stated they refuse to be an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people and refuse to implement it.

    And today, what do we have? We have a private corporation that was created by the Republican and Democratic parties called the Commission on Presidential Debates. It seized control of the presidential debates precisely because the league was independent, precisely because this women's organization had the guts to stand up to the candidates that the major-party candidates had nominated.

    [Sep 19, 2016] Trump Harbinger Of A New Age by Rod Dreher

    This set of principles in the core of "Trump_vs_deep_state" probably can be improved, but still are interesting: "... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
    Notable quotes:
    "... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
    "... These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989. ..."
    "... if anti-Trumpers convince themselves that that's all ..."
    "... What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak" is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say it, for fear of ostracism. ..."
    "... Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization" and identity politics has done them much good. ..."
    "... The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton. ..."
    "... Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed, Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really bad and stuff." ..."
    "... They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them. ..."
    "... The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every other voter. ..."
    "... Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves for a rude awakening. ..."
    "... Trump vs. Clinton = Nationalism vs. Globalism ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Writing in Politico , Georgetown political scientist Joshua Mitchell has a long, important take on the deep meaning of Trump - and it's probably not what you think.

    ... ... ...

    More:

    If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated.

    These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989.

    That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads us toward: A future where states matter. A future where people are citizens, working together toward (bourgeois) improvement of their lot. His ideas do not yet fully cohere. They are a bit too much like mental dust that has yet to come together. But they can come together. And Trump is the first American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his formulations have been.

    Mitchell goes on to say that political elites call Trump "unprincipled," and perhaps they're right: that he only does what's good for Trump. On the other hand, maybe Trump's principles are not ideological, but pragmatic. That is, Trump might be a quintessential American political type: the leader who gets into a situation and figures out how to muddle through. Or, as Mitchell puts it:

    This doesn't necessarily mean that he is unprincipled; it means rather that he doesn't believe that yet another policy paper based on conservative "principles" is going to save either America or the Republican Party.

    Also, Mitchell says that there are no doubt voters in the Trump coalition who are nothing but angry, provincial bigots. But if anti-Trumpers convince themselves that that's all the Trump voters are, they will miss something profoundly important about how Western politics are changing because of deep instincts emerging from within the body politic:

    What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak" is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say it, for fear of ostracism.

    They think that identity politics has gone too far, or that if it hasn't yet gone too far, there is no principled place where it must stop. They believe that the state can't be our only large-scale political unit, but they see that on the post-1989 model, there will, finally, be no place for the state.

    Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization" and identity politics has done them much good.

    There's lots more here, including his prediction of what's going to happen to the GOP.
    Read the whole thing.

    Michael Guarino , September 18, 2016 at 10:41 am

    The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton.

    Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed, Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really bad and stuff."

    Which not only makes it seem more likely that we were targeting Assad's forces to anyone reasonably distrustful of American involvement in the war, but also shows the moral reasoning ability of nothing greater than a 6 year old.

    Seriously, accusing Russia of moralism, and then moralistically trying to hide responsibility by listing atrocities committed by Assad? It is self-parody.

    Red brick, September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.

    "thinly buried in his rhetoric:

    1. borders matter;
    2. immigration policy matters;
    3. national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter;
    4. entrepreneurship matters;
    5. decentralization matters;
    6. PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."

    They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them.

    james, September 16, 2016 at 6:51 pm
    I cannot speak to what is best for conservative Christians, but change is definitely in the air. Since the start of this election, I have had a clear sense that we are seeing a beginning of a new political reality.

    The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every other voter.

    Too many voters have finally come to recognize that neither party serves them in any real way. This will forcibly result in a serious reform process of one or both parties, a third party that actually represents working people, or if neither reform or a new party is viable-–a new American revolution, which I fear greatly.

    Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves for a rude awakening.

    T.S.Gay, September 16, 2016 at 6:57 pm
    Trump vs. Clinton = Nationalism vs. Globalism

    I'm certainly not the first to say this, but perhaps the first to post it on this blog. RD, perhaps rightfully, has steered this post toward the Benedict Option, but what should be debated is the repudiation of globalization and identity politics.

    Clint, September 16, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    Hillary Clinton,

    "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

    Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.

    [Sep 18, 2016] We Have to Deal With Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo? ..."
    "... Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years? ..."
    "... Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads? ..."
    "... Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets. ..."
    "... Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation ..."
    "... Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all. ..."
    "... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
    "... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
    "... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
    "... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
    "... Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused. ..."
    "... There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with. ..."
    "... Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. ..."
    "... As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now. ..."
    "... If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family. ..."
    "... Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice. ..."
    "... What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    ...Arriving on Capitol Hill to repair ties between Trump and party elites, Gov. Mike Pence was taken straight to the woodshed.

    What causes the Republican Party to lose it whenever the name of Vladimir Putin is raised?

    Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called "Good old Joe" and "Uncle Joe." Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian Revolution in blood. He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he do there that General Sherman did not do to Atlanta when Georgia seceded from Mr. Lincoln's Union?

    Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with Iran, and signed on to John Kerry's plan have us ensure a cease fire in Syria and go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists.

    Still, Putin committed "aggression" in Ukraine, we are told. But was that really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction? We helped dump over a pro-Putin democratically elected regime in Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea naval base by re-annexing Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from Catherine the Great to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things.

    When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America's orbit, we decided to keep Guantanamo, and dismiss Havana's protests?

    Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?

    ... ... ...

    Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years?

    ... ... ...

    Is Putin's Russia more repressive than Xi Jinping's China? Yet, Republicans rarely use "thug" when speaking about Xi. During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it.

    Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads?

    ... ... ...

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority

    Tiktaalik , says: September 16, 2016 at 2:41 am

  • >>During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea
  • buttressed could be even more pertinent)
  • Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets.
  • bacon , says: September 16, 2016 at 5:29 am

    Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation whenever US forces are not actively engaged in combat somewhere. They are loud voices, yes, but irrational voices, too.

    Skeptic , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all.

    John Blade Wiederspan , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:18 am

    "Just" states the starvation of the Ukraine is a western lie. The Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest refutes this dangerous falsehood. Perhaps "Just" believes The Great Leap Forward did not lead to starvation of tens of millions in China. After all, this could be another "western lie". So to could be the Armenian genocide in Turkey or slaughter of Communists in Indonesia.

    SteveM , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:23 am

    As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".

    I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.

    The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.

    And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person in the room".

    P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage.

    blimbax , says: September 16, 2016 at 11:29 am

    John asks, "We also have to deal with our current allies. Whom would Mr. Buchanan like to favor?"

    Well, we could redouble our commitment to our democracy and peace loving friends in Saudi Arabia, we could deepen our ties to those gentle folk in Egypt, and maybe for a change give some meaningful support to Israel. Oh, and our defensive alliances will be becoming so much stronger with Montenegro as a member, we will need to pour more resources into that country.

    Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused.

    There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with.

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: September 16, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    "During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it (funny, you failed to mention Laos, South Vietnam, Nicaragua, Noriega/Panama, and everyone's favorite 9/11 co-conspirator and WMD developer, Saddam Hussein). either way how did these "alliances" work out for the US? really doesn't matter, does it? it is early 21st century, not mid 20th century. there is a school of thought in the worlds of counter-terrorism/intelligence operations, which suggests if you want to be successful, you have to partner with some pretty nasty folks. Trump is being "handled" by an experienced, ruthless (that's a compliment), and focused "operator". unless, of course, Trump is actually the superior operator, in which case, this would be the greatest black op of all time.

    Clint , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    "From Russia With Money - Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,"

    "Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors" or sponsored speeches by former President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.

    http://nypost.com/2016/07/31/report-raises-questions-about-clinton-cash-from-russians-during-reset/

    WakeUp , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. Once you understand that then the (evil)actions of the Western elite make sense. Anyone who stands in the way of those things is an "enemy". This is how they determine an "enemy".

    As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now.

    If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family.

    Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice.

    What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us.

    [Sep 18, 2016] Brexit In America: Clinton vs. Trump

    You need to substitute PIC (a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class)) for neoliberal elite for the article to make more sense.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders... ..."
    "... The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on capitalism and the free market. ..."
    strata-sphere.com

    This election cycle is so amazing one cannot help but think it has been scripted by some invisible, all-powerful, hand. I mean, how could we have two completely opposite candidates, perfectly reflecting the forces at play in this day and age? It truly is a clash between The Elites and The Masses!

    Main Street vs Wall & K Street.

    The Political Industrial Complex (PIC – a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class) is all up arms over the outsider barging in on their big con. The PIC is beside itself trying to stop Donald Trump from gaining the Presidency, where he will be able to clean out the People's House and the bureaucratic cesspool that has shackled Main Street with political correctness, propaganda, impossibly expensive health care, ridiculous taxes and a national debt that will take generations to pay off.

    The PIC has run amok long enough – illustrated perfectly by the defect ridden democrat candidate: Hillary Clinton. I mean, how could you frame America's choices this cycle any better than this --

    Back in July, Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "there is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation."

    On Monday of this week, ABC's Liz Kreutzer reminded people of that statement, as a new batch of emails reveal that there was a connection, and it was cash .

    The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton's tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin. In Abedin's June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of her job at the State Department was taking care of " Clinton family matters ."

    This is what has Main Street so fed up with Wall & K street (big business, big government). The Clinton foundation is a cash cow for Clinton, Inc. So while our taxes go up, our debt sky rockets and our health care becomes too expensive to afford, Clan Clinton has made 100's of millions of dollars selling access (and obviously doing favors, because no one spends that kind of money without results).

    The PIC is circling the wagons with its news media arm shrilly screaming anything and everything about Trump as if they could fool Main Street with their worn out propaganda. I seriously doubt it will work. The Internet has broken the information monopoly that allowed the PIC in the not too distant past to control what people knew and thought.

    Now we have cracks in the PIC's media spin, through which we can see the ugly truth about our modern democracy :

    Massachusetts has a long history of using the power of incumbency to cripple political opponents. In fact, it's a leading state for such partisan gamesmanship. Dating back to 1812, when Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed into law a redistricting plan for state Senate districts that favored his Democratic-Republican Party, the era of Massachusetts rule rigging began. It has continued, unabated, ever since.

    Given the insider dealing and venality that epitomized the 2016 presidential primary process, I'd hoped that politicians would think twice before abusing the power of the state for political purposes. Galvin quickly diminished any such prospect of moderation in the sketchy behavior of elected officials. He hid his actions behind the thin veil of fiscal responsibility. He claimed to be troubled by the additional $56,000 he was going to have to spend printing ballots to accommodate Independent voters. He conveniently ignored the fact that thousands of these UIP members have been paying taxes for decades to support a primary process that excludes them.

    In my home state of Kansas, where my 2014 candidacy threatened to take a U.S. Senate seat from the Republicans, they responded predictably. Instead of becoming more responsive to voters, our state's highly partisan secretary of state, Kris Kobach, introduced legislation that would bring back one of the great excesses of machine politics: straight party-line voting – which is designed to discourage voters from considering an Independent candidacy altogether. Kobach's rationale, like Galvin's, was laughable. He described it as a "convenience" for voters.

    The article goes on to note these acts by the PIC are an affront to the large swath of the electorate who really choose who will win elections:

    In a recent Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans said they do not feel well-represented by the Democrats and Republicans and believe a third major party is needed. Fully 42 percent of Americans now describe themselves as politically independent .

    That means the two main parties are each smaller in size than the independents (68% divided by 2 equals 34%), which is why independents pick which side will win. If the PIC attacks this group – guess what the response will look like?

    I recently had a discussion with someone from Washington State who is pretty much my opposite policy-wise. She is a deep blue democrat voter, whereas I am a deep purple independent who is more small-government Tea Party than conservative-GOP. She was lamenting the fact that her state has caucuses, which is one method to blunt Main Street voters from having a say. It was interesting that we quickly and strongly agreed on one thing above all else: open primaries. We both knew that if the voters had the only say in who are leaders would be, all sides could abide that decision easily. It is when PIC intervenes that things get ugly.

    Open primaries make the political parties accountable to the voters. Open primaries make it harder for the PIC to control who gets into office, and reduces the leverage of big donors. Open primaries reflect the will of the states and the nation – not the vested interests (read bank accounts) of the PIC.

    That is why you when you hear someone oppose open primaries , it is a clear sign they are from the Political Industrial Complex and not from Main Street. For example:

    Without doubt, one of the most troublesome aspects of the current system is its gross inefficiency. Whereas generations ago selecting a nominee took relatively little time and money , today's process has resulted in a near-permanent campaign. Because would-be nominees have to win primaries and open caucuses in several states, they must put together vast campaign apparatuses that spread across the nation, beginning years in advance and raising tens of millions of dollars.

    The length of the campaign alone keeps many potential candidates on the sidelines. In particular, those in positions of leadership at various levels of our government cannot easily put aside their duties and shift into full-time campaign mode for such an extended period.

    It is amazing how this kind of thinking can be considered legitimate. Note how independent voters are evil in the mind of the PIC, and only government leaders need apply. Not surprising, their answer is to control access to the ballot:

    During the week of Lincoln's birthday (February 12), the Republican Party would hold a Republican Nomination Convention that would borrow from the process by which the Constitution was ratified. Delegates to the convention would be selected by rank-and-file Republicans in their local communities , and those chosen delegates would meet, deliberate, and ultimately nominate five people who, if willing, would each be named as one of the party's officially sanctioned finalists for its presidential nomination. Those five would subsequently debate one another a half-dozen times.

    Brexit became a political force because the European Union was not accountable to the voters. The EU members are also selected by members of the European PIC – not citizens of the EU. Without direct accountability to all citizens (a.k.a. – voters) there is no democracy – just a variant of communism:

    During the Russian Civil War (1918–1922), the Bolsheviks nationalized all productive property and imposed a policy named war communism, which put factories and railroads under strict government control, collected and rationed food, and introduced some bourgeois management of industry . After three years of war and the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion, Lenin declared the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which was to give a "limited place for a limited time to capitalism." The NEP lasted until 1928, when Joseph Stalin achieved party leadership, and the introduction of the Five Year Plans spelled the end of it. Following the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks, in 1922, formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.

    Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base; they were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline .

    Emphasis mine. Note how communism begins with government control of major industries. The current con job about Global Warming is the cover-excuse for a government grab of the energy sector. Obamacare is an attempt to grab the healthcare sector. And Wall Street already controls the banking sector. See a trend yet?

    This is then followed by imposing a rigid hierarchy of "leaders" at all levels of politics – so no opposing views can gain traction. Party discipline uber alles!

    Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders...

    The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on capitalism and the free market.

    His opponent is the epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – a cancer that has eaten away America's free market foundation and core strength. A person who wants to impose government on the individual.

    How could the choice be any starker, any clearer?

    [Sep 18, 2016] Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesnt play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the smartest person in the room

    Notable quotes:
    "... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
    "... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
    "... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
    "... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    SteveM , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:23 am

    As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".

    I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.

    The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.

    And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person in the room".

    P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage.

    [Sep 18, 2016] News Media Is Wearing Titanium Blinders This Election Cycle

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Normal Politician. Why Can't America See That? ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Typical Politician. Why Can't America See That? ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | strata-sphere.com

    by AJStrata

    Sep 09, 2016

    This is a "populist" election cycle.

    Coming on the heels of Brexit and in tandem with many other anti-globalist-cronyism movements, it is a societal reaction that has been building for years (since Bush 2, and definitely since the Tea Party before it was co-opted by the Political Elite). When the elite bend and break the rules to line their pockets, and the masses end up being severely financially impacted in return, then there is going to be a visceral response to those hoarding the nation's riches and opportunities.

    What is amazing is the depth of ignorance (or compliance) in the news media. Take Jonathan Chait at the New York Times, who has been in near constant apocalyptic fit since the "debate" on national security.

    His conniption hit a new level with a brilliantly self-projecting article entitled:

    Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Normal Politician. Why Can't America See That?

    My only quibble with Chait is I would title it:

    Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Typical Politician. Why Can't America See That?

    My only response is to inform Chait of the blatantly obvious: Of course we see Clinton as a typical and flawed politician!!

    So were the establisment GOP contenders in the primary. So are all the power brokers in the Political Industrial Complex (PIC). So is the pliant, PIC-suckling news media.

    Why do you think Clinton is sinking in the polls during an election cycle where the vast majority of voters on Main Street USA see the country heading in the wrong direction? Does this translate to "more of the same please?"!!

    Why would a swath of voters who sees their slice of the American Dream being trampled want more of the same policies from the "globalist" Political Elite sitting behind their gated communities in their posh mansions?

    Of course we see her that way. She is simply not what the country wants – nor deserves.

    The PIC should realize that when their best argument is "the worst of us is better than anyone from outside the PIC" – they have hit rock bottom. And it is sooooo obvious!

    [Sep 18, 2016] Guccifer 2.0 – 13Sept2016 Leak – A Readers Guide (Part 2) [Discarded Hard Drive?]

    Sep 15, 2016 | tm.durusau.net

    Guccifer 2.0 's latest release of DNC documents is generally described as:

    In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents. It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security experts attending the London conference. Guccifer 2.0 drops more DNC docs by Cory Bennett.

    The "600 megabytes of documents" is an attention grabber, but how much of that 600 megabytes is useful and/or interesting?

    The answer turns out to be, not a lot.


    Here's an overview of the directories and files:

    /CIR

    Financial investment data.

    /CNBC

    Financial investment data.

    /DNC

    Redistricting documents.

    /DNCBSUser

    One file with fields of VANDatabaseCode StateID VanID cons_id?

    /documentation

    A large amount of documentation for "IQ8," apparently address cleaning software. Possibly useful if you want to know address cleaning rules from eight years ago.

    /DonorAnalysis

    Sound promising but is summary data based on media markets.

    /early

    Early voting analysis.

    /eday

    Typical election voting analysis, from 2002 to 2008.

    /FEC

    Duplicates to FEC filings. Checking the .csv file, data from 2008. BTW, you can find this date (2008) and later data of the same type at: http://fec.gov .

    /finance

    More duplicates to FEC filings. 11-26-08 NFC Members Raised.xlsx (no credit cards) – Dated but 453 names with contacts, amounts raised, etc.

    /HolidayCards

    Holiday card addresses, these are typical:

    holiday_list_noproblems.txt
    holidaycards.mdb
    morethanonename.xls

    /jpegs

    Two jpegs were included in the dump.

    /marketing

    Lists of donors.

    DNC union_05-09.txt
    DNCunion0610.txt
    GDSA11A.CSV
    November VF EOC – MEYER.txt
    dem0702a[1].zip
    dem977.txt
    dem978.txt
    dem979.txt
    dem980.txt
    dem981.txt
    dem982.txt
    dem9A3_NGP.txt
    dem9A6_NGP.txt
    dnc_harris_eoc_nov09_canvass.zip – password protected
    dsg.txt
    gsi.txt
    harris.txt
    marketing_phones.txt
    ofa_actives_non-donor.csv
    tm_files.txt

    /May-FEC

    Grepping looks like May, 2009 data for the FEC.

    /newmedia

    More donor lists.

    20090715_new_synetech_emails.csv
    emails_w_contactinfo.txt
    ofa_email_export.zip

    /pdfs

    IT hosting proposals.

    /Reports for Kaine

    Various technology memos

    /security

    IT security reports

    /stuffformike/WH/

    Contacts not necessarily in FEC records

    Contact List-Complete List.xlsx – Contact list with emails and phone numbers (no credit cards)
    WH Staff 2010.xlsx – Names but no contact details


    The data is eight (8) years old . Do you have the same phone number you did eight (8) years ago?

    Guccifer 2.0 makes no claim on their blog for ownership of this leak.

    A "hack" that results in eight year old data, most of which is more accessible at http://fec.gov ?

    No, this looks more like a discarded hard drive that was harvested and falsely labeled as a "hack" of the DNC.

    Unless Guccifer 2.0 says otherwise on their blog, you have better things to do with your time.

    PS: You don't need old hard drives to discover pay-to-play purchases of public appointments. Check back tomorrow for: How-To Discover Pay-to-Play Appointment Pricing .

    Posted in Government , Politics | No Comments "

    Guccifer 2.0 – 13Sept2016 Leak – A Reader's Guide (Part 1)

    September 14th, 2016 Guccifer 2.0 dropped a new bundle of DNC documents on September 13, 2016! Like most dumps, there was no accompanying guide to make use of that dump easier. ;-) Not a criticism, just an observation.

    As a starting point to make your use of that dump a little easier, I am posting an ls -lR listing of all the files in that dump, post extraction with 7z and unrar . Guccifer2.0-13Sept2016-filelist.txt .

    I'm working on a list of the files most likely to be of interest. Look for that tomorrow.

    I can advise that no credit card numbers were included in this dump.

    Using:

    grep --color -H -rn --include="*.txt" '\([345]\{1\}[0-9]\{3\}\|6011\)\{1\}[ -]\?[0-9]\{4\}[ -]\?[0-9]\{2\}[-]\?[0-9]\{2\}[ -]\?[0-9]\{1,4\}'

    I checked all the .txt files for credit card numbers. (I manually checked the xsl/xslx files.)

    There were "hits" but those were in Excel exports of vote calculations. Funny how credit card numbers don't ever begin with "0." as a prefix.

    Since valid credit card numbers vary in length, I don't know of an easy way to avoid that issue. So inspection of the files it was.

    [Sep 18, 2016] How-To Discover Pay-to-Play Appointment Pricing

    Notable quotes:
    "... United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | tm.durusau.net

    You have seen one or more variations on:

    You may be wondering why CNN , the New York Time and the Washington Post aren't all over this story?

    While selling public offices surprises some authors, whose names I omitted out of courtesy to their families, selling offices is a regularized activity in the United States.

    So regularized that immediately following each presidential election , the Government Printing Office publishes the United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions 2012 (Plum Book) that lists the 9,000 odd positions that are subject to presidential appointment.

    From the description of the 2012 edition:

    Every four years, just after the Presidential election, " United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions " is published. It is commonly known as the "Plum Book" and is alternately published between the House and Senate.

    The Plum Book is a listing of over 9,000 civil service leadership and support positions (filled and vacant) in the Legislative and Executive branches of the Federal Government that may be subject to noncompetitive appointments, or in other words by direct appointment.

    These "plum" positions include agency heads and their immediate subordinates, policy executives and advisors, and aides who report to these officials. Many positions have duties which support Administration policies and programs. The people holding these positions usually have a close and confidential relationship with the agency head or other key officials.

    Even though the 2012 "plum" book is currently on sale for $19.00 (usual price is $38.00), given that a new one will appear later this year, consider using the free online version at: Plum Book 2012 .

    plum-book-2012-460

    The online interface is nothing to brag on. You have to select filters and then find to obtain further information on positions. Very poor UI.

    However, if under title you select "Chief of Mission, Monaco" and then select "find," the resulting screen looks something like this:

    monaco-chief-01-460

    To your far right there is a small arrow that if selected, takes you to the details:

    monaco-chief-02-460

    If you were teaching a high school civics class, the question would be:

    How much did Charles Rivkin have to donate to obtain the position of Chief of Mission, Monaco?

    FYI, the CIA World FactBook gives this brief description for Monaco :

    Monaco, bordering France on the Mediterranean coast, is a popular resort, attracting tourists to its casino and pleasant climate. The principality also is a banking center and has successfully sought to diversify into services and small, high-value-added, nonpolluting industries.

    Unlike the unhappy writers that started this post, you would point the class to: Transaction Query By Individual Contributor at the Federal Election Commission site.

    Entering the name Rivkin, Charles and select "Get Listing."

    Rivkin's contributions are broken into categories and helpfully summed to assist you in finding the total.

    Caution: There is an anomalous Rivkin in that last category, contributing $40 to Donald Trump. For present discussions, I would subtract that from the grand total of:

    $130,711 to be the Chief of Mission, Monaco.

    Realize that this was not a lump sum payment but a steady stream of contributions starting in the year 2000.

    Using the Transaction Query By Individual Contributor resource, you can correct stories that claim:

    Jane Hartley paid DNC $605,000 and then was nominated by Obama to serve concurrently as the U.S. Ambassador to the French Republic and the Principality of Monaco.

    jane-hartley

    (from: This Is How Much It 'Costs' To Get An Ambassadorship: Guccifer 2.0 Leaks DNC 'Pay-To-Play' Donor List )

    If you run the FEC search you will find:

    So, $637,609.71, not $605,000.00 but also as a series of contributions starting in 1997, not one lump sum .

    You don't have to search discarded hard drives to get pay-to-play appointment pricing. It's all a matter of public record.

    PS: I'm not sure how accurate or complete Nominations & Appointments (White House) may be, but its an easier starting place for current appointees than the online Plum book.

    PPS: Estimated pricing for "Plum" book positions could be made more transparent. Not a freebie. Let me know if you are interested.

    Posted in Government , Politics | No Comments "

    [Sep 18, 2016] Last Chance for the 'Deplorables'

    Notable quotes:
    "... "You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" smirked Clinton to cheers and laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." They are "irredeemable," but they are "not America." ..."
    "... "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two baskets." First there are "the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and the people who … think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists. So, just eliminate them from your thinking." And who might be in the other basket backing Donald Trump? They are people, said Clinton, "who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them. … These are people we have to understand and empathize with." ..."
    "... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
    "... and the author of book ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The American Conservative

    Speaking to 1,000 of the overprivileged at an LGBT fundraiser, where the chairs ponied up $250,000 each and Barbra Streisand sang, Hillary Clinton gave New York's social liberals what they came to hear.

    "You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" smirked Clinton to cheers and laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." They are "irredeemable," but they are "not America."

    This was no verbal slip. Clinton had invited the press in to cover the LGBT gala at Cipriani Wall Street where the cheap seats went for $1,200. And she had tried out her new lines earlier on Israeli TV:

    "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two baskets." First there are "the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and the people who … think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists. So, just eliminate them from your thinking." And who might be in the other basket backing Donald Trump? They are people, said Clinton, "who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them. … These are people we have to understand and empathize with."

    In short, Trump's support consists of one-half xenophobes, bigots, and racists, and one-half losers we should pity.

    And she is running on the slogan "Stronger Together."

    Her remarks echo those of Barack Obama in 2008 to San Francisco fat cats puzzled about those strange Pennsylvanians.

    They are "bitter," said Obama, they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustration."

    In short, Pennsylvania is a backwater of alienated Bible-banging gun nuts and bigots suspicious of outsiders and foreigners.

    But who really are these folks our new class detests, sneers at, and pities? As African-Americans are 90 percent behind Clinton, it is not black folks. Nor is it Hispanics, who are solidly in the Clinton camp.

    Nor would Clinton tolerate such slurs directed at Third World immigrants who are making America better by making us more diverse than that old "America that no longer exists."

    No, the folks Obama and Clinton detest, disparage, and pity are the white working- and middle-class folks Richard Nixon celebrated as Middle Americans and the Silent Majority.

    They are the folks who brought America through the Depression, won World War II, and carried us through the Cold War from Truman in 1945 to victory with Ronald Reagan in 1989.

    These are the Trump supporters. They reside mostly in red states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Middle Pennsylvania, and southern, plains, and mountain states that have provided a disproportionate share of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who fought and died to guarantee the freedom of plutocratic LGBT lovers to laugh at and mock them at $2,400-a-plate dinners.

    Yet, there is truth in what Clinton said about eliminating "from your thinking" people who believe Trump can "restore an America that no longer exists."

    For the last chance to restore America, as Trump himself told Christian Broadcasting's "Brody File" on Friday, September 9, is slipping away:

    "I think this will be the last election if I don't win … because you're going to have people flowing across the border, you're going to have illegal immigrants coming in and they're going to be legalized and they're going to be able to vote, and once that all happens, you can forget it."

    Politically and demographically, America is at a tipping point.

    Minorities are now 40 percent of the population and will be 30 percent of the electorate in November. If past trends hold, 4 of 5 will vote for Clinton.

    Meanwhile, white folks, who normally vote 60 percent Republican, will fall to 70 percent of the electorate, the lowest ever, and will decline in every subsequent presidential year.

    The passing of the greatest generation and silent generation, and, soon, the baby-boom generation, is turning former red states like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada purple, and putting crucial states like Florida and Ohio in peril.

    What has happened to America is astonishing. A country 90 percent Christian after World War II has been secularized by a dictatorial Supreme Court with only feeble protest and resistance.

    A nation, 90 percent of whose population traced their roots to Europe, will have been changed by mass immigration and an invasion across its Southern border into a predominantly Third World country by 2042.

    What will then be left of the old America to conserve?

    No wonder Clinton was so giddy at the LGBT bash. They are taking America away from the "haters," as they look down in moral supremacy on the pitiable Middle Americans who are passing away.

    But a question arises for 2017.

    Why should Middle America, given what she thinks of us, render a President Hillary Clinton and her regime any more allegiance or loyalty than Colin Kaepernick renders to the America he so abhors?

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    28 Responses to Last Chance for the 'Deplorables'

  • Mac61 , says: September 13, 2016 at 12:28 am
    Good piece. I couldn't agree more. The sad thing is that many Mexican Catholics are voting against their own rights to free speech and freedom of religion by mindlessly sticking with the Leftist Democrat party. But it also raises the question–why was there not one single articulate conservative who can make the case for intelligent immigration reform? I teach in New Mexico near the border. We've discussed the election. To a person, my students will not forgive Trump for his "rapist" and "criminal" remarks. I don't blame them at all. Trump drove Hispanics away.
    Clint , says: September 13, 2016 at 12:56 am
    Then again, Hillary Clinton's camp appears to be attempting to divert attention away from her own Deplorable Basket of Emails.
    Kurt Gayle , says: September 13, 2016 at 1:26 am
    Many Democrats, too, are sickened by these insults that Hillary Clinton has hurled at tens of millions of Middle Americans - and among some Democrats there is growing talk of forcing Clinton off the Democratic ticket.

    "Cokie Roberts: Some Democrats "Nervously Beginning To Whisper" About Replacing Hillary"

    "[Yesterday] on NPR's Morning Edition, ABC News contributor and columnist Cokie Roberts said that Democrats are 'nervously beginning to whisper' about what might happen if their nominee for president Hillary Clinton has to step aside for health reasons."

    Cokie Roberts, Monday, September 12th: "…The polls are tightening and Democrats were already saying that Hillary was the only candidate who could not beat Trump, and [her health is] taking her off of the campaign trail, cancelling her trip to California today. It has them very nervously beginning to whisper about her stepping aside and finding another candidate…I think it's unlikely to be a real thing. I'm sure it's an overreaction about an already-skittish party, but you know, they have looked at what happens in that circumstance. The Democratic National Committee convenes the convention, and they vote. Ironically the candidate everyone looks at is Joe Biden, who is even older than Hillary, and then again, so is Donald Trump. But there is enough unhappiness that this kind of sotto voce stuff is going on."

    https://youtu.be/su_2wZaZbAQ

    libertarian jerry , says: September 13, 2016 at 3:22 am
    In the end its all economic. 100 years and more ago the great fear among the middle and upper classes in America was the influx of "foreign elements" such as Southern and Eastern Europeans mainly Italians,Jews and Slavs. Yet these immigrants,within 2 or 3 generations,became ensconced,by and large,in the Middle and Upper economic strata of the nation and thus tended to be more conservative in their economics and politics. The only difference today is not racial or ethnic but,instead,with the tremendous growth in the government and its inherent Welfare State,becoming a magnet for "3rd World" immigration. The Welfare State being something that hardly existed at the beginning of the 20th Century.
    In the end,the Left and especially the Democrat Party have gained political power with the creation of the "dependency class" which consists mainly of people riding the government gravy train either on one form of the Dole or another and or as large scale members of the government employee class. Do away with the Welfare State and you restore the traditional economic ladder of the past. No matter where the immigrants come from.
    mrscracker , says: September 13, 2016 at 10:32 am
    Mac61 ,
    I don't get it either. Immigration shouldn't be used to score political points on either side.
    Trump really missed the boat on that. He could have talked about national security needs rather than demean & permanently alienate a whole group of people.
    EliteCommInc. , says: September 13, 2016 at 11:01 am
    It doesn't really matter who they replace Sec Clinton with, her comments are their sentiments. They have been openly saying this for more than twenty years. Until the mess of 2003 which crumbled conservative credibility it was generally ignored. But since that time liberals have come out of the woodwork openly with their nasty "depersonalizations" of people like me.

    The level of filth that people have been willing to wade in openly - just seems to have no bounds. Her comments are no big deal. They represent what is the democratic prayer.

    People accuse me of not being respectful of the popular, the powerful, and even scripture says, one should fear them because they can make life miserable. Respect is hard to quantify these days. Because the people who are supposed to be the best and the brightest, among the elite, my better in every way - just on't have my faith as or admiration as they once did. If agreement is what is meant by respect, I am on shaky ground. It doesn't take much for people to create faux narratives and then hone in on the some tidbit to confirm it, so as to dismiss them.

    To follow the world is to follow folly in the end. And i just won't do it, this kind of characterizations minus any depth of background to make them plausible have been determining futures since men and women walked out of the garden. I chagrin it when Mr Trump does it as much s anyone else.

    I think of WWI and WWII men signed up to fight for a country right along side the deplorable. Being deplorable as I must be doesn't make my political position on issues wrong.

    I oppose open borders (shuld have been a temporary moratorium after 9/11 – say five years)

    I oppose same sex marriage, despite people I know and like choosing a same sex relational dynamic.

    I oppose wars that are not directly related to the threats against the US or her allies. Even Afghanistan was careless and unnecessary to the task - i care not which Harvard, Yale or Stanford grad calls me unpatriotic, a coward or something worse.

    I oppose bail outs when companies are deliberately careless and for which no benefit is to the bailiffs and no corrective action is place

    I oppose trade agreements that do not benefit the country – that is afterall the purpose of Us government

    I think killing children in the womb is worse than our slavery and its consequence though I suspect slavery helped create a rhetoric that made killing children doing so.

    government is a necessary evil, and should be held on a tight leash including the police, if you are going to whine about gov. unions, and exempt the police union, you're a bent reed

    I oppose inebriating substances

    The list of deplorable beliefs are many . . .

    I intend to keep them, including celibacy and sobriety

    Deplorables I could or should lose - bitterness and my occasional list of expletives

    Deplorable I am and deplorable I shall remain. Until that day I am fully known and fully know.

    jayneb , says: September 13, 2016 at 1:39 pm
    You can argue about the correct percentage all you want - but it is in fact a fact that many Trump supporters are "deplorable." Trump basically says so himself. What does it say when Trump announces he could shoot someone in downtown New York and HIS voters would still love him. I'd say he disrespect for his own followers is much greater than Hillary's.
    JonF , says: September 13, 2016 at 2:09 pm
    Re: A country 90 percent Christian after World War II has been secularized by a dictatorial Supreme Court with only feeble protest and resistance.

    This is a disastrous misdiagnosis of the problem. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it. Nothing at any level of government does. If people are not going to church it's because they are deciding not to. One may deplore that trend (in fact, I do), but for sure misunderstanding its cause is no help if your goal is to reverse it.

    Re: The polls are tightening

    Polling did tighten a bit as Hillary's large convention bounce wore off. But now the polls have plateaued again about where they were before the conventions. See: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/polls-show-trumps-momentum-has-stalled-for-now/

    david helveticka , says: September 13, 2016 at 2:23 pm
    As an older guy whose politics were formed during the Vietnam War era, I can say the enemy of the counter-cultural left was the Nixon Silent Majority. These were the "new left"..the folks hiding out in the communities growing up around the universities and colleges.

    These folks were afraid to venture out among the working folks where they would be ostracized and attacked. So they hid out in the universities, and made careers as educators, and the politically oriented non-profits foundations. They got control of the big foundations like Ford Foundation, where they could twist these organizations to become major advocates for their counter-cultural ideas. In most cases, they were unable to really do anything productive, to feed or clothe or really help the poor. But they earned lucrative incomes and easy lives by basically attacking the mainstream working folk values they hated so much.

    Now these counter-cultural leftists have gotten the power to "change" America…and they elected Obama!

    Where was the "conservative" movement when this was happening…basically touting silly economic libertarian fantasies about a "free market", whose result has been the destruction of the industrial might of America, exported jobs and imported cheap labor, joining the counter-cultural left in their labor of destroying the economic security of the old "Nixon Silent Majority".

    The establishment Republicans and establishment "conservatives" like to bring up Ronald Reagan, but it was NIXON who created the political coalition on which Reagan appealed to.

    Sad as I go into retirement to know that the New Left controls the government, the economy, and it was all made possible by the establishment Republicans and their ilk that made it all possible.

    david helveticka , says: September 13, 2016 at 2:29 pm
    Basically, I've never disagreed with Pat Buchanan on much of anything, and especially the conclusions he makes in this column.

    But like Trump, poor Mr. Buchanan has been silenced and ostracized by the counter-cultural elite that elected OBAMA, and sadly aided and abetted by the "conservative" establishment which he labored for years to build with Reagan and Nixon.

    That is the real sadness about the end of America, it was made possible by people who claim to be "conservative"…

    Noreastern , says: September 13, 2016 at 2:58 pm
    I have nothing but respect for Pat Buchanan but he overlooks the fact that the US was built on the backs of immigrants. We accept anyone and integrate them into our society. The Irish Catholics who a century ago were outcasts in this society have become part of the backbone that makes the US great. People of Asian decent have become one of the highest productive demographics in this country. The way forward is not to shut off immigration but to incorporate immigrants quickly into our society. That has always been our way.
    jbd , says: September 13, 2016 at 4:05 pm
    This article assumes that (a) minorities are inevitably and monolithically antiRepublican, (b) Mexcans mostly come here to get free stuff rather than to work, and (c) the Republicans could never win or come close to breaking even with Latino voters. All three assumptions are demonstrably false. They only become true when Republicans play Buchanan/Trump-style politics. Mostly, Mexicans come here to work very hard for very little. They dream of owning their own contracting business, having their own little home, and maybe a shiny new truck. That's not to say we should let them all in; we should put our own citizens first. But let's not pretend they threaten our way of life the way Muslim migrants do in Europe. They should be so lucky as to have our immigration problems. And one day, if Republicans get their act together, Mexicans will vote Republican. Do you think they like paying for freeloaders? Transgender pronouns? And while we're at it, what do those Asians now voting D think of affirmative action quotas? I respect Mr Buchanan, but he doesn't see obvious opportunities and thinks like a political loser.
    Myron Hudson , says: September 13, 2016 at 4:52 pm
    Any small amount of time spent online will reveal language, behavior and attitude among Trump supporters that is truly deplorable. No getting around that. The shoe fits.

    Maybe not half, but you can't miss it even if you're not looking for it. But I guess it's not PC to call it out?

    JonF , says: September 13, 2016 at 5:02 pm
    Re: Now these counter-cultural leftists have gotten the power to "change" America…and they elected Obama!

    You are talking about majority of the electorate in both 2008 and 2012. Deal with it.

    Viriato , says: September 13, 2016 at 6:07 pm
    Noreastern wrote: "That has always been our way."

    That is demonstrably false.

    Clint , says: September 13, 2016 at 7:01 pm
    Re: The polls are tightening

    Many of the state battleground polls show that – as with the national polls – the race is narrowing into almost a dead heat.
    The polls were taken before Clinton's medical episode and pneumonia at the September 11 memorial; the first two national polls to come out that include September 11 as part of the period tested show Trump leading by 3 percent in the LA Times USC daily tracking poll and Clinton leading by 4. However, the latter poll, by NBC News/SurveyMonkey contained concerning signs for Clinton as it shows a narrowing in that online poll compared to previously and erosion in support for her among independents.

    kalendjay , says: September 13, 2016 at 7:04 pm
    The country has indeed been built on the backs of immigrants, but we are now dealing with the willfully unassimilateable generation, whose Hispanic roots on US soil go back to Cortez, and the legacy of encomiendas and material wastefulness. California is still heavily Hispanic, dirt poor, and violent. At some point this is no longer a quaint manifestation of colorful geographic particularism. Vast swathes of the Far West are holes of poverty and despair. Puerto Rico is depopulating as the residents take on the ghetto stigmatization of working. Hispanic males are actually setting as poor or poorer an example than whites or blacks against their female counterparts in work, self support, and childraising.

    So we now have perpetual immigrants in their own land, who cannot distinguish a migrant from an actual immigrant, and who take immigration quota busting as "immigration reform". So there are other deplorables than Ozark types who had the bad luck to sustain traditions that predated but also existed simultaneous to the Civil War, the 20's and the Great Society.

    Which is not to say that Hiilary isn't a tribalist, depicting disparate LGBT's as an oppressed, fighting class. Just read her entire speech.

    Intelliwriter , says: September 13, 2016 at 7:34 pm
    There was a time when it was common to see "Irish need not apply." Today it's Hispanics. I fail to see how they are any less worthy of the American Dream. Originally this country belonged to brown people. Maybe they'd like to have their country back.

    Trump's campaign is openly racist. Embracing it is deplorable.

    cdugga , says: September 13, 2016 at 8:34 pm
    Racist, sexist bigots that are homophobic, islamaphobic, ah, we left out misogynistic, are indeed deplorable. Are we defending those groups, or are we denying that a good percentage of trump supporters, maybe even a basket worth, are those types? Myself? I give trump supporters more credit and lean more towards describing them as just plain mad. Some probably have gone mad. If I pity them it is no more than the pity I have for all the other competing victims groups, with the caveat that crying white men should be an oxymoron. Of course, even while asking trump to make them great again as he panders to their victimhood, they will insist they are not to be pitied. And I agree. Oh, and I am a trump supporter. But I am not deplorable or pathetic. I'm just the devils advocate. We have to hit bottom before bouncing back up. Or bouncing somewhere. Back and forth for awhile, probably. With hillary we will be stuck in that same ole rut of gerry mandered temper tantrums of obstruction with concomitant executive over reach. Throw in some endless supreme court confirmations and the news will become as mundane and inane as an eleventh season of watching rotunda try to win being the biggest loser.
    Nate , says: September 13, 2016 at 9:42 pm
    "The Irish Catholics who a century ago were outcasts in this society have become part of the backbone that makes the US great."

    The Irish Catholics are a poor example as the areas of the country they heavily settled have become 'progressive' strongholds that have rejected both Catholic morality and the Protestant values that the nativists sought to protect. Progressivism isn't the backbone of America, it is the cancer killing America.

    John S , says: September 14, 2016 at 7:42 am
    "These are the Trump supporters."
    Mr. Buchanan neglects to mention the FSB via its cut-out Wikileaks.

    Mr. Buchanan once wrote in another context: "If we are now secretly pumping cash into the free elections of friendly countries, to dump leaders President Obama dislikes, Americans have a right to know why we are using Cold War tactics against democracies."

    Mr. Buchanan never asks why Russia is using Cold War tactics against the United States.

    Student , says: September 14, 2016 at 8:06 am
    Trump exposed much of the corruption and sleaze in the Republican leadership. We now know about the Ryans, the Romney's and their ilk. If he is elected, we could expect a massive housecleaning in the Federal agencies. This is one reason why he is he is being resisted so fiercely by Slims' NY Times, Bezos' Washington Post, and the entire establishment and media elite.
    I fear they are simply too strong…we learned about the collapse of empires in grade school. We are watching the process now.
    The Wet One , says: September 14, 2016 at 3:25 pm
    Just for the record, Kellyanne Conway's prior (as in February) views on Trump supporters:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/10/1568719/-Trump-s-campaign-manager-Kellyanne-Conway-called-his-supporters-downright-nasty-skeeze

    Ignore the source, listen to the audio clip of Ms. Conway words.

    Remember, this is straight from one of Trump's own chief insiders. Just listen to her words.

    ThaomasH , says: September 14, 2016 at 5:13 pm
    Mr. Trump's supporters are not deplorable, but about half do hold deplorable views, such that President Obama is a Muslim or that the President was not born in the United States.
    VikingLS , says: September 14, 2016 at 10:25 pm
    Having gone through the immigration process LEGALLY to all of you that can't understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration, try this, spend thousands of dollars and a year or two of your life waiting to see if a person you love can enter the country and NOT KNOW until you actually get said person to the border.

    You want to give me my money and my time back? And you want to do that for all the other people who went through this and followed the rules?

    We don't have open borders. Mexico doesn't have open borders. It's not unreasonable for the Mexicans to respect our borders, it's not racist, any more than it's racist for Mexico to expect it's neighbors to respect their borders.

    Or, if you think it is, you've got a lot of legal immigrants in this country you owe reparations.

    We could use a few bucks. Go for it.

    Edmund Wolsey , says: September 15, 2016 at 10:24 pm
    "A nation, 90 percent of whose population traced their roots to Europe, will have been changed by mass immigration and an invasion across its Southern border into a predominantly Third World country by 2042."

    Are you defining 'third-world' as 'non-white'?

    bacon , says: September 16, 2016 at 12:14 pm
    TAC comments provide a continuing chuckle for this Democrat and Obama voter. Hated because he's black, because he's a Democrat, because of his unruffled approach to his critics, the list could go on. Maddening that he was twice elected president and still has >50% approval ratings, eh?
    Jon R , says: September 16, 2016 at 3:31 pm
    The deplorable comment was generalizing and a political mis-step, but you're kidding yourself if you think there is not truth behind it. From the Washington Post:

    "A number of polls have revealed the depth of racial resentment among Trump's supporters, and more than half of them are in the proverbial basket. While 65 percent of his supporters think President Obama is a Muslim, only 13 percent think that he's a Christian. Fifty-nine percent think Obama was not born in the United States, and only 23 percent think he was. Twenty percent nationwide think it was a bad idea that slaves were emancipated, and 16 percent in South Carolina think that whites are a superior race."

    Those are deplorable views. I find it ironic that Trump has risen to popularity by bringing sentiments like this into the mainstream, and now Clinton might lose because she pointed out that these views are there.

  • [Sep 18, 2016] The dynamic interaction of neoliberalism and cultural nationalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. ..."
    "... In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders. ..."
    "... As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy. ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | www.scribd.com

    Neoliberal Hegemony

    This is where cultural nationalism comes in. Only it can serve to mask, and bridge, the divides within the 'cartel of anxiety' in a neoliberal context.

    Cultural nationalism is a nationalism shorn of its civic-egalitarian and developmentalist thrust, one reduced to its cultural core. It is structured around the culture of thee conomically dominant classes in every country, with higher or lower positions accorded to other groups within the nation relative to it. These positions correspond, on the whole, to the groups' economic positions, and as such it organises the dominant classes, and concentric circles of their allies, into a collective national force. It also gives coherence to, and legitimises, the activities of the nation-state on behalf of capital, or sections thereof, in the international sphere.

    Indeed, cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy.

    Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. The activities of the state on behalf of this or that capitalist interest necessarily exceed the Spartan limits that neoliberalism sets. Such activities can only be legitimised as being 'in the national interest.'

    Second, however, the nationalism that articulates these interests is necessarily different from, but can easily (and given its function as a legitimising ideology, it must be said, performatively) be mis-recognised as, nationalism as widely understood: as being in some real sense in the interests of all members of the nation. In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders.

    As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy.

    Except for a commitment to neoliberal policies, the economic policy content of this nationalism cannot be consistent: within the country, and inter-nationally, the capitalist system is volatile and the positions of the various elements of capital in the national and international hierarchies shift constantly as does the economic policy of cultural nationalist governments. It is this volatility that also increases the need for corruption – since that is how competitive access of individual capitals to the state is today organised.

    Whatever its utility to the capitalist classes, however, cultural nationalism can never have a settled or secure hold on those who are marginalised or sub-ordinated by it. In neoliberal regimes the scope for offering genuine economic gains to the people at large, however measured they might be, is small.

    This is a problem for right politics since even the broadest coalition of the propertied can never be an electoral majority, even a viable plurality. This is only in the nature of capitalist private property. While the left remains in retreat or disarray, elec-toral apathy is a useful political resource but even where, as in most countries, political choices are minimal, the electorate as a whole is volatile. Despite, orperhaps because of, being reduced to a competition between parties of capital, electoral politics in the age of the New Right entails very large electoral costs, theextensive and often vain use of the media in elections and in politics generally, and political compromises which may clash with the high and shrilly ambitiou sdemands of the primary social base in the propertied classes. Instability, uncertainty ...

    [Sep 18, 2016] What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?

    Notable quotes:
    "... What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless. ..."
    "... As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose. ..."
    "... Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense). ..."
    "... Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions. ..."
    "... The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits. ..."
    "... If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation. ..."
    "... Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest. ..."
    "... With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Chauncey Gardiner

    What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless.

    As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose.

    diptherio

    Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense).

    Norb

    Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions.

    What folly. All this complexity and strident study of minutia to bring about what end? Human history on this planet has been about how societies form, develop, then recede form prominence. This flow being determined by how well the society provided for its members or could support their worldview. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

    The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits.

    Only by thinking, and communicating in the broader terms of political economy can we hope to understand our current conditions. Until then, change will be difficult to enact. Hard landings for all indeed.

    flora

    If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation.

    LA Mike September 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    While in traffic, I was thinking about that today. For some time now, I've viewed the traffic intersection as being a good example of the social contract. We all agree on its benefits. But today, I thought about it in terms of the Friedman Neoliberals.

    Why should they have to stop at red lights. Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest.

    sd

    Something I have wondered for some time, how does tourism fit into trade? With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade?

    I Have Strange Dreams

    Other things to consider:
    – negative effects of immigration (skilled workers leave developing countries where they are most needed)
    – environmental pollution
    – destruction of cultures/habitats
    – importation of western diet leading to decreased health
    – spread of disease (black death, hiv, ebola, bird flu)
    – resource wars
    – drugs
    – happiness
    How are these "externalities" calculated?

    [Sep 18, 2016] Neoliberalism has grown decadent and corrupt. It is a secular religion: a massive systemic force that some can manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries) but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers, cheat their customers or damage the environment. ..."
    "... Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.) are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all. ..."
    "... Sweden has no taxes on inheritance or residential property, and its 22 percent corporate income tax rate is far lower than America's 35 percent." ..."
    "... I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ..."
    "... HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics. Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse is around the next bend. Let's be serious. ..."
    "... "we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable" ..."
    "... I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy. ..."
    "... The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say, how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How could anyone control such a huge system? ..."
    "... I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good. Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful. ..."
    "... I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic elites. ..."
    "... Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real consequences for our standing in the world. ..."
    "... Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush. ..."
    "... Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the federal government to We the People. ..."
    "... Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico (on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them? ..."
    "... What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of civilization at all? ..."
    "... For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history, I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing. ..."
    "... I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy. Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question. ..."
    "... As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was directed to start funding jihadists and regime change. ..."
    "... I'd note that Popes going back to Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems. A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians. ..."
    "... The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows. ..."
    "... James Parker in The Atlantic comes to a similar conclusion from a very different starting place ..."
    "... "For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse." ..."
    "... Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function "as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically, and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might come up with. ..."
    "... Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois cults of Self. ..."
    "... "Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors) has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives." ..."
    Sep 17, 2016 | john-uebersax.com

    Andrew E. says: September 16, 2016 at 11:19 am

    Will she be inviting them in from parallel universes? Because we do not have 40 million illegals. The number is closer to eleven million.

    Wrong, see Adios America

    JonF says: September 16, 2016 at 1:27 pm
    Re: we have yet to hear a cogent description of what "bridled" capitalism is/looks like

    Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries) but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers, cheat their customers or damage the environment.

    Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.) are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all.

    CatherineNY says: September 16, 2016 at 6:28 pm
    Re: Sweden as an example of "bridled capitalism," here is an article about how many billionaires Sweden has (short answer: lots) http://www.slate.com/articles/business/billion_to_one/2013/10/sweden_s_billionaires_they_have_more_per_capita_than_the_united_states.html "The Swedish tax code was substantially reformed in 1990 to be friendlier toward capital accumulation, with a flat rate on investment income. Sweden has no taxes on inheritance or residential property, and its 22 percent corporate income tax rate is far lower than America's 35 percent."

    I think a lot of American capitalists would welcome those bridles. As for Hanby's critique of the liberal order that (thankfully) prevails in the West, it is only because of that liberal order that we are freely discussing these matters here, that we can talk about a Benedict Option in which we can create an economy within the economy, because in the non-liberal orders that prevailed through most of history, and that still prevail in a lot of places, we'd be under threat from the state for free discussion, and we would have little or no choice of education or jobs, because we'd be serfs or slaves or forced by government to go into a certain line of work (like my husband's Mandarin teacher, a scientist who was forced into the countryside during the Cultural Revolution and then told that she had to become a language teacher.)

    I'd be interested to know what kind of system Hanby would like to see replace our liberal order. Presumably one where he would be in charge.

    Harvey says: September 15, 2016 at 3:36 pm
    [neo]Liberalism is exhausted? What does that even mean, except as a high-brow insult?

    If there is one statistic that disproves this claim, it's that religious attendance is plummeting and the number of people who are "nones" are rising rapidly.

    What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social life. Since that is indisputably true, I guess the only thing that is left is for the remaining stalwarts resisting the tide to project this idea of exhaustion onto the other side.

    [NFR: You don't understand his point. He's not talking about liberalism as the philosophy of the Democratic Party. He's talking about liberalism as the political culture and system of the West. - RD]

    Clint says: September 15, 2016 at 3:38 pm
    "There is nothing like a good shock of pain for dissolving certain kinds of magic."

    Could be that Trump is God's Hot Foot Angel With The Dirty Face waking Americans up to the increasingly Godless Agenda of The Washington Establishment and The Corporate Media.

    Elijah says: September 15, 2016 at 4:01 pm
    Talk about cynical. There's a lot to take exception to here, but let's start with this:

    "In other words, the fact that we are in civilizational crisis is becoming unavoidably apparent, though there is obviously little agreement as to what this crisis consists in or what its causes are and little interest from the omnipresent media beyond how perceptions of crisis affect voter behavior."

    Possibly because he's one of the relatively few people who think we're in such a crisis. A lot of us – Republican and Democrat – still believe ideas and ideals are important and we support them (and their torchbearers, however flawed) with all the vigor we can muster.

    I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I will admit to thinking this kind of thing much more important on college campuses, where it can affect the quality of an education.

    "We would not see it as a crisis of soul, but a crisis of management…"

    Probably true: I'm not so sure that our founding principles really envision our civilization as having a soul rather than virtues. And the idea of a national government mucking around with the souls of the people gives me the heebie-jeebies much as Putin's alliance with the Orthodox church does you. And if there's anything we can take from the current election, I think it's that Americans have had enough sociologists, economists, lawyers, and other "experts" tell them what to do to last a lifetime. It's part and parcel of the distrust you just posted about.

    And I'm not at all sure that Americans are generally despairing, though it's pretty clear they think our country is on the wrong track. Hillary ought to be running away with this thing – why isn't she? Because she's seen as more of the same. Sanders offered the hope of something new, something transformative: the same thing people see in Trump. Their hope MAY be misplaced but time will tell. This election cycle ought to make people a little less confident in their predictions.

    "Hope is hard, I admit. But my response is that it is not the pessimist about liberalism who lacks hope, but the optimist who cannot see beyond its horizons."

    Hope is hard if you're investing in our institutions to carry us through. They aren't designed to. Our hope is in Christ, Our Redeemer, and that His will "be done on earth as it is in Heaven." And I will gladly admit to not being able to see beyond liberalism's horizons – again, the predictions of experts and philosophers haven't held up too well over time.

    I can say that blithely because my hope is not in liberalism, ultimately. Do I think some semblance of liberalism can and will survive? Yes, but the cultural struggles we are going through are part and parcel of the system. Do I like that? No.

    And as much as we need to reinforce communities (through the BenOp) we also need to recognize that our job isn't always to understand and prepare. As Christians, it is to obey. It means we repent, fast, and pray. It means we take the Great Commission seriously even when it's uncomfortable.

    I'm sorry to rip your friend here, I just don't find his piece compelling at all.

    allaround says: September 15, 2016 at 4:13 pm
    HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics. Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse is around the next bend. Let's be serious.

    Voting for Trump is unthinkable because he is totally clueless about seemingly he talks about. His arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance. Gary Johnson was excoriated because he did not know what Aleppo is. I bet a paycheck Trump couldn't point to Syria on a map. Trump get's no serious criticism for insistence that we steal Iraq's oil, his confusion about why Iran wasn't buying our airplanes, his assertion that Iran is North Koreas largest trading partner, that South Korea and Japan ought to have nukes, his threats to extort our NATO allies. There are dozens of gems like these, but you get the picture. One only needs to read transcripts from his interviews to understand the limits of his intellect. Voting for such a profound ignoramus is truly unthinkable.

    Gary says: September 15, 2016 at 4:40 pm
    Not (at least directly) related, but Rod thought this might give you some hope today (albeit it's from the <a href=" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790614/They-don-t-like-drugs-gay-marriage-HATE-tattoos-Generation-Z-conservative-WW2.html"Daily Mail but I found it interesting):

    Teenagers born after 2000 – the so-called 'Generation Z' – are the most socially conservative generation since the Second World War, a new study has found.

    The youngsters surveyed had more conservative views on gay marriage, transgender rights and drugs than Baby Boomers, Generation X or Millennials.

    The questioned were more prudent than Millennials, Generation X and Baby Boomers but not quite as cash-savvy as those born in 1945 or before.

    Only 14 and 15-year-olds were surveyed, by brand consultancy The Gild, as they were classed as being able to form credible opinions by that age.

    When asked to comment on same-sex marriage, transgender rights and cannabis legislation, 59 per cent of Generation X teenagers said they had conservative views.

    Around 85 per cent of Millennials and those in Generation X had a 'quite' or 'very liberal' stance overall.

    When asked for their specific view on each topic only the Silent Generation was more conservative that Generation Z.

    One in seven – 14% – of the 14 and 15-year-olds took a 'quite conservative' approach, while only two per cent of Millennials and one per cent of Generation X.

    The Silent Generation had a 'quite conservative' rating of 34 per cent.

    I think this was done in Britain but as we know, social trends in the rest of the West tend to spill over into the States.

    Are we looking at another Alex P. Keaton generation? Kids likely to rebel against the liberalism of their parents?

    Adamant says: September 15, 2016 at 4:43 pm
    I can never quite understand the tension between these two concepts: enlightenment liberalism as a spent force, enervated, listless, barely able to stir itself even in its own defense, and simultaneously weaponized SJWism, modern day Jacobins, an army of clenched-jawed fanatics who will stop at nothing to destroy its enemies.

    It seems that one of these perspectives must be less true than the other.

    [NFR: SJWs are a betrayal of classical liberalism. - RD]

    The Other Sands says: September 15, 2016 at 4:53 pm
    I realize that I only comment here when something sets me off, and not when I agree with you (which is after all why I keep reading you).

    So here I am agreeing with this post.

    "we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable"

    I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy.

    The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say, how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How could anyone control such a huge system?

    As your friend says, even if we want to exert more control over this system (which we can with the will), this would end up being a technocratic project, not a spiritual one. Sad because a spiritual argument against the excesses of capitalism might actually gain more traction at this point, than tired liberal arguments.

    xrdsmom says: September 15, 2016 at 5:15 pm
    I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good. Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful.

    My friends and I went out the other night in Austin, and there were families, very diverse, walking in the outdoor mall, standing in line to buy $5 scoops of ice cream for their children. Not hipsters, or God forbid the elite, just regular middle class folk enjoying an evening out. The truth is, life has improved immeasurably for many Americans. Do we have serious problems? Of course, but can we have just a wee bit of perspective?

    Will Harrington says: September 15, 2016 at 5:24 pm
    The Other Sands

    You may be right about the problem, but not its nature. Capitalism is not an impersonal force that can't be controlled, it's what people do economically if they are left alone to do it. The problem comes when people are not, simply put, virtuous. When people seek a return on investment that is not simply reasonable, but rather the most they can possibly get. We have had a capitalist system for long enough that some people who are both good at manipulating it and, often, unethical enough to not care what impact their choices have on others, have accumulated vast amounts of wealth while others, over generations, have made choices that have not been profitable, have lost wealth.

    There used to be mechanisms for preventing these trends to continue to their logical conclusion, as they are here. Judea had Jubilee. The Byzantine Empire had an Emperor whose interests were served by a prosperous landed middle class to populate the Thematic armies and who would occasionally step in and return the land his part time soldiers had lost through bad loans from aristocrats. We have no such mechanism for a farmer to regain land lost due to foreclosure.

    We should not redistribute wealth in such a way that a person has no incentive to work, but we should never allow a person's means of earning a livelihood to be taken from them.

    C. L. H. Daniels says: September 15, 2016 at 5:30 pm
    I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic elites. The crisis of Western political legitimacy that is manifest in the nomination of Trump, Brexit and numerous other movements and incidents is a sign that the legitimacy of this order has been undermined and is dissolving within the societies it effectively governs; in some unspoken sense, the unwashed masses of the West (those not part of the so-called "New Class") have come to understand that they have been betrayed by the Liberal order, that it has not lived up to its promises, even that it is becoming or has become a force destructive of their communities and their ability to thrive as human beings.

    The ever-increasing autonomy promised by the Liberal order has turned out to be a poisoned chalice for many. As it has dissolved the bonds of families and communities, it has atomized people into individuals without traditional social supports in an increasingly cutthroat and uncaring world. People cannot help but understand that they have lost something or are missing something, even if they are not able to articulate or identify that loss. It is a sickness of the soul, in the sense that the ailment is somewhere close to the heart of what it means to be human. We are what we are, and the Liberal order is pushing us into opposition to our own natures, as if we can choose to be something other than what we are.

    Anne says: September 15, 2016 at 5:32 pm
    This idea that Democrats hate Hillary in the same way Republicans despise Trump is way off base in my opinion. This attempt at equivalency, like so many others, is false. I voted for Sanders because I liked him better, but I am not holding my nose to vote for Hillary Clinton. There are several things I actually admire about her, including her attention to detail and tenacity. I'll always remember how she sat before Congress as First Lady, no paper or crib sheet in sight, and presented her detailed and compelling case for national health care . I thought that was awesome then, and still do.

    Still, as I've noted many times, I never liked the Clintons that much, mainly because I hated a lot of what Bill Clinton stood for and what he did. Aside from his embarrassing sexual escapades, most of that pertained to positions that seemed more Republican than Democratic (on welfare mothers, mental patients, deregulation of the broadcast industry, etc.) I also didn't like their position on abortion nor the way their people treated Gov. Casey at the party convention, nor the dialing back on Jimmy Carter's uncompromising stand for human rights in the third world. Some of Hillary's hawkish positions are still a concern, but what she stands for in general is far and away more humane and within my understanding of what's good for the country and the world at large than anything Republicans represent. Their ideas hurt people on too many fronts to justify voting for them just because I may agree with them on principle when it comes to matters such abortion. Trump just adds insult to injury in every regard.

    Adamant says: September 15, 2016 at 6:22 pm
    xrdsmom says:
    September 15, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    Very well said. What accounts for the relative optimism of minorities vs. whites?
    State of the economy, personal situation, optimism that your kids future will be better than yours, etc. In all of these surveys, it is the pessimism of whites, untethered from empirical reality, that stands out as the outlier.

    Oakinhou says: September 15, 2016 at 6:22 pm
    The Other Sands:

    "Sad because a spiritual argument against the excesses of capitalism might actually gain more traction at this point, than tired liberal arguments."

    It would gain more traction, and it would be better focused at what is much larger cause of the current social, economic, and family problems of the working classes.

    But the argument won't be made, because the majority of those that believe in a societal crisis have pinned the origin of this crisis on feminism, the sexual revolution, and SJW, and have bought in full the bootstraps language of the radical capitalism. Even the majority crunchy cons, that would be sympathetic to the arguments against capitalism, would rather try to solve the ills of the world via cultural instead of economic ways.

    Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors) has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives

    [NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing. - RD]

    allaround says: September 15, 2016 at 6:38 pm
    @redfish

    Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real consequences for our standing in the world. Trump is just as stupid, but he is far more dangerous. At least Bush wasn't a egomaniac. Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush.

    Charles Cosimano says: September 15, 2016 at 6:46 pm
    "In fact, I doubt we any longer possess enough of a 'civilization' to understand what a 'civilizational crisis' would really mean."

    I think someone has no idea what "civilization" means. None of his definitions apply.

    What we are seeing is the radical change in Western Civilization from the old Graeco-Roman/Christian model to a yet undefined American model. (Which is why Islam in Europe is not very important. Europe is no longer very important.) No one guards the "glory that was Greece" any more. We've moved out of that. The debate will be when did the transition occur. Did it begin in the 19th Century with the Age of Invention? Did it occur in the flash of gunpowder that was WW1? Was it the blasting to rubble of Monte Cassino when the weapons of the new blew the symbol of the old to ruin? Was it the moment men stood upon the Moon and nothing the bronze age pilers of rocks had to say was of any value any more?

    The key to understanding the change is that the old values are dead and we are in the process of creating new ones. No one knows where that is going to go. It is all too new.

    Hanby is wrong. We have a civilization, but it is leaving his in the dust.

    Andrew E. says: September 15, 2016 at 6:53 pm
    Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the federal government to We the People.

    Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico (on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them?

    Seriously, only one of these two appears interested in leading the nation.

    Jon Swerens says: September 15, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    Harvey said:

    "What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social life."

    This is so hilariously untrue, but also very sad that the secular Left cannot see its own idols or even read its own headlines.

    What does he think is happening in the United States besides the rise of a revolutionary moral order, ruled by fickle tastemakers who believe that their own emotions and thoughts have creative power? How else would history have a "side"? How else could "gender" be entirely unmoored from sex and any other scientific fact? Progressivism even has "climate change" as its chosen apocalypse which will visit destruction if not enough fealty is granted to an ever-more-omnipotent and omniscient central government? Does he not see how over and over again, this week's progressive leaders attacks last week's? Amy Schumer, anyone?

    Once a culture abolishes the One True God, as ours has, then that culture begins to find other sources for the attributes of God and for the definitions of virtues and vices.

    Jon Swerens says: September 15, 2016 at 6:59 pm
    What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of civilization at all?
    Andrew E. says: September 15, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    Never forget that there is a real and clear choice before us.

    Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals. Continue the 1 million legal immigrants per yer all from the Third World. She will radically upsize the Muslim refugee influx to hundreds of thousands per year. All terrible things.

    Trump will do the opposite. This will make a massive difference to the future of the country - Trump, good…Clinton, bad - and is what this election is about.

    bacon says: September 15, 2016 at 7:08 pm
    For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history, I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing.

    As for me, I'm outside somewhere every day and so far not even a tiny piece of the sky has fallen on me.

    Richard McGee says: September 15, 2016 at 7:19 pm
    @xrdsmom
    Empirical reality depends on where you stand. Younote that your prospects have improved relative to your mom's. For the working class whites working at low paying jobs, they have declined. Is their anger simply a response to loss of white privilege? In the sense that this privilege consisted of access to well-paying jobs out of high school, the answer is yes.

    I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy. Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question.

    Fran Macadam says: September 15, 2016 at 7:55 pm
    It's true a lot of people couldn't point to Syria; because that's how important it is to most people. So why are we now involved in a full scale war there, when the American people clearly stated they didn't want another war?

    As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was directed to start funding jihadists and regime change.

    Alan says: September 15, 2016 at 7:57 pm
    @ xrdsmom…..nice try….but I'm not buying it. You said Austin, and then tried to say these aren't elites. LOL.

    Drive through the back counties of Kentucky and then report back to me that everything is fine.

    cecelia says: September 15, 2016 at 8:23 pm
    Hillary is not as corrupt as some think nor is Trump likely to be able to enact much of his agenda(most of which he has no commitment to – it is all a performance). So I do not see either as end times candidates.

    However – a civilization must assure certain things – order, cohesion, safety from invasion and occupation. It also must assure that the resources we secure from the earth are available – good soil, clean water, sustainable management of energy sources etc. This is where our civilization is failing – if you doubt this – spend a moment looking up soil erosion on Google. Or dead zones Mississippi and Nile deltas. Depletion of fish stocks. Loss of arable land and potable water all over the planet. Is this calamitous failure a function of liberalism or capitalism run amok? Perhaps the two go hand in hand?

    I'd note that Popes going back to Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems. A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians.

    But there are certainly all over the earth groups of people who have experienced this conversion and are seeking to build civilizations which are just and sustainable. Rod has written about some – his friends in Italy as an example.

    Hope is God's glory revealed in ourselves.

    Lord Karth says: September 15, 2016 at 10:55 pm
    The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows.

    The trick is going to be recovering our connection with the Realities of existence without bringing technological civilization down or re-engineering Humanity into something we would not recognize.

    Color me less than optimistic about our prospects.

    Your servant,

    Lord Karth

    Kit Stolz says: September 16, 2016 at 3:30 am
    The Catholic philosopher writes:

    "I really think there is a pervasive, but unarticulated sense that liberalism is exhausted, that we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable. The reasons for this anxiety are manifold and cannot be reduced to politics or economics…"

    Agree! For once. For reasons more civil than spiritual, but never mind. James Parker in The Atlantic comes to a similar conclusion from a very different starting place (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/donald-trump-sex-pistol/497528/)

    "For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse."

    Eric Mader says: September 16, 2016 at 3:55 am
    Hanky's diagnosis is brilliant. Yes, thanks for posting, Rod.

    One of our fundamental problems, along with the conceptual horizons imposed by liberalism, is the obsolete language of "left" and "right" that we continue to apply when weighing our options. This too is part of why we can't construct a politics of hope, and in my reading it explains the decline of the left into identity politics (our Democratic Party is not any more "the left" in any meaningful way) and of the right into "movement conservatism" or Trumpian nationalism.

    Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function "as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically, and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might come up with.

    The only truly rock solid aspect of classical liberalism in my mind is its theory of individual dignity, the permanent and nonnegotiable value of each individual in essence and before the law. The left has taken this and run with it and turned it into a divination of individual desire and self-definition, which is something different. The capitalist right has taken it and turned it into a theory of individual responsibility for one's economic fate, which is helpful in ways, but not decisive or even fully explanatory as to why people end up where they are. And a lot of people are not in a good place thanks to the free trade enthusiasts who believe what they're up to somehow reflects the eternal forces of nature.

    Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois cults of Self.

    It should be no surprise that the inalienable dignity of the individual, that rock solid core of liberal thinking, grew directly from the Christian soil of Paul's assertion of the equality of all–men, women, Greek, Jew, freed, slave–in Christ. (Galatians 3:28) The world's current thinking on "human rights" is merely a universalized version of Paul's thought, hatched in a Christian Europe by philosophes who didn't recognize just how Christian they were.

    After all the utopian dusts settle, whether the dust of Adam Smith or the dust of PC Non-Discrimination, we must see that the one thing holding us together is this recognition that the political order must respect human rights. The core issue at present is thus that we legislate in ways that reflect a realistic understanding of these rights. As for "movement conservatism" or PC progressivism, they each represent pipe dreams that don't address the economic or legal challenges in coherent ways, and they each sacrifice true rights at one altar or another.

    The obsolete language of "left" and "right" keeps us unwilling to grapple with the real economic and legal challenges, if only because we're too busy cheerleading either one version of the capitalist cult or the other.

    I'm looking forward to The Benedict Option mainly as providing some answers as to how the remnant of faithful Christians in this mayhem might both hold their faith intact while perhaps simultaneously developing less utopian modes of thinking about community. The neoliberal order may very well be shaping up to be for us something like the pagan Roman Empire was to the early church. We finally have to face that, politically speaking, we are in the world but not of it.

    JonF says: September 16, 2016 at 6:09 am
    Re: Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals.

    Will she be inviting them in from parallel universes? Because we do not have 40 million illegals. The number is closer to eleven million.

    Also the president can't do this on his/her own. Congress has to act. The House will remain GOP. The Senate may too, or will flip back to GOP after 2018. As I mentioned Clinton's hands will be tied as much as Obama's have been since 2010. That includes Supreme Court appointments. Only the most boring of moderates will get through– sure, they won't overturn Roe or Oberfell, but they won't rubber stamp much new either.

    Elijah says: September 16, 2016 at 7:38 am
    "Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors) has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives."

    [NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing. - RD]"

    It doesn't sit well for two reasons: (a) we have yet to hear a cogent description of what "bridled" capitalism is/looks like and (b) capitalism has its faults, but it has raised far more boats than it has swamped.

    Until we hear an admission of (b) and an explanation of (a), their statements will continue to fall on deaf ears. Particularly from Pope Francis, whose grip on economic ideas seems tenuous at best.

    [Sep 17, 2016] Unlocking the Election The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses. ..."
    "... The Clinton email thing does not begin to rise to the level of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky affair, except perhaps in the fever swamps of Fox News. ..."
    "... My guess is that ultimately the two third parties fielding candidates this election will not trigger this key; they are what Lichtman calls "perennial third parties" and not really insurgencies led by well-known political figures, which is when the third party key is generally triggered. ..."
    "... Having said all that, I congratulate the author for recognizing and engaging with Lichtman's work. It's a very substantial theory with a great track record that, for reasons I don't fully understand, is generally overlooked by journalists who write about such things. ..."
    "... Right now, polling composite scores put Hillary Clinton at +5 or more over Trump in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Add in the safely blue states and her floor is 272 electoral votes, even assuming she underperforms relative to her polling by 5 points across the board. Hillary wins even on a bad night. ..."
    "... We elected Obama in large part to repudiate Bush, who was a total disaster. Now, if your hypothesis holds, we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute. In 4 or 8 years, which loser will the Democrats trot out to repudiate Trump, who is virtually guaranteed to be a total disaster? Most sane Americans just want this roller coaster to be over. ..."
    "... Trump has the momentum right now, as Hillary Clinton stumbles. ..."
    "... The overall national numbers show a slight and late recovery from recession. However, the average and median numbers conceal a split, in which a majority of voters did not participate in the recovery, especially in key swing states. ..."
    "... Trump is actively drawing support from this sense of failure to recover, so it is not just theoretical. I'd score the recovery against the incumbent too, because key voting segments would. ..."
    "... We are seeing a good example of the preference cascade. For well over a year Clinton has been capped at 45%, usually in the low 40's. As it becomes more respectable to vote for Trump, the more people are willing to move from the undecided/third party column to the Trump column. ..."
    "... If I recall correctly, Lichtman also scores both the foreign policy/military success and failure keys differently. ISIS is a foreign policy failure, but not on the public perception of Pearl Harbor, the fall of Vietnam, or the Iran hostage crisis. And the Iran deal is a foreign policy success, but not on the level of, say, winning WWII. ..."
    "... Polls, by themselves, don't predict much, and certainly not long-term – although I agree that Clinton remains the likely winner this year. ..."
    "... Obama (I did not vote for him in '08 or '12) has succeeded and some areas, and failed in others – such is the nature of the job. ..."
    "... As a student of history, I suspect his presidency will be graded somewhere between B- and C+; slightly above average. Whereas, by your assessment, his predecessor was "can't miss" disasters (D- leaning toward F). ..."
    "... we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute ..."
    "... At the end of the day, though, Lichtman's model, like most models of voting behavior, is not intended so much as a predictive system as an attempt to explain how voters make decisions. The Lichtman theory does a remarkable job of modeling such decision-making, and demonstrates clearly his hypothesis that presidential elections are mostly referenda on the performance of the incumbent party. That doesn't mean it will always be so, but he makes a compelling case that it's been that way since the Civil War. ..."
    "... Obama's economy isn't gonna help Hillary Clinton. Government data show that the economy only grew by 1.2 percent in the second quarter. First quarter growth was also revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton addressed the sluggish economy in her speech last night, admitting that Americans "feel like the economy just isn't working." Although she cited economic growth under president Obama, she insisted that "none of us can be satisfied with the status quo." ..."
    Sep 17, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    In 1976, Washington insider Averell Harriman famously said of Georgia peanut farmer Jimmy Carter, the one-term governor and presidential aspirant, "He can't be nominated, I don't know him and I don't know anyone who does.'' Within months Jimmy Carter was president. Harriman's predictive folly serves as an allegory of democratic politics. The unthinkable can happen, and when it does it becomes not only thinkable but natural, even commonplace. The many compelling elements of Carter's unusual presidential quest remained shrouded from Harriman's vision because they didn't track with his particular experiences and political perceptions. Call it the Harriman syndrome.

    The Harriman syndrome has been on full display during the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump. He couldn't possibly get the Republican nomination. Too boorish. A political neophyte. No organization. No intellectual depth. A divisive character out of sync with Republicans' true sensibilities. Then he got the nomination, and now those same perceptions are being trotted out to bolster the view that he can't possibly become president. Besides, goes the conventional wisdom, demographic trends are impinging upon the Electoral College in ways that pretty much preclude any Republican from winning the presidency in our time.

    But Trump actually can win, despite his gaffe-prone ways and his poor standing in the polls as the general-election campaign gets under way. I say this based upon my thesis, explored in my latest book ( Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians ), that presidential elections are largely referendums on the incumbent or incumbent party. If the incumbent's record is adjudged by the electorate to be exemplary, it doesn't matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent wins. If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses.

    ... ... ...

    Robert W. Merry is author of books on American history and foreign policy, including Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians .

  • Robert Levine , says: September 15, 2016 at 1:44 am
    Worth noting is that Lichtman himself scores the keys differently than does the author of this post. As the inventor of the system, his analysis deserves considerable weight. In particular, he scores the nomination contest key, the scandal key, and the challenger charisma key as all favorable to Democrats.

    I'm not sure I agree with him about the nomination contest key, but I think that, by the criteria he used in analyzing past elections, he's right about the other two. The Clinton email thing does not begin to rise to the level of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky affair, except perhaps in the fever swamps of Fox News. As far as charisma, Lichtman identified four 20th-century candidates as charismatic: the two Roosevelts, Kennedy, and Reagan. Trump is not in that league.

    The third-party key is, as the author states, not really possible to call at this point. My guess is that ultimately the two third parties fielding candidates this election will not trigger this key; they are what Lichtman calls "perennial third parties" and not really insurgencies led by well-known political figures, which is when the third party key is generally triggered.

    One other point is worth mentioning. Lichtman's first key, the incumbent mandate key, changed during the development of his theory. It was originally based on whether the incumbent party had received an absolute majority of the popular vote in the previous election (which, in this case, would have favored the Democrats). But, because that led to the system predicting an incorrect outcome in one particular election (I don't remember which one), he changed it to the current comparison of seats won in the previous two mid-terms. I think there's a case to be made that the advanced state of the gerrymandering art may have rendered this key useless; it is now entirely possible for a party to gain seats from one mid-term to the next while actually doing less well in the popular vote. In fact, that's exactly what happened from 2010 to 2014; the percentage of the vote that Republican house members received was lower in 2014 than it was in 2010, even though they gained more seats in 2014. In any case, I don't think that it really favors Trump in the way the author of the OP thinks it does.

    Having said all that, I congratulate the author for recognizing and engaging with Lichtman's work. It's a very substantial theory with a great track record that, for reasons I don't fully understand, is generally overlooked by journalists who write about such things.

    Douglas K. , says: September 15, 2016 at 3:44 am
    I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.

    What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.

    Right now, polling composite scores put Hillary Clinton at +5 or more over Trump in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Add in the safely blue states and her floor is 272 electoral votes, even assuming she underperforms relative to her polling by 5 points across the board. Hillary wins even on a bad night.

    Of course Trump might close some of that gap in the next seven weeks. We'll see.

    Tim , says: September 15, 2016 at 7:31 am
    "If the incumbent's record is adjudged by the electorate to be exemplary, it doesn't matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent wins. If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses."

    That is a compelling hypothesis which I find very plausible. As our two parties drift farther apart and become incapable of giving us any representatives whom we find exemplary, what happens to us? We elected Obama in large part to repudiate Bush, who was a total disaster. Now, if your hypothesis holds, we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute. In 4 or 8 years, which loser will the Democrats trot out to repudiate Trump, who is virtually guaranteed to be a total disaster? Most sane Americans just want this roller coaster to be over.

    Clint , says: September 15, 2016 at 11:29 am
    Trump has the momentum right now, as Hillary Clinton stumbles. Poll: Clinton, Trump tied in four-way race

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/296078-poll-clinton-leads-trump-by-5-nationwide

    Jim the First , says: September 15, 2016 at 11:37 am
    I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.

    This, in spades. Plus, many of these keys are so subjective (at least prospectively) as to render them meaningless for anything but fun predictive parlor games.

    What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.

    Yes and no. Gallup thought this, too, when it predicted Dewey would defeat Truman. Nate Silver was absolutely positive that Trump could never ever ever win the Republican nomination, until he did.

    My analysis is that under the old, pre-Big Data-driven elections (i.e. micro-targeting your likely voters, registering them if they are unregistered, and stopping at nothing (probably not even the election laws) in getting them to the polls), Trump would win rather handily, but under the new Big Data-driven campaigns that the initial Obama campaign was the first to master, Clinton is a huge favorite, baggage and all. Organization and ground game trumps a lot – not everything, but a lot.

    Mark Thomason , says: September 15, 2016 at 1:15 pm
    The overall national numbers show a slight and late recovery from recession. However, the average and median numbers conceal a split, in which a majority of voters did not participate in the recovery, especially in key swing states.

    Trump is actively drawing support from this sense of failure to recover, so it is not just theoretical. I'd score the recovery against the incumbent too, because key voting segments would.

    The Zman , says: September 15, 2016 at 1:35 pm
    Averaging polls is the sort of thing people not good at math like to say, believing it makes them sound good at math.

    We are seeing a good example of the preference cascade. For well over a year Clinton has been capped at 45%, usually in the low 40's. As it becomes more respectable to vote for Trump, the more people are willing to move from the undecided/third party column to the Trump column.

    Robert Levine , says: September 15, 2016 at 2:00 pm
    If I recall correctly, Lichtman also scores both the foreign policy/military success and failure keys differently. ISIS is a foreign policy failure, but not on the public perception of Pearl Harbor, the fall of Vietnam, or the Iran hostage crisis. And the Iran deal is a foreign policy success, but not on the level of, say, winning WWII.

    I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.

    What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.

    Lichtman has been able to predict successfully the popular-vote winner for the last 7 or 8 elections, in many cases many months in advance – which, by standards of electoral prediction models, is pretty remarkable. Polls, by themselves, don't predict much, and certainly not long-term – although I agree that Clinton remains the likely winner this year.

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: September 15, 2016 at 2:08 pm
    @Tim, How has/is Obama "becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute."? The consensus might be on the Foreign Policy side of the equation, but truthfully, he's spent 8 years cleaning up the mess handed him by the "total disaster" who preceded him. If you want the rollercoaster to be over, get off the rollercoaster. That is to say, most of the excitement offered by the rollercoaster lies in its design (partisan/tribal/echo chamber nonsense).

    See: Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, emails, Parkinson's, etc., etc. be legitimate concerns for a John Q. Public, the hyperbolic birther indignation does a disservice to critical thinking, rational Americans. Make no mistake, the GOP candidate has literally made a career (TV/Pro Wrestling) trading in this currency, but in the end, such hyperbole is a distraction. Obama (I did not vote for him in '08 or '12) has succeeded and some areas, and failed in others – such is the nature of the job.

    As a student of history, I suspect his presidency will be graded somewhere between B- and C+; slightly above average. Whereas, by your assessment, his predecessor was "can't miss" disasters (D- leaning toward F).

    JonF , says: September 15, 2016 at 2:14 pm
    Re: we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute

    Huh? Have you seen any of the more recent news on the economy? Or for that matter Obama's soaring approval ratings?

    Clint , says: September 15, 2016 at 3:14 pm
    Have you seen any of the more recent news on the economy?

    The Harvard Business School Report released today. Report: Government inaction is hampering economic growth: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-government-inaction-is-hampering-economic-growth/

    Derek , says: September 15, 2016 at 4:52 pm
    I also fail to see how President Obama, a veritable reincarnation of Bill Clinton, but without the scandals, is "becoming more of a disaster each passing minute." We have less (visible) war, we have more jobs, and we have better pay. Yes, the small segment of the population that was paying peanuts for narrowly-defined healthcare 'plans' is paying more now for healthcare than they were 6 years ago, but a large segment now has healthcare that previously did not. This will take decades to unfold but the savings will be immense over the long run. Our international prestige is as high or higher than it was at its peak in 2002 (before Bush started the stupider of his two wars).

    It's barely an exaggeration to say that, outside of the echo chamber, none of partisan concerns of the right wing are shared by the electorate at large. The plight of the underclass (of any color) is not being addressed regardless of which candidate you choose in this election. Immigration is a red herring issue, designed to hide the fact that your boss hasn't given you a raise in 20 years.

    Archon , says: September 15, 2016 at 7:45 pm
    I'm sure it makes Obama haters and Republican partisans feel good to think that Obama's Presidency is the cause for Hillary Clinton's loss (if she does indeed lose). Economic indicators along with Presidential approval ratings however suggest that if Hillary does lose it will be in spite of the electorates feelings on Obama not because of it.
    Robert Levine , says: September 15, 2016 at 11:53 pm
    many of these keys are so subjective (at least prospectively) as to render them meaningless for anything but fun predictive parlor games.

    That is the usual objection to Lichtman's theory. But his work gives pretty clear examples of what he considers the kind of events that drive his predictors. For example, "foreign policy/military success" looks like winning WWII and not like the Iran nuclear deal; "foreign policy/military failure" looks like Pearl Harbor and not ISIS' (temporary) success in gaining territory. "Scandal" looks like Watergate, and not like Clinton's email (or, interestingly, Iran/Contra, if memory serves). "Social unrest" looks like the summer of 1968, and not like the shootings in Orlando, Dallas, and San Bernadino.

    In short, events that drive his predictors are things that are the main (or even sole) subject of national conversation for weeks. Deciding what events are such drivers is not completely objective, perhaps, but it's also not hard to figure out what the author of the system would consider a given event. A system like his only works if one scores things as honestly as possible, and not as one might wish them to be. Then it can work very well.

    At the end of the day, though, Lichtman's model, like most models of voting behavior, is not intended so much as a predictive system as an attempt to explain how voters make decisions. The Lichtman theory does a remarkable job of modeling such decision-making, and demonstrates clearly his hypothesis that presidential elections are mostly referenda on the performance of the incumbent party. That doesn't mean it will always be so, but he makes a compelling case that it's been that way since the Civil War.

    John Blade Wiederspan , says: September 16, 2016 at 12:18 am
    With the chance that Donald will be President, and his followers rejecting outright the Washington establishment and corporate media as enemies; if he does come to power, who are We, the People, supposed to respect and trust? How can you be loyal to, and obey the laws of, a country governed by "Washington insiders"? How can you trust the liberal, coastal, educated, elite media reporting government malfeasance? In who or what should we place our trust? Dark days ahead, dark days.
    Mac61 , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:50 am
    The hope must be in a reinvigorated Republican Party in 2018 and 2020. As Trump again raises his birther conspiracy, the strongman will give voters plenty of reasons to reject his incoherent campaign. Total waste, when 2016 should have firmly been in Republican hands. I understand why he demolished the Republican field and realigned the issues that galvanize Republican voters, but in the end his pathological narcissism will be his downfall. If he wins, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party. They will control government from 2018 to the end of our lives.
    Clint , says: September 16, 2016 at 3:33 pm
    Obama's economy isn't gonna help Hillary Clinton. Government data show that the economy only grew by 1.2 percent in the second quarter. First quarter growth was also revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent.

    Hillary Clinton addressed the sluggish economy in her speech last night, admitting that Americans "feel like the economy just isn't working." Although she cited economic growth under president Obama, she insisted that "none of us can be satisfied with the status quo."

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/29/sluggish-u-s-economy-grows-1-2-percent-second-quarter/

  • [Sep 16, 2016] Whats The FBI Hiding That Triggered A Congressional Subpoena by Andrew Napolitano

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because many members of Congress do not believe that the FBI acted free of political interference, they demanded to see the full FBI files in the case, not just the selected portions of the files that the FBI had released. In the case of the House, the FBI declined to surrender its files, and the agent it sent to testify about them declined to reveal their contents. This led to a dramatic service of a subpoena by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on that FBI agent while he was testifying - all captured on live nationally broadcast television. ..."
    "... According to Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI violated federal law by commingling classified and unclassified materials in the safe room, thereby making it unlawful for senators to discuss publicly the unclassified material. ..."
    "... Imposing such a burden of silence on U.S. senators about unclassified materials is unlawful and unconstitutional. What does the FBI have to hide? Whence comes the authority of the FBI to bar senators from commenting on unclassified materials? ..."
    "... What is going on here? The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton has not served the rule of law. The rule of law - a pillar of American constitutional freedom since the end of the Civil War - mandates that the laws are to be enforced equally. No one is beneath their protection, and no one is above ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge (reprinted from LewRockwell.com )

    It is hard to believe that the FBI was free to do its work, and it is probably true that the FBI was restrained by the White House early on. There were numerous aberrations in the investigation. There was no grand jury; no subpoenas were issued; no search warrants were served. Two people claimed to have received immunity, yet the statutory prerequisite for immunity - giving testimony before a grand or trial jury - was never present.

    Because many members of Congress do not believe that the FBI acted free of political interference, they demanded to see the full FBI files in the case, not just the selected portions of the files that the FBI had released. In the case of the House, the FBI declined to surrender its files, and the agent it sent to testify about them declined to reveal their contents. This led to a dramatic service of a subpoena by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on that FBI agent while he was testifying - all captured on live nationally broadcast television.

    Now the FBI, which usually serves subpoenas and executes search warrants, is left with the alternative of complying with this unwanted subpoena by producing its entire file or arguing to a federal judge why it should not be compelled to do so.

    On the Senate side, matters are even more out of hand. There, in response to a request from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI sent both classified and unclassified materials to the Senate safe room. The Senate safe room is a secure location that is available only to senators and their senior staff, all of whom must surrender their mobile devices and writing materials and swear in writing not to reveal whatever they see while in the room before they are permitted to enter.

    According to Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI violated federal law by commingling classified and unclassified materials in the safe room, thereby making it unlawful for senators to discuss publicly the unclassified material.

    Imposing such a burden of silence on U.S. senators about unclassified materials is unlawful and unconstitutional. What does the FBI have to hide? Whence comes the authority of the FBI to bar senators from commenting on unclassified materials?

    Who cares about this? Everyone who believes that the government works for us should care because we have a right to know what the government - here the FBI - has done in our names. Sen. Grassley has opined that if he could reveal what he has seen in the FBI unclassified records, it would be of profound interest to American voters.

    What is going on here? The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton has not served the rule of law. The rule of law - a pillar of American constitutional freedom since the end of the Civil War - mandates that the laws are to be enforced equally. No one is beneath their protection, and no one is above

    Short Squeeze •Sep 16, 2016 12:12 PM

    My theory is that when Comey stated "no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute", he already knew of her health issues. Would a prosecutor go after someone with 6 months to live?

    saloonsf •Sep 16, 2016 12:03 PM

    That's not FBI's responsibilities-exposing the elites cupabilities. The FBI primary objective is to protect the elites and the system that benefit them.

    Atomizer •Sep 16, 2016 12:10 PM

    The wagons are circling around the Clinton Foundation. Chelsea's husband is going to get nicked.

    withglee •Sep 16, 2016 12:25 PM

    Sen. Grassley has opined that if he could reveal what he has seen in the FBI unclassified records, it would be of profound interest to American voters.

    So what's keeping Grassley from asking that those unclassified documents be taken from the room and laid on his desk. He is not allowed to talk about what he saw in the room. But for sure he is allowed to talk about unclassified documents laid upon his desk ... even if they were once in the room. If that wasn't the case, the government would just run every document through the room ... to give it official immunity from inspection and exposure.

    [Sep 16, 2016] Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times. From your link, an individual email account on the server was breached

    Notable quotes:
    "... The State Deptartment had been using Blackberries since 2006, and diplomats overseas had been using them for just as long. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton didn't need to use a fancy NSA-approved smartphone to access classified data. Whenever she went overseas, she had a team of IT specialists who was able to provide her with ClassNet access, and they're able to do so without any technical support from a US Embassy. ..."
    "... The Exchange and BES software were likely purchased by Hillary '08, and properly licensed for that usage. But as far as after that.... ..."
    "... In a country where a standing governer running as VP could be found explicitly and intentionally using Yahoo email for the express purpose of avoiding FOIA on relevant government business, and there be no investigation whatsoever well. Let's just say there's an exceedingly strong whiff of double standards in the air. ..."
    "... Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times. From your link, an individual email account on the server was breached. ..."
    "... This happens all the time, for varying reasons, mostly due to a phishing compromise of the account, and occasionally due to password re-use and related vectors of compromise. While it's bad for the individual account's contents, it's absolutely irrelevant beyond that. ..."
    "... If that's the worst they can find then personally I'm actually impressed. I was expecting that the server(s) had been root/fully compromised at least once, given how they get perennially described. If that turns out to not be the case, then they've actually been run better and more securely than the State Department's [at least non-classified] servers, from all reports. ..."
    "... A 'breach' of an account is not a breach of the server. The account being access via TOR implies the user credentials were acquired through some means. Was this 'breached' account a classified account? ..."
    "... "multiple times" is 3 times in this case, and it wasn't the server that was breached, it was 1 person's email. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | arstechnica.com
    Ars Scholae -> Palatinae reply Sep 3, 2016 10:22 AM

    Hillary Clinton didn't need to use her own Blackberry. The State Deptartment had been using Blackberries since 2006, and diplomats overseas had been using them for just as long.

    Hillary Clinton didn't need to use a fancy NSA-approved smartphone to access classified data. Whenever she went overseas, she had a team of IT specialists who was able to provide her with ClassNet access, and they're able to do so without any technical support from a US Embassy.

    corsairmarks Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 2, 2016 4:27 PM

    Quote: First, the Clintons had requested, according to a PRN employee interviewed by the FBI, that the contents of the server be encrypted so that only mail recipients could read the content. This was not done, largely so that PRN technicians could "troubleshoot problems occurring within user accounts," the FBI memo reports.

    Also, while the Clintons had requested only local backups, the Datto appliance initially also used Datto's secure cloud backup service until August of 2015. \

    Sounds like some of the problem was the contractor not following the procedures established by the client.

    Rommel102 Ars Praefectus et Subscriptor reply Sep 2, 2016 4:27 PM

    Popular Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    Sean Gallagher IT Editor reply Sep 2, 2016 4:39 PM

    vcsjones wrote: I wonder what the odds are that all of the OS / Exchange / BES CALs were actually licensed correctly.

    The Exchange and BES software were likely purchased by Hillary '08, and properly licensed for that usage. But as far as after that....

    diaphanein Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 2, 2016 4:51 PM Uxorious wrote:

    Just to clarify, the move to a hosted solution - with requested encryption - was initiated after Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State (January 21, 2009 – February 1, 2013) was completed in February, 2013, and FOIA requests were no longer applicable as she was no longer a government employee.

    I think that would depend on the scope of the migration. Did they migrate all of the history over to the hosted solution? i.e. Did they migrate the OS, Exchange and BES servers into PRN's datacenter? Or, did they start from scratch with a clean slate, fresh install and no data migration. If it's the former and not the latter, I'd be pretty damned certain it'd still be subject to FOIA requests.

    Rommel102 wrote:

    Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times. From your link, an individual email account on the server was breached.

    This happens all the time, for varying reasons, mostly due to a phishing compromise of the account, and occasionally due to password re-use and related vectors of compromise. While it's bad for the individual account's contents, it's absolutely irrelevant beyond that.

    If that's the worst they can find then personally I'm actually impressed. I was expecting that the server(s) had been root/fully compromised at least once, given how they get perennially described. If that turns out to not be the case, then they've actually been run better and more securely than the State Department's [at least non-classified] servers, from all reports.

    Look, getting all up in arms over crap like that link is why people like me are no longer convinced there's anything here worth paying attention to. I'm actually willing to listen if there's some kind of smoking gun, but that's some petty bullshit right there.

    taswyn Ars Tribunus Militum reply Sep 2, 2016 5:03 PM

    Popular ziegler wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    Not sure why you are being down voted on newly revealed information that seems to confirm that one of the servers email accounts was breached.

    If you're down voting him, perhaps an explanation as to why?

    Do you say that "google's servers got breached" every time an individual email account on them is compromised?

    What he said is factually incorrect. The server was not breached. An individual email account was accessed. They're not the same thing. Not even an OS user level account. An email account.

    omniron Ars Praefectus reply Sep 2, 2016 5:13 PM Popular

    Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    "multiple times" is 3 times in this case, and it wasn't the server that was breached, it was 1 person's email.

    Even if this person was clinton herself, we already know there was not much damaging information stored on this server. And considering this seems more like someone used a weak password or was phished, this is a vulnerability no matter what email provider you're using.

    aexcorp Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Sep 2, 2016 5:18 PM

    Danrarbc wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Danrarbc wrote: ziegler wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    Not sure why you are being down voted on newly revealed information that seems to confirm that one of the servers email accounts was breached.

    If you're down voting him, perhaps an explanation as to why?
    Probably because we know DOJ email servers have also been breached. He's implying that her servers were less secure and somehow put information in harms way. History seems to show us that it wasn't at any more risk.

    I didn't imply that at all. Here we have fairly solid evidence that a breach of Hillary's server happened. That seems to contradict the FBI's stance, Comey's statement and testimony, and is a first as far as I know.

    And in comparison, the DOJs non-classified email systems were hacked. There is no evidence that the classified system ever was.

    A 'breach' of an account is not a breach of the server. The account being access via TOR implies the user credentials were acquired through some means. Was this 'breached' account a classified account?

    I could be wrong, but I think that all classified emails from DoD and State have to go through SIPRNet.

    If this was strictly respected, then Clinton's server should contain no classified information. In real-life, we saw that a few classified things went through her personal email system, so it wasn't fully respected, or some of the info was not yet classified.

    Sean Gallagher IT Editor reply Sep 2, 2016 5:21 PM

    Story Author Popular omniron wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    "multiple times" is 3 times in this case, and it wasn't the server that was breached, it was 1 person's email.

    Even if this person was clinton herself, we already know there was not much damaging information stored on this server. And considering this seems more like someone used a weak password or was phished, this is a vulnerability no matter what email provider you're using.

    We're going to get into this in a story I'm currently writing (probably for next week, so it's not a Friday newsdumpster move). But it's worth noting THE ENTIRETY OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S UNCLAS EMAIL SYSTEM WAS PWNED FOR OVER A YEAR. I'm sorry, did I type that in all-caps? Also, between Chelsea Manning/ Wikileaks and the repeated hacks of State, the White House, etc between 2009 and 2014, it is highly likely that everything short of the TS/SAP stuff (and even some of that) that Clinton touched was already breached.

    This does not excuse Clinton and her staff's-I'm looking at you, Jake Sullivan-for the extreme error of passing Top Secret/ Special Access Program classified data back and forth over Blackberries and a non-governmental e-mail system. I would expect that Sullivan, at a minimum, will have his clearance revoked and he will not be getting a job as a national security adviser if Clinton wins the election. Or at least, I think that's a reasonable expectation.

    [Sep 16, 2016] A large number of donors after their hefty donations received cushy ambassadorships?

    Notable quotes:
    "... What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships? ..."
    "... You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior. ..."
    "... Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is? ..."
    "... So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then? ..."
    "... The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference. ..."
    "... Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time. ..."
    "... What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse. ..."
    "... It is like when the talking heads on one news program (CNN I believe) described New York City on Sunday as "Sweltering", when it was 78 Degrees out, in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate. Obviously they are "pro-Trump". ..."
    "... Wouldn't surprise me. Here's the thing on CBC editing the news [thehill.com] earlier too. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | news.slashdot.org

    For the past several months, the hacker who calls himself "Guccifer 2.0" has been releasing documents about the Democratic National Committee. Today, he has released a new hoard of documents. Politico reports: The hacker persona Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network infrastructure. The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine's time as governor of Virginia, and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach strategy. Most notable among Tuesday's documents may be the detailed spreadsheets allegedly about DNC fundraising efforts, including lists of DNC donors with names, addresses, emails, phone numbers and other sensitive details. Tuesday's documents regarding the DNC's information technology setup include several reports from 2010 purporting to show that the committee's network passed multiple security scans.

    In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents. It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security experts attending [a London cybersecurity conference].

    meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:09AM (#52885111) Journal

    Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Informative)

    What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships?

    Iconoc ( 2646179 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:12AM (#52885127)

    What, this? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]

    Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:40AM (#52885673) Journal

    You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior.

    It is as if they are four year olds getting in trouble, and saying "but Billy's Mom lets him drink beer/smoke dope". The problem is, nobody calls it "childish" behavior (which it is), because that is insulting to children.

    Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @04:28PM (#52888579) Journal

    Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)

    Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is?

    pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) writes: on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:11AM ( #52885921 )

    Re:Summary missing important piece... ( Score:4 , Informative)

    Ambassadorships to friendly countries, the UK in particular, have always been given as rewards to political friends. You could count the number of people who became UK ambassador on merit on one hand which had been run through a wood chipper.

    The reason you didn't know about this before is because it never became an issue. Tuttle made a bit of a kerfuffle a decade ago, but it takes a lot to start a diplomatic incident with a close ally and being ambassador to the UK or France or Australia really requires no great skill as a peacemaker. If you were being particularly charitable, you could even say that fundraisers and diplomats have a lot in common.

    Everyone has plenty of dirty laundry, including you and me. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is an excellent attitude in criminal court, but the attitude 'innocent until doxxed' skews our perceptions and gives power to doxxers. Honestly I'm a bit surprised these leaks haven't found more than 'omg, politics at political party!'

    Remember, parties are not obligated to be democratic or unbiased. Legally and constitutionally there's only one vote, the general election in November. Anyone* can be nominated as a candidate for that election, and if both parties decided to nominate whomever they pleased they might be breaking their own rules but not the law. Everything up to and including the conventions is just meant to give supporters a feel of involvement and to remove unpopular candidates without invoking the wrath of their supporters. But the parties want to win, and if one candidate seems more 'electable' you can bet the party will give then a leg up on the rest.

    * you know what I mean [wikipedia.org]

    meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:28AM (#52886055) Journal

    So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then?

    meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @02:02PM (#52887279) Journal

    There's been plenty of interesting stuff in previous releases of Hillary's particular emails. I would say the most amazing was acknowledgment that the reason we backed the moderate beheaders in Syria against Assad was so the Israelis would feel better about a nuclear Iran without a stable Syria as a base of operations for Hezbollah. The 400,000 war dead, the creation of ISIS, the blowback attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Nice, Orlando, and the refugee crisis that threatens to destabilize all of western Europe...no problem for Hillary and her supporters. It's unreal. But here we are.

    Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:38AM (#52885273)

    The last set showed laws broken by DNC (Score:5, Informative)

    The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference.

    Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can bet the DOJ would be all over it. Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time.

    DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <[email protected]> on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:31AM (#52885603) Homepage Journal

    I'd say Glass Houses is the real reason (Score:2)

    There is reluctance to take actions base on evidence uncovered by illegally hacked emails. Doing so would invite more entities with political motivations to just hack more...

    Mashiki ( 184564 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ikihsam'> on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:25AM (#52885549) Homepage

    Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news (Score:4, Interesting)

    What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse. Nearly every site is sucking at her toes. Even on reddit from /r/politics to /r/news to /r/worldnews is deleting anti-Hillary stories, even when they use the exact title.

    Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:57AM (#52885797) Journal

    Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news (Score:4, Interesting)

    It is like when the talking heads on one news program (CNN I believe) described New York City on Sunday as "Sweltering", when it was 78 Degrees out, in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate. Obviously they are "pro-Trump".

    Mashiki ( 184564 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ikihsam'> on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:31AM (#52886073) Homepage

    Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news (Score:2)

    Wouldn't surprise me. Here's the thing on CBC editing the news [thehill.com] earlier too.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Trumps Taco Truck Fear Campaign Diverts Attention From the Real Issues

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mexican workers were in rural areas over thirty years ago doing the farm labor that was formerly done by blacks. Often they lived in barracks together on the farms they worked. The ownership class of those hose lily white conservatives were the first to use them to displace native born workers and drive down wages. This was being done in California all the way back to 1910. ..."
    "... Part time immigrants displace resident workers at wages no family could survive on in the US. These workers either stay in barracks on the farm or they crowd into cheap rental dwellings meant for a fraction of the number of occupants that they group in. ..."
    "... As to H1B types, meme chose as off-shoring; as well as a missed opportunity to increase the skills of native-borns. http://angrybearblog.com/2006/12/disappearing-americans-and-illegal.html ..."
    "... "Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects of illegal immigation". That he did. Governor Pete Wilson promoted this to keep wages down for this agribusiness buddies. But then Wilson flip flopped in a draconian way with Prop 197. Every Republican in California came to realize this destroyed their chances with not only the Hispanic vote but also the votes are non-racist Californians. ..."
    "... I grew up in a beautiful beach town called San Juan Capistrano. That's a Spanish name, and there was a Spanish mission where the swallows fly back to. Los Angeles, San Francisco. Spanish names. In my school days I had many Mexican American friends. At university I had a Guatamalan and then a Chinese American room mate. You heard the term wetback sometimes, but to me they were just friends, and Americans. You spend 5 minutes with em and you can't think anything else. We are all, save Native Americans, immigrants. ..."
    "... Attacking immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most part. ..."
    "... "If immigration isn't the problem, then what is? The real problems faced by workers are globalization, technological change, and lack of bargaining power in wage negotiations, problems for which Donald Trump has no effective solutions. Reducing international trade through tariffs and the trade wars that come with them will make us worse off in the long-run – we will end up with fewer jobs, not more, and there's no reason to think the average job will be any better. Trump has nothing to offer in the way of providing more support for workers who lose their jobs due to the adoption of digital, robotic, and other technology or to help workers gain a stronger hand when wages are negotiated." ..."
    "... I disagree. The heart of the matter is that so long as economists and corporate enablers ensure that protecting against globalisation is off the table, the problems will never be solved. Free trade is their snake oil. And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will use the $Trillions they siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter the lines on the map, intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well, those events never show up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist. ..."
    "... The paradigm is that the white working class has not been able to form a majority by itself since the pre-Civil War Jacksonian era. They must either make a coalition with other minorities (the New Deal) or with Wall Street and corporate power (the GOP's Southern Strategy). In the 1970s with racial quotas and increasing taxation they felt abandoned by the Democrats, and now that they realize that the GOP corporate paradise is killing them, they are adrift. They once again can either make an alliance with the minorities who live in the next poorer neighborhood who they fear will rob them of their wallets, or with Wall Street who will rob them of everything they own over a much longer period of time, and live in fabulous palaces far far away. ..."
    Sep 15, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    September 9, 2016 I have a new column:
    Trump's Taco Truck Fear Campaign Diverts Attention From the Real Issues : Donald Trump would like you to believe that immigration is largely responsible for the difficult economic conditions the working class has experienced in recent decades. But immigration is not the problem. The real culprits are globalization, technological change, and labor's dwindling bargaining power in wage negotiations.
    Let's start with immigration. ...
    A Boy Named Sue said in reply to A Boy Named Sue... , Friday, September 09, 2016 at 09:28 PM
    Some Tom Petty.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G17GOzyD2Y

    A Boy Named Sue said in reply to A Boy Named Sue... , Friday, September 09, 2016 at 10:18 PM
    Some Boss.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uAr5JRPc3g

    I am not asking for the preservation, jobs, but

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to A Boy Named Sue... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:16 AM
    Mexican workers were in rural areas over thirty years ago doing the farm labor that was formerly done by blacks. Often they lived in barracks together on the farms they worked. The ownership class of those hose lily white conservatives were the first to use them to displace native born workers and drive down wages. This was being done in California all the way back to 1910.

    http://monthlyreview.org/product/lettuce_wars/

    Lettuce Wars: Ten Years of Work and Struggle in the Fields of California

    In 1971, Bruce Neuburger-young, out of work, and radicalized by the 60s counterculture in Berkeley-took a job as a farmworker on a whim. He could have hardly anticipated that he would spend the next decade laboring up and down the agricultural valleys of California, alongside the anonymous and largely immigrant workforce that feeds the nation. This account of his journey begins at a remarkable moment, after the birth of the United Farm Workers union and the ensuing uptick in worker militancy. As a participant in organizing efforts, strikes, and boycotts, Neuburger saw first-hand the struggles of farmworkers for better wages and working conditions, and the lengths the growers would go to suppress worker unity...

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:04 AM
    Mexican migrants were in Ohio 60+ years ago, making the vegetable circuit. (The biggest Campbells Soup plant is in Napoleon Ohio. The region has some of the best top soil on the planet). Some of them settled and are on the third generation. They even hang out with the white working class, who are their neighbors and co-workers. Some of them even marry Germans and Swedes.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:34 AM
    Yeah, guest workers go way back at least 100 years in the US. And sure many stayed and, in that case, I am totally fine with actual immigration when they become citizens and pay taxes and buy or rent homes here as permanent residents. Green card workers and illegals are doing a lot of the farm work in VA on the Northern Neck and Eastern Shore and have been for thirty years. Part time immigrants displace resident workers at wages no family could survive on in the US. These workers either stay in barracks on the farm or they crowd into cheap rental dwellings meant for a fraction of the number of occupants that they group in.
    kthomas -> Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:18 PM
    My Grandmother loved Mexico and all her people. She used to say that in every American there is a Mexican trying to get out.
    ken melvin -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:49 AM
    I understand the effect of illegal immigration, Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects of illegal immigation, ...., in fact almost all working class Americans understand the effects of illegal immigration.

    As to H1B types, meme chose as off-shoring; as well as a missed opportunity to increase the skills of native-borns. http://angrybearblog.com/2006/12/disappearing-americans-and-illegal.html

    pgl -> ken melvin... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:53 PM
    "Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects of illegal immigation". That he did. Governor Pete Wilson promoted this to keep wages down for this agribusiness buddies. But then Wilson flip flopped in a draconian way with Prop 197. Every Republican in California came to realize this destroyed their chances with not only the Hispanic vote but also the votes are non-racist Californians.

    Mark Thoma is suggesting a humane alternative to Wilson's two extremes.

    reason -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 12:44 AM
    If there was a basic income with a substantial residency requirement for immigrants - this would be a non-issue, since qualified residents could live better than immigrants on the same wages.
    David : , Friday, September 09, 2016 at 09:33 PM
    I grew up in a beautiful beach town called San Juan Capistrano. That's a Spanish name, and there was a Spanish mission where the swallows fly back to. Los Angeles, San Francisco. Spanish names. In my school days I had many Mexican American friends. At university I had a Guatamalan and then a Chinese American room mate. You heard the term wetback sometimes, but to me they were just friends, and Americans. You spend 5 minutes with em and you can't think anything else. We are all, save Native Americans, immigrants.

    I remember those old World War 2 movies where the squad is made up of diverse immigrants. You got the Italian, the Jew, the Irsh guy, etc. And they formed a team. E pluribus unim. Attacking immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most part. E

    A Boy Named Sue said in reply to David... , Friday, September 09, 2016 at 10:12 PM
    "Attacking immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most"

    Conservatives have been attacking immigrants for years. They hated JFK and Catholics. Being a Catholic Jew is not new to me, but Cons hated Catholics and then they used us Jews for their political gains. It never worked on us. Most Jews are too intelligent for conservatism. Take care.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uAr5JRPc3g

    pgl -> David... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:31 AM
    San Juan Capistrano is indeed an incredible town.
    pgl : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:30 AM
    Our excellent host gets to the heart of the matter:

    "If immigration isn't the problem, then what is? The real problems faced by workers are globalization, technological change, and lack of bargaining power in wage negotiations, problems for which Donald Trump has no effective solutions. Reducing international trade through tariffs and the trade wars that come with them will make us worse off in the long-run – we will end up with fewer jobs, not more, and there's no reason to think the average job will be any better. Trump has nothing to offer in the way of providing more support for workers who lose their jobs due to the adoption of digital, robotic, and other technology or to help workers gain a stronger hand when wages are negotiated."

    Trump has nothing to offer except hate. Besides - who could object to more tacos. Oh wait - I need to do a long run before eating Mexican food tonight.

    New Deal democrat said in reply to pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:05 AM
    I disagree. The heart of the matter is that so long as economists and corporate enablers ensure that protecting against globalisation is off the table, the problems will never be solved. Free trade is their snake oil. And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will use the $Trillions they siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter the lines on the map, intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well, those events never show up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist.

    The paradigm is that the white working class has not been able to form a majority by itself since the pre-Civil War Jacksonian era. They must either make a coalition with other minorities (the New Deal) or with Wall Street and corporate power (the GOP's Southern Strategy). In the 1970s with racial quotas and increasing taxation they felt abandoned by the Democrats, and now that they realize that the GOP corporate paradise is killing them, they are adrift. They once again can either make an alliance with the minorities who live in the next poorer neighborhood who they fear will rob them of their wallets, or with Wall Street who will rob them of everything they own over a much longer period of time, and live in fabulous palaces far far away.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:21 AM
    Excellent. Welcome to the revolution.
    anne -> New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:22 AM
    And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will use the $Trillions they siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter the lines on the map, intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well, those events never show up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist....

    [ Perfectly paraphrased from Dr. Strangelove. We are being siphoned, OMG. ]

    anne -> anne... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:49 AM
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/washington-post-presents-an-overly-simplistic-view-of-trade

    September 10, 2016

    Washington Post Presents an Overly Simplistic View of Trade

    It is unfortunate that it now acceptable in polite circles to connect a view with Donald Trump and then dismiss it. The result is that many fallacious arguments can now be accepted without being seriously questioned. (Hey folks, I hear Donald Trump believes in evolution.)

    The Post plays this game * in noting that the U.S. trade deficit with Germany is now larger than its deficit with Mexico, putting Germany second only to China. It then asks why people aren't upset about the trade deficit with Germany.

    It partly answers this story itself. Germany's huge trade surplus stems in large part from the fact that it is in the euro zone. The euro might be properly valued against the dollar, but because Germany is the most competitive country in the euro zone, it effectively has an under-valued currency relative to the dollar.

    The answer to this problem would be to get Germany to have more inflationary policies to allow other countries to regain competitiveness -- just as the other euro zone countries were generous enough to run inflationary policies in the first half of the last decade to allow Germany to regain competitiveness. However, the Germans refuse to return this favor because their great great great great grandparents lived through the hyper-inflation in Weimar Germany. (Yes, they say this.)

    Anyhow, this issue has actually gotten considerable attention from economists and other policy types. Unfortunately it is very difficult to force a country in the euro zone -- especially the largest country -- to run more expansionary countries. As a result, Germany is forcing depression conditions on the countries of southern Europe and running a large trade surplus with the United States.

    The other part of the difference between Germany and China and Mexico is that Germany is a rich country, while China and Mexico are developing countries. Folks that took intro econ courses know that rich countries are expected to run trade surpluses.

    The story is that rich countries are slow growing with a large amount of capital. By contrast, developing countries are supposed to fast growing (okay, that doesn't apply to post-NAFTA Mexico), with relatively little capital. Capital then flows from where it is relatively plentiful and getting a low return to developing countries where it is scarce and can get a high return.

    The outflow of capital from rich countries implies a trade surplus with developing countries. Developing countries are in turn supposed to be borrowing capital to finance trade deficits. These trade deficits allow them to build up their capital stocks even as they maintain the consumption standards of their populations.

    In the case of the large trade surpluses run by China and other developing countries, we are seeing the opposite of the textbook story. We are seeing fast growing developing countries with outflows of capital. This largely because they have had a policy of deliberately depressing the value of their currencies by buying up large amounts of foreign reserves (mostly dollars.)

    So the economics textbooks explain clearly why we should see the trade deficits that the U.S. runs with China and Mexico as being different than the one it runs with Germany. And that happens to be true regardless of what Donald Trump may or may not say.

    By the way, this piece also asserts that "Germany on average has lower wages than Belgium or Ireland." This is not true according to our friends at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/09/u-s-politicians-love-to-attack-china-and-mexico-for-stealing-jobs-germany-could-be-next/

    -- Dean Baker

    ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:02 AM
    The myth of the "white working class", even before undocumented immigration it was fairy tale.

    On the military build up the only country doing it is US.

    EMichael -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:40 AM
    Wrong.

    China is building its military at a huge rate. Double digit growth per yer over almost 20 years. They are at $150 billion a year(if you believe their figures).

    Maybe someone can apply PPP to that number?

    ilsm -> EMichael... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:06 AM
    If you believe CIA figures it's $150B per year!

    You have a point with China at $150B a year going to real engineering and not inept Lockheed you need to worry. Those PLA re-education camps might make you another McCain.

    US' Pentagon welfare trough: $500B "core" per year even with the sequestration.

    Paying for DoD part of drones delivering collateral damage justified by its military utility*: $80B in FY 16 (was $150B in FY 12).

    CIA contracted drones and contractor (See the guys killed in Benghazi) run wars we can know nothing about $XXB a year.

    *If Germany had won WW II Bomber Harris would have been hanged.

    ilsm -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:11 AM
    Why you need to worry about what potential adversaries do:

    F-35 at $1500B "through life" cost is 10 years of PRC military budgets spent over 30.........

    http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/f-35-may-never-be-ready-for-combat.html

    US has spent itself to disarmament in its welfare trough.

    USMC and USAF declaration of combat ready is for an recondite definition of combat.

    EMichael -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:11 PM
    No.

    Those are chinese numbers.

    Now, figure out how much their labor costs are versus out labor costs.

    They are arming, and they are going after gas and oil they do not have.

    Ya' think they built that island cause they wanted the fish?

    I understand the hatred of US foreign policy.

    Time to grow up and realize that the Russians and the Chinese are at least as bad as we are.

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:56 AM
    Globalization was designed, promoted and sold by economists, so it cannot possibly be a problem, right?
    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 08:33 AM
    Rusty - your usual confusion. Economists only advise. Lawyers make these decisions. And most lawyers either do not listen to economists or if they do they get really confused. But will a lawyer ever admit they are confused or not listening?
    mulp -> New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:39 PM
    I don't see your call to take America back to the 60s and tube radios and TVs because they are cheaper than semiconductor manufacturing because all the tube electronic factories already exist.

    Nor do I see you extolling the virtue of $8 gasoline and heating oil thanks to the total ban on fossil fuel imports.

    I'd love someone to ask Trump if he would ban imports of oil and iPhones and Samsung electronics in his first 100 days as president.

    If he says yes and doesn't lose popularity, I'll make sure to buy all the electronics I'll want for a few years. I've already sworn off gasoline.

    cm -> mulp ... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 09:52 AM
    Tube radios had great sound but they weren't portable, not only due to size but also power consumption.
    Pinkybum -> New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:44 PM
    "The paradigm is that the white working class has not been able to form a majority by itself since the pre-Civil War Jacksonian era. "

    Who is peddling this false paradigm?

    Paine -> pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:24 AM
    "Reducing international trade through tariffs and the trade wars that come with them will make us worse off in the long-run "

    That requires certain assumptions about macro policy

    Assumptions that may be likely but are not certain

    Recall the US is huge diverse in resources
    and defines the technical frontier

    An America closed to most trade could be its own world
    Not my recommendation of course
    But this either or is both simplistic and mis leading

    Paine -> Paine ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:37 AM
    Surely fuller then full employment
    and a largest possible share of net income
    going to primary producers isn't precluded by external trade restrictions

    Economies of scale ?
    Adequate competition between producing units ?

    North America is plenty big for most optimal "plant sizes "
    And at least three firms for each product

    See Stiglitz on the second best real market firm structure

    Paine -> Paine ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:37 AM
    We are blessed
    anne -> Paine ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:57 AM
    See Stiglitz on the second best real market firm structure

    [ Of course, that will take reading through the last 30 years or so of work by Joseph Stiglitz since I am not going to give a reader a clue as to how to find such a reference. No problem though, just start reading. ]

    DrDick -> pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:56 AM
    There will be no relief until we "euthanize the rentiers". Raise top marginal rates to confiscatory levels on income over $1 million, treat all income the same, prohibit corporations from deducting executive compensate over $1 million, eliminate all tax breaks for individuals that do not widely apply to those in the bottom half of the income distribution and all corporate tax subsidies.
    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to DrDick... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:06 AM
    That would be a great plan to push companies and jobs overseas.

    A little overkill?

    DrDick -> Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:45 AM
    "A little overkill?"

    Not even close, just a return to the 1950s, when the economy boomed. The idea that the wealthy and large corporations will physically move to countries with more favorable tax regimes, most of which are in the third world, is pure fantasy, which is why most of the super rich live in New York, California, and other high tax states.

    EMichael -> DrDick... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:14 PM
    Dick,

    Love you brother, but thr US had an incredible advantage in the 50s that does not exist any more. to think they are coming back is nonsense.

    DrDick -> EMichael... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 07:56 AM
    I understand the differences, but was merely addressing Rusty's nonsense implying this was somehow outrageous and unprecedented. In addition to the trade advantages the US had, the emergence of new industries in electronics, aviation, and petrochemicals, which all needed a lot of highly skilled workers and paid very well, was vital as well. Nonetheless, the policies I mentioned would go a long way to addressing our current problems, including reducing the incentives to offshore production (contrary to Rusty).
    ken melvin -> DrDick... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:54 AM
    Bill Clinton explains how rentiers cause such as Carrier's move to Mexico:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?308089-1/former-president-clinton-obama-campaign-rally

    ken melvin -> ken melvin... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:36 AM
    Ooops, should have been the one in Pittsburg yesterday:
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?414998-1/former-president-bill-clinton-campaigns-pittsburgh-pennsylvania
    mulp -> DrDick... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 03:00 PM
    You don't understand the point of tax dodges, do you? The tax dodges are rewards for paying workers to build capital assets. But they need high marginal rates to justify paying workers.

    Capital gains needs to return to the hold for five years or more to get the incentive. It isn't really "capital" if not held because it's productive.

    However, if inflation in the price of productive capital that barely retains its value is taxed as income, you punish building productive capital. Asset basis price can be inflation adjusted reasonably well these days thanks to computer technology making detailed calculations simple for humans.

    I'd have loved to pay workers to install solar and batteries to dodge 50-70% marginal tax rates in the 90s. Much better than the best case 30% tax credit for paying workers these days. Of course, given the penalty for paying workers due to low tax rates, I have no high wage income to be taxed at high rates.

    As Milton Friedman pointed out in the 60s and then later in the 80s as I recall, the 50-70-90% tax rates never raised much revenue because the tax dodges rewarded paying worker to do wasteful things, in his opinion, like production too much cheap energy, producing too much innovation which ended up in too many new consumer products the wastefully overpaid workers bought.

    David : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 04:26 AM
    This is an irrelevant aside. Friday was a minor bloodbath for investors inequities and bonds. Thing is, I was like okay, I lost paper money, why.? I could not find a reason the market was tanking other than Fed fears. Now I realize equities markets can behave like crack addicts or lemmings. But 2.45 percent based on Fed fears of a rate hike?

    Usually when the market is down I go to Calculated risk to see what must be some bad data. Friday is a profit taking day. But as a small investor that was a really bad day.

    Also, Los Lobos version of Hotel California via the Big Libowski is essential.

    Dog Days of the DOW said in reply to David... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:49 PM

    Final trading session before the 15th anniversary of 9-11 disaster! Would you guess that lot of folks hedged with ultra-short-ETF earlier in the week? Lot of folks took profits before labour day?
    David -> Dog Days of the DOW... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:03 PM
    A day like that is why there needs to be a micro tax on trades. I get it if people sell based on fundamentals. Everyone hedges, too, that's why you diversify. But the ultimate purpose of investing is to provide companies with the capital to make productive investment.

    A good part of the market is just short term bets. How is that socially useful. And the funny thing, a lot of these guys don't make money for their clients, they just make money on the commission. Like a casino owner. Like the con man running for prez.

    Paine : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 04:27 AM
    Here's the IMFs

    Model
    Read it and rip it

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp1034.pdf

    Publius : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:29 AM
    Technological change is definitely not an issue. Productivity growth is slower now than in 1945-1973 when we had a large middle class. Cross nationally the arguments that robots are taking jobs doesn't make any sense. If you traveled in both the non-industrial world (Africa, Haiti etc) and East Asia, you will be aware of this. In the non-industrial world formal sector employment is only 10-20% of the labor force; 80% of the pop. is involved in "gig" jobs selling candy on the street etc. In East Asia you have virtually no unemployment, but these are the places with by far the largest deployment of robots, much, much higher than the US. The robots argument is convenient politically, but doesn't make any sense to anyone whose traveled the world or knows anything about economic history.
    ken melvin -> Publius... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:58 AM
    Before, auto plants hired 5,500 @ and produced X vehicles; after, they hired 1,200 @ and produced 1.4 vehicles. You don't get to have your own reality.
    ken melvin -> ken melvin... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:37 AM
    ...1.4X ...
    anne -> Publius... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 12:36 PM
    Technological change is definitely not an issue....

    [ Really important argument:

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/as-uk-productivity-growth-falls-to-zero-john-harris-at-the-guardian-tells-readers-that-technology-is-making-old-workplace-relations-obsolete

    September 9, 2016

    As UK Productivity Growth Falls to Zero, John Harris at the Guardian Tells Readers that Technology Is Making Old Workplace Relations Obsolete

    -- Dean Baker ]

    ilsm : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:32 AM
    It has become Taco Truck versus Trumpistas are: racist, sexist and deluded.

    The awesome effect of the crooked DNC!

    Is there no reason to trust either "party"?

    EMichael -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:38 AM
    It was a lot nicer around here for those couple of days you were on your meds.

    But if you are not going to take them, could you forward them to Peter K.?


    ilsm -> EMichael... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:29 AM
    ad hominem, eh!
    EMichael -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:41 AM
    Not at all.

    Simply observation.

    pgl -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 08:34 AM
    And pray tell - what do you have against tacos?
    ilsm -> pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:13 AM
    I am a tamales person, especially from a roadside in Tx!
    pgl -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:56 PM
    I bet that tamales truck is run by a Mexican. I hope so as it would likely mean you are enjoying awesome tamales. Trump has no idea what good Mexican food is as it does not exist in Manhattan.
    ilsm -> pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:14 PM
    The best I had ever was by two Mexican Grandmas! Somewhere between Houston and San Antonio.
    Chris Herbert : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:20 AM
    I think we need to change the compound growth capitalism we've had since forever. It will not be sustainable much longer. We need 'de-globalization' not more globalization, in my opinion. The efficiency bookkeeping model that promotes globalization is deeply flawed. What about the pollution issues involved in global distribution of products that can easily be made at home? Again, Keynes said it best. "The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war, is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous--and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short, we dislike it, and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed." https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/keynes.htm
    ilsm -> Chris Herbert... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:30 AM
    Yup, go back to Tesla and use DC.......
    anne -> Chris Herbert... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 12:34 PM
    https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/keynes.htm

    June, 1933

    National Self-Sufficiency
    By John Maynard Keynes

    [ Terrific essay. ]

    Enquiring Mind : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:33 AM
    Taco Trucks and LA:

    After the Berlin Wall fell, and defense budgets got cut, the SoCal economy changed as income and jobs drained out. Blacks occupied the lower end of support jobs and got underbid by Hispanics, so they moved away from LA. The same trend impacted lower income whites, who largely moved out of state. Middle and upper income whites adapted as the local economy transitioned to absorb the laid-off engineering talent, often through new business ventures along the 101 corridor and in the multi-media areas in Santa Monica and the south bay. What took a few decades in Pittsburgh and other cities impacted by major industry changes took about a decade in LA.

    In southern California overall, the combination of illegal immigration and a higher total fertility rate among Hispanics has brought about significant population and employment changes, particularly over the last 25 years. As well-documented by demographers, blacks suffered significantly through those changes and were displaced from low end jobs by the burgeoning Hispanic population.

    For example, south central LA has transitioned from majority black to majority Hispanic as a result of job changes and influx. Blacks moved to San Bernardino, Victorville and other areas where cheaper housing and potential employment were available.

    Now the taco trucks are supplemented by grilled cheese trucks, crepe trucks, Korean taco trucks and other variations designed to serve a more diverse population.

    pgl -> Enquiring Mind... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:58 PM
    That is actually a decent description of LA. And the diversity of food is why some sing "I Love LA". It has its issues but I do miss southern CAL .. especially during these harsh NYC winters.
    Tom aka Rusty : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:33 AM
    Offshoring in the land of fruits and nuts:

    https://www.yahoo.com/tech/m/e7f06fa0-faf3-3ea6-a2ac-9590fe150c38/ss_university-of-california's.html


    Fred C. Dobbs : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:41 AM
    Always energizing the base. (Smart tactics.)

    Urbanites like Trump probably see
    'taco trucks' frequently as their
    limos whiz by. They appreciate
    their visibility to likely
    Trumpy supporters.

    (Limos & trucks both?)

    'Doing something about pesky
    immigrants should garner a few votes!'

    Except The Donald didn't start the tweet storm.

    'Taco Trucks on Every Corner': Trump Supporter's
    Anti-Immigration Warning http://nyti.ms/2bIeFyw
    NYT - NIRAJ CHOKSHI - SEPT. 2, 2016

    "My culture is a very dominant culture, and it's imposing and it's causing problems. If you don't do something about it, you're going to have taco trucks on every corner."

    That was Marco Gutierrez, founder of the group Latinos for Trump, issuing a dire warning to the United States in an interview with Joy Reid on MSNBC on Thursday night.

    America's response? Mmm, tacos! ...

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:46 AM
    Trump campaign manager repeatedly grilled about
    candidate's false proclamations on Iraq War
    position http://read.bi/2bZ6iyG
    via @BusinessInsider - Sep 9

    Donald Trump's campaign manager was repeatedly pressed Friday as she attempted to explain inconsistencies in the Republican presidential nominee's statements on the Iraq War.

    On two separate morning shows, Kellyanne Conway said Trump's declaration of support for the war during a 2002 interview with radio host Howard Stern was not a reliable indication of how he felt at the time.

    On CNN, anchor Chris Cuomo pressed Conway on Trump's Iraq War flip-flops.

    "He doesn't want to own that he wasn't against it before it started," Cuomo said. "Why not? Why not just own it? And as you like to say, he was a private citizen."

    Conway insisted that despite Trump responding "yeah, I guess so" when Stern asked if he supported the invasion of Iraq, his statement wasn't equal to then Sen. Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the war. ...

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:57 AM
    (At least, 'Trump has acknowledged that
    Clinton's vote (for the war - *) was a mistake.')

    ... "The point is, as you know, he constantly says 'I was always against the war,'" host Charlie Rose said to Conway. "Here he says 'I guess' I would support it. That's a contradiction."

    Conway pushed back, offering a similar defense to the one she gave CNN.

    "Not really, Charlie," she said. "And here is why: He is giving - he is on a radio show. Hillary Clinton went into the well of the United States Senate representing this state of New York and case a vote in favor of the Iraq War."

    Rose said that "this is not about Hillary Clinton."

    "She has acknowledged that vote and acknowledged it was a mistake," Rose said. "He has not, and he wants to have it both ways."

    Conway said that Trump has acknowledged that Clinton's vote was a mistake, to which Rose replied, "No, but he has not acknowledged that at one point he said he was for the war.

    "Why can't he simply say that?" Rose asked. "'At one point I was, and then I changed my mind." ...

    (When Trump criticized the Iraq War in 2004,
    it was because we hadn't seized their oil
    assets as spoils, ostensibly.)

    *- Iraq Resolution (formally the Authorization
    for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)

    pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:01 PM
    Any real news person who either ban this lying woman from his/her show and hammer her every time she lies. Which is about every other word.
    pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:00 PM
    "Kellyanne Conway said Trump's declaration of support for the war during a 2002 interview with radio host Howard Stern was not a reliable indication of how he felt at the time."

    Of course Kellyanne Conway lies even more than her client.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:17 AM
    Limousine Liberals for Trump!
    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:07 PM
    Hillary Clinton Calls Many Trump Backers 'Deplorables' ...
    http://nyti.ms/2c1UlbC
    NYT - AMY CHOZICK - SEPT. 10

    ... Mrs. Clinton's comments Friday night, which were a variation of a sentiment she has expressed in other settings recently, came at a fund-raiser in Manhattan.

    "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" she said to applause and laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."

    By Saturday morning, #BasketofDeplorables was trending on Twitter as Mr. Trump's campaign demanded an apology. His supporters hoped to use the remark as as evidence that Mrs. Clinton cannot connect to the voters she hopes to represent as president.

    "Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard working people. I think it will cost her at the polls!" Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. ...

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:16 PM
    I guess she needs her clones to have just one word for racist, sexist, nativist, know nothing,.....

    She can call me deplorable and all her clones too.

    Denis Drew : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:50 AM
    Immigration PLUS the "demobilization" of labor unions (the discontinuance of collective bargaining with the concomitant dismemberment of middle class political punch) EQUALS the impoverishment of low skilled workers ...

    ... equates to reducing what should be $800 jobs to $400 jobs ...

    ... which is the alpha and the omega of today's income inequality -- at least lowest income inequality; the folks who work fast food and supermarkets (the wrong end of two-tier supermarket contracts, gradually going low tier all the way). I'm not especially concerned that more low skilled jobs add more higher skilled employment.
    ********************************
    Why are 100,000 out of something like 200,000 Chicago gang-age, minority males in street gangs? Where are the American raised taxi drivers? Could be $600 fast food jobs imm-sourced to Mexico and India -- could be $800 taxi jobs imm-sourced to the whole world? $1000 construction jobs imm-sourced to Eastern Europe and Mexico?
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/

    The way it works is COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SETS THE PRICE OF LABOR BY THE MOST THE CONSUMER WILL TOLERATE -- RACE TO THE BOTTOM WAGES ARE SET BY THE LEAST THE EMPLOYEE WILL TOLERATE.
    *****************************
    Even zero immigration would only (as in merely) keep American labor from hitting rock bottom -- or at least hoping to find non-criminal employment w/o collective bargaining.

    Current union busting penalties carry about as much weight as the "FBI warning" you get when you start a DVD. More actually: if you actually enter a movie theater to copy a new movie before it goes to DVD you face a couple of years mandatory federal hospitality.

    OTH if you fire an organizer the most you face is hiring the organizer back and maybe a little back pay while she's waiting to fired again for "something else." The labor market is the only market where you can break the law and face zero penalties at all.

    New idea: an NLRB finding of illegally blocking union organization should be able to lead to a mandate that a certification election must be taken. This may only be implementable at the federal level.

    Beyond that union busting should be a felony at state and federal levels -- backed by RICO for persistent violators to keep employers from playing at the edges. Our most progressive/pro labor states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MN, NY, MD?) could do that right now if someone would just raise the issue.

    IF SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE WOULD JUST RAISE THE ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!

    Denis Drew said in reply to Denis Drew ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 08:30 AM
    Wanna stop the shoot-em-ups in Chicago and elsewhere? To paraphrase a line from Superfly: It's the American dream dog: flush toilet down the hall, AM radio, electric light in every room.

    Let's call that $200/wk job level -- in today's money. And the year is ...

    ... 1916 ...

    .. and today's gang members, not to mention my American raised taxi driver "gang" would be willing to put in a hard week's work for it ...

    ... in 1916.

    But today's "gangs" are not going to work for $400, 100 years later. Hell, about 50 years later ...

    ... 1968 ...

    ... the federal minimum wage was $440 in today's money -- at half today's per capita income!

    I read James Julius Wilson's book When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor and Sudhir Venkatesh's book American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto, at the same time -- and the projects only descended into gang infested hell as the bottom dropped out of the minimum wage.

    Beautiful thing about collective bargaining is: you know you have squeezed the most practicable out (of your fellow consumers -- not the boss) of the economy and technology of your era.

    Just don't forget Centralized bargaining so the Walmarts of the world can't squeeze better contracts elsewhere. Walmart closed 88 big boxes in Germany which has centralized bargaining.

    cm -> Denis Drew ... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:04 AM
    Wal-Mart's "advantage" is not in low labor cost, but logistics and market dominance allowing it to boss around suppliers.

    German labor laws may have contributed to its "problems", but the primary issues were its US-centric logistics operation and having to compete against local incumbents who were at least its equals, and had the home turf advantage. And competition as well as labor relations in German retail are at least as cutthroat as in the US. Most recent (few years ago) scandals involving treatment of workers and systematic intimidation were in large chain retailers.

    cm -> cm... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:14 AM
    There were also stories about how they were trying to sell US bedware sizes which are different from the German sizes, and similar market research goofs, which seems to indicate a certain arrogance, and that they probably underestimated the effort and sunk cost that had to be invested to become successful.

    Some of these stories also had a background of a general anti-US sentiment as neoliberal safety net "reforms" and (labor) market "flexibilization" were prominently justified with US comparisons (by officials). But I doubt this had much practical impact on the decision to cut the experiment.

    DeDude : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:12 AM
    From Matthew Klein at FTalphaville ( http://ftalphaville.ft.com):

    "A staggering 96 per cent of America's net job growth since 1990 has come from sectors known to have low productivity (construction, retail, bars, restaurants, and other low-paying services were responsible for 46 percentage points of total growth) and sectors where low productivity is merely suspected in the absence of competition and proper measurement techniques (healthcare, education, government, and finance explain the remaining 50 percentage points)".

    So we are expanding jobs that produce services. With increased robotics and productivity, a smaller and smaller % of the workforce will be needed to produce all the food and merchandise people need (or can consume). So the future growth of the job market will have to be in producing services. The challenge will be to make sure that those jobs are paying sufficiently high salaries to ensure continuous robust growth in demand. Otherwise we will be entering a permanent period of low growth in the economy.

    El Epicúreo Del Taco : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:26 AM
    ensure that workers have more bargaining power so that the growth in output is shared rather than
    "
    ~~MT~

    Workers need to get a handle on bargaining power, need to realize that uncontrolled reproduction will inevitably bid down the price of labour. Look!

    American family should find it cheaper to reduce child bearing to one child per female. The one child can then inherit the entire estate of the couple with no expense for legal battles with rival siblings. The one child will have more quality time with parents, grand parents, and aunts for mentor-ing and help with school work, be on the fast track of career path that requires quality education. Some jobs here require local folks with better language skills. Such jobs do not adapt easily to recent immigrants. Reduction in our birth rate cannot be completely de-fang-ed by immigration. Our birth control will remain a windfall to our workers in aggregate sprint as well as in separate family's economics.

    Get
    it --

    DeDude -> El Epicúreo Del Taco... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:51 AM
    One child per 2 parents would be an economic disaster. Unless productivity per worker exploded we would find that the total GDP would shrink rather than increase. The national debt per worker would also increase even if we somehow managed to stop adding to it. The current problem of a much smaller number of workers to help pay retirement and medical cost for the old people would become extremely hard to solve (without exploding tax rates). Growing the population either by birth or by allowing immigrants to come here is part of why US is doing better than Europe.
    El Epicúreo Del Taco said in reply to DeDude... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:09 PM
    national debt per worker would also increase even if we somehow managed to stop adding to it. The current problem of a much smaller number of workers to help pay retirement and medical cost for the old people would become extremely hard to solve (without exploding tax rates). Growing the population
    "

    Believe it! I just crunched approximate numbers to find that each child with only $2 in pocket owes $57,000 to public debt, each retired pensioner, each billionaire and each millionaire owe same thing, 57 K. But!

    But 33% of Americans couldn't come up with $555 to handle an emergency. The answer to national debt?

    Endless exponential population expansion until natural resources run dry, no air to breath, no water to drink, fug-get about food.

    Population expansion is a social Ponzi scheme. Eventually it collapses -- we starve.

    The remarkable instance of population control started when Deng Xiaoping crunched the numbers and decided to opt for a draconian return to a rational World. The one child tradition began with the most dramatic success at making folks rich enough to enjoy life and produce things for people around the World to enjoy. Let the good times roll and thrill your soul. Got soul?

    Get
    it --

    cm -> El Epicúreo Del Taco... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:19 AM
    "Some jobs here require local folks with better language skills."

    The children of immigrants who grow up in the US have those. Also most jobs only require "adequate" language skills, which most immigrants have.

    Most work requires the ability to communicate simple requests, not literary or philosophical discourse.

    mrrunangun : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:18 AM
    From my point of view as an employer, the Mexican and Caribbean immigrants have been good hires. They are generally reliable and good cooperators. Other employers seem to think so as well, judging by what I see when I go to the doctor or the dentist or the mechanic shop or just about anywhere else that low to intermediate skill personnel are essential to running the shop.

    I would not say that immigrants' effect on wages is trivial except in the macro sense. The union tradesmen in our area are suffering badly due to having their wages undercut by low wage immigrants. The wage-rate cuts are on the order of 50%, $32/hr down to $16/hr. Unlike the doctors, where immigrant doctors don't seem to depress wages much, the scarcity value of trained tradesmen is substantially reduced by an influx of immigrants with similar skills. Auto mechanics, auto body men, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc are badly hurt by the competition. Perhaps because their skills are more easily acquired than those of the doctors. We have a large number of asian scientific and technical people in the area and they are also high wage folks and native born scientists and technical personnel do not seem to have been adversely affected. There is next to no mechanism for the doctors and scientists and engineers, who arguably have been helped by immigration, to help out the tradesmen who have been hurt.

    Higher taxes may not be the only answer. Private and religious efforts are underway, mostly religious in my locale. There is a Cristo Rey school that has received a lot of support from businesses in the area, particularly the science and technology-based businesses. The Catholics organized it and run it, but it is open to all. The kids get a better education than they can get in the corruptly run, disorganized, deteriorating public high schools nearby. They are matched with a team of 4 and each kid works one day per week at his or her sponsoring business and the earnings pay for the schooling. The kids meet and work with business and professional people they would not otherwise meet.

    Higher tax rates may take too long to occur to make a difference in the lives of today's young people struggling to get some security or a future worth living out. Supporting and participating in religious and community-based efforts is something we can all do today.

    ken melvin -> mrrunangun... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:10 AM
    Back when, before the onslaught, when I was a young man; a young man out of high school could work construction, learn how to do a day's work, get paid enough to get a car, court a girl, go to college, ... join the union, maybe get married, buy a home, start a family; it was a path upward for so many. These days, those jobs are held by $10-15/hr illegals working as contract labor while our own young men out of high school have never held a job, don't how to do a day's work, ... may be on heroin or meth. This is not win win, this is not working. Time to stop pretending.
    Denis Drew said in reply to mrrunangun... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 12:31 PM
    Re: " The union tradesmen in our area are suffering badly due to having their wages undercut by low wage immigrants. The wage-rate cuts are on the order of 50%, $32/hr down to $16/hr. "


    The way it works is COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SETS THE PRICE OF LABOR BY THE MOST THE CONSUMER WILL TOLERATE -- RACE TO THE BOTTOM WAGES (as you describe here) ARE SET BY THE LEAST THE EMPLOYEE WILL TOLERATE.

    What you describe would never happen with sufficient (high!) union density. See Germany.
    ******************
    What to do:

    Current union busting penalties carry about as much weight as the "FBI warning" you get when you start a DVD. More actually: if you actually enter a movie theater to copy a new movie before it goes to DVD you face a couple of years mandatory federal hospitality.

    OTH if you fire an organizer the most you face is hiring the organizer back and maybe a little back pay while she's waiting to fired again for "something else." The labor market is the only market where you can break the law and face zero penalties at all.

    New idea: an NLRB finding of illegally blocking union organization should be able to lead to a mandate that a certification election must be taken. This may only be implementable at the federal level.

    Beyond that union busting should be a felony at state and federal levels -- backed by RICO for persistent violators to keep employers from playing at the edges. Our most progressive/pro labor states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MN, NY, MD?) could do that right now if someone would just raise the issue.

    mrrunangun -> Denis Drew ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 03:17 PM
    Like any other collective action, collective bargaining relies on cohesion among the collective. The objective of any collective, whether a trade group or union, is collective action on behalf of its members. Cohesion among the group members is absolutely necessary to successful collective action. Weakness of union bargaining is due to the inability of the collective to maintain cohesion. Your own cabdrivers' union has been undercut by Uber. My friends among the local tradesmen are being undercut by men with comparable skills who are not eligible for union membership under current rules, but are willing to do comparable work for half the union scale. My friends in industrial unions have been undercut by foreign competitors. Technological advances have played a large role in assisting circumstances to undercut cabbies, carpenters, and machinists all.
    cm -> mrrunangun... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:32 AM
    "We have a large number of asian scientific and technical people in the area and they are also high wage folks and native born scientists and technical personnel do not seem to have been adversely affected."

    A significant part of age discrimination complaints in tech is actually about preferring young *foreign* or foreign-origin labor to locals who started their careers in the 80's and 90's, and who are now around 40-60 years old.

    There has been the related observation that EE/CS and other tech-related majors have been majority foreign-populated as the share of locals has declined due to lower job prospects and escalating tuition and ancillary costs.

    Almost all entry-level hiring in "established" industries has been either abroad, or bringing in visa workes, which after temporary labor crunches in the Y2K/dotcom booms led to an oversupply of experienced but older workers who would be hired at more senior levels as long as they had related recent work credentials, or not quite senior levels but expected to have age-appropriate experience and work contribution.

    But that works only for a few years. Once you are out of the industry for a while or stuck at level because there is no need for advancement, prospects decline a lot.

    In parallel there has been a widely bemoaned innovation stagnation, and that goes together with more people being needed for maintenance-type jobs and only few for advanced R&D (and even advanced R&D has a lot of mundane legwork - consider Edison's quip "invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration").

    cm -> mrrunangun... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:40 AM
    That relatively few people were hired at the entry level "here" since about 2000 has also contributed to perceived "talent shortages" - as companies got used to the idea you can just poach talent or hire from the market, as some point the supply of *young* local workers dried up as the pipeline wasn't refilled.

    If nobody has hired and trained freshers locally let's say for 5-10 years, how can anybody expect to find people in that range of experience (who haven't "peaked" yet and can still be motivated for a while with promises of career advancement, or still have headroom for actual advancement)? That's actually what age discrimination is about.

    "If you hire, they will come."

    Tom aka Rusty : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:03 AM
    This is just a basket of deplorabble-ness.
    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:04 PM
    Be careful who you call a racist. BTW racists are deplorable and some polls indicate that 60% of Trump's supporters are racists. So "half" could be seen as an underestimate.
    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 04:12 PM
    You are too clueless to understand sarcasm. Or humor.

    In the liberal lexicon anyone who does not agree with all liberal orthodoxy is a racist, sexist, ist, ist, ist etc.

    Thinking people do not buy that nonsense.

    ilsm -> Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:19 PM
    Logic is also a challenge for pgl and the rest of the Hillary machine here.
    pgl -> ilsm... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 01:37 AM
    Josh Marshall checks out the reactions from Team Trump:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/did-they-forget-to-mention-something

    "none of the Trump campaign pushback to Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comments have said anything about the people Clinton was talking about not being racist, not being misogynist or by whatever definition not being 'haters.' It's not referenced once. Check out the statements after the jump."

    They cannot refute what Clinton said because Trump's supporters are racists. Rusty may be uncomfortable with this reality but it is true.

    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 01:33 AM
    Trump's supporters are all members of the NAACP? Yea - right.
    jonny bakho : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:05 AM
    Sanders style welfare proposals are misplaced. Continuing to subsidize people to live in areas that are not sustainable does not fix the problem. Money is taken from urban areas that is needed for renewal and investments in urban residents in sustainable areas and used to subsidize unsustainable middle class lifestyles in exurban and rural areas. A more permanent solution is some combination of transformation & relocation. Sanders tossed out the same 50 year old SWP nonsense without much thought to whether it would work in today's economy. He made vague proposals that people were free to interpret as matching their own. It was never in any sense a plan.

    The world is urbanizing. The future is urban. The sooner we start planning and building for the future, the less problems we will have with these unsustainable areas and lifestyles. An integrated urban planning sustainable approach is needed.

    ken melvin -> jonny bakho ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:22 AM
    Bernie's solution were those of the 70s, like the broken clock, he stood and waited, then yelled I have the answer when he hadn't a clue what was happening. Hillary's are of the 90s and shall prove worthless going forward, though she's not quite as clueless; the question is: Is she smart enough to change her mind?

    P T Trump, like his predecessors in such times, is offering snake oil remedies. His advantage, his medium is the media (the man can see and admire himself when he's performing on stage and camera), and enough suckers have already been born.. . America's love of snake oil has been the subject of writers like Twain, movies, theater, ... is world renowned.

    Disencruft : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:08 AM

    Supporting and participating in religious and community-based efforts is something we can all do today.
    "

    Try it! You'll love it! Look!

    Our rulers are in business for themselves, their votes, their re-election, and their own t-bonds but not our jobs and families. We got to support our own community. Our pioneers learned that from the Indians and passed it on to us. It starts with a block party on 4th of July and grows in all directions -- looking

    after our
    own --

    Henry Carey's ghost : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 08:50 PM
    The US has a trade deficit of 2-3 billion dollars a year. Our exports to Asia are mostly transfer pricing attempts to avoid foreign taxes and smuggle profits back to the US. Trump is the first presidential candidate in forty years to make correcting the trade deficit a centerpiece of his campaign.

    There is no country today, and never has been, nor will there be one that has no industry and is also wealthy. The US was once a protectionist manufacturing heavy country. DJT wants to take us back to pre-1970 protectionism; this is our only hope.

    Henry Carey : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 08:52 PM
    $2-3 billion a day. Imagine if we manufactured cellphones, computers, socks, etc. etc. the Delta, Appalachia, and Michigan, New Haven CT etc. wouldn't be quickly becoming hell holes.
    BenIsNotYoda : , -1
    Thanks to Mark Thoma for highlighting some good effects of legal immigration. From the article:

    Immigrants also own a larger share of small businesses than natives, are no more likely to be unemployed, are no less likely to assimilate than in the past (no matter their country of origin), and they have contributed greatly to technological development in the US. One study estimates that "25.3 percent of the technology and engineering businesses launched in the United States between 1995 to 2005 had a foreign-born founder. In California, this percentage was 38.8 percent. In Silicon Valley, the center of the high-tech industry, 52.4 percent of the new tech start-ups had a foreign-born owner."

    Now only if the extreme liberals would stop bad mouthing H-1B program that brings in these very people. To those who oppose H-1B: some abuse of the program to shut down the program is like shutting down Medicare because there was a little fraud in Medicare. Obviously it is not a good enough argument. Therefore I have to conclude it is pure discrimination disguised as something else.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Mark Blyth On Neoliberalism, Brexit, and the Global Revolt Against the One Percent and their Unelected

    Jun 28, 2016 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    "...a full 95% of the cash that went to Greece ran a trip through Greece and went straight back to creditors which in plain English is banks. So, public taxpayers money was pushed through Greece to basically bail out banks...So austerity becomes a side effect of a general policy of bank bailouts that nobody wants to own. That's really what happened, ok?

    Why are we peddling nonsense? Nobody wants to own up to a gigantic bailout of the entire European banking system that took six years. Austerity was a cover.

    If the EU at the end of the day and the Euro is not actually improving the lives of the majority of the people, what is it for? That's the question that they've brought no answer to.

    ...the Hamptons is not a defensible position. The Hamptons is a very rich area on Long Island that lies on low lying beaches. Very hard to defend a low lying beach. Eventually people are going to come for you.

    What's clear is that every social democratic party in Europe needs to find a new reason to exist. Because as I said earlier over the past 20 years they have sold their core constituency down the line for a bunch of floaters in the middle who don't protect them or really don't particularly care for them. Because the only offers on the agenda are basically austerity and tax cuts for those who already have, versus austerity, apologies, and a minimum wage."

    Mark Blyth

    Although I may not agree with every particular that Mark Blyth may say, directionally he is exactly correct in diagnosing the problems in Europe.

    And yes, I am aware that the subtitles are at times in error, and sometimes outrageously so. Many of the errors were picked up and corrected in the comments.

    No stimulus, no plans, no official actions, no monetary theories can be sustainably effective in revitalizing an economy that is as bent as these have become without serious reform at the first.

    This was the lesson that was given by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. There will be no lasting recovery without it; it is a sine qua non . One cannot turn their economy around when the political and business structures are systemically corrupt, and the elites are preoccupied with looting it, and hiding their spoils offshore.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Clinton Corruption Watch, Sept. 15, 2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... "State Department Delays Records Request About Clinton-Linked Firm Until After The 2016 Election" [ International Business Times ]. "Beacon Global Strategies is a shadowy consulting firm that's stacked with former Obama administration officials, high profile Republicans and a number of Hillary Clinton's closest foreign policy advisers. But beyond its billing as a firm that works with the defense industry, it is unclear for whom specifically the company works, exactly what it does, and if Beacon employees have tried to influence national security policy since the firm's founding in 2013. ..."
    "... UPDATE "New York-based Teneo, with 575 employees, markets itself as a one-stop shop for CEOs to get advice on a wide range of issues, including mergers and acquisitions, handling crises and managing public relations. For its services, it generally charges clients monthly retainer fees of $100,000 to $300,000." [ Wall Street Journal , "Teneo, Consulting Firm with Clinton Ties, Eyes $1 Billion IPO"]. Founder Douglas Band was Bill Clinton's body man . One can only wonder what a body man does to become worth $1 billion to, well, the people who made him worth a billion. ..."
    "... The donors expect that their support of the Clinton Foundation will help them get access to the State Department, [Doug] Band see above] expects that he can count on [Huma] Abedin to help, and Abedin seems to understand that she needs to be responsive to Band. This would be a lot of effort for powerful people to expend, if it led to nothing at all. ..."
    "... UPDATE "Even as the Clintons are touting plans to distance themselves from their foundation and limit its fundraising if Hillary Clinton is elected president, they're planning one last glitzy fundraising bash on Friday to belatedly celebrate Bill Clinton's 70th birthday" [ Politico ]. ..."
    "... "Plans called for performances by Wynton Marsalis, Jon Bon Jovi and Barbra Streisand, according to people briefed on the planning. They said that major donors are being asked to give $250,000 to be listed as a chair for the party, $100,000 to be listed a co-chair and $50,000 to be listed as a vice-chair." Sounds lovely! How I wish I could go… ..."
    Sep 15, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "State Department Delays Records Request About Clinton-Linked Firm Until After The 2016 Election" [ International Business Times ]. "Beacon Global Strategies is a shadowy consulting firm that's stacked with former Obama administration officials, high profile Republicans and a number of Hillary Clinton's closest foreign policy advisers. But beyond its billing as a firm that works with the defense industry, it is unclear for whom specifically the company works, exactly what it does, and if Beacon employees have tried to influence national security policy since the firm's founding in 2013.

    UPDATE "New York-based Teneo, with 575 employees, markets itself as a one-stop shop for CEOs to get advice on a wide range of issues, including mergers and acquisitions, handling crises and managing public relations. For its services, it generally charges clients monthly retainer fees of $100,000 to $300,000." [ Wall Street Journal , "Teneo, Consulting Firm with Clinton Ties, Eyes $1 Billion IPO"]. Founder Douglas Band was Bill Clinton's body man . One can only wonder what a body man does to become worth $1 billion to, well, the people who made him worth a billion.

    "[I]n many of these [Clinton Foundation] episodes you can see expectations operating like an electrical circuit. The donors expect that their support of the Clinton Foundation will help them get access to the State Department, [Doug] Band see above] expects that he can count on [Huma] Abedin to help, and Abedin seems to understand that she needs to be responsive to Band. This would be a lot of effort for powerful people to expend, if it led to nothing at all. There are two obvious possibilities. One is that the State Department actually was granting important favors to Clinton Foundation donors that the many sustained investigations have somehow failed to detect. The other, which is more likely, is that someone, somewhere along the line, was getting played" [ The New Yorker ]. Surely those two possibilities are not mutually exclusive? And public office is being used for private gain in either case?

    UPDATE "Even as the Clintons are touting plans to distance themselves from their foundation and limit its fundraising if Hillary Clinton is elected president, they're planning one last glitzy fundraising bash on Friday to belatedly celebrate Bill Clinton's 70th birthday" [ Politico ].

    "Plans called for performances by Wynton Marsalis, Jon Bon Jovi and Barbra Streisand, according to people briefed on the planning. They said that major donors are being asked to give $250,000 to be listed as a chair for the party, $100,000 to be listed a co-chair and $50,000 to be listed as a vice-chair." Sounds lovely! How I wish I could go…

    [Sep 15, 2016] How did the proud trade consensus crumble so quickly? by Thomas Frank

    Politico

    "But part of the answer lies in something Americans have a hard time talking about: class. Trade is a class issue. The trade agreements we have entered into over the past few decades have consistently harmed some Americans (manufacturing workers) while just as consistently benefiting others (owners and professionals). …

    To understand "free trade" in such a way has made it difficult for people in the bubble of the consensus to acknowledge the actual consequences of the agreements we have negotiated over the years."

    [Sep 15, 2016] Are the categories terrorist and dictator versus crucial allies are determined based on the size of payments to the Clinton Foundation?

    Sep 15, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    As one Michael Curry points out , Clinton's social messaging team is simply incompetent.

    From a series of Clinton tweets attacking Trump over his assumed foreign policy:

    Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton

    4. If you were willing to work with Qaddafi-a known terrorist and dictator-is there anyone you aren't willing to make a deal with? Who?

    9:32 AM - 14 Sep 2016

    ---

    Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton

    Hillary Clinton Retweeted Donald J. Trump

    13. How can we know you won't (again) impulsively damage relationships with crucial allies to preserve your own ego? Hillary Clinton added,

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy's money. Can't do it when I get elected. #Trump2016

    7:53 PM - 11 Dec 2015

    9:48 AM - 14 Sep 2016

    Is such incompetence in messaging a reflection of Hillary Clinton own confusion? Or are the categories "terrorist and dictator" versus "crucial allies" solely depending on the size of payments to the Clinton Foundation?

    Posted by b at 02:03 PM | Comments (6) originalone | Sep 15, 2016 2:08:08 PM | 1
    Again, B hits the nail on the head. Oh wait, could it be the koolaid by Putin the cause?

    Terry | Sep 15, 2016 2:21:10 PM | 2
    She is sliding to throwing mud ,. what ever will stick will do the trick I guess .This started after some polls showing the Donald ahead a few points .

    FecklessLeft | Sep 15, 2016 2:52:32 PM | 3
    I recognize election season is always crazy in the states, especially as an outside observer looking in, but this cycle seems so far beyond that norm compared even to 4 years ago it makes me quite uncomfortable. It reeks of a growing desperation by the elites to me. The 2012 campaigns of the two major parties were a circus by any measure, but they seem completely measured and intellectual by this year's standards.

    I understand American culture dwells a lot on violence, but the new standards of political rhetoric disturb me greatly. It seems most of the country's population is either willfully ignorant of the destruction their country creates or cheers it on wildly and willingly. How anybody could advocate carpet bombing without irony or rebuttal is frightenening. That it could drum up support - well that's just depressing.

    The two most important topics in this election, nuclear weapons and global warming, both candidates have been decidedly silent about. It scares me that neither party even attempts to appeal to the left anymore, except by manipulating them by fear and non existent 'security' issues. If it's all about PR and perception management anyways, I wonder why Clinton wears her right leaning nature and war mongering history on her sleeve? Maybe content and debate matters less than I assume it does to the average American voter. Maybe it's totally about spectacle and personality now and nothing else. Sad, sad days for those who live in the middle of the Empire but it's hard to be sympathetic sometimes. It seems the hot new consumer electronic device gets more of a thorough analysis and debate than does either major party candidates' platform (if you could even call it that).

    Vote republican and catastrophic, irreversible climate change is almost guaranteed, with a hearty chance of more war and more regime change operations (despite attempts to paint the candidate as 'isolationist').

    Vote democrat for more wars and regime change, with the status quo of environmental destruction happily maintained (despite the attempts to paint the candidate as an 'environmentalist').

    james | Sep 15, 2016 2:54:25 PM | 4
    this us election is much more pathetic then usual... witnessing the standing president refer to putin akin to saddam hussain is frankly insane, but shows how depraved the usa has gotten... and, besides that, since when did the average usa person even know where any place outside the usa was on a map, let alone having actually been their? oh - i guess it doesn't matter...

    as @1 originalone says basically 'putin did it'...

    Les | Sep 15, 2016 2:57:20 PM | 5
    As everyone knows, the US normalized relations with Qaddafi in 2004.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Normalizing_relations

    The Obama administration authorized CIA backing of the rebellion almost before it started. In all likelihood, it started several years before the revolt, and the authorization was to provide legal cover for activity that was already ongoing.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110331

    Erelis | Sep 15, 2016 3:18:51 PM | 6
    @ FecklessLeft 3

    Unfortunately, your observations are sharp, correct and to the point. All I can weakly offer is something Ralph Nader said. Ralph Nader once noted that the difference between the democrats and republicans is the difference between a car hitting a wall at 60 miles per hour versus 120 miles per hour. Not so anymore. Now both cars will hit the wall going as fast as they can. And the passengers will jump for joy at the speed.

    [Sep 15, 2016] The Dysfunctionality of Slavery and Neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change. ..."
    "... On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. ..."
    "... the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. ..."
    "... In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry. ..."
    May 18, 2015 | michaelperelman.wordpress.com

    Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change.

    ... ... ...

    On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. Responding to the colonists' complaint that taxation by the British was a form of tyranny, Samuel Johnson published his 1775 tract, "Taxation No Tyranny: An answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress," asking the obvious question, "how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" In The Works of Samuel Johnson, LL. D.: Political Tracts. Political Essays. Miscellaneous Essays (London: J. Buckland, 1787): pp. 60-146, p. 142.

    ... ... ...

    By the late 19th century, David A Wells, an industrial technician who later became the chief economic expert in the federal government, by virtue of his position of overseeing federal taxes. After a trip to Europe, Wells reconsidered his strong support for protectionism. Rather than comparing the dynamism of the northern states with the technological backward of their southern counterparts, he was responding to the fear that American industry could not compete with the cheap "pauper" labor of Europe. Instead, he insisted that the United States had little to fear from, the competition from cheap labor, because the relatively high cost of American labor would ensure rapid technological change, which, indeed, was more rapid in the United States than anywhere else in the world, with the possible exception of Germany. Both countries were about to rapidly surpass England's industrial prowess.

    The now-forgotten Wells was so highly regarded that the prize for the best economics dissertation at Harvard is still known as the David A Wells prize. His efforts gave rise to a very powerful idea in economic theory at the time, known as "the economy of high wages," which insisted that high wages drove economic prosperity. With his emphasis on technical change, driven by the strong competitive pressures from high wages, Wells anticipated Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction, except that for him, high wages rather than entrepreneurial genius drove this process.

    Although the economy of high wages remained highly influential through the 1920s, the extensive growth of government powers during World War I reignited the antipathy for big government. Laissez-faire economics began come back into vogue with the election of Calvin Coolidge, while the once-powerful progressive movement was becoming excluded from the ranks of reputable economics.

    ... ... ...

    With Barry Goldwater's humiliating defeat in his presidential campaign, the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. Symbolic of the narrowness of this new mindset among economists, Milton Friedman's close associate, George Stigler, said in 1976 that "one evidence of professional integrity of the economist is the fact that it is not possible to enlist good economists to defend minimum wage laws." Stigler, G. J. 1982. The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays (Chicago: University of Chicago Press): p. 60.

    In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry.

    One final irony: evangelical Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement. Today, some of them are providing the firepower for the epidemic of neoliberalism.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Globalization and Neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure. ..."
    "... From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic economics and then in the realm of public policy. ..."
    "... Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth, technical progress, and distributional justice. ..."
    "... The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. ..."
    "... This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance. On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated capitalism into an opponent of it. ..."
    "... Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict, which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4 ..."
    "... The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run stability and survival. ..."
    "... Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities, the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century. ..."
    "... Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed to an antigovernment stance. ..."
    "... By contrast, the typical small business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century. ..."
    "... This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10 It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it. ..."
    "... Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure of contemporary capitalism. ..."
    "... By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in 1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing, extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly all cases a clear base in a single nation-state. ..."
    "... Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the IMF and the US government. ..."
    "... Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor is limited. ..."
    "... Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons, today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18 ..."
    "... The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative "state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership, which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more factor that had reinforced the regulationist state. ..."
    "... If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However, such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism. ..."
    Jul 05, 2016 | people.umass.edu
    Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute Thompson Hall University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 U.S.A. Telephone 413-545-1248 Fax 413-545-2921 Email [email protected] August, 2000 This paper was published in Rethinking Marxism, Volume 12, Number 2, Summer 2002, pp. 64-79.

    Research assistance was provided by Elizabeth Ramey and Deger Eryar. Research funding was provided by the Political Economy Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Globalization and Neoliberalism 1 For some two decades neoliberalism has dominated economic policymaking in the US and the UK. Neoliberalism has strong advocates in continental Western Europe and Japan, but substantial popular resistance there has limited its influence so far, despite continuing US efforts to impose neoliberal policies on them. In much of the Third World, and in the transition countries (except for China), the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure.

    Neoliberalism is an updated version of the classical liberal economic thought that was dominant in the US and UK prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s. From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic economics and then in the realm of public policy.

    Neoliberalism is both a body of economic theory and a policy stance. Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth, technical progress, and distributional justice. The state is assigned a very limited economic role: defining property rights, enforcing contracts, and regulating the money supply.1 State intervention to correct market failures is viewed with suspicion, on the ground that such intervention is likely to create more problems than it solves.

    The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. These recommendations include deregulation of business; privatization of public activities and assets; elimination of, or cutbacks in, social welfare programs; and reduction of taxes on businesses and the investing class. In the international sphere, neoliberalism calls for free movement of goods, services, capital, and money (but not people) across national boundaries. That is, corporations, banks, and individual investors should be free to move their property across national boundaries, and free to acquire property across national boundaries, although free cross-border movement by individuals is not part of the neoliberal program. How can the re-emergence of a seemingly outdated and outmoded economic theory be explained? At first many progressive economists viewed the 1970s lurch toward liberalism as a temporary response to the economic instability of that decade. As corporate interests decided that the Keynesian regulationist approach no longer worked to their advantage, they looked for an alternative and found only the old liberal ideas, which could at least serve as an ideological basis for cutting those state programs viewed as obstacles to profit-making. However, neoliberalism has proved to be more than just a temporary response. It has outlasted the late 1970s/early 1980s right-wing political victories in the UK (Thatcher) and US (Reagan). Under a Democratic Party administration in the US and a Labor Party government in the UK in the 1990s, neoliberalism solidified its position of dominance.

    This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance. On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated capitalism into an opponent of it.

    The Problematic Character of Neoliberalism

    Neoliberalism appears to be problematic as a dominant theory for contemporary capitalism. The stability and survival of the capitalist system depends on its ability to bring vigorous capital accumulation, where the latter process is understood to include not just economic expansion but also technological progress. Vigorous capital accumulation permits rising profits to coexist with rising living standards for a substantial part of the population over the long-run.2 However, it does not appear that neoliberalism promotes vigorous capital accumulation in contemporary capitalism. There are a number of reasons why one would not expect the neoliberal model to promote rapid accumulation. First, it gives rise to a problem of insufficient aggregate demand over the long run, stemming from the powerful tendency of the neoliberal regime to lower both real wages and public spending. Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict, which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4

    The historical evidence confirms doubts about the ability of the neoliberal model to promote rapid capital accumulation. We will look at growth rates of gross domestic product (GDP) and of labor productivity. The GDP growth rate provides at least a rough approximation of the rate of capital accumulation, while the labor productivity growth rate tells us something about the extent to which capitalism is developing the forces of production via rising ratios of means of production to direct labor, technological advance, and improved labor skills.5 Table 1 shows average annual real GDP growth rates for six leading developed capitalist countries over two periods, 1950-73 and 1973-99. The first period was the heyday of state-regulated capitalism, both within those six countries and in the capitalist world-system as a whole. The second period covers the era of growing neoliberal dominance. All six countries had significantly faster GDP growth in the earlier period than in the later one.

    While Japan and the major Western European economies have been relatively depressed in the 1990s, the US is often portrayed as rebounding to great prosperity over the past decade. Neoliberals often claim that US adherence to neoliberal policies finally paid off in the 1990s, while the more timid moves away from state-interventionist policies in Europe and Japan kept them mired in stagnation. Table 2 shows GDP and labor productivity growth rates for the US economy for three subperiods during 1948-99.6 Column 1 of Table 2 shows that GDP growth was significantly slower in 1973-90 B a period of transition from state-regulated capitalism to the neoliberal model in the US B than in 1948-73. While GDP growth improved slightly in 1990-99, it remained well below that of the era of state-regulated capitalism. Some analysts cite the fact that GDP growth accelerated after 1995, averaging 4.1% per year during 1995-99 (US Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2000). However, it is not meaningful to compare a short fragment of the 1990s business cycle expansion to the longrun performance of the economy during 1948-73.7

    Column 2 of Table 1 shows that the high rate of labor productivity growth recorded in 1948- 73 fell by more than half in 1973-90. While there was significant improvement in productivity growth in the 1990s, it remained well below the 1948-73 rate, despite the rapid spread of what should be productivity-enhancing communication and information-management technologies during the past decade.

    The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run stability and survival.

    The Structure of Competition and Economic Policy

    The processes through which the dominant economic ideology and policies are selected in a capitalist system are complex and many-sided. No general rule operates to assure that those economic policies which would be most favorable for capitalism are automatically adopted. History suggests that one important determinant of the dominant economic ideology and policy stance is the competitive structure of capitalism in a given era. Specifically, this paper argues that periods of relatively unconstrained competition tend to produce the intellectual and public policy dominance of liberalism, while periods of relatively constrained, oligopolistic market relations tend to promote interventionist ideas and policies.

    A relation in the opposite direction also exists, one which is often commented upon. That is, one can argue that interventionist policies promote monopoly power in markets, while liberal policies promote greater competition. This latter relation is not being denied here. Rather, it will be argued that there is a normally-overlooked direction of influence, having significant historical explanatory power, which runs from competitive structure to public policy. In the period when capitalism first became well established in the US, during 1800-1860, the government played a relatively interventionist role. The federal government placed high tariffs on competing manufactured goods from Europe, and federal, state, and local levels of government all actively financed, and in some cases built and operated, the new canal and rail system that created a large internal market. There was no serious debate over the propriety of public financing of transportation improvements in that era -- the only debate was over which regions would get the key subsidized routes.

    Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities, the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century.

    From roughly 1890 to 1903 a huge merger wave transformed the competitive structure of US capitalism. Out of that merger wave emerged giant corporations possessing significant monopoly power in the manufacturing, mining, transportation, and communication sectors. US industry settled down to a more restrained form of oligopolistic rivalry. At the same time, many of the new monopoly capitalists began to criticize the old Laissez Faire ideas and support a more interventionist role for the state.8 The combination of big business support for state regulation of business, together with similar demands arising from a popular anti-monopoly movement based among small farmers and middle class professionals, ushered in what is called the Progressive Era, from 1900-16. The building of a regulationist state that was begun in the Progressive Era was completed during the New Deal era a few decades later, when once again both big business leaders and a vigorous popular movement (this time based among industrial workers) supported an interventionist state. Both in the Progressive Era and the New Deal, big business and the popular movement differed about what types of state intervention were needed. Big business favored measures to increase the stability of the system and to improve conditions for profit-making, while the popular movement sought to use the state to restrain the power and privileges of big business and provide greater security for ordinary people. The outcome in both cases was a political compromise, one weighted toward the interests of big business, reflecting the relative power of the latter in American capitalism.

    Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed to an antigovernment stance.

    What explains this political difference between large and small business? When large corporations achieve significant market power and become freed from fear concerning their immediate survival, they tend to develop a long time horizon and pay attention to the requirements for assuring growing profits over time.9 They come to see the state as a potential ally. Having high and stable monopoly profits, they tend to view the cost of government programs as something they can afford, given their potential benefits. By contrast, the typical small business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century.

    This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10 It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it.

    This switch in the dominant economic model first showed up in the mid 1970s in academic economics, as the previously marginalized Chicago School spread its influence far beyond the University of Chicago. This was soon followed by a radical shift in the public policy arena. In 1978- 79 the previously interventionist Carter Administration began sounding the very neoliberal themes B deregulation of business, cutbacks in social programs, and general fiscal and monetary austerity B that were to become the centerpiece of Reagan Administration policies in 1981. What caused the radical change in the political posture of big business regarding state intervention in the economy? This paper argues that a major part of the explanation lies in the effects of the globalization of the world capitalist economy in the post-World War II period.

    Globalization and Competition

    Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure of contemporary capitalism.

    Table 3 shows the ratio of merchandise exports to gross domestic product for selected years from 1820 to 1992, for the world and also for Western Europe, the US, and Japan. Capitalism brought a five-fold rise in world exports relative to output from 1820-70, followed by another increase of nearly three-fourths by 1913. After declining in the interwar period, world exports reached a new peak of 11.2% of world output in 1973, rising further to 13.5% in 1992. The 1992 figure was over fifty per cent higher than the pre-World War I peak.

    Merchandise exports include physical goods only, while GDP includes services, many of which are not tradable, as well as goods. In the twentieth century the proportion of services in GDP has risen significantly. Table 4 shows an estimate of the ratio of world merchandise exports to the good-only portion of world GDP. This ratio nearly tripled during 1950-92, with merchandise exports rising to nearly one-third of total goods output in the latter year. The 1992 figure was 2.6 times as high as that of 1913.

    Western Europe, the US, and Japan all experienced significant increases in exports relative to GDP during 1950-92, as Table 3 shows. All of them achieved ratios of exports to GDP far in excess of the 1913 level. While exports were only 8.2% of the total GDP of the US in 1992, exports amounted to 22.0% of the non-service portion of GDP that year (Economic Report of the President, 1999, pp. 338, 444).

    Many analysts view foreign direct investment as the most important form of cross-border economic interchange. It is associated with the movement of technology and organizational methods, not just goods. Table 5 shows two measures of foreign direct investment. Column 1 gives the outstanding stock of foreign direct investment in the world as a percentage of world output. This measure has more than doubled since 1975, although it is not much greater today than it was in 1913. Column 2 shows the annual inflow of direct foreign investment as a percentage of gross fixed capital formation. This measure increased rapidly during 1975-95. However, it is still relatively low in absolute terms, with foreign direct investment accounting for only 5.2 per cent of gross fixed capital formation in 1995.

    Not all, or even most, international capital flows take the form of direct investment. Financial flows (such as cross-border purchases of securities and deposits in foreign bank accounts) are normally larger. One measure that takes account of financial as well as direct investment is the total net movement of capital into or out of a country. That measure indicates the extent to which capital from one country finances development in other countries. Table 6 shows the absolute value of current account surpluses or deficits as a percentage of GDP for 12 major capitalist countries. Since net capital inflow or outflow is approximately equal to the current account deficit or surplus (differing only due to errors and omissions), this indicates the size of net cross-border capital flows. The ratio nearly doubled from 1970-74 to 1990-96, although it remained well below the figure for 1910-14.

    Cross-border gross capital movements have grown much more rapidly than cross-border net capital movements.11 In recent times a very large and rapidly growing volume of capital has moved back and forth across national boundaries. Much of this capital flow is speculative in nature, reflecting growing amounts of short-term capital that are moved around the world in search of the best temporary return. No data on such flows are available for the early part of this century, but the data for recent decades are impressive. During 1980-95 cross-border transactions in bonds and equities as a percentage of GDP rose from 9% to 136% for the US, from 8% to 168% for Germany, and from 8% to 66% for Japan (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 10). The total volume of foreign exchange transactions in the world rose from about $15 billion per day in 1973 to $80 billion per day in 1980 and $1260 billion per day in 1995. Trade in goods and services accounted for 15% of foreign exchange transactions in 1973 but for less than 2% of foreign exchange transactions in 1995 (Bhaduri, 1998, p. 152).

    While cross-border flows of goods and capital are usually considered to be the best indicators of possible globalization of capitalism, changes that have occurred over time within capitalist enterprises are also relevant. That is, the much-discussed rise of the transnational corporation (TNC) is relevant here, where a TNC is a corporation which has a substantial proportion of its sales, assets, and employees outside its home country.12 TNCs existed in the pre-World War I era, primarily in the extractive sector. In the post-World War II period many large manufacturing corporations in the US, Western Europe, and Japan became TNCs.

    The largest TNCs are very international measured by the location of their activities. One study found that the 100 largest TNCs in the world (ranked by assets) had 40.4% of their assets abroad, 50.0% of output abroad, and 47.9% of employment abroad in 1996 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 125). While this shows that the largest TNCs are significantly international in their activities, all but a handful have retained a single national base for top officials and major stockholders.13 The top 200 TNCs ranked by output were estimated to produce only about 10 per cent of world GDP in 1995 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 122).

    By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in 1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing, extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly all cases a clear base in a single nation-state.

    While the earlier wave of globalization before World War I did produce a capitalism that was significantly international, two features of that earlier international system differed from the current global capitalism in ways that are relevant here. First, the pre-world War I globalization took place within a world carved up into a few great colonial empires, which meant that much of the so-called "cross-border" trade and investment of that earlier era actually occurred within a space controlled by a single state. Second, the high level of world trade reached before World War I occurred within a system based much more on specialization and division of labor. That is, manufactured goods were exported by the advanced capitalist countries in exchange for primary products, unlike today when most trade is in manufactured goods. In 1913 62.5% of world trade was in primary products (Bairoch and Kozul-Wright, 1998, p. 45). By contrast, in 1970 60.9% of world exports were manufactured goods, rising to 74.7% in 1994 (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 7).

    Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the IMF and the US government. A state that has the political will to exercise some control over movements of goods and capital across its borders still retains significant power to regulate business. The more important effect of globalization has been on the political will to undertake state regulation, rather than on the technical feasibility of doing so. Globalization has had this effect by changing the competitive structure of capitalism. It appears that globalization in this period has made capitalism significantly more competitive, in several ways. First, the rapid growth of trade has changed the situation faced by large corporations. Large corporations that had previously operated in relatively controlled oligopolistic domestic markets now face competition from other large corporations based abroad, both in domestic and foreign markets. In the US the rate of import penetration of domestic manufacturing markets was only 2 per cent in 1950; it rose to 8% in 1971 and 16% by 1993, an 8-fold increase since 1950 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 116).

    Second, the rapid increase in foreign direct investment has in many cases placed TNCs production facilities in the home markets of their foreign rivals. General Motors not only faces import competition from Toyota and Honda but has to compete with US-produced Toyota and Honda vehicles. Third, the increasingly integrated and open world financial system has thrown the major banks and other financial institutions of the leading capitalist nations increasingly into competition with one another.

    Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor is limited. More importantly, globalization tends to turn big business into small business. The process of globalization has increased the competitive pressure faced by large corporations and banks, as competition has become a world-wide relationship.17 Even if those who run large corporations and financial institutions recognize the need for a strong nationstate in their home base, the new competitive pressure they face shortens their time horizon. It pushes them toward support for any means to reduce their tax burden and lift their regulatory constraints, to free them to compete more effectively with their global rivals. While a regulationist state may seem to be in the interests of big business, in that it can more effectively promote capital accumulation in the long run, in a highly competitive environment big business is drawn away from supporting a regulationist state.

    Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons, today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18

    The above interpretation of the rise and persistence of neoliberalism attributes it, at least in part, to the changed competitive structure of world capitalism resulting from the process of globalization. As neoliberalism gained influence starting in the 1970s, it became a force propelling the globalization process further. One reason for stressing the line of causation running from globalization to neoliberalism is the time sequence of the developments. The process of globalization, which had been reversed to some extent by political and economic events in the interwar period, resumed right after World War II, producing a significantly more globalized world economy and eroding the monopoly power of large corporations well before neoliberalism began its second coming in the mid 1970s. The rapid rise in merchandise exports began during the Bretton Woods period, as Table 3 showed. So too did the growing role for TNC's. These two aspects of the current globalization had their roots in the postwar era of state-regulated capitalism. This suggests that, to some extent, globalization reflects a long-run tendency in the capital accumulation process rather than just being a result of the rising influence of neoliberal policies. On the other hand, once neoliberalism became dominant, it accelerated the process of globalization. This can be seen most clearly in the data on cross-border flows of both real and financial capital, which began to grow rapidly only after the 1960s.

    Other Factors Promoting Neoliberalism

    The changed competitive structure of capitalism provides part of the explanation for the rise from the ashes of classical liberalism and its persistence in the face of widespread evidence of its failure to deliver the goods. However, three additional factors have played a role in promoting neoliberal dominance. These are the weakening of socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries, the demise of state socialism, and the long period that has elapsed since the last major capitalist economic crisis. There is space here for only some brief comments about these additional factors.

    The socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries have declined in strength significantly over the past few decades. While Social Democratic parties have come to office in several European countries recently, they no longer represent a threat of even significant modification of capitalism, much less the specter of replacing capitalism with an alternative socialist system. The regulationist state was always partly a response to the fear of socialism, a point illustrated by the emergence of the first major regulationist state of the era of mature capitalism in Germany in the late 19th century, in response to the world=s first major socialist movement. As the threat coming from socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries has receded, so too has to incentive to retain the regulationist state.

    The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative "state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership, which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more factor that had reinforced the regulationist state.

    The occurrence of a major economic crisis tends to promote an interventionist state, since active state intervention is required to overcome a major crisis. The memory of a recent major crisis tends to keep up support for a regulationist state, which is correctly seen as a stabilizing force tending to head off major crises. As the Great Depression of the 1930s has receded into the distant past, the belief has taken hold that major economic crises have been banished forever. This reduces the perceived need to retain the regulationist state.

    Concluding Comments

    If neoliberalism continues to reign as the dominant ideology and policy stance, it can be argued that world capitalism faces a future of stagnation, instability, and even eventual social breakdown.20 However, from the factors that have promoted neoliberalism one can see possible sources of a move back toward state-regulated capitalism at some point. One possibility would be the development of tight oligopoly and regulated competition on a world scale. Perhaps the current merger wave might continue until, as happened at the beginning of the 20th century within the US and in other industrialized capitalist economies, oligopoly replaced cutthroat competition, but this time on a world scale. Such a development might revive big business support for an interventionist state. However, this does not seem to be likely in the foreseeable future. The world is a big place, with differing cultures, laws, and business practices in different countries, which serve as obstacles to overcoming the competitive tendency in market relations. Transforming an industry=s structure so that two to four companies produce the bulk of the output is not sufficient in itself to achieve stable monopoly power, if the rivals are unable to communicate effectively with one another and find common ground for cooperation. Also, it would be difficult for international monopolies to exercise effective regulation via national governments, and a genuine world capitalist state is not a possibility for the foreseeable future.

    If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However, such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism.

    A more likely source of a new era of state interventionism might come from one of the remaining two factors considered above. The macro-instability of neoliberal global capitalism might produce a major economic crisis at some point, one which spins out of the control of the weakened regulatory authorities. This would almost certainly revive the politics of the regulationist state. Finally, the increasing exploitation and other social problems generated by neoliberal global capitalism might prod the socialist movement back to life at some point. Should socialist movements revive and begin to seriously challenge capitalism in one or more major capitalist countries, state regulationism might return in response to it. Such a development would also revive the possibility of finally superceding capitalism and replacing it with a system based on human need rather than private profit.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Whats Behind The Revolt Against Global Integration?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. ... ..."
    "... I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848 ..."
    "... Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers. ..."
    "... The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they are smarter than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies. ..."
    "... And what about neocolonialism and debt slavery ? http://historum.com/blogs/solidaire/245-debt-slavery-neo-colonialism-neoliberalism.html ..."
    "... International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no armies are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of enslavement, the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers, and its enforcers are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist governments (and totalitarian regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials. ..."
    "... Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious, planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan? ..."
    "... The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm .... ..."
    "... The only trade that is actually free is trade not covered by laws and/or treaties. All other trade is regulated trade. ..."
    "... Here's a good rule to follow. When someone calls something the exact opposite of what it is, in all probability they are trying to hustle your wallet. ..."
    "... ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's group, just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them. ..."
    "... Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel safe, secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has to offer. Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do. ..."
    "... To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something you should not forget. ..."
    "... I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose some rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people, including me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not "free trade", but removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem. ..."
    "... TPP is not free trade. It is protectionism for the rich. ..."
    "... All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose is agreements which impoverish them and enrich capital. ..."
    "... More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have seen the results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and now they are guessing we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we have to put all of our environmental laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition with backward countries. ..."
    "... progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) could simply treat union busting the same way any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of the free market is treated: make it a felony. ..."
    "... Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the goods and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under such a negotiated trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate private enterprise incentives to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god can't tolerate. ..."
    "... Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe. ..."
    Apr 11, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Larry Summers:
    What's behind the revolt against global integration? : Since the end of World War II, a broad consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity has been a pillar of the international order. ...

    This broad program of global integration has been more successful than could reasonably have been hoped. ... Yet a revolt against global integration is underway in the West. ...

    One substantial part of what is behind the resistance is a lack of knowledge. ...The core of the revolt against global integration, though, is not ignorance. It is a sense - unfortunately not wholly unwarranted - that it is a project being carried out by elites for elites, with little consideration for the interests of ordinary people. ...

    Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. ...

    Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central, while issues related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.

    Tom aka Rusty : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:15 AM
    Is Summers really this naive?
    Jedgar Mihelic : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:21 AM
    I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848
    pgl -> Jedgar Mihelic ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:28 AM
    Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers.
    pgl : Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:32 AM
    A large part of the concern over free trade comes from the weak economic performances around the globe. Summers could have addressed this. Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker - both sensible economists - for example recently called on the US to do its own currency manipulation so as to reverse the US$ appreciation which is lowering our net exports quite a bit.

    What they left out is the fact that both China and Japan have seen currency appreciations as well. If we raise our net exports at their expense, that lowers their economic activity. Better would be global fiscal stimulus. I wish Larry had raised this issue here.

    Peter -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:12 AM
    The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they are smarter than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies.
    likbez -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 04:48 PM
    pgl,

    And what about neocolonialism and debt slavery ? http://historum.com/blogs/solidaire/245-debt-slavery-neo-colonialism-neoliberalism.html

    === quote ===

    One of the most fundamental reasons for the poverty and underdevelopment of Africa (and of almost all "third world" countries) is neo-colonialism, which in modern history takes the shape of external debt.

    When countries are forced to pay 40,50,60% of their government budgets just to pay the interests of their enormous debts, there is little room for actual prosperity left.

    International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no armies are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of enslavement, the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers, and its enforcers are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist governments (and totalitarian regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials.

    In reality, not much has changed since the fall of the great colonial empires. In paper, countries have gained their sovereignty, but in reality they are enslaved to the international credit system.

    The only thing that has changed, is that now the very colonial powers of the past, are threatened to become debt colonies themselves. You see, global capitalism and credit system has no country, nationality, colour; it only recognises the colour of money, earned at all cost by the very few, on the expense of the vast, unsuspected and lulled masses.

    Debt had always been a very efficient way of control, either on a personal, or state level. And while most of us are aware of the implementations of personal debt and the risks involved, the corridors of government debt are poorly lit, albeit this kind of debt is affecting all citizens of a country and in ways more profound and far reaching into the future than those of private debt.

    Global capitalism was flourishing after WW2, and reached an apex somewhere in the 70's.

    The lower classes in the mature capitalist countries had gained a respectable portion of the distributed wealth, rights and privileges inconceivable several decades before. The purchasing power of the average American for example, was very satisfactory, fully justifying the American dream. Similar phenomena were taking place all over the "developed" world.

    Kgaard : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:32 AM
    Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious, planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan?
    anne -> Kgaard... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:44 AM
    There is of course no reasonable answering to prejudice, since prejudice is always unreasonable, but should there be a question, when was the last time that, say, the United States or the territory that the US now covers was a homogeneous society?

    Before the US engulfed Spanish peoples? Before the US engulfed African peoples? Before the US engulfed Indian peoples? When did the Irish, just to think of a random nationality, ruin "our" homogeneity?

    I could continue, but how much of a point is there in being reasonable?

    Kgaard -> anne... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 11:21 AM
    The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm ....

    Also ... What is your definition of prejudice?

    Benedict@Large -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    The only trade that is actually free is trade not covered by laws and/or treaties. All other trade is regulated trade.

    Here's a good rule to follow. When someone calls something the exact opposite of what it is, in all probability they are trying to hustle your wallet.

    Has anyone been trying to hustle the wallets of the people who became ISIS? Oh please. That's a stupid question to even ask.

    So is free trade, as in regulated trade that is called the opposite of what it is, responsible for ISIS? Of course it is.

    Ben Groves -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:10 AM
    ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's group, just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them.

    It is like using the internet to think you are "edgy". Some dudes like psuedo-science scam artist Mike Adams are uncovering secrets to this witty viewer............then you wonder why society is degenerating. What should happen with Mike Adams is, he should be beaten up and castrated. My guess he would talk then. Boy would his idiot followers get a surprise and that surprise would have results other than "poor mikey, he was robbed".

    This explains why guys like Trump get delegates. Not because he uses illegal immigrants in his old businesses, not because of some flat real wages going over 40 years, not because he is a conman marketer.........he makes them feel safe. That is purely it. I think its pathetic, but that is what happens in a emasculated world. Safety becomes absolute concern. "Trump makes me feel safe".

    Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel safe, secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has to offer. Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do.

    To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something you should not forget.

    DrDick : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:35 AM
    I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose some rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people, including me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not "free trade", but removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem.
    pgl -> DrDick ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:57 AM
    OK - some substance finally. TPP is not free trade. It is protectionism for the rich.
    DrDick -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 11:10 AM
    Actually, this is my first actual response to the post itself, but you were too busy being and a*****e to notice. All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose is agreements which impoverish them and enrich capital.
    Dan Kervick -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:33 PM
    This has become a popular line, and it's not exactly false. But so what if it were a "free trade" agreement? More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have seen the results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and now they are guessing we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we have to put all of our environmental laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition with backward countries.
    Denis Drew : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:38 AM
    " The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. "

    " ... whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central ... "

    +1

    Now if we could just adopt that policy internally in the United States first we could then (and only then) support it externally across the world.

    Easy approach: (FOR THE TEN MILLIONTH TIME!) progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) could simply treat union busting the same way any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of the free market is treated: make it a felony. FYI (for those who are not aware) states can add to federal labor protections, just not subtract.

    A completely renewed, re-constituted democracy would be born.

    Biggest obstacle to this being done in my (crackpot?) view: human males. Being instinctive pack hunters, before they check out any idea they, first, check in with the pack (all those other boys who are also checking in with the pack) -- almost automatically infer impossibility to overcome what they see (correctly?) as wheels within wheels of inertia.

    Self-fulfilling prophecy: nothing (not the most obvious, SHOULD BE easiest possible to get support for actions) ever gets done.

    Peter : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:31 AM
    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/new_path_forward/

    I'm not the only one seeking a new path forward on trade.

    by Jared Bernstein

    April 11th, 2016 at 9:20 am

    "...

    Here's Larry's view of the way forward:

    "The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central, while issues related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.

    Good points, all. "Bottom-up" means what I've been calling a more representative, inclusive process. But what's this about "international harmonization?""

    It's a way of saying that we need to reduce the "frictions" and thus costs between trading partners at the level of pragmatic infrastructure, not corporate power. One way to think of this is TFAs, not FTAs. TFAs are trade facilitation agreements, which are more about integrating ports, rail, and paperwork than patents that protect big Pharma.

    It's refreshing to see mainstreamers thinking creatively about the anger that's surfaced around globalization. Waiting for the anger to dissipate and then reverting back to the old trade regimes may be the preferred path for elites, but that path may well be blocked. We'd best clear a new, wider path, one that better accommodates folks from all walks of life, both here and abroad."

    anne : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:12 AM
    "What's Behind The Revolt Against Global Integration?" -- Washington Post editors title.

    "Global trade should be remade from the bottom up" -- Lawrence Summers title.

    I find the difference in titles important in showing just how slanted Washington Post editors are.

    Longtooth : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 01:41 PM
    Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the goods and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under such a negotiated trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate private enterprise incentives to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god can't tolerate.
    pgl -> Longtooth... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 01:46 PM
    Imagine a trade deal negotiated by the AFL-CIO. Labor wins a lot and capital owners lose a little. We can all then smile and say to the latter - go get your buddies in Congress more serious about the compensation principle. Turn the table!
    kthomas -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:01 PM
    Not being rude, but I fail to understand your response.

    AFL-CIO? turn the table?

    Peter -> kthomas... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:51 PM
    It's okay. He's drunk again.
    New Deal democrat : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:07 PM
    "consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity " -- "The Great Illusion" ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion )
    That increased trade is a bulwark against war rears its ugly head again. The above book which so ironically delivered the message was published in 1910.

    Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe.

    George H. Blackford :
    Our problems began back in the 1970s when we abandoned the Bretton Woods international capital controls and then broke the unions, cut taxes on corporations and upper income groups, and deregulated the financial system. This eventually led a stagnation of wages in the US and an increase in the concentration of income at the top of the income distribution throughout the world: http://www.rwEconomics.com/Ch_1.htm

    The export-led growth model that began in the 1990s seriously exacerbated this problem as it proved to be unsustainable: http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh_2.htm

    When combined with tax cuts and financial deregulation it led to increasing debt relative to income in the importing countries that caused the financial catastrophe we went through in 2008, the economic stagnation that followed, and the social unrest we see throughout the world today. This, in turn, created a situation in which the full utilization of our economic resources can only be maintained through an unsustainable increase in debt relative to income: http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh3e.htm

    This is what has to be overcome if we are to get out of the mess the world is in today, and it's not going to be overcome by pretending that it's just going to go away if people can just become educated about the benefits of trade. At least that's not the way it worked out in the 1930s: http://www.rwEconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm

    [Sep 15, 2016] How neoliberalism created an age of activism by Juan Cole

    Notable quotes:
    "... From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. ..."
    "... young rebels are reacting to a single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity ..."
    "... In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however, the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state. ..."
    "... "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the order of the day. ..."
    "... While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly. The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to the top of society. ..."
    "... Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, ..."
    "... Engaging the Muslim World , is just out in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website. ..."
    "... A version of this article was first published on Tom Dispatch . ..."
    "... The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. ..."
    Nov 15, 2011 | aljazeera.com

    Decades of neoliberal economic policies have concentrated wealth and are now spurring a global backlash.

    Politics, US & Canada, Latin America, Chile, Egypt

    ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular protests that shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of the reporting on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.

    Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity

    ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular protests that shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of the reporting on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.

    Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity of the white-collar criminals who have run riot in societies everywhere. They are objecting to high rates of unemployment, reduced social services, blighted futures and above all the substitution of the market for all other values as the matrix of human ethics and life.

    Pasha the Tiger

    In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however, the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state.

    Neoliberals chanted the mantra that everyone would benefit if the public sector were privatised, businesses deregulated and market mechanisms allowed to distribute wealth. But as economist David Harvey argues, from the beginning it was a doctrine that primarily benefited the wealthy, its adoption allowing the top one per cent in any neoliberal society to capture a disproportionate share of whatever wealth was generated.

    In the global South, countries that gained their independence from European colonialism after World War II tended to create large public sectors as part of the process of industrialization. Often, living standards improved as a result, but by the 1970s, such developing economies were generally experiencing a levelling-off of growth. This happened just as neoliberalism became ascendant in Washington, Paris and London as well as in Bretton Woods institutions like the International Monetary Fund. This "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the order of the day.

    Egypt and Tunisia, to take two countries in the spotlight for sparking the Arab Spring, were successfully pressured in the 1990s to privatise their relatively large public sectors. Moving public resources into the private sector created an almost endless range of opportunities for staggering levels of corruption on the part of the ruling families of autocrats Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunis and Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. International banks, central banks and emerging local private banks aided and abetted their agenda.

    It was not surprising then that one of the first targets of Tunisian crowds in the course of the revolution they made last January was the Zitouna bank, a branch of which they torched. Its owner? Sakher El Materi, a son-in-law of President Ben Ali and the notorious owner of Pasha, the well-fed pet tiger that prowled the grounds of one of his sumptuous mansions. Not even the way his outfit sought legitimacy by practicing "Islamic banking" could forestall popular rage. A 2006 State Department cable released by WikiLeaks observed, "One local financial expert blames the [Ben Ali] Family for chronic banking sector woes due to the great percentage of non-performing loans issued through crony connections, and has essentially paralysed banking authorities from genuine recovery efforts." That is, the banks were used by the regime to give away money to his cronies, with no expectation of repayment.

    Tunisian activists similarly directed their ire at foreign banks and lenders to which their country owes $14.4bn. Tunisians are still railing and rallying against the repayment of all that money, some of which they believe was borrowed profligately by the corrupt former regime and then squandered quite privately.

    Tunisians had their own one per cent, a thin commercial elite, half of whom were related to or closely connected to President Ben Ali. As a group, they were accused by young activists of mafia-like, predatory practices, such as demanding pay-offs from legitimate businesses, and discouraging foreign investment by tying it to a stupendous system of bribes. The closed, top-heavy character of the Tunisian economic system was blamed for the bottom-heavy waves of suffering that followed: cost of living increases that hit people on fixed incomes or those like students and peddlers in the marginal economy especially hard.

    It was no happenstance that the young man who immolated himself and so sparked the Tunisian rebellion was a hard-pressed vegetable peddler. It's easy now to overlook what clearly ties the beginning of the Arab Spring to the European Summer and the present American Fall: the point of the Tunisian revolution was not just to gain political rights, but to sweep away that one per cent, popularly imagined as a sort of dam against economic opportunity.

    Tahrir Square, Zuccotti Park, Rothschild Avenue

    The success of the Tunisian revolution in removing the octopus-like Ben Ali plutocracy inspired the dramatic events in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and even Israel that are redrawing the political map of the Middle East. But the 2011 youth protest movement was hardly contained in the Middle East. Estonian-Canadian activist Kalle Lasn and his anti-consumerist colleagues at the Vancouver-based Adbusters Media Foundation were inspired by the success of the revolutionaries in Tahrir Square in deposing dictator Hosni Mubarak.

    Their organisation specialises in combatting advertising culture through spoofs and pranks. It was Adbusters magazine that sent out the call on Twitter in the summer of 2011 for a rally at Wall Street on September 17, with the now-famous hash tag #OccupyWallStreet. A thousand protesters gathered on the designated date, commemorating the 2008 economic meltdown that had thrown millions of Americans out of their jobs and their homes. Some camped out in nearby Zuccotti Park, another unexpected global spark for protest.

    The Occupy Wall Street movement has now spread throughout the United States, sometimes in the face of serious acts of repression, as in Oakland, California. It has followed in the spirit of the Arab and European movements in demanding an end to special privileges for the richest one per cent, including their ability to more or less buy the US government for purposes of their choosing. What is often forgotten is that the Ben Alis, Mubaraks and Gaddafis were not simply authoritarian tyrants. They were the one per cent and the guardians of the one per cent, in their own societies - and loathed for exactly that.

    Last April, around the time that Lasn began imagining Wall Street protests, progressive activists in Israel started planning their own movement. In July, sales clerk and aspiring filmmaker Daphne Leef found herself unable to cover a sudden rent increase on her Tel Aviv apartment. So she started a protest Facebook page similar to the ones that fuelled the Arab Spring and moved into a tent on the posh Rothschild Avenue where she was soon joined by hundreds of other protesting Israelis. Week by week, the demonstrations grew, spreading to cities throughout the country and culminating on September 3 in a massive rally, the largest in Israel's history. Some 300,000 protesters came out in Tel Aviv, 50,000 in Jerusalem and 40,000 in Haifa. Their demands included not just lower housing costs, but a rollback of neoliberal policies, less regressive taxes and more progressive, direct taxation, a halt to the privatisation of the economy, and the funding of a system of inexpensive education and child care.

    Many on the left in Israel are also deeply troubled by the political and economic power of right-wing settlers on the West Bank, but most decline to bring the Palestinian issue into the movement's demands for fear of losing support among the middle class. For the same reason, the way the Israeli movement was inspired by Tahrir Square and the Egyptian revolution has been downplayed, although "Walk like an Egyptian" signs - a reference both to the Cairo demonstrations and the 1986 Bangles hit song - have been spotted on Rothschild Avenue.

    Most of the Israeli activists in the coastal cities know that they are victims of the same neoliberal order that displaces the Palestinians, punishes them and keeps them stateless. Indeed, the Palestinians, altogether lacking a state but at the complete mercy of various forms of international capital controlled by elites elsewhere, are the ultimate victims of the neoliberal order. But in order to avoid a split in the Israeli protest movement, a quiet agreement was reached to focus on economic discontents and so avoid the divisive issue of the much-despised West Bank settlements.

    There has been little reporting in the Western press about a key source of Israeli unease, which was palpable to me when I visited the country in May. Even then, before the local protests had fully hit their stride, Israelis I met were complaining about the rise to power of an Israeli one per cent. There are now 16 billionaires in the country, who control $45bn in assets, and the current crop of 10,153 millionaires is 20 per cent larger than it was in the previous fiscal year. In terms of its distribution of wealth, Israel is now among the most unequal of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Since the late 1980s, the average household income of families in the bottom fifth of the population has been declining at an annual rate of 1.1 per cent. Over the same period, the average household income of families among the richest 20 per cent went up at an annual rate of 2.4 per cent.

    While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly. The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to the top of society.

    The indignant ones

    European youth were also inspired by the Tunisians and Egyptians - and by a similar flight of wealth. I was in Barcelona on May 27, when the police attacked demonstrators camped out at the Placa de Catalunya, provoking widespread consternation. The government of the region is currently led by the centrist Convergence and Union Party, a moderate proponent of Catalan nationalism. It is relatively popular locally, and so Catalans had not expected such heavy-handed police action to be ordered. The crackdown, however, underlined the very point of the protesters, that the neoliberal state, whatever its political makeup, is protecting the same set of wealthy miscreants.

    Spain's "indignados" (indignant ones) got their start in mid-May with huge protests at Madrid's Puerta del Sol Plaza against the country's persistent 21 per cent unemployment rate (and double that among the young). Egyptian activists in Tahrir Square immediately sent a statement of warm support to those in the Spanish capital (as they would months later to New York's demonstrators). Again following the same pattern, the Spanish movement does not restrict its objections to unemployment (and the lack of benefits attending the few new temporary or contract jobs that do arise). Its targets are the banks, bank bailouts, financial corruption and cuts in education and other services.

    Youth activists I met in Toledo and Madrid this summer denounced both of the country's major parties and, indeed, the very consumer society that emphasised wealth accumulation over community and material acquisition over personal enrichment. In the past two months Spain's young protesters have concentrated on demonstrating against cuts to education, with crowds of 70,000 to 90,000 coming out more than once in Madrid and tens of thousands in other cities. For marches in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement, hundreds of thousands reportedly took to the streets of Madrid and Barcelona, among other cities.

    The global reach and connectedness of these movements has yet to be fully appreciated. The Madrid education protesters, for example, cited for inspiration Chilean students who, through persistent, innovative, and large-scale demonstrations this summer and fall, have forced that country's neoliberal government, headed by the increasingly unpopular billionaire president Sebastian Pinera, to inject $1.6bn in new money into education. Neither the crowds of youth in Madrid nor those in Santiago are likely to be mollified, however, by new dorms and laboratories. Chilean students have already moved on from insisting on an end to an ever more expensive class-based education system to demands that the country's lucrative copper mines be nationalised so as to generate revenues for investment in education. In every instance, the underlying goal of specific protests by the youthful reformists is the neoliberal order itself.

    The word "union" was little uttered in American television news coverage of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, even though factory workers and sympathy strikes of all sorts played a key role in them. The right-wing press in the US actually went out of its way to contrast Egyptian demonstrations against Mubarak with the Wisconsin rallies of government workers against Governor Scott Walker's measure to cripple the bargaining power of their unions.

    The Egyptians, Commentary typically wrote, were risking their lives, while Wisconsin's union activists were taking the day off from cushy jobs to parade around with placards, immune from being fired for joining the rallies. The implication: the Egyptian revolution was against tyranny, whereas already spoiled American workers were demanding further coddling.

    The American right has never been interested in recognising this reality: that forbidding unions and strikes is a form of tyranny. In fact, it wasn't just progressive bloggers who saw a connection between Tahrir Square and Madison. The head of the newly formed independent union federation in Egypt dispatched an explicit expression of solidarity to the Wisconsin workers, centering on worker's rights.

    At least, Commentary did us one favour: it clarified why the story has been told as it has in most of the American media. If the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were merely about individualistic political rights - about the holding of elections and the guarantee of due process - then they could be depicted as largely irrelevant to politics in the US and Europe, where such norms already prevailed.

    If, however, they centered on economic rights (as they certainly did), then clearly the discontents of North African youth when it came to plutocracy, corruption, the curbing of workers' rights, and persistent unemployment deeply resembled those of their American counterparts.

    The global protests of 2011 have been cast in the American media largely as an "Arab Spring" challenging local dictatorships - as though Spain, Chile and Israel do not exist. The constant speculation by pundits and television news anchors in the US about whether "Islam" would benefit from the Arab Spring functioned as an Orientalist way of marking events in North Africa as alien and vaguely menacing, but also as not germane to the day to day concerns of working Americans. The inhabitants of Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan clearly feel differently.

    Facebook flash mobs

    If we focus on economic trends, then the neoliberal state looks eerily similar, whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, whether the government is nominally right of centre or left of centre. As a package, deregulation, the privatisation of public resources and firms, corruption and forms of insider trading and interference in the ability of workers to organise or engage in collective bargaining have allowed the top one per cent in Israel, just as in Tunisia or the US, to capture the lion's share of profits from the growth of the last decades.

    Observers were puzzled by the huge crowds that turned out in both Tunis and Tel Aviv in 2011, especially given that economic growth in those countries had been running at a seemingly healthy five per cent per annum. "Growth", defined generally and without regard to its distribution, is the answer to a neoliberal question. The question of the 99 per cent, however, is: Who is getting the increased wealth? In both of those countries, as in the US and other neoliberal lands, the answer is: disproportionately the one per cent.

    If you were wondering why outraged young people around the globe are chanting such similar slogans and using such similar tactics (including Facebook "flash mobs"), it is because they have seen more clearly than their elders through the neoliberal shell game.

    Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, Engaging the Muslim World, is just out in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website.

    A version of this article was first published on Tom Dispatch.

    The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Global Capitalism Crisis of Humanity and the Specter of 21st Century Fascism

    Yet another response [ to globalization] is that I term 21stcentury fascism. The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.
    Notable quotes:
    "... over-accumulation ..."
    "... Cyclical crises ..."
    "... . Structural crises ..."
    "... systemic crisis ..."
    "... social reproduction. ..."
    "... crisis of humanity ..."
    "... 1984 has arrived; ..."
    "... The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. ..."
    "... In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class ..."
    "... It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. ..."
    "... Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic. ..."
    May 27, 2014 | The World Financial Review

    World capitalism is experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history. Global capitalism is a qualitatively new stage in the open ended evolution of capitalism characterised by the rise of transnational capital, a transnational capitalist class, and a transnational state. Below, William I. Robinson argues that the global crisis is structural and threatens to become systemic, raising the specter of collapse and a global police state in the face of ecological holocaust, concentration of the means of violence, displacement of billions, limits to extensive expansion and crises of state legitimacy, and suggests that a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward to the poor majority of humanity is the only viable solution.

    The New Global Capitalism and the 21st Century Crisis

    The world capitalist system is arguably experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history. World capitalism has experienced a profound restructuring through globalisation over the past few decades and has been transformed in ways that make it fundamentally distinct from its earlier incarnations. Similarly, the current crisis exhibits features that set it apart from earlier crises of the system and raise the stakes for humanity. If we are to avert disastrous outcomes we must understand both the nature of the new global capitalism and the nature of its crisis. Analysis of capitalist globalisation provides a template for probing a wide range of social, political, cultural and ideological processes in this 21st century. Following Marx, we want to focus on the internal dynamics of capitalism to understand crisis. And following the global capitalism perspective, we want to see how capitalism has qualitatively evolved in recent decades.

    The system-wide crisis we face is not a repeat of earlier such episodes such as that of the the 1930s or the 1970s precisely because capitalism is fundamentally different in the 21st century. Globalisation constitutes a qualitatively new epoch in the ongoing and open-ended evolution of world capitalism, marked by a number of qualitative shifts in the capitalist system and by novel articulations of social power. I highlight four aspects unique to this epoch.1

    First is the rise of truly transnational capital and a new global production and financial system into which all nations and much of humanity has been integrated, either directly or indirectly. We have gone from a world economy, in which countries and regions were linked to each other via trade and financial flows in an integrated international market, to a global economy, in which nations are linked to each more organically through the transnationalisation of the production process, of finance, and of the circuits of capital accumulation. No single nation-state can remain insulated from the global economy or prevent the penetration of the social, political, and cultural superstructure of global capitalism. Second is the rise of a Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), a class group that has drawn in contingents from most countries around the world, North and South, and has attempted to position itself as a global ruling class. This TCC is the hegemonic fraction of capital on a world scale. Third is the rise of Transnational State (TNS) apparatuses. The TNS is constituted as a loose network made up of trans-, and supranational organisations together with national states. It functions to organise the conditions for transnational accumulation. The TCC attempts to organise and institutionally exercise its class power through TNS apparatuses. Fourth are novel relations of inequality, domination and exploitation in global society, including an increasing importance of transnational social and class inequalities relative to North-South inequalities.

    Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises

    Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to the "Great Recession" of 2008 and its aftermath. Yet the causal origins of global crisis are to be found in over-accumulation and also in contradictions of state power, or in what Marxists call the internal contradictions of the capitalist system. Moreover, because the system is now global, crisis in any one place tends to represent crisis for the system as a whole. The system cannot expand because the marginalisation of a significant portion of humanity from direct productive participation, the downward pressure on wages and popular consumption worldwide, and the polarisation of income, has reduced the ability of the world market to absorb world output. At the same time, given the particular configuration of social and class forces and the correlation of these forces worldwide, national states are hard-pressed to regulate transnational circuits of accumulation and offset the explosive contradictions built into the system.

    Is this crisis cyclical, structural, or systemic? Cyclical crises are recurrent to capitalism about once every 10 years and involve recessions that act as self-correcting mechanisms without any major restructuring of the system. The recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and of 2001 were cyclical crises. In contrast, the 2008 crisis signaled the slide into astructural crisis. Structural crises reflect deeper contradictions that can only be resolved by a major restructuring of the system. The structural crisis of the 1970s was resolved through capitalist globalisation. Prior to that, the structural crisis of the 1930s was resolved through the creation of a new model of redistributive capitalism, and prior to that the structural crisis of the 1870s resulted in the development of corporate capitalism. A systemic crisis involves the replacement of a system by an entirely new system or by an outright collapse. A structural crisis opens up the possibility for a systemic crisis. But if it actually snowballs into a systemic crisis – in this case, if it gives way either to capitalism being superseded or to a breakdown of global civilisation – is not predetermined and depends entirely on the response of social and political forces to the crisis and on historical contingencies that are not easy to forecast. This is an historic moment of extreme uncertainty, in which collective responses from distinct social and class forces to the crisis are in great flux.

    Hence my concept of global crisis is broader than financial. There are multiple and mutually constitutive dimensions – economic, social, political, cultural, ideological and ecological, not to mention the existential crisis of our consciousness, values and very being. There is a crisis of social polarisation, that is, of social reproduction. The system cannot meet the needs or assure the survival of millions of people, perhaps a majority of humanity. There are crises of state legitimacy and political authority, or of hegemony and domination. National states face spiraling crises of legitimacy as they fail to meet the social grievances of local working and popular classes experiencing downward mobility, unemployment, heightened insecurity and greater hardships. The legitimacy of the system has increasingly been called into question by millions, perhaps even billions, of people around the world, and is facing expanded counter-hegemonic challenges. Global elites have been unable counter this erosion of the system's authority in the face of worldwide pressures for a global moral economy. And a canopy that envelops all these dimensions is a crisis of sustainability rooted in an ecological holocaust that has already begun, expressed in climate change and the impending collapse of centralised agricultural systems in several regions of the world, among other indicators.

    By a crisis of humanity I mean a crisis that is approaching systemic proportions, threatening the ability of billions of people to survive, and raising the specter of a collapse of world civilisation and degeneration into a new "Dark Ages."2

    Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the known history of life on earth.

    This crisis of humanity shares a number of aspects with earlier structural crises but there are also several features unique to the present:

    1. The system is fast reaching the ecological limits of its reproduction. Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the known history of life on earth.3 This mass extinction would be caused not by a natural catastrophe such as a meteor impact or by evolutionary changes such as the end of an ice age but by purposive human activity. According to leading environmental scientists there are nine "planetary boundaries" crucial to maintaining an earth system environment in which humans can exist, four of which are experiencing at this time the onset of irreversible environmental degradation and three of which (climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and biodiversity loss) are at "tipping points," meaning that these processes have already crossed their planetary boundaries.
    2. The magnitude of the means of violence and social control is unprecedented, as is the concentration of the means of global communication and symbolic production and circulation in the hands of a very few powerful groups. Computerised wars, drones, bunker-buster bombs, star wars, and so forth, have changed the face of warfare. Warfare has become normalised and sanitised for those not directly at the receiving end of armed aggression. At the same time we have arrived at the panoptical surveillance society and the age of thought control by those who control global flows of communication, images and symbolic production. The world of Edward Snowden is the world of George Orwell; 1984 has arrived;
    3. Capitalism is reaching apparent limits to its extensive expansion. There are no longer any new territories of significance that can be integrated into world capitalism, de-ruralisation is now well advanced, and the commodification of the countryside and of pre- and non-capitalist spaces has intensified, that is, converted in hot-house fashion into spaces of capital, so that intensive expansion is reaching depths never before seen. Capitalism must continually expand or collapse. How or where will it now expand?
    4. There is the rise of a vast surplus population inhabiting a "planet of slums,"4 alienated from the productive economy, thrown into the margins, and subject to sophisticated systems of social control and to destruction – to a mortal cycle of dispossession-exploitation-exclusion. This includes prison-industrial and immigrant-detention complexes, omnipresent policing, militarised gentrification, and so on;
    5. There is a disjuncture between a globalising economy and a nation-state based system of political authority. Transnational state apparatuses are incipient and have not been able to play the role of what social scientists refer to as a "hegemon," or a leading nation-state that has enough power and authority to organise and stabilise the system. The spread of weapons of mass destruction and the unprecedented militarisation of social life and conflict across the globe makes it hard to imagine that the system can come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction.

    Global Police State

    How have social and political forces worldwide responded to crisis? The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. Both right and left-wing forces are ascendant. Three responses seem to be in dispute.

    One is what we could call "reformism from above." This elite reformism is aimed at stabilising the system, at saving the system from itself and from more radical responses from below. Nonetheless, in the years following the 2008 collapse of the global financial system it seems these reformers are unable (or unwilling) to prevail over the power of transnational financial capital. A second response is popular, grassroots and leftist resistance from below. As social and political conflict escalates around the world there appears to be a mounting global revolt. While such resistance appears insurgent in the wake of 2008 it is spread very unevenly across countries and regions and facing many problems and challenges.

    Yet another response is that I term 21stcentury fascism.5 The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.

    The need for dominant groups around the world to secure widespread, organised mass social control of the world's surplus population and rebellious forces from below gives a powerful impulse to projects of 21st century fascism. Simply put, the immense structural inequalities of the global political economy cannot easily be contained through consensual mechanisms of social control. We have been witnessing transitions from social welfare to social control states around the world. We have entered a period of great upheavals, momentous changes and uncertainties. The only viable solution to the crisis of global capitalism is a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor majority of humanity along the lines of a 21st century democratic socialism, in which humanity is no longer at war with itself and with nature.

    About the Author

    William I. Robinson is professor of sociology, global and international studies, and Latin American studies, at the University of California-Santa Barbara. Among his many books are Promoting Polyarchy (1996), Transnational Conflicts (2003), A Theory of Global Capitalism (2004), Latin America and Global Capitalism (2008), and Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (2014).

    [Sep 14, 2016] Trump pledges big US military expansion

    The pressure of Trump from GOP establishment to adopt neocon policies is probably tremendous...
    Notable quotes:
    "... "What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy." ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.bbc.com

    Commenter Man , September 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    "What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."

    But today we have this: Trump pledges big US military expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular moment.

    [Sep 14, 2016] WaPo neocons Russians poison Hillary dezo is a sign of necons desperation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nevertheless, the ludicrous Washington Post, beloved rag of the neocons who have now flocked to Clinton's campaign, have seen fit to run the story above, which has even less evidential backing than the typical Enquirer or Prison Planet piece. ..."
    "... I don't care about Clinton's swoon and its various medical causes. ..."
    "... What I do care about is that the Washington Post is publishing crackpot paranoid conspiracy theories with potentially dangerous foreign policy consequences. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Kervick said...
    Yesterday, I sardonically commented here that I was surprised the Putin-paranoid Clintonites had not tried blaming Putin for Hillary Clinton's pneumonia.

    Little did I know that Putimonia theory was already out there!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12/the-man-who-discovered-cte-thinks-hillary-clinton-may-have-been-poisoned/

    The sad, sad, sad continuing decline of the American mind.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to pgl...

    It was 80 degrees. There have been many far hotter days here in the northeast this summer. Clinton didn't pass out because it was hot and humid. She passed out because she has pneumonia. It happens; people get sick.

    Nevertheless, the ludicrous Washington Post, beloved rag of the neocons who have now flocked to Clinton's campaign, have seen fit to run the story above, which has even less evidential backing than the typical Enquirer or Prison Planet piece.

    America has jumped the shark. You fools will have to launch WW III on the strength of your own votes, since you won't have mine.

    Dan Kervick -> DeDude...

    I don't care about Clinton's swoon and its various medical causes.

    What I do care about is that the Washington Post is publishing crackpot paranoid conspiracy theories with potentially dangerous foreign policy consequences.

    DeDude said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    "potentially dangerous foreign policy consequences"

    Hmmmmm - are we a little overheated this morning? May I suggest sitting down and drinking some gatorade.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to DeDude...

    It is indeed dangerous when one of the most prominent newspapers in America floats a cuckoo conspiracy theory - without even a tiny shred of evidence - to the effect that a prominent foreign leader might have poisoned a presidential candidate.

    Democrats are now plunging en masse down these various rabbit holes because they see a short-term political edge in them, and because their anxiety.

    Partisanship is a terrible mental illness. It makes previously sane people lose their bearings.

    DeDude said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    Omalu was previously sane???? Must have been before my time. Seriously Dan - Gatorade!!!

    Dan Kervick said in reply to DeDude...

    I'm talking about you people. Also, the editors of the Washington Post.

    If you think that Omalu is not sane then don't you agree it is irresponsible to publish his ravings?

    [Sep 14, 2016] Why Russia is Discrediting American Democracy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | nationalinterest.org

    According to a front-page story in the Washington Post , U.S. agencies are investigating what they perceive as "a broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political institutions". The story is vague and short on details.

    ... ... ...

    One of several unfortunate truths regarding the weakening integrity of American democracy involves the destruction of campaign finance laws and making electoral outcomes reflect the wallets of a few at least as much as the minds of many. Another unattractive and undemocratic element is the extensive gerrymandering in which both major parties indulge, thereby subordinating popular will to the crude power of incumbency. Even more of an affront to democracy in the last few years has been the blatant use of legislative power at the state level by members of one party to impede the ability of followers of the other party to exercise their right to vote, with the rationale for this power play being prevention of a form of voter fraud that has been so rare as to be almost nonexistent. American democracy is looking less and less distinct from the rickety versions of democracy in much of the less developed world, in which the bending of rules by incumbents to frustrate challenges to their rule is common.

    Most recently we have the presidential nominee of one major party, Donald Trump, declaring preemptively that if he loses it will be because the process was rigged. This also sounds a lot like many of those unstable political systems that purport to be democracies, and in which non-acceptance of electoral results is common. (See Gabon for a recent example .)

    American democracy is less of a shining, distinctive exemplar of political fairness and popular sovereignty than it once was...

    Meanwhile, Norman Birnbaum has good advice for Hillary Clinton in urging her "to shelve her devotion to extending democracy to the rest of the world to concentrate on rescuing it for ourselves."

    [Sep 14, 2016] Yes, Donald Trump is wrong about unemployment. But he's not the only one

    Spirited defense of the establishment from one of financial oligarchy members. " The economy overall is doing just fine." Does this include QE? If the Fed is pouring billions of new money into the economy, how accurate is it to say that the economy is doing just fine?
    Notable quotes:
    "... "That was a number that was devised, statistically devised, to make politicians - and in particular, presidents - look good. And I wouldn't be getting the kind of massive crowds that I'm getting if the number was a real number." ..."
    "... In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, organized labor was fairly convinced that the government was purposely underestimating inflation and the cost of living to keep Social Security payments low and wages from rising. George Meany, the powerful head of the American Federation of Labor at the time, claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiled both employment and inflation numbers, had "become identified with an effort to freeze wages and is not longer a free agency of statistical research." ..."
    "... Employment figures are sometimes seen as equally suspect. Jack Welch, the once-legendary former CEO of GE, blithely accused the Obama administration of manipulating the final employment report before the 2012 election to make the economic recovery look better than it was. "Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can't debate so change numbers," he tweeted ..."
    "... His arguments were later fleshed out by New York Post columnist John Crudele , who went on to charge the Census Bureau (which works with BLS to create the samples for the unemployment rate) with faking and fabricating the numbers to help Obama win reelection. ..."
    "... The chairman of the Gallup organization, Jim Clifton, sees so many flaws with the way unemployment is measured that he has called the official rate a "Big Lie." In the Democratic presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders has also weighed in, saying the real unemployment rate is at best above 10 percent. ..."
    "... What a useless article. The author explains precisely nothing about what the official statistics do and do not measure, what they miss and what they capture. ..."
    "... I had the same impression as well. Notice he does not mention that the Gallop number is over 10% and is based on their polling data. ..."
    "... But never mentioned that Reagan changed how Unemployment was figured in the early 80's. He included all people in the military service, as employed. Before that, they was counted neither way. He also intentionally left out that when Obama, had the unemployed numbers dropped one month before the election, from 8.1% to 7.8% --because it was believed that no one could be reelected if it was above 8%. ..."
    "... U6 is 9.8% for March 2016. We still have 94 million unemployed and you want to say its 5 % what journalistic malpractice. ..."
    "... Trump has emphasized that he is looking at the percent of the population that is participating in the workforce - and that this participation rate is currently at historical lows -- and Trump has been clear that his approach to paying down the national debt is based on getting the participation rates back to historical levels ..."
    "... "The government can't lie about a hundred billion dollars of Social Security money stolen for the Clinton 'balanced budget', that would be a crime against the citizens, they would revolt. John, come one now. " ..."
    "... I didn't say it first, Senator Ernest Hollings did, on the Senate floor. ..."
    "... And here is how they did it: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 ..."
    "... There is plenty of evidence the figures are cooked, folks, enough to fill a book: Atlas Shouts. Don't believe trash like this article claims. GDP, unemployment and inflation are all manipulated numbers, as Campbell's Law predicts. ..."
    "... I can't believe the Washington Post prints propaganda like this. ..."
    "... I do remember when the officially-announced unemployment rate stopped including those who were no longer looking for work. That *was* a significant shift, and there's no doubt it made politicians (Reagan, I think it was) look better; of course, no President since then has reversed it, as it would instantly make themselves look worse. ..."
    "... Working one hour a week, at minimum wage, is 'employed', according to the government. No wonder unemployment is at 5%. ..."
    "... Add in people who are working, but want and need full time jobs, add in people who have dropped out of the labor market and/or retired earlier than they wanted to, and unemployment is at least 10%. Ten seconds on Google will show you that. ..."
    "... The writer should be sacked for taking a very serious issue and turning it into a piece of non-informative fluff. Bad mouthing Trump and Sanders is the same as endorsing Hilly. ..."
    Apr 08, 2016 | The Washington Post
    Yes, Donald Trump is wrong about unemployment. But he's not the only one. - The Washington Post

    Listen to President Obama, and you'll hear that job growth is stronger than at any point in the past 20 years, and - as he said in his final State of the Union address - "anyone claiming that America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction."

    Listen to Donald Trump and you'll hear something completely different. The billionaire Republican candidate for president told The Washington Post last week that the economy is one big Federal Reserve bubble waiting to burst, and that as for job growth, "we're not at 5 percent unemployment. We're at a number that's probably into the 20s if you look at the real number." Not only that, Trump said, but the numbers are juiced: "That was a number that was devised, statistically devised, to make politicians - and in particular, presidents - look good. And I wouldn't be getting the kind of massive crowds that I'm getting if the number was a real number."

    It's easy enough to dismiss - as a phalanx of economists and analysts did - Trump's claims as yet another one of his all-too-frequent campaign lines that have little to do with reality. But with this one, at least, Trump is tapping into a deep and mostly overlooked well of popular suspicion of government numbers and a deeply held belief that what "we the people" are told about the economy by the government is lies, damn lies and statistics designed to benefit the elite at the expense of the working class. The stubborn persistence of these beliefs should be a reminder that just because the United States is doing well in general, that doesn't mean everyone in the country is. It's also a warning to experts and policymakers that in the real world, there is no "the economy," there are many, and generalizations have a way of glossing over some very rough patches.

    Since the mid-20th century, when the U.S. government began keeping and compiling our modern suite of economic numbers, there has been constant skepticism of the reports, coming from different corners depending on economic trends and the broader political climate. In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, organized labor was fairly convinced that the government was purposely underestimating inflation and the cost of living to keep Social Security payments low and wages from rising. George Meany, the powerful head of the American Federation of Labor at the time, claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiled both employment and inflation numbers, had "become identified with an effort to freeze wages and is not longer a free agency of statistical research."

    Over the decades, those views hardened. Throughout the 1970s, as workers struggled with unemployment and stagflation, the government continually tweaked its formulas for measuring prices. By and large, these changes and new formulas were designed to make the figures more accurate in a fast-changing world. But for those who were already convinced the government was trying to paint a deliberately false picture, the tweaks and innovations were interpreted as a devious way to avoid spending money to help the ailing middle class, not trying to measure what was actually happening to design policies to help address it. The commissioner of BLS at the time, Janet Norwood, dismissed those concerns in testimony to Congress in the late 1970s, saying that when people don't get the number they want, "they feel there must be something wrong with the indicator itself."

    Employment figures are sometimes seen as equally suspect. Jack Welch, the once-legendary former CEO of GE, blithely accused the Obama administration of manipulating the final employment report before the 2012 election to make the economic recovery look better than it was. "Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can't debate so change numbers," he tweeted after that last October report showed better-than-expected job growth and lower-than-anticipated unemployment rate. His arguments were later fleshed out by New York Post columnist John Crudele, who went on to charge the Census Bureau (which works with BLS to create the samples for the unemployment rate) with faking and fabricating the numbers to help Obama win reelection.

    These views are not fringe. Type the search terms "inflation is false" into Google, and you will get reams of articles and analysis from mainstream outlets and voices, including investment guru Bill Gross (who referred to inflation numbers as a "haute con job"). Similar results pop up with the terms "real unemployment rate," and given how many ways there are to count employment, there are legitimate issues with the headline number.

    The cohort that responds to Trump reads those numbers in a starkly different light from the cohort laughing at him for it. Whenever the unemployment rate comes out showing improvement and hiring, those who are experiencing dwindling wages and shrinking opportunities might see a meticulously constructed web of lies meant to paint a positive picture so that the plight of tens of millions who have dropped out of the workforce can be ignored. The chairman of the Gallup organization, Jim Clifton, sees so many flaws with the way unemployment is measured that he has called the official rate a "Big Lie." In the Democratic presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders has also weighed in, saying the real unemployment rate is at best above 10 percent.

    Beneath the anger and the distrust - which extend to a booming stock market that helps the wealthy and banks flush with profit even after the financial crisis - there lies a very real problem with how economists, the media and policymakers discuss economics. No, the bureaucrats in the Labor and Commerce departments who compile these numbers aren't a cabal engaged in a cover-up. And no, the Fed is not an Illuminati conspiracy. But the idea that a few simple big numbers that are at best averages to describe a large system we call "the economy" can adequately capture the stories of 320 million people is a fiction, one that we tell ourselves regularly, and which millions of people know to be false to their own experience.

    It may be true that there is a national unemployment rate measured at 5 percent. But it is also true that for white men without a college degree, or white men who had worked factory jobs until the mid-2000s with no more than a high school education, the unemployment reality is much worse (though it's even worse for black and Hispanic men, who don't seem to be responding by flocking to Trump in large numbers). Even when those with these skill sets can get a job, the pay is woefully below a living wage. Jobs that don't pay well still count, in the stats, as jobs. Telling people who are barely getting by that the economy is just fine must appear much more than insensitive. It is insulting, and it feels like a denial of what they are experiencing.

    The chords Trump strikes when he makes these claims, therefore, should be taken more seriously than the claims themselves. We need to be much more diligent in understanding what our national numbers do and do not tell us, and how much they obscure. In trying to hang our sense of what's what on a few big numbers, we risk glossing over the tens of millions whose lives don't fit those numbers and don't fit the story. "The economy" may be doing just fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone is. Inflation might be low, but millions can be struggling to meet basic costs just the same.

    So yes, Trump is wrong, and he's the culmination of decades of paranoia and distrust of government reports. The economy overall is doing just fine. But people are still struggling. We don't have to share the paranoia or buy into the conspiratorial narrative to acknowledge that. A great nation, the one Trump promises to restore, can embrace more than one story, and can afford to speak to those left out of our rosy national numbers along with those whose experience reflect them.

    the3sattlers, 4/8/2016 1:05 PM EDT

    " The economy overall is doing just fine." Does this include QE? If the Fed is pouring billions of new money into the economy, how accurate is it to say that the economy is doing just fine?

    james_harrigan, 4/8/2016 10:14 AM EDT

    What a useless article. The author explains precisely nothing about what the official statistics do and do not measure, what they miss and what they capture.

    Derbigdog, 4/8/2016 11:40 AM EDT

    I had the same impression as well. Notice he does not mention that the Gallop number is over 10% and is based on their polling data.

    captdon1, 4/8/2016 5:51 AM EDT

    Not reported by WP
    The first two years of Obama's presidency Democrats controlled the house and Senate. The second two years, Republicans controlled the Senate. The last two years of Obama's term, the Republicans controlled house and Senate. During this six years the national debt increase $10 TRILLION and the Government collected $9 TRILLION in taxes and borrowed $10 TRILLION. ($19 Trillion In Six Years!!!) (Where did our lovely politicians spend this enormous amount of money??? (Republicans and Democrats!)

    reussere, 4/8/2016 1:43 AM EDT

    Reading the comments below it strikes me again and again how far out of whack most people are with reality. It's absolutely true that using a single number for the employment rate reflects the overall average of the economy certainly doesn't measure how every person is doing, anymore than an average global temperature doesn't measure any local temperatures.

    One thing not emphasized in the article is that there is a number of different statistics. The 5% figure refers to the U-3 statistic. Nearly all of the rest of the employment statistics are higher, some considerably so because they include different groups of people. But when you compare U-3 from different years, you are comparing apples and apples. The rest of the numbers very closely track with U-3. That is when U-3 goes up and down, U-6 go up and down pretty much in lockstep.

    It is unfortunate that subpopulations of Americans are doing far worse (and some doing far better) than average. But that is the nature of averages after all. It is simply impossible for a single number (or even a group of a dozen different employment measurements) to accurately reflect a complex reality.

    Smoothcountryside, 4/8/2016 12:04 PM EDT

    The alternative measures of labor underutilization are defined as U-1 through U-6 with U-6 being the broadest measure and probably the closes to the "true" level of unemployment. Otherwise, all the rest of your commentary is correct.

    southernbaked, 4/7/2016 11:02 PM EDT

    Because this highly educated writer is totally bias, he left out some key parts, I personally lived though. He referred back to the late 70's twice. But never mentioned that Reagan changed how Unemployment was figured in the early 80's. He included all people in the military service, as employed. Before that, they was counted neither way. He also intentionally left out that when Obama, had the unemployed numbers dropped one month before the election, from 8.1% to 7.8% --because it was believed that no one could be reelected if it was above 8%.

    Then after he was sworn in--- in January, they had to readjust the numbers back up. They blamed it on one employees mistakes-- PS. no one was fired or disciplined for fudging. Bottom line is, for every 1.8 manufacturing job, there are 2 government jobs, that is disaster. Because this writer is to young to have lived in America when it was great. When for every 1 government job, you had 3 manufacturing jobs.

    I will enlighten him. I joined the workforce -- With no higher education -- when you merely walked down the road, and picked out a job. Because jobs hang on trees like apples. By 35 I COMPLETELY owned my first 3 bedroom brick house, and the 2 newer cars parked in the driveway. Anyone care to try that now ??

    As for all this talk about education-- I have a bit of knowledge about that subject-- because I paid in full to send all under my roof through it. Without one dime of aide from anyone. The above writer is proof-- you can be heavily educated, and DEAD WRONG. There is nothing good about this economy. Signed, UN-affiliated to either corrupted party

    Bluhorizons, 4/7/2016 9:43 PM EDT

    "we're not at 5 percent unemployment. We're at a number that's probably into the 20s if you look at the real number." Trump is correct. The unemployment data is contrived from data about people receiving unemployment compensation but the people who's unemployment has ended and people who have just given up is invisible.

    "It may be true that there is a national unemployment rate measured at 5 percent. But it is also true that for white men without a college degree, or white men who had worked factory jobs until the mid-2000s with no more than a high school education, the unemployment reality is much worse "

    The author goes on and on about the legitimate distrust of government unemployment data and then tells us Trump is wrong. But the article convinces us Trump is right! So, this article its not really about the legitimate distrust of government data is is about the author's not liking Trump. Typical New Left bs

    Aushax, 4/7/2016 8:24 PM EDT

    Last jobs report before the 2012 election the number unusually dropped then was readjusted up after the election. Coincidentally?

    George Mason, 4/7/2016 8:15 PM EDT

    U6 is 9.8% for March 2016. We still have 94 million unemployed and you want to say its 5 % what journalistic malpractice.

    F mackey, 4/7/2016 7:57 PM EDT

    hey reporter,Todays WSJ, More than 40% of the student borrowers aren't making payments? WHY? easy,they owe big $ money$ & cant get a job or a well paying job to pay back the loans,hey reporter,i'd send you $10 bucks to buy a clue,but you'd probably get lost going to the store,what a %@%@%@,another reporter,who doesn't have a clue on whats going on,jmo

    SimpleCountryActuary, 4/7/2016 7:57 PM EDT

    This reporter is a Hillary tool. Even the Los Angeles Times on March 6th had to admit:

    "Trump is partly right in saying that trade has cost the U.S. economy jobs and held down wages. He may also be correct - to a degree - in saying that low-skilled immigrants have depressed salaries for certain jobs or industries..."

    If this is the quality of reporting the WaPo is going to provide, namely even worse than the Los Angeles Times, then Bezos had better fire the editorial staff and buy a new one.

    Clyde4, 4/7/2016 7:34 PM EDT [Edited]

    This article dismissing Trump is exactly what is wrong with journalism today - all about creating a false reality for people instead of investigating and reporting

    Trump has emphasized that he is looking at the percent of the population that is participating in the workforce - and that this participation rate is currently at historical lows -- and Trump has been clear that his approach to paying down the national debt is based on getting the participation rates back to historical levels

    The author completely ignored the big elephant in the room -- that is irresponsible journalism

    The author may want to look into how the unemployment rate shot up in 2008 when the government extended benefits and then the unemployment rate plummeted again when unemployment benefits were decrease (around 2011, I believe) - if I were the author I would do a little research into whether the unemployment rate correlates with how much is paid out in benefits or with unemployment determined through some other approach (like surveys

    dangerbird1225, 4/7/2016 7:25 PM EDT

    Bunch of crap. If you stop counting those that stop looking for a job, your numbers are wrong. Period. Why didn't this apologist for statistics mention that?

    watchkeptoverthewatcher, 4/7/2016 6:27 PM EDT

    Ya with a labor participation rate of 63%

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

    AtlasRocked, 4/7/2016 5:12 PM EDT

    "The government can't lie about a hundred billion dollars of Social Security money stolen for the Clinton 'balanced budget', that would be a crime against the citizens, they would revolt. John, come one now. "

    I didn't say it first, Senator Ernest Hollings did, on the Senate floor.

    "Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000." - Senate speech, Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c3319676 at 5:30

    And here is how they did it: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    rgengel, 4/7/2016 5:03 PM EDT

    Go to New Orleans Chicago Atlanta Los Angeles Detroit stop anybody on the street and ask if unemployment is 5% and that there is a 95% chance a guy can get a job.

    Then you will have a statistic reference point. Its not a Democratic or republican issue because both of them have manipulated the system for so long its meaningless. Go Trump 2016 and get this crap sorted out with common sense plain English

    AtlasRocked, 4/7/2016 4:37 PM EDT

    There is plenty of evidence the figures are cooked, folks, enough to fill a book: Atlas Shouts. Don't believe trash like this article claims. GDP, unemployment and inflation are all manipulated numbers, as Campbell's Law predicts.

    I can't believe the Washington Post prints propaganda like this.

    TimberDave, 4/7/2016 2:23 PM EDT

    I do remember when the officially-announced unemployment rate stopped including those who were no longer looking for work. That *was* a significant shift, and there's no doubt it made politicians (Reagan, I think it was) look better; of course, no President since then has reversed it, as it would instantly make themselves look worse.

    astroboy_2000, 4/7/2016 1:28 PM EDT

    This would be a much more intelligent article if the writer actually said what the government considers as 'employed'.

    Working one hour a week, at minimum wage, is 'employed', according to the government. No wonder unemployment is at 5%.

    Add in people who are working, but want and need full time jobs, add in people who have dropped out of the labor market and/or retired earlier than they wanted to, and unemployment is at least 10%. Ten seconds on Google will show you that.

    The writer should be sacked for taking a very serious issue and turning it into a piece of non-informative fluff. Bad mouthing Trump and Sanders is the same as endorsing Hilly.

    Manchester0913, 4/7/2016 2:12 PM EDT

    The number you're referencing is captured under U6. However, U3 is the traditional measure.

    Son House, 4/7/2016 2:24 PM EDT

    The government doesn't claim that working one hour a week is employed. Google U 3 unemployment. Then google U 6 unemployment. You can be enlightened.

    Liz in AL, 4/7/2016 7:21 PM EDT

    I've found this compilation of all 6 of the "U-rates" very useful. It encompasses the most restrictive (and thus smallest) U-1 rate, though the most expansive U-6. It provides brief descriptions of what gets counted for each rate, and (at least for more recent years) provides the ability to compare at the monthly level of detail. U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

    [Sep 14, 2016] The Global Economic Crisis and the Future of Neoliberal Globalization Rupture Versus Continuity by Ali Burak Güven, Ziya Öni

    papers.ssrn.com

    This article outlines the main elements of rupture and continuity in the global political economy since the global economic crisis of 2008-2009. While the current calamity poses a more systemic challenge to neoliberal globalization than genetically similar turbulences in the semi-periphery during the 1990s, we find that evidence for its transformative significance remains mixed. Efforts to reform the distressed capitalist models in the North encounter severe resistance, and the broadened multilateralism of the G-20 is yet to provide effective global economic governance. Overall, neoliberal globalization looks set to survive, but in more heterodox and multipolar fashion. Without tighter coordination between old and emerging powers, this new synthesis is unlikely to inspire lasting solutions to pressing global problems such as an unsustainable international financial architecture and the pending environmental catastrophe, and may even fail to preserve some modest democratic and developmental gains of the recent past.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Trump pledges big US military expansion

    The pressure of Trump from GOP establishment to adopt neocon policies is probably tremendous...
    Notable quotes:
    "... "What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy." ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.bbc.com

    Commenter Man , September 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    "What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."

    But today we have this: Trump pledges big US military expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular moment.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Money cant buy me love DNC can sell you a high diplomatic position for mere 600 thousands

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing, though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then it does smell a little like corruption. ..."
    "... In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release. ..."
    "... But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations. Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris. " ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Haygood , September 13, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    New leak from Guccifer 2.0: ambassadorships for sale - some for a very affordable $600K:

    http://magafeed.com/new-clinton-leaks-reveals-donor-list-big-donors-awarded-federal-positions/

    " Money can't buy me love " - John, Paul, George & Ringo

    But a black diplomatic passport is a decent consolation prize. :-)

    JCC , September 13, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    I saw that too, earlier today and at first I thought "another example!". Then I stepped back and realized that other than an inflation gauge, so what? That has been a perk for donors in this country (and many other I assume) for over 200 years… at least as far as the ambassadorships are concerned.

    Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing, though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then it does smell a little like corruption.

    Buttinsky , September 13, 2016 at 11:39 pm

    I was away from the computer for a few hours and all leak-hell has broken loose. Unfortunately, the actual dumps are not being made as easy to access directly as in prior releases - the Guccifer 2.0 release requires a "torrent" download and DNCLeaks.org seems to have been vaporized. And there's a lot of it, so we're having to rely on piecemeal, secondhand reports at the moment.

    In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release.

    https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/775846049009197057

    But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations. Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris. "

    https://theintercept.com/2016/09/13/colin-powell-emails/

    Daryl , September 13, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    Was checking the polls in Texas and surprised to see that it has Johnson at 10% and Stein at 6%.

    Also googling for more of them, all the articles talked about Hillary "might win" Texas, no mention of third party candidates. Blech

    [Sep 14, 2016] September 13, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Notable quotes:
    "... MSM has really obliterated their credibility this election cycle. ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Our Famously Free Press

    "Why Are The Media Objectively Pro-Trump?" [Paul Krugman, The New York Times ]. He's got a point. After all, the press systematically suppressed stories about Sanders, who would have been a stronger opponent for Trump than Clinton.

    rich , September 13, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Krugman fails…

    The Death of Mainstream Media

    At the end of the day, I have concluded that my focus on Hillary as of late (vs. Trump) has as much to with my disgust for the mainstream media as anything else.
    To see these organs, which have destroyed this country by keeping the people uninformed for decades, now rally around a sickly, corrupt, oligarch coddling politician as the empire enters the collapse stage is simply too much to stomach. Although I'm still voting 3rd party, it's now become obvious that if my sentiments are widely reflected across the country, Donald Trump will win the election handily. As I tweeted earlier today:

    The only positive thing to happen during this election season is the death of mainstream media. With their insufferable propaganda fully exposed, there is no coming back.

    http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/09/13/the-death-of-mainstream-media/#more-37561

    MSM has really obliterated their credibility this election cycle.

    Quentin , September 13, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    Another positive thing is the demise of the Bush dynasty. And if Donald Trump pulls it off, the Clinton dynasty. I can't decide with is worse though I tend to detest the Clinton dynasty more especially now the its present star is mucking the place up.

    Quentin , September 13, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    Another positive thing is the demise of the Bush dynasty. And if Donald Trump pulls it off, the Clinton dynasty. I can't decide with is worse though I tend to detest the Clinton dynasty more especially now the its present star is mucking the place up.

    Pavel , September 13, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    Speaking of losing credibility… here is a real shocker via The Hill:

    CBS News edited a video clip and transcript to remove former President Bill Clinton's comment during an interview that Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic presidential nominee, "frequently" fainted in the past.

    Bill Clinton sat down with CBS's Charlie Rose on Monday to try to clear the air around questions regarding his wife's health after she collapsed while getting into a van at a 9/11 memorial ceremony on Sunday.

    "Well, if it is, then it's a mystery to me and all of her doctors," Bill Clinton said when Rose asked him if Hillary Clinton was simply dehydrated or if the situation was more serious. "Frequently - well, not frequently, rarely, on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing's happened to her when she got severely dehydrated, and she's worked like a demon, as you know, as secretary of State, as a senator and in the year since."
    But the "CBS Evening News" version cut Clinton's use of "frequently" out. And a review by The Hill of the official transcript released by the network shows that Clinton saying "Frequently - well, not frequently," is omitted as well.

    The Hill: CBS News edits transcript, video clip of Bill Clinton discussing Hillary's health

    Can it get any more blatant?

    BTW Rich I read the LibertyBlitz post earlier and it is spot on.

    Left in Wisconsin , September 13, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    MSM has really obliterated their credibility this election cycle.

    Is there a reason why that matters? Worse now compared to covering for Reagan's Alzheimer's for how many years?

    Daryl , September 13, 2016 at 10:01 pm

    Their credibility has eroded constantly with the rise of alternative methods of communication…it's just the election cycle that lays it bare, like rain washing away a bunch of soil where roots have already died.

    [Sep 14, 2016] The Veeps on War They are both hawkish

    Notable quotes:
    "... So what of Trump and Clinton's vice-presidential picks? For starters, they are both hawkish. ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos September 14, 2016

    According to evolving campaign lore, Donald Trump's son called failed Republican candidate John Kasich ahead of Trump's VP pick in July and told him he could be "the most powerful vice president" ever-in charge of foreign policy, and domestic too-if he agreed to come on board.

    While Trump's people have denied such a lavish entreaty ever occurred, it has become a powerful political meme: the Republican nominee's lack of experience would force him to default to others, particularly on the international front, which is a never-ending series of flash points dotting Europe, Asia, and the Middle East like a child's Lite Brite.

    On the Democratic side there is no such concern-Hillary Clinton has plenty of experience as a senator and secretary of state, and was a "two-for-one" first lady who not only took part (unsuccessfully) in the domestic health-care debate, but passionately advocated (successfully) for the bombing campaigns in Bosnia and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

    So what of Trump and Clinton's vice-presidential picks? For starters, they are both hawkish.

    Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was an apt pupil of Bush and Cheney during the neoconservative years, voting for the Iraq War in 2002 and serving as one of David Petraeus's cheerleaders in favor of the 2007 surge. He has since supported every intervention his fellow Republicans did, even giving early praise to Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration for the 2011 intervention in Libya.

    On the other side, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine is as far from the Bernie Sanders mold as they come: a centrist Democrat who supports a muscular, liberal-interventionist foreign policy, and who has been pushing for greater intervention in Syria, just like Hillary Clinton.

    If veeps do matter-and as we saw with Dick Cheney , in many ways they can, bigtime-the non-interventionists can expect nothing but the status quo when it comes to war policy and the war machine at home for the next four years. Under the right conditions, Pence would help drag Trump to the right on war and defense, and Kaine would do nothing but bolster Clinton's already hawkish views on a host of issues, including those involving Syria, Russia, the Middle East, and China.

    If anything, Pence could end up having more influence in the White House, said Bonnie Kristian, a writer and fellow at Defense Priorities , in an interview with TAC . "With these two campaigns, I would predict that Pence would have more of a chance of playing a bigger role [in the presidency] than Tim Kaine does," she offered. Pence could bring to bear a dozen years of experience as a pro-war congressman, including two years on the foreign-affairs committee. "He's been a pretty typical Republican on foreign policy and has a lot of neoconservative impulses. I don't think we could expect anything different," she added.

    For his part, Trump "has been all over the place" on foreign policy, she said, and while his talk about restraint and Iraq being a failure appeals to her and others who would like to see America's overseas operations scaled back, his bench of close advisors is not encouraging. Walid Phares , Gen. Michael Flynn , Chris Christie , Rudy Giuliani : along with Pence, all could fit like neat little pieces into the Bush-administration puzzle circa 2003, and none has ever expressed the same disregard for the Bush and Obama war policies as Trump has on the campaign trail.

    "On one hand, [Trump] has referred to the war in Iraq and regime change as bad and nation-building as bad, but at the same time he has no ideological grounding," said Jack Hunter, politics editor at Rare . If Trump leaves the policymaking up to others, including Pence, "that doesn't bode well for those who think the last Republican administration was too hawkish and did not exhibit restraint."

    Pence, Kristian reminds us , gave a speech just last year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in which he called for a massive increase in military spending. "It is imperative that conservatives again embrace America's role as leader of the free world and the arsenal of democracy," Pence said, predicting then that 2016 would be a "foreign-policy election."

    "He embraces wholeheartedly a future in which America polices the world-forever-refusing to reorient our foreign policy away from nation-building and toward restraint, diplomacy and free trade to ensure U.S. security," Kristian wrote in The Hill back when Pence accepted his place on the Trump ticket in July. Since then, he has muted his support for Iraq (Trump has said Pence's 2003 vote doesn't matter, even calling it "a mistake" ). Clearly the two men prefer to meet on the issue of Islamic threats and the promise of "rebuilding the military," areas where they have been equally enthusiastic.

    Meanwhile, former Bernie Sanders supporters should be rather underwhelmed with Kaine on national-security policy. On one hand, writers rush to point out that Kaine split with President Obama and Hillary Clinton just a few years ago, arguing the administration could not continue to use the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. He also proposed legislation with Sen. John McCain to update the War Powers Act; the bill would have required the president to consult with Congress when starting a war, and Congress to vote on any war within seven days of military action. That would tighten the constitutional responsibilities of both branches, the senators said in 2013.

    On the War Powers Act, Kaine gets points with constitutionalists like University of Texas law professor Steven Vladeck, who said Kaine's effort "recognizes, as we all should, the broader problems with the War Powers Resolution as currently written-and with the contemporary separation of war powers between Congress and the executive branch." But on the issue of the AUMF, Vladeck and others have not been so keen on Kaine.

    Kaine has made two proposals relating to the AUMF, and both would leave the door open to extended overseas military combat operations-including air strikes, raids, and assassinations-without a specific declaration of war. The first directs the president to modify or repeal the 2001 AUMF "by September 2017"; the second, authored with Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, keeps the 2001 AUMF but updates the 2002 AUMF used to attack Iraq to include ISIS.

    As Rosa Brooks said in 2013 :

    A revised AUMF is likely to do precisely what the Bush administration sought to do in the run-up to the Iraq War: codify a dangerous unilateral theory of preemptive war, and provide a veneer of legality for an open-ended conflict against an endlessly expanding list of targets.

    While he might be applauded for trying to strengthen "the rule of law on foreign policy," said Kristian, it's not clear he wants to do it "to scale back these interventions." As a member of both the armed-services and foreign-relations committees, he has already argued for greater intervention in Syria, calling for "humanitarian zones"-which, like "no-fly zones" and "no-bombing zones," mean the U.S. better be ready to tangle with the Syrian president and Russia as well as ISIS.

    Plus, when Kaine was running for his Senate seat in 2011, and Obama-with Clinton's urging-was in the midst of a coalition bombing campaign in Libya, Kaine was much more noncommittal when it came to the War Powers Act, saying Obama had a "good rationale" for going in. When asked if he believed the War Powers Act legally bound the president to get congressional approval to continue operations there, he said, "I'm not a lawyer on that."

    If anything, Kaine will serve as a reliable backup to a president who is perfectly willing to use military force to promote "democracy" overseas. He neither softens Clinton's edges on military and war, nor is necessary to sharpen them. "Does Tim Kaine change [any dynamic]? I don't think so," said Hunter, adding, "I can't imagine he is as hawkish as her on foreign policy-she is the worst of the worst."

    So when it comes to veep picks, the value is in the eye of the beholder. "If you are a conservative and you don't think Trump is hawkish enough, you will like it that Pence is there," notes Hunter. On the other hand, if you like Trump's attitude on the messes overseas-preferring diplomacy over destruction, as he said in his speech Wednesday -Pence might make you think twice, added Kristian. "I'm not sure Pence is going to further those inclinations, if indeed they do exist."

    To make it more complicated, the American public is unsure how it wants to proceed overseas anyway. While a majority favor airstrikes and sending in special-operations groups to fight ISIS in Syria, only a minority want to insert combat troops or even fund anti-Assad groups, according to an August poll . A slim majority-52 percent-want to establish no-fly zones. Yet only 31 percent want to to see a deal that would keep Bashar Assad in power.

    A tall order for any White House.

    Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter.

    [Sep 14, 2016] If you can not beat Trump it is time to enlist help of Russians as a convenient scapegoats

    Notable quotes:
    "... If Donald Trump really is doing Presidential Campaign as performance art, it may turn out that his Doctor's letter about his awesome health is the most brilliant aspect of it. Call me wild and crazy but I'm beginning to think that item with its sheer obvious level of BS was a fairly brilliant parody of what we have seen and probably will see from Clinton. ..."
    "... The Putin-did-it comments on that article are depressing and ..."
    "... Romeo and Juliet ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    1% , September 12, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    If you can't beat 'em, call 'em anti-semites!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/opinion/anti-semitism-and-the-british-left.html

    Jerri-Lynn Scofield Post author , September 12, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    https://www.ft.com/content/377f08c2-78f0-11e6-a0c6-39e2633162d5?ftcamp=crm/email//nbe/WorldNews/product . Link to FT piece headlined Long line of US presidents who concealed ill health.

    Pat , September 12, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    If Donald Trump really is doing Presidential Campaign as performance art, it may turn out that his Doctor's letter about his awesome health is the most brilliant aspect of it. Call me wild and crazy but I'm beginning to think that item with its sheer obvious level of BS was a fairly brilliant parody of what we have seen and probably will see from Clinton.

    Of course, he isn't and that means it is just taking the BS to the nth degree at least until we see the new Clinton release.

    Jen , September 12, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Speaking of parody. LOOK! RUSSIANS!
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12/the-man-who-discovered-cte-thinks-hillary-clinton-may-have-been-poisoned

    Bezos Daily may as well start calling themselves the weekly world news.

    Pat , September 12, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    It really is all a plot of those evil Russians…

    Buttinsky , September 12, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    The Putin-did-it comments on that article are depressing and laughable. Tomorrow's story: Putin tripped Hillary on her way to the van.

    Of course, Hillary has been poisoned. But not by some Russian apothecary:

    There is thy gold, worse poison to men's souls,
    Doing more murders in this loathsome world,
    Than these poor compounds….

    Romeo, Romeo and Juliet

    Pat , September 12, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    I really want someone to Photoshop Boris and Natasha helping Hillary into the van…

    Buttinsky , September 12, 2016 at 9:04 pm

    The Russians did it!!! (Though I'm it's sure not quite what you pictured.)

    https://s21.postimg.org/9sxzqtwif/boris_natasha_hillary.jpg

    JTMcPhee , September 12, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    RE: poisoning - gee, who is next in line behind Hillary? I mean, on the Dem side? This whole "political season" is looking more like something out of the Borgia era. And there is no history of one part or another of the CIA poisoning people like Fidel Castro or whatever, and how many parts of the CIA and the other bits of runaway Empire would like Clinton gone so maybe they could slide a Biden into the slot…

    polecat , September 12, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    maybe, in the future, the'll be an opera made of this kerfuffle of an election ..!

    GeorgeM , September 12, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    Clinton has been having coughing fits since 2009. A quick trip to youtube ends all speculation that this is pneumonia since Friday.

    Anyone interested in the truth of this need only see the fits… over and over and over again.. with dates.

    It's Parkinsons…. or so says my neighbor – a neurosurgeon… who hates her by the way

    but he is not rabid…. just conservative and unhappy with the Bush/Clinton/Obama crime syndicate

    Plenue , September 12, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    "Questions for the presidential candidates on nuclear terrorism, proliferation, weapons policy, and energy"

    Can we first stop talking about nuclear terrorism like it's actually a thing? If no terrorists managed to get the bomb during the deluge of corruption and broken bureaucracy that was the collapse of the USSR (yes, NATO and Pentagon, the Soviet Union also isn't a thing anymore), then none ever are.

    No nuclear country, be it Pakistan or anyone else, is dumb enough to hand over a nuke. Can you imagine the witch hunt that would ensue if someone turned a city into a mushroom cloud? Assuming WW3 didn't just start right then and there. No amount of money would make the certain risk of getting caught worth it.

    All that leaves is a dirty bomb, which is actually a whole lot of effort for something that is no better than an infinitely easier fertilizer bomb.

    Roger Smith , September 12, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    No. 3 Senate Democrat Schumer discloses pneumonia diagnosis [ AP ]. OMG It is the new Zika!!

    Jim Haygood , September 12, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Pneumonia is the new gout [afflictions of the posh].

    Jen , September 12, 2016 at 8:30 pm

    OMG – call the Washington Post! Another Democrat poisoned by the Russians!

    polecat , September 12, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    Ha --

    [Sep 13, 2016] Hillary Clinton might just became unelectable. and any vote for Clinton automatically become a vote for Tim Kaine

    "What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the [US neoliberal] elite are afraid of something terrible. " -- that a very asute observation,
    " Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates to Brexit. Turning their world upside down. " -- also true, although neoliberalism still successfully counterattack in selected countries and recently scored two wins in Latin America (Argentina and Brazil)
    Notable quotes:
    "... The atmosphere feels like 1974 just before Richard Nixon resigned. Except, it is completely reversed. The establishment is protecting Hillary Clinton. They are spinning up a whirlwind. What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the elite are afraid of something terrible. ..."
    "... I presume it has to be that millions of incorrigibles are recognizing the oligarchs' scams. Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates to Brexit. Turning their world upside down. ..."
    "... Ms. Clinton and/or whichever member of her staff decided to use The Clinton Rules for Obfuscation and Avoidance as a way to address what was clearly some kind of medical event. ..."
    "... Given that she wasn't whisked away in an ambulance, and didn't spend any time in an emergency room, whatever it was that happened must not have been entirely unanticipated or unusual – it may just be that she had the great misfortune of exhibiting these symptoms in public and not in the privacy of her own home. ..."
    "... But let's recap, shall we? First, she was constructively absent from the campaign trail for the entire month of August. She did few events and not as much traveling. She also was not spending any time with the media, giving no pressers for months. Criticism mounted, so – wonder of wonders – when she got her spiffy new plane, the invites went out to the media to join her on the plane, and she held her first presser in months just this past Thursday. ..."
    "... She looked fine. Her color was good, she looked rested. The next night, she did a high-dollar fundraiser hosted by Barbra Streisand. Again, she looked and sounded fine. Yet, it was that day that her physician says she was diagnosed with pneumonia and given antibiotics. ..."
    "... Then, on Sunday, with temps in the low 80's and low humidity, she falls ill. She looked okay walking to her car, but she leaned on the post for support and then appeared to collapse getting into the van. Did she lose her footing on the curb? ..."
    "... She sustained a serious concussion in 2012, when she fainted as a complication of a stomach virus that caused her to be dehydrated. The concussion gave her double vision, for which she wore special lenses for a time. She was not allowed to fly. A follow up visit to the doctor revealed that she had a blood clot in a vein between her brain and her skull so she was put on blood thinners. Her husband says it took every bit of six months for her to recover from the concussion. ..."
    "... She's also had DVTs in her legs, and has an underactive thyroid for which I presume she takes medication. ..."
    "... no matter how infrequent – post-concussion symptoms will call into question her mental abilities, which would be the death knell for her candidacy. ..."
    "... she and her people spoon feed us one somewhat-plausible explanation after another, apparently in the hope they will hit on one that makes people stop asking questions about it ..."
    "... This is how the Clintons – both of them – handle everything, and it's exactly why Hillary finds herself the topic of conversation and speculation everywhere. ..."
    "... Also, not sure I believe the pneumonia story. Wouldn't put it past them to fabricate that. How is taking about health issues w/o talking about her concussion, blood clots, and rat poison meds …. an honest talk about her health? ..."
    "... If Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's -- or some other neurological impairment leading to her frequent "spells" and falls -- the Democratic Party should ask her to step aside and allow someone in better health to run. ..."
    "... As they move her away from that post she was leaning against, her arms stay rigid behind her back. My friend used to call this "offing", as in on or off, which was different from his freezing of gait, and happened to him when he was under stress. ..."
    "... the coughing, even the pneumonia could be caused by difficulty swallowing. ..."
    "... It could be Vascular Parkinsonism. I just wish she would be strong enough to admit she is weak. ..."
    "... Ah, thanks for explaining why her arms were like that behind her back. At first I thought she was handcuffed. ..."
    "... Noel's How to Prove Me Wrong about Hillary's Parkinson's Disease is worth a look. ..."
    "... Forget Parkinson's, what about MS. ..."
    "... after the DVT Hillary would have been placed on an anticoagulant, especially with all those plane trips. Then there is that fall she had last year. If she were on Coumadin at that time with a fall & head trauma can cause a bleed. Also MDs are nervous about putting someone on a blood thinner that is at risk for frequent falls. This whole situation is crazy. ..."
    "... I'd bet that Clinton shopped around until she found a doctor willing to work with a minimal paper trail and certainly zero electronic trail. ..."
    "... It isn't logical to believe a sudden press release used as a distraction. With past episodes of fainting, falling, concussion and ongoing treatment, this qualifier is put out to run up the flagpole. Please note the moment the handlers suddenly jump to surround and hide the candidate from the cameras. ..."
    "... Daily Mail even goes as far as to say the candidate was "thrown into the seat like a sack of beef" (paraphrasing) ..."
    "... Was that doctor EpiPen that opened the door to the van? ..."
    "... So she has what could be very contagious? And she rests at Chelsea's home and plays with the kids? Anyone want some real cheap swamp land in the Everglades? ..."
    "... my guess is at Chelsea's they could give her a quick shot of amphetamines so we could then get the "look, the candidate can actually walk unaided!" photo op when she emerged. ..."
    "... So that's how low we've sunk, we're supposed to vote for the elderly, sickly, serial war criminal, pathological liar old lady because she can actually walk. Oh, and "because she's a woman". ..."
    "... I'd just like to point out how annoying it is that the media stenographers on many sites today are slavishly repeating the Hillary campaign's pneumonia story without a single speck of actually checking, either through logic or investigation, whether any of it makes sense. Though admittedly there is a tiny bit doubt starting to creep through the media narrative; maybe they're thinking that this is the fig leaf they need to feel like they still have credibility–which is just them fooling themselves. ..."
    "... Since stuff coming from the mainstream media is provably guaranteed to be just some sht they made up, or passing along some sht someone else made up without questioning it, I don't think there's anything wrong with just ignoring the msm and believing whatever you feel like believing from the internet; unlike with the msm there is at least a decent chance that that stuff might be true. ..."
    "... Policies? Pay no attention to what emerges from the candidates mouths, as Obama said in 2008 "Hilary will say anything, and change nothing", she can be at a rally and yell "I'm fighting for you!" and 15 minutes later she is meeting with a Wall St CEO on new ways to rip people off. I'm not saying her opponent is any better ..."
    "... Focus on the candidate's health is always appropriate. Particularly so when the ability of the candidate to serve out their term is a legitimate question. It is the height of arrogance for a candidate to accept the nomination without the full expectation that they will be ready to serve the full term at stake. For a candidate to attempt to proceed through concealment of substantive health issues is an expression of complete unaccountability. ..."
    "... If Hillary had been more honest about her physical condition, folks wouldn't be stooping to armchair diagnoses, which is normal human behavior for those to whom the truth has not been forthcoming. ..."
    "... Not a one-time diagnosis. She apparently has had a deep venous thrombosis and more recently cavernous sinus thrombosis. I suspect because of this (two discrete episodes) a decision has been made for chronic continuing use of coumadin. Like all medications, a decision is made as to whether the benefits of treatment using that medication outweigh the projected risks of the medication. Properly managed, the risks are fairly small. But the key is proper management, which may be difficult given the demands of the position as POTUS. ..."
    "... I also believe her travel did and would put her at greater risk. https://www.stoptheclot.org/learn_more/air_travel_and_thrombosis.htm ..."
    "... This just in: Hillary Clinton to Release More Medical Records After Pneumonia Diagnosis http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-plans-to-rest-amid-health-concerns-1473694474 ..."
    "... More"? Like how many more? ..."
    "... How many more? As many as it takes, one dollop at a time, until she hits the sweet spot where the questions stop. It was always destined to take the same path as the e-mails and every other questionable thing Clinton's been associated with – that's how they roll! ..."
    "... "One-shoe" Hillary is now the butt of visual jokes, as her signature red arrow is repurposed into a stretcher: http://tinyurl.com/zbza8ph ..."
    "... At this point, Clinton would have as much success convincing the public that she's released all the medical records that are relevant to her run for president as she would convincing us that she was part of a grand experiment whereby an entire medical team has been shrunk to Fantastic Voyage size, and injected into her bloodstream so that she can be under constant care. ..."
    "... If she became spastic, and collapsed (unexpectedly) just trying to get into an SUV, what kind of risk is she going to be under during the first debate? ..."
    "... Everyone is going to be watching for any slight, "unnatural," twitch, or, movement for the whole episode. ..."
    "... The question really is: Is a vote for Clinton a vote for Tim Kaine??? ..."
    "... Here's why. If humans were rational creatures, the time and place of Clinton's "overheating" wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel unsafe. And safety is our first priority. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton just became unelectable. The mainstream media might not interpret today's events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone on 5th Avenue, he's running unopposed." ..."
    "... seems to me that Hillary could likely be suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. ..."
    "... If diagnosed in 2012-13, which seems likely given her concussion and brain clot diagnoses, she would now begin to experience a severe physical decline and pneumonia is a frequent cause of death for those suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. ..."
    Sep 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    VietnamVet , September 12, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    I agree with all of Anne's great comments above on Hillary Clinton's 9-11 fainting episode.

    The atmosphere feels like 1974 just before Richard Nixon resigned. Except, it is completely reversed. The establishment is protecting Hillary Clinton. They are spinning up a whirlwind. What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the elite are afraid of something terrible.

    It can't be Donald Trump; he is one them. Instead, I presume it has to be that millions of incorrigibles are recognizing the oligarchs' scams. Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates to Brexit. Turning their world upside down.

    Anne , September 12, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    If you want to blame anyone for all this armchair medical discussion, look no further than Ms. Clinton and/or whichever member of her staff decided to use The Clinton Rules for Obfuscation and Avoidance as a way to address what was clearly some kind of medical event.

    Given that she wasn't whisked away in an ambulance, and didn't spend any time in an emergency room, whatever it was that happened must not have been entirely unanticipated or unusual – it may just be that she had the great misfortune of exhibiting these symptoms in public and not in the privacy of her own home.

    Whatever this is or was, it is how she chose to handle it that has led to all this discussion.

    But let's recap, shall we? First, she was constructively absent from the campaign trail for the entire month of August. She did few events and not as much traveling. She also was not spending any time with the media, giving no pressers for months. Criticism mounted, so – wonder of wonders – when she got her spiffy new plane, the invites went out to the media to join her on the plane, and she held her first presser in months just this past Thursday.

    She looked fine. Her color was good, she looked rested. The next night, she did a high-dollar fundraiser hosted by Barbra Streisand. Again, she looked and sounded fine. Yet, it was that day that her physician says she was diagnosed with pneumonia and given antibiotics.

    Then, on Sunday, with temps in the low 80's and low humidity, she falls ill. She looked okay walking to her car, but she leaned on the post for support and then appeared to collapse getting into the van. Did she lose her footing on the curb?

    So, first we heard she wasn't feeling well. Then we heard she was overheated and dehydrated. Some hours later, we were told of the pneumonia diagnosis, and then – like a miracle – she comes walking out of her daughter's apartment building looking quite chipper. Did she get IV fluids? Who knows?

    She sustained a serious concussion in 2012, when she fainted as a complication of a stomach virus that caused her to be dehydrated. The concussion gave her double vision, for which she wore special lenses for a time. She was not allowed to fly. A follow up visit to the doctor revealed that she had a blood clot in a vein between her brain and her skull so she was put on blood thinners. Her husband says it took every bit of six months for her to recover from the concussion.

    She's also had DVTs in her legs, and has an underactive thyroid for which I presume she takes medication.

    Could she be having periodic bouts of vertigo as a result of the concussion? Other effects that linger, or pop up from time to time? Doesn't seem unreasonable, but here's the thing: we are never going to know if that's the case, because unlike pneumonia for which you can take an antibiotic and be done with, ongoing – no matter how infrequent – post-concussion symptoms will call into question her mental abilities, which would be the death knell for her candidacy.

    So, she and her people spoon feed us one somewhat-plausible explanation after another, apparently in the hope they will hit on one that makes people stop asking questions about it – but the problem is that this method just adds to the sense people have that she's still hiding something and so the speculation goes on.

    This is how the Clintons – both of them – handle everything, and it's exactly why Hillary finds herself the topic of conversation and speculation everywhere.

    crittermom , September 12, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    Anne, you nailed it.

    timbers , September 12, 2016 at 10:22 am

    Yes to this (Anne. September 12, 2016 at 9:57 am):

    My real issue with this whole event is that, had Clinton not collapsed, we wouldn't know anything about the alleged pneumonia. It's the same old story: she does what she wants until events conspire to force her to make public whatever it was she wanted to remain private.

    And even then, she continues to hold close as much information as possible for as long as possible, before being more or less forced to get it all out there.

    Also, not sure I believe the pneumonia story. Wouldn't put it past them to fabricate that. How is taking about health issues w/o talking about her concussion, blood clots, and rat poison meds …. an honest talk about her health?

    Barmitt O'Bamney, September 12, 2016 at 10:50 am

    It's probably a lot worse than a case of walking pneumonia. The video below was posted to yootoobs three days before Hillary Clinton collapsed into her own footprint like a world tower of trade:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtIzH9HoC8 (try to set aside the moronic wingnut host's editorializing, just listen to the doc testify)

    It should be noted that

    A) Parkinson's Disease has several stages. Hillary appears to be ten years into the progression at least and somewhere in the disease's middle stages. Also,

    B) the medication used to treat Parkinson's has its own serious side motor effects, which she seems to exhibit.

    C) And finally C, not only does Parkinson's debilitate its victim randomly and episodically, and ultimately in its latter stages will make keeping up a daily schedule of activities impossible, it also is typically accompanied by non-motor symptoms of delusions and hard mood swings: eg, anxiety/depression and rage.

    If Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's -- or some other neurological impairment leading to her frequent "spells" and falls -- the Democratic Party should ask her to step aside and allow someone in better health to run. Naturally being Hillary Clinton she would hotly refuse and retreat to her bunker with Eva Braun to lean on, but the certain ferocity of her reaction doesn't relieve the party leadership of this responsibility.

    I long ago abandoned any hope for that party, but in an alternate universe where they had not become mobbed-up and corrupt to the core, Clinton would get a public call from party elders now to do the right thing for the country and endorse a substitute candidate.

    FromColdMountain , September 12, 2016 at 11:26 am

    Having lived with someone who had Parkinson's, and after looking closely at the video of her on 9/11, I think she has Parkinson's.

    As they move her away from that post she was leaning against, her arms stay rigid behind her back. My friend used to call this "offing", as in on or off, which was different from his freezing of gait, and happened to him when he was under stress.

    Just too many things, the coughing, the blue sunglasses, the falling, the coughing, even the pneumonia could be caused by difficulty swallowing.

    It could be Vascular Parkinsonism. I just wish she would be strong enough to admit she is weak.

    ohmyheck , September 12, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    Ah, thanks for explaining why her arms were like that behind her back. At first I thought she was handcuffed. In my dreams….

    Benedict@Large , September 12, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    There is no test for Parkinson's. The diagnosis is made based on reviewing the patient's actions. In other words, the stuff you might see on YouTube.

    Noel's How to Prove Me Wrong about Hillary's Parkinson's Disease is worth a look.

    m , September 13, 2016 at 3:43 am

    Forget Parkinson's, what about MS.

    m , September 13, 2016 at 3:38 am

    What is concerning is that after the DVT Hillary would have been placed on an anticoagulant, especially with all those plane trips. Then there is that fall she had last year. If she were on Coumadin at that time with a fall & head trauma can cause a bleed. Also MDs are nervous about putting someone on a blood thinner that is at risk for frequent falls. This whole situation is crazy. Feel bad, don't like her, adios-time to take all that foundation money and retire.

    oho , September 12, 2016 at 11:43 am

    " Those are all kept on computers nowadays, as well."

    I'd bet that Clinton shopped around until she found a doctor willing to work with a minimal paper trail and certainly zero electronic trail.

    Brian , September 12, 2016 at 11:01 am

    It isn't logical to believe a sudden press release used as a distraction. With past episodes of fainting, falling, concussion and ongoing treatment, this qualifier is put out to run up the flagpole. Please note the moment the handlers suddenly jump to surround and hide the candidate from the cameras.

    Daily Mail even goes as far as to say the candidate was "thrown into the seat like a sack of beef" (paraphrasing) If this is so, that isn't a response for someone fainting as much as perhaps the attempt to hide symptoms from observers. Was that doctor EpiPen that opened the door to the van?

    Was this an attempt to divert attention from the real issue?

    As a great philosopher once said; "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat"

    apber , September 12, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    So she has what could be very contagious? And she rests at Chelsea's home and plays with the kids? Anyone want some real cheap swamp land in the Everglades?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 12, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    This is the tell, if she actually had pneumonia they would not just have hustled her off to Chelsea's place, my guess is at Chelsea's they could give her a quick shot of amphetamines so we could then get the "look, the candidate can actually walk unaided!" photo op when she emerged.

    So that's how low we've sunk, we're supposed to vote for the elderly, sickly, serial war criminal, pathological liar old lady because she can actually walk. Oh, and "because she's a woman". (So we got the last 8 years of disaster because of the candidate's dermis, and we"ll get the next 4 years of disaster because of the candidate's pubis).

    jgordon , September 12, 2016 at 9:03 am

    I'd just like to point out how annoying it is that the media stenographers on many sites today are slavishly repeating the Hillary campaign's pneumonia story without a single speck of actually checking, either through logic or investigation, whether any of it makes sense. Though admittedly there is a tiny bit doubt starting to creep through the media narrative; maybe they're thinking that this is the fig leaf they need to feel like they still have credibility–which is just them fooling themselves.

    Since stuff coming from the mainstream media is provably guaranteed to be just some sht they made up, or passing along some sht someone else made up without questioning it, I don't think there's anything wrong with just ignoring the msm and believing whatever you feel like believing from the internet; unlike with the msm there is at least a decent chance that that stuff might be true.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 12, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Policies? Pay no attention to what emerges from the candidates mouths, as Obama said in 2008 "Hilary will say anything, and change nothing", she can be at a rally and yell "I'm fighting for you!" and 15 minutes later she is meeting with a Wall St CEO on new ways to rip people off. I'm not saying her opponent is any better

    PhilU , September 12, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    "By more than three-to-one, more Democrats and leaners think the campaign is not focused on important policy debates (71% vs. 20%). While a narrow majority of Republicans say the same (53%), 37% describe the campaign as focused on important policy debates."

    skeeter , September 12, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Focus on the candidate's health is always appropriate. Particularly so when the ability of the candidate to serve out their term is a legitimate question. It is the height of arrogance for a candidate to accept the nomination without the full expectation that they will be ready to serve the full term at stake. For a candidate to attempt to proceed through concealment of substantive health issues is an expression of complete unaccountability.

    It's not the candidate's prerogative to decide upon what information the voters will make their choice.

    robnume , September 12, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    If Hillary had been more honest about her physical condition, folks wouldn't be stooping to armchair diagnoses, which is normal human behavior for those to whom the truth has not been forthcoming.

    Bob , September 12, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    Not a one-time diagnosis. She apparently has had a deep venous thrombosis and more recently cavernous sinus thrombosis. I suspect because of this (two discrete episodes) a decision has been made for chronic continuing use of coumadin. Like all medications, a decision is made as to whether the benefits of treatment using that medication outweigh the projected risks of the medication. Properly managed, the risks are fairly small. But the key is proper management, which may be difficult given the demands of the position as POTUS.

    cwaltz , September 12, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    I also believe her travel did and would put her at greater risk. https://www.stoptheclot.org/learn_more/air_travel_and_thrombosis.htm

    Yves Smith , September 12, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    This just in: Hillary Clinton to Release More Medical Records After Pneumonia Diagnosis http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-plans-to-rest-amid-health-concerns-1473694474

    "More"? Like how many more? If this is more opining by her Chappaqua MD, that does not qualify as "records". This is beginning to resemble the forced drip of e-mails…..

    Anne , September 12, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    How many more? As many as it takes, one dollop at a time, until she hits the sweet spot where the questions stop. It was always destined to take the same path as the e-mails and every other questionable thing Clinton's been associated with – that's how they roll!

    What continues to boggle my mind is why she doesn't seem to understand that THIS is why such a significant segment of the electorate doesn't trust her; it's so obvious, and yet she continues to employ this strategy and it could cost her the election.

    Assuming she is healthy enough to participate in the first debate, it should be a doozy.

    Jim Haygood , September 12, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    "One-shoe" Hillary is now the butt of visual jokes, as her signature red arrow is repurposed into a stretcher: http://tinyurl.com/zbza8ph

    Anne , September 12, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    At this point, Clinton would have as much success convincing the public that she's released all the medical records that are relevant to her run for president as she would convincing us that she was part of a grand experiment whereby an entire medical team has been shrunk to Fantastic Voyage size, and injected into her bloodstream so that she can be under constant care.

    The Fantastic Voyage scenario might actually be more believable.

    In other words, it's just one more thing that doesn't really matter because only those in her basket of adorables believe anything she says – and they believe everything, no matter how the story shifts and changes.

    NYPaul , September 12, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    If she became spastic, and collapsed (unexpectedly) just trying to get into an SUV, what kind of risk is she going to be under during the first debate?

    The stress of being thrust into the biggest "fishbowl" imaginable ( largest TV audience ever being predicted) with all the "marbles" on the table would freak out the healthiest human alive.

    Everyone is going to be watching for any slight, "unnatural," twitch, or, movement for the whole episode.

    What drama! I wouldn't be surprised if some pretext is found to nix the debate. The risk for her is just too great, IMO, of course.

    Benedict@Large , September 12, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    Each time she releases medical records, it gives her chorus another chance to sing (in harmony) that she has clearly demonstrated that she is healthy. After a few of these, the corporate press will feign impatience, and any talk about Hillary's health will be cast aside as coming from conspiracy theorists. No one will ever question why the issue wasn't resolved up front with a full disclosure.

    All of this is fine (I guess) except if she is hiding Parkinson's, which is completely debilitating as far as the Presidency is concerned.

    crittermom , September 13, 2016 at 12:42 am

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785442/She-s-phoning-Sick-Hillary-CALL-California-fundraiser-instead-traveling-cross-country.html

    fresno dan , September 12, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    The question really is: Is a vote for Clinton a vote for Tim Kaine???

    Now, the REALLY cynical might conjecture that Clintoon is thinking the BEST meme to save the election for herself is that she spins it that she pulls a William Henry Harrison – don't worry about voting for Clintoon!!! I'll only be president for 30 or so days!

    Hey, your not really voting for me Your really voting for Kaine!

    Only decades later is the Clinton tomb excavated and it is revealed that she was a Disney animatronic programmed by Goldman Sachs – those "speeches" were really charades to allow the cables to be plugged in so the updated software could be downloaded…

    If the media is in the pocket of the Clintons, why now are we finding out about her "illness" ….hmmmmm….

    timbers , September 12, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    "Dilbert" on Clinton episode:

    The Race for President is (Probably) Over

    "If you are following breaking news, Hillary Clinton abruptly left the 9-11 memorial today because she was reportedly "overheated." Her campaign says she is fine now. You probably wonder if the "overheated" explanation is true – and a non-issue as reported – or an indication of a larger medical condition. I'm blogging to tell you it doesn't matter. The result is the same.

    Here's why. If humans were rational creatures, the time and place of Clinton's "overheating" wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel unsafe. And safety is our first priority.

    Hillary Clinton just became unelectable. The mainstream media might not interpret today's events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone on 5th Avenue, he's running unopposed."

    Optimader , September 12, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Oooooh boy, is he ever going to get flamed for writing that

    uncle tungsten , September 13, 2016 at 12:43 am

    Teh Guardian is running reports and every accompanying image is of some other event with Killary stepping, smiling, unassisted into a car. What a disgrace that shill sheet is.

    robnume September 12, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    Having worked in an emergency/trauma center for years, no, I won't say what I did as I like anonymity, it seems to me that Hillary could likely be suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. Upon a diagnoses of this kind, one can expect to live from 3 to 5 years. If diagnosed in 2012-13, which seems likely given her concussion and brain clot diagnoses, she would now begin to experience a severe physical decline and pneumonia is a frequent cause of death for those suffering from subcortical vascular dementia.
    Rosario September 13, 2016 at 3:03 am
    I used to think all the health speculation with Hillary was sexist and bogus until her ordeal Sunday. The pneumonia diagnosis is absolutely bizarre and doesn't quite line up with her visual symptoms at the 9/11 memorial. Pneumonia was the best her staff could come up with? I guess they think we live in a world without the internet and Youtube. Hillary doesn't look like she had pneumonia Friday at the fundraiser. The same day she was apparently diagnosed, which implies the first day of treatment when symptoms for bacterial infections are at their absolute worst. She actually looked like she was in her element, bright as rain. In addition, how in the hell do you have a "pneumonia episode"? Apparently it came on real hard Sunday morning (ironically, the time of day when the body is most capable during illness) then magically went away an hour later for her to have a chipper, non-coughing, non-fatigued photo op with a little girl (it was so identity politics staged it was comical)...

    [Sep 13, 2016] Paul Krugman Thugs and Kisses

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is not wise to demonize foreign leaders or worship them. Foreign policy needs sometimes to work with even some of the worst actors. ..."
    "... We need to support institutions that work to guarantee and protect human rights for all. A personality cult that worships leaders promotes intolerance and the abuse of human rights. ..."
    "... Krooogman is jus a useful moralistic idiot aiding and abetting [hillary compaigh] with humanist [neo]liberal anathemas. A policy of Russia constriction by uncle S and his posse ..."
    "... [It would be better if] Current neocon democrats "display an ounce of statesmanship" and use any before they send out the aircraft carriers, bombers, drones and CIA arms for the next ISIL. ..."
    "... Yes, Kerry talks while the DoD and CIA do the murdering. ..."
    "... You are just a political writer, paid to reflect your bosses views. A proper journalist would at least provide a minimally balanced view. In your case we know your answer before we open the newspaper. ..."
    "... No leftist calls krooogman a leftist. He is a a status quo elitist. An enlightenment humanist [interventionist neo]liberal. A convinced self-deluded neo-classical economist. A major political ignoramus... And a very decent little tabby cat. All rolled up into one pint sized ambitious. Self assured. Nassau county bright boy now aged but undaunted anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html September 22, 2014 Snap Out of It By David Brooks President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html October 21, 2014 Putin and the Pope By Thomas L. Friedman One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html December 20, 2014 Who's Playing Marbles Now? By Thomas L. Friedman Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html December 21, 2014 Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion By Paul Krugman Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html January 27, 2015 Czar Putin's Next Moves By Thomas L. Friedman ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger.... anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html September 15, 2015 Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts.... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html September 20, 2015 Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say.... ilsm -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 03:18 PM Putin might ask why us army jihadis fought with cia jihadis in Assad's country? a subject one thug can raise with a bigger thug. ..."
    "... Thug. I wonder if these bright liberals consider the word they like to use so much ? u can feel their thrill every time they hurl it at a target. Long live the self righteous [neo]Liberal goon squad ..."
    "... thugs -- A target of colonial masters ..."
    "... if your candidate cannot go to a hospital.... looks like a serious neurolgic issue to me. Let the spin begin is trump's Putin or Clinton neuopathy? ..."
    "... I remember reading John Kenneth Galbraith describe how when he was being threatened by the original McCarthy, the strategy he chose was to name McCarthy using every name he could think of. The strategy worked, and Galbraith was forgotten by McCarthy. I suspect the strategy will work again. ..."
    "... In the name of plain old fashion reasonable ness let's not turn krooogman the self righteous [neo] liberal " crusader" into a new kold war reactionary liberal just yet ..."
    "... innuendo see as much deplorable assassination in moscow as folks dying at Clinton hands. And those 250k killed in 5 years of CIA blundering in Syria are Obama Clinton not Putin. ..."
    "... Ok, so on your planet the civil war in Syria was caused entirely by CIA intervention? That's what you're going with? ..."
    "... No of course not! The CIA is 'playing' 1300 year old schism in Islam. It is Sunni versus Shiite, the rest in funding, equipping, cheerleading by GCC royal, US and Israel. ..."
    "... Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian feel to it as "everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of Russian President Putin and takes joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock. ..."
    "... The anti-war left sees the demonization of foreign leaders as clearing the way for war and invasion. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the Warfare State ..."
    "... The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    jonny bakho :

    It is not wise to demonize foreign leaders or worship them. Foreign policy needs sometimes to work with even some of the worst actors.

    For example, Russia is in Syria and can either promote more violence or work to end the civil war. Right now, they have agreed with the US to support a cease fire.

    Demonization of Russia led directly to the Vietnam War, the Cambodian horror, the Taliban and a lot of bad outcomes.

    We need to support institutions that work to guarantee and protect human rights for all. A personality cult that worships leaders promotes intolerance and the abuse of human rights. We need a strategy of building and strengthening institutions that are committed to protecting ethnic minorities and offer a change alternative to violent acting out.

    Dan Kervick -> jonny bakho ... ,

    Well said. One can debate the virtues and vices of Vladimir Putin indefinitely, and historians will do so, but throwing the lives and security of young Americans into the mill of short term political opportunism, at the service of the campaign meme of the week, is not responsible.

    Of course, Trump has also behaved like a nincompoop in discussing Putin and Russia in ways that do no display an ounce of statesmanship.

    sanjait -> Dan Kervick... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 01:15 PM
    I lost track here.

    Who is "throwing the lives and security of young Americans into the mill of short term political opportunism"?

    I'm guessing you are saying Hillary is doing that by criticizing Putin or something, but I can't fathom how you connect those dots.

    Dan Kervick -> sanjait...
    No, Krugman.

    Krugman obediently parrots and amplifies whatever attack theme the campaign decides to promote on any given week, and is clearly coordinating with a number of other hyper-partisan "journalists" and apparatchiks, who sing in harmony from the same hymn books. The man is a certifiable political hack.

    I'm surprised that Team D had not yet floated the charge that Putin gave Clinton pneumonia with some infected umbrella pellet gun.

    Paine -> sanjait...
    No no

    Krooogman is jus a useful moralistic idiot aiding and abetting [hillary compaigh] with humanist [neo]liberal anathemas. A policy of Russia constriction by uncle S and his posse

    Paine -> Paine ...
    Will Hillary take a forward policy stance on mother Russia. Out do Barry- Kerry. I'm still hoping she's capable of evolution to good POTUS. My best friends ardent fury at her bloody pals. Has tempered me some. Nothing ever confirms convictions grounded in personal loathing

    I've learned to love her since Bernie burned out over Pennsylvania or was it Ohio ?

    Paine -> Paine ...
    However nothing about loving her requires me to support her legacy or her entourage
    Or like too many thin skinned compromises here. Attack those who can not find in their heart. Any love for such a compromised saint
    As dear Hill
    ilsm -> Dan Kervick...
    [It would be better if] Current neocon democrats "display an ounce of statesmanship" and use any before they send out the aircraft carriers, bombers, drones and CIA arms for the next ISIL.
    ilsm -> Dan Kervick...
    Yes, Kerry talks while the DoD and CIA do the murdering.
    gh : ,
    Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner. How is it possible that you remain so leftist, in spite of all the evidence ? You are just a political writer, paid to reflect your bosses views. A proper journalist would at least provide a minimally balanced view. In your case we know your answer before we open the newspaper.

    What a shame.

    Paine -> djb...
    Tempest in a tea pot. No leftist calls krooogman a leftist. He is a a status quo elitist. An enlightenment humanist [interventionist neo]liberal. A convinced self-deluded neo-classical economist. A major political ignoramus...

    And a very decent little tabby cat. All rolled up into one pint sized ambitious. Self assured. Nassau county bright boy now aged but undaunted

    anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html

    September 22, 2014

    Snap Out of It
    By David Brooks

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

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

    October 21, 2014

    Putin and the Pope
    By Thomas L. Friedman

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

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

    December 20, 2014

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

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

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

    December 21, 2014

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

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

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

    January 27, 2015

    Czar Putin's Next Moves
    By Thomas L. Friedman

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

    anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html

    September 15, 2015

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

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

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

    September 20, 2015

    Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria

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

    ilsm -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 03:18 PM
    Putin might ask why us army jihadis fought with cia jihadis in Assad's country? a subject one thug can raise with a bigger thug.
    anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:40 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/opinion/thugs-and-kisses.html

    September 11, 2016

    Thugs and Kisses
    By Paul Krugman

    First of all, let's get this straight: The Russian Federation of 2016 is not the Soviet Union of 1986. True, it covers most of the same territory and is run by some of the same thugs....

    Paine -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:55 AM
    Thug. I wonder if these bright liberals consider the word they like to use so much ? u can feel their thrill every time they hurl it at a target. Long live the self righteous [neo]Liberal goon squad
    Paine -> Paine ... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 05:09 AM
    " historical -- a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s."
    Paine -> Paine ... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 05:10 AM
    thugs -- A target of colonial masters
    ilsm -> Paine ... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 03:19 PM
    they bayoneted cary grant, too!
    Cal -> Paine ...
    Dat is about as much heavy liftin as the lettered folk can handle: hurling insults. Take dat. "Geeves, send them a message!" Message: Thugs! Mission accomplished and now we must rest.
    ilsm -> Paine ...
    if your candidate cannot go to a hospital.... looks like a serious neurolgic issue to me. Let the spin begin is trump's Putin or Clinton neuopathy?
    anne :
    Paul Krugman terrifies me, simply terrifies me. A pusher of a Cold War, a pusher of McCarthyism, a person who is obviously collecting a list of names and only waiting to name names. I however will be no Krugman martyr and am also collecting names and will name names even before being ordered to and I have already decided who I will be naming first.

    [ I remember reading John Kenneth Galbraith describe how when he was being threatened by the original McCarthy, the strategy he chose was to name McCarthy using every name he could think of. The strategy worked, and Galbraith was forgotten by McCarthy. I suspect the strategy will work again. ]

    anne -> anne...
    I need to find the Galbraith reference, and I also remember that Krugman was attacking Galbraith before, well, "the line forms on the right."
    Paine -> anne...
    Anne,

    In the name of plain old fashion reasonable ness let's not turn krooogman the self righteous [neo] liberal " crusader" into a new kold war reactionary liberal just yet

    The conversion of one section of new dealers into that rumpus of uncle hegomony.'s Dupes
    Was awful enough. Not to contemplate yet another wholesale herd like. Transduction of their "liberal values" In the name of individual liberty and the rights of humanity

    anne -> anne...
    http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/evolute.html

    November, 1996

    What Economists Can Learn From Evolutionary Theorists
    By Paul Krugman - European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy

    I guess it is no secret that even John Kenneth Galbraith, still the public's idea of a great economist, looks to most serious economists like an intellectual dilettante who lacks the patience for hard thinking....

    ilsm -> Pinkybum...
    innuendo see as much deplorable assassination in moscow as folks dying at Clinton hands. And those 250k killed in 5 years of CIA blundering in Syria are Obama Clinton not Putin.
    sanjait -> ilsm... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:08 PM
    Ok, so on your planet the civil war in Syria was caused entirely by CIA intervention? That's what you're going with?

    So, not the tyranny of the Assad regime, supported by Russia. And not the emergence of ISIS. Those, by your accounting, are not primary causes of the conflict, but instead it was the meager support the CIA offered the FSA alliance, according to you. Pfft.

    ilsm -> sanjait...
    No of course not! The CIA is 'playing' 1300 year old schism in Islam. It is Sunni versus Shiite, the rest in funding, equipping, cheerleading by GCC royal, US and Israel.

    A lot more than 5 years!

    anne -> anne...
    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/19/krugman-joins-the-anti-putin-pack/

    December 19, 2014

    Krugman Joins the Anti-Putin Pack By Robert Parry

    Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian feel to it as "everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of Russian President Putin and takes joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock.

    anne -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 09:19 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/opinion/paul-krugman-putins-bubble-bursts.html

    December 18, 2014

    Putin's Bubble Bursts
    By Paul Krugman

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/opinion/donald-trump-the-siberian-candidate.html

    July 21, 2016

    Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate
    By Paul Krugman

    anne -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 09:22 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

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

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

    anne -> anne...
    Right, I will be no Krugman martyr, I am collecting names and I will relish naming names. Call me, just call me.
    Lord :
    They admire him because of his power. Kiss ups at heart.
    anne -> anne...
    http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/04/must-read-i-do-not-understand-china-but-it-now-looks-more-likely-than-not-to-me-that-xi-jinpings-rule-will-lose-china.html

    April 5, 2016

    I do not understand China. But it now looks more likely than not to me that Xi Jinping's rule will lose China a decade, if not half a century... *

    * http://www.economist.com/news/china/21695923-his-exercise-power-home-xi-jinping-often-ruthless-there-are-limits-his

    -- Brad DeLong

    [ Notice how the scapegoating of a people, no matter how many people, can be focused in a particular person. ]

    anne -> anne...
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-delong/china-market-crash-5-years_b_8045742.html?1440772415

    August 28, 2015

    China's Market Crash Means Chinese Supergrowth Could Have Only 5 More Years to Run
    By Brad DeLong

    Ever since I became an adult in 1980, I have been a stopped clock with respect to the Chinese economy. I have said -- always -- that at most, Chinese supergrowth likely has five more years to run.

    Then there will come a crash -- in asset values and expectations, if not in production and employment. After the crash, China will revert to the standard pattern of an emerging market economy without successful institutions that duplicate or somehow mimic those of the North Atlantic. Its productivity rate will be little more than the 2 percent per year of emerging markets as a whole; catch-up and convergence to the North Atlantic growth-path norm will be slow if at all; and political risks that cause war, revolution or merely economic stagnation rather than unexpected booms will become the most likely surprises.

    I was wrong for 25 years straight -- and the jury is still out on the period since 2005. Thus, I'm very hesitant to count out China and its supergrowth miracle. But now "a" crash -- even if, perhaps, not "the" crash I was predicting -- is at hand....

    [ Twenty-five years of wrongness, why not another 25? Never ever ask why such wrongness, however. ]

    Peter K. -> sanjait...
    "The weird existence of people who somehow loved Bernie Sanders while also being apologists for Putin continues to defy the notion of cognitive dissonance."

    The anti-war left sees the demonization of foreign leaders as clearing the way for war and invasion.

    The center-left Demcocrats' anti-democratic practices during the primary were hypocritical. At leas Debbie Wasserman-Shultz was ousted as chair of the DNC.

    Dan Kervick -> sanjait...
    The context is that a murderers row of 2002/3 vintage neocons has now adopted the Clinton campaign as its preferred vehicle for its further murderous adventures and interventionist follies. Apparently only the (very) elder neocon leader Norman Podhoretz is not in yet.
    ilsm -> sanjait...
    Somehow Putin is weak on plundering his country.

    Bush and Obama are $4,000B in WAR waste on Iraghistan and Yemen.

    anne :
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

    McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism." The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against supposed communists, as well as a campaign spreading fear of their influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

    anne :
    https://theintercept.com/2016/09/08/hillary-clintons-national-security-advisors-are-a-whos-who-of-the-warfare-state/

    September 8, 2016

    Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the Warfare State
    By Zaid Jilani, Alex Emmons, and Naomi LaChance

    HILLARY CLINTON IS meeting with a new national security "working group" that is filled with an elite "who's who" of the military-industrial complex and the security deep state.

    The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home.

    It's a story we've seen before in President Obama's early appointments. In retrospect, analysts have pointed to the continuity in national security and intelligence advisers as an early sign that despite his campaign rhetoric Obama would end up building on - rather than tearing down - the often-extralegal, Bush-Cheney counterterror regime. For instance, while Obama promised in 2008 to reform the NSA, its director was kept on and its reach continued to grow.

    Obama's most fateful decision may have been choosing former National Counterterrorism Center Director John Brennan to be national security adviser, despite Brennan's support of Bush's torture program. Brennan would go on to run the president's drone program, lead the CIA, fight the Senate's torture investigation, and then lie about searching Senate computers.

    That backdrop is what makes Clinton's new list of advisers so significant.

    It includes Gen. David Petraeus, the major architect of the 2007 Iraq War troop surge, which brought 30,000 more troops to Iraq. Picking him indicates at partiality to combative ideology. It also represents a return to good standing for the general after he pled guilty to leaking notebooks full of classified information to his lover, Paula Broadwell, and got off with two years of probation and a fine. Petraeus currently works at the investment firm KKR & Co.

    Another notable member of Clinton's group is Michael Chertoff, a hardliner who served as President George W. Bush's last secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and who since leaving government in 2009 has helmed a corporate consulting firm called the Chertoff Group that promotes security-industry priorities. For example, in 2010, he gave dozens of media interviews touting full-body scanners at airports while his firm was employed by a company that produced body scanning machines. His firmalso employs a number of other ex-security state officials, such as former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden. It does not disclose a complete list of its clients - all of whom now have a line of access to Clinton.

    Many others on the list are open advocates of military escalation overseas. Mike Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, endorsed Clinton last month in a New York Times opinion piece that accused Trump of being an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." The Times was criticized for not disclosing his current employment by Beacon Global Strategies, a politically powerful national-security consulting firm with strong links to Clinton. Three days later, Morell told Charlie Rose in a PBS interview that the CIA should actively assassinate Russians and Iranians in Syria.

    During his time at the CIA, Morell was connected to some of the worst scandals and intelligence failures of the Bush administration. In his book, he apologizes for giving flawed intelligence to Colin Powell about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, but defends the CIA torture program as legal and ethical.

    Jim Stavridis, a former NATO supreme allied commander Europe on Clinton's advisory group, told Fox News Radio in July, when he was being vetted by Clinton as a possible vice presidential nominee, that "we have got to get more aggressive going into Syria and Iraq and go after [ISIS] because if we don't they're going to come to us. It's a pretty simple equation." He said he would "encourage the president to take a more aggressive stance against Iran, to increase our military forces in Iraq and Syria, and to confront Vladmir Putin" over his moves in Crimea.

    The New York Times reported in 2011 that Michael Vickers, a former Pentagon official on Clinton's new list, led the use of drone strikes. He would grin and tell his colleagues at meetings, "I just want to kill those guys."

    Others on the list played a role in the targeted killing policies of the Obama administration, including Chris Fussell, a top aide to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and now a partner with him at his lucrative consulting firm, the McChrystal Group....

    [Sep 13, 2016] Pressitutes from NPR are fully in bed with Hillary campaign managers

    Notable quotes:
    "... I want to throw a chair at the elitist propaganda coming from the radio. ..."
    "... Their political coverage is truly awful - horse race analysis cheerleading for HRC, no substantive talk about issues just a constant human interest sideshow anecdotal. ..."
    "... They also seem to have exactly the same stories as same day's NYT - makes one wonder who's actually disseminating all the talking points. ..."
    "... Yah I know but I also learned from NPR Trump is bad because he likes Putin who keeps invading nations and killing a bunch of folks and gives govt contracts to his friends – unlike good USA. All stated matter of factly by NPR analysts. ..."
    "... It's amazing how everything has to get sloppy around Clinton. People, news papers, news shows, whatever. As soon as they decide to sign on with Camp Clinton, they all have to start making excuses for her. Sloppy excuses. Excuses with a smell of skunk to them. ..."
    "... They should loose those donors, it would be a cleansing act that might result in more creative and honest programming. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Cocomaan , September 12, 2016 at 8:09 am

    It's npr, what do you expect? Their morning and evening shows are a joke.

    I completely stopped listening to them after how they handled Bernies campaign.

    johnnygl , September 12, 2016 at 8:17 am

    They were unreal during the primaries. I was yelling at the radio during my commute. Now they're on full-time trump hate-fest.

    Steve C , September 12, 2016 at 9:04 am

    Used to have NPR going from wakey until bedtime. Now, I read about roses and meditate. Much more serenity. Now, my agitation comes from NC. And it's because world affairs are agitating, not because I want to throw a chair at the elitist propaganda coming from the radio.

    Schnormal , September 12, 2016 at 9:32 am

    ^ +100

    Bubba_Gump , September 12, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    Their political coverage is truly awful - horse race analysis cheerleading for HRC, no substantive talk about issues just a constant human interest sideshow anecdotal. The Bernie coverage was a disgrace. I was raised on a steady diet of NPR, and realized the headlines are all the same as when I was a kid: Middle East "violence," Israeli politics, poor person suffering anecdote, refugee porn.

    I tune in from time to time just to make sure it hasn't changed. What change there has been seems to be ever more shrill neoliberal pablum spoon-fed with small words as though to eight-graders. They also seem to have exactly the same stories as same day's NYT - makes one wonder who's actually disseminating all the talking points.

    hemeantwell , September 12, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    I stopped listening to them after they did a long, sympathetic piece on how Israeli soldiers were traumatized by the injuries they inflicted on Palestinian kids during the first Intifada. The idea that they should suffer from implacable guilt was not not discussed.

    Lord Koos , September 12, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    I started to lose interest after hearing them propagandize the Iraq war effort.

    timbers , September 12, 2016 at 8:19 am

    Yah I know but I also learned from NPR Trump is bad because he likes Putin who keeps invading nations and killing a bunch of folks and gives govt contracts to his friends – unlike good USA. All stated matter of factly by NPR analysts.

    EndOfTheWorld , September 12, 2016 at 8:45 am

    Yes, "hold on for the ride." Now even the MSM is split on whether to all of a sudden be skeptical of the stuff Camp Clinton puts out re Hill's health. If she quits due to ill health, can she keep her campaign contributions?
    She's got Parkinson's disease, or at least severe aftershocks from her earlier brain trouble. She's not gonna get better.

    john , September 12, 2016 at 9:14 am

    NPR had two stories on it last hour. The both used the term conspiracy theory. One used it twice!

    RabidGandhi , September 12, 2016 at 10:44 am

    Even Democracy Now used the term "conspiracy theory". I'm usually a huge fan of DN! but their Election coverage has been sloppy since the conventions.

    Benedict@Large , September 12, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    It's amazing how everything has to get sloppy around Clinton. People, news papers, news shows, whatever. As soon as they decide to sign on with Camp Clinton, they all have to start making excuses for her. Sloppy excuses. Excuses with a smell of skunk to them.

    And once they give in, it sticks to them. They can no longer be trusted. Whatever you thought of them before is now forever clouded. They are ruined.

    Donald , September 12, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    I don't know about Democracy Now - haven't listened lately. But Krugman went from a columnist I respected to idiotic Clinton shill starting this year. His attacks on Sanders and his supporters and his excuse making for Clinton's Iraq vote totally destroyed his credibility for me. Maybe he is worth reading if he stays far away from the subject of Clinton, but I no longer care enough to find out.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 12, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    Even Sanders has gone into the Twilight Zone post conventions.

    Whatever they did to him to get him to endorse and campaign for her, they will do more before replacing Hillary with Bernie.

    Sarah Connor , September 12, 2016 at 11:52 am

    This morning on NPR, Cokie Roberts "went there." She described the "socco voce" discontent behind the scenes of a very skittish DNC.

    NYPaul , September 12, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    And, all this on top of the constant, daily, weekly, and monthly, never ending, stream of rancid revelations being unearthed regarding her shady public/private financial juggling act. Like, simply running for President isn't stressful enough.

    Stress, Baby. It's a killer!!

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 12, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    Maybe this explains the lack of press conferences, even just for one hour.

    To go through a presidential debate – that'd be like enduring eternity.

    diptherio , September 12, 2016 at 9:48 am

    I stopped listening after Bush, Jr. was elected and immediately cut-off aid to foreign family planning orgs that mentioned mentioned abortion as an option to their patients. Ol' Cokie assured NPR listeners it was no big thing, nothing to see here, move along people. I tore the radio out of the dash and threw it out the window…

    Spring Texan , September 12, 2016 at 11:06 am

    I can't stand Cokie Roberts!!!

    aliteralmind , September 12, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    Me too. I won't turn the radio on in my car at all anymore, except to distract my arguing boys.

    neo-realist , September 12, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    I gave up on NPR when I got sick and tired of Cokie Roberts condescending republican talking points. It is very much a megaphone for center right elites.

    I've read that people who work there say that if they did not do the center right slant, they would lose a vast majority of their big donor funding.

    Optimader , September 12, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    They should loose those donors, it would be a cleansing act that might result in more creative and honest programming.

    I only listen to local public radio and tune away if there is NPR news content.

    Chicago Public Radio (WBEZ) is an exception on local public radio. It is awful and I will not listen to it, their programming has devolved to whining elitist **** talk radio. It is insufferable.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50s - 60s

    Red bating worked before and works now...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50's - 60's. Save us the expense of rewriting the playbook. Sure. Duck and cover. ..."
    "... But the first place I would look is inside the DNC, if I were in charge. Russian intel releasing to wikileaks? Not much profit in that. ..."
    "... By the way, whatever became of dearest FBI frontman Comey? ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    stumpy | Aug 11, 2016 6:13:33 PM | 30
    "It might have well been an insider who copied the material and handed them to Wikileaks for publication"

    Why this idea gets no traction, obviously -- without an admission of authenticity from DNC, they have it both ways, the ability to ascribe guilt to Russia, and plausible deniability vis a vis Sanders. Let's not rule out a purposeful leak as a gloating advertisement for DNC sponsors/donors, or just as likely as a forgery using wikileaks as conduit for disinformation by anti-DNC ops. The Guccifer blip is just as believable valid as any of these theories, upo.

    Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50's - 60's. Save us the expense of rewriting the playbook. Sure. Duck and cover.

    But the first place I would look is inside the DNC, if I were in charge. Russian intel releasing to wikileaks? Not much profit in that.

    By the way, whatever became of dearest FBI frontman Comey?

    [Sep 12, 2016] Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch

    Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing. Only Jedi Knights can stop him. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/23/pers-j23.html
    Notable quotes:
    "... Look over there! Putin is all over the place these days, he is doing Brexit, supporting Trump, and Corbyn I think, he is hacking Hillary, wow. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    europeangrayling , 2016-07-24 17:23:08
    Look over there! Putin is all over the place these days, he is doing Brexit, supporting Trump, and Corbyn I think, he is hacking Hillary, wow. And he still has time to ride horses and play with tigers and invade Europe. I see why he is popular.

    But it's nice to be Russian, I like Russia, it's a beautiful country. Until now the Bernie people were all sexists, racists, privileged homeless idiots who lived in basements, but now we are Russians. Much better. See that's the Hillary outreach to the bros.

    trholland1 , 2016-07-24 16:50:29
    Them pesky Russkys! Now they are exerting mind control over Debbie Wasserman Schultz!
    whyohwhy1 trholland1 , 2016-07-24 16:53:07
    Clinton will protect America's bodily fluids against!
    whyohwhy1 trholland1 , 2016-07-24 16:53:45
    against* Putin and other Soviet leaders.
    morseldoc trholland1 , 2016-07-24 17:39:52
    LOL. The best comment for a good guffaw!

    [Sep 12, 2016] We should remember the prejudice of the DNC toward Sanders and criminal tricks they played to derail his candidacy

    Now in view of recent Hillary health problems actions of Wasserman Schultz need to be revisited. She somehow avoided criminal prosecution for interfering with the election process under Obama administration. That's clearly wrong. The court should investigate and determine the level of her guilt.
    Moor did his duty, moor can go. This is fully applicable to Wasserman Schultz. BTW it was king of "bait and switch" Obama who installed her in this position. And after that some try to say that Obama is not a neocon. Essentially leaks mean is that Sander's run was defeated by the Democratic Party's establishment dirty tricks and Hillary is not a legitimate candidate. It's Mission Accomplished, once again.
    "Clinton is a life-long Republican. She grew up in an all-white Republican suburb, she supported Goldwater, and she supported Wall Street banking, then became a DINO dildo to ride her husband's coattails to WH, until the NYC Mob traded her a NY Senator seat for her husband's perfidy. She never said one word about re-regulating the banks."
    How could this anti-Russian hysteria/bashing go on in a normal country -- the level of paranoia and disinformation about Russia and Putin is plain crazy even for proto-fascist regimes.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. ..."
    "... Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections. ..."
    "... Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go. ..."
    "... "I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper ..."
    "... But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me." ..."
    Jul 24, 2016 | cnn.com

    Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will not have a major speaking role or preside over daily convention proceedings this week, a decision reached by party officials Saturday after emails surfaced raising questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary.
    The DNC Rules Committee on Saturday named Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, as permanent chair of the convention, according to a DNC source. She will gavel each session to order and will gavel each session closed.

    "She's been quarantined," another top Democrat said of Wasserman Schultz, following a meeting Saturday night. Wasserman Schultz faced intense pressure Sunday to resign her post as head of the Democratic National Committee, several party leaders told CNN, urging her to quell a growing controversy threatening to disrupt Hillary Clinton's nominating convention.

    Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. But party leaders are now urging the Florida congresswoman to vacate her position as head of the party entirely in the wake of leaked emails suggesting the DNC favored Clinton during the primary and tried to take down Bernie Sanders by questioning his religion. Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections.

    ... ... ...

    One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie Sanders' faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Hillary Clinton against an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising agreement.

    Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go.

    "I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper on "State of the Union," on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

    "I am not an atheist," he said. "But aside from all of that, it is an outrage and sad that you would have people in important positions in the DNC trying to undermine my campaign. It goes without saying, the function of the DNC is to represent all of the candidates -- to be fair and even-minded."

    He added: "But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me."

    ... ... ...

    Several Democratic sources told CNN that the leaked emails are a big source of contention and may incite tensions between the Clinton and Sanders camps heading into the Democratic convention's Rules Committee meeting this weekend.

    "It could threaten their agreement," one Democrat said, referring to the deal reached between Clinton and Sanders about the convention, delegates and the DNC. The party had agreed to include more progressive principles in its official platform, and as part of the agreement, Sanders dropped his fight to contest Wasserman Schultz as the head of the DNC.

    "It's gas meets flame," the Democrat said.

    Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, had no comment Friday.

    The issue surfaced on Saturday at Clinton's first campaign event with Tim Kaine as her running mate, when a protester was escorted out of Florida International University in Miami. The protester shouted "DNC leaks" soon after Clinton thanked Wasserman Schultz for her leadership at the DNC.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Serving the Clintonian Interest: The last thing we need is a Clinton in charge of foreign policy by Christopher Hitchens

    This is Christopher Hitchens biting analysis from previous Presidential elections, but still relevant
    Notable quotes:
    "... The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. ..."
    "... the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen. ..."
    "... If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz , for another example. ..."
    "... It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations). ..."
    "... Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros . You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon. ..."
    "... Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh , and, hey, they , respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. ..."
    "... Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic. ..."
    "... In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. ..."
    "... Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me. ..."
    Nov 01, 2008 | www.slate.com

    It was apt in a small way that the first endorser of Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state should have been Henry Kissinger. The last time he was nominated for any position of responsibility-the chairmanship of the 9/11 commission-he accepted with many florid words about the great honor and responsibility, and then he withdrew when it became clear that he would have to disclose the client list of Kissinger Associates. (See, for the article that began this embarrassing process for him, my Slate column "The Latest Kissinger Outrage.")

    It is possible that the Senate will be as much of a club as the undistinguished fraternity/sorority of our ex-secretaries of state, but even so, it's difficult to see Sen. Clinton achieving confirmation unless our elected representatives are ready to ask a few questions about conflict of interest along similar lines. And how can they not? The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. Former President Bill Clinton has recently and rather disingenuously offered to submit his own foundation to scrutiny (see the work of my Vanity Fair colleague Todd Purdum on the delightful friends and associates that Clinton has acquired since he left office), but the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.

    Just to give the most salient examples from the Clinton fundraising scandals of the late 1990s: The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight published a list of witnesses called before it who had either "fled or pled"-in other words, who had left the country to avoid testifying or invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. Some Democratic members of the committee said that this was unfair to, say, the Buddhist nuns who raised the unlawful California temple dough for then-Vice President Al Gore, but however fair you want to be, the number of those who found it highly inconvenient to testify fluctuates between 94 and 120. If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz, for another example.

    Related was the result of a House select committee on Chinese espionage in the United States and the illegal transfer to China of advanced military technology. Chaired by Christopher Cox, R-Calif., the committee issued a report in 1999 with no dissenting or "minority" signature. It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations).

    Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros. You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon.

    Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh, and, hey, they, respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. In the Hugh case, the money was returned as being too embarrassing for words (and as though following the hallowed custom, when busted or flustered, of the Clinton-era DNC). But I would say that it was more embarrassing to realize that a former first lady, and a candidate for secretary of state, was a full partner in years of seedy overseas money-grubbing and has two greedy brothers to whom she cannot say no.

    Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic.

    China, Indonesia, Georgia-these are not exactly negligible countries on our defense and financial and ideological peripheries. In each country, there are important special interests that equate the name Clinton with the word pushover. And did I forget to add what President Clinton pleaded when the revulsion at the Rich pardons became too acute? He claimed that he had concerted the deal with the government of Israel in the intervals of the Camp David "agreement"! So anyone who criticized the pardons had better have been careful if they didn't want to hear from the Anti-Defamation League. Another splendid way of showing that all is aboveboard and of convincing the Muslim world of our evenhandedness.

    In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me.

    Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author, most recently, of Arguably, a collection of essays.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Polls Are Closed, They Lied

    Notable quotes:
    "... To hear the mainstream news media retell the story of the contentious 2000 presidential election, one would think that it all boils down to Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court decision created huge controversy and poisons public life to this day. But this focus on the decision serves to obscure an act of great duplicity on the part of the media that dwarfs the impact of that case: namely, that if it hadn't been for actions they took on television on Election Night, November 7, 2000, there never would have been a Bush v. Gore or a Florida recount in the first place. ..."
    "... by 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Election Night, a cover-up had already begun. ..."
    theamericanconservative.us4.list-manage.com

    To hear the mainstream news media retell the story of the contentious 2000 presidential election, one would think that it all boils down to Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court decision created huge controversy and poisons public life to this day. But this focus on the decision serves to obscure an act of great duplicity on the part of the media that dwarfs the impact of that case: namely, that if it hadn't been for actions they took on television on Election Night, November 7, 2000, there never would have been a Bush v. Gore or a Florida recount in the first place.

    It is a story of voter suppression. As it turns out, most of what we think was important about that election-hanging chads, butterfly ballots, 36 days of legal jousting-is unimportant. And by 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Election Night, a cover-up had already begun.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Should we be concerned about Hillary Clintons health by Vamsi Aribindi

    In view of the recent events the old question arise again: Was Hillary Clinton already on warafin when she suffered her latest fall?
    Notable quotes:
    "... Secretary Clinton was started on Coumadin, also known as warfarin. This medication significantly reduces - though it does not eliminate - the chance of a future blood clot. ..."
    "... This extends to other facets of life; a simple fall that would be shook off by anyone else can give a patient on blood thinners a lethal brain bleed. The risks and benefits of anticoagulation must be weighed against the risk of a stroke if one does not use blood thinners; and is a choice for every patient to make with their physician. ..."
    "... This does not include the possibility of an intracranial bleed, which could cause major cognitive disabilities without being lethal. ..."
    "... There is a non-trivial possibility that Secretary Clinton will suffer a major bleed of some kind. ..."
    "... Vamsi Aribindi is a medical student who blogs at the Medical Intellectual . ..."
    Apr 14, 2016 | www.kevinmd.com

    ... ... ...

    Her medical history includes two deep vein thromboses (DVTs) in 1998 and 2009, as well as a cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in 2012. A thromboses is a clot; basically, the formation of a solid plug inside a vein, a misfire of the body's ability to plug holes and stop bleeding. While I could not find news articles discussing the 2009 incident in further detail, the 1998 incident was a proximal DVT - one that had ascended into the popliteal vein - an especially dangerous form of DVT that is most likely to cause a condition called pulmonary embolus which can be fatal. A cerebral venous sinus thrombosis is also a deadly condition, with a mortality of approximately 10 percent and negative cognitive effects, though survivors make a good recovery.

    When anyone has multiple unprovoked clots, meaning there was no obvious reason for the body to misfire it's clot formation system such as surgery or active cancer, and especially when someone has a clot in an unusual location such as the brain, an extensive workup is indicated to look for causes. Some such causes include previously undetected cancers, inherited or random genetic disorders, and autoimmune disorders. That workup was negative in Secretary Clinton's case, per her doctor's letter. This is not unusual; there are many disorders that we have not yet discovered, and in all likelihood Secretary Clinton's particular clotting disorder happens to be one that has not yet been discovered.

    When someone has such a clotting disorder, as a precaution patients are often started on a medication to prevent the formation of clots. These medications are known as anticoagulants or blood thinners. Secretary Clinton was started on Coumadin, also known as warfarin. This medication significantly reduces - though it does not eliminate - the chance of a future blood clot.

    What is the side effect of blood thinners? A greater chance of bleeding and greater difficulty stopping a bleed once it happens. An elderly patient on blood thinners who is subsequently injured in a car crash is a nightmare for a trauma team. This extends to other facets of life; a simple fall that would be shook off by anyone else can give a patient on blood thinners a lethal brain bleed. The risks and benefits of anticoagulation must be weighed against the risk of a stroke if one does not use blood thinners; and is a choice for every patient to make with their physician.

    In Secretary Clinton's case, what is her risk of bleeding? Secretary Clinton is over 65, and she has had multiple falls (in 2005, 2009, and 2011, and 2012); the 2009 fall resulting in a broken elbow and the last one resulting in a concussion. According to guidelines put out by the American College of Chest Physicians, two risk factors puts her in the category of high-risk patients, meaning her risk of bleeding while on long-term anticoagulation is 6.5 percent per year. The mortality from a major bleed is approximately 10 percent. This does not include the possibility of an intracranial bleed, which could cause major cognitive disabilities without being lethal.

    What is Secretary Clinton's precise risk? It is difficult to say. She does receive excellent medical care, and presumably has her dose of warfarin closely monitored by many professionals. In addition, she may soon switch to newer anticoagulants which are easier to take and dose than warfarin, though it is unclear if they are truly any safer.

    Ultimately, all that can be said is this: There is a non-trivial possibility that Secretary Clinton will suffer a major bleed of some kind. The worst possible scenario? Trump and Clinton are nominated, and Clinton suddenly suffers a devastating bleed in the middle of the campaign, leaving a likely underqualified vice presidential pick to try and fight Donald Trump. However, the risk of this is likely small; and it is not as if 74-year-old Senator Bernie Sanders is free of health risks either. Patients and doctors both hate uncertainty, and yet we deal with it every day. I don't believe Secretary Clinton's increased risks are anything that should disqualify her from the presidency, but they are certainly something to ponder.

    Vamsi Aribindi is a medical student who blogs at the Medical Intellectual.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Wikileaks released 19K emails from the DNC burying Debbie Wasserman Schultz and hurting Hillary

    DNC is just a cesspool of neocon sharks. No decency whatsoever. What a bottom feeders. Will Sanders supporters walk out ?
    Notable quotes:
    "... They made Craigslist posts on fake Trump jobs talking about women needing to be hot for the job and "maintain hotness" https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 ..."
    "... DNC and Hillary moles inside the Bernie campaign https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776 ..."
    m.reddit.com

    This post will be updated. For bios on some of the people mentioned in these emails, please see /u/MrLinderman 's awesome post below.

    People copying this post across Reddit have had their posts removed on /r/politics and even was removed on /r/SandersForPresident .

    If you have one to add, either message me or post below. Contributors so far have been credited. I appreciate their help.

    Regarding Trump

    Regarding Bernie

    Media Collaboration

    GENERAL

    [Sep 12, 2016] Caught red handed and still deflecting: the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions

    The real question is whether the email are authentic or not. They are. Neoliberal propaganda honchos just decided to use a smoke screen to conceal this fact using Russia as a bogeyman. Russian might be guilty of many things, but in no way it is responsible for corruption of DNC and this subversive actions/covert operations used for installing Hillary Clinton as a candidate from the Democratic Party. .
    Notable quotes:
    "... Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating. ..."
    "... So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions. ..."
    "... [Under Clintons] democracy has become conspiracy ..."
    "... Are you constipated? Blame it on Russia. ..."
    "... Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked, but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out of sorts. :) ..."
    "... There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form 'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not. ..."
    "... It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process. ..."
    "... But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired, there would be no emails to leak, now would there? For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed, is diversionary and inexcusable. ..."
    "... The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth. You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake. ..."
    "... How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing! This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point of annihilation. Neo-Conne! ..."
    "... My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone who is likely to be this nation's next leader. ..."
    "... It's amazing. Caught red handed and still deflecting. Take responsibility for Christ sak ..."
    "... ".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support. ..."
    "... The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken. This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed. ..."
    From comments to: Clinton campaign blames Russia for leaked DNC emails about Sanders
    trholland1 , 2016-07-24 16:52:36
    Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch;
    NorthDakotan , 2016-07-24 16:46:50
    I honestly can't wait for when the pro-clinron commentors arrive. I can see it now "this doesn't matter if you vote 3rd party you're voting for trump." It won't matter that this is all the fault of the DNC, it will be on us. I'm calling it now ;)
    Beckow , 2016-07-24 16:42:09
    Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating.

    Interestingly, this is a favorite defense of all authoritarians. They always claim that if it benefits the "enemy", it is ok to suppress it. Stalin had a concept of "objectively aiding the enemy" - it meant that maybe the person was not a conscious traitor, but his/her actions helped the enemy - and that was enough. Is Guardian and Clintons now marching down this road of extreme "us versus them" ideology?

    What's is next? Will Clintons ban Bernie from speaking because it would "aid Trump"? (and by extension in their paranoid thinking, it would aid Russia).

    calderonparalapaz , 2016-07-24 17:19:02
    "Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

    So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions.

    Another reason on the list as to why I won't be voting for Hillary. Why did DNC act very anti-democratic?

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for continued corruption.

    qqqqqqmn , 2016-07-24 17:15:14
    [Under Clintons] democracy has become conspiracy
    silverbeech , 2016-07-24 17:11:46
    Rather than blaming they ought to be taking responsibility for their own words. But they'd have to be adults with integrity to do that. The tragedy and travesty of it is the willful, routine, nonchalant effort to subvert the Constitution and the will of the people. These kinds of machinations have always gone on within both parties and should always be exposed. The SuperPACS, the dark money, the secret maneuverings, the totally broken primary system, all designed to stop our having our say. People elsewhere often wonder about "our" choices for the White House. Now they can see how much of that free choice has been wrested away over time, and how imperative it is that we ordinary people start working on positive change within the elective system. In my opinion all the DNC participants should lose their jobs and be made to cool their heels in jail a while, because without consequences we may as well just burn the Constitution and Bill of Rights right now and be done with it, for all the respect these documents are given by our politicians. What a revolting mess it all is on both sides, with ordinary people the losers, as always.
    Lorenzo68 , 2016-07-24 17:10:03
    Are you constipated? Blame it on Russia.
    farright -> Lorenzo68 , 2016-07-24 17:22:05
    Bad haircut? Blame Russia?
    Puro , 2016-07-24 17:09:52
    Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked, but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out of sorts. :)
    furminator -> Puro , 2016-07-24 17:20:53
    There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form 'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not.
    JVRTRL , 2016-07-24 17:09:24
    A big part of the problem is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) is still in her position. If the Democratic Party place a value on performance, she should have been fired after the 2014 mid-terms.

    Part of the problem is that the DNC is too closely aligned with the interests of one political family. Competence and other considerations count for a lot less than loyalty. DWS kept her position because of the ties to Clinton and Clintons donors, not because she did a good job and grew the party. The opposite has happened.

    Frankly, Obama bears some degree of responsibility for this because he's the one who canned Howard Dean, who actually had a track record of success at winning elections and growing the party through two election cycles. Instead Obama replaced him with a guy like Tim Kaine, who wasn't up to the task either. Dean also did a good job of navigating the very difficult 2008 election. Kaine and DWS did poorly in the capacity as DNC Chair.

    As president, Obama has done a lot right. But his neglect of the DNC is part of his legacy, and it isn't a good one.

    Lester Smithson , 2016-07-24 17:08:20
    That's nice that those damn Russians 'stole' their email. However, those damn Russians didn't write them. I dislike and distrust Hillary and DWS more now that I did a week ago, and that takes some doing. Hillary is Nixon. Paranoid. Dishonest. Devious.
    qqqqqqmn , 2016-07-24 17:04:21
    how in the name of god can the overly compensated chairwoman of the democratic party conspire against a candidate supported by nearly half of democratic primary voters ???
    kcma79 qqqqqqmn , 2016-07-24 17:11:10
    Arrogance, power, support, money. Her overpowering arrogance has been a problem for a long time.
    mrmetrowest Haigin88 , 2016-07-24 17:13:27
    Kaine is in the same boat as Clinton on the TPP - the Good Ship Hypocrite. Both hope like hell that TPP gets passed in the lame duck so they can make a show of being against it to gain some progressive cred. If Obama and his colleagues Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan can't get TPP done before his term ends, Clinton and Kaine's reservations re TPP will disappear faster than a snowflake in July. It's like Clinton's about face on the Keystone pipeline - she got a heads up from Obama that he wasn't going to approve it anyway, so she came out against it.
    monteverdi1610 , 2016-07-24 16:57:30
    I love the irony of the comment from the Clinton Campaign..... '' This is further evidence the Russian Government is trying to influence the outcome of an election ''.

    Heavens forbid that the USA would ever stoop so low as to try and influence the outcome of other Countries elections !!!
    It of course being totally above Americians to indulge such devious behaviour .

    europeangrayling monteverdi1610 , 2016-07-24 17:06:33
    Very true, and Hillary was happy to support the violent Honduras coup of an elected government and still very much supports that new violent regime. And the new regime is very friendly to western big corporate 'interests'. Of course. Hillary is old-school.
    beenheretoolong , 2016-07-24 16:54:41
    Doesn't matter who did it, the Russians, Anonymous, Edward Snowden. The point is that the DNC is revealed as partisan and rigged. In addition to minimizing her role at the convention, I believe Wasserman Schultz should be dumped from any position of leadership, along with other DNC leaders. No wonder people are fed up with politics as usual.
    Anonymot , 2016-07-24 16:57:05
    "Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
    And Mook is the expert who whispered that lie in his own ear.

    Great photo, Mook the Spook, her lover, a few bigtime aids. They got caught like Nixon's plumbers at Watergate. So they would like to blame the Russians for their writing calumnies and antiSemitic slanders against Sanders. They look pretty stupid!

    gunnison , 2016-07-24 16:54:09

    Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

    It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process.

    Sanders knew it, and we as his supporters also knew it and made reference to that very issue repeatedly in countless comment threads here at the Guardian and elsewhere.

    But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired, there would be no emails to leak, now would there?
    For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed, is diversionary and inexcusable.

    The Clinton campaign is moving closer and closer to blowing this election completely and allowing the most dangerous candidacy I've ever seen in my lifetime actually win this thing.

    They've already selected a VP pick which effectively thumbs their nose at the very progressives whose enthusiasm they will need at the voting booths, and now here they are trying to deflect blame for unconscionable skullduggery in the primary process onto foreign actors.
    Debbie Wassermann Schultz should have been fired long ago, so blatant and obvious were her shenanigans.

    This kind of tone-deaf ineptitude could see all of us paying an unimaginable price in November. All it will take at this point is a few more mass shootings (at which we here in the US have a particular talent) to feed into Trump's narrative and we'll all be waking up in January in a country we don't even recognize.

    ZombieMessiah -> gunnison , 2016-07-24 17:03:26
    That's pretty much how I see things playing out, but with the DNC blaming the progressives for not being enthusiastic enough about Hillary.
    Informed17 -> CarlosDaaanger , 2016-07-24 16:57:03
    The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth. You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake.
    newjerseyboi , 2016-07-24 17:34:38
    Just saw Bernie on CNN basically saying the Nr1 priority is to defeat D. Trump, then keep fighting the good fight from within the Democratic Party trying to reform it from within.
    A big thing he misses here that the top honcho Mrs Hillary Clinton is one of the main reasons of what the Democratic Party has become. She will be a huge obstruction to anything resembling reform. You might as well pack up and go 3rd party and show the Dems that way what American voters want.

    4 years of Trump might actually be a lot better to shake up the corrupt DNC then 4-8 years of Hillary and who knows how many years of Republicans 2 follow (and believe me, Hillary will do a lot of damage to the democratic brand!)

    AfinaPallada , 2016-07-24 17:34:20
    Clinton is desperate to lurk voters by anything, then let it be those Russians that hacked her mail. A Russian proverb to the point - "A bad dancer always blames his balls that hamper him".
    furminator , 2016-07-24 17:31:47
    If they'd backed off, allowed their MSM protectors to bury the story, this whole thing would have died down in a week. A few angry Bernie Bros notwithstanding there's nothing in the emails that we didn't know already. Yes the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign were one and the same....shock! Yes sections of the corporate owned media are colluding with the Democratic Party....wowsers!! But no, they couldn't help themselves. Now we've got the Democratic nominee for the Presidency alleging, with zero proof, that her opponent is engaged in a conspiracy to commit criminal acts with a foreign power! Seriously who thought this was a good idea?
    mijkmijld , 2016-07-24 17:31:26
    How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing! This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point of annihilation. Neo-Conne!
    smokinbluebear , 2016-07-24 17:31:25
    Sanders should demand that Tulsi Gabbard replace DWS at the convention (or as VP)
    PottyPants , 2016-07-24 17:31:20
    My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone who is likely to be this nation's next leader.
    Janosik53 , 2016-07-24 17:29:59
    Hillary Wasserman Clinton Kaine--the same democratic corruptocracy; plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

    Putin is waiting to release Hillary's SoS emails. October Surprise, anyone? Bwah-ha-ha-ha.

    BigL64 , 2016-07-24 17:29:20
    It's amazing. Caught red handed and still deflecting. Take responsibility for Christ sake!
    HenneyAndPizza , 2016-07-24 17:27:56
    lol

    Putin ate my homework (TM). What Debbie and the gang did is worse, much worse than this sorry article tries to portray. For example, what sort of Democratic Party tries to use Bearnie's religion agsinst him ?!?

    ".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support.

    ****"It might may [sic] no difference, but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. "Does he believe in God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage.

    I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My southern baptist peeps woudl draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."****

    "Amy Dacey, CEO of the DNC, subsequently responded "AMEN," according to the email"

    Yikes!

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/emails-released-wikileaks-show-dnc-aid-hillary-clinton/story?id=40815253

    And this is the "democracy" they keep telling you is the 'better of two evils'.

    Hilarious

    JelloBeyonce , 2016-07-24 16:53:50
    The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken. This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed.

    Has anyone here worked, I mean truly worked in the pre-election process, behind the scenes, witnessing the dirty business that is gathering electoral votes during caucuses and primaries? It is a total sham. It is where under-the-table deals are made for promised loyalties to certain candidates, where those that have the most, bribe others to vote a certain way, where quid pro quo rules over democracy or a candidates stance on issues and/or policies. It is where future cabinet positions are secured, based on allegiance to party hierarchy and strong-arming. Your vote means nothing, only a small select group determines candidates, and ultimately the president.

    DNC Chair Wasserman is just one cog in a massive political machine, one run rampantly out of control. And this happens on both sides, among both parties. It is where the personal selfish love of money, power, and fame outstrip the will of the people.

    Long live hackers for keeping a check on an obviously corrupted system. The mainstream media isn't doing their jobs anymore, someone has to. The media have merely become the pretorian band for the super class, those elite that truly control this country from behind the scenes, pulling the puppet strings attached to the soulless politicians.

    We are again presented with two candidates whom have each proven their desire to negate the will of the nation, for purely selfish reasons. Neither is truly qualified for this office.

    "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to trust no [hu]man living with the power to endanger the public liberty".
    -John Adams-

    "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters"
    -Ben Franklin-

    [Sep 12, 2016] Reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism in which corporatations seized all of the political levers

    This short article contains several very deep observations. Highly recommended...
    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. ..."
    "... This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over. ..."
    "... First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form. ..."
    "... So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. ..."
    "... I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. ..."
    "... Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. ..."
    "... Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile ..."
    Aug 06, 2016 | www.democracynow.org

    CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son. We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.

    I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.

    First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.

    So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact, the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.

    And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government, was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about 4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except for hackers.

    I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign.

    The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children.

    This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Trade, Trump, and Downward Class Warfare

    Krugman: "Last summer,... when Mr. Trump ... promised not to cut Social Security,... insiders like William Kristol gleefully declared that he was "willing to lose the primary to win the general." In reality, however, Republican voters don't at all share the elite's enthusiasm for entitlement cuts... "
    "G.O.P. establishment was also sure that Mr. Trump would pay a heavy price for asserting that we were misled into Iraq - evidently unaware just how widespread that (correct) belief is among Americans of all political persuasions."
    Mar 04, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    This is from Mark Kleiman ( via Brad DeLong):
    Trade, Trump, and Downward Class Warfare, by Mark Kleim an: A conversation with my Marron Institute colleague Paul Romer yesterday crystallized an idea I'd been toying with for some time. In a nutshell: opponents of taxing the rich have destroyed, on a practical level, the theoretical basis for believing that free trade benefits everyone.

    The Econ-101 case for free trade is straightforward: Trade benefits those who produce exports and those who consume imports (including producers who use imported goods as inputs). It hurts the producers of goods which can be made better or more cheaply abroad. But the gains to the winners exceed the gains to the losers: that is, the winners could make the losers whole and still come out ahead themselves. Therefore, trade passes the Pareto test.

    [Yes, this elides a number of issues, including path-dependency in increasing-returns and learning-by-doing markets on the pure-economics side and the salting of actual agreements with provisions that create or protect economic rents on the political-economy side. It also ignores the biggest gainers from trade: workers in low-wage countries, most notably the Chinese factory workers whose parents were barefoot peasants.]

    So when the modern Republican Party (R.I.P), in the name of "small government" and opposition to "class warfare," set its face against policies to redistribute the gains from economic growth, it destroyed the theoretical basis for thinking that a rising tide would lift all the boats, rather than lifting the yachts and swamping the trawlers. Free trade without redistribution (especially the corrupt version of "free trade" with corporate rent-seeking written into it) is basically class warfare waged downwards. ...

    March 4, 2016 at 09:09 AM in Economics , Income Distribution , International Trade , Politics | Permalink Comments (91)

    [Sep 11, 2016] Trump is afraid the neoliberal imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs ..."
    "... Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the point of being counterproductive. ..."
    "... I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication than in 2008, even 2012. ..."
    "... No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was hyperbole. But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g. outsource Brad DeLong . ..."
    "... The same thing has happened in Mexico with neoliberal government after neoliberal government being elected. There are many democratically elected neoliberal governments around the world. ..."
    "... In the case of Mexico, because Peña Nieto's wife is a telenovela star. How cool is that? It places Mexico in the same league as 1st world countries, such as France, with Carla Bruni. ..."
    "... To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws them because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture of "by the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view taxing people in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis of this, because it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the hard work needed to live independently. ..."
    "... The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back. ..."
    "... The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who do you recommend they vote for? ..."
    "... I think you're missing Patrick's point. These voters are switching from one Republican to another. They've jettisoned Bush et. al. for Trump. These guys despise Bush. ..."
    "... They've figured out that the mainstream party is basically 30 years of affinity fraud. ..."
    "... My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income. ..."
    "... Layman - Why are these voters switching from Bush et al to Trump? Once again, Corey's whole point is that there is very little difference between the racism of Trump and the mainstream party since Nixon. Is Trump just more racist? Or are the policies of Trump resonating differently than Bush for reasons other than race? ..."
    "... Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone must play the role of outsider. ..."
    "... For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations. ..."
    Aug 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Lupita 08.04.16 at 4:23 am 167

    I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs .

    Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the point of being counterproductive.

    I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication than in 2008, even 2012.

    Layman 08.04.16 at 11:59 am

    Rich P: "Neoliberals often argue that people should be glad to lose employment at 50 so that people from other countries can have higher incomes "

    I doubt this most sincerely. While this may be the effect of some neoliberal policies, I can't recall any particular instance where someone made this argument.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.04.16 at 12:03 pm

    "I can't recall any particular instance where someone made this argument."

    No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was hyperbole. But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g. outsource Brad DeLong .

    engels 08.04.16 at 12:25 pm

    While this may be the effect of some neoliberal policies, I can't recall any particular instance where someone made this argument

    Maybe this kind of thing rom Henry Farrell? (There may well be better examples.)

    Is some dilution of the traditional European welfare state acceptable, if it substantially increases the wellbeing of current outsiders (i.e. for example, by bringing Turkey into the club). My answer is yes, if European leftwingers are to stick to their core principles on justice, fairness, egalitarianism etc

    http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/31/talking-turkey-over-welfare/

    Lupita 08.04.16 at 2:42 pm

    Large numbers of low-income white southern Americans consistently vote against their own economic interests. They vote to award tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations, to cut unemployment benefits, to bust unions, to reward companies for outsourcing jobs, to resist wage increases, to cut funding for health care for the poor, to cut Social Security and Medicare, etc.

    The same thing has happened in Mexico with neoliberal government after neoliberal government being elected. There are many democratically elected neoliberal governments around the world.

    Why might this be?

    In the case of Mexico, because Peña Nieto's wife is a telenovela star. How cool is that? It places Mexico in the same league as 1st world countries, such as France, with Carla Bruni.

    Patrick 08.04.16 at 4:32 pm

    To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws them because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture of "by the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view taxing people in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis of this, because it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the hard work needed to live independently.

    They see it as little different from letting your kid move back on after college and smoke weed in your basement. They don't generally mind people being on unemployment transitionally, but they're supposed to be a little embarrassed about it and get it over with as soon as possible. They not only worry that increased government social spending will incentivize bad behavior, they worry it will destroy the cultural values they see as vital to Americas past prosperity. They tend to view claims about historic or systemic injustice necessitating collective remedy because they view the world as one in which the vagaries of fate decree that some are born rich or poor, and that success is in improving ones station relative to where one starts. Attempts at repairing historical racial inequity read as cheating in that paradigm, and even as hostile since they can easily observe white people who are just as poor or poorer than those who racial politics focuses upon. Left wing insistence on borrowing the nastiest rhetoric of libertarians ("this guy is poor because his ancestors couldn't get ahead because of historical racial injustice so we must help him; your family couldn't get ahead either but that must have been your fault so you deserve it") comes across as both antithetical to their values and as downright hostile within the values they see around them.

    All of this can be easily learned by just talking to them.

    It's not a great world view. It fails to explain quite a lot. For example, they have literally no way of explaining increased unemployment without positing either that everyone is getting too lazy to work, or that the government screwed up the system somehow, possibly by making it too expensive to do business in the US relative to other countries. and given their faith in the power of hard work, they don't even blame sweatshops- they blame taxes and foreign subsidies.

    I don't know exactly how to reach out to them, except that I can point to some things people do that repulse them and say "stop doing that."

    bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 5:50 pm

    The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back.

    The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who do you recommend they vote for?

    There is serious deficit of both trust and information among the poor. Poor whites hardly have a monopoly; black misleadership is epidemic in our era of Cory Booker socialism.


    bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 7:05 pm

    Politics is founded on the complex social psychology of humans as social animals. We elevate it from its irrational base in emotion to rationalized calculation or philosophy at our peril.


    T 08.04.16 at 9:17 pm

    @Layman

    I think you're missing Patrick's point. These voters are switching from one Republican to another. They've jettisoned Bush et. al. for Trump. These guys despise Bush.

    They've figured out that the mainstream party is basically 30 years of affinity fraud.

    So, is your argument is that Trump even more racist? That kind of goes against the whole point of the OP. Not saying that race doesn't matter. Of course it does. But Trump has a 34% advantage in non-college educated white men. It just isn't the South. Why does it have to be just race or just class?


    Ronan(rf) 08.04.16 at 10:35 pm

    "I generally don't give a shit about polls so I have no "data" to evidence this claim, but my guess is the majority of Trump's support comes from this broad middle"

    My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income.

    This would make some sense as they are generally in economically unstable jobs, they tend to be hostile to both big govt (regulations, freeloaders) and big business (unfair competition), and while they (rhetorically at least) tend to value personal autonomy and self sufficiency , they generally sell into smaller, local markets, and so are particularly affected by local demographic and cultural change , and decline. That's my speculation anyway.

    T 08.05.16 at 3:12 pm

    @patrick @layman

    Patrick, you're right about the Trump demographic. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/

    Layman - Why are these voters switching from Bush et al to Trump? Once again, Corey's whole point is that there is very little difference between the racism of Trump and the mainstream party since Nixon. Is Trump just more racist? Or are the policies of Trump resonating differently than Bush for reasons other than race?

    Are the folks that voted for the other candidates in the primary less racist so Trump supporters are just the most racist among Republicans? Cruz less racist? You have to explain the shift within the Republican party because that's what happened.

    Anarcissie 08.06.16 at 3:00 pm

    Faustusnotes 08.06.16 at 1:50 pm @ 270 -

    Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone must play the role of outsider. While Berne's theories are a bit too nifty for me to love them, I have observed a lot of the behaviors he predicts. If one wanted to be sociobiological, it is not hard to hypothesize evolutionary pressures which could lead to this sort of behavior being genetically programmed. If a group of humans, a notably combative primate, does not have strong social cohesion, the war of all against all ensues and everybody dies. Common affections alone do not seem to provide enough cohesion.

    In an earlier but related theory, in the United States, immigrants from diverse European communities which fought each other for centuries in Europe arrived and managed to now get along because they had a major Other, the Negro, against whom to define themselves (as the White Race) and thus to cohere sufficiently to get on with business. The Negro had the additional advantage of being at first a powerless slave and later, although theoretically freed, was legally, politically, and economically disabled - an outsider who could not fight back very effectively, nor run away. Even so, the US almost split apart and there continue to be important class, ethnic, religious, and regional conflicts. You can see how these two theories resonate.

    It may be that we can't have communities without this dark side, although we might be able to mitigate some of its destructive effects.

    bruce wilde r 08.06.16 at 4:28 pm

    I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community.

    Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to serve their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.)

    Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz status. The ugly prejudices and resentful arrogance of working class whites is thus a component of how racism works to organize a political community to serve a hegemonic master class. The business end of racism, though, is the autarkic poverty imposed on the working communities: slaves, sharecroppers, poor blacks, poor whites - bad schools, bad roads, politically disabled communities, predatory institutions and authoritarian governments.

    For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations.

    engels 08.07.16 at 1:02 am

    But how did that slavery happen

    Possible short answer: the level of technological development made slavery an efficient way of exploiting labour. At a certain point those conditions changed and slavery became a drag on further development and it was abolished, along with much of the racist ideology that legitimated it.

    Lupita 08.07.16 at 3:40 am

    But how did that slavery happen

    In Mesoamerica, all the natives were enslaved because they were conquered by the Spaniards. Then, Fray Bartolomé de las Casas successfully argued before the Crown that the natives had souls and, therefore, should be Christianized rather than enslaved. As Bruce Wilder states, this did not serve the interests of the slaveholding elite, so the African slave trade began and there was no Fray Bartolomé to argue their case.

    It is interesting that while natives were enslaved, the Aztec aristocracy was shipped to Spain to be presented in court and study Latin. This would not have happened if the Mesoamericans were considered inferior (soulless) as a race. Furthermore, the Spaniards needed the local elite to help them out with their empire and the Aztecs were used to slavery and worse. This whole story can be understood without recurring to racism. The logic of empire suffices.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Globalization, Rise of Neo-Nationalism and the Bankruptcy of the Left

    Notable quotes:
    "... On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries. ..."
    "... The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. ..."
    "... In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. ..."
    "... The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites. ..."
    "... In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. ..."
    "... Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process; ..."
    "... Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". ..."
    "... by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement. ..."
    "... it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. ..."
    "... "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage" ..."
    "... It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left ..."
    "... the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. ..."
    Jul 07, 2016 | www.liveleak.com
    On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.

    The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control, for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.

    In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit, but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation ("Project Fear") launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland's – and later Hungary's – turn will come in earnest.

    The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing, however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called "NewLeft" represented by SYRIZA, which not only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii] but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations! At the same time, the working class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly inexplicable phenomena?

    Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism

    As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice versa. However, whereas the 'nationalization' of the market was necessary for the development of the 'market system' out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further 'progress' of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.

    Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.

    In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves.

    The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites.

    This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO. In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of 'illiberalism'.'[iv] It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical) nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them are as follows:

    a) Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20th century when national liberation movements against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;

    b) Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process;

    c) Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands.

    Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends, which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as 'far right'. However, such demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the '4 freedoms' (capital, labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.

    The rise of the neo-nationalist movement

    Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization, particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees' real incomes is concerned––as a result of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present 'job miracle', for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as "the job creation capital of the western economies"), hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, "unemployment is low, largely because British workers have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era".[v]

    The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.

    The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people (and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not of course because they suddenly became "nationalists" let alone "fascists", as the globalist "NewLeft" (that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions, e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist "NewLeft" does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization. This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement.

    But, it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the "NewLeft" has abandoned long ago!):

    "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage".[vi]

    In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front of all globalist parties (including the "NewLeft" and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN's vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:

    "The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial policies  . these people have realized that they were misled."[vii]

    As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN's economic policies, which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro newspaper, recently described this vision as "Peronist Marxism".[viii] In fact, in a more recent FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called, apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of the EU itself, (which she-rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face of "wild and anarchic globalization which has brought more pain than happiness ".[ix]

    For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his "radical" hat) to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed. At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable friend.

    Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, "the FN is not the only supposedly rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing plans "to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor".[x]

    Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist forces are continuously rising,[xii] and Orban's government has done more than any other EU leader in protecting his country's sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites. Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a "dangerous 'Putinization' of European politics."[xiii]

    However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz "forget" is that since Poland joined the EU in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that "the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist, xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business; a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to raise it to 67 for both).[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against 24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the "progressive" camp failed to clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation at all!

    The bankruptcy of the Left

    It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).

    Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy, which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.

    Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists themselves![xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, stressing that "there is no Islamophobia in France but there is a rise in anti-Semitism".

    Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie Hebdo,[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO-which is of course the main enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically well-tested 'divide and rule' practice to divide the victims of globalization.

    Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British "NewLeft" in general on the issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as the liberal (or globalist) "NewLeft" does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[xvii] and Larry Elliott[xviii] of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it military violence. In other words, what all these "NewLeft" trends hide is that globalization is a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the "NewLeft" , which is reflected in the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of representing the victims of the system in its globalized form , while the Left mainly represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless to add that today's bankrupt "NewLeft" promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU's black propaganda campaign against the rising movement for national sovereignty.

    This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of "NewLeft" , as the millions of European voters who turn their back towards this degraded "NewLeft" are far from racists or fascists but simply want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!

    The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,[xix] whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class. As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:

    Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education qualifications. In nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]

    The process of the NewLeft's bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist "NewLeft" ),[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist "NewLeft" . Thus, this "NewLeft" , Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.

    On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist "NewLeft" have joined the new 'movement' by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, "forgetting" in the process that 'Democracy' was also the West's propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing the perpetuation of the EU elites' domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist "NewLeft" who have already joined this new DIEM 'movement' range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and other globalist "NewLeft" newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek's commentary on the 'Manifesto' that was presented at the inaugural meeting of Varoufakis's new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]

    Neo-nationalism and immigration

    So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist "NewLeft" , try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case clearly showed[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.

    But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty, which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization, when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.

    However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even by the Zionist elite,[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.

    It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which, instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty,[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.

    National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!

    So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their current political affiliations.

    In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently needed is not an "antifascist" Front within the EU, as proposed by the 'parliamentary juntas' in power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist "NewLeft" (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe, Die Linke, the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact, unite aggressors and victims. An 'antifascist' front would simply disorient the masses and make them incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European part of the transnational elite – as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.

    To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country's exit from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance. Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then fight for the ideal society, as they see it.

    Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/ Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over 25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.

    This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press, The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action

    Notes:

    Bruno Waterfield, "Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right", [i]The Times, 24/5/2016

    The original source of this article is Global Research. Copyright © Takis Fotopoulos , Global Research, 2016

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/globalization-the-massive-rise-of-neo-nationalism-and-the-bankruptcy-of-the-left/5527157

    [Sep 10, 2016] As Resistance Mounts, TPP Becoming 2016 Elections Third Rail

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.commondreams.org

    As the White House prepares for its final " all-out push " to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle are being made vulnerable due to growing opposition to the controversial, corporate-friendly trade deal.

    "[I]n 2016," the Guardian reported on Saturday, "America's faltering faith in free trade has become the most sensitive controversy in D.C."

    Yet President Barack Obama "has refused to give up," wrote Guardian journalists Dan Roberts and Ryan Felton, despite the fact that the 12-nation TPP "suddenly faces a wall of political opposition among lawmakers who had, not long ago, nearly set the giant deal in stone."

    ... ... ...

    Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post reported Thursday, but once-supportive Dems are also poised to jump ship.

    To that end, in a column this week, Campaign for America's Future blogger Dave Johnson listed for readers "28 House Democrat targets...who-in spite of opposition from most Democrats and hundreds of labor, consumer, LGBT, health, human rights, faith, democracy and other civil organizations-voted for the 'fast-track' trade promotion authority (TPA) bill that 'greased the skids' for the TPP by setting up rigged rules that will help TPP pass."

    Of the list that includes Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), Jared Polis (Colo.), and Ron Kind (Wis.), Johnson wrote: "Let's get them on the record before the election about whether they will vote for TPP after the election."

    [Sep 10, 2016] Sanders might run as a sheepdog from the very beginning. His attitude toward email skandal was an early warning that the game was rigged

    Notable quotes:
    "... Sanders is a touchy subject with me. The man was offered a spot on the Green party ticket, and obviously didn't take it. Considering the public disgust with the two slimeballs we're stuck with now, I believe he'd have had a real shot at the presidency. Despite my rating him as a C- at best, I'd have voted for the man. It's my opinion he'd have gotten a whole lot of Trump's base too. The poorer members of the GOP know they're getting the shaft, and I suspect a great many of them would have defected too. ..."
    "... There was a theory early-on that Sanders never was really serious, but instead was running as a "sheepdog" to lead the dirty hippy lefties to Clinton. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    Zachary Smith August 31, 2016 12:13 am

    Sanders is a touchy subject with me. The man was offered a spot on the Green party ticket, and obviously didn't take it. Considering the public disgust with the two slimeballs we're stuck with now, I believe he'd have had a real shot at the presidency. Despite my rating him as a C- at best, I'd have voted for the man. It's my opinion he'd have gotten a whole lot of Trump's base too. The poorer members of the GOP know they're getting the shaft, and I suspect a great many of them would have defected too.

    There was a theory early-on that Sanders never was really serious, but instead was running as a "sheepdog" to lead the dirty hippy lefties to Clinton. That theory looks more plausible now than it did earlier.

    [Sep 10, 2016] I didnt pay 700 dollars for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine

    Buying iPhone is mistake in itself. but as for neocon propaganda machine do you thing that Google or Yahoo are better? they are not.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Anyone else notice that their apple iphone has turned into a raging anti-trump propaganda machine? I'm talking about the news headlines apple pushes to you when you slide your home screen all the way to the right. ..."
    "... I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine. ..."
    "... I have never actually read the anti trump stories that apple feeds my iphone because i didn't want to set up a preference for such things. I just see the headlines and they are quite negative. This is not the phone responding to my preference. It is content that is being deliberately pushed by Apple to my phone sans any info suggesting that i want it. ..."
    "... Paying $700 for a $200 phone says unflattering things about i-Phone owners. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    alaric | Aug 6, 2016 2:41:59 PM | 3

    Anyone else notice that their apple iphone has turned into a raging anti-trump propaganda machine? I'm talking about the news headlines apple pushes to you when you slide your home screen all the way to the right.

    I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 6, 2016 4:22:11 PM | 6

    Sometimes you get something extra with no additional cost. For 700 bucks you should get hourly updates from the Lord of the Universe, so neocon urgent news are perhaps a step in this direction :-)

    More seriously, this is the fault of the browser and evil business model. Some click is cheerfully interpreted as your request to get bombarded from some source, and sometimes it is clear how to undo it, sometimes not.

    Browsers should not have such features, but this is what makes them profitable.

    Coming in near future: discount versions of cars that are steered by a computer. Every few minutes the car stops and restarts only after you confirmed with clicks that you have seen another ad.

    alaric | Aug 6, 2016 5:13:45 PM | 14

    "More seriously, this is the fault of the browser and evil business model. Some click is cheerfully interpreted as your request to get bombarded from some source"

    I have never actually read the anti trump stories that apple feeds my iphone because i didn't want to set up a preference for such things. I just see the headlines and they are quite negative. This is not the phone responding to my preference. It is content that is being deliberately pushed by Apple to my phone sans any info suggesting that i want it.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 6, 2016 11:26:13 PM | 30

    I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine.

    alaric | Aug 6, 2016 2:41:59 PM | 3

    Paying $700 for a $200 phone says unflattering things about i-Phone owners.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Donald Trump is right about defense spending – and that should scare you

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less. ..."
    "... U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582 billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40 billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil, sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand ..."
    "... As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. ..."
    "... "I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary, "like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor." ..."
    "... America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said during a campaign stop in South Carolina. ..."
    "... Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent. ..."
    "... Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute, estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next eight years. ..."
    "... He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. ..."
    "... The Super PAC that backed Bush funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending by $102 billion a year. ..."
    "... Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner to audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects. ..."
    "... Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut in defense spending. ..."
    "... At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard. ..."
    "... Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest employers in the area. ..."
    "... During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're spending billions." ..."
    "... Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea. ..."
    "... In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more with so much less. ..."
    blogs.reuters.com

    Donald Trump could be the only presidential candidate talking sense about for the American military's budget. That should scare everyone.

    "I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right now," the real- estate-mogul-turned-tautological-demagogue said on Meet the Press. "It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less."

    He's right.

    U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582 billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40 billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil, sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand

    As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

    The much-maligned F-35 will cost at least $1.5 trillion during the 55 years that its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, expects it to be flying. That number is up $500 billion from the original high estimate. But with a long list of problems plaguing the stealth fighter, that price will most likely grow.

    "I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary, "like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor."

    America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said during a campaign stop in South Carolina.

    Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent.

    Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute, estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next eight years.

    Ballistic-missile-launching submarines aren't cheap, for example, and Cruz wants 12 of them. "If you think it's too expensive to defend this nation," Cruz said, "try not defending it."

    He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

    Ohio Governor John Kasich might be expected to have a more reasonable stance. After all, he sat on the House Armed Services Committee for almost 18 years, where he slashed budgets and challenged wasteful Pentagon projects.

    But that past is a liability for him. The Super PAC that backed Bush funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending by $102 billion a year.

    Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner to audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects.

    Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut in defense spending.

    A Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighter flies toward its new home at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, January 11, 2011. REUTERS/U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago/Handout

    At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard.

    Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest employers in the area.

    Yet, Sanders ideological beliefs can sometimes color his views. He was chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee in 2014 as scandal swept the Department of Veterans Affairs. Even as many VA supporters called for reforms, Sanders defended the hospital system because he felt conservatives were attacking a major government social-welfare agency.

    He still defends his stewardship of the committee. "When I was chairman, what we did is pass a $15-billion piece of legislation," Sanders said during a recent debate with Clinton. "We went further than any time in recent history in improving the healthcare of the men and women in this country who put their lives on the line to defend us."

    In the age of terrorism and Islamic State bombers, the prevailing political wisdom holds that appearing soft on defense can lose a candidate the general election. For many of the 2016 presidential candidates, looking strong means spending a ton of cash. Even if you're from the party that holds fiscal responsibility as its cornerstone.

    But Trump doesn't care about any of that. In speech after speech, he has called out politicians and defense contractors for colluding to build costly weapons systems at the price of national security.

    During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're spending billions."

    Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea.

    In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more with so much less.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems

    www.theguardian.com

    Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?

    Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?

    Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

    So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.

    Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

    Bookmarks is our new weekly email from the books team with our pick of the latest news, views and reviews, delivered to your inbox every Thursday

    Read more

    Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

    We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

    Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.

    Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us

    Paul Verhaeghe

    Paul Verhaeghe: An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities

    Read more

    Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.

    ***

    The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.

    In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises's book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.

    With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe as "a kind of neoliberal international": a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement's rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.

    As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among American apostles such as Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.

    Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.

    At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins. The postwar consensus was almost universal: John Maynard Keynes's economic prescriptions were widely applied, full employment and the relief of poverty were common goals in the US and much of western Europe, top rates of tax were high and governments sought social outcomes without embarrassment, developing new public services and safety nets.

    But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, "when the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up". With the help of sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter's administration in the US and Jim Callaghan's government in Britain.

    It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'

    After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, "it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised."

    ***

    It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative". But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet's Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied – "my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism". The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.

    Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.

    Naomi Klein documented that neoliberals advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted. Photograph: Anya Chibis for the Guardian

    As Naomi Klein documents in The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet's coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman described as "an opportunity to radically reform the educational system" in New Orleans.

    Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating "investor-state dispute settlement": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.

    Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one

    Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead created one.

    Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.

    The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.

    Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world's richest man.

    Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can't Afford the Rich, has had a similar impact. "Like rent," he argues, "interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort". As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.

    Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy: from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.

    Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.

    The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public sector.

    Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.

    Chris Hedges remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment". When political debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation. To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.

    Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to "cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey them".

    ***

    Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities.

    The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that "in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised".

    The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Today, the relationship has been reversed

    The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. "The market" sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What "the market wants" tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. "Investment", as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities "camouflages the sources of wealth", leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.

    A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.

    These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.

    The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice – that it is used today only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman's classic work, Capitalism and Freedom.

    ***

    For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project, at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.

    Neoliberalism, Locke and the Green party

    Letters: For neoliberals to claim that their view supports the current distribution of property and power is almost as bonkers as the Lockean theory of property itself

    Read more

    Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.

    Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems. It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are the motors of environmental destruction.

    What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it's not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century.

    George Monbiot's How Did We Get into This Mess? is published this month by Verso. To order a copy for £12.99 (RRP £16.99) ) go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Be afraid, Donald Trump. Were about to see the best of Barack Obama

    All this discussion missed the most important point: Obama is neocon and neoliberal and he did what he was supposed to do. "Change we can believe is" was a masterful "bait and switch" operation to full the gullible electorate. he was just a useful puppet for globalist. They used him and they will threw him to the dust bin of history sweetened with $200k speeches.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people! ..."
    "... So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes? ..."
    "... Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency. ..."
    "... Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 ..."
    "... 'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with???? ..."
    "... Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy! ..."
    "... Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency: 1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up. 2. Record # of people living on food stamps. 3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it) 4. Stagnant income for average family 5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income. 6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up. 7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore. ... ... Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over. ..."
    "... Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed. ..."
    "... Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts. ..."
    "... Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary? Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement. ..."
    "... "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries. ..."
    "... "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter? ..."
    "... Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians. ..."
    "... Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. ..."
    "... Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
    "... Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.) ..."
    "... Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did. ..."
    "... Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed). ..."
    "... Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence. ..."
    "... Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states. ..."
    "... Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street. ..."
    "... Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color, ..."
    "... Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state. ..."
    "... Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen ..."
    "... Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons. ..."
    "... Which of these things make you "so proud?" ..."
    "... You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it. ..."
    "... To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd. ..."
    "... This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on. ..."
    "... Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world. ..."
    "... Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-). ..."
    "... TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    slorter

    The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people!

    kittehpavolvski

    So, if we're about to see the best of Obama, what have we been seeing hitherto?

    waitforme

    So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes?

    ForestTrees

    Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency.

    ForestTrees -> Glenn J. Hill 31m ago

    Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    HelenPatterson

    'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with????

    What a fatuous article about the world's leading terrorist.

    And of course we shouldn't forget that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.

    Let's not forget that he claims and has exercised his 'right' to murder his own citizens on the basis of secret evidence - one being a 16 year old boy. And when the White House spokesman was asked why the boy was murdered by drone, he said 'He should have had a more responsible father'.

    He sings off on his 'Kill List' of domestic and foreign nationals every Tuesday, dubbed 'Terror Tuesday' by his staff.

    Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy!

    ID7715785

    Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder.

    ninjamia

    Oh, I know. He'll repeat the snide and nasty remarks about Trump that he gave at the Press Club dinner. Such style and grace - not.

    J.K. Stevens -> ninjamia

    Sit back and weep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

    fflambeau

    Casting Donald Trump as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't bring about real change.

    And sadly, in his almost 8 years in office (2 years with absolute control over the Congress) Barack Obama has brought about little real change. For him it is a slogan.

    Larry Robinson

    Obama's presidency:
    1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up.
    2. Record # of people living on food stamps.
    3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it)
    4. Stagnant income for average family
    5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income.
    6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up.
    7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore.
    ... ...

    Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over.

    shinNeMIN -> Larry Robinson

    $500 million worth of arm supply?

    hadeze242 -> Major MajorMajor

    while Obama's messy military interventions become more and more confused, chaotic and tragic his personal appearance gets ever more Hollywood: perfect attire, smile and just the right words. I would prefer the inverse, less tailoring and neat haircuts, but more honesty and transparency. e.g., Obama lied about the NSA for how long in this first term. Answer: all four years long and beyond into the 2nd term.

    BostonCeltics

    Six more months until he goes into the dustbin of history. Small minded people in positions of power who take things personally are the epitome of incompetence.

    Mats Almgren

    Obama became a worse president than Bush. Endless moneyprinting, bombing nine countries, created a operation Condor 2.0 with interventions in Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan, lifted the weapon embargo on Vietnam to sell US weapons and at the same time forcing Vietnam to not do trade deals with China, intimidating the Phillipines from doing trade with China, restarted the cold war which had led to biggest military ramp up in Eastern Europe since 1941, drone bombed weddings and hospitals and what not, supported islam militants in Libya, Syria and Iraq which has led to total devastation in these countries. And there has been an increase in the constant US interventionism regarding European elections and referendums. And has continuously protected the dollar hegemony causing death and destruction thoughout the world.

    With that track record it's easy to say that Obama might be worst US president ever. And there has been hardly any critism and critical thinking in the more and more propagandistic and agenda driven western media.

    It's like living in the twilight zone reading the media in Sweden and Britain.

    Jose Sanchez -> Mats Almgren

    Blame a president for trying to sell what we still manufacture are you?

    Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed.

    NewWorldWatcher

    The new leader of the Republican party thinks that that it was stupid to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be good to carpet bomb ISIS. He IS a great Republican. No wonder this party is on the fringe of extinction.

    Mats Almgren -> NewWorldWatcher

    Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts.

    trundlesome1

    Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary?

    Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement.

    zootsuitbeatnick

    "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries.

    That's as hyper-competitive as Trump is selfless.
    Try to be at least a little reality-based.

    hadeze242

    the best of Pres. Obama? Perhaps only someone living a life in the UK could dream this strange dream? Great, compared to whom, to what? Never since WW2 has the US & world seen such a weak, openly-prejudiced, non-performing Pres. Remember O's plan to save Afghanistan? Lybia? Then, working (bombing) with Putin's Russia to collaterally bomb the beautiful, developed, cultural nation of Syria. To what end I ask? To create refugees? Obama has never been at his best, always only at his worst. Ah, yes, his smooth-lawyered sentences come with commas & periods and all that, but there is no feeling inside the man. This man is a great, oratory actor. His promises are well-written & endless, but delivery is never coming. Yes, we can .. was his electoral phrase. No, we can't ... after 8 long, wasted yrs was his result.

    NewWorldWatcher

    In Las Vegas they are gaming on how many votes will Trump lose by not who will win. A Trump loss will be in excess of 10 Million votes.......5to2 odds. The worse loss in recent history!

    Janet Re Johnson -> NewWorldWatcher

    From your mouth to God's ears. But I'm a big baseball fan, so I know it ain't over till it's over.

    Larry Robinson

    Also it's when Obama talks out of outburst rather than from a teleprompter that you can tell his true capability as a leader or lack thereof.

    Notice that Obama said ... not once has an advisor tells him to use the term "radical Islam" ... . Well Mr Obama, it's your own call to decide what term to use on this issue so why are you bringing your advisors out for credence. Right or wrong that's your own decision so you should stand behind it. When you bring advisors in to defend what should be your own call it shows WEAKNESS.

    Obama basically tells everyone that he needs his advisors to tell him what do b/c he does NOT know how to handle it by himself. So who's the leader here, Obama or his advisors? Is Obama just a puppet that needs his advisors to pull the string constantly? Ouch.

    It's the prompter-free moment like this that the truth about Obama comes out. I wonder why Trump has not picked this clear hole up yet.

    raffine

    The POTUS will crush Mr Trump like a 200 year old peanut.

    Carolyn Walas Libbey -> raffine

    The POTUS is about as useful as an old condom.

    PortalooMassacre

    Exposed to the toxic smugness of Richard Wolffe, I'm beginning to see what people find attractive about Donald Trump's refreshing barbarism.

    guy ventner -> synechdoche

    "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter?

    Ron Shuffler

    "Greatest President since Lincoln" "I am proud - so proud! - to say that this man is MY President! Personally, I am ashamed that this man is my President.
    But anyway, here's what Richard Wolffe and y'all are so proud of:

    Here's what your favorite President actually did:

    1. Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians.
    2. Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.
    3. Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    4. Deported at least 2.8 million "illegal" immigrants
    5. Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.)
    6. Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did.
    7. Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed).
    8. Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence.
    9. Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states.
    10. Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street.
    11. Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color,
    12. Left Guantanamo open (though as Commander-in-Chief he could have closed it down with a phone call).
    13. Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state.
    14. Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen
    15. Sent billions of dollars to the new military rulers of Egypt
    16. Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons.

    Which of these things make you "so proud?"

    BG Davis -> Ron Shuffler

    You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it.
    At the same time, you overestimate the simplicity of just closing Guantanamo prison with "a phone call." So he makes the phone call; then what happens to the prisoners? They aren't all innocent non-entities who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Larry Robinson

    It's only in the mind of die hard liberals that Obama has been strong against terrorists. Just look at how he handles Syria situation. Asad - a Shiite govt - is a sworn enemy to ISIS - a Sunni organization so if you are serious about ISIS you should utilize Asad, right? Well no, Obama is so hell-bent on unseating Asad that he supports those rebels that are also Sunni-based and cozy with ISIS. To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd.

    Lafcadio1944

    What part of Obama's criminal acts in office do think are the best? For me the very best of Obama is how he can project power so suavely while standing before the world as a prima facia criminal. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!! Under the law those who order and/or carry out torture MUST be prosecuted. THAT IS INTERNATIONAL, TREATY AND DOMESTIC US LAW.

    The oh so great and powerful Obama he of such dignity in office has SHOWN UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!

    But that's OK he will say bad things about Trump.

    This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on.

    I want to vomit when the press acts so hypocritically ready to jump all over Putin or China in a heart beat - but challenge US officials who openly violate the law - not a chance.

    babymamaboy

    Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world.

    It would be really easy for him to call it like it is -- we don't care who you worship, just don't mess with our oil. But he actively feeds the narrative while chiding Trump for being too enthusiastic about it. I guess that's what passes for US leadership these days.

    urgonnatrip

    Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex.

    How has Barack done? He's held them in check and avoided an escalation to WW3. I wish I could say the next president was going to continue the trend but somehow I doubt it.

    KerryB -> urgonnatrip

    You had me right up until the last line. I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-).

    zolotoy -> KerryB

    Yeah, just ignore Hillary Clinton's actual record, right?

    AgnosticKen

    TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy.

    [Sep 10, 2016] The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent. ..."
    "... The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford his Model Ts. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.politico.com

    Memo: From Nick Hanauer
    To: My Fellow Zillionaires

    You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising company that was sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then, that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed. I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor. And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.

    Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy, was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends, both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time. It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.

    But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?

    I see pitchforks.

    At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

    But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

    Memo: From Nick Hanauer
    To: My Fellow Zillionaires

    You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising company that was sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then, that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed. I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor. And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.

    Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy, was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends, both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time. It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.

    But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?

    I see pitchforks.

    At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

    But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

    And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won't last.

    If we don't do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn't eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It's not if, it's when.

    Many of us think we're special because "this is America." We think we're immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring-or the French and Russian revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this kind of argument; I've had many of you tell me to my face I'm completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.

    Here's what I say to you: You're living in a dream world. What everyone wants to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we're somehow going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that's not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there's no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand. That's the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when, and it will be terrible-for everybody. But especially for us.
    ***

    The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression-so that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the ones with the pitchforks-that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks, too. It's not just that we'll escape with our lives; it's that we'll most certainly get even richer.

    The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford his Model Ts.

    What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let's do it all over again. We've got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base. And yours too.

    It's when I realized this that I decided I had to leave my insulated world of the super-rich and get involved in politics. Not directly, by running for office or becoming one of the big-money billionaires who back candidates in an election. Instead, I wanted to try to change the conversation with ideas-by advancing what my co-author, Eric Liu, and I call "middle-out" economics. It's the long-overdue rebuttal to the trickle-down economics worldview that has become economic orthodoxy across party lines-and has so screwed the American middle class and our economy generally. Middle-out economics rejects the old misconception that an economy is a perfectly efficient, mechanistic system and embraces the much more accurate idea of an economy as a complex ecosystem made up of real people who are dependent on one another.

    Which is why the fundamental law of capitalism must be: If workers have more money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers, not rich businesspeople like us, the true job creators. Which means a thriving middle class is the source of American prosperity, not a consequence of it. The middle class creates us rich people, not the other way around.

    On June 19, 2013, Bloomberg published an article I wrote called "The Capitalist's Case for a $15 Minimum Wage." Forbes labeled it "Nick Hanauer's near insane" proposal. And yet, just weeks after it was published, my friend David Rolf, a Service Employees International Union organizer, roused fast-food workers to go on strike around the country for a $15 living wage. Nearly a year later, the city of Seattle passed a $15 minimum wage. And just 350 days after my article was published, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray signed that ordinance into law. How could this happen, you ask?

    It happened because we reminded the masses that they are the source of growth and prosperity, not us rich guys. We reminded them that when workers have more money, businesses have more customers-and need more employees. We reminded them that if businesses paid workers a living wage rather than poverty wages, taxpayers wouldn't have to make up the difference. And when we got done, 74 percent of likely Seattle voters in a recent poll agreed that a $15 minimum wage was a swell idea.

    The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That's why you've got John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment higher, you get less of it. Really?

    The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and our employees poor.

    Because here's an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers. These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and more of them.

    The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and our employees poor. So for as long as there has been capitalism, capitalists have said the same thing about any effort to raise wages. We've had 75 years of complaints from big business-when the minimum wage was instituted, when women had to be paid equitable amounts, when child labor laws were created. Every time the capitalists said exactly the same thing in the same way: We're all going to go bankrupt. I'll have to close. I'll have to lay everyone off. It hasn't happened. In fact, the data show that when workers are better treated, business gets better. The naysayers are just wrong.
    Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane departure from rational policy that puts our economy at great risk. But in Seattle, our current minimum wage of $9.32 is already nearly 30 percent higher than the federal minimum wage. And has it ruined our economy yet? Well, trickle-downers, look at the data here: The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of job growth by small businesses are San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage? San Francisco and Seattle. The fastest-growing big city in America? Seattle. Fifteen dollars isn't a risky untried policy for us. It's doubling down on the strategy that's already allowing our city to kick your city's ass.

    It makes perfect sense if you think about it: If a worker earns $7.25 an hour, which is now the national minimum wage, what proportion of that person's income do you think ends up in the cash registers of local small businesses? Hardly any. That person is paying rent, ideally going out to get subsistence groceries at Safeway, and, if really lucky, has a bus pass. But she's not going out to eat at restaurants. Not browsing for new clothes. Not buying flowers on Mother's Day.

    Is this issue more complicated than I'm making out? Of course. Are there many factors at play determining the dynamics of employment? Yup. But please, please stop insisting that if we pay low-wage workers more, unemployment will skyrocket and it will destroy the economy. It's utter nonsense. The most insidious thing about trickle-down economics isn't believing that if the rich get richer, it's good for the economy. It's believing that if the poor get richer, it's bad for the economy.

    I know that virtually all of you feel that compelling our businesses to pay workers more is somehow unfair, or is too much government interference. Most of you think that we should just let good examples like Costco or Gap lead the way. Or let the market set the price. But here's the thing. When those who set bad examples, like the owners of Wal-Mart or McDonald's, pay their workers close to the minimum wage, what they're really saying is that they'd pay even less if it weren't illegal. (Thankfully both companies have recently said they would not oppose a hike in the minimum wage.) In any large group, some people absolutely will not do the right thing. That's why our economy can only be safe and effective if it is governed by the same kinds of rules as, say, the transportation system, with its speed limits and stop signs.

    Wal-Mart is our nation's largest employer with some 1.4 million employees in the United States and more than $25 billion in pre-tax profit. So why are Wal-Mart employees the largest group of Medicaid recipients in many states? Wal-Mart could, say, pay each of its 1 million lowest-paid workers an extra $10,000 per year, raise them all out of poverty and enable them to, of all things, afford to shop at Wal-Mart. Not only would this also save us all the expense of the food stamps, Medicaid and rent assistance that they currently require, but Wal-Mart would still earn more than $15 billion pre-tax per year. Wal-Mart won't (and shouldn't) volunteer to pay its workers more than their competitors. In order for us to have an economy that works for everyone, we should compel all retailers to pay living wages-not just ask politely.

    We rich people have been falsely persuaded by our schooling and the affirmation of society, and have convinced ourselves, that we are the main job creators. It's simply not true. There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power a great economy. I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but I don't buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my "manager pants." I guess I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money away in savings, where it doesn't do the country much good.

    So forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won't admit it: If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we'd be is some guy standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit. It's not that Somalia and Congo don't have good entrepreneurs. It's just that the best ones are selling their wares off crates by the side of the road because that's all their customers can afford.

    So why not talk about a different kind of New Deal for the American people, one that could appeal to the right as well as left-to libertarians as well as liberals? First, I'd ask my Republican friends to get real about reducing the size of government. Yes, yes and yes, you guys are all correct: The federal government is too big in some ways. But no way can you cut government substantially, not the way things are now. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush each had eight years to do it, and they failed miserably.

    Republicans and Democrats in Congress can't shrink government with wishful thinking. The only way to slash government for real is to go back to basic economic principles: You have to reduce the demand for government. If people are getting $15 an hour or more, they don't need food stamps. They don't need rent assistance. They don't need you and me to pay for their medical care. If the consumer middle class is back, buying and shopping, then it stands to reason you won't need as large a welfare state. And at the same time, revenues from payroll and sales taxes would rise, reducing the deficit.

    This is, in other words, an economic approach that can unite left and right. Perhaps that's one reason the right is beginning, inexorably, to wake up to this reality as well. Even Republicans as diverse as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum recently came out in favor of raising the minimum wage, in defiance of the Republicans in Congress.

    ***

    One thing we can agree on-I'm sure of this-is that the change isn't going to start in Washington. Thinking is stale, arguments even more so. On both sides.

    But the way I see it, that's all right. Most major social movements have seen their earliest victories at the state and municipal levels. The fight over the eight-hour workday, which ended in Washington, D.C., in 1938, began in places like Illinois and Massachusetts in the late 1800s. The movement for social security began in California in the 1930s. Even the Affordable Health Care Act-Obamacare-would have been hard to imagine without Mitt Romney's model in Massachusetts to lead the way.

    Sadly, no Republicans and few Democrats get this. President Obama doesn't seem to either, though his heart is in the right place. In his State of the Union speech this year, he mentioned the need for a higher minimum wage but failed to make the case that less inequality and a renewed middle class would promote faster economic growth. Instead, the arguments we hear from most Democrats are the same old social-justice claims. The only reason to help workers is because we feel sorry for them. These fairness arguments feed right into every stereotype of Obama and the Democrats as bleeding hearts. Republicans say growth. Democrats say fairness-and lose every time.

    But just because the two parties in Washington haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean we rich folks can just keep going. The conversation is already changing, even if the billionaires aren't onto it. I know what you think: You think that Occupy Wall Street and all the other capitalism-is-the-problem protesters disappeared without a trace. But that's not true. Of course, it's hard to get people to sleep in a park in the cause of social justice. But the protests we had in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis really did help to change the debate in this country from death panels and debt ceilings to inequality.

    It's just that so many of you plutocrats didn't get the message.

    Dear 1%ers, many of our fellow citizens are starting to believe that capitalism itself is the problem. I disagree, and I'm sure you do too. Capitalism, when well managed, is the greatest social technology ever invented to create prosperity in human societies. But capitalism left unchecked tends toward concentration and collapse. It can be managed either to benefit the few in the near term or the many in the long term. The work of democracies is to bend it to the latter. That is why investments in the middle class work. And tax breaks for rich people like us don't. Balancing the power of workers and billionaires by raising the minimum wage isn't bad for capitalism. It's an indispensable tool smart capitalists use to make capitalism stable and sustainable. And no one has a bigger stake in that than zillionaires like us.

    The oldest and most important conflict in human societies is the battle over the concentration of wealth and power. The folks like us at the top have always told those at the bottom that our respective positions are righteous and good for all. Historically, we called that divine right. Today we have trickle-down economics.

    What nonsense this is. Am I really such a superior person? Do I belong at the center of the moral as well as economic universe? Do you?

    My family, the Hanauers, started in Germany selling feathers and pillows. They got chased out of Germany by Hitler and ended up in Seattle owning another pillow company. Three generations later, I benefited from that. Then I got as lucky as a person could possibly get in the Internet age by having a buddy in Seattle named Bezos. I look at the average Joe on the street, and I say, "There but for the grace of Jeff go I." Even the best of us, in the worst of circumstances, are barefoot, standing by a dirt road, selling fruit. We should never forget that, or forget that the United States of America and its middle class made us, rather than the other way around.

    Or we could sit back, do nothing, enjoy our yachts. And wait for the pitchforks.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Sanders was the geriatric Obama, dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of Sanders policy, like not signing the TPP, she is LYING.

    Picked from comments...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. ..."
    "... spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. ..."
    "... sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. ..."
    OffGuardian

    Richard Le Sarcophage, July 28, 2016

    Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. He is, in fact, with his total and immediate roll-over, even as the corruption of the process was categorically exposed by the e-mails, making no pretense otherwise, spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. He was the geriatric Obama, dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of Sanders policy, like not signing the TPP, she is LYING.

    Diana, July 28, 2016

    Sanders' own campaign called him the "youth whisperer", but sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. Perhaps he did so hoping that the DNC would play fair, but that goes to show you he's no socialist. A real socialist would have been able to size up the opposition, not made any gentleman's agreements with them and waged a real campaign.


    rtj1211, July 26, 2016

    So far as I'm aware, there must be a mechanism for an Independent to put their name on the ballot.

    If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They'd just need to be on the ballot.

    Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as 'another Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they were told no matter what.

    But until the US public say 'da nada! Pasta! Finito! To hell with the Democrats and the GOP!', you'll still get the choice of 'let's invade Iran' or 'let's nuke Russia'. You'll get the choice of giving Israel a blowjob or agreeing to be tied up and have kinky sex with Israel. You'll get the choice of bailing out Wall Street or bailing out Wall Street AND cutting social security for the poorest Americans. You'll get the choice of running the USA for the bankers or running the USA for the bankers and a few multinational corporations.

    Oh, they'll have to fight for it, just as Martin Luther King et al had to fight for civil rights. They may have the odd candidate shot by the CIA, the oil men or the weapons men. Because that's how US politics works.

    But if they don't want a Republican or a Republican-lite, they need to select an independent and vote for them.

    The rest of us? We have to use whatever influence we have to try and limit what they try to do overseas…….because we are affected by what America does overseas…….

    [Sep 10, 2016] Bernie Sanders should regret what he has done -- he betrayed the very people who believed in this political revolution repeating Obama bat and switch maneuver of 2008

    Sanders as a pupil of the king of "bait and switch" Obama
    Notable quotes:
    "... I think he will come to deeply regret what he has done. He has betrayed these people who believed in this political revolution. We heard this same kind of rhetoric, by the way, in 2008 around Obama. ..."
    Aug 06, 2016 | www.democracynow.org

    CHRIS HEDGES : Well, I didn't back Bernie Sanders because-and Kshama Sawant and I had had a discussion with him before-because he said that he would work within the Democratic structures and support the nominee.

    And I think we have now watched Bernie Sanders walk away from his political moment. You know, he - I think he will come to deeply regret what he has done. He has betrayed these people who believed in this political revolution. We heard this same kind of rhetoric, by the way, in 2008 around Obama.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Sanders is now backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Whether he plays Gorbachov or this is Stockholm syndrome shame on him!

    Notable quotes:
    "... That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him! He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc. ..."
    "... What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it. ..."
    "... He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated him. ..."
    "... The Democrats and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party. ..."
    "... The oligarchs have joined the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative. ..."
    "... I believe Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. ..."
    "... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
    "... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
    "... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
    "... I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose? He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome. ..."
    "... Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons), the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election. ..."
    "... The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all. ..."
    "... Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party. ..."
    "... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
    "... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
    "... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
    Aug 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    PERIES: Let's turn to Sanders's strategy here. Now, Sanders is, of course, asking people to support Hillary. And if you buy into the idea that she is the lesser of two evils candidate, then we also have to look at Bernie's other strategy – which is to vote as many people as we possibly can at various other levels of the elections that are going on at congressional levels, Senate level, at municipal levels. Is that the way to go, so that we can avoid some of these choices we are offered?

    HUDSON: Well, this is what I don't understand about Sanders's strategy. He says we need a revolution. He's absolutely right. But then, everything he said in terms of the election is about Trump. I can guarantee you that the revolution isn't really about Trump. The way Sanders has described things, you have to take over the Democratic Party and pry away the leadership, away from Wall Street, away from the corporations.

    Democrats pretend to be a party of the working class, a party of the people. But it's teetering with Hillary as it's candidate. If ever there was a time to split it, this was the year. But Bernie missed his chance. He knuckled under and said okay, the election's going to be about Trump. Forget the revolution that I've talked about. Forget reforming the Democratic Party, I'm sorry. Forget that I said Hillary is not fit to be President. I'm sorry, she is fit to be President. We've got to back her.

    That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him! He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc.

    Labor unions said this half a century ago. It didn't work. Bernie gave up on everything to back the TPP candidate, the neocon candidate.

    What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it.

    PERIES: I think there's a lot of people out there that agree with that analysis, Michael. He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated him. But there is another choice out there. In fact, we at the Real News is out there covering the Green Party election as we are speaking here, Michael. Is that an option?

    HUDSON: It would have been the only option for him. He had decided that you can't really mount a third party, because it's so hard. The Democrats and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party.

    So here you have the only possible third party he could have run on this time, and he avoided it. I'm sure he must of thought about it. He was offered the presidency on it. He could of used that and brought his revolution into that party and then expanded it as a real alternative to both the Democrats and the Republicans. Because the Republican Party is already split, by the fact that the Tea Party's pretty much destroyed it. The oligarchs have joined the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative.

    I don't think there will be a chance like this again soon. I believe Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. I think Bernie missed his chance to take this party and develop it very quickly, just like George Wallace could have done back in the 1960s when he had a chance. I think Chris Hedges and other people have made this point with you. I have no idea what Bernie's idea of a revolution is, if he's going to try to do it within the Democratic Party that's just stamped on him again and again, you're simply not going to have a revolution within the Democratic party.

    Butch In Waukegan ,, August 10, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Sanders' convention endorsement:

    I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care.

    I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.

    Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight!

    Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone now take Bernie seriously?

    Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

    crittermom ,, August 10, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    Okay. I know this comment will bring forth much backlash, but I'm gonna put it out there anyway since my 'give-a-shitter' was severely cracked over 4 yrs ago (when 2 sheriff's deputies evicted me from my home while I had been current on my pymts when the bank foreclosed and the response from EVERY govt agency I contacted told me to "hire a lawyer", which I couldn't afford, with one costing much more than I owed on my home of 20 yrs). I had bought my first house by the time I graduated h.s. and had owned one ever since until now.

    My 'give-a-shitter' completely shattered this year with the election, so here goes:

    So it seems we are offered 3 choices when we vote. Trump, Hillary or Green.

    To someone who is among the 8-10 MILLION (depending on whose figures you believe) whose home was illegally taken from them by the banksters, I would welcome a 4th choice since none of the 3 offered will improve my life before I die.

    The consensus seems to be that it'll take decades to create change through voting.

    I'm a divorced woman turning 65. I don't feel I have decades to wait, while I am forced to live in a place that doesn't even have a flush toilet because it's all I can afford. To someone my age with no degrees or special skills, the job market is nonexistent, even if I lived in a big city (where I couldn't afford the rent).

    When I see reports of an increase in new homes being built, I'd love to see a breakdown showing exactly how many of those homes will be primary residences and how many are second (or third, or fourth) homes.

    There are 4 new custom homes being built within a half mile of me.
    None will be primary residences. All will be 'vacation' homes.

    Yet if we're to believe the latest figures, "the housing market is improving!"
    For whom?

    Yes, I'm extremely disappointed that Bernie bailed on us. I doubt either of us will live long enough to see the change required to change this govt and save the planet with our current choices this election.

    I fear the only thing that this election has given me was initially great hope for my future, before being plunged into the darkness of the same ol', same ol' as my only choices.

    I was never radical or oppositional in my life but I would now welcome a revolution. I don't see me living long enough to welcome that change by voting. Especially with the blatant voter suppression and all else that transpired this election.

    While the govt and political oligarchs may fear Russia & ISIS, if they met 8-10 million of us victims of the banksters, they would come to realize real fear, from those within their homeland.

    Most are horrified when I offer this view, saying I'd be thrown in prison.
    Hmmm…considering that…I'd be fed, clothed, housed-and I'd have a flush toilet!

    Gads, I'd love to see millions of us march on Washington & literally throw those in power out of their seats onto the lawn, saying "enough is enough"!

    So I guess my question is, does anyone else feel as 'at the end of their rope' as I do?
    Can you even truly imagine being in my position and what you would do or how you would feel?

    Yes. I screamed, cried, and wrote Bernie's campaign before his endorsement speech was even completed, expressing my disappointment, after foregoing meals to send him my meager contributions.

    My hopes were shattered and I'm growing impatient for change.

    backwardsevolution ,, August 10, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    crittermom/Bullwinkle – here's one of the articles by Chris Hedges on Bernie Sanders:

    "Because the party is completely captive to corporate power," Hedges said. "And Bernie has cut a Faustian deal with the Democrats. And that's not even speculation. I did an event with him and Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein and Kshama Sawant in New York the day before the Climate March. And Kshama Sawant ,the Socialist City Councilwoman from Seattle and I asked Sanders why he wanted to run as a Democrat. And he said - because I don't want to end up like Nader."

    "He didn't want to end up pushed out of the establishment," Hedges said. "He wanted to keep his committee chairmanships, he wanted to keep his Senate seat. And he knew the forms of retribution, punishment that would be visited upon him if he applied his critique to the Democratic establishment. So he won't."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/15/chris-hedges-on-bernie-sanders-and-the-corporate-democrats/

    Lambert Strether ,, August 10, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    I don't get what's wrong with not ending up like Nader.

    And if Sanders saved the left from another two decades of "Nader Nader neener neener!" more power to him, say I.

    backwardsevolution ,, August 10, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    Fair enough. I don't know enough about Nader to care. To me, it was just the about-face that Bernie did, going from denouncing Hillary (albeit not very strongly) to embracing her. I think if I had been one of his supporters who cheered him on, sent him money, got my hopes raised that he would go all the way, I would have been very disappointed. Almost like a tease.

    crittermom ,, August 10, 2016 at 8:51 pm

    Thanks for that link.

    I'd wanted Bernie to run as an Independent more than anything, but I can understand him wanting to keep his Senate seat and chairs. Without them, he has no power to bring change.
    I had believed he had a good chance to win, whipping a big Bernie Bird to both parties and changing things in my lifetime, running Independent.

    I now realize just how completely corrupt our political system is. Far worse than I ever could have imagined. Wow, have my eyes been opened!

    I'm beginning to think this election may just come down to who has the bigger thugs, Trump or HRC.

    EndOfTheWorld , August 10, 2016 at 5:04 am

    I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose? He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome.

    Benedict@Large , August 10, 2016 at 7:26 am

    Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons), the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election.

    The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 11:34 am

    Very well stated++

    Another Anon , August 10, 2016 at 7:27 am

    Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party.

    diptherio , August 10, 2016 at 11:33 am

    Bernie is too nice for his own good. He should have used the DNC machinations as an excuse to go back on his promise to endorse. "I made that promise on the assumption that we would all be acting in good faith. Sadly, that has proved not to be the case."

    But no, he's too much of a politician, or too nice, or has too much sense of personal pride…or had his life and his family threatened if he didn't toe the line (not that I'm foily). Whatever his motivations, we don't get a "Get out of Responsibility Free" card just because one dude made some mis-steps. If that's all it takes to derail us, we're so, so screwed.

    Reply
    perpetualWAR , August 10, 2016 at 11:42 am

    No, Bernie is exhibiting behavior of a man whose family was theatened. There's no other explanation for his pained face at the convention.

    Griffith W Jones , August 10, 2016 at 5:30 am

    I also agree with Hudson and EndOfTheWorld that HRC is the greater threat and that Sanders makes no sense.

    Sure, the Dems probably threatened to kick him off of Congressional Committees and to back a rival in Vermont.

    So what! With his tenure and at his age, what's really to lose? If he couldn't face off someone in his home state, it's probably time to retire anyway. And it's not like he was ever in it for the money.

    The best he gets now is mild tolerance from his masters. "Give me your followers and lick my boots." What a coward, could have made history, now he's a goat.

    Fortunately, his "followers" have more integrity…

    Eman , August 10, 2016 at 5:33 am

    It's actually not so surprising given his long history of working within the mainstream system, simply along its fringes. I think many may have been falling into the '08 Obama trap of seeing what they wanted to see in him.

    As a senator he's had plenty of opportunities to grandstand, gum up the works, etc, and he really never does. Even his "filibuster" a few years back wasn't all that disruptive.

    Reply
    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 5:37 am

    EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.

    "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."

    He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals.

    She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.

    Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.

    God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!

    Butch In Waukegan , August 10, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Sanders' convention endorsement:

    I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care.

    I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.

    Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight!

    Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone now take Bernie seriously?

    Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:

    "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)

    "David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/feel-the-hate/

    That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care.

    Perhaps Yves could highlight Hillary's disdain for single-payer healthcare on another post. Thanks.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen CBS

    [Sep 10, 2016] Twenty silver coins for Bernie

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie had cashed in on the Revolution that he had betrayed, citing as evidence the purchase of a third ..."
    "... I said there might be more to the story, like the fact that Bernie had signed a book deal (ala the Clintons) where he would tell the story of his Glorious Revolution (which ended up with him dumping his foot soldiers into the vaults of the very machine they were warring against.) And guess what? I was right. ..."
    "... Los Angeles Times ..."
    Aug 14, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    On Tuesday afternoon, my friend Michael Colby, the fearless environmental activist in Vermont, sent me news that Bernie Sanders had just purchased a new waterfront house on in North Hero, Vermont. I linked to the story on my Facebook page, quipping that Bernie had cashed in on the Revolution that he had betrayed, citing as evidence the purchase of a third house for the Sanders family, a lakefront summer dacha for $600,000.

    This ignited a firestorm on Zuckerburg's internet playpen. People noted that Bernie and Jane lived a penurious existence, surviving on coupons and the kindness of strangers, and the house was just a cramped four-bedroom fishing shack on a cold icy lake with hardly any heat–a place so forsaken even the Iroquois of old wouldn't camp there–which they were only able to afford because Jane sold her dead parents' house.

    I said there might be more to the story, like the fact that Bernie had signed a book deal (ala the Clintons) where he would tell the story of his Glorious Revolution (which ended up with him dumping his foot soldiers into the vaults of the very machine they were warring against.) And guess what? I was right.

    Coming in November to a bookstore near you….Our Revolution by Thomas Dunne Books.

    The love for Bernie is truly blind. It's also touching. I've never seen Leftists defend the purchase of $600,000 lakefront summer homes with such tenacity!

    ... ... ...

    By the way, the median cost of homes sold in North Hero, Vermont so far this year is $189,000.

    ... ... ...

    Fulfilling his pledge to Hillary, Bernie Sanders took to the pages of the Los Angeles Times to plead with his followers to get behind Clinton as the one person who could "unite the country" against Trump.

    In the wake of this pathetic capitulation to the Queen of Chaos, our Australian Shepard, Boomer, drafted an Open Letter on behalf of all sheepdogs renouncing any association with Bernie Sanders. One of the signatories (a Blue Healer from Brentwood) swore, however, that she saw Sander's head popping out of Paris Hilton's handbag…

    A friend lamented the fact that all of the fun and spirit had gone out of the election campaign since Sanders was "neutralized." Was Bernie neutralized? I thought that Bernie neutralized himself. And it was hard to watch. Like an x-rated episode of Nip/Tuck.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Democrats struggle for unity as protesters swarm Netroots convention

    vice presidential pick is a proxy for what we can expect from her administration. Now we know the result.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "The super delegate vote will determine the healthy survival or possible death of the Democratic party! Hillary or Trump are both unacceptable candidates and would be disasters for the country! We should not be forced to choose between them! ..."
    "... Are you high?!?! She has NO record of achieving ANYTHING of consequence, other than have a road and a post office named. And her "experience" includes things like supporting (and receiving money from) violent third-world dictators, peddling fracking all over the world, selling political favors in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation Money-Laundering Operation, and leaving a trail of bodies composed of people who "accidentally" died when they knew too much about her and her criminal/sexual predator husband. ..."
    "... #NeverHillary #DropOutHillary #CorruptedDNC #BernieOrBust ..."
    "... The article references tpp as a deal breaker for progressives, which of course it should be. The writer should have mentioned that Obama is pushing hard for the tpp - corporate sellout that he is. ..."
    "... That's a pretty small consolation to struggling people and why they gravitate to a guy like Trump. Trump is successfully attacking from the left. I had a Trump supporter arguing TPP to me the other day. Democrats claim to be the "unity" party, but still tell those of us on the left to shut up and put up with their corporate policy. I have yet to have a Democrat argue anything but Trump fear in support of their candidate. ..."
    "... Just a heads up. Trump is AGAINST TPP. Trump is AGAINST Super PAC's & ridiculous money in politics. Trump is AGAINST foreign interventionist wars. On the flip side, Hillary WILL sign TPP into law if elected. She will NEVER fight against Super PAC's or campaign finance because she IS the problem in that arena. Hillary is also a war hawk who not only supported the Iraq War, but also delivered us Libya, Syria, ISIS, and so on. ..."
    "... The Guardian seemingly could care less about Hillary's crimes! They want to shove her cluelessness down everyones throats. She was a disaster as Secretary of State, and would be an even worse President. People are starting to wise up about the agenda of left-wing media. Hillary is a criminal, and the Guardian supports her totally... It speaks to the lack of integrity at the Guardian! ..."
    "... And for the record, Hillary is NOT a progressive, will NEVER be a progressive, and has NO interest in progressives after they vote for her. THAT IS THE TRUTH. ..."
    "... I won't vote for a party that rigged the primaries from Sanders by committing election fraud against his supporters. ..."
    Jul 18, 2016 | theguardian.com

    "For many progressives, and Democrats in general, it's a wait-and-see moment around [Clinton's] vice presidential pick," said Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), who called the imminent decision "a proxy for what we can expect from her administration".

    "If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who has this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about ... that will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base," Taylor told the Guardian in an interview. Picking the moderate Virginia governor, Tim Kaine, or the US agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, would do the opposite, she warned.

    Despite some recent gestures toward the Warren and Sanders wing of the party, progressives are nervous due to Clinton's refusal to budge on trade, where the Obama administration has been trying to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement through Congress.

    "There are very powerful corporate interests who are very strongly opposed to blocking TPP," said Taylor. "It's the ugly reality of corporate capture that we are seeing.

    "If Clinton picks someone like Tim Kaine who voted for fast-track, that – combined with the glaring omission of TPP from the Democratic platform – will depress energy and will be an anaemic choice," she added.

    ... ... ...

    "For many progressives, and Democrats in general, it's a wait-and-see moment around [Clinton's] vice presidential pick," said Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), who called the imminent decision "a proxy for what we can expect from her administration".

    "If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who has this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about ... that will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base," Taylor told the Guardian in an interview. Picking the moderate Virginia governor, Tim Kaine, or the US agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, would do the opposite, she warned.

    Despite some recent gestures toward the Warren and Sanders wing of the party, progressives are nervous due to Clinton's refusal to budge on trade, where the Obama administration has been trying to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement through Congress.

    "There are very powerful corporate interests who are very strongly opposed to blocking TPP," said Taylor. "It's the ugly reality of corporate capture that we are seeing.

    "If Clinton picks someone like Tim Kaine who voted for fast-track, that – combined with the glaring omission of TPP from the Democratic platform – will depress energy and will be an anaemic choice," she added.

    Rachman Cantrell

    Trying to change the minds of Hillary fans is not productive at this point in time. None of our votes matter until after the convention. Only the super delegates can decide what happens with the Democratic nominee! We need to put our efforts into changing their minds! The following is a letter I sent to my state super delegates. Please use the following link to write to your own delegates and feel free to copy or modify what I wrote.

    "The super delegate vote will determine the healthy survival or possible death of the Democratic party! Hillary or Trump are both unacceptable candidates and would be disasters for the country! We should not be forced to choose between them! Polls show that most Bernie supporters will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances and I am one of them! Hillary may survive her legal woes past the primary but Trump will use them to win if she is the candidate. To avoid that probability please vote for Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee for president! Super delegates have a serious decision to make. Vote for Hillary with the likelihood of a Trump presidency and a drastically shrinking party or vote for Bernie and open the doors to millions of new Democrats with a revitalized and growing party! I hope you make the right decision! Thank you"

    Use the link below to send to all super delegates. Copy my message, modify or write your own. It only takes about fifteen minutes to send to all delegates state by state but leave your zip code blank in the form. This may be our last chance to get Bernie in the White House!
    http://www.lobbydelegates.com/engage.php

    Eileen Kerrigan -> aguy777

    Are you high?!?! She has NO record of achieving ANYTHING of consequence, other than have a road and a post office named. And her "experience" includes things like supporting (and receiving money from) violent third-world dictators, peddling fracking all over the world, selling political favors in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation Money-Laundering Operation, and leaving a trail of bodies composed of people who "accidentally" died when they knew too much about her and her criminal/sexual predator husband.

    As for continuing in Obama's footsteps, that would mean more war, more fracking, passing the TPP, more pollution, more corruption, more income inequality, more offshore tax havens ... yeah, that sounds like a GREAT plan!!

    #NeverHillary #DropOutHillary #CorruptedDNC #BernieOrBust

    maraba1

    Vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. Bernie should have endorsed her, but took the safe route (for him to remain in the thick of the Dem party).

    toosinbeymen

    The article references tpp as a deal breaker for progressives, which of course it should be. The writer should have mentioned that Obama is pushing hard for the tpp - corporate sellout that he is.

    DrRoss555

    I just watched Mrs. Clinton speak in Ohio. She is such a nasty, pandering fear monger....I guess the other side is too, but this woman takes it to unprecedented levels.

    Nasty...no wonder black people are on the hunt for cops....just listen to this woman

    dougtheavenger -> DrRoss555

    THE WAGES OF MOST BLACK AMERICANS ARE KEPT ARTIFICIALLY LOW BY POLICIES ENDORSED BY HILLARY.

    The influx of cheap, immigrant labor keeps wages low, but this is NOT the result of free market forces. Cheap immigrant labor is subsidized by the government. Without government subsidy 50% of immigrants would not come and 100% of those earning less than $15/hour would not come. Lacking certain advantages that natives have, immigrants cannot live on the wages half of them earn. Only governmenT subsidy of low wages EITC, etc. make immigration (at the cost of $7,000 for a family of 4) a rational choice for them.

    SagiGirl -> DrRoss555

    Jill Stein is such a contrast to Hillary. She's calm and cool, well spoken, and has human-based values along with a mighty strength and intellect. I can't wait to vote for her.

    mjclarity

    Clinton is the Blair of the Democratic party, a Republican/Tory in progressive clothing. So emulating the failed politics of laying opposition cuckoos in the progressive nest seems like a bad tactic to me.

    dougtheavenger -> mjclarity

    Hillary is mainly a crook. Yes, she supports TPP and NAFTA and other policies that keep wages artificially low, but she does it for money, not ideology.

    ID704291

    When Ann O'Leary says, "We are not going to get there unless we elect Hillary Clinton to be president," she sounds pretty tone deaf. Kossacks have banned all discussion of concerns about Clinton on their blog, basically telling the left to get lost.

    Democracy for America is toothless and leaderless, and its unattended locals tend to go off the rails attracting neo Nazis and other extremists. DNC is pushing education as they have since the 1980s, but that really only means that if you cannot afford it, or aren't among the highest in your class, you don't matter, and it's your fault you are doing better.

    That's a pretty small consolation to struggling people and why they gravitate to a guy like Trump. Trump is successfully attacking from the left. I had a Trump supporter arguing TPP to me the other day. Democrats claim to be the "unity" party, but still tell those of us on the left to shut up and put up with their corporate policy. I have yet to have a Democrat argue anything but Trump fear in support of their candidate.


    Otterboxman Yep

    Hillary will never get my vote. I've voted democrat in the past but will not vote democrat this year. I can barely stand it when Trump opens his mouth, but it is even worse when Hillary does. The current POTUS has taken us so far off course that Hillary's plan will never bring us back on course. It is about jobs, our productivity, and our pursuit of happiness. The two parties don't get it. They want to make it about race, gender, abortion, guns, citizenship...They should make it about the good things that the USA had going for it and quit picking out which group got trampled to get there. We were great but now we just sit across from each other pointing fingers and calling names.


    Stephen Mitchell 11h ago

    1. Sanders: Clinton has backed "virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs"
    2. Sanders: Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street
    3. Sanders: Hillary Clinton = D.C. Establishment
    4. Sanders: Democrat Establishment immigration policies would drive down Americans' wages, create open borders
    5. Sanders: Clinton supports nation-building in Middle East through war and invasion

    Sanders: "And now, I support her 100%."

    DurbanPoisonWillBurn

    Anyone who believes Hillary is progressive deserves the horrible outcome a Hillary presidency will bring. How ANYONE can still support Hillary is beyond me. The woman has accomplished NOTHING except chaos & failure. Wake up folks. Hillary does NOT care about you. She cares about power, money, and making deals that benefit HER. Vote Jill Stein


    DurbanPoisonWillBurn JimJayuu

    Just a heads up. Trump is AGAINST TPP. Trump is AGAINST Super PAC's & ridiculous money in politics. Trump is AGAINST foreign interventionist wars. On the flip side, Hillary WILL sign TPP into law if elected. She will NEVER fight against Super PAC's or campaign finance because she IS the problem in that arena. Hillary is also a war hawk who not only supported the Iraq War, but also delivered us Libya, Syria, ISIS, and so on.

    Daniel Staggers

    "If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who has this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about ... that will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base,"

    All that would mean is she knows that's all she'd have to do to get the stupid people to vote for her. You know, like the person who wrote this article? Never mind committing treason hundreds of times over, just get Warren, right?

    clicker2 -> Daniel Staggers

    The Guardian seemingly could care less about Hillary's crimes! They want to shove her cluelessness down everyones throats. She was a disaster as Secretary of State, and would be an even worse President. People are starting to wise up about the agenda of left-wing media. Hillary is a criminal, and the Guardian supports her totally... It speaks to the lack of integrity at the Guardian!

    DurbanPoisonWillBurn -> Daniel Staggers

    Pocahontas is a sellout just like Bernie. Elizabeth Warren is a fraud. She claims progressive but lives like a neo-liberal war hawk. Just the sight of Warren disgusts progressives the world over. And for the record, Hillary is NOT a progressive, will NEVER be a progressive, and has NO interest in progressives after they vote for her. THAT IS THE TRUTH.

    Steve Connor

    Hillary (and Bernie) shows just how low the Democrat party has become in terms of true leadership and ideas for making America great again. They have none. Bernie's popularity was with young voters looking for a free ride and typical idealistic view of the world, Hillary was the embodiment of corruption in politics and she rose to power on that, not what she did for her adopted State of NY, or the country. Her ideas (not her's) are of failed Democrat policy and ideas over the past 10 years and especially the last 25.

    Ezajur -> Steve Connor

    Bernie was not about a free ride. He was about reprioritisation. His ideas to make America great again are excellent.

    eastbayradical

    Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's huckster-populism: a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average person and their intelligence is palpable.

    She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking globally.

    She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the cap on taxes to do so.

    She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US has waged in the past 25 years.

    She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention them but in passing in a recent speech before AIPAC.

    She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and believes Edward Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.

    She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international pact granting increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its expense in the past 25 years.

    She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the objectively-racist death penalty and the private prison industry.

    She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the '90s, making them easier prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her husband and her financially.

    She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec. of State actively campaigned against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to 60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents an hour sounded better for the investor class whose interests are paramount to her.

    She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever release the Wall Street speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.

    She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters, who aren't.

    Missy Saugus

    I won't vote for a party that rigged the primaries from Sanders by committing election fraud against his supporters. Why is this being ignored and shoved under the rug? The nomination rightfully belongs to Sanders. It is the ultimate insult to expect people to vote for the ones who stole this from Sanders. The ones who, now that the precedent has been set, will be sure that the next Bernie Sanders has no chance. The Dems are dirty. They are criminal. And apparently untouchable.

    Bernie should have walked. #FreeBernie

    ID550456

    If Clinton picks a Clintonite neoliberal VP: pro TPP, pro GMO, pro banker, pro oil, etc. I think it's a safe bet that most of Sanders' supporters will either sit out the election or vote Green Party, however revolting the prospect of Trump/Pence may be. I know I will.

    Fear4Freedom
    "A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Bernie Sanders' supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November. This could spell trouble for Clinton who will likely need Sanders' backers in order to win the White House." Hillary has a way with "everyday Americans", it's just not a good way...no one wants to vote for someone they think is "UNTRUSTWORTHY".

    eastbayradical

    The new talking point being put forward by Clinton's hapless supporters is that she'll push to overturn Citizens United.

    They know this because she said so in passing at a $20,000 a plate soiree she had recently in Dollarsville County, USA.


    Ezajur -> Rich Fairbanks

    Her hapless supporters won primaries with media, establishment, DNC and big money entirely for her and against Bernie. And he went from 3 to 46% in 12 months. Now that's worth bragging about.

    I suppose getting 54% for such a lousy candidate as Hillary is something to brag about.


    Ezajur -> markdman

    I'm a Bernie supporter.

    Killary. Drillary. Billary. Shillary.

    Its all good.

    I also hate Trump.


    eastbayradical -> Joe Smith

    "The Clinton platform is pretty good for any progressive..."

    Clinton has shown a willingness to say whatever she feels needs to be said to further her political career. She speaks in different dialects depending the audience. She's a principle combatant against racism when speaking to African-American audience. She's an ardent feminist when in front of liberal women's groups. She's not one to spare a laudatory word for corporate America and Wall Street when speaking before bankers.

    What we can and should go on is her record going back to her time as First Lady during the presidency of Bill Clinton (whom she never differed with on policy and whom she says will manage the economy if elected).

    Here are policies, initiatives, and actions that Hillary Clinton has supported over the years:

    --Deregulation of the investment banks (and against reinstatement of Glass-Steagall)
    --The destruction of welfare (which has caused the numbers living in extreme poverty to double since its passage)
    --NAFTA
    --The Defense of Marriage Act
    --TPP
    --Fracking
    --The objectively-racist death penalty
    --The private prison industry
    --Patriot Acts 1 and 2
    --The Iraq War
    --The bombing of Libya
    --Military intervention in Syria
    --The Saudi dictatorship
    --Israel's starvation blockade and blitzkrieg against Gaza
    --The right-wing coup in Honduras
    --Investor-friendly repression and cronyism in Haiti
    --A 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti (and against attempts to raise it)
    --The fight against free public university tuition
    --The fight against single-payer health care
    --Acceptance of tens of millions of dollars of corporate money
    --Credit-card industry favored bankruptcy laws
    --The bail-out of Wall Street

    Her record is "pretty good for any progressive" whose head is lodged in their ass.


    eastbayradical

    The bankers' buddy and spittle-flecked Clinton surrogate Barney Frank just the other day declared contemptuously that party platforms are "irrelevant."

    You know, party platforms--like the Democratic Party platform that's being larded with Sanders-friendly "policy goals" that Wall Street's Warmongering Madame will feel no obligation to fulfill if she's elected president.

    With his coming endorsement, Sanders makes himself not simply useless to the fight against the capitalist status quo; no--he has become a direct impediment to it.

    Whenever people on the left side of the political spectrum, whatever their reasoning, vote for servants of Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus, the political center of gravity moves another notch decisively to the right.


    We're constantly told that if we don't vote for the latest pseudo-progressive stooge the Dems put forward that we're effectively voting for the Republicans.

    In other words, if we don't vote for stooges who in many respects are indistinguishable from Republicans, that systematically cede the political initiative to Republicans, that it is we who might as well be Republicans!

    Meanwhile, these same "progressives" are nowhere to be seen when a fight kicks off in the streets against imperial war or austerity or police brutality or lay-offs. No, of course not: they're too busy doing nothing waiting for the next opportunity to vote for another crop of corporate liberals who'll save us from the Republicans.

    It's fair to ask what all this voting for corporate liberals has gotten us over the past 25 years. Here's a list of signature policies supported and/or enacted by the last two Democratic Party presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama:

    --Deregulation of investment banks and telecommunications
    --The Omnibus Crime Bill (mass incarceration)
    --The destruction of welfare (which caused extreme poverty to double in the 15 years after its passage)
    --The sanctions regime against Iraq (which killed 500,000 Iraqi children)
    --NAFTA
    --CAFTA
    --TPP
    --Fracking
    --The objectively-racist death penalty
    --The Defense of Marriage Act
    --Historic levels of repression against whistle-blowers
    --Preservation of Bush-era tax cuts on the rich
    --Patriots Acts 1 and 2
    --Massive expansion of NSA spying
    --Years of foot-dragging on climate change
    --Support for Israeli atrocities
    --Support for the right-wing coup in Honduras
    --Support for fraudulent election in Haiti
    --Support for the Saudi dictatorship
    --Support for a 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti and against attempts to raise it
    --Oil drilling on the Atlantic seaboard, Gulf of Mexico, and the Arctic
    --A $1 trillion 20-year "modernization" of the US's nuclear weapons arsenal
    --Historically high numbers of deportations
    --Drone missile strikes that have killed large numbers of civilians and inflamed anti-US hatred
    --Health care reform that has fortified the power of the insurance cartel not weakened or obliterated it
    --Industry-approved bankruptcy "reform"
    --The bail-out of Wall Street


    ClearItUp

    Her reflexive warmongering attitude is what majority of progressives have problems with. There is absolutely nothing in this article about it. Elizabeth Warren won't solve Hillary's problem, but a foreign policy, total opposite of her last speech, that was reviewed by neocon talking heads, as a sober analysis, is what is wrong. What people want to hear is: "We made a mistake in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. We will do our best and resolve them without machinations, and never engage in regime change." No ifs and buts, we will defend out friends and allies, nonsense she constantly says, no annihilating threat to any country, for any reason. Bring someone like Phyllis Bennis on board as an adviser. Maybe she can teach Hillary a few things. Only, then if she clearly shows she has changed course, she may start getting a little ahead.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Donald Trump and the Danger of the Imperial Presidency

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post. ..."
    "... If undertaken in earnest, the exercise will prove uncomfortable. The establishment centrists who oppose Trump worry, as they should, that he will violate the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, yet few spoke up when Michael Bloomberg presided over a secret program that profiled and spied on Muslim American students, sowing mistrust while generating zero counterterrorism leads. ..."
    "... The establishment centrists who denounced Edward Snowden would have to admit that, if Trump is half as bad as they fear, Americans will be better served knowing the scope and capabilities of NSA surveillance than living in ignorance of it. Some will be forced to admit to themselves that they hope the military remains sprinkled with whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning to speak out against serious abuses. ..."
    "... For 16 years or more, establishment centrists have been complicit in a historically reckless trend. Come 2017, it may place Donald Trump at a big table, much like the one on The Apprentice ..."
    May 24, 2016 | www.theatlantic.com

    End the Imperial Presidency Before It's Too Late

    Why aren't the critics comparing Donald Trump to a fascist acknowledging that the office he seeks is too powerful?

    Wake up, establishment centrists: Donald Trump is coming!

    After the Vietnam War and Watergate and the spying scandals uncovered by the Church Committee and the Nixon Administration cronies who nearly firebombed the Brookings Institution, Americans were briefly inclined to rein in executive power-a rebuke to Richard Nixon's claim that "if the president does it, that means it's not illegal." Powerful committees were created to oversee misconduct-prone spy agencies. The War Powers Resolution revived a legislative check on warmaking. "In 34 years," Vice President Dick Cheney would lament to ABC News in a January 2002 interview, "I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job. I feel an obligation... to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors."

    The Bush Administration aggressively moved to expand executive power, drawing on the dubious legal maneuvering of David Addington, John Yoo, and their enablers. Starting in 2005, the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, would repeatedly insist that Bush's assertions of executive power violated the Constitution. Nonetheless, Obama inherited a newly powerful executive branch, just as Cheney had hoped. And rather than dismantle it, Obama spent two terms lending the imprimatur of centrist, establishment bipartisanship to Cheney's vision.

    Now, Donald Trump is coming.

    Civil libertarians have long warned the partisans who trusted Bush and Obama, and the establishment centrists who couldn't imagine anyone in the White House besides an Al Gore or John Kerry or John McCain or Mitt Romney, that they were underestimating both the seriousness of civil liberties abuses under Bush and Obama and the likelihood of even less responsible leaders wreaking havoc in the White House.

    Three years ago, in " All the Infrastructure a Tyrant Would Need, Courtesy of Bush and Obama ," I warned that "more and more, we're counting on having angels in office and making ourselves vulnerable to devils," and that come January, 2017, an unknown person would enter the Oval Office and inherit all of these precedents:

    Now, Donald Trump is coming. And many establishment centrists are professing alarm. There is nothing more establishment than Robert Kagan, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, writing an op-ed in the Washington Post. He begins by observing that if Trump wins, his coalition will include tens of millions of Americans.

    "Imagine the power he would wield then," Kagan wrote . "In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that laid down before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?"

    Kagan's article seemed well-received and widely shared among establishment centrists.

    Yet neither he nor most others who share his fears have yet acknowledged their bygone failures of imagination, or granted that civil libertarians were right: The establishment has permitted the American presidency to get dangerously powerful.

    While writing or sharing articles that compare Trump to Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, few if any have called on Obama or Congress to act now " to tyrant-proof the White House ." However much they fear Trump, however rhetorically maximalist they are in warning against his elevation, even the prospect of him controlling the entire apparatus of the national security state is not enough to cause them to rethink their reckless embrace of what Gene Healy calls " The Cult of the Presidency ," a centrist religion that persisted across the Bush administration's torture chambers and the Obama administration's unlawful War in Libya.

    With a reality-TV bully is on the doorstep of the White House, still they hesitate to urge reform to a branch of government they've long regarded as more than co-equal.

    They needn't wait for the Nixon-era abuses to replay themselves as farce or worse to change course. Their inaction is irresponsible. Just as the conservative movement is duty bound to grapple with its role in a populist demagogue seizing control of the Republican Party, establishment centrists ought to grapple with the implicit blessing they've given to the extraordinary powers Trump would inherit, and that even the less-risky choice, Hillary Clinton, would likely abuse.

    If undertaken in earnest, the exercise will prove uncomfortable. The establishment centrists who oppose Trump worry, as they should, that he will violate the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, yet few spoke up when Michael Bloomberg presided over a secret program that profiled and spied on Muslim American students, sowing mistrust while generating zero counterterrorism leads.

    The establishment centrists who denounced Edward Snowden would have to admit that, if Trump is half as bad as they fear, Americans will be better served knowing the scope and capabilities of NSA surveillance than living in ignorance of it. Some will be forced to admit to themselves that they hope the military remains sprinkled with whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning to speak out against serious abuses.

    For 16 years or more, establishment centrists have been complicit in a historically reckless trend. Come 2017, it may place Donald Trump at a big table, much like the one on The Apprentice , where he'll decide not which B-list celebrity to fire, but which humans to kill. Establishment centrists could work to strip the presidency of that power.

    Instead they do nothing.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Benghazi Just a Symptom; Interventionism Is the Disease

    Notable quotes:
    "... the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence ..."
    "... as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner , and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war." ..."
    "... And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own. ..."
    "... Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. ..."
    Jun 30, 2016 | Reason.com

    ... ... ...

    And the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence.

    Indeed, the "2012 attack that killed four Americans was a consequence of the disorder and violence the administration left in the wake of its drive-by war," as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner, and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war."

    Unfortunately, that is a lesson too few in Washington are willing to learn. Clinton herself maintains in the face of overwhelming evidence that her handiwork in Libya is an example of "smart power at its best"-a phrase whose blatant inaccuracy should haunt her for the rest of her political career. With arguments in favor of Libya, round two already swirling and Clinton's poll numbers holding strong, it is not difficult to imagine a Clinton White House dragging America back to fiddle with a country it was never particularly interested in fixing by this time next year.

    And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own.

    Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. That's the real story here, and it's a bipartisan failure of judgment which shows all the signs of running on repeat.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Some thoughts on the DNC email hacking scandal

    Notable quotes:
    "... Cybersecurity company FireEye first discovered APT 29 in 2014 and was quick to point out a clear Kremlin connection. "We suspect the Russian government sponsors the group because of the organizations it targets and the data it steals. because of evidence from FireEye." ..."
    "... FireEye is also interesting as it, along with the US Department of Defense, funds the CEPA (publishers of Ed Lucas's and Pomerantsev's screed on fighting Kremlin influence): ..."
    "... I recall the FireEye story well – they used the exact same logic; the code was written on Cyrillic-keyboard machines and during Moscow working hours. Their conclusion was "It just looks so much like something the Russians would do that it must be them". No allowance for the possibility that someone else did it who wanted the USA to arrive at exactly that conclusion. Someone who has done it before, lots of times, and who makes a science out of picking fights on Uncle Sam's behalf. ..."
    "... Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear? Is there proof that they actually exist? I mean real proof, not WADA proof. ..."
    "... They are just code names given by a particular security outfit. Different outfits will use different names for the same entities, much in the same way that a given virus/trojan/etc will be given different names by different AV corporations. The names reflect observable characteristics such as threat type, coding style, code structure, distribution network, similar earlier threats, etc rather than a specific single person. ..."
    Aug 07, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Jeremn , August 5, 2016 at 2:53 am
    Some thoughts on the hacking "scandal". This article

    http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/07/how-putin-weaponized-wikileaks-influence-election-american-president/130163/

    blames the Russians thus:

    "On June 14, cybersecurity company CrowdStrike, under contract with the DNC, announced in a blog post that two separate Russian intelligence groups had gained access to the DNC network. One group, FANCY BEAR or APT 28, gained access in April. The other, COZY BEAR, (also called Cozy Duke and APT 29) first breached the network in the summer of 2015. Cybersecurity company FireEye first discovered APT 29 in 2014 and was quick to point out a clear Kremlin connection. "We suspect the Russian government sponsors the group because of the organizations it targets and the data it steals. because of evidence from FireEye."

    Crowdstrike – their Co-Founder, Alperovitch, is an Atlantic Council fellow. The other firm, FireEye, has the CIA as a stakeholder:

    http://venturebeat.com/2009/11/18/cias-in-q-tel-funds-fireeye-anti-botnet-security-firm/

    Should give pause to thought that the intelligence services are interfering in US democracy?

    No?

    FireEye is also interesting as it, along with the US Department of Defense, funds the CEPA (publishers of Ed Lucas's and Pomerantsev's screed on fighting Kremlin influence):

    marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 9:56 am
    I recall the FireEye story well – they used the exact same logic; the code was written on Cyrillic-keyboard machines and during Moscow working hours. Their conclusion was "It just looks so much like something the Russians would do that it must be them". No allowance for the possibility that someone else did it who wanted the USA to arrive at exactly that conclusion. Someone who has done it before, lots of times, and who makes a science out of picking fights on Uncle Sam's behalf.

    In the case of both FireEye and Crowdstrike, they would stop looking as soon as they arrived upon a conclusion which suited them anyway.

    ucgsblog , August 5, 2016 at 12:58 pm
    Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear? Is there proof that they actually exist? I mean real proof, not WADA proof.
    Yonatan , August 5, 2016 at 3:04 pm
    They are just code names given by a particular security outfit. Different outfits will use different names for the same entities, much in the same way that a given virus/trojan/etc will be given different names by different AV corporations. The names reflect observable characteristics such as threat type, coding style, code structure, distribution network, similar earlier threats, etc rather than a specific single person.
    marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 3:23 pm
    Yes, 'APT' stands for something, I forget what it was but they said it. Advanced Persistent Threat, something like that. Reply

    [Sep 09, 2016] The Interventionists Lament

    Notable quotes:
    "... Applebaum's column title refers to "disastrous nonintervention," but the U.S. has been meddling in Syria's conflict to some degree for many years. Indeed, Syria is in such a miserable state because multiple outside states have been interfering and taking sides in the war. There may be no better example of how outside intervention prolongs and intensifies a civil war than Syria, and yet Syria hawks always conclude that the real problem is that Western governments haven't done more to add to the misery. The "consequences of nonintervention" are not, in fact, the consequences of the U.S. decision not to bomb in 2013, but rather they are the consequences of the actions that many actors (including the U.S.) have taken in Syria in their destructive efforts to "shape" the conflict. ..."
    "... The backlash against proposed military action in Syria in 2013 was a remarkable moment in the U.S. and Britain. It was the first time that the U.S. and U.K. governments had their plan to attack another country effectively overruled by the people's elected representatives. As it turns out, it was a fleeting moment, and it doesn't seem likely to be repeated anytime soon. Popular resistance to the next war was virtually non-existent, and both the U.S. and British governments have returned to their old ways of starting and backing unnecessary wars. Obama has unfortunately learned the lesson that he should avoid consulting those representatives on these matters in the future, and so he has gone back to starting and waging wars without authorization. The foreign policy elite in the U.S. have similarly learned all the wrong things from this episode. Instead of recognizing how unpopular their preferred policies were/are and respecting what the public wanted, most have concluded that public opinion should simply be ignored from now on. ..."
    "... The U.S. could have been more deeply involved in the conflict than it is for many years, but all that would have meant was that the U.S. was doing more to inflict death and destruction on a suffering country. When interventionists "mourn" a decision not to bomb, they are regretting the decision not to kill people in another country that posed no threat to the U.S. or any of our allies. That's a horrible position, and it's no wonder that most Americans still recoil from it. ..."
    Aug 30, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The Interventionist's Lament By Daniel Larison August 30, 2016, 9:26 AM

    Anne Applebaum bemoans the decision not to bomb Syria three years ago:

    I repeat: Maybe a U.S.-British-French intervention would have ended in disaster. If so, we would today be mourning the consequences. But sometimes it's important to mourn the consequences of nonintervention too. Three years on, we do know, after all, exactly what nonintervention has produced.

    One of the more frustrating things about the debate over Syria policy is the widely-circulated idea that refraining from military action makes a government responsible for any or all of the things that happen in a foreign conflict later on. Somehow our government is responsible for the effects of a war when it isn't directly contributing to the conflict by dropping bombs, but doesn't receive any blame when it is helping to stoke the same conflict by other means. Many pundits lament the failure to bomb Syria, but far fewer object to the harm done by sending weapons to rebels that have contributed to the overall mayhem in Syria.

    Applebaum's column title refers to "disastrous nonintervention," but the U.S. has been meddling in Syria's conflict to some degree for many years. Indeed, Syria is in such a miserable state because multiple outside states have been interfering and taking sides in the war. There may be no better example of how outside intervention prolongs and intensifies a civil war than Syria, and yet Syria hawks always conclude that the real problem is that Western governments haven't done more to add to the misery. The "consequences of nonintervention" are not, in fact, the consequences of the U.S. decision not to bomb in 2013, but rather they are the consequences of the actions that many actors (including the U.S.) have taken in Syria in their destructive efforts to "shape" the conflict.

    Let's remember what the Obama administration proposed doing in August 2013. Obama was going to order attacks on the Syrian government to punish it for the use of chemical weapons, but his officials insisted this would be an "unbelievably small" action in order to placate skeptics worried about an open-ended war. If the attack had been as "unbelievably small" as promised, it would have weakened the Syrian government's forces but likely wouldn't have changed anything about the overall conflict. Even judged solely by how much of the Syrian government's chemical weapons arsenal it eliminated, it would have been less successful than the disarmament agreement that was reached.

    If the intervention had expanded and turned into a much more ambitious campaign, as opponents of the proposed bombing feared it could, it would have almost certainly redounded to the benefit of jihadist groups because it was attacking their enemies. It seems fair to assume that a "successful" bombing campaign in 2013 would have exposed more of Syria to the depredations of ISIS and other jihadists. It would not have hurt ISIS or other jihadists in the least since they were not going to be targeted by it, so it is particularly absurd to try to blame ISIS's later actions on the decision not to attack. If the bombing campaign was perceived to be "not working" quickly enough, that would have prompted demands for an even larger U.S. military role in Syria in the months and years that followed. Bombing Syria in 2013 would not have ended the war earlier, but would have made the U.S. a more involved party to it than it is today. I fail to see how that would have been a better outcome for the U.S. or the people of Syria. It is doubtful that fewer Syrians overall would have been killed and displaced in the wake of such a bombing campaign. It is tendentious in the extreme to assert that the decision not to bomb is responsible for the war's later victims and effects.

    The backlash against proposed military action in Syria in 2013 was a remarkable moment in the U.S. and Britain. It was the first time that the U.S. and U.K. governments had their plan to attack another country effectively overruled by the people's elected representatives. As it turns out, it was a fleeting moment, and it doesn't seem likely to be repeated anytime soon. Popular resistance to the next war was virtually non-existent, and both the U.S. and British governments have returned to their old ways of starting and backing unnecessary wars. Obama has unfortunately learned the lesson that he should avoid consulting those representatives on these matters in the future, and so he has gone back to starting and waging wars without authorization. The foreign policy elite in the U.S. have similarly learned all the wrong things from this episode. Instead of recognizing how unpopular their preferred policies were/are and respecting what the public wanted, most have concluded that public opinion should simply be ignored from now on.

    Perhaps the biggest flaw in the Applebaum's interventionist lament is the complete failure to acknowledge that other states and groups have their own agency and would have continued to do harm in Syria regardless of what the U.S. did or didn't do. Bombing Syria in 2013 wouldn't have made the conflict any easier to resolve, nor would it have altered the interests of the warring parties. It would have been an exercise in blowing things up and killing people to show that we were taking "action." It would have been the most senseless sort of intervening for the sake of being seen to intervene.

    The U.S. could have been more deeply involved in the conflict than it is for many years, but all that would have meant was that the U.S. was doing more to inflict death and destruction on a suffering country. When interventionists "mourn" a decision not to bomb, they are regretting the decision not to kill people in another country that posed no threat to the U.S. or any of our allies. That's a horrible position, and it's no wonder that most Americans still recoil from it.

    [Sep 05, 2016] Hillary Clinton email investigation: FBI notes reveal laptop and thumb drive missing

    Everything, absolutely everything demonstrates really terrifying level of incompetence: the transfer of emails to Apple laptop, to Gmail account, then transfer back to window system, handing of USB drive. Amazing level of incompetence. This is really devastating level of incompetence for the organization that took over a lot of CIA functions. Essentially Hillary kept the position which is close to the role of the director of CIA What a tragedy for the country...
    Notable quotes:
    "... It is painfully clear that she traded access and favors for money and reciprocal favors. It is painfully clear that she made little distinction between working for the State Department, the Clinton foundation and her family and tried to keep the records of what was going on inaccessible. The more honest defense would be, all politicians do it, and you have to suck it up because Trump is worse. Which is true. But trying to downplay this and explain it away is offensive, not all of the public are complete idiots. ..."
    "... Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he has still succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and in addition, at the not-so-tin-hat conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support. ..."
    "... All this in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and unbridled corruption, oozing from every orifice of a maverick administration. ..."
    "... Clinton is the one waging war in the middle east. She is the one being bullish and provocative with Russia. Trump has only been conciliatory with these issues, he has been against the war on Iraq ..."
    "... HRC is still likely to be the next President, but this scandal does have legs. She put herself in a corner by claiming lack of recall due to a medical condition (i.e., the concussion). This leaves two possibilities, neither of which is helpful to her cause, to wit: either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired. ..."
    "... Reagan was certainly not someone I admired but at least he tried to reduce the chance of nuclear war. Clinton is an out and out Hawke with the blood of many innocent people on her hands in both Syria and Libya. She is hiding her communications because she does not want to be exposed for the role she played in The destruction of Libya and the gun running of weapons to terrorists in Syria. That is to Al Qaeda and ISIS. World War 3 is more likely under Clinton than any other world leader. Even Trump. ..."
    "... Not forgetting that she was key in making sure the US didn't side with Assad. Had the US done at the beginning, instead of being at the behest of the Saudis and the petrodollar, then the whole thing would have been over in 6 months and IS would never have got more than a dusty district of northern Iraq. ..."
    "... So the applicant to the US presidency does not know what (c) stands for in her emails, archives high security data on a laptop and then losses it for years, uploads same emails on Google's gmail account and then losses devices again. She does not recall many things, not even the training she received on handling the confidential and secure communication. She couldn't recall the procces of drone strikes. (Will she be killing people at a whim, without an accountable protocol?) She is either demented or dangerously reckless or lying. All of these conditions disbar her form her candidacy. ..."
    "... If she could only manage a couple of hours a day because of concussion and a blood clot she should have temporarily stood down until she recovered fully, and had a senior official take over her duties until she was well. You can't have a brain-damaged person in charge of the US's affairs - even though there is a long history of nutters the State Dept. ( ie the Military Industrial Complex HQ). ..."
    "... the clinton foundation does not pay taxes..and dont forget that slick willie has been on the paedophile plane more times than the pilot ..."
    "... She failed to keep up with recordkeeping she agreed to, then when asked to turn over records, somebody destroyed them, but Clinton did not order destruction, or does not remember having done so. Turned over all records-oops I thought WE did! She either lied or has alzheimers ..."
    "... Political baggage is a bitch. If this election cycle has demonstrated anything it is that the leadership of both parties is totally out of touch with the voters and really has no interest except supporting the Neoliberal tenet of fiscal nonintervention. This laissez-faire attitude toward corporate interests is paralysing the American government. ..."
    "... I cannot believe Clinton has got this far in the election, I believe Obama wants her in to hide many of his embarrassing warmongering mistakes. ..."
    "... Today of all days Hillary Clinton puts out a tweet with the following: 'America needs leadership in the White House, not a liability' -- As we have to assume she's not referring to herself it confirms people's suspicion that the person who writes Hillary's tweets is a hostile to her campaign. The tweets are often completely off the mark. ..."
    "... Either Comey is on their payroll, or they have threatened his family. Either way it is business as usual. The NWO decided a long time ago that Hillary was their next puppet PONTUS. ..."
    "... I was a low-level officer at US Embassies and Consulates in various foreign countries. Clinton's claim that she didn't know what (C) was, or that she "she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential" and "could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information." Are beyond ridiculous. Any fool knows enough to be aware of different levels of classified info, and the obvious fact that you don't get sloppy with classified info. ..."
    "... to paraphrase Leona Helmsley's comment about paying taxes, "security is for little people." So in that respect Hillary is no different from the rest of them. ..."
    "... You'd better hope she's lying, because if the incompetence is genuine she shouldn't be allowed near any confidential information ever again. I hate to admit it but Trump is right on this one. Jesus wept. ..."
    "... The fact that the Sec State could have an email server built at her home and operate with such laughable gross negligence when it comes to national security is surreal and appalling. ..."
    "... If the FBI were not themselves co-conspirators and hopelessly corrupt, they would indict some of the lower level actors and offer them immunity. They could start with the imbecile who put that laptop in the mail and couldn't remember if it was UPS or USPS. ..."
    "... Caddell has voiced an interesting concern that others are beginning to share: that the news media has crawled so far in bed with Hillary Clinton they won't be able to get back out. That the news media in America has lost its soul. Even Jake Tapper started asking this question several weeks ago in the middle of his own show. ..."
    "... The pyramid scheme of created debt has destroyed capitalism and democracy within 40 years of full operation. Captured Govt has bailed out incompetence and failure at every turn, and in so doing, inverted the yield curve and destroyed the future. It is for this reason alone I cannot respect these financial paedophiles or support anything they do. In this contest for the White House, Clinton is the manifestation of the establishment. ..."
    "... "The documents provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's private server, including what appeared to be a frantic effort by a computer specialist to delete an archive of her emails even after a congressional committee had requested they be preserved." -NY Times ..."
    "... Hillary's treatment of top-secret US documents was willful and uncorrected. If she had done the same thing with medical records, the individuals whose medical records had been mishandled could have filed charges and Hillary would have been personally liable for up to $50,000 fine per incident. ..."
    "... Clinton is an absolute liability. Apart from this scandal she's a status quo candidate for a status quo that no longer exists. She stands for neo-liberalism, US hegemony and capitalist globalization all of which are deader than the dodo. That makes her very dangerous in terms of world peace and of course she will do absolutely nothing for the millions of Americans facing joblessness, hunger, bankruptcy and homelessness except make things worse ..."
    "... The entire corrupt establishment want Clinton at all cost, so that they can continue fleecing the future and enslaving the entire world in created debt. All right minded individuals should this as a flashing red light to turn round and vote the other way. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    A Clinton Foundation laptop and a thumb drive used to archive Hillary Clinton's emails from her time as secretary of state are missing, according to FBI notes released on Friday.

    The phrase "Clinton could not recall" litters the summary of the FBI's investigation, which concluded in July that she should not face charges. Amid fierce Republican criticism of the Democratic presidential candidate, the party's nominee, Donald Trump released a statement which said "Hillary Clinton's answers to the FBI about her private email server defy belief" and added that he did not "understand how she was able to get away from prosecution".

    he FBI documents describe how Monica Hanley, a former Clinton aide, received assistance in spring 2013 from Justin Cooper, a former aide to Bill Clinton, in creating an archive of Hillary Clinton's emails. Cooper provided Hanley with an Apple MacBook laptop from the Clinton Foundation – the family organisation currently embroiled in controversy – and talked her through the process of transferring emails from Clinton's private server to the laptop and a thumb drive.

    "Hanley completed this task from her personal residence," the notes record. The devices were intended to be stored at Clinton's homes in New York and Washington. However, Hanley "forgot" to provide the archive laptop and thumb drive to Clinton's staff.

    In early 2014, Hanley located the laptop at her home and tried to transfer the email archive to an IT company, apparently without success. It appears the emails were then transferred to an unnamed person's personal Gmail account and there were problems around Apple software not being compatible with that of Microsoft.

    The unnamed person "told the FBI that, after the transfer was complete, he deleted the emails from the archive laptop but did not wipe the laptop. The laptop was then put in the mail, only to go missing. [Redacted] told the FBI that she never received the laptop from [redacted]; however, she advised that Clinton's staff was moving offices at the time, and it would have been easy for the package to get lost during the transition period.

    "Neither Hanley nor [redacted] could identify the current whereabouts of the archive laptop or thumb drive containing the archive, and the FBI does not have either item in its possession."

    ... ... ...

    The FBI identified a total of 13 mobile devices associated with Clinton's two known phone numbers that potentially were used to send emails using clintonemail.com addresses.

    The 58 pages of notes released on Friday, several of which were redacted, also related that Hanley often purchased replacement BlackBerry devices for Clinton during Clinton's time at the state department. Hanley recalled buying most of them at AT&T stores in the Washington area. Cooper was usually responsible for setting them up and synching them to the server.

    Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and Hanley "indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device", the documents state. "Cooper did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton's old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."

    The notes also contain a string of admissions by Clinton about points she did not know or could not recall: "When asked about the email chain containing '(C)' portion markings that state determined to currently contain CONFIDENTIAL information, Clinton stated that she did not know what the '(C)' meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order."

    Clinton said she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential but "took all classified information seriously". She did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not have been on an unclassified system. She also stated she received no particular guidance as to how she should use the president's email address.

    In addition, the notes say: "Clinton could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with her to state via reciprocity from her time in the Senate. Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information."

    Clinton was aware she was an original classification authority at the state department, but again "could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by state. Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined."

    ... ... ...

    The House speaker, Paul Ryan, said: "These documents demonstrate Hillary Clinton's reckless and downright dangerous handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. They also cast further doubt on the justice department's decision to avoid prosecuting what is a clear violation of the law. This is exactly why I have called for her to be denied access to classified information."

    Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee, said: "The FBI's summary of their interview with Hillary Clinton is a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency. Clinton's answers either show she is completely incompetent or blatantly lied to the FBI or the public.

    "Either way it's clear that, through her own actions, she has disqualified herself from the presidency."

    The Clinton campaign insisted that it was pleased the notes had been made public. Spokesman Brian Fallon said: "While her use of a single email account was clearly a mistake and she has taken responsibility for it, these materials make clear why the justice department believed there was no basis to move forward with this case."

    Terrence James 3h ago

    This is the equivalent of the dog ate my homework. This woman could not utter an honest sentence if her life depended on it. She is a corrupt and evil person, I cannot stand Trump but I think I hate her more. Trump is just crazy and cannot help himself but she is calculatingly evil. We are doomed either way, but he would be more darkly entertaining.


    Smallworld5 3h ago

    Has any of Clinton's state department employees purposely built their own server in their basement on which to conduct official government business, in gross violation of department policy, protocols, and regulations, they would have been summarily fired at a minimum and, yes, quite possibly prosecuted. That's a fact.

    The issue at hand is why Clinton sycophants are so agreeable to the Clinton Double Standard.

    The presumptive next president of the U.S. being held to a lower standard than the average U.S. civil servant. Sickening.


    Laurence Johnson 8h ago

    Hillary's use of gender has no place in politics. When it comes to the top job, the people need the best person for the job, not someone who is given a GO because they represent a group that are encouraged to feel discriminated against.


    foggy2 9h ago

    For the FBI's (or Comey's) this is also a devastating indictment of their or his judgment, honesty and basic competency.

    YANKSOPINION 10h ago

    Perhaps she has early onset of Alzheimers and should not be considered for the job of POTUS. Or maybe she is just a liar.


    AlexLeo 10h ago

    It is painfully clear that she traded access and favors for money and reciprocal favors. It is painfully clear that she made little distinction between working for the State Department, the Clinton foundation and her family and tried to keep the records of what was going on inaccessible. The more honest defense would be, all politicians do it, and you have to suck it up because Trump is worse. Which is true. But trying to downplay this and explain it away is offensive, not all of the public are complete idiots.

    KaleidoscopeWars

    Actually, after you get over all of the baffooning around Trump has done, he actually would make an ideal president. He loves his country, he delegates jobs well to people who show the best results, he's good at building stuff and he wants to do a good job. I'm sure after he purges the terribly corrupted system that he'll be given, he'll have the very best advisors around him to make good decisions for the American people. I'm sure Theresa May and her cabinet will be quick to welcome him and re-solidify the relationship that has affected British politics so much in the past decade. Boris Johnson is perfect for our relations with America under a Trump administration. Shame on you Barack and Hillary. Hopefully Trump will say ''I came, I saw, they died!''

    Ullu001 12h ago

    Ah, The Clintons. They have done it all: destruction of evidence, witness tampering, fraud, lying under oath, murder, witness disappearance. Did I leave anything? Yet, they go unpunished. Too clever, I guess too clever for their own good!

    samwoods77 12h ago

    Hillary wants to be the most powerful person on earth yet claims she doesn't understand the classification system that even the most most junior secretary can....deeply troubling.

    Mistaron 13h ago

    The 'masters' in the shadows are about to throw the harridan under the bus. Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he has still succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and in addition, at the not-so-tin-hat conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support.

    All this in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and unbridled corruption, oozing from every orifice of a maverick administration.

    The seeds have been planted for a defense of diminished responsibility. Don't fall for it! Hillary, (and her illustrious spouse), deserve not a smidgen of pity.

    ''We came, we saw, he died'', she enthusiastically and unempathically cackled.

    Just about sums her up.


    wtfbollos 14h ago

    hiliary clinton beheaded libya and created a hell on earth. here is the proof:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/?page=all#pagebreak

    jean2121 -> ken711 13h ago

    Again, total misunderstanding about what is going on. Clinton is the one waging war in the middle east. She is the one being bullish and provocative with Russia. Trump has only been conciliatory with these issues, he has been against the war on Iraq. So far all evidences point to the fact that the Clintons want another big war and all evidence points to the fact that Trump wants co operation. This has totally escape your analysis. It is a choice between the Plague and the Cholera, I agree, but FGS try to be a little less biased.


    ungruntled 15h ago

    The best case for HC looks pretty grim.
    She has no recollection of......??
    Laptops and Thumb drives laying about unattended
    Total lack of understanding about even the most basic of Data Securit arrangements

    All of these things giver her the benefit of the doubt....That she wasnt a liar and a corrupted politician manipulating events and people to suit her own ends.
    So, with the benefit of the doubt given, ask yourself if this level of incompetance and unreliabilty makes a suitable candidate for office?
    In both cases, with and without BOTD, she shouldnt be allowed anywhere near the corridors of power, let alone the White House.

    IAtheist 17h ago

    Mrs Clinton is deeply divisive. Bought out since her husbands presidency by vested interests in Wall Street and the HMO's (private healthcare insurance management businesses) and having shown lamentable judgement, Benghazi, private Email server used for classified documents and material.

    She has failed to motivate the Democrats white and blue collar working voters male and female. These are the voting demographic who have turned to Trump is significant numbers as he does address their concerns, iniquitous tax rules meaning multi millionaires pay less tax on capital gains and share dividends than employees do on their basic wages, immigration and high levels of drug and gun crime in working class communities Black, White and Hispanic, funding illegal immigrants and failed American youth living on a black economy in the absence of affordable healthcare or a basic welfare system.

    Trump may very well win and is likely to be better for the US than Hilary Clinton.

    digamey 18h ago

    I sympathize with the American electorate - they have to choose between the Devil and the deep blue sea. Given their situation, however, I would definitely choose the Devil I know over the Devil I don't! And that Devil is - - - ?

    MoneyCircus -> digamey 10h ago

    That willful ignorance is your choice! A public businessman can be examined more closely than most.

    Besides, there is a long history of "placemen" presidents whose performance is determined by those they appoint to do the work. Just look in the White House right now.

    As for the Clinton record (they come, incontrovertibly, as a package) from Mena, Arkansas, to her husband's deregulation of the banks which heralded the financial crash that devastated millions of lives... the same banks that are currently HRC's most enthusiastic funders... is something that any genuine Democrat should not be able to stomach...

    ID9761679 19h ago

    My feeling is that she had more to worry about than the location of a thumb drive (I can't recall how many of those I've lost) or even a laptop. When a Secretary of State moves around, I doubt that look after their own appliances. Has anyone asked her where the fan is?

    Karega ID9761679 18h ago

    Problem is she handled top secret and classified information which would endanger her country's security and strategic interests. She was then US Secretary of State. That is why how she handled her thumb drive, laptop nd desktops matter. And there lies the difference between your numerous lost thumb drives and hers. I thought this was obvious?

    EightEyedSpy 23h ago

    HRC is still likely to be the next President, but this scandal does have legs. She put herself in a corner by claiming lack of recall due to a medical condition (i.e., the concussion). This leaves two possibilities, neither of which is helpful to her cause, to wit: either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired.

    1iJack -> EightEyedSpy 22h ago

    either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired.

    Its entirely possible its both.

    Dick York 24h ago

    California survived Arnold Schwarzenegger, the U.S. survived Ronald Reagan, Minnesota survived Jesse "The Body" Ventura and I believe that we will survive Donald Trump. He's only one more celebrity on the road.

    providenciales -> Dick York 23h ago

    You forgot Al Franken.

    antipodes -> Dick York 21h ago

    Reagan was certainly not someone I admired but at least he tried to reduce the chance of nuclear war. Clinton is an out and out Hawke with the blood of many innocent people on her hands in both Syria and Libya. She is hiding her communications because she does not want to be exposed for the role she played in The destruction of Libya and the gun running of weapons to terrorists in Syria. That is to Al Qaeda and ISIS. World War 3 is more likely under Clinton than any other world leader. Even Trump. The Democrats must disendorse her because the details of her criminality are now becoming available and unless she can stop it Trump will win. Get rid of her Democrats and bring back Bernie Sanders.

    Sam3456 1d ago

    We cannot afford a lying, neo-liberal who is more than willing to make her role in government a for profit endeavor.

    Four years of anyone else is preferable to someone who is more than willing for the right contribution to her foundation, sell out the American worker and middle class.

    MakeBeerNotWar 1d ago

    I'm more interested $250k a pop speeches HRC gave to the unindicted Wall St bankster felon scum who nearly took down their country and the global economy yet received a taxpayer bailout and their bonuses paid for being greedy incompetent crooks. How soon we forget....

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/

    sorrentina -> MakeBeerNotWar 22h ago

    even worse is her support for the military coup in Honduras- and her blatant lies in defense of that coup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS-tDVwSHlA

    trow 1d ago

    Its seems there is just one scandal after another with this women but she seems to be bullet proof mainly because the msm media will not go after her for reasons best known to themselves this is causing them to lose credibility and readers who are deserting them for alternative media .

    bashh1 1d ago

    Finally today in an article in The NY Times we learn where Clinton has been for a good part of the summer. In the Hamptons and elsewhere at receptions for celebrities and her biggest donors like Calvin Klein and Harvey Weinstein, raking in the millions for her campaign. Trump on the other hand has appeared in towns in Pennsylvania like Scranton, Erie and Altoona where job are disappearing and times can be tough. Coronations cost money I guess.

    chiefwiley -> bashh1 1d ago

    She is doing what she does best --- raise money.

    ksenak 1d ago

    Not forgetting that she was key in making sure the US didn't side with Assad. Had the US done at the beginning, instead of being at the behest of the Saudis and the petrodollar, then the whole thing would have been over in 6 months and IS would never have got more than a dusty district of northern Iraq.

    ksenak 1d ago

    Hillary is humiliated woman. Humiliated to the core by her cheating hubby she would rather kill than let him go. She is paying her evil revenge to the whole world. As a president of USA Hillary Clinton would destabilise the world and lead it to conflicts that threaten to be very heavy.

    As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was part of the "Arab Spring" (also part of the "Jasmine Revolution), which overthrew leaders such as Gaddafi to Mubarak. Before Gaddafi was overthrown he told the US that without him IS will take over Libya. They did.
    -Benghazi Scandal which ended up killing a US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans.
    The Arab Spring destabilized the Middle East, contributed to the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS and the exodus of Middle Eastern Muslims.

    Sam3456 OXIOXI20 1d ago

    Meh. Obama characterized ISIS as the "JV Team" and refused to acknowledge the threat. I assume he was acting on information provided by his Secretary of State, Clinton.

    Michael109 1d ago

    It's quite possible that Clinton, because she had a fall in 2012 and bonked her head, believes she is telling the truth when she is lying, except that it is not lying when you believe you are telling the truth even though you are lying.

    She said she did not recall 30 times in her interviews with the FBI. She could be suffering from some sort of early degeneration disease. Either way, between her health and the lying and corruption she should be withdrawn as the Dem frontrunner.

    1iJack -> LakumbaDaGreat 1d ago

    She's going to blow it.

    I think she already did. Its like all the shit in her life is coming back on her at once.

    Early on, when it was announced she would run again, I remember one Democrat pundit in particular that didn't think she could survive the existence of the Internet in the general election (I can't remember who it was, though). But it has turned out to be a pretty astute prediction.

    When asked what he meant by that remark, he went on to say "the staying power of the Internet will overwhelm Clinton with her dirty laundry once she gets to the general election. The Clintons were made for the 24 hour news cycles of the past and not the permanent unmanaged exposure of the digital world. Everything is new again on the internet. Its Groundhog Day forever on the Internet."

    That's my best paraphrase of his thoughts. He felt Clinton was the last of the "old school" politicians bringing too much baggage to an election. That with digital "bread crumbs" of some kind or another (email, microphones and cameras in phones, etc) the new generation of politicians will be a cleaner lot, not through virtue, but out of necessity.

    I've often thought back to his remarks while watching Hillary head into the general.

    ImperialAhmed 1d ago

    So the applicant to the US presidency does not know what (c) stands for in her emails, archives high security data on a laptop and then losses it for years, uploads same emails on Google's gmail account and then losses devices again.
    She does not recall many things, not even the training she received on handling the confidential and secure communication.
    She couldn't recall the procces of drone strikes. (Will she be killing people at a whim, without an accountable protocol?)
    She is either demented or dangerously reckless or lying. All of these conditions disbar her form her candidacy.


    AudieTer
    1d ago

    If she could only manage a couple of hours a day because of concussion and a blood clot she should have temporarily stood down until she recovered fully, and had a senior official take over her duties until she was well. You can't have a brain-damaged person in charge of the US's affairs - even though there is a long history of nutters the State Dept. ( ie the Military Industrial Complex HQ). And in the White House for that matter ...Nurse -- nurse -- Dubya needs his meds!

    thedingo8 -> Lenthelurker 1d ago

    the clinton foundation does not pay taxes..and dont forget that slick willie has been on the paedophile plane more times than the pilot

    Littlefella 1d ago

    She destroyed devices and emails after they were told that all evidence had to be preserved. There are then two issues and the FBI and DOJ have not taken any action on either.

    It's no longer just about the emails, it's the corruption.

    DaveG123 1d ago

    Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and Hanley "indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device"
    -------------
    Probably in the hands of a foreign government. Pretty careless behaviour. Incompetent. Part of a pattern of incompetance that includes bad foreign policy decisions (Libya) and disrespect for rules surrounding conflict of interest (Clinton Foundation).

    YANKSOPINION -> HansB09 1d ago

    She failed to keep up with recordkeeping she agreed to, then when asked to turn over records, somebody destroyed them, but Clinton did not order destruction, or does not remember having done so. Turned over all records-oops I thought WE did! She either lied or has alzheimers

    Andy White 1d ago

    In addition, the notes say:

    "Clinton could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with her to state via reciprocity from her time in the Senate. Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information."

    Clinton was aware she was an original classification authority at the state department, but again "could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by state. Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined." ...................secretary of state and could not recall basic security protocols???

    ....and people complain about trump....this basic security was mentioned in the bloody west wing series for god's sake.....in comparison even trump is a f'ing genius.......love him or hate him trump has to win over clinton,there is something very,very wrong with her....she should NEVER be in charge of a till at asda......and she is a clinton so we all know a very practised liar but this beggers belief,i can see why trump is angry if that was him he would have been publicly burnt at the stake.....this clinton crap just stink's of the political elite....a total joke cover up and a terrible obvious one to....clinton is just a liar and mentally i think she is very unstable....makes the DON look like hawking lol.....

    namora 1d ago

    Political baggage is a bitch. If this election cycle has demonstrated anything it is that the leadership of both parties is totally out of touch with the voters and really has no interest except supporting the Neoliberal tenet of fiscal nonintervention. This laissez-faire attitude toward corporate interests is paralysing the American government.

    duncandunnit 1d ago

    I cannot believe Clinton has got this far in the election, I believe Obama wants her in to hide many of his embarrassing warmongering mistakes.

    fedback 1d ago

    Today of all days Hillary Clinton puts out a tweet with the following: 'America needs leadership in the White House, not a liability' -- As we have to assume she's not referring to herself it confirms people's suspicion that the person who writes Hillary's tweets is a hostile to her campaign. The tweets are often completely off the mark.

    Hercolubus 1d ago

    Either Comey is on their payroll, or they have threatened his family. Either way it is business as usual. The NWO decided a long time ago that Hillary was their next puppet PONTUS.

    BG Davis 2d ago

    Clinton has always been a devious weasel, but this reveals a new low. I was a low-level officer at US Embassies and Consulates in various foreign countries. Clinton's claim that she didn't know what (C) was, or that she "she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential" and "could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information." Are beyond ridiculous. Any fool knows enough to be aware of different levels of classified info, and the obvious fact that you don't get sloppy with classified info.

    That said, over the past few years the entire handling of classified info has become beyond sloppy - laptops left in taxis, General Petraeus was sharing classified info with his mistress, etc. I guess nowadays, to paraphrase Leona Helmsley's comment about paying taxes, "security is for little people." So in that respect Hillary is no different from the rest of them.

    Scaff1 2d ago

    You'd better hope she's lying, because if the incompetence is genuine she shouldn't be allowed near any confidential information ever again. I hate to admit it but Trump is right on this one. Jesus wept. I said it before: Clinton is the only candidate who could possibly make a tyrant like Trump electable.


    charlieblue -> gizadog 2d ago

    Where are you getting "looses 13 devices"? (Try loses, nobody is accusing Sec.Clinton of making things loose) I actually read the article, so my information might not be as exciting as yours, but this article states that from the 13 devices that had access to the Clinton server, two (a laptop and a thumb drive) used by one of her aids, are missing. This article doesn't specify whether any "classified" information was on either of them. The FBI doesn't know, because, well... they are missing.

    What the fuck is it with you people and your loose relationship with actual facts? Do you realize that just making shit up undermines whatever point you imagine you are trying to make?

    gizadog 2d ago

    Also: Clinton told FBI she thought classified markings were alphabetical paragraphs

    "When asked what the parenthetical 'C' meant before a paragraph ... Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the FBI wrote in notes from its interview with her."

    Wow...and there are people that want her to be president.

    Casey13 2d ago

    In my job as a government contractor we are extremely vigilant about not connecting removable devices to work computers, no work email access outside of work, software algorithms that scan our work mails for any sensitive information, and regular required training on information security. The fact that the Sec State could have an email server built at her home and operate with such laughable gross negligence when it comes to national security is surreal and appalling. I could never vote for her and neither could I vote for Trump.

    MonotonousLanguor 2d ago

    >>> A Clinton Foundation laptop and a thumb drive used to archive Hillary Clinton's emails from her time as secretary of state are missing, according to FBI notes released on Friday.<<<

    Oh golly gee, what a surprise. Should we offer a reward??? Maybe Amelia Earhart has the laptop and thumb drive. Were these missing items taken by the Great Right Wing Conspiracy???

    Dani Jenkins 2d ago

    Wtf, from the sublime to the ridiculous, springs to mind..

    Time to get a grip of the gravity involved, here at the Guardian.. This is a total whitewash of the absurd kind.. That leaves people laughing in pure unadultered astonishment..

    SHE lost not just a MacBook & thumb drive with such BS..

    So Trump it is then , like many of us have stated ALL ALONG. Sanders was the only serious contender.. A complete mockery of democracy & the so called Democrats have made the way for Trump to cruise all the way to the Whitewash House..

    Well done Debbie , did the Don pay you?

    chiefwiley -> Lenthelurker 2d ago

    Because the revelations are essentially contradicting all of Hillary's defenses regarding her handling of highly classified information. None of the requirements of the State Department mattered to her or her personal staff. It won't go away --- it will get worse as information trickles out.

    Casey13 2d ago

    Being President of the USA used to be about communicating a vision and inspiring Americans to get behind that dream . Think Lincoln abolishing slavery or JFK setting a goal to put man on the moon. Hillary is boring,has no charisma,and no vision for her Presidency beyond using corruption and intimidation to secure greater power for her and her cronies . Nobody wants to listen to her speeches because she is boring, uninspiring, and has no wit beyond tired cliches. Trump has a vision but that vision is a nightmare for many Americans.

    imperfetto 2d ago

    Clinton is a dangerous warmonger. She is a danger to us Europeans, as she might drag us into a conflict with Russia. We must get rid of her, politically, and re-educate the Americas to respect other nations, and give up exporting their corrupting values.

    Tom Voloshen 2d ago

    Liar liar liar....give her a chance, and another and another and another and another...
    .
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/cnn-stunned-fact-checkers-confirm-clinton-phones-destroyed-hammers/

    JCDavis 2d ago

    "After reading these documents, I really don't understand how she was able to get away from prosecution."

    If the FBI were not themselves co-conspirators and hopelessly corrupt, they would indict some of the lower level actors and offer them immunity. They could start with the imbecile who put that laptop in the mail and couldn't remember if it was UPS or USPS. Or did he actually send it to the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK by accident?

    1iJack 2d ago

    "The job of the media historically, in terms of the First Amendment – what I call the unspoken compact in the First Amendment – is that the free press, without restraint, without checks and balances, is there in order to protect the people from power. Its job is to be a check on government, and those who rule the country, and not to be their lapdogs, and their support system. That's what we're seeing in this election.

    There is an argument to make that the major news media in this country, the mainstream media, is essentially serving against the people's interest. They have made themselves an open ally of protecting a political order that the American people are rejecting, by three quarters or more of the American people. That makes them a legitimate issue, in a sense they never have been before, if Trump takes advantage of it."

    Pat Caddell, 2 Sept 2016

    Caddell has voiced an interesting concern that others are beginning to share: that the news media has crawled so far in bed with Hillary Clinton they won't be able to get back out. That the news media in America has lost its soul. Even Jake Tapper started asking this question several weeks ago in the middle of his own show.

    Will the American press ever have credibility with Americans again? Even Democrats see it and will remember this the next time the press turns against them. There was a new and overt power grab in this election that is still being processed by the American people: the American press "saving" America from Donald Trump. They may never recover from this.

    It even scares my Democrat friends.

    ConBrio 2d ago

    "An unknown individual using the encrypted privacy tool Tor to hide their tracks accessed an email account on a Clinton family server, the FBI revealed Friday.

    "The incident appears to be the first confirmed intrusion into a piece of hardware associated with Hillary Clinton's private email system, which originated with a server established for her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

    The FBI disclosed the event in its newly released report on the former secretary of state's handling of classified information.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/clinton-email-server-tor-227697

    fanUS 2d ago

    Clinton is a very dodgy character and cannot be trusted.

    Boris Johnson, UK Foreign Secretary on Clinton: "She's got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital"

    CleanPool330 2d ago

    The collective mind of the establishment is mentally ill and spinning out of control. In all rites they should be removed but their arrogance, corruption and self-entitlement mean they are incapable of admitting guilt. They have corrupted the weak minds of the majority and will take everybody down with them.

    The pyramid scheme of created debt has destroyed capitalism and democracy within 40 years of full operation. Captured Govt has bailed out incompetence and failure at every turn, and in so doing, inverted the yield curve and destroyed the future. It is for this reason alone I cannot respect these financial paedophiles or support anything they do. In this contest for the White House, Clinton is the manifestation of the establishment.

    unusedusername 2d ago

    If I understand this correctly a laptop and a flashdrive full of classified emails was put in a jiffy bag and stuck in the post and now they're missing and this is, apparently, just one of those things? Amazing!

    Blair Hess 2d ago

    I'm in the military. Not a high rank mind you. It defies all common logic that HRC has never had a briefing, training, or just side conversation about classified information handling when i have about 50 trainings a year on it and i barely handle it. Sheeple wake up and stop drinking the kool aid

    Ullu001 2d ago

    The Clintons have always operated on the edge of the law: extremely clever and dangerous lawyers they are.

    USADanny -> Ullu001

    Hillary may be criminally clever but legally: not so much. You do know that she failed the Washington DC bar exam and all of her legal "success" after that was a result of being very spouse of a powerful politician.

    calderonparalapaz 2d ago

    "The documents provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's private server, including what appeared to be a frantic effort by a computer specialist to delete an archive of her emails even after a congressional committee had requested they be preserved." -NY Times

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi.html?_r=0

    USADanny -> Lee Knutsen 2d ago

    Virtually every American healthcare worker has to take annual HIPAA training, pass a multiple-choice test and signed a document attesting that they have taken the training and are fully aware of the serious consequences of inadvertent and willful violations of HIPAA. Oh the irony – HIPAA is a Clinton era law.

    Hillary's treatment of top-secret US documents was willful and uncorrected. If she had done the same thing with medical records, the individuals whose medical records had been mishandled could have filed charges and Hillary would have been personally liable for up to $50,000 fine per incident.

    http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/hipaahealth-insurance-portability-accountability-act/hipaa-violations-enforcement.page?

    Other than Hillary negligently handling top-secret documents, having a head injury that by her own admission has impaired her memory and using her relationship with the Clinton foundation when she was Secretary of State to extort hundreds of millions of dollars, she is an excellent candidate for the president.

    oeparty 2d ago

    Clinton is an absolute liability. Apart from this scandal she's a status quo candidate for a status quo that no longer exists. She stands for neo-liberalism, US hegemony and capitalist globalization all of which are deader than the dodo. That makes her very dangerous in terms of world peace and of course she will do absolutely nothing for the millions of Americans facing joblessness, hunger, bankruptcy and homelessness except make things worse.

    And yet, and yet, we must vote Clinton simply to Stop Trump. He is a proto-fascist determined to smash resistance to the 1% in America and abroad via military means. He is a realist who realises capitalism is over and only the purest and most overwhelming violence can save the super rich and the elites now. Certainly their economy gives them nothing any more. The American Dream is toast. The Green Stein will simply draw a few votes from Clinton and give Trump the victory and it is not like she is a genuinely progressive candidate herself being something of a Putin fan just like Trump. No, vote Clinton to Stop Trump but only so that we can use the next four years to build the revolutionary socialist alternative. To build the future.

    dongerdo 2d ago

    The Americans are screwed anyways because both easily are the most despicable and awful front runners I can think of in any election of a western democracy in decades (and that is quite an achievement in itself to be honest), the only thing left to hope for is a winner not outright horrible for the rest of the world on which front Clinton loses big time: electing her equals pouring gasoline over half the world, she is up for finishing the disastrous job in the Middle East and North Africa started by her as Secretary of State. Her stance on relations with Russia and China are utterly horrific, listening to her makes even the die-hard GOP neo-cons faction sound like peace corps ambassadors.
    If the choice is between that and some isolationist dimwit busy with making America great again I truly hope for the latter.

    Who would have thought that one day world peace would depend on the vote of the American redneck.....

    Michael109 2d ago

    Clinton's "dog ate my server", I can't (30 times) remember, didn't know what C meant on top of emails - why it means Coventry City, M'amm - excuses are the Dems trying to stagger over the line, everyone holding their noses. But even if she is elected, which is doubtful, this is not going away and she could be arrested as USA President.

    The FBI will rue the day they did not recommend charges against her when they had the chance. She's make Tony Soprano look like the Dalia Lama.

    CleanPool330 2d ago

    The entire corrupt establishment want Clinton at all cost, so that they can continue fleecing the future and enslaving the entire world in created debt. All right minded individuals should this as a flashing red light to turn round and vote the other way.

    [Sep 05, 2016] Trump predicts landslide support from black voters if he gets to seek a second term as president

    [Dec 05, 2016] | latimes.com

    "You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58% of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose" by voting for Trump? the candidate asked. "At the end of four years, I guarantee I will get over 95% of the African American vote."

    The statement – highly unlikely given how poorly Republicans fare among black voters – continues a theme the GOP presidential nominee has pounded this week as he courted African American voters. He said Democrats take black voters for granted and have ignored their needs while governing cities with large African American populations.

    "America must reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton, who sees communities of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future," he said of his Democratic opponent.

    ... ... ...

    Trump argued that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's policies on issues such as immigration and refugee resettlement harm African Americans.

    [Sep 05, 2016] The power of neoliberal brainwashing and indoctrination of population via MSM, schools and universities.

    [Dec 05, 2016] | economistsview.typepad.com

    nikbez: August 28, 2016 at 10:06 AM

    That's simply naïve:

    === quote ===
    It has recently become commonplace to argue that globalization can leave people behind, and that this can have severe political consequences. Since 23 June, this has even become conventional wisdom. While I welcome this belated acceptance of the blindingly obvious, I can't but help feeling a little frustrated, since this has been self-evident for many years now. What we are seeing, in part, is what happens to conventional wisdom when, all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a long time.
    === end of quote ==

    This is not about "conventional wisdom". This is about the power of neoliberal propaganda, the power of brainwashing and indoctrination of population via MSM, schools and universities.

    And "all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a long time." also has nothing to do with conventional wisdom.

    This is about the crisis of neoliberal ideology and especially Trotskyism part of it (neoliberalism can be viewed as Trotskyism for the rich). The following integral elements of this ideology no longer work well and are starting to cause the backlash:

    1. High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity). "Greed is good" or "Trickle down economics" -- redistribution of wealth up will create (via higher productivity) enough scrapes for the lower classes, lifting all boats.

    2. "Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific market. Human beings also are viewed as market actors with every field of activity seen as a specialized market. Every entity (public or private, person, business, state) should be governed as a firm. "Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating, or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices." People are just " human capital" who must constantly tend to their own present and future market value.

    3. Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" (under neoliberalism everything is a marketable good, that is traded on explicit or implicit exchanges.

    4. The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war for permanent peace" -- wars for enlarging global neoliberal empire via crushing non-compliant regimes either via color revolutions or via open military intervention.

    5. Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of citizens (moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class (0.1% or "Masters of the Universe") being above the law like the top level of "nomenklatura" was in the USSR.

    6. "Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making transnational corporations the key political players, "the deciders" as W aptly said. Who decide about level of immigration flows, minimal wages, tariffs, and other matters that previously were prerogative of the state.

    So after 36 (or more) years of dominance (which started with triumphal march of neoliberalism in early 90th) the ideology entered "zombie state". That does not make it less dangerous but its power over minds of the population started to evaporate. Far right ideologies now are filling the vacuum, as with the discreditation of socialist ideology and decimation of "enlightened corporatism" of the New Deal in the USA there is no other viable alternatives.

    The same happened in late 1960th with the Communist ideology. It took 20 years for the USSR to crash after that with the resulting splash of nationalism (which was the force that blow up the USSR) and far right ideologies.

    It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal US elite will fare better then Soviet nomenklatura as challenges facing the USA are now far greater then challenges which the USSR faced at the time. Among them is oil depletion which might be the final nail into the coffin of neoliberalism and, specifically, the neoliberal globalization.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Under my definiton of sociopath , Hillary Clinton qualifies on just her laugh about death Muammar Gaddafi, who was sodomized with a bayonet

    Notable quotes:
    "... As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction? ..."
    "... "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap. ..."
    "... Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    Zachary Smith / August 30, 2016 2:24 p.m.

    As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction?

    "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    Under my definiton of "sociopath", Hillary Clinton qualifies on that one alone. Of course there are others….

    *** My father, too, turned bribes into gifts. ***

    I know some saintly people myself, and have no difficulty accepting this claim at face value. Stretching the analogy to the Clinton Foundation is, in my opinion, a stretch too far. If Hillary was as pure as the driven snow, why did she work so hard to ensure her communications were beyond the reach of the Freedom Of Information Act? Why has the State department refused to release her meeting schedules until after the election?

    Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Bernie sold out. If not that, then he was simply in it as faux opposition from the start.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie disgraced himself and drove a dagger through the heart of youth involvement in the democratic process. Millions of kids believd in him. He's is even more repellent that Clinton. Faced with evidence that the DNC had rigged the nomination process in favour of Clinton, what did he do? He backed her. Beyond shame. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Mistaron MacSpeaker

    Bernie sold out. If not that, then he was simply in it as faux opposition from the start. Having unified the militant and disgruntled outliers, he then readily doffed his cap and sheperded his gullible followers towards the only practical Democratic alternative available.

    Wasted effort. The 'masters' in the shadows are about to throw the harridan under the bus. Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he's still succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and also at the not-so-tin-hat conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support, in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and corruption oozing from every orifice of a maverick administration.

    The seeds have been planted for a defense of diminished responsibility. Don't fall for it! Hillary, (and her illustrious spouse), deserve not a smidgen of pity.

    ''We came, we saw, he died'', she enthusiastically and unempathically cackled.

    Just about sums it up


    Michael109 fflambeau 2d ago

    Bernie disgraced himself and drove a dagger through the heart of youth involvement in the democratic process. Millions of kids believd in him. He's is even more repellent that Clinton. Faced with evidence that the DNC had rigged the nomination process in favour of Clinton, what did he do? He backed her. Beyond shame.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Obama golfs with celebrities, Hillary parties with them and takes their cash

    Notable quotes:
    "... This who Hillary Clinton is. It's all about money and access. You know I'm not a Trump supporter, but I absolutely can see why people would vote for him to throw a rock through these people's collective window. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Aug 20, 2016

    From Eating Cake With Hillary Clinton By Rod Dreher

    Check out this 2007 Hillary Clinton for President radio ad , in which she rips into George W. Bush, saying that Katrina victims were "invisible" to him, but aren't invisible to her. How times change.

    Here's why Hillary Clinton cannot be bothered to come to Louisiana: she's got a slew of fundraising events set up with coastal elites . From CNN:

    What do Cher, Leonardo DiCaprio, Magic Johnson and Jimmy Buffett all have in common? They're with her.

    Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, buoyed by rising poll numbers and a sputtering Donald Trump campaign, are using August to raise tens of millions of dollars in cash before the fall sprint.

    Clinton will embark on a three-day, eight-fundraiser trip to California next week, headlining a mix of star studded events with tech icons, athletes and movie stars.

    On Monday, August 22, Clinton will headline a top dollar fundraiser at the Beverly Hills home of Cheryl and Haim Saban, the billionaire owner of Univision and one of Clinton's wealthiest backers.

    Clinton and her aides will then head down the street to another fundraiser at the Beverly Hills home of Hall of Fame basketball player and businessman Magic Johnson. That event, which according to Clinton donors in California is expected to raise millions of dollars, will also be hosted by Willow Bay and Bob Iger, the CEO of The Walt Disney Company, and Marilyn and Jeffrey Katzenberg, the CEO of DreamWorks Animation.

    The next day, Clinton will headline two events in Laguna Beach, including a $33,400-per-person event hosted by Stephen Cloobeck, the CEO of Diamond Resorts.

    Later in the day, according to invites obtained by CNN, Clinton will headline a fundraiser at the home of Leonardo DiCaprio, the Oscar-winning actor known for his roles in Titanic, The Revenant and The Wolf of Wall Street.

    Scooter Braun, the agent that discovered Justin Beiber, and Tobey Maguire, the actor known for his roles in the Spider-Man series, will also host the star-studded event.

    Sounds like fun for those celebrities and rich people, flooding the Democratic Party nominee's coffers with campaign cash. Meanwhile, here in flood-ravaged Louisiana, preliminary estimates claim that as many as 110,000 people lost their homes (or at least suffered enormous damage to them), suffering nearly $21 billion in losses.

    Obama golfs with celebrities, Hillary parties with them and takes their cash.

    This should not be forgotten. These are the oligarchs who rule us. It's despicable. Do not believe for one second that there's any reason why Hillary Clinton cannot get here. Donald Trump got here, spent a few hours, then left. So could she, if she wanted to. But she would di$appoint her donor$.

    This who Hillary Clinton is. It's all about money and access. You know I'm not a Trump supporter, but I absolutely can see why people would vote for him to throw a rock through these people's collective window.

    Eamus Catuli , says: August 22, 2016 at 12:29 pm
    M_Young:

    You might want to study up. (Actually, that could be said to you on many, many issues.) Perjury is lying on a point that is "material" to the case. The judge in the Paula Jones lawsuit ruled that Bill's relationship with Monica was not material to it, hence, no perjury.

    But yeah, if it had been perjury, of course it's every bit as bad as a president ordering federal agencies to break the law and obstruct a criminal investigation in order to cover up his subordinates' illegal eavesdropping on political opponents. Yep. Sure is.

    JonF , says: August 22, 2016 at 12:46 pm
    Re: Bill Clinton was clearly guilty of both. That, not 'sex with an intern' is why he was impeached.

    In what way was Bill Clinton guilty of "Obstruction of justice"? I am unaware of any criminal investigation he interfered in.
    Also, Clinton was not even guilty of perjury in a the purely legal sense of the term, since the lies he told (yes, they were lies) were not germane to the matter on which he was testifying. A perjury charge requires that to be true.

    Eamus Catuli , says: August 22, 2016 at 12:48 pm
    Sorry, should have acknowledged @Chris 1 on this as well:

    And the denial continues in denying that there's anything anyone can do, so let's do nothing. If you lived your moral life this way you'd be a wreck.

    It's a classic example of the "Futility" argument. Seriously, Albert O. Hirschman's book explains a vast amount of conservative rhetoric. Here's the Amazon link:

    https://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reaction-Perversity-Futility-Jeopardy/dp/067476868X

    Another of his books, Exit, Voice and Loyalty (see further link on that Amazon page), is also important and could helpfully explain, for instance, different responses to the Catholic abuse scandals.

    Siarlys Jenkins , says: August 22, 2016 at 10:54 pm
    I agree that "political pundits, talk radio hosts, blog writers and blog commenters who are complaining about a lack of tweets and visits" are "pathetic, whiny, insecure, self-absorbed and a host of other bad things." I also agree that nobody should be questioning the motives of people who are in the midst of mucking out their homes, no matter what they are saying.

    If President Obama is smart, he will give very little in the way of speeches, or impromptu talks. He will simply ask as many people as possible, what do you need, what is still lacking, what can we do to help you? If he talks to the press, he will begin by saying "There are times when a visit from the President of the United States is not going to make things better, and might even distract from essential work. I came as soon as people on the ground told me it would be acceptable, and would do more good than harm."

    M_Young , says: August 23, 2016 at 5:58 pm
    LGC led me astray with his 'facts'.

    The perjury for which Clinton was had nothing to do with the Paula Jones suit (a civil case in a state court, presided over by a former Clinton student). He was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury. Same goes for the obstruction of justice charge, nothing to do with Paula Jones or civil cases, everything to do with the Federal investigation of Clinton's doings.

    I was out of the country, in Bosnia in fact, at the time, so my ignorance is excusable. My failing to check up the 'facts' presented by a Lefty isn't.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Angry Bear Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen Gets It Right About the Clinton Foundation (in my opinion)

    Sep 04, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    Zachary Smith August 30, 2016 3:26 pm

    Regarding Humanitarian Interventions: a recent piece at Consortium News.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/23/a-clinton-family-value-humanitarian-war/

    The scheme has been nearly perfected these days. Cause a disturbance within a nation, then declare Something Must Be Done.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Neoliberalism is every bit the wellspring of neofascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions. ..."
    "... If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth. ..."
    "... Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution. ..."
    "... It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. ..."
    "... he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed. ..."
    "... What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Cranky Observer 09.03.16 at 6:28 pm

    = = = I am actually honestly suggesting an intellectual exercise which, I think, might be worth your (extremely valuable) time. I propose you rewrite this post without using the word "neoliberalism" (or a synonym). = = =

    It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions.

    bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 7:47 pm
    In the politics of antonyms, I suppose we are always going get ourselves confused.

    Perhaps because of American usage of the root, liberal, to mean the mildly social democratic New Deal liberal Democrat, with its traces of American Populism and American Progressivism, we seem to want "liberal" to designate an ideology of the left, or at least, the centre-left. Maybe, it is the tendency of historical liberals to embrace idealistic high principles in their contest with reactionary claims for hereditary aristocracy and arbitrary authority.

    If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth.

    All of that is by way of preface to a thumbnail history of modern political ideology different from the one presented by Will G-R.

    Modern political ideology is a by-product of the Enlightenment and the resulting imperative to find a basis and purpose for political Authority in Reason, and apply Reason to the design of political and social institutions.

    Liberalism doesn't so much defeat conservatism as invent conservatism as an alternative to purely reactionary politics. The notion of an "inevitable progress" allows liberals to reconcile both themselves and their reactionary opponents to practical reality with incremental reform. Political paranoia and rhetoric are turned toward thinking about constitutional design.

    Mobilizing mass support and channeling popular discontents is a source of deep ambivalence and risk for liberals and liberalism. Popular democracy can quickly become noisy and vulgar, the proliferation of ideas and conflicting interests paralyzing. Inventing a conservatism that competes with the liberals, but also mobilizes mass support and channels popular discontent, puts bounds on "normal" politics.

    Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution.

    I would put the challenges to liberalism from the left and right well behind in precedence the critical failures and near-failures of liberalism in actual governance.

    Liberalism failed abjectly to bring about a constitutional monarchy in France during the first decade of the French Revolution, or a functioning deliberative assembly or religious toleration or even to resolve the problems of state finance and legal administration that destroyed the ancient regime. In the end, the solution was found in Napoleon Bonaparte, a precedent that would arguably inspire the fascism of dictators and vulgar nationalism, beginning with Napoleon's nephew fifty years later.

    It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. And, this was especially true in the wake of World War I, which many have argued persuasively was Liberalism's greatest and most catastrophic failure. T he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed.

    If liberals invented conservatism, it seems to me that would-be socialists were at pains to re-invent liberalism, and they did it several times going in radically different directions, but always from a base in the basic liberal idea of rationalizing authority. A significant thread in socialism adopted incremental progress and socialist ideas became liberal and conservative means for taming popular discontent in an increasingly urban society.

    Where and when liberalism actually was triumphant, both the range of liberal views and the range of interests presenting a liberal front became too broad for a stable politics. Think about the Liberal Party landslide of 1906, which eventually gave rise to the Labour Party in its role of Left Party in the British two-party system. Or FDR's landslide in 1936, which played a pivotal role in the march of the Southern Democrats to the Right. Or the emergence of the Liberal Consensus in American politics in the late 1950s.

    What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success.

    It is almost a rote reaction to talk about the Republican's Southern Strategy, but they didn't invent the crime wave that enveloped the country in the late 1960s or the riots that followed the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.

    Will G-R's "As soon [as] liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have . . .overcome the socialist and fascist challenges [liberals] are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism" doesn't seem to me to concede enough to Clinton and Blair entrepreneurially inventing a popular politics in response to Reagan and Thatcher, after the actual failures of an older model of social democratic programs and populist politics on its behalf.

    Rich Puchalsky 09.03.16 at 11:09 pm
    I write more about this over at my blog (in a somewhat different context).
    John Quiggin 09.04.16 at 6:57 am
    RW @113 I wrote a whole book using "market liberalism" instead of "neoliberalism", since I wanted a term more neutral and less pejorative. So, going back to "neoliberalism" was something I did advisedly. You say
    The word is abstract and has completely different meanings west and east of the Atlantic. In the USA it refers to weak tea center leftisms. In Europe to hard core liberalism.
    Well, yes. That's precisely why I've used the term, introduced the hard/soft distinction and explained the history. The core point is that, despite their differences soft (US meaning) and hard (European meaning) neoliberalism share crucial aspects of their history, theoretical foundations and policy implications.
    likbez 09.04.16 at 4:18 pm
    I would say that neoliberalism is closer to market fundamentalism, then market liberalism. See, for example:
    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/Articles/definitions_of_neoliberalism.shtml

    === quote ===
    Neoliberalism is an ideology of market fundamentalism based on deception that promotes "markets" as a universal solution for all human problems in order to hide establishment of neo-fascist regime (pioneered by Pinochet in Chile), where militarized government functions are limited to external aggression and suppression of population within the country (often via establishing National Security State using "terrorists" threat) and corporations are the only "first class" political players. Like in classic corporatism, corporations are above the law and can rule the country as they see fit, using political parties for the legitimatization of the regime.

    The key difference with classic fascism is that instead of political dominance of the corporations of particular nation, those corporations are now transnational and states, including the USA are just enforcers of the will of transnational corporations on the population. Economic or "soft" methods of enforcement such as debt slavery and control of employment are preferred to brute force enforcement. At the same time police is militarized and due to technological achievements the level of surveillance surpasses the level achieved in Eastern Germany.

    Like with bolshevism in the USSR before, high, almost always hysterical, level of neoliberal propaganda and scapegoating of "enemies" as well as the concept of "permanent war for permanent peace" are used to suppress the protest against the wealth redistribution up (which is the key principle of neoliberalism) and to decimate organized labor.

    Multiple definitions of neoliberalism were proposed. Three major attempts to define this social system were made:

    1. Definitions stemming from the concept of "casino capitalism"
    2. Definitions stemming from the concept of Washington consensus
    3. Definitions stemming from the idea that Neoliberalism is Trotskyism for the rich. This idea has two major variations:
      • Definitions stemming from Professor Wendy Brown's concept of Neoliberal rationality which developed the concept of Inverted Totalitarism of Sheldon Wolin
      • Definitions stemming Professor Sheldon Wolin's older concept of Inverted Totalitarism - "the heavy statism forging the novel fusions of economic with political power that he took to be poisoning democracy at its root." (Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism Common Dreams )

    The first two are the most popular.

    likbez 09.04.16 at 5:03 pm

    bruce,

    @117

    Thanks for your post. It contains several important ideas:

    "It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism."

    "What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success."

    Moreover as Will G-R noted:

    "neoliberalism will be every bit the wellspring of fascism that old-school liberalism was."

    Failure of neoliberalism revives neofascist, far right movements. That's what the rise of far right movements in Europe now demonstrates pretty vividly.

    [Sep 04, 2016] As soon liberalism overcome the socialist and fascist challenges, the adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was no longer, so bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism ..."
    "... I'm thinking more of local governments like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago. ..."
    "... So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc. through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people and institutions that will ..."
    "... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
    "... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
    "... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
    "... That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. ..."
    "... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
    "... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
    "... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage in regulatory evasion and reform. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Will G-R 09.03.16 at 4:21 pm 115

    As far as a definition, at least on the level of ideology I'd go with the following simplified-to-the-utmost historical overview…

    1. Liberalism (the 18th- and 19th-century bourgeois ideology of capitalism) defeats conservatism (the 18th- and 19th-century aristocratic ideology of anti-capitalism)

    2. Triumphant liberalism faces insurgent ideological challenges from its left and right (i.e. Quiggin's "three-party system" model, except the three parties are clearly understood to be socialism, liberalism, and fascism)

    3. Liberalism is forced to respond to these challenges, in particular responding to the socialist critique with the ideology of Keynesian interventionist "welfare liberalism" - ideologues of older liberalism consider this response itself a taint of corruption

    4. As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism

    In any case, it's utterly bizarre to see people object so stridently to "neoliberalism" who simultaneously don't seem to have a problem with the imperialist, anti-intellectual, and quite frankly racist connotations of the term "tribalism".

    Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm

    Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a Chinatown -esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.

    he fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.

    So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc. through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions like the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media as such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious falls into the national spotlight.)

    Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.

    The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed . This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations. I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.

    Peter K. 09.02.16 at 8:38 pm 109

    @46

    " American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also been pro-union…"

    Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.

    I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered.

    That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.

    The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations. I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.

    bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 4:05 am 110

    ... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage in regulatory evasion and reform.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Lesse evilism as in those f*ckers from trade unions will vote for Dems anyway, they have nowhere to go no longer works

    Notable quotes:
    "... Lesse evilism that Bill Clinton used for moving Democratic Party into neoliberal camp (as in "those f*ckers from trade unions will vote for Dems anyway, they have nowhere to go") no longer works. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    John Quiggin 09.03.16 at 6:36 am

    @111 The obvious explanation for union endorsements of Clinton is that they expected her to win the Democratic nomination, as she did. And of course they would endorse her against any Republican. What else could they do>

    The most obvious test case is the teachers unions. Obama's administration was clearly hostile to the (think of Rahm Emanuel!), but they nonetheless endorsed him, as the lesser evil.

    likbez 09.04.16 at 7:29 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    John,

    @112

    "The most obvious test case is the teachers unions. Obama's administration was clearly hostile to the (think of Rahm Emanuel!), but they nonetheless endorsed him, as the lesser evil."

    Lesse evilism that Bill Clinton used for moving Democratic Party into neoliberal camp (as in "those f*ckers from trade unions will vote for Dems anyway, they have nowhere to go") no longer works.

    Far right will absorb those working class and lower white collar votes. And they became a political force to recon with, which disposed neocons from the Republican establishment (all those Jeb!, Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio crowd ) despite all efforts of the party brass. Welcome to the second reincarnation of Weimar republic.

    Trade union management, which endorsed Hillary, now expects that more than half of union members will probably vote against Hillary. In some cases up to 2/3.

    So Dem neolibs became a party that is not supported by the working class and if identity politics tricks fail to work, they might get a a blowback in November. They can rely only on a few voting blocks that benefitted from globalization, such as "network hamsters" (programmers, system administrators, some part of FIRE low level staff, and such) and few other mass professionals. That's it.

    [Sep 04, 2016] UBS upped its cash to Bill and the foundation after the scandal and her intervention as Sec. of State

    Sep 04, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Julio -> EMichael... Friday, September 02, 2016 at 10:03 AM

    Look more carefully at the timeline, UBS upped its cash to Bill and the foundation after the scandal and her intervention as Sec. of State. See e.g.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

    The whole thing smells to high heaven. The only reason to trust that there are no direct quid pro quos is, perversely, that there are so many donations and so many speeches and interactions that they all begin to seem normal.

    Yes, there may be smoke and no fire, in the legal sense, but let us not pretend there are no issues here.

    [Sep 04, 2016] The Trump Campaign's Best Day The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
    "... and the author of book ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The Trump Campaign's Best Day

    By Patrick J. Buchanan September 2, 2016, 12:12 AM Gage Skidmore / Flickr In accepting the invitation of President Enrique Pena Nieto to fly to Mexico City, the Donald was taking a major risk.

    Yet it was a bold and decisive move, and it paid off in what was the best day of Donald Trump's campaign.

    Standing beside Nieto, graciously complimenting him and speaking warmly of Mexico and its people, Trump looked like a president. And the Mexican president treated him like one, even as Trump restated the basic elements of his immigration policy, including the border wall.

    The gnashing of teeth up at the New York Times testifies to Trump's triumph:

    "Mr. Trump has spent his entire campaign painting Mexico as a nation of rapists, drug smugglers, and trade hustlers. … But instead of chastising Mr. Trump, Mr. Pena Nieto treated him like a visiting head of state … with side-by-side lecterns and words of deferential mush."

    As I wrote in August, Trump "must convince the nation … he is an acceptable, indeed, a preferable alternative" to Hillary Clinton, whom the nation does not want.

    In Mexico City, Trump did that. He reassured voters who are leaning toward him that he can be president. As for those who are apprehensive about his temperament, they saw reassurance.

    For validation, one need not rely on supporters of Trump. Even Mexicans who loathe Trump are conceding his diplomatic coup.

    "Trump achieved his purpose," said journalism professor Carlos Bravo Regidor. "He looked serene, firm, presidential." Our "humiliation is now complete," tweeted an anchorman at Televisa.

    President Nieto's invitation to Trump "was the biggest stupidity in the history of the Mexican presidency," said academic Jesus Silva-Herzog.

    Not since Gen. Winfield Scott arrived for a visit in 1847 have Mexican elites been this upset with an American.

    Jorge Ramos of Univision almost required sedation.

    When Trump got back to the States, he affirmed that Mexico will be paying for the wall, even if "they don't know it yet."

    Indeed, back on American soil, in Phoenix, the Donald doubled down. Deportations will accelerate when he takes office, beginning with felons. Sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants will face U.S. sanctions. There will be no amnesty, no legalization, no path to citizenship for those who have broken into our country. All laws will be enforced.

    Trump's stance in Mexico City and Phoenix reveals that there is no turning back. The die is cast. He is betting the election on his belief that the American people prefer his stands to Clinton's call for amnesty.

    A core principle enunciated by Trump in Phoenix appears to be a guiding light behind his immigration policy.

    "Anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally has simply spent too much time Washington. … There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people. … Nothing even comes a close second."

    The "well-being of the American people" may be the yardstick by which U.S. policies will be measured in a Trump presidency. This is also applicable to Trump's stand on trade and foreign policy.

    Do NAFTA, the WTO, MFN for China, the South Korea deal, and TPP advance the "well-being of the American people"? Or do they serve more the interests of foreign regimes and corporate elites?

    Some $12 trillion in trade deficits since George H.W. Bush gives you the answer.

    Which of the military interventions and foreign wars from Serbia to Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Yemen to Syria served the "well-being of the American people"?

    Are the American people well-served by commitments in perpetuity to 60- and 65-year-old treaties to wage war on Russia and China on behalf of scores of nations across Eurasia, most of which have been free riders on U.S. defense for decades?

    Trump's "core issue" might be called Americanism.

    Whatever the outcome of this election, these concerns are not going away. For they have arisen out of a deeply dissatisfied and angry electorate that is alienated from the elites both parties.

    Indeed, alienation explains the endurance of Trump, despite his recent difficulties. Americans want change, and he alone offers it.

    In the last two weeks, Trump has seen a slow rise in the polls, matched by a perceptible decline in support for Clinton. The latest Rasmussen poll now has Trump at 40, with Clinton slipping to 39.

    This race is now Trump's to win or lose. For he alone brings a fresh perspective to policies that have stood stagnant under both parties.

    And Hillary Clinton? Whatever her attributes, she is uncharismatic, unexciting, greedy, wonkish, scripted, and devious, an individual you can neither fully believe nor fully trust.

    Which is why the country seems to be looking, again, to Trump, to show them that they will not be making a big mistake if they elect him.

    If Donald Trump can continue to show America what he did in Mexico City, that he can be presidential, he may just become president.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    [Sep 04, 2016] Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Heres why

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed. ..."
    "... The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic, his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal, prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him! ..."
    "... Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government. ..."
    "... Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils. ..."
    "... Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching how the Democrat Party is destroying America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters. Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing to do with racism. ..."
    "... British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine and the protected monopoly markets offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind high tariff walls, ditto Chinese capitalism now. ..."
    "... TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages and working conditions of workers in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving the EU, an EU that has crucified workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose. ..."
    "... Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported them during the election. ..."
    "... It seems noone wants to talk about anything other than vilifying Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. The whole world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals. ..."
    "... The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second amendment. Essentially they're presented with the prospect of their kids spending their working lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future of that elite-orchestrated course of events. What would an American choose? ..."
    "... All Clinton has to offer is more of the same lying and "free trade" deals, and subterfuge and killing. Trump says he's gonna step up, bring the jobs back to America, get the mass of people moving forward again, so Trumps is gonna win this thing. ..."
    "... Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and hopes for the future. Both parties have taken American workers for granted even worse than the Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately. ..."
    "... What we need is a Labor party to represent those of US who have to work to earn a living, as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock manipulation/dividends and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother white blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram of bigots, white laborers and the south overlap almost 100%. ..."
    "... Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches. Trump pillories Big Pharma, unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than Clinton. ..."
    "... So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the Democratis really are. ..."
    "... And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security slipping away at a unprecedented rate. Transnational interests basically rule America, not to mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions have seen through this facade. Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like never before. ..."
    "... Trump is revealing what other candidates refuse to admit: that they are owned before they even step foot into Washington. I mean - Clinton is Goldman and Sachs, TTIP, Monsanto approved! And this is who the Guardian are siding with? Go figure... ..."
    "... I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of which Hillary should clearly be a part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's not as if suddenly the Republican party has grown a set of morals. ..."
    "... Because Sanders will support Hillary as he promised to do -- does that sound like a revolutionary? Bill Clinton invented NAFTA. Get it? ..."
    "... They abandoned the working classes in favour of grabbing middle class votes and relied on working class voters continuing to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". ..."
    "... This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother and a prominent civil rights activist since the 50's, is endorsing Trump. ..."
    "... Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem. We have become a society that promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and make the "other side" be a devil. Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches? ..."
    "... The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer. ..."
    "... Frank offers insights that Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia and India, and whose prolonged illness brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond xenophobia and racism. ..."
    "... Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people. ..."
    "... You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and in the pockets of bankers, that couple is not your friend. ..."
    "... I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return ..."
    "... The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress. ..."
    "... I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11 million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11. ..."
    "... And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is possible. ..."
    "... The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    ...the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message about free trade and its victims

    ....because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump's fan base show up in amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these publications take care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but "blue-collar" is one they persistently overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe that when New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wanted to "engage" a Trump supporter last week, he made one up, along with this imaginary person's responses to his questions.

    When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement, they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable of powering a movement like Trump's, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.

    ... ... ...

    Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame. He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about ... trade.

    It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.

    Trump embellished this vision with another favorite left-wing idea: under his leadership, the government would "start competitive bidding in the drug industry." ("We don't competitively bid!" he marveled – another true fact, a legendary boondoggle brought to you by the George W Bush administration.) Trump extended the critique to the military-industrial complex, describing how the government is forced to buy lousy but expensive airplanes thanks to the power of industry lobbyists.

    ... ... ...

    Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic power brokers, what they call "free trade" is something so obviously good and noble it doesn't require explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.

    To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There's a video going around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey, Mexico and that they're all going to lose their jobs.

    As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we've had in this country since the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.

    Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to "stay competitive" and "the extremely price-sensitive marketplace." A worker shouts "Fuck you!" at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can "share" his "information". His information about all of them losing their jobs.

    But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington's free-market consensus have brought the rest of America.
    Advertisement

    It is worth noting that Trump is making a point of assailing that Indiana air conditioning company from the video in his speeches. What this suggests is that he's telling a tale as much about economic outrage as it is tale of racism on the march. Many of Trump's followers are bigots, no doubt, but many more are probably excited by the prospect of a president who seems to mean it when he denounces our trade agreements and promises to bring the hammer down on the CEO that fired you and wrecked your town, unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    Here is the most salient supporting fact: when people talk to white, working-class Trump supporters, instead of simply imagining what they might say, they find that what most concerns these people is the economy and their place in it. I am referring to a study just published by Working America, a political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class voters in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.

    Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified Democrats, but not because they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect of Trump was his "attitude," the blunt and forthright way he talks. As far as issues are concerned, "immigration" placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one concern: "good jobs / the economy."

    "People are much more frightened than they are bigoted," is how the findings were described to me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America. The survey "confirmed what we heard all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that their kids don't have a future" and that "there still hasn't been a recovery from the recession, that every family still suffers from it in one way or another."

    Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, puts it even more bluntly when I asked him about working-class Trump fans. "These people aren't racist, not any more than anybody else is," he says of Trump supporters he knows. "When Trump talks about trade, we think about the Clinton administration, first with Nafta and then with [Permanent Normal Trade Relations] China, and here in Northeast Indiana, we hemorrhaged jobs."

    "They look at that, and here's Trump talking about trade, in a ham-handed way, but at least he's representing emotionally. We've had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them to represent us."

    Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer.

    What Lewandowski and Nussbaum are saying, then, should be obvious to anyone who's dipped a toe outside the prosperous enclaves on the two coasts. Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll. As Trump says, "we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart. Our infrastructure is falling apart. . . . Our airports are, like, Third World."

    Trump's words articulate the populist backlash against [neo]liberalism that has been building slowly for decades and may very well occupy the White House itself, whereupon the entire world will be required to take seriously its demented ideas.

    Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.

    Arnold Murphy , 2016-03-08 18:45:41
    And here is one good historical reason about who American's really are that they should not vote for Drumph http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/a-charge-to-veterans-no-longer-in-uniform A Charge to Veterans No Longer in Uniform

    Below is a letter that General Jonathan Wainwright sent to Soldiers discharged from the military, following their service in World War II. As our military downsizes and many choose to leave the service, I think this letter reminds us of the charge to continue to reflect the values of our individual services and be examples within our communities.

    To: All Personnel being Discharged from the Army of the United States.

    You are being discharged from the Army today- from your Army. It is your Army because your skill, patriotism, labor, courage and devotion have been some of the factors which make it great. You have been a member of the finest military team in history. You have accomplished miracles in battle and supply. Your country is proud of you and you have every right to be proud of yourselves.

    You have seen, in the lands where you worked and fought and where many of your comrades died, what happens when the people of a nation lose interest in their government. You have seen what happens when they follow false leaders. You have seen what happens when a nation accepts hate and intolerance.

    We are all determined that what happened in Europe and in Asia must not happen to our country. Back in civilian life you will find that your generation will be called upon to guide our country's destiny. Opportunity for leadership is yours. The responsibility is yours. The nation which depended on your courage and stamina to protect it from its enemies now expects you as individuals to claim your right to leadership, a right you earned honorably and which is well deserved.

    Start being a leader as soon as you put on your civilian clothes. If you see intolerance and hate, speak out against them. Make your individual voices heard, not for selfish things, but for honor and decency among men, for the rights of all people.

    Remember too, that No American can afford to be disinterested in any part of his government, whether it is county, city, state or nation.

    Choose your leaders wisely- that is the way to keep ours the country for which you fought. Make sure that those leaders are determined to maintain peace throughout the world. You know what war is. You know that we must not have another. As individuals you can prevent it if you give to the task which lies ahead the same spirit which you displayed in uniform.

    Accept and trust the challenge which it carries. I know that the people of American are counting on you. I know that you will not let them down.

    Goodbye to each an every one of you and to each and every one of you, good luck!

    J.M. WAINWRIGHT

    General, U.S. Army

    Commanding

    Albert Matchett

    Why Americans are supporting him begins to make sense. A lot like here in the UK, our politicians have reduced amount of money that people have available to spent And can not understand why sales turnovers keeps going down.

    No money, No sale. Companies say made abroad equals higher profits but Not if the goods made can not be sold, Because we have to many unemployed or minimum hours contracts or low income people.

    matt88008

    The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic, his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal, prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him!

    Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government.

    Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils.

    Bonnie Parmenter, 2016-03-08 18:30:08
    Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching how the Democrat Party is destroying America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters. Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing to do with racism.

    Protecting America from potential terrorists entering the county is a real issue. We can look what happened in Paris and Cologne. These are concerns of the people of America and they want protection and solutions. It has nothing to do with racism.

    The biggest reason people support Trump is because they trust his financial aptitude. They honestly feel he can bring America back to greatness.

    I personally don't care for his personality and don't completely trust him but I may have to vote for him, considering my other choices. As soon as Rubio and Kasich drop out, Cruz will take off. Rubio, if he truly hates Trump, as he acts, may want to drop out sooner than later.

    Worker, 2016-03-08 18:29:43
    British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine and the protected monopoly markets offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind high tariff walls, ditto Chinese capitalism now.

    British capitalism went into relative decline from the mid nineteenth century because of the opening up those monopoly markets to overseas competition.

    TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages and working conditions of workers in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving the EU, an EU that has crucified workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose.

    If the soft left and that includes much of what passes for the left in the PLP continues to pander to the interests of big capital then the working classes will continue to be alienated from the Labour party.

    To the middle class soft left choose a side, there are only two, labour or capital . If you choose capital you personally maybe ok for a while, but capitalist expansion is now threatening the environment and with it food and water security. Capitalism rests on continuous expansion but is now pushing against natural limits and when capitalist states come under too many restrictions to their expansion you have the perfect recipe for war and in 2016 a war between the largest capitalist states has the risk of going nuclear.

    ChristopherMyers, 2016-03-08 18:29:06
    I'll just bet that if you were to look a little closer, you might find that there are a lot of different races voting for Trump, so stop trying to brand him as racist. That is just another trick the opposition wants you to fall for. The corporations are fearful that they might have to actually give a high paying job to an American, tsk, tsk.
    tonybillbob, 2016-03-08 18:22:48
    It's ironic that a billionaire is leading the inter-class revolution.

    I don't completely buy into the premise (last paragraph) that most liberals are well educated and well off and that it's liberals -- speaking of the electorate -- that have turned their backs on blue collar workers. There are many working-class Democrats -- that's part of Bernie Sanders' base, the youth of America is very liberal and very under-employed, non-Evangelical Black people tend to vote liberal/Democrat -- at least according to the GOP, the Clinton campaign & the polls -- so to state that it's liberals who've turned their backs on the blue collar class is folly.

    Now, the statement that liberal politicians have turned their backs on their working-class base, as well as the working-class Republicans, is very true, and that's a result of too much money in politics. Pandering to lobbyists while ignoring the electorate.

    What I don't understand about the liberal electorate is why so freakin' many low-income voters choose Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Why so many, supposed, educated people (at least smarter than the rank-&-file Republican voter, goes the legend) would vote against their best interests and support a lying, flip-flopping, war-mongering, say-anything-get-elected, establishment crony is beyond comprehension.

    If it comes down to it, at least with Trump you know where his money came from. How, exactly, is it that the Clintons went from being broke as hell after leaving the White House to having a net worth of over $111M in just 16 years? Since Slick Willy left office, except for the past four years, hasn't Hillary always been a government employee? Except, you know, when she's campaigning. She's worth $35M, herself, is there that much money in selling books? If not, then she got paid -- bribed -- quite handsomely to speak at private functions.

    Both Clintons exemplify Democratic politicians who've utterly ignored the working class while pander to and serving only the executive class of America. Ronald Reagan would be proud of both Bill and Hillary Clinton's devotion to the 'trickle down' theory of economics.

    One thing that's important to consider, too, is how voting for politicians who claim to have your back on wedge issues is really shooting yourself in the foot economically. Wedge issues are the crumbs the Establishment allows the electorate to feast on while they (the Establishment) rob the Treasury blind, have their crimes decriminalized, start wars to profiteer from, write policy, off-shore jobs, suppress wedges, evade taxes, degrade the environment, monopolize markets, bankrupt emerging markets, and generally hoard all the economic growth for themselves.

    Friends don't let friends vote for neo-liberalists!

    Hiroku, 2016-03-08 18:16:17
    Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported them during the election.

    As far as racism is concerned, why is it racist to want to send undocumented people out of a country that they entered illegally in the first place?

    This seems to be the general accusation levied against Europeans and Americans (i.e. whites). We seem to have the obligation to take in refugees from all over the world otherwise we are seen as racists. Yet, I see no effort by the Gulf States, Saudi or any other Muslim country taking some of the Syrians. This would make a lot more sense since they have the commonality of language, religion and culture. But nobody deems them to be racists.

    EightEyedSpy, 2016-03-08 18:12:51
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
    Letschat , 2016-03-08 18:11:08
    What a brilliant article. It seems noone wants to talk about anything other than vilifying Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. The whole world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals.
    dublinross, 2016-03-08 18:16:59
    This is probably the first article I've read that gives a clear-eyed account of exactly why Trump is gaining so much support. More of this and less of the sneery pieces would be much more enlightening to those of us who have been baffled by his continuing success.
    Sanibel , 2016-03-08 18:03:55
    People had the opportunity to elect Ross Perot who focused on Trade without using racism, back in 92. Perot, also a billionaire predicted all the catastrophic impact due to free trade and kept warning everybody. The majority decided otherwise...
    thedono, 2016-03-08 17:54:50
    Correct! Even Obama won't use the words "working class"...they are now ' dirty words'.. The working class are fed up being ignored, patronized, lied to, and manipulated with words by politicians in both the US and Australia.

    Politicians think that all they have to do is 'look good' and say the right thing. Then wait a bit, change the words and continue to manipulate things from backrooms.

    Trump doesn't do that-and that is why people are voting for him...

    However, if he got into power he would have to do exactly the same as the others to survive

    Yasser, 2016-03-08 17:51:02
    The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second amendment. Essentially they're presented with the prospect of their kids spending their working lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future of that elite-orchestrated course of events. What would an American choose?
    normanshovel, 2016-03-08 17:49:12
    The Guardian openly abuses blue collar workers on a daily basis and is at a loss to understand why they can't connect with them. This is another non-story.
    anteater1961, 2016-03-08 17:46:16
    All Clinton has to offer is more of the same lying and "free trade" deals, and subterfuge and killing. Trump says he's gonna step up, bring the jobs back to America, get the mass of people moving forward again, so Trumps is gonna win this thing.
    Mint51HenryJ , 2016-03-08 17:40:49
    Almost all of Trump's proposals, as well as those of other candidates, cannot be implemented without the concurrence of Congress. Tariffs must pass both houses, while ratification of treaties requires a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate. A question for each of the so-called debates ought to concern how each candidate intends to convince congress to pass his/her most contentious proposal.
    CivilDiscussion , 2016-03-08 17:37:23
    Trump is awful but he taps into passion, fear and real concerns. If these corrupt phony political parties can't help real people then this is what we get -- Trump, Hillary Clinton and fake revolutionary Bernie Sanders who promised to support the evil Clinton when she wins the rigged nomination. Trump is no worse than the other fake chumps pretending to be our friends.
    Deirdre Mullen , 2016-03-08 17:34:41
    "We liberals..." You disgust me. While you defend Trumps supporters as not entirely consumed with racism as much as fear, as people who actually may have interests in the economy and in trade, as workers who, just maybe, SHOULD have the right to work in an airconditioning factory that ISN'T in Mexico, or China, or Indonesia.... while you defend these not-really-not-totally-racist working class people you excoriate them and continue on your merry little way trashing Trump. Staying safe, staying disgusted with the man, and walking the Party Line like a good little establishment "liberal." The true liberal doesn't exist anymore. Your article sucks. If anyone other than Crass Mr. Trump gets elected to the presidency of this country we will continue down the same road of useless wars for the MIC and Banking Scum, the 1%, whatever you wish to call them and it will be more painful than it is now. Because what's really important is the correct opinion on everything. Not that things change radically and that the working classes of all colors and creeds begin to see some fair shakes, which would happen under Trump.
    I happen to know someone who worked in his company, who didn't even know the man but was on his payroll. It got around to him that this employee had exhausted his health benefits with the company he chose (he had leukemia) and he was hitting up other employees for money to pay his cancer care bills so he could continue treatment. Trump got word of this and didn't even know this person only that he worked for his company - and sent word to the hospital that he guaranteed payment and that the hospital should take care of him as well as possible and he would be responsible. He told the family to keep it a secret, but of course a few people got wind of it. THAT is exactly the opposite of what Mr. Clean Romney did letting an employee drop dead for lack of health insurance, but he'd be SUCH a better president, sooooo caring. Trump is the only one who isn't bought and paid for on the Hill of Vipers and that's what attracts us racist, white, gun-toting, immigrant-hating, blah blah blah fill-in-the-blanks-you-liberal-twit people towards Trump. And those pulling out all the stops to "Stop Trump" are just making it more clear than ever that the presidency is and has been hand picked and cleared as willing to dance on the puppeteer's strings and do the insiders and oligarchy's bidding.
    ony Skaggs , 2016-03-08 17:28:59
    Thomas Frank is often right, but not this time. If working class white Americans of a certain type wanted to support a candidate who is against all this neo-liberal free-trade nonsense, they could easily support Bernie Sanders. He's an outsider like Trump as far as the American political class goes, but has actually done good things as a Senator and stands up for workers. It's interesting that it's not just NAFTA and job losses that these Trump supporters are interested in, it's the xenophobia as well, the anti-Muslim hysteria, and the thuggish behavior of beating down protesters at the Trump rallies. Frank just can't blame the media class for all that...it exists and happens and Trump fans the flames. Trump could care LESS about working class Americans, he cares ONLY about himself - the classic demagogue.
    cally777 , 2016-03-08 17:22:35
    Free trade has undoubted winners and losers, but historically attempts to 'protect' or 'control' a nation's economy have ended badly in stagnation and political authoritarianism. Obvious case in point, the Soviet Union in the latter half of the twentieth century. Conversely opening up the economy to competition seems to do exactly the opposite, eg the Chinese 'economic miracle'.
    A controlled economy might count as 'left-wing' but its the kind of example of Socialism gone bad that socialists feel embarrassed about.

    As for racism, its not hard to pick up the racist signals from Trump, genuine or not, so anyone supporting him has a nose-holding ability which those with moral sensibilities will find difficult. Perhaps 'he/she's a racist but ...' is not such an uncommon stance, yet when it comes to the head of state, its that much harder to turn a blind eye. Of course lots of Germans did it very successfully in the 1930s and 40s.

    BG Davis -> cally777 , 2016-03-08 17:33:25
    One really is reminded of Hitler's fans and Mussolini's fans during the 30s.
    Yasser -> cally777 , 2016-03-08 17:53:19
    Bullshit. Europe is doing better than both America and China. Free trade plus corruption does not equal prosperity. A little less "free trade" and a little less corrupt elites goes a long way towards prosperity.
    Tramontane , 2016-03-08 17:21:29
    Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and hopes for the future. Both parties have taken American workers for granted even worse than the Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately.

    The Republicans have kept most blue collar laborers in their party because they appeal to their bigotry and their religious snobbery. Republicans have made few offers to even attempts to help US because they don't have to and they don't want to.

    Current Democrats are almost as bad, but at least they have a past track record of helping create a vibrant middle class.

    What we need is a Labor party to represent those of US who have to work to earn a living, as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock manipulation/dividends and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother white blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram of bigots, white laborers and the south overlap almost 100%.

    Per_in_Sweden , 2016-03-08 17:21:23
    I believe the KISS principle is popular in America, is that why things go so well for Trump?

    Have I applied the KISS principle Keep It Simple, Stupid. Don't be afraid to ask questions, relax yourself and all else by calling yourself a simple, stupid, snail; I'll try to get there, but you'll have to be pedagogic and it will take enough time, preferably I want to sleep a night on the matter (sound judgement depends (but not only necessary but not sufficient) on considering and weighing the significantly complete set of related aspects, and this complete set may take considerable time to bring to the table another tip; in strong or new intellectual or emotional states keep calm and imagine filter words with your palms covering your ears). Prestige and vanity of own relative worth can be very expensive. If you do a wrong, more or less, try to neutralize the wrong, rather than have the prestigious attitude that direct or implied admittance of wrong is hurting your vain surface, since with accountability and a degree of transparency will ultimately have consequences of the wrong, and by not swiftly correcting them you are accountable for this reluctance too.

    Part of the KISS principle is to remind you of assumptions, explicit and emotional, as well as remind you of what's hidden. To be aware of what you do not know is a way of making emotional assumptions explicit which help in explicit risk assessment. An emotional assumption such as "everything feels fine" can turn into "I assume there is no hidden nearby hostile crocodiles in the Zambezi river we're about to pass into."

    Best Regards,

    /Per

    furtado2001 , 2016-03-08 17:18:00
    Finally, a decent article about Trump on the Guardian...
    lurgee -> ffurtado2001 , 2016-03-08 17:53:55
    Tom Frank is an American writer so the appearance of this article is an unhappy mischance. Normal service will be resumed shortly.
    tabbaasco , 2016-03-08 17:17:14
    So Trump's success is all about trade imbalance and its negative impact on the American working class, which the author perceives as predominantly white. This is far from the truth: many if not most workers in agricultural, custodial, fast food, landscaping, road maintenance...are Africa-American, Hispanics, or undocumented workers.

    Does Trump also speak for those people who work in jobs that have been turned down by the white working class? Would he stand up for them by, for example, calling to raise the minimum wage to $14 an hour?

    ElyFrog , 2016-03-08 17:15:01
    Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches. Trump pillories Big Pharma, unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than Clinton.

    So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the Democratis really are.

    kodicek -> talenttruth , 2016-03-08 17:26:57
    And blah blah blah... Actually, Trump's is a very optimistic picture of the USA.

    And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security slipping away at a unprecedented rate. Transnational interests basically rule America, not to mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions have seen through this facade. Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like never before.

    kodicek , 2016-03-08 17:04:59
    Trump is revealing what other candidates refuse to admit: that they are owned before they even step foot into Washington. I mean - Clinton is Goldman and Sachs, TTIP, Monsanto approved! And this is who the Guardian are siding with? Go figure...
    onevote , 2016-03-08 17:03:38
    I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of which Hillary should clearly be a part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's not as if suddenly the Republican party has grown a set of morals.

    The question of course is how serious is he? Is he true or co-opting Bernie's message? One thing's for certain, he's against increasing the minimum wage.

    "But, taxes too high, wages too high, we're not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is," he told debate moderator Neil Cavuto when asked if he would raise wages. "People have to go out, they have to work really hard and have to get into that upper stratum. But we cannot do this if we are going to compete with the rest of the world. We just can't do it." Politico, 11/12/15

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/donald-trump-minimum-wage-215787#ixzz42Kd1MmTK

    weaver2 , 2016-03-08 16:56:39
    Brilliant, brilliant column! I will add, because no one else calls him on these things, that Obama is still pushing TPP, has increased the number of H1B Visa holders in the US, and is now giving the spouses of H1B Visa holders the right to work, meaning they, too can take a job that might have gone to a US citizen, and Obama has essentially cut the retirement benefits working class seniors have paid for all their lives. Yet no one calls him on these things, except Trump.
    John Kennedy , 2016-03-08 16:54:21
    Where did this general theme of insulting voters come from? Calling Trump supporters racists idiots is no way to win their votes. You can not win an election by being an insulting troller.

    The same people who attack Trump engage in even worse behavior. No wonder Trump will win the election.

    Per_in_Sweden , 2016-03-08 16:50:10
    On Free Trade

    What is your take on free trade? What is your take on protectionism? Well the real question is "What is best for our country?" Work, services and manufacturing of goods, is a dynamic thing. At some times there is lots of work for most people, at some times hardly any work is available.

    The amount of work available is a factor of 3 things, 1. Initiatives to work. 2. Financing of these initiatives. 3 Law and order. Either individuals start their own business through an initiative and if people with money believe in that individual and initiative they get financed as long as there is law and order so that the financing gives a return of investment. Or existing business start their own initiatives with their own money, investors' money or loans.

    When people sit on their money out of fear, lack of quality initiatives or qualified abilities, the economy hurts and people are going to be out of work. It works like a downward spiral, when people have no income, they cannot buy services and goods, and the business can therefore not sell, more people lose their jobs, less people buy and so on.

    On the other hand, if people are hired, more people get money and purchase things from businesses, demand increases, businesses hire more people to meet demand, more people get money, and purchase more things from the businesses. The economy goes in a thriving upward spiral.

    What about trade between nations? Well as you have understood, there is a dynamic component of the economy of a nation. There is an infrastructure, not only roads, electric grids, water and sewage piping, but a business infrastructure. Institutions such as schools, universities, private companies providing education to train the workforce. A network of companies that provide tools, knowledge, material, so that a boss simply can purchase a turn-key solution from the market, after minimal organising, after the financing has been made. These turn-key solutions to provide goods and services to the market and thus make money for the initiative makers and provide both jobs and functions as an equalising of resources. Equalising if the initiative makers take patents, keep business secrets and have abilities that are more competitive than the rich AND do not sell their money-making opportunity to the rich but fight in the market.

    In other words, if you sit on a good initiative and notice you are expanding in the market (and thus other players are declining in their market share, including the rich), don't be stupid.

    Now a hostile nation to your nation, knows about this infrastructure. This infrastructure takes time to build up. One way to fight nations is to destroy their infrastructure by outcompeting them with low prices. All businesses in a sector is out-sourced. But the thing is, if a nation tries to do this, and if you have floating currencies (and thus you have your own currency, which is very important to a nation), your own currency will fall in relative value. (e.g. businesses in China gets dollars for sold goods to USA, sell them (the dollars they got) and buy yuan (the currency in China), this increased sell pressure will cause the dollar to drop in value) If you import more than you export. Therefore your nation's business will have an easier time to sell and export. Thus there is a natural balance.

    But, if your nation borrows money from the hostile nation, then this correction of currency value will not occur. The difference in export and import will be balanced by borrowing money and the currency value will stay the same.

    Thus all your manufacturing businesses and thus the infrastructure can be destroyed within a nation because of imports are more than exports and the nation borrows money.

    Then when the nation is weak and dependent on the industry of the hostile nation a decisive stab in can occur and your nation will be destroyed and taken over by the hostile nation.

    Free trade naturally includes the purchasing of land and property. Thus while we exchange perishable goods for hard land and property, there is a slow over taking of the nation's long term resources, all masked off under the parole of free trade. Like a drug addict we crave for the easy way out buying cheap perishable goods while the land is taken over by foreign owners protected by our own ownership laws. The only way out of this is replacing free trade with regulated trade. In our nation's own interest.

    Thus free trade can be very destructive. It really is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

    Best Regards,

    /Per

    CivilDiscussion , 2016-03-08 16:47:47
    Trump is a disruptor -- and this moribund political economic system deserves disruption. The feeble Democrats could only come up with Sanders (who cringingly promised to support Hillary once she overwhelms him in the rigged system) is not in the same class. Bigoted clown in some ways he expresses the anger millions feel. Get used to it.
    willpodmore , 2016-03-08 16:40:29
    Brilliant article, which demolishes the vicious myth that "America is Racist" as the Huffington Post column announced.
    Sascha Dikiciyan -> Maria Ashot , 2016-03-08 17:04:41
    Im sorry. No matter how smart you like to appear when you commenting on the Guardian after saying things like "Trump is far and away the smartest, brainiest, most intelligent candidate running on either side" how can anyone take your views serious?

    Yeah maybe not all voters are racists. Sure. But most of them still are. Most Trump voters are also extremely uneducated, ignorant and filled with right wing media false fact anger. "To make America great again" I have never laughed so hard in my life before. America isn't in bad shape right now. There are always problems but building a wall (which is hysterical) to save us from immigrants for example is just plain crazy.

    Trump of course inserts real issues like Veterans. Trade. Ok. Its easy to say one thing but when you look at his past, he's ruined various businesses and is currently under investigation for fraud.

    To say that that DT is smart is crazy. The guy cannot articulate anything to save his life and when you look at how protesters get (mis)handled at his rallies how can you even come on here and say the things you do. YOu should be ashamed of yourself. But sure have a President that's ignoring Climate change and you will see where Florida will be in a few years. Ironically they vote for Trump so the joke in the end will be on them.

    This article may have some good points but still, Donald Trump is nothing more but
    an opportunist. He doesn't really give a shit about you, the little white class. He's not intelligent or even capable to LEAD a country like ours. Europe is laughing at us already. The circus was fun for a while but I think its time to get realistic and stop this monkey show for good.

    Alfreda Weiss , 2016-03-08 16:36:41
    Trump/Cruz are monsters who have plans for the take-over of the US. Trump will be like his friend Carl Icahn. He will take all he can in profit. Sell off parts cheap off-shore. Ignore the ex-workers living under a bridge. Cruz the Domionionist Evangelical will say Armageddon is in the Bible as he creates it in the Middle East. Neither man should be running for President, but the system has been captured by the likes of Rupert Murdoch who is drilling for oil in Syria with his friends Cheney and the Rothschilds. The Koch Brothers Father set up the John Birch Society. Jeb Bush from a family of many generations who supported Hitler too. We are seeing the bad karma of the West in bright lights including the poor whites who thought being a white male meant something. They flock to any help they think they can get from the master-con-man Trump or the Bible man Cruz.
    weaver2 -> Alfreda Weiss , 2016-03-08 16:57:10
    You didn't read the article, did you?
    Alfreda Weiss -> weaver2 , 2016-03-08 18:00:26
    Yes. The US was systematically gutted by people like Romney and friends who made fortunes for themselves. One of Trump's best friends, Carl Icahn, the hostile take-over artist, knows exactly how the game is run. It begins by doing and saying anything to get control. Americans are now chum for the sharks and they know it. Following a cheap imitation of Hitler is not the answer. Nor is the Evangelical Armageddon Cruz promised his Father.
    overhere2000 , 2016-03-08 16:30:30
    Trump is just Reagan without the halo.
    USfan , 2016-03-08 16:27:48
    What this article fails to understand is that racism was always an essential feature of Reaganomics. Reagan told the mostly poorer white voters of the south and midwest to vote tax cuts for the 1% on the theory this would increase general prosperity. When that prosperity failed to materialize, the Republicans always blamed minorities: welfare queens, mexican rapists, etc. Racism was essentially a feature of their economic model.

    Now look at Trump's economic model. It's a neoliberal's dream. He doesn't have a meaningful critique of the system - that's Bernie Sanders. Instead, Trump picks fights with the Chinese and Mexicans, to further stoke the racism of his base under the guise of an economic critique. That's just more of the same. It's what Republicans have been doing for three decades.

    The only way in which any of this is new is that Trump fronts the racism instead of hiding it. That has less to do with Trump than with the slightly deranged mindset of white Republicans after 7 years of a black President. You think it's a coincidence these people are lining up for King Birther?

    Sorry, Thomas Frank - this is all about race. There are many flavors of neoliberal critique; Trump has chosen the most flagrantly racist one. His entire appeal begins and largely ends with race. It's the RACISM, stupid. That and little else.

    CivilDiscussion -> USfan , 2016-03-08 16:52:23
    Nope you are wrong. Millions supported Obama but he betrayed almost everyone on the left and the working class. Race is not the issue. Lying is.
    weaver2 -> USfan , 2016-03-08 16:59:18
    You don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who is stupid. Obama is pushing bills that destroy US jobs. Maybe you don't depend on a paycheck to live, but millions of people do. Too bad you are so removed from reality that you can't empathize.
    rippedtanktop -> USfan , 2016-03-08 17:00:15
    'Neoliberalism' is a tired cliche , a revanchist term designed to help pseudo-intellectual millenials sound and feel quasi-intelligent about themselves as they grope, blindly towards a worldview they feel safe about endorsing.
    macmarco , 2016-03-08 16:27:25
    One must also look at the anti-Trump brigade to find many of his audience. Below in no particular order are major reasons why he has millions of supporters.

    The Anti-Trump Brigade

    1. GOP
    2. Tea Party
    3. Politicians, elected officials in DC all parties.
    4. DC media from TV to internet
    5. Romney, Gingrich, Scarborough, Beck and other assorted losers.

    One thing in common they all have very high negatives, particularly the politicians and media outlets.

    Nedward Marbletoe -> macmarco , 2016-03-08 18:43:24
    Yes! I got on the Trump train after seeing Fox News CEO Ailes' horrible press release insulting Trump the day before Fox News was to moderate a GOP debate.

    The lack of journalistic ethics was so egregious... and then when not one other media outlet called Fox on their bullshit, not even NPR... I said hey, it is essential to democracy to treat candidates fairly. they are not treating him fairly! The media hates democracy!?

    So yeah, your point is totally correct.

    Stefano Garavelli , 2016-03-08 16:26:56
    In 2016, anything can happen, but so far the Republican primaries showed a state of severe confusion in the party http://ilmanifesto.global/donald-trumps-fortune/
    RedOnFire , 2016-03-08 16:24:30
    Good article focusing in on what should really concern us - trade. In particular our inability to make goods rather than provide services. This is one of the reasons for the slide in lower middle class lifestyles which is fueling support for Trump
    arbmahla -> RedOnFire , 2016-03-08 16:39:47
    Protectionism can be very destructive. Japan forced Detroit to improve the quality of its cars. Before Toyota and Honda did it, why would GM and Ford want to make a car that lasted 200,000 miles? Cheap foreign labor was only one of the reasons for the decline of US manufacturing.
    ID6693806 -> RedOnFire , 2016-03-08 16:48:59
    Redonfire,
    When I tell one of my sons that globalisation has shafted the european working an d middle class, he says" yes, but what about its creation of a Chinese and Indian middle class"
    I reply that I care as much about them as they care about me.
    weaver2 -> RedOnFire , 2016-03-08 17:00:32
    And "service industry" jobs are also being offshored to call centers and the like. When was the last time you heard a US accent when you called tech support or any other call center?
    ID311139 , 2016-03-08 16:21:24
    ... all of which simply begs the question: "Why are they not turning to Bernie Sanders, who is also against free trade give-aways to the rich"
    Ross Grandanette -> ID311139 , 2016-03-08 16:43:35
    I think mostly because he said he will raise their taxes. So many of Sanders supporters are quite young and pay little or no taxes.
    CivilDiscussion -> ID311139 , 2016-03-08 16:49:49
    Because Sanders will support Hillary as he promised to do -- does that sound like a revolutionary? Bill Clinton invented NAFTA. Get it?
    Jason Holland -> ID311139 , 2016-03-08 17:02:14
    because ultimately, I feel based upon listening to my family members who are working class white folks, they feel that Bernie is a communist, not a socialist, and they don't trust that (or likely really know the difference). So unfortunately for Da Bern, he will never be able to attract most of these votes, even though he and The great Hair have (in general) some of the same policies.
    The real question is why will the left not turn to the Hair, and get 70% of what they want, having to listen to bragado and Trump_vs_deep_states as the trade off?
    georgeat4 , 2016-03-08 16:19:49

    He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants.

    I have to say this doesn't seem wildly outrageous - many of them will be working in the black economy, and helping to further undercut wages in the US. Actually seems quite reasonable. Trump is still a buffoon, but why throw this at him, when there is soo much else to go at?

    TwistedCripple , 2016-03-08 16:17:40
    The weakness of Labour under Blair has caused the same problems. They abandoned the working classes in favour of grabbing middle class votes and relied on working class voters continuing to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". It worked for "New Labour" for a while, then us peasants got fed up with the Hampstead Set running the show for their own class and we started voting UKIP or, as in my case, despairing and not voting at all.

    Thank God Jeremy Corbyn has put Labour back on track & pushed the snobbish elements of the people's party back to the margins!

    ehmaybe , 2016-03-08 16:17:34
    This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother and a prominent civil rights activist since the 50's, is endorsing Trump.
    Sunset Blue , 2016-03-08 16:17:14
    The reason is because the media and most of the people are involved in character debates about him and that's just a game. You support "your guy" and try to denigrate "their guy". It's a game of insults and no-one ever won an argument by insulting their opponent.

    Trump policies show that he wants a trade war, that he wants to build a wall, which will do little or nothing, at great cost, and he wants to exclude Muslims, when Americans have experienced more attacks from Christian Terrorists, and American civilians are still 25 times more likely to die falling out of bed than in a terrorist attack.

    CivilDiscussion -> Sunset Blue , 2016-03-08 16:56:11
    Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem. We have become a society that promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and make the "other side" be a devil. Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches?
    westerndevil , 2016-03-08 16:11:51
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    bucktoaster , 2016-03-08 16:11:06
    and who signed the job-crushing NAFTA legislation that allowed companies to move jobs offshore? Bill Clinton........ the Republican in Democrat clothing.
    Enduroman , 2016-03-08 16:11:06
    By "Ordinary American", I assume you mean "White Christian".
    brexitman , 2016-03-08 16:10:06
    Good article , obviously his support comes from those that Washington does not serve and reflects badly on democracy in America.
    3sisters , 2016-03-08 16:10:05

    The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer.

    I hear a bell ringing somewhere.

    bookie88 , 2016-03-08 16:09:45
    "Neo-Liberalism" was given an impetus push with the waning days of the Carter administration when de-regulation became a policy.....escalated tremendously during Reagan and the rest is history......participated in by both major US political parties.

    They never looked back and never looked deep into the consequences for the average folk. Famously said, "You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube", applies to global trade also. The toothpaste is out of the tube. Any real change will be regressive, brutal and probably bring about more wars around the globe.

    What has to change and can is the political attitude of the upcoming political leaders and the publics willingness to focus more on what a, "progressive" society should be.
    To totally eliminate the abject greed inherent in the "free economies" (an oxymoron if ever) that is crushing most of the working classes around the world under "global free trade (agreements)" will be impossible.

    A re-focus on what is meant by the "commons" would help enormously. And an explanation that would appeal to the common folk by pointing out the natural opportunities to all of us (with the exception of the true elites) by developed intellectuals and common folk leaders would also benefit all.

    By the "commons" I mean:

    A "commons" focus on a total rebuilding of our rusted, commercially destroyed environments all across this country (and across the world).

    Capitalism is a game.
    There needs to be a firewall between the free flows of rabid global capital and the true needs of a progressive society.
    The game of capitalism needs rules and referees to back up those rules.
    There has to be political/public will to back up those rules and referees with force of law.

    We need a total new vision for the globe.
    Without it we will succumb to total social/economic chaos.
    We here in the US have no true progressive vision exhibited by any candidate.
    Bernie Sanders comes close but no cigar.
    Hillary C. is trying to exert the vision of seeking the presidency as a kind of, "family business."
    Trump is appealing to many who have been trashed by globalization.......

    Continuous warfare is not a foreign policy. Greed and narcissism is not a national one. We continue to fail in history lessons.

    KarenInSonoma , 2016-03-08 16:05:55
    As I would expect, Thomas (The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule; What's the Matter With Kansas?)

    Frank offers insights that Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia and India, and whose prolonged illness brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond xenophobia and racism.

    But no, I could never vote for him.

    CivilDiscussion -> KarenInSonoma , 2016-03-08 16:58:00
    Yet if you vote for Hillary Clinton you get more of the same.
    George Wolff -> KarenInSonoma , 2016-03-08 16:58:12
    I'm touched by your family's tragedy Karen, and glad that it has not made you fall for Trump as Mr. Frank suggested you might. My best wishes.
    George Wolff , 2016-03-08 16:05:40
    Everybody knows that Trump sends jobs overseas and employs illegals, even his devotees. This destroys Frank's argument that people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively wants to help them.
    willpodmore -> George Wolff , 2016-03-08 16:48:24
    Frank did not write that "people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively wants to help them." As Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, said, "We've had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them to represent us."

    Ill-considered trade deals (NAFTA ended a million jobs) and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll.

    Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people.

    CivilDiscussion -> George Wolff , 2016-03-08 16:59:24
    You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and in the pockets of bankers, that couple is not your friend.
    weaver2 -> George Wolff , 2016-03-08 17:04:32
    Frank's argument is on what his followers believe to be true. Frank admits that their beliefs may be naive. He is writing on the reasons for Trump's popularity.
    Derrick Helton , 2016-03-08 16:04:15
    Beyond who or what i vote for, It is nice to see a news article focusing on issues and platforms instead of one of the many attacks or other issues seperating politics from legislation. I want news on candidates positions, ideas, plans. This circus of he said she said and the other junk used to sway votes or up ratings is beyond dumb.
    twelveyards , 2016-03-08 16:03:03
    Free trade is like all other good ideas, it only works if it is kept in balance.
    Understanding the internal structure of the Atom is a good idea. Proliferating Hydrogen bombs, the same idea taken way too far..
    And as for bad human ideas, well just the worst thing on the planet.
    People support Trump and the very different Corbyn because they can see that that our current version of Free trade is hopelessly inefficient and screws everybody except the very rich.
    trimlimbs , 2016-03-08 16:02:54
    [Neo]Libers are not american, nor do they care if we suffer. They want to destroy this country.
    ID8031074 -> trimlimbs , 2016-03-08 16:12:19
    They care about power. Progressives don't give a sod about the minorities or supposedly oppressed groups they bang on about. They want power and they are getting lots of it. When the West burns, those progressives who acquired enough power will be safe inside their walled fortresses with their bodyguards.
    bobmacy , 2016-03-08 16:01:55
    Its' a sad truth that corporations have used trade deals to increase profits by shipping jobs to areas where pay is sometimes 1/10 of pay in US. Sanders is the only other politician voicing concern. In fact Sanders is responsible for the stall on the next trade deal with China and Japan.

    Japan and China uses devaluation s a trade barrier and World Trade does nothing. we are constrained in our ability to devalue our currency because of the effect on the stock market. many Americans rely on money invested into stocks and bonds.

    I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return , like 60/40, like in China and Japan where the return is more like 80 for them 20 for us.

    holiday66, 2016-03-08 16:01:03
    Yes, Trump does talk about jobs/economy but let us not forget that the Third Reich also promised to end runaway inflation and unemployment. To a large extent, they did low unemployment levels. However, racism was an important galvanizing factor.

    In the Middle Ages, racism was a galvanizing factor in the Crusades. Muslims dominated Mediterranean trade and stop it, European monarchy used racism against Moors/Saracens/Turks to garner support against the Muslims at that time.

    So, for history,s sake, let,s just call a spade a spade..........Trump is racist and so are his supporters (among other things).

    Pseudaletia, 2016-03-08 16:00:59
    While I'm no fan of big corporations or NAFTA (which was negotiated by Bush #1 and Brian Mulroney, both conservatives), no one seems to be talking about the other side of the equation - demand. Perhaps jobs are going to Mexico, China etc. in part because consumers won't pay the cost of a product manufactured in rich nations. Small example - a big outdoors co-op here in Canada used to sell paniers and other bike bags made by a company in Canada. Consumers would not buy them because they cost more, so the firm closed down and that co-op's bike equipment now comes from Viet Nam.

    If Trump forces Apple or Ford to return jobs to the US, will the products they make be too expensive for the consumers? If a tariff wall goes up around the US, will the notoriously frugal American shoppers start to get annoyed because, while they have t-shirt factories in wherever state, the products they want cost more than what they want (or can) pay for?

    I don't have any special insight into the effects on consumer prices of tariffs, but I do think it's at least prudent to include that in the discussion before starting a trade war.

    Elizabeth Chubbuck , 2016-03-08 15:59:48
    Hilarious.. talk about "I love the uneducated!" Yeah because everything he rants about with free trade he has benefited from.. let us not forget MADE IN CHINA Trump suits.
    ID8031074 -> Elizabeth Chubbuck , 2016-03-08 16:13:55
    Are you being racist against the Chinese? I think maybe YOU are a XENOPHOBE!
    Neil24 , 2016-03-08 15:59:08
    The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress.
    ID8031074 Neil24 , 2016-03-08 16:00:03
    Wonderfully idealist... there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
    ID8031074 , 2016-03-08 15:56:28
    I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11 million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11.

    Progressives may be surprised to hear that Japan is a wonderful country, not only free from imported terrorism but also mind-boggling safe. I mean "leave your laptop on the street all day and it won't get stolen" safe. They also have cool anime and Pokemon and toilets which are like the Space Shuttle.

    And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is possible.

    By the way, they think Europeans are absolute INSANE to let in these touchy-feely economic migrants. They're right, and Europe is going to pay one hell of a pric

    Neil24

    The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Gowdy FBI barely probed Clinton about intent on emails

    Aug 25, 2016 | TheHill

    FBI officials failed to aggressively question Hillary Clinton about her intentions in setting up a private email system, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) claimed this week, exposing a potential key vulnerability in the bureau's investigation.

    "I didn't see that many questions on that issue," Gowdy told Fox News's "The Kelly File" on Wednesday evening.

    The detail could be crucial for Republican critics of the FBI's decision not to recommend charges be filed against the former secretary of State for mishandling classified information.

    ... ... ...

    "I looked to see what witnesses were questioned on the issue of intent, including her," he said on Fox News. "I didn't see that many questions on that issue."

    House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz(R-Utah) has called for the FBI to create unclassified versions of the Clinton case file that it gave to Congress, so that the material can be released publicly. Gowdy reiterated the call on Fox News.

    "There's no reason in the world you could not and should not be able to look at the same witness interviews that I had to go to Washington and look at in a classified setting," he said.

    [Sep 03, 2016] The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led global neoliberal empire. So Carthago delenda est is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin. ..."
    "... The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington. ..."
    angrybearblog.com

    likbez , September 3, 2016 9:42 pm

    All this anti-Russian warmongering from esteemed commenters here is suspect. And should be taken with a grain of salt.

    The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led global neoliberal empire (with EU and Japan as major vassals),

    So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin.

    The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington.

    That means that as bad as Trump is, he is a safer bet than Hillary, because the latter is a neocon warmonger, which can get us in the hot war with Russia. And this is the most principal, cardinal issue of the November elections.

    All other issues like climate change record (although nuclear winter will definitely reverse global warming), Supreme Court appointments, etc. are of secondary importance.

    As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."

    [Sep 03, 2016] Putin on DNC breach Does it even matter who hacked this data

    It is amazing how partisan and brainwashed commenters are. Reminds me "letter of workers and peasants to Pravda" type of mails.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "There's no need to distract the public's attention from the essence of the problem by raising some minor issues connected with the search for who did it," Putin said in an interview with Bloomberg . ..."
    "... The DNC is desperate to put the focus on who hacked their email rather than on the email's content. The story is in what the Democrats really think and how it's different then their public persona. ..."
    "... I hate to admit it but .... Putin Dropped The Truth Bomb! ..Look at the content ..."
    "... Who cares where the TRUTH comes from? as long as it is the truth! The real SHAME is that our own press has been out to lunch on finding the truth. Putin , Assage, Snowden...I'll take truth from them over HRC lies any day! ..."
    "... It doesn't matter either way. There's no law anyone's willing to prosecute and no law enforcement agency who will investigate. This is all for nothing more than archival purposes. But it won't change anything. Hillary could be caught trading Cartel drugs for sex slaves in order to generate cash to give to Iran to pay the US government secretly to procure an atomic weapon and it would make no difference. ..."
    "... The US politicos always need a bogeyman to blame. Today, it's Russia. ..."
    "... It was Russia yesterday too. ..."
    "... Yea, we are familiar with using Russia. It's an old playbook. ..."
    "... To quote the democratic nominee ... 'what difference, at this point, does it make?" ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | TheHill

    Russian leader Vladimir Putin denied that his country had any involvement in the email hacks and WikiLeaks releases that led to the resignations of several Democratic Party officials.

    "There's no need to distract the public's attention from the essence of the problem by raising some minor issues connected with the search for who did it," Putin said in an interview with Bloomberg.

    "But I want to tell you again, I don't know anything about it, and on a state level Russia has never done this."

    Addison Jacobs

    The DNC is desperate to put the focus on who hacked their email rather than on the email's content. The story is in what the Democrats really think and how it's different then their public persona.

    Hard Little Machine • a day ago
    Perfect retort to Hillary's Retards.
    only1j > Hard Little Machine • a day ago
    I hate to admit it but .... Putin Dropped The Truth Bomb! ..Look at the content
    lostinnm > Hard Little Machine • a day ago
    Who cares where the TRUTH comes from? as long as it is the truth! The real SHAME is that our own press has been out to lunch on finding the truth. Putin , Assage, Snowden...I'll take truth from them over HRC lies any day!

    Hard Little Machine > lostinnm • a day ago

    It doesn't matter either way. There's no law anyone's willing to prosecute and no law enforcement agency who will investigate. This is all for nothing more than archival purposes. But it won't change anything. Hillary could be caught trading Cartel drugs for sex slaves in order to generate cash to give to Iran to pay the US government secretly to procure an atomic weapon and it would make no difference.

    Depending on how old you are - this is not the country or A country you're familiar with. That one was shot in the head and buried in a shallow grave.

    KhadijahMuhammad • a day ago

    The US politicos always need a bogeyman to blame. Today, it's Russia.

    BecauseReasons > KhadijahMuhammad • a day ago

    It was Russia yesterday too.

    KhadijahMuhammad > BecauseReasons • a day ago

    Yea, we are familiar with using Russia. It's an old playbook.

    Rich Dudley

    To quote the democratic nominee ... 'what difference, at this point, does it make?"

    [Sep 03, 2016] Buying access is the same as putting a stack of cash into someone's pocket to get them to vote one way or another on a bill of interest

    Notable quotes:
    "... Does it get money because of the Clintons involvement in raising money? Undoubtedly, without their participation it can't raise anywhere near that amount of money, and the reason is that their high public profile means that people believe that by giving to them they can influence policy, ..."
    angrybearblog.com

    J.Goodwin, August 31, 2016 10:35 am

    Low level personnel in the US government are expected to reject gifts, or if culturally they cannot, then they turn them over to their agency, unless it is something like a coffee or a sandwich.

    There is an expectation that people are going to not just not actually corrupt their job by doing favors for people who give them gifts or do them favors, but that they will avoid the appearance of corruption that is generated by accepting gifts.

    The supreme court doesn't agree with that anymore. Anyone can accept any kind of bribe as long as they don't let it influence their actions. You can't see the desk for the treasure that's being dumped onto political tables to fund campaigns and line their personal pockets.

    This is a foreign practice, one that is corrupt and should be rooted out nationally. Accepting gifts creates a corrupting environment, no matter what the recipient does, because EVERYONE understands that the gift is intended to influence policy or gain access so that the person can influence policy. The person giving the gift knows it, or they wouldn't give it, the person receiving the gift knows it, but "deep down in their honest hearts" they're not going to allow it to influence their work and decisions?

    No of course not. Buying access is the same as putting a stack of cash into someone's pocket to get them to vote one way or another on a bill of interest.

    Does the Clinton foundation do good work? Sure. Does it get money because of the Clintons involvement in raising money? Undoubtedly, without their participation it can't raise anywhere near that amount of money, and the reason is that their high public profile means that people believe that by giving to them they can influence policy, even if those people are not in office (through backchannels and whispers and introductions).

    Does every person donating to the Clinton foundation want to influence policy, or are they primarily motivated by wanting to fund it's good works? This is impossible to tell. Even someone as prominent and perhaps morally blameless Elie Wiesel isn't there to eat cookies and have tea and talk about the weather if he's in Hillary Clinton's office. That is not what he is there for. That kind of meeting is not purely a social call, it's an effort to influence policy, whether it is related to statements on the Armenian genocide or the Sudan or god knows what.

    Is he a person that she should meet with, whether he gives a donation to her foundation or not? Maybe that is her job. Probably most of these meetings are that way. That's why public officials are expected to put investments and charities into trusts and blinds and under separate management when they're in office, to help establish the boundary between their public responsibilities and their private interests including their charitable interests.

    It doesn't matter to me whether she did anything that she shouldn't have done, legally. The letter of the law is insufficient to dictate the actions of moral people. Is it disqualifying? She's already been disqualified in my mind, this is just another thing.

    Is it disturbing and annoying to me to see the double standard where promoters are willing to weasel and explain away whatever the Clintons have done that for any person on the other side of the aisle would be moral issues that disqualify them from office?

    [Sep 03, 2016] After more then a year non-stop running anti-trump hysteria is losing its grip with the voters

    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    timbers , September 3, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    Something's not working:

    Trump Leads Clinton In Latest Reuters Poll

    http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_DS_13/filters/LIKELY:1/dates/20160601-20160831/type/day

    One headline suggests Team Clinton might whip another conflict (Ukraine?) to help her poll numbers.

    Clinton polling like this after spending so much $ attacking Trump with the media on her side while Trump spent nearly nothing – WOW.

    Roger Smith , September 3, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    Where does it show him leading? When I went just now he was down 36 to 41.

    timbers , September 3, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Hmm…not sure why you're getting that…I see 41-40. Dated 8-31 maybe it's too old?

    Steve H. , September 3, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    The numbers on the right change depending on where your cursor is, that's probably what happened.

    allan , September 3, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    Impossible. Let me Krug-splain that to you:

    If you are still on the fence in the Democratic primary, or still persuadable, you should know that Vox interviewed a number of political scientists about the electability of Bernie Sanders, and got responses ranging from warnings about a steep uphill climb to predictions of a McGovern-Nixon style blowout defeat. …

    On electability, by all means consider the evidence and reach your own conclusions. But do consider the evidence - don't decide what you want to believe and then make up justifications. The stakes are too high for that, and history will not forgive you.

    From February.

    timbers , September 3, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Well ok then obviously Putin is now hacking the Reuters polls now, too.

    From the always apocalyptic ZeroHedge:

    Trump's rise in popularity began when he started reaching out to the black and hispanic communities and Hillary's slide began as more and more disturbing facts were exposed of Hillary's time as Secretary of State.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 3, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Clinton is the Fool-Me-Twice candidate here.

    First, Bill. Then, Hillary.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 3, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    The money raised in August will come in handy.

    I suggest more phone calls from the DNC to more media executives.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Why on the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox pressitutes (sorry moderators) peppered Trump with hard-hitting questions

    Notable quotes:
    "... Do it her way, or wish you had. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Steve H. , September 3, 2016 at 9:20 am

    – "Murdoch told Ailes he wanted Fox's debate moderators - Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace - to hammer Trump on a variety of issues. Ailes, understanding the GOP electorate better than most at that point, likely thought it was a bad idea. "Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee," Ailes told a colleague around this time. But he didn't fight Murdoch on the debate directive.

    On the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox moderators peppered Trump with harder-hitting questions." [Roger's Angels]

    Fascinating article, including tactics on taking down the powerful. "It took 15 days to end the mighty 20-year reign of Roger Ailes at Fox News, one of the most storied runs in media and political history."

    Robert Hahl , September 3, 2016 at 11:51 am

    "Making things look worse for Ailes, three days after Carlson's suit was filed, New York published the accounts of six other women who claimed to have been harassed by Ailes over the course of three decades. " 6 More Women Allege That Roger Ailes Sexually Harassed Them

    So, who had that story cooking and ready to serve? Call me a conspiracy nut, but one of Hillary's big problems is (or was) her husband's womanizing. Now right wingers are worse!

    Robert Hahl , September 3, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    p.s. I am working on campaign slogans for Hillary how about this one:

    Do it her way, or wish you had.

    Maybe that one should wait until after the election.

    fresno dan , September 3, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    Steve H.
    September 3, 2016 at 9:20 am

    My comment is in moderation limbo – how similar to Catholic limbo, I have no idea…
    Anyway, the point I always make is that Murdoch is not ideologically and/or repub conservative – other than he believes he should be able to make as much money as possible. His interest in Ailes was always primarily the ability of Ailes to bring in great profits for Fox.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Trump and Fox news

    Notable quotes:
    "... The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside Fox. The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used to build a loyal audience at Fox News - especially race and class - and used them to stoke barely containable outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    fresno dan , September 3, 2016 at 7:48 am

    Also, Ailes has made the Murdochs a lot of ­money - Fox News generates more than $1 billion annually, which accounts for 20 percent of 21st Century Fox's profits - and Rupert worried that perhaps only Ailes could run the network so successfully. "Rupert is in the clouds; he didn't appreciate how toxic an environment it was that Ailes created," a person close to the Murdochs said. "If the money hadn't been so good, then maybe they would have asked questions."

    What NBC considered fireable offenses, Murdoch saw as competitive advantages. He hired Ailes to help achieve a goal that had eluded Murdoch for a decade: busting CNN's cable news monopoly. Back in the mid-'90s, no one thought it could be done. "I'm looking forward to squishing Rupert like a bug," CNN founder Ted Turner boasted at an industry conference. But Ailes recognized how key wedge issues - race, religion, class - could turn conservative voters into loyal viewers.
    ….
    The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside Fox. The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used to build a loyal audience at Fox News - especially race and class - and used them to stoke barely containable outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives.

    Where that outrage is channeled after the election - assuming, as polls now suggest, Trump doesn't make it to the White House - is a big question for the Republican Party and for Fox News. Trump had a complicated relationship with Fox even when his good friend Ailes was in charge; without Ailes, it's plausible that he will try to monetize the movement he has galvanized in competition with the network rather than in concert with it. Trump's appointment of Steve Bannon, chairman of Breitbart, the digital-media upstart that has by some measures already surpassed Fox News as the locus of conservative energy, to run his campaign suggests a new right-wing news network of some kind is a real possibility. One prominent media executive told me that if Trump loses, Fox will need to try to damage him in the eyes of its viewers by blaming him for the defeat.
    =======================================
    Just to reiterate a point I have made time and again, with Murdoch it is all about the money.
    It will indeed be ironic if Fox news collapses because the ultimate outcome of their brand of "conservatism" failed to become president.
    I can see the new "network" questioning whether that Australian, an internationalist, really wants whats best for America…

    Robert Hahl , September 3, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    It looks like Roger Ailes will be available to run Trump TV, starting Wednesday, November 9, 2016. Does he have a non-compete to worry about?

    [Sep 03, 2016] Dont Underestimate How Much Steve Bannon Can Damage Hillary Clinton

    Aug 29, 2016 |

    Years ago, Seinfeld royalties freed Steve Bannon, the new CEO of Trump's presidential campaign, from needing to work for a living, allowing him to throw himself into extremist and racist alt-right politics.

    Working in the film business, I briefly met the Donald Trump Republican presidential campaign's new CEO, Steve Bannon, during the 1990s when he was a Hollywood investment banker. As one producer whom Bannon helped raise capital for told me, even back then he was an angry, racist, egregiously aggressive, and inappropriately temperamental character.

    Bannon was also whip smart with a sophisticated understanding of how the media works.

    Inside the liberal bubble, Democrats may be taking Bannon's appointment to help run Trump's campaign as a something of a joke. But, at their peril, they underestimate Bannon's ability to harm Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee.

    Bannon was one of the early Harvard MBA-type financial pirates who realized that Wall Street money could be tapped to finance film and television, often with disastrous results for the investors but with great results for the Hollywood studios and the financial engineers like Bannon who brokered the deals.

    In the late '80s-early '90s, Wall Street discovered that intellectual property like movies and television and the companies that owned them could be bought, sold and traded just like hard assets such as real estate and commodities. Bannon engineered some of those transactions, first as a specialist at Goldman Sachs, then at his own boutique investment bank Bannon & Co., and briefly in partnership with a volatile manager Jeff Kwatinetz (whose first claim to fame was discovering the heavy metal band Korn and managing The Backstreet Boys).

    Bannon was tough and merciless. It was Bannon who personally stuck the shiv in the heart of former superagent and Disney President Michael Ovitz, effectively ending the career of the man who had been known as the most powerful person in Hollywood.

    After being fired by Disney, Ovitz set out to create a powerful new entertainment company called the American Management Group, with clients like Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, in which Ovitz invested over $100 million of his own money. (I remember visiting AMG's new offices, the most expensive and lavish in Beverly Hills, with millions of dollars in art by the likes of Mark Rothko and Jasper Johns adorning the walls.) But AMG was an abject failure, bleeding millions of dollars a month, while Ovitz desperately sought a buyer. Finally, the only available buyer was Kwatinetz and Bannon.

    According to Vanity Fair , Bannon went alone to see Ovitz and offered him $5 million, none in cash. After a moment of silence, Ovitz told Bannon, "If I didn't know you personally, I'd throw you out of the room." But out of options, Ovitz ended up selling to Kwatinetz and Bannon's company, effectively ending Ovitz's legendary Hollywood career. (Remember that, Hillary.)

    Bannon's smartest (or luckiest) deal was brokering the sale of Rob Reiner's company, Castle Rock Entertainment, to Ted Turner. In lieu of part of its brokerage fee, Bannon & Co. agreed to take a piece of the future syndication revenues from five TV shows, one of which turned out to be "Seinfeld." The rest is history.

    The Seinfeld royalties freed Bannon (with a reported net worth of $41 million) from needing to work for a living, allowing him to try his hand at producing (including the Sean Penn-directed "Indian Runner" and a number of right-wing documentaries) and then to throw himself into extremist and racist alt-right politics.

    He invested $1 million in a laudatory film about Sarah Palin and became a close confidante. He then attached himself to Andrew Breitbart and took over Breitbart News after Andrew Breitbart's sudden death at 43, moving the already far-right website closer to the openly white nationalist alt-right. There he became a major advocate for Trump before being tapped to help run his campaign.

    But Bannon's real danger doesn't come so much from his work with Breitbart News, which plays mostly to the angry, racist white base. It comes more from the Bannon-funded Government Accountability Institute, a research institute staffed with some very smart and talented investigative journalists, data scientists and lawyers.

    GAI's staff does intensive and deep investigative research digging up hard-to-find, but well-documented dirt on major politicians and then feeding it to the mainstream media to disseminate to the general public.

    Among other things, its staff has developed protocols to access the so-called "deep web," which consists of a lot of old or useless information and information in foreign languages which don't show up in traditional web searches, but often contains otherwise undiscoverable and sometimes scandalous information which Bannon then feeds to the mainstream media.

    For example, Bannon is responsible for uncovering former liberal New York congressman Anthony Weiner (husband of Hillary Clinton's personal aide Huma Abedin) tweeting photos of his crotch to various women. Bannon hired trackers to follow Weiner's Twitter account 24 hours a day until they eventually uncovered the infamous crotch shots. They released them to the mass media, effectively ending Weiner's political career. (Remember that, Hillary.)

    Bannon's mantra for GAI is "Facts get shares, opinions get shrugs." GAI's strategy is to feed damaging, fact-based stories that will get headlines in the mainstream media and change mass perceptions. According to Bloomberg , "GAI has collaborated with such mainstream media outlets as Newsweek, ABC News, and CBS's "60 Minutes" on stories ranging from insider trading in Congress to credit card fraud among presidential campaigns. It's essentially a mining operation for political scoops."

    One of Bannon's key insights is that economic imperatives have caused mainstream media outlets to drastically cut back budgets for investigative reporting. "The modern economics of the newsroom don't support big investigative reporting staffs," says Bannon. "You wouldn't get a Watergate, a Pentagon Papers today, because nobody can afford to let a reporter spend seven months on a story. We can. We're working as a support function."

    So GAI's strategy is to spend weeks and months doing the fact-based research that investigative reporters in the mainstream media no longer have the resources to do, creating a compelling story line, and then feeding the story to investigative reporters who, whatever their personal political views, are anxious in their professional capacity to jump on. As a key GAI staffer says, "We're not going public until we have something so tantalizing that any editor at a serious publication would be an idiot to pass it up and give a competitor a scoop."

    It's likely no accident that in the week since Bannon officially joined the Trump campaign, media attention has shifted from focusing primarily on Trump's gaffes to potential corrupting contributions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for access to Secretary of State Clinton.

    GAI's biggest, and most effective project has been to uncover the nexus between Bill and Hillary's paid speeches, contributions to the Clinton Foundation by corrupt oligarchs and billionaires, and access to the State Department by donors. The research culminated in the book "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweitzer, president of GAI, and published by mainstream publisher Harpers.

    The back cover of "Clinton Cash" summarizes its premise:

    "The Clintons typically blur the lines between politics, philanthropy, and business. Consider the following: Bill flies into a Third World country where he spends time in the company of a businessman. A deal is struck. Soon after, enormous contributions are made to the Clinton Foundation, while Bill is commissioned to deliver a series of highly paid speeches. Some of these deals require approval or review by the US government and fall within the purview of a powerful senator and secretary of state. Often the people involved are characters of the kind that an American ex-president (or the spouse of a sitting senator, secretary of state, or presidential candidate) should have nothing to do with."

    Bannon and Schweitzer have so far failed to prove any explicit quid pro quo. But they're highly successful at making the nexus between the Clinton Foundation, Bill and Hillary Clinton's paid speeches, and special access for donors feel dirty and unseemly.

    Before and after its publication, "Clinton Cash" got considerable play in the mainstream media. The New York Times ran a front-page story with the headline, "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal," drawing on research from "Clinton Cash."

    In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, Larry Lessig, Harvard Law professor and progressive crusader against money in politics concluded, "On any fair reading, the pattern that Schweitzer has charged is corruption." And it seems that Bannon and Schweitzer have more damaging research on the Clintons that they will drip out through the campaign. Schweitzer has warned that more emails are coming showing Clinton's State Department doing favors for foreign oligarchs.

    Bannon's strategy may not be enough to win the White House for Trump. But it will almost certainly do further damage to Clinton. Voters already think Clinton is less trustworthy than Trump. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, 53 percent of likely voters say Trump is not honest (with 42 percent saying he is honest). But a huge 66 percent of voters say Clinton is not honest, compared to 29 percent who say she is.

    Bannon's work for Trump could drive Clinton's honesty score even lower. Clinton's core strategy has been to disqualify Trump as a potential president and commander-in-chief among a majority of voters. Bannon's strategy is to do the same for Clinton.

    Faced with a choice between two presidential candidates whom a large swath of voters find untrustworthy and distasteful, Trump's outrageousness may still enable Clinton to grind out a victory from a sullen electorate. But it's going to get even uglier. And even if Clinton wins, popular distrust could harm her ability to govern.

    In that context, it would be a huge mistake for Democrats and the Clinton campaign to underestimate Steve Bannon. This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

    Miles Mogulescu Miles Mogulescu is an entertainment attorney/business affairs executive, producer, political activist and writer. Professionally, he is a former senior vice president at MGM. He has been a lifelong progressive since the age of 12 when his father helped raise money for Dr. Martin Luther King, who was a guest in his home several times. More recently, he organized a program on single-payer health care at the Take Back America Conference, a two-day conference on Money in Politics at UCLA Law School, and "Made in Cuba," the largest exhibition of contemporary Cuban art ever held in Southern California. He co-produced and co-directed Union Maids , a film about three women union organizers in Chicago in the 1930s and '40s, which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Emails Raise New Questions About Clinton Foundation Ties to State Dept

    Notable quotes:
    "... A top aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department agreed to try to obtain a special diplomatic passport for an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in 2009, according to emails released Thursday, raising new questions about whether people tied to the Clinton Foundation received special access at the department. ..."
    "... The exchange about the passport, between Mr. Band and Huma Abedin, who was then a top State Department aide to Mrs. Clinton, was included in a set of more than 500 pages of emails made public by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that sued for their release. ..."
    "... "Need get me/justy and jd dip passports," Mr. Band wrote to Ms. Abedin on July 27, 2009, referring to passports for himself and two other aides to Mr. Clinton, Justin Cooper and John Davidson. ..."
    "... Traveling with a former president does not convey any special diplomatic status, the State Department indicated in a statement regarding the emails. "Diplomatic passports are issued to Foreign Service officers or a person having diplomatic or comparable status," the statement said. ..."
    "... "Any individuals who do not have this status are not issued diplomatic passports," it said, adding that "the staff of former presidents are not included among those eligible to be issued a diplomatic passport." ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    A top aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department agreed to try to obtain a special diplomatic passport for an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in 2009, according to emails released Thursday, raising new questions about whether people tied to the Clinton Foundation received special access at the department.

    The request by the adviser, Douglas J. Band, who started one arm of the Clintons' charitable foundation, was unusual, and the State Department never issued the passport. Only department employees and others with diplomatic status are eligible for the special passports, which help envoys facilitate travel, officials said.

    ... ... ...

    The exchange about the passport, between Mr. Band and Huma Abedin, who was then a top State Department aide to Mrs. Clinton, was included in a set of more than 500 pages of emails made public by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that sued for their release.

    "Need get me/justy and jd dip passports," Mr. Band wrote to Ms. Abedin on July 27, 2009, referring to passports for himself and two other aides to Mr. Clinton, Justin Cooper and John Davidson.

    ... ... ...

    But a person with knowledge of the issue, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the three men were arranging to travel with Mr. Clinton to Pyongyang less than a week later for the former president's secret negotiations. Mr. Clinton already had a diplomatic passport as a former president.

    ... ... ...

    Traveling with a former president does not convey any special diplomatic status, the State Department indicated in a statement regarding the emails. "Diplomatic passports are issued to Foreign Service officers or a person having diplomatic or comparable status," the statement said.

    "Any individuals who do not have this status are not issued diplomatic passports," it said, adding that "the staff of former presidents are not included among those eligible to be issued a diplomatic passport."

    The emails released by Judicial Watch also include discussions about meetings between Mrs. Clinton and a number of people involved in major donations to the Clinton Foundation.

    In one exchange in July 2009, Ms. Abedin told Mrs. Clinton's scheduler that Mr. Clinton "wants to be sure" that Mrs. Clinton would be able to see Andrew Liveris, the chief executive of Dow Chemical, at an event the next night. Dow Chemical has been one of the biggest donors to the Clinton Foundation, giving $1 million to $5 million, records show.

    Ms. Abedin arranged what she called "a pull-aside" for Mr. Liveris to speak with Mrs. Clinton in a private room after she arrived to give a speech, according to the emails, which did not explain the reason for the meeting.

    The person with knowledge of the issue said that this email chain also related to Mr. Clinton's North Korea trip because Mr. Liveris had offered to let Mr. Clinton use his private plane.

    A separate batch of State Department documents released by Judicial Watch last month also revealed contacts between the State Department and Clinton Foundation donors. In one such exchange, Mr. Band sought to put a billionaire donor in touch with the department's former ambassador to Lebanon.

    Donald J. Trump, Mrs. Clinton's Republican opponent, has seized on the documents, saying they revealed a "pay to play" operation.


    [Sep 03, 2016] The Real Clinton Foundation Revelation

    Notable quotes:
    "... "When I was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush," You knew exactly where this article was going once you read the first 14 words. ..."
    "... The author was chief ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush Administration. Why does that bother me? I realize this guy's term was from 2005 to 2007 and the Abu Ghraib story pretty much broke in early 2005, ..."
    "... How much did the Clinton campaign pay for this Op-Ed? 'Every one does it' and 'it's not illegal'. 'It's how business is done.' How about doing a real in-depth investigation on the Clinton Foundation and perceived favors to donors NYT, instead of more opinion? ..."
    "... Clearly a planted article. Nice try. Is everyone aware that the Foundation paid off Clinton's '08 campaign debt? They gave $400,000 and considered "payment for the campaign's mailing lists" ..."
    "... According to former Justice Department Deputy Assistant Attorney General Shannen Coffin, there are at least three different categories of federal laws which may be implicated. ..."
    "... One, the ethics and government act, which says you can't use a public office for private gain for yourself or even for a charity. So in giving special access to the donors for the Clinton Foundation, the ethics and government act is implicated. So perhaps Mr. Painter is a bit hasty dismissing such claims. ..."
    "... If it was only about getting a government post or an arranged meeting, I would agree. But this seems different because significant amounts of money changed hands as a result of State Department intervention. And a lot of that money ended up at the Foundation or as speaking fees to Bill Clinton. How is this not seen as foreign donations effecting an American election - which I believe is illegal. ..."
    "... Mr. Painter: You say "There is little if any evidence that federal ethics laws were broken by Mrs. Clinton". So if there is even "little" evidence that the laws were broken, then shouldn't American electorate consider it when making their election day decisions? ..."
    "... You did not mention that there was no independent investigation on this subject, so there is no way to know whether there was "little" or "significant" or "overwhelming" evidence that the laws were broken. ..."
    "... And finally, even if the written laws were not broken, what about the immorality of what Clintons did? Has morality been completely removed from the public square in this once great country? ..."
    "... If there was no evidence of corruption at the Clinton Foundation, then why did Bill Clinton's speaking fees increase astronomically (from roughly $100,000 to $850,000) during Hillary's tenure at the State Department? ..."
    "... as the neocons and neolibs in power withdraw from the govt's former "general welfare" Constitutional role and concentrate on enriching themselves and their friends - it would pay for citizens to become more aware of how the sector works. ..."
    "... the system they devised inevitably empowers some groups more than others. Since democratic theory defines government officials as representatives of the voters, it encourages constituents to influence the decisions of those agents. Ideally, politicians should not favor the interests of some groups over others, but reality dictates otherwise. ..."
    "... In the contest for influence, money inevitably plays a major, although not always decisive, role. In an effort to limit this role, we have developed both formal and informal methods to constrain human greed. The law prohibits bribery, for example. To discourage subtler forms of influence-buying, we have developed codes of ethics that pressure officials to limit financial connections with groups or individuals who might seek their help. ..."
    "... Public opinion can serve as a powerful tool to enforce these codes. This explains the informal requirement that a president divest herself of financial connections that might affect her decisions. If Clinton rejects this tradition, she will undermine an important method of limiting the influence of moneyed interests in government. We have too few such tools as it is. ..."
    "... Our laws are relatively stringent and prevent the crassest forms of corruption, and our culture makes lesser but legal offenses dangerous politically. But to imagine that any government, anywhere, could function without either those sorts of alliances or some equally corruptible strongman central oversight is is as naive and dangerously idealistic. ..."
    "... How would someone feel if they found out that a doctor who prescribed them a medication is also paid large sums by a pharmaceutical company to promote the drug? Or, if the doctors owns substantial amount of stock in the company? Appearances do matter and it is likely that such conflicts do impact judgement. These kinds of allowances are being cleaned up across the country, at least in medicine. ..."
    "... I am fine if they get higher salaries, but it is time to clean up the political corruption and crony capitalism. It is a shame that we hold our politicians to such incredible low standards and it is not a surprise that so many people don't bother to vote. ..."
    "... It doesn't matter how good or bad the work of the Clinton Foundation is. That is not the question. The question is the motivation of many who contribute to the foundation. Are they motivated by altruism or is donating in a big way a ploy to gain access to Mrs. Clinton. ..."
    "... I doubt that Clinton breached a fundamental legal boundary. However, the Clinton's have always seen the bright line and have decided to test the boundaries. From using police to secure women while governor to taking money from Walmart to major financial institutions to the email scandal, the Clinton's do it again and again and blame a vast right wing conspiracy. The Clinton foundation used Doug Band as a bag man securing commercial contracts for Bill and Hilary while he had a senior role at the foundation (flashing red lights). Huma took money off the state department books as did other Clinton confidants (flashing red lights), etc. They can't help themselves. Are these actives illegal? Probably not. However, we seek to be inspired by our leaders, we want leaders who are better than the average, better than us. ..."
    "... When Bill can trot off to Russia, get 750k for a speech at the same time that business interests of the donor is before the State Department, it smells. The crux of the matter is the rotten judgement. ..."
    "... You want a POTUS who has good judgement. The relentless chasing of a buck mixed with the appearance of impropriety, real or imagined, is the problem. When mixed with her poor judgement on the emails and her poor judgement on invading Iraq and disrupting Libya, you have a problem which explains her low approval rating. She is just fortunate that she has Trump to run against. ..."
    "... If we look back to the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, those that were screaming the loudest for justice were having extramarital affairs during the "investigation". Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde. And then there was Dennis Hastert. ..."
    "... You bring up yet another problem with Hilary. She has covered for her sexual predator husband for decades, including harassing and publicly shaming her husband's sexual assault victims. And there are many going back to his Oxford days. How is that ok? ..."
    "... The Trumpster won the Republican nomination precisely because of voter disgust over the in-crowd culture of politicians and donors. Bernie Sanders came close to winning the Democratic nomination for much of the same reason. Hilary and her entire family need to wake up fast if she has any hope or desire to get elected. We all know where Hilary's money is coming from. Does Hilary know where her voters are coming from and where they are now? ..."
    "... To put this in a nutshell, The Clinton's self-enriching behavior- and use of public office for private gain - is troubling in the extreme ..."
    "... During her tenure as Secretary of State (as reported by the AP) of the 154 non-official meetings at least 85 of those individuals were private-sector donors who contributed up to $156 million to Clinton Foundation initiatives. ..."
    "... The report comes on top of other far more incriminating investigations revealing the appearance of quid pro quo with foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps the worst example was when investors who profited from the Clinton State Department's approval of a deal for Russia's atomic energy agency's acquisition of a fifth of America's uranium mining rights subsequently pumped money into the Clinton Foundation. ..."
    "... I hate to say this but the Clintons are America's version of Russian Oligarchs - and their Foundation almost a glorified form of money laundering. I can only pray that in 2020, us Dems may find a better president ,and that the Clintons be soon forgotten. ..."
    "... Without seeing the 30,000 deleted emails, how is anyone qualified to say no laws were broken? Besides, who cares what the chief ethics lawyer for a president who authorized torture thinks? ..."
    Aug 31, 2016 | The New York Times

    This is not the typical foundation funded by family wealth earned by an industrialist or financier. This foundation was funded almost entirely by donors, and to the extent anyone in the Clinton family "earned" the money, it was largely through speaking fees for former President Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton when she was not secretary of state. This dependence on donations - a scenario remarkably similar to that of many political campaigns - means that the motivations of every single donor will be questioned whenever a President Clinton does anything that could conceivably benefit such donors.

    ... ... ...

    This kind of access is the most corrupting brand of favoritism and pervades the entire government. Under both Republican and Democratic presidents, top ambassadorial posts routinely go to campaign contributors. Yet more campaign contributors hound these and other State Department employees for introductions abroad, preferred access and advancement of trade and other policy agendas. More often than not the State Department does their bidding.

    ... ... ...

    The problem is that it does not matter that no laws were broken, or that the Clinton Foundation is principally about doing good deeds. It does not matter that favoritism is inescapable in the federal government and that the Clinton Foundation stories are really nothing new. The appearances surrounding the foundation are problematic, and it is and will be an albatross around Mrs. Clinton's neck.

    ... ... ...

    As for Chelsea Clinton, anti-nepotism laws, strengthened after President Kennedy appointed his brother Robert as attorney general, could prevent her mother from appointing her to some of the highest government positions. But she could give her mother informal advice, and there are a great many government jobs for which she would be eligible. She does not need the Clinton Foundation to succeed in life.

    Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007.

    Majortrout, is a trusted commenter Montreal 2 days ago

    "When I was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush," You knew exactly where this article was going once you read the first 14 words.

    chichimax, albany, ny 2 days ago

    I have a hard time focusing on this article. The author was chief ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush Administration. Why does that bother me? I realize this guy's term was from 2005 to 2007 and the Abu Ghraib story pretty much broke in early 2005, but, thinking about those other lawyers for that Bush and what they said was okay, it really gives me the creeps to think about focusing on anything this guy might say about ethics. Just sayin'.

    Lori, San Francisco 2 days ago

    How much did the Clinton campaign pay for this Op-Ed? 'Every one does it' and 'it's not illegal'. 'It's how business is done.' How about doing a real in-depth investigation on the Clinton Foundation and perceived favors to donors NYT, instead of more opinion?

    If the foundation is so squeaky clean there should be no problem. Or has Hilary made it clear you won't get a front row seat at her next mythical press conference? Or has she threatened to stop sending you the press releases from her campaign you report as news?

    Ange, Boston 2 days ago

    Clearly a planted article. Nice try. Is everyone aware that the Foundation paid off Clinton's '08 campaign debt? They gave $400,000 and considered "payment for the campaign's mailing lists"

    Crabby Hayes, Virginia 2 days ago

    According to former Justice Department Deputy Assistant Attorney General Shannen Coffin, there are at least three different categories of federal laws which may be implicated.

    One, the ethics and government act, which says you can't use a public office for private gain for yourself or even for a charity. So in giving special access to the donors for the Clinton Foundation, the ethics and government act is implicated. So perhaps Mr. Painter is a bit hasty dismissing such claims.

    Randy, Largent 2 days ago

    If it was only about getting a government post or an arranged meeting, I would agree. But this seems different because significant amounts of money changed hands as a result of State Department intervention. And a lot of that money ended up at the Foundation or as speaking fees to Bill Clinton. How is this not seen as foreign donations effecting an American election - which I believe is illegal.

    Isa Ten, CA 2 days ago

    Mr. Painter: You say "There is little if any evidence that federal ethics laws were broken by Mrs. Clinton". So if there is even "little" evidence that the laws were broken, then shouldn't American electorate consider it when making their election day decisions?

    You did not mention that there was no independent investigation on this subject, so there is no way to know whether there was "little" or "significant" or "overwhelming" evidence that the laws were broken.

    Your main argument is that "everyone" does that. Perhaps, it is time to change that and Trump is the man who can do it. Is it fear of this kind of change that frightens so many NeverTrumpsters into rejecting him?

    And finally, even if the written laws were not broken, what about the immorality of what Clintons did? Has morality been completely removed from the public square in this once great country?

    David Keltz, Brooklyn 2 days ago

    If there was no evidence of corruption at the Clinton Foundation, then why did Bill Clinton's speaking fees increase astronomically (from roughly $100,000 to $850,000) during Hillary's tenure at the State Department?

    Did he suddenly become more sought after, nearly 8 or 9 years after his presidency? If there was no evidence of corruption, then why did Hillary Clinton use her authority to appoint herself onto the Haiti Relief Fund Board, where her sole relief efforts entailed asking people not to donate to the Red Cross, but to the Clinton Foundation?

    John D., Out West 2 days ago

    One thing that comes through loud & clear in the comments: a lot of people don't have a clue how non-profit organizations work. For a sector that's responsible for most of the good things in this country these days - as the neocons and neolibs in power withdraw from the govt's former "general welfare" Constitutional role and concentrate on enriching themselves and their friends - it would pay for citizens to become more aware of how the sector works.

    James Lee, Arlington, Texas August 31, 2016

    The framers of our Constitution had no illusions about the weaknesses of human nature. They carefully crafted our charter of government to pit the officials of each branch against each other, to obstruct the kind of collusion that could undermine the foundations of a free society.

    Despite their best efforts, however, the system they devised inevitably empowers some groups more than others. Since democratic theory defines government officials as representatives of the voters, it encourages constituents to influence the decisions of those agents. Ideally, politicians should not favor the interests of some groups over others, but reality dictates otherwise.

    In the contest for influence, money inevitably plays a major, although not always decisive, role. In an effort to limit this role, we have developed both formal and informal methods to constrain human greed. The law prohibits bribery, for example. To discourage subtler forms of influence-buying, we have developed codes of ethics that pressure officials to limit financial connections with groups or individuals who might seek their help.

    Public opinion can serve as a powerful tool to enforce these codes. This explains the informal requirement that a president divest herself of financial connections that might affect her decisions. If Clinton rejects this tradition, she will undermine an important method of limiting the influence of moneyed interests in government. We have too few such tools as it is.

    confetti, MD August 31, 2016

    I don't think that favoritism in political life will ever go away, for the simple reason that political power isn't attained in a vacuum. It requires sturdy alliances by definition, and those are forged via exchange of valued items - material goods, policy compromises, position, status, assistance and other durable support. Our laws are relatively stringent and prevent the crassest forms of corruption, and our culture makes lesser but legal offenses dangerous politically. But to imagine that any government, anywhere, could function without either those sorts of alliances or some equally corruptible strongman central oversight is is as naive and dangerously idealistic.

    Of course the Clintons wheeled and dealed - but well within the law.

    I'm more interested in what end that served and the real consequences than the fact that it occurred. In their case, an effective charity that aided many very vulnerable people was sustained, and no demonstrable compromises that negatively affected global policies occurred.

    It's the Republicans and truly sold out Democrats, who have forever been deep in the pocket of big money and whose 'deals' in that department cause tangible harm to the populace, that I'm more concerned with. This is their smoke and mirrors show.

    Alexander K., Minnesota August 31, 2016

    How would someone feel if they found out that a doctor who prescribed them a medication is also paid large sums by a pharmaceutical company to promote the drug? Or, if the doctors owns substantial amount of stock in the company? Appearances do matter and it is likely that such conflicts do impact judgement. These kinds of allowances are being cleaned up across the country, at least in medicine.

    It is time that conflict of interest for politicians at all levels is taken seriously by the public. I am fine if they get higher salaries, but it is time to clean up the political corruption and crony capitalism. It is a shame that we hold our politicians to such incredible low standards and it is not a surprise that so many people don't bother to vote.

    Great editorial.

    Michael Belmont, Hewitt, New Jersey 2 days ago

    It doesn't matter how good or bad the work of the Clinton Foundation is. That is not the question. The question is the motivation of many who contribute to the foundation. Are they motivated by altruism or is donating in a big way a ploy to gain access to Mrs. Clinton. The AP analysis suggests that is just what went on. At the very least it looks bad. Appearances are everything in politics.

    Hillary doesn't need to appear to be unethical should she be elected. Bad enough she has Bill by her side. She doesn't need a special prosecutor investigator distracting her presidency with an influence peddling scandal. Like it or not, Republicans will be hunting for her political hide. Hillary doesn't need to paint a bulls-eye for them.

    Chris, 10013 2 days ago

    I doubt that Clinton breached a fundamental legal boundary. However, the Clinton's have always seen the bright line and have decided to test the boundaries. From using police to secure women while governor to taking money from Walmart to major financial institutions to the email scandal, the Clinton's do it again and again and blame a vast right wing conspiracy. The Clinton foundation used Doug Band as a bag man securing commercial contracts for Bill and Hilary while he had a senior role at the foundation (flashing red lights). Huma took money off the state department books as did other Clinton confidants (flashing red lights), etc. They can't help themselves. Are these actives illegal? Probably not. However, we seek to be inspired by our leaders, we want leaders who are better than the average, better than us.

    In the Clintons, we have highly competent, experienced, politicians who have repeated shown deep ethical problems. She is the best candidate by far. It's unfortunate that our future President never learned what ethics are.

    Robert, Minneapolis 2 days ago

    An interesting article. It is probably true that many, if not most, politicians are influence sellers to a degree. I suspect that the Clintons are just better at it. It is fair to say that we do not know if laws have been broken. But it is also fair to say that appearances matter, and that the Clintons are very good at lining their own pockets at the same time the foundation does it's good work.

    When Bill can trot off to Russia, get 750k for a speech at the same time that business interests of the donor is before the State Department, it smells. The crux of the matter is the rotten judgement.

    You want a POTUS who has good judgement. The relentless chasing of a buck mixed with the appearance of impropriety, real or imagined, is the problem. When mixed with her poor judgement on the emails and her poor judgement on invading Iraq and disrupting Libya, you have a problem which explains her low approval rating. She is just fortunate that she has Trump to run against.

    Madelyn Harris, Portland, OR 2 days ago

    So glad to see many NYT readers here recognize the hypocrisy in this opinion piece. The message is "All of them do it, it's mostly legal, though it's distasteful and problematic. However, Hillary is the only one who should stop doing it because it looks bad."

    The loudest voices of this partisan attack should be under the same scrutiny and be compelled to practice what they preach. If we look back to the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, those that were screaming the loudest for justice were having extramarital affairs during the "investigation". Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde. And then there was Dennis Hastert.

    Let's start looking into the personal emails of Paul Ryan, Jason Chaffetz, Donald Trump, Trey Gowdy, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz. Imagine what we would find! Legal, but ethically problematic exchanges and clearly illegal exchanges that would justify imprisonment. If they ask for justice, we should provide it.

    Lori, San Francisco 2 days ago

    You bring up yet another problem with Hilary. She has covered for her sexual predator husband for decades, including harassing and publicly shaming her husband's sexual assault victims. And there are many going back to his Oxford days. How is that ok?

    John D., Out West 2 days ago

    An excellent piece, actually tethered to reality and non-profit law and practice ... finally! Yes, all the Clinton clan needs to divorce themselves from the foundation, and I'm not sure why they would wait until after the election to do so.

    It seems the loudest critics are of the tribe that created campaign finance law as it stands today, with the CU case having created a legal system of bribery across the board in government. C'mon guys, be consistent, or it's the big H word for you!

    RNW, Albany, CA 2 days ago

    When it comes to ethics and public officials, appearances do in indeed MATTER! Cronyism and conflicts of interest might elicit a big yawn from the political class, their fellow travelers and camp followers but arouse anger and indignation from voters. Remember those guys?

    We're the ones that politicians suddenly remember every few years with they come. hats in hand, begging for donations and, most of all, our votes. (The plea for donations is a farce. Except for a few outliers, they don't really need or want OUR donations.)

    The Trumpster won the Republican nomination precisely because of voter disgust over the in-crowd culture of politicians and donors. Bernie Sanders came close to winning the Democratic nomination for much of the same reason. Hilary and her entire family need to wake up fast if she has any hope or desire to get elected. We all know where Hilary's money is coming from. Does Hilary know where her voters are coming from and where they are now?

    Tembrach, Connecticut 2 days ago

    I preface this by saying that I am proud Democrat & will vote for Mrs. Clinton, as Mr. Trump is beyond the pale of decency

    To put this in a nutshell, The Clinton's self-enriching behavior- and use of public office for private gain - is troubling in the extreme

    During her tenure as Secretary of State (as reported by the AP) of the 154 non-official meetings at least 85 of those individuals were private-sector donors who contributed up to $156 million to Clinton Foundation initiatives.

    The report comes on top of other far more incriminating investigations revealing the appearance of quid pro quo with foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps the worst example was when investors who profited from the Clinton State Department's approval of a deal for Russia's atomic energy agency's acquisition of a fifth of America's uranium mining rights subsequently pumped money into the Clinton Foundation.

    Mrs Clinton rightly condemns Trump for playing footsy with Putin. But pray tell, what exactly was this?

    I hate to say this but the Clintons are America's version of Russian Oligarchs - and their Foundation almost a glorified form of money laundering. I can only pray that in 2020, us Dems may find a better president ,and that the Clintons be soon forgotten.

    Thought Bubble, New Jersey 2 days ago

    Without seeing the 30,000 deleted emails, how is anyone qualified to say no laws were broken? Besides, who cares what the chief ethics lawyer for a president who authorized torture thinks?

    [Sep 03, 2016] At the Clinton Foundation, Access Equals Corruption

    Sep 02, 2016 |

    More than half of the people who managed to score a personal one on one meeting with Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State donated money to the Clinton Foundation, either as an individual or through a company where they worked. "Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million," the Associated Press reported.

    Does that make Hillary corrupt? Yes. It does.

    At this writing, there is no evidence that anyone received any special favors as a result of their special access to Clinton. Not that treats were not requested. They were. (The most amusing was Bono's request to stream his band's music into the international space station, which was mercifully rejected.)

    That's irrelevant. She's still corrupt.

    Clinton's defenders like to point out that neither she nor her husband draw a salary from their foundation. But that's a technicality.

    The Clintons extract millions of dollars in travel expenditures, including luxurious airplane accommodations and hotel suites, from their purported do-gooder outfit. They exploit the foundation as a patronage mill, arranging for it to hire their loyalists at extravagant six-figure salaries. Charity Navigator, the Yelp of non-profits, doesn't bother to issue a rating for the Clinton foundation due to the pathetically low portion of money ($9 million out of $140 million in 2013) that makes its way to someone who needs it.

    "It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons," says Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group.

    As a measure of how institutionally bankrupt American politics is, all this crap is technically legal. But that doesn't mean it's not corrupt.

    Public relations experts caution politicians like the Clintons that the appearance of impropriety is almost as bad as its actuality. If it looks bad, it will hurt you with the polls. True, but that's not really the point.

    The point is: access is corruption.

    It doesn't matter that the lead singer of U2 didn't get to live out his rocker astronaut fantasy. It's disgusting that he was ever in a position to have it considered. To put a finer point on it, ethics require that someone in Hillary Clinton's position never, ever take a meeting or correspond by email or offer a job to someone who donated money to her and her husband's foundation. Failure to build an unscalable wall between government and money necessarily creates a corrupt quid pro quo:

    "Just got a call from the Clinton Foundation. They're shaking us down for a donation. Should we cough up a few bucks?"

    "Hillary could be president someday. Chelsea could end up in the Senate. It couldn't hurt to be remembered as someone who threw them some money when they asked."

    This, I 100% guarantee you, was the calculus when Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary for a one- or two-hour speech. She doesn't have anything new to say that everyone hasn't already heard million times before. It's not like she shared any valuable stock tips during those talks. Wealthy individuals and corporations pay politicians for one thing: access.

    Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net, is the author of the book "Snowden," the biography of the NSA whistleblower.

    [Sep 02, 2016] FBI Releases Full Report Into Hillary Clinton Email Probe Zero Hedge

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Just as we predicted on a sleepy Friday afternoon ahead of a long weekend, The FBI has released a detailed report on its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, as well as a summary of her interview with agents, providing, what The Washington Post says is the most thorough look yet at the probe that has dogged the campaign of the Democratic presidential nominee.

    Official FBI Statement:

    Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure .

    We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter. We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

    Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Additional information related to this investigation that the FBI releases in the future will be placed on The Vault, the FBI's electronic FOIA library.

    As The Washington Post adds, the documents released total 58 pages, though large portions and sometimes entire pages are redacted.

    FBI Director James B. Comey announced in July that his agency would not recommend criminal charges against Clinton for her use of a private email server. Comey said that Clinton and her staffers were "extremely careless" in how they treated classified information, but investigators did not find they intended to mishandle such material. Nor did investigators uncover exacerbating factors - like efforts to obstruct justice - that often lead to charges in similar cases, Comey said.

    The FBI turned over to several Congressional committees documents related to the probe and required they only be viewed by those with appropriate security clearances, even though not all of the material was classified, legislators and their staffers have said.

    Those documents included an investigative report and summaries of interviews with more than a dozen senior Clinton staffers, other State Department officials, former secretary of state Colin Powell and at least one other person. The documents released Friday appear to be but a fraction of those.

    ...

    Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon has said turning over the documents was "an extraordinarily rare step that was sought solely by Republicans for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the FBI."

    But he has said if the material were going to be shared outside the Justice Department, "they should be released widely so that the public can see them for themselves, rather than allow Republicans to mischaracterize them through selective, partisan leaks."

    Though Fallon seems to have gotten his wish, the public release of the documents will undoubtedly draw more attention to a topic that seems to have fueled negative perceptions of Clinton . A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found 41 percent of Americans had a favorable impression of Clinton, while 56 percent had an unfavorable one.

    Key Excerpts...

  • *CLINTON DENIED USING PRIVATE EMAIL TO AVOID FEDERAL RECORDS ACT
  • *CLINTON KNEW SHE HAD DUTY TO PRESERVE FEDERAL RECORDS: FBI
  • *COLIN POWELL WARNED CLINTON PRIVATE E-MAILS COULD BE PUBLIC:FBI
  • *FBI SAYS CLINTON LAWYERS UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY OF 13 DEVICES
  • *AT LEAST 100 STATE DEPT. WORKERS HAD CLINTON'S E-MAIL ADDRESS
  • CLINTON SAID SHE NEVER DELETED, NOR INSTRUCTED ANYONE TO DELETE, HER EMAIL TO AVOID COMPLYING WITH FEDERAL RECORDS LAWS OR FBI OR STATE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
  • CLINTON AIDES SAID SHE FREQUENTLY REPLACED HER BLACKBERRY PHONE AND THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE OLD DEVICE WOULD "FREQUENTLY BECOME UNKOWN"
  • CLINTON CONTACTED POWELL IN JANUARY 2009 TO INQUIRE ABOUT HIS USE OF A BLACKBERRY WHILE IN OFFICE; POWELL ADVISED CLINTON TO 'BE VERY CAREFUL
  • Hillary Clinton used 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads to access clintonemail.com. The FBI only had access to 2 of the iPads and The FBI found no evidence of hacking on those 2...

    And here is the email from Colin Powell telling her that emails would need to be part of the "government records" ...

    And here is Clinton denying that she used a private server to "avoid [the] Federal Records Act" as she just assumed that "based on her practice of emailing staff on their state.gov accounts, [that] communications were captured by State systems." Yes, well what about the "official" communications had with people outside of the State Department? Did retention of those emails ever cross Hillary's mind? * * * Full Report below...

    Hillary Clinton FBI Part 1 of 2

    [Sep 02, 2016] After neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully, it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative. ..."
    "... Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more. ..."
    "... Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not ..."
    "... I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US, there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change. Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist marketification of everything. ..."
    "... To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature. ..."
    "... I just think we should call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating the discourses of racism. ..."
    "... Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant. ..."
    "... It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish. ..."
    "... It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money. ..."
    "... Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism." ..."
    "... I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious analysis to say that it is. ..."
    "... I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible Patrick Murphy. ..."
    "... Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might be premature. ..."
    "... I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton, you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage. To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats were selling. False consciousness, no doubt. ..."
    "... The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout is a cover story for the looting. ..."
    "... The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences. The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse. ..."
    "... Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void between. ..."
    "... So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race) the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism ( Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic, it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights, and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the connection. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants. Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top ..."
    "... The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task - it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed a parasitic elite. ..."
    "... "Lesser evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians, both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net; they are competing to deliver you. ..."
    "... I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals - that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite grasp, but never mind. ..."
    "... Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa. ..."
    "... In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are not organized as business firms. ..."
    "... "an obligation to vote in a democracy" ..."
    "... orders you to consent ..."
    "... if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right ..."
    "... Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    The failure of neoliberalism poses both challenges and opportunities for the left. The greatest challenge is the need to confront rightwing tribalism as a powerful political force in itself, rather than as a source of political support for hard neoliberalism. Given the dangers posed by tribalism this is an urgent task. One part of this task is that of articulating an explanation of the failure of neoliberalism and explaining why the simplistic policy responses of tribalist politicians will do nothing to resolve the problems. The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose them to the self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism, particularly in the hard version with which political tribalism has long been aligned.

    The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the accommodations of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative must be a revival of the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar social democratic moment, updated to take account of the radically different technological and social structures of the 21st century. In technological terms, the most important development is undoubtedly the rise of the Internet. Thinking about the relationship between the Internet economy and public policy remains embryonic at best. But as a massive public good created, in very large measure, by the public sector, the Internet ought to present opportunities for a radically remodeled progressive policy agenda.

    In political terms, the breakdown of neoliberalism implies the need for a political realignment. This is now taking place on the right, as tribalists assert their dominance over hard neoliberals. The most promising strategy for the left is to achieve a similar shift in power within the centre-left coalition of leftists and soft neoliberals.

    This might seem a hopeless task, but there are positive signs, notably in the United States. Although Hillary Clinton, an archetypal soft neoliberal, has won the Democratic nomination for the Presidency and seems likely to win, her policy proposals have been driven, in large measure by the need to compete with the progressive left. There is reason to hope that, whereas the first Clinton presidency symbolised the capture of the Democratic Party by soft neoliberalism, the second will symbolise the resurgence of social liberalism.

    The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully, it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative.

    Brett 08.30.16 at 5:49 am

    I don't know. I think for a true triumph over the existing order, we'd need true international institutions designed to enhance other kinds of protections, like environmental and labor standards world-wide. That doesn't seem to be in the wings right now, versus a light version of protectionism coupled with perhaps some restoration of the welfare state (outside of the US – inside the US we're going to get deadlock mildly alleviated by the Supreme Court and whatever types of executive orders Clinton comes up with for the next eight years).
    Andrew Bartlett 08.30.16 at 6:15 am
    "The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions"

    My only worry with that is the strong overlap between tribalism and racism, at least in it's political forms. Harking to the myth of a monocultural past could be seen by some as 'affection for long-standing institutions'. (I know that's not what the author is thinking, but left has had it's racism and pro-discrimination elements, and I am wary of giving too much opportunity for those to align with that of the right)

    bruce wilder 08.30.16 at 7:29 am
    I wonder, how do you envision this failure of neoliberalism?

    It seems like an effective response would depend somewhat on how you think this anticipated political failure of neoliberalism plays out over the next few years. And, it is an anticipated failure, yes? or do you see an actual political failure as an accomplished fact?

    And, if it is still an anticipated failure, do you see it as a political failure - the inability to marshall electoral support or a legislative coalition? Or, an ideological style that's worn out its credibility?

    Or, do you anticipate manifest policy failure to play a role in the dynamics?

    MisterMr 08.30.16 at 9:31 am
    "The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose them to the self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism"

    I don't agree with this. First, appealing to tribalism without actually believing in it is a dick move. Second, actually existing tribalists are arseholes, or rather everyone when is taken by the tribalist demon becomes an arsehole.

    Third, the "individualist" thingie work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro lftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more.

    PS: about increasing inequality, there are two different trends that usually are mixed up:

    1) When we look at inequality at an international level, the main determinant is differential "productivity" among nations. The productivity of developing nations (mostly China) went up a lot, and this causes a fall in international inequality.

    2) When we look at inequalityinside a nation, it depends mostly on how exploitative the economic system is, and I think that the main indicator of this is the wage share of total income; as the wage share fell, income inequality increased. This happened both in developed and developing countries.

    These two determinants of inequality are mixed up and this creates the impression that, say, the fall in wages of American workers is caused by the ascent of Chinese workers, whereas instead both American and Chinese workes lost in proportion, but the increase in productivity more than compensated the fall in relative wages.

    Mixing up these two determinants causes the rise in nationalism, as workers in developed nations believe that they have been sacrificed to help workers in developing nations (which isn't true). This is my argument against nationalism and the reason I'm skeptic of stuff like brexit, and this makes me sort of allergic to tribalism.

    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 11:43 am
    This analysis by Quiggin is spot on. Clearly the way forward holds both promise and great peril, especially in the nuclear age. The notion that Trump is just more of the same from the GOP is deluded. He represents a dangerous insurgency of radical rightists , who can be quite fairly be called racist and religious extremist based fascists. A Trump win could well close the curtain on democracy in America. Neo liberalism is being repudiated , will the elite now turn to the fascists to hold their ground, as happened in Germany? It's a troubling question.
    casmilus 08.30.16 at 11:46 am
    "The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the accommodations of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative must be a revival of the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar social democratic moment, updated to take account of the radically different technological and social structures of the 21st century. In technological terms, the most important development is undoubtedly the rise of the Internet."

    Why is that any more important than the invention of digital computers, starting from the 1940s? Just a further evolution. The real challenge is from robotics, 3D printing and AI drivers for such processes. That really will liquidate a lot of skilled labour; computing created a new industry of jobs and manufacturing.

    bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 11:59 am
    4: From my point of view, neoliberalism…long supply chains and logistics; downward pressure on wages and the social wage; the growth of finance to supply consumer credit to prop up effective demand; the culture of self-improvement and self-management to reduce overhead and reproduction costs…no longer supports accumulation of capital or reproduction of political legitimacy. IOW, an economic failure.

    (Anwar Shaikh's new book is definitive)

    Martin 08.30.16 at 1:21 pm
    Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.
    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 1:36 pm
    Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.

    Tribalism is hard wired in our genes. It can be over come with education but too few voters ever get beyond an emotional response to what they perceive. It's no accident that conservatives do anything they can to undermine education and promote religious based ignorance. That's how they win elections. But this is a dangerous game, sometimes a Hitler or a Trump shows up and steals the show.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:00 pm
    MisterMr @ 5: Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more.

    This is where it becomes problematic that so much of this conversation happens within individual First-World nation-states, because the inequalities "tribalists" are interested in maintaining are precisely the inequalities between nations on a global scale. If the "most people" you're talking about includes the masses of recently-proletarianized working people in the Third World, then sure "most people" have reason to be pro-left. But when we have this conversation in a setting like this, we all implicitly know that "most people" refers at best to the working classes of countries like Australia and the US, and these people still perceive a decided interest in maintaining the global economic hierarchies for which "tribalism" serves this conversation as a signifier.

    For the working classes of the First World wrapped up in their "tribalist" defense of a global aristocracy of nations, to truly believe they're on the losing side would mean to accept that the defense of national sovereignty from neoliberal globalization is an inherently lost cause. If they're to defect from the cause of "tribalism" and join the Left, this would mean accepting a critique of the "long-standing institutions" of First-World social democracy that appears to go much farther left even than John Quiggin appears willing to go. (As in, the implementation of social-democratic institutions in First-World capitalist societies is inherently a tool for enabling the economic domination of the First World over the Third World, by empowering a racialized labor aristocracy to serve as foot soldiers of global imperialism, and so on and so on à la Lenin.)

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
    Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not "hard-wired in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation of the inherently modern political and economic forces that first created the "imagined community" of the modern nation-state and continue to put incredible amounts of energy into indoctrinating various populations in its various national mythologies.

    Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc. - is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.

    Z 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
    Interestingly, I share all the premises, and yet none of the optimistic conclusions. Because soft neoliberalism (and in fact even hard neoliberalism) is much closer sociologically, politically and ideologically to the left than tribalism is, I see the end of the hegemonic neoliberal ideology and the correlative rise of tribalism as (somewhat paradoxically) the guarantee for perpetual neoliberal power in the short and middle term, at least for two reasons.

    First of all, left-inclined citizens will most likely always vote for neoliberal candidates if the alternative is a tribalist candidate (case in point: in 9 months or so, I will in all likelihood be offered a choice between a hard neoliberal and Marine Le Pen; what then?).

    Moreover, even if/when tribalist parties gain power, their relative sociological estrangement from the elite sand correlative relative lack of political power all but guarantees in my mind that they will govern along the path of least resistance for them; that is to say hard neoliberalism (with a sprinkle of tribalist cultural moves). This is how the FPO ruled Carinthia, for instance, and how I would expect Trump to govern in the (unlikely) eventuality he reached power.

    Finally, mass migration are bound to intensify because of climate change (if for no other reason) and the trend internationally in advanced democratic countries seems to be towards national divergence and hence national reversion.

    I don't see how an ideologically coherent left-oriented force can emerge in this context, but of course I would love to be proved wrong on all counts.

    Lupita 08.30.16 at 2:22 pm
    Bravo, Will G-R!
    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 2:37 pm
    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
    Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not "hard-wired in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation of the inherently modern political and economic forces that first created the "imagined community" of the modern nation-state and continue to put incredible amounts of energy into indoctrinating various populations in its various national mythologies. Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc. - is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.

    )))))))))))))))

    I don't agree. It's true that tribalism has morphed into what you call national mythologies , but the basis for this is our evolutionary heritage which divides the world into them and us. This no doubt had survival benefits for hunter gatherer social units but it's dangerous baggage in today's world. I find your comments about education curious. Are you advocating ignorance? I think you confuse education with indoctrination , they are not the same thing.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.30.16 at 2:45 pm
    The question of what ideology an ideologically coherent left-oriented force would come together around is indeed an important question, but I'll try not to dwell on my hobbyhorses too much.

    For now I'll add a slightly different area to consider this through: current First World "left" populations (especially in the U.S.) want to turn everything into individual moral questions through which a false solidarity can be expressed and through which opposing people can be shamed. For instance, I've thought a good deal about how environmental problems are the most important problems in general at the moment, and how it's clear that they require a redesign of our infrastructure. This is not an individual problem - no amount of volunteer action will work. Yet people on the left continually exert pressure to turn this into a conflict of morally good renouncers vs wasters, something that the right is quite ready to enhance with their own ridiculous tribal boundary markers (google "rolling coal").

    You see this with appeals to racism. Racism is a real problem and destroys real people's lives. But treating it as an individual moral problem rather than a social, structural one is a way of setting boundaries around an elite. The challenge for the left is going to be developing a left that, no matter what it's based around, doesn't fall back into this individualist new-class status preservation.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 3:15 pm
    @ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological aspects as essentially arbitrary.

    To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage", "uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first place!

    Holden Pattern 08.30.16 at 3:20 pm
    @ comment 16:

    I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US, there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change. Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist marketification of everything.

    So what remains, especially given the latter, is marketing and individual action - persuasion, shame, public expressions of virtue. That's all that is available to the left in the United States, especially on issues like racism and environmental problems.

    So while it's good fun to bash the lefty elites in their tony coastal enclaves and recount their clueless dinner party conversations, it's shooting fish in a barrel. Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but the fish probably didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them for swimming in circles is… problematic.

    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 3:26 pm
    @ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological aspects as essentially arbitrary.

    )))))))))))

    I hope it's clear that I do not discount the assertion that nationalism and racism are part of social constructs that favor class interest. My point is that political agendas have to work with the clay they start with. To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature. This is a dangerous illusion, it leads right to the gulags.

    ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage", "uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first place!

    )))))))))

    I think Quiggen's analysis is not to be scorned

    Rich Puchalsky 08.30.16 at 3:33 pm
    "Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but the fish probably didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them for swimming in circles is… problematic."

    I come out of the same milieu, so I don't see why it's problematic to call attention to this. I
    helped to change JQ's opinion on part of it (as he wrote later, the facts were the largest influence on his change of opinion, but apparently what I wrote helped) and he's an actual public intellectual in Australia. As intellectuals our personal actions don't matter but sometimes our ideas might.

    Activism and social movements can help, even in the U.S. (I think that 350.org has had a measurable effect) so I wouldn't say that a structural approach means that nothing is possible.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 4:06 pm

    @ Bob Zannelli: To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature.

    As hesitant as I am to play the "Fallacy Man" game, this is a common strawman about Marxism. In the words of Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist and Marxist Richard Lewontin: "In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis." As far as human biological capacities, it's perfectly clear from any number of everyday examples that we're able to ignore all sorts of outward phenotypic differences in determining which sorts of people to consider more and less worthy of our ethical consideration, as long as the ideological structure of our culture and society permits it - so the problem is how to build the sort of culture and society we want to see, and telling wildly speculative "Just-So stories" about how the hairless ape got its concentration camps doesn't necessarily help in solving this problem.

    On the contrary, the desire to root social phenomena like what Quiggin calls "tribalism" in our genes is itself an ideological fetish object of our own particular culture, utilizing our modern reverence for science to characterize social phenomena allegedly dictated by "biology" as therefore natural, inevitable, or even desirable. Here, have a reading / listening recommendation.

    RobinM 08.30.16 at 4:20 pm
    Like Will G-R at 17 and Bob Zannelli at 19, I, too, found the use of the term "tribalism" in the original post a bit disturbing. It's almost always used as a pejorative. And it suggests that the "tribalists" require no deeper analysis. I'm sure it's been around for much longer, but I think I first took note of it when the Scottish National Party was shallowly dismissed as a mere expression of tribalism. That the SNP (which, by the way, I do not support) was raising questions about the deep failures of the British system of politics and government long before these failures became widely acknowledged was thus disregarded. Currently, an aspect of that deep failure, the British Labour Party seems to be in the process of destroying itself, again in part, in my estimation, because one side, among whom the 'experts' must be numbered, seem to think that those who are challenging them can be dismissed as "tribalists." There are surely a lot more examples.

    More generally, the resort to "tribalism" as an explanation of what is now transpiring is also, perhaps, neoliberalism's misunderstanding of its own present predicaments even while it is part of the arsenal of weapons neoliberals direct against their critics?

    But in short, the evocation of "tribalism" is not only disturbing, it's dangerously misleading. Those seeking to understand what may now be unfolding should avoid using it, not least because there are also almost certainly a whole lot of different "tribes."

    awy 08.30.16 at 5:06 pm
    so what's the neoliberal strategy for preserving good governance in the face of insurgencies on the left and right?
    Yankee 08.30.16 at 5:08 pm
    This just in , about good tribalism (locality-based) vs bad tribalism ("race"-based, ie perceived or assumed common ancestry). It's about cultural recognition; nationalism, based on shared allegiance to a power structure, is different, although related (sadly)
    James Wimberley 08.30.16 at 5:14 pm
    "But as a massive public good created, in very large measure, by the public sector .." With a large assist from non-profit-making community movements, as with Wikipedia and Linux. (IIRC the majority of Internet servers run on variants of the noncommercial Linux operating system, as do almost all smartphones and tablets.) CT, with unpaid bloggers and commenters, is part of a much bigger trend. Maybe one lesson for the state-oriented left is to take communitarianism more seriously.

    The Internet, with minimal state regulation after the vital initial pump-priming, technical self-government by a meritocratic cooptative technocracy, an oligopolistic commercial physical substructure, and large volumes of non-commercial as well as commercial content, is an interesting paradigm of coexistence for the future. Of course there are three-way tensions and ongoing battles, but it's still working.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 5:42 pm
    RobinM, to clarify, I do think that what Quiggin calls tribalism is worth opposing in pretty absolute terms, and I even largely agree with the meat of his broader "three-party system" analysis. I just think we should call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating the discourses of racism.
    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 6:18 pm
    In the words of Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist and Marxist Richard Lewontin:

    Now Mao Tse-Tung, there's role model to be quoted. The thing about science is that's it true whether you believe it not, the thing about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and
    it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious. I know, I know , maybe someone will get it right some day.

    A realist politics doesn't ignore science , this doesn't mean that socialism is somehow precluded, in fact the exact opposite. We have to extend democracy into the economic sphere, until we do this, we don't have a democratically based society. It's because of human nature we need to democratize every center of power, no elite or vanguard if you prefer can be ever be trusted. But democracy isn't easy, you have to defeat ignorance , a useful trait to game the system , by the elite, and create a political structure that takes account of human nature , not try to perfect it. One would hope leftists would learn something from history, but dogmas die hard.

    Igor Belanov 08.30.16 at 6:50 pm
    Bob Zannelli @27

    "about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious."

    To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time helping old ladies over the road.

    Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil on political ideology.

    Raven Onthill 08.30.16 at 7:06 pm
    "I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative."
    Sebastian_H 08.30.16 at 7:26 pm
    'Tribalism' is giving members of what you perceive as your tribe more leeway than you give others. (Or negatively being much more critical of others than you would be of your tribe). It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish. Lots of 'civilization' is about lubricating the rough spots created by tribalism while trying to leverage the good sides.

    One of the failures of neo-liberalism is in assuming that it can count on the good side of tribalism while ignoring the perceived responsibilities to one's own tribe. It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money. So then when it comes time to say "for the good of the UK we need you to do X" lots of people won't listen to you. John asks a good question in exploring what comes next, but it isn't clear.

    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 7:30 pm
    about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and
    it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious."

    To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time helping old ladies over the road.

    Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil on political ideology.

    )))))))))))))

    Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant.

    In the Soviet Union , science, art and literature were under assault, with scientists, artist and writers sent to the gulag or murdered for not conforming to strict Marxist Leninist ideology. Evolution, quantum mechanics, and relativity were all attacked as bourgeois science. ( The need for nuclear weapons forced Stalin later to allow this science to be sanctioned) These days, like the Catholic Church which can no longer burn people at the stake , old Marxists can just castigate opinions that don't meet Marxist orthodoxy.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 8:53 pm
    @ Sebastian_H: It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish.

    But again, when we're talking about "tribalism" not in terms of some vague quasi-sociobiological force of eternal undying human nature, but in terms of the very modern historical phenomena of racism and nationalism, we have to consider the way any well-functioning modern nation-state has a whole host of institutions devoted to indoctrinating citizens in whatever ideological mythology is supposed to underpin a shared sense of national and/or racial identity. It should go without saying that whatever we think about general ingroup/outgroup tendencies innately hardwired into human nature or whatever, this way of relating our identities to historically contingent social institutions and their symbols is only as innate or hardwired as the institutions themselves.

    It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money.

    At least in my view, economists are usually slipperier than that. The arguments I've seen for neoliberal free trade (I'm not quite sure what to make of the term "globalism") generally involve it being good for "the economy" in a much more abstract sense, carefully worded to avoid specifying whether the growth and prosperity takes place in Manchester or Mumbai. And there's even something worth preserving in this tendency, in the sense that ideally the workers of the world would have no less international/interracial solidarity than global capital already seems to achieved.

    To me the possibility that neoliberal free trade and its degradation of national sovereignty might ultimately undermine the effectiveness of all nationalist myths, forging a sense of global solidarity among the collective masses of humanity ground under capital's boot, is the greatest hope or maybe even the only real hope we have in the face of the neoliberal onslaught. Certainly if there's any lesson from the fact that the hardest-neoliberal political leaders are often simultaneously the greatest supporters or enablers of chauvinistic ethnonationalism, it's that this kind of solidarity is also one of global capital's greatest nightmares.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 9:05 pm
    Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism." I find it fascinating, and indicative of the ideological tension immanent in fascist reactionaries' use of the term, that the two terms listed as comparable to it are traditionally understood in modern political theory as diametrically opposed to each other.
    bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:17 pm
    Recommending Joshua Clover's new book. Riot -Strike – Riot Prime

    The strike, the organized disruption at the point of production, is no longer really available. Late capitalism, neoliberalism is now extracting surplus from distribution, as it did before industrialism, and is at the transport and communication streams that disruption will occur. And this will be riot, and there won't be much organization, centralization, hierarchy or solidarity. I am ok with "tribalism" although still looking for a better expression, and recognizing that a tribe is 15-50 people, and absolutely not scalable. Tribes can network, and people can have multiple and transient affiliations.

    Clover's model is the Paris Commune.

    (PS: If you don't like "tribe" come up with a word or expression that usefully describes the sociality of Black Lives Matter (movement, maybe) or even better Crooked Timber.)

    Lee A. Arnold 08.30.16 at 9:21 pm
    The left scarcely knows how to respond.

    Almost all people are primarily led by emotions and use reason only secondarily, to justify the emotions.

    There is a rude set of socio-economic "principles" which they call upon to buttress these arguments. You can hear these principles at any blue-collar job site, and you can hear them in a college lecture on economics, too:

    –nature is selfish
    –resources are scarce
    –money measures real value
    –wants are infinite
    –there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL)
    –you have to work for your daily bread
    –incentives matter
    –people want to keep up with the Joneses
    –labor should be geographically mobile
    –government is inefficient
    –welfare destroys families
    –printing money causes inflation
    –the economy is a Darwinian mechanism

    These are either false, or else secondary and ephemeral, and/or becoming inopportune and obsolete. None of them survives inspection by pure reason.

    Yet this is an aggregate that buzzes around in almost everyone's head, is INTERNALIZED as true, for expectations both personal and social. And which causes most of our problems.

    Consider TANSTAAFL: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Yet obviously there is such a thing as a cheaper lunch, or else there would be no such thing as the improvement in the standard of living. …Okay, you say, but "resources are scarce." …Well no, we are quickly proceeding to the point where technological change and substitution will end real scarcity, and without ecological degradation. Therefore: can cheaper lunches proceed to the point where they are effectively free for the purposes of meeting human need, "your daily bread"? …Well no, you say, because people are greedy, and beyond their needs, they have wants: "wants are infinite." …But wait, wants really cannot be infinite, because a "want" takes mental time to have, and you only have so many hours in every day, and so many days in your life. In fact your wants are finite, and quite boring, and the Joneses' wants are finite sand boring too. (Though why you want to keep up with those boneheads the Joneses is a bit beyond me.) …Okay, you say, but "incentives matter": if you give people stuff, they will just slack off: "welfare destroys families." …But wait a minute. If we have insisted that people must work to feel self-worth, yet capitalism puts people out of work until there are no jobs available, and there are no business opportunities to provide ever-cheaper lunches, isn't welfare the least of our problems, isn't welfare a problem that gets solved when we solve the real problem?

    But what is the real problem? Is the real problem that we don't know how to interact with strangers without the use of money, and so we think that money is a real thing? Is the real problem your certain feeling that we need to work for our self-worth? Is the real problem that capitalism is putting itself out of business, and showing that these so-called principles are just a bunch of bad excuses? Is the real problem that we are all caught in a huge emotional loop of bad thinking, now becoming an evident disaster?

    bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:26 pm
    And also of course, people looking at Trump and his followers (or their enemies and opponents in the Democratic Party) and seeing "tribalism" are simply modernists engaging in nostalgia and reactionary analysis.

    Trump_vs_deep_state is not fascism, and a Trump Rally is not Nuremberg. Much closer to Carnival

    Wiki: "Interpretations of Carnival present it as a social institution that degrades or "uncrowns" the higher functions of thought, speech, and the soul by translating them into the grotesque body, which serves to renew society and the world,[37] as a release for impulses that threaten the social order that ultimately reinforces social norms ,[38] as a social transformation[39] or as a tool for different groups to focus attention on conflicts and incongruities by embodying them in "senseless" acts."

    …or riot.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.30.16 at 10:50 pm
    I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious analysis to say that it is.

    "Tribalism" was coined as a kind of shorthand for what Michael Berube used to refer to "I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11, I'm outraged by Chappaquiddick." It's the wholesale adoption of what at first looks like a value or belief system but is actually a social signaling system that one belongs to a group. People on the left refer to this signaling package as "tribal" primarily out of envy (I write somewhat jokingly) because the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side.

    Greg McKenzie 08.30.16 at 11:47 pm
    "Tribalism" feeds into the factionalism of parties. The left has a strong faction both inside the ALP and the Liberal Party. The Right faction, in the NLP, is currently in ascendancy but this will not last. Just as the Right faction (in the ALP) was sidelined by clever ALP faction battles, the current members of the NLP's Right faction are on borrowed time. But all politicians are "mugs" as Henry Lawson pointed out over a hundred years ago. Politicians can be talked into anything, if it gives them an illusion of power. So "tribalism" is more powerful than "factionalism" simply because it has more staying power. Left faction and Right faction merely obey the demands of their tribal masters.
    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:47 am
    . . . the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side

    honestly, I do not think "tribalism" is a "strong package" on Right or Left. Part of the point of tribalism in politics is just how superficial and media driven it is. The "signaling package" is put together and distributed like cigarette or perfume samples: everybody gets their talking points.

    Pretending to care dominates actually caring. On the right - as Rich points out with the reference to "rolling coal", some people on the Right who have donned their tribal sweatshirts get their kicks out of supposing that somebody on the Left actually cares and they can tweak those foolishly caring Lefties.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:57 am
    I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible Patrick Murphy.

    Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might be premature.

    Martin 08.31.16 at 2:11 am
    @ Bob Zannelli 10: To describe something as "hard wired" is to give up: what course of action could we take? But, then, why isn't everyone a member of the tribalist party? Has everyone, always, been of the tribalist party? (I know someone could argue, 'everyone is racist' or 'all these white liberals are just as racist really', but even if that is somehow true, most are members of the socialist party or the neoliberal party).

    Rather than deciding it is all too hard, we can at least find out who supports tribalism, why it makes sense to them, whether it benefits them, how it benefits them, if it does, and why they support it anyway, if it does not benefit them.

    I suppose (I am guessing here), some tribalists are benefiting from differential government support, such as immigration policies that keep out rival potential employees, or tariff policies that keep out competitors; or at least, that they used to benefit like that. But Crooked Timber should have readers who can answer this kind of question from their expertise.

    Collect the evidence, then understand, then act.

    Howard Frant 08.31.16 at 6:39 am
    I suppose it's too late to try to convince people here that the term "neoliberalism" is a virus that devastates the analytic functions of the brain, but I'll try. The term is based on a European use of the word "liberal" that has never had any currency in the US. It's a wholly pejorative term based on a misunderstanding of Hayek (who did *not* believe in laissez-faire), but may be a reasonable approximation of the beliefs of , say, Thatcher. Then that term was confounded with a totally unconnected term invented by Peters, who was using the word "liberal" in the American sense. And presto, we have a seamless worlwide philosophy with "hard" and "soft" variants.

    As far as, say, H. Clinton is concerned, I can see no respect in which it would be wrong to describe her as just a "liberal" in the American sense. American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also been pro-union– so we can just say that's *soft* neoliberalism and preserve our sense that we are part of a world-wide struggle. Or not.

    Bernie Sanders was celebrated by the left for supporting a tax on carbon (without mentioning, of course, what price of gasoline he was contemplating), but this is an excellent illustration of what Peters would have considered a neoliberal policy. The term now just seems to mean anything I don't like.

    As for Benedict Arnold, I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton, you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage. To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats were selling. False consciousness, no doubt.

    So rather than spending a lot of time celebrating victory over this hegemonic ideology, perhaps people should be talking about liberalism and whatever we're calling the left alternative to it.

    Peter T 08.31.16 at 10:54 am
    "Tribalism" is unhelpful here, because it obscures the contribution "tribalism" has made and can make to effective social democracy. It was on the basis of class and national tribalisms (solidarities is a better word) that social democracy was built, and its those solidarities that give it what strength it still has. That others preferred, and still prefer, other forms of solidarity – built around region or religion or language – should neither come as a surprise nor be seen as basis for opposition. It's the content, not the form, that matters.

    Self-interest is too vague and shifting, international links too weak, to make an effective politics. Our single most pressing problem – climate change – can clearly only be dealt with internationally. Yet the environmental and social problems that loom almost as large are clearly ones that can best be dealt with on national or sub-national scales. As this becomes clearer I expect the pressure to downsize and de-link from the global economy will intensify (there are already signs in this direction). The social democrat challenge is then to guide local solidarities towards democracy, not decry them.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.31.16 at 10:56 am
    If we're really looking for a general word that works across national boundaries, it's a well-used one: conservatism. People sometimes object that conservatives in one country are not the same as conservatives in another country, but really the differences are not much greater than in liberalism across countries, socialism, etc. Conservatism includes the characteristics of authoritarianism and nationalism. U.S. "tribalism" is its local manifestation: the use of "tribalism" to denote a global style of conservatism denotes a particular, contemporary type of conservatism, just as neoliberalism is a type of liberalism. You could divide JQ's three groups into left, liberal, conservative but since you're using neoliberal as the middle one (e.g. a contemporary mode) then "tribalism" or something like it seems appropriate for the last.

    Note that there is no word for a contemporary mode of leftism, because there isn't one. The closest is the acephalous or consensus style of many recent movements and groups, but that mode hasn't won elections or taken power.

    Peter T 08.31.16 at 11:43 am
    The post focuses essentially on the challenge from above – the plutocracy – but the challenge from below is also relevant:
    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-insurgency/
    reason 08.31.16 at 12:48 pm
    John Quiggin,
    What I see as the missing point here, and perhaps we disagree upon it's significance, is resource limitations. We can't avoid the violent reversion to zero sum games unless we address the problem (exactly when it has or will reach crisis point is perhaps a point of disagreement) of expanding population meets finite resources (or even meets already fully owned resources).

    I don't buy the argument that there a technological solution, or the argument that population will stabilize before it gets too bad (I don't see what will drive it – because Malthus was partly right).

    If people are unable to survive where they are, they will try to move, and people already living where they are moving to won't like it. Perhaps we are already seeing some of this, perhaps not. But it will drive tribalism (joining together to keep the "invaders" out) and won't drive the left. I have a feeling that the "left" should be replaced by a "green" view of the world, but for one thing, that will need a new economics – perhaps on the lines sketched out by Herman Daly. Maybe the term "left" is too associated with a Marxist view of the world to be useful any more.

    Will G-R 08.31.16 at 2:00 pm
    Apart from the obvious advantages "fascism" brings to the table - the sense of describing "Trump_vs_deep_state" in terms of what it seeks to develop into and not in terms of its current and clearly underdeveloped form, as well as the sense of tying our current state of poorly grasped ideological confusion back to WWII as the last clear three-way "battlefield of ideologies" pitting liberalism against fascism against socialism - the term is broadly symbolically appropriate for the same reasons it was originally adopted by Mussolini. The sense of national solidarity and "strength through unity" (i.e. the socialist element of National Socialism) is exactly what John Quiggin is characterizing as "the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism", and the direct invocation of the Roman fasces as a symbol of pure authority is exactly what Z is getting at with the term "archism". Sure our latter-day manifestation of fascism hasn't (yet) led to an honest-to-God fascist regime in any Western country, but to kid ourselves that this isn't what it seeks or that it couldn't potentially get there would be, well, a bit too uncomfortably Weimar-ish of us.

    Besides which, I get that pooh-poohing about Godwin's Law and "everybody I don't like is Hitler" and so on is a nearly irresistible tic in today's liberal discourse, but c'mon people… we're all comfortable using the term "neoliberalism", which means we're all willing to risk having the same Poli Sci 101 conversations over and over again in the mainstream ("yes, Virginia, Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan are both liberals!") for the sake of our own theoretical clarity. At the very least "fascism" would have fewer problematic discursive connotations than "tribalism", which I absolutely refuse to use in this conversation without putting it in sneer quotes.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:17 pm
    The problem with neoliberalism is that it isn't really compatible with a modern free market economy. Simply because that system isn't well enough understood to allow experts, let alone informed amateurs, to reach a consensus on what a particular change will actually do. . . . It is the inability of the neoliberal communication style to credibly promise control that lost it.

    You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating the rationales provided by neoliberalism. We are going to improve efficiency by privatizing education, health care, pensions, prisons, transport. Innovation is the goal of deregulating finance, electricity. That is what they say.

    The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout is a cover story for the looting.

    The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences. The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:35 pm
    Will G-R @ 55

    So you know what Trump_vs_deep_state wants to become, so we should call it that, rather than describe what it is, because the ideological conflicts of 80 years ago were so much clearer.

    We live in the age of inverted totalitarianism. Trump isn't Mussolini, he's an American version of Berlusconi, a farcical rhyme in echo of a dead past. We probably are on the verge of an unprecedented authoritarian surveillance state, but Hillary Clinton doesn't need an army of blackshirts. The historical fascism demanded everything in the state. Our time wants everything in an iPhone app.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:54 pm
    reason @ 54

    Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void between.

    It is hard to see optimism as a growth stock. But, an effective left would need something to reintroduce mass action into politics against an elite that is groping toward a solution that entails replacing the masses with robots.

    Will G-R 08.31.16 at 3:38 pm
    "Trump_vs_deep_state" may be the term du jour in the US, but let's try to kick our stiflingly banal American habit of framing everything around our little quadrennial electoral freak shows. After all, the US and our rigid two-party system have always been an outlier in the vigor with which real political currents have been forced to conform to the narrow partisan vocabulary of either a left-liberal or a right-liberal major party. If hewing religiously to a patriotic sense of US institutionalism is supposed to ultimately save the liberal political sphere from the underlying political-economic forces that threaten it, we might as well take a page from the Tea Party and start marching around in powdered wigs and tricorn hats for all the good it'll do us.

    In the rest of the Western world, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, the "fascist" parties (Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary, Ataka in Bulgaria, etc.) are generally less euphemistic about their role as fascist parties, and what forced sense of euphemism does exist seems to provide little more than a rhetorical opportunity for mockingly transparent coyness . To be fair, the predominant far-right parties in richer Western European countries (the FN, AfD, UKIP, etc.) are a bit more earnestly vague about their ambitions, so maybe a good compromise would be to call them (along with Trump) "soft fascists" in contrast to the "hard fascists" of Golden Dawn or Ataka. But fascism still makes much more sense than any other existing "-ism" I've seen, unless we want to just make one up.

    Marc 08.31.16 at 3:48 pm
    Analogies can obscure more than they illuminate.
    RichardM 08.31.16 at 4:11 pm
    > You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating the rationales provided by neoliberalism.

    Fair point. On the other hand, if neoliberalism rule, then neoliberals will be the rulers. And if not, not. Whatever the nature of the rulers, they rarely starve. Worldwide, average corruption is almost certainly lower in mostly-neoliberal countries than in less-neoliberal places like China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, …

    The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of whom is (unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you ask for, admittedly while ensuring they personally have a nice life being well-fed, warm and listened-to. The other plans to take it all and deliver nothing.

    Given that nobody trustworthy knows anything, at least in a form they can explain, you can't get useful information as to which is which. 300 hours of reading reports of their rhetoric in newspapers, blogs, etc. leaves you none the wiser. And by the time you have a professional-level of knowledge of what's going on, you are part of the problem.

    Might as well just stick to looking at who has which label next to their name, or who has good hair.

    Will G-R 08.31.16 at 4:16 pm
    Marc, the discourse of Godwin's Law has done a wonderful job solidifying the delusion that what '20s-through-'40s-era fascists once represented is categorically dead and buried, which is why it seems like the word can't be used as anything other than an obtuse historical analogy. But it's not an analogy - it's a direct insinuation that what these people currently represent is a clear descendant of what those people once represented, however mystified by its conditioned aversion to the word "fascism" itself. On the contrary, if we surrender to the Godwin's Law discourse and accept that fascism can never mean anything in contemporary discourse except as an all-purpose "everything I don't like is Hitler" analogy or whatever, it means we've forgotten what it means to actually be anti-fascist.

    BTW, the link from the last comment isn't working for whatever reason, so here's Take 2 .

    Bob Zannelli 08.31.16 at 5:27 pm
    So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race) the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism ( Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic, it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights, and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the connection.
    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:14 pm
    RichardM: Whatever the nature of the rulers, they rarely starve.

    Still not getting it. The operative question is whether the rulers feast because the society works or because the society fails.

    Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants. Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top

    The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task - it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed a parasitic elite.

    The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of whom is (unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you ask for, admittedly while ensuring they personally have a nice life being well-fed, warm and listened-to. The other plans to take it all and deliver nothing.

    Again, you are not getting it. This isn't about lesser evil. "Lesser evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians, both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net; they are competing to deliver you.

    Any apparent choice offered to you is just part of the b.s. The "300 hours of reading" is available if you need a hobby or the equivalent of a frontal lobotomy.

    I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals - that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite grasp, but never mind.

    Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa.

    Hillary Clinton is running the Democratic Party in such a way that she wins the Presidency, but the Party continues to be excluded from power in Congress and in most of the States. This is by design. This is the neoliberal design. She cannot deliver on her corrupt promises to the Big Donors if she cannot play the game Obama has played so superbly of being hapless in the face of Republican intransigence.

    In the meantime, those aspiring to be part of the credentialed managerial classes that conduct this controlled demolition while elaborating the surveillance state that is expected to hold things together in the neo-feudal future are instructed in claiming and nurturing their individual political identity against the day of transformation of consciousness, when feminism will triumph even in a world where we never got around to regulating banks.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:33 pm
    Will G-R, Bob Zannelli

    Actual, historical fascism required the would-be fascists to get busy, en masse . Trump (and Clinton) will be streamed on demand so you can stay home and check Facebook. Hitler giving a two-hour 15000 word speech and Trump, Master of the Twitterverse, belong to completely different political categories, if not universes.

    There are so many differences and those differences are so deep and pervasive that the conversation hardly seems worth having.

    stevenjohnson 08.31.16 at 7:54 pm
    Historical fascism included not just Hitler's Germany, but Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar/Caetano's Portugal, Ionescu's Romania, the Ustase in Croatia, Tiso's Slovakia, Petliura's movement in Ukraine, and, arguably, Dollfuss' Austria, Horthy's Hungary, Imperial Japan, Peronist Argentina, the Poland of the post Pilsudski junta (read Beck on the diplomatics of a Jewish state in Uganda, which is I think symptomatic wishful thinking.)

    There is a strong correlation between the nations whose rulers accepted fascists into the government and losing WWI. The rest were new, insecure states that could profit their masters by expansion. At the time, the so-called Allies, except for the USSR, were essentially the official "winners" of WWI and therefore united against the would be revisionists like Germany. Therefore it was desirable to propagandize against the Axis as uniquely fascist.

    In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are not organized as business firms.

    Democracy is associated even with genocide, enslavement of peoples and mass population transfers to colonists. It began with democracy itself, with the Spartans turning Messenians into Helots and Athenians expropriating Euboeans and massacring Melians. Russian Cossacks on the Caucasian steppes or Paxton Boys in the US continued the process. When democracy came to the Ottoman empire, making Turkey required the horrific expulsion of the Armenians. (Their Trail of Tears was better publicized than the Cherokee's.) But the structural need to unify a nation by excluding Others led to the bloody expulsion of Greeks as well. The confirmation of national identity by a mix of ethnic, religious and racial markers required mass violence and war, as seen in the emergence of the international system of mercantilist capitalist states.

    The wide variations in historical fascism conclusively demonstrate every notion of fascism is somehow something essentially, metaphysically, antithetical is wrong. Fascism and democracy are not an antinomy. Particular doctrines that assert this, like the non-concept of "totalitarianism," serve as a kind of skeleton for political movements and parties. Since the triumph of what we in the US call McCarthyism all mainstream and all acceptable alternative politics share this same skeleton. It is unsurprising that such a beast is somehow not organically equipped to be an effective left. It's SYRIZA in Greece defining itself by the rejection of the KKE. There is no such thing as repudiation of revolution that doesn't imply accepting counter-revolution.

    Evan Neely 08.31.16 at 8:03 pm
    The problem I have with attempts to appeal to the supposedly "positive" aspects of tribalism, solidarity and the affection for longstanding institutions, is that it's presuming these aren't just our abstractions of something that's felt at a much more primal level. Tribalists don't love solidarity for the sake of the principle of solidarity: they feel solidarity because they love the specific people like them that they love and hate others.

    One set of tribalists doesn't look at another and say "hey, we respect the same principles." It says "they're not our tribe!!!" Point being, you're never going to get them on your side with appeals to abstractions. You're almost certainly never going to get them on your side no matter what you do.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 9:07 pm
    There is no vast neoliberal conspiracy . . .

    There obviously is a vast political movement, coordinated in ideology and the social processes of partisan politics and propaganda. Creating a strawperson "conspiracy" does not erase actual Clinton fundraising practices and campaign tactics, which exist independent of whatever narrative I weave them into.

    There are no corrupt promises from Clinton to big donors . . .

    !!! And, you are accusing me of being delusional.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.31.16 at 9:11 pm
    Calling our present-day GOP as led by Trump "fascism" is calling it a break with the past GOP. Corey Robin has been over this quite a bit here, but in many important respects there is no break. GWB, for instance, sometimes required attendees at his rallies to take a personal loyalty oath. And GWB is hailed by some people here as being the good conservative because he said that not all Muslims were bad, while, of course, killing a million Muslims. The contemporary GOP is an outgrowth of GOP tradition, and while some leftists may find calling all conservatism fascism convincing, I think that it's only convincing for the tiny number of people who adhere to their ideology.

    But conservatism and fascism are both right-wing and people can argue indefinitely about where the boundary is. So rather than talk about ideal types, let's look at how the rhetoric of calling it fascism works. Calling Trump_vs_deep_state fascism is primarily the rhetoric of HRC supporters, because functionally, what everyone pretty much agrees on is that when fascists appear, people on the left through moderate right are supposed to drop everything and unite in a Popular Front to oppose them.

    I don't think that people should drop everything. I think that HRC is going to win and that forming the mental habit of supporting the Democratic Party is easy to do and hard to break, and I think that the people who become Democratic Party supporters because of the threat of Trump / "fascism" are going to spend the next four years working directly against actual left interests.

    Will G-R 08.31.16 at 10:06 pm
    Rich, I think it would be a mistake to consider this as a question of "our present-day GOP as led by Trump". First because Trump isn't "leading" the GOP in any meaningful sense; as Jay Rosen's recent Tweet-storm encapsulates nicely , the GOP's institutional leadership is still liberal through and through, even if its ideological organs pander in some ideally implicit sense to what might otherwise be a fascist constituency. And second because Trump isn't really "leading" his own constituents either; if he were to make a high-profile about-face on the issues his voters care about, they'd likely be just as eager to dump him as Bernie Sanders' most passionate leftist supporters were to ignore his pro-Clinton appeals at the DNC.

    What's interesting about Trump isn't really anything to do with Trump per se, so much as what Trump's constituency would do if the normal functioning of the liberal institutions constraining it were to be disrupted in a serious way. Europe in the 1910s through 1940s was full of such disruptions, and should such an era return, the ideological currents we're now viewing through a heavily tinted institutional window would become much clearer.

    Ragweed 08.31.16 at 10:23 pm
    Val etc.

    I think that John's use of the word "tribalist" here means a world-view that explicitly values members of an in-group more than members not of the in-group. It is different from racism because it may be over other factors than race – religion, citizenship, nationalism, or even region. And the key word is explicitly. The big difference between tribalist and both neoliberal and left positions is that the other two are generally universalist.

    Neoliberals profess that everyone will be better off with deregulation, free markets, and technocratic solutions, and often explicitly reject the idea of something benefitting one racial, religious, or national group over another (though not the educated or wealthy, because these are allegedly meritocratic outcomes of the neoliberal order).

    The left likewise generally argues for an increase in equality and equal distribution of resources for all, whether that be class-based or based on some sort of gender, race, or sexual equality.

    So on an issue like a free trade deal, a neoliberal argument would support it, because gains of trade and various other reasons why it would make everyone better off; a leftist argument would oppose it on the grounds that it would make everyone worse off; and a tribalist argument would oppose it on the grounds that it took jobs away from American citizens, but wouldn't worry too much about the other guys.

    Of course, the lines are not always clear and distinct, they often overlap, mix, and borrow arguments from each other, and there are often hypocrisies' and inconsistencies (and John's point anyway is that the neoliberals tend to draw on coalitions with the other two factions), but I think it is a good general description of the distinction.

    And it is different from the more sociological use of tribal to mean any in-group/out-group distinction and social solidarity formation. Everyone is tribal in the sociological sense, but the tribalist that John is referring explicitly approves of that tribalism. A left intellectual may look down on "ignorant, racist, blue-collar Trump supporters", with as much bias as any tribalist, but would generally want them to have better education and a guarantee income so they were no longer ignorant and racist, whereas the tribalist generally thinks the other guy is less deserving.

    Sam Bradford 09.01.16 at 9:20 am

    What I wonder/worry about is whether tribalism, nationalism, call it what you will, is a necessity.

    It's very difficult for me to imagine an internationalist order that provides the kind of benefits to citizens that I'd want a state to provide. It's much easier to imagine nation states operating as enclaves of solidarity and mutual aid in an amorphous, anarchic and ruthless globalised environment. Yet the creation of a nation requires the creation of an in-group and an out-group, citizens and non-citizens.

    To put it more concretely: in my own country, New Zealand, the traditional Maori form of social organisation – a kind of communitarianism – currently appeals to me as offering more social solidarity and opportunity for human flourishing than our limp lesser-of-three-evils democracy. It is a society in which there is genuine solidarity and common purpose. Yet it is, literally, tribal; it admits no more than a few thousand people to each circle of mutual aid. I am sometimes tempted to believe that it is the correct way for human beings to live, despite my general dislike for biological determinism. I think I would rather abandon my obligations to the greater mass of humanity (not act against them, of course, just accept an inability to influence events) and be a member of a small society than be a helpless and hopeless atom in a sea of similar, utterly disenfranchised atoms.

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 4:32 pm

    Bob Zannelli: Gee what a concept, an obligation to vote in a democracy. As flawed as the US political process is, voting still matters and can affect change. It's not easy , but then it's never easy to reform anything.

    Just to give voice to the contrary perspective , voter turnout appears to play at least some role in the ideological process by which the US electoral system claims legitimacy: even though in purely procedural terms an election could work just fine if the total number of ballots was an infinitesimal fraction of the number of eligible voters ("Bill Clinton casts ballot, Hillary defeats Trump by 2 votes to 1!") low voter turnout is nonetheless depicted as a crisis not just for any particular candidate or party but for the entire electoral process. Accordingly, if I decide not to vote and thereby to decrease voter turnout by a small-but-nonzero amount, I'm adding a small-but-nonzero contribution to the public argument that the electoral process as presently institutionalized is illegitimate, so unless we propose to add a "none of the above" option to every single race and question on the ballot, to argue that citizens have an obligation to vote is to argue that they are obliged not to "vote" for the illegitimacy of the system as such. And plenty of ethical and political stances could be consistent with such a "vote", not the least of which is a certain historical stance whose proponents argued that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…"

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:05 pm

    I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box, people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.

    (Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should at least be consistent about it.)

    Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:14 pm
    I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box, people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.

    (Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should at least be consistent about it.) {}

    Jefferson has never impressed me very much ( except for his church state separation advocacy) His ideal of a democratic agrarian slave society I find not too appealing. He talked about the blood of tyrants but he spent his time drinking fine wines and being waiting on by his slaves during the revolutionary war. You're entitled to any views you want, but you're not entitled to be respected if you're views are nonsensical. Good luck on the revolution, I hope that works out for you.

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:15 pm

    Also, not to get personal, but the smarm here is so thick you could cut it with a knife…

    "Did I get you right? Is your response to an argument you find uncomfortable to simply intone 'holy shit'? Holy shit…"

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:20 pm

    So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence, or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy" . My counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised on the consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote in a democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent. As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system that orders you to consent .
    Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:37 pm

    So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence, or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy". My counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised on the consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote in a democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent. As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system that orders you to consent.{}

    I think anyone who expects to move the country away from Neo Liberalism to a more progressive direction without voting is a fool. What's the alternative , over throwing the government? If this is the plan we better not discuss it on social media. Of course it's all nonsense, if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right as almost happened under FDR during the hey day of fascism around the world. I think too many here are still living in a Marxist fantasy world , no one here is going to establish the dictatorship of the proletarians. Let's get real.

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 6:09 pm

    if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right

    So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining pure grade-A Colombian ideology.

    stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 6:24 pm

    Will G-R@86 "… because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent." Incorrect. Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. Not voting is meaningless, and will be interpreted as suited.

    Bob Zannelli@87 "Let's get real."

    Okay. What's real is, the game is rigged but you insist on making everyone ante up and play by the rules anyhow. What's real, is you have nothing to do with the left, except by defining the Democratic Party as the left. What's real is that the parties could just as well be labeled the "Ins" and the "Outs," and that would have just as much to do with the left, which is to repeat, nothing.

    bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 6:59 pm
    Bob Zannelli: What's the alternative?

    There is no alternative.

    Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 7:01 pm
    So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining pure grade-A Colombian ideology{}

    Right because the left is too busy plotting the revolution to engage in politics.

    bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:09 pm
    Hillary Clinton is engaging in politics and she's teh most librul librul evah! Why isn't that enough? It is not her fault, surely, that the devil makes her do unlibrul things - you have to be practical and practically, there is no alternative. We have to clap louder. That's the ticket!
    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 7:25 pm

    stevenjohnson: Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent.

    So why then is low voter turnout interpreted as a problem for democracy? Why wouldn't it be a cause for celebration if a large majority of the population was so happy with the system that they'd be happy with whoever won? On the contrary, a helpless person's tacit refusal to respond to a provocation can be the exact opposite of consent if whoever has them at their mercy actually needs a reaction: think of a torture victim who sits in silence instead of pleading for mercy or giving up the information the torturer is after. Whether or not it truly does need it, the ideology of liberal democracy at least acts as if it needs the legitimating idea that its leaders are freely and actively chosen by those they govern, and refusing to participate in this choice can be interpreted as an effort to deprive this ideology of its legitimating idea.

    bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:45 pm

    Will G-R @ 94

    Low voter turnout is interpreted as a problem by some people on some occasions. Why generalize to official "ideology" from their idiosyncratic and opportunistic pieties?

    Why are the concerns of, say, North Carolina's legislature that only the right people vote not official ideology? Or, the election officials in my own Los Angeles County, where we regularly have nearly secret elections with hard-to-find-polling-places - we got down to 8.6% in one election in 2015.

    Obama's DHS wants to designate the state election apparatus, critical infrastructure. Won't that be great? I guess Putin may not be able to vote, after all!

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:12 pm
    Bob, my impression is that CT is supposed to be a philosophy-oriented discussion space (or it wouldn't be named after a line from Kant for chrissake) and in philosophy one is supposed to subject one's premises to ruthless and unsparing criticism, or at least be able to fathom the possibility of doing so - including in this case premises like the legitimacy of the US government or the desirability of capitalism. Especially in today's neoliberal society there are precious few spaces where a truly philosophical outlook is supposed to be the norm, and honestly I'm offended that you seem to want to turn CT into yet another space where it isn't.
    stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm
    Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm not a regular, I post here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity of it all. My views are quite beyond the pale.

    Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense. Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure.

    As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class.

    Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail, but the long slow march of the owners through the institutions of power, gentrifying as they go, continues.

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:46 pm
    Bruce @ 95, correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that state and (especially) local governments in the US typically are viewed as highly prone to borderline-illegitimizing levels of corruption - imagine how we'd characterize the legitimacy of a City-State of Ferguson, or a Republic of Illinois under President Blagojevich - and part of what maintains the impression of legitimacy is the possibility of federal intervention on the people's behalf if things at the lower levels get out of hand. Where the federal government hasn't done so, notably in the case of African-American communities before the mid to late 20th century, is precisely where arguments for the illegitimacy of the entire system have gained serious traction. So IMO there could actually be quite a bit of subversive potential if the population at large were to openly reject the elected officials in Washington, DC as no more inherently legitimate than those in Raleigh, NC or Los Angeles County. (I briefly tried to look up the location within LA of its county seat and found that Wikipedia's article "Politics of Los Angeles County" was entirely about its citizens' voting record in federal politics, which itself illustrates the point.)

    [Sep 02, 2016] Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government

    Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered. ..."
    "... I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
    "... The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts. ..."
    "... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
    "... Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure. ..."
    "... I take it you do not believe economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class. ..."
    "... Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change. ..."
    crookedtimber.org
    Peter K. 09.02.16 at 8:38 pm
    @46

    " American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also been pro-union…"

    Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.

    I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered.

    That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.

    The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left.

    The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand.

    I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations. I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.

    Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm

    Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a Chinatown-esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.

    The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.

    So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc. through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions like the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media as such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious falls into the national spotlight.)

    Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.

    stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm


    Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm not a regular, I post here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity of it all. My views are quite beyond the pale.

    Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense. Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure.

    As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class.

    Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail, but the long slow march of the owners through the institutions of power, gentrifying as they go, continues.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasnt delivered

    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
    "... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Peter K. 09.02.16 at 8:38 pm

    @46

    " American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also been pro-union…"

    Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.

    I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered.

    That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.

    I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.

    [Sep 02, 2016] The [Neoliberal] Presss Vendetta Against Trump Is Real and Unscrupulous

    Notable quotes:
    "... Is Donald Trump really as stupid as the press seems to think? And if not, how do we explain the press's version of countless Trumpian controversies lately? ..."
    "... What is not in doubt is that if the election were to revolve around fundamental policy proposals (what an innovation!), it would be Trump's to lose. As Patrick Buchanan has observed, "on the mega-issue, America's desire for change, and on specific issues, Trump holds something close to a full house." ..."
    "... On out-of-control immigration and gratuitously counterproductive foreign military adventures, he has seriously wrong-footed Hillary Clinton. He has moreover made remarkable progress in focusing attention on America's trade disaster. Thanks in large measure to his plain talk, the Clintons have finally been forced into ignominious retreat on their previous commitment to blue-sky globalism. For more on Hillary Clinton's trade woes, click here . ..."
    "... Trump's hawkish stance not only packs wide popular appeal but, as I know from more than two decades covering the global economy from a vantage point in Tokyo, it addresses disastrous American policy-making misconceptions going back generations. ..."
    "... Smith based his intellectual edifice on the rather pedestrian observation that rainy England was good at raising sheep, while sunny Portugal excelled in growing grapes. What could be more reasonable than for England to trade its wool for Portugal's wine? But, while Smith's case is a charming insight into eighteenth century simplicities, the fact is that climate-based agricultural endowments have long since ceased to play a decisive role in First World trade. Today the key factor is advanced manufacturing. By comparison, not only is agriculture a negligible force but, as I documented in a book some years ago, even such advanced service industries as computer software are disappointing exporters. ..."
    "... In theory China should be a great market for, for instance, the U.S. auto industry – and it is, sort of. The Detroit companies have been told that while their American-made products are not welcome, they can still make money in China provided only they manufacture there AND bring their most advanced production know-how. ..."
    "... Corporate America's Chinese subsidiaries moreover are expected almost from the get-go to export. In the early days they sell mainly to Africa and Southern Asia but then, as they approach state-of-the-art quality control, they come under increasing pressure to export even to the United States – with all that that implies for the job security of the very American workers and engineers who developed the advanced production know-how in the first place. ..."
    "... Naturally all this has gone unnoticed in such reflexively anti-Trump media as the Washington Post . (A good account , however, is available at the pro-Trump website, Breitbart.com.) ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Chicago Tribune ..."
    Aug 19, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Is Donald Trump really as stupid as the press seems to think? And if not, how do we explain the press's version of countless Trumpian controversies lately?

    Take, for instance, the Kovaleski affair. According to a recent Bloomberg survey, no controversy has proven more costly to Trump.

    The episode began when, in substantiating his erstwhile widely ridiculed allegation that Arabs in New Jersey had publicly celebrated the Twin Towers attacks, Trump unearthed a 2001 newspaper account in which law enforcement authorities were stated to have detained "a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river." This seemed to settle the matter. But the report's author, Serge Kovaleski, demurred. Trump's talk of "thousands" of Arabs, he alleged, was an exaggeration.

    Trump fired back. Flailing his arms wildly in an impersonation of an embarrassed, backtracking reporter, he implied that Kovaleski had bowed to political correctness.

    So far, so normal for this election cycle. But it turned out that Kovaleski is no ordinary Trump-dissing media liberal. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are malformed.

    For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if disturbing, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking a disabled person.

    Trump pleaded that he hadn't known Kovaleski was handicapped. This was undermined, however, when it emerged that in the 1980s the two had not only met but Kovaleski had even interviewed Trump in Trump Tower. Trump was reduced to pleading a fading memory, something that those of us of a certain age can sympathize with, but, of course, it didn't wash with Trump's accusers.

    In responding directly to the charge of mocking a disabled person, Trump commented: "I would never do that. Number one, I have a good heart; number two, I'm a smart person." Setting aside point one (although to the press's chagrin, many of Trump's acquaintances have testified that a streak of considerable private generosity underlies his tough-guy public image), it is hard to see how anyone can question point two. Even if he really is the sort of unspeakable buffoon who might mock someone's disability, he surely has enough political smarts to know that there is no profit in doing so in a public forum.

    There has to be something else here, and, as we will see, there is. Key details have been swept under the rug. We will get to them in a moment but first let's review the wider context. Candidate Trump's weaknesses are well-known. He is unusually thin-skinned and can readily be lured into tilting at windmills. His reality-television persona is sometimes remarkably abrasive. His penchant for speaking off-the-cuff has resulted in a series of exaggerations and outright gaffes.

    All that said, if he ends up losing in November, it will probably be less because of his own shortcomings than the amazing lengths to which the press has gone in misrepresenting him – painting him by turns weird, erratic, and downright sinister.

    What is not in doubt is that if the election were to revolve around fundamental policy proposals (what an innovation!), it would be Trump's to lose. As Patrick Buchanan has observed, "on the mega-issue, America's desire for change, and on specific issues, Trump holds something close to a full house."

    On out-of-control immigration and gratuitously counterproductive foreign military adventures, he has seriously wrong-footed Hillary Clinton. He has moreover made remarkable progress in focusing attention on America's trade disaster. Thanks in large measure to his plain talk, the Clintons have finally been forced into ignominious retreat on their previous commitment to blue-sky globalism. For more on Hillary Clinton's trade woes, click here .

    Trump's hawkish stance not only packs wide popular appeal but, as I know from more than two decades covering the global economy from a vantage point in Tokyo, it addresses disastrous American policy-making misconceptions going back generations.

    The standard Adam Smith/David Ricardo case for free trade, long considered holy writ in Washington, has in the last half century become ludicrously anachronistic.

    Smith based his intellectual edifice on the rather pedestrian observation that rainy England was good at raising sheep, while sunny Portugal excelled in growing grapes. What could be more reasonable than for England to trade its wool for Portugal's wine? But, while Smith's case is a charming insight into eighteenth century simplicities, the fact is that climate-based agricultural endowments have long since ceased to play a decisive role in First World trade. Today the key factor is advanced manufacturing. By comparison, not only is agriculture a negligible force but, as I documented in a book some years ago, even such advanced service industries as computer software are disappointing exporters.

    For nations intent on improving their manufacturing prowess (and, by extension, their standing in the world incomes league table), a key gambit is to manipulate the global trading system. Japan and Germany were the early leaders in intelligent mercantilism but in recent years the most consequential exemplar has been China.

    In theory China should be a great market for, for instance, the U.S. auto industry – and it is, sort of. The Detroit companies have been told that while their American-made products are not welcome, they can still make money in China provided only they manufacture there AND bring their most advanced production know-how.

    While such an arrangement may promise good short-term profits (nicely fattening up those notorious executive stock options), the trade-deficit-plagued American economy is immediately deprived of badly needed exports. Meanwhile the long-term implications are devastating. In industry after industry, leading American corporations have been induced not only to move jobs to China but to transfer their most advanced production technology. In many cases moreover, almost as soon as a U.S. company has transferred its production secrets to a Chinese subsidiary, these "migrate" to rising Chinese competitors. Precisely the sort of competitively crucial technology that in an earlier era ensured that American workers were not only by far the world's most productive but the world's best paid have been served up on a silver salver to America's most formidable power rival.

    Corporate America's Chinese subsidiaries moreover are expected almost from the get-go to export. In the early days they sell mainly to Africa and Southern Asia but then, as they approach state-of-the-art quality control, they come under increasing pressure to export even to the United States – with all that that implies for the job security of the very American workers and engineers who developed the advanced production know-how in the first place.

    Almost alone in corporate America, the Detroit companies have hitherto baulked at shipping their Chinese-made products back to the United States but their resolve is weakening. Already General Motors has announced that later this year it will begin selling Chinese-made Buicks in the American, European, and Canadian markets. It is the thin end of what may prove to be a very large wedge.

    Naturally all this has gone unnoticed in such reflexively anti-Trump media as the Washington Post . (A good account , however, is available at the pro-Trump website, Breitbart.com.)

    For the mainstream press, the big nation-defining issues count as nothing compared to Trump's personal peccadillos, real or, far too often, imagined.

    This brings us back to Kovaleski. Did Trump really mean to mock a handicapped person's disability? On any fair assessment, the answer is clearly No. As the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital exonerating evidence.

    The truth is that Trump's frenetic performance bore no resemblance to the rigid look of arthrogryposis victims. Pointing out that Kovaleski conducted no on-camera interviews in the immediate wake of the Trump performance, Catholics 4 Trump has commented:

    Shouldn't the media have been chomping at the bit to get Kovaleski in front of their cameras to embarrass Trump and prove to the world Trump was clearly mocking his disability? If the media had a legitimate story, that is exactly what they would have done and we all know it. But the media couldn't put Kovaleski in front of a camera or they'd have no story…..But, if they showed video of Trump labeled "Trump Mocks Disabled Reporter," then put up a still shot of Kovaleski, they knew you, the viewer, would assume Kovaleski's disability must make his arms move without control.

    According to Catholics 4 Trump, in the same speech in which he presented his Kovaleski cameo, Trump acted out similar histrionics to portray a flustered U.S. general. Meanwhile, on another occasion, he used the same wildly flapping hand motions to lampoon Ted Cruz's rationalizations on waterboarding. Thus as neither the flustered general nor Ted Cruz are known to be physically handicapped, we have little reason to assume that Trump's Kovaleski routine represented anything other than an admittedly eccentric portrayal of someone prevaricating under political pressure.

    Perhaps the ultimate smoking gun in all this is the behavior of the Washington Post . On August 10, it published a particularly one-sided account by Callum Borchers. When someone used the reader comments section to reference the alternative Catholics 4 Trump explanation, the links were deleted almost immediately. As Catholics 4 Trump pointed out, the Post 's hidden agenda suddenly stood revealed for all to see:

    This demonstrates that the Washington Post is aware of evidence existing that contradicts their conclusions, and that they are willfully attempting to conceal it from their readers. If Borchers and WaPo were honest and truly wanted to report ALL of the evidence for and against and let the readers decide, they would have to include the video of Kovaleski and the video of Trump impersonating a flustered General and a flustered Cruz. Any objective report would include both evidence for and against a certain interpretation of the Trump video.

    What are we to make of the various other press controversies that have increasingly dogged the Trumpmobile? For the most part, not much.

    One recurring controversy concerns how rich Trump really is. The suggestion is that his net worth is way short of the $10 billion he claims.

    He has come in for particular flak from the author Timothy O'Brien, who a decade ago pronounced him worth "$250 million tops." Although O'Brien continues to pop up regularly in places like the Washington Post and Bloomberg, his methodology has been faulted by Forbes magazine, which, of course, has long been the ultimate authority in such matters.

    What can be said for sure is that even the best informed and most impartial calculation can only be tentative. The fact is that the Trump business is private and thus not subject to daily stock market assessment.

    There is moreover a special complication almost unique to the Trump business - the value of his brand. In Trump's own mind, he seems to think of himself as a latter-day Cesar Ritz – albeit he projects less an image of five-star discretion as high-rolling hedonism. That the brand is a considerable asset, however, is obvious from the fact that he franchises it to, among others, independent real-estate developers. That said, it is an intangible whose value moves up and down in the same elevator as The Donald's personal standing in global esteem.

    All that said, in a major assessment last year, Forbes editor Randall Lane put Trump's net worth at $4.5 billion. Although that is way short of Trump's own estimate, it still bespeaks world class business acumen.

    Another controversy concerns the country of origin of Trump campaign paraphernalia. After he disclosed that his ties were made in China, his criticism of America's huge bilateral trade deficit with China was denounced as hypocrisy.

    Again there is less here than meets the eye. It is surely not unprincipled for someone to argue for laws to be changed even while in the meantime he or she continues to benefit from the status quo.

    Warren Buffett, for instance, has often suggested that tax rates should be raised for plutocrats like himself. In the meantime, however, he continues to pay lower rates than many of his junior staff and nobody calls him a hypocrite. By the same token, many Ivy League-educated journalists privately criticize the legacy system under which their children and the children of other graduates of top universities enjoy preferential treatment in admissions. Few if any such parents, however, would stand in the way of their own children cashing in on the system. Should they?

    Perhaps Trump's most egregious experience of press misrepresentation was sparked when he archly urged Russia to hack into Clinton's personal server to discover her missing emails. "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," he said. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press!"

    This was sarcasm laid on with a trowel but the press, of course, wasn't buying it. Yet it is not as if sarcasm is new to American politics. No less a figure than Abraham Lincoln had a famously sarcastic tongue and the press laughed along with him. When someone complained of Ulysses Grant's drinking, for instance, Lincoln rushed to the defense of the Union's most successful general. "Can you tell me where he gets his whiskey," Lincoln asked. "Because, if I can only find out, I will send a barrel of this wonderful whiskey to every general in the army."

    Then there was Harry Truman, the man who declared himself in search of a one-handed economist. When he was not making fun of dismal scientists, he found plenty of other opportunities for caustic wit. After he was presented with the Chicago Tribune 's front page saying "Dewey Defeats Truman," for instance, he commented: "I knew I should have campaigned harder!"

    As for Trump, his wit is clearly a major draw with the ordinary voters who flock to his meetings. Yet little of it is ever recycled in the press. In the case of the Russia hacking joke indeed, many commentators were so humorless as to mutter darkly about a threat to national security. At Slate, Osita Nwanevu interviewed a lawyer to see what could be done to arraign Trump on treason charges. (The answer was nothing.) Meanwhile at Politico, Nahal Toosi and Seung Min Kim reported that Trump's crack had "shocked, flabbergasted, and appalled lawmakers and national security experts across the political spectrum." They quoted Philip Reiner, a former national security official in the Obama administration, describing Trump as a "scumbag animal." Reiner went on to comment: "Hacking email is a criminal activity. And he's asked a foreign government – a murderous, repressive regime – to attack not just one of our citizens but the Democratic presidential candidate? Of course it's a national security threat."

    Countless other examples could be cited of how the press has piled on in ways that clearly make a mockery of claims to fairness. All this is not to suggest that Trump hasn't made many unforced errors. His handling of the Khizr Khan affair in particular played right into the press's agenda. As Khan had lost a son in Iraq, his taunts should have been ignored. By challenging Khan, Trump was charging the cape, not the matador. The matador, of course, was Hillary, and she was actually highly exposed. Trump, after all, could have simply confined his riposte to the fact that but for her vote, and the votes of other Senators, the United States would never have entered Iraq, and Khan's unfortunate son would still be alive.

    Where does Trump go from here? Although it is probably too late to get the press to fall into line in observing traditional standards of fairness, Trump can make it harder for the press to deliver cheap shots.

    He needs to stake out the high ground and get a serious policy discussion going. The debates should help but the first one is still more than a month away. In the meantime one strategy would be to compile detailed, authoritative reports on trade, immigration, and other key issues. While such reports would not reach everyone, in these days of the internet they would find a useful readership among an influential, if no doubt relatively small, cadre of thoughtful constituents. They could thus work indirectly but powerfully to change the tone of the campaign. Certainly such an initiative would be hard for the mainstream press simply to ignore – and even harder completely to misrepresent.

    Eamonn Fingleton is the author of In the Jaws of the Dragon: America's Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony . He interviewed Trump for Forbes magazine in 1982.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Donald Trumps Latest Hire Shows Hes No Different Than His Old Republican Foes

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump once denounced his Republican primary opponents as being "totally in cahoots" with the unlimited-money super PACs supporting their campaigns. But that was then, and this is now. This week, Trump announced he hired the man whose activism literally led to the creation of super PACs , and whose most recent gig was leading a pro-Trump super PAC. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | www.huffingtonpost.com
    Donald Trump once denounced his Republican primary opponents as being "totally in cahoots" with the unlimited-money super PACs supporting their campaigns. But that was then, and this is now. This week, Trump announced he hired the man whose activism literally led to the creation of super PACs , and whose most recent gig was leading a pro-Trump super PAC.

    That man is David Bossie. The longtime head of the conservative nonprofit Citizens United is now Trump's deputy campaign manager. Yes, that Citizens United.

    The conservative nonprofit group filed a lawsuit in 2007 against the Federal Election Commission. The case eventually snowballed into a 2010 Supreme Court decision that legalized unlimited corporate and union spending in elections, so long as it remained independent from candidates and political parties. A subsequent lower court decision based entirely on the Citizens United ruling opened the door to unlimited giving by wealthy individuals and, in turn, the FEC created super PACs to allow for this money to flow.

    Trump was once the candidate who denounced big money and declared his independence from donor influence through his self-financing. Now, he's schmoozing with big donors and asking for their advice as he prods them for money, while employing supporters of further campaign finance deregulation.

    "It does paint Donald Trump's campaign as not being friendly to campaign finance reform," said Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the pro-campaign finance reform group Public Citizen.

    That may be of little surprise, considering the Republican Party platform calls for the elimination of all campaign contribution limits

    [Sep 02, 2016] Debbie Wasserman Schultz Hangs Onto Her Seat In Florida Primary

    Another slap in the face for Sanders: She defeated progressive law professor Tim Canova.
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) won her primary Tuesday, a positive development for the congresswoman after a tumultuous past few months.

    Wasserman Schultz beat progressive law professor Tim Canova, who drew on the same anti-corporate momentum that fueled the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), earning him national attention and significant contributions from Sanders supporters. The political novice was even raising more money than Wasserman Schultz during the campaign.

    With 98 percent of the votes counted, Wasserman Schultz had 57 percent, to Canova's 43 percent, according to The Associated Press.

    Not that long ago, even talking about a possible Wasserman Schultz defeat would have been outlandish. She ran the Democratic National Committee, held a safe blue seat and had never had a competitive primary.

    But furor at Wasserman Schultz grew during the presidential primary as many progressives criticized her for seeming to tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton, and lingering frustrations over her management of the party spilled into the open. Canova campaigned against her as the "quintessential corporate machine politician." In March, President Barack Obama endorsed Wasserman Schultz, an early indication that the congresswoman needed some help in retaining her seat.

    Wasserman Schultz resigned as DNC chair on the eve of the convention last month as Sanders supporters gathered in Philadelphia took to the streets and protested her. The catalyst was a leak of DNC staffers' emails that seemed to show the party working to help get Clinton elected ― even though it was supposed to be neutral in the primary. The congresswoman wanted to keep her speaking spot at the convention, but ultimately, she was forced to give that up as well.

    Wasserman Schultz also faced outrage from progressives for co-sponsoring legislation to gut new rules put forward by the Obama administration intended to rein in predatory payday lending. The activist group Allied Progressive released an ad in Florida, hitting the DNC chair for teaming up with Republicans to defeat the policy.

    For Sanders supporters, the race became a fight against corporate interests and a way to eke out a victory after the senator's loss in the Democratic presidential primary.

    Yet despite this dissatisfaction, Canova's candidacy lagged. Sanders sent out fundraising emails on his behalf, but he never went to Florida and campaigned in person.

    "There are a lot of people who feel disappointed," Canova told The Atlantic. "There are a lot of people in South Florida who wanted Bernie Sanders to come down."

    Clinton, meanwhile, paid a surprise visit to a Wasserman Schultz field office and praised the congresswoman when she was in Miami last month. She also won the district against Sanders by a landslide.

    Being tied to Sanders could also have been a double-edged sword, as Canova told NBC News.

    "Bernie ran a lousy campaign in Florida," he said. "Bernie had his problems with certain constituencies that I don't have problems with."

    The 23rd district is heavily Democratic, and Wasserman Schultz is expected to win in November.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Trump and the Scapegoat Effect

    There is a simpler explanation: Trump is hated and constantly vilified by neoliberal MSM because he threatens neoliberal establishment and imperial bureaucracy. Especially neocons. That's why they changed party affiliation and will vote for Hillary. They have found a new friend.
    Notable quotes:
    "... he is often mocked for having small hands and goofy orange hair; he eats profane food like McDonald's; ..."
    "... But Trump is a monster! Yes, but given the right circumstance, so are you. His ugliness is simply more apparent than that of other managers of the state's sacred violence. ..."
    "... Think his call to deport illegally undocumented workers is fascist? The Obama administration, garbed as it is with the shimmering rhetoric of victimhood, has already deported over 2,500,000 human beings-23 percent more than Bush. ..."
    "... How about his pledge to torture suspected terrorists? Clinton-Bush-Obama beat him to it. They just don't talk about it like he does. And let's not limit it to foreigners; Obama didn't bat an eye as elderly tax protester Irwin Schiff died of cancer chained to a prison bed far away from his family for breaking the sacred taboo against being too stingy in sharing his resources with the collective. ..."
    "... How about the time Trump promised to target terrorists' families? Obama, the great defender of Islam, already trumped that when he murdered people like U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who hadn't seen his father for two years. This teen and his friends were blown apart by the Nobel prize winner while having a campfire dinner, apparently for the sinful dreams of his father. ..."
    "... From Buzzfeed to Vanity Fair , CNN, the New York Times , broadcast networks, Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies, academia, Hollywood, music stars, Silicon valley, and NPR, to both party establishments, everyone's united in this orgy of outrage. It's almost like the scapegoat purgings of yesteryear, but again, because of the cross of Christ scrambling people's tribal unity, there is always a counter-factional push-back. ..."
    "... Still, scapegoating partially unifies. Just why is it that old enemies like Romney, the DNC, and the media unite to expose Trump's shady timeshare-like university gimmick but offer deafening crickets for Hillary's use of the Haiti earthquake to secure an exclusive gold-mining contract for her brother? Trump's shamelessness reveals the banality of the establishment's passe violence. ..."
    "... The thing that drives this outrage mob mad is the mirror Trump's vulgar speech holds up to the state's violence-based unity. ..."
    "... In the popular imagination inspired by the mainstream media, Trump is a wolf whose fangs will bring violent chaos from which the lamb herd must unite to protect us. ..."
    "... But peel off the wool skins and you'll see the [neoliberal] herd is itself a wolf pack that wants to eat you too. Just in a way that gets them crooned about on late-night comedy and earns them Nobel prizes while they quietly blow up kids. ..."
    "... When Trump says the U.S. should have taken the oil in Iraq, he gets universal sneers from the established imperial class the way a drunken wingman is eliminated from the bar for loudly telling his friend to close the deal and "nail" the girl he's chatting up. ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | The American Conservative

    Reading René Girard helped me understand why so many hate the Donald.

    Donald Trump is the scapegoat supreme of our time.

    Don't kill the messenger. See, to have a scapegoat is to not know you have one. It is to unite in common cause with other actors in your community to purge a common monster to preserve peace and order. Trump, more than any other figure in our present culture, fits that bill. (Yes, Trump and his supporters scapegoat other groups as well.)

    Having dedicated his life to the study of scapegoating as the origin of culture, the late anthropologist René Girard is someone who should join every conservative's pantheon. He argues that human beings unconsciously stumbled upon a circuit breaker that kept violence from virally overwhelming our ancient communities: the common identification and expulsion of a common enemy. The catharsis and solidarity scapegoating provides led early people to mythologize their victims into gods.

    .... ... ...

    Trump even viscerally looks the part of the old scapegoat kings who would be ceremonially paraded before being sacrificed: he is often mocked for having small hands and goofy orange hair; he eats profane food like McDonald's; he loves gaudy decoration in an age of "shabby chic"; he calls himself a winner in a culture where people must offer faux humility to gain status. Trump, who has repeatedly said that were he not her father he would be dating his daughter, is even accused of breaking the age-old taboo against incestual lust.

    ... ... ...

    But Trump is a monster! Yes, but given the right circumstance, so are you. His ugliness is simply more apparent than that of other managers of the state's sacred violence. Let's be frank here: though his speech is scarily vulgar, the violence he promises is already occurring.

    Think his call to deport illegally undocumented workers is fascist? The Obama administration, garbed as it is with the shimmering rhetoric of victimhood, has already deported over 2,500,000 human beings-23 percent more than Bush.

    How about his pledge to torture suspected terrorists? Clinton-Bush-Obama beat him to it. They just don't talk about it like he does. And let's not limit it to foreigners; Obama didn't bat an eye as elderly tax protester Irwin Schiff died of cancer chained to a prison bed far away from his family for breaking the sacred taboo against being too stingy in sharing his resources with the collective.

    How about the time Trump promised to target terrorists' families? Obama, the great defender of Islam, already trumped that when he murdered people like U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who hadn't seen his father for two years. This teen and his friends were blown apart by the Nobel prize winner while having a campfire dinner, apparently for the sinful dreams of his father.

    Let's not pretend it is avant-garde to vilify Trump. Everyone's doing it, especially the cool people, the ones, like us, preoccupied with social status but hiding it in speech always patronizingly preening about victims. From Buzzfeed to Vanity Fair, CNN, the New York Times, broadcast networks, Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies, academia, Hollywood, music stars, Silicon valley, and NPR, to both party establishments, everyone's united in this orgy of outrage. It's almost like the scapegoat purgings of yesteryear, but again, because of the cross of Christ scrambling people's tribal unity, there is always a counter-factional push-back.

    Still, scapegoating partially unifies. Just why is it that old enemies like Romney, the DNC, and the media unite to expose Trump's shady timeshare-like university gimmick but offer deafening crickets for Hillary's use of the Haiti earthquake to secure an exclusive gold-mining contract for her brother? Trump's shamelessness reveals the banality of the establishment's passe violence.

    The thing that drives this outrage mob mad is the mirror Trump's vulgar speech holds up to the state's violence-based unity. The one thing the crowd can't stand is a scapegoat's refusal to apologize for its sins. Look at how the old victors of history wrote of their witch hunts, with the victims admitting guilt.

    In the popular imagination inspired by the mainstream media, Trump is a wolf whose fangs will bring violent chaos from which the lamb herd must unite to protect us. He just needs to flinch and admit he's a wolf! But peel off the wool skins and you'll see the [neoliberal] herd is itself a wolf pack that wants to eat you too. Just in a way that gets them crooned about on late-night comedy and earns them Nobel prizes while they quietly blow up kids. Trump refuses to apologize for his rhetoric, and so there is no blood for the wolves to complete their feast.

    I'm not saying he hasn't promised to make grave violence. But look who writes history: the winning crowd. In the pagan world, Oedipus was cast as the scapegoat who accepts all guilt for his community's woes. Yet behind the mythic veil, it takes two to tango in the deadly dance of violent rivalry. Today's myth is being written by people who use victimism to hide the continuance of sacred violence. Watch out for the false catharsis they're trying to create in purging Trump. It will not satisfy.

    When Trump says the U.S. should have taken the oil in Iraq, he gets universal sneers from the established imperial class the way a drunken wingman is eliminated from the bar for loudly telling his friend to close the deal and "nail" the girl he's chatting up.

    ... ... ...

    David Gornoski is your neighbor-as well as an entrepreneur, speaker and writer. He recently launched a project called A Neighbor's Choice, which seeks to introduce Jesus' culture of nonviolence to both Christians and the broader public. A Florida promoter of local agriculture, he also writes for WND.com, FEE.org, AffluentInvestor.com, and AltarandThrone.com.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Clinton's base is cosmopolitan neoliberals who always support trade packs like TPP and if she say that she opposes it, she is lying.

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    TPP/TTIP/TISA

    TPP: "'It's very challenging to get people to commit the political capital to move forward when the doubts are so significant about what the United States will do," [Eric Altbach, a senior vice president at the Albright Stonebridge Group] said" [ Politico ].

    "Organizations including the Communications Workers of America, CREDO Action, Democracy for America and several others sent a letter to Clinton on Thursday asking her to make a 'clear, public and unequivocal statement' opposing any vote on TPP" [ Politico ]. It will be interesting to parse Clinton's next statement, if any. (Remember that Clinton's 10% base is cosmopolitan, and supports trade. She won't be punished for remaining "equivocal.")

    [Sep 02, 2016] James Carville: "Whatever weaknesses Clinton has, Trump constantly covers them up

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    The Voters

    James Carville: "Whatever weaknesses Clinton has, Trump constantly covers them up" [ Vanity Fair ]. Hmm. I'd love to see a timeline that combines Clinton corruption eruptions and Trump gaffes, if anybody knows of one. Although creating a timeline like that would be an awful lot of work.

    "Hillary Clinton's late-night panic " [ Chicago Tribune ]. Weapons-grade snark. Spoiler:

    Ready4Hillary : Think of it this way. If you asked someone, "Would you like to climb into an old scow full of garbage?" most people would say "No." But if you say, "Would you like to be saved at any cost from the apocalyptic flood that is rising to destroy your city?" most people would say "Yes." The trick is to focus on the second thing and not be too specific about the first thing. OK?

    Hillary : am I the garbage scow in that analogy?

    Ready4Hillary : the point is, less is more. OK?

    "Clinton's advisers tell her to prep for a landslide" [ Politico ]. "Revealing a level of confidence Clinton's inner circle has been eager to squash for weeks, outside advisers have now identified victories in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire as the path of least resistance, delivering for the Democratic nominee more than the 270 electoral votes needed to take the White House. And they are projecting increased confidence about her chances in Republican-leaning North Carolina, a state that could prove as critical as Ohio or Pennsylvania." I'd add a few grains of salt to this: First, Clinton is notoriously surrounded by sycophants. Second, I think this is messaging, and not reporting: The Clinton campaign wants early voters to go with a winner. Third, a massive electoral win doesn't necessarily translate to a popular vote landslide. Hence, an electoral landslide combined with a much closer popular vote will do nothing to help Clinton in a coming legitimacy crisis (and could even exacerbate it).

    "There's almost no chance our elections can get hacked by the Russians. Here's why" [ WaPo ].

    War Drums

    Putin on 2016: "All this should be more dignified" [ Bloomberg ]. Gotchyer casus belli right here…

    Realignment

    "So you think you can take over the Democrat Party?" [ South Lawn ]. Cogent points. On the other hand, what's sauce for the sheepdog is sauce for a century-long record of third-party #FAIL. Past results are no guarantee of future performance.

    "Downballot Republicans and top GOP leaders are dumping Trump" [ NBC ]. "[Y]esterday came this campaign video from John McCain, who's engaged in a tough re-election fight: "If Hillary Clinton is elected, Arizona will need a senator who will act as a check," he said, all but admitting that Trump is unlikely to win in November. And McCain won't be the last GOPer making this 'check on Hillary' argument.

    "Kissinger, George Schultz mull Clinton endorsement" [ The Hill ]. Can't we just be open about this and set up a war criminals PAC?

    [Sep 02, 2016] HRC: "The Great Graspy"

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    curlydan , September 2, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    HRC: "The Great Graspy"

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 2, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Good question, this NC reader is just pretty fed up with the status quo (maybe others want to chime in):
    – Unlimited immunity from prosecution for banking executive criminals
    – More shiny new undeclared "nation-building" and "RTP" wars
    – Globalist trade deals that enshrine unaccountable corporate tribunals over national sovereignty, environmental and worker protection, and self-determination
    – America's national business conducted in secrecy at the behest of corporate donors to tax-exempt foundations
    – Paid-for quid-pro-quo media manipulation of candidate and election coverage
    – Health care system reform designed to benefit entrenched insurance providers over providing access to reasonable-cost basic care.
    Based on the above I'd say the 11:2 ratio looks about right.

    Reply
    Skippy , September 2, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    When did neoliberalism become center left – ?????

    [Sep 02, 2016] The Foundation is a tool to provide wealthy worthy individuals, groups, corporations, nations an expedited access to the government official, in this case Hillary

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Marco , September 2, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    Really enjoyed Atrios easy-breezy summation of Clinton Foundation / State Department skullduggery…

    "…a bit unseemly in that way that the sausage factory is a bit gross, but it basically seems to fall in 'this is how things work' territory as far as I can tell…"

    Pat , September 2, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    Breezy is right. It does lead me to ask if this were not the Clinton Foundation but was the Bush Foundation or the Rubio Foundation or…would this still be just be the way things work? I do not think so.

    Don't get me wrong I have great admiration for Atrios (he is right on the money regarding Social Security and self-driving cars), but the double standard where both Obama and Clinton are concerned is strong at Eschaton, and I'm sorry to say with him as well.

    Accepting this as the way things work is just accepting that corruption is the norm and there is nothing to be done about it. So unless you are willing to shut up about supposed misdeeds of all elected officials and political candidates because this is the way it is done, you need to get the f*ck over the idea that this is NORMAL and ACCEPTABLE.

    And I don't see that happening over there, or at Daily Kos, or… once the subject is out is out of the tribe.

    Kurt Sperry , September 2, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    I can understand the "it's OK when our people do it" double standard. Family/tribe/team, we are all trained to do that. What I don't understand is how one could ever arrive at Clinton Foundation = our people prerequisite to applying it in this instance. WT actual F?

    Pat , September 2, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    I think you are coming at this from far too realistic a point of view. You aren't looking at this as the Foundation is a tool, like a speech or a fundraiser, in order to provide wealthy worthy individuals/groups/corporations/nations a means to expedite access to the government official, in this case Clinton. You think of it as a false charity. But for the greasing the wheels is normal operating procedure, what this was was a gift to open more avenues for the wheels to be greased. It's up to you…or me…or even the people of Flint among others to use that opportunity.

    Just saying.

    timbers , September 2, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Yes. And this too:

    Breezy is right. It does lead me to ask if this were not the Clinton War With Russia but was the Bush War With Iraq or the Rubio War With Syria or…would this still be just be the way things work? I do not think so.

    Don't get me wrong I have great admiration for Atrios (he is right on the money regarding Social Security and self-driving cars), but the double standard where both Obama and Clinton are concerned is strong at Eschaton, and I'm sorry to say with him as well.

    Accepting this as the way things work is just accepting that endless and new wars is the norm and there is nothing to be done about it. So unless you are willing to shut up about supposed endless new wars of all elected officials and political candidates because this is the way it is done, you need to get the f*ck over the idea that this is NORMAL and ACCEPTABLE.

    And I don't see that happening over there, or at Daily Kos, or… once the subject is out is out of the tribe.

    pretzelattack , September 2, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    yeah, very well said. tammany hall, just the way things are done. jim crow laws, just the way things are done. endless etc's.

    [Sep 02, 2016] 40 pieces of evidence that "the Clinton Foundation is not just a fraud, it's a massive fraud

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    aliteralmind , September 2, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    I had the pleasure of interviewing Charles Ortel yesterday:

    Charles Ortel: 40 days, 40 pieces of evidence that "the Clinton Foundation is not just a fraud, it's a massive fraud"

    Jim Haygood , September 2, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    "Bill Clinton wrote a book in 2007 called 'Giving' [for which he was paid $6.3 million]."

    Give and ye shall receive, as the pious "Bill" is wont to say. /sarc

    grayslady , September 2, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Excellent interview. I've bookmarked Ortel's website and am looking forward to his forthcoming writings. I was not aware of the differences between laws regulating charities versus other forms of organizations, so the interview as a starting point was very useful for me.

    [Sep 01, 2016] Crisis and Opportunity

    Notable quotes:
    "... For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability, ..."
    "... The Clinton's special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt 'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation' status rather than personal animus. ..."
    "... That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility of political pragmatism freed from principle. ..."
    "... That Hillary Clinton is the candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.' ..."
    "... As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries. ..."
    "... Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices' of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class interests put forward as systemic intent. ..."
    "... The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those they serve within the existing economic order. ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | store.counterpunch.org
    into political power. The structure of economic distribution seen through Foundation 'contributors;' oil and gas magnates, pharmaceutical and technology entrepreneurs of public largesse, the murder-for-hire industry (military) and various and sundry managers of social decline, makes evident the dissociation of social production from those that produced it.

    For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability, if not exactly from the need for regular and robust public support, served to hold at bay the perpetual tomorrow of lives lived for the theorized greater good of accumulated self-interest. The Clinton's special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt 'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions.

    Being three or more decades in the making, the current political season was never about the candidates except inasmuch as they embody the grotesquely disfigured and depraved condition of the body politic. The 'consumer choice' politics of Democrat versus Republican, Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation' status rather than personal animus.

    That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility of political pragmatism freed from principle. The absurd misdirection that we, the people, are driving this migration is belied by the economic power that correlates 1:1 with the policies put forward and enacted by 'the people's representatives', by the answers that actual human beings give to pollsters when asked and by the ever more conspicuous hold that economic power has over political considerations as evidenced by the roster of pleaders and opportunists granted official sees by the political class in Washington.

    To state the obvious, dysfunctional ideology- principles that don't 'work' in the sense of promoting broadly conceived public wellbeing, should be dispensable. But this very formulation takes at face value the implausible conceits of unfettered intentions mediated through functional political representation that are so well disproved by entities like the Clinton Foundation. Political 'pragmatism' as it is put forward by national Democrats quite closely resembles the principled opposition of Conservative Republicans through unified service to the economic powers-that-be. That Hillary Clinton is the candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.'

    As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries. The result, in addition to making connected insiders rich as they wield social power over less existentially alienated peoples, has been the not-so-great wars, devastations, impositions and crimes-against-humanity that were the regular occurrences of the twentieth century. The 'innovation' of corporatized militarization to this proud tradition is as old as Western imperialism in its conception and as new as nuclear and robotic weapons, mass surveillance and apparently unstoppable environmental devastation in its facts.

    Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices' of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class interests put forward as systemic intent.

    The complaint that the Greens- Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, don't have an effective political program approximates the claim that existing political and economic arrangements are open to challenge through the electoral process when the process exists to assure that effective challenges don't arise. The Democrats could have precluded the likelihood of a revolutionary movement, Left or Right, for the next half-century by electing Bernie Sanders and then undermining him to 'prove' that challenges to prevailing political economy don't work. The lack of imagination in running 'dirty Hillary' is testament to how large- and fragile, the perceived stakes are. But as how unviable Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are as political leaders becomes apparent- think George W. Bush had he run for office after the economic collapse of 2009 and without the cover of '9/11,' the political possibilities begin to open up.

    The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those they serve within the existing economic order. The premise that the ruling class will always need dedicated servants grants coherent logic and aggregated self-interest that history has disproven time and again. A crude metaphor would be the unintended consequences of capitalist production now aggregating to environmental crisis.

    Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both such conspicuously corrupt tools of an intellectually and spiritually bankrupt social order that granting tactical brilliance to their ascendance, or even pragmatism given the point in history and available choices, seems wildly generous. For those looking for a political moment, one is on the way.

    Click here to listen to Chris Hedges' interview with Rob Urie on his new book, Zen Economics, now out in paperback (and digital format ) from CounterPunch Books.

    [Sep 01, 2016] Tim Canova telling it like it is: I will concede Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a corporate stooge.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I will concede Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a corporate stooge." ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Roger Smith , August 31, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Also, Tim Canova telling it like it is :

    "I will concede Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a corporate stooge."

    Clive , August 31, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    No shit, Sherlock.

    diptherio , August 31, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Keep digging, Watson!

    jsn , August 31, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Revelation in a blinding flash of coprolite

    Jim Haygood , August 31, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Rain tight, priced right
    Sheath your home in Coprolite™

    ewmayer , August 31, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    Ha – now *that's* a concession speech. At the risk of running the Wrath of Lambert, would that Bernie had been similarly brass-balled.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 8:47 pm

    Heh, maybe some of us figure the wrath beats the alternative to sitting through another presidential cycle of sternly worded letters and petitions from the left.

    *sigh*

    It would be so much easier if I could get an HMO approved frontal lobotomy than I could either join the GOp lynch mob who thinks everything is some liberal plot or be hunky dory with representation that tells you to your face that they've rigged the system to thwart you ever actually having an individual that you actually want representing you.

    [Sep 01, 2016] Sanders media consultants to work for Wasserman Schultz challenger

    They lost... Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was re-elected.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders' campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30. ..."
    "... While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort. The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman Schultz effort. ..."
    Aug 01, 2016 | POLITICO
    The consulting firm that made Bernie Sanders' ads in the 2016 presidential race is going to work for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's primary challenger.

    Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders' campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30.

    It's the latest move from Sanders supporters to go after Wasserman Schultz, after their outrage stemming from leaked emails drove her to resign as chairman of the Democratic National Committee this week.

    The move is a concrete step forward in Sanders' attempt to spread his "political revolution" after the end of his presidential campaign and another boost to Canova, a previously little-known law professor who has raised millions of dollars for his run against Wasserman Schultz. It's also the first tangible sign of heavier involvement from his political circles in down-ballot races between now and November. Sanders had previously endorsed Canova and raised money online for him and a selection of other congressional candidates.

    While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort. The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman Schultz effort.

    The consultants' firm, Devine Mulvey Longabaugh, was behind spots like the famous "America" ad that helped define Sanders' campaign as he rose to prominence against Hillary Clinton, and it has worked for a wide range of down-ballot campaigns this cycle. Canova's campaign was already working with Revolution Messaging, Sanders' digital firm, as well.

    [Sep 01, 2016] Clinton vs. Trump State of the Race

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We speak English in this country, not Spanish!" ..."
    www.strategic-culture.org

    . Rivals and challengers of the past whether it be the British Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union have all fall by the way side in the titanic struggle of nation states and Great Powers.

    So I asked Ms Rivlin, hypothetically, how she thought Americans would react if in a couple of decades to come a significant and visible economic gap opened up between the USA and China.\

    ... She failed to see, whether intentionally or not, that whatever one thinks about the merits of seriousness or silliness of such talk and concerns, a lot of people in America believe it is happening as encapsulated in Mr Trump's campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again". Clearly, a great deal of people in America think the country is in terminal decline and want something radical to reverse such decline. Hence their messenger Donald Trump and his rhetoric of America First.

    ...Part of what Trump represents is not only a deep seated anxiety that America is on a downward trajectory this century, hence his China bashing and protectionist rhetoric, his candidacy also represents a white backlash against the increasing and rapid demographic changes in America society. America is on course by the 2050s to no longer be a white majority country. The population growth of non-white ethnic minorities is over taking that of white Americans. Thus Trump's dog whistle racism with lines such as: "We speak English in this country, not Spanish!"

    [Sep 01, 2016] No wonder people are flocking to his speeches! You wont read about it.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The Democratic Party is the party of Slavery, Jim Crow and Opposition (to abolition)" ..."
    "... "The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln.- Freedom, Equality, and Opportunity" says Donald Trump ..."
    "... No wonder people are flocking to his speeches! You won't read about it. ..."
    "... Investment psychology. If you invest in a candidate now, you might work to get them elected, even if it's a little bit. ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    clarky90 , August 31, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    "The Democratic Party is the party of Slavery, Jim Crow and Opposition (to abolition)"

    "The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln.- Freedom, Equality, and Opportunity" says Donald Trump

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFoM_eACYWI

    "Against All Odds" Rally in Everett, Washington 8/30/16 WA at about 20 minutes in speech.

    Hmmmmmmmmm? No wonder people are flocking to his speeches! You won't read about it.

    kucha girl , August 31, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    At the rally in Everett, Guiliani asked rally-goers to get out their phone & text $$ to a certain address.

    I was shocked, what about "I'm funding my own campaign, I don't want your money." Guiliani said something about how it is about gaining a big number of people who are donating. Donate $1, if you want to, but just do it.

    I was trying to think of the reasoning behind this. It was certainly counter-messaging. I would suppose it is data-mining. Many people have multiple email addresses … it is easy to create an anonymous email address just to get a Trump rally ticket. I thought of it myself, to avoid spam. But most people only have one cell-phone number. Trump thanked Susan Hutchinson, head of the the state Republican Party. I would imagine she was asking the Trump campaign to get as much info about attendees as possible. That would explain why Guiliani and not Trump said this.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 31, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    Investment psychology. If you invest in a candidate now, you might work to get them elected, even if it's a little bit.

    Obama had little pledge cards back in 07/08. Campaigns want people to commit or they can leave.

    Pat , August 31, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    There may be another explanation. Clinton and the DNC have been running pretty insistent fund raising campaign over the last couple of weeks as focused on number of donors as on money. Clearly this was another version of Clinton's popularity over Trump.

    As they are asking for $1 on the last day of this reporting period there could be a desire to head that one off at the pass.

    Or they could want your info, and to head that off at the pass.

    clarky90 , August 31, 2016 at 7:43 pm

    Sources and amounts of Donald Trump campaign Funds

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864

    Individual Contributions $56,486,064 (45%)
    – Small Individual Contributions$37,236,701 (30%)
    – Large Individual Contributions$19,370,699 (15%)

    PAC Contributions $17,700 (0%)
    Candidate self-financing $52,003,469 (42%)
    Federal Funds $0 (0%)

    There is a similar page listing Hillary Clinton's Sources and amounts.

    Please, do not click on the following link if you are eating or have a delicate disposition.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019

    [Sep 01, 2016] If defeating Clinton is becoming more important, then voting for Trump becomes more necessary.

    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    different clue , August 31, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    If defeating Clinton is becoming more important, then voting for Trump becomes more necessary.
    I am getting more inclined all the time to vote for Trump. A vote FOR Trump counts twice as hard aGAINST Clinton as a vote for some beautiful Third Party.

    Every ballot is a bullet on the field of political combat.

    Carla , August 31, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    I'd rather vote for someone I want and lose than vote for someone I don't want and "win."

    Remember if enough of us vote for the same third party it could get federal matching funds in 2020. That might be important.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 31, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    2020? To pick over the dry bones left by Bush Term 5?
    Some people say a Trump presidency would be a disaster. No. We already have a disaster.
    Trump is a ridiculous blowhard buffoon. He's also against more nation-building, questions NATO/Putin war mongering, thinks the mainstream media is completely corrupt, wants to put the ACA out of its misery, and actually opposes globalist trade deals. I couldn't care less if he said mean things about Rosie O'Donnell.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    You know the Republicans could have picked a better candidate.

    Oh wait they didn't do that because their intent was to hand this to Hillary.

    I'm so tired of hearing how "I have to" do things after a small band of oligarchs chose the candidates I have to choose from.

    I don't have to vote for Trump the buffoon and I don't have to vote for Clinton the corrupt and I can continue to not vote for either of the duopoly. As long as you continue to play the lesser evil game you can be assured the oligarchy is going to continue to pick bad and worse for you.

    I'm opting out of the sick and twisted game the GOP and Democratic Party have going on and those of you who continually vote for the bad choices you are given can blame yourselves for the outcome(instead of projecting the outcome onto everyone who refuses to eat the oligarchy's dog food.)

    Jim Haygood , August 31, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    'their intent was to hand this to Hillary'

    The 8-year partisan alternation pattern structurally imposed by Amendment XXII indicates that it was the R party's "turn."

    Their intent was to hand this to Jeb! or Ted! or some other vetted insider to claim the R party's 8 years of spoils.

    As the howls of protest and invective from Ted! made clear, Trump's nomination was totally unplanned. Trump punked the R party. And they still haven't gotten over their butthurt.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    Oh they left him in place because he is the perfect buffoon to run against Queen Hillary(after all they sat and debated whether or not to make him the nominee ad nauseaum) and he gives the double bonus of once he loses being able to allow them to wail, gnash their teeth and fundraise against the Democrats and Hillary Clinton. Don't kid yourself Clinton is interposable and will serve her purpose just as well as Ted! or Jeb! for the oligarchy. It's Her turn.

    This is a game and the electorate are chumps that just keep playing it.

    HotFlash , August 31, 2016 at 4:17 pm

    No matter who you vote for, or don't, the US will end up with either Clinton or Trump as prez, barring a catastrophic event, eg, death of one or t'other.

    So, you not only have to decide how you can live with who you vote for, but you have to think about how you will live with who you get. Maybe it won't be good enough to say, "Not the president of me."

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    They're both horrible choices and I intend to prepare myself to have to live with either of them.

    I also intend to remind people that vote for team bad or team worse that THEY are the ones who force this game to continue by insisting that only a Democrat or Republican can win.

    Carla , August 31, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    Thank you.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 7:00 pm

    There are two types of ethical demand here.

    1 One does one's best to elect the best candidate

    and furthermore

    2. One does one's best to prevent the worst candidate.

    To me, I believe it's not 'either or,' but that, the second demand is an addition call of duty…going beyond the first.

    "What have you done to stop the Foundation?"

    different clue , August 31, 2016 at 6:43 pm

    It won't matter if we don't live that long due to World War Clinton with Russia. If you think Clinton poses no more danger of nuclear annihilation than Trump would, then your logic is impeccable.

    But if you think a President Clinton poses a real and non-trivial risk of global nuclear extermination in a way that a President Trump just simply would not, then you might decide to defer "vote your dreams" for now, and "vote your survival" for Trump so you can live long enough to collect the Big Jackpot in 2024.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    I am confronted with the question: "Where were you when they laid the Foundation for the Thousand Year Reign?"

    "Did you do nothing to stop the Foundation?"

    Jeremy Grimm , August 31, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    Both Trump and Hillary are frightening alternatives for President - though Trump seems "the lesser of two evils". Hillary is starting to appear like a female anti-Christ - Damiena Thorn or Nicole Carpathia - the more I learn about her. Regardless which one wins I tend to agree with the commenter here who suggested one of the two VP candidates would be the acting executive.

    I am tempted to vote Green just on the possibility the Green Party might become a viable second party - especially if matching funds become available. But I can't get past viewing the Green Party as a clueless amalgam of underemployed ex-philosophy students.

    Writing-in Sanders is tempting - but I don't trust write-ins will be counted or reported in any meaningful way. As a last resort I can leave President an undercount and register a "No!" vote in what seems the best possible way to do that.

    I will vote. None of the relatively good choices choices offer much to realistically hope for and the bad choices are scary bad and horrifyingly bad.

    Ulysses , August 31, 2016 at 6:25 pm

    "But I can't get past viewing the Green Party as a clueless amalgam of underemployed ex-philosophy students."

    This made me chuckle, since many of my very best friends are actually underemployed Phil majors, along with a healthy cohort of underemployed art historians, medievalists etc.

    [Aug 30, 2016] 6 Key Issues Where Trump Neutralizes Hillary or Runs to Her Left

    Mar 18, 2016 | Alternet

    To be sure, it's not clear what Trump would do if elected, because so many of his "positions" are little more than sound bites. Still, here are six issues in which he is mixing progressive or liberal Republican stances amid his authoritarian outbursts. That strange brew means that for the first time in decades, Americans could be facing two candidates with progressive planks on many issues.

    1. The Anti-Free Trader. On no other issue does Trump so closely parallel Sanders as he is when slamming trade deals and bragging that he, the great negotiator, would push American CEOs into keeping jobs here or bring them back. Last week, he singled out Carrier Air Conditioning, Ford and Eaton Corp. for moving manufacturing abroad. A week before, he boasted, "I'm going to get Apple to start making their computers and their iPhones on our land, not in China. How does it help us when they make it in China?"

    Suffice it to say that Trump is to the left of Clinton on trade deals, at least when it comes to sound bites.

    2. Cutting America's Military Budget. That sounds out of sync coming from Trump, who has repeatedly said he wants to rebuild the military and never misses a chance to threaten ISIL. But according to reporters who have trailed him since last year, he has repeatedly called for cutting military spending by closing America's overseas military bases. "Donald Trump could be the only presidential candidate talking sense about the American military's budget. That should scare everyone," wrote Matthew Gault in a detailed piece for Reuters. "As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems."

    It's hard to imagine that Trump will be the "peace candidate" in the campaign, as a liberal strategist told the Nation's Greider. But closing overseas bases would be a hard break from both Republican and Democratic Party orthodoxy, including under Obama, where the Pentagon budget keeps rising and temporary cuts, like sequestration, are seen as creating unnecessary crises. Here, too, Trump's positioning could track to the left of Clinton. And unlike Sanders, whose state has an F-35 fighter plane base, Trump has explicitly said that plane was a waste of money. "Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea," wrote Gault.

    3. Rejecting Big Money Political Corruption. You can expect Trump will go after Clinton as a corrupt insider cashing in on her connections, no matter how many millions he, as the nominee, would end up raising for Republicans for the fall or take from party coffers because presidential campaigns cost upward of $1 billion. Trump has the higher moral ground, compared to Clinton, who hasn't even released the texts of her speeches to Wall Street banks or discussed returning speaking fees. As Trump touts, he's been on the check-writing side of America's corrupt but legal system of financing candidates for decades.

    Trump's stance here echoes Sanders. It barely matters that Clinton has said she would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn decisions like Citizens United, which created giant new legal loopholes for wealthy interests and individuals. Being the rich outsider forced to play along, not the political insider taking the checks, is in Trump's favor, pushing him to the left of Clinton.

    4. Preserving Social Security and Medicare. As most progressives know, millions of baby boomers approaching their senior years are going to be relying on Social Security for most of their income and for Medicare as their health plan. Progressives also know that Social Security benefits could be cut by a fifth after 2030 because of that demographic bump, and have proposed raising payroll taxes to preserve benefits and increase them. Trump, unlike the other GOP candidates, wants to leave Social Security alone, saying a booming economy will fix the shortfall. While we have heard that before-Reagan's rising tide lifts all boats-Trump's status quo stance is completely at odds with the modern GOP, which wants to up the age when one can start taking Social Security benefits, create new payment formulas, means-test recipients or flat-out privatize it.

    Clinton said she wants to preserve Social Security and raise payments to people who need it most, such as widowers, who see cuts after a spouse dies, women and poor people who have historically been underpaid compared to white men. Sanders, in contrast, said benefits must be raised for everyone. Trump's stance on this issue is far from ideal, but it's outside the GOP's mainstream. It's neither constructive nor destructive, but that tends to neutralize the issue in a fall campaign with Clinton.

    5. Lowering Seniors' Prescription Drug Costs. Here's another issue where Trump is saying he wants to do what Democrats like Obama, Clinton and Sanders have long called for, but which has been blocked by congressional Republicans. Trump wants the feds to negotiate buying in bulk from pharmaceutical companies, which has been explicitly prohibited by the GOP in past legislation.

    "We don't do it. Why? Because of the drug companies," Trump said in January before the New Hampshire primary. This is another issue where he is blurring the lines with Clinton and the Democrats.

    6. Breaking Health Insurance Monopolies. Trump has railed against the health insurance industry for preserving its state-by-state monopolies under Obamacare, saying neither Democrats nor Republicans made an effort to repeal a 1945 law that prevents Americans from buying cheaper policies in another state. "The insurance companies," Trump said, "they'd rather have monopolies in each state than hundreds of companies going all over the place bidding… It's so hard for me to make deals… I can't get bids."

    We know that Trump has pledged to get rid of Obamacare and he hasn't said much about its replacement other than it would involve consumers crossing state lines. But this is another area where Trump's sound bites can superficially push him to the left of Clinton, who has made defending Obamacare part of her campaign and agenda if elected president.

    [Aug 30, 2016] So, Trumps crazy What about Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury ..."
    "... compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. ..."
    "... "This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives." ..."
    "... In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother." ..."
    "... "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent." ..."
    Aug 07, 2016 | www.wnd.com

    Hillary Clinton has indeed become well known as a serial liar, as fully two-thirds of Americans, 68 percent in a recent poll, said she was neither honest nor trustworthy. Not only does Clinton lie to protect herself, as she has regarding Benghazi and her private email server, but she lies when there appears to be no benefit to doing so.

    For example, she famously claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary for his conquering of Mt. Everest, even though that didn't happen until six years after Clinton was born. She also notoriously claim she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996, when newspaper and video accounts revealed exactly the opposite.

    "Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology, says compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury," Dr. Gina Loudon, a political psychology and behavior expert, told WND. "Otherwise, compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.

    "This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives."

    In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother."

    These types of outbursts continued after Hillary left her office as secretary of state. An aide on her presidential campaign told the New York Post last October: "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent."

    [Aug 30, 2016] Hillary Clinton Piles Up Research in Bid to Needle Donald Trump at First Debate

    How Hillary can defend herself from two major and intermixed scandals: emailgate and Clinton cash is unclear to me. Also her strong reputation of a neocon warmonger represents serious weakness on any foreign policy discussion. Essentially she can be buried just with the list of her ;achievements". So Trump is deeply right when he said "It can be dangerous. You can sound scripted or phony - like you're trying to be someone you're not." Cards are on the table. They just need to be played.
    The New York Times

    "I believe you can prep too much for those things," Mr. Trump said in an interview last week. "It can be dangerous. You can sound scripted or phony - like you're trying to be someone you're not."

    she is searching for ways to bait him into making blunders. Mr. Trump, a supremely confident communicator, wants viewers to see him as a truth-telling political outsider and trusts that he can box in Mrs. Clinton on her ethics and honesty.


    He has been especially resistant to his advisers' suggestions that he take part in mock debates with a Clinton stand-in. At their first session devoted to the debate, on Aug. 21 at Mr. Trump's club in Bedminster, N.J., the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham was on hand to offer counsel and, if Mr. Trump was game, to play Mrs. Clinton, said Trump advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the debate preparations were supposed to be kept private. He declined.

    Instead, Mr. Trump asked a battery of questions about debate topics, Mrs. Clinton's skills and possible moderators, but people close to him said relatively little had been accomplished.

    ...

    "I know who I am, and it got me here," Mr. Trump said, boasting of success in his 11 primary debate appearances and in capturing the Republican nomination over veteran politicians and polished debaters. "I don't want to present a false front. I mean, it's possible we'll do a mock debate, but I don't see a real need."

    Mr. Trump is certain that he holds advantages here, saying Mrs. Clinton is likely to come across as a typical politician spouting rehearsed lines.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Natsec and Cybersec firms want more money and are ready to fuel anti-Russian hysteria for thier private gains.

    You should take with the grain of slad any such companies declarations. They typically lie and exaggerate the treats. .
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    hunkerdown , August 29, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    I prefer /dev/random and three passes, if I have any intention of using the drive later. If I were involved in anything seriously malfeasant where using the drive later were not a consideration, I'd be following the established procedures of the masters of the art. (NSA)

    inode_buddha , August 29, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    Some article on Slashdot is going on about how the FBI has proof of foreign election tampering why is this NOW all of a sudden a problem???

    bob , August 29, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    More money for natsec/Cybersec firms.

    "we're under attack!"

    [Aug 29, 2016] Harry Reid Cites Evidence of Russian Tampering in U.S. Vote, and Seeks FBI Inquiry

    Hail Mary pass to save Hillary ? Or Las Vegas mafia style attempt to cry "chief" before stealing elections?
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, asked the F.B.I. on Monday to investigate evidence suggesting that Russia may try to manipulate voting results in November.

    In a letter to the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey Jr., Mr. Reid wrote that the threat of Russian interference "is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results." Recent classified briefings from senior intelligence officials, Mr. Reid said in an interview, have left him fearful that President Vladimir V. Putin's "goal is tampering with this election."

    News reports on Monday said the F.B.I. warned state election officials several weeks ago that foreign hackers had exported voter registration data from computer systems in at least one state, and had pierced the systems of a second one.

    The bureau did not name the states, but Yahoo News , which first reported the confidential F.B.I. warning, said they were Arizona and Illinois. Matt Roberts, a spokesman for Arizona's secretary of state, said the F.B.I. had told state officials that Russians were behind the Arizona attack.

    After the F.B.I. warning, Arizona took its voter registration database offline from June 28 to July 8 to allow for a forensic exam of its systems, Mr. Roberts said.

    Advertisement Continue reading the main story

    The F.B.I., in its notice to states, said the voter information had been "exfiltrated," which means that it was shipped out of the state systems to another computer. But it does not mean that the data itself was tampered with.

    It is unclear whether the hackers intended to affect the election or pursued the data for other purposes, like gaining personal identifying information about voters. The F.B.I. warning referred to "targeting activity" against state boards of elections, but did not discuss the intent of the hackers.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Its remarkable how rarely the immigration debate is prefaced with an explicit prior that we should give absolute priority to what is best for the receiving county and their citizens.

    Notable quotes:
    "... As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration; it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream of the crop and selected to benefit the US. ..."
    "... But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class, who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy. ..."
    "... We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random visa lottery. This verges on insanity. ..."
    "... H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In 2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these workers. ..."
    "... I find the system you describe which relies, by design, on perpetually importing new waves of a helot underclass to be both immoral and unsustainable. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Observer -> ken melvin... Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 09:04 AM

    It's remarkable how rarely the immigration debate is prefaced with an explicit prior that we should give absolute priority to what is best for the receiving county and their citizens.

    As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration; it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream of the crop and selected to benefit the US.

    Its not credible to complain about low employment/population ratios, limited wage pressures, high poverty rates, overburdened social safety nets, limited prospects for those on the left side of the bell curve, and inequality, and simultaneously support more immigration of the poor, unskilled, or difficult to assimilate.

    But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class, who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy.

    Observer -> DeDude... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:46 AM
    We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random visa lottery. This verges on insanity.

    H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In 2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these workers.

    I'm in favor of significant penalties for employing illegal workers.

    DeDude -> Observer... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 10:34 AM
    Yes lets debate who is going to take care of washing and changing adult diapers on 80 million baby boomers as they deteriorate towards their final resting place, and who is going to dig the holes if we have deported all those who know which end of a shovel is the business end.
    Observer -> DeDude... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:24 AM
    I find the system you describe which relies, by design, on perpetually importing new waves of a helot underclass to be both immoral and unsustainable.

    But I can see the short term attraction for the Mandarins.

    The fact that a helot class makes many of our citizens effectively unemployable is just, I suppose, collateral damage?

    People can learn which end of shovel works.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Alt-right is the burgeoning neolib dog whistle alt-right , a shorthand for those who thinks Clinton should go to jail for her misconduct

    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid. ..."
    "... The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees. ..."
    "... The alt.* hierarchy is a major class of newsgroups in Usenet, containing all newsgroups whose name begins with "alt.", organized hierarchically. The alt.* hierarchy is not confined to newsgroups of any specific subject or type, although in practice more formally organized groups tend not to occur in alt.*. ... (Wikipedia) ..."
    "... It basically was like snorting a line of Cocaine. We keep on going back and it is getting less and less pleasurable. ..."
    "... The final stage will probably be the stripping of all national function with the economy. Much like the free market intellectuals want. This will finally expose it. White's will know. The government they were taught to hate, liquidated, instead a new market state replaced. Their democracy decayed and Capitalists running international slave states instead pushing less product for their indentured servitude. Then we are right back to Bismark and Wells. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> EMichael... Friday, August 26, 2016 at 06:26 PM
    The burgeoning neolib dog whistle "alt-right" is short for "a$$hole who thinks Clinton should go to jail for 1000 times the misconduct that would get that a$$hole 10 years hard time".

    Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid.

    The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne...
    (So-called 'alt groups' have been around
    since the earliest days of the internet.)

    The alt.* hierarchy is a major class of newsgroups in Usenet, containing all newsgroups whose name begins with "alt.", organized hierarchically. The alt.* hierarchy is not confined to newsgroups of any specific subject or type, although in practice more formally organized groups tend not to occur in alt.*. ... (Wikipedia)

    Ben Groves :
    There are a lot of Jews in the "Alt-Right"(aka, a Spencer invented term, that they need to at least admit). Most have ties to neo-conservatism in their past outside the desperate paleo types hanging on. To me, they are "racist", but lets face it, the gentile left can just be as racist and historically, more dangerous. Trying to be reactionary is just not a neo-liberal thing. Fabians were quite racist as HG Wells outright said he was. Their vision of globalism was a Eurocentric world of socialism and those 3rd world "brownies" were setting socialism back and needed it to be enforced on them. The Nazi's took Fabian economics and that dream to the nadir.

    The problem is, the 'Alt-Right' is so upfront about it with a typical neo-liberal economic plan. Even their "nationalism" has a * by it. Economic Nationalism isn't just about trade deals, but a organic, cohesive flow to the nation. Being in business isn't about stuffing your pockets, it is about serving your country and indeed, stuff like the Epi-pen price hikes would be considered treason. You would lower your prices or off with your head. This, is a area where the "Alt-Right" doesn't want to do. They are not true connies in the Bismark-ian sense. They want a nominal judeo-christianity inside a classically liberal mindset of market expansion where white's pull the strings. That is simply dialectical conflict. Who invented capitalism? It was Sephardic Jews(say, unlike Communism which attracted Ashkenazi much to Herr Weitling chagrin). Modern materialism is all things like Trump really care about. So do his handlers like Spencer. Without the Jews, there is no capitalism period. They financed it through several different methods since the 1600's. Even the American Revolution was financed by them and the founders absolutely knew where the bread was buttered. The Great Depression was really the death rattle of the House of Rothschild and its British Empire(with the Federal Reserve pushing on the string to completely destroy them, but that is another post for another time). Capitalism as a system does not work and never has worked.

    It basically was like snorting a line of Cocaine. We keep on going back and it is getting less and less pleasurable.

    The final stage will probably be the stripping of all national function with the economy. Much like the free market intellectuals want. This will finally expose it. White's will know. The government they were taught to hate, liquidated, instead a new market state replaced. Their democracy decayed and Capitalists running international slave states instead pushing less product for their indentured servitude. Then we are right back to Bismark and Wells.

    ilsm -> Ben Groves, -1
    "gentile left" bigotry is founded against po' white folk who are not as educated in the logical fallacies the limo libruls use to continue plundering them.

    Everyone is so busy calling out Trumpistas they do not see their own "inclusive frailty".

    [Aug 29, 2016] The im migration issue is the democrats effort to distract Donald Trumps outreach to the black community

    Aug 29, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    ToddElliottKoger

    , 2016-08-29 01:18:06
    The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's outreach to the black community . . .

    Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop" issue is minor at this point.

    What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he needs their help.

    He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the black community.

    He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities (and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually represents "racial unity."

    Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity. He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on "winning" the support of "poor blacks."

    He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."

    Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.

    Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr. Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.

    THIS IS THE ONLY WAY MR. TRUMP CAN WIN . . . .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVEnw82HEvc

    Aldythe ToddElliottKoger , 2016-08-29 02:05:35
    The immigration issue is how he won the primaries and it is the issue that has made him popular with his fans. It is typically the focus of his speeches. How can you suggest that the democrats are attempting to distract anyone on immigration? Trump is the one who talks about it constantly.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Trump and immigration

    Notable quotes:
    "... Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the debate. ..."
    "... You are so silly. How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence and deportation. ..."
    "... Here's Hillary in favor of a wall and deportations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc ..."
    "... Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more ..."
    "... One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    ToddElliottKoger , 2016-08-28 23:56:33
    The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's outreach to the black community . . .

    Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop" issue is minor at this point.

    What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he needs their help.

    He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the black community.

    He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities (and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually represents "racial unity."

    Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity. He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on "winning" the support of "poor blacks."

    He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."

    Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.

    Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr. Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.

    THIS IS THE ONLY WAY MR. TRUMP CAN WIN . . . .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVEnw82HEvc

    Menger , 2016-08-28 22:58:13
    Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the debate.
    bcarey , 2016-08-28 22:42:59
    You are so silly. How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence and deportation.
    bcarey -> bcarey , 2016-08-28 22:50:54
    Here's Hillary in favor of a wall and deportations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc
    SysConfig , 2016-08-28 21:11:38
    Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more . If they are so good why doesn't Europe take them for us..
    PaulDMorton , 2016-08-28 21:01:34
    What gets lost in all of this how the USA allowed Mexico to spiral into the corrupt, poor country they currently are. It's time for the US to get firm with Mexico and help them get on their feet - which their corrupt leaders will hate, but tough shit. There is no excuse to border the United States of America and have such poor living standards for their people.

    Although not ideal, a wall is a very direct message to Mexico's govt that the US will not tolerate their corrupt government and drug cartels.

    PaulDMorton , 2016-08-28 20:52:12
    What's wrong with Trump changing his stance? He listened to his supporters (most of whom think some type of amnesty is appropriate) and tweaked his immigration plan.. *gasp* It seems like a mature, reasonable move from an intelligent strong leader - which Trump is. He will be an excellent President.
    NickedTurpin , 2016-08-28 20:52:10
    One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations.

    The trouble with both candidates is the Believability Factor. No mater what they may say, it's doubtful they will do what they say. There needs to be election laws that make ignoring campaign 'promises' once in office impeachable.

    pfox33 , 2016-08-28 19:14:41
    Trump's original platform of deporting 11 million illegals isn't doable. That would involve round-ups and incarcerations last seen in Nazi Germany. I don't think the American people at large would stand for that.

    So the spiel has been morphing into something more palatable to Joe Average. He keeps trying to placate his base by having his surrogates assure them that nothing has changed but it obviously has.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Exclusive - Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn Obama, Hillary Ignored Intelligence They Did Not Like About Middle East, Only Wanted Happy Ta

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Field of Fight ..."
    "... the one thing about intelligence is we should stand for truth to power-meaning we should always say what we believe, and lay the facts out, lay the tough right facts out and then you let the policymakers make the decisions that they have to make. What has happened in the last 10 years, frankly in the last 8 years, is we have seen a level of dishonesty coming out of both the policy and the decision making structure with the American people." ..."
    "... Because of the President's and the Secretary of State's-among other officials in the Obama administration-unwillingness to hear all the facts, including ones they needed to but didn't want to hear, Flynn says the President has presented a narrative to the American people about the war on terrorism and radical Islamism that is simply inaccurate. ..."
    "... The intelligence process starts really at the ground level, but the priorities-the priorities, Matt, for an intelligence system and the intelligence community in our country and that's the President of the United States. ..."
    "... "That means infiltrating into refugee populations, that means conducting of smart information operations," Flynn said. "Most people don't know but these guys have very sophisticated information operations going on, with publications of magazines and websites. They have leaders in their groups that have thousands and thousands-I'm talking tens of thousands of followers on social media and Instagram and Twitter. ..."
    "... Then I call for in the book a new 21st century alliance. This is where we really come to how we take the Arab community to task on how they plan to fix this cancerous disease inside of their own body that has metastasized and grown exponentially over the last five or six years and certainly actually over the last eight to 10 years. So it's one thing to go after the ideology, just like we went after Communism for 40 years ..."
    "... He is a street savvy strategic leader type person who has a vision for this country, and he's turned it into this phrase of 'Make America Great Again.'" ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    NEW YORK CITY, New York - Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who served for more than two years as the director of President Barack Obama's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), leveled explosive charges against the President and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an exclusive hour-long interview with Breitbart News Daily on Friday.

    Specifically, during an exclusive interview about his book The Field of Fight , Flynn said that Obama and Clinton were not interested in hearing intelligence that did not fit their "happy talk" narrative about the Middle East. In fact, he alleged the administration actively scrubbed training manuals and purged from the military ranks any thinking about the concept of radical Islamism. Flynn argued that this effort by Obama, Clinton and others to reduce the intelligence community to gathering only facts that the senior administration officials wanted to hear-rather than what they needed to hear-helped the enemy fester and grow, while weakening the United States on the world stage.

    "The administration has basically denied the fact that we have this problem with 'Radical Islamists,'" Flynn said during the interview. "And this is a very vicious, barbaric enemy and I recognize in the book that there is an alliance of countries that are dedicated basically against our way of life and they support different groups in the Islamic movement, principally the Islamic State and formerly Al Qaeda-although Al Qaeda still exists. The administration denied the fact that this even existed and then told those of us in the government to basically excise the phrase 'radical Islamism' out of our entire culture, out of our training manuals, everything. That was a big argument I had internally and I talked a little bit about it in the Senate testimony that I gave two years back."

    Later in the interview, Flynn was even more specific, calling out Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for not wanting to hear all the facts about what was happening in the Middle East-only some of them.

    "There's a narrative that the President and his team, including Hillary Clinton, wanted to hear-instead of having the tough news or the bad news if you will that they needed to hear," Flynn said. "Now, there's a big difference. And the one thing about intelligence is we should stand for truth to power-meaning we should always say what we believe, and lay the facts out, lay the tough right facts out and then you let the policymakers make the decisions that they have to make. What has happened in the last 10 years, frankly in the last 8 years, is we have seen a level of dishonesty coming out of both the policy and the decision making structure with the American people."

    Because of the President's and the Secretary of State's-among other officials in the Obama administration-unwillingness to hear all the facts, including ones they needed to but didn't want to hear, Flynn says the President has presented a narrative to the American people about the war on terrorism and radical Islamism that is simply inaccurate.

    "The President has said they're jayvee, they're on the run, they're not that strong, what difference does it make what we call-that's being totally dishonest with the American public," Flynn said. "There's one thing that Americans are, and we're tough, resilient people but we have to be told the truth. I think what a lot of this is, in fact what I know a lot of it is. It's a lot of happy talk from a President who did not meet the narrative of his political ideology or his political decision-making process to take our country in a completely different direction and frankly that's why I'm sitting here talking to you here today, Matt. The intelligence process starts really at the ground level, but the priorities-the priorities, Matt, for an intelligence system and the intelligence community in our country and that's the President of the United States. "

    The Obama administration's refusal to take these threats seriously and his, Flynn said, "has allowed an enemy that is using very smart, savvy means to impact our way of life."

    "That means infiltrating into refugee populations, that means conducting of smart information operations," Flynn said. "Most people don't know but these guys have very sophisticated information operations going on, with publications of magazines and websites. They have leaders in their groups that have thousands and thousands-I'm talking tens of thousands of followers on social media and Instagram and Twitter. So we are not even allowed to go after these kinds of things right now. This is the problem-it's a big problem. In fact, if we don't change this we're going to see this strengthening in our homeland."

    Flynn also laid out how to defeat radical Islamism, a plan he has stated repeatedly that the Obama Administration has ignored.

    "The very first thing is we have to clearly define the enemy and we have to get our own house in order, which this administration has not done," Flynn said. "We have to figure out how are we going to organize ourselves. Then I call for in the book a new 21st century alliance. This is where we really come to how we take the Arab community to task on how they plan to fix this cancerous disease inside of their own body that has metastasized and grown exponentially over the last five or six years and certainly actually over the last eight to 10 years. So it's one thing to go after the ideology, just like we went after Communism for 40 years , but I also say in the book we have to crush this enemy wherever they exist. We cannot allow them to have any safe haven. We are dancing around the sort of head of a pin, when we know these guys are in certain places around the world and our military is not allowed to go in there and get them. The 'mother may I' has to go all the way back up to the White House."

    He said the fight has to be very similar to how the United States, over decades, thoroughly degraded Communism on the world stage.

    "There's no enemy that's unbeatable," Flynn said. "We can beat any enemy. We put our minds to it, we decide to do that, we can beat any enemy. And there's no ideology in the world that's better than the American ideology. We should not allow, because they mask themselves behind the religion of Islam, we should not allow our ideology, our way of life, our system of principles, our values that are based on a Judeo-Christian set that comes right out of our Constitution-we should not fear that. In fact, we should fight those that try to impose a different way of life on us. That's what we did against the Nazis, that's what we did against the Communists for the better part of a half a century-in fact, more than half a century. Now we are dealing with another Ism, and that's radical Islamism, and we're going to have to fight it-and we're going to be fighting it for some time. But tactically we can defeat this enemy quickly. Then what we have to do is we have to fight the ideology, and we can do that diplomatically, politically, informationally and we can do that in very, very smart ways much greater than we're doing right now."

    Flynn is a lifelong Democrat, and again served in this senior Obama administration position for more than two years, but is now publicly supporting Republican nominee Donald Trump for president. He spoke at the Republican National Convention in support of Trump, and has been publicly speaking out in favor of the GOP nominee for some time now.

    "My role as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency-that's almost a 20,000 person organization in 140 plus countries around the world," Flynn said. "I was also the senior military and intelligence officer not only for the Defense Department but for the country. So I mean I was basically told 'hey, you know what, what you're saying we don't like. So you're out.' To Donald Trump, though, and I haven't known him that long but I met him a year ago-in fact a year ago this month. The conversation that we had, which was an amazing conversation, I found a guy that like I to say, 'he gets it.' He gets it. He is a street savvy strategic leader type person who has a vision for this country, and he's turned it into this phrase of 'Make America Great Again.'"

    ... ... ...

    LISTEN TO LT. GEN. MICHAEL FLYNN ON BREITBART NEWS DAILY ON SIRIUSXM 125 THE PATRIOT CHANNEL:

    [Aug 29, 2016] Trump By a Landslide

    Notable quotes:
    "... If we believe the mainstream media and the Establishment it protects and promotes, Trump has no chance of winning the presidential election. For starters, Trump supporters are all Confederate-flag waving hillbillies, bigots, fascists and misogynists. In other words. "good people" can't possibly vote for Trump. Even cartoon character Mike Doonesbury is fleeing to Vancouver to escape Trump_vs_deep_state. (Memo to the Doonesbury family: selling your Seattle home will barely net the down payment on a decent crib in Vancouver.). For another, Trump alienates the entire planet every time he speaks. The list goes on, of course, continuing with his lack of qualifications. ..."
    "... But suppose this election isn't about Trump or Hillary at all. Suppose, as political scientists Allan J. Lichtman and Ken DeCell claimed in their 1988 book, Thirteen Keys to the Presidency , that all presidential elections from 1860 to the present are referendums on the sitting president and his party. ..."
    "... Author/historian Robert W. Merry sorts through the 13 analytic keys in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine and concludes they "could pose bad news for Clinton." ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.oftwominds.com

    ... ... ...

    Based on this analytic structure, Trump may not just win the election in November--he might win by a landslide.

    If we believe the mainstream media and the Establishment it protects and promotes, Trump has no chance of winning the presidential election. For starters, Trump supporters are all Confederate-flag waving hillbillies, bigots, fascists and misogynists. In other words. "good people" can't possibly vote for Trump. Even cartoon character Mike Doonesbury is fleeing to Vancouver to escape Trump_vs_deep_state. (Memo to the Doonesbury family: selling your Seattle home will barely net the down payment on a decent crib in Vancouver.). For another, Trump alienates the entire planet every time he speaks. The list goes on, of course, continuing with his lack of qualifications.

    But suppose this election isn't about Trump or Hillary at all. Suppose, as political scientists Allan J. Lichtman and Ken DeCell claimed in their 1988 book, Thirteen Keys to the Presidency , that all presidential elections from 1860 to the present are referendums on the sitting president and his party.

    If the public views the sitting president's second term favorably, the candidate from his party will win the election. If the public views the sitting president's second term unfavorably, the candidate from the other party will win the election.

    (Lichtman published another book on his system in 2008, The Keys to the White House: A Surefire Guide to Predicting the Next President .)

    Author/historian Robert W. Merry sorts through the 13 analytic keys in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine and concludes they "could pose bad news for Clinton."

    If five or fewer are negative for the incumbent, the incumbent party will win the election. If six or more are negative, the incumbent party loses the election. Merry counts eight negatives for President Obama's second term, which if true spells defeat for the Clinton ticket.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Trump's new aim Poison a Clinton presidency

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger ..."
    "... But the politics are made harder amid the drip-drip revelations from the newly released emails demonstrating the messy overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, which leave even many Clinton-inclined voters wondering what she was really up to and why it's so hard for her to explain it. ..."
    POLITICO

    The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger. "It holds up a mirror to Donald Trump and what his campaign is about, and says everything you need to know about Donald Trump and where these kinds of crazy conspiracy theories are coming from," as one campaign aide put it.

    ... ... ...

    But the politics are made harder amid the drip-drip revelations from the newly released emails demonstrating the messy overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, which leave even many Clinton-inclined voters wondering what she was really up to and why it's so hard for her to explain it.

    [Aug 29, 2016] The media's obsession with reporting every drop of saliva to emerge from Donald Trump's mouth for the last year and a half

    Notable quotes:
    "... The media's obsession with reporting every drop of saliva to emerge from Donald Trump's mouth for the last year and a half, accompanied by requisite pearl clutching and gasps of offense, wasn't done by accident. Instead, it was a carefully planned campaign to set the bulk of the American populace up to automatically discard any criticism of the Clinton Cult without question ..."
    "... What all that does accomplish, however, is generate the mindset that is now terrifying in its willingness to completely ignore any and all facts that the Clinton Foundation is a huge money-laundering organization. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Elizabeth Burton , August 29, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Submitted for your consideration…

    The media's obsession with reporting every drop of saliva to emerge from Donald Trump's mouth for the last year and a half, accompanied by requisite pearl clutching and gasps of offense, wasn't done by accident. Instead, it was a carefully planned campaign to set the bulk of the American populace up to automatically discard any criticism of the Clinton Cult without question , because the Cultists use the language and connections that have been inserted into the national psyche as being Trump-related.

    So, having made a great fuss over how Trump admires Putin, and spreading the theme that Putin would love to have Trump in the Oval Office, they then embrace with enthusiasm the contention of the DNC that their databases were "hacked by Russians, probably at the behest of government agencies," even though there was no possible way that could have been determined if, as they contend, they weren't aware of the hack until just a few months ago. Oh, and it helps if you believe Russian intelligence agencies are going to hire hackers stupid enough to all but leave their names and addresses around to be "discovered."

    What all that does accomplish, however, is generate the mindset that is now terrifying in its willingness to completely ignore any and all facts that the Clinton Foundation is a huge money-laundering organization. I have seen people who take great pride in their skepticism dismiss the multiple articles exposing the corruption as "unfounded rubbish." I've been told the AP article is "a farce." Point them to articles by qualified professionals showing the utter absence of any proof the Clinton Foundation is a philanthropic organization for anyone but the people it's named for, and the dismissal is abrupt and total.

    I don't know if it's cultism or just that people know she's going to be elected and don't want to think about the consequences, but the vast number of those who won't even consider shenanigans is appalling. It's all part of that Republican conspiracy, and that's all they care to know.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Reince Priebus Demands Public Release of All Communications Between Clinton Foundation and State Department

    www.breitbart.com

    Breitbart

    Hillary Clinton's pay-for-play scandal is threatening to derail her campaign. Public outrage follows revelations that the Foundation took foreign cash during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, that Clinton aide Huma Abedin was helping Foundation donors get favors and access from the State Department, and that Clinton aide Cheryl Mills was doing assignments for the Clinton Foundation while on the State Department payroll.

    In a letter Monday to Foundation president Donna Shalala, Priebus demands transparency.

    "I am writing to you to call on the Clinton Foundation and all of the entities under its umbrella to release all correspondence its officials had with the State Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state," Priebus added.

    As I am sure you are well aware, a spate of recent news reports involving the Clinton Foundation's relationship with the Clinton State Department has renewed serious concerns about conflicts of interest and whether donors to the foundation benefitted from official acts under then-Secretary Clinton.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Why Did Saudi Regime Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to Clinton Foundation?

    "It isn't just "suspicious." It's influence peddling, which is corrupt by definition. And there's a whole infrastructure, institutional and technical, to support it." Lambert Strether of Corrente.
    Notable quotes:
    "... here you have Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton having this Clinton Foundation, with billions of dollars pouring into it from some of the world's worst tyrannies ..."
    "... Bill and Hillary Clinton are being personally enriched by those same people, doing speeches, for many hundreds of thousands of dollars, in front of them, at the same time that she's running the State Department, getting ready to run for president, and soon will be running the executive branch. ..."
    "... the problem here is that the Clintons have essentially become the pioneers of eliminating all of these lines, of amassing massive wealth from around the world, and using that to boost their own political power, and then using that political power to boost the interests of the people who are enriching them in all kinds of ways. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | Democracy Now!

    [W]hat Donna Brazile said in that video that you played is nothing short of laughable. It's not questioned when Republicans do favors for their donors? Of course it is. In fact, it's been a core, central critique of the Democratic Party, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for years, that Republicans are corrupt because they serve the interest of their big donors. One of the primary positions of the Democratic Party is that the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court has corrupted politics because it allows huge money to flow into the political process in a way that ensures, or at least creates the appearance, that people are doing favors for donors.

    And so, here you have Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton having this Clinton Foundation, with billions of dollars pouring into it from some of the world's worst tyrannies, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and Qatar and other Gulf states, other people who have all kinds of vested interests in the policies of the United States government. And at the same time, in many cases, both Bill and Hillary Clinton are being personally enriched by those same people, doing speeches, for many hundreds of thousands of dollars, in front of them, at the same time that she's running the State Department, getting ready to run for president, and soon will be running the executive branch.

    And so, the problem here is that the Clintons have essentially become the pioneers of eliminating all of these lines, of amassing massive wealth from around the world, and using that to boost their own political power, and then using that political power to boost the interests of the people who are enriching them in all kinds of ways. And of course questions need to be asked, and suspicions are necessarily raised, because this kind of behavior is inherently suspicious. And it needs a lot of media scrutiny and a lot of attention, and I'm glad it's getting that.

    [Aug 29, 2016] NYT Laments Of Allegedly False Russian News Stories - With A False U.S. News Story

    Notable quotes:
    "... people need to realize what they read is not the truth.. words can and are used to deceive... propaganda seems to be one of the central roles of all media at this point in time... folks need to beware of this.. ..."
    "... Mark Twain said that if you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed. ..."
    "... Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!" ..."
    "... Will we USAians ever wake up to 9/11 => Afghanistan => Iraq => Libya => Syria => Ukraine => Yemen ... ..."
    "... How many innocents have 'our' emperors - Bush XLI, Clinton XLII, Bush XLIII, Obama XLIV, coming soon? Clinton XLV - killed in the runup to and execution of series of criminal aggressions post-9/11? Two million? If Clinton sets the world on fire the numbers will rise by two orders of magnitude. ..."
    "... There have been rumours that the US government was helping to bankroll certain social media companies in return for access. I would say that the US government will step in and potentially rescue NYT and the like from being closed down. They serve an intrinsic and important service to the elite. They will not abandon it. ..."
    "... The CIA has bankrolled many startups ... maybe they could take out ads for Raytheon and General Atomic products, run US military/CIA recruitment ads? Pay for placement of articles like Mark Sleboda 's, 'The Turkish Invasion Of Syria As Path To "Regime Change"'? ..."
    "... The NYTimes going bellyup ... happened to the Washington Post and the WSJ. Maybe Eric Schmidt will buy it? Or Rupert Murdoch. ..."
    "... I wonder if the CIA bankrolled Rupert Murdoch? The CIA took out a $500 million data storage contract with Amazon just before Bezos bought the WaPo. Come to think of it, having control of the WaPo, WSJ, and NYTimes archives would be just what Dr. Orwell ordered. Mark Sleboda could then work for the MiniTrue, revising the past as required. ..."
    "... Like all psychopaths, they have a one-track mind that doesn't allow an effective strategy when it comes to bipedal meat units. Their answer to convincing you of their lies is to proffer more outrageous lies. It's kind of like the newspapers fighting declining advertising revenue by making the print smaller, stuffing the paper with more ads at higher rates and raising the price for a printed newspaper. Damn it, why won't you monkeys OBEY! ..."
    "... That's an excellent point, b. I don't even remember the last time I've read anything truthful in any western MSM outlet. Almost everything is a spin of various degree. NYT is one of worst offenders, so another lying piece is not at all surprising. ..."
    "... From the Wikipedia article Factoid : The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it's not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print." ..."
    "... This is a basic tool of Western mainstream propaganda. Sprinkle every article full of "factoids" or small lies. These lies are not about the core topic of article, so they are unlikely to be challenged. Their only purpose is to enforce the narrative and demonize the enemy. When small lies or "lielets" are repeated often enough, they become factoids, meaning that they are no longer recognized as lies. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The New York Times is desperate for new readers and therefore tries to branch into the realm of The Onion and other satirical sites. It attempts to show that allegedly Russia controlled media spread false stories for political purpose - by providing a false media story. The purpose of the NYT doing such is yours to guess.

    The sourcing of that Page 1 story is as weak as its content. It starts with claiming that opponents of Sweden joining NATO must be somehow Russia related and are spreading false stories:

    As often happens in such cases, Swedish officials were never able to pin down the source of the false reports.

    Duh! But it must have been Russia. Because Swedish internal opposition to joining NATO would be incapable of opining against it. Right? Likewise anti-EU reports and opposition to the EU within the Czech Republic MUST be caused by Russian disinformation and can in now way be related to mismanagement of the EU project itself.

    The sourcing for the whole long pamphlet is extremely weak:

    But they, numerous analysts and experts in American and European intelligence point to Russia as the prime suspect, noting that preventing NATO expansion is a centerpiece of the foreign policy of President Vladimir V. Putin, who invaded Georgia in 2008 largely to forestall that possibility.

    Whoa! "Experts in American and European intelligence" can of course be trusted not to ever spread false stories or rumors about Russia influencing "news". Such truth tellers they are and have always been.

    Then follows, in a claim about false stories(!) spread by Russia, that factually false claim that Russia "invaded Georgia in 2008". It was obvious in the very first hours of the Georgia war, as we then noted , that Georgia started it. A European Union commission later confirmed that it was Georgia, incited by the Bush government, that started the war. The NYT itself found the same . All Russia did was to protect the areas of South Ossetia and Abchazia that it was officially designated to protect by the United Nations! No invasion of Georgia took place.

    And what was the alleged reason that Russia "invaded" Georgia for? "Largely to forestall".."NATO expansion"? But it was NATO that rejected Georgia's membership in April 2008. Why then would Russia "invade" Georgia in August 2008 to prevent a membership that was surely not gonna happen?

    Utter a-historic nonsense.

    The who tale, written by Neil MacFarquhar , is a long list of hearsay where Russia is claimed to have influenced news but without ever showing any evidence.

    Not mentioned in the story are:

    As Carl Bernstein described in his book about the CIA and the media:

    Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the [Central Intelligence] Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times , Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.

    By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times , CBS and Time Inc.

    Bernstein shows that the NYT cooperation with the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies was very extensive and continues uninterrupted up to today.

    To lament about alleged Russian influence on some news outlets while writing a disinformation filled piece, based on "experts in American and European intelligence", for an outlet with proven CIA cooperation in faking news, is way beyond hypocrisy.

    Through this piece the NYT becomes its own parody. Did the author and editors recognize that? Or are they too self-unconscious for even such simple insight?

    Posted by b on August 29, 2016 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    james | Aug 29, 2016 11:48:02 AM | 1
    thanks b... people need to realize what they read is not the truth.. words can and are used to deceive... propaganda seems to be one of the central roles of all media at this point in time... folks need to beware of this..
    Steve | Aug 29, 2016 11:55:46 AM | 2
    Although, NYT, is bleeding and is losing audience, I am amazed that it is still in print. The Guardian is posting loss in millions of pounds, and that is what I expect NYT to be doing.
    WorldBLee | Aug 29, 2016 12:03:35 PM | 3
    "Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!" That seems to be the official US opinion on Russia as expressed by the Clinton campaign, the NYT, and the other usual suspects purveying official US propaganda.
    IhaveLittleToAdd | Aug 29, 2016 12:11:46 PM | 4
    An amusing thing about the NYT's is the most-emailed/read lists, which are almost always well represented by articles such as "what to cook this weekend" and "48hrs in Tulsa." This is often despite the steady stream of heady world events. My take is that most readers of the Times want to be seen/known as Times readers, but would really prefer to be reading tabloids. The difference is becoming less obvious by the day.
    john | Aug 29, 2016 1:36:44 PM | 5
    Steve says:

    Although, NYT, is bleeding and is losing audience, I am amazed that it is still in print

    well, digital subscribers are apparently soaring. for sure CEO Mark Thompson doesn't seem too miffed about it.

    ToivoS | Aug 29, 2016 1:58:27 PM | 7
    One small quibble with this: But it was NATO that rejected Georgia's membership in April 2008. . That April meeting did not really reject Georgia's membership. The discussion was just postponed to a later meeting. It wasn't until after Russia thrashed Georgia in August that the US took the membership issue off the table.
    P Walker | Aug 29, 2016 2:02:56 PM | 8
    Mark Twain said that if you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed.
    jfl | Aug 29, 2016 2:08:59 PM | 9
    @3 wbl, "Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!"

    That's the answer isn't it?

    Will we USAians ever wake up to 9/11 => Afghanistan => Iraq => Libya => Syria => Ukraine => Yemen ...

    How many innocents have 'our' emperors - Bush XLI, Clinton XLII, Bush XLIII, Obama XLIV, coming soon? Clinton XLV - killed in the runup to and execution of series of criminal aggressions post-9/11? Two million? If Clinton sets the world on fire the numbers will rise by two orders of magnitude.

    Don't look at Trump! Don't look at Me! Look at Vladimir, behind the tree!

    Ya gotta wanna believe. How many USAians still wanna believe?

    That is the question .

    Mina | Aug 29, 2016 2:10:00 PM | 10
    OT
    It's been two years now. They don't know where Raqqa is on the map? It's not like the Boko Haram hideouts in the jungle I would say.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3404894/The-saddest-thing-remember-little-girl-12-years-old-raped-without-mercy-Dressed-traditional-wedding-gowns-Yazidi-sex-slaves-relive-torture-ISIS.html

    P Walker | Aug 29, 2016 2:18:11 PM | 11
    @2

    There have been rumours that the US government was helping to bankroll certain social media companies in return for access. I would say that the US government will step in and potentially rescue NYT and the like from being closed down. They serve an intrinsic and important service to the elite. They will not abandon it.

    jsn | Aug 29, 2016 2:21:52 PM | 12
    It's been amusing to watch this electoral season as the Times has dropped all pretense of objectivity. While actual news accounts continue to lightly pepper the broadsheet, the headlines, article placement and, most importantly, what falls before and after the fold is so transparently partisan one is increasingly startled to find well reported and honest journalism.

    I remember back in the first Intifada when Abe Rosenthal had Palestinian youth throwing soviet made rocks while he glossed Sabra and Shatila massacres. The Times was pretty "Onion"y then, but the political coverage this year makes me weep for my country as what little good left in it chokes on growing torrents of BS, obfuscation, prevarication and bombast.

    jfl | Aug 29, 2016 2:33:50 PM | 13
    @11 pw

    The CIA has bankrolled many startups ... maybe they could take out ads for Raytheon and General Atomic products, run US military/CIA recruitment ads? Pay for placement of articles like Mark Sleboda 's, 'The Turkish Invasion Of Syria As Path To "Regime Change"'?

    The NYTimes going bellyup ... happened to the Washington Post and the WSJ. Maybe Eric Schmidt will buy it? Or Rupert Murdoch.

    I wonder if the CIA bankrolled Rupert Murdoch? The CIA took out a $500 million data storage contract with Amazon just before Bezos bought the WaPo. Come to think of it, having control of the WaPo, WSJ, and NYTimes archives would be just what Dr. Orwell ordered. Mark Sleboda could then work for the MiniTrue, revising the past as required.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 29, 2016 3:00:11 PM | 14
    jsn@12: do you really think that objectivity of NYT exhibits seasonal variation? Like neutral to positive stories about Russia between Easter and Passover, and a more usual dreck for the rest of the year?
    Piotr Berman | Aug 29, 2016 3:08:39 PM | 15
    There is still difference between NYT and tabloids. This is the most recent article in NY Post about Russia in NY Post:

    Putin is gobbling up whatever he can – while Obama does nothing

    By Benny Avni August 17, 2016 | 8:22pm.
    As Americans focus on who'll replace President Obama, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin marches around the globe unabated, rushing to gobble up anything and everything he can before the new president...

    Grieved | Aug 29, 2016 3:26:28 PM | 17
    Are we already in the second of the four stages to victory?

    I don't know much about the MSM, and even less about H. Clinton, but what was that all about with the speech she made concerning the "alt-right"? Who in their right mind would bring to the mainstream attention the existence of a body of contradictory writing?

    Is it the same thing here with NYT? Is the sheer prevalence of opposing opinion from its readers forcing the MSM - led by flagship NYT - to turn and address the phenomenon?

    I could not have dared to hope we could already be at stage 2:

    First they ignore you.
    Then they ridicule you.
    Then they fight you.
    Then you win.
    --Gandhi

    PavewayIV | Aug 29, 2016 4:53:23 PM | 18
    Grieved@17 - I'm going to argue we're at stage 2.5, Grieved. DDOS attacks on RT and Sputnik, 'managed' Google search rankings, censored tweets, NSA on your desktop/cellphone. The powers that be and western MSM are having a conniption fit and they are very angry.

    Like all psychopaths, they have a one-track mind that doesn't allow an effective strategy when it comes to bipedal meat units. Their answer to convincing you of their lies is to proffer more outrageous lies. It's kind of like the newspapers fighting declining advertising revenue by making the print smaller, stuffing the paper with more ads at higher rates and raising the price for a printed newspaper. Damn it, why won't you monkeys OBEY!

    jsn | Aug 29, 2016 5:06:49 PM | 20
    Piotr@14,
    The season to which I refer is, as I said, the electoral one!

    The Times blows (or is it sucks?) very much with the political weather, though regretfully our elections now blow for long enough to constitute multiple seasons proper.

    I've long suspected that light seasoning of truth they sprinkle beneath the fold or deep inside is there so that when the bogosity of one of their major narratives periodically explodes they can scrape thin truths from the back pages and later paragraphs to claim the've been reporting the truth all along!

    telescope | Aug 29, 2016 5:12:35 PM | 21
    That's an excellent point, b. I don't even remember the last time I've read anything truthful in any western MSM outlet. Almost everything is a spin of various degree. NYT is one of worst offenders, so another lying piece is not at all surprising.
    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 29, 2016 5:22:21 PM | 23
    NYT slogan is "All The News That's Fit To Print"

    Did good taste preclude "All The News That's Fit To Read"

    Petri Krohn | Aug 29, 2016 5:37:03 PM | 24
    Russia invading Georgia in 2008 fits the definition of factoid , as defined by Norman Mailer in 1973:
    From the Wikipedia article Factoid : The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it's not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print."

    This is a basic tool of Western mainstream propaganda. Sprinkle every article full of "factoids" or small lies. These lies are not about the core topic of article, so they are unlikely to be challenged. Their only purpose is to enforce the narrative and demonize the enemy. When small lies or "lielets" are repeated often enough, they become factoids, meaning that they are no longer recognized as lies.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Black Panther Party Leader said that Hillary Democrats are promising everything, giving nothing

    Notable quotes:
    "... We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests. ..."
    "... Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young people working more? ..."
    "... If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's are screwed for a long time. ..."
    "... Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    ... following interview with New Black Panther Quanell X requires no further commentary – he breaks it down quite succinctly:

    Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech… We may not like the vessel [Donald Trump] that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said.

    Because it is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given them. We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests.

    ...

    I want to say and encourage the brothers and sisters… Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young people working more?

    The condition got worse.

    froze25 -> jcaz, Aug 29, 2016 10:30 AM
    If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's are screwed for a long time.
    847328_3527 -> MANvsMACHINE, Aug 29, 2016 10:36 AM
    Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc.
    CJgipper -> FireBrander, Aug 29, 2016 12:28 PM
    I've said that repeatedly. The question for hillary isn't what does the survey show, but how many will actually be motivated enough to go vote. They may not show up and pull the lever for trump this go round, but they may be curious enough to see what happens to just stay home and let things work themselves out to see what the result will be

    [Aug 29, 2016] Yet another instance of the pot calleng the cattle black

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mo Elleithee, who did tours separately as a top aide to Clinton and Tim Kaine and is now executive director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, is nervous that the impact will be much deeper and long lasting. ..."
    "... In addition to the health questions and rigged election talk, Elleithee cited Trump's encouragement of Second Amendment voters to do something about a Clinton presidency's court appointments ..."
    "... Huma Abedin should be arrested, charged with espionage, and mis-handling of classified material, and imprisoned for a long long time, according to recent email releases. ..."
    "... It's deflection because she doesn't want to explain why her family foundation takes money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. ..."
    "... The Saudis are buying access--not funding Clinton Foundation initiatives to help women and children. ..."
    "... Horatio N. Fisk Are you saying she didn't delete e-mails and use bleaching software to try to hide her tracks? ..."
    "... Classic Clinton propaganda. Are you HONESTLY trying to say she did NOTHING wrong? Then WHY is she stopping doing what she is doing IF she steals the presidency. All along Clinton has denied everything and EVERY SINGLE TIME she has been PROVEN to be a liar! She claimed she NEVER sent a classified email - you called those that said she did lunatic conspiracy theorists - turns out YOU WERE LYING! ..."
    "... If ever a person was so obviously unfit to hold the office of POTUS - it's Clinton. Indeed James Comey said anyone else who did what she did would NEVER be able to hols ANY government office, and would either be in jail or minimum sacked. ..."
    "... SHAME ON YOU for doing your Josepg Goebbels act. The innocent blood she is GUARANTEED to spill will be on the hands of every single person who votes for that war criminal ..."
    "... Hillary is fit to be president? Based on what? Her accomplishments? Her ability to properly handle classified data? Her ability to lie? Being beholden to her big donors from Wall Street, Foreign Countries, shady sources, who made her a 1%er? ..."
    "... No one has to de-legitimize Clinton. She's done a fine job all by herself! She lied to the faces of geiving parents, infront of the coffins containing the remains of their loved ones. She lied to the American people, over and over, about her server and the emails she "turned over". She lied to Congress about those same subjects ..."
    "... She refuses to give a press conference where the questions are not scripted for her. She used her "Charitable Foundation" to sell access to the State Dep, let people like Bloomenthal decide what decisions she made as Sec State. She panders to blacks, treating them like children. You Go Hillary! Keep making the case for how unfit for office you are! ..."
    "... Sure, Mr Trump is not a polished highly trained politician, and ends up very often with foot in mouth disease. But Donald J Trump single-handedly defeated the totally corrupt Republican establishment, and ripped the nomination out of their hands. ..."
    "... Those treasonous RINO (especially the warmonger NeoCons) political hacks are still screaming, and the GOP is self-destructing before our eyes. They are fleeing in panic to the sinking, burning SS Clinton, as the establishment newsmedia desperately tries to hide the self-destructing, dying Hillary from the public. Good riddance; ..."
    "... Too funny...Hillary hides from the press and the only thing she has got is to make Trump look like a deranged psychopath. That's all she has. She has already waffled on TPP because of Trump. She has not been forced to reckon with her own immigration policies or how she will deal with the refugee crisis. ..."
    "... I'm an Independent, I march to my own beat. That said, as a US militay veteran and having served honorably in the United States Marine Corps, in a term I'm sure fellow veterans can understand... "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a scumbag." I'm voting for Dr. Jill Stein on November 8, 2016. ..."
    "... Donald Trump really doesn't have to do very much at this point to impune Hillary Clinton 's reputation. She has already done that to herself. Her actions are indefensible and all he has to do is remind people of it and convince the idiots who keep defending her and can't see her crimes that are right in front of their faces. She has lied to us and Congress, concealed her crimes and sold us out time and time again for her own personal gain. ..."
    www.politico.com

    From: Trump's new aim Poison a Clinton presidency - POLITICO

    The Clinton delegitimization project is now central to Donald Trump's campaign and such a prime component of right-wing media that it's already seeped beyond extremist chat rooms into "lock her up" chants on the convention floor, national news stories debating whether polls actually can be rigged, and voters puzzling over that photo they think they saw of her needing to be carried up the stairs.

    The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger. "It holds up a mirror to Donald Trump and what his campaign is about, and says everything you need to know about Donald Trump and where these kinds of crazy conspiracy theories are coming from," as one campaign aide put it.

    But the Democrat's team is aware of how this might factor in beyond November.

    "Some of the campaign and allies' conspiracies are designed to delegitimize her personally. Most are simply designed to spread fear and mistrust. And I am sure if she wins, the right wing will continue to spread these theories," said Clinton senior adviser Jennifer Palmieri. Palmieri is in favor of ignoring most of the wackiness but warned: "Just because they may have zero basis in truth doesn't mean they can't be corrosive. So in this cycle I believe you have to call out the truly destructive theories calmly, but aggressively, and in real time."

    ... ... ...

    For days, Clinton campaign officials purposefully ignored questions coming at them from the Trump-intertwined Breitbart News about her health, according to an aide. But after Fox News host Sean Hannity devoted an episode of his show to a Clinton rumor medical panel, complete with an eager-to-please urologist in a white coat, they shifted gears: a long release emailed to reporters two weeks ago with sourced debunkings of all the rumors and a statement from her doctor attesting that supposedly leaked medical records were forged.

    ... ... ...

    Mo Elleithee, who did tours separately as a top aide to Clinton and Tim Kaine and is now executive director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, is nervous that the impact will be much deeper and long lasting.

    ... ... ...

    In addition to the health questions and rigged election talk, Elleithee cited Trump's encouragement of Second Amendment voters to do something about a Clinton presidency's court appointments and Trump adviser Roger Stone's suggestion of bloodshed if Trump loses.

    Original unedited comments. Red bold/italic emphasis is mine
    Mike Davis
    How does one poison a black widow spider? Hillary Clinton is already poison. She and Slick have been poison for four decades.

    It is Obama and Clinton wanting to bring radical Islam jihadists here to America. There is no possible way to screen them at present. Even HS has no clue how to screen terrorists out and admit so. Huma Abedin should be arrested, charged with espionage, and mis-handling of classified material, and imprisoned for a long long time, according to recent email releases. Of course, losing her radical Islam lover, might be too much for the sickened Hillary to withstand.

    Donald J Trump wants to keep radical Islam sharia law jihadists out, along with other criminals, drug dealers, who would endanger the innocent Americans. You liberals support the criminal dying Clinton; therefore you support her policies, including the middle-class wrecking ball TPP and NAFTA.

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BJkj25RD44E/

    Andreas Nettmayer
    I didn't go to highschool, I went to school high :D
    It's deflection because she doesn't want to explain why her family foundation takes money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Doing so would weaken her credibility as a human rights champion. The Saudis are buying access--not funding Clinton Foundation initiatives to help women and children. We should be scrutinizing our arms sales to oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and standing up for human rights. Not taking money when it is convenient, selling our best weapons to dictatorships, and then pretending the rest of the world believes we are some City on a Hill human rights champions.
    Mike Moutain

    Thus the dilemma for the gutless Dems, attack the character of Trump while defending the 100% lack of character of the email deleting, ambassador murdering money laundering lying under oath criminal piece of shit..

    Good luck with that..

    Horatio N. Fisk · Works at Writer, Gadfly

    Good luck with proving any of what you said;. You can't

    David J. Lekse · Indianapolis, Indiana

    Horatio N. Fisk Are you saying she didn't delete e-mails and use bleaching software to try to hide her tracks?

    Paul Marston · Works at Self-Employed

    Classic Clinton propaganda. Are you HONESTLY trying to say she did NOTHING wrong? Then WHY is she stopping doing what she is doing IF she steals the presidency. All along Clinton has denied everything and EVERY SINGLE TIME she has been PROVEN to be a liar! She claimed she NEVER sent a classified email - you called those that said she did lunatic conspiracy theorists - turns out YOU WERE LYING!

    The sheer contempt you and all the other Clinton drones have for the American public is genuinely sickening. It has been PROVEN she rigged the primaries - and had to sack 5 staff for it, yet Clinton claims she did nothing wrong.

    If ever a person was so obviously unfit to hold the office of POTUS - it's Clinton. Indeed James Comey said anyone else who did what she did would NEVER be able to hols ANY government office, and would either be in jail or minimum sacked.

    SHAME ON YOU for doing your Josepg Goebbels act. The innocent blood she is GUARANTEED to spill will be on the hands of every single person who votes for that war criminal

    Bob Rousseau

    Pretty pathetic when the do nothing, low IQ Republicans have to resort to conspiracy theories and lies to win elected office. If their voters werent so stupid and toxic, conspiracy theories would be immediately identified for what they are; right wing garbage.

    Marlin Johnson

    Hillary is fit to be president? Based on what? Her accomplishments? Her ability to properly handle classified data? Her ability to lie? Being beholden to her big donors from Wall Street, Foreign Countries, shady sources, who made her a 1%er?

    Not securing the Mexican border so illegal aliens can continue to flood in to be exploited with low paying jobs, burdening social service budgets and taking American jobs? By allowing 550,000 unvetted Syrian refugees enter our country risking that some may be ISIS? Or having Bill back in the White House seeking sexual favors from young interns? Of course you would mind if it were your daughter working as an intern. And Hillary can launch vicious personal character attacks against the victims of Bill's sexual assaults.

    Wayne Barron

    No one has to de-legitimize Clinton. She's done a fine job all by herself! She lied to the faces of geiving parents, infront of the coffins containing the remains of their loved ones. She lied to the American people, over and over, about her server and the emails she "turned over". She lied to Congress about those same subjects.

    She refuses to give a press conference where the questions are not scripted for her. She used her "Charitable Foundation" to sell access to the State Dep, let people like Bloomenthal decide what decisions she made as Sec State. She panders to blacks, treating them like children. You Go Hillary! Keep making the case for how unfit for office you are!

    Mike Davis

    Sure, Mr Trump is not a polished highly trained politician, and ends up very often with foot in mouth disease. But Donald J Trump single-handedly defeated the totally corrupt Republican establishment, and ripped the nomination out of their hands.

    Those treasonous RINO (especially the warmonger NeoCons) political hacks are still screaming, and the GOP is self-destructing before our eyes. They are fleeing in panic to the sinking, burning SS Clinton, as the establishment newsmedia desperately tries to hide the self-destructing, dying Hillary from the public. Good riddance; thank you Mr Trump.

    Tammy McKinnon · Florida State University

    Too funny...Hillary hides from the press and the only thing she has got is to make Trump look like a deranged psychopath. That's all she has. She has already waffled on TPP because of Trump. She has not been forced to reckon with her own immigration policies or how she will deal with the refugee crisis.

    Not much about terror either. She released a tax plan but that is meaningless piece of paper that all candidates put out there..you must get Congress on your side and Republicans will not go for increases.

    Then there is her free public college plan. Obamacare is collapsing and voters are going to see it firsthand Nov 1st (if Obama doesn't delay it until after the election)

    Yeah, the wind is behind her(and the MSM)....it wasn't rosy for her at the end of July. We were told that didn't matter ...but now it does?

    Tammy McKinnon · Florida State University

    Bethsabe David,

    Dems have perfected unsubstantiated attacks in elections. Remember Reid saying that Romney's tax returns showed he had paid no taxes? Remember the commercial accusing Romney of murder and the crying husband? (big lie) Oh and the Hillary camp started the birther movement. All 'lies' are not created equal. Hillary is dangerous.

    Trump is not "loosing" (spell check is your friend Bethsabe) He was doing very well the end on July and we still have a ways to go.

    Benjamin Andrew Marine · American University

    Doug Perry,

    I'm an Independent, I march to my own beat. That said, as a US militay veteran and having served honorably in the United States Marine Corps, in a term I'm sure fellow veterans can understand... "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a scumbag." I'm voting for Dr. Jill Stein on November 8, 2016.

    Michael Iger

    Republicans demonize opponents its in their nature and the Clinton's have been on that long list of enemies now for decades. We see it too with Obama and Trump's birther charges and McConnell talking about not cooperating with the President at a price of hurting the country. Hilary, both as a Clinton and a Democrat, is going to get a double dose in her term of office. The real loser is the country that becomes stalemated and dysfunctional at the top which then permeates the society. We have a dysfunction group in this country with some power and until it changes must deal with it. With Trump's campaign of bigotry and racism that may change sooner than later as the country wakes up to reality of the mess and its done. With stalemate very little gets done and problems don't get solved.

    Michael Welby · Owner at Self-Employed

    Yeah, it is Republicans that demonize. That is why, in Reno, Hillary draped the KKK all over trump. YOu do it too: bigot, racist.

    With such warm greetings and suggesting of cooperation, what the hell do you expect. She may win the office. She will accomplish nothing. Nothing.

    Mark Daigle , Lamar University
    Donald Trump really doesn't have to do very much at this point to impune Hillary Clinton 's reputation. She has already done that to herself. Her actions are indefensible and all he has to do is remind people of it and convince the idiots who keep defending her and can't see her crimes that are right in front of their faces. She has lied to us and Congress, concealed her crimes and sold us out time and time again for her own personal gain.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Trump media feud moves from Megyn Kelly to 'Morning Joe'

    Notable quotes:
    "... there's an opportunity for Trump to draw a sharp contrast with Clinton, who also has issues engaging with the press as a whole. ..."
    "... "If Trump were to more broadly engage the broader media landscape, he can provide a clear contrast to Hillary Clinton, who is clearly playing a 'run out the clock' strategy with regard to the press," McCall said. ..."
    TheHill
    Jeff McCall, a professor of media studies at Depauw University, agrees there's an opportunity for Trump to draw a sharp contrast with Clinton, who also has issues engaging with the press as a whole.

    "If Trump were to more broadly engage the broader media landscape, he can provide a clear contrast to Hillary Clinton, who is clearly playing a 'run out the clock' strategy with regard to the press," McCall said.

    "Trump should speak to any and all news outlets and mention during each of those interviews that he is there to speak to the electorate while Hillary ducks the tough questioning and won't even hold a press conference."

    But a more exposed Trump, McCall said, only works if he stays on the narrative the campaign wishes to articulate.

    "If he expands his media range, but has flimsy or off-target messages, he will just contribute to the perception that his messaging and campaign are rather untethered," he said.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Justice Stevens dissent in Citizens United (via @ggreenwald ) shreds the central argument of Hillarys defenders

    Notable quotes:
    "... On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress' legitimate interest in preventing the money that is spent on elections from exerting an "'undue influence on an officeholder's judgment"' and from creating "4he appearance of such influence,"' beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships. I ..."
    "... Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf. ..."
    "... Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences docs not accord with the theory or reality of politics. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress' legitimate interest in preventing the money that is spent on elections from exerting an "'undue influence on an officeholder's judgment"' and from creating "4he appearance of such influence,"' beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships. Id., at 150; see also. e.g., id., at 143-144. 152-154; Colorado II, 533 U. S.. at 441; Shrink Missouri. 528 U. S., at 389.

    Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf.

    Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences docs not accord with the theory or reality of politics.

    It certainly does not accord with the record Congress developed in passing BCRA. a record that stands as a remarkable testament to the energy and ingenuity with which corporations, unions, lobbyists, and politicians may go about scratching each other's backs - and which amply supported Congress' determination to target a limited set of especially destructive

    [Aug 29, 2016] If Clinton gets elected, she will be under investigation prior to the inauguration.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary will win, and it will be more than business as usual. Influence peddling and pay to play will accelerate. The neocon money will flow into the system and foreign policy will be a debacle. We may very well be approaching WWIII. ..."
    "... Under a Clinton II presidency, long-term international turmoil and confrontation lie ahead no matter what their family foundation may attempt to achieve. ..."
    Aug 28, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Scott in MD , August 26, 2016 at 6:20 am

    If Clinton gets elected, she will be under investigation prior to the inauguration. The Republicans will use their hold on the house to start several investigations on November 9.

    However, the GOP (continuing a party tradition) will cruise right past several true issues, and lock onto the one thing they believe will hold the most shock value. This will turn out to not be provable, or not be all that interesting to anyone but die-hard GOP supporters, and she will exit the investigations as powerful, if not more so, than before.

    There are plenty of reasons to investigate the Clinton machine, but if you expect this clown show to do it competently I have a bridge to sell you…

    collin , August 26, 2016 at 9:47 am
    No this one is backfiring already as most of the donors were people HRC would have met anyway, including Nobel Peace winners! and the 89 out of 154 people has not been released. And the article does not note any mischief but that there were meetings!

    Or that there are a ton of other government officials have spouses that run well run charities. Matt Yglesias has de-bunked this one a lot and my guess disappears relatively quickly.

    This is as worthless evidence as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.

    Johann , says: August 26, 2016 at 9:50 am

    Hillary will win, and it will be more than business as usual. Influence peddling and pay to play will accelerate. The neocon money will flow into the system and foreign policy will be a debacle. We may very well be approaching WWIII.

    The economy will continue to hollow out due to central bank hubris, government stimulus, and non-free trade deals. Income inequality will get worse. The middle class will continue to shrink.

    We are well on our way to third world status.

    Samuel Hooper , says: August 26, 2016 at 1:06 pm
    After leaving office, Bill Clinton could have devoted his energies to Habitat for Humanity (like Jimmy Carter) or thrown his energies into helping an existing organisation (like the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation). He didn't, because he wanted the "fruits" of his philanthropic work to accrue to him and his family. And so it is not unreasonable to ask exactly what those fruits are, especially those gained while Hillary Clinton was serving as the nation's chief diplomat.
    Steve Thompson \, says: August 26, 2016 at 2:41 pm
    Here is an article that quite succinctly explains, in her own words, Hillary Clinton's views of America's role in the world:
    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/08/rebuilding-globe-in-hillary-clintons.html

    Under a Clinton II presidency, long-term international turmoil and confrontation lie ahead no matter what their family foundation may attempt to achieve.

    [Aug 29, 2016] How Trumps health smear of Clinton backfired by Dean Obeidallah

    Problems are undeniable, but severity of the condition can be assessed only by qualified doctors after studying all medical record. Which should be a requred stp for all US presidential candidates. CNN presstitutes do disservice to the nation downplaying the concerns.
    Notable quotes:
    "... So, will Hillary accept Trump's challenge to release her medical records? I think we all know the answer to that... ..."
    CNN.com

    ... reminds Americans about Trump's self-professed medical disability, which allowed him to avoid serving in the Vietnam War Second, this baseless attack on Clinton's health reeks of the same conspiracy theory junk we have heard before from him

    ...Even the way Trump's cheerleader-in-chief Rudy Giuliani recently tried to support his claim that Clinton was very ill smacked of typical conspiracy fare:

    ...

    CNN User

    So, will Hillary accept Trump's challenge to release her medical records? I think we all know the answer to that...

    Just like showing up for a press conference, she just has too much to lose by being open with voters.;

    [Aug 29, 2016] The Trumpster Sends The GOP-Neocon Establishment To The Dumpster

    It is unclear to what extent Trump represents a threat to Washington establishment and how easily or difficult it would be to co-opt him. In any case "deep state" will stay in place, so the capabilities of POTUS are limited by the fact of its existence. But comments to the article are great !
    Notable quotes:
    "... It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914. ..."
    "... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
    "... And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet. ..."
    "... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
    "... Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991. ..."
    "... Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm". ..."
    "... There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet. ..."
    "... The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars. ..."
    "... Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble. ..."
    "... But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle. ..."
    "... But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya. ..."
    "... Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office. ..."
    "... Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan. ..."
    "... At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy. ..."
    "... Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken ..."
    "... Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily. ..."
    "... The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :) ..."
    "... David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job. ..."
    "... As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition. ..."
    "... I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war. ..."
    "... So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war. ..."
    "... There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO ..."
    "... As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex. ..."
    "... In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism. ..."
    "... Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east. ..."
    "... @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher. ..."
    "... As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil. ..."
    "... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
    "... Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS. ..."
    "... @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control. ..."
    "... All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in! ..."
    davidstockmanscontracorner.com
    Wow. Super Tuesday was an earthquake, and not just because Donald Trump ran the tables. The best thing was the complete drubbing and humiliation that voters all over America handed to the little Napoleon from Florida, Marco Rubio.

    So doing, the voters began the process of ridding the nation of the GOP War Party and its neocon claque of rabid interventionists. They have held sway for nearly three decades in the Imperial City and the consequences have been deplorable.

    It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914.

    Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.

    Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect to the safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein and the Emir of Kuwait.

    The spate, in fact, was over directional drilling rights in the Rumaila oilfield which straddled their respective borders. Yet these disputed borders had no historical legitimacy whatsoever. Kuwait was a just a bank account with a seat in the UN, which had been created by the British only in 1899 for obscure reasons of imperial maneuver. Likewise, the boundaries of Iraq had been drawn with a straight ruler in 1916 by British and French diplomats in the process of splitting up the loot from the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

    As it happened, Saddam claimed that the Emir of Kuwait, who could never stop stuffing his unspeakably opulent royal domain with more petro dollars, had stolen $10 billion worth of oil from Iraq's side of the field while Saddam was savaging the Iranians during his unprovoked but Washington supported 1980s invasion. At the same time, Hussein had borrowed upwards of $50 billion from Kuwait, the Saudis and the UAE to fund his barbaric attacks on the Iranians and now the sheiks wanted it back.

    At the end of the day, Washington sent 500,000 US troops to the Gulf in order to function as bad debt collectors for three regimes that are the very embodiment of tyranny, corruption, greed and religious fanaticism.

    They have been the fount and exporter of Wahhabi fanaticism and have thereby fostered the scourge of jihadi violence throughout the region. And it was the monumental stupidity of putting American (crusader) boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia that actually gave rise to Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the tragedy of 9/11, the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act and domestic surveillance state and all the rest of the War Party follies which have followed.

    Worse still, George H.W. Bush's stupid little war corrupted the very political soul and modus operandi of Washington. What should have been a political contest over which party and prospective leader could best lead a revived 1920s style campaign for world disarmament was mutated into a wave of exceptionalist jingoism about how best to impose American hegemony on any nation or force on the planet that refused compliance with Washington's designs and dictates.

    And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet.

    Indeed, as the so-called OPEC cartel crumbles into pitiful impotence and cacophony and as the world oil glut drives prices eventually back into the teens, there can no longer be any dispute. The blazing oilfields of Kuwait in 1991 had nothing to do with domestic oil security and prosperity, and everything to do with the rise of a virulent militarism and imperialism that has drastically undermined national security.

    It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond.

    Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991.

    Yes, the wholly different Shiite branch of Islam centered in Iran had a grievance, too. But that wasn't about America's liberties and libertine ways of life, either. It was about the left over liability from Washington's misguided cold war interventions and, specifically, the 1953 CIA coup that installed the brutal and larcenous Shah on the Peacock Throne.

    The whole Persian nation had deep grievances about that colossal injustice--a grievance that was wantonly amplified in the 1980s by Washington's overt assistance to Saddam Hussein. Via the CIA's satellite reconnaissance, Washington had actually helped him unleash heinous chemical warfare attacks on Iranian forces, including essentially unarmed young boys who had been sent to the battle front as cannon fodder.

    Still, with the election of Rafsanjani in 1989 there was every opportunity to repair this historical transgression and normalize relations with Tehran. In fact, in the early days the Bush state department was well on the way to exactly that. But once the CNN war games in the gulf put the neocons back in the saddle the door was slammed shut by Washington, not the Iranians.

    Indeed at that very time, the re-ascendant neocons explicitly choose to demonize the Iranian regime as a surrogate enemy to replace the defunct Kremlin commissars. Two of the most despicable actors in the post-1991 neocon takeover of the GOP--Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz--actually penned a secret document outlining the spurious anti-Iranian campaign which soon congealed into a full-blown war myth.

    To wit, that the Iranian's were hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons and had become an implacable foe of America and fountain of state sponsored terrorism.

    Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm".

    Whether he immediately signed off an all of its sweeping plans for junking the Oslo Accords and launching regime change initiatives against the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria is a matter of historical debate. But there can be no doubt that shortly thereafter this manifesto became the operative policy of the Netanyahu government and especially its virulent campaign to demonize Iran as an existential threat to Israel. And that when the younger Bush took office and brought the whole posse of neocons back into power, it became Washington's official policy, as well.

    After 9/11 the dual War Party of Washington and Tel Aviv was off to the races and the US government began its tumble toward $19 trillion of national debt and an eventual fiscal calamity. That's because the neocon War Party sucked the old time religion of fiscal rectitude and monetary orthodoxy right out of the GOP in the name of funding what has in truth become a trillion dollar per year Warfare State.

    There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet.

    Right then and there the GOP was stripped of any fiscal virginity that had survived the Reagan era of triple digit deficits. Right on cue the contemptible Dick Cheney was quick to claim that Reagan proved "deficits don't matter", meaning from that point forward whatever it took to fund the war machine trumped any flickering Republican folk memories of fiscal prudence.

    The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars.

    Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble.

    The Bush era War Party also committed an even more lamentable error in the midst of all of its foreign policy triumphalism and its utter neglect of the GOP's actual purpose to function as an advocate for sound money and free markets in the governance process of our two party democracy. Namely, it appointed Ben Bernanke, an avowed Keynesian and big government statist who had loudly proclaimed in favor of "helicopter money", to a Federal Reserve system that was already on the verge of an economic coup d'état led by the unfaithful Alan Greenspan.

    That coup was made complete by the loathsome bailout of Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis. And the latter had, in turn, been a consequence of the massive speculation and debt build-up that had been enabled by the Fed's own policies during the prior decade and one-half.

    Now after $3.5 trillion of heedless money printing and 86 months of ZIRP, Wall Street has been transformed into an unstable, dangerous casino. Honest price discovery in the capital and money markets no longer exists, nor has productive capital been flowing into real investments in efficiency and growth.

    Instead, the C-suites of corporate America have been transformed into stock trading rooms where business balance sheets have been hocked to the tune of trillions in cheap debt in order to fund stock buybacks, LBOs and M&A deals designed to goose stock prices and the value of top executive options.

    Indeed, the Fed's unconscionable inflation of the third massive financial bubble of this century has showered speculators and the 1% with unspeakable financial windfalls that are fast creating not only an inevitable thundering financial meltdown, but, also, a virulent populist backlash. The Eccles Building was where the "Bern" that is roiling the electorate was actually midwifed.

    And probably even the far greater political tremblor represented by The Donald, as well.

    Yes, as a libertarian I shudder at the prospect of a man on a white horse heading for the White House, as Donald Trump surely is. His rank demoguery and poisonous rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims, refugees, women, domestic victims of police repression and the spy state and countless more are flat-out contemptible. And the idea of building a horizontal version of Trump Towers on the Rio Grande is just plain nuts.

    But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle.

    So even as The Donald's election would bring on a thundering financial crash on Wall Street and political upheaval in Washington-–the truth is that's going to happen anyway. Look at the hideous mess that US policy has created in Syria or the incendiary corner into which the Fed has backed itself or the fiscal projections that show we will be back into trillion dollar annual deficits as the recession already underway reaches full force. The jig is well and truly up.

    But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya.

    Even his bombast about Obama's bad deal with Iran doesn't go much beyond Trump's ridiculous claim that they are getting a $150 billion reward. In fact, it was their money; we stole it, and by the time of the next election they will have it released anyway.

    Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office.

    Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan.

    At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy.

    He might also come down with wrathful indignation on the Fed if its dares push toward the criminal zone of negative interest rates. As far as I know, The Donald was never mis-educated by the Keynesian swells at Brookings, either. No plain old businessman would ever fall for the sophistry and crank monetary theories that are now ascendant in the Eccles Building.

    When it comes to the nation's current economy wreckers-in-chief, Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer, he might even dust off on day one the skills he honed during 10-years on the Apprentice.

    Worse things could surely happen.

    bill5

    @Protogonus

    Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken

    The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone. ... There is, in fact, nothing about religious opinions that entitles them to any more respect than other opinions get. On the contrary, they tend to be noticeably silly. ... No, there is nothing notably dignified about religious ideas. They run, rather, to a peculiarly puerile and tedious kind of nonsense. At their best, they are borrowed from metaphysicians, which is to say, from men who devote their lives to proving that twice two is not always or necessarily four. At their worst, they smell of spiritualism and fortune telling. Nor is there any visible virtue in the men who merchant them professionally. Few theologians know anything that is worth knowing, even about theology, and not many of them are honest. ... But the average theologian is a hearty, red-faced, well-fed fellow with no discernible excuse in pathology. He disseminates his blather, not innocently, like a philosopher, but maliciously, like a politician. In a well-organized world he would be on the stone-pile. But in the world as it exists we are asked to listen to him, not only politely, but even reverently, and with our mouths open. H. L. Mencken

    Amen!

    Rich Lancaster
    Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily.

    The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :)

    jimbob23

    David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job.

    As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition.

    I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war.

    Washington DC
    Rumor is Bloomberg is going to announce. As an Independent.
    Blackdog5555

    So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war.

    There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO

    BTW the Kuwaiti Royalty were friends of the Bushes.

    We also did Israel a favor as Saddam was funding suicide bombers in Palestine ($20,000.00 to the family for every suicide bomber) Arab mothers were happy to have their kids blown up for that Saddam "reward." Ever notice how the suicide bombs ended/slowed in Israel after Saddam was deposed. I did. Also Saddam was amassing his military on the Saudi's border at that time (Saddam wanted Saudi oil to pay off his war debt) and so as a favor the the Saudi King (Bush's buddy) we ended that threat. Yipee for us. This is never brought out in serious debate or news coverage. So if someone says it was not about the oil...It was about the oil and always has been. It is all about the oil. Oil is short for corporate cash cow money.

    SD is right, Osama hated the fact that Bush's infidels were in the land of Mecca, and that was one of the major instigators for the 9/11 attacks. Efing arrogant, ignorant Bush keeping "Merica" safe. Clinton could have done a much better job cleaning up those King George the 1st's foreign policy blunders, so I fault him to a degree too.

    There are some good web sites that talk about this..I don't have them handy.

    Don't you love history.

    Cheers.

    BD

    MPBadger

    You are absolutely right. As Chas Freeman, who was our ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War, has recounted, the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait presented a serious issue given that "[m]any Saudis interpret their religious tradition as banning the presence of non-Muslims, especially the armed forces of nonbelievers, on the Kingdom's soil." Shortly after the invasion, Freeman was present at a meeting between King Fahd and Vice-President Cheney at which the King, overruling most of the Saudi royal family, agreed to allow U.S. troops to be stationed in his country. This decision was premised on the clear understanding, stressed by Cheney, that the American forces would be removed from Saudi Arabia once the immediate threat from Saddam was over.

    When that did not happen, Fahd faced serious domestic problems. Several prominent Muslim clerics who objected to his policies were sent into exile, further inflaming the religious community. More significantly for us, Osama Bin Laden began to call for the overthrow of the monarchy and elevated his jihadist fight against the U.S. His Saudi passport was revoked for his anti-government rhetoric, and in April 1991, threatened with arrest, he secretly departed Saudi Arabia for the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, never to return. The result, ten years later, was 9-11.

    zee_point

    As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex.

    In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism.

    Now, we talk 24/7 about the Islamic threat, while the Islamists are being supported by our closest allies and elements in the deep state in Washington.

    Diacro222

    We rarely hear about the Shah of Iran and OUR CIA back in 1953. Nor about OBL and his stated reason's for 9/11. Including the vengeful and childish bombardment of highlands behind Beirut by our terribly expensive recommissioned Battle Ship -- Imagine the thinking behind taking that 'thing' out of mothballs to Scare the A - rabs. Invading Grenada was Ollie North's idea to save face.

    cbaker0441

    Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east.

    CALARISTOS

    @lloydholiday I lived in MPLS. You would be amazed at how sacrificially 'liberal' they are, much like Merkel and the deluded Germans. Minn let in thousands of Ethiopians and other Muslims who are now giving natives a major headache, much like Europe.

    The women over 30 are nearly fanatic over Black oppression, voted for Obama in droves, and appear to be willing to sacrifice the interests of their own children in favor of aliens and minorities (my own niece raised in Minn is a fanatic in this regard). Rubbero is a loser with a wind up tongue. They are easily impressed by patter however inarticulate.

    Protogonus

    @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher.

    CALARISTOS

    As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil.

    bill5

    It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond.

    Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS.

    If the GOP disappears, there's always the brain dead Democrats. What we need is an end to both parties. The best way to accomplish that is to cancel the entirety of the Fed Gov. Just get rid of all of it. Let the states become countries and compete on the world stage. Let all those holding Federal paper (the national debt) use it in their bathroom as toilet paper. Cancel the debt - ignore it - lets start fresh with no central bank and real money based on something that the politicians can't conjure into existence. I suggest gold and silver as history has shown that they work well.

    hmkdpm

    @bill5 What I never hear anyone state is that if we had let the Russians alone in Afghanistan this whole mess would have never happened. Isn't that what originally allowed the Taliban and Obama bin Laden rise to power? I though Reagan was a great president but made a catastrophic error in aligning with the islamic insurgents against Russia . The Russians knew a radical Islamic state on their border would be a problem and the existing Afghan government, an ally of Russia, asked them to help quell the islamist civil war. The Russians would have ruthlessly eliminated the islamists without worrying about causing any greenhouse gas emissions or hurting anyones feelings.

    cbaker0441

    @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control.

    Mugsy7777

    All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in!

    @Mugsy7777

    He has his own plane, ground crew, flight crew, and body guards which I would guess make a heck of a lot more than the SS...Secret Service that is.

    I'm figuring the election will be rigged.

    @marcopolo2150 @Mugsy7777 one drone..........

    what a pathetic country America has become.

    [Aug 29, 2016] The Perfect GOP Nominee

    What is amazing is that such column was published is such a sycophantic for Hillary and openly anti-Trump rag as NYT. In foreign policy Hillary is the second incarnation of Cheney... Neocons rules NYT coverage of Presidential race and, of course, they all favor Hillary. Of course chances that some on neocons who so enthusiastically support her, crossing Party lines are drafted, get M16 and send to kill brown people for Wall Street interests now is close to zero. Everything is outsourced now. But still, it is simply amazing that even a lonely voice against neocon campaign of demonization of Trump got published in NYT ...
    MSM shilling for Hillary is simply overwhelming, so why this was in NYT is a mystery to me. But this article of Maureen Dowd in on spot. Simply amazing how she manage to publish it !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and got rid of those pesky welfare queens. ..."
    "... Hillary often seems more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates before he jumped the turnstile. ..."
    "... Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6 million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared to his $19,000. ..."
    "... Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms. ..."
    "... Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James Kirchick, keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss." ..."
    "... The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained death squads in Latin America. ..."
    "... Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary. ..."
    "... The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the Trump sharknado. But as David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted." ..."
    "... Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible. What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights? ..."
    "... Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIS ..."
    "... Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone. ..."
    "... You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky. ..."
    "... "You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war." ..."
    "... Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL! ..."
    "... Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec... ..."
    "... "America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all." ..."
    "... We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve." ..."
    "... The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations. ..."
    "... It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama. ..."
    "... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies... ..."
    "... All the things you say about Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his insane desire to invade Iraq. ..."
    "... Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today. We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.) ..."
    "... There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist. ..."
    "... America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were gunned down. ..."
    "... While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits of their economic parasitism with society. ..."
    "... I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017. ..."
    "... We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent my choice (Bernie does). ..."
    "... This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board. ..."
    "... The Bush Administration hinted that the anti-war people were traitors and terrorist sympathizers and everybody got steamrolled. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/culture-war-with-b-2-s.html ..."
    "... HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now. ..."
    "... By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American workers) here we come. Bombs away. ..."
    "... She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon. ..."
    "... The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | The New York Times

    All these woebegone Republicans whining that they can't rally behind their flawed candidate is crazy. The G.O.P. angst, the gnashing and wailing and searching for last-minute substitutes and exit strategies, is getting old. They already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger and hawk it up - unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.

    The Republicans have their candidate: It's Hillary. They can't go with Donald Trump. He's too volatile and unhinged. The erstwhile Goldwater Girl and Goldman Sachs busker can be counted on to do the normal political things, not the abnormal haywire things. Trump's propounding could drag us into war, plunge us into a recession and shatter Washington into a thousand tiny bits.

    Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and got rid of those pesky welfare queens.

    Pushing her Midwestern Methodist roots, taking advantage of primogeniture, Hillary often seems more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates before he jumped the turnstile.

    Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6 million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared to his $19,000.

    Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms.

    Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James Kirchick, keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss."

    She has finally stirred up some emotion in women, even if it is just moderate suburban Republican women palpitating to leave their own nominee, who has the retro air of a guy who just left the dim recesses of a Playboy bunny club.

    The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained death squads in Latin America.

    Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary.

    Hillary has written that Kissinger is an "idealistic" friend whose counsel she valued as secretary of state, drawing a rebuke from Bernie Sanders during the primaries: "I'm proud to say Henry Kissinger is not my friend."

    The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the Trump sharknado. But as David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted."

    And Isaac Chotiner wrote in Slate, "The prospect of Kissinger having influence in a Clinton White House is downright scary."

    Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible. What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights?

    Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIS. And he still blindly follows his ego, failing to understand the fundamentals of a campaign. "I don't know that we need to get out the vote," he told Fox News Thursday. "I think people that really wanna vote are gonna get out and they're gonna vote for Trump."

    Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone.

    You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky.

    As Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, "the candidate in the race most like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican nominee."

    And that's how Republicans prefer their crazy - not like Trump, but like Cheney.

    JohnNJ, New jersey August 14, 2016

    For me, this is her strongest point:

    "You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war."

    There are still people who believe her excuse that she only voted for authorization, blah, blah, blah.

    Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL!

    Red_Dog , Denver CO August 14, 2016

    Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec...

    "America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all."

    And great populist uprising of our times will be gone --- probably for many years.

    FDR Liberal , Sparks, NV August 14, 2016

    Spot on column Ms. Dowd.

    As Americans we are to blame that these two major party candidates are the only viable ones seeking the presidency. Yes, fellow citizens we are to blame because in the end we are the ones that voted for them in various primaries and caucuses. And if you didn't attend a caucus or vote in a primary, you are also part of problem.

    In short, it is not the media's fault, nor is it the top .1%, 1% or 10% fault, nor your kids' fault, nor your parents' fault, nor your neighbors' fault, etc.

    It is our fault because we did this together. Yes, we managed y to select a narcissist, xenophobe, anti-Muslim, racist, misogynist, and dare I say buffoon to the GOP ticket.

    We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve."

    Martin Brod, NYC August 14, 2016

    The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary Clinton.

    The Green Party and Libertarian parties provide sane alternatives to the two most distrusted candidates of the major parties. As debate participants they
    would offer an alternative to evil at a time when the planets count-down clock is racing to mid-night.

    pathenry, berkeley August 14, 2016

    Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations.

    If the negotiations fail, give stingers to our "vetted allies". Who will those stingers be used against? Russia. At least the ones not smuggled to Brussels. And then there is the plan being bandied about by our best and brightest to organize, arm and lead our "vetted allies" in attacks on Russian bases in Syria. A Bay of Pigs in the desert. A dime to a dollar, Clinton is supportive of these plans.

    All of this is dangerous brinksmanship which is how you go to war.

    Mike A. , East Providence, RI August 14, 2016

    The second Pulitzer quality piece from the NYT op-ed columnists in less than a month (see Charles Blow's "Incandescent With Rage" for the first).

    heinrich zwahlen , brooklyn August 14, 2016

    It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama.

    For real progressives it's useless to vote for her and high time to start a new party. Cultural issues are not the main issues that pain America, it's all about the money stupid.

    JohnD, New York August 14, 2016

    ... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies...

    Lee Elliott , Rochester August 14, 2016

    You've written the most depressing column I've read lately. All the things you say about Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his insane desire to invade Iraq. But it was that vote kept her from being president in 2008. Perhaps that will convince her to keep the establishment a little more at arm's length. When there is no other behind for them to kiss, then you can afford to be a little hard to get.

    As for Trump, he is proving to be too much like Ross Perot. He looks great at first but begins to fade when his underlying lunacy begins to bubble to the surface.
    Speaking of Perot, I find it an interesting coincidence that Bill Clinton and now Hillary Clinton will depend on the ravings of an apparent lunatic in order to get elected.

    citizen vox, San Francisco August 14, 2016

    Why the vitriol against Dowd? Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today. We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.)

    Last week's article on how Hillary came to love money was horrifying; because Bill lost a Governor's race, Hillary felt so insecure she called all her wealthy friends for donations. Huh?! Two Harvard trained lawyers asking for financial help?! And never getting enough money to feel secure?! GIVE ME A BREAK (to coin a phrase).

    There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist.

    If readers bemoan anything, let it be that the populist movement of the Dem party was put down by the Dem establishment. We have a choice between a crazy candidate of no particular persuasion and a cold, calculating Republican. How discouraging.

    Thanks, Maureen Dowd.

    Chris, Louisville August 14, 2016

    Maureen please don't ever give up on Hillary bashing. It needs to be done before someone accidentally elects her as President. She is most like Angela Merkel of Germany. Take a look what's happening there. That is enough never to vote for Hillary.

    Susan e, AZ August 14, 2016

    I recall the outrage I, a peace loving liberal who despised W and Cheney, felt while watching the made for TV "shock and awe" invasion of Iraq. I recall how the"liberal Democrats" who supported that disaster with a vote for the IRW could never quite bring themselves to admit their mistake - and I realized that many, like Hillary, didn't feel it was a mistake. Not really. It was necessary for their political careers.

    For me, its not a vote for Hillary, its a vote for a candidate that sees killing innocent people in Syria (or Libya, or Gaza, etc.) as the only way to be viewed as a serious candidate for CIC. I'm old enough to remember another endless war, as the old Vietnam anti-war ballad went: "I ain't gonna vote for war no more."

    John, Switzerland August 14, 2016

    Maureen Dowd is not being nasty, but rather accurate. It is nasty to support and start wars throughout the ME. It is nasty to say (on mic) "We came, we saw, he died" referring to the gruesome torture-murder of Qaddafi.

    Will Hillary start a war against Syria? Yes or no? That is the the "six trillion dollar" question.

    Socrates , is a trusted commenter Downtown Verona, NJ August 13, 2016

    It's hard to a find a good liberal in these United States, not because there's anything wrong with liberalism or progressivism, but because Americans have been taught, hypnotized and beaten by a powerfully insidious and filthy rich right-wing to think that liberalism, progressivism and socialism is a form of fatal cancer.

    America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were gunned down.

    While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits of their economic parasitism with society.

    The end result is that political liberals are forced to triangulate for their survival in right-wing America, and you wind up with Presidents like Bill Clinton and (soon) Hillary Clinton who know how to survive in a pool of right-wing knives, assassins and psychopaths lurking everywhere representing Grand Old Profit.

    ... ... ...

    Dotconnector, New York August 14, 2016

    The trickery deep within the dark art of Clintonism is triangulation. By breeding a nominal Democratic donkey with a de facto Republican elephant, what you get is a corporatist chameleon. There's precious little solace in knowing that this cynical political hybrid is only slightly less risky than Trumpenstein.

    And the fact that Henry Kissinger still has a seat at the table ought to chill the spine of anyone who considers human lives -- those of U.S. service members and foreign noncombatants alike -- to have greater value than pawns in a global chess game.

    Bj, is a trusted commenter Washington,dc August 13, 2016

    I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017. They didn't succeed with Bill. And they were chomping at the bit to try to impeach Obama over his use of executive orders and his decision not to defend an early same sex marriage case. They are just waiting for inauguration to start this process all over again - another circus and waste of taxpayer money.

    petey tonei, Massachusetts August 14, 2016

    Two party system is not enough for a country this big, with such a wide spectrum of political beliefs. We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent my choice (Bernie does). Heard on NPR just today from on the ground reporters in Terre Haute, Indiana, the bellwether of presidential elections, the 2 names that were most heard were Trump and Bernie Sanders, not Hillary. Sadly, Bernie is not even the nominee but he truly represents the guts, soul of mid America

    Schrodinger, is a trusted commenter Northern California August 14, 2016

    This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board.

    What about Ms Dowd herself? Of the four columns she wrote before the vote on October 11th, 2002, only two mentioned the war vote, and one of those was mostly about Hillary. Dowd said of Hillary that, "Whatever doubts she may have privately about the war, she is not articulating her angst as loudly as some of her Democratic colleagues. She knows that any woman who hopes to be elected president cannot have love beads in her jewelry case."

    In her column 'Culture war with B-2's', Dowd comes out as mildly anti-war. "Don't feel bad if you have the uneasy feeling that you're being steamrolled", Dowd writes, "You are not alone." Fourteen years later that column still looks good, and I link to it at the bottom. However, Dowd could and should have done a lot more. I don't think that anybody who draws a paycheck from the New York Times has a right to get on their high horse and lecture Hillary about her vote. They ignored the antiwar protests just like they ignored Bernie Sanders' large crowds.

    The Bush Administration hinted that the anti-war people were traitors and terrorist sympathizers and everybody got steamrolled. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/culture-war-with-b-2-s.html

    Karen Garcia , is a trusted commenter New Paltz, NY August 13, 2016

    HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now.

    By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American workers) here we come. Bombs away.

    With three months to go before this grotesque circus ends, Trump is giving every indication that he wants out, getting more reckless by the day. And that's a good thing, because with her rise in the polls, Hillary will now have to do more on the stump than inform us she is not Trump. She'll have to ditch the fear factor. She'll have to start sending emails and Tweets with something other than "OMG! Did you hear what Trump just said?!?" on them to convince voters.

    She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon.

    The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Clinton under new threat as email woes and foundation questions merge by David UsborneF:\Private_html\author.txt

    independent.co.uk

    The two sources of her problems are beginning to merge much as two weather depressions might collide and become a hurricane. One is the already well-trodden matter of her use of a private email server while Secretary of State. The other relates to the Clinton Foundation and whether donors received preferential access to her while she served in that post.

    Two bombs dropped on the Clinton campaign at once on Monday. First it emerged that the FBI has collected and delivered to the State Department almost 15,000 new emails not previously seen and a federal judge ordered the department to accelerate their release to the public. Meanwhile, a conservative group called Judicial Watch released details of still more emails detailing exactly how donors to the foundation set about trying to get Ms Clinton's attention.

    ... ... ...

    Questions have been swirling for weeks about whether or not Ms Clinton was drawn into giving special favours to some of her husband's pals in return for their giving generously to the charitable foundation he set up after leaving the presidency – a pay and play arrangement. On Monday, Judicial Watch unveiled details that showed exactly how that might have happened thanks to emails it had accessed through the courts sent to and from Huma Abedin, a close Clinton confidante and her deputy chief of staff during her four years at the State Department.

    ... ... ...

    In attempt to forestall the trouble that is already upon his wife, Mr Clinton announced this week that should she win the presidency, several things will change at his Foundation. First and foremost it would cease to take money from any foreign governments and donors and only from US-based charities and individuals. He would also step down from the foundation entirely and cease personally to raise funds for it.

    ...many voters are simply afraid that with Ms Clinton in the White House the whole tawdry cycle will just start all over again and nothing else with get done in Washington

    [Aug 29, 2016] Hillary Clinton pushes fundraising limits with $200,000 tickets for single Silicon Valley house party

    independent.co.uk

    It was only one in a long parade of late-August fundraisers Ms Clinton has attended, but it stands out for the generosity required of those who attended. The price of admission for the 20-odd guests who obliged was a stunning $200,000. That was double the $100,000 charged for guests who mingled recently with Ms Clinton in Omaha at the home of Susan Buffett, the daughter of Warren Buffett, the veteran investment oracle.

    ... ... ...

    As of Monday, she and Mr Kaine had harvested no less than $32 million for the Hillary Victory Fund, which will be distributed to her campaign, the Democratic National Committee and state parties. A lot of was raised in last week as Ms Clinton hopscotched from party to party on Martha's Vineyard and Cape Code in Massachusetts.

    [Aug 28, 2016] Clinton bigotry against working with inconvenient facts. Read applicable US code one for security, one for federal records, Clinton gets away with calling law that protect security as spin.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton bigotry against working with inconvenient facts. Read applicable US code one for security, one for federal records, Clinton gets away with calling law that protect security as 'spin'. ..."
    Aug 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm, Friday, August 26, 2016 at 06:26 PM
    The burgeoning neolib dog whistle "alt-right" is short for "a$$hole who thinks Clinton should go to jail for 1000 times the misconduct that would get that a$$hole 10 years hard time".

    Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid.

    The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees. There isn't enough fascism going around?

    ilsm -> pgl... , Friday, August 26, 2016 at 04:36 PM
    Clinton bigotry against working with inconvenient facts. Read applicable US code one for security, one for federal records, Clinton gets away with calling law that protect security as 'spin'.
    ilsm -> Paine... , -1
    The 'soft bigotry of GLBT and war for fascist allies' types criticizing racists' morals.
    ilsm -> anne... , -1
    In the same category as Brooks and Friedman. I regard Dowd better!

    [Aug 28, 2016] The Childish Villain-ification Of Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization ..."
    "... Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs. ..."
    "... You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part of the natural order. ..."
    "... The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage and unlimited oligarchy. ..."
    "... The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights." ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    MadMax2 | Aug 27, 2016 5:04:48 PM | 103
    @okie farmer 80, hoarsewhisperer 85

    Some real beauties in there alright. Kerry giving himself yet another uppercut.

    "...U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, ..."

    Not Assad must go. Not close. Yet, still blissfully ignorant of the fact their more extreme moderates are getting their jollies out of hacking sick 12 year old kids heads off with fishing knive. I wonder at what point does 'moderate' become a dirty word...?

    @Noirette Pt1

    Big crowds scare Hillary these days. Best not to shake her up too much. I wonder though, how she expects to compete with Trumps fervour... must be pretty happy that they can do a nice back door job on election day. When opening act Rudy G is getting pummelled with calls of 'does Rudy have Alzheimer's...?' you know you're doing something right - really, just...awesome political theatre.

    smarterthanyou | Aug 27, 2016 5:25:22 PM | 104
    vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization
    fast freddy | Aug 27, 2016 5:54:37 PM | 105
    The ZioMedia is in the tank for Hillary. Impossible for a candidate who cannot draw a crowd to be "ahead in the polls". And a candidate who packs 10K ppl into any given space at will to be "behind in the polls". Humiliatingly low turnout for the HBomb is stage-crafted by all ziomedia outlets to hide this embarrassing fact.

    Recall that Billy Blowjob ushered in Media Consolidation which gave 5 ziomedia corporations carte blanche to bullshit the public.

    Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs.

    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 6:27:05 PM | 106
    I was reading articles on the Turkish attack into Syria and there is no mention of the Syrian government nor whether/when/if Turkey will engage the Syrian Army. But then I found this chart from CNN:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/25/middleeast/syria-isis-whos-fighting-who-trnd/index.html

    For one thing, they pretend ISIS has no support. We all know differently. Also, it looks like every one is fighting ISIS except ..... Free Syrian Army and Saudi Arabia and Gulf Allies.

    Macon Richardson | Aug 27, 2016 7:57:39 PM | 108
    You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part of the natural order.

    The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage and unlimited oligarchy.

    ALberto | Aug 27, 2016 7:58:07 PM | 109
    The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights."

    It was struck. An SA-9 from the Iftiraas Air Defense Base and an SA-2 near the Khalkhaala AB were fired. But, the technical wizardry was most on display when an S-300 (SA-10 "Grumble) super-air-defense missile was fired from the Republican Guard base near the Mazza AB at the foot of Qaasiyoon Mountain west of Damascus. This was done so that the F-16's electronic countermeasures would first fix on the SA-2 and SA-9 while the S-300 plowed forward to exterminate the vermin inside the Israeli aircraft. The S-300 vaporized the Israeli bomber. No evidence was seen of the pilot ejecting. Instead, eyewitness accounts described a ball of fire over the Golan and the remains scattering into the air over the Huleh Valley in Palestine.

    Also, the Israelis lost 2 helicopters while flying missions over the Golan Heights in an effort to bolster the sagging morale of the Takfiri rats of Nusra/Alqaeda and Al-Ittihaad Al-Islaami li-Ajnaad Al-Shaam. The 2 helicopters went down over the area near Qunaytra City and were reportedly shot down by shoulder fired, heat-seeking missiles deployed throughout the Syrian Army.

    source - http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-shoots-down-israeli-warplane-f-16-bomber-and-helicopters/5471009

    [Aug 28, 2016] Hillary Clintons Slanders on Trump, Putin Absurd, Dangerous - Ex-US Diplomat

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Of course Julian Assange is right. Hillary Clinton's harangue depicting Donald Trump as the enabler of some insidious 'Alt Right' movement whose Grand Dragon is Vladimir Putin is too absurd for words," Jatras said on Friday. "It would be just silly if it weren't so dangerous." ..."
    "... She and her surrogates have been banging the 'Kremlin agent' drum for some time. But when Trump asks rock-ribbed GOP [Republican] crowds if it wouldn't be a great thing to get along with Russia and team up with Moscow to fight ISIS [Islamic State], he gets thunderous approval, ..."
    "... Jatras suggested that Clinton's latest attacks on Trump as an alleged racist were meant to distract attention from the latest WikiLeaks documents exposing the leaked information related to "pay to play" between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. ..."
    "... He also argued that Clinton's attacks were meant to distract pubic attention from her own record of controversy and alleged corruption. "Any American worthy of the name hates her and the whole rotten Deep State she fronts for: the profiteers on endless wars, the globalist corporations that dump their American workers to import their foreign-made goods duty free and the driving down of wages due to a glut of imported foreign labor," he said. ..."
    "... Jatras suggested that these policies that Clinton as secretary of state and her husband, President Bill Clinton had implemented and supported were far more worthy of hate than the false accusations she was throwing against Trump. "Those are things all Americans, whether white, black, brown, red, or yellow should hate, and Hillary right along with them," he concluded. Jatras also formerly served as adviser to the Senate Republican leadership. ..."
    sputniknews.com
    US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's attempt to falsely portray her Republican opponent Donald Trump as a racist extremist is absurd, silly and dangerous, former US Department of State diplomat Jim Jatras told Sputnik.

    On Thursday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Fox News in an interview that Clinton's campaign was full of anti-Russia hysteria as the Democrats were trying to undermine the campaign of their opponent, Republican nominee Donald Trump.

    "Of course Julian Assange is right. Hillary Clinton's harangue depicting Donald Trump as the enabler of some insidious 'Alt Right' movement whose Grand Dragon is Vladimir Putin is too absurd for words," Jatras said on Friday. "It would be just silly if it weren't so dangerous."

    Jatras said he agreed with Assange's assessment that Clinton's increasingly wild charges against Trump were not based on any reality. "She should get some kind of tinfoil hat award for the finest piece of political paranoia totally divorced from facts in all of American history," Jatras said.

    Hillary Clinton's Anti-Russian Campaign May BackfireJatras also pointed out the falsity of Clinton's related claim that former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, who endorsed Trump this week was a racist. "Take her attack on Nigel Farage. Evidently now it is now 'racist' to believe citizens are shareholders of their own country and have a right to decide who gets in and who doesn't, and that dangerous people should be excluded," Jatras argued.

    However, Jatras expressed skepticism as to how effective Clinton's racist and Russophobic attacks would prove to be.

    "She and her surrogates have been banging the 'Kremlin agent' drum for some time. But when Trump asks rock-ribbed GOP [Republican] crowds if it wouldn't be a great thing to get along with Russia and team up with Moscow to fight ISIS [Islamic State], he gets thunderous approval," Jatras observed.

    Jatras suggested that Clinton's latest attacks on Trump as an alleged racist were meant to distract attention from the latest WikiLeaks documents exposing the leaked information related to "pay to play" between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.

    He also argued that Clinton's attacks were meant to distract pubic attention from her own record of controversy and alleged corruption. "Any American worthy of the name hates her and the whole rotten Deep State she fronts for: the profiteers on endless wars, the globalist corporations that dump their American workers to import their foreign-made goods duty free and the driving down of wages due to a glut of imported foreign labor," he said.

    Jatras suggested that these policies that Clinton as secretary of state and her husband, President Bill Clinton had implemented and supported were far more worthy of hate than the false accusations she was throwing against Trump. "Those are things all Americans, whether white, black, brown, red, or yellow should hate, and Hillary right along with them," he concluded. Jatras also formerly served as adviser to the Senate Republican leadership.

    Read more:

    Hillary Clinton's Anti-Russian Campaign May Backfire

    [Aug 27, 2016] Wait a minute! They IDd the hacker and its a business in Israel? And it forced Apple to an emergency software upgrade. But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government

    Notable quotes:
    "... iPhone hacked by NSO Group based in Israel http://www.businessinsider.com/pegasus-nso-group-iphone-2016-8 ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 12:09:08 PM | 88
    iPhone hacked by NSO Group based in Israel http://www.businessinsider.com/pegasus-nso-group-iphone-2016-8

    http://www.businessinsider.com/nso-group-2016-8

    Wait a minute! They ID'd the hacker and it's a business in Israel? And it forced Apple to an emergency software upgrade. But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Democrats attempt to take the high road on immigration ignores that our current Democratic President has deported more illegal immigrants than any previous President before him.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous President before him. ..."
    "... With all their concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit centers. ..."
    "... The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves noble for empowering foreign nationals. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous President before him.

    In 2014 he deported nine times more people than had been deported twenty years earlier. Some years it was nearly double the numbers under George W. Bush. And yes, I know it was not strict fillibuster proof majority in the Senate for his first two years, but damn close and the only thing we got was a half assed stimulus made up largely of tax stimulus AND that gift to for profit medicine and insurance, the ACA.

    With all their concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit centers.

    Trump says mean things, but the Democrats, well once again actions should speak louder than words but it isn't happening.

    Starveling , August 26, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves noble for empowering foreign nationals.

    I guess this is one way for a supposedly pro-labor party to liquidate its working class elements.

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:38 pm

    "hear, here" -- …1 googleplex %

    [Aug 27, 2016] DNC is doubling down on the Victory Fund scam

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "When the Democratic National Committee announced its $32 million fundraising haul last month, it touted the result as evidence of 'energy and excitement' for Hillary Clinton's nomination for the White House and other races down the ballot. The influx of money, however, also owes in part to an unprecedented workaround of political spending limits that lets the party tap into millions of dollars more from Clinton's wealthiest donors" [ Bloomberg ]. "At least $7.3 million of the DNC's July total originated with payments from hundreds of major donors who had already contributed the maximum $33,400 to the national committee, a review of Federal Election Commission filings shows. The contributions, many of which were made months earlier, were first bundled by the Hillary Victory Fund and then transferred to the state Democratic parties, which effectively stripped the donors' names and sent the money to the DNC as a lump sum. Of the transfers that state parties made to the DNC for which donor information was available, an overwhelming proportion came from contributions from maxed-out donors."

    Lovely. Doubling down on the Victory Fund scam. Word of the day: Effrontery.

    PlutoniumKun , August 26, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    Re: Clintons campaign possible strategy of making a vote for Clinton 'a vote for a winner'.

    I know its conventional opinion that when in doubt, people prefer to vote for who they perceive to be a 'winner', but I wonder if this really applies with two such disliked candidates. I've a theory that one reason Brexit won is that the polls beforehand saying it would be a narrow 'no', gave 'permission' for people to vote with their conscience rather than their pragmatism. In other words, presented with a 'pragmatic, but dirty' vote for X, but a 'fun, but risky' vote for Y', people will vote X if its very close or it looks like Y will win, but may be tempted to vote Y if they are pretty sure X will win.

    Part of me thinks the Clinton campaign would have tested the theory to the limit before going for a strategy like this, but the evidence from the nomination campaign is that they are all tactics, no strategy. It seems to me to be a very risky game to play, not least because promoting Clinton as a sure winner may make wavering progressives simply opt to stay at home.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    I don't even think you have to be a progressive for that to be a concern if you are the Clinton campaign.
    They know the public is not enthusiastic about voting for her for the most part, and yet they are setting up a meme where she is unbeatable. It isn't necessarily going to just keep Trump voters home. But how many people who don't want Clinton but really don't want Trump will be able to convince themselves that there is no need to go hold their nose and vote for her. Republicans who think she is too far left, but he is crazy for instance will be just as likely to stay home as the lefties who know she is lying Neoliberal War Criminal, but not fascist like Trump. (And I know the real fascism signs are all with Clinton, but some may have missed it).

    jsn , August 26, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    On fascism I had the exact same thought after reading Adolph Reeds "Vote For the Lying, NeoLiberal War-Monger, It's Important" link last week.

    Reed's critique was that communist leader Thallman failed to anticipate Hitler's liquidation of all opposition, but frankly with Hillary's and Donald's respective histories its hard for me to see how Trump is more dangerous on this: Hillary has a deep and proven lethal track record and wherever she could justify violent action in the past she has, she keeps an enemies list, holds grudges and acts on them, all thoroughly documented.

    I certainly won't speculate that Trump couldn't do the same or worse, given the state of our propaganda and lawlessness amongst the elite, but like all the other negatives in this campaign its hard to ascertain who really will be worse. Lambert's bet on gridlock in a Trump administration has the further advantage of re-activating the simulation of "anti-war, anti-violence" amongst Dem nomenklatura.

    pretzelattack , August 26, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    exactly, i'm not saying reed is a typical democrat apologist, but i'm not buying that trump is more dangerous than clinton.

    clarky90 , August 26, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    We have collectively known Donald Trump and much of his family for the last 30 or 40 years. Over the years, he has evoked different emotions in me. (Usually being appalled by his big-city, realestate tycoon posturing etc). However, I have never been frightened by him. To me, he is more like a bombastic, well loved, show-off uncle.

    Today I see Trump as a modern day prophet (spiritual teacher). A bringer of light (clarity) to the masses. We live in a rigged system that gives Nobel Peace Prizes to mass murderers; that charges a poor child $600 for a $1 lifesaving Epipen. Trump is waking up The People. Finalllyyyyyy!!

    clarky90 , August 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    In my experience, people usually do not change for the better as they age. However, it does happen!; peasant girl (Joan of Arc), patent inspector (Einstein)

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Maybe Trump is the Claudius of our time…..

    …now, as to whom are the Pretorians…..??

    Elizabeth Burton , August 26, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    It's not about what Trump will or won't do. It's about not handing all three branches of government over to the GOP, which has the Libertarian agenda of eliminating said government altogether. I find it interesting that so many people scornful of identity politics nevertheless seem to be as addicted as anyone to making this a horse race between two candidates that has no real far-reaching consequences beyond with each will or won't do in the Oval Office.

    Brindle , August 26, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    So true: "My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters to "go with the winner."–Lambert
    I have noticed on Google News several "Clinton weighing cabinet choices" articles, to me there is whistling past the graveyard quality to all this. They want the election over now-the votes are just a formality.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    They really really do not have any short term memory do they? I mean it took sticking both thumbs on the scale and some handy dandy shenanigans with voters to get her past the Primary finish line. And her opponent there was much nicer about pointing out her flaws than her current opponent. It is true they won't have any obvious elections that disprove their position out there, but when you are spending millions and your opponent nothing and he is still within the margin of error with you in the states that people are watching the closest…

    Although that isn't considering the fears of what other shoes have to drop both in the world and in the news that could derail her victory parade, they may have more to fear from that.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    It's possible they know.

    One of the problems Democrats have and the 50 state strategy addressed is voting in very Democratic precincts. Without constant pressure, many proud Democrats won't vote because they don't know any Republicans. It's in the bag. College kids are the worst voters alive. They will forget come election day or not be registered because they moved. Dean squeezed these districts. These districts are where Democrats , out in 2010 and 2014 and even a little in 2012. Mittens is a robber baron.

    If Democratic turnout is low and Hillary wins with crossover votes, what happens? It's very likely those Republicans vote for down ticket Republicans. Even for the people who have to vote against Trump, if they believe he is a special kind of super fascist will they bother to vote for the allies of a crook such as Hillary? It's possible Hillary wins and drops a seat in the Senate depending on turnout.

    I think it's clear Hillary isn't going to bring out any kind of voter activism. Judging from photos in Virginia where one would hope a commanding Hillary victory could jump start the Democrats for next year's governors and legislative races, the Democratic Party is dead or very close to it.

    What if Hillary wins but does the unthinkable and delivers a Republican pickup in the Senate? She needs to keep Republicans from coming out because she isn't going to drive Democratic turnout to a spot where that can win on its own.

    Hillary needs to win to keep the never Trump crowd in the GOP from voting because she knows the Democratic side which relies on very Democratic districts and transient voters will not impress. An emboldened GOP congress will be a tough environment for Hillary, and GOP voters won't tolerate bipartisanship especially for anyone suspected of not helping the party 100%. Those House Republicans have to face 2018 and the smaller but arguably more motivated electorate. They will come down hard on Hillary if she can't win the Senate which a literal donkey could do.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    Hell I don't want Clinton to win by any margin. But if anyone thinks that the bipartisan nature of her possible victory will mean anything but Republicans hunting her scalp, and dare I say getting it, they are not paying attention. As much as both the Benghazi and the email thing has them all flummoxed because the real crimes involved with both are crimes they either agree with or want to use. The Foundation on the other hand, not so much, they will make the case that this is a global slush fund because it is. And the McDonnell decision is not going to save her Presidency, much as it would if she were indicted in a Court.

    I should add, that is with or without winning the Senate. Much of the loyalty any Dems there have towards her will disappear when it is obvious that she keeps most of the money AND has no coattails. Oh, they might not vote to impeach her, but that is about it.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    Hillary's only defense is to win the Senate and to be able to stifle investigations through the appearance of a mandate. 2018 is the 2012 cycle, and that is 2006 which should be a good year for the Republicans (a credit to Howard Dean). It's a tough map for Team Blue. If they don't win the Senate in November, they won't win it in 2018.

    With 2018 on its way, a weak Democratic situation will make the Democrats very jumpy as Hillary is clearly not delivering the coattails they imagined.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    She isn't going to have a mandate. Oh, the electoral college count might look good. But regardless of who wins this sucker, I'm betting this is going to be one of the lowest, if not the lowest, voter turnout for any Presidential election in the last century. I would not be surpised if more people stay home than vote. And that is not a mandate.

    The Senate isn't going to stifle investigations. She doesn't even have to help the Dems get a majority for that problem of conviction if impeached to rear its ugly head. No way is there going to be 2/3 of the Senate in one party or the other. That still won't stop the House. Just as it didn't for her husband.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous President before him. In 2014 he deported nine times more people than had been deported twenty years earlier. Some years it was nearly double the numbers under George W. Bush. And yes, I know it was not strict fillibuster proof majority in the Senate for his first two years, but damn close and the only thing we got was a half assed stimulus made up largely of tax stimulus AND that gift to for profit medicine and insurance, the ACA. With all their concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit centers.

    Trump says mean things, but the Democrats, well once again actions should speak louder than words but it isn't happening.

    Starveling , August 26, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves noble for empowering foreign nationals.

    I guess this is one way for a supposedly pro-labor party to liquidate its working class elements.

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:38 pm

    "hear, here" -- …1 googleplex %

    [Aug 27, 2016] Artists Impression Of Hillary Clintons Old Office

    Notable quotes:
    "... Source: MichaelPRamirez.com ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Presented with no comment...

    Source: MichaelPRamirez.com

    Here2Go d nmewn •Aug 27, 2016 8:37 PM
    Is that Huma in a blue dress under the Resolute desk?
    Pairadimes d Here2Go •Aug 27, 2016 9:14 PM
    Ramirez is a genius.
    zeronetwork d debtor of last resort •Aug 27, 2016 8:15 PM

    The thought process Donald has started is not going to fade very soon. Still few weeks before election. I am sure Donald got some more cards in his sleeve.
    are we there yet •Aug 27, 2016 8:36 PM
    I have a solution for Hillary's in-continuance and mobility declining problems. The chair behind the presidents desk should be a wheelchair with a bedpan. Otherwise the term 'campaign trail' will take on a whole new meaning.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Shepard Smith Tries To Get Reporter To Say Trump Is Racist

    Notable quotes:
    "... Grimaldi went on to explain that Trump "trades in hyperbole," giving Clinton more fodder to work with. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.westernjournalism.com
    Fox News' Shepard Smith appeared intent on having a guest on his program Thursday say that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is a racist.

    Wall Street Journal investigative reporter James Grimaldi joined Smith on Fox Reports immediately after Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's speech in Reno, Nev., during which she charged that Trump will "make America hate again."

    "He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party," she said.

    Smith said that "the problem with any attempt to rebut her" was that "she used Donald Trump's own words, what's historically accurate on his policies on all reviewed points."

    He turned to Grimaldi and said, "Where do you begin with this?"

    "I don't know. It was pretty extraordinary and pretty hard-hitting," the reporter replied.

    Grimaldi went on to explain that Trump "trades in hyperbole," giving Clinton more fodder to work with.

    Smith interjected: "He trades in racism, doesn't he?"

    The Wall Street Journal reporter was not willing to go that far. "Well, I'll leave that up to the commentators. … I'm not one to generally label people like that, so I would pass on that question."

    [Aug 27, 2016] Killary was apparently hours late but it will never be reported by neoliberal MSM

    Notable quotes:
    "... Here is the 'furthest back' shot. TV coverage did not show these. ..."
    "... Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or? idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon. ..."
    "... The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have ever heard. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Noirette | Aug 27, 2016 10:50:52 AM | 84
    Part 1. ;) Got dragged into Killary's alt-right speech at Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno, Nevada, Aug 2016. Only content: 100% against Trump , as sidebars, Alex Jones, Nigel Farage, Putin, David Duke.

    The official MSM version is 31 mins - the frame is just her with a fixed cam centered nothing around. Sparse occasional clapping (real, one can see the clappers in other vids).. She speaks as one would to a parterre of 30-50 ppl, not as in a campaign rally. A longer version (MSM) is 45 mins and shows some of the preliminaries, some guy, then the Mayor of Reno, youngish blondine, introducing her. Killary was apparently hours late. (> youtube.) Killary is dressed in green.

    To the interesting part. She spoke at the same College in Feb. 2015. Note: red dress, the brick pillars typical of the college, and the big windows behind. A big hall…

    link This shot shows the other direction, see the small windows at the side and back

    link The event has all the hallmarks of a 'proper' pol show, no need to list. Note the Hall, quite large, is not full. The signs are blue and are for Hillary, for Women, for Nevada and so on.

    Noirette | Aug 27, 2016 11:25:41 AM | 86
    Part 2. The Aug. 2016 event took place at the College but either in a small part of the back of the big hall or another locale (similar in architecture obviously)

    link The widest shot Aug. 2016. AFGE (men with black Ts) = American Federation of Gvmt. Employees.

    link Here is the 'furthest back' shot. TV coverage did not show these.

    link The only shot I could find showing the audience facing her. Note the ppl behind her facing out, i.e. the cams (shown on TV etc.) are not identifiable.

    link Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or? idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon.

    After the speech, vids show H.C. talking to a very few ppl, 25 at most, not answering "reporters" questions, two tiny trays of confections were offered. Bwwahhh. She ate one choc. There was also a stop at a Reno Coffee shop (10 ppl?) which made no sense. On these occasions she is accompanied by the Mayor in a cosy girly coffee thingie. (> youtube.)

    The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have ever heard.

    Jackrabbit | Aug 27, 2016 11:35:36 AM | 87
    okie farmer @80

    Strike three for Russia.

    Strike 1: Talks with KSA - no result

    Strike 2: Turkish incursion into Syria (with US blessing)

    Strike 3: Geneva Talks with Kerry - no result

    harrylaw | Aug 27, 2016 1:10:56 PM | 92
    okie farmer@80 Lavrov is on a loser if he accepts this "moderate terrorist" BS from Kerry. Those "moderates" have replaced Islamic state in Jerablus, soon to be expanded to cover that huge area between Jerablus, Azaz and Al-bab,all without a fight and apparent agreement with IS. Next could be the area is controlled by Turkish and US "moderate" head choppers, which of course nobody will be allowed to attack. They should only be called moderate if they oppose Assad and do not carry arms, otherwise its just a case of changing labels, in which case the terrorists could never lose. I find it hard to believe that so soon after the so called normalization of ties and trade deals between Russia and Turkey, Turkey could do what they have threatened to do for years, invade Syria and set up prospective no fly zones. I suppose we must wait and see, but in my opinion, it does not look good.
    jfl | Aug 27, 2016 2:30:39 PM | 93

    @92 hl,

    I agree. Russia has been stabbed in the back by Turkey, and the US is backing Turkey ... of course they were backing the Kurds, too, until they weren't.

    Erdogan is utterly unreliable ... or he is utterly reliable if you're relying on duplicity and betrayal.

    Joaquin Flores observes Syria Violence to increase: Peace talks fail as situation deteriorates . It seems that the US is just all stall, all the time. Alternating with stabs in the back. No point in talking to them ... for 12 hours?!

    [Aug 27, 2016] The Childish Villain-ification Of Donald Trump

    vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization
    Notable quotes:
    "... "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " - ..."
    "... In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism. ..."
    "... Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen. ..."
    "... Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences. ..."
    "... In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic. ..."
    "... US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby. ..."
    "... The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/ ..."
    "... Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I ..."
    "... But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull? ..."
    "... All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC ..."
    "... ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept] ..."
    "... It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence ..."
    "... Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity. ..."
    "... Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation. ..."
    "... "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years. ..."
    "... [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...] ..."
    "... Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ..."
    "... It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags. ..."
    "... it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow.. ..."
    "... As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters. ..."
    "... It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care. ..."
    "... Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians. ..."
    "... Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine. ..."
    "... It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same ..."
    "... The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use? ..."
    "... "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out... ..."
    "... Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. ..."
    "... If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns. ..."
    "... The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million people, and displaced over 13 million. ..."
    "... Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats, not just the Wall Street Zionists ..."
    "... America, despite glowing MSM BS, is on the ropes of neoliberalism. As an older American,I remember a land of plenty, with good jobs for all, instead of fast food retail hell. ..."
    "... What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC and the ziomedia, but no one cares. ..."
    "... For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy, David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself: http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/ ..."
    "... Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic rule. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    This pic comparing a young Donald Trump with a child figure in some old Nazi propaganda was posted by Doug Saunders , supposedly a serious international-affairs columnist at the Canadian Globe and Mail.

    bigger

    It is illogical, childish nonsense. But Saunders is by far the only one disqualifying himself as serious commentator by posting such bullshit. Indeed, the villain-ification of Donald Trump is a regular feature which runs through U.S. and international media from the left to the right.

    A few examples:

    1. Pinochet . Chavez . Trump? - Politico
    2. Cher compares Donald Trump to Hitler at Clinton fundraiser - Foxnews
    3. Cher Slams Trump At Clinton Fundraiser; Likens Him To Stalin - CBS
    4. Cher Compares Trump to Mao - Newsbuster
    5. Trump is the GOP's Frankenstein monster - Washington Post
    6. Biden on Trump: 'He woulda loved Stalin ' - USAToday
    7. Huffington likens Trump to Kim Jong Un - MSN
    8. What Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump have in common - Reuters
    9. The best way to thwart Trump Vader - CNN
    10. Warning From the Syrian Border: Trump Reminds Us a Bit Too Much of Assad - Rolling Stone
    11. News Quiz: Trump Rally or Erdogan Event? - The Intercept
    12. Trump & Putin . Yes, It's Really a Thing - TPM
    13. Trump's not Hitler , he's Mussolini - Salon
    14. Media ethics writer compares Trump to Hitler - Politico
    15. Donald Trump's Insane Praise of Saddam Hussein - Daily Beast
    16. Trump and Lenin - Miami Herald
    17. Insult, provoke, repeat: how Donald Trump became America's Hugo Chávez - The Guardian
    18. The Unstoppable Trump Monster - The Atlantic
    19. Donald Trump is GOP's Dark Lord Voldemort - Townhall
    20. Donald Trump is The Joker : Forget Mussolini and Hitler - Salon
    21. Donald Trump's Mansions and Saddam Hussein 's Palaces Are Basically the Same - Vanity Fair
    22. Trump and Baghdadi Join Forces - Huffington Post
    23. Echoes of Joe McCarthy in Donald Trump's Rise - RealClearPolitics
    24. Donald Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin - CNN
    25. Trump's flirtation with fascism - Washington Post
    26. The Maoism of Donald Trump - The New Yorker.

    Is there any villain in U.S. (political) culture Donald Trump has not been compare to? Let me know what to search for.

    I doubt that this assault on Trump's character is effective. (Hillary Clinton is a more fitting object .) Potential Trump voters will at best ignore it. More likely they will feel confirmed in their belief that all media and media people are anti-Trump and pro-Clinton.

    The onslaught only validates what himself Trump claims: that all media are again him, independent of whatever policies he may promote or commit to.

    ... ... ...

    Selected Skeptical Comments
    Fernando Arauxo | Aug 26, 2016 11:41:25 AM | 2
    The jokes on them. Older voters, smarter voters are voting for Trump. If he remains on message and points out those things that do matter then he can win. He has to stop the joking around and being nasty. Be serious and get to the point.

    Jack Smith | Aug 26, 2016 12:04:00 PM | 6
    @Fernando Arauxo | Aug 26, 2016 11:41:25 AM | 2

    Trump can joke and talk all the nonsense he want, still it won't change my mind. I know Hillary including Bernie Sanders - they're from the same pot of shit.

    The only question remain, should I vote for Jill Stein to bring her Green Party percentage up? Jill Stein spoke repeatedly she will stop all aids to any country and NOT only Israel if human right are abuse - not exact words.

    Further she is a strong support of BDS even as Canada Green Party leader not in favor "Canadian MP Elizabeth May told reporters on Monday that she will stay on as leader of Canada's Green Party after saying she was considering stepping down because of her opposition to the party's recently-adopted policy of endorsing the strategy of Boycott Divest and Sanction against Israel. "

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17070

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 12:20:49 PM | 7
    For decades, at least 40 years, it was a whisper that the international medias have been sitting in the lap of a certain 3 letter agency. The mission: Manufacturing Consent by Deception. Globalism, War & Chaos brought by The Establishment owners of Deep Shadow Government. This quote from Robert Faurisson who is tagged a Halocaust denier may offend those who cannot be criticized:

    "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " -

    An old article by John Pilger via PCR War by media and the triumph of propaganda http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/07/guest-article-john-pilger-war-media-triumph-propaganda/

    In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.

    ~ ~ ~

    Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen.

    Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences.

    ... ... ....

    ALberto | Aug 26, 2016 12:38:22 PM | 10
    In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic.

    Jackrabbit | Aug 26, 2016 12:41:44 PM | 12
    People vote against their own self interests only because bought-and-paid-for MSM and political pundits SAY that a third-party can't win.

    If everyone would simply turn off toxic media and simply vote for their best interest the establishment would stop taking us all for granted.

    What is better: Trump is elected but Obama-Hillary Democratic "Third-Way" back-stabbing sell-outs are replaced by a real left opposition led by Greens? - OR -

    Obama-Hillary fake left squashes real opposition for another 8 years while extending and deepening the soul-crushing neolib/neocon disaster?

    crv | Aug 26, 2016 12:44:04 PM | 13
    "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him."

    US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby.

    h | Aug 26, 2016 12:50:22 PM | 15
    Trump vs. Hillary: A Summation - Paul Craig Roberts
    The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 12:52:04 PM | 17
    @ rm 5 @ JS 6 @ Jr 8

    The Polls: Recall summer 1980.

    Carter (D) = 39%
    Reagan (R) = 32%
    Anderson (I) = 21%

    Who took it? Polls are still unreliable. The poll sampling is key.

    I don't have a vote. On November 08, the real problem is one of the two will be (s)elected. Your decision does weigh heavily and guarantees the selection. Can you support another 4-8 years of the certified corrupt Clinton couple?

    h | Aug 26, 2016 12:53:23 PM | 18
    Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I

    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 26, 2016 1:05:10 PM | 21
    There is a third way to effectively cast a ballot outside the two main party's candidates and that is not to vote at all. This is effective as a historical fact that some fraction of eligible voters did not participate (whatever the cause) and the winning candidate was enabled by some plurality rather than a majority of the eligible electorate. Throwing away one's vote in a fit of moral superiority is an effective way to throw away one's voting rights, but then the 'moral majority' that wrecked the Republic never realised their culpability and still haven't. Not one of the minority candidates became anything more than a sad footnote to history - not one.
    Piotr Berman | Aug 26, 2016 1:08:48 PM | 22
    I guess instead of violating Goodwin law, or complain one-sidedly, we should eschew "Hitlery" and "fascist Trump", and find some high-brow metaphors. My proposals: Hillary and Trump

    But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull?

    karlof1 | Aug 26, 2016 1:20:22 PM | 24
    All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal. The launching of the self-proclaimed "Our Revolution" website/organization is yet another DNC-based sham that studiously avoids any mention of the military or foreign policy on its "Issues" page, which again belies its nature since the #1 issue for all Genuine Progressives is War and being against it. Still have 10 weeks to go. Stein has earned all the votes within my household.
    mischi | Aug 26, 2016 1:29:27 PM | 25
    I'm not a big fan of Trump's but I find that people don't argue about his politics, but insult him and his wife on a personal basis.

    This makes me think that it's the turn of the 'Left' in the USA to become immature and resort to name calling. Remember when it was the 'Right' that made fun of Kerry's Purple Heart?

    Which also exposes the problem with politics worldwide - the Left and the Right have met at the extremes and we now see progressives arguing for burkinis and the right arguing for workers' rights by trying to prevent the TPP, etc.

    harrylaw | Aug 26, 2016 1:44:01 PM | 26
    ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept]

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 26, 2016 1:56:02 PM | 28
    It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence - no, not the one that is derived from fancy questionnaires, or adding numbers.

    Real intelligence includes the understanding that sitting in a glasshouse throwing rocks does not qualify to be such. It also includes the understanding to be inseparable part of one's environment - a shared environment indicating that there is only interdependence, not separation.

    Furthermore, real intelligence includes compassion, kindness and the will to walk in somebody else's shoes.

    This intelligence is sorely missing in the majority of people that are entrusted with 'journalistic' work, or working in public offices. The stench of being "holier that thou" is covering the U.S.A. and wafts to Europe were it is now also modus operandi.

    The best course of action would be to punish those who engage in this kind of demagoguery with nonobservance.

    Erelis | Aug 26, 2016 2:09:44 PM | 30
    It won't be Trump who brings us fascism as the images implies, but more likely Clinton if she wins and if the Democrats can win over one of the Houses of Congress. As the campaign goes on, these comparisons add up and create in the minds of anybody anti-Trump an actual equivalency to in particular Hitler. This is one half of the combustion needed to go down the road to fascism.

    There is something else that Trump given the Russian hysteria is being called--a traitor. The thing is, Hillary supports believe this to be true in a criminal sense. It is not just some throw away smear normal for any election. I have seen way too way postings in major democratic party sites calls for basically the resurrection of the House Un-American Activities Committee. These supporters are historically clueless on what they are asking for, and I would imagine the same with much of the democratic party lawmakers in Congress.

    I can see if Hillary wins, witch hunts against anti-war protesters, or people who believe we should have rapprochement with Russia and China. The goal will be to criminalize and punish dissenting views on foreign and war policies because the constant Putin/Trump/Hitler/Stalin/etc comparisons created the foundation for actual criminal accusations.

    And the witch hunts will spread beyond war and foreign policy. Look at what is going on in Europe. Literally, and I do mean literally, every problem is being attributed to Putin "weaponizing" some issue. Serious politicians accused Putin of using drunken Russian fans during the Euro futbol championships of starting fights to support Brexit. The Polish minister for internal security accused Putin of master minding the Paris terrorist attacks. And these guys get away with the most outlandish accusations. As the real Nazis understood, repetition of lies is the foundation of propaganda to move people into action.

    harrylaw | Aug 26, 2016 2:11:35 PM | 31
    Vapors@14 Its not Boris Yeltsin, its Boris Johnson http://oi64.tinypic.com/zno56o.jpg
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 2:14:21 PM | 32
    The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal.

    Well the resident Zio-Racist Hill-shill (rufus magister | Aug 26, 2016 11:47:38 AM | 5) likes to pretend he is some sort of progressive, but still can't keep from outing himself by banging on non-stop about the Zio-Racists favourite talking points (Heil hillary and "holocaustholocaustholocaut!!")

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 2:15:41 PM | 33
    @ Alberto 10

    She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff [.]

    Very interesting because I have been discussing with colleagues here the Don should be honing his debating skill sets as Hillary is a trained lawyer/politician.

    From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34
    MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots.
    virgile | Aug 26, 2016 2:36:44 PM | 35
    Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity.

    Johan Meyer | Aug 26, 2016 3:50:48 PM | 39
    Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation.
    xyz | Aug 26, 2016 4:05:16 PM | 40
    Those who see Trump as some kinda Messiah need a cold shower. An ice cold one. All in all still better than war criminal Hillary.
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 4:31:43 PM | 41
    FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery" And "Hide Traces Of" Deleted Emails

    . . .Clinton's use of BleachBit undermines her claims that she only deleted innocuous "personal" emails from her private server

    "If she considered them to be personal, then she and her lawyers had those emails deleted. They didn't just push the delete button, they had them deleted where even God can't read them.

    "They were using something called BleachBit You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails."

    "When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see."

    meok | Aug 26, 2016 4:37:40 PM | 43
    The Bilderbeg group meeting has already decided who should become president, the media has been ordered to get this person elected.
    rg the lg | Aug 26, 2016 4:51:43 PM | 44
    Wow!

    Vitriol galore! If the arguments made above ... either way ... are the best we can do then maybe electing Hillary and hoping for WW3 is the lessor of evils. As I've said before, not a bad idea.

    On the other hand, did anyone read what Eric Zuesse had to say: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/08/23/hellish-end-soon-record-high-likelihood-both-nuclear-burnout.html

    Kinda puts real hope in all of your scenarios.

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 26, 2016 5:07:58 PM | 45
    Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34

    "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years.

    To be bold here: a 'left' mother loves her child as much as a 'right' mother and even more so the grandparents. Any grandparent here that denies their grandchildren their love based on the fact that their children cling on to a different belief? And that it is in its entirety - made believe by the Plutocrats and the sheople throw shit at each other instead of UPWARDS .

    Oui | Aug 26, 2016 5:12:26 PM | 48
    Two Worst Possible Candidates Running for U.S. Presidency

    [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...]

    Just yesterday, one of Britain's most prominent right-wing leaders, Nigel Farage, who stoked anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum on leaving the European Union, campaigned with Donald Trump in Mississippi. Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal immigrants from public schools and health services, has said women are quote "worth less" than men, and supports scrapping laws that prevent employers from discriminating based on race ― that's who Trump wants by his side.

    The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    In fact, Farage has appeared regularly on Russian propaganda programs. Now he's standing on the same stage as the Republican nominee.

    Tim808 | Aug 26, 2016 5:29:02 PM | 51
    Hatred of Trump is nothing more than cloaked Jewish hatred of white Christians. Go ahead and take my comment down, but you are too smart to not know the truth deep down in your heart. This above all else, lie to yourself to protect the Jewish lies.
    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 26, 2016 5:31:02 PM | 52
    About the most successful 'breakaway political movement' ever was probably the Dixiecrats in the 1948 election which actually garnered a small fraction of the electoral college, but that was using the apparatus of an organised national political party existent regionally. Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ...Next time keep your idiot elections to yourselves - Please.
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:33:47 PM | 53
    Philip Giraldi• August 23, 2016 - http://www.unz.com/article/are-the-clintons-israeli-agents/

    On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities… In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    =====

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 26, 2016 6:03:50 PM | 54
    Tom @38: "Trump the racist Appealing to African-Americans was just a demented and sick desperate joke. "

    It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags.

    ... ... ...

    james | Aug 26, 2016 8:13:11 PM | 57
    @55 virgile.. either that, or it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow..
    Michael | Aug 26, 2016 8:32:03 PM | 58
    As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters.

    It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care.

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 8:57:05 PM | 59
    Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians.

    Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine.

    Make no mistake about that, these shitty Hillary-supporting people cannot claim that they do not know what that that is what they are doing, because she has been quite vocal in her support for more war and more murder (on behalf of Isreal naturally)

    It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 9:43:14 PM | 61
    The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use?

    When did it ever change anything? You going to have to come up with something a tad more effective than mere voting if you want it to change. Personally I think the US deserves a Trump presidency.

    ProPeace | Aug 26, 2016 10:37:23 PM | 66
    @jawbone | Aug 26, 2016 10:19:23 PM | 65

    "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out...

    Look what they did to Reagan and the pope JP2 - GHWB failed with his assassins, but after the attempts, both these puppets were basically doing what told, with only little freedom left to do some good things (served well for maintaining appearances).

    Which brings again that question to my mind - why did they let Hinckley the patsy out recently, what's he's being set up for..?

    rg the lg | Aug 26, 2016 11:35:54 PM | 67
    Oooo! Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. "The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry" reviewed here: http://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/american-slave-coast--the-products-9781613748206.php says it all. Thomas Jefferson, a hero? What about George Washington, the land owner? Trump and Clinton are only unusual in that most Duhmericans have finally no choice but to admit they are venal. Stein, who could NEVER win, seems honorable. Johnson may be a wacked out libertarian, but he is a well meaning wacko.

    Great choices for the great democracy, light of the world, exceptional nation! I agree, Duhmerican politics are stupid ... the dumbest people in the world make it so. Then again, is any place humans habitate NOT idiotically insane stupid?

    Peter AU | Aug 26, 2016 11:49:22 PM | 68
    "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him."

    If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns.

    jfl | Aug 27, 2016 5:37:15 AM | 76
    @71, hoarse

    The Godfather image is a popular one these days. The Godmother use it to deflect attention from her own role as cackling harridan, wailing banshee of DDD&D ... others note that "Godfather" Biden visits Turkey

    The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million people, and displaced over 13 million.

    Thirteen years after the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of at least a million people, some 4.4 million Iraqis are internally displaced, with over a quarter million forced to flee the country.

    Questions of foreign policy are not decided, much less deliberated, within the framework of elections. Nowhere in the 2016 presidential race is there a serious debate, for instance, on the character of the US alliance with Turkey or the consequences of launching a de facto NATO invasion of Syria. Congress holds no hearings or votes. It neither seeks nor desires to play a serious role.

    As for the people, they simply have no say.

    The press plays a key role in the deception and disenfranchisement of the population. One tactic employed by the corporate-controlled media is simply to exclude "minor" developments such as a US-backed invasion of Syria from the so-called "news." The most remarkable feature of the media coverage to date of the Turkish incursion is its virtual non-existence. It is a good bet, due to the media's corrupt silence, that the percentage of the US population that is even aware of the invasion is in the single digits.

    dahoit | Aug 27, 2016 9:05:41 AM | 81
    Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats, not just the Wall Street Zionists, so I am perplexed at b's comment.

    America, despite glowing MSM BS, is on the ropes of neoliberalism. As an older American,I remember a land of plenty, with good jobs for all, instead of fast food retail hell.

    I don't think b has any idea of the realities being endured by US, as the media refuses to give US reality ,instead rosy economic garbage where not once in Obombas terrible reign have they created enough jobs to keep up with the expanding population, and as DT says ,the inner cities are hellholes, witness the NBA star Dwayne Wades cousin shot in Chicago pushing a baby stroller.

    I had a nurse from Hempstead NY, when i had the big C, who said an old man in a wheelchair had a pit bull tied to it to ward off potential crooks. WTF?
    And now the antisemitism card is played by the serial liars, Bannon is accused of calling Jews whiny. Well ,as a longtime observer, he is spot on there.

    And the lying times says 90% chance for Hell bitch victory.

    Will saying it so often make it so? Nah.

    dahoit | Aug 27, 2016 9:28:45 AM | 82
    What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC and the ziomedia, but no one cares.(her supporters) If not emblematic of the depravity of liberals, those who wish the death of others so they live in safety (which of course is poppycock) what is?

    And when Trump gets her in the debates, he'll destroy the MSM narrative of BS.

    Karl Pomeroy | Aug 27, 2016 12:29:37 PM | 90
    There is one villain Trump has not been compared to: Hillary Clinton.

    And don't be the kettle calling the pot black, whoever the author of this ill-researched piece is. Your own journalism strikes me as irresponsible when you claim, "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him." Catastrophic? Really? Who exactly is "most likely to vote for him" that would not benefit from better trade deals and more corporate incentives for domestic business? The global elite? They're the ones who definitely won't benefit, but they also definitely won't vote for him. Get your thinking straight.

    For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy, David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself: http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/

    Jackrabbit | Aug 27, 2016 12:32:46 PM | 91
    Curis @88

    I linked to the full report in the Open Thread

    rg the lg | Aug 27, 2016 2:31:01 PM | 94
    Here's a thought:

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/

    Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic rule.

    Like Roberts, I am so opposed to Clinton that Trump seems (even ever so slightly) the lessor of evils.

    Unlike Roberts, I think Stein our best bet.

    AtaBrit | Aug 27, 2016 2:52:27 PM | 95
    @b
    Here's a couple for you ...

    1 "Donald Trump is worse than Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"
    www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12182955/Donald-Trump-is-worse-than-Irans-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad.html

    2 "Donald Trump Is America's Gift To Bin Laden"
    www.huffpost.com/us/entry/10445156

    [Aug 27, 2016] M of A - The Childish Villain-ification Of Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " - ..."
    "... In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism. ..."
    "... Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen. ..."
    "... Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences. ..."
    "... In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic. ..."
    "... US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby. ..."
    "... The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/ ..."
    "... Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I ..."
    "... But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull? ..."
    "... All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC ..."
    "... ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept] ..."
    "... It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence ..."
    "... Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity. ..."
    "... Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation. ..."
    "... "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years. ..."
    "... [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...] ..."
    "... Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ..."
    "... It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags. ..."
    "... it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow.. ..."
    "... As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters. ..."
    "... It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care. ..."
    "... Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians. ..."
    "... Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine. ..."
    "... The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use? ..."
    "... "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out... ..."
    "... If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    This pic comparing a young Donald Trump with a child figure in some old Nazi propaganda was posted by Doug Saunders , supposedly a serious international-affairs columnist at the Canadian Globe and Mail.

    bigger

    It is illogical, childish nonsense. But Saunders is by far the only one disqualifying himself as serious commentator by posting such bullshit. Indeed, the villain-ification of Donald Trump is a regular feature which runs through U.S. and international media from the left to the right.

    A few examples:

    1. Pinochet . Chavez . Trump? - Politico
    2. Cher compares Donald Trump to Hitler at Clinton fundraiser - Foxnews
    3. Cher Slams Trump At Clinton Fundraiser; Likens Him To Stalin - CBS
    4. Cher Compares Trump to Mao - Newsbuster
    5. Trump is the GOP's Frankenstein monster - Washington Post
    6. Biden on Trump: 'He woulda loved Stalin ' - USAToday
    7. Huffington likens Trump to Kim Jong Un - MSN
    8. What Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump have in common - Reuters
    9. The best way to thwart Trump Vader - CNN
    10. Warning From the Syrian Border: Trump Reminds Us a Bit Too Much of Assad - Rolling Stone
    11. News Quiz: Trump Rally or Erdogan Event? - The Intercept
    12. Trump & Putin . Yes, It's Really a Thing - TPM
    13. Trump's not Hitler , he's Mussolini - Salon
    14. Media ethics writer compares Trump to Hitler - Politico
    15. Donald Trump's Insane Praise of Saddam Hussein - Daily Beast
    16. Trump and Lenin - Miami Herald
    17. Insult, provoke, repeat: how Donald Trump became America's Hugo Chávez - The Guardian
    18. The Unstoppable Trump Monster - The Atlantic
    19. Donald Trump is GOP's Dark Lord Voldemort - Townhall
    20. Donald Trump is The Joker : Forget Mussolini and Hitler - Salon
    21. Donald Trump's Mansions and Saddam Hussein 's Palaces Are Basically the Same - Vanity Fair
    22. Trump and Baghdadi Join Forces - Huffington Post
    23. Echoes of Joe McCarthy in Donald Trump's Rise - RealClearPolitics
    24. Donald Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin - CNN
    25. Trump's flirtation with fascism - Washington Post
    26. The Maoism of Donald Trump - The New Yorker.

    Is there any villain in U.S. (political) culture Donald Trump has not been compare to? Let me know what to search for.

    I doubt that this assault on Trump's character is effective. (Hillary Clinton is a more fitting object .) Potential Trump voters will at best ignore it. More likely they will feel confirmed in their belief that all media and media people are anti-Trump and pro-Clinton.

    The onslaught only validates what himself Trump claims: that all media are again him, independent of whatever policies he may promote or commit to.

    ... ... ...

    Selected Skeptical Comments
    Fernando Arauxo | Aug 26, 2016 11:41:25 AM | 2
    The jokes on them. Older voters, smarter voters are voting for Trump. If he remains on message and points out those things that do matter then he can win. He has to stop the joking around and being nasty. Be serious and get to the point.

    Jack Smith | Aug 26, 2016 12:04:00 PM | 6
    @Fernando Arauxo | Aug 26, 2016 11:41:25 AM | 2

    Trump can joke and talk all the nonsense he want, still it won't change my mind. I know Hillary including Bernie Sanders - they're from the same pot of shit.

    The only question remain, should I vote for Jill Stein to bring her Green Party percentage up? Jill Stein spoke repeatedly she will stop all aids to any country and NOT only Israel if human right are abuse - not exact words.

    Further she is a strong support of BDS even as Canada Green Party leader not in favor "Canadian MP Elizabeth May told reporters on Monday that she will stay on as leader of Canada's Green Party after saying she was considering stepping down because of her opposition to the party's recently-adopted policy of endorsing the strategy of Boycott Divest and Sanction against Israel. "

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17070

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 12:20:49 PM | 7
    For decades, at least 40 years, it was a whisper that the international medias have been sitting in the lap of a certain 3 letter agency. The mission: Manufacturing Consent by Deception. Globalism, War & Chaos brought by The Establishment owners of Deep Shadow Government. This quote from Robert Faurisson who is tagged a Halocaust denier may offend those who cannot be criticized:

    "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " -

    An old article by John Pilger via PCR War by media and the triumph of propaganda http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/07/guest-article-john-pilger-war-media-triumph-propaganda/

    In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.

    ~ ~ ~

    Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen.

    Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences.

    ... ... ....

    ALberto | Aug 26, 2016 12:38:22 PM | 10
    In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic.

    Jackrabbit | Aug 26, 2016 12:41:44 PM | 12
    People vote against their own self interests only because bought-and-paid-for MSM and political pundits SAY that a third-party can't win.

    If everyone would simply turn off toxic media and simply vote for their best interest the establishment would stop taking us all for granted.

    What is better: Trump is elected but Obama-Hillary Democratic "Third-Way" back-stabbing sell-outs are replaced by a real left opposition led by Greens? - OR -

    Obama-Hillary fake left squashes real opposition for another 8 years while extending and deepening the soul-crushing neolib/neocon disaster?

    crv | Aug 26, 2016 12:44:04 PM | 13
    "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him."

    US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby.

    h | Aug 26, 2016 12:50:22 PM | 15
    Trump vs. Hillary: A Summation - Paul Craig Roberts
    The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 12:52:04 PM | 17
    @ rm 5 @ JS 6 @ Jr 8

    The Polls: Recall summer 1980.

    Carter (D) = 39%
    Reagan (R) = 32%
    Anderson (I) = 21%

    Who took it? Polls are still unreliable. The poll sampling is key.

    I don't have a vote. On November 08, the real problem is one of the two will be (s)elected. Your decision does weigh heavily and guarantees the selection. Can you support another 4-8 years of the certified corrupt Clinton couple?

    h | Aug 26, 2016 12:53:23 PM | 18
    Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I

    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 26, 2016 1:05:10 PM | 21
    There is a third way to effectively cast a ballot outside the two main party's candidates and that is not to vote at all. This is effective as a historical fact that some fraction of eligible voters did not participate (whatever the cause) and the winning candidate was enabled by some plurality rather than a majority of the eligible electorate. Throwing away one's vote in a fit of moral superiority is an effective way to throw away one's voting rights, but then the 'moral majority' that wrecked the Republic never realised their culpability and still haven't. Not one of the minority candidates became anything more than a sad footnote to history - not one.
    Piotr Berman | Aug 26, 2016 1:08:48 PM | 22
    I guess instead of violating Goodwin law, or complain one-sidedly, we should eschew "Hitlery" and "fascist Trump", and find some high-brow metaphors. My proposals: Hillary and Trump

    But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull?

    karlof1 | Aug 26, 2016 1:20:22 PM | 24
    All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal. The launching of the self-proclaimed "Our Revolution" website/organization is yet another DNC-based sham that studiously avoids any mention of the military or foreign policy on its "Issues" page, which again belies its nature since the #1 issue for all Genuine Progressives is War and being against it. Still have 10 weeks to go. Stein has earned all the votes within my household.
    mischi | Aug 26, 2016 1:29:27 PM | 25
    I'm not a big fan of Trump's but I find that people don't argue about his politics, but insult him and his wife on a personal basis.

    This makes me think that it's the turn of the 'Left' in the USA to become immature and resort to name calling. Remember when it was the 'Right' that made fun of Kerry's Purple Heart?

    Which also exposes the problem with politics worldwide - the Left and the Right have met at the extremes and we now see progressives arguing for burkinis and the right arguing for workers' rights by trying to prevent the TPP, etc.

    harrylaw | Aug 26, 2016 1:44:01 PM | 26
    ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept]

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 26, 2016 1:56:02 PM | 28
    It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence - no, not the one that is derived from fancy questionnaires, or adding numbers.

    Real intelligence includes the understanding that sitting in a glasshouse throwing rocks does not qualify to be such. It also includes the understanding to be inseparable part of one's environment - a shared environment indicating that there is only interdependence, not separation.

    Furthermore, real intelligence includes compassion, kindness and the will to walk in somebody else's shoes.

    This intelligence is sorely missing in the majority of people that are entrusted with 'journalistic' work, or working in public offices. The stench of being "holier that thou" is covering the U.S.A. and wafts to Europe were it is now also modus operandi.

    The best course of action would be to punish those who engage in this kind of demagoguery with nonobservance.

    Erelis | Aug 26, 2016 2:09:44 PM | 30
    It won't be Trump who brings us fascism as the images implies, but more likely Clinton if she wins and if the Democrats can win over one of the Houses of Congress. As the campaign goes on, these comparisons add up and create in the minds of anybody anti-Trump an actual equivalency to in particular Hitler. This is one half of the combustion needed to go down the road to fascism.

    There is something else that Trump given the Russian hysteria is being called--a traitor. The thing is, Hillary supports believe this to be true in a criminal sense. It is not just some throw away smear normal for any election. I have seen way too way postings in major democratic party sites calls for basically the resurrection of the House Un-American Activities Committee. These supporters are historically clueless on what they are asking for, and I would imagine the same with much of the democratic party lawmakers in Congress.

    I can see if Hillary wins, witch hunts against anti-war protesters, or people who believe we should have rapprochement with Russia and China. The goal will be to criminalize and punish dissenting views on foreign and war policies because the constant Putin/Trump/Hitler/Stalin/etc comparisons created the foundation for actual criminal accusations.

    And the witch hunts will spread beyond war and foreign policy. Look at what is going on in Europe. Literally, and I do mean literally, every problem is being attributed to Putin "weaponizing" some issue. Serious politicians accused Putin of using drunken Russian fans during the Euro futbol championships of starting fights to support Brexit. The Polish minister for internal security accused Putin of master minding the Paris terrorist attacks. And these guys get away with the most outlandish accusations. As the real Nazis understood, repetition of lies is the foundation of propaganda to move people into action.

    harrylaw | Aug 26, 2016 2:11:35 PM | 31
    Vapors@14 Its not Boris Yeltsin, its Boris Johnson http://oi64.tinypic.com/zno56o.jpg
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 2:14:21 PM | 32
    The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal.

    Well the resident Zio-Racist Hill-shill (rufus magister | Aug 26, 2016 11:47:38 AM | 5) likes to pretend he is some sort of progressive, but still can't keep from outing himself by banging on non-stop about the Zio-Racists favourite talking points (Heil hillary and "holocaustholocaustholocaut!!")

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 2:15:41 PM | 33
    @ Alberto 10

    She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff [.]

    Very interesting because I have been discussing with colleagues here the Don should be honing his debating skill sets as Hillary is a trained lawyer/politician.

    From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34
    MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots.
    virgile | Aug 26, 2016 2:36:44 PM | 35
    Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity.

    Johan Meyer | Aug 26, 2016 3:50:48 PM | 39
    Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation.
    xyz | Aug 26, 2016 4:05:16 PM | 40
    Those who see Trump as some kinda Messiah need a cold shower. An ice cold one. All in all still better than war criminal Hillary.
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 4:31:43 PM | 41
    FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery" And "Hide Traces Of" Deleted Emails

    . . .Clinton's use of BleachBit undermines her claims that she only deleted innocuous "personal" emails from her private server

    "If she considered them to be personal, then she and her lawyers had those emails deleted. They didn't just push the delete button, they had them deleted where even God can't read them.

    "They were using something called BleachBit You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails."

    "When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see."

    meok | Aug 26, 2016 4:37:40 PM | 43
    The Bilderbeg group meeting has already decided who should become president, the media has been ordered to get this person elected.
    rg the lg | Aug 26, 2016 4:51:43 PM | 44
    Wow!

    Vitriol galore! If the arguments made above ... either way ... are the best we can do then maybe electing Hillary and hoping for WW3 is the lessor of evils. As I've said before, not a bad idea.

    On the other hand, did anyone read what Eric Zuesse had to say: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/08/23/hellish-end-soon-record-high-likelihood-both-nuclear-burnout.html

    Kinda puts real hope in all of your scenarios.

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 26, 2016 5:07:58 PM | 45
    Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34

    "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years.

    To be bold here: a 'left' mother loves her child as much as a 'right' mother and even more so the grandparents. Any grandparent here that denies their grandchildren their love based on the fact that their children cling on to a different belief? And that it is in its entirety - made believe by the Plutocrats and the sheople throw shit at each other instead of UPWARDS .

    Oui | Aug 26, 2016 5:12:26 PM | 48
    Two Worst Possible Candidates Running for U.S. Presidency

    [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...]

    Just yesterday, one of Britain's most prominent right-wing leaders, Nigel Farage, who stoked anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum on leaving the European Union, campaigned with Donald Trump in Mississippi. Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal immigrants from public schools and health services, has said women are quote "worth less" than men, and supports scrapping laws that prevent employers from discriminating based on race ― that's who Trump wants by his side.

    The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    In fact, Farage has appeared regularly on Russian propaganda programs. Now he's standing on the same stage as the Republican nominee.

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:22:34 PM | 50
    Lol PRAVDA

    During a campaign rally in Nevada, US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke about the dangers of right-wing forces in power, as well as about problems of racism. "Clinton noted that her rival Donald Trump supported the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As for relations with Russia, the views of Donald Trump come contrary to the views of all American presidents, from "Truman to Reagan."

    "He talks casually of abandoning our NATO allies, recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea, giving the Kremlin a free hand in eastern Europe. American presidents from Truman, to Reagan, to Bush, to Clinton, to Obama have rejected the kind of approach Trump is taking on Russia. And we should, too," Clinton said.

    "Vladimir Putin is the grand-godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism.", Hillary Clinton said", (while standing in front of a gigantic American Flag, without a trace of Irony detectable in her voice)

    Tim808 | Aug 26, 2016 5:29:02 PM | 51
    Hatred of Trump is nothing more than cloaked Jewish hatred of white Christians. Go ahead and take my comment down, but you are too smart to not know the truth deep down in your heart. This above all else, lie to yourself to protect the Jewish lies.
    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 26, 2016 5:31:02 PM | 52
    About the most successful 'breakaway political movement' ever was probably the Dixiecrats in the 1948 election which actually garnered a small fraction of the electoral college, but that was using the apparatus of an organised national political party existent regionally. Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ...Next time keep your idiot elections to yourselves - Please.
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:33:47 PM | 53
    Philip Giraldi• August 23, 2016 - http://www.unz.com/article/are-the-clintons-israeli-agents/

    On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities… In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    =====

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 26, 2016 6:03:50 PM | 54
    Tom @38: "Trump the racist Appealing to African-Americans was just a demented and sick desperate joke. "

    It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags.

    However, a position that he is not racist is ... misguided, say. Through most of his life, Trump simply donated to all elected politicians in areas where he was doing business, as it is apparently necessary for every serious developer. But in recent years he became sort of Republican activists, and his premiere issue was "birthism". A conspiracy theory alleging that Obama was born abroad. Incidentally, Ted Cruz was born abroad, in Canada, of non-citizen father and American citizen mother, and, surprise, surprise, he is perfectly eligible to run for President, but simple legal arguments like that, not to mention actual documents from a hospital in Hawaii did not satisfy the insane crowd. The only motivation that is non-insane is ugly: harping on "otherness" of mix-race President with Muslim first name and African last name.

    Or Trump harping that he would be more successful in foreign policy because he would be "more respected" than a women or a Black boy.

    Trump supports police brutality, down to gunning down unarmed poor folks (to err on the side of caution) and death penalty, for innocently accused as it turned later. Somehow a white person killing poor women and refrigerating the corpses does not lead to conniptions and full page newspaper ads, unlike black youth accused of rape. This is really harking to good old time of lynch mobs. LITERALLY.

    And this: "Trump blamed financial difficulties partly on African American accountants.

    "I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza - black guys counting my money!" O'Donnell's book quoted Trump as saying. "I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is; I believe that. It's not anything they can control."

    james | Aug 26, 2016 8:13:11 PM | 57
    @55 virgile.. either that, or it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow..
    Michael | Aug 26, 2016 8:32:03 PM | 58
    As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters.

    It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care.

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 8:57:05 PM | 59
    Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians.

    Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine.

    Make no mistake about that, these shitty Hillary-supporting people cannot claim that they do not know what that that is what they are doing, because she has been quite vocal in her support for more war and more murder (on behalf of Isreal naturally)

    It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 9:43:14 PM | 61
    The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use?

    When did it ever change anything?

    You going to have to come up with something a tad more effective than mere voting if you want it to change.

    Personally I think the US deserves a Trump presidency.

    fairleft | Aug 26, 2016 9:51:02 PM | 62
    Rufus at 19: why link to irrelevant OT wikipedia?

    There's Hillary, whose delusion is that she has any political game. Certainly not enough to get elected President, even against a reality TV host. Then there's Donald, whose delusion is that he actually _is_ the person he plays on TV.

    In the midst of the insanity is Jill. JIILLLLLLL people!

    OT, but did Bill marry Hill as a firewall against any possibility he might act on his more than occasional human/humane instincts? She certainly would have none of that, he must've known. NOTHING must stand in the way of ambition.

    jawbone | Aug 26, 2016 10:19:23 PM | 65
    virgile | Aug 26, 2016 2:36:44 PM | 35 --

    What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign (or whatever verb works for this presidential nominee situation), Apologize to all the voters who chose her. Explain that she would probably be impeached and would be essentially neutered. She should then tell the public that Bernie Sanders would do the best for all the people of this nation.

    Like that will ever happen....

    ProPeace | Aug 26, 2016 10:37:23 PM | 66
    @jawbone | Aug 26, 2016 10:19:23 PM | 65

    "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out...

    Look what they did to Reagan and the pope JP2 - GHWB failed with his assassins, but after the attempts, both these puppets were basically doing what told, with only little freedom left to do some good things (served well for maintaining appearances).

    Which brings again that question to my mind - why did they let Hinckley the patsy out recently, what's he's being set up for..?

    rg the lg | Aug 26, 2016 11:35:54 PM | 67
    Oooo! Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. "The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry" reviewed here: http://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/american-slave-coast--the-products-9781613748206.php says it all. Thomas Jefferson, a hero? What about George Washington, the land owner? Trump and Clinton are only unusual in that most Duhmericans have finally no choice but to admit they are venal. Stein, who could NEVER win, seems honorable. Johnson may be a wacked out libertarian, but he is a well meaning wacko.

    Great choices for the great democracy, light of the world, exceptional nation!

    I agree, Duhmerican politics are stupid ... the dumbest people in the world make it so. Then again, is any place humans habitate NOT idiotically insane stupid?

    Peter AU | Aug 26, 2016 11:49:22 PM | 68
    "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him."

    If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns.

    fairleft | Aug 27, 2016 12:26:03 AM | 69
    Peter at 68: No, that's conventional economic thinking. Americans or any people will have good economic times if the government stimulates the economy in ways that grow high-paying jobs, restructures economic power toward workers, and massively redistributes income to the middle and working classes. Empire or no Empire.

    paul | Aug 27, 2016 1:44:53 AM | 70
    If only Trump were like Hugo Chavez, right?!

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 2:55:01 AM | 71
    ...
    "Vladimir Putin is the grand-godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism.", Hillary Clinton said, (while standing in front of a gigantic American Flag, without a trace of Irony detectable in her voice).
    Posted by: Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:22:34 PM | 50

    Yep. Dangerously stupid.
    Superficial and self-absorbed Hollywoodishness; the polar opposite of self-aware.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 3:06:01 AM | 72
    Clinton = Drama without empathy.

    Johan Meyer | Aug 27, 2016 3:10:47 AM | 73
    The best though in that photo is the wolfsangel---last I checked, it was Hillary that had the ties to pravyy sektor...

    harrylaw | Aug 27, 2016 3:13:03 AM | 74
    Paul@70 Even the "socialist" Sanders thought, Hugo Chávez is Just a Dead Communist Dictator.

    cahaba | Aug 27, 2016 4:29:09 AM | 75
    Blonde hair. Blue eyes.

    It's not "childish", b, it's straight-up racism.

    Do we really need to go into the whole "dumb blonde" meme that has permeated media for decades?

    jfl | Aug 27, 2016 5:37:15 AM | 76
    @71, hoarse

    The Godfather image is a popular one these days. The Godmother use it to deflect attention from her own role as cackling harridan, wailing banshee of DDD&D ... others note that "Godfather" Biden visits Turkey


    The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million people, and displaced over 13 million.

    Thirteen years after the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of at least a million people, some 4.4 million Iraqis are internally displaced, with over a quarter million forced to flee the country.

    Questions of foreign policy are not decided, much less deliberated, within the framework of elections. Nowhere in the 2016 presidential race is there a serious debate, for instance, on the character of the US alliance with Turkey or the consequences of launching a de facto NATO invasion of Syria. Congress holds no hearings or votes. It neither seeks nor desires to play a serious role.

    As for the people, they simply have no say.

    The press plays a key role in the deception and disenfranchisement of the population. One tactic employed by the corporate-controlled media is simply to exclude "minor" developments such as a US-backed invasion of Syria from the so-called "news." The most remarkable feature of the media coverage to date of the Turkish incursion is its virtual non-existence. It is a good bet, due to the media's corrupt silence, that the percentage of the US population that is even aware of the invasion is in the single digits.

    TheRealDonald | Aug 27, 2016 6:12:11 AM | 77
    11

    You forgot to add: "anyone who willfully votes for either Red Donald or Blue Hillary is a moral leper, ...one who will still have to cough up a $4.5 TRILLION King's Ransom on April 15th for Mil.Gov.Fed metastasizing Technocracy, regardless, and still have to pay $650 BILLION a year of that YUUGE ransom in interest-only debt (sic) tithes to The Chosen."

    Shillary @50 -- Hillary Clinton is completely devoid of any sense of irony or humour. She's a complete emotional and, I would add, intellectual dud. She seems to be a good lawyer, though --- in the US lawyers as far as the eye can see.

    Posted by: Quentin | Aug 27, 2016 6:32:49 AM | 78

    Shillary @50 -- Hillary Clinton is completely devoid of any sense of irony or humour. She's a complete emotional and, I would add, intellectual dud. She seems to be a good lawyer, though --- in the US lawyers as far as the eye can see.

    Posted by: Quentin | Aug 27, 2016 6:32:49 AM | 78

    Stephane | Aug 27, 2016 8:15:02 AM | 79
    Typos:

    is by far the only one

    has not been compare to

    are again him

    would be more effect in

    okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80
    OT
    GENEVA - The United States and Russia say they have resolved a number of issues standing in the way of restoring a nationwide truce to Syria and opening up aid deliveries, but were unable once again to forge a comprehensive agreement on stepping up cooperation to end the brutal war that has killed hundreds of thousands.

    After meeting off-and-on for nearly 10 hours in Geneva on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could point to only incremental progress in filling in details of a broad understanding to boost joint efforts that was reached last month in Moscow.

    Their failure to reach an overall deal highlighted the increasingly complex situation on the ground in Syria - including new Russian-backed Syrian government attacks on opposition forces, the intermingling of some of those opposition forces with an al-Qaida affiliate not covered by the truce and the surrender of a rebel-held suburb of Damascus - as well as deep divisions and mistrust dividing Washington and Moscow.

    The complexities have also grown with the increasing internationalization of what has largely become a proxy war between regional and world powers, highlighted by a move by Turkish troops across the Syrian border against Islamic State fighters this week.

    Kerry said he and Lavrov had agreed on the "vast majority" of technical discussions on steps to reinstate a cease-fire and improve humanitarian access. But critical sticking points remain unresolved and experts will remain in Geneva with an eye toward finalizing those in the coming days, he said.
    ```
    Lavrov echoed that, saying "we still need to finalize a few issues" and pointed to the need to separate fighters from the al-Nusra Front, which has ties to al-Qaida, from U.S.-backed fighters who hold parts of northwest Syria.

    "We have continued our efforts to reduce the areas where we lack understanding and trust, which is an achievement," Lavrov said. "The mutual trust is growing with every meeting."

    Yet, it was clear that neither side believes an overall agreement is imminent or even achievable after numerous previous disappointments shattered a brief period of relative calm earlier this year.

    The inability to wrest an agreement between Russia and the U.S. - as the major sponsors of the opposing sides in the stalled Syria peace talks - all but spells another missed deadline for the U.N. Syria envoy to get the Syrian government and "moderate" opposition back to the table.
    ```
    In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret.
    ```
    And, underscoring deep differences over developments on the ground, Kerry noted that Russia disputes the U.S. "narrative" of recent attacks on heavily populated areas being conducted by Syrian forces, Russia itself and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. Russia maintains the attacks it has been involved in have targeted legitimate terrorist targets, while the U.S. says they have hit moderate opposition forces.
    ~~~
    At the same time, the Obama administration is not of one mind regarding the Russians. The Pentagon has publicly complained about getting drawn into greater cooperation with Russia even though it has been forced recently to expand communication with Moscow. Last week, the U.S. had to call for Russian help when Syrian warplanes struck an area not far from where U.S. troops were operating.

    U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, open humanitarian aid corridors, and concentrate any offensive action on the Islamic State group and other extremists not covered by what has become a largely ignored truce.

    For their part, U.S. officials say they are willing to press rebels groups they support harder on separating themselves from the Islamic State and al-Nusra, which despite a recent name change is still viewed as al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.

    Those goals are not new, but recent developments have made achieving them even more urgent and important, according to U.S. officials. Recent developments include military operations around the city of Aleppo, the entry of Turkey into the ground war, Turkish hostility toward U.S.-backed Kurdish rebel groups and the presence of American military advisers in widening conflict zones.

    Meanwhile, in a blow to the opposition, rebel forces and civilians in the besieged Damascus suburb of Daraya were to be evacuated on Friday after agreeing to surrender the town late Thursday after four years of grueling bombardment and a crippling siege that left the sprawling area in ruins.

    The surrender of Daraya, which became an early symbol of the nascent uprising against Assad, marks a success for his government, removing a persistent threat only a few miles from his seat of power.

    dahoit | Aug 27, 2016 9:05:41 AM | 81
    Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats,not just the Wall Street Zionists,so I am perplexed at b's comment.
    America,despite glowing MSM BS,is on the ropes of neoliberalism.As an older American,I remember a land of plenty,with good jobs for all,instead of fast food retail hell.I don't think b has any idea of the realities being endured by US,as the media refuses to give US reality,instead rosy economic garbage where not once in Obombas terrible reign have they created enough jobs to keep up with the expanding population,and as DT says,the inner cities are hellholes,witness the NBA star Dwayne Wades cousin shot in Chicago pushing a baby stroller.
    I had a nurse from Hempstead NY,when i had the big C,who said an old man in a wheelchair had a pit bull tied to it to ward off potential crooks.WTF?
    And now the antisemitism card is played by the serial liars,Bannon is accused of calling Jews whiny.Well,as a longtime observer,he is spot on there.
    And the lying times says 90% chance for Hell bitch victory.
    Will saying it so often make it so?Nah.

    dahoit | Aug 27, 2016 9:28:45 AM | 82
    What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC and the ziomedia,but no one cares.(her supporters)If not emblematic of the depravity of liberals,those who wish the death of others so they live in safety(which of course is poppycock)what is?
    And when Trump gets her in the debates,he'll destroy the MSM narrative of BS.

    rufus magister | Aug 27, 2016 9:40:10 AM | 83
    in 29 --

    No facts? Pound the table.

    Pace yourself, though, the election is a long way off, and you won't want to burst into a conniption before then.

    Noirette | Aug 27, 2016 10:50:52 AM | 84
    Part 1. ;) Got dragged into Killary's alt-right speech at Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno, Nevada, Aug 2016. Only content: 100% against Trump , as sidebars, Alex Jones, Nigel Farage, Putin, David Duke.

    The official MSM version is 31 mins - the frame is just her with a fixed cam centered nothing around. Sparse occasional clapping (real, one can see the clappers in other vids).. She speaks as one would to a parterre of 30-50 ppl, not as in a campaign rally. A longer version (MSM) is 45 mins and shows some of the preliminaries, some guy, then the Mayor of Reno, youngish blondine, introducing her. Killary was apparently hours late. (> youtube.) Killary is dressed in green.

    To the interesting part. She spoke at the same College in Feb. 2015. Note: red dress, the brick pillars typical of the college, and the big windows behind. A big hall…

    link

    This shot shows the other direction, see the small windows at the side and back

    link

    The event has all the hallmarks of a 'proper' pol show, no need to list. Note the Hall, quite large, is not full. The signs are blue and are for Hillary, for Women, for Nevada and so on.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 11:06:17 AM | 85
    Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80

    Re: Geneva negotiations...
    Love the goto clause:

    "In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret."

    Yeah, keeping the details secret so that next time the Yankees backstab Russia, observers won't immediately realise that they were, in fact, just shooting themselves in the foot. Again.

    Noirette | Aug 27, 2016 11:25:41 AM | 86
    Part 2. The Aug. 2016 event took place at the College but either in a small part of the back of the big hall or another locale (similar in architecture obviously)

    link

    The widest shot Aug. 2016. AFGE (men with black Ts) = American Federation of Gvmt. Employees.

    link

    Here is the 'furthest back' shot. TV coverage did not show these.

    link

    The only shot I could find showing the audience facing her. Note the ppl behind her facing out, i.e. the cams (shown on TV etc.) are not identifiable.

    link

    Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or? idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon.

    After the speech, vids show H.C. talking to a very few ppl, 25 at most, not answering "reporters" questions, two tiny trays of confections were offered. Bwwahhh. She ate one choc. There was also a stop at a Reno Coffee shop (10 ppl?) which made no sense. On these occasions she is accompanied by the Mayor in a cosy girly coffee thingie. (> youtube.)

    The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have ever heard.


    Jackrabbit | Aug 27, 2016 11:35:36 AM | 87
    okie farmer @80

    Strike three for Russia.

    Strike 1: Talks with KSA - no result

    Strike 2: Turkish incursion into Syria (with US blessing)

    Strike 3: Geneva Talks with Kerry - no result

    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 12:09:08 PM | 88
    iPhone hacked by NSO Group based in Israel
    http://www.businessinsider.com/pegasus-nso-group-iphone-2016-8

    http://www.businessinsider.com/nso-group-2016-8

    Wait a minute! They ID'd the hacker and it's a business in Israel? And it forced Apple to an emergency software upgrade. But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government.

    Gesine Hammerling | Aug 27, 2016 12:15:34 PM | 89
    A serious question: What would happen if Trump won the majority of the members of the Electoral College but they voted for Clinton?

    Karl Pomeroy | Aug 27, 2016 12:29:37 PM | 90
    There is one villain Trump has not been compared to: Hillary Clinton.

    And don't be the kettle calling the pot black, whoever the author of this ill-researched piece is. Your own journalism strikes me as irresponsible when you claim, "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him." Catastrophic? Really? Who exactly is "most likely to vote for him" that would not benefit from better trade deals and more corporate incentives for domestic business? The global elite? They're the ones who definitely won't benefit, but they also definitely won't vote for him. Get your thinking straight.

    For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy, David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself:

    http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/


    Jackrabbit | Aug 27, 2016 12:32:46 PM | 91
    Curis @88

    I linked to the full report in the Open Thread

    harrylaw | Aug 27, 2016 1:10:56 PM | 92
    okie farmer@80 Lavrov is on a loser if he accepts this "moderate terrorist" BS from Kerry. Those "moderates" have replaced Islamic state in Jerablus, soon to be expanded to cover that huge area between Jerablus, Azaz and Al-bab,all without a fight and apparent agreement with IS. Next could be the area is controlled by Turkish and US "moderate" head choppers, which of course nobody will be allowed to attack. They should only be called moderate if they oppose Assad and do not carry arms, otherwise its just a case of changing labels, in which case the terrorists could never lose. I find it hard to believe that so soon after the so called normalization of ties and trade deals between Russia and Turkey, Turkey could do what they have threatened to do for years, invade Syria and set up prospective no fly zones. I suppose we must wait and see, but in my opinion, it does not look good.

    jfl | Aug 27, 2016 2:30:39 PM | 93
    @88, curtis, 'But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government'

    Maybe they are ... Russian emigre hackers working for the Israeli government?

    @92 hl,

    I agree. Russia has been stabbed in the back by Turkey, and the US is backing Turkey ... of course they were backing the Kurds, too, until they weren't.

    Erdogan is utterly unreliable ... or he is utterly reliable if you're relying on duplicity and betrayal.

    Joaquin Flores observes Syria Violence to increase: Peace talks fail as situation deteriorates . It seems that the US is just all stall, all the time. Alternating with stabs in the back. No point in talking to them ... for 12 hours?!

    rg the lg | Aug 27, 2016 2:31:01 PM | 94
    Here's a thought:

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/

    Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic rule.

    Like Roberts, I am so opposed to Clinton that Trump seems (even ever so slightly) the lessor of evils.

    Unlike Roberts, I think Stein our best bet.

    AtaBrit | Aug 27, 2016 2:52:27 PM | 95
    @b
    Here's a couple for you ...

    1 "Donald Trump is worse than Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"
    www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12182955/Donald-Trump-is-worse-than-Irans-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad.html

    2 "Donald Trump Is America's Gift To Bin Laden"
    www.huffpost.com/us/entry/10445156

    PavewayIV | Aug 27, 2016 3:06:20 PM | 96
    Gesine Hammerling@89 - "...What would happen if Trump won the majority of the members of the Electoral College but they voted for Clinton?..."

    The Electoral College vote is absolute - the candidate that gets 270 of the 538 votes wins, so Clinton would be elected. If neither candidate gets that many, then an immediate vote by the House of Representatives decides. The popular vote that takes place at the same time is utterly meaningless other than to chose one of two bribe-funneling political parties who, in turn, chose their typically party-loyal electors. There's a bit more to it than that, but that sums it up. And, yes, the state political parties could chose electors who would jump ship and vote for the other party. That will be the way they will ensure Clinton is elected in November regardless of who the little people think they're voting for. Anyone who is familiar with the process knows this will happen, including the Republican Party. Trump obviously knows the fix is in.

    The paradox comes about because the political parties at the state level have slowly taken over the process of choosing who goes to the electoral college. The founders' original intent was to have (presumably) the best and the brightest citizens representing each state, making an informed decision that would produce the 'best' choice. There were no political parties to speak of when the Constitution was penned. In fact, the founders were rather suspicious of them in general but did not go so far as to prohibit them (to our eventual ruin). They never intended the rigged, two-party freak show popularity contest masquerading as an election that we have today.

    PavewayIV | Aug 27, 2016 3:13:19 PM | 97
    For a bit more nuance in the choice of state electors, their vote pledge and 'jumping ship' (if it's allowed by law in that state, see faithless electors .

    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 3:46:24 PM | 98
    I check the CPI every now and then looking for the US to drop. The Corruption Perception Index depends on the perception which can be molded by the media. But as more people wake up, I expect the US ranking to drop. Our 2015 ranking is 16 (behind countries in north-east Europe and Canada and New Zealand).
    http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

    Interesting that 72% say US Govt efforts against corruption are ineffective and 72% say the level of corruption increased from 2007 to 2010.
    http://www.transparency.org/country/#USA_PublicOpinion

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:27:25 PM | 99
    @92 harrylaw...i agree with you..

    russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs...

    as for turkey, clearly the apk has a 'get rid of the kurds' agenda.. works well in their alliance with isis up to a point.. as for turkish/usa alliance and a no fly zone - if russia goes along with this, they better get a hell of a trade off out of it.. i can't see it, although i see the usa continuing on in their support of saudi arabia etc, using their mercenary isis army and saudi arabia to continue to funnel arms sales and weaponry... it is what they do best, bullshite artists that they are...

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:32:33 PM | 100
    for the latest dose of bullshite - watch this/A> 8 minute propaganda video.. one could flip it around to say the usa supports isis, al nusra, and all the other 'moderate' terrorists they are arming... amazing how these state dept. spokespeople can lie so continuously and not be called out on any of it by the corporate media journalists.. obviously those journalists are paid to go along with the lies, keep their mouth shut, and not ask any hard questions...

    [Aug 27, 2016] Trump Clintons are 'the real predators'

    Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her record of Wall Street support, her dismissal of the Glass-Steagall Act and her vote for war in Iraq. She should also be challenged vigorously on her role with the DLC.
    Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these tough questions.
    www.politico.com
    POLITICO) Donald Trump dug deeper into the archives Friday to point out Hillary Clinton's complicated history of racially divisive politics, including her infamous "super-predators" comment from the 1990s.

    "The Clinton's are the real predators…" Trump wrote in a tweet linking to an Instagram video.

    The video begins with Hillary Clinton in 1996, defending her husband's controversial crime bill, which has long been criticized for its impact on minority communities with respect to mass incarceration.


    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/trump-clintons-are-the-real-predators/#hCaMDGFQDlFMqhZS.99

    [Aug 27, 2016] Clintons campaign strategy of making a vote for Clinton 'a vote for a winner'.

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    PlutoniumKun , August 26, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    Re: Clintons campaign possible strategy of making a vote for Clinton 'a vote for a winner'.

    I know its conventional opinion that when in doubt, people prefer to vote for who they perceive to be a 'winner', but I wonder if this really applies with two such disliked candidates. I've a theory that one reason Brexit won is that the polls beforehand saying it would be a narrow 'no', gave 'permission' for people to vote with their conscience rather than their pragmatism. In other words, presented with a 'pragmatic, but dirty' vote for X, but a 'fun, but risky' vote for Y', people will vote X if its very close or it looks like Y will win, but may be tempted to vote Y if they are pretty sure X will win.

    Part of me thinks the Clinton campaign would have tested the theory to the limit before going for a strategy like this, but the evidence from the nomination campaign is that they are all tactics, no strategy. It seems to me to be a very risky game to play, not least because promoting Clinton as a sure winner may make wavering progressives simply opt to stay at home.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    I don't even think you have to be a progressive for that to be a concern if you are the Clinton campaign.
    They know the public is not enthusiastic about voting for her for the most part, and yet they are setting up a meme where she is unbeatable. It isn't necessarily going to just keep Trump voters home. But how many people who don't want Clinton but really don't want Trump will be able to convince themselves that there is no need to go hold their nose and vote for her. Republicans who think she is too far left, but he is crazy for instance will be just as likely to stay home as the lefties who know she is lying Neoliberal War Criminal, but not fascist like Trump. (And I know the real fascism signs are all with Clinton, but some may have missed it).

    jsn , August 26, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    On fascism I had the exact same thought after reading Adolph Reeds "Vote For the Lying, NeoLiberal War-Monger, It's Important" link last week.

    Reed's critique was that communist leader Thallman failed to anticipate Hitler's liquidation of all opposition, but frankly with Hillary's and Donald's respective histories its hard for me to see how Trump is more dangerous on this: Hillary has a deep and proven lethal track record and wherever she could justify violent action in the past she has, she keeps an enemies list, holds grudges and acts on them, all thoroughly documented.

    I certainly won't speculate that Trump couldn't do the same or worse, given the state of our propaganda and lawlessness amongst the elite, but like all the other negatives in this campaign its hard to ascertain who really will be worse. Lambert's bet on gridlock in a Trump administration has the further advantage of re-activating the simulation of "anti-war, anti-violence" amongst Dem nomenklatura.

    pretzelattack , August 26, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    exactly, i'm not saying reed is a typical democrat apologist, but i'm not buying that trump is more dangerous than clinton.

    clarky90 , August 26, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    We have collectively known Donald Trump and much of his family for the last 30 or 40 years. Over the years, he has evoked different emotions in me. (Usually being appalled by his big-city, realestate tycoon posturing etc). However, I have never been frightened by him. To me, he is more like a bombastic, well loved, show-off uncle.

    Today I see Trump as a modern day prophet (spiritual teacher). A bringer of light (clarity) to the masses. We live in a rigged system that gives Nobel Peace Prizes to mass murderers; that charges a poor child $600 for a $1 lifesaving Epipen. Trump is waking up The People. Finalllyyyyyy!!

    clarky90 , August 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    In my experience, people usually do not change for the better as they age. However, it does happen!; peasant girl (Joan of Arc), patent inspector (Einstein)

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Maybe Trump is the Claudius of our time…..

    …now, as to whom are the Pretorians…..??

    Elizabeth Burton , August 26, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    It's not about what Trump will or won't do. It's about not handing all three branches of government over to the GOP, which has the Libertarian agenda of eliminating said government altogether. I find it interesting that so many people scornful of identity politics nevertheless seem to be as addicted as anyone to making this a horse race between two candidates that has no real far-reaching consequences beyond with each will or won't do in the Oval Office.

    aab , August 27, 2016 at 1:15 am

    The Republican elite is clearly and strongly aligned with Clinton, which reflects the status quo consensus.

    It is certainly possible that the elected Republicans in the House and the Senate will follow Trump or Trump will follow them. But right now, that seems no more possible than that elected Republican leadership (the ones most indebted to and aligned with the donors/rest of the elite) will rebel at Trump and his takeover of the party. Moreover, IF Trump's in, the Democrats will be forced to enact the roll of "Democrat," thus guaranteeing some obstacle somewhere.

    Clinton is a Republican. Claiming she won't govern like a Republican basically means relying on the Freedom Caucus to stop her. I would just as soon not have to count on those guys to keep throwing poop at the neoliberal walls - especially since they're all being directly targeted in this election.

    Brindle , August 26, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    So true: "My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters to "go with the winner."–Lambert
    I have noticed on Google News several "Clinton weighing cabinet choices" articles, to me there is whistling past the graveyard quality to all this. They want the election over now-the votes are just a formality.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    They really really do not have any short term memory do they? I mean it took sticking both thumbs on the scale and some handy dandy shenanigans with voters to get her past the Primary finish line. And her opponent there was much nicer about pointing out her flaws than her current opponent. It is true they won't have any obvious elections that disprove their position out there, but when you are spending millions and your opponent nothing and he is still within the margin of error with you in the states that people are watching the closest…

    Although that isn't considering the fears of what other shoes have to drop both in the world and in the news that could derail her victory parade, they may have more to fear from that.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    It's possible they know.

    One of the problems Democrats have and the 50 state strategy addressed is voting in very Democratic precincts. Without constant pressure, many proud Democrats won't vote because they don't know any Republicans. It's in the bag. College kids are the worst voters alive. They will forget come election day or not be registered because they moved. Dean squeezed these districts. These districts are where Democrats , out in 2010 and 2014 and even a little in 2012. Mittens is a robber baron.

    If Democratic turnout is low and Hillary wins with crossover votes, what happens? It's very likely those Republicans vote for down ticket Republicans. Even for the people who have to vote against Trump, if they believe he is a special kind of super fascist will they bother to vote for the allies of a crook such as Hillary? It's possible Hillary wins and drops a seat in the Senate depending on turnout.

    I think it's clear Hillary isn't going to bring out any kind of voter activism. Judging from photos in Virginia where one would hope a commanding Hillary victory could jump start the Democrats for next year's governors and legislative races, the Democratic Party is dead or very close to it.

    What if Hillary wins but does the unthinkable and delivers a Republican pickup in the Senate? She needs to keep Republicans from coming out because she isn't going to drive Democratic turnout to a spot where that can win on its own.

    Hillary needs to win to keep the never Trump crowd in the GOP from voting because she knows the Democratic side which relies on very Democratic districts and transient voters will not impress. An emboldened GOP congress will be a tough environment for Hillary, and GOP voters won't tolerate bipartisanship especially for anyone suspected of not helping the party 100%. Those House Republicans have to face 2018 and the smaller but arguably more motivated electorate. They will come down hard on Hillary if she can't win the Senate which a literal donkey could do.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    Hell I don't want Clinton to win by any margin. But if anyone thinks that the bipartisan nature of her possible victory will mean anything but Republicans hunting her scalp, and dare I say getting it, they are not paying attention. As much as both the Benghazi and the email thing has them all flummoxed because the real crimes involved with both are crimes they either agree with or want to use. The Foundation on the other hand, not so much, they will make the case that this is a global slush fund because it is. And the McDonnell decision is not going to save her Presidency, much as it would if she were indicted in a Court.

    I should add, that is with or without winning the Senate. Much of the loyalty any Dems there have towards her will disappear when it is obvious that she keeps most of the money AND has no coattails. Oh, they might not vote to impeach her, but that is about it.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    Hillary's only defense is to win the Senate and to be able to stifle investigations through the appearance of a mandate. 2018 is the 2012 cycle, and that is 2006 which should be a good year for the Republicans (a credit to Howard Dean). It's a tough map for Team Blue. If they don't win the Senate in November, they won't win it in 2018.

    With 2018 on its way, a weak Democratic situation will make the Democrats very jumpy as Hillary is clearly not delivering the coattails they imagined.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    She isn't going to have a mandate. Oh, the electoral college count might look good. But regardless of who wins this sucker, I'm betting this is going to be one of the lowest, if not the lowest, voter turnout for any Presidential election in the last century. I would not be surpised if more people stay home than vote. And that is not a mandate.

    The Senate isn't going to stifle investigations. She doesn't even have to help the Dems get a majority for that problem of conviction if impeached to rear its ugly head. No way is there going to be 2/3 of the Senate in one party or the other. That still won't stop the House. Just as it didn't for her husband.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Clinton gets first classified national security briefing

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's presidential campaign had seized on the news of Clinton's briefing to label her an "insider threat." The Trump campaign emailed reporters to point out the news that an Army training presentation previously identified Clinton as a threat ..."
    Washington Examiner
    Trump's presidential campaign had seized on the news of Clinton's briefing to label her an "insider threat." The Trump campaign emailed reporters to point out the news that an Army training presentation previously identified Clinton as a threat, as the Washington Examiner previously reported.

    Clinton was investigated by the FBI for mishandling classified information that appeared on a private email server she had set up, but agency chief James Comey decided not to recommend charges.

    [Aug 27, 2016] The More the Establishment Freaks Out Over Trump, the More Attractive He Becomes

    Aug 10, 2016 | Of Two Minds

    Trump is attractive precisely because the Establishment fears and loathes him because 1) they didn't pick him and 2) he might upset the neoconservative Empire that the Establishment elites view as their global entitlement.

    The Establishment is freaking out about Donald Trump for one reason: they didn't pick him. The Establishment is freaking out because the natural order of things is that we pick the presidential candidates and we run the country to serve ourselves, i.e. the financial-political elites.

    Donald Trump's candidacy upsets this neofeudal natural order, and thus he (and everyone who supports him) is anathema to the Establishment, heretics who must be silenced, cowed, marginalized, mocked and ultimately put back in their place as subservient debt-serfs.

    ... ... ...

    The utter cluelessness of the professional apologists and punditry would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic: the more you fume and rage that Trump is unqualified, narcissistic, singularly inappropriate, etc. etc. etc., the more appealing he becomes to everyone who isn't inside the protective walls of your neofeudal castle.

    The people outside the cozy walls of the protected elites don't care if he is unqualified (by the standards of those who get to pick our presidents for us) narcissistic, singularly inappropriate, and so on--they are cheering him on because you, the multitudes of water-carriers for the Imperial elites, the teeming hordes of well-paid, I-got-mine-so-shut-the-heck-up pundits, flacks, hacks, sycophants, apparatchiks, toadies, lackeys, functionaries, leeches and apologists, are so visibly afraid that your perks, wealth, influence and power might drain away if the 80% actually get a say.

    Dear pundits, flacks, hacks, sycophants, apparatchiks, toadies, lackeys, functionaries, leeches and apologists: we're sick of you, every one of you, and the neofeudal Empire you support. We want you cashiered, pushed outside the walls with the rest of us, scraping by on well-earned and richly deserved unemployment.

    [Aug 27, 2016] The history of the last forty five years of senior economic advisors to U.S. Presidents seems mostly a competition to see who could piss on Great Society and New Deal remedies in favor of market-based incentives fast enough.

    Notable quotes:
    "... from my perspective the history of the last forty five years of senior economic advisors to U.S. Presidents seems mostly a competition to see who could piss on Great Society and New Deal remedies in favor of "market-based incentives" fast enough. ..."
    "... This bunch has taken our economy and so our country from its position in 1976 to its position in 2016. If you have been among the educated 20% you have benefited from their policy prescriptions over the past 40 years. The rest not so much. This kind of WSJ establishment worship does not travel well outside of NYC, DC, SF, LA, and Boston. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Economist's View

    Bruce Webb : August 25, 2016 at 06:45 PM , August 25, 2016 at 06:45 PM

    "Economists Who've Advised Presidents Are No Fans of Donald Trump"

    Okay I am a guy that wouldn't piss on Trump if he was on fire but this lead gets a little too close to "Praising with Faint Damns" for my taste. I mean who on this list is supposed to impress?

    Okay Stiglitz. And I think Christine Romer had a medium level role as did maybe her husband. But from my perspective the history of the last forty five years of senior economic advisors to U.S. Presidents seems mostly a competition to see who could piss on Great Society and New Deal remedies in favor of "market-based incentives" fast enough.

    I am not saying that this unanimity doesn't mean something important. Just that as phrased we are talking kind of a low bar.

    mrrunangun : , -1
    This bunch has taken our economy and so our country from its position in 1976 to its position in 2016. If you have been among the educated 20% you have benefited from their policy prescriptions over the past 40 years. The rest not so much. This kind of WSJ establishment worship does not travel well outside of NYC, DC, SF, LA, and Boston.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Polls as an instrumnet to influence the elections

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Donald Trump now needs a swing of only 3 to 4 percentage points in key battleground states to win this election" [ MarketWatch ]. "according to a new poll in Michigan, one of the key states in play, as well as the latest polls in other key states… Meanwhile, Trump faces even smaller deficits in other key battleground states. According to the polling averages calculated by Real Clear Politics, Trump trails by just 5 points in Ohio, 4 points in Florida and 2 points in North Carolina. Recent polls have also put him level with Clinton in Nevada and Iowa." Lambert here: My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters to "go with the winner."

    Our Revolution: "The senator hailed as a major accomplishment his delegates' work crafting what he called the "strongest and most progressive" platform in the Democratic Party's history. And he vowed to implement many of its planks" [ Seven Days ]. Sanders: "'If anybody thinks that that document and what is in that platform is simply going to be resting on a shelf somewhere accumulating dust, they are very mistaken,' he said. 'We are going to bring the platform alive and make it the blueprint for moving the Democrats forward in Congress and all across this country." So, more than "values." However, where there's less to hate in the Dem platform than usual, it's hardly adequate for the challenges facing the country. Now, if the operational definition of "bring the platform alive" means "incorporate all the Sanders planks the Dem establishment voted down," I'd be a lot happier. I haven't heard that yet.

    UPDATE From the Benjamin Dixon show:

    Previous Dixon interview with Reed here (just for anybody who thinks Reed is a Clinton Democrat).

    [Aug 27, 2016] Hillary Clinton The Neocon in Democrats Clothing

    Notable quotes:
    "... Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing. He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures. She used the terrible expression "superpredators," supported the crime bill and made a hash of health insurance reform . Liza Featherstone talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism , and she links her critique to class themes, which is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the rights of all women. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she sided with the rich and powerful , which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street. ..."
    "... On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died," she said and laughed loudly. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism. ..."
    "... Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations in general should exist at a much-reduced level. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive talk, but never really walked the progressive walk. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died" Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel or erase. ..."
    "... the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other to dismantle the New Deal ..."
    "... GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency ..."
    "... The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type. ..."
    "... She is a pro-business, Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the " Queen of Chaos ." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism ..."
    "... Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book, Dark Money ) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote for Hillary this time around. ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    ...Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing.

    Many authors have quoted a sentence by Bill Clinton:

    We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?

    Eisenhower Republicans were, by today's standards, quite moderate. The quote refers to the 1990s, and already Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing. He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. And he was so "tough on crime" that during the 1992 presidential campaign season, he had gone back to his home state of Arkansas to witness the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, who was "mentally deficient." Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas.

    As we all know, Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures. She used the terrible expression "superpredators," supported the crime bill and made a hash of health insurance reform. Liza Featherstone talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism, and she links her critique to class themes, which is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the rights of all women.

    Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she sided with the rich and powerful, which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street. The really important question is how someone who has constantly sided with the rich can campaign as a progressive, as a friend of people of color and even as a feminist? Michelle Alexander exposed the hypocrisy of the situation in arguing that "Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve the black vote."

    On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died," she said and laughed loudly. This cruel statement does not take into account the mess and mayhem left behind after the intervention, something President Obama calls a "shit show" and his worst mistake. But it is the companion piece to her major fellow elite "feminist" Madeleine Albright declaring that killing half a million Iraqis is worth it.

    Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism.

    ... ... ...

    Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations in general should exist at a much-reduced level. In his book Listen, Liberal, Thomas Frank tells the story of a Clinton convention meeting he attended and what he witnessed was Hillary Clinton as "Ms. Walmart," pretending she cares about all women. Frank, who is genuinely worried about rising inequality in the United States and racial justice, suggests that elite feminism is worried about the glass ceiling for CEOs, but does not even worry about working-class women who have "no floors" under them. Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive talk, but never really walked the progressive walk.

    It would indeed be a symbolic change if the US elected a woman president, but for the symbol not to be empty, something more is needed. If a woman president does not improve the lot of the majority of women, then what is the good of a symbol?

    Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died" Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel or erase.

    ...the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society programs that Democrats had set up. Noam Chomsky argues that the GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency, for it has gone off the political cliff. The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type.

    So Hillary Clinton, the Republican, is poised to win in November, but her Republicanism is closer to George W. Bush's and even more conservative than Ronald Reagan's -- except on the societal issues that have now reached a kind of quasi-consensus like same-sex marriage. She is a pro-business, Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the "Queen of Chaos." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism, whose election will be made easier by her loutish, vulgar, sexist loudmouth of an opponent.

    In his book The Deep State, Mike Lofgren quotes H.L. Mencken, who gave away what explains the success of the political circus: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

    George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives were past masters at this creation of hobgoblins, but now Hillary Clinton, the opportunist, can outdo them and out-Republicanize them. I think Ike would not like her; she might now be even more reactionary than Goldwater. Indeed, Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book, Dark Money) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote for Hillary this time around.

    ... ... ...

    Pierre Guerlain is a professor of American studies at Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre, France.

    [Aug 26, 2016] How Think Tanks Generate Endless War by Todd E. Pierce

    Hillary election means new wars and death of the US servicemen/servicewomen. So Khan gambit is much more dangerous that it looks as it implicitly promoted militarism and endless "permanent war for permanent peace".
    Notable quotes:
    "... Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks. ..."
    "... There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover. ..."
    "... Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well. ..."
    "... Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically. ..."
    "... The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: " Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better. " ..."
    "... So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations. ..."
    "... Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States. ..."
    "... As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy. ..."
    "... That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. ..."
    Aug 21, 2016 | Defend Democracy Press

    U.S. "think tanks" rile up the American public against an ever-shifting roster of foreign "enemies" to justify wars which line the pockets of military contractors who kick back some profits to the "think tanks," explains retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.

    The New York Times took notice recently of the role that so-called "think tanks" play in corrupting U.S. government policy. Their review of think tanks "identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy."

    Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, while the Times investigation demonstrates well that the U.S. is even more corrupt – albeit the corruption is better disguised – than the many foreign countries which we routinely accuse of corruption, the Times failed to identify the most egregious form of corruption in our system. That is, those think tanks are constantly engaged in the sort of activities which the Defense Department identifies as "Information War" when conducted by foreign countries that are designated by the U.S. as an enemy at any given moment.

    Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks.

    There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover.

    Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well.

    The measure of success from such a disinformation and propaganda effort can be seen when the narrative is adopted by secondary communicators who are perhaps the most important target audience. That is because they are "key communicators" in PsyOp terms, who in turn become provocateurs in propagating the false narrative even more broadly and to its own audiences, and becoming "combat multipliers" in military terms.

    It is readily apparent now that Russia has taken its place as the primary target within U.S. sights. One doesn't have to see the U.S. military buildup on Russia's borders to understand that but only see the propaganda themes of our "think tanks."

    The Role of Rand

    A prime example of an act of waging information war to incite actual military attack is the Rand Corporation, which, incidentally, published a guide to information war and the need to condition the U.S. population for war back in the 1990s.

    A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union. A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

    Rand was founded by, among others, the war enthusiast, Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who was the model for the character of Gen. Buck Turgidson in the movie "Dr. Strangelove." LeMay once stated that he would not be afraid to start a nuclear war with Russia and that spirit would seem to be alive and well at Rand today as they project on to Vladimir Putin our own eagerness for inciting a war.

    The particular act of information warfare by Rand is shown in a recent Rand article: "How to Counter Putin's Subversive War on the West." The title suggests by its presupposition that Putin is acting in the offensive form of war rather than the defensive form of war. But it is plain to see he is in the defensive form of war when one looks at the numerous provocations and acts of aggression carried out by American officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and General Philip Breedlove, and the U.S. and NATO military buildup on Russia's borders.

    Within this Rand article however can be found no better example of psychological projection than this propagandistic pablum that too many commentators, some witless, some not, will predictably repeat:

    "Moscow's provocative active measures cause foreign investors and international lenders to see higher risks in doing business with Russia. Iran is learning a similar, painful lesson as it persists with harsh anti-Western policies even as nuclear-related sanctions fade. Russia will decide its own priorities. But it should not be surprised if disregard for others' interests diminishes the international regard it seeks as an influential great power."

    In fact, an objective, dispassionate observation of U.S./Russian policies would show it has been the U.S. carrying out these "provocative active measures" as the instigator, not Russia.

    Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically.

    The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: "Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better."

    It begins: "The risk of outright conflict in Europe is higher than it has been for years and the confrontation between Russia and the West shows no sign of ending. To prevent misunderstandings and dangerous incidents, the two sides must improve their methods of communication."

    Unfortunately, that is now true. But the article's author suggests throughout that each party, Russia and the U.S./NATO, had an equal hand in the deterioration of relations. He wrote: "The West needs to acknowledge that the standoff with Russia is not merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," as if Western officials don't already know that that accusation was only a propaganda theme for their own populations to cover up the West's aggressiveness.

    Blaming Russia

    So Americans, such as myself, must acknowledge and confront that the standoff with Russia is not only not "merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," but it is rather, that the U.S. is "turning authoritarian, nationalistic," and even more "assertive," i.e., aggressive, toward the world.

    Suz Tzu wrote that a "sovereign" must know oneself and the enemy. In the case of the U.S. sovereign, the people and their elected, so-called representatives, there is probably no "sovereign" in human history more lacking in self-awareness of their own nation's behavior toward other nations.

    So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations.

    When that then generates a response from some nation with a tin-pot military relative to our own, with ours paid for by the privileged financial position we've put ourselves into post-WWII, our politicians urgently call for even more military spending from the American people to support even more aggression, all in the guise of "national defense."

    Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States.

    The Presidential Policy Guidance "establishes the standard operating procedures for when the United States takes direct action, which refers to lethal and non-lethal uses of force, including capture operations against terrorist targets outside the United States and areas of active hostilities."

    What other nation, besides Israel probably, has a governmental "Regulation" providing for assassinations outside "areas of active hostilities?"

    It should readily be evident that it is the U.S. now carrying out the vast majority of provocative active measures and has the disregard for others complained of here. At least for the moment, however, the U.S. can still hide much of its aggression using the vast financial resources provided by the American people to the Defense Department to produce sophisticated propaganda and to bribe foreign officials with foreign aid to look the other way from U.S. provocations.

    It is ironic that today, one can learn more about the U.S. military and foreign policy from the Rand Corporation only by reading at least one of its historical documents, "The Operational Code of the Politburo." This is described as "part of a major effort at RAND to provide insight into the political leadership and foreign policy in the Soviet Union and other communist states; the development of Soviet military strategy and doctrine."

    As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy.

    That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. That this U.S. MIC would turn against its own people, the American public, by waging perpetual information war against this domestic target just to enrich their investors, might have been even more than Eisenhower could imagine however.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. [This article first appeared at http://original.antiwar.com/Todd_Pierce/2016/08/14/inciting-wars-american-way/]

    See also

    [Aug 26, 2016] Trump, Russia, and the Washington Post Reader Beware by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... an article loaded with innuendo has appeared on the front page of a major U.S. newspaper, located in Washington, DC, stating that Russia is engaged in widespread subversion in Europe and is trying to do the same on behalf of Donald Trump in the United States. But the evidence presented in the story does not support what is being suggested, and spreading tales about foreign-government misbehavior can have unintended consequences. It is particularly shortsighted and even dangerous in this case, as a stable relationship with a nuclear-armed and militarily very capable Moscow should rightly be regarded as critical. ..."
    "... It is almost as if some journalists believe that deliberately damaging relations with Russia is a price worth paying to embarrass and defeat Trump. If that is so, they are delusional. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | The American Conservative

    But there is a certain danger inherent in the media's slanting its coverage to such an extent as to be making the news rather than just reporting it. And when it comes to Russia, the way the stories are reported becomes critically important, as there is a real risk that media hostility toward Putin, even if deployed as a way to get at Trump, could produce a conflict no one actually wants-just as the Hearst and Pulitzer newspapers' yellow journalism, rife with "melodrama, romance, and hyperbole," more or less brought about the Spanish-American War.

    ... ... ...

    So an article loaded with innuendo has appeared on the front page of a major U.S. newspaper, located in Washington, DC, stating that Russia is engaged in widespread subversion in Europe and is trying to do the same on behalf of Donald Trump in the United States. But the evidence presented in the story does not support what is being suggested, and spreading tales about foreign-government misbehavior can have unintended consequences. It is particularly shortsighted and even dangerous in this case, as a stable relationship with a nuclear-armed and militarily very capable Moscow should rightly be regarded as critical.

    It is almost as if some journalists believe that deliberately damaging relations with Russia is a price worth paying to embarrass and defeat Trump. If that is so, they are delusional.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Aug 26, 2016] Lots of Smoke Here, Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... If Hillary Clinton wins, within a year of her inauguration, she will be under investigation by a special prosecutor on charges of political corruption, thereby continuing a family tradition. ..."
    "... Of 154 outsiders whom Clinton phoned or met with in her first two years at State, 85 had made contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and their contributions, taken together, totaled $156 million. ..."
    "... Conclusion: access to Secretary of State Clinton could be bought, but it was not cheap. Forty of the 85 donors gave $100,000 or more. Twenty of those whom Clinton met with or phoned dumped in $1 million or more. ..."
    "... On his last day in office, January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton issued a presidential pardon to financier-crook and fugitive from justice Marc Rich, whose wife, Denise, had contributed $450,000 to the Clinton Library. ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Prediction: If Hillary Clinton wins, within a year of her inauguration, she will be under investigation by a special prosecutor on charges of political corruption, thereby continuing a family tradition.

    ... ... ...

    Of 154 outsiders whom Clinton phoned or met with in her first two years at State, 85 had made contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and their contributions, taken together, totaled $156 million.

    Conclusion: access to Secretary of State Clinton could be bought, but it was not cheap. Forty of the 85 donors gave $100,000 or more. Twenty of those whom Clinton met with or phoned dumped in $1 million or more.

    To get to the seventh floor of the Clinton State Department for a hearing for one's plea, the cover charge was high. Among those who got face time with Hillary Clinton were a Ukrainian oligarch and steel magnate who shipped oil pipe to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions and a Bangladeshi economist who was under investigation by his government and was eventually pressured to leave his own bank.

    The stench is familiar, and all too Clintonian in character.

    Recall. On his last day in office, January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton issued a presidential pardon to financier-crook and fugitive from justice Marc Rich, whose wife, Denise, had contributed $450,000 to the Clinton Library.

    The Clintons appear belatedly to have recognized their political peril.

    Bill has promised that, if Hillary is elected, he will end his big-dog days at the foundation and stop taking checks from foreign regimes and entities, and corporate donors. Cash contributions from wealthy Americans will still be gratefully accepted.

    One wonders: will Bill be writing thank-you notes for the millions that will roll in to the family foundation-on White House stationery?

    [Aug 26, 2016] Bernie Sanders and the Clintonite Neoliberal Consensus

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Clinton approach from hereon in is one of masquerade: appropriate the Bernie Sanders aura, give the impression that the party has somehow miraculously moved leftward, and snap up a stash of votes come November. ..."
    "... clinging to the fiction that the Clintons are somehow progressive. This ignores the fundamental fact that Bill Clinton, during his presidential tenure through the 1990s, made parts of the GOP strategy plan relatively progressive by way of comparison. Stunned by this embrace of hard right ideas, the Republicans would be kept out of the White House till 2000. ..."
    www.globalresearch.ca
    The reality is that millions were readying themselves to vote for him come November precisely because he was Sanders, meshed with the ideas of basic social democracy. He betrayed them.

    The Clinton approach from hereon in is one of masquerade: appropriate the Bernie Sanders aura, give the impression that the party has somehow miraculously moved leftward, and snap up a stash of votes come November.

    The approach of the Republicans will be self-defeating, clinging to the fiction that the Clintons are somehow progressive. This ignores the fundamental fact that Bill Clinton, during his presidential tenure through the 1990s, made parts of the GOP strategy plan relatively progressive by way of comparison. Stunned by this embrace of hard right ideas, the Republicans would be kept out of the White House till 2000.

    Be wary of any language of change that is merely the language of promise. Keep in mind that US politics remains a "binary" choice, an effective non-choice bankrolled by financial power.

    [Aug 26, 2016] Bernie Sanders' Dubious "Our Revolution" Initiative. Fake Leftist "Big Money Politics" by Stephen Lendman" href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/stephen-lendman">Stephen Lendman

    Notable quotes:
    "... He's no more a progressive revolutionary than any other member of Congress, nor Washington's bipartisan criminal class, bureaucrats included – Sanders a card-carrying member throughout his deplorable political career. ..."
    "... A major concern is the group's tax status as a 501(c)(4) organization able to get large donations from anonymous sources – meaning the usual ones buying influence, letting Sanders pretend to be progressive and revolutionary while operating otherwise. ..."
    "... Claire Sandberg was the initiative's organizing director. "I left and others left because we were alarmed that Jeff (Weaver) would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign," she explained. ..."
    "... She fears Weaver will "betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grassroots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement." ..."
    "... Vermont GOP vice chairman Brady Toensing blasted Sanders for "preach(ing) transparency and then tr(ying) to set up the most shadowy of shadowy fund-raising organization to support" what he claims to endorse. ..."
    "... Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
    "... His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." ..."
    "... http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html ..."
    "... Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com . ..."
    "... Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | Global Research -

    He's no more a progressive revolutionary than any other member of Congress, nor Washington's bipartisan criminal class, bureaucrats included – Sanders a card-carrying member throughout his deplorable political career.

    Endorsing Hillary Clinton after rhetorically campaigning against what she represents exposed his duplicity – a progressive in name only. An opportunist for his own self-interest, he wants his extended 15 minutes of fame made more long-lasting.

    Claiming his new initiative "will fight to transform America and advance the progressive agenda (he) believe(s) in" belies his deplorable House and Senate voting records, on the wrong side of most major issues, especially supporting most US wars of aggression.

    A separate Sanders Institute intends operating like his Our Revolution initiative. Maybe his real aim is cashing in on his high-profile persona – including a new book due out in mid-November titled "Our Revolution: A Future To Believe In."

    Save your money. Its contents are clear without reading it – the same mumbo jumbo he used while campaigning.

    It excludes his deplorable history of promising one thing, doing another, going along with Washington scoundrels like Hillary to get along, betraying his loyal supporters – the real Sanders he wants concealed.

    On August 24, The New York Times said his Our Revolution initiative "has been met with criticism and controversy over its financing and management."

    It's "draw(ing) from the same pool of 'dark money' (he) condemned" while campaigning. After his former campaign manager Jeff Weaver was hired to lead the group, "the majority of its staff resigned," said The Times – described as "eight core staff members…"

    "The group's entire organizing department quit this week, along with people working in digital and data positions." They refused to reconsider after Sanders urged them to stay on.

    A major concern is the group's tax status as a 501(c)(4) organization able to get large donations from anonymous sources – meaning the usual ones buying influence, letting Sanders pretend to be progressive and revolutionary while operating otherwise.

    Claire Sandberg was the initiative's organizing director. "I left and others left because we were alarmed that Jeff (Weaver) would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign," she explained.

    She fears Weaver will "betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grassroots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement."

    Vermont GOP vice chairman Brady Toensing blasted Sanders for "preach(ing) transparency and then tr(ying) to set up the most shadowy of shadowy fund-raising organization to support" what he claims to endorse.

    "What I'm seeing here is a senator who is against big money in politics, but only when" it applies to others, not himself, Toensing added.

    Campaign Legal Center's Paul S. Ryan said "(t)here are definitely some red flags with respect to the formation of this group…We're in a murky area."

    Is Sanders' real aim self-promotion and enrichment? Is his Our Revolution more a scheme than an honest initiative?

    Is it sort of like the Clinton Foundation, Sanders wanting to grab all he can – only much less able to match the kind of super-wealth Bill and Hillary amassed?

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

    His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

    http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

    Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

    Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

    [Aug 26, 2016] No, Donald Trump, America Isn't a Hellhole

    economistsview.typepad.com
    Chris G Friday, August 26, 2016 at 03:28 PM
    > No, Donald Trump, America Isn't a Hellhole

    But if we roll up our sleeves and get to work we can turn it into one!

    What does it say about our country that The Onion accurately foresees the future?

    http://www.theonion.com/article/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros-464

    http://www.theonion.com/video/after-obama-victory-shrieking-white-hot-sphere-of--30284

    anne said in reply to Chris G
    Wildly funny:

    http://www.theonion.com/video/after-obama-victory-shrieking-white-hot-sphere-of--30284

    After Obama Victory, Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage Early GOP Front-Runner For 2016

    Sources say the screaming orb might be the only potential candidate that would tap into Republicans' deep-seated, seething fury after this election. Friday, August 26, 2016 at 03:49 PM

    ilsm said in reply to Chris G
    Obama certainly did nothing to put US into the nightmare of peace and prosperity, while Killary will threw the US into perpetual war with bigger adversaries than Sunni goatherds.

    What are US "agents" doing on the ground in Syria?

    [Aug 26, 2016] Watchdogs warn of serious conflicts of interest for Clinton Foundation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Her dismal trustworthiness ratings strongly suggest the people want to see stricter ethical standards from her. She ignores that at her own peril ..."
    "... the Clinton Foundation (private) was selling access to the Secretary of State (public). ..."
    "... That's called influence peddling, and if you follow Zephyr Teachout on corruption (and not the majority in Citizens United ) that's a textbook case of corruption. The Clinton Foundation enables as capital in the form of wealth to be converted into social capital in the form of access (and reputation laundering). Which is how the Beltway works, and how an oligarchy works. As we have seen, liberals accept this completely, as do conservatives, although the left does not. ..."
    "... On the AP story about the Clinton Foundation, the State Department refused AP access to all visitor logs. Then Clinton campaign surrogates complained that AP based its story on incomplete visitor logs. And so it goes in HillaryLand [ The Intercept ]. Lots more detail in this story, well worth a read. ..."
    naked capitalism
    Corruption

    "Watchdogs warn of 'serious' conflicts of interest for Clinton Foundation" [The Hill]. "Chelsea Clinton's role on the board will only perpetuate the 'pay to play' perceptions and accusations, the watchdogs said. 'As long as the Clinton Foundation is tied to the family,' [Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen] said, 'very wealthy' people and special interests 'will try to find a way to throw money at the feet' of the Clinton family. And if Chelsea Clinton remains on the board - especially if she retains a fundraising roll - 'she would be the avenue.'" This is so wrong. How else is Chelsea supposed to raise money for her Senate run? Answer me that!

    UPDATE "Chelsea Clinton would remain on the board of her family's foundation even if her mother is elected president, a spokeswoman said Thursday" [AP].

    "Hillary Clinton said Friday the charitable programs of her family foundation would continue, perhaps through partnerships with other organizations, if she's elected president, even as critics argue that would present a conflict of interest" [AP]. Because everybody knows Middle East Wahhabists are totes on board with funding programs for women and girls.

    "Editorial: Clintons should end ties to charity " [Charlotte Observer]. "[Clinton] seems not to recognize that while a good lawyer focuses on what the law allows, a good politician focuses on what the people want. Her dismal trustworthiness ratings strongly suggest the people want to see stricter ethical standards from her. She ignores that at her own peril."

    UPDATE "The key to understanding why good government advocates are upset about the new revelations is to first get past the argument that Clinton Foundation donors were transactionally rewarded for their gifts" [Vox]. "This is not what my sources argued. Instead, the heart of their complaint was that the foundation's contributors appear to have gained a greater ability to make their voices heard by Clinton's State Department by virtue of donating to her husband's private foundation."

    In other words, the Clinton Foundation (private) was selling access to the Secretary of State (public).

    That's called influence peddling, and if you follow Zephyr Teachout on corruption (and not the majority in Citizens United) that's a textbook case of corruption. The Clinton Foundation enables as capital in the form of wealth to be converted into social capital in the form of access (and reputation laundering). Which is how the Beltway works, and how an oligarchy works. As we have seen, liberals accept this completely, as do conservatives, although the left does not.

    "Democrats embrace the logic of 'Citizens United'" [Lawrence Lessig, WaPo]. 2015, even more true today. See also Sirota from 2015.

    UPDATE What liberals and Democrats used to believe, before the giant sucking pit of need that is the Clinton campaign made them lose their minds [image of tiny little hands waving, faint screams, as they circle downward in the vortex]. The dissenting opinion from Citizens United: (Twitter)

    Justice Stevens' dissent in Citizens United (via @ggreenwald ) shreds the central argument of Hillary's defenders

    On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress' legitimate interest in preventing the money that is spent on elections from exerting an "'undue influence on an officeholder's judgment"' and from creating "4he appearance of such influence,"' beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships. Id., at 150; see also. e.g., id., at 143-144. 152-154; Colorado II, 533 U. S.. at 441; Shrink Missouri. 528 U. S., at 389. Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf.

    Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences docs not accord with the theory or reality of politics. It certainly does not accord with the record Congress developed in passing BCRA. a record that stands as a remarkable testament to the energy and ingenuity with which corporations, unions, lobbyists, and politicians may go about scratching each other's backs - and which amply supported Congress' determination to target a limited set of especially destructive

    UPDATE From The Blogger Formerly KnownAs Who Is IOZ?

    On the AP story about the Clinton Foundation, the State Department refused AP access to all visitor logs. Then Clinton campaign surrogates complained that AP based its story on incomplete visitor logs. And so it goes in HillaryLand [The Intercept]. Lots more detail in this story, well worth a read.

    UPDATE "Clinton Foundation Investigation Update: Key Details About Financial And Political Dealings" [David Sirota, International Business Times]. Good wrap-up from Sirota, who's been all over this.

    UPDATE "On the campaign trial, Clinton is using a private airplane owned by a Wall Street banker and donor to get to fund-raisers this week on the West Coast" [New York Post]. How cozy.

    [Aug 26, 2016] How Think Tanks Generate Endless War by Todd E. Pierce

    Hillary election means new wars and death of the US servicemen/servicewomen. So Khan gambit is much more dangerous that it looks as it implicitly promoted militarism and endless "permanent war for permanent peace".
    Notable quotes:
    "... Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks. ..."
    "... There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover. ..."
    "... Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well. ..."
    "... Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically. ..."
    "... The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: " Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better. " ..."
    "... So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations. ..."
    "... Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States. ..."
    "... As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy. ..."
    "... That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. ..."
    Aug 21, 2016 | Defend Democracy Press

    U.S. "think tanks" rile up the American public against an ever-shifting roster of foreign "enemies" to justify wars which line the pockets of military contractors who kick back some profits to the "think tanks," explains retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.

    The New York Times took notice recently of the role that so-called "think tanks" play in corrupting U.S. government policy. Their review of think tanks "identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy."

    Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, while the Times investigation demonstrates well that the U.S. is even more corrupt – albeit the corruption is better disguised – than the many foreign countries which we routinely accuse of corruption, the Times failed to identify the most egregious form of corruption in our system. That is, those think tanks are constantly engaged in the sort of activities which the Defense Department identifies as "Information War" when conducted by foreign countries that are designated by the U.S. as an enemy at any given moment.

    Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks.

    There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover.

    Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well.

    The measure of success from such a disinformation and propaganda effort can be seen when the narrative is adopted by secondary communicators who are perhaps the most important target audience. That is because they are "key communicators" in PsyOp terms, who in turn become provocateurs in propagating the false narrative even more broadly and to its own audiences, and becoming "combat multipliers" in military terms.

    It is readily apparent now that Russia has taken its place as the primary target within U.S. sights. One doesn't have to see the U.S. military buildup on Russia's borders to understand that but only see the propaganda themes of our "think tanks."

    The Role of Rand

    A prime example of an act of waging information war to incite actual military attack is the Rand Corporation, which, incidentally, published a guide to information war and the need to condition the U.S. population for war back in the 1990s.

    A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union. A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

    Rand was founded by, among others, the war enthusiast, Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who was the model for the character of Gen. Buck Turgidson in the movie "Dr. Strangelove." LeMay once stated that he would not be afraid to start a nuclear war with Russia and that spirit would seem to be alive and well at Rand today as they project on to Vladimir Putin our own eagerness for inciting a war.

    The particular act of information warfare by Rand is shown in a recent Rand article: "How to Counter Putin's Subversive War on the West." The title suggests by its presupposition that Putin is acting in the offensive form of war rather than the defensive form of war. But it is plain to see he is in the defensive form of war when one looks at the numerous provocations and acts of aggression carried out by American officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and General Philip Breedlove, and the U.S. and NATO military buildup on Russia's borders.

    Within this Rand article however can be found no better example of psychological projection than this propagandistic pablum that too many commentators, some witless, some not, will predictably repeat:

    "Moscow's provocative active measures cause foreign investors and international lenders to see higher risks in doing business with Russia. Iran is learning a similar, painful lesson as it persists with harsh anti-Western policies even as nuclear-related sanctions fade. Russia will decide its own priorities. But it should not be surprised if disregard for others' interests diminishes the international regard it seeks as an influential great power."

    In fact, an objective, dispassionate observation of U.S./Russian policies would show it has been the U.S. carrying out these "provocative active measures" as the instigator, not Russia.

    Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically.

    The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: "Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better."

    It begins: "The risk of outright conflict in Europe is higher than it has been for years and the confrontation between Russia and the West shows no sign of ending. To prevent misunderstandings and dangerous incidents, the two sides must improve their methods of communication."

    Unfortunately, that is now true. But the article's author suggests throughout that each party, Russia and the U.S./NATO, had an equal hand in the deterioration of relations. He wrote: "The West needs to acknowledge that the standoff with Russia is not merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," as if Western officials don't already know that that accusation was only a propaganda theme for their own populations to cover up the West's aggressiveness.

    Blaming Russia

    So Americans, such as myself, must acknowledge and confront that the standoff with Russia is not only not "merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," but it is rather, that the U.S. is "turning authoritarian, nationalistic," and even more "assertive," i.e., aggressive, toward the world.

    Suz Tzu wrote that a "sovereign" must know oneself and the enemy. In the case of the U.S. sovereign, the people and their elected, so-called representatives, there is probably no "sovereign" in human history more lacking in self-awareness of their own nation's behavior toward other nations.

    So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations.

    When that then generates a response from some nation with a tin-pot military relative to our own, with ours paid for by the privileged financial position we've put ourselves into post-WWII, our politicians urgently call for even more military spending from the American people to support even more aggression, all in the guise of "national defense."

    Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States.

    The Presidential Policy Guidance "establishes the standard operating procedures for when the United States takes direct action, which refers to lethal and non-lethal uses of force, including capture operations against terrorist targets outside the United States and areas of active hostilities."

    What other nation, besides Israel probably, has a governmental "Regulation" providing for assassinations outside "areas of active hostilities?"

    It should readily be evident that it is the U.S. now carrying out the vast majority of provocative active measures and has the disregard for others complained of here. At least for the moment, however, the U.S. can still hide much of its aggression using the vast financial resources provided by the American people to the Defense Department to produce sophisticated propaganda and to bribe foreign officials with foreign aid to look the other way from U.S. provocations.

    It is ironic that today, one can learn more about the U.S. military and foreign policy from the Rand Corporation only by reading at least one of its historical documents, "The Operational Code of the Politburo." This is described as "part of a major effort at RAND to provide insight into the political leadership and foreign policy in the Soviet Union and other communist states; the development of Soviet military strategy and doctrine."

    As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy.

    That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. That this U.S. MIC would turn against its own people, the American public, by waging perpetual information war against this domestic target just to enrich their investors, might have been even more than Eisenhower could imagine however.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. [This article first appeared at http://original.antiwar.com/Todd_Pierce/2016/08/14/inciting-wars-american-way/]

    See also

    [Aug 26, 2016] Emails Show Clinton Foundation Donor Reached Out To Hillary Clinton Before Arms Export Boost by David Sirota

    Notable quotes:
    "... Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton's State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country's autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests . ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | www.ibtimes.com

    Emails just released by the State Department appear to show Clinton Foundation officials brokering a meeting between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a top military leader of Bahrain - a Middle Eastern country that is a major foundation donor .

    Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton's State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country's autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests .

    [Aug 25, 2016] Economists Whove Advised Presidents Are No Fans of Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... And Mankiw was the economic adviser to Mitt Romney, the elitist Nazi who said 47% of the American people were his enemies and who was in favour of economic policies that would stripmine the country to put all its wealth in the offshore bank accounts of the kleptocrats. ..."
    "... Which btw makes you wonder how anyone can call Mankiw an "economist". The guy's a Republican buttboy and that's all he is. ..."
    "... Mankiw didn't enable the Republicans alone. Every two-bit intro macro prof who teaches from Mankiw has aided him. ..."
    "... Real Time whatever at wsj are looking for reasons to keep the GOPster/free trade type progress going! A reason to oppose Trump and vote for Hillary? ..."
    "... Trump is a very controversial figure, but he can be viewed as a disruptive politician and might put some pressure on neoliberal, and especially neocons, before they coopt him. Think of him as a proponent of Brexit II. Making the elections essentially a referendum on neoliberal globalization. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Comments from the discussion in Economist's View

    Sandwichman :
    "who has broken with many of the GOP's traditional positions on economic policy"

    Not seeing much to like in "the GOP's traditional positions" where does this leave me? The truth is all 45 surviving former members of the CEA can be wrong without making Trump right.

    pgl -> Sandwichman, Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM
    Tax cuts for rich people as their "solution" to poverty. And balancing the budget with magic asterisks.
    ilsm -> Sandwichman
    Indeed, see how far the US has "progressed" with these guys' advising since Nixon!
    Decision Overload
    When the deeply established insider "advisers" are against him, you can bet that he is an angry outsider same as the rest of us. Look!

    The most inefficient thing in our taxation system is the taxing of poor folks. Do you recognize what that accomplishes? Poor folk taxation takes money away from the poor person's landlord, his power company, his telephone company and more much more -- just slows down the economy plus administrative overhead that is the cost of slamming on the brakes.

    The Donald has proposed a $25,000 standard deduction which will protect the low-rollers who have no deductions from tax-shelters. $50,000 for married couples! What a savings! What a relief from the churning that has evolved from smoke and mirror politics.

    Get
    it --

    Peter K., Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 09:29 AM
    "Harvard University economist Gregory Mankiw, who chaired the council under George W. Bush and has been mentioned as a possible future Fed chairman, said recently on his blog that he would not support Mr. Trump.

    "I have Republican friends who think that things couldn't be worse than doubling down on Obama policies under Hillary Clinton. And, like them, I am no fan of the left's agenda of large government and high taxes," Mr. Mankiw wrote. "But they are wrong: Things could be worse. And I fear they would be under Mr. Trump.""

    Mankiw and Krugman mini-me Pro Growth Liberal agree on something.

    Vic Twente -> Peter K
    And Mankiw was the economic adviser to Mitt Romney, the elitist Nazi who said 47% of the American people were his enemies and who was in favour of economic policies that would stripmine the country to put all its wealth in the offshore bank accounts of the kleptocrats.

    Which btw makes you wonder how anyone can call Mankiw an "economist". The guy's a Republican buttboy and that's all he is.

    Vic Twente -> Peter K
    Mankiw didn't enable the Republicans alone. Every two-bit intro macro prof who teaches from Mankiw has aided him.

    I laugh when I imagine undergrad econ ten years from now: the textbooks will be full of Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand, and undergrad sessional lecturers will be drowning in cognitive dissonance as they try to remain straight-faced while lecturing on the benefits of the gold standard and eliminating the Federal Reserve.

    pgl :
    Stiglitz supports Clinton over Trump. No surprise but this is:

    "I have known personally every Republican president since Richard Nixon," said Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein, who chaired the council under President Ronald Reagan. "They all showed a real understanding of economics and international affairs".

    OK - Reagan did get a degree in economics but Krugman - who worked for Feldstein a the CEA - tells a different story about this White House when it comes to macroeconomics, the role of monetary policy, and in particular what was happening with the international aspects of our economy during Reagan's first term. Volcker - once he was done with his damaging tight monetary policy - tried to make a deal where he would lower interest rates in exchange for a reversal of that 1981 tax cut. The Reagan White House had no clue what the FED chair was even proposing even though it would have been a very good idea.

    ilsm :
    Real Time whatever at wsj are looking for reasons to keep the GOPster/free trade type progress going! A reason to oppose Trump and vote for Hillary?

    Dowd is right! The best thuglican is a democrat.

    likbez :
    Hillary Clinton is dyed-in-wool neoliberal. So all she can do is to kick the can down the road. All her elections promises are not worth the cost of the electrical energy that is used to depict them on our screens.

    Trump is a very controversial figure, but he can be viewed as a disruptive politician and might put some pressure on neoliberal, and especially neocons, before they coopt him. Think of him as a proponent of Brexit II. Making the elections essentially a referendum on neoliberal globalization.

    If he wins, a lot of Washington neocon parasites might lose jobs (the cash for the neocons comes mostly from defense contractors), that's why they crossed the party lines and that's why neoliberal propaganda campaign against him is so vicious. Khan gambit was a nasty attempt to speedboat him. It failed.

    While Hillary gets a free pass from neoliberal press (ABC, CBS and NBC). Neoliberal presstitutes (like George Stephanopoulos ) are especially vicious, behave like rabid dogs. Just listen to his interview of Trump about Khan gambit at Democratic convention.

    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/Candidates/Trump/khan_gambit_at_democratic_convention.shtml

    There is another view on Trump that deserves attention:

    === quote ===
    Lupita 08.04.16 at 4:23 am 167

    I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs .

    Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the point of being counterproductive.

    I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication than in 2008, even 2012.

    === end of quote ===

    But it is the deep state that dictates the course of the US, both in foreign policy and domestically, probably from 1963, so the president now is more of a ceremonial figure that adds legitimacy to the actual rule of deep state.

    In any case discussion Hillary vs. Trump and questions of economics (neoliberalism vs. some retrenchment in the direction of the New Deal) we should not miss the key, defining this election fact that Hillary is a war criminal (crimes against peace are war crimes). See http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nuremberg-trials

    From this point of view voting for Hillary is highly undesirable as this is an implicit cooperation with the war criminal. That does not mean that people should vote for Trump. Who has his own set of warts.

    ilsm -> likbez... , Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 01:03 PM
    It has been suggested the appropriators owned by the war profiteers won't allocate money to fuel the transports that take America's Soldiers and Marines home.

    The lesser evil killed no one with a vote believing in fake WMD's. The lesser evil is not experienced in keeping the neocons happy.

    The lesser evil may decide body bags forever is not strategy.

    Trump is the lesser evil.

    Imagine what happens if the commander in chief says: stand down and steam for Pearl Harbor, San Diego and Alameda.

    What would all those US retirees do if the commander in chief shuttered those brigades in Germany?

    ilsm -> likbez... , Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 01:08 PM
    If the crooked DNC cared about families of US' slain.....

    The Khan con angered 5990 Gold Star families who are not Muslim and whose star are the result of Hillary voting for AUMF righteously and acting out since 2003.

    As well as veterans!

    Gold star families why not pick 1/5999 rather than 1/14 Muslims?

    [Aug 25, 2016] Clinton Foundation Investigation Update Key Details About Financial And Political Dealings by David Sirota

    Notable quotes:
    "... Early in her term, the State Department called one arms deal for a Clinton Foundation donor, Saudi Arabia, a "top priority" for Clinton. ..."
    "... The Associated Press on Tuesday reported that a review of calendar items shows "more than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation." Those 85 donors - which did not include foreign government contributors - gave up to $156 million, according to the news service. ..."
    "... The Washington Post in 2014 reported that in 2010, Clinton pushed Russia to approve a $3.7 billion purchase from Boeing. Two months after the deal was solidified, reported the newspaper, Boeing announced a $900,000 contribution to the Clinton Foundation. ..."
    www.ibtimes.com

    As the rhetoric about the Clintons' public and private financial dealings intensifies, here is a brief review of the major investigative reporting that has been done about the Clinton Foundation.

    Arms exports: Last year, an International Business Times series documented the ways in which many major foreign governments that had donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up receiving a boost in arms export authorizations from the Clinton-led State Department. Federal law explicitly designates the secretary of state as "responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales" of arms, and the State Department itself says it "is responsible for managing all government-to-government transfers of military equipment to other countries." Early in her term, the State Department called one arms deal for a Clinton Foundation donor, Saudi Arabia, a "top priority" for Clinton.

    Many of the donor countries that benefited were those that the State Department criticized on human rights grounds, including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Some of the same countries received boosts in arms classified as "toxicological agents" as they worked to crush pro-democracy protests during the Arab Spring uprisings.

    Donor access: The Associated Press on Tuesday reported that a review of calendar items shows "more than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation." Those 85 donors - which did not include foreign government contributors - gave up to $156 million, according to the news service. The AP story followed the release of emails this week that appeared to show Clinton Foundation officials working with State Department officials to broker meetings between foundation donors and Hillary Clinton. It also followed an ABC News report on a Clinton Foundation donor being appointed by the State Department to an intelligence advisory panel "even though he had no obvious experience in the field."

    Business dealings: In May, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton Foundation "set up a financial commitment that benefited a for-profit company part-owned by people with ties to the Clintons." The newspaper noted that former President Bill Clinton "personally endorsed the company, Energy Pioneer Solutions Inc., to then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu for a federal grant that year" - and that the company ultimately received an $812,000 grant. While the Clinton Foundation openly works with corporations and governments on its philanthropic projects, the Journal notes that "under federal law, tax-exempt charitable organizations aren't supposed to act in anyone's private interest but instead in the public interest."

    Promoting corporate donors: In 2015, IBT reported that while Clinton Foundation donor Cisco faced criticism over its work with China's autocratic government, Clinton's State Department honored the company for "outstanding corporate citizenship, innovation and democratic principles." Her department also delivered government contracts to the company. The Washington Post in 2014 reported that in 2010, Clinton pushed Russia to approve a $3.7 billion purchase from Boeing. Two months after the deal was solidified, reported the newspaper, Boeing announced a $900,000 contribution to the Clinton Foundation.

    [Aug 25, 2016] Bernie Sanders' new 'revolution' rocked by revolt of its own as top staff head for the exits US elections

    independent.co.uk
    Already, however, the whole enterprise is in turmoil, thanks to the resignations of several of its top staff members even before it was off the ground, who were angered by the decision of Senator Sanders and his wife, Jane Sanders, to appoint his former campaign manager, John Weaver, as its top officer over their very clearly expressed objections.

    Among those heading to the exits was Claire Sandberg, who was the digital organising director of the campaign and the organising director of Our Revolution. Her entire department of four people quit, in fact.

    She and the others who joined the revolt, including Kenneth Pennington, who was to be the digital director of Our Revolution, were opposed to Mr Weaver's involvement both for reasons of personality clashes and because they felt he mismanaged the Senator's campaign in part by spending too much money on television advertising and failing to harness grassroots support.

    They also contended that Mr Weaver would only exacerbate an additional concern they had with the new entity namely that it has been set up as a so-called 501(c)(4) organisation, which, because of its charitable status, is in theory not allowed to work directly with the election of political candidates and is able to receive large sums from anonymous donors.

    A large part of the premise of Mr Sanders's campaign for president had been precisely to wean political campaigns from the flood of dark money that flows into them. That the Our Revolution entity has been set up precisely to take such money looked to them like a betrayal.

    According to several reports a majority of the staff appointed to run the new outfit resigned as soon as the appointment of Mr Weaver was confirmed on Monday

    [Aug 25, 2016] Some trump supportes belong to the alt-right . So what. Many Hillary supporters belong to Wall Street and military industiral complex.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some Stooges have expressed a preference for Trump over Killary ..."
    "... Bannon, personally, has not been accused of anti-Semitism, however. ..."
    "... He's just less likely to touch off a global war than Clinton is. What happens to the United States of America is not my concern, and if a series of catastrophic national-leadership decisions cause it to collapse, that is America's business. I'm not saying it would not affect me, because it most certainly would – the collapse of the world's largest (or second-largest) single economy would affect everyone. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Northern Star , August 25, 2016 at 11:08 am
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/alt-beginners-guide-000000002.html?nhp=1

    Some Stooges have expressed a preference for Trump over Killary,…BUt iF–and I say IF -Trump embraces these "alt-right' vermin…then he is just as unfit to be POTUS as Killary..

    "There are, of course, many strains of thinking under the "alt-right" umbrella. Some factions are preoccupied with a return to "traditional values," while others espouse a philosophy called "Human Biodiversity": the belief that there are significant biological differences between people of different races, which justifies treating them differently. (The other name for this is "scientific racism.") Anti-Semitism is common, in various forms, ranging from Holocaust denial to full-bore denunciations of Jews as agents of the collapse of white Christian society. Bannon, personally, has not been accused of anti-Semitism, however.

    The common thread, however, that connects members of these different factions is a shared desire to protect Western civilization from what many refer to as "white genocide." This manifests in opposition to things like immigration and multiculturalism, as well as a steadfast aversion to political correctness and to establishment politics of all kinds, including Republican."

    The 'alt-right' need to be exterminated every bit as much as fascist warmonger vermin.

    EOS.

    marknesop , August 25, 2016 at 12:00 pm
    Absolutely. Trump would make a terrible president. He's just less likely to touch off a global war than Clinton is. What happens to the United States of America is not my concern, and if a series of catastrophic national-leadership decisions cause it to collapse, that is America's business. I'm not saying it would not affect me, because it most certainly would – the collapse of the world's largest (or second-largest) single economy would affect everyone.

    But it is up to Americans to determine their nation's course, and I'm sure they do not welcome meddling any more than any other country does. I will say their political crisis is appalling, and that their choice has come down to Trump or Clinton is beyond appalling, but in the end it is Americans who must take responsibility for that. That is America's business, and all of my disagreements with America stem from its activities outside its own borders.

    Also, all those rabbiting on about Russia showing a clear preference for Trump should take note of Europe's oft-expressed and extremely public endorsement of Clinton.

    Northern Star , August 25, 2016 at 1:48 pm
    Yes…this is a **real ** dilemma….super corrupt pathological lying (barking) warmonger psycho….OR….prone to be manipulated by white supremacist ideology nutjob…

    [Aug 25, 2016] If Trump is Russias Candidate, Does That Make Clinton the Saudis Pick by FAYEZ NURELDINE

    Notable quotes:
    "... Admittedly, Mr. Trump does seem very open to the idea of negotiating with Russia, and even partnering with Moscow to tackle some of the greatest challenges facing the world today, including radical Islamist terrorism. In that sense, he may really be the most 'Russia friendly' presidential candidate the US has seen since 1945, not counting the early 1990s, when Washington's friendly overtures toward Russia were based on the condition that Moscow does everything US officials tell it to. ..."
    "... Does that make him a puppet to the Russians, the Kremlin and to Vladimir Putin personally? Not likely. Despite all the media investigations and even more accusations, no substantiated evidence has been presented demonstrating that Trump has any significant business or personal interests in Russia which would create a conflict of interest. ..."
    "... The Times' piece reported on the fact that the Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the US State Department has repeatedly criticized for human rights abuses and discrimination against women. The offending countries purportedly include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Brunei, along with Algeria. Riyadh, the paper noted, was "a particularly generous benefactor," giving between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with at least another $1 million donated by the 'Friends of Saudi Arabia' organization. ..."
    "... Abedin has long been accused by independent media in the US and elsewhere of having connections with Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood, charges which have long been labeled as nothing more than a conspiracy theory. But Sunday's story seems to have ruffled a few feathers in some high places, with a Clinton campaign spokesperson explaining (rather unconvincingly) to the New York Post that Abedin played no formal role in the radical journal. "My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that periodical," the spokesman said. ..."
    "... And so the question stands: If the media feels justified in crucifying 'Kremlin agent' Donald Trump for a Moscow beauty pageant and some nice words about Vladimir Putin, will it provide the same level of scrutiny for Mrs. Clinton, given the knowledge that her Foundation has taken in tens of millions of dollars from the Saudis, and that her top advisor seems to have been a supporter of hardcore Islamist ideology? ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | putniknews.com/ AFP 2016

    Opinion

    The media has had a field day commenting on Donald Trump's words about cooperation with Russia against ISIS, labeling him a 'Kremlin agent' and a danger to the Western security order. But what about Hillary Clinton and her foundation's ties to the Saudis? If Trump is 'Moscow's man', does that make Clinton the candidate of Middle Eastern sheikdoms?

    The US media has been relentless in its efforts to sink Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign, in part due to the candidate's string of friendly remarks and gestures toward Russia and President Vladimir Putin. The media have accused Moscow of every sin imaginable, from meddling in America's elections, to using Trump advisor Paul Manafort, who was called 'the Kremlin's man in Ukraine', to outright calling Trump himself a 'Russian agent'.

    Former NATO chief Anders Rasmussen joined the party bashing Trump recently, slamming him for having "his own views on the Ukrainian conflict," and adding that to top it all off, "he praises President Putin!"

    Admittedly, Mr. Trump does seem very open to the idea of negotiating with Russia, and even partnering with Moscow to tackle some of the greatest challenges facing the world today, including radical Islamist terrorism. In that sense, he may really be the most 'Russia friendly' presidential candidate the US has seen since 1945, not counting the early 1990s, when Washington's friendly overtures toward Russia were based on the condition that Moscow does everything US officials tell it to.

    Does that make him a puppet to the Russians, the Kremlin and to Vladimir Putin personally? Not likely. Despite all the media investigations and even more accusations, no substantiated evidence has been presented demonstrating that Trump has any significant business or personal interests in Russia which would create a conflict of interest. The businessman held a Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow a few years ago, and tried, unsuccessfully, to build a Trump tower in the Russian capital. But he also has assets around the world, in Scotland, Dubai, and in over a dozen other countries. Does that make him the agent of these countries, too?

    Amid the endless suspicions surrounding 'Kremlin Agent Trump', a story in the New York Times unassumingly titled 'Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign' almost slipped through the cracks, before blowing up on national television.

    The Times' piece reported on the fact that the Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the US State Department has repeatedly criticized for human rights abuses and discrimination against women. The offending countries purportedly include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Brunei, along with Algeria. Riyadh, the paper noted, was "a particularly generous benefactor," giving between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with at least another $1 million donated by the 'Friends of Saudi Arabia' organization.

    The scandal didn't end there. Speaking to CNN reporter Dana Bash, Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook could not coherently explain why the Clintons weren't willing to stop accepting donations from foreign 'investors' unless Clinton became president of the United States. Instead, Mook tried to divert the question to Donald Trump, saying the candidate has never revealed his financials, and adding that Mrs. Clinton had taken "unprecedented" steps to being "transparent."

    And the plot thickens. On Sunday, conservative US and British media revealed that Huma Abedin, a longtime friend and top aid to Clinton, had worked as an assistant editor for a radical Islamic Saudi journal for over a decade. The publication, called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, featured everything from pieces opposed to women's rights, to articles blaming the US for the September 11 terror attacks.

    In one article in January 1996, Abedin's own mother wrote a piece for the journal, where she complained that Clinton, who was First Lady at the time, was advancing a "very aggressive and radically feminist" agenda which was un-Islamic and dangerous for empowering women.

    Abedin has long been accused by independent media in the US and elsewhere of having connections with Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood, charges which have long been labeled as nothing more than a conspiracy theory. But Sunday's story seems to have ruffled a few feathers in some high places, with a Clinton campaign spokesperson explaining (rather unconvincingly) to the New York Post that Abedin played no formal role in the radical journal. "My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that periodical," the spokesman said.

    These two stories, the first offering new details including dollar estimates about the money received by the Clinton Foundation from the Saudis, and the second shedding light on her top advisor's apparent ties to a Saudi journal propagating Islamist ideas, should lead the media to look for answers to some very troubling questions. These should be the same kinds of questions asked earlier this summer, when a formerly classified 28 page chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report was finally released, revealing that Saudi officials had supported the hijackers who carried out the terrorist attacks against the United States in 2001.

    And so the question stands: If the media feels justified in crucifying 'Kremlin agent' Donald Trump for a Moscow beauty pageant and some nice words about Vladimir Putin, will it provide the same level of scrutiny for Mrs. Clinton, given the knowledge that her Foundation has taken in tens of millions of dollars from the Saudis, and that her top advisor seems to have been a supporter of hardcore Islamist ideology?

    See also

    [Aug 25, 2016] The Real Scandal of Clintons Emails Conducting Foreign Policy In Secret

    Notable quotes:
    "... The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple ..."
    "... Mr. Clinton always had an easy, breezy relationship with wrongdoing. But the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    hreik , August 25, 2016 at 7:46 am

    Bob Herbert said it best 15 years ago

    The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple

    Out of order quotes:

    Mr. Clinton always had an easy, breezy relationship with wrongdoing. But the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.

    Link http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/26/opinion/in-america-cut-him-loose.html

    Jim Haygood , August 25, 2016 at 8:10 am

    "The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple "

    Wish this forum allowed signatures, so Bob Herbert's deep truth could appear with every post.

    hreik , August 25, 2016 at 8:23 am

    That's the money quote for me. Just those 9 words. Sums it up beautifully, perfectly even.

    [Aug 25, 2016] The Second Amendment Incident was artificially created by neoliberal media

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post, Salon, Slate, Think Progress ..."
    "... Trump never overtly used the word "assassinate." He says he was just suggesting that advocates of the Second Amendment vote, and was being sarcastic. A sarcastic invocation to vote would sound very different. A sarcastic invocation to vote might be, "The American way to change things is to vote. But maybe you care so much about shooting, you won't be able to organize to vote." ..."
    "... exaggeration, flattery, kidding, joking ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.commondreams.org
    From: Understanding Trump's Use of Language Common Dreams Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community by George Lakoff

    This piece is a follow-up of a Lakoff's article, Understanding Trump , published by Common Dreams last month.

    Responsible reporters in the media normally transcribe political speeches so that they can accurately report them. But Donald Trump's discourse style has stumped a number of reporters. Dan Libit, CNBC's excellent analyst is one of them. Libit writes:

    His unscripted speaking style, with its spasmodic, self-interrupting sentence structure, has increasingly come to overwhelm the human brains and tape recorders attempting to quote him.

    Trump is, simply put, a transcriptionist's worst nightmare: severely unintelligible, and yet, incredibly important to understand.

    Given how dramatically recent polls have turned on his controversial public utterances, it is not hyperbolic to say that the very fate of the nation, indeed human civilization, appears destined to come down to one man's application of the English language - and the public's comprehension of it. It has turned the rote job of transcribing into a high-stakes calling. […]

    Trump's crimes against clarity are multifarious: He often speaks in long, run-on sentences, with frequent asides. He pauses after subordinate clauses. He frequently quotes people saying things that aren't actual quotes. And he repeats words and phrases, sometimes with slight variations, in the same sentence.

    Some in the media ( Washington Post, Salon, Slate, Think Progress , etc.) have called Trump's speeches "word salad." Some commentators have even attributed his language use to "early Alzheimer's," citing "erratic behavior" and "little regards for social conventions." I don't believe it.

    I have been repeatedly asked in media interviews about such use of language by Trump. So far as I can tell, he is simply using effective discourse mechanisms to communicate what his wants to communicate to his audience. I have found that he is very careful and very strategic in his use of language. The only way I know to show this is to function as a linguist and cognitive scientist and go through details.

    Let's start with sentence fragments. It is common and natural in New York discourse for friends to finish one another's sentences. And throughout the country, if you don't actually say the rest of a friend's sentence out loud, there is nevertheless a point at which you can finish it in your head. When this happens in cooperative discourse, it can show empathy and intimacy with a friend, that you know the context of the narrative, and that you understand and accept your friend's framing of the situation so well that you can even finish what they have started to say. Of course, you can be bored with, or antagonistic to, someone and be able to finish their sentences with anything but a feeling of empathy and intimacy. But Trump prefers to talk to a friendly crowd.

    Trump often starts a sentence and leaves off where his followers can finish in their minds what he has started to say. That is, they commonly feel empathy and intimacy, an acceptance of what is being said, and good feeling toward the speaker. This is an unconscious, automatic reaction, especially when words are flying by quickly. It is a means for Trump to connect with his audience.

    The Second Amendment Incident

    Here is the classic case, the Second Amendment Incident. The thing to be aware of is that his words are carefully chosen. They go by quickly when people hear them. But they are processed unconsciously first by neural circuitry - and neurons operate on a thousandth-of-a-second time scale. Your neural circuitry has plenty of time to engage in complex forms of understanding, based on what you already know.

    Trump begins by saying, "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment." He first just says "abolish," and then hedges by adding "essentially abolish." But having said "abolish" twice, he has gotten across the message that she wants to, and is able to, change the Constitution in that way.

    Now, at the time the Second Amendment was written, the "arms" in "bear arms" were long rifles that fired one bullet at a time. The "well-regulated militia" was a local group, like a contemporary National Guard unit, regulated by a local government with military command structure. They were protecting American freedoms against the British.

    The Second Amendment has been reinterpreted by contemporary ultra-conservatives as the right of individual citizens to bear contemporary arms (e.g., AK-47's), either to protect their families against invaders or to change a government by armed rebellion if that government threatens what they see as their freedoms. The term "Second Amendment" activates the contemporary usage by ultra-conservatives. It is a dog-whistle term, understood in that way by many conservatives.

    Now, no president or Supreme Court could literally abolish any constitutional amendment alone. But a Supreme Court could judge that that certain laws concerning gun ownership could be unconstitutional. That is what Trump meant by "essentially abolish."

    Thus, the election of Hillary Clinton threatens the contemporary advocates of the 'Second Amendment.'

    Trump goes on:

    "By the way, and if she gets to pick [loud boos] - if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

    Here are the details.

    " By the way ," marks a parallel utterance, one that does not linearly follow from what was just said, but that has information relevant to what was just said.

    "And" here marks information that follows from what was just said.

    "If she gets to pick …" When said the first time, it was followed immediately by loud boos. The audience could finish the if-clause for themselves, since the word "pick" in context could only be about Hillary picking liberal judges. Trump goes on making this explicit, "if she gets to pick her judges…"

    "Gets to" is important. The metaphor here with "to" is that Achieving a Purpose Is Reaching a Destination" with the object of "to" marking the pick. The "get" in "get to" is from a related metaphor, namely, that Achieving a Purpose Is Getting a Desired Object. In both Purpose metaphors, the Achievement of the Purpose can be stopped by an opponent. The "if" indicates that the achievement of the purpose is still uncertain, which raises the question of whether it can be stopped.

    "Her judges" indicates that the judges are not your judges, from which it follows that they will not rule the way you want them to, namely, for keeping your guns. The if-clause thus has a consequence: unless Hillary is prevented from becoming president, "her judges" will change the laws to take away your guns and your Constitutional right to bear arms. This would be a governmental infringement on your freedom, which would justify the armed intervention of ultra-conservatives, what Sharon Angle in Nevada has called the "Second Amendment solution." In short, a lot is entailed - in little time on a human timescale, but with lots of time on a neural timescale.

    Having set this up, Trump follows the if-clause with "Nothing you can do, folks." This is a shortened version in everyday colloquial English of "There will be nothing you can do, folks." That is, if you let Hillary take office, you will be so weak that you will be unable to stop her. The "folks," suggests that he and the audience members are socially part of the same social group - as opposed to a distant billionaire with his own agenda.

    Immediately after "nothing you can do," Trump goes on: "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is."

    "Although" is a word used to contrast one possible course of events with an opposite possibility. Trump has just presented a possible course of events that is threatening to ultra-conservative Second Amendment advocates. "Although the Second Amendment people" calls up the alternative for those who would act violently to protect their Second Amendment right.

    "Maybe" brings up a suggestion. "Maybe there is" suggests that there is something the "Second Amendment People" can do to prevent Hillary from taking office and appointing liberal judges who would take away what they see as their Constitutional rights.

    "I don't know" is intended to remove Trump from any blame. But it acts unconsciously in the opposite way. It is like the title of the book I wrote, "Don't Think of an Elephant." The way the brain works is that negating a frame activates the frame. The relevant frame for "Second Amendment people" is use of arms to protect their rights against a government threatening to take away their rights. This is about the right to shoot, not about the right to vote. Second Amendment conservative discourse is about shooting, not about voting.

    The point here is that Trump's use of language is anything but "word salad." His words and his use of grammar are carefully chosen, and put together artfully, automatically, and quickly.

    Trump never overtly used the word "assassinate." He says he was just suggesting that advocates of the Second Amendment vote, and was being sarcastic. A sarcastic invocation to vote would sound very different. A sarcastic invocation to vote might be, "The American way to change things is to vote. But maybe you care so much about shooting, you won't be able to organize to vote."

    He didn't say anything like that. And he chose his words very, very carefully.

    Believe Me! Some People Say…

    People in the media have asked me about Trump's use of "Believe me!" and "Many people say" followed by a statement that is not true, but that he wants he audience to believe. Why does he use such expressions and how do they work in discourse? To understand this, one needs to look at the concept of lying. Most people will say that a lie is a false statement. But a study by linguists Linda Coleman and Paul Kay pointed out more than 30 years ago that the situation is more complex.

    If a statement happens to be false, but you sincerely believe that it is true, you are not lying in stating it. Lying involves a hierarchy of conditions defining worse and worse lies. Here is the hierarchy:

    1. You don't believe it.
    2. You are trying to deceive.
    3. You are trying to gain advantage for yourself.
    4. You are trying to harm.

    As you add conditions in the hierarchy, the lies get worse and worse.

    Though this is the usual hierarchy for lies, there are variations: A white lie is one that is harmless. A social lie is one where deceit is general helpful, as in, "Aunt Susie, that was such a delicious Jello mold that you made." Other variations include exaggeration, flattery, kidding, joking , etc.

    Lying is a form of uncooperative discourse. But most discourse is cooperative, and there are rules governing it that the philosopher Paul Grice called "maxims" in his Harvard Lectures in 1967. Grice observed that uncooperative discourse is created when the maxims are violated. Grice's maxims were extended in the 1970's by Eve Sweetser in a paper on lying.

    Sweetser postulated a Maxim of Helpfulness:

    In Cooperative Discourse, people intend to help to help one another.

    She then observed that there were two models used in helpful communication.

    Ordinary Communication
    If people say something, they are intending to help if and only if they believe it.
    People intend to deceive, if and only if they don't intend to help.

    Justified Belief
    People have adequate reasons for their beliefs.
    What people have adequate reason to believe is true.

    Though this model does not hold for all situations (e.g., kidding), they are models that are used by virtually everyone unconsciously all day every day. If I tell my wife that I saw my cousin this morning, there is no reason to deceive, so I believe it (Ordinary Communication). And since I know my cousin well, if I believe I saw him, then I did see him (Justified Belief). Such principles are part of our unconsciously functioning neural systems. They work automatically, unless they become conscious and we can attend to them and control them.

    Trump uses these communication models that are in your brain. When he says "Believe me!" he is using the principle of Justified Belief, suggesting that he has the requisite experience for his belief to be true. When those in Trump's audience hear "Believe me!", they will mostly understand it automatically and, unconsciously and via Justified Belief, will take it to be true.

    When Trump says, "Many people say that …" both principles are unconsciously activated. If many people say it, they are unlikely to all or mostly be deceiving, which means they believe it, and by Justified Belief, it is taken to be true.

    You have to be on your toes, listening carefully and ready to disbelieve Trump, to avoid the use of these ordinary cognitive mechanisms in your brain that Trump uses for his purposes.

    Is He "On Topic?"

    Political reporters are used to hearing speeches with significant sections on a single policy issue. Trump often goes from policy to policy to policy in a single sentence. Is he going off topic?

    So far as I can discern, he always on topic, but you have to understand what his topic is. As I observed in my Understanding Trump paper, Trump is deeply, personally committed to his version of Strict Father Morality. He wants it to dominate the country and the world, and he wants to be the ultimate authority in this authoritarian model of the family that is applied in conservative politics in virtually every issue area.

    Every particular issue, from building the wall, to using our nukes, to getting rid of inheritance taxes (on those making $10.9 million or more), to eliminating the minimum wage - every issue is an instance of his version of Strict Father Morality over all areas of life, with him as ultimately in charge.

    As he shifts from particular issue to particular issue, each of them activates his version of Strict Father Morality and strengthens it in the brains of his audience. So far as I can tell, he is always on topic - where this is the topic.

    Always Selling

    For five decades, Trump has been using all these techniques of selling and trying to make deals to his advantage. It seems to have become second nature for him to use these devices. And he uses them carefully and well. He is a talented charlatan. Keeping you off balance is part of his game. As is appealing to ordinary thought mechanisms in the people he is addressing.

    It is vital that the media, and ordinary voters, learn to recognize his techniques. When the media fails to grasp what he is doing, it gives him an advantage. Every time someone in the media claims his discourse is "word salad, " it helps Trump by hiding what he is really doing.

    "Regret" or Excuse

    One day after the above was written, Trump made a well-publicized statement of "regret."

    "Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing.

    I have done that.

    And believe it or not, I regret it.

    And I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain.

    Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues. …"

    He did not give any specifics.

    What we have just seen is that he chooses his words VERY carefully. And he has done that here.

    He starts out with "sometimes," which suggests that it is a rare occurrence on no particular occasions - a relatively rare accident. He continues with a general, inescapable fact about being a presidential candidate, namely, that he is always "in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues." The words "heat" and "multitude" suggest that normal attention to details like word choice cannot operate in presidential campaign. In short, it is nothing that he could possibly be responsible for, and is a rare occurrence anyway.

    Then he uses the word "you." This shifts perspective from him to "you," a member of the audience. You too, if you were running for president, would naturally be in such uncontrollable situations all the time, when "you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing." It's just a matter of choosing "the right words." This means that he had the right ideas, but under natural, and inevitable attentional stress, an unavoidable mistake happens and could happen to you: "you" have the right ideas, but mess up on the "right words."

    He then admits to "sometimes" making an unavoidable, natural mistake, not in choosing the right ideas, but in word choice and, putting yourself in his shoes, "you say the wrong thing" - that is, you are thinking the right thing, but you just say it wrong - "sometimes."

    His admission is straightforward - "I have done that" - as if he had just admitted to something immoral, but which he has carefully described as anything but immoral.

    "And believe it or not, I regret it." What he is communicating with "believe it or not," is that you, in the audience, may not believe that I am a sensitive soul, but I really am, as shown by my statement of regret. He then emphasizes his statement of personal sensitivity: "And I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain." Note the "may have caused." No admission that he definitely DID "cause personal pain." And no specifics given. After all, they don't have to be given, because it is natural, unavoidable, accidental, and so rare as to not matter. He states this: "Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues." In short, it's a trivial matter to be ignored - because it is a natural, unavoidable, accidental mistake, only in the words not the thoughts, and is so rare as to be unimportant. All that in five well-crafted sentences!

    Note how carefully he has chosen his words. And what is the intended effect? He should be excused because inaccurate word choice is so natural that it will inevitably occur again, and he should not be criticized when the stress of the campaign leads inevitably to mistakes in trivial word choice.

    But there is a larger effect. Words have meanings. The words he carefully uses, often over and over, get across his values and ideas, which are all too often lies or promotions of racist, sexist, and other un-American invocations. When these backfire mightily, as with the Khans, there can be no hiding behind a nonspecific "regret" that they were just rare, accidental word choice mistakes too trivial for the public to be "consumed with." This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

    George Lakoff is the author of The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic (co-authored with Elizabeth Wehling). His previous books include Moral Politics , Don't Think of an Elephant! , Whose Freedom? and Thinking Points (with the Rockridge Institute staff). He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute .

    [Aug 25, 2016] Trump calls Clinton a 'bigot' at surreal rally with U.K. Independence Party leader by Holly Bailey

    Better late then never. That's bold attack we all need. After Khna gabmit, you need to nail Hillary who is trying to drive on anti-Russian sentiment and demonization by neoliberal press of the opponent. Bravo Trump !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Hillary Clinton is a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future," the GOP presidential nominee declared at a rally here Wednesday night. "She's going to do nothing for African-Americans. She's going to do nothing for the Hispanics. She's only going to take care of herself, her husband, her consultants, her donors. These are the people she cares about." ..."
    "... he likened his own campaign against the European establishment to the brash developer's insurgent bid for the White House. ..."
    www.yahoo.com

    "Hillary Clinton is a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future," the GOP presidential nominee declared at a rally here Wednesday night. "She's going to do nothing for African-Americans. She's going to do nothing for the Hispanics. She's only going to take care of herself, her husband, her consultants, her donors. These are the people she cares about."

    ... ... ...

    Trump has repeatedly likened his own campaign to Brexit in arguing for "peaceful regime change" in the U.S. on Election Day. The mogul recently predicted that he would soon be known by the moniker "Mr. Brexit."

    Inviting the British politician to the stage at his Wednesday rally, the GOP nominee called it an "honor" to stand with Farage, who all but endorsed Trump as he likened his own campaign against the European establishment to the brash developer's insurgent bid for the White House.

    Speaking to audience members who appeared somewhat baffled at his presence, Farage spoke of how he and allies overcame opposition from the political establishment and even a set of foreign leaders that included U.S. President Obama. As the crowd here booed, Farage pointedly accused Obama of talking down to the British. "He treated us as if we were nothing," Farage said. "One of the oldest functioning democracies in the world, and here he was telling us to 'vote remain.'"

    As Trump stood over his shoulder, a smile on his face, Farage pointedly did not endorse Trump - but he came very, very close. "I could not possibly tell you how you should vote in this election," he said. "But I will say this, if I was an American citizen, I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton if you paid me!"

    Farage urged Trump supporters to take advantage of the "fantastic opportunity" they face in November. "You can go out. You can beat the pollsters. You can beat the commentators. You can beat Washington. And you'll do it by doing what we did for Brexit in Britain. We had our own people's army of ordinary citizens," he said. "Anything is possible if enough people are prepared to stand up against the establishment."

    Walking back to the podium, Trump nodded, calling Election Day a chance for the country to "re-declare" its independence. "It's time to recapture our destiny," he said.

    [Aug 25, 2016] It Is Time to Begin the Process of Rebuilding Our Middle-Class Economy

    Notable quotes:
    "... recently, the paper's former Washington bureau chief, the veteran journalist Hedrick Smith, asked an important question: ..."
    "... Smith, who traveled the country to write his latest book ..."
    "... also serves as the executive editor of the Reclaim the American Dream website, where he keeps a keen eye on efforts to revitalize politics closest to where people live. In his op-ed essay he answered his own question by reporting that "a broad array of state-level citizen movements are pressing for reforms… to give average voters more voice, make elections more competitive and ease gridlock in Congress." ..."
    "... There's a lot of energy stirring in the states, including efforts to create a fairer economy. Unlike our paralyzed and polarized Congress, state legislators - those with eyes to see and ears to hear - know the walking-wounded casualties from the long campaign against working people conducted by Big Business and rabid free-marketeers over the past three decades. Among the stunned and shell-shocked are millions of survivors barely hanging on after the financial crash of 2008 and the Great Recession that followed. They live down the street and around the corner, a mere few blocks from the state capitol. ..."
    "... Here at BillMoyers.com , just as Hedrick Smith's essay appeared last weekend, we were finishing a small book - 95 pages - by one of those state legislators: Minnesota's David Bly. After teaching in the public schools for 30 years he retired and ran for the Minnesota House of Representatives, where he is now serving his fourth term. What he's seen close-up prompted him to write ..."
    "... You can order a copy from the publisher's website . It is short in length but not of passion. Here, with permission, is an excerpt: ..."
    "... The Spirit Level ..."
    "... Capital in the 21 st Century ..."
    "... Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal ..."
    "... Winner-Take-All Politics ..."
    "... Who Stole the American Dream? ..."
    "... Citizen's United ..."
    "... The Minneapolis Star Tribune ..."
    "... Excerpted with permission from Levins Publishing. All rights reserved. ..."
    "... Moyers & Company ..."
    "... Bill Moyers Journal: The Conversation Continues , ..."
    "... Moyers on Democracy ..."
    "... Bill Moyers: On Faith & Reason ..."
    "... We All Do Better ..."
    www.commondreams.org
    Our collapse from an "opportunity for all" middle-class economy to a "winner-take-all," dog-eat-dog system is behind many problems we face as a society. 18 Comments

    An ice sculpture reading Middle Class is displayed as people gather to protest before the beginning of the Republican National Convention on August 26, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

    In The New York Times recently, the paper's former Washington bureau chief, the veteran journalist Hedrick Smith, asked an important question: "Can the States Save American Democracy?" Smith, who traveled the country to write his latest book, Who Stole the American Dream?, also serves as the executive editor of the Reclaim the American Dream website, where he keeps a keen eye on efforts to revitalize politics closest to where people live. In his op-ed essay he answered his own question by reporting that "a broad array of state-level citizen movements are pressing for reforms… to give average voters more voice, make elections more competitive and ease gridlock in Congress."

    There's a lot of energy stirring in the states, including efforts to create a fairer economy. Unlike our paralyzed and polarized Congress, state legislators - those with eyes to see and ears to hear - know the walking-wounded casualties from the long campaign against working people conducted by Big Business and rabid free-marketeers over the past three decades. Among the stunned and shell-shocked are millions of survivors barely hanging on after the financial crash of 2008 and the Great Recession that followed. They live down the street and around the corner, a mere few blocks from the state capitol.

    Here at BillMoyers.com, just as Hedrick Smith's essay appeared last weekend, we were finishing a small book - 95 pages - by one of those state legislators: Minnesota's David Bly. After teaching in the public schools for 30 years he retired and ran for the Minnesota House of Representatives, where he is now serving his fourth term. What he's seen close-up prompted him to write We All Do Better: Economic Priorities for a Land of Opportunity. You can order a copy from the publisher's website. It is short in length but not of passion. Here, with permission, is an excerpt:

    Not so long ago, the words "Land of Opportunity" really meant something for all Americans. We pretty much took it for granted that each and every one of us should have the opportunity to develop our God-given talents to reach our greatest potential. This didn't mean that everyone would choose to use that opportunity, or that anyone would be forced to use it. It did, however, mean that everyone had that opportunity…. As the late Sen. Paul Wellstone once said, "We all do better when we all do better."

    Things are changing, and not for the better. All too often, we hear stories of families evicted from their homes when unemployment runs out, or senior citizens who must choose between buying groceries and life-sustaining medications, or the single mother who can't get a job because she must spend her time nursing her invalid son. We open the paper to read yet another story about the achievement gap in our schools. We watch the news and are shocked to learn that the United States is the world's leader in putting its citizens behind bars.

    These kinds of thing don't happen, or at least shouldn't, when there is a nationwide commitment for everyone to have what they need to develop their potential. This commitment goes beyond lip service and political speeches. It involves deliberate policies that maintain what I call a "middle-class economy." A middle-class economy is not one in which every single person makes a certain amount of money. Even in a middle-class economy, some are rich and some are poor. But most of the people have most of the money. Most of the people can take care of themselves and fully develop their potential. Those that can't take care of themselves for any number of understandable reasons can count on the rest of us to get them through the rough spots.

    Right now we are in the process of losing our middle-class economy. We know this from news stories, and far too many of us know it from bitter personal experience. This loss of our middle-class economy and the resultant shift to a "winner-take-all" economy of rich and poor are behind most of the problems with which we struggle as a society.

    The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett helped me see how and why this is so. The authors demonstrate in powerful terms how growing inequality is crippling both our society and our economy in ways that will make it harder to address critical problems we face as a nation. Page after page of graphs illustrate how we have fallen behind other developed nations in the things a well-functioning economy must provide. Wilkinson and Pickett make a solid case that it is not so much the average income of a society that matters. More important is how that income is distributed. Countries that have the most equal income distribution do best on health and social indicators.

    According to Wilkinson and Pickett, who are epidemiologists, income inequality is related to "lower life expectancy, higher rates of infant mortality, shorter height, poor self-reported health, low birth weight, AIDS and depression." They collected data from dozens of other rich countries on health, level of trust, mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, life expectancy, infant mortality, teenage birth rates, obesity, children's educational performance, homicides, imprisonment and social mobility. "What is most exciting about our research is that it shows that reducing inequality would increase the well-being and quality of life for all of us," the authors say. Today we have a choice: use public investment to reduce inequality or pay for the social harm caused by inequality.

    Right now we are in the process of losing our middle-class economy.

    Wilkinson and Pickett also believe: "Modern societies will depend increasingly on being creative, adaptable, inventive, well-informed and flexible, able to respond generously to each other and to needs wherever they arise. Those are societies not in hock to the rich, in which people are driven by status insecurities, but of populations used to working together and respecting each other as equals." Any search for economic salvation that is motivated and driven by the greed of its individual participants is bound to fail.

    Ours is the oldest modern democracy, but present-day policies and court decisions are undermining our basic democratic principles. Immense power has been ceded to a cadre of financial elites who have figured out how to buy their way into control of our government. The past 30 years have seen two related trends: (1) an unraveling of benefits and opportunities for the vast majority of Americans, and (2) a massive increase in wealth for a relative handful of people. Leading economists assure us that if we don't take decisive action, we can expect more of the same. Economist Emmanuel Saez has carefully analyzed the shift toward a rich-and-poor economy. He says, "The market itself doesn't impose a limit on inequality, especially for those at the top." His partner in research, Thomas Piketty, has further documented and explained income inequality in his book Capital in the 21st Century. As I write this, the very wealthy are enjoying a good recovery from the recession of 2008 while the vast majority of Americans fall further behind.

    Our descent from an economy that provided for all of us to one that provides for only the few has been no accident. Nor was it inevitable. The story of how government has gone from limiting greed to encouraging it is chronicled in several recent books. Kim Phillips-Fein in Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal; Paul Pierson and Jacob S. Hacker in Winner-Take-All Politics; and Hedrick Smith in Who Stole the American Dream? tell much the same story in different ways. When the Supreme Court determined that money was speech in 1976, things began to change quickly. The super-rich suddenly gained an advantage in their campaign to silence the power of people and weaken our democracy. Today, with the Supreme Court decision on the Citizen's United case, corporations are "people," and even misinformation and lies spread by these strange new "people" are protected speech.

    Economic value is created by law. We often use the words "free market" to describe our current economic system, but that system, as much as any other, rests on a set of legal rules and a system to enforce those rules. So it matters who writes the laws or what interests those laws serve. Similarly, the distribution of wealth and the flow of capital can flow one way or the other with the stroke of an official pen. Property rights and the distribution of wealth can deny liberty to some just as easily as they bestow it on others. Amartya Sen, a Nobel Award-winning economist, argues that hunger is not a product of the shortage of food. Instead, hungry people lack rights (the entitlement) to eat. The law decides, or as Sen puts it, "The law stands between food availability and food entitlement. Starvation deaths can reflect legality with a vengeance."

    Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who served 1930-41, argued that the Constitution protects "liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people." Beginning with the founding of our nation, we have a rich tradition of concern for equality and protection from the abuses that wealth, poorly distributed, can bring about. As America waged war with Britain for independence over 200 years ago, the revolutionary patriot and journalist super-patriot Tom Paine advocated that public employment be utilized to assist those needing work, that a system of social security should provide for retirement at age 60, and that the state should provide funds so that poor families could educate and care for their children. In another example, the end of the Civil War saw the passage of amendments to the Constitution that banned slavery and limited the degree to which states could discriminate against their citizens. These amendments, in turn, broadened democracy and set us on a path that eventually resulted in the establishment of voting rights for blacks and women.

    So, how do we build and maintain an enduring middle-class economy? In my judgment, every middle-class economy must be built on these five foundations:

    Each of these is being challenged today by anti-democratic forces. Budget cuts are wreaking havoc at all levels of education. College is harder to afford, increasingly results in crippling debt and does not guarantee job prospects

    The last 30 years have seen a corporate war against American workers.

    We hear that we have the best health care in the world, but the numbers tell us differently. Our health outcomes do not measure up to the rest of the developed world because our system, even with the advances made with the Affordable Care Act, does not assure universal access.

    Prosperous economies require that goods and people can move around easily. Investment in transportation infrastructure is essential. We all feel the cost as roads, bridges and public transportation are neglected.

    Environment, energy and land use go hand-in-hand in a middle-class economy. A clean, safe environment supports good health and quality of life for everyone. Instead of moving forward on clean energy and correcting harmful practices, we continue to rely on fossil fuels and to live with the economic and environmental consequences.

    The fifth foundation of a middle-class economy is living-wage jobs. Generations before us took for granted that hard-working Americans would share in our prosperity. We have abandoned that understanding. Wages for most Americans have flatlined in spite of continuing pressure from rising costs of life's essentials. In a 2014 survey by the Pew Foundation, over 10 times as many respondents said their incomes were falling behind the cost of living than said they were getting ahead.

    The last 30 years have seen a corporate war against American workers. Corporation after corporation shipped middle-class jobs to Third-World countries. Now, politicians across the country invariably meet out-of-work industrial workers who ask them what they can do about the sell-off of jobs in America. All too often, the politician has no response and no idea what to do. Some extreme free-market ideologues even say that what is happening to so many works is actually a good thing, something that in the long run will make our economy better off. Of course, many of those making such claims have high-paying jobs, stable jobs representing the interests of the financial elite.

    Here in Minnesota wages for new hires, adjusted for inflation, have been heading downward since 2006 and fell to $ll.64 in 2011. The minimum wage went from one of the lowest in the country to $9.50. A family three (the average family size in Minnesota) would need an hourly wage of $l6.34 to make it. How can anyone feel secure and support a family with that kind of discrepancy? People working full-time deserve the dignity of a living wage, but our policies are moving us in the opposite direction. The Minneapolis Star Tribune, for example, tells of a 59-year-old truck driver who lived well on the 4l-cents-a-mile he made 16 years ago, but now he is making the exact same amount in the face of much higher living costs. He works six days a week instead of the five he used to and still can barely make ends meet.

    These are by no means isolated cases in my home state or elsewhere. Economist Robert Reich wrote this about the battered middle class: "Having been roughed up, they face years of catch-up to get to where the once were. They feel poorer because they are poorer. They feel less secure because they are less secure. The crisis's severity - and the fact that it surprised most 'experts' - shocked them. The large income and wealth losses compounded their sense of vulnerability."

    How do those of us in public office respond?

    Former Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota tells the story of the working man who was standing in line to pay his last respects to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. "Did you know the president?" a reporter asked him. "No," the man said through tears, "but he knew me."

    That is our obligation today - to close the distance between the governed and the governing by rebuilding a middle-class economy. The five foundations of that economy have this in common: they are all "we" concepts. We all benefit when they are in place, and we all suffer when they crumble. When we work together toward our common good, we grow a middle-class economy. When we work against each other as individuals, we are on the road to becoming a Third World economy. As much as I hate to say it, this is exactly the path we are on.

    Much of my book is concerned with my home state of Minnesota, where I serve in the state legislature. But I'm sure you will also see that much of what I say about my home state applies just as much to yours. We are all in this together. We all need to get our state and federal spending priorities focused in a way that will make a difference. That way is the way of rebuilding our middle-class economy and opportunity for all.

    Excerpted with permission from Levins Publishing. All rights reserved.

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 License.

    Bill Moyers is the managing editor of Moyers & Company and BillMoyers.com. His previous shows on PBS included NOW with Bill Moyers and Bill Moyers Journal. Over the past three decades he has become an icon of American journalism and is the author of many books, including Bill Moyers Journal: The Conversation Continues, Moyers on Democracy, and Bill Moyers: On Faith & Reason. He was one of the organizers of the Peace Corps, a special assistant for Lyndon B. Johnson, a publisher of Newsday, senior correspondent for CBS News and a producer of many groundbreaking series on public television. He is the winner of more than 30 Emmys, nine Peabodys, three George Polk awards.

    David Bly is serving his fourth term in the Minnesota House of Representatives. He is the author of We All Do Better. He retired after teaching for 30 years in the Minnesota public school system. David Bly and his wife Dominique live in Northfield, Minnesota.

    [Aug 25, 2016] One example of Hillary Clinton corruption

    Notable quotes:
    "... Behind the private jet journey of Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin" [ Yahoo News ]. The article explains why wearing one hat from Abedin's massive collection of headgear makes this all legal. ..."
    "... "After Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Bill Clinton received $17.6 million in payments from a for-profit university. Since that time, another organization with a connection to that university received almost $90 million in grants from an agency that's part of the State Department" [ CNN ]. Clinton was paid for "inspiring people." Oh. OK. ..."
    "... UPDATE "Donald Trump appears to have donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation" [ Business Insider ]. As Trump said: "I gave to many people before this - before two months ago I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. That's a broken system." I hate it when Trump's right. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Corruption

    "Behind the private jet journey of Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin" [ Yahoo News ]. The article explains why wearing one hat from Abedin's massive collection of headgear makes this all legal. Musical interlude --

    "Clinton Foundation: World Class Slacktivists" [ Medium ]. "I think this could be called a 'charity bubble' since at some point, there won't be any more cash to take. And then what will people do? What will happen when the hospital where future doctors and nurses will work closes due to lack of funds?"

    "After Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Bill Clinton received $17.6 million in payments from a for-profit university. Since that time, another organization with a connection to that university received almost $90 million in grants from an agency that's part of the State Department" [ CNN ]. Clinton was paid for "inspiring people." Oh. OK.

    UPDATE "Donald Trump appears to have donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation" [ Business Insider ]. As Trump said: "I gave to many people before this - before two months ago I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. That's a broken system." I hate it when Trump's right.

    Money

    UPDATE "Hillary Clinton Continues Fundraising Swing at Home of Justin Timberlake, Jessica Biel" [ Variety ]. "Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Aniston, Shonda Rhimes, Tobey Maguire and former HBO programming president Michael Lombardo were among those at the event, according to a source who was there, with tickets priced at $33,400 per person. About 55 people attended….

    The Democratic presidential candidate is fundraising in the weeks before her first debate with Republican rival Donald Trump [on September 26]." And definitely not holding press conferences.

    UPDATE "Justin Timberlake, Jessica Biel & Hillary Clinton Pose for Adorable Photobooth Pics at Star-Studded Fundraiser" [ ET ]. " "Look who came over for lunch… #imwithher," Biel wrote on Instagram." Quite a lunch.

    [Aug 25, 2016] I wonder if the infomation about Jane Sanders tenure as the president of Burlington college was the dirt that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on July 12

    Notable quotes:
    "... And, pardon me for being a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, I wonder if this was the dirt that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on July 12. ..."
    "... President Sanders was not to last long at BC and she left for still unknown circumstances soon after the purchase of the property. ..."
    "... The next Presidents, Cjristine Plunkett, Mike Smith and Carol Moore then sold off large portions of the property to real estate developers and then, when the ship finally sank under increasingly hopeless and clueless leadership, all of whom could not increase enrollment or or raise any funds (in fact we were eventually told that the school had given up fund raising), Burlington College went into a relentless downward spiral which tragically and painfully closed its doors in May, 20016. ..."
    "... It may ultimately have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and it looks terrible that Jane Sanders was at the helm and instrumental in making the decision, but it also sounds like it was a bold effort – that the Board of Directors signed off on – to change the school's fortunes, and one that unfortunately could not overcome years of struggle and financial instability. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Arizona Slim , August 24, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    http://vtdigger.org/2016/08/23/state-taxpayers-pick-tab-burlington-college-student-records/

    My comments on this link: Jane Sanders used to be president of Burlington College.

    And, pardon me for being a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, I wonder if this was the dirt that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on July 12.

    Katharine , August 24, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    But if she left five years ago, it is difficult to see how she could be blamed for this specific problem. Whatever her role in the financial problems may have been (and I admit I don't understand that well), her successors were responsible for what was done subsequently, and if they knew they might have to close down should have taken steps to protect student records and ensure their future accessibility.

    Anne , August 24, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    This was a comment left on that article by someone named Sandy Baird:

    Thank you for this reporting. The demise of Burlington College was not caused by Jane Sanders. The Board of trustees and the then President Jane Sanders bought the property from the Catholic diocese. President Sanders was an ambitious President and sought to increase the enrollment by creating substantial, innovative and effective programs, which included the Burlington College/Cuba Semester abroad and by increasing the profile of the school in the community and state. Jane's plan always was to create a thriving campus for a growing student body and for a unique college which had as its mission the "building of sustainable, just, humane and beautiful communities." However, President Sanders was not to last long at BC and she left for still unknown circumstances soon after the purchase of the property.

    The next Presidents, Cjristine Plunkett, Mike Smith and Carol Moore then sold off large portions of the property to real estate developers and then, when the ship finally sank under increasingly hopeless and clueless leadership, all of whom could not increase enrollment or or raise any funds (in fact we were eventually told that the school had given up fund raising), Burlington College went into a relentless downward spiral which tragically and painfully closed its doors in May, 20016.

    The school, the property and the beach will now be picked up by the developer, Eric Farrell and the beach goes to the City. In a final irony, Eric Farrell was awarded an honorary doctorate degree at the final graduation of the school in May when its founder, Stu Lacase gave the graduation address.

    For what it's worth, here's another article from The Atlantic .

    Burlington College was always a fragile concern. Its website notes that in the early days, it "had no financial backing, paid its bills when they came due, and paid its President when it could." Jane Sanders's plan to place a big bet on expansion in order to put the school on a more solid long-term footing was similar to decisions made by other college presidents, and sometimes those bets simply don't work out.

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 24, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    On the last quote, that's how I read it. Owning real estate on the Lake Champlain waterfront is not, ipso facto , a crazy thing to do. It sounds like the college just couldn't outrun trouble. I still don't think it's a good look, though.

    Anne , August 24, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    It may ultimately have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and it looks terrible that Jane Sanders was at the helm and instrumental in making the decision, but it also sounds like it was a bold effort – that the Board of Directors signed off on – to change the school's fortunes, and one that unfortunately could not overcome years of struggle and financial instability.

    The college should have provided the transcripts before it locked the doors, but it looks to me like they wouldn't have been able to do it even then without the state's financial assistance.

    If Jane had only known, she could have gotten the Board to approve a donation to the Clinton Foundation, right?

    Katharine , August 24, 2016 at 4:52 pm

    Looks terrible? Seriously? I'm sorry, but I can't raise my pulse at all because someone took a rational chance her successors were unable to carry through successfully.

    As for providing the transcripts before locking the doors, that would have been problematic, as so many places want original transcripts from the institution and won't accept something that has come through the hands of the student. Those alumni are going to be dogged by that as long as they need transcripts unless the state or somebody funds permanent access.

    afisher , August 24, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    Amen, did anyone hear the screaming about this same scenario when small college had Ben Sasse as President of College? He left, others followed and undid some of his actions and eventually the small college suffered.

    Apparently it is fine for some people to have these behaviors overlooked and not so for others. I believe there is a word for that – hmmm, I'm sure it will come to me eventually.

    [Aug 25, 2016] So neoliberals with tacit blessing of US goverment spends 2 decades transferring our manufacturing capabilities to a communist state…so…now we need tools to cage the dragon we created?

    Notable quotes:
    "... This needs more play. I am a blue-collar refugee, and most of my circle are same. They all seem to be captive to the messaging of the business press, and Trump, that we have lost some "competition" with China, India, etc. for the manufacturing business. The corporations and their minions in gov. are guilty of the real "un-patriotic" acts. ..."
    "... The entire logic of how great globalization is is flawed at its heart. A. We have a much higher standard of living than other countries; so B. Let's "level the playing field" with those other countries. So A + B = a reversion of our country's standard of living to the global mean. ..."
    "... Cue globalists who insist the citizens benefit anyway because they get to buy cheap stuff…now that they're unemployed. Oops ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Marcum , August 24, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    RE NYT Prestowitz link

    "…the administration is absolutely right that America needs tools to counter China's growing influence in Asia and around the world…"

    So US industry with tacit blessing of US industrial policy spends 2 decades transferring our manufacturing capabilities to a communist state…so…now we need "tools" to cage the dragon we created? Not saying I would ever vote for Trump but this circular bullshit boggles the mind and sends me screaming into the night.

    ilporcupine , August 24, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    This needs more play. I am a blue-collar refugee, and most of my circle are same. They all seem to be captive to the messaging of the business press, and Trump, that we have lost some "competition" with China, India, etc. for the manufacturing business. The corporations and their minions in gov. are guilty of the real "un-patriotic" acts.

    I don't know that "communist" really is a qualifier, though. If an ostensibly "commie" country is "winning" at capitalism, what does that say about capitalism as a belief system? If a person thinks that a free market sorts all these issues, they would have to be willing to just not buy the goods produced in the cheap labor/dirty environment country, in order to make "losers" out of them…how feasible is this?

    Sorry, rambling, mine is not an organized mind…

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 24, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    The entire logic of how great globalization is is flawed at its heart. A. We have a much higher standard of living than other countries; so B. Let's "level the playing field" with those other countries. So A + B = a reversion of our country's standard of living to the global mean.

    Quick question: who thinks that is a good idea (pick one):

    1. The owners of the means of production since they get to dramatically lower their costs;
    or
    2. The citizens of the country.

    (Cue globalists who insist the citizens benefit anyway because they get to buy cheap stuff…now that they're unemployed. Oops.)

    afisher , August 24, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    Ask why Trump has his some clothing line manufactured in China. I don't believe that Trump could bully the Chinese Government in trade negotiations. We need them a whole lot more that they need us. Also of note: Trump tried to get into the mortgage business. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-22/donald-trump-the-mortgage-broker-was-in-trouble-from-moment-one

    From the Financial Times article 8/14/16, "during the first decade of this century" Trump worked with Bayrock. That was a shift away from his Real Estate business, the last? being his Trump Soho that failed. The point being that he hasn't been active in real estate for nearly a decade and his 'Trump labeling" may be enhancing his wealth, but it certainly isn't a sign of good business acumen.

    He is relying on people forgetting when he got out of the business that made him wealthy. Relying on him, IMO is risky business.

    ilporcupine , August 24, 2016 at 9:40 pm

    We need China more than they need us? Why? For what purpose? We are the customer. They are a provider of labor. We have unutilized labor here. ???
    I really am curious as to why you said that.

    steelhead23 , August 24, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    No apologies needed. Well said. And true.

    Mark , August 24, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    on the other hand

    "China National Chemical Corp. received approval from U.S. national security officials for its takeover of Swiss agrochemical and seeds company Syngenta AG, seen as the biggest regulatory hurdle that the $43 billion acquisition faces.

    The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. has cleared the transaction, the companies said in a statement Monday. The deal, expected to be completed by the end of the year, is still subject to antitrust review by regulators worldwide, according to the statement."

    Bloomberg. August 22.

    [Aug 25, 2016] Farage to stump with Trump: The Dream Team!

    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    EmilianoZ , August 24, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Farage to stump with Trump: The Dream Team!

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/24/nigel-farage-donald-trump-mississippi-rally-appearance

    ian , August 24, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    I'll say one thing about Farage – I wish our members of congress could give speeches that were half as entertaining as some of his are. He has some absolute classics on youtube, including the 'who the hell are you?' speech in the European Parliament.

    clarky90 , August 24, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h53xa4Ai4U

    Coverage of Donald Trump Rally in Jackson, Mississsippi with Nigel Farage (The Brexit Guy)!

    It is happening today

    I am am right at the beginning. The interviewer is interviewing people waiting in line. It is very entertaining. Very nice people!!!

    Rather than read what the Paid Media Minions SAY and WRITE about "The People", let them speak for themselves! They are so eloquent!

    clarky90 , August 24, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    "The People" (as in We The People), standing in line, want Hillary Clinton charged and tried by a USA Court of Law.

    The population, as a whole, is realizing that the Grifters have been lying to us about almost everything.

    It is that moment when it suddenly dawns on a person (they grok) that their wife/husband/boss/friend/mother/father…… is a sociopath . Suddenly ALL the chaos in their lives makes perfect sense. The light goes on!

    Jim Haygood , August 24, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    Anathema:

    Former leader of the UK Independent Party Nigel Farage, credited for Brexit, addressed the audience at a Trump campaign rally in Jackson, Mississippi on Wednesday night.

    "You can beat the pollsters, you can beat the commentators, you can beat Washington," Farage said to cheers. "If you want change, you better get your walking boots on."

    "Anything is possible if enough decent people want to fight the establishment," Farage said.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/24/nigel_farage_at_trump_rally_anything_is_possible_if_enough_decent_people_fight_the_establishment.html

    Pure, populist poison, from the Depublicrat point of view.

    We have drone fleets to take out threats like this.

    How did Farage even get a visa to enter USA, USA!

    [Aug 25, 2016] Trump: I am fighting for a peaceful regime change in our own country

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump keeps saying, "I think we have a movement here" to his audiences. At the Akron speech, he said "I am fighting for a peaceful regime change in our own country." ..."
    "... I suspect that Donald Trump has awoken from The Great Slumber . ( Māyā means illusion, fraud, deception, magic that misleads and creates disorder) ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    clarky90 , August 24, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    Re, "Donald Trump's road show has detoured this month to states with no political value to a Republican nominee in a general election."

    Donald Trump keeps saying, "I think we have a movement here" to his audiences. At the Akron speech, he said "I am fighting for a peaceful regime change in our own country."

    I suspect that Donald Trump has awoken from The Great Slumber . ( Māyā means illusion, fraud, deception, magic that misleads and creates disorder)

    [Aug 24, 2016] Hillary Clinton Ad Suggests Donald Trump Will Launch Nukes As President

    Breitbart
    The latest ad from Hillary Clinton's campaign suggests that, if elected, Donald Trump might launch nuclear weapons because he lacks the experience and temperament to be president.

    "In times of crisis, America depends on steady leadership, clear thinking, and calm judgement," the narrator says. "Because all it takes is one wrong move."

    ... ... ...

    The strategy from the Clinton campaign is familiar. During the 2008 Democratic primary fight with President Obama, Clinton released an ad questioning whether the young senator would have the experience necessary to keep the country safe when the phone rang at 3 a.m.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Right On Cue Establishment Uses Putin Dog-Whistle As Similarities To Brexit Campaign Deepen

    Notable quotes:
    "... links to Russia were one of the most consistent messages of the 'Remain' campaign's 'Project Fear' strategy to keep Britain in the European Union. Even the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, invoked the threat of Russia to try and convince Britons to stay in. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign's briefings on how Donald Trump is " Helping Putin Consolidate Control of Ukraine ", and how Russia is " meddling in U.S. election " (there's that word again) are Project Fear 101. The journalists willfully writing up these stories are ignoring critical points; such as how Secretary of State Clinton's connections with the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs helped Russia buy up U.S. uranium interests . The New York Times reported in April 2015: ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    The Clinton campaign alongside the establishment media have begun blowing the Vladimir Putin dog-whistle, just as their European counterparts did during the United Kingdom's referendum on its membership of the European Union (EU).

    Almost as if on cue, news outlets have begun parroting the same old lines used by Britain's political establishment before June of this year, when they accused anti-establishment 'Leave' campaigners of doing the bidding for, if not being directly linked to, the Russian president and the Kremlin.

    From questioning the marriage of one of the key donors to the Leave campaign , to using Britain's public broadcaster to float conspiracy theories about Russian influence, the Cold War-esque scare tactics of 'Reds Under the Bed' not only reveals the lack of originality in the Clinton camp, it reveals hypocrisy, foreign policy flippancy , and perhaps even a serious misestimation of where the public stands on the issue.

    In the run up to the Brexit referendum, U.S. outlets even went as far as to call Mr. Putin's (lack of) interventions " meddling ". The same charge was never levelled by the media at U.S. President Barack Obama when he flew to the United Kingdom and lectured Britons on how they should vote. In fact, he threatened the country's economy and trade position in the world if they refused to follow his advice. But this was deemed appropriate.

    Meanwhile, the Kremlin and Mr. Putin were broadly absent from the debate, possibly because they knew full well the 'Remain' camp would use any public pronouncements against the Leave camp, but also because they are unlikely to have had a clear-cut position on the issue. Mr Putin is a grand strategist and could have dealt with either outcome. The U.S. establishment, however, has all of its eggs in the globalism basket.

    In March a Kremlin spokesman said : "Russia is being dragged into the domestic debate on Brexit. Why is the wicked Russia thesis used to explain a Government policy?"

    "We'd like the British people to know that those pronouncements have nothing to do with Russia's policy," the embassy said. "As a matter of fact, our Government doesn't have an opinion on Britain's place in the EU."

    Despite this far less "meddling" tactic, links to Russia were one of the most consistent messages of the 'Remain' campaign's 'Project Fear' strategy to keep Britain in the European Union. Even the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, invoked the threat of Russia to try and convince Britons to stay in.

    HYPOCRISY

    The Clinton campaign's briefings on how Donald Trump is " Helping Putin Consolidate Control of Ukraine ", and how Russia is " meddling in U.S. election " (there's that word again) are Project Fear 101. The journalists willfully writing up these stories are ignoring critical points; such as how Secretary of State Clinton's connections with the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs helped Russia buy up U.S. uranium interests . The New York Times reported in April 2015:

    "At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One."

    This is barely scratching the surface, as Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer wrote in the Wall Street Journal in July:

    "In May 2010, the State Department facilitated a Moscow visit by 22 of the biggest names in U.S. venture capital-and weeks later the first memorandums of understanding were signed by Skolkovo and American companies.

    "By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan-who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation-recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European "Key Partners." Of the 28 "partners," 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton."

    Nevertheless, you will likely find more references to Putin and Trump in the past week alone than you will to these dubious affairs in their totality.

    Indeed arch-establishment mouthpiece, Legatum Institute leader, and all-round George Soros activist Anne Applebaum went so far as to declare Donald Trump "a Russian oligarch" in the Washington Post this week.

    Ms. Applebaum is married to the U.S.-hating former Polish foreign minister whose party was turfed out by a populist, nationalist revolt last year. They are now being assisted by Mr. Soros and his third party groups in their bid to destabilise the new Polish government, using the European Union and indeed the Clintons too . This, however, has not proved popular with U.S.-based Polish expats .

    And perhaps far worse than her connections to the Kremlin – a relationship which has evidently soured in recent months – are her connections to the fascist, authoritarian, pseudo-monarchical, Islamist dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. In 2015 the WSJ reported :

    " the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn't specify how much."

    But few column inches or broadcast air minutes are used to discuss these matters.

    FOREIGN POLICY FLIPPANCY

    In drafting in Russia as a talking point, Mrs. Clinton makes it very difficult for her to deal with President Putin and the Kremlin should she find herself in the Oval Office in 2017.

    Her campaign's claims that Mr. Trump is somehow untrustworthy because he wants to work with Mr. Putin, not against him, is difficult to take seriously given her lauding of Russia as "an ally" in 2012:

    She said, in an attempt to mock then-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who called the country America's greatest geopolitical foe:

    "Russia has been an ally. They're in the P-5+1 talks with us, they have worked with us in Afghanistan and have been very helpful in the Northern Distribution Network and in other ways. So I think it's somewhat dated to be looking backwards instead of being realistic about where we agree, where we don't agree, but looking for ways to bridge the disagreements and then to maximize the cooperation".

    In March 2010 she said:

    "One of the fears that I hear from Russia is that somehow the United States wants Russia to be weak. That could not be farther from the truth. Our goal is to help strengthen Russia."

    Her once-celebrated "reset" with Russia was an inglorious failure. But it is no different to her foreign policy accomplishments across the board. On Iran, Iraq, Europe, TTIP, Israel, Libya, and elsewhere, she has been an unprecedented flop.

    Her willingness to risk fresh discord with Putin's Russia for the sake of some negative Trump headlines speak volumes about her intentions in the Oval Office: endanger the United States and revive old wounds unless there's money to be made. And not for America either. For herself.

    WHERE THE PUBLIC STANDS

    The Russia question is a hard one to pin down. Certainly most Western citizens still remember or know of the Cold War. They see Russia, especially Putin's Russia, as untrustworthy and indeed – as Mitt Romney identified – the U.S.'s greatest geopolitical foe.

    But whether it is New York Magazine or the Washington Post ( again ) – journalists often portray pictures of Europe and Europeans living in the United States that had more relevance in the 1980s than they do today.

    The idea of people lining up for government gruel anti-Russian sentiment is outdated. Many Europeans see the country today as a stalwart of conservatism. Authoritarian, state-driven, religious conservatism. But conservatism nonetheless. There is a wafer-thin line between the political philosophies of Marine Le Pen's Front National and Mr. Putin's Russia.

    And while the WaPo 's and Daily Beasts of the world may think that abhorrent: the public does not.

    This stems from having seen first hand what the centrist political establishments – heralded in by the likes of Bill Clinton and John McCain – have done in their countries. But it also derives its legitimacy from the cultural debates raging across Western nations. In London, Warsaw, Paris, and Kiev there may be much backslapping over liberalism, but the great cultural arguments, those of civilisational import are indeed still being played out across the smaller towns and cities of European countries. The same as in the United States.

    Populists, nationalists, and eurosceptics are winning in the UK, in the Netherlands, in Poland, in France, in Hungary, and before the U.S./EU political coup: in Ukraine.

    So when James Hohmann quotes John McCain alongside failed John Kasich and Jon Huntsman campaign chief John Weaver, it is clear they all see the world from national capitals with their metropolitan, liberal, younger voters. Maybe its a "John" thing.

    "In and around Cleveland, Akron, Toledo, Detroit and all throughout Wisconsin, you're talking about voters with family in Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine and the Czech Republic," Weaver told the Washington Post , adding: "These voters are key to any narrow path that Trump has left."

    Whether or not that is true from a psephological perspective is already sketchy. That it is true from an ideological and cultural one is risible.

    While no one can doubt the Communist-era overhang suffered by places like Poland, the trend is going the other way, not against Mr. Putin. Pew Research from 2015 revealed a much more complex picture than Mr. Weaver et. al would have you believe, and while Russia's standing in the world declined around the Crimea annexation, it has begun to recover in all but the United Kingdom and Canada.

    "As recently as 2010, 45% of Poles had a favorable view of Russia – three times the current share. Just as striking, in 2010 only 11% had a very unfavorable opinion of Russia".

    Even in Ukraine the picture is less clear than U.S. journalists would have you think. Pew (2015) showed :

    "Western Ukrainians are much more likely to say Russia is the sole culprit (56%), while those in the east see the problem as more complicated. A third of Ukrainians in the east think Russia is primarily to blame, but 36% fault more than one of the groups.

    "Roughly half of Ukrainians (47%) believe Russia is a major military threat to other neighboring countries. Another 34% say the former Cold War power is a minor threat. Western Ukrainians are much more concerned about Russia's territorial ambitions (61% major threat) than those in the east (30%)."

    This is a drastically different scenario from the one portrayed in the U.S. media, which usually comes down to "Russia bad. Everywhere else good". But even the American people are growing weary of this slant.

    Pew (2016) demonstrated that while U.S. public opinion towards Russia slumped in 2014 around the time of the Crimea annexation, those numbers have now halved. People don't view Russia as an outright adversary, though they are perhaps rightly wary of its status as a geopolitical competitor.

    "There is no sign of growing public concern about either China or Russia. Roughly a quarter of the public (23%) views each as an adversary, while 44% say each is a serious problem but not an adversary. About three-in-ten say neither China nor Russia pose much of a problem for the U.S."

    Perhaps Mrs. Clinton's greatest folly will be believing that her campaign should be spending time hammering Donald Trump for ostensibly advocating the same "reset" policy she did in 2009.

    Much like during the Brexit campaign, it is hard to see many if any of the wider public placing much weight behind her simultaneously shaky and hypocritical claims.

    Raheem Kassam is the editor in chief of Breitbart London. Follow him on Facebook.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Russian hackers targeted New York Times

    Most of anti-russian hysteria is directed toward instilling fear and increasing solidarity, with neoliberals trying to scare low-information dumb voters away from Trump
    Notable quotes:
    "... The FBI is investigating whether Russian hackers have carried out a series of cyber attacks on the New York Times, officials have told US media. ..."
    "... New York Times was whinging that Chinese hackers had breached and infiltrated their servers a few years ago. NYT is always bitching about something. ..."
    "... Isn't it cute, the way the Americans have lost their minds, and they don't even notice? Here's the Washington Post , blatting about how Putin's meddling in the American elections has backfired on him . Just as if that were actually happening. It's a good thing they have focused on another actual country which is part of this planet, I guess, rather than aliens from another world, because then we would have to lock them up. ..."
    "... Some of it is just agitating for Hillary, trying to scare low-information dumb voters away from Trump. But there is a definite tendency to blame even routine American problems on Russia. They don't seem to get how crazy it makes them look, it's like actual national mental illness. The whole election process should be frozen right here until the country comes to its senses. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Warren , August 23, 2016 at 7:57 pm
    Russian hackers 'targeted New York Times'

    The FBI is investigating whether Russian hackers have carried out a series of cyber attacks on the New York Times, officials have told US media.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37171350

    Warren , August 23, 2016 at 8:07 pm
    New York Times was whinging that Chinese hackers had breached and infiltrated their servers a few years ago. NYT is always bitching about something.

    Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers-infiltrate-new-york-times-computers.html?_r=0

    marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 9:49 pm
    Yes, the Chinese in chinked-out China would be very likely to want to tap into a newspaper that doesn't report anything which is true except for the Catholic Bean Supper at St. Patrick's. China can hear US government propaganda along with everyone else, while it is valuable to have advance notice of news only if what is being reported is actually true.
    marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 9:45 pm
    Isn't it cute, the way the Americans have lost their minds, and they don't even notice? Here's the Washington Post , blatting about how Putin's meddling in the American elections has backfired on him . Just as if that were actually happening. It's a good thing they have focused on another actual country which is part of this planet, I guess, rather than aliens from another world, because then we would have to lock them up.

    Not even during the coldest depths of the Cold War did the United States so crazily blame all of its problems on the Russians. If America can't have global war against Russia, it is going to be so disappointed.

    Some of it is just agitating for Hillary, trying to scare low-information dumb voters away from Trump. But there is a definite tendency to blame even routine American problems on Russia. They don't seem to get how crazy it makes them look, it's like actual national mental illness. The whole election process should be frozen right here until the country comes to its senses.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Our Famously Free Press now reminds Nevada brothels

    Under neoliberalism like under communism political parties to become far more ideologically uniform than they used to be. So we have hard neoliberal party and soft neoliberal party and voters are limited between choosing Pepsi or Cola. And press became just presstitutes for political machine of the parties, especially during election. Those despicable presstitutes now are afraid to talk about the issue facing the country and denigrate to discussion personalities exclusively.
    "Trump has laid bare journalism's [ pressitutes ]contradictions - reporters' desire to be critical of politicians without criticizing anything they stand for "
    Notable quotes:
    "... The dems brand themselves as old time liberal to some constituencies. The repubs brand themselves as conservative to some constituencies. This works for dems and it works for repubs. The straw man arguments fill the boob tube and pass for democracy and self government. ..."
    "... But this year, after so many years, standard baloney like "Bush kept us safe" did not placate the repub base, which is in a serious world of hurt (death rates of poorer middle aged white people are going up!). And the dems faced the most ground shaking challenge to the orthodoxy since Gene McCarthy, as millennials working 2 or 3 jobs saw that the "highest standard of living in the world" had the same relation to reality as pancake syrup has to …maple trees. ..."
    "... We're at the beginning of the beginning – where the 99% is catching on that the vampire squid's gain is our loss. Its gonna be a bumpy ride… ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Lambert Strether Post author

    On Clinton not already having put Trump away:

    Hillary Clinton enjoys about a five-point polling lead over Donald Trump. One way to look at this is that it's a margin, at this stage of a presidential race, that is rarely reversed.

    Here's another way. The Democrats had a successful convention, the Republicans didn't. Clinton's campaign has been smooth; Trump's has careened between disasters. She has reached out to independents and Republicans; he has insulted the family of a soldier killed in Iraq, along with people with disabilities, Latinos and women. Clinton has outspent him 3 to 1.

    And she's only ahead by five percentage points.

    I keep saying the Clinton campaign is like a hot air balloon with a tear in it. They have to keep frantically pumping more hot air into it, simply to stay aloft.

    Trump hasn't spent a dime on TV, either. (I'm sure that he isn't filling up Republican consultants' rice bowls is one reason they hate him.)

    Policy

    UPDATE "No Need to Build The Donald's Wall, It's Built" [Tom Dispatch]. Wait, wait. Obama's policy now is what Trump's would be? And Democrats >and Trump are frothing and stamping over nothing? Is the problem that the wall's not beautiful? What?

    fresno dan

    UPDATE "No Need to Build The Donald's Wall, It's Built" [Tom Dispatch]. Wait, wait. Obama's policy now is what Trump's would be? And Democrats and Trump are frothing and stamping over nothing? Is the problem that the wall's not beautiful? What?

    ======================================
    The dems brand themselves as old time liberal to some constituencies. The repubs brand themselves as conservative to some constituencies. This works for dems and it works for repubs. The straw man arguments fill the boob tube and pass for democracy and self government.

    But it makes for a politics that is completely and totally irrelevant to most people. It is designed not to address issues, and reality is its enemy.

    But this year, after so many years, standard baloney like "Bush kept us safe" did not placate the repub base, which is in a serious world of hurt (death rates of poorer middle aged white people are going up!). And the dems faced the most ground shaking challenge to the orthodoxy since Gene McCarthy, as millennials working 2 or 3 jobs saw that the "highest standard of living in the world" had the same relation to reality as pancake syrup has to …maple trees.

    We're at the beginning of the beginning – where the 99% is catching on that the vampire squid's gain is our loss. Its gonna be a bumpy ride…

    Lambert Strether Post author

    Horrified by Trump, Democrats getting nostalgic about Romney Yahoo News. Boy, I'm so old I remember… Well, let me just collect some of the better headlines at Kos from campaign 2012:

    UPDATE: Mitt Romney Pals Around with Child Molesters

    Romney ignores request from mother of Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi to stop using son in stump speech

    Romney mansplains to lady editor what ladies really care about

    For Mitt Romney, Billy Graham 'Sells Out' His Faith & Jesus for Political Advantage

    Breaking: Did Romney Pay Zero Taxes From 1996 To 2009?

    Mitt Romney's Driving Killed Leola Anderson. His Cover-Up Tale is Proved Dishonest

    Romney Took $77,000 Tax Deduction For His Dancing Horse

    The re-emergence of dick Romney

    A Devastating Expose of Mitt Romney's Mistreatment of Mormon Women Emerges

    [Aug 24, 2016] Good jobs disaappered and middle class had shruk dramatically in the USA

    Notable quotes:
    "... That said, what I believe is needed in the USA is a doubling down on Corporate Boards of Directors and CEOs to create a crisis, an American intervention, if you will, that demands companies bring back the idea that Profits alone are not all that matters. Serving the Nation you are born in, raised in, educated in, and then making a profitable income from certainly needs to be focused in on. ..."
    "... An additional factor in the financial woes of the falling middle class is the changing demographics here in the US - the growing numbers of single mothers, who are far more likely to struggle financially than a two income household. I make no judgment regarding how people form their family units, but life is especially hard for single mothers. ..."
    "... Its even more difficult for journalists in Guardian. They have to destroy chances of only candidate addressing inequality and climate change (Bernie), completely surrender their integrity to corporations, lament over those issues post factum, and yet be paid miserably only in hundreds of thousands for such colossal betrayal of humanity. Its worth at billions to actively participate in destroying future of your kids. Or is it? ..."
    "... We need a new Federal Minimum Wage, and the wealthiest need to start paying up. Trump claims that business in the US pay the highest tax rate. That's just not true. I'm not talking about putting the burden on small business, but the multi-nationals and Wall Street. ..."
    "... And we can blame Billary and Hussein for it. Their "free-trade" decisions, along with their shameful endorsement of open-borders, have lowered wages for everyone, except for financiers. Interestingly, it was those who've suffered the brunt of the elites' decisions who voted for Britain to leave the EU. Ironically, those who professed to stand for the middle and lower classes, revealed their hypocrisy when they joined the Mandarins in opposing for Britain to leave the totalitarian EU. ..."
    "... Like the Trojans fearing present-giving presents, so should the working man loath the elites who promised to have their best interests at heart. That is the same promise communism gave the workers, only to turn on and enslave them. Today the workers don't stand a chance: the Marxists and bankers are on the same side sneering at the working classes who are demeaned as being racist, jingoistic xenophobes. ..."
    "... An article in Forbes that explains why Obamacare is a scam. ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders ..."
    "... I agree with you that he never did. Obama is a corporatist and globalist. If you think Obamacare is bad wait until his trade deals are past. He sold Americans out for the profits of multinational corporations. Hillary will continue his work. I understand the true meaning of his words now. ..."
    "... The US middle class has been disintegrating for decades as inequity grows ..."
    "... Clinton is in hiding. I can't find her in the Guardian today. She is a habitual liar and the whole world has all the evidence it needs. All of her promises are bullshit. Bernie has been right the whole time and he is smart not to endorse. Bernie has always known what she is and Bernie's supporters have no reason to support her. ..."
    "... It means she is corrupt, dishonest, and unqualified to be anything but an inmate. ..."
    "... the middle class has been decimated.. This financial category is only about 35% of was it was in the early 70's.. additionally the definition of middle class has changed drastically as well.. believe it or not your middle class if your earn more than 50k a year!.. this is part of the reason we are as a nation borrowing a trillion dollars a year.. when will the silenced majority wake up and start voting and stop spending on products that are vastly over priced. ..."
    "... My kid had a persistent tummy ache. Doc said intestinal blockage; take him to the ER immediately. Seven hours and one inconclusive CAT scan later, he's home again with symptoms unchanged. Two days later the pain went away. Cost: $12,000 with about $10,000 covered by union health insurance. So that's at least $2,000 out of pocket to me for seven hours in hospital, zero diagnosis and zero relief from symptoms. Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what? Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law? ..."
    "... I sympathize. I also agree with you. The US medical system is criminal. It is cruel, discriminatory, ruthless, often ineffective, and often incompetent. The only reason the administrators ("health" maintenance corporations) aren't in jail is because they use some of their obscene profits to buy Congress -- which passes laws like Obama's ACA or Bush's big Pharma swindle. I have no idea what to do about it though -- maybe if everyone refused to pay their premiums and medical bills, the money managers would notice. A sort of strike. ..."
    "... SIngle-payer is the answer. Of course, the insurance companies and big pharma use scare tactics to stop that from happening. They talk about government waste, completely ignoring their own waste. They ignore the billions of dollars that they skim off of the top each year before applying any money for actual medical care. Wake up, people. Medical care should be run by the government or non-profit organizations, not by for-profit corporations. ..."
    "... Despite the financial situation in middle-and lower income families that has been steadily declining under the past 8 years of the Obama administration, most in that group will support Hillary and propagate the Same problems for 4 more years. They stand no hope unless they break from the knee-jerk support of the "Democratic" Party. ..."
    "... So they should support Donald Trump and the conservative party? Last time I checked raising taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich didn't really help anyone but the rich. The Republican party never gave two shits about middle and lower class, and there's no point believing they will start now. ..."
    "... Isn't choosing to have three children very selfish if you cannot support them financially. People always find someone else to blame. ..."
    "... "Race" card!!?? Where the hell did I mention anything about race or are you really as dumb as your reply suggests. Plus, you don't require a test to decide if you can afford children or not. It basic family planning. It's people like you in society that has the place in a mess with your "blame anyone but meself attitude" If I'm considered horrible, at least I'm not totally dumb and irrisponsible like you. ..."
    "... Bill Maher recently (July 1, 2016; Overtime) editorialized about the state "laboratories" where new ideas are tested and evaluated. Maher compared the divergent fates of California and Kansas plus Louisiana. ..."
    "... It's interesting. According to my household income I'm in the "upper" tier for the DC-metro region. But it really doesn't feel that way. Even those of us who make a good income are more and more stretched. In comparison to most of the country, I am well off. I own a car, just bought a house, I can afford to go out to eat a couple times a week. But, I even get to the end of the month with only $100 in the bank. That's because other downward pressures on pay aren't taken into account, such as student debt. My expensive undergraduate and graduate education didn't come cheap, and while that education affords people higher pay, if you end up taking less of it home. It kinda equals out. ..."
    "... Sometimes my husband and I think about having kids, and then we realise that even with our good paying jobs, we can't afford day care in our area. I get paid the most, so I can't quit my job but if my husband quit to care for a child, we would really be strapped. Can I really be considered an upper tier household if I can't afford to have kids? If I can't afford to go on vacation once a year? If I haven't bought new clothes in two years? If I have no savings and a freak medical bill might just tip me over the edge? ..."
    "... Suggest you give Andrew Tobias' book a read to think outside the box a good education often constructs for us: https://www.amazon.com/Only-Investment-Guide-Youll-Ever/dp/0544781937?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc ..."
    "... You can cut student debt in the U.S. by attending a good community college for two years and then transferring to a state university. Most kids are unwilling to do this--no frats or prestige in community colleges! ..."
    "... Beginning in the 1970s, a majority of the middle class began to resent the taxation needed to continue support for these liberal policies, and they began to vote for conservative politicians who promised to remove them as they "only helped the undeserving poor." White racism played a role in this as the lower class was invariably portrayed in political speeches and advertising as group of lazy black people. ..."
    "... No, it was created in response to the Bolshevik revolution, in particular, to that genius who said "Let's just shoot the royal family and be done with this." ..."
    "... All of these things have come under attack since the USSR fell apart, probably on that exact day. And who overthrew the USSR? Overeducated middle class, not the poor or the rich. Who was Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring... the recent protests against the French labor law tightenings, ALL the middle class. ..."
    "... The greatest threat to governments has, and always will be, from within. And this threat is from the middle class, almost exclusively. Therefore, we are to be crushed and controlled tightly ..."
    "... funny how this media outlet didn't publish these types of reports while the primary was hot. It was all "Hilary is inevitable and supporting Bernie is supporting Trump" type garbage. ..."
    "... Probably he means to say Americans habitually ask new acquaintances, "What do you do for a living?" That's absolutely a query about income and personal worth, though slightly disguised, and it's a question I have never widely encountered anywhere else in the world, nor while living overseas the last ten years. ..."
    "... This article is extremely dishonest. First, it claims that she has 'three other jobs'. Second, she has children, for whom she presumably gets child support. So what's her *real* income? ..."
    "... When those in poverty or on the verge of it are single mothers, you tend to wonder if there are some other issues as well. I don't recall a time in American history where a single mother of several children could take care of herself when completely on her own. ..."
    "... I teach in inner city schools. There are so many problems, money is one of them but all the money won't solve the problem of poor learning attitudes, disaffection, poor discipline and nonexistent work ethic . ..."
    "... A lot of the students get no discipline at home and their parents don't expect them to learn anything. They are resistant to the whole process of focus on new knowledge , absorb, drill, recall , deploy newly learned thing. ..."
    "... I don't know what solution there is to this. My nieces and nephews did well in school, studied hard, and went on to university. They didn't do drugs, rape or be raped, and stayed away from unsavory kids. BUT--they went home to two parents every night, a father and mother, which I think would have made them successful at school no matter what their income. ..."
    "... The US economy isn't competitive anymore. It started with the labor cost being too high, so factories moved out. Then the entire supply chain moved out. Now the main consumer market is also moving out. Once that is gone, we will have no more leverage. ..."
    "... The US education is good, but students are lazy, undisciplined, and incurious. In silicon valley, more than 75% of highly paid technical personnel are foreign born. Corporations making money with foreign workers here and abroad, on foreign markets. Taking these away and you will see the economy crash. ..."
    "... Labor costs were too high. Have some more kool-aid. The elite didn't want labor to have any bargaining power whatsoever . They wanted to dictate the terms to labor believing that they were the only ones who should have any say in matters. The elite wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of their own citizens. They wanted slave labor . They wanted powerless people to dance to their tune. How could an advanced nation's labor possibly compete with slave labor . ..."
    "... Sadly ..... thee isn't any hope for these people in the foreseeable future . Their economic decline has been happening for quite some time now and shows no sign of abating whatsoever . The economic foundations of their lives have been steadily pulled out from under them by the financial elite and their subservient political cultures , the Republican and Democratic Parties . The Republicans have never really given a damn about them and the Democrats have long abandoned them . These poor people of North Carolina are adrift on a sinking raft on easy ocean of indifference by the political cultures of America . To those in power , they don't exist . They don't count . They don't matter . ..."
    "... The trend in the U.S, along with almost every other major nation in the world over the past 35 years has been to exclusively serve the interests of the financial elite and only their needs . All sense of fairness , justice and decency have been totally discarded . ..."
    "... Tax breaks after tax breaks , tax shelters , free movement of capital , etc., etc. would sum up the experience of the financial elite over the past 35 years . They have become incredibly wealthy now and are still not satisfied . They want more . They want it all . They want what little you have and their political servants which help them get . ..."
    "... Political discourse pertaining to the plight of those like these folks in North Carolina is all window dressing . In the end , you can be certain that it will amount to nothing . Just like it has for decades now . The financial elite are in control and they are not going to give any of that control up . As a matter of fact , they are going to tighten their grip . They will invent crisis to have their agendas imposed upon an increasingly powerless and bewildered public . They will take advantage of every naturally occurring crisis to advance their agenda . ..."
    "... The problem is the job exporting American elite class. NAFTA was an economics, political, and social experiment with all the downside on the former, mostly lower middle class. Non-aligned examination of the available data shows how disastrous NAFTA has been to America's bubbas. Thanks to Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. WTO was all Bill. Of the mistakes Obama has made TPP would be the worst. The question is, really, do we favor global fairness (an even playing field for all earth's peoples) and a climate-killing consumerist world, or our own disadvantaged (courtesy of our financial and political elite) citizens. Not an easy choice. Death by poison or hanging. No treaty can benegotiated fairly in secret. ..."
    "... The tragic irony is that the anger against rule by the 1% manifests in things like support for Trump, a typical example of the greed and excess of the 1%. Americans need to question outside their desperately constrained paradigms more. It will help focus their anger more strategically, and possibly lead to solutions. Don't hold your breath, the inequality gap is accelerating the wrong way. ..."
    "... I think the US is heDing for trouble. It is the middle class that maintains civil society and gives a sense of hope. This is an interesting open letter by a zillionaire to his peers warning them what happens without a string middle class. A thought provoking read. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014 ..."
    "... The elite of the USA have done exactly what the Romans did and what the Pre-Revolutionary French did.... drain the lower classes while enriching themselves. "Taxes are for little people" is not just a pithy quote, it has become the reality as the elite rig the system so they benefit and the lower classes pay. They need to wake up or they will get exactly what the Romans Got (collapsed empire) or the French got (Violent Revolution). Wake up America! It is time to choose your side in the class war the elite continue to execute while telling us there is no "Class War" - you can't pull yourself up by your boot straps while they are pulling the rug out from under you! ..."
    "... My wife used to employ recent graduates from Georgetown University with poli. sci., psychology, sociology degrees, to stack books for $10/hr. It took them on average 2-3 years, before finding work in their field. ..."
    "... Education is NOT about finding a job! It's about learning ways to seek wisdom and rationality, and to assimilate (not deny) new knowledge throughout your life--and that's exactly what's lacking in the US! Our schools are factories to turn out standard robots to be used by the owners of this country, whether they practice law or flip burgers. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    HopeWFaith, 9 Jul 2016 16:04

    I was stumped by the very idea that someone has the $money, the time, the energy to go out and study for 3 bachelor degrees. This woman doesn't look old enough to have had time to get 3 degrees.

    That said, what I believe is needed in the USA is a doubling down on Corporate Boards of Directors and CEOs to create a crisis, an American intervention, if you will, that demands companies bring back the idea that Profits alone are not all that matters. Serving the Nation you are born in, raised in, educated in, and then making a profitable income from certainly needs to be focused in on.

    Why on earth isn't Main Stream Media doing this, along with all of CONGRESS and the President? What is their excuse? Even if you brought back all the robotic jobs to US soil, you would also end up bringing a large number of administrative jobs back here, too, just to keep up with the business at hand. It is critical that we rebuild our infrastructure, yet we see NO immediate or Long-term plans to do so. How can we, without the support of the Business Class to support the whole nation through Paying their Taxes to the US Tax System? There is no excuse that will do, in my book. Profits to the top tier need to be STOPPED so long as businesses are going outside of the United States Borders. Period.

    SluethforTruth , 2016-07-07 12:39:08

    Typical of what's happening around the world. The trillions of dollars lurking in tax havens is the reason why economies are stagnating. Money makes the world go round, however detouring to the Cayman Islands, the flow stops and the poverty begins. Spend locally and reject multi national corporations. Give your local communities a chance to prosper,
    Snaggletooth718 , 2016-07-07 12:40:07
    An additional factor in the financial woes of the falling middle class is the changing demographics here in the US - the growing numbers of single mothers, who are far more likely to struggle financially than a two income household. I make no judgment regarding how people form their family units, but life is especially hard for single mothers.
    saladbowl , 2016-07-07 12:46:52
    "The 2016 presidential race has superficially been dominated by talk of this declining middle. First from Bernie Sanders, then Hillary Clinton and even Donald Trump's promise to Make America Great Again"

    "And even"??? What a laugh. Even if you hate Trump its clear The Guardian has written every article possible to prevent his rise and they have failed miserably. Hillary amd Sanders are dominating conversatiin. Trump is by far.

    One thing us for sure. 15 million illegals and thousands more every month is not making the middle class more secure.

    They are shrinking, and you expect them to tolerate "Make America Mexico Again"? In these times?

    Donor money is ruining the country. They hate Trump because he doesnt need these arrogant donors who have never heard "no" their whole lives.

    peonyrose , 2016-07-07 12:47:08
    If ordinary people have to work three jobs to make ends meet, then you need to say that wages in the US are too low.
    Slavenko Sucur -> peonyrose , 2016-07-07 14:29:52
    Its even more difficult for journalists in Guardian. They have to destroy chances of only candidate addressing inequality and climate change (Bernie), completely surrender their integrity to corporations, lament over those issues post factum, and yet be paid miserably only in hundreds of thousands for such colossal betrayal of humanity. Its worth at billions to actively participate in destroying future of your kids. Or is it?
    SusanPrice58 , 2016-07-07 12:53:59
    It isn't immigration that costing jobs - it's employers who know they can pay these people less for their work. We need a new Federal Minimum Wage, and the wealthiest need to start paying up. Trump claims that business in the US pay the highest tax rate. That's just not true. I'm not talking about putting the burden on small business, but the multi-nationals and Wall Street.
    RaceOfStalwarts -> SusanPrice58 , 2016-07-07 14:06:02
    You can see in western Europe at the moment that a minimum wage desn't work without a whole host of other protective legislation. A minimum wage doesn't reach to the self employed, and it doesn't prevent the use of flexible or non-guaranteed hours contracts making use of a larger than is required labour pool. Not to mention the black market / cash in hand trade.
    BritainFirst2016 , 2016-07-07 12:55:21
    And we can blame Billary and Hussein for it. Their "free-trade" decisions, along with their shameful endorsement of open-borders, have lowered wages for everyone, except for financiers. Interestingly, it was those who've suffered the brunt of the elites' decisions who voted for Britain to leave the EU. Ironically, those who professed to stand for the middle and lower classes, revealed their hypocrisy when they joined the Mandarins in opposing for Britain to leave the totalitarian EU.

    Like the Trojans fearing present-giving presents, so should the working man loath the elites who promised to have their best interests at heart. That is the same promise communism gave the workers, only to turn on and enslave them. Today the workers don't stand a chance: the Marxists and bankers are on the same side sneering at the working classes who are demeaned as being racist, jingoistic xenophobes.

    pawildcat -> BritainFirst2016 , 2016-07-07 13:51:28
    You realize most of the votes in favor of NAFTA were Republican and most against were Democratic, right? You know that "free trade" has been an item in the Republican platform (and increasingly the Democratic one) for years before Clinton and Obama were ever in office, right? Know some elementary facts about U.S, politics before posting nonsense.
    daWOID -> Ed Thurmann , 2016-07-07 13:47:41
    Ed Thurmann: it's not teacher-bashing, it's just the old recycled "black family values" spiel that was introduced into the poverty debate in the '60s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Moynihan, not so BTW, is Hillary Clinton's intellectual hero. So you can expect a hell of a lot more of these cliches after January of next year.
    Juillette , 2016-07-07 13:26:03
    An article in Forbes that explains why Obamacare is a scam. ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders

    Robert Lenzner , CONTRIBUTOR
    I'm trying to wise up 300 million people about money & finance

    So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%. And if you go back to the early 2010 passage of ObamaCare, you will find that Obama's sellout of the public interest has allowed the public companies the ability to raise their premiums, especially on small business, dramatically multiply their profits and send the value of their common stocks up by 200%-300%. This is bloody scandalous and should be a cause for concern even as the Republican opponents of the bill threaten the close-down of the government.

    We warned you back on December4, 2009 in my blog " The Horrendous Truth About Health Care Reform" that the Obama White House was handing a " free ride for the health insurance industry" that would allow premium hikes of 8%-10% a year by CIGNA, Humana HUM +1.56%, Aetna AET +0.45%, UnitedHealth Group UNH +0.58% and Wellpoint, and as well a $500 billion taxpayer subsidy, a half trillion dollars without any requirement that the health insurers had to spend the subsidy on medical care. Several US Senators including Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia spoke to me openly of the outrageous sellout being foisted on the nation's uninsured citizens.

    At the time I wrote, Goldman Sachs research operation estimated that the 5 giants would increase profits by 10% a year from 2010 to 2019, sending their shares up an average of 59%. In truth, the shares of CIGNA and some others are up a multiple of several times since the contest was resolved by a very tight vote in early 2010. One startling reason for this amazing performance was that Obama took off the table "proposals to significantly reduce health care costs" as the giveaway in getting the bill through, according to Ron Susskind's best-selling book ,"Confidence Men," which I wrote about in a blog on September 24, 2011. ( "Obama's Incoherent Policy-Making") Some 3 years later, UnitedHealthCare Group(UNH) was rewarded by being added to the elite list of the Dow 30 industrials.

    I understood belatedly that there would have been no Affordable Care Act of 2010 if the White House had not given into demands from the giant profit-making health insurance companies. Had he not done so, I am being assured that there would have been no bill passed, a priority goal that Obama promised in his 2008 Presidential campaign. How the profits have risen so impressively requires further investigation as the bill is meant to limit the profits earned to 20% of the revenues.

    One of the other downsides to the supposed reform bill was the surprisingly unfair treatment of small business owners who faced even larger potential premiums for their employees. It has been the fear of these higher health costs that has resulted in the overwhelming trend toward hiring part-time employees whom the employers need not offer healthcare insurance.

    So much for the reforms embedded in the mis-labeled Affordable Care Act of 2010. It may not die a bloody demise this month, but it is certain to be reformed itself, let's hope for the benefit of the 300 million, not just the millions of lucky shareholders who may have understood the ramification of ObamaCare, which was to multiply the profits of five giant insurance companies, just as the major bank oligopoly was rewarded by the federal bailouts and Fed monetary policy.

    Juillette -> Andrew Kac , 2016-07-07 14:16:34
    I agree with you that he never did. Obama is a corporatist and globalist. If you think Obamacare is bad wait until his trade deals are past. He sold Americans out for the profits of multinational corporations. Hillary will continue his work. I understand the true meaning of his words now.

    "We are a nation of immigrants" meaning he prefers cheap illegal labor when 46 million Americans live in poverty. Soon cheap foriegn will be unlimited and legal in the US with worker mobility. Even for professional jobs. Can you imagine competing with foreigners in the US who make 30 cents an hour? It's depressing really. Here are some of the highlights of the TPP that will throw Americans further into poverty.

    http://www.citizen.org/TPP

    Also research Tisa.

    barbkay , 2016-07-07 13:49:42
    My heart goes out to these beleaguered families. In the late 1970s/80s I held down a full-time job in DC and freelanced feverishly to make ends meet. I lived below the official poverty line in an expensive, yet thoroughly crappy, flat. That recession-riddled era of energy chaos, leading into Reagan's 'voodoo' economics regime (the risible idea of 'trickle-down', the US becoming the world's largest debtor), was another hot mess.

    The US middle class has been disintegrating for decades as inequity grows, thanks in large part to the poor governance of Republican presidents (Nixon's stagflation, the disastrous shifts under GW Bush).

    FugitiveColors , 2016-07-07 13:53:22
    Clinton is in hiding. I can't find her in the Guardian today. She is a habitual liar and the whole world has all the evidence it needs. All of her promises are bullshit. Bernie has been right the whole time and he is smart not to endorse. Bernie has always known what she is and Bernie's supporters have no reason to support her.

    Her disapproval ratings will top Trump now. The voters are now going to show her what the meaning of is, really is.

    It means she is corrupt, dishonest, and unqualified to be anything but an inmate.

    MasonInNY -> FugitiveColors , 2016-07-07 16:08:57
    Her disapproval ratings are high, but not up with Trump's and they never will be. You can vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, in November. Or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. But Bernie will not be a candidate, and he will eventually endorse Clinton -- after he is sure he's won certain concessions in the Democratic platform. That's your reality in July 2016, not in February.
    brianBT , 2016-07-07 14:16:48
    the middle class has been decimated.. This financial category is only about 35% of was it was in the early 70's.. additionally the definition of middle class has changed drastically as well.. believe it or not your middle class if your earn more than 50k a year!.. this is part of the reason we are as a nation borrowing a trillion dollars a year.. when will the silenced majority wake up and start voting and stop spending on products that are vastly over priced..Turn off your phone, stop buying all but essentials.. we need to force prices down until we complain and start voting with our dollars little will change
    MtnClimber -> ojeemabalzitch , 2016-07-07 15:37:37
    What about the millions of married couples with kids..when the parents lose their jobs? That happens very frequently. Should we take the kids away? Are you suggesting that poor people not be allowed to have children?

    Then we have the religious nutcases that are against contraception and abortion, yet demonize poor women for having children.

    NYbill13 , 2016-07-07 14:34:59
    My kid had a persistent tummy ache. Doc said intestinal blockage; take him to the ER immediately. Seven hours and one inconclusive CAT scan later, he's home again with symptoms unchanged. Two days later the pain went away. Cost: $12,000 with about $10,000 covered by union health insurance. So that's at least $2,000 out of pocket to me for seven hours in hospital, zero diagnosis and zero relief from symptoms. Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what? Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law?

    Hahahahahahahaha.

    ojeemabalzitch -> NYbill13 , 2016-07-07 14:58:00
    So? If your car breaks down it will cost a fortune to repair. Same if you have to replace the roof on your house. Life ain't fair, is it?
    MiltonWiltmellow -> NYbill13 , 2016-07-07 15:14:26

    Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what? Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law?

    I sympathize. I also agree with you. The US medical system is criminal. It is cruel, discriminatory, ruthless, often ineffective, and often incompetent. The only reason the administrators ("health" maintenance corporations) aren't in jail is because they use some of their obscene profits to buy Congress -- which passes laws like Obama's ACA or Bush's big Pharma swindle. I have no idea what to do about it though -- maybe if everyone refused to pay their premiums and medical bills, the money managers would notice. A sort of strike.

    MtnClimber -> MiltonWiltmellow , 2016-07-07 15:35:28
    SIngle-payer is the answer. Of course, the insurance companies and big pharma use scare tactics to stop that from happening. They talk about government waste, completely ignoring their own waste. They ignore the billions of dollars that they skim off of the top each year before applying any money for actual medical care. Wake up, people. Medical care should be run by the government or non-profit organizations, not by for-profit corporations.

    Corporations have only one goal...to make as much money as possible for themselves. Health care is just a necessary nuisance.

    Ykuos1 , 2016-07-07 14:37:56
    Despite the financial situation in middle-and lower income families that has been steadily declining under the past 8 years of the Obama administration, most in that group will support Hillary and propagate the Same problems for 4 more years. They stand no hope unless they break from the knee-jerk support of the "Democratic" Party.
    Sam Ahmed -> Ykuos1 , 2016-07-07 14:45:51
    So they should support Donald Trump and the conservative party? Last time I checked raising taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich didn't really help anyone but the rich. The Republican party never gave two shits about middle and lower class, and there's no point believing they will start now.
    KMdude , 2016-07-07 14:43:46
    This article mentions Latonia Best and her three children. Is there a Mr Best around? It has always been tough to raise a family on the salary of a single parent.

    The breakdown of the American family is a probably the biggest reason for the supposed struggles of the middle class. People have to take responsibility for their lives.

    Elephantmoth -> KMdude , 2016-07-07 14:56:57
    Sure, because every misfortune can be blamed on the individual. You have no idea why Mr Best isn't around so please spare us your moralising.
    rebeccazg -> KMdude , 2016-07-07 14:57:51
    traditionally, the middle class had the guy going out to work, and his wife staying at home to look after the kids. Once children are in school and childcare is reduced, I don't see how a woman working and raising her kids alone, is any more expensive than a man supporting himself, his wife and their kids.

    It used to be possible. It used to be doable. wealth disparity ind income inequality mean that is no longer the case, at least certainly not for the average middle class. In the UK anyway, it's now a sign of wealth. This has nothing top do with the family and everything to do with income disparity.

    Liverpooljack1 , 2016-07-07 15:02:53
    Isn't choosing to have three children very selfish if you cannot support them financially. People always find someone else to blame.
    MtnClimber -> Liverpooljack1 , 2016-07-07 15:27:08
    Ah. I was waiting for some "bubba" to pull the race card. Congratulations. Maybe we should make everyone take a test to prove that they can afford children. No children for poor people. Nice.

    You are a horrible person.

    Liverpooljack1 -> MtnClimber , 2016-07-07 16:05:10
    "Race" card!!?? Where the hell did I mention anything about race or are you really as dumb as your reply suggests.
    Plus, you don't require a test to decide if you can afford children or not. It basic family planning. It's people like you in society that has the place in a mess with your "blame anyone but meself attitude" If I'm considered horrible, at least I'm not totally dumb and irrisponsible like you.
    Quesera -> Donald Inks , 2016-07-07 16:00:32
    $3,333.33 is actually not a lot of money to raise a family of four on. Let's do some math, shall we?!

    Taxes: $800 (rough estimate)
    Health Insurance: I'm going to estimate $300 because she probably has dependents on her coverage and that's what I paid one dependent a while back.
    Car: I'm going to estimate $150. My car payment is $300, but let's say she got a cheaper, used car.
    Rent: Let's say $1,000/month (I did a quick search and found that this seemed like a good price for a two bedroom)
    Bills: Let's round up to $150/month for gas, electricity, water, sewage
    Food: Let's say she spends $80/week, so roughly $320 a month (you know, she's a thrifty shopper)

    All of that leaves about $313 left for gas, phone, college tuition, maybe internet and cable at home. I don't know how she does it.

    MiltonWiltmellow , 2016-07-07 15:04:56

    Worst of all was the town of Goldsboro – one of three metropolitan areas in North Carolina at the bottom of the national league table.

    North Carolina, Michigan, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma ... more ...

    Sad stories in states run by Republicans. Toxic rivers, shootings, poisoned tap water, bankruptcy, daily earthquakes ...

    Bill Maher recently (July 1, 2016; Overtime) editorialized about the state "laboratories" where new ideas are tested and evaluated. Maher compared the divergent fates of California and Kansas plus Louisiana.

    Kansas is going bankrupt under the Republican governor and legislature, the Louisiana economy is a basket case thanks to Republican Bobby Jindal while just a few years ago, under Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, California was billions in debt.

    In California they threw out the Republicans, put Democrats in charge, raised taxes on the rich and voila -- now with a surplus, California is ranked as the sixth largest economy in the world:

    Only five countries produced more last year than California: the U.S., China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom.

    So -- North Carolina with fouled rivers, a collapsing middle class, discriminatory laws -- or a thriving California?

    Goldsboro remains far from the sort of economic catastrophe seen in parts of the rust belt, but these are signs of financial stress that are hard to ignore. The strain on the middle class across much of the country may not have gone unnoticed by politicians, but locals here fear there is little talk of the investment in skills, high-paying jobs and civic infrastructure needed to arrest the slide.

    Republican shills will have to admit -- finally that Republican policies ruin lives, ruin the economy and ruin the environment. Truth appears more powerful than slogans and slanders. Who knows? They might even acknowledge climate change.

    Profhambone -> MiltonWiltmellow , 2016-07-07 15:47:30
    I believe it is the wars and needs of the military-industrial-banking complex that sap far too much from the economy. Both parties are guilty of supporting them.
    ehmaybe -> MiltonWiltmellow , 2016-07-07 15:52:52
    North Carolina with fouled rivers, a collapsing middle class, discriminatory laws -- or a thriving California?

    Since 2013, North Carolina has the fastest GDP growth of any state. The NC economy is not in bad shape. This lady lives in one of the poorest areas in the state, she should move 45 minutes north to thriving Raleigh or Durham - the population in that area is booming, they need teachers.

    The dumping of coal ash into the Dan river was a corporate crime, not a policy decision. Neither party is responsible for criminal actions by individuals or corporations, that's just silly. (The republicans have been too lax in holding Duke Energy to account but the damage done is not a political issue)

    HB2 is a disgrace but the legislature is in the process of correcting it and the Governor is likely to lose the election in the fall which bodes well for anti-HB2 people. Don't forget that California voters voted to ban gay marriage not even 10 years ago. It's not a paradise of wealth and enlightenment, no place is.

    Voltaire21 , 2016-07-07 15:16:57
    Why should we feel sorry for the American middle class they have elected for all the misery that has befallen them!

    If America was a fascist state I could sympathise but it's not. Americans have let their social rights being eroded by a mendacious and cunning establishment.

    One good example of how Americans don't give a shit is the very expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which have cost gazillions to the US taxpayer and not a whimper from the US population.

    If one can compare that to the Vietnam war which created its own critical cinema genre, protest songs, large demonstrations etc...you know that todays average Americans responsibility for the mess they find themselves in is non existent. They just bend over and take it and have little whine about it from time to time.

    Quesera -> Voltaire21 , 2016-07-07 15:48:37
    What about the people that didn't vote for the "misery" as you call it?

    What about the fact that whichever way you vote in the US you're screwed?

    And I don't know about you, but you must not know many Americans. The number of my friends who have been tear gassed during marches against the Iraq war flies in the face of your argument. Have you, yourself, even uttered a whimper against it?

    Bardolphe , 2016-07-07 15:20:20
    I will support proper child-support and healthcare and everything that can be done to make this woman's life easier and secure her kids' futures BUT

    Three kids is a LOT for two people to handle, let alone one.

    To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, to raise one child alone may be regarded as a misfortune; to attempt to raise three looks like carelessness. To try to raise three alone in the United States is MADNESS.

    I live in the USA. I'm in a stable long-term relationship. I don't make much money. I can't afford kids.

    2 + 2 = 4

    Poor me. I don't say I have a right to kids because I need them or I have so much love to give or blah, blah, blah. I just can't. Not here. This is a cruelly individualistic country. It is built to serve those who serve themselves. Namely, the young, healthy, smart, motivated and single. There is no political foundation or tradition of altruism here. Maybe back in Ireland where there's a system to support me and some healthcare and family. Not here. Madness.

    Happyduckling -> Bardolphe , 2016-07-07 15:36:41
    But she's got the kids now. What is she supposed to do? Hand them back to someone? If she and the childrens' father had them when life was looking more stable and she didn't have to work 4 jobs to make ends meet, she can hardly be blamed now for their existence.

    You are living in the now and choose not to have children because you feel you can't afford them. However, in the future, you may find that you can afford them, and therefore choose to conceive. If your circumstances change after that and you are no longer able to afford to care for them without working excessive hours and living in poverty, there's not a lot you can do other than get on with it. No point blaming her for something that is irreversible.

    Bardolphe -> OinkImSammy , 2016-07-07 15:41:05
    That is not my point and you absolutely know it is not my point.

    Stop pretending that birth control doesn't exist. It exists.

    Quesera , 2016-07-07 15:42:11
    It's interesting. According to my household income I'm in the "upper" tier for the DC-metro region. But it really doesn't feel that way. Even those of us who make a good income are more and more stretched. In comparison to most of the country, I am well off. I own a car, just bought a house, I can afford to go out to eat a couple times a week. But, I even get to the end of the month with only $100 in the bank. That's because other downward pressures on pay aren't taken into account, such as student debt. My expensive undergraduate and graduate education didn't come cheap, and while that education affords people higher pay, if you end up taking less of it home. It kinda equals out.

    Sometimes my husband and I think about having kids, and then we realise that even with our good paying jobs, we can't afford day care in our area. I get paid the most, so I can't quit my job but if my husband quit to care for a child, we would really be strapped. Can I really be considered an upper tier household if I can't afford to have kids? If I can't afford to go on vacation once a year? If I haven't bought new clothes in two years? If I have no savings and a freak medical bill might just tip me over the edge?

    There's something very, very wrong. How rich do you need to be before you don't feel like you're struggling?

    Scott Plantier -> Quesera , 2016-07-07 15:55:19
    Thanks for the great post, but whatever will be, will be, unless you get in front of it and plan.

    Suggest you give Andrew Tobias' book a read to think outside the box a good education often constructs for us: https://www.amazon.com/Only-Investment-Guide-Youll-Ever/dp/0544781937?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc

    Spunky325 -> Quesera , 2016-07-07 20:31:21
    You can cut student debt in the U.S. by attending a good community college for two years and then transferring to a state university. Most kids are unwilling to do this--no frats or prestige in community colleges!
    Nash25 , 2016-07-07 15:48:56
    The huge middle class in the USA was created by the liberal economic polices of the 1930s, which were designed to help the lower class.

    Beginning in the 1970s, a majority of the middle class began to resent the taxation needed to continue support for these liberal policies, and they began to vote for conservative politicians who promised to remove them as they "only helped the undeserving poor." White racism played a role in this as the lower class was invariably portrayed in political speeches and advertising as group of lazy black people.

    What the middle class did not understand was that their continued existence depended on these liberal programs, as most of the benefits went to the middle class, not the lower class as they assumed. As the liberal programs began to disappear, so did the economic security of the middle class.

    One would think they would have figured all of this out by now, but they have not, and they continue to vote for conservatives.

    pbalrick -> DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 17:21:27
    No, it was created in response to the Bolshevik revolution, in particular, to that genius who said "Let's just shoot the royal family and be done with this." When that happened, the ruling class got scared, and said "OK, minimum wage, vacation, sick pay, 40 hr work week, no child labor, great schooling, etc"

    All of these things have come under attack since the USSR fell apart, probably on that exact day. And who overthrew the USSR? Overeducated middle class, not the poor or the rich. Who was Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring... the recent protests against the French labor law tightenings, ALL the middle class.

    The greatest threat to governments has, and always will be, from within. And this threat is from the middle class, almost exclusively. Therefore, we are to be crushed and controlled tightly.

    Scott Plantier , 2016-07-07 15:49:55
    " squeezed middle class tell tales of struggle " Too bad they voted for the big squeeze herself -- Bernie could have set them free from the path of exploitation she has planned for them immediately after her election by imposing the TPP upon the very fools who will elect her. Stop watching the Kartrashians and read about actual policy implications for your family and especially your children, if you had, none of you would have supported Clinton.
    pbalrick -> Scott Plantier , 2016-07-07 17:15:29
    funny how this media outlet didn't publish these types of reports while the primary was hot. It was all "Hilary is inevitable and supporting Bernie is supporting Trump" type garbage.
    biglio , 2016-07-07 15:58:38
    Education in the US...oh boy....

    I lived in Pittsburgh for 8 years, being European I sent them to public school...well, after a year in which my six years old son was suspended twice for running around at lunchtime when he shouldn't (six years old tend to do that), numerous recesses where they were put in front of a TV (we cannot send them outside, insurance doesn't cover if they get hurt and we got sued before), and notes from teachers full of spelling mistakes......I had to send them to private school perpetuating a cycle of poor people in public system and rich people (or middle class as i was at the time) to private schools....

    i don't know what needs to be done to fix the issue but it's the whole society that is really divided along money lines and race lines and inequality is getting worse. But money trumps everything, the US is the only place int he world where it's not considered unpolite to ask people :"what's your worth?" meaning how much you make, what are your assets, etc.....instilling in people a mentality of self worth based on money and consequentially a cutthroat environment where the more you have the more you are worth, so at the top they squeeze the lower end, to make more money but also because they think they are really not that worthy....its a perverse cycle that history taught us doesn't bring any good because at a certain point the poor reach a critical mass that will just revolt......I'm waiting for that, good luck...

    biglio -> ehmaybe , 2016-07-07 16:24:09
    I'm afraid my friend we disagree on that, excellent public schools are exceptions, there are some but they are a minority (International statistics on education quality validate that), I don't live in the US anymore but travel a lot there for business (at least 20 times a year). As for the worth question I had it asked to me quite a few times and kind of everywhere, maybe it's unpolite, I believe it's unpolite, but it happens regularly and only in the US (let me rephrase, in the rest of the world it wouldn't be considered unpolite, that's too mild of a term, it would be considered inconceivable). Said that I hope the US makes it and the "American Values" that you talk about prevail, but i am afraid those values have changed and being substituted by less noble ones...
    jsaralan -> ehmaybe , 2016-07-07 16:33:16
    Probably he means to say Americans habitually ask new acquaintances, "What do you do for a living?" That's absolutely a query about income and personal worth, though slightly disguised, and it's a question I have never widely encountered anywhere else in the world, nor while living overseas the last ten years. The question is so ingrained, though, that Americans who ask it don't think of it as a query about net worth. They do, however, react with overflowing respect toward those who answer in certain ways, and something akin to sympathy to those who answer in other ways. All my foreign friends have noticed it, and all think it's weird.
    DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 16:45:46
    This article is extremely dishonest. First, it claims that she has 'three other jobs'. Second, she has children, for whom she presumably gets child support. So what's her *real* income?
    Michael Williams , 2016-07-07 17:50:39
    I do not know how things stand today, but I went to school in the UK and in the US in the 70s and 80s.

    The schools in the UK were so superior to the US that I thought I had been placed in a remedial class when I returned to the States.

    At the time, I would have bet that the average 16 year old in the UK was better educated than most American college graduates.

    I would like to hear what you all think.

    biglio -> Michael Williams , 2016-07-07 18:22:25
    Agree, I did my last year of high school in the US, in North Carolina of all places, in a top private school, i was a middling student in Europe with flashes of brilliance in some subjects but definitely far from the top of the class. When I arrived (it was in the 80s) I didn't speak English. Well, I graduated with high honors int he top 5% and got my high school diploma, honestly without having to study that much, school was not totally comparable but definitely way less challenging.
    eastbayradical -> biglio , 2016-07-07 18:33:35
    Contrary to conventional wisdom, a lot of private schools in the United States are severely lacking in the rigor department. This is even true for many--not all--private schools that cater to well-to-do families.
    LelouchVIBrittania , 2016-07-07 18:13:10
    When those in poverty or on the verge of it are single mothers, you tend to wonder if there are some other issues as well. I don't recall a time in American history where a single mother of several children could take care of herself when completely on her own.

    I know of single mothers who are doing fine, but they employed and are also being helped by siblings and parents who already have some wealth and free time to take care of the child. Maybe the issue is the fact that these people are having kids at the wrong time or without enough thought. Divorce rates are incredibly high in the US, and the percentage of children who have non-birth parents is very high as well. What this all means is that the USA isn't teaching its citizens about having kids and the responsibility.

    The USA is also not teaching men and women about birth control, or about being holding potential partners to higher standards (and I don't mean looks). A lot of people in the USA are too shallow and focus too much on aesthetics over reliability and now we have single mothers with fathers who refuse to pay child support at all costs. There are too many problems with the USA, but I feel that personal hygiene and responsibility with sexual partners should be on the top.

    PlatosNave , 2016-07-07 18:35:03
    I teach in inner city schools. There are so many problems, money is one of them but all the money won't solve the problem of poor learning attitudes, disaffection, poor discipline and nonexistent work ethic .

    A lot of the students get no discipline at home and their parents don't expect them to learn anything. They are resistant to the whole process of focus on new knowledge , absorb, drill, recall , deploy newly learned thing.

    Americans have a religious reverence for individualism and learning new things is a humbling experience and many people don't like it. Sure the adults bang on about education but they aren't serious about it. They think all you need is to spend more money , not do any actual work.

    Spunky325 -> PlatosNave , 2016-07-07 20:18:08
    The problems in the inner city are so intransigent that I doubt anything can fix it. I have three friends, all dedicated teachers, who taught in inner city schools in New Jersey and the stories they have told me make my mind reel: a mother who punched a teacher (and gave her a concussion) who "disrespected" her kid (by failing him, deservedly, in algebra), 15-year-olds who had pagers so their pimps could call them, children who had five brothers and sisters--all with different fathers. You couldn't make this stuff up.

    I don't know what solution there is to this. My nieces and nephews did well in school, studied hard, and went on to university. They didn't do drugs, rape or be raped, and stayed away from unsavory kids. BUT--they went home to two parents every night, a father and mother, which I think would have made them successful at school no matter what their income.

    thomasmccabe , 2016-07-07 18:49:47
    The Pew survey you cited noted that "...the share living in middle-income households fell from 55% in 2000 to 51% in 2014. Reflecting the accumulation of changes at the metropolitan level, the nationwide share of adults in lower-income households increased from 28% to 29% and the share in upper-income households rose from 17% to 20% during the period." In other words, most of the decline in the middle class was due to their moving into the upper class.

    The article was mostly about a declining rural area. The Guardian grinding its usual axes and reaching the conclusion it intended to reach?

    NoSerf , 2016-07-07 19:24:28
    Middle class job death inflicted by cronie capitalism entertained by the political establishment (examples): Private equity is not scrutinized by anti-trust legislation, buys any company and sends jobs overseas. Cronie supporters of politicians get help in that some industry gets indicted (e.g. more or less entire coal industry) or regulated into oblivion, for fake reasons, so that cronie (solar panel) company gets subsidies. Of course, the latter goes under, no company on IV survives without IV. Banks get bailed out, others not. GM gets bailed out, to maintain jobs, then outsources.

    The old members of middle class are not tolerated by our government and the cronies. Who is tolerated as middle class is any kind of civil servant, and new immigrants. Revenge from 2 sides. Or call it cultural revolution Mao style: Take their habitat.

    Curtis Gomez , 2016-07-07 19:49:24
    Growing up in the SF Bay Area during the 70's there was a large disparity in academics between schools even in the same district. At 11 years old the school district was rezoned and the new school that I attended had much lower standards. So much so, that I came home the very first day and complained to my mother that I had been assigned to a class for slow learners. Being so bored, my grades started to drop. At 13 years, I tested out of mathematics and eventually tested out of high school altogether and joined the military.

    There my intelligence was appreciated (believe it or not). The military provided a valuable work ethic and training in technology that have provided a decent career and lifestyle since. It's too bad that America can't seem to provide adequate learning to the vast majority.

    jacknbox , 2016-07-07 19:54:54
    The US economy isn't competitive anymore. It started with the labor cost being too high, so factories moved out. Then the entire supply chain moved out. Now the main consumer market is also moving out. Once that is gone, we will have no more leverage.

    The US education is good, but students are lazy, undisciplined, and incurious. In silicon valley, more than 75% of highly paid technical personnel are foreign born. Corporations making money with foreign workers here and abroad, on foreign markets. Taking these away and you will see the economy crash.

    Then you have Hillary wanting to sub divide a rapidly diminishing pie, and Trump wanting to return to 1946. Good luck to them both.

    enodesign -> jacknbox , 2016-07-08 01:25:43
    Get real .

    Labor costs were too high. Have some more kool-aid. The elite didn't want labor to have any bargaining power whatsoever . They wanted to dictate the terms to labor believing that they were the only ones who should have any say in matters. The elite wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of their own citizens. They wanted slave labor . They wanted powerless people to dance to their tune. How could an advanced nation's labor possibly compete with slave labor .

    This is the same argument that slave owning , southern plantation owners used to fight against the freeing of slaves . They to said that they would not longer be competitive and the overall economy would suffer .

    Are you telling us that an economy needs slave labor to exist ?

    enodesign , 2016-07-07 20:02:24
    Sadly ..... thee isn't any hope for these people in the foreseeable future . Their economic decline has been happening for quite some time now and shows no sign of abating whatsoever . The economic foundations of their lives have been steadily pulled out from under them by the financial elite and their subservient political cultures , the Republican and Democratic Parties . The Republicans have never really given a damn about them and the Democrats have long abandoned them . These poor people of North Carolina are adrift on a sinking raft on easy ocean of indifference by the political cultures of America . To those in power , they don't exist . They don't count . They don't matter .

    The trend in the U.S, along with almost every other major nation in the world over the past 35 years has been to exclusively serve the interests of the financial elite and only their needs . All sense of fairness , justice and decency have been totally discarded .

    Tax breaks after tax breaks , tax shelters , free movement of capital , etc., etc. would sum up the experience of the financial elite over the past 35 years . They have become incredibly wealthy now and are still not satisfied . They want more . They want it all . They want what little you have and their political servants which help them get .

    Political discourse pertaining to the plight of those like these folks in North Carolina is all window dressing . In the end , you can be certain that it will amount to nothing . Just like it has for decades now . The financial elite are in control and they are not going to give any of that control up . As a matter of fact , they are going to tighten their grip . They will invent crisis to have their agendas imposed upon an increasingly powerless and bewildered public . They will take advantage of every naturally occurring crisis to advance their agenda .

    There will be an end to their abuse , greed and domination until one day when everything changes . The day when people have had enough . When people can't take it any more . History has demonstrated this fact so often before . The mighty do fall . They always fall ..... but their fall is nowhere to be seen at this time .

    There is going to a great deal more pain for average folk before things get better .

    A Presidential election featuring Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is clear evidence of this fact.

    Hopefully , these two bottom feeding , utter human failures represent the bottom of the barrel but I doubt if they do .

    Good luck to the good folks of North Carolina and countless others like them .... they / we / myself are going to need it .

    enodesign -> DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-08 01:18:46
    On the contrary .... it's money that the elite have not paid out in wages .

    It's money that the elite have illegally hidden from the taxman . It's money the the elite need to pay for the infrastructure that makes it possible to do business in the first place . It's money that has been made from insider trading and backroom deals . It's money from the wealth that labour has basically created in the first place .

    It's money that contributes to the social maintenance on a safe , civil society . It's money that the wealthy do not need .... they have all they could ever need now .

    It is money that when distributed fairly keeps money in motion creating it's transfer into additional hands which further circulates that money creating even more spending by people and the consumption of goods and services which result in the creation of even more wealth .

    Static capital kills economies .

    I know that the elite like to think that they are the exclusive ones to create wealth but wealth creation is the marriage between capital and labour . You can have all of the capital in the world but without labour transforming it into greater wealth it can not possibly grow .

    If anyone is guilty of stealing money it is the elite who steal from the economy causing the economy's ill health .

    The last 35 years are more than testimony to this fact .

    Economies are dying wherever the elite have gotten their way .

    The elite are the real killers of wealth and economies . Just look at any economy in the world throughout history where the elite had all of the wealth to themselves . Their economies are highly dysfunctional and their societies are full of social problems and crime .

    This is an indisputable fact .

    Greed kills wealth development .

    Wealth development is directly tied to the well being of labour which allows for mass consumption of goods and services .

    You would have to be a complete idiot not to see this fact .

    So my good doctor .... the money in any given economy really belongs to everyone , not just the greedy elite .

    You need to get a real perspective instead of constantly eyeing you own pile of wealth .

    Matt C , 2016-07-07 20:32:07
    so the woman chose to have 3 daughters, is now choosing to foot the bill for their college education, and wants me to feel sorry because she has to work her ass off to do all these things? how about this.... don't have children you can't afford. a little personal responsibility in one's life goes a long, long way.
    Bajanova -> Matt C , 2016-07-07 21:03:04
    She is taking personal responsibility! She is working!
    DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 20:35:37
    Everybody here is debating the life of a person who probably doesn't even exist.
    JudeUSA -> DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 23:20:41
    Go to the website of the school she works for. Her picture is on the website and the NC pay for a 3 year teacher is about 40K. I think she exists.
    jecoz , 2016-07-07 20:59:28
    We need to redefine middle class. I grew up middle class. We had one TV. Not a lot of clothes. Took short, cheap vacations. Had no credit cards. Our lives were perfectly enjoyable. Many people here in the US live way beyond their means.
    Turrialba -> jecoz , 2016-07-07 21:36:59
    We piled into the station wagon and headed out on short trips in the region. We visited historic sites and were enriched by the experience. None of this $1000s on the trip to Disneyland. We didn't feel deprived or entitled.
    jacknbox -> jecoz , 2016-07-07 23:26:14
    The key is not money but optimism. America is still richer, cleaner, and better run than most other places. But the gap is rapidly closing. Scaling back the spending would not help here. It would only further reduce the drive.
    skwawshbug , 2016-07-07 22:08:36
    As a North Carolinian, there are two major issues. One, the right to bear arms and also, teacher tenure and working conditions. Republicans have already taken away tenure from my younger colleagues, but as an older teacher, I still have mine. Secondly, democrats want to take away gun rights on the federal level, but state dems are usually more pro-gun in the conservative state.

    SO for me, I will vote for a democratic state government and a republican federal government. I will be proudly putting a Roy Cooper bumper sticker on my car. But due to the peaceful liberals, I would be afraid to put a TRUMP sticker on my car because of recent violence against Trump supporters.

    DrSallyWinterton -> skwawshbug , 2016-07-07 22:30:35
    Teachers who can't be thrown out, no matter how incompetent they are, are a major reason why the US educational system is in such a mess.
    Shillingfarmer , 2016-07-07 22:15:18
    The problem is the job exporting American elite class. NAFTA was an economics, political, and social experiment with all the downside on the former, mostly lower middle class. Non-aligned examination of the available data shows how disastrous NAFTA has been to America's bubbas. Thanks to Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. WTO was all Bill. Of the mistakes Obama has made TPP would be the worst. The question is, really, do we favor global fairness (an even playing field for all earth's peoples) and a climate-killing consumerist world, or our own disadvantaged (courtesy of our financial and political elite) citizens. Not an easy choice. Death by poison or hanging. No treaty can benegotiated fairly in secret.
    SocratesP , 2016-07-07 22:30:13
    The tragic irony is that the anger against rule by the 1% manifests in things like support for Trump, a typical example of the greed and excess of the 1%. Americans need to question outside their desperately constrained paradigms more. It will help focus their anger more strategically, and possibly lead to solutions. Don't hold your breath, the inequality gap is accelerating the wrong way.
    DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 22:40:20
    Fake, fake fake. A woman with $40k and three children would *not* be paying 1/3 of her income in tax. This woman does *not* live on $40k net or gross - she has three other jobs. And her name looks *very* made up.
    Bronwyn Holmberg , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    I think the US is heDing for trouble. It is the middle class that maintains civil society and gives a sense of hope. This is an interesting open letter by a zillionaire to his peers warning them what happens without a string middle class. A thought provoking read. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014
    Chris Westcott , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    The elite of the USA have done exactly what the Romans did and what the Pre-Revolutionary French did.... drain the lower classes while enriching themselves. "Taxes are for little people" is not just a pithy quote, it has become the reality as the elite rig the system so they benefit and the lower classes pay. They need to wake up or they will get exactly what the Romans Got (collapsed empire) or the French got (Violent Revolution). Wake up America! It is time to choose your side in the class war the elite continue to execute while telling us there is no "Class War" - you can't pull yourself up by your boot straps while they are pulling the rug out from under you!
    veloboldie , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    My wife used to employ recent graduates from Georgetown University with poli. sci., psychology, sociology degrees, to stack books for $10/hr. It took them on average 2-3 years, before finding work in their field. I keep telling my kids you need to earn a degree that has a skill for life and will always be in demand, i.e. doctor, dentist, vet, engineer, scientist. Additionally, include work oversees in your career.
    Ardnas1936 -> veloboldie , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    Education is NOT about finding a job! It's about learning ways to seek wisdom and rationality, and to assimilate (not deny) new knowledge throughout your life--and that's exactly what's lacking in the US! Our schools are factories to turn out standard robots to be used by the owners of this country, whether they practice law or flip burgers.

    I was lucky that my parents were born and raised before that happened. They went to what used to be called "country schools"--my dad to a 1-room schoolhouse. Some of the so-called "knowledge" was patriotic trash, serving only the rich elites, but they learned to be sturdy and to think for themselves, so I was lucky and learned a lot at home. Without parents who practice the empathetic, rational morality needed in a democracy, all the jobs in the world--especially if most are for flipping burgers--won't save this dreary country.

    nataliesutler -> veloboldie , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    You make an excellent point. Thinking about your life rather than just going for a crip major in college would be an excellent way NOT to wind up stacking books for $10 an hour with a degree. I can't count the number of my kids friends who select communications majors, or sociology or women's studies and then are completely surprised when there are no jobs demanding their educational background. What is it that they think they will be qualified to do after college?
    mikegood , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    From the article.... "Some lucky families saw themselves promoted to the upper income bracket." Here in a nutshell we see the author's underlying worldview. Getting to the upper income bracket has nothing to do with effort. Rather it's the result of luck. It's something that is done to you by an outside force.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Scaring voters with Putin is the cornerstone of Hillary electron campaign

    She can not offer anything as she is "kick the can down the road" neoliberal candidate serving financial oligarchy, so playing fear card is her the only chance...
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    UPDATE "'You can get rid of Manafort, but that doesn't end the odd bromance Trump has with Putin,' Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement" [Washington Post]. That's our Democrats; gin up a war scare all to win Eastern Europeans in a swing state (Ohio). That's what this article, read closely, boils down to, read carefully. (I love Mook's "bromance," so reminiscent of the Clinton campaign's vile BernieBro smear.)

    UPDATE "Republicans in North Carolina are pulling out all the stops to suppress the state's reliably Democratic black vote. After the Fourth Circuit court reinstated a week of early voting, GOP-controlled county elections boards are now trying to cut early-voting hours across the state. By virtue of holding the governor's office, Republicans control a majority of votes on all county election boards and yesterday they voted to cut 238 hours of early voting in Charlotte's Mecklenburg County, the largest in the state. 'I'm not a big fan of early voting,' said GOP board chair Mary Potter Summa, brazenly disregarding the federal appeals court's opinion. 'The more [early voting] sites we have, the more opportunities exist for violations'" [The Nation]. Bad Republicans. On the other hand, if the Democrats treated voter registration like a 365/24/7 party function, including purchasing IDs in ID states for those who can't afford them, none of this would be happening.

    [Aug 24, 2016] How arms merchants who mostly support Hillary benefit from tensions with Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have pledged to increase the share of exports in their overall revenues, and they have been seeking major deals in East and Central Europe since the 1990s, when NATO expansion began," said William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy. Hartung noted that as some nations ramp up spending, U.S. firms will be "knocking at the door, looking to sell everything from fighter planes to missile defense systems." ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Jeremn , August 23, 2016 at 7:32 am
    Some good links here. How arms merchants benefit from tensions with Russia:

    "Companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have pledged to increase the share of exports in their overall revenues, and they have been seeking major deals in East and Central Europe since the 1990s, when NATO expansion began," said William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy. Hartung noted that as some nations ramp up spending, U.S. firms will be "knocking at the door, looking to sell everything from fighter planes to missile defense systems."

    https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/nato-weapons-industry/

    [Aug 24, 2016] For neoliberals it becomes all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity

    Anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Trump is the key strategies for neoliberal media to secure Hillary victory in November. Anti-Russian hysteria is also a tool to maintain solidarity and suppress dissent against neoliberal globalization. Those presstitutes will stop at nothing, even provocations and swiftboating are OK for them (See Khan Gambit)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Oh, and I suppose Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton's vitriol is okay, right? Typical [neo]liberal ranting. Point the finger at someone else, but do the same thing and it's okay. ..."
    "... When candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate, there is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate and his issues. ..."
    "... It then becomes all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity. While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election. ..."
    "... I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. ..."
    "... WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. ..."
    "... The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more fragmented. ..."
    "... [Neo]Liberals are largely to blame - they regarded their opponents as "uneducated" "swivel-eyed" etc. They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful debate. ..."
    "... This is very true. Screaming racist at anyone challenging the liberal orthodoxy of black = victim and white = oppressor . ..."
    "... The same is true of ignoring the many black lives that are ended by the type of people the police frequently come into contact with - other young black men. ..."
    "... Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. ..."
    "... That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change. Will such, I doubt it. The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically useless and used only for propaganda. ..."
    "... You left out WHO does the dirty work of the politicians. ..."
    "... I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse. ..."
    "... I have always wondered if "spin" is taught in journalism schools, or if it is taught by newspapers after graduation from journalism school. ..."
    "... I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse. ..."
    "... Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck. ..."
    "... That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent' ...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their dysfunctional businesses. ..."
    "... I agree, its an entirely artificial construct. And the globalists are in a position to punish countries like Britain for its Brexit decision. But they cannot destroy Britain. Rather, it is the globalists who may be destroyed by the nationalism spreading across the globe. Many globalists are actually terrified by all this. General Electric has read the tea leaves and is already reacting: ..."
    "... GE's Immelt Signals End to 7 Decades of Globalization http://fortune.com/2016/05/20/ge-immelt-globalization/ ..."
    "... Fascinating link. The global corporate overlords only respond to sustained political pressure. Brexit was a wakeup call for them and the November election in the U.S. may be another... ..."
    Jul 10, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Comments from: Vitriol in American politics is holding the nation back' by Megan Carpentier

    ID6808749 , 11 Jul 2016 12:03

    Oh, and I suppose Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton's vitriol is okay, right? Typical [neo]liberal ranting. Point the finger at someone else, but do the same thing and it's okay.

    The only difference today is that Donald Trump doesn't take the finger pointing and Democratic vitriol laying down, he fires it right back at them and guess what, he keeps winning!

    Dale Roberts 11 Jul 2016 11:59

    Vitriolic and polemical speech has been a ubiquitous ritual since the earliest democracies. When candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate, there is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate and his issues. In the end, self-interest motivates voters, and fear is the biggest self-interest of all. Using the specter of the opposition to scare small children and those who think like them is a time honored tradition and well alive today. Further, as groups begin to prosper and start being assimilated into the broader society, the individual self-interests diverge and it becomes harder to hold them together as a cohesive group whose votes can be counted on. It then becomes all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity. While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election.
    Roger Dafremen 11 Jul 2016 3:56
    Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy more products and services. I'm not sure how much of it is Machiavellian and how much is just pure greed reaping it's inevitable harvest.
    barbkay -> Roger Dafremen 11 Jul 2016 7:19
    A smart comment. Greed and fear are indeed the primary drivers of behaviour in many arenas now, and it's partly driven by corporations. This-or-that, black-and-white thinking is largely a product of high emotion, which essentially makes us 'stupid' and unable to reason.

    The impact of viewing - consciously or unconsciously - dozens of ads a day on the Internet, or hours of tranced staring at screens, may be shown to be a major factor in the increasingly mesmerised state of the populace.

    That and, as these venerable politicos point out, the demise of political nous generally.

    JVRTRL 11 Jul 2016 3:16
    Many excellent points. I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. People have completely different frames of reference in terms of their experience, and anxieties, and so it becomes easier to dismiss the concerns of others out-of-hand as illegitimate. You can also overlay racism as part of the equation, which has always been present with varying degrees of intensity in the U.S.

    WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s.

    The idea of a media culture that was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea. It was codified by things like the Fairness Doctrine as well, which tended to moderate, and censor, public discussion through broadcast media. When the Fairness Doctrine fell apart you had people like Limbaugh go national with a highly partisan infotainment model.

    The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more fragmented.

    ServiusGalba 11 Jul 2016 3:06
    [Neo]Liberals are largely to blame - they regarded their opponents as "uneducated" "swivel-eyed" etc. They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful debate. Now it's come back to bite them in the form of Donald Trump. They don't like it now they are on the receiving end.
    ionetranq -> ServiusGalba 11 Jul 2016 6:44

    [Neo]Liberals are largely to blame

    This is the type of over-stating a position that they are prone to. But saying that "liberals" are largely to blame is no different to them pointing the finger at "the right" for all the issues.

    There's plenty of blame to go around, and it's evenly spread.

    They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful debate.

    This is very true. Screaming racist at anyone challenging the liberal orthodoxy of black = victim and white = oppressor .

    A prime example of one of the issues is BLM. Pushing the view that any black person killed by the police as dying at the hand of a racist cop.

    Using whole population stats to compare the chances of being shot by the police, instead of comparing socio-economic groups. It's not exactly unbiased to compare the chances of a poor black man, and a white lawyer, of being stopped or shot by the police.

    The same is true of ignoring the many black lives that are ended by the type of people the police frequently come into contact with - other young black men.

    Until both sides are truthful about what's happening, nothing is going to change. Both sides - police and young black men - currently approach an interaction with each other fearful of the other. This is made worse on both sides by the rhetoric.

    If you listen to BLM and its supporters, then every cop is racist and wamnts to kill them. Why would you do what the police officer tells you if you think you're just opening yourself up to a racist cop killing you?

    On the other side, the police apparently often assume that every young black man they encounter both has a gun, and thinks they're racist, and therefore operates on that assumption and goes for a shoot first and be safe option.

    Neither of these will get any better while there is this lying and entrenched positions on either side. You could also ask why anyone who's white would support an organization which doesn't appear to care about the white victims of the police (of which AIUI there are an equal number). Or the black murder victims who aren't killed by the police.

    sdgreen 10 Jul 2016 20:51
    Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians mind is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing than what they were elected for.

    That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change. Will such, I doubt it. The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically useless and used only for propaganda.

    GorCro -> sdgreen 11 Jul 2016 15:15
    You left out WHO does the dirty work of the politicians.
    pipspeak 10 Jul 2016 16:26
    I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse.

    Even my beloved Guardian is succumbing, publishing more and more pointless newsy opinion pieces and less and less fact-based, hard news. I don't want to read five takes on a single world event. I'd rather read the facts about five different world events and feel more informed at the end of the day.

    1iJack -> pipspeak 10 Jul 2016 22:41
    I have always wondered if "spin" is taught in journalism schools, or if it is taught by newspapers after graduation from journalism school.

    It gets so far out, you wonder what journalists think the readers think. It would be great to be in on a backroom discussion about headlines and all paraphrasing in articles at the Washington Post and Guardian.

    I'll bet they sit around and chuckle as they try to cook up positive or negative spins. Its more than facts.

    pipspeak 10 Jul 2016 16:26
    I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse.

    Even my beloved Guardian is succumbing, publishing more and more pointless newsy opinion pieces and less and less fact-based, hard news. I don't want to read five takes on a single world event. I'd rather read the facts about five different world events and feel more informed at the end of the day.

    Reddenbluesy 10 Jul 2016 9:13
    I suspect we're seeing the consequences of two events... one political, the other financial (heavily determined by the political, which happened first).

    Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck.

    That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent' ...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their dysfunctional businesses.

    As the UK-EU Referendum result has proved, populist politicians spouting bullsh*t can succeed in this environment; especially when 'decent politicians' abdicate their responsibilities.

    1iJack -> PrinceVlad 10 Jul 2016 10:37
    I agree, its an entirely artificial construct. And the globalists are in a position to punish countries like Britain for its Brexit decision. But they cannot destroy Britain. Rather, it is the globalists who may be destroyed by the nationalism spreading across the globe. Many globalists are actually terrified by all this. General Electric has read the tea leaves and is already reacting:

    GE's Immelt Signals End to 7 Decades of Globalization http://fortune.com/2016/05/20/ge-immelt-globalization/

    bluepanther -> 1iJack 10 Jul 2016 17:46
    Fascinating link. The global corporate overlords only respond to sustained political pressure. Brexit was a wakeup call for them and the November election in the U.S. may be another...

    [Aug 24, 2016] Meet the "'Trumpocrats" -- Lifelong Democrats Breaking with Party Over Hillary Clinton to Support Donald Trump for President by Matthew Boyle

    Notable quotes:
    "... I believe in the two founding principles of Jacksonian Democracy, social justice and economic fairness. Right now, I think that the Democratic Party-my great party-has got away from some of this ..."
    "... If Hillary Clinton is elected, and not Donald Trump, Rickers says that income inequality-and particularly the "gap" between "the rich and the poor" will get worse. Clinton's refusal to focus on issues that matter to middle class Americans of all political stripes-including Democrats-is why Rickers is calling on Democrats nationwide to join him in a push to elect Donald Trump president of the United States. ..."
    "... his party "used to stand for working people," but "Hillary Clinton's record-NAFTA, SHAFTA, favored nation status for China, Glass-Steagall, I mean we could go on and on and on-she's not been a friend of rural America and rural America knows that and it's shining in the primaries and caucuses. It's a huge ABC feeling out here, Anybody But Clinton." ..."
    "... Bova added that Trump's support for protecting Americans' hard earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare-things that Americans, he says, can't trust Hillary Clinton with-is why his fellow Democrats should back him for president ..."
    "... These same folks, I believe, have been assured that Trump will also protect and seek to strengthen their Social Security and Medicare benefits, and finally, after 20 to 30 years, put their lives back on a level playing field by undoing the very so called free-trade, world-trade, global-trade agreements that that hollowed-out their jobs, their families, their communities, their businesses. That is a powerful reason, a survival reason, for them to want to vote to elect Trump President. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... When asked about Clinton's supposed opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership-she previously supported it more than 40 times, but now claims to be against it as voters rebel against the deal-Rickers laughed. "That's just ridiculous," Rickers said. "She is one of the architects of the complete opposite position. This woman will say anything if she thinks she'll get a vote or money for it." ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | breitbart.com

    On the Trumpocrats PAC website is a video of David "Mudcat" Saunders, another lifelong Democrat, talking with Fox News.

    I'm a Democrat," Saunders, who worked for many prominent national Democrats over his career, says in the interview video. "I believe in the two founding principles of Jacksonian Democracy, social justice and economic fairness. Right now, I think that the Democratic Party-my great party-has got away from some of this."

    If Hillary Clinton is elected, and not Donald Trump, Rickers says that income inequality-and particularly the "gap" between "the rich and the poor" will get worse. Clinton's refusal to focus on issues that matter to middle class Americans of all political stripes-including Democrats-is why Rickers is calling on Democrats nationwide to join him in a push to elect Donald Trump president of the United States. Rickers said:

    Otherwise, the gap is going to continue to increase between the rich and the poor because a lot of people don't have the ability now to rise up whether they're underemployed or facing hard times. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is talking about Planned Parenthood or whatever-which is all great, but that's not what we need. We need people to be self-sufficient and feed their families. Trump speaks to that, and there are people all across this country who are fed up with it-obviously, that's what this election is kind of all about. You have party registrations switching by the tens of thousands in Ohio and Pennsylvania and elsewhere, and there's a lot of people-they don't want to be Republicans, but they don't like either party anymore. We're going to give them a place or organize out of, you know? A home, if you will.

    Saunders said in the Fox interview that his party "used to stand for working people," but "Hillary Clinton's record-NAFTA, SHAFTA, favored nation status for China, Glass-Steagall, I mean we could go on and on and on-she's not been a friend of rural America and rural America knows that and it's shining in the primaries and caucuses. It's a huge ABC feeling out here, Anybody But Clinton."

    Billy Bova, another lifelong Democratic operative from Mississippi who is supportive of the effort, told Breitbart News that the answer for Democrats who feel Hillary Clinton does not support them is to back Donald Trump for president. Bova said in an email:

    If you have historically been a working class, middle class person in areas of America that produced good paying, blue collar factory jobs, white collar factory related jobs, small business jobs in your towns around the plants and factories, it would be hard not to support a Trumpocrats effort in electing Donald Trump! Historically, many regular-working Democratic voters have always been most interested in a candidate that supports economic issues, not so much social issues, but bottom-line pocketbook, kitchen table money issues that can pay their bills and help their children. Trump shoots directly at their pocketbooks, gives them hope for a better future.

    Bova added that Trump's support for protecting Americans' hard earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare-things that Americans, he says, can't trust Hillary Clinton with-is why his fellow Democrats should back him for president. He said:

    These same folks, I believe, have been assured that Trump will also protect and seek to strengthen their Social Security and Medicare benefits, and finally, after 20 to 30 years, put their lives back on a level playing field by undoing the very so called free-trade, world-trade, global-trade agreements that that hollowed-out their jobs, their families, their communities, their businesses. That is a powerful reason, a survival reason, for them to want to vote to elect Trump President.

    ... ... ...

    "I think there's a pretty sour taste in a lot of guys' mouths about Iraq and about what happened there," Jim Webb Jr., a Marine veteran and Webb's son-who is also a Trump supporter-told the Washington Post. "You pour time and effort and blood into something, and you see it pissed away, and you think, 'How did I spend my twenties?'"

    The Post cast Webb's son's comments in the light of him praising Trump's vow to end nation-building type of foreign policy that Republicans drove under the Bush administration. While Trump's vows to steer clear of establishment status quo type foreign policy has cost him a handful of votes among GOP elites in Washington, D.C., so the thinking goes, it has won him many more actual voters across America in places like Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina-and potentially even New York state.

    ... ... ...

    JOBS, JOBS, JOBS: IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID

    When asked about Clinton's supposed opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership-she previously supported it more than 40 times, but now claims to be against it as voters rebel against the deal-Rickers laughed. "That's just ridiculous," Rickers said. "She is one of the architects of the complete opposite position. This woman will say anything if she thinks she'll get a vote or money for it."

    And he said "hell no, absolutely no" he does not believe that Hillary Clinton is against the TPP.

    "No way," Rickers said. "And she'll say something different when she's in front of another group. Do you think she was saying that when she was being paid $250,000 a speech on Wall Street? No. And she doesn't want anybody to know what she said there."

    As for Trump, Rickers said he believes Trump on the issue of trade.

    "At least during this campaign-I know he's said a lot of things in a lot of different directions, but he's been pretty consistent that that is the foundation of his campaign, to rebuild the infrastructure of the country," Rickers said. "I just wish he wouldn't get distracted all the time and just talk about the main issue of his campaign, which is the rebuilding of the country."

    On the Trumpocrats PAC website are videos of many other Democrats switching parties to vote for Trump. David Abbott, a lifelong Democratic Party member and former local councilman from Kentucky, switched parties to vote for Trump.

    [Aug 24, 2016] As She Rakes in the Cash, Clinton Fundraisers Still Shrouded in Secrecy

    Notable quotes:
    "... AP ..."
    www.commondreams.org

    Common Dreams

    Hillary Clinton spent the weekend fundraising in affluent New England communities, speaking to more than 2,200 donors at private brunches and gatherings in Nantucket and Cape Cod-but what she told them "remains a mystery," the Associated Press reported Monday.

    The fundraising effort-which follows her campaign's most lucrative month so far with a $63 million gain in July-underscores Clinton's continued evasion of transparency over her ties to wealthy elites. In fact, of the roughly 300 fundraising events she has held since announcing her White House run in April 2015, only five have allowed any press coverage, and Clinton has attempted to ban the use of social media among guests, according to the AP.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Hillary's Hubris Only Tell the Rich for $5000 a Minute!

    CommonDreams.org,

    ..."Why wouldn't Hillary tell the American people, whose votes she wants, what she told corporations in private for almost two years?" Nader wrote. "Is it that she doesn't want to be accused of doubletalk, of 'gushing' (as one insider told the Wall Street Journal) when addressing bankers, stock traders or corporate bosses?"

    These speeches are so controversial in part because of the high price tag they came with. Clinton would charge an average of $5,000 per minute for her speeches.

    "We know she has such transcripts. Her contract with these numerous business groups, prepared by the Harry Walker Lecture Agency, stipulated that the sponsor pay $1000 for a stenographer to take down a verbatim record, exclusively for her possession."

    According to Nader, "Where Trump's White House is seen as utterly unpredictable, Hillary's White House is utterly predictable: more Wall Street, more military adventures." Nader continued, "As Senator and Secretary of State she has never seen a weapons system or a war that she didn't support."

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

    [Aug 24, 2016] How Donald Trump could fix Middle East

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is right to accuse the Bush administration of creating the mess, and also right to blame Obama for withdrawing American forces in 2011. Once the mess was made, the worst possible response was to do nothing about it (except, of course, to covertly arm "moderate Syrian rebels" with weapons from Libyan stockpiles, most of which found their way to al-Qaeda or ISIS). ..."
    Aug 22, 2016 | Asia Times

    The first step to finding a solution is to know that there's a problem. Donald Trump understands that the Washington foreign-policy establishment caused the whole Middle Eastern mess. I will review the problem and speculate about what a Trump administration might do about it.

    For the thousand years before 2007, when the Bush administration hand-picked Nouri al-Maliki to head Iraq's first Shia-dominated government, Sunni Muslims had ruled Iraq. Maliki was vetted both by the CIA and by the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

    With Iraq in the hands of an Iranian ally, the Sunnis–disarmed and marginalized by the dismissal of the Iraqi army–were caught between pro-Iranian regimes in both Iraq and Syria. Maliki, as Ken Silverstein reports in the New Republic, ran one of history's most corrupt regimes, demanding among other things a 45% cut in foreign investment in Iraq. The Sunnis had no state to protect them, and it was a matter of simple logic that a Sunni leader eventually would propose a new state including the Sunni regions of Syria as well as Iraq. Sadly, the mantle of Sunni statehood fell on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who projected not only an Islamic State but a new Caliphate as well. America had a dozen opportunities to preempt this but failed to do so.

    From a fascinating defector's account in the Foreign Policy website, we learn that the region's jihadists debated the merits of remaining non-state actors on the al-Qaeda model versus attempting to form a state prior to the launch of ISIS. The defector reports a 2013 meeting in which al-Baghdadi demanded the allegiance of al-Qaeda (that is, al-Nusra Front) fighters in Syria:

    Baghdadi also spoke about the creation of an Islamic state in Syria. It was important, he said, because Muslims needed to have a dawla, or state. Baghdadi wanted Muslims to have their own territory, from where they could work and eventually conquer the world….The participants differed greatly about the idea of creating a state in Syria. Throughout its existence, al-Qaeda had worked in the shadows as a non-state actor. It did not openly control any territory, instead committed acts of violence from undisclosed locations. Remaining a clandestine organization had a huge advantage: It was very difficult for the enemy to find, attack, or destroy them. But by creating a state, the jihadi leaders argued during the meeting, it would be extremely easy for the enemy to find and attack them….

    Despite the hesitation of many, Baghdadi persisted. Creating and running a state was of paramount importance to him. Up to this point, jihadis ran around without controlling their own territory. Baghdadi argued for borders, a citizenry, institutions, and a functioning bureaucracy. Abu Ahmad summed up Baghdadi's pitch: "If such an Islamic state could survive its initial phase, it was there to stay forever."

    Baghdadi prevailed, however, not only because he persuaded the al-Qaeda ragtag of his project, but because he won over a large number of officers from Saddam Hussein's disbanded army. America had the opportunity to "de-Ba'athify" the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army after the 2003 invasion, the way it de-Nazified the German Army after World War II. Instead, it hung them out to dry. Gen. Petraeus' "surge" policy of 2007-2008 bought the Sunni's temporary forbearance with hundreds of millions of dollars in handouts, but set the stage for a future Sunni insurgency, as I warned in 2010.

    Trump is right to accuse the Bush administration of creating the mess, and also right to blame Obama for withdrawing American forces in 2011. Once the mess was made, the worst possible response was to do nothing about it (except, of course, to covertly arm "moderate Syrian rebels" with weapons from Libyan stockpiles, most of which found their way to al-Qaeda or ISIS).

    Now the region is a self-perpetuating war of each against all. Iraq's Shia militias, which replaced the feckless Iraqi army in fighting ISIS, are in reorganization under Iranian command on the model of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. The Kurds are fighting both ISIS and the Syrian government. ISIS is attacking both the Kurds, who field the most effective force opposing them in Syria, as well as the Turks, who are trying to limit the power of the Kurds. Saudi Arabia and Qatar continue to support the Sunnis of Iraq and Syria, which means in effect funding either ISIS or the al-Nusra Front.

    Russia, meanwhile, is flying bombing missions in Syria from Iranian air bases. Apart from its inclination to bedevil the floundering United States, Russia has a dog in the fight: as a number of foreign officials who have spoken with the Russian president have told me, Putin has told anyone who asks that he backs the Iranian Shi'ites because all of Russia's Muslims are Sunni. Russia fears that a jihadist regime in Iraq or Syria would metastasize into a strategic threat to Russia. That is just what al-Baghdadi had in mind, as the Foreign Policy defector story made clear:

    Baghdadi had another persuasive argument: A state would offer a home to Muslims from all over the world. Because al-Qaeda had always lurked in the shadows, it was difficult for ordinary Muslims to sign up. But an Islamic state, Baghdadi argued, could attract thousands, even millions, of like-minded jihadis. It would be a magnet.

    What Trump might do

    What's needed is a deal, and a deal-maker. I have no information about Trump's thinking other than news reports, but here is a rough sketch of what he might do:

    Iraq's Sunnis require the right combination of incentives and disincentives. The disincentive is just what Trump has proposed, an "extreme" and "vicious" campaign against the terrorist gang. The United States and whoever wants to join it (perhaps the French Foreign Legion?) should exterminate ISIS. That requires a combination of ruthless employment of air power with less squeamishness about collateral damage as well as a division or two on the ground. America doesn't necessarily need to deploy the kind of soldier who joined the National Guard to get a subsidy for college tuition. As Erik Prince has suggested, private contractors could do the job cheaper, along with judicious use of special forces.

    While the US grinds up ISIS, it should find a former Iraqi general to lead a Sunni zone in Iraq, and enlist former Iraqi army officers to join the war against ISIS. Gen. Petraeus no doubt still has the payroll list for the "Sunni Awakening" and "Sons of Iraq." The Sunnis would get the incentive of an eventual Sunni state, provided that they help crush the terrorists.

    The US would give quiet support to the Kurds' aspirations for their own state, and encourage them to take control of northern Syria along the Turkish border. If the US doesn't stand godfather to a Kurdish state, the Russians will. The Turks won't like that, and it must be explained to them that it is in their own best interests: the Kurds have twice as many children as ethnic Turks, and by 2045 will have more military-age men than do the Turks.

    Possibly the US should propose a UN-supervised referendum to allow the Kurdish-majority provinces of southeastern Turkey to secede and join the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds in a new state. That would be good for Turkey. Those who vote "yes" are better off outside Turkey, and those who vote to stay in Turkey have no excuse to support separatists in the future. There are several million Iranian Kurds, and the US should encourage them to break away as well.

    'Look, Vladimir, here's the deal'

    The next conversation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin might go something like this: "Look, Vladimir, you say you're worried about Sunni terrorists destabilizing Russia. We're going to kill all the terrorists or hire people to kill them for us. We're not going to arm jihadists to make trouble for you like we did in Afghanistan during the Cold War. We leave you alone, and you get out of our hair. You get to keep your naval station in Syria, and the Alawites get to have their own state in the northwest. Give Basher Assad a villa in Crimea and put in someone else to replace him–anyone you like. The Sunni areas of Syria will become a separate enclave, along with enclaves for the Druze."

    And Trump might add: "We're taking care of the Sunni terrorists. Now you help us take care of the Iranians, or we'll do it ourselves, and you won't like that. You can either work together with us and we tell the Iranians to shut down their centrifuges and their ballistic missile program, or we'll bomb it. You don't want us to make the S-300 missiles you sold Iran look like junk–that's bad for your arms business.

    "As for Ukraine: let them vote on partition. If the eastern half votes to join Russia, you got it. If not, you stay the hell out of it."

    As Trump knows, everyone in a deal doesn't have to walk away happy. Only the biggest stakeholders have to walk away happy. Everyone else can go suck eggs.

    Russia can walk away with its Syrian naval station and some assurance that the Middle East jihad won't spill over into its own territory. Syria's Alawites and Sunnis both can declare victory. The Kurds, who provide the region's most effective boots on the ground, will be big winners. Iraq's Shi'ites will be able to rule themselves but not over the Sunnis and Kurds, which is a better situation than they had during the thousand years when the Sunnis ruled over them. Turkey won't like the prospect of losing a chunk of its territory, even though it will be better off for it. Iran will lose its aspirations to a regional empire, and won't like it at all, but no-one else will care.

    Rebuilding America's military, one of Trump's campaign planks, is a sine qua non for success. Russia as well as China should fear America's technological prowess today as much as Gorbachev feared Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s. Russia and China are closing the technology gap with the United States, and if the United States does not reverse that, not much else it does will matter.

    [Aug 23, 2016] Three of the top four nonfiction hardcover best sellers in the New York Times Book Review on Sunday were anti-Hillary Clinton screeds

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yet after all this, Trump remains around 40% in the polls or better - and only about five points behind Hillary Clinton" [Brent Arends, MarketWatch ]. "n other words, in presidential election terms, it's still either party's race. ..."
    "... Most elections see swings of several points between August and early November. Some see even bigger ones - at this point in 1988 Vice President George H.W. Bush looked like a no-hoper against Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. Bush went on to win by seven points. ..."
    "... "Three of the top four nonfiction hardcover best sellers in the New York Times Book Review on Sunday were anti-Hillary Clinton screeds ('Hillary's America' by Dinesh D'Souza, 'Crisis of Character' by Gary Byrne, and 'Armageddon' by Dick Morris), and the fourth, 'Liars' by Glenn Beck, was a more general assault on the liberal agenda that certainly has no kind words for Clinton" [ MarketWatch ]. And they say people don't read books any more… ..."
    "... Joyce was still keeping her vote a secret, but she thought she knew why people were so angry. 'I think it's more that we don't trust politicians, period,' she said. 'We've gotten to a point in the United States where they're all liars or they're all cheaters or they've all done something wrong and we're gonna blow that up. And so we don't trust any of them.' The other women were nodding. 'And I think," Joyce said, 'that's where Trump's power came from." Joyce is a volatility voter, then. ..."
    "... Clinton and "welfare reform": "Having abandoned the maternalists' sentimental defense of motherhood as a sacred calling, most second-wave feminists had no terms in which to mount a convincing justification for income support to poor mothers. ..."
    "... Hillary's support for the bill reveals the deep fault lines of class and race that fractured the second-wave feminist movement, as white middle-class women purchased their independence from domestic labor by shifting the burden to working-class women of color " [ N+1 ]. Remember Nannygate ? There you have it. ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com
    The Voters

    "Yet after all this, Trump remains around 40% in the polls or better - and only about five points behind Hillary Clinton" [Brent Arends, MarketWatch ]. "n other words, in presidential election terms, it's still either party's race.

    Most elections see swings of several points between August and early November. Some see even bigger ones - at this point in 1988 Vice President George H.W. Bush looked like a no-hoper against Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. Bush went on to win by seven points.

    There is no reason to think this election will be less volatile than the norm…. Right now the bookmakers give Trump about a 25% chance of winning. That's high enough to be alarming. But what's worse: If I had to take a wager at these levels, I'd take the over rather than the under. This race, terrifyingly, is still open."

    "That remarkable fact underscores how virtually unchallenged Clinton has been on the advertising airwaves, as Democratic and Republican strategists alike say she has gone deeper into the election calendar than any non-incumbent president they can remember in the modern era without sustained, paid opposition on television" [ Politico ]. So, if election 2016 were a WWF match, the [good|bad] guy would be fighting with one hand behind his back, and getting pounded, for sure, but….

    "Three of the top four nonfiction hardcover best sellers in the New York Times Book Review on Sunday were anti-Hillary Clinton screeds ('Hillary's America' by Dinesh D'Souza, 'Crisis of Character' by Gary Byrne, and 'Armageddon' by Dick Morris), and the fourth, 'Liars' by Glenn Beck, was a more general assault on the liberal agenda that certainly has no kind words for Clinton" [ MarketWatch ]. And they say people don't read books any more…

    "Our research suggests yet another reason not to overreact to news stories about the newest poll: Media outlets tend to cover the surveys with the most "newsworthy" results, which can distort the picture of where the race stands" [ WaPo ]. Look! Over there! Another fluctuation well inside the margin of error!

    UPDATE "Despite frequent claims of the 'women's vote' working in Democrats' favor, much depends on which women. Individually, these women's views vary widely, just as the county they live in. Lake County [Ohio] has been nearly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Collectively, they make up a demographic that has reliably voted, and reliably voted Republican, in nearly every election since 1972: Married women, especially white married women" [ NBC ]. Joyce was still keeping her vote a secret, but she thought she knew why people were so angry. 'I think it's more that we don't trust politicians, period,' she said. 'We've gotten to a point in the United States where they're all liars or they're all cheaters or they've all done something wrong and we're gonna blow that up. And so we don't trust any of them.' The other women were nodding. 'And I think," Joyce said, 'that's where Trump's power came from." Joyce is a volatility voter, then.

    UPDATE Re: Clinton and "welfare reform": "Having abandoned the maternalists' sentimental defense of motherhood as a sacred calling, most second-wave feminists had no terms in which to mount a convincing justification for income support to poor mothers. Other women were working; why shouldn't they work too? But for middle-class women, work meant public recognition, self-determination, the right to be seen as autonomous individuals and to participate in civic life. For welfare mothers, especially black women, who made up two-thirds of all domestic workers by 1960, it meant watching other women's children, preparing their food, and scrubbing their floors, services that professional women increasingly relied on as they entered the workforce in greater numbers. The version of welfare reform Bill Clinton envisioned was much more generous than the bill eventually passed by the Republican Congress in 1996. It would have included child-care and job-placement programs - but it would still have required welfare recipients to work. Hillary's support for the bill reveals the deep fault lines of class and race that fractured the second-wave feminist movement, as white middle-class women purchased their independence from domestic labor by shifting the burden to working-class women of color " [ N+1 ]. Remember Nannygate ? There you have it.

    [Aug 23, 2016] Selling access is called "influence peddling" Thats what Clinton foundation is about

    Notable quotes:
    "... Wait, all I need to buy access to Clinton is a grand? That's all? Really? ..."
    "... Even if you accept that quid pro quo ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Corruption

    "Other donors got action via direct appeal to Abedin: For example, 75-grand-giver Maureen White wrote, 'I am going to be in DC on Thursday. Would she have any time to spare?' Huma's reply: "Yes I'll make it work'" [New York Post]. Wait, all I need to buy access to Clinton is a grand? That's all? Really?

    UPDATE "'Huma, I need your help now to intervene please. We need this meeting with Secretary Clinton, who has been there now for nearly six months,' Aboussie wrote. 'It should go without saying that the Peabody folks came to Dick and I because of our relationship with the Clinton's [sic],' she added" [The Intercept]. "'We are working on it and I hope we can make something work,' Abedin replied, noting 'we have to work through the beauracracy [sic] here.' Obviously, as the example above shows, that's not always true, and Abedin seems to be the arbiter of which donors go to Happyville, and which to Pain City.

    UPDATE "The emails do not show that Clinton Foundation donors received any policy favors from Hillary Clinton or other elected officials. What they show is that people who donated to the foundation believed they were owed favors by Clinton's staffers, and at least one of those staffers - the odious Doug Band - shared this belief" [Jonathon Chait, New York Magazine]. Yes, selling access is called "influence peddling." It's corrupt in itself, regardless of policy outcomes. The headline: "Clinton Foundation Still Not Criminal, Still Not Great for Hillary." So, if "not criminal" is the baseline…

    UPDATE "Bill Clinton says he will leave Clinton Foundation if Hillary is elected president" [Los Angeles Times]. From the Department of How Stupid Do They Think We Are? Even if you accept that quid pro quo is the only form of corruption, which I don't, consider the possibility that Bill closed the deal on the quid before the election, and Hillz will deliver the pro quo after the election. Surely, that is, a quid pro quo can be asynchronous? Or are we now to believe that the only form of corruption is when cash in an envelope is transferred from one hand to another? That's even worse than Citizens United!

    [Aug 23, 2016] The Populist Uprising Isn't Over-It's Only Just Begun Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community by Robert Borosage

    www.commondreams.org

    The likelihood is that the Clinton presidency will be tumultuous.

    1. No Honeymoon: On the left, there are fewer hopes about Clinton than about Barack Obama. The pressure will begin even before she takes office in what is likely to be a battle royal in the lame duck session of Congress as Obama tries to force through his TPP trade deal.
    2. New Energy: If the Sanders supporters stay engaged, there could be an organizational form – his OurRevolution and his institute – that can do what a political party should do: educate and mobilize around progressive issues; recruit and support truly progressive candidates. This insurgency may continue to grow.
    3. New Generation: It can't be forgotten how overwhelmingly Sanders won young voters. He not only won 3 of 4 millennial voters in the Democratic primaries, he won a majority of young people of color voting. Some of this was his message. Much of it was the integrity of someone consistent in his views spurning the big money corruptions of our politics. These young people are going to keep moving. They won't find answers in a Clinton administration. We're going to see more movements, more disruptions, and more mobilizations – around jobs, around student debt, about inequality, around criminal justice, immigration, globalization, and climate and more.
    4. New Coalitions: Sanders and Trump clearly have shaken the coalitions of their parties. Trump combined populism with bigotry and xenophobia to break up the Republican establishment's ability to use the latter to support their neoliberal economics. Sanders attracted support of the young across lines of race, challenging the Democratic establishment's ability to use liberal identity politics to fuse minorities and upper middle class professionals into a majority coalition. Clinton fended off the challenge, but the shakeup has only begun.
    5. New Ideas: The Davos era has failed. There is no way it can continue down the road without producing more and more opposition. This is now the second straight "recovery" in which most Americans will lose ground. Already the elite is embattled intellectually on key elements of the neo-liberal agenda: corporate globalization, privatization, austerity, "small government," even global policing. Joe Stiglitz suggests that the Davos era is over, but that is premature. What is clear is that it has failed and the struggle to replace it has just begun. And that waving the white flag because Trump is besmirching populism mistakes today's farce for history's drama.
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

    Robert Borosage is the founder and president of the Institute for America's Future and co-director of its sister organization, the Campaign for America's Future.

    [Aug 23, 2016] WikiLeaks Emails From Hillary's Server Expose Criminal Clinton Foundation

    sputniknews.com

    Assange also pointed to Hillary Clinton's relations with Saudi Arabia that have led to great angst among Israel, a country that now worries where her allegiances fall in the region. "[Her connection to Saudi Arabia] is extensive. The relations between Hillary and Saudi Arabia. The Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia," opined Assange. "Saudi Arabia is probably the single largest donor to the Clinton Foundation. You can see Hillary's arms export policies where she was Secretary of State favoring Saudi Arabia extensively."

    The whistleblower also blasted Clinton for her allegations that Trump is a secret Russian agent saying that "there is a much deeper connection between Hillary Clinton and Russia on record than there is with Donald Trump." Assange pointed to the fact that her top strategic consultant John Podesta sits on the board of a Russian connected fund and her pay-to-play activities with Moscow businessmen who would make donations to the Clinton Foundation and then miraculously receive State Department clearance to undertake business in the US.

    Perhaps his most damning statements were Clinton's financial links to radical Jihadist groups in the Middle East and the State Department's policy of using Libya as conduit to get arms to Syria.

    "The US government, at the time that Hillary Clinton was in charge of US foreign policy, did use Libya as a conduit to get arms to Jihadists in Syria," said Assange. "That is well established not just by a range of our materials, but also by the investigative work of Sy Hersh."

    Assange also called into question links between Hillary Clinton's former employer LaFarge, a cement company that the presidential candidate served on the board of directors for, which is now under investigation for contracting with the Daesh (known colloquially as ISIS) terror network in Syria.

    "La Monde found that [LaFarge] paid ISIS/Daesh money, taxes if you will, for their operations in certain areas and they engaged in a variety of business deals," said Assange. "Hillary Clinton's involvement is that money from LaFarge in 2015 and 2016 went to the Clinton Foundation. Why did it go to that foundation? There is a long-time connection between Hillary Clinton and La Farge because she used to be on the board."

    [Aug 23, 2016] If Trump is Russias Candidate, Does That Make Clinton the Saudis Pick

    ​The idea that Hillary Clinton can be viewed as Saudi candidate is not as crazy as it looks. She feels the smell of money and that's the most important thing in life for her.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The [neoliberal] media has had a field day commenting on Donald Trump's words about cooperation with Russia against ISIS, labeling him a 'Kremlin agent' and a danger to the Western security order. But what about Hillary Clinton and her foundation's ties to the Saudis? If Trump is 'Moscow's man', does that make Clinton the candidate of Middle Eastern sheikdoms? ..."
    "... The media have accused Moscow of every sin imaginable, from meddling in America's elections, to using Trump advisor Paul Manafort, who was called 'the Kremlin's man in Ukraine', to outright calling Trump himself a 'Russian agent' . ..."
    "... Former NATO chief Anders Rasmussen joined the party bashing Trump recently, slamming him for having "his own views on the Ukrainian conflict," and adding that to top it all off, "he praises President Putin!" ..."
    "... The Times' piece reported on the fact that the Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the US State Department has repeatedly criticized for human rights abuses and discrimination against women. The offending countries purportedly include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Brunei, along with Algeria. Riyadh, the paper noted, was "a particularly generous benefactor," giving between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with at least another $1 million donated by the 'Friends of Saudi Arabia' organization. ..."
    "... the plot thickens. On Sunday, conservative US and British media revealed that Huma Abedin, a longtime friend and top aid to Clinton, had worked as an assistant editor for a radical Islamic Saudi journal for over a decade. The publication, called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, featured everything from pieces opposed to women's rights, to articles blaming the US for the September 11 terror attacks. ..."
    "... Abedin has long been accused by independent media in the US and elsewhere of having connections with Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood, charges which have long been labeled as nothing more than a conspiracy theory. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    The [neoliberal] media has had a field day commenting on Donald Trump's words about cooperation with Russia against ISIS, labeling him a 'Kremlin agent' and a danger to the Western security order. But what about Hillary Clinton and her foundation's ties to the Saudis? If Trump is 'Moscow's man', does that make Clinton the candidate of Middle Eastern sheikdoms?

    The US media has been relentless in its efforts to sink Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign, in part due to the candidate's string of friendly remarks and gestures toward Russia and President Vladimir Putin. The media have accused Moscow of every sin imaginable, from meddling in America's elections, to using Trump advisor Paul Manafort, who was called 'the Kremlin's man in Ukraine', to outright calling Trump himself a 'Russian agent'.

    Former NATO chief Anders Rasmussen joined the party bashing Trump recently, slamming him for having "his own views on the Ukrainian conflict," and adding that to top it all off, "he praises President Putin!"

    Admittedly, Mr. Trump does seem very open to the idea of negotiating with Russia, and even partnering with Moscow to tackle some of the greatest challenges facing the world today, including radical Islamist terrorism. In that sense, he may really be the most 'Russia friendly' presidential candidate the US has seen since 1945, not counting the early 1990s, when Washington's friendly overtures toward Russia were based on the condition that Moscow does everything US officials tell it to.

    Does that make him a puppet to the Russians, the Kremlin and to Vladimir Putin personally? Not likely. Despite all the media investigations and even more accusations, no substantiated evidence has been presented demonstrating that Trump has any significant business or personal interests in Russia which would create a conflict of interest. The businessman held a Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow a few years ago, and tried, unsuccessfully, to build a Trump tower in the Russian capital. But he also has assets around the world, in Scotland, Dubai, and in over a dozen other countries. Does that make him the agent of these countries, too?

    Amid the endless suspicions surrounding 'Kremlin Agent Trump', a story in the New York Times unassumingly titled 'Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign' almost slipped through the cracks, before blowing up on national television.

    The Times' piece reported on the fact that the Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the US State Department has repeatedly criticized for human rights abuses and discrimination against women. The offending countries purportedly include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Brunei, along with Algeria. Riyadh, the paper noted, was "a particularly generous benefactor," giving between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with at least another $1 million donated by the 'Friends of Saudi Arabia' organization.

    The scandal didn't end there. Speaking to CNN reporter Dana Bash, Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook could not coherently explain why the Clintons weren't willing to stop accepting donations from foreign 'investors' unless Clinton became president of the United States. Instead, Mook tried to divert the question to Donald Trump, saying the candidate has never revealed his financials, and adding that Mrs. Clinton had taken "unprecedented" steps to being "transparent."

    And the plot thickens. On Sunday, conservative US and British media revealed that Huma Abedin, a longtime friend and top aid to Clinton, had worked as an assistant editor for a radical Islamic Saudi journal for over a decade. The publication, called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, featured everything from pieces opposed to women's rights, to articles blaming the US for the September 11 terror attacks.

    In one article in January 1996, Abedin's own mother wrote a piece for the journal, where she complained that Clinton, who was First Lady at the time, was advancing a "very aggressive and radically feminist" agenda which was un-Islamic and dangerous for empowering women.

    Abedin has long been accused by independent media in the US and elsewhere of having connections with Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood, charges which have long been labeled as nothing more than a conspiracy theory. But Sunday's story seems to have ruffled a few feathers in some high places, with a Clinton campaign spokesperson explaining (rather unconvincingly) to the New York Post that Abedin played no formal role in the radical journal. "My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that periodical," the spokesman said.

    These two stories, the first offering new details including dollar estimates about the money received by the Clinton Foundation from the Saudis, and the second shedding light on her top advisor's apparent ties to a Saudi journal propagating Islamist ideas, should lead the media to look for answers to some very troubling questions. These should be the same kinds of questions asked earlier this summer, when a formerly classified 28 page chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report was finally released, revealing that Saudi officials had supported the hijackers who carried out the terrorist attacks against the United States in 2001.

    ... ... ...

    [Aug 23, 2016] Foundation becomes campaign issue

    If 59% of voters believe that Hillary is not trustworthy, does this mean that 41% of voters are completly disconnected with reality ?
    www.cnn.com

    Hillary Clinton leads in the polls nationally and in key battleground states, but the flood of stories regarding her private email server and donations to the Clinton Foundation demonstrate the former secretary of state won't be able to completely outrun voter skepticism -- or Donald Trump.

    ... ... ...

    Trump supporter Sen. Jeff Sessions suggested that the Democratic presidential candidate used her high position to "extort" from international governments for her family's foundation.

    "The fundamental thing is you can not be Secretary of State of the United States of America and use that position to extort or seek contributions to your private foundation," he told CNN's Alisyn Camerota on "New Day" Tuesday. "That is a fundamental violation of law and that does appear to have happened."

    ... ... ...

    A Washington Post/ABC News poll from earlier this month showed that 59% of voters believe that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy.

    So the campaign turned its attention on Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and her emails. That was readily apparent Monday, as both Trump and vice presidential nominee Mike Pence brought up the issue.

    "It's time for Hillary Clinton to come clean about the Clinton Foundation," Pence said at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

    The Clinton Foundation last week accounced it would ban donations to from corporations and foreign countries if Hillary Clinton is elected. Pence rhetorically asked why there wasn't a conflict of interest when she was Secretary of State.

    "Apparently she'll have a conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation if she becomes President but I guess she didn't have a conflict of interest taking foreign donations while she was secretary of state of the United States of America," Pence said

    ... ... ...

    New emails obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch and released Monday show then-Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band asking top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin to arrange a meeting with the then-secretary of state for the Crown Prince of Bahrain, Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa. The crown prince's charity donated $32 million for a program run through the Clinton Global Initiative.

    [Aug 23, 2016] The Shameful Foundation of the Clintons Power

    This foundation gives Clintons the ability to finance travel, equipment and staff for political campaigns of Hillary Clinton. Note the level of interconnection between Hillary Clinton staff and Clinton foundation in email scandal. Hume Abedin often called the system administrator from Clinton foundation to fix the "bathroom" mail server. Also spending by foundation "on charoty" are very questionable both in scope and targets. Compare with Gates foundation and you will see that Clinton foundation is essentially Clinton family slush fund disguised as a charity.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Since its founding in 2001, the Clinton Foundation served as a bridge between Bill Clinton's administration and Hillary Clinton's drive to conquer the White House again. ..."
    "... But beyond the Republican bluster, there is a substantial critique of the Clinton Foundation: At its core, it fuses fundraising, influence-peddling, Washington networking, "humanitarian" causes and an endless grasp for power and money. ..."
    "... Though taking care to adhere to the letter of the law, the foundation comes close to the line in many cases ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    The stated mission of the Clinton Foundation, set up at the end of Bill Clinton's second term in the White House, is to "alleviate poverty, improve global health, strengthen economies, and protect the environment."

    But far more important to its operations is the Clinton Foundation's unstated mission: to further entrench the already formidable power of the Clinton family.

    For more than two decades, both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have lived very public lives ensconced in the upper echelons of America's political establishment. Since its founding in 2001, the Clinton Foundation served as a bridge between Bill Clinton's administration and Hillary Clinton's drive to conquer the White House again.

    ... ... ...

    But beyond the Republican bluster, there is a substantial critique of the Clinton Foundation: At its core, it fuses fundraising, influence-peddling, Washington networking, "humanitarian" causes and an endless grasp for power and money.

    Though taking care to adhere to the letter of the law, the foundation comes close to the line in many cases -- for example, soliciting donations by offering face time with the Clintons in ways that seem suspiciously like a political campaign for elected office, but not exactly like that, because that would be a violation of the law.

    [Aug 23, 2016] Trump Clinton Foundation A Clear Example Of A RICO Enterprise Video by Ian Schwartz

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Foundation donors included corporations and individuals with significant matters before the State Department. And then either Hillary Clinton herself or one of her closest aides took action favorable to the donor. ..."
    "... The Clintons' made the State Department into the same kind of Pay-to-Play operations as the Arkansas Government was: pay the Clinton Foundation huge sums of money and throw in some big speaking fees for Bill Clinton and you got to play with the State Department. ..."
    "... The amounts involved, the favors done and the significant numbers of times it was done require an expedited investigation by a Special Prosecutor. After the FBI and Department of Justice whitewash of the Clinton email crimes, they certainly cannot be trusted to quickly or impartially investigate Hillary Clinton's crimes. ..."
    "... Some former prosecutors have even suggested that the coordination between the pay-for-play State Department and the corrupt Clinton Foundation constitute a clear example of a RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) enterprise. ..."
    Aug 22, 2016 | RealClearPolitics
    Donald Trump called for an independent special protector to investigate the Clinton Foundation at a rally in Akron, Ohio Monday night. Trump said the Justice Department is a "political arm" of the White House and can not be trusted to investigate properly.
    TRUMP: The Foundation donors included corporations and individuals with significant matters before the State Department. And then either Hillary Clinton herself or one of her closest aides took action favorable to the donor.

    Her actions corrupted and disgraced one of the most important Departments of government, indeed one of only four established by the United States Constitution itself.

    The Clintons' made the State Department into the same kind of Pay-to-Play operations as the Arkansas Government was: pay the Clinton Foundation huge sums of money and throw in some big speaking fees for Bill Clinton and you got to play with the State Department.

    The amounts involved, the favors done and the significant numbers of times it was done require an expedited investigation by a Special Prosecutor. After the FBI and Department of Justice whitewash of the Clinton email crimes, they certainly cannot be trusted to quickly or impartially investigate Hillary Clinton's crimes.

    Some former prosecutors have even suggested that the coordination between the pay-for-play State Department and the corrupt Clinton Foundation constitute a clear example of a RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) enterprise.

    The Justice Department is required to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor because it has proven itself to be a political arm of the White House.

    [Aug 23, 2016] DOUBLE STANDARD: Khizr Khan Receives 50x More Coverage Than Pat Smith on ABC, CBS, NBC by Geoffrey Dickens

    Aug 01, 2016 |

    Two weeks ago at the Republican National Convention (RNC) a grieving mother blasted Hillary Clinton for the debacle of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Last Thursday, at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), grieving parents gave a speech criticizing Donald Trump for his statements against Muslims.

    While all the grieving parents deserve sympathy, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows seemed to only care about the parents that showed up at the Democratic Convention. Khizr Khan and his wife Ghazla's DNC appearance earned 55 minutes, 13 seconds of Big Three network coverage, nearly 50 times more than Pat Smith, whose RNC speech honoring her son earned just 70 seconds of airtime.

    This is a textbook case of bias-by-agenda: One of these stories (the Khan story) matched the Democratic agenda, and the partisan media couldn't push it hard enough. The other (the Smith story) reflected poorly on the Democratic nominee, so it was barely mentioned.

    ... ... ...

    While Smith's emotional pleas were downplayed by the networks, Khan's speech and subsequent back and forth with Trump were played up. On the July 29 edition of CBS This Morning co-anchor Norah O'Donnell noted "One of the most powerful convention moments last night came from the father of a Muslim-American soldier who was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizir Khan criticized Donald Trump for singling out Muslims during the campaign." Her CBS colleague Gayle King added: "That appearance by the Khans is being described as one of the most powerful of the night. People were moved to tears by the two of them standing there."

    On the August 1Today show, substitute host Tamron Hall reported "Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump campaigns in the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania today, but controversy will follow him after his remarks about the parents of a Muslim-American soldier killed in Iraq." Her colleague Andrea Mitchell added "Hillary Clinton is calling on Republicans to abandon Donald Trump, and in her words, 'put country before party' because of his controversial comments about Captain Khan and his family."

    Earlier in the show, co-anchor Savannah Guthrie interviewed the Khans. But so far Pat Smith, shamefully, has yet to be extended the same courtesy on any of the Big Three evening or morning shows.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Khizr Khan was tricked into smearing Donald Trump

    This is a really excellent analysys... Bravo --
    Notable quotes:
    "... Despite all efforts by the media to distort Trump's position about "banning" Muslims, he has made perfectly clear time and again that he does not want to ban all Muslims. He wants to simply perform thorough and complete background checks on all immigrants coming from countries presently in the grips of violent Islamic terrorism. ..."
    "... To her, Capt. Khan is not a just soldier who died defending his country in a foreign land. First and foremost, to her, he is a Muslim of Pakistani heritage and therefore is a perfect political pawn for just the right situation. ..."
    "... For just about every American alive, Capt. Khan is an inspiring and unifying figure. To Hillary Clinton, he is a tool to be used to divide people. In her false promise of unifying America, she creates a national political Babylon. Her avaricious greed for more and more power knows no bounds. ..."
    "... Politicians like Hillary Clinton slice and dice people into racial and gender groups. Then they toot on all their little "dog whistles" to send all their little demographic pawns scurrying in various directions. That is how you wind up with Khizr Khan standing on stage beside his head-scarved wife, waving around the U.S. Constitution and distorting Donald Trump's position on keeping radical Islamic terrorism at bay. ..."
    "... Perhaps a better testimony from Khizr Khan would have been for him to talk about how Hillary Clinton was in the U.S. Senate when she voted to invade Iraq. Years later, after that position became politically unpopular, she changed her mind and joined new political forces to vacate all the land across Iraq that so many great American patriots like Capt. Humayun Khan had died for. ..."
    "... It was her vote that sent Capt. Khan to his death. And then it was her decisions later to render that sacrifice worthless. ..."
    Jul 31, 2016 | TheHill

    Khizr Khan is a fine American and the father of a true American patriot. But now he is also everything that is wrong with American politics today.

    It is not entirely his fault, though he has only himself to blame for allowing his dead son to be used for the most hideous of purposes and dragged through the gutter of nasty and dishonest partisan politics.

    Khan and his wife took to the stage at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia last week to deliver an impassioned rebuke of Donald J.Trump that was universally celebrated by the media. Even Republican politicos swooned at the gambit. The Clinton campaign trotted out the Muslim couple because their son, Captain Humayun Khan, was killed by a car bomb in 2004 while guarding a base in Iraq.

    "If it was up to Donald Trump , he never would have been in America," said Khan, sliding easily into the political tradition of lying and distorting the position of one's opponent.

    "Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims," he went on. "He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country."

    Despite all efforts by the media to distort Trump's position about "banning" Muslims, he has made perfectly clear time and again that he does not want to ban all Muslims. He wants to simply perform thorough and complete background checks on all immigrants coming from countries presently in the grips of violent Islamic terrorism.

    Yes, that means if you are a Muslim who wants to immigrate from Syria or Afghanistan, you are going to get a lot more scrutiny than if you are a Jew trying to immigrate from Canada. That is most unfortunate, but not nearly as unfortunate as innocents getting slaughtered by 10th Century savages killing in the name of Allah.

    Anyway, this higher scrutiny should be no obstacle for the likes of Khizr Khan and his family, except for the additional hassle.

    So, why would Khizr Khan choose to insert himself into politics and demean his son's sacrifice by lying at a political convention on national television? The answer is simple: He allowed himself to be tricked into it. And the Clinton campaign was all too eager to take advantage of him and his family and Capt. Khan and use them for their own political partisan purposes.

    Stop for a moment and ask yourself how exactly the Clinton campaign arrived at the decision to trot out the Khan family in the middle of their highly-choreographed, exhaustively produced convention?

    Were they just looking to give voice to the parents of a soldier? That would be a first. Did they want parents of anyone who had died abroad in the defense of their country? Gee, why not pick the parents of one of the fallen warriors who died defending the U.S. consulate in Benghazi? Oh, that's right. They would have called Hillary Clinton a liar. Can't have that.

    No. Politicians like Hillary Clinton do not see people like Capt. Humayun Khan as a soldier who made the ultimate sacrifice on a foreign battlefield in defense of his country. Politicians like Hillary Clinton see him only a demographic, a dispensable political pawn to be scooted around an electoral map, the way generals used to move armies across giant maps of the lands they were invading.

    But instead of liberating Europe from evil fascists, politicians like Hillary Clinton use their long, worn croupier rakes to move their pawns about with the singular goal of advancing their own personal political careers.

    To her, Capt. Khan is not a just soldier who died defending his country in a foreign land. First and foremost, to her, he is a Muslim of Pakistani heritage and therefore is a perfect political pawn for just the right situation.

    For just about every American alive, Capt. Khan is an inspiring and unifying figure. To Hillary Clinton, he is a tool to be used to divide people. In her false promise of unifying America, she creates a national political Babylon. Her avaricious greed for more and more power knows no bounds.

    It is an open secret in Washington that politics is the last bastion of rampant racial profiling. Both parties do it, but Democrats have taken it to a whole new scientific level.

    Politicians like Hillary Clinton slice and dice people into racial and gender groups. Then they toot on all their little "dog whistles" to send all their little demographic pawns scurrying in various directions. That is how you wind up with Khizr Khan standing on stage beside his head-scarved wife, waving around the U.S. Constitution and distorting Donald Trump's position on keeping radical Islamic terrorism at bay.

    Perhaps a better testimony from Khizr Khan would have been for him to talk about how Hillary Clinton was in the U.S. Senate when she voted to invade Iraq. Years later, after that position became politically unpopular, she changed her mind and joined new political forces to vacate all the land across Iraq that so many great American patriots like Capt. Humayun Khan had died for.

    It was her vote that sent Capt. Khan to his death. And then it was her decisions later to render that sacrifice worthless.

    Try sticking that into your dog whistle and blowing it.

    Hurt writes the "Nuclear Option" column for The Washington Times. A former D.C. bureau chief for the New York Post, he has covered the White House, Congress and presidential campaigns since 2001. Follow him on Twitter @charleshurt.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Clintons Rovian Gambit Against Obama

    This is from 2008. An interesting mention of Rove playbook that says, "Attack your opponent's perceived strength."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Rove playbook that says, "Attack your opponent's perceived strength." If that strength is merely "perceived" and not real, it's a legitimate tactic, but Rove attacks even when the perception is justified, and the Clintons are now doing the same. ..."
    "... Bill did this in New Hampshire when he contended that Obama was not really a consistent war opponent. Hillary put this tactic way out front on Meet the Press today. She said that Obama's campaign is premised entirely on his October 2002 speech, and she said that Obama did nothing after that speech. ..."
    "... A key point that has not been made is, if Hillary Clinton is telling the truth that she secretly opposed the invasion on March 20, 2003, then she cannot possibly claim the mantle of a leader, because she did not speak out against the prospect of invasion, even though she, due to her celebrity status, had one of the loudest megaphones to do so. ..."
    Jan 01, 2008 | The Atlantic
    A reader writes:

    Many of your recent posts on the Obama-Clinton contest are missing the forest for the trees. They are focusing on small annoyances from Camp Clinton. The big story of the last week is that the Clintons are trying to strip Obama of his rightful advantage on the Iraq war "judgment" issue and carry out the tactic from the Rove playbook that says, "Attack your opponent's perceived strength." If that strength is merely "perceived" and not real, it's a legitimate tactic, but Rove attacks even when the perception is justified, and the Clintons are now doing the same.

    Bill did this in New Hampshire when he contended that Obama was not really a consistent war opponent. Hillary put this tactic way out front on Meet the Press today. She said that Obama's campaign is premised entirely on his October 2002 speech, and she said that Obama did nothing after that speech. This is just an out and out lie; there are no shades of gray here. Here are two examples of what Obama did after his October 2002 speech that I was able to find through a simple Nexis search:

    On March 4, 2003, an AP story picked up by an Illinois newspaper, the Belleville News Democrat, states as follows:

    "Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question....'What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,' said Obama, a state senator from Chicago."

    On March 17, 2003, the Chicago Sun Times reported this:

    "Thousands of demonstrators packed Daley Center Plaza for a two- hour rally Sunday [two days before Bush issued his ultimatum against Saddam and four days before the invasion], then marched through downtown in Chicago's largest protest to date against an Iraq war. Crowd estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000.... State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, 'It's not too late' to stop the war."

    All of this is highly relevant, because Hillary's account of her own actions in the October 2002 - March 20, 2003 period (March 20 being the day of the invasion) is that she voted, not to authorize war, but inspections, and that when the inspectors were there in March 2003, she, in her own mind, opposed the invasion and would not have carried it out had she been President.

    A key point that has not been made is, if Hillary Clinton is telling the truth that she secretly opposed the invasion on March 20, 2003, then she cannot possibly claim the mantle of a leader, because she did not speak out against the prospect of invasion, even though she, due to her celebrity status, had one of the loudest megaphones to do so.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Trump is 'fundamentally dishonest,' say GOP national security leaders in open letter

    See also Israel lobby in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Notable quotes:
    "... Eliot Cohen, or any member of the PNAC, calling Trump or anyone else 'fundamentally dishonest' is simply beyond the pale. It takes some serious nerve and arrogance for traitorous liars of this magnitude to be calling out Trump regardless of the veracity of their claims. ..."
    "... Nothing pleases me more than the careerist parasites and wannabe czars of DC feeling compelled to justify their proven incompetence by slagging the guy who seems increasingly likely to be their boss. Now if only the other half of the DC cesspool can do the same, maybe something good can actually happen for the rest of the country. ..."
    "... How terrific that the neocons are freaking out. Wait until the pharmaceuticals start hitting his healthcare proposals for bargaining down the cost of drugs. Good to have an outsider in the game. ..."
    "... Instead of calling these opponents Neocons, we should be calling them the Israel Lobby. They will wage war against any politician who doesn't agree to make America's Middle East policy coextensive with that of Israel. They don't care if their attacks destroy the Republican Party, because their loyalties lie elsewhere. Their motto is rule or ruin. ..."
    "... Whatever! There is one and only one reason why Bush-era foreign policy people are attacking Trump: He has rejected their extreme neocon warmongering. They want a president who will start whatever wars Netanyahu orders, and they think Trump will tell Netanyahu to go screw himself. ..."
    Mar 02, 2016 | The Washington Post

    tjm, 3/3/2016 8:29 PM EST

    The neocons in full revolt (or is it full revolting)!

    God, I have not seen such unity within the neocon cabal since they were ginning up support for the Iraq disaster. Trump does show how badly needed a full house cleaning and a serious revamping of the foreign policy establishment is required. However, in this case, with Trump being the complete wild card, I think a plan B is needed, whatever that might be.

    It certainly is not Hillary! She has been embraced by high and mighty poobahs of the neocon cabal so nothing changes with her in charge-more wars, more interventions, more regime changes. We would keep trying until we get one right, as unlikely that might be.

    PDXing, 3/3/2016 4:15 PM EST

    Eliot Cohen, or any member of the PNAC, calling Trump or anyone else 'fundamentally dishonest' is simply beyond the pale. It takes some serious nerve and arrogance for traitorous liars of this magnitude to be calling out Trump regardless of the veracity of their claims.

    David_Lloyd-Jones, 3/3/2016 3:41 PM EST [Edited]

    Wey-yull, I'm no Republican, but FWIW I would think having Michael Chertoff and Robert Zoellick against me would be winning the daily double.

    All this and being condemned by The Mittens? Pure gravy. And people wonder why Trump is doing so well? Seems pretty obvious to me.

    There's only one hope for Rubio: where's Darth Cheney when you need him?

    yibberat, 3/3/2016 3:23 PM EST

    Nothing pleases me more than the careerist parasites and wannabe czars of DC feeling compelled to justify their proven incompetence by slagging the guy who seems increasingly likely to be their boss. Now if only the other half of the DC cesspool can do the same, maybe something good can actually happen for the rest of the country.

    And I hate Trump. But man this show is worth MANY buckets of popcorn.

    Janine, 3/3/2016 12:58 PM EST

    How terrific that the neocons are freaking out. Wait until the pharmaceuticals start hitting his healthcare proposals for bargaining down the cost of drugs. Good to have an outsider in the game.

    JDavis, 3/3/2016 1:01 PM EST

    The neocons will be quite happy in a Hillary administration. She's an even bigger warmonger than Obama.

    technokim, 3/3/2016 12:22 PM EST

    Please tell me how any of these 50 self-purported national security and foreign policy experts have done? Seems the world is less safe and increasingly more messed up as a direct result of these "experts" actions and policies.

    Uselessboy, 3/3/2016 12:37 PM EST

    Conservatives certainly loved them when they were backing their unjustified Iraq invasion and demanding respect for Bush even by those who thought he was breaking laws.

    johng4, 3/3/2016 11:47 AM EST

    Instead of calling these opponents Neocons, we should be calling them the Israel Lobby. They will wage war against any politician who doesn't agree to make America's Middle East policy coextensive with that of Israel. They don't care if their attacks destroy the Republican Party, because their loyalties lie elsewhere. Their motto is rule or ruin.

    JohnMIII, 3/3/2016 11:41 AM EST

    Aren't these the same Necons that swore up and down that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was such a serious threat we needed to launch an invasion costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars? They have zero credibility anymore. Who cares what they say?

    DirtyConSanchez, 3/3/2016 7:32 AM EST

    Poor little neocon warmongers squealing like stuck war pigs. Too bad, no more war profiteering for you little piggies. The big bad orange furred wolf Donald is coming to eat your bacon. And he has a 150 million strong wolfpack coming along to assist him.

    Trump '16

    JDavis, 3/3/2016 5:55 AM EST

    Michael Hayden suggesting insubordination isn't surprising. He and Cheney have been mucking up this country for years with the dirt they collected when Hayden was director of the NSA. They don't respect the presidency. They want all power for themselves.

    Jason Oneil, 3/3/2016 4:53 AM EST

    Conservative???
    What a joke. The neocons and the Israel Lobby are in total panic....Trump is not their puppet who will let them hijack our country into endless wars based on lies.
    Expose these traitors.

    ObjectiveReader1, 3/3/2016 4:26 AM EST [Edited]

    Doc Zakheim and Bob Zoellick?! I oppose Trump but these two dolts have no credibility.

    Zakheim was Undersecretary of Defense and Pentagon Comptroller under Bush Jr. He worked on the disastrous funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were debt financed. In the run up to the Iraq invasion, Zakheim publicly stated that Saddam was working on a nuclear bomb. Why doesn't Zakheim send a Letter to the American people apologizing for his role in not telling American taxpayers the truth about how much the Iraq war was going to cost.

    Bob Zoellick was US Trade Rep under Bush Jr. He worked on Cafta. He's an open borders guy. Free trade agreements like Nafta have hurt American workers. Bernie Sanders and Trump both openly criticize nafta and the TPP.

    Open Borders Zoellick and Iraq War neocon Zakheim have no credibility.

    pamfah_99, 3/3/2016 3:34 AM EST

    Don't these people realize that no one listens to them. They are the people who got us into Bush's mess in the mid-East that we are still paying for. Never mind all our vets who were killed and injured. They just don't understand what Trump represents. They think we are stupid and we are not. Go ahead and try to run Trump - see what happens to you. And Romney - that moron - remember that comment about the 47% or whatever it was. Talk about the establishment and the absolute disregard we had for us. Who listens to him either. About time the Republicans let democracy take its course and stop trying to act like Nazis. We, as Americans, have to right to vote for whomever we please.

    Miro23, 3/3/2016 2:27 AM EST [Edited]

    Their problem with Trump always comes back to the same point:

    He said, "We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems - our airports and all the other problems we have - we would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that right now.

    We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East - we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away - and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!"

    They've smashed up Iraq and Libya, want to do the same to Syria and get on with bombing Iran using US blood and money. They're more AINO's (Americans In Name Only) than "Neo-Conservative" and couldn't care less about parties, Republicans, Democrats. They just want a President who will shut up and do what they want – like Bush, Rubio or Clinton or Romney(?) or some other Muppet.

    PoliticallyIncorrect4, 3/3/2016 1:53 AM EST

    Guess what, nobody gives a damned sh$%#$%# about what these think.

    The people who developed GW Bush's national security agenda of international interventionism -with the Iraq war as the prime example of the perils of such approach- are in no position to lecture anyone on national security or international issues.

    We have tried the professional politicians and their advisers. It didn't work. Time to move ahead with a completely new approach.

    dbi, 3/3/2016 12:39 AM EST

    The Washington Post is calling Frances Townsend "a foreign policy expert"? Give it up. The woman pretends to know the smallest tidbit of information in the Pentagon and White House but the fact is, she doesn't have a security clearance and is not in any of the special briefings or secret meetings. She isn't cleared for anything and talks in gibberish. Michael Hayden was fired and he, too, has no security clearance and no access to confidential and secret material and meetings in the DoD. More gibberish. These people, like others mentioned, are bitter and basically unemployed under President Obama. They just can't get over it and move on.

    Manray9, 3/3/2016 12:11 AM EST [Edited]

    This collection of so-called "Republican foreign policy experts" are all hip-deep in complicity for the Iraq fiasco. Maybe Trump is on to something in calling out Republican "leaders" on the nation's greatest national security and foreign policy disaster since Vietnam? Many people in America, and especially Trump supporters, are disgusted with the course of events created and managed by the same malefactors now attacking Trump. The GOP big shots just don't get it.

    FedEx Sect 120, 3/3/2016 5:16 AM EST

    It is amazing to me how all of these war hawks are complaining now about being lied to about weapons of mass destruction. Those of us who called it a lie then were being told that they were being unpatriotic or better yet un-American. Wake up folk every time a Republican is in office we go to war. Then the Democrats have to clean up their mess. Then get blamed for not doing the cleanup fast enough while Republicans stand in the way and hinder the Democrats for cleaning it up properly. If the Republican get in office get ready to see our children in another war. Get ready to go back to high unemployment , high foreclosures, high losses in your retirement plan, and high bank failures. Don't forget who propped up Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein,; yeah your great Republican leader Ronald Reagan. War War War War War

    Swift301, 3/3/2016 12:09 AM EST

    Eliot Cohen? Trump is totally nuts on many levels but Eliot Cohen is well, just follow his career path, an endless wimp for war whose policy views have resulted in the largest increase of influence in the Middle East of Iran ever:

    "Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as "World War IV".[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion."

    1ofamillion, 3/2/2016 11:36 PM EST

    Neocons are already lining up behind the candidate of the War Party. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinto...

    1ofamillion, 3/2/2016 11:33 PM EST

    These are the mouthbreathers who brought us the Iraq War, supported Libyan intervention, and support Syrian intervention. Our foreign policy would be better if directed by a statue.

    Are these idiots going to realize that they're making us all want to vote for him more and more? It's like PNAC founders Kagan and Cohen endorsing Hillary - pretty sure it's having the opposite effect of what they want.

    Stephen Clark, 3/2/2016 10:58 PM EST

    Whatever! There is one and only one reason why Bush-era foreign policy people are attacking Trump: He has rejected their extreme neocon warmongering. They want a president who will start whatever wars Netanyahu orders, and they think Trump will tell Netanyahu to go screw himself.

    [Aug 22, 2016] A 'New McCarthyism': This is the Real Harm in 'Lesser-Evil' US Politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... about lesser-evil politics and what impact the election could have on the future of progressive politics. ..."
    "... Ford quoted writer Steven Salait, who wrote recently, "Lesser evilism is possible only because we're so accustomed to seeing certain people as lesser human beings." ..."
    "... Dr. Monteiro believes that Republican support for Clinton could signal the beginning of a "new Mccarthyism." ..."
    "... "Now we've always known that the two-party system was essentially a one party system with two wings." he said, "But now, so many of the Republicans and the neocons and the liberals are gravitating to this big umbrella. But at the same time they're saying to anyone who would oppose their policy in Russia, or towards Korea or Syria, that somehow you are unpatriotic, you are on the payroll of Russia or some external force. So I would suggest that there's nothing more lethal than a Cold War liberal. They go beyond the conservatives." ..."
    "... That's a real concern. When we look at Hillary Clinton, when we look at her support for surveillance, her lack of support for civil liberties…It's very important that we're not distracted by this issue of who people vote for, is it this party or that party ..."
    "... "That's not to say that elections aren't important, they definitely are a gauge of where people are at, at any given point, but that's not where social change comes from. And we need to stand strong, we need to stand united, we need to be prepared to get out into the streets to continue to struggle around the issues, including issues that are to the left of the articulated position of Bernie Sanders himself, which are issues of peace and social justice that the Bernie movement resonated with." ..."
    sputniknews.com

    With election season in full swing, Democrats and defecting Republicans have ramped up a campaign against the open bigotry of bombastic real estate magnate Donald Trump.

    Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear spoke with Jane Cutter, editor of Liberationnews.org; Dr. Anthony Monteiro, W.E.B. DuBois scholar and member of the Black Radical Organizing Collective; and Derek Ford, Assistant Professor of Education Studies at DePauw University, about lesser-evil politics and what impact the election could have on the future of progressive politics.

    ​Cutter explained that, historically, "Who's sitting in the White House is ultimately not the determining factor" of a movement's vitality, and points to the presidency of Richard Nixon, considered to be one of America's most conservative presidents. Cutter noted the many progressive measures passed under the Nixon Administration due to pressure from the Civil Rights, Black Power, feminist and LGBTQ movements.

    "At that time, people were organized, people were mobilized, people were militant and in the streets and, as a result, the Nixon Administration and other elements of the ruling class were forced to give up numerous concessions that were in fact quite beneficial to the working class of this country," she said.

    Ford quoted writer Steven Salait, who wrote recently, "Lesser evilism is possible only because we're so accustomed to seeing certain people as lesser human beings."

    "By that he was saying that to call Hillary Clinton the lesser evil is to call the people of Palestine, in Syria, Libya and Iraq, as lesser human beings, because her actions and her policies have been so steadfastly hawkish there. It also disarms the movement and any potential for popular uprising."

    Dr. Monteiro believes that Republican support for Clinton could signal the beginning of a "new Mccarthyism."

    "Now we've always known that the two-party system was essentially a one party system with two wings." he said, "But now, so many of the Republicans and the neocons and the liberals are gravitating to this big umbrella. But at the same time they're saying to anyone who would oppose their policy in Russia, or towards Korea or Syria, that somehow you are unpatriotic, you are on the payroll of Russia or some external force. So I would suggest that there's nothing more lethal than a Cold War liberal. They go beyond the conservatives."

    He added, "I think Hillary represents something that we have to be very frightened of and we really have to mobilize and steel ourselves for a really intense struggle against what she represents."

    Cutter agreed, saying, "That's a real concern. When we look at Hillary Clinton, when we look at her support for surveillance, her lack of support for civil liberties…It's very important that we're not distracted by this issue of who people vote for, is it this party or that party."

    "That's not to say that elections aren't important, they definitely are a gauge of where people are at, at any given point, but that's not where social change comes from. And we need to stand strong, we need to stand united, we need to be prepared to get out into the streets to continue to struggle around the issues, including issues that are to the left of the articulated position of Bernie Sanders himself, which are issues of peace and social justice that the Bernie movement resonated with."

    [Aug 22, 2016] Bernie Sanders: The Ron Paul of the Left? Not Quite by Justin Raimondo

    May 29, 2015 | original.antiwar.com

    Yet his real foreign policy record is closer to Hillary's than he likes to admit. Yes, he opposed the Iraq war – and then proceeded to routinely vote to fund that war: ditto Afghanistan. In 2003, at the height of the Iraq war hysteria, then Congressman Sanders voted for a congressional resolution hailing Bush:

    "Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism."

    As the drumbeat for war with Iran got louder, Rep. Sanders voted for the Iran Freedom Support Act, which codified sanctions imposed since the fall of the Shah and handed out millions to "pro-freedom" groups seeking the overthrow of the Tehran regime. The Bush administration, you'll recall, was running a regime change operation at that point which gave covert support to Jundullah, a terrorist group responsible for murdering scores of Iranian civilians. Bush was also canoodling with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a weirdo cult group once designated as a terrorist organization (a label lifted by Hillary Clinton's State Department after a well-oiled public relations campaign).

    Sanders fulsomely supported the Kosovo war: when shocked antiwar activists visited his Senate office in Burlington, Vermont, he called the cops on them. At a Montpelier public meeting featuring a debate on the war, Bernie argued passionately in favor of Bill Clinton's "humanitarian" intervention, and pointedly told hecklers to leave if they didn't like what he had to say.

    As a Senator, his votes on civil liberties issues show a distinct pattern. While he voted against the Patriot Act, in 2006 he voted in favor of making fourteen provisions of the Act permanent, including those that codified the FBI's authority to seize business records and carry out roving wiretaps. Sanders voted no on the legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, but by the time he was in the Senate he was regularly voting for that agency's ever-expanding budget.

    The evolution of Bernie Sanders – from his days as a Liberty Unionist radical and Trotskyist fellow-traveler, to his first political success as Mayor of Burlington, his election to Congress and then on to the Senate – limns the course of the post-Sixties American left. Although birthed in the turmoil of the Vietnam war, the vaunted anti-interventionism of this crowd soon fell by the wayside as domestic political tradeoffs trumped ideology. Nothing exemplifies this process of incremental betrayal better than Sanders' support for the troubled F-35 fighter jet, the classic case of a military program that exists only to enrich the military-industrial complex. Although the plane has been plagued with technical difficulties, and has toted up hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns, Sanders has stubbornly defended and voted for it because Lockheed-Martin manufactures it in Vermont.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Irony FBI, DOJ Launch Criminal Probe of Hillary Campaign Chair Over Putin Links

    Notable quotes:
    "... Turns out, the Podesta Group founded by none other than John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair and chief strategies, was retained by the Russian-owned firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015 to lobby Hillary Clinton's State Department based on John Podesta's longstanding relations with the Clinton family – he was the White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton. ..."
    Aug 21, 2016 | sputniknews.com

    The FBI and Department of Justice have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

    It seems like just yesterday that the top campaign official for Donald Trump found himself caught in the middle of a political dragnet for his work as a lobbyist on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych with the media clamoring about his purported ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a reason why the Republican nominee was a less desirable candidate than Hillary Clinton. Wait, that was just yesterday?

    It turns out that Hillary Clinton's campaign guru, head of the lobbying firm the Podesta Group, has found himself smack dab in the middle of the same criminal investigation spawned when devious political operatives decide to merge international relations with campaign politics. For weeks, the pages of the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal have chimed that Trump is a "Putin pawn" as part of some maniacal plot by the Kremlin to interfere with the US election.

    Turns out, the Podesta Group founded by none other than John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair and chief strategies, was retained by the Russian-owned firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015 to lobby Hillary Clinton's State Department based on John Podesta's longstanding relations with the Clinton family – he was the White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton.

    Interestingly, UraniumOne's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation from 2009 to 2013. Perhaps a more blatant evidence of allegations that Hillary Clinton's State Department operated on a pay-to-play basis is the fact that, as the New York Times reported last April, "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting UraniumOne stock.

    Not only are investigators wondering whether there was any impropriety in the lobbying arrangement such as the provision of beneficial treatment by the State Department to an old friend, but they are also probing the work that Viktor Yanukovych's regime paid the Podesta Group to do while he was the head of the Ukrainian government.

    The controversy for Podesta links to his work for the Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels based organization that describes itself as "an advocate for enhancing EU-Ukraine relations." Unfortunately for Mr. Podesta, the organization has been described as "an operation controlled by Yanukovych" and tied to the former leader's Party of Regions suggesting the Podesta Group may have been, like has been said of Paul Manafort, tasked with greater reporting requirements pursuant to US law.

    The Podesta Group quickly hired the white-shoe law firm Caplin & Drysdale as "independent, outside legal counsel to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties."

    And the plot of the 2016 presidential election thickens.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Hillary and the War Party by Carl Boggs

    Notable quotes:
    "... You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. ..."
    "... But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics. ..."
    "... A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. ..."
    "... A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished). ..."
    "... Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first. ..."
    "... There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states. ..."
    "... Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. ..."
    "... Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride." ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton's many liberal (and sadly, progressive) supporters routinely steer away from anything related to foreign policy, talk, talk, talking instead about the candidate's "experience", with obligatory nods toward her enlightened social programs. There is only the ritual demonization of that fearsome dictator, Vladimir Putin, reputedly on the verge of invading some hapless European country. Even Bernie Sanders' sorry endorsement of his erstwhile enemy, not long ago denounced as a tool of Wall Street, had nothing to say about global issues. But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics.

    A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. Under Clinton, the Democrats might well be better positioned to recharge their historical legacy as War Party. One of the great political myths (and there are many) is that American liberals are inclined toward a less belligerent foreign policy than Republicans, are less militaristic and more favorable toward "diplomacy". References to Woodrow Wilson in World War I and Mexico, Harry Truman in Korea, JFK and LBJ in Indochina, Bill Clinton in the Balkans, and of course Barack Obama in Afghanistan (eight years of futile warfare), Libya (also "Hillary's War"), and scattered operations across the Middle East and North Africa should be enough to dispel such nonsense. (As for FDR and World War II, I have written extensively that the Pearl Harbor attacks were deliberately provoked by U.S. actions in the Pacific – but that is a more complicated story.)

    ... ... ...

    A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. There are currently no visible signs she would exit the protracted and criminal war in Afghanistan, a rich source of blowback (alongside Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Israel). Increased aerial bombardments against ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere? More deployments of American troops on the ground? Such ventures, with potentially others on the horizon, amount to elaborate recipes for more blowback, followed by more anti-terror hysteria, followed by more interventions. Uncompromising economic, diplomatic, and military support of Israeli atrocities in Palestine? Aggressive pursuit of the seriously mistaken "Asian Pivot", strategy, a revitalized effort to subvert Chinese economic and military power – one of Clinton's own special crusades? No wonder the Paul Wolfowitzes and Robert Kagans are delighted to join the Hillary camp.

    No wonder, too, that billionaire super-hawk Haim Saban has pledged to spend whatever is needed to get the Clintons back into the White House, convinced her presidency will do anything to maintain Palestinian colonial subjugation. Meeting with Saban in July, Hillary again promised to "oppose any effort to delegitimate Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement." She backs legislative efforts begun in several states to silence and blacklist people working on behalf of Palestinian rights. For this her celebrated "pragmatism" could work quite effectively.

    Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished).

    Amidst the turmoil Trump has oddly surfaced to the left of Clinton on several key global issues: cooperating instead of fighting with the Russians, keeping alive a sharp criticism of the Iraq war and the sustained regional chaos and blowback it generated, ramping down enthusiasm for more wars in the Middle East, junking "free trade" agreements, willingness to rethink the outmoded NATO alliance. If Trump, however haphazardly, manages to grasp the historical dynamics of blowback, the Clinton camp remains either indifferent or clueless, still ready for new armed ventures – cynically marketed, as in the Balkans, Iraq, and Libya, on the moral imperative of defeating some unspeakable evil, usually a "new Hitler" waging a "new genocide". Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first.

    ... ... ...

    ...At the other extreme, Clinton emerges in the media as the most "rational" and "even-tempered" of candidates, ideally suited to carry out the necessary imperial agendas. A tiresome mainstream narrative is that Hillary is "one of the best prepared and most knowledgeable candidates ever to seek the presidency." And she is smart, very smart – whatever her flaws. All the better to follow in the long history of Democrats proficient at showing the world who is boss. The media, for its part, adores these Democrats, another reason Trump appears to have diminished chances of winning. Further, the well-funded and tightly-organized Clinton machine can count on somewhat large majorities of women, blacks, and Hispanics, not only for the march to the White House but, more ominously, to go along with the War Party's imperial spectacle of the day. Most anything – war, regime change, bombing raids, drone strikes, treaty violations, JFK-style "standoffs" – can escape political scrutiny if carried out by "humanitarian", peace-loving Democrats. Bill Clinton's war to fight "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, cover for just another U.S./NATO geopolitical maneuver, constitutes the perfect template here.

    There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states.

    ... In March 121 members of the Republican "national security community", including the warmongers Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, and Brent Scowcroft, signed a public letter condemning Trump for not being sufficiently dedicated to American (also Israeli?) interests. Trump compounded his predicament by stubbornly refusing to pay homage to the "experts" – the same foreign-policy geniuses who helped orchestrate the Iraq debacle. A more recent (and more urgent) letter with roughly the same message has made its way into the public sphere. Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.

    Returning to the political carneval that was the Democratic convention, amidst all the non-stop flag-waving and shouts of "USA!" Hillary made what she thought would be an inspiring reference to Jackie Kennedy, speaking on the eve of her husband's (1961) ascent to the White House. Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride."

    We can surmise that JFK was one of those "big men" governed by "restraint". History shows, however, that Jackie's esteemed husband was architect of probably the worst episode of international barbarism in U.S. history – the Vietnam War, with its unfathomable death and destruction – coming at a time of the Big Man's botched CIA-led invasion of Cuba and followed closely by the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the Big Man's "restraint" brought the world frighteningly close to nuclear catastrophe. As for "fear" and "pride" – nothing permeates JFK's biography of that period more than those two psychological obsessions.

    Could it be that Hillary Clinton, however unwittingly, was at this epic moment – her breakthrough nomination – revealing nothing so much as her own deeply-imperialist mind-set?

    Carl Boggs is the author of The Hollywood War Machine, with Tom Pollard (second edition, forthcoming), and Drugs, Power, and Politics, both published by Paradigm.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Ukraine Releases More Details on Payments for Trump Aide, Paul Manafort

    What a bunch of neoliberal piranha, devouring the poorest country in Europe, where pernneers exist on $1 a day or less, with the help of installed by Washington corrupt oligarchs (Yanukovich was installed with Washington blessing and was controlled by Washington, who was fully aware about the level of corruption of its government; especially his big friend vice-president Biden).
    Notable quotes:
    "... Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions. ..."
    "... Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta, is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now. ..."
    "... The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party." ..."
    "... On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to him over a five-year period. ..."
    "... In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical," he said. ..."
    Aug 18, 2016 | The New York Times

    MOSCOW - The Ukrainian authorities, under pressure to bolster their assertion that once-secret accounting documents show cash payments from a pro-Russian political party earmarked for Donald J. Trump's campaign chairman, on Thursday released line-item entries, some for millions of dollars.

    The revelations also point to an outsize role for a former senior member of the pro-Russian political party, the Party of Regions, in directing money to both Republican and Democratic advisers and lobbyists from the United States as the party tried to burnish its image in Washington.

    The former party member, Vitaly A. Kalyuzhny, for a time chairman of the Ukraine Parliament's International Relations Committee, had signed nine times for receipt of payments designated for the Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, according to Serhiy A. Leshchenko, a member of Parliament who has studied the documents. The ledger covered payments from 2007 to 2012, when Mr. Manafort worked for the party and its leader, Viktor F. Yanukovych, Ukraine's former president who was deposed.

    Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions.

    Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta, is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now.

    The role of Mr. Kalyuzhny, a onetime computer programmer from the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk, in directing funds to the companies of the chairmen of both presidential campaigns, had not previously been reported. Mr. Kalyuzhny was one of three Party of Regions members of Parliament who founded the nonprofit.

    The Associated Press, citing emails it had obtained, also reported Thursday that Mr. Manafort's work for Ukraine included a secret lobbying effort in Washington that he operated with an associate, Rick Gates, and that was aimed at influencing American news organizations and government officials.

    Mr. Gates noted in the emails that he conducted the work through two lobbying firms, including the Podesta Group, because Ukraine's foreign minister did not want the country's embassy involved. The A.P. said one of Mr. Gates's campaigns sought to turn public opinion in the West against Yulia Tymoshenko, a former Ukrainian prime minister who was imprisoned during Mr. Yanukovych's administration.

    The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party."

    Reached by phone on Thursday, a former aide to Mr. Kalyuzhny said he had lost contact with the politician and was unsure whether he remained in Kiev or had returned to Donetsk, now the capital of a Russian-backed separatist enclave.

    Ukrainian officials emphasized that they did not know as yet if the cash payments reflected in the ledgers were actually made. In all 22 instances, people other than Mr. Manafort appear to have signed for the money. But the ledger entries are highly specific with funds earmarked for services such as exit polling, equipment and other services.

    On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to him over a five-year period.

    In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical," he said.

    Mr. Manafort's statement, however, left open the possibility that cash payments had been made to his firm or associates. And details from the ledgers released Thursday by anticorruption investigators suggest that may have occurred. Three separate payments, for example, totaling nearly $5.7 million are earmarked for Mr. Manafort's "contract."

    Another, from October 2012, suggests a payment to Mr. Manafort of $400,000 for exit polling, a legitimate campaign outlay.

    Two smaller entries, for $4,632 and $854, show payments for seven personal computers and a computer server.

    The payments do not appear to have been reported by the Party of Regions in campaign finance disclosures in Ukraine. The party's 2012 filing indicates outlays for expenses other than advertising of just under $2 million, at the exchange rate at the time. This is less than a single payment in the black ledger designated for "Paul Manafort contract" in June of that year for $3.4 million.

    Ukrainian investigators say they consider any under-the-table payments illegal, and that the ledger also describes disbursements to members of the central election committee, the group that counts votes.


    Correction: August 20, 2016

    Because of an editing error, an article on Friday about the political activities in Ukraine of Donald J. Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, misidentified the office once held by Yulia V. Tymoshenko, a rival of Mr. Manafort's client, the former president Viktor F. Yanukovych. Ms. Tymoshenko served as prime minister of Ukraine, not its president.

    [Aug 21, 2016] The NSA Leak Is Real, Snowden Documents Confirm by Sam Biddle

    Notable quotes:
    "... The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE. ..."
    Aug 19, 2016 | theintercept.com
    On Monday, a hacking group calling itself the "ShadowBrokers" announced an auction for what it claimed were "cyber weapons" made by the NSA. Based on never-before-published documents provided by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, The Intercept can confirm that the arsenal contains authentic NSA software, part of a powerful constellation of tools used to covertly infect computers worldwide.

    The provenance of the code has been a matter of heated debate this week among cybersecurity experts, and while it remains unclear how the software leaked, one thing is now beyond speculation: The malware is covered with the NSA's virtual fingerprints and clearly originates from the agency.

    The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE.

    SECONDDATE plays a specialized role inside a complex global system built by the U.S. government to infect and monitor what one document estimated to be millions of computers around the world. Its release by ShadowBrokers, alongside dozens of other malicious tools, marks the first time any full copies of the NSA's offensive software have been available to the public, providing a glimpse at how an elaborate system outlined in the Snowden documents looks when deployed in the real world, as well as concrete evidence that NSA hackers don't always have the last word when it comes to computer exploitation.

    But malicious software of this sophistication doesn't just pose a threat to foreign governments, Johns Hopkins University cryptographer Matthew Green told The Intercept:

    The danger of these exploits is that they can be used to target anyone who is using a vulnerable router. This is the equivalent of leaving lockpicking tools lying around a high school cafeteria. It's worse, in fact, because many of these exploits are not available through any other means, so they're just now coming to the attention of the firewall and router manufacturers that need to fix them, as well as the customers that are vulnerable.

    So the risk is twofold: first, that the person or persons who stole this information might have used them against us. If this is indeed Russia, then one assumes that they probably have their own exploits, but there's no need to give them any more. And now that the exploits have been released, we run the risk that ordinary criminals will use them against corporate targets.

    The NSA did not respond to questions concerning ShadowBrokers, the Snowden documents, or its malware.

    A Memorable SECONDDATE

    The offensive tools released by ShadowBrokers are organized under a litany of code names such as POLARSNEEZE and ELIGIBLE BOMBSHELL, and their exact purpose is still being assessed. But we do know more about one of the weapons: SECONDDATE.

    SECONDDATE is a tool designed to intercept web requests and redirect browsers on target computers to an NSA web server. That server, in turn, is designed to infect them with malware. SECONDDATE's existence was first reported by The Intercept in 2014, as part of a look at a global computer exploitation effort code-named TURBINE. The malware server, known as FOXACID, has also been described in previously released Snowden documents.

    Other documents released by The Intercept today not only tie SECONDDATE to the ShadowBrokers leak but also provide new detail on how it fits into the NSA's broader surveillance and infection network. They also show how SECONDDATE has been used, including to spy on Pakistan and a computer system in Lebanon.

    The top-secret manual that authenticates the SECONDDATE found in the wild as the same one used within the NSA is a 31-page document titled "FOXACID SOP for Operational Management" and marked as a draft. It dates to no earlier than 2010. A section within the manual describes administrative tools for tracking how victims are funneled into FOXACID, including a set of tags used to catalogue servers. When such a tag is created in relation to a SECONDDATE-related infection, the document says, a certain distinctive identifier must be used:

    The same SECONDDATE MSGID string appears in 14 different files throughout the ShadowBrokers leak, including in a file titled SecondDate-3021.exe. Viewed through a code-editing program (screenshot below), the NSA's secret number can be found hiding in plain sight:

    All told, throughout many of the folders contained in the ShadowBrokers' package (screenshot below), there are 47 files with SECONDDATE-related names, including different versions of the raw code required to execute a SECONDDATE attack, instructions for how to use it, and other related files.

    .

    After viewing the code, Green told The Intercept the MSGID string's occurrence in both an NSA training document and this week's leak is "unlikely to be a coincidence." Computer security researcher Matt Suiche, founder of UAE-based cybersecurity startup Comae Technologies, who has been particularly vocal in his analysis of the ShadowBrokers this week, told The Intercept "there is no way" the MSGID string's appearance in both places is a coincidence.

    Where SECONDDATE Fits In

    This overview jibes with previously unpublished classified files provided by Snowden that illustrate how SECONDDATE is a component of BADDECISION, a broader NSA infiltration tool. SECONDDATE helps the NSA pull off a "man in the middle" attack against users on a wireless network, tricking them into thinking they're talking to a safe website when in reality they've been sent a malicious payload from an NSA server.

    According to one December 2010 PowerPoint presentation titled "Introduction to BADDECISION," that tool is also designed to send users of a wireless network, sometimes referred to as an 802.11 network, to FOXACID malware servers. Or, as the presentation puts it, BADDECISION is an "802.11 CNE [computer network exploitation] tool that uses a true man-in-the-middle attack and a frame injection technique to redirect a target client to a FOXACID server." As another top-secret slide puts it, the attack homes in on "the greatest vulnerability to your computer: your web browser."

    One slide points out that the attack works on users with an encrypted wireless connection to the internet.

    That trick, it seems, often involves BADDECISION and SECONDDATE, with the latter described as a "component" for the former. A series of diagrams in the "Introduction to BADDECISION" presentation show how an NSA operator "uses SECONDDATE to inject a redirection payload at [a] Target Client," invisibly hijacking a user's web browser as the user attempts to visit a benign website (in the example given, it's CNN.com). Executed correctly, the file explains, a "Target Client continues normal webpage browsing, completely unaware," lands on a malware-filled NSA server, and becomes infected with as much of that malware as possible - or as the presentation puts it, the user will be left "WHACKED!" In the other top-secret presentations, it's put plainly: "How do we redirect the target to the FOXACID server without being noticed"? Simple: "Use NIGHTSTAND or BADDECISION."

    The sheer number of interlocking tools available to crack a computer is dizzying. In the FOXACID manual, government hackers are told an NSA hacker ought to be familiar with using SECONDDATE along with similar man-in-the-middle wi-fi attacks code-named MAGIC SQUIRREL and MAGICBEAN. A top-secret presentation on FOXACID lists further ways to redirect targets to the malware server system.

    To position themselves within range of a vulnerable wireless network, NSA operators can use a mobile antenna system running software code-named BLINDDATE, depicted in the field in what appears to be Kabul. The software can even be attached to a drone. BLINDDATE in turn can run BADDECISION, which allows for a SECONDDATE attack:

    Elsewhere in these files, there are at least two documented cases of SECONDDATE being used to successfully infect computers overseas: An April 2013 presentation boasts of successful attacks against computer systems in both Pakistan and Lebanon. In the first, NSA hackers used SECONDDATE to breach "targets in Pakistan's National Telecommunications Corporation's (NTC) VIP Division," which contained documents pertaining to "the backbone of Pakistan's Green Line communications network" used by "civilian and military leadership."

    In the latter, the NSA used SECONDDATE to pull off a man-in-the-middle attack in Lebanon "for the first time ever," infecting a Lebanese ISP to extract "100+ MB of Hizballah Unit 1800 data," a special subset of the terrorist group dedicated to aiding Palestinian militants.

    SECONDDATE is just one method that the NSA uses to get its target's browser pointed at a FOXACID server. Other methods include sending spam that attempts to exploit bugs in popular web-based email providers or entices targets to click on malicious links that lead to a FOXACID server. One document, a newsletter for the NSA's Special Source Operations division, describes how NSA software other than SECONDDATE was used to repeatedly direct targets in Pakistan to FOXACID malware web servers, eventually infecting the targets' computers.

    A Potentially Mundane Hack

    Snowden, who worked for NSA contractors Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton, has offered some context and a relatively mundane possible explanation for the leak: that the NSA headquarters was not hacked, but rather one of the computers the agency uses to plan and execute attacks was compromised. In a series of tweets, he pointed out that the NSA often lurks on systems that are supposed to be controlled by others, and it's possible someone at the agency took control of a server and failed to clean up after themselves. A regime, hacker group, or intelligence agency could have seized the files and the opportunity to embarrass the agency.

    Documents

    Documents published with this story:

    [Aug 21, 2016] Gaius Publius: You Broke It, You Bought It – A Sanders Activist Challenges Clinton Supporters

    No progressives worth their name would vote for Hillary. Betrayal of Sanders made the choice more difficult, but still there no alternative. Clinton "No passaran!". Also "Clinton proved capable of coming to an agreement with Sanders. He received good money, bought a new house, published a book, and joined with Clinton, calling on his supporters to vote for her"...
    Crappy slogans like "hold her feet to the fire" are lies. Has there ever been serious detail about that? I've seen this line over and over. Hillary is dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and will behave as such as soon as she get into office. You can view her iether as (more jingoistic) Obama II or (equally reckless) Bush III. If she wins, the next opportunity to check her neoliberal leaning will be only during the next Persidential election.
    Notable quotes:
    "... ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values. ..."
    "... It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
    "... She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign  -  Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
    "... The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies. ..."
    "... It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it. ..."
    "... TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. ..."
    "... Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool… ..."
    "... One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. ..."
    "... The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more. ..."
    "... You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh). ..."
    "... Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power. ..."
    "... merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? ..."
    "... Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class. ..."
    "... The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants. ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com

    ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values.

    ... ... ...

    Becky Bond on the Challenge to Clinton Supporters

    ...Bond looks at what the primary has wrought, and issues this challenge to activists who helped defeat Sanders: You broke it, you bought it. Will you now take charge in the fight to hold Clinton accountable? Or will you hang back (enjoying the fruits) and let others take the lead? ("Enjoying the fruits" is my addition. As one attendee noted, the Democratic Convention this year seemed very much like "a jobs fair.")

    Bond says this, writing in The Hill (my emphasis):

    Progressive Clinton supporters: You broke it, you bought it

    It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable.

    With Donald Trump tanking in the polls, there's room for progressives to simultaneously crush his bid for the presidency while holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on the TPP .

    And yet:

    She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign  -  Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable.

    ... ... ...

    Bond has more on Salazar and why both he and Tim Kaine are a "tell," a signal of things to come from Hillary Clinton: "The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies."

    ... ... ...

    Carla , August 20, 2016 at 5:40 am

    It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it.

    This is the evil behind the lie of calling these "trade" agreements and putting the focus on "jobs." TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions.

    That's what's at stake; not jobs. The jobs will be lost to automation anyway; they are never coming back. The TPP et al legal straight jackets do not sell out jobs, that's already been done. No, what these phony trade agreements do is foreclose any hope of achieving functioning democracies. Please start saying so!

    sd , August 20, 2016 at 5:55 am

    Question – If automation killed jobs, then why did manufacturing move to low wage states and countries?

    Carla , August 20, 2016 at 6:25 am

    I miss-typed above. Of course I meant TPP and not ttp.

    Yes, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., certainly killed jobs. However, those jobs are not coming back to these shores. In the higher wage countries, "good" jobs - in manufacturing and in many "knowledge" and "service" sectors - as well as unskilled jobs, are being or have been replaced with automated means and methods.

    Just a few examples: automobile assemblers; retail cashiers; secretaries; steelworkers; highway toll collectors; gas station attendants. ETC. Here's what's happened so far just in terms of Great Lakes freighters:

    "The wheelman stood behind Captain Ross, clutching a surprisingly tiny, computerized steering wheel. He wore driving gloves and turned the Equinox every few seconds in whatever direction the captain told him to. The wheel, computer monitors and what looked like a server farm filling the wheelhouse are indicative of changes in the shipping industry. Twenty years ago, it took 35 crew members to run a laker. The Equinox operates with 16, only a handful of whom are on duty at once."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/travel/great-lakes-montreal-minnesota.html

    TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not trade, and only very incidentally, jobs. The rulers of the universe vastly prefer paying no wages to paying low wages, and whatever can be automated, will be, eventually in low-wage countries as well as here and in Europe. A great deal of this has already happened and it will continue. Only 5 sections of the TPP even deal with trade–that's out of 29. Don't take this on my authority; Public Citizen is the gold standard of analysis regarding these so-called "trade" agreements.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:00 am

    It took the OverClass several decades to send all those jobs away from our shores. It would take several decades to bring those jobs back to our shores. But it could be done within a context of militant belligerent protectionism.

    Americans are smart enough to make spoons, knives and forks. We used to make them. We could make them again. The only obstacles are contrived and artificial political-economic and policy obstacles. Apply a different Market Forcefield to the American Market, and the actors within that market would act differently over the several decades to come.

    Andrew , August 20, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Automation hasn't eliminated those jobs yet. But it will. See Foxconns investment in automation to eliminate iPhone assemblers.

    Skippy , August 20, 2016 at 6:37 am

    Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool…

    EndOfTheWorld , August 20, 2016 at 6:46 am

    One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. They protect your industries while at the same time bringing in a lot of revenue.

    The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more.

    casino implosion , August 20, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Sovereign nations are racist.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:02 am

    Really? Even multi-ethnic ones like Russia? Or America on a good day? Or Canada?

    You might want to be careful with Davos Man Free-Trade hasbara like that. You could end up giving racism a good name.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 6:50 am

    Off-shoring was just a stop-gap measure until human capital could be completely removed from the equation.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 7:55 am

    I meant to include a link to this particularly shocking example from a few months ago:
    Foxconn, Apple's Chinese supplier, is replacing 60,000 workers with AI robots.

    John , August 20, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Well then Apple can bring the all it's manufacturing back to the U.S. No need to be in China if they aren't using slave wage workers.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    Humans are just one line item on the list of expenses..

    dk , August 20, 2016 at 8:20 am

    ^That.

    Vastydeep , August 20, 2016 at 7:19 am

    The first round of industrial revolution automation substituted machines for human/horse mechanical exertion. We reached "peak horse" around 1900, and the move to low-wage/low-regulation states was just a step on the global race to the bottom. You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh).

    Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power.

    Will the rise of the machines lead to abundance for all, or merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? TPP and it's ilk may be the last chance for we the people to have any say in it.

    PhilU , August 20, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Manufacturing is in decline due to Reagan's tax cuts and low investment. Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class.

    John Zelnicker , August 20, 2016 at 10:23 am

    @Squirrel – Labor costs, as you say, are a driving force; they are not the only one. Notice that the products you mentioned are all large heavy items. In these cases the transportation costs are high enough that the companies want their production to be close to their final market. The lower cost of labor elsewhere is not enough to compensate for the higher shipping costs from those locations. In addition, the wage gap between the US and other places has narrowed over the past 20 years, mostly due to the ongoing suppression of wage gains in the US. Your examples are exceptions that do not falsify the original premise that a huge amount of manufacturing has moved to lower wage locations. And those moves are still ongoing, e.g., Carrier moving to Mexico.

    The cost of manufactured goods has not fallen because the labor savings is going to profit and executive compensation, not reduced prices.

    TimmyB , August 20, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Paleoconservative Pat Buchanan Stirring Revolution Pot If Trump Loses

    Notable quotes:
    "... Buchanan: "The Czechs had their Prague Spring. The Tunisians and Egyptians their Arab Spring. When do we have our American Spring? The Brits had their 'Brexit' and declared independence of an arrogant superstate in Brussels. How do we liberate ourselves from a Beltway superstate that is more powerful and resistant to democratic change? Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for 'regime change' in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect 'regime change' here at home?" ..."
    "... He goes on to quote John F. Kennedy saying, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," and closes with a reference to Credence Clearwater, "But if Hillary Clinton takes power, and continues America on her present course, which a majority of Americans rejected in the primaries, there is going to a bad moon rising." ..."
    "... though both stood against the conservative mainstream to champion economic nationalism, the two men couldn't be further apart in their intellectual sophistication and their sense of poetry ..."
    "... "Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught up in a Cold War paradigm," Buchanan wrote. He also reassured readers that "Putin says his mother had him secretly baptized as a baby and professes to be a Christian." ..."
    Truthout
    Straining for relevance, Buchanan attaches himself to Trump, expresses admiration for Vladimir Putin.

    ... Buchanan, a senior advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, and who was once considered the go-to guy for paleoconservatives, seemed to have faded in importance from those heady days when he co-hosted CNN's Crossfire, and gave the rousing and incendiary culture war speech at the 1992 Republican Party convention.

    As The Australian's Nikki Savva recently wrote, Buchanan "ran against the first George Bush for the Republican nomination, promising to build a wall or dig a giant ditch along the border between the US and Mexico. So it's not a new idea. The same people cheering Trump now applauded Buchanan then - it's just their numbers have grown." Now, thanks to Donald Trump's candidacy, and the band of white nationalists supporting him, Buchanan is in full pundefocating mode.

    According to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Buchanan, the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority," is all in with Trump's claim that if he loses it will be because the election is rigged. And, furthermore, according to Buchanan, Trump's loss could signal the beginning of a revolution in America.

    In a WND column headlined "Yes, The System Is Rigged," Buchanan – whose column is syndicated in a number of mainstream newspapers -- maintains that if the election "ends with a Clintonite restoration and a ratification of the same old Beltway policies, would that not suggest there is something fraudulent about American democracy, something rotten in the state?"

    Buchanan: "The Czechs had their Prague Spring. The Tunisians and Egyptians their Arab Spring. When do we have our American Spring? The Brits had their 'Brexit' and declared independence of an arrogant superstate in Brussels. How do we liberate ourselves from a Beltway superstate that is more powerful and resistant to democratic change? Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for 'regime change' in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect 'regime change' here at home?"

    He goes on to quote John F. Kennedy saying, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," and closes with a reference to Credence Clearwater, "But if Hillary Clinton takes power, and continues America on her present course, which a majority of Americans rejected in the primaries, there is going to a bad moon rising."

    ... ... ...

    Interestingly, in a post-GOP convention column, Slate's Reihan Salam argued that Trump missed a golden opportunity to soften his image: "He should have taken a page from Pat Buchanan, a man who is in many ways Trump's spiritual predecessor. Though both Buchanan and Trump have indulged in inflammatory racial rhetoric, and though both stood against the conservative mainstream to champion economic nationalism, the two men couldn't be further apart in their intellectual sophistication and their sense of poetry. And while Buchanan came to his blend of traditionalism and nationalism honestly, one still gets the sense that Trump simply saw an opportunity to exploit the GOP's working-class primary electorate and went for it."

    In addition to his "inflammatory racial rhetoric," in recent years, Buchanan has not been shy in expressing his admiration for Russia's Vladimir Putin. As Boulder Weekly's Dave Anderson recently pointed out, in a 2013 column titled "Is Putin One of Us?" Buchanan "noted that while a 'de-Christianized' United States has been embracing 'homosexual marriage, pornography, promiscuity, and the whole panoply of Hollywood values,' the Russian president has stood up for traditional values. He praised Putin's disparaging of homosexuals, feminists and immigrants."

    "Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught up in a Cold War paradigm," Buchanan wrote. He also reassured readers that "Putin says his mother had him secretly baptized as a baby and professes to be a Christian."

    ... ... ...

    Copyright, Truthout.org. Reprinted with permission.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Sanders gets 45% of the vote and leads them down Hillarys cattle chute for slaughter – not cooption, not marginalization, but the bolt gun to the head

    Notable quotes:
    "... All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning with you till your extinction burst finally subsides. ..."
    "... This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military, financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves. ..."
    "... The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by so loathsome a crew as the Clintons. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Mooooo , August 20, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Here in Temple Grandin's touchy-feely slaughterhouse, Sanders gets 45% of the vote and leads them down Hillary's cattle chute for slaughter – not cooption, not marginalization, but the bolt gun to the head, with lots of sadistic poleaxing straight out of an illegal PETA video. The surviving livestock are auctioned off for flensing through gleeful trading in influence. This we learn, is not beyond redemption. In some demented psycho-Quaker sense, perhaps. What the fuck WON'T you put up with?

    In this psychotic mindset, Kim Jong Un's 99.97% victory proves he's like twice as worthwhile as any Dem. Write him in. Nursultan Nazarbayev, too, his 98% success speaks for itself. Write him in. All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning with you till your extinction burst finally subsides.

    Then we can talk about how you knock over moribund regimes.

    Fiver , August 20, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military, financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves.

    There are 3 critical issues 'progressives', Greens, lefties, libertarians and others must come together en masse to resist: TPP immediately, US foreign policy of permanent wars of aggression now involving the entire Muslim world and fossil fuels. Don't waste any time hoping to influence Clinton (you won't) or fretting about Trump. First TPP, then anti-War/anti-fossil fuels.

    I am convinced TPP can be beaten – not with 'Clinton activists', but with a broad coalition of interests. And once it has been beaten, the supremely idiotic 'war on terror' is next up. Americans' votes and electoral desires have been ignored and suppressed. Other legitimate means therefore must be taken up and utilized to change critical policy failures directly.

    The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by so loathsome a crew as the Clintons.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Hillary is a lying war hawk, a neoliberal who can not be reformed

    Notable quotes:
    "... Until she demonstrated her vile nature as Secretary of State, the problem with Hillary has been the cast of miscreants she surrounds herself with such as John Podesta. Obama might have actually at least not surrounded herself with such vile people, but Hillary's 2007 henchmen were a sign she was unfit for any office. Trying to grab an empty suit, Obama, before he made connections just made sense. ..."
    "... Other than that, she was First Lady and an unremarkable Senator. The line about Mos Eisley from Star Wars accurately describes the Senate. ..."
    "... I think "progressive" is a such a mushy term it's hard to fit anybody into it on any criteria other than that they identify themselves as such. ..."
    "... That's why there's never a real answer to "Progress in what direction?" And the progressives of today have no historical "bloodline" connection to the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century (except maybe some vague technocratic leanings, the 10% of that day). ..."
    "... But if Hillary Clinton and Ezra Klein at al. get to call themselves progressive, it's a useless term ..."
    "... All I ever hear from Clinton supporters (even those newly aligned former Bernie supporters), is 'because Trump'. They appear starry-eyed and brainwashed because she's 'not Trump'. I don't predict any of 'em pushing Clinton on any issues. ..."
    "... Even if they tried, Clinton has already shown, IMO, that unless you have millions of dollars to throw at her feet you'll never get her attention, let alone force any change in her policies. ..."
    "... 2020 starts on November 9. Even if Clinton seems legitimate on election day, she'll delegitimize herself in short order. She won't be able to help herself. ..."
    "... IMO she already did that at the end of the campaign trail by choosing Kaine as her running mate, Salazar for her transition team (& suggesting Bill as economic advisor?). http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/hillary_clintons_choice_of_ken_salazar_comes_under_fire_video_20160818 ..."
    "... Kaine, along with IIRC Rahm, purged the Democrats of activists from Howard Dean's 50-state strategy post-2006. ..."
    "... Hillary is a lying war hawk. ..."
    "... Too bad Sanders turned out to be a sheepdog for the D party. He really should get the best actor in a political campaign award. After he endorsed Clinton it was clear as day it was ALL one big performance. ..."
    "... Young Sanders voters had a damned clear idea of the limits of what he was offering. They voted for him anyway, because he just sucked so much less than the jowly pair of creeps who stand before us now. ..."
    "... Can anyone doubt that Hillary will pull a super-Obama once elected, rejecting all her promises and implementing their opposites once elected? It amazes me that many people do, that they think they will have some ability to control policy. If things get too hot in the kitchen politically speaking, isn't it OBVIOUS that a 2-pronged propaganda effort will be unleashed, to hide blatantly unpopular moves on the one hand, and/or talk them up as if they were falsely maligned and in the TINA category on the other. ..."
    "... "This really matters. That Clinton is a better progressive choice than Trump is not much contested." Really? Reeeeaaaaa lly? Perhaps, as others have said way upthread, that is part of the problem right there. ..."
    "... Reading the article at this link should help progressives get over their fear of a President Trump. That fear is the only thing preventing them from voting for someone other than Clinton. Maybe the progressives should consider the possibility that they have nothing to fear but fear itself. ..."
    "... Because when he focuses on the last few-couple decades and especially the last few years, including CLINTON'S last few years, he makes serious sense. As well as his discussion of who has what military capabilities nowadays, and what a mistaken estimation of who has what military capabilities nowadays can lead the mistakers to lead their country into, box-canyon-of-no-return speaking-wise. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 20, 2016 at 10:53 am

    Until she demonstrated her vile nature as Secretary of State, the problem with Hillary has been the cast of miscreants she surrounds herself with such as John Podesta. Obama might have actually at least not surrounded herself with such vile people, but Hillary's 2007 henchmen were a sign she was unfit for any office. Trying to grab an empty suit, Obama, before he made connections just made sense.

    Other than that, she was First Lady and an unremarkable Senator. The line about Mos Eisley from Star Wars accurately describes the Senate.

    Lambert Strether , August 20, 2016 at 11:32 am

    I think "progressive" is a such a mushy term it's hard to fit anybody into it on any criteria other than that they identify themselves as such. I was there for the creation of the term, and there was a lot of discussion about it in the blogosphere at the time. Basically, the conservatives had managed, by dint of repetition, in making "liberal" a dirty word, so they needed rebranding. That's all "progressive" is; a rebranding.

    That's why there's never a real answer to "Progress in what direction?" And the progressives of today have no historical "bloodline" connection to the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century (except maybe some vague technocratic leanings, the 10% of that day).

    So I disagree. Today:

    liberal = progressive = identity politics ≠ left

    aab , August 20, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    I never liked the word liberal and never self-identified as such. Even as a kid, I think I intuited its connection back to Locke and classical liberalism. I had been calling myself progressive for a while, as it seemed like a nice connection to the earlier progressive movement pushing back against the first Gilded Age and a way of talking about the left that wasn't too scary for people trapped in the liberal paradigm.

    But if Hillary Clinton and Ezra Klein at al. get to call themselves progressive, it's a useless term. I've reverted back to "leftist". I strongly doubt Hill and Ezra will want that. We'll see.

    crittermom , August 20, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Sorry, but I saw this article as little more than wishful thinking.

    "It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable."

    Not gonna happen.

    Even if those supporting her were to 'make a little noise' over things they're opposed to, what makes Bond think she'd listen? Wasn't the Dem convention revealing enough?

    All I ever hear from Clinton supporters (even those newly aligned former Bernie supporters), is 'because Trump'. They appear starry-eyed and brainwashed because she's 'not Trump'. I don't predict any of 'em pushing Clinton on any issues.

    Even if they tried, Clinton has already shown, IMO, that unless you have millions of dollars to throw at her feet you'll never get her attention, let alone force any change in her policies.

    Lambert Strether , August 20, 2016 at 11:19 am

    2020 starts on November 9. Even if Clinton seems legitimate on election day, she'll delegitimize herself in short order. She won't be able to help herself.

    crittermom , August 20, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    IMO she already did that at the end of the campaign trail by choosing Kaine as her running mate, Salazar for her transition team (& suggesting Bill as economic advisor?). http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/hillary_clintons_choice_of_ken_salazar_comes_under_fire_video_20160818

    She also confirmed it at the convention by silencing those there to push for platform reform. (I really had no idea just how much weight the head of a transition team carries until I watched this video).

    Lambert Strether , August 20, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Kaine, along with IIRC Rahm, purged the Democrats of activists from Howard Dean's 50-state strategy post-2006.

    So I'm thinking the Sanders people will have some fighting to do sooner than they think.

    sharonsj , August 20, 2016 at 9:55 am

    I'd like to add that although I will be in the voting booth come November, none of the presidential candidates will get my vote. Trump is an ignorant egomaniac. Hillary is a lying war hawk. Johnson is another right-wing looney. And Stein, while she has some really good stances, lied during the CNN town hall (and I know because I actually read the Green Platform). I'm not even sure I will vote for the Dem challenger to my lousy Repub senator because the challenger is just another party hack who, like Hillary, only says what we want to hear.

    John , August 20, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Sanders did not "come out of nowhere".
    I and others followed and heard him for years on the Tom Hartman show.
    But I had gotten sick of hearing the talk but seeing no action and had stopped listening for at least the past two years.

    Also, the reason the "kids" took to him like wild was him calling for student loan cancellation.

    And that's the god's truth.

    Though his other messages about the rich looting us clean and needing to be stopped were what any sane person in the country longed to hear and have changed.

    Too bad Sanders turned out to be a sheepdog for the D party. He really should get the best actor in a political campaign award. After he endorsed Clinton it was clear as day it was ALL one big performance.

    FluffytheObeseCat , August 20, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    In my experience (6 years of pursuing a PhD late in life) young educated people today are so much more savvy, less self-indulgent and broadly "grown up" than the peeved, aging boomers who haunt this board…….. that this assertion is laugh-inducing.

    Young Sanders voters had a damned clear idea of the limits of what he was offering. They voted for him anyway, because he just sucked so much less than the jowly pair of creeps who stand before us now.

    ambrit , August 20, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    Voting for someone who "sucked so much less" than the other candidates is not how a movement gets started. If your assertion is correct, than things are not only looking dim for any reform in the near future, but look equally bad for long range reform. Hate is too self consuming to maintain constantly without renouncing ones humanity. Hope, as the histories of religions show, can keep chugging along for millennia. "True believers" did start in the religious sphere and transfer to other spheres of human endeavour.

    Norb , August 20, 2016 at 10:37 am

    I think what people have forgotten, or have no current experience with, is the actual radical, and destructive nature of Capitalism as a social organizing structure. It is the ocean in which we all swim or the air we all breathe, so take for granted – unreflectively. Commoners cannot connect the misery they experience daily with the system they live under. Capitalists can only double down on their life strategy. The second they hesitate, the game is up. It is an all or nothing strategy. In America, you are given no breathing space. No tolerance for dissent.

    A reformed capitalism ceases to be capitalism. Just as the divine right of Kings falls away when individual liberty takes hold in the mind. The two thoughts are incompatible.

    What is the capitalist goal? To control all- to exploit all? Don't capitalists already possess that power in disguised form already? What is it that they want anyway? Power over individual lives? Materially, the ruling elite have everything already, they have won the struggle of Owners over Labor. We have come full circle to where the elite now require our public displays of affection for their greatness once again. Freedom and liberty of the individual be dammed if not the right individual.

    If forced to express their vision for the human future, the ruling elite would be exposed as the shallow frauds that they are. They have no vision other than the ceaseless striving for material personal wealth. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are a logical result of an unrelenting capitalist system. They are its products.

    What is the logical end for capitalism? It is an ideology that needs competition to survive. But what happens when there are no more foes to conquer? No more resources to exploit for profit?.

    America is a nation of chaos because it is the leader of the capitalist world. It is not a nation of diverse strength and stability. It is a teetering behemoth, struggling not to fall over from neglect and self inflicted wounds perpetrated by sociopathic ideologues.

    Hopefully, the con game has lost it's effectiveness as harsh reality sinks in. As always, its having a plan ready to go and implement when the crash finally occurs. If the left does't have that plan ready, we all deserve what comes.

    Yves Smith Post author , August 21, 2016 at 1:28 am

    Actually, your intel is dated. Wall Street is her fading clientele. Google and Silicon Valley are much more important to Hillary now.

    DarkMatters , August 20, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    I'm really baffled at the surprise felt at Hillary's choice of associates, and at the policy decisions likely to follow. It reminds me of Condoleeza Rice statement that no one could have seen 911 coming, when drills had been ongoing to handle exactly this eventuality.

    Can anyone doubt that Hillary will pull a super-Obama once elected, rejecting all her promises and implementing their opposites once elected? It amazes me that many people do, that they think they will have some ability to control policy. If things get too hot in the kitchen politically speaking, isn't it OBVIOUS that a 2-pronged propaganda effort will be unleashed, to hide blatantly unpopular moves on the one hand, and/or talk them up as if they were falsely maligned and in the TINA category on the other.

    I state these opinions feeling on the one hand, as if I have 2 heads because this view seems so marginal among the populace, but on the other feeling eerily vindicated, as if I've been seeing a train coming down the track and striking a crowd of people, none of whom apparently saw or did anything during its approach. Is not the political outcome obvious? Hasn't anyone else seen through the level of propaganda diminishing her crimes as either nonexistent or unprosecutable?

    Well, I can entertain myself watching the propaganda, and watching how far political and ethical opinions can be twisted. Like the train metaphor, there's a certain macabre fascination to be savored. This is undoubtedly corrosive to my ethical and moral sensibilities, but trivially compared to all else.

    Jess , August 20, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    God I hate the phony framing of "hold her feet to the fire". After she's elected there is simply no way to do that. The only way her desired policies could be thwarted is by forcing enough members of Congress not to vote for certain bills like the TPP. But even then, nothing we can do can force her to change executive orders and executive branch policies or priorities.

    SpringTexan , August 20, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    Yes, TPP and TTIP are excellent places to "pick your spots," not easy but possibly winnable.

    Katniss Everdeen , August 20, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    You're right. The phoniest. And such crap.

    Bond is not even going to do the feet-to-fire holding herself. She's assigning it to someone else based on a standard she's devised. You broke it, you bought it. Give me a break.

    If you want to send the democrat party a message, you deny them the win. Period. It's how elections work. You don't get the job if your performance is piss poor.

    All this wishy-washiness over giving an unsuitable candidate a job and then assigning someone to stand guard over them to make sure they do it to your satisfaction when you've known from the beginning that s/he won't is just a weak excuse for taking the easy way out.

    You want to send a message to the democrat party that they better shape up now, you vote for Trump. And hold HIS feet to the fire. Two birds, one stone

    Jess , August 20, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    "vote for Trump. And hold HIS feet to the fire. Two birds, one stone"

    Yes. Excellent. And we might actually get some help holding those feet to that fire.

    KYrocky , August 20, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    Gaius asks:

    What will Clinton supporters, those who happily helped bring down Sanders, do then?

    Answer: Nothing. Sorry you wasted so many pixels avoiding the obvious.

    Oregoncharles , August 20, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    "Progressives who supported Clinton in the primary should use their leverage to ensure Clinton makes good on her vow to stop TPP and keep other promises she made on the campaign trail to win progressive votes. "

    This is crapified politics that we've heard before, over and over. HOW are they going to "hold her feet to the fire?" Has there ever been serious detail about that? I've seen this line over and over, but it's NEVER operational, and more important, it can't be. The next opportunity is 4 long years off; she could be dead by then, so could they, and the Republicans will nominate Cruz.

    All that leaves is insurrectionary street action; anything else is easy to ignore, and they know they have progressives hog-tied – hell, the progs did it to themselves.

    This hogswill is nothing but the same lesser-evilism that got us here. I suspect GP agrees; I'm responding to the quote.

    River , August 20, 2016 at 8:48 pm

    I think "hold her feet to the fire" means progressives will get on all fours and act as an Ottoman for Her Grace during a cold D.C winter's night. They seem to be doing it now.

    kimsarah , August 20, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    All fours alright: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292086-sanders-looking-forward-to-campaigning-for-clinton-after

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 1:55 am

    Dear Gaius Publius,

    "This really matters. That Clinton is a better progressive choice than Trump is not much contested." Really? Reeeeaaaaa lly? Perhaps, as others have said way upthread, that is part of the problem right there.

    Perhaps people should consider the possibility that Clinton is the More Effective evil. Perhaps a Trump Administration would be a bunch of sound and fury and clown car fire drills signifying nothing. Whereas a Clinton Administration would be staffed and powered by Decromatic and Third Way Cheneys who know where all the knobs, levers and buttons of power are. And they are determined that what they want . . . they will get.

    One of Ian Welsh's favorite commenters brought this link to his blog.

    markfromireland PERMALINK

    August 19, 2016

    There are lots of reasons not to vote for Clinton and the suppurating corruption she represents. Not letting her owners play with matches rates high among them

    ( and if that sentence does not link to the brought-link here the way it does on Ian Welsh, here is the URL link its own self, so people can link to it and read it.)
    http://fredoneverything.org/hillary-trump-and-war-with-russia-the-goddamdest-stupid-idea-i-have-ever-heard-and-i-have-lived-in-washington/

    Some of the insulting language is harsh on the tender eyeballs of sensitive leftists. I would suggest gritting one's teeth and powering through the relatively few insulting words and phrases. Most of it is fact-based and evidence-supported reasoned reasons to prevent Clinton from getting elected. Reading the article at this link should help progressives get over their fear of a President Trump. That fear is the only thing preventing them from voting for someone other than Clinton. Maybe the progressives should consider the possibility that they have nothing to fear but fear itself.

    Lambert Strether , August 21, 2016 at 3:24 am

    I dunno how tender my eyeballs are, but this at your link caught my eye: "When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War…"

    Wowsers. No, I don't think so.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 4:44 am

    Yes, one's eyeballs could be pretty tough and still find that one difficult. Still, it pays to grind one's teeth and power through.

    Because when he focuses on the last few-couple decades and especially the last few years, including CLINTON'S last few years, he makes serious sense. As well as his discussion of who has what military capabilities nowadays, and what a mistaken estimation of who has what military capabilities nowadays can lead the mistakers to lead their country into, box-canyon-of-no-return speaking-wise.

    [Aug 21, 2016] 6 Corporations control 90% Of The Media In North America

    It's like the USSR now: GE, News Corporation, Disney Company, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. These 6 conglomerates control 90% of the mass media in North America nowadays.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That means that out of all the TV channels we watch, the radio stations we listen to and the movies we see are owned by one of these six main corporations. ..."
    "... People are almost "forced" to wonder if the media controls as well our public taste and interest. They control the information we receive, but not only that, they control exactly what we receive and the way we do, therefore they control what we think. Media companies do not care about how they can be more objective and provide people news and information with a neutral point of view (even thought it sounds contradictory). We could say that they "unintentionally" or "indirectly" tell us what to think and what to believe. ..."
    "... The media's duty is to provide objective information to the public through newspapers, television and radio, in order for the public to make public as well as personal decisions in the diverse fields. ..."
    October 21, 2013 | irenefgoros.wordpress.com
    Image

    GE, News Corporation, Disney Company, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. These 6 conglomerates control 90% of the mass media in North America nowadays.

    Media ownership is becoming more and more concentrated these days as multi-billion dollar companies such as News corporation, Time warner and Disney company control almost all the shares of the mass media. A total of six corporations control almost 90% of the mainstream media nowadays. That means that out of all the TV channels we watch, the radio stations we listen to and the movies we see are owned by one of these six main corporations. Is this a good or a bad situation? Is the fact that almost the whole media is owned by a very few a positive or a negative aspect? Some argue that this brings benefits to the free market, the multi-billion companies and ultimately, the viewers. On the other hand, others say that this concentration of media ownership has a negative effect on the market and on society as a whole (articleworld.org).

    Image
    People are almost "forced" to wonder if the media controls as well our public taste and interest. They control the information we receive, but not only that, they control exactly what we receive and the way we do, therefore they control what we think. Media companies do not care about how they can be more objective and provide people news and information with a neutral point of view (even thought it sounds contradictory). We could say that they "unintentionally" or "indirectly" tell us what to think and what to believe. A newspaper finds some news and automatically interprets them, even though journalists try to focus on the facts, as many claim, they subconsciously have and opinion about whatever subject they are reporting about. This takes us to the point of "lack of diversity" that is a reality nowadays and that so many criticize. Danny Schechter, a television producer, independent filmmaker, blogger, and media critic states that "we have many channels and a tremendous lack of diversity." It wouldn't be strange to think that a news broadcast would withhold information if it had a negative effect on the company.

    From an international perspective, this situation of media merging is also beneficial for the big conglomerates. For instance, News Corporation owns the top newspaper on 3 continents, that is the Wall Street Journal in the U.S, The Sun in Europe and The Australian in Australia (Lutz, Jason, 2012). The positive aspect of this, is that the spreading of this "influence" is good for the company, and at the same time, readers get what they want, which is reading that newspaper. However, the bad aspect is that big conglomerates are big companies, and big companies main priority is always money, above everything else. Getting more readers, viewers and listeners is for the one and only purpose that matters to them: Money. That is what brings bad or "controversial" consequences, and one of them is that in 2012, they avoided $875 million in U.S taxes (Lutz, Jason, 2012). That would have been enough to double FEMA's budget, or to fund NPR for 40 years. Nonetheless, technically this cannot be criticized since they are a private corporation after all. Another issue that is a big concern in the European Union is the media transparency and plurality.

    Transparency is an essential component of pluralism (Stolte & Smith, 2010). Although the Council of Europe and the European Parliament have brought out recommendations regarding media transparency in the last few years, these have not been acted on. It is left to Member States to implement legislation regarding media ownership transparency, and there is by no means a unified or standard approach to be found across Europe (Stolte & Smith, 2010). This is a big issue in the European Union. The media's duty is to provide objective information to the public through newspapers, television and radio, in order for the public to make public as well as personal decisions in the diverse fields.

    Screen shot 2013-10-21 at 15.57.44

    It may sound scary -and it does to a lot of people- the fact that all our media is controlled by a few big conglomerates, forming an oligopoly, with the power of doing -almost- whatever they want. Also, it is true that this situation implies a very few and personal points of view, and the opportunity for those big conglomerates to "control" in a way what goes out, and how it does. Making the audience think in a certain way. This Infographic shows the media ownsership in the U.S currently.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Manafort's Ukraine ties being probed by FBI by Michael Isikoff

    This is a serious hit. And timing is perfect. Ukrainian government has connections to Hillary. If this is not interference n US election, I do not know what is. And Clinton Foundation ties to Ukraine are not investigated. Podesta firm (run by his brother) is involved by this involvement is hashed down. There is an interesting implicit hypothesis voiced in this article: the regime that replaced Yanukovich is less corrupt and less beholder to impoverishing Ukraine for the benefit of neoliberals like Soros. But the truth is that the country is now is much poor then it was under Yanukovich with his thieves. The best way to convert the country into debt slave is to wage a war. That's exactly what new leaders immediately did. See Ukraine denouement Michael Hudson. Of course FBI will not be investigating that. Like they refuse to investigate things about Hillary. Neoliberals are above the law, other people not so much.
    Isicoff said that Trump is attempting to delegitimize the current political establishment. I think he is correct if he means neoliberals (which MSM are afraid to call by name; imagine the same situation with communists when members of communist party were prohibited to call themselves communist; that would make communism closer to neoliberalism (which is essentially Trotskyism for rich)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Another firm, the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, brother of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, was also recruited by a Manafort deputy and lobbied for the European Centre. In a lengthy statement Friday, the Podesta Group said it had retained another Washington law firm, Caplin & Drysdale,"to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties." ..."
    "... The lobbyists, political operators and former politicians are allowed to play all three roles interchangeably and that has (and continues) to lead to US foreign policies that consistently work AGAINST the best interests of the American people and the future well being of the country BUT in the in financial best interests of the special interests who own our elected officials and the mainstream media and thus call the shots. ..."
    "... This current case is a very close parallel to the case presidential candidate John McCains' chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, who was a paid lobbyist for for the former Soviet republic of Georgia which explains McCain's insistent that the US should intervene in the Russian/Geogian conflict of 2008 by bombing the pass thru which Russian troops were streaming into Georgia following Georgia attempt to claim South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force of arms. Yes, contrary to US media reports that was was started by the Georgians when they decided to invade and take back by force a couple of disputed regions and killed a number of Russian peacekeeper in the process. ..."
    "... So I guess this means that the FBI will give the Clinton Foundation similar scrutiny since Manafort's $12 million is chump change compared to the hundreds of millions the Clintons got from shady foreign governments in exchange for special favors. Yeah, right! Funny, I didn't know Manafort had more power in the US than the Clintons and so was more dangerous to national security. ..."
    "... Typical Clinton Machine deflection and distraction from their own worse crimes. Typical pro Hillary Yahoo 'news.' Read Breitbart and the Daily Caller, folks if you want real investigative reporting. ..."
    "... The FBI and Department of Justice have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. ..."
    "... It turns out that Hillary Clinton's campaign guru, head of the lobbying firm the Podesta Group, has found himself smack dab in the middle of the same criminal investigation spawned when devious political operatives decide to merge international relations with campaign politics. For weeks, the pages of the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal have chimed that Trump is a "Putin pawn" as part of some maniacal plot by the Kremlin to interfere with the US election. ..."
    "... The controversy for Podesta links to his work for the Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels based organization that describes itself as "an advocate for enhancing EU-Ukraine relations." Unfortunately for Mr. Podesta, the organization has been described as "an operation controlled by Yanukovych" and tied to the former leader's Party of Regions suggesting the Podesta Group may have been, like has been said of Paul Manafort, tasked with greater reporting requirements pursuant to US law. ..."
    August 19, 2016 | yahoo.com

    The Justice Department and the FBI are conducting a wide-ranging investigation into allegations of corrupt dealings by the government of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, including the hiring of Washington lobbyists for the regime by former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a senior law enforcement official confirmed to Yahoo News.

    The investigation, which was first reported by CNN, began two years ago after Yanukovych fled Kiev to Moscow and was replaced by the current government of Petro Poroshenko, the official said. But the inquiry has expanded in recent weeks in the wake of the discovery of documents showing $12.7 million in payments to Manafort by Yanukovych's Party of Regions political party. Investigators are also looking into reports that Manafort recruited two top Washington lobbying firms to advocate on behalf of a Belgian nonprofit that investigators now believe may have served as a front for Yanukovych's party. Neither of the firms, the Mercury Group and the Podesta Group, registered with the U.S. Justice Department as foreign agents - a requirement if they represented a foreign government or political party.

    The disclosure of the Justice Department investigation came on the same day that Manafort stepped down as Trump's campaign chairman - news that sent new shockwaves through Republican circles. Manafort, who served for years as a campaign consultant to Yanukovych, declined requests for comment. But a close associate of his who asked not to be identified explained his resignation this way: Manafort "is not going to take orders or relinquish power to people like" Kellyanne Conway, the new Trump campaign manager, and Steve Bannon, the newly named CEO of the campaign. The Manafort associate also blamed the rapidly unfolding Ukraine allegations on "oppo research" being spread by Corey Lewandowski, Trump's former campaign manager and a bitter foe of Manafort

    Ken Gross, a lawyer at Skadden Arps, which represents the Mercury Group, one of the lobbying firms recruited by Manafort, told Yahoo News that his firm has been "engaged to look into the matter" of whether Mercury was required to register as a foreign agent with the Justice Department when, at Manafort's request, it agreed to represent the Brussels-based European Centre for a Modern Ukraine in 2012. Lobbying reports reviewed by Yahoo News show that the firms sought to burnish Yanokovych's reputation and lobbied against congressional resolutions condemning the regime's treatment of political opponents and opposing Russian aggression in Ukraine.

    Another firm, the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, brother of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, was also recruited by a Manafort deputy and lobbied for the European Centre. In a lengthy statement Friday, the Podesta Group said it had retained another Washington law firm, Caplin & Drysdale,"to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties."

    The statement added: "When the Centre became a client, it certified in writing that 'none of the activities of the Centre are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.' We relied on that certification and advice from counsel in registering and reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act rather than the Foreign Agents Registration Act. We will take whatever measures are necessary to address this situation based on Caplin & Drysdale's review, including possible legal action against the Centre."

    Sevgil Musaieva, editor of Ukrainskaye Pravda, a newspaper that has conducted multiple investigations into corruption under the Yanukovych regime, told Yahoo News that she first met with a team of FBI agents at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev two years ago. At the time, the new government headed by Poroshenko had asked the FBI for assistance in tracking down millions of dollars that it believed had been stolen by Yanukovych and his associates before they fled Kiev. "The FBI came to Kiev and started an investigation," she said. They asked her detailed questions about what she knew about allegations of corrupt dealings by the Yanukovych regime.

    But sources familiar with the probe say it expanded after a Ukrainian anticorruption bureau discovered a "black book" said to show "off-the-books" cash payments from the party to Manafort totaling $12.7 million between 2007 and 2012. Entries show that some of the payments were signed by a former member of the Ukrainian Parliament who was also a board member of the European Centre. Documents also purportedly show payments to the executive director of the center, according to a source familiar with the probe, reinforcing suspicions that the group was fronting for Yanukovych's political party.

    Sage

    The lobbyists, political operators and former politicians are allowed to play all three roles interchangeably and that has (and continues) to lead to US foreign policies that consistently work AGAINST the best interests of the American people and the future well being of the country BUT in the in financial best interests of the special interests who own our elected officials and the mainstream media and thus call the shots.

    Manafort is getting all this negative publicity only now, years AFTER the fact, because of two reasons---1) the political/special interests are deathly afraid that a Trump victory because they may not be able to control him and thus he might upset their lucrative apple cart that has made them obscenely wealthy at the expense of the rest of the country; and 2)secondly because that Manafort was backing the wrong horse in a race in which the special interests are actively trying to isolate and surround Russian militarily in order to remove a potential obstacle to their goal of global domination thru bought and paid for US politicians.

    However, this incestuous and obscene criminal behavior involving lobbyist/political operator has been going on for a long time and it much wider spread than is normally reported because the special interest owed media usually has no reason to expose it; in fact they usually have reason NOT to expose it.

    This current case is a very close parallel to the case presidential candidate John McCains' chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, who was a paid lobbyist for for the former Soviet republic of Georgia which explains McCain's insistent that the US should intervene in the Russian/Geogian conflict of 2008 by bombing the pass thru which Russian troops were streaming into Georgia following Georgia attempt to claim South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force of arms. Yes, contrary to US media reports that was was started by the Georgians when they decided to invade and take back by force a couple of disputed regions and killed a number of Russian peacekeeper in the process.

    Of course Scheunemann, unlike Manafort, came out completely unscathed and totally untouched by the media because war lover McCain supported the special interests' agenda because unlike Manafort, he was aiding and abetting the same "horse" the neo-con State Dept and the CIA had their bets on.

    A Mcp

    So I guess this means that the FBI will give the Clinton Foundation similar scrutiny since Manafort's $12 million is chump change compared to the hundreds of millions the Clintons got from shady foreign governments in exchange for special favors. Yeah, right! Funny, I didn't know Manafort had more power in the US than the Clintons and so was more dangerous to national security.

    Typical Clinton Machine deflection and distraction from their own worse crimes. Typical pro Hillary Yahoo 'news.' Read Breitbart and the Daily Caller, folks if you want real investigative reporting.

    Billy Willy

    So you biased Hillary asslickers think we don;t know about her SAME issues? So report on this you morons:

    The FBI and Department of Justice have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

    It seems like just yesterday that the top campaign official for Donald Trump found himself caught in the middle of a political dragnet for his work as a lobbyist on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych with the media clamoring about his purported ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a reason why the Republican nominee was a less desirable candidate than Hillary Clinton. Wait, that was just yesterday?

    It turns out that Hillary Clinton's campaign guru, head of the lobbying firm the Podesta Group, has found himself smack dab in the middle of the same criminal investigation spawned when devious political operatives decide to merge international relations with campaign politics. For weeks, the pages of the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal have chimed that Trump is a "Putin pawn" as part of some maniacal plot by the Kremlin to interfere with the US election.

    Turns out, the Podesta Group founded by none other than John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair and chief strategies, was retained by the Russian-owned firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015 to lobby Hillary Clinton's State Department based on John Podesta's longstanding relations with the Clinton family – he was the White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton.

    Interestingly, UraniumOne's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation from 2009 to 2013. Perhaps a more blatant evidence of allegations that Hillary Clinton's State Department operated on a pay-to-play basis is the fact that, as the New York Times reported last April, "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting UraniumOne stock.

    Not only are investigators wondering whether there was any impropriety in the lobbying arrangement such as the provision of beneficial treatment by the State Department to an old friend, but they are also probing the work that Viktor Yanukovych's regime paid the Podesta Group to do while he was the head of the Ukrainian government.

    The controversy for Podesta links to his work for the Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels based organization that describes itself as "an advocate for enhancing EU-Ukraine relations." Unfortunately for Mr. Podesta, the organization has been described as "an operation controlled by Yanukovych" and tied to the former leader's Party of Regions suggesting the Podesta Group may have been, like has been said of Paul Manafort, tasked with greater reporting requirements pursuant to US law.

    The Podesta Group quickly hired the white-shoe law firm Caplin & Drysdale as "independent, outside legal counsel to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties."

    Alan

    The bummers FBI who just let off Hillary who should have been indicted and imprisoned? What a shock that they are involved.

    [Aug 21, 2016] An Open Letter From Mr. Trump -

    This Maureen Dowd column reminds me writing about Western capitalist society by some not too brainwashed Soviet propagandists. She managed to put into anti-trump diatibe (which is a requirement for NYT writers; to writing such column is a must; this is just a survival skill) some really damning things about Hillary.
    Notable quotes:
    "... She's like Lyin' Lochte, just sorry she got caught. Hearing her apologize is as likely as seeing those 33,000 yoga emails. ..."
    "... I'm sorry the Clintons didn't realize until now how bad it was to be using the State Department as a favor factory for big donors to the foundation. I'm all for pay-for-play, but only at my golf courses. ..."
    "... I'm sorry Hillary had to besmirch poor Colin Powell by claiming he gave her the idea for private emails. Hasn't his reputation suffered enough pushing that phony war at the U.N.? ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | The New York Times

    I hated to ship Paul off to Siberia. But Jared and Corey told me I couldn't get swept up in an international money-laundering scandal while I was accusing Hillary of doing favors at State for a money launderer and Clinton Foundation donor.

    ... ... ...

    I'm sorry Huma is posing for Vogue instead of keeping her husband, the pervert, from sexting online again.

    ... ... ...

    I'm sorry that while I'm being too honest, Crooked Hillary is never really sorry for all her lies and illegal operations. She's like Lyin' Lochte, just sorry she got caught. Hearing her apologize is as likely as seeing those 33,000 yoga emails.

    I'm sorry the Clintons didn't realize until now how bad it was to be using the State Department as a favor factory for big donors to the foundation. I'm all for pay-for-play, but only at my golf courses.

    I'm sorry Hillary had to besmirch poor Colin Powell by claiming he gave her the idea for private emails. Hasn't his reputation suffered enough pushing that phony war at the U.N.?

    [Aug 21, 2016] The Clintons, along with Obama, have consistently sided with neoliberalsNeocons/ Trump is against globalistion, bad trade deals, interminable foreign wars and wants to fix America bybringing back jobs, etc. The standard line is that Trump is - oh horror – racist because he wants to stop immigration.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Carla, you are right about the main focus of these trade deals. Sure, it's about degrading labor and avoiding sensible regulation. More importantly, it's about making an end run around democracy and enscouncing the profiteers above governments. The Clinton's, along with Obama, have consistently sided with these elites. ..."
    "... Trump is against globalistion, bad trade deals, interminable foreign wars and wants to fix America by bringing back jobs, etc. The standard line is that Trump is - oh horror – "racist" because he wants to stop immigation. Therefore, etc. ..."
    "... FedupPleb – My thought exactly. Trump has personality issues but many of his positions, sketchy as they are, are in the right ballpark. Clinton by contrast seems to be rated "progressive" mainly because of surprisingly enduring loyalty to the Democrat brand. ..."
    "... The Clintonites are selling First Woman President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement. Just as the Obamazoids sold First Black President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement. ..."
    "... No, he has called for a $10 minimum wage. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/donald-trump-minimum-wage Not great but not nuthin'. ..."
    "... the bible thumping crowd. Those constituents are not internationalist or pro trade deals. They have been afraid of 'world government' as opposed to nationalism; they have wanted even more local control for decades. ..."
    "... These 'allies' will move the ball. They will shake up the existing coalitions vs the stagnation and corruption we have now. Even as a switch between sets of oligarchs, if they keep Trump's promises, they will give the populace some breathing room. ..."
    "... When a republican candidate, Trump, can push Hillary to the left on such major issues as on war and trade deals, is she really the progressive here? A true progressive would not need to be dragged or pushed to the left. These are MAJOR issues. ..."
    "... Her warmonging and TPP support count against her. Her history in Haiti, etc., count against her. That's not to defend Trump as progressive in any meaningful sense. Just that Clinton is no improvement. ..."
    "... Agreed. This is a joke and Becky Bond, whoever she is, is living in a fantasy world if she thinks these faux progressive careerists will do anything to jeopardize their cush positions (or chance at cush positions, pathetic as that is). ..."
    "... I visit their blogs and watch them: its either outright Stockholm Syndrome (for those who had or have an ethical bone in their bodies) or insincere and dishonest posturing as "progressives" all around. They will hold Clinton as accountable as they held Obama. ..."
    "... The Clinton supporters that live in her bubble are insiders will never betray her because they benefit from the jobs they hope/will have in her administration. ..."
    "... "The narrative that it was the big bad obstructionist Republicans that stopped Obama's change is mostly false." I think it's totally false. If Obama had been who he portrayed on TV pre-election, the democrats would not have lost their seats in the next election. He gave the 2010 elections to the Republicans, so any obstruction from then on was his own creation. ..."
    "... "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence." ..."
    "... Average voters are a group to be messaged/pandered to on a 2/4/6 year cycle and then ignored between election cycles. ..."
    "... When a politician says he cares about the common man, see who he golfs with, see who he has dinner with, it's not the common man ..."
    "... Y'all can hold her feet to the fire all you want. She has asbestos feet. She'll never know the difference. She'll never even feel it. ..."
    "... Yea hard to say who is even being addressed. Nobodies voting for Clinton with voting as their main act of political participation? ..."
    "... Left activists? Let's be realistic how many left activist support Clinton? ..."
    "... This post greatly diminishes my esteem for the opinions of Gaius Publius. "Hold her accountable" as proposed? While we're at it we can bell the cat. Both major parties and government in this country at all levels National, State, and Local are captured beyond any accountability to the public. Our government is no longer interested in the Public Interest and as for the Public Good the term "Good" is only a synonym for a Commodity - as in goods and services. ..."
    "... The spectacle of Sanders kneeling and kissing the Clinton ring, even though reasonably 'spun' as a necessity for political 'survival' by Sanders, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of the "true believers" who flocked to Sanders. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party has shown the depths to which the Clinton cabal will sink in the pursuit of power. Wresting that power out of the hands of the Despicable Duo will perhaps be more trouble than splitting the Party would be. Thus, if "we broke it," why not carry on as one part of the 'new normal' Democratic Party Spectrum. ..."
    "... I have always asked who would win an election if we voted by policy instead of by name in an election? Of course I am assuming that a candidate would tell the truth about their positions from the beginning and not change after they won. Trump, Stein and Johnson have been honest about their positions but Clinton changes with the wind. ..."
    "... The ridicule is a badge of honor. It is the "laughter of fools". Both candidates of the major parties are unacceptable in their own way. To vote for either is to accept subjugation with a smile. Don't be fooled. Whatever happens in the election will be blamed on minor parties by the losing side. Vote your conscience and know that if you were to vote for either major party candidate you would be complicit in the destruction that will follow. ..."
    "... She will be in office for eight years and all the Trumpers will fortify their positions and mobilize on an even greater scale when she is done reigning whatever hell she brings with her. I'm seeing Weimar Republic politics here, and I don't like it. ..."
    "... I have seen it argued that the biggest benefit of sticking with one of the mainstream parties is the 'ground game,' or organizational templates already in place. ..."
    "... The corollary of the earlier assertion of mine about "true believers" is that, except for insular or separatist movements, true believers act as cadres around which larger aggregates coalesce to form an effective party. Trump is effecting this with his courting of the 'second division' level of Republican operatives. The outpouring of negative propaganda from the 'top tier' Republicans suggests a semi panic mind set. The virulence of the anti Trump screeching reinforces the perception that the senior Republicans fear that they can lose to Trump in the power struggle. ..."
    "... All very true, ambrit. The Greens have been on the margins for longer than they should have been because the myth of Nader spoiling the 2000 election has had lasting effect. Hell, I believed it myself until I took the time to take a second look this year. ..."
    "... I'd like to think that I'm not particularly in the vanguard here, and that many other people have recognized that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. The only option for progressives is to start filling in the ranks, to be vocal and to be active. To find talented candidates for down ticket races. ..."
    "... tradeunions in the UK are both stronger and more radical in their leadership and membership than in the USA ..."
    "... voting rule in the usa are state-by-state and filled with various opportunities for suppressing votes. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Michael C , August 20, 2016 at 9:44 am

    Carla, you are right about the main focus of these trade deals. Sure, it's about degrading labor and avoiding sensible regulation. More importantly, it's about making an end run around democracy and enscouncing the profiteers above governments. The Clinton's, along with Obama, have consistently sided with these elites.

    FedupPLeb , August 20, 2016 at 6:51 am

    . That Clinton is a better progressive choice than Trump is not much contested.

    But shouldn't it be?

    Trump is against globalistion, bad trade deals, interminable foreign wars and wants to fix America by bringing back jobs, etc. The standard line is that Trump is - oh horror – "racist" because he wants to stop immigation. Therefore, etc.

    But don't workers have a genuine interest in protecting the bargaining power of labour? If a capitalist declares that he will import workers from Mexico or India or Russia, or just export his entire production chain to China, because US labour is too expensive. Is it more "progressive" to declare these worried workers racist, or backward, or too intellectual challenged to see the benefits of a global supply chain and its cheap ipads for all still in salaried (i.e. unoutsourced) employment.

    But no matter. Hillary says nice things about hispanic-americans and has long ties to the black community over the last few decades as their standard of living has stagnated with everyone else. She supports LGBT rights and Trump probably doesn't even though I can't think of any negative statements he may have made but OK Hillary is the more Progressive candidate OK. Obviously.

    DWD , August 20, 2016 at 8:37 am

    About the only thing that is progressive for Clinton is the endless dick swinging .

    NYPaul , August 20, 2016 at 11:20 pm

    Pat………..

    "Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT community." This is a very dark moment in America's history. A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation."

    "It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation. It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity."

    "I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, and Jewish people, are the targets of persecution and intimidation by radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence, it's a "quality-of-life issue."

    "If we want to protect the quality of life for all Americans – women and children, gay and straight, Jews and Christians and all people – then we need to tell the truth about radical Islam," he said.

    Read more at http://www.businessinsider.my/donald-trump-lgbt-orlando-speech-2016-6/#cDGqLoRmJARSSmfk.99

    Another Gordon , August 20, 2016 at 8:03 am

    FedupPleb – My thought exactly. Trump has personality issues but many of his positions, sketchy as they are, are in the right ballpark. Clinton by contrast seems to be rated "progressive" mainly because of surprisingly enduring loyalty to the Democrat brand.

    The best definition of a brand I ever came across is "a compelling promise, reliably honoured". How's that been working out for Dems in recent years?

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:15 am

    The Clintonites are selling First Woman President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement. Just as the Obamazoids sold First Black President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement.

    jrs , August 20, 2016 at 9:03 am

    Trump is of course against the minimum wage. Trump is interested in the power of labor, man they can not pass legalized marijuana fast enough, and maybe I can pretend it all makes sense.

    Yves Smith Post author , August 21, 2016 at 12:52 am

    No, he has called for a $10 minimum wage. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/donald-trump-minimum-wage Not great but not nuthin'.

    sharonsj , August 20, 2016 at 9:47 am

    What Trump says doesn't matter (just like Clinton). Take a look at his VP and his advisors. Pence is a dominionist nutjob and the rest of Trump's team are ultra-right-wing bible thumpers. He may say he's against the TPP but his team is for it. As for the Constitution the Republicans are always waving about, they really don't care what's in it unless they can use it to their advantage.

    EndOfTheWorld , August 20, 2016 at 10:48 am

    "take a look at his vp"-that selection was a bone he HAD to throw to the GOP bigwigs so he could make it through the GOP convention. The VP will have no power in the Trump presidency, as even the venerable Yves has pointed out. The only one who took control was Richard "the Bruce" Cheney, and that was a special case.

    The only way Pence will have power is if Trump gets whacked, which is indeed a possibility.

    local to oakland , August 20, 2016 at 10:57 am

    I'm not part of, but I have some direct personal experience with the bible thumping crowd. Those constituents are not internationalist or pro trade deals. They have been afraid of 'world government' as opposed to nationalism; they have wanted even more local control for decades.

    These 'allies' will move the ball. They will shake up the existing coalitions vs the stagnation and corruption we have now. Even as a switch between sets of oligarchs, if they keep Trump's promises, they will give the populace some breathing room.

    As I said to a coworker in a political discussion yesterday, there are very few issues I would weigh above the Supreme Court, but Clinton's pro corporate, pro war stance has taken me to that place.

    TedWa , August 20, 2016 at 10:28 am

    I dispute that as a given also – When a republican candidate, Trump, can push Hillary to the left on such major issues as on war and trade deals, is she really the progressive here? A true progressive would not need to be dragged or pushed to the left. These are MAJOR issues.

    aab , August 21, 2016 at 12:40 am

    Actually, there's evidence in her private speech (leaked emails, etc.) that Hillary is pretty hostile to LGBT rights. Her public speech, of course, should be discounted as performative and dishonest. I think Trump has made some very positive statements about the LGBT community, but I can't point to a reference offhand. That could certainly be equally dishonest and performative. But he doesn't have the same documented history of pandering that way, and unlike Hillary, he's not an evangelical Christian. There's also evidence that in reality Hillary is quite racist, as well.

    I will step up and dispute that she's more progressive. I don't think she is. Her warmonging and TPP support count against her. Her history in Haiti, etc., count against her. That's not to defend Trump as progressive in any meaningful sense. Just that Clinton is no improvement.

    Kokuanani , August 20, 2016 at 7:03 am

    How on earth does ANYONE [other than the FIRE industry, her neo-con pals and the climate killers] "hold her accountable" or have any influence on her?

    She's got the nomination, there's little doubt she'll win the election, she's got 100% of DNC Dems behind her. WTF are folks supposed to do to have any sort of weight in a Clinton administration?

    And if Ms. Bond is speaking to those close to Clinton, what makes her think they WANT to have any influence for good?

    YankeeFrank , August 20, 2016 at 7:11 am

    Agreed. This is a joke and Becky Bond, whoever she is, is living in a fantasy world if she thinks these faux progressive careerists will do anything to jeopardize their cush positions (or chance at cush positions, pathetic as that is).

    I visit their blogs and watch them: its either outright Stockholm Syndrome (for those who had or have an ethical bone in their bodies) or insincere and dishonest posturing as "progressives" all around. They will hold Clinton as accountable as they held Obama.

    DavidE , August 20, 2016 at 8:44 am

    The Clinton supporters that live in her bubble are insiders will never betray her because they benefit from the jobs they hope/will have in her administration. It is the mass of voters who believed what she said are the ones that have to get out and hold her feet to the fire. Most rolled over and said nothing as Obama's "change we can believe in" was only a slogan to fool us. The narrative that it was the big bad obstructionist Republicans that stopped Obama's change is mostly false. Obama never ever fought for real change. He talked a good game but did nothing. The best way to make politicians listen to us is that we show up in mass (millions) in DC and demand that government act in our behalf.

    TedWa , August 20, 2016 at 10:38 am

    "The narrative that it was the big bad obstructionist Republicans that stopped Obama's change is mostly false." I think it's totally false. If Obama had been who he portrayed on TV pre-election, the democrats would not have lost their seats in the next election. He gave the 2010 elections to the Republicans, so any obstruction from then on was his own creation.

    John Wright , August 20, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    Then there is the frequently referenced Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper at

    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

    "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

    Average voters are a group to be messaged/pandered to on a 2/4/6 year cycle and then ignored between election cycles.

    My high school civics teacher (Los Angeles County public school) made a statement 30+ years ago I still remember. "When a politician says he cares about the common man, see who he golfs with, see who he has dinner with, it's not the common man"

    About the only thing that needs to be updated in the statement is the "he" needs to be revised to "he/she"

    Perhaps the best the average citizen can hope for is that there are interest groups on both sides on an issue, but a profitable business group with a rich source of funding vs a public interest group depending on contributions seems mismatched.

    Even when there are powerful business groups that differ on current policy, change is difficult, for example US government price support for domestic sugar producers is opposed by the large sugar industry consumers (candy makers, soft drink producers), but the TPP specifically leaves this USA government subsidy in place.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:17 am

    Y'all can hold her feet to the fire all you want. She has asbestos feet. She'll never know the difference. She'll never even feel it.

    jrs , August 20, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Yea hard to say who is even being addressed. Nobodies voting for Clinton with voting as their main act of political participation? Sometimes they might just be uninformed, or they may have voted for her thinking she would fare better against Trump, or if better off they might have voted their privilege, etc.. But they have no real power.

    Left activists? Let's be realistic how many left activist support Clinton? I have no doubt many supported Bernie while some may only support Stein etc. but Clinton? I have my doubts there are almost ANY actual left activists who supported Clinton over Sanders (over Trump maybe, but not over Sanders). But he means some talking head somewhere who isn't even an activist but has a public platform? Those people have been bought and paid for.

    EndOfTheWorld , August 20, 2016 at 10:49 am

    "there's little doubt she'll win the election"-not true.

    Jeremy Grimm , August 20, 2016 at 11:10 am

    This post greatly diminishes my esteem for the opinions of Gaius Publius. "Hold her accountable" as proposed? While we're at it we can bell the cat. Both major parties and government in this country at all levels National, State, and Local are captured beyond any accountability to the public. Our government is no longer interested in the Public Interest and as for the Public Good the term "Good" is only a synonym for a Commodity - as in goods and services.

    I supported Sanders. The primary and convention made it clear that making change within the system is no longer a real option. In the best of all possible worlds I feel it's time to tend my garden - far away from the action and with my head held low.

    ambrit , August 20, 2016 at 7:14 am

    The spectacle of Sanders kneeling and kissing the Clinton ring, even though reasonably 'spun' as a necessity for political 'survival' by Sanders, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of the "true believers" who flocked to Sanders.

    There should be little hope of those who embraced the cognitive dissonance that is the Clinton campaign suddenly 'seeing the light' and pivoting to an internally activist position in the Democratic Party. Far from righting the 'progressive' course of the Ship of State, many will conclude that this is just another 'Ship of Fools.'

    Any prospective transformative political movement needs a cadre of "true believers" to energize and channel that energy in the "proper" direction. The Democratic Party has shown the depths to which the Clinton cabal will sink in the pursuit of power. Wresting that power out of the hands of the Despicable Duo will perhaps be more trouble than splitting the Party would be. Thus, if "we broke it," why not carry on as one part of the 'new normal' Democratic Party Spectrum.

    "True believers" respond to appeals to their better nature more readily than appeals to their fear of 'others.' Real 'progressives' would rather live in a New Jerusalem than the White House Outhouse. The 'hostile takeover' of any political party requires a full housecleaning. Half measures will not suffice.

    DavidE , August 20, 2016 at 8:49 am

    I have always asked who would win an election if we voted by policy instead of by name in an election? Of course I am assuming that a candidate would tell the truth about their positions from the beginning and not change after they won. Trump, Stein and Johnson have been honest about their positions but Clinton changes with the wind.

    ... ... ...

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 20, 2016 at 9:19 am

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/25/443287/- You'll want to scroll down, but Edwards won the debate focus groups and polled "undecideds" in 2007 and 2008. Edwards was well to the left of Obama and Hillary from his campaign positions.

    Stephen Gardner , August 20, 2016 at 8:57 am

    The ridicule is a badge of honor. It is the "laughter of fools". Both candidates of the major parties are unacceptable in their own way. To vote for either is to accept subjugation with a smile. Don't be fooled. Whatever happens in the election will be blamed on minor parties by the losing side. Vote your conscience and know that if you were to vote for either major party candidate you would be complicit in the destruction that will follow.

    Michael C , August 20, 2016 at 10:00 am

    I would rather vote for what I want and not get it than to vote for what I don't want and get it. –Eugene Debs. Sanders, you should have remembered the words of your hero whose picture hangs on your office wall.

    Rosario , August 20, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    ... ... ...

    And on to the doom of a Trump presidency. The supposed logic that Hillary will "stop" Trump. I guess people forget that all the right-wing populists that support Trump are not going anywhere. They are having kids and they are rearing them in their toxic worldview. Hillary has done and will do nothing to build an ideology that counters the Trump crowd. Cover our ears and our eyes and it will all go away is the strategy. She will be in office for eight years and all the Trumpers will fortify their positions and mobilize on an even greater scale when she is done reigning whatever hell she brings with her. I'm seeing Weimar Republic politics here, and I don't like it.

    ambrit , August 20, 2016 at 9:04 am

    I have seen it argued that the biggest benefit of sticking with one of the mainstream parties is the 'ground game,' or organizational templates already in place. The Greens are chided for organizational weakness. Whether true or not, this "branding" of the Greens as feckless is a major impediment to popular acceptance of the party. The marginalization of the Green Party in the media magnifies whatever true weaknesses there are within the party.

    The corollary of the earlier assertion of mine about "true believers" is that, except for insular or separatist movements, true believers act as cadres around which larger aggregates coalesce to form an effective party. Trump is effecting this with his courting of the 'second division' level of Republican operatives. The outpouring of negative propaganda from the 'top tier' Republicans suggests a semi panic mind set. The virulence of the anti Trump screeching reinforces the perception that the senior Republicans fear that they can lose to Trump in the power struggle.

    Even though the Sanders supporters have been 'schooled' in hard ball politics by the Clinton camp, they still need a hope for success to motivate them to continue the struggle. The above comments anet the Greens show a perception that the Greens cannot supply that success. It may be all smoke and mirrors, but, absent some serious counter propaganda from the Green Party, the ginned up MSM portrayal of the Greens as irrelevant is pretty much all the information the Sanders supporters have to base a decision on. Get a Green governor, or some Green congresspeople, and the Greens gain inestimable status. It may look like a chicken or egg puzzle, but better propaganda is a good place to start.

    It's time for the Greens to stop looking like victims and to start looking and acting like victors.

    Michael C. , August 20, 2016 at 10:03 am

    Carla, you are right about the main focus of these trade deals. Sure, it's about degrading labor and avoiding sensible regulation. More importantly, it's about rimning sn end rin around democracy and ensconcing the profiteers above governments.

    Otis B Driftwood , August 20, 2016 at 10:12 am

    All very true, ambrit. The Greens have been on the margins for longer than they should have been because the myth of Nader spoiling the 2000 election has had lasting effect. Hell, I believed it myself until I took the time to take a second look this year.

    I'd like to think that I'm not particularly in the vanguard here, and that many other people have recognized that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. The only option for progressives is to start filling in the ranks, to be vocal and to be active. To find talented candidates for down ticket races.

    Unfortunately, one of the ironies of the current Democratic party is that it still does have some room for progressives in state and local office. That's why Zephyr Teachout is still a Democrat. She can win without the full backing of the party. And, I suspect equally unfortunately, she reckons that she would have a harder time running as a Green due to voter bias.

    That's what needs to change. Voters need to see the Green party as a viable alternative. It is indeed a chicken and egg problem. And that's why I see the Stein campaign as an important step in helping rehabilitate the Green party in the minds of voters.

    It is also critically important for progressives to not relent on our critique of neoliberalism and the Democratic party. The so-called progressives like Adolph Reed and others who have already capitulated need to be vigorously rejected.

    If Stein can get enough support this year it may convince candidates of Teachout's caliber that they can run successfully as Green party members and that will start the necessary momentum to building the party from the local and state level upward.

    Anyway, I've donated money to the Stein campaign and I've got my yard sign in front of my house and my "none of the above" sticker on my truck. I'm doing what I can in my own way.

    johnnygl , August 21, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    I'd like to make a couple of points to add to this little side discussion of the Sanders vs. Corbyn compare and contrast.

    1. tradeunions in the UK are both stronger and more radical in their leadership and membership than in the USA. Union leadership in the usa is still wedded to the dem elite, sometimes against the wishes of their members. There have been splits where some unions like nat nurses united and chicago teachers unions have supported sanders and opposed elite dems, but imagine if uaw and afscme had flipped on clinton. That would have really shaken things up. Insurgency plus institutional support is much tougher for the elites to control.
    2. voting rule in the usa are state-by-state and filled with various opportunities for suppressing votes. Imagine if the rules were that anyone could join and vote if they paid $5 and no 'purges' of voters or ridiculous rules like ny where you have to join 6 months in advance. In fact the blairites/plp in england seem to be trying to recreate some of the same tricks and traps that the dems used here.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Hillary said she was against the TPP as currently written

    Notable quotes:
    "... You know, the light bulb over my head went on when Hillary said she was against the TPP "as currently written." Political speak for: she'll fiddle with some words, pronounce it fixed, and pass it ..."
    "... her surrogates extol her penchant for "free trade" and are sure she will support it. ..."
    July 29, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com
    sharonsj , July 29, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    You know, the light bulb over my head went on when Hillary said she was against the TPP "as currently written." Political speak for: she'll fiddle with some words, pronounce it fixed, and pass it.

    And while she and Kaine claim now to be against the TPP, her surrogates extol her penchant for "free trade" and are sure she will support it.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Hillary and the War Party by Carl Boggs

    Notable quotes:
    "... You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. ..."
    "... But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics. ..."
    "... A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. ..."
    "... A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished). ..."
    "... Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first. ..."
    "... There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states. ..."
    "... Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. ..."
    "... Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride." ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton's many liberal (and sadly, progressive) supporters routinely steer away from anything related to foreign policy, talk, talk, talking instead about the candidate's "experience", with obligatory nods toward her enlightened social programs. There is only the ritual demonization of that fearsome dictator, Vladimir Putin, reputedly on the verge of invading some hapless European country. Even Bernie Sanders' sorry endorsement of his erstwhile enemy, not long ago denounced as a tool of Wall Street, had nothing to say about global issues. But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics.

    A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. Under Clinton, the Democrats might well be better positioned to recharge their historical legacy as War Party. One of the great political myths (and there are many) is that American liberals are inclined toward a less belligerent foreign policy than Republicans, are less militaristic and more favorable toward "diplomacy". References to Woodrow Wilson in World War I and Mexico, Harry Truman in Korea, JFK and LBJ in Indochina, Bill Clinton in the Balkans, and of course Barack Obama in Afghanistan (eight years of futile warfare), Libya (also "Hillary's War"), and scattered operations across the Middle East and North Africa should be enough to dispel such nonsense. (As for FDR and World War II, I have written extensively that the Pearl Harbor attacks were deliberately provoked by U.S. actions in the Pacific – but that is a more complicated story.)

    ... ... ...

    A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. There are currently no visible signs she would exit the protracted and criminal war in Afghanistan, a rich source of blowback (alongside Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Israel). Increased aerial bombardments against ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere? More deployments of American troops on the ground? Such ventures, with potentially others on the horizon, amount to elaborate recipes for more blowback, followed by more anti-terror hysteria, followed by more interventions. Uncompromising economic, diplomatic, and military support of Israeli atrocities in Palestine? Aggressive pursuit of the seriously mistaken "Asian Pivot", strategy, a revitalized effort to subvert Chinese economic and military power – one of Clinton's own special crusades? No wonder the Paul Wolfowitzes and Robert Kagans are delighted to join the Hillary camp.

    No wonder, too, that billionaire super-hawk Haim Saban has pledged to spend whatever is needed to get the Clintons back into the White House, convinced her presidency will do anything to maintain Palestinian colonial subjugation. Meeting with Saban in July, Hillary again promised to "oppose any effort to delegitimate Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement." She backs legislative efforts begun in several states to silence and blacklist people working on behalf of Palestinian rights. For this her celebrated "pragmatism" could work quite effectively.

    Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished).

    Amidst the turmoil Trump has oddly surfaced to the left of Clinton on several key global issues: cooperating instead of fighting with the Russians, keeping alive a sharp criticism of the Iraq war and the sustained regional chaos and blowback it generated, ramping down enthusiasm for more wars in the Middle East, junking "free trade" agreements, willingness to rethink the outmoded NATO alliance. If Trump, however haphazardly, manages to grasp the historical dynamics of blowback, the Clinton camp remains either indifferent or clueless, still ready for new armed ventures – cynically marketed, as in the Balkans, Iraq, and Libya, on the moral imperative of defeating some unspeakable evil, usually a "new Hitler" waging a "new genocide". Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first.

    ... ... ...

    ...At the other extreme, Clinton emerges in the media as the most "rational" and "even-tempered" of candidates, ideally suited to carry out the necessary imperial agendas. A tiresome mainstream narrative is that Hillary is "one of the best prepared and most knowledgeable candidates ever to seek the presidency." And she is smart, very smart – whatever her flaws. All the better to follow in the long history of Democrats proficient at showing the world who is boss. The media, for its part, adores these Democrats, another reason Trump appears to have diminished chances of winning. Further, the well-funded and tightly-organized Clinton machine can count on somewhat large majorities of women, blacks, and Hispanics, not only for the march to the White House but, more ominously, to go along with the War Party's imperial spectacle of the day. Most anything – war, regime change, bombing raids, drone strikes, treaty violations, JFK-style "standoffs" – can escape political scrutiny if carried out by "humanitarian", peace-loving Democrats. Bill Clinton's war to fight "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, cover for just another U.S./NATO geopolitical maneuver, constitutes the perfect template here.

    There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states.

    ... In March 121 members of the Republican "national security community", including the warmongers Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, and Brent Scowcroft, signed a public letter condemning Trump for not being sufficiently dedicated to American (also Israeli?) interests. Trump compounded his predicament by stubbornly refusing to pay homage to the "experts" – the same foreign-policy geniuses who helped orchestrate the Iraq debacle. A more recent (and more urgent) letter with roughly the same message has made its way into the public sphere. Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.

    Returning to the political carneval that was the Democratic convention, amidst all the non-stop flag-waving and shouts of "USA!" Hillary made what she thought would be an inspiring reference to Jackie Kennedy, speaking on the eve of her husband's (1961) ascent to the White House. Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride."

    We can surmise that JFK was one of those "big men" governed by "restraint". History shows, however, that Jackie's esteemed husband was architect of probably the worst episode of international barbarism in U.S. history – the Vietnam War, with its unfathomable death and destruction – coming at a time of the Big Man's botched CIA-led invasion of Cuba and followed closely by the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the Big Man's "restraint" brought the world frighteningly close to nuclear catastrophe. As for "fear" and "pride" – nothing permeates JFK's biography of that period more than those two psychological obsessions.

    Could it be that Hillary Clinton, however unwittingly, was at this epic moment – her breakthrough nomination – revealing nothing so much as her own deeply-imperialist mind-set?

    Carl Boggs is the author of The Hollywood War Machine, with Tom Pollard (second edition, forthcoming), and Drugs, Power, and Politics, both published by Paradigm.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... Edward G. Rendell, a former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said the foundation should be disbanded if Mrs. Clinton wins, and he added that it would make sense for the charity to stop taking foreign donations immediately. ..."
    "... Begun in 1997, the foundation has raised roughly $2 billion and is overseen by a board that includes Mr. Clinton and the couple's daughter, Chelsea. ..."
    "... This foundation made the Clinton's very rich. When a foundation only gives ten to fifteen percent of their proceeds to the ones they are helping one should know there is something wrong. ..."
    "... Large sums of money from powerful foreign entities given to powerful political entities are never given for "free." Even if they come without specific stipulations, they instill within the recipient a sense of reciprocity and empathy that may not have existed before. ..."
    "... The Clintons are highly manipulative career politicians who continually display that they believe they are above the law of the proletariat. They will do whatever they believe benefits them without regard for the rest of us. ..."
    "... Regarding the foundation, I would love to see a report on what percentage of these funds are actually being used for "good causes" versus supporting the Clinton lifestyle.. ..."
    "... I am sorry, there is absolutely nothing anyone can say that will make me believe for even a nano second, that someone from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia simply decided out of the goodness of their heart, to donate 10 million bucks to an American charity. ..."
    "... After her stint at State Department, Hillary completely misread the sentiment of American voters when she returned to campaign. She thought America was going to wrap her in a big "Welcome Back" snugly blanket. What she found were unexpected insurgencies in Bernie and Trump- and a public who wasn't so eager to greet her- especially when they realized she didn't have a message, platform or offer a simple reason as to WHY she wants to become President. Throw in the foundation and her establishment ties to Wall Street and Big Pharma- She suddenly isn't so appealing. ..."
    "... Mr. Trump, who the Times always castigates for his shady business practices, is a cheap street corner hustler compared to the Clintons. ..."
    "... Trump and Hillary show the total bankruptcy of our major political parties and the ruling political establishment. I'm voting Green, there may be a chance of saving our democracy yet. ..."
    "... The presence or absence of "direct" connections between either Clinton and their donors suggests a touching naivete. Being at dinner at the Clinton's home, seeing someone at dinner there ... this is how connections are made and made to work, not through "direct orders from the boss!" This is a web of shameless corruption in which an ex-president parlays his reputation to boost him and his wife into the ranks of the 1%. ..."
    "... The donors have given to gain access or future favors of or through the Clintons. That's clear. These nations/individuals don't do anything charitable in their own nations. They want something in return and the Clintons' being the politicians that they are as well as being hawks about money, have always known that. They chose the money. It's the basis for many foundations run by people that have already accomplished their goals and who next expect to get paid or who desire more power by association than even money can buy. ..."
    "... The money raking Foundation and the Goldman Sachs speeches, all while they must have absolutely certain that Hillary would be running for President, speak the delusional sense of entitlement usually reserved for royalty. ..."
    "... the clinton hire their political team via these donations and pay for there expenses including huge travel expenses...not bad for public service. ..."
    "... That is untrue. They can travel, live in luxury, pay their daughter and friends, and use trust assets for all kinds of personal stuff in the name of charity. Who do you think paid for Bill and Chelsea's trip to Africa? They aren't know for giving any away either! ..."
    "... Bribery is corporatized these days ..."
    "... Makes no sense. After a certain number, simple greed seems like insufficient motivation. You can't live long enough to spend it all! So what do the Clinton's want -- and more directly, why do they insist on sabotaging any good that comes their way? The country doesn't need their drama ..."
    "... It's a charity. The Clintons got very rich while running it. That's an issue. Then the fact that Hillary was Secretary of State while the Clintons were raking in the foreign contributions. That was a clear conflict of interest and it should never have been allowed. And if it wasn't a conflict then why are the Clintons backing away from the idea now? ..."
    "... Just because Trump is a kook it doesn't mean the Clintons aren't crooked and they too should be nowhere near another term in the White House. Newsflash: Hillary and Bill Clinton are not trustworthy ..."
    "... They have always sought money and power where ever it was, and foundations are an excellent tax dodge for wealthy people to pay their relatives and friends tax free salaries while wielding enormous power through grants. ..."
    "... Sure, their foundation has theoretically been devoted to "good works" but it also gives the founders a very cushy life style, access to the highest levels of government (and graft) around the world, and a ready source of donors for Hillary's political campaigns. ..."
    "... Hillary has operated with such conflicts of interest since she was First Lady of Arkansas, working for a law firm which handled services for the largest financial services firm in the state. Don't feel sorry for these "maligned" victims. ..."
    "... It's deja vu all over again! ..."
    "... The "foundation" spends about 10% on actual "charity" work. Watch "Heist" and "Clinton Cash" and so many other printed sources to see what true pay-to-play self-enrichment on a mammoth scale looks like. ..."
    "... They are CROOKS with ZERO concern for anyone but themselves. Look at Haiti for openers. A country still in ruin, but Hillary's brother has a first-ever seat on a Gold Mining operation in Haiti... and as Sec. of State, she pushed back a raise for workers from 61Cents back to 31Cents per hour. How can anyone with a heart vote for these carpetbaggers? ..."
    "... The article fails to mention that almost none of the money actually goes to charity. Nonprofits like this are excellent vehicles for avoiding taxes since the money can be spent on salaries and "business expenses" like travel. ..."
    "... This particular nonprofit looks too much like a money laundering operation for the benefit of the Clintons. Either the donors were expecting some sort of payback or they thought they were donating to charity. In either case, something is wrong with this. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    Aug 20, 2016 | The New York Times

    The kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated more than $10 million. Through a foundation, so did the son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president whose government was widely criticized for corruption and the murder of journalists. A Lebanese-Nigerian developer with vast business interests contributed as much as $5 million.

    ... ... ...

    The Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the State Department - before, during and after Mrs. Clinton's time as secretary - criticized for their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues. The countries include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Brunei and Algeria.

    ... ... ...

    ...Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, a conservative group that has sued to obtain records from Mrs. Clinton's time at the State Department, said that "the damage is done."

    "The conflicts of interest are cast in stone, and it is something that the Clinton administration is going to have to grapple with," Mr. Fitton said. "It will cast a shadow over their policies."

    ... ... ...

    Edward G. Rendell, a former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said the foundation should be disbanded if Mrs. Clinton wins, and he added that it would make sense for the charity to stop taking foreign donations immediately.

    Begun in 1997, the foundation has raised roughly $2 billion and is overseen by a board that includes Mr. Clinton and the couple's daughter, Chelsea.

    ... ... ...

    Victor Pinchuk , a steel magnate whose father-in-law, Leonid Kuchma, was president of Ukraine from 1994 to 2005, has directed between $10 million and $25 million to the foundation. He has lent his private plane to the Clintons and traveled to Los Angeles in 2011 to attend Mr. Clinton's star-studded 65th birthday celebration.

    ... ... ...

    In July 2013, the Commerce Department began investigating complaints that Ukraine - and by extension Mr. Pinchuk's company, Interpipe - and eight other countries had illegally dumped a type of steel tube on the American market at artificially low prices.

    A representative for Mr. Pinchuk said the investigation had nothing to do with the State Department, had started after Mrs. Clinton's tenure and been suspended in July 2014. He added that at least 100 other people had attended the dinner party at Mrs. Clinton's house and that she and Mr. Pinchuk had spoken briefly about democracy in Ukraine.


    C Tracy, WV

    This foundation made the Clinton's very rich. When a foundation only gives ten to fifteen percent of their proceeds to the ones they are helping one should know there is something wrong.

    The foundation should bedevil the Clinton's, it is a sham. Money and power is the driving force behind the Clintons' to say they are in favor of helping women and gays while at the same time taking money from countries that treat women as no more than property and kill or imprison gays is at least immoral. This is just another millstone around Hillary's political neck.


    JW, Shanghai 1 hour ago

    Large sums of money from powerful foreign entities given to powerful political entities are never given for "free." Even if they come without specific stipulations, they instill within the recipient a sense of reciprocity and empathy that may not have existed before.

    It is impossible for Clinton to have taken so much money from these groups and to not feel somewhat beholden to them.

    The Clintons are highly manipulative career politicians who continually display that they believe they are above the law of the proletariat. They will do whatever they believe benefits them without regard for the rest of us.

    I am ashamed that this is the best we have to choose from.

    Regarding the foundation, I would love to see a report on what percentage of these funds are actually being used for "good causes" versus supporting the Clinton lifestyle.. .

    #Election2016 #RaceToTheBottom


    karenpk, Chicago 1 hour ago

    I am sorry, there is absolutely nothing anyone can say that will make me believe for even a nano second, that someone from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia simply decided out of the goodness of their heart, to donate 10 million bucks to an American charity.

    Ditto for the others. I really have a problem with how brazen these politicians are, and how we simply turn a blind eye to them, as well as the wealthy investors that own them. Oh, that's how politicians are. Well, if we acted like that, we would be unemployed, then thrown in jail. What makes them special, other than their own self proclamation? Nothing.

    Aaron, Ladera Ranch, CA 1 hour ago

    After her stint at State Department, Hillary completely misread the sentiment of American voters when she returned to campaign. She thought America was going to wrap her in a big "Welcome Back" snugly blanket. What she found were unexpected insurgencies in Bernie and Trump- and a public who wasn't so eager to greet her- especially when they realized she didn't have a message, platform or offer a simple reason as to WHY she wants to become President. Throw in the foundation and her establishment ties to Wall Street and Big Pharma- She suddenly isn't so appealing.

    The U.S. does not control the prices on prescription drugs they way other nations do and we pay 50% more than other developed nations. This is what Hillary will fight to maintain, that along with a huge defense budget, perpetual warfare and global conflict. It's the status quo and it's disgusting. I'll vote for Trump just to spite Hillary.

    Roy Brophy, Minneapolis, MN 1 hour ago

    " American officials have long worried about Saudi Arabia's suspected role in promoting a hard-line strain of Islam, which has some adherents who have been linked to violence."

    Like the Saudis who planed and carried out the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11?

    Mr. Trump, who the Times always castigates for his shady business practices, is a cheap street corner hustler compared to the Clintons.

    The only reason Trump sounds crazier than Hillary is that she is a more practiced liar. After the utter failure of Afghanistan and Iraq, which she and the Times supported, she went blazing into Libya and did the same thing with the same results.

    Trump and Hillary show the total bankruptcy of our major political parties and the ruling political establishment. I'm voting Green, there may be a chance of saving our democracy yet.

    JO, CO 1 hour ago

    The presence or absence of "direct" connections between either Clinton and their donors suggests a touching naivete. Being at dinner at the Clinton's home, seeing someone at dinner there ... this is how connections are made and made to work, not through "direct orders from the boss!" This is a web of shameless corruption in which an ex-president parlays his reputation to boost him and his wife into the ranks of the 1%.

    Does this mean Donald would make an acceptable president? No. But neither does Hillary. Maybe better that we consider going the route of SCOTUS-1 and leave the Oval (almost typed Offal) Office empty for four years!

    Hanan, New York City 2 hours ago

    The donors have given to gain access or future favors of or through the Clintons. That's clear. These nations/individuals don't do anything charitable in their own nations. They want something in return and the Clintons' being the politicians that they are as well as being hawks about money, have always known that. They chose the money. It's the basis for many foundations run by people that have already accomplished their goals and who next expect to get paid or who desire more power by association than even money can buy.

    There will be no way around this for Clinton. Trump has a similar problem with monied interests all over the world. In both instances, not good choices nor good odds that whomever succeeds will not be plagued by unending issues due to conflicts that will be posed. exposed and/or links to their money and debts. Trump calls it "pay for play" regarding Clinton. As for Trump and all his huge deals, its called getting played while Trump gets paid.

    Fred McTaggart, Kalamazoo, MI 2 hours ago

    The actions that Bill Clinton is promising after the election are a tacit admission that the Foundation represents an enormous conflict of interest. But by now such actions are meaningless. They should have been taken before Hillary Clinton started campaigning for U.S. Senator and certainly before she accepted a position as Secretary of State.

    Stan Continople , Brooklyn 4 hours ago

    The money raking Foundation and the Goldman Sachs speeches, all while they must have absolutely certain that Hillary would be running for President, speak the delusional sense of entitlement usually reserved for royalty. Just because she's also a "policy wonk" does not make her any less deranged than Trump. Who knows when her last remaining ties to reality may finally snap - along with that macabre smile?

    Majortrout, is a trusted commenter Montreal 4 hours ago

    I'm amazed that the NYTimes has written this article. When Mrs. Clinton was running for the top spot for the DNC, all we read was negativity against Bernie Sanders, with very little written about Benghazi,her private e-mail server, and other "suggested improprieties". When she finally won the nomination for POTUS, all we read in the NYTimes was negativity against Donald Trump, and again hardly anything negative news against Mrs. Clinton.

    How about that?

    Now with have this issue, and it isn't going to go away so fast.

    "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"


    Elephant lover, is a trusted commenter New Mexico 5 hours ago

    The donations are to a trust. The trust does not benefit the Clintons. It benefits the poor. How is this corrupt?

    Just Sayin, New York 13 minutes ago

    the clinton hire their political team via these donations and pay for there expenses including huge travel expenses...not bad for public service.

    retiredseal83 , Coronado, CA 13 minutes ago

    That is untrue. They can travel, live in luxury, pay their daughter and friends, and use trust assets for all kinds of personal stuff in the name of charity. Who do you think paid for Bill and Chelsea's trip to Africa? They aren't know for giving any away either!

    ExPeterC, is a trusted commenter Bear Territory 6 hours ago

    Bribery is corporatized these days

    paula, is a trusted commenter new york 6 hours ago

    Makes no sense. After a certain number, simple greed seems like insufficient motivation. You can't live long enough to spend it all! So what do the Clinton's want -- and more directly, why do they insist on sabotaging any good that comes their way? The country doesn't need their drama -- but Trump is simply too horrible to contemplate.

    Billy, up in the woods down by the river 7 hours ago

    It's a charity. The Clintons got very rich while running it. That's an issue. Then the fact that Hillary was Secretary of State while the Clintons were raking in the foreign contributions. That was a clear conflict of interest and it should never have been allowed. And if it wasn't a conflict then why are the Clintons backing away from the idea now?

    Just because Trump is a kook it doesn't mean the Clintons aren't crooked and they too should be nowhere near another term in the White House. Newsflash: Hillary and Bill Clinton are not trustworthy

    SAK, New Jersey 7 hours ago

    The donations to the foundation has bad appearance. Saudis or Qataris desiring to be charitable to Africans could send the money to African charities rather than route through Clinton foundation. It is very typical of Saudis. They donated generously to the favorite charity of Bush family. The results are obvious. Despite their bad human rights record and discrimination against women, beheadings and disseminating extremist version of Islam though their funding of mosques and madressas in Muslim world, Saudi Arabia remains a strategic partner. US continues to supply arms, intelligence and advice on military operations in Yemen. There is no doubt Saudis have bought influence through donations.

    Deus02, Toronto 5 hours ago

    Not fear, but considerable and continuing concern about her credibility going forward. While Hillary continually touts herself as a progressive democrat, it would seem neither yourself nor the NYT got the memo about her recent four person presidential transition team headed up by Russ Salazar, former Secretary of the Interior AND Washington corporate lobbyist whom coincidentally is a profracking, fossil fuel AND supporter of the TPP. You couldn't ask for a more establishment pro corporate type than him.

    He will also, as part of a Clinton administration, head the team that is responsible for the hiring of up to 4000 new employees and one can only guess where they will come from? Any wonder why many Sanders supporters and Independents STILL do not find her trustworthy and are reluctant to vote for her?

    The fact remains, that any other democratic candidate without Clinton's baggage, at this juncture, would be beating Trump by at least 20 points, a landslide.

    susan, California 7 hours ago

    ???? Their foundation ties bedevil her? That make it seem like she is being treated unfairly by circumstances beyond their control. Nothing could be further from the truth - the Clintons brought all of these problems on themselves. They have always sought money and power where ever it was, and foundations are an excellent tax dodge for wealthy people to pay their relatives and friends tax free salaries while wielding enormous power through grants.

    Sure, their foundation has theoretically been devoted to "good works" but it also gives the founders a very cushy life style, access to the highest levels of government (and graft) around the world, and a ready source of donors for Hillary's political campaigns.

    Hillary has operated with such conflicts of interest since she was First Lady of Arkansas, working for a law firm which handled services for the largest financial services firm in the state. Don't feel sorry for these "maligned" victims. They created the situation(s) which invited all the criticism, and, incredibly, continue to do so. It takes a long time to raise billions of dollars for their closely held foundation - they are not about to let it go until they have another source of revenue and means of attracting wealthy donors - the Presidency of the United States. It's deja vu all over again!

    Deus02, Toronto 1 hour ago

    Yep, the Saudis are going to implement a significant human rights program in the Kingdom and the 500K that Trans Canada donated to the Clinton Foundation are going to announce they no longer wish to build the Keystone XL pipeline.

    Yeah right!


    Pier Pezzi , Orlando 41 minutes ago

    The "foundation" spends about 10% on actual "charity" work. Watch "Heist" and "Clinton Cash" and so many other printed sources to see what true pay-to-play self-enrichment on a mammoth scale looks like. Then vote for anyone but Clinton.

    They are CROOKS with ZERO concern for anyone but themselves. Look at Haiti for openers. A country still in ruin, but Hillary's brother has a first-ever seat on a Gold Mining operation in Haiti... and as Sec. of State, she pushed back a raise for workers from 61Cents back to 31Cents per hour. How can anyone with a heart vote for these carpetbaggers?

    Don B , Massachusetts 8 hours ago

    The article fails to mention that almost none of the money actually goes to charity. Nonprofits like this are excellent vehicles for avoiding taxes since the money can be spent on salaries and "business expenses" like travel.

    That isn't always objectionable: The Monterey Aquarium was set up that way but it was funded by a rich man to provide a career for his daughter. This particular nonprofit looks too much like a money laundering operation for the benefit of the Clintons. Either the donors were expecting some sort of payback or they thought they were donating to charity. In either case, something is wrong with this.

    [Aug 21, 2016] The Latest Trump says he'll restrict speaking fees

    The Washington Post

    Donald Trump says he'll implement tough new restrictions on administration officials and their spouses giving paid speeches if he's elected to the White House.

    The GOP nominee is telling a rally crowd in Wisconsin that he wants to ban the spouses of senior government officials from collecting speaking fees as they serve.

    He says he'll insist senior officials sign an agreement barring them from collecting speaking fees from corporations with a registered lobbyist or any entity tied to a foreign government for five years after leaving office.

    Trump has criticized rival Hillary Clinton for the speaking fees she collected after leaving her position as secretary of state and called on her to release the transcripts.

    [Aug 21, 2016] The Shameful Foundation of the Clintons Power by Eric Ruder

    Notable quotes:
    "... But beyond the Republican bluster, there is a substantial critique of the Clinton Foundation: At its core, it fuses fundraising, influence-peddling, Washington networking, "humanitarian" causes and an endless grasp for power and money. ..."
    "... Though taking care to adhere to the letter of the law, the foundation comes close to the line in many cases -- for example, soliciting donations by offering face time with the Clintons in ways that seem suspiciously like a political campaign for elected office, but not exactly like that, because that would be a violation of the law. ..."
    "... Using methods like this, the Clinton Foundation raised some $2 billion since its inception 15 years ago. ..."
    "... "Nearly half of the major donors who are backing Ready for Hillary, a group promoting her 2016 presidential bid, as well as nearly half of the bundlers from her 2008 campaign, have given at least $10,000 to the foundation, either on their own or through foundations or companies they run," according to the Post . ..."
    "... As part of that agreement, the Clinton Foundation reported that prior to 2008, Saudi Arabia had contributed between $10 million and $25 million to its coffers -- a strange patron of a foundation that promotes itself as a fierce advocate for women's rights. But as should be obvious, how the money is used isn't generally as important to the governments, corporations and corporate executives contributing as the influence they buy. ..."
    "... Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy ..."
    "... The Clinton Foundation has staffers and programs in dozens of countries working on countless issues. But it's perhaps best known for its high-profile role in the reconstruction of Haiti after a devastating earthquake struck there in January 2010 . ..."
    "... In this respect, the Clinton Foundation's operations in Haiti bore a striking resemblance to the Bush administration's arrogant colonial posture toward the occupation of Iraq -- right down to the way the Bush administration deployed recent Ivy League graduates to carry out central elements of the U.S. empire's plans for occupation and reconstruction. ..."
    "... First, they had no background in development -- they didn't know what they were talking about in aid or humanitarianism. Second, they didn't even realize it. They had come to Haiti in their suits convinced they were going to fix the place, and then they looked really confused when we would try to explain to them why the ideas they came up with on the back of an envelope on the plane over wouldn't work. ..."
    "... Indeed, the iconic accomplishments of the Clinton Foundation in Haiti today are an industrial park built to help foreign-owned clothing manufacturers exploit low-wage Haitian labor; trailers to house schools for Haiti's next generation of workers; and a luxury hotel for wealthy corporate executives who need a place to rest their weary heads as they seek out new business opportunities. ..."
    "... But a year after its opening, the park had only produced 1,500 jobs. "Hundreds of smallholder farmers were coaxed into giving up more than 600 acres of land for the complex, yet nearly 95 percent of that land remains unused," according to an Al Jazeera report published in September 2013 . ..."
    "... But the Clinton Foundation did see at least one project through to completion, under the auspices of the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. The fund invested $2 million to complete the construction of a luxury hotel in Pétionville. ..."
    August 20, 2016 | Socialist Worker

    Bill Clinton looks on as Hillary Clinton campaigns at the Broad Street Market in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, July 29, 2016. (Photo: Ruth Fremson / The New York Times)

    The stated mission of the Clinton Foundation, set up at the end of Bill Clinton's second term in the White House, is to "alleviate poverty, improve global health, strengthen economies, and protect the environment."

    But far more important to its operations is the Clinton Foundation's unstated mission: to further entrench the already formidable power of the Clinton family.

    For more than two decades, both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have lived very public lives ensconced in the upper echelons of America's political establishment. Since its founding in 2001, the Clinton Foundation served as a bridge between Bill Clinton's administration and Hillary Clinton's drive to conquer the White House again.

    The foundation itself has been the subject of countless Republican-inspired inquiries and attacks, including a new IRS investigation of its finances announced in the midst of the Democratic National Convention, though it was overshadowed by Donald Trump's nonstop buffoonery.

    In the rush to tarnish the Clintons by any means necessary, the right typically substitutes spin for substance -- such as the erroneous accusation that the foundation spends only about 6 percent of its revenue on projects in the field.

    But beyond the Republican bluster, there is a substantial critique of the Clinton Foundation: At its core, it fuses fundraising, influence-peddling, Washington networking, "humanitarian" causes and an endless grasp for power and money.

    Though taking care to adhere to the letter of the law, the foundation comes close to the line in many cases -- for example, soliciting donations by offering face time with the Clintons in ways that seem suspiciously like a political campaign for elected office, but not exactly like that, because that would be a violation of the law.

    After Hillary Clinton stepped down as Secretary of State in 2013 to focus her attention on campaigning for the White House, she officially rejoined the Clinton Foundation. As theWashington Post reported in 2015:

    [T]he organization has stepped up its solicitation efforts in anticipation of soon losing one of its chief fundraisers [Hillary] to the campaign trail -- building a $250 million endowment designed to provide some long-term stability.

    The recent efforts have at times looked like a political campaign. A contest offered foundation donors the chance to win a free trip to New York to attend a Clinton gala and have a photo taken with the former first couple. Hillary and Chelsea Clinton hosted a "Millennium Network" event in 2013 aimed at cultivating a younger generation of philanthropists. According to an invitation, there were six tiers of donations, ranging from $150 for individuals to $15,000 for a couple seeking a photograph with Hillary Clinton.

    ***

    Using methods like this, the Clinton Foundation raised some $2 billion since its inception 15 years ago.

    "Nearly half of the major donors who are backing Ready for Hillary, a group promoting her 2016 presidential bid, as well as nearly half of the bundlers from her 2008 campaign, have given at least $10,000 to the foundation, either on their own or through foundations or companies they run," according to the Post.

    The list of Clinton Foundation donors includes blue-chip corporations such as Coca Cola and Verizon, Wall Street players like Goldman Sachs and American military contractors.

    But some of the foundation's biggest donors are foreign governments, which are barred by federal election law from giving directly to candidates for public office. According to longtime Democratic operative David Sirota:

    Federal law designates the Secretary of State as "responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales" of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals -- and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clinton's State Department did a whole lot of approving.

    While Clinton was Secretary of State, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton's three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush's second term.

    Fully one-third of foundation donors giving more than $1 million at a time are foreign governments. When the Obama administration vetted Clinton for the post of Secretary of State in 2008, it barred foreign governments that had previously given to the foundation from increasing their donations, in order to deflect accusations about purchasing influence from America's highest-ranking diplomat.

    As part of that agreement, the Clinton Foundation reported that prior to 2008, Saudi Arabia had contributed between $10 million and $25 million to its coffers -- a strange patron of a foundation that promotes itself as a fierce advocate for women's rights. But as should be obvious, how the money is used isn't generally as important to the governments, corporations and corporate executives contributing as the influence they buy.

    You might think that Hillary Clinton would find it troubling to accept money from sources such as Saudi Arabia. But that's precisely the point, according to Michael Hudson, author of Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy:

    Nobody, I think, in American history has merged their public service as Secretary of State or president with their private gains to the extent that Hillary really has. And by that I mean the Clinton Foundation, overall.

    Here's the problem, you can imagine. She's going to Saudi Arabia, she's going to Europe, she's going to the Near Eastern countries. Saudi Arabia has asked her -- and this is all very public -- we want more arms. We want to buy arms in America...

    Hillary's in a position to go to Raytheon, to Boeing, and say, look, do I have a customer for you. Saudi Arabia would love to buy your arms. Maybe we can arrange something. I'm going to do my best. By the way, you know, my foundation is -- you know, I'm a public-spirited person and I'm trying to help the world. Would you like to make a contribution to my foundation?

    Well, lo and behold, the military-industrial complex is one of the big contributors to the Clinton Foundation, as is Saudi Arabia, and many of the parties who are directly affected by her decisions.

    ***

    The Clinton Foundation has staffers and programs in dozens of countries working on countless issues. But it's perhaps best known for its high-profile role in the reconstruction of Haiti after a devastating earthquake struck there in January 2010.

    The foundation's Haitian initiatives, like similar operations elsewhere, are distinguished by an allegiance to the free market and a corporation-centric solution to social problems.

    In this respect, the Clinton Foundation's operations in Haiti bore a striking resemblance to the Bush administration's arrogant colonial posture toward the occupation of Iraq -- right down to the way the Bush administration deployed recent Ivy League graduates to carry out central elements of the U.S. empire's plans for occupation and reconstruction.

    According to an unnamed UN official who talked to journalist Janet Reitman for a 2011 report in Rolling Stone, there was a "dual problem" with the Clinton Foundation staffers:

    First, they had no background in development -- they didn't know what they were talking about in aid or humanitarianism. Second, they didn't even realize it. They had come to Haiti in their suits convinced they were going to fix the place, and then they looked really confused when we would try to explain to them why the ideas they came up with on the back of an envelope on the plane over wouldn't work.

    Indeed, the iconic accomplishments of the Clinton Foundation in Haiti today are an industrial park built to help foreign-owned clothing manufacturers exploit low-wage Haitian labor; trailers to house schools for Haiti's next generation of workers; and a luxury hotel for wealthy corporate executives who need a place to rest their weary heads as they seek out new business opportunities.

    ***

    In 2012, Bill and Hillary Clinton personally attended the opening ceremony of the Caracol Industrial Park, which was supposed to create some 60,000 jobs for Haitians longing for decent employment. Among the celebrities who attended the opening were Sean Penn and Ben Stiller, according to the Washington Examiner.

    But a year after its opening, the park had only produced 1,500 jobs. "Hundreds of smallholder farmers were coaxed into giving up more than 600 acres of land for the complex, yet nearly 95 percent of that land remains unused," according to an Al Jazeera report published in September 2013.

    The Clinton Foundation disgracefully contracted with Clayton Homes -- the same firm sued by the U.S. government for supplying trailers reeking of formaldehyde fumes to Hurricane Katrina refugees -- to provide trailers to serve as schools for the children of the town of Léogâne, according to a report in the Nation by Isabel Macdonald and Isabeau Doucet.

    Warren Buffet, owner of the investment firm Berkshire Hathway, which in turns owns Clayton Homes, was a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. Buffet co-hosted a fundraiser that raked in more than $1 million for her campaign.

    But the Clinton Foundation did see at least one project through to completion, under the auspices of the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. The fund invested $2 million to complete the construction of a luxury hotel in Pétionville.

    The Oasis Hotel "symbolizes Haiti 'building back better' and sends a message to the world that Haiti is open for business," according to Paul Altidor, vice president of the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund. "For Haiti's recovery to be sustainable, it must attract investors, businesses and donors, all of whom will need a business-class, seismically safe hotel."

    But these trickle-down visions of development are precisely what angers Haitians about the colonial arrogance of the West's reconstruction efforts. "All the money that went to pay the salaries of foreigners and to rent expensive apartments and cars for foreigners while the situation of the country was degrading -- there was something revolting about it," former Prime Minister Michèle Pierre-Louis told the New York Times in 2012:

    The practices of the Clinton Foundation illustrate the total embrace of neoliberalism and the free market by the Clinton clan -- to the family's enormous financial benefit.

    Remember that the next time you hear another liberal blowhard complain about how anyone who says you're acting out of "privilege" if you aren't ready to vote for Hillary Clinton. In reality, the Clintons themselves represent the pinnacle of privilege, fused with the power of the U.S. government and its foreign policy agenda.

    Challenging the Clinton establishment is part and parcel of challenging the privileges of those who stand atop the global capitalist system.

    Eric Ruder is in the editorial board of the International Socialist Review. He is also a frequent contributor to Socialist Worker.

    [Aug 20, 2016] People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clintons bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea

    Notable quotes:
    "... "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea." ..."
    "... Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous. ..."
    "... Gen. Wesley Clark standing off against Russians at Belgrade and the missile attack on the Chinese embassy and the bombing of Bulgaria. ..."
    "... Under Obama, support for fascists in Ukraine, near war over chemical weapons in Syria, gunboat diplomacy in South China Sea, shift to preemptive war plans against North Korea, ground troops in Libya and other parts of Africa, and last but not least, blind support for the psychotic Saudi attack on Yemen. ..."
    "... Democrat or Republican, it is the US system of government which is militarist and adventurist. It will not change if either Clinton or Trump is elected, the delusions of Putin et al. notwithstanding. It wouldn't change if Bernie or the rational libertarian of the month was elected either because they do not, didn't and never will stand for real change. Criticizing Clinton and Trump from the right will make sure there is not even a chance of political realignment. At this point, the question is whether that's the point? ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Rich Puchalsky 08.13.16 at 9:12 pm 800

    BW: "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea."

    Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous.

    For the larger question of whether these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate, I sort of come down in a different place than you do. If these comment threads were about good-faith argument, then sure this kind of advocacy might be bad, but I don't think that most people here are capable of good-faith argument even if they were attempting it (most of the time they aren't attempting it). In that case the comment threads serve an alternate purpose of seeing what kinds of beliefs are out there, at least among the limited group of people likely to comment on CT threads. Of course people can be kicked out if they habitually make the threads too difficult to moderate (or really, for whatever other reason an OP decides on), but the well has long since been poisoned and one more drop isn't really going to do much more damage.

    stevenjohnson 08.14.16 at 6:13 am 833

    Gen. Wesley Clark standing off against Russians at Belgrade and the missile attack on the Chinese embassy and the bombing of Bulgaria.

    Under Obama, support for fascists in Ukraine, near war over chemical weapons in Syria, gunboat diplomacy in South China Sea, shift to preemptive war plans against North Korea, ground troops in Libya and other parts of Africa, and last but not least, blind support for the psychotic Saudi attack on Yemen.

    None of which was unilaterally determined by Clinton who was nothing but Secretary of State, who does not determine foreign policy anyhow, or took place after her tenure. Renovation of the nuclear weapons stockpile isn't her doing either.

    Democrat or Republican, it is the US system of government which is militarist and adventurist. It will not change if either Clinton or Trump is elected, the delusions of Putin et al. notwithstanding. It wouldn't change if Bernie or the rational libertarian of the month was elected either because they do not, didn't and never will stand for real change. Criticizing Clinton and Trump from the right will make sure there is not even a chance of political realignment. At this point, the question is whether that's the point?

    [Aug 20, 2016] Trip Reports from Sanders Delegates at the Democrat National Convention

    Notable quotes:
    "... Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A ..."
    "... We discussed how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas, said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be." ..."
    "... "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note, No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions." ..."
    "... The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia, or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice. ..."
    "... why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without a nuclear war? ..."
    naked capitalism
    Militarism

    Mark Lasser (CO): "Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A.'"

    Carole Levers (CA): " I was harassed by five Hillary delegates who got in my face while I was sitting in my seat. They told me that we needed to quit chanting, go home, and that we did not belong there. They added that by chanting "No More Wars" we were disrespecting the veterans. I replied that none of us were disrespecting the veterans. We were honoring them by NOT WANTING ANY MORE DEAD VETERANS, killed in illegal wars for the profits of the wealthy. I reiterated that we were exercising our first amendment rights to which one replied that WE (Bernie delegates) had no rights. I was later shoved by a Hillary delegate into the metal frame of the seats."

    Carol Cizauskas (NV): "We heard other Bernie delegates chanting "No more war" and then the "opposing team" of Hillary delegates thundering over those chants with "USA." It was darkly eerie. We discussed how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas, said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be."

    #SlayTheSmaugs (NY): "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note, No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions."

    Lauren Steiner (CA): "[Clinton supporters] decided to chant with us when we chanted 'Black Lives Matter.' But for some reason, they found 'No More War' to be offensive and shouted "USA" right after. At first, I was puzzled by the fact that they were shouting exactly what Trump supporters shout at his rallies. Then, after all the bellicose speeches and the fact that they had so many Republicans endorsing Clinton, it hit me that perhaps it was because they were courting Republicans now. They didn't care about our support anymore."

    Ike, August 18, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    I am reading Primary Colors by Anonymous. It is entertaining as well as reaffirming a suspected baseline of conduct.

    Lambert Strether, August 18, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Primary Colors (by Joke Line (Joe Klein)) is terrific. The movie is good too. I am so happy and amazed that I live in a world where John Travolta plays Bill Clinton in a movie.

    Jeremy Grimm, August 18, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    The harassment and dirty tricks pulled against the Sanders people - as described in these collected reports - leaves me wondering whether Sanders actually won the nomination. It would have been much more politic for the Hillary people to let the Sanders delegates blow off steam and wait until the nomination and end of the convention to circle the wagons in "unity". If Hillary clearly won the nomination then the stupidity and arrogance in team Hillary's treatment of the Sanders people speaks to a new level of disdain for the 99%. The business about the $700 hotels and the misinformation and lack of information provided from team Sanders raises other questions.

    trent, August 18, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Wow, all those testimonials from the democrat convention are an eye opener, for some. Hillary's soft Nazism on full display for any of the still true believers. Yet the press calls trump the Nazi. Trump is crazy, but its almost an honest craziness compared to Hillary. She's nuts, but manipulates everything she can to hide it. I'll take out in the open crazy, easier to plan for.


    EoinW, August 19, 2016 at 8:51 am

    I haven't voted in years. In Canada, however, we've never been given a choice on anything. Doesn't matter if the election is federal, provincial or municipal, no issues just personalities.

    The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia, or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice.

    But why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without a nuclear war? Speculating on global warming or third party movements kind of lose their significance during a nuclear winter.

    Patricia

    This young woman turned it into a tale, "The Bullshittery of the DNC":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHD_bj5fXO0

    [Aug 20, 2016] Trump is a racist and his followers are racist narrative as well as the claim that Trump is Putins stooge, is very convenient to Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and that's all you need to know" is a narrative thesis, like the narrative thesis that Trump is Putin's stooge, very convenient to Clinton's candidacy, but ultimately corrosive to American politics and political discourse. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign has whipped up a high dudgeon about racism and Putin and how unsuited Trump is, to be President. I don't disagree about the core conclusion: Trump does not seem to me to be suited to be President. That's hardly a difficult judgment: an impulsive, self-promoting reality teevee star with no experience of public office - hmmm, let me think about that for two seconds. But, the high dudgeon serves other purposes, to which I object strongly. ..."
    "... People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea. ..."
    "... Everything should not be about electing Clinton. ..."
    "... Pundits like Josh Marshall of TPM or Ezra Klein of Vox are betraying their public trust by carrying Clinton's water so slavishly. ..."
    "... People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea ..."
    "... Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous. ..."
    "... This is what 40 years of two-party neoliberalism gives us: an unhinged demagogue or the point person for Democratic policies that have systematically gutted the middle class, screwed the poor, increase inequality, slowed productivity, caused multiple wars, and made them personally rich. ..."
    "... The moral righteousness of identity politics adds in an element that goes way beyond the lazy failure to hold politicians accountable or the tendency to explain away their more Machiavellian maneuvers. There's both an actual blindness to the reactionary conservatism of equal opportunity exploitation and a peremptory challenge to any other claim or analysis. If police practices and procedures are trending in an authoritarian direction, they can only be challenged on grounds of racist effect or intent. The authoritarianism cannot be challenged on its own merit, so the building of the authoritarian state goes on unimpeded, since the principle that is challenged is not authoritarianism, but a particular claim of racism or sexism. ..."
    "... As for LFC, he finished up his not a counter with "Assad and Putin are authoritarians (plus in Assad's case especially being a murderous thug), but I don't recall b.w. being too exercised about their authoritarianism." That's perfectly familiar [line] too: I well remember it from the GWB Iraq War days. Do you oppose the Iraq War? Well I never heard of you being very exercised about Saddam Hussein being a murderous thug. You must really support Saddam, or not really care about authoritarianism. The people who liked to say this were called the "Decents", a word like many other political words that was perfect because it meant exactly the opposite of what it sounded like. ..."
    "... What's being critiqued is the idea that nothing but racism matters. What's being critiqued is the idea that it's useful or even correct to do mind-reading and to confidently pronounce that people who disagree with you do so because they're stupid and evil – excuse me, because they're racists. What I find illuminating here is the graphic evidence of why this approach is so toxic. People get furious and hostile when you call them bigots. It's an insult, not an invitation to dialog – because it doubles as a character judgment and as a personal attack. ..."
    "... I am also saying, worry that the charge of racism may be all we have left that is capable of getting reforms. And, worry that charges of racism, without useful nuance, may not get the political reaction and reform one ought to desire. ..."
    "... Police misconduct is not a problem solely and originally about race and racism ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.13.16 at 7:44 pm 798

    Layman @ 795

    I think all you've really shown is that blue-collar, less-educated people tend to not know much about politics and to have the political attitudes of authoritarian followers and Trump is willing to be demagogic enough to attract their attention as an alternative to the status quo candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

    "Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and that's all you need to know" is a narrative thesis, like the narrative thesis that Trump is Putin's stooge, very convenient to Clinton's candidacy, but ultimately corrosive to American politics and political discourse. It isn't a question of whether statistics suggest racism is an efficient instrumental variable. It is a question of whether this politics of invective and distraction is going anywhere good, could go anywhere good.

    No one in these comment threads has been defending Trump or the political ignorance and resentments of his supporters. Some of us have questioned the wisdom of a political tactic of treating them as pariahs and dismissing their concerns and economic distress as fake or illegitimate.

    The Clinton campaign has whipped up a high dudgeon about racism and Putin and how unsuited Trump is, to be President. I don't disagree about the core conclusion: Trump does not seem to me to be suited to be President. That's hardly a difficult judgment: an impulsive, self-promoting reality teevee star with no experience of public office - hmmm, let me think about that for two seconds. But, the high dudgeon serves other purposes, to which I object strongly.

    Even though, and especially because Clinton is very likely to become President, her suitability ought to be scrutinized. Not just boxed away as, "well, she is obviously better than Trump so let's not even trouble our beautiful minds", when by the way it is not so obvious as all that, as several commenters have tried to point out. People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea.

    Everything should not be about electing Clinton. Clinton's election is pretty much assured, despite her deep flaws as a candidate of the center-left (to wit, her war-mongering and epic corruption and economic conservatism). Pundits like Josh Marshall of TPM or Ezra Klein of Vox are betraying their public trust by carrying Clinton's water so slavishly. Ezra may be gaining all important access to the Clinton White House comparable to what he had in Obama's White House, but he spent his credibility with his readers to get it. And, he's deprived his readers of the opportunity to learn about issues of vital importance, like the TPP and corporate business power, or NATO expansion and the relationship with Russia, or the swirling vortex forming in the Middle East where American Empire is going down the drain of failed invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and ill-conceived "alliances" with fundamentally hostile powers like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

    I don't think these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate on the behalf of any candidate. A modicum of advocacy might be welcome for the fodder it provides for reflective rumination, but mirroring the Clinton campaign's themes seems to require systematic misreadings of counter-argument and that has become disruptive. (RNB's volume and habitual tendentiousness puts RNB into a special category in this regard.)

    There ought to be room in this discussions to move the conversation to more of a meta-level, where we consider trends and dynamics without the partisan's hyper-narrow focus.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.13.16 at 9:12 pm 800

    BW: "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea."

    Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous.

    For the larger question of whether these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate, I sort of come down in a different place than you do. If these comment threads were about good-faith argument, then sure this kind of advocacy might be bad, but I don't think that most people here are capable of good-faith argument even if they were attempting it (most of the time they aren't attempting it). In that case the comment threads serve an alternate purpose of seeing what kinds of beliefs are out there, at least among the limited group of people likely to comment on CT threads. Of course people can be kicked out if they habitually make the threads too difficult to moderate (or really, for whatever other reason an OP decides on), but the well has long since been poisoned and one more drop isn't really going to do much more damage.

    T 08.13.16 at 9:13 pm 801

    BW@798
    Amen.

    There's a reason the electorate hates both Trump and Clinton. This is what 40 years of two-party neoliberalism gives us: an unhinged demagogue or the point person for Democratic policies that have systematically gutted the middle class, screwed the poor, increase inequality, slowed productivity, caused multiple wars, and made them personally rich.

    Let's not forget the Clintons were the Democratic Party point people in causing the vast incarceration of black men while simultaneously gutting welfare for black mothers and their children. (Yay 3rd Way!) They were the point people for letting 300 million Chinese workers compete with American workers. They deregulated the banks. And was there a war she didn't like?

    So Layman finds that the 80% of the Evangelicals that support Trump are racist. And so are the white voters in manufacturing regions. (Excuse me. "Principally" racist.) And Layman's exact counterpart on some unnamed right-wing site thinks all the blacks voting for HRC are in it for the welfare and affirmative action. (Yes, your exact counterpart. Oh, and they, like you, would say blacks are "principally" scammers cause, you know, there are other minor reasons to vote HRC.)

    I take a different view. I think most voters are going to have the taste of vomit in the their mouths when they pull the lever.

    alfredlordbleep 08.13.16 at 9:55 pm 802

    B Wilder @689
    Brings up revolution

    If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than Sanders or Trump have been offering.

    Fit for inscription (keeps me smashingly awake after hundreds of comments :-))

    LFC 08.14.16 at 1:19 am 809

    bruce wilder @687

    The moral righteousness of identity politics adds in an element that goes way beyond the lazy failure to hold politicians accountable or the tendency to explain away their more Machiavellian maneuvers. There's both an actual blindness to the reactionary conservatism of equal opportunity exploitation and a peremptory challenge to any other claim or analysis. If police practices and procedures are trending in an authoritarian direction, they can only be challenged on grounds of racist effect or intent. The authoritarianism cannot be challenged on its own merit, so the building of the authoritarian state goes on unimpeded, since the principle that is challenged is not authoritarianism, but a particular claim of racism or sexism.

    So in the same week that the Justice Department report on the Baltimore police force comes out, showing systematic police discrimination - e.g. lots of people stopped in black neighborhoods, esp. two in particular, for petty reasons or no reason, versus very few people stopped in other neighborhoods - bruce wilder informs us that identity politics somehow prevents us from criticizing police behavior on grounds of authoritarianism, that it can only be criticized on grounds of racism (or subconscious racial bias) - of course, that wd appear to be a main problem w police behavior in Baltimore and some other places.

    ... ... ...

    Rich Puchalsky 08.14.16 at 2:07 am

    "Rich where is the evidence people can no longer criticize police for broad authoritarianism?"

    The last time I talked about this with faustusnotes, he told me that it was entirely understandable and indeed good that Obama and the Democratic Party were passing laws to make non-violent protestors even more likely to be arrested, because Obama was black and there was a scary white protestor holding an assault rifle at a town meeting somewhere.

    As for LFC, he finished up his not a counter with "Assad and Putin are authoritarians (plus in Assad's case especially being a murderous thug), but I don't recall b.w. being too exercised about their authoritarianism." That's perfectly familiar [line] too: I well remember it from the GWB Iraq War days. Do you oppose the Iraq War? Well I never heard of you being very exercised about Saddam Hussein being a murderous thug. You must really support Saddam, or not really care about authoritarianism. The people who liked to say this were called the "Decents", a word like many other political words that was perfect because it meant exactly the opposite of what it sounded like.

    Marc 08.14.16 at 2:09 am

    What's being critiqued is the idea that nothing but racism matters. What's being critiqued is the idea that it's useful or even correct to do mind-reading and to confidently pronounce that people who disagree with you do so because they're stupid and evil – excuse me, because they're racists.

    What I find illuminating here is the graphic evidence of why this approach is so toxic. People get furious and hostile when you call them bigots. It's an insult, not an invitation to dialog – because it doubles as a character judgment and as a personal attack.

    Now, when someone actually says something bigoted that's one thing. But that's not what's going on, and that's why the pushback is so serious.

    And – faustnotes – you're minimizing the real suffering of people by claiming that the mortality rise in lower income US whites isn't real, and it certainly isn't important to you. I'm getting zero sense of empathy from you towards the plight of these people – the real important thing is to tell them why they're racist scum.

    I think that the left has a moral obligation to try and build a decent society even for people that don't like the left much. I think that working class voters across the Western world are susceptible to racial appeals not because they're scum, but because they've been screwed by the system and the left has nothing to offer them but moral lectures. And that's a failure that we can address, and it starts with listening to people with respect. You can stand for your principles without assuming bad faith, without mind-reading, and without the stereotyping.

    For me at least, those are the grounds of debate, and they're very different in kind from pretending that there is no such thing as racism.

    bruce wilder 08.14.16 at 2:14 am 820

    LFC @ 809

    I am aware that the claim of racism is potent and where it can be made to effect reform, I am all in favor. Take what you can get, I say.

    I am also saying, worry that the charge of racism may be all we have left that is capable of getting reforms. And, worry that charges of racism, without useful nuance, may not get the political reaction and reform one ought to desire.

    Police misconduct is not a problem solely and originally about race and racism. I hope Baltimore gets useful and effective reform.

    Here's a thoughtful blogpost about the problem of police misconduct in certain kinds of fatal shooting incidents and what can be done about it, both politically and in terms of reforming police training and administration: http://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2016/07/can-war-between-cops-and-blacks-be-de.html

    [Aug 20, 2016] Trump Promises 'Inclusive' Republican Party at Virginia Rally

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I want our party to be the home of the African-American voter once again. I want a totally inclusive country and I want an inclusive party," he said in a speech at the Fredericksburg Expo and Conference Center. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    US presidential candidate Donald Trump promised on Saturday to make the Republican party inclusive and reach out to black voters, at a campaign rally in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Opinion polls regularly give Trump less than 10 percent of the vote of the 40 million-strong African-American community. Speaking in the key battleground state, Trump said that the GOP "must do better and will do better."

    "I want our party to be the home of the African-American voter once again. I want a totally inclusive country and I want an inclusive party," he said in a speech at the Fredericksburg Expo and Conference Center.

    The real-estate mogul promised earlier that if elected, his policies would restore African-American fortunes so dramatically that they would overwhelmingly vote for his reelection in 2020.

    [Aug 20, 2016] Hillary Clinton ordered to answer written questions in civil lawsuit by Kurtis Lee

    Notable quotes:
    "... Judicial Watch wanted Clinton to answer questions in person about whether she used the server to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. But U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled her written responses would be sufficient. ..."
    "... The lawsuit already has obtained several previously unreleased emails that suggested some of Clinton's aides had sought to help the Clinton Foundation, a charity run by her husband and daughter, while she was still secretary of State. ..."
    "... Clinton faces several civil lawsuits stemming from her use of a private server, and damaging new emails could yet surface before election day. ..."
    Aug 19, 2016 | www.latimes.com

    ... ... ...

    Judicial Watch wanted Clinton to answer questions in person about whether she used the server to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. But U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled her written responses would be sufficient.

    The group has until Oct. 14 to submit the questions, and Clinton must respond within 30 days.

    ... ... ...

    The lawsuit already has obtained several previously unreleased emails that suggested some of Clinton's aides had sought to help the Clinton Foundation, a charity run by her husband and daughter, while she was still secretary of State.

    In one message, a top Clinton aide appeared to try to help a wealthy donor get a meeting with the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, after a Clinton Foundation executive had requested it.

    Clinton faces several civil lawsuits stemming from her use of a private server, and damaging new emails could yet surface before election day.

    ... ... ...

    [Aug 20, 2016] LA times as a mirror of neoliberal press dirty campaign against Trump

    Here are some headlines, This is a textbook example of demonization. Persistent attempt not to discuss issues important for Americans and concentrate on personalities, making a show out of election. Out of a hundred that I analyzed only one was positive, around a dozen were neutral. Everything else were brazen, rabid dog style attack of neoliberals on Trump.
    www.latimes.co

    Trump

    1. Amid campaign chaos, Donald Trump seeks reboot
    2. New poll analysis finds a wasted summer for Donald Trump and a boost for Hillary Clinton
    3. Essential Politics: Trump goes nuclear
    4. Trump shows a new emotion - regret
    5. Donald Trump's media obsession has culminated in his hiring the head of a far-right news website to run his campaign
    6. Hey, Los Angeles: There's a naked statue of Donald Trump on Hollywood Boulevard
    7. If Trump won't pay his bills, will he pay America's - LA Times
    8. New poll analysis finds a wasted summer for Donald Trump and a boost for Hillary Clinton
    9. Signs of a shift in Trump's campaign - too little, too late?
    10. Before Trump, Americans hadn't worried this much about nuclear weapons since the Cold War
    11. Clinton campaign manager: Paul Manafort's resignation doesn't 'end the odd bromance' between Trump and Putin
    12. Maybe Trump's not trying to win the White House - he's trying to start Trump TV
    13. If you're worried about rigged elections, look at Trump's tactics first - LA Times
    14. Donald Trump spokeswoman with a history of false statements says Hillary Clinton suffers from a brain disorder
    15. Donald Trump's call for poll watchers brings back memories of 1988 Santa Ana
    16. What's new in Trump's foreign-policy speech isn't good - LA Times
    17. How to stay sane in the time of Trump - LA Times
    18. Clinton: Donald Trump 'is still the same'
    19. Donald Trump calls for 'extreme vetting' and an ideological test for would-be immigrants
    20. Donald Trump losing to Hillary Clinton? 'Says who?'
    21. The silver lining of the Trump campaign: Now we can't deny our racism or xenophobia
    22. Top Clinton backer on shuffling of Trump campaign: 'You can't fix Trump'
    23. Donald Trump's embattled campaign chairman Paul Manafort resigns
    24. Paul Manafort has guided dictators and strongmen, but can he manage Donald Trump?
    25. Memo to Donald Trump: Here's how to make the 'death tax' fair for everybody
    26. Trump's nationalism is just identity politics in a new flannel shirt
    27. Clinton campaign: Trump shake-up a sign he'll 'double down' on nasty, divisive attacks
    28. Warning of election fraud, Trump sparks fear that his backers may intimidate minority voters
    29. Republicans run for reelection - and away from Trump - as GOP tries to keep control of Senate
    30. He drafted a speech for the Republican convention. Now he says he can't vote for Donald Trump.
    31. How to stay sane in the time of Trump
    32. Philippine lawmaker wants to ban Trump from the country
    33. Biden says Trump has heightened danger for U.S. troops abroad
    34. Repudiating Trump: Republicans are damned if they do, damned if they don't
    35. Trump advisor repeats call for Hillary Clinton to be 'shot in a firing squad for treason'
    36. Trump lashes out at the Wall Street Journal for calling on him to change or leave
    37. The high price of living next door to Donald Trump in L.A.: $30 million
    38. I was a Minuteman III nuclear launch officer. Take it from me: We can't let Trump become president
    39. It isn't enough for Republicans to repudiate Donald Trump. They should endorse Hillary Clinton
    40. Essential Politics: Trump puts the squeeze on vulnerable Republicans
    41. What if Trump drops out?
    42. Trump tries to recover from blunders by sketching his economic agenda
    43. Obama says Trump is 'unfit to serve,' and Trump threatens to walk away from leading Republicans
    44. A Trump election could harm L.A.'s Olympics bid, Mayor Garcetti says
    45. His exact words: What did Donald Trump mean with his 2nd Amendment comments?
    46. Panic in GOP ranks will not stop Trump from being Trump
    47. Trump's call for '2nd Amendment people' to stop Clinton isn't helping his dropping poll numbers
    48. Donald Trump just proposed repealing the 'death tax.' Here's why that's a scam.
    49. How Trump's 2nd Amendment remark burned through Twitter before he even left the room
    50. How deferments protected Donald Trump from serving in Vietnam
    51. Donald Trump calls his claim that Obama founded Islamic State 'sarcasm'
    52. Trump was wrong about free speech and falsehoods, but in an interesting way
    53. San Diego roadside sign hacked with profane message about Trump
    54. Clinton slams Trump as unfit for presidency following 2nd Amendment comment
    55. Trump's wife Melania faces questions about her own immigration history
    56. If Donald Trump were black, would the GOP base accept him? The answer is obvious.
    57. Trump plans to take a 'nice, long vacation' if he loses in November
    58. 'Why don't we use nukes?' sounds like a plausible thing for Donald Trump to say
    59. Actress Rose McGowan pens scathing open letter to media, Trump and the Murdochs
    60. Clintons made $10.6 million last year, tax return shows, as Donald Trump is pressed to release his own
    61. Trump Taj Mahal casino will shut down amid strike, costing 3,000 workers their jobs
    62. Trump versus the fire marshals (and everyone else)
    63. 'Words matter, Mr. Trump, no matter when or where you say them'
    64. Snapshot from the trail: Confederate flag at Donald Trump event
    65. Why are Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin helping Donald Trump?
    66. Donald Trump tries to deflect attention away from recent controversies by pushing economic agenda
    67. Trump's campaign chairman fights back against report detailing pro-Russian payment ledgers
    68. Disgraced ex-lawmaker shows up at Trump rally, messes up attack on Clinton
    69. Ryan says Trump ought to clarify 2nd Amendment comment
    70. Hezbollah leader supports Trump's claim that U.S. created Islamic State
    71. Why Trump can't tell the difference between a Twitter war and a presidential campaign
    72. Many GOP foreign policy experts see Donald Trump as unfit to be president
    73. Trump calls Clinton a 'horror show' for coal mining, tries to move past gun controversy
    74. Top GOP security advisors warn Trump is 'dangerous'
    75. Donald Trump says '2nd Amendment people' can prevent Hillary Clinton from choosing judges
    76. Trump mired in another day of controversy with family of soldier killed in Iraq
    77. Sen. Susan Collins becomes latest Republican to break with Trump
    78. Patt Morrison Asks: Vladimir Putin biographer Masha Gessen on Russia, Trump and WikiLeaks
    79. Trump accused of threatening violence against Clinton with gun-rights remarks
    80. New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte still backing Trump after Maine Sen. Susan Collins says she cannot
    81. Hillary Clinton calls Donald Trump's plans to 'stick it to the rich' a myth
    82. GOP-Trump rift: This split's taking some time
    83. To live in L.A. is to know Trump is wrong: America is not in decline
    84. Clinton campaign launches group for conservatives who don't support Trump
    85. Case against Trump University should move forward, judge rules
    86. Trump sparks uproar by saying 'maybe there is' a way for '2nd Amendment people' to keep Clinton from naming justices
    87. Which Republicans are supporting Trump, and who's jumping ship?
    88. The Khan family's road to confrontation with Donald Trump
    89. Forget the squalling baby; Trump's comments about China on Tuesday were the worse tantrum
    90. Clinton has one big edge on Trump: Her supporting cast is stronger
    91. Essential Politics: Trump's tempest rages onward
    92. Trump loses ground among key voter groups, tracking poll finds
    93. Donald Trump tries to clarify his Islamic State remark. Or maybe not.
    94. Donald Trump says he wouldn't accept Ted Cruz's endorsement even if it were offered
    95. Update on: After several days, Donald Trump decides to endorse Paul Ryan
    96. French president has sharp words for Trump
    97. And the bar drops even lower as Trump calls on Russian hackers to help his election prospects
    98. Analysis: Trump lofts another ill-timed diversion as voters seek to justify their November choice
    99. Melania Trump affirms her immigration story after it's questioned
    100. Has Trump violated the 1st Amendment? Not yet

    [Aug 20, 2016] No Presidential Wars

    The American Conservative

    Donald Trump has made the 2016 presidential race potentially the most important of the last century. The Constitution repudiates presidential wars: they impoverish the people and undermine the rule of law. Trump, if he heeds our advice, can make the Constitution's foreign policy the battleground of the campaign.

    He did a masterful job of exposing the folly of the war in Iraq. He correctly denounced Hillary Clinton's Senate vote for that war and her later use of her position as secretary of state to wage congressionally unauthorized war against Libya. Rather than learn from her mistakes, which gave birth to ISIS, Clinton is redoubling her efforts to drag our nation into another unconstitutional war in Syria.

    The cornerstone of the Constitution's foreign policy is the exclusive entrustment of the war power to Congress. We made an unprecedented break with history by making Congress the sentinel against gratuitous wars. This was the most important decision we made in Philadelphia. We understood that from the beginning of all government, the Executive has chronically concocted excuses to go to war for power and fame. While Congress is not infallible, the institution has everything to lose and nothing to gain from going to war.

    We recognized that these features of the Executive and Legislative branches were timeless because they reflected personalities of the respective institutions that are as constant as the force of gravity. We examined every prior system of government for thousands of years. Regardless of their state of technology, Egyptian pharaohs, Israel's kings, Genghis Khan, and King George III were indistinguishable in their gravitation toward needless wars.

    The proof of our timeless wisdom is in the results. Less than a century after the ratification of the Constitution, by avoiding presidential wars the United States became the world's largest economy. We attracted the best and the brightest from everywhere to make America the workshop of the world.

    Trump's goal of regaining our former prosperity will be stillborn without restoring the Constitution's foreign policy. We were present at the creation of the Constitution, and we left no room for ambiguity about why we gave the war power to Congress. We call on Donald Trump to establish a precedent for every presidential candidate: an unequivocal pledge in writing never to initiate war without a congressional declaration. He should lead, and ask Hillary Clinton to follow. The pledges will make America great again.

    Trump is to be complimented for questioning alliance commitments that conflict with the pledge. He has asked why we would protect the borders of other countries when we don't protect our own. At present, the United States is obligated through treaties or executive promises to go to war to protect 69 countries. During our many years of public service, we rejected the idea of permanent friends or enemies and warned against the danger of entangling alliances. Trump's "No Presidential Wars" pledge will give him justification to extricate the United States from these military entanglements. Why should we safeguard the borders of almost half of the world's countries, who will betray us whenever their interests diverge from ours?

    In his first foreign-policy address, Trump alluded to John Quincy Adams's signature statement about the inseparability of foreign and domestic policy:

    [The United States has] abstained from interference in the concerns of others. … Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. … She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. … she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. … [America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty.

    The United States is the safest country in history. All the armies of the world couldn't take a drink from the Colorado or make a track in the Rockies. We now possess more than 7,000 nuclear warheads and the biggest, most technologically advanced Navy and Air Force ever seen. By contrast, when we wrote the Constitution in 1787, the world confronted six empires armed to the teeth: the Chinese Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. Despite massive superiority in manpower, ships, and weaponry, the British Empire was unable to defeat us in our Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

    By avoiding standing armies and entangling alliances, our foreign policy of self-defense unleashed the nation's resources and focused our human capital on making us the richest nation in history. Our greatest entrepreneurs did not squander their genius on warfare. But then our nation's leaders became seduced by the lure of the limitless executive power that comes with war. Presidents of both parties replaced invincible self-defense with a global military establishment in the false hope of dictating the affairs of other nations. Presidents concocted pretexts to justify wars against Spain, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, and Libya. American jobs were traded away to attract professed foreign allies. The Democratic and Republican nominees have not given the American electorate a choice against unconstitutional presidential wars for more than half a century.

    Now is the time for Trump to end overseas adventurism and trumpet the invincible self-defense that made us the envy of the world. We have lost our way in abandoning the Constitution's foreign policy. A "No Presidential Wars" pledge is the first step to refocusing the genius of our people on production at home rather than destruction abroad. This is the way to make America great again.

    We are the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. We are the champion and vindicator only of our own.

    George Washington and James Madison are a Virginia businessman and lawyer.

    [Aug 20, 2016] For Clintonbots it is not enough to just vote for Clinton. They requres us to pretend that Clinton isn't more evil than Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is such a menace and defeating him is so important that I think freedom of speech should be limited temporarily (through informal ostracism and prudent editorial judgment, of course) and only pure HRC bots should be allowed to speak. But that is just my opinion, not my call. ..."
    "... This is how I understand the Clintonbots. ..."
    "... It is not enough to just vote for Clinton or support voting for Clinton against Trump. Let us also *pretend* that Clinton isn't more evil than her liberal supporters recognise, let us *pretend* that Donald Trump is unprecedented among Republicans, let us stop thinking and speaking what we think, let us do anything and say anything, use each and every conceivable argument, sacrifice all of our principles, honesty and future credibility in order to convince our followers and anyone still stupid enough to take our words seriously that Clinton is an angel of light and the difference between her and Trump is in no way less than the one between Heaven and Hell. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    F. Foundling, 08.09.16 at 2:27 pm

    @RNB 08.08.16 at 10:06 pm

    > I do not think Crooked Timber should be featuring this hugely irresponsible line of thought in their OP's. But that is my opinion, not my call.

    Trump is such a menace and defeating him is so important that I think freedom of speech should be limited temporarily (through informal ostracism and prudent editorial judgment, of course) and only pure HRC bots should be allowed to speak. But that is just my opinion, not my call.

    > 1,2,3,4,5,6

    This is how I understand the Clintonbots. It is not enough to just vote for Clinton or support voting for Clinton against Trump. Let us also *pretend* that Clinton isn't more evil than her liberal supporters recognise, let us *pretend* that Donald Trump is unprecedented among Republicans, let us stop thinking and speaking what we think, let us do anything and say anything, use each and every conceivable argument, sacrifice all of our principles, honesty and future credibility in order to convince our followers and anyone still stupid enough to take our words seriously that Clinton is an angel of light and the difference between her and Trump is in no way less than the one between Heaven and Hell.

    Let us be completely uncritical of everything that she and her allies have ever done or are doing at the moment, until the elections are over. Then, when she uses this free pass we have given her to do the same things as President, we can be happy that at least we have saved the world. And maybe, just maybe our absolute loyalty to the tribe and the establishment will be rewarded.

    [Aug 20, 2016] It is a perplexing and sorry phenomenon that deserves the attention of a first rate pundit like Frank

    Amazon review of Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew... the word "conservative" was replaced by "neoliberal" as it more correctly reflect the concept behind this social process.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total control, even ownership, of the federal government. ..."
    "... Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on the masses without real representation, but not on them. ..."
    "... Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus. There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93) ..."
    "... But capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation state or the flag ..."
    "... According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments; it is the capture of government by business interests. ..."
    "... Neoliberals don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in. ..."
    "... Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors are shielded from oversight or accountability ..."
    "... The first general rule of neoliberal administration: cronies in, experts out. ..."
    "... Under Reagan, a philosophy of government blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. ..."
    "... Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government. Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance - the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether. ..."
    "... One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility, the arch neoliberal tradition of its time. ..."
    www.amazon.com
    Russell Ferrell

    Format: Paperback

    Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew is another classic. This work, along with his more notable What's The Matter With Kansas?, is another ground breaking examination into a major phenomenon of American politics by one of America's foremost social analysts and critics. While What's The Matter With Kansas? looked more at cultural behavior in explaining why Red State Americans have embraced corporate elitist ideology and ballot casting that militates against their own economic self-interest, even their very survival, this title deals more with structural changes in the government, economy, and society that have come about as a result of a Republican right wing agenda. It is a perplexing and sorry phenomenon that deserves the attention of a first rate pundit like Frank.

    Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total control, even ownership, of the federal government. The Wrecking Crew is about a Republican agenda to totally eliminate the last vestiges of the New Deal and Great Society, which have provided social safety nets for ordinary working class Americans through programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Corporate elites want to demolish only that part of government that doesn't benefit the corporation. Thus, a huge military budget and intrusive national security and police apparatus is revered, while education, health, welfare, infrastructure, etc. are of less utility for the corporate state. High taxes on the corporations and wealthy are abhorred, while the middle class is expected to shoulder a huge tax burden. Although Republicans rail against federal deficits, when in office they balloon the federal deficits in a plan for government-by-sabotage. (Page 261)

    Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on the masses without real representation, but not on them. The big government they rail at is the same government they own and benefit from. They certainly do not want the national security state (the largest part of government) or the national police system to go away, not even the IRS. How can they fight wars without a revenue collection system? The wellspring of conservatism in America today -- preserving connections between the present and past -- is a destroyer of tradition, not a preserver. (Page 267)

    Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus. There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93)

    Market populism arose as business was supposed to empower the noble common people. But capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation state or the flag. (page 100) While the New Deal replaced rule by wealthy with its brain trust, conservatism, at war with intellectuals, fills the bureaucracy with cronies, hacks, partisans, and creationists. The democracy, or what existed of it, was to be gradually made over into a plutocracy - rule by the wealthy. (Page 252) Starting with Reagan and Thatcher, the program was to hack open the liberal state in order to reward business with the loot. (Page 258) The ultimate neoliberal goal is to marketize the nation's politics so that financial markets can be elevated over vague liberalisms like the common good and the public interest. (Page 260)

    According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments; it is the capture of government by business interests. The game of corporatism is to see how much public resources the private interest can seize for itself before public government can stop them. A proper slogan for this mentality would be: more business in government, less government in business. And, there are market based solutions to every problem. Government should be market based. George W. Bush grabbed more power for the executive branch than anyone since Nixon. The ultra-rights' fortunes depend on public cynicism toward government. With the U.S. having been set up as a merchant state, the idea of small government is now a canard - mass privatization and outsourcing is preferred. Building cynicism toward government is the objective. Neoliberals don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in.

    While the Clinton team spoke of entrepreneurial government - of reinventing government - the wrecking crew under Republicans has made the state the tool of money as a market-based system replaced civil service by a government-by-contractor (outsourcing). Page 137 This has been an enduring trend, many of the great robber barons got their start as crooked contractors during the Civil War. Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors are shielded from oversight or accountability. (Page 138)

    The first general rule of neoliberal administration: cronies in, experts out. The Bush team did away with EPA's office of enforcement - turning enforcement power over to the states. (Page 159) In an effort to demolish the regulatory state, Reagan, immediately after taking office, suspended hundreds of regulations that federal agencies had developed during the Carter Administration. Under Reagan, a philosophy of government blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. In recent years, neoliberals have deliberately piled up debt to force government into crisis.

    Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government. Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance - the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. (Page 175)

    It is the goal of the neoliberal agenda to smash the liberal state. Deficits are one means to accomplish that end.- to persuade voters to part with programs like Social Security and Medicare so these funds can be transferred to corporate contractors or used to finance wars or deficit reduction.. Uncle Sam can raise money by selling off public assets.

    Since liberalism depends on fair play by its sworn enemies, it is vulnerable to sabotage by those not playing by liberalism's rules/ (Page 265) The Liberal State, a vast machinery built for our protection has been reengineered into a device for our exploitation. (Page 8) Liberalism arose out of a long-ago compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests. (Page 266) Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether. (Page 266) No one dreams of eliminating the branches of state that protect Neoliberalism's constituents such as the military, police, or legal privileges granted to corporations, neoliberals openly scheme to do away with liberal bits of big government. (Page 266)

    Liberalism is a philosophy of compromise, without a force on the Left to neutralize the magneticism exerted by money, liberalism will be drawn to the right. (Page 274)

    Through corporate media and right wing talk show, liberalism has become a dirty word. However, liberalism may not be dead yet. It will have to be resurrected from the trash bin of history when the next capitalist crisis hits. One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility, the arch neoliberal tradition of its time.

    [Aug 19, 2016] In Hillary clinton camp view Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and thats all you need to know like the narrative that Trump is Putins stooge, is very convenient to Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and that's all you need to know" is a narrative thesis, like the narrative thesis that Trump is Putin's stooge, very convenient to Clinton's candidacy, but ultimately corrosive to American politics and political discourse. ..."
    "... Not just boxed away as, "well, she is obviously better than Trump so let's not even trouble our beautiful minds", when by the way it is not so obvious as all that, as several commenters have tried to point out. People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea. ..."
    "... Everything should not be about electing Clinton. Clinton's election is pretty much assured, despite her deep flaws as a candidate of the center-left (to wit, her war-mongering and epic corruption and economic conservatism). Pundits like Josh Marshall of TPM or Ezra Klein of Vox are betraying their public trust by carrying Clinton's water so slavishly. ..."
    "... People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea ..."
    "... Let's not forget the Clintons were the Democratic Party point people in causing the vast incarceration of black men while simultaneously gutting welfare for black mothers and their children. (Yay 3rd Way!) They were the point people for letting 300 million Chinese workers compete with American workers. They deregulated the banks. And was there a war she didn't like? ..."
    "... If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than Sanders or Trump have been offering. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.13.16 at 7:44 pm 798

    Layman @ 795

    I think all you've really shown is that blue-collar, less-educated people tend to not know much about politics and to have the political attitudes of authoritarian followers and Trump is willing to be demagogic enough to attract their attention as an alternative to the status quo candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

    "Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and that's all you need to know" is a narrative thesis, like the narrative thesis that Trump is Putin's stooge, very convenient to Clinton's candidacy, but ultimately corrosive to American politics and political discourse. It isn't a question of whether statistics suggest racism is an efficient instrumental variable. It is a question of whether this politics of invective and distraction is going anywhere good, could go anywhere good.

    No one in these comment threads has been defending Trump or the political ignorance and resentments of his supporters. Some of us have questioned the wisdom of a political tactic of treating them as pariahs and dismissing their concerns and economic distress as fake or illegitimate.

    The Clinton campaign has whipped up a high dudgeon about racism and Putin and how unsuited Trump is, to be President. I don't disagree about the core conclusion: Trump does not seem to me to be suited to be President. That's hardly a difficult judgment: an impulsive, self-promoting reality teevee star with no experience of public office - hmmm, let me think about that for two seconds. But, the high dudgeon serves other purposes, to which I object strongly.

    Even though, and especially because Clinton is very likely to become President, her suitability ought to be scrutinized. Not just boxed away as, "well, she is obviously better than Trump so let's not even trouble our beautiful minds", when by the way it is not so obvious as all that, as several commenters have tried to point out. People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea.

    Everything should not be about electing Clinton. Clinton's election is pretty much assured, despite her deep flaws as a candidate of the center-left (to wit, her war-mongering and epic corruption and economic conservatism). Pundits like Josh Marshall of TPM or Ezra Klein of Vox are betraying their public trust by carrying Clinton's water so slavishly. Ezra may be gaining all important access to the Clinton White House comparable to what he had in Obama's White House, but he spent his credibility with his readers to get it. And, he's deprived his readers of the opportunity to learn about issues of vital importance, like the TPP and corporate business power, or NATO expansion and the relationship with Russia, or the swirling vortex forming in the Middle East where American Empire is going down the drain of failed invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and ill-conceived "alliances" with fundamentally hostile powers like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

    I don't think these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate on the behalf of any candidate. A modicum of advocacy might be welcome for the fodder it provides for reflective rumination, but mirroring the Clinton campaign's themes seems to require systematic misreadings of counter-argument and that has become disruptive. (RNB's volume and habitual tendentiousness puts RNB into a special category in this regard.) There ought to be room in this discussions to move the conversation to more of a meta-level, where we consider trends and dynamics without the partisan's hyper-narrow focus.

    kidneystones 08.13.16 at 9:03 pm 799

    @ 793 Hi Rich, that's a fair question. If memory serves, there were several very close calls under Nixon more from errors in the 'fail safe' system. Nixon is a complicated amoral actor fairly obviously guilty of some extremely serious crimes. He was not the only nasty actor at the time, however. In the specific case you're describing, I don't think any president would have handled things much differently. Russian missiles 90 miles from US soil during the cold war was unacceptable.

    Many of our students have absolutely no idea of what life was like during the 20th century. It's literally another world. The one we share today seems infinitely safer and more tolerant. Cheers.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.13.16 at 9:12 pm
    BW: "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea."

    Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous.

    For the larger question of whether these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate, I sort of come down in a different place than you do. If these comment threads were about good-faith argument, then sure this kind of advocacy might be bad, but I don't think that most people here are capable of good-faith argument even if they were attempting it (most of the time they aren't attempting it). In that case the comment threads serve an alternate purpose of seeing what kinds of beliefs are out there, at least among the limited group of people likely to comment on CT threads. Of course people can be kicked out if they habitually make the threads too difficult to moderate (or really, for whatever other reason an OP decides on), but the well has long since been poisoned and one more drop isn't really going to do much more damage.

    T 08.13.16 at 9:13 pm

    BW@798
    Amen.

    There's a reason the electorate hates both Trump and Clinton. This is what 40 years of two-party neoliberism gives us: an unhinged demagogue or the point person for Democratic policies that have systematically gutted the middle class, screwed the poor, increase inequality, slowed productivity, caused multiple wars, and made them personally rich.

    Let's not forget the Clintons were the Democratic Party point people in causing the vast incarceration of black men while simultaneously gutting welfare for black mothers and their children. (Yay 3rd Way!) They were the point people for letting 300 million Chinese workers compete with American workers. They deregulated the banks. And was there a war she didn't like?

    So Layman finds that the 80% of the Evangelicals that support Trump are racist. And so are the white voters in manufacturing regions. (Excuse me. "Principally" racist.) And Layman's exact counterpart on some unnamed right-wing site thinks all the blacks voting for HRC are in it for the welfare and affirmative action. (Yes, your exact counterpart. Oh, and they, like you, would say blacks are "principally" scammers cause, you know, there are other minor reasons to vote HRC.)

    I take a different view. I think most voters are going to have the taste of vomit in the their mouths when they pull the lever.

    alfredlordbleep 08.13.16 at 9:55 pm 802

    B Wilder @689

    Brings up revolution

    If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than Sanders or Trump have been offering.

    Fit for inscription (keeps me smashingly awake after hundreds of comments :-))

    LFC 08.14.16 at 1:19 am 809

    bruce wilder @687

    The moral righteousness of identity politics adds in an element that goes way beyond the lazy failure to hold politicians accountable or the tendency to explain away their more Machiavellian maneuvers. There's both an actual blindness to the reactionary conservatism of equal opportunity exploitation and a peremptory challenge to any other claim or analysis. If police practices and procedures are trending in an authoritarian direction, they can only be challenged on grounds of racist effect or intent. The authoritarianism cannot be challenged on its own merit, so the building of the authoritarian state goes on unimpeded, since the principle that is challenged is not authoritarianism, but a particular claim of racism or sexism.

    So in the same week that the Justice Department report on the Baltimore police force comes out, showing systematic police discrimination - e.g. lots of people stopped in black neighborhoods, esp. two in particular, for petty reasons or no reason, versus very few people stopped in other neighborhoods - bruce wilder informs us that identity politics somehow prevents us from criticizing police behavior on grounds of authoritarianism, that it can only be criticized on grounds of racism (or subconscious racial bias) - of course, that wd appear to be a main problem w police behavior in Baltimore and some other places.

    ... ... ...

    [Aug 19, 2016] The supress the disclosure of the DNC emails required a preposterous story of Russian hacking, followed by a gotcha accusing Trump of asking Putin to become a latter day Watergate burglar.

    Notable quotes:
    "... We here in CT comments lead a quiet, parochial life. In the larger world, the disclosure of the DNC emails required a preposterous story of Russian hacking, followed by a gotcha accusing Trump of asking Putin to become a latter day Watergate burglar. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.08.16 at 5:07 pm

    RP @ 375: the DNC Email

    We here in CT comments lead a quiet, parochial life. In the larger world, the disclosure of the DNC emails required a preposterous story of Russian hacking, followed by a gotcha accusing Trump of asking Putin to become a latter day Watergate burglar.

    I have no sympathy for Trump, who made his bones as birther-in-chief. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    But, I do have some sympathy for the rest of us, who are the objects of these manipulations. The email discussing whether they can push the atheist hot-button or the Jew hot-button and get a predictable response from voters disturbs me because it seems that the propaganda has drowned out everything else.

    It is one thing when they're wearing out the gay hot-button or the xenophobia hot-button or trying to get the anti-semite hot-button to work again, but I get the idea that there's only hot-buttons, only manipulation. There's no considered, deliberate purpose behind any of it. Hillary Clinton is so pre-occupied affirming support for Israel and condemning Iran or ISIS or Russia, that there's no room left for formulating reality-based policy or explaining such a policy to the American people.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Russian hackers story is propagated to create a distraction form DNC emails revelations and an excuse for pundits to engage in groundless speculation and fake ourage

    Moreover story about the Russkies carrying out a plot to influence the US election is so much juicier than a real story about Clinton's minions doing the humdrum work of influencing US elections by unethical means. It is somewhat similar to "Romney dog" story.
    Notable quotes:
    "... It is a story offered without proof for the purposes of creating a distraction, since it becomes an excuse for pundits engaging in groundless speculation and poses of outrage. Because a far-fetched story about the Russkies carrying out an 11-dimensional plot to influence the U.S. election is so much juicier than a pedestrian story about Clinton's minions doing the humdrum work of . . . influencing U.S. elections by unethical means. ..."
    "... The convoluted and imaginative stories about Guccifer and so on are just that, stories. The U.S. has an enormous and expensive surveillance state apparatus in place. So proof is, presumably, readily available if someone in authority wants to offer it. In the meantime, we have self-styled consultants blowing smoke ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.08.16 at 11:42 pm 396

    Lanny Davis, longtime Clinton ally and DNC hack, explaining in great detail ( on Fox no less) why the Romney dog story makes the Republican candidate (is a Mormon the same as an atheist, Debbie?) unfit for the office of the President.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/13/romneys-dog-on-car-roof-story-makes-him-unfit-to-be-president.html

    bruce wilder 08.08.16 at 11:45 pm 397

    awy @ 389: why is russian hacking of the dnc a preposterous story?

    It is a story offered without proof for the purposes of creating a distraction, since it becomes an excuse for pundits engaging in groundless speculation and poses of outrage.

    Because a far-fetched story about the Russkies carrying out an 11-dimensional plot to influence the U.S. election is so much juicier than a pedestrian story about Clinton's minions doing the humdrum work of . . . influencing U.S. elections by unethical means.

    The convoluted and imaginative stories about Guccifer and so on are just that, stories. The U.S. has an enormous and expensive surveillance state apparatus in place. So proof is, presumably, readily available if someone in authority wants to offer it. In the meantime, we have self-styled consultants blowing smoke.

    But, hey, the Democrat's Platform promises: "Democrats will protect our industry, infrastructure, and government from cyberattacks." Hillary is going to get on that real soon now.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasnt just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to the Clinton campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... The violation of norms was similar, but Tom DeLay invented his scheme as a way of strengthening his Party and making it more powerful in Congress, which was kinda his job, and he was quite successful in adding Republicans to the Texas delegation. ..."
    "... Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to the Clinton campaign that they had no legitimate claim to from parts of the Party that needed those resources. And, it is part of a pattern of leadership action to weaken the Party. (Patrick Murphy, her hand-picked candidate for U.S. Senate from Florida is exhibit one.) ..."
    "... I think it is fair and accurate to describe the HVF transfer arrangements as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits and using the State parties to subsidize the Clinton campaign. ..."
    "... Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . . . 44 percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent. ..."
    "... Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties ..."
    "... The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.02.16 at 9:45 pm 72

    Wasn't Tom DeLay indicted and driven from Congress over a similar sort of money shuffle?

    The violation of norms was similar, but Tom DeLay invented his scheme as a way of strengthening his Party and making it more powerful in Congress, which was kinda his job, and he was quite successful in adding Republicans to the Texas delegation.

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to the Clinton campaign that they had no legitimate claim to from parts of the Party that needed those resources. And, it is part of a pattern of leadership action to weaken the Party. (Patrick Murphy, her hand-picked candidate for U.S. Senate from Florida is exhibit one.)

    bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 1:08 am

    Layman @ 79

    I am not interested in a prolonged back and forth, but I will lay out a bare outline of facts. I do not find much support for your characterization of these arrangements, which give new meaning to the fungibility of funds. I think it is fair and accurate to describe the HVF transfer arrangements as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits and using the State parties to subsidize the Clinton campaign. Court rulings have made aggregate fund raising legal and invites this means of circumventing the $2700 limit on individual Presidential campaign donations. Whether the circumvention is legal - whether it violates the law to invite nominal contributions to State Parties of $10,000 and channel those contributions wholly to operations in support of Clinton, while leaving nothing in State Party coffers is actually illegal, I couldn't say; it certainly violates the norms of a putative joint fundraising effort. It wasn't hard for POLITICO to find State officials who said as much. The rest of this comment quotes POLITICO reports dated July 2016.

    Hillary Victory Fund, which now includes 40 state Democratic Party committees, theoretically could accept checks as large as $436,100 - based on the individual limits of $10,000 per state party, $33,400 for the DNC, and $2,700 for Clinton's campaign.

    Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . . . 44 percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent.

    . . . state parties have received $7.7 million in transfers, but within a few days of most transfers, almost all of the cash - $6.9 million - was transferred to the DNC . . .

    The only date on which most state parties received money from the victory fund and didn't pass any of it on to the DNC was May 2, the same day that POLITICO published an article exposing the arrangement.

    Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties.

    The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans

    Notable quotes:
    "... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
    "... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
    "... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:37 am 87

    84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.

    What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.

    What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and beyond criticism.

    We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.

    The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of air force planners…

    The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated, turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over 15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure or its contents escaped damage."

    The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that

    "probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."

    The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…

    "In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics) http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html

    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am

    @ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.

    You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.

    Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?

    We're done.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone

    Obama is a neocon and is fully dedicated to expansion and maintenance of the US global neoliberal empire, at any cost for the US population. Racism card play against Trump, who opposes neoliberal interventionism, is a variant of the classic " Divide et impera" strategy
    Notable quotes:
    "... Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone ..."
    "... Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist ..."
    "... Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests. ..."
    "... Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    stevenjohnson 08.12.16 at 3:45 pm

    Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone and forgetting Barack Obama is still president, and won't even be a lame duck till November.

    Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist, despite Bernie Sanders' long career as a sort of socialist (only informally a Democrat.)

    Historical amnesia means forgetting to even ask what "Watergate" was, and if or how it mattered (or didn't.)

    Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests.

    (Yes, Lupita believes that imperialism actually pays off for the whole country, which presumably is why when her preferred rich people try to get their own she'll be for that. Nonetheless, the idea is bullshit. At this point, I can only imagine people don't call her out on that because they actually agree that "we" are all in it together with our owners.)

    Historical amnesia includes forgetting Trump has run for president before, with the same personality and the same tactics and the same party base. It is unclear how the essentially racist nature of the vile masses has changed so much in four years.

    Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Clinton has to worry about low voter turnout. Democrats lose low turnout elections and the Democratic Party apparatus is weak in many States, including North Carolina, Ohio and Florida, which are usually considered battlegrounds. If Democratic turnout is low enough, Trump can put unusual states like New York in play

    After stealing money from states to help Hillary, Politburo of democratic Party (aka DNC) now it trying to sink trump is the ocean of lies and distortions. That also helps to hide Hillary helath problems and emailgate fiasco. Attack is the best form of defense.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A vote for Trump is a middle-finger vote [ to neoliberal world globalization] . A Trump voter does not have to believe that Trump will do anything for him, only that Trump breaking the system won't be worse for the voter than for the system. ..."
    "... Obama had a very easy time of it in 2012. He had an opponent highly vulnerable to easily formulated populist attacks and with only muted appeal within the ranks of his own Party. It enabled Obama to run a very highly controlled and modulated campaign, aiming at a very narrow margin, but highly certain victory, a strategy that served Obama's neoliberal policy agenda well, since he neither had to attack the predatory wealth Romney the tax-dodging vampire capitalist symbolized, nor did he have to make extravagant populist promises to bring out additional electoral support. ..."
    "... Clinton has to worry about low voter turnout. Democrats lose low turnout elections and the Democratic Party apparatus is weak in many States, including North Carolina, Ohio and Florida, which are usually considered battlegrounds. If Democratic turnout is low enough, Trump can put unusual states like New York in play. ..."
    "... these things may cause a pivot with Trump standing in place. It would be a pivot to Trump attacking a broader range of establishment elites on a broader range of issues. ..."
    "... Ian Welsh notes that the story of the Trump meltdown is also a ready-made story of "a stab-in-the-back" by elites stealing the election. Trump is the past Teflon Master on these kinds of gotcha fests, but if the Media pivots away from playing gotcha with Trump saying hateful and alarming things about immigration and race to Trump saying arguably true things about foreign policy or economic policy that are kept in an undiscussed box by the perverted norms of conventional wisdom, that might be enough of a broadening pivot. Unlikely, but maybe. ..."
    "... Trump's candidacy is an attack on the legitimacy of elites and elite discourse. The news Media is as much an opponent as Clinton. If he baits them, even inadvertently, into doing a pivot for him, that's worrisome. ..."
    "... even if the attacks on the legitimacy of Clinton, the Media, the Republican establishment won't get far enough to win the election for Trump, they portend badly for Clinton's Administration. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 4:41 pm 136

    A vote for Trump is a middle-finger vote [ to neoliberal world globalization]. A Trump voter does not have to believe that Trump will do anything for him, only that Trump breaking the system won't be worse for the voter than for the system.

    bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 4:57 pm

    Romney was in every respect a conventional candidate, one that protected the Republican brand and, more importantly, protected the Democratic brand and the Obama brand.

    Obama had a very easy time of it in 2012. He had an opponent highly vulnerable to easily formulated populist attacks and with only muted appeal within the ranks of his own Party. It enabled Obama to run a very highly controlled and modulated campaign, aiming at a very narrow margin, but highly certain victory, a strategy that served Obama's neoliberal policy agenda well, since he neither had to attack the predatory wealth Romney the tax-dodging vampire capitalist symbolized, nor did he have to make extravagant populist promises to bring out additional electoral support.

    Clinton, ironically and even paradoxically, has a harder task because Trump is a "worse" candidate than Romney.

    Laying down markers for governance, as RP puts it, poses challenges Obama did not face in 2012. Carefully calibrating her campaign to get predictable responses and turnout will be much harder.

    bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 9:51 pm

    Layman @ 143

    Yours seems to me like a sound if conventional analysis.

    Clinton has to worry about low voter turnout. Democrats lose low turnout elections and the Democratic Party apparatus is weak in many States, including North Carolina, Ohio and Florida, which are usually considered battlegrounds. If Democratic turnout is low enough, Trump can put unusual states like New York in play.

    Also, attacks on Trump by establishment Republicans, who are worried about his violation of norms and by the Media Wurlitzer staging a gotcha ("oh my gosh, Trump didn't know about Crimea!") - these things may cause a pivot with Trump standing in place. It would be a pivot to Trump attacking a broader range of establishment elites on a broader range of issues.

    Ian Welsh notes that the story of the Trump meltdown is also a ready-made story of "a stab-in-the-back" by elites stealing the election. Trump is the past Teflon Master on these kinds of gotcha fests, but if the Media pivots away from playing gotcha with Trump saying hateful and alarming things about immigration and race to Trump saying arguably true things about foreign policy or economic policy that are kept in an undiscussed box by the perverted norms of conventional wisdom, that might be enough of a broadening pivot. Unlikely, but maybe.

    Trump's candidacy is an attack on the legitimacy of elites and elite discourse. The news Media is as much an opponent as Clinton. If he baits them, even inadvertently, into doing a pivot for him, that's worrisome.

    Again, I am firmly in the camp that thinks he has little chance in the election, but like Ian Welsh and others, I tend to think he's a proof of concept for a more disciplined demagogue and that he's accelerating the loss of legitimacy for the whole political system, and even if the attacks on the legitimacy of Clinton, the Media, the Republican establishment won't get far enough to win the election for Trump, they portend badly for Clinton's Administration.

    [Aug 19, 2016] 50 neocon security parasites blackmail Trump

    They feel danger for their cushy positions and military industrial complex profits. Of course they are concerned and denounce the irresponsibility of Trump.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I think we reached peak "Trump is not like anything we've seen before" today when 50 top GOP national security officials, many of them veterans of the George W. Bush administration, actually came out and said, Trump "would put at risk our country's national security." ..."
    "... just go back and read some of Jane Mayer's reporting on Mr. "we must live on the edge" Hayden ..."
    "... my personal favorite, John Negroponte, the man who thought Kissinger was too soft on the North Vietnamese, a Reaganite veteran of the Central America wars who Stephen Kinzer famously described as "a great fabulist." ..."
    "... Even by the Reagan Administration's standards of fantasy and duplicity -- I know this will come as news to some, but Donald Trump didn't make up the practice of constructing an alternative reality; remember that Ron Suskind interview with Karl "we create our own reality" Rove? -- Negroponte stood out, completely devising a Honduras of his imagination, which not only helped it become a staging ground for the devastation of the Contra war but also turned that country into a hellscape. ..."
    "... Anyway, these are the people who are now being trotted out to denounce the irresponsibility of Trump. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Corey Robin 08.09.16 at 12:12 am 399

    I think we reached peak "Trump is not like anything we've seen before" today when 50 top GOP national security officials, many of them veterans of the George W. Bush administration, actually came out and said, Trump "would put at risk our country's national security."

    Among the signatories to this statement:

    • Michael Hayden (just go back and read some of Jane Mayer's reporting on Mr. "we must live on the edge" Hayden),
    • Eliot Cohen, [According to Wikipedia Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as "World War IV".[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion. --NNB]
    • my personal favorite, John Negroponte, the man who thought Kissinger was too soft on the North Vietnamese, a Reaganite veteran of the Central America wars who Stephen Kinzer famously described as "a great fabulist."

    Even by the Reagan Administration's standards of fantasy and duplicity -- I know this will come as news to some, but Donald Trump didn't make up the practice of constructing an alternative reality; remember that Ron Suskind interview with Karl "we create our own reality" Rove? -- Negroponte stood out, completely devising a Honduras of his imagination, which not only helped it become a staging ground for the devastation of the Contra war but also turned that country into a hellscape.

    Anyway, these are the people who are now being trotted out to denounce the irresponsibility of Trump.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html

    [Aug 19, 2016] This is how fascism comes to America by Robert Kagan

    As neocons are neoliberals with the gun, no wonder they switched the party and became Hillary cheerleaders. Robert Kagan is dyed-in-the-wool neocon, one of the founders of PNAC (which promoted the idea of global neoliberal empire led by the USA and the use of 9/11 style event as vital for converting the USA into national security state) and cheerleader of Iraq war. He is also the husband of Victoria Nuland, who was instrumental in bringing into power neo-Nazis in Ukraine. In this WaPo column he conveniently forget about his own track record and the track record of his wife, openly accused Trump of fascist tendencies while being unable to use the words "neocons wars" and "neoliberal globalization" in the whole article even once
    Notable quotes:
    "... What he off ers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. ..."
    "... His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of "others" - Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees - whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. ..."
    "... Trump is a negotiator. A fascist is a dictator. They have absolutely nothing in common. The neocon who wrote this propaganda is far more a fascist than Trump could ever be...demonstrated right here with his utilizing his media platform to spread propagandist lies...which is what Hitler did. ..."
    "... You have no distaste for the strong man, Kagan. You have a distaste for not being in power. ..."
    "... What does that say about those whose interests are served? What is your net worth Robert? How much did you make in the Bush administration, and how did you make it? What was the soldier cost? ..."
    "... A Robert Kagan article lambasting the upcoming Reich in Israel will be forthcoming I assume. ..."
    "... 'What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing". Just like GWB in 2000 and 2004? Where were your warnings then? ..."
    May 18, 2016 | The Washington Post

    But of course the entire Trump phenomenon has nothing to do with policy or ideology. It has nothing to do with the Republican Party, either, except in its historic role as incubator of this singular threat to our democracy. Trump has transcended the party that produced him. His growing army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully embrace Trump, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance is to him and him alone.

    And the source of allegiance? We're supposed to believe that Trump's support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies - his proposals change daily. What he off ers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of "others" - Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees - whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

    ... ... ...

    This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called "fascism." Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. "National socialism" was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Führer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who single-handedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.

    Richard Elkind, 6/1/2016 4:06 PM EDT

    Trump is a negotiator. A fascist is a dictator. They have absolutely nothing in common. The neocon who wrote this propaganda is far more a fascist than Trump could ever be...demonstrated right here with his utilizing his media platform to spread propagandist lies...which is what Hitler did.

    Faustfaust, 6/1/2016 3:57 PM EDT

    Kagan,

    A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Excerpts:

    "Rather than pursuing a comprehensive peace with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to contain, destabilize, and roll-back those entities that are threats to all three".

    "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambition"

    "Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey's and Jordan's actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite".

    "Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces".

    Who are those proxy forces? ISIS? It seems so. These statements put you and your ilk in the pot as corroborators for what has happened in the Middle East since it was written, and foremost for Syria and its fallout.

    Faustfaust, 6/1/2016 3:23 PM EDT

    Robert Kagan,

    You aren't afraid of strongmen. You prefer them as long as they are working for your interests and those who you see as your group. Do you remember these excerpts in this letter to George Bush that you signed in 2002?:

    "As a liberal democracy under repeated attack by murderers who target civilians, Israel now needs and deserves steadfast support.... We are both targets of what you have correctly called an "Axis of Evil"... Israel is targeted... in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles ...in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred... the United States should lend its full support to Israel as it seeks to root out the terrorist network that daily threatens the lives of Israeli citizens... Furthermore...we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq... every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes... but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons"

    In this letter you:

    1. Are concerned about Israel and its citizens, and are willing to take extreme action on their behalf, in a manner that is not reflected in your concern for American citizens.

    You were willing to destroy nations in the Levant while you call "nazi" when Trump wants to temporarily reduce travel for a group that has been prone to terrorism in the U.S. on a scale that not even Israel as experienced.

    Meanwhile, you have no issue with Israel's walls, population segregation, and ethnocentrism as symbols of a strong man fascist government. While you spin language to paint Trump's relatively mild suggestions as a sign of fascism, you have no issue cosigning the use of liberal superlatives for Israel. Simply, your writing is disingenuous.

    2. Have admitted to your support for the lie that the Iraq invasion was predicated upon, and for Syria's destruction that is now occurring.

    You have no distaste for the strong man, Kagan. You have a distaste for not being in power.

    JMater, 6/1/2016 8:47 AM EDT

    Robert Kagan and the rest of the Israel firsters brought fascism to the US. They have used the CUFI type of organizations and AIPaC and Wall Street money to brainwash Americans and corrupt Washington to the core.

    Faustfaust, 5/31/2016 7:45 PM EDT

    "This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac "tapping into" popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party - out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear - falling into line behind him".

    Robert Kagan, the brave patriot sounding the alarm from his entrenched and curiously across-the-aisle regular columnist position at the Washington Post.

    Curiously, all of the mainstream writers in solidarity with the concerns of Trump supporters in this democracy are silent.

    What does that say about those whose interests are served? What is your net worth Robert? How much did you make in the Bush administration, and how did you make it? What was the soldier cost?

    Has anyone in your immediate family ever served in the U.S. military?

    Your World War II abuse is in bad taste Robert, and excessively disrespectful to the population of this nation who your political class has asked to make an unconscionable regular sacrifice for as long as this nation has existed. For shame.

    Faustfaust, 5/31/2016 7:35 PM EDT

    "Get right with the leader and his mass following or get run over".

    Are you more comfortable with the Neocons running over the base? The number of people that benefit in either situation seems skewed toward a small minority in your preference. Is this a country of the politics of the minority?

    "They praise the leader's incoherent speeches as the beginning of wisdom, hoping he will reward them with a plum post in the new order. There are those who merely hope to survive. Their consciences won't let them curry favor so shamelessly, so they mumble their pledges of support, like the victims in Stalin's show trials, perhaps not realizing that the leader and his followers will get them in the end anyway".

    You are awfully bold with the allusions to genocidal regimes when addressing a population whose families gave up hundreds of thousands of soldiers to save your people, while at the same time Israel won't move a muscle to stop ISIS while they ethnically cleanse its region.

    Private Subscriber, 5/31/2016 7:37 AM EDT

    Mr. Kagan is a regular columnist for The Post whose biography is readily available. Every column of his, including this one, is followed by a note that he served in President Reagan's State Department.

    The Post isn't remotely pathetic, but having little faith in the intelligence of other readers and using the fourth-grade term "Shillary" is -- and I say that as a Sen. Sanders voter.

    You seem awfully bold with the allusions to genocidal regimes as an argument against people who want to reduce terrorism and have their immigration laws enforced, in light of your support for a regime that is rabidly more ethno-nationalist in Israel.

    You seem to be taking advantage of the emotions of people whom you obviously do not respect nor appreciate. Perhaps you'll soon resort to drawing overly-simplistic illustrations of political timelines embedded in cartoon explosives.

    "A great number will simply kid themselves, refusing to admit that something very different from the usual politics is afoot".

    Well, let's be honest. It would not be unusual for Israel. These politics would be extremely mild in Israel. A Robert Kagan article lambasting the upcoming Reich in Israel will be forthcoming I assume.

    'What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing". Just like GWB in 2000 and 2004? Where were your warnings then?

    Dodgers1, 5/31/2016 7:32 PM EDT

    Before we talk about Trump, we should take a look at Obama, America's version of President Snow in the movie "Hunger Games".

    Edward Snowden, if he was ever kidnapped back to the United States, would most certainly be persecuted by the State. If not for Snowden, we would have never have known about Obama's use of technology to create and move forward with his version of a police state.

    [Aug 19, 2016] The NYT argues for media bias against the Republican nominee

    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.08.16 at 1:43 pm

    The NYT argues for media bias against the Republican, because…

    The Republican is crazy and unfit to be President. First time, really!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?_r=0

    [Aug 18, 2016] Neoliberalism has a distorted or atrophied sense of the relationship between solidarity and the consent of the governed, between democracy and legitimacy, or more generally, between the individual and the collective. Neoliberals are happy to accept whatever loyalty up they are given by fools and suckers: they have no loyalty down at all and will never do the elementary political operations of repaying their base

    Notable quotes:
    "... People don't yet understand that this is just how neoliberals are. The two fundamental loyalties in a state party system have nothing to do with solidarity: they're loyalty up, and loyalty down. Neoliberals are happy to accept whatever loyalty up they are given by fools and suckers: they have no loyalty down at all and will never do the elementary political operations of repaying their base ..."
    "... On solidarity: solidarity isn't about the (hierarchy of) relationships among politicians or political operatives. Solidarity is about membership, not leadership. ..."
    "... Solidarity is the means to great common, coordinated efforts, that is to trust in leadership and that great solvent of political stalemate: sacrifice to the common good. ..."
    "... Solidarity is a powerful force, sometimes historically an eruptive force, and though not by itself intelligent, not necessarily hostile to intelligent direction, but it calls on the individual's narcissism and anger not rational understanding or calculation. It is present as a flash in riots and a fire in insurrections and a great raging furnace in national wars of total mobilization. Elites can fear it or be enveloped by it or manipulate it cynically or with cruel callousness. Though it is a means to common effort and common sacrifice, it demands wages for its efforts and must be fed prodigious resources if it is long at work. ..."
    "... What we've got here is a distorted or atrophied sense of the relationship between solidarity and the consent of the governed, between democracy and legitimacy, or more generally, between the individual and the collective ..."
    "... If so, maybe we ought to try being a little more honest about what we're willing to pay as individuals for what we get as members of a group. Otherwise, it's hard to see how we can come to terms with our confusion, or survive the malignancies that being confused has introduced into all our group dynamics, not just the overtly political ones. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Rich Puchalsky 08.12.16 at 1:41 pm674

    CR: "that strategy actually runs the risk of harming down-ballot Democrats running for office in Congress and state legislatures. It may help Clinton, but it's not good for the party."

    It's Obama redux. Remember how he wanted to work with his friends across the aisle in a Grand Bargain that would bring moderation and centrist agreement to all things? He validated budget-balance mania during austerity and would have bargained away Social Security if he could have. He predictably lost the Congress in the first mid-term election and did nothing to build the party back up.

    People don't yet understand that this is just how neoliberals are. The two fundamental loyalties in a state party system have nothing to do with solidarity: they're loyalty up, and loyalty down. Neoliberals are happy to accept whatever loyalty up they are given by fools and suckers: they have no loyalty down at all and will never do the elementary political operations of repaying their base or creating a party that will work for anyone else. This goes beyond ordinary political selfishness to the fact that they don't really want a populist party: that would push them to harm the interests of their real base.

    And people don't react to this, fundamentally, because they don't really do politics outside of 4-year scareathons. Look at LFC's description above about how people should march if candidates don't follow through on their promises. Why aren't they marching now: why haven't they in the Obama years?

    bruce wilder 08.12.16 at 6:39 pm 687

    Rich Puchalsky @ 674

    I am with you on your main thesis, but I thought I would offer this sidenote.

    On solidarity: solidarity isn't about the (hierarchy of) relationships among politicians or political operatives. Solidarity is about membership, not leadership.

    Solidarity can feel good. "We are all in this together, united." Or, it can feel constricting, as it demands conformity and senseless uniformity, obeisance to unnecessary authority. Resentments are its solvent and its boundary-keepers. Social affiliation and common rituals are its nurturers in its fallow times, which can be historically frequent and long. Solidarity is the means to great common, coordinated efforts, that is to trust in leadership and that great solvent of political stalemate: sacrifice to the common good.

    Solidarity is a powerful force, sometimes historically an eruptive force, and though not by itself intelligent, not necessarily hostile to intelligent direction, but it calls on the individual's narcissism and anger not rational understanding or calculation. It is present as a flash in riots and a fire in insurrections and a great raging furnace in national wars of total mobilization. Elites can fear it or be enveloped by it or manipulate it cynically or with cruel callousness. Though it is a means to common effort and common sacrifice, it demands wages for its efforts and must be fed prodigious resources if it is long at work.

    As American Party politics have degenerated, solidarity has come to have a fraught relationship with identity politics. In both Parties.

    I don't see anything in the conceptual logic driving things forward. I see this state of affairs as the playing out of historical processes, one step after another. But, this year's "scareathon" puts identity politics squarely against the economic claims of class or even national solidarity. The identity politics frame of equal opportunity exploitation has Paul Krugman talking up "horizontal inequality". Memes float about suggesting that free trade is aiding global equality even if it is at the expense of increasing domestic inequality. Or, suggesting that labor unions were the implacable enemy of racial equality back in the day or that FDR's New Deal was only for white people. Hillary Clinton's stump speech, for a while, had her asking, "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, . . . would that end racism? would that end sexism?"

    It is convenient politics in several ways. First, no one can hold Clinton responsible for not ending racism and sexism any more than GWB could be held responsible for not winning the war on terrorism. These are perpetual struggles by definition.

    Second, it combines the display of righteous do-good ism with a promise of social progress that might actually benefit directly the most ambitious, even if it leaves most people without support. People who have done well in the system, or who might expect to, can feel good about themselves. And, ignore the system or rationalize away the system's manifest shortcomings. The people who are complaining are racists! BernieBros! It is all about the loss of status being experienced by white men, and they shouldn't be heard anyway.

    The moral righteousness of identity politics adds in an element that goes way beyond the lazy failure to hold politicians accountable or the tendency to explain away their more Machiavellian maneuvers. There's both an actual blindness to the reactionary conservatism of equal opportunity exploitation and a peremptory challenge to any other claim or analysis. If police practices and procedures are trending in an authoritarian direction, they can only be challenged on grounds of racist effect or intent. The authoritarianism cannot be challenged on its own merit, so the building of the authoritarian state goes on unimpeded, since the principle that is challenged is not authoritarianism, but a particular claim of racism or sexism.

    William Timberman 08.12.16 at 7:45 pm 688
    What we've got here is a distorted or atrophied sense of the relationship between solidarity and the consent of the governed, between democracy and legitimacy, or more generally, between the individual and the collective. I suppose you could argue that we've evolved beyond what we were when we first came to understand these relationships in the abstract (in the 18th century?), and that, accordingly, they can no longer be understood in the way we once thought we understood them.

    If so, maybe we ought to try being a little more honest about what we're willing to pay as individuals for what we get as members of a group. Otherwise, it's hard to see how we can come to terms with our confusion, or survive the malignancies that being confused has introduced into all our group dynamics, not just the overtly political ones.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Problems with Obamacare

    Notable quotes:
    "... Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back. Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans - market leaders in many states - are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives. ..."
    "... The donor class candidate in 2016 promises to fight against the interests of the donor class using every dollar the donor class gives her. ..."
    "... Gullible liberals cheer – parrot 'white nationalist' talking points on command – hold up signs – 'Willing to sell out for chance to call fellow Americans 'racist white nationalists.' ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.15.16 at 1:02 am

    What electing the donor class candidate again means to real wages, and why Trump's promise to scrap and replace the Affordable Care Act with something better matters: Zero Hedge citing the NYT: "…Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected.

    Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back. Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans - market leaders in many states - are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-06/obamacare-sticker-shock-arrives-insurance-premiums-soar-20-40

    The donor class candidate in 2016 promises to fight against the interests of the donor class using every dollar the donor class gives her.

    Gullible liberals cheer – parrot 'white nationalist' talking points on command – hold up signs – 'Willing to sell out for chance to call fellow Americans 'racist white nationalists.'

    [Aug 18, 2016] Khizr Khans sound bite is a good anti-Trump political advertising, but I dont believe he has read the Constitution

    If you view this as "Waiving the flag" type of attack, or as a witch hunt -- you can also read McCarthy-Welch Exchange During the Army-McCarthy Hearings - Online Speech Bank
    Notable quotes:
    "... Khizr Khan's sound bite makes for good free political advertising, following the lead of Trump himself, but I don't believe he has read the Constitution, or if he has read it he didn't understand it. ..."
    "... Obama taught constitutional law and a generation of his students will not understand that only Congress can declare war. ..."
    "... The conditions that produced and enabled Trump are the Democratic Party policies in its fake posture as an opposition party serving the interests of working people. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same-increasing disparity in wealth and income. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party is bully enough to shut me and my chosen candidates down; and I don't like Trump, but I really like it when I see him kicking some lying elitist Democratic Party ass. ..."
    "... Consider then the partisan nature of worthiness determined by Democrats in their vilification of Cindy Sheehan for daring to effect a change in the system that murdered her son, whose death was more recent, the same sorrow that Khizr Khan now deals with from a position of ignorance so common to Democrats, but so much more worthy of respect when the sorrow strikes out in their political favor, unlike with Cindy Sheehan, who struck out in opposition to the Democratic Party in electorally challenging Nancy Pelosi. ..."
    "... It's absolutely not about the money. Pocket Constitution waving grieving father at DNC denouncing temporary ban on Muslim immigration coincidentally runs 'pay-to-play' US immigration visa procurement business. Deletes law firm website and 'wipes' web server clean. ..."
    "... Love of freedom? Love of cash? Grieving Parent? How about all three? Neutral observer? That's a harder sell. ..."
    "... Khizr M. Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members. ..."
    "... As a media-manipulation exercise, it just confirms that the Dems know how to deploy media resources of their own. The stunt was well-executed and achieved its purpose. ..."
    "... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
    "... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
    "... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
    "... Unlike Trump, Bush did it the right way. His team assassinated the character of his bereaved critic through the normal, respectable political channels. Meanwhile the man of the moment enjoyed plausible deniability and the praise of future journalists. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, journalists, liberals, and Democrats are kvelling over John McCain's denunciation of Trump's comments about the Khans. They love this nearly annual morality tale, in which McCain is dutifully trotted out (or trots himself out) to clean up the mess of last night's frat party. ..."
    "... In 2002, after Saxby Chambliss ran that disgusting ad against Max Cleland (which I talk about in the OP), John McCain said, "I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield - it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible." Six years later, McCain campaigned for Chambliss's reelection. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Glenn 08.02.16 at 3:26 pm

    Khizr Khan's sound bite makes for good free political advertising, following the lead of Trump himself, but I don't believe he has read the Constitution, or if he has read it he didn't understand it.

    That should not trouble him overly much; Obama taught constitutional law and a generation of his students will not understand that only Congress can declare war.

    ... ... ...

    The conditions that produced and enabled Trump are the Democratic Party policies in its fake posture as an opposition party serving the interests of working people. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same-increasing disparity in wealth and income.

    To quote from "The Big Short", which the Clintons played no small part in bringing about by the repeal of Glass-Steagall and passing NAFTA: "Truth is like poetry. And most people fucking hate poetry."

    The Democratic Party is bully enough to shut me and my chosen candidates down; and I don't like Trump, but I really like it when I see him kicking some lying elitist Democratic Party ass.

    I want to see if Democrats have it in them to stop being weasels.

    Glenn 08.02.16 at 4:23 pm

    Consider then the partisan nature of worthiness determined by Democrats in their vilification of Cindy Sheehan for daring to effect a change in the system that murdered her son, whose death was more recent, the same sorrow that Khizr Khan now deals with from a position of ignorance so common to Democrats, but so much more worthy of respect when the sorrow strikes out in their political favor, unlike with Cindy Sheehan, who struck out in opposition to the Democratic Party in electorally challenging Nancy Pelosi.

    kidneystones 08.02.16 at 9:57 pm

    It's absolutely not about the money. Pocket Constitution waving grieving father at DNC denouncing temporary ban on Muslim immigration coincidentally runs 'pay-to-play' US immigration visa procurement business. Deletes law firm website and 'wipes' web server clean.

    Trump has already seized on the 'If I were president, Captain Khan would be alive meme.'

    How long till the Khan grieving father looking to profit from selling visas access scam blows up the media narrative? What about Khan's business tax returns? Follow the money?

    The media loves building the narrative of the hero almost as much as they love tearing it apart.

    Think Trump will ignore Khan's entirely legitimate immigration business scam? I mean the one he just deleted? Think the media won't give Trumps comments on that story any airtime?

    Love of freedom? Love of cash? Grieving Parent? How about all three? Neutral observer? That's a harder sell.

    From the Wayback machine

    : https://web.archive.org/web/20160801212033/http://www.kmkhanlaw.com/International_Business.html

    Pointing to any or all of Khan's deleted business activities/interests is a 'McCarthyite' slur on the memory of a Gold Star mother and all others who so gloriously serve.

    kidneystones 08.02.16 at 9:59 pm

    Via Breitbart. Who else?

    http://kmkhanlaw.com/?reqp=1&reqr=nzcdYz9ypaMao25yMl5jLab=


    kidneystones 08.02.16 at 10:44 pm

    Going dark. What's the bet the Gold Star father goes off the radar because of 'family' issues? "…

    Khizr M. Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members. It also said that he helps in the purchase of U.S. real estate and businesses. The website lists his ability to practice in New York, though it gives a Washington phone number for the lawyer who lives in Virginia. A man who answered the phone said the website was correct, though he would not identify himself."

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/khan-specializes-in-visa-programs-accused-of-selling-u.s.-citizenship/article/2598279

    Mr. Khan evidently deleted his website after the Examiner story broke. Needless to say, the facts clearly indicate a highly reputable individual specializing in helping foreign businesses in the Middle East and elsewhere buy/invest in undervalued (we assume) US assets and provide green cards for their families, all according to law.

    There's clearly nothing in this account for Trump to make a fuss about.

    So, why is Mr.Khan suddenly going to such lengths to conceal a business he clearly has no reason to hide?


    kidneystones 08.02.16 at 11:05 pm


    TPM has pretty much dumped the Khan story, making it part of the past. No mention at all of stories of Khan's financial incentives for opposing Trump, naturally. Josh does insert a 'distractor' link to nutcase scare stories. As a media-manipulation exercise, it just confirms that the Dems know how to deploy media resources of their own. The stunt was well-executed and achieved its purpose. So, I fully expect the media and HRC supporters to recommend 'we all just move on.'

    Trump, however, may not let it go.

    http://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/donald-trump-one-on-one-with-sinclair

    Trump is doubling down on his beefs with the GOP establishment. No doubt, this is a full out attack on the globalist-Koch branch of the GOP. The Kochs gave TPP-loving Ryan a standing ovation. Good thing Dems are backing a candidate firmly in favor of TPP.

    Obama, another TPP fan, jumped on the bandwagon – so it's unanimous.

    Trump is the only major political candidate firmly opposed to ending the TPP. But don't support him because Trump hates all Muslims. Just ask Capt. Khan's dad.


    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:37 am

    84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.

    What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.

    What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and beyond criticism.

    We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.

    The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of air force planners…

    The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated, turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over 15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure or its contents escaped damage."

    The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that

    "probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."

    The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…

    "In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics) http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html

    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am

    @ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.

    You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.

    Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?

    We're done.

    JM Hatch 08.03.16 at 2:23 am

    @41 Lee Arnold: Are you referring to the Warren Buffet who owns Fruit-of-the-Loom? The same company which had Hillary's State Dept bust up a minimum wage law for Haiti's textile industry? The same company which then donated to the Clinton Foundation for aid that never arrived to Haiti? If not, then who is this Warren Buffet?

    oldster 08.03.16 at 5:28 am

    Still, there was one upside to Bush's minions attacks on Sheehan. Way back in those antediluvian times, John Cole was still a supporter of Bush and the Iraq War. (Bless his heart, he soon learned better) He defended the wing-nuts who were calling Sheehan a prostitute by saying that this was metaphorical. This inspired The Editors writing at The Poor Man to write a response that featured the phrase "enormous mendacious disembodied anus", which has passed into internet legend.

    And probably passed out of internet legend once again, since of the people who were alive in those days to be amused, very few are still alive to recall it. It was the heyday of war-blogging, and anti-(war-blog)-blogging. We really sacrificed in those days, let me tell you–it was our own personal Vietnam.

    Corey Robin 08.03.16 at 4:53 am

    The record of George W. Bush-the man who Ezra Klein claims would never have treated the Khans the way Trump has-with regard to Cindy Sheehan, whose son was also killed in Iraq, is even worse than I realized. As Brendan James reports in Slate:

    It's true, as the people tipping their hats to Bush have pointed out, that the president himself did not attack Sheehan the way Trump has gone after the Khans. But he didn't have to. He let his underlings do it.

    "Cindy Sheehan is a clown," said Bush's senior adviser and dirty trickster Karl Rove, whose management of the media ecosystem was unparalleled. The Washington Post reported at the time that Sheehan was a frequent topic of conversation between the president and his advisers. And somehow, some way, Rove's sentiment trickled down into every pore of the conservative press. Bill O'Reilly called Sheehan "dumb enough" to get "in bed" with the radical left. Glenn Beck called Sheehan a "tragedy pimp" who was "prostituting her son's death." Rush Limbaugh said she was somehow lying about having lost her son.

    Unlike Trump, Bush did it the right way. His team assassinated the character of his bereaved critic through the normal, respectable political channels. Meanwhile the man of the moment enjoyed plausible deniability and the praise of future journalists.

    Corey Robin 08.03.16 at 4:59 am

    Meanwhile, journalists, liberals, and Democrats are kvelling over John McCain's denunciation of Trump's comments about the Khans. They love this nearly annual morality tale, in which McCain is dutifully trotted out (or trots himself out) to clean up the mess of last night's frat party.

    Again, a little memory is helpful.

    In 2002, after Saxby Chambliss ran that disgusting ad against Max Cleland (which I talk about in the OP), John McCain said, "I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield - it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible." Six years later, McCain campaigned for Chambliss's reelection.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Clinton's campaign now faces the problem that they have won in August, but the election is in November.

    Notable quotes:
    "... So, taking up CR's Nixon-McGovern analogy: Clinton risks coming into office as a thoroughly disliked President from day one. The level of suspicion and cynicism of expectation is very high. And, though Trump won't ever have a chance in the campaign, his way of attacking opponents is likely to intensify a broad spectrum of opinion that calls into question Clinton's legitimacy and real commitments. ..."
    "... Nixon did experience pressure from the Republican Right, but he was also constrained by a Democratic Congress. If Nixon continued to govern as if the New Deal remained in place, it is because he faced a New Deal Congress. ..."
    "... Clinton will face a similar problem, but it will be more of her own making, because her politics and her hold over the Democratic Party, depend on not challenging the Republican base of power in the States and in Congress. ..."
    "... Trump might withhold an endorsement of Speaker Ryan for a few days, but the Democratic establishment isn't going to unseat Ryan, even though Ryan's district is one Obama won. ..."
    "... One path to this whole thing coming apart is a new generation of much younger Democrats trying to gain power in States where the Republicans have been showing their true colors. They will have to fight the Democratic Establishment in Washington to do so, and fight very hard. ..."
    "... The other is path is crisis. This is a politics of nominal stalemate, enabling a politics of sclerosis and corruption. ..."
    "... These paths are far from mutually exclusive, but there's a very real risk that a fractured and weakened polity turns to authoritarianism. If your politics does not permit reasoned discussion and deliberation, authoritarianism is the alternative when some kind of adaptive reform is required by events. ..."
    "... "Symbiosis" means the two sides work together, feed off each other. And, no I am not saying the Democrats in general feed off the Republicans, though obviously any two-party system locks the two Parties into a waltz in which one Party leads the other, with every step forward by one, a step back by the other. ..."
    "... What I mean by "symbiosis" in this case is a more specific dynamic by which the Clintonites, who are corrupt centrists at best and reactionary conservatives at worst, keep control of the nominally progressive Party. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.10.16 at 5:00 pm

    "Anything can happen" is one of those things that people say and I suppose it is trivially true. Certainly, if you are trying to sell click-thru's with alleged political news, you at the very least want to preserve the possibility of (new) news. At this point, though, I fear that the affirmation, "Trump could win this" suggests the opposite.

    Clinton's campaign now faces the problem that they have won . . . in August, but the election is in November.

    Do they keep up the campaign, organized around "dangerous Donald"? Is there a risk of wearing out its themes? Trump is in a box assigned to him by the Media. The Media have their canned narrative thru which anything Trump says will be filtered. He's been neutered. The Media Publishers await the spending of campaign cash, while the Editors have their orders.

    Even Scott Adams has conceded that the Donald may have been bested by Clinton's "dangerous Donald" propaganda and may be too inflexible in his personality to take any of the practical options to come back.

    What I would notice is that Clinton's campaign to get people to like her - "I'm with her" - did not win. Clinton will win in November, certainly. But, she will take office as one of the most seriously disliked politicians to win the Presidency in memory. I say this as someone who voted for Tricky Dick Nixon over McGovern. Usually, the seriously disliked Presidents get elected as Vice-President first. But, maybe she did - sorta. Maybe that's what her career as Secretary of State did for her.

    So, taking up CR's Nixon-McGovern analogy: Clinton risks coming into office as a thoroughly disliked President from day one. The level of suspicion and cynicism of expectation is very high. And, though Trump won't ever have a chance in the campaign, his way of attacking opponents is likely to intensify a broad spectrum of opinion that calls into question Clinton's legitimacy and real commitments.

    Nixon did experience pressure from the Republican Right, but he was also constrained by a Democratic Congress. If Nixon continued to govern as if the New Deal remained in place, it is because he faced a New Deal Congress. Not just Democratic majorities, but long-standing majorities and committee chairman who knew where the bodies were buried and how to pull the levers of power. That would change only gradually with the seniority system scrapped in the mid-1970s and the New Deal politics by which Congress critters played interests off against one another to maintain their own power eroded decisively only in Reagan's second term, as trade liberalization and deregulation and other policies took hold and the corporate executive class began their rise, driving changes in the lobbyist culture and dynamic.

    Clinton will face a similar problem, but it will be more of her own making, because her politics and her hold over the Democratic Party, depend on not challenging the Republican base of power in the States and in Congress. Clinton is not going to say to her minions, "OK, we've got this won, let's funnel all the campaign money and effort into winning the House so we have opportunities to govern effectively. Let's get Democratic Governors in place, so we can get Obamacare's Medicaid expansion working properly without privatization."

    Trump might withhold an endorsement of Speaker Ryan for a few days, but the Democratic establishment isn't going to unseat Ryan, even though Ryan's district is one Obama won.

    The Democratic Party - the rank and file and even the general run of Congress people - have become much more "socialist" for lack of a better term, but they have no experience of power. Few have served long in the Obama Administration. Most States are dominated by Republicans. In some States, like Kansas and North Carolina, "dominated" really does mean dominated. Democrats are a minority in Congress and the old leadership is retiring.

    One path to this whole thing coming apart is a new generation of much younger Democrats trying to gain power in States where the Republicans have been showing their true colors. They will have to fight the Democratic Establishment in Washington to do so, and fight very hard.

    The other is path is crisis. This is a politics of nominal stalemate, enabling a politics of sclerosis and corruption.

    These paths are far from mutually exclusive, but there's a very real risk that a fractured and weakened polity turns to authoritarianism. If your politics does not permit reasoned discussion and deliberation, authoritarianism is the alternative when some kind of adaptive reform is required by events.

    bruce wilder 08.10.16 at 5:00 pm

    Faustusnotes misreads me on Benghazi. (What else is new?) I was not saying, "both sides do it". That's not my point. My point is that the Right's obsessions with Benghazi (and with the email server) are gifts to Clinton. They take issues where Clinton's bad judgment is on display, and they transform them into a circus where what is on display instead is the Right's lunacy. The Benghazi hearings made Clinton look good, if that were possible; embattled, persecuted unwarrantedly. No sane person would want to pay much attention and the superficial takeaway impression is that there is no there, there in Rightwing accusations and fantasizing.

    "Symbiosis" means the two sides work together, feed off each other. And, no I am not saying the Democrats in general feed off the Republicans, though obviously any two-party system locks the two Parties into a waltz in which one Party leads the other, with every step forward by one, a step back by the other.

    What I mean by "symbiosis" in this case is a more specific dynamic by which the Clintonites, who are corrupt centrists at best and reactionary conservatives at worst, keep control of the nominally progressive Party.

    [Aug 18, 2016] And the truly frightening part is where team blue supporters insist that everyone pretend every 4 years that a Clinton, or Obama, is somehow less willing to kill at will than a Romney, or a Trump.

    Notable quotes:
    "... What I see is a Reagan, or a Bush, cheerfully admitting to American exceptionalism and in the need to kill at will. What frightens me is the inability of Americans to realize outsiders see pretty much the same willingness to kill at will from a Clinton, or Obama. ..."
    "... And the truly frightening part is where team blue supporters insist that everyone pretend every 4 years that a Clinton, or Obama, is somehow less willing to kill at will than a Romney, or a Trump. ..."
    "... We have a video of one political candidate laughing at murder, who 'never' holds press conferences, running to replace a president who expanded and entrenched the Bush-Cheney security state and who suppresses dissent and whistle-blowing with the vigor of a Nixon. Outsiders have learned to survive every 'too crazy to be true' you people elect. Of course, that's not as easy if one happens to live in the wrong part of the world. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.10.16 at 2:45 am

    @491 This is very good, Corey. I think you are precisely right about how (ahem) informed outsiders view the 'enormous' differences between the two political parties. What I see is a Reagan, or a Bush, cheerfully admitting to American exceptionalism and in the need to kill at will. What frightens me is the inability of Americans to realize outsiders see pretty much the same willingness to kill at will from a Clinton, or Obama.

    And the truly frightening part is where team blue supporters insist that everyone pretend every 4 years that a Clinton, or Obama, is somehow less willing to kill at will than a Romney, or a Trump.

    We have a video of one political candidate laughing at murder, who 'never' holds press conferences, running to replace a president who expanded and entrenched the Bush-Cheney security state and who suppresses dissent and whistle-blowing with the vigor of a Nixon. Outsiders have learned to survive every 'too crazy to be true' you people elect. Of course, that's not as easy if one happens to live in the wrong part of the world.

    Re: Republican weakness. That's sure to be a much-studied topic. At the state level Republicans are very strong. As 'racist' and 'sexist' as it is to say, the uniqueness of electing an African-American and then, perhaps, the woman he defeated speak very positively about the US in general. This stuff matters to you and that's nothing to be ashamed of.

    [Aug 18, 2016] We are seeing right now in real time exactly the same denunciations of one candidate by virtually all media outlets, all elite Dems, and many elite Republicans

    Notable quotes:
    "... We're seeing right now in real time exactly the same denunciations of one candidate by virtually all media outlets, all elite Dems, and many elite Republicans. When there were a number of candidates and two races and two outsiders, much of the press bias may have slipped beneath the radar. ..."
    "... At some point probably very soon Trump is going to be the real underdog. Not the underdog of imagination, no longer a billionaire whining about not being treated fairly. But the target of an unrelenting series of negative news stories and TV and radio commercials that leave no doubt in the minds of most voters that Trump has much less of a chance of winning than Hillary. ..."
    "... The anti-Trump stories are probably white noise already to many neutrals. Trump supporters stopped listening to the media long ago. ..."
    "... When the NYT, MSNBC, Bill Mahr, and on and on and on all tell people they can't possibly vote for Trump, how do you think folks are going to respond? I mean, about being told they don't actually have a choice. Cause that's what's happening now. ..."
    "... And the same people telling folks they don't have a choice are precisely the same people who predicted/promised that Trump would never win the nomination. Trump just needs to stay in the game. If he's within five points in October, I still say he edges it. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.10.16 at 2:23 pm

    We're seeing right now in real time exactly the same denunciations of one candidate by virtually all media outlets, all elite Dems, and many elite Republicans. When there were a number of candidates and two races and two outsiders, much of the press bias may have slipped beneath the radar.

    At some point probably very soon Trump is going to be the real underdog. Not the underdog of imagination, no longer a billionaire whining about not being treated fairly. But the target of an unrelenting series of negative news stories and TV and radio commercials that leave no doubt in the minds of most voters that Trump has much less of a chance of winning than Hillary.

    The anti-Trump stories are probably white noise already to many neutrals. Trump supporters stopped listening to the media long ago.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/09/media-justify-anti-trump-bias-claim-hes-too-dangerous-for-normal-rules.html

    When the NYT, MSNBC, Bill Mahr, and on and on and on all tell people they can't possibly vote for Trump, how do you think folks are going to respond? I mean, about being told they don't actually have a choice. Cause that's what's happening now.

    And the same people telling folks they don't have a choice are precisely the same people who predicted/promised that Trump would never win the nomination. Trump just needs to stay in the game. If he's within five points in October, I still say he edges it.

    Go figure!

    [Aug 18, 2016] Trump won the nomination by claiming the media and the elites rig the system against outsiders like Bernie and him and that the media and elites of both parties are indifferent to the problems and concerns of voters

    Notable quotes:
    "... The difference is the media and the elites are openly producing elite narratives in a manner that really do make Trump the underdog. Trump won the nomination by claiming the media elites and most of the politicians in both parties are in the pockets of the rich. That's an argument that continues to resonate. ..."
    "... The fact is that Trump and Sanders are both the result of a system that works precisely the way Trump and Saunders describe it. A significant block of voters understand that. ..."
    "... These voters are extremely unlikely to be distracted by any stories on any topic. Their focus is on jobs and the indifference of the media and politicians of both political parties to the need for jobs. ..."
    "... Trump's experience in the construction trades matters to voters because infrastructure construction provides short-terms and long-term jobs and training programs. Trump went to Detroit and described the city as HRC's blueprint for America. ..."
    "... The problem for the media, the Democrats, and their supporters is that practically nobody sees HRC as anything but the ultimate insider agent of the rich, who happens to wear a dress. She first got to the WH as a political wife. She was parachuted into a safe Senate seat to start her 'run for office.' She was awarded a plum position in the administration in large part to placate her followers and heal some of the 'Clintons and their supporters are all racists' wounds. After leaving the administration, she and her husband earned millions which poured into a private foundation. The DNC and the Dems colluded to keep her only opponent from winning. The DOJ just ruled the Clintion Cash Cow to be beyond investigation. And now, this ultimate insider is re-packaging herself as 'the best darn change-agent' president 'women as tissues' has ever seen. And then there are the drones. ..."
    "... The media can't cover the issues fairly because the issues confirm their chosen candidate can't be trusted on the issues that most Americans care about most. Most voters, including HRC voters, understand the difference between scare stories and solutions. ..."
    "... Suffice to say a counter-narrative exists: one in which Trump has committed very few of the crimes which the gullible routinely swallow as fact ..."
    "... Minds are made up, truth has to be sacrificed in order to 'prevent the end of mankind.' Rest assured, we'd be hearing precisely the same 'end of the world' spew were Bush, or any other placeholder the candidate ..."
    "... The choice between HRC and Bush is essentially no choice ..."
    "... The choice between HRC and Trump may actually be less of a choice than many believe ..."
    "... Take a chance with Trump, or settle in for 4-8 more years of Obama, only worse ..."
    "... Voters decide in November. I still say Trump edges it, at least ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.10.16 at 11:06 pm 564

    Trump won the nomination by claiming the media and the elites rig the system against outsiders like Bernie and him and that the media and elites of both parties are indifferent to the problems and concerns of many, many voters.

    The same thing is occurring in real-time now. The difference is the media and the elites are openly producing elite narratives in a manner that really do make Trump the underdog. Trump won the nomination by claiming the media elites and most of the politicians in both parties are in the pockets of the rich. That's an argument that continues to resonate.

    The fact is that Trump and Sanders are both the result of a system that works precisely the way Trump and Saunders describe it. A significant block of voters understand that.

    Voters also understand that HRC/Bush are simply the current/past iterations of a system that denies any voice to ordinary voters. There will be no real change, except on the periphery and that's the function of the elections – in a very real sense we're living the living, breathing embodiment of Burke's conservatism.

    Yes, LGBT rights are a good thing. After that, what?

    kidneystones 08.10.16 at 11:28 pm

    The fact is that a great many voters have seen their wages go down, or remain stagnant, over the past two decades as they read stories day to day of a soaring stock market and all kinds of economic good times.

    These voters are extremely unlikely to be distracted by any stories on any topic. Their focus is on jobs and the indifference of the media and politicians of both political parties to the need for jobs.

    Trump's experience in the construction trades matters to voters because infrastructure construction provides short-terms and long-term jobs and training programs. Trump went to Detroit and described the city as HRC's blueprint for America.

    The problem for the media, the Democrats, and their supporters is that practically nobody sees HRC as anything but the ultimate insider agent of the rich, who happens to wear a dress. She first got to the WH as a political wife. She was parachuted into a safe Senate seat to start her 'run for office.' She was awarded a plum position in the administration in large part to placate her followers and heal some of the 'Clintons and their supporters are all racists' wounds. After leaving the administration, she and her husband earned millions which poured into a private foundation. The DNC and the Dems colluded to keep her only opponent from winning. The DOJ just ruled the Clintion Cash Cow to be beyond investigation. And now, this ultimate insider is re-packaging herself as 'the best darn change-agent' president 'women as tissues' has ever seen. And then there are the drones.

    The media can't cover the issues fairly because the issues confirm their chosen candidate can't be trusted on the issues that most Americans care about most. Most voters, including HRC voters, understand the difference between scare stories and solutions.

    Both candidates traffic in scare stories. Only one offers solutions that resonate with voters.

    That candidate wins.

    kidneystones 08.11.16 at 12:32 am

    Actually, as we can see now. An awful lot of people are betting the farm that enough voters buy into that narrative. As I mentioned above, the people promulgating precisely this myth have been doing just that ever since he began running for office to no great effect.

    Suffice to say a counter-narrative exists: one in which Trump has committed very few of the crimes which the gullible routinely swallow as fact. Unless, of course, you and the vast majority here are about to assert a complete lack of confirmation bias on this matter.

    Minds are made up, truth has to be sacrificed in order to 'prevent the end of mankind.' Rest assured, we'd be hearing precisely the same 'end of the world' spew were Bush, or any other placeholder the candidate.

    The choice between HRC and Bush is essentially no choice.

    The choice between HRC and Trump may actually be less of a choice than many believe. We're unlikely to get to that discussion any time soon.

    No jobs, shitty schools and roads mean more votes for Trump.

    Take a chance with Trump, or settle in for 4-8 more years of Obama, only worse. Many voters have already decided. As we can see, the swing states are indeed swinging.

    Voters decide in November. I still say Trump edges it, at least.

    [Aug 18, 2016] If anyone does plan on seriously trying to make the case Trump is a fascist to me, at least, they'll need to cite policy positions from Trump's web site

    Notable quotes:
    "... I don't see Trump as fascist in any workable, or historically grounded use of the term. ..."
    "... The US government is an enormous cash-cow for an immense number of special interests. The notion that the PACs and special interests will just pack-up shop and write off the money they plan to make with a Bush/HRC in power is absurd. They'll hobble Trump they same way they handcuffed Carter, and start playing the same sorts of games. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.11.16 at 6:45 am 594

    @ 592 'With Trump, X is fascism (roughly) which is why I'm against Trump in spite of the very real possibility that a lot of his threats will turn out to be just empty talk.'

    Recognizing this is a blog comments section and that a certain degree of rhetorical excess is expected, I'd be very curious to learn which 'threats' make Trump a 'fascist.'

    I don't see Trump as fascist in any workable, or historically grounded use of the term.

    I'm not at all confident in Trump's ability to pull the levers of government, hence my own skepticism that he'll actually be able to rebuild the US economy in the way he's promising, or achieve many, any of his foreign policy goals. However, I see no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that any of his most fervent supporters would support abrogating any, or even some parts of the constitution. He is absolutely running as some kind of 'time to clean up Washington' populist. I'm certain, however, that those currently wielding power through their stooges in both parties are entirely willing to make defying Trump a wise and enriching decision.

    The US government is an enormous cash-cow for an immense number of special interests. The notion that the PACs and special interests will just pack-up shop and write off the money they plan to make with a Bush/HRC in power is absurd. They'll hobble Trump they same way they handcuffed Carter, and start playing the same sorts of games.

    If anyone does plan on seriously trying to make the case Trump is a fascist to me, at least, they'll need to cite policy positions from Trump's web site. And we know how few are willing to endure that....

    [Aug 18, 2016] Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted

    Notable quotes:
    "... In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. ..."
    "... The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. ..."
    "... Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? ..."
    "... It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. ..."
    "... Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted ..."
    "... The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    stevenjohnson 08.09.16 at 3:46 pm

    Criticizing Clinton from the right is just as reactionary as criticizing Trump from the right. Further, assigning an individual such personal responsibility denies the reality of a bipartisan system that administers an imperialist government with only a formal simulacrum of popular support. That is, this "criticism" is fundamentally from the right.

    In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. The careers of Stevenson and Bolton alone show that the potential importance of security council veto means the President reserves direct supervision for himself, no matter what an organizational chart may say.

    The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. The implication that for a Secretary of State to sell weapons to foreign nations isn't constituent service borders on the silly. Besides, isolationism is not left win, never has been, never was.

    And the implication that the any US government would ever favor supporting a leftish president in Latin America because of its commitment to democracy thoroughly falsifies the nature of the US government. Disappearing left criticism of Obama is thoroughly reactionary.

    Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? Buying into this is buying decades of reactionary propaganda. I suppose this is mindlessness enough to satisfy people who alleged that SYRIZA was going to save Greece (the rock that should by the way have sunk Jacobin magazines credibility, leaving next to the Titanic,) or Bernie Sanders was starting a revolution.

    It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. I suppose F. Foundling eager awaits Trump's great "Nixon goes to China" moment. I have no idea why.

    Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted. As to which one it is, there has really never been much doubt that Clinton in the end will gain enough minority support to carry the big cities. But if the reactionaries depress the turnout enough, Trump has a shot at an electoral college victory, especially given the precedents on how votes are counted.

    The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Hillary Victory Fund

    Notable quotes:
    "... Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . . . 44 percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent. ..."
    "... Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties ..."
    "... The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 1:08 am

    Layman @ 79

    I am not interested in a prolonged back and forth, but I will lay out a bare outline of facts. I do not find much support for your characterization of these arrangements, which give new meaning to the fungibility of funds. I think it is fair and accurate to describe the HVF transfer arrangements as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits and using the State parties to subsidize the Clinton campaign. Court rulings have made aggregate fund raising legal and invites this means of circumventing the $2700 limit on individual Presidential campaign donations. Whether the circumvention is legal - whether it violates the law to invite nominal contributions to State Parties of $10,000 and channel those contributions wholly to operations in support of Clinton, while leaving nothing in State Party coffers is actually illegal, I couldn't say; it certainly violates the norms of a putative joint fundraising effort. It wasn't hard for POLITICO to find State officials who said as much. The rest of this comment quotes POLITICO reports dated July 2016.

    Hillary Victory Fund, which now includes 40 state Democratic Party committees, theoretically could accept checks as large as $436,100 - based on the individual limits of $10,000 per state party, $33,400 for the DNC, and $2,700 for Clinton's campaign.

    Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . . . 44 percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent.

    . . . state parties have received $7.7 million in transfers, but within a few days of most transfers, almost all of the cash - $6.9 million - was transferred to the DNC . . .

    The only date on which most state parties received money from the victory fund and didn't pass any of it on to the DNC was May 2, the same day that POLITICO published an article exposing the arrangement.

    Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties.


    The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials.

    JM Hatch 08.03.16 at 2:23 am

    @41 Lee Arnold: Are you referring to the Warren Buffet who owns Fruit-of-the-Loom? The same company which had Hillary's State Dept bust up a minimum wage law for Haiti's textile industry? The same company which then donated to the Clinton Foundation for aid that never arrived to Haiti? If not, then who is this Warren Buffet?

    [Aug 18, 2016] Trump is not a republican campaign of Hillary to attact republican voters can backfire

    crookedtimber.org

    Corey Robin, 08.12.16 at 3:21 am 645

    A leaked email from a top DNC official in May shows that Democratic insiders were really leery of Clinton's strategy of trying to claim Trump is completely different from Republicans past and present. As this official points out, that strategy actually runs the risk of harming down-ballot Democrats running for office in Congress and state legislatures. It may help Clinton, but it's not good for the party. It also shows that the line that so many have swallowed about Trump being so different was actually a deliberate meme cultivated by Clinton's people, which then trickled down the food chain of the media and so on down the line, and that it ran in the face of how other DNC officials (and heavy-hitting members of Congress) wanted to frame the debate.

    I discuss the email here:

    http://coreyrobin.com/2016/08/11/how-clinton-enables-the-republican-party/

    Here's the text of the email from Luis Miranda, the DNC official:

    Hi Amy, the Clinton rapid response operation we deal with have been asking us to disaggregate Trump from down ballot Republicans. They basically want to make the case that you either stand with Ryan or with Trump, that Trump is much worse than regular Republicans and they don't want us to tie Trump to other Republicans because they think it makes him look normal.

    They wanted us to basically praise Ryan when Trump was meeting Ryan, or at a minimum to hold him up as an example. So they want to embrace the "Republicans fleeing Trump" side, but not hold down ballot GOPers accountable.

    That's a problem. I pushed back that we cannot have our state parties hold up Paul Ryan as a good example of anything. And that we can't give down ballot Republicans such an easy out. We can force them to own Trump and damage them more by pointing out that they're just as bad on specific policies, make them uncomfortable where he's particularly egregious, but asking state Parties to praise House Republicans like Ryan would be damaging for the Party down ballot.

    Can you help us navigate this with Charlie? We would basically have to throw out our entire frame that the GOP made Trump through years of divisive and ugly politics. We would have to say that Republicans are reasonable and that the good ones will shun Trump. It just doesn't work from the Party side. Let me know what you think.

    Thanks, – Luis.

    P.S. – – that strategy would ALSO put us at odds with Schumer, Lujan, Pelosi, Reid, basically all of our Congressional Democrats who have embraced our talking points and have been using them beautifully over the last couple of weeks to point out that GOPers in Congress have been pushing these ugly policies for years. Trying to dump this approach would probably not work with Members of Congress, it's worse than turning an aircraft carrier, we would lose 3/4 of the fleet. Let me know what you think. It might be a good strategy ONLY for Clinton (which I don't believe), I think instead she needs as many voices as possible on the same page.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Here's Trump's actual position on immigration and the deportations

    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.12.16 at 6:19 am

    ... ...

    Here's Trump's actual position on immigration and the deportations. Needless to say, some will find it plenty offensive. But it's radically different from what you've described. Were Hayden and company trashing a Dem, they'd be roundly and rightly condemned as precisely the same a-holes who've done so much damage over the years. But with Trump as the target, GOP clowns speak with the authority of god. Perfect.

    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

    [Aug 18, 2016] The reason so many foreign policy pundits are opposed to trump is not because of the possibility of making peace with Russia, but because they're neoliberal internationalists

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...As for the neocons, I'm quite sure that the real reason they hate him is because they think he actually might make peace with Russia and possibly deviate from the imperial agenda in other ways. In this, I have no sympathy for them.... ..."
    "... The similarities between the ways the vox crowd and vulgar Marxists view politics is really striking." ..."
    "... But 50 neocons some of them war criminals did issue a statement against.. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.13.16 at 12:34 am 718

    > F Foundling @ 705: In any case, [solidarity] doesn't need to be irrational or to have to do with narcissism (as suggested in 687) any more than acting in your own personal interests needs to be irrational or to have to do with narcissism.

    Thank you for thoughtful remarks @ 705 and @694.

    "Rational" and "irrational" can be a cause of great confusion. It is not some virtue I wish to ascribe, but, rather, to my mind, a matter of gamesmanship. As a strategy, not an ethic, solidarity is a way of committing one's self irrationally to not reconsider one's interests.

    The rat, betraying solidarity, is rational and selfish and calculating. Upholding solidarity requires an irrational ethic to trump strategic reconsideration.

    There can certainly be an element of enlightened self-interest in a commitment to solidarity. We hope this gift of the self to the community is not done stupidly or without some deliberate consideration of consequences.

    But, in the game, in the political contest where solidarity matters, where elite power is confronted, solidarity entails a degree of passionate commitment and even self-sacrifice. Whether expressed as an individual act of "altruistic punishment" or the common unwillingness to cooperate with the powers-that-be in a labor strike, there has to be a willingness to bear costs and forego opportunities.

    People have to be a bit mad to want justice.

    bruce wilder 08.13.16 at 12:47 am

    engels and others may appreciate Michael Pettis on the Trump phenomenon.

    He wrote this piece back in March and for reasons I cannot quite fathom he tried to tie in the Jacksonians - as if Donald Trump is some faded reprint of Andrew Jackson. But, ignore the part about the Jacksonians in American history and pay attention to what he says about his friend who is a supporter of Trump. It will complement Doug Henwood nicely, I suspect. And, Pettis has nothing nice to say about Trump - so no fear!

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/michael-pettis-trump-and-the-re-emergence-of-the-jacksonians.html

    F. Foundling, 08.13.16 at 1:56 am<

    ...As for the neocons, I'm quite sure that the real reason they hate him is because they think he actually might make peace with Russia and possibly deviate from the imperial agenda in other ways. In this, I have no sympathy for them....

    Ronan(rf), 08.13.16 at 2:34 am 725
    The reason so many foreign policy pundits ... are opposed to trump is not because of the possibility of making peace with Russia, but because they're liberal internationalists. They support the US led international order, think US hegemony is generally a force for good, and oppose powers and actors which will undermine the [neo]liberal order...

    Ronan(rf) 08.13.16 at 2:46 am 726

    Reasons someone on a middle income from an economically declining region might support trump(that aren't racism)
    Ronan(rf),

    "Reasons someone on a middle income from an economically declining region might support trump(that aren't racism)

    (1) support for other institutions (military , family, religion) mentioned above.

    (2) people don't vote individually but as a member of a group. Being a relatively prosperous member of a declining demographic has psychological consequences and perceived collective responsibilities.

    (3) middle income business owners are not a stable group.(socially or economically)

    (4) who do you think Is voting in these regions ? The poor in the US are less likely to vote.

    The similarities between the ways the vox crowd and vulgar Marxists view politics is really striking."

    engels 08.13.16 at 10:37 am 744

    Bruce thinks narcissism can be healthy, F. Foundling thinks it is excessive by definition. I understand it in what I think is the classical sense as a relation which is properly directed at others turned in on the individual. 'Narcissistic solidarity' would mean something like 'standing with oneself'-a conceptual absurdity. (I agree with the broader point that solidarity isn't inherently altruistic and doesn't preclude self-interest though.)

    Ronan(rf) 08.13.16 at 10:51 am 746

    "But 50 neocons some of them war criminals did issue a statement against.."

    On that. Im sorry for the ungenerous reading and cranky comment, f foundling. I was in a bit of a bad mood .

    ZM, I don't have time to reply at the minute, but will get back to it later .

    Ronan(rf) 08.13.16 at 11:02 am

    "Ronan,

    Weakening of unions is an important cause of support for Trump."

    Right, so you're now agreeing that a concentration on income only does not explain as much as you've been arguing above ?

    [Aug 18, 2016] Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president

    Notable quotes:
    "... How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty. ..."
    "... 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.12.16 at 7:00 am 669

    @ 668 "Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors."

    "But there's more evidence that he's batshit crazy. He declaimed that he knew more about ISIS than all the generals. He will trust no one's judgment but his own."

    So, your argument is that Obama (your Muslim socialist) should never have been trusted to be in the Oval Office.

    And that by these, your standards, Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president.

    Fair enough.

    https://www.aei.org/publication/obama-im-a-better-intelligence-briefer-than-my-intelligence-briefers/

    kidneystones 08.12.16 at 7:39 am 671

    @670 "I won't even look up the quote"

    Oh, you don't need to. That boat sailed the moment you decided to make Obama level hubris grounds for ineligibility. Obama's 'accomplishments prior to entering the Senate in 2004 are the stuff of legend to the clueless, of course.

    How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty.

    My life twice – plenty for everyone like to learn from! The perfect preparation for a great presidency. That and my love of basketball. That's what makes me so smart! Did anyone notice I'm young, black and handsome? Ignore that, please.

    And we are where we are. I've elided the 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date.

    Trump in 2016!

    [Aug 17, 2016] Clinton preps for Trumps Lewinsky attack

    It was Monica who saved us from gutting Social Security, which Bill Clinton conspired with republicans to dismantle. How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security
    Notable quotes:
    "... "You have to start off by saying, 'I want to thank the American people, especially Monica and Gennifer Flowers," anticipated a top Clinton ally with close ties to the campaign. "Nobody who is a friend of hers is going to want to say that in debate prep." ..."
    www.politico.com

    POLITICO

    This year in particular, it's a job that nobody close to Clinton is particularly eager to take on. "You have to start off by saying, 'I want to thank the American people, especially Monica and Gennifer Flowers," anticipated a top Clinton ally with close ties to the campaign. "Nobody who is a friend of hers is going to want to say that in debate prep."

    ... ... ...

    "It's a complicated debate prep," agreed Shrum. "The Clinton challenge is to prepare for the crazy Trump who will probably show up, some kind of toned-down Trump, and the somewhere-in-between Trump." Trump could spend 90 minutes berating Clinton for helping to found ISIS, Democrats said, or he could turn on the moderator and the media so that Clinton simply becomes a bystander rather than a participant. He could even devote real time to preparation and surprise Clinton by his substance on the issues.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Just a few (25) of the scandals, lies, and criminal activity of Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is worth reviewing the history of the Clinton Gang. "Just a few (25) of the scandals, lies, and criminal activity of Hillary Clinton." ..."
    endingthefed.com
    x | Aug 14, 2016 9:52:08 AM | 6
    It is worth reviewing the history of the Clinton Gang. "Just a few (25) of the scandals, lies, and criminal activity of Hillary Clinton."

    http://endingthefed.com/hillarys-camp-freaking-out-as-this-video-goes-viral-no-way-to-stop-it-now.html

    [Aug 16, 2016] Trust the crooks in Ukraine to come up with documentary evidence which can be used to show Trump is really Putins man

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the New York Times ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop, August 14, 2016 at 11:06 pm
    Trust the crooks in Ukraine to come up with 'documentary evidence' which can be used to show Trump is really Putin's man. I wonder how big an IMF package Hillary had to promise them? Or did she strike a deal with Porky to get Crimea back?

    In the New York Times , of course; the Democrats' FOX News. They'd like to see a home girl win.

    [Aug 16, 2016] I see Trump more like a reaction on hardships inflicted by neoliberal globalization on the USA common folk.

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Warren , August 15, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Donald Trump is the least of the GOP's problems

    marknesop , August 15, 2016 at 5:23 pm
    That's actually a very good piece; the author is a compelling writer.
    likbez , August 15, 2016 at 8:29 pm
    I disagree. And not only regarding his extraordinarily dubious periodization of US political history. This baloney about Republicanism does not make much sense. Also since the 1963 deep state became the dominant political force and parties and elections became more of a legitimization show. .

    I see Trump more like a reaction on hardships inflicted by neoliberal globalization on the USA common folk. So he is standard bearer of the strata of population hit by globalization, the strata which standard of living was dropping for the last two-three decades. Professional classes and financial oligarchy support Hillary, but blue color workers switched to Trump by large numbers. Trade union bosses expect that 50% or more of membership will vote for Trump. That's their way to say "f*ck you" to neoliberal establishment and so far they are saying it pretty politely, if we do not count several recent riots (which mainly involved black population). Now the neoliberal elite is afraid that even the slightest trigger can produce uncontrollable situation.

    That's why Hillary adopted a part of Sanders platform and is now against TPP (only until November:-) A lot of people are just fed up.

    That's why neocons such as Cruze and, especially, Rubio and Jeb! were defeated by Trump, and why only machinations of DNC allowed Hillary to be crowned over Sanders (Sanders betrayal also played a role).

    This is a situation perfect for "color revolution" (what we miss is just a capable and well financed three letter agency of some foreign power 😉 In other words the US elite partially lost the control of ordinary people and MSM no longer can brainwash them with previous efficiency because after 2008 the key idea of "trickle down economy" - that dramatically rising inequality will provide Untermensch with enough crumps from the table of Masters of the Universe (financial oligarchy) were proven to be false.

    Financial oligarchy does not want to share even crumps and decent job almost totally disappeared. Switch to contractor jobs and outsourcing means a significant drop in standard of living for, probably, 80-90% of population. Unemployment after university graduation is now pretty common.

    While neoliberalism managed to survive the crisis of 2008 the next crisis of neoliberalism is probably close (let's, say, can happen within the current decade). The economic plunder of the xUSSR economic space helped to delay this crisis for a decade or more, but now this process is by-and-large over (although Russia still is a piece of economic space to fight for - so its dismembering or color revolution is always in cards and not only for geopolitical reasons) . Secular stagnation does not play well with neoliberal globalization, so nationalistic movements are on the rise in different parts of the globe, including Europe. The "plato oil" situation does not help either. So here all bets are off.

    Note an unprecedented campaign of demonization of Trump in neoliberal media and attempt to link him to Putin, playing on pre-existing Russophobia of the population. I especially like "Khan gambit" (essentially swiftboating of Trump) and recent campaign salivating over the "assassination attempt" on Hillary by inflating one (unfortunate) Trump remark completely our of proportion. And that's only the beginning.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Is Trumps Extreme Vetting That Far Off Existing US Policies

    Aug 16, 2016 | Zero Hedge
    While the MSM has gone out of its way to question every plausible unintended consequence(s) of Donald Trump's new "extreme" vetting for immigrants, perhaps it is worth looking at some of the current questions the US Immigration Services asks and compare those to Trump's proposals. They may not be that far off.

    To recap, Trump proposed an ideological test of "Islamic sympathizers" to be admitted, focusing on issues including religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights.

    And while some have questioned the validity of a test, and whether a presumed terrorist would even be honest in said test, the experts and political pundits should take a look at what the US currently asks individuals.

    Evidently, if any of the US allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia) answered these questions honestly, they would not be admitted to the US. But, perhaps the best question still being asked to all immigrants is as follows:

    If the US government currently engages in these and other questionings, is it that far off to ask if you are anti gay rights, anti Semitic or pro sharia law?

    [Aug 16, 2016] Donald Trump's campaign team must disclose all pro-Russia links

    bbc.co.uk
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37080909

    Donald Trump's campaign team must disclose all pro-Russia links, Hillary Clinton's manager has said, following new allegations in the New York Times.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Must only be a matter of time then, when the US government discovers that Vladimir Putin might have met Melania Trump

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Dr. Filip Kovacevic @ Boiling Frogs Post/Newsbud: Newsbud Exclusive- Putin in Slovenia: An Analysis
    http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016/08/10/newsbud-exclusive-putin-in-slovenia-an-analysis/

    The Hidden Subtext Behind Putin's Third Slovenia Visit

    Putin is no stranger to the ex-Yugoslav republic of Slovenia. In fact, in June 2001, when Slovenia was still neither an EU nor a NATO member state, it was chosen as a neutral meeting place for the first official meeting between him and the U.S. president George W. Bush. Ironically, the meeting took place in the Brdo Castle near Kranj, one of the long-time Communist leader Tito's summer residences. At that time, the U.S. high level officials did everything they could to flatter Putin and get him to accept their hegemonic geopolitical agenda for Eastern Europe, Russia, and Eurasia in general. For instance, during the press conference that followed their two-hour long discussions, Bush stated that he could fully trust Putin in international matters because "he's an honest, straight-forward man who loves his country. He loves his family. We share a lot of values. I view him as a remarkable leader. I believe his leadership will serve Russia well."[1]

    But, when Putin, unlike Yeltsin, whose hand-picked successor he was, proved unwilling to play along with the U.S. plans, his stature in the U.S. foreign policy discourse quickly deteriorated from that of "a remarkable leader" and an honest patriot to that of a brutal dictator and even "a thug"…
    ####

    Read on, read on!

    The UNSG bid certainly looks like part of it though I doubt anyone from the Western blocs inc. asia would be favorable, let alone balanced towards Russia. I'm not sure that Washington is stupid enough to pick a fight with Europe over the Balkans, but then again Washington has a long record of their actions causing blowback to their 'allies' and saying "Tough. That's the price for riding on our coattails."

    Jen , August 15, 2016 at 3:17 pm
    Must only be a matter of time then, when the US government discovers that Vladimir Putin might have met Melania Trump (even if they just brushed past each other in a matter of seconds with both of them looking away from each other) and BINGO! – the connection between Lord Sauron and his robot Donald Trump is finally revealed.

    [Aug 15, 2016] Russia and Putin have been elected the sticks to beat Mr. Trunp with

    Thos pressitute now talking not stop and ties of Trump and Russia. I wonder when rumors about connections of Putin and Melania surface...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The article, very tendentious and rambling in the Post's normal diffuse style, short on facts, continues on page A10, half page above the fold, with the banner headline across the top "Russian meddling in European politics similar to DNC hack." ..."
    "... Then in the Outlook section, page B4, in the continuation of an article about conspiracy theories, there is a large, very unflattering picture of a frowning Mr. Putin, captioned "Is Russian President Vladimir Putin controlling Donald Trump ? That's one conspiracy theory floating around the 2016 campaign." ..."
    "... No doubt much of this is campaign related. Russia/Putin have been elected the sticks to beat Mr. Trunp with. If it continues until the election, however, it's likely public opinion, manufactured though it is, will be receptive to military action against Russia, as Hillary and her likely advisors have hinted openly, in Syria and the Ukraine. ..."
    "... WAPO's anti-Russia/Putin articles are part of this agenda: The New Cold War but this time it's different. ..."
    "... "The new Cold War is even more pointless than the first. Russia was cooperating with the West, and the Russian economy was integrated into the West as a supplier of raw materials. The neoliberal economic policy that Washington convinced the Russian government to implement was designed to keep the Russian economy in the role of supplier of raw materials to the West. Russia expressed no territorial ambitions and spent very little on its military. ..."
    "... The new Cold War is the work of a handful of neoconservative fanatics who believe that History has chosen the US to wield hegemonic power over the world. Some of the neocons are sons of former Trotskyists and have the same romantic notion of world revolution, only this time it is "democratic-capitalist" and not communist. The new Cold War is far more dangerous than the old, because the respective war doctrines of the nuclear powers have changed. The function of nuclear weapons is no longer retaliatory. Mutually Assured Destruction was a guarantee that the weapons would not be used. In the new war doctrine nuclear weapons have been elevated to first-use in a preemptive nuclear attack. Washington first took this step, forcing Russia and China to follow. ..."
    "... Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have raised tensions dramatically ..."
    "... William Perry, Secretary of Defense in the Clinton regime, recently spoke of the danger of nuclear war being launched by false alarms resulting from such things as faulty computer chips. Fortunately, when such instances occurred in the past, the absence of tension in the relationship between the nuclear powers caused authorities on both sides to disbelieve the false alarms. Today, however, with constant allegations of pending Russian invasions, Putin demonized as "the new Hitler," and the buildup of US and NATO military forces on Russia's borders, a false alarm becomes believable ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Seward | Aug 14, 2016 9:51:01 AM | 5

    For those that haven't seen it, this morning's Sunday Washington Post features several prominent anti-Russia/Putin articles. One page A1, above the fold, is the headline "Russia's tactic's roil Europe", with subordinate headlines "INTERVENTION IN NEIGHBOR'S POLITIC'S" (all caps) and "Kremlin's alleged role in DNC hack is similar. The article, very tendentious and rambling in the Post's normal diffuse style, short on facts, continues on page A10, half page above the fold, with the banner headline across the top "Russian meddling in European politics similar to DNC hack."

    A large picture of Red Square is labeled "The Kremlin is visible to the right of a women looking at her smartphone in Red Square. Russia has tried hard in recent years tout European countries to its side bankrolling the countries extremist political parties and working to fuel a backlash against migrants."

    Below that there's a small picture of Mr. Putin, looking very worried, captioned ""President Vladimir Putin sought to build support for his vision, favoring authoritarian leaders over democratically elected ones." The article says essentially the same thing, in a diffuse, very rambling manner.

    Then in the Outlook section, page B4, in the continuation of an article about conspiracy theories, there is a large, very unflattering picture of a frowning Mr. Putin, captioned "Is Russian President Vladimir Putin controlling Donald Trump ? That's one conspiracy theory floating around the 2016 campaign."

    No doubt much of this is campaign related. Russia/Putin have been elected the sticks to beat Mr. Trunp with. If it continues until the election, however, it's likely public opinion, manufactured though it is, will be receptive to military action against Russia, as Hillary and her likely advisors have hinted openly, in Syria and the Ukraine.

    Mann | Aug 14, 2016 10:19:58 AM | 9

    Seward

    Question that arise, is MSM brainwashed to hate Russia or are they unknowingly spreading propaganda against Russia?

    Anyone want to take a guess?

    virgile | Aug 14, 2016 10:25:40 AM | 10
    Latest Seymour Hersh on Syria and other White House lies
    Can you summarize what is Turkey's role in the ceaseless clash and bloodletting in Syria?

    The Erdogan government was a covert supporter of the ISIS war against the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria for years, rearming ISIS fighters, buying seized Syrian oil from the ISIS at discount prices, and keeping the borders between Turkey and Syria, especially in Hakkari province, open for a steady stream of anti-Assad jihadists from around the world who wanted to join in the war against Syria. There also is evidence that some anti-Syrian factors in the United States have welcomed the Erdogan support or, at the least, looked away when necessary.

    Erdogan's constantly expanding extremism and grab for power was ignored, more or less, by many in the mainstream US media until early this year, and President Obama, for reasons not known, has yet to fully share the intelligence about Erdogan's political and religious obligations with the nation.

    The irony, or tragedy, of Erdogan's move to extremism is that throughout much of the last decade he was seen as being fully in the Ataturk tradition in Turkey -- that of a strong leader with strong religious beliefs who made sure that his nation remained secular. That is no longer true, as the recent coup, and Erdogan's extremist response to it, has made clear. Those called by Erdogan to go to the street and attack the army when the coup began to fail were not fighting in support of democracy, as widely reported at first, but as Islamists fighting a secular military.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37223-seymour-hersh-on-white-house-lies-about-bin-laden-s-death-pakistan-and-the-syrian-civil-war

    likklemore | Aug 14, 2016 11:04:21 AM | 13
    @ Seward 5

    WAPO's anti-Russia/Putin articles are part of this agenda: The New Cold War but this time it's different.

    Rethinking The Cold War - Paul Craig Roberts

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/11/rethinking-the-cold-war-paul-craig-roberts/

    [.]
    "The new Cold War is even more pointless than the first. Russia was cooperating with the West, and the Russian economy was integrated into the West as a supplier of raw materials. The neoliberal economic policy that Washington convinced the Russian government to implement was designed to keep the Russian economy in the role of supplier of raw materials to the West. Russia expressed no territorial ambitions and spent very little on its military.

    The new Cold War is the work of a handful of neoconservative fanatics who believe that History has chosen the US to wield hegemonic power over the world. Some of the neocons are sons of former Trotskyists and have the same romantic notion of world revolution, only this time it is "democratic-capitalist" and not communist.

    The new Cold War is far more dangerous than the old, because the respective war doctrines of the nuclear powers have changed. The function of nuclear weapons is no longer retaliatory. Mutually Assured Destruction was a guarantee that the weapons would not be used. In the new war doctrine nuclear weapons have been elevated to first-use in a preemptive nuclear attack. Washington first took this step, forcing Russia and China to follow.

    The new Cold War is more dangerous for a second reason. During the first Cold War American presidents focused on reducing tensions between nuclear powers. But the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have raised tensions dramatically .

    William Perry, Secretary of Defense in the Clinton regime, recently spoke of the danger of nuclear war being launched by false alarms resulting from such things as faulty computer chips. Fortunately, when such instances occurred in the past, the absence of tension in the relationship between the nuclear powers caused authorities on both sides to disbelieve the false alarms. Today, however, with constant allegations of pending Russian invasions, Putin demonized as "the new Hitler," and the buildup of US and NATO military forces on Russia's borders, a false alarm becomes believable ."[.]

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    It has a great deal to do with keeping the greedy MISC fed and NATO relevant. {MISC -> military industrial surveillance companies}
    Emphasis mine.

    [Aug 15, 2016] Secret Trump voters reverse their support: 'He seems to be insane' by Amber Jamieson

    What about Hillary Clinton my friend ? What a presstitute...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The media are completely biased...And spread utter lies about Trump, while Hillary immediately hires Debbie wasserman Schultz after she resigned in disgrace when exposed by DNC leaks/Europeans as cheating and colluding against another candidate. ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | theguardian.com

    AhBrightWings 1d ago

    "The media is like an extension of the DNC at this point. They'll intentionally misinterpret or exaggerate anything Trump says to try to help Hillary win the election," said a 50-year-old college professor from California.

    Of all the risible, most easily shucked off charges, this one takes the toupee. You cannot misinterpret or exaggerate this:

    "Barack Hussein Obama is the creator of ISIS. I mean...he's the literal inventor of ISIS."

    Let that treasonous libel stand for the innumerable times Trump has demonstrated that he's a mental dwarf, a vicious idiot, an unhinged loon. And that's calling it like it is, on his express terms.

    This man belongs in one of two cells: a padded one where he can be safe from his own mental illnesses or a prison one for his financial shenanigans, death threats against others, incitement to violence, "cruel and inhumane" abuse of his first wife (the actual charges that stuck, the rape ones were retracted) and treason. I guess money really can buy anything.

    But hell, I'd settle for seeing him safely ensconced in his own Towers. Anywhere but the White House.

    peter nelson -> Ozponerised , 1d ago
    His followers don't feel that way.

    Thete's a certain sort of university-educated, somewhat cosmopolitan person, who probably places a premium on rationality and an expectation that the world works in reasonably orderly manner. And they're not just on the left. They read the newspaper - the Guardian or the Telegraph or the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. They plan their careers and their retirements.

    And they cannot CONCEIVE of how Trump supporters (or many Brexit supporters) see the world. They don't get it; they can't wrap their heads around the anger and resentment. And they can't believe that that there are tens of MILLIONS of people like that. All of whom will vote.

    Just as we've seen with recent mass shootings, the rational cannot process the IRrational.

    hureharehure, 1d ago

    '. . . he was trying to be distasteful/politically incorrect as usual, which is why I will vote for the man. PC has ventured into thought policing on things, and along with the ultra surveillance state we have moved towards, I don't want to be answering questions by the Gestapo after I text a tacky joke to someone.'

    This amazes me. It shouldn't, as it seems to be a commonly-held sentiment even here, but it amazes me that people like this feel they have such a strong need to say "tacky" - or, more realistically, racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic - things that somehow they stand no chance of being able to continue saying unless an unhinged 70-year old man who is widely denounced for being disreputable is elected to represent them. It just does not add up as a pile of emotions, let alone as part of a political platform. This guy also seems to have such a poor grasp of history and a hysteric sense of melodrama as to believe that someone who criticizes him for making "a tacky joke" (or possibly just makes him feel awkward for having done so?) is the equivalent of "the Gestapo." He's more melodramatic about the reception his jokes might receive than a maladjusted teen who acts out in class.

    Josh Gilman, 1d ago
    I'm a former Democrat...And I'm voting for trump. Hillary Clinton is one of the most blatantly corrupt politician I have ever seen.

    The media are completely biased...And spread utter lies about Trump, while Hillary immediately hires Debbie wasserman Schultz after she resigned in disgrace when exposed by DNC leaks/Europeans as cheating and colluding against another candidate.

    Hillary didn't address this disgusting, illegal, unethical behavior , but she rewards and condones cheating voters with a JOB.

    Unbelievable.

    Josh Gilman -> hureharehure, 1d ago
    Except judge curiel DOES have ties to la raza and and DOES have a conflict of interest in presiding over trump's case.

    /former dem, Hillary is a liar and the fake journalists are letting her get away with it. Democrats have lost all respect

    [Aug 15, 2016] Hillary, Trump, and War with Russia

    www.unz.com

    The Unz Review

    A good reason to vote for Trump, a very good reason whatever his other intentions, is that he does not want a war with Russia. Hillary and her elite ventriloquists threaten just that. Note the anti-Russian hysteria coming from her and her remoras.

    Such a war would be yet another example of the utter control of America by rich insiders. No normal American has anything at all to gain by such a war. And no normal American has the slightest influence over whether such a war takes place, except by voting for Trump. The military has become entirely the plaything of unaccountable elites.

    A martial principle of great wisdom says that military stupidity comes in three grades: Ordinarily stupid; really, really, really stupid; and fighting Russia. Think Charles XII at Poltava, Napoleon after Borodino, Adolf and Kursk.

    Letting dilettantes, grifters, con men, pasty Neocons, bottle-blonde ruins, and corporations decide on war is insane. We have pseudo-masculine dwarves playing with things they do not understand. So far as I am aware, none of these fern-bar Clausewitzes has worn boots, been in a war, seen a war, or faces any chance of being in a war started by themselves. They brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and Isis, and can't win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are going to fight…Russia?

    A point that the tofu ferocities of New York might bear in mind is that wars seldom turn out as expected, usually with godawful results. We do not know what would happen in a war with Russia. Permit me a tedious catalog to make this point. It is very worth making.

    When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War, it expected a conflict that might be over in twenty-four hours, not four years with as least 650,000 dead. When Germany began WWI, it expected a swift lunge into Paris, not four years of hideously bloody static war followed by unconditional surrender. When the Japanese Army pushed for attacking Pearl, it did not foresee GIs marching in Tokyo and a couple of cities glowing at night. When Hitler invaded Poland, utter defeat and occupation of Germany was not among his war aims. When the US invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a bush-world country. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect…nor when America invaded Afghanistan, nor when it attacked Iraq, nor….

    Is there a pattern here?

    The standard American approach to war is to underestimate the enemy, overestimate American capacities, and misunderstand the kind of war it enters. This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine inadequates–think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony. If you don't think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.

    Now, if Washington accidentally or otherwise provoked a war with Russia in, say, the Baltics or the Ukraine, and actually used its own forces, where might this lead, given the Pentagon's customary delusional optimism? A very serious possibility is a humiliating American defeat. The US has not faced a real enemy in a long time. In that time the armed forces have been feminized and social-justice warriorified, with countless officials having been appointed by Obama for reasons of race and sex. Training has been watered down to benefit girl soldiers, physical standards lowered, and the ranks of general officers filled with perfumed political princes. Russia is right there at the Baltic borders: location, location, location. Somebody said, "Amateurs think strategy, professionals think logistics." Uh-huh. The Russians are not pansies and they are not primitive.

    What would Washington do, what would New York make Washington do, having been handed its ass in a very public defeat? Huge egos would be in play, the credibility of the whole American empire. Could little Hillary Dillary Pumpkin Pie force NATO into a general war with Russia, or would the Neocons try to go it alone–with other people's lives? (Russia also has borders with Eastern Europe, which connects to Western Europe. Do you suppose the Europeans would think of this?) Would Washington undertake, or try to undertake, the national mobilization that would be necessary to fight Russia in its backyard? Naval war? Nukes in desperation?

    And, since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity.

    The same danger exists incidentally with regard to a war with China in the South China Sea. The American Navy hasn't fought a war in seventy years. It doesn't know how well its armament works. The Chinese, who are not fools, have invested in weaponry specifically designed to defeat carrier battle groups. A carrier in smoking ruins would force Washington to start a wider war to save face, with unpredictable results. Can you name one American, other than the elites, who has anything to gain from war with China?

    What has any normal American, as distinct from the elites and various lobbies, gained from any of our wars post Nine-Eleven? Hillary and her Neocon pack have backed all of them.

    It is easy to regard countries as suprahuman beings that think and take decisions and do things. Practically speaking, countries consist of a small number of people, usually men, who make decisions for reasons often selfish, pathologically aggressive, pecuniary, delusional, misinformed, or actually psychopathic in the psychiatric sense. For example, the invasion of Iraq, a disaster, was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil, the arms lobbies to get contracts, the Jewish lobbies to get bombs dropped on Israel's enemies, the imperialists for empire, and the congenitally combative because that is how they think. Do you see anything in the foregoing that would matter to a normal American? These do not add up to a well-conceived policy. Considerations no better drive the desire to fight Russia or to force it to back down.

    I note, pointlessly, that probably none of America's recent martial catastrophes would have occurred if we still had constitutional government. How many congressmen do you think would vote for a declaration of war if they had to tell their voters that they had just launched, for no reason of importance to Americans, an attack on the homeland of a nuclear power?

    There are lots of reasons not to vote for Clinton and the suppurating corruption she represents. Not letting her owners play with matches rates high among them

    [Aug 15, 2016] Did Companies Countries Buy State Dept. Access by Donating to Clinton Foundation?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Fractured Lands in the NYT Magazine: this is getting the full MSM `serious journalism' treatment. Strangely, in 40,000 words it mentions Saudi Arabia essentially once, Bahrain once, in the phrase, `an arc across the Arab world from Mauritania to Bahrain', and Qatar not at all. ..."
    "... So the three MENA countries most responsible for supporting extremism in their own neighborhood (and underwriting it elsewhere as well) are left off the hook. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    August 12, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    Two good stories on Democracy Now today:

    Did Companies & Countries Buy State Dept. Access by Donating to Clinton Foundation?

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/12/did_companies_countries_buy_state_dept

    (Now that Bernie is out of the way, Amy can point out some of the problems with Hillary)

    "Fractured Lands: How the Arab World Came Apart": NYT Mag Examines Region Since 2003 U.S. Invasion

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/12/fractured_lands_how_the_arab_world

    allan ,, August 12, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    Fractured Lands in the NYT Magazine: this is getting the full MSM `serious journalism' treatment. Strangely, in 40,000 words it mentions Saudi Arabia essentially once, Bahrain once, in the phrase, `an arc across the Arab world from Mauritania to Bahrain', and Qatar not at all.

    So the three MENA countries most responsible for supporting extremism in their own neighborhood (and underwriting it elsewhere as well) are left off the hook.

    Kim Kaufman ,, August 12, 2016 at 11:31 pm

    He stated in the beginning that he's only dealing with six countries and Saudi Arabia wasn't one of them. I started to read it but didn't get very far.

    abynormal ,, August 12, 2016 at 9:13 pm

    had to ck that out too…" Although definitions, names, and borders can vary, generally the regions of Asia include West Asia (which is part of the Middle East), the Caucasus (sometimes also considered as part of the Middle East), Central Asia, East Asia, South Asia (also called the Indian Subcontinent), and Southeast Asia. West Asia is sometimes referred to as the Middle East, with is actually a misnomer since the cultural region we define as the Middle East often included countries outside of Asia, such as Egypt in Africa and Cyprus in Europe. West Asia specifically includes the countries within the region of Asia bordered by the Mediterranean and Red Seas to the West and the Persian Gulf, the Gulfs of Aden and Oman, and the Arabian Sea to the South.

    Countries within West Asia include Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Just northeast of Turkey lies the Caucasus, a mountainous region wedged between the Black Sea to the West and the Caspian Sea to the East. The Caucasus includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and parts of Russia. Central Asia is located just north of Iran and Afghanistan and south of Russia, consisting of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. East Asia defines the region between Central Asia, Russia, and the Pacific Ocean roughly up to the beginning of the Tropic of Cancer."…and i'm still confused.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump is a claim of a career sycophant pandering to neocon lobby by Ray McGovern

    "For Michael Morell, as with many other CIA careerists, his strongest suit seemed to be pleasing his boss and not antagonizing the White House" His loyalty is to qhoewver occupies White House, not necessarily to the truth. "Morell [was] at the center of two key fiascoes: he "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 address to the United Nations and he served as the regular CIA briefer to President George W. Bush. Putting Access Before Honesty" Rise of Another CIA Yes Man – Consortiumnews
    Notable quotes:
    "... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
    "... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
    "... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | Antiwar.com

    As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer.

    However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS.

    Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.

    Read more by Ray McGovern

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

    [Aug 14, 2016] In Defense of Trump's Name-Calling by Ted Rall

    Notable quotes:
    "... "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity." ..."
    "... Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out , it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one ..."
    "... As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists , helped topple Moammar Gaddafi , expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state . Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria. ..."
    "... Psychology Today ..."
    "... Ted Rall , syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net ..."
    "... is the author of the book " Snowden ," the biography of the NSA whistleblower. ..."
    Dec 15, 2015 | counterpunch.org

    There is, on the other hand, something wonderfully refreshing about Donald Trump's gleeful deployment of the S-word.

    "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity."

    Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out, it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one, since anyone with a half a brain could see at the time that Saddam probably didn't have WMDs, and that Bush's war would be a disaster.

    As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists, helped topple Moammar Gaddafi, expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state. Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria.

    Stupid.

    Let Hillary's supporters take offense. How is unfair, wrong or intemperate to call out a foreign policy record that fits the dictionary definition of "stupid" - doing the same thing over and over, even though it never works? Stupid is as stupid does. Hillary is stupid, especially on foreign policy, and Trump is right to say so.

    Winner or loser, Trump has done political debate in America a huge favor by freeing "stupid" from the rhetorical prison of words and phrases polite people aren't allowed to use.

    Interestingly, stupid people aren't all losers and losers aren't always stupid in Trumpworld. Hillary Clinton has one hell of a resume, which she has parlayed into a big pile of cash. She is, by Trump standards, a winner (albeit a stupid one). If I met Trump, I'd ask him if a smart person can be a loser (possible example: he called the obviously smart Russell Brand a loser, but also a "dummy").

    Pre-Trump, American politics and culture suffered from a lack of stupid-calling. I am serious.

    "There has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western countries," Ray Williams wrote last year in Psychology Today. Insults reflect a society's values. Americans value macho masculinity, good looks and youth, so our top slurs accuse their victims of being effeminate, weak, ugly, fat, old and outdated. In France, where the life of the mind is prized so much that one of the nation's top-rated TV shows featured philosophers and auteurs discussing politics and culture over cigarettes, there are few things worse than being called stupid and having it stick. A society that ranks "stupid" as of its worst insults lets it be known that being smart is at least as important as being tough or hot or buff.

    So, Donald Trump, thanks for dropping those S-bombs.

    Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net, is the author of the book "Snowden," the biography of the NSA whistleblower.

    [Aug 14, 2016] The Ghost of Seth Rich strikes DemoRats in the House of Representatives

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood , August 12, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    The Ghost of Seth Rich strikes:

    After disappearing for a couple of weeks, the hacker "Guccifer 2.0" returned late this afternoon to provide a new headache for Democrats.

    In a post to his WordPress blog, the vandal–who previously provided nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee e-mails to Wikileaks–uploaded an Excel file that includes the cell phone numbers and private e-mail addresses of nearly every Democratic member of the House of Representatives.

    The Excel file also includes similar contact information for hundreds of congressional staff members (chiefs of staff, press secretaries, legislative directors, schedulers) and campaign personnel.

    In announcing the leak of the document, "Guccifer 2.0" reported that the spreadsheet was stolen during a hack of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. " As you see I wasn't wasting my time! It was even easier than in the case of the DNC breach," the hacker wrote.

    http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/democratic-national-committee/guccifer-dccc-hack-645891

    Bryan Pagliano could have stopped this outrage.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Professor Destroys CNN Anchor on Trump and Russia

    Senator Joseph McCarthy shadow in Clinton campaign. Remember the famous phrase Have You No Sense of Decency
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neo McCarthyism witch hunt against Trump instead of debate of a proper national policy is a sign of corrupted neoliberal media. They want the preservation and expantion of thier global empire at any cost for american people. ..."
    "... Reckless branding of Trump as Russian agent is coming from Clinton campaign and it needs to stop ..."
    Aug 05, 2016 | YouTube

    Neo McCarthyism witch hunt against Trump instead of debate of a proper national policy is a sign of corrupted neoliberal media. They want the preservation and expantion of thier global empire at any cost for american people.

    Reckless branding of Trump as Russian agent is coming from Clinton campaign and it needs to stop

    [Aug 14, 2016] WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant

    Notable quotes:
    "... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant. ..."
    "... In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the risks of being a source for his organization. Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks. ..."
    "... The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him. ..."
    "... The WikiLeaks founder said that others have suggested that Rich was killed for political reasons and that his organization is investigating the incident. ..."
    "... "I think it is a concerning situation. There isn't a conclusion yet. We wouldn't be able to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it," he continued. "More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens." ..."
    www.yahoo.com

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant.

    In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the risks of being a source for his organization.

    Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks.

    But Assange was apparently interested in hinting about an even darker theory.

    "Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington," Assange said on Nieuwsuur. BuzzFeed drew more attention to the interview in the U.S.

    Somewhat startled, news anchor Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal said, "That was just a robbery, I believe - wasn't it?"

    "No, there's no finding," Assange responded. "I'm suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."

    "Why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?" van Rosenthal asked.

    "Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States," Assange said, "and that our sources face serious risks. That's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity."

    The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him.

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant.

    In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the risks of being a source for his organization.

    Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks.

    But Assange was apparently interested in hinting about an even darker theory.

    "Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington," Assange said on Nieuwsuur. BuzzFeed drew more attention to the interview in the U.S.

    Somewhat startled, news anchor Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal said, "That was just a robbery, I believe - wasn't it?"

    "No, there's no finding," Assange responded. "I'm suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."

    "Why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?" van Rosenthal asked.

    "Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States," Assange said, "and that our sources face serious risks. That's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity."

    The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him.

    The WikiLeaks founder said that others have suggested that Rich was killed for political reasons and that his organization is investigating the incident.

    "I think it is a concerning situation. There isn't a conclusion yet. We wouldn't be able to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it," he continued. "More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens."

    WikiLeaks further fanned the flames of conspiracy by offering a $20,000 reward for anyone with information leading to the conviction of the person responsible for killing Rich.

    [Aug 14, 2016] An Urgent History Lesson in Diplomacy with Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... As prospects for peace appear dim in places like the Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan and now with a renewed bombing of Libya, the President of the United States (and his heiress apparent) continue to display an alarming lack of understanding of the responsibilities as the nation's highest elected officer. As has been unsuccessfully litigated, Article II of the Constitution does not give the President right to start war; only Congress is granted that authority (See Article I, Section 8). ..."
    "... Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    As prospects for peace appear dim in places like the Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan and now with a renewed bombing of Libya, the President of the United States (and his heiress apparent) continue to display an alarming lack of understanding of the responsibilities as the nation's highest elected officer. As has been unsuccessfully litigated, Article II of the Constitution does not give the President right to start war; only Congress is granted that authority (See Article I, Section 8).

    So for the nation's Chief Executive Officer to willy-nilly arbitrarily decide to bomb here and bomb there and bomb everywhere in violation of the Constitution might be sufficient standard for that CEO to be regarded as a war criminal. Surely, consistently upping the stakes with a strong US/NATO military presence in the Baltics with the US Navy regularly cruising the Black and Baltic Seas, accompanied by a steady stream of confrontational language and picking a fight with a nuclear-armed Russia may not be the best way to achieve peace.

    In 1980, there was strong opinion among liberals that Ronald Reagan was close to, if not a direct descendant of the Neanderthals and that he stood for everything that Democrats opposed – and his eight years in office confirmed much of that sentiment. In those days, many lefties believed that the Democrats were still the party of FDR and JFK but today, the undeniable illusion is that the Dems are now the party of war and big money and not the political party some of us signed up for as new voters.

    Ronald Reagan (R) was elected President as an ardent anti-communist who routinely referred to Russia as the 'evil empire', a fierce free market proponent of balanced budgets who in two terms in office never balanced a budget, a President who dramatically slashed domestic social programs even though his family benefited from FDR's New Deal and whose foreign policy strategy was to 'build-up to build-down' (a $44 billion.20% increase in one year , 1982-1983) so as to force the Russians to the table. Reagan, who was ready to engage in extensive personal diplomacy, was an unlikely peacemaker yet he achieved an historic accomplishment in the nuclear arms race that is especially relevant today as NATO/US are reintroducing nuclear weapons into eastern Europe.

    After having ascended to the USSR's top leadership position in March, 1985, an intelligent and assertive Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev was eager to improve relations with the United States but thought Reagan a "political dinosaur" who was regarded by much of the American public as a 'trigger-happy cowboy".

    Even before the American President and Russian leader met, NATO ministers in 1979 had unanimously adopted a strategy that included arms control negotiations and a modernization of its current missile system as Russia deployed its updated, most lethal generation of the SS 20 Saber missiles. With an improved maximum range, an increased area covered by multiple warheads and a more improved accuracy than earlier versions, it was a missile that could easily reach western Europe with terrifying results.

    As formal talks began between the US, Russia and NATO in 1981, massive anti nuclear weapon demonstrations were taking place in the US and Europe adding a political urgency for both countries to initiate discussions.

    At that time, Reagan announced a proposal to abandon the Pershing I missiles in exchange for elimination of the SS 20 which Gorbachev rejected.

    By 1983, the Soviets walked out and there were no talks in 1984 until a resumption in March, 1985. US Secretary of State George Shultz had continued to meet with Russian Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin since 1983. Shultz suggested that the President meet with Dobrynin who had expressed his frustration to Shultz that they were not dealing with the 'big issues" and was rumored to be leaving his diplomatic post due to the Americans unwillingness to negotiate. Two weeks earlier Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko had publicly suggested a summit between the two nuclear power countries.

    According to published reports at the time, while most of the White House staff opposed the Dobrynin meeting, Reagan gave Shultz the green light.

    By the time Reagan first met Gorbachev in 1985 in Geneva, the President was already driven by a deep instinctive fear that modern civilization was on the brink of a biblical nuclear Armageddon that could end the human race.

    According to Jack Matlock who served as Reagan's senior policy coordinator for Russia and later US Ambassador to Russia in his book, "Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended," one of Reagan's pre-meeting notes to himself read "avoid any demand for regime change." From the beginning, one of Reagan's goals was to establish a relationship that would be able to overcome whatever obstacles or conflicts may arise with the goal of preventing a thermonuclear war.

    The meeting began with a traditional oval table diplomatic dialogue with Reagan, who had no foreign policy experience, lecturing on the failings of the "despised" Russian system and support for the SDI (Star Wars) program. Gorbachev, who arrived looking like a spy complete with KGB-issue hat and overcoat, responded by standing up to Reagan ("you are not a prosecutor and I am not the accused") and was visibly irritated "why do you repeat the same thing (on the SDI); stop this rubbish."

    After a lengthy personal, private conversation, it became obvious that the two men had struck a cord of mutual respect with Reagan recognizing that the youthful articulate Gorbachev was not the out- moded Politburo politician of his predecessors. At the conclusion of Geneva, a shared trust necessary to begin sober negotiations to ban nuclear weapons had been established. Both were well aware that the consequences of nuclear war would be a devastation to mankind, the world's greatest environmental disaster. At the end of their Geneva meeting, Reagan and Gorbachev agreed that "nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."

    During their October, 1986 Reykjavik meeting, the real possibility of a permanent, forever ban on all nuclear weapons appeared possible until Gorbachev insisted on the elimination of SDI's (Star Wars) from the final agreement and Reagan walked away. Gorbachev relented; saving the potential long range treaty from failure and ultimately, the SDI sunk under the weight of its own impossibility. While the summit ended with measured progress, Reagan's stubbornness on SDI represented a significant lost opportunity that would never come again.

    In April, 1987 with Secretary Shultz in Moscow, Gorbachev proposed the elimination of U.S. and Soviet shorter-range missiles and by June, NATO foreign ministers announced support for the global elimination of all U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range and shorter-range missile systems. In June, all the participating parties were in agreement as Reagan agreed to eliminate all U.S. and Soviet shorter-range missile systems.

    As high level negotiations continued, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl added icing to the cake, in August, 1987 by announcing that Germany, on its own, would dismantle all of its 72 Pershing I missiles that Reagan-Gorbachev had earlier been unable to eliminate.

    In December of 1987, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev arrived in Washington DC to sign the bilateral Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (including Short Range Missiles) known as the INF Treaty. The Treaty eliminated 2,611 ground launched ballistic and cruise missile systems with a range of between 500 and 5500 kilometers (310 -3,400 miles). Paris is 2,837 (1,762 miles) kilometers from Moscow.

    In May 1988, the INF Treaty was ratified by the US Senate in a surprising vote of 93 – 5 (four Republicans and one Democrat opposed) and by May, 1991, all Pershing I missiles in Europe had been dismantled. Verification of Compliance of the INF Treaty, delayed because of the USSR breakup, was completed in December, 2001.

    At an outdoor press briefing during their last meeting together and after the INF was implemented, Reagan put his arm around Gorbachev. A reporter asked if he still believed in the 'evil empire' and Reagan answered 'no." When asked why, he replied "I was talking about another time, another era."

    After the INF Treaty was implemented, right wing opponents and columnists like George Will attacked Reagan as a pawn for "Soviet propaganda" and being an "apologist for Gorbachev."

    Some things never change.

    Whether the Treaty could have been more far-reaching is questionable given what we now know of Reagan's mental deterioration and yet despite their differences, there is no indication that during the six year effort the two men treated each other with anything other than esteem and courtesy.

    In 1990, Secretary General Mikhail Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize while President Reagan, largely credited with ending the Cold War and bringing nuclear stability to the world and back from a nuclear confrontation, was not nominated.

    As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave office with a record of a Tuesday morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where there were none prior to his election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with unsubstantiated allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled AEGIS anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging the integrity of INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.

    In what may shed new light on NATO/US build-up in eastern Europe, Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and that the US had "failed to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting on US plans to deploy land-based missiles in Europe as a possible response to the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned that ''building up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling accusations against Russia in order to justify its own military plans.

    In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration authorized the final development phase (prior to actual production in 2020) of the B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow, the B61-21 is part of President Obama's $1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon arsenal.

    Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize? Join the debate on Facebook

    Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Khizr Khan and The Triumph of Democratic Militarism

    This is the first class analysis. Bravo Ted !!! It's sad that I found it only today. Deep insights into what Khan gambit means. Bravo !
    Notable quotes:
    "... A week ago corporate media gatekeepers managed to transform the Democratic National Committee internal emails released by WikiLeaks from what it really was – scandalous proof that Bernie Sanders and his supporters were right when they said the Democratic leadership was biased and had rigged the primaries against them ..."
    "... Hillary's vote for an illegal war of choice that was sold with lies, was a major contributing factor to the death of Captain Khan, thousands of his comrades, and over a million Iraqis. Iraq should be a major issue in this campaign - against her. ..."
    "... Instead, it's being used by his parents and the Democratic Party to bait Donald Trump into a retro-post-9/11 "Support Our Troops" militaristic trap. Khan, you see, was " defending his country ." ..."
    "... (How anyone can say U.S. soldiers in Iraq, part of an invasion force thousands of miles away where no one threatens the United States, are "defending" the U.S. remains a long-running linguistic mystery.) ..."
    "... "Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son 'the best of America,'" Khizr Khan told the convention. Unfortunately, the moniker can't apply to once-and-possible-future-first-daughter Chelsea Clinton, who never considered a military career before collecting $600,000 a year from NBC News for essentially a no-show job. But anyway… ..."
    "... "If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America," Khizr Khan continued. The cognitive dissonance makes my head spin. ..."
    "... "Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution?" asked Khizr, who is originally from Pakistan ..."
    "... A good question. While we're at it, however, where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that the president can send troops overseas for years at a time without a formal congressional declaration of war? Where does it say that the United States can attack foreign countries that have done it no harm and have never threatened it? ..."
    "... As you'd expect Trump, he of little impulse control, has handled this about as poorly as possible. Asked about Khizr Khan's remark that Trump hasn't made any sacrifices, he idiotically attempted to compare his business dealings with the death of a son. Still, you have to grudgingly admire Trump for fighting back against a guy you are officially not allowed to say anything mean about. ..."
    "... Democrats have successfully appropriated images of patriotism and "optimism" – scare quotes because this is not the kind of actual optimism in which you think things are going to actually get better, but the bizarro variety in which you accept that things will really never get better so you'd might as well accept the status quo – from the Republicans. This is part of Hillary Clinton's strategy of taking liberal Democrats for granted while trying to seduce Republicans away from Trump. ..."
    "... The Khan episode marks a high water mark for post-9/11 knee-jerk militarism. Even the "liberal" party whose sitting incumbent two-term president captured the White House by running against the Iraq war demands that everyone fall to their knees in order to pay homage to the "good" Muslims - those willing to go to the Middle East to kill bad ones. ..."
    "... Next time you see a panel of experts discussing a foreign crisis, pay attention: does anyone argue against intervention? No. The debate is always between going in light and going in hard: bombs, or "boots on the ground." Not getting involved is never an option. As long as this militaristic approach to the world continues, the United States will never have enough money to take care of its problems here at home, and it will always be hated around the world. ..."
    "... Most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake . Who speaks for us? No one in the media. And no one in mainstream politics. ..."
    "... Trump's proposal to ban Muslims can't possibly be racist because Muslims are not a race. If the US were to ban European devotees of a white supremacist pagan cult - such cults do exist, and the US has every right to ban its devotees if it so chooses - nobody would bat an eye. ..."
    "... The vote to authorize the war in Iraq was in 2002. Khan's DNC speech was 14 years later (and 12 years after his son was killed), not 8 years later. ..."
    "... "The rest of us who makes heroes of our dead…" "Perpetuate war by exalting sacrifice…" ..."
    "... watch-v=reUstMn4bM8 ..."
    "... "Most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Who speaks for us? No one in the media. And no one in mainstream politics." The last sentence is incorrect. Donald Trump repeatedly said the war was a mistake, even at times when it could have landed him in serious trouble. ..."
    August 2, 2016 | The Unz Review

    ... ... ...

    A week ago corporate media gatekeepers managed to transform the Democratic National Committee internal emails released by WikiLeaks from what it really was – scandalous proof that Bernie Sanders and his supporters were right when they said the Democratic leadership was biased and had rigged the primaries against them, and that the system is corrupt – into a trivial side issue over who might be responsible for hiking the DNC computers. Who cares if it was Russia? It's the content that matters, not that it was ever seriously discussed.

    Now here we go again.

    Hillary's vote for an illegal war of choice that was sold with lies, was a major contributing factor to the death of Captain Khan, thousands of his comrades, and over a million Iraqis. Iraq should be a major issue in this campaign - against her.

    Instead, it's being used by his parents and the Democratic Party to bait Donald Trump into a retro-post-9/11 "Support Our Troops" militaristic trap. Khan, you see, was "defending his country." (How anyone can say U.S. soldiers in Iraq, part of an invasion force thousands of miles away where no one threatens the United States, are "defending" the U.S. remains a long-running linguistic mystery.)

    "Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son 'the best of America,'" Khizr Khan told the convention. Unfortunately, the moniker can't apply to once-and-possible-future-first-daughter Chelsea Clinton, who never considered a military career before collecting $600,000 a year from NBC News for essentially a no-show job. But anyway…

    "If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America," Khizr Khan continued. The cognitive dissonance makes my head spin. Obviously, Trump's proposal to ban Muslims is racist and disgusting. Ironically, however, it would have saved at least one life. If it was up to Donald Trump, the Khans would still be in the United Arab Emirates. Humayan would still be alive. As would any Iraqis he killed.

    "Let me ask you: Have you even read the US Constitution?" asked Khizr, who is originally from Pakistan. "I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law." A good question. While we're at it, however, where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that the president can send troops overseas for years at a time without a formal congressional declaration of war? Where does it say that the United States can attack foreign countries that have done it no harm and have never threatened it?

    As you'd expect Trump, he of little impulse control, has handled this about as poorly as possible. Asked about Khizr Khan's remark that Trump hasn't made any sacrifices, he idiotically attempted to compare his business dealings with the death of a son. Still, you have to grudgingly admire Trump for fighting back against a guy you are officially not allowed to say anything mean about.

    It has been widely remarked, always approvingly, that this year's Democrats have successfully appropriated images of patriotism and "optimism" – scare quotes because this is not the kind of actual optimism in which you think things are going to actually get better, but the bizarro variety in which you accept that things will really never get better so you'd might as well accept the status quo – from the Republicans. This is part of Hillary Clinton's strategy of taking liberal Democrats for granted while trying to seduce Republicans away from Trump.

    The Khan episode marks a high water mark for post-9/11 knee-jerk militarism. Even the "liberal" party whose sitting incumbent two-term president captured the White House by running against the Iraq war demands that everyone fall to their knees in order to pay homage to the "good" Muslims - those willing to go to the Middle East to kill bad ones.

    Next time you see a panel of experts discussing a foreign crisis, pay attention: does anyone argue against intervention? No. The debate is always between going in light and going in hard: bombs, or "boots on the ground." Not getting involved is never an option. As long as this militaristic approach to the world continues, the United States will never have enough money to take care of its problems here at home, and it will always be hated around the world.

    Most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Who speaks for us? No one in the media. And no one in mainstream politics.

    Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net,is the author of the book "Snowden," the biography of the NSA whistleblower.

    Fidelios Automata, August 3, 2016 at 7:24 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Trump's proposal to ban Muslims can't possibly be racist because Muslims are not a race. If the US were to ban European devotees of a white supremacist pagan cult - such cults do exist, and the US has every right to ban its devotees if it so chooses - nobody would bat an eye. The First Amendment says that the government may not infringe in Americans' religious choices; it says nothing about foreigners. If it did, it would be illegal for the US to give aid to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and any other nation that discriminates by religion.

    Dave Pinsen, August 5, 2016 at 4:12 am GMT

    The vote to authorize the war in Iraq was in 2002. Khan's DNC speech was 14 years later (and 12 years after his son was killed), not 8 years later.

    utu, August 5, 2016 at 6:35 am GMT

    "The rest of us who makes heroes of our dead…" "Perpetuate war by exalting sacrifice…"

    watch-v=reUstMn4bM8

    The best anti-war movie of all times.

    Parsifal, August 5, 2016 at 7:39 am GMT • 100 Words

    "Most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Who speaks for us? No one in the media. And no one in mainstream politics." The last sentence is incorrect. Donald Trump repeatedly said the war was a mistake, even at times when it could have landed him in serious trouble.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Trump Apologizes, Wins Over Critics by Timothy Braatz

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post, ..."
    "... Former CIA director Michael Hayden chimed in, "You aren't just responsible for what you say; you're responsible for what people hear." ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    On Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump apologized for comments that have been widely construed as calling for the assassination of Hillary Clinton. "I apologize," Mr. Trump said, clearly struggling with the second word as he addressed supporters at a campaign event in Philadelphia. "I misspoke, okay? It happens. Get over it."

    On Tuesday, Mr. Trump had warned supporters, "If she gets to pick her judges-nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people-maybe there is, I don't know."

    Speaking on CNN later that day, campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson insisted that Trump meant "that people that support their Second Amendment rights need to come together and get out and stop Hillary Clinton from winning in November." When it was pointed out that Trump was referring to what might happen after the election, Ms. Pierson explained, "He was saying what could happen. He doesn't want that to happen."

    The Clinton campaign, many in the media, and even prominent Republicans rejected this interpretation. Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said, "This is simple-what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."

    Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, told reporters after an event in Texas, "Nobody who is seeking a leadership position, especially the presidency, the leadership of the country, should do anything to countenance violence."

    Dan Rather, the former CBS news anchor, posted in Facebook that Trump "crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics."

    Writing in the Washington Post, Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman and current host of the MSNBC show "Morning Joe," called for "every Republican leader" to denounce Trump's assassination suggestion and revoke their endorsement of the controversial candidate.

    Regarding Trump's comment on the Second Amendment, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, "I don't believe this to be a serious statement." But Sessions added, "You absolutely shouldn't joke about it. It's contrary to what we believe in."

    Former CIA director Michael Hayden chimed in, "You aren't just responsible for what you say; you're responsible for what people hear."

    With his poll numbers plummeting, Trump was in full damage-control mode in Philadelphia. After apologizing for his misstatement, he went on to say, "I'm a truth-teller. All I do is tell the truth. But some people-some people misinterpret me. On purpose, on accident, I don't know. I was not calling for the assassination of Hillary. Please. I'm not a violent person. Never. Never violent. My friends can tell you. What I meant to call for was the assassination of terrorists or potential terrorists, okay? And there are lots of them, people, I'm telling you, in Afghanistan and Iraq and wherever. Men, women, and children. Guns, not guns. Wedding parties. Doesn't matter. Drones would work fine, right?"

    The response was immediate and overwhelmingly positive. President Barack Obama said, "Contrary to my early statement, I now believe that Donald Trump is, indeed, fit to be president of the United States."

    Fifty prominent Republican foreign policy and national security experts-among them Hayden and other veterans of George W. Bush's administration-signed a letter endorsing Trump's candidacy. "Donald Trump is the answer to America's daunting challenges," the letter began, and went on to note that "without a doubt, he possesses the single most important quality required of an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal."

    Leon Panetta, Obama's former CIA director and Defense Secretary, told the Washington Post, "As I have said on numerous occasions, we need a leader who is strong and decisive, who has the respect of our generals and admirals, and the trust of our troops, especially our Special Forces, who maintain U.S. credibility around the world. I now am comfortable with either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton winning the presidency." At the Democratic National Convention, in July, Panetta had condemned Trump because he "asks our troops to commit war crimes, endorses torture…and praises dictators."

    On his morning show, Scarborough appeared to be reconciling with the Trump campaign. He said, "I've been telling people for years that torture works. I know it works. You know it works. Donald Trump knows it works. This is going to make members of the mainstream media and Democratic Party uncomfortable, but you can make the argument, can't you, that shooting a member of al-Qaeda or ISIS, even a U.S. citizen, causes less pain than waterboarding."

    Nancy Lindborg, president of the U.S. Institute of Peace, issued a statement that said, "While we applaud Mr. Trump's support for measured counterterrorism, we contend that diplomacy, reconciliation, and no-fly zones are also necessary to achieve the U.S. goal of peace in the Middle East and remove Assad from power in Syria."

    Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who has received criticism for refusing to withdraw his endorsement of Trump, was heard joyfully singing his favorite campaign song, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

    The Clinton campaign, though, remained skeptical of Trump's correction. Mook stated, "Trump has zero foreign policy experience. Only one candidate in this race has the experience, knowledge, temperament, and judgment to call for assassination. Only one of the candidates was in the room when the decision was made to take out Osama bin Laden. Only one candidate has been privy to the president's kill list. And that's Hillary Clinton. The track record is there."

    On his FiveThirtyEight blog, Pollster Nate Silver wrote, "We now anticipate seeing a bump in Trump's numbers, especially among college-educated voters."

    [Aug 14, 2016] Paul Krugman Pieces of Silver

    economistsview.typepad.com
    Economist's View

    David said... For the demented people that say that Trump and Hillary are the same thing, two things:

    1. You're clearly not rational and observing reality, you're reacting out of some sense of immature pique.

    2. Remember Nader and W. Bush. Tell me why Nader giving W. Bush the White was a good thing.

    But the real reason to fear Trump is not Trump. Trump is the Republican base, but he has little skills as a politician. The next Trump will be more to right, more resentful, more white nationalist, and possibly more dangerous.

    The real danger to our democracy, sadly enough, is the Republican bigoted base.

    Don't believe me? Check the comments of right wing websites. It's there in plain sight. Reply Friday, August 12, 2016 at 01:11 PM likbez said in reply to David ... The vote will be not "for" Hillary or Trump.
    The vote will be against Hillary or Trump.

    As Hillary is a war criminal by Nuremberg trial standards she is like Kelvin absolute zero in evilness. You just can't be more evil.

    Can any intelligent person vote for her ? Reply Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 03:59 PM Peter K. said... The neoliberal totebaggers have given us a world of slow growth and increasing anger and unrest.

    Brexit. Trump. Sanders. Corbyn. Etc.

    I think they somehow feel if they can just make to the finish line and elect Hillary things will be fine.

    I am hoping Trump loses by a record margin. I hope the GOP suffers badly.

    Then the totebaggers will gloat but their problems will just have started. The DNC email leaks show the problem. It wasn't just a a few bad apples. They were doing their job. It's who the totebaggers are. Like PGL. Like Sanjait. It's like the Blairites trying unsuccessfully to limit the vote in the Labour leadership election.

    Hillary was bragging about how she received an average donation of $44 in recent months.

    She's just copying Sanders, stealing his mojo.

    I dont' think Sanjait is going to enjoy the coming revolution.

    Nor will totebagger trash like PGL. He'll try to divert the discussion with stuff like Gerald Friedman whose analysis the Sanders campaign didn't even commission.

    But it's easy to see through his BS. It's sad, really.

    [Aug 14, 2016] I have trouble believing that the GOP elite and pundit's horror regarding Trump is really about what he says or what policies he proposes.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have trouble believing that the GOP elite and pundit's horror regarding Trump is really about what he says or what policies he proposes. These are the same people who embraced Palin (and many other conspicuously terrible candidates) after all. I suspect their real problem with him is that he got the nomination without having to successfully pass through their approval process. ..."
    "... They simply become apoplectic at the prospect of the great unwashed succeeding in getting the candidate they want rather than the one that's the overlord's choice ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    RMO , August 13, 2016 at 2:11 am

    I have trouble believing that the GOP elite and pundit's horror regarding Trump is really about what he says or what policies he proposes. These are the same people who embraced Palin (and many other conspicuously terrible candidates) after all. I suspect their real problem with him is that he got the nomination without having to successfully pass through their approval process.

    They simply become apoplectic at the prospect of the great unwashed succeeding in getting the candidate they want rather than the one that's the overlord's choice.

    Same thing probably goes for Sanders and Corbyn. Sure they really do hate some of their policy positions (fuzzy as they are in Trump's case) but that would seem like it would be of lesser concern to them than anything which would reduce the power they've had to decide who the voters get to choose from.

    [Aug 14, 2016] It has been said that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. Bernie Sanders wishes to fool all of the people, at least those who were once his loyal devotees, all of the time.

    www.counterpunch.org
    It has been said that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. Apparently, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders wishes to fool all of the people, at least those who were once his loyal devotees, all of the time. This writer received an enthusiastic email from some organization talking about the next steps in Mr. Sanders 'revolution', and requesting that this writer hold a house party to watch a speech to be given by the senator, as part of the initiation of a new organization called 'Our Revolution'.

    Well, there is certainly something revolting about all this, but it has nothing to do with a social change.

    Mr. Sanders, that avowed socialist with a long and undistinguished career in what passes in the U.S. for public service (well-paid 'service', that is), lost all credibility with any but his most blindly loyal followers when, after months of railing against everything that Hillary Clinton stands for, even to the point of calling her unfit to be president, he put on a happy face and gave her a glowing endorsement at the Democratic Convention. Does this sound to the reader like a man of integrity? Does endorsing Miss Wall Street 2016 have that ring of revolutionary fervor? Does such glowing support of the Princess of Israel sound like part of revolutionary change

    Methinks not. No, his support for Mrs. Clinton, and his forthcoming address about 'Our Revolution', seem to be the work of a career politician who wants to bask in whatever remains of the adulation of his naive and enthusiastic youthful followers, while at the same time enjoying all the perquisites of 'the good old boys' club'. The only thing he sacrifices along the way (in addition, of course, to self-respect, but who in elected office has that anyway?), is credibility. Oh, and integrity. And honesty. Well, maybe he does make many sacrifices to enjoy both the prestige of change agent and maintainer of the status quo. But really, does anyone do it better than he?

    [Aug 14, 2016] Khizr Khan and the Big Tent

    Notable quotes:
    "... In his latest interview with Chris Hayes, Khizr Khan reveals that he was close friends with Lee Atwater, the racist GOP strategist. It looks like all of the old Reaganites are now snugly inside of Hillary's Big Tent. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    In his latest interview with Chris Hayes, Khizr Khan reveals that he was close friends with Lee Atwater, the racist GOP strategist. It looks like all of the old Reaganites are now snugly inside of Hillary's Big Tent.

    For those of you too young to recall Atwater's demonic brand of politics. He's the guy who taught the Republicans how to court the vote of white supremacists without "appearing" racists themselves. (Hayes, of course, being "All In With Her," didn't pause to ask Khan about the nature of his relationship to the architect of Reagan's "Southern Strategy.")

    Here is Atwater unfiltered, bragging to Alexander Lamis, a political scientist at Case Western Reserve University. At the time, Atwater was working in the Reagan White House:

    You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"-that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

    Lamis taped the interview. You can listen to the racist rant of Khan's pal, the man who constructed the Big Tent theory of politics here.

    [Aug 14, 2016] The Crack Up Is the Two-Party System Splintering

    Notable quotes:
    "... One good thing that might come out of the fractious primaries, conventions and final election is that the two-party structure that controls the U.S. political system might fracture, if not fragment, into something unanticipated. If so, a new multi-party system might emerge and change the nation's political landscape. ..."
    "... the whole world was watching ..."
    "... David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New York's Forbidden into America's New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015). He can be reached at [email protected] ; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com . ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    August 12, 2016

    shutterstock_257693272

    The 2016 presidential election has been a roller-coaster ride with the last two establishment-party candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, shoving and pushing, snapping, slapping and snarling their way to the finish line. How the November election turns out is an open question.

    One good thing that might come out of the fractious primaries, conventions and final election is that the two-party structure that controls the U.S. political system might fracture, if not fragment, into something unanticipated. If so, a new multi-party system might emerge and change the nation's political landscape.

    The election's winner, whether Democrat or Republican, is likely to usher in a period of unexpected instability, even disruption, as the parties seek to regain control over the electoral system, the American voter. They may fail. Both parties are poised for possible break-up, but along very different ideological lines.

    The Republicans have been splintering since the 2010 election when the rightwing Tea Party insurgency captured a significant slice of the Congressional delegation. They ushered in a period of legislative gridlock that has soured the American public on the do-nothing Washington.

    Trump's presidential run has further fragmented traditional Republicans, but in unanticipated ways. Conventional party "moderates" and "conservatives," like Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz, respectively, have been jettisoned. An opportunistic huckster, a 21st century P.T. Barnum, is reconfiguring the party's identity. Many mainstream stalwarts are jumping ship, refusing to support the candidate. Nevertheless, he is appealing to an apparently large and receptive segment of dissatisfied white working- and middle-class males, let alone some of the 1 percent. Whether Trump wins or loses, a very different Republican Party is likely to emerge.

    The Democrats were destabilized by the disruptive 1968 Chicago convention, when the whole world was watching; in the race of the two VPs, Richard Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey. It collapsed following the '72 election when Nixon routed Sen. George McGovern (SD). Mr. Clinton's victory in '92 reconstituted the party, establishing the formative neo-liberal period of globalization when the U.S. flourished; a Mrs. Clinton victory in 2016 might codify economic and social stagnation, furthering Pres. Obama's new normal to nowhere.

    Bernie Sanders unexpected popular appeal, especially among younger voters, disrupted the Clinton machine's well-scripted plan. The WikiLeak revelations as to the complicity of party officials in attempting to suppress Sanders campaign only confirmed what most people already knew - the game is rigged. In 2016 election's new-speak, all Democrats are "progressives." How long after the truce between Clinton "liberals" and Sanders "radicals" will the progressive fiction of unity prevail?

    Pres. Obama's 2008 campaign was based on the promise of "hope" and, over the last eight years, hope has dissipated from American politics and life. Trump, a masterful fear monger, has caught the spirit of this disillusionment, proclaiming that he alone can "Make American Great America." Clinton champions unity among the nation's divergent populace - whether in terms of racial, class and gender sectors - and has called for a program to stay the course.

    Both candidates - and their respective parties - are sitting on ticking time bombs, of profound economic instability and social insecurity. No one knows what's coming. Most threatening, incipient movements threaten to disrupt the political order. Something altogether new might be in the works.

    * * *

    Today's U.S. political system was fashioned out of numerous incidents of disruption that occurred over the last two centuries. Three factors have driven this disruption - internal party splits, third-party alternatives and charismatic insurgents. Each disruptive episode is uniquely distinct and offers valuable insight into the formation of the nation's political culture. The fragmentation that might follow from the 2016 presidential election could prefigure a fundamental realignment of political power in U.S. politics.

    Two of the most consequential political disruptions in U.S. history set the parameters of modern American life. The first involved the collapse of the Whig Party and the rise of the (original) Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, defining the Civil War era. The second involved Theodore Roosevelt's break with the (modern) Robber-Baron Republicans in the pre-WW-I era that set the stage for the rise of the Progressive movement, followed by the Great Depression, F. D. Roosevelt's New Deal and rise of modern state capitalism.

    Among third-party threats, two stand out. In 1856, the Know-Nothing's American Party backed Millard Fillmore for president and secured nearly 1 million votes, a quarter of all votes cast. A century later, in 1948, racists Southern Democrats launched the "Dixiecrat" that, a quarter-century later, would become part of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and remake the Republican Party.

    With regard to party fragmentation, two campaign splits stand out. In 1964, many moderate Republicans, including Governors Nelson Rockefeller (NY) and George Romney (MI), opposed conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater's presidential run. In 1972, McGovern's electoral defeat marked the party's near collapse until Clinton's '92 neo-liberal resuscitation.

    Finally, the insurgent Eugene Debs, the nation's leading socialist at the turn of the 20th century, challenged the corporatist political system. He ran for president five times and was sentenced to a 10 years prison term for opposing U. S. entry into WW-I. Ralph Nader continued this tradition, but never – including the 2000 presidential election – achieved the level of support that Debs received.

    * * *

    A possible break-up of the traditional two-party system might involve, for example, the two parties morphing into four parties. In this scenario, each major party would split into two factions, establishment and radical, whether of the left for Democrats or right for Republicans – whatever left and right might mean. These parties will likely include Libertarian and Green parties, but also a host of single-issue, far-left groupings as well as white, Christian nationalist.

    A clock is ticking; the current political system is being squeezed by the demands of a new capitalist global order. In the U.S., how this possible political realignment works out – or if it doesn't – depends on changes in demographics and economics. The changing composition of the American people, of ethnic makeup, age-cohort and social class, is one axis of tension; and the social economy, of wages and growing inequality, is a second.

    The U.S. might well be a "better" - more politically representative - country if it fragments along lines suggested by European democracies. At least more voices would be added to the political mix, thus giving expression to the complexity of the social and economic realignment remaking the nation.

    The great tyranny of American democracy is that the 1 percent continues to rule. The 1 percent wrote the Constitution and, as two leading economists of the colonial economy, Jeffrey Williamson and Peter Lindert, report, "Around 1774, the top one percent of free wealthholders in the thirteen colonies held 12.6 percent of total assets, while the richest ten percent held a little less than half of total assets." Two-centuries later, in 2010, the 1 percent still controls Congress as well as 35 percent of the nation's wealth. It's time for change. Join the debate on Facebook

    David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New York's Forbidden into America's New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015). He can be reached at [email protected]; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com. More articles by: David Rosen

    [Aug 14, 2016] How can any intelligent person vote for a war criminal ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... I am surprised a that so many commenters leave out the elephant in the root - the fact that by standards of Nuremberg trials Hillary Clinton is a war criminal. ..."
    "... I'll briefly sum up the case by noting again Hillary Clinton, like Bill before her, is a creation of the former Democratic Leadership Council. When the Republicans started their journey to the far right the DLC captured the right of center people. That's the moderate Republican base. That was the answer to the southern strategy. Keep some social progressiveness. Remember GBW's compassionate Republicanism? We're going to get a Republican President, but we're going to make believe that she's a progressive Democrat. ..."
    "... You are absolutely right that Hillary is a moderate Republican in a sheep skin of Democrat. That was Bill Clinton "Third Way" strategy from the very beginning. Essentially selling the Party to Wall Street. This "neoliberalization" of Democratic Party worked extremely well for Democratic brass for almost three decades. ..."
    "... Professor Bacevich had shown that the main driver of the US militarism is neocons domination of the US foreign policy, and, especially, neocons domination in State Department regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. They profess that the US that is uniquely qualified to take on the worldwide foes of peace and democracy, forgetting, revising, or ignoring the painful lessons of World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. And that establishing and maintaining the neoliberal empire is worth the price we pay as it will take the USA into the period of unprecedented peace. ..."
    angrybearblog.com
    likbez August 14, 2016 5:44 pm

    I am surprised a that so many commenters leave out the elephant in the root - the fact that by standards of Nuremberg trials Hillary Clinton is a war criminal.

    http://www.voterninja.com/es/uncategorized/hillary-clinton-is-a-war-criminal/

    === quote ===
    Excerpts from a Blog by Roland Vincent

    "Using the standard announced by the justices at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in World War II, Hillary Clinton is a war criminal

    Justice Robert Jackson's opening statement to the court is as applicable now as then

    MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please Your Honors:

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Jackson.html​

    Hillary Clinton is certainly not the only one, but she is the only one running for president.

    Equally credible cases can be made against W, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld.

    Each supported an illegal war in which thousands of American lives were sacrificed for Big Oil, and in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were murdered.

    Each subscribes to belligerent, interventionist military policy. Each supports an American Empire foreign policy.

    Each supports arming the world. Each supports Israel's occupation and war against the Palestinian people.

    Each supports regime change, by force or stealth, where such will benefit US corporate or military interests. Even at the expense of democratically elected governments.

    == end of quote ===

    How can any intelligent person vote for a war criminal ?

    Jack August 14, 2016 6:27 pm

    Oh no, not another HRC the criminal posts. War criminal in this case. Email fraud previously. Failure of duty in Libya. Oh, remember Vincent Foster. Murder no less.

    Trump is a sociopath and HRC has her delusional detractors. What good do they do? Well they draw attention away from HRC's real worst traits.

    I'll briefly sum up the case by noting again Hillary Clinton, like Bill before her, is a creation of the former Democratic Leadership Council. When the Republicans started their journey to the far right the DLC captured the right of center people. That's the moderate Republican base. That was the answer to the southern strategy. Keep some social progressiveness. Remember GBW's compassionate Republicanism? We're going to get a Republican President, but we're going to make believe that she's a progressive Democrat.

    All the definitions have changed since the '60s. She not a criminal. She's just put on a different colored cloak to demonstrate her flexibility. Americans are apparently not yet ready for a good old fashioned New Deal Democrat. Workers are afraid of unions. Americans never could stay out of a good fight. And Democrats since the '70s have learned to love bankers and recognize that if you let bankers have yet more money they'll shed some your way. Roosevelt didn't need their cash. He had his family's banking empire. And he had real compassion. He was an old style Keynesian. He understood the importance of the government spending money on the nation, and that the nation would return that money to the wealthy as they spent it to stay alive.

    Beverly Mann August 14, 2016 7:08 pm

    Bingo.

    Zachary Smith August 14, 2016 8:02 pm

    To likbez August 14, 2016 5:44 pm

    I agree that Hillary Clinton is many kinds of criminal. I also agree with the others that it no longer matters in the US.

    Nixon = unprosecuted treason.
    Reagan = unprosecuted treason.
    Bush Sr. = unprosecuted criminal in Iran Contra and more.
    (Clinton 1 is a black hole for me in terms of information – I just don't know enough to say.)
    Bush Jr. = unprosecuted torturer and war crimes in Iraq.
    Obama = unprosecuted drone killer and war crimes in Libya & Syria.

    That's the Leaders. On down the ladder US policemen routinely kill people. Many are cold-blooded executions. Very seldom is there any prosecution. Even rarer than that is a conviction.

    Big Bankers plundered the US in 2008. Not a single prosecution that I know about.

    ... ... ...

    US citizens are becoming numbed to violence by the sheer frequency frequency. And increasingly have their noses in their handheld devices tuning out all the news. Having learned almost no history, they're suckers for nearly any glib line from very talented propagandists.

    A very nasty piece of work is about to become President of the US of A. She has done many things for which better humans than her are in prison. If the email hackers produce actual evidence of actual crimes, she will NOT be prosecuted. At the very worst the TPP-loving Neocon Kaine will become president.

    This is the US in 2016.

    likbez, August 14, 2016 10:23 pm

    Jack,

    You are absolutely right that Hillary is a moderate Republican in a sheep skin of Democrat. That was Bill Clinton "Third Way" strategy from the very beginning. Essentially selling the Party to Wall Street. This "neoliberalization" of Democratic Party worked extremely well for Democratic brass for almost three decades.

    You are probably wrong in your underestimation of the danger of the "new American militarism" (Professor Bacevich coined the term) factor in the US foreign policy -- the desire to subdue all other countries and establish global neoliberal empire. Which as Zachary Smith observed makes each and every President since Clinton a war criminal, unless we adopt the Roman dictum "Winners [in a war] are never sent to the court of law".

    Professor Bacevich had shown that the main driver of the US militarism is neocons domination of the US foreign policy, and, especially, neocons domination in State Department regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. They profess that the US that is uniquely qualified to take on the worldwide foes of peace and democracy, forgetting, revising, or ignoring the painful lessons of World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. And that establishing and maintaining the neoliberal empire is worth the price we pay as it will take the USA into the period of unprecedented peace.

    Bacevich scored a direct hit on the foundations of the American national security state with this scathing critique, and demolishes the unspoken assumptions that he believes have led the United States into a senseless, wasteful, and counter-productive perpetual war for perpetual peace.

    These assumptions clearly visible in "Khan gambit" are as following: the USA has the unique responsibility to intervene wherever it wants, for whatever purpose it wants, by whatever means it wants -- and the supporting "trinity" of requirements for the USA to maintain a global military presence, to configure its military forces for global power projection, and to counter threats by relying on a policy of global interventionism.

    The driving force in all recent wars is the desire to protect and enlarge the neoliberal empire. That means that election of Hillary means war.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Clinton foundation corruption scandal

    Notable quotes:
    "... About Hillary's cute lawerly language–just to be clear, isn't it neoliberal dogma that by definition all "trade deals" increase jobs and wages. ..."
    "... In effect this statement can be accurately summed up as "I support the TPP." I wonder–are a lot of people being taken in by this crap? Wouldn't it be better to just outright lie? I mean it's not like Trump has been letting this language go by unchallenged; he'll be pretty merciless about it in the debates coming up. ..."
    "... The problem is, is Trump smart enough to understand that? Is he patient and disciplined enough to make that "parsing problem" a basic part of his message and keep discussing it? ..."
    "... I know Trump is shrewd and cunning and educated about high-level money-grubbing and handing off his losses to others. But does he have any higher-order intelligence? Does he think longer and deeper and can he show that in any debates Hillary cannot avoid showing up for? Do they educate for that at Wharton? ..."
    "... Bill did usher in the – pay to play – model imo like none before him. ..."
    August 12, 2016 | naked capitalism
    Corruption

    "EXCLUSIVE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway" [Daily Caller]. "Multiple FBI investigations are underway involving potential corruption charges against the Clinton Foundation, according to a former senior law enforcement official. The investigation centers on New York City where the Clinton Foundation has its main offices, according to the former official who has direct knowledge of the activities. The New York-based probe is being led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bharara's prosecutorial aggressiveness has resulted in a large number of convictions of banks, hedge funds and Wall Street insiders."

    Normally, I view the Daily Caller with great skepticism, based on past fabrications (then again, Judy Miller). That said, this one was vouched for on the Twitter by reporters I have respect for. And with Clinton owning both political establishments, it's hard to see where else the (sadly) single source could turn. Interestingly, Bharara hasn't issued a denail as of this writing, altough they declined comment. Here's a rehash from LawNewz. So we'll see how this plays out.

    "Clinton team tells supporters to dismiss email questions as 'more bark than bite'" [Yahoo News] (talking points for Brock trolls and reputable allies, if any, attached). Notice there are two issues with "her damned email." (1) Clinton's privatization of the server as such, with the associated security issues. (2) Corruption, enabled by the privatization: Clinton's conflation of the private interests of the Clinton Foundation with the public actions of the State Department under Clinton's leadership.

    The privatized server enables corruption by severing the evidentiary chain between private communications (said to be yoga lessons and Chelsea's wedding, but, as we now know, more than that) and putatively public actions. The content of the 40 emails not turned over by Clinton, and now revealed by Judicial Watch, re-connects the links in the evidentiary chain. Of course, Clinton's talking points are designed to obfuscate the distinction.

    Jim Haygood, August 12, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    This just in:

    "Of the [Clintons'] $1,042,000 in charitable cash contributions, exactly $1 million went to, you guessed it, the Clinton Family Foundation."

    It takes a Harambe to trample a village.

    temporal, August 12, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    That is sort of the way it's done for most of the rich that make charitable contributions. Give presents to friends wait for other presents to return and pay less taxes. The Clintons apparently decided that honesty was the best policy and skipped all that trusting others to pass the dutchie.

    1. lyman alpha blob

      RE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation

      This morning I saw an article saying that the DOJ has rebuffed the FBI request to investigate the Clinton Foundation. Quick search turns up a lot of articles – here's one from the Washington Times:

      "The Obama administration rejected requests from three FBI field offices that wanted to open public corruption probes of the Clinton Foundation, according to a report that added to headaches for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

      Alerted by banks to suspicious transactions, the FBI wanted to investigate conflicts of interest involving foreign donors to the foundation while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. But the Justice Department put the kibosh on the it, CNN reported."

      So now I'm confused – aren't US Attorneys part of the DOJ? Can anyone shed some light on this?

      Reply
      1. ggm

        My twitter is saying Bharara could claim jurisdiction and the probe is an end run around DOJ. It is all based on one anonymous source for now, grain of salt and so forth.

    There seems to be a lot of rich people on the board as well as hanging around as employees at TCFF. That million won't go far. Maybe they'll pass on a couple of bucks to Haiti or send them some used furniture.

    Paid Minion, August 12, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    Another example of "charitable donations"– A big chunk of the "Warbird Restoration" business.

    • -Millionaire buys and restores WWII airplane. (The price of which has been driven into the millions of dollars by rich guys bidding against each other)
    • -"Donates" airplane to "charitable/non-profit" organization, dedicated to "honoring the memory…………"
    • -The guy that donates gets a tax writeoff, then flies it on the tax-deductible donations.

    Yeah, when the guy kicks the bucket, the airplane goes to the charity. But, being dead, and having received a 10-20 year tax writeoff, why does he care at that point?

    It would take twenty years to find and document all of the little scams for rich people that have been written into the tax code.

    Seems like the tax code gives out $100 of "incentives" for every $5 rich people spend.

    RMO, August 13, 2016 at 1:49 am

    Being an aviation nut I've noticed that many warbirds have gone WAY up in price over the last decade. They've never been cheap to own (even when they were available as surplus in large quantities the operating costs could be amazingly high) but now you have to be a multi-millionaire at least to buy something like a P-51. A lot of classic cars and sailing yachts have gone the same way. The extremely wealthy seem to have decided these things are desirable and the prices rocket into the stratosphere. I suppose I can consider myself fortunate that the type of flying that I love the most (soaring) is also one of the least expensive ways of getting off the ground. It's also one of the few forms of flying that let one go wingtip-to-wingtip with eagles and hawks on a regular basis.

    fajensen, August 14, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Maybe the purchase of a carefully restored vintage Flakvierling 38 is more appropriate?

    If they are flying over your land … you could put some authenticity into the Squillionaire WWII flyboy experience ;-)

    Foppe, August 12, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    fwiw, on the topic of elite corruption/pay2play/hillary: When I recently tried to talk about this with someone who takes himself slightly too seriously, who sees his interests as aligned with the professional classes, self-identifying as a "pragmatist", and who seems constitutionally unable to conceive of the notion that highly educated people could be as corrupt as they (often) are incompetent, I found that it was pretty much impossible to get him to even acknowledge that Hillary's SoS/CF corruption was problematic.

    Because "that's always how it goes/what happens, we shouldn't kid ourselves" and "at least we know about this" (apparently the fact that quite a bit of effort was being expended to make it harder for us to find out about this didn't faze him either, perhaps because of ideas he harbors about how that's necessary because "the masses wouldn't understand" or whatnot).

    Utterly bizarre, this unwillingness to engage with the facts, because of beliefs someone holds about how not doing so is the pragmatic option, in someone who also identifies as a (hard) scientist.

    hemeantwell, August 12, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    I've been reading around in some of the mid-20th c. lit on the psychology of fascism - "Prophets of Deceit," "The Inability to Mourn" and others in the genre - and that sort of "realism" was thought of as a key component in bringing about acceptance of, and then sympathy with, fascism. Once corruption and related forms of power asymmetries are accepted, there's not much left to maintain a principled critical standpoint. You're just left with your own narrow self interest and an openness to appreciating the skill with which the game is played. Hitler was quite a politician and, wowzers, Mussolini sure had some chutzpah, that March on Rome was awesome!

    cnchal

    No price is too high when paying with loot.

    As an old-style Leninist party in a modern world, the CCP is confronted by two major challenges: first, how to maintain "ideological discipline" among its almost 89 million members in a globalized world awash with money, international travel, electronically transmitted information, and heretical ideas. Second, how to cleanse itself of its chronic corruption, a blight that Xi has himself described as "a matter of life and death."

    The primary reason the Party is so susceptible to graft is that while officials are poorly paid, they do control valuable national assets. So, for example, when property development deals come together involving real estate (all land belongs to the government) and banking (all the major banks also belong to the government), officials vetting the deals find themselves in tempting positions to supplement their paltry salaries by accepting bribes or covertly raking off a percentage of the action. Since success without corruption in China is almost a non sequitur, officials and businessmen (and heads of state-owned enterprises are both) are all easily touched by what Chinese call "original sin" (yuanzui), namely, some acquaintance with corruption.

    The more anti corruption pressure Jinping applies, the greater the flood of loot coming out of China. Canada is getting swamped.

    jgordon

    About Hillary's cute lawerly language–just to be clear, isn't it neoliberal dogma that by definition all "trade deals" increase jobs and wages.

    In effect this statement can be accurately summed up as "I support the TPP." I wonder–are a lot of people being taken in by this crap? Wouldn't it be better to just outright lie? I mean it's not like Trump has been letting this language go by unchallenged; he'll be pretty merciless about it in the debates coming up.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef

    If she is so far ahead, she should be able to risk embracing the deal openly and not have to borrow a page from Obama's playbook about privately calming his supporters, back in 2008, about his public position on NAFTA.

    different clue

    The problem is, is Trump smart enough to understand that? Is he patient and disciplined enough to make that "parsing problem" a basic part of his message and keep discussing it?

    I know Trump is shrewd and cunning and educated about high-level money-grubbing and handing off his losses to others. But does he have any higher-order intelligence? Does he think longer and deeper and can he show that in any debates Hillary cannot avoid showing up for? Do they educate for that at Wharton?

    [Aug 14, 2016]
    August 12, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    RE: Clinton's drive to assimilate the Republican establishment

    IMNSHO this is the recipe for the gridlock you're looking for Lambert and may even rid us of both Trump and Clinton. Not sure what the Dems were thinking they'd accomplish by targeting Repulicans to vote for Clinton. While some might hold there nose and pull the lever for her out of disgust for Trump, it certainly does not follow that they will also vote for down-ticket Dems. It seems asinine to me to expect that they would.

    More likely the result is a Clinton presidency backed by a Republican Congress. I'd say it would be great if they'd then impeach her but one has to be careful what one wishes for. I don't see a Kaine presidency as much of an improvement and I suspect repubs would be more likely to cooperate with him than they would Clinton.

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 12, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    > what the Dems were thinking

    1) Ka-ching

    2) Bipartisanship, DLC style (Grand Bargain, TPP, war).

    3) Kick the left. Even though every day is kick the left day, some days are more delicious than others.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 12, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    I'll just remark that American politics right now is like a deep-fried Twinkie.

    • Disgusting and unhealthy? Check
    • Gooey and slimy inside? Check
    • Fried by too much heat? Check
    • Full of airy, spongey cake with no substance? Check
    • Zero nutritional content? Check
    Steve C , August 12, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    If all those establishment Republicans are rejecting Trump and embracing Hillary, he can't be so bad and she can't be so good.

    different clue , August 12, 2016 at 11:54 pm

    Why would this cause gridlock? Wouldn't this cause Trade Agreements and Grand Bargains? The elite mainstreamers will get all those done first and then get around to Impeachment and stuff if they need to amuse themselves. But they will see to first things first . . . if its Clinton and a Republan Senate and House.

    OIFVet , August 12, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Hillary Clinton is all about selfless service… If Hillary Clinton becomes president, it will cost her millions:

    If Clinton is elected president in November, she'll earn a salary of $400,000 but forgo any income from speeches (until she leaves office, anyway). That could cost the Clintons $10 million per year, based on the speech income Hillary Clinton averaged as a private citizen in 2013 and 2014. That's $40 million during a four-year term.

    This is so inspiring! Let's take up a collection fund for Hillary, call it the 'Pantsuit Fund'. It's the least we can do…

    PS No word on what portion of this "lost" income would be funneled into the Clinton Foundation instead…

    Roger Smith , August 12, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    As one door closes, another opens they say…

    aab , August 12, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    But the money paid to her openly after leaving the State Department was just a down payment for the presidency. So it's really more like she got $20+ million spread out over eight years (or twelve, if you want to factor in the depressing possibility of a second term) plus her cumulative White House salary of $1.6 million (or again, $3.2 over eight presidential years). And all that money paid to Bill, Chelsea and her husband was ALSO a down payment on the presidency. How many millions was that?

    The violin I am playing for them all is sub-atomic in size.

    Skippy , August 12, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    Bill did usher in the – pay to play – model imo like none before him.

    Disheveled Marsupial…. The layers of gate keepers to gain audience must have been commensurate to hot groupies servicing roadies and security staff… endless blow jobs and other sex acts committed in pursuit of entering the inner sanctum… where eternal bliss resides…

    different clue , August 12, 2016 at 11:58 pm

    The income wouldn't be foregone, only deferred. She would expect anywhere up to billions of dollars after leaving office if she got enough done for the OverClass while IN office.

    Merely delayed . . . not denied.

    Watch how much money Obama harvests in the years ahead. That will be the template.

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 12, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    That's innovative. At the end of the day, are there any synergies?

    jgordon , August 12, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    I have sinking feeling of horror even contemplating that someone as bloodthirsty as Hillary actually has a shot of being president. That the "left" are the ones who let things get this far is incredibly ironic. Or not. Maybe they've always been bloodthirsty warmonger hungry for chaos and destruction in their hearts.

    Plenue , August 12, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    "over the last 15 years, have lost two major wars, set the Mediterranean littoral on fire, created a refugee crisis that's destabilizing our largest military protectorate, and blown many thousands of far away brown people to pink mist (but that's not racist, no siree. We have credentials)."

    Serious men in suits, sitting around a table, having serious conversations: who do we bomb today? How much 'collateral damage' do the PR guys deem is acceptable?

    At no point will the idea that not bombing is a genuine option come up. Nor will the fact that (for some strange reason) people don't like being bombed and we're actually making more enemies than we're eliminating. I'm reminded of the South Park episode where the leaders of the Vatican have a meeting about how they can cover up raping children in the future. Simply not raping children never occurs to them as a choice.

    ian , August 13, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    I was both surprised, and not surprised that 90-some percent of her charitable donations went to the Clinton Foundation.
    Talk about hiding in plain sight.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Clintonites Feign Outrage at Threats of Violence

    www.counterpunch.org
    After Trump's asinine quip about a 2nd amendment "solution" to stopping Clinton's presidential run, her campaign manager, Robby Mook, had this to say:

    "What Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."

    A presidential candidate should not suggest violence in any way?!? Really?

    This coming from a high-level supporter of a candidate who…

    …has supported every war during her political career?

    …supported the use of civilian-butchering cluster bombs by Israel in Gaza?

    …supported the brutal invasions by the Saudi dictatorship of Bahrain and Yemen?

    …enthusiastically pushed for the bombing of Libya that turned it into a failed state?

    …threatened use of nuclear weapons vs. Iran?

    …supported the military coups against the elected governments in Honduras and Egypt, turning both into violence-ridden basket cases?

    …adores as her mentor the arch war criminal Henry Kissinger, orchestrator of the tortures and killings of 10s of thousands?

    Tell me, please, Clinton supporters, how is this not "suggest[ing] violence in any way."

    Is it because threats of violence don't count when they're promoted against human beings who aren't Americans? Go ahead, probe the deeply caustic, Trump-like racism behind that assumption.

    Last Friday, four days before Trump issued his violent threat and a few weeks after the constitution-waiving stunt at the Democratic convention, the ACLU and a federal court finally forced the release of the Obama administration's patently unconstitutional guidelines [2] for killing people with drones ( nearly 90% of whom were not the intended targets).

    And yesterday, while the Republican sociopath was issuing his threat, the Obama State Department approved the sale of more than $1 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia , no doubt to continue its bloody invasion of Yemen, where the UN recently estimated that two-thirds of the civilian casualties are caused by Saudi air strikes.

    Where was the Democratic and Republican outrage against those very real, violent threats?

    When Clinton wins the November election, will we stoop ever farther into an Orwellian world as our first "feminist" president continues to shovel billions in arms to arguably the most anti-feminist dictatorship on the planet? Where violence against people doesn't count as violence due to their nationality and/or the color of their skin?

    If you're outraged about Trump's barbarous suggestion of 2 nd Amendment "solutions" to elections, please don't stop there. Get your blood boiling and then also, and just as forcefully, challenge Clinton's own barbarous "solutions."

    As journalist John Pilger recently noted ,

    "A third of the members of the United Nations have felt Washington's boot, overturning governments, subverting democracy, imposing blockades and boycotts. Most of the presidents responsible have been liberal – Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama…"

    "One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone."

    "In 2009, Obama promised to help "rid the world of nuclear weapons" and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No American president has built more nuclear warheads than Obama."

    So please, no more sermonizing about stopping violence while taking a pass on condemning our government, which then and now, is "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

    [Aug 14, 2016] The System is Rigged (Only Not in the Way Trump Thinks)

    The main factor in rigging the system is pack of rabid gdogs called neoliberal MSM, which attack Trump 24 x 7, throwing our of the window any pretence about objectivity. They dissect each his phrase and create face skandals. One after another. They give a pass Hillary without even analysing her positions and her record (always dismal, often criminal, as in the term "war criminal"). Bastards...
    www.counterpunch.org
    It would be difficult to imagine a more implausible tribune of the people than Donald Trump.

    It is harder still to think of him as an elected official of any kind, much less a President.

    But the man does have certain strengths. He is shrewd, for example; and to be shrewd, he must be at least somewhat in touch with reality.

    To the extent that he is, he has to be wondering what the hell he was thinking when he threw his hat into the ring.

    ... ... ...

    As it became clear that Trump was doing better in the primaries than anyone had expected, the Republican establishment did try to derail his campaign - in league with the plutocrats who back them and Fox News. They failed spectacularly.

    They were unable to rig the election because too many of the people that used to listen to them finally realized that they were being used, and refused to go along.

    The only candidate who can rightfully claim that the primary elections were rigged against his candidacy is Bernie Sanders. Circumstantial evidence of this had been overwhelming from Day One; the DNC emails that Wikileaks published established the point definitively.

    No wonder that Democrats don't want to talk about the content of those emails; that they'd rather deflect attention to unsubstantiated allegations about Russian hacking.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Finally the Eruption of the Clinton Foundation Scandal

    www.counterpunch.org
    After Trump's asinine quip about a 2nd amendment "solution" to stopping Clinton's presidential run, her campaign manager, Robby Mook, had this to say:

    "What Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."

    A presidential candidate should not suggest violence in any way?!? Really?

    This coming from a high-level supporter of a candidate who…

    …has supported every war during her political career?

    …supported the use of civilian-butchering cluster bombs by Israel in Gaza?

    …supported the brutal invasions by the Saudi dictatorship of Bahrain and Yemen?

    …enthusiastically pushed for the bombing of Libya that turned it into a failed state?

    …threatened use of nuclear weapons vs. Iran?

    …supported the military coups against the elected governments in Honduras and Egypt, turning both into violence-ridden basket cases?

    …adores as her mentor the arch war criminal Henry Kissinger, orchestrator of the tortures and killings of 10s of thousands?

    Tell me, please, Clinton supporters, how is this not "suggest[ing] violence in any way."

    Is it because threats of violence don't count when they're promoted against human beings who aren't Americans? Go ahead, probe the deeply caustic, Trump-like racism behind that assumption.

    Last Friday, four days before Trump issued his violent threat and a few weeks after the constitution-waiving stunt at the Democratic convention, the ACLU and a federal court finally forced the release of the Obama administration's patently unconstitutional guidelines [2] for killing people with drones ( nearly 90% of whom were not the intended targets).

    And yesterday, while the Republican sociopath was issuing his threat, the Obama State Department approved the sale of more than $1 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia , no doubt to continue its bloody invasion of Yemen, where the UN recently estimated that two-thirds of the civilian casualties are caused by Saudi air strikes.

    Where was the Democratic and Republican outrage against those very real, violent threats?

    When Clinton wins the November election, will we stoop ever farther into an Orwellian world as our first "feminist" president continues to shovel billions in arms to arguably the most anti-feminist dictatorship on the planet? Where violence against people doesn't count as violence due to their nationality and/or the color of their skin?

    If you're outraged about Trump's barbarous suggestion of 2 nd Amendment "solutions" to elections, please don't stop there. Get your blood boiling and then also, and just as forcefully, challenge Clinton's own barbarous "solutions."

    As journalist John Pilger recently noted ,

    "A third of the members of the United Nations have felt Washington's boot, overturning governments, subverting democracy, imposing blockades and boycotts. Most of the presidents responsible have been liberal – Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama…"

    "One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone."

    "In 2009, Obama promised to help "rid the world of nuclear weapons" and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No American president has built more nuclear warheads than Obama."

    So please, no more sermonizing about stopping violence while taking a pass on condemning our government, which then and now, is "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

    [Aug 14, 2016] Charles Woods - Father of Tyrone Woods - Destroys CNN Anchor On Benghazi and Hillary

    www.youtube.com

    YouTube

    This is what happens when the Lame Stream Media gets a guest that doesn't fit the narrative and handily puts the anchor in her place. They deflect and end the interview!

    [Aug 14, 2016] In Defense of Trump's Name-Calling by Ted Rall

    Notable quotes:
    "... "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity." ..."
    "... Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out , it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one ..."
    "... As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists , helped topple Moammar Gaddafi , expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state . Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria. ..."
    "... Psychology Today ..."
    "... Ted Rall , syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net ..."
    "... is the author of the book " Snowden ," the biography of the NSA whistleblower. ..."
    Dec 15, 2015 | counterpunch.org

    There is, on the other hand, something wonderfully refreshing about Donald Trump's gleeful deployment of the S-word.

    "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity."

    Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out, it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one, since anyone with a half a brain could see at the time that Saddam probably didn't have WMDs, and that Bush's war would be a disaster.

    As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists, helped topple Moammar Gaddafi, expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state. Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria.

    Stupid.

    Let Hillary's supporters take offense. How is unfair, wrong or intemperate to call out a foreign policy record that fits the dictionary definition of "stupid" - doing the same thing over and over, even though it never works? Stupid is as stupid does. Hillary is stupid, especially on foreign policy, and Trump is right to say so.

    Winner or loser, Trump has done political debate in America a huge favor by freeing "stupid" from the rhetorical prison of words and phrases polite people aren't allowed to use.

    Interestingly, stupid people aren't all losers and losers aren't always stupid in Trumpworld. Hillary Clinton has one hell of a resume, which she has parlayed into a big pile of cash. She is, by Trump standards, a winner (albeit a stupid one). If I met Trump, I'd ask him if a smart person can be a loser (possible example: he called the obviously smart Russell Brand a loser, but also a "dummy").

    Pre-Trump, American politics and culture suffered from a lack of stupid-calling. I am serious.

    "There has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western countries," Ray Williams wrote last year in Psychology Today. Insults reflect a society's values. Americans value macho masculinity, good looks and youth, so our top slurs accuse their victims of being effeminate, weak, ugly, fat, old and outdated. In France, where the life of the mind is prized so much that one of the nation's top-rated TV shows featured philosophers and auteurs discussing politics and culture over cigarettes, there are few things worse than being called stupid and having it stick. A society that ranks "stupid" as of its worst insults lets it be known that being smart is at least as important as being tough or hot or buff.

    So, Donald Trump, thanks for dropping those S-bombs.

    Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net, is the author of the book "Snowden," the biography of the NSA whistleblower.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Judicial Watch Uncovers Clinton Emails With Pay to Play Revelations

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton's top aides' favors for and interactions with the Clinton Foundation seem in violation of the ethics agreements that Hillary Clinton agreed to in order to be appointed and confirmed as Secretary of State. For example, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton on January 5, 2009, wrote in a letter to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin: ..."
    "... "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party…." ..."
    "... The emails reveal that Clinton campaign adviser and pollster Mark Penn advised Clinton on NATO and piracy. Another major Clinton fundraiser, Lana Moresky, also pushed Clinton to hire someone for a position at State. Clinton directed Abedin to follow up and "help" the applicant and told Abedin to "let me know" about the job issue. ..."
    "... The emails show that Hillary Clinton relied on someone named "Justin " (presumably Justin Cooper, a Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee), to set up her cell phone voicemail, rather than having State Department personnel handle it. This was in a February 11, 2009, email from Clinton aide Lauren Jiloty to Clinton, using Clinton's [email protected] address. ..."
    www.yahoo.com

    oteyokwa, 16 hours ago

    Remember how Hillary Clinton repeatedly assured us all that she had turned over all work-related emails? And that she avoided any conflicts of interest with her Clinton Foundation?

    Well, this week we released 296 pages of State Department records containing 44 email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department. This brings the known total to 171 of new Clinton emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over. These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, "as far as she knew," all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.

    The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate. In the email, Band tells Hillary Clinton's former aides at the State Department, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, that it is "important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that, "Personnel has been sending him options." Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.

    Included is a 2009 email in which Band directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department's "substance person" on Lebanon. Band notes that Chagoury is "key guy there [Lebanon] and to us," and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.

    Chagoury, a foreign national, is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and a top donor to the Clinton Foundation. He has appeared near the top of the Foundation's donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative. According to a 2010 investigation by PBS Frontline, Chagoury was convicted in 2000 in Switzerland for laundering money from Nigeria, but agreed to a plea deal and repaid $66 million to the Nigerian government.

    Clinton's top aides' favors for and interactions with the Clinton Foundation seem in violation of the ethics agreements that Hillary Clinton agreed to in order to be appointed and confirmed as Secretary of State. For example, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton on January 5, 2009, wrote in a letter to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin:

    "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party…."

    As preparation for Hillary's upcoming visit to Asia, Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, on Feb. 11, 2009, sends Hillary a copy of his upcomingtestimony before Congress in which he would condemn any U.S. efforts to criticize Chinese monetary policy or enact trade barriers. Several days later, Hillary asked Abedin about Roach possibly "connecting" with her while she was in Beijing: "I forwarded you my email to him about connecting in Beijing. Can he come to the embassy or other event?" Morgan Stanley is a long-time financial supporter of the Clintons.

    The emails also reveal that Abedin left then-Secretary Clinton's daily schedule, a presumably sensitive document, on a bed in an unlocked hotel room. An email on April 18, 2009, during a conference in Trinidad and Tobago, from aide Melissa J. Lan to Huma Abedin asks for the Secretary's "day book binders." Abedin replies: "Yes. It's on the bed in my room. U can take it. My door is open. I'm in the lobby.Thx." Moreover, the emails show the annoyance of another Clinton aide that the schedule was sent to an authorized State Department email address and not to an unsecured non-state.gov account.

    The emails reveal that Clinton campaign adviser and pollster Mark Penn advised Clinton on NATO and piracy. Another major Clinton fundraiser, Lana Moresky, also pushed Clinton to hire someone for a position at State. Clinton directed Abedin to follow up and "help" the applicant and told Abedin to "let me know" about the job issue.

    The emails show that Hillary Clinton relied on someone named "Justin " (presumably Justin Cooper, a Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee), to set up her cell phone voicemail, rather than having State Department personnel handle it. This was in a February 11, 2009, email from Clinton aide Lauren Jiloty to Clinton, using Clinton's [email protected] address.

    This is the ninth set of records produced for Judicial Watch by the State Department from the non-state.gov email accounts of Huma Abedin.

    The documents were produced under a court order in a May 5, 2015, Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) requiring the agency to produce "all emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013, using a 'non-state'.gov email address."

    It's no wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress. They show that the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.

    These revelations have created a national firestorm in the media, as even the liberal media grasp the significance of the Clinton Foundation's pay for play relationship with the Clinton State Department. See these major stories in the New York Post and The New York Times or this major editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Families Of Benghazi Victims Are SUING Hillary! YES!

    www.thepoliticalinsider.com
    Hillary Clinton thought Benghazi and her email scandal were behind her. Even though the FBI declined to charge her with massive negligence, those affected by her incompetence aren't gonna let her off so easy.

    The families of the Benghazi victims are going after Hillary Clinton in court! This could be it for her!

    Via NBCNews:

    The parents of two Americans killed in the 2012 terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in federal court Monday against Hillary Clinton.

    In the suit, Patricia Smith and Charles Woods, the parents of Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods, claim that Clinton's use of a private e-mail server contributed to the attacks. They also accuse her of defaming them in public statements.

    Smith was an information management officer and Woods was a security officer, both stationed in Benghazi.

    This is lawsuit could be what FINALLY puts Hillary away. The families deserve justice!

    [Aug 14, 2016] Bill Might Have Just Stirred Up More Trouble For Hillary

    www.thepoliticalinsider.com
    Do the Clinton's not realize when they've won something? Bill at least doesn't.

    After the FBI absolved Hillary of any wrong-doing but still chastised her for her carelessness, you would think that Bill and Hill would want to move away from a scandal has plagued them, right?

    Not according to Bill, who may have just gotten Hillary in more trouble with the FBI:

    Via The New York Post:

    Bill Clinton is accusing the FBI director of serving up "the biggest load of bull I've ever heard" - marking the first significant public comments from the husband of the Democratic nominee on the scandal that's plagued his wife's campaign for over a year.

    The Clinton's are notorious for holding grudges for decades, so it is safe to say that FBI Director Comey is in for a bit of trouble if Hillary ever gets into office.

    I don't know why you'd even want to bring this up. You won. Do you really want people to look further into the FBI investigation and Hillary's emails? I don't think so.

    Bill, August 13, 2016 at 9:56 pm

    Comey had better watch out. People who cross Bill and Killary have a disturbing habit of dying mysteriously.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Rand Paul Says Jail Hillary Clinton on Reilly Factor

    Essentially Rand Paul accused Hillary of perjury before Congress that should be punished by five year imprisonment. He is the first senator that asked for her imprisonment.
    August 11, 2016 | YouTube

    cyberflea30

    I love Rand Paul. Sad thing tho is Rand.. we the general public is think she has the entire government wrapped around her finger.

    louis santiago

    I know it, and that tells me one thing. The system creates the illusion that we have a say on who is president, but im starting to believe we don't, it's all a facade. It's all rigged, I think Hillary will be president, seems to me that either the democratic party is much more powerful or because of the fact they are running the administration it gives them leverage to call all thr shots, even our votes.

    Look at what happened with Sander's votes, all rigged.

    D Googolize

    How obvious does it have to be when all the evidence of corruption is out there? Director Comey laying out all the evidence of numerous lies and not being able to prove intent is just obvious signs of bribery, threats or both. Same thing with the dirtbag Loretta Lynch not answering any questions in the press conference. How many damning emails will it take??

    [Aug 13, 2016] Mysterious Deaths of DNC s Seth Rich and Other East Coast Politicos Fuel Conspiracy Theories

    See Julian Assange viewpoint YouTube also see INCREDIBLE! RUSH Wikileaks' Julian Assange Implies Murdered DNC Staffer Was Email-Leaker - YouTube
    Notable quotes:
    "... "From Claudia Kash: I know why Seth Rich had to die. There were 2 sets of polling places this primary season -- one set for most of the voters, who went on state websites to find their polling locations -- a second set for Hillary Clinton supporters who looked on Hillary Clinton's website to find their polling location. The Secretary of State for each state had one set of locations on >the record; the other set of locations, the ones listed on Hillary's website, were not on the state record. I know this because I looked on her website to find where a friend should vote -- then double-checked the state >website, which showed a different address. I thought there must be a mistake -- I kept checking, right up to election day. ..."
    "... But until they killed Seth Rich, I couldn't figure out why there would be two different polling places. This is how I think the scam worked: While most voters look up their location on their state website, voters who were signed up as Hillary Clinton supporters would be directed to her site to find their polling place. It was set up the same as any other DNC polling place -- with DNC volunteers, regular voting machines, etc. -- and a duplicate voter roster, the same as the roster at the other polling place. Voters would be checked off on the roster, same as at the other polling place... and after the polls closed, the DNC supervisor would pick up the roster and the ballots. ..."
    "... Seems a straight Machiavellian operation. Murder the young insider, Seth Rich, that leaked the emails to Assange's Wikileaks and then blame it on an enemy that none can fact check on. DNC= Deep National Control ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Yul | Aug 11, 2016 2:18:39 PM | 13
    WRT Seth Rich

    check this site :
    https://heatst.com/politics/mysterious-deaths-of-dncs-seth-rich-and-other-east-coast-politicos-fuel-conspiracy-theories/

    Mysterious Deaths of DNC's Seth Rich and Other East Coast Politicos Fuel Conspiracy Theories

    Tom in AZ | Aug 11, 2016 3:15:01 PM | 18
    The media reporting on keeps making the statement from the police 'that nothing was missing from his body or belongings'. The guy was walking around at 4 AM, and apparently no one but his killers actually saw him. So, I guess he couldn't be carrying anything outside of his pockets? In has hands?
    Miok | Aug 11, 2016 11:58:26 PM | 47
    This is supposedly from Seth rich's girlfriend

    https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4vqvug/dnc_staffer_seth_rich_was_set_to_expose_dnc_voter/

    "From Claudia Kash: I know why Seth Rich had to die. There were 2 sets of polling places this primary season -- one set for most of the voters, who went on state websites to find their polling locations -- a second set for Hillary Clinton supporters who looked on Hillary Clinton's website to find their polling location. The Secretary of State for each state had one set of locations on >the record; the other set of locations, the ones listed on Hillary's website, were not on the state record. I know this because I looked on her website to find where a friend should vote -- then double-checked the state >website, which showed a different address. I thought there must be a mistake -- I kept checking, right up to election day.

    But until they killed Seth Rich, I couldn't figure out why there would be two different polling places. This is how I think the scam worked: While most voters look up their location on their state website, voters who were signed up as Hillary Clinton supporters would be directed to her site to find their polling place. It was set up the same as any other DNC polling place -- with DNC volunteers, regular voting machines, etc. -- and a duplicate voter roster, the same as the roster at the other polling place. Voters would be checked off on the roster, same as at the other polling place... and after the polls closed, the DNC supervisor would pick up the roster and the ballots.

    The supervisor would then pick up the roster at the legitimate polling place and the ballots there. He(or she) >would then replace a number of Bernie Sanders ballots with an equal number of the ballots from the Hillary >Clinton voting location. Then the duplicate roster from the HRC would be shredded and thrown away, along >with all the Bernie Sanders ballots that had been replaced. That way the number of people who voted (on the >remaining roster) still matches the number of ballots. This is why so many states reported a "lower than expected voter turnout".

    Seth Rich, who was responsible for the app that helped voters find their polling places, did not realize that there were two sets of polling places until he himself went to vote. He lived in Washington DC, which voted at the end of the primary season, a week after Clinton had already been declared the winner. I believe he discovered it then, and had started asking questions about why the polling places on Hillary's website didn't match the ones on the DC website.

    But even if he didn't say a word to anybody, it would have been dangerous to let him live. He would have >figured it out sooner or later -- and he would have reported it when he did."

    BRF | Aug 12, 2016 3:01:15 PM | 63
    Seems a straight Machiavellian operation. Murder the young insider, Seth Rich, that leaked the emails to Assange's Wikileaks and then blame it on an enemy that none can fact check on. DNC= Deep National Control.

    [Aug 13, 2016] Cybersecurty companies as propaganda tools by Shane Harris

    Those Clinton presstitutes resort to open red bating to diminish the damage cause of DNC leaks. Complete absence of fact and computer related jargon that ordinary people do not understand are perfect propaganda smoke screen for red baiting
    In an interview with a Dutch television journalist this week, Assange implied that Setch Rich was the source and that he may have been murdered on a Washington, D.C., street in July for divulging information.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Speaking privately, an individual close to the investigation of the Democratic Party hacks said there is a growing presumption that candidates, officials, and operators in both parties are being targeted. "Everyone is sweating this right now," the person said. "This isn't just limited to Democrats." ..."
    "... Guccifer 2.0 claims to be the source of the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, which published them just prior to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia last month. The emails showed that DNC staffers discussed how to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned in the wake of the disclosures. ..."
    "... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has hinted that there are more emails coming. And earlier this week, Trump adviser Roger Stone seemed to confirm that when he said at a public appearance that he had been in touch with Assange and learned that "the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation " ..."
    "... Emails that were disclosed this week as part of a lawsuit into Hillary Clinton's private email server raised questions about whether her staff were doing political favors on behalf of big-dollar donors to the foundation. The Clinton campaign has consistently denied that charge, but questions of conflict of interest have dogged the candidate. ..."
    "... another conspiracy theory that Assange has helped to fuel: That a murdered 27-year old DNC staffer may have been the source of emails to WikiLeaks. ..."
    "... In an interview with a Dutch television journalist this week, Assange implied that Setch Rich was the source and that he may have been murdered on a Washington, D.C., street in July for divulging information. ..."
    www.thedailybeast.com

    Russians Suspected of Hacking Democrats Also Went After Republicans, Researchers Say - The Daily Beast Red Scare

    Russians Suspected of Hacking Democrats Also Went After Republicans, Researchers Say

    Cybersecurity experts have linked one of the groups that stole emails from the DNC to a campaign against lawmakers and officials, including John McCain.

    For weeks, Democratic politicians have been bracing for the release of more embarrassing emails that U.S. officials believe were stolen by Russian hackers and then handed over to WikiLeaks .

    But Republicans have reason to worry, too. Computer security researchers are linking one of the Russian groups that stole emails from the Democratic National Committee to a campaign that hacked the staff of at least three GOP lawmakers, as well as state-level party officials across the country.

    Back in June, a little noticed website called DCLeaks published the emails of various political and military figures. Most public attention focused on emails written by retired Gen. Philip Breedlove, formerly the supreme allied commander of NATO.

    But the DCLeaks cache also included emails from hundreds of Republican politicos , including of campaign staff for Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who ran for president this year, as well as Republican Michele Bachmann, a former member of Congress who ran for president in 2012. The lawmakers had served on sensitive committees including Armed Services and Intelligence. DCLeaks also published messages from party officials in Wyoming, Illinois, Connecticut, and Texas.

    The Daily Beast contacted multiple offices of those implicated in the hack, including McCain and Graham, but received no response.

    The published emails are mostly innocuous and mundane. But the hackers also gave no indication of whether they had more information or had compromised the accounts of people whom they didn't publicly expose.

    Speaking privately, an individual close to the investigation of the Democratic Party hacks said there is a growing presumption that candidates, officials, and operators in both parties are being targeted. "Everyone is sweating this right now," the person said. "This isn't just limited to Democrats."

    Some U.S. officials suspect that the DNC hack, and a subsequent penetration of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is part of a Russian "active measures" campaign to influence the presidential election, perhaps in favor of Donald Trump, who has been praised by Russian President Vladimir Putin and has had business dealings in Russia.

    But the targeting of GOP officials suggests that the campaign could more broadly be aimed at collecting potentially incriminating information about candidates in both parties. In that sense, the campaign tends to fit more with the standard modus operandi of a foreign intelligence organization, which is to spy on anyone in a position of power, regardless of party.

    Researchers at computer security company ThreatConnect, which has been analyzing the Democratic hacks, called DCLeaks a "Russian-backed influence outlet."

    In a blog post Friday afternoon, the researchers noted that the site had exposed the emails of a former regional field director for the DNC "whose email account was breached in the same manner as a known FANCY BEAR attack method ."

    Fancy Bear is one of the monikers used for a Russian hacker group that U.S. officials say was one of two groups that infiltrated the DNC.

    "DCLeaks' registration and hosting information aligns with other FANCY BEAR activities and known tactics, techniques, and procedures," ThreatConnect's researchers found.

    What's more, the researchers have also linked a hacker that goes by the name Guccifer 2.0, and is suspected of working for Russia , with DCLeaks.

    Guccifer 2.0 claims to be the source of the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, which published them just prior to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia last month. The emails showed that DNC staffers discussed how to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned in the wake of the disclosures.

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has hinted that there are more emails coming. And earlier this week, Trump adviser Roger Stone seemed to confirm that when he said at a public appearance that he had been in touch with Assange and learned that "the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation "

    Emails that were disclosed this week as part of a lawsuit into Hillary Clinton's private email server raised questions about whether her staff were doing political favors on behalf of big-dollar donors to the foundation. The Clinton campaign has consistently denied that charge, but questions of conflict of interest have dogged the candidate.

    The new evidence of links between DCLeaks and the Russian hackers also undercuts another conspiracy theory that Assange has helped to fuel: That a murdered 27-year old DNC staffer may have been the source of emails to WikiLeaks.

    In an interview with a Dutch television journalist this week, Assange implied that Setch Rich was the source and that he may have been murdered on a Washington, D.C., street in July for divulging information.

    That seems highly unlikely. For starters, hackers who have access to the purloined emails have been communicating with journalists since Rich was killed. But researchers, at ThreatConnect and elsewhere, also now believe that Guccifer 2.0 was WikiLeaks' source and that the group is acting as a front for the Russian government.

    Speaking on condition of anonymity, a U.S. official told The Daily Beast this week that there is no evidence in the investigation of the DNC and other hacks that Rich played any

    [Aug 13, 2016] Trump should pattern his campaign on the model of Truman as neoliberal MSM had written him off

    Notable quotes:
    "... News Media bias. Excellent Lou Dobbs discussion with Newt Gingrich. Worthy of your time to Watch short Video ..."
    "... Newt Gingrich: ..."
    "... The elite media is dedicated to defeating Trump .. Trump should pattern his campaign on the model of Truman…media had written him off. ..."
    "... And the elite media in newsroom after newsroom is dedicated to defeating Trump and I think every chance they get to try to get him off message, they will, ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    likklemore | Aug 11, 2016 6:00:28 PM | 28
    News Media bias. Excellent Lou Dobbs discussion with Newt Gingrich. Worthy of your time to Watch short Video

    Newt Gingrich:

    The elite media is dedicated to defeating Trump .. Trump should pattern his campaign on the model of Truman…media had written him off.

    "The elite media understands that if they allow Donald Trump to communicate directly to the American people, he's just plain going to beat them. And he's going to win, and Hillary is going to lose

    And the elite media in newsroom after newsroom is dedicated to defeating Trump and I think every chance they get to try to get him off message, they will," he said. "I hope that Donald Trump will take, as his model, Harry Truman's campaign in 1948 where the entire elite media had written Truman off and he came back, he pounded away, and he won the presidency despite every expectation of the national establishment. I think Trump has the same opportunity this year."

    [more on Vid..Hillary's comment she short-circuited will return to hurt. What else did she short-circuit? listen]

    http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5078954144001/newt-gingrich-elite-media-is-dedicated-to-defeating-trump

    [Aug 13, 2016] Inside The Head Of Trump Voters

    Notable quotes:
    "... individuals' innate psychological predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate, that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration, civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most heated. ..."
    "... But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order. ..."
    "... It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And: "They are members of our community." ..."
    "... The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West, and there's really only one way to stop it. ..."
    "... we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says, drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity (as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart. ..."
    "... If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism. ..."
    "... I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for a long time. ..."
    "... The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality. ..."
    "... Haidt says that the authoritarian impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by choice. ..."
    The American Conservative
    If you look back far enough in humankind's history, you will observe that you don't see civilizations starting without their building temples first. Haidt, who is a secular liberal, is not making a theistic point, not really. He's saying that the work of civilization can only be accomplished when a people binds itself together around a shared sense of the sacred. It's what makes a people a people, and a civilization a civilization. "It doesn't have to be a god," says Haidt. Anything that we hold sacred, and hold it together, is enough.

    The thing is, this force works like an electromagnetic field: the more tightly it binds us, the more alien others appear to us, and the more we find it impossible to empathize with them. This is what Haidt means by saying that morality binds and blinds.

    Haidt quizzes the 700-800 people in the hall about their Hillary vs. Trump feelings. The group - all psychologists, therapists, professors of psychology, and so forth - were overwhelmingly pro-Hillary and anti-Trump. No surprise there. But then he tells them that if they believe that they could treat without bias a patient who is an open Trump supporter, they're lying to themselves. In the America of 2016, political bias is the most powerful bias of all - more polarizing by far than race, even.

    Haidt turns to the work of social psychologist Karen Stenner, and her 2005 book The Authoritarian Dynamic. The publisher describes the book like this (boldface emphases mine):

    What are the root causes of intolerance? This book addresses that question by developing a universal theory of what determines intolerance of difference in general, which includes racism, political intolerance, moral intolerance and punitiveness. It demonstrates that all these seemingly disparate attitudes are principally caused by just two factors: individuals' innate psychological predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate, that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration, civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most heated.

    Haidt says Stenner discerns three strands of contemporary political conservatism: 1) laissez-faire libertarians (typically, business Republicans); 2) Burkeans (e.g., social conservatives who value stability); and 3) authoritarians.

    Haidt makes a point of saying that it's simply wrong to call Trump a fascist. He's too individualistic for that. He's an authoritarian, but that is not a synonym for fascist, no matter how much the Left wants to say it is.

    According to Haidt's reading of Stenner, authoritarianism is not a stable personality trait. Most people are not naturally authoritarian. But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order.

    It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And: "They are members of our community."

    The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West, and there's really only one way to stop it.

    At the 41:37 point in the talk, Haidt says that we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says, drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity (as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart.

    This fall, the Democrats are taking Stenner's advice brilliantly, says Haidt, referring to the convention the Dems just put on, and Hillary's speech about how we're all better off standing together. Haidt says this is actually good advice, period. "It's not just propaganda you wheel out at election time," he says. If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism.

    To end the talk, Haidt focuses on what his own very tribe - psychologists and academics - can do to make things better. They can start by being aware of their own extreme bias. "We lean very far left," he says, then shows a graph tracking how far from the center the academy has become over the past 20 years.

    Haidt says we don't need "equality" - that is, an equal number of conservatives and liberals in the academy. We just need to have diversity enough for people to be challenged in their viewpoints, so an academic community can flourish according to its nature. But this is not what we have. According to the research Haidt presents, in 1996, liberals in the academy outnumbered conservatives 2:1. Today, it's 5:1 - and the conservatives are concentrated in engineering and other technical fields. Says Haidt: "In the core areas of the university - in the humanities and social sciences - it's 10 to 1 and 40 to 1."

    The Right has left the university faculties, he said - and a lot of that is because they got tired of the "hostile climate and discrimination"

    "People who are not on the left … are often in the closet," says Haidt. "They can't speak up. They can't criticize. They hear somebody say something, they believe it's false, but they can't speak up and say why they believe it's false. And that is a breakdown in our science."

    Until they repent (my word, not his), university professors will continue to be part of the problem, not the solution, says Haidt. He ends by calling on his colleagues to "get our hearts in order." To stop being moralistic hypocrites. To be humble. To be more forgiving, and more open to hearing what their opponents have to say. Says Haidt, "If we want to change things, we need to do it more from the perspective of love, not of hate."

    It's an extraordinary speech by a brave man who is a true humanist. Watch it all here, and read more about it.

    Here's what I think about all of this.

    I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for a long time.

    We are the people who defile what they consider most sacred: sexual liberty, including abortion rights and gay rights. The liberals in control now (as distinct from all liberals, let me be clear) have made it clear that they will not compromise with what they consider to be evil. We are the Klan to them. Error has no rights in this world they're building.

    If you'll recall my blogging about Hillary Clinton's convention speech, I really liked it in theory - the unity business. The thing is, I don't believe for one second that it is anything but election propaganda. I don't believe that the Democratic Party today has any interest in making space for us. I wish I did believe that. I don't see any evidence for it. They and their supporters will drive us out of certain professions, and do whatever they can to rub our noses in the dirt.

    I know liberal readers of this blog will say, "But we don't!" To which I say: you don't, maybe, but you're not running the show, alas.

    The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality. As I've written in this space many times, this is not something that was done to us; all of us, Republicans and Democrats, Christians and non-Christians, have done this to ourselves. At this point, all I want for my tribe is to be left alone. But the crusading Left won't let that happen anymore. They don't even want the Mormons to be allowed to play football foe the Big 12, for heaven's sake. This assault is relentless. Far too many complacent Christians believe it will never hurt them, that it will never happen where they live. It can and it will.

    There is no center anymore. Alasdair MacIntyre was right. I may not be able to vote in good conscience for Trump (and I certainly will not vote for Hillary Clinton), but I know exactly why a number of good people have convinced themselves that this is the right thing to do. Haidt says that the authoritarian impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by choice.

    This week, I've been interviewing people for the Work chapter of my Benedict Option book. In all but one case, the interviewees - lawyers, law professors, a doctor, corporate types, academics - would only share their opinion if I promised that I wouldn't use their name. They know what things are like where they work. They know that this is going to spread. That fear, that remaining inside the closet, tells you something about where you are. When professionals feel that to state their opinion would be to put their careers at risk, we are not in normal times.

    The center has not held. I certainly wish Jon Haidt well. He's a good man doing brave, important work. And I hope he proves me wrong on this. I honestly do. Because if I'm right, there goes America. On the other hand, reasoning that this must not be true therefore it is not true is a good way to get run over.

    [Aug 13, 2016] Media Builds Up Enemies For Hillarys Wars

    Notable quotes:
    "... What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A personal server; a real pro job. ..."
    "... Hillary - if elected - will inherit economy in recession or on the brink of it, and her main preoccupation will be dealing with mounting domestic unrest, as well as with the wars she'll inherit from Obama. However she may want to, she'll be in no position to start another war. ..."
    "... The US Dept of State is an equal-opportunity criminal syndicate ..."
    "... There is always money for war, just no money for commons. ..."
    "... Amazing how even the most obvious facts are denied by the largest margin of people - in spite of the truth being available to the contrary. People believed Goebbels and are now believing the propaganda from the cesspool of the totalitarian establishment, because they WANT TO. ..."
    "... Regarding the to Nazi-standards evolving propaganda of the Western establishment, it would be helpful if people would stop 'googling' misinformation from the CIA 'search' engine aka data collection agency. There are other search engines available that will not skew the results. ..."
    "... Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting. ..."
    "... ...New emails showing ( the worse evil ) Hillarys lies and corruption would be perfect PR to highlight for one of Trump's principle core messages of Washintons and especially Hitlarys corruption. ..."
    "... The war monger industries, think tanks, and DOD want a bigger war. They don't have to kill Obama, they are waiting for the Killary and are using every dirty trick to get her elected. ..."
    "... We're sort of behind schedule on that DoD memo that Wesley Clark saw after 9/11 that said the US would "take out" seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, and Libya are basket cases. Somalia and Sudan aren't much better. That leaves Lebanon and Iran. ..."
    "... People know that those aren't true threats to us so following the Brzezinski/PNAC doctrine of not allowing any country to rise in any region leads us to real powers Russia and China. I wonder if Vegas has any odds on which country we'll be at war with next. And will we do it directly or via some sad-sack like Ukraine? ..."
    "... Excellent points. The propaganda process to convince the American people to accept war with Russia (Syria and Iran) has been going on for several years now (the military budgets are just beginning their upward ramp due to Russia). The process is nearly identical to what Bush and the neocons did with Saddam and the invasion of Iraq. And propaganda through the mass media is effective--upwards to 70% of the American people supported Bush's invasion. ..."
    "... Hillary's brain will not survive the pressure of a presidency when half the country thinks she is liar and untrustworthy. Her health is already suspicious and she may collapse after her election as there would be huge demands on her. The next president of the USA won't be Hillary Clinton for long, it will be Tim Kayne. ..."
    "... No doubt there could well be a lot more in what The Don doesn't say. But this election will be about low voter turn out. Record lows. Everyone is nauseous. Trump has his cult following. Hilary disgraced the Bernistas - none of them will vote for Hilary. Hilary has no one except the neocon rats who have jumped ship. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's Embrace of Kissinger Is Inexcusable. Bernie Sanders should call on her to repudiate him as the war criminal he is. https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-embrace-of-kissinger-is-inexcusable/ ..."
    "... As for the discussion on running out of money for wars ... well al-CIAduh/IS is much cheaper than the US uniformed armed forces, or the same people through the revolving door fighting as mercenaries. The KSA/GCC have been footing the bill ... because the same forces they're directing outwards will devastate them if and when they turn around and go for them directly. As times get harder for al-CIAduh/IS ... up against the Russians, Syrians, Iranians, Hezbulla ... it's got to occur to them that there's a much easier, much larger paycheck available in turning around and robbing the bank that's been feeding them rations. ..."
    "... William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
    "... William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
    "... The New York Times is selling a world-view. You can't sell anyone anything they don't want to buy. The American public, having detected that their leaders have no idea how to bring them safely out of the wood of the "new economics", of the air economy, is begging to be told a story that - if we all close our eyes and believe real hard - will bring magic, fairy princess economy back to life. Life was OK ... nostalgia makes it better ... back when we used to hate the Russians. Let's hate 'em again. It's kind of a cargo cult mentality. ..."
    "... Many times, back then, I would confront my comrades with the assertion that the mass produced media outlets (MPMO), such as the New York Times were nothing more than propaganda machines. "Hip" as they might have been, they just could not handle this concept. ..."
    "... I also investigated the world of the eleetoids very deeply -- and I had several unique opportunities to do so. They are certainly not at all like us. They are generally quite vain and oddly shallow. Money, power, and organized violence are one and the same to them. Wall Street, Washington D.C., and the pentagon constellation are all on the same page. Crucially, none of these eleetoids is anywhere near what could be deemed sane. Their minds are profoundly warped just because they are what they are. ..."
    "... And they are easily capable of setting off Armageddon. War and the proliferation of misery is not their goal in the end, much worse, it is simply a consequence, a symptom if you will, of their insanity. ..."
    "... WADC and NYC attract psychopathy, so naturally our two choices for November are Alpha Psychopaths. That doesn't mean that the necrotic American ship of state will alter its course, only settle lower in the water, come to a gradual stop, tip downward at the bow, and then break in half. The psychopaths are The Vampire and will fly away, caww, caww, caww, leaving all the hoi polloi, the Little People, to drink and to drown. ..."
    "... In some ways the rules of engagement for Syria are reminiscent of the restrictions placed on U.S. special operators in El Salvador in the 1980s. The U.S. forces in that tiny country helped train the embattled government's counter-insurgency forces. But they were not allowed to go into battle with the forces they trained. ..."
    "... The people who have brainwashed the Americans are the problem just like in Hitler's time. Those global plutocratic families have been controlling the narrative for centuries and they seem to have convinced you it is the US citizens who are to blame for falling for the propaganda this time. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Another example that so-called news in U.S. media is often more propaganda than valid information is this NYT piece on the "hack" of the Democratic National Committee:

    WASHINGTON - A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic politicians was bigger than it first appeared and breached the private email accounts of more than 100 party officials and groups, officials with knowledge of the case said Wednesday.
    ...

    A "Russian cyberattack"? How can the NYT claim such, in an opening paragraph, when even the Director of U.S. National Intelligence is unable to make such a judgement?

    Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, speaking about the hack of Democratic Party emails, said on Thursday the U.S. intelligence community was not ready to "make the call on attribution" as to who was responsible.

    All the NYT lays out to backup its claim of a "Russian" hack is an anonymous Intelligence Committee staffer who claims U.S. intelligence agencies "have virtually no doubt" about it. If that were true why would the boss of these intelligence agencies publicly point out such doubts?

    There is not even any evidence that the publishing of emails incriminating the DNC for manipulating the Democratic primaries were the result of any "hack". It might have well been an insider who copied the material and handed them to Wikileaks for publication. After the leak the DNC data analyst Seth Rich was mutilated and murdered near his home in Washington DC. The case was obviously no robbery. Julian Assange of Wikileaks pointed out that the circumstances of Rich's death are suspicious. I first attributed that claim to Assange's typical exaggerations, but the facts speak for themselves. The case indeed looks very much like a targeted killing. Who did it and and why?

    The "Russia is guilty" claim for whatever happened, without any proof, is becoming a daily diet fed to the "western" public. A similar theme is the "barrel bombing" of (the always same ) "hospitals" in Syria which is claimed whenever the Syrian government or its allies hit some al-Qaeda headquarter .

    All this propaganda is in preparation of the rule of the " We came, we saw, he died. Hahaha ... " psychopathic queen of war Hillary Clinton.

    As Marc Wheeler, aka emptywheel, reminds us:

    6:13 AM - 10 Aug 2016 emptywheel @emptywheel

    The actions to ensure we will escalate our wars are being taken as we speak. January will be too late to stop it.

    Posted by b at 11:42 AM | Comments (74)

    IhaveLittleToAdd | Aug 11, 2016 12:00:03 PM | 2

    What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A personal server; a real pro job.
    telescope | Aug 11, 2016 12:39:23 PM | 6
    Hillary - if elected - will inherit economy in recession or on the brink of it, and her main preoccupation will be dealing with mounting domestic unrest, as well as with the wars she'll inherit from Obama. However she may want to, she'll be in no position to start another war.

    America is in severe and accelerating decline, and simply has no resources for more wars.

    Noirette | Aug 11, 2016 1:17:21 PM | 8
    The Dems and Repubs. always vie to wage the 'best, most just, necessary, wars.' Wars as in merciless bombing and decimation and installation of a puppet Gvmt, not against and adversary who presents a threat.

    For B. Clinton, that was smashing Yugoslavia (plus various other, Africa etc.), while later the Repub. Bushies concentrated on Iraq (but see Billy C on that, plus Iran sanctions…) and Afghanistan. The two join together under Obama-Killary: Lybia and Syria. (Leaving much aside.)

    Not of course that IRL the division is clear, it isn't, but that is what is used to bamboozle the public. One war is baaaad, horrible, another is ee-ssential for security, and so all grinds on, with one switch after another, year by year, nothing changes, with millions of deaths, maimed, displaced, landscapes, agriculture, towns, whole countries, destroyed.

    ruralito | Aug 11, 2016 1:20:42 PM | 9
    @5 The US Dept of State is an equal-opportunity criminal syndicate.
    fastfreddy | Aug 11, 2016 2:30:23 PM | 14
    6 America is in severe and accelerating decline, and simply has no resources for more wars.

    America prints fiat currency at will and posts numbers on computer terminals. The value of this currency is indicated by its position as the petro-dollar. This arrangement is enforced by American hegemony and illegitimate partnerships with other despotic governments which support and maintain it's dominance as the world's most important currency.

    There is always money for war, just no money for commons.

    Yul | Aug 11, 2016 4:09:31 PM | 20
    The new defender of Al-Qa'ida in Syria:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNkmQzc9vxI

    CNN Clarissa Ward.
    Guess with Tayyip changing his Emperor clothes, Holly Williams can't do the same for CBS

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 11, 2016 4:33:03 PM | 21
    Amazing how even the most obvious facts are denied by the largest margin of people - in spite of the truth being available to the contrary. People believed Goebbels and are now believing the propaganda from the cesspool of the totalitarian establishment, because they WANT TO.

    Anybody that has ever had, or still has a shred of critical thinking left, will KNOW. The totalitarian, corporate establishment, that has been inbreeding since thousands of years, is going for the kill. The kill of 'democracy', the kill of freedom of speech, the killing of the 'pursuit of happiness' and a new cold war among the different ethnicities on planet earth.

    Therefore the so called 'racists' are actually 'Ethnicists' - denying ethnicities differing from the white man the right to live. The right to exterminate non-white sub-humans at will.

    Regarding the to Nazi-standards evolving propaganda of the Western establishment, it would be helpful if people would stop 'googling' misinformation from the CIA 'search' engine aka data collection agency. There are other search engines available that will not skew the results.

    This is the result in regards to the tactics of the Western establishments' propaganda: It's called 'Psychological Projection' and has worked for millennia. To find out more about it, one can look at the Wikipedia entry, or search anew for other sources:

    Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

    tom | Aug 11, 2016 4:54:27 PM | 23
    ...New emails showing ( the worse evil ) Hillarys lies and corruption would be perfect PR to highlight for one of Trump's principle core messages of Washintons and especially Hitlarys corruption. But no instead of sitting back and letting the new corruption unfold for himself to take advantage, the moronic narcissistic Trump has to make it about him self again by saying his idiocies and outrages which diverts from his core message that got him so much success.

    Trump(et) needs to rely on getting fake liberals to be discouraged, apathetic or a vote for third party, but Trump the King moron himself is driving these people into Hillarys camp.

    AriusArmenian | Aug 11, 2016 5:39:23 PM | 25
    The transition from Obama to Hillary mirrors the transition from Kennedy to Johnson. The war monger industries, think tanks, and DOD want a bigger war. They don't have to kill Obama, they are waiting for the Killary and are using every dirty trick to get her elected. Much bigger wars are coming after January.
    Jackrabbit | Aug 11, 2016 5:55:19 PM | 27
    Rg the Lg @15:
    ... ethnic cleansing that the modern Israeli's simply copy ...
    Here we go with the US-Israel equivalence meme that is being pushed by the usual suspects. As though nothing was learned in the last 80-120 years or so. If that were so, then Israel might find itself in an even more precarious position. Actually, some might well say that Israel is turning back the clock to pre-modern times, and joining with other reactionary forces to do so.
    Curtis | Aug 11, 2016 6:10:31 PM | 29
    We're sort of behind schedule on that DoD memo that Wesley Clark saw after 9/11 that said the US would "take out" seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, and Libya are basket cases. Somalia and Sudan aren't much better. That leaves Lebanon and Iran.

    People know that those aren't true threats to us so following the Brzezinski/PNAC doctrine of not allowing any country to rise in any region leads us to real powers Russia and China. I wonder if Vegas has any odds on which country we'll be at war with next. And will we do it directly or via some sad-sack like Ukraine?

    paulmeli | Aug 11, 2016 6:27:08 PM | 32
    "There is always money for war, just no money for commons."

    A political choice. We can always (or should be able to) buy everything we can produce. Odd that we can't.

    Erelis | Aug 11, 2016 7:42:55 PM | 34
    @ Casowary Gentry |

    Excellent points. The propaganda process to convince the American people to accept war with Russia (Syria and Iran) has been going on for several years now (the military budgets are just beginning their upward ramp due to Russia). The process is nearly identical to what Bush and the neocons did with Saddam and the invasion of Iraq. And propaganda through the mass media is effective--upwards to 70% of the American people supported Bush's invasion.

    January is already too late as this process has been going on for several years. The hysteria is now building to a crescendo and is pretty much impossible to stop with reasoned arguments.

    Speaking of influencing elections. The Ukrano-nazis look to be building up troop levels on the Crimean border to show off horrible Russian/Putin aggression. Looks like the Ukrano-nazis are willing to kill off a bunch of their own soldiers for propaganda effect.

    virgile | Aug 11, 2016 7:48:32 PM | 35
    Hillary's brain will not survive the pressure of a presidency when half the country thinks she is liar and untrustworthy. Her health is already suspicious and she may collapse after her election as there would be huge demands on her. The next president of the USA won't be Hillary Clinton for long, it will be Tim Kayne.
    MadMax2 | Aug 11, 2016 7:51:15 PM | 36
    @22 tom

    No doubt there could well be a lot more in what The Don doesn't say. But this election will be about low voter turn out. Record lows. Everyone is nauseous. Trump has his cult following. Hilary disgraced the Bernistas - none of them will vote for Hilary. Hilary has no one except the neocon rats who have jumped ship.

    Will she be able to excite Obamas #HopeAndChange army...? I don't see them getting out of bed sorry - and it's why you see #NeverTrump. It doesn't matter what Trump does, dem voter turn out will be at historic lows.

    virgile | Aug 11, 2016 8:32:14 PM | 37
    Hillary Clinton's Embrace of Kissinger Is Inexcusable. Bernie Sanders should call on her to repudiate him as the war criminal he is. https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-embrace-of-kissinger-is-inexcusable/
    From The Hague | Aug 11, 2016 10:15:06 PM | 39
    @37 January will be too late to what?

    Trump wants John Bolton as Secretary of State????
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/08/11/trump-of-course-i-didnt-mean-to-incite-violence-against-hillary-n2203833
    video: about 03:00 - about 05:00

    Then there will be no difference:
    - continuation of horror and terror in MENO;
    - military tensions with Russia and China.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/the-only-mistake-of-the-iraq-war-was-that-we-didnt-get-rid-of-sa/

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 11, 2016 10:43:22 PM | 42
    The Guardian stated yesterday that Putin is ramping up for the 'invasion' (sic) of Crimea, but went out of their way to leave the impression it was a Russian invasion, and not invasion by NATO, behind a current World Bank-funded $10Bs looted from US taxpayers to rebuild Eastern Ukraine roads and bridges to military load capacity, ... just another wholly illegal and pro-war act by the ZIMF-WB to an unconstitutional dual-Israel junta coup leadership in Kiev, and made in violation to a non-NATO state, with no expectation the 'loans' would ever be paid back, ...just as $35B IMF loaned, then Kerry backstopped with US taxpayer savings, will never be repaid. Ever.

    The 'War of Crimea' is necessary for many political purposes, but primarily to cover up that July 2015 looting of $50B from the US Treasury by Kerry and the RINO Congress for war grift to Ukraine that will never be repaid, stolen from SS and disability funds.

    And behind that War of Crimea will come a US Militarized Police State of One Thousand Years, to cover The Chosen's wholly illegal, usurious, odious, onerous synthetic CDS 'scheme' to transfer all of WS's Exceptionalist *gambling debts* onto the backs of our grandchildren, when WS should be tarred and feathered, then beaten with birch switches.

    Instead, we get US Congress bleeting for Bibi and clapping at attention until the blood runs from their fingernails down their arms, afraid to be the first to stop clapping. New America is Kim Jung Un on steroids in 2017.

    Tick tock! What's the plan to protect the US Constitution? Where's the patriot sitrep?

    jfl | Aug 11, 2016 10:54:52 PM | 43
    This stuff pervades the corporate media across the board : A Rush to Judgment on Russian Doping . If war is the continuation of politics by other means, 'news' is the continuation of war by other means.

    As for the discussion on running out of money for wars ... well al-CIAduh/IS is much cheaper than the US uniformed armed forces, or the same people through the revolving door fighting as mercenaries. The KSA/GCC have been footing the bill ... because the same forces they're directing outwards will devastate them if and when they turn around and go for them directly.

    As times get harder for al-CIAduh/IS ... up against the Russians, Syrians, Iranians, Hezbulla ... it's got to occur to them that there's a much easier, much larger paycheck available in turning around and robbing the bank that's been feeding them rations.

    When the oil-archies go up in smoke the free for all will begin in earnest ... 'protecting world security'. Then US/Israeli troops will land in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar put out the fires, grab the checkbooks, reseat their clients under the new dispensation. That'll be their plan anyway. As Obama said, Hillary's will be his third term ... they hope. Pick the low-hanging fruit on the way to Moscow and Beijing.

    I liked the guy with the videos of no people at the Hillary rally. I liked Newt comparing Trump to Truman ... they do seem so alike, on more than the Dewey Defeats Truman level. Harry was as utterly unprepared as Donald is to be POTUS, and was whipsawed by the same old domestic gangsters oblivious to the consequences of their free-flowing gravy-train at home.

    @39 fth

    Good to see you've seen the light.

    We don't have to make a binary choice . We can uproot the seemingly divinely dictated dichotomy . It will take ten or twelve years to do it ... thank goodness for the "founding fathers'" oversight, allowing a two-year election cycle ... but that's not so long. If we'd begun in 2004 we'd be home by now.

    bbbb | Aug 11, 2016 11:24:43 PM | 46
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/stunning_revelation_wikileaks_hack_shows_that_soros_called_the_shots_on_us_policy_toward_albania.html

    ^^^^^BIG revelation IMHO.

    GoraDiva | Aug 12, 2016 1:04:02 AM | 48
    While a good post, I wonder why b. would say "I first attributed that claim to Assange's typical exaggerations..." I've not found him to exaggerate, typically, but I have found the MSM to want us to believe that he does... Also, it is Marcy Wheeler (a woman), not Marc (this mistake has been made here before).
    A friend in Silicon Valley - with a seven-member family all voting for B Sanders - reported that there seemed to be little doubt primaries were stolen. His polling station was managed by guys with IT background (S. Valley, after all) - who witnessed manipulations, including the purging of all provisional ballots.
    Tom Murphy | Aug 12, 2016 1:13:36 AM | 49
    Exactly. NYT Leads With Russia Hack Conspiracy–Despite 'No Evidence' (in Next-to-Last Paragraph) We need to work to prevent a Hillary presidency: HIGHLIGHTS of Jill Stein Speaking BEFORE her Acceptance Speech at Green Party Convention

    William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

    okie farmer | Aug 12, 2016 3:15:40 AM | 50

    William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
    jfl | Aug 12, 2016 3:34:25 AM | 51
    The bottom line on this is ... ya gotta wanna believe. The New York Times is selling a world-view. You can't sell anyone anything they don't want to buy. The American public, having detected that their leaders have no idea how to bring them safely out of the wood of the "new economics", of the air economy, is begging to be told a story that - if we all close our eyes and believe real hard - will bring magic, fairy princess economy back to life. Life was OK ... nostalgia makes it better ... back when we used to hate the Russians. Let's hate 'em again. It's kind of a cargo cult mentality.

    A measure of just how disjoint we all are. There's no there there where our memories of America were, we need a magic spell to bring tinker belle back to life, so we can fly back to never-never land again, live happily ever after. Things are very, very bad for the USA.

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 12, 2016 3:37:55 AM | 52
    49

    Your buddy and mine, ZH Khalizhad, 10 Years After:

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a325070.pdf

    Rabels | Aug 12, 2016 4:27:54 AM | 53
    Another hypocrite-liberal-warmonger-idiot michael moore supports hillary,
    http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160812/1044183819/michael-moore-ivanka.html
    blues | Aug 12, 2016 5:19:22 AM | 54
    I was an anti-Vietnam war protester. For the most part we were very loosely organized, or even not at all organized. We were hippies, doing the whole mid-60s to mid-70s thing. Our city decided to actually have the fire department stage a pro-war protest -- Strange times indeed!

    Many times, back then, I would confront my comrades with the assertion that the mass produced media outlets (MPMO), such as the New York Times were nothing more than propaganda machines. "Hip" as they might have been, they just could not handle this concept. They were totally appalled that I could dare to claim this. I was sort of like their first "conspiracy theorist". The comments above reveal how times have changed. Even if they are still in psychological thrall to the propaganda machinery, the seed of dark doubt has now been sewn in their bewildered hearts.

    I also investigated the world of the eleetoids very deeply -- and I had several unique opportunities to do so. They are certainly not at all like us. They are generally quite vain and oddly shallow. Money, power, and organized violence are one and the same to them. Wall Street, Washington D.C., and the pentagon constellation are all on the same page. Crucially, none of these eleetoids is anywhere near what could be deemed sane. Their minds are profoundly warped just because they are what they are.

    And they are easily capable of setting off Armageddon. War and the proliferation of misery is not their goal in the end, much worse, it is simply a consequence, a symptom if you will, of their insanity.

    ProPeace | Aug 12, 2016 7:40:22 AM | 56
    @blues | Aug 12, 2016 5:19:22 AM | 54 "I was an anti-Vietnam war protester.

    God bless you for that.

    I'm still shocked how many people in Israel, Ukraine, ME, the Commonwealth, USA, Poland, are eager to go to war because of twisted ideologies, money, stupidity, or some inner demons, sinful desires.

    May be we need another war after all, just to get rid of them, since they pose a mortal danger to their host societies and cannot be restored to humanity in peaceful ways?

    ProPeace | Aug 12, 2016 8:36:03 AM | 57
    Assuming, of course, it will only be them who get to die.
    dahoit | Aug 12, 2016 9:46:45 AM | 58

    39;How does John Bolton fit with Trumps call for better Russian relations?I'd say he's thinking of him like he thought of Newt, which is not much.

    He does have to placate the warmongers a little bit,or else they'll call him soft on terror.
    Stop getting hysterical over unknown unknowns.:)

    He said he was being sarcastic about Obomba and IsUS,but again,like a jury,the American people are given info that can't be taken back.Of course its true,and I guarantee it will come up again,as we are still almost 3 months to the election.

    And the propaganda,as someone mentioned,is unbelievable,and yes the word should be stricken from the rolls.

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 12, 2016 9:50:50 AM | 59
    54

    WADC and NYC attract psychopathy, so naturally our two choices for November are Alpha Psychopaths. That doesn't mean that the necrotic American ship of state will alter its course, only settle lower in the water, come to a gradual stop, tip downward at the bow, and then break in half. The psychopaths are The Vampire and will fly away, caww, caww, caww, leaving all the hoi polloi, the Little People, to drink and to drown.

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 12, 2016 10:13:17 AM | 60
    15

    WADC

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol2/globalelite177_04.jpg

    Les | Aug 12, 2016 11:52:23 AM | 61
    In some ways the rules of engagement for Syria are reminiscent of the restrictions placed on U.S. special operators in El Salvador in the 1980s. The U.S. forces in that tiny country helped train the embattled government's counter-insurgency forces. But they were not allowed to go into battle with the forces they trained.

    Roger Carstens, a former lieutenant colonel for the Green Berets who trained local forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, told me there are good battlefield reasons for allowing the adviser to fight with the forces he trains. "They gain legitimacy and credibility and they show your partner forces that you share the risk," he said.

    Carstens also said that fighting alongside indigenous troops is a kind of vetting process. "The instructor gets to see whether the forces he is training have absorbed their training," which he said is important to evaluate how effective they are.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-11/orders-for-u-s-forces-in-syria-don-t-get-shot

    paulmeli | Aug 12, 2016 12:15:29 PM | 62
    ff @32…"every nation is in heavy debt!"

    This is debatable and a lot of nuance is absent from the statement. All debt is not the same, and in fact for a sovereign that has only liabilities in it's own currency the only debt that matters is that owed by the citizens to private banks. Will wait for an open thread to revisit.

    From The Hague | Aug 12, 2016 4:54:59 PM | 64
    @41 Hoarsewhisperer
    @43 jfl
    @58 dahoit

    The Americans are the problem. They're not interested in foreign policy. So if Trump can give them jobs and safety abroad, he may bomb the rest of the world. We can't exclude he appoints a person like John Bolton.

    psychohistorian | Aug 12, 2016 5:47:35 PM | 65
    @ From the Hague wrote "The Americans are the problem".............

    The people who have brainwashed the Americans are the problem just like in Hitler's time. Those global plutocratic families have been controlling the narrative for centuries and they seem to have convinced you it is the US citizens who are to blame for falling for the propaganda this time.

    We will never overcome the Western sick form of social organization if we continue to blame the wrong folks. We need to end private finance and return all those grifted earnings to the global commons along with neutering inheritance globally so no one individually/family can control social policy.

    And then the media would not be the brainwashing mechanism it is now building credence for more wars.

    [Aug 13, 2016] How few people are actually showing up for HRC rallies and how the polls are rigged

    www.moonofalabama.org
    crone | Aug 11, 2016 3:02:01 PM | 17
    this guy's youTubes show how few people are actually showing up for HRC rallies and how the polls are rigged

    [Aug 13, 2016] One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance

    Arguments of Sanders supporters against Hillary are not perfectly applicable to Hillary vs Trump contest.
    Notable quotes:
    "... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
    "... You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office. ..."
    "... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . ..."
    "... Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent. ..."
    "... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
    "... I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc. ..."
    "... I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences . ..."
    "... One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? ..."
    "... Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance. ..."
    "... Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take. ..."
    "... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives. ..."
    "... Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America. ..."
    "... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. ..."
    "... Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
    "... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST. ..."
    "... Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
    May 06, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Kevin P Brown Carly435 , 2016-05-05 19:28:39

    Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an interesting question as to what he stands for.

    His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet, depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford to report this factual development.

    When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed. So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.

    Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.

    Kevin P Brown RobInTN , 2016-05-05 19:19:20
    "Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."

    So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I had her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and suggest she defend herself in a real and palpable way?

    dutchview lsbg_t , 2016-05-05 18:17:57
    Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.

    The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".

    Vladimir Makarenko digit , 2016-05-05 17:00:45
    First I would be very careful taking what G gives, it is nowadays "fixing" news like Fox. Most reliable, if speaking about polls the word can be used, is results of metastudies:

    Both give today's Clinton of 6% when Sanders is whopping 13+%

    So when Hillary's shills preaching how easily she "beats" Trump, they lie. Only Bernie can do this or or see Oval Office moved to Atlantic City.

    luminog simpledino , 2016-05-05 12:48:54
    If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.

    Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she has been involved in.

    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:23:14
    You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office.

    Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.

    " http://www.blackpressusa.com/is-black-america-better-off-under-obama /

    "Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.

    What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that.

    • Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent. The average under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always been double" [that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was silent when Black unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
    • Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent. The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently, more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
    • The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a 24-year high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household is worth $141,900, and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the median income for Black households plunged 9 percent.
    • Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office, the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
    • Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However, currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
    • SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23 billion in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending to Black businesses on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black businesses was 8 percent – more than four times the Obama rate.
    Kevin P Brown Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-05 12:16:44
    "All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is, a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families. Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi- cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:16:13
    "What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."

    We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for their issues.

    http://tomweston.net/ReichRacism.pdf

    Try reading this.

    " that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"

    Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent.

    "The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys- tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing. Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as- pects in a unified manner."

    My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish. But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.

    " money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"

    No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid, we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people. Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It is a moral corruption.

    "most contributions come after electoral success"

    Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation to favour us over the voters.

    You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation. Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.

    We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.

    Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.

    digit Vladimir Makarenko , 2016-05-05 12:07:33
    Sorry, I mean, here .
    buttonbasher81 o_lobo_solitario , 2016-05-05 12:06:44
    Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now, surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election (you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
    Longasyourarm Genpet , 2016-05-05 11:47:49
    the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard.
    Longasyourarm nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 11:44:57
    explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She stands for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade Iraq-subprime-cheat the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment coalition. And blacks and Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
    Eric L. Wattree , 2016-05-05 09:19:27
    BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
    .
    If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination, we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
    .
    WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!

    IF YOU DON'T, YOU'LL BE SORRY - AGAIN.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1057244620990215&set=a.136305753084111.28278.100001140610873&type=3&theater

    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 08:20:53
    Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line. I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now? Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.

    I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion? Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.

    You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.

    I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .

    SavvasKara irishgaf , 2016-05-05 05:32:13
    It would be perhaps remotely marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.

    I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human needs, to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.

    Carly435 RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:28:00

    It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered that it doesn't even faze them

    One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues? Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.

    Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take.

    Carly435 RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:06:51
    Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent, crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.

    Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/05/03/bernstein-there-will-be-very-damaging-leaks-from-hillary-email-investigation-her-actions-reckless-and-entitled /

    nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 03:24:50
    Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance.
    Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives.

    Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost its way.

    Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people.
    And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for cronyism etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by the FBI and she doesn't stand down?

    Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America.

    I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.

    macktan894 RobInTN , 2016-05-05 02:29:31
    Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast.
    Allan Barr , 2016-05-05 02:21:15
    Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true. A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer security expert.

    Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its pointless. I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.

    Carly435 RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 02:05:34
    And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager, Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead, Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....

    Oy. ^__^

    But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer:

    https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg

    Some background:

    https://www.americarisingpac.org/sheldon-silver-critical-to-hillary-clinton-political-machine /

    In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support

    So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary from behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."

    John W , 2016-05-05 01:42:54
    Sanders is also leading in the West Virginia polls, which is the next primary. He just might be able to squeak out a victory.
    Robin Crawford Rouffian , 2016-05-05 01:07:15
    If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy.

    Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it).

    If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.

    nomorebanksters Jonah92 , 2016-05-04 23:43:43
    You are obviously misinformed about Bernie Sanders:

    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA

    Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.

    She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on?

    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 23:10:01
    So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty. You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and poverty.

    "" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white and Negro alike . "

    nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.

    You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT nihilism. Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and lobbyists is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism. But yes, if it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse says more about you than Sanders.

    nomorebanksters TehachapiCalifornia , 2016-05-04 23:04:08
    Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you look at Bernie Sanders voting record:

    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA

    He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
    So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?

    nomorebanksters nolashea , 2016-05-04 22:57:13
    Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 22:31:08
    "Are you really sure that money buys votes"

    Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.

    [Aug 13, 2016] FBI Mutiny Feds Said To Launch Clinton Foundation Corruption Probe Despite DoJ Objections

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the time, three field offices were in agreement an investigation should be launched after the FBI received notification from a bank of suspicious activity from a foreigner who had donated to the Clinton Foundation , according to the official. ..."
    "... The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book "Clinton Cash," but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case. ..."
    "... Some also expressed concern the request seemed more political than substantive, especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private email server and Clinton's presidential campaign. ..."
    "... The official said involvement of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York "would be seen by agents as a positive development as prosecutors there are generally thought to be more aggressive than the career lawyers within the DOJ ." ..."
    "... The former official said the investigation is being coordinated between bureau field offices and FBI managers at headquarters in Washington, D.C. The unusual process would ensure senior FBI supervisors, including Director James Comey, would be kept abreast of case progress and of significant developments. ..."
    "... What a joke. The FBI already has their statement prepared. "No reasonable prosecutor would prosecute Hillary over these obvious felonies that Hillary committed. Gotta go to a Hillary fundraiser now. Have a great day and keep trusting us!" ..."
    "... FBI = F ucked B eyond I magination. Zero credibility these days, and deserving of zero respect with another "nothing to see here" no doubt forthcoming. ..."
    "... Give it up already. As much as anyone may want to see Hillary behind bars or even just "lose" the election, it's just wishful thinking. Everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can clearly tell that the fix is in. Hillary will NOT be prosecuted for anything and Trump will NOT be allowed to win the "election", regardless what the actual "vote" count may be. ..."
    "... It is all just political theater and most plebes don't even realize that tbey are simply unwitting pawns in the play. ..."
    "... in my years of reading zh, most folks were on board with the assessment that, THERE ARE NOT 2 PARTYS! ..."
    "... and to further that, the 'candidates' are chosen well ahead of time, by TPTB. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Having detailed Clinton-appointee Loretta Lynch's DoJ push-back against the FBI's Clinton Foundation probe, it seems Director Comey has decided to flex his own muscles and save face as DailyCaller reports, multiple FBI investigations are underway involving potential corruption charges against the Clinton Foundation , according to a former senior law enforcement official.

    As we previously noted , a US official has told CNN...

    At the time, three field offices were in agreement an investigation should be launched after the FBI received notification from a bank of suspicious activity from a foreigner who had donated to the Clinton Foundation , according to the official.

    FBI officials wanted to investigate whether there was a criminal conflict of interest with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton's tenure .

    But...

    The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book "Clinton Cash," but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case.

    As so as a result...

    DOJ officials pushed back against opening a case during the meeting earlier this year .

    Some also expressed concern the request seemed more political than substantive, especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private email server and Clinton's presidential campaign.

    However, as DailyCaller reports, The FBI is undertaking multiple investigations involving potential corruption changes against The Clinton Foundation...

    The investigation centers on New York City where the Clinton Foundation has its main offices , according to the former official who has direct knowledge of the activities.

    Prosecutorial support will come from various U.S. Attorneys Offices - a major departure from other centralized FBI investigations.

    The New York-based probe is being led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

    The official said involvement of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York "would be seen by agents as a positive development as prosecutors there are generally thought to be more aggressive than the career lawyers within the DOJ ."

    ...

    The former official said the investigation is being coordinated between bureau field offices and FBI managers at headquarters in Washington, D.C. The unusual process would ensure senior FBI supervisors, including Director James Comey, would be kept abreast of case progress and of significant developments.

    The reliance on U.S. attorneys would be a significant departure from the centralized manner in which the FBI managed the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private server and email addresses.

    That investigation was conducted with agents at FBI headquarters, who coordinated with the Department of Justice's National Security Division (NSD).

    While Nicholas Biase, a spokesman for Bharara, said he would "decline comment," and FBI spokeswoman Samantha Shero said, "we do not have a comment on investigative activity," we wonder if the unusual procedures and the tone of that comment suggests a mutinous FBI standing up to the politicized DoJ?

    nuubee Aug 12, 2016 9:22 AM

    This is just posturing by the FBI to try to retain some integrity in the public eye after Comey's flaccid surrender.

    LowerSlowerDela... -> ThanksChump Aug 12, 2016 9:43 AM

    What a joke. The FBI already has their statement prepared. "No reasonable prosecutor would prosecute Hillary over these obvious felonies that Hillary committed. Gotta go to a Hillary fundraiser now. Have a great day and keep trusting us!"

    erkme73 -> Mr. Universe Aug 12, 2016 10:21 AM

    My next paycheck says FBI will find corruption, and some low-ranking assistant at the Clinton Foundation will be the fall guy. Comey will be unable to prove to a standard that any reasonable prosecutor would pursue, whether HRC had any knowledge, or intent.

    HopefulCynic -> erkme73 Aug 12, 2016 10:29 AM

    Another FBI Exoneration? FBI will prosecute?

    CuttingEdge -> HopefulCynic Aug 12, 2016 10:58 AM

    FBI = F ucked B eyond I magination. Zero credibility these days, and deserving of zero respect with another "nothing to see here" no doubt forthcoming.

    And given Hillary Clinton is the most openly corrupt venal slime ever to crawl the face of the planet, with a weight of evidence against her in the public domain so overwhelming it makes OJ look angelic; their inability to make a case makes them look just plain laughable as a law enforcement organisation.

    Fucking joke, the lot of 'em.

    wombats -> Four chan Aug 12, 2016 11:23 AM

    Give it up already. As much as anyone may want to see Hillary behind bars or even just "lose" the election, it's just wishful thinking. Everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can clearly tell that the fix is in. Hillary will NOT be prosecuted for anything and Trump will NOT be allowed to win the "election", regardless what the actual "vote" count may be.

    It is all just political theater and most plebes don't even realize that tbey are simply unwitting pawns in the play.

    Get used to another 4 (maybe 8) years of the shitshow to continue unabated as Merika circles the drain.

    Hate to say it but it's the reality one must face.

    nmewn -> centerline Aug 12, 2016 7:39 PM

    It's just so much absolute bullshit..."investigations"...give me a fucking break, investigating what?!

    The NSA/DHS/CIA has all of it and I mean ALL OF IT, they collect everything sent electronically...emails, texts, phone calls...everything.

    Here let me help...it's in Bluffdale...Utah...just go knock on the fucking door.

    ThanksChump -> wombats Aug 12, 2016 11:33 AM

    Someone has their smile on upside-down.

    As I see it, Hillary will accelerate a financial and/or social collapse of the US. Trump will slow it down, at worst, or prevent it altogether if he chooses to outright default.

    Either path results in a much-needed reset. Trump's path will be less bloody.

    Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. SS, DD.

    Manthong -> ThanksChump Aug 12, 2016 12:35 PM

    They need to lock up Lynch for obstruction of justice.

    apocalypticbrother -> Manthong Aug 12, 2016 2:00 PM T

    that is a pretty short list of who should be locked up. USA has the jails and hopefully some day those jails will be full of crimanals instead of weed smokers.

    Blankenstein -> Manthong Aug 12, 2016 3:47 PM

    They need to impeach Obama since it is his administration that is obstructing justice.

    Chris Dakota -> wombats Aug 12, 2016 2:35 PM

    Democrats don't care if Hillary is mentally ill, dying, criminal or anything. Because it isn't about her, it is about The Agenda.

    Don't waste your time talking to these traitors.

    gonetogalt -> wombats Aug 12, 2016 5:36 PM

    You think Merika will circle for 4 more years??? Hear that giant sucking sound? Think Vortex.

    Mr. President -> wombats Aug 12, 2016 7:40 PM

    Absolutely bruddah.

    Hillary for the win (and NO, I don't want that. , but it's gonna be.) It's funny , well ..funny sad.. that in my years of reading zh, most folks were on board with the assessment that, THERE ARE NOT 2 PARTYS!

    and to further that, the 'candidates' are chosen well ahead of time, by TPTB. (If people know what that means)..I think a lot of newcomers just arrow up comments that have arrows up, without knowing half of the content )

    (Ya with me so far?)

    [Aug 13, 2016] Its TIME For A Big Change In This Presidential Campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reading Time for the 1st time in decades made me feel better because I could not read it, at least not the way they intended it. It was like trying to compile FORTRAN with a source file written in C. I don't understand their language anymore so the reading experience is like looking for errors in your source code. Kind of liberating in a way. ..."
    "... Everyone is recognizing the only way to become a Billionaire for now on is paying off politicians and becoming an extension of the federal government. Write rules in your favor or get the economic mercenaries whether they be the military - CIA - or the state department and take over a country a la Confessions of a Economic Hitman. Hillary is preferred since now you can induce a seizure and she turns into a signature pad with amnesia ..."
    "... Circulation around 3 million copies. Probably covers most waiting rooms across the country and a few Grandmas. ..."
    "... Here's a TIME magazine cover the day after 9/11/2016 when he gives his memorial dedication to those that perished that day with his unwavering pledge for the only investigation that matters!... ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Ralph Spoilsport J S Bach Aug 12, 2016 7:26 PM
    Had to pick up and glance through a copy of Time recently before a dental appt. The other choices were People, Good Housekeeping and some sales literature for dental equipment and other torture gear.

    Reading Time for the 1st time in decades made me feel better because I could not read it, at least not the way they intended it. It was like trying to compile FORTRAN with a source file written in C. I don't understand their language anymore so the reading experience is like looking for errors in your source code. Kind of liberating in a way.

    Omen IV Aug 12, 2016 7:09 PM
    Everyone is recognizing the only way to become a Billionaire for now on is paying off politicians and becoming an extension of the federal government. Write rules in your favor or get the economic mercenaries whether they be the military - CIA - or the state department and take over a country a la Confessions of a Economic Hitman. Hillary is preferred since now you can induce a seizure and she turns into a signature pad with amnesia

    It's over

    cart00ner Aug 12, 2016 7:14 PM
    I think you give TIME too much credit, does anyone still read that rag?
    Smerf cart00ner Aug 12, 2016 8:11 PM
    Circulation around 3 million copies. Probably covers most waiting rooms across the country and a few Grandmas.
    Son of Captain Nemo Aug 12, 2016 7:20 PM
    Here's a TIME magazine cover the day after 9/11/2016 when he gives his memorial dedication to those that perished that day with his unwavering pledge for the only investigation that matters!...

    Trump UNSTOPPABLE!!!

    [Aug 13, 2016] The Bloody Spectre Of A Clinton Presidency Looms Over The World Stage

    A view from a Russian think tank
    Notable quotes:
    "... The 90's represent a time of relative economic prosperity and geopolitical dominance in the collective American imagination. Race relations, though briefly inflamed during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, remained relatively placid by the standards of U.S. history, and with the fall of the USSR, the United States became an unquestioned Global Hegemon. ..."
    "... In this sense at least, the 90's were high times for the Clintons and their Neo-Liberal fellow travelers. Who had convinced themselves, along with much of the populace of the United States, that they had finally entered Francis Fukuyama's prophesied "End of History." ..."
    "... Though Donald Trump promises to "Make America Great Again," his rhetoric recalls, not the beloved 1990s of the Clintons, but rather the decade from 1953 to 1963, the time between the Korean war and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. An era of middle-class flourishing and industrial expansion, when good paying factory work allowed unskilled laborers to achieve the "American Dream" of Suburban tranquility and economic comfort. An era of low crime and common purpose. An era when a beloved President first dreamt of landing a man on the moon and the covers of magazines like "Popular Mechanics" showcased grand visions of a future dominated by the wonders and comforts of American technology. Though of course profoundly philistine and materialist in nature (and thus genuinely American), it is a vision which remains quite distinct from violent, pathological visions dreamt of by the Clintons and their associates. ..."
    "... This universal, imperialist programme of exploitation and domination is the explicit goal of the ideology of Neo-Liberalism, whose cause will seem all the more urgent to a newly elected and empowered Hillary Clinton. She will then have to face the reality of both a divided country at home and a rapidly decaying Neoliberal world order abroad. As Russia, China, Iran, and others begin to push back against the reign of U.S. led cultural Imperialism. ..."
    "... A more cautious Trump presidency would likely approach the situation with a good deal of pragmatism by letting the United State's moment of unipolar hegemony naturally fade away as the world slowly drifts into the more organic and sustainable state of Multipolarity. ..."
    "... Though derided by her detractors as a dangerous, ideologically driven hawk on foreign policy and praised by her devotees as a steady, experienced hand, possessing considerable analytic acumen. The truth is that, in reality, both assessments are correct. It is important to note, however, that for Hillary Clinton, the latter merely acts as a veneer for the former. Her strategic acumen, however potent it may be, remains merely the servant of the powerful chthonic forces which drive her damaged psyche. Despite any appearances to the contrary, in her purest essence, she remains a genuine fanatic. ..."
    "... Regardless of these rumors, it is entirely fair to assert that Clinton, whether or not she is a practicing lesbian, is at least a functional one. Her projected persona, from the androgynous pantsuits to her open contempt for the Traditional female roles of wife and mother coupled with a fanatical devotion to the cause of universal LGBT "human rights," is an almost exact emulation of a butch lesbian aesthetic and sensibility. It is a direct mimicry of Western conceptions of corporate masculinity reconceptualized through the funhouse mirror of 1970's feminist ideology. It is this barely cryptic Lesbianism, which serves as the primary ideological scaffolding for Clinton's thought and action. An ideology that is driven almost purely by a profound ressentiment of all those who do not affirm its tenets. ..."
    "... The very first action to be taken by a future Clinton administration will be an immediate reset of the U.S. policy on Syria. This intention has already been explicitly articulated and publicized in the international press and will mark a stark break with the Obama administration's previously more pragmatic approach. Syria was a war Obama was never particularly interested in and which he involved himself in only after intense pressure from his advisors (such as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland). Although Obama would, of course, have favored a solution that resulted in the replacement of Assad with a malleable puppet regime which was friendly to both American and Zionist ambitions in the Region. His better instincts led him to avoid the more extreme Anti-Assad approach favored by the most hawkish members of his cabinet. ..."
    "... Clinton's stratagem will be the direct inverse of Obama's more tolerant approach to Assad. For Clinton, destroying Assad, and by extension, the millions of innocents which his government protects from Jihadi terror represents a triple opportunity. Enabling her to strike a direct blow simultaneously against Iranian and Russian interests in the region while also appeasing her Zionist backers. Thus, it will become an immediate priority for her administration. ..."
    "... The full weight of U.S. power will be used to reignite a conflict in the Donbass region, which will be justified under the pretense of restoring the "territorial integrity" of the Ukrainian Junta. This will enable the U.S. to continue its encirclement of Russia while also bleeding it of resources. This will make it, it is hoped by the U.S., more vulnerable, over the long term, to a hostile, U.S. funded, regime change which will be carried out by Atlanticist Fifth Columnist inside Russia. ..."
    "... Clinton's domestic policies will be similarly reckless and aggressive. These will focus primarily upon stamping out any dissent, whether on the Left or the Right, to her rule. This should not be a difficult task, as the vast majority of Media elites in the United States are open supporters of her ideology. These elites will be in a particularly foul mood after the Election, as they have come to view Trump, and especially his supporters, as a mortal threat to their continued hegemony. A Clinton victory would then give them the leverage and pretext they need to begin punishing and marginalizing the Trump electorate that they so deeply despise. ..."
    "... Needless to say, dissenters will suffer greatly under a Clinton regime. Those who oppose further aggressive U.S. actions across the globe will be dealt with as borderline traitors. Others who oppose the normalization of Sodomy and other related deviancies, such as Transgenderism, will be labeled bigots and suffer economic consequences as they are forced out of their jobs under the pretext of creating "safe work environmen ..."
    Katehon think tank

    The Summer of 2016 is proving to be a decisive one in both the United States and the rest of the world. The long shadows currently being thrown against the wall by history will soon morph into their full forms come November when the presidential contest is finally decided. With the longest and most ominous being the potential ascension of Hillary Rodham Clinton to the office of President of the United States of America.

    Most Americans are instinctively aware of this, and it is this instinct which has seen Hillary Clinton's unfavorable ratings rise to historic levels. This anti-Clinton aversion is born as much from experience as it is from intuition, as Americans vividly recall her Husband's presidency and assume, correctly, that a second Clinton presidency would repeat all of the vices of the first but without any of its virtues.

    Indeed, the 1990's still loom large in the imagination of most Clintonites. The 90's represent a time of relative economic prosperity and geopolitical dominance in the collective American imagination. Race relations, though briefly inflamed during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, remained relatively placid by the standards of U.S. history, and with the fall of the USSR, the United States became an unquestioned Global Hegemon. A Hegemon which possessed the perfect freedom to strike its enemies, both real and perceived, with near impunity across the Globe. As the people of Serbia and Iraq learned, only too well, through horrible experience. In this sense at least, the 90's were high times for the Clintons and their Neo-Liberal fellow travelers. Who had convinced themselves, along with much of the populace of the United States, that they had finally entered Francis Fukuyama's prophesied "End of History."

    Though Donald Trump promises to "Make America Great Again," his rhetoric recalls, not the beloved 1990s of the Clintons, but rather the decade from 1953 to 1963, the time between the Korean war and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. An era of middle-class flourishing and industrial expansion, when good paying factory work allowed unskilled laborers to achieve the "American Dream" of Suburban tranquility and economic comfort. An era of low crime and common purpose. An era when a beloved President first dreamt of landing a man on the moon and the covers of magazines like "Popular Mechanics" showcased grand visions of a future dominated by the wonders and comforts of American technology. Though of course profoundly philistine and materialist in nature (and thus genuinely American), it is a vision which remains quite distinct from violent, pathological visions dreamt of by the Clintons and their associates.

    In contrast, to Trump's inward looking, Populist-Nationalist synthesis, Clinton offers Americans what is perhaps the most thoroughly pure version of Neo-Liberalism yet put forward on a national political stage. Consisting of both unapologetic support for international capitalist exploitation of labor as well as a virulent dedication to the continued unipolar geopolitical dominance of the United State's burgeoning Imperium. Its explicit goal is not merely to enable its own citizens to live the good life of uninhibited, rootless hedonism (the American Dream) but also to impose this concept of "the good life" upon the rest of the world.

    This universal, imperialist programme of exploitation and domination is the explicit goal of the ideology of Neo-Liberalism, whose cause will seem all the more urgent to a newly elected and empowered Hillary Clinton. She will then have to face the reality of both a divided country at home and a rapidly decaying Neoliberal world order abroad. As Russia, China, Iran, and others begin to push back against the reign of U.S. led cultural Imperialism.

    A more cautious Trump presidency would likely approach the situation with a good deal of pragmatism by letting the United State's moment of unipolar hegemony naturally fade away as the world slowly drifts into the more organic and sustainable state of Multipolarity.

    The same cannot be said, of course, for the path a potential Clinton administration would take, however. Clinton will have no choice but to throw all of her energies behind a shrill, last-ditch defense of the American Imperium, in both its physical, cultural and psychological manifestations.

    Though derided by her detractors as a dangerous, ideologically driven hawk on foreign policy and praised by her devotees as a steady, experienced hand, possessing considerable analytic acumen. The truth is that, in reality, both assessments are correct. It is important to note, however, that for Hillary Clinton, the latter merely acts as a veneer for the former. Her strategic acumen, however potent it may be, remains merely the servant of the powerful chthonic forces which drive her damaged psyche. Despite any appearances to the contrary, in her purest essence, she remains a genuine fanatic.

    When one looks back on the trajectory of her political career, it is not difficult to perceive it as a series of carefully calculated moves which served only to move her continually closer to capturing the presidency and the ultimate power it offers. While this is not exactly original analysis, it is still startling and instructive to contemplate the truly bizarre length and breadth of the ambition which has propelled her this far. Her husband's philandering, which has become the stuff of legend in the United States and has resulted in at least one serious claim of sexual assault, was obviously known to her from the beginning of their relationship. Her apparent ambivalence (if not open approval) regarding her husband's behavior is likewise an open secret and has, at least in part, contributed to the constant rumors regarding her potential homosexuality.

    Regardless of these rumors, it is entirely fair to assert that Clinton, whether or not she is a practicing lesbian, is at least a functional one. Her projected persona, from the androgynous pantsuits to her open contempt for the Traditional female roles of wife and mother coupled with a fanatical devotion to the cause of universal LGBT "human rights," is an almost exact emulation of a butch lesbian aesthetic and sensibility. It is a direct mimicry of Western conceptions of corporate masculinity reconceptualized through the funhouse mirror of 1970's feminist ideology. It is this barely cryptic Lesbianism, which serves as the primary ideological scaffolding for Clinton's thought and action. An ideology that is driven almost purely by a profound ressentiment of all those who do not affirm its tenets.

    It is this ressentiment which serves as the motivator for all of her endeavors, both of the past and of the future. Once Clinton secures the full powers of the U.S. presidency, she will then have the ultimate tool with which to wage war upon her perceived tormentors, i.e. all those who do not willingly affirm her particularly deviant ideological proclivities.

    This campaign of revenge will be waged on two separate fronts, one foreign and one domestic and will seek an utter subjugation or eradication of her perceived enemies.

    On the foreign front Clinton will immediately seek to reestablish U.S. dominance over the three primary regions of Modern Geopolitical Conflict: The Greater Middle East, the South China Sea, and Europe with a special focus on subduing the Russian Federation

    The very first action to be taken by a future Clinton administration will be an immediate reset of the U.S. policy on Syria. This intention has already been explicitly articulated and publicized in the international press and will mark a stark break with the Obama administration's previously more pragmatic approach. Syria was a war Obama was never particularly interested in and which he involved himself in only after intense pressure from his advisors (such as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland). Although Obama would, of course, have favored a solution that resulted in the replacement of Assad with a malleable puppet regime which was friendly to both American and Zionist ambitions in the Region. His better instincts led him to avoid the more extreme Anti-Assad approach favored by the most hawkish members of his cabinet.

    Clinton's stratagem will be the direct inverse of Obama's more tolerant approach to Assad. For Clinton, destroying Assad, and by extension, the millions of innocents which his government protects from Jihadi terror represents a triple opportunity. Enabling her to strike a direct blow simultaneously against Iranian and Russian interests in the region while also appeasing her Zionist backers. Thus, it will become an immediate priority for her administration.

    The policy will most likely take the form of a deluge of advanced armaments to the Syrian Islamists currently at war with the Assad government, potentially including Jabhat Al Nusra whose recent split with Al-Qaeda proper will make it a tempting potential ally in the new crusade against Assad.

    In addition to this new flow of arms, an attempt to establish a "no-fly zone" over Syria will be made with the expressed purpose of denigrating the Syrian government's ability to defend its people from Islamist terrorists. How this will be accomplished is still unclear, with the presence of the Russian military posing an especially difficult challenge. However, a U.S. provocation to open war is not entirely out of the question. Especially since a Clinton administration may view Syria as a theatre which, given U.S. superiority in power projection, would potentially enable a seemingly easy victory over Russian and Syrian forces.

    Everything will depend on the actions of the Russian government, whether it decides to double down on its ally or surrender to U.S. intimidation, as well as the disposition of Turkey. In this sense, the recent Coup attempt may serve as a blessing in disguise, as it is well known that, if not explicitly planned by the CIA, the Coup attempt was at the very least tacitly endorsed by the Obama administration. These facts will weigh heavily on President Erdogan's mind if and when a request is made to use Turkish airbases to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria.

    The second theatre, which will serve as the medium-term priority, will be a renewed attempt to further isolate and weaken the Russian Federation. This will involve both new deployments of American Military forces and equipment to both the Baltic states and Eastern Ukraine. The full weight of U.S. power will be used to reignite a conflict in the Donbass region, which will be justified under the pretense of restoring the "territorial integrity" of the Ukrainian Junta. This will enable the U.S. to continue its encirclement of Russia while also bleeding it of resources. This will make it, it is hoped by the U.S., more vulnerable, over the long term, to a hostile, U.S. funded, regime change which will be carried out by Atlanticist Fifth Columnist inside Russia.

    The third theatre, which will serve as the long-term priority, will be attempting to contain China from asserting its sovereignty in the South China Sea and the island of Taiwan. This will be by far the most difficult task facing a potential Clinton administration. China will possess a distinct military advantage over U.S. forces in the region owing to its advanced area-denial capabilities which will enable it effectively to neutralize the main tool of U.S. power projection: the aircraft carrier. The exact course a Clinton administration would take in a potential showdown with China is still unclear but given her past proclivities; it would not be a stretch to assume a choice for confrontation over compromise would be made.

    Clinton's domestic policies will be similarly reckless and aggressive. These will focus primarily upon stamping out any dissent, whether on the Left or the Right, to her rule. This should not be a difficult task, as the vast majority of Media elites in the United States are open supporters of her ideology. These elites will be in a particularly foul mood after the Election, as they have come to view Trump, and especially his supporters, as a mortal threat to their continued hegemony. A Clinton victory would then give them the leverage and pretext they need to begin punishing and marginalizing the Trump electorate that they so deeply despise.

    This will involve not only formal purges of journalists and academics (which has already become a regular occurrence in the U.S.) but also a renewed push to further hollow out what remains of the American Middle class, as well as continuing to push an intrinsically violent LGBT ideology further upon America's children.

    Needless to say, dissenters will suffer greatly under a Clinton regime. Those who oppose further aggressive U.S. actions across the globe will be dealt with as borderline traitors. Others who oppose the normalization of Sodomy and other related deviancies, such as Transgenderism, will be labeled bigots and suffer economic consequences as they are forced out of their jobs under the pretext of creating "safe work environmen ts".

    Tax exemption for religiously affiliated schools and nonprofit organizations will be revoked unless they agree to adhere to anti-discrimination laws which will require the affirmation of LGBT ideology.

    [Aug 13, 2016] In June 2014, Cuomo openly admitted on camera that the media have abandoned all pretenses at journalistic objectivity, but instead give Hillary Clinton "a free ride"

    Notable quotes:
    "... No wonder this man at a Trump campaign rally yesterday in Kissimmee, Florida, gave the finger to CNN producer Noah Gray and other journalists, shouting, "Go home! You are traitors! I am an American patriot!" ..."
    fellowshipoftheminds.com

    Now we have CNN anchor Chris Cuomo - former ABC News correspondent and "20/20" co-anchor, son of the late New York governor Mario Cuomo, and brother of current New York governor Andrew Cuomo - confirming what so many suspect.

    In June 2014, Cuomo openly admitted on camera that the media have abandoned all pretenses at journalistic objectivity, but instead give Hillary Clinton "a free ride" and are her "biggest" promoters. At the time, although Hillary had not yet declared she would run for the presidency, she was already getting donations for her then-nonexistent presidential campaign.

    Cuomo said:

    "It's a problem because she's [Hillary Clinton] doing what they call in politics 'freezing pockets,' because the donors are giving her money thinking she's going to run, that means they're not going to have available money for other candidates if she doesn't. And I don't think she's going to give it to them. We [the media] couldn't help her any more than we have, she's got just a free ride so far from the media, we're the biggest ones promoting her campaign, so it had better happen. "

    No wonder this man at a Trump campaign rally yesterday in Kissimmee, Florida, gave the finger to CNN producer Noah Gray and other journalists, shouting, "Go home! You are traitors! I am an American patriot!"

    [Aug 13, 2016] Hate Trump You Should Still Hold Clinton's Feet to the Fire

    Notable quotes:
    "... she is living in a glass house funded by Goldman Sachs and should be throwing no stones. ..."
    "... Clinton's been courting endorsements from billionaires Meg Whitman, Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg. Her own son-in-law is a "hedge fund guy", and the Wall Street Journal reported that "hedge fund money has vastly favored Clinton over Trump" to the tidy sum of $122m. Being bothered by what this portends for our economic future this is not a vote for Trump. ..."
    "... She has embraced the endorsement of neocon John Negroponte and is even reportedly courting the endorsement of Henry Kissinger. As secretary of state, Clinton controversially supported not designating the 2009 ouster of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya as a coup ..."
    "... turning a critical lens on the presidential candidate who supported the war that killed their son does not equate supporting her opponent. ..."
    Common Dreams

    While she made fun of Trump on the stump for having "a dozen or so economic advisers he just named: hedge fund guys, billionaire guys, six guys named Steve, apparently," she is living in a glass house funded by Goldman Sachs and should be throwing no stones.

    They're not named Steve, but Clinton's been courting endorsements from billionaires Meg Whitman, Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg. Her own son-in-law is a "hedge fund guy", and the Wall Street Journal reported that "hedge fund money has vastly favored Clinton over Trump" to the tidy sum of $122m. Being bothered by what this portends for our economic future this is not a vote for Trump.

    And though Trump is hinting to his supporters that they might want to use the second amendment to possibly assassinate Clinton or justices of the supreme court is disgusting, let's not forget Clinton saying in May 2008 that she had to stay in that primary because "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California" and, ho hum, you never know what might happen to presumptive nominee Barack Obama.

    I bring this all up not to draw parallels between Clinton and Trump. She is clearly the more capable person suited to preside over this corrupt, perpetually and criminally violent enterprise known as the United States of America. But let's not act like Clinton is a dove when it comes to matters of life and death.

    She has embraced the endorsement of neocon John Negroponte and is even reportedly courting the endorsement of Henry Kissinger. As secretary of state, Clinton controversially supported not designating the 2009 ouster of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya as a coup , even though he was woken up by armed soldiers and forced onto a plane and out of his country in his pajamas. She has since defended her role in that situation, which has led to hell for women, children and environmentalists, including the assassination of indigenous activist Berta Cáceres. And as senator, Clinton supported the Iraq war, a vote which helped lead to the death of US army captain Humayun Khan.

    Captain Khan's parents have valiantly and admirably taken on Trump and his ugly Islamophobia. But turning a critical lens on the presidential candidate who supported the war that killed their son does not equate supporting her opponent.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in the USA

    Notable quotes:
    "... The party left me ..."
    "... "The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party. ..."
    "... Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and, importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income" ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Democrats' Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S." [The Intercept].

    The party left me

    "The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party.

    Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and, importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income"

    [Thomas Edsall, New York Times]. Citing this tweet:

    [Aug 12, 2016] Trump agenda looks like more of the same

    How Trump plans to make America great again by cutting taxes on Wall Street traders? that will not work.
    CNN.com
    Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington and the author of "Getting Back to Full Employment: A Better bargain for Working People," and "The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive." The views expressed are his own.

    (CNN)Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gave his first major economic address on Monday. Most of the speech was devoted to putting forward a more or less standard set of Republican policies -- Trump promised large tax cuts that would primarily benefit higher-income taxpayers, ending the Affordable Care Act and curtailing government regulation. But he also broke with Republican orthodoxy, rejecting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, proposing renegotiating NAFTA, and vowing to take a firmer stance on currency management and other issues with our trading partners.

    What would some of this mean in practice?

    The proposal for tax cuts would put in place a system with three tax brackets of 12%, 25%, and 33%. Trump didn't indicate the cutoffs for the brackets, so it's not possible to determine how much the different groups would save. However, it is certain that the highest-income taxpayers would save under the Trump plan.

    Currently, high-income taxpayers pay a 39.6% tax rate on income over $415,000 for a single individual. If a high-level executive or Wall Street trader makes $2.4 million a year (roughly the average for the richest 1%), they would save $120,000 from their tax bill just on the reduction in the top tax bracket. For the richest 0.1%, the savings would average almost $700,000 a year.

    Trump also called for large cuts in the corporate tax rate. Currently, corporations pay on average a bit more than 25% of their profits in taxes. Trump committed to a tax code in which no corporation would pay more than 15% of its profits in taxes. This implies a reduction in revenue from the corporate income tax of more than 25%, or a loss in revenue of close to $100 billion a year.

    These tax cuts are virtually certain to lead to large deficits, as occurred with previous tax cuts under President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush. Trump has also proposed a substantial boost to infrastructure spending (although, while more spending on infrastructure is badly needed, this will further boost the deficit).

    Trump has suggested he will address the deficit by reducing waste, but presidents from both parties have promised to reduce waste for decades. Unless he is prepared to make large cuts to programs like Social Security, Medicare, or the military, it is inevitable that his tax cuts will hugely increase the budget deficit.

    Some increase in the deficit would actually be a good thing, because the economy has not yet replaced the demand lost when the housing bubble burst. However, Trump's plan almost certainly goes too far and will lead to high interest rates and/or serious problems with inflation.

    Trump's attack on government regulations, meanwhile, are an illusion. While some regulations surely are wasteful, the vast majority serve important purposes, like keeping lead out of the water our children drink. The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill has been a particular target of Trump and other Republicans, yet small businesses report that credit has never been easier to get.

    Meanwhile, the Affordable Care Act, which Trump promises to repeal, has given insurance to millions of people. And contrary to Trump's claims, there is no evidence it has cost jobs. In fact, job growth accelerated after the ACA took effect.

    Arguably, though, Trump's position on trade is the most interesting of the policies he has outlined. We would benefit from having more balanced trade, which could create millions of jobs, mostly in manufacturing. However it is not clear that Trump knows how to get there.

    He complained about countries not honoring our copyrights and patents. However, more royalties for copyrights and patents are a tradeoff for a larger trade deficit in manufactured goods. In other words, if we make China and Brazil pay more money to Microsoft for Windows and to Pfizer for its drugs, then they will have less money to buy our manufactured goods. Trump does not seem to appreciate this trade-off and is promising that everyone will get more.

    On the whole, the Trump agenda looks like the Republican agenda that we have seen many times before: It centers on large tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, something that has not worked in the past to create either strong growth or rising living standards for working people. And while Trump does offer a qualitatively different perspective on trade, it is too contradictory to be able to determine if it will actually benefit ordinary workers.

    Dave Green

    "Unless he is prepared to make large cuts to programs like Social Security, Medicare, or the military, it is inevitable that his tax cuts will hugely increase the budget deficit." <-----------This whole article could be summed up to that one statement.

    So much for an alternative to the "establishment." Same ole GOP spend spend spend but lower taxes and pray that increased revenue leads to investments that make up for the shortage. It's never worked and it wont work now.

    Tax and spend liberal or no tax and spend conservative. Gee...Somehow that looks familiar.


    Twick33

    I wonder why the silence about Omar Mateen's father at a Clinton rally. If the parents of Dylan Roof showed up to a Trump rally and offered their endorsement, it would be all over the news.

    But, I am sure there is some justification that democrats will push.

    REZIN8

    @Twick33 They love minorities! And as they said. Terrorists are the minority of muslims. Makes total sense.

    LALefty

    @Twick33
    To be sure, that was an embarrassment to the Clinton campaign, but it hasn't been at all silenced in the media. That story has been covered all day.


    [Aug 12, 2016] Robert Fitrakis Sanders May Have Lost Due to Election Fraud

    www.defenddemocracy.press

    Defend Democracy Press

    FITRAKIS: Well one of the obvious things in this election was the visible hijacking of Bernie Sanders voters. Bernie brought in what political scientists would call an asymmetrical entrance of new voters. He went out and got a lot of people that hadn�t voted previously and at first emerged in New York City, in Brooklyn where you had 126 thousand people. Overwhelmingly new voters supporting Bernie that were purged at the last second from the voting rolls. And that�s being investigated but it turned out to be a clerk said to have Republican leanings. But just prior to the purge, the daughter of a Clinton super delegate had bought property from her. A million and a half dollars over the street value that wasn�t even being listed. So at least it calls into question, whether it was an old fashioned Tammany Hall bribe for purging voters.

    So it�s what me and my co-author Harvey [Wasserman] call vote stripping, right? I think before this is all through the leaks by the Democratic National Committee, you�ll find that somebody had access to those databases and were targeting the Bernie people to purge them.

    NOOR: And can you talk about what the tactics were that were used in order to target these Bernie supporters and as youre saying, discount their votes?

    FITRAKIS: Well, you simply purge them from the voting rolls. And that can be done in a variety of ways depending upon the state. In most states people dont realize it but you privatize with companies, the voter databases. And also you have often these poll books. Many of them are electronic that are also created by proprietary companies.

    So the US is the only democracy in the world that allows private for profit partisan companies those that actually make contributions as did Dominion, the remnants of [Depolled] that went out of business for worldwide fraud following the 04 election and Hart Intercivic. So Hart Intercivic and Dominion both made contributions to the Clinton foundation. So you wonder, when a candidates running for president, why are voting machine companies making donations to their campaigns?

    So we allow these private, for-profit partisan companies to count our vote, to set our databases with secret proprietary software that nobody can look at. It violates every principle of transparency. And the only person on a high level willing to talk about this is Jimmy Carter, who says to Der Spiegel that America has a dysfunctional democracy and that we dont meet minimum standards of transparency.

    ... ... ...

    So all the evidence says were the absolute worst. But youve got this enculturation. Youve got two parties and both historically corporate capitalists parties, particularly since the Koch brothers decided we needed a DLC following the 84 election that they wanted a corporate wing of the Republican Party and they got that in 1992 in the form of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, which were both DLC people. Two corporate capitalist free trade parties. People wouldnt even, many people think Sanders was very progressive and he was and he spoke as a democratic socialist.

    But Jerry Brown in 1992 called for a 50% cut in the U.S. military. I mean, thats territory. But George Herbert Walker Bush actually talked about a peace dividend. We dont even talk anymore about nearly half of the money on planet earth beings spent in the U.S. military. And weve got soldier arguably or advisers in 181 out of 203 nations no one wants to say in great detail. And Sanders was touching on all these issues that that appears to be imperialism.

    But these the Stein campaign has enormous room to actually talk about what is happening in the United States. She asked people on the stage at this convention actually used the correct term, imperialism. And they actually do talk about a rigged election system. Because its systematically rigged when you bring these private contractors in and then they say its a computer glitch. In 2004 [D Bolt] two weeks before the election, accidentally glitched 10,000 voters in the city of Cleveland who were going to vote 95% for John Kerry.

    I dont believe those are glitches. I believe private contractors in this privatization has allowed big money to come in in the form of the corporation. And theres an old axiom, theres not much money in counting vote but theres a lot of money in the voting results.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Is Hillary Showing Signs Of Dementia

    This article was written two years ago. Still current...
    Notable quotes:
    "... She was responding, but seemed a little off. I figured she was just distracted and didn't feel like it was worth her time. ..."
    "... I kept going, but was starting to get frustrated. I decided I would ask her something I hadn't really planned on. I said, 'Ms. Clinton, some have suggested that you aren't healthy enough or are too old to pursue the presidency. Do you have a comment on that?' ..."
    "... I knew I had crossed a line for her right away. She snapped back, 'It's my turn. I've done my time, and I deserve it.' Then she stormed off. ..."
    "... When you consider her history of fainting spells, likely the result of strokes and the verbal gaffes she's made recently, you have to wonder if she isn't losing her mental faculties. ..."
    "... Let's face it, she's not a rank amateur when it comes to politics. She's always demonstrated a talent for verbal manipulation and deception. But suddenly it's as if her mask has slipped exposing her ugly, arrogant sense of entitlement. ..."
    "... I guarantee there's a lot of hand wringing going on in Democrat circles right now. They have a lot invested in Hillary as their best and only shot at replacing Obama. Between revelations about her health, her age, the gaffes she's made, the failure of her book, her low approval numbers… They're sweating bullets. ..."
    June 24, 2014 | Blur Brain
    The story goes that a freelance journalist Samuel Rosales-Avila was granted a short interview with Hillary after her LA book signing. He wanted to do a article for a Hispanic publication and was surprised when Hillary granted him a 20 minute meeting.

    He got more than he bargained for…

    I started asking Ms. Clinton questions. Mostly policy stuff, really focused on immigration. She was responding, but seemed a little off. I figured she was just distracted and didn't feel like it was worth her time.

    I kept going, but was starting to get frustrated. I decided I would ask her something I hadn't really planned on. I said, 'Ms. Clinton, some have suggested that you aren't healthy enough or are too old to pursue the presidency. Do you have a comment on that?'

    I knew I had crossed a line for her right away. She snapped back, 'It's my turn. I've done my time, and I deserve it.' Then she stormed off.

    After she left, one of her handlers came up to me and told me he would need the recording of our interview and that it was now 'off the record'. I was shocked and disappointed, but it was clear that it wasn't a negotiation.

    Read the rest:

    Hillary's posse isn't denying that the meeting took place, but without that recording we only have his version of what transpired.

    When you consider her history of fainting spells, likely the result of strokes and the verbal gaffes she's made recently, you have to wonder if she isn't losing her mental faculties.

    Let's face it, she's not a rank amateur when it comes to politics. She's always demonstrated a talent for verbal manipulation and deception. But suddenly it's as if her mask has slipped exposing her ugly, arrogant sense of entitlement.

    I guarantee there's a lot of hand wringing going on in Democrat circles right now. They have a lot invested in Hillary as their best and only shot at replacing Obama. Between revelations about her health, her age, the gaffes she's made, the failure of her book, her low approval numbers… They're sweating bullets.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Brexit: This Backlash Has Been a Long Time Coming

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Kevin O'Rourke, Chichele Professor of Economic History, All Souls College, University of Oxford; and Programme Director, CEPR. Originally published at VoxEU . ..."
    "... I completely agree that the backlash has been a long time coming. We are decades into a slow motion train wreck at this point. The evidence is there for any who wish to see it. ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 |

    By Kevin O'Rourke, Chichele Professor of Economic History, All Souls College, University of Oxford; and Programme Director, CEPR. Originally published at VoxEU.

    After the Brexit vote, it is obvious to many that globalisation in general, and European integration in particular, can leave people behind – and that ignoring this for long enough can have severe political consequences. This column argues that this fact has long been obvious. As the historical record demonstrates plainly and repeatedly, too much market and too little state invites a backlash. Markets and states are political complements, not substitutes.

    The main point of my 1999 book with Jeff Williamson was that globalisation produces both winners and losers, and that this can lead to an anti-globalisation backlash (O'Rourke and Williamson 1999). We argued this based on late-19th century evidence. Then, the main losers from trade were European landowners, who found themselves competing with an elastic supply of cheap New World land. The result was that in Germany and France, Italy and Sweden, the move towards ever-freer trade that had been ongoing for several years was halted, and replaced by a shift towards protection that benefited not only agricultural interests, but industrial ones as well. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, immigration restrictions were gradually tightened, as workers found themselves competing with European migrants coming from ever-poorer source countries.

    ...

    The globalisation experience of the Atlantic economy prior to the Great War speaks directly and eloquently to globalisation debates today – and the political lessons from this are sobering.

    "Politicians, journalists, and market analysts have a tendency to extrapolate the immediate past into the indefinite future, and such thinking suggests that the world is irreversibly headed toward ever greater levels of economic integration. The historical record suggests the contrary."

    "Unless politicians worry about who gains and who loses,î we continued, ìthey may be forced by the electorate to stop efforts to strengthen global economy links, and perhaps even to dismantle them … We hope that this book will help them to avoid that mistake – or remedy it."

    ...If the English want continued Single Market access, they will have to swallow continued labour mobility. There are complementary domestic policies that could help in making that politically feasible. We will have to wait and see what the English decide. But there are also lessons for the 27 remaining EU states (28 if, as I hope, Scotland remains a member). Too much market and too little state invites a backlash. Take the politics into account, and it becomes clear (as Dani Rodrik has often argued) that markets and states are complements, not substitutes.

    Topics: Brexit , Free markets and their discontents , Globalization , Guest Post

    1. makedoanmend

      UK Toryism today is not so much a political party espousing an ideology as it is an ideology that has taken over a political party. It is the ideolgy of exploitation of a tiny clique over an entire society and has become, through extensive and relentless propoganda, embedded the fabric of UK society. It is a class ideology that requires a middle classes and poorer apirants to the middle classes to accept cuts to their influence and hence wealth by creating an demonising a constructed underclass. The underclass serves as:

      1. a frightening lesson to those who do not conform
      2. scapegoats for every kind of social and cultural ill
      3. a fungible source of wandering labour who can be compelled to exploitation and discarded at will

      It demands the destruction of the state that supports people and replaces it with a state that supports business interests only. Everything must become a commodity – especially humans. It is an ideology that decries income distribution to the less wealthy but in every instance creates laws that ensure distribution of vast majority of wealth to the wealthiest. It is the insurance company for the wealthy as well. The taxpayer is the insurer.

      The greatest single example of wealth redistribution from the politically weak is the student loan wheeze. The mob in their greatest exploits could not have contrived a more elaborate form of extortion. As Tory idoeology 'crapifies' every job in the UK, they goad the young into what have become school factories, turning out people with certificates but often very little relevant qualification for a shrinking economy. Meanwhile the governement sells the loans to "investors" (themselves and their friends) for pence on the pound.

      Create the law that create the conditions that create the cash flow, and never lift a finger to do a real days work.

      What's not to like?

      Given the over population of the island, that oil is running out, and that they have gutted any social and cultural cohesive factor, and even if Brexit evaporates, the long term bodes ill anyway.

    1. paul

      So if the EU was completely different in action and intent, we would not have had brexit?

      Is labour mobility a really an expression of individual freedom, or coercive displacement in the face of the internal devaluation insisted upon by the technocrats?

      Its the former for JC Juncker and the latter for the workers at the sports direct gulags.

      Globalisation is a mechanism to strengthen corporations and the elites that own them, we would never had heard of the term otherwise.

      The europroject has steadfastly committed itself to this end and nothing will be allowed to interfere with it.
      A highly coupled,regionally constrained 'free trade' area is the only way to achieve this end.

      Why is brexit going to be painful? The same reason a chinese finger trap is difficult to get out of, it's designed that way.

      The eurogroup cannot admit that it now only serves as an iron lung for the financial sector.

      Popular reaction against it is to be welcomed, It's the only thing that will work.

    1. windsock

      "It is astonishing in retrospect how few people argued strongly for more services rather than fewer people."

      Well, Jeremy Corbyn did…

      "Learning abroad and working abroad, increases the opportunities and skills of British people and migration brings benefits as well as challenges at home.

      But it's only if there is government action to train enough skilled workers to stop the exploitation of migrant labour to undercut wages and invest in local services and housing in areas of rapid population growth that they will be felt across the country.'

      And this Government has done nothing of the sort. Instead, its failure to train enough skilled workers means we have become reliant on migration to keep our economy functioning."

      and

      "It is sometimes easier to blame the EU, or worse to blame foreigners, than to face up to our own problems. At the head of which right now is a Conservative Government that is failing the people of Britain."

      http://labourlist.org/2016/04/europe-needs-to-change-but-i-am-voting-to-stay-corbyns-full-speech-on-the-eu/

      …but the Tories couldn't – they have been demonising the service users as "scroungers" and "skivers" since Osborne introduced his austerity policies in 2010. Why on earth would he and Cameron – leading the Remain campaign, take the opinions of such people (like me) into account?

      1. Art Eclectic

        I don't believe the lack of skilled workers is the problem. The problem is the wages that professionals WANT to pay for skills do match up with what labor needs/wants to make. Tech workers are a perfect example. US tech companies want more HB1 visas, claiming there is not enough skilled labor. The part they leave out is the skilled labor wages. A US citizen carrying six figures in student load dept demands a higher wage than an Indian immigrant on an HB1.

        The professional class and corporations want to pay lower wages for everything from child care to roofers to junior managers, so of course they are all in favor of globalization and worker movement. There's bit of classism there as well. The senior manager is pissed that some random coder is making almost as much as he is. The professional is offended that a child care worker can afford their own home and drive a middle class car. Keeping wages low allows the professionals to maintain distinction of rank and value.

        You can see that impact in every discussion about minimum wages and people complaining about fast food workers getting $15 a hour for "low-skill" work.

    1. Ancaeus

      Lambert,

      The subtext of this article is a fawning acceptance of the desirability of globalization. Many of us reject globalization outright. We don't believe that it can, or ever will, be "tamed". Nor do we desire to live in a world where its pernicious effects must be forever mitigated. We do not want to be the recipients of such long-term mitigation, with the consequent loss of dignity.

      Instead, let us return to local products and services, produced by our neighbors. The money we spend will stay in our community. What's more, the social benefits of such local trade and the resulting thriving local economy go well beyond economic ones.

      The destruction of social cohesion is the primary externality that results from "free trade". And, in my opinion, no amount of money can adequately compensate for it. Returning to Brexit question, it is not clear to me that these non-economic costs of free trade are made worthwhile by the supposed non-economic benefits of the European project. From this side of the Atlantic, it seems doubtful.

      1. washunate

        Agreed. I come at it from the other side: I think the (reasonably controlled) exchange of people, ideas, goods, and services across national borders is a good thing; however, I respect the right of those who dislike globalization to do so. This post instead treats them with a thinly veiled heaping of scorn on top of an implicit claim of calling people both stupid and racist.

        The notion at the end of the article that Brexit specifically, or opposition to globalization more generally, is about market vs. the state is nonsensical bordering on purposeful obtuseness. Western society today is not characterized by too little state. The problem is what the state does.

    1. Sound of the Suburbs

      The BoE has taken more action that won't help and its been a long time since 2008.

      More and more people have read Richard Koo's book and know fiscal stimulus is required.

      Ben Bernake and Janet Yellen had read Richard Koo's book and ensured the US didn't impose austerity and go over the fiscal cliff.

      Mario hasn't read Richard Koo's book and pushed the Club-Med nations over the fiscal cliff.
      The harsh austerity on Greece, killed the Greek economy altogether.

      Reading Richard Koo's book is important, if only Mario would get a copy before he wipes out the Club-Med economies and banking systems.

      Mark Carney is from the Goldman stable and is naturally slow on the uptake and is set in his old-fashioned banker ways.

      Before you make a complete fool of yourself like Mario, here is an essential video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk

      You know what bankers are like.

      The IMF and World Bank spent 50 years imposing austerity, selling off previously public companies and insisting on lower Government spending. The trail of wreckage is spread across the world, South America, Africa, Asia and finally Greece.

      Bankers don't take responsibility for anything and so never learn from their mistakes.

      Well, The IMF, after 50 years, has finally realised this doesn't work.

      At 15.30 mins. into the video you can see the UK situation.

      There are massive bank reserves, adding to them will make no difference.

      Comparing the charts, the UK's borrowing has gone down more since 2008 than the US and the Euro-zone.

      We are doing all the wrong things, like austerity.

      If we had done the right things straight away the UK might still be in the EU

      (The Euro-zone figures look OK because the strong Northern nations aren't doing too badly, looking at the Club-Med nations and Greece, it's a very different story. The chart of Greece shows a nation being run into the ground.)

    1. hotairmail

      I voted Brexit not for the 'immigration issue' but for democracy. The EU bureaucracy has too much power and leverages its Central Bank to keep wayward states in line such as Greece, deliberately causing deflationary depressions and mass unemployment in their wake. The disdain with which democratic leaders are treated is typified by a rather famous video where a drunk Juncker greets various heads of democratic governments and proceeds to treat them disgracefully (search "Juncker bitch slap" on Youtube). That is not simply a video of a drunk man being inappropriate – it shows you where the power lies and what the bureaucracy routinely believes it can get away with.

      Britain decided not to join the Euro bloc. It is well documented that its design is not sustainable. It will either blow up and the thing will fall apart, or they will need to implement new fiscal transfers from the rich parts of the bloc to the less well off, as with an ordinary country. The Euro bloc will need to make big changes to ensure the Euro stays together which involves large costs to the richer nations such as Germany and Holland. But as most of the EU decision making at inter governmental level is majority voting, it is likely the UK would be outvoted to implement this via the EU – NOT the Euro bloc. They will want to pick the pockets of the UK even though the reasons for the transfers is nothing to do with the UK.

      Turning to the immigartion issue itself, it seems to me this is just as much about tax and benefits policy and its effects, as it is for free movement. As an EU citizen when you come to the UK, you are automatically treated the same as a UK citizen. This means you instantly have access to free health, free schools, housing benefit and in work tax credits. These sums really add up. The effect of these supports is to make labour very cheap to employers in the UK – people can do very low value work and still make their way. The expansion of the EU to the east made a vast pool of relatively poor labour available to employers and we have witnessed an explosion of low value added work from "hand car washes" to picking fruit (whilst fruit lays unpicked in their home countries). People wring ther hands about why productivity and tax revenue isn't growing despite rising employment coupled with an exploding housing benefit and tax credit bill, pressure on schools and healthcare. Put quite simply the UK cannot afford the services it has become used to with low value added work, so something has to give. At the end of the day, a decent welfare state in fact is NOT compatible with open borders. This is something the left wing have yet to face properly. And ordinary people, far from being simply 'racist' and xenophobic, are simply exercising their choice at the ballot box and they basically don't want to to see their lives get worse with lower wages, fewer opportunities, poorer housing and reduced welfare and services.

      A word of warning though about whether Brexit or the EU is protectionist or left wing etc – there are actually quite well argued opinions on both sides. For many Brexiteers, the EU actually represents a protectionist bloc that hinders free trade with the world. Many on the left, coming from the pure "international socialism" of the proper left wing also believe in fighting for protections of workers on the international stage such as the EU and therefore are not necessarily in step with their less well off followers, wondering who stole their cheese. A free trading nation but with a controlled immigration policy is actually quite appealing and may help to squeeze out the explosion of low value added work.

      On the democratic front, our politicians for decades have blamed the EU for why they can't do x or y. Add in that for the ordinary Brit we've only ever read articles about rules to implement "straight bananas" and the like, whilst our media spends far more time covering the anglophone American election, you can see there is no proper functioning "demos". And at the end of the day although "status quo" was always the position of the Remain side of things, this was never on the table. First we have the Euro issue and then we always have the Rome Treaty we signed up to which clearly states "Ever closer union".

      One final point about the vote split from the Ashcroft poll. You should note that only 2 parties voters supported Leave – UKIP (96%) and the Tories (56%). Labour and SNP were about the same at 62/63% to Remain. The idea that those who voted Leave are council house dwelling northerners is far from the mark. If you discount the fact that nationalist issues dominated proceedings in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the vote was more decisive than at first glance – hence why the Tories are treating this seemingly marginal result as so decisive – both amongst their own voters and the prize of the UKIP support in the future.

      Sorry for the rambling comment but there are lots of different angles to the EU issue – I'd just like to leave you with how I feel the split amongst the electorate occurs. Imagine a 4 box matrix, 2×2, with 'left' and 'right' on the top and 'nightmare' and 'dream' along the left. Left wingers who voted to remain have an international socialist dream. Right wingers who voted to Remain see it as a rampant free trade dream. Those who voted to leave on the right saw it as a socialist, protectionist nightmare. Those who voted leave on the left saw it as a neo liberal nightmare. So, you can see the split isn't just about whether you are left or right, free trade or protectionist – it has to be overlaid with whether the EU better represents your hopes or is a threat. The motivations for the vote are even more confusing than the coverage of those supposed reasons.

    1. sd

      Shorter version: the only way to keep capitalism in check is to pair it with a strong dose of socialism which the greed of those in power rarely allows. Outcome is always the same: the peasants revolt and management wonders why.

    1. lyman alpha blob

      The only reason globalization works for the meritorious technocrat class that supports it is because they are able to take advantage of differences in local currency values.

      Funny how you hear all this talk about global trade being necessary and unavoidable but never a global currency.

      Reply
    2. Mark John

      And now in France, a so-called Socialist government has weakened labor protections. A situation where a proletariat forced to swallow this, along with an easy immigration program, would spell trouble to anyone who has a knowledge of history and human nature.

      Plus, an even more immediate concern is that it appears globalization is an environmental disaster that we may very well have precious little time to correct.

    1. dw

      globalization isnt even all that popular among professionals since even their jobs are at risk now. but its extremely popular among executives because it makes their job easier. until their jobs end up being subject to it too. but among the among 1% its very popular, at least until it becomes very hard to make a profit or grow their business, since they all loose customers , and cant raise prices

    1. Mary Wehrheim

      The reason why popular opinion turns toward solutions involving immigration restriction rather than expansion of services is because….deficits. Watching the GOP primary ads in the hermetically sealed conservative bubble that passes for Kansas one would think that was the most pressing problem facing the US … course they throw in the usual memes of terrorist and Obama care dangers with a short sop about "more jobs" as rather an aside. The Powell memo propaganda machine has been very successful in redirecting the popular world view through the gaze of the 1%. Taxes = theft, just work harder (that one is finally wearing a bit thin though after the wives got into the work force and people got into deep debt over the past 40 years in a vain attempt to try and rise above stagnant salaries), safety net = dependency, poverty = lazy habits, privatization= efficiency, government and regulation = serfdom, and unions interfere with the celestial harmony of the spheres that is markets.

    1. Pookah Harvey

      These same arguments can be made for the replacement of low skilled jobs by robots, Closing borders will not help in this situation. Governments need to start planning for a world where there will be less of what we now consider" jobs" More services provided by government and lowering hours in the work week soon have to be on the agenda for forward looking politicians or Dune's Butlerian Jihad may come sooner than we think.

      Reply
      1. two beers

        […] lowering hours in the work week […]

        A guy named Karl Marx had an interesting little theory of value in capitalism which explains that the more hours a person works = more profit for the company. As automation deepens and spreads, companies will lay people off, but they will never willingly reduce the hours worked for the remaining employees.

        Unless capitalism willingly adopts socialistic measures (and it never will), it will keep herding workers – and eventually, itself – off a cliff.

    1. Ché Pasa

      These stories and the studies they're grounded in have been told over and over again for decades now. They're true, and in some cases they are so complete and compelling as to demolish once and for all the consensus ideology of Neo-LibCon rule, and yet…

      Our rulers do not listen. Our rulers do not care. They are lost in a post-modern decoupling of truth and fact from anything they need concern themselves with.

      It's pure religion tangled with power.

      The more stories and studies showing just how wrong they and their ideology/religion are, the more they don't listen, the more they don't care.

      1. Ulysses

        "Our rulers do not listen. Our rulers do not care. They are lost in a post-modern decoupling of truth and fact from anything they need concern themselves with.

        It's pure religion tangled with power.

        The more stories and studies showing just how wrong they and their ideology/religion are, the more they don't listen, the more they don't care."

        Very well said! Here in the U.S. we have enshrined in our fundamental law the right: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This first right amongst the bill of rights was only granted to us after Shay's Rebellion showed the elites that the people wouldn't simply roll over and subject themselves to an authoritarian government.

        When this petitioning failed, in the 1770s, to produce satisfactory results our independent nation was born amidst great tumult. Now we face a similar crossroads: move forward into a potentially better life, after toppling the transnational kleptocracy, or guarantee the further degradation of humanity by failing to do more than meekly petition the kleptocrats to throw us a few more crumbs.

        We need to stop trying to persuade those who benefit from exploiting us to stop through constructing ever more convincing arguments. The kleptocrats need to suffer tangible consequences for their crimes, through massive non-compliance with their wishes and monkey-wrenching of their systems. Indigenous peoples in Brazil have just shown us how to proceed by halting the dam.

        http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/international/388953/indigenous-tribe-applauds-state-move-to-cancel-brazil-amazon-dam

    1. Wade Riddick

      Zvi Namenwirth. He did a pioneering early study measuring the rhetoric of wealth transfer in American party platforms. I noticed twenty years ago that the swings tacked according to Kondratieff curves, which measure shifts between growth in manufacturing vs. agriculture. That's likely what you're seeing now with the balance shifting from labor to capital (the 1%) since the early '70s. It's not as important to look at general inflation as it is to measure the relative changes in prices among different sectors. Given that parties represent different interest groups, it's likely these stresses show up in political speech.

      But then that would mean politics drives economics and no economist wants to admit that.

    1. washunate

      I completely agree that the backlash has been a long time coming. We are decades into a slow motion train wreck at this point. The evidence is there for any who wish to see it.

      I completely disagree, though, with the conclusion. What is going on is not about an insufficiently large state. Rather, it's that the state has been entrenching inequality rather than addressing it. Our contemporary experience with excessive concentration of wealth and power is not an outcome of markets. It's an outcome of public policy. Implying that Brexit voters specifically, or anti-globalization advocates more generally, are stupid and racist says a lot more about the biases and blind spots in our intellectual class than it does about the victims of globalization as western governments have implemented it over the past few decades.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Michael Hudson: Clintons Red-Baiting Distracts from Failure to Address Inequality, War-Mongering as Trump Flails

    This lesser evilness trap is a standard trick inherent in two party system setup, designed to prevent voting for third party candidate and essentially limiting public discourse to selection between two oligarchy stooges. Moreover Hillary is definitely greater evil. Invoking of Nader to justify voting for Hillary is pure neoliberal propaganda designed to get the establishment candidate (who has significant and dangerous for any politician, to say nothing about POTUS, health problems) into White House. that why neoliberal MSM are baking non-stop at Trump, trying exaggerate any his misstep to galactic proportions. ...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American ..."
    "... Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers. ..."
    "... Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump. ..."
    "... She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. ..."
    "... Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. ..."
    "... "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity." ..."
    "... I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals. ..."
    "... I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades? ..."
    "... The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess. ..."
    "... I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. ..."
    "... As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything ..."
    "... You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country. ..."
    "... Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of. ..."
    "... As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager? ..."
    "... It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. ..."
    "... Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention. ..."
    "... I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House. ..."
    "... You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed. ..."
    "... Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things. ..."
    "... Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way. ..."
    "... He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed. ..."
    "... While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake". ..."
    "... Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's. ..."
    "... IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted. ..."
    "... Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war? ..."
    "... It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV. ..."
    "... You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear. ..."
    "... If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now. ..."
    "... "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.) ..."
    "... Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer." ..."
    "... That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care. ..."
    "... clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign. ..."
    "... it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it. ..."
    "... At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." ..."
    "... Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical ..."
    "... The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games. ..."
    "... Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards. ..."
    "... HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc. ..."
    "... They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex ..."
    "... "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism. ..."
    "... He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech. ..."
    "... Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics ..."
    "... Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye. ..."
    "... Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship. ..."
    "... A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy". ..."
    "... How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy. ..."
    "... Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge. ..."
    "... Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life! ..."
    "... How could Trump become a dictator? ..."
    "... This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight. ..."
    "... While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ... ... ...

    PERIES: So Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American . Now, this type of association game, which is supposed to make it difficult for Sanders supporters to criticize Clinton, what implication does this have on the overall politics in this country?

    HUDSON: Well, it certainly changed things in earlier elections. The Republican convention was as is normal, all about their candidate Trump. But surprisingly, so was the Democratic convention. That was all about Trump too – as the devil. The platform Hillary's running on is "I'm not Trump. I'm the lesser evil."

    She elaborates that by saying that Trump is Putin's ploy. When the Democratic National Committee (someone within it, or without) leaked the information to Wikileaks, the Democrats and Hillary asked, "Who benefits from this"? Ah-ha. Becaue Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers.

    Then Assange did an Internet interview and implied that it was not a cyberwar attack but a leak – indicating that it came from an insider inn the DNC. If this is true, then the Democrats are simply trying to blame it all on Trump – diverting attention from what the leaks' actual content!

    This is old-fashioned red baiting. I saw it 60 years ago when I was a teenager. I went to a high school where teachers used to turn in reports on what we said in class to the FBI every month. The State Department was emptied out of "realists" and staffed with Alan Dulles-type Cold Warriors. One couldn't talk about certain subjects. That is what red-baiting does. So the effect at the Democratic Convention was about Hillary trying to avoid taking about her own policies and herself. Except for what her husband said about "I met a girl" (not meaning Jennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinski.)

    The red baiting succeeded, and the convention wasn't about Hillary – at least, not her economic policies. It was more about Obama. She tied herself to Obama, and next to Trump = Putin, the convention's second underlying theme was that Hillary was going to be Obama's third term. That's what Obama himself said when he came and addressed the convention.

    The problem with this strategy is it's exactly the problem the Republicans faced in 2008, when voters turned against George Bush's administration. Voters wanted change. And they do today. Hillary did not say "I'm going to have hope and change from the last years of Obama." She said, in effect, "I'm not going to change anything. I'm going to continue Obama's policies that have made you all so prosperous." She talked about how employment is rising and everyone is better off.

    Well, the problem is that many people aren't better off than the last eight years. Ten million families have lost their homes, and most peoples' budgets are being squeezed. Obama saved the banks not the economy. So Trump's line and the Republican line in this election could well be: "Are you really better off than you were eight years ago? Or, are you actually worse off? Where are all your gains? You're further in debt. You're having more difficulty meeting your paychecks, you're running up your student loans. You're really not better off and we're going to be the party of hope and change."

    Hillary can't really counter that with the policies she has. Trump and the Republicans can say that even though she disavowed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the trade agreement with Europe, all the Democratic representatives that voted for the TPP have won re-nomination, and it's still on the burner.

    Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump.

    What did Hilary actually say at the convention besides "I'm not Trump, Trump is worse." She's trying to make the whole election over her rival, not over herself.

    PERIES: Okay, so everything you say about Hillary Clinton may be true, and it's more in your favor that it is true. She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. So when we opened this interview we were talking about what the Bernie Sanders supporters should now do, because Trump is starting to appeal like he's the candidate of ordinary people. So what are they to do?

    HUDSON: Well, if the election is between the most unpopular woman candidate in America and the most unpopular male candidate, the winner is going to be whoever can make the election fought over the other person. Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. It looks like she's able to do this, because Trump is even more narcissistic than she is.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 5:37 am

    EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.

    "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."

    He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals.

    She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.

    Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.

    God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!

    Katniss Everdeen , August 10, 2016 at 7:30 am

    I honestly don't think there's any way to predict what Donald Trump will do if elected. He's effectively a private citizen who, all of a sudden, will have access to every government secret and lie, and no culpability for any of it. It's almost impossible to imagine what that would be like.

    And it's what makes him so "dangerous."

    I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades?

    The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess.

    PlutoniumKun , August 10, 2016 at 8:09 am

    I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. I doubt he would be able to get much done as there would be an establishment consensus to keep him firmly under wraps. He would mostly busy himself with jetting around meeting foreign leaders and he might actually be quite productive at that.

    jrs , August 10, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    or he'll pass what he campaigns on which is standard Republican policy (sometimes) through an entirely Republican legislature duh. So tax cuts, cuts to regulation etc.. Really he's campaigning on these things and they CAN pass a Republican congress.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Yes, if Donnie is elected, we'll see some form of a Regency; that's what Pence is there for. Donnie will be Clown Prince, while more traditionally evil Republican/DC technocrats "run" things. It would be a re-doing of the Reagan/Bush-Baker and Bush/Cheney dynamic, as seen on reality TV.

    As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything. Does he lie exactly the way Hillary does? Of course not, she's the accomplished professional, while Donnie spins plates and tries to misdirect by finding someone to insult when they fall and shatter.

    Vote for Hillary or not (I most likely won't, but can't predict much of anything in this all-bets-are-off opera buffa), but by believing anything Donnie says, you risk being the chump he already thinks you are.

    oh , August 10, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country.

    EoinW , August 10, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of.

    When was the last time a political candidate in any country was as hated by the establishment as Trump is? That's all you need to know. As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager?

    Pat , August 10, 2016 at 10:32 am

    It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. Something, that for all her rhetoric, there is no reason to believe that Clinton will change. As for waging war, we have a whole lot of information that for all his massive drone wars and interventions in the Middle East, Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention.

    I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House.

    You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed.

    Once again, people are choosing from known despicable, unknown possibly lesser possibly greater despicable, and unlikely to win third parties or write ins – everyone can only do that for themselves.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 am

    That's fair.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    One New York reporter (sorry, I don't have the link) said that he has watched Trump his whole life and he said, though he could say many bad things about Trump, racism wasn't one of them. He said he had never in all his years of watching him known Trump to be racist in any way.

    Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things.

    Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way.

    He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake".

    Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's.

    IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Needs a link, especially on a key point like that!!

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Okay, I'm pretty sure I saw it at Counterpunch. I think I can probably find it. Thanks.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    That's preposterous about Donnie not being racist. When the Central Park Five (released from prison and compensated by the state for false impisonment) were arrested, Donnie took out full page ads for days in the NYC papers, all but calling for those (innocent) boy's lynching. He was raised in an explicitly racist milieu – his father arrested at a KKK tussle in Queens in the 1920's, and successfully sued by the Nixon DOJ for his discriminatory rental policies…) and has a long history of saying ignorant, absurd and racist things about "The Blacks."

    shinola , August 10, 2016 at 10:56 am

    "Clinton is awful, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea to elect a hateful, racist, despicable con man"

    Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war?

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:25 am

    It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV.

    Hatred and racism is exhibited in leaders by being a war monger and gutting this nation with the TPP and lousy trade deals that sell off our national sovereignty and democracy. You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    I am with Noam Chomsky on this. If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now.

    But as Pat said above, everyone must make up his or her own mind.

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Of course my friend, you have to vote your conscience is the way I've always felt. You have to be able to live with your vote.

    lyman alpha blob , August 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Has there ever been any evidence that this type of strategic voting has ever done any good whatsoever or ever had its intended result? Just speculation but I'm guessing that only a very few of the very politically astute would even bother. I say vote your conscience regardless and let the chips fall where they may.

    Not the voters fault that this is the best the two major parties could come up with.

    Tyler , August 10, 2016 at 9:35 am

    Speaking of revolution, I emailed Chomsky yesterday and he replied. The below is my message to him.

    Professor Chomsky,

    In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign, which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death, but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact.

    I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change, poverty, illegal wars, etc.

    Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action?

    Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world.

    The below is Chomsky's reply.

    It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination. I hope you manage to revive it.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    Bravo! Chomsky and MLK are two of my heros, as I think they are for many here.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:

    "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)

    "David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/feel-the-hate/

    That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care.

    Perhaps Yves could highlight Hillary's disdain for single-payer healthcare on another post. Thanks.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen CBS

    vidimi , August 10, 2016 at 9:52 am

    clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign.

    Steve Sewall , August 10, 2016 at 11:08 am

    I love Michael Hudson. But like everyone commenting here he is needlessly thinking inside the crumbling box of America's existing top-down, money-driven system of political discourse. So what is it that keeps us from thinking outside this godawful box? I think we're all so deeply and habitually embedded in the mode of being status quo critics that we're unable to enter the problem-solving mode of finding alternatives to it. But to make government work in America, we need to think in both modes.

    So let's think outside the box for a minute. After all, it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it.

    At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." Yet like all presidential candidates this year Bernie didn't take the next, logical step: he didn't call for the creation of a new political discourse system. (Note that Hillary alone among the top three candidates never, ever has a bad word to say against the current system.)

    OK, so what might a new system look like? First off, it would be non-partisan, issue-centered and deliberative. And citizen-participatory. It would make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping the best futures of their communities. That's its core principal.

    More specifically, the format of a reality TV show like The Voice or American Idol could readily be adapted to create ongoing, prime-time, issue-centered searches for solutions to any and all of the issues of the day. And of course problem-solving Reality TV is just of any number of formats that could work for TV. Other media could develop formats tap their strengths and appeal to their audiences.

    I'm from Chicago, so here's how it could take shape in the Windy City .

    Thanks to the miracle of modern communications technologies, there's nothing to stop Americans from having a citizen-participatory system of political discourse that gives all Americans an informed voice in the political and government decisions that affect their lives. Americans will flock in drove to ongoing, rule-governed problem-solving public forums that earn the respect and trust of citizens and political leaders alike. When we create them, governments at local, state and national levels will start working again. If we don't, our politics will continue to sink deeper into the cesspool we're in now.

    Left in Wisconsin , August 10, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical, unless there is a real socialist-ish movement out there educating and politicizing. In other words, while the political system is indeed broken, the economy is also broken and it is hard to see "empowered" citizens fixing the economy. What I think would happen is the politicians elected by these empowered citizens would be opposed by big business and the politicians they own, nothing good would get done, and there would be a business-financed media drumbeat that more democracy has been "proven" not to work.

    I don't think our political problems can be solved simply be electing better politicians – though of course we do need better politicians.

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:40 am

    The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    I have not had nearly the hardship you have had crittermom and I have not lived as long either, but at 27, and being someone who has been discontent with social structure since middle school, I have absolutely had enough. Genetics, environment, the combination of internal-external factors, whatever it was I have always had a very ("annoying" and sarcastic) curiousity or oppositional approach to things, especially things people do not question and accept as is (religion, government…).

    Growing older has only led me to greater understanding of the pit we reside within and how we probably will not get out. This election season in particular has been ridiculously… indescribable. The utter incompetence of our selfish administrations is finally coming to a head and people are completely oblivious, pulling the same stale BS that we have seen every four years since before I was born.

    Bernie totally blew it but, outside your hardship, don't ever think you effort was a waste. For once an honest candidate appeared who was backed by the policies we need and you supported that (as I did). That is the most we can do at this point. Bernie the man should absolutely be criticized because he wanted a "revolution" then sold out to the Junta instead of biting back when it would have really sent a message to the people and high rollers. He wasn't willing to sacrifice what was necessary to make a stand. Instead he sided with the people that have made careers sacrificing citizens like you–and that is terrible. The reality these people live in and teach to others is such a lie.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    These circumstances constantly remind me of the closing passage from Robert A. Heinlein's All You Zombies" :

    The Snake That Eats Its Own Tail, Forever and Ever. I know where I came from-but where did all you
    zombies come from?

    I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once-and you all went away.

    So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light.

    You aren't really there at all. There isn't anybody but me-Jane-here alone in the dark.

    I miss you dreadfully!

    Carolinian , August 10, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    America needs an ineffective president .

    Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards.

    So despite his potty mouth there's something to be said for Mr. Trump Goes to Washington. By the time he figures out how to be caudillo it may be time for another election.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc.

    They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.

    The following article is old now, from April, but it gives you an idea of "Why the Establishment Hates Trump" and what he is planning on doing. Watch them go after him; they will vilify him.

    "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism.

    But the silenced policies he advocates are more like jumping into a crocodile pit. He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech.

    Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics.

    Big Pharma is also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices". The even more powerful HMO's are confronted by the possibility of a "one-payer system", the devil incarnate in America's corporate-welfare state."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/05/why-the-establishment-hates-trump/

    Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye.

    MLaRowe , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    So I don't usually post here, just mostly read what other folks have to say.

    Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship.

    So if that is the case is Trump going to take us into the land of dictatorship (which I believe is highly likely) or are any of us going to be able to tread water for a little longer with HRC (who I agree is ugh a non-choice but hopefully the lesser of the two evils).

    Looking this up I found the concept of the Tytler Cycle. Interesting and scary. This is off wikipedia:

    Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy".

    Anyway can someone refute this for me so I can sleep tonight? Thanks, in advance.

    flora , August 10, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Sounds a bit too deterministic.

    Roland , August 11, 2016 at 4:51 am

    @ MLaRowe

    How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy.

    Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge.

    So exactly how the hell would Trump impose his will on the American masses? Answer: No Way.

    President Trump can only be a relatively weak president.

    Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life!

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:48 am

    How could Trump become a dictator?

    Thank you! The same question I have been asking repeatedly throughout this charade. Everyone's favorite line is "Trump will be a dictator [be afriad]!" The obvious question… how ?!

    How is Trump going to have the same or any more power within or over the system than any president before him?? What is a reasonable strategy with which he could upend and create domination over this system with? This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight.

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:42 am

    I have felt for a long time but have struggled to put into words the deep, strong aversion I have towards Clinton (et al.)and that I feel any time I read about her or see her. There is a phrase in the song Art War , by the Knack, that caught my ear; what I originally heard as, "malice of forethought". To me this represents the idea that terrible, harmful, far-reaching, incompetent decisions are made completely on purpose. After doing some research I discovered that the phrase is actually "malice aforethought", related to murderous intent in legal definitions. A second, more appropriate definition here is "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others". This represents my internal shuddering exactly – a sort of willful, deadly incompetence.

    While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Nader, Bush-Gore and lesser evil propaganda by Demorats

    Notable quotes:
    "... CNN exit polls show that only about 47 percent of the Nader voters would have voted for Gore in a two way race, while 21 percent would have voted for Bush and 30 percent would have abstained from voting in the Presidential contest altogether. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    Well, a counterfactual: Bush v Gore 2000. I have heard arguments that if Nader had not run, or if no one voted for him, Gore would have won Florida and hence the election.

    How might the world be different?

    Reply
    oh , August 10, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    That was the Dems' excuse for losing and has been disproved many times over. Don't buy it.

    Reply
    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    Do you have a link? I'd like to be educated.

    Reply
    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Mike, I've no links to provide you with -you can easily find them – but the rebuttal to the Nader-Gave-Us-Bush line is typically that 1) hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush, and 2) Gore could not win his "home" (though he's really a pure product of Washington, DC) state of Tennessee.

    The Blame Nader narrative also ignores the fact that the Dems did little or nothing to contest the blatant stealing of the election.

    Lies and misdirection, everywhere you look.

    Reply
    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    Thanks, Michael. They only way I see to disprove it is if they interviewed all 90,000+ Nader voters and > 50% in FL swore they would have voted for Bush - or some such.

    It seems tough to disprove such an historical counterfactual hypothetical!

    At any rate, I think this is what underlies Chomsky's reasoning.

    Reply
    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    BTW here's the Chomsky interview I referred to.

    Reply
    m1p3nner , August 11, 2016 at 12:55 am

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/dont_fall_for_it_the_nader_myth_and_your_2016_vote_20160802
    Of course such commentary isn't conclusive but I found it persuasive. Then again, I voted for Ralph Nader and can't help second guessing that vote now and again, so some confirmation bias. If you have time, let us know what you think.

    Reply
    MikeNY , August 11, 2016 at 5:27 am

    Thanks for the link. From the Alternet article linked to at the end:

    CNN exit polls show that only about 47 percent of the Nader voters would have voted for Gore in a two way race, while 21 percent would have voted for Bush and 30 percent would have abstained from voting in the Presidential contest altogether.

    This would be the relevant evidence to prove the counterfactual hypothesis. I note that it seems to be contradicted by the CNN polling data in the Truthdig article; what is unclear to me is whether they are talking about FL voters, or national voters. It makes a difference if we are focusing solely on FL (which in itself could be problematic if Nader's elimination swung the result in other states - which I don't know.)

    Anyway, as I said above, I do think it is this example and reasoning that underlies Chomsky's logic. And mine. But I admit, I am abjectly unenthusiastic about it. I expect and hope that I shall be able to vote 3rd party - I vote in NY.

    Thanks again. And to you and all, I appreciate the civility of tone in this engagement. I realize my view is probably in the minority here.

    Reply
    lyman alpha blob , August 10, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Gore got more votes overall than Bush and not all the votes were counted in FL in 2000 thanks to a corrupt Supreme court. Bush was appointed, not elected, and that isn't Nader's fault.

    Nader ran in 2004 too and got ,< 1% of the vote. Of course that election was stolen too but neither Gore nor Kerry bothered to raise a fuss.

    I think we ought to be concentrating more on the integrity of our elections in this country rather than wringing our hands about who might be a 'spoiler'.

    Can't stand the republicans but I haven't heard them whinging about Ross Perot for the last 20 years.

    Reply
    MojaveWolf , August 10, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    Sooooo tired of this analogy. And I voted for Gore in 2000. First, a couple of differences:
    Gore was clearly a much better candidate and would have been a much better president than Bush. And Gore was great on the environment.

    Also, Gore lost primarily because of a tilted "liberal media" that seemed to MUCH prefer Bush. Secondarily because he (or his people) ran one of the worst presidential campaigns I've ever seen. Maybe the worst presidential campaign I've ever seen, as far as trying to take advantage of the candidate's strengths (Trump in this general is working on catching up, though!)

    Third was Clinton fatigue, which was very real at the time and did not help at all. Nader and the cheating in Florida and the horrid Supreme Court decision (complete w/failures to recuse that were kinda eyebrow raising) were also relevant, but none of this should have even come into play. Gore had a lot to work with, Bush was a godawful candidate, and a competent campaign combined with something even vaguely resembling fair media coverage would have made this a slam dunk 5+ % win despite the polarized country and a strong desire on the part of many to get rid of anything associated with Bill. Even with all that, and Nader, if we hadn't allowed a truly criminal purge of non-criminals from Florida's voter rolls, Gore wins. This was followed by the count fiasco, more horribly biased media coverage (they were as desperate for Gore to quit then as they were for Bernie to quit the last several months of his campaign, gotta give Bernie credit for fighting harder and longer against worse odds), Gore inexplicably rolling over in a display that still makes me shake my head in disbelief, and a just plain wrong Supreme Court decision that only happened because justices w/family members working on Bush's campaign didn't recuse themselves.

    But still, biggest difference for me? Neither of these are someone I want in the oval office.

    Reply
    Skippy , August 11, 2016 at 2:24 am

    Bush used the Enron jet to stitch up a deal, Gore folded.

    Disheveled Marsupial…. I still get a tear in my eye when thinking about the xmas card the Skilling family sent Bush…. see you in the WH…. sniff…

    Reply

    [Aug 12, 2016] Michael Hudson: Clinton's Red-Baiting Distracts from Failure to Address Inequality, War-Mongering as Trump Flails

    Notable quotes:
    "... Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American ..."
    "... Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers. ..."
    "... Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump. ..."
    "... She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. ..."
    "... Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. ..."
    "... "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity." ..."
    "... I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals. ..."
    "... I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades? ..."
    "... The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess. ..."
    "... I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. ..."
    "... As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything ..."
    "... You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country. ..."
    "... Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of. ..."
    "... As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager? ..."
    "... Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention. ..."
    "... I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House. ..."
    "... You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed. ..."
    "... Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things. ..."
    "... Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way. ..."
    "... He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed. ..."
    "... Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war? ..."
    "... It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV. ..."
    "... You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear. ..."
    "... If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now. ..."
    "... Professor Chomsky, ..."
    "... In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign, which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death, but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact. I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change, poverty, illegal wars, etc. Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action? ..."
    "... Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world. ..."
    "... It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination. I hope you manage to revive it. ..."
    "... clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign. ..."
    "... Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical ..."
    "... The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games. ..."
    "... All You Zombies" ..."
    "... The Snake That Eats Its Own Tail, Forever and Ever. I know where I came from-but where did all you zombies come from? ..."
    "... I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once-and you all went away. So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light. You aren't really there at all. There isn't anybody but me-Jane-here alone in the dark. ..."
    "... I miss you dreadfully! ..."
    "... Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards. ..."
    "... How could Trump become a dictator? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ... ... ...

    PERIES: So Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American . Now, this type of association game, which is supposed to make it difficult for Sanders supporters to criticize Clinton, what implication does this have on the overall politics in this country?

    HUDSON: Well, it certainly changed things in earlier elections. The Republican convention was as is normal, all about their candidate Trump. But surprisingly, so was the Democratic convention. That was all about Trump too – as the devil. The platform Hillary's running on is "I'm not Trump. I'm the lesser evil."

    She elaborates that by saying that Trump is Putin's ploy. When the Democratic National Committee (someone within it, or without) leaked the information to Wikileaks, the Democrats and Hillary asked, "Who benefits from this"? Ah-ha. Becaue Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers.

    Then Assange did an Internet interview and implied that it was not a cyberwar attack but a leak – indicating that it came from an insider inn the DNC. If this is true, then the Democrats are simply trying to blame it all on Trump – diverting attention from what the leaks' actual content!

    This is old-fashioned red baiting. I saw it 60 years ago when I was a teenager. I went to a high school where teachers used to turn in reports on what we said in class to the FBI every month. The State Department was emptied out of "realists" and staffed with Alan Dulles-type Cold Warriors. One couldn't talk about certain subjects. That is what red-baiting does. So the effect at the Democratic Convention was about Hillary trying to avoid taking about her own policies and herself. Except for what her husband said about "I met a girl" (not meaning Jennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinski.)

    The red baiting succeeded, and the convention wasn't about Hillary – at least, not her economic policies. It was more about Obama. She tied herself to Obama, and next to Trump = Putin, the convention's second underlying theme was that Hillary was going to be Obama's third term. That's what Obama himself said when he came and addressed the convention.

    The problem with this strategy is it's exactly the problem the Republicans faced in 2008, when voters turned against George Bush's administration. Voters wanted change. And they do today. Hillary did not say "I'm going to have hope and change from the last years of Obama." She said, in effect, "I'm not going to change anything. I'm going to continue Obama's policies that have made you all so prosperous." She talked about how employment is rising and everyone is better off.

    Well, the problem is that many people aren't better off than the last eight years. Ten million families have lost their homes, and most peoples' budgets are being squeezed. Obama saved the banks not the economy. So Trump's line and the Republican line in this election could well be: "Are you really better off than you were eight years ago? Or, are you actually worse off? Where are all your gains? You're further in debt. You're having more difficulty meeting your paychecks, you're running up your student loans. You're really not better off and we're going to be the party of hope and change."

    Hillary can't really counter that with the policies she has. Trump and the Republicans can say that even though she disavowed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the trade agreement with Europe, all the Democratic representatives that voted for the TPP have won re-nomination, and it's still on the burner.

    Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump.

    What did Hilary actually say at the convention besides "I'm not Trump, Trump is worse." She's trying to make the whole election over her rival, not over herself.

    PERIES: Okay, so everything you say about Hillary Clinton may be true, and it's more in your favor that it is true. She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. So when we opened this interview we were talking about what the Bernie Sanders supporters should now do, because Trump is starting to appeal like he's the candidate of ordinary people. So what are they to do?

    HUDSON: Well, if the election is between the most unpopular woman candidate in America and the most unpopular male candidate, the winner is going to be whoever can make the election fought over the other person. Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. It looks like she's able to do this, because Trump is even more narcissistic than she is.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 5:37 am

    EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.

    "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."

    He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals.

    She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.

    Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.

    God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!

    Katniss Everdeen , August 10, 2016 at 7:30 am

    I honestly don't think there's any way to predict what Donald Trump will do if elected. He's effectively a private citizen who, all of a sudden, will have access to every government secret and lie, and no culpability for any of it. It's almost impossible to imagine what that would be like.

    And it's what makes him so "dangerous."

    I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades?

    The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess.

    PlutoniumKun , August 10, 2016 at 8:09 am

    I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. I doubt he would be able to get much done as there would be an establishment consensus to keep him firmly under wraps. He would mostly busy himself with jetting around meeting foreign leaders and he might actually be quite productive at that.

    jrs , August 10, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    or he'll pass what he campaigns on which is standard Republican policy (sometimes) through an entirely Republican legislature duh. So tax cuts, cuts to regulation etc.. Really he's campaigning on these things and they CAN pass a Republican congress.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Yes, if Donnie is elected, we'll see some form of a Regency; that's what Pence is there for.

    Donnie will be Clown Prince, while more traditionally evil Republican/DC technocrats "run" things. It would be a re-doing of the Reagan/Bush-Baker and Bush/Cheney dynamic, as seen on reality TV.

    As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything. Does he lie exactly the way Hillary does? Of course not, she's the accomplished professional, while Donnie spins plates and tries to misdirect by finding someone to insult when they fall and shatter.

    Vote for Hillary or not (I most likely won't, but can't predict much of anything in this all-bets-are-off opera buffa), but by believing anything Donnie says, you risk being the chump he already thinks you are.

    oh , August 10, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country.

    EoinW , August 10, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of.

    When was the last time a political candidate in any country was as hated by the establishment as Trump is? That's all you need to know. As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager?

    Pat , August 10, 2016 at 10:32 am

    It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. Something, that for all her rhetoric, there is no reason to believe that Clinton will change. As for waging war, we have a whole lot of information that for all his massive drone wars and interventions in the Middle East, Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention.

    I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House.

    You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed.

    Once again, people are choosing from known despicable, unknown possibly lesser possibly greater despicable, and unlikely to win third parties or write ins – everyone can only do that for themselves.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 am

    That's fair.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    One New York reporter (sorry, I don't have the link) said that he has watched Trump his whole life and he said, though he could say many bad things about Trump, racism wasn't one of them. He said he had never in all his years of watching him known Trump to be racist in any way.

    Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things.

    Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way.

    He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake".

    Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's.

    IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Needs a link, especially on a key point like that!!

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Okay, I'm pretty sure I saw it at Counterpunch. I think I can probably find it. Thanks.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    That's preposterous about Donnie not being racist. When the Central Park Five (released from prison and compensated by the state for false impisonment) were arrested, Donnie took out full page ads for days in the NYC papers, all but calling for those (innocent) boy's lynching. He was raised in an explicitly racist milieu – his father arrested at a KKK tussle in Queens in the 1920's, and successfully sued by the Nixon DOJ for his discriminatory rental policies…) and has a long history of saying ignorant, absurd and racist things about "The Blacks."

    shinola , August 10, 2016 at 10:56 am

    "Clinton is awful, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea to elect a hateful, racist, despicable con man"

    Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war?

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:25 am

    It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV.

    Hatred and racism is exhibited in leaders by being a war monger and gutting this nation with the TPP and lousy trade deals that sell off our national sovereignty and democracy. You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    I am with Noam Chomsky on this. If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now.

    But as Pat said above, everyone must make up his or her own mind.

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Of course my friend, you have to vote your conscience is the way I've always felt. You have to be able to live with your vote.

    Reply
    lyman alpha blob , August 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Has there ever been any evidence that this type of strategic voting has ever done any good whatsoever or ever had its intended result? Just speculation but I'm guessing that only a very few of the very politically astute would even bother. I say vote your conscience regardless and let the chips fall where they may.

    Not the voters fault that this is the best the two major parties could come up with.

    Reply
    Tyler , August 10, 2016 at 9:35 am

    Speaking of revolution, I emailed Chomsky yesterday and he replied. The below is my message to him.

    Professor Chomsky,

    In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign, which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death, but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact.

    I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change, poverty, illegal wars, etc.

    Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action?

    Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world.

    The below is Chomsky's reply.

    It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination. I hope you manage to revive it.

    Reply
    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    Bravo! Chomsky and MLK are two of my heros, as I think they are for many here.

    Reply
    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:

    "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)

    "David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/feel-the-hate/

    That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care.

    Perhaps Yves could highlight Hillary's disdain for single-payer healthcare on another post. Thanks.

    Reply
    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen CBS

    vidimi , August 10, 2016 at 9:52 am

    clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign.

    Steve Sewall , August 10, 2016 at 11:08 am

    I love Michael Hudson. But like everyone commenting here he is needlessly thinking inside the crumbling box of America's existing top-down, money-driven system of political discourse. So what is it that keeps us from thinking outside this godawful box? I think we're all so deeply and habitually embedded in the mode of being status quo critics that we're unable to enter the problem-solving mode of finding alternatives to it. But to make government work in America, we need to think in both modes.

    So let's think outside the box for a minute. After all, it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it.

    At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." Yet like all presidential candidates this year Bernie didn't take the next, logical step: he didn't call for the creation of a new political discourse system. (Note that Hillary alone among the top three candidates never, ever has a bad word to say against the current system.)

    OK, so what might a new system look like? First off, it would be non-partisan, issue-centered and deliberative. And citizen-participatory. It would make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping the best futures of their communities. That's its core principal.

    More specifically, the format of a reality TV show like The Voice or American Idol could readily be adapted to create ongoing, prime-time, issue-centered searches for solutions to any and all of the issues of the day. And of course problem-solving Reality TV is just of any number of formats that could work for TV. Other media could develop formats tap their strengths and appeal to their audiences.

    I'm from Chicago, so here's how it could take shape in the Windy City .

    Thanks to the miracle of modern communications technologies, there's nothing to stop Americans from having a citizen-participatory system of political discourse that gives all Americans an informed voice in the political and government decisions that affect their lives. Americans will flock in drove to ongoing, rule-governed problem-solving public forums that earn the respect and trust of citizens and political leaders alike. When we create them, governments at local, state and national levels will start working again. If we don't, our politics will continue to sink deeper into the cesspool we're in now.

    Left in Wisconsin , August 10, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical, unless there is a real socialist-ish movement out there educating and politicizing. In other words, while the political system is indeed broken, the economy is also broken and it is hard to see "empowered" citizens fixing the economy. What I think would happen is the politicians elected by these empowered citizens would be opposed by big business and the politicians they own, nothing good would get done, and there would be a business-financed media drumbeat that more democracy has been "proven" not to work.

    I don't think our political problems can be solved simply be electing better politicians – though of course we do need better politicians.

    Reply
    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:40 am

    The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    I have not had nearly the hardship you have had crittermom and I have not lived as long either, but at 27, and being someone who has been discontent with social structure since middle school, I have absolutely had enough. Genetics, environment, the combination of internal-external factors, whatever it was I have always had a very ("annoying" and sarcastic) curiousity or oppositional approach to things, especially things people do not question and accept as is (religion, government…).

    Growing older has only led me to greater understanding of the pit we reside within and how we probably will not get out. This election season in particular has been ridiculously… indescribable. The utter incompetence of our selfish administrations is finally coming to a head and people are completely oblivious, pulling the same stale BS that we have seen every four years since before I was born.

    Bernie totally blew it but, outside your hardship, don't ever think you effort was a waste. For once an honest candidate appeared who was backed by the policies we need and you supported that (as I did). That is the most we can do at this point. Bernie the man should absolutely be criticized because he wanted a "revolution" then sold out to the Junta instead of biting back when it would have really sent a message to the people and high rollers. He wasn't willing to sacrifice what was necessary to make a stand. Instead he sided with the people that have made careers sacrificing citizens like you–and that is terrible. The reality these people live in and teach to others is such a lie.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    These circumstances constantly remind me of the closing passage from Robert A. Heinlein's All You Zombies" :

    The Snake That Eats Its Own Tail, Forever and Ever. I know where I came from-but where did all you
    zombies come from?

    I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once-and you all went away.

    So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light.

    You aren't really there at all. There isn't anybody but me-Jane-here alone in the dark.

    I miss you dreadfully!

    Carolinian , August 10, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    America needs an ineffective president .

    Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards.

    So despite his potty mouth there's something to be said for Mr. Trump Goes to Washington. By the time he figures out how to be caudillo it may be time for another election.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc.

    They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.

    The following article is old now, from April, but it gives you an idea of "Why the Establishment Hates Trump" and what he is planning on doing. Watch them go after him; they will vilify him.

    "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism. But the silenced policies he advocates are more like jumping into a crocodile pit. He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech. Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics. Big Pharma is also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices". The even more powerful HMO's are confronted by the possibility of a "one-payer system", the devil incarnate in America's corporate-welfare state."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/05/why-the-establishment-hates-trump/

    Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye.

    Reply
    MLaRowe , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    So I don't usually post here, just mostly read what other folks have to say.

    Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship.

    So if that is the case is Trump going to take us into the land of dictatorship (which I believe is highly likely) or are any of us going to be able to tread water for a little longer with HRC (who I agree is ugh a non-choice but hopefully the lesser of the two evils).

    Looking this up I found the concept of the Tytler Cycle. Interesting and scary. This is off wikipedia:

    Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy".

    Anyway can someone refute this for me so I can sleep tonight? Thanks, in advance.

    flora , August 10, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Sounds a bit too deterministic.

    Roland , August 11, 2016 at 4:51 am

    @ MLaRowe

    How could Trump become a dictator?

    Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?)

    Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy.

    Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge.

    So exactly how the hell would Trump impose his will on the American masses? Answer: No Way.

    President Trump can only be a relatively weak president.

    Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life!

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:48 am

    How could Trump become a dictator?

    Thank you! The same question I have been asking repeatedly throughout this charade. Everyone's favorite line is "Trump will be a dictator [be afriad]!" The obvious question… how ?! How is Trump going to have the same or any more power within or over the system than any president before him?? What is a reasonable strategy with which he could upend and create domination over this system with? This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight.

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:42 am

    I have felt for a long time but have struggled to put into words the deep, strong aversion I have towards Clinton (et al.)and that I feel any time I read about her or see her. There is a phrase in the song Art War , by the Knack, that caught my ear; what I originally heard as, "malice of forethought". To me this represents the idea that terrible, harmful, far-reaching, incompetent decisions are made completely on purpose. After doing some research I discovered that the phrase is actually "malice aforethought", related to murderous intent in legal definitions. A second, more appropriate definition here is "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others". This represents my internal shuddering exactly–a sort of willful, deadly incompetence.

    While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Neoliberal press attacks on Trump

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    backwardsevolution

    crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc.

    They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.

    [Aug 10, 2016] Assange Implies Murdered DNC Staffer May Have Been Wikileaks Source

    www.redstate.com

    RedState

    It's hard to overstate the amount of caution we should all display with this story, but it's too newsworthy to ignore.

    It starts with this interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange where he brings up murdered DNC staffer, Seth Rich, unprompted.

    Here's the juicy part:

    ASSANGE: Our whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. There's a 27 year old that works for the DNC, he was shot in the back. Murdered, uh just a few weeks ago, uh, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington. So...

    INTERVIEWER: That was, that was just a robbery I believe. Wasn't it?

    ASSANGE: No. There's no finding. So...

    INTERVIEWER: What are you suggesting? What are you suggesting?

    ASSANGE: I'm suggesting our sources take risks and they uh, become concerned, uh to see things occurring, like that.

    INTERVIEWER: Was he one of your sources then? I mean...

    ASSANGE: We don't comment on who our sources are.

    INTERVIEWER: Then why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?

    ASSANGE: Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States. And our sources are ... you know... our sources face serious risks. That's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity.

    Then comes the news that Wikileaks is offering a $25,000 reward for any information leading to the capture of Rich's murderer.

    [Aug 10, 2016] Hillary Clintons hormones have nothing to do with her qualifications

    Notable quotes:
    "... Jennifer Gunter is an obstetrician-gynecologist and author of The Preemie Primer . She blogs at her self-titled site, Dr. Jen Gunter . ..."
    www.kevinmd.com
    ... ... ...

    Dr. Holland also gets the endocrinology wrong (hope she's got it right in her book) when she refers to estrogen a "stress hormone that helps a woman be resilient during her fertile years."

    Stress hormones are part of the "flight or fight" response, and the major stress hormones include cortisol and epinephrine. Stress hormones can be released rapidly by the body in response to a threat of some kind (running the gamut from a broken toe to reading an article on how hormones make or break a woman's ability to be president). This is not estrogen. Estrogen thickens the lining of the uterus, affects breast tissue, and of course (like most hormones) has a multitude of effects everywhere in the body. It is not, however, a stress hormone. It may be able to counteract oxidative stress in some tissues, but that doesn't make it a stress hormone).

    The major source of estrogen before menopause is the developing egg and how far the egg is in the cycle is what governs the release of estrogen, not stress. The female endocrine system is just not built to churn out large amounts of estrogen in response to stress. Also, girls don't have estrogen before puberty so it would be a pretty poor evolutionary design for a stress hormones to only kick in at puberty. Bad luck if you get chased by a saber-toothed tiger at the age of eight!

    ... ... ...

    Postmenopausal women are not biologically primed to handle stress any more or less than premenopausal women. Hillary Clinton's hormones have nothing to do with her qualifications, and I find any connection between the two, whether well-intentioned or simply a book plug, an insult.

    To say a woman's hormones are in some way related to her fitness to be president then also means at some time you think she is less fit to be president. You can't have it both ways.

    There is no wisdom in menopause. There is wisdom, and then there is menopause. All I care about is Ms. Clinton's wisdom, and that's all you should care about too.

    Jennifer Gunter is an obstetrician-gynecologist and author of The Preemie Primer. She blogs at her self-titled site, Dr. Jen Gunter.

    [Aug 10, 2016] Hillary Clinton Chronic Health Issues May Interfere With Presidency, Says Political Insider

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Washington Post ..."
    Jul 07, 2016 | inquisitr.com

    Hillary Clinton reportedly has chronic health issues that may interfere with the presidency, according to one political insider. The 68-year-old presumptive Democratic nominee has never been too open about her medical history, but the coughing fits alone may be enough to indicate that Clinton has some serious health problems. Radar Online issued a report on Wednesday that has an insider close to Hillary Clinton saying the presidential hopeful is facing "mounting health issues."

    Several coughing fits have been caught on camera as Hillary Clinton has campaigned across the nation for the 2016 primary elections and caucuses. The Washington Post reported in April that Clinton had two public coughing fits in one week, leaving Democratic constituents wondering if she's even healthy enough to become president. Actress Susan Sarandon even said in May during an interview with Larry King that she won't endorse Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate because "she may have health issues."

    ... ... ...

    In April, an article published on KevinMD.com outlined some concerns about Hillary Clinton's health records, but said that Clinton's health risks aren't anything that should disqualify her from being president. However, "they are certainly something to ponder."

    [Aug 10, 2016] How many such average Americans also were killed in action and Hillary could care less because it doesnt fit her or the elites agenda? The Clinton family will drag us into more wars to advance the bankster interests

    Was not WaPo a cheerleader of Iraq war? What a despicable hypocrites... Judging from comments it is more and more difficult for them to deceive and brainwash the readers... The Trump campaign is a movement MSM and neocons will never embrace. The media bias against Trump has reached unprecedented proportions.
    Notable quotes:
    "... My other thought on this is that the Wahabbi theology, which the Saudis have spread so aggressively, is likely to poison the minds of fighting age Muslim males for many many generations to come. And if the House of Saud falls, the country will most likely fall to those under the sway of the Wahabbi clerics, with whom the Saudi monarchs have a tenuous alliance. IMO, if the House of Saud falls, the country is most likely to become an even more brutal theocracy than it already is. It's much more likely to turn into another ISIS state than a western style democracy. ..."
    "... Among other things, it is highly doubtful that any other religion will ever be allowed on the Arabian peninsula, which speaks volumes about what will happen "free speech" or freedom of conscience in general in Saudi Arabia for the foreseeable future. ..."
    "... As I've said before, ISIS Islam is indistinguishable from Saudi (Wahabbi) Islam. If ISIS is perverting Islam, then the Saudis, the Vatican of Islam are likewise perverting Islam. ..."
    "... Insisting ISIS is not Islamic probably is intellectually dishonest and an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy, but what do you expect our leaders and Muslims who abhor Islamist violence to do? Its in the world's interests to repudiate Islamic State and disconnect it from mainstream Islam. It's simple pragmatism. ..."
    "... I don't see what positive purpose it serves constantly to parrot that Islamic State are "true" Muslims. Where exactly does that lead us? We know what IS wants, and what its methods are. These individuals are thugs, not deep thinkers; their motive for doing what they are doesn't need to be overthought. There isn't anyone in the world who thinks Islamic State is composed of Episcopalians. ..."
    "... Not saying they are "true" Muslims; that's certainly not for me to say. I am saying the Saudis are undeniably a "mainstream" sect, not a fringe sect. That's pretty hard to deny where the holiest sites in all of Islam are in Mecca and Medina, and the Saudis exert a huge influence over Mosque construction and Islamic education. ..."
    "... But when I hear someone like this soldier's poor father say "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" I just want to throw up my hands because it so clearly does. ..."
    "... That's one of big problems with Islam: the immutable word of God as expressed in the Koran is pretty consistently hateful. And "the Bible is just as bad" is not persuasive-- for Christians there's that whole "New Testament" thing and the Jews are busy winning Nobel Peace Prizes while their neighbors are refining the art of the suicide vest. ..."
    "... We are at war with an ideology that is embedded in a religion. That's an inescapable fact. ..."
    "... Capt. Humayun Khan was killed in combat in 2004, over 12 yrs ago. Yet Hillary & DNC brought his parents to be on the podium of the convention. Democrats and Hillary Clinton wanted to EXPLOIT HIS DEATH to hilt. And media bought it whole, hook, line & sinker. Then Trump opened his mouth (it does not matter what he says. The media will pulverize it). Trump became a punching bag of the media yet again. ..."
    "... "Islamophobia" is a term meant to conflate all criticism of Islam with xenophobia and racism. It's intended to stifle thought shut down conversation. I reject it as a label; it's a nonsense term. ..."
    "... Here's the reasons I'm afraid of Islam: 9/11, Mumbai, Boston, Paris, Brussels, Madrid, San Bernandino, Orlando etc etc, etc., death penalty for apostasy, death penalty for blasphemy, death penalty for homosexuality, death penalty for adultery, honor killings, female genital mutilation, misogyny etc etc. etc. ..."
    "... I understand that here in the US, people are free to believe as they choose. As I've said before, I don't care if you worship a stone, as long as you don't throw it at me. The reality is that some mainstream sects of Islam (e.g. Wababbis) are spiritual Nazis, and I give them the same "respect" I would give to any other totalitarian ideology; that is, none. If I'm an "Islamophobe" for that, I'll wear it as badge of honor. ..."
    "... The son of Mr Khan was an AMERICAN SOLDIER -- Are the Khans American Citizens? If so why are you calling them and their son Muslims .. Muslim is their religion. I don't hear anyone be called a Baptist Soldier was killed, His Baptist Parents are grieving. ..."
    "... Mr. Khan and Democrats were attacking Donald Trump with false narratives, Mr. Khan made his son a Muslim Martyr on national television, to compare legal immigrants from middle east with so called refugees from countries of terror who are not vetted is like apples and oranges. Khans need to be angry with Terrorists no Mr Trump who wants to protect all Americans even them from the Jihadists. ..."
    "... Their son was killed by Muslims who I am certain would not hesitate for one second to kill them also, yet Mr. Trump is the object of their ire, not the kind of Muslim that would blow up their son. The pocket Constitution Mr. Khan produced was a cheap theatrical prop, the Khan's have every right to have a political opinion and support Mrs. Clinton and even bad mouth Trump as much as they like; I find Trump quite indefensible however in my opinion the Khan's use of their son's sacrifice for a political commercial did only one thing, cheapened and diminished their son's memory. ..."
    "... "Who wrote that? Did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?" ..."
    "... First, thank you for your service. Second Trump is indefensible. However do not for one second believe that the Khan's were there to pay homage to the memory of their son, they were a commercial for Hillary Clinton plain and simple. By mixing their son's sacrifice with a political commercial in my eyes they cheapened their son's memory. ..."
    "... Trump has no filter though. Although I agree with much of what he says about Islam ("Islam hates us" is more accurate than he knows-- Google "al wara wal bara") he's a loose cannon. Don't like him or Hillary, although on Islam Hillary is unquestionably worse. Bought and paid for by the Saudis, among the worst enemies America has ever known. ..."
    "... They want Muslim prayer in our schools, but they do not want Christian prayer anywhere near them. ..."
    "... My point is that Islamic thuggery has its roots in the religion itself. It's not at all the same as soccer hoologanism. Muhammed is the supreme example for all Muslims; the world's most perfect human. I'm sure you know the word "Sunni" essentially means example (of Muhammed). ISIS essentially claims that the prophet Muhammed was the original ISIS member. ..."
    "... So who dug up this lawyer to speak at a democrate convention and why? What's so special about him? ..."
    "... And what have Hillary and the Clinton's sacrificed? An ambassador and diplomat and others in Benghazi? The Dems and their racist elitist owners have a knack for chastising all average Americans (typically white Christians) as always wrong, while they search far and wide for an example that they can use to expand their multi-culturalism agenda. ..."
    "... Your son served as a legal American. All Trump wants is proper vetting of people who as a group contain a small minority might do us severe harm. Since you were at the Democrat convention, may I inform you of a couple of things. First, our current president, Obama, never served in the military. Bill, the husband of the nominee you support, Hillary Clinton, never served; ..."
    "... But it is worse. Bill Clinton (obviously I am reading reports and would be very unlikely to have first hand knowledge of all of these things) had an educational deferment for college during the VietNam "war." He then had an additional deferment during his two year Rhodes scholarship at Oxford. He joined a National Guard unit in Arkansas but did not report. ..."
    "... You are very confused. The Clinton running for President is Hillary. The Republican opponent is Trump with 4 military deferments for his bad foot BUT he bragged he did his national patriotic service avoiding VD in New York. ..."
    "... When Mr. Khan asked the question: what have you sacrificed? he opened the door to comparisons. Mr Obama is a current president, Mr Clinton a former president. The comparisons were perfectly legitimate. You consider it irrelevant I consider it relevant. That is called a difference of opinions. ..."
    www.washingtonpost.com

    ...

    ...Hillary Clinton had referred to his son as "the best of America."

    [Khizr Khan's loss: A grieving father of a soldier struggles to understand]

    Then he focused his attention on Trump.

    "If it was up to Donald Trump, [Humayun] never would have been in America," Khan said. "Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.

    Muslim American Khizr Khan, whose son Humayun was killed while serving in the U.S. Army, offered Republican candidate Donald Trump his copy of the Constitution during a speech at the Democratic convention. (The Washington Post)

    "Donald Trump," he said, "you are asking Americans to trust you with our future. Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy." He pulled a copy of the Constitution from his pocket. "In this document, look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law.' " Earlier this month, Trump promised congressional Republicans that he would defend "Article XII" of the Constitution, which doesn't exist.

    "Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery?" Khan asked. "Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America - you will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities.

    "You have sacrificed nothing. And no one."

    Norger, 8/3/2016

    My other thought on this is that the Wahabbi theology, which the Saudis have spread so aggressively, is likely to poison the minds of fighting age Muslim males for many many generations to come. And if the House of Saud falls, the country will most likely fall to those under the sway of the Wahabbi clerics, with whom the Saudi monarchs have a tenuous alliance. IMO, if the House of Saud falls, the country is most likely to become an even more brutal theocracy than it already is. It's much more likely to turn into another ISIS state than a western style democracy.

    Among other things, it is highly doubtful that any other religion will ever be allowed on the Arabian peninsula, which speaks volumes about what will happen "free speech" or freedom of conscience in general in Saudi Arabia for the foreseeable future.

    Katy Cordeth, 8/2/2016

    @Katy.

    As I've said before, ISIS Islam is indistinguishable from Saudi (Wahabbi) Islam. If ISIS is perverting Islam, then the Saudis, the Vatican of Islam are likewise perverting Islam. To say that "ISIS is not Islamic" is deception and complete intellectual dishonesty not from you, but from our leaders. They literally think we must be lied to, that we can't handle the truth. ISIS is very Islamic, in the sense that they are ultra orthodox.

    Not if they ignore the parts of the Qur'an which promote peace and respect for all people, Norger, and such passages do exist despite what your Mr. Spencer might tell you. Being orthodox means not being able to cherry-pick the parts of one's holy texts one wishes and ignoring the rest. It depends which definition of "orthodox" one is employing, but if this were the case the Phelps clan could be described as orthodox.

    Insisting ISIS is not Islamic probably is intellectually dishonest and an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy, but what do you expect our leaders and Muslims who abhor Islamist violence to do? Its in the world's interests to repudiate Islamic State and disconnect it from mainstream Islam. It's simple pragmatism. It reminds non-Muslims that, in direct contravention of IS (and Donald Trump's) goal, the majority do not support the kind of violence Islamists use; and it stops impressionable Muslims such as those three British schoolgirls from viewing terrorists as legitimate followers of their faith.

    I don't see what positive purpose it serves constantly to parrot that Islamic State are "true" Muslims. Where exactly does that lead us? We know what IS wants, and what its methods are. These individuals are thugs, not deep thinkers; their motive for doing what they are doesn't need to be overthought. There isn't anyone in the world who thinks Islamic State is composed of Episcopalians.

    Norger, 8/2/2016

    Not saying they are "true" Muslims; that's certainly not for me to say. I am saying the Saudis are undeniably a "mainstream" sect, not a fringe sect. That's pretty hard to deny where the holiest sites in all of Islam are in Mecca and Medina, and the Saudis exert a huge influence over Mosque construction and Islamic education. It's not our leaders' job (and certainly not mine)to decide which interpretation of Islam is "proper" or true. It is their job to recognize threats to our national security and deal with them appropriately. As Sam Harris says, the Taliban, Al Quaeda etc. offer up an entirely plausible interpretation of the faith. And there is no clear dividing line between their "bad" Islam and "good" Islam.

    Anwar al-Awlaki was supposedly a good or "moderate" Muslim until we found out he wasn't and killed him in a drone strike. I wish I were as optimistic as you about the power of moderate Muslims to transform the faith. But the threat of being labeled an apostate can be seriously hazardous to one's health, even here in the US. But when I hear someone like this soldier's poor father say "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" I just want to throw up my hands because it so clearly does.

    Norger, 8/3/2016

    Tell me about those parts of the Koran that promote respect for all people if you can -- but I will tell you they are far outnumbered by the hateful verses, which I could spend all day quoting, And if you are going to quote that "whosoever kills another person it's as though he killed all mankind verse" I suggest you quit the entire verse (including the always omitted language about when it IS OK to kill another person) and the verse which follows, which describes the manner in which such transgressors are to be killed.

    That's one of big problems with Islam: the immutable word of God as expressed in the Koran is pretty consistently hateful. And "the Bible is just as bad" is not persuasive-- for Christians there's that whole "New Testament" thing and the Jews are busy winning Nobel Peace Prizes while their neighbors are refining the art of the suicide vest.

    BigPicture , 8/1/2016

    Something worth repeating. Below, I quote from @Norger's comment. Mr. Norger said:

    "We are at war with an ideology that is embedded in a religion. That's an inescapable fact. Are we at war with all Muslims? I sure hope not. But if, in your words, the jihadis represent "the worst," then we (particularly military and law enforcement) need to be able to take a hard and unflinching look at our enemies' self-stated motivating ideology in order to defeat it. That necessarily means developing a deep understanding of the most extreme Islamic ideologies. The fact is that some Muslims will inevitably not find this "insulting" or "offensive." It is noteworthy that in Sharia law, "slander" is not necessarily a false statement; it's any discussion of something which the aggrieved party does not wish to be known. Unless we have a death wish, "cultural sensitivity" should take a back seat to national security when lives are at stake. We knew this after 9/11, the body count must rise once again before we learn it again.

    Don't know if Andrew McCarthy (federal prosecutor of the "Blind Sheik," Omar Abdel Rahman) is also "beneath contempt" in your circles, but I would alsorecommend his book, "Willful Blindness." (yes Ted Cruz ripped this off).

    BigPicture View, 8/1/2016 8:02 AM EST

    Capt. Humayun Khan was killed in combat in 2004, over 12 yrs ago. Yet Hillary & DNC brought his parents to be on the podium of the convention. Democrats and Hillary Clinton wanted to EXPLOIT HIS DEATH to hilt. And media bought it whole, hook, line & sinker. Then Trump opened his mouth (it does not matter what he says. The media will pulverize it). Trump became a punching bag of the media yet again.

    Hillary exploited the death of Capt, Khan. The media had something to report besides zero. Trump became the media punching bag, yet again Trump got free ads and voters' sympathy.

    Every one got something out of it. Who is the loser??? Mr. & Mrs. Khan became suckers.

    Norger, 8/1/2016 7:44 AM EST

    "Islamophobia" is a term meant to conflate all criticism of Islam with xenophobia and racism. It's intended to stifle thought shut down conversation. I reject it as a label; it's a nonsense term.

    Here's the reasons I'm afraid of Islam: 9/11, Mumbai, Boston, Paris, Brussels, Madrid, San Bernandino, Orlando etc etc, etc., death penalty for apostasy, death penalty for blasphemy, death penalty for homosexuality, death penalty for adultery, honor killings, female genital mutilation, misogyny etc etc. etc.

    To you, I'm a borderline racist for being concerned about these things. To me, you are a blind apologist. Jihad is different in kind from anything the US military does. It's quite literally murder as a sacrament, in the name of spreading or defending the faith. Afraid of Islam? You bet. Among other things, "mutually assured destruction" means nothing to a country in possession of nuclear weapons whose leaders are of this mindset (Iran, anyone?)

    I understand that here in the US, people are free to believe as they choose. As I've said before, I don't care if you worship a stone, as long as you don't throw it at me. The reality is that some mainstream sects of Islam (e.g. Wababbis) are spiritual Nazis, and I give them the same "respect" I would give to any other totalitarian ideology; that is, none. If I'm an "Islamophobe" for that, I'll wear it as badge of honor.

    "ISIS is not Islamic." Riiiight.

    Michelle Ann, 7/31/2016 12:58 PM EST

    The son of Mr Khan was an AMERICAN SOLDIER -- Are the Khans American Citizens? If so why are you calling them and their son Muslims .. Muslim is their religion. I don't hear anyone be called a Baptist Soldier was killed, His Baptist Parents are grieving.

    Mr. Khan and Democrats were attacking Donald Trump with false narratives, Mr. Khan made his son a Muslim Martyr on national television, to compare legal immigrants from middle east with so called refugees from countries of terror who are not vetted is like apples and oranges. Khans need to be angry with Terrorists no Mr Trump who wants to protect all Americans even them from the Jihadists.

    American, 7/31/2016 8:45 AM EST [Edited]

    Any parent who has to bury a child is worthy of compassion, I cannot imagine a greater pain. Captain Khan is a hero, there is nothing more noble than to lay down your life so another may live. Mr. and Mrs. Khan used their son's memory to attack Mr. Trump, they politicized the death of their son, they went on TV in front of an audience of millions with only one purpose: to attack Mr. Trump.

    Their son was killed by Muslims who I am certain would not hesitate for one second to kill them also, yet Mr. Trump is the object of their ire, not the kind of Muslim that would blow up their son. The pocket Constitution Mr. Khan produced was a cheap theatrical prop, the Khan's have every right to have a political opinion and support Mrs. Clinton and even bad mouth Trump as much as they like; I find Trump quite indefensible however in my opinion the Khan's use of their son's sacrifice for a political commercial did only one thing, cheapened and diminished their son's memory.

    G_Minde, 7/31/2016 4:04 AM EST

    "Who wrote that? Did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?"

    For shame.

    A father who has lost a son in our nation's service calls out The Donald – and his lame response is to question whether or not the father wrote his own words?

    The Donald can't believe that someone born in a country that had English as an official language, trained as a lawyer, and with over 20 years in the United States can not make his own speech?

    The Donald can't believe that someone with a darker skin tone than his can be eloquent?

    The Donald can't handle that a family who has lost a son in our nation's service would disagree with his proposed policy that would have kept them from coming to this country in the first place.

    And when questioned about it, instead of being compassionate, or non-committal, or at least *respectful* of the father of one of our fallen soldiers, questions whether or not those were even his words.

    Contrast that with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, talking about how "Virtually every night for four and a half years, writing condolence letters and reading about these mostly young men and women, I wept."

    Donald, when the father of a fallen solder says ""You have sacrificed nothing and no one, " I don't think that staying that you have 'worked hard' to make money is really quite…sacrifice. It's not like you have been one of the 'dollar a year' men like served under FDR in World War Two. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't expect to 'work hard' in the course of making billions of dollars.

    You claim 'creating jobs' in the process of making money as a sacrifice you have made.

    So how many jobs is the life of a son worth?

    The Donald wants to be the Commander-in-Chief, but this is how he talks about the Families of the Fallen. Such character. Such temperament.

    Here's one Afghan veteran whose vote he will not be getting.

    American, 7/31/2016 8:58 AM EST

    First, thank you for your service. Second Trump is indefensible. However do not for one second believe that the Khan's were there to pay homage to the memory of their son, they were a commercial for Hillary Clinton plain and simple. By mixing their son's sacrifice with a political commercial in my eyes they cheapened their son's memory.

    Norger, 8/7/2016 10:08 AM EST

    Yes, and the Republicans tried the same thing with a mother of one of soldiers killed in Benghazi; she was ripped by many in the MSM, essentially for these same reasons. Not that there's any double standard.

    Trump has no filter though. Although I agree with much of what he says about Islam ("Islam hates us" is more accurate than he knows-- Google "al wara wal bara") he's a loose cannon. Don't like him or Hillary, although on Islam Hillary is unquestionably worse. Bought and paid for by the Saudis, among the worst enemies America has ever known.

    GeorgeVreelandHill1, 7/30/2016 10:37 PM EST

    I agree with Trump on banning Muslims.
    Far too many of them have killed innocent people around the world including in the United States.
    Far too many of them chant "Death To America" in their streets and few have real respect for America.
    I see Muslims all over Los Angeles and they want to do things their way according to their own customs.
    You say no to them and they sue.
    A Christmas tree is an insult to them.
    They want Muslim prayer in our schools, but they do not want Christian prayer anywhere near them.
    They try to take over any space they are in.
    On 9/11, there were two Arab boys pointing to the smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers.
    They were laughing.
    That is typical Muslim behavior towards America.
    The United States is THE land of freedom, but Muslims are trying to take away as much of the freedom as they can.
    Their agenda is the Middle East agenda and they dare others to stop.
    Well, stop them we must.
    In America, you do what is according to the laws of this land and not the laws of other places.
    Don't like it, then get out.
    Or be banned.

    George Vreeland Hill

    Norger, 7/30/2016 10:50 PM EST

    OK, so it appears you now agree you said that many Muslims are in fact intimidated into silence even though you were outraged in your last post that I would suggest you said such a thing.

    I don't doubt that political grievances play some part in this but there are many other groups throughout the world (e.g. Christians in the Middle East, Tibetan Buddhists) who suffer oppression equal or greater than that of Muslims, but don't resort to terroristic violence. (where are those Tibetan suicide bombers). And sorry no, I don't think that western imperialism is responsible for the second (or more) generation Islamist violence we are seeing in France, Belgium and Germany. Islam reliably breeds a certain percentage of terrorists.

    My point is that Islamic thuggery has its roots in the religion itself. It's not at all the same as soccer hoologanism. Muhammed is the supreme example for all Muslims; the world's most perfect human. I'm sure you know the word "Sunni" essentially means example (of Muhammed). ISIS essentially claims that the prophet Muhammed was the original ISIS member. They emulate his behavior in every way and (accurately) cite Islamic scripture in support of virtually every atrocity they commit. It's not just "human nature;" it's an ideology of conquest, cloaked in a veneer of religion.And ther is little or no difference between ISIS Islam and Saudi Islam. That fact alone should terrify us.

    I say that jihad terror is going to continue until we recognize it for what it is--religiously motivated warfare. I'm supposed to be flattened by you telling me that "sounds like Trump?" Here's my question to you: how can we possibly fight jihad terror effectively if we refuse to recognize, name and study our enemies' self-stated motivating ideology? How can that possibly be helpful? If we are "at war" with "violent extremism" then intentionally refusing to "come to grips" with our enemies' self-stated motivating ideology is beyond foolish.

    DPMP, 7/30/2016 9:24 PM EST

    So who dug up this lawyer to speak at a democrate convention and why? What's so special about him?

    anagitator, 7/30/2016 8:45 PM EST

    And what have Hillary and the Clinton's sacrificed? An ambassador and diplomat and others in Benghazi? The Dems and their racist elitist owners have a knack for chastising all average Americans (typically white Christians) as always wrong, while they search far and wide for an example that they can use to expand their multi-culturalism agenda.

    How many such average Americans also were killed in action and Hillary could care less because it doesn't fit her or the elites agenda? The Clinton family will drag us into more wars to advance the bankster interests.

    Jake55, 7/30/2016 4:39 PM EST

    For the, 70 plus years, Hillary has been destroying America. She in her term as the Governor's wife was snorting so much cocaine that she drifted through that term. She had a good start with Watergate, where she was fired for dishonesty and trying to manufacture evidence. Then during her husband's vie for the presidential seat, she was a master at covering up his affairs and picadillos. Rape, indiscretions...all covered up by Hillary. She has ruined many lives protecting her errant husband and his sex crazed impulses.

    ... ... ...

    Katy Cordeth, 7/30/2016 5:07 PM EST

    Everything else in your comment was too asinine, hysterical (God help us indeed) and borderline-libellous to respond to, but this Watergate calumny should be addressed.

    Snopes.com - Zeif-geist. Hillary Clinton was not fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.

    senator59, 7/30/2016 2:04 PM EST

    OK, let's talk about your son, who gave his life AS AN AMERICAN soldier, and your Trump insult by your rhetorical question of whether Trump has ever been to Arlington (where, BTW, my parents are also buried...so it is a powerful image associated with this WaPo article).

    Your son served as a legal American. All Trump wants is proper vetting of people who as a group contain a small minority might do us severe harm.
    Since you were at the Democrat convention, may I inform you of a couple of things. First, our current president, Obama, never served in the military. Bill, the husband of the nominee you support, Hillary Clinton, never served;

    But it is worse. Bill Clinton (obviously I am reading reports and would be very unlikely to have first hand knowledge of all of these things) had an educational deferment for college during the VietNam "war." He then had an additional deferment during his two year Rhodes scholarship at Oxford. He joined a National Guard unit in Arkansas but did not report. He picketed against America while overseas. When he did not report to his Guard unit, he was, in June, sent a draft notice. But he did not go. In August, two months later, the draft was changed to a lottery system and he received a high number, meaning he would not go into the military. BUT...those who had already received a draft note, as Bill, were not eligible for the lottery. How did he escape that?? And how can you therefore support Hillary?
    What have you done personally to stop Muslim terrorists from striking us here in America?

    BobSanderson, 7/30/2016 2:24 PM EST

    You are very confused. The Clinton running for President is Hillary. The Republican opponent is Trump with 4 military deferments for his bad foot BUT he bragged he did his national patriotic service avoiding VD in New York.

    How did you miss the revelant parties and facts on service?

    American, 7/30/2016 2:39 PM EST

    When Mr. Khan asked the question: what have you sacrificed? he opened the door to comparisons. Mr Obama is a current president, Mr Clinton a former president. The comparisons were perfectly legitimate. You consider it irrelevant I consider it relevant. That is called a difference of opinions.

    [Aug 10, 2016] Owen Jones: vote for Hillary because when she's POTUS we can ask her nice to be progressive by Catte

    Notable quotes:
    "... the U.S. system never has been democratic. It is a show–a very expensive one–that the capitalist class puts on every two years in order to control the citizenry and to provide a justification for U.S. imperialism. ..."
    "... Now, the capitalist class that controls Rome is no longer national, but transnational, being based on the transnational corporations and financial institutions and enjoying the full support of the transnational capitalist media. ..."
    "... new poles: Globaliists vs. Antiglobalists. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is an antiglobalist. That's the reason he deserves the full support of all those who oppose the transnational capitalist class and its institutions, including the EU, NATO, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, to name just a few. ..."
    "... However, the election should not be about appearances but about policies. Obama sounded intelligent, but his policies all come out of the globalist think tanks, the CIA (his mum's former employer) and the neocon asylum in Washington. So chose: someone who sounds like a television personality with great positions, or… well we all know what Clinton stands for. ..."
    "... submissives to the atomisation of all systems that might afford self-sufficiency to societies, that makes everybody absolutely dependent on and therefore subservient to international finance and it's program of enslavement. ..."
    "... Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. ..."
    "... spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. ..."
    "... sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. ..."
    "... If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They'd just need to be on the ballot. ..."
    "... Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as 'another Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they were told no matter what. ..."
    "... The Boy Wonder's credentials as a card-carrying New World Order shill haven't really been in question since January this year – when he penned this fact-free Russophobic screed: ..."
    "... Owen Jones has lost all credibility with his quest for publicity at any price. He'd sell his granny for whatever he could get if it served his interests. He's a hypocrite and a propagandist opportunist. He doesn't give a fig about the Syrians, the Palestinians, the Yemeni or anyone else but himself. At best he is a worthless egocentric loser who wants to be heard, whatever drivel he is spouting and is a traitor to the socialist/centrist movement, his only loyalty is to himself. Nothing he writes or says can be taken seriously anymore. ..."
    July 27, 2016 | OffGuardian

    So, even though Clinton also isn't progressive, or honest, or sane, and even though she has no interest in helping the disadvantaged or rebuilding social infrastructure, and even though she conducted state business on a private email server so no one would be able to tell what nefarious and illegal, and potentially insanely dangerous things she was doing, and even though she presided over the Honduras debacle, and even though she authorised and gloated over the illegal murder of a foreign head of state, and even though she has threatened to "obliterate" Iran and take the confrontations with Russia and China to new heights that really might result in WW3, we absolutely have to get behind her because – hello – she isn't Trump. And anyhow if we get her to be POTUS and make sure there are lots of lovely Democrats in Congress, maybe we can ask them to please do some of the socialist things Bernie talked about. They will probably say yes, of course And anyhow, Owen's not sure if he mentioned this but Hillary isn't Trump

    Yes, this is what passes for political analysis when the neolibs are slipping you wads of cash to endorse the unendorsable, the discredited and the morally broken.

    The likes of Jones are paid to surrender their dignity and ethics and pretend this macabre farce is something called "democracy", and to sell the decaying relics offered up for candidacy as if they were real choices. That doesn't mean we have to pretend to believe them. If I were a US citizen I'd take the only truly free choice left and decline to play this game of fake reality any longer. And if we all did that, the game would be over, wouldn't it.

    anonymous, July 27, 2016

    I am a 57-year-old U.S. citizen. To disabuse those Europeans who both live in smaller countries and have the blessing of a parliamentary system, the U.S. system never has been democratic. It is a show–a very expensive one–that the capitalist class puts on every two years in order to control the citizenry and to provide a justification for U.S. imperialism. The citizens are convinced that they don't have to do a thing in order to make the "democracy" work, and that if they don't like the results that either they are to blame or it is useless to oppose the system. And outside of Rome, people are told that the Roman way is best because it is legitimized by the vote of the citizens.

    Now, the capitalist class that controls Rome is no longer national, but transnational, being based on the transnational corporations and financial institutions and enjoying the full support of the transnational capitalist media. And as the rise of the Alt-Right shows, the old communist vs. far-right poles have become obsolete with the utter defeat and assimilation of the Marxist left, and have been replaced with new poles: Globaliists vs. Antiglobalists.

    Donald Trump is an antiglobalist. That's the reason he deserves the full support of all those who oppose the transnational capitalist class and its institutions, including the EU, NATO, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, to name just a few. There are not a few "progressives" and "leftists" who refuse to support Trump because he doesn't sound intelligent.

    However, the election should not be about appearances but about policies. Obama sounded intelligent, but his policies all come out of the globalist think tanks, the CIA (his mum's former employer) and the neocon asylum in Washington. So chose: someone who sounds like a television personality with great positions, or… well we all know what Clinton stands for.

    dahoit, August 7, 2016

    I agree totally, Trump is the answer for American recovery.

    But the zionists want no part of America First and Israel on its own.

    And that is why the MSM and web sites everywhere are in full throat propaganda mode for the Hell Bitch.

    I have never seen anything like this before, and the American people can see the fix is in, but over our dead bodies, if necessary. I'm pissed to shite at this massive mis and disinformation bliztkrieg.

    It will backfire, just like all their attempts to marginalize him during the primaries.

    physicsandmathsrevision, July 26, 2016

    He's happy to support Clinton's murderous Jewish racist agenda. All perceived threats to Israel must be destroyed. Iraq, Libya, Syria and (next up) Iran.
    This is where leftist centrists think is a good place to stand in this terrifying age during which we must endure the brain-dead analysis of commentators who, in truth, are most easily understood as simple submissives to the establishment will … a will that everyone is afraid to recognise as being dominated by Jewish money and its globalist anti-commutarian agenda….submissives to the atomisation of all systems that might afford self-sufficiency to societies, that makes everybody absolutely dependent on and therefore subservient to international finance and it's program of enslavement. Are 'gays' a new officer class in this operation?

    OffG Editor, July 26, 2016

    The phrase "a Jewish racists agenda" should qualify for some award for unintended and self-defeating irony.

    If you can tell me how it clarifies, exlains or expands your point then I'll recognise you have a valid reason for adding it that isn't racist or intentionally self-sabotaging.

    proximity1, July 27, 2016

    IF YOU can tell me how the remark is not arguably quite true based on a fair and honest review of facts, then I'll recognise your valid objection to it.

    But, as it seems to me, the simple fact that Clinton's policies aren't solely confined* to the outrages which the writer describes as a "murderous Jewish racist agenda," does not make that observation any the less true- does it!?

    What, other than that, are you objecting to?

    Richard Le Sarcophage, July 28, 2016

    Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. He is, in fact, with his total and immediate roll-over, even as the corruption of the process was categorically exposed by the e-mails, making no pretense otherwise, spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. He was the geriatric Obama, dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of Sanders policy, like not signing the TPP, she is LYING.

    Diana, July 28, 2016

    Sanders' own campaign called him the "youth whisperer", but sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. Perhaps he did so hoping that the DNC would play fair, but that goes to show you he's no socialist. A real socialist would have been able to size up the opposition, not made any gentleman's agreements with them and waged a real campaign.


    rtj1211, July 26, 2016

    So far as I'm aware, there must be a mechanism for an Independent to put their name on the ballot.

    If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They'd just need to be on the ballot.

    Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as 'another Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they were told no matter what.

    But until the US public say 'da nada! Pasta! Finito! To hell with the Democrats and the GOP!', you'll still get the choice of 'let's invade Iran' or 'let's nuke Russia'. You'll get the choice of giving Israel a blowjob or agreeing to be tied up and have kinky sex with Israel. You'll get the choice of bailing out Wall Street or bailing out Wall Street AND cutting social security for the poorest Americans. You'll get the choice of running the USA for the bankers or running the USA for the bankers and a few multinational corporations.

    Oh, they'll have to fight for it, just as Martin Luther King et al had to fight for civil rights. They may have the odd candidate shot by the CIA, the oil men or the weapons men. Because that's how US politics works.

    But if they don't want a Republican or a Republican-lite, they need to select an independent and vote for them.

    The rest of us? We have to use whatever influence we have to try and limit what they try to do overseas…….because we are affected by what America does overseas…….

    reinertorheit, July 26, 2016

    Holy Schmoley, Batman!

    The Boy Wonder's credentials as a card-carrying New World Order shill haven't really been in question since January this year – when he penned this fact-free Russophobic screed:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/26/vladimir-putin-russia-oligarch-british-left-speak-out

    Perhaps the most laughable thing in it is that he claims to be speaking for "the British Left"

    mohandeer, July 26, 2016

    Owen Jones has lost all credibility with his quest for publicity at any price. He'd sell his granny for whatever he could get if it served his interests. He's a hypocrite and a propagandist opportunist. He doesn't give a fig about the Syrians, the Palestinians, the Yemeni or anyone else but himself. At best he is a worthless egocentric loser who wants to be heard, whatever drivel he is spouting and is a traitor to the socialist/centrist movement, his only loyalty is to himself. Nothing he writes or says can be taken seriously anymore.

    [Aug 10, 2016] M of A - Clintons False Assassination Outrage Only Helps Trump

    "Clinton's false assassination outrage" was launched to suppress damaging new emails rulors the Clinton goons are behind asssainatin of GNC staffer, who may have been the source of email leaks scandal articles
    Notable quotes:
    "... I distinctly recall HRC pacing the 2008 DNC stage, furiously red-faced, making a thinly veiled reference to Obama and the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, then later shouting with great exasperation, "Ären't you going to 'do' anything about this (guy)", using 'do' in the full Mafia 'Trail of 50 Bodies' sense. ..."
    "... How can one be so blind not to see that it's Hitlary, who is surrounded by the bloodthirsty CIA people pushing openly for world war? ..."
    "... Hillary's false 'The Russians are coming!' is having as widespread and as dire results as anything the Trump has said. Her program is institutional, with the guy 'who used to run the CIA' - right - plugging assassinations himself, and Hillary pledging to continue Obama's program of murdering 'suspects' and everyone surrounding them, or just people who seem to be acting like you'd think 'suspects' might - while viewing them through an 8 or 10,000 mile long drinking straw. ..."
    "... Actually, that's not the video where she made both those statements, but rather an after-play pre-rehearsed news event to immediately replace in the viewers' minds what was actually said, and the shocking raw horror of her psychopathy. ..."
    "... "We came, we saw, he died, caww, caww, caww!" Remember, she'd just watched Ghadaffi be anally raped to death with a bayonet on closed-circuit satellite feed to the War Room. And that was her psychopathic response. ..."
    "... Trump has a huge advantage over his opponents and critics. He's not a bribed, corrupt politician. The Dems and Republicans are all in the pockets of the Owners of the Military/ Industrial/ Security/ Trade/ pro-Israel Complex. They, and their followers, aren't allowed to stray from the Handed-down Wisdom script. It's an insurmountable obstacle for the anti-Trump crowd and b's perspective, (their) outrage (and fake sincerity) only helps Trump, and can only get worse. ..."
    "... I suspect that Clinton will have some bad news in terms of leaked emails and ties between state department and Clinton foundation so by November when elected she will be embroiled in legal fights. ..."
    "... The effect of all that hysterical shouting and screaming of the Hillary-bots: All members and all supporters of the NRA now know exactly what's on stake. ..."
    "... the Charlie Rose interview with ex-CIA chief Morrell who is backing Clinton: Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,' https://www.rt.com/usa/355291-morrell-kill-russians-clinton/ ..."
    "... Today's outing at The Wall Street Journal via ZH: Latest Hillary Email Scandal Reveals State Department "Favors" To Clinton Foundation http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/latest-hillary-email-scandal-shows-state-department-favors-clinton-foundation ..."
    "... A TIME magazine cover recently depicted a headline "Can Hillary be Stopped". Were the editors of TIME suggesting she be assassinated? The media is merely a propaganda tool used to influence our every thought from buying toothpaste to voting for one of two candidates who will be "empty suits" (unless someone comes along who will resist the proffered script) called "President of the USA" - ..."
    "... The internet has been an efficient tool to awaken the people... TPTB (or TPTA) are not adjusting too well. Rather than falsely present a "close race" as is their usual MO, they have persuaded almost 100% of the media to pile on Trump - they think people are too stupid to realize what is going on - same thing with the "polls" - with the "swing states" etc. People are NOT buying it this go round though. Obama's hope & change and subsequent same ol same ol has done alot to "change" people to no longer hope. Then along comes Trump - definitely not one of the establishment. ..."
    "... The more the TPTB pile on Trump's every utterance, and the more they IGNORE the blatant crimes of HRC... imho, the more people will be inclined to vote Anybody But Clinton. Again, in my opinion, many Democrats will stay at home on election day. When in our history of elections has a candidate stolen an election and that fact been verified, and the guilty candidate as much as said to the Party "Deal with It"? ..."
    "... Apologize for the tirade, but I have been a Democrat (actually a LEFTY) for almost 7 decades... in this election cycle most democrats are gleeful over what they see as the decline of the Republican Party, totally BLIND to the evaporation of the Democratic Party. I will never again work or vote for a Democrat - local or national. ..."
    "... "The election will likely be decided on voter turn-out and get-out-the-vote volunteering efforts." If the primaries had been so decided Hillary would not still be in the race. Elections, no less than primaries, are decided by the (corrupt) vote counting. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/smoking-gun-approximately-15-of-bernies-votes-were-flipped-to-clinton-in-california/ ..."
    "... Richard Charnin has documented the mathematical impossibility of the results in quite a few primaries. ..."
    "... HAHAHA I think more than half the country understands The Washington Post sells lies, bias and bullshit ..."
    "... Killary campaign is unravelling fast imho. Her health problems are all over the net, Assange seems to be hinting at the fact that Seth Rich (goog) was a source, the leaker of DNC mails. (Imho he was a conduit rather than source but who am I.) ..."
    "... Who cares if he's clean? What matters is that he's not a war criminal, and can't be bought. That he can't be bought is why the Establishment is so dead-set against him. ..."
    "... I can't understand your position, given your interest in Russia. Surely you're aware that Hillary would make Obama's relaunching of the Cold War look like a little skirmish? And she would not rest until Syria is destroyed like Libya. One of her advisers has said that he hopes she will kill Russians and Iranians in Syria; another said that NATO is too concerned about ISIS, and attention should go back to overthrowing the legitimate secular Syrian government. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Karl Pomeroy | Aug 9, 2016 10:18:41 PM | 14
    Geopolitical analyst Finian Cunningham has brilliantly nailed Hillary as an "Exemplar of Neo-Fascism."

    https://quemadoinstitute.org/2016/08/08/hillary-exemplar-of-neo-fascism-trump-an-anathema-to-pentagon-cia-finian-cunningham/

    blues | Aug 9, 2016 10:54:06 PM | 17
    Here are the monsters your scorn should be heaped upon. Yes right here:

    https://electology.org/forum/distracting-unworkable-feints

    bbbb | Aug 10, 2016 12:49:05 AM | 18
    Somebody on the Syria thread got me back on D. Orlov's site. He has a great writeup about how to 'vote' this time around (at least for the president).
    http://cluborlov.blogspot.ca/2016/08/furious-sheep.html
    Alison DeBeers | Aug 10, 2016 1:13:23 AM | 20
    I distinctly recall HRC pacing the 2008 DNC stage, furiously red-faced, making a thinly veiled reference to Obama and the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, then later shouting with great exasperation, "Ären't you going to 'do' anything about this (guy)", using 'do' in the full Mafia 'Trail of 50 Bodies' sense.

    The Cgiseb Trotskyist Now has already rewritten that out of history.

    Back then HRC was speaking without notes, ...directly from her psychopathic brain. Trump was clearly reading from a teleprompter, and you can gargle all you want about that, but the intent was clear, 'crystal', as they say in the halls of Mossad-CIA: 'Do' HRH if she is selected. Who do?

    Then you have to wonder at the cynosure behind the curtain, and their intent, ...which seems to me to be clearly to foment civil war, resolving the inevitable stall and flat spin death spiral of QEn 'goosed' and 'juiced' global markets, so the looting can begin.

    Chinyowinh made a compelling prediction that Bernie was a ruse to round up the Left and deliver them with roses and chocolates to Hillary on a silver plate, which he did; and also that Donald is a ruse to round up Right Wing Rabbinicals, Sovereigntists, Patriots and Crypto-Zionists, and drive them all off Nut Bar Cliff in a hand basket, which he is.

    But that prediction, which seems to have come true, doesn't answer intent. What is the intent of the Chosen controlling all three houses of government, of course, forming a Holy Zionist Kleptocracy. Why? What is their goal, besides enslaving all the Earners?

    Their Solution is all-out civil war, and killing off all the useless EBC mouths to feed.

    Then you have to wonder why nobody has 'done' the cynosures yet, as the bodies pile up.
    Why do we let the cynosure control dissent? Why do we let them hector in the arguments?
    Why waste a NY nanosecond even talking about this psyop brainwashing stress positioning?

    Nothing to see here, citizens, move on dot org.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 10, 2016 6:31:21 AM | 24
    "Those incoherent remarks were certainly off-the-cuff babble without a prepared script. Difficult to follow even if someone were interested in doing so."

    If this is the best that can be said about a candidate, it is not a recommendation. "Vote Trump, he has most incoherent remarks!"

    Most importantly, b correctly observes that Trump, a remarkably successful candidate, uses highly emotional barely coherent speech (or incoherent, if you are charitably inclined), so to compete with him one has to use methodical clear arguments and not an ounce of "false outrage". Just compare with GOP propaganda in the preceding week: there was a deal with Iran allowing access to "frozen" (de-facto, stolen money that belong to the state of Iran), and as a part of that deal some money were sent to Iran before restoring banking connections. Clearly, it was a mean trick on the side of Obama administration, as they are delaying the restoration of normal banking transactions, but GOP is no in full false outrage about "illegal payment", "treason" and so on.

    How about the outrage that Democrats do not use expression "Islamist radical" often enough (or some other expression).

    Emotional and rather base arguments are the specialty of GOP, so it is only fitting to respond in kind. In a counter-narrative, GOP is bent on supplying every right wing psychopath with a ton of machine guns and ammo so they can dispatch LGT folks, social workers, abortion clinics, the public in shopping malls (then and now an armed psychopath is simply, a-politically insane) and liberal politicians. This is an angle directed at "soccer mom" demographic.

    And the situation is a bit scary. American gun nuts are numerous, organized, full of homicidal fantasies (check what "stopping power" means, one of their favorite phrases) and, quite regrettably, they have means to realize their fantasies when angry, depressed etc.

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 6:54:52 AM | 26
    It seems 'bad words' by Trump are worse than bad actions by Hillary.
    He's not a politician (I agree with likklemore #10)

    Talking about assassination: #SethRich

    https://twitter.com/AzaniaJustice/status/759940203616280577

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 8:22:21 AM | 30
    The media bias against Trump has reached unprecedented proportions. I don't know he can be still considered a part of the establishment. Instead of futile speculations about what Trump did not say fueled by the lame-scream media disinformation people should be talking about this:

    WikiLeaks Offers $20,000 Reward For Information On Murder Of DNC Staffer

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 8:27:11 AM | 31
    @Piotr Berman | Aug 10, 2016 6:31:21 AM | 24

    "Trump, a remarkably successful candidate, uses highly emotional barely coherent speech (or incoherent, if you are charitably inclined)"

    Because that's what vast majority of the US public deserves.

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 8:32:21 AM | 32
    @somebody

    How can one be so blind not to see that it's Hitlary, who is surrounded by the bloodthirsty CIA people pushing openly for world war? Are you high on something bad to claim that Killary will be "slow decline" instead of immediate, violent confrontation with the anti-empire block?!

    jfl | Aug 10, 2016 8:34:32 AM | 33
    Hillary's false 'The Russians are coming!' is having as widespread and as dire results as anything the Trump has said. Her program is institutional, with the guy 'who used to run the CIA' - right - plugging assassinations himself, and Hillary pledging to continue Obama's program of murdering 'suspects' and everyone surrounding them, or just people who seem to be acting like you'd think 'suspects' might - while viewing them through an 8 or 10,000 mile long drinking straw.

    From the Olympics come the Americans ... booing the silver medal winning Russian, and her American competitors labeling her a cheater.

    There comes also a ' selfie ' from a young South Korean gymnast, with her new friend from North Korea. There is talk of the USA and its stooges in South Korea making her pay for her 'impure hatred' of the imperially defined other, her own flesh and blood!

    World wide now ... who do love and who do you hate? The Americans? the Koreans? I'm loving the two young Koreans in their selfie myself. Feel sorry for the twisted American swimmers. Amazing they can still float with all the thick bile of hatred weighing them down.

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 9:00:43 AM | 37
    @35,36 ralphieboy,

    Why are you so glad with Hillary? Because of her experience with Libya?
    https://twitter.com/RonSantoFan/status/761725517481455616 (I like her plain talk!)
    Or her experience with Russia?
    https://twitter.com/stranahan/status/760555034660655104 (Stephen Cohen - CNN; Must See!)

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 10, 2016 9:40:40 AM | 41
    25

    Actually, that's not the video where she made both those statements, but rather an after-play pre-rehearsed news event to immediately replace in the viewers' minds what was actually said, and the shocking raw horror of her psychopathy.

    "We came, we saw, he died, caww, caww, caww!" Remember, she'd just watched Ghadaffi be anally raped to death with a bayonet on closed-circuit satellite feed to the War Room. And that was her psychopathic response.

    Here is an example. A still shot of Jackie climbing over the back of the limo as a Secret Service agent rushes up to the limo, and shot from what angle and azimuth, you might ask, since the far ground was level, except by a telephoto spotting scope.

    Then watch the Zapruder video, which shows the agent already on the limo.

    There are 1000's of examples like this from the 9/11 recasting, that's what the Cgiseb Trotskyist Now media people are for, to alter reality in real time, or very near to it.

    19 Arabs who could not fly a Cessna flew two 757s through fighter jet maneuvers with full tanks at full payload dropped two skyscrapers for the first time in history, and two other mythical 757s accomplished what Einstein never did: "They just vaporized!"

    "Hillary just meant that we need a good Vice President, ...you know, just in case."

    Cheney instituted a $5.8B domestic media Black Ops program, that continues to this day, and both Red Donald and Blue Hillary are owned by the same cartels that control the Ops.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 10, 2016 9:51:24 AM | 42
    Trump has a huge advantage over his opponents and critics. He's not a bribed, corrupt politician. The Dems and Republicans are all in the pockets of the Owners of the Military/ Industrial/ Security/ Trade/ pro-Israel Complex. They, and their followers, aren't allowed to stray from the Handed-down Wisdom script. It's an insurmountable obstacle for the anti-Trump crowd and b's perspective, (their) outrage (and fake sincerity) only helps Trump, and can only get worse.
    somebody | Aug 10, 2016 9:55:27 AM | 43
    Posted by: x | Aug 10, 2016 9:03:31 AM | 39

    He is catering for his core voters who made him win the primary but that group won't get him elected in the general election.

    He needs utter amnesia to change his image till October, and youtube and social media will make sure he does not get a chance.

    I suspect that Clinton will have some bad news in terms of leaked emails and ties between state department and Clinton foundation so by November when elected she will be embroiled in legal fights.

    It would be nice to see the Republican and Democrat Parties split.

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 9:57:35 AM | 44
    Wikipedia on the National Rifle Association of America (NRA): Membership surpassed 5 million in May 2013.

    The effect of all that hysterical shouting and screaming of the Hillary-bots: All members and all supporters of the NRA now know exactly what's on stake.

    Brilliant PR from Trump; simple, effective and costless.

    likklemore | Aug 10, 2016 10:07:02 AM | 45
    Connecting the dots.

    "Clinton's false assassination outrage" has accomplished its intent to suppress damaging emailo scandal articles on the front pages, and especially viral on the internet is

    the Charlie Rose interview with ex-CIA chief Morrell who is backing Clinton: Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,' https://www.rt.com/usa/355291-morrell-kill-russians-clinton/

    "The ex-CIA chief, who worked with Clinton while she was secretary of state, told CBS This Morning co-host Charlie Rose that Iran and Russia should "pay a big price" in Syria – and by that he meant killing them."

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    MSM global has it in the bag for Clinton but over the next weeks we will read the connections between her office and pay-for-play Clinton Foundation.

    Today's outing at The Wall Street Journal via ZH: Latest Hillary Email Scandal Reveals State Department "Favors" To Clinton Foundation
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/latest-hillary-email-scandal-shows-state-department-favors-clinton-foundation

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    Not surprised. Quite revealing the list of CF Board of Directors. There is a descriptor for this that escapes one's capacity to spell. SO, HRC's Chief of Staff served on the CF Board, (2004-2009) then to State Department and back to the Board (2013-present).

    Peruse the others:
    https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/board-directors

    likklemore | Aug 10, 2016 10:22:47 AM | 48
    "Rudy Giuliani went to bat for Donald Trump during the Republican nominee's campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina"

    I listened to Donald Trump's speech in Wilmington and what he said very clearly was that if Hillary Clinton were elected president she would get to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and among the other things that they would do to destroy us would be to do away with the Second Amendment and your right to bear arms.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/09/rudy-giuliani-to-clinton-campaign-press-are-you-out-of-your-mind/

    ~ ~ ~
    Trump's speech pattern, (as b, noted) can be described as a babble….as in good American street talk.

    crone | Aug 10, 2016 11:30:49 AM | 51
    In my view, Trump was speaking to the ballot box... those who support the 2nd amendment (some of whom have probably never voted) turning out in November in enough numbers to "stop Hillary"

    A TIME magazine cover recently depicted a headline "Can Hillary be Stopped". Were the editors of TIME suggesting she be assassinated? The media is merely a propaganda tool used to influence our every thought from buying toothpaste to voting for one of two candidates who will be "empty suits" (unless someone comes along who will resist the proffered script) called "President of the USA" -

    The internet has been an efficient tool to awaken the people... TPTB (or TPTA) are not adjusting too well. Rather than falsely present a "close race" as is their usual MO, they have persuaded almost 100% of the media to pile on Trump - they think people are too stupid to realize what is going on - same thing with the "polls" - with the "swing states" etc. People are NOT buying it this go round though. Obama's hope & change and subsequent same ol same ol has done alot to "change" people to no longer hope. Then along comes Trump - definitely not one of the establishment.

    The more the TPTB pile on Trump's every utterance, and the more they IGNORE the blatant crimes of HRC... imho, the more people will be inclined to vote Anybody But Clinton. Again, in my opinion, many Democrats will stay at home on election day. When in our history of elections has a candidate stolen an election and that fact been verified, and the guilty candidate as much as said to the Party "Deal with It"?

    Apologize for the tirade, but I have been a Democrat (actually a LEFTY) for almost 7 decades... in this election cycle most democrats are gleeful over what they see as the decline of the Republican Party, totally BLIND to the evaporation of the Democratic Party. I will never again work or vote for a Democrat - local or national.

    Penelope | Aug 10, 2016 11:46:25 AM | 52
    "The election will likely be decided on voter turn-out and get-out-the-vote volunteering efforts." If the primaries had been so decided Hillary would not still be in the race. Elections, no less than primaries, are decided by the (corrupt) vote counting.
    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/smoking-gun-approximately-15-of-bernies-votes-were-flipped-to-clinton-in-california/

    Did you know that exit polls which document that Candidate B is winning are changed (falsified) to agree with the corrupt counting that holds Candidate C the winner? It's official, nonsecret policy of the companies that do exit-polling. Richard Charnin has documented the mathematical impossibility of the results in quite a few primaries.

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 12:31:35 PM | 55
    must be @53 Inkan1969

    NB I googled: Washington Post Trump
    This is the first hit:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/08/09/the-gop-must-dump-trump/

    HAHAHA I think more than half the country understands The Washington Post sells lies, bias and bullshit

    Noirette | Aug 10, 2016 12:34:17 PM | 56
    Killary campaign is unravelling fast imho. Her health problems are all over the net, Assange seems to be hinting at the fact that Seth Rich (goog) was a source, the leaker of DNC mails. (Imho he was a conduit rather than source but who am I.)

    What is nuts about the personal-server e-mails is that what is important now, as everyone seems to have copies, is who releases what when! (Assange, FBI, judiciary, others, possibly Trump …)

    Some commentators correctly insist the personal server-classified info. etc. is secondary to the Clinton Foundation Slush Fund, imho simply a bribery-influence-peddling-dark-deals *criminal* enterprise. That angle seems to be also slowly coming to the surface.

    So someone must be blamed and accused! The only candidate is Putin.

    However it is Killary who is tied to 'shady' deals with Russia, the Uranium One matter.

    Link from NYT, chosen on purpose as *MSM* o-so-supportive of the PTB, sober and prudent supposedly, mealy-mouthed + covering up, obfuscating liars, according to others.

    NYT April 15 2015

    behind paywall? - title : Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

    Another NYT article with laid-out time-line. Title: Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

    NYT April 22 2015

    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 10, 2016 12:47:14 PM | 58
    The cockamamie is strong in these parts, any ol' codswallop is being bought at full market value.

    Has any one stopped long enough in spinning gold out of straw to consider candidate Trump's remarks as reference to the constitution without waving the bloody flag which such reference usually entails? A reasonable estimate of the percentage of the public having some sound knowledge of the constitution is vanishingly small outside their familiarity with the second amendment which would run upwards to 60% or slightly greater. This is the cost of not teaching civics in school. Trump's reference can only be understood as such, nothing more, nothing less.

    The balderdash suggestion that the intent of liquidation was present is a factor only in the twisted imaginations of a few media manipulators. To give those manipulations any currency is at great risk (don't believe), give those enhancing currency wide berth (don't trust), don't be going selling the family milch cow for a handful of magic beans to that lot (run away as fast as you can). Interesting times to live in - indeed.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 10, 2016 1:00:09 PM | 59
    It is interesting to observe that in a highly polarized political landscape, like we see currently in USA (but also in a number of other countries, like Poland and Turkey), there is a wide belief that the candidate/president/leader of the other side is so awful that if only the public fully understood this awfulness he/she would become un-electable.

    But, alas, it does not happen. In a milder times this was called "teflon effect", the most obnoxious dirt goes away after a gentle spray with water. But as the adversaries are perceived in increasingly demonic turns, perhaps a better metaphor is a vampire swiftly shrugging off any attempt to wound it and kill.

    "Wampira można zabić przebijając jego serce drewnianym kołkiem, najlepiej osinowym, albowiem osika w wierzeniach Słowian miała moc odpędzania złych duchów." "One can kill a vampire by stabbing it through the heart with a wooden stake, and best of all, made of aspen, as in the Slavic lore, aspen had the ability to shun away the evil spirits". Vampires actually come from Slavic folk lore, I was actually surprised that Americans think that any type of wooden stake could be used. I guess "silver bullet" is a method closer to the imagination and home arsenal of contemporary Americans.

    Thus we can see the quests for a silver bullet or for a stake made of a proper type of wood. How many times adversaries were cheered by the news that from now on, nobody could elect a Clinton, or Mr. Trump? Quite notably, e-mails proved to be worthless. You can make a stake out of e-mails and then drive it through a witch as many times as you want and she does not even need to regenerate: no traces of a wound can be observed at all! A more sober analysis would show that there are no records of e-mails dispelling evil spirits, killing vampires etc.

    YouTube videos are perhaps a sterner material. But alas, showing the public that Mrs. Clinton reports a killing with a maniacal glee is a total non-issue in U.S. of A. As of now, it is inconclusive if it increased or decreased her popularity. Surely she became a darling of neocons and homicidal retirees from CIA, and there exists a demographic that detests it, but the pluses and minuses in electoral sense are so small that no one even tried to measure them.

    And here comes sober foreign policy of Mr. Trump. He would pick fights only in American interests, e.g. he does not overly care about Crimea and Latvia, thus kissing good bye to the vote of ethnic Latvians and Ukrainians, but promises to shoot down Ruskies if they approach our ships and planes too closely. So, on the credit side, no proxy wars for dubious reasons, on the debit side, WWIII for no reason whatsoever. Promises to unleash torture programs above and beyond recent non-negligible American experience also have a reception that is too mixed to assess.

    And indeed, periodically we learned about an exhalation of the Trumpian orifice that should bury his chances once for all. In general, Madam Secretary played that by the book. Mad dog attacks are done only by proxy. She can make a declaration of virtue: "You will never see me singing praises of foreign dictators and strongmen who do not love America". And who would not make little modest requirement, "praise the strongmen only if they love America"? Trump, apparently, for him it suffices that Putin calls him a genius (although that can be deconstructed as a love for America, and exquisite taste to boot.) But her attacks remains proper, grammatical and dignified.

    Noirette | Aug 10, 2016 1:15:32 PM | 61
    Charles Hugh Smith (blogger) is a nice chap, afaik sincere, consistent, with a big following for long years. Has this perhaps counter-intuitive post up recently. For interest, plurality of opinion, etc.:

    Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary?

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug16/deep-state-hillary8-16.html

    His previous post was in the line of b, title: The More the Establishment Freaks Out Over Trump, the More Attractive He Becomes.

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug16/establishment-trump8-16.html

    Piotr Berman | Aug 10, 2016 3:27:12 PM | 64
    Re: Noisette @61

    I think that the linked article is a satire. Look at that passage:

    Hillary has exhibited the typical flaw of liberal Democrats: fearful of being accused as being soft on Russia, Syria, Iran, terrorism, etc. or losing whatever war is currently being prosecuted, liberal Democrats over-compensate by pursuing overly aggressive and poorly planned policies.
    The forward-thinking elements of the Deep State are not averse to aggressive pursuit of what they perceive as American interests, but they are averse to quagmires and policies that preclude successful maintenance of the Imperial Project.

    "Forward-thinking elements of the Deep State". This is really funny. That really calls for some definition of the Deep State. In USA, it is not that deep, I mean, denizens do not need to hide in cellars, abandoned mines etc. although some members could have private bomb shelters and other measures allowing to survive nuclear war. Instead we have a ruling class that socializes (mostly) in public, where we can discern money people, power people, media people and intelligentsia, think tanks and obedient sectors of the academia. The few who are "forward thinking" may be found among FORMER members or acquaintances of the current members, but those, by definition, have no decision making capacities.

    GOP side of the ruling class is split: some would prefer a serial rapist over anyone who does not believe in decreasing taxes, regulations etc. and Trump, for all his faults, is not THAT bad. Additionally, an entire generation grew on hating anything related to Clintons. Other have various grievances. In particular, the Koch brothers who are close to the center of deep power in GOP side openly bet against Trump, working to assure that GOP will remain in the majority of both houses of Congress. In that scenario, Clinton will harmless. Importantly, from Koch perspective, overly energetic support of Trump may cost the majority in the Senate and dangerously weaken it in the House.

    Democratic side of the ruling class is in the minority (at least, within their class) so it is more cohesive. Whatever minor foibles may be presented by HRC, there are barbarian at the gates that have to be repelled. As Trump the Barbarian approaches the capital, they recognize the familiar annoyance and will the their best to stop him.

    likklemore | Aug 10, 2016 3:32:23 PM | 65
    Where is the Clinton rebuke over this direct call from two of their own - call to assassinate public figures"

    From ex-CIA Chief Morrell, a Clinton supporter, calls to kill Russians, Iranians and Assad. See link at 45
    And today, from CNN host to assassinate Assange? Democratic Strategist Calls For The Assassination Of Julian Assange
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/democratic-strategist-calls-assassination-julian-assange

    "Amid the media-hyped furor over Donald Trump's 2nd Amendment comments and Wikileaks' suggestions about the untimely death of DNC-staffer Seth Rich, we thought it perhaps of note that Democratic strategist, and CNN host, has publicly called for the "illegal assassination of that son-of-a-bitch" Julian Assange...
    Meet Bob Beckel - Democratic strategist, CNN host (former Fox host), and clear "treasonous, traitor" Assange-hater...
    This strikes us as very dangerous talk... We wonder if he is being questioned or investigated for such a public and unquestionable demand for someone to be murdered? Forget due process... "just kill the son of a bitch."

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 4:24:33 PM | 68
    @67 rg the lg

    Gary Johnson:

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263765/gary-johnsons-campaign-make-hillary-president-daniel-greenfield

    Gary Johnson on Hillary: 'A Wonderful Public Servant'
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIxJicyjLLE

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 4:32:31 PM | 69
    @ somebody | Aug 10, 2016 9:40:00 AM | 40

    Hitlary is a known absolute, unspeakable evil, there is a guarantee she'll escalate dramatically the world tensions. She's has done sbsolutely NOTHING positive during her campaign, zilch, nada. She's MSM's favorite. We have no chance for safe, normal life if she has presidential powers.

    Trump, as many others observed, is an enigma, far less risky. Keeps us guessing but has already inflicted some real damage to the evil empire. MSM has played some really dirty, biased game against him. If he forfeits on his promises, his voters will tear him into pieces.

    Personally I suggest voting AGAINST Killary, NOT for Trump.

    There is absolutely no equivalence between these two alternatives.

    nr27 | Aug 10, 2016 4:47:02 PM | 72
    While the Clinton campaign tries to make everybody believe that Trump was calling for the assassination of Hillary, Hillary or someone associated very likely assassinated the DNC Wikileaks leaker Seth Rich a couple of weeks ago. The Russia did the hack is as bogus as the North Korea hacked Sony story and the most significant whistleblowing has up till now been done by individuals (Manning and Snowden). The Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was shot in the back with no motives for his murder as all his belongings were still on him.

    http://sputniknews.com/us/20160810/1044139492/wikileaks-victim-leak.html

    somebody | Aug 10, 2016 4:58:55 PM | 75
    This is funny. Russia - RT - has decided to run US election spots .

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 4:59:46 PM | 76
    @ somebody | Aug 10, 2016 9:40:00 AM | 40

    BTW It's proven that Hellary ALREADY STOLE the nomination from Sanders.

    Trump has not cheated in the elections so far.

    So no, there is no equivalence here.

    Demian | Aug 10, 2016 6:14:41 PM | 77
    I'm impressed that an actual doctor who is involved with various professional associations has come out about this:

    Is Hillary Clinton Medically Unfit to Serve?

    Strangely silent is the mainstream media about the fitness of the Democrat candidate. And causes for concern are growing. Without considering any statements she has made or positions she has taken, and without presuming to speculate on psychiatric diagnoses, one can point to certain observations. ..

    Videos widely circulated on the internet are, if authentic, very concerning. One shows prolonged, inappropriate laughter; another, strange head movements. In a third, she appeared momentarily dazed and confused, and lost her train of thought.

    Strangely silent indeed. (I found out about that post from a piece at Breitbart , which mentions that Clinton's top aid said in an email that she is "often confused".)

    PavewayIV | Aug 10, 2016 6:16:25 PM | 78
    As much as I try to ignore the election travesty playing out, I can't help but notice Hillary is getting sloppy about her murders. What her and Bill could do in their previous roles they can't do now without drawing unwanted attention. This is why it's so important to own the press/newz. This is a psychopathic strategy of yesteryear, yet Hillary's handlers cling to it desperately. I'm not suggesting Hillary herself controls the press. Her masters are the same masters the NYT, WaPo, CNN and network newz answer to. Whether you buy into the whole psychopath-this and psychopath-that conspiracy, you have to admit Hillary (and Obama for that matter) go ballistic about 'leakers'. Far more so than you would expect ANY normal, powerful person to react. Denial and counter-accusations are 'normal'. Killing (or wishing the death) of leakers is not.

    Wikileaks' Assange Hints Murdered DNC Staffer Was Email-Leaker, Offers $20k Reward For Info

    The usual tactic (for psychopaths) is to immediately blame someone else for something they themselves are guilty of. Funny how Hillary's camp went nuts over Trump's reference to Second Amemdment people changing the law. Who the hell would interpret this - literally - as Trump suggesting they assassinate Hillary? You have to have a seriously sick and twisted mind to see that to begin with, and then wage a futile campaign of outrage about it in the media. Even Hillary supporters are starting to ask WTF??

    crone | Aug 10, 2016 6:49:22 PM | 79
    @ 77 Demian

    Thanks, I missed the fact that Dr. Susan Berry is the author of that piece. I clicked on her name and found this:

    "Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, observes that "strangely silent is the mainstream media about the fitness" for presidential office of Hillary Clinton. At AAPS' website, Orient summarizes the concerns about Clinton's health that she says are growing:"

    Association of American Physicians and Surgeons website: http://www.aapsonline.org/

    Dr. Orient has a lengthy article there, here are the last three paras:

    "... The U.S. has had problems with incompetent leaders in the White House before. Mrs. Woodrow Wilson (the "First First Lady President") was effectively President for the last year and a half of her husband's term after he suffered a disabling stroke. She managed to conceal the seriousness of Wilson's condition for a long time. This was the reason for the 25th amendment to provide for replacing the President in case of disability.

    While the U.S. government knows more and more about our medical histories and other aspects of our lives, many details about the President are a secret. The press appears to care more about the tax returns of Republican candidates than the medical records of Democrat Presidents or candidates. And Secretary Clinton's public appearances have been rather carefully controlled.

    Is it conceivable that Hillary supporters would really be voting for Huma Abedin, Clinton's top aide, or for the First First Husband President, Bill Clinton? The American people are entitled to know the objective medical facts about Secretary Clinton."


    Demian | Aug 10, 2016 7:30:25 PM | 80
    @ProPeace #76:

    It's proven that Hellary ALREADY STOLE the nomination from Sanders.

    Trump has not cheated in the elections so far.

    So no, there is no equivalence here.

    Indeed. I guess that Western democracy has become so degraded that many people can't grasp or even notice this difference.

    The way the system is rigged has been clear for some time, at least since Bill Clinton's second term. You have two parties that are more or less identical in terms of the policies they implement, except on social wedge issues. The candidate of both parties is pre-selected by the establishment.

    What was unusual about the current election is that there were insurgencies in both parties. The Republican insurgency succeeded; the Democratic one failed. That alone is reason enough to vote for the Republican in this election (something I never even considered doing before).

    The More the Establishment Freaks Out Over Trump, the More Attractive He Becomes

    The Establishment is freaking out about Donald Trump for one reason: they didn't pick him . The Establishment is freaking out because the natural order of things is that we pick the presidential candidates and we run the country to serve ourselves, i.e. the financial-political elites.

    Donald Trump's candidacy upsets this neofeudal natural order, and thus he (and everyone who supports him) is anathema to the Establishment…

    rufus magister | Aug 10, 2016 7:48:51 PM | 81
    Just in case one has forgotten, don't we all know what our "constitutionalist" ammosexuals are capable of? Who can forget Ammo-on Bundy and all the related fun at Malheur?

    And do you really believe The Donald is clean? What NYC property developer and builder isn't mobbed up? I'm sure he's slid plenty of envelopes of cash across tables to state and local politicians. Isn't most of the New York legislature under indictment? Or just the leadership? Here is Jersey, our official motto is "The Pay-to-Play State."

    And of course his penchant for shady business deals and bankruptcies fully vouches for his undeniable probity.

    MadMax2 | Aug 10, 2016 8:01:40 PM | 82
    Yeah, both Hilary and Bill look pretty used up. Spent. For what...? Haha... Great entertainment. You seppos put on a great show. Would be pretty funny except for the fact you're all holding a gun to your head and everyone else's.

    I enjoy Bill still though. A yank I like. The Secret of Oz and The Money Masters are essential viewing for those who want to know HOW they rig it. Here is something i posted in the US Election thread, tho suits here now. Makes a great point about social media figures, the unspoken polls...(what is the future...or...perhaps the now...?)

    @133 Demian
    Yeah, Orwellian indeed...

    I am in no doubt she is suffering. I remember Trump ripping her a new hole when she failed to appear with Bernie and O'Malley during a televised debate. Trump questioned her stamina then, and while Trump draws sell out crowds each day, sometimes twice a day, she is appearing only 3 times before Oct 9 I think.

    You cant hide from what she's got. And she's got it bad.

    The peoples champ and US patriot Bill Still does some Social Media viewing figures for us:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5pXLGdVlxqk

    Still: How Clinton rigs the polls:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XLf63B1R5aY

    And of course Still on: Hilary's Handler Carries Diazepam Pen
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ6v8yKMX-A

    Jovial stuff...

    Haha...Trump, yeah hes a buffoon, but he's more MSM than the MSM itself and is playing it like a flute... Plus he's causing all sorts of chaos. Destroyed the Republicans already, Dems next.

    Demian | Aug 10, 2016 8:24:14 PM | 85
    @rufus magister #81:

    And do you really believe The Donald is clean?

    Who cares if he's clean? What matters is that he's not a war criminal, and can't be bought. That he can't be bought is why the Establishment is so dead-set against him.

    I can't understand your position, given your interest in Russia. Surely you're aware that Hillary would make Obama's relaunching of the Cold War look like a little skirmish? And she would not rest until Syria is destroyed like Libya. One of her advisers has said that he hopes she will kill Russians and Iranians in Syria; another said that NATO is too concerned about ISIS, and attention should go back to overthrowing the legitimate secular Syrian government.

    Doesn't the world have enough instability? It would just get worse under Hillary. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that Trump is, at the very least, the lesser evil, apparently out of a liberal smugness and dislike for his populism.

    And I don't understand why you can't see this from the Russian point of view. Lavrov keeps on talking about how the world is becoming multipolar, but that US elites refuse to accept this new reality. It is obvious that Trump understands and accepts this new reality. That's why US foreign policy types hate him.

    Jack Smith | Aug 10, 2016 8:41:38 PM | 86
    @MadMax2 | Aug 10, 2016 8:09:49 PM | 84

    Exactly! However, all polls from Realclealpolitics shows Hillary leading and most likely landslide in Nov.

    Trump is no angel either, and his team of economic advisers consists of Oligarch. Between the two who is most evil?

    Boils down to: Hillary love endless wars while Trump will strips everything we have left.

    Buy your pitchforks before it's too late..

    [Aug 10, 2016] Father of Muslim soldier killed in action delivers brutal repudiation of Trump

    Another nice example of swiftboating. What scarifies for illegal and disastrous Iraq war that made Iran region superpower mean?
    Notable quotes:
    "... "He says, 'You have sacrificed nothing and no one,'" Stephanopoulos asked. "Who wrote that, did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?" Trump replied. "How would you answer that father?" Stephanopoulos asked. "What sacrifice have you made?" ..."
    "... In lieu of participating in a debate on Fox News earlier this year, Trump held a fundraiser at which he said he raised millions of dollars for veterans' charities and given $1 million of his own. When The Washington Post investigated, we found that he had overstated how much had been raised and contributed and that Trump himself hadn't made a contribution. ..."
    "... Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said during a campaign speech in Iowa on July 28 that he wanted to "hit" some of the speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. "I was going to hit one guy in particular. A very little guy," Trump said to laughter. (Reuters) ..."
    www.washingtonpost.com

    Trump's response to the New York Times's Maureen Dowd was brief: "I'd like to hear his wife say something."

    If your assumption was that Trump was suggesting that, as a Muslim woman, Ghazala Khan may have been forced into a position of subservience, Trump made that point explicitly in an interview with ABC News's George Stephanopoulos.

    "I saw him," Trump said of the speech. "He was very emotional and probably looked like a nice guy to me. His wife … if you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say."

    "She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me," Trump continued. "But a plenty of people have written that. She was extremely quiet, and it looked like she had nothing to say. A lot of people have said that."

    Ghazala did have something to say when the couple were interviewed by MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell .

    O'DONNELL: You were very nervous about going to the convention and actually were reluctant, didn't really want to go out on the stage and especially didn't want to speak because you would not be able to keep your composure and I have to say, I'm just like you. I don't think I would have been able to do what your husband did out there last night.

    How do you feel now about having gone to the convention and gone out on stage and seen what an impact it's had?

    GHAZALA KHAN: First of all, I thank all America who listened from their heart to my husband's and my heart, and I'm so grateful for that. And it was very nervous because I cannot see my son's picture, and I cannot even come in the room where his pictures are. That's why when I saw the picture at my back I couldn't take it, and I controlled myself at that time. So, it is very hard.

    While Khizr Khan spoke, a large photo of their son was displayed on the large video screens behind the couple.

    [ Khizr Khan's loss: A grieving father of a soldier struggles to understand ]

    In the ABC interview, Stephanopoulos pressed Trump on Khan's question of what he's sacrificed.

    Donald Trump to Army Gold Star father Khizr Khan: "I've made a lot of sacrifices" https://t.co/ZOHLGCaOyC https://t.co/Myp4oyHyX4

    - This Week (@ThisWeekABC) July 30, 2016

    "He says, 'You have sacrificed nothing and no one,'" Stephanopoulos asked.

    "Who wrote that, did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?" Trump replied.

    "How would you answer that father?" Stephanopoulos asked. "What sacrifice have you made?"

    "I think I've made a lot of sacrifices," Trump said. "I've worked very, very hard. I've created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs …"

    "Those are sacrifices?" Stephanopoulos asked.

    "Sure. I think they're sacrifices. I think when I can employ thousands and thousands of people, take care of their education, take care of so many things," Trump said. "Even the military. I mean, I was very responsible along with a group of people for getting the Vietnam Memorial built in downtown Manhattan, which to this day people thank me for."

    "I raised and I have raised millions of dollars for the vets," he added.

    In lieu of participating in a debate on Fox News earlier this year, Trump held a fundraiser at which he said he raised millions of dollars for veterans' charities and given $1 million of his own. When The Washington Post investigated, we found that he had overstated how much had been raised and contributed and that Trump himself hadn't made a contribution.

    It was only after that report that Trump wrote a check.

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said during a campaign speech in Iowa on July 28 that he wanted to "hit" some of the speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. "I was going to hit one guy in particular. A very little guy," Trump said to laughter. (Reuters)

    [Aug 10, 2016] Austin Bay on NeverTrumpers

    neoneocon.com

    August 2nd, 2016

    I've long respected Austin Bay , and so I found this article of his making the case for voting for Trump to be of interest, and I think it deserves an audience.

    Everyone who reads this blog regularly knows I've struggled long and hard with the question of whether I can stomach voting for Trump, and I expect I'll probably struggle with it right up to the moment of truth in the voting booth. But I've long said that I respect those who will vote for him and are convinced it is the right thing to do, although I also respect those who will not. There are arguments-good arguments-to be made on either side.

    Bay comes down on the pro-Trump side, and reminds us of some of Trump's good points:

    He won the nomination by boldly and relentlessly addressing difficult political and social issues that his opponents preferred to either avoid or carefully finesse. He damned political and media hacks who run down America. When racist fanatics murdered cops Trump demanded law and order.

    Bay feels that NeverTrumpers are fooling themselves as to the effects of their non-support:

    NeverTrumpLand's childish Sore Losers don't thwart the ambitions of America's all-too-real Captain Crook-Hillary Clinton-and her privileged Clinton Foundation cronies. Quite the opposite. In GetRealLand Sore Losers become Crooked Hillary's political tools.

    That's why I've never been part of the NeverTrump movement-my reluctance to facilitate the election of Hillary Clinton. But I realize that many NeverTrumpers are propelled into that camp by their belief that Trump would not necessarily be better than Clinton-rather, that he and she would both be extremely bad, just in different ways. Weighing a future that features a known and more predictable type of badness (Clinton) with a more unknown and unpredictable type of badness (Trump) would be hard enough, but it's compounded in this election by what Donald Rumsfeld might call the unknown unknowns of both of these candidates.

    [Aug 10, 2016] COMPLETE INTERVIEW: George Stephanopoulos Interviewes Donald Trump On This Week

    www.youtube.com

    7/31/2016

    An awesome interview. I'm on the left so this is making me feel uncomfortable, but Trump is unapologetic about wanting to end the cold war with Putin, that's worth voting for. Trump is not a Neocon. Is he a con artist, or could he have the guts to kick the Neocons out? And he wants NATO to
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdQD0SANgY

    [Aug 09, 2016] What economic policy Trump suporters want

    Notable quotes:
    "... Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal. ..."
    "... Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders. ..."
    "... Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors. ..."
    "... Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry. ..."
    "... Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development. ..."
    "... Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour. ..."
    "... Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official. ..."
    "... Free public education including college (4 year degree). ..."
    "... Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left. ..."
    "... This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Dave , June 2, 2016 at 11:04 am

    There are all good ideas. However, population growth undermines almost all of them. Population growth in America is immigrant based. Reverse immigration influxes and you are at least doing something to reduce population growth.

    How to "reverse immigration influxes"?

    • Stop accepting refugees. It's outrageous that refugees from for example, Somalia, get small business loans, housing assistance, food stamps and lifetime SSI benefits while some of our veterans are living on the street.
    • No more immigration amnesties of any kind.
    • Deport all illegal alien criminals.
    • Practice "immigrant family unification" in the country of origin. Even if you have to pay them to leave. It's less expensive in the end.
    • Eliminate tax subsidies to American corn growers who then undercut Mexican farmers' incomes through NAFTA, driving them into poverty and immigration north. Throw Hillary Clinton out on her ass and practice political and economic justice to Central America.

    I too am a lifetime registered Democrat and I will vote for Trump if Clinton gets the crown. If the Democrats want my vote, my continuing party registration and my until recently sizeable donations in local, state and national races, they will nominate Bernie. If not, then I'm an Independent forevermore. They will just become the Demowhig Party.

    Jack Heape , June 2, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Here's a start…

    1. Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal.
    2. Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks.
    3. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders.
    4. Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors.
    5. Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation.
    6. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry.
    7. Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development.
    8. Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour.
    9. Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official.
    10. Free public education including college (4 year degree).
    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 10:56 am

    Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 11:56 am

    This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade.

    [Aug 09, 2016] Donald Trump tries to reboot campaign with economic address

    Notable quotes:
    "... Along with all that came another plan, eliminating the estate tax, that could undercut his populist appeal. Its benefit would be limited to high-net-worth families like Trump's, with estates greater than $5.45 million, which are the only ones taxed under current law. ..."
    "... "These reforms will offer the biggest tax revolution since the Reagan tax reform," Trump said, reading from a teleprompter. "I want to jump-start America." Then he ad-libbed, "It can be done. And it won't even be that hard." Trump also modified the size of personal income tax breaks he wants to give the wealthiest Americans. Instead of reducing the top tax bracket from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, as he previously proposed, he would now cut it to 33 percent, as proposed by House Republicans. That would limit, but not eliminate, some of the damage it would wreak on federal budgets. ..."
    "... And analysts across the ideological spectrum noted that Trump's new child-care deduction, designed to appeal to educated female voters, would help middle- and upper-middle class families far more than lower-income workers struggling paycheck to paycheck. That's because low-income Americans pay very little to no federal income tax. ..."
    Aug 08, 2016 | The Boston Globe

    Donald Trump tried rebooting his presidential campaign Monday with an economic speech in Detroit focused on American pocketbook anxieties, pushing tax cuts and deregulation to the forefront after weeks of self-inflicted controversies and plummeting poll numbers.

    But the relatively modest speech made news mostly because it hewed closely to conventional Republican policy doctrine, a fresh tack for an unconventional candidate.

    He repackaged some of his older proposals, including big tax reductions for corporations and business partnerships, and added some new tax-reduction benefits for the middle-class and the wealthy.

    He also promised a fat income tax deduction for child-care expenses, a policy his daughter Ivanka first touted in her Republican National Convention address last month.

    Along with all that came another plan, eliminating the estate tax, that could undercut his populist appeal. Its benefit would be limited to high-net-worth families like Trump's, with estates greater than $5.45 million, which are the only ones taxed under current law.

    What is Donald Trump's economic vision?

    The speech was an anti-trade version of trickle down economics, as Trump proposed to tweak the global economy to benefit US businesses.

    "These reforms will offer the biggest tax revolution since the Reagan tax reform," Trump said, reading from a teleprompter. "I want to jump-start America." Then he ad-libbed, "It can be done. And it won't even be that hard."

    Trump also modified the size of personal income tax breaks he wants to give the wealthiest Americans. Instead of reducing the top tax bracket from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, as he previously proposed, he would now cut it to 33 percent, as proposed by House Republicans. That would limit, but not eliminate, some of the damage it would wreak on federal budgets.

    Trump kept his cool, sticking mostly to his script on how to make America win again, as hecklers interrupted his speech more than a dozen times. He slammed Hillary Clinton's economic policies and characterized her as a "candidate of the past" while promising to "massively" cut regulations and renegotiate trade deals in his quest for economic renewal.

    Clinton is scheduled to deliver her economic rebuttal to Trump on Thursday, also from Detroit.

    Clinton is making jobs and the economy a centerpiece of her campaign, seeing it as an area in which to draw a stark contrast with Trump. Her campaign tried to preempt Trump's speech by posting a video Sunday arguing that "Trumponomics" would trigger recession, job losses, and possibly another financial catastrophe.

    Republican strategists praised Trump's speech for refocusing on a policy area they see as his strength, and said Trump could have a "fighting chance" against Clinton if, and only if, he spends the next three months delivering his message in a disciplined and consistent manner.

    He cannot afford to veer off course with any more unscripted personal attacks, they said. Clinton's lead over Trump opened up by 10 points in the wake of both conventions and a series of missteps including his recent criticism of a Muslim couple whose son was killed in combat.

    "It was a good, big-boy-pants speech," said Dave Carney, a Republican consultant from New Hampshire.

    "Compared to what he normally does, it was 180 degrees different. Ten days ago, he was doing great, and then it was all over. The economy and national security - those are the two baskets he should be peddling for the next 90 days,'' Carney said.

    Some analysts expressed doubt whether the speech will make much of a difference in a campaign they view as especially unorganized, with little to no ground game in swing states.

    "Is there anything different today than yesterday? I don't see that there is," said Doug Heye, a Republican strategist and former spokesman for the Republican National Committee who has said he would not vote for Trump.

    "He'll give more speeches from teleprompters but it's hard to see how they will make any more substantive difference for his campaign, because what you see on the ground is a campaign that is nonexistent,'' Heye said. "It is a campaign that exists on television and on Twitter but nowhere else."

    The latest Real Clear Politics average of national polls showed Clinton with a lead of more than 7 points.

    Trump doubled down on his criticisms of Clinton throughout his speech, repeating a false statement about Clinton wanting to raise taxes on the middle class, even though the fact-checking organization Politifact rated his claim as "pants on fire" three days ago.

    Clinton herself took direct aim at Trump's speech during a rally in St. Petersburg, Fla., Monday afternoon.

    She said his recently-named economic advisers "tried to make his old tired ideas sound new, but here's what we all know because we heard it again: his tax plans will give super big tax breaks to large corporations and the really wealthy, just like him and the guys who wrote the speech."

    As with foreign policy, the Clinton campaign is painting Trump as too dangerous and erratic to command the helm of the US economy.

    They point to his business record, emphasizing his companies' multiple bankruptcies and the slew of lawsuits from vendors and contractors he didn't pay, as evidence he is not a good steward for the economy writ large.

    The Clinton campaign ran interference against Trump's economic speech Monday by hosting about a dozen press events in battleground states.

    Gene Sperling, a former top Obama economic aide, said in one conference call that even with the tweaks announced Monday, Trump's tax plan would exacerbate income inequality by delivering the vast majority of its benefits to the top 1 percent of Americans.

    And analysts across the ideological spectrum noted that Trump's new child-care deduction, designed to appeal to educated female voters, would help middle- and upper-middle class families far more than lower-income workers struggling paycheck to paycheck. That's because low-income Americans pay very little to no federal income tax.

    The National Federation of Independent Business, a small business association, praised Trump's proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. The plan was seen as a bone to the GOP establishment.

    The Clinton campaign criticized it Monday as simply another way to allow millionaires and billionaires to pay lower taxes by reclassifying their salary income as business income.

    Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Senator John McCain's chief economic adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign and president of the conservative American Action Forum think tank, called Trump's economic plan "more relaunch than revised."

    The new changes and Trump saying he plans to build upon GOP principles were "a pretty clear olive branch to the rest of the Republican Party."

    "That doesn't leave us with a lot of clarity about what his actual plan is," Holtz-Eakin said. "It's now a work in progress again."

    Tracy Jan can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @TracyJan.

    [Aug 09, 2016] Donald Trump delivered an economic policy speech Monday in Detroit. By Kevin Cirilli and Jennifer Jacob

    Please read Transcript of Donald Trump's economic policy speech to Detroit Economic Club TheHill
    Notable quotes:
    "... One key change from Trump's earlier proposals is that he would set a new top individual income-tax rate of 33 percent. While that rate is higher than the 25 percent rate Trump had initially proposed, it still represents a cut from the current top rate of 39.6 percent. ..."
    "... A news release from Trump's campaign said he wanted to ensure that the wealthy pay their ''fair share,'' using language that is more commonly heard from Democrats. But his proposals to cut individual tax rates and the tax rate on income from partnerships-along with eliminating the estate tax-mean the wealthy would pay less under his plan, said Kyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects at the conservative Tax Foundation. ..."
    "... Some analysts have noted that Trump's proposal to end the special tax treatment of carried interest-the portion of investment gains paid to fund managers-might mean lower taxes for members of partnerships, which is how many private-equity funds are organized. Carried interest is currently taxed as capital gains, meaning the income qualifies for a tax rate as low as 23.8 percent. Under Trump's plan to cut business taxes, though, members of partnerships who get carried interest might be taxed at a 15 percent rate. ..."
    "... Trump reiterated his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and his desire to renegotiate NAFTA, ''or walk away if we have to,'' according to his campaign's news release. He also seeks to reverse much of the Obama administration's climate-change and energy agenda by defending the coal industry, rescinding environmental rules, and asking TransCanada to renew its Keystone pipeline permit application if he's elected. ..."
    "... Trump's speech follows his announcement last week of an unorthodox economic advisory council that includes financiers John Paulson, Andy Beal, and Stephen Feinberg, as well as energy executive Harold Hamm. Trump also announced raising $80 million for his campaign and party entities in July. ..."
    Aug 08, 2016 | Bloomberg

    Donald Trump on Monday sought to cast Hillary Clinton's economic program as an ineffective relic, and to reset his own presidential campaign after a string of missteps.

    ''We now begin a great national conversation about economic renewal for America,'' Trump said in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, urging a return to his ''America-first'' governing vision.

    ''The city of Detroit is the living, breathing example of my opponent's failed economic agenda,'' Trump said.

    In prepared remarks released by Trump's campaign as he spoke, the nominee proposed a temporary moratorium on new agency regulations. He also proposed making U.S. families' child-care costs tax-deductible, which his daughter Ivanka promised last month in a prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention.

    Protesters repeatedly interrupted Trump, who acknowledged them more calmly than he sometimes has at campaign rallies. ''This is all very well planned out,'' he said.

    One key change from Trump's earlier proposals is that he would set a new top individual income-tax rate of 33 percent. While that rate is higher than the 25 percent rate Trump had initially proposed, it still represents a cut from the current top rate of 39.6 percent.

    That tweak will reduce the estimated cost of Trump's tax plan-which some analysts had set at roughly $10 trillion over 10 years. But the child-care proposal-which Trump in prepared remarks said would allow ''parents to fully deduct the average cost of childcare spending"-also represented a new cost. That measure's price tag would be roughly $20 billion a year, said economist Stephen Moore, a Trump adviser.

    ''It's not a big cost,'' Moore said.

    Trump's tax plan would slash the tax rate on corporate and business income to 15 percent, down from a current top corporate tax rate of 35 percent. It would also consolidate the current seven individual income tax rates to three, with the lower two brackets set at 25 percent and 12 percent.

    A news release from Trump's campaign said he wanted to ensure that the wealthy pay their ''fair share,'' using language that is more commonly heard from Democrats. But his proposals to cut individual tax rates and the tax rate on income from partnerships-along with eliminating the estate tax-mean the wealthy would pay less under his plan, said Kyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects at the conservative Tax Foundation.

    ''His rhetoric is not lining up with his proposals,'' Pomerleau said.

    Some analysts have noted that Trump's proposal to end the special tax treatment of carried interest-the portion of investment gains paid to fund managers-might mean lower taxes for members of partnerships, which is how many private-equity funds are organized. Carried interest is currently taxed as capital gains, meaning the income qualifies for a tax rate as low as 23.8 percent. Under Trump's plan to cut business taxes, though, members of partnerships who get carried interest might be taxed at a 15 percent rate.

    Trump reiterated his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and his desire to renegotiate NAFTA, ''or walk away if we have to,'' according to his campaign's news release. He also seeks to reverse much of the Obama administration's climate-change and energy agenda by defending the coal industry, rescinding environmental rules, and asking TransCanada to renew its Keystone pipeline permit application if he's elected.

    After Trump said Aug. 2 he would double Clinton's infrastructure spending plan in a major government expansion, aides said he will speak later this summer about his plan for the nation's roadways.

    Trump's daughter's acknowledgement of soaring child-care costs, an issue of growing importance in U.S. politics, won plaudits as Trump lags Clinton badly in polls of female voters.

    Child-care bills have proven to outpace rent and tuition costs in most states, often threatening to derail parents' housing and job plans. The nation is the third-most expensive for childcare among 34 countries, according to 2012 data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    The issue offers a good example of the candidates' different approaches. Where Trump is providing a simple supply-side prescription, Clinton is flooding the debate with detail.

    Her proposal includes tax relief but is more focused on government support and broader investments in early childhood education, while pledging to ensure that no family has to spend more than 10 percent of income on high-quality care.

    Trump's speech follows his announcement last week of an unorthodox economic advisory council that includes financiers John Paulson, Andy Beal, and Stephen Feinberg, as well as energy executive Harold Hamm. Trump also announced raising $80 million for his campaign and party entities in July.

    Unveiling the council and the better-than-expected fundraising results, and giving the Detroit speech major billing, were moves by the Trump campaign to steady its course after the Democratic National Convention, where the Muslim parents of a slain U.S. soldier spoke out against Trump and drew the Republican nominee into a multi-day feud on Twitter and TV airwaves.

    Between that and other controversies-including Trump's initial refusal to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan for re-election-Trump has seen his poll numbers slumped and has worried Republicans who are eager to save their majorities in Congress in November's elections.

    Trump's plans align in many ways with the election-year policy proposals rolled out by Ryan and House Republicans, including his call for undoing the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act and limiting any regulations that burden businesses. The House plan wouldn't allow any new financial regulations to take effect unless the House votes.

    Trump, however, has proposed deeper tax-rate reductions. The House plan would drop the top individual tax rates from 39.6 to 33 percent. Corporate tax rates, meanwhile, would be lowered from 35 to 20 percent.

    Billy House, Lynnley Browning, and Michelle Jamrisko contributed.

    [Aug 09, 2016] Trump to Propose Moratorium on New Financial Regulations - Bloomberg Politics

    www.bloomberg.com
    Donald Trump will propose a temporary moratorium on new financial regulations in an economic speech Monday in Detroit in an effort to draw a stark contrast with the domestic policies of Hillary Clinton, who he says "punishes" the American economy.

    The Republican presidential nominee's speech will focus on providing regulatory relief for small businesses, according to senior campaign aides familiar with its contents. More broadly, Trump will say he will not propose any new financial regulations until the economy shows "significant growth," the aides said. Trump has previously said he would repeal and replace the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.

    QuickTake Dodd-Frank

    Trump will also propose a repeal of the estate tax, sometimes called the "death tax." Under current law, the 40 percent tax applies only to estates larger than $5.45 million for individuals and $10.9 million for couples.

    For U.S. businesses, Trump will propose a tax rate of 15 percent and suggest strengthening intellectual-property protections. He's expected to call for three income-tax brackets, down from the current seven. He'll call for the elimination of special tax treatment for carried-interest income at private-equity firms and other investment firms-the latter of which is a proposal his Democratic rival also supports .

    Carried interest, which is a portion of investment gains paid to certain investment managers, is currently taxed like capital gains-at rates that can be as low as 23.8 percent. Trump proposes to tax them as ordinary income, but for members of partnerships, that could actually mean a rate cut to 15 percent.

    Trump will continue to stress his opposition to the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement backed by the Obama administration and many prominent Republicans in Congress, and he will reinforce his commitment to the coal industry, saying a federal moratorium on some coal-mining permits would be the focus of a targeted review in his administration.

    Other items on his energy agenda, he is expected to reiterate in the speech, include asking TransCanada to renew its Keystone pipeline permit application; rescinding the Climate Action Plan and "waters of the U.S." rule; opening offshore drilling; and killing the Paris climate agreement.

    He will portray President Barack Obama's regulatory policies as having crushed middle- and lower-class Americans and will propose making all child care tax deductible. Clinton, in contrast, has proposed a cap on child-care costs at 10 percent of a family's income.

    Targeting the federal bureaucracy, Trump is expected to say that civil servants whose focus is job-killing regulation should be replaced with experts who would help create jobs.

    Trump will take direct aim at the Clintons and Obama, pointing to Detroit as an example of their failed economic policies. He will argue that their "record-breaking pace of new regulations, tax increases, restrictions on private-energy production and one-sided trade deals" have hurt Detroit and other cities, according to excerpts of his remarks shared with Bloomberg Politics.

    He will call Obama's Clinton-backed regulations a "lead-weight on the economy, an anchor dragging us down." And he will say that Americans "need to hit the pause buttons on these regulations so our businesses can reinvest in the economy."

    "She's the candidate of the past and ours is the campaign of the future," Trump plans to say. "Every policy that has failed Detroit has been fully supported by Hillary Clinton. The one common feature of every Hillary Clinton idea is that it punishes you from working and doing business in the United States."

    His campaign aides said this is one of several economic speeches Trump will deliver this summer. One will include the unveiling of an infrastructure spending plan , while another will focus on financial regulations such as Dodd-Frank, the aides said.

    Crunch Time

    For Trump, the challenge at this stage in the race is two-fold. His campaign is coming off one of its worst weeks following a series of self-inflicted gaffes that led to a sharp dip in national and swing-state polls, and economic indicators suggest that the economy is improving.

    The nation's unemployment rate in July was 4.9 percent-a sharp decline from a post-recession peak of 10 percent in October 2009, according to federal statistics.

    Clinton, who was set to campaign in Florida on Monday, has spent the days following the Democratic National Convention attacking Trump on the economy. The Republican is pushing an agenda "that experts across the political spectrum say would lead to a recession and cost millions of American jobs," the Clinton campaign said in a statement Monday.

    Independent voters-particularly small-business owners and their respective trade groups-have argued for years that Obama's regulatory proposals have stifled the economy. Trump's proposal to issue a moratorium on regulations could help him win support from workers at mid-sized banks as well as small-business owners who say it's unfair for them to comply with Dodd-Frank regulations written for big banks.

    Trump enlisted conservative economists Peter Navarro, Larry Kudlow, and Stephen Moore; former Nucor CEO Dan DiMicco; and others to help with his speech.

    Donors Watching

    Republican donors and Trump supporters said they have high expectations for the speech.

    Texas investor Doug Deason, who backed Ted Cruz for president in the primary, said he'd like to see Trump "lay out a plan to lower corporate taxes, eliminate federal bureaucracy costs by 10 percent or more, end all corporate welfare programs, convert welfare programs to work programs and dramatically reduce all of the silly federal rules the current administration has put in place."

    Deason, who helped Donald Trump Jr. raise money for his father in Dallas and Houston last month, added that he'd also like to see Trump name three or four agencies or departments he could eliminate.

    Several donors said they're craving specifics on how to repatriate profits trapped overseas, what exactly Trump would do with infrastructure, and how he'd pay for it, and how he'd encourage capital investments in plants and equipment.

    "I would hope that he would cover the full range of economic targets from corporate and personal income tax to trade policy to regulatory reform and energy strategy," said Wilbur Ross, chief strategy officer at WL Ross & Co., which has invested more than $11 billion in distressed companies, including Bethlehem Steel, since its founding in 2000.

    [Aug 09, 2016] Accusations of Trump is being fascist as another attempt to marginalize him

    Notable quotes:
    "... broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks. ..."
    "... The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences. ..."
    "... The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism, and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you have been reading. ..."
    "... If anything it is merely a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other ideologies ..."
    "... Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist". ..."
    "... My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Lexington , June 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    "Fascism" has become the prefered term of abuse applied indiscriminately by the right thinking to any person or movement which they want to tar as inherently objectionable, and which can therefore be dismissed without the tedium of actually engaging with them at the level of ideas.

    Most of the people who like to throw this word around couldn't give you a coherant definition of what exactly they understand it to signify, beyond "yuck!!"

    In fairness even students of political ideology have trouble teasing out a cosistent system of beliefs, to the point where some doubt fascism is even a coherent ideology. That hardly excuses the intellectual vacuity of those who use it as a term of abuse, however.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , June 2, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    Precisely 3,248 angels can fit on the head of a pin. Parsing the true definition of "fascism" is a waste of time, broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks.

    As far as the definition "neo-liberalism" goes, yes it's a useful label. But let's keep it simple: every society chooses how resources are allocated between Capital and Labor. The needle has been pegged over on the Capital side for quite some time, my "start date" is when Reagan busted the air traffic union. The hideous Republicans managed to sell their base that policies that were designed to let companies be "competitive" were somehow good for them, not just for the owners of the means of production.

    The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences.

    Lexington , June 2, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks

    Which textbooks specifically?

    The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism, and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you have been reading.

    As for your definition of "fascism", it's obviously so vague and broad that it really doesn't explain anything. To the extent it contains any insight it is that public institutions (the state), private businesses (the corporation) and the armed forces all exert significant influence on public policy. That and a buck and and a half will get you a cup of coffee. If anything it is merely a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other ideologies (again, see the Vox article for a discussion of some of the beliefs that are arguably characteristic of fascist movements). Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist".

    My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. Given that these movements are only growing in strength as faith in traditional political movements and elites evaporate this is likely to produce exactly the opposite result. Right wing populism isn't going to disappear just because the left keeps trying to wish it away. Refusing to accept this basic political fact risks condemning the left rather than "the fascists" to political irrelevance.

    [Aug 09, 2016] Slate, Mother Jones, and Buzzfeed News all ran more stories about Trump's dust-up with an infant than they did on what was effectively the start of bombing of Libya

    Notable quotes:
    "... ABC World News Tonight ..."
    "... NBC Nightly News ..."
    www.defenddemocracy.press

    Defend Democracy Press

    Even many center-left outlets barely touched on the massive mission creep. To give some perspective, Slate, Mother Jones, and Buzzfeed News all ran more stories about Trump's dust-up with an infant than they did on what was effectively the start of a new war. ABC World News Tonight mentioned the Libyan air strikes for only 20 seconds, 13 minutes into the show, and NBC Nightly News didn't mention the air strikes at all. The president's announcement that the United States is bombing a new country has become entirely banal.

    [Aug 09, 2016] MRC's Bozell Lashes Out at 'Stupid' Trump Giving Media Excuse to Not Cover DNC Leaks, Hillary

    newsbusters.org
    MRC's Bozell Lashes Out at 'Stupid' Trump Giving Media Excuse to Not Cover DNC Leaks, Hillary By NB Staff | August 6, 2016 | 10:17 AM EDT Media Research Center President Brent Bozell was in rare form on Tuesday night while speaking to Dana Loesch of The Blaze TV in calling out Donald Trump as "stupid" for giving the liberal media an endless number of excuses to not cover the firings and Wikileaks dumps about the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's latest problems with the truth.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Russia scholar Stephen Cohen shuts down CNN shill host who tries to link Trump to Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... I know a bit about Russian people and one thing I know is this; the U.S. is ignorant of their culture, values and intelligence; a gross miscalculation of an adversary. ..."
    "... The neo-cons are crazy (like rabid dogs) but not overtly suicidal, I think (not sure actually). ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    MadMax2 | Aug 7, 2016 7:02:32 AM | 50

    - YouTube Did he get it?Nope

    Youtube:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mCMyHJJrdDw
    Source:
    https://twitter.com/shekunchik/status/762055101930475520

    jfl | Aug 7, 2016 7:43:54 AM | 52

    @50 mm2

    Stephen Cohen got it. He got shut down. And the talking head at CNN made a note never to have this guy on again. CNN's just had all the conversation - and then some - that they ever want to have with this guy. We'll never see Stephen Cohen on TNC TV again.

    V. Arnold | Aug 7, 2016 8:51:16 AM | 57

    jfl | Aug 7, 2016 8:08:41 AM | 56

    Yes, both. I'm well aware of the long and somewhat "bumpy" history going back decades (many) and see this as a mutual joust against a common enemy/hegemon. Russia is well aware of it's vast area and consequent resources making it a prize like no other on the planet.

    It's Russia's curse and wealth at the same time. It's there's to lose if they play badly.

    I know a bit about Russian people and one thing I know is this; the U.S. is ignorant of their culture, values and intelligence; a gross miscalculation of an adversary.

    Together they (PRC and Russia) are the perfect foil to the U.S. aggression.

    The neo-cons are crazy (like rabid dogs) but not overtly suicidal, I think (not sure actually).

    [Aug 08, 2016] Globalization and its New Discontents

    economistsview.typepad.com
    JohnH :

    Globalization and its New Discontents

    Stiglitz: AUG 5, 2016 8
    Globalization and its New Discontents

    NEW YORK – Fifteen years ago, I wrote a little book, entitled Globalization and its Discontents, describing growing opposition in the developing world to globalizing reforms. It seemed a mystery: people in developing countries had been told that globalization would increase overall wellbeing. So why had so many people become so hostile to it?

    Now, globalization's opponents in the emerging markets and developing countries have been joined by tens of millions in the advanced countries. Opinion polls, including a careful study by Stanley Greenberg and his associates for the Roosevelt Institute, show that trade is among the major sources of discontent for a large share of Americans. Similar views are apparent in Europe.

    How can something that our political leaders – and many an economist – said would make everyone better off be so reviled?

    One answer occasionally heard from the neoliberal economists who advocated for these policies is that people are better off. They just don't know it. Their discontent is a matter for psychiatrists, not economists.

    But income data suggest that it is the neoliberals who may benefit from therapy. Large segments of the population in advanced countries have not been doing well: in the US, the bottom 90% has endured income stagnation for a third of a century. Median income for full-time male workers is actually lower in real (inflation-adjusted) terms than it was 42 years ago. At the bottom, real wages are comparable to their level 60 years ago.

    The effects of the economic pain and dislocation that many Americans are experiencing are even showing up in health statistics. For example, the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, this year's Nobel laureate, have shown that life expectancy among segments of white Americans is declining.

    Things are a little better in Europe – but only a little better.

    Branko Milanovic's new book Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization provides some vital insights, looking at the big winners and losers in terms of income over the two decades from 1988 to 2008. Among the big winners were the global 1%, the world's plutocrats, but also the middle class in newly emerging economies. Among the big losers – those who gained little or nothing – were those at the bottom and the middle and working classes in the advanced countries. Globalization is not the only reason, but it is one of the reasons.

    Under the assumption of perfect markets (which underlies most neoliberal economic analyses) free trade equalizes the wages of unskilled workers around the world. Trade in goods is a substitute for the movement of people. Importing goods from China – goods that require a lot of unskilled workers to produce – reduces the demand for unskilled workers in Europe and the US.

    This force is so strong that if there were no transportation costs, and if the US and Europe had no other source of competitive advantage, such as in technology, eventually it would be as if Chinese workers continued to migrate to the US and Europe until wage differences had been eliminated entirely. Not surprisingly, the neoliberals never advertised this consequence of trade liberalization, as they claimed – one could say lied – that all would benefit.

    The failure of globalization to deliver on the promises of mainstream politicians has surely undermined trust and confidence in the "establishment." And governments' offers of generous bailouts for the banks that had brought on the 2008 financial crisis, while leaving ordinary citizens largely to fend for themselves, reinforced the view that this failure was not merely a matter of economic misjudgments.

    In the US, Congressional Republicans even opposed assistance to those who were directly hurt by globalization. More generally, neoliberals, apparently worried about adverse incentive effects, have opposed welfare measures that would have protected the losers.

    But they can't have it both ways: if globalization is to benefit most members of society, strong social-protection measures must be in place. The Scandinavians figured this out long ago; it was part of the social contract that maintained an open society – open to globalization and changes in technology. Neoliberals elsewhere have not – and now, in elections in the US and Europe, they are having their comeuppance.

    Globalization is, of course, only one part of what is going on; technological innovation is another part. But all of this openness and disruption were supposed to make us richer, and the advanced countries could have introduced policies to ensure that the gains were widely shared.

    Instead, they pushed for policies that restructured markets in ways that increased inequality and undermined overall economic performance; growth actually slowed as the rules of the game were rewritten to advance the interests of banks and corporations – the rich and powerful – at the expense of everyone else. Workers' bargaining power was weakened; in the US, at least, competition laws didn't keep up with the times; and existing laws were inadequately enforced. Financialization continued apace and corporate governance worsened.

    Now, as I point out in my recent book Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy, the rules of the game need to be changed again – and this must include measures to tame globalization. The two new large agreements that President Barack Obama has been pushing – the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 Pacific Rim countries, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the US – are moves in the wrong direction.

    The main message of Globalization and its Discontents was that the problem was not globalization, but how the process was being managed. Unfortunately, the management didn't change. Fifteen years later, the new discontents have brought that message home to the advanced economies.

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/globalization-new-discontents-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2016-08

    [Aug 08, 2016] Full and unconditional capitulation of Sanders

    His campaign ended with him performing the classic role of shipdog for Hillary, who shares none of his ideas and economic policies. If this is not Obama style "bait and switch' I do not know what is...
    economistsview.typepad.com

    August 05, 2016

    Fred C. Dobbs :

    LA Times

    Bernie Sanders: I support Hillary Clinton. So should everyone who voted for me http://fw.to/mVDxuLJ

    The conventions are over and the general election has officially begun. In the primaries, I received 1,846 pledged delegates, 46% of the total. Hillary Clinton received 2,205 pledged delegates, 54%. She received 602 superdelegates. I received 48 superdelegates. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and I will vigorously support her.

    Donald Trump would be a disaster and an embarrassment for our country if he were elected president. His campaign is not based on anything of substance - improving the economy, our education system, healthcare or the environment. It is based on bigotry. He is attempting to win this election by fomenting hatred against Mexicans and Muslims. He has crudely insulted women. And as a leader of the "birther movement," he tried to undermine the legitimacy of our first African American president. That is not just my point of view. That's the perspective of a number of conservative Republicans.

    In these difficult times, we need a president who will bring our nation together, not someone who will divide us by race or religion, not someone who lacks an understanding of what our Constitution is about.

    On virtually every major issue facing this country and the needs of working families, Clinton's positions are far superior to Trump's. Our campaigns worked together to produce the most progressive platform in the history of American politics. Trump's campaign wrote one of the most reactionary documents.

    Clinton understands that Citizens United has undermined our democracy. She will nominate justices who are prepared to overturn that Supreme Court decision, which made it possible for billionaires to buy elections. Her court appointees also would protect a woman's right to choose, workers' rights, the rights of the LGBT community, the needs of minorities and immigrants and the government's ability to protect the environment.

    Trump, on the other hand, has made it clear that his Supreme Court appointees would preserve the court's right-wing majority.

    Clinton understands that in a competitive global economy we need the best-educated workforce in the world. She and I worked together on a proposal that will revolutionize higher education in America. It will guarantee that the children of any family in this country with an annual income of $125,000 a year or less – 83% of our population – will be able to go to a public college or university tuition free. This proposal also substantially reduces student debt.

    Trump, on the other hand, has barely said a word about higher education.

    Clinton understands that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, it is absurd to provide huge tax breaks to the very rich.

    Trump, on the other hand, wants billionaire families like his to enjoy hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax breaks.

    Clinton understands that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is one of the great environmental crises facing our planet. She knows that we must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and move aggressively to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

    Trump, on the other hand, like most Republicans, rejects science and the conclusions of almost all major researchers in the field. He believes that climate change is a "hoax," and that there's no need to address it.

    Clinton understands that this country must move toward universal healthcare. She wants to see that all Americans have the right to choose a public option in their healthcare exchange, that anyone 55 or older should be able to opt in to Medicare, and that we must greatly improve primary healthcare through a major expansion of community health centers. She also wants to lower the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs.

    And what is Donald Trump's position on healthcare? He wants to abolish the Affordable Care Act, throw 20 million people off the health insurance they currently have and cut Medicaid for lower-income Americans.

    During the primaries, my supporters and I began a political revolution to transform America. That revolution continues as Hillary Clinton seeks the White House. It will continue after the election. It will continue until we create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent – a government based on the principle of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.

    I understand that many of my supporters are disappointed by the final results of the nominating process, but being despondent and inactive is not going to improve anything. Going forward and continuing the struggle is what matters. And, in that struggle, the most immediate task we face is to defeat Donald

    [Aug 08, 2016] Clinton is a neo con and a neo liberal.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary is definitely both a staunch dyed-in-the-wool neocon ("We came, we saw, he died", anti-Russia stance, appointment of Kagan and Nuland, her role in Syria, etc.) and "born again" ( deviating from Goldwater platform after marriage) neoliberal much like Slick Willie was/is. ..."
    "... "long ago, conservatives decided to harness racial resentment to sell right-wing economic policies to working-class whites, especially in the South." ..."
    "... Isn't the corollary to this that the Clintons harnessed racial resentment to sell neo-lib economic policies to poor blacks, especially in the South? ..."
    "... Classist elitism, cultural chauvinism, standing pat in the economic center, bland words about small plans, neoconservative foreign policy & recruiting of capital-class Republicans are back in the driver's seat. This is the Democratic Party once again without a Sanders campaign to worry about. ..."
    "... What strikes me as telling and important is that the New York Times was reporting on conservatives or neocons moving to support Hillary Clinton as early as July 2014. The sense being that Clinton was, in particular, a foreign policy conservative: ..."
    "... Dismantling of Orthodox hegemony in east Europe.... Hapsburg at the neocon rise. Regime change in Moscow was in the strategy when Strobe Talbot brought in Mrs. Kagan in 1993 and Bill Clinton started arming Croatia and backing separatists in Bosnia and Kosovo. ..."
    "... Clinton voted for universal war and then as SecState implemented it bad and hard. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    jonny bakho -> ilsm... , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 01:35 PM
    Clinton is neither a neo con nor a neo liberal.
    What are you smoking?
    A neo con would not have pushed for a negotiated settlement with Iran.

    HillaryCare was the antithesis of neoliberalism

    Maybe the Cartoon character Hillary Clinton is those things but not the real one.

    jonny bakho -> ilsm... , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 01:39 PM
    Reasons to vote for Clinton:
    • Criminal Justice and policing reform.
    • Extension of bank regulation.
    • Stimulus spending on the 10 20 30 model
    • Immigration reform
    • Expansion of solar and wind energy
    • Use of negotiation in foreign issues
    ilsm -> jonny bakho ...
    Check out Clintons in Serbia, who is Victoria Nuland, and on whose advisory committee is her husband Robert Kagan?

    You have a very limited and benign view of neocon and neoliberals.

    Likbez said in reply to ilsm... , -1
    An excellent comment. I am with you ilsm --

    Hillary is definitely both a staunch dyed-in-the-wool neocon ("We came, we saw, he died", anti-Russia stance, appointment of Kagan and Nuland, her role in Syria, etc.) and "born again" ( deviating from Goldwater platform after marriage) neoliberal much like Slick Willie was/is.

    Anybody who tried to deny this denies the reality.

    • Police state?
    • Wall st sponsors
    • Debt reduction with stimulus?
    • Immigration, what demalarkey is that?
    • Energy is happening with tech.
    • Neocon, just war is pushing Putin around! She negotiated with Qaddafi! She and Kerry on Assad, Benghazi shipping point to ISIS in 2012.

    Send a check I have the deed to a bridge.

    Bob : , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 11:07 AM
    "long ago, conservatives decided to harness racial resentment to sell right-wing economic policies to working-class whites, especially in the South."

    Isn't the corollary to this that the Clintons harnessed racial resentment to sell neo-lib economic policies to poor blacks, especially in the South?

    ilsm -> Bob... ,
    Dem thought crime squads will make sure men get to use the ladies' room in all 50 states and DC.
    Dan Kervick : , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 11:15 AM
    Clinton doesn't need to move to the center to beat Trump, since she is already in the center. She's picking up a number of disaffected Republicans already without doing anything. Trump and his campaign are a circus. Her advisers are probably recommending that she remain inoffensively silent and allow Trump to continue eating his own tail.

    Meanwhile, every result one would realistically have expected from the Democrats disposing of the Sanders campaign has indeed come to pass. Classist elitism, cultural chauvinism, standing pat in the economic center, bland words about small plans, neoconservative foreign policy & recruiting of capital-class Republicans are back in the driver's seat. This is the Democratic Party once again without a Sanders campaign to worry about.

    ilsm -> Dan Kervick... ,

    Yup!

    anne : ,
    What strikes me as telling and important is that the New York Times was reporting on conservatives or neocons moving to support Hillary Clinton as early as July 2014. The sense being that Clinton was, in particular, a foreign policy conservative:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html

    July 5, 2014

    The Next Act of the Neocons
    By JACOB HEILBRUNN

    Are they getting ready to ally themselves with Hillary Clinton?

    ilsm -> anne... ,
    Dismantling of Orthodox hegemony in east Europe.... Hapsburg at the neocon rise. Regime change in Moscow was in the strategy when Strobe Talbot brought in Mrs. Kagan in 1993 and Bill Clinton started arming Croatia and backing separatists in Bosnia and Kosovo.
    Fred C. Dobbs : , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 11:47 AM
    (So, is it 'over'?)

    Peggy Noonan: Trump 'doesn't have the skill set needed now'
    http://washex.am/2aAIwqk via @DCExaminer - Aug 5

    Conservative Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan said Donald Trump doesn't have what it takes to win the White House.

    In her latest column, Noonan wrote that the celebrity businessman has been unable to "take yes for an answer" from the voters who made him the Republican presidential nominee.

    "This is what became obvious, probably fatally so: Mr. Trump is not going to get serious about running for president," she wrote. "He does not have a second act, there are no hidden depths, there will be no 'pivot.' It is not that he is willful or stubborn, though he may be, it's that he doesn't have the skill set needed now - discretion, carefulness, generosity, judgment. There's a clueless quality about him."

    After the GOP convention two weeks ago, Trump enjoyed a slight bump in national and some state-level polls against Hillary Clinton, only to suffer a series of setbacks caused by his own controversial comments.

    As a result, his numbers have fallen in more recent polls and Clinton's have risen in light of intense media scrutiny on Trump.

    "All the damage done to him this week was self-inflicted," Noonan wrote. "The arrows he's taken are arrows he shot.

    The Week They Decided He Was Crazy
    by @peggynoonannyc
    http://on.wsj.com/2aZ4p2b
    via @WSJ - Aug 4

    I think this week marked a certain coming to terms with where the election is going. Politics is about trends and tendencies. The trends for Donald Trump are not good, and he tends not to change.

    All the damage done to him this week was self-inflicted. The arrows he's taken are arrows he shot. We have in seven days witnessed his undignified and ungrateful reaction to a Gold Star family; the odd moment with the crying baby; the one-on-one interviews, which are starting to look like something he does in the grip of a compulsion, in which Mr. Trump expresses himself thoughtlessly, carelessly, on such issues as Russia, Ukraine and sexual harassment; the relitigating of his vulgar Megyn Kelly comments from a year ago; and, as his fortunes fell, his statement that he "would not be surprised" if the November election were "rigged." Subject to an unprecedented assault by a sitting president who called him intellectually and characterologically unfit for the presidency, Mr Trump fired back - at Paul Ryan and John McCain.

    The mad scatterbrained-ness of it was captured in a Washington Post interview (*) with Philip Rucker in which five times by my count-again, the compulsion-Mr. Trump departed the meat of the interview to turn his head and stare at the television. On seeing himself on the screen: "Lot of energy. We got a lot of energy." Minutes later: "Look at this. It's all Trump all day long. That's why their ratings are through the roof." He's all about screens, like a toddler hooked on iPad. ...

    *- Donald Trump's Washington Post interview
    should make Republicans panic http://wpo.st/Q4gq1

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    "Skill set" like the "set" that has the US squander $2T in war spending, endure huge casualties, inflict massive collateral damage and is worse off than when Clinton voted for all of it.

    When the Donald calls a general or administration official inept he means the above.

    ilsm -> sanjait... , -1
    One so easily conned not allowed in Oval Office.

    Demalarkey. Crooked Hillary was conned like Colin Powell, the great equivocators.

    Her vote was the switch that turned it all on!

    Did she ever give a speech anywhere saying the Overseas Contingency Operations appropriation were bad? Has she ever proposed ending it all? Send links.

    But worse she equivocates about marked e-mails which at best show ignorance, and expects ignorance from the audience.

    Which is all right with the administration (DoJ) flying cover for her.

    ilsm -> EMichael... , -1
    HEH!

    Clinton voted for universal war and then as SecState implemented it bad and hard.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Hillary is so well qualified to send everything to Wall St and get US into regime change in the former Soviet Union

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's the rigging of our economy – the increasingly tight nexus between wealth and political power. Big money has been buying political clout to get laws and regulations that make big money even bigger." ..."
    "... Odds are that Clinton, now worth $100 million due to public service, will milk the system for all its worth, becoming the first to become a billionaire via public service. Reckoning? LOL! ..."
    "... Aren't we used to the robber barons running the joint, yet? Clinton endorsed by the in crowd, including water boarders. ..."
    "... Hillary is so well qualified to send everything to Wall St and get US into regime change in the former Soviet Union see how well it worked in Iraq, Afghanistan Libya... ..."
    "... Logisticians do planning with the ops guys, we are the guys that tell "strategists": "you don't have transport etc to get there..." Been doing a bit of 'thought exercising' on the fighting for Estonia under defending small countries is "just war" meme. I could see the Clintons installing a fascist in Talinn like they did in Kyiv....... ..."
    "... All because the democrats went from the party of perpetual small conventional profitable wars against third world guerillas and goatherds to taking on Russia run by evil. ..."
    "... Trump did not have Qaddafi or anyone else done! ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    JohnH, August 05, 2016 at 08:16 PM

    Robert Reich--Democratic Party needs to start reckoning with reality, too.

    "In a Gallup poll taken in mid-July, before the conventions, 82 percent said America was on the wrong track. In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll just before that, 56 percent said they preferred a candidate who would bring sweeping changes to the way the government functioned, no matter how unpredictable those changes might be.

    The major issue the public is reacting to isn't terrorism or racism. We didn't see these numbers after 9/11. We didn't even get these sorts of responses in the late 1960s, when American cities were torn by riots and when the Vietnam War was raging.

    It's the rigging of our economy – the increasingly tight nexus between wealth and political power. Big money has been buying political clout to get laws and regulations that make big money even bigger."

    Odds are that Clinton, now worth $100 million due to public service, will milk the system for all its worth, becoming the first to become a billionaire via public service. Reckoning? LOL!

    ilsm -> JohnH...
    Aren't we used to the robber barons running the joint, yet? Clinton endorsed by the in crowd, including water boarders.

    Hillary is so well qualified to send everything to Wall St and get US into regime change in the former Soviet Union see how well it worked in Iraq, Afghanistan Libya....

    I am betting on nuclear winter before climate disaster.

    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , -1
    Logisticians do planning with the ops guys, we are the guys that tell "strategists": "you don't have transport etc to get there..." Been doing a bit of 'thought exercising' on the fighting for Estonia under defending small countries is "just war" meme. I could see the Clintons installing a fascist in Talinn like they did in Kyiv.......

    Russia moves in to "protect" Russian nationals (the reason for NATO was so Russia would not move in to West Germany to protect socialists from US puppets).

    The US' deployable armor brigade arrives to kasserns smoldering, gets chewed up and the B-61 start falling.

    You could model a nuclear exchange that stops with a Red Army tank division irradiated.....

    I see it going 99 Red Balloons.

    All because the democrats went from the party of perpetual small conventional profitable wars against third world guerillas and goatherds to taking on Russia run by evil.

    ilsm -> ilsm... , -1
    Then the demalarkey* comes up with: if US don't start WW III the small countries will get their own nukes like Israel............

    Not much different than US holding on to the button, but throws out a new range of MAD thought exercises.

    *"Oh my!! Trump will let everyone get nukes!"

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    I do not want crooked Hillary followed by a junior military officer with the "football". What she knows about operation security and who advises her. Is quite troubling.

    Trump did not have Qaddafi or anyone else done!

    [Aug 08, 2016] The communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia – a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China

    Blowback for sleazy Barack Obama neocon policies is coming. And it will not be pretty...
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Patient Observer , August 7, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    Isn't it interesting that the communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia – a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China.

    July 1, China marked an important date on July 1. It was the 95th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. Chairman Xi Jinping addressed the solemn meeting devoted to this event. In addition to the praises of "Long live!" (And deservedly so, since the CCP has much to be proud of) there was Chairman Xi's speech which was short, but very important.

    "The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually collapsing, as is the US economy - it is all over for the new world order. So, it will never again be as it was before, in 10 years we will have a new world order in which the key will be the union of China and Russia. "

    http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/china-openly-offers-russia-alliance.html

    If the above translation is accurate I wonder what is meant by …key will be the union of China and Russia . In any event, it appears that ideology is not at the core of the unity; its something much deeper and more resilient. I offer that it is a shared view that embraces a realization that the world can no longer accept global hegemony from the West otherwise catastrophe is virtually certain in the form of (pick one or two): nuclear war, financial or ecological collapse. Their mission is basically to save the world from Western insanity which handily trumps anything that may separate them.

    And, I think that the Chinese and Russians are far too wise to seek global hegemony for themselves. The trick for them will be taking down the Western house of cards without triggering a catastrophic miscalculation by the West. …Whew, now time for an hot fudge sundae.

    marknesop , August 7, 2016 at 8:28 pm
    I think it's mutual disgust with the USA's blatant and shameless rigging of the playing field in every contest. If America can't win, then it's a loss for all of mankind. And it blabbers constantly and loudly about its values, and then does things which completely contradict those supposed values, and never appears to notice anything unusual or untoward about it.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Obeidallah Goes Berserk After CNN Guest Recalls Khan Ties to Clintons

    Notable quotes:
    "... There's no question that the guy was not just picked off a list of "Gold Star Muslim Families." And everyone who spoke at that convention was a Clinton supporter; that's one of the main reasons for the convention. But a better candidate, a candidate with better character and intellect, would never have fallen into such an obvious trap. ..."
    "... I hope Trump runs ads that say "Why did Hillary have a guy --with Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi connections, an attorney who specializes in helping Arab Muslims into our country on greencards and visas, ..."
    "... What often gets lost in the White Water, Castle Grande real estate kiting scam discussion, is that the original funds AND the monies for multiple inflated resale of those properties came from the Madison Savings and Loan, in cahoots with the State of Arkansas (Clintons cohorts) raiding a Federal fund (HUD) meant for low income housing. ..."
    "... After embezzling and laudering hundreds of millions, they never built ANY low income housing for the poor. That's the nature of the Clinton's compassion for the poor. ..."
    "... clinton got millions from 'sharia law education group' ..."
    "... With the help of republicans demonizing Trump. Instead of talking about Clinton and all the dirt, the lies, the treasonous behavior, the e-mail scandal, her lying to the Benghazi families, etc. etc. Instead they keep harping on what they claim Trump said. In other words republicans going out of their way to help Clinton. ..."
    "... More and more Khan is being exposed as a plant and a stooge for Hillary and the Democrat Party. And the Leftist media, an embedded wing of the Democrat Party, will not tolerate us exposing their lies, hypocrisies and false narratives. Which is all the more incentive to keep ON exposing them. ..."
    "... We will have to deal with Trump's verbal antics, and take him to task, but we MUST see to it he is elected President. The Republican Party be damned! Our country is at stake. Khan will not be the person to decide this election, and we will not let him have that power. ..."
    "... All the media types think "Trump going after the gold star muslim family" is hurting him. I don't think this has any effect on voters at all. The [neo]liberal playbook is to put a little girl in the boxing ring to throw punches, and if she's hit back they scream "how could you hit a little girl???" It's all theater and all very old shtick. I think real voters know this and are unaffected. ..."
    "... Ever notice how the truth causes [neo]liberals to go batshit crazy? It's like sunlight to a vampire.... ..."
    "... FACTS: A [neo]liberals worst enemy ..."
    "... The Clinton Campaign has held up a Muslim Human Shield. You are no longer allowed to criticize them on "refugees" or "immigration". ..."
    "... What the f does making sure we vet Syrian refugees have to do with the member of the Muslim brotherhood's losing a son in the first Irag war have to do with anything? The fact is the DNC dragged these poor people out there to try and smear Trump just because he wants to make sure no terrorist get in with these refugees. I believe the Khan's son was a US citizen, so what does this have to do with Syrian refugees, this is how the left lies time and time again. ..."
    "... The last sentence says everything you need to know about [neo[liberals. Bravo to Bauer for standing up to this ignorant [neo]liberal Troll from CNN. You can count down 3, 2, 1....until the screaming [neo]liberal goes off after hearing facts. ..."
    "... The newest form of ignorance out there Knowing what the Clinton campaign is Deliberately doing and making excuses and steering the viewers away from the reality that comes with common sense. Trump may not be the perfect candidate but sure as the Good lord loves me, Hillary represents Satan And everything wrong Corrupted and evil about humanity. If you vote for that woman (and I don't care if you write in someone else) but if you vote for that woman you are an accomplice to every evil the Democratic party now represents and that is just plain NO BS Common Sense. ..."
    "... "You're like he worked for Hillary Clinton like that somehow makes him unqualified to speak about his son-" It simply makes everything he says suspect. ..."
    "... I am sick of this. Trump criticized Khan, and it turned out he (Khan) is a Clinton insider, working for a group of lawyers who did the Clinton's frickin' taxes... ..."
    "... When you participate in a partisan attack--as the Khan's, Pat Smith and Charles Wood have done -- then you're opening yourself to a partisan counter-attack. Having no defense for the deaths in Benghazi, the Hillary surrogates are reduced to claiming that the Khan's are neutral territory. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. ..."
    "... If he cared about the memory of his son, he would shut the f**k up. His son didn't join the Army to support Hillary Clinton. Just another case of a Cindy Sheehan. Hillary voted on the war, because her independent research convinced her that regime change was necessary. ..."
    "... Truth and facts are by definition "smears" on the Clintons... After all these years I have a pretty good grasp just exactly who and what they are... What I do not understand is how nearly half of the electorate in this country continues to drink the lemonade... ..."
    "... We must distinguish between the son, who died in the service of this country, and the father, who has his own life and agenda. Trump was wrong if he criticized the son. The father is fair game. ..."
    newsbusters.org

    Appearing on Tuesday's New Day, liberal Daily Beast contributor and recurring CNN guest Dean Obeidallah went ballistic after a fellow guest and Donald Trump supporter recalled that Khizr Khan has a history of ties to the Clintons as the immigration expert was an employee of the law firm Hogan Lovells LLP, which not only has represented the Clinton Foundation but also worked on immigration cases involving the controversial EB-5 visa program.

    After former South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer recalled Khan's connections to the Clintons, the two got into a heated debate as Obeidallah incredulously accused the Trump supporter of "smearing" Khan by merely introducing his links to the Clintons into the political conversation.

    At 8:30 a.m. ET, Bauer brought up Khan's ties to the Clintons:

    Mr. Khan worked for the Clintons. There is a direct connection. Nobody wants to engage in that because of the loss of a child, which is a terrible thing, but again, he is continuing to push this, too. He is making it political, and there is a bigger tie to the Clintons. He's worked for them. He's worked for the EB-5 program, which is controversial.

    The South Carolina Republican added:

    Senator Grassley even pointed out there are inconsistencies and really not checks and balances in a program that's let too many folks in that are questionable, individuals that probably should never have been allowed in our country.

    robert108 > bkeyser

    He works for her, then shows up at her convention and lies about her opponent. He smeared himself by his lack of integrity. Furthermore, papa khan is a sharia advocate, standing there with his good little hijab wearing sharia wife, and waves the Constitution, as if he believes in it. A complete crock, designed to serve his employer, Hillary.

    bkeyser Mod > robert108

    There's no question that the guy was not just picked off a list of "Gold Star Muslim Families." And everyone who spoke at that convention was a Clinton supporter; that's one of the main reasons for the convention. But a better candidate, a candidate with better character and intellect, would never have fallen into such an obvious trap. You can blame Clinton, you can blame the Khan's, but this is a story only because of Trump.

    CruzAmnestiedHortence > bkeyser

    I hope it remains a story.

    I hope Trump runs ads that say "Why did Hillary have a guy --with Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi connections, an attorney who specializes in helping Arab Muslims into our country on greencards and visas, who has written and lectured admiringly of the "superiority" of Sharia law-- in a prime time slot at her convention? And why is he carrying water for her? Could it be that this Jihadist in a suit has financial and ideological interests in supporting her policy of importing millions more Muslims?

    Might Mr Khan understand that Trump policy objectives conflict with his professional AND ideological goals?

    Check out Breitbart now before they change it.....ALL the Benghazi mothers and widows are laying wood to Hillary right now. Ugly. Hillary is going to LOSE this one eventually. Khan has already said he wants out of the discussion. The Democrats will want out next.

    Don Meaker > bkeyser

    If you look at what Trump actually said, it was unexceptional. The outrageous part is what the media shills are saying.

    Gary Hall Mod > bkeyser

    Certainly the broad electorate should be well aware (and, of course they are not) that many many friends and associates of the Clinton's have been charged and found guilty - or plead guilty of crimes. I think that there were 15 in the Whitewater development scam alone (oh, did the Clinton's ever pay all those that lost all of their investment purchasing lots?). And then there were another batch in this lot:

    https://www.justice.gov/archiv...

    And for a little walk down memory lane (and I apologize, looks like the video has been taken down - perhaps someone can locate it) -- PBS's Frontline production - "The Fixers."

    (;~/ gary

    DaRueStir > Gary Hall

    What often gets lost in the White Water, Castle Grande real estate kiting scam discussion, is that the original funds AND the monies for multiple inflated resale of those properties came from the Madison Savings and Loan, in cahoots with the State of Arkansas (Clintons cohorts) raiding a Federal fund (HUD) meant for low income housing.

    After embezzling and laudering hundreds of millions, they never built ANY low income housing for the poor. That's the nature of the Clinton's compassion for the poor.

    physicsnut
    bkeyser 4 days ago

    // hmmm - clinton got millions from 'sharia law education group'

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/new...

    // ann - wrath of Khan

    more stuff:

    // turned on shortwave - Shoebat was on Rick Wiles

    Yip Yap

    FACT: Trump spoke highly of Captain Khan and his scacrifice. But, NOT the outrageous rants of the dead soldier's father.

    FACT: Khizr M. Khan is a very rich Muslim attorney with DEEP ties to Saudi Arabia.

    FACT: Khan is an immigration lawyer who specializes in a highly controversial program accused of letting RICH Muslims buy their way into the U.S.

    FACT: The E-2 and EB-5 are two of the most notoriously abused visa categories that essentially allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way to U.S. residency, and possibly citizenship, with a relatively modest investment,

    FACT: Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members.

    FACT: Khan has now taken his website down coz it exposes his hypocrisy.

    FACT: Khan has written extensively about Sharia Law and wants to replace America's Constitution with it.

    FACT: Khan has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

    ohio granny > bill

    With the help of republicans demonizing Trump. Instead of talking about Clinton and all the dirt, the lies, the treasonous behavior, the e-mail scandal, her lying to the Benghazi families, etc. etc. Instead they keep harping on what they claim Trump said. In other words republicans going out of their way to help Clinton.

    DanB_Tiffin

    Who is Khizr Khan, the father of a fallen US soldier?
    01Aug2016 by Clarice Feldman
    http://www.americanthinker.com...
    "a Muslim Cindy Sheehan playing on people's sympathies to foster a Democratic Party political agenda."

    Simon Battle > DanB_Tiffin

    The GOPe, rather than point out Khan's radical jihadi connections, are spending their time to further divide in the Republican party. Who's side is the GOPe on? The Republican party, we the people, have made our choice. We have chosen Donald Trump because he best represents us, the Republican party. It's time for the GOPe to coalesce around the Republican party or get the hell out of the way.

    ohio granny > Simon Battle

    Yep helping the democRATs slander Trump almost like they want Trump to lose. They are nothing but hypocrites doing the democRATs dirty work.

    CruzAmnestiedHortence > ohio granny

    The GOPe went into "vandalize Trump's campaign" mode as soon as they realized they couldn't steal the nomination 3 weeks ago.

    JValjean > DanB_Tiffin

    Moslem Americans with compelling personal narratives, i.e. losing a child on the battlefield, do not have an unassailable right to haughtily lecture other Americans on what's proper Americanism, that includes presidential candidates. If "Moslem Gold Star Families" are indeed not unicorns, perhaps there is a better and less controversial avatar in that community to legitimately promote its political agenda other than the baggage laden Mr. Khan.

    ZombieProcesses > JValjean

    The Clintonistas were being lazy. No need not to be as the press (and the globalistas in the GOP) will focus on the prey, not the bait.

    twfuller • 5 days ago

    More and more Khan is being exposed as a plant and a stooge for Hillary and the Democrat Party. And the Leftist media, an embedded wing of the Democrat Party, will not tolerate us exposing their lies, hypocrisies and false narratives. Which is all the more incentive to keep ON exposing them.

    We will have to deal with Trump's verbal antics, and take him to task, but we MUST see to it he is elected President. The Republican Party be damned! Our country is at stake. Khan will not be the person to decide this election, and we will not let him have that power.

    pbtruth 5 days ago
    Never thought that the Clinton News Network would admit that just being associated with the Clintons was a smear on your character. I always thought it was but I now see CNN agrees.

    Thumbnail

    PJ1193

    What part of Mr Khan calling Trump a racist then wrapping himself in his dead sons memory to shut off a response to his personal smear of Trump not a sick thing to do. We all know what this is about and all this faux outrage by the left is pure bull$#!+.....Plus Mr Khan is a radical Sharia defending Islamist on top of everything else, pure phony.

    Kaiser

    Khan is a Demorat operative. Get it, Clinton media hacks?

    toledofan

    The entire Khan event was staged and the made into political fodder. Right or wrong Trump took it at face value and defended his honor. The Khans should have declined but their is no doubt they were motivated by politics as well.

    Russ Neal

    All the media types think "Trump going after the gold star muslim family" is hurting him. I don't think this has any effect on voters at all. The [neo]liberal playbook is to put a little girl in the boxing ring to throw punches, and if she's hit back they scream "how could you hit a little girl???" It's all theater and all very old shtick. I think real voters know this and are unaffected.

    Biff Wellington

    Ever notice how the truth causes [neo]liberals to go batshit crazy? It's like sunlight to a vampire....

    Cajunkingkong

    FACTS: A [neo]liberals worst enemy

    Rob

    [Neo]Liberalism is a disease. This so-called journalist just proved it, once again.

    Smackalicious

    The Clinton Campaign has held up a Muslim Human Shield. You are no longer allowed to criticize them on "refugees" or "immigration".

    fastfood

    The mans' parents certainly experienced the great loss of a loved one. No parent should ever expect to have to bury their child. It's supposed to be the other way around.

    But Speaking of "frankly" and "Blunt" and political so-called correctness aside; it was not the parents who experience the "sacrifice". It was their son who selflessly made that ultimate sacrifice. He could have chosen any one of a million other professions. Instead, he selflessly chose to serve to protect his country, his way of life and to help other folks to achieve the same. And as many before him, it was [he] who made the ultimate sacrifice attempting to accomplish that noble goal.

    But no. The man's parents did not make the "sacrifice". To falsely claim this soldiers sad and ultimate "sacrifice" in the name of his Country is tantamount to claiming to have [earned] a Medal of Honor because someone else in the family happened to have earned it. Trump may seemed to have made light of the soldiers selfless sacrifice, but I see and hear the soldiers' Father do at least as bad day in and day out, and day after day.

    Timothy Riley

    What the f does making sure we vet Syrian refugees have to do with the member of the Muslim brotherhood's losing a son in the first Irag war have to do with anything? The fact is the DNC dragged these poor people out there to try and smear Trump just because he wants to make sure no terrorist get in with these refugees. I believe the Khan's son was a US citizen, so what does this have to do with Syrian refugees, this is how the left lies time and time again.

    BLM=TERRORIST GROUP ✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ • 4 days ago

    "BAUER: Yeah, facts matter, but not to you."

    The last sentence says everything you need to know about [neo[liberals. Bravo to Bauer for standing up to this ignorant [neo]liberal Troll from CNN. You can count down 3, 2, 1....until the screaming [neo]liberal goes off after hearing facts.

    HAMMERBOX

    The newest form of ignorance out there Knowing what the Clinton campaign is Deliberately doing and making excuses and steering the viewers away from the reality that comes with common sense. Trump may not be the perfect candidate but sure as the Good lord loves me, Hillary represents Satan And everything wrong Corrupted and evil about humanity. If you vote for that woman (and I don't care if you write in someone else) but if you vote for that woman you are an accomplice to every evil the Democratic party now represents and that is just plain NO BS Common Sense.

    However if you are a die hard democrat whom has voted in Murderers, KKK Grand Poobah's, Alcoholics and adulterers in the past I don't forsee you being capable of not doing the same with Hillary because common sense is lacking. TRUTH

    lars1701c • 5 days ago

    I am voting for Trump but even i agree its a uphill battle against the rampant corruption of hillary and the DNC but if Trump does win its going to be so delicious to see the republicans come crawling back to him. Oh it'll be fun to watch obama give Trump that tour of the WH that every outgoing president gives. I would pay real money to be a fly on that wall :D

    Phil Christensen

    "You're like he worked for Hillary Clinton like that somehow makes him unqualified to speak about his son-" It simply makes everything he says suspect.

    bluepeahen

    I am sick of this. Trump criticized Khan, and it turned out he (Khan) is a Clinton insider, working for a group of lawyers who did the Clinton's frickin' taxes...

    menloman

    When you participate in a partisan attack--as the Khan's, Pat Smith and Charles Wood have done -- then you're opening yourself to a partisan counter-attack. Having no defense for the deaths in Benghazi, the Hillary surrogates are reduced to claiming that the Khan's are neutral territory. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

    Zero Flash

    Mr. Khan is a progressive hypocrite. If he cared about the memory of his son, he would shut the f**k up. His son didn't join the Army to support Hillary Clinton. Just another case of a Cindy Sheehan. Hillary voted on the war, because her independent research convinced her that regime change was necessary. Check the record. Mr. Khan is using the death of his son to pad in bank account and he should be ashamed. Like I always say, "There is no hypocrite like a progressive hypocrtie."

    Mark Merritt

    Truth and facts are by definition "smears" on the Clintons... After all these years I have a pretty good grasp just exactly who and what they are... What I do not understand is how nearly half of the electorate in this country continues to drink the lemonade...

    Pretty clearly, the story of the Pied Piper is true... Or, perhaps, it involves lemmings... I'm north of 75 and probably will not be around when it all crashes in... I just have great concern for my children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren... Not in any way comfortable with the country in which I foresee them living...

    jimc

    Now that telling the truth about a person is considered a "smear" the [neoliberal] left proves its intent to sink deeper and deeper into utter depravity.

    Bik Fizbyn

    Funny how they want to call Trump a bigot and a Nazi yet there's this.

    Letter to Lieutenant General Artur Phleps of August 6, 1943,

    "I do not wish that through the folly and narrowness of mind of an isolated person, a single one of the tens of thousands of these brave volunteers and their families should suffer from ill humor and feel deprived of the rights which have been granted to them. …

    Moreover, I forbid the jokes and facetious remarks about the Moslem volunteers which are so much enjoyed in groups of comrades. There will no longer be the least discussion about the special rights afforded to the Moslems in these circles." - Heinrich Himmler

    Doesn't sound like Trump to me.

    Proud Skeptic

    We must distinguish between the son, who died in the service of this country, and the father, who has his own life and agenda. Trump was wrong if he criticized the son. The father is fair game.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Clinton-Trump Neoliberalism a Media Critique

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Muppet Show ..."
    "... Andrew Stewart is a documentary film maker and reporter who lives outside Providence. His film, AARON BRIGGS AND THE HMS GASPEE, about the historical role of Brown University in the slave trade, is available for purchase on Amazon Instant Video or on DVD. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    July 21, 2016

    Bill Clinton, who is certainly savvy of the media as an engine of electioneering, knew exactly what he was doing when he called Donald Trump up in spring 2015 to tell him he might have a shot as a political candidate. Clinton knew that the public had as much interest in his wife as a chance for staph infection. Try as they might since 2012, they never were able to tap into a public interest in the idea of President Hillary. The book tours were stilted, boring affairs that would make Tolstoy complain about the length. The pathetic attempts by David Brock and Media Matters to imitate Alexander Cockburn's brand of media critique were the internet equivalent of an inflatable sex toy. Sidney Blumenthal's ridiculous impersonation of Arthur Schlesinger Jr., going on television to lecture about the implosion of the Republicans in comparison to the collapse of the Whigs and implying, by extension, that his candidate was akin to Lincoln, had all the sincerity of Bugs Bunny planting a kiss on Yosemite Sam.

    A lifelong union man and Vietnam vet friend of mine put it best, "It's her election to lose and she is doing a phenomenal job of it." Hell, an ornery New Deal-Great Society Pentagon Keynesian with a harsh Brooklyn accent and all the style of Statler and Waldorf on The Muppet Show nearly wiped the floor of the electoral stage with her upholstered behind! This was National Lampoon's Presidential Campaign from the start.

    ... ... ...

    Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:

    -How will this impact ownership?

    -How will this impact our advertisers?

    -How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?

    -What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?

    -Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?

    The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve their advertisers.

    Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension crisis" narrative put on the NewsHour broadcasts that everyone thought were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling "markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net. Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:

    -How will this impact ownership?

    -How will this impact our advertisers?

    -How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?

    -What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?

    -Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?

    The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve their advertisers.

    Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension crisis" narrative put on the NewsHour broadcasts that everyone thought were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling "markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net. Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:

    -How will this impact ownership?

    -How will this impact our advertisers?

    -How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?

    -What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?

    -Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?

    The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve their advertisers.

    Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension crisis" narrative put on the NewsHour broadcasts that everyone thought were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling "markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net. Trump is a rear-guard assault, though it seems now with Mike Pence on the ticket Wall Street feels more comfortable. The media props him up in the way it propped up "terrorists" to justify the militarizing of the police and the shredding of the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. He scares well-intentioned but still-racist white liberals into a self-aggrandizing pity party wherein they will say anything and everything about how we just must elect Hillary Clinton. They fail to recognize and accept that Clinton has been targeting the Social Security system for privatization for decades, best illustrated in a fantastic essay by Robin Blackburn I have been re-reading and circulating on an almost daily basis this year. The Democratic Party platform plank supporting Social Security seems as adamantine as wet toilet paper, capital wants that public resource on Wall Street and Obama himself has been making moves over the last eight years to actualize that plan. Trump scares the sheep into the wolf's den while Bernie Sanders barks at them should they go astray. And Trump is only able to do that with the aid and support of a corporate media that throws up a farcical wall of integrity and objectivity so to actualize it.

    This is the synthesis of Trump and Clinton in the montage Eisenstein described. Both are pro-war, anti-Social Security, racist, misogynist, awful people. One and the same in almost every sense.

    Andrew Stewart is a documentary film maker and reporter who lives outside Providence. His film, AARON BRIGGS AND THE HMS GASPEE, about the historical role of Brown University in the slave trade, is available for purchase on Amazon Instant Video or on DVD.

    [Aug 08, 2016] the idea of voting third party to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the two evils

    economistsview.typepad.com

    JohnH said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...

    Yeah, right! With Gary Johnson, Libertarian, nipping at his heels, a surge in third party voting is going to help the Donald! [NOT!] If anything, discouraging people from voting third party is going to help Trump.

    But apparently Fred C. Dobbs doesn't like the idea of voting third party to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the two evils...

    [Aug 08, 2016] Donald Trump slams globalization in economic speech

    CNNPolitics.com

    Monessen, Pennsylvania (CNN)Donald Trump on Tuesday trashed U.S. trade policies that he said have encouraged globalization and wiped out American manufacturing jobs in a speech in which he promised to herald a U.S. economic resurgence.

    Speaking before a colorful backdrop of crushed aluminum cans, Trump pitched himself at a factory in Rust Belt Pennsylvania as a change agent who would bring back manufacturing jobs and end the "rigged system," which he argued presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton represents.

    Trump promised sweeping changes if elected -- including killing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement -- and urged voters to be wary of a "campaign of fear and intimidation" aimed at swaying them away from his populist message.

    "Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization -- moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas," he said, reading from prepared remarks and using teleprompters. "Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy. I used to be one of them. Hate to say it, but I used to be one of them."

    Trump repeatedly slammed Clinton for supporting free trade agreements and argued that under a Clinton presidency "nothing is going to change."

    "The inner cities will remain poor. the factories will remain closed," Trump said at Alumisource, a raw material producer for the aluminum and steel industries in Monessen, Pennsylvania, an hour south of Pittsburgh. "The special interests will remain firmly in control."

    Echoing Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Trump also argued that Clinton has "voted for virtually every trade agreement" and accused her of supporting trade deals that have hurt U.S. workers.

    Trump's speech drew a swift rebuke Tuesday from opposing ends of the political spectrum.

    The Chamber of Commerce, the big business lobby that traditionally backs Republicans, issued a swift statement warning that Trump's proposed policies would herald another U.S. recession.

    "Under Trump's trade plans, we would see higher prices, fewer jobs, and a weaker economy," the group tweeted, linking to a lengthier article warning that a recession would hit the U.S. "within the first year" of a Trump presidency.

    "I'd love for him to explain how all of that fits with his talk about 'America First,'" Clinton said in a speech last week.

    Trump moved quickly on Tuesday to insulate himself from the criticism from his rival's campaign and others opposed to his vision of radically changing U.S. economic policies.

    Trump repeatedly warned Americans to gird themselves against a "campaign of fear" he argued Clinton and others are running against him -- a notable criticism given the accusations that several of his policies, including a ban on Muslims and a plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, have played to voters' fears.

    The de facto GOP nominee promised to instruct his treasury secretary to "label China a currency manipulator" and to order the U.S. trade representative to bring lawsuits against China at the World Trade Organization and in U.S. courts to combat what he characterized as unfair trade policies.

    And he also warned of potentially levying tariffs on imports from China and other countries, reviving a common theme of his campaign.

    Trump has frequently argued on the stump that the U.S. is getting "killed" by other countries on trade and threatened to raise certain tariffs on China and Mexico up to 35%.

    Early on in his yearlong campaign, Trump singled out specific American companies -- notably Ford and Nabisco -- for plans to move some of their manufacturing plants abroad.

    Slamming Nabisco for building a factory in Mexico, Trump has vowed he's "not eating Oreos anymore."

    A senior Trump aide told CNN earlier on Tuesday the speech would be "the most detailed economic address he has given so far."

    Trump has frequently lamented the economic slowdown working-class communities in America have faced as a result of a drop in American manufacturing, particularly in the last decade.

    [Aug 07, 2016] In Response to Trump, Another Dangerous Movement Appears by Matt Taibbi

    Financial oligarchy now is really afraid of losing power... They have weak neocon stooge Hillary -- an old woman with frail health, blood clots in the brain and probably other unknown to public ailments. And will fight back tooth and nail to preserve it. Like trump said -- expect the elections to be rigged.
    Jun 30, 2016 | Rolling Stone

    In "How American Politics Went Insane," Brookings Institute Fellow Jonathan Rauch spends many thousands of words arguing for the reinvigoration of political machines, as a means of keeping the ape-citizen further from power.

    He portrays the public as a gang of nihilistic loonies determined to play mailbox baseball with the gears of state.

    "Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country's last universally acceptable form of bigotry," he writes, before concluding:

    "Our most pressing political problem today is that the country abandoned the establishment, not the other way around."

    Rauch's audacious piece, much like Andrew Sullivan's clarion call for a less-democratic future in New York magazine ("Democracies end when they are too democratic"), is not merely a warning about the threat posed to civilization by demagogues like Donald Trump. It's a piece that praises Boss Tweed's Tammany Hall (it was good for the Irish!), the smoke-filled room (good for "brokering complex compromises"), and pork (it helps "glue Congress together" by giving members "a kind of currency to trade").

    Rauch even chokes multiple times on the word "corruption," seeming reluctant to even mention the concept without shrouding it in flurries of caveats. When he talks about the "ever-present potential for corruption" that political middlemen pose, he's quick to note the converse also applies (emphasis mine):

    "Overreacting to the threat of corruption is just as harmful. Political contributions, for example, look unseemly, but they play a vital role as political bonding agents."

    The basic thrust is that shadowy back-room mechanisms, which Rauch absurdly describes as being relics of a lost era, have a positive role and must be brought back.

    He argues back-room relationships and payoffs at least committed the actors involved to action. Meanwhile, all the transparency and sunshine and access the public is always begging for leads mainly to gridlock and frustration.

    In one passage, Rauch blames gridlock on the gerrymandering that renders most congressional elections meaningless. In a scandal that should get more media play, Democrats and Republicans have divvied up territory to make most House districts "safe" for one party or another. Only about 10 to 20 percent of races are really contested in any given year (one estimate in 2014 described an incredible 408 of the 435 races as "noncompetitive").

    As Rauch notes, meaningless general elections make primaries the main battlegrounds. This puts pressure on party candidates to drift to extremes...

    ... ... ...

    But it's all bull.

    Voters in America not only aren't over-empowered, they've for decades now been almost totally disenfranchised, subjects of one of the more brilliant change-suppressing systems ever invented.

    We have periodic elections, which leave citizens with the feeling of self-rule. But in reality people are only allowed to choose between candidates carefully screened by wealthy donors. Nobody without a billion dollars and the approval of a half-dozen giant media companies has any chance at high office.

    People have no other source of influence. Unions have been crushed. Nobody has any job security. Main Street institutions that once allowed people to walk down the road to sort things out with other human beings have been phased out. In their place now rest distant, unfeeling global bureaucracies.

    Has a health insurance company wrongly denied your sick child coverage? Good luck even getting someone on the phone to talk it over, much less get it sorted out. Your neighborhood bank, once a relatively autonomous mechanism for stimulating the local economy, is now a glorified ATM machine with limited ability to respond to a community's most basic financial concerns.

    One of the underpublicized revelations of the financial crisis, for instance, was that millions of Americans found themselves unable to get answers to a simple questions like, "Who holds the note to my house?"

    People want more power over their own lives. They want to feel some connection to society. Most particularly, they don't want to be dictated to by distant bureaucrats who don't seem to care what they're going through, and think they know what's best for everyone.

    These are legitimate concerns. Unfortunately, they came out in this past year in the campaign of Donald Trump, who'd exposed a tiny flaw in the system.

    People are still free to vote, and some peculiarities in the structure of the commercial media, combined with mountains of public anger, conspired to put one of the two parties in the hands of a coverage-devouring billionaire running on a "Purge the Scum" platform.

    Donald Trump is dangerous because as president, he'd likely have little respect for law. But a gang of people whose metaphor for society is "We are the white cells, voters are the disease" is comparably scary in its own banal, less click-generating way.

    These self-congratulating cognoscenti could have looked at the events of the last year and wondered why people were so angry with them, and what they could do to make government work better for the population.

    Instead, their first instinct is to dismiss voter concerns as baseless, neurotic bigotry and to assume that the solution is to give Washington bureaucrats even more leeway to blow off the public. In the absurdist comedy that is American political life, this is the ultimate anti-solution to the unrest of the last year, the mathematically perfect wrong ending.

    Trump is going to lose this election, then live on as the reason for an emboldened, even less-responsive oligarchy. And you thought this election season couldn't get any worse.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Is hillary a female phychopath

    Notable quotes:
    "... It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 5:06 pm
    Sayyyyyy…..didn't someone here theorize, right after the news broke that the DNC's emails had been hacked, and Hillary blamed the Russians so people would forget what she and the rest of the coven did to Sanders, that the actual attacker was more likely someone much closer to home?

    Enter the Disgruntled US Intelligence Worker . According to US government whistleblower William Binney, somebody in the NSA released Hillary's and the DNC's emails, infuriated at Teflon Hillary's non-stick escape from any accountability for her hijinks.

    The headline suggests he knows, but the body of the story suggests he is just speculating, though. But it raises a valid point – the NSA probably has all those emails, including the 30,000 she deleted on the grounds that they were 'personal'.

    Cortes , August 5, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    The following piece by Andrew Napolitano speculates on what might have triggered a disgruntled NSA person to leak materials:

    http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/lessons-from-the-deep-state/

    At some point between now and November, is anyone in the media going to put the questions about the likelihood of NSA possession of, and therefore ease of FBI access thereto, the "missing" emails to Director Comey? Or will TPTB just smile grimly and pray no further leaks arrive to shatter the Narnian alternative reality world they inhabit?

    marknesop , August 6, 2016 at 9:16 am

    What an excellent article, quite a bit more authoritative than the one I cited although it helpfully offers the same source, and it shapes some more pieces of the puzzle which now make more sense. The compromising of intelligence personnels' identities was something that, to the best of my knowledge, was never discussed in any stories on her email peccadilloes. Intelligence agencies quite properly despise anyone who casually blows the cover of its operatives. It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with.

    Thanks for posting that revealing corroborative piece.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Wapo neocon coulumnit Appelbaum goes after Trump

    From a pro-Russian blog... Applebaum is essentially a tool...
    Notable quotes:
    "... While Applebaum does not think that Trump has a direct relationship to Putin, the American Presidential Candidate has been using lines from Russian propaganda, which suggests that he is probably getting the information from his staff; ..."
    "... I couldn't watch it; as soon as I saw Applebaum's horsey face come up on the screen I felt queasy and had to turn it off. I did stay long enough to hear her characterize Manafort's work for Viktor Yanukovych as perhaps the defining moment in his career, working for Ukrainian oligarchs. ..."
    "... Apfelbaum's hatred of Trump, and that of Atlanticists, stems from the fact that Trump does not share the Atlanticists' aggressive foreign policy agenda. The founding tenet and pillar of Atlanticism – is implacable hostility to Russia. Trump deviates from that, hence the reason why Trump is so loathed and viewed as a heretic by Atlanticists. ..."
    "... Well, she wrote a book about the gulags which received 'critical acclaim'. She is married to Radislaw Sikorski, onetime Polish Foreign Minister and who was once under consideration for NATO Secretary-General, and who is now a member of Petro Poroshenko's 'Foreign Advisory Council'. She hates Russia as if she were a native Pole. And that's…about it. She loved Georgie Bush enough to bear his children if he had asked, and in general she is a big fan of America kicking sand in everybody's face all around the world and making them eat dirt with its big, powerful military. As I said, she is a diehard conservative – but these are strange times, and the Republican candidate has refused to say how much he loves Israel and hates Russia, while there is by far a better chance that America will return to its ass-kicking ways under Hillary Clinton, so that's the way Annie is leaning this time around. ..."
    "... Not to mention the numerous sources of information on how Israel influences US foreign policy and how often Satanyahu flies to Washington to lecture O'Bomber on what he's supposed to do. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Warren , August 3, 2016 at 4:31 pm
    Published on 2 Aug 2016
    What You Need To Know:

    "Trump is surrounded by people close to Russia in a way that is very unusual not only in American politics but in American business as well;"

    While Applebaum does not think that Trump has a direct relationship to Putin, the American Presidential Candidate has been using lines from Russian propaganda, which suggests that he is probably getting the information from his staff;

    Applebaum says that it is rare for another country to influence U.S. politics, and Trump's campaign was only interested in the Ukraine platform and not much else;

    DNC hack: "the use of illicitly stolen information to affect and shape politics is something that the Kremlin has been working on for a decade."

    "He is surrounded by people close to Russia in a way that is very unusual not only in American politics but in American business as well," says Anne Applebaum, an award-winning author and Washington Post columnist, when speaking about Donald Trump and his entourage. Paul Manafort and Carter Page , two individuals who manage and advise Trump, both have ties to Russia.

    While Applebaum does not think that Trump has a direct relationship to Putin, the American Presidential Candidate has been using lines from Russian propaganda, which suggests that he is probably getting the information from his staff.

    "He seems to have a special interest in Russia and Ukraine. I'm guessing because of who's around him." Applebaum says that it is rare for another country to influence U.S. politics, and Trump's campaign was only interested in the Ukraine platform and not much else.

    Applebaum also touches upon the recent DNC hacks and says that all fingers point at Russia: "the use of illicitly stolen information to affect and shape politics is something that the Kremlin has been working on for a decade."

    Hromadske's Nataliya Gumenyuk spoke to Anne Applebaum, award-winning author and Washington Post columnist via Skype on July 31st, 2016.

    marknesop , August 3, 2016 at 5:07 pm
    I couldn't watch it; as soon as I saw Applebaum's horsey face come up on the screen I felt queasy and had to turn it off. I did stay long enough to hear her characterize Manafort's work for Viktor Yanukovych as perhaps the defining moment in his career, working for Ukrainian oligarchs.

    Somebody better let Tony "shirtfront" Abbott know that he might be establishing the defining moment in his career. Because that's what he's doing; working for Ukrainian oligarchs. And Applebaum did not seem to intend it as a compliment. Mustn't forget Tony "War Criminal" Blair, or Anders "Fogh of War" Fogh Rasmussen.

    The Democrats and their supporters – and we should remember there was a time when Annie Applebaum would not cross the street to spit on Hillary Clinton if she burst into flames, because Annie is as Republican as they come – have to keep up the noise about Putin hacking the DNC so that voters do not ask, "Yeah, but is the information that was released true? And why do political figures have a right to hide that stuff from us? Don't they work for us?"

    Warren , August 3, 2016 at 5:44 pm
    Apfelbaum is far more restrained in this interview, than she is on her twitter feed and her Washington Post column. Where she repeatedly insinuates that Trump is a Russian agent, plant, spy or a "Siberian candidate".

    Tony "the Geordie" Abbott, Tony "JP Morgan" Blair and Anders Fogh "cartoons" Rasmussen are all good and noble Atlanticist, therefore one cannot equate them with Paul Manafort – a professional influence peddler. This how Apfelbaum would rationalise the difference and draw a distinction.

    Whether Apfelbaum is a Republican or Democrat, I don't know. She has worked outside the US most of her career and adult life, her interests are foreign affairs. And when it comes to foreign policy, the two US parties pursue exactly the same policies and objectives – that of expanding US power and maintaining US ascendency.

    Apfelbaum's hatred of Trump, and that of Atlanticists, stems from the fact that Trump does not share the Atlanticists' aggressive foreign policy agenda. The founding tenet and pillar of Atlanticism – is implacable hostility to Russia. Trump deviates from that, hence the reason why Trump is so loathed and viewed as a heretic by Atlanticists.

    Trump's opinions and statements on Russia, Ukraine, Crimea and NATO has made Atlanticists apoplectic – as any US-Russia detente or rapprochement would ruin the careers of countless Atlanticist DC policy wonks, hacks, academics, and propagandists.

    Northern Star , August 3, 2016 at 5:43 pm
    So *exactly* what are the credentials of this Jewess insofar as Russia is concerned..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Applebaum
    marknesop , August 3, 2016 at 7:37 pm
    Well, she wrote a book about the gulags which received 'critical acclaim'. She is married to Radislaw Sikorski, onetime Polish Foreign Minister and who was once under consideration for NATO Secretary-General, and who is now a member of Petro Poroshenko's 'Foreign Advisory Council'. She hates Russia as if she were a native Pole. And that's…about it. She loved Georgie Bush enough to bear his children if he had asked, and in general she is a big fan of America kicking sand in everybody's face all around the world and making them eat dirt with its big, powerful military. As I said, she is a diehard conservative – but these are strange times, and the Republican candidate has refused to say how much he loves Israel and hates Russia, while there is by far a better chance that America will return to its ass-kicking ways under Hillary Clinton, so that's the way Annie is leaning this time around.
    yalensis , August 4, 2016 at 3:53 am
    She graduated from Yale, 'nuff said!
    yalensis , August 4, 2016 at 3:54 am
    P.S. – her wiki says she is a "Reformed Jew".
    That's code for atheist.
    Jen , August 4, 2016 at 5:18 am
    Reformed Judaism = women rabbis, gender equality, women and girls allowed to read Torah, bat mitzvah celebrations, secular and social justice warrior values, being able to eat food prepared by non-Jews

    Jen , August 3, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    " … Applebaum says that it is rare for another country to influence U.S. politics, and Trump's campaign was only interested in the Ukraine platform and not much else …"

    I guess Annie Apples doesn't read DailyCaller.com much, does she?

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/exclusive-persian-gulf-sheikhs-gave-bill-hillary-100-million/

    Not to mention the numerous sources of information on how Israel influences US foreign policy and how often Satanyahu flies to Washington to lecture O'Bomber on what he's supposed to do.

    yalensis , August 4, 2016 at 3:55 am
    Hey, every candidate is allowed to have their pet country!

    [Aug 07, 2016] Berine Bro propaganda of Hillary compaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... Anyone not willing to jump to Hillary is a "Bernie Bro"-not willing to vote for anyone but Bernie. Why? Because, Trump. Forget the will of the people, the democratic process, or "voting one's conscience"-Trump trumps all hesitation. We simply cannot afford to give Trump any chance of winning. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    For months now, the Hillary campaign has vigorously argued that Bernie supporters have to fall in line to support the Democratic National Committee's favorite candidate.

    Anyone not willing to jump to Hillary is a "Bernie Bro"-not willing to vote for anyone but Bernie. Why? Because, Trump. Forget the will of the people, the democratic process, or "voting one's conscience"-Trump trumps all hesitation. We simply cannot afford to give Trump any chance of winning.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Democrats Will Learn All the Wrong Lessons From Brush With Bernie

    Notable quotes:
    "... But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey). ..."
    "... The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. ..."
    Rolling Stone

    Hohmann's thesis was that the "scope and scale" of Clinton's wins Tuesday night meant mainstream Democrats could now safely return to their traditional We won, screw you posture of "minor concessions" toward the "liberal base."

    Hohmann focused on the fact that with Bernie out of the way, Hillary now had a path to victory that would involve focusing on Trump's negatives. Such a strategy won't require much if any acquiescence toward the huge masses of Democratic voters who just tried to derail her candidacy. And not only is the primary scare over, but Clinton and the centrist Democrats in general are in better shape than ever.

    "Big picture," Hohmann wrote, "Clinton is running a much better and more organized campaign than she did in 2008."

    Then there was Jonathan Capehart, also of the Post, whose "This is how Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are the same person" piece describes Sanders as a "stubborn outsider" who "shares the same DNA" as Donald Trump. Capeheart snootily seethes that both men will ultimately pay a karmic price for not knowing their places.

    "In the battle of the outsider egos storming the political establishment, Trump succeeded where Sanders failed," he wrote. "But the chaos unleashed by Trump's victory could spell doom for the GOP all over the ballot in November. Pardon me while I dab that single tear trickling down my cheek."

    If they had any brains, Beltway Dems and their clucky sycophants like Capeheart would not be celebrating this week. They ought to be horrified to their marrow that the all-powerful Democratic Party ended up having to dig in for a furious rally to stave off a quirky Vermont socialist almost completely lacking big-dollar donors or institutional support.

    They should be freaked out, cowed and relieved, like the Golden State Warriors would be if they needed a big fourth quarter to pull out a win against Valdosta State.

    But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey).

    The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. But the major-party leaders and the media mouthpieces they hang out with can't see this, because of what that friend of mine talked about over a decade ago: Washington culture is too far up its own backside to see much of anything at all.

    [Aug 07, 2016] The Return of Lesser Evilism by Matt Taibbi

    Notable quotes:
    "... Roe v. Wade ..."
    "... To Kill a Mockingbird ..."
    "... Ugh. Hey, Jonathan: Voters don't want candidates who agree with them about everything. They just want one who isn't going to completely take them for granted. If that's become too much to ask, maybe there's something wrong with the Democratic Party, not people like Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... As of June 6th, Hillary Clinton had won nearly 13 million primary votes, while Trump had gotten some 11.5 million. ..."
    www.rollingstone.com

    Rolling Stone

    Jonathan Chait of New York magazine wrote a column about Ralph Nader this morning that uses some interesting language. Noting that it's now been 16 years since Nader ran for president and garnered enough dissenting votes to help elect George W. Bush, he wrote (emphasis mine):

    Instead of a reality check for the party, it'll be smugness redoubled

    "That is enough time for Nader to confess his role in enabling one of the most disastrous presidencies in American history, or at least to come up with a better explanation for his decision. Instead, Nader has repeated his same litany of evasions, most recently in an interview with Jeremy Hobson on WBUR, where he dismissed all criticisms of his 2000 campaign as 'fact deprived.'"

    Nader refuses to confess! What is this, the Spanish Inquisition? Fetch the comfy chair!

    It would be foolish to argue that Nader's run in 2000 didn't enable Bush's presidency. Though there were other factors, Nader's presence on the ballot was surely a big one.

    But the career Democrats of the Beltway and their buddies in the press have turned the Nader episode into something very like the creation story of the Third Way political movement. And like many religious myths, it's gotten very tiresome.

    The Democratic Party leaders have trained their followers to perceive everything in terms of one single end-game equation: If you don't support us, you're supporting Bush/Rove/Cheney/Palin/Insert Evil Republican Here.

    That the monster of the moment, Donald Trump, is a lot more monstrous than usual will likely make this argument an even bigger part of the Democratic Party platform going forward.

    It's a sound formula for making ballot-box decisions, but the people who push it never seem content to just use it to win elections. They're continually trying to make an ethical argument out of it, to prove people who defy The Equation are, whether they know it or not, morally wrong and in league with the other side.

    Beltway Democrats seem increasingly to believe that all people who fall within a certain broad range of liberal-ish beliefs owe their votes and their loyalty to the Democratic Party.

    That's why, as a socially liberal person who probably likes trees and wouldn't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, Nader's decision to take votes from the party-blessed candidate Gore is viewed not as dissent, but as a kind of treason.

    The problem with this line of thinking is that there's no end to it. If you think I owe you my vote because I recycle and enjoyed To Kill a Mockingbird, you're not going to work very hard to keep it. That's particularly true if the only standard you think you need to worry about is not being worse than Donald Trump, which is almost the same as no standard at all.

    This is why the thinking within the Democratic Party has gotten so flabby over the years. It increasingly seems to rejoice in its voters' lack of real choices, and relies on a political formula that requires little input from anyone outside the Beltway.

    It's heavily financed by corporate money, and the overwhelming majority of its voters would never cast a vote for the nut-bar God-and-guns version of Republicanism that's been their sole opposition for decades.

    So the party gets most of its funding without having to beg for it door to door, and it gets many of its votes by default. Except for campaign-trail photo ops, mainstream Democrats barely need to leave Washington to stay in business.

    Still, the Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Democrats have come to believe they've earned their status, by being the only plausible bulwark against the Republican menace.

    This sounds believable because party officials and pundits like Chait keep describing critics of the party as far-leftists and extremists, whose platform couldn't win a national election.

    Dissenting voices like this year's version of Nader, Bernie Sanders, are inevitably pitched as quixotic egotists who don't have the guts to do what it takes to win. They're described as just out for 15 minutes of fame, and maybe a few plaudits from teenagers and hippies who'll gush over their far-out idealism.

    But that characterization isn't accurate. The primary difference between the Nader/Sanders platform and the Gore/Clinton platform isn't rooted in ideology at all, but money.

    The former camp refuses to be funded by the Goldmans and Pfizers of the world, while the latter camp embraces those donors. That's really all this comes down to. There's nothing particularly radical about not taking money from companies you think you might need to regulate someday. And there's nothing particularly centrist or "realistic" about taking that same money.

    When I think about the way the Democrats and their friends in the press keep telling me I owe them my vote, situations like the following come to mind. We're in another financial crisis. The CEOs of the ten biggest banks in America, fresh from having wrecked the economy with the latest harebrained bubble scheme, come to the Oval Office begging for a bailout.

    In that moment, to whom is my future Democratic president going to listen: those bankers or me?

    It's not going to be me, that's for sure. Am I an egotist for being annoyed by that? And how exactly should I take being told on top of that that I still owe this party my vote, and that I should keep my mouth shut about my irritation if I don't want to be called a Republican-enabler?

    The collapse of the Republican Party and its takeover by the nativist Trump wing poses all sorts of problems, not the least of which being the high likelihood that the Democrats will now get even lazier when it comes to responding to their voters' interests. The crazier the Republicans get, the more reflexive will be the arguments that we can't afford any criticism of Democrats anymore, lest we invite in the Fourth Reich.

    I didn't vote for Nader in 2000, and I don't have a problem with anyone arguing this coming Election Day that we shouldn't all do whatever we can to keep Donald Trump out of office.

    What's problematic is the way Beltway media types are forever turning postmortems on the candidacies of people like Nader or Sanders into parables about the perils of voting your conscience, when what we're really talking about is the party's unwillingness to untether itself from easy money. This is how Chait sums up Nader (again, emphasis mine):

    "Nader goes on to defend his idiosyncratic belief that people are under no obligation to consider real-world impacts in their voting behavior. Vote for a third-party candidate, write in a candidate, follow your own conscience: 'I think voters in a democracy should vote for anybody they want, including write in or even themselves. I don't believe in any kind of reprimand of voters who stray from the two-party tyranny.'

    "Why should people vote for candidates at all? Since, by definition, the person we most closely agree with is ourselves, why not just write your own name in every time?"

    Ugh. Hey, Jonathan: Voters don't want candidates who agree with them about everything. They just want one who isn't going to completely take them for granted. If that's become too much to ask, maybe there's something wrong with the Democratic Party, not people like Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders.

    As of June 6th, Hillary Clinton had won nearly 13 million primary votes, while Trump had gotten some 11.5 million.

    [Aug 07, 2016] A nice sample of anti-Trump propaganada

    economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs said...

    The Sore Loser Uprising http://nyti.ms/2an7bR6
    NYT - Timothy Egan - AUG. 5, 2016

    After a week in which Donald Trump insulted babies and their mothers and war heroes and their families, and threw in fire marshals for good measure, the scariest thing to come out of his team of thugs and political mercenaries is this: the suggestion that civil unrest could follow if he's denied the presidency.

    When the Supreme Court handed George W. Bush the White House in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote, Al Gore graciously conceded and faded away. When Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama four years ago although his internal polls showed a Republican triumph, he congratulated the winner and went off to rediscover his many grandchildren.

    Despite party-machine manipulation and considerable voting of the dead, the American institution that produces a peaceful transfer of power has survived.

    But this year, facing a likely trouncing in November, Trump has signaled that he will try to bring down our democracy with him. His overlooked comment - "I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged" - is the opening move in a scheme to delegitimize the outcome.

    Because Trump is consistently barbaric and such a prolific liar, it's hard to sustain outrage over any one of his serial scandals. But his pre-emptive attack on the electoral process is very troubling.

    To understand what Trump is up to, listen to his doppelgänger, the veteran political operative Roger Stone. He will say things that even Trump will not say, usually as a way to allow Trump to later repeat some variant of them.

    It was Stone who called a CNN commentator a "stupid Negro" and accused the Gold Star parents of Capt. Humayun Khan of being Muslim Brotherhood agents. And it was Stone who threatened to give out the hotel room numbers of unsupportive Republicans at the party convention, the better for the Trumpian mob to find them.

    He tastes the food for the king to make sure it's not poison. If it doesn't kill Roger Stone, it will not kill Donald Trump.

    Picking up on Trump's rigged-election meme, Stone told a right-wing news outlet that the electoral fix was already in: "The government will be shut down if they attempt to steal this and swear Hillary in." The outcome is fair only if Trump wins.

    "If there's voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience," he said.

    It would be laughable if the campaign were simply laying down the grand excuse for the label that will follow the tyrant from Trump Tower after Nov. 8 - loser. But Trump has crossed all barriers of precedent and civility, from waging an openly racist campaign to loose talk about nuclear weapons. He has challenged the independence of the judiciary system, and called for a religious test for entry into this nation. With this latest tactic, he's trying to destabilize the country itself after he's crushed.

    Let's talk about the basis for his sore loser uprising - the gaming of the system. Trump's casinos were rigged, as are all gambling parlors, in favor of the house. Italian soccer is rigged. But there is virtually no evidence of modern American elections being fixed.

    Studying national elections from 2000 to 2014, and looking at 834 million ballots cast, Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School found a total of 31 instances of credible voter fraud. Yes, 31. The Bush administration, after a five-year investigation concluding in 2007, found no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections. A federal judge in Wisconsin found that "virtually no voter impersonation occurs."

    Trump's evidence? "I just hear things and I just feel it." Yeah, he hears things. Like Russia not actually taking over Crimea. Like President Obama not being an American citizen. Like the N.F.L. writing him an imaginary letter. "The voter ID situation has turned out to be a very unfair development," he said this week. "We may have people vote 10 times."

    He's right about the unfairness of voter identification, but not in the way he means it. As a slew of recent court rulings have shown, Republican-led efforts to deny the vote to millions of citizens has rigged the system against the poor, the disabled, ethnic minorities. A voter- suppression law in North Carolina targeted blacks "with almost surgical precision," an appeals court ruled.

    Nationwide rigging, though difficult to do in a system with more than 9,000 voting jurisdictions, is more likely to come from Russian efforts at hacking voting machines, given Vladimir Putin's apparent attempt to tip things in favor of his fellow authoritarian, the unstable Donald Trump.

    With his inability to process basic information, Trump has gone down this road before. After the 2012 contest, which Romney lost by nearly five million votes, Trump said: "This election is a total sham and travesty. We are not a democracy." The last statement, judging by the groundwork he's doing for this November, looks more like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Do Wikileaks Have the Email That'll Put Clinton in Prison to serve as a counterwiling force for Us oligarchs who almost unimously support Clintons

    www.moonofalabama.org

    John Gilberts | Aug 7, 2016 2:11:10 AM | 38

    Re Trump v Hillary

    America's Oligarchs Support Clinton Almost Unanimously

    https://off-guardian.org/2016/08/06/americas-oligarchs-support-clinton-almost-unanimously/

    "Going forward it's like a hundred-to-one advantage, Clinton over Trump...In the current US presidential race, there is no real contest at all in terms of support by the oligarchs - and their support tends to be decisive."

    But then there's this:

    Julian Assange Special: Do Wikileaks Have the Email That'll Put Clinton in Prison?

    https://youtu.be/h2FfrNGcO3g

    [Aug 07, 2016] WikiLeaks Just Revealed Mainstream Media Works Directly With Hillary, DNC

    www.moonofalabama.org

    MadMax2 | Aug 6, 2016 4:50:59 PM | 13

    ...From 23rd July - WikiLeaks Just Revealed Mainstream Media Works Directly With Hillary, DNC
    http://theantimedia.org/wikileaks-media-dnc-hillary/
    One of the most damning findings of the leak is the fact Clinton and the DNC have worked closely with, manipulated, and bullied media outlets.

    No doubt the Anti-Trump sentiment is rampant in the MSM and now even a good deal of alternate media I pick up... but any cursory glance at Hilary vs Trump youtube viewing numbers would give anyone a fair idea of the state of play. Trumps any publicity is good publicity will eventually pay dividends.

    Reuters had a poll out which seems more on the mark than most. And it's the first time I've seen Nate Silver get slammed so hard - rightly so.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-06/peak-hillary-reuters-baffled-clintons-lead-over-trump-suddenly-evaporates

    Reuters poll from Friday:
    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN10G2BQ

    [Aug 07, 2016] Shaky, US-led, global financial order and governance is horrified by possibility that Trump can win the election

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some powerful figures clearly want any winding down of this 'new' Cold War dead in its tracks. Trump's questioning of the hostilities with Russia, of the purpose of NATO, and of the costs to the US of it being a global hegemon have turned them cold. ..."
    "... Especially, if those who reject it, and who opt to stay out of the globalised order, find that they can so do – and emerge empowered and with their influence enhanced? If the political 'rules-based order' does erode, what then will be the future for the inter-connected, and presently shaky, US-led, global financial order and governance?" ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    james | Aug 6, 2016 3:28:53 PM | 4

    quote i liked from alastair cooke

    ""Some powerful figures clearly want any winding down of this 'new' Cold War dead in its tracks. Trump's questioning of the hostilities with Russia, of the purpose of NATO, and of the costs to the US of it being a global hegemon have turned them cold.

    Does he (Trump) not understand, (these 'ancien régime' figures seem to say,) that rapprochement and entente with Putin now, could bring the whole structure tumbling down? It could collapse America's entire foreign policy? Without a clear Russian 'threat' (the 'threat' being now a constant refrain in the US Beltway), what meaning has NATO? – and without NATO, why should Europe stay "on side, and [do] the right thing". And if Damascus, Moscow and Tehran succeed in emerging with political credit and esteem from the Syria conflict, what price then, the US-led "rules-based" global order?

    Especially, if those who reject it, and who opt to stay out of the globalised order, find that they can so do – and emerge empowered and with their influence enhanced? If the political 'rules-based order' does erode, what then will be the future for the inter-connected, and presently shaky, US-led, global financial order and governance?"

    [Aug 07, 2016] Neoliberalism gave us Trump A dying America is raging against the capitalist machine by Steve Fraser

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Age of Acquiescence ..."
    "... "The rise and fall of American resistance to organized wealth and power." Simply stated, that mystery was: Why do people rebel at certain moments and acquiesce in others? ..."
    "... A "silent majority" would no longer remain conveniently silent. The Tea Party howled about every kind of political establishment in bed with Wall Street, crony capitalists, cultural and sexual deviants, free-traders who scarcely blinked at the jobs they incinerated ..."
    "... In the face-off between right-wing populism and neoliberalism, Tea Party legions and Trumpists now find Fortune 500 CEOs morally obnoxious and an economic threat, ..."
    "... I couldn't disagree more with this parasite that is attempting to twist history, so as to continue the elitist programming of youth with more distorted understanding of their heritage! ..."
    "... If you doubt me then do a little research it what the foundation of 'May Day' is all about! ..."
    "... Then check and see how many modern nations all over the world celebrate it as a national holiday (over 100) and then ask why it is not celebrated in America, where it was founded on the blood and sweat of American workers! ..."
    "... Yes, there was a socialist system built into this nation and that system was called a society based upon a 'Commonwealth' that translated into todays terminology could be defined as a 'Democratic Socialism'!! ..."
    "... "As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs)" ..."
    "... Soon, very soon, Sanders shall do what he keeps promising to do, and endorse the dangerous Warmonger of Wall Street, with whom he pretends to disagree, on so many issues. He might even be her Vice Presidential choice, in order to better neuter his supporters, and to minimize the political contortions that he'll have to go through, to convince his supporters to vote for her. Gird yourselves. ..."
    "... If you keep in mind that Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme, the whole thing makes better sense. ..."
    "... The problem today is that the worship of money has taken on such proportions, that even the least among us has thoughts of riches coming their way, at any moment, even if it's the false hope of winning the "Lottery", the big one!! And as long as they have those dreams, the cognition of what is happening around them is dulled. ..."
    "... I have neighbors who play the state lottery every week. Now and then I mention to them that buying lotto tickets is a fools bet. They reply like trained parrots "you can't win if you don't play", and mumble something about lotto proceeds and "education". ..."
    "... "But Republicans have more than shared in this; they have, in fact, often taken the lead in implanting a market- and finance-driven economic system that has produced a few "winners" and legions of losers. Both parties heralded a deregulated marketplace, global free trade, the outsourcing of manufacturing and other industries, the privatization of public services, and the shrink-wrapping of the social safety net." ..."
    "... Yes. Reagan was a neoliberal. Both Bushes too... wanna hear something really crazy? Hillary is both a neoliberal AND a neoconservative... true story. ..."
    Salon.com
    A year ago, in my book The Age of Acquiescence, I attempted to resolve a mystery hinted at in its subtitle: "The rise and fall of American resistance to organized wealth and power." Simply stated, that mystery was: Why do people rebel at certain moments and acquiesce in others?

    Resisting all the hurts, insults, threats to material well-being, exclusions, degradations, systematic inequalities, over-lordship, indignities, and powerlessness that are the essence of everyday life for millions would seem natural enough, even inescapable, if not inevitable. Why put up with all that?

    ... ... ...

    A "silent majority" would no longer remain conveniently silent. The Tea Party howled about every kind of political establishment in bed with Wall Street, crony capitalists, cultural and sexual deviants, free-traders who scarcely blinked at the jobs they incinerated, anti-taxers who had never met a tax shelter they didn't love, and decriers of big government who lived off state subsidies. In a zip code far, far away, a privileged sliver of Americans who had gamed the system, who had indeed made gaming the system into the system, looked down on the mass of the previously credulous, now outraged, incredulously.

    ...it was The Donald who magically rode that Trump Tower escalator down to the ground floor to pick up the pieces. His irreverence for established authority worked. ...worked for millions who had grown infatuated with all the celebrated Wall Street conquistadors of the second Gilded Age.

    ... .. ..

    In the face-off between right-wing populism and neoliberalism, Tea Party legions and Trumpists now find Fortune 500 CEOs morally obnoxious and an economic threat, grow irate at Federal Reserve bail-outs, and are fired up by the multiple crises set off by global free trade and the treaties that go with it.

    ... ... ...

    The Sanders campaign had made its stand against the [neo]iberalism of the Clinton elite. It has resonated so deeply because the candidate, with all his grandfatherly charisma and integrity, repeatedly insists that Americans should look beneath the surface of a liberal capitalism that is economically and ethically bankrupt and running a political confidence game, even as it condescends to "the forgotten man."

    Steve Fraser's new book, "The Limousine Liberal: How an Incendiary Image United the Right and Fractured America" is being published on May 10 by Basic Books. His other books include Every Man a Speculator, Wall Street, and Labor Will Rule, which won the Philip Taft Award for the best book in labor history. He also is the co-editor of The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order. His work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, The Nation, The American Prospect, Raritan, and the London Review of Books. He has written for the online site Tomdispatch.com, and his work has appeared on the Huffington Post, Salon, Truthout, and Alternet, among others. He lives in New York City.

    R B, Jun 4, 2016

    I truly believe that this author, Steve Fraser through his writings has clearly revealed his role as that of a member of the elite class or even worse one of the blood sucking hounds that pit the lower classes against each other!!! He defends the capitalists by indicating that for anyone to think or speak of any form of socialism is a crime against America and that it is counter to everything this nation has EVER stood for! I couldn't disagree more with this parasite that is attempting to twist history, so as to continue the elitist programming of youth with more distorted understanding of their heritage!

    Our Fore Fathers wrapped this society in a specific form of government that encouraged free-enterprise, not capitalism! Guess what Americans, they are different in goals! These Fore Fathers recognized that a healthy society included a system of economic stimulation, but more importantly that it has a sense of unity and equality, that left no one to beg in the streets! They achieved this even in those early and rugged days of colonialism through a system that the capitalists and republicans have always hated and have done everything in their power to destroy in the past century! If you doubt me then do a little research it what the foundation of 'May Day' is all about! Where it began and what it was based upon, who celebrated the day and how it came to be drowned out of American society. Then check and see how many modern nations all over the world celebrate it as a national holiday (over 100) and then ask why it is not celebrated in America, where it was founded on the blood and sweat of American workers!

    Yes, there was a socialist system built into this nation and that system was called a society based upon a 'Commonwealth' that translated into todays terminology could be defined as a 'Democratic Socialism'!! So Mr. Fraser, I state that you have been writing not to enlighten the general citizenry of the reality to their world, but to the continued domination of the 'One Percent'!!!

    trt3, Jun 3, 2016

    @Blueflash The author does not use the term in its proper context ether. I wish people would stop using the term at all. It does not mean new liberal as in neoconservative, neo-fascist, or neo-nazi. History of the term can be found here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

    Over the last year or so many commenters have attempted to paint HRC's economic platform as neoliberalism as a smear because she takes donations from Wall Street.. Or, that Bill Clinton, because he had to work with the congress of Newt Gingrich, worked to deregulate investment bankers.

    If you want to see the effects of modern day neoliberalism look at Kansas and the devastation that the Chicago school of economics brings, (as opposed to California with a more Keynesian economic approach).

    Tristero1, Jun 3, 2016

    @trt3 @Blueflash From below:

    "As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs)"
    If there are no more conservatives, "They're all the same" rules the day and the artists formerly known as conservatives rule the planet.

    Jayne Cullen, Jun 3, 2016

    Soon, very soon, Sanders shall do what he keeps promising to do, and endorse the dangerous Warmonger of Wall Street, with whom he pretends to disagree, on so many issues. He might even be her Vice Presidential choice, in order to better neuter his supporters, and to minimize the political contortions that he'll have to go through, to convince his supporters to vote for her. Gird yourselves.

    Faulkner, Jun 3, 2016

    The IMF and German banks of the neoliberal international aristocracy are forcing Greece to rescind its social safety net and assets in order to keep making interest payments - a scheme to keep them debt slaves to the new financial imperialism, similar to what is happening to Puerto Rico and the US.

    This is neoliberalism's endgame - to create a modern day feudalism, which is why it must be stopped.

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/06/02/western-financial-system-looting-greece/

    johnie2xs, Jun 3, 2016

    If you keep in mind that Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme, the whole thing makes better sense. Just the same way your older brother or sister beat the snot outta you playing monopoly as a kid, so are the richest among us, burying us, in debt, and in isolation. Now back in TR's day there was a little better sense about fair play, and helping your fellow man. That was not an overwhelming altruistic thought that swept the country, at that time, but rather it grew out of years of degrading abuse imposed by rich Industrialists. This caused a backlash, and corrections were made.

    The problem today is that the worship of money has taken on such proportions, that even the least among us has thoughts of riches coming their way, at any moment, even if it's the false hope of winning the "Lottery", the big one!! And as long as they have those dreams, the cognition of what is happening around them is dulled. There will be riots, I am sure. If this persistent process of moving money to the top, and appreciably nowhere else, the backlash will be inevitable, and harsh. The longer it takes, the harsher it will be. And if you think not, you've been watching too many Disney Movies.

    cactusbill, Jun 3, 2016

    I have neighbors who play the state lottery every week. Now and then I mention to them that buying lotto tickets is a fools bet. They reply like trained parrots "you can't win if you don't play", and mumble something about lotto proceeds and "education".

    So when you notice the glazed eyes and fist pumping at a Drumpf rally, remember how many Americans spend rent and food money on lotto tickets.

    It's the same people.

    AJS197, Jun 3, 2016

    @Joel Graham As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs). A closer read and you will recognize he implicates both parties in the neoliberal ascent:

    "But Republicans have more than shared in this; they have, in fact, often taken the lead in implanting a market- and finance-driven economic system that has produced a few "winners" and legions of losers. Both parties heralded a deregulated marketplace, global free trade, the outsourcing of manufacturing and other industries, the privatization of public services, and the shrink-wrapping of the social safety net."

    AJS1972, Jun 3, 2016

    Yes. Reagan was a neoliberal. Both Bushes too... wanna hear something really crazy? Hillary is both a neoliberal AND a neoconservative... true story.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Commentary The worlds best cyber army doesn't belong to Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process. ..."
    "... Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account." ..."
    "... At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America. ..."
    "... Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office. ..."
    "... One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks. ..."
    "... Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare. ..."
    "... The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America ..."
    Aug 4, 2016 | Reuters
    National attention is focused on Russian eavesdroppers' possible targeting of U.S. presidential candidates and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Yet, leaked top-secret National Security Agency documents show that the Obama administration has long been involved in major bugging operations against the election campaigns -- and the presidents -- of even its closest allies.

    The United States is, by far, the world's most aggressive nation when it comes to cyberspying and cyberwarfare. The National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on foreign cities, politicians, elections and entire countries since it first turned on its receivers in 1952. Just as other countries, including Russia, attempt to do to the United States. What is new is a country leaking the intercepts back to the public of the target nation through a middleperson.

    There is a strange irony in this. Russia, if it is actually involved in the hacking of the computers of the Democratic National Committee, could be attempting to influence a U.S. election by leaking to the American public the falsehoods of its leaders. This is a tactic Washington used against the Soviet Union and other countries during the Cold War.

    In the 1950s, for example, President Harry S Truman created the Campaign of Truth to reveal to the Russian people the "Big Lies" of their government. Washington had often discovered these lies through eavesdropping and other espionage.

    Today, the United States has morphed from a Cold War, and in some cases a hot war, into a cyberwar, with computer coding replacing bullets and bombs. Yet the American public manages to be "shocked, shocked" that a foreign country would attempt to conduct cyberespionage on the United States.

    NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peña Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peña won that election and is now Mexico's president.

    The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.

    The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.

    Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."

    At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America.

    Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office.

    And it is about to grow considerably bigger, now that the NSA cyberspies have merged with the cyberwarriors of U.S. Cyber Command, which controls its own Cyber Army, Cyber Navy, Cyber Air Force and Cyber Marine Corps, all armed with state-of-the-art cyberweapons. In charge of it all is a four-star admiral, Michael S. Rogers.

    Now under construction inside NSA's secret city, Cyber Command's new $3.2- billion headquarters is to include 14 buildings, 11 parking garages and an enormous cyberbrain - a 600,000-square-foot, $896.5-million supercomputer facility that will eat up an enormous amount of power, about 60 megawatts. This is enough electricity to power a city of more than 40,000 homes.

    In 2014, for a cover story in Wired and a PBS documentary, I spent three days in Moscow with Snowden, whose last NSA job was as a contract cyberwarrior. I was also granted rare access to his archive of documents. "Cyber Command itself has always been branded in a sort of misleading way from its very inception," Snowden told me. "It's an attack agency. … It's all about computer-network attack and computer-network exploitation at Cyber Command."

    The idea is to turn the Internet from a worldwide web of information into a global battlefield for war. "The next major conflict will start in cyberspace," says one of the secret NSA documents. One key phrase within Cyber Command documents is "Information Dominance."

    The Cyber Navy, for example, calls itself the Information Dominance Corps. The Cyber Army is providing frontline troops with the option of requesting "cyberfire support" from Cyber Command, in much the same way it requests air and artillery support. And the Cyber Air Force is pledged to "dominate cyberspace" just as "today we dominate air and space."

    Among the tools at their disposal is one called Passionatepolka, designed to "remotely brick network cards." "Bricking" a computer means destroying it – turning it into a brick.

    One such situation took place in war-torn Syria in 2012, according to Snowden, when the NSA attempted to remotely and secretly install an "exploit," or bug, into the computer system of a major Internet provider. This was expected to provide access to email and other Internet traffic across much of Syria. But something went wrong. Instead, the computers were bricked. It took down the Internet across the country for a period of time.

    While Cyber Command executes attacks, the National Security Agency seems more interested in tracking virtually everyone connected to the Internet, according to the documents.

    One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks.

    Yet, even as the U.S. government continues building robust eavesdropping and attack systems, it looks like there has been far less focus on security at home. One benefit of the cyber-theft of the Democratic National Committee emails might be that it helps open a public dialogue about the dangerous potential of cyberwarfare. This is long overdue. The possible security problems for the U.S. presidential election in November are already being discussed.

    Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare.

    In fact, the United States is the only country ever to launch an actual cyberwar -- when the Obama administration used a cyberattack to destroy thousands of centrifuges, used for nuclear enrichment, in Iran. This was an illegal act of war, according to the Defense Department's own definition.

    Given the news reports that many more DNC emails are waiting to be leaked as the presidential election draws closer, there will likely be many more reminders of the need for a public dialogue on cybersecurity and cyberwarfare before November.

    (James Bamford is the author of The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America. He is a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine.)

    [Aug 07, 2016] Trumpbusters Who You Gonna Call

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Sanders' campaign, like the Obama phenomenon before it, does not offer a program or strategic direction for addressing the current crisis and contradictions of Western capitalist societies. Instead, it is an expression of the moral and political crisis of Western radicalism. This crisis – which is reflective of the loss of direction needed to inform vision, and fashion a creative program for radical change – is even more acute in the U.S. than Western Europe. Yet, what unites both radical experiences is a tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and the assumptions of normalized white supremacy. ..."
    "... I don't like Trump's shrillness, and I don't like Baraka's either. He's too fast and loose with accusations of white supremacy. ..."
    "... As the author of this posts makes clear, against Trump are only his words, but against Hillary are her actions. In that sense, it is no contest: Hillary loses. ..."
    "... It's Putin we need to worry about. Putin is in league with Space Aliens and they are plotting to destroy the American 21st Century. The Space Aliens have leased a Weather Control Machine to Putin and Putin has set the thermostat on high! Worse yet, it's a 100 year lease. It will last the entire century! ..."
    "... Well written! I grow tired of westerners' talk about how peace loving they are, as if by just saying you are for peace makes it so. It's perfectly clear what Clinton represents and how anti-peace she is. Yet so many westerners, especially outside the USA, would choose Clinton while also believing how much they support peace in the world. Thus Trump becomes a convenient excuse to vote for more endless war. Very easy to turn him into the nuclear bomb Prez as one can then support Clinton and claim to be for peace. ..."
    "... As I write this it is clearer to me what a rare gem Bernie coulda been. ..."
    "... Jingoism; assertions that the 21st century will be the "American Century"; odes to "American Exceptionalism"; ..."
    "... Project for the New American Century ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Vatch , August 6, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    This is an example of Baraka's histrionics:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/16/the-yemen-tragedy-and-the-ongoing-crisis-of-the-left-in-the-united-states/

    The Sanders' campaign, like the Obama phenomenon before it, does not offer a program or strategic direction for addressing the current crisis and contradictions of Western capitalist societies. Instead, it is an expression of the moral and political crisis of Western radicalism. This crisis – which is reflective of the loss of direction needed to inform vision, and fashion a creative program for radical change – is even more acute in the U.S. than Western Europe. Yet, what unites both radical experiences is a tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and the assumptions of normalized white supremacy.

    In their desperate attempt to defend Sanders and paint his critics as dogmatists and purists, the Sanders supporters have not only fallen into the ideological trap of a form of narrow "left" nativism, but also the white supremacist ethical contradiction that reinforces racist cynicism in which some lives are disposable for the greater good of the West.

    I don't like Trump's shrillness, and I don't like Baraka's either. He's too fast and loose with accusations of white supremacy.

    Dirk77 , August 6, 2016 at 8:48 am

    As the author of this posts makes clear, against Trump are only his words, but against Hillary are her actions. In that sense, it is no contest: Hillary loses. As Obama's tenure has made abundantly clear, words mean nothing; only actions and facts do. I think this is why the media hates Trump so: they make their living off words and so think they matter. But they do only if they describe actions and facts, not gossip. All the reporting about Trump consists of repeating what he says. So what? He is a politician. Apart from his lack of experience he's a big question mark. But lack of experience didn't stop people from voting for Obama.

    craazyboy , August 6, 2016 at 9:21 am

    It's Putin we need to worry about. Putin is in league with Space Aliens and they are plotting to destroy the American 21st Century. The Space Aliens have leased a Weather Control Machine to Putin and Putin has set the thermostat on high! Worse yet, it's a 100 year lease. It will last the entire century!

    To make matters even worse, the Space Aliens have provided Putin with alien probiotics. This will extend Putin's life by 100 years. We will never get regime change in Russia! At least not without nuclear intervention.

    The diabolical plan is to roast the western world. This will be the end of the American Century! The Space Aliens also developed miniaturizing technology a millennia ago. They can fit more of their kind into space ships that way. The economic growth plan then is to beam the miniaturizing beam at China and India. The population will shrink to 2 inches tall, which is pretty short even for the Chinese. They will have much less resource and environmental impact on the Earth. But they will not devalue their currencies, resulting in steady growth and they will become the largest and second largest economies in the world!

    I'm sure you agree this is pretty scary stuff and you, your children, and grandchildren should be scared to death that these powerful forces are conspiring against our American Century.

    Hillary is the only one that knows how to get things done and save us!

    Don't kill yourself. Vote!

    EoinW , August 6, 2016 at 11:04 am

    Well written! I grow tired of westerners' talk about how peace loving they are, as if by just saying you are for peace makes it so. It's perfectly clear what Clinton represents and how anti-peace she is. Yet so many westerners, especially outside the USA, would choose Clinton while also believing how much they support peace in the world. Thus Trump becomes a convenient excuse to vote for more endless war. Very easy to turn him into the nuclear bomb Prez as one can then support Clinton and claim to be for peace.

    This exercise of moral shenanagans grows tiresome after 18 years. I'd like to say we have fair weather ethical values in our Sodom and Gomorrah society. However i don't even think we rate that highly any longer. Moral hypocrisy is really all we are now capable of. So bring on all the peace loving westerners to kiss the ring of the next neocon President!

    habenicht , August 6, 2016 at 8:45 am

    I posit that there is a gresham dynamic of sorts in politics. If I remember right, this is where bad behavior goes unpunished in an industry and that leads to only "cheaters" in the space because all the ethical players in the space can't compete and need to / elect to drop out.

    If this is right, then it should be no surprise that outsiders to politics (representing ethics) don't have the professional "expertise" held by the insiders. I see it as a straight up trade between ethics and expertise, and we have been relying on experts too long.

    Said another way, I think an ethical person can learn expertise much better than an expert person can learn ethics.

    As I write this it is clearer to me what a rare gem Bernie coulda been.

    Medbh , August 6, 2016 at 11:10 am

    That's what I've experienced with leadership/executive roles. I was on that path, but felt like I was becoming something I hated.

    I used to admire "successful" people, but now I wonder what bodies they stepped over to get there.

    It's discouraging, as the people with the power are unfit for leadership, due to the behaviors and choices they made to get there.

    Baby Gerald , August 6, 2016 at 9:34 am

    Professor Wray wastes a whole lot of column inches arguing against Trump without really offering anything other than a long list of evidence-based reasons not to vote for Clinton, while regurgitating the tried-and-true LOTE argument to not vote for Stein (or Johnson, who for reasons unclear to me has been deemed to be completely untenable by every thinking critic's estimate).

    In a landmark statement this week, our commander-in-chief has deemed Trump somehow fundamentally unqualified to hold that esteemed office. Really? Those of us with memories that extend beyond the last news cycle might recall the exact same arguments levied against Obama eight years ago from his opponents on the right. "He's a 'community organizer', whatever that is," they would claim about the first term senator, "What has he ever run besides a canned food drive?"

    The right-wing who feared that somehow Obama would be sworn in on Monday and on Tuesday take their guns away, close Guantanamo and bring all those captives to criminal trial here on the mainland (whatever threat that entailed, I'm still not sure), give free health care to everyone at the expense of all their friends in the health care and pharma industries, and nationalize flagging industries and banks like some kind of black Lenin… their list of eventually unrealized worries went on and on.

    What was the left's argument to allay these overblown fears during the 2008 campaign? Checks and balances. "Anything the president does has to go through both houses of Congress" they would claim, and that, the government wisely laid down by our founding fathers, would prevent this first-term senator from turning us into a socialist state. Where are those 'checks and balances' arguments now?

    A brash demeanor isn't enough of a reason to not vote for someone, yet we are supposed to believe that Trump is going to somehow cast off the shackles of democracy and crown himself dictator based solely on his demagogic personality. Claiming that Trump won't be able to conduct himself with the esteem required for that high office, pundits have become armchair psychologists and labeled the guy a borderline psychotic while comedians beholden to their major media paymasters have jumped on this bandwagon to have us thinking the guy is nothing more than an egotistical loon who, by the way, also secretly wants to screw his daughter.

    He's a racist because he wants to have a better control of the border where thousands of illegal immigrants cross every year, often at their own peril. He's beholden to nameless Russian oligarchs, we are led to believe without any real evidence to support the claim. He secretly doesn't want to be president and is doing this only to stoke that massive ego, we are told by pundits who have not been correct in any of their other predictions. Maybe he's a secret democratic plant, we've been told, placed there by Clinton and the DNC to guarantee her coronation. I honestly can't believe the level of nonsense this election has generated.

    Anything to deflect attention from the fact that Trump is the only major party candidate left who is honestly questioning aloud the validity of NATO, criticizing the effects of globalization, asking what advantage it gives us to antagonize Russia thirty years after the cold war supposedly ended, wondering whether regime change is the best option on the table while Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Syria offer solid examples to the contrary, and whether massive trade deals cannot be negotiated in such a way that the middle class American worker doesn't lose in the end.

    Instead we are told to look at his funny hair, marvel at his orange skin, and to count how many times he uses the words 'huge' and 'great'. He eats KFC with a fork and knife. He hates Muslims because he thinks all their women are oppressed and told that it is the man's job to do the talking. The list of deflections away from his policy plans and how they compare and contrast with his opponent gets longer by the day.

    In the end, Professor Wray adds literally nothing to this discussion– paragraph after paragraph offer plenty of reasons to distrust and dislike Clinton, plenty of reasons in his mind that voting for a third party is a wasted vote, but simply nothing to counter the legitimate arguments offered by Trump to change the direction this country has been headed for the last two decades.

    lyman alpha blob , August 6, 2016 at 11:30 am

    With all the fearmongering about Trump potentially having his finger on the nuclear button, I have yet to see anyone bring up Clinton statements during the last presidential campaign regarding Iran and 'all options being on the table' which of course meant nukes and her willingness to use them.

    optimader , August 6, 2016 at 11:43 am

    Jingoism; assertions that the 21st century will be the "American Century"; odes to "American Exceptionalism";
    more than an Ode! That is a bromide direct from the Neocon Project for the New American Century (PNAC) Redbook!

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

    Neocons are Political Party agnostics, they migrate opportunistically. HRC is just the latest Host opportunity. That is a strategic advantage they wield. No party affiliation inertia. Changelings from the Dark Side

    Question for Lambert.
    I didnt ask yesterday after you stated that no qualified candidate is slated for this POTUS general election cycle, (I happen to agree).
    So tell me, who do you feel was the last qualified POTUS?
    This goes to the strategy voting against perceived greater evils.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Bill Neal on Neoliberalism Karl Polanyi and the Coming U.S. Election Corrente by William R. Neal]

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's hard not to notice, during the American Presidential election drama, that despite all the debates and speeches, and multiple candidates, the terms "Neoliberalism" and "austerity" have yet to be employed, much less explained, these being the two necessary words to describe the dominant economic "regime" of the past 35 years. And this despite the fact that most observers recognize that a "populist revolt" driven by economic unhappiness is underway via the campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. With Trump, of course, we are getting much more, the uglier side of American populism: racism, xenophobia and misogyny, at least; the culture wars at a higher pitch. ..."
    "... the underlying driver of his supporters' anger is economic distress, not the ugly cultural prejudices. ..."
    www.correntewire.com

    It's hard not to notice, during the American Presidential election drama, that despite all the debates and speeches, and multiple candidates, the terms "Neoliberalism" and "austerity" have yet to be employed, much less explained, these being the two necessary words to describe the dominant economic "regime" of the past 35 years. And this despite the fact that most observers recognize that a "populist revolt" driven by economic unhappiness is underway via the campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. With Trump, of course, we are getting much more, the uglier side of American populism: racism, xenophobia and misogyny, at least; the culture wars at a higher pitch.

    Yet when Trump commented on the violence which canceled his Chicago rally on the evening of March 11th, he stated that the underlying driver of his supporters' anger is economic distress, not the ugly cultural prejudices. The diagnoses for the root cause of this anger thus lie at the heart of the proposed solutions. For students of the Great Depression, this will sound very familiar. That is because, despite many diversions and sub-currents, we are really arguing about a renewed New Deal versus an ever more purified laissez-faire, the nineteenth century term for keeping government out of markets – once those markets had been constructed. "Interventions," however, as we will see, are still required, because no one, left or right, can live with the brutalities of the workings of "free markets" except as they exist in the fantasyland of the American Right.

    [Aug 06, 2016] Vladimir Putin Issued a Chilling Warning to the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear hegemony ..."
    "... The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the systems are just as offensive as they are defensive: ..."
    "... Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts. ..."
    Aug 04, 2016 | theantimedia.org

    (ANTIMEDIA) As the United States continues to develop and upgrade their nuclear weapons capabilities at an alarming rate, America's ruling class refuses to heed warnings from President Vladimir Putin that Russia will respond as necessary.

    In his most recent attempt to warn his Western counterparts about the impending danger of a new nuclear arms race, Putin told the heads of large foreign companies and business associations that Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear hegemony. He was speaking at the 20th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

    "We know year by year what will happen, and they know that we know," he said.

    Putin argued that the rationale the U.S. previously gave for maintaining and developing its nuclear weapons system is directed at the so-called "Iranian threat." But that threat has been drastically reduced since the U.S. proved instrumental in reaching an agreement with Iran that should put to rest any possible Iranian nuclear potential.

    The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the systems are just as offensive as they are defensive:

    "They say [the missile systems] are part of their defense capability, and are not offensive, that these systems are aimed at protecting them from aggression. It's not true the strategic ballistic missile defense is part of an offensive strategic capability, [and] functions in conjunction with an aggressive missile strike system."

    This missile system has been launched throughout Europe, and despite American promises at the end of the Cold War that NATO's expansion would not move "as much as a thumb's width further to the East," the missile system has been implemented in many of Russia's neighboring countries, most recently in Romania.

    Russia views this as a direct attack on their security.

    "How do we know what's inside those launchers? All one needs to do is reprogram [the system], which is an absolutely inconspicuous task,"

    Putin stated.

    Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts.

    Following George W. Bush's 2001 decision to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, Russia was, according to Putin, left with no choice but to upgrade their capabilities in response.

    Putin warned:

    "Today Russia has reached significant achievements in this field. We have modernized our missile systems and successfully developed new generations. Not to mention missile defense systems We must provide security not only for ourselves. It's important to provide strategic balance in the world, which guarantees peace on the planet.

    Under the guise of following an anti-nuclear weapons policy, the Obama administration has announced plans for a $1 trillion nuclear weapons plan, which - let's face it - is targeted at Russia.

    Neutralizing Russia's nuclear potential will undo, according to Putin, "the mutual threat that has provided [mankind] with global security for decades."

    There is no winner in a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. This has been not only confirmed but repeatedly warned about by atomic scientists who - if we are being honest - are the people whose opinion on this topic should matter the most.

    It should, therefore, come as no surprise that NASA scientists want to colonize the moon by 2022 - we may have to if we don't drastically alter the path we are on. As Albert Einstein famously stated:

    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

    This article (Vladimir Putin Just Issued a Chilling Warning to the United States) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to [email protected].

    [Aug 06, 2016] Empire's Chain Reaction

    Notable quotes:
    "... Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East." ..."
    "... The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.) ..."
    "... Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. ..."
    "... Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades. ..."
    "... "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East. ..."
    "... The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible. ..."
    "... The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect." ..."
    The American Conservative

    Bacevich's latest book, America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, is a bookend of sorts to American Empire. The earlier work was heavy on theory and institutional development, the groundwork for the wars of the early 21st century. The new book covers the history itself-and argues persuasively that the Afghanistan, Iraq, and other, smaller wars since 9/11 are parts of a larger conflict that began much earlier, back in the Carter administration.

    Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East."

    Operation Eagle Claw, Carter's ill-fated mission to rescue Americans held hostage in Iran, was the first combat engagement in the war. Iran would continue to tempt Washington to military action throughout the next 36 years-though paradoxically, attempts to contain Iran more often brought the U.S. into war with the Islamic Republic's hostile neighbor, Iraq.

    The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.)

    Weakened and indebted by that war, and thinking the U.S. tolerant of his ambitions, Saddam then invaded Kuwait, leading to full-scale U.S. military intervention against him: Operation Desert Storm in 1991. (By Bacevich's count, the second Gulf War.) President George H.W. Bush stopped American forces from pushing on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait, however, because-among other things-toppling Saddam would have created a dangerous vacuum that Iran might fill.

    A decade of sanctions, no-fly zones, and intermittent bombing then ensued, as Washington, under Bush and Clinton, would neither depose Saddam Hussein nor permit him to reassert himself. Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. This would set a precedent for America to democratize every trouble-making state in the region, including Iran.

    Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades.

    Iran released its American hostages the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president: January 20, 1981. So what accounts for another 35 years of conflict with Iran and Iraq? The answer begins with oil.

    Bacevich takes us back to the Carter years. "By June 1979, a just-completed study by a then-obscure Defense Department official named Paul Wolfowitz was attracting notice throughout the national security bureaucracy." This "Limited Contingency Study" described America's "vital and growing stake in the Persian Gulf," arising from "our need for Persian-Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf affect the Arab-Israeli conflict."

    "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East.

    (Bacevich is fair to Wolfowitz, acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was indeed an expansionist, as the Iraqi dictator would demonstrate by invading Iran in 1980 and seizing Kuwait a decade later. Whether this meant that Iraq was ever a threat to U.S. interests is, of course, a different question-as is whether the Soviet Union could really have cut America off from Gulf oil.)

    Wolfowitz was not alone in calling for the U.S. to become the guarantor of Middle East security-and Saudi Arabia's security in particular-and President Carter heeded the advice. In March 1980 he created the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), predecessor to what we now know as the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which has military oversight for the region. The RDJTF's second head, Lt. Gen. Robert Kingston, described its mission, in admirably frank language, as simply "to ensure the unimpeded flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf."

    Iraq and Iran both posed dangers to the flow of oil and its control by Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies-to use the term loosely-of the United States. And just as the U.S. was drawn into wars with Iran and Iraq when it tried to play one against the other, America's defense of Saudi Arabia would have grave unintended consequences-such as the creation of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was outraged when, in 1990, Saudi Arabia's King Fahd declined his offer to wage holy war against Saddam Hussein and instead turned to American protection, even permitting the stationing of American military personnel in Islam's sacred lands. "To liberate Kuwait," writes Bacevich, bin Laden had "offered to raise an army of mujahedin. Rejecting his offer and his protest, Saudi authorities sought to silence the impertinent bin Laden. Not long thereafter, he fled into exile, determined to lead a holy war that would overthrow the corrupt Saudi royals." The instrument bin Laden forged to accomplish that task, al-Qaeda, would target Americans as well, seeking to push the U.S. out of Muslim lands.

    Bin Laden had reason to hope for success: in the 1980s he had helped mujahedin defeat another superpower, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan. That struggle, of course, was supported by the U.S., through the CIA's "Operation Cyclone," which funneled arms and money to the Soviets' Muslim opponents. Bacevich offers a verdict on this program:

    Operation Cyclone illustrates one of the central ironies of America's War for the Greater Middle East-the unwitting tendency, while intently focusing on solving one problem, to exacerbate a second and plant the seeds of a third. In Afghanistan, this meant fostering the rise of Islamic radicalism and underwriting Pakistan's transformation into a nuclear-armed quasi-rogue state while attempting to subvert the Soviet Union.

    America's support for the mujahedin succeeded in inflicting defeat on the USSR-but left Afghanistan a haven and magnet for Islamist radicals, including bin Laden.

    Another irony of Bacevich's tale is the way in which the end of the Cold War made escalation of the War for the Greater Middle East possible. The Carter and Reagan administrations never considered the Middle East the centerpiece of their foreign policy: Western Europe and the Cold War took precedence. Carter and Reagan were unsystematic about their engagement with the Middle East and, even as they expanded America's military presence, remained wary of strategic overcommitment. Operation Eagle Claw, Reagan's deployment of troops to Lebanon in 1983 and bombing of Libya in 1986, and even the meddling in Iran and Iraq were all small-scale projects compared to what would be unleashed after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible.

    The Greater Middle East of Bacevich's title centers strategically, if not geographically, upon Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. But its strategic implications and cultural reach are wide, encompassing Libya, Somalia, and other African states with significant Muslim populations; Afghanistan and Pakistan (or "AfPak," in the Obama administration's parlance); and even, on the periphery, the Balkans, where the U.S. intervened militarily in support of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. That Clinton-era intervention is examined in detail by Bacevich: "Today, years after NATO came to their rescue," he writes, "a steady stream of Bosnians and Kosovars leave their homeland and head off toward Syria and Iraq, where they enlist as fighters in the ongoing anti-American, anti-Western jihad."

    Much as George W. Bush believed that liberal democracy would spring up in Saddam Hussein's wake, the humanitarian interventionists who demanded that Bill Clinton send peacekeepers to Bosnia and bomb Serbia on behalf of the Kosovars thought that they were making the world safe for their own liberal, multicultural values. But as Bacevich notes, the Balkan Muslims joining ISIS today are "waging war on behalf of an entirely different set of universal values."

    Bacevich's many books confront readers with painful but necessary truths. The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect."

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative.

    [Aug 06, 2016] Sanders supporters turn to Jill Stein: You should vote your conscience

    Hillary is a warmonger and is very dangerous in any high position in government (look how much damage she managed to do while being the Secretary of State), to say nothing about being POTUS. Among other things Hillary and just too old and too sick to be a President.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A vote for Stein is a vote against empire. It's a vote against the neocons and their plans to bring the entire world under our rule. ..."
    "... Look who Hillary picked as her VP! Look who she hired in her campaign. She doesn't give a damn. Instead of demanding the progressive vote to avoid disaster, have her change course and deserve that vote. People have had enough already. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders sold out. Time to forget him and forget his advice, as the worst vote would be a vote for a neocon and the wars she would bring us. ..."
    "... I mean if this was a contest between Hitler and Stalin there would still be people asking others to vote for Stalin so that Hitler wasn't elected and arguing that voting for another candidate is wasting your vote. If you want to vote tactically, vote tactically, and if you want to vote for what you believe, vote for what you believe, but understand what you are saying and don't act as if there was any kind of moral obligation to vote for Clinton, because there isn't. ..."
    "... Independent studies and reports have proven that the primaries were rigged beyond any doubt. ..."
    "... Hillary's biggest supporters spend most of their time on Wall St, in oil companies, or in corrupt foreign governments. ..."
    "... There simply isn't any logic to this OMG Trump will be the worst thing ever. So one must then assume that the argument is created and perpetuated simply to manipulate and mislead. ..."
    "... Trump, a detestable person, would get very little of his extreme views passed. Clinton, a detestable person, would get very much of her extreme views passed. ..."
    "... Because Clinton is to the right of Obama (accurate provided you aren't a rabid partisan) she is far more likely to get every awful military action she wants. Since she's apparently the "pragmatic" one, how quickly do any of these policy proposals get watered down or gutted entirely in the name of compromise and political realities and "politics being the art of the possible"? ..."
    "... True. It ends here. A vote for Hillary is a vote that supports and condones the corruption of the DNC and Clinton 's campaign. Clearly, they had handicapped Sanders from the start. Starting with an 'insurmountable 400+ superdelegates before Bernie entered the race which the MSM, who, in collusion with the DNC, pushed as "an impossible lead to overcome" skewed the primaries results in favor of Clinton. ..."
    "... I won't vote for someone who has to nuance her answers when it comes to the way in which she's conducted herself during her tenure at the Department of State. This from a former Clinton supporter in 2008. ..."
    "... Glad to know that they would rather have a Trump presidency instead of banding together with the Dems. ..."
    "... Please see what you will be doing if Trump becomes president. He doesn't stand for ANYTHING that Bernie stands for. ..."
    "... Not this election. Certainly not the next election. Or the one after that. At least Hilly is Dem. Best laugh of the day. ..."
    The Guardian

    "But I am concerned that the DNC elected Hillary in the first place. Because they [Trump and Clinton] are either tied or she's even losing in some polls. Whereas Bernie consistently beat Trump by double digits [in hypothetical match-up polls]. We could win the House and the Senate back with those kind of numbers."

    ... ... ...

    "I've read hundreds of the DNC leaked emails. I feel that our votes were stolen. I don't think she won the primary fair and square. And if she had to cheat to do it, maybe she shouldn't become the first woman president."

    "I think by me voting for the third-party candidate, along with millions of other Bernie supporters, it will maybe show that the third party is possible in the future." JCDavis Tom J. Davis

    What has Jill Stein ever done that qualifies her to lead a large nation with international obligations and not just those to it's own citizens?

    A vote for Stein is a vote against empire. It's a vote against the neocons and their plans to bring the entire world under our rule.

    pdehaan -> Tom J. Davis

    It's quite something for democrats to demand the progressive votes for Hillary and trying to induce a guilt trip in order to avoid Trump from being elected.
    Why don't you demand Hillary Clinton to earn that vote?? For example, by having her guarantee in no uncertain means that she'll oppose TPP and associated trade deals in any form or fashion (instead of in it's current form)? Why don't you demand Hillary Clinton to be less hawkish and dangerous wrt foreign policy instead? Why don't you demand her to work towards a $15 minimum wage, income equality and social protection instead? It's very easy to demand one's vote just because the other side is even worse. This issue comes up every election and it's just maintaining the status quo.

    Look who Hillary picked as her VP! Look who she hired in her campaign. She doesn't give a damn. Instead of demanding the progressive vote to avoid disaster, have her change course and deserve that vote. People have had enough already.

    JCDavis -> palindrom

    Bernie Sanders sold out. Time to forget him and forget his advice, as the worst vote would be a vote for a neocon and the wars she would bring us.

    JCDavis -> davshev

    Think of it this way--Trump may be a clown, but Hillary is a warmonger who will bring us war with Russia. and a war with Russia will be a disaster for everyone. So if your vote for Stein gives us Trump, that is not as bad as it could be.

    cynictomato

    Oh Please! If you want to vote for Clinton just vote for her but let the rest do whatever they want. The idea that if you vote for another candidate besides the two main ones you are wasting your vote is what has turned the USA in a two party democracy and is detrimental for the citizens because the main parties only have to worry about presenting a better option than their rival, not about presenting a good candidate.

    I mean if this was a contest between Hitler and Stalin there would still be people asking others to vote for Stalin so that Hitler wasn't elected and arguing that voting for another candidate is wasting your vote. If you want to vote tactically, vote tactically, and if you want to vote for what you believe, vote for what you believe, but understand what you are saying and don't act as if there was any kind of moral obligation to vote for Clinton, because there isn't.

    BStroszek
    The idea that the Democratic National Committee, and the Clinton campaign, "rigged" the Democratic primary is fairly widespread

    It's not an IDEA it's a FACT. Independent studies and reports have proven that the primaries were rigged beyond any doubt. (Guardian please study these reports and write an in depth article on the rigged primaries)

    ErnaMsw -> Doggiedo

    On foreign policy, Clinton is certainly not "the much lesser threat to their ideology". She has made it clear that aggressive stance on Syria/Ukraine will be taken, increasing the odds of an uncontained global conflict.

    NoOneYouKnowNow -> kevdflb

    Hillary's biggest supporters spend most of their time on Wall St, in oil companies, or in corrupt foreign governments.

    mrmetrowest -> Iskierka

    Are Nader voters more responsible for Bush than the hundreds of thousands of Democrats that voted for him? Are they more responsible than the millions who stayed home? The 'Nader cost Gore the election' canard is one of the least logical pieces of conventional wisdom ever.

    Mrs Clinton is on record as supporting a no-fly zone in Syria - an act that will further embroil us in the Middle East and might get us into a blow-up with Russia. If this happens, are Clinton supporters willing to be responsible for her actions?

    Vote Green, if that's what your conscience says. The anti-Trump voters' moral position is less pure than they think; in four years they'll be voting against someone else. This goes on forever.

    mrmetrowest -> Rolf Erikson

    In 1964, voters were presented with a choice between LBJ and Goldwater. Goldwater was considered to hold extreme political views which caused many to vote for LBJ, who won a landslide victory.

    LBJ did great things domestically, however he massively escalated the war in Vietnam, leading to the deaths on tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese. To what extent are those who voted for LBJ responsible for those deaths? Likewise, if Mrs Clinton gets us into a war in Syria, or Iran, will you accept responsibility for helping put her in office?

    Canuckistan, 38m ago

    Cue the trolls insisting that you must, must vote for their preferred candidate. If people vote Green, that is their democratic choice and right. It is also because the Democratic Party saw fit to foist a terrible candidate on the people.

    ID7004073 1h ago

    Bernie has #DemExit and is returning to his roots as an Independent and said he will run in 2018 for the Senate as an Independent! Follow Bernie's lead and exit the corrupt, neoLiberal Democratic Party! Do you want 4 more War Years? Peace NOW or nothing later!

    Vote for peace and prosperity - Dr Jill Stein and the Green Economy!

    MrWangincanada , 2016-08-02 11:34:46

    Anyone but Clinton, I beg you, American voters.

    The Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama is one of the greatest war criminals in recent history, Clinton will only be worse.

    Vote for Jill or Trump, never Clinton.

    Haigin88 , 2016-08-02 11:32:20
    Following the epic Robert Reich/Chris Hedges battle of the other day, regarding L.E.V. (lesser evil voting) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr4cXH3Fil8 the wonderful Kshama Sawant and Rebecca Traister took the same issue around the block, again on 'Democracy Now!' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-yZbjZ_VOo

    Sawant is a complete pile-driver of a debater, a devastatingly accurate verbal machine gun, and she utterly crushed...but, to me, Traister still won. The 'vote your heart' constituency diagnose the situation near perfectly, and push for political action that isn't beholden to election cycles but they then just fall short; they then turn on a dime and act like the electoral system isn't broken, like a General Election is an 'end game' and is meaningful. Whereas L.E.V. adherents don't close their eyes to what's on offer and it's they, not 'vote your heart' people, who see a General Election for what it is: a broken democracy offering a "choice" between two types of terrible but one type of terrible is always going to be less terrible. Underneath Traister's tiresome, wilfully blind, if well written, Hillary hagiographies, I think that she knows this too.

    Of course, the Hillary supporters and media cheerleaders will spin around from beseeching for a vote against Miller/Barron/Drumpf/von Clownstick to then, if Hillary gets a solid victory, claiming a great win, after all -"look at the votes *for* Hillary Clinton!" - when she would only win because of votes *against* the short-fingered hysteric. They'll steal votes cast against Drumpf and disingenuously claim them as votes *for* Hillary. So what? 'Cynical, dishonest narcissists in cynical, dishonest narcissism' shock! "Let the baby have its bottle", as they say, and let them stew in their own juice after progressives perhaps bolt to the formation of a new party or a re-structured Green party after election day.

    Think outside of election cycles and it's precisely *because* one should do so, and treat General Elections as unimportant towards the big scheme of things, that one should vote for better of two historically disliked candidates because other days will offer less sickening choices and huge swathes of the country will gain/be better off even if you don't. It would ironically be Clintonian to punish Clinton and the DNC for not having a sufficiently collectivist outlook by personally selling out others and allowing the short-fingered vulgarian to snake oil his tiny-handed way in. Women seeking to retain the right to choose http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/07/mike-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-overturned.html Mexican people, Muslim people, immigrants in general will be just some of those who'll be in your spiritual debt if you're a swing state voter who'll bite the bullet. You don't have to support someone in order to give them your vote.

    SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 2016-08-02 11:30:40

    The idea that the Democratic National Committee, and the Clinton campaign, "rigged" the Democratic primary is fairly widespread among Sanders supporters

    This is something that really annoys me. You're implying that this is not an undeniable fact clearly backed by written evidence fact by calling it an ''idea''.
    The thing about Hilary is that she is not by any stretch of imagination a good candidate. She is deeply unpopular because of who she is as a politician. You cannot expect people to ignore this. When the DNC willingly and knowingly rigged the election in favour of a bad candidate it was done based on the partly flawed calculation that the fear of any Republican winning over a Democrat would suffice to back their candidate no matter what.

    And I say partly true, because a lot of the people who would vote for Democrats anyways will do so even if they backed Bernie.

    However Bernie (and to a far smaller extent Trump) energised and brought in people who might not normally vote at all because they're fed up with the establishment. Once they found their voice in Bernie and got fired up, they will vote but on for the thing they despise the most (aka the establishment like Clinton). Nor should they. It was up to the Democratic Party to recognise the candidate that would have taken advantage of this and they willingly failed in doing so. Even when picking a VP for Clinton they failed to make even the smallest gesture to these people. So, no there is no reason good enough for them to switch and vote for someone they despise and know for sure represents the things they hate.

    Now there is also the irony that they're attacking Trump for his fear mongering, while they themselves are also creating fear mongering amongst voters about what a monster Trump would be. It's all about fear even when they pretend it's not and that is sickening.

    FTPFTP , 2016-08-02 11:30:03
    There simply isn't any logic to this OMG Trump will be the worst thing ever. So one must then assume that the argument is created and perpetuated simply to manipulate and mislead.

    Trump, a detestable person, would get very little of his extreme views passed. Clinton, a detestable person, would get very much of her extreme views passed.

    Because Clinton is to the right of Obama (accurate provided you aren't a rabid partisan) she is far more likely to get every awful military action she wants. Since she's apparently the "pragmatic" one, how quickly do any of these policy proposals get watered down or gutted entirely in the name of compromise and political realities and "politics being the art of the possible"?

    And of course, the useless, vapid, Democrat partisans will, for the most part, say nothing. See: 8-years of Obama as Bush 2.0.

    ID7004073 bluelines , 2016-08-02 11:54:07
    Get your facts straight. Those have been labeled FALSE!

    However the corruption and neoLiberal war supporter that is hung on Clinton has been proven by her actions with "regime change" in Libya and coup support in Honduras. And then there is the corruption of weapons for charitable contributions for the Clinton Foundation!

    Do we want peace and prosperity that only ill Stein can bring with her Green Economy or do we want 4 more years of war and job loss? Simple choice.

    jamesmit FTPFTP , 2016-08-02 12:00:59
    Obama was very different to bush on almost every issue, the differences might not be massive but they have a real impact on people. For example on climate change obama successfully pushed for polices that will help reduce emissions while bush did literally nothing. It will be the same for clinton.
    FTPFTP jamesmit , 2016-08-02 12:10:31
    You are correct that Obama was different from Bush, you're just wrong about the direction.

    Drones/Illegal Wars: Expanded
    Wall St/Corporate Corruption: Went unpunished & expanded
    Domestic Spying: Expanded
    Constitutional Violations: Expanded
    War or Whistleblowers: Created

    He has done nothing but act like climate change is important. He has not done anything meaningful except offer more hopeful rhetoric, the only thing the Democratic candidates seem to be good at lately.

    This is what lesser evilism gets you.

    EnglishMike FTPFTP , 2016-08-02 11:48:51
    You're being ridiculous. If Trump wins, the republicans win the Senate and the House and he will sign dozens of Republican bills that will set the progressive movement back a decade or more. He will also nominate a right wing judge to replace Scalia Anna the SCOTUS will be in conservative hands for another generation.

    If you don't see that, you have a severe case of denial.

    FTPFTP EnglishMike , 2016-08-02 12:02:20
    You are aware that you can vote for candidates for other positions that are not in the same as the party as the president you vote for, yes? You can not vote Clinton but still vote Team D everywhere else.

    As an institution, SCOTUS has held back progress almost as often as it has helped it. So no, i'm not one of those easily swayed by the terrible "but think of the appointments!" argument. Perhaps it becoming even clearer that it is an anti-democratic institution is the best way to achieve real justice.

    suchesuch Jaydee23 , 2016-08-02 11:44:26
    The old worse of two evils logic that guarantees an eternity of bad candidates.


    Cliff Olney

    True. It ends here. A vote for Hillary is a vote that supports and condones the corruption of the DNC and Clinton 's campaign. Clearly, they had handicapped Sanders from the start. Starting with an 'insurmountable 400+ superdelegates before Bernie entered the race which the MSM, who, in collusion with the DNC, pushed as "an impossible lead to overcome" skewed the primaries results in favor of Clinton.

    What a hollow victory it must be for Hillary, but then, one must have a conscience to feel such things, and as we can see from her support for the coup in Honduras, she lacks this empathy. "Give them a good attorney before we deport the children back to Honduras", resonates with those of us that have a conscience.

    Not going to happen.

    Sanders was honest. So is Stein. I won't vote for someone who has to nuance her answers when it comes to the way in which she's conducted herself during her tenure at the Department of State. This from a former Clinton supporter in 2008.

    Clinton or Trump? The duopoly's choice for president is a dry heave.


    BradStorch -> Mardak

    How will you push Clinton to the left? What leverage will you have after you gave her a pass on Iraq, Libya, Wall Street etc.? If she runs against Ted Cruz in 2020 you'll vote for her whether or not she started any wars or did anything from Bernie's platform, right?

    brooks303

    Glad to know that they would rather have a Trump presidency instead of banding together with the Dems. I understand the need for a three, or even four party system. We should work toward that at the ballot box.

    But not with this election. Please see what you will be doing if Trump becomes president. He doesn't stand for ANYTHING that Bernie stands for. At least Hillary is a Democrat.

    Indie60 -> brooks303

    Not this election. Certainly not the next election. Or the one after that. At least Hilly is Dem. Best laugh of the day.

    christinaak -> brooks303

    We would have to amend the Constitution to have an effective multiparty system, because of the current requirement of 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. Under the current system it would be all but impossible for one candidate to obtain 270 electoral votes in a truly competitive multiparty system. If one candidate does not obtain the required number then the House of Representatives gets

    [Aug 06, 2016] HILLARY'S KHAN MAN Who Is KHIZR KHAN The SHOCKING Truth About His Job, His Ties To Hillary, Saudi Arabia And The Muslim Bro

    100percentfedup.com
    Khizr Muazzam Kahn moved from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates prior to emigrating into the U.S. Kahn is directly affiliated with the advancement of Muslim immigration into the United States.

    Mr. Kahn runs a law firm in New York called KM Kahn Law Office:

    Kahn's primary area of expertise -as advertised- is legal aide and legal services for Muslim immigration assistance.

    Attorney Khizr Kahn also used to work for Hogan, Hartson and Lovells law firm within Washington DC which has direct ties to the Clinton Foundation.

    ... ... ...

    Hogan, Hartson, Lovells are one of the lobbying entities for Saudi affairs in Washington DC.

    […] Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis , is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show. Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton's campaign"

    "Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber. Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier's father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues"

    Mr. Khizr Kahn is not some arbitrary Muslim voice called upon randomly to speak at the Democrat National Convention on behalf of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    Attorney Kahn is a well documented, and well compensated, conscript and activist for the advancement of Islamic interests into the United States. So it should come as no surprise to see the Clinton Machine use Kahn to serve both of their interests in this political election season. – The Conservative Treehouse

    Well, will you look at that! What a coincidence… Loretta Lynch was also employed by Hogan and Hartson:

    ... But little known is the fact that Lynch was a litigation partner for eight years at a major Washington law firm that served the Clintons.
    Lynch was with the Washington-headquartered international law firm Hogan & Hartson LLP from March 2002 through April 2010.

    According to documents Hillary Clinton's first presidential campaign made public in 2008, Hogan & Harrison's New York-based partner Howard Topaz was the tax lawyer who filed income tax returns for Bill and Hillary Clinton beginning in 2004. –GR

    Khizr Muazzam Khan graduated in Punjab University Law College, as the New York Times confirms. He specialized in International Trade Law in Saudi Arabia. An interest lawyer for Islamic oil companies Khan wrote a paper, called In Defense of OPEC to defend the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), an intergovernmental oil company consisting of mainly Islamic countries.

    But more than this, Khan is a promoter of Islamic Sharia Law in the U.S. He was a co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (Islamic Sharia). Khan's fascination with Islamic Sharia stems from his life in Saudi Arabia. During the eighties Khan wrote a paper titled Juristic Classification of Islamic [Sharia] Law. In it he elucidated on the system of Sharia law expressing his reverence for "The Sunnah [the works of Muhammad] - authentic tradition of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)." A snapshot of his essay can be seen here:

    essay

    But Khan's fascination with Islam isn't the only issue. What is more worrisome is that at the bottom of the intro, Khan shows his appreciation and the source of his work and gives credit to an icon of the Muslim Brotherhood:

    "The contribution to this article of S. Ramadan's writing is greatly acknowledged."

    This alone speaks volumes. Khan used the works of S. Ramadan to lay his foundation for his inspiration regarding the promotion of Sharia. S. Ramadan is Said Ramadan, head of the Islamic Center in Geneva and a major icon of the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandson of Hassan Al-Banna the founder and hero of the Muslim Brotherhood which spread terrorism throughout the world.

    In regards to his son and his sacrifice, on the other side of the coin, many were the 'Muslim martyrs' who joined the US military. Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed, for example, enlisted in the Special Forces of the US Army; he was a double agent for Al-Qaeda. How about Hasan K. Akbar, a Muslim American soldier who murdered and injured fifteen soldiers. There was Bowe Bergdahl, an American Muslim soldier who deserted his men to join the Taliban, a desertion which led to six American being ambushed and killed while they were on the search looking for him. And of course the example of Nidal Malik Hassan, who murdered fourteen Americans in cold blood in Fort Hood. What about infiltration into the U.S. military like Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, a major Muslim thinker for the Muslim Minority Affairs, an icon of the Abedin family (Hillary's aid Human) who, while he served in U.S. military, called on arming Muslims to fight the U.S? Al-Alwani is an IMMA (Institute of Muslims Minority Affairs) favorite, Taha Jaber al-Alwani, whom the Abedins say is the source for their doctrine (see Abedins-Meii-Kampf) is an ardent anti-Semite who by the way, runs the United States Department of Defense program (out of all places) for training Muslim military chaplains in the U.S. military. Via: Shoebat.com


    [Aug 06, 2016] Paul Vallely Khizr Khan Is A 'Muslim Brotherhood Sympathizer'

    Right Wing Watch

    Paul Vallely, a retired Army general turned conservative activist, defended Donald Trump's attacks on the Muslim-American family of a slain service member yesterday, telling Newsmax host Ed Berliner that the late soldier's father, Khizr Khan is "a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer" and saying that the mother, Ghazala Khan, made herself a "political pawn" when she stood silently by her husband's side "as most Muslim women do."

    Vallely noted that he himself lost a son in the armed forces, saying that Khizr Khan "put himself out there" and became a "political pawn" when he agreed to speak against Trump at the Democratic National Convention. He accused Kahn of being "the one that initiated the attack against Trump" and claimed that Khan is "a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer," a baseless charge that Berliner challenged.

    When Berliner asked Vallely about Trump's attacks on Ghazala Khan, who, overcome by emotion, chose not to speak onstage at the convention, Vallely repeated Trump's charge that she had been silenced by her religion: "Well, she did stand there, as most Muslim women do and they don't say anything, so there again, when you put yourself up into being a political pawn like that, you've got to take the heat."

    [Aug 05, 2016] Bursting Damn. And Its Sole Cause

    This idea of "Khan gambit" gets more and more currency...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is just about everything everybody has said about him – excepting of course the "insane" business. That said, it remains he is not as risky a prospect as President Hillary. The reason those neocons and neoliberals are so desperate for Hillary is that they desire more wars. More stuff like the TPP treaty. ..."
    "... Poking a nuclear Russia is NOT a good idea. Nor is handing our government over to Corporations. ..."
    "... I continue to contend that Trump, bad as he very obviously is, would not likely be as terrible has Hillary. ..."
    "... If Trump truly is a Manchurian Candidate for the Clintons, we might see much worse from him. Wikileaks probably has some awfully bad dirt on Hillary, and if the election gets close on that account, I'd expect to see Trump do whatever it takes to lose. ..."
    "... HP was a disaster by all reckoning, but it's also generally true that women and minorities are more likely to become CEOs of companies that are in trouble ..."
    "... Zack Smith I'm with you bro, do not give up the fight against the neocons. Meg Whitman, Michael Bloomberg and many others like them are the oligarchs in their little corporate castles that have betrayed America. HRC and now the DNC, main stream news media and large corporations have flipped and become the main mail carriers of the oligarchs billionaires club. ..."
    "... Trump is the outsider now who is being demonized by the elites of the oligarchs. They do not want any change in any meaningful way and are determined to try to undermine and destroy Trump by any means… Scandal after scandal after scandal with a life time of with HRC do you think that the American people would see trough the smoke, mirrors and deception. ..."
    "... The American public is very gullible and mis informed today due to the oligarchs determination to stay in control of greed, profit and power…The greatest driving force-mission of Wall St. today is profit above anything and the rule of law is dead. This is what and why they need HRC to be their next president at any cost…. ..."
    "... The endorsements of Whitman, Bloomberg, neo-cons, etc. are not endorsements of Clinton but endorsements for the movement to keep Trump out of the White House. They are not pro-HRC, they are anti-Trump. In any other election year and against any other sane Republican candidate they would be opposed to Clinton. ..."
    "... Even the neocon Washington Post is getting a little worried about the extent of the DUMP ON TRUMP crusade. As Robert Parry reports in his current essay "The Danger of Excessive Trump Bashing" the momentum of a successful campaign will have serious consequences. "The grave danger from this media behavior is that it will empower the neocons and liberal hawks already nesting inside Hillary Clinton's campaign to prepare for a new series of geopolitical provocations once Clinton takes office." ..."
    "... Half the things attributed to Trump were spun from whole cloth and printed as fact. That Joe Sarbourough's sisters ex roomates cousin (apologies to Dark Helmet) thought she heard Trump ask about nukes doesn't impress me much . ..."
    "... Of course nukes are meant to be used , otherwise we wasted a lot of money on the 20,000 ++++ that we bought during the last 70 years. ..."
    "... But if we take her statements about Syria and Russia at face value she is either dangerously ignorant or (more probably) is a female sociopath. Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation, no boundaries. So her arrogant and reckless behavior as for "getting rich quick" and with the private "bathroom" email server is a sign of more general and more dangerous tendency. ..."
    angrybearblog.com
    Zachary Smith August 3, 2016 4:11 pm

    "…when it's become undeniable that Trump is not sane."

    "Trump is publicly descending into outright madness." Trump is many ugly things, but the proposition he is clinically insane is "a bridge too far".

    "The dam is bursting, and it barely has anything to do with Clinton or whom she asks for an endorsement." That is true. The neocons and neoliberals have decided that nothing less than a total assault on Trump will do the job, and that's exactly what they have arranged.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raimondo-trump-media-bias-20160802-snap-story.html

    Trump is just about everything everybody has said about him – excepting of course the "insane" business. That said, it remains he is not as risky a prospect as President Hillary. The reason those neocons and neoliberals are so desperate for Hillary is that they desire more wars. More stuff like the TPP treaty.

    Poking a nuclear Russia is NOT a good idea. Nor is handing our government over to Corporations.

    Zachary Smith August 3, 2016 10:27 pm

    To Noni Mausa
    August 3, 2016 8:48 pm

    I hope you haven't gotten the impression I like Donald Trump. Or that I'll vote for him. The man lost me when he endorsed torture. He compounded that when he said he would outsource the Supreme Court to the Heritage Foundation loons. But any chance of redeeming himself was lost with the selection of Pence as VP. We've had that dingleberry as governor here in Indiana, and the thought of Pence being one heartbeat from the Oval Office is at least as scary as President Hillary.

    In 2016 I'm taking what some will consider to be the coward's way out. Like in 2012, I'm not voting for either candidate. Yes, somebody else will select who gets to be President because both of them are too far over the edge of pure evil for me. We're going to have a very bad time ahead of us, no matter what happens in November. Just as in 2012, I won't be subconsciously in bed with "my" candidate because I voted for him as a "lesser evil". Though I voted for Obama in 2008, after I'd learned what a worthless *** he was, never again. In Indiana Jill Stein won't be on the ballot, so I'll leave the top part of the Computer Voting Device empty, and can only hope the computer hackers won't turn the empty spot to a vote for Hillary.

    But I continue to contend that Trump, bad as he very obviously is, would not likely be as terrible has Hillary. That's just an educated guess of mine, but that's how I see it.

    If Trump truly is a Manchurian Candidate for the Clintons, we might see much worse from him. Wikileaks probably has some awfully bad dirt on Hillary, and if the election gets close on that account, I'd expect to see Trump do whatever it takes to lose. Like – "This last mass gun slaughter was one too many. As President I will work to amend the Second Amendment to restrict gun ownership." Whatever it takes.

    J.Goodwin August 4, 2016 10:28 am
    Meg Whitman is not the kind of person you want endorsing you if you're pretending to have a progressive agenda. She is fundamentally on the side of business over anything like workers rights, environmental concerns, she in favor of forms of immigration reform that are primarily aimed at benefiting business over labor.

    Like Hillary, she had a long and tight history with Goldman Sachs. She's not even known in business for her acumen. She had some major acquisition failures particularly Skype when she was at eBay (you can argue the company had grown beyond her capacity, this happens). HP was a disaster by all reckoning, but it's also generally true that women and minorities are more likely to become CEOs of companies that are in trouble (men can always go somewhere else, and decline the worst roles).

    http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/66/7e/7f/667e7f60ad8d91db88366912f411fb64.jpg

    William Ryan August 4, 2016 10:47 am

    Zack Smith I'm with you bro, do not give up the fight against the neocons. Meg Whitman, Michael Bloomberg and many others like them are the oligarchs in their little corporate castles that have betrayed America. HRC and now the DNC, main stream news media and large corporations have flipped and become the main mail carriers of the oligarchs billionaires club.

    Trump is the outsider now who is being demonized by the elites of the oligarchs. They do not want any change in any meaningful way and are determined to try to undermine and destroy Trump by any means… Scandal after scandal after scandal with a life time of with HRC do you think that the American people would see trough the smoke, mirrors and deception.

    The American public is very gullible and mis informed today due to the oligarchs determination to stay in control of greed, profit and power…The greatest driving force-mission of Wall St. today is profit above anything and the rule of law is dead. This is what and why they need HRC to be their next president at any cost….

    ms 57 August 4, 2016 11:13 am

    The endorsements of Whitman, Bloomberg, neo-cons, etc. are not endorsements of Clinton but endorsements for the movement to keep Trump out of the White House. They are not pro-HRC, they are anti-Trump. In any other election year and against any other sane Republican candidate they would be opposed to Clinton.

    In this election year, with Trump running for President of the United States, the hostility toward HRC on this page never takes into account what a Trump victory would look like. It is as if they see Trump as some benign player "who will "change" when he gets in office. While the criticism of HRC are right, the support for Trump as President is either wishful thinking, a delusion or a hallucination. It's like criticizing your left hand while your right hand holds a dagger to your throat.

    Zachary Smith August 4, 2016 1:12 pm

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/i-have-a-few-questions-for-morning-joe/

    Even the neocon Washington Post is getting a little worried about the extent of the DUMP ON TRUMP crusade. As Robert Parry reports in his current essay "The Danger of Excessive Trump Bashing" the momentum of a successful campaign will have serious consequences. "The grave danger from this media behavior is that it will empower the neocons and liberal hawks already nesting inside Hillary Clinton's campaign to prepare for a new series of geopolitical provocations once Clinton takes office."

    Source: Consortium News site.

    Bronco, August 4, 2016 7:13 pm

    MS 57 I don't know why you would think I'm a trump supporter , I voted for Sanders in the primary.
    You know that thing Team Hillary rigged ? And the media has been deflecting attention from with all its might?

    Half the things attributed to Trump were spun from whole cloth and printed as fact. That Joe Sarbourough's sisters ex roomates cousin (apologies to Dark Helmet) thought she heard Trump ask about nukes doesn't impress me much .

    Of course nukes are meant to be used , otherwise we wasted a lot of money on the 20,000 ++++ that we bought during the last 70 years.

    likbez , August 5, 2016 12:01 am

    I find "Khan gambit" using Democratic conventions podium to be a well prepared trap.

    While the fact that Trump got into in (and this is plain vanilla swift boating, so any normal politicians would sense the danger immediately) does not characterize him well, the shame IMHO is on neocons who created this trap.

    BTW endorsement by Whitman is nothing to be proud of. She is a regular neoliberal. So what would you expect? That's simply silly not to expect that some/most of them will not cross the party line. Neocons like Kagan were the first, now neoliberals follow the suit. The same is even more true about Bloomberg (with his media empire being essentially propaganda arm of GS)

    I think Trump demonstrated courage by opposing well oiled with money propaganda machine of neocons.

    In their zeal to discredit Trump some MSM became pretty disingenuous and that might have the opposite effect, if "Khan gambit" is overplayed:

    From http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-how-trump-supporters-are-pushing-back-1470079021-htmlstory.html

    === Quote ===

    While many Republicans have rebuked Donald Trump for attacking Khizr Khan and his wife - who lost their U.S. Army captain son, Humayun, in the war in Iraq - some of Trump's allies are rallying to his side and, in the process, attacking Khan.

    Trump's longtime ally, political consultant Roger Stone, who has a long history as a controversialist, set the pattern on Twitter Sunday night by linking to an article that accused Khan, an immigration lawyer from Virginia, of being an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, an inflammatory and unproved charge.

    Here is what else you can expect to hear from some of Trump's backers as the controversy builds:

    • Hillary Clinton, they say, is not being called out adequately for contradicting Pat Smith, another Gold Star mother, whose son Sean was one of the Americans killed in the attack in 2012 on a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Smith blames Clinton for misrepresenting the cause of the attack that took her son's death, and ultimately for the death itself.
    • Khan, they note, once worked for a law firm that represented Saudi Arabia, which has donated to the Clinton Foundation.
    • They argue that because Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, she should be called to account for the death of Humayun Khan, who died 12 years ago in a suicide bomb attack. Trump supported the Iraq war at the time, although he now claims to have opposed it.
    • The Khans, some Trump supporters say, opened themselves to criticism by taking the stage at a political event, thus politicizing their son's death.

    Zachary Smith , August 5, 2016 6:55 pm

    Hillary 2008: "George Stephanopoulos: "Senator Clinton, would you [extend our deterrent to Israel]?"

    Hillary Clinton: "Well, in fact … I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region."

    Massive Retaliation has always had the meaning of a 'massive' nuclear attack.

    Hillary 2016: "MR. CUOMO: Iran: some language recently. You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be a massive retaliation. Scary words. Does massive retaliation mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that's supposed to suggest?

    SEN. CLINTON: Well, the question was if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that.

    Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

    That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic."

    The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration. Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran.

    It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the Madeleine Albright ***** – the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary will go to hell – put it when speaking of 500,000 dead Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/04/iran-a24.html

    https://votesmart.org/public-statement/335164/abc-good-morning-america-transcript#.V6UUn5Ma3ow

    But move on – it's the insane Trump who can't be trusted with nukes.
    Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming.

    Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.

    likbez , August 5, 2016 11:29 pm

    Hi Zachary,

    > Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.

    You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have a "normal" level of situational awareness.

    For some specialties like airplane pilots this is a death sentence. Unfortunately, if elected, she can take the country with her.

    While the USSR existed, as bad as it was for people within its borders, it was a blessing for the people of the USA, as it kept the elite in check and frightful to behave in "natural, greedy and delusional "Masters of the Universe" way".

    After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism, the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation.

    If you read what Hillary utters like "no fly zone" in Syria and other similar staff, to me this looks like a sign of madness, plain and simple. No reasonable politician should go off the cliff like that, if stakes are not extremely high.

    And MSM try to sell her as a more reasonable politician then Trump. In reality she is like Kelvin absolute zero. You just can't go lower. The only hope is that she is a puppet and it does not matter what she utters.

    But if we take her statements about Syria and Russia at face value she is either dangerously ignorant or (more probably) is a female sociopath. Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation, no boundaries. So her arrogant and reckless behavior as for "getting rich quick" and with the private "bathroom" email server is a sign of more general and more dangerous tendency.

    Neocons are still way too powerful. They dominate MSM and essentially dictate the agenda. So we can only pray to God to spare us.

    Zachary Smith , August 6, 2016 10:53 am

    To likbez August 5, 2016 11:29 pm:

    "She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level of situational awareness."

    At this moment I'm feeling very foolish, for I'd totally forgotten the state of Hillary's health.

    A really excellent comment.

    [Aug 05, 2016] The Myth of Trumps Alternative Worldview

    Looks like this guy is a neocon... the take on NATO is similar to presstitutes in CNN On NATO, Donald Trump would break sharply with US foreign policy tradition - CNNPolitics.com
    As Scott Adams noted: "Clinton's campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is successfully equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trump's imaginary mental issues and imaginary future misdeeds".
    They use a Rovian strategy: Assault the enemy's strength. You've got to admire the Chutzpah: Killing your parents, then complaining you're an orphan. The candidate who didn't raise a voice against the Iraq War and pushed the administration in favor of war with Libya (which we're now bombing again) paints their opponent as a lunatic warmonger.
    Notable quotes:
    "... it's hard not to applaud when he pisses off the stuff shirts at the Washington Post. ..."
    "... the frustration with Obama's foreign policy - the continuation of wars, the expansion of drone attacks, the failure to reduce nuclear weapons - has prompted some to piece through Donald Trump's sayings in a desperate search for something, anything, that could possibly represent an alternative. ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I'm talking about are extremely rich. Then if we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able to, but if we cannot make a deal…. I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations, you will be defending yourself. ..."
    "... We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem. And we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has traditionally adopted foreign policy positions to the right of Barack Obama. As president, she will likely tack in a more hawkish direction. ..."
    "... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
    August 3, 2016 | Foreign Policy In Focus

    Trump's foreign policy isn't an alternative to U.S. empire. It's just a cruder rendition of it. ;

    Donald Trump may be a bigot and a bully, but it's hard not to applaud when he pisses off the stuff shirts at the Washington Post.

    Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has staked out a foreign policy position quite distinct from his opponent, Hillary Clinton. It is not, however, "isolationist" (contra Jeb Bush and many others) or "less aggressively militaristic" (economist Mark Weisbrot in The Hill ) or "a jolt of realpolitik " (journalist Simon Jenkins in The Guardian ).

    With all due respect to these sources, they're all wrong. Ditto John Pilger's claim that Clinton represents the greater threat to the world, John Walsh's argument that Trump is "the relative peace candidate," and Justin Raimondo's assertion that if Trump wins then "the military-industrial complex is finished, along with the globalists who dominate foreign policy circles in Washington."

    ...His comments on foreign policy have frequently been incoherent, inconsistent, and just plain ignorant. He hasn't exactly rolled out a detailed blueprint of what he would do to the world if elected (though that old David Levine cartoon of Henry Kissinger beneath the sheets comes to mind)...

    However, over the last year Trump has said enough to pull together a pretty good picture of what he'd do if suddenly in a position of nearly unchecked power (thanks to the expansion of executive authority under both Bush and Obama). President Trump would offer an updated version of Teddy Roosevelt's old dictum: speak loudly and carry the biggest stick possible.

    It's not an alternative to U.S. empire - just a cruder rendition of it.

    The Enemy of My Enemy

    Both liberals and conservatives in the United States, as I've written , have embraced economic policies that have left tens of millions of working people in desperate straits. The desperation of the "left behind" faction is so acute, in fact, that many of its members are willing to ignore Donald Trump's obvious disqualifications - his personal wealth, his disdain for "losers," his support of tax cuts for the rich - in order to back the Republican candidate and stick it to the elite.

    A similar story prevails in the foreign policy realm. On the left, the frustration with Obama's foreign policy - the continuation of wars, the expansion of drone attacks, the failure to reduce nuclear weapons - has prompted some to piece through Donald Trump's sayings in a desperate search for something, anything, that could possibly represent an alternative. ... ... ...

    Examined more carefully, his positions on war and peace, alliance systems, and human rights break no new ground. He is old white whine in a new, cracked bottle.

    Trump on War

    ... ... ...

    True, Trump has criticized the neoconservative espousal of the use of military force to promote democracy and build states. But that doesn't mean he has backed off from the use of military force in general. Trump has pledged to use the military "if there's a problem going on in the world and you can solve the problem," a rather open-ended approach to the deployment of U.S. forces. He agreed, for instance, that the Clinton administration was right to intervene in the Balkans to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

    In terms of current conflicts, Trump has promised to "knock the hell out of ISIS" with airpower and 20,000-30,000 U.S. troops on the ground. He even reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against the would-be caliphate. By suggesting to allies and adversaries alike that he is possibly unhinged, Trump has resurrected one of the most terrifying presidential strategies of all time, Richard Nixon's "madman" approach to bombing North Vietnam.

    ... ... ...

    ... Trump holds out the possibility of a war with China . He'd keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan . Back in 2011, he channeled his inner Malcolm X in promising war with Iran: "Iran's nuclear program must be stopped - by any and all means necessary." He would expand the use of military drones in overseas conflicts, as he said in an interview with a Syracuse newspaper in April - which makes Simon Jenkins's claim that "at least President Trump would ground the drones" particularly mystifying. Trump has also promised to use unarmed drones to patrol the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico.

    This is not isolationism. It's not even discriminate deterrence. As in the business world, Trump believes in full-spectrum dominance in global affairs. As Zack Beauchamp points out in Vox , Trump is an ardent believer in colonial wars of conquest to seize oil fields and pipelines.

    About the only place in the world that Trump has apparently ruled out war is with Russia. Yes, it's a good thing that he's against the new cold war that has descended on U.S.-Russian relations...

    ... ... ...

    Trump on Alliances

    Trump has made few friends in Washington with his criticisms of veterans and their families and his "joke" encouraging Russia to release any emails from Hillary Clinton's account that it might have acquired in its hacking. Yet it's Trump's statements about NATO that have most unsettled the U.S. foreign policy elite.

    In an interview with The New York Times , Trump said:

    If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I'm talking about are extremely rich. Then if we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able to, but if we cannot make a deal…. I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.

    ... ... ...

    Again, I doubt Trump actually believes in abandoning NATO. Rather, he believes that threats enhance one's bargaining position. In the Trump worldview, there are no allies. There are only competitors from whom one extracts concessions.

    Some Trump enthusiasts have quietly celebrated the candidate's more hard-headed approach to Israel. Justin Raimondo, for instance, has praised Trump's understanding of the conflict as a real-estate dispute that requires a more even-handed mediation. But Trump, in his speech before the American Israel Political Action Committee, lambasted the Obama administration for "pressuring our friends and rewarding our enemies." He then said :

    We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem. And we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable.

    Ultimately President Trump would extend the same reassurances to other allies once he is briefed on exactly how much they contribute to maintaining U.S. hegemony in the world.

    Trump on Pentagon Spending

    Critics like Jean Bricmont rave about Trump's willingness to take on the U.S. military-industrial complex: "He not only denounces the trillions of dollars spent in wars, deplores the dead and wounded American soldiers, but also speaks of the Iraqi victims of a war launched by a Republican president."

    But Donald Trump, as president, would be the military-industrial complex's best friend. He has stated on numerous occasions his intention to "rebuild" the U.S. military: "We're going to make our military so big, so strong and so great, so powerful that we're never going to have to use it."

    More recently, in an interview with conservative columnist Cal Thomas , he said, "Our military has been so badly depleted. Who would think the United States is raiding plane graveyards to pick up parts and equipment? That means they're being held together by a shoestring. Other countries have brand-new stuff they have bought from us." That the United States already has the most powerful military in the world by every conceivable measure seems to have escaped Trump. And our allies never get any military hardware that U.S. forces don't already have.

    Well, perhaps Trump will somehow strengthen the U.S. military by cutting waste and investing that money more effectively. But Trump has promised to increase general military spending as well as the resources devoted to fighting the Islamic State. It's part of an overall incoherent plan that includes large tax cuts and a promise to balance the budget.

    An Exceptional Ruler

    Let me be clear: Hillary Clinton has traditionally adopted foreign policy positions to the right of Barack Obama. As president, she will likely tack in a more hawkish direction.

    ... ... ...

    John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Clintons campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is successfully equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trumps imaginary mental issues and imaginary future misdeeds

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton's campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is successfully equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trump's imaginary mental issues and imaginary future misdeeds ..."
    naked capitalism

    UPDATE "Clinton's campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is successfully equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trump's imaginary mental issues and imaginary future misdeeds" [ Scott Adams ].

    This is a Rovian strategy: Assault the enemy's strength. You've got to admire the effrontery: The candidate who didn't raise a voice against the Iraq War and tipped the administration in favor of war with Libya (which we're now bombing again) paints their opponent as a lunatic warmonger.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Cornered Neocons Trump's heresy on foreign policy has put Republican hawks in nightmare scenario - backing Hillary Clinton

    www.salon.com

    It's heresy in the GOP to question the neoconservative paradigm – just ask Rand Paul. It's assumed, as an article of faith, that America is the moral leader of the world; that we must not only defend our values across the world, we must also use force to remake it in our image. This is the thinking that gave us the Iraq War. It's the prism through which most of the GOP still views international politics. Trump – and Bernie Sanders – represents a departure from this paradigm.

    Although it's unlikely to happen, a Trump-Sanders general election would have been refreshing for at least one reason: it would have constituted a total rejection of neoconservatism.

    Most Americans understand, intuitively, that the differences between the major parties are often rhetorical, not substantive. That's not to say substantive differences don't exist – surely they do, especially on social issues. But the policies from administration to administration overlap more often than not, regardless of the party in charge. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Much of the stability is due to money and the structure of our system, which tends toward dynamic equilibrium. And there are limits to what the president can do on issues like the economy and health care.

    But one area in which the president does have enormous flexibility is foreign policy. Which is why, as Politico reported this week, the GOP's national security establishment is "bitterly digging in against" Trump. Indeed, more than any other wing of the Republican Party, the neoconservatives are terrified at the prospect of a Trump nomination.

    "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former Bush official with neoconservative ties. Trump would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy." Another neocon, Max Boot, says he'd vote for Clinton over Trump: "She would be vastly preferable to Trump." Even Bill Kristol, the great champion of the Iraq War, a man who refuses to consider the hypothesis that he was wrong about anything, is threatening to recruit a third party candidate to derail Trump for similar reasons.

    Just this week, moreover, a group of conservative foreign policy intellectuals, several of whom are neocons, published an open letter stating that they're "united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency." They offer a host of reasons for their objections, but the bottom line is they don't trust Trump to continue America's current policy of policing the world on ethical grounds.

    Trump isn't constrained by the same ideological conventions as other candidates, and so he occasionally stumbles upon unpopular truths. His comments about the Iraq War are an obvious example. But even on an issue like the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Trump says what any reasonable observer should: we ought to maintain neutrality and work to solve the dispute with an eyes towards our national interest. Now, Trump couldn't explain the concept of "realism" to save his life, but this position is perfectly consistent with that tradition. And if Republicans weren't blinkered by religious fanaticism, they'd acknowledge it as well. The same is true of Trump's nebulous critiques of America's soft imperialism, which again are sacrilege in Republican politics.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Ex-Trump Manager Blows MASSIVE Hole in Khans' Story, Instantly Shuts Them Down

    conservativetribune.com

    Ex-Trump Manager Blows MASSIVE Hole in Khans' Story, Instantly Shuts Them Down

    Share on Facebook Share Tweet Email Print

    Advertisement - story continues below

    Earlier this week, GOP nominee Donald Trump was quick to respond to criticism by the parents of fallen U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, saying that their son wouldn't have died if he'd been commander-in-chief.

    Now, ex-Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is saying the exact something - but this time, it's in a panelist discussion on CNN, the Daily Beast reports.

    "If Donald Trump was the president, Captain Khan would be alive today because he never would have engaged in a war that didn't directly benefit this country. He's been very clear about that fact and said I don't support Iraq and I don't support Afghanistan," Lewandowski stated.

    Advertisement - story continues below

    Related Stories

    Then anchorman Chris Berman jumped in, rebutting that Trump supported the war - he cited a 2002 interview with Howard Stern in his defense.

    Instead of the Khan family being a political pawn of Hillary Clinton - who's using their child's death for political expediency - they should be praising Trump's anti-Islamic State group, anti-terror policies.

    Clinton is an enabler of unnecessary destruction , whereas Trump is laser-focused on targeting and taking out the people who will harm our society the most. The Khan's son was a freedom fighter of the first order - it's a shame that his own parents are standing on his grave, promoting a woman who couldn't care less about veterans or members of the United States' military.

    We must keep America first and always stand up to terrorism - even if it's not politically correct.

    H/T Fox Nation

    [Aug 05, 2016] Hillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges [] Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. ..."
    "... money laundering ..."
    www.globalresearch.ca
    Will the FBI present a recommendation to the Attorney General under RICO. According to author Frank Huguenurd "Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices."
    .
    Will the FBI be charging Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as the Clinton Foundation on Racketeering charges under RICO?
    .
    Highly unlikely. Hillary is protected by the Attorney General who is a "protégée" of the Clintons.
    .
    (M.Ch. GR Editor, July 6, 2016)
    .
    .
    * * *
    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise.
    .

    Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery , counterfeiting, money laundering , embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices.

    James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.

    ... ... ...

    Here's what we do know. Tens of millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation was funneled to the organization through a Canadian shell company which has made tracing the donors nearly impossible. Less than 10% of donations to the Foundation has actually been released to charitable organizations and $2M that has been traced back to long time Bill Clinton friend Julie McMahon (aka The Energizer ). When the official investigation into Hillary's email server began, she instructed her IT professional to delete over 30,000 emails and cloud backups of her emails older than 30 days at both Platte River Networks and Datto, Inc . The FBI has subsequently recovered the majority, if not all, of Hillary's deleted emails and are putting together a strong case against her for attempting to cover up her illegal and illicit activities.

    A conviction under RICO comes when the Department of Justice proves that the defendant has engaged in two or more examples of racketeering and that the defendant maintained an interest in, participated in or invested in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce. There is ample evidence already in the public record that the Clinton Foundation qualifies as a criminal enterprise and there's no doubt that the FBI is privy to significantly more evidence than has already been made public.

    Under RICO, the sections most relevant in this case will be section 1503 (obstruction of justice), section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) and section 1511 (obstruction of State or local law enforcement). As in the case with Richard Nixon after the Watergate Break-in, it's the cover-up of a crime that will be the Clintons' downfall. Furthermore, under provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201, the Clinton Foundation can be held accountable for improprieties relating to bribery. The FBI will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that through the Clinton Foundation, international entities were able to commit bribery in exchange for help in securing business deals, such as the uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Khan is getting more fishy by the minute.

    discussion.theguardian.com

    DracoFerret

    Is this from wikileaks that trump mentioned. meanwhile Khan is getting more fishy by the minute.

    Baranta -> DracoFerret

    Yep, I just saw this.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Khan specializes in visa programs accused of selling U.S. citizenship

    www.legitgov.org

    Source: Khan specializes in visa programs accused of selling U.S. citizenship | 01 Aug 2016

    The [attorney] father of a Muslim-American soldier killed in Iraq who is caught up in a war of words with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is an immigration lawyer who specializes in a highly controversial program accused of letting immigrants buy their way into the U.S. Khizr M. Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members...

    The EB-5 program has been caught up in multiple scandals and critics are pressing Congress to kill it.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Who the Muslim Fathers DNC Speech Really Pandered To

    Notable quotes:
    "... At one point Khan challenged Trump, "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." True. But let us also remember the Clinton family sent no one to war. Their daughter did not serve any more than any Trump kid. Bill and Hillary served exactly as many days as Trump and Melania. Khan should have been more inclusive in his condemnation. ..."
    "... I would also like to ask Khan how he reconciles his son's death with the fact that only a few years later Iraq is still deep in war. ..."
    "... I think it was a direct attempt to bait Trump into another racist spectacle and it looks like it worked. ..."
    "... Nailed it. Trump's biggest weakness was exposed in March when he talked about the size of his hands, and other parts, on a national debate stage. He can't help but lash out after almost any attack, even when there is clearly nothing to be gained by responding. ..."
    "... On a side note, if it was an intentional trap anticipating this reaction, you almost have to give props to the democrats for being sneaky and clever. ..."
    "... It will not change anything at all. The staged circus of putting these parents on display for political purposes -- is just reinforcing the cynics in all of us. ..."
    "... The amusing part is 911 was a false flag operation to make Americans fear and hate Muslims so Israel could expand The Greater Israel Project. (google it). So 911 set up a sub conscious dislike of Muslims in the majority of Americans and Donald Trump, being the marketing genius he is, is exploiting it. Now the MSM screams bloody murder because he brings it to people's conscious minds and they agree with Trump. So they bash Trump for saying it while they murder Muslims all over the middle east for Israel. Can we say hypocrites? ..."
    "... Damn, I sure do feel more and more that it's a setup. Like that star wars character whose name I don't remember from a movie I didn't watch, some kind of general (I saw the parody of it on a Family Guy cartoon with some of the other Seth McFarlane show American Dad) but the line is "it's a trap". ..."
    "... If the Kahn's had their way, their son would have deserted. (right click and open in a new tab) ..."
    July 31, 2016 | www.antiwar.com
    Last Thursday night, speaking at the Democratic National Convention, Khizr Khan paid tribute to his son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who died in Iraq on June 8, 2004, after he tried to stop a suicide bomber.

    As for every parent, husband, wife, brother, sister and friend who lost someone any war, I grieve with them. I am sorry for the Khan's loss. I am a parent and can all too easily be sent to thinking about the loss of a child.

    So go ahead and hate on me. But of the almost 7,000 American families who lost sons and daughters in the last 15 years of American war of terror, why did the Democrats choose a single Muslim family to highlight?

    No one knows how many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of non-American Muslims were killed as collateral damage along the way in those wars. Who spoke for them at the Convention?

    I found the Democrats' message shallow. It was pandering of the most contemptible kind, but not as some say simple pandering for Muslim votes from those alienated by Trump's rhetoric.

    The Democratic pandering was to an America that wants to believe we have good Muslims (who express their goodness by sending their kids to fight our wars) and "they" have the bad Muslims (who express their badness by sending their kids to fight their wars.) The pandering was to the cozy narrative that makes the majority of Americans comfortable with perpetual war in the Middle East and Africa.

    MORE: At one point Khan challenged Trump, "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." True. But let us also remember the Clinton family sent no one to war. Their daughter did not serve any more than any Trump kid. Bill and Hillary served exactly as many days as Trump and Melania. Khan should have been more inclusive in his condemnation.

    I would also like to ask Khan how he reconciles his son's death with the fact that only a few years later Iraq is still deep in war.

    Trump is an ass and I do not support him in any way. I am particularly troubled by his hate speech directed at Muslims, and Mexicans, and everyone else he hates.

    It is not disrespectful to discuss these things. Khan choose to put himself and his son's death on television to serve a partisan political purpose. We need to talk about what he talked about.

    Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People . His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent . Reprinted from the his blog with permission.

    comrade hermit 3 days ago
    I think it was a direct attempt to bait Trump into another racist spectacle and it looks like it worked.
    gk420 -> comrade hermit 3 days ago
    Nailed it. Trump's biggest weakness was exposed in March when he talked about the size of his hands, and other parts, on a national debate stage. He can't help but lash out after almost any attack, even when there is clearly nothing to be gained by responding. There's so much wrong with Trump, but the Queen of Chaos is just so dangerous, and stumbles like these might just be devastating to his chances at success.

    On a side note, if it was an intentional trap anticipating this reaction, you almost have to give props to the democrats for being sneaky and clever. Too bad they're success may endangers all our lives. (Not that Trump would guarantee our safety, but perhaps he might increase the odds)

    Bianca -> gk420 2 days ago
    It will not change anything at all. The staged circus of putting these parents on display for political purposes -- is just reinforcing the cynics in all of us.

    And now everyone is jumping to trash Trump -- and guess what? In the end, he will be the winner of this.

    The stage management around Hillary, the pandering to people of all races, without ever having done anything human for them -- is her undoing. Trump does not hate anyone, he is just committing sin after sin against political correctness. And everyone who understands what it means, gets it. The era of putting people into neat boxes has come to an end. The era when only black people can talk about problems in black community, or Mexicans in their community, or only women can criticize a woman -- are gone. Guess what? Hillary is not an inch closer to offering any solutions to our financial bleeding wound, the "wars" of choice that make the chosen elite, very, very rich. In fact, she will push spineless Obama into more of those during the months before election.

    So, how is it bad to tell that there is an Islamic cult, or "radical Islam" that Trump is talking about -- or is it better to fluff up the problem, so we can by implication blame all Moslems. As we arm, finance and provide all the logistics to various fundamentalist cults in the Middle East, we are pious here about not even mentioning the word "Moslem". Nobody would be happier then the Moslem community if finally somebody will point out that we have Salafi centers in US, Saudi schools preaching the Wahhabi Islam, and then, we are shocked and surprised when something like Boston happens. Somebody needs to talk about this, why not Trump. Or that we have over 100 schools in US that were privatized by Feds for failing standards, converted into Charter schools, and run by no other then Gulen Foundation, the "moderate" cleric we give refugee to, and who has with "his" money caused many a problem in Turkey. Moderate? He is a Salafi, but our wonderful lying press calls him "Sufi cleric"? Deliberate deception, in order to mix the two. Sufi branch is known for its peacefulness, for its poetry, twirling Dervishes. Salafis by head chopping. Gulen will not shake hands with women.

    By confusing, mixing unmixable, we are led by the nose. And the wars go on and on, and expand as we speak. So, have mercy on Moslems of US, and identify the cults -- who is financing them, and why are our politicians so comfy cozy with them.

    Can we say something about Mexicans? Do you think that Mexicans do not know of gangs that endanger their community in the first place? Who does not know that the descent into hell of Mexican society is due to the drug trafficking, chiefly with the US, and illegally across the border? Who does not know that we, the US, have given rights to El-Salvador and Guatemalan people right to apply for refugee status, and that they are -- once caught at the border, promptly released? How is destabilizing these two countries by our meddling, and then taking in refugees, helping us or them?

    But the real sin that Trump committed is this -- he wants to pull our forces out of the profit-making schema that is our foreign policy, and use money to repair our crumbling infrastructure, RETURN money to Social Security Fund from which the warmongers are borrowing, and punish the corporations that leave US only to profit from it. Now, these are the sins against the international financial cartels and their deals. Heavens forbid that people are going to find out how they are ripped off, and stop the gravy train of the riches at the expense of our soldiers, their families, and the US citizens.

    Please, do not let yourself be bamboozled by the scary woman. When she talks, one gets a fright. Trump is just human, and is not following the political correctness unwritten rules.
    Scary thing is listening to Hillary talking about the hacking of Democratic election e-mails. She lies, and believes in her lies, as if she is a God, and creates realities. Without flinching, and against all sense, she goes on an Russia diatribe. She blames Russian hackers -- but that is not enough for her. She then claims that these were run by the Russian government, that is under full control of Vladimir Putin. She looked like she was going to continue how he is under full control by the Martian federation, and they in turn are controlled by the Orion empire. Her fanaticism is not normal, say what you want. But she would not talk of the e-mails that tell the story of her campaign, and the questions it raises of the legitimacy of her win over Sanders. But Sanders has proven to be not much more then her strategy to reel in some young and disaffected democrats. And they have learned now enough about politics to know -- without a wrecking ball, this cabal will stay in power. And there is a good sized one in Donald Trump.

    JW -> gk420 2 days ago
    Yup. I think the next step will be the Dems trotting out a Downs syndrome teen to reprimand Trump for whatever. It's like dangling red meat in front of a tiger, he can't possibly resist. No reason for Dems not to repeat this if it keep working.
    TellTheTruth-2 -> comrade hermit a day ago
    The amusing part is 911 was a false flag operation to make Americans fear and hate Muslims so Israel could expand The Greater Israel Project. (google it). So 911 set up a sub conscious dislike of Muslims in the majority of Americans and Donald Trump, being the marketing genius he is, is exploiting it. Now the MSM screams bloody murder because he brings it to people's conscious minds and they agree with Trump. So they bash Trump for saying it while they murder Muslims all over the middle east for Israel. Can we say hypocrites?
    BrotherJonah 2 days ago
    Damn, I sure do feel more and more that it's a setup. Like that star wars character whose name I don't remember from a movie I didn't watch, some kind of general (I saw the parody of it on a Family Guy cartoon with some of the other Seth McFarlane show American Dad) but the line is "it's a trap".

    But as previously overstated by moi meme sui, the Leaders and especially the bureaucrats who infest our body politic, well, they've got a long history of engineering coups. It's the fastest way to steal control of territory and enslave cultures, as in "any culture except White Anglo Saxon Protestants" and some of our favorite regime change targets have consistently been Latin America. Mostly because of proximity.

    So are we suddenly faced with the crap decision of well, you know, in a setup for a coup immediately following the election? A national state of emergency brought on by post-election brawling?

    TellTheTruth-2 a day ago
    If the Kahn's had their way, their son would have deserted. (right click and open in a new tab)

    [Aug 04, 2016] Ron Paul on Capt. Humayun Khan Sacrifice or Victim

    Notable quotes:
    "... go to 13:30 and listen. Kahn's mom and dad are MAD about their son completing his tour of duty and then being forced to return via a BACK DOOR DRAFT in a war Hillary voted for and Trump opposed. ..."
    "... Let's see how many others have been hatchet jobbed after serving in the military and doing what they were told to do in war. Max Cleland. The Republicans smeared him ten ways from Sunday in support of a Plantation Aristocrat named Saxby Chambliss 111. Who was a chickenhawk. The slander against a man who left half his body weight and three of his limbs in VietNam would be sickening, right? The Wave The Flag crowd would of course not permit that to be unanswered. So they cheered on the punk Chambliss and his publicists. That was their answer. Same for Ron Kovic. People who had never gotten their delicate fingers calloused or fought any of their own battles, far less risked becoming paraplegic, loved him like a hero until he renounced war. And said some things, wrote some things that enraged the Warmongers. ..."
    "... Ploy by the democratic party and their fake patriotism after getting the USA involved in illegal wars. Hillary Clinton voted to go to war to protect the vested interests of Wall Street and big banks as well as the military industrial complex. ..."
    Antiwar.com

    Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's team invited the parents of Capt. Humayun Khan, killed in Iraq in 2004, to speak at the convention and criticize Republican nominee Donald Trump's policy on Muslim immigration. It was a classic trap and Trump bumbled into it.

    The ensuing blow-up may have made great ratings for the media, but what is unsaid is that both sides agreed that Khan's death was a great sacrifice for our liberties and freedoms back home in the US. The media went along with this view. But being killed in a war started by government and media lies does not make one a heroic sacrifice. In fact, it makes on a victim. Khan was a victim of both Republicans and Democrats who supported the war in 2002 and he is victim again today.

    Ron Paul's view in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:

    watch-v=DxYPN0G_LUw

    TellTheTruth-2

    If the Kahn's had their way, their son would have deserted. (right click and open in a new tab) …

    watch-v=qqZirz12x-8

    go to 13:30 and listen. Kahn's mom and dad are MAD about their son completing his tour of duty and then being forced to return via a BACK DOOR DRAFT in a war Hillary voted for and Trump opposed. Notice how they terminate the interview as his dad is going off again on his son being forced to have to go to Iraq.

    His mother told him NOT to be hero. There is another side of this story the MSM is not telling us. I suspect they're only in the USA to take what they can take without giving back. If they had their way, their son would have deserted.

    BrotherJonah

    And my nephew, a top-shirt (E8) in the US Army, I wish he would desert. Who needs another killer in the world? He's been in since just before 9-11. Killed a few folks, and none of them (just guess the next part, ok?)

    not a single one of them was involved with 9-11 or WMDs. Did you guess correctly?? Clever lad. Forget desertion, maybe what's needed is some good old fashioned mutiny.

    Let's see how many others have been hatchet jobbed after serving in the military and doing what they were told to do in war. Max Cleland. The Republicans smeared him ten ways from Sunday in support of a Plantation Aristocrat named Saxby Chambliss 111. Who was a chickenhawk. The slander against a man who left half his body weight and three of his limbs in VietNam would be sickening, right? The Wave The Flag crowd would of course not permit that to be unanswered. So they cheered on the punk Chambliss and his publicists. That was their answer. Same for Ron Kovic. People who had never gotten their delicate fingers calloused or fought any of their own battles, far less risked becoming paraplegic, loved him like a hero until he renounced war. And said some things, wrote some things that enraged the Warmongers.

    So Hillary and Trump made damned sure this other young American and his family get the same treatment.

    Greg Kenny

    Ploy by the democratic party and their fake patriotism after getting the USA involved in illegal wars. Hillary Clinton voted to go to war to protect the vested interests of Wall Street and big banks as well as the military industrial complex.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Clinton Cash Khizr Khan's Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary's Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration

    1 Aug 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia-and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States-and has deep ties to the "Clinton Cash" narrative through the Clinton Foundation.

    Khan and his wife Ghazala Khan both appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention to attack, on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's behalf, Donald Trump-the Republican nominee for president. Their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, in his speech to the DNC, lambasted Donald Trump for wanting to temporarily halt Islamic migration to America from countries with a proven history of exporting terrorists.

    Since then, Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos-who served as a senior adviser to the president in Bill Clinton's White House and is a Clinton Foundation donor as well as a host on the ABC network-pushed Trump on the matter in an interview. Trump's comments in that interview have sparked the same mini-rebellion inside his party, in the media and across the aisle that has happened many times before. The usual suspects inside the GOP, from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to House Speaker Paul Ryan to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have condemned Trump in one way or another. The media condemnation has been swift and Democrats, as well their friends throughout media, are driving the train as fast as they can.

    But until now, it looked like the Khans were just Gold Star parents who the big bad Donald Trump attacked. It turns out, however, in addition to being Gold Star parents, the Khans are financially and legally tied deeply to the industry of Muslim migration–and to the government of Saudi Arabia and to the Clintons themselves.

    Khan, according to Intelius as also reported by Walid Shoebat, used to work at the law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, a major D.C. law firm that has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States for years. Citing federal government disclosure forms, the Washington Free Beacon reported the connection between Saudi Arabia and Hogan Lovells a couple weeks ago.

    "Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show," Joe Schoffstall of the Free Beacon reported.

    The federal form filed with the Department of Justice is a requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which makes lobbyists and lawyers working on behalf of foreign governments and other agents from abroad with interests in the United States register with the federal government.

    The government of Saudi Arabia, of course, has donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.

    "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million," Schoffstall wrote.

    Trump, of course, has called on Hillary Clinton to have the Clinton Foundation return the money.

    "Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays," Trump wrote in a Facebook post back in June, according to Politico. "Hillary must return all money from such countries!"

    "Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate," Trump posted in a separate Facebook posting at the time. "I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!"

    Of course, to this day, Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Foundation has kept the money from the Saudi Arabian government.

    Schoffstall's piece in the Washington Free Beacon also notes how Hogan Lovells lobbyist Robert Kyle, per Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, has bundled more than $50,000 in donations for Clinton's campaign this year.

    Khan's connections with the Hogan Lovells firm run deep, according to a report from Law.com written by Katelyn Polantz.

    "Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber," Polantz wrote. "Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier's father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues."

    Polantz wrote that Khan worked at the mega-D.C. law firm for years.

    "Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to 2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan & Hartson," Polantz wrote. "He served as the firm's manager of litigation technology. Although he did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was well versed in understanding the American courts system. On Thursday night, he described his late son dreaming of becoming a military lawyer."

    But representing the Clinton Foundation backing Saudi Arabian government and having one of its lobbyists bundle $50,000-plus for Clinton's campaign are hardly the only places where the Khan-connected Hogan Lovells D.C. mega-firm brush elbows with Clinton Cash.

    The firm also handles Hillary Clinton's taxes and is deeply connected with the email scandal whereby when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a home-brew email server system that jeopardized classified information handling and was "extremely careless" according to FBI director James Comey.

    "A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson [Howard Topaz] has been Bill and Hillary Clinton's go-to guy for tax advice since 2004, according to documents released Friday by Hillary Clinton's campaign," The American Lawyer's Nate Raymond wrote in 2008, as Hillary Clinton ran for president that year. "The Clintons' tax returns for 2000-07 show combined earnings of $109 million, on which they paid $33 million in taxes. New York-based tax partner Howard Topaz has a broad tax practice, and also regularly advises corporations on M&A and executive compensation."

    Breitbart News' Patrick Howley, in a deep investigative piece on Hillary Clinton's email scandal, late last year uncovered how Topaz's firm-which employed Khan while Topaz did Hillary Clinton's taxes-is also connected to the email scandal.

    "Topaz was a partner at Hogan & Hartson, which later merged to become known as Hogan Lovells, where Topaz continues to practice. The firm's lawyers were major donors to Hillary Clinton's first presidential campaign," Howley wrote.

    For her private email system, Clinton used a spam filtering program MX Logic.

    "Hogan & Hartson handled the patent for MX Logic's email-filtering program, which McAfee bought the small company for $140 million in 2009 in order to acquire," Howley wrote. "The MX Logic company's application for a trademark for its SPAMTRAQ program was filed in 2004 on Hogan & Hartson stationery and signed by a Hogan & Hartson attorney. Hogan & Hartson has been responsible for MX Logic annual reports. The email company's Clinton links present more evidence that Clinton's political and legal establishment was monitoring her private email use."

    If that all isn't enough, that same Hogan & Hartson law firm-now Hogan Lovells-employed Loretta Lynch, the current Attorney General of the United States. Lynch infamously just a few weeks ago met with Bill Clinton, Hillary's husband and the former president, on her private jet in Phoenix just before clearing Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing when it came to her illicit private email server system.

    Khan's own website for his own personal law firm KM Khan Law Office shows he represents clients in the business of buying visas to enter the United States. One of his specific areas of practice, according to the website, is "E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services."

    Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee, has detailed how the EB5 immigration program is "riddled with flaws and corruption."

    "Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill-on this island surrounded by reality-that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts," Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. "The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws."

    From there, Sen. Grassley listed out several of the "flaws" with the EB5 immigration program that Khan works in:

    • – Investments can be spent before business plans are approved.
    • – Regional Center operators can charge exorbitant fees of foreign nationals in addition to their required investments.
    • – Jobs created are not "direct" or verifiable jobs but rather are "indirect" and based on estimates and economic modeling.
    • – Jobs created by U.S. investors are counted by the foreign national when obtaining a green card, even if EB-5 money is only a fraction of the total invested.
    • – Investment funds are not adequately vetted.
    • – Gifts and loans are acceptable sources of funds from foreign nationals.
    • – The investment level has been stagnant for nearly 25 years.
    • – There's no prohibition against foreign governments owning or operating regional centers or projects.
    • – Regional centers can be rented or sold without government oversight or approval.
    • – Regional centers don't have to certify that they comply with securities laws.
    • – There's no oversight of promoters who work overseas for the regional centers.
    • – There's no set of sanctions for violations, no recourse for bad actors.
    • – There are no required background checks on anyone associated with a regional center.
    • – Regional centers draw Targeted Employment Area boundaries around poor areas in order to come in at a lower investment level, yet the jobs created are not actually created in those areas.
    • – Every Targeted Employment Area designation is rubberstamped by the agency.
    • – Adjudicators are pressured to get to a yes, especially for those politically connected.
    • – Visas are not properly scrutinized.
    • – Visas are pushed through despite security warnings.
    • – Files and applications lack basic and necessary information to monitor compliance.
    • – The agency does not do site visits for each and every project.
    • – There's no transparency on how funds are spent, who is paid, and what investors are told about the projects they invest in.

    That's not to mention the fact that, according to Sen. Grassley, there have been serious national security violations in connection with the EB5 program that Khan works in and around already. In fact, the program-according to Grassley-was used by Middle Eastern operatives from Iran to attempt to illicitly enter the United States.

    "There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story," Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. "The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering."

    Maybe all of this is why–as Breitbart News has previously noted–the Democratic National Convention made absolutely no mention of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative. Hillary Clinton's coronation ceremony spent exactly zero minutes of the four nights of official DNC programming talking about anything to do with perhaps one of the biggest parts of her biography.

    Michael Rawlings -> Jeremy Stevens

    No wonder Khan is so mad at Trump, Trump is threatening Khan's multi million $ corrupt EB5 immigration business.

    jones -> Michael Rawlings

    Right. It makes me totally forget the fact that a candidate for the presidency has the temperament of a seven-year-old bully and can't control his mouth. Good thing we know the truth about this random guy with a tiny bit of power and a small possibly corrupt business so that we can go ahead and elect a madman to be the most powerful person in the world.

    TechZilla -> jones

    We should support the NWO warmonger HRC ....because Trump can be uncouth?

    No thanks, I don't want more destabilization of the middle east, my cousin would still be alive if Trump's foreign policy was in effect circa 2000. O but she's the one that loves vets, not the guy who disagrees with more aggressive actions against Russia. These elitist promoted wars are not in the public interest, and they have effected me personally.

    Taylor -> jones

    This is just a drop in the bucket for what Hillary's campaign is a part of. I'd rather have someone who can speak their mind and know their crazy rather than having a liar that can't even own up to their corruption.

    mo johnson -> Jeremy Stevens

    There is a link in this story to something called the KM Khan Law Office in New York, also specializing in immigration: Khan specializes in visa programs accused of selling U.S. citizenship

    james barklow -> Jeremy Stevens

    Interesting. He also has a NYC law office address and a DC phone number.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Trump refuses to support Paul Ryan, John McCain in upcoming Republican primaries

    www.washingtonpost.com

    02 Aug 2016

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is refusing to back House Speaker Paul D. Ryan [Social Security-cutting, TPP dirt-bag #1 ] in his upcoming primary election, saying in an interview Tuesday that he is "not quite there yet" in endorsing his party's top-ranking elected official. Trump also said he was not supporting Sen. John McCain [ scum-bag #2 ] in his primary in Arizona, and he singled out Sen. Kelly Ayotte [ fraud #3 ] as a weak and disloyal leader in New Hampshire, a state whose presidential primary Trump won handily. With Ryan's Wisconsin primary scheduled for next Tuesday, Trump praised the House speaker's underdog opponent, Paul Nehlen, for running "a very good campaign."

    [Aug 04, 2016] Donald Trump on Foreign Policy

    ontheissues.org
    Diplomacy & respect crucial to our relationship with Russia

    Q: This week we're going to see a lot of world leaders come to Manhattan. Might you have a meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin?

    TRUMP: Well, I had heard that he wanted to meet with me. And certainly I am open to it. I don't know that it's going to take place, but I know that people have been talking. We'll see what happens. But certainly, if he wanted to meet, I would love to do that. You know, I've been saying relationship is so important in business, that it's so important in deals, and so important in the country. And if President Obama got along with Putin, that would be a fabulous thing. But they do not get along. Putin does not respect our president. And I'm sure that our president does not like him very much.

    Source: Meet the Press 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Sep 20, 2015

    Putin has no respect for America; I will get along with him

    Q: What would you do right now if you were president, to get the Russians out of Syria?

    TRUMP: Number one, they have to respect you. He has absolutely no respect for President Obama. Zero. I would talk to him. I would get along with him. I believe I would get along with a lot of the world leaders that this country is not getting along with. I think I will get along with Putin, and I will get along with others, and we will have a much more stable world.

    Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary debate on CNN , Sep 16, 2015

    We must deal with the maniac in North Korea with nukes

    [With regards to the Iranian nuclear deal]: Nobody ever mentions North Korea where you have this maniac sitting there and he actually has nuclear weapons and somebody better start thinking about North Korea and perhaps a couple of other places. You have somebody right now in North Korea who has got nuclear weapons and who is saying almost every other week, "I'm ready to use them." And we don't even mention it.
    Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary debate on CNN , Sep 16, 2015

    China is our enemy; they're bilking us for billions

    China is bilking us for hundreds of billions of dollars by manipulating and devaluing its currency. Despite all the happy talk in Washington, the Chinese leaders are not our friends. I've been criticized for calling them our enemy. But what else do you call the people who are destroying your children's and grandchildren's future? What name would you prefer me to use for the people who are hell bent on bankrupting our nation, stealing our jobs, who spy on us to steal our technology, who are undermining our currency, and who are ruining our way of life? To my mind, that's an enemy. If we're going to make America number one again, we've got to have a president who knows how to get tough with China, how to out-negotiate the Chinese, and how to keep them from screwing us at every turn.
    Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 2 , Dec 5, 2011

    When you love America, you protect it with no apologies

    I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately--fiercely, even. We are the greatest country the world has ever known. I make no apologies for this country, my pride in it, or my desire to see us become strong and rich again. After all, wealth funds our freedom. But for too long we've been pushed around, used by other countries, and ill-served by politicians in Washington who measure their success by how rapidly they can expand the federal debt, and your tax burden, with their favorite government programs.

    American can do better. I think we deserve the best. That's why I decided to write this book. The decisions we face are too monumental, too consequential, to just let slide. I have answers for the problems that confront us. I know how to make American rich again.

    Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 7 , Dec 5, 2011

    By 2027, tsunami as China overtakes US as largest economy

    There is a lot that Obama and his globalist pals don't want you to know about China's strength. But no one who knows the truth can sit back and ignore how dangerous this economic powerhouse will be if our so-called leaders in Washington don't get their acts together and start standing up for American jobs and stop outsourcing them to China. It's been predicted that by 2027, China will overtake the United States as the world's biggest economy--much sooner if the Obama economy's disastrous trends continue. That means in a handful of years, America will be engulfed by the economic tsunami that is the People's Republic of China--my guess is by 2016 if we don't act fast.

    For the past thirty years, China's economy has grown an average 9 to 10 percent each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, China's economy grew a robust 9.7 percent. America's first quarter growth rate? An embarrassing and humiliating 1.9 percent. It's a national disgrace.

    Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 30 , Dec 5, 2011

    Things change; empires come and go
    A lot of life is about survival of the fittest and adaption, as Darwin pointed out. It's not all there is, but it's an indication of how the world has evolved in historical terms. We've seen many empires come and go -- the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire -- there have always been surges of power. Sometimes they last for centuries. Even so, some of us have never learned of them as of today. In other words, things change. We have to keep up with the changes and move forward.
    Source: Think Like a Champion, by Donald Trump, p. 23-4 , Apr 27, 2010

    Criticized Buchanan's view on Hitler as appeasement

    In Buchanan's book, he actually said the Western allies were wrong to stop Hitler. He argued that we should have let Hitler take all of the territories to his east. What of the systematic annihilation of Jews, Catholics, and Gypsies in those countries? You don't have to be a genius to know that we were next, that once Hitler seized control of the countries to his east he would focus on world domination.

    Pat Buchanan was actually preaching the same policy of appeasement that had failed for Neville Chamberlain at Munich. If we used Buchanan's theory on Hitler as a foreign policy strategy, we would have appeased every world dictator with a screw loose and we'd have a brainwashed population ready to go postal on command.

    After I [wrote an article on this for] Face the Nation, Buchanan accused me of ⌠ignorance." Buchanan, who believes himself an expert, has also called Hitler ⌠a political organizer of the first rank." Buchanan is a fan.

    Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.267-68 , Jul 2, 2000

    Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker

    In the modern world you can't very easily draw up a simple, general foreign policy. I was busy making deals during the last decade of the cold war. Now the game has changed. The day of the chess player is over. Foreign policy has to be put in the hands of a dealmaker.

    Two dealmakers have served as president-one was Franklin Roosevelt, who got us through WWII, and the other was Richard Nixon, who forced the Russians to the bargaining table to achieve the first meaningful reductions in nuclear arms.

    A dealmaker can keep many balls in the air, weigh the competing interests of other nations, and above all, constantly put America's best interests first. The dealmaker knows when to be tough and when to back off. He knows when to bluff and he knows when to threaten, understanding that you threaten only when prepared to carry out the threat. The dealmaker is cunning, secretive, focused, and never settles for less than he wants. It's been a long time since America had a president like that.

    Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.111-12 , Jul 2, 2000

    Support Russia, but with strings attached

    I don't understand why American policymakers are always so timid in dealing with Russia on issues that directly involve our survival. Kosovo was a perfect case in point: Russia was holding out its hand for billions of dollars in IMF loans (to go along with billions in aid the U.S. has given) the same week it was issuing threats and warnings regarding our conduct in the Balkans. We need to tell Russia and other recipients that if they want our dime they had better do our dance, at least in matters regarding our national security. These people need us much more than we need them. We have leverage, and we are crazy not to use it to better advantage.

    Few respect weakness. Ultimately we have to deal with hostile nations in the only language they know: unshrinking conviction and the military power to back it up if need be. There and in that order are America's two greatest assets in foreign affairs.

    Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.134 , Jul 2, 2000

    China: lack of human rights prevents consumer development

    Why am I concerned with political rights? I'm a good businessman and I can be amazingly unsentimental when I need to be. I also recognize that when it comes down to it, we can't do much to change a nation's internal policies. But I'm unwilling to shrug off the mistreatment of China's citizens by their own government. My reason is simple: These oppressive policies make it clear that China's current government has contempt for our way of life.

    We want to trade with China because of the size of its consumer market. But if the regime continues to repress individual freedoms, how many consumers will there really be? Isn't it inconsistent to compromise our principles by negotiating trade with a country that may not want and cannot afford our goods?

    We have to make it absolutely clear that we're willing to trade with China, but not to trade away our principles, and that under no circumstances will we keep our markets open to countries that steal from us.

    Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.119 & 123 , Jul 2, 2000

    Be tougher on China-we're too eager to please

    Our biggest long-term challenge will be China. The Chinese people still have few political rights to speak of. Chinese government leaders, though they concede little, desperately want us to invest in their country. Though we have the upper hand, we're way to eager to please. We see them as a potential market and we curry favor with them at the expense of our national interests. Our China policy under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been aimed at changing the Chinese regime by incentives both economic and political. The intention has been good, but it's clear that the Chinese have been getting far too easy a ride.

    Despite the opportunity, I think we need to take a much harder look at China. There are major problems that too many at the highest reaches of business want to overlook, [primarily] the human-rights situation.

    Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.117-18 , Jul 2, 2000


    Donald Trump on Mideast

    Too risky to take in Syrian refugees

    Q: Would you block Syrian refugees from entering the US?

    RUBIO: The problem is we can't background check them. You can't pick up the phone and call Syria. And that's one of the reasons why I said we won't be able to take more refugees. It's not that we don't want to. The bottom line is that this is not just a threat coming from abroad. What we need to open up to and realize is that we have a threat here at home, homegrown violent extremists, individuals who perhaps have not even traveled abroad, who have been radicalized online. This has become a multi-faceted threat. In the case of what's happening in Europe, this is a swarm of refugees. And as I've said repeatedly over the last few months, you can have 1,000 people come in and 999 of them are just poor people fleeing oppression and violence but one of them is an ISIS fighter.

    Source: ABC This Week 2015 interview on SSyrian Refugee crisis , Nov 22, 2015

    Let Russia bash ISIS; let Germany defend Ukraine

    Q: Russia has invaded Ukraine, and has put troops in Syria. You have said you will have a good relationship with Mr. Putin. So, what does President Trump do in response to Russia's aggression?

    TRUMP: As far as Syria, if Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, 100%, and I can't understand how anybody would be against it.

    Q: They're not doing that.

    TRUMP: They blew up a Russian airplane. He cannot be in love with these people. He's going in, and we can go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group of people, and a group of countries, including Germany--why are we always doing the work? I'm all for protecting Ukraine--but, we have countries that are surrounding the Ukraine that aren't doing anything. They say, "Keep going, keep going, you dummies, keep going. Protect us." And we have to get smart. We can't continue to be the policeman of the world.

    Source: Fox Business/WSJ First Tier debate , Nov 10, 2015

    Provide economic assistance to create a safe zone in Syria

    Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?

    TRUMP: I love a safe zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming. What they should do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states, who have nothing but money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria and they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country, go back to where they came from.

    Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?

    TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.

    Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 interview on Syrian Refugee crisis , Oct 11, 2015

    US should not train rebels it does not know or control

    Q: The Russians are hitting Assad as well as people we've trained.

    TRUMP: Where they're hitting people, we're talking about people that we don't even know. I was talking to a general two days ago. He said, "We have no idea who these people are. We're training people. We don't know who they are. We're giving them billions of dollars to fight Assad." And you know what? I'm not saying Assad's a good guy, because he's probably a bad guy. But I've watched him interviewed many times. And you can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there-- it's a mess-- if you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there-- it's a mess-- it's going be same thing.

    Source: Meet the Press 2015 interview moderated by Chuck Todd , Oct 4, 2015

    Better to have Mideast strongmen than Mideast chaos

    Q: You think the Middle East would be better today if Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad were stronger? That the Middle East would be safer?

    TRUMP: It's not even a contest. Iraq is a disaster. And ISIS came out of Iraq.

    Q: Well, let me button this up. If Saddam and Gaddafi were still in power, you think things would be more stable?

    TRUMP: Of course it would be. You wouldn't have had your Benghazi situation, which is one thing, which was just a terrible situation.

    Q: Would you pull out of what we're doing in Syria now?

    TRUMP: no, I'd sit back.

    Source: Meet the Press 2015 interview moderated by Chuck Todd , Oct 4, 2015

    Good that Russia is involved in Syria

    Q: You came across to me as if you welcomed Putin's involvement in Syria. You said you saw very little downside. Why?

    TRUMP: I want our military to be beyond anything, no contest, and technologically, most importantly. But we are going to get bogged down in Syria. If you look at what happened with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, that's when they went bankrupt.

    Q: So, you think Putin's going to get suckered into--

    TRUMP: They're going to get bogged down. Everybody that's touched the Middle East, they've gotten bogged down. Now, Putin wants to go in and I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of ISIS. Putin has to get rid of ISIS because Putin doesn't want ISIS coming into Russia.

    Q: Why do you trust him and nobody else does?

    TRUMP: I don't trust him. But the truth is, it's not a question of trust. I don't want to see the United States get bogged down. We've spent now $2 trillion in Iraq, probably a trillion in Afghanistan. We're destroying our country.

    Source: Meet the Press 2015 interview moderated by Chuck Todd , Oct 4, 2015

    More sanctions on Iran; more support of Israel

    What does Donald Trump believe? Iran and Israel: Walk away from nuclear talks. Increase sanctions.

    Trump has said that the U.S. is mishandling current Iran negotiations and should have walked away from the table once Tehran reportedly rejected the idea of sending enriched uranium to Russia. He would increase sanctions on Iran. Trump has been sharply critical of the Obama administration's handling of relations with Israel and has called for a closer alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

    Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series , Jun 16, 2015

    [Aug 04, 2016] Trump attacks Clinton on 'scandal' of US paying 400 million dollars to Iran after nuclear deal

    Iran deal was signed when Hillary was not the Secretary of state (her last month was Feb 2013). Is Trump delusional or stupid ?
    Notable quotes:
    "... whatever the 'ransom', both Clinton and Trump are hellbent on undermining the Iranian deal. idiots. ..."
    "... The more I think about it, US deserve to have Trump as president. He will screw up the US so royally that may shock American people to start thinking straight. ..."
    "... Trump would certainly screw up the US, but if 8 years of Bush couldn't get them to start thinking straight, I am not sure what would. ..."
    "... Hillary hates Iran more than Trump does... she's just extremely good in deceiving.. Remember when Sanders said to reach out to Iran about the Syrian conflict? Her reply was exactly this; "asking Iran for cooperation in Syria is like asking a pyromaniac to extinguish a fire" .. when president, I fear she will not only avoid cooperation but will be playing real hardball with Iran, where Trump, as someone who seems to be sympathetic to the Russian regime, might get more friendly with Iran (the friends of your friends...) ..."
    "... It's a mess anyways... trump changes like how the wind blows, and Hillary is a snake (understatement of the year) ..."
    "... The US has not held up to the term of the nuclear agreement! The banks are still afraid of US to deal with Iran. Congress has stopped the beoing deal, etc. The US congress is acting as bully! Actually not holding itself with the very deal the US signed is very bad! I can see Iran reluctant to negotiate any deal with a bunch of liars ..."
    "... There were no bank relations between the US and Iran, so cash was the only option. It was conducted in secret because who's going to announce that a plane full of cash is in route to, well, anywhere? ..."
    "... The US owed that money to Iran. The transfer was kept secret for the reason mentioned by bob. ..."
    "... Ultimately, Mr. Trump's outrage over the $ (true or not) is yet another dodge avoiding the real question that he needs to be asked: "Do you want a war with Iran?" ..."
    "... Course, I think everybody probably already knows the answer. It'd just be nice to have it print (or a tweet as the case may be). ..."
    "... If the reports about Trump asking his foreign policy advisers about the utility of using nuclear weapons are accurate, there are probably several nations, including Iran, who'd be wise to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible to let him know why they shouldn't be used. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Ron Jacobs

    It was Iran's money that Washington froze . Besides, if I recall, the great Republican hero Ronnie Reagan traded weapons to Iran for hostages.

    Joel Marcuson

    It probably hasn't dawned on him that Hillary has not been a member of the current Gov't for about 4 yrs now. How could she possibly be responsible for that decision, the type our Gov't has made all along for as long as I can remember? What a screwball.

    onu labu

    whatever the 'ransom', both Clinton and Trump are hellbent on undermining the Iranian deal. idiots.

    trucmat

    The gist of reality here is that the US confiscated a bunch of Iranian money and are decades later starting to give it back. Scandalous!

    ViktorZK

    They should be attacking Clinton over the DNC resignations and a whole bunch more. But the entire week has been taken up damping down fires Trump and his surrogates keep lighting. Even this story (which is a non-event really) will struggle for oxygen. The biggest headline today is GOP ELDERS PLAN INTERVENTION TO REHABILITATE FAILING CAMPAIGN. Hard to top that.

    macmarco 1h

    One must remember that Obama early and often said Reagan was his political hero. The same Reagan who bought hostages freedom with a cake, a bible and a bunch of weapons.

    ClearItUp

    The more I think about it, US deserve to have Trump as president. He will screw up the US so royally that may shock American people to start thinking straight.

    rberger -> ClearItUp

    Trump would certainly screw up the US, but if 8 years of Bush couldn't get them to start thinking straight, I am not sure what would.

    ChangeIranNow

    At this point, with tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets already on their way to Iran and a virtual Tehran gold rush in which Western firms are seeking to profit from the collapse of sanctions going on, revisiting the way the Iran deal was sold to the nation seems beside the point. But with Iran already signaling that it will demand even more Western appeasement to keep complying with the terms of the nuclear pact, an examination into the cash-for-hostages' aspect of the story is important. Let us hope our next president is willing to harden its stance on the Iran regime and support an era of domestically-fostered peace and stability.

    doublreed legalimmigrant

    DryBack, Voilà: Wikileaks recently released documents proving that Hillary Clinton took $100,000 of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80's and 90's) that also funded ISIS in Syria. French industrial giant, Lafarge, gave money to the Islamic state to operate their (Lafarge's) cement plant in Syria, and purchased oil from ISIS. Lafarge are also large donators to Clinton's election and the Clinton Foundation. More is here: http://yournewswire.com/clinton-was-director-of-company-that-donated-money-to-isis/

    Lafarge is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm's up to $100,000 donation was listed in its annual donor list for 2015.

    Zepp

    Who on Earth would consider Tom Cotton and the Wall Street Journal to be credible sources?

    They took the (true, verified) story of the Bush administration flying pallets of $100 bills into Baghdad where they promptly vanished, filed the numbers of, and resurrected it for this story. The WSJ is a Murdoch organ, and Cotton is a crackpot.

    itsmeLucas

    Hillary hates Iran more than Trump does... she's just extremely good in deceiving.. Remember when Sanders said to reach out to Iran about the Syrian conflict? Her reply was exactly this; "asking Iran for cooperation in Syria is like asking a pyromaniac to extinguish a fire" .. when president, I fear she will not only avoid cooperation but will be playing real hardball with Iran, where Trump, as someone who seems to be sympathetic to the Russian regime, might get more friendly with Iran (the friends of your friends...)

    It's a mess anyways... trump changes like how the wind blows, and Hillary is a snake (understatement of the year)

    coffeeclutch

    Donald Trump and Tom Cotton are the verifying sources for this information? Tom Cotton, who claimed that Iran needed to be stopped because "[they] already control Tehran?"

    The circus act of American politics is really beyond belief. I'm still in awe the Republicans faced no consequences for issuing a warning letter to a foreign government in the midst of diplomatic negotiations with the President and the State Department. All while running around Obama's back and inviting Israel's Prime Minister to address them directly in suggesting how Americans should approach their foreign policy.

    WorkingEU

    To shift focus to an Iranian deal seems a good line of attack. But from a historical perspective it may be a little guileless. The Iranian Revolution was a populist revolt against globalization, elitism, corruption, foreign treachery and all the other abundant evils.

    The clergy promised the earth, and delivered heaven. I confess this is a somewhat superficial analysis when compared to the profound depth of the Trump campaign.

    coffeeclutch -> WorkingEU

    If I recall correctly the religious sphere was also one of the areas of social life not micromanaged and controlled by the Shah (secular authority at that time was rather hands-off on its approach to the clergy), so the clergy were in a unique position to manipulate a lot of desperate people by presenting themselves as an "open and freer" alternative to the grossly exploitative, corrupt, and often violent rule of the secular regime.

    Of course once the were able to wrest enough power to shunt aside the various leftist and student protest groups rising up at the same time, all that concern about anti-corruption and public welfare was immediately tossed into the bin. Pretty much a Scylla and Charybdis situation.

    jokaz

    The US has not held up to the term of the nuclear agreement! The banks are still afraid of US to deal with Iran. Congress has stopped the beoing deal, etc. The US congress is acting as bully! Actually not holding itself with the very deal the US signed is very bad! I can see Iran reluctant to negotiate any deal with a bunch of liars

    DBakes

    I would like to understand more details about the cash payment and the reason. Was it really a secret payment? That being said I will never vote for Trump who to me is an imminent threat to national security.

    bobj1156 -> DBakes

    There were no bank relations between the US and Iran, so cash was the only option. It was conducted in secret because who's going to announce that a plane full of cash is in route to, well, anywhere?

    MtnClimber -> DBakes

    The US owed that money to Iran. The transfer was kept secret for the reason mentioned by bob.

    MiltonWiltmellow

    The US state department has denied this.

    The WSJ quoted Tom Cotton, a Republican senator from Arkansas, as accusing the Obama administration of ...

    Does the accusation even matter?

    A Murdoch rag prints an unsubstantiated political accusation made a Murdoch political sympathizer and somehow it becomes credible enough for the Guardian to repeat the smear?

    Here's what those of us who live in the Real World™ say.

    Where's your fucking proof??

    williamdonovan

    However, although the cash payment to Iran coincided with the release of a group of Iranian American prisoners, there is no evidence to suggest any link between the two events.

    Evidence maybe not but the read could draw easily make a "inference"

    Blacks Law 4th Edition

    INFERENCE. In the law of evidence. A truth or proposition drawn from another which is sup- posed or admitted to be true. A process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved or admitted. Whitehouse v. Bolster, 95 Me. 458, 50 A. 240; Joske v. Irvine, 91 Tex. 574, 44 S.W. 1059.

    A deduction which the reason of the jury makes from the facts proved, without an express direction of law to that effect. Puget Sound Electric Ry. v. Benson, C.C.A. Wash., 253 F. 710, 714.
    A "presumption" and an "inference" are not the same thing, a presumption being a deduction which the law requires a trier of facts to make, an inference being a deduction which the trier may or may not make, according to his own conclusions; a presumption is mandatory, an INFERENCE

    eyeinlurk -> williamdonovan

    Kind of like the Reagan arms for hostages deal with...uh...Iran. Back in the 80's.
    I'm starting to miss the 80's, and I never thought I'd say that.

    Ranger4 -> eyeinlurk

    And they used the cash to .............fund an insurrection

    williamdonovan -> eyeinlurk

    I was working at the Pentagon then and found myself having inside knowledge of Iran-Contra before it unfolded to the rest of the world. Given that the information was highly classified Top Secret/SRA access. I had been given access to what I thought at the time was two completely unrelated events moving of the missiles and the training and arming of the contras. The information was compartmented meaning few people knew about either program and even far fewer people new both programs where related (it wasn't called Iran-Contra until after much later) Just weeks before the public new. I was given access to the complete picture. Even then I couldn't figure how could something like this be legal. Because as we know now it was not.

    You could easily draw inference between the these two events.

    As I already have!

    jrcdmc6670

    Ultimately, Mr. Trump's outrage over the $ (true or not) is yet another dodge avoiding the real question that he needs to be asked: "Do you want a war with Iran?"

    Course, I think everybody probably already knows the answer. It'd just be nice to have it print (or a tweet as the case may be).

    jrcdmc6670

    If the reports about Trump asking his foreign policy advisers about the utility of using nuclear weapons are accurate, there are probably several nations, including Iran, who'd be wise to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible to let him know why they shouldn't be used.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html

    [Aug 04, 2016] Donald Trump Reaffirms Support for Warmer Relations With Russia

    Aug 2, 2016

    Donald Trump Reaffirms Support for Warmer Relations With Russia, NYT, 01 Aug 2016

    Donald J. Trump unabashedly trumpeted his support for warmer relations with Russia at a campaign rally here on Monday night, acidly mocking opponents who say he is too friendly to Vladimir V. Putin, the country's strongman president. Mr. Trump, who has been under fire from Democrats and some conservative national security leaders for his accommodating stance toward Mr. Putin, cast his supportive remarks as a matter of practical necessity. By aligning itself with Russia, he said, the United States could more easily take on the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. "If we could get Russia to help us get rid of ISIS -- if we could actually be friendly with Russia -- wouldn't that be a good thing?" Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, said. Repeating the question moments later, he won loud applause from the crowd: "If we could get along with Russia, wouldn't that be a good thing, instead of a bad thing?"

    [Aug 04, 2016] Ron Paul on Libya War Escalation – Congress AWOL

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals have created madness and mayhem in the world today. Real change will happen only if resources are available for all in a co-operative capitalistic way that raises the standard of living for all rather than the few. We now have socialism of the rich and low productivity with the standard of living becoming more about quantity rather than quality. ..."
    Antiwar.com Blog
    Greg Kenny , 6 minutes ago
    Liberals ,conservatives and progressives need to put ideologies behind and form a coalition to demand change. Just exercising our right to vote will change nothing.

    We will continue to get blow back in the form of terrorism as long as we do not change the foreign policy in the Middle East which goes back to Sykes -Picot and the aftermath of World War One.

    The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals have created madness and mayhem in the world today. Real change will happen only if resources are available for all in a co-operative capitalistic way that raises the standard of living for all rather than the few. We now have socialism of the rich and low productivity with the standard of living becoming more about quantity rather than quality.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Obama Trump Unfit, Woefully Unprepared For Presidency, Has To Be A Point Where Republicans Say Enough

    Notable quotes:
    "... President Obama has been a failed leader who along with Secretary of State Clinton created a foreign policy that has destabilized the world and made it an unsafe place. He is the one who is unfit to be President and Hillary Clinton is equally unfit. ..."
    "... Obama-Clinton have single-handedly destabilized the Middle East, handed Iraq, Libya and Syria to ISIS, and allowed our personnel to be slaughtered at Benghazi. ..."
    "... They have produced the worst recovery since the Great Depression. They have shipped millions of our best jobs overseas to appease their global special interests. They have betrayed our security and our workers, and Hillary Clinton has proven herself unfit to serve in any government office. ..."
    "... She is reckless with her emails, reckless with regime change, and reckless with American lives. Our nation has been humiliated abroad and compromised by radical Islam brought onto our shores. We need change now. ..."
    www.realclearpolitics.com
    President Obama slams Republican nominee for president Donald Trump at a joint press conference with the prime minister of Singapore at the White House Tuesday morning. Obama said Trump does not have the judgment, temperament or understanding to occupy the Oval Office. Obama scolded Trump for his "attack on a Gold Star family."

    "He is woefully unprepared," Obama stated.

    Trump: "There's Something Phony" About This Week's CNN Poll

    The president implored Republicans to un-endorse him and asked what does it say about the Republican party that Trump is their standard bearer. This isn't an "episodic gaffe," this is daily and weekly, Obama said. Obama called on Republicans to repudiate and condemn the party's nominee.

    Trump: "We're Running Against a Rigged Press"

    "There has to come a point at which you say somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn't have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world," Obama said at the event with PM Lee Hsien Loong.

    "There has to be a point in which you say this is somebody I can't support for president of United States," the president said. "There has to be a point in which you say 'enough.'"

    "I recognize that they all profoundly disagree with myself or Hillary Clinton on tax policy or on certain elements of foreign policy," Obama said of Republicans. "But you know, there have been Republican presidents with whom I disagreed with but I didn't have a doubt that they could function as president."

    From President Obama's press conference:

    OBAMA: I think the Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president. I said so last week. He keeps on proving it. The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family, that [General] Hayden -- had made such extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he does not appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues in Europe, the Middle East, in Asia.

    It means that he is woefully unprepared. This is not just my opinion. What's been interesting has been the repeated denunciations of his statements by leading Republicans. Including the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, prominent Republicans like John McCain.

    The question they have to ask themselves is if you are repeatedly having to say in very strong terms that what he has said is unacceptable, why are you still endorsing him? What does this say about your party, that this is your standard bearer?

    This isn't a situation where you have an episodic gaffe. This is daily, and weekly, where they are distancing themselves from statements he's making. There has to be a point in which you say, this is not somebody I can support for president of the United States. Even if he purports to be a member of my party. And, you know, the fact that that has not yet happened makes some of these denunciations ring hollow.

    I don't doubt their sincerity. I don't doubt that they were outraged about some of the statements that Mr. Trump and his supporters made about the Khan family. But there has to come a point at which you say somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn't have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world. Because a lot of people depend on the White House getting stuff right. And this is different than just having policy disagreements.

    I recognize that they all profoundly disagree with myself or Hillary Clinton on tax policy or on certain elements of foreign policy. But you know, there have been Republican presidents with whom I disagreed with but I didn't have a doubt that they could function as president...

    There has to come a point in which you say, enough. And the alternative is that the entire party, the Republican party, effectively endorses and validates the positions that are being articulated by Mr. Trump. And as I said in my speech last week, I don't think that actually represents the views of a whole lot of Republicans out there.

    Trump responded to Obama in a statement Tuesday afternoon:

    President Obama has been a failed leader who along with Secretary of State Clinton created a foreign policy that has destabilized the world and made it an unsafe place. He is the one who is unfit to be President and Hillary Clinton is equally unfit.

    Obama-Clinton have single-handedly destabilized the Middle East, handed Iraq, Libya and Syria to ISIS, and allowed our personnel to be slaughtered at Benghazi. Then they put Iran on the path to nuclear weapons. Then they allowed dozens of veterans to die waiting for medical care that never came. Hillary Clinton put the whole country at risk with her illegal email server, deleted evidence of her crime, and lied repeatedly about her conduct which endangered us all. They released criminal aliens into our country who killed one innocent American after another -- like Sarah Root and Kate Steinle -- and have repeatedly admitted migrants later implicated in terrorism. They have produced the worst recovery since the Great Depression. They have shipped millions of our best jobs overseas to appease their global special interests. They have betrayed our security and our workers, and Hillary Clinton has proven herself unfit to serve in any government office.

    She is reckless with her emails, reckless with regime change, and reckless with American lives. Our nation has been humiliated abroad and compromised by radical Islam brought onto our shores. We need change now.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Trump-Khan Flap Puts Republicans in a Bind RealClearPolitics by James Arkin

    Aug 02, 2016 | www.realclearpolitics.com
    In an interview with CNN on Monday, Khan called Trump "ignorant" and "arrogant" and criticized other Republicans for not doing more to denounce their party's nominee.

    "Enough is enough," he said. "Every decent Republican ... has rebuked this behavior, yet no one has stood up and said, 'Enough, stop it. You will not be our candidate.'"

    It was the second time since his convention speech that Khan has directly appealed to GOP leadership on Capitol Hill to push back against the nominee. Over the weekend, he singled out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan on MSNBC, saying the "only reason they're not repudiating his behavior, his threat to our democracy, our decency, our foundation, is just because of political consequences."

    [Aug 03, 2016] Khizr Khan Founded Islamic Journal to Defend Sharia Law

    Notable quotes:
    "... Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law ..."
    "... The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law ..."
    "... Virginia continues to provide driver's licenses to terrorists. Mohammad Khweis, a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), was captured by Kurdish forces in northern Iraq. Like seven of the 9/11 hijackers, Khweis carried a Virginia license. Khizr Khan's legal advice to followers of Sharia law has allowed them to game the U.S. immigration system and Virginia legal statutes. Khan has some explaining to do about his legal practice. ..."
    "... Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist who consistently exposes cover-ups from deep within the government. Want to be the first to learn the latest scandal? Go to WayneMadsenReport.com subscribe today! ..."
    Alex Jones' Infowars!
    Khizr Khan, the Muslim immigrant lawyer from Pakistan who arrived in America by way of Dubai and pulled at the heart strings of viewers of the Democratic National Convention by regaling the audience with the story of the loss of his son in Iraq, Army Captain Humayun Khan, told his son's story but skipped over his own.

    Khizr Khan entered the United States in 1980 from Dubai to attend Harvard Law School. That year saw the Central Intelligence Agency ramp up its operations in Pakistan in support of the Afghan mujaheddin against the Soviets.

    The Pakistan operation was shepherded by national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, currently an outspoken opponent of Donald Trump and a bitter foe of Russia.

    Khan received his bachelor of law degree from Punjab University Law College in Lahore, Pakistan in 1974. After entering the United States from Dubai in 1980, Khan received a masters of law degree from the University of Missouri in 1982.

    Khan specializes in international trade law for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. As anyone familiar with these countries knows, trade law for both countries involves the traditional Muslim bribe, the baksheesh, which, depending on the value of the deal, can involve millions of dollars. These deals are very familiar to Trump, who could have strengthened his argument against Khan by revealing the "Gold Star father's" specialty in the "art of the bribe."

    Khan co-founded the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law, an academic periodical that seeks to defend the arcane Sharia law to a legal system based on Western jurisprudence. Of course, Sharia law justifies the execution of gays, prostitutes, blasphemers, and Muslim "apostates" who convert to other religions.

    Trying to advance Sharia law in legal systems based on Roman and English Common Law is like forcing a square peg into a round hole.

    ... ... ...

    Khan is a firm believer that law is based on the Sunnah, the works of the prophet Mohammed. The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law is linked to the Islamic Center of Geneva, Switzerland, an arm of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood.

    And here we run the circle back to Khan's favorite candidate, Hillary Clinton. Clinton's close aide and reported lesbian lover, Huma Abedin, has close links to radical Wahhabist Islam through her mother, the Pakistani-born Saleha Mahmood Abedin. Saleha Abedin resides in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and teaches sociology at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah.

    Although she was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Huma lived in Jeddah from infancy to her college years before returning to the United States. Dar Al-Hekma College is a women-only college in keeping with Sharia and Quranic principles of segregation of the sexes.

    The college, which was endowed by the Al-Ilm Foundation, is part of a network of Wahhabist colleges and schools that extend from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, Malaysia, and southern California.

    Khizr Khan practices law in New York and is a member of the New York Bar. Khan's Manhattan law office is next door to the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, which also happens to house the residence of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power.

    Power's husband is Cass Sunstein, President Obama's former information czar who excels in the art of disinformation, propaganda, and cognitive dissonance. But more interesting is the fact that Khan and his wife are residents of Charlottesville, Virginia, a home to a number of foreign Muslims, many of whom are students at the University of Virginia who wish to change their student visa status to permanent residency, or "green card" status.

    Charlottesville is a so-called "sanctuary city" that welcomes those who either enter the United States illegally or overstay their limited residency visas.

    Khan's wife, Ghazala, is a pediatrician in Virginia Beach, which is a three-hour drive from Charlottesville. The Khans are not attracted to Charlottesville because of a convenient distance to their places of work.

    So why do they reside in the university town? When their son died in Iraq in 2004, the Khans lived in Bristow, Virginia, a far suburb of Washington, DC in Prince William County. The Khans had also once lived in Silver Spring, Maryland.

    The official notification of Khan's death stated:

    "Captain Humayun S. M. Khan, 27, of Bristow, Virginia, died June 8, 2004, in Baquabah, Iraq, after a vehicle packed with an improvised explosive device drove into the gate of his compound while he was inspecting soldiers on guard duty. Khan was assigned to Headquarters, Headquarters Company, 201st Forward Support Battalion, 1st Infantry Division, Vilseck, Germany."

    Khan was actually an Army intelligence officer, fluent in Arabic, who worked with Iraqi civilians in a program called the United States-Iraq Sponsorship Program, which was actually an operation designed to recruit Iraqis to work as police and in other "capacities" for the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation government of Iraq.

    Khan's home base of Vilseck is a center for U.S. intelligence operations involving units of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. When Khan was killed, oversight of Iraq "transition" programs, such as the U.S.-Iraq Sponsorship Program, had just come under the control of General David Petraeus, the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq.

    Members of the Pakistani embassy, including deputy chief of mission (DCM) Mohammad Sadiq, attended Captain Khan's burial at Arlington National Cemetery. The DCM of large embassies are almost always the embassy intelligence chief of station. In the case of Sadig, this would be the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

    In 2008, Sadiq, who paid his respects to Captain Khan at Arlington, was defending ISI as the Pakistan Foreign Ministry's chief spokesman. India accused the ISI of bombing its embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. The bombing killed four people, including two Indian diplomats.

    It was not only India that blamed the ISI for the bombing in Kabul. CIA officials said that intercepts of communications showed ISI involvement. Pakistan was so incensed by the statements from U.S. intelligence that it summoned CIA official Stephen Kappes to Islamabad for a chewing out session.


    Virginia continues to provide driver's licenses to terrorists. Mohammad Khweis, a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), was captured by Kurdish forces in northern Iraq. Like seven of the 9/11 hijackers, Khweis carried a Virginia license. Khizr Khan's legal advice to followers of Sharia law has allowed them to game the U.S. immigration system and Virginia legal statutes. Khan has some explaining to do about his legal practice.

    Pakistan was not a member of the U.S. coalition in Iraq, which begs the question of why the Pakistani embassy's ISI chief attended Captain Humayun Khan's funeral at Arlington? Was Khan working, through his Saudi- and Pakistani-connected father with the ISI?

    If so, was the contact "sanctioned" by the CIA? If not, was Humayun Khan freelancing and feeding information from Iraq to the ISI, which then passed it to their close allies in the Saudi General Intelligence Department?

    Khizr Khan claims he is a "legal consultant" in Charlottesville, although he is not a member of the Virginia Bar. Given the nature of Charlotteville's status as a sanctuary city, Khan's legal background and his work with the Muslim community in Virginia, it is likely that Khan offers help to Muslims who have overstayed their student visas in the university and sanctuary city to obtain permanent residence.

    It should be recalled that seven of the 9/11 hijackers obtained Virginia driver's licenses, three of which were used as official identification to check in for flights on September 11, 2001. Perhaps if Khizr Khan had not been so willing to help dodgy Muslim "students" overstay their visas and seek workarounds to the law, Virginia might have been able to prevent the hijackers fraudulently obtain driver's licenses.

    And had there been no 9/11, there certainly would have been no U.S. invasion of Iraq and Humayun Khan would have realized his dream of attending the University of Virginia law school and becoming a military lawyer. In making it easy for Saudis, Emiratis, and others to game the U.S. immigration system, Khizr Khan shares in some of the responsibility for his son's death.

    Because it is not advisable to attack any Gold Star family, Trump should have merely replied to Khizr Khan's attack by saying, "I understand the family's loss and although they attacked me, I will not respond to a grieving family."

    Trump could have added that Captain Khan would not have died had it not been for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, a war for which Hillary Clinton voted as a senator. Through surrogates, Trump could have revealed the Khan's connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia law advocates, the Saudis, and the ISI.

    Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist who consistently exposes cover-ups from deep within the government. Want to be the first to learn the latest scandal? Go to WayneMadsenReport.com subscribe today!

    [Aug 03, 2016] Obama predicts TPP trade deal will be ratified after election by legitgov

    www.legitgov.org
    August 3, 2016

    The people will stop this, dirt-bag: Obama predicts TPP 'trade' deal will be ratified after election | 02 Aug 2016 | President Barack Obama dismissed Hillary Clinton's [phony] opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement corporate takeover Tuesday and suggested that her disapproval of the deal may be politically motivated. [*Duh.*] "Right now, I'm president, and I'm for it," he said at a news conference with Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong...While Obama and Lee were speaking, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was addressing supporters at a rally in Ashburn, Virginia, just miles from the capital. In a statement, Trump said a victory by him in November is the only way to stop a "TPP catastrophe."

    [Aug 03, 2016] Rove What If Trump Stayed On Message Addressed Hillary Clinton's Lie on Emails and FBI, Beat Her Up On Economy

    Alex Junces consider the Hillary is illegitamete candidate that stole primaries from Sanders and she intend to steal general elections. The Alex Jones Channel - YouTube
    www.realclearpolitics.com

    Former Bush adviser Karl Rove scolds Republican nominee Donald Trump for getting off message and missing campaign opportunities. In an appearance on the FOX News Channel on Wednesday morning Rove listed a litany of items Trump could have brought attention to rather than express his indignation at treatment by the media and the Khan family.

    "Let's take last Friday," Rove started. "Rather than engaging in a battle with the Khan family over the death of their son. What if that day Donald Trump had taken the economic report that showed 1% GDP growth and excoriated her for having nothing but the same policies as Barack Obama that put us here. He could have used that Friday and Saturday and beaten her up on the economy and displayed his expertise, his agenda, his issues and be seen with blue-collared workers and small business people."

    "What if on Sunday rather than starting to talk about how the elections were rigged because the debates were scheduled on the same day as big NFL football games 18 months ago, incidentally, and also excoriating the fire marshals in Colorado Springs and Columbus for enforcing the fire codes. What if he had spent the afternoon and evening of Sunday focused in on Hillary Clinton's interview with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday where she lied again about the emails and also gave him a big, fat juicy target on the economy saying my answer is I'm going to set up an infrastructure bank, 'to seed it with taxpayer dollars' and then 'get investors involved' in order to make money off of using taxpayer dollars for infrastructure projects. Both of those seem to me to be a much better way to go," Rove said.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Clint Eastwood Trump Challenging Obama's 'Pussy Generation'

    Notable quotes:
    "... Million Dollar Baby ..."
    Alex Jones' Infowars
    Presidential contender Donald Trump is challenging the "pussy generation" manifested by President Obama and the religion of political correctness, film legend Clint Eastwood recently told Esquire magazine.

    In a father-son interview featured in the September 2016 issue of the men's magazine, Eastwood explains he prefers Trump's more cut-to-the-chase, no-nonsense approach of getting his message across.

    ESQ: Your characters have become touchstones in the culture, whether it's Reagan invoking "Make my day" or now Trump … I swear he's even practiced your scowl.

    CE: Maybe. But he's onto something, because secretly everybody's getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That's the kiss-ass generation we're in right now. We're really in a pussy generation. Everybody's walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren't called racist. And then when I did Gran Torino, even my associate said, "This is a really good script, but it's politically incorrect." And I said, "Good. Let me read it tonight." The next morning, I came in and I threw it on his desk and I said, "We're starting this immediately."

    ESQ: What is the "pussy generation"?

    CE: All these people that say, "Oh, you can't do that, and you can't do this, and you can't say that." I guess it's just the times.

    ESQ: What do you think Trump is onto?

    CE: What Trump is onto is he's just saying what's on his mind. And sometimes it's not so good. And sometimes it's … I mean, I can understand where he's coming from, but I don't always agree with it.

    ESQ: So you're not endorsing him?

    CE: I haven't endorsed anybody. I haven't talked to Trump. I haven't talked to anybody. You know, he's a racist now because he's talked about this judge. And yeah, it's a dumb thing to say. I mean, to predicate your opinion on the fact that the guy was born to Mexican parents or something. He's said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody-the press and everybody's going, "Oh, well, that's racist," and they're making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fucking get over it. It's a sad time in history.

    Speaking of his stunt at the 2012 RNC in which he spoke to an empty chair intended to represent Obama, the 86-year-old director stated the president is pretty much the embodiment of the "pussy generation" due to his lack of efforts to strike deals with Congress throughout his tenure.

    CE: It was silly at the time, but I was standing backstage and I'm hearing everybody say the same thing: "Oh, this guy's a great guy." Great, he's a great guy. I've got to say something more. And so I'm listening to an old Neil Diamond thing and he's going, "And no one heard at all / Not even the chair." And I'm thinking, That's Obama. He doesn't go to work. He doesn't go down to Congress and make a deal. What the hell's he doing sitting in the White House? If I were in that job, I'd get down there and make a deal. Sure, Congress are lazy bastards, but so what? You're the top guy. You're the president of the company. It's your responsibility to make sure everybody does well. It's the same with every company in this country, whether it's a two-man company or a two-hundred-man company… . And that's the pussy generation-nobody wants to work.

    While Eastwood hasn't formally endorsed Trump, the Million Dollar Baby actor did admit he would vote for the businessman over Clinton, as she is set to continue Obama's disastrous agenda.

    ESQ: But if the choice is between her and Trump, what do you do?

    CE: That's a tough one, isn't it? I'd have to go for Trump … you know, 'cause she's declared that she's gonna follow in Obama's footsteps. There's been just too much funny business on both sides of the aisle. She's made a lot of dough out of being a politician. I gave up dough to be a politician. I'm sure that Ronald Reagan gave up dough to be a politician.

    Eastwood and his son, Scott, later clarified their positions on being labeled the "anti-pussy party."

    ESQ: Politically, you're the Anti-Pussy party?

    SE: That's right. No candy-asses.

    CE: Yeah, I'm anti–the pussy generation. Not to be confused with pussy.

    SE: All of us are pro-pussy.

    Eastwood is just the latest in a growing chorus of voices speaking out against the burgeoning system of political correctness, which threatens an Orwellian control of language and the population at large.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Obama Signals Trump Will Win

    www.infowars.com

    Alex Jones' Infowars

    If the election was already "in the bag" for Hillary Clinton, President Obama wouldn't be working overtime to convince the GOP to dump Trump.

    Instead, he'd be encouraging Trump to speak out more if his words were helping Hillary – but that's not the case at all.

    Obama is signaling that the globalists are losing and Hillary is falling too far behind for the technocrats to rig the election in her favor.

    "The president implored Republicans to un-endorse him and asked what does it say about the Republican party that Trump is their standard bearer," Real Clear Politics reported. "Obama called on Republicans to repudiate and condemn the party's nominee."

    In other words, the president is the Wizard of Oz panicking after Trump pulled the curtain to expose the globalists as the evil they are – and not the saviors of humanity they portray themselves to be.

    It's also revealing that Obama made his desperate declaration right after Trump warned the general election is being rigged just like the Democratic nomination, which was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton – despite the majority of Democrats supporting Bernie Sanders.

    "As the leaked DNC emails illustrated, the establishment pre-selected Hillary from the start and the primary process was a complete charade to give the illusion of democratic choice," Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones stated. "As the Observer's Michael Sainato writes, 'Instead of treating Sanders as a viable candidate for the Democratic ticket, the DNC worked against him and his campaign to ensure Clinton received the nomination.' The elite chose Hillary before any of the primary votes came in, and vowed to select her regardless of the result."

    "How in any way is this not a rigged process, as Trump rightly pointed out?"

    Did Trump just let the genie out of the bottle the globalists won't be able to put back in? It appears so.

    "Government's been around for as long as history's been around and I think they've exhausted their experimentation," Ron Paul once said. "We've had some experiments with individual liberty and one great experiment was here and I think right now we're seeing the fruitions of how we left that experiment in the last 100 years and it continues yet there's a spirit right now amongst the people who are starting to realize that."

    [Aug 03, 2016] Neocon-like Groupthink Dominates Both Conventions

    Notable quotes:
    "... The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland. ..."
    "... The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it. ..."
    "... Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation. ..."
    "... And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago. ..."
    "... Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents. ..."
    "... Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party. ..."
    "... If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020. ..."
    The Unz Review

    The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland.

    The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it.

    Those in the media and around Hillary who were baying the loudest about how outraged they were over the hack curiously appear to have no knowledge of the existence of the National Security Agency, located at Fort Meade Maryland, which routinely breaks into the government computers of friends and foes alike worldwide. Apparently what is fair game for American codebreakers is no longer seen so positively when there is any suggestion that the tables might have been turned.

    Republican nominee Donald Trump noted that if the Russians were in truth behind the hack he would like them to search for the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton reportedly deleted from her home server. The comment, which to my mind was sarcastically making a point about Clinton's mendacity, brought down the wrath of the media, with the New York Times reporting that "foreign policy experts," also sometimes known as "carefully selected 'Trump haters,'" were shocked by The Donald. The paper quoted one William Inboden, allegedly a University of Texas professor who served on President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Inboden complained that the comments were "an assault on the Constitution" and "tantamount to treason." Now I have never heard of Inboden, which might be sheer ignorance on my part, but he really should refresh himself on what the Constitution actually says about treason, tantamount or otherwise. According to Article III of the Constitution of the United States one can only commit treason if there is a declared war going on and one is actively aiding an enemy, which as far as I know is not currently the case as applied to the U.S. relationship with Russia.

    Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation.

    And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago.

    Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents.

    No other foreign country was mentioned as often as Israel apart from Iran, which was regularly cited as an enemy of both the U.S. and – you guessed it – Israel. Indeed, the constant thumping of Iran is a reflection of the overweening affection for Netanyahu and his right wing government. Regarding Iran, the GOP foreign policy platform states "We consider the Administration's deal with Iran, to lift international sanctions and make hundreds of billions of dollars available to the Mullahs, a personal agreement between the President and his negotiat­ing partners and non-binding on the next president. Without a two-thirds endorsement by the Senate, it does not have treaty status. Because of it, the de­fiant and emboldened regime in Tehran continues to sponsor terrorism across the region, develop a nuclear weapon, test-fire ballistic missiles inscribed with 'Death to Israel,' and abuse the basic human rights of its citizens."

    The final written Republican platform for 2016 as relating to the Middle East, drawn up with the input of two Trump advisors Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, rather supports the suggestion that Trump would be pro-Israel rather than the claim of impartiality. The plank entitled "Our Unequivocal Support of Israel and Jerusalem," promises to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, praises Israel in five different sections, eulogizing it as a "beacon of democracy and humanity" brimming over with freedom of speech and religion while concluding that "support for Israel is an expression of Americanism." It pledges "no daylight" between the two countries, denies that Israel is an "occupier," and slams the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), which it describes as anti-Semitic and seeking to destroy Israel. It calls for legal action to "thwart" BDS. There is no mention of a Palestinian state or of any Palestinian rights to anything at all.

    The Democratic plank on the Middle East gives lip service to a two state solution for Israel-Palestine but is mostly notable for what it chose to address. Two Bernie Sanders supporters on the platform drafting committee James Zogby and Cornel West wanted to remove any illegal under international law affirmation that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and also sought to eliminated any condemnation of BDS. They failed on both issues and then tried to have included mild language criticizing Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its settlement building. They were outvoted by Hillary supporters on all the issues they considered important. Indeed, there is no language at all critical in any way of Israel, instead asserting that "a strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism." That none of that was or is true apparently bothered no one in the Hillary camp.

    The Democratic platform document explicitly condemns any support for BDS. Hillary Clinton, who has promised to take the relationship with Israel to a whole new level, has reportedly agreed to an anti-BDS pledge to appease her principal financial supporter Haim Saban, an Israeli-American film producer. Clinton also directly and personally intervened through her surrogate on the committee Wendy Sherman to make sure that the party platform would remain pro-Israel.

    But many Democrats on the floor of the convention hall have, to their credit, promoted a somewhat different perspective, displaying signs and stickers while calling for support of Palestinian rights. One demonstrator outside the convention center burned an Israeli flag, producing a sharp response from Hillary's spokeswoman for Jewish outreach Sarah Bard, "Hillary Clinton has always stood against efforts to marginalize Israel and incitement, and she strongly condemns this kind of hatred. Burning the Israeli flag is a reckless act that undermines peace and our values." Bill meanwhile was seen in the hall wearing a Hillary button written in Hebrew. It was a full court press pander and one has to wonder how Hillary would have felt about someone burning a Russian flag or seeing Bill sport a button in Cyrillic.

    Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party.

    The Democratic platform also beats down on Iran, declaring only tepid support for the nuclear deal while focusing more on draconian enforcement, asserting that they would "not hesitate to take military action if Iran violates the agreement." It also cited Iran as "the leading state sponsor of terrorism" and claimed that Tehran "has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East." For what it's worth, neither assertion about Iran's regional role is true and Tehran reportedly has complied completely with the multilateral nuclear agreement. It is the U.S. government that is failing to live up to its commitments by refusing to allow Iranian access to financial markets while the Congress has even blocked an Iranian bid to buy Made-in-the-U.S.A. civilian jetliners.

    So those of us who had hoped for at least a partial abandonment of the hitherto dominant foreign policy consensus have to be disappointed as they in the pro-war crowd in their various guises as liberal interventionists or global supremacy warriors continue to control much of the discourse from left to right. Russia continues to be a popular target to vent Administration frustration over its inept posturing overseas, though there is some hope that Donald Trump might actually reverse that tendency. Iran serves as a useful punchline whenever a politician on the make runs out of other things to vilify. And then there is always Israel, ever the victim, perpetually the greatest ally and friend. And invariably needing some extra cash, a warplane or two or a little political protection in venues like the United Nations.

    If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020.

    [Aug 03, 2016] American voters don't trust Hillary Clinton

    Feb 18, 2016 | www.ronpaulforums.com

    Originally from http://www.salon.com/2016/02/19/hill...efeat_the_gop/

    In addition, American voters don't trust Hillary Clinton. At what point will critics of Bernie Sanders realize that American voters will never vote for a candidate they don't trust and don't like? In October of 2015, I explained in the following YouTube segment why Clinton is unelectable, and in another segment why Clinton must always evolve on key issues.

    After all, it's difficult to trust a politician who completely fabricated a story about being fired upon by snipers. Like POLITIFACT states, "it's hard to understand how she could err on something so significant as whether she did or didn't dodge sniper bullets."

    [Aug 02, 2016] NSA Architect: Agency Has ALL of Clinton's Deleted Emails

    A very important, informative interview. Outlines complexity of challenges of modern society and the real power of "alphabet agencies" in the modern societies (not only in the USA) pretty vividly. You need to listen to it several times to understand better the current environment.
    Very sloppy security was the immanent feature both of Hillary "bathroom" server and DNC emails hacks. So there probably were multiple parties that has access to those data not a single one (anti Russian hysteria presumes that the only party are Russian and that's silly; what about China, Iran and Israel?). Russian government would not use a "known attack" as they would immediately be traced back.
    Anything, any communications that goes over the network are totally. 100% exposed to NSA data collection infrastructure. Clinton email messages are not exception. NSA does have information on them, including all envelopes (the body of the message might be encrypted and that's slightly complicate the matter, but there is no signs that Clinton of DNC used encryption of them)
    NSA has the technical capabilities to trace the data back and they most probably have most if not all of deleted mail. The "total surveillance", the total data mailing used by NSA definitely includes the mail envelopes which makes possible to enumerate all the missing mails.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday. ..."
    "... Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists." ..."
    "... "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
    "... Listen to the full interview here: ... ..."
    "... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer ..."
    www.breitbart.com
    The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.

    Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National Committee's server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned about Clinton's compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.

    Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.

    He was speaking on this reporter's Sunday radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio," broadcast on New York's AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia's NewsTalk 990 AM.

    Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

    Stated Binney:

    "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."

    "So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.

    Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.

    "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."

    Listen to the full interview here: ...

    Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.

    And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.

    The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:

    GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).

    Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

    [Aug 02, 2016] Feel the BURN Bernie Hot Mic Proves He Was Never a Real Candidate

    www.youtube.com

    YouTube

    Published on Jul 26, 2016

    Most of us knew this already, but now here's proof. Is Bernie going down fighting for his political beliefs like a real presidential candidate would? Is he even being remotely honest with his supporters at this point? Nope. He's keeping his mouth shut and staying on script for Hillary - who everyone knows will be the worst kind of tyrannical dictator - saying, "I'm proud to stand with her".

    For those of us who didn't know this, Bernie was like a magical fairy unicorn. People want so badly to believe it's real... but it just isn't... and it never was. Feel the burn...

    Truthstream Can Be Found Here:
    Website: http://TruthstreamMedia.com
    FB: http://Facebook.com/TruthstreamMedia
    Twitter: @TruthstreamNews
    Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX

    ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*­~*~*~*~*~

    Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Lemmy Fuque 1 day ago

    For decades the Clintons have run a criminal organization of fraud, deception, hypocrisy, conspiracy, bribes, blackmail, espionage, treason, murder, assassination, money laundering, sex-slaves, pedophilia, etc. that would leave Capone and Giancana in awe. Leaked DNC emails is your proof that Bernie was just another Clinton pawn. (Add Seth Rich to the Clinton body count after leaking DNC emails). Though Bernie attracted a lot of followers, do NOT under estimate the stupidity of the brainwashed Libtard electorate to vote the skank criminal cunt for POTUS. Clintons run the $100B criminal Clinton Foundation & Global initiative and get what they want-or they will take you out. Libtards will be the easiest and first lead to FEMA camps for NWO depopulation.
    cros99 1 day ago
    You can't blame Bernie for he is a Professional politician after all. To survive in that game, one has to play ball with party management. Half the trouble in this country comes from the two parties who make the decisions....Not the people.
    Garren Luce 5 hours ago
    like jessse venture said ..politics is exactly like wrestling - In front of the cameras they hate each other , but when it's off they eating lunch together
    j jay 4 hours ago
    Bernies reaction that night when Clinton dared to thank him said it all ,sad fact is he refuses to say they fucked him and lied and cheated because she has offered him something or he is scared.

    [Aug 02, 2016] NSA Architect: Agency Has ALL of Clinton's Deleted Emails

    A very important, informative interview. Outlines complexity of challenges of modern society and the real power of "alphabet agencies" in the modern societies (not only in the USA) pretty vividly. You need to listen to it several times to understand better the current environment.
    Very sloppy security was the immanent feature both of Hillary "bathroom" server and DNC emails hacks. So there probably were multiple parties that has access to those data not a single one (anti Russian hysteria presumes that the only party are Russian and that's silly; what about China, Iran and Israel?). Russian government would not use a "known attack" as they would immediately be traced back.
    Anything, any communications that goes over the network are totally. 100% exposed to NSA data collection infrastructure. Clinton email messages are not exception. NSA does have information on them, including all envelopes (the body of the message might be encrypted and that's slightly complicate the matter, but there is no signs that Clinton of DNC used encryption of them)
    NSA has the technical capabilities to trace the data back and they most probably have most if not all of deleted mail. The "total surveillance", the total data mailing used by NSA definitely includes the mail envelopes which makes possible to enumerate all the missing mails.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday. ..."
    "... Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists." ..."
    "... "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
    "... Listen to the full interview here: ... ..."
    "... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer ..."
    www.breitbart.com
    The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.

    Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National Committee's server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned about Clinton's compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.

    Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.

    He was speaking on this reporter's Sunday radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio," broadcast on New York's AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia's NewsTalk 990 AM.

    Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

    Stated Binney:

    "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."

    "So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.

    Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.

    "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."

    Listen to the full interview here: ...

    Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.

    And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.

    The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:

    GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).

    Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

    [Aug 02, 2016] Trump the Peace Candidate by Patrick J. Buchanan

    The Us intervention were dictate by needs of global corporation that control the US foreigh policy. And they need to open market, press geopolitical rivals (Ukraine, Georgia) and grab resources (Iraq, Libya). The American people are now hostages in their own country and can do nothing against the establishement militaristic stance. They will fight and die in unnecessary wars of neoliberal globalization.
    Notable quotes:
    "... With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton's lost emails. Not funny, and close to "treasonous," came the shocked cry. Trump then told the New York Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response ..."
    "... Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled. We got a hint of this in 2013. Barack Obama, claiming his "red line" against any use of poison gas in Syria had been crossed, found he had no public backing for air and missile strikes on the Assad regime. The country rose up as one and told him to forget it. He did. We have been at war since 2001. And as one looks on the ruins of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and adds up the thousands dead and wounded and trillions sunk and lost, can anyone say our War Party has served us well? ..."
    "... The first NATO supreme commander, General Eisenhower, said that if U.S. troops were still in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure. In 1961, he urged JFK to start pulling U.S. troops out, lest Europeans become military dependencies of the United States. Was Ike not right? Even Barack Obama today riffs about the "free riders" on America's defense. Is it really so outrageous for Trump to ask how long the U.S. is to be responsible for defending rich Europeans who refuse to conscript the soldiers or pay the cost of their own defense, when Eisenhower was asking that same question 55 years ago? ..."
    "... In 1997, geostrategist George Kennan warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe "would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era." He predicted a fierce nationalistic Russian response. Was Kennan not right? ..."
    August 2, 2016 | The American Conservative

    With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton's lost emails. Not funny, and close to "treasonous," came the shocked cry. Trump then told the New York Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response.

    Even more shocking. By suggesting the U.S. might not honor its NATO commitment, under Article 5, to fight Russia for Estonia, our foreign policy elites declaimed, Trump has undermined the security architecture that has kept the peace for 65 years. More interesting, however, was the reaction of Middle America. Or, to be more exact, the nonreaction. Americans seem neither shocked nor horrified. What does this suggest?

    Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled. We got a hint of this in 2013. Barack Obama, claiming his "red line" against any use of poison gas in Syria had been crossed, found he had no public backing for air and missile strikes on the Assad regime. The country rose up as one and told him to forget it. He did. We have been at war since 2001. And as one looks on the ruins of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and adds up the thousands dead and wounded and trillions sunk and lost, can anyone say our War Party has served us well?

    On bringing Estonia into NATO, no Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing so insane a war guarantee. Eisenhower refused to intervene to save the Hungarian rebels. JFK refused to halt the building of the Berlin Wall. LBJ did nothing to impede the Warsaw Pact's crushing of the Prague Spring. Reagan never considered moving militarily to halt the smashing of Solidarity.

    Were all these presidents cringing isolationists? Rather, they were realists who recognized that, though we prayed the captive nations would one day be free, we were not going to risk a world war, or a nuclear war, to achieve it. Period. In 1991, President Bush told Ukrainians that any declaration of independence from Moscow would be an act of "suicidal nationalism."

    Today, Beltway hawks want to bring Ukraine into NATO. This would mean that America would go to war with Russia, if necessary, to preserve an independence Bush I regarded as "suicidal."

    Have we lost our minds?

    The first NATO supreme commander, General Eisenhower, said that if U.S. troops were still in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure. In 1961, he urged JFK to start pulling U.S. troops out, lest Europeans become military dependencies of the United States. Was Ike not right? Even Barack Obama today riffs about the "free riders" on America's defense. Is it really so outrageous for Trump to ask how long the U.S. is to be responsible for defending rich Europeans who refuse to conscript the soldiers or pay the cost of their own defense, when Eisenhower was asking that same question 55 years ago?

    In 1997, geostrategist George Kennan warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe "would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era." He predicted a fierce nationalistic Russian response. Was Kennan not right? NATO and Russia are today building up forces in the eastern Baltic where no vital U.S. interests exist, and where we have never fought before - for that very reason. There is no evidence Russia intends to march into Estonia, and no reason for her to do so. But if she did, how would NATO expel Russian troops without air and missile strikes that would devastate that tiny country? And if we killed Russians inside Russia, are we confident Moscow would not resort to tactical atomic weapons to prevail? After all, Russia cannot back up any further. We are right in her face.

    On this issue Trump seems to be speaking for the silent majority and certainly raising issues that need to be debated.

    Needed now is diplomacy. The trade-off: Russia ensures the independence of the Baltic republics that she let go. And NATO gets out of Russia's face. Should Russia dishonor its commitment, economic sanctions are the answer, not another European war.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority

    [Aug 02, 2016] Trump was right when he said Democrats wrote Khizr Khan's speech

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not a Trump supporter, but Trump was right when he said Democrats wrote Khizr Khan's speech. In the middle of attacking Trump for the Mexican wall and ban on Muslims, he attacked Trump for opposing free trade. (Something only Clintonista weasels would dream up.) ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    Ron Waller said in reply to pgl...

    Not a Trump supporter, but Trump was right when he said Democrats wrote Khizr Khan's speech. In the middle of attacking Trump for the Mexican wall and ban on Muslims, he attacked Trump for opposing free trade. (Something only Clintonista weasels would dream up.)

    It's ridiculous to suggest that a politician is not allowed to say anything in defense of attacks leveled by "sacred" parents of slain soldiers. Their point was that they are Muslim and American and their son died fighting for America. His point: why didn't the speechwriters give the wife a couple of lines? Is this husband a social-conservative Muslim who doesn't permit his wife to speak? Those are not American values.

    BTW, do people think Trump's ban on Muslims is bad? The fact is, America is at war with a number of Muslim nations and factions. FDR declared war on Japan. Then put Japanese Americans in concentration camps. Trump has yet to get FDR on their asses!

    ilsm said in reply to Ron Waller... I am a Vietnam era veteran, I earned a pension, with no disability, and I think the 6000 KIA from Clinton's Universal perpetual war vote are discredited by Clinton using a family of a KIA to rub Trumps nose in his "screen muslims position". Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 04:31 PM Ron Waller said in reply to ilsm... Ha. Didn't even realize the hypocrisy.

    I did notice it in Hillary's attack on Trump for using outsourcing yet opposing free trade. She helped put the TPP together and called it the 'gold standard' of trade deals. (By gold standard I take it she means big on investor protection limiting the scope of democratic government.)

    This is the same as calling Warren Buffet a hypocrite calling for higher taxes on the rich, but not willing to donate the difference to the government.

    Business people operate in the business environment and the existing supply chains. They have to play by the existing rules or lose out to their competitors. No business person is a hypocrite calling for reforms to the system. Only government regulations can change the system.

    Trump is putting his money where his mouth is by vowing to tear up terrible trade deals that could cut into his profits.

    Hillary's position on the TPP is don't ask/don't tell. Don't ask if she'll tear up the agreement and she won't tell she's already taken the bribe money. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 05:32 PM chriss1519 said... Frankly, I find Paul Ryan more vile than Trump. Trump says some awful things, but at least his policies come from a place where he has some concern for the little guy. Ryan is all too happy to see the poor ground into the dirt. Ideological consistency above all else. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 02:30 AM lilnev said in reply to chriss1519... Trump is all too happy to screw the little guy. That's been his behavior all his life. He has found that applause lines about the little guy are a great way to promote himself, that's all.
    I do find Paul Ryan more heinous, though. The man who wouldn't even let Congress vote on Zika funding because he knew it would pass. That's a much more calculated evil than the filth that spews out of Trump. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 05:39 AM Sanjait said in reply to chriss1519... If you think Trump cares about the little guy, I have a degree program from Trump University to sell you ...

    But I take your point about Ryan, RC AKA Darryl, Ron said... "...But democracy isn't about making a statement, it's about exercising responsibility. And indulging your feelings at a time like this amounts to dereliction of your duty as a citizen..."

    [Paul Krugman appears to confuse the way the world actually works with how he thinks the world should work. I guess that is how voting works in his model, but if it really worked that way in reality then there is no way to explain the existence of either of our two mainstream political parties. You don't get to where we are with our political system by exercising responsibility and that has been true all my life. Politics has been entirely about triangulating demographic groups by their susceptibility to leveraging their contradictions between their aspirations and their fears.] Peter K. said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... They tell you to choose between Coke and Pepsi and make the responsible choice. Politics is more than that.

    It's about that almighty dollar.

    As Obama said in his speech in Philly:

    "So if you agree that there's too much inequality in our economy, and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders' supporters have been."

    The New Democrats like Bill Clinton who triangulate do so in part to attract wealthy donors. Sanders showed you don't have to with his numerous small contributions.

    But when you appeal to the wishes of wealthy donors you demoralize your base and depress the vote.

    If Hillary isn't progressive enough, she'll create more Trump voters. How is that responsible? jjhman said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... In these discussions my mind alwasy turns back to, as said above, how things actually work instead of what we would like or the constitution may require.

    The way things really work is that political elites run the show. For government to work the elites have to give the voters rational choices that depend on elites doing thier homework and actually having reasons for why one path or the other would advance the needs of the society. The system only works when there is some sense of noblesse oblige in the elites and the voters believe that the elites actually are trying to make things better.

    The success of the Trump and Sanders campaigns show that large numbers of voters don't believe that the actors in the two parties are working to solve the country's problems. And there is certainly evidence that the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells care more about their own careers than the good of the country or even of any ideology. EMichael said in reply to jjhman... I love the idea that somehow, in 2016, there is a change in the feelings of the American people from other elections.

    The first election I paid attention to was in the 60s. Starting then, and continuing right through today every single election has been about how bad things are and what can make them better. And either the previous admin paid no attention to those things or we just need to build on what the previous admin did. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 09:45 AM RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to jjhman... I would agree with all of that if you were to omit the word "rational." Elites give voters choices. It is not rational to expect that those choices would actually be in the interest of the majority of voters anywhere near as much in the interest of elites except in those instances that the electorate is on the verge of rebellion and insurrection. The US Constitution was never structured to serve a democracy in any egalitarian manner. The Constitution provided for a system of elite privilege based on property rights and inheritance instead of bloodline and inheritance. We have been given the means to rebel democratically within the Constitutional provisions for elections within the republic, but instead we cling to elites for guidance and are fated to eternally fall to disappointment and regret. Solidarity can render the existing party system irrelevant. Don't re-elect anyone until they all do what we want. We just lack solidarity. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 10:45 AM David said... The more I think about Trump the less I know what I could rationally think to say about him.

    The Republican party has advantages that are structured in gerrymandering and just demographics, in the South. As a national party, they are losing these advantages, and will continue to do so.

    But one point: in my youth, the right wing was always paranoid in a weird way about communism. The Manchurian Candidate, Dr. Strangelove. The Vietnam war. The cold war. So I honestly thought when the cold war ended that the paranoia and hate would stop.

    Then we get Bill Clinton. And the hate and paranoia increased! The point is, hate and paranoia is right wing oxygen - without it they die, they have no raison d'etre.

    But even some of the right wingers have seen hate and paranoia can be twisted, manipulated by someone who, let's be honest, has no idea of what he's doing, no self-control, and no understanding global politics. He's like a child who wanders into the middle of a movIe:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wu598ENenk

    (anne ignore link! repeat ignore!)

    But he's a dangerous child. Observer said in reply to David ... Judging buy the comments here, there is plenty of "hate and paranoia" on both sides. ilsm said in reply to pgl... Kissinger and Albright endorsed Clinton! Sanjait said in reply to Eric377... There is something weird about fear of communism *taking over the United States*. It was never going to happen and it was always obvious it was never going to happen.

    It's only less ridiculous by a matter of degree than people who fear "creeping Sharia law" in the US. jjhman said in reply to Sanjait... The hysterical fear of communism in the US goes back at least to the Red Scare era following the Russian revolution. I have always wondered how much effort the industrial magnates of that post-gilded age had to invest in the media to get that horse running and keep it running for the rest of the 20th century. It seems that the fear-mongerers of today have abandoned socialism for Islamic terrorism. I suspect that was one reason why Bernie could slip into a national election with his socialism barely an issue. ilsm said in reply to David ... The bat @*&^ war mongers have gone blue. Maybe the bat @*&^ GOPsters are going isolation.

    The neocons Kagan and so forth are backing the Clinton war wagon.

    Fits with Bill breaking up Serbia, pushing the Kremlin's nose in it and reneging on keeping NATO in the west.

    I love it when the Clinton campaign kids who would never put on a uniform say: "we have to honor alliances" that have no relation to the common defense.

    I am old enough to not worry about nuclear winter, it is faster than climate disaster! RGC said... PK has jumped the shark. He is now pure political hack.

    He ignores what those "center-left" policies of the DLC democrats have done, the Clinton's role in that and the resulting frustration and anger of the people affected.

    A majority of Americans now see no decent future for themselves and their children and they are frustrated. They are doing what people do in that situation - they are looking for someone to blame and punish.

    PK and the DLC democrats point them to the republicans. The republicans point to the democrats. But the truth is that they both created the economic malaise that now exists on behalf of their plutocrat sponsors. The difference between them is cultural - not economic.

    Trump has the advantage of not having participated in creating that malaise. He is also voicing some truths about US foreign policy that exposes the neocon element in both parties. He is a terrible choice for president but when you are drowning you grab for any piece of flotsam that floats by.

    PK has played his part in getting us to this point by protecting the left flank of economic policy from effective but "socialist" answers. But being a neoliberal isn't enough, now he is a neocon too. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 05:46 AM JF said in reply to RGC... And I hope that the Clinton campaign reads this.

    They need to find positioning like the one Sanders had, imo, or your characterization could end up being true at the polls.

    Using PK in the positioning is using the wrong kind of person. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 06:16 AM Pinkybum said in reply to RGC... Yeah that's right Paul Krugman is keeping the working class down in cahoots with the DLC democrats.

    Sure the turn to austerity in 2010 was an economic own-goal but it wasn't Obama who turned down a jobs bill in 2011 worth $447 billion. RGC said in reply to Pinkybum... It was Obama who appointed 'deregulatin Larry' Summers and 'tax-evading Timmy' Geithner. It was Obama who proposed cutting social security. It was Obama who proposed austerity by saying we had to live within our means just like any household.
    Etc., etc. Peter K. said in reply to RGC... It's Obama pushing the TPP. RGC said in reply to Tmb81... I think Obama could have gotten all that and more. I think he disappeared the day after the election.
    I think he was bought and paid for just like Hillary is. ilsm said in reply to RGC... Obama reneged and acted as if he supported AUMF from 2002 on! ilsm said in reply to Johannes Y O Highness... UN needs to establish witness protection for Russian hackers!

    Obama calls off the FBI, someone has to look into Clinton corruption.

    IAW the mafia it is a crime to be a stool pigeon. Bob said... Just remember that the same billionaires that employ Hillary also employ Krugman.

    [Aug 02, 2016] My model shows Donald Trump has an 87 percent chance of beating Hillary Clinton by Helmut Norpoth

    July 28, 2016 | Newsday

    My advice: Beware of pollsters bearing forecasts, especially anyone trying to peek into the future, especially those with money to bet.

    Some 20 years ago, I constructed a formula, The Primary Model, that has predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five presidential elections since it was introduced. It is based on elections dating to 1912. The formula was wrong only once: The 1960 election. That one hurt because John F. Kennedy was my preferred candidate.

    The Primary Model consists of two ingredients: The swing of the electoral pendulum, and the outcomes of primaries.

    You can see the pendulum work with the naked eye. After two terms in office, the presidential party in power loses more often than not. In fact, over the past 65 years, it managed to win a third term only once. In 1988, President George H.W. Bush extended Ronald Reagan's presidency by one more term. Reagan made this possible by winning re-election by a bigger margin than when he first got elected. That spells continuity, a desire for more of the same.

    President Barack Obama has not left such a legacy for a Democratic successor. He did worse in his re-election victory over Mitt Romney in 2012 than when he beat John McCain in 2008. That spells, "It's Time for a Change!" The pendulum points to the GOP in 2016, no matter whether the candidate was named Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich or whoever.

    Now add the outcomes of presidential primaries. Although some experts claim primary votes have no bearing on general elections, the fact is that primaries prove uncanny in forecasting the winner in November. Take the first election with a significant number of primaries, in 1912. In November that year, Woodrow Wilson, the winner in Democratic primaries, defeated William Howard Taft, the loser in Republican primaries; Taft was renominated since most states then did not use primaries. In general, the party with the stronger primary candidate wins the general election.

    This year, Trump has wound up as the stronger of the two presidential nominees. He won many more primaries than did Clinton. In fact, this was apparent as early as early March. Trump handily won the first two primaries, New Hampshire and South Carolina, while Clinton badly lost New Hampshire to Sen. Bernie Sanders before beating him in South Carolina.

    The Primary Model predicts that Trump will defeat Clinton with 87 percent certainty. He is the candidate of change. When voters demand change, they are willing to overlook many foibles of the change candidate. At the same time, the candidate who touts experience will get more intense scrutiny for any missteps and suspicions of misconduct of the record of experience.

    Trump may be lucky to have picked an election in which change trumps experience and experience may prove to be a mixed blessing.

    Helmut Norpoth is the director of undergraduate studies and political science professor at Stony Brook University.

    [Aug 01, 2016] DemExit 13 Million to leave Democratic Party Thursday

    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI wants to know who did the hack of DNC instead of crimes of DNC–Rich ..."
    investmentwatchblog.com
    FBI wants to know who did the hack of DNC instead of crimes of DNC–Rich

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fbi-says-its-investigating-the-hack-of-the-dnc-emails-2016-07-25-11914032?link=MW_latest_news

    Look at the comments at the bottom. Title of thread summarizes the article from market watch.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Clintons Conundrum Poll Data Show Many Sanders Voters Prefer Jill Stein

    www.peoplespunditdaily.com

    However, there are a significant number of voters who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary who now say they will either vote for Dr. Stein, Mr. Trump, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson or not at all–in that order.

    Below is an interactive chart based on more than 400 responses conducted last night (7/30/2016) via our Internet panel and live interviews. It provides cross tab data to determine the presidential preference for primary voters based on the candidate they voted for in the primaries. While these results are particularly strong for Dr. Stein–there were also an unusually high number of 18 to 29 year-old samples–the total results include the 7-day rolling average, are weighted based on demographics from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey and show Mr. Trump ahead 46.8% to 42.2%.

    The sub-sample shown in the chart paints pretty much the same picture as the overall result. The polling data indicate Mr. Trump did a better job winning over those Republicans who did not vote for him in the Republican presidential primary (88%), as well as maintain those who did (97.8%). Mrs. Clinton is maintaining 94.4% of Democratic voters who cast their primary ballot for her, but less than half (47.7%) of those who voted for Sen. Sanders say they are certain they will be on board.

    Now to Dr. Stein's bump. Again, we do not believe Mrs. Clinton will only end up with half of Sen. Sanders' voters. Last night was an unusual response. But we are saying many, many voters are very, very angry.

    Nearly 16% of Sanders supporters say they will vote for Mr. Trump, but more than a quarter are at least giving Dr. Stein a serious look. Sanders' voters also have a largely favorable view of Dr. Stein (56%), compared to only 33% who say the same for Mrs. Clinton. Not surprisingly, these voters are markedly more likely to say they don't believe the federal government acts in the interest of the people. Another 5.6% of her support comes from the small pool of voters who supported another candidate in the Democratic presidential primary.

    Whether Dr. Stein can maintain that level of support is uncertain and worth debating as we collect and digest more polling data in the upcoming days and weeks. But what isn't up for debate is the fact that a significant number of Sen. Sanders' voters have extremely negative views of Mrs. Clinton and are not quite ready to just suck it up and move on.

    [Aug 01, 2016] DemExit: Bernie Sanders Supporters Opt to Vote for Green Partys Jill Stein

    Notable quotes:
    "... Similar to the styling of the British vote to leave the European Union, they're calling the movement #DemExit. ..."
    "... After the Democratic National Convention brought some Sanders supporters into the fold, others are refusing to settle viewing the leaked emails, indicating the DNC's preference for Hillary Clinton over Sanders as the final straw. ..."
    fox40.com
    There's a push to make green the new blue. As some Bernie Sanders supporters are jumping ship from the democratic party, opting instead to vote for green party candidate Jill Stein.

    Similar to the styling of the British vote to leave the European Union, they're calling the movement #DemExit.

    Some Sanders supporters see the choice between the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees as simple: "Whether we get Hillary or we get Trump, we get just as dangerous on either side just-in different ways," Sanders supporter Erik Rydberg said.

    After the Democratic National Convention brought some Sanders supporters into the fold, others are refusing to settle viewing the leaked emails, indicating the DNC's preference for Hillary Clinton over Sanders as the final straw.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Progressive Leaders Urge Voters To Wait To #DemExit Until After State Primaries

    Notable quotes:
    "... Progressives who are fed up with the Democratic leadership's adherence to the status quo are calling for a major #DemExit on July 29. ..."
    www.inquisitr.com

    Progressives who are fed up with the Democratic leadership's adherence to the status quo are calling for a major #DemExit on July 29. However, progressive groups, such as Black Men for Bernie, are urging voters to stay in the party until they have a chance to vote in their states' primaries, especially if they live in closed or semi-closed primary states.

    Abstaining from #DemExit until after state and local primaries is especially important for Florida, which has a closed primary. On August 30, Professor and legal expert Tim Canova has a chance to unseat Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, whose tenure as the head of the Democratic Party has been fraught with controversy and more recently, allegations of election fraud and rigging.

    A mass exodus, therefore, could sabotage progressives' own agenda to elect officials who are challenging incumbents and establishment candidates. As of now, 23 states and territories have local and state primaries up until September 13, so it is imperative for current members of the Democratic party to stay until they've voted and then commit to #DemExit.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Julian Assange we have proof that the Clinton camp is rigging the election, we will release it soon

    Jul 30, 2016 | YouTube
    Alabama Mothman
    They'll just blame it on the Russians. And the MSM will follow along obediently.
    Prophessor C
    Why do we care who hacked them when the material they hacked is much more shady.?
    Jason Cooper
    The Clinton News Network (CNN) is notorious for that. Nothing is new.
    ConservativeAnthem
    Staggering the amount of corruption filtering out of Camp Clinton now...

    [Aug 01, 2016] Will Preemptive Accusations Against Russia Cover Up Voting Fraud

    Notable quotes:
    "... Why do we see such an orchestrated attempt to preemptively accuse Russia of potentially manipulating U.S. voting? This without ANY evidence that Russia ever has or would attempt to do so? Are there already plans for such manipulations that need a plausible foreign culprit as cover up story? Or is there a color revolution in preparation to eventually disenfranchise the election winner? ..."
    "... "hacking", or rather, snooping and leaking, is business as usual... remember when the Sanders and Clinton campaigns were fighting over DNC server data? ..."
    "... The source of the DNC email leak is irrelevant. The Orwellian chant "Putin bad; US good!" is the point of the whole thing, and the media is just a bullhorn for the party/parties. ..."
    "... But I do look forward to the show when the emails Trump referred to are released. What is Hillary afraid of? it's not like nobody knows what she's done... and wants to do next. ..."
    "... the United States has been a failed state from the perspective of voting integrity from at least 2000. The lunatics are running the asylum here and we voters are only allowed to participate as a hollow form of placation. ..."
    "... Our famous "free press," so totally controlled by Big Corporations. Always looking for a way to try to persuade the public that any political and social actions is bad and of no importance. ACK! ..."
    "... My immediate thought was of the White House managed meetings with mayors of cities where Occupy was very much not "crushed," and how they coordinated their attacks by knocking down tents, dumped books into dupsters, which were part of the free lending library in some cities, and forcing people out of sites long occupied with the persuasion of threatened force and physical harm. ..."
    "... we know the neocons intend to cheat to get Hillary elected. Sounds like a warning to Russia to keep out of the way or else. ..."
    "... This video below shows that the pressure of the Russian hacking lies worked on Trump. What kind of genius is that b ? Trump: Putin has no respect for the US. Starts at 1min 20 sec : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=riuduXz5Y2I Trump on Russia finding Hillays emails : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ ..."
    "... If Trump is such a genius then why would he make so many idiotic and contradictory statements, and then cave it so easily into pressure of lies like this against Russia ? Immediately antagonizing Russia. ..."
    "... The problem with the 'Trump as Manchurian Candidate' narrative is that most people (even Democrats) deep down, probably don't really believe it. It runs right into his 'America First' that the same people have been complaining about. In the absence of hard evidence, actually shared with the public, the Putin connection will eventually fall apart. ..."
    "... Bruce Schneier has been having a neolibcon bias for years with a blind spot for NSA activities. I stopped reading his stupid blog, with little to no added value regarding security news, when it became too obvious. ..."
    "... 'The only reason not to have paper copies is to allow fraud.' ..."
    "... Very well and concisely put. Except for the 'copies' bit. The only reason not to have paper ballots ..."
    "... To me the answer seems obvious: voters registered and elections administered, ballots tallied and stored at the precinct level. There are about 175,000 precincts in the USA, each composed of 1,000 to 2,000 people. A workable size for real, participatory democracy, the basis for all constituencies - municipal, county, state, federal - erected upon them. First come the people , then come our governments. ..."
    "... Russia told the United States on Thursday to get to the bottom of of its own hacking scandal. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said accusations of a Russian hand in hacking Democratic Party emails bordered on "total stupidity" and were motivated by anti-Russian sentiment. ..."
    "... Michael Connell - who died at age 45, leaving a wife and four kids - was a computer networking expert who lived near Akron. Last July 17, an attorney who's filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging a conspiracy to rig elections in Ohio held a press conference at which he identified Connell as a principal witness. ..."
    "... the missing deleted emails would most likely also reveal the innards of the Clinton family Foundation. Not really missing. It would be a great disappointment if copies are not in a few 3 letter agencies. ..."
    "... Great George Carlin probably did not know many actual names of the "big owners" when he wrote ..."
    "... ...The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice you don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. ..."
    "... They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying, to get what they want Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking... ..."
    "... The perfidy of Manly is that he does not say how to _prevent_ possible breaches, but creates perception of "Russians having access to everything" instead. So he does not really care about solving the problem, but about maintaining the notion that the problem magically persist. ..."
    "... "As regards these (email) batches, that is not our headache. We never poke our noses into others' affairs and we really don't like it when people try to poke their nose into ours," he said. "The Americans needs to get to the bottom of what these emails are themselves and find out what it's all about." ..."
    "... The DNC was "hacked "by some of Killary's Israeli chums/clients... Lets look at the proffered "evidence" for a Russian Hack.. The hackers "seem to have been following a schedule of "Russian" holdiays... Half (or more) of the people in Israel follow that same schedule of holdiays... ..."
    "... Article on Gen. Breedlove: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html Defense contractors, think tanks, and Breedlove feared Congress would cut U.S. troop levels in Europe. ..."
    "... desperate ..."
    "... The Americans are beginning to tell themselves another 'real' war will solve their problems ... look at the DNC convention ... and it'll be OK because it will be another war 'over there'. It won't be over there, it'll be right here no matter where that is. ..."
    "... Bruce Schneier used to charge the Chinese in every hacking incident, I guess there is now a "pivot" in the propaganda world. ..."
    "... It is obvious that our elections are hacked: Florida in 2000, Ohio 2004, and now Brooklyn, Nevada, Arizona, California and other locations this year. They were hacked by our own crooks who would never allow Rooskies to muscle in on the action. Few polling stations in crowded districts, removing names from voter lists, private companies contracted to "count", voter suppression ID laws, jailing of voting populations, gerrymandering, etc. The Rooskies can only bring a rubber chicken to a gun fight. ..."
    "... I have said many times: "We must abolish election machines, such as voting computers. If they make casting and tallying 10 times faster, they make organized cheating 10 times easier as well. Which can we truly afford?" ..."
    "... I can't for the life of me understand why so many hawks in the State Dept and elsewhere are sooooo afraid of Putin. They still mad he nationalized oil companies? ..."
    "... Just suppose the emails of the DNC were released by the Clinton Machine, what a creative tactic, and certainly there is no reason to doubt that...a great media firestorm ensues, DWS had to fall on her sword but quickly gets hoisted on the Clinton petard..as a campaign manager ..."
    "... The evil that we face is an alternate philosophical position which rejects all the moral tenets of the world's 7 great religions. The goal is the rule of a tiny sect which imagines itself a godhead over humanity. ..."
    M of A

    The Clinton campaign and some pseudo experts assert that Russia is somehow guilty of hacking the Democratic National Committee and of revealing DNC emails via Wikileaks. There is zero hard evidence for that. The Clinton campaign also claims that Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails. That is also not the case.

    But two "liberal" computer experts, who are taken serious in the security scene, now build on those false assertions to say that Russia might manipulate voting machines in the November 9 elections. It would do so, presumably, to change the vote count in favor of Trump.

    A Bruce Schneier op ed in today's Washington Post is headlined: By November, Russian hackers could target voting machines .

    That headline alone is already dumb. ANY hacker could target and manipulate the easy to deceive voting machines - should those be connected to the Internet. Local administrators of such machines can manipulate them any time.

    Schneier is, untypically for him, in war mongering mode.

    If the intelligence community has indeed ascertained that Russia is to blame, our government needs to decide what to do in response. This is difficult because the attacks are politically partisan, but it is essential. If foreign governments learn that they can influence our elections with impunity, this opens the door for future manipulations, both document thefts and dumps like this one that we see and more subtle manipulations that we don't see.

    The U.S. manipulates foreign elections all the time, according to Bush administration lawyer Jack Goldsmith. It may not feel nice to suddenly be the target of manipulation attempts instead of the perpetrator, but manipulation attempts in elections are normal everywhere and no reason to start a war or other "response" measures.

    Schneier:

    [W]e need to secure our election systems before autumn. If Putin's government has already used a cyberattack to attempt to help Trump win, there's no reason to believe he won't do it again - especially now that Trump is inviting the "help."

    What a joke. Trump has not invited Russian "help" to manipulate voting computers. Trump also did not ask Russia to "hack" the Clinton email sever. That server no longer exists. If the Clinton email-server was secure, as Clinton asserts, and if the emails in question have been deleted, as Clinton also asserts, how could Russia "hack" for them?

    Trump made a FOIA request for emails that, Hillary Clinton claims, have been deleted. What does she fear about that? Trump asked Russia to give the deleted Clinton emails to the FBI, should it by chance have a copy of them. Such a Freedom of Information Act request usually goes to a part of the U.S. administration. But the Obama administration says it does not have those emails. Trump then made a joke in directing the request to Russia.

    Trump did get the furious media "outrage" response he intended to get. He thereby ruined the PR effect of the last night of the Democratic Convention. That was likely the sole intention of his stunt and again shows his marketing genius.

    But back to the Schneier op-ed. That one is now joined by a piece at Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow. Doctorow is like Schneier a famous person in the computer scene. He quotes the Schneier piece and adds:

    Voting machines are so notoriously terrible that they'd be a very tempting target for Russia or other states that want to influence the outcome in 2016 (or merely destabilize the US by calling into question the outcome in an election).

    The Doctorow sentence neglects, like Schneier, that the entities with the most obvious interest and capabilities to manipulate U.S. voting machines are not foreign countries. U.S. presidential candidates and their parties have much more at stake. The candidates and the money and interests behind them have stronger motives as well as more potential to change the voting results.

    Why do we see such an orchestrated attempt to preemptively accuse Russia of potentially manipulating U.S. voting? This without ANY evidence that Russia ever has or would attempt to do so? Are there already plans for such manipulations that need a plausible foreign culprit as cover up story? Or is there a color revolution in preparation to eventually disenfranchise the election winner?

    Cory Doctorow also sees destabilization as a possible motive and outcome of voting manipulations. Already back in March John Robb warned of a scenario this fall in which election results come into serious doubt and where a conflict over voting results escalates into a civil war.

    I do not foresee such a scenario (yet). But should large scale voting manipulations take place, and be blamed on Russia, more than a civil war enters the realm of possibilities.

    Posted by b at 02:21 PM | Comments (130)

    anon | Jul 28, 2016 3:00:23 PM | 4

    "hacking", or rather, snooping and leaking, is business as usual... remember when the Sanders and Clinton campaigns were fighting over DNC server data?
    https://berniesanders.com/press-release/statement-jeff-weaver/

    The source of the DNC email leak is irrelevant. The Orwellian chant "Putin bad; US good!" is the point of the whole thing, and the media is just a bullhorn for the party/parties. The voting machine rumor is probably aimed at the actual corruption in some places that was designed to favor republicans in swing states. (ironic!) watch them call for more honest verification this time around.

    But I do look forward to the show when the emails Trump referred to are released. What is Hillary afraid of? it's not like nobody knows what she's done... and wants to do next.

    Bruno Marz | Jul 28, 2016 3:01:16 PM | 5
    For all intents and purposes, the United States has been a failed state from the perspective of voting integrity from at least 2000. The lunatics are running the asylum here and we voters are only allowed to participate as a hollow form of placation.
    jawbone | Jul 28, 2016 3:16:03 PM | 7
    Our famous "free press," so totally controlled by Big Corporations. Always looking for a way to try to persuade the public that any political and social actions is bad and of no importance. ACK!

    On Tuesday night, iirc, but could have been Wednesday, the discussion mentioned Occupy as a failed political/social movement. PBS's Gwen Ifill said that it was "crushed by its own weight." It was part of the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) declaring the Sanders' promoted political revolution dead and nearly buried.

    My immediate thought was of the White House managed meetings with mayors of cities where Occupy was very much not "crushed," and how they coordinated their attacks by knocking down tents, dumped books into dupsters, which were part of the free lending library in some cities, and forcing people out of sites long occupied with the persuasion of threatened force and physical harm.

    But her statement was part and parcel of how the actual left of any type is dismissed and disrespected by the Corporatist Dems and their Repub allies.

    Alaric | Jul 28, 2016 3:22:04 PM | 9
    we know the neocons intend to cheat to get Hillary elected. Sounds like a warning to Russia to keep out of the way or else.
    Mick McNulty | Jul 28, 2016 3:55:30 PM | 11
    The neo-cons realized how easy it was to rig the election in 2000 after which both sides do it. Now it's down to who who rigs it best. It's a one-party state anyway, two cheeks on the same ass, but every politician wants to be the one who does the telling not the told.

    I think the neo-cons impeached Clinton to ruin the Democrat run because 9/11 was ready to go, and they needed to be in power or they risked being uncovered by the security services of a Gore White House. When the impeachment failed they had no choice but to go in and steal it, because they'd have gone down for their treason. Look what it did to the world.

    likklemore | Jul 28, 2016 4:03:55 PM | 12
    Thanks b for your persistence in shining the torchlight.. Unfortunately for Bruce Schneier, Mr. James Clapper is not ready

    US Intelligence Not Ready to Name Party Behind DNC
    http://sputniknews.com/us/20160728/1043732561/usa-intel-not-ready-dnc-hack.html

    US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that the US intelligence authorities are not ready to say who is responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee emails.

    I do not think we are quite ready yet to make a call on attribution," Clapper stated at the Aspen Security Forum.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Why not and when will he be ready? Oh never mind. If Schneier is so concerned the election voting machines can be hacked -(Notice no mention of pre-programmed votes) - let's return to paper ballots and pencils. And who counts the votes?

    Oh wait... the Supreme Court may issue a decree to stop the count as they did on December 12, 2000.

    tom | Jul 28, 2016 4:08:55 PM | 13
    In a desperate attempt for bs stupid assertion of Trumps genius, b refuses to give a link for what Trump actually said. B also refuses to give us a sentenced quote from Trump. How weak.

    This video below shows that the pressure of the Russian hacking lies worked on Trump. What kind of genius is that b ?
    Trump: Putin has no respect for the US. Starts at 1min 20 sec : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=riuduXz5Y2I

    Trump on Russia finding Hillays emails : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ

    If Trump is such a genius then why would he make so many idiotic and contradictory statements, and then cave it so easily into pressure of lies like this against Russia ? Immediately antagonizing Russia.

    Also if trump really understands how corrupt the US voting system is, then what kind of genius would not hedge himself against that voting corruption surely to be done against Trump and for Hitlery - by saying insanely incessant stupid moronic things that expose him to attacks.

    Wouldn't you hedge yourself by keeping on core message and not dragging yourself back into the pack with stupidity.

    Trump said that Putin called Trump a genius, and pathetically that's all b needs to know.

    likklemore | Jul 28, 2016 4:10:36 PM | 14
    @ Steve 1

    Oh my. That was quick, even before HRC's acceptance tonight. Bernie has left the Democratic Party, back to being an Independent

    Bernie Sanders Leaves The Democratic Party

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-28/bernie-sanders-leaves-democratic-party

    I am totally confused. What about his supporters?

    ian | Jul 28, 2016 4:43:38 PM | 20
    The problem with the 'Trump as Manchurian Candidate' narrative is that most people (even Democrats) deep down, probably don't really believe it. It runs right into his 'America First' that the same people have been complaining about. In the absence of hard evidence, actually shared with the public, the Putin connection will eventually fall apart.

    Trumps MO is to say something that generates a lot of outrage that dominates the news cycle at opportune moments. He does this when there is something else he doesn't want you to pay attention to. Remember when Trump University was in the news? He comes back with those statements about the judge. Last night, you had the president, the vice-president among the heavy hitters - what better time to pull a stunt like that? For a party that prides themselves as being the 'smart' one, the Democrats have been remarkably slow in figuring this out.

    Trump probably won't pull anything like this with Hillary - the thing with her is that the more people see her, the less they like her - so let her have her hour of shouting a speech at us.

    MRW | Jul 28, 2016 4:58:51 PM | 21
    For voting machine issues, watch the Stephen Spoonamore series on YouTube. Each segment is about 3-4 minutes. Think there are eight segments. The series is 10 years old but extremely timely. Velvet Revolution Interviews Stephen Spoonamore (segment 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyEfovA404

    THEN watch his 2008 series, search YouTube. Warning: Annoying white noise in background. His solution to vote fraud specified in the later segments is ingenious. Spoonamore was the guy American Express and major banks called when they are hacked.

    Noirette | Jul 28, 2016 5:00:20 PM | 23
    I *always* disliked that guy Scheneir now b has given me cause, thanks. (No that I know anything about hacking.) Some US rulings:

    Here the kicker:

    A cyber attack has been given the status of a conventional military attack by NATO on 14th June in a major policy change that increases the likelihood of a world war against Russia.

    NATO 14 June

    nr23 | Jul 28, 2016 5:02:10 PM | 24
    Bruce Schneier has been having a neolibcon bias for years with a blind spot for NSA activities. I stopped reading his stupid blog, with little to no added value regarding security news, when it became too obvious.

    PS: when will you remove the embedded links to google, yahoo, ...?

    virgile | Jul 28, 2016 5:22:06 PM | 25
    The democrats are warning loud and clear that Russia may hack the voting machines in favor of Trump. In fact, they are preparing the terrain to use this argument in case Trump is elected. To make such stupid statements, it shows that the dems are seriously worried that Hillary is quickly loosing ground.
    jfl | Jul 28, 2016 6:05:56 PM | 28
    @27 cresty, 'The only reason not to have paper copies is to allow fraud.'

    Very well and concisely put. Except for the 'copies' bit. The only reason not to have paper ballots is to allow fraud.

    To me the answer seems obvious: voters registered and elections administered, ballots tallied and stored at the precinct level.

    There are about 175,000 precincts in the USA, each composed of 1,000 to 2,000 people. A workable size for real, participatory democracy, the basis for all constituencies - municipal, county, state, federal - erected upon them. First come the people , then come our governments.

    MRW | Jul 28, 2016 6:10:02 PM | 29
    Watch: New: Spoonamore - Sep 2008 - Part 8 - "What part don't you understand...paper ballots please."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WTe8ppEIic
    2:47 minutes
    .
    lysias | Jul 28, 2016 6:52:40 PM | 32
    2004, not 2008. Obama and Dems won Ohio in 2008. The Republicans' computer expert in Ohio died afterwards in a fishy small plane accident just as he was about to testify.
    crone | Jul 28, 2016 6:41:21 PM | 30
    from Russia (with Love). Russia To US: "Sort Out Your Own Hacking Scandal; It Is Not Our Headache" As the silly farce over whether Russia hacked the DNC continues, earlier today the Kremlin had some harsh words for the US.

    Russia told the United States on Thursday to get to the bottom of of its own hacking scandal. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said accusations of a Russian hand in hacking Democratic Party emails bordered on "total stupidity" and were motivated by anti-Russian sentiment. Suggestions of Russian involvement riled the Kremlin, which has categorically denied this and accused U.S. politicians of seeking to play on Cold War-style U.S. fears of Moscow by fabricating stories for electoral purposes.

    "As regards these (email) batches, that is not our headache. We never poke our noses into others' affairs and we really don't like it when people try to poke their nose into ours," he said.

    "The Americans needs to get to the bottom of what these emails are themselves and find out what it's all about."

    Link to ZeroHedge

    Jen | Jul 28, 2016 6:55:21 PM | 33
    "... Trump made a FOIA request for emails that, Hillary Clinton claims, have been deleted. What does she fear about that? Trump asked Russia to give the deleted Clinton emails to the FBI, should it by chance have a copy of them. Such a Freedom of Information Act request usually goes to a part of the U.S. administration. But the Obama administration says it does not have those emails. Trump then made a joke in directing the request to Russia ..."

    What Clinton fears is that the deleted emails are emails related to the work she did (or supposedly did) while she was US Secretary of State and therefore they would be proof that she violated federal US laws on recordkeeping. Some of these emails might cast light on the 2012 Benghazi consulate attack and whether she can be held partly responsible for the deaths of four Americans during that attack.

    Yonatan | Jul 28, 2016 7:47:18 PM | 34
    Jessia @3. Schneier is an insider - Harvard and the US DoD. It is also ironic that he wrote a book titled: Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive.

    Way to go, Bruce!

    Macon Richardson | Jul 28, 2016 8:00:44 PM | 35
    Bruno Marz @ 5

    If voter fraud is the criterion of a failed state (and why not), the US failed in 1960 when John Kennedy not only stole the Democratic nomination through voter fraud in West Virginia but also stole the general election through voter fraud in Illinois.

    Tricky Dick Nixon was urged to contest the Illinois vote and contest the outcome of the election. He pointedly refused to do so saying that a contested election would do more harm to the country than allowing a fraudulent victory for JFK.

    Nixon was quite a complicated person.

    V. Arnold | Jul 28, 2016 8:57:12 PM | 37
    Well, it does appear the U.S. is in full Loon mode (my apologies to the bird). The Clinton campaign is doing a fantastic job of deflection and distraction and the idiots are falling for it. It would seem Russia's Pres. Putin is indeed omnipotent.
    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 9:02:14 PM | 39
    The missing Hitlary Killton's deleted emails would reveal most probably that the current war against Libya, Syria, Iraq has been mostly her private endeavor (plus Petreaus, CIA, Raytheon) at the request of her Bilderberg/City of London Crown Corporation masters, outside Obama's control.
    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 9:17:30 PM | 40
    @23 Thank you Noirette for that missing piece of the puzzle.

    I forgot abut that in my reply on earlier thread.

    The scenario deep state/global criminal cabal has been preparing against the US people and the world would go like this:

    1. Hitlary looses to Trump
    2. Russia is blamed with fabricated evidence for rigging the election
    3. civil unrest in incited (Israeli snipers shooting civilians at random + police trained by the Israeli advisors brutalizes protesters)
    4. hot spots in conflict zones (Turkey, Ukraine, Pribaltica) are set on fire - blamed on Russia (Phillipines blamed on China)
    5. nukes going off in Chicago
    6. NATO considers "Russian cyber attack" as an act of war and responds

    In order to avoid this at this point anybody who supports the Hell Bitch should be boycotted and ostracized, including all the celebrities (who obviously pay their dues for their dark, secret deals) not only that filth Sarah Silverman and alike, who lower themselves to such a sewer level, also companies, local politicians and so on...

    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 9:24:29 PM | 41
    Let's not forget Karl Rove case witness killed in plane crash, sisters want answers
    Web guru was potential witness in Ohio voting fraud case

    Shannon Connell of Madison says her brother Michael rarely talked about work. She knew he ran an Ohio company called New Media Communications that set up websites for Republicans including former President George H.W. Bush and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. But it wasn't until after he died last December, when the small plane he was piloting crashed, that she learned via the Internet of his tie to a voter fraud case and to allegations that presidential adviser Karl Rove had made threats against him.

    "At first, it was really hard for me to believe Mike was dead because somebody wanted him dead," says Shannon, a buyer for a local children's resale shop. "But as time goes on, it's hard for me not to believe there was something deliberate about it."

    A native of Illinois, Shannon moved to Madison in 2002, the same year as her sister, Mary Jo Walker. Walker, a former Dane County Humane Society employee, has similar concerns about their brother's death: "It doesn't seem right to me at all."

    Michael Connell - who died at age 45, leaving a wife and four kids - was a computer networking expert who lived near Akron. Last July 17, an attorney who's filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging a conspiracy to rig elections in Ohio held a press conference at which he identified Connell as a principal witness.

    The attorney, Cliff Arnebeck of Columbus, Ohio, tells Isthmus he doesn't believe Connell was engaged in criminal activity but may have been a "data-processing implementer" for those who were. "I was told he was at the table when some criminal things were discussed."

    A week after the press conference, on July 24, Arnebeck wrote U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey seeking protection for Connell, whom he said had been "threatened" by Rove, a key player in the campaigns of George W. Bush. Arenebeck says Connell was told through an intermediary that unless he agreed to "take the fall" for election fraud in Ohio, his wife [and New Media partner] faced prosecution for lobby law violations. There was no claim of a threat on Connell's person.

    Arnebeck was permitted to depose Connell last Nov. 3. The portion of this deposition that dealt with the alleged threats was sealed, but Arnebeck is preparing a motion to make it all public. He affirms that Connell denied any involvement in voter fraud, but thinks Rove still had reason to regard him as a threat.

    "The problem that Mike Connell represented is [he was] a guy of conscience," says Arnebeck. "If it came right down to it, he would not commit perjury." Arnebeck "absolutely" would have called Connell as a witness in his lawsuit.

    Shannon and Mary Jo both say their brother, a devout Catholic, seemed upset in the weeks before his death. Mary Jo feels he was "stressed out and depressed" on his birthday last November; Shannon says he atypically did not respond to an email she'd sent.

    On Dec. 19, Connell flew alone in his single-engine Piper Supercub from a small airport near Washington, D.C. The plane crashed on its final approach to his hometown Akron-Canton Airport, between two houses. The cause is still under investigation but is presumed accidental.

    The blogosphere refuses to accept this. "Mike was getting ready to talk," writes one online journalist who labels Connell a source. "He was frightened."

    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 9:33:51 PM | 42
    DEMEXIT Is REAL and Is Gaining Steam. Interactive Map To Re-Register
    Going viral and encouraging disgruntled Democrats to leave the party in all states without upcoming primaries. This does not mean that a percentage of these people won't still vote Democrat in the general election but there is also an active effort coming from the Green Party to recruit these people. Sanders very publicly leaving the Democrat Party to return to Independent was very significant and a signal to his supporters to give the Demexit go sign. Many states have a deadline of August 1st for pre-election party switches, so that leaves only a couple days for many.

    The interactive map and Demexit instruction page being circulated is here. As is customary with the left, alot of work and coordination went into putting this together.

    likklemore | Jul 28, 2016 9:44:13 PM | 43
    @ ProPeace 38,39

    Question being asked in Vermont on party affiliation

    Is Bernie Sanders an Independent or a Democrat?

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/28/bernie-sanders-party-affiliation-not-simple-question/87666494/

    Sanders is an Independent in the Senate but also a member of the Democratic Party, according to his spokesman, Michael Briggs.

    Notice Biggs said member?

    = = = =

    the missing deleted emails would most likely also reveal the innards of the Clinton family Foundation. Not really missing. It would be a great disappointment if copies are not in a few 3 letter agencies.

    likklemore | Jul 28, 2016 10:17:16 PM | 47
    @ ProPeace 44

    Putin did It. with a bowl of popcorn and using one finger. More Hacking – And is said to be of "Great Concern"

    Reuters Exclusive: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-democrats-exclusive-idUSKCN1082Y7?il=0

    FBI investigates hacking of Democratic congressional group – sources

    [.] Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist who once worked for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, said the possibility of the DCCC being hacked was cause for great concern.

    "Until proven otherwise, I would suggest that everyone involved with the campaign committee operate under the assumption Russians have access to everything in their computer systems," Manley said.

    [. ] The disclosure of the DCCC breach is likely to further stoke concerns among Democratic Party operatives, many of whom have acknowledged they fear further dumps of hacked files that could harm their candidates. WikiLeaks has said it has more material related to the U.S. election that it intends to release.[.]

    = = = =

    "They fear" Wikileaks intends to release the big one?

    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 10:37:33 PM | 48
    Great George Carlin probably did not know many actual names of the "big owners" when he wrote

    ...The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice you don't.

    You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear.

    They got you by the balls.

    They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying, to get what they want Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking...

    Blackstone is one of them, others being Fidelity, PIMCO, StateStreet...

    Hillary Clinton Talks Tough on Shadow Banking, But Blackstone Is Celebrating at the DNC

    Blackstone, the giant Wall Street private equity firm, will hold an invitation-only reception before the final night of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The event, at the swanky Barnes Foundation art museum, includes the usual perks for attendees: free food, drink, and complimentary shuttle buses to the final night of the convention.

    What's unusual is that the host is precisely the kind of "shadow banker" that Hillary Clinton has singled out as needing more regulation in her rhetoric about getting tough on Wall Street.

    But Blackstone President and Chief Operating Officer Hamilton "Tony" James doesn't seem the least bit intimidated...

    ... The head-scratcher here is that James runs a private equity firm, exactly the kind of "shadow bank" that Clinton has derided as a scourge to the financial system. Shadow banks are financial institutions that do bank-like activities (such as lending or investing for clients) but aren't chartered as banks, existing outside of the traditional regulatory perimeter.

    Clinton argued during the primaries with Bernie Sanders that they were more dangerous than the big banks, because of the lack of scrutiny on their risk-taking. That was the linchpin of her argument that Sanders's plan was too myopic, and thather plan, which sought to crack down on shadow banking and deny it sources of funds, was more comprehensive.

    James has not only actively engaged in defending the whole concept of shadow banking, he created the original private equity trade group, formerly known as the Private Equity Council. The group later quietly changed its name to the more innocuous-sounding American Investment Council.

    In 2014, James penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed where he called shadow banking an "Orwellian term that can undermine critical thought." It was the regulated entities, not shadow banks, that were "the source of almost all the systemic risk in the financial crisis," he wrote. James explicitly sought to steer policymakers away from "regulations that undermine the many thousands of companies and jobs that need market-based financing to survive and grow."

    That term, "market-based financing," is a Tony James original. He prefers it because it removes the more sinister connotations associated with the shadows. "Private equity sounds bad, but shadow banking is worse," he told NPR.

    Blackstone operates in leveraged buyouts, asset management, and real estate transactions. It is the largest real estate private equity firm in the world, holding over $103 billion in assets. After the housing bubble collapsed, Blackstone bought 43,000 single-family homes over a two-year period, at one point buying more than $100 million worth of homes per week. They converted most of these into rentals, becoming one of the largest landlords in the world.

    Renters have sued Blackstone's real estate unit, Invitation Homes, for renting out homes in shoddy condition. They've also been accused of jacking up rents to satisfy investors, charging as high as 180 percent of the market rent value. Nevertheless, Blackstone plans to spin off Invitation Homes with an initial public offering next year.

    James's company also benefits from taking business lines from regulated banks, such as one of the trading businesses of global firm Credit Suisse. Blackstone then runs that company without government interference; assets in the Credit Suisse group have doubled since 2013.

    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 10:55:20 PM | 49
    @likklemore

    So Clapper did not call it, but Manley has already "suggestion" blaming Russia... LOL. The perfidy of Manly is that he does not say how to _prevent_ possible breaches, but creates perception of "Russians having access to everything" instead. So he does not really care about solving the problem, but about maintaining the notion that the problem magically persist.

    Obviously to use that notion/perception later for some sinister goals.

    Cho Nyawinh | Jul 29, 2016 12:14:16 AM | 50
    This is just agitprop disinformation. Since the 'hanging chad' soft coup, all US voting machines have backdoors to allow thevotes to be flipped, and since the Patriot Act, an Israeli subcontractor and AT&T have had an NSA contract to 'hack' all US cell phone and internet traffic, but now there is no need...GOOG and FB have apps on your tablet, your phone, and your sports band that record and database all your thoughts and actions.

    If you following computing, significant breakthroughs have been made in database manipulation, to where terabytes of information can now be ground down to streaming focus group metrics on the entire herd of so-called Little People. They can literally 'read your mind'.

    'Russia' is just a Zionist mind-meld 'shiney object' whatever cognitive dissociation memes they need to blunt-force eye-socket rape we and our children have to endure ... FOREVER

    psychohistorian | Jul 29, 2016 1:01:50 AM | 53

    And to further make my point about the emails there is this quote from a Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov:

    "As regards these (email) batches, that is not our headache. We never poke our noses into others' affairs and we really don't like it when people try to poke their nose into ours," he said. "The Americans needs to get to the bottom of what these emails are themselves and find out what it's all about."

    And DUH! the attribution for that last quote....

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-28/russia-us-sort-out-your-own-hacking-scandal-it-not-our-headache

    sigh....

    Formerly T-Bear | Jul 29, 2016 3:10:37 AM | 56

    The toxicity of this (2016) election has only been equalled by the election of 1860. Republicans and Democrats were involved then also though the rôles have substantially changed, the results are yet to be seen. What will 156 years of experience bring?

    Zico | Jul 29, 2016 4:08:12 AM | 57
    Look everybody, over there.. The Russians are everywhere!!!!

    Gotta hand it to the msm, though. They've managed to turn this Democrats match fixing to "It must be the Russians".. As always, the joke's on us :)

    tod | Jul 29, 2016 4:34:07 AM | 58
    It is worth to mention that Bruce Schneier is part of the "Tor Project" board of directors since July 2016.
    tSinilats | Jul 29, 2016 5:59:56 AM | 59
    The DNC was "hacked "by some of Killary's Israeli chums/clients... Lets look at the proffered "evidence" for a Russian Hack.. The hackers "seem to have been following a schedule of "Russian" holdiays... Half (or more) of the people in Israel follow that same schedule of holdiays... There are "clues" 'suggesting connections" with known Russian hacker groups..right..again, any Russian hacker group "known" this well and this long, is not an active hacker group any more... Except when Israelis, or whoever, are gaslighting them....The rest of the evidence, where any one has even bothered to offer it, is just as weak, or even weaker.
    From The Hague | Jul 29, 2016 7:00:43 AM | 60
    It will be a landslide. So, the outcome can't be manipulated. Or, who will vote for Killary?
    Enrico Malatesta | Jul 29, 2016 7:22:40 AM | 61
    MR @ 35

    A small quibble, but words matter - what is going on is not Voter Fraud, it's Election Fraud.

    Yonatan | Jul 29, 2016 7:46:47 AM | 62
    psychohistorian @52.

    "Nowhere on the intertubes that I frequent are stories about implications of the CONTENT of the DNC emails. The only angle of the story that is allowed to be covered in excruciating detail is who done it."

    That is the whole point of the 'Putin did it' exercise. It is to distract the people from the content. Contrast with the Panama Papers release where the target, Putin, was immediately targeted indirectly in carefully selected releases. There was very little interest in who was behind the hack. The info was publicly released via a US-government funded entity.

    Yonatan | Jul 29, 2016 7:51:29 AM | 63
    psychohistorian @52.

    It should also be seen in context of the earlier public declaration that such hacking would constitute an act of war. Trump has played into USG hands creating a 'reality' that 'Putin did it' - after saying that "Russia should release the emails, if it has them". Was this done wittingly or unwittingly?

    Noirette | Jul 29, 2016 8:02:47 AM | 64
    ian @ 20: The problem with the 'Trump as Manchurian Candidate' narrative is that most people (even Democrats) deep down, probably don't really believe it.

    I agree! .. hogwash. Trump is the Donald and not more. Yet, after thinking about ian's post, there is an oblique argument to be made: that this election is in fact IS all about Putin. Not Putin as Vladimir, but Putin as a stand-in for Russia. The central issue, the ginormous elephant in the room that is not being discussed is foreign policy - it only shows up in some remarks and many are oblivious to it.

    camps

    1. Killary and escalation - the continuation of Bush-Obama foreign policy on speed + steroids, which involves destroying places and going for one 'enemy' after another and flailing about (e.g. Iraq) - now aimed at the higher-stake ones (e.g. weakening Europe, dividing it from Russia, and attacking Russia with all means at hand.) The backers are neo-cons, neo-libs, the MIC, Wall Street (gingerly), and others, long list, some/many are criminal enterprises. Going on strong is the meme.
    2. Trump, with a nationalistic bent (partly calculated and not the most important) shows at the same time an isolationist stance (as opposed to conquering position) e.g. walls, anti-globalization on trade (ostensibly), America first of a certain flavor, and going so far! as to question the existence of NATO and to have a neutral or positive attitude towards the latest green-clawed fire-breathing devil. Reversing decline is the meme.

    Arguably, foreign policy in terms of life/death of its citizens is the most crucial point, but it is sub rosa. That is partly why all the talk/analysis in terms of ethnicity-race-religious identities / values in this election (black / brown voters, abortion..), class (economic), tribal political belonging, has become utterly confused, as these archaic divisions become meaningless, while upheld in political discourse (with endless switcheroos) by all, to confuse and gather votes here 'n there.

    The US public is left adrift with two despised candidates, who do or might represent two very different paths forward if one can even contemplate 'the forward' at present.

    ProPeace, 40, that is scary indeed.

    From The Hague | Jul 29, 2016 8:20:46 AM | 65
    @64 Noirette

    People hoped 8 years ago that Obama was camp 2. But he was a traitor.

    fast freddy | Jul 29, 2016 8:24:31 AM | 66
    Noirette 64

    Your summary is excellent. Reading it, the choice between the two (excluding 3rd choices) is clear. There exists a chance for peace or the guarantee of perpetual war.

    Les | Jul 29, 2016 8:32:26 AM | 67
    Article on Gen. Breedlove: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html Defense contractors, think tanks, and Breedlove feared Congress would cut U.S. troop levels in Europe.
    jfl | Jul 29, 2016 9:27:18 AM | 68
    @64 noirette, 'two despised candidates, who do or might represent two very different paths forward if one can even contemplate 'the forward' at present.'

    Yeah. Absolutely. My italics on the might. Hillary has a record. She can lie, but not to me. Trump has ... a mouth. When he says reasonable things - given Hillary - people are desperate to believe him. I can't.

    I don't think we can, or should. Trump seems far more likely to be another Obama than not. I think we have wasted far too many of these quadrennial exercises and that the time to do something different is now. Look what happened in Libya. That could happen in Russia ... and a lot more people than a US Ambassador will die. The Europeans are mad not to abrogate the US at this point. The Americans are beginning to tell themselves another 'real' war will solve their problems ... look at the DNC convention ... and it'll be OK because it will be another war 'over there'. It won't be over there, it'll be right here no matter where that is.

    Concerted action by our atomized selves is the only option left open to us. Let us Americans envision a different future and simply effect it. No to Clinton, not to Trump . Let's emulate a higher life form . We can make it we try.

    Joe Stalin | Jul 29, 2016 9:52:09 AM | 69
    Bruce Schneier used to charge the Chinese in every hacking incident, I guess there is now a "pivot" in the propaganda world.

    It is obvious that our elections are hacked: Florida in 2000, Ohio 2004, and now Brooklyn, Nevada, Arizona, California and other locations this year. They were hacked by our own crooks who would never allow Rooskies to muscle in on the action. Few polling stations in crowded districts, removing names from voter lists, private companies contracted to "count", voter suppression ID laws, jailing of voting populations, gerrymandering, etc. The Rooskies can only bring a rubber chicken to a gun fight.

    Angry Panda | Jul 29, 2016 10:17:14 AM | 70
    I keep dreaming of a "dream" (or a "nightmare") scenario in which a) Trump wins on the election night, just, maybe by 10-20 electoral votes; and b) on the day the Electoral College actually meets, 10-20 electors from "Trump" states, quote, "vote their conscience", end quote, and Hillary becomes president. Which, legally, they can do - remember the electors aren't formally bound by anything other than "tradition" (read: what their local party officials would do to them were they to change their vote).

    I know, I know, slim chance. But it would be a thing of beauty to behold were it to actually happen. For those of us who revel in chaos and anarchy, of course, the types who wished for a Sarah Palin presidency just for the sheer amount of comedy material involved; the rest of the population might well differ. In any event, the "Russian voting machine fraud" story would fit in very well with this particular sequence of events - the electors "voting their conscience" could then be portrayed as patriotic anti-communists (or whatever), for example.

    lysias | Jul 29, 2016 10:25:26 AM | 71
    For those 10-20 electors to vote for Hillary would be regarded as a betrayal of the system and make her an illegitimate, crippled president.

    What those 10-20 electors could do instead is to vote for some third candidate. Say, Gary Johnson or John Kasich. When no candidate wins a majority of electors, the election is thrown into the House of Representatives, in which each state's delegation has one vote and the vote must be among the three candidates who got the greatest number of electoral votes.

    rg the lg | Jul 29, 2016 10:35:56 AM | 72
    Get a life! Then read: http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/

    He makes a good point: " From inception, America proved itself the cruelest, most ruthless nation in world history, harming more people over a longer duration than any other. Tens of millions of corpses attest to its barbarity."

    "If elected, Hillary risks committing greater high crimes of state than her predecessors, including possible nuclear war - why it's crucial to defeat her in November. Humanity's fate hangs in the balance."

    All the rest is just rhetoric ... and the primary reason AmeriKKKans have Clinton as President in the first place. AmeriKKKans know that their best interests, even when jobless, are with continued murder, rape and theft!

    Proof? You want proof? Each of you AmeriKKKans who post to this site. Not that other are blameless, they just don't vote.

    blues | Jul 29, 2016 10:55:11 AM | 75
    I have stated here and "everywhere" that automated elections are not really elections at all. While the USA buys more and more election computers, most of the rest of the (ostensibly democratic) world has tossed out election computers, and moved to using had counted paper ballots.

    I have said many times: "We must abolish election machines, such as voting computers. If they make casting and tallying 10 times faster, they make organized cheating 10 times easier as well. Which can we truly afford?"

    I read several computer programmer's blogs, and comments almost every day, and I am sure most of these professionals are aware of the fact that their machines can never be made safe for use in elections. Yet, they virtually never come out and say that. Job security trumps having democracy for nearly all of them. Most of these programmers are depressing examples of self-centeredness.

    nr23 | Jul 29, 2016 1:55:10 PM | 76
    @58 "It is worth to mention that Bruce Schneier is part of the "Tor Project" board of directors since July 2016."

    That's indeed worth mentioning since one of the TOR founders, Jacob Appelbaum, was ejected from the board in June by a phony sex scandal identical to the one of Julian Assange. There was also the recent departure in July of one of the major TOR contributors, Lucky Green, who didn't disclose a lot about his reasons ("I feel that I have no reasonable choice left within the bounds of ethics") http://thehackernews.com/2016/07/tor-anonymity-node.html . The departures of Jacob Appelbaum and Lucky Green and the welcoming of sellout Bruce Schneier who's opinions were always in line with US foreign policy spell doom and gloom for TOR's security reliability.

    PhilK | Jul 29, 2016 2:11:16 PM | 78
    A lot of people outside the US are probably unaware of some very important features of federal elections here. Many of these people may assume that the US has a single presidential election, run by the federal government, as is the case in their own countries (Australia, for example). But in reality, there are 51 presidential elections, and only one of them (the one in the District of Columbia) is run by the federal government.

    Each state has its own way of collecting and counting ballots, and its own laws about voter eligibility, absentee voting, ballot access for third parties, voting procedures, etc. Because the counties within each state actually run the polling places, these state election laws are mainly instructions for county election officials. So there are ample opportunities for election fraud at the county and state levels, but not at the federal level (except for mass media mind control).

    In unusual situations, state election laws can be challenged in federal courts. In my home state of Tennessee, Republicans and Democrats many years ago passed a law that essentially makes it impossible for third parties to appear on the ballot. And for all those many years, the Tennessee Green Party has routinely gone to federal court, claiming that the state law unreasonably restricts Tennesseans' voting rights, and the court routinely rules in their favor. Thus my ability to vote for Jill Stein exists only because a federal court has intervened in Tennessee's election system. But judicial intervention like this is essentially the only power the federal government can exercise over voting.

    shadyl | Jul 29, 2016 3:25:23 PM | 80
    I can't for the life of me understand why so many hawks in the State Dept and elsewhere are sooooo afraid of Putin. They still mad he nationalized oil companies?
    dorcus | Jul 29, 2016 4:22:50 PM | 81

    Just suppose the emails of the DNC were released by the Clinton Machine, what a creative tactic, and certainly there is no reason to doubt that...a great media firestorm ensues, DWS had to fall on her sword but quickly gets hoisted on the Clinton petard..as a campaign manager

    Edward | Jul 29, 2016 10:24:21 PM | 85
    It is possible that Schneier and Doctorow may not have an anti-Russia agenda but are using the Russia angle because then the U.S. press will report on the security problems with electronic voting. Russia should just tell the U.S. to switch to mechanical voting if they are worried. How is Russia responsible for our insecure voting?
    Penelope | Jul 29, 2016 11:49:31 PM | 86
    ProPeace,

    Thanks for so much intelligent commentary this thread.

    Your comment, "As I have often mentioned on these pages previously, I do believe pedophiles and various other perverts are actively recruited into positions of power so that they can be compromised and controlled by the criminal cabal." I don't think that the pedophiles are recruited into power so that they can be controlled by fear of disclosure. In fact nothing happens to them when they're found out: the records are "lost", evidence is "insufficient", etc. Rather, the explanation I think is that the secret societies and higher levels of Masonry all use sexual deviancy as a means of bonding their initiates into a criminal cabal outside of the norms of society. There is a philosophical embracing of the destruction of innocence just as there is a glorification of the chaos produced by war.

    The evil that we face is an alternate philosophical position which rejects all the moral tenets of the world's 7 great religions. The goal is the rule of a tiny sect which imagines itself a godhead over humanity. Their main tools against us are informational and moral. Many of the novels of the 20s, the 30s and especially the late 19th century reveal by contrast how greatly they've degraded the very idea of living one's life informed by a moral ideal.

    The examined life has been swept away, replaced by the exclusively material and physical. Did you know that one of the early objectives was to control the appointment of divinity school teachers? The Rockefellers personally championed Unitarianism, which helped to trivialize religion. Without religion or an organized system of moral limits and the complete absence of the idealization of the moral and the possession of moral purpose, that great generational sink of morality once so vibrant among the American people has long-since sprung a leak now become a torrent. One looks in vain for that which would nourish the soul of the very young. The moral ideal has vanished from our culture. How could it not? The Rockefellers alone control over 2,000 domestic NGOs, foundations and think tanks. Even the culturally trivial is now being replaced by the overtly destructive. The human eclipsed by the bestial.

    Enough people, armed simply with knowledge and the resolution to look for the truth wherever it leads, can still stop it.

    ThatDamnGood | Jul 30, 2016 12:06:16 AM | 88
    Hillary to be president by hook or crook.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-29/no-id-no-problem-feds-overrule-north-carolina-voting-rules-discriminatory

    Election preparation underway, they are taking a page from the playbook used in Malaysia.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Still Report #1065 - Wikileaks More Powerful Blast is Coming

    YouTube

    James Donald

    The problem wit this comment is why it was made at all. You do not announce forthcoming explosive information for several reasons: 1. You may be assassinated. 2. You may be blackmailed. 3. You allow the people time to respond 4. The information may be stolen. Think about it. When has an individual promised ahead of time a release of blockbuster info, and then delivered. Perhaps Assange is waiting to be paid off not to release the information.

    Charles Price
    The NWO is the only benefiting entity of war. Who owns the companies that manufactures and sells all armament to both side? the same ones that supplied WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the American Civil war, and revolutions all over the world for the last two-hundred years... need I go on. They have made trillions on weapons, armament, and armored vehicles to lock down America and take everything. The biggest land grab in history. Who always comes out on top in every Wall Street crash? They keep pushing for war because its the only means for unending power and profit. Know one wants a war because no one sees a need. We are all saner than the NWO thugs. You realize, there are 7.5 billion of us in the world, all manipulated, killed, and blamed for all those thugs do. They are only a drop in the toilet. WE don't comply, their reality vaporizes over night. Know where they are right now? under ground. Their scared to death because they've been discovered and tracked. They should be. Don't believe the network media. Rely on your own best judgement. Nothing can fall that we can't rebuild stronger and better. Who needs them? Is humanity better off without the Devil? There's only one answer.

    Daly Jones

    I randomly found this video and realized that you made one of my favorite documentaries!!!! I try to get everyone I know to watch it....The Money Masters! It's one of the best/horrifyingly true documentaries I've ever watched. Thank you sir! You have just earned another subscriber

    Rudy Hassen

    Question: why do entrenched entities hate dissemination of information? As reference....see North Korea......or DNC.

    Rudy Hassen

    BTW....unlikely Russia is behind the leaks. Putin is a much better chess player the Obama, Clinton and probably Trump as well. Don't he surprised if it's DNC insiders behind this.

    Da Guy

    How can anyone trust someone that lied, cheated and conned to get the nomination, just because they now say they won't lie, cheat and con anymore now that they got what they wanted by lying, cheating and conning & got caught w/evidence proving it, otherwise they would still be denying it. All I hear and see now is how Hillary and the DNC can spin what they got caught & proven doing to get votes from the very people they lied to, cheated and conned. I would no longer trust anything Hillary or the DNC said or promised unless someone like Bernie cleaned it up of corrupt people. Why isn't the FBI investigating/attacking/prosecuting this coup??? The email leaks, college & research analysis of elections and results did a lot of their job already.

    If a con, lied, cheated and conned you out of your life savings, would you trust them a few days later w/your kids life savings just because they say: sure that guy exposed our personal communications that proved we lied, cheated & conned you out of your life saving but were different now and you can trust us w/your kids life savings, now that we got what we wanted. (note to self): make sure no one can get a hold of our personal communications in the future so no one can prove anything we do, this way we can blame anything &/or anyone else for the loss of their kids life savings. "take Hillary's lead, delete and scrub the memories so nothing is retrievable and all released info has to go through our lawyers. We can tell them our lawyers are looking out for their best interest not ours". Once a con, always a con. This is an attempted theft of a country or a coup.

    I would not only feel a traitor to my Country, kids & future generations if I just accepted this and joined the coup: I WOULD BE A TRAITOR. If this coup fails and Trump gets elected, it's on you, the collaborators and coup member, not anyone else. Look what the leaders or the head person of other countries do to the people that attempt a coup in their country. We pretend it's not happening. And if this coup succeeds, we all live under false pretenses and have allowed our country to betray what it's supposed to stand for "again", the spiral down from there will be easy. I've never been so ashamed of my country & worried about the future of this planet as I am now.


    [Aug 01, 2016] Julian Assange Meet The Press FULL Interview on DNC Leaks 7-31-16

    Clinton campaign is trying to hide their very serious domestic allegation tried to play "Russians are coming" trick... Sanders campaign was sabotages by crooks in DNC.
    Also does this presstitute who interviewed Julian Assange any moral right to ask question about the legitimacy of foreign interference if this interference is the cornerstone of the US foreign policy. As in color revolutions and similar subversive actions against "not neoliberal enough" government of countries with natural resources or of some geopolitical value.
    This is the situation of "king is naked" -- the state that teaches other countries about democracy has completely corrupted election process, like a typical banana republic.
    Notable quotes:
    "... According to the leaked emails, he, Chuck Todd, is part of the rigging process. ..."
    "... Their Motive is to tell the truth. Clearly that why they released the information before the convention and delegates still went forward with corruption. That defies the DNC, case closed ..."
    "... Because we've never interfered in another government or anything right? what a joke! ..."
    YouTube

    SIMKINETICS 23 hours ago

    Chuck Todd, Establishment Gatekeeper and Chief Presstitute. He proves that the Fourth Estate needs a total overhaul, and that the MSM needs to be broken-up like the banks & other institutions need to be in order to become truly competitive rather than in name only. The tightening grip of oligarchs must be pried apart! Assange is doing his part to expose the powers that oppress us, and should be commended for his work!

    Loki7072

    This interviewer is obviously a democrat , trying to blame the Russians for the content of the emails , so sad the democratic corruption in this country runs so deep

    Charles W

    According to the leaked emails, he, Chuck Todd, is part of the rigging process.

    Anthony Marin

    Chuck Todd isn't a journalist, just another government PR person. Corporate media is a joke.

    Rafael Reyes

    Their Motive is to tell the truth. Clearly that why they released the information before the convention and delegates still went forward with corruption. That defies the DNC, case closed.

    Now do the constituents of that party still have faith in staying with that party? That's totally up to the ppl. Whether of not it was domestic or foreign info isn't important, due to the fact that the information was authentic and proven true by our own officials who investigated the digital encryption of the files.

    Frank Rizzo

    Because we've never interfered in another government or anything right? what a joke!

    Notecrusher

    So what if the Russian government was the source? I have gratitude to WHOEVER provided the leak. Now we know the truth about the DNC's crimes and corruption. I hope they burn.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time

    Guardian presstitutes are trying hard to please their owners...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Joe Biden's son has major business interests in Ukraine. Is that why Biden is so supportive of Ukraine? Paul Manafort is a rat, like all the major league campaign operatives ..."
    "... Under globalism, it is only natural for corporations and their CEOs to have more contact with foreign entities and their leaders. Apple and CEO Tim Cook has made a huge commitment to communist China, one that he told President Obama will not be shaken or reduced. ..."
    "... This is all so entertaining for as much as they try they cannot lay a finger on Putin.. the PBS special on Putin wealth ended an hour of innuendo with this.. ''How much is a matter of speculation and some educated guesswork.'' ..."
    "... I have family in the military and the last thing we need is Clinton leading us into another cold war. ..."
    "... Clinton: corruption you can believe in. ..."
    "... Well looks like Hillary has stared the cold war again before she ever got into office. This is worse than anything Trump could do...but very beneficial to her military/security industrial complex backers. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney ..."
    "... Julian Assange is not a Republican. He's an Australian with no vested interest in the election. I'd be worried if I were a Clinton supporter. ..."
    "... The extremely well informed Israeli website Debkafile is confident that the Russians didn't hack the DNC or any aspect of the Democrats. Debka believes the signatures on the hack are so easy to find and so obviously intended to be found that the real culprit lies somewhere within an anti-Clinton faction of the Democrats. ..."
    "... This is a fantasy article, pie in the sky stuff. I can't stand Trump and I am sure neither can the Russian government, he's unpredictable, unstable, what he says today he changes his mind on tomorrow and so on. Now, Clinton isn't much better all said. Anyone who would trust either needs to see a psychiatrist urgently. Russia is but a bystander in the US presidential race, except for the conspiracy theorists at The Guardian. ..."
    "... So a former official of that russophobic neocon infested State Department which ran both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 coup in Kiev also member of the US-Ukraine business council is now supposed to have helped Yanokovich in 2010 and be in bed with Putin. How gullible do you think we are? ..."
    "... Stop the presses! Trump and people associated with him have had dealings with people from the LARGEST country in the world. If that doesn't prove he's an active Manchurian candidate on The Kremlin payroll, then nothing will. ..."
    "... What it really proves is that by going the low road of McCarthyist red-baiting, the Democrats seemed determined to blow another election by not running a campaign on Hillary's supposed merits and attacking Trump for rational, verifiable reasons. ..."
    "... You are all a school of piranhas waiting to tear the flesh of anyone who is against 'Her'. I have noticed your comments towards any rational reply is met with condescending and abusive tones. You've probably realised I am poorly educated. However, I have common sense which I believe most of you don't. Most of you comment in order to receive recognition and votes in order to make you feel good because of low self esteem and belonging issues. ..."
    "... I believe we in the west currently live in a pluralist society for now. If Hillary is elected I reckon she will lay the foundation for sharia law, Merkel is doing her bit. Anyway, how can anyone vote for this vile human being? ..."
    "... Hillary Rodman Clinton does not care about YOU! Its all about her wanting power to control YOU. Have you ever asked yourself why does she want to be President? What is her motivation? ..."
    "... Oh, come on, Hillary has all 30 of the admirals and generals that previously endorsed Jeb. Can't Donald have one general? The US military is in schism between the moderates (represented by Flynn) and the hawks (represented by Allen, presumably). Hillary's hawks got booed off the stage at the convention. Allen was trying to shout down the protesters but they were pretty feisty. ..."
    "... Follow the money. The Clinton elite and the military/security industrial complex will MAKE BILLIONS with a new cold war. As much as they made off of Iraq and MORE! ..."
    "... Julian Assange showed to the DNC who they are, but they are not angry at him, they are angry at Donald Trump. Of course, how can anyone be angry at the mirror because it has shown its ugly face.:-))) ..."
    "... A vote against Hillary is not a vote for Trump any more than a vote against the Iraq War was a vote for Saddam Hussein. ..."
    "... Hilarious. This Red Scare is ridiculous, will only carry weight with the over 60s. It is just one of the many missteps in Hillary's tone deaf campaign which is going to cost her the presidency. ..."
    "... Not a Trump supporter, but this shitty rag attacks everyone except the Red Queen...who is responsible for many acts of terror and murder...documented. ..."
    "... Ta, much of the information, especially what Tom Curley (formerly AP chief) revealed, has been removed from the net. I wish I had saved the pdf of his Kansas speech before it vanished everywhere. There was also something on a British server, but that stopped being fed. ..."
    "... Often we could see it on the posters' string, how many in how many hours, hence the attempts to hide it through multi ID facility. For disqus, they block the string. We know we are being manipulated. And very few people take things at face value these days, or do they? ..."
    "... That single sentence exposes the Guardian as a completely fraudulent news reporting medium. With tears in my eyes I ask you "How does Putin releasing e-mails about the secret and illegal American electoral shenanigans amount to an attack on western democracy?" ..."
    "... The old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" is demonstrated by the Guardians reporting without sources, other than anonymous so-called "experts". Your journalistic integrity is little higher than the height of Hillary Clinton's honesty, or the level of the Donald's business ethics. Shame on you. Double shame for being so blatantly easy to expose. ..."
    "... The western media, controlled by special interest groups, are driving your low-level sputum which tries to pass for accurate and unbiased reportage. ..."
    "... On the whole I would have to agree with you. The picture painted by the Western News Media is that the US is the White Knight when it comes to democracy, they never interfere in other countries political affairs, never try to break into computer systems of other countries, try to topple or assassinate leaders of other countries. They never carry out torture and they ignore the 30m on the poverty line in their own country. ..."
    "... Well at least Trump is fostering positive relations with Russia - Hillary Clinton is pushing us to the brink of nuclear war with them. You Tube it. Wishing Good Luck to all people of courage and honesty. ..."
    "... Reuters/Ipsos changed it polling methodology as soon as they saw a 17 point swing in favor of Donald the Drumpf. When the methodology by their own admission was under reporting Trump support and over reporting Hillbilly's numbers they did nothing. So don't believe any polls. There is no enthusiasm for Hillbilly in the Democratic party, so the Democratic turn out will be low, on the other hand people want to shake things up, they will vote for Drumpf. I just wished Donald had half a brain in his head to see how much good he could do, with the opportunity he has. ..."
    "... A lot of associations and coincidences have been listed here. But no hard evidence linking the hacking to Putin, nor Putin to Trump. It sounds like a load of muckraking. ..."
    "... True. If it was the other way round, Guardian journalists and establishment shills would be screaming 'tin-foil' when they should be holding that woman to account. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    varyat

    Joe Biden's son has major business interests in Ukraine. Is that why Biden is so supportive of Ukraine? Paul Manafort is a rat, like all the major league campaign operatives. All that is important to them is the win and those that can jump over each other to rent their expertise around the globe to whatever scumbag has money. It is a bipartisan gig. To spin this in such a partisan manner when the entire political machinery on both sides operates like this is is either knowingly deceitful or just plain ignorant. When it is nearly impossible to just get straight balanced news from a newspaper, when the coverage is just so obviously slanted, real journalism is dead. This style of news by innuendo and the selective parsing of fact is shoddy reportage. Shame.

    macmarco

    Under globalism, it is only natural for corporations and their CEOs to have more contact with foreign entities and their leaders. Apple and CEO Tim Cook has made a huge commitment to communist China, one that he told President Obama will not be shaken or reduced.

    US tax laws that allow 'profit centers' to be claimed anywhere around the world will almost certainly bring corporate leaders and foreign leaders closer together as their interests merge and intertwine.

    Political parties will have difficulty claiming this or that country is now an enemy depending on how much corporate investment and profit holdings were made in the new 'enemy'. One could see the enormous difficulty the DNC/Hillary would have if they had to make a case against communist China hacking their emails. Apple, Walmart etal would be working overtime to protect the relationship at all costs.

    notindoctrinated

    Has it ever occurred to you Yanks that Putin may be playing global political chess. I'm sure he is shrewd enough to realize that open support to Trump could be a "kiss of death". A Democratic presidency may be in Russia's long-term interest, if they want the US to go further down the drain:

    1. Overrunning of the US by Hispanics, as well as Muslims from North Africa and the Mideast, the latter resulting in increasing insecurity and terrorist attacks at home
    2. Destruction of US economy by the pursuit of green fanatic policies.

    Of course a trigger-happy Clinton presidency increases the risk for WW3, therefore Putin's finger will never be far from the nuke-button.

    Lee Van Over -> notindoctrinated

    1. This will not happen, please see below.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U-t3GetV_Q

    2. The number one US economic strain is War.....not windfarms.

    3. Clinton is a bit more hawkish than I would like, but she is far from trigger happy. Also, she can handle an insult without declaring the need to punch someone in the face :p


    Sam3456

    I love the entitled Hillary fans are trying to stifle any dissent of the Queen with "You're a Putin Bot, You're a commie, your a Trumpster."

    Stifling dissent allows for corruption and abuse of power and is what got us into the Iraq War.

    Their condescending attitude is what we can expect from a Clinton Administration?

    JohnManyjars

    Putin bashing idiots...choke on your spittle! At least he puts the interests of his country first, unlike US/UK sell outs to Israel-First traitors.

    R. Ben Madison -> JohnManyjars

    Yet another antisemitic diatribe from the Hillary-haters.


    Lee Van Over -> JohnManyjars

    Lol, the US supports Israel because its in the best interests of the US, not Israel. They, unfortunately, are our little forward base of operations in the Mid-east.


    John Smith

    Burisma is the largest non-governmental gas producer in Ukraine, it was incorporated in 2006 and is based in Limassol, Cyprus - a European tax haven
    April 18, 2014, Burisma Holdings announced us VP Biden's son Hunter Biden appointed to the board

    Aleksander Kwaśniewski,took up in a director's post named in January.[27] Kwaśniewski was President of the Republic of Poland from 1995 to 2005 permitted the CIA torture ops in Poland during the G. W. Bush presidency

    Chairman of Burisma is the Wall Street former Merrill Lynch investment banker Alan Apter

    Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's partner at the US investment firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, and a manager of the family wealth fund of Secretary of State John Kerry's wife Theresa Heinz Kerry,

    And all friends together in a company that should be helping Ukraine recover nestled away in a tax haven!

    The director of the US-Ukraine Business Council Morgan Williams pointed to an "American tradition that frowns on close family members of government working for organizations with business links to active politics". Williams stated Biden appears to have violated this unwritten principle: "... when you're trying to keep the political sector separate from the business sector, and reduce corruption, then it's not just about holding down corruption, it's also the appearance.

    Blatant yankee cronyism beyond words! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/2014/may/14/hunter-biden-job-board-ukraine-biggest-gas-producer-burisma

    Joe Biden's son was booted from the military after failing a drug test, it was revealed Thursday.

    Hunter Biden, the youngest son of the vice president, was discharged from the Navy Reserve in February after he tested positive for cocaine, the Navy said.
    http://nypost.com/2014/10/16/bidens-son-hunter-kicked-out-of-the-navy-after-failing-cocaine-test/

    John Smith

    This is all so entertaining for as much as they try they cannot lay a finger on Putin.. the PBS special on Putin wealth ended an hour of innuendo with this.. ''How much is a matter of speculation and some educated guesswork.''

    And thats what it was speculation & guesswork!

    he may be the richest man on the planet.. he may be richer than god... but they just can't find it.. they can't find a bankstatement with billions or trillions in it they can't even find the shoebox with all his cash under his bed... they got nothing!

    MtnClimber -> John Smith

    They found Putin's money. It's cared for by "friends". One is a concert cellist with over a billion dollars. They must pay musicians well in Russia.

    You seem to like dictators. Do you like the complete censorship of the media in Russia? Do you like the new laws that allow Putin to jail anyone that denounces him or Russia?

    Given that Russians are only allowed to post good things about Putin, what do you expect to see from them?

    John Smith -> MtnClimber

    there were plenty of russians in that PBS 'show' complaining about putin and they are still alive n well..
    the only time russian critics become endangered is when they are of no further use to the yankee and then they come to a sticky end and then the finger gets pointed at putin.. then they have fully 'outlived' their usefulness.. more useful dead!

    annberk

    It is obvious that Trump will benefit financially from being nice to Putin and his inner circle. Trump combs the world for projects and money and Russia must be seen as a target. Win or lose the election he'll be seen as a friend who deserves to be rewarded. At some point in the next year or so, the Trump Corporation will announce at least one landmark Russian hotel/condo tower. I'd bet money on it. Meanwhile, poor old Hillary who has devoted her life to doing good, is being bullied and lied about by the serfs who want to elect him. (Read 'Dark Money' to see what I mean by serfs. Trump's adherents won't benefit in the slightest from his policies.)

    Sam3456

    I have family in the military and the last thing we need is Clinton leading us into another cold war.

    delphicvi

    What a lame lead in i.e. "Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time.

    Donald Trump travelled to Moscow in 2013 to meet Vladimir Putin hoping to discuss plans for a Trump Tower near Red Square."

    Did it really take four 'journalists' viz. Peter Stone, David Smith, Ben Jacobs, Alec Luhn and Rupert Neate to write this fluff? More worthy of a supermarket check out rag than a serious newspaper. This facile attempt to stitch together the incongruous and the bizarre is downright amazing for a paper that puffs itself as the leaker of truth. By the bye, Ukraine is not Russia. And Russia is not Ukraine.

    Sam3456

    The Director of National Intelligence says Washington is still unsure of who might be behind the latest WikiLeaks release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails, while urging that an end be put to the "reactionary mode" blaming it all on Russia.

    "We don't know enough to ascribe motivation regardless of who it might have been," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said speaking at Aspen's Security Forum in Colorado, when asked if the media was getting ahead of themselves in fingering the perpetrator of the hack.

    John Smith -> Sam3456

    Anonymous have been quietly busy in the background... laughing at the merkins blaming everything on Russia..
    clintons corrupt... and its Russia's fault??

    ''The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.

    The $6 billion in unaccounted funds poses a "significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department's contract actions," according to the report.'' http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/04/07/6-billion-went-missing-hillary-clintons-state-departmentwhere-did-money-go

    I know billions don't mean much today after the american laundering of Trillions of $s worth of their bad mortgage debt causing the 2008 crash....... BUT SURELY $6 Billion missing must count for something!

    sejong -> John Smith

    Clinton: corruption you can believe in.

    John Smith
    So again...
    what really happened in Benghazi? in September 2012
    Were they sending gaddafi's weapons to unsavouries in Syria and Assad got wind of it & sent a team to stop it?
    Because it was not a youtube vid or some people on a friday night out deciding to kill americans as clinton would have us believe. What we have is a clandestine operation.. a democrat version of reagans ''Arms for Iran''.. or shall we say 'Arms for ISIS' Did they get Ollie North out of retirement for this??
    Having failed this gun running operation...
    They then went to Plan B..
    ''claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November (2012).'' 3000 tons of weapons!!...... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9918785/US-and-Europe-in-major-airlift-of-arms-to-Syrian-rebels-through-Zagreb.html

    But When they arrived in Jordan..

    ''Weapons shipped into Jordan by the Central Intelligence Agency and Saudi Arabia intended for Syrian rebels have been systematically stolen by Jordanian intelligence operatives and sold to arms merchants on the black market, according to American and Jordanian officials.'' I mean can the CIA be that incompetent? or is this incompetence covering up something else...?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms-for-syrian-rebels-supplied-black-market-officials-say.html?_r=1
    So who did those weapons go to if not legit Rebel Syrians... I can only think of one other organisation..ISIS

    Then we have the $500,000,000 to train 54 rebel Syrians to fight Assad.
    do we really think the US military or special forces are that dumb?

    ''The Pentagon's $500 million (£300 million) Turkey-based training programme has fallen well short of expectations. Announced in June 2014 as Isil seized swathes of Iraq, it took almost a year to get off the ground and had until recently produced only 54 out of the 5,000 fighters it had intended to train within a year.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11878048/75-US-trained-rebels-enter-Syria-from-Turkey.html
    ''US-trained Division 30 rebels 'betray US and hand weapons over to al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria' Pentagon-trained rebels are reported to have betrayed US and handed weapons over to Jabhat al-Nusra immediately after entering Syria'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11882195/US-trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria.html
    So what was that HALF BILLION DOLLARS really spent on??
    I am still calling Shenanigans!

    ClaudiaLucarelli

    There is MORE of a connection between Hillary and RUSSIA:

    Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    Sam3456 -> DCBill0

    Well looks like Hillary has stared the cold war again before she ever got into office. This is worse than anything Trump could do...but very beneficial to her military/security industrial complex backers.

    Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney.

    Oldiebutgoodie

    With all the tension and volatility in the world, we need mature, rational people leading our countries. Let's hope that's what we get -- * Vote thoughtfully.
    While we watch campaign circuses, a serious situation is taking place in Turkey that will effect Europe, the West, and the Middle East.
    - Erdogan has taken control of, and is purging all sectors of Turkish society.

    Scary stuff going on there.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/31/turkey-to-shut-military-academies-as-it-targets-armed-forces-for-cleansing

    -War in Iraq is escalating- gas depots being destroyed.
    These things have ripple effects for the rest of us.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/31/militants-storm-iraqi-oil-facility-bai-hassan

    Henrychan -> Wanda Bowen

    Julian Assange is not a Republican. He's an Australian with no vested interest in the election. I'd be worried if I were a Clinton supporter.

    spraydrift

    'Trump's links to Russia are under scrutiny after a hack of Democratic national committee emails,'

    The extremely well informed Israeli website Debkafile is confident that the Russians didn't hack the DNC or any aspect of the Democrats. Debka believes the signatures on the hack are so easy to find and so obviously intended to be found that the real culprit lies somewhere within an anti-Clinton faction of the Democrats. Now who might that be?

    Greg Popa -> spraydrift

    Wired.com's Noah Shachtman wrote in 2001 that the site "clearly reports with a point of view; the site is unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics".[4] Yediot Achronot investigative reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."[5]

    The site's operators, in contrast, state that 80 percent of what Debka reports turns out to be true, and point to its year 2000 prediction that al-Qaeda would again strike the World Trade Center, and that it had warned well before the 2006 war in Lebanon that Hezbollah had amassed 12,000 Katyusha rockets pointed at northern Israel.[1]

    mandzorp

    This is a fantasy article, pie in the sky stuff. I can't stand Trump and I am sure neither can the Russian government, he's unpredictable, unstable, what he says today he changes his mind on tomorrow and so on. Now, Clinton isn't much better all said. Anyone who would trust either needs to see a psychiatrist urgently. Russia is but a bystander in the US presidential race, except for the conspiracy theorists at The Guardian.

    errovi

    "The coordinator of the Washington diplomatic corps for the Republicans in Cleveland was Frank Mermoud, a former state department official involved in business ventures in Ukraine via Cub Energy, a Black Sea-focused oil and gas company of which he is a director. He is also on the board of the US Ukraine Business Council."

    So a former official of that russophobic neocon infested State Department which ran both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 coup in Kiev also member of the US-Ukraine business council is now supposed to have helped Yanokovich in 2010 and be in bed with Putin. How gullible do you think we are?

    Oldiebutgoodie -> errovi

    Seems every news media outlet and reporter is looking into his Russian business dealings and funding.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/289047-exploring-russian-ties-to-the-men-lurking-behind

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3583619/Melania-Trump-s-secret-brother-lives-rural-Slovenia-says-wants-meet-sister-Donald-presidential-election.html

    Brian Burman

    Stop the presses! Trump and people associated with him have had dealings with people from the LARGEST country in the world. If that doesn't prove he's an active Manchurian candidate on The Kremlin payroll, then nothing will.

    What it really proves is that by going the low road of McCarthyist red-baiting, the Democrats seemed determined to blow another election by not running a campaign on Hillary's supposed merits and attacking Trump for rational, verifiable reasons.

    John Smith -> MentalToo

    drivel.. Nuland admitted/boasted about spendin $5 billion in ''bring democracy to ukraine..
    $5 Billion is a lot of money in Ukraine..
    Did they build schools No
    Did they build hospitals No!
    They just destabilised the country...
    So $5 billion wasted and the yanks wonder why they don't really have a space program... coz $5 Billion would have bought 3 Space shuttles!

    jezzam -> John Smith

    The US spent 5 billion over 25 years - trying to encourage the basic institutions of democracy in Ukraine. Without these corruption cannot be eliminated. Without the elimination of corruption, none of the things you mention are possible. Non-coincidentally such institutions have been eliminated in Russia since Putin came to power.

    Brian Burman -> jezzam

    Yes, those NGOs encouraged democracy so well that they instigated a violent coup against the elected government. Halt, you say, that government was corrupt!?! But by all standards, the current government is more corrupt than the one that was overthrown, and polls in the last year show that Ukrainians are convinced of that fact. Infact, the man hand-picked by Victoria Nuland to be Prime Minister, "Yats" Yatesenyuk, had to resign under accusations of corruption. Andbthe current Kiev reginme continues to bomb the civilian population of Donbass and terrorize them with neo-Nazi militias...ah, the wonders of US funded "democracy".

    Виктор Захаров

    I wonder, if you say that you are democrats why you are not interested in truth about Malaysian Boing? Now in the West, Merkel, Obama etc, no one worried about this tragedy because now it's clear that Ukrainian authorities did it. It's barbarian blasphemous....

    Henrychan

    Hello all Hillary supporters,

    You are all a school of piranhas waiting to tear the flesh of anyone who is against 'Her'. I have noticed your comments towards any rational reply is met with condescending and abusive tones. You've probably realised I am poorly educated. However, I have common sense which I believe most of you don't. Most of you comment in order to receive recognition and votes in order to make you feel good because of low self esteem and belonging issues.

    I believe we in the west currently live in a pluralist society for now. If Hillary is elected I reckon she will lay the foundation for sharia law, Merkel is doing her bit. Anyway, how can anyone vote for this vile human being?

    You must be either:
    Ignorant
    Misinformed
    Lack common sense or
    Mentally ill

    Hillary Rodman Clinton does not care about YOU! Its all about her wanting power to control YOU. Have you ever asked yourself why does she want to be President? What is her motivation?

    Comment all you like, you Hillary supporter are defending a witch. I'm not with HER.

    Oilyheart

    Bernie Sanders visited the USSR. Does that make him a communist? Bernie Sanders visited the Vatican. Does that make him a Catholic? Gen. Flynn visited RT. Does that make him Scott Pelley? Bill visits a lot of places.

    Виктор Захаров

    First of all why Obama calls yourself democrat? It's nonsense, by definition democrats those who against the coup! Having lied once who would believe you ( Russian saying ). Obama continued to lie. Malaysian Boing had been shot down by Ukrainian jet, radars neither in Dnepro nor in Rostov hadn't seen buk missile, buk missile weighs 700 kg radar could not to see it. But radars had seen Ukrainian jet, Ukrainian authorities restricted access to records....

    Oilyheart

    Oh, come on, Hillary has all 30 of the admirals and generals that previously endorsed Jeb. Can't Donald have one general? The US military is in schism between the moderates (represented by Flynn) and the hawks (represented by Allen, presumably). Hillary's hawks got booed off the stage at the convention. Allen was trying to shout down the protesters but they were pretty feisty. Try not to bogart all the retired general officers, Democrats. The moderates are trying to de-escalate tensions with Russia, is that so wrong? Does gangsterism have to proliferate all over the place? Does the whole world have to break bad like Walter White into gangsterism and chaos because it's cool?

    GODsaysBRESCAPE

    Clinton wants a new cold war with Russia, forget the real enemy the Islamists. She is showing her warmongering stripes again already. Shame on you Sanders for your betrayal of your supporters, that will now be your ever lasting and shameful legacy.


    Sam3456 -> GODsaysBRESCAPE

    Follow the money. The Clinton elite and the military/security industrial complex will MAKE BILLIONS with a new cold war. As much as they made off of Iraq and MORE!

    HRC is Dick Cheney in a pants suit.


    GODsaysBRESCAPE

    The media, big business and the pentagon: "a web that grows more tangled all the time"


    dikcheney

    I have to do this. #canthackHillary.
    I cant hack her lies
    I cant hack her faux ignorance of IT security
    I cant hack her unbelievability
    I cant hack her attacks on any challenger
    I cant hack the cloth she didn't use to wipe her server
    I cant hack the way she puts USA security at risk to protect her "private" shenanigans
    I cant hack her capacity to corrupt any decent process associated with democray
    I cant hack her network of "get out of jail free cards"
    I cant hack her transparent deceptions
    I cant hack her associates
    I cant hack her war criminal mentors
    I cant hack her media admirers and shills
    I cant hack her Wall Street buddies
    I cant hack her mate Obama

    Is there anyone out there who can hack Hillary?

    Shatford Shatford -> dikcheney

    You left out Clinton Foundation donors who receive lucrative contracts in disaster zones or in African dictatorships.

    nnedjo

    Julian Assange showed to the DNC who they are, but they are not angry at him, they are angry at Donald Trump. Of course, how can anyone be angry at the mirror because it has shown its ugly face.:-)))

    Shatford Shatford -> nnedjo

    Bless cognitive dissonance for keeping everyone from seeing the truth.


    Shatford Shatford -> NewWorldWatcher

    I'm sure once Hillary cheats her way into the White House, she'll sick the IRS on him since she does that to all of her enemies. And naturally, all of her and her husband's crimes will go unpunished as they always have. Her husband almost got impeached. Not for getting a hummer from an intern, but because there was so much other bullshit they wanted to nail him on and lying under oath was the only thing they could use because the Clintons are very good at buying people off.

    nnedjo

    The Democratic Party and its vassal media proves for the umpteenth time that they have nothing to do with democracy. If the opposition is called traitors and accused of collaboration with foreign governments without any evidence, then it is not a democracy, it is called a dictatorship.
    So if they think they have evidence that Trump is a traitor, they should arrest him. Otherwise, they have to admit that Donald Trump is genuine representative of American democracy, and that they would rather belong to a kind of dictatorship.

    gondwanaboy -> nnedjo

    So if they think they have evidence that Trump is a traitor, they should arrest him.

    They don't have any evidence. This is mud slinging and a diversion from the DNC email corruption scandal that actually has proof

    miri84

    Analysts suggest three primary motivations for the WikiLeaks email dump, quite probably overlapping: doing harm to the US political process to undermine its credibility; doing harm to Clinton (WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is no friend); and boosting Trump

    The hack would not have succeeded in any of these areas, had the DNC been conducting its operations fairly and with integrity.

    guest88888

    Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time

    Only if you're full of BS, and lack even a shred of journalistic integrity.

    McCarthy would be proud. After years of pretending otherwise, it seems the US government has finally returned to its old and proud tradition of smearing anyone it finds undesirable as in cahoots with the ever-changing 'enemy.'

    All of this is merely a diversion to avoid talking about the mountain of corruption revealed about both parties in recent days. Not to mention a diversion from talking about the key issue, that the US is increasingly antagonizing nuclear armed powers like Russia and China, which if not stopped will lead to a war capable of killing millions.

    selvak

    I am not Trump but I would much rather ally with Russia than Saudi Arabia. Both have plenty of oil by the way. Only one is spreading a Death cult over the Globe but still Presidents Bush and Obama bowed for the Saudi king. More money the be made out of Arab oil for a few uber rich in the US Establishment I guess. Less 'competition" for the Pentagon from Riyadh too.

    sejong -> selvak

    Bibi and King Salman will get joint custody of Clinton, so don't worry.

    PCollens

    100% bullshit, lies and a psy-op being fed to us from all sides on this.
    Seriously Graun, what gives with this bullshit? Confirms my conclusion that the Graun, like the rest of the MSM, has been infiltrated by an Operation Mockingbird as well.
    So many psychopaths - GOP, DNC, Trump, the US deep state petro-nazis, the oligarchs in all countries - all panicking more and more now, out of control.
    Here comes some kind of armagedon. Sorry, sheeple - but its bad news for us all.

    Alec Dacyczyn

    It's worth mentioning the context of the "the US would not automatically come to the aid of Nato allies" thing. He wants for other Nato countries to either pull their own weight militarily (2% of GDP) or pay to cover the costs of other countries for defend them. The threat of willingness to "walk away" is negotiating leverage. He's making a gamble that they will capitulate rather than be left defenseless.

    I believe it's a reasonable safe bet. So until these Nato countries indicate that they'd rather not spend that much on their militarizes I reject the argument that a President Trump would result in a weaker Nato alliance and that Putin want Trump to win for that reason (I suspect Putin would indeed prefer Trump, but because he views Clinton as a neo-con warmonger who would rather bomb someone than negotiate a deal).

    Bruno Costa Alec Dacyczyn

    I hate Trump, but this is a VERY safe bet.
    Russia will not invade Poland or the Baltic. The world change. Putin has an agenda different from Ivan the Terrible...
    NATO countries will pay their bills and psychopaths like Erdogan will think twice before put down a Russian fighter.
    That was insane. The most dangerous act since the 80's!
    Made by a religious fanatical dictator who is ending Turkey secular tradition.
    If Russia had responded, protecting Erdogan would've been fair? NATO starting 3rd WW because of a authoritarian guy that should be expelled is reasonable?

    Sam3456

    A vote against Hillary is not a vote for Trump any more than a vote against the Iraq War was a vote for Saddam Hussein.

    niftydude

    Hilarious. This Red Scare is ridiculous, will only carry weight with the over 60s. It is just one of the many missteps in Hillary's tone deaf campaign which is going to cost her the presidency.

    livingstonfc

    Not a Trump supporter, but this shitty rag attacks everyone except the Red Queen...who is responsible for many acts of terror and murder...documented.

    BSchwartz

    Trump is married to a woman who grew up under communism. Some his closest advisors have worked for communists. Many of his own business dealings are with Russians. He has claimed a relationshp with Putin and says he admires him. He has amended Republican policies to favour Russia. He called on the Russian's to undertake espionage into Hillary Clinton. There is a pattern here.

    A man like Trump, who believed in the conspiracy theory that Obama was Kenyan, should understand that conspiracies grow as evidence build. There was no evidence to sustain Trump's conspiracy regarding Obama.

    But Trump himself provides much evidence to sustain the theory that his interests are closer to the Russians than to much of America.

    Sam3456 -> BSchwartz

    Really? Democrats red baiting and calling people "commies" how shameful and ignorant of you history. What next Hillary comes out with a "list of Trump/Putin sympathizers"? Shame.

    Bruno Costa -> BSchwartz

    Hahahahahahahahahaha OMG! Are you going beyond Manchurian Candidate and saying that Trump is communist? Do you really understand how funny this is?

    PCollens -> BSchwartz

    A-ha! I see it now! Trump is a commie Manchurian candidate, cleverly hidden as a son of a rich guy who became a billionaire, spreading capitalist ideology to the masses as a front for his USSR commie masters. Its obvious! Wake up sheeple!

    Gem59

    The Clinton-Media machine in full force....Those Russians are in bed with Trump! It must be the barbarians! Shame on you traitor Donald! Whatever it takes, corrupted Media! Here is an interview with Julian Assange who argues there is no evidence of any hacking by Russians

    http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fradionational%2Fprograms%2Flatenightlive%2Frussia-and-the-dnc-leaks%2F7663250&h=TAQEnZ2rE

    Matronum

    A wee bit...creepy!

    Russian literature, the language, the culture...all quite beautiful. OK, and maybe the women too. But this 'relationship' between Trump and Russia makes me feel uncomfortable. I'm willing to admit that I may simply be conditioned to be wary of Russian involvement because of all those Cold War years. Still...creepy!

    Pork Mistret -> Matronum

    See a doctor . A case of severe russophobia

    Heathenlullaby

    US Military Caught Manipulating Social Media, Running Mass Propaganda Accounts

    http://www.storyleak.com/us-military-caught-social-media-running-mass-propaganda-accounts/

    HauptmannGurski -> Heathenlullaby

    Ta, much of the information, especially what Tom Curley (formerly AP chief) revealed, has been removed from the net. I wish I had saved the pdf of his Kansas speech before it vanished everywhere. There was also something on a British server, but that stopped being fed.

    Often we could see it on the posters' string, how many in how many hours, hence the attempts to hide it through multi ID facility. For disqus, they block the string. We know we are being manipulated. And very few people take things at face value these days, or do they?

    Ping2fyoutoo

    "experts argue Vladimir Putin has attempted in the past to damage western democracy."

    That single sentence exposes the Guardian as a completely fraudulent news reporting medium. With tears in my eyes I ask you "How does Putin releasing e-mails about the secret and illegal American electoral shenanigans amount to an attack on western democracy?"

    It doesn't. It's something the western mainstream media should be doing to enlighten the people about the depths of the crookedness and the evil chicanery surrounding "western democracy" (as practised today in the US). That omission is what weakens and threatens western democracy.

    The old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" is demonstrated by the Guardians reporting without sources, other than anonymous so-called "experts". Your journalistic integrity is little higher than the height of Hillary Clinton's honesty, or the level of the Donald's business ethics. Shame on you. Double shame for being so blatantly easy to expose.

    The western media, controlled by special interest groups, are driving your low-level sputum which tries to pass for accurate and unbiased reportage.

    And please let us know who these "experts" are that you say that you are quoting.

    Alexander Dunnett -> Ping2fyoutoo

    On the whole I would have to agree with you. The picture painted by the Western News Media is that the US is the White Knight when it comes to democracy, they never interfere in other countries political affairs, never try to break into computer systems of other countries, try to topple or assassinate leaders of other countries. They never carry out torture and they ignore the 30m on the poverty line in their own country.

    PCollens -> Ping2fyoutoo

    Agreed. There is a Deep State mole inside the Graun.
    Its Operation Mockingbird for sure.

    normankirk

    So Starbucks is in Russia,sinister? or is it just that globalisation means financial interests are worldwide.
    And why is no one mentioning that James Clapper head of the NSA, who should know, says that he is "taken aback by the media's hyperventilations" and that no one knows who was behind the hack of the DNC.

    Suga

    Whatever Lies you believe or even think of HRC...
    Clinton is our only hope of keeping the White House from The Insane Republican Party!.
    Please...Check-out this excellent interview with Michael Ruppert, who tracked exactly what took place under The Horrible Bush/Cheney Reign Of Terror that brought down America on 9/11!

    (Ruppert supposedly committed suicide in 2014) It's amazing this interview is still available...it will absolutely shock you into realizing that we cannot give the White House back to the GOP...they are surrounded by Pure Evil!

    9/11 and the Cheney Conspiracy with Michael Ruppert
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW5qiuLb8jY


    PCollens Suga

    Brilliant! - Bless you. Mike Ruppert is the greatest hero to emerge from all this.

    Copy-paste the following - it is pure fact, forensic level evidence, of the most serious issues, yet it always gets taken down. I've concluded that this is by the moles in the MSM, including the Graun, sadly:


    AE911Truth Experts Speak Out
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgjxJwedA

    9/11 Pentagon Attack - Behind the Smoke Curtain - Barbara Honegger
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk

    Chapter and verse on the drills of terror attacks being run on 911 which removed the air defences – an coordinated by Cheney: 9/11 Synthetic Terror
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6I0jUg6Vs

    The Chief CIA back-channel asset who exposed the fore-knowledge of 911 survived the attempts to rub her out, and finally told the truth:
    CIA WhistleBlower Susan Lindauer EXPOSES Everything - "Extreme Prejudice"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA

    If you only have 5 minutes, this is a great distillation:
    https://youtu.be/yuC_4mGTs98

    poststructuralist

    Well at least Trump is fostering positive relations with Russia - Hillary Clinton is pushing us to the brink of nuclear war with them. You Tube it. Wishing Good Luck to all people of courage and honesty.

    Eddie2000

    Reds under the bed! Reds under the bed! Surely they can beat Trump without resorting to this nonsense?


    woof92105

    ****warning - This comment area is infested with russian trolls. It becomes easy to spot their bizarre but consistent pro-putin statements. They reply to each other and uprate each other, etc. These people are in Russia and are paid by Putin's cronies.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0

    sejong -> woof92105

    Accuracy score 1/10.

    normankirk -> woof92105

    and how do we know you aren't part of the cyber warrior force thats become a growth industry in the US and UK?

    Gina Mihajlovska -> woof92105

    Your an idiot. It's not about Putin it's about how the public is being played. No matter where the leak came from the dnc is corrupt.focus on the prize. Not on the BS....

    shaftedpig

    Trump might have his faults, like being a motor mouth but he's not even in the same category as GW Bush or HR Clinton when it comes to corruption, the Democrats haven't got much on Trump, so they resort to tin-foil hat conspiracy theories, when what is staring at us directly in the face is out-and-out full-on corruption by HRC.

    This is not about left vs right, it's about right vs wrong. Read any book by investigative journalist, Roger Stone who nails HRC. If you're on the left and feel let down by Bernie, at least consider Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, I can't for the life of me understand why Americans revere corrupt officials when you got decent potential presidents who aren't in the pockets of banksters like HRC.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5798e0d2e4b01180b5312ad2

    ClearItUp

    Reuters/Ipsos changed it polling methodology as soon as they saw a 17 point swing in favor of Donald the Drumpf. When the methodology by their own admission was under reporting Trump support and over reporting Hillbilly's numbers they did nothing. So don't believe any polls. There is no enthusiasm for Hillbilly in the Democratic party, so the Democratic turn out will be low, on the other hand people want to shake things up, they will vote for Drumpf. I just wished Donald had half a brain in his head to see how much good he could do, with the opportunity he has.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-reutersipsos-idUSKCN10910T

    Tim Cahill

    So the dreaded ruskies are trying to help Trump? Oh my goodness!

    Meanwhile, Clinton's big love for Israel remains unmentioned during most of the Primaries and even now. I've done a lot of work around the Middle East. The reason certain people hate us is because the US has vetoed all UN efforts to right the wrongs committed by Israel against the Palestinians. And with Netanyahu in his 4th term, gelding the news media, and rolling more completely fascist, we can expect more rubber stamping of territory occupation (that seems like a very simple and illegal act, but since the USA - and only the USA - disagrees, it's okay) and abuses that will further fuel hatred from people who'd, at minimum, appreciate it if justice could apply to them.

    Let the candidate without sin cast the first stone of superiority!

    BTW - What the Russians want is more cash for their wealthiest, trusted oligarchs. That's exactly what Clinton and Trump are working to do. So why can't they all just be friends?

    ahmedfez

    A lot of associations and coincidences have been listed here. But no hard evidence linking the hacking to Putin, nor Putin to Trump. It sounds like a load of muckraking.

    shaftedpig -> ahmedfez

    True. If it was the other way round, Guardian journalists and establishment shills would be screaming 'tin-foil' when they should be holding that woman to account.

    [Aug 01, 2016] DNC Lock Sanders Delegates Out Of Room, Reject Superdelegate Reforms

    Aug 01, 2016 | InvestmentWatch
    Bernie Sanders delegates were forcefully locked out of a DNC meeting on Saturday as the Democratic National Committee attempted to block superdelegate reforms.

    The meeting of 187 rules committee members took place in a small room at the Wells Fargo Center where they unceremoniously voted to reject a proposal that would ban superdelegates in future primaries.

    Usuncut.com reports:

    The DNC's Rules Committee, which is co-chaired by former Massachusetts Congressman and outspoken Clinton surrogate Barney Frank, is made up of representatives of both campaigns in proportion to how many delegates each campaign won during the primary process.

    DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also appointed 25 members of the Rules Committee who are able to vote on each proposal. The superdelegate elimination proposal and related measures were easily the most high-profile votes of the day.

    On Saturday afternoon, the committee voted to reject a proposal eliminating the role of superdelegates in future Democratic presidential primaries - something that multiple state Democratic conventions voted in favor of earlier this year. Similar proposals to minimize or limit the power of superdelegates were also defeated.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Clinton Accused of Taking Down Congressional Website Calling for Perjury Indictment " by Dave Hodges

    Notable quotes:
    "... Dear Mr. Phillips: ..."
    "... We write to request an investigation to determine whether Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed perjury and made false statements during her testimony under oath before congressional committees. ..."
    "... While testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey stated the truthfulness of Secretary's testimony before Congress was not within the scope of the FBI's investigation. Nor had the FBI even considered any of Secretary Clinton's testimony. ..."
    "... Director Comey further testified the Department of Justice requires a criminal referral from Congress to initiate an investigation of Secretary Clinton's congressional testimony. We are writing for that purpose. ..."
    "... The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony. ..."
    "... In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes. ..."
    "... Thank you for your attention to this important matter. ..."
    "... During FBI Director Comey's testimony before Congress, he admitted that statements made by Clinton under oath were "not true" and that her handling of this nation's classified material was "extremely careless." ..."
    investmentwatchblog.com
    It is only one more scandal. The Congressional website which contained a call from 2 Congressmen to prosecute Hillary for perjury has mysteriously been taken down.

    On July 11, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) sent the following letter to US Attorney Phillps. I have been waiting for action on this item.

    I went to the Congressional website where I expected to see an update and the site is down and has been down for 2 days. Does Hillary Clinton have that kind of power to erase this kind of evidence with regard to sociopathic criminality?

    Here is the letter written by Chaffetz and Goodlatte:


    Dear Mr. Phillips:

    We write to request an investigation to determine whether Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed perjury and made false statements during her testimony under oath before congressional committees.

    While testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey stated the truthfulness of Secretary's testimony before Congress was not within the scope of the FBI's investigation. Nor had the FBI even considered any of Secretary Clinton's testimony.

    Director Comey further testified the Department of Justice requires a criminal referral from Congress to initiate an investigation of Secretary Clinton's congressional testimony. We are writing for that purpose.
    The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony.

    In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes.

    Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

    During FBI Director Comey's testimony before Congress, he admitted that statements made by Clinton under oath were "not true" and that her handling of this nation's classified material was "extremely careless."


    Clinton has escaped the prosecution the Congressmen called for based upon a technicality because she was not under oath when she was questioned. However, I have a source that said they strongly suspect Clinton's aids in taking down this Congressional website until the Democrats can get the above letter removed. You see, it's now to the point that even die-hard Democrats have had it with her criminality. One more revelation could be the tipping point for many of her supporters.

    I obtained the above information from private sources and later from the following House of Representatives website .

    Now, the website is mysteriously down. How convenient for Hillary that this website malfunction has taken place during the GOP convention where they could capitalize on the political fall-out from this letter to the US Deputy Attorney.

    Do want to bet that the letter from the two Congressman to the US Deputy Attorney requesting an investigation into Clinton for perjury diappears when the website comes back up?

    Here it is America, I could not make this stuff up. The following site has been down since yesterday.

    United States House of Representatives

    Site Under Maintenance

    The site you requested is currently undergoing maintenance. Please try again later.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Let Me Remind You Fuckers Who I Am

    Medium

    What the fuck is your problem, America??

    I'm Hillary goddamn Clinton. I'm a political prodigy, have been since I was 16. I have an insane network of powerful friends. I'm willing to spend the next eight years catching shit on all sides, all so I can fix this fucking country for you. And all you little bitches need to do is get off your asses one goddamn day in November.

    "Oh but what about your eeeemaaaaillls???" Shut the fuck up. Seriously, shut the fuck up and listen for one fucking second...

    But you know what? I don't fucking care. If I gave two shits about the haters I would've dropped the game decades ago.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Differences Between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... What cannot be ignored is that Hilary Clinton has supported a war machine that has resulted in the death of millions, while also supporting a neoliberal economy that has produced massive amounts of suffering and created a mass incarceration state. ..."
    "... It is crucial to note that Clinton hides her crimes in the discourse of freedom and appeals to democracy ..."
    www.truth-out.org

    What cannot be ignored is that Hilary Clinton has supported a war machine that has resulted in the death of millions, while also supporting a neoliberal economy that has produced massive amounts of suffering and created a mass incarceration state. Yet, all of that is forgotten as the mainstream press focuses on stories about Clinton's emails and the details of her electoral run for the presidency. It is crucial to note that Clinton hides her crimes in the discourse of freedom and appeals to democracy while Trump overtly disdains such a discourse. In the end, state and domestic violence saturate American society and the only time this fact gets noticed is when the beatings and murders of Black men are caught on camera and spread through social media.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Henry A. Giroux White Supremacy and Sanctioned Violence in the Age of Donald Trump by Henry A. Giroux

    A very weak article, but some ideas are worth quoting. I think "Make America Great" again is a slogan of paleoconservatives, who are organically opposed neoconservatives -- the groups most closely related to neofascism (despite the fact that it consists mainly of Jewish intellectuals and policymakers). So Henry A. Giroux is wrong on this particular slogan: neofascism is first of all the wars of [neoliberal] conquest and Noninterventionalism is not compatible with neofascism. In this sense Hillary Clinton is truly neofascist candidate in the current race.
    Notable quotes:
    "... State-manufactured fear offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. ..."
    "... Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense. ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    July 27, 2016 | truth-out.org

    Across the globe, fascism and white supremacy in their diverse forms are on the rise. In Greece, France, Poland, Austria and Germany, among other nations, right-wing extremists have used the hateful discourse of racism, xenophobia and white nationalism to demonize immigrants and undermine democratic modes of rule and policies. As Chris Hedges observes, much of the right-wing, racist rhetoric coming out of these countries mimics what Trump and his followers are saying in the United States.

    One consequence is that the public spheres that produce a critically engaged citizenry and make a democracy possible are under siege and in rapid retreat. Economic stagnation, massive inequality, the rise of religious fundamentalism and growing forms of ultra-nationalism now aim to put democratic nations to rest. Echoes of the right-wing movements in Europe have come home with a vengeance.

    Demagogues wrapped in xenophobia, white supremacy and the false appeal to a lost past echo a brutally familiar fascism, with slogans similar to Donald Trump's call to "Make America Great Again" and "Make America Safe Again." These are barely coded messages that call for forms of racial and social cleansing. They are on the march, spewing hatred, embracing forms of anti-semitism and white supremacy, and showing a deep-seated disdain for any form of justice on the side of democracy. As Peter Foster points out in The Telegraph, "The toxic combination of the most prolonged period of economic stagnation and the worst refugee crisis since the end of the Second World War has seen the far-Right surging across the continent, from Athens to Amsterdam and many points in between."

    State-manufactured lawlessness has become normalized and extends from the ongoing and often brutalizing and murderous police violence against Black people and other vulnerable groups to a criminogenic market-based system run by a financial elite that strips everyone but the upper 1% of a future, not only by stealing their possessions but also by condemning them to a life in which the only available option is to fall back on one's individual resources in order to barely survive. In addition, as Kathy Kelly points out, at the national level, lawlessness now drives a militarized foreign policy intent on assassinating alleged enemies rather than using traditional forms of interrogation, arrest and conviction. The killing of people abroad based on race is paralleled by (and connected with) the killing of Black people at home. Kelly correctly notes that the whole world has become a battlefield driven by racial profiling, where lethal violence replaces the protocols of serve and protect.

    Fear is the reigning ideology and war its operative mode of action, pitting different groups against each other, shutting down the possibilities of shared responsibilities, and legitimating the growth of a paramilitary police force that kills Black people with impunity. State-manufactured fear offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. One consequence is that, as Charles Derber argues, America has become a warrior society whose "culture and institutions... program civilians for violence at home as well as abroad." And, as Zygmunt Bauman argues in his book Liquid Fear, in a society saturated in violence and hate, "human relations are a source of anxiety" and everyone is viewed with mistrust. Compassion gives way to suspicion and a celebration of fear and revulsion accorded to those others who allegedly have the potential to become monsters, criminals, or even worse, murderous terrorists. Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense.

    Politics is now a form of warfare creating and producing an expanding geography of combat zones that hold entire cities, such as Ferguson, Missouri, hostage to forms of extortion, violence lock downs and domestic terrorism -- something I have demonstrated in detail in my book America at War with Itself. These are cities where most of those targeted are Black. Within these zones of racial violence, Black people are often terrified by the presence of the police and subject to endless forms of domestic terrorism. Hannah Arendt once wrote that terror was the essence of totalitarianism. She was right and we are witnessing the dystopian visions of the new authoritarians who now trade in terror, fear, hatred, demonization, violence and racism. Trump and his neo-Nazi bulldogs are no longer on the fringe of political life and they have no interests in instilling values that will make America great. On the contrary, they are deeply concerned with creating expanding constellations of force and fear, while inculcating convictions that will destroy the ability to form critical capacities and modes of civic courage that offer a glimmer of resistance and justice.

    ... ... ...

    In short, this emerging American neo-fascism in its various forms is largely about social and racial cleansing and its end point is the construction of prisons, detention centers, enclosures, walls, and all the other varieties of murderous apparatus that accompany the discourse of national greatness and racial purity. Americans have lived through 40 years of the dismantling of the welfare state, the elimination of democratic public spheres, such as schools and libraries, and the attack on public goods and social provisions. In their place, we have the rise of the punishing state with its support for a range of criminogenic institutions, extending from banks and hedge funds to state governments and militarized police departments that depend on extortion to meet their budgets.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party

    Notable quotes:
    "... However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus. ..."
    "... Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president. ..."
    "... Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite. ..."
    "... But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent. ..."
    "... Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars. ..."
    "... In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)? ..."
    "... Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's " Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon. "] ..."
    "... So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive war party. ..."
    Jun 08, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    ... But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve "regime change" in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.

    Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party's presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.

    As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for and avidly supported the Iraq War, only cooling her enthusiasm in 2006 when it became clear that the Democratic base had turned decisively against the war and her hawkish position endangered her chances for the 2008 presidential nomination, which she lost to Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent.

    However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus.

    This "Team of Rivals" – named after Abraham Lincoln's initial Civil War cabinet – ensured a powerful bloc of pro-war sentiment, which pushed Obama toward more militaristic solutions than he otherwise favored, notably the wasteful counterinsurgency "surge" in Afghanistan in 2009 which did little beyond get another 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed and many more Afghans.

    Clinton was a strong supporter of that "surge" – and Gates reported in his memoir that she acknowledged only opposing the Iraq War "surge" in 2007 for political reasons. Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president.

    Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite.

    Pumping for War in Libya

    In 2011, Clinton successfully lobbied Obama to go to war against Libya to achieve another "regime change," albeit cloaked in the more modest goal of establishing only a "no-fly zone" to "protect civilians."

    Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had claimed he was battling jihadists and terrorists who were building strongholds around Benghazi, but Clinton and her State Department underlings accused him of slaughtering civilians and (in one of the more colorful lies used to justify the war) distributing Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women.

    Despite resistance from Russia and China, the United Nations Security Council fell for the deception about protecting civilians. Russia and China agreed to abstain from the vote, giving Clinton her "no-fly zone." Once that was secured, however, the Obama administration and several European allies unveiled their real plan, to destroy the Libyan army and pave the way for the violent overthrow of Gaddafi.

    Privately, Clinton's senior aides viewed the Libyan "regime change" as a chance to establish what they called the "Clinton Doctrine" on using "smart power" with plans for Clinton to rush to the fore and claim credit once Gaddafi was ousted. But that scheme failed when President Obama grabbed the limelight after Gaddafi's government collapsed.

    But Clinton would not be denied her second opportunity to claim the glory when jihadist rebels captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Clinton went into a network interview and declared , "we came, we saw, he died" and clapped her hands in glee.

    Clinton's glee was short-lived, however. Libya soon descended into chaos with Islamic extremists gaining control of large swaths of the country. On Sept. 11, 2012, jihadists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American personnel. It turned out Gaddafi had been right about the nature of his enemies.

    Undaunted by the mess in Libya, Clinton made similar plans for Syria where again she marched in lock-step with the neocons and their "liberal interventionist" sidekicks in support of another violent "regime change," ousting the Assad dynasty, a top neocon/Israeli goal since the 1990s.

    Clinton pressed Obama to escalate weapons shipments and training for anti-government rebels who were deemed "moderate" but in reality collaborated closely with radical Islamic forces, including Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda's Syrian franchise) and some even more extreme jihadists (who coalesced into the Islamic State).

    Again, Clinton's war plans were cloaked in humanitarian language, such as the need to create a "safe zone" inside Syria to save civilians. But her plans would have required a major U.S. invasion of a sovereign country, the destruction of its air force and much of its military, and the creation of conditions for another "regime change."

    In the case of Syria, however, Obama resisted the pressure from Clinton and other hawks inside his own administration. The President did approve some covert assistance to the rebels and allowed Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states to do much more, but he did not agree to an outright U.S.-led invasion to Clinton's disappointment.

    Parting Ways

    Clinton finally left the Obama administration at the start of his second term in 2013, some say voluntarily and others say in line with Obama's desire to finally move ahead with serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and to apply more pressure on Israel to reach a long-delayed peace settlement with the Palestinians. Secretary of State John Kerry was willing to do some of the politically risky work that Clinton was not.

    Many on the Left deride Obama as "Obomber" and mock his hypocritical acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. And there is no doubt that Obama has waged war his entire presidency, bombing at least seven countries by his own count. But the truth is that he has generally been among the most dovish members of his administration, advocating a "realistic" (or restrained) application of American power. By contrast, Clinton was among the most hawkish senior officials.

    A major testing moment for Obama came in August 2013 after a sarin gas attack outside Damascus, Syria, that killed hundreds of Syrians and that the State Department and the mainstream U.S. media immediately blamed on the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    There was almost universal pressure inside Official Washington to militarily enforce Obama's "red line" against Assad using chemical weapons. Amid this intense momentum toward war, it was widely assumed that Obama would order a harsh retaliatory strike against the Syrian military. But U.S. intelligence and key figures in the U.S. military smelled a rat, a provocation carried out by Islamic extremists to draw the United States into the Syrian war on their side.

    At the last minute and at great political cost to himself, Obama listened to the doubts of his intelligence advisers and called off the attack, referring the issue to the U.S. Congress and then accepting a Russian-brokered deal in which Assad surrendered all his chemical weapons though continuing to deny a role in the sarin attack.

    Eventually, the sarin case against Assad would collapse. Only one rocket was found to have carried sarin and it had a very limited range placing its firing position likely within rebel-controlled territory. But Official Washington's conventional wisdom never budged. To this day, politicians and pundits denounce Obama for not enforcing his "red line."

    There's little doubt, however, what Hillary Clinton would have done. She has been eager for a much more aggressive U.S. military role in Syria since the civil war began in 2011. Much as she used propaganda and deception to achieve "regime change" in Libya, she surely would have done the same in Syria, embracing the pretext of the sarin attack – "killing innocent children" – to destroy the Syrian military even if the rebels were the guilty parties.

    Still Lusting for War

    Indeed, during the 2016 campaign – in those few moments that have touched on foreign policy – Clinton declared that as President she would order the U.S. military to invade Syria. "Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone," she said during the April 14 debate. She also wants a "safe zone" that would require seizing territory inside Syria.

    But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent.

    Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars.

    For instance, would President Hillary Clinton push the Iranians so hard – in line with what Netanyahu favors – that they would renounce the nuclear deal and give Clinton an excuse to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran?

    In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)?

    Would President Clinton expect the Russians to stand down and accept these massacres? Would she take matters to the next level to demonstrate how tough she can be against Russian President Vladimir Putin whom she has compared to Hitler? Might she buy into the latest neocon dream of achieving "regime change" in Moscow? Would she be wise enough to recognize how dangerous such instability could be?

    Of course, one would expect that all of Clinton's actions would be clothed in the crocodile tears of "humanitarian" warfare, starting wars to "save the children" or to stop the evil enemy from "raping defenseless girls." The truth of such emotional allegations would be left for the post-war historians to try to sort out. In the meantime, President Clinton would have her wars.

    Having covered Washington for nearly four decades, I always marvel at how selective concerns for human rights can be. When "friendly" civilians are dying, we are told that we have a "responsibility to protect," but when pro-U.S. forces are slaughtering civilians of an adversary country or movement, reports of those atrocities are dismissed as "enemy propaganda" or ignored altogether. Clinton is among the most cynical in this regard.

    Trading Places

    But the larger picture for the Democrats is that they have just adopted an extraordinary historical reversal whether they understand it or not. They have replaced the Republicans as the party of aggressive war, though clearly many Republicans still dance to the neocon drummer just as Clinton and "liberal interventionists" do. Still, Donald Trump, for all his faults, has adopted a relatively peaceful point of view, especially in the Mideast and with Russia.

    While today many Democrats are congratulating themselves for becoming the first major party to make a woman the presumptive nominee, they may soon have to decide whether that distinction justifies putting an aggressive war hawk in the White House. In a way, the issue is an old one for Democrats, whether "identity politics" or anti-war policies are more important.

    At least since 1968 and the chaotic Democratic convention in Chicago, the party has advanced, sometimes haltingly, those two agendas, pushing for broader rights for all and seeking to restrain the nation's militaristic impulses.

    In the 1970s, Democrats largely repudiated the Vietnam War while the Republicans waved the flag and equated anti-war positions with treason. By the 1980s and early 1990s, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were making war fun again – Grenada, Afghanistan, Panama and the Persian Gulf, all relatively low-cost conflicts with victorious conclusions.

    By the 1990s, Bill Clinton (along with Hillary Clinton) saw militarism as just another issue to be triangulated. With the Soviet Union's collapse, the Clinton-42 administration saw the opportunity for more low-cost tough-guy/gal-ism – continuing a harsh embargo and periodic air strikes against Iraq (causing the deaths of a U.N.-estimated half million children); blasting Serbia into submission over Kosovo; and expanding NATO to the east toward Russia's borders.

    But Bill Clinton did balk at the more extreme neocon ideas, such as the one from the Project for the New American Century for a militarily enforced "regime change" in Iraq. That had to wait for George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. As a New York senator, Hillary Clinton made sure she was onboard for war on Iraq just as she sided with Israel's pummeling of Lebanon and the Palestinians in Gaza.

    Hillary Clinton was taking triangulation to an even more acute angle as she sided with virtually every position of the Netanyahu government in Israel and moved in tandem with the neocons as they cemented their control of Washington's foreign policy establishment. Her only brief flirtation with an anti-war position came in 2006 when her political advisers informed her that her continued support for Bush's Iraq War would doom her in the Democratic presidential race.

    But she let her hawkish plumage show again as Obama's Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 – and once she felt she had the 2016 Democratic race in hand (after her success in the southern primaries) she pivoted back to her hard-line positions in full support of Israel and in a full-throated defense of her war on Libya, which she still won't view as a failure.

    The smarter neocons are already lining up to endorse Clinton, especially given Donald Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican Party and his disdain for neocon strategies that he views as simply spreading chaos around the globe. As The New York Times has reported, Clinton is "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes."

    Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon."]

    So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive war party.

    [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's "Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?']

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

    [Jul 31, 2016] Clinton has now made Democrats the anti-Russia party

    How about WAPO does some real reporting and compares the two candidate on the issues at hand and leaves out all the speculation"
    Judging from comments the level of brainwashing of WaPo readship is just staggering... Far above that existed in soviet Russia (were most people were supciously about Soviet nomeklatura and did not trust them).
    Notable quotes:
    "... In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president. ..."
    "... And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. ..."
    "... This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform. ..."
    "... Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks? Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria? ..."
    "... if Clinton wins, she will be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats will need to fall in line ..."
    "... I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. ..."
    "... In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security? ..."
    "... The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative. ..."
    "... Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof. Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation. ..."
    Jul 28, 2016 | The Washington Post

    In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president.

    The side switching between the parties on Russia is the result of two converging trends. U.S.-Russian relations have gone downhill since Russian President Vladimir Putin came back to power in 2012, torpedoing the Obama administration's first term outreach to Moscow, which Clinton led. Then, in the past year, Trump's Russia-friendly policy has filled the pro-engagement space that Democrats once occupied.

    And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. After Trump suggested Wednesday that if Russia had indeed hacked Clinton's private email server it should release the emails, the Clinton campaign sent out its Democratic surrogates to bash Russia and Trump in a manner traditionally reserved for Republicans.

    "This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.

    Set to one side that Trump was probably joking. Russia clearly does not need Trump's permission to hack U.S. political organizations or government institutions. And there's no consensus that Russia released the Democratic National Committee emails in order to disrupt the presidential election. In fact, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has his own personal vendetta against Clinton, claimed that he alone chose the timing of the release of the DNC emails.

    Regardless, the idea that a GOP presidential nominee would endorse Russian cyber-espionage was too tempting for the Clinton campaign to resist, especially on the day their convention was dedicated to painting Trump as dangerous on national security.

    At an event on the sidelines of the convention Wednesday, several top Clinton national security surrogates focused on Trump's latest comments to argue that they embolden Russia in its plan to destabilize and dominate the West. Former national security adviser Tom Donilon said that Russia is interfering with elections all over Europe and said Trump is helping Russia directly.

    "The Russians have engaged in cyberattacks in a number of places that we know about, in Georgia, in Estonia and in Ukraine. . . . In the Russian takeover of Crimea, information warfare was a central part of their operations," Donilon said. "To dangerously embrace a set of strategies by the Russian Federation that are intent on undermining key Western institutions . . . is playing into the hands of Russian strategy."

    Former defense secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta said that if Donilon was still in the White House, he would have tasked the CIA to retaliate against Moscow. Panetta then doubled down on Sullivan's argument that Trump's comments by themselves are making the United States less safe.

    "This is crazy stuff, and yet somehow you get the sense that people think it's a joke. It has already represented a threat to our national security," Panetta said. "Because if you go abroad and talk to people, they are very worried that someone like this could become president of the United States."

    In 2008, the Russian government was definitely not rooting for the Republican candidate for president. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) had made a feature of his campaign a pledge to stand up to Russian aggression and dispatched two top surrogates to Georgia after the Russian invasion.

    In 2012, Mitt Romney warned that Russia was the United States' "number one geopolitical foe." Then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry mocked Romney at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, saying that Romney got his information about Russia from the movie "Rocky IV."

    This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform.

    Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks? Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria?

    The Clinton team hasn't said. For now, they are content to use Trump's statements about Russia to make the argument that he's not commander-in-chief material. But if Clinton wins, she will be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats will need to fall in line . If Putin wasn't rooting for Trump before, he is now.

    NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 6:25 PM EDT

    So TRUMP is threat to NATIONAL SECURITY for asking RUSSIA for the emails she destroyed? Because they would be the one likely to have them since she completely ignored Security protocol while in Russia? WOW they get better every day. They have already explain Russia could have been in and out of her accounts all along because of her complete lack of security of her devises. She had less security than a commercial account using the private server the way she did. And she did cause a breach in national security. She fwd classified email to an intern and it did get hacked. Whether or not Russia got any info from her we will never know. Because the lack of security on her server Russia could have got her password and and the info leaving no tracks.

    NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 5:22 PM EDT

    People agree with PUTIN you know like the ones in CRIMEA and SYRIA. I'd rather see a PUTIN TRUMP ticket. I like what I see in PUTIN doing in the world. He seems to be the one SAVING people around the world. Assad let the people have freedom of religion. These Sunni the USA is arming want to force Sharia law. I don't approve of my tax dollars being spent arming those terrorists nor do I consider Saudi Arabia an ally!!! I would rather see a TRUMP PUTIN ticket and add 75 more stars to our flag. Than what the current government is. Although I would more so like to see the USA government take a much more democratic stance. Change our government to be more like Switzerland Norway and the Netherlands. Who were inspired by the USA constitution. Our constitution and democracy has been lost to corruption!!!!

    George1955, 7/28/2016 5:08 PM EDT

    I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. Maybe there is a very profound strategy in that (everybody says that Obama is a genius) but I cannot see what is the logic of provoking at the same time the two biggest military powers apart of the United States while weakening our military forces with budget cuts.

    Aleksandar Malečić, 7/28/2016 5:16 PM EDT

    It's meant to be profitable, not intelligent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww_z6Teynow

    chayapartiya, 7/28/2016 5:21 PM EDT

    It is the worst foreign policy since the Arab Spring brought us ISIS. They are incapable of intelligent policy. Their whole idea was to "not do stupid stuff" and here they are. They just can't help themselves.

    chayapartiya, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT

    The only thing standing between a highly productive US/Russian relationship are the other relationships the United States has, both institutional and personal among our elites.

    Russia is the sworn enemy of many US allies and has barred our richest citizens from taking charge of large sectors of the Russian economy. That is the source of our new Cold War.

    Lacking Communist ideology Russia will never be an existential threat to the United States or our way of life. On the other hand, Islam is. On the other hand, Red China is.

    You have to be willing to abandon the entire US foreign policy establishment to turn our relationship with Russia around, and if we did maintaining our relationships with Poland, the Baltics, Georgia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and more would become vastly more difficult.

    But the idea is too good of one to abandon, Russia is far too influential to ignore. I'm glad one major party is going to recognize that now.

    invention13, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT

    "This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.

    In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security?

    I'm finding this whole flap just too funny. The whole point was probably to step on the news coverage of the convention on the night that the president and vice president were to speak. Trump is happy to fan the flames a bit. This is what he does when there is something he doesn't want people to pay attention to (whether it is unfavorable coverage of Trump University, or a convention). He throws out something outrageous that sucks the oxygen out of the news cycle. This whole thing will die down, simply because in the absence of hard evidence, most people don't believe it is true that Trump is Putin's agent. He may admire him, but work for him? I doubt it.

    NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 5:44 PM EDT

    Her actions DID once agains threaten NATIONAL SECURITY there was no doubt about that. She fwd classified email to her interns who got hacked. That is definitely a threat to national security. She carried her Blackberry and laptop into countries while acting as head of state. Which was not recommended for anyone to do even if there devices were secured by the state. She took hers to countries with her personal server that had zero security less than a commercial account. Then there was the fact she deleted and kept her business out of reach of FOIA. Zero respect for those laws. All federal employees are allowed to have a personal email for there person life. But Hilary decides she is above the law. Those federal laws don't apply to her and got away with it. When Comey was asked about that. He said he wasn't asked to investigate whether she broke those federal laws. He wasn't investigating whether she broke the law. But only if he should charge her for violating security. His conclusion was yes she violated the law. But he sees the law meant nothing so why file a criminal charge.

    Trump only requested information that they very well may have. Because Hilary handed it to them. it's hard to believe the Russians hacked the DNC. They most likely had the passwords from Hilary's accounts. Which would leave no footprints.

    OswegoTex , 7/28/2016 2:54 PM EDT

    The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative. Wasn't Romney ridiculed by a snarky and arrogant Obama and his press sycophants for identifying Russia as a major geopolitical threat in the 2012 election cycle. What happened? Oh-- I know--- the Clinton/Obama "reset".

    stella blue, 7/28/2016 2:45 PM EDT

    Very interesting article. Hillary is a neocon. She never saw a war she didn't like. I don't know what would be so wrong with having good relations with Russia. Wasn't that what Hillary's stupid reset button was all about?

    NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 6:11 PM EDT [Edited]

    I admire PUTIN and so do a lot of people. If you are a Citizens and believe in our values and the constitution. He held a democratic Legal election in Crimea. Where the people voted unanimously in favor of Belonging to Russia, A Vote that would be exactly the same today. The USA invades Syria with terrorists from countries whose own people wouldn't vote them in.

    All I have seen Putin do is save people. He saved Syria finally. i don't know what took him so long. Maybe WMDs he knew the opposition would use and some more dirty filthy rotten tricks that have been happening there. He turned the war around on less money than a shipment of weapons and training to the rebels forces costed the USA. those shipments and training was going on since before the conflict broke out. What was the point?

    Why has the USA spent a dime in that country other than they should have immediately neutralized, destroyed or recovered all the military equipment that was stolen from Iraq. I you like Russian your anti american? If you don't like illegal Immigrants your a racist. That is to be expected from those educated Hilary Voters...

    Nikdo, 7/28/2016 4:26 PM EDT

    Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof. Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Russian television shows what the Kremlin thinks of Clinton

    The video accompanying the article is actually better the the text. John Bolton made some interesting remarks. For example he said that it is stunning that Hillary Clinton said something about damage from hack of DNC server. What she though by engaging in her reckless behaviors with bathroom server four years while she were in office. He also suggested that points to Russia might be just attempt if disinformation from a real perpetuator.
    Notable quotes:
    "... In her acceptance speech, Clinton reaffirmed a commitment to NATO, saying she was "proud to stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia." ..."
    "... As U.S. secretary of state, Clinton in 2009 presented her Russian counterpart with a red button intended to symbolize a "reset" in relations between the two countries, one of U.S. President Barack Obama's initiatives. In Russia, the gesture is best remembered for the misspelling of the word in Russian, while the reset itself failed in the face of Putin's return as Russian president in 2012 and Russia's seizure of Crimea from Ukraine two years later. ..."
    "... Clinton once compared the annexation of Crimea to Adolf Hitler's moves into Eastern Europe at the start of World War II, a comparison that was deeply offensive in Russia, where the country's victory over Nazi Germany remains a prime source of national pride. ..."
    "... "And as far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's a mess. And that's under the Obama's administration with his strong ties to NATO. So with all of these strong ties to NATO, Ukraine is a mess," Trump said. "Crimea has been taken. Don't blame Donald Trump for that." ..."
    "... Putin was outraged by U.S. support for Ukraine and by U.S. military intervention around the world, particularly in Libya, on Clinton's watch. But it was what he saw as interference in Russia that really rankled. ..."
    "... When Clinton described Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections as rigged, Putin said she was "sending a signal" to his critics. He then accused the U.S. State Department of financially supporting the protests that drew tens of thousands of people to the streets of Moscow to demand free elections and an end to Putin's rule. ..."
    "... Channel One began its report by introducing Clinton as "a politician who puts herself above the law, who is ready to win at any cost and who is ready to change her principles depending on the political situation." The anchorwoman couched the description by saying that was how Clinton is seen by Trump's supporters - but it was a nuance viewers could easily miss. ..."
    Fox News

    MOSCOW – To understand what the Kremlin thinks about the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming the U.S. president, it was enough to watch Russian state television coverage of her accepting the Democratic nomination.

    Viewers were told that Clinton sees Russia as an enemy and cannot be trusted, while the Democratic Party convention was portrayed as further proof that American democracy is a sham.

    In her acceptance speech, Clinton reaffirmed a commitment to NATO, saying she was "proud to stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia."

    In doing so, she was implicitly rebuking her rival, Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has questioned the need for the Western alliance and suggested that if he is elected president, the United States might not honor its NATO military commitments, in particular regarding former Soviet republics in the Baltics.

    While Trump's position on NATO has delighted the Kremlin, Clinton's statement clearly stung.

    "She mentioned Russia only once, but it was enough to see that the era of the reset is over," Channel One said in its report.

    As U.S. secretary of state, Clinton in 2009 presented her Russian counterpart with a red button intended to symbolize a "reset" in relations between the two countries, one of U.S. President Barack Obama's initiatives. In Russia, the gesture is best remembered for the misspelling of the word in Russian, while the reset itself failed in the face of Putin's return as Russian president in 2012 and Russia's seizure of Crimea from Ukraine two years later.

    Clinton once compared the annexation of Crimea to Adolf Hitler's moves into Eastern Europe at the start of World War II, a comparison that was deeply offensive in Russia, where the country's victory over Nazi Germany remains a prime source of national pride.

    Trump, on the other hand, told ABC's "This Week" in a broadcast Sunday that he wants to take a look at whether the U.S. should recognize Crimea as part of Russia. "You know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were," Trump said.

    This runs counter to the position of the Obama administration and the European Union, which have imposed punishing sanctions on Russia in response to the annexation.

    "And as far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's a mess. And that's under the Obama's administration with his strong ties to NATO. So with all of these strong ties to NATO, Ukraine is a mess," Trump said. "Crimea has been taken. Don't blame Donald Trump for that."

    Putin was outraged by U.S. support for Ukraine and by U.S. military intervention around the world, particularly in Libya, on Clinton's watch. But it was what he saw as interference in Russia that really rankled.

    When Clinton described Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections as rigged, Putin said she was "sending a signal" to his critics. He then accused the U.S. State Department of financially supporting the protests that drew tens of thousands of people to the streets of Moscow to demand free elections and an end to Putin's rule.

    In the years since, the Kremlin has defended Russian elections in part by implying they are no different than in the United States, a country it says promotes democracy around the world while allowing its business and political elite to determine who wins at home.

    The Democratic Convention, which ended Friday morning Moscow time, was given wide coverage throughout the day on the nearly hourly news reports on state television, the Kremlin's most powerful tool for shaping public opinion.

    Channel One began its report by introducing Clinton as "a politician who puts herself above the law, who is ready to win at any cost and who is ready to change her principles depending on the political situation." The anchorwoman couched the description by saying that was how Clinton is seen by Trump's supporters - but it was a nuance viewers could easily miss.

    The reports ran excerpts of Clinton's speech, but the camera swung repeatedly to a sullen Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic challenger, and his disappointed supporters. The Rossiya channel also showed anti-Clinton protesters outside the convention hall who it said "felt they have been betrayed after the email leak that showed Bernie Sanders was pushed out of the race."

    Russia is a prime suspect in the hacking of Democratic National Committee computers, which led to the release of emails showing that party officials favored Clinton over Sanders for the presidential nomination.

    The Kremlin has denied interfering in the U.S. election. A columnist at Russia's best-selling newspaper, however, said it would have been a smart move.

    "I would welcome the Kremlin helping those forces in the United States that stand for peace with Russia and democracy in America," Israel Shamir wrote in Komsomolskaya Pravda.

    Trump, meanwhile, has encouraged Russia to seek and release more than 30,000 other missing emails deleted by Clinton. Democrats accused him of trying to get a foreign adversary to conduct espionage that could affect this November's election, but Trump later said he was merely being sarcastic.

    whollop

    Putin has tried to remind the world what a mistake break up of Yugoslavia was and corruption involved and lies, no one listens. Next leader of Russia might not be so restrained and patient. Sad we are letting such bad minds lead US now. What is it about Clinton's that make ppl so gullible?

    whollop

    Read "how the srebrenica massacre redefined US policy," by US professor. Media distorts truth everywhere, all the time. Bought and paid for.

    Russians didn't start last 2 WW's either. You can bet if ISIS attacks Russia, Pres O won't go to their aid.

    This constant demonizing of Russia has pushed them closer to China. Obama and Clinton and Bill Clinton (from earlier and beyond) have made a mess of the world because their values are built on wrong philosophy. German rationalism does not mesh with American freedom and love of law.

    Trump17

    Her and Obama interfered in their affairs and now without any proof they are blaming Russia for a hacking of the DNC. Back in March the FBI told the DNC it was hacked and wanted information to conduct an investigation which Hillary of course blocked. Now they are crying the blues..

    HmmIsee

    Dems have hated Russia ever since Reagan disbanded their beloved USSR

    teabone

    Russia and the U.S. used to have a common enemy, radical/extremist Islamism.

    Not anymore since Obama and Clinton loves Muslims more than they like American citizens.

    [Jul 31, 2016] If Sanders had defined success as betraying his supporters, he is a successful man

    Notable quotes:
    "... Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit for them. ..."
    "... Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the perfect identity politics totem for that role. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    APPENDIX II: Sanders' Role in the 2016 Election

    We will have to wait for the campaign tell-alls to understand what the Sanders campaign believed its strategy was, and whether the campaign believes it was successful, or not. While it is true that reform efforts in the Democrat Party have a very poor track record, it's also true that third parties have a terrible track record. (It's worth noting that in the eight years just past, with the capitol occupations, Occupy proper, Black Lives Matter, fracking campaigns all on the boil, the Green Party was flatlined, seeminly unable to make an institutional connection with any of these popular movements. It may be that 2016 is different. It may also be that the iron law of institutions applies to the GP just as much as it does to any other party.) Therefore, "working within the Democrat Party" - which Sanders consistently said he would do; the label on the package was always there - is not, a priori , a poor strategic choice, especially if "working within" amounts to a hostile takeover followed by a management purge. And it's hard for me to recall another "working within" approach that garnered 45% of the vote, severed the youth of the party - of all identities - from the base of the ruling faction, and invented an entirely new and highly successful funding model. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, which the dominant faction in today's Democrat Party destroyed, would be the closest parallel, and the material conditions of working people are worse today than they were in Jackson's time, and institutions generally far less likely to be perceived as legitimate. And if we consider the idea that one of Sander's strategic goals was not the office but the successful propagation of the socialist idea - as a Johnny Appleseed, rather than a happy warrior - then the campaign was a success by any measure. (That said, readers know my priors on this: I define victory in 2016 as the creation of independent entities with a left voice; an "Overton Prism," as it were, three-sided, rather than an Overton Window, two-sided. I've got some hope that this victory is on the way, because it's bigger than any election.)

    With those views as background, most of the attacks on Sanders accuse him of bad faith. This was the case with the Green Party's successfully propagated "sheepdog" meme; it's also the case with the various forms of post-defeat armchair cynicism, all of which urge, that in some way Sanders succeeded by betraying his supporters in some way. (This is, I suppose, easier to accept than the idea that Sanders got a beating by an powerful political campaign with a ton of money and the virtually unanimous support of the political class.)

    If Sanders had defined success as betraying his supporters, I would expect him to act and behave like a successful man. That's not the case. Here is Sanders putting Clinton's name into nomination:

    It's a sad, even awful, moment, I agree, but politics ain't beanbag. While it would be irresponsible to speculate that Sanders looks so strained and unhappy because he found a horse's head in his bed ( "Mrs. Clinton never asks a second favor once she's refused the first, understood?" ), his body language certainly doesn't look like he's a happy man, a man who is happy with the deal he's made, or a man who has achieved success through the betrayal of others; you'd have to look at the smiling faces on the Democrat main stage for that.

    ....

    ambrit, July 29, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    I don't know the psychology of Sanders, but, how much did he really expect to win in the early days of his campaign? Could "getting the Socialism ball rolling" have been his definition of success in the beginning? Like Trump, the other disruptional candidate, could his very success in the primary season have surprised him? If so, then his pivot back to the Senate and Socialist coalition movement building makes perfect sense.

    In this sense, the anger focused on Sanders would be a displacement of the groundswell of anger by the general public at the sheer brazenness of the DNC's anti public policies. The DNC has shown contempt and disdain for the very people they purport to work for. Whoever shifted the popular anger from the DNC onto Sanders has done a masterful job of propaganda. Saint Bernays would be proud.

    Toby613, July 29, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    I don't think he was expecting to win when he started, but at the same time he was probably thinking it was worth a running a primary challenge to change the conversation. His political strategy of trying to increase turnout of working class voters was not a bad one, considering that Democrat primary voters have lately been the demographics who support either neoliberalism or would be racially biased against a non-Christian candidate. He was mainly hurt by three things, two of which were largely out of his control: (1) he lacked the polish/media saavy to not get dragged into minor issues that distracted from his core message (like the flap about calling Clinton unqualified, or his visit to the Vatican), (2) he literally had the entire media and political establishment working against him, and arguably inciting voter suppression and fraud , and (3) his non-Christianity limited his ability to coalesce support from older African-Americans, which hurt him in the South and hurt him from a perception standpoint.

    What remains to be seen is where his supporters go now. Dissatisfaction with the status quo will only continue to increase. Something interesting though, is that Tulsi Gabbard seems to be setting herself to be the continuation of the Sanders movement. I am unfamiliar with her policies, but her positioning is in stark contrast to the rest of the Democrat Party.

    Kurt Sperry, July 29, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit for them.

    Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the perfect identity politics totem for that role. The good news is obviously that this demographic is dying off and young AAs don't share their elders' pretty extreme right wing Christian viewpoint. I don't think the left needs to fix that "problem" or even can. Time will fix it and nothing much else can.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Is Hillary the lesser evil

    Notable quotes:
    "... You would rather vote against ..."
    "... …and vote FOR the person who voted for the invasion of Iraq, supported NAFTA and the undermining of universal health coverage in support of private insurance companies/managed care, was likely the deciding factor in overthrowing the Libyan government, was instrumental in supporting multiple dictatorships in Haiti (good pieces linked to that on NC recently), was possibly instrumental in and for sure responsible for the support after the fact of the coup in Honduras, was a founder of what might go down in history as one of the largest fraudulent charities ever (with those tentacles doing the very same things the DNC is accusing Putin of doing), has a history of quid pro quo dealings with predator international investment banks and vulture capitalists (which Elizabeth Warren has identified in speeches that are available on Youtube)… one could go on and on, but basically the candidate who has never met a nation state or corrupt business dealing that she didn't want to stick herself in the middle of the dealings with… ..."
    "... I would think the xenophobe might look more attractive to non-passport holders of the American empire simply based upon a cursory reading of history. But nothing should surprise me anymore. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Betina , July 29, 2016 at 11:32 am

    This is some irresponsible stuff. For all of Naked Capitalism's concerns with Clinton's neocon tendencies, you neglect to understand that we are terrified of Trump here in Europe, and as a Brazilian, I do not know a single person from my country who would prefer him as President. 2016 Democrats are not "neoliberals," even as they operate in a neoliberal structure. The only thing any of this indicates is Trump has is that he has *no record* – Hudson thinks that every last thing that happened under the Obama government was out of the President's personal desire to make it so. If Trump had a political career, he would be no better, if not much worse. Trump's career in business does not support Hudson's optimism, at all.

    RUKidding , July 29, 2016 at 11:59 am

    I do agree with you. I have many friends in Europe and Australia who are literally begging me to vote for Clinton – and they don't like her much either.

    I love NC, but I disagree with the fawning acceptance of Trump as somehow fit to be President. He's a racist, bigoted, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist jerk with no really good plans in place. The so-called "ideas" or "plans" that he has do not pencil out and would bankrupt this country should they ever be implemented. I agree that Clinton is awful and was well nigh disgusted with the DNC convention (but expected nothing less or different).

    But voting for Trump is irresponsible in my opinion. I just cannot go there. Yet and still in this nation today, you are free to vote for who you want.

    Treadingwaterbutstillkicking , July 29, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    Very confused here.

    You would rather vote against the egomaniacal, sexist, xenophobe, who is willing to downshift international military interventions, lessen spending on NATO, work WITH the Russians on ISIS, possibly exit trade neoliberal trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO (while not adopting the TPP), etc…

    …and vote FOR the person who voted for the invasion of Iraq, supported NAFTA and the undermining of universal health coverage in support of private insurance companies/managed care, was likely the deciding factor in overthrowing the Libyan government, was instrumental in supporting multiple dictatorships in Haiti (good pieces linked to that on NC recently), was possibly instrumental in and for sure responsible for the support after the fact of the coup in Honduras, was a founder of what might go down in history as one of the largest fraudulent charities ever (with those tentacles doing the very same things the DNC is accusing Putin of doing), has a history of quid pro quo dealings with predator international investment banks and vulture capitalists (which Elizabeth Warren has identified in speeches that are available on Youtube)… one could go on and on, but basically the candidate who has never met a nation state or corrupt business dealing that she didn't want to stick herself in the middle of the dealings with…

    I would think the xenophobe might look more attractive to non-passport holders of the American empire simply based upon a cursory reading of history. But nothing should surprise me anymore.

    Yves Smith Post author , July 30, 2016 at 5:38 am

    There were some newbie walk-ins at the top of the thread who were keen on Trump, which I agree was creepy.

    But aside from our relentless jgordon, no regular LIKES Trump. The ones who say they will vote for him weigh that choice against Jill Stein. They see themselves reluctantly voting for Trump as the "less effective evil," that as an outsider, hated by his own party, he won't get much done. Think Jimmy Carter cubed. The other reasons for being willing to consider Trump are that Hilary clearly wants a hot war with Russia, and that she will push for the TPP, which is a dangerous and irrevocable deal.

    aab , July 30, 2016 at 5:55 am

    As someone who consistently advocates here for Trump being the lesser evil, I want to chime in behind Yves. I do not like Trump. I just consider putting him into the Presidency to be a far safer choice than enabling Clinton into power, and I recognize that however I choose to vote, one of those two people will be President. I also value highly the possibility of weakening the hold of big finance and corporations over the Democratic Party by purging the Clintons and leaving the party too weak to be of much use to its current owners.

    Fundamentally, I am Anyone But Clinton, a handy catchphrase that captures my perspective exactly. I will probably end up voting for a socialist third party no one ever discusses here, because why not support the party closest to my own values and policy desires? But if Stein OR Trump actually got enough traction to possibly take my state, I'd add my vote to that pile, happily. Well, "happily" in that I would feel I was making the best possible choice with whatever tiny amount of agency my vote represents. But the next four years are likely to be quite grim, no matter what.

    John Wright , July 30, 2016 at 9:35 am

    As I live in CA, which is assumed to be in the bag for HRC, my vote against her is only of import to me.

    This election is akin to someone who desperately needs a tricky surgery and their choice of surgeons is limited to two with long records of malpractice but with good media advertising campaigns.

    When I visualize a President Hillary Clinton, my only hope is that once she has successfully climbed the Presidential mountain she has so doggedly pursued (as her faux "namesake" Sir Edmund did his), she might realize she should serve the people, not the elite.

    But my hope in the original trademarked "Hope" candidate Obama dissipated rather quickly.

    And Hillary has a lifetime record of serving herself, her family and her ambitions, not the people.

    I also view Trump as the LOE

    low integer , July 29, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    Look, I live in Australia and the msm Clinton bias verges on is ridiculous. Why is Europe more terrified of Trump than Clinton? The media? I understand Trump is problematic, but do you know Hillary's history? Looking forward to a hot war with Russia?

    Luciano Moffatt , July 29, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    As an Argentinian, I urge you to vote for Trump.
    As bad as Bush was for you and for Middle East, in Latin America we enjoy the possibility of finding our own ways to develop, as Bush did not care about us.
    Once Obama got to office, the wave changed starting from the Honduras' coup, followed by Paraguay coup. Now, the only countries resisting are the ones that reformed its constitution: Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
    Policies of Democrats to Latin America, from some reason that I do not comprehend, have been particularly bad for Latin America. The only exception I remember is the active policies of Jimmy Carter against the violation of human rights in Argentina.

    EoinW , July 29, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    Not surprised by the European take on Trump. I've caught bits and pieces of CBC coverage(can't stomach much of it) and they make CNN look objective! Trump has been neatly inserted into the bad guy role and all coverage assumes the viewers only care about one thing: stopping Trump. You'd think they were still covering Iraq and talking about Saddam, not Donald. I can't call the CBC's coverage of Trump juvenile because it's barely infantile in its simplicity. Other Canadian media outlets are pretty much falling in with the CBC narrative. After all, you think pro-neocon/pro-war Sun Media is going to give Trump and his anti-war rhetoric any chance?

    To put it simply: Canadian media is a captured entity. No surprise as Canada has always done what it takes to have a presence in the imperial court(even if it's a spot in the far corner). This is Canada's reason for being: to kiss the imperial ass. First the British Empire and now the American Empire. As a good loyal supplicant, we've now stepped forward to combat the latest imperial threat: Donald Trump.

    The irony is delightful. Part of the national narrative here is how much better educated we are than those ignorant Americans. I'm sure Europeans share the same conceit. Yet we are the ones swallowing all the establishment propaganda while Americans are seeing through all the media lies, are engaged and demanding change. I guess this makes sense. After all, Americans have run the world, while Europeans are the "has beens" and Canadians the "never have been at all"!

    [Jul 31, 2016] Lesser Evil Voting and Hillary Clintons War on the Poor

    Notable quotes:
    "... They tell us that Hillary is a flawed but basically progressive candidate who shouldn't be "demonized." After all, she's spent her "entire life" advocating on behalf of "women and girls." ..."
    "... As Doug Henwood has pointed out , most of what Clinton did "for women and girls" as Secretary of State was to do photo-ops with women around the world wearing colorful ethnic garb. ..."
    "... The candidate herself frequently talks up the sheer number of miles she traveled as if this alone added up to some sort of praiseworthy political accomplishment. The fact is that the policies she flew around the world supporting were a disaster for poor people around the world, and especially for poor women. ..."
    "... During the early years of the Obama administration, the Haitian government tried to raise the minimum wage there to all of 61 cents an hour, which works out to about five dollars a day. (The minimum wage before the proposed increase was 22 cents.) Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in 2011 show that the sweatshops supplying Hanes and Levi-Strauss made a huge stink, and got the State Department involved to lobby the Haitian government against their plan to go to all the way up to 61 cents an hour. ..."
    "... Today, after preparing to write this article by reviewing Secretary Clinton's disgusting rhetoric about welfare mothers and reviewing the facts about workfare, benefit reductions, and the uptick in extreme poverty, I know exactly what to think. Guns should be confiscated from NRA members and redistributed to single mothers who have been kicked off of benefits. Lacking money from the now-defunct Aid to Families with Dependent Children program to help them keep the lights on and buy groceries for their kids, let's give them the ability to procure groceries by other means. ..."
    "... Ben Burgis is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Underwood International College, Yonsei University. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    I voted for Jill Stein in 2012, and I'll do so again as a matter of course if Hillary is nominated in 2016. I'm cautiously optimistic that a non-trivial fraction of those currently Feeling the Bern may do the same, just as a spillover effect from Ron Paul's liberatarian-ish Presidential campaign in 2012 seems to have contributed to the unprecedented million votes received by Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson in the 2012 general election. I would argue that breaking the stranglehold of the two-party 'duopoly' on American politics is clearly in the interests of working people-not to mention the interests of all the people in the third world who live in fear of American bombs. As OACW union leader Tony Mazzocchi was fond of saying, "The bosses have two parties. We need one of our own."

    But let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm wrong about all of that. Let's assume, as liberal pundits uniformly insist, that it would be dangerously irresponsible to even consider voting for anyone but Hillary Clinton in the general election. Even granting that premise, why not vote for her with rubber gloves and open eyes?

    Instead of emulating the French, scolding liberal commentators constantly tell us that the differences between Hillary and Bernie shouldn't be "exaggerated." They tell us that Hillary is a flawed but basically progressive candidate who shouldn't be "demonized." After all, she's spent her "entire life" advocating on behalf of "women and girls."

    As Doug Henwood has pointed out, most of what Clinton did "for women and girls" as Secretary of State was to do photo-ops with women around the world wearing colorful ethnic garb. Indeed, it's revealing that, when you dig beyond bumper sticker slogans like "advocacy on behalf of women and girls," Clinton supporters rarely want to discuss the particulars of her record. The candidate herself frequently talks up the sheer number of miles she traveled as if this alone added up to some sort of praiseworthy political accomplishment. The fact is that the policies she flew around the world supporting were a disaster for poor people around the world, and especially for poor women.

    During the early years of the Obama administration, the Haitian government tried to raise the minimum wage there to all of 61 cents an hour, which works out to about five dollars a day. (The minimum wage before the proposed increase was 22 cents.) Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in 2011 show that the sweatshops supplying Hanes and Levi-Strauss made a huge stink, and got the State Department involved to lobby the Haitian government against their plan to go to all the way up to 61 cents an hour. The U.S. State Department has a fairly massive level of sway in the deliberations of the Haitian government, considering the United States' long history of meddling, backing coups, and even invading the country when governments there displease Uncle Sam. Nor is this ancient history from the Cold War. U.S. Marines removed the democratically elected President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in 2004. So when the U.S. Embassy says jump, the Haitian government tends to ask how high. In this case, they ended up cutting the proposed minimum wage hike of 39 cents an hour all the way down to 9 cents. It might be worth thinking hard about the fact that the girls sewing your jeans have Hillary Clinton to thank for their current salary of 31 cents an hour next time a liberal scold tells you not to "demonize" Secretary Clinton.

    Of course, Haitians are foreigners, and black foreigners at that, so maybe they don't quite count. (After all, Hillary's liberal supporters are willing to overlook that small matter of her support for the invasion of Iraq.) Perhaps, in evaluating her record, we should focus on her no-doubt glorious history of domestic progressivism.

    Back in the mid-1980s, the Clintons and a lot of their friends founded something called the Democratic Leadership Council to move the Democratic Party back to "the center." Throughout that decade, Ronald Reagan had led the Republicans in demonizing "welfare queens" allegedly ripping off vast sums from the hard-working taxpayers. The evidence for the claim that a non-trivial amount of money was being lost to welfare benefits being paid out to people who simply didn't want to work was always pretty thin, but it hardly mattered. The racial subtext was powerful and it was thinly disguised, and Reagan's skillful use of this rhetoric paid off in a big way for the GOP.

    When the Democratic Leadership Council, which still claimed to be "socially progressive," talked about moving "to the center" on economic issues, this is precisely the center they were talking about capturing. Bill Clinton made it explicit in 1992 with his campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it." Unlike quite a few of his other promises, he kept this one, signing away the end of federal welfare requirements in 1996. The impact of this "reform" on millions of desperate people was predictably grim, even for those who did manage to hold onto some kind of benefits so they could keep the heat on and make rent.

    (Google "workfare" to see what this often looked like in practice. One of the options Google helpfully offers you when you type that word into the search engine is workfare is a form of slave labor.) With federal requirements abolished, the paltry funds made available for welfare were sent out as bloc grants to the states, where bloody-minded conservative state legislatures could have their way with the programs. In the years since "welfare reform" was passed, the percentage of Americans living in extreme poverty has greatly increased. As Ryan Cooper puts it, "Even after the worst economic crisis in 80 years, TANF has basically ceased to exist in much of the country. Eligibility requirements have gotten so onerous, and benefit levels so miserly, that many poor people haven't even heard of the program, or think it was abolished."

    So, where was Hillary Clinton in all this? She was an enthusiastic supporter of her husband's initiative, both in her role as an administration advisor and in her many public statements on the matter, including ones that she made after Bill's Presidency ended and she was elected to the Senate. She called single mothers on benefits "deadbeats" and talked about them over and over again in the most offensively cliched terms, as people who knew nothing but "dependency" and had no inkling of the value of work. So, for example, using Ronald Reagan's trademark rhetorical technique of a supposedly representative anecdote that sounds authoritative becomes it comes with a proper name, Clinton talked about a former welfare queen named Rhonda Costa. "Rhonda Costa's daughter came home from school and announced, 'Mommy, I'm tired of seeing you sitting around the house doing nothing.' That's the day Rhonda decided to get off welfare…."

    Because it's just that easy, right? These people are clearly on welfare because they don't want to work, and any time they decide that they'd like a job, one will fall in their lap. It's certainly not as if holes on resumes matter, or workfare requirements often prevent welfare recipients from being able to go to job interviews, or "structural unemployment" is a feature of market economies.

    Matt Bruenig sums things up nicely:

    For lifelong upper class pundits, these statements may not actually cause much feeling inside of them. But, as someone who actually grew up in and adjacent to the class of people being described here, I can tell you that these are really the height of anti-poor slurs. Under Clinton's estimation, welfare beneficiaries are dignity-lacking dependent deadbeats who are such losers that even their own kids think they are trash. We don't talk a lot about classism in the US (and frankly I don't like the term), but that's what this is. It is the class equivalent of calling women airhead bimbos.

    Nor, of course, are the class and gender dimensions of all this entirely unrelated. Not so coincidentally, the picture of an allegedly typical welfare recipient you get from Hillary Clinton's rhetoric on this-the "Rhonda Costa" of her anecdote-is a single mother.

    As Bernie Sanders tried to keep the focus of this year's Democratic debates on economics and his proposals to expand the welfare state, Hillary Clinton changed the subject as often as possible to guns. This is the one issue where the Secretary thought she had an opening to outflank Bernie Sanders on the "left," on the grounds that Senator Sanders has sometimes been insufficiently enthusiastic about gun control.

    It's a complicated issue. On the one hand, the statistics about gun accidents, never mind gun crimes, are pretty grim. On the other hand, the fact that "stop and frisk" started as a program to go after illegal guns should make leftists who harbor concerns about police power and the carceral state think twice about bold new gun regulations are likely to play out. On a normal day, I'm not entirely sure what to think.

    Today, after preparing to write this article by reviewing Secretary Clinton's disgusting rhetoric about welfare mothers and reviewing the facts about workfare, benefit reductions, and the uptick in extreme poverty, I know exactly what to think. Guns should be confiscated from NRA members and redistributed to single mothers who have been kicked off of benefits. Lacking money from the now-defunct Aid to Families with Dependent Children program to help them keep the lights on and buy groceries for their kids, let's give them the ability to procure groceries by other means.

    Join the debate on Facebook

    Ben Burgis is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Underwood International College, Yonsei University.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Dear Sanders Supporters You and you beliefs will be thrown under the bus. Hilary has plans to attract Republican Votes to secure the presidency, as predicted

    Notable quotes:
    "... You have succeeded in making Hillary's coronation unpleasant for her. Embarrassed her with her shady past, and demonstrated on topics on which she has a firm interest in pas$$ing (TPP). ..."
    "... For those of you who believe Jill Stein is worthy of a vote, I do not believe so. If she were motivated then she would be copying Bernie's fundraising activities, and not off in her own world of irrelevance (and possibly privilege). The Iron Law of Institutions hold here, she is happier in her position and has demonstrated no incentive to change things. ..."
    "... Of course Clinton does not respect my views. But the idea that Donald Trump "respects my views" is patently ludicrous. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Synoia, July 29, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Dear Sanders Supporters:

    I'll be blunt. You and you beliefs will be thrown under the bus, and trampled into the dust. Hilary has plans to attract Republican Votes to secure the presidency, as predicted.

    You have succeeded in making Hillary's coronation unpleasant for her. Embarrassed her with her shady past, and demonstrated on topics on which she has a firm interest in pas$$ing (TPP).

    Note:

    The DNC has also informed Sanders delegates that they will have their credentials taken away for holding up anti-TPP signage as well

    That is not the action of a person who respects your views in any manner at all.

    For those of you who believe Jill Stein is worthy of a vote, I do not believe so. If she were motivated then she would be copying Bernie's fundraising activities, and not off in her own world of irrelevance (and possibly privilege). The Iron Law of Institutions hold here, she is happier in her position and has demonstrated no incentive to change things.

    So who will you vote for? That's a poor question, a better question is who will you vote against?

    Why do I write that? Well, you can vote for (Jill, the Looser, Stein), a person who will damage you (Hillary the Honest), or a person who might help you (Donald the Magnificent). – Just to be clear, sarcasm is intended in all three instances.

    Good luck with that decision, mine is made, and I made it months ago (a list of preferences, 1, 2 3), 3 was ABC – Anyone but Clinton, for I believe firmly that she will do me no good, and probably do myself and my children and my grandchildren much harm.

    What I read here is people somewhere in the stages of grief. Time to move on, at least by November.

    Optimader, July 29, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    Of course Clinton does not respect my views. But the idea that Donald Trump "respects my views" is patently ludicrous.

    And is a fallacy of false choice. I'm surprised you offer that. The fact that Trump doesn't "respect your views" doesn't make HRC a more acceptable choice.

    Vatch, July 29, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    ...Although I know other people who are convinced that Clinton is the lesser evil. Anyhow, Lesser Evilism is only relevant in swing states. Everywhere else, people ought to vote strategically. They should look to the future, and choose a candidate who will help create positive outcomes in future elections. We already know that the result of the 2016 election will be a disaster.

    [Jul 31, 2016] I love those old cartoons from the 1890s that show the reformers smashing the monopolists. Envision Trump with an axe, chopping off the tentacles of the vampire squid

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Dave, July 29, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    Who cares what foreigners think about our election?

    Only people with financial ties to the outcome of the election can be expected to really care. Goldman Sach's tentacles are worldwide.

    I love those old cartoons from the 1890s that show the reformers smashing the monopolists. Envision Trump with an axe, chopping off the tentacles of the vampire squid which screams in agony and bleeds to death.

    I'm reminded of the buttinsky old woman from Austria who is always lecturing me on how we treat our "Africa-Americans."
    I respond with , "So, how do you treat the gypsies in Austria?"
    " Oh, that's different!" she shrieks.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Donald Trump says hes taking the gloves off as party conventions wrap

    Pro-Hilary bots dominate discussion. Still there are few interesting comments
    Notable quotes:
    "... Meh, Hitler only ascended to power because he aligned himself with corporate interests and Germany's 1%. They did so because he stoked their fear of the other guys...who were communists. Sounds more like Hillary's playbook than Trumps ..."
    "... Trump may or may not be as he is portrayed, but to hold Hilary up as a paragon of virtue isn't going to get the Democrats very far. Between Hilary and Bill there are so many skeletons that there are not enough cupboards to hold them. Whitewater and other nepharious business dealings combined with corruption , sexual double dealing , this couple (for that is what they are) cannot preach to anyone re morality , honesty and trustworthiness. In addition Hilary is a master of the dark arts of Politics ( and that's being kind) Trump, has not been found out and if there were skeletons there then be sure they would have been found by now. Trump to win and Hilary to be placed in a well deserved prison cell. ..."
    Jul 31, 2016 | theguardian.com
    Sam3456 -> Merveil Meok , 2016-07-31 03:31:48
    Hillary has no such problems:

    Hedge fund owners and employees have so far this election cycle contributed nearly $48.5 million for Hillary Clinton, compared to about $19,000 for Donald Trump, an indication that Wall Street is clearly backing the Democratic presidential nominee.

    RogTheDodge -> peter nelson , 2016-07-31 13:35:21
    He didn't ask anyone to spy on us. He said if the Russians *already* had Clinton's 30,000 deleted emails, the media would love to get them and he'd love to read them. At no point did he ask anyone to hack anything.
    MsEvenstar , 2016-07-30 23:51:36
    Donald Trump sings from Hitler's playbook. There is a real difference, however, as an orator, he is not quite so polished. To date, his campaign has been devoted creating a "cult of personality", and on labeling all those who disagree un-American. A collection of slogans and sound-bites and an itchy Twitter finger do not a coherent platform make, but they are ideally suited to turning a crowd into a mob, one of the oldest tricks in the Hitler playbook.
    Sam3456 -> MsEvenstar , 2016-07-31 03:30:43
    Meh, Hitler only ascended to power because he aligned himself with corporate interests and Germany's 1%. They did so because he stoked their fear of the other guys...who were communists. Sounds more like Hillary's playbook than Trumps
    1iJack , 2016-07-30 17:19:11
    Whoever thought the Democrats would become the party of Wall Street?

    "Wall Street for Hillary? Clinton has $48.5M in hedge fund backing, compared to Trump's $19K"


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/30/wall-street-for-hillary-clinton-has-48-5m-in-hedge-fund-backing-compared-to-trumps-19m.html
    ethane21 -> Kelly Grey , 2016-07-30 17:40:26

    Trump has the backing of Russia, so...

    The CLinton's already have that sewn up by flogging the Russkies Uranium mines a deal facilitated through the Clinton Foundation.
    'Uranium1' - check it.
    dalepues , 2016-07-30 15:51:45
    Thank God for Donald Trump. He is the only person of national stature who has taken the whip to GWB and his sorry, criminal administration. Donald Trump should be lauded for telling the truth in front of 40,000,000 viewers about the neocon crime syndicate that created Operation Iraqi Freedom and, of course, its members, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, erstwhile U.S. Senator who voted in favor of going to war in Iraq and who has never seen a war she didn't like or profit from. Trump in a single evening destroyed once and forever the myth that GWB "kept America safe". I look forward to the taking down of the Clinton brand.
    edward Marbletoe -> dalepues , 2016-07-30 16:18:39
    Trump:
    took down GWB worship
    took down FOX and Ailes
    took down Cruz
    took down GOP

    Sounds like the to-do list of a democrat. A very successful one.

    dylan37 , 2016-07-30 14:21:57
    Seems blindingly obvious to me that Trump is a born entertainer and knows exactly how to manipulate the media spotlight and get headlines..his "no more Mr Nice Guy" schtick is straight out of the TV villain playbook, like those mullet swinging moustachioed Amercan wrestlers..the crowd love it..he gets the attention..it generates comments and effectively shifts the low level debate back on to his ground, after Hillary enjoyed a couple of days of glass ceiling smashing. It's old vaudeville and pantomime and he's a master of it. Every serious reaction and outraged comment plays beautifully into his now gloveless hands. Don't fall for it. No need to worry, until he secures the keys to the kingdom come November.
    shejean , 2016-07-30 14:21:33
    'Nice'? Trump has never been 'nice' to Hillary or any other person, let alone another candidate Repub or Dem. How long did it take for him to come up with this rhetoric? Be afraid, very afraid, if he ever becomes POTUS. ��
    Nedward Marbletoe -> shejean , 2016-07-30 16:12:24
    Trump donated to Hillary. If that's not nice, idk what is.
    mythology 200gnomes , 2016-07-30 11:31:02
    Let's help out here: Jill Stein : and Gary Johnson .

    Real people worth voting for. Who would have guessed that America had a choice?
    Given a level democratic playing field, surely what a democracy is meant to be, then we would be seeing prime time coverage of all people standing for President.

    But the U.S. is not a democracy, it is an elected dictatorship.

    oldwatcher , 2016-07-30 10:59:51
    Anyone but the Clinton family in the White House for another eight years signals a disaster for the whole of the United States of America
    Trump has never sullied the White House and never will like that dirty bugger Clinton.
    Scipio1 , 2016-07-30 10:57:53
    What has happened to America's conscience, its democratic traditions, its sense of reason and fair play, where is its morality - all gone apparently if the Democratic Party Convention and nomination of HRC is anything to go by.

    Herewith an interesting snippet.

    ''Our Gross National Product - if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our Redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in a chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear war-head, and armoured cars and police to fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Specks Knife, and the TV programmes which glorify violence to sell toys to our children.

    GDP does not the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.''

    Who said that? Martin Luther King, Noam Chomsky, Jill Stein? Actually it was Bobby Kennedy (Remarks at the University of Kansas, 18 March 1968 - quoted in S.Das - The Age of Stagnation 2015)

    Can anyone today imagine in their wildest dreams a leading Democrat espousing views such as this? This is how far into the night that America has come. God help us all.

    anotherwelshbloke , 2016-07-30 10:46:54
    Obama tried to influence our referendum by saying that if the UK voted for Brexit then the UK would go to the back of the queue. Hilary as president will try and make sure that his word is carried out. However.....
    Trump wanted Brexit to happen. He also has a love for Scotland where he owns a golf course. He is also likely to see eye to eye with our new Foreign Secretary who was responsible for annoying Obama in the first place. I think both Boris and Trump are lunatics but looking at the bigger picture Trump will be so much better for British and Scottish interests than Hilary. He will place us at the front of the queue and Nicola Sturgeon would almost certainly be given a place at the high table.
    keyser soze , 2016-07-30 10:44:57
    Down with establishment and status quo TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP lets go Trump
    ydobon , 2016-07-30 10:30:54
    The people complaining about Trump being dishonest about the numbers of New Jersey Muslims celebrating 911 are themselves guilty of an even bigger falsehood in claiming that the number was zero.

    ""When I saw they were happy, I was pissed," said Ron Knight, 56, a Tonnele Avenue resident who said he heard cries of "Allahu Akbar" as he shouldered his way through a crowd of 15 to 20 people on John F. Kennedy Boulevard that morning.

    "Collectively, the gatherings amounted to dozens of people at the two locations, the witnesses said. Callers also flooded the 911 system with accounts of jubilant Muslims on a rooftop at a third location, three police officers said"

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/12/exclusive_jersey_city_cop_residents_say_some_musli.html

    And honestly, why should this even be surprising? Living in a Western country doesn't instantly make all Muslims loyslpatriots, as I would've thought anyone would recognise by now.

    Paul Silbert -> ydobon , 2016-07-30 11:08:33
    I thought that it was supposed to be Israelis celebrating in NJ because of 9/11? I guess that I must have been fed the wrong conspiracy theory. It doesn't matter, really, because it's pure unadulterated bullsh--, whoever you claim it about.
    Frogdoofus , 2016-07-30 09:57:44
    Lots of anti-Trump comments, fine and perfectly understandable. To clarify, the election is not a yes/no vote on Trump as President. It is a choice between Trump and HRC. To call HRC a deeply flawed candidate is an understatement. The important discussion is not over which one is evil, but which one is the lesser evil.

    If there is one candidate that you simply cannot go into a voting booth and vote for, then the other one gets your vote. For some people both candidates are "unvoteable", which is a quandary. Throwing away ones vote by not voting or going third party is not a civic option. It will be a tough few months.

    heatherton , 2016-07-30 09:56:54
    Trump may or may not be as he is portrayed, but to hold Hilary up as a paragon of virtue isn't going to get the Democrats very far. Between Hilary and Bill there are so many skeletons that there are not enough cupboards to hold them. Whitewater and other nepharious business dealings combined with corruption , sexual double dealing , this couple (for that is what they are) cannot preach to anyone re morality , honesty and trustworthiness. In addition Hilary is a master of the dark arts of Politics ( and that's being kind) Trump, has not been found out and if there were skeletons there then be sure they would have been found by now. Trump to win and Hilary to be placed in a well deserved prison cell.
    erazmatazz , 2016-07-30 09:50:59
    Clinton supporters always focus on the petty issues. Listen to Trump speak, there is a lot of substance in those speeches relating to the common people of the US of A. Reason why this guy is winning! And Why the Main stream media ( Including the quintessential Hillary supporters news paper The Guardian) hates Donald Trump. Let's put it this way, if you want a fair assessment of Donald Trump and what He is about, stay away from the main stream media.
    Clark8934 , 2016-07-30 09:48:27
    Judging by the comments below Trump is doing just fine! They remind you of people who would go to see stand-up comedy acts, not get the jokes, then mis-represent them and run home to mummy in shock! Yes, Trump is a stand-up act, hes entertaining, hes mainly unscripted and he has an audience. I think the world is divided between those with a sense of humor and those without! No-one with such a sense of humor can be dangerous, but sure as heck the Clintons and the Sanders are, as they take themselves very seriously now dont they!
    ydobon , 2016-07-30 09:38:59
    "his false claim that Muslims celebrated September 11"

    It isn't false that (some) Muslims celebrated 911. It isn't even false that some in New Jersey celebrated it. The only dispute is over numbers: dozens, possibly hundreds (as early news reports suggested) or thousands (as Trump asserts). It is ridiculous that the media so quick to paint Trump as a liar on this issue are themselves pushing an even bigger lie, ie that no Muslims celebrated at all.

    centerline -> IanCPurdie , 2016-07-30 10:26:57
    Earlier in the US farce, I looked up the various candidates websites and looked for their foreign policy. Non had foreign policy. All had war policy, or war and peace. This is the US version of foreign policy. On this Trump has been consistent - negotiation.
    Trump's an unknown, a showman. Clinton is a known - war.
    In the stratosphere of US $emocracy, all we can hope for here is an independent foreign policy rather than a foreign policy delivered direct from the US embassy.
    tupacalypse7 , 2016-07-30 09:05:29
    Good lord, the Russiaphobic brainwashing on these comments is thick and terrifying. I'm sorry, but I'd rather not have Cold War 2.0 over fucking Syria, thanks! But please go ahead and Vote For Hillary even though she's in bed with all the MidEast Wahhabist Dictatorships, AIPAC, and wants to demolish Damascus. Fucking nightmare. Seriously, Hillary people are either bought-off or brainwashed. And it's all because of Big Bad Trump, a decades long Clinton-Democrat who is now literally Hitler, right?
    Kess , 2016-07-30 09:04:15
    All this simplistic "Trump = bad / Clinton = good" reporting is getting ridiculous. Both candidates have a lot of dubious qualities and skeletons in their cupboards, yet one is glossed over while the other is exaggerated into caricature.

    Are there any truly independent newspapers that will report both sides fairly and evenly? The Guardian clearly won't.

    poststructuralist , 2016-07-30 08:30:21
    Another Trump bashing article. Nice to see your journalistic objectivity is intact Guardian. The establishment is finally being challenged - No more spin, no more smooth one liners, no more oppressive political correctness from the liberal elites. The gloves are off - and if we don't see the establishments bare hands this time - they will without a doubt lose. People are tired of being handled the the establishments kit gloves.
    Chris Bartelt , 2016-07-30 08:12:06
    Can we have an article on Clinton's proposed 'Syria reset' please, the one where she's proposing ramping the war up and arming more 'moderate rebels' and imposing a 'no fly zone' on Russian airstrips (what could possibly go wrong)..... This woman is a dangerous menace and will bring you everything you all wanted to get away from. Lots and lots of war for her mates in the banks and MIC.
    I despair if that warmongering liar gets in.
    Neemleaf1 , 2016-07-30 05:40:57
    India, US agree to share military supplies and fuel

    http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/ashton-carter-manohar-parrikar-india-us-agree-in-principle-to-use-each-others-military-bases /

    DWLindeman , 2016-07-30 02:46:51
    Donald Trump: "I've been Mr Nice Guy for too long. Now, I'm taking the gloves off, and I'm going to yell and scream and swear and insult anyone and everyone who doesn't believe I'm a real candidate, and that I really want to be president. No one understands just how serious I am. I've been trying to be serious all my life, and I will scare the bewillies out of anyone who doesn't believe in me now. After all, some one's go to pay."
    Free Speech , 2016-07-30 01:13:54
    The Guardian is quaking in their boots. The propaganda is not working thanks to the abundant info on the internet.
    People are waking up to the populist. I predict a double digit lead in 2 weeks time.
    Great time to be alive!
    Free Speech Aldythe , 2016-07-30 02:24:17
    LOL. Reuters were found to be colluding with the Democrats. They have lost any respect.

    Thank you Wikileaks for exposing the dishonest media.

    [Jul 31, 2016] New poll shows that Jill Stein will pull 22% of Democrats w/ a negative view of Clinton which is 67% of Democrats

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    AnEducatedFool , July 29, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    In response to Ambrit. I do not know who is attacking Bernie. New poll shows that Jill Stein will pull 22% of Democrats w/ a negative view of Clinton which is 67% of Democrats. May be off w/ the 67% but the poll is recent and from WSJ/NBC

    Clinton will not win. Sanders mortally wounded the DLC/Clinton machine.

    [Jul 31, 2016] I watched Clinton Cash TWICE last night rather than watch the Democrratic Sh*tShow!

    www.youtube.com

    CorporatistNation

    @xxSJWxx @Calvinus @CorporatistNation I think that xxSJWxx misunderstood where I am at... I AGREE 100% that Hillary should go down for racketeering etc... Watch Clinton Cash!!! What I said was... IF THE VOTES WERE ACTUALLY "COUNTED"... WE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT NOMINEE... E.G., BERNIE SANDERS... The Votes were NOT counted and so we have this unethical sociopath named Hillary who in my opinion is also a Meglomaniac... who WILL start World War Three given half a chance. So lets hope that there is a judge somewhere with courage and integrity who will indict her.
    IF you want to be FULLY informed on The Clinton Foundation, The Clinton Global Initiative and just what scoundrels Bill and Hill are... Then you MUST watch "Clinton Cash!"
    I watched "Clinton Cash" TWICE last night rather than watch the "Sh*tShow!" #Vote2DefeatHER#VoteJillNOTHill

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM

    [Jul 31, 2016] The Clintons and the Bankers

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    sgt_doom , July 29, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    When one really examines the overall plan, the overall structure of the design of the banksters, it really shouldn't be that difficult to reduce inequality:

    The Clintons and the Bankers

    1992: The Blackstone Group, at that time the wealthiest private equity firm (private bank) in the world, would provide presidential candidate, Bill Clinton, with free office space to solicit campaign donations. (Blackstone Group was founded by David Rockefeller protégé, Peter G. Peterson, with Rockefeller family seed money.)

    1993: In response to a request from the JP Morgan Bank, the Group of 30 (lobbyists for the central bankers founded by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1978) publishes a paper promoting the widespread adoption of credit derivatives, with the caveat that "legal risk" should be removed. (Members of the G30 includes Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, whose first position after college was with Kissinger Associates, founded by Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller's right-hand man.)

    1993: Mortgage Bankers Association publishes a paper outlining the structure and concept of MERS, or Mortgage Electronic Registry System, a necessity for rapid mortgage securitizations (credit derivatives) and shuffling home loans between lenders so that homeowners couldn't find the actual owner.

    1993: The SEC - under Clinton - will drop the requirement for investment firms to report on the identity of the major shareholders. (This is to obscure the ownership - if you don't know who the owners are, you won't know who owns everything.)

    Next, President Clinton's aiding and abetting the bankers:

    Clinton will sign NAFTA (actually version 2.0, after LBJ's Border Industrialization Program) which includes a clause to allow for the foreign ownership of Mexican banks - previously only allowed to be Mexican-owned.

    Within one year 90% of Mexican banks are foreign owned, principally by US banks.

    Next, Clinton will sign the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, allowing for full interstate banking - a major step in the cartel formation.

    Next up, Clinton signs the Telecommunications Act of 1996, allowing for the consolidation of corporate media and reconstitution of AT&T into one entity.
    The Investment Company Act of 1996 is signed into law, allowing for unlimited number of investors per hedge fund or similar funds. The combination of the potential for an unlimited number of credit default swaps, and an unlimited number of commodity futures purchases, and an unlimited number of investors per fund, allows for ultra-speculation.

    Next the Big Three: the REIT Modernization Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act - these together will set the stage for the greatest transfer of wealth in human history, the global economic meltdown (and kill the New Deal entirely).

    1997: Years after this date, investigative gumshoe reporter, Greg Palast, would uncover a secret 1997 memorandum between Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, urging for the inclusion of the "credit derivatives-acceptance clause" in the WTO's Financial Services Agreement (so that the various governmental signatories around the world would accept Wall Street's fantasy finance Ponzi scheme).

    The legal advisors in the creation of the Mortgage Electronic Registry System - or MERS - were the attorneys at Covington & Burling, the same law firm from which Eric Holder, President Obama's choice for attorney general to contain the banker meltdown, came from.

    So Covington & Burling, which has long enjoyed a strategic partnership with Kissinger Associates, was the legal advisor of record, and their man, Eric Holder, was appointed by the president to insure no bankers were prosecuted, and this entire criminal conspiracy would not be exposed. President Obama also appointed Judith ("Jami") Miscik, then president and vice-chair of Kissinger Associates, to his Intelligence Advisory Board.

    And the then CEO of Fannie Mae, the fellow who promoted the large-scale adoption of mortgage securitizations, James Johnson, had a longstanding relationship with David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger; Johnson was the business contact for the American Friends of Bilderberg, Inc. (directors: David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Richard Perle, et al.).

    armchair , July 29, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    So, I just looked at the wordles that Lambert used in the Kitchen Table post and I didn't see the word 'liberal' anywhere. However, if you made a wordle from Rush Limbaugh's broadcast career, 'liberal' would be one of the bigger words. I guess Thomas Frank is attacking 'liberals' from the left? One thing is for sure, the word is dirtier than ever. It just makes me want to use it more and more. It's so dirty!

    Everyone at Davos calls themselves [neo]liberals. The Joint Chiefs of Staff go into the woods and do primal screams, "we're liberals and we're going to turn the Middle East into glass!!!! We're so liberal!!" That's what they're doing at the Bohemian Grove. They all gather around Henry Kissinger and sing about being liberals in their hearts.

    hunkerdown , July 29, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Davos People are the quintessential [neo]liberals. USians are as liberal as they are Christian: they only say it in order to be accepted by people who have been told that only self-described liberals are worthy...

    [Jul 31, 2016] Hillary Clinton Faces Hacking and Donald Trump's Heckling After Triumphant Convention

    Notable quotes:
    "... Shame on you Bernie. You stain yourself by endorsing crooked, lying, corrupt and immoral Hillary. Bernie, you are part of the corrupt establishment and SOLD OUT your supporters. ..."
    "... Crooked Hillary is a criminal and should go to jail. "LOCK HER UP". How could you let a criminal running for US president? This b**** has no morals, is a world-class pathological liar and corrupt to the bone. Look at what the Clintons DID not what they preached. The cancerous corruption of Democrats is so widespread all the way to the top. Below are just some of many immoral things that the corrupt Clintons did: ..."
    "... What's dark and negative is that Hillary won't have a press conference.....is she afraid of the questions that she'll have to answer? Ya know, like, why did you lie to the American people about basically EVERYTHING regarding your personal, unsecured server? ..."
    "... Hillary faces hacking and heckling, and the heckling are mostly from within the party supporters ..."
    www.yahoo.com

    "Remember this," Trump said during a rally Friday in Colorado Springs, Colorado. "Trump is going to be no more Mr. Nice Guy." And for the first time he encouraged his supporters' anti-Clinton chants of "lock her up."

    "I've been saying let's just beat her on Nov. 8," Trump said, "but you know what? I'm starting to agree with you."


    TT

    WOW! The DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS NOMINATED CROOKED, LYING, IMMORAL AND CORRUPT HILLARY. The Democrats' primary was totally rigged behind the scenes to PRE-SELECT crooked Hillary as the only nominee from the beginning according to leaked DNC emails. This is an election CRIME committed by the Democratic Party. CROOKED HILLARY should be a DISQUALIFIED DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE from the beginning. The Clintons are evil people and corrupt to the bone. SATAN IS TAKING OVER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

    Shame on you Bernie. You stain yourself by endorsing crooked, lying, corrupt and immoral Hillary. Bernie, you are part of the corrupt establishment and SOLD OUT your supporters.

    Crooked Hillary is a criminal and should go to jail. "LOCK HER UP". How could you let a criminal running for US president? This b**** has no morals, is a world-class pathological liar and corrupt to the bone. Look at what the Clintons DID not what they preached. The cancerous corruption of Democrats is so widespread all the way to the top. Below are just some of many immoral things that the corrupt Clintons did:

    1. HOME EMAIL SYSTEM - Crooked Clinton installed a home email system FOR WORK while secretary of state to hide shady communications between her and unfriendly foreign governments related to quid pro quo transactions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for influence on U.S. policy while she was Secretary of State. Crooked HILLARY DELETED 33,000 emails to avoid criminal prosecution. This crooked would not delete these emails if they were truly personal. This b**** sold out USA and committed TREASON.
    2. LIES AFTER LIES - Crooked Clinton's lies after lies to Congress, FBI and Americans on Bosnia sniper fire, Benghazi attack, her home email system, etc.
    3. ELECTION RIGGING – Crooked Clinton colluded with DNC to rig 2016 primary according to 19,000 leaked DNC emails released by WikiLeaks. DNC PRE-ANOINTED crooked Hillary as the only nominee from the beginning according to leaked DNC emails.
    4. CLINTON FOUNDATION – this is basically a front company so immoral Clintons can pocket through implicit bribery and money laundering. While abusing the public office, the Clintons have used the Clinton Foundation, which is based in Canada for non-disclosure policy of charitable contributors, to make "quid pro quo" deals with special interests and foreign governments. The Clinton Crime Syndicate (Foundation) KEEPS 93% OF DONATIONS and only donates 7% to the charities. They list 93% of the income taken in as used for "Administrative Expenses".
    5. CORRUPTION OF DEMOCRATS ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP - A FIX was in through a SECRET meeting between immoral Bill Clinton and corrupt AG Loretta Lynch NOT to charge Crooked Hillary on home-based emails and made her ABOVE THE LAW. AG Loretta Lynch is the boss of FBI director James Comey.
    6. CROOKED HILLARY IS TRULY AN IMMORAL LOW-LIFE WHITE TRASH - After leaving the White House, crooked Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, silverware, and artwork that she had stolen. HOW COULD YOU VOTE FOR THIS TRASH TO BE US PRESIDENT?
    7. QUID PRO QUO case out of many - THE CLINTON SCHOOL KICKBACKS. In April 2015, Bill Clinton was forced to abruptly resign from his lucrative perch as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. The reason for Clinton's immediate departure: Clinton Cash revealed, and Bloomberg confirmed, that Laureate funneled Bill Clinton $16.46 million over five years while Hillary Clinton's State Department pumped at least $55 million to a group run by Laureate's founder and chairman, Douglas Becker, a man with strong ties to the Clinton Global Initiative. Laureate has donated between $1 million and $5 million (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton Foundation.
    8. CLINTON THEFT OF RELIEF FUNDS FOR HAITI EARTHQUAKE - Here's what really happened. The Clinton Foundation selected Clayton Homes, a construction company owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, to build temporary shelters in Haiti. Buffett is an active member of the Clinton Global Initiative who has donated generously to the Clintons as well as the Clinton Foundation. The contract was supposed to be given through the normal United Nations bidding process, with the deal going to the lowest bidder who met the project's standards. UN officials said, however, that the contract was never competitively bid for. Clayton offered to build "hurricane-proof trailers" but what they actually delivered turned out to be a disaster. The trailers were structurally unsafe, with high levels of formaldehyde and insulation coming out of the walls. There were problems with mold and fumes. The stifling heat inside made Haitians sick and many of them abandoned the trailers because they were ill-constructed and unusable.

    The Clintons also funneled $10 million in federal loans to a firm called InnoVida, headed by Clinton donor Claudio Osorio. Osorio had loaded its board with Clinton cronies, including longtime Clinton ally General Wesley Clark; Hillary's 2008 finance director Jonathan Mantz; and Democratic fundraiser Chris Korge who has helped raise millions for the Clintons. Normally the loan approval process takes months or even years. But in this case, a government official wrote, "Former President Bill Clinton is personally in contact with the company to organize its logistical and support needs. And as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has made available State Department resources to assist with logistical arrangements." InnoVida had not even provided an independently audited financial report that is normally a requirement for such applications. On the basis of the Clinton connection, InnoVida's application was fast-tracked and approved in two weeks. The company defaulted on the loan and never built any houses. An investigation revealed that Osorio had diverted company funds to pay for his Miami Beach mansion, his Maserati, and his Colorado ski chalet. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering in 2013, and is currently serving a twelve-year prison term on fraud charges related to the loan.

    And these are only 2 examples of the dozens of thefts the Clintons and their cronies did just to Haiti.

    DONALD TRUMP, as the Republican presidential candidate, is truly an OUTSIDER who goes against the corrupt PROFESSIONAL DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS who have led USA in a wrong track of economic and military disadvantage for the last eight years. SINCE CROOKED HILLARY BECAME SECRETARY OF STATE IN 2009 WITH FAILED FOREIGN POLICY, USA has been unsafe and being attacked by RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS MORE THAN EVER BEFORE. American citizens are ANGRY of these corrupt PROFESSIONAL politicians like crooked, lying, immoral and corrupt HILLARY. VOTE TRUMP 2016.

    The West has been blinded and lured by the big Chinese market. However, it forgot that it has been dealing with a Communist China inside its disguising Capitalist shell. The Chinese GDP has increased from $303B in 1980 to current around $11,000B, an increase of more than 35 times along with Intellectual Property thefts from the West worth a few trillions of dollars and millions and millions of job losses in the West. Only top few % in the West including the corrupt CLINTONS were significantly benefited from the BAD trade deals with China. The Americans are getting poorer while the Chinese are getting MUCH richer due to BAD trades deals with the West.

    That was why Donald Trump, who is NOT racist but puts USA first, said the trade deals with China are all BAD that cost millions and millions of domestic jobs. BOYCOTT Chinese-made products and BRING BACK JOBS FROM CHINA. VOTE TRUMP 2016 AND TRUMP WILL RE-NEGOTIATE ALL BAD TRADE DEALS, BRING JOBS BACK AND REBUILD US MANUFACTURING.

    The liberal mainstream media is pro-Clinton. It is getting paid big from the crooked Clinton campaign and putting out LYING POLL NUMBERS and ARTICLES TO BASH TRUMP. A majority of people thought crooked Hillary should have been INDICTED. People in government would be in JAIL or lose their jobs at least if they just have done 10% of what crooked Hillary has done. This is a tremendous US national security implication. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT USA HAS BEEN ON A DOWN HILL BIG TIME IN TERMS OF BEING RESPECTED BY PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD AND FOREIGN DIPLOMACY SINCE CROOKED HILLARY BECAME SECRETARY OF STATE IN 2009 ??? Hacking of the crooked Clinton's home, low-secured private email system by foreign agents would have caused tremendous damage to USA since 2009.

    Russian agents along with agents from other countries like China or Iran most likely have hacked the crooked Clinton's home, low-secured private email system and retrieved all her emails including nationally sensitive emails, shady communications between her and unfriendly foreign governments related to quid pro quo transactions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for influence on U.S. policy while she was Secretary of State. Crooked HILLARY DELETED 33,000 emails to avoid criminal prosecution, sold out USA and committed TREASON.


    Chitta

    Did HRC say that these new jobs will be created offshore?

    The 23 million jobs in Bill C's time that she brags about have long been shipped offshore with the support of Bill and Hillary. What a hypocrite!


    anonymous

    Mr. Trump: the convention is over, the nominees are in place.

    Take the gloves off.

    Clinton has literally endless amounts of factual material you can work with.

    Stick to the documented facts:

    • No hyperbole

    • No exaggeration

    • No undocumented assumptions

    • Vet everything first

    Then, unload on her with all barrels.

    Relentlessly.

    Maggie

    She should be facing jail time with all the money she and Bill were given for favors to big business, foreign countries and personal friends. Remember in 1978 when she turned $1,000 into $100,000 in one year playing the commodities market? Pretty good for someone who never played the market before. Maybe if we all had some insider info, we'd be "lucky," too.

    Tomahawk

    Hillary is horribly amazing. She wants to con her sheep into believing Trump cannot be trusted with the nuclear codes when she can't even be trusted with emails.....lol

    Stathis

    What's dark and negative is that Hillary won't have a press conference.....is she afraid of the questions that she'll have to answer? Ya know, like, why did you lie to the American people about basically EVERYTHING regarding your personal, unsecured server?

    AAR

    Correction

    Hillary faces hacking and heckling, and the heckling are mostly from within the party supporters

    [Jul 31, 2016] Trump is a representative of the local big money and power centers, the local businessmen who run the show in state houses and county freeholders

    Notable quotes:
    "... The difference between Trump and Hillary is that enough is known from Hillary's past actions to leave little doubt about her mendacity. ..."
    "... I perceive Trump as a representative of the local big money and power centers, the people who run the show in state houses and county freeholders - people rooted to specific locales. ..."
    "... I perceive Hillary as a representative of jet-set big money and international corporate interests with a willingness to support all their most destructive activities including wars ..."
    "... There is no "we" here. After the mess in Ukraine, Syria and Libya we now know that a continuation of Obama's policies will basically destroy Europe. ..."
    "... The odds are that our leadership will simply go along with less US stupidity when it's coming from Trump, while they will certainly follow Hillary to whatever end. ..."
    "... The reality of the Democrats consists of a party with significant constituencies that increasingly support a militarized foreign policy as well as economic/cultural policy that is anti-growth, anti-working class and pro-ethnic/race identity– in essence–more and more classically reactionary. ..."
    "... Modern Democrats have also increasingly merged with and identify primarily with upper-middle class professional/managerial/bureaucratic power centers as well as with key sectors of Big capital and Big Finance. ..."
    "... This party now stand completely against that average citizens interest in rising living standards, equality of opportunity and the strengthening of democracy. ..."
    July 29, 2016

    I don't see what optimism Hudson manifests about Donald Trump in his essay. Mildly put he shows a lack of optimism about Hillary as well as disgust at Sanders capitulation.

    Here's my penny's worth of a two cents - how I see our choices in the upcoming election:

    Trump has some very skivy friends and associates. The Bill Moyers website posted a review of Donald Trump's business associates and friends http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-story-youre-not-hearing/ [not sure if this has already been referenced in the past - if so sorry]. Trump is in a business very close to the "legitimate" side of organized crime - casinos and large scale real-estate development. Trump makes outrageous statements I've seen described as explicit statements of the coded statements the Republican party rolled out to draw the South into their party. Trump also makes a lot of statements with a ring of truth seeming to "talk truth to power." Several people I've discussed politics with favor Trump just because the people who run our show have displayed such plain distaste for him.

    Hillary Clinton's email server fiasco would land most ordinary holders of government clearance in prison or at very least put them back on the streets with a large blackball next to their name. But I consider the email server affair a minor breach compared to her ties with big money and big Corporations, her actions as Secretary of State and her efforts on her Healthcare plan during Bill's reign.

    Trump says a lot of the right stuff - but so did Obama - and Hillary tries to say the right stuff. The difference between Trump and Hillary is that enough is known from Hillary's past actions to leave little doubt about her mendacity. Trump's business associations and his handling of his businesses only suggest he too just mouths the right words.

    I perceive Trump as a representative of the local big money and power centers, the people who run the show in state houses and county freeholders - people rooted to specific locales. I view organized crime as relatively respectful of eachother's turfs. Trump is the friend to people who build highways to nowhere and use eminent domain to take over beach areas for their developments in places like Atlantic City.

    I perceive Hillary as a representative of jet-set big money and international corporate interests with a willingness to support all their most destructive activities including wars .

    I can't offer any specifics or solid reasons for why I have these feelings and perceptions about the candidates.

    We have no good choices here. I am terrified of Donald Trump and of Hillary Clinton. I could never vote for either one of them and I don't regard Jill Stein or the Greens as viable alternatives. I plan to renew my passport and lie low someplace away from large urban areas if possible. I can salve any concerns that not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump with the forlorn hope that should Trump win he will at least tend to keep the destruction within our borders. fajensen , July 29, 2016 at 2:39 pm

    There is no "we" here. After the mess in Ukraine, Syria and Libya we now know that a continuation of Obama's policies will basically destroy Europe.

    The odds are that our leadership will simply go along with less US stupidity when it's coming from Trump, while they will certainly follow Hillary to whatever end.

    Treadingwaterbutstillkicking , July 29, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    You make an interesting point here. Even if Trump has an only marginally effective presidency (take this to mean whatever you would like, lol) and the constituencies that vote for him feel that he is better than Hillary would've been or the other Republican clown show that he beat in 2016, it pretty much means Ted Cruz's political career is history as Trump (or a hand-picked successor) will be running as a Republican again in 2020.

    Trump going down this year means we are going to see and hear 4 years of Cruz campaigning. And with the $hill as president there will be A LOT to campaign against. Yuck.

    Jim , July 29, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    The reality of the Democrats consists of a party with significant constituencies that increasingly support a militarized foreign policy as well as economic/cultural policy that is anti-growth, anti-working class and pro-ethnic/race identity– in essence–more and more classically reactionary.

    Modern Democrats have also increasingly merged with and identify primarily with upper-middle class professional/managerial/bureaucratic power centers as well as with key sectors of Big capital and Big Finance.

    This party now stand completely against that average citizens interest in rising living standards, equality of opportunity and the strengthening of democracy.

    What was once progressive has become terminally reactionary–what was once considered left has become terminally right.

    Booneavenueboy , July 29, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    I write from Lyon, France. I will be voting for Jill Stein, but rooting for Trump. The anti-Trump bias in the American media is beyond belief, matched only by its hatred for Putin. No one has mentioned how a Trump victory would undermine the two-party duopoly, a huge gain for America.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Media myth that Trump supports are ignorant rednecks

    Notable quotes:
    "... If I'm not mistaken I believe that it's already been debunked that Trump supporters are ignorant as it is. The corporate media will always quote the crazies when it suits them and ignore any inconvenient truths, statements or memes ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Treadingwaterbutstillkicking , July 29, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    If I'm not mistaken I believe that it's already been debunked that Trump supporters are ignorant as it is. The corporate media will always quote the crazies when it suits them and ignore any inconvenient truths, statements or memes. (An older NC link had even noted that Trump supporters had the highest average income, not that I'm saying that's important, but it may be from a managerial class perspective).

    That would be hard to believe anyway after seeing the true believers in the audience of the DNC last week.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Russian factor in US elections

    Jul 28, 2016 | katehon.com

    The Russian theme has expectedly become one of the most important in the US presidential election. Democrats are unsurprisingly engaged in anti-Russian hysteria. Donald Trump says that he will establish good relations with Russia and is ready to discuss the issue of recognition of the referendum in the Crimea.

    Noise and hysteria

    Mass hysteria on the part of the Democrats, neocons, ultra-liberals and plain and simple Russophobes, was provoked by the recent statements of Donald Trump. Speaking at a press conference in Florida, Trump called on Russia to hand over the 30,000 emails "missing" from the Hillary Clinton's email server in the US. Their absence is a clear sign that Clinton destroyed evidence proving that she used her personal e-mail server to send sensitive information. Democrats immediately accused Trump of pandering to Russian hackers, although in reality the multi-billionaire rhetorically hinted that the data that Clinton hid from the American investigation is in the hands of foreign intelligence services. So, Clinton is a possible target for blackmail.

    Trump's statement that he is ready to discuss the status of Crimea and the removal of anti-Russian sanctions caused even more noise. This view is not accepted either in the Democrat or in the Republican mainstream. Trump also said that Vladimir Putin does not respect Clinton and Obama, while Trump himself hopes to find a common language with him. Trump appreciates Putin's leadership and believes that the US must work together with Russia to deal with common threats, particularly against Islamic extremism.

    The establishment's tantrum

    Both Democrats and Republicans are taking aim at Trump. The vice-presidential candidate, Mike Pence, made threats to Russia. The head of the Republican majority in Congress, Paul Ryan, became somewhat hysterical. He said that Putin is "a thug and should stay out of these elections."

    It is Putin personally, and the Russian security services, who are accused of leaking correspondences of top employees of the National Committee of the Democratic Party. This unverified story united part of the Republicans and all of the Democrats, including the Clinton and Barack Obama themselves. Trump supporters note that the Russian threat is used to divert attention from the content of these letters. And these show the fraud carried out during the primaries which favored Hillary Clinton.

    The pro-American candidate

    The "Russian scandal" demonstrates that on the one hand the thesis of the normalization of relations with Russia, despite the propaganda, is becoming popular in US society. It is unlikely that Donald Trump has made campaign statements that are not designed to gain the support of the public in this election. On the other hand - Trump - a hard realist, like Putin, is not pro-Russian, but a pro-American politician, and therefore the improvement of relations with Russia in his eyes corresponds to the US's national interests. Trump has never to date done anything that would not be to his advantage. Sometimes he even said he would order US fighter jets to engage with Russian ones, and declared he would have a hard stance in relations with Russia.

    Another thing is that his understanding of US national interests is fundamentally different from the dominant American globalist elite consensus. For Trump, the US should not be the source of a global liberal remaking of the world, but a national power, which optimizes its position just as efficiently as any commercial project. And in terms of optimizing the position of the United States, he says there should be a normal American interaction with Putin and Russia in the field of combating terrorism and preventing the sliding of the two countries into a global war. He claims this is to be the priority instead of issues relating to the promotion of democracy and the so-called fight against "authoritarian regimes".

    Related links

    [Jul 30, 2016] Two liberal IT luminaries today pick up the (totally unproven) assertion that Russia hacked and published via wikileaks the DNC shennigens of preferring Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their political party allegiance. ..."
    "... Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc ..."
    "... The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters. ..."
    "... Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few. ..."
    turcopolier.typepad.com

    b , 28 July 2016 at 12:41 PM

    Of interest:

    Two "liberal" IT luminaries today pick up the (totally unproven) assertion that Russia hacked and published via wikileaks the DNC shennigens of preferring Clinton.

    The used this to (preemptively) accuse Russia of manipulating the U.S. election via voting computers on November 9.

    Bruce Schneier

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/27/by-november-russian-hackers-could-target-voting-machines/

    By November, Russian hackers could target voting machines >

    Cory Doctorow

    http://boingboing.net/2016/07/27/russia-and-other-states-could.html

    Russia and other states could hack the US election by attacking voting machines

    This is curious as both are usually much more carefully about attribution of such hacks.

    Could this be a "preemptive" attempt to find Russia guilty should the November 9 result come into question?

    John Robb warned earlier that such a scenario could lead to civil war

    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2016/03/how-the-us-ends-up-in-a-civil-war.html

    Valissa -> b, 28 July 2016 at 02:02 PM

    I think this is a sign that both Schneier and Doctorow are democrats who fear Trump. Tribal allegiance exerts a very powerful, and irrational, force on the so-called rational mind.

    The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, by Drew Westen https://www.amazon.com/Political-Brain-Emotion-Deciding-Nation/dp/1586485733/

    Warning, Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their political party allegiance.

    When Obama first ran in 2007-2008, Westen had clearly been drinking the glorious pro-Obama koolaid as was evident in some HuffPo articles he wrote at the time.

    Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc.

    Clearly this man was so caught up in his tribal allegiance he couldn't recognize the very biases his research showed. Btw, he is still a consultant to the Democrats... attempting to be the Frank Luntz of the left.

    different clue -> Valissa, 28 July 2016 at 08:58 PM

    The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters.

    rjj -> b, 28 July 2016 at 03:11 PM
    guessing they are setting the scene to invalidate an unfavorable vote count and take it to House of Representatives.

    writers could be persuaded they were Doing Good.

    Cee -> b, 28 July 2016 at 03:15 PM
    B,

    Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Snowden And WikiLeaks Go To War Over The Ethics Of The DNC Email Hack

    If the intent is to expose corruption then that is doing a public service. The public's interest is the content of the e-mails and the dirty tricks played by the DNC and Clinton. The e-mails clearly show that the journalists are in bed with the DNC/Clinton and this article is just another example of this corruption of the media
    Notable quotes:
    "... Reading the comments it is hard to understand what is wrong with a lot of you commenters. You seem to swallow whole one side or the other and march off the cliff just like lemming. This argument is a few sentences and is about proper handling of the leaks, not the leaks themselves. The leaks show Hillary supporters helped steal the primary votes from Sanders when the DNC was supposed to be neutral. That is a crime against democracy, an attack on you, it is third world corruption. If you believe Hillary is for you than you are just hopeless. ..."
    "... All the noise about Russian plots and secret agendas is a bit ironic as it seems the truth is that the DNC and their presidential candidate are the ones with a secret agenda that was made public. ..."
    "... The collapse of the government and Google as a-censor is imminent. ¨ Everyone is switching to Duckduckgo.com ..."
    "... How this backfire ??? We just get proof how the DNC establishment nominate what candidate they want not what people want. If after this Sanders supporters will still vote for Hillary, they just simply give the establishment green lite to do it same thing anytime they want and democracy really is just the empty word...... ..."
    "... Wikileaks only confirms that DNC has rigged the primaries to help Hillary Clinton, that's why Debbie W. Schultz had to resign her Chair. Whether that will cost Clinton her election depends on how many of the Bernie Sanders supporters are angry enough to boycott the election. ..."
    "... The problem in America is that we have a two party political system that can be easily manipulated by the wealthy and those with evil intent .When that happens you have basically one party speaking double talk , controlled by the few and sewing confusion among the voters in order to divide and polarize the country . ..."
    "... It is interesting (albeit unsurprising) that since the leak makes Hillary Clinton's backers in the DNC look bad, the media is so interested in the motives of the leakers. This was never the case with the anti-Bush crowd in the 2000's. Going back a bit further, anyone involved in exposing the Watergate break-in is practically treated like a national hero. Suddenly, the "truth to power" crowd has become the "can't handle the truth" crowd. ..."
    "... This #$%$ article is just ridiculous! "Oh, well, the leak hasn't revealed anything important". Hello! Wake up! It has shown how crooked the DNC was during this election cycle ..."
    "... Did you notice there's no (By-Line) for this article? Because what is IN the emails is most important. Firstly, they blame the Russians. Then they blame Trump. Then they blame the Russians and Trump. Now they don't know who to blame. But, the FBI said for certain the server was hacked and there were indications of who hacked it. This was established in a couple of short weeks - or less. The FBI had Hillary's server for a year and couldn't make a determination. ..."
    "... The most important question to ask is about the motives of American Journalists is there report a distraction from the truth are they in fact trying to do damage control are they being controlled by a political party as these E-MAILS seem to suggest . The motive of the leaker is less important than the truth. ..."
    "... The DNC had to hire actors at $50 a pop by advertising on Craigslist so Hillary Clinton wouldn't look like the clown she is in front of a half-empty DNC stadium during her acceptance speech. ..."
    "... The exodus of hundreds, if not thousands, of Bernie Sanders supporters from the convention made crystal clear the extent of discord among Democratic voters. ..."
    "... It's a sad state of affairs in that we are depending on Julian Assange to save the Republic from corrupt Hillary and the Clinton foundation. If Clinton becomes President she will basically place the United States up for sale so that the globalists can destroy what little remains of the American middle class. America will truly become a third world nation with only rich and poor. ..."
    "... We can not allow this to happen. Trump may be a little "rough around the edges" however he is a true American who will bring back jobs, try his best to eliminate illegal immigration, and take America back from the globalists. This will help middle class Americans to thrive -- Vote Trump for President in 2016 -- ..."
    "... I think most commenters are missing the point that Snowden made: what is the intent of the leak? If the intent is to expose corruption then that is doing a public service. ..."
    "... All look at the bang up job the FBI did with Clinton's email wrong doings. She broke the law and lied and the FBI tip toed around it by not taking her statements under oath so she wouldn't be charged. ..."
    "... Another article to divert from the content of the emails, which were so damning that the DNC used all their Media contacts to create the "Russia Hack" scenario and then accused Trump of conspiring with Russia. As of yet not one DNC official has denied the facts or content in the e-mails. ..."
    "... I found it interesting you didn't mention that Politico was found in cahoots with the DNC as well in the emails.. Just like the mainstream media didn't hardly cover the protesters at the DNC convention but surely did at the RNC convention. You pick & choose what you want to report don't you. ..."
    Jul 29, 2016 | yahoo.com

    michaelmichael

    Reading the comments it is hard to understand what is wrong with a lot of you commenters. You seem to swallow whole one side or the other and march off the cliff just like lemming. This argument is a few sentences and is about proper handling of the leaks, not the leaks themselves. The leaks show Hillary supporters helped steal the primary votes from Sanders when the DNC was supposed to be neutral. That is a crime against democracy, an attack on you, it is third world corruption. If you believe Hillary is for you than you are just hopeless.

    DoctorNoDoctorNo

    At what point in civilization did the truth become unethical? No one is denying that the information contained in these e-mails is not true. All the noise about Russian plots and secret agendas is a bit ironic as it seems the truth is that the DNC and their presidential candidate are the ones with a secret agenda that was made public.

    We have one presidential candidate under IRS, FBI and State Department investigation and another who opens their mouth only to change feet placing the American voter in an untenable position come November.

    fudmer

    @ Tim Schultze Humanity refuses to be ruled by the few! ¨

    The collapse of the government and Google as a-censor is imminent. ¨ Everyone is switching to Duckduckgo.com

    Enough Oligarch monopoly and control. Yesterday 40 civilians bombed to death and 50 more injured in Syria by US Air force and marines killed in actions in Yemen. What the hell is the USA doing in Syria or Yemen?

    Democracy is freedom of movement, action and thought, not controlled, restricted and regulated movement, not punishment for each action that challenges the established monopolies, and not mind control and media propaganda as a total cultural environment.

    Everywhere world wide humanity, Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Moslem [except the wabahi Sunni] are rising to the challenge the few.

    nobodynobody

    "The DNC email leak has backfired on WikiLeaks, and arguably Russia and Trump, because theorizing about who leaked these emails has been far more intriguing to journalists and the general public than the emails themselves."

    How this backfire ??? We just get proof how the DNC establishment nominate what candidate they want not what people want. If after this Sanders supporters will still vote for Hillary, they just simply give the establishment green lite to do it same thing anytime they want and democracy really is just the empty word......

    AlitaAlita,

    Wikileaks only confirms that DNC has rigged the primaries to help Hillary Clinton, that's why Debbie W. Schultz had to resign her Chair. Whether that will cost Clinton her election depends on how many of the Bernie Sanders supporters are angry enough to boycott the election.

    JohnJohn

    The problem in America is that we have a two party political system that can be easily manipulated by the wealthy and those with evil intent .When that happens you have basically one party speaking double talk , controlled by the few and sewing confusion among the voters in order to divide and polarize the country . Which leads to a lack of unity and everyone for him or her self . What we need is not more or fewer political parties but a more informed public


    Scotty P.Scotty P.

    It is interesting (albeit unsurprising) that since the leak makes Hillary Clinton's backers in the DNC look bad, the media is so interested in the motives of the leakers. This was never the case with the anti-Bush crowd in the 2000's. Going back a bit further, anyone involved in exposing the Watergate break-in is practically treated like a national hero. Suddenly, the "truth to power" crowd has become the "can't handle the truth" crowd.

    Similarly, Edward Snowden proudly violated national security laws, in the name of exposing government corruption. But now that someone else has done it to a politcal base Snowden finds more tolerable (he's a known liberal), he takes issue with it? Get over yourself, Ed. You're no better than WikiLeaks, and your agenda is no more "pure" than theirs.

    Lastly, the author of this article saying the leak has "backfired" is truly rich. This isn't the 90's, when feckless partisans tried to take down the Clintons, only to have disgraced themselves- although Newt Gingrich still ATTEMPTS to be relevant. (But I digress.) This time, the Clintons have angered a lot of people on the left, who see that the Democrats are no more a "party of the people" than the Republicans are- although anyone paying attentions wouldn't need WikiLeaks to tell them that.

    SomeSome

    Talk about playing it down, this proved media collusion further evidenced by the blackout of delegates lack of media coverage when over 1,000 walked out after roll call and stormed the media tents. (Video's all over YouTube)

    My Revolution brothers and sisters, even though we are separated by #DemExit, I understand and appreciate your fight from within. I am fighting to build a new home in the Green party. We are still together even when we are apart.

    • If you can't fly then run,
    • If you can't run then walk,
    • If you can't walk then crawl,

    But whatever you do you have to keep moving forward!

    michael

    Another is a long line of distortion and lies by the establishment to make the establishment Queen elected. The lies just never stop. Snowden tweeted a sentence and Wikileaks tweeted by another. from this a whole pyramid of lies and distortions was written. There is zero evidence the Russians government hacked these emails, zero, nada, nothing. What is important is the DNC was for Hillary and was trying to sabotage another Democrat, Sanders, running for the same office. That is corruption pure and simple, nothing less. Third world corruption going on at the DNC.

    TimmyTimmy

    This #$%$ article is just ridiculous! "Oh, well, the leak hasn't revealed anything important". Hello! Wake up! It has shown how crooked the DNC was during this election cycle, and in truth the RNC probably isn't any better. But here we have PROOF of just how crooked hilary and her cronies are, and they are all getting a free pass. No one sees a problem with this?

    Gordon

    Did you notice there's no (By-Line) for this article? Because what is IN the emails is most important. Firstly, they blame the Russians. Then they blame Trump. Then they blame the Russians and Trump. Now they don't know who to blame. But, the FBI said for certain the server was hacked and there were indications of who hacked it. This was established in a couple of short weeks - or less. The FBI had Hillary's server for a year and couldn't make a determination.

    Too much of this just doesn't add up. The Democrats went into immediate Damage Control mode when the emails came out and Not ONE person was screaming, "This ain't True!". Nope, not even a whisper. We can't tell who's pulling the strings on this. But, there's dammed sure someone behind the curtain.

    Richard

    The most important question to ask is about the motives of American Journalists is there report a distraction from the truth are they in fact trying to do damage control are they being controlled by a political party as these E-MAILS seem to suggest . The motive of the leaker is less important than the truth. Wiki-leaks hates Clinton , Russia hacked the DNC server that is another subject . The fact weather or not the DNC acted in a unethical manner is the subject.

    JULEA

    There is nothing wrong with Transparency. We need MORE of it. How long did WE Hack and Spy on Germany, Merkel? They were suing US. What ever happened about this? We ALSO need more transparency about TPP and who can be sued for some Corporation losing profits..even if they are doing wrong to make their profits. I think something falls on States, counties, even citizens. Even SCIENCE for proving harmful things involved. We just need Transparency and who is giving money to who and why. The DNC became VERY Undemocratic and this just a BIG BIG BIG No to every Liberal and should not be covered up for anything. WE HACK EVERY COUNTRY.

    DickDick

    Nobody except America's enemies wants vital secrets that jeopardize our well being hacked. On the other hand we have a national interest in finding out what our leaders have been hiding that jeopardize our liberties. Snowden exposed extreme violations of the fourth amendment by the NSA. Wikileaks exposed political chicanery by the democrat central committee. Hiding information like this is harmful and only benefits those who are trying to cover up something just to protect themselves. Both Snowden and wikileaks have done good deeds.

    Snowden, who risked his life to spill the beans, said he would reveal all in return for immunity. But too many people have reason to fear the truth so I doubt if he will be granted it. A shame.

    mike

    Democrat or Republican they both pull this kind of #$%$. The only answer is to vote all of them out of office and put term limits in place . We need to stop the Life long politicians who are in it for their own riches. And we know its "All" of them, they find out how easy it is to rip the American people off and get by with it.

    DavidSDavidS

    This attempt to paint Clinton the victim is sooooo over played. She has been the "victim" all her life. Focus on just how corrupt she and everyone around her is. DWS didn't get punished for what she did (or allowed), she was rewarded. Doesn't that speak volumes about Clinton? The more corrupt you are, the more she and hers will reward. Wake up people, there was a time when a single lie told to the public was a career ending blotch. Now it's who can tell the biggest.

    Ron

    I love how this story tries to downplay the content of the emails and focus on the hackers. The emails exposed a coordinated effort to rob Bernie. Journalists may be having more fun speculating on who hacked them, but Bernies followers could care less. They know the old man got robbed.

    Lord Doom

    The Leak disclosed how the main stream media has bias with the DNC. Yahoo news wants to blow down the story and mask its importance it seems to me.

    Idontwanngiveit

    Dan Seitz.... Do you practice being a political dolt or does it come naturally?

    The DNC had to hire actors at $50 a pop by advertising on Craigslist so Hillary Clinton wouldn't look like the clown she is in front of a half-empty DNC stadium during her acceptance speech.

    The exodus of hundreds, if not thousands, of Bernie Sanders supporters from the convention made crystal clear the extent of discord among Democratic voters.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the devastating fall-out of the WikiLeaks e-mail dump on Hillary Clinton's election bid. She is the No. 1 casualty -- albeit "collateral damage" -- inflicted by the party upon itself!

    Prior to the WikiLeaks e-mail showing how Bernie got jerked around by a rigged system, most of his supporters would have held their nose and grudgingly voted for Hillary in November. Now, since learning how party officials conspired against them, they want and deserve blood!

    The disgruntled masses who stormed out of the DNC represent a microcosm of the equally disgruntled masses of Democrats nation-wide who are incensed over the party's machinations and shenanigans. The ones in Pennsylvania and those watching on TV, following events on the Internet and reading newspapers at home are fully informed about what took place and will now do one of three things:

    1. Sit out the election entirely our of frustration over a status-quo system that's patently rigged against them, which benefits Donald Trump.
    2. Vote for a third-candidate, which splits the Democratic ticket and, again, benefits Trump.
    3. Vote for Donald Trump directly out of shear spite to show the Democratic Party exactly what it deserves for screwing with them, which also Trump.

    Even if all those people constitute just 5 or 10 percent of the Party's voting base, their loss and its effect on Hillary's chances of winning the White House will be devastating!

    So, as a staunch Trump supporter myself, Thank you, Julian Assange! Thank you very much for your generous and very helpful assistance in securing the Oval Office for Donald J. Trump on Nov. 8.

    Oh yeah. And one other thing.... Please keep those Democratic Party internal e-mails coming. They're absolutely fascinating!

    Joseph

    It's a sad state of affairs in that we are depending on Julian Assange to save the Republic from corrupt Hillary and the Clinton foundation. If Clinton becomes President she will basically place the United States up for sale so that the globalists can destroy what little remains of the American middle class. America will truly become a third world nation with only rich and poor.

    We can not allow this to happen. Trump may be a little "rough around the edges" however he is a true American who will bring back jobs, try his best to eliminate illegal immigration, and take America back from the globalists. This will help middle class Americans to thrive -- Vote Trump for President in 2016 !

    Elizabeth

    I think most commenters are missing the point that Snowden made: what is the intent of the leak? If the intent is to expose corruption then that is doing a public service. Leaking private information like credit card numbers and SS numbers only makes the victims vulnerable to thieves and does not fall in the "need to know" category. Wiki could have edited the leak to expose the DNC while protecting private information.

    joanjoan

    All look at the bang up job the FBI did with Clinton's email wrong doings. She broke the law and lied and the FBI tip toed around it by not taking her statements under oath so she wouldn't be charged.

    A Yahoo reader

    What could be more hypocritical of this pro-Clinton commentary questioning the objectivity of documents released with no commentary at all. Any rational person appreciates being provided the truth. It's of no consequence that the truth provider doesn't like Clinton. There's no law that says people have to like Clinton, at least not yet.

    alfredalfred

    Nice try to discredit the emails. They happened. She resigned. Democrats are terrible people. They get away with it because we are stupid and believe everything this media tells us.

    Danny

    OK, you won't listen to a guy (Edward Snowden) about issues, when he releases information that the public NEEDS to know, but "MAY BE" detrimental to the people in National Security, you put him on the World's MOST WANTED LIST, take his citizenship away. So what is his choice, he HAS NO CHOICE, he goes on the offense, obtaining and releasing even more information, and working with whomever will protect him.

    There is no evidence Russia is holding him prison, just protecting him. There is no evidence he can't leave anytime he wants, even come back to his own country. Yet our government continues to villanize Snowden.

    Look at the data released - It is true, it proves ALL the crooks are in our own government and politics, there is no evidence Russia is doing anything but helping people find, obtain and release material our politicians create.

    So, Killary, DNC, Obama, one and all attack Snowden and Russia, even adding Trump to the mix. I think we need to pack up all these crooked Democrats, including Obama, and ship them off to another country and tell them to GET A JOB. Then, let Snowden back into his country and let him do his job of protecting the United States of America. And Trump doesn't have anything to do with Killary, Obama and DNCs crooked politics.

    krainkrain

    Then there is the language issue. "I hate being attributed to Russia," the Guccifer 2.0 account told Motherboard, probably accurately. The person at the keyboard then claimed in a chat with Motherboard's Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai that Guccifer 2.0 was from Romania, like the original Guccifer, a well-known hacker. But when asked to explain his hack in Romanian, he was unable to respond colloquially and without errors. Guccifer 2.0's English initially was also weak, but in subsequent posts the quality improved sharply, albeit only on political subjects, not in technical matters-an indication of a team of operators at work behind the scenes.

    VernyVerny
    The government is protecting Hillary and the Clinton Gang, so "leaks and hacks" are the only methodology of showing Americans the truth about Hillary, the most corrupt politician in American history.

    Jayster b

    Another article to divert from the content of the emails, which were so damning that the DNC used all their Media contacts to create the "Russia Hack" scenario and then accused Trump of conspiring with Russia. As of yet not one DNC official has denied the facts or content in the e-mails. So, Assange scored in this first round so much that Debbie is no longer head of the DNC, and the FBI has demanded access to the DNC server to analyze it, meaning they will have access to all the donor information from foreign countries that are helping the Democrats steal the nomination from Bernie. What a crazy world. Assange 1, DNC 0

    TomTom

    I found it interesting you didn't mention that Politico was found in cahoots with the DNC as well in the emails.. Just like the mainstream media didn't hardly cover the protesters at the DNC convention but surely did at the RNC convention. You pick & choose what you want to report don't you.

    [Jul 30, 2016] If Russian Intelligence Did Hack the DNC, the NSA Would Know, Snowden Says

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    theintercept.com

    As my colleague Glenn Greenwald told WNYC on Monday, while there may never be conclusive evidence that the Democratic National Committee was hacked by Russian intelligence operatives to extract the trove of embarrassing emails published by WikiLeaks, it would hardly be shocking if that was what happened.

    "Governments do spy on each other and do try to influence events in other countries," Glenn noted. "Certainly the U.S. government has a very long and successful history of doing exactly that."

    Even so, he added, given the ease with which we were misled into war in Iraq by false claims about weapons of mass destruction - and the long history of Russophobia in American politics - it is vital to cast a skeptical eye over whatever evidence is presented to support the claim, made by Hillary Clinton's aide Robby Mook, that this is all part of a Russian plot to sabotage the Democrats and help Donald Trump win the election.

    The theory gained some traction , particularly among Trump's detractors, in part because the candidate has seemed obsessed at times with reminding crowds that Russian President Vladimir Putin once said something sort of nice about him (though not, as Trump falsely claims , that the American is "a genius"). Then last week, Trump's campaign staff watered down a pledge to help Ukraine defend its territory from Russian-backed rebels and the candidate told the New York Times he would not necessarily honor the NATO treaty commitment that requires the United States military to defend other member states from a direct attack by Russia.

    Since Trump has refused to release his tax returns, there are also questions about whether or not his businesses might depend to some extent on Russian investors. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump's son Donald Jr. told a real estate conference in 2008, the Washington Post reported last month. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

    Paul Manafort, who is directing Trump's campaign and was for years a close adviser of a Putin ally, former President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine, called the theory that Trump's campaign had ties to the Russian government "absurd." (On Monday, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News reported that a DNC researcher looking into Manafort's ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine in May had been warned that her personal Yahoo email account was under attack. "We strongly suspect that your account has been the target of state-sponsored actors," the warning from the email service security team read.)

    Unhelpfully for Trump, his most senior adviser with knowledge of the world of hacking, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Bloomberg View that he "would not be surprised at all" to learn that Russia was behind the breach of the DNC network. "Both China and Russia have the full capability to do this," he said.

    Later on Monday, Trump himself then attributed the attack on the DNC to "China, Russia, one of our many, many 'friends,'" who "came in and hacked the hell out of us."

    Since very few of us are cybersecurity experts, and the Iraq debacle is a reminder of how dangerous it can be to put blind faith in experts whose claims might reinforce our own political positions, there is also the question of who we can trust to provide reliable evidence.

    One expert in the field, who is well aware of the evidence-gathering capabilities of the U.S. government, is Edward Snowden, the former Central Intelligence Agency technician and National Security Agency whistleblower who exposed the extent of mass surveillance and has been given temporary asylum in Russia.

    "If Russia hacked the #DNC, they should be condemned for it," Snowden wrote on Twitter on Monday, with a link to a 2015 report on the U.S. government's response to the hacking of Sony Pictures. In that case, he noted, "the FBI presented evidence" for its conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the hacking and subsequent release of internal emails. (The FBI is now investigating the breach of the DNC's network, which officials told the Daily Beast they first made the committee aware of in April.)

    What's more, Snowden added, the NSA has tools that should make it possible to trace the source of the hack. Even though the Director of National Intelligence usually opposes making such evidence public, he argued, this is a case in which the agency should do so, if only to discourage future attacks.

    Edward Snowden
    ✔ ‎@Snowden

    Even if the attackers try to obfuscate origin, #XKEYSCORE makes following exfiltrated data easy. I did this personally against Chinese ops.

    Edward Snowden
    ✔ ‎@Snowden

    Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists at #NSA, but DNI traditionally objects to sharing.

    Edward Snowden
    ✔ ‎@Snowden

    The aversion to sharing #NSA evidence is fear of revealing "sources and methods" of intel collection, but #XKEYSCORE is now publicly known.

    Edward Snowden2 Verified account ?
    ‏@Snowden
    Without a credible threat that USG can and will use #NSA capabilities to publicly attribute responsibility, such hacks will become common.

    [Jul 30, 2016] MSM lied about danger of trusting Trump the nuclear button -- Hillary is proved to be reckless and impulsive like most female sociopath

    Notable quotes:
    "... Really? Do I trust Trump to give the keys to 6970 nukes, 10 carrier strike groups, and a $1Trillion/yr military-industrial complex to a bigoted, sociopathic liar. NOT. I still do remember what it was like the first time I gave my car keys to my 16-year old son. Give the nuclear keys to Trump – ABSOLUTELY. NEVER. ..."
    "... Why can't the choice be that noone should have the keys to the nukes? That's assuming anyone does single handedly which is almost certainly false anyway. You think senile old Reagan did? Really you really truly believe that do you? ..."
    "... "Should the president decide to order the launch of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside by the "carrier" of the nuclear football and the briefcase opened. Once opened, the president would decide which "Attack Options", specific orders for attacks on specific targets, to use. The Attack Options are preset war plans developed under OPLAN 8010, and include Major Attack Options (MAOs), Selected Attack Options (SAOs), and Limited Attack Options (LAOs). The chosen attack option and the Gold Codes would then be transmitted to the NMCC via a special, secure channel. As commander-in-chief, the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons;however, the two-man rule still applies. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Dr B Gerard , July 29, 2016 at 10:16 am

    Excellent article. However, having said that:

    "The problem with Trump is not mistrust;"

    Really? Do I trust Trump to give the keys to 6970 nukes, 10 carrier strike groups, and a $1Trillion/yr military-industrial complex to a bigoted, sociopathic liar. NOT. I still do remember what it was like the first time I gave my car keys to my 16-year old son. Give the nuclear keys to Trump – ABSOLUTELY. NEVER.

    Which is not to say that I am totally thrilled with neocon hawk Hillary. Number 1 on my list of the 9 reasons why I voted for Bernie rather than her in our Primary is that she voted for Bush's Iraq War and my son did six tours.

    "The solution is not to save the Democratic Party, but to replace it."

    True enough, but that will not happen between now and 08 November.

    We have a binary choice on 08 Nov – I do not think a replay Nader in FL in 2000 is a particularly smart option.

    jrs , July 29, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    Why can't the choice be that noone should have the keys to the nukes? That's assuming anyone does single handedly which is almost certainly false anyway. You think senile old Reagan did? Really you really truly believe that do you?

    John Wright , July 29, 2016 at 11:14 pm

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Codes

    "Should the president decide to order the launch of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside by the "carrier" of the nuclear football and the briefcase opened. Once opened, the president would decide which "Attack Options", specific orders for attacks on specific targets, to use. The Attack Options are preset war plans developed under OPLAN 8010, and include Major Attack Options (MAOs), Selected Attack Options (SAOs), and Limited Attack Options (LAOs). The chosen attack option and the Gold Codes would then be transmitted to the NMCC via a special, secure channel. As commander-in-chief, the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons;however, the two-man rule still applies.

    The National Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary of Defense must jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The order would then be transmitted over a tan-yellow phone, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Alerting Network, otherwise known as the "Gold Phone", that directly links the NMCC with United States Strategic Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska."

    So there are some checks to prevent Donald Trump or HRC launching a nuclear strike in a fit of temper..

    The "nuclear football" is a briefcase, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football

    [Jul 30, 2016] Hillary Covers Her Bases by Scott McConnell

    Trying to steal back workers from Trump will probably not work -- Hillary is too distrusted to make the message convincing. But a nice try... Nailing Hillary on issues is like trying to pin jelly to a wall
    Notable quotes:
    "... She devoted a fair amount of time addressing Trump voters, white working-class folks whose wages and position in the country have been gradually squeezed. She promised good jobs for everyone, to punish Wall Street, to reject bad trade deals, to protect steel and auto workers, to stand up to China. This was essentially an effort to steal the Trump platform and adopt part of Trump's message, and these words would never have been uttered by Goldman Sachs' favorite speaker if the GOP had nominated Jeb Bush or if Trump weren't actually leading in some national polls. This is new territory for Hillary, a concession to Trump she didn't make to Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... Probably, somewhere in the back of her mind, Hillary knows that there is a fundamental contradiction between good-paying jobs and open borders, but denying that inescapable economic fact of supply and demand is now part of her party's message. ..."
    "... On foreign policy, she remains a liberal hawk, giving a warning that we are prepared to go war over Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, while giving a one-sentence endorsement of the centerpiece of Obama's diplomatic legacy, the Iran deal. Again, this is a kind of rhetorical box-checking that doesn't predict much about her future orientation: clearly either the neocons or Obama supporters will be roundly disappointed in a Hillary foreign policy. We just don't know which it will be. ..."
    July 29, 2016 | The American Conservative
    Nevertheless, the speech Hillary did give revealed much about where the race is. She devoted a fair amount of time addressing Trump voters, white working-class folks whose wages and position in the country have been gradually squeezed. She promised good jobs for everyone, to punish Wall Street, to reject bad trade deals, to protect steel and auto workers, to stand up to China. This was essentially an effort to steal the Trump platform and adopt part of Trump's message, and these words would never have been uttered by Goldman Sachs' favorite speaker if the GOP had nominated Jeb Bush or if Trump weren't actually leading in some national polls. This is new territory for Hillary, a concession to Trump she didn't make to Bernie Sanders. Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe's blurting out that Hillary didn't really mean it (her opposition to the TPP in particular) is probably a reliable assertion that she doesn't. But the fact that she had to proclaim that she heard the complaints of working-class voters and would seek to address them is a kind of tribute to the Trump and Sanders movements.

    In Hillary's world, America's diversity is its strength, and she probably does believe this. We will not build a wall, she said, but build an economy where "everyone who wants a good paying job" can have one. In years past, a presidential candidate might have said, more or less unconsciously, "every American" instead of "everyone," but Hillary has already embraced a comprehensive immigration reform with amnesty as its centerpiece, and the Democratic Party is increasingly aligned to that part (now vanquished) of the GOP that prefers relatively open borders. If any kind of future border enforcement is part of that comprehensive package, Hillary certainly didn't mention it. Left-wing activists now tout a "right to immigrate," and this may implicitly have become part of the Democratic platform. Probably, somewhere in the back of her mind, Hillary knows that there is a fundamental contradiction between good-paying jobs and open borders, but denying that inescapable economic fact of supply and demand is now part of her party's message.

    ... ... ...

    On foreign policy, she remains a liberal hawk, giving a warning that we are prepared to go war over Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, while giving a one-sentence endorsement of the centerpiece of Obama's diplomatic legacy, the Iran deal. Again, this is a kind of rhetorical box-checking that doesn't predict much about her future orientation: clearly either the neocons or Obama supporters will be roundly disappointed in a Hillary foreign policy. We just don't know which it will be.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Why Trump might win

    Notable quotes:
    "... her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her again ..."
    "... Our biggest problem here isn't Trump – it's Hillary. She is hugely unpopular - nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    ucgsblog , July 29, 2016 at 3:29 pm
    For those who want a peek into the thoughts of a Bernie Sanders voter who is voting for Clinton: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/5-reasons-why-trump-will-_b_11156794.html

    Quite a few aren't. I think most aren't, Moore thinks most are, but numbers, at this point, aren't important, that could change. What is important, is the passion and the arguments:

    I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I gave it to you straight last summer when I told you that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee for president. And now I have even more awful, depressing news for you: Donald J. Trump is going to win in November… Here are the 5 reasons Trump is going to win:

    Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit. I believe Trump is going to focus much of his attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of the upper Great Lakes – Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin… it's because he's said (correctly) that the Clintons' support of NAFTA helped to destroy the industrial states of the Upper Midwest. Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states. When Trump stood in the shadow of a Ford Motor factory during the Michigan primary, he threatened the corporation that if they did indeed go ahead with their planned closure of that factory and move it to Mexico, he would slap a 35% tariff on any Mexican-built cars shipped back to the United States. It was sweet, sweet music to the ears of the working class of Michigan, and when he tossed in his threat to Apple that he would force them to stop making their iPhones in China and build them here in America, well, hearts swooned and Trump walked away with a big victory that should have gone to the governor next-door, John Kasich…

    The Last Stand of the Angry White Man… There is a sense that the power has slipped out of their hands, that their way of doing things is no longer how things are done. This monster, the "Feminazi,"the thing that as Trump says, "bleeds through her eyes or wherever she bleeds," has conquered us - and now, after having had to endure eight years of a black man telling us what to do, we're supposed to just sit back and take eight years of a woman bossing us around…

    Can we speak honestly, just among ourselves? And before we do, let me state, I actually like Hillary – a lot – and I think she has been given a bad rap she doesn't deserve. But her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her againOur biggest problem here isn't Trump – it's Hillary. She is hugely unpopular - nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. That's why she fights against gays getting married one moment, and the next she's officiating a gay marriage… no independent is waking up on November 8th excited to run out and vote for Hillary the way they did the day Obama became president or when Bernie was on the primary ballot. The enthusiasm just isn't there. And because this election is going to come down to just one thing - who drags the most people out of the house and gets them to the polls - Trump right now is in the catbird seat…

    The fire alarm that should be going off is that while the average Bernie backer will drag him/herself to the polls that day to somewhat reluctantly vote for Hillary, it will be what's called a "depressed vote" – meaning the voter doesn't bring five people to vote with her. He doesn't volunteer 10 hours in the month leading up to the election. She never talks in an excited voice when asked why she's voting for Hillary. A depressed voter. Because, when you're young, you have zero tolerance for phonies and BS. Returning to the Clinton/Bush era for them is like suddenly having to pay for music, or using MySpace or carrying around one of those big-ass portable phones. They're not going to vote for Trump; some will vote third party, but many will just stay home…

    the anger that so many have toward a broken political system, millions are going to vote for Trump not because they agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just because they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart and make mommy and daddy mad. And in the same way like when you're standing on the edge of Niagara Falls and your mind wonders for a moment what would that feel like to go over that thing, a lot of people are going to love being in the position of puppetmaster and plunking down for Trump just to see what that might look like. Remember back in the '90s when the people of Minnesota elected a professional wrestler as their governor? They didn't do this because they're stupid or thought that Jesse Ventura was some sort of statesman or political intellectual. They did so just because they could. Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor - and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political system. This is going to happen again with Trump.

    [Jul 30, 2016] The true identity of the hacker remains the subject of conjecture for lack of firm proof. The leading suspects may well be one or more of her party opponents

    We should not believe any reporting of MSM. Even 'Guccifer 2.0' can be just a smoke screen designed to protect a disgruntled insider, who leaked this information to Wikileaks. Moreover intelligence agencies understand the NSA intercept all the communication and store at least "envelope" for a long time. Large download is instantly noticeable. I am not sure the Putin does not want to see Clinton as the president. She is compromised enough to face impeachment, and that might prevent her from unleashing new wars. In any case with republican congress she needs to fight for her life. They really want her in jail.
    Notable quotes:
    "... 'The true identity of the hacker that sent the cat among the Democratic party pigeons, at the most damaging moment for Hillary Clinton, remains the subject of conjecture for lack of firm proof. The leading suspects may well be one or more of her party opponents.' ..."
    "... The evidence presented so far that the hack is by the Russian government reminds me of the Iraq WMD evidence. Very dodgy. But, the media did its job. Russia has been convicted. My twitter feed is fully convinced since the "experts" have said so. ..."
    turcopolier.typepad.com

    David Habakkuk -> Bill Herschel ... 29 July 2016 at 07:34 AM

    Bill Herschel,

    With a situation which is changing so rapidly as the present, assessments of Russian 'intentions' are very difficult.

    However, before making conjectures about what the Russian authorities might do in the future, it is prudent to start by trying to make as accurate assessment as we can of what they have, and have not, done up until now.

    If indeed the GRU are responsible for supplying WikiLeaks with the DNC materials, that would represent a very major 'escalation' in 'political warfare'.

    At the moment, however, while it is perfectly possible that either they, or the SVR or FSB – whose 'patch' this would more normally be – are responsible, the available evidence is a mess.

    In relation to 'Debka File', the Colonel's injunction to assess source and content separately applies in spades.

    So without simply accepting it, one should also not simply dismiss claims made in a recent piece on their site entitled 'The DNC e-mails were not hacked by Russian GRU.'

    (See http://app.debka.com/n/article/25570/The-DNC-emails-were-not-hacked-by-Russian-GRU .)

    Their conclusion:

    'The true identity of the hacker that sent the cat among the Democratic party pigeons, at the most damaging moment for Hillary Clinton, remains the subject of conjecture for lack of firm proof. The leading suspects may well be one or more of her party opponents.'

    What 'DebkaFile' point to is a central tension in the claims by 'CrowdStrike' and others.

    On one hand, according to the conventional wisdom – recycled on SST by 'herb' – the hacks into the DNC networks are likely to have required much more than the capabilities of a solitary hacker, but were the product of the kind of sophisticated operation which points to a state agency.

    On the other, apparently this very sophisticated operation could be cracked by 'CrowdStrike' in two hours – and had left obvious signatures.

    A more general claim is made in the 'DebkaFile' piece on which people better informed than myself may have a view:

    'Russia's cyber warfare system is still mostly a "black hole" for the West. Although it is highly effective, very little is known about its methods of operation, organizational structures, scale of cooperation with counterparts in other countries, and the tools and resources at its disposal.

    "Had any branch of Russian intelligence been responsible for the hacking the Democratic party's servers, no obvious signatures, such as the terms 'Fancy Bear, and 'Cozy Bear' that were discovered, would have been left behind for investigators to find."

    In exchanges in response to the analysis by 'TTG', who clearly has an extensive familiarity with this whole field, 'herb' linked to a widely-quoted analysis by Professor Thomas Rits of King's College, London. A cybersecurity expert to whom I linked, Jeffrey Carr, has now produced a detailed critique of Rits, under the title 'Can Facts Slow the DNC Breach Runaway Train?'

    (See https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/can-facts-slow-the-dnc-breach-runaway-train-lets-try-14040ac68a55#.97f9cvodc .)

    At the end of the piece are links to his two earlier articles, 'Faith-Based Attribution' and 'The DNC Breach and the Hijacking of Common Sense', which I would most strongly recommend to anyone interested in the problems of attributing responsibility for the hack.

    The three pieces by Carr produce, in my view, highly cogent support for the scepticism expressed by 'DebkaFile' about the notion that 'CrowdStrike' had actually established that either the GRU, or the FSB/SVR, had hacked the DNC servers.

    Of course, this does not mean that one can discount the possibility that Russian state authorities had hacked into them. It would seem to me extremely probable that some of them had.

    However, the 'CrowdStrike' report is smelling to me more and more of an 'information operation' aimed at 'damage limitation'.

    A key reason for this is that the report, and discussion of this, obfuscates an absolutely central problem. Even if the company had, within two hours, identified penetration operations by the GRU and the FSB/SVR, this would quite clearly not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the only possible suspect in relation to the handing over of the materials to WikiLeaks was either or both of these agencies.

    One could only assert this with confidence, if CrowdStrike could guarantee 1. that they were able to identify all possible successful hackings into the system over the relevant period, and 2. that they could rule out the possibility that successful hacks had been made by people who could have obtained the relevant materials and handed them over to WikiLeaks.

    The question of whether they were said anything to the DNC about how they had ruled out these possibilities has barely been discussed in the MSM coverage.

    But this also brings us to the question of what 'Guccifer 2.0' is attempting to hide. That at the minimum he is not quite what he portrays himself as being is evident.

    That said, any one of a multitude of plausible hypotheses about his role – including, incidentally, the possibility that he is actually acting on behalf of Americans who want to see Hillary Clinton exposed – suggests he would be to a greater or lesser extent 'making smoke'.

    What the observations of 'TTG' and Sam Peralta suggested was that the self-portrait by 'Guccifer 2.0' of himself as a particularly brilliant hacker obscures the actual situation.

    When I put their observations to a software engineer acquaintance who is well versed in the technicalities, he strongly agreed, and elaborated on some of the technical issues.

    A key problem seems to be that, for a range of reasons, crucial networks go on using old software. Keeping old software secure, in the face of constantly evolving threats, requires relevant expertise and hard work. Commonly it doesn't get it – and it seems that the DNC servers were a pretty easy target.

    But in relation to hacking into such systems, what counts is not sheer brilliance. It is a combination of thorough technical knowledge and sheer persistence and hard graft.

    Now it may well be the case that the claims by 'Guccifer 2.0' about his own brilliance are simply a case of vainglory. However, it may also be possible that both 'CrowdStrike' and he have a disguised common interest in obscuring the fact that the range of people who had the technical competence to hack into the DNC servers was great.

    By the same token, the range of people who had a motive to hack into these servers and were in a position to employ people with the relevant technical competence may also have been very considerable.

    This has all kinds of implications. For one thing, if the suggestion that the hacking required the capabilities of a state organisation is false, then the obvious way for a state organisation to preserve 'deniability' would be to get hold of competent individuals, using systems and approaches which had not been used in previous hacks.

    What is not obvious is why such any competent intelligence organisation should leave the kind of easily accessible 'metadata' on documents which are supposed to establish that 'Guccifer 2.0' is a front for the GRU. It is not clear to me whether the documents in question have been subjected to critical examination by competent – and independent – analysts.

    However, if the 'metadata' really can be shown to exist, I think the comment by Carr about the use of the name of Dzerzhinsky is to the point:

    "OK. Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add Iron Felix's name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor."

    In his most recent piece, Carr links to remarks from a 1968 paper by Sherman Kent, founder of the analytical tradition in the CIA, entitled 'Estimates and Influence.'

    (See https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sherman-kent-and-the-board-of-national-estimates-collected-essays/4estimates.html .)

    In it, Kent used the metaphor of 'pyramid'. Good intelligence assessment starts off with a 'base' of reliably ascertainable fact – on the basis of which it may be possible to construct a structure which ends up with a definite 'apex', but may not.

    The reverse method is to start with a desired 'apex' and then attempt to construct a 'pyramid' which will support it. As Kent puts it:

    "There it floats, a simple assertion screaming for a rationale. This, then, is worked out from the top down. The difficulty of the maneuver comes to a climax when the last stage in the perverse downward deduction must be joined up smoothly and naturally with the reality of the base. This operation requires a very considerable skill, particularly where there is a rich supply of factual base-material. Without an artfully contrived joint, the whole structure can be made to proclaim its bastardy, to the chagrin of its progenitor."

    Of course, one can simply fabricate large elements of the 'base'.

    As the release of 'hacked' material seems likely to continue, establishing a reliable 'base' on which we can begin to build a structure leading to a credible 'apex' seems a matter of some moment.

    A key part of it, obviously, is working out what kinds of people might have had a motive.

    In relation to Putin, I think one needs to keep in mind both that he may very much want to avoid seeing a new Clinton Presidency – for reasons with which I have every sympathy. Equally, however, there are strong 'downsides' in using this kind of means to prevent it, and if they are involved, it will have been through means preserving 'deniability.'

    The 'metadata' claims, however, make me think that the suggestion by 'DebkaFile' that people should be looking closer to home should be taken seriously.

    Jack -> David Habakkuk ...

    David

    The evidence presented so far that the hack is by the Russian government reminds me of the Iraq WMD evidence. Very dodgy. But, the media did its job. Russia has been convicted. My twitter feed is fully convinced since the "experts" have said so.

    [Jul 29, 2016] Donald Trump Calls Comments About Russia and Clinton Emails Sarcastic by legitgov

    www.legitgov.org

    Donald Trump Calls Comments About Russia and Clinton Emails 'Sarcastic' | 28 July 2016 | Facing a torrent of criticism over his comments seeming to condone the hacking of Hillary Clinton's emails by Russian intelligence services, Donald J. Trump and his allies on Thursday sought to tamp down his remarks, with Mr. Trump saying he was simply being "sarcastic." In public interviews and private conversations on Thursday, Mr. Trump; his running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana; and campaign staff members contended that Mr. Trump was being facetious when, during a news conference on Wednesday, he said he hoped Russia would be able to find Mrs. Clinton's missing emails. "Of course I'm being sarcastic," Mr. Trump told "Fox and Friends" Thursday morning as his aides accused the news media of misconstruing his remarks.

    [Jul 28, 2016] DNC Lawyers Now Implicated in Email Leaks as Giving 'Pro-Hillary' Advice

    lawnewz.com
    July 26th, 2016 | LawNewz A high profile law firm is now caught up in the DNC WikiLeaks mess. A group of Bernie Sanders supporters filed a class action lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, and the now-former chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz . In a letter sent Monday , they are demanding that attorneys from Perkins Coie LLP be removed from the case due to a conflict of interest. New emails discovered through the WikiLeaks dump show that attorneys from the law firm have given strategy advice to hurt Sanders, well before he dropped out. To add fuel to their claim, they've now discovered that attorneys from Perkins Coie are representing both the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's campaign.

    The lawsuit , which was actually filed before the leaks, claims that the DNC "actively concealed its bias" from its donors and supporters backing Bernie Sanders . The plaintiffs say the recent emails only give them more evidence that the Democratic National Committee was on board with Hillary Clinton from the start.

    Internal emails discovered through WikiLeaks show that Perkins Coie attorneys advised the DNC on how to fight allegations from Bernie Sanders. This spring, the Sanders campaign accused Hillary Clinton of 'laundering' money through the Clinton Victory Fund. Marc Elias, who serves as the Clinton campaign's general counsel and also a partner at Perkins Coie, fired off an email to DNC staff stating :

    My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true. The fact that CNN notes that you aren't getting between the two campaigns is the problem. Here, Sanders is attacking the DNC and its current practice, its past practice with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry. Just as the RNC pushes back directly on Trump over "rigged system", the DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful the Democratic party. [emphasis added]

    Interestingly, Clinton's lawyer, Elias (quoted above), is also listed as representing the Democratic National Committee in the recent lawsuit filed by Bernie Sanders supporters.

    "What we have here is evidence from the Wikileaks database that the same attorneys that are appearing in our case and representing the DNC in the Southern District of Florida were previously attorneys for the Clinton campaign or they were providing advice to the DNC that was adverse to Bernie Sanders," attorney Jared Beck said in a video posted on line.

    While it might "smell" funny, the fact that Elias gave "advice" to the DNC is not illegal, according to the Campaign Legal Center.

    "This email exchange pertains to a perfectly legal joint fundraising committee that includes the Clinton campaign, the DNC and a bunch of state Democratic Party committees. The coordination laws/rules don't restrict this type of interaction," Paul Ryan, the Campaign Legal Center's deputy executive director told LawNewz.com .

    However, attorneys for Bernie Sanders supporters contend that the federal court rules bar Perkins Coie lawyers from representing the DNC as defense counsel in the case. They say that the Perkins Coie attorneys may become "potential material witnesses" or "defendants" in the case and should be disqualified. They plan to file an official motion in court.

    Beck's firm is representing about 150 supporters of Bernie Sanders in the proposed class action lawsuit.

    "My email account shows that I've been getting 10 emails per minute from people around the country that want to join the lawsuit," Beck said. The DNC is attempting to get the lawsuit dismissed on procedural grounds, they contend that it was never properly served. Several emails sent to Clinton's lawyer Marc Elias have not been returned. (He is also listed as the attorney for the DNC on the class action lawsuit). If we hear back from him, we will update this article accordingly.

    [Jul 28, 2016] NSA Whistleblower Not So Fast On Claims Russia Behind DNC Email Hack naked capitalism

    Why those unknown forces (probably a disgruntled insider) leaked this bombshell so late. At this point it does not affect Sanders chances to beat Hillary.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private email server-which operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to China and Russia, and which contained top-secret national-security data-was not hacked by the Russians now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians" http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unpacking-the-dnc-emails/ ..."
    "... The British government has learned that Vladimir Putin recently sought significant quantities of malware from Africa. ..."
    "... Well, golly, if you're going to create a bright, shiny object to distract people from the actual content of the e-mails, why not blame little green men from Mars? I mean, seriously, isn't what this is all about – deflecting away from what the DNC was up to, so as to keep as much of it as possible from further tarnishing the already-clouded view of both the process and the major candidate whom it benefited? ..."
    "... And in addition to this little bit of obviousness, how can it possible have escaped anyone with a functioning brain that this escalating hysteria about the DNC hack was noticeably absent with respect to Clinton's own email operation? ..."
    "... I also find it deeply and almost-hilariously ironic that we're all supposed to be livid at the idea of some foreign government trying to manipulate the US elections when not only is the Democratic Party's flagship organization flagrantly engaged in trying to manipulate the outcome, but the AMERICAN MEDIA wouldn't know what to do with itself if it wasn't constantly fking around with the entire process. ..."
    "... Looks like another false flag propaganda ploy. The Obama Admin flares up with phony indignation and immediately swears there will be more sanctions. The FBI wants to prosecute ( or is it persecute) the messenger instead of investigating the real crimes. The e-mails and their contents are real. The noise is to cover up this fact! ..."
    "... The CNN poll in yesterday's Links shows Trump beats Hillary by huge margins (12 points) on the economy and terrorism. She beats him on foreign policy (and nothing else). Dragging in Russian hackers and foreign intelligence services plays to her strength. ..."
    "... In reality, politically motivated attacks like this are almost always domestic in origin. To go to Wikileaks specifically I expect an inside whistleblower is responsible. The same thing happened to Sony and the Swiss banks. Elites simply don't understand how many people they work with are disgusted by their policies. To them this is a perfectly believable thing. ..."
    "... It reminds me very much of the French Fries to Freedom Fries movement. If you have a critical mass of people in on the fun, it can work, at least for a time. But what happens when most people don't care about being excommunicated from the DNC Serious People List? ..."
    "... Obvious clues pointing back at a known adversary…strategically-timed leaks from anonymous intelligence sources…vague statements on the record from the President and other high-level officials…stories fed to sympathetic media outlets…yep, sounds a lot like the playbook used by the Bush White House for the run-up to the Iraq War. Except there's no way that the Democrats would ever ..."
    "... No matter who is responsible for the hack, I'm just glad that the information about the DNC corruption is out in the open. I'm disappointed that this didn't happen before June 7, when California, New Jersey, and several other states had their primaries. Better late than never, I guess. ..."
    "... why hadn't our press revealed this? ..."
    "... It's now so routine to spin-doctor aggressively that the elites have lost any sense of whether what they are saying is credible or not. ..."
    "... I thought Trump's comments today about wanting the Russians to find Hillary's emails were genius. He fans the flames of this whole Russia-Putin thing on day 3 of the Dem convention and what are the media outlets talking about? Plus, Hillary's campaign, in it's rebuttal to Trump, is indirectly reminding everyone that her homebrew server was putting national security at risk. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Washington's Blog asked the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history, William Binney – the NSA executive who created the agency's mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a "legend" within the agency and the NSA's best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened ("in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union's command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons") – what he thinks of such claims:

    Edward Snowden says the NSA could easily determine who hacked Hillary Clinton's emails:

    Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists at #NSA , but DNI traditionally objects to sharing.

    - Edward Snowden (@Snowden) July 25, 2016

    Even if the attackers try to obfuscate origin, #XKEYSCORE makes following exfiltrated data easy. I did this personally against Chinese ops.

    - Edward Snowden (@Snowden) July 25, 2016

    But mainstream media say it couldn't: http://www.businessinsider.com/dnc-hack-russian-government-2016-7

    The mainstream media is also trumpeting the meme that Russia was behind the hack, because it wants to help Trump get elected. In other words, the media is trying to deflect how damaging the email leaks are to Clinton's character by trying to somehow associate Trump with Putin. See e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/kremlin-donald-trump-vladimir-putin.html

    Who's right?

    Binney responded:

    Snowden is right and the MSM is clueless. Here's what I said to Ray McGovern and VIPS with a little humor at the end. [McGovern is a 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ("VIPS" for short).]

    Ray, I am suspicious that they may have looked for known hacking code (used by Russians). And, I'm sure they were one probably of many to hack her stuff. But, does that mean that they checked to see if others also hacked in?

    Further, do they have evidence that the Russians downloaded and later forwarded those emails to wikileaks? Seems to me that they need to answer those questions to be sure that their assertion is correct. Otherwise, HRC and her political activities are and I am sure have been prime targets for the Russians (as well as many others) but without intent of course.

    I would add that we proposed to do a program that would monitor all activity on the world-wide NSA network back in 1991/92. We called it "Wellgrounded." NSA did not want anyone (especially congress) to know what was going on inside NSA and therefore rejected that proposal. I have not read what Ed has said, but, I do know that every line of code that goes across the network is logged in the network log. This is where a little software could scan, analyze and find the intruders initially and then compile all the code sent by them to determine the type of attack. This is what we wanted to do back in 1991/92.

    The newest allegation tying the Clinton email hack to Russia seems to be all innuendo .

    Binney explained to us:

    My problem is that they have not listed intruders or attempted intrusions to the DNC site. I suspect that's because they did a quick and dirty look for known attacks.

    Of course, this brings up another question; if it's a know attack, why did the DNC not have software to stop it? You can tell from the network log who is going into a site. I used that on networks that I had. I looked to see who came into my LAN, where they went, how long they stayed and what they did while in my network.

    Further, if you needed to, you could trace back approaches through other servers etc. Trace Route and Trace Watch are good examples of monitoring software that help do these things. Others of course exist … probably the best are in NSA/GCHQ and the other Five Eyes countries. But, these countries have no monopoly on smart people that could do similar detection software.

    Question is do they want to fix the problems with existing protection software. If the DNC and OPM are examples, then obviously, they don't care to fix weakness probably because the want to use these weaknesses to their own advantage.

    Why is this newsworthy?

    Well, the mainstream narrative alleges that the Clinton emails are not important … and that it's a conspiracy between Putin and Trump to make sure Trump – and not Clinton – is elected.

    But there are other issues, as well …

    For example, an allegation of hacking could literally lead to war .

    So we should be skeptical of such serious and potentially far-reaching allegations – which may be true or may be false – unless and until they are proven .

    JacobiteInTraining , July 27, 2016 at 4:46 am

    Yup, as a former server admin it is patently absurd to attribute a hack to anyone in particular until a substantial amount of forensic work has been done. (read, poring over multiple internal log files…gathering yet more log files of yet more internal devices, poring over them, then – once the request hops out of your org – requesting logfiles from remote entities, poring over *those* log files, requesting further log files from yet more upstream entities, wash rinse repeat ad infinitum)

    For example, at its simplest, I would expect a middling-competency hacker to find an open wifi hub across town to connect to, then VPN to server in, say, Tonga, then VPN from there to another box in Sweden, then connect to a PC previously compromised in Iowa, then VPN to yet another anonymous cloud server in Latvia, and (assuming the mountain dew is running low, gotta get cracking) then RDP to the target server and grab as many docs as possible. RAR those up and encrypt them, FTP them to a compromised media server in South Korea, email them from there to someones gmail account previously hacked, xfer them to a P2P file sharing app, and then finally access them later from a completely different set of servers.

    In many cases where I did this sort of analysis I still ended up with a complete dead end: some sysadmins at remote companies or orgs would be sympathetic and give me actual related log files. Others would be sympathetic but would not give files, and instead do their own analysis to give me tips. Many never responded, and most IPs ended up at unknown (compromised) personal PCs, or devices where the owner could not be found anyway.

    If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence you might get lucky – but that demographic mostly points back to script kiddies and/or criminal dweebs – i.e., rather then just surreptitiously exfiltrating the goods they instead left messages or altered things that seemed to indicate their own backgrounds or prejudices, or left a message that was more easily 'traced'. If, of course, you took that evidence at face value and it was not itself an attempt at obfuscation.

    Short of a state actor such as an NSA who captures it ALL anyway, and/or can access any log files at any public or private network at its own whim – its completely silly to attribute a hack to anyone at this point.

    So, I guess I am reduced to LOL OMG WTF its fer the LULZ!!!!!

    4D , July 27, 2016 at 5:27 am

    Thanks for that great explanation on covering tracks. Now can you please explain how they go about actually hacking into a supposedly secure server?

    JacobiteInTraining , July 27, 2016 at 5:49 am

    hah, well I had a nice long answer but cloudflare blocked me. heh…apparently it doesnt like certain words one uses when describing this stuff. Understandable!

    I guess try looking up 'phishing' and 'privilege elevation' on wikipedia. Former is easiest, latter gives you street cred.

    So easy a kid can do it.

    JacobiteInTraining , July 27, 2016 at 6:25 am

    Just to clarify on the "…If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence…" – this is basically what I have seen reported as 'evidence' pointing to Russia: the Cyrillic keyboard signature, the 'appeared to cease work on Russian holidays' stuff, and the association with 'known Russian hacking groups'.

    Thats great and all, but in past work I am sure my own 'research' could easily have gotten me 'associated' with known hacking groups. Presumably various 'sophisticated' methods and tools get you closer to possible suspects…but that kind of stuff is cycled and recycled throughout the community worldwide – as soon as anything like that is known and published, any reasonably competent hacker (or org of hackers) is learning how to do the same thing and incorporating such things into their own methods. (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery)

    I guess I have a lot more respect for the kinds of people I expect to be getting a paycheck from foreign Intelligence agencies then to believe that they would leave such obvious clues behind 'accidentally'. But if we are going to be starting wars over this stuff w/Russia, or China, I guess I would hope the adults in the room don't go all apesh*t and start chanting COMMIES, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!, etc. before the ink is dry on the 'crime'.

    Even then, I fail to see why this person (foreign, domestic, professional, amateur, state-sponsored, or otherwise) hasn't done us a great service by exposing the DNC corruption in the first place. Hell, I would love to give them the Medal of Freedom for this and (hopefully) the next boot to drop! :)

    Hacker , July 27, 2016 at 8:35 am

    Spot on JacobitIn Training.

    There is a problem with those who argue that these are sophisticated Nation State attackers and then point to the most basic circumstantial evidence to support their case. I'd bet that, among others, the Israelis have hacked some Russian servers to launch attacks from and have some of their workers on a Russian holiday schedule. Those things have been written about in attack analysis so much over the last 15-20 years that they'd be stupid not to.

    Now, I'm not saying the Israelis did it. I'm saying that the evidence provided so far by those arguing it is Russia is so flaky as to prove that the Russia accusers are blinded or corrupted by their own political agenda.

    Anon , July 27, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    The whole point of the "It's the Russian's" meme is to deflect attention from the corrupt and undemocratic actions of the DNC.

    fajensen , July 27, 2016 at 10:02 am

    Oh, "they" just use the system management features baked right into the embedded computers either the ones inside the "secure server" itself or (much more convenient and easy to do), they attack the cheap-ish COTS lapdog that the support techie will be using to access the "secure server" with:

    http://blog.cr4.sh/2016/06/exploring-and-exploiting-lenovo.html
    http://www.legbacore.com/Research.html

    *Everything PC-ish* is insecure, by sloth & design!

    Steve Gunderson , July 27, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    I thought I read the password was "Obama08" and that they never changed it.

    vlade , July 27, 2016 at 6:44 am

    Indeed. I'd go even further, and say two things:

    – if there's a non-NSA evidence the attacks originated from Russia, then someone wanted the world to know it was from Russia (or was just a private snoop).

    – even if there was a technical evidence that the attack originated from Russia, unless it could be tied very specifically to an institution (as opposed to a "PC in Russia"), it does not prove that it was Russia. All it proves that someone using a computer in Russia initiated it.

    JacobiteInTraining , July 27, 2016 at 7:13 am

    Well phooey. My theory now goes up in smoke: Here we can clearly see an attempt at disinformation from a Russian Operative, likely FSB – possibly from Putin's inner circle.

    We know this through 2 things:

    A.) The name, 'Vlad' – inequivocally a Russian given name, and not a common one at that.

    B.) Note the slightly wrong grammar: "…a non-NSA evidence…" & "..was a technical evidence". Clearly not a native English speaker.

    See how easy that was? Yves, no need for log files to track IP here…case closed. In Soviet Russia, crow eats me.

    Anyone gots some nuke launch codes handy? 00000000 doesn't work for me anymore…

    oho , July 27, 2016 at 9:40 am

    "00000000 doesn't work for me anymore…"

    To those who may not know--for many years 0000 0000 were indeed the nuke launch codes. (namely cuz it would be easy to remember)

    Whine Country , July 27, 2016 at 9:59 am

    Is this another of your nom de plumes?

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/07/hillary-supporters-the-russians-are-coming-the-russians-are-coming/

    Love your input BTW!

    Whine Country , July 27, 2016 at 10:01 am

    DNC training film

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El03KPUeQc4

    jo6pac , July 27, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Thanks for all the info.

    The Trumpening , July 27, 2016 at 5:13 am

    The recently murdered DNC Date Director Seth Rich being the leaker, or at least knowing who the leaker was, as was hinted at recently by Julian Assange himself, makes a far more interesting conspiracy theory.

    From The Forward:

    Ten days after the murder of promising Democratic staffer Seth Rich, the Washington D.C. slaying remains unsolved and police say they have no suspects in the crime.

    Rich, a Jewish data analyst for the Democratic National Committee who worked on polling station expansion, was shot and killed as he walked home on Sunday, July 10.

    Police told Rich's parents that they believed his death was the result of a botched robbery. Though Rich's killer did not take his wallet or phone, D.C. Police Commander William Fitzgerald said that "there is no other reason (other than robbery) for an altercation at 4:30 in the morning" at a community meeting on Monday.

    The meeting was meant to address the recent uptick in robberies in the Bloomingdale neighborhood near Howard University. Police reports say robberies in the area are down 20%, but an investigation by the Washington Post found that armed robberies are actually up over 20% compared with July 2015.

    Of course there is absolutely no proof of Seth Rich's involvement, but I suppose it is a reasonable surmise, as George Will recently said about the Russia allegations! In any case a possible crypto-BernieBro tech-guy mole from within the DNC, as the source of the DNCLeaks, would make a much better made-for-TV movie than the Russian theory. And if it was an internal mole, what better way to cover their tracks than to leave some "traces" of a Russian hack.

    Lambert Strether , July 28, 2016 at 2:31 am

    I always felt it was odd that RIch was involved in GOTV efforts. Not that our voting systems aren't totally on the up and up…

    Skippy , July 27, 2016 at 6:25 am

    Its one thing for Republicans to resort to the old chestnut of red scare mongering, but for the Democrats to use the same ammo they once had lobed at them is surreal….

    WorldBLee , July 27, 2016 at 4:11 pm

    The Demopublicans have become the Republicrats! War is peace!

    But yeah, the Democrats under Clinton and Obama have essentially morphed into the Republican party while claiming to represent "progressive" values.

    TomDority , July 27, 2016 at 6:32 am

    I suppose Hilary's personal server was just as easy to breach…..maybe.

    Sam , July 27, 2016 at 11:29 am

    "The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private email server-which operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to China and Russia, and which contained top-secret national-security data-was not hacked by the Russians now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians" http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unpacking-the-dnc-emails/

    allan , July 27, 2016 at 7:21 am

    Shorter anonymous administration officials:

    The British government has learned that Vladimir Putin recently sought significant quantities of malware from Africa.

    Lambert Strether , July 27, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    Ha.

    Anne , July 27, 2016 at 7:28 am

    Well, golly, if you're going to create a bright, shiny object to distract people from the actual content of the e-mails, why not blame little green men from Mars? I mean, seriously, isn't what this is all about – deflecting away from what the DNC was up to, so as to keep as much of it as possible from further tarnishing the already-clouded view of both the process and the major candidate whom it benefited?

    And in addition to this little bit of obviousness, how can it possible have escaped anyone with a functioning brain that this escalating hysteria about the DNC hack was noticeably absent with respect to Clinton's own email operation?

    I also find it deeply and almost-hilariously ironic that we're all supposed to be livid at the idea of some foreign government trying to manipulate the US elections when not only is the Democratic Party's flagship organization flagrantly engaged in trying to manipulate the outcome, but the AMERICAN MEDIA wouldn't know what to do with itself if it wasn't constantly fking around with the entire process.

    I'm not sure we're ever coming out of this rabbit-hole-to-hell.

    ger , July 27, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Looks like another false flag propaganda ploy. The Obama Admin flares up with phony indignation and immediately swears there will be more sanctions. The FBI wants to prosecute ( or is it persecute) the messenger instead of investigating the real crimes. The e-mails and their contents are real. The noise is to cover up this fact!

    Whine Country , July 27, 2016 at 10:25 am

    "Why play the Russian/Putin/Trump card with the DNC email hack?" – An excellent question for which you have provided a logical potential answer. Beyond that, this generally seems like an act of desperation. I am nowhere near an expert on the details of hacking like the two who have commented above, but what I see is a desperate attempt to capture the "stupid" vote. The whole Democrat dog and pony show being put on now only serves to make those who will vote for Hillary no matter what, feel self satisfied that they are right minded. What matters though is how they connect with those not inclined to vote for her. In their logic it follows that the HIllary crowd basically believes that anyone who would consider voting for Trump is very stupid, and this is a desperate attempt to convince the "stupid's" to vote for Hillary. I have no idea how Trump will act if he is elected President, but the critical factor for me is that there is now overwhelming evidence that the entire Democrat establishment is just like Hillary (as made clear by Mr. Comey): They are either grossly negligent and incompetent, or criminals who are not being prosecuted. Anyone but her and her merry band of thieves will leave us all better off after November.

    Whine Country , July 27, 2016 at 10:29 am

    I forgot to add: "The fish rots from the head"

    different clue , July 27, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    " And a rotten barrel spoils all the apples."

    reslez , July 27, 2016 at 1:17 pm

    The association the Dems want to create is "scary foreign people support Trump".

    The CNN poll in yesterday's Links shows Trump beats Hillary by huge margins (12 points) on the economy and terrorism. She beats him on foreign policy (and nothing else). Dragging in Russian hackers and foreign intelligence services plays to her strength.

    In reality, politically motivated attacks like this are almost always domestic in origin. To go to Wikileaks specifically I expect an inside whistleblower is responsible. The same thing happened to Sony and the Swiss banks. Elites simply don't understand how many people they work with are disgusted by their policies. To them this is a perfectly believable thing.

    Lambert Strether , July 27, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    I also wonder whether there are significant numbers of Poles and Eastern Europeans generally in the industrial precincts in some swing states; a vote against Russia in the form of a vote against Trump might appeal to them.

    WorldBLee , July 27, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    I doubt it's that strategic–looks more like classic red-baiting (minus any communism but saying "Russia" still evokes the same emotional response for people of a certain age) of the sort a former Goldwater girl like Hillary would understand all too well.

    washunate , July 27, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Linking the hack and delivery of DNC emails to WIkiLeaks by Putin as a way of helping Trump may strategically backfire.

    Agreed. There are so many moving parts at this point the blowback looks to happen more rapidly than they can manage perception, especially with things online. They spent so much time segmenting and dismissing the various developments as disparate conspiracy theories, and now in one fell swoop they've both legitimized critiques and connected them together (they run the risk that even criticism that isn't true will still stick more than it otherwise would have). I'm not sure they fully realize what they've done yet. It's a simple equation to them: Wikileaks = Bad. Russia = Bad. Wikileaks + Russia = DoubleBad.

    It reminds me very much of the French Fries to Freedom Fries movement. If you have a critical mass of people in on the fun, it can work, at least for a time. But what happens when most people don't care about being excommunicated from the DNC Serious People List?

    two beers , July 27, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    Playing the Trump is in bed with Putin meme creates an easily adaptable narrative as more comes out.

    Peter Lee has a piece up on Counterpunch this morning laying out this theory.

    geoff , July 27, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/27/trumputin-and-the-dnc-leaks/

    voteforno6 , July 27, 2016 at 8:26 am

    Obvious clues pointing back at a known adversary…strategically-timed leaks from anonymous intelligence sources…vague statements on the record from the President and other high-level officials…stories fed to sympathetic media outlets…yep, sounds a lot like the playbook used by the Bush White House for the run-up to the Iraq War. Except there's no way that the Democrats would ever do something so shady.

    Uahsenaa , July 27, 2016 at 9:38 am

    It's perfectly circuitous and self-serving logic:

    Admin feeds story to crony media –> media report story as if independently sourced –> admin then uses those reports to corroborate its own claims

    It's not like they can reasonably deny anymore that they do this. The DNC leak provides hard evidence. So plant your stories now, before there's a run!

    Carolinian , July 27, 2016 at 8:44 am

    Hey why fix our cybersecurity problems when we can just bomb Russia instead? To a hammer with bombs everything looks like a nail.

    Perhaps the biggest tell regarding our clueless, and mostly geriatric, establishment is their superstitious misunderstanding of modern technology. Every toddler these days probably knows that you don't put controversial material in emails or on cellphones unless you are willing to take the kind of precautions Snowden talks about. The notion of ginning up an international conflict over hacking is like Hollywood's idea of five years in jail for stealing one of Meryl Streep's movies. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

    Plus of course there's the immense irony of the US, home of the NSA, getting huffy about other countries doing the same thing. As always with out elites it's "do as we say, not as we do."

    Vatch , July 27, 2016 at 9:45 am

    No matter who is responsible for the hack, I'm just glad that the information about the DNC corruption is out in the open. I'm disappointed that this didn't happen before June 7, when California, New Jersey, and several other states had their primaries. Better late than never, I guess.

    reslez , July 27, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    1. Before the evidence comes out: "The DNC is secretly sabotaging Sanders? Laughable conspiracy theory!"
    2. After the evidence comes out: "There's nothing new here, everyone knew this was happening, it made no difference anyway! Sore loser."

    So predictable.

    1 Kings , July 27, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    Great comment.

    Was flipping through 'convention' last night and happened upon Bernie's face as they try to thank/bury him. It was the look of resignation to corruption, like Mr. Smith's just before Claude Rains goes extra-Hollywood, tries to off himself, then says 'Arrest me', etc.

    Bernie, you should have just run against both of them, damn the torpedoes.

    Frank , July 27, 2016 at 10:13 am

    It doesn't matter if Russia hacked it or someone else. The really important issue this brings up is why hadn't our press revealed this? Why do we need to here about this from outsiders? And why, now that it has been released, do they spend the bulk of their time speculating on the source and not the content? Me thinks it's because our corporate main stream media, that merely masquerades as a press entity, was complicit.

    tgs , July 27, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    why hadn't our press revealed this?

    I think the leaked emails establish that the DNC was working closely with the 'press'. Anyone who watched CNN during the primary season would not be surprised at the revelation that the 'press' was complicit in the coronation of Hillary.

    Anonymous , July 27, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    The DNCLeaks showed that the DNC (aka the Clinton Machine) was heavily influencing,
    if not totally controlling, much of the mass media, using it to smear HRC's rivals and to
    whitewash her crimes.

    This fascist totalitarian control of the mass media by the DNC/Clinton campaign
    has been exposed but that doesn't mean it has stopped! It hasn't. Ergo, one
    will see minimal to no coverage, or whitewashing or diversionary coverage.

    Jon Paul , July 27, 2016 at 10:16 am

    Why isn't it just as grave a concern that the primary contest of one of the 2 major political parties was rigged to favor one candidate? Heck, people worried more about deflategate.

    craazyboy , July 27, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Yeah. I think that's a Federal crime and the FBI is supposed to investigate….

    https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/pressrel/press-releases/ballotfraud_102710

    flora , July 27, 2016 at 10:28 am

    an aside: "A separate story pointed out that Trump's primary banking relationships are with mid-sized players, and that makes sense too. He's be a third-tier account at a too-big-to-fail banks (see here on how a much richer billionaire was abused by JP Morgan). Trump would get much better service at a smaller institution. "

    From what I've read at NC I think everyone would get much better service at a smaller bank than at a TBTF.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , July 27, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Yves wrote:

    "I joked early on that in the Obama administration that its solution to every problem was better propaganda. What is troubling is how so many other players have emulated that strategy. It's now so routine to spin-doctor aggressively that the elites have lost any sense of whether what they are saying is credible or not. And as a skeptical consumer of media, I find it uncomfortable to be living in an informational hall of mirrors."

    It's no coincidence that trust in institutions is at an all-time low.
    Eroded public trust translates to crappy, Banana Republic economies - and politics so venal that it requires constant deceit to (mal)function.

    On the upside, the dwindling credibility of institutions is providing opportunities for outlets like The Young Turks (via YouTube), which take a lot of time unpacking propaganda and looking for alternative perspectives. Ditto 'The Real News Network' (RNN). And ditto NC.

    WorldBLee , July 27, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    Except that the Young Turks fall for the same anti-Russian BS as the MSM and have tried to tie Trump to Putin.

    MaroonBulldog , July 27, 2016 at 11:37 am

    The Russsians did it?

    When I hear the "reporters" and "newscasters" on our American MSM speak, it reminds me of something Wolfgang Leonhard taught: "Pravda lies in such a a way that not even the opposite of what they say is true."

    Praedor , July 27, 2016 at 11:58 am

    Huh. It is clear and irrefutable that the NSA (ie, the USA) has hacked Germany, France, Britain, Japan, etc, etc, etc, etc. So…since hacking is an "act of war" we are now at war with our allies.

    Yes?

    Or does a war-worthy hack HAVE to originate in Russia (or China) to be an "act of war"? If the USA is doing it it's an act of peacylove?

    craazyboy , July 27, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    please tell me you understand the difference between true love and rape.

    Buttinsky , July 27, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    If the issue is the hack itself and its perpetrator(s), as opposed to the content of the hack, I remain curious about the inattention to this fact: One of the documents in the DNC cache released by Wikileaks was an excel spreadsheet of Trump donors. I haven't heard anyone question the origin of a document that would itself appear to be the product of a hack by the DNC (the only other possibility that comes to mind is a mole inside the Trump campaign). I certainly haven't seen a request by the Trump campaign or anybody else for an FBI investigation of what would seem to be prima facie evidence of a hack by the DNC of Trump computers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030.

    But, then, there's been relative silence, generally, by the DNC with regard to leaks of donor information. At least I haven't seen any PR-ly apology by the DNC, or Trump's organization for that matter, for the insecure storing of donor information and a promise that steps have been taken to make sure it doesn't happen again. Maybe I just missed that public apology. But I also wonder if there isn't a reluctance to draw any attention whatsoever to that now public information.

    craazyboy , July 27, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    I imagine, privately, donors just got awarded double reward points.

    Philip Martin , July 27, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    Trump's affection for Putin and all things Russian has been known for years. In Russia, however, Trump is considered to be clownish. Putin's affection for Trump might best be characterized as condescending. Trump is the preference of the Putin crowd. And why not? Russian oligarch money has been flowing into Trump's coffers for at least a decade. Why? Well, after four bankruptcies, where else is Trump going to borrow money? There is solid evidence of financial ties between Trump advisors and Putin's circle. Try the website Ballotpedia and look up "Carter Page," Trump's advisor on all things Russian. Other examples are out there.

    That said, I would not absolutely eliminate Putin and his operatives of conspiring with hackers to obtain and then release documents that would denigrate the Democratic party and HRC.

    I find it interesting that Trump telegraphed to the world a skeptical view of NATO allies, especially the Putin-coveted Baltics, and signaled that he might not come to their defense if attacked. Those views were expressed in an interview with the New York Times on Thursday, July 21. These comments, predictably, set off alarms all across Europe, and had Republicans scrambling to backpedal. And then the next day, come the DNC leaks.

    And now rumors of Scalia's assassination are being floated again! Distraction after distraction!

    MaroonBulldog , July 27, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    When you see "Trump" spelled in Cyrillic letters, you might think it would be pronounced "Tramp".

    Yves Smith Post author , July 27, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    Stop prattling nonsense.

    KKR, Blackstone, Apollo, etc al, have bankrupted HUNDREDS of companies each. Yet they not only do they have no trouble borrowing money, they are eagerly pursued by Wall Street.

    Trump has never gone bankrupt personally. He had four companies go bankrupt. Trump has started and operated hundreds of corporate entities. That makes his ratio of bankruptcies way lower than average and thus means he's a good credit, and much better than private equity. I'm not about to waste time tracking it down, but the media has already reported on who Trump's regular lender is, and it's a domestic financial institution, but not one of the TBTF banks.

    In addition, I had a major NYC real estate developer/syndicator, a billionaire, in the late 1980s. The early 1990s recession hit NYC real estate very hard and every developer was in serious trouble. My former client and Trump were the only big NYC developers not to have to give up major NY properties to the banks.

    And as far as your NATO remarks are concerned, you've clearly not been paying attention. Trump has been critical of the US role in NATO for months, and has already gotten plenty of heat for that.

    Finally, as even the New York Times was forced to concede, the timing of the hacks was all wrong to be intended to help Trump. It started long before he was a factor on the Republican side.

    Direction , July 27, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    The DNC hired Crowdstrike to get 2 major Russian hacks off the DNC network prior to this guccifer2.0 nonsense.

    You write: "Binney explained to us:
    My problem is that they have not listed intruders or attempted intrusions to the DNC site. I suspect that's because they did a quick and dirty look for known attacks."
    But they have listed the initial intruders, see links below.

    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack?trk_source=recommended

    https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

    Binny keeps describing how he would check his LAN back in 1991. His experience is that of a dinosaur. This article is a mess, conflating the Hrc email scandal with the DNC scandal. What is at issue, as stated in the FAIR link, is whether the leak to gawker and wiki etc was perpetrated by a lone Romanian hacker or by the Russian government, not whether the DNC was spied upon by the Russian; it was.

    I am not arguing the the Clinton campaign did not figure out how to use this to their advantage, guccifer 2.0 and crowd strike stuff both came out in June but was not the subject of much crowing until now…

    reslez , July 27, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    > not whether the DNC was spied upon by the Russian; it was.

    Based on what evidence? So many blanket statements we're supposed to accept as fact. No.

    Guccifer 1.0, who is Romanian, hacked Sidney Blumenthal's email. Generally speaking, Romanians like many Eastern Europeans hate Russia. Guccifer 1.0 was extradited to the US and made various statements to the press about Clinton's private email server. I'm not aware of anything he said about the DNC.

    Guccifer 2.0 released DNC documents to the public and apparently to WikiLeaks. There is no evidence he is Russian or connected to the Russians.

    Direction , July 28, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Oops my reply posted below. I am not saying he's Russian. I'm not sure he's the original hacker either. You obviously did not read the links. Here is a third.
    http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/07/clinton-campaign-email-accounts-were-targeted-by-russians-too/

    Anonymous , July 27, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    Isn't there a typo in the following:

    "But mainstream media say it couldn't: http://www.businessinsider.com/dnc-hack-russian-government-2016-7

    The mainstream media is also trumpeting the meme that Russia was behind the hack, because it wants to help Trump get elected. In other words, the media is trying to deflect how damaging the email leaks are to Clinton's character by trying to somehow associate Trump with Putin. See e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/kremlin-donald-trump-vladimir-putin.html "

    don't you mean MSM wants to get Clinton elected, not Trump?

    MaroonBulldog , July 27, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Reply to "Anonymous" at 1:55 pm

    think the sentence was trying to express the idea that "Russia" "wants to help Trump get elected–the "it" referring to "Russia" and not to "mainstream media"–as that idea is the predicate of a meme that the mainstream media is trumpeting.

    Always better to repeat the noun you are referring to, rather than use a pronoun, where use of a pronoun could create ambiguity, as "it" (or should I have said, " such use" ?) did here.

    Direction , July 27, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    I'm not saying he is Russian.

    sunny129 , July 27, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Did any one see the recent docu ' Zero days' re STUXNET worm (invented by combined efforts of US _NSA,CIA + Israeli intelligent +?UK) introduced into the NET to take down the Nulc program in IRAN!

    There is fascinating discussion and the threat of cyber terrorism from any one from any where to the infra structures – Energy grid, transportation ++

    It has lot of bearing on this Hillary E-mail gate scandal

    Brian g , July 27, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    Why are you referencing ,Hillary Clinton emails when the issue is DNC emails?

    Reports the Russins broke into the DNC mail servers have Ben floating around since June

    https://www.wired.com/2016/06/hack-brief-russias-breach-dnc-trumps-dirt/

    What their reasons are is unknown but it is pretty clear that thy broke into the DNC Mail servers

    Yves Smith Post author , July 28, 2016 at 12:17 am

    Did you bother reading the comments earlier in this thread by JacobiteInTraining and Hacker, who confirm that the claims don't stand up to scrutiny?

    And you appear not to have been following this at all. Right after the story broke, a hacker who called himself Guccifer 2.0 posted two sets of DNC docs and said more were coming, which was presumed even then to be a Wikileaks releases (Assange had separately said lots of material on Clinton was coming).

    ian , July 28, 2016 at 2:08 am

    Because Hillary's campaign has insisted that national security was not compromised with her use of a homebrew email server. Which would be the higher value target to a foreign intelligence service – email she used as sec state, or the DNC server? Which would probably have better security – the homebrew server, or the DNC server? If you buy into the idea that the Russians hacked the DNC server, you have to admit there is a _strong_ probability they hacked her personal server as well. I find it kindof amusing that her campaign, in it's response to Trump today, is basically making the same point (even though it hasn't sunk in yet).
    That's why it's relevant.

    Brian g , July 28, 2016 at 8:50 am

    I can't speak to what security Hillary had in place. But I can say with 100% certainty that it is I direly easier to secure a small network for one or two people over a large network that has 100s or 1000s.

    I have been working in network security for 20 years. I guarantee that I could build a small network that would be close to impossible to break into regardless of the ability of the attacker.

    So I reject the premise that we should presume that Hillary was hacked

    Yves Smith Post author , July 28, 2016 at 9:11 am

    I suggest you get up to speed on this story before making assumptions and assertions based on them. It has been widely reported that Hillary's tech had no experience in network security whatsoever, so the issue re the size of the network is irrelevant.

    Bryan Pagliano's resume , which the State Department recently turned over to Judicial Watch, shows he had neither experience nor certification in protecting email systems against cyber security threats

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/12/documents-show-hillarys-email-technician-was-underqualified-for-the-job/

    His main qualification seems to be that he had been an IT director for the Clinton campaign in 2006. CNN points out he was hired at State as a "political appointee":

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/bryan-pagliano-hillary-clinton-server-state-department/

    Brian G , July 28, 2016 at 10:04 am

    Again, irrelevant to my point. The fact that the DNC mail servers were hacked does NOT mean that Clinton's mail servers were hacked. Clinton's mail servers may have been hacked and Assange is claiming that he has documents that prove it was. But, to date, no evidence has been provided to show that her mail servers were hacked.

    What we DO know is that the State Department mail servers were hacked, at least twice and at least once by the Russians.

    Regardless, none of this has anything to do with whether the Russians hacked the DNC mail servers and whether they gave that information to Wikileaks.

    Crowdstrike , Fiedlis Cybersecurity , and Mandiant all independently corroborated that it was the Russians. The German government corroborated that an SSL cert found on the DNC servers was the same cert that was used to infiltrate the German Parliament.

    guccifer 2.0 is some guy that made a claim that made a claim the day AFTER Crowdstrike released their report. He/She offered no evidence to support their claim.

    So perhaps 3 different professional IT security companies are incompetent, despite all evidence to the contrary, or Guccifer 2.0 is just some guy trying to take credit for something they didn't do or it is a Russian agent trying to actively distract people from the actual culprits.

    It is possible that the Russians weren't the ones to give the docs to wikileaks. But they almost certainly were the ones who perpetrated an attack into the DNC mail servers. That in itself is a huge problem.

    washunate , July 28, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    I'm curious, is your background on the computer side or the policy side? You're making some leaps where I think I follow your meaning, but the actual logic/evidence/warrant isn't there, so I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming.

    Aside from questions of whether elements of the Russian government attacked the DNC, for example, you imply that the Russians were the only people attacking the DNC. Do you have any technical reason to conclude that? Or is it just sloppy sentence construction, and you didn't mean to imply that? Because at a policy level, it seems a reasonably solid understanding of the world we inhabit that elements of many foreign governments attack US computer systems, both for active penetration of documents and for more passive denial of service by legitimate users. For goodness sakes, elements of the USFG itself attack US computer systems.

    mrtmbrnmn , July 27, 2016 at 11:56 pm

    Anyone who can stand up straight for 5 minutes without falling over backwards and has half a brain and an ounce of institutional memory knows it wasn't the Russkies who dropped the email dime on the DNC shenanigans…

    It was "Curveball"…!!

    ian , July 28, 2016 at 2:32 am

    I thought Trump's comments today about wanting the Russians to find Hillary's emails were genius. He fans the flames of this whole Russia-Putin thing on day 3 of the Dem convention and what are the media outlets talking about? Plus, Hillary's campaign, in it's rebuttal to Trump, is indirectly reminding everyone that her homebrew server was putting national security at risk.

    This whole Russia-Putin connection thing won't work – it really isn't that believable in the first place, the timing is suspect, and a lot of people in this country really don't care that deeply about Putin one way or the other.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Each muslim terrorist acts in Europe might add another 5 percent to Trumps vote

    Notable quotes:
    "... If he just avoids a major world war, that will be enough for me. Because I believe the American elite would be quite happy for that to happen – it badly wants Russia taken off the board, and China too if they will not cooperate and learn their place, and such a war would be fought in Europe – again – while America is insulated by distance. Of course Russia would ensure America paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not reach their targets owing to the USA's brilliant missile defense. ..."
    "... If this is not America's plan, then the last 5 years' amped-up hatred and deliberate alienation of Russia from the United States, for a generation at least, looks awfully stupid. ..."
    "... For the moment, at least, Trump has pulled into the lead . It remains to be seen if Sanders democrats will forgive Clinton for her unconscionable maneuvering, self-promotion and subordination of the DNC to her cause alone, not to mention what must now be complete disillusionment with the latter organization. The democrats, amazingly, are making the republicans look clean by comparison. ..."
    "... Don't underestimate how stupid they can be. They trashed Afghanistan and Iraq, and were then surprised that Iran became the dominating power in the region (after destroying Iran's two most formidable foes). ..."
    "... The US government can do stupidity, I don't think they plan so well. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    colliemum , July 26, 2016 at 10:29 am
    If you should happen to like to see our Fern's excellent comment on here turned into a 'Letter to the Editor', look no further than here:
    http://www.ukipdaily.com/letters-editor-26th-july-2016/
    Hers is the second of three – the last one by an American friend about the Hillary convention is a hoot!
    marknesop , July 26, 2016 at 10:50 am
    It looks even more visionary in a newspaper format. And the third comment is indeed a cracker. I don't understand why there is not a general revolt in the United States – are Americans seriously going to put up with this complete and brazen hijacking of what was not even a democratic process to begin with? And what next? Will Hillary simply rewrite the Presidential term in office to 'forever'?
    colliemum , July 26, 2016 at 10:58 am
    I don't think Hilary is going to get in.
    In the first place, the now nearly daily muslim terrorist acts in Europe add another 5% each to Trump's vote.
    In the second place, more and more dirt will come out on Hilary and Bill, and more and more people are aware of the underhand dealings in vote counting. It was one thing to keep quiet four years ago when most people couldn't give a toss about Romney, so squeals of voting fraud were not widely reported.
    Now they know, now they are aware, and now, unlike Romney, there's one candidate who's not afraid of saying what most people think.
    I belive Trump will do it.
    What happens after he's in – well, it's gotta be better than Hilary.
    marknesop , July 26, 2016 at 12:40 pm
    If he just avoids a major world war, that will be enough for me. Because I believe the American elite would be quite happy for that to happen – it badly wants Russia taken off the board, and China too if they will not cooperate and learn their place, and such a war would be fought in Europe – again – while America is insulated by distance. Of course Russia would ensure America paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not reach their targets owing to the USA's brilliant missile defense.

    If this is not America's plan, then the last 5 years' amped-up hatred and deliberate alienation of Russia from the United States, for a generation at least, looks awfully stupid.

    For the moment, at least, Trump has pulled into the lead . It remains to be seen if Sanders democrats will forgive Clinton for her unconscionable maneuvering, self-promotion and subordination of the DNC to her cause alone, not to mention what must now be complete disillusionment with the latter organization. The democrats, amazingly, are making the republicans look clean by comparison.

    pacific999 , July 26, 2016 at 1:51 pm
    "Of course Russia would ensure America paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not reach their targets owing to the USA's brilliant missile defense."

    Ummm..I thought that there is no defense against hundreds of incoming SLBM and ICBM MIRVED warheads and thousands of decoys:
    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-limits-us-missile-defense-12503?page=3

    marknesop , July 26, 2016 at 2:53 pm
    Right – in the plan, not in reality. These are people who do not care about how things unfold, just that they get started unfolding.
    Jeremn , July 27, 2016 at 1:05 am
    Don't underestimate how stupid they can be. They trashed Afghanistan and Iraq, and were then surprised that Iran became the dominating power in the region (after destroying Iran's two most formidable foes).

    The US government can do stupidity, I don't think they plan so well.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Hoisted from Comments Can We Even Know Who Hacked the DNC Emails

    After Flame and Stixnet worms as well as Snowden revelations, the US now is on receiving end its own sophisticated method of attacks which make finding the origin almost impossible.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Mook's "Russians under the bed" gaslighting is useful on a number of fronts: Ginning up war fever for an October surprise ; setting up a later McCarthy-ite purge of Trump supporters, Clinton skeptics, or even those prematurely anti-Trump ; and if we're truly blessed, a real shooting war ; some damned thing in the Baltic or the Black Sea, or wherever the Kagan clan points to on the map in the war room. And it's always useful to be able to convert one's opponents to enemies by accusing them of treason, especially in an election year. ..."
    "... Yup, as a former server admin it is patently absurd to attribute a hack to anyone in particular until a substantial amount of forensic work has been done. (read, poring over multiple internal log files…gathering yet more log files of yet more internal devices, poring over them, then – once the request hops out of your org – requesting logfiles from remote entities, poring over *those* log files, requesting further log files from yet more upstream entities, wash rinse repeat ad infinitum). ..."
    "... For example, at its simplest, I would expect a middling-competency hacker to find an open wifi hub across town to connect to, then VPN to server in, say, Tonga, then VPN from there to another box in Sweden, then connect to a PC previously compromised in Iowa, then VPN to yet another anonymous cloud server in Latvia, and (assuming the mountain dew is running low, gotta get cracking) then RDP to the target server and grab as many docs as possible. RAR those up and encrypt them, FTP them to a compromised media server in South Korea, email them from there to someones gmail account previously hacked, xfer them to a P2P file sharing app, and then finally access them later from a completely different set of servers. ..."
    "... most IPs ended up at unknown (compromised) personal PCs, or devices where the owner could not be found anyway. ..."
    "... If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence you might get lucky – but that demographic mostly points back to script kiddies and/or criminal dweebs – i.e., rather then just surreptitiously exfiltrating the goods they instead left messages or altered things that seemed to indicate their own backgrounds or prejudices, or left a message that was more easily 'traced'. If, of course, you took that evidence at face value and it was not itself an attempt at obfuscation. ..."
    "... Short of a state actor such as an NSA who captures it ALL anyway, and/or can access any log files at any public or private network at its own whim – its completely silly to attribute a hack to anyone at this point ..."
    "... That's great and all, but in past work I am sure my own 'research' could easily have gotten me 'associated' with known hacking groups. Presumably various 'sophisticated' methods and tools get you closer to possible suspects…but that kind of stuff is cycled and recycled throughout the community worldwide – as soon as anything like that is known and published, any reasonably competent hacker (or org of hackers) is learning how to do the same thing and incorporating such things into their own methods. (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery) ..."
    "... There is a problem with those who argue that these are sophisticated Nation State attackers and then point to the most basic circumstantial evidence to support their case. I'd bet that, among others, the Israelis have hacked some Russian servers to launch attacks from and have some of their workers on a Russian holiday schedule. Those things have been written about in attack analysis so much over the last 15-20 years that they'd be stupid not to. ..."
    "... Now, I'm not saying the Israelis did it. I'm saying that the evidence provided so far by those arguing it is Russia is so flaky as to prove that the Russia accusers are blinded or corrupted by their own political agenda. ..."
    "... Problem #1: The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and Control server has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact, Claudio Guarnieri , a highly regarded security researcher, whose technical analysis was referenced by Rid, stated that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country." ..."
    "... This post is not about today's ..."
    "... Carr makes the point that even supposed clues about Russian involvement ("the default language is Cyrillic!") are meaningless as all these could be spoofed by another party. ..."
    "... Separately it just shows again Team Clinton's (and DNC's) political deviousness and expertise how they –with the full support of the MSM of course –have managed to deflect the discussion to Trump and Russia from how the DNC subverted US democracy. ..."
    "... Absent any other evidence to work with, I can accept it as credible that a clumsy Russian or Baltic user posted viewed and saved docs instead of the originals; par for the course in public and private bureaucracies the world over. It would have been useful to see the original Properties metadata; instead we get crapped up copies. That only tells me the poster is something of a lightweight, and it at least somewhat suggests that these docs passed through multiple hands ..."
    "... Absolutely agree. Breed the stupid, use the stupid. how long can an idiocratic system last. I need to emigrate. ..."
    "... "If the electorate doesn't meet your standards, lower them." ..."
    "... One guy on Twitter, even with 10 million followers, can't overcome the Mighty Wurlitzer of the media all blasting the "Looke, over there! Baddie Rooskies!" tout ensemble ..."
    "... The thing that most bothers me is that this is supportive of the Kagans and Hillary's push to foment a shooting war with Russia. The so-called metadata that they point to is all something that could very easily be created by an amateur who was actually given access to the DNC's server(s). The "investigator" who issued the conclusion has no record of integrity. ..."
    "... Yes, the logical endgame of a 'Trump is a Russian stooge' strategy is that the stronger Trump is in the polls, the greater the incentive to stage an October Surprise with Russia. Something tells me that this lot would quite happily risk a nuclear war if it gave them a better chance of winning an election. ..."
    "... … all of which does indeed show a smoking gun, but not the same smoking gun as is being reported. What is shown is that, in addition to the fact that a technical investigation being made by reasonably competent people, a PR team has also been brought in to design the messaging, disseminate the message to the public and create the "right" optics for the story. Such PR / media management teams are fully-paid up members of the Credentialed Class. As such, they want to be seen to earn their money and prove they should get more of it from their elite benefactors in the future. This has an almost inevitable consequence that they will seize on what was probably a suggestive-but-not-conclusive piece of evidence from an investigating team and embellish it with a conclusion which isn't proven or even supported by the actual evidence. Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" (which, of course, didn't exist) is perhaps the best-known example of this phenomena. ..."
    "... When you set up a new computer, one of the things a setup routine gets the user to answer is the location of the PC and the input language. This, amongst many other things, sets the code pages used for backwards compatibility in text files which don't support Unicode. It is so easy to forget this has ever been set by a hacker who then merrily goes on to write their hack completely oblivious to the fact they've given - if they are not very careful - the location of their home country away. Or, at least, their native language. If I get chance I'll send a screen shot of a typical application and how a user might be completely unaware of how they are disclosing their location / language if I can hook up to an anonymous hosting service) which might make it a bit clearer for readers. ..."
    "... As I've described above, it is a trivial task to "spoof" a PC into looking like it was being used by a Russian, Korean, Chinese, whatever, based person or group. You either do it during the PC setup process or else you can with a few clicks change the default locale on any PC or other operating system. Hey-presto. You can now produce what looks like "Russian" (or any other language) flavoured text and cunningly have these tell-tale code pages appear in your malicious code or similar. ..."
    "... In other words, the Cyrillic attribute indicates that the posted docs are not originals ..."
    "... Which is telling. The DNC never disavowed the e-mails. They just simply said "See, it's those damn Russians up to their old tricks again". It's like watching an episode of "Maury" when someone gets caught cheating, then try to 1) blame someone/something else for the cheating 2) then apologize for said cheating (ONLY because they got caught) and say "c'mon, baby, let's move on from this"… ..."
    "... I wonder if it would be overly technodeterminist to argue one of the primary reasons for displacement of journalists and other human knowledge interpreters by machines and algorithms was the NSA's secret need to make sense of their massive telemetry and data as the Cold War ended and the Information Age and Comparative Advantage became ossified neoclassical economic theory and practice. ..."
    "... The Russians are trying to rig the elections by exposing how we tried to rig the elections! THIS MEANS WAR! ..."
    "... The childish, credulous, transparently Machevellian propagandizing by the DNC here, especially the deflection in place of serious scientific analysis, is beyond contemptible: it's staggering. But it works because over a quarter century after PCs started showing up on desks the vast majority of the public still don't know as much about how these machines work as most of those living in the 1930's groked about their automobiles (which were in far shorter supply). The world is becoming more complex by the minute, and unless folks start to knuckle down and start learning how it really works they're going to be doomed to be mere passengers on a runaway train. ..."
    "... Even if there was a way to determine exactly when and were the malicious code was made, wouldn't there be a good chance it could have been used by someone else. I would imagine everyone in that "industry" would find bits of the others work and incorporate it into their own. What better way to throw people off the trail than to incorporate pieces from different groups for just that purpose. Especially if you know a forensic examination would be looking for those clues. Also how about a "script kiddie" or non-sophisticated actor getting ahold of it and using it like any other tool. ..."
    "... Hacker's link to the ars technica article below is the most detailed explanation I have seen relating these intruders to previous attacks, and Yves link to the Carr article is handy for readers because he includes a chart to cross reference the various names that each of the known russian intruders. ..."
    "... "Symbol manipulators - like those in the Democrat-leaning creative class - often believe that real economy systems are as easy to manipulate as symbol systems are." ..."
    "... "One cannot stress enough the point about APTs being, first and foremost, a new attack doctrine built to circumvent the existing perimeter and endpoint defenses. It's a little similar to stealth air fighters: for decades you've based your air defense on radar technology, but now you have those sneaky stealth fighters built with odd angles and strange composite materials. You can try building bigger and better radars, or, as someone I talked to said, you can try staring more closely at your existing radars in hope of catching some faint signs of something flying by, but this isn't going to turn the tide on stealthy attackers. Instead you have to think of a new defense doctrine." ..."
    "... Really the DNC and Hill-bots are looking foolish on this. I have some very well-educated friends going full "red scare" on Facebook. Too easy to troll them by agreeing and exaggerating just a little too much! ..."
    "... Besides wasn't Hillary the one against xenophobia? Wasn't she all about building bridges and not (fire!) walls? Now it seems it's OK to blame shiit on foreigners! So it becomes a question of WHICH foreigners we should blame. Trump says Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and China while Clinton says Russia. Let the voters decide! ..."
    "... But while the comparisons to McCarthyism write themselves, another uncanny historic parallel is the run-up to the Iraq War. First we have these damn Hackers of Mass Disruption (HMD) trying to manipulate a US election (by showing the DNC actually did manipulate an election!). Next we will have our intelligence services and perhaps "trusted sources" like Curveball informing us Putin did it. Will Theresa May quickly crank out a dossier and some posh-sounding Brits confirm the HWD allegations? Obama will have to hurry to get the war going in time but Colin Powell will be called out of retirement to present the hacking evidence to the UN. Putin will be given a deadline for surrendering ALL his HMD. UN inspectors will sent in but not find any traces of HMD. Debka and the New York Times will insist Putin is hiding his HMD in the Moscow metro or perhaps he has sent them all to a third-party nation for safekeeping? The Washington Post will remind us of how the Kurds were brutalized by HMD cracking into the PKK's main servers. The tension will build to an unbearable crescendo. ..."
    "... One of the e mails said the price of a private dinner with Hill is $200,000. Wow. In my case, I wouldn't give two cents for this. In fact, she would have to pay me at least a few grand, and I would split the scene as soon as possible. ..."
    "... That article also goes into stated Russian doctrine about intent to use whatever means necessary to, in my words, protect themselves. As it is pretty obvious to me that America is the global bully these days. ..."
    "... I'm not sure where this Jeffrey Carr guy came from but his company previously indicated the Russians were behind the Sony hack. And his argument was based on linguistic comparisons of the errors made in the English statements issued by the fake group claiming the hack. Not based on code at all. Seems like he's a character that shows up to muddy the waters. Don't assume he's an ally just because his arguments support your thesis. ..."
    "... Clinton is trying to market herself as the Serious/Safe candidate, and instead her campaign is acting all CT hysterical. This whole Putin-hack thing is sabotaging her own brand. ..."
    "... Hillary's brand was always just branding. In 2007, she ran as the candidate ready to take that 3 am phone call because of her experience. What experience? Selecting White House China for state functions? Raising money for the White House restoration? I liked the Christmas decorations Hillary had. Her followers believed her brand would win the day, and they simply ignored Obama largely won because of Hillary's poor foreign policy record. ..."
    "... So she went out and bargained herself into State to get the foreign policy experience and now has a record on it that should have every sane person saying keep her away from sharp objects and things that go boom. Instead we once again have her running on taking that 3 am phone call while her team is acting like the twelve year old whose parents told her there are monsters home alone for the first time thinking that the refrigerator is a monster because she never heard it cycle on before. ..."
    "... After the hackers were "shocked, shocked" when they saw the true operation of the DNC, then they decided to leak the information. This could suggest the leak may have been done, not to harm USA democracy, but to improve it by getting the DNC to behave in a fair and ethical manner in the future. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party establishment is selling a used car knowing there's no way of getting a verifiable title history for the vehicle. To weave the narrative here, a few basic statements are made which may (perhaps) be technically true, as a foundation, but perhaps grossly misleadingly so. ..."
    "... Perhaps at least one Russian at some point hacked the DNC. It is implied that _only_ this/these Russians hacked the DNC. It is implied that the WikiLeaks doc-dump came from this same set of people. "An IP address was found" is a very passive statement then used similarly. It's possible a templatized kit had a default address (maybe even commented out) and was used in more than one place. Kits like this may be used by a single player or entity (in the case of a state actor, perhaps, though it seems potentially sloppy) or may be used by someone who purchased them or stole them from someone else. Only a few leading statements, eliding particular details, are necessary to promulgate a crafted narrative, when injected into the echo chamber and laundered through friendly or credulous security firms for expert confirmation. ..."
    "... Some U.S. intelligence officials suspect that Russian hackers who broke into Democratic Party computers may have deliberately left digital fingerprints to show Moscow is a "cyberpower" that Washington should respect. ..."
    "... If one watches ' ZERO DAYS' docu on how STUXNET/worm/olypic game was invented/manufactured by the combined efforts of US – cyber command @NSA, +CIA and Isralei intelligence +UK?) and planted into the NET in bringing down the Iran's Nucl program, most of us are way, way behind in understanding cyber terrorism! They were clueless and firing their Nucl experts for incompetence! ..."
    naked capitalism
    It is with relief that we turn from last week's Democrat narrative - that Trump is a fascist - to this week's narrative[1]: That the DNC email hack is proof that Trump is a Russian agent of influence.[2] Here's Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, making the accusation :

    Hillary Clinton's campaign manager is alleging that Russian hackers are leaking Democratic National Committee emails critical of Bernie Sanders in an effort to help Donald Trump win the election in November.

    It comes on the heels of "changes to the Republican platform to make it more pro-Russian," Robby Mook told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" Sunday.

    "I don't think it's coincidental that these emails were released on the eve of our convention here, and I think that's disturbing," he said.

    Mook's "Russians under the bed" gaslighting is useful on a number of fronts: Ginning up war fever for an October surprise ; setting up a later McCarthy-ite purge of Trump supporters, Clinton skeptics, or even those prematurely anti-Trump ; and if we're truly blessed, a real shooting war ; some damned thing in the Baltic or the Black Sea, or wherever the Kagan clan points to on the map in the war room. And it's always useful to be able to convert one's opponents to enemies by accusing them of treason, especially in an election year.

    However, in this short post I want to focus on a much narrower question: Can we ever know who hacked the DNC email? Because if we can't, then clearly we can't know the Russians did. And so I want to hoist this by alert reader JacobiteInTraining from comments :

    Yup, as a former server admin it is patently absurd to attribute a hack to anyone in particular until a substantial amount of forensic work has been done. (read, poring over multiple internal log files…gathering yet more log files of yet more internal devices, poring over them, then – once the request hops out of your org – requesting logfiles from remote entities, poring over *those* log files, requesting further log files from yet more upstream entities, wash rinse repeat ad infinitum).

    For example, at its simplest, I would expect a middling-competency hacker to find an open wifi hub across town to connect to, then VPN to server in, say, Tonga, then VPN from there to another box in Sweden, then connect to a PC previously compromised in Iowa, then VPN to yet another anonymous cloud server in Latvia, and (assuming the mountain dew is running low, gotta get cracking) then RDP to the target server and grab as many docs as possible. RAR those up and encrypt them, FTP them to a compromised media server in South Korea, email them from there to someones gmail account previously hacked, xfer them to a P2P file sharing app, and then finally access them later from a completely different set of servers.

    In many cases where I did this sort of analysis I still ended up with a complete dead end: some sysadmins at remote companies or orgs would be sympathetic and give me actual related log files. Others would be sympathetic but would not give files, and instead do their own analysis to give me tips. Many never responded, and most IPs ended up at unknown (compromised) personal PCs, or devices where the owner could not be found anyway.

    If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence you might get lucky – but that demographic mostly points back to script kiddies and/or criminal dweebs – i.e., rather then just surreptitiously exfiltrating the goods they instead left messages or altered things that seemed to indicate their own backgrounds or prejudices, or left a message that was more easily 'traced'. If, of course, you took that evidence at face value and it was not itself an attempt at obfuscation.

    Short of a state actor such as an NSA who captures it ALL anyway, and/or can access any log files at any public or private network at its own whim – its completely silly to attribute a hack to anyone at this point.

    So, I guess I am reduced to LOL OMG WTF its fer the LULZ!!!!!

    And :

    Just to clarify on the "…If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence…" – this is basically what I have seen reported as 'evidence' pointing to Russia: the Cyrillic keyboard signature, the 'appeared to cease work on Russian holidays' stuff, and the association with 'known Russian hacking groups'.

    That's great and all, but in past work I am sure my own 'research' could easily have gotten me 'associated' with known hacking groups. Presumably various 'sophisticated' methods and tools get you closer to possible suspects…but that kind of stuff is cycled and recycled throughout the community worldwide – as soon as anything like that is known and published, any reasonably competent hacker (or org of hackers) is learning how to do the same thing and incorporating such things into their own methods. (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery)

    I guess I have a lot more respect for the kinds of people I expect to be getting a paycheck from foreign Intelligence agencies then to believe that they would leave such obvious clues behind 'accidentally'. But if we are going to be starting wars over this stuff w/Russia, or China, I guess I would hope the adults in the room don't go all apesh*t and start chanting COMMIES, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!, etc. before the ink is dry on the 'crime'.

    The whole episode reminds me of the Sony hack , for which Obama also blamed a demonized foreign power. Interestingly - to beg the question here - the blaming was also based on a foreign character set in the data (though Hangul, not Korean). Look! A clue!

    JacobiteInTraining's methodology also reminds me of NC's coverage of Grexit. Symbol manipulators - like those in the Democrat-leaning creative class - often believe that real economy systems are as easy to manipulate as symbol systems are. In Greece, for example, it really was a difficult technical challenge for Greece to reintroduce the drachma, especially given the time-frame, as contributor Clive remorselessly showed. Similarly, it's really not credible to hire a consultant and get a hacking report with a turnaround time of less than a week, even leaving aside the idea that the DNC just might have hired a consultant that would give them the result they wanted (because who among us, etc.) What JacobiteInTraining shows us is that computer forensics is laborious, takes time, and is very unlikely to yield results suitable for framing in the narratives proffered by the political class. Of course, that does confirm all my priors!

    Readers, thoughts?

    Update Addition by Yves:

    Another reader, Hacker, observed (emphasis original):

    There is a problem with those who argue that these are sophisticated Nation State attackers and then point to the most basic circumstantial evidence to support their case. I'd bet that, among others, the Israelis have hacked some Russian servers to launch attacks from and have some of their workers on a Russian holiday schedule. Those things have been written about in attack analysis so much over the last 15-20 years that they'd be stupid not to.

    Now, I'm not saying the Israelis did it. I'm saying that the evidence provided so far by those arguing it is Russia is so flaky as to prove that the Russia accusers are blinded or corrupted by their own political agenda.

    Update [Yves, courtesy Richard Smith] 7:45 AM. Another Medium piece by Jeffrey Carr, Can Facts Slow The DNC Breach Runaway Train? who has been fact-checking this story and comes away Not Happy. For instance:

    Thomas Rid wrote:

    One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control address - 176.31.112[.]10 - that was hard coded in a piece of malware found both in the German parliament as well as on the DNC's servers. Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic security agency BfV as the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure behind the fake MIS Department domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at least one other element, a shared SSL certificate.

    This paragraph sounds quite damning if you take it at face value, but if you invest a little time into checking the source material, its carefully constructed narrative falls apart.

    Problem #1: The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and Control server has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact, Claudio Guarnieri , a highly regarded security researcher, whose technical analysis was referenced by Rid, stated that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country."

    Mind you, he has two additional problems with that claim alone. This piece is a must read if you want to dig further into this topic.

    NOTES

    [1] More than a talking point but, really, less than a narrative. It's like we need a new word for these bite-sized, meme-ready, disposable, "throw 'em against the wall and see if they stick" stories; mini-narrative, or narrativelette, perhaps. "All the crunch of a real narrative, but none of the nutrition!"

    [2] This post is not about today's Trump moral panic, where the political class is frothing and stamping about The Donald's humorous (or ballbusting, take your pick) statement that he "hoped" the Russians had hacked the 30,000 emails that Clinton supposedly deleted from the email server she privatized in her public capacity as Secretary of State before handing the whole flaming and steaming mess over to investigators. First, who cares? Those emails are all about yoga lessons and Chelsea's wedding. Right? Second, Clinton didn't secure the server for three months. What did she expect? Third, Trump's suggestion is just dumb; the NSA has to have that data, so just ask them? Finally, to be fair, Trump shouldn't have uttered the word "Russia." He should have said "Liechtenstein," or "Tonga," because it's hard to believe that there's a country too small to hack as fat a target as Clinton presented; Trump was being inflammatory. Points off. Bad show.

    Pavel , July 28, 2016 at 4:01 am

    For those interested, the excellent interviewer Scott Horton just spoke with Jeffrey Carr, an IT security expert about all this. It's about 30 mins:

    Jeffrey Carr, a cyber intelligence expert and CEO of Taia Global, Inc., discusses his fact-checking of Josh Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo article that claims a close alliance between Trump and Putin; and why the individuals blaming Russia for the DNC email hack are more motivated by politics than solid evidence.

    –The Scott Horton Show: 7/25/16 Jeffrey Carr

    Carr makes the point that even supposed clues about Russian involvement ("the default language is Cyrillic!") are meaningless as all these could be spoofed by another party.

    Separately it just shows again Team Clinton's (and DNC's) political deviousness and expertise how they –with the full support of the MSM of course –have managed to deflect the discussion to Trump and Russia from how the DNC subverted US democracy.

    pretzelattack , July 28, 2016 at 4:15 am

    and again, we see the cavalier attitude about national security from the clinton camp, aggravating the already tense relationship with russia over this bullshit, all to avoid some political disadvantage. clinton doesn't care if russia gets the nuclear launch codes seemingly, but impact her chances to win the race and it's all guns firing.

    dk , July 28, 2016 at 4:59 am

    "… all these could be spoofed by another party."

    Well yeah, and I could be a bot, how do you know I'm not?

    Absent any other evidence to work with, I can accept it as credible that a clumsy Russian or Baltic user posted viewed and saved docs instead of the originals; par for the course in public and private bureaucracies the world over. It would have been useful to see the original Properties metadata; instead we get crapped up copies. That only tells me the poster is something of a lightweight, and it at least somewhat suggests that these docs passed through multiple hands.

    But that doesn't mean A) the original penetration occurred under state control (or even in Russia proper), much less B) that Putin Himself ordered the hack attempts, which is the searing retinal afterimage that the the media name-dropping and photo-illustrating conflation produces.

    Unspoofed, the Cyrillic fingerprints still do not closely constrain conclusion to A, and even less to B.

    Clive , July 28, 2016 at 5:02 am

    Yes, I made the same point below in terms of the intrusion ("hack") on the DNC itself too. The running away with a conclusion based on easily-created evidence says a lot about the people saying it.

    Whine Country , July 28, 2016 at 10:01 am

    "The running away with a conclusion based on easily-created evidence says a lot about the people saying it." Clive, I don't think that this can be emphasized enough. These are the people representing to be competent to run our country. I made the point yesterday: Trump voters are mostly stupid; this kind of argument will attract those stupid people to Hillary; let's run with it. God help us.

    Direction , July 28, 2016 at 11:05 am

    Absolutely agree. Breed the stupid, use the stupid. how long can an idiocratic system last. I need to emigrate.

    Ivy , July 28, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    "If the electorate doesn't meet your standards, lower them." sage advice from (DNC, RNC, MSM, anyone) elders…

    How can you tell when an MSM journalist is lying to you? When the crawl moves.

    notabanker , July 28, 2016 at 5:48 am

    1. Who cares if the Russians did it?
    2. Why were they able to?
    3. Are the releases real? Are these actual emails from the DNC? Appears so given their response.
    4. Trump once again bungled a prime opportunity. I'm pretty concerned that if a political strategy cannot be summed up in 140 characters, it's beyond his ability to cope.

    It's getting harder and harder to place limits on the catastrophe that either of these "choices" will be.

    Yves Smith , July 28, 2016 at 7:27 am

    One guy on Twitter, even with 10 million followers, can't overcome the Mighty Wurlitzer of the media all blasting the "Looke, over there! Baddie Rooskies!" tout ensemble to divert attention from the content of the DNC e-mails. And the Dems were hitting that theme regularly in the convention speeches, which meant the MSM could replay it that way too.

    Procopius , July 28, 2016 at 10:50 am

    The thing that most bothers me is that this is supportive of the Kagans and Hillary's push to foment a shooting war with Russia. The so-called metadata that they point to is all something that could very easily be created by an amateur who was actually given access to the DNC's server(s). The "investigator" who issued the conclusion has no record of integrity.

    PlutoniumKun , July 28, 2016 at 11:24 am

    Yes, the logical endgame of a 'Trump is a Russian stooge' strategy is that the stronger Trump is in the polls, the greater the incentive to stage an October Surprise with Russia. Something tells me that this lot would quite happily risk a nuclear war if it gave them a better chance of winning an election.

    Clive , July 28, 2016 at 4:38 am

    The comment I wanted to make was around the "Cyrillic keyboard". This is interesting because it has all the characteristics of:

    a) an investigation into an intrusion incident being undertaken by someone who is pretty skilled and knows a reasonable amount about how to start their analysis and what to look for, where to look for it and so on

    b) the investigator or investigators finding something interesting - in this case the "Cyrillic keyboard"

    c) non-technical people being told of the investigator's findings but not getting the technicalities of it or some PR type saying "yeah, but can you tell me what this means in simple terms" and ending up missing an important subtlety and then telling equally ignorant reporters the mis-information who repeat it verbatim

    d) the story or stories, as published, then being wrong in a way that the media outlets telling the stories don't realise makes them embarrassingly inept to people who really understand the technical side of things

    … all of which does indeed show a smoking gun, but not the same smoking gun as is being reported. What is shown is that, in addition to the fact that a technical investigation being made by reasonably competent people, a PR team has also been brought in to design the messaging, disseminate the message to the public and create the "right" optics for the story. Such PR / media management teams are fully-paid up members of the Credentialed Class. As such, they want to be seen to earn their money and prove they should get more of it from their elite benefactors in the future. This has an almost inevitable consequence that they will seize on what was probably a suggestive-but-not-conclusive piece of evidence from an investigating team and embellish it with a conclusion which isn't proven or even supported by the actual evidence.

    Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" (which, of course, didn't exist) is perhaps the best-known example of this phenomena.

    To try to set the record straight, what I think was discovered in the DNC email hack was a file or files (or code in a malicious payload) - the specifics depend on the hack itself and what attack vector it used - which had a Cyrillic code page set.

    This goes back to the mechanics of how you actually write a hack / virus / malicious web page / whatever. You have to, at its most basic, write the code. You don't do this using a word processor. You do it using a text editor (albeit often a very fancy one in an Integrated Development Environment - a special piece of software to help you write code). But regardless, the code itself is in "plain text".

    But "plain text" isn't actually that plain. Non Latin languages use different code pages for 8-bit plain text (I'll have to skim over the lower level complexity here for the sake of brevity). But this means that a subtle footprint can get left behind on certain types of files which may be used as the payload for an intrusion into a computer system or even end up being compiled into code which delivered into the target system.

    When you set up a new computer, one of the things a setup routine gets the user to answer is the location of the PC and the input language. This, amongst many other things, sets the code pages used for backwards compatibility in text files which don't support Unicode. It is so easy to forget this has ever been set by a hacker who then merrily goes on to write their hack completely oblivious to the fact they've given - if they are not very careful - the location of their home country away. Or, at least, their native language. If I get chance I'll send a screen shot of a typical application and how a user might be completely unaware of how they are disclosing their location / language if I can hook up to an anonymous hosting service) which might make it a bit clearer for readers.

    (and this can so easily catch out the unwary; I recall one horrid incident I gave Yves when, in trying to submit an article for her to run on Naked Capitalism, I tried to make life easier by submitting it in "plain text" so that WordPress wouldn't find it so difficult to handle the formatting. Big mistake! I didn't realise until much grief had been caused that because I'd set my PC up with a Japanese locale, my supposedly nice, simple "plain text" files I was sending had Japanese encoding. WordPress, expecting US English encoding, was completely befuddled and Yves had to try to manually correct dozens of spurious / misplaced characters).

    This is not, though, a "keyboard". It does affect the "keyboard" setup. But no reasonably sophisticated technical person would ever describe this as a "keyboard". Hence my conclusion that, following an explanation which I've just given readers above (and I'll happily concede it is a rather tortuous subject to get ones head around if you're not an IT expert), some fairly inept media manager ran away with the idea this was something to do with a Russian PC being used, because of the "Cyrillic keyboard".

    So it was the pesky Russians then ?

    Erm, no, not necessarily. As I've described above, it is a trivial task to "spoof" a PC into looking like it was being used by a Russian, Korean, Chinese, whatever, based person or group. You either do it during the PC setup process or else you can with a few clicks change the default locale on any PC or other operating system. Hey-presto. You can now produce what looks like "Russian" (or any other language) flavoured text and cunningly have these tell-tale code pages appear in your malicious code or similar.

    But as the comment in the above article makes clear, this is really dumb and not at all the sort of thing a sophisticated state-backed actor would end up doing. It is however precisely the sort of thing that a sophisticated state-backed actor would do if they wanted to make it *appear* as if the Russians were responsible.

    dk , July 28, 2016 at 5:11 am

    It makes me cry to see clicking on "Properties" equated with "pretty skilled".

    Also, the docs were last saved through an older version of MSWord, one that the DNC is almost certainly not running in-house (because of licensing and Microsoft Office Update, although it can probably be found on the odd State or County level Party desktop).

    In other words, the Cyrillic attribute indicates that the posted docs are not originals . The DNC could have disavowed the docs as partially or completely fabricated, on that basis alone.

    sinbad66 , July 28, 2016 at 6:02 am

    The DNC could have disavowed the docs as partially or completely fabricated, on that basis alone.

    Which is telling.

    The DNC never disavowed the e-mails. They just simply said "See, it's those damn Russians up to their old tricks again". It's like watching an episode of "Maury" when someone gets caught cheating, then try to 1) blame someone/something else for the cheating 2) then apologize for said cheating (ONLY because they got caught) and say "c'mon, baby, let's move on from this"…

    dk , July 28, 2016 at 6:30 am

    Ha, great minds, my friend… this is what I edited out of that post:

    And in the larger context, it's like my neighbor peering across their driveway seeing me in bed with somebody else's spouse, and when they tell the not-my-spouse's spouse about it I respond with "You're not supposed to be looking in my window!" and calling the cops to arrest my neighbor for snooping (without a FISA permit, egads).

    It's a deflection. It discredits my neighbor's story to the not-my-spouse's spouse.

    And snooping is wrong! Not supposed to do it! Somebody mention this to the NSA as well! Although, granted, so far the NSA seem to be a lot better at keeping everybody's secrets (assuming they can even sort meaning out of their data, which I question).

    In other words, it's okay when the NSA does it, because they don't tell what they know, the way those awful awful Russians do.

    /snark

    sinbad66 , July 28, 2016 at 8:34 am

    Love the analogy!

    Ralph Reed , July 28, 2016 at 11:46 am

    the NSA seem to be a lot better at keeping everybody's secrets (assuming they can even sort meaning out of their data, which I question).

    Between 1984 and 1987 I was stationed at Offutt AFB as a satellite operator. Because my off base roommate worked for Electronic Security Command(ESC) as a cryptologic linguist flying around in unpressurized planes with earphones on, my military social circle consisted largely of airmen(all men) who worked for NSA and some of them would go to Ft. Meade on TDY. They were an elite, heterogeneous, cosmopolitan bunch who shared a common belief that their jobs weren't directly evil because it was impossible to find the man hours to analyze it: "last night the best thing I picked up in Nicaragua was an abuela giving tips for mole."

    I wonder if it would be overly technodeterminist to argue one of the primary reasons for displacement of journalists and other human knowledge interpreters by machines and algorithms was the NSA's secret need to make sense of their massive telemetry and data as the Cold War ended and the Information Age and Comparative Advantage became ossified neoclassical economic theory and practice.

    JTMcPhee , July 28, 2016 at 7:07 am

    Aren't these whiners (Weiners? See, selfie dicks on display) the same set of people who tell us the Security State is just fine, because, "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, and no reason to be afraid!"?

    Code Name D , July 28, 2016 at 7:56 am

    The Russians are trying to rig the elections by exposing how we tried to rig the elections! THIS MEANS WAR!

    sinbad66 , July 28, 2016 at 8:35 am

    +1000

    owhat did we do to deserve this? , July 28, 2016 at 6:30 am

    Combining two comments as I worry about our country, our democracy: Where have we gone wrong?
    "It makes me cry" as "It's getting harder and harder to place limits on the catastrophe that either of these "choices" will be."

    JacobiteInTraining , July 28, 2016 at 5:18 am

    Absolutely accurate. I fell into the simplification trap myself with my own 'Cyrillic keyboard' reference in comment, but your explanation is perfect.

    Admittedly I am getting a little older (and don't do much work anymore with International OSes) but my own first introduction to a variant of this issue was with older IIS web server ISAPI extensions and other widgets where using something as prosaic as notepad.exe (which you normally don't expect to do anything nefarious) causing prod web servers at a large corporation to all go 'boom' and fall over, dead.

    Turns out that when you modified a previously-working plain-text extension config file originally in (as I recall) ANSI, update it, then accidentally saved it as UNICODE things like quotation marks et al become…different…even, threatening… ;)

    Long since patched of course. Perhaps I need to patch myself too – perhaps with some fine Scotch!

    philnc , July 28, 2016 at 8:37 am

    Used wordpad for that, eh. Could have been worse. I've seen HR guys in the UK running a localized version of Office copy and paste "text" from an Excel sheet originally composed on in a Scandanavian locale completely wreck the rendering of their data. For awhile I tried getting people to use Sublime or Notepad++ set to UTF-8 for that sort of exercise, but the ubiquity of text mangling tools out there is overwhelming.

    The childish, credulous, transparently Machevellian propagandizing by the DNC here, especially the deflection in place of serious scientific analysis, is beyond contemptible: it's staggering. But it works because over a quarter century after PCs started showing up on desks the vast majority of the public still don't know as much about how these machines work as most of those living in the 1930's groked about their automobiles (which were in far shorter supply). The world is becoming more complex by the minute, and unless folks start to knuckle down and start learning how it really works they're going to be doomed to be mere passengers on a runaway train.

    dk , July 28, 2016 at 9:30 am

    +1×10⁷

    And, it's not that hard. But I think people's mental bandwidths are overloaded with:
    a) work (not pay, just work),
    b) "entertainment",
    c) media deluge (info+fiction=media!),
    d) magical thinking / myths (only geeks can understand it!),
    e) ever smaller devices with little tiny screens!!!

    JacobiteInTraining , July 28, 2016 at 10:21 am

    Well, that sort of thing makes life interesting eh? Clive's horror story of Japanese locale mucking up an article submission made me cringe in sympathy.

    GEDIT OR BUST!!!

    or wait – did gedit go ahead and withdraw, thus endorsing Hillery? In which case I guess its back to the typewriter… :p

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 28, 2016 at 10:31 am

    I use Jedit. Does that make me a bad person? (Formerly… QUED/M…)

    inode_buddha , July 28, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    I'm torn between vim and nano. Slackware FTW!

    shargash , July 28, 2016 at 11:06 am

    This is a good point. They are shamelessly preying on naive peoples' lack of understanding of computers. They are also shamelessly preying on naive peoples' trust in experts, which has serious downstream effects when these "experts" are debunked.

    Ivy , July 28, 2016 at 12:16 pm

    One moral of the story/stories for us computer age fossils is that WYSIWYG is now really WYSI N WYG.

    fritter , July 28, 2016 at 8:52 am

    Even if there was a way to determine exactly when and were the malicious code was made, wouldn't there be a good chance it could have been used by someone else. I would imagine everyone in that "industry" would find bits of the others work and incorporate it into their own. What better way to throw people off the trail than to incorporate pieces from different groups for just that purpose. Especially if you know a forensic examination would be looking for those clues. Also how about a "script kiddie" or non-sophisticated actor getting ahold of it and using it like any other tool.

    DJG , July 28, 2016 at 9:18 am

    Clive: Also, there are varieties of Cyrillic, depending on the language. Bulgarian has a few more characters, as does Ukrainian. So would "Russian" even be identifiable from the settings? Maybe it all went through Montenegro and we are seeing ghosts of Montenengrin.

    To extend the question: If the computer has as its setting the Roman alphabet, I'm assuming that language isn't identified, because language on a computer is aseparate setting (for the user) from alphabet. So are we in a situation where someone is seeing a Roman letter and then announces that the document was originally in Hungarian?

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 28, 2016 at 11:07 am

    Clive asked me to include this image re: Keyboard setup:

    pastedImage

    "Cunning, those Russkis!"

    "Devilish!"

    Clive , July 28, 2016 at 11:31 am

    Thanks Lambert --

    (yep, Clive's cut-out-and-keep guide to pretending you're a nefarious Russian sneakypants trying to besmirch the good name of the DNC. Or Trump. Or whoever:

    1) Set up your PC as being located in Russia and having a language of Russian (Cyrillic).
    2) Open notepad (in windows, similar for other O/S'es)
    3) Create your incriminating text (e.g. "I think Bernie is really stinky and we really should make sure Hillary wins because she is a woman and so on, all those other really good reasons… signed Debbie Wasserman Schultz").
    4) Click "Save"
    5) Change the encoding to something not Unicode-ey e.g. ANSI
    6) Get out your Rolodex and hit the phones of your favourite friendly media outlets

    yeah, the height of sophistication…)

    Direction , July 28, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Clive, I'm interested in what you think about the apt28 and apt29 intrusions on the DNC servers.

    Hacker's link to the ars technica article below is the most detailed explanation I have seen relating these intruders to previous attacks, and Yves link to the Carr article is handy for readers because he includes a chart to cross reference the various names that each of the known russian intruders.

    For your convenience, here is the link I am referring to:

    http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/07/clinton-campaign-email-accounts-were-targeted-by-russians-too/

    ahimsa , July 28, 2016 at 5:08 am

    @Clive

    Great explanation of the possible technical basis for this – thanks!

    ahimsa , July 28, 2016 at 5:11 am

    "Symbol manipulators - like those in the Democrat-leaning creative class - often believe that real economy systems are as easy to manipulate as symbol systems are."

    What a great observation! This speaks to so much of what ails modern western society.

    DanB , July 28, 2016 at 6:13 am

    "Symbol manipulators" reflects the way lawyers and most policy wonks are trained to believe that the social construction of reality is all that matters.

    4D , July 28, 2016 at 5:19 am

    I found this link informative for understanding the actual hack process.

    https://blogs.rsa.com/anatomy-of-an-attack/

    Thanks JacobiteIn Training for the search tips.

    "One cannot stress enough the point about APTs being, first and foremost, a new attack doctrine built to circumvent the existing perimeter and endpoint defenses. It's a little similar to stealth air fighters: for decades you've based your air defense on radar technology, but now you have those sneaky stealth fighters built with odd angles and strange composite materials. You can try building bigger and better radars, or, as someone I talked to said, you can try staring more closely at your existing radars in hope of catching some faint signs of something flying by, but this isn't going to turn the tide on stealthy attackers. Instead you have to think of a new defense doctrine."

    Clearly the DNC didn't.

    The Trumpening , July 28, 2016 at 5:37 am

    Really the DNC and Hill-bots are looking foolish on this. I have some very well-educated friends going full "red scare" on Facebook. Too easy to troll them by agreeing and exaggerating just a little too much!

    Besides wasn't Hillary the one against xenophobia? Wasn't she all about building bridges and not (fire!) walls? Now it seems it's OK to blame shiit on foreigners! So it becomes a question of WHICH foreigners we should blame. Trump says Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and China while Clinton says Russia. Let the voters decide!

    But while the comparisons to McCarthyism write themselves, another uncanny historic parallel is the run-up to the Iraq War. First we have these damn Hackers of Mass Disruption (HMD) trying to manipulate a US election (by showing the DNC actually did manipulate an election!). Next we will have our intelligence services and perhaps "trusted sources" like Curveball informing us Putin did it. Will Theresa May quickly crank out a dossier and some posh-sounding Brits confirm the HWD allegations? Obama will have to hurry to get the war going in time but Colin Powell will be called out of retirement to present the hacking evidence to the UN. Putin will be given a deadline for surrendering ALL his HMD. UN inspectors will sent in but not find any traces of HMD. Debka and the New York Times will insist Putin is hiding his HMD in the Moscow metro or perhaps he has sent them all to a third-party nation for safekeeping? The Washington Post will remind us of how the Kurds were brutalized by HMD cracking into the PKK's main servers. The tension will build to an unbearable crescendo.

    Finally, and regretfully, in October, Operation Data Security will be launched. After a very brief but exceedingly violent confrontation, In the end no HMD will be found in Russia. On the other hand since most of the tens of millions of US soldiers who died were drafted from working class families, the war will be declared a victory anyway since now Trump does not have hardly any angry working class whites left to vote for him!

    hemeantwell , July 28, 2016 at 8:58 am

    yesterday it was "Trump has finally blown up his campaign."

    CNBC doesn't think so, but then bogs down in "he grabbed the headlines with the help of tactically foolish Dems."
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/27/the-democrats-just-fell-for-trumps-russian-email-hack-bait-commentary.html

    There's much more to it than that. If you don't kneejerk it away, it asks you to consider that the government can't be relied upon to thoroughly pursue the charges against her. It also builds on what has been, to me, the surprising acceptance that the Wikileaks DNC emails are valid, not fabricated. It then dissolves the honorific constraints indignantly invoked by the Times re "investigating a former secretary of state," exposing those invocations as rationalizing a coverup. In short, it treats her as a perp for whom we need reliable informants to help bring down, and we need to rely on the Russians/Wikileaks, not the Times, or the Post, or the AG.

    I think we're looking at a 5-star legitimation crisis accelerator.

    notabanker , July 28, 2016 at 5:56 am

    Regardless of your political persuasion, do yourself a favor and watch this: http://www.zerodaysfilm.com/ It's on netflix.

    Then afterwards ask your self "Do I want a PR Campaign Manager explaining the origin of this hack to me?"

    ArkansasAngie , July 28, 2016 at 6:34 am

    If Russia has Clinton's emails … I do want them to release them.

    If Chuck Norris has them I want Chuck to release them.

    The very idea that our Government has them (read NSA) and will not release them because they would damage Clinton scares me a whole lot more than the idea that espionage today includes hacking unsecured servers.

    So … please … pretty please … whoever has them … release them.

    EndOfTheWorld , July 28, 2016 at 6:52 am

    One of the e mails said the price of a private dinner with Hill is $200,000. Wow. In my case, I wouldn't give two cents for this. In fact, she would have to pay me at least a few grand, and I would split the scene as soon as possible.

    Arizona Slim , July 28, 2016 at 7:59 am

    For a private dinner, will she deliver one of her Goldman Sachs speeches?

    Roger Smith , July 28, 2016 at 7:07 am

    Come with me if you will, on a journey…

    1. Donald Trump is a fascist demagogue
    2. Donald Trump is Hitler, Super Hitler, a Devil
    3. Donald Trump is being aided by Russia and loves Putin
    4. Donald Trump is guilt of treason, is a Russian agent
    5. Bill Clinton mostly likely gave Trump advice and/or encouragement to run in the 2016 race

    Break them glass ceilings….

    Roger Smith , July 28, 2016 at 7:50 am

    …the same way children's Karate demonstrations use pre-cut boards.

    I am not saying Trump is a spoiler, I am saying this is all planned charade, and an unintentional Monty Python routine.

    Hacker , July 28, 2016 at 7:25 am

    Team,

    I apologize for not being able to dig into this as much as I'd like. Yesterday, the loggers at my remote doomstead dropped some trees on one of the garden plots and the day job as an Information Security manager hasn't been much easier.

    There is a decent, but still biased thus not linked, article on ArsTechnica "How DNC, Clinton campaign attacks fit into Russia's cyber-war strategy" that provides better evidence that the DNC was targeted by the Russians. That alone doesn't link the Russians to the release and I haven't had the time to dig deeply into the evidence to fully understand it.

    That article also goes into stated Russian doctrine about intent to use whatever means necessary to, in my words, protect themselves. As it is pretty obvious to me that America is the global bully these days.

    So we've got a DNC using whatever underhanded tactics it can draw upon to corrupt democracy. Yet both Hillary at the State and then the DNC for the primaries do practically nothing to protect themselves from state actors who have declared an intention to do the same? That sounds like a foreign policy blindspot that should be a disqualifier.

    Yves Smith , July 28, 2016 at 7:58 am

    I need to turn in, but this article has a lot of fact-checking on additional claims and finds them sorely wanting:

    https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/can-facts-slow-the-dnc-breach-runaway-train-lets-try-14040ac68a55#.vi9r6suwz

    Direction , July 28, 2016 at 11:19 am

    Not really. Carr is putting down a British professor's sloppy claims that apt28 and apt29 are related to the GRU. But the agencies analysing the breach never pointed to the GRU. Crowd strike suggests FSB or SVR, and fidelis agrees on the involvement of apt28 and apt29 but does not attribute a source. Carr is saying the hack is Russian but could be non governmental.

    Carr is putting up professor rid as a straw man.

    Direction , July 28, 2016 at 11:44 am

    I'm not sure where this Jeffrey Carr guy came from but his company previously indicated the Russians were behind the Sony hack. And his argument was based on linguistic comparisons of the errors made in the English statements issued by the fake group claiming the hack. Not based on code at all. Seems like he's a character that shows up to muddy the waters. Don't assume he's an ally just because his arguments support your thesis.

    The most interesting thing I ran into when looking up the Sony hack was that Sony told everyone to shut up about it in December and threatened to sue the media it they persisted with the story. Kinda makes you go hmmmm.

    Anonymous , July 28, 2016 at 7:27 am

    "the blaming was also based on a foreign character set in the data (though Hangul, not Korean)."

    Hangul is the Korean alphabet. Not sure why the distinction.

    visitor , July 28, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Indeed, probably a glitch in the description.

    I suspect the author meant that the encoding used in the files represented the standard Hangul character set (used in South Korea), and not the variant of the Hangul character set used in North Korea (which differs in the number and ordering of characters, and hence is encoded differently).

    Anyway, CJK character sets and encodings are just hell. I absolutely see Clive's file encoded in EUC-JP or Shift_JIS royally screwing up the CMS editor of NakedCapitalism.

    Roland , July 28, 2016 at 7:39 am

    Clinton is trying to market herself as the Serious/Safe candidate, and instead her campaign is acting all CT hysterical. This whole Putin-hack thing is sabotaging her own brand.

    Today, while reading Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables , I unexpectedly came across a passage which fittingly describes the DNC:

    They are practiced politicians, every man of them, and skilled to adjust those preliminary measures which steal from the people, without its knowledge, the power of choosing its own rulers…This little knot of subtle schemers will control the convention, and, through it, dictate to the party.

    And Hawthorne was a Democrat, too!i

    JTMcPhee , July 28, 2016 at 8:23 am

    Maybe Will Rogers was off the beam, then, given current events and past performance, with his comment that "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat!"

    At least as to the people close to the center of the beast, the ones who use the parties as just a set of tools to keep the mopes in check…

    NotTimothyGeithner , July 28, 2016 at 9:14 am

    Hillary's brand was always just branding. In 2007, she ran as the candidate ready to take that 3 am phone call because of her experience. What experience? Selecting White House China for state functions? Raising money for the White House restoration? I liked the Christmas decorations Hillary had. Her followers believed her brand would win the day, and they simply ignored Obama largely won because of Hillary's poor foreign policy record.

    Pat , July 28, 2016 at 10:52 am

    So she went out and bargained herself into State to get the foreign policy experience and now has a record on it that should have every sane person saying keep her away from sharp objects and things that go boom. Instead we once again have her running on taking that 3 am phone call while her team is acting like the twelve year old whose parents told her there are monsters home alone for the first time thinking that the refrigerator is a monster because she never heard it cycle on before.

    I have no respect for her average supporter. And even less respect for the press. The contempt the people who really pull the strings in her camp show they obviously have little regard for the intelligence of either group.

    John Wright , July 28, 2016 at 8:52 am

    After all the "democracy" promotion the USA has done around the world, perhaps the entire DNC hack should be re-cast as an attempt to determine exactly how the USA democracy functions by a curious group.

    This is somewhat akin to an interested grad student, as the hackers may have thought "Why not find how a professional democratic organization, the Democratic National Committee, works?"

    After the hackers were "shocked, shocked" when they saw the true operation of the DNC, then they decided to leak the information. This could suggest the leak may have been done, not to harm USA democracy, but to improve it by getting the DNC to behave in a fair and ethical manner in the future.

    Instead, we've watched the DNC, while not denying their documented behavior, argue that their behavior should not have been exposed by an alleged "wrong" group.

    Perhaps more damaging blackmail information is being saved to use against HRC if she is elected?

    lb , July 28, 2016 at 9:53 am

    The Democratic Party establishment is selling a used car knowing there's no way of getting a verifiable title history for the vehicle. To weave the narrative here, a few basic statements are made which may (perhaps) be technically true, as a foundation, but perhaps grossly misleadingly so.

    Perhaps at least one Russian at some point hacked the DNC. It is implied that _only_ this/these Russians hacked the DNC. It is implied that the WikiLeaks doc-dump came from this same set of people. "An IP address was found" is a very passive statement then used similarly. It's possible a templatized kit had a default address (maybe even commented out) and was used in more than one place. Kits like this may be used by a single player or entity (in the case of a state actor, perhaps, though it seems potentially sloppy) or may be used by someone who purchased them or stole them from someone else. Only a few leading statements, eliding particular details, are necessary to promulgate a crafted narrative, when injected into the echo chamber and laundered through friendly or credulous security firms for expert confirmation.

    I would be curious to know when the Russian hack was supposed to have happened. I would also be curious what other hacks of the DNC are believed to have or known to have happened. It might even be interesting to know whether particular individuals' accounts or machines were compromised on the way in, as the incestuous relationships between Democratic Party organizations make it quite possible such a compromise might cross to another organization and increase the likelihood of compromise there. I'm imagining a future Clinton Foundation document dump, perhaps.

    Watt4Bob , July 28, 2016 at 10:08 am

    I haven't read any comments that highlight the smell of extreme desperation coming from the Clinton camp?

    Sanders efforts had already gotten the DNC droogs soiling their pants, add Trumps momentum and likely trajectory to the mix, and this is what you get, panic, and poor judgement.

    I expect internal leaks and dissertions from the campaign soon.

    cj51 , July 28, 2016 at 11:16 am

    NC had a story 7/27 that said Snowden said the NSA can easily figure out if/who hacked DNC emails and Binney agreed.
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/nsa-whistleblower-not-so-fast-on-claims-russia-behind-dnc-email-hack.html

    Brian G , July 28, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    Regarding Claudio Guarnieri's claim.

    https://netzpolitik.org/2015/digital-attack-on-german-parliament-investigative-report-on-the-hack-of-the-left-party-infrastructure-in-bundestag/

    While attribution of malware attacks is rarely simple or conclusive, during the course of this investigation I uncovered evidence that suggests the attacker might be affiliated with the state-sponsored group known as Sofacy Group (also known as APT28 or Operation Pawn Storm). Although we are unable to provide details in support of such attribution, previous work by security vendor FireEye suggests the group might be of Russian origin, however no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country.

    Sofacy, aka Fancy Bear, is a well known Advanced Persistent Threat. APTs are generally regarded government backed given their abilities and resources but it is not always verifiable. Sofacy generally focuses on NATO aligned government and military sites and has also focused on Ukrainian targets in recent years.

    So it cannot be 100% confirmed that the Russian government is involved, it is the most likely backer of the hacking group.

    Which does not mean that Trump had any knowledge or involvement in the attack or that the Russians are necessarily backing Trump.

    Butch In Waukegan , July 28, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    Case closed. Three, count 'em, three!

    U.S. Theory On Democratic Party Breach: Hackers Meant To Leave Russia's Mark Huffpo

    Some U.S. intelligence officials suspect that Russian hackers who broke into Democratic Party computers may have deliberately left digital fingerprints to show Moscow is a "cyberpower" that Washington should respect.

    Three officials, all speaking on condition of anonymity, said the breaches of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were less sophisticated than other cyber intrusions that have been traced to Russian intelligence agencies or criminals.

    sunny 129 , July 28, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    NO has no clue re DNC e-mail leak! how or who did it. Just narration of speculations!

    If one watches ' ZERO DAYS' docu on how STUXNET/worm/olypic game was invented/manufactured by the combined efforts of US – cyber command @NSA, +CIA and Isralei intelligence +UK?) and planted into the NET in bringing down the Iran's Nucl program, most of us are way, way behind in understanding cyber terrorism! They were clueless and firing their Nucl experts for incompetence!

    There is extensive discussion of that subject by various NET security Cos incl Symantec, Kaparnisky (russia), Israeli cyber terrorism expert, even officials/non officials from NSA, cyber command, CIA, all over the World

    It is NOT THAT EASY to trace the hacker's foot prints! This was about 6-8 years ago! WE all are just groping in the dark, like 7 blind men describing the 'elephant'!

    [Jul 28, 2016] This propaganda is for retards

    Notable quotes:
    "... This propaganda is for retards. They make it sound like hacking is trivial. Maybe if the idiot administrators of the DNC computers left them without passwords. I have overseen web attached computer systems at a university for over 20 years and have never had them hacked. Disable all the vulnerable daemons and block most ports. Run a firewall and regulate SSH access. They have tried but they never succeeded. ..."
    "... Then we have the obvious one: if the hackers are from Russia, then so what? Does Putin tell every Russian hacker what to do. Perhaps Putin personally hacked these servers. Those system logs have exactly zero to say about who are the hackers. Only Hollywood fiction does the cyber realm extend into the physical realm. Then the issue is why is incriminating evidence of Democratic Party wrongdoing Russia's problem? Seriously, why is the screeching about Russian hacking and not Russian "fraud" or something else? What happened to transparency? These alleged Russian hackers did not release personal information. They released information of wrong doing in a public organization. ..."
    "... Same-same likee FireEye, which said almost word-for-word the same tired old shit back in 2014, when the Russians supposedly hacked some other U.S. system. Coded during working hours in Moscow, just as if (1) hackers keep normal working hours like accountants and grocery clerks, and (2) Moscow is the only place in the world at Moscow's latitude. There's only an hour's difference between Moscow and Jerusalem, for example. And although the coding of the malware was brilliant, causing seasoned professionals to shake their heads in admiration…once again, the Russians slipped up, and coded on Cyrillic keyboards. Sure they did. But I'll let you read the article. ..."
    "... When Captain Dickhead says "I'm sure beyond a reasonable doubt", what he means is, "Nobody can prove I'm not sure, because nobody knows". And everyone in the west will believe poor Hillary is the victim of the dastardly Russians, no problem, although the screwing Bernie Sanders got is likely to be much more on their minds come voting time, and not where the information came from. Is somebody else interested in the outcome of the U.S. election besides Russia? You decide. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Northern Star , July 25, 2016 at 3:22 pm
    Despite the confident reports from the several respected cybersecurity firms, cybersecurity expert Kenneth Geers said he's cautious about blaming the Russians so squarely.
    ***Attribution in the case of cyber attacks is notoriously difficult to nail down***. "
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/reasonable-doubt-russians-hacked-dnc-analyst/story?id=40863292
    kirill , July 25, 2016 at 8:52 pm
    This propaganda is for retards. They make it sound like hacking is trivial. Maybe if the idiot administrators of the DNC computers left them without passwords. I have overseen web attached computer systems at a university for over 20 years and have never had them hacked. Disable all the vulnerable daemons and block most ports. Run a firewall and regulate SSH access. They have tried but they never succeeded.

    If the DNC computers are configured like Hillary's personal email server then this is deliberate. They claim that the hackers are from Russia but they have zero evidence. Some IP logs can be faked without any effort. It's not like there is some bank level security over system logs.

    Then we have the obvious one: if the hackers are from Russia, then so what? Does Putin tell every Russian hacker what to do. Perhaps Putin personally hacked these servers. Those system logs have exactly zero to say about who are the hackers. Only Hollywood fiction does the cyber realm extend into the physical realm. Then the issue is why is incriminating evidence of Democratic Party wrongdoing Russia's problem? Seriously, why is the screeching about Russian hacking and not Russian "fraud" or something else? What happened to transparency? These alleged Russian hackers did not release personal information. They released information of wrong doing in a public organization.

    marknesop , July 25, 2016 at 10:10 pm
    Remind you of anything? Same-same likee FireEye, which said almost word-for-word the same tired old shit back in 2014, when the Russians supposedly hacked some other U.S. system. Coded during working hours in Moscow, just as if (1) hackers keep normal working hours like accountants and grocery clerks, and (2) Moscow is the only place in the world at Moscow's latitude. There's only an hour's difference between Moscow and Jerusalem, for example. And although the coding of the malware was brilliant, causing seasoned professionals to shake their heads in admiration…once again, the Russians slipped up, and coded on Cyrillic keyboards. Sure they did. But I'll let you read the article.

    When Captain Dickhead says "I'm sure beyond a reasonable doubt", what he means is, "Nobody can prove I'm not sure, because nobody knows". And everyone in the west will believe poor Hillary is the victim of the dastardly Russians, no problem, although the screwing Bernie Sanders got is likely to be much more on their minds come voting time, and not where the information came from. Is somebody else interested in the outcome of the U.S. election besides Russia? You decide.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Lets bash Russia and Putin at every chance we get

    www.moonofalabama.org
    Zico | Jul 24, 2016 10:42:09 AM | 1
    M of A - Clinton Asserts Putin Influence On Trump - After Taking Russian Bribes

    Off topic but still within context of the West's "lets bash Russia/Putin at every chance we get"..

    Seems the BBC and their assorted groupies just got eggs all over their collective faces after the IOC ruled that Russian athletes can compete in the olympics. The British press are crying foul - dunno if they're afraid of losing to Russian athlete or something.

    This whole doping thing stunk from day one.. All the accusers pretends they never dope before. But then, anything to humiliate Russia and Putin will do. How many American athletes have been caught doping - yet nobody called for a blanket ban on the American Olympic team. The hypocrisy is just beyond stupid!!!

    Watch this space, won't be long before we see a campaign to oust the current OIC chief..lol

    dh | Jul 24, 2016 12:07:52 PM | 7
    okie farmer posted this on the US election thread...

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/23/pers-j23.html

    Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing.

    Only Jedi Knights can stop him.

    fast freddy | Jul 24, 2016 12:10:28 PM | 8
    Clinton/Kaine certainly confident that the MSM will not report.

    For all the money given to the Clinton's it didn't prevent the Ukraine disasters. Of course, Ukraine may not have been a concern among the particular oligarchs who made these bribes.

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:24:40 PM | 11
    For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.

    Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."

    Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -

    Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"

    Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media is not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this country, blah blah blah..."

    "[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."

    So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them.

    UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!

    His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest.

    I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral.

    Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are.

    If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.

    Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for!

    From The Hague | Jul 24, 2016 1:30:38 PM | 12
    PERIES: So let's take a look at this article by Paul Krugman. Where is he going with this analysis about the Siberian candidate?

    HUDSON: Well, Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and they're terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century the Republican Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that. Reversing the whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons.

    Until his speech, the whole Republican Convention, every speaker had avoided dealing with economic policy issues. No one referred to the party platform, which isn't very good. And it was mostly an attack on Hillary. Chants of "lock her up." And Trump children, aimed to try to humanize him and make him look like a loving man.

    But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders.

    So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the only kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country. We're not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even talking about that. So let's be realistic.

    Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy.

    http://www.unz.com/mhudson/trump-policy-will-unravel-traditional-neocons/

    The same used to be true of Iran. This reminds me of a spoof I read years ago where Jesus General writes a letter to Iran requesting that they fix a pothole in his street.

    Posted by: Edward | Jul 24, 2016 1:30:58 PM | 13

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:39:54 PM | 14
    From Bloomberg - "If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies, they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person familiar with the party's thinking said'

    Ha! Fat chance. I'm thinking the American voter is going to start sending Thank You notes to the Kremlin! As usual, their heads are stuck so far up the arse of their donkey they incapable of gauging Main Street sentiment.

    juliania | Jul 24, 2016 1:49:12 PM | 15
    Hold on there, Clintonites - Both I and the World remember seeing Madame Clinton herrself hand ovee to Puting that gigantic red Reset button.

    C'mon, World - you SAW that, right?

    So now, of course - he's resetting EVERYTHING!

    And you, dear lady, you gave it to him!


    I rest my case.

    ALberto | Jul 24, 2016 1:49:20 PM | 16
    July 24, 2016 - You cannot make this stuff up ...

    "During his recent visit to Moscow, US Secretary of State John Kerry voiced several preconditions for US-Russia cooperation in Syria.

    According to Lavrov, Kerry called for the immediate resignation of Syrian President Assad without giving any explanation of his position.

    "They say that we could join our efforts in the fight against terrorism […] but first we need to agree that we remove Assad from power," Lavrov said, speaking at a national youth educational forum."

    source - http://www.globalresearch.ca/john-kerry-demands-regime-change-in-syria-as-a-precondition-for-us-russia-cooperation-lavrov/5537623

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:58:17 PM | 17
    Sanders calls for Schultz to step down.

    Funny though, Schultz takes her orders from Obama, as the Chairman of the Party, the DNC Board of Directors and team Hillary. Period. If any blame should go around it should splash onto all individuals NOT just Schultz.

    She is buy a symptom of the DNC disease. And yes, she'll take the fall for the team, but make no mistake, the cancer remains and will continue to metastasize.

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:59:18 PM | 18
    Should read 'but' not 'buy'.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 24, 2016 2:04:11 PM | 19
    @h

    And make no mistake, Sanders knows how the Democratic Party works and supports it anyway.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 24, 2016 2:07:42 PM | 20
    ALberto @16

    Exactly as expected. But that doesn't make it any less onerous.

    juliania | Jul 24, 2016 2:10:32 PM | 21
    Apologies for misspells - 'over' not 'ovee'; Putin, not Puting. Gee whiz. But obviously, that is the problem with US policy - they don't have that blankety-blank reset button any longer. Please give it back!

    hejiminy cricket | Jul 24, 2016 2:11:00 PM | 22
    Yes the reset button with "peregruzka", Russian for "overcharged"

    Clinton: We worked hard to get the right russian word. Do you think we got it right?

    Lavrov: You've got it wrong.

    Sick woman.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2009/03/peregruzka-016614

    From The Hague | Jul 24, 2016 2:13:59 PM | 23
    Neocons/Nato will at least be troubled about Trump's stand on Russia/Putin.

    Maybe they are planning some faits accomplis?

    Relevant dates in this dangerous situation:
    November 8, 2016
    January 20, 2017

    And what is this?:
    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/09/germany-preparing-for-war-against-russia.html

    h | Jul 24, 2016 2:21:36 PM | 24
    @19 yeah, and that should give said supporters great pause. I've seen suggestions made that he was running to gain the youth vote so as to deliver them in Nov to Hillary. I'm not convinced by that suggestion BUT if he was a set up, and Wikileak emails can show it, well, all bets are off.

    And why Sanders is only singling out Schultz is disingenuous. Any who have engaged in electoral politics in this country learn quickly the party's hierarchy. It starts with Obama, the DNC's Board of Directors and then Wasserman Schultz in that order. Sanders knows this. Schultz didn't run a rogue party.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 24, 2016 2:28:41 PM | 25
    h @11:
    His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome.
    You are assuming that Sanders is a victim instead of a conspirator.

    Why would anyone give any politician in our corrupt system the benefit of the doubt? Even one that seems to be against 'the system'?

    Why didn't Bernie release more than one year of tax returns?
    Especially since Hillary cited this as a reason not to release the transcripts of her speaches to Goldman Sachs.

    Why didn't Bernie use the emails against Hillary after the State Department Inspector General released their report?
    This official report clearly demonstrated that Hillary had consistently misled the nation about her emails.

    Why didn't Bernie attack Obama's record on Black/Minority affairs?
    Obama's support is part of the reason that Blacks/Minorities were voting for Hillary. Obama never went to Feruson or New York or Baltimore. Obama's weak economic stimulous and austerity policies have been very bad for blacks/minorities. Obama bailed out banks that targeted minorities for toxic loans. Etc.

    Why does Bernie, at 74-years old, care more about Hillary (which he calls a friend of 25 years) and the Democratic Party than his principles?
    AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a cabinet position for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary. He doesn't have to speak at the Convention (but he will tonight).

    505thPIR | Jul 24, 2016 2:33:50 PM | 26
    Why wouldn't he try to do this?

    SmoothieX12 | Jul 24, 2016 2:42:26 PM | 27
    Putin is god--it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls the weather and even Earth's rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now, with the advancement of information technologies (also controlled by Putin--ah yes, he, not Al Gore, invented the internet) decadent West can witness his powers and omnipresence. Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main break in NYT--also Putin. I had a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got rid of constipation and back to normal BMs--Putin's hand was definitely in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+ minutes you will see Putin's image surfacing on her face.

    Erelis | Jul 24, 2016 5:19:58 PM | 41
    In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various insitute, academic, etc. conferences he attended as an academic which I believe has effected his later known books. He noted among other things, that there was an inability for empathic thinking. He did not mean sympathy, but rather the act of trying to understand the actions of other people. I think the phrase is to treat people as rational actors. As horrific as Hitler was, historians dug into his motivations for example, for his invasion of the Soviet Union.

    So we get with Putin not a rational understanding of what he does and why, but rather cartoon psychological and religious explanations which cannot be argued against as they defy rationality. How can one argue against people calling Putin evil as that person has not invoked a rational argument.

    The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of the same playbook republicans and the neocons used to fertilize the field of popular belief for the justification of war and invasion of Iraq to the American people (but now followed by democrats). Every one of those articles is a bit of propaganda manure which will eventually sprout the seeds of conflict and war.

    ToivoS | Jul 24, 2016 7:07:06 PM | 48
    What I find alarming about all of this Putin bashing and Hillary using it in her campaign is that I am seeing many of my acquaintances who identify as liberal/progressive Democrats are becoming more and more anti-Russian. By the time she becomes president there will be a majority of Democrats clamoring for war against Russia. This is something to worry about. Recall that liberal Democrat Truman got us involved in the Korean war and it was liber LBJ that led us to war in Vietnam. I recall very clearly how the liberal press in the US was advocating for and supporting war in Vietnam between 1964 and 1968. The liberalists of all liberal Democrats Hubert Humphrey was leading that charge.

    Democratic Party partisans are losing their common sense in this effort to back Clinton. A year ago I could carry on rational discussion with those I know about how unwise our Ukraine policy is -- today when I try to defend Russia I am accused of backing Trump.

    Akira | Jul 24, 2016 7:09:57 PM | 49
    Hello Comrades,

    Since the stupid secret encryption rings don't work after the last update, I have prepared our usual weekly PUTIN CONSPIRACY SITREP on the web:

    https://4threvolutionarywar.wordpress.com/2016/07/24/14066/


    We are winning! Rub it in!

    ruralito | Jul 24, 2016 7:53:33 PM | 54
    I like a good meme as much as the next guy, but there wasn't any putin-did-it in that Reuters article about the ferry accident in NY.

    brian | Jul 24, 2016 8:35:27 PM | 57
    'But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin is infiltrating Europe. And not only Europe.'

    US regime would never infiltrate europe...its already there!

    Jen | Jul 24, 2016 9:02:42 PM | 59
    All I can say here is ... this is Sheer Comedy Gold.

    Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up.

    Thank you B.

    PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day?

    likklemore | Jul 24, 2016 9:18:34 PM | 60
    @ Jen 59

    PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day?

    He refreshes, reboots his energy and surveys all that he has done; here, there and everywhere on planets known or yet to be discovered.

    Yesterday we had severe thunderstorms. Mr. Putin made mischief.

    dh | Jul 24, 2016 9:45:37 PM | 62
    @60 He really is versatile. No sooner had he finished rigging the Brexit vote than he was off to France in a truck. Then he was spotted in Kabul. This week he has been busy making trouble in Germany and he still finds time to fake HRC's emails. The man must be stopped!

    V. Arnold | Jul 24, 2016 9:53:00 PM | 63
    SmoothieX12 | Jul 24, 2016 2:42:26 PM | 27

    Yes, yes, it's all true; Vladimir Putin, master of the universe; the Whirlwind; omnipotent; everywhere and nowhere all at the same time.
    I'm so glad people are waking up to reality. :-)

    Erelis | Jul 24, 2016 10:23:02 PM | 64
    @ ToivoS 48

    Indeed. Democrats have become hysterical and unhinged in all things regarding Clinton. I have been reading a few Democrat partisan sites. With the DNC blaming Putin/Russians for the release of the DNC emails, the partisans are demanding what amounts to McCarthy era witch hunts, and some strong immediate NATO action against the Russians for the evil act. One supporter had a posting showing how the Russians plan to invade the Baltics with graphics showing the invasion route--good grief. It is curious to see that those not buying the propaganda are drawing comparisons to the witch hunts of the 1950s'.

    When I post or talk to partisan Dems I don't get accused of supporting Trump but called a Putin lackey/stooge.

    @ Relis 44

    Thanks for quote-will use it . You did something readers of anti-Russian/Putin propaganda don't do. Actually listen to or read what Putin says. I am still puzzled even though I shouldn't be when I read descriptions of Putin in the Western media, and then read what he actually said or acted on: two people from two different planets. I was listening to Stephen Cohen, and he said the same thing. Nobody bothers to read what Putin says, forget his actions.

    Putin should hire an agent and get a role on the TV series SHIELD as the new head of HYDRA. And then attend comic-cons giving out autographs.

    Cho Nyawinh | Jul 24, 2016 11:39:29 PM | 67
    49

    Putin, Putin, Putin.

    Now that the NYC Mob has secured the Goldman-Trump-Clinton hat trick in November, after which a 5th Chosen Supreme Court Justice for Life assures a tie-winning Tribal 55% majority of Torahia law in the USA, with not a single Protestant Justice on the bench, and knowing now it's in the bag, fahged abahd et, now the NYC Mob has already begun the takedown of non-Tribal banks like HSBC and 1MDB, following a lull of eight years since the Lehman takedown, after which They precipitated the greatest financial piracy in human history: the wholesale transfer of adulterated synthetic CDO gambling debts, by the private Fed Bank, onto the public US Treasury, ...during which not a single Tribal member was ever indicted, ... but now the arrests are happening fast and furious among their foreign banking competition, as S&P's credit rating arm is holding a gun to Brexit.

    "I can't tell you where all the money went!" Benhamin

    Once the NYC Mob has Trump-Clinton in the WH and the Tribe owns the Executive, then swings the Judicial to 55% Tribal sovereignty, so that the Tribe owns Justice too, then our poor Congress-critters will have to stand and clap for Bibi until the blood literally runs down their arms, and yet still not one of them will dare to stop clapping first, because it would be career and financial suicide to 'vote your conscience' against the Trotskyim.

    You know this will all come to pass in just six months from now, after which Trump-Clinton of The Chosen, Mr. Law-and-Order-Shekinah and Ms We-Came-We-Saw-He-Died-Haw-Haw-Haw, will launch their all-out attack on Russia, over the roads and bridges of Eastern Ukraine, which even now the World Bank is rapidly upgrading to combat capacity for missile launchers, troop carriers and heavy tanks. Right now. Because that's what Tribal juntas do! Look closely at the junta in Kiev that Congress in 2015 grifted $50,000M of your last life savings to, Kiev, traditional home of Ashkenazim who spawned 1998, 2001, 2008 and 2011. They're warlords.

    But the Sheeple are so conditioned to live in fear, and never speak about Those Who Cannot Be Named, that the Sheeple will remain willfully ignorant while the mortgage credit-debt ring is bound through their nose, the school-debt tag punched in their ear, and 'Six-Kinds-of-Stupid' tattoed on their forearms, and their children sent off to fight in foreign wars.

    Tribal historians will completely rewrite the US annals, claiming The West Was Tamed by the Chosen, that the Chosen raised up the American Heathen and taught them to Read and Write and to Pokemon Go, and that there never was an 'American Dream', ...that Xtian Kulaks were just illegal Dreamers in what was always Greater New Zion, the same as Bolshevik Chosen slaved 60,000,000 Christian Russians to death, and destroyed 20,000 churches, then wiped out 1,000 years of Russian history.

    Today there is only the Now, the Dharma of the Chosen:

    "We won, you lost. It's just business, get over it. Now get off my land." שלוש מאות

    Putin had nothing to do with it. He was just another oligarch in Their crosshairs.

    Fort-Russ has the video of ' Putin's full speech ' at St. Petersburg International Economic Forum - 2016 with subtitles, I transcribed the subtitles , if any one else is interested in reading what he actually said on the subject of the US auto-missile defense in Romania and Poland.

    Posted by: jfl | Jul 25, 2016 1:25:28 AM | 70

    V. Arnold | Jul 25, 2016 2:14:00 AM | 71
    jfl | Jul 25, 2016 1:25:28 AM | 70

    Thanks for the links. I distrust almost all media; so, I listen to unedited complete speeches by Pres. Putin whenever possible. His (Putin's) talk at Valdi in 2014 was great;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXh6HgJIPHo

    jfl | Jul 25, 2016 3:23:28 AM | 75
    @71 VA,

    Thanks for the link. I have Putin at the general assembly last year, too, if you're interested. One of my favorites :)

    [Jul 28, 2016] Putin is God -- it is well-known scientific fact

    Notable quotes:
    "... Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing. ..."
    "... Hold on there, Clintonites - Both I and the World remember seeing Madame Clinton herself hand over to Putin that gigantic red Reset button. ..."
    "... So now, of course - he's resetting EVERYTHING! And you, dear lady, you gave it to him! I rest my case. ..."
    "... Putin is god--it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls the weather and even Earth's rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now, with the advancement of information technologies (also controlled by Putin--ah yes, he, not Al Gore, invented the internet) decadent West can witness his powers and omnipresence. Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main break in NYT--also Putin. I had a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got rid of constipation and back to normal BMs--Putin's hand was definitely in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+ minutes you will see Putin's image surfacing on her face. ..."
    "... In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various institutes, academic, etc. conferences he attended as an academic which I believe has effected his later known books. He noted among other things, that there was an inability for empathic thinking. He did not mean sympathy, but rather the act of trying to understand the actions of other people. I think the phrase is to treat people as rational actors. As horrific as Hitler was, historians dug into his motivations for example, for his invasion of the Soviet Union. ..."
    "... The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of the same playbook republicans and the neocons used to fertilize the field of popular belief for the justification of war and invasion of Iraq to the American people (but now followed by democrats). Every one of those articles is a bit of propaganda manure which will eventually sprout the seeds of conflict and war. ..."
    "... What I find alarming about all of this Putin bashing and Hillary using it in her campaign is that I am seeing many of my acquaintances who identify as liberal/progressive Democrats are becoming more and more anti-Russian. ..."
    "... I like a good meme as much as the next guy, but there wasn't any putin-did-it in that Reuters article about the ferry accident in NY. ..."
    "... 'But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin is infiltrating Europe. And not only Europe.' US regime would never infiltrate europe...its already there! ..."
    "... All I can say here is ... this is Sheer Comedy Gold. Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up. ..."
    "... PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day? ..."
    "... @60 He really is versatile. No sooner had he finished rigging the Brexit vote than he was off to France in a truck. Then he was spotted in Kabul. This week he has been busy making trouble in Germany and he still finds time to fake HRC's emails. The man must be stopped! ..."
    "... Indeed. Democrats have become hysterical and unhinged in all things regarding Clinton. I have been reading a few Democrat partisan sites. With the DNC blaming Putin/Russians for the release of the DNC emails, the partisans are demanding what amounts to McCarthy era witch hunts, and some strong immediate NATO action against the Russians for the evil act. One supporter had a posting showing how the Russians plan to invade the Baltics with graphics showing the invasion route -- good grief. It is curious to see that those not buying the propaganda are drawing comparisons to the witch hunts of the 1950s'. ..."
    "... When I post or talk to partisan Dems I don't get accused of supporting Trump but called a Putin lackey/stooge. ..."
    "... Thanks for quote-will use it . You did something readers of anti-Russian/Putin propaganda don't do. Actually listen to or read what Putin says. I am still puzzled even though I shouldn't be when I read descriptions of Putin in the Western media, and then read what he actually said or acted on: two people from two different planets. I was listening to Stephen Cohen, and he said the same thing. Nobody bothers to read what Putin says, forget his actions. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Zico | Jul 24, 2016 10:42:09 AM | 1
    M of A - Clinton Asserts Putin Influence On Trump - After Taking Russian Bribes

    Off topic but still within context of the West's "lets bash Russia/Putin at every chance we get"..

    Seems the BBC and their assorted groupies just got eggs all over their collective faces after the IOC ruled that Russian athletes can compete in the olympics. The British press are crying foul - dunno if they're afraid of losing to Russian athlete or something.

    This whole doping thing stunk from day one.. All the accusers pretends they never dope before. But then, anything to humiliate Russia and Putin will do. How many American athletes have been caught doping - yet nobody called for a blanket ban on the American Olympic team. The hypocrisy is just beyond stupid!!!

    Watch this space, won't be long before we see a campaign to oust the current OIC chief..lol

    dh | Jul 24, 2016 12:07:52 PM | 7
    okie farmer posted this on the US election thread...

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/23/pers-j23.html

    Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing.

    Only Jedi Knights can stop him.

    fast freddy | Jul 24, 2016 12:10:28 PM | 8
    Clinton/Kaine certainly confident that the MSM will not report. For all the money given to the Clinton's it didn't prevent the Ukraine disasters. Of course, Ukraine may not have been a concern among the particular oligarchs who made these bribes.
    juliania | Jul 24, 2016 1:49:12 PM | 15
    Hold on there, Clintonites - Both I and the World remember seeing Madame Clinton herself hand over to Putin that gigantic red Reset button.

    C'mon, World - you SAW that, right?

    So now, of course - he's resetting EVERYTHING! And you, dear lady, you gave it to him! I rest my case.

    SmoothieX12 | Jul 24, 2016 2:42:26 PM | 27
    Putin is god--it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls the weather and even Earth's rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now, with the advancement of information technologies (also controlled by Putin--ah yes, he, not Al Gore, invented the internet) decadent West can witness his powers and omnipresence. Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main break in NYT--also Putin. I had a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got rid of constipation and back to normal BMs--Putin's hand was definitely in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+ minutes you will see Putin's image surfacing on her face.
    Erelis | Jul 24, 2016 5:19:58 PM | 41
    In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various institutes, academic, etc. conferences he attended as an academic which I believe has effected his later known books. He noted among other things, that there was an inability for empathic thinking. He did not mean sympathy, but rather the act of trying to understand the actions of other people. I think the phrase is to treat people as rational actors. As horrific as Hitler was, historians dug into his motivations for example, for his invasion of the Soviet Union.

    So we get with Putin not a rational understanding of what he does and why, but rather cartoon psychological and religious explanations which cannot be argued against as they defy rationality. How can one argue against people calling Putin evil as that person has not invoked a rational argument.

    The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of the same playbook republicans and the neocons used to fertilize the field of popular belief for the justification of war and invasion of Iraq to the American people (but now followed by democrats). Every one of those articles is a bit of propaganda manure which will eventually sprout the seeds of conflict and war.

    ToivoS | Jul 24, 2016 7:07:06 PM | 48
    What I find alarming about all of this Putin bashing and Hillary using it in her campaign is that I am seeing many of my acquaintances who identify as liberal/progressive Democrats are becoming more and more anti-Russian. By the time she becomes president there will be a majority of Democrats clamoring for war against Russia. This is something to worry about. Recall that liberal Democrat Truman got us involved in the Korean war and it was liber LBJ that led us to war in Vietnam. I recall very clearly how the liberal press in the US was advocating for and supporting war in Vietnam between 1964 and 1968. The liberalists of all liberal Democrats Hubert Humphrey was leading that charge.

    Democratic Party partisans are losing their common sense in this effort to back Clinton. A year ago I could carry on rational discussion with those I know about how unwise our Ukraine policy is -- today when I try to defend Russia I am accused of backing Trump.

    Akira | Jul 24, 2016 7:09:57 PM | 49
    Hello Comrades,

    Since the stupid secret encryption rings don't work after the last update, I have prepared our usual weekly PUTIN CONSPIRACY SITREP on the web:

    https://4threvolutionarywar.wordpress.com/2016/07/24/14066/

    We are winning! Rub it in!

    ruralito | Jul 24, 2016 7:53:33 PM | 54
    I like a good meme as much as the next guy, but there wasn't any putin-did-it in that Reuters article about the ferry accident in NY.
    brian | Jul 24, 2016 8:35:27 PM | 57
    'But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin is infiltrating Europe. And not only Europe.' US regime would never infiltrate europe...its already there!
    Jen | Jul 24, 2016 9:02:42 PM | 59
    All I can say here is ... this is Sheer Comedy Gold. Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up.

    Thank you B.

    PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day?

    likklemore | Jul 24, 2016 9:18:34 PM | 60
    @ Jen 59

    PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day?

    He refreshes, reboots his energy and surveys all that he has done; here, there and everywhere on planets known or yet to be discovered.

    Yesterday we had severe thunderstorms. Mr. Putin made mischief.

    dh | Jul 24, 2016 9:45:37 PM | 62
    @60 He really is versatile. No sooner had he finished rigging the Brexit vote than he was off to France in a truck. Then he was spotted in Kabul. This week he has been busy making trouble in Germany and he still finds time to fake HRC's emails. The man must be stopped!
    V. Arnold | Jul 24, 2016 9:53:00 PM | 63
    SmoothieX12 | Jul 24, 2016 2:42:26 PM | 27

    Yes, yes, it's all true; Vladimir Putin, master of the universe; the Whirlwind; omnipotent; everywhere and nowhere all at the same time.
    I'm so glad people are waking up to reality. :-)

    Erelis | Jul 24, 2016 10:23:02 PM | 64
    @ ToivoS 48

    Indeed. Democrats have become hysterical and unhinged in all things regarding Clinton. I have been reading a few Democrat partisan sites. With the DNC blaming Putin/Russians for the release of the DNC emails, the partisans are demanding what amounts to McCarthy era witch hunts, and some strong immediate NATO action against the Russians for the evil act. One supporter had a posting showing how the Russians plan to invade the Baltics with graphics showing the invasion route -- good grief. It is curious to see that those not buying the propaganda are drawing comparisons to the witch hunts of the 1950s'.

    When I post or talk to partisan Dems I don't get accused of supporting Trump but called a Putin lackey/stooge.

    @ Relis 44

    Thanks for quote-will use it . You did something readers of anti-Russian/Putin propaganda don't do. Actually listen to or read what Putin says. I am still puzzled even though I shouldn't be when I read descriptions of Putin in the Western media, and then read what he actually said or acted on: two people from two different planets. I was listening to Stephen Cohen, and he said the same thing. Nobody bothers to read what Putin says, forget his actions.

    Putin should hire an agent and get a role on the TV series SHIELD as the new head of HYDRA. And then attend comic-cons giving out autographs.

    jfl | Jul 25, 2016 1:25:28 AM | 70

    Fort-Russ has the video of ' Putin's full speech ' at St. Petersburg International Economic Forum - 2016 with subtitles, I transcribed the subtitles , if any one else is interested in reading what he actually said on the subject of the US auto-missile defense in Romania and Poland.

    [Jul 28, 2016] The Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, has chosen this week to unmask himself as a de facto agent of Russian President Vladimir Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Oh, there was a whole series of screechy hysterical articles on what a dangerous loose cannon Trump is. They're preaching to the choir here, but they do not seem to realize that arguing against any sort of change in American policy is arguing for more sameness, which is plainly failing. Maybe the American government loves the Kiev government so much because the American government is so much like ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    yalensis , July 23, 2016 at 3:06 am
    "The Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, has chosen this week to unmask himself as a de facto agent of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a KGB-trained dictator who seeks to rebuild the Soviet empire by undermining the free nations of Europe, marginalizing NATO, and ending America's reign as the world's sole superpower."

    And Goldberg says that like it's a bad thing – hee hee!

    Patient Observer , July 23, 2016 at 6:09 am
    Yes!
    marknesop , July 23, 2016 at 1:57 pm
    Oh, there was a whole series of screechy hysterical articles on what a dangerous loose cannon Trump is. They're preaching to the choir here, but they do not seem to realize that arguing against any sort of change in American policy is arguing for more sameness, which is plainly failing. Maybe the American government loves the Kiev government so much because the American government is so much like the Kiev government.

    [Jul 28, 2016] http://www.ukipdaily.com/letters-editor-26th-july-2016/

    Notable quotes:
    "... That's geopolitical consequence number one. Geopolitical consequence number two is that if we are serious about tackling Islamic terrorism, it means we have to stop using such groups to achieve geopolitical goals. Western elites condemn the ideology that has led to deaths throughout Europe but cheer on (and materially aid) groups with the self-same ideology bringing the self-same carnage to Syria as long as those groups aim to depose Assad. Most Western countries but especially the US and the UK, have long and dishonourable histories of using the most aggressive, most blood-thirsty, most socially regressive Islamic groups to achieve foreign policy objectives. ..."
    "... This, I think, touches on something TPTB and the MSM are also reluctant to confront: the relationships between different ethnic groups as opposed to the relationships of those groups to – for want of a better expression – mainstream society. I see this all the time in London where there are often very significant tensions between the many immigrant communities who've settled here. Anyone who observes that these maybe don't bode well for the future, is dismissed as a xenophobe or racist. ..."
    "... The debacle that is the Democratic Convention is hilarity on crack. My favorite part is where Hillary's campaign manager, a testosterone-free simulacrum by the name of Robbie Mooks, gravely warns us that 'experts' have told them the Russians hacked their emails and are releasing them to help Trump. Cue loud laughter! Let's just ignore their comrade in socialism, Bernie, and point to the billionaire capitalist … Of course, nobody knows who did it, so they might as well make it up. Also, if you're still using 'Robbie' after your 12th birthday, you aren't allowed to hunt with the big dogs, get back under the porch. ..."
    "... Make no mistake. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Chair of the Democratic Party) is an appalling human being, period, full stop. But she did exactly what she was hired to do – get Hillary the nomination. ..."
    "... She was fighting the inevitable so Obama made the phone call to 'thank her for her service' and Hillary gave her a nothing burger job title. ..."
    "... The real story, the stench of corruption, isn't coming from there, thouth. It's coming from the emails that show the collusion between the media and the Dems. Also nothing we didn't know, but nobody in the media will lose their position. You know why? Because that crowd thinks it's a trophy to be in cahoots with these politicians. They think they're helping pull the levers of power, and influencing which levers get pulled. The Debbie Wasserman Schultzs of the world are a dime a dozen, but these people need to become intimately acquainted with lamp posts and strong hemp rope. ..."
    Jul 26, 2016 | www.ukipdaily.com
    Following three letters are of general as well as particular interest. The first is from our contributor Reece Haynes:

    Sir,

    Time and again, the Daily Mail's Comment page laments the decline of the Labour Party because "The Daily Mail has never been a Labour-supporting paper but we recognise the vital importance of a strong opposition to hold the government to account" – or words to that effect. The above is from Friday 22nd July's edition, but a similar message has been written there on several previous occasions.

    My bone of contention is: why don't they seem to consider the idea that UKIP could supplant Labour as that "strong opposition"?

    And what an opposition UKIP would be, instead of those misguided Labourites we have chatting about such important issues like whether this or that organisation is 'diverse enough' to reflect 'multicultural Britain'.

    On a more serious note, I believe the reason for this is that the Daily Mail have a vested interest in keeping the Establishment in government and in opposition because that would keep the status quo, thus allowing the paper to please its mainly anti-Establishment audience with diatribes against our foul immigration policies and other political scandals.

    Also of note is the fact that its owner, Lord Rothermere, is one of those infamous 'non-doms', meaning non-domiciled individuals who don't pay UK tax on foreign incomes. This means keeping the Tories in power with their generous taxation policies is to his advantage. But nevertheless, seeing the same comments about the necessity of the Conservative/Labour duopoly is incessantly frustrating.

    Best regards,

    Reece Haynes

    The next letter, from a reader, raises points which we really ought to debate, and which we've overlooked for too long:

    Sir,

    I think you're right to point out how TPTB are reluctant to acknowledge the very problematic nature of certain interpretations of Islam. I'd attribute this, however, to slightly different causes.

    If we are serious about tackling the extremism that has resulted in these mass killings, then we have to seriously tackle the underlying ideology – Wahabism and its offshoots – and that means seriously tackling friend and ally, Saudi Arabia. It means recognising that Saudi is not a 'friend' of the West, that its funding of the spread of extremist ideology underpins movements like Islamic State. It means recognising that effective measures have to be taken against Saudi Arabia, and that means accepting we're going to lose the Kingdom as the major customer of Western arms industries.

    That's geopolitical consequence number one. Geopolitical consequence number two is that if we are serious about tackling Islamic terrorism, it means we have to stop using such groups to achieve geopolitical goals. Western elites condemn the ideology that has led to deaths throughout Europe but cheer on (and materially aid) groups with the self-same ideology bringing the self-same carnage to Syria as long as those groups aim to depose Assad. Most Western countries but especially the US and the UK, have long and dishonourable histories of using the most aggressive, most blood-thirsty, most socially regressive Islamic groups to achieve foreign policy objectives.

    Geopolitical consequence number three is that if we are serious about tackling terrorism, we'd need to stand with Russia. I've personally never felt more ashamed of the UK than when witnessing the MSM response to atrocities like the Moscow theatre siege, Beslan and the recent downing of the Russian airliner over Sinai. The West has rushed to give safe passage and shelter to those who've carried out acts of terror in Russia – Amnesty International even campaigned on behalf of the guy who later masterminded the Istanbul airport bombing to prevent his extradition to Russia to answer terror charges.

    What are the odds of anything changing?

    One further point I intended to make: in relation to the specifics of the most recent attack in Munich, it seems to me to resemble a US-style school shooting rather than what is understood as a terror attack. The gunman was allegedly the victim of at least two assaults, claimed to have been bullied for 7 years and seemed to have a particular beef with Turks.

    This, I think, touches on something TPTB and the MSM are also reluctant to confront: the relationships between different ethnic groups as opposed to the relationships of those groups to – for want of a better expression – mainstream society. I see this all the time in London where there are often very significant tensions between the many immigrant communities who've settled here. Anyone who observes that these maybe don't bode well for the future, is dismissed as a xenophobe or racist.

    Best regards,

    Fern

    And finally, a brief communication from our contributor in the USA, on the occasion of the Democratic Party Convention which has now started:

    Sir,

    The debacle that is the Democratic Convention is hilarity on crack. My favorite part is where Hillary's campaign manager, a testosterone-free simulacrum by the name of Robbie Mooks, gravely warns us that 'experts' have told them the Russians hacked their emails and are releasing them to help Trump. Cue loud laughter! Let's just ignore their comrade in socialism, Bernie, and point to the billionaire capitalist … Of course, nobody knows who did it, so they might as well make it up. Also, if you're still using 'Robbie' after your 12th birthday, you aren't allowed to hunt with the big dogs, get back under the porch.

    Make no mistake. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Chair of the Democratic Party) is an appalling human being, period, full stop. But she did exactly what she was hired to do – get Hillary the nomination. Everybody knew what was going on from the day boxes of uncounted ballots got shoved in the trunk of a car and driven away by a Democratic operative during the Iowa caucuses. Debbie's problem is that she got caught in such a way that implicated the entire process and everybody in it, so she's the sacrificial goat. To be absolutely clear, one person gets to remove her. The President. And he did. She was fighting the inevitable so Obama made the phone call to 'thank her for her service' and Hillary gave her a nothing burger job title.

    The real story, the stench of corruption, isn't coming from there, thouth. It's coming from the emails that show the collusion between the media and the Dems. Also nothing we didn't know, but nobody in the media will lose their position. You know why? Because that crowd thinks it's a trophy to be in cahoots with these politicians. They think they're helping pull the levers of power, and influencing which levers get pulled. The Debbie Wasserman Schultzs of the world are a dime a dozen, but these people need to become intimately acquainted with lamp posts and strong hemp rope.

    Regards,

    P. Gray

    [Jul 28, 2016] Facebook has once again been accused of censoring news, this time having to do with the Democratic National Committee email leak just hours before the party launches its convention in Philadelphia.

    www.theblaze.com

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/07/25/wikileaks-accuses-facebook-of-blocking-dnc-email-links/

    Facebook has once again been accused of censoring news, this time having to do with the Democratic National Committee email leak just hours before the party launches its convention in Philadelphia.

    WikiLeaks released the nearly 20,000 emails on Friday, revealing everything from DNC staffers seemingly working against Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to staffers using phrases such as " no homo " and " taco bowl engagement ."

    [Jul 27, 2016] The 4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump

    abcnews.go.com
    • The 4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump"

      Well, NO --- those might be the most damaging emails concerning Sanders, but they are HARDLY the most damaging emails, considering all the emails confirming corruption of the media, faking sex-ads concerning Trump, engaging in what Bernie supporters called "money laundering," a clear plan to reward large donors with high-level positions in government, and MANY more very important issues.

      Google the article titled, "HERE IT IS=> Detailed List of Findings in Wikileaks DNC Document Dump," at the Gateway Pundit.

      There you will find an impressive list of misconduct culled by both Bernie supporters and Trump supporters from the released DNC documents.

    ADLives -> William Bayer 2 days ago
    You must understand, ABC is part of the DNC propaganda wing, they and all the other MSM are going to try and reshape this mess to reduce the amount of damage.
    William Bayer -> ADLives 2 days ago
    Yeah --- that's why I've been trying to make a point of posting factual information that the MSM won't report on, instead of doing what most others are doing, which is just use forums like this to rave on about what a crook Hillary is --- you know the kind of thing --- posting feel-good opinions when they SHOULD be posting FACTS that substantiate those opinions.

    [Jul 27, 2016] http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/07/syria-and-the-dnc-hack-how-believes-turn-into-dangerous-policies.html#more

    Notable quotes:
    "... As life exceeds satire, one can imagine that within a week Wikileaks will produce those "missing e-mails". And later Hillary's Wall Street speeches, following the next appeal from Trump. ..."
    "... PB @ 4, confirming some earlier analysis that trump is playing the media for suckers over HRC's hysteria. "Trump calls on Kremlin to commit acts of espionage against Hillary Clinton." omg. ..."
    "... they cannot afford to have the truth about ISIS revealed. They need the next president to continue their lies. It is terrifying. ..."
    "... Even if Russia did the hack and leaked that information (no evidence) -- so what? We have done and do the same all the time in other countries. Just doesn't feel as good when you are at the receiving end. ..."
    "... It's like 9/11. What do you desperately want to believe? What are you desperately afraid to admit? ..."
    "... No amount of 'debunking' of the DNC's assertions will affect the beliefs of those who want to believe, who are afraid to admit that they are going to vote for the corporate whore who mocks them with her pathetic ruses. The corporate media have suffered irreparable damage to their credibility over the past decade, at least. ..."
    "... What is scary about this campaign is that the anti-Russian hysteria is being incorporated by Hillary supporters. By the time she is elected there will be many millions of Democrats crying for war against Russia. The last time a Democrat ran to the right of the Republican in a presidential election was the Kennedy-Nixon race. That resulted in Kennedy entering office and believing his own bs. He then very quickly carried out the Bay of Pigs fiasco but much worse the near start of WWIII during the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
    "... Hillary is definitely stupid enough to listen to her neocon advisers and, fueled with self righteous Russian hatred, get us involved in some shooting war with them in Syria, Ukraine or the Baltic region. Very dangerous times ahead I fear. This why I am moving closer and closer to voting for Trump rather than a third party. ..."
    "... Great observation. Cuts to the chase, to bedrock reality. We are the Evil Empire that Ronald Reagan ranted about. Have been since the Dulles Boys' coup. ..."
    "... Trump is beginning to look like the lessor of two evils. And we Americans are proven suckers for that line of 'reasoning'. The champion poll forecaster now 'shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton with a shocking 15 percentage point-greater chance of winning if the general election were held today.'. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    NoOneYouKnow | Jul 27, 2016 3:04:03 PM | 3
    Usually, the only thing that stops mass- and self-delusion (and the attending propaganda) on this scale is the massive intervention of reality. I worry that many casualties will ensue.

    Trump apparently said in his press conference that the US should cooperate to with Russia to destroy ISIS. The panic created in DC by this man must be incredible.

    Piotr Berman | Jul 27, 2016 3:29:55 PM | 4
    ELECTION 2016
    Trump Calls for Russia's Help to Expose Emails Clinton Deleted
    By ASHLEY PARKER 11:44 AM ET (NYT)

    "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Donald J. Trump said, referring to messages deemed personal by Hillary Clinton and deleted from her private email server.

    ===

    As life exceeds satire, one can imagine that within a week Wikileaks will produce those "missing e-mails". And later Hillary's Wall Street speeches, following the next appeal from Trump.

    jason | Jul 27, 2016 3:37:41 PM | 5
    PB @ 4, confirming some earlier analysis that trump is playing the media for suckers over HRC's hysteria. "Trump calls on Kremlin to commit acts of espionage against Hillary Clinton." omg.

    Terry | Jul 27, 2016 3:45:33 PM | 6

    There is just not enough of Orville Redenbacher's popcorn to last to the end of this crazy 2016 . I think if Putin came out personally and said that he did it the world would cheer . yet for some reason Russia needs to be vilified ...Thanks for the work you do b ...
    jo6pac | Jul 27, 2016 3:46:23 PM | 7
    Here are some real experts on this and check comments there is a former server coder writing this up.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/nsa-whistleblower-not-so-fast-on-claims-russia-behind-dnc-email-hack.html

    jo6pac | Jul 27, 2016 3:50:17 PM | 8
    Terry at 6 here is your request.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/exclusive-interview-putin-dnc-emails-russia-love.html

    A little humor for the day ;)

    ian | Jul 27, 2016 3:54:01 PM | 9
    What cracks me up about the idea that the Russians were behind the DNC hack is that Putin has little to fear from the accusation. It would probably help him politically at home and seriously, what are we going to do about it? Go to war? More sanctions? Denounce Russia in the UN? He's probably having a good laugh over the whole thing.
    Ondine | Jul 27, 2016 4:03:29 PM | 10
    3, they cannot afford to have the truth about ISIS revealed. They need the next president to continue their lies. It is terrifying.
    karlof1 | Jul 27, 2016 4:10:27 PM | 11

    Pat Buchanan provides some interesting thoughts on the subject, "Will Putin Get a Pulitzer?" http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/will-putin-get-a-pulitzer/

    psychohistorian | Jul 27, 2016 4:12:41 PM | 12
    Here are a couple of links to techie stories about the issue. They each have links and educational comments. How deep down the rabbit hole do you want to go?
    okie farmer | Jul 27, 2016 4:58:07 PM | 13
    Assange Timed WikiLeaks Release of Democratic Emails to Harm Hillary Clinton

    The New York Times

    By CHARLIE SAVAGE

    5 hrs ago

    WASHINGTON - Six weeks before the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks published an archive of hacked Democratic National Committee emails ahead of the Democratic convention, the organization's founder, Julian Assange, foreshadowed the release - and made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency.

    Mr. Assange's remarks in a June 12 interview underscored that for all the drama of the...

    b | Jul 27, 2016 5:38:59 PM | 15
    Bush lawyer Jack Goldsmith: Yet More Thoughts on the DNC Hack: Attribution and Precedent

    Essentially: "Even if Russia did the hack and leaked that information (no evidence) -- so what? We have done and do the same all the time in other countries. Just doesn't feel as good when you are at the receiving end."

    Cortes | Jul 27, 2016 5:41:52 PM | 16
    Thanks, b - a very acute analysis. It reminds me of the warning of false narrative the "Merlin" sponsors were peddling which Control warned George Smiley about in Le Carre's "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy":

    "They're buying their way in with false money, George."

    jfl | Jul 27, 2016 5:44:47 PM | 17
    It's like 9/11. What do you desperately want to believe? What are you desperately afraid to admit?

    Trump made light of the charges with 'hope the Russians find the 30,000 missing emails' crack, but his vp immediately made a show of taking the claim seriously ... he looks to be the mole set up by the RNC to take down Trump.

    No amount of 'debunking' of the DNC's assertions will affect the beliefs of those who want to believe, who are afraid to admit that they are going to vote for the corporate whore who mocks them with her pathetic ruses. The corporate media have suffered irreparable damage to their credibility over the past decade, at least.

    The D-N-Cee,
    the men-a-ger-ie,
    they're not for you,
    and they're not for me!
    They're runnin' in circles,
    around the tree.

    When they turn to butter, let's make pancakes. I'm so hungry I could eat one hundred and sixty-nine! Breakfast for us indigenes.

    ToivoS | Jul 27, 2016 6:15:43 PM | 18
    What is scary about this campaign is that the anti-Russian hysteria is being incorporated by Hillary supporters. By the time she is elected there will be many millions of Democrats crying for war against Russia. The last time a Democrat ran to the right of the Republican in a presidential election was the Kennedy-Nixon race. That resulted in Kennedy entering office and believing his own bs. He then very quickly carried out the Bay of Pigs fiasco but much worse the near start of WWIII during the Cuban missile crisis.

    Hillary is definitely stupid enough to listen to her neocon advisers and, fueled with self righteous Russian hatred, get us involved in some shooting war with them in Syria, Ukraine or the Baltic region. Very dangerous times ahead I fear. This why I am moving closer and closer to voting for Trump rather than a third party.

    jayc | Jul 27, 2016 6:17:42 PM | 20
    Credit to Julian Assange for having guts. If Clinton should win it's foreseeable that a major effort to regime-change Ecuador will ensue so they can get him booted from the London embassy straight into a CIA jet.
    dahoit | Jul 27, 2016 6:37:29 PM | 21
    Putin knows the zionists hate him, and Trump. I don't believe he would release this stuff. just because of the anti Russian BS the MSD would stir, which wo proof, they are anyway.

    I read it was Guccifer?somewhere,a Russian? blogger.

    This will all backfire,as the American people have been had too many times by the serial liars.

    What if this came from GB,say?What would be the reaction then?

    And why is Russia,who has never done a thing to US,in history,an enemy,when the Zionists spy,bribe and control our whole nation,nakedly,shamelessly,but there is the ol'crickets only, chirping in the weeds?

    Yahoo to Putin; Hey, you are cutting in on our action.

    jfl | Jul 27, 2016 6:38:00 PM | 22
    @18 Toivo S

    Trump as the lessor of two evils. Everyday in every way ... Who'd'a thunk it?

    lysias | Jul 27, 2016 6:40:02 PM | 23
    WaPo comment sections are full of people who seem to be true believers in the ideology of the new Cold War. Or maybe they only say that because they're being paid to do so. Hard to believe so many people could be so stupid.
    hejiminy cricket | Jul 27, 2016 6:51:46 PM | 24
    I was thinking the other day that Putin should send a squad of angry babushkas after the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits running the DNC. Evidently this is already in the works.

    #UKRAINE-UA police released warning that the "#HolyCross Procession includes violent grandmas who provoke Ukrainian youth to beat them up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/gbazov/status/758426948309651456

    jfl | Jul 27, 2016 7:06:18 PM | 25
    @15 b

    Great observation. Cuts to the chase, to bedrock reality. We are the Evil Empire that Ronald Reagan ranted about. Have been since the Dulles Boys' coup.

    Still I agree with yours and with Toivo S' point just above. Trump is beginning to look like the lessor of two evils. And we Americans are proven suckers for that line of 'reasoning'. The champion poll forecaster now 'shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton with a shocking 15 percentage point-greater chance of winning if the general election were held today.'.

    psychohistorian | Jul 27, 2016 7:31:06 PM | 26
    @ jfl

    Before the Dulles Boy's coup there was the changing of the motto in the 1950's from E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one) to In Gawd We Trust.

    Before that in 1913 the Fed was created with the 12 regional banks owned privately.

    Has the City of London and that empire ever died?

    Has the City of Rome corner of the global financial system ever been made clear?

    The basic tenets of the Western way are private ownership of property enhanced by rampant inheritance at the top and private finance owned and operated by historical families and others unknown. It is sad to me when commenter here and other places rail on about bankers and corporations and not the global cabal that own them all.

    Why can't humanity evolve beyond private finance to totally sovereign finance and, at a minimum, neuter inheritance laws globally so that none can accumulate enough to control social policy? Private finance is a cancer humanity can no loner afford.

    [Jul 27, 2016] He convinced none of us: Sanders diehards react to convention speech

    Notable quotes:
    "... A vote for Mrs Clinton will mean a repeat of what we've experienced during these past twenty-four years, and that is not acceptable. ..."
    "... Bern lost the nomination last October when he declined to make Hillary's emails, wall street capitulations and warmongering an issue and DID NOT FIGHT TO WIN! ..."
    "... yes, I will vote Trump to keep the Clintons from a 3rd and 4th term. ..."
    "... The mass media is just as responsible as the DNC for tilting the scale toward Clinton. Did you you hear the fawning by the CNN presenters? Remember how they dissed O'Malley and Lincoln Chaffee. Bernie was intended to be like the "other team" and Clinton the Harlem Globe Trotters, only Bernie kept untying her shoes and shooting baskets. ..."
    "... Only a very few Bernie supporters I know, and I know and have informally polled HUNDREDS, is going to vote for Hillary, especially after these latest revelations (which only scratch the surface), and the DNC's "apology", which apologized for language, but not for proven bias and rigging. ..."
    "... Hillary is a lying, corrupt neocon. ..."
    "... The dem party in America is now fully in the hands of the globalists. At least the repubs had the integrity to not cheat THEIR insurgent candidate. ..."
    "... If not for an independent socialist by the name of Bernie Sanders who's upstart campaign is subject to derision and sabotage at a mainstream media and the DNC itself, there would be not a primary, but a coronation (which is in effect what we've been given). ..."
    "... Please friends, join me in NOT supporting this sham of an election process and the anointment of Queen Hillary. The stakes for our democracy are just too high to let them get away with it - much worse than 4 years of just about anyone ..."
    "... I agree with Trump on few things but he was right when he said the election was rigged. ..."
    "... The news blogs have Hillary supporters trashing Bernie and referring to him as undemocratic and just a carpet bagger. During the primaries Hillary stumpers were offering misinformation or false information on Bernie and continue to trash him now. The assumption that Bernie supporters are FOR SALE or Hillary's by a nod from Sanders is not a given. ..."
    "... The fact that Hillary's base is still bashing Bernie hardliners is a sign of how little respect they have for his huge voting block. Independents were nervous before the infighting. ..."
    "... Trump is a one-term feather-brain and will end up, if president, as somebody's tool. And who or what would use that tool? Fossil fuel companies and other corporations. The same as Hillary, whose foundation receives donations from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Chevron, and many more oil producing corps and States. The difference is between the devil we know and the devil we don't. Hillary- the devil we know ..."
    "... She loves wars: ask people in Libya, Iraq and other oil States. She loves Saudi money. Of course she'll go for the TPP no matter what she says. ..."
    "... Trump's going to win. Clinton's staggeringly self-destructive combination of corruption and stupidity guarantees it; by making Debbie Wassermann Schultz her campaign manager, Hillary's saying "Fuck you" to millions of people whose votes she desperately needs, not to mention telling everyone "Yes, it's true. My loyalty to Debbie, whose dishonesty and corruption has just become a matter of public record, shows exactly why people don't like me and don't trust me." There's only one way the Democrats can win: drop Hillary for vote-rigging, and put up a /bernie_sanders.Warren ticket. It's the only thing between us and Trumpocalypse. ..."
    "... Trade deals were supposed to improve and lift wages and job conditions. As it turns out the only trading being done is lowering wages and and less decent jobs. Government buy-up and controlling interest in some major companies is needed to bring the system back to public influence. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    josearbexjr -> fatima Ismail , 2016-07-27 01:51:40
    Future? With Killary? Seriously?
    hipocampelofantocame , 2016-07-26 23:44:15
    A vote for Mrs Clinton will mean a repeat of what we've experienced during these past twenty-four years, and that is not acceptable. A Senator Sander's vote would be the opposite, but the Democratic Party doesn't want that, even though a majority of Democrats does. I won't stand for that, and will vote Green Party with Dr. Stein.
    tony682 , 2016-07-26 23:43:38
    Bern lost the nomination last October when he declined to make Hillary's emails, wall street capitulations and warmongering an issue and DID NOT FIGHT TO WIN!

    I remember being so frustrated during the debates, knowing that he could have torn her a new one.... LIKE TRUMP WILL when he debuts her.

    He lost because he was WAYYYYY to soft on her!

    jamesmason88 -> 11834f , 2016-07-27 00:49:16
    I just came out of the closet.
    My first was Bernie, my second and third choice won't even be allowed on the debate stage, but I have an open mind if the polls indicate a chance slightly better than a snowballs. . . Sans that, yes, I will vote Trump to keep the Clintons from a 3rd and 4th term.

    I will never ever vote for Hillary.

    Tom Wessel , 2016-07-26 23:33:22
    Great debate on why to/not vote for Hillary but Jill Stein. After watching that, if I had my ballot, I'd would have mailed it in for Jill Stein. Another debate on the site with Chris Hedges and Robert Reich.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/26/jill_stein_or_hillary_clinton_green?utm_source=Democracy+Now%21&utm_campaign=9f0c3ece3a-Daily_Digest&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fa2346a853-9f0c3ece3a-191097613

    Richard Savoie , 2016-07-26 22:51:00
    The mass media is just as responsible as the DNC for tilting the scale toward Clinton. Did you you hear the fawning by the CNN presenters? Remember how they dissed O'Malley and Lincoln Chaffee. Bernie was intended to be like the "other team" and Clinton the Harlem Globe Trotters, only Bernie kept untying her shoes and shooting baskets.
    credibleevidence , 2016-07-26 22:48:09
    As a Bernie Sander supporter [ i.e. financial and via social media ]; I agree with the general sentiment of this article. An article in the Intercept url... https://theintercept.com/2016/07/26/bernie-sanders-left-delegates-with-no-way-to-fight-but-boo / explains how more could have been fought for at this Democratic Convention, with Bernie leading.

    More promises and bargains at least. And i think that it should be published and re-iterated that the media declared Hillary the winner, before voting had even happened, California exit polls and research by Stanford students - say that Bernie won California.

    Myself and a friend separately experienced questionable stuff at the voting booth polls, etc. and Democratic big-wig, now fallen; Wassermann cannot be ignored.

    I understood that Bernie was going to raise the California debacle at this Convention [ perhaps he had ]. There is a way he could not say that Hillary would be " an outstanding President" and just say vote for her to defeat Trump and be honest about our situation. Up until know he has been consistently brave, clear, etc. And the Green Party alternative stuff is good and Bernie could say " i would join the Greens but i am too worried about Trump".

    jamesmason88 -> 11834f , 2016-07-27 01:10:39
    As an example of brave, please goggle Ted Cruz,in which he also demonstrated courage for his convictions in his NON-endorsement of Trump, unlike Bernie, who accepted corruption as part of the democratic ticket, very sad.

    Don't get me wrong, I do not agree with Cruz on anything at all, but I do recognize courage when I see it. Apparently, that attribute is absent among democrats.

    Scout Wells , 2016-07-26 22:25:16
    Only a very few Bernie supporters I know, and I know and have informally polled HUNDREDS, is going to vote for Hillary, especially after these latest revelations (which only scratch the surface), and the DNC's "apology", which apologized for language, but not for proven bias and rigging.

    We're all either voting for Stein or, holding our noses, Trump. It's time to crash this plane with no survivors.

    Hillary is a lying, corrupt neocon. Politics as usual are over, and it's amazing to me that the crazy cat-lady boomer dems will fall in line for smugly authoritarian DNC corruption that makes Trump look like an amateur (and he is, compared to sHillary), whereas, if the obvious lies of the Hillary camp were coming from repubs, the banshee howls would be heard from Marin County to Martha's Vineyard. DEMS- YA DUN GOOFED. You'll never get us back. You can't spit in our faces, call us crazy for accusing you of what it has now been proven you did, and then spit in our faces again with your bogus apology.

    The dem party in America is now fully in the hands of the globalists. At least the repubs had the integrity to not cheat THEIR insurgent candidate. I never thought I'd live to see this travesty. (BTW, I was born in 66 and a lifelong Dem). NEVER AGAIN.

    Cityguy717 , 2016-07-26 21:11:25
    Just imagine if those "super-delegates" weren't decided until the convention where this election would be now. Thanks Debbie Bark Bark Wassermen-Shultz not only do we have a manipulated nominee but one which may loose.
    TheBorderGuard -> AndPulli , 2016-07-26 20:49:36
    I'm voting for JILL STEIN.

    Did you hear me?

    JILL STEIN.

    lovenow , 2016-07-26 20:36:50
    Let me see if I understand this: The democratic party in the year 2016 puts forward a SINGLE candidate for it's primary. Out of a population of 330 million, this party could come up with only a SINGLE candidate, ignoring entirely that we live in a Democracy, and giving the voter but a single choice in the election, effectively shutting out any other option or any hope of a substantive dialogue on the issues. If not for an independent socialist by the name of Bernie Sanders who's upstart campaign is subject to derision and sabotage at a mainstream media and the DNC itself, there would be not a primary, but a coronation (which is in effect what we've been given).

    Now, I'm told, ignoring the fact that this candidate, an individual with dubious ethics and questionable competence that I MUST vote for this person, and that if I decide that I won't be play along in the most undemocratic primary possibly in the history of the United States, and I decide to vote my conscience either by voting a 3rd party or abstaining, that it will be MY FAULT when things go badly, as I'm promised they will if they other guy wins. I am in effect being told by the establishment that I'm beholden to their single-choice candidate, a person who in my view stinks to high heavens of corruption and incompetence, or else.

    IS THAT what I'm being told ? Because that sounds like the kind of sham elections they have in the 3rd world and far, far beneath the standard of electoral decision making we should have in this country. Now, I think that's what I'm hearing, and I'm telling you that I don't play that sh*t. I'm not selling my conscience to play along with this sham - especially not to elect this LOUSY candidate. And, frankly, it's a disgrace that anyone would imply that I should - worse even - that people are so complicit in the utter destruction of their own political system and don't see how utterly foul the stink of corruption is.

    Please friends, join me in NOT supporting this sham of an election process and the anointment of Queen Hillary. The stakes for our democracy are just too high to let them get away with it - much worse than 4 years of just about anyone

    anyoneanytime , 2016-07-26 20:28:50
    I agree with Trump on few things but he was right when he said the election was rigged.

    Vote green people, have a conscience. You dont want to vote for a woman that will start another war.

    Jay Beswick , 2016-07-26 20:21:09
    The news blogs have Hillary supporters trashing Bernie and referring to him as undemocratic and just a carpet bagger. During the primaries Hillary stumpers were offering misinformation or false information on Bernie and continue to trash him now. The assumption that Bernie supporters are FOR SALE or Hillary's by a nod from Sanders is not a given.

    Supporting Bernie, then voting the party ticket because Bernie has caved in to a rigged system, won't guarantee his base. The fact that Hillary's base is still bashing Bernie hardliners is a sign of how little respect they have for his huge voting block. Independents were nervous before the infighting.

    abeing , 2016-07-26 20:18:49
    Trump is a one-term feather-brain and will end up, if president, as somebody's tool. And who or what would use that tool? Fossil fuel companies and other corporations. The same as Hillary, whose foundation receives donations from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Chevron, and many more oil producing corps and States. The difference is between the devil we know and the devil we don't. Hillary- the devil we know because we can read her record and see what she's done, loves fracking in the US and has exported it to the rest of the world. She loves wars: ask people in Libya, Iraq and other oil States. She loves Saudi money. Of course she'll go for the TPP no matter what she says. Donald is the devil we don't know, his one virtue is that he'll probably one-term unless he becomes a very effective corporate tool indeed. Then he'll be just another fossil fuel puppet like Clinton.

    There is really only one over-riding issue: and that is climate change. If we can't manage to survive as a species then all other problems are moot. Scientists are in despair because political wrangling and greed are dooming all life on earth to extinction- and it's happening very quickly. So- what that means is that we have two candidates and neither will do squat to keep fossil fuels in the ground. Hillary will probably pretend to do something about it which will of course fall pathetically short of what we'll need to have any chance of survival. And, of course, she'll have two terms- she knows the ropes and will pay off her corporate donors well.
    So which one of these two candidates, both of whom will doom my children and grandchildren to death, and yours too, should I vote for?

    ID912114 , 2016-07-26 19:53:38
    Trump's going to win. Clinton's staggeringly self-destructive combination of corruption and stupidity guarantees it; by making Debbie Wassermann Schultz her campaign manager, Hillary's saying "Fuck you" to millions of people whose votes she desperately needs, not to mention telling everyone "Yes, it's true. My loyalty to Debbie, whose dishonesty and corruption has just become a matter of public record, shows exactly why people don't like me and don't trust me." There's only one way the Democrats can win: drop Hillary for vote-rigging, and put up a /bernie_sanders.Warren ticket. It's the only thing between us and Trumpocalypse.
    caledonia1314 , 2016-07-26 19:39:37
    Trade deals were supposed to improve and lift wages and job conditions. As it turns out the only trading being done is lowering wages and and less decent jobs.
    Government buy-up and controlling interest in some major companies is needed to bring the system back to public influence.

    [Jul 27, 2016] How Clinton loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz got the job of DNC chair ago

    Notable quotes:
    "... We all know Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) was the co-chair of Hillary's 2008 presidential run, where she lost the nomination to Obama. So, in order to lock down the nomination for 2016, Hillary was able to get DWS in charge of the DNC and manipulate it from within ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    Tommy Cooper
    We all know Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) was the co-chair of Hillary's 2008 presidential run, where she lost the nomination to Obama. So, in order to lock down the nomination for 2016, Hillary was able to get DWS in charge of the DNC and manipulate it from within. That's the theory anyway, except....

    In order for this to work, they would first have to, not only get the DNC chair to step down, but also get them to recommend DWS for the position. The Clinton's would have to promise something to that person, something more prestigious than being head of the Democratic party. So who was that person and what did they get in return?

    It would appear that Donna Brazile was in-line to get the position, but she was only the interim chair after the previous chair left, served only one month. According to this, http://rulers.org/usgovt.html#parties , the previous chair of the DNC prior to DWS was Tim Kaine.

    Yes, HRC Vice President running m8 Tim Kaine.

    www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/tim-kaine-hillary-clinton-vice-president.html?_r=0

    [Jul 27, 2016] The selection has already been made. Trump isnt supporting Labor, his Make America Work Again schtick was immediately removed.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The selection has already been made. Trump isn't supporting Labor, his 'Make America Work Again' schtick was immediately removed. ..."
    "... The dissassociation is everyone is conditioned to Old School Party Politics Kennedy versus Nixon. That was fifty years ago! We're in a GOOG-FB hyper-focus-group mind-manipulation fractal world! Everything you see, that seems to be real, is illusory repetitive mirrors off one core equation: ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Cho Nyawinh | Jul 25, 2016 4:21:58 AM | 79

    The whole selection is a carefully-staged WWE Smackdown publicity event, not an election at all.

    The selection has already been made. Trump isn't supporting Labor, his 'Make America Work Again' schtick was immediately removed. The Takers grow queasy at the word 'work'. They have plenty of people in SEAsia who work for them. Right now, I can get India(n) engineers for $12 an hour that I can list as $125 an hour, and bill out after O&P at $275 an hour. India(n) engineers with Burj Dubai experience on ultra high rise! The Takers have no intent of restoring the American Dream.

    Trump isn't supporting any roll-back of NATO or reduction in P2A-R2P-PNAC. His main plank is to Make America Secure Again. Make America Strong. Kick Some Muzzie Ass. Let's Roll. And the reason he's pledging that, is the same reason Sanders carved out the Left, ...so that Hillary can EXPAND her Centrist-Right capture even further to the Right. Trump is placing a pick for her 3-pointer!

    Bernie took the Left, so Hillary didn't have to appear weak to her base group. And Trump will move further Right to give her more room to pick up delegates. Then BB-D and Milo-the-Gay will explode the Rabbinicals / Evangelists with repeated cognitive-dissonant LGBTF references. Watch. "Milo-The-Gay calls for 'refugee' status for world's Islamic gays." Ka-boom! the John Birchers!

    The dissassociation is everyone is conditioned to Old School Party Politics Kennedy versus Nixon. That was fifty years ago! We're in a GOOG-FB hyper-focus-group mind-manipulation fractal world! Everything you see, that seems to be real, is illusory repetitive mirrors off one core equation:

    Zn = (Zn-1)^2 + C, where (Zn-1)^2 are Trump-Clinton Janus faces of the same ZioQEnBankim, + C, and where C is The Chosen's massive Corruption of the US political, judicial and financial process, begun under Bush-Cheney and capped with Citizens United and Clinton Cash 501(c)3 Grand Larceny.

    [Jul 26, 2016] 'Is this journalism' CBS News just fell into its own puddle of drool for Michelle Obama

    twitchy.com

    twitchy.com

    Sara Miller @Millerita

    Good lord, CBS. At least try to hide that erection. :-)

    [Jul 26, 2016] Guardian tries to silence Democrat Leak Scandal by Jonathan Cook

    Clinton mafia and corrupt MSM like Guardian cannot deny the reality of what they wrote, so they focus on how the information came out. "But voters don't care where the info came from. What voters care about (for a change) is what the democrats actually wrote to each other, thinking their words were "safe" (i.e., their hubris and arrogance is coming back to bite them in the ass). And the DNC are completely guilty, based on their own words." "So, the media is lockstep quiet about their outting as utterly disingenuous manipulators and distorters of the political process. And they are crying foul at full volume at the Russians for allegedly daring to affect the political process by introducing the truth of the situation. Apparently, some folk never learn, can never be taught a lesson. So what's the solution?"
    Notable quotes:
    "... The first report by the Guardian's own correspondent, Alan Yuhas, and the one in today's newspaper, includes responses both from the Clinton team and from Sanders. But the Clinton response does not just get a mention, it dictates the entire theme of the Guardian story: that the leaks themselves are of little consequence. The real story, apparently, is an unproven and deflectionary claim by the Clinton camp that Russia is behind the leak. The headline says it all: "Hillary Clinton campaign blames leaked DNC emails about Sanders on Russia". ..."
    "... The story itself does not tell us anything about the leaks until the sixth ..."
    July 25th, 2016 | Dissident Voice
    The pattern is unmistakable in both the UK and US – and I apologise for sounding like a stuck record. Liberal mainstream media prove over and over again their aversion to telling us the news straight. They conspire – I can think of no fairer word – with the political elites in Washington and London to spin and subvert stories damaging to their mutual interests, even when the facts are driving real events in an entirely different direction.

    A perfect illustration is the story of the Democratic party's leaked emails, which reveal that the national leadership was actively seeking to swing the primaries battle in Hillary Clinton's favour by harming Bernie Sanders. One leaked email (there are more to come, apparently) shows officials trying to highlight Sanders' "faith" – it is unclear whether the goal was to play up his Jewishness or his supposed atheism, or both.

    As Sanders says, this is "outrageous" activity by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), even if it is hardly surprising. He, and we, knew it was happening during the primaries, even if it wasn't being reported, just as we know the British parliamentary Labour party has been trying to undermine its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, since he was elected last summer, even if everyone denies it. The difference with the Democratic party scandal is we now have the proof.

    It is worth examining the Guardian's coverage of this affair. It's like a masterclass in Pravda-style journalism – and entirely illustrative of how the Guardian is not reporting news but framing debates to protect its political interests: they have been rock solid behind the status-quo candidacy of Clinton rather than Sanders ("let's focus on the fact she's woman rather than that she's the spokeswoman for the military-industrial complex"), just as they seem ready to back anyone for British PM as long as it's not Jeremy Corbyn, including Theresa May.

    The DNC email leak story broke badly for the Guardian, with the first reports arriving Sunday UK time, when the paper does not publish. A bland Associated Press report appears to be the first time the story runs on its website, too early for responses from the main actors.

    The first report by the Guardian's own correspondent, Alan Yuhas, and the one in today's newspaper, includes responses both from the Clinton team and from Sanders. But the Clinton response does not just get a mention, it dictates the entire theme of the Guardian story: that the leaks themselves are of little consequence. The real story, apparently, is an unproven and deflectionary claim by the Clinton camp that Russia is behind the leak. The headline says it all: "Hillary Clinton campaign blames leaked DNC emails about Sanders on Russia".

    This is exactly what the Clinton team wanted: for the media to focus on her phony outrage rather than our justified outrage that the party system is rigged to make sure ordinary voters cast their ballots the way the Democrat leadership want them cast.

    The story itself does not tell us anything about the leaks until the sixth paragraph. Before that we have lots of Clinton camp indignation about Russia interfering in US domestic politics – as though this story is primarily yet another chance to knock Vladimir Putin and his supposed best pal, Donald Trump, Clinton's chief rival for the presidency. Even when we finally reach mention of the leaks, they are glossed over, with it unclear what the substance of these emails was and why they are significant.

    This is stenographic journalism that has become entirely the norm in the Guardian (if you don't believe me, just scroll back through my blog posts to see more examples).

    The real angle – the one that should have the been the focus of the story, at least based on news value – is buried near its end: Sanders' demand that DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, should resign. That angle as the lead would have highlighted its true news interest: evidence of corrupt practices at the DNC. It would have allowed the Guardian to focus on the nature of the leaked emails rather get sidetracked into Clinton's anti-Russia spiel.

    Proof that this was the real news story is confirmed by the fact that, soon after the Guardian published its report, Wasserman Schultz did, in fact, resign. The real scandal, rather than the Washington spin, finally cornered the Guardian very belatedly to run the story online in a more realistic fashion.

    The fact that it took more than 24 hours and three attempts before the story was reported in a way any first-year journalism student would understand it had to be covered is not to the Guardian's credit. It is to its shame. This was a desperate damage limitation operation by the Clinton camp that was (yet again) actively supported and assisted by the Guardian.

    Social media is changing many things. But one of the clearest examples is in the way it is bypassing mainstream media gatekeepers like the Guardian and allowing the facts to speak for themselves.

    Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan, or visit Jonathan's website.

    [Jul 26, 2016] REMINDER: Bernie Sanders sold out his entire campaign and his supporters to join Crooked Hillary and the power mad establishment of which he based the entirety of his campaign claiming he vehemently opposed. NO REFUNDS!

    i.sli.mg
    Jill Stein will probably siphon off Bernie supporters who would have otherwise voted for Shillary.
    As Republican nominee Donald Trump twitted Sanders "sold out to Crooked Hillary Clinton." He was right. Actually Sanders supporter "were more than eager to list the reasons that Mrs. Clinton deserved to be incarcerated," and were quite capable of doing so. "Lock her up" slogan became quite popular.

    WallMaria WA 202 points 29 days ago

    Taking money from the 99% to curry favor with the 1%

    Socialism, folks.

    HoundDogs 66 points 29 days ago

    Unbelievable. He just took a giant shit in the mouth of every person that truly believed in him and stood behind him. He took their rent and their food money and he handed it over to Hillary fucking Clinton.

    I know not every Bernie supporter didn't hate Hillary but a considerable number of them do and even more don't want to vote for her at all.

    The Republican primary was certainly a mess but the Democratic one is turning into something I'm genuinely starting to pity.

    Just fucking wow.

    barcelonatimes 26 points 28 days ago

    Before this election, when the fuck did you ever hear of "Bernie Sanders?" Most presidential candidates have a storied career, or are popular...something! Bernie came out of nowhere, had some kookie, feel good platforms(free health-care, education, Etc.) which sound great...but when you look in to the logistics of it, you realize we're trillions of dollars(Yes, that Trillions with a T...not Billions with a B) short. He basically stole the vapid young liberal vote, made sure they never got caught up in making America great again...and then that old piece of shit just handed them over to Shillery.

    Right now he's going slowly. If he just backed her, it would turn a lot of people off. If he goes in piecemeal, and Shill mentions possibly putting that senile old cuckold in a position in her cabinet, the dumb-ass bernbots will be ripe for the picking.

    I had a few friends who actually liked Bernie, and I would always ask them where the money would come from to pay for his programs? "He would tax the 1% they said." OK? "If you just slaughter the 1% and steal every single penny they have...that still doesn't cover universal healthcare, and free education for ONE YEAR...so you have about a quarter of the money you need for that to work for one year...how do you get the other 3/4ths, and how do you do sustain that?"

    That's where the conversation went off the rails and I was accused of being a "racist," or a "bigot" for supporting a candidate that didn't support the feel good platforms, but the realistic ones which actually could make a change.

    [–] AstronautJonze MI 13 points 29 days ago

    You mean a way to disrupt the election by mobilizing young people and violent left wing activists to attack conservatives while keeping Hillary's hands clean of it? Not sure that's what your implying but I could totally see that happening.

    [–] -HarryManback- USA 3 points 29 days ago

    Doubt that was planned, merely a biproduct. But damn, when you really think about it, would young liberals ever be so invested they'd do that shit if it were just Hillary all a long? They'd have never cared enough to do so without Bernie.

    [–] rydan CA 4 points 28 days ago

    He wasn't controlled. He did that all himself in his quest for power. Maybe manipulated, but not controlled.

    [–] whatlike_withacloth 23 points 29 days ago

    You know, I liked Bernie up until the first debate with Hillary. When he said, "We're sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails" rather than grilling her on that (it had just come out at that point that she lied (again) and tried to withhold evidence by wiping the server), I knew he was cucked. I knew he was just a shill, running for show, and I was pissed.

    I hate his socialist policies, but I liked the "dismantle the NSA" and "reduce foreign involvement" enough that I can overlook some of his economic insanity. Or I could early on, before Obama and Lynch started going fucking full batshit crazy sellout on the nation. Now I don't trust anyone who labels themselves a liberal, and a "Democrat" would have to work damn hard to prove they weren't on the crazy wagon with the rest of the regressives.

    June 24, 2016 was the day Bernie became a BOUGHT-AND-PAID-FOR-SHILLARY-FOR-HILLARY. Or wait, is that what happened?

    Is Bernie selling his soul to the greatest criminal mastermind in American history, who emailed four dead Americans to Benghazi while Whitewatering Vince Foster with LIES, LIES, SO MANY LIES? Or is that just something your Republican dad believes? (Dear old dad, awwwwww.)

    The Trump campaign also issued a press release saying that Sanders has now joined forces with a "rigged system," providing the list of elitist policies he now supports by endorsing Hillary:

    The candidate who ran against special interests is endorsing the candidate who embodies special interests.

    The candidate who ran against TPP is endorsing the candidate who helped draft the TPP.

    The candidate who ran in opposition to globalization is running against the candidate who has led the push for globalization.

    The candidate who warned that open borders destroy the working class is endorsing the candidate with the most open borders policy in our history.

    The candidate who wants to reform H1-B visas is endorsing the candidate who supported lifting the caps on H1-B visas.

    The candidate who wants less war is endorsing the candidate who launched wars in Iraq and Libya and would lead us to a new war in Syria.

    The candidate who wants to get money out of politics is voting for the candidate who has made a career out of making money from politics.

    [Jul 26, 2016] Gary Johnson Is Already Going After Bernie's Former Supporters

    Notable quotes:
    "... Johnson goes in for the kill. "If you're still feeling the Bern, and feeling burned because the Clinton machine rolled over your ideals, there is another option. The Libertarian party nominee will be on the ballot on all 50 states. ..."
    RedState

    Due to the explosion of uncovered intrigue and foul play from within the DNC, chaos as erupted within the Democratic party. Long story short, the DNC conspired to screw over Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton.

    Sanders could have taken the ball and run with it, but instead punted. Regardless of all the foul play, Sanders has told his supporters that they need to vote for Hillary. This resulted in Sanders' own supporters turning on him, and with such intensity, that he couldn't reign them back in.

    So now we seem to have Democrat apostates, much like those seen in the Republican party who wouldn't tolerate Trump. And like those wayward Republicans, these Democrats are likely looking for a new home.

    Enter Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, who is wasting no time in reaching out to these former Bernie supporters with a video on Facebook.

    "You think Hillary Clinton is going to stand up for your civil rights?" said Johnson, going on to talk about how the ACLU gave him the highest score in Presidential politics, higher than Obama and Ron Paul.

    Johnson then went on to remind the viewers about Clinton's pro-war past, and how she regularly boasts about her decision to bomb Libya. He even puts the expansion of ISIS's power at her feet.

    "Is anything going to change if Hillary Clinton is elected President?" he asks. "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I never supporting bombing Libya. I never supported the Iraq War."

    He even attacked her back and forth history with bad decisions regarding criminal justice. "I've always stood up for drug policy, and criminal justice reform."

    Then Johnson goes in for the kill. "If you're still feeling the Bern, and feeling burned because the Clinton machine rolled over your ideals, there is another option. The Libertarian party nominee will be on the ballot on all 50 states."

    Various polls have Johnson at different states of approval, from 13% to 9%, but one thing is for sure. Johnson's support is growing daily, and with these new developments coming out of the DNC, the Libertarian candidate may see a surge.

    [Jul 26, 2016] We Trusted You! Socialist Sweetheart Elizabeth Warren Heckled During DNC Speech

    www.redstate.com

    RedState

    During the speech, hecklers cried out "We trusted you!" to Warren, who looked briefly upset at the outrage, but powered through it.

    It wasn't a very good image for someone who socialists were hoping would run against Hillary when all this tomfoolery started. It was... kinda sad.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Sanders responce to Wikileaks reminds me of battered wife syndrome

    Notable quotes:
    "... So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them. ..."
    "... His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest. ..."
    "... Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are. ..."
    "... Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. ..."
    "... And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for! ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.

    Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."

    Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -

    Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"

    Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media is not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this country, blah blah blah..."

    "[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."

    So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them.

    UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!

    His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest.

    I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral.

    Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are.

    If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.

    Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter.

    And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for!

    Posted by: h | Jul 24, 2016 1:24:40 PM | 11

    [Jul 25, 2016] The Clinton Foundation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Well, it's obvious that Hillary wanted to keep some information from the public finding out. The information that she wanted to keep from the public probably didn't concern national security so much as her own private dealings. Nobody, I think, in American history has merged their public service as secretary of state or president with their private gains to the extent that Hillary really has. And by that I mean the Clinton Foundation, overall. ..."
    "... She's going to Saudi Arabia, she's going to Europe, she's going to the Near Eastern countries. Saudi Arabia has asked her–and this is all very public–we want more arms. We want to buy arms in America. We know that Saudi Arabia is one of the major contributors to the Clinton Foundation. ..."
    "... Well, lo and behold, the military-industrial complex is one of the big contributors to the Clinton Foundation, as is Saudi Arabia, and many of the parties who are directly affected by her decisions. Now, my guess is what she didn't want people to find out, whether on Freedom of Information Act or others, are the lobbying she's doing for her own foundation, which in a way means her wealth, her husband's wealth, Bill Clinton's wealth, and the power that both of them have by getting a quarter billion dollars of grants into the foundation during her secretary of state. ..."
    "... We don't have any evidence one way or the other. So certainly there is no evidence. There is only the appearance of what looks to me to be an inherent conflict of interest with the foundation. ..."
    The Unz Review

    On Thursday morning, the media fest and political fest around Hillary Clinton's email scandal continued, as the head of the FBI, James Comey, spoke at a congressional House oversight committee. Here's a little clip of what was said there. But let me just foreshadow–maybe the emails aren't the real issue that should be in front of these hearings. Now, here's the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Jason Chaffetz, questioning James Comey and a bit of his answer.

    JASON CHAFFETZ: It seems to a lot of us that the average Joe, the average American, that if they had done what you laid out in your statement, that they'd be in handcuffs. And I think there is a legitimate concern that there is a double standard. Your name isn't Clinton, you're not part of the powerful elite, that Lady Justice will act differently.

    JAMES COMEY: I believe this investigation was conducted consistent with the highest traditions of the FBI. Our folks did it in an apolitical and professional way. There are two things that matter in a criminal investigation of a subject. And so when I look at the facts we gathered here–as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness. But I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton, or those with whom she was corresponding, both talked about classified information on email, and knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law. So give that assessment of the facts and my understanding of the law, my conclusion was, and remains, no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence.

    JAY: Now joining us from New York is Michael Hudson. Michael's a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. His latest book is Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy. Thanks for joining us, Michael.

    MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be back here, Paul.

    JAY: First, let's talk a little bit about what we just heard. The chairman of the House Oversight Committee says, is there a double standard here? Somebody else might be in handcuffs, and Hillary Clinton's not being charged. I guess a lot of people are asking that question. The FBI director says this doesn't rise to the level of criminality; it's carelessness. I don't know the law well enough. I'm certainly not a lawyer. But it seems to me that the deliberate, willful decision to use a private server–and some people have said one of the reasons could be to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests–and I don't know if that rises to the level of criminality. But it's sure wrong.

    HUDSON: Well, it's obvious that Hillary wanted to keep some information from the public finding out. The information that she wanted to keep from the public probably didn't concern national security so much as her own private dealings. Nobody, I think, in American history has merged their public service as secretary of state or president with their private gains to the extent that Hillary really has. And by that I mean the Clinton Foundation, overall.

    Here's the problem, you can imagine. She's going to Saudi Arabia, she's going to Europe, she's going to the Near Eastern countries. Saudi Arabia has asked her–and this is all very public–we want more arms. We want to buy arms in America. We know that Saudi Arabia is one of the major contributors to the Clinton Foundation. On the other hand, Hillary's in a position to go to Raytheon, to Boeing, and say look, do I have a customer for you. Saudi Arabia would love to buy your arms. Maybe we can arrange something. I'm going to do my best. By the way, you know, my foundation is–you know, I'm a public-spirited person and I'm trying to help the world. Would you like to make a contribution to my foundation?

    Well, lo and behold, the military-industrial complex is one of the big contributors to the Clinton Foundation, as is Saudi Arabia, and many of the parties who are directly affected by her decisions. Now, my guess is what she didn't want people to find out, whether on Freedom of Information Act or others, are the lobbying she's doing for her own foundation, which in a way means her wealth, her husband's wealth, Bill Clinton's wealth, and the power that both of them have by getting a quarter billion dollars of grants into the foundation during her secretary of state.

    JAY: As far as we know, there's no direct evidence that she did precisely what you're saying. And

    That they actually say–"Give money to the foundation; I will facilitate such-and-such a contract." There's no evidence of that, correct?

    HUDSON: That's right. And partly there's no evidence because her private emails are not subject to [inaud.]. They're not subject to finding out this. We don't have any evidence one way or the other. So certainly there is no evidence. There is only the appearance of what looks to me to be an inherent conflict of interest with the foundation.

    JAY: And there's no direct evidence that any abnormal amount of money has gone to Bill Clinton, in terms of fees and expenses. One can assume he's well-compensated. But it does have charitable status, it has to file a 990. They are under charitable law regulations, and so far I don't know of any reporting that says that they have violated the–.

    HUDSON: You're right. The advantage of being under charitable law is it's in a foundation that–you can look at it in effect as your savings account. And you can treat it–you can do with a foundation whatever you want.

    Now, if you or I had a quarter billion dollars, what we'd want to do is influence policy. Influence the world. Well, that's what they want to do. They want to use the foundation to support policies that they want. And here we're not dealing with unexplained enrichment. This isn't money that comes into them that goes into an offshore account in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands. It's hidden in plain sight. It's all the foundation. It's tax-exempt. It's legitimate. So she's somehow been able to legitimize a conflict of interest, and what that used to be called corruption in office. Or at least the appearance of what could be corruption in office.

    And the fact is, that is what there has been a blacked-out screen painted over it, and we don't have any idea what she's been saying to these affected parties that not only has she been dealing with, the secretary of state, but it turned out to be major contributors to her and Bill's foundation.

    JAY: Now, the reason the emails rose to such prominence is because it was the potential of criminal charges. That seems to have ended now. The Clinton foundation certainly has been reported upon in various places in the mainstream press. It never rose to the same level of attention as the emails. But why do you think that is? Because you think there's enough fodder there that that could have been quite a media fest. Feast, I should say.

    HUDSON: Well, there's no direct link between the foundation that says it's existing to promote various social purposes, and Hillary's actions as secretary of state. But there's such overlap there. I can't think of any public official at cabinet level or above, in memory who's ever had an overlapping between a foundation that they had and had control, personally, and their public job. So there's never been so great a blurring of categories.

    JAY: So why isn't this a bigger issue in the media? Corporate media?

    HUDSON: I don't–I think the media are supporting Hillary. And that's a good question. Why are they supporting her so much with all of this? Why aren't they raising this seemingly obvious thing? I think the media want two things that Hillary wants. They want the trade agreements to essentially turn over policy to, trade policy to corporations, and regulatory policy to–.

    JAY: You're talking about TTIP and [TTP].

    HUDSON: [They're neocons.] They're the agreement of politics. If the media agree with her politics and says, okay, we want to back her because she's backing the kind of world we want, a neocon world, a neoliberal world, then they're going to say, this is wonderful. We can now distract attention onto did she leak a national secret. Well, the secrets that are really important aren't the national classification secrets. They're the personal, personal, the big-picture secrets. And it's the big picture we don't have a clue of as a result of all of these erasures.

    JAY: Okay, thanks very much for joining us, Michael.

    HUDSON: Good to be here.

    JAY: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Why Trumps bump in the polls is more significant than ever

    Notable quotes:
    "... Well that isn't surprising. Hillary Clinton is a loser and a weak candidate ..."
    "... I think Trump will win because the e-mail scandal has destroyed whatever credibility Hillary Clinton had. Sanders would beat Trump by a landslide, Elizabeth Warren would too. But Hillary is doomed. ..."
    "... Polls are nonsense; particularly this far out in an unconventional election. The pollsters themselves are scratching their heads as to how to properly frame the poll questions and establish the correct survey demographics. It's all new territory for them ..."
    "... Three of the four latest polls that showed Trump ahead of Clinton were conducted via telephone. So, maybe the latest polling boost for Trump isn't about increasing popularity but about emboldened supporters ..."
    "... "also a few Scalias". There are worse things than Scalias. Like Hillarys. ..."
    "... I think Hillary is far more dangerous. She wants war with Russia, Syria, etc ..."
    "... Hilary is a poor candidate and Obama shifted the world in a significantly amoral direction. ..."
    "... Nate predicts a trump win now, and for good reason. Clinton's numbers will only continue to drop with each new email leak, State Department report, Clinton Foundation pay to play allegation, and lie from her own mouth reinforcing to the majority of the electorate why they distrust and dislike her. ..."
    "... Sorry liberal apologists, this is not an ordinary "post convention bump". The polls indicate that 3/4 of Americans do not believe that their country is headed in the right direction. Trump is a protest vote. ..."
    "... As repugnant as some of you may find Trump's brash personality and idiotic rhetoric to be, many view him as refreshing. Most American are tired of the "establishment" and would prefer anybody to another corrupt / dishonest / smug Bush or Clinton in the White House. They have also grown tired of a neutered society and a political correctness that has quashed individuality and freedom of speech. ..."
    "... Trump has built an empire and employed people. By contrast, Clinton policies have (i) caused the subprime housing crisis, (ii) exported jobs to Mexico via NAFTA, (iv) destroyed the US educational system with no child left behind, and (iv) have caused numerous foreign policy blunders. Ms. Clinton has systematically failed at everthing that she has done. More would have been accomplished by doing the opposite. ..."
    "... Hillary is toast. ..."
    "... Since Cruz dropped out of the primaries, the mainstream media has been engaged in a non-stop assault on Trump, fought with the kind of raw brutality last seen in the battle of Stalingrad. The Washington Post runs at least four anti-Trump opinion pieces every day. (Yes, almost 30 per week.) Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Hillary has spent big money on advertising in the last month, and Trump has spent nothing. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. The Republican poobahs refused to attend the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Ted Cruz detonated a suicide bomb at the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. ..."
    "... Also, as crazy as Trump is, he didn't alienate his base with his VP pick. Instead, he sought to appease the far right of his party with Mike Pence. Meanwhile, Hillary has sought to move the Green Party's polling numbers into the double digits by picking a running mate who is opposed to abortion, presided over executions, supported a coal-fired power plant, and supports the TPP. The arrogance displayed by Hillary in picking Kaine makes Trump look humble. ..."
    "... DinoMight, Leftist here again. Kain is far right on what matters - Money. Pro TPP and wants to let banks be less regulated. Also, Trump is being pounded negatively by the MSM nearly as much as Sanders was denigrated or ignored. MSM, owned by Murdock and other large corporations want Clinton. She's the money man. Trump may pull this off due to low demo turn out and objection to Clinton big $$$$$. ..."
    "... As was seen with Brexit....and the death of Bruce Lee ..the Guardian is about to learn a harsh lesson it will refuse to believe is real. ..."
    "... Trump will win in November because of the simple reason of whom his opponent is. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    Bifocal , 2016-07-26 01:18:55
    I think elections reinforce discontent narratives against incumbents, and politicians wont contradict wide spread sentiments that they don't agree with, but they instead look for some way to neutralise them.

    Hillary has two problems, as a democrat linked to Obama she is effectively the incumbent here. Obama ran on hope and change, but provided very little change in peoples lives. Without the change part, second time around its difficult to inspire hope.

    This was the lesson of Brexit, the incumbents (Remain) were unable to offer any real change, but their opposition (Leave) where offering real change, and therefore Hope!

    So you have Clinton effectively offering people who are crying out for change, no change, and therefore little control of their lives, and therefore little hope.

    And you've got Trump offering much change, an opportunity to take back control, and therefore much hope!

    The extent to which Trumps message will resonate with voters will determine who wins. How many people get left behind by Globalisation?...In the West look at Britain, look at Europe, look at America....I'd say most, mainly because one size doesn't fit all.

    latheatre , 2016-07-26 00:43:42
    These polls are completely skewed. CNN's poll included NO ONE UNDER 35 years old.

    Last week's sample by Reuters was 78% white. The electorate in 2012 was 72% white and given demographic changes, the electorate will be even less white this time around, while Trump's share of non-white vote will be even smaller than Romney's was.

    Kickthismobout , 2016-07-26 00:31:43
    If this boofon topped buffoon gets in WW3 here we come.
    Sam3456 Kickthismobout , 2016-07-26 00:43:05
    Meh. Clinton is actually more of a hawk that Trump. He is actually an isolationist. Clinton has voted for more war and is for more aggressive use of the military than Trump would be.

    I fear Trump would be a problem on other fronts but as far as involving us in more war and negotiating bad trade agreements Hillary is to be feared more than Trump.

    MrMustard Magoo , 2016-07-26 00:28:42
    Smug limousine liberals and money printing rent seekers with no clothes swanning about. La dee da aren't you so pretty. As John Stewart said we're not allowed to have a country. So it's yours? Whose is it? I think it's a question that needs answering.
    Barclay Reynolds , 2016-07-25 23:43:47
    Trumps going to win! Sanders people will not vote. Young will not vote.
    Trump 52-48
    Clinton is branded crooked and e mails , no matter what just shows many this.
    Carlisle William , 2016-07-25 22:51:13
    Well that isn't surprising. Hillary Clinton is a loser and a weak candidate
    Terrence D. Zarnick Carlisle William , 2016-07-25 22:52:06
    Of course..perfect and predicable response...everyone else are losers. Typical.
    Carlisle William Terrence D. Zarnick , 2016-07-25 22:53:41
    Predictable response? Hillary Clinton is objectively the weaker Democratic candidate this year who always lost against nearly all Republican nominees except for Trump who even then, she is starting to lose now.
    Camelier , 2016-07-25 22:36:10
    I think Trump will win because the e-mail scandal has destroyed whatever credibility Hillary Clinton had. Sanders would beat Trump by a landslide, Elizabeth Warren would too. But Hillary is doomed.

    Hillary might win if the non-whites come out to vote in unprecedented numbers but that is unlikely. Trump's supporters are more motivated. The white working class will swing to Trump because Hillary predicatably played cowardly and refused her chance to nominate Sanders or Warren for the VP slot, choosing instead a boring fellow who is big on free trade.

    The only consolation is that Trump is no Hitler and the US president will be arrested and jailed the moment he breaks the law. May even be executed. The Americans are very very very tough on issues like that.

    woodyTX , 2016-07-25 22:25:39
    Polls are nonsense; particularly this far out in an unconventional election. The pollsters themselves are scratching their heads as to how to properly frame the poll questions and establish the correct survey demographics. It's all new territory for them

    The headline to this story is very certain reading "Why Trump's bump in the polls IS more significant than ever" (meant to catch your eye) but in the very next sentence the words start backpeddling to "his rise in the polls COULD be different".

    So which is it Guardian ?

    It is also stated in the article " Three of the four latest polls that showed Trump ahead of Clinton were conducted via telephone. So, maybe the latest polling boost for Trump isn't about increasing popularity but about emboldened supporters ".......could it be that these calls went to land lines, which are skewed very much towards older voters? Young folks are more cell phone / smart phone oriented. In that case it's capturing the older white Fox News crowd with a heavy implicit bias...doubling down on nonsense at this point.

    Camelier woodyTX , 2016-07-25 22:39:18
    "Polls are nonsense"

    In the last presidential lection the polls by Nate Silver got the result exactly. This year in Canada Nanos Polls got the general lection result accurate to 0,5 percent.

    In Uk elections, typically the polls prove accurate enough.

    You are an illiterate dolt.

    Terrence D. Zarnick Camelier , 2016-07-25 23:00:09
    Nate also predicted Trump would NOT be the Republican nominee. Nate was wrong.
    ponott Camelier , 2016-07-25 23:10:06
    "In Uk elections, typically the polls prove accurate enough".

    Actually in the last two polls, the general election and the referendum, the polls have been hopelessly wrong as wrong therefore as you calling woodyTX an "illiterate doit", whatever a doit is.

    doublreed , 2016-07-25 22:22:20
    Trump better have a person at every voting precinct watching those Deibold machines. Clinton got quite good at stealing, misdirecting, shredding and generally restricting votes in a handful of key states. When there was a paper trail, Sanders won 53% - 49%. When no paper trail, Clinton 65% to Sanders' 35%. These elections are quite rigged.
    Alfredo Elgue , 2016-07-25 22:17:45
    I believe that in usa is going to happen something similar with the Brexit. All the polls show a victory of Clinton, and at the end we finish with a triumph of Trump.
    The pollsters are doing and are done a very bad work in the last polls.
    I ask myself, who pay them...
    Carl123 Alfredo Elgue , 2016-07-25 22:30:47
    Late Brexit polls were very close, tipping back and forth between narrow victory for Remain and Leave - which was accurate.
    Jurgen Gross , 2016-07-25 22:09:05
    Congrats to the Guardian: you did your best
    to prevent the rightful Sanders nomination.
    Archeologist1956 , 2016-07-25 21:53:31
    Its clear Trump will win.We can handle a reality TV star
    We cannot handle the corrupt Clinton Machine, nor a corrupt Democratic party.
    They overplayed their hand.
    rebel7 , 2016-07-25 21:49:25
    Within my circle of friends we pretty much agree:

    1. Trump is an idiot and an embarrassment.
    2. Hillary is a liar.
    3. The "up-side" to a Trump presidency is 4 years of entertainment. He does after all have multiple years of the Apprentice on his resume.
    4. There is no "up-side" to a Clinton presidency.
    5. The "down-side" to a Trump presidency is chaos at the top levels of government.
    6. The "down-side" to a Clinton presidency is another Arab-Israeli war and likely US troops committed and dying somewhere in order to make Clinton "look" tough and gritty.

    So we'll take the entertainment. Will be four years of a Rodney Dangerfield show played out live with an unwitting lead actor.

    Yoda00 rebel7 , 2016-07-25 21:54:29
    Entertainment, sure. But, also a few Scalias in the supreme court.
    rebel7 Yoda00 , 2016-07-25 21:57:01
    "also a few Scalias". There are worse things than Scalias. Like Hillarys.
    Archeologist1956 Timelooper , 2016-07-25 21:54:14
    I think Hillary is far more dangerous. She wants war with Russia, Syria, etc
    MagajinGiwa , 2016-07-25 21:33:08
    I don't believe polls when there's a vested interest, like the Brexit ones. Yet I believe Trump will be the next president of the US.
    Hilary is a poor candidate and Obama shifted the world in a significantly amoral direction.
    Many will dismiss this, but a huge chunk of voters feel it is important. I'm one such.
    Berkeley2013 , 2016-07-25 21:22:09
    The media has pretty much discredited itself over the years by seldom doing the complex research necessary to report current events and hiring journalists with the education, intelligence, and ethics to communicate realities to the readers.

    The result is that even with the internet version of the newspapers, few really take their reporting and recommendations seriously.

    The public just decides for itself knowing that whether it is spin on felonious Clinton, Distracted Sanders ("We are sick of your e-mails"), Benito Trump, or Gift-Accepting Little Don Kaine the media will not represent anything fairly and inaccurately.

    Even heaven doesn't know who is going to win the presidency this year, which is compelling in its own way.

    dnjake , 2016-07-25 21:16:52
    These polls are very bad news for those who want to believe that Hillary Clinton has already won the election. The size of the bump is far less important then the fact that there was one. Much of the media believes that the Republican's convention performance drastically diminished their chances in November. It is likely that everyone will have to wait until the votes are counted in November to know how this election plays out. But, these polls are very bad news for those who dream of establishing the idea that Donald Trump is outside the political mainstream and that there is something wrong with anyone who votes for him.
    CardiffBlackLabel , 2016-07-25 21:03:29
    Obamas presidency is ending in a disaster. Foreign policy failure and a divided and violent domestic society. All the while he seems to revel in playing the joker and appearing like the cool uncle at a wedding.

    This all benefit Trump

    BG Davis , 2016-07-25 20:30:19
    "Three of the four latest polls that showed Trump ahead of Clinton were conducted via telephone."
    Who the hell responds to a phone survey? People with a brain just hang up on them.
    Instead of cherry-picked polls to justify this "story" how about the facts that matter?
    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
    Has Trump gained? Yes.
    Is he leading "the polls?" No. Unless you leave out the polls that show Clinton leading.
    pulltheotheronehard , 2016-07-25 19:59:12
    Why did Hillary have the DNC sabotage Bernie? She didn't need to. She's her own worst enemy. Now many Bernie backers won't vote for her.

    I'll never vote for Trump. Usually I vote for a candidate who promises to stop the war on drugs because such a stance entails other views I find congenial

    BG Davis vaman , 2016-07-25 20:33:21
    You are right about the US, but it's hard to share your optimism. Rich enclaves like La Jolla and Carmel and Santa Barbara are full of educated bigots, fearful people who take their instructions from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. (One rich idiot told me that Obama was going to raise property taxes.) And the DNC emails - plus the tone-deaf response - make it harder for Clinton than it was already.
    rebel7 BG Davis , 2016-07-25 20:50:55
    "make it harder for Clinton than it was already."

    Most of Clinton's "troubles" appear mostly self-inflicted.

    jacknbox , 2016-07-25 19:56:40
    Trump or Brexit will never happen in an undemocratic country. A democracy controlled by a "progressive" and "compassionate" elite through PC triple speak is not a democracy. The fears and insecurities of people need to be addressed and not dismissed or scoffed at. Trump will win in Nov. because he is addressing them while Hillary is not. Hillary's issues are all very old like wealth redistribution, various rights, gun control, etc. etc. the same as those of Fidel Castro and as old too.
    pjalexandr , 2016-07-25 19:53:46
    Superdelegates have moments left to spare the world a trump presidency by nominating Sanders instead of Clinton.

    Nate predicts a trump win now, and for good reason. Clinton's numbers will only continue to drop with each new email leak, State Department report, Clinton Foundation pay to play allegation, and lie from her own mouth reinforcing to the majority of the electorate why they distrust and dislike her.

    Nominate Clinton and head over the cliff to a trump presidency.
    Nominate Sanders and save the white house for the Democrats with the influx of Independent and disenfranchised Democratic voters who will never vote for Clinton.

    Terrence D. Zarnick pjalexandr , 2016-07-25 21:21:09
    Not necessarily true. Double edged sword. Trump and the GOP will attack Bernie "Socialist" Sanders relentlessly. Even disenfranchised Democrats and Independents will not sacrifice the country to the likes of Trump. There's too much as stake. The Dems have four months to turn this around and show the American people that Trump is full of sh*t...his tax plan would make himself even reach and save his estate billions by doing away with inheritance tax. He's not fit be be president per his own party even Governor Chris Christie said this. Trump and the GOP will do everything to distract the people away from the real issues...their policies and ideology is corrupt and bankrupt. Trump like the Leave Campaign in the UK has no game plan. Just hollow words and GOP tax policies that have time and time again been proven wrong. What George H.W. Bush called voodoo economics. The GOP have controlled both Houses of Congress for 4 years now...and DONE absolutely nothing to move the country forward.
    NimbyDolittle , 2016-07-25 19:46:14
    Sorry liberal apologists, this is not an ordinary "post convention bump". The polls indicate that 3/4 of Americans do not believe that their country is headed in the right direction. Trump is a protest vote.

    As repugnant as some of you may find Trump's brash personality and idiotic rhetoric to be, many view him as refreshing. Most American are tired of the "establishment" and would prefer anybody to another corrupt / dishonest / smug Bush or Clinton in the White House. They have also grown tired of a neutered society and a political correctness that has quashed individuality and freedom of speech.

    Trump has built an empire and employed people. By contrast, Clinton policies have (i) caused the subprime housing crisis, (ii) exported jobs to Mexico via NAFTA, (iv) destroyed the US educational system with no child left behind, and (iv) have caused numerous foreign policy blunders. Ms. Clinton has systematically failed at everthing that she has done. More would have been accomplished by doing the opposite.

    simpledino , 2016-07-25 19:32:18
    The "back-and-forthing" involved in these polls is grimly hilarious. I don't put a lot of stock in anything taken before Labor Day, but all the same, just try to imagine the picture of the average voter conjured up by time-lapsed poll results: "I think I'll vote for Hillary .... well, maybe I'll vote for Trump ... no, make that Hillary .... dang it all, I'm a-goin' for Trump! ... uh, maybe not ............" Do people just decide who to vote for based on whose face they last saw on their television screen? What the hell is up with that? Or is there a better way to construe the see-sawing results than my rather unflattering construction? If there is, I would be interested in hearing it because I don't like sounding so ungenerous towards my fellow Americans.

    In any case, I'll continue to hope for the best -- i.e. that the majority of us reject the fake populism of Donald Trump.

    JT1117 , 2016-07-25 19:23:42
    Hillary is toast.

    Since Cruz dropped out of the primaries, the mainstream media has been engaged in a non-stop assault on Trump, fought with the kind of raw brutality last seen in the battle of Stalingrad. The Washington Post runs at least four anti-Trump opinion pieces every day. (Yes, almost 30 per week.) Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Hillary has spent big money on advertising in the last month, and Trump has spent nothing. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. The Republican poobahs refused to attend the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Ted Cruz detonated a suicide bomb at the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve.

    Also, as crazy as Trump is, he didn't alienate his base with his VP pick. Instead, he sought to appease the far right of his party with Mike Pence. Meanwhile, Hillary has sought to move the Green Party's polling numbers into the double digits by picking a running mate who is opposed to abortion, presided over executions, supported a coal-fired power plant, and supports the TPP. The arrogance displayed by Hillary in picking Kaine makes Trump look humble.

    ButtChocolate simpledino , 2016-07-25 21:35:13
    Trump's handling of the media is interesting. I consider it to be one of his greatest talents. It is undeniable that the majority of pundits (on both the left and the right) dislike Trump. He's getting attacked from all sides whether it is the traditional pro-democrat pundits to even a lot of the traditional republican ones (especially ones who support things like free trade and what not, traditional republican platforms)

    However, Trump himself gets a ton of air time, deservedly so I might add. When he shows up on TV, ratings go up. People want to see him on TV, people want to see his interviews. He doesn't need to pay for ads when there are tons and tons of reporters who want to interview him! He is earning his own air time!

    doublreed -> simpledino , 2016-07-25 22:37:39
    DinoMight, Leftist here again. Kain is far right on what matters - Money. Pro TPP and wants to let banks be less regulated. Also, Trump is being pounded negatively by the MSM nearly as much as Sanders was denigrated or ignored. MSM, owned by Murdock and other large corporations want Clinton. She's the money man. Trump may pull this off due to low demo turn out and objection to Clinton big $$$$$.
    HenneyAndPizza , 2016-07-25 19:17:34
    As was seen with Brexit....and the death of Bruce Lee ..the Guardian is about to learn a harsh lesson it will refuse to believe is real.

    Trump will win in November because of the simple reason of whom his opponent is.

    If Trump is the new Nixon, then Clinton is the new Rosemary Wood

    SteveofCaley -> HenneyAndPizza , 2016-07-25 19:21:12
    Waterboard that metaphor!
    eagueAilill , 2016-07-25 19:03:58
    I've heard some people recently commenting that they are going to vote for Trump not because they particularly like Trump but rather because they actively dislike Hillary. As in the case of president Obama there are many who cannot get their heads around that someone other than a white man could be president. Sanders was a breath of fresh air but the political machine that is the Democratic party had already chosen Hillary. Sadly, it's a contest that will be about which candidate is the lessor of two weevils.
    MrSaxon1 , 2016-07-25 18:42:50
    Well, to base an article on a speculation that Trump's post-convention bump will be like no other is a bit silly. Best to wait until the end of the Democratic Party's convention before jumping to any conclusions.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Lock her up: Sanders supporters adopt Trumps attack line on Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Sanders was always just the shiny carrot used to attract the naive youth and rope them in to Clinton's campaign. It's all a charade as it's always been. ..."
    "... Well Clinton is a neoliberal. They believe in destroying someone's whole life for making a mistake once. So perhaps she is getting a taste of her own medicine. ..."
    "... bernie is a accomplice sell out….sanders sold out to the criminal psychopath clinton…what a disappointment he turned out to be... ..."
    "... In different manner, Mr Trump has shaken the Republican Party to its foundations. He too has been subject to a devious counter-campaign. Thus, this is a unique moment for the USA: each of the two dominant political parties is reeling and given the right push shall either reform or fall. ..."
    "... Victoria Nuland and Hunter Biden as instrumental supporters of a fascist coup in the Ukraine...fascist coup. Support for Nazis. "We came, we saw; he died", said Hilary Rodham Clinton following the bloody Benghazi incident. There you have two excellent examples of Fascism and Authoritarianism, M.C.. Words and acts. ..."
    "... Sanders is trying to hold back the tide for change , and he will be found out. He is an utter hypocrite, who is reneging on everything that he said so recently. The Democrats are a party for the 1% ---whoever is the leader. A new, mass party of socialism is urgently needed. ..."
    "... Trump is a Bully, Hillary is a War Criminal. If Bernie won't lead a REVOLT--then We, the People will. ..."
    "... Loons. Hillary Clinton is just Dick Cheney without the long, ah, nose... ..."
    "... Hillary is indisputably a Neoliberal and Necon (warmonger), she's a threat to humanity. ..."
    "... Actually Hillary Clinton is perched quite a bit to the right of the Party. ..."
    "... Let me correct the record: it is nuts to support a candidate that is trusted by only 28% of the population! Nate Silver came out with a new projection that shows Hillary will lose to Trump. In a poll with a three way race Hillary, Trump, and with Johnson opposing Trump, Hillary STILL loses to Trump even though Johnson got a nice little chunk of the right leaning voters... ..."
    "... How is somebody not going to jail? And, why isn't there talk of holding a fair and Democratic primary? ..."
    "... HRCand DWS brought it on themselves. I am a registered democrat. I wanted a relatively clean establishment democrat without looming scandals to run. That didn't happen because Hillary ran. ..."
    "... She gives me the heebie jeebies. Julian Assange has apparently got something on her which will deliver the coup de grace. I am loving Wikileaks at the moment. ..."
    "... I hope Clinton will become less and less popular in the run up to the election, what would be fantastic is if we see Bernie running as an independent, America needs to have real democracy for once. ..."
    "... People say lock her up ..."
    "... No, she's above the law. As ex-Guardian columnist states so eloquently, there are 2 sets of laws in America---1 for elites like the Clintons, and another for everybody else. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    RJ6126 , 2016-07-25 23:19:02
    Sanders was always just the shiny carrot used to attract the naive youth and rope them in to Clinton's campaign. It's all a charade as it's always been.
    totallydude , 2016-07-25 22:17:31
    Well Clinton is a neoliberal. They believe in destroying someone's whole life for making a mistake once. So perhaps she is getting a taste of her own medicine.
    stephannoir , 2016-07-25 22:02:25
    bernie is a accomplice sell out….sanders sold out to the criminal psychopath clinton…what a disappointment he turned out to be...
    Pragmatism , 2016-07-25 21:42:11
    Mr Sanders is wrong to continue support for Clinton.

    Not only has Clinton admitted wilful breach of sensible electronic communication security arrangements but also her associates, likely with her tacit blessing, have done all in their power to undermine Mr Sanders. Allegations of vote rigging (e.g. excluding people entitled to vote, closing polling stations in locations where support for Clinton is thin, and strong presumptive statistical evidence that voting machines have been tampered with) give little credence to Clinton being fit for the presidency.

    Even Mr Trump has condemned this behaviour and I don't believe that wholly to be through political opportunism.

    There is an open offer for Mr Sanders to jump ship and front the Green Party. Else, he could stand as an independent democrat. What Mr Sanders must not do is lie down and accept having been shafted. He has pledged support to Clinton. He did this without full knowledge of the facts of Clinton's duplicity. Thus he is no longer honour bound to stick to his word. Indeed, by accepting the manipulated would-be status quo he becomes tainted by Clinton's malodorous persona.

    Mr Sanders is of an age when it soon shall be increasingly difficult to meet the physical demands of running for high office. This is his one and only chance for the presidency. Regardless of whether he succeeds, his stab at the presidency will give heart to a huge number of disenchanted US voters and bring about major changes to the Democratic Party establishment, to its electoral procedures and to its longer term policy platform; an alternative being collapse of that party and replacement by an entity better suited to the 21st century.

    In different manner, Mr Trump has shaken the Republican Party to its foundations. He too has been subject to a devious counter-campaign. Thus, this is a unique moment for the USA: each of the two dominant political parties is reeling and given the right push shall either reform or fall.

    mijkmijld Martha Carter , 2016-07-25 21:42:07
    Victoria Nuland and Hunter Biden as instrumental supporters of a fascist coup in the Ukraine...fascist coup. Support for Nazis. "We came, we saw; he died", said Hilary Rodham Clinton following the bloody Benghazi incident. There you have two excellent examples of Fascism and Authoritarianism, M.C.. Words and acts.
    Thies Arndt , 2016-07-25 21:19:21
    Remember how Team Clinton kept pushing the lie about Bernie supporters throwing chairs at the Nevada convention? I think I saw that mentioned in articles here more than once as well.

    http://www.snopes.com/did-sanders-supporters-throw-chairs-at-nevada-democratic-convention /

    FactsnReason -> Phil Forde , 2016-07-25 21:29:48
    Who needs to look at facts would be you and the other willfully blind Hillary supporters.

    Notably, the FBI DID NOT investigate this law...why didn't the Hillary loyalist, Loretta Lynch, include this one as part of their investigation? Hmmm. I wonder...

    Hillary Clinton broke this law.
    http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1663-protection-government-property-protection-public-records-and
    Subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 contains a similar prohibition specifically directed at custodians of public records. Any custodian of a public record who "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys (any record) shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States." While the range of acts proscribed by this subsection is somewhat narrower than subsection (a), it does provide the additional penalty of forfeiture of position with the United States.

    eveofchange , 2016-07-25 21:16:00
    Sanders is trying to hold back the tide for change , and he will be found out. He is an utter hypocrite, who is reneging on everything that he said so recently. The Democrats are a party for the 1% ---whoever is the leader. A new, mass party of socialism is urgently needed.
    smokinbluebear , 2016-07-25 21:15:40
    Trump is a Bully, Hillary is a War Criminal. If Bernie won't lead a REVOLT--then We, the People will.

    VOTE JILL STEIN

    Dan Pocela , 2016-07-25 21:00:22
    Loons. Jill Stein is just Ralph Nader without the long, ah, nose...
    FactsnReason -> Dan Pocela , 2016-07-25 21:40:58
    Loons. Hillary Clinton is just Dick Cheney without the long, ah, nose...
    BenevolentPantheist , 2016-07-25 20:37:55
    Hillary is indisputably a Neoliberal and Necon (warmonger), she's a threat to humanity.

    Legit Sources: Video.1 | Hillary Fighting For Us . | Hillary is a War Hawk - NYTimes and Salon news: she is more dangerous than Republicans . | Hillary Ready To Put The U.S on Warpath With Russia. Washington Times. | NATO-Russia Marching Towards War. Telegraph news UK . | Northern Thunder: 350,000 Troops Ready For War (Middle East) Daily Star news UK . | Poland Considering Access to Nuclear Weapons. The Guardian news . | Hillary Clinton Thinks Women Should Be Included In The Draft. Huffington Post . | Senate Votes To Include Women In The Draft. Huffington Post

    I'll stick to moral values and vote for Jill Stein :- )

    JudgeSturdy -> ilaughtilicried , 2016-07-25 20:43:52
    Actually Hillary Clinton is perched quite a bit to the right of the Party.
    FactsnReason -> aguy777 , 2016-07-25 21:56:03
    Let me correct the record: it is nuts to support a candidate that is trusted by only 28% of the population! Nate Silver came out with a new projection that shows Hillary will lose to Trump. In a poll with a three way race Hillary, Trump, and with Johnson opposing Trump, Hillary STILL loses to Trump even though Johnson got a nice little chunk of the right leaning voters...
    Who is nuts, now, dude?
    LinkMeyer , 2016-07-25 20:27:56
    How is somebody not going to jail? And, why isn't there talk of holding a fair and Democratic primary?
    AndreevReflection -> soneil , 2016-07-25 21:19:27
    HRCand DWS brought it on themselves. I am a registered democrat. I wanted a relatively clean establishment democrat without looming scandals to run. That didn't happen because Hillary ran.

    I wanted a clean looking election with few glaring conflicts of interests. That didn't happen because DWS didn't step down and high level party members couldn't keep their mouths shut over email.

    Now, we're expected to smile, nod, look the other way, and vote for Hillary. I will do that this time, but, if Hillary loses, I will never support her again.

    Whatrhymeswithorange , 2016-07-25 20:16:09
    She gives me the heebie jeebies. Julian Assange has apparently got something on her which will deliver the coup de grace. I am loving Wikileaks at the moment.
    Oliver Elkington , 2016-07-25 20:14:35
    I hope Clinton will become less and less popular in the run up to the election, what would be fantastic is if we see Bernie running as an independent, America needs to have real democracy for once.
    Anthony Simpson , 2016-07-25 20:06:45
    People say lock her up but she hasn't been changed with any crimes. The FBI cleared her on the e-mail server thing.
    Lee Mulcahy -> Anthony Simpson , 2016-07-25 20:28:50
    No, she's above the law. As ex-Guardian columnist states so eloquently, there are 2 sets of laws in America---1 for elites like the Clintons, and another for everybody else.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Bernie Sanders Gets Booed When He Asks Delegates to Elect Hillary Clinton

    www.legitgov.org
    July 26, 2016

    Bernie Sanders Gets Booed When He Asks Delegates to Elect Hillary Clinton | 25 July 2016 |The crowd of delegates in the convention center ballroom didn't come for unity: They came for Bernie Sanders. Sanders, the Vermont senator whose bid to beat back Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination fell short, took the stage this afternoon to speak to his delegates before he'll take a bigger stage in a few hours-at the Democratic National Convention on its opening night, in a bid to promote unity in the party as it gears up to face Republican Donald Trump in the fall. The packed ballroom cheered and chanted as Sanders recounted the successes of his campaign...But when he finally got around to speaking about the woman who will actually be the Democratic nominee, the crowd soured on their hero.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Pelosi, Members of California Delegation Booed at DNC Breakfast

    www.truthrevolt.org

    During a California delegation breakfast at the opening of the DNC Monday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues were practically booed off the stage by enraged members of their state's delegation. Roll Call reports:

    Members of the delegation repeatedly disrupted the lineup of speakers, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, with protestations against Clinton and cheers for her erstwhile primary rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

    But whenever a speaker talked about uniting to elect Clinton in November, the crowd balked. They booed Rep. Michael M. Honda. And chanted, "Bernie, Bernie, Bernie!" during Rep. Barbara Lee's address.

    Pelosi tried to unify the room by emphasizing the commonalities in the room rather than the divisions. "The differences that we have are not so great compared to the chasm between us and Republicans," she said.

    But the crowd wasn't having it. When a "Bernie" sign was thrust in Pelosi's face on stage, she remained calm, saying, "I don't consider it a discourtesy even if it is intended as one." [...]

    With one final call for unity, and rallying calls to take back the House and the Senate, Pelosi walked off stage to more "Bernie" chants.

    Perhaps in their arrogance establishment Democrats actually expected delegates to swallow whole the lies they have been selling all this time.

    [Jul 25, 2016] 50+ handcuffed at DNC as thousands protest Clinton's nomination

    (VIDEO)
    Compare with NYT coverage
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Hell no DNC, we won't vote for Hillary" ..."
    "... "Hillary for Prison," ..."
    "... "Either Way, Wall Street Wins." ..."
    www.rt.com

    Fifty-five people have been issued citations for disorderly conduct for trying to climb over police barricades at the edge of the security zone surrounding the convention, law enforcements said, according to AP.

    Protests have descended on City Hall and FDR Park, which are downtown right behind the Democratic Convention security zone. Local police have been bracing for the up to 50,000 protesters that are expected daily.

    Protesters have been chanting "Hell no DNC, we won't vote for Hillary" as anti-Clinton banners flood the streets outside the Wells Fargo Center.

    ... ... ...

    Some of the banners read "Hillary for Prison," while others had pictures of Republican nominee Donald Trump and Clinton united under the slogan "Either Way, Wall Street Wins."

    [Jul 25, 2016] How Clinton And Her Shallow-Brained Media Do Trumps Bidding

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "dark speech" theme was obviously a canned response by the Clinton campaign. ..."
    "... independent media ..."
    "... You know that's a common problem with the 1% oriented inner party and their outer party wannabes. They 'have nothing meaningful to offer the electorate in a positive sense'. ..."
    "... The Don has benefitted not only from his worldwide brand prior to entering the race, but also from what came before him. A pretty large Paulite mobilisation in 2008, followed by an at times clinical insurgency into the party rank and file in 2012 created an atmosphere just perfect for Trump to follow in behind. ..."
    "... The Paulite insurgency which in great detail engineered massive primary caucus delegate victories (see Minnesota) against the popular vote were so effective that the RNC changed the voting rules. And so, the 2016 primary delegates would be bound to the popular vote. ..."
    "... I am not sure that this revolution is what Good Dr Ron had in mind, but as an outsider looking in it's not hard to tell that The Don has aimed a couple of clever soundbites in regards to foreign policy squarely at the Paulites...even though you don't need to be too anti-war entice votes from Hilary. ..."
    "... The RNC imploded. Because of Paul they lost a switch and lever crucial to event rigged - whenever Trump tweets 'RIGGED' that a war chant aimed at all conscious human beings. ..."
    "... Trump raises much less money than Clinton. He simply does not need as much as she does. He can spend more time on real campaigning than Clinton who must hurry from one fund raiser to the next one. Meanwhile Clinton's negative campaigning against Trump reinforces his message. ..."
    "... Good one - yes, the mass corporate press really is scripted, and really they all read from the same script. ..."
    "... I look at politics through what is called "Deep Politics" which to me means politics viewed as it is rather than through the lens of American Exceptionalism." The oligarchs have fallen out among themselves at the very time that they achieved absolute control over our society. Part of all the differences are about "personal" rivalries among the aristocracy, another and part is about ethnic and social rivalries, and finally there are several different ideologies at work here. This explains the drift we have seen during the Obama years. ..."
    "... In the current system American politicians are power brokers who arrange deals and they tend to have very little personal power. Thus Obama's FP seems to be utterly rudderless and full of constant zig-zags. ..."
    "... Trump, in my view, saw that the disaffected factions had nowhere to go and were more nationalist and not as global in their views and believed he could Marshall those then inchoate forces into a movement. Trump was also, unlike most oligarchs, in touch with the yeoman class who do the heavy lifting in our society and are and have been ignored by the major factions as being irrelevant. Now Trump is heading the first genuine populist movement since FDR ..."
    "... I have it from a source I trust that Trump is fully aware of some of the skullduggery of the back ops cadre which explains his alliance with Alex Jones and his posse. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Clinton's negative campaign against Trump, and the media leashed to her messages, are doing Trump a huge favor. Unless they can break away from their limited framework, stop their unintended advertising for Trump's campaign, they will propel him to victory.

    Here is an example: Networks on Trump: A 'Dark Speech' From a 'Vengeful' 'Demagogue' - Newsbuster

    The three networks on Thursday night immediately derided Donald Trump's "dark speech" as one coming from a "vengeful" "demagogue."

    The "dark speech" theme was obviously a canned response by the Clinton campaign. Her independent media (not) dutifully repeated it over and over. But that negative "dark speech" theme, supposed to condemn Trump, only makes his point.

    (Isn't it amazing how Putin can compel all U.S. media to parrot the very same message?)

    Cont. reading: How Clinton And Her Shallow-Brained Media Do Trump's Bidding

    Posted by b at 04:44 AM | Comments (58)

    anon | Jul 25, 2016 7:18:04 AM | 10

    @4, Colin 'The Clintonistas can only go negative, because they have nothing meaningful to offer the electorate in a positive sense.'

    You know that's a common problem with the 1% oriented inner party and their outer party wannabes. They 'have nothing meaningful to offer the electorate in a positive sense'. That's exactly the 'problem' here in Thailand. The Democrat Party here, which is in about the same position as there, adopted the 'strategy' of boycotting elections. Not even running. They knew they had not a snowball's chance in South Thailand of winning.

    The 'solution' to their problem here was ... military coup and dictatorship. Turn back the clock to the middle ages and see how that works out. The thing about dictatorships is that they make 'society' stupid and cowardly. All the state functionaries identify with the dictator and in every situation ask themselves 'what would the dictator do?' and then they do it. They are at once even more irrational and brutal than the dictator himself ... or than the dictator himself after his advisors have cajoled and pleaded or the plutocrats have threatened him ... because they are deathly afraid of incurring the dictator's wrath for being 'lax'.

    And at the same time they'd like to stand out as dictatoresque men of action themselves ... just like the d-man himself. Maybe they can be d-men someday. Society is degenerating, and the pace has picked up in the past couple of months on the way to the dictator's referendum on his waaaay over the top charter, aka constitution, for Thailand. They arrested and charged two 8 year-old girls the other day who appropriated some important papers they'd hung up, because they put there orders on pink paper and the girls thought the paper was beautiful.

    Anyway, Trump is analogous to Thaksin, not to put too fine a point on it, at least he's talkin' the talk. The Democrats have nothing to offer ordinary

    jfl | Jul 25, 2016 7:28:03 AM | 12

    Looks like the corporate media all got the memo concerning Trump's "dark" acceptance speech:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoG0Q_oXEAAJlgV.jpg

    @7 ms, 'It is the time for nationalists and globalists to have a political war'

    I think its time for corporatists and humanists to have a war. I know that hard-right - libertarians - conceive of the government as the arch, evil corporation, but in fact that is because it is run by the arch. evil transnational corporations. The TTP / TTIP embody that corporate manifest. They want to take decision-making out of the hands of human beings and put it in the hands of the TNCs, because as slave 'owners' or 'managers' of corporations their livelihoods are completely dependent on the 'well-being', bottom line anyway, of those TNCs.

    The real problem with government is that it is absentee-owned, we the people have taken a permanent vacation, and the corporations have usurped our place. So the battle is to seize control of our governments and to geld the TNCs.

    There is much more overlap in our immediate goals than in our conception of how the world works, but the key word there is immediate. We have enough common ground there to form a coherent, goal directed, expeditionary-force, to battle the corporatists from the left and the globalists from the right, though we retire to separate tents with our fellows to plan the struggles of tomorrow, once the immediate battle has been closed and won.

    MadMax2 | Jul 25, 2016 7:53:05 AM | 13
    @jfl 5
    No, he cant lose vs Hilary. Impossible... as the outside observer (so more tuned to receive US foreign policy banter)

    The Don has benefitted not only from his worldwide brand prior to entering the race, but also from what came before him. A pretty large Paulite mobilisation in 2008, followed by an at times clinical insurgency into the party rank and file in 2012 created an atmosphere just perfect for Trump to follow in behind.

    For how fortunate the republican climate was/is for The Don, it was equally balanced by how unforgiving it was to Cruz. The RNC shot stooge Cruz in the back 4 years ago.

    The Paulite insurgency which in great detail engineered massive primary caucus delegate victories (see Minnesota) against the popular vote were so effective that the RNC changed the voting rules. And so, the 2016 primary delegates would be bound to the popular vote.

    An unfathomable lack of foresight right there, but also gives you an idea of how shitscared Stooge Romney was of the Paul faithful, whose leader had been subject to media blackout by much of the MSM and passed off as a cuck wherever else he was mentioned. Romney couldn't have him hijacking the 2012 RNC.

    Delegates now bound by popular vote instead of the caucus based system which encourages grass roots involvement is a perfect platform for...well..a populist.

    I am not sure that this revolution is what Good Dr Ron had in mind, but as an outsider looking in it's not hard to tell that The Don has aimed a couple of clever soundbites in regards to foreign policy squarely at the Paulites...even though you don't need to be too anti-war entice votes from Hilary.

    The Dems will have their reformation in 2020 - but I don't think they'll be feeling The Bern as much as the RNC is feeling Dr Ron's Pay-It-Forward Prescription.

    The RNC imploded. Because of Paul they lost a switch and lever crucial to event rigged - whenever Trump tweets 'RIGGED' that a war chant aimed at all conscious human beings.

    At least with Emperor Trump libertarians also get their wish of minimal government. Something to smile about I guess.

    Mike Maloney | Jul 25, 2016 7:57:34 AM | 15

    MadMax2 | Jul 25, 2016 7:55:53 AM | 14

    ^*crucial to event rigging /a>
    For all of Hillary's weaknesses and venality it is going to be next to impossible for Trump to beat her as long as he labors under a gender gap of historic proportions . After Hillary is elected, expect even more and larger U.S. wars. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Doomsday Clock will likely tick two minutes to midnight, something it hasn't done since 1953 at the height of the Cold War.
    Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 25, 2016 10:28:53 AM | 24
    Excellent run-down on the way Visionless Twerps emphasize their lack of vision by resorting to one-word slogans as a substitute for POLICIES, b.

    This observation sums up Hillary's dilemna with superb and delicious clarity:

    Trump raises much less money than Clinton. He simply does not need as much as she does. He can spend more time on real campaigning than Clinton who must hurry from one fund raiser to the next one. Meanwhile Clinton's negative campaigning against Trump reinforces his message.

    If she keeps believing her own bullshit (fingers crossed), and she slides in the polls, it's not hard to imagine that she'll have to put the Putin excuse on the back-burner and swing a wrecking ball through Team Clinton in retribution for her own dumbfuckery.

    With Right-wing Cranks it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault when a half-baked scheme goes belly-up.

    TG | Jul 25, 2016 10:30:14 AM | 25
    Good one - yes, the mass corporate press really is scripted, and really they all read from the same script.

    I guess they decided that 'racist' and 'fascist' were starting to lose their shock value due to overuse, and they decided to try 'dark' for a while.

    If I was a talented hacker I would love to intercept the marching orders that the media get and replace the official cuss-word of the day with something like 'ontological', and see how many media outlets blindly use the word even though it makes no sense at all…

    • "Donald Trump's speech darkly ontological" - NYT
    • "The specter of ontology haunting the Trump campaign" - The Guardian
    • "Putin and Trump: ontological partners?" - Time magazine

    I can dream...

    I think perhaps the worst thing that Bill Clinton did to this country - worse than NAFTA, worse than repealing Glass-Steagall, or bailing out the big banks that made bad loans to Mexico etc.etc., was allowing the media to consolidate.

    I think the biggest priority for anyone who wants his country to stop going down the drain, would be to break up the big media monopolies, prevent news organizations from owning or being owned by any other business, and blocking foreign nationals from controlling US media outlets. IMHO.

    likklemore | Jul 25, 2016 10:54:45 AM | 27
    Bravo b. But you've been too kind with your description:

    "The New York Times journalist tweeted" [..] The journos' shallow-brained reaction is a main ingredient of it"

    Imho, "journalist" joined the Dodos decades ago. What we now have are Stenos., Cut and Pasters at corporate media.

    May I use your apt descriptor "shallow-brained"? Yes, shallow-brain Stenos. No exercise of brain cells required.


    "Oh my, we need to separate the adverts, do you have a ready piece you'd like us to print? Send it over."

    On Election day, the turnout to vote may be as low as 30%.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    @ Mike Maloney 15

    For all of Hillary's weakness and venality it is going to be next to impossible for Trump to beat her…[..]"

    btw, I .do. not. have. a. vote.

    but
    May I suggest
    You underestimate the utter public disgust for the Clinton dynasty. Take any segment - from the low-informed to independents- they are tired and wish to see the backs of Clintons.

    Michael Moore sees even progressives will stay at home. A low turnout favours Trump.

    And do you not think the emails, ones from the DNC and HRC private servers, will keep on giving?

    At the link, do scroll up to "Wow" read the DNCLeak email. Donna Brazile says there are more coming….

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/24/2016-livewire-democrats-disarray-eve-hillary-clintons-coronation-convention-philadelphia/

    Democrats in Disarray UPDATE 10:25 P.M. ET

    Hillary Clinton, in an interview with 60 Minutes, says: "I don't know anything about these emails. I haven't followed it. But I'm very proud of the campaign I ran. And I'm very proud of the campaign that Sen. Sanders ran."
    When asked by 60 minutes if it would have been "improper" for anyone inside the DNC to favor one candidate over another, Hillary Clinton responds: "Again, I don't have any information about this. So I can't answer specifically. We ran our campaign. We ran hard. We worked to have as many successes as possible. We're very proud we got{.}

    ~ ~ ~

    as always HRC admits to " knowing nothing about it " and "is sometimes confused."

    HRC, the next president with Bill the first spouse?

    Is there some real estate for sale on Pluto?

    Banger | Jul 25, 2016 10:56:01 AM | 28
    I look at politics through what is called "Deep Politics" which to me means politics viewed as it is rather than through the lens of American Exceptionalism." The oligarchs have fallen out among themselves at the very time that they achieved absolute control over our society. Part of all the differences are about "personal" rivalries among the aristocracy, another and part is about ethnic and social rivalries, and finally there are several different ideologies at work here. This explains the drift we have seen during the Obama years.

    In the current system American politicians are power brokers who arrange deals and they tend to have very little personal power. Thus Obama's FP seems to be utterly rudderless and full of constant zig-zags.

    The main faction which includes Soros and his gang have the advantage of controlling the major propaganda organs and they support the Clintons. Trump, in my view, saw that the disaffected factions had nowhere to go and were more nationalist and not as global in their views and believed he could Marshall those then inchoate forces into a movement. Trump was also, unlike most oligarchs, in touch with the yeoman class who do the heavy lifting in our society and are and have been ignored by the major factions as being irrelevant. Now Trump is heading the first genuine populist movement since FDR though he is much closer to Mussolini in style and substance except for the imperial ambitions.

    Even if Trump wins that does not mean the dominant faction is dead because as long as the muscle part of the faction, mainly the black op faction remains in the globalist corner, they will still be able to assert themselves. Trump, if he wants to have free rein must purge some of these people and make some deals with the rest of we will see major instability. I have it from a source I trust that Trump is fully aware of some of the skullduggery of the back ops cadre which explains his alliance with Alex Jones and his posse.

    The "issues" here are irrelevant. This is about a struggle for power and if it is a close election the race will come down to who can control the ballot. American elections are noonger honest so who controls the count controls the election.

    One little caveat here. During the 00 ballot counting period in Florida while I was working on a top secret project one of the senior people on the project who was ex-military told me his sources in the military told him that if Gore won there would be a military coup. I believe the Supreme Court was aware of this and threw the election to Bush. I think we are seeing the most important election of our lifetime and no matter who wins we will see even more unraveling of the USA.

    kafkananda | Jul 25, 2016 10:58:01 AM | 29
    This is exactly the analysis that Scott Adams, the Dilbert comic strip creator, has been following for over a year. Understanding Trump as a 'Master Persuader' and relying on his training as a hypnotist, he was one of the first to say Trump was on his way to a landslide win, not just the Republican nomination. Check out his twitter feed "@ScottAdamsSays" for his latest thoughts.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Donald Trump bounces into the lead

    www.legitgov.org
    July 25, 2016

    Donald Trump bounces into the lead | 25 July 2016 | The bounce is back. Donald Trump comes out of his convention ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to 39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%. That latter finding represents a 6-point convention bounce for Trump, which are traditionally measured in two-way matchups. There hasn't been a significant post-convention bounce in CNN's polling since 2000.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Bernie Sanders Backers March Against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia

    Notable quotes:
    "... More than 1,000 people from as far as Seattle and Florida participated in the first of what are expected to be many Sanders rallies during the convention, which formally begins Monday. ..."
    "... anger at Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment was not cooled ..."
    "... At the front of the parade was a flag with the Democratic donkey flying upside down. Further animating the protest was the release by WikiLeaks of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee showing party efforts to undermine Mr. Sanders's candidacy, reinforcing a widespread view among marchers that party leaders had stacked the deck against him. ..."
    "... "It's not just young people who are furious. There are people who have been Democrats for decades and are completely angry," said Kimberly Cooper, 59, of Florida. "Now with the WikiLeaks thing, I am finished supporting her." ..."
    "... Numerous marchers said they would support Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. They rejected the argument that not voting for Mrs. Clinton would help Mr. Trump. ..."
    Jul 24, 2016 | nytimes.com

    More than 1,000 people from as far as Seattle and Florida participated in the first of what are expected to be many Sanders rallies during the convention, which formally begins Monday. The march, led by a banner proclaiming "Help End Establishment Politics, Vote No on Hillary," was far larger than any of the protest marches last week in Cleveland at the Republican National Convention.

    ... ... ...

    But the unreconstructed anger at Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment was not cooled, despite Mr. Sanders's endorsement of Mrs. Clinton two weeks ago.

    At the front of the parade was a flag with the Democratic donkey flying upside down. Further animating the protest was the release by WikiLeaks of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee showing party efforts to undermine Mr. Sanders's candidacy, reinforcing a widespread view among marchers that party leaders had stacked the deck against him.

    "It's not just young people who are furious. There are people who have been Democrats for decades and are completely angry," said Kimberly Cooper, 59, of Florida. "Now with the WikiLeaks thing, I am finished supporting her."

    Brandon Gorcheff, of Youngstown, Ohio, who held a handmade sign reading "Move Left" that spoofed the Clinton campaign's arrow logo, said nothing could get him to support Mrs. Clinton. Michelle Cyr, who flew to Philadelphia from Bath, Me., said, "The Democratic Party is so out of touch with its constituents."

    Joshua Brown, an alternate delegate from North Carolina who supports Mr. Sanders, a Vermont senator, said he was concerned that people would desert the party in the fall, either abstaining or voting for a third-party candidate and bolstering Mr. Trump's chances.

    ... ... ...

    Numerous marchers said they would support Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. They rejected the argument that not voting for Mrs. Clinton would help Mr. Trump.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Spurned Sanders Supporters Disrupt Day 1 Of DNC With Boos And Jeers

    It is interesting how quickly the elite lost control. Revolutionary situation indeed.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Every time Clinton's name was mentioned thereafter, the crowd erupted into chaos: Sanders supporters shouting against Clinton supporters. ..."
    "... As Cummings talked about how proud his late father would be of the people in the room, Sanders' supporters shouted, "No TPP, No TPP," in reference to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. ..."
    www.npr.org

    When Rev. Cynthia Hale mentioned Hillary Clinton for the first time during the invocation, the floor erupted into boos.

    Clinton supporters began chanting, "Hil-la-ry, Hil-la-ry," but they were quickly drowned out by chants of "Bernie, Bernie!"
    Bernie Sanders supporter and organizer Billy Taylor held a coffin painted with donkeys during a march Sunday in Philadelphia. He told NPR he applied for protest permits to "stop any Hillary supporters from obtaining permits."

    Every time Clinton's name was mentioned thereafter, the crowd erupted into chaos: Sanders supporters shouting against Clinton supporters.

    ... ... ...

    A Democratic Party official tells Tamara that the Sanders and Clinton campaigns have tried to work together to present a united front. Early into the convention, it was clear those talks and the message from Sanders had not swayed the delegations.

    Rep. Marcia Fudge, from Ohio, was shouted down many times as she tried to get through some procedural motions.

    "I intend to be fair," she said as the crowd booed. "I am going to be respectful of you and I want you to be respectful of me. We are all Democrats and we need to act like it."

    The same thing happened as Rep. Elijah Cummings delivered a speech centering on social justice.

    As Cummings talked about how proud his late father would be of the people in the room, Sanders' supporters shouted, "No TPP, No TPP," in reference to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Clinton Asserts Putin Influence On Trump - After Taking Russian Bribes

    Seems the Clinton and her assorted groupies just need a scapegoat :-). Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing.
    Notable quotes:
    "... From Bloomberg - "If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies, they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person familiar with the party's thinking said' ..."
    "... Ha! Fat chance. I'm thinking the American voter is going to start sending Thank You notes to the Kremlin! As usual, their heads are stuck so far up the arse of their donkey they incapable of gauging Main Street sentiment. ..."
    "... She is just a symptom of the DNC disease. And yes, she'll take the fall for the team, but make no mistake, the cancer remains and will continue to metastasize. ..."
    M of A

    Is Putin manipulating the Clinton campaign?

    Russia is weaponizing everything : Word files, federalism, finance and Jedi mind tricks - everything is transformed into a weapon if Russia or its president Putin is imagined to come near it.

    But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin is infiltrating Europe . And not only Europe.

    Putin, the President of the Russian Federation, is influencing, manipulating and controlling many "western" politicians, parties and movements - in Europe AND in the United States.

    Here are, thanks to Mark Sleboda , a partial list of political entities and issue Putin secretly manipulates and controls:

    Putin is indeed everywhere:

    9:16 PM - 23 Jul 2016 - Billmon @billmon1

    Putin strikes AGAIN! " Seventeen people hurt when Hudson River ferry hits pier in New Jersey "

    And now for the crown of it all.

    Putin is in cahoots with the Republican presidential candidate Trump - claims the Clinton campaign . Putin is behind, it asserts, the leak of the DNC emails which prove that the Democratic National Committee has been working against Sanders to promote Hillary Clinton. The leak of the DNC emails, says the Clinton campaign, is ..:

    .. further evidence the Russian government is trying to influence the outcome of the election.

    The "facts" proving Russian support for Trump are mostly lies , but Putin's nefarious intentions must still be speculated about.

    The Clinton campaign has not looked thoroughly enough into Putin's schemes. Reveal we can that Putin has penetrated U.S. politics even deeper than thought - right down into the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family itself:

    As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.

    That money, surely, had no influence on then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's decisions? And what about her husband?

    Mr. Clinton received $500,000 ... from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin

    These undisputed facts demonstrate that Putin is indeed waging influence by bribing U.S. politicians. But the Clinton campaign is be a bit more hesitant in pointing these out.

    Posted by b at 10:29 AM | Comments (87)

    fast freddy | Jul 24, 2016 12:10:28 PM | 8

    Clinton/Kaine certainly confident that the MSM will not report.

    For all the money given to the Clinton's it didn't prevent the Ukraine disasters. Of course, Ukraine may not have been a concern among the particular oligarchs who made these bribes.

    HOw could this anti-russian hysteria/bashing go on, I mean the level of paranoia and disinformation against Russia and Putin is plain crazy.

    Zedew | Jul 24, 2016 12:32:54 PM | 9

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:39:54 PM | 14

    From Bloomberg - "If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies, they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person familiar with the party's thinking said'

    Ha! Fat chance. I'm thinking the American voter is going to start sending Thank You notes to the Kremlin! As usual, their heads are stuck so far up the arse of their donkey they incapable of gauging Main Street sentiment.

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:58:17 PM | 17
    Sanders calls for Schultz to step down.

    Funny though, Schultz takes her orders from Obama, as the Chairman of the Party, the DNC Board of Directors and team Hillary. Period. If any blame should go around it should splash onto all individuals NOT just Schultz.

    She is just a symptom of the DNC disease. And yes, she'll take the fall for the team, but make no mistake, the cancer remains and will continue to metastasize.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Sanders response to Wikileaks: betrayal of supporters or battered wife syndrome

    Notable quotes:
    "... So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them. ..."
    "... His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest. ..."
    "... I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral. ..."
    "... Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are. ..."
    "... Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. ..."
    "... And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for! ..."
    "... AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a cabinet position for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary. He doesn't have to speak at the Convention (but he will tonight). ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.

    Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."

    Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -

    Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"

    Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media is not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this country, blah blah blah..."

    "[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."

    So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them.

    UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!

    His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest.

    I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral.

    Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are.

    If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.

    Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter.

    And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for!

    Posted by: h | Jul 24, 2016 1:24:40 PM | 11

    Jackrabbit | Jul 24, 2016 2:28:41 PM | 25

    h @11:

    His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome.
    You are assuming that Sanders is a victim instead of a conspirator.

    Why would anyone give any politician in our corrupt system the benefit of the doubt? Even one that seems to be against 'the system'?

    Why didn't Bernie release more than one year of tax returns?

    Especially since Hillary cited this as a reason not to release the transcripts of her speaches to Goldman Sachs.

    Why didn't Bernie use the emails against Hillary after the State Department Inspector General released their report?

    This official report clearly demonstrated that Hillary had consistently misled the nation about her emails.

    Why didn't Bernie attack Obama's record on Black/Minority affairs?

    Obama's support is part of the reason that Blacks/Minorities were voting for Hillary. Obama never went to Feruson or New York or Baltimore. Obama's weak economic stimulous and austerity policies have been very bad for blacks/minorities. Obama bailed out banks that targeted minorities for toxic loans. Etc.

    Why does Bernie, at 74-years old, care more about Hillary (which he calls a friend of 25 years) and the Democratic Party than his principles?

    AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a cabinet position for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary. He doesn't have to speak at the Convention (but he will tonight).

    [Jul 25, 2016] Trump is too smart and proud to box himself in with false promises

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump, unlike most politicians, isn't a pitiful, cowardly liar who'd sell his soul, his mother and his best friend for a fistful of cash. You're probably confusing him with Tony Bliar, Bush II and 'Mr Magoo without the good intentions' - John W Howard, a creepy sell-out with no presence, personality or moral compass. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    But don't expect anything much in the way of 'keeping promises' post-election. "What, those were promises? I was just putting on a show, and you _loved_ it."
    Posted by: fairleft | Jul 25, 2016 12:28:47 PM | 42

    You wish...

    Trump, unlike most politicians, isn't a pitiful, cowardly liar who'd sell his soul, his mother and his best friend for a fistful of cash. You're probably confusing him with Tony Bliar, Bush II and 'Mr Magoo without the good intentions' - John W Howard, a creepy sell-out with no presence, personality or moral compass.

    After one of his early promise-laden election victories, he had the gall to dismiss a press query about several of his broken promises thus:

    "Uhh, they were non-core promises."

    Trump's too smart and proud to box himself in with false promises. If he's flogging a vague idea it'll be vague BEFORE the election, not afterwards.

    Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 25, 2016 3:56:39 PM | 59

    [Jul 25, 2016] Trump favorite Foreign Policy guy is Zionist for Yinon Plan for Greater Israel John Bolton. That can't be good.

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Remember Obama railed against "stupid wars". I assumed that he was referring to the destruction of Iraq. Since then, Obama has engaged the USA in more stupid wars than any president in history.

    Now we have Trump - America First. Also opposed to stupid wars. But his favorite Foreign Policy guy is Zionist for Yinon Plan for Greater Israel John Bolton. That can't be good.

    BUT Trump is not saber rattling straight out of the box like the Hell Bitch is doing.

    Posted by: fast freddy | Jul 25, 2016 3:42:55 PM | 55

    [Jul 25, 2016] Manafort says the Trump campaign is about law and order and that dark themes, absurdly, only elevate Trump as the peace bringer

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you want to understand the Trump campaign team and Paul Manafort then read Franklin Foer's outstanding article in Slate magazine (28 April 2016) entitled "The Quiet American" . It'll blow your socks off. Manafort is selling Trump to the American people as a clean skin product, a break from insider corruption. It's a lie but it's enough to defeat Hillary. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    damien | Jul 25, 2016 9:30:13 AM | 20

    Trump is an egotist but I don't think he's that smart. I think his media successes are due to his curent campaign director Paul Manafort, who takes over from Roger Stone, a long time Trump ally and Republican Party trickster. Previously Manafort ran a PR firm that catered to every dictator imaginable (it was joked about in Washington as 'The Torturers' Lobby').

    Manafort and Stone formed a company in 1980 that ran the election campaigns for a generation of Republicans and held cartel-like control over the Republican primaries. As one consultant put it: "They managed all of the major campaigns. Atwater took Bush; Black ran Dole; Stone handled Jack Kemp. A congressional staffer joked to a reporter from Time, 'Why have primaries for the nomination? Why not have the candidates go over to Black, Manafort and Stone and argue it out?'"

    If you want to understand the Trump campaign team and Paul Manafort then read Franklin Foer's outstanding article in Slate magazine (28 April 2016) entitled "The Quiet American". It'll blow your socks off. Manafort is selling Trump to the American people as a clean skin product, a break from insider corruption. It's a lie but it's enough to defeat Hillary.

    Manafort says the Trump campaign is about law and order and that dark themes, absurdly, only elevate Trump as the peace bringer.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Trump is a natural leader. He is a boor, but he is a natural leader

    "... Barack Obama = CIA creation to be a rubber stamp. He was never a leader. Early on, he'd clearly indicated that the job of the President is not to lead, but to pass or veto bills from Congress. This narrow interpretation allowed him to screw us good. He and his dupes explained that we got screwed because of meany republicans and especially b/c "his hands were tied". ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    fast freddy | Jul 25, 2016 9:16:01 AM | 19

    Barack Obama = CIA creation to be a rubber stamp. He was never a leader. Early on, he'd clearly indicated that the job of the President is not to lead, but to pass or veto bills from Congress. This narrow interpretation allowed him to screw us good. He and his dupes explained that we got screwed because of meany republicans and especially b/c "his hands were tied".

    So many lies. One of my favorites: "The government cannot create jobs."

    Trump, OTOH, is a natural leader. He is a boor, but he is a natural leader. When Congress sets about to screw the commons, the remedy is "The Bully Pulpit".

    Explain on TV the nature of the situation to the people. Watch Congress capitulate when you call the bastards out individually.

    The last guy that did that was JFK.

    [Jul 25, 2016] The Pence pick will not do Trump any good

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is favored mostly because he is an anti-establishment figure (and part of his mutterings about Mexicans and Muslims are there just to get him that cred, though other readings are possible..), because he is the first to run on American decline and reversing it, because of the discourse about jobs, NAFTA, other countries not paying their way, China and trade, a certain isolationism, etc. and because he sneers at the instituted estates (incl. the media.) ..."
    "... Many ppl will ignore it of course in their new-leader enthusiasm (see Sanders!) but others not. It also signals an alarming precedent for any future nominations (were he to become Prez.) Trump's interest - as he must know - is in sharpening divisions and not 'normalizing' himself. ..."
    "... I listened to Trump's convention speech. It sounded like it sprung from analysis of focus groups where you chew over data blah blah and go on to create 'sceintific' opinion clusters and focus on the things ppl agree on. Not the best. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Noirette | Jul 24, 2016 10:12:07 AM | 93

    Trump is favored mostly because he is an anti-establishment figure (and part of his mutterings about Mexicans and Muslims are there just to get him that cred, though other readings are possible..), because he is the first to run on American decline and reversing it, because of the discourse about jobs, NAFTA, other countries not paying their way, China and trade, a certain isolationism, etc. and because he sneers at the instituted estates (incl. the media.)

    According to the standard copy-book, he should have picked another anti-est. (or only marginally connected) person, even someone unknown or utterly outrageous. Or done something nutty, such as run a contest for the spot on the intertubes, after saying he contacted Bernie and the Bern refused so now what? ;)

    The Pence choice looks like it is an outcome of the usual slice/n/dice calculations (Pence will bring in his home state, Cruz voters will like Pence, or whatever..), imposed by the Repubs. to 'normalize' Trump, bring his candidacy 'into the fold.' It looks like a deal was made, and Trump had not the mojo to resist. Pence and Trump are not natural allies, and imho will soon be at odds. OK one can argue that there is only one figure here, Maestro Trump, and all the sattelites around are not important. Yet, this move imho puts his candidacy into question.

    Many ppl will ignore it of course in their new-leader enthusiasm (see Sanders!) but others not. It also signals an alarming precedent for any future nominations (were he to become Prez.) Trump's interest - as he must know - is in sharpening divisions and not 'normalizing' himself.

    I listened to Trump's convention speech. It sounded like it sprung from analysis of focus groups where you chew over data blah blah and go on to create 'sceintific' opinion clusters and focus on the things ppl agree on. Not the best.

    He can maybe still win, on the numbers, imho. Facing one of the most hated pols ever… Depends on vote-rigging etc. as, for now, it looks like a close? race. Presumably Trump will now bring out major guns against Killary.

    [Jul 25, 2016] German corporations donate to Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... According to recent figures, the BASF PAC has distributed $399,000 in donations. The lion's share of this money, a good 72 percent, flowed to the Republicans. This is not surprising, writes Die Welt. In previous election years, BASF, Allianz and Bayer had supported the Republicans. ..."
    www.wsws.org

    In a guest editorial reprinted from the Los Angeles Times, the FAZ writes of a possible military coup in the oldest democracy in the world. Under the headline, "If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the US," journalist James Kirchick develops a scenario in which President Trump gives the military an illegal command, which it refuses to carry it out.

    The article ends with the following: "Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to."

    German corporations with operations in the US reacted somewhat differently. As Die Welt reports, notable large concerns from Germany gave more than two-thirds of their election donations to the Republicans, and thus to Trump; above all BASF, Allianz, Siemens and Deutsche Bank.

    Since US law prevents American or foreign companies from making direct donations to candidates, campaign funding takes place via so-called Political Action Committees (PACs). This is a legal construct allowing the circumvention of both the strict limit on donations as well as the ban on corporate donations. Via so-called super PACs, hundreds of millions of dollars flow into campaign advertising.

    According to recent figures, the BASF PAC has distributed $399,000 in donations. The lion's share of this money, a good 72 percent, flowed to the Republicans. This is not surprising, writes Die Welt. In previous election years, BASF, Allianz and Bayer had supported the Republicans.

    According to Die Welt, in this election campaign the chemical and pharmaceutical group Bayer sent 80 percent of its donations to benefit the Republicans. At financial services company Allianz it was 72 percent.

    Deutsche Bank, on the other hand, changed political camps. The paper writes: "While Deutsche Bank donated comparatively little, only $37,000, it is remarkable that 86 percent of this money was distributed to the Republican camp." Such a clear tendency could not be seen in any other German company.

    That Deutsche Bank sympathies with the Republicans is new. In 2006 and 2008, the bank had clearly tended toward the Democrats. The change of side was not surprising, "since Deutsche Bank is the largest lender to Donald Trump." For the renovation of a hotel in Washington, Trump borrowed $170 million from Deutsche Bank.

    [Jul 25, 2016] If you think Trump is a liar, then everything he says is bullshit. But I see his remarks over a long time are consistent

    www.moonofalabama.org

    From The Hague | Jul 23, 2016 6:21:41 PM | 38

    @37 jfl
    If you think Trump is a liar, then everything he says is bullshit.
    But I see his remarks over a long time are consistent.

    And in sequel on #32
    William Engdahl has to explain a lot.
    In his "A Century of War" he describes how the US industry was crippled in the 50's and 60's.
    And how the protestors were demonised.

    p. 119
    Riots were deliberately incited in industrial cities like Newark, Boston, Oakland and Philadelphia by government-backed 'insurgents', such as Tom Hayden. The goal of this operation was to break the power of established industrial trade unions in the northern cities by labeling them racist.

    p. 120
    The newly created U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity weakened the political voice of traditional American labor and the influential urban constituency machines. The targeted white blue-collar industrial operatives, only a decade earlier hailed as the lifeblood of American industry, were suddenly labeled 'reactionary' and 'racist' by the powerful liberal media. These workers were mostly fearful and confused as they saw their entire social fabric collapsing in the wake of the disinvestment policy of the powerful banks.

    http://www.takeoverworld.info/pdf/Engdahl__Century_of_War_book.pdf


    Hey William, did you read about Trump's ideas to bring back jobs to the USA?
    (and do you recognize something?)

    And William, did you understand his remarks about that Mexican Wall (on American Soil).
    (preventing illegal immigration, ALSO because he wants higher minimum wages (impossible with illegal immigrants))

    [Jul 25, 2016] Debbie Wasserman Schultz, speaking to her Florida delegation, was loudly booed this morning

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz, speaking to her Florida delegation, was loudly booed this morning. At least per tape of the meeting used on WNYC pubic radio broadcast this morning. An NBC video had microphones which captured DWS's speaking, but barely caught the crowd noise.

    Mostly Bernie supporters booed, per one article.

    https://www.rt.com/usa/353145-wasserman-schultz-booed-stage/

    Apologies if this has already been posted.

    Posted by: jawbone | Jul 25, 2016 3:15:11 PM | 53

    [Jul 25, 2016] The Lawsuit Covers Claims of Negligence and Fraud

    www.moonofalabama.org


    https://youtu.be/hU4I6C-9JZw

    In a YouTube video about the lawsuit, Jason Beck said there were six claims to the case. The first is fraud against the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, stating that they broke legally binding agreements by strategizing for Clinton.

    The second is negligent misrepresentation.

    The third is deceptive conduct by claiming they were remaining neutral when they were not. The fourth is is retribution for monetary donations to Sanders' campaign.

    The fifth is that the DNC broke its fiduciary duties during the primaries by not holding a fair process. And the sixth is for negligence, claiming that the DNC did not protect donor information from hackers.

    You can read all the documents associated with the lawsuit at this http://jampac.us/DNCLawsuit/

    Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 25, 2016 1:48:35 PM | 47

    [Jul 25, 2016] Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as DNC chair as email scandal rocks Democrats

    Notable quotes:
    "... What matters is what the emails said . They said, let's sink a decent candidate by telling the Stupid Classes that Bernie's an atheist Jew . ..."
    "... So instead of addressing the urgent concerns of working Americans, let's manipulate Mr. and Mrs. Paycheck by playing to their antisemitism. ..."
    "... We'll pretend working people matter, but we'll just be using them to make ourselves richer and more powerful! ..."
    "... Let's not let HRC and the rest of the Democratic leadership change the subject to" the Russians did it". Let us, instead, stay focused on the content of those emails. That the DNC under Schultz did, in fact, rig the game. ..."
    "... The rigging of the 2016 election has clarified to all of these people why they were weary about going to the polls...the system is rigged and they already knew it. Bernie Sanders got everyone unified and no other politician has that ability. It infuriates me to think that the Democratic party is angry at Bernie for revolutionizing a nation! ..."
    "... I supported Bernie to the max even though I live on a smallish pension. I could never support HC. I sort of understand that Bernie had to endorse HC but I wish he would not be at all enthusiastic about it. She is still the candidate he criticized so strongly. The Clintons always make everyone who comes into contact with them look sleazy. They themselves are very clever at getting away with murder (figuratively speaking). ..."
    "... Sort of like the Soviet Union - the Party is everything. The people unimportant. ..."
    "... Russian involvement is a straw man. The importance is in the accuracy of the reports and so far there seems to have been no evidence produced to show that the emails were tampered with. If I had not already been dead set against supporting the corrupt and dishonest Hillary the Horrible this would certainly clinch the deal! Those being willing to swallow the "lesser of evils" deserve what they get. But then, despite the talk, is she really less evil? ..."
    "... Other experts are now saying that the current Democratic Party is just as fascist as the Republicans and that we should vote our conscience. Vote Green. ..."
    "... These #DNCleaks are another great example of the corruption and collusion in journalism. No ethics whatsoever. ..."
    "... They also swindle the millions of Americans who donated $27 to Bernie's campaign on the basis that it was a fair contest... ..."
    "... This convert may also have noticed the corruption at the DNC. The strange requests to create narratives to discredit Sanders ands then feed them to the media. This is how whistleblowers are made. ..."
    "... We shouldn't get roped into discussing spurious allegations about who leaked the emails. That's what she wants the conversation to be about. The fact is these emails show the DNC fixed the nomination for Hillary. And Hillary has just appointed the chief culprit to chair her presidential campaign. Politics doesn't get much more dirty and shameless than that. ..."
    "... DWS is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire DNC leadership needs to go, and to be replaced with people who will go back to Dean's 50 state strategy. But it is too late for this election. ..."
    "... Jesus wept. How did we sleepwalk into this strange world where all the politicians are lying, thieving, murderous idiots? Before there were at least some of them who were impressive human beings able to inspire great progress, this bunch sounds like all of them were created by a wizard whose favourite material is a boy cow excrement. ..."
    "... These people have no shame. Vote Trump! ..."
    "... If you can't pull yourself to vote for Trump, please vote for Jill stein in protest, but Hilary can't win. ..."
    "... This has been so downplayed by the mainstream media as it shows them in their true light. Compare this to the coverage Melania Trump's plagiarized speech got. ..."
    "... Like clockwork, we have Clinton supporters, paid or otherwise, demonstrating in this comment board their utter contempt for logic, integrity, and any ideology other than team ..."
    "... Billy Kristol - the neo-con skank and the likes already declared they will vote for the fellow warmonger. ..."
    "... Hank Paulson - Ex Goldman chief and treasury secretary responsible for TARP under shrub junior also switching sides for the dems. ..."
    "... Yep that's what our current foreign policy does, we topple governments. We need a common enemy to unite the EA and Nato, Russia makes a good scape goat! Who armed Osama Bin Laden against Russia in the 1980's? Then Arab Spring? Any country that practices Sharia Law can not allow Free Speech or democracy. Women will never be equal or have the vote in these countries we arm with weapons. Our arms dealers make money! We destabilize countries and keep the world in fear, united for causes we create. ..."
    "... Clinton has dragged the party into the sewer with her. They should have told her to step down months ago. This is a shameful Dem convention ..."
    "... "His son, Donald Trump Jr, appeared on CNN's State of the Union. "They should be ashamed of themselves," he said of the Clinton campaign. "If we did that … if my father did that, they'd have people calling for the electric chair." ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    NYbill13, 2016-07-25 18:44:02
    Oh, you mean our emails are not secure ? Maybe the DNC honchos didn't see all those stories about Snowden, the NSA and ole 'Gentleman' Jimmy Clapper. Maybe the Russians were involved. Maybe the NSA and all the other spook agencies are too honest to tap the DNC's emails and use them for political advantage.

    What matters is what the emails said . They said, let's sink a decent candidate by telling the Stupid Classes that Bernie's an atheist Jew .

    So instead of addressing the urgent concerns of working Americans, let's manipulate Mr. and Mrs. Paycheck by playing to their antisemitism.

    We'll pretend working people matter, but we'll just be using them to make ourselves richer and more powerful!

    And people say the two parties are alike.

    Screw you, you arrogant overpaid halfwit.

    mrwood1, 2016-07-25 18:18:26
    Let's not let HRC and the rest of the Democratic leadership change the subject to" the Russians did it". Let us, instead, stay focused on the content of those emails. That the DNC under Schultz did, in fact, rig the game. HRC needs to cut Schultz loose and repudiate this conduct if the party is to have any hope of true unification. Let us hope that HRC appoints Sen. Warren as DNC chair. She is a person with real integrity.
    eveneve, 2016-07-25 18:10:57
    Rigged, rigged, rigged...took 'em 8 years to perfect it, but they (Dem. underground) sure got it all nailed down didn't they? They put Sen. Sanders in a chokehold and he had to make a choice, bless his heart. What will go down in history regarding the 2016 election, is what it did to ALL the disenfranchised and young voters who were moved by Bernie Sanders and become lit up and excited about politics.

    The rigging of the 2016 election has clarified to all of these people why they were weary about going to the polls...the system is rigged and they already knew it. Bernie Sanders got everyone unified and no other politician has that ability. It infuriates me to think that the Democratic party is angry at Bernie for revolutionizing a nation!

    mrwood1 -> eveneve, 2016-07-25 18:20:51
    How right you are. This is the very reason that I can't get my 28 year old son to register to vote. His constant mantra every time I try is that his vote doesn't matter because the game is rigged. How terribly sad that he is proven right.
    Dani Jenkins, 2016-07-25 17:55:59
    (Sic..) not slick reporting .. Complicit --

    Ever decreasing circles..
    Of the meaningless kind ..
    Security?:)

    Just trust the Democrats.
    The bastions of oxymorons, eulogising hyperbolic denialistic gaga.

    Who has contributed more to global security of the private kind..
    Snowden or HRC ??

    What not to do!
    Really, she always Knew....

    Is there anything the Russian government is not responsible for??
    Yes, Democratic email systems of security, that are quite clearly insecure, untrustworthy, unreliable & incompetent , just like their sponsors Goldman Sachs.. Surely the US people don't wish to bail them out again to the tune of $814 Billion??

    What a farcical circus, calling themselves politicians, oxymoronic.

    How can Trump lose?
    The system is bankrupt both morally & financially: Shrillary, our living proof! Gawd, just her voice..

    Reasons to be cheerful?

    eamoya1, 2016-07-25 17:36:18
    It is being found out that is the bad thing - according to HC.

    I supported Bernie to the max even though I live on a smallish pension. I could never support HC. I sort of understand that Bernie had to endorse HC but I wish he would not be at all enthusiastic about it. She is still the candidate he criticized so strongly. The Clintons always make everyone who comes into contact with them look sleazy. They themselves are very clever at getting away with murder (figuratively speaking).

    linden33, 2016-07-25 16:53:55
    Not sure why the religion thing is singled out as most shocking by the press. Not that it was acceptable, but how about calling MSNBC in the middle of a program and ordering them to stop a coverage? How about all the other slimy tricks they pulled? And DWS was not just a bystander on some of them . . . she initiated them. The arrogance of that machine in assuming that kind of power is astonishing, but Sanders supporters have known about it for months.

    Try running a race uphill with someone who's being carried like a queen?

    kurringai, 2016-07-25 16:44:01
    Where was Yuhas 2 days ago on this scandal Oh that's right, he was flacking for the Clinton campaign by focusing on the evil Putin. it was Putin's fault the DNC screwed its base over.

    http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2016-07-25/guardian-tries-to-silence-democrat-leak-scandal /

    hexotic, 2016-07-25 17:25:56
    So Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the US both actively using all party mechanisms to fix the decision of their own members about who leads them.

    Have these people the slightest clue what democracy means? At least in Labour's case, the result is still out.

    charlesgrady, 2016-07-25 17:14:13
    *gasp* there are corrupt people in politics??

    But....but....they all seem so trustworthy.

    domrice -> Aaron King, 2016-07-25 17:08:06
    I think the candidates' relative positions on enabling corporate rule may have been a bigger factor in the DNC's antics than any principles about how long they'd been big D Democrats.
    eamoya1 -> Aaron King, 2016-07-25 17:37:43
    Sort of like the Soviet Union - the Party is everything. The people unimportant.
    SJuniper, 2016-07-25 16:37:06
    Russian involvement is a straw man. The importance is in the accuracy of the reports and so far there seems to have been no evidence produced to show that the emails were tampered with. If I had not already been dead set against supporting the corrupt and dishonest Hillary the Horrible this would certainly clinch the deal! Those being willing to swallow the "lesser of evils" deserve what they get. But then, despite the talk, is she really less evil?
    McLuskie, 2016-07-25 16:34:40
    Experts are telling us that the Democrats are only embarrassed they got caught rigging the primary process before the convention. Other experts are now saying that the current Democratic Party is just as fascist as the Republicans and that we should vote our conscience. Vote Green.
    TwoFingeredSalute, 2016-07-25 16:34:37
    These #DNCleaks are another great example of the corruption and collusion in journalism. No ethics whatsoever. They swindled Bernie Sanders of the chance to run for President. CNN comes out of this looking pretty bad. And there is MORE to come. Panic stations for dodgy journalists, and all those journalists who claim "impartiality", but are in collusion to push narratives. Just as GamerGaters exposed.

    We were right all along...

    DrKropotkin -> TwoFingeredSalute, 2016-07-25 16:39:04
    They also swindle the millions of Americans who donated $27 to Bernie's campaign on the basis that it was a fair contest...

    There is a class suit a foot, I wish them well.

    RecordStoreGuy , 2016-07-25 16:31:01
    have to disagree with Bernie, DWS didn't do the right thing - she just got caught, the right thing would have been to put a stop to planted stories with no attribution and ensure a level playing field. Anyone US side want to tell me if the thing about Bill Clinton meeting Epstein on numerous occasions is actually true?
    DrKropotkin -> RecordStoreGuy , 2016-07-25 16:43:39
    It's true, they travelled in Epstein's private jet, which was called "Lolita" (not very subtle).

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo /

    He also left his secret service goons behind when he went on these trips.

    DrKropotkin , 2016-07-25 16:29:44
    Clinton is still trying to blame the Russians.

    At some point they are going to have to provide some evidence, until then I reserve the right to assume she's lying based on everything she has said over the last 30 years.

    If not the Russians then Who? Maybe a DNC worker, who, over time got to respect Sanders, he listened to a few speeches and thought "Hey, this guy gets it!". This happened to millions of Americans over the last year so it's not too hard to believe that some DNC staffer, even if he was originally vetted for 'being with her' he could change his mind once he saw the better option that was available.

    This convert may also have noticed the corruption at the DNC. The strange requests to create narratives to discredit Sanders ands then feed them to the media. This is how whistleblowers are made.

    Gucifer 1 was Romanian and he hacked Clinton's private server and apparently gave it to the Russians. Gucifer 2, is responsible for the DNC leak and we've no idea who they are. Could it be another Putin supported hacker? Sure, but it's even more likely that it was a DNC staffer who didn't like what he saw.

    I say this because if Putin's task was to destroy Hillary he could have release the 30,000 emails (about yoga and wedding planning - lol). Everyone knows what these contain, the evidence that the Clinton foundation was engaged in cash for favours schemes that were mainly used by human rights abusing petro-monarchies.

    viscount_jellicoe -> DrKropotkin , 2016-07-25 16:37:34
    We shouldn't get roped into discussing spurious allegations about who leaked the emails. That's what she wants the conversation to be about. The fact is these emails show the DNC fixed the nomination for Hillary. And Hillary has just appointed the chief culprit to chair her presidential campaign. Politics doesn't get much more dirty and shameless than that.
    Henri Fourroux , 2016-07-25 16:20:39
    ....."I think I read he is an atheist," the DNC chief financial officer, Brad Marshall, wrote in one email. "This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.".....

    Sigh!.....Oh Alfred Dreyfus, Henri Bergson, Benjamin Disraeli and so on and so on....

    Debra Smith , 2016-07-25 15:59:49
    The USA is simply allergic to truth.

    (Do not tell the Southern Baptists and the fundamentalist nutters that TRUTH is another name for GOD-want a reference? Here you go: El Emet - The God Of Truth: (Psalm 31:6)- they will not know whether to s**t or wind their watch".

    DaphneCascadia , 2016-07-25 15:44:22
    DWS is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire DNC leadership needs to go, and to be replaced with people who will go back to Dean's 50 state strategy. But it is too late for this election.

    If Trump wins, God help us all, but it won't be the fault of the Sanders supporters. HRC was chosen by the DNC in advance of any of the primaries, with the expectation that any other contenders would drop out early in the process. That did not happen, and that is why the DNC took increasingly desperate measures to insure her victory.

    What this election has proven is just how far the Democratic establishment will go to crush any opposition within the party, and how unhappy the members of both parties are with the status quo. They have no one to blame but themselves for ignoring the needs of the American people. After this election, for the first time in over 100 years, I think that new political parties have a chance to succeed.

    nishville , 2016-07-25 15:10:03
    So, instead of addressing this shocking corruption openly and honestly, DNC is blaming....Russia?

    Jesus wept. How did we sleepwalk into this strange world where all the politicians are lying, thieving, murderous idiots? Before there were at least some of them who were impressive human beings able to inspire great progress, this bunch sounds like all of them were created by a wizard whose favourite material is a boy cow excrement.

    USMarines , 2016-07-25 15:05:56
    These people have no shame. Vote Trump!
    Brandon Gaither , 2016-07-25 14:30:56
    One resignation is not enough. The party is still corrupt, they still cheated Bernie and by proxy his supporters yet they want our unity against Trump. Screw that. Its time to show the party that they can not treat their constituents with a complete lack of respect. If you can't pull yourself to vote for Trump, please vote for Jill stein in protest, but Hilary can't win.
    Dell3330 , 2016-07-25 14:27:11
    This has been so downplayed by the mainstream media as it shows them in their true light. Compare this to the coverage Melania Trump's plagiarized speech got.
    Tony Page , 2016-07-25 14:09:51
    There is no Debbie Wasserman. There has never been any Debbie Wasserman. The Party is unified. The Party has always been unified. The Great Leader, Hillary...
    SergeantPave -> Tony Page , 2016-07-25 14:17:35
    Indeed. That woman behind the curtain, who's just been appointed chair of Hillary's campaign, just coincidentally happens to have the same name as DWS, and look exactly like her. But do not look at her. You will not remember having seen her.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-immediately-joins-hillary

    BaronVonAmericano , 2016-07-24 19:04:02
    Like clockwork, we have Clinton supporters, paid or otherwise, demonstrating in this comment board their utter contempt for logic, integrity, and any ideology other than team.

    I'm guessing a scan of their brain activity would show such kinship with Trump supporters that it would shock them -- assuming fact had any sway, which, of course, it doesn't.

    Paul Marston , 2016-07-24 19:04:01
    So they don't think anything is wrong with kneecapping a democratic candidate! They don't think anything is wrong with subverting US politics. NO they are disgusted that someone revealed the TRUTH!

    WOW anyone who votes for the DNC OR GOP deserves everything that is coming! If ever there was a time where a 3rd party candidate is needed this is it! Just look at the crap Clinton gives to other countries not having free and fair elections! HOW DARE THE US LECTURE OTHER COUNTRIES!

    Clinton supporters are a DISGRACE worse than Trump - at least trump fans don't PRETEND to be something they aren't!

    ClearItUp , 2016-07-24 18:56:19
    There is so much talk about the DNC e-mail about promoting Bernie as atheist so that they could get church going low information people in the South to vote for Hillary. But, then they said they didn't do anything about it. Wait a second in South Carolina, no one knew who Bernie Sanders was, but apparently they all knew he was a "communist Jew". I personally heard this in South Carolina, and it was a whisper campaign initiated by Hillary crowds. Now it is proven the whole DNC was behind it.

    I don't for a minute believe Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or Hillary Clinton are anti-Semites. But these Clinton mafia goes to any length, employ any dirty trickery to win. The corrupt warmonger Hillary should quit and take Debbie Wasserman-Schultz with her. I am sure Debbie Wasserman-Schultz won't get through her primary, why? Because most of her constituents are just like Bernie, and they won't appreciate what she has become.

    vr13vr , 2016-07-24 18:48:36

    "On Sunday, the Trump campaign rejected Mook's allegations, ... telling... they were "absurd" and "pure obfuscation on the part of the Clinton campaign".

    "What those emails show is that it was a clearly rigged system, and that Bernie Sanders never had a chance..."

    Even Trump campaign is more truthful about this. It is horrifying to think someone like Clinton could become the president.

    relgin , 2016-07-24 18:47:28
    The DNC has hit the panic button.

    According to the NYT, Michael Bloomberg, who bypassed his own run for the presidency this election cycle, will back Hillary Clinton in a speech at the Democratic convention. The news was unexpected from Mr. Bloomberg, who has not been a member of the Democratic Party since 2000.

    I wonder who else they are going to drag out to endorse their lying ways.

    PrinceVlad -> relgin , 2016-07-24 18:53:03
    Dr. Kissinger?
    Chillskier -> relgin , 2016-07-24 18:54:01

    I wonder who else they are going to drag out to endorse their lying ways?

    Billy Kristol - the neo-con skank and the likes already declared they will vote for the fellow warmonger.
    Hank Paulson - Ex Goldman chief and treasury secretary responsible for TARP under shrub junior also switching sides for the dems.
    These two are the major red flag for any progressive voter.
    Chillskier , 2016-07-24 18:46:40
    1. Blame your own private server for leaks Hillary.
    2. Blame Wasserman Schulz for rigging primaries
    3. Blame yourself for not being trustworthy
    4. Blame US foreign policy for making it a norm meddling in other countries elections.
    Jay Beswick -> Chillskier , 2016-07-24 19:14:46
    Yep that's what our current foreign policy does, we topple governments. We need a common enemy to unite the EA and Nato, Russia makes a good scape goat! Who armed Osama Bin Laden against Russia in the 1980's? Then Arab Spring? Any country that practices Sharia Law can not allow Free Speech or democracy. Women will never be equal or have the vote in these countries we arm with weapons. Our arms dealers make money! We destabilize countries and keep the world in fear, united for causes we create.

    Russia like us has a migration issue of Muslims, 11.7% now. The USA backs Muslim regimes and usually the more radical. Syria is in the middle of a civil war, Assad is Aliwee and they are only 20%, they allow Christians and various Muslims faiths. If we arm the rebels, the educated Aliwee closer to the coast will be exterminated in favor of the more extreme.

    Assad is not a good guy, but if Russia had armed the South in our civil war, how would we feel? In 2001 Bush Senior headed up the Carlyle Group which sold weapons, 29 weapon companies, with investors like the Bin Laden Construction Company is Saudi Arabia, Bin Ladens brother. Both sides have profited from a destabilized middle east. They don't tell on each other, because both sides do it.

    ClearItUp , 2016-07-24 18:35:46
    In the Soviet times, they used to blame all their short comings on US. Sounds like the Clinton campaign has alot in common with Soviet Union. This is just an obfuscation. They aren't questioning the validity of the e-mails but blaming their mafia control over DNC on Russia. If Russia or whoever disclosed the e-mails, more power to them. The Clinton mafia in the Democratic party needs to get purged. Hillary cheated to get nominated, she will hand the presidency to Drumpf. She is an awful candidate besides being a corrupt war monger.
    Michael109 , 2016-07-24 18:32:41
    Clinton, who received 3.1m from Wall Street for speeches last year, and who was "extremely careless" with national security and who clearly lied under oath to Congress had the entire system rigged in her favour and millions of mostly younger people who supported Sanders have received a slap in the face by a corrupt Dem Party.

    Clinton has dragged the party into the sewer with her. They should have told her to step down months ago. This is a shameful Dem convention

    PotholeKid , 2016-07-24 18:32:21
    Typical tactic to divert attention away from the real issue which is the corruption exposed by the Democratic party..There are rumours of another leak to come..hopefully the contents of Clintons personal and the Clinton Foundation emails.. Sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant..
    shanthi123 , 2016-07-24 18:32:09
    well this is what we've been talking about. Mainstream media, including the Guardian, the one source of information I could trust , are also complicit in their unwavering support of the Hillary machine and the stars quo for the 1%.
    Just waiting for the promised emails from Hilary's server that wiki leaks has promised.
    Citizens have the right to know.
    NadaZero , 2016-07-24 18:27:33

    saying its hackers stole Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and released them to foment disunity in the party and aid Donald Trump.

    It's so pathetic, it's sad really. No introspection whatsoever. No, like a little snotty kid that refuse to take any responsibility whatsoever for their own fuck-ups.

    Come on, Hillary. You used dirty tactics to get rid of Sanders. I'm sure you've got more tricks up your sleeve. We all know Bush Jr. wasn't suppose to be the President of the US. But he became one anyway. That's how the Plutocrats play the game and you've been in the pipeline for a long time now. Don't worry. We know where you've been.

    auraucaria , 2016-07-24 18:14:24
    The issue is not whether they were leaked by Russia, but that they were written and sent in the first place. Clear collusion and vote-rigging between DNC and Clinton campaign to obstruct, disparage and hinder Sanders.

    This is how the Clinton machine works and why people don't like/trust her. 70% negative ratings should tell the myopic DNC something. They are just as bent as she is.

    Puro , 2016-07-24 18:11:15
    You spin it right round, baby round round like a record, baby right round round round.

    Unfortunately (for her), Americans have their bullshit metre *ON* let alone they don't believe a word said any longer. Americans are eagerly waiting for the decision about the email server thingy where lies and more lies were delivered.

    You spin it right round, baby round round like a record, baby right round round round. :)

    Northernreader7 , 2016-07-24 18:08:10
    "Extremely careless!"...re FBI Director on Clinton's classified information and email...

    Fool me once blame on you...
    Fool me twice blame on me!

    Janosik53 Northernreader7 , 2016-07-24 18:12:09
    What is the difference between "extremely careless" and "criminal negligence"? Inquiring minds want to know.
    FactsnReason , 2016-07-24 18:07:41
    That's it from the Clinton cabal? "Look over there! It's the shiny Russian's fault!"

    How about denouncing the HORRIBLE behavior of individuals and CLEAR bias by the DNC?...crickets....

    The email the press is not mentioning shows the DNC had materials for HILLARY as the nominee prepared before the primary was over! How is that just individuals showing their personal opinions inappropriately? That was work that was PAID FOR, TIME that APPROVED and USED!

    And the go-Hillary weenie Chuck Todd had a phone conversation with DWS about an entirely different show...Mika on Morning Joe ticked her off and she wanted Chuck to handle it for her...

    I am done with this party of corruption and Hillary cronies unless some pink slips start flying and Bernie gets the Superdelegates.

    WoodenNickel , 2016-07-24 18:00:48
    The DNC stinks to high heaven. Bernie should withdraw his endorsement of Hillary. Bernie got a bad deal from the DNC.
    Lee Eng WoodenNickel , 2016-07-24 18:10:31
    No, he rolled over the DNC gave him a doggy treat and now he is pure lap dog.
    Janosik53 Lee Eng , 2016-07-24 18:18:40
    He's the Cowardly Lion, sad to say. But what he tapped shall not be bought off. I say it again, a mass walkout by the Sanders delegates would send a clear signal to Hillary, the DNC, and the nation.

    It would also make great television.

    Casey13 , 2016-07-24 17:57:39
    Guardian is still not getting the significance of this story. The DNC chair cannot preside over the DNC convention. She can't even show her face. This is huge and it completely vindicates Bernies mistrust of her. This isn't about the nationality of the hackers. It's about a crooked DNC rigging the system.
    vr13vr , 2016-07-24 17:57:06
    Never mind the real issue is the content of the e-mails not who leaked them, but who are those "experts" who tell us those were Russians? Are those the same "experts" who found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
    smokinbluebear , 2016-07-24 17:42:02
    Ironic that Sanders would sit with Jake Tapper on the C orrupt C linton N etwork for an interview...Tapper was named in the Wikileaks DNC emails as being in collusion with the DNC for Hillary.

    If you want the REAL, FULL lowdown on the DNC check out reddit:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4u5ztv/dnc_email_leak_megathread/

    HenneyAndPizza , 2016-07-24 17:40:49
    This gets more hilarious as they desperately try to spin this.

    How about you tell you readers of the links between the Clinton Foundation and the Kremlin ?

    This was reported way back in 2015...

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    Ho hum

    hhardy01 , 2016-07-24 17:35:28
    More DNC lies.

    We know there were at least two leakers. The first, Guccifer, real name Marcel Lazăr Lehel, is Romanian. He is now supposedly safely in federal prison incommunicado, so he won't be telling anyone anything he knows any time soon, if he is even still alive that is.

    There is circumstantial reason to believe that Guccifer II is Romanian or Moldovan also.

    The Russians probably have all this and a lot more, but the chances of them leaking it are essentially zero.

    AfinaPallada , 2016-07-24 17:34:20
    Clinton is desperate to lurk voters by anything, then let it be those Russians that hacked her mail. A Russian proverb to the point - "A bad dancer always blames his balls that hamper him".
    Janosik53 AfinaPallada , 2016-07-24 17:46:38
    Serbian proverb: "Tell the truth, and RUN!"

    XCountry

    "His son, Donald Trump Jr, appeared on CNN's State of the Union. "They should be ashamed of themselves," he said of the Clinton campaign. "If we did that … if my father did that, they'd have people calling for the electric chair."

    [Jul 25, 2016] Trump Policy Will Unravel Traditional Neocons: he is the only one who wanted to roll back NATO spending as well all military spending in general

    Notable quotes:
    "... But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the only kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country. We're not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even talking about that. So let's be realistic. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    PERIES: So let's take a look at this article by Paul Krugman. Where is he going with this analysis about the Siberian candidate?

    HUDSON: Well, Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and they're terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century the Republican Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that. Reversing the whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons.

    Until his speech, the whole Republican Convention, every speaker had avoided dealing with economic policy issues. No one referred to the party platform, which isn't very good. And it was mostly an attack on Hillary. Chants of "lock her up." And Trump children, aimed to try to humanize him and make him look like a loving man.

    But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders.

    So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the only kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country. We're not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even talking about that. So let's be realistic.

    Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy.

    http://www.unz.com/mhudson/trump-policy-will-unravel-traditional-neocons/

    Posted by: From The Hague | Jul 24, 2016 1:30:38 PM | 12

    [Jul 24, 2016] Crooked Obama to Crooked Wasserman Schultz -- I am greatful for your dirty tricks to derail Sanders

    Grateful for what? For sinking Sanders? Look Obama, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate entities, including the DNC, could be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama issued a statement, saying, "For the last eight years, Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has had my back. This afternoon, I called her to let her know that I am grateful." ..."
    CNNPolitics.com

    Wasserman Schultz resigning as party leader -

    Obama issued a statement, saying, "For the last eight years, Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has had my back. This afternoon, I called her to let her know that I am grateful."

    [Jul 24, 2016] Carson DNC email leak proves system is corrupt

    Notable quotes:
    "... "And I'm talking about the establishment Democrats and the establishment Republicans who are much more interested in holding on to power and their positions than they are about their party or about their country." "This is really very sad, and I hope that more people will wake up and see what's happening," Carson said. ..."
    July 24, 2016 | TheHill

    "I knew that there was corruption, but the level of corruption throughout the political system is overwhelming," Carson said Sunday on Fox News. "And I'm talking about the establishment Democrats and the establishment Republicans who are much more interested in holding on to power and their positions than they are about their party or about their country." "This is really very sad, and I hope that more people will wake up and see what's happening," Carson said.

    [Jul 24, 2016] 200PM Water Cooler 7-22-2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... Transcript of Trump's acceptance speech as delivered [ Vox ]. I watched for deviations; there were few, and generally they improved the text. ..."
    "... and Vox doesn't engage with the footnotes ..."
    "... Key omissions: No assault on big banks, nothing on the minimum wage, nothing on Social Security. In other words, Trump is appealing the local oligarchs in his off-Beltway coalition, and not appealing to the (white) working class on economic grounds; neoliberalism wins with the Republicans, as with Democrats. ..."
    "... I'm old enough to remember the Bush administration, when many of today's young liberal wonks were just coming up, and the blogosphere developed a very detailed critique of the Bush administration's fascist tendencies, based on his expansion of executive power under the doctrine of the unitary executive, and his destruction of the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law generally through his program of warrantless surveillance ( "sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception" ). ..."
    "... As soon as Obama was elected, those same liberal wonks dropped the critique of fascist powers in the executive like the hot potato it was, even as Obama proceeded to rationalize and consolidate everything Bush did (and had signaled his intent to do so, in July ..."
    "... sometimes the wolf is a wolf ..."
    naked capitalism
    Conventions

    Headlines on the newspaper rack when I went to get coffee this morning, both above the fold and spanning the page: "'I am your voice.' - Trump" (USA Today) and "'I will fight for you' - Trump" (Bangor Daily News). Smart speechwriting; 15 and 20 characters respectively, so the quotes are made for huuuge headline type. And call me crazy - I'll get to the details below - but is it possible that there are voters who feel they have no voice, and that nobody's fighting for them? I can't think why, but the morning paper dropped outside every hotel room door in America seems to think so. As does my local paper.

    Transcript of Trump's acceptance speech as delivered [ Vox ]. I watched for deviations; there were few, and generally they improved the text. For example, Clinton's legacy of (a) "death, destruction and weakness" in the written speech became (b) "death, destruction, terrorism, and weakness" as delivered. (Modulo "weakness," since Clinton can't really be held accountable for a process of imperial collapse, I hate it when Trump's right ). It's funny to watch the quotes propagate through the press, since anybody using variant (a) is writing off the written transcript, and anybody using variant (b) is reporting in something closer to real time. Perhaps the variants are introduced for that purpose?

    Transcript of Trump's acceptance speech as written [ Donald J. Trump ]. Cheekily, there are 282 footnotes. This is actually both clever by the Trump campaign, and important as a yardstick for the allegiances of the political class. Why? Fact-checking. Here's Vox: "Trump says: 'Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration's rollback of criminal enforcement.' In fact:… Ruling: Baseless" [Vox staff, Vox ]. The wee problem here is that Trump backs up that claim with material at footnotes 19, 20, 21 and 22, and Vox doesn't engage with the footnotes . So, despite the faux judiciousness of "Ruling," the article doesn't engage with Trump's material at all. As one might expect, given this useful post by Corey Robin , the wonks at Vox are ritually enacting the forms of scholarship, whiile emptying them of content. (Troll prophylactic: I'm not saying Trump's claim is correct; I'm saying that Vox makes its tendentiousness really obvious when it fails to engage with it.) I don't have time to look at all the other fact checking out there - and I don't expect anything either presumptive candidate says to survive a fact-checking process anyhow - but I would bet they, too, fail to engage with Trump's footnotes.

    "Word cloud analysis of Donald Trump's acceptance speech" [ Constitution Center ].

    "Trump's speech was a significant moment for an impulsive entertainer and savvy media manipulator now striving to look presidential to a wide audience. He cleared the bar handily Thursday, showing the political force he could become when he reins in his most bombastic rhetoric and sticks to his populist-infused message" [ US News ].

    Anyhow, I watched the speech. Key omissions: No assault on big banks, nothing on the minimum wage, nothing on Social Security. In other words, Trump is appealing the local oligarchs in his off-Beltway coalition, and not appealing to the (white) working class on economic grounds; neoliberalism wins with the Republicans, as with Democrats.

    (That is, liberals are correct to point to the dogwhistles, but evil to airbrush the policies they pursued, together with the Republicans, which present the working class with a Sophie's Choice between rejecting "law and order" dogwhistles while also rejecting some minimal gestures toward their economic interests.) Here are some random - really random - screen shots, with commentary under this:

    stage

    This is the stage, all Trumped up. Cult of personality in full swing, along with Gilded Age decor complete with digital gilding (I don't think that's physical signage). Sure, the burnished logo looks like something you'd see on the Las Vegas strip, but then an America run by the FIRE sector is a casino . And so the 2016 election brings another moment of bracing clarity.

    balloon

    This is the balloon drop, which was excellent - lots and lots of balloons, like bubbles in a really frothy glass of champers - proof that the Trump staff can actual deliver competent advance work, though whether the campaign can scale up to the full campaign trail is an open question. There were also fireworks outside. I would like to know who chose the closing music: "All Right Now" (Free Bad Company ) followed by "You Can't Always Get What You Want" (Rolling Stones). But you get what you need?

    barron

    And this is a shot of Barron Trump not, apparently, getting what he needs. I'm including it because there wasn't a moment he was on the stage when he didn't look downcast, even when looking up at the balloons. A rarely human moment, contrasted with Melania Trump's weaponized graciousness . Sad.

    "In his most important speech ever, Trump echoes Richard Nixon" [Dan Balz, WaPo ]. "In Nixon's time, it was a call for the 'Silent Majority' to rise up and take back the country. Trump spoke to the "forgotten men and women" who he said no longer have a voice in a rigged political system run by 'censors' and 'cynics."

    * * *

    UPDATE Lambert here: I rarely mention the F-word, if only because I don't want to start a trash fire. That said - [throwing a flag at my own Godwin's Law violation] - I'm going to go there. Here's why I'm suspicious of liberal goodthinker claims that Trump is a fascist: I'm old enough to remember the Bush administration, when many of today's young liberal wonks were just coming up, and the blogosphere developed a very detailed critique of the Bush administration's fascist tendencies, based on his expansion of executive power under the doctrine of the unitary executive, and his destruction of the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law generally through his program of warrantless surveillance ( "sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception" ).

    Well… As soon as Obama was elected, those same liberal wonks dropped the critique of fascist powers in the executive like the hot potato it was, even as Obama proceeded to rationalize and consolidate everything Bush did (and had signaled his intent to do so, in July 2008, by voting to give corporations retroactive immunity for Bush's program of warrantless surveillance). These same wonks might also be usefully asked what sort of State adopts a "disposition matrix" and uses it to assassinate its own citizens, and what sort of State orchestrates a 17-city paramilitary crackdown on non-violent direct actions. Or what sort of State sets up Homan Center (for example).

    Now, I know this reasoning exhibits the genetic fallacy, and the grim moral of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is that sometimes the wolf is a wolf , but if there's any serious analysis on this topic, I'd love to see it, because I trust the young and youngish wonks in the political class about as far as I can throw a piano. A concert grand piano.

    Take for example youngish James Fallows ( from April ), on the unsavory history of "America First":

    But the term "America First" has a specific and nasty history, mainly because of the America First movement that essentially advocated accommodating Nazi interests on the eve of World War II. There's a list of terms you're wiser to avoid, no matter how deserving the underlying idea might be. "Separate but equal," in the United States. "Cultural Revolution" or "Great Leap Forward" if you're in China. "Final solution," anywhere. In the realm of foreign policy, America First is one of these. You can make the point without using the phrase.

    To begin with, never mind that Democrat Dick Gephardt - thanks for destroying Howard Dean in Iowa 2004, Dick! - ran for office in the 1980s using the same phrase ; apparently, in Fallows mind, that's not inoculation enough. The real issue - as once again Corey Robin points out - that Fallows is rather like a cargo cult historian: Invoking the form, while lacking the substance. That's because - follow me closely here - this is not the 1940s. If fascism is "the merger of state and corporate power" , have not both Democrats and Repblicans already arrived at that point? Further, on what grounds are we to make the Sophie's Choice between the merger of state and corporation at the national level, a la Trump ("Make America great again) and the surrender of national sovereignty to corporations at the international level, a la Clinton and Tim Kaine's "gold standard" TPP and its ISDS system? This is 2016, not 1940.

    I'd welcome reader thoughts and meditations on this topic. But I'm gonna be ruthless on drive-bys and me-toos.

    [Jul 24, 2016] A Post-Convention Correction

    Notable quotes:
    "... Camille Paglia made the best argument against Hillary: she's incompetent. She couldn't even stave off an FBI investigation into her emails; she's lucky that AG Lynch was in the bag. ..."
    "... Trump simply does not care, in the least, if he gets 90% covered in excrement, so long as his detractors get covered 95+%. If he is slightly, barely less-caked-in-filth at the finish line, he wins, and that is the only thing that matters to him. It is simply never a "mistake" for Trump to make speech choices that cake him in yet more filth, so long as he causes even more filth to adhere to his only real opponent … especially if his "mistakes" cause cultural elites like you to give him even-more-mountains of free publicity poring over those "mistakes". ..."
    "... I liked that he called HC out on her ineptitude and transgressions and hope that he continues to do so to keep her on the defensive. If you happen to think Trump's screaming delivery was bad (I did but as a fellow native NYer, I get it) just wait until we are subjected to the screeching, robotic monotone of Broom Hilda next week. ..."
    "... The key point is, Trump held fast to all the points on which he disagrees with the previous GOP consensus–and got the audience to cheer along with his "heresies." ..."
    "... He is running as an anti-free trade, anti-immigration, anti-foreign intervention, non-social-issue-conservative–and getting the Pence-style conservatives to go along with it. Movement conservatism is dead–Ted Cruz is "rotting-flesh Reaganism" in Rusty Reno's hideously accurate phrase. If it wasn't for the fact that Trump is the messenger, this would be a very good message. ..."
    "... Regarding the vile Hillary Clinton's ethics and "temperament": https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4u367e/wikileaks_release_19252_from_the_dnc_start/d5mflj8 ..."
    The American Conservative
    Siarlys Jenkins , July 22, 2016 at 7:57 pm
    George Will once wrote that Thomas Paine had written the single most effective political pamphlet in history. 'Nuff said on that point.

    Hillary Clinton does live in her own kind of bubble, but she is not incompetent. She is razor sharp competent, at doing the wrong things. The best argument I've heard for supporting Trump is that he's not competent to do as much damage as she is.

    Rod, the fact that he yelled a lot in a well-written speech does not tell us much about how his mind works. It just tells us that his speaking style differs from your preferences…

    Nope, it tells us a lot about how his mind works. He can't stay on point, he can't stay any course because he can't pick one in the first place, he can't focus, he can't adhere to any consistent set of principles. He blabs different things every day because he thinks different things every day. His mind is a mess, and for that matter, so is his business record.

    Jesse, July 22, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    "Cicero or not, people liked the speech. Has there ever been a greater disconnect between pundits and the American public?

    75% of viewers in a CNN poll like the speech. CNN who are no fans of Trump.

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/07/22/cnn-probably-regrets-polling-viewers-trumps-rnc-speech-well-wow-368574 "

    In the same type of poll from last time around, 79% of people liked Mitt Romney's acceptance speech in 2012. Shockingly, outside of political junkies, the people watching political conventions mostly already like the candidate.

    "Jesse this election is probably going to be settled by people ion the rust belt and Florida. It doesn't matter if people in places like Oregon and Delaware think things are going just great."

    Let's see here – let's go to the average, all from Pollster.com. I've just given Clinton Illinois and Trump Indiana.

    • Wisconsin – +9 Clinton average
    • Iowa – +3 Clinton average
    • Michigan – +7 Clinton average
    • Ohio – +4 Clinton average
    • Florida – +2 Clinton average

    And in all those states, Trump barely gets above 40. Hillary Clinton just had her worst week + Trump just had his rollout at the RNC and he still can't get above 40.

    I don't think Clinton has this thing locked, but I do think that on Election Day, a lot of Trump supporters will be feeling like Pauline Kael, in that there is a Silent Majority in America, but it's not Nixon's Silent Majority, but a new Silent Majority of white collar secular social liberals + minorities.

    Panicked Panglosses, July 22, 2016 at 9:10 pm
    Love it. Having helped turn the country into a moral cesspool, an economic basketcase, and a frothing-at-the-mouth interventionist Goliath fighting and killing in multiple countries for over a decade now, the New York Times has the nerve to chide Trump for his "dark vision"!!!!

    We're not supposed to know that things are so screwed up, you see. The Emperor is fully clothed and all's right in this, the best of all possible worlds.

    If the NYT people and other elites didn't want to be treated with contempt they shouldn't have behaved contemptibly. If they feel revulsion at Trump's "dark vision", they shouldn't have so darkened the world.

    [NFR: No Trump fan here, as you know, but boy, do you ever have a point here. When I read the Times site most days, and see the things they consider signs of progress, I feel us sinking further into the mire. - RD]

    tz, July 22, 2016 at 9:13 pm
    The polls said 56% were more likely to vote for him and 75% liked the speech.

    This is the second article that shows even AmConMag's authors are out of touch with the base.

    We aren't looking for elites, or their high-church criticism. What you heard only maybe 5% would see and agree with.

    Do you also similarly rate the problem with the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader cheers that they might not be perfect grammar or might not be properly making the point?

    fenster, July 22, 2016 at 9:53 pm
    Who wins political debates is not a matter of the Oxford style. It is a question of who advances his candidacy.

    The question of the quality of Trump's speech is not a question of whether you think it went on too long, wasn't as crisp as the written version, or that he yelled. It is a question of whether it advanced his candidacy.

    From the numbers I have seen that seems to be the case. Rhetoric is, brutally, a function of accomplishing aims.

    relstprof, July 23, 2016 at 1:20 am
    Edward Hamilton writes: "But if Trump has even a few percent of such voters hidden from current polling, and the current polls are otherwise accurate, I think that we might witness a unprecedented alliance of low-attention rural and young voters who combine to push Trump over the top."

    A couple rejoinders. By all accounts, Trump has no ground game or GoTV organization. So one would have to count on these disaffected youths finding the willpower to register and show up when they're needed without any help. A tall order. Trump's support so far has been non-first time voters, i.e. Republicans and some Democrats - his voters skew older.

    Then they need to show up in OH, VA, FL, and NV or NH. The national percentage points really don't matter in this case. They have to show up in these states like a tsunami (maybe WI and IA too, depending on how you do the swing-state math). The Democrats have viable machines in OH, VA, and FL. Another tall order, when Clinton's GoTV is swinging into action. What's the old saying? "In war, logistics is everything." The easier path for Trump at this stage is to try and convince registered Democrats to vote for him.

    But your description of this potential voting demographic is spot on, imho. This who they are.

    Outrider, July 23, 2016 at 4:10 am
    Hillary Clinton just had her worst week

    If history is any guide, Mrs. Clinton's "worst week" is always before her. She can't help it, and those around her can't fix it, because it's who she is.

    Pity poor Kaine, who seemed like a nice enough guy, soon to bear the Clinton taint – and already a source of anger and division as Clinton consolidates her stranglehold on the party by smashing the youthful, hopeful Sanders people.

    Elijah, July 23, 2016 at 7:49 am
    "They want their buttons pushed and he did that very very well."

    Absolutely. And the talking heads saying "things aren't that bad", "crime is down", "the economy is recovering" just don't get it. Those things may even be true in a national sense, but they are not felt on a local level.

    FWIW in evangelical country, Trump isn't the first choice of most. But faced with the known entity that is Hillary, and her toxic identity politics, I think a lot of them are prepared to take a flier with Trump.

    Camille Paglia made the best argument against Hillary: she's incompetent. She couldn't even stave off an FBI investigation into her emails; she's lucky that AG Lynch was in the bag.

    JLF, July 23, 2016 at 10:19 am
    In reading (and rereading) the comments above, I think i've begun to understand Karl Rove's point back in 2004 when he famously claimed that Republicans have no need for reality; they create their own reality and the world must adjust to it. This election underscores his point and makes the further point that Democrats are no less wedded to their reality.

    That one is more in sync with "real reality" – whatever that means in an age when half the population dismisses scientific evidence, scorns the lessons history teaches (if they are even aware of history's lessons) and fervently thinks the lack of will alone is the cause of the ruin they see – will probably determine how effective the administration that takes office in January will become. I never thought Trump would get this far, and though I have always had low expectations of my fellow voters, I have become increasingly discouraged by their proud lack of information, let alone knowledge, and their attraction to the "strong man" form of leadership, a form of leadership that has caused ruin for Germany and Italy in the last century, not to mention South American dictatorships of the right and left then and now.

    vj, July 23, 2016 at 11:13 am
    Trump's speech was ideal in tone and perfect in the amount of impromptu additions he made on the spot, which enlivened the speech and made it a living, breathing, passionate presentation instead of merely a typically stilted prepared speech that never digresses at all but sticks slavishly to a text. The speech cohered extremely well–for those able to follow Trump's train of thought, which is unusually Mercurial and thus requires more mental vitality, flexibility and integrated thinking than Mr. Dreher is accustomed to practicing.
    dan, July 23, 2016 at 6:46 pm
    "And yet, Trump is getting 0% (yes 0) of the black vote."

    Not to say Trump is the answer, but for some reason blacks keep voting near 100 percent for politicians who have a vested interest in their failure.

    I think the window is open for Trump to make the hardest play a Republican has made for black votes in a long time. No establishment candidate can make a serious or remotely compelling case to have any interest in Black America at this point. His school choice idea is very compelling to black Americans whose children are generally stuck in failing schools. He seems to be the only candidate who recognizes the astronomical murder rates in urban centers.

    As I said, the trick is doing this while being the "law and order" candidate. How does one do that given what "law and order" means to so many blacks. He might be able to temper that by taking a libertarian page out of Rand Paul's book and talking about silly laws and discriminatory sentencing. He could weigh in on cases like Eric Garner (stupid law led to his death)…find ways to be legitimately critical of how the system is anti-black in its practical results. Most whites, even conservative whites, would be receptive to this if its not wrapped up in the brainwash PC lingo of "anti-discrimination" and BLM. Let's be honest, those are political organizations which (their leadership) LOVE to see a black man get killed by a white man, because it serves their cause.

    Does Trump care about black kids in urban areas? Can he communicate it? Does he have the courage to communicate it? If so he has an opportunity. The footage of black mothers whose children didn't get selected at the charter school lotteries are POWERFUL and HEART RENDING. Can Trump deliver the message of tragedy affecting black youth with the passion of Chief Flynn?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7MAO7McNKE
    (go to about 1:15)

    Trump should HAMMER on this point until November. It should be his primary issue. It would go a long way toward breaking the accusation that he is running an identity politics campaign and I think he could make a meaningful dent in the black vote.

    bharper, July 22, 2016 at 3:11 pm
    I watched the speech with my college-age grand-daughter. She was so enthused at times that she jumped up and clapped. She said, "He talks to ordinary people with respect."

    I thought the speech was effective, but too long. His shouting didn't bother me. It shows that he is not a politician. The speech was tailored to his style- short declarative sentences. I think it helped him.

    Roger II, July 22, 2016 at 3:36 pm
    The Washington Post posted the speech as given, with Trump's ad-libs in bold. There weren't that many of them. The speech he gave was probably 90% identical to the speech as written. Many of the ad-libs were just adding things like "really" to the end of a sentence. He did add a whole paragraph about NATO.

    [NFR: I wonder if Trump's inability to deliver a speech with any kind of rhythm and cadence and direction made it seem far more scattered than it appeared on paper. - RD]

    K. W. Jeter, July 22, 2016 at 3:49 pm
    Per MikeCLT:

    Although it may be a sad commentary on the US population if patriotism and primary loyalty to one's countrymen is now considered a white thing.

    That "primary loyalty to one's countrymen" is the sin described as nativism , which anti-white SJW types have determined to be one of the particular evils of white people. In that sense, the SJW's and white identitarians such as Elrond are in agreement that it is indeed a "white thing." Except that Elrond - and perhaps you and others - don't consider it evil.

    Darth Thulhu, July 22, 2016 at 5:41 pm
    Rod wrote:

    after last night, watching him screw up the most important speech of his life with his inability to stay focused, I am much less confident in his ability to make the sale to the American people

    You sincerely asked, in another thread, how someone could possibly call you a "cultural liberal" even if you were a theological conservative and a social conservative.

    Re-read the italicized sentence above, because that is how someone can call you a painfully-unself-aware "cultural liberal".

    You (incorrectly) assume, even after Trump has thoroughly annihilated all of your prior expectations, that you just obviously know "what makes a good political speech" better than Trump does. Thus, you blithely assert the Self-Evident Truth that Trump clearly screwed his speech up.

    1. No, you don't know better.
    2. Trump did not screw his speech up.
    3. Trump getting your hackles to rise and your knee to jerk and your mouth to open to reflexively slam him for "doing it wrong" is part of the point
    4. You are (once again) doing Trump's bidding by giving him yet more free publicity to (incorrectly) lecture the world on how he "obviously did it wrong". He simply could not pay you to write more effective press for him.
    5. You reflexively write "cultural elite" prose against Trump for free, but not only does Trump not care about your critique … he privately basks and gloriously wallows in it. Just as much as Trump revelled in National Review's self-immolating condemnation of his campaign in February, he invites any and all merely-procedural sneering about his convention today.
    6. Trump simply does not care, in the least, if he gets 90% covered in excrement, so long as his detractors get covered 95+%. If he is slightly, barely less-caked-in-filth at the finish line, he wins, and that is the only thing that matters to him. It is simply never a "mistake" for Trump to make speech choices that cake him in yet more filth, so long as he causes even more filth to adhere to his only real opponent … especially if his "mistakes" cause cultural elites like you to give him even-more-mountains of free publicity poring over those "mistakes".

    Once again: "Why doubt that Trump can make a Mexico that loathes Trump pay for Trump's wall? Every week, Trump makes a media that loathes Trump pay for Trump's campaign."

    [NFR: Um, what? If expecting rhetorical coherence makes one a cultural liberal, then there's no difference between Alan Alda and William F. Buckley. - RD]

    Ralph, July 22, 2016 at 5:47 pm
    I find myself wondering if we are in the shallows before the Trump Tsunami crashes ashore. I just returned from visiting my sister and brother-in-law, who live in a red Southern state. They are fairly affluent, and both work hard for it. They are incredibly generous with their resources, not merely when it comes to their three children (all in their twenties now), in whom they have tried to instill a traditional work ethic and Christian virtue, but with all manner of friends and acquaintances. They open their home to friends and travelers, take meals to cancer strugglers, and have a strong sense of goodness. And they are silent supporters of Donald J. Trump. Not too silent, as I found out while we watched and talked about the RNC this past week! Although they certainly know who they can and can not discuss him in front of. Not worth the static and trauma of bringing Trump's name up in front of their liberal friends. They are decidedly not from Appalachia, they are the "silent majority," and I think the RNC this past week, and the many speeches, especially Trump's, have "sealed the deal." I suspect there are many like them.
    DG, July 22, 2016 at 5:49 pm
    Although I hate this word, I can't think of a better one to use here: Trump gave this speech with a good dose of "swagger", as if he was riding on a wave of realization that, "Holy sh!t, I can win this!" Admittedly, I'm still on the fence as to whether or not I can vote for him.

    I liked that he called HC out on her ineptitude and transgressions and hope that he continues to do so to keep her on the defensive. If you happen to think Trump's screaming delivery was bad (I did but as a fellow native NYer, I get it) just wait until we are subjected to the screeching, robotic monotone of Broom Hilda next week.

    Chris Atwood, July 22, 2016 at 6:34 pm
    I'm also surprised that no one has mentioned Matthew Sheffield's very sharp analysis elsewhere on TAC. The key point is, Trump held fast to all the points on which he disagrees with the previous GOP consensus–and got the audience to cheer along with his "heresies."

    He is running as an anti-free trade, anti-immigration, anti-foreign intervention, non-social-issue-conservative–and getting the Pence-style conservatives to go along with it. Movement conservatism is dead–Ted Cruz is "rotting-flesh Reaganism" in Rusty Reno's hideously accurate phrase. If it wasn't for the fact that Trump is the messenger, this would be a very good message.

    Elrond, July 22, 2016 at 7:13 pm
    Regarding the vile Hillary Clinton's ethics and "temperament": https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4u367e/wikileaks_release_19252_from_the_dnc_start/d5mflj8

    [Jul 24, 2016] Check Your Amnesia, Dude On the Vox Generation of Punditry (Updated) - Crooked Timber

    Notable quotes:
    "... When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don't think we are a very good messenger. ..."
    "... Trump is just saying true things that we are not supposed to say outloud, like no one takes the American gov. talk on human rights seriously anymore, and no one, no one is going to start a nuclear war over Latvia. That's why people are only denying what trump said in the most general terms, rather than saying directly that we'd go to war with Russia over Lativa, because we're not going to. ..."
    "... "We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons - including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. … His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons-including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox." (presentation to Congress) ..."
    "... The point being, as irresponsible foreign policy statements go, this (one hopes) will be the standard by which political actors -actual or aspirational- will be judged for quite sometime. ..."
    "... Reagan and Thatcher's warmongering was so terrifying for much of the world it reinvented the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament which had once been seen to be decisively defeated by the Labour right. They held unprecedented rallies and even had the organising power to great the Glastonbury Festival as we know it. ..."
    "... Reagan's belligerence could have easily triggered a nuclear war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident ..."
    "... Whenever I hear this kind of stuff-with all the faux-seriousness and operatic gnashing of teeth, the pompous heavy breathing, the weird identification with America's global mission (as Tim Barker mused on Twitter, does Bouie seriously think the "end of US hegemony would be more dangerous than nuking a small post colonial state?")-I wonder, whom are they performing for? Each other? Themselves? Political elites? ..."
    "... It's about time we recognize the triumph of liberalism/neoliberalism in America, past hegemony into dominance. ..."
    "... liberal imperialism is gonna kill a lot of people. Again. ..."
    "... Bob @33 yep. enter Hillary http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-will-learn-all-the-wrong-lessons-from-brush-with-bernie-20160609 ..."
    "... So none of this is about NATO or about whether Trump really said something scary. Asteele is right, of course, and no one is going to start a nuclear war over Latvia, but Trump being Trump I'd say that he told the truth in this case by accident. But if Trump gains in the polls and starts to win, all of these pundits will reverse themselves. By the end of the campaign, they'll be saying how great it is to have a straight talker in the White House. The truth, much less historical comparisons about the truth, is irrelevant. ..."
    "... Voila: the Donald wins, the US imperialism defeated, the world saved. I'll give it a 40% chance… Otherwise, we're all dead within the next 4 years… ..."
    "... By what possible criteria could he be considered worse than the psychos, narcissists, nutjobs, crooks and lunatics that the Americans have been in the habit of voting in as their President since about 1960? Look at JFK (subsequently canonised) and his wild and reckless decision to literally bring the world close to nuclear Armageddon because of his unilateral decree that the sovereign state of Cuba was not to be allowed nuclear weapons (imagine how we would feel about Castro if he unilaterally decreed that the United States was 'not to be allowed' nuclear weapons, had invaded the United States to overthrow its legal government, and then blockaded the US for over 50 years to protest against the US' many human rights violations, as well as attempting to assassinate all of its leaders. But when the US does the same to Cuba, we all think its perfectly reasonable). ..."
    "... The TV series 'Altered Statesmen', which is worth checking out, posited that Kennedy was a drug addict (amphetamines) and that this contributed to his reckless behaviour over Cuba. ..."
    "... Then we have Barack Obama, and it has to be said, compared to the others, he looks good. He is, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, a perfectly competent and sane imperial administrator. His policies in no way deviate from the main contours of American foreign policy as they have existed since about 1949 and in no way from American domestic foreign policy since 1981. He is no better, morally, than his predecessors, but he is less nuts. But he is unequivocally the best (except maybe Lyndon Johnson in terms only of his domestic policy), and he ain't that great. ..."
    "... There are good reasons to loathe Trump. But the liberal commentariat go out of their way to find bad reasons. The objective fact is we heard harder and more aggressive arguments against the invasion of Iraq in the Republican debates than we heard in the Democrats' debates (and that includes Sanders). In his last speech, Trump went out of his way to condemn Hilary/Obama's annihilation of Libya. It is not clear what Trump would do vis a vis Syria, but he is right to point out that Syria is now a disaster area and that Obama/Clinton share some of the blame. Trump condemned TPP: will Hilary? ..."
    "... Those who argue that they can see Trump causing world war 3 are right, but surely one can also imagine Hilary Clinton causing it? She is a hawk: indeed, far more of a hawk than Obama. ..."
    "... Trump attacks Nato (an organization which, as has been said, exists to solve the problems caused by its own existence). Good. So what's the big deal? It is hard not to see a connection between this hysteria over Trump, and the concurrent hysteria the liberal commentariate are having in the UK over Corbyn. And in both cases, denial of the obvious: the neo-liberal consensus as we have known it since 1979 (1981 in the US) is breaking down. What replaces it might be worse. But it is definitely breaking down, and Clinton's attempts to piece it together again will not work. ..."
    "... "The rally was because of the recent economic crisis that struck Latvia in 2009 and made more than almost 70% of the Latvian population either poor or unemployed." ..."
    "... Trump is only saying what Patrick Buchanan has been saying for years. And the latter was a Presidential candidate, though not a real contender. ..."
    "... The real effect will be further down the line, in 10 years. Now that someone has put the Buchananite end-the-Empire stuff into the mainstream, it will be taken up and brought forward by serious people. ..."
    "... 30 years ago nobody thought the UK's membership of the EEC (as was) was ever going to be put in question again. Nobody really thought that 20 years ago either. But 10 years ago it was a distant possibility, and then it all slides away in the final few years and months. ..."
    "... Those people believed we could win a nuclear war. I think there are people in the State Department today who believe that we can fight a war with Russia without having it quickly turn into a nuclear war. ..."
    "... I am scared because I think Hillary believes the (a) Russia will not resist an invasion by NATO land forces AND that they will not launch their missiles before they are overwhelmed. This really, really scares me. Honest to Dog, they were thinking in terms of a dozen of our cities being obliterated, maybe eight or ten million casualties, heck, just a flesh wound. I don't have the references to the Field Manuals, but it was official, settled doctrine in the Department of Defense that is was possible to fight and win a nuclear war, and the people who claimed the Russian General Staff were lunatics for thinking so were fringe elements at best. ..."
    "... Truman – nuclear weapons and invasion of Korea 1950. Kennedy – Bay of Pigs – numerous assassinations/support for dictators across the globe. Johnson – massive escalation of US troops in Viet Nam. Staunch cold warrior. ..."
    "... The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction provided the 'stability' during the cold war. Is there a crazier notion than 'we can win' a full-scale nuclear conflagration? That's what passed for normal from 1945 to 1992, more or less. Both the US and Russia deserve credit for stepping back from that brink. ..."
    "... The fiction that Democrats are somehow more humane and caring than the rest of the planet is very much open to question. Indeed, the historical record offers plenty of evidence to the contrary, at least as damning as HRC's giddy recollections of killing Libyans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y ..."
    "... I don't expect HRC to attack Russia for the same reason that I don't expect Russia to attack Europe: MAD is still in effect. I don't think that people are really that crazy. That said, NATO pledging full defense of small countries on Russia's border is inherently destabilizing and leads to stances like Daragh's at @85, in which we have to make crystal clear that we are promising to do something that it would be insane to do, and the crystal clearness of this insane promise is the best guarantee of stability. ..."
    "... Indeed, I was referring to Clinton's foreign and military policies. By the standards of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, which seem reasonable to me, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war crime, and those who supported it in a significant way, such as being in the U.S. Senate and voting for it, being accomplices, are war criminals. Clinton's excuse is that she was fed bad intelligence, but I don't believe she is that stupid or incompetent. Absent a war-crimes trial, we must guess, but my guess is that she calculated that if the war turned out badly, it would be Bush's war, and if it turned out well (politically, I mean) she would have been in on it. That is, she voted for the violent or deaths or other serious harm of several hundred thousand innocent people in order to secure a political advantage. In my view this makes her a war criminal and I won't vote for or otherwise support such a person. Her subsequent career seems to confirm my guess. Insofar as she shows emotion about slaughter, she seems to enjoy it, as witness her crowing about Qaddafi. ..."
    "... In regard to Ukraine, my take on what happened there was that the existing situation, in which Ukraine was a more or less neutral state, tolerated by its neighbors, was unsatisfactory to some important people in the US. As long as Ukraine followed more or less democratic forms, the large Russian population there would tend to keep it neutral, so a violent coup against the elected government was fomented, obviating that problem. I'd guess the targets of the exercise were the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, and the chance of putting NATO forces and weapons next to southern Russia. Putin's response was to play black: he took just what he needed, to wit, a couple of eastern provinces and Crimea, and left the rest. A gangster, no doubt, but a rational one. I don't see this sequence of events as relating strongly to the Baltic states. I suppose if NATO built huge bases there it might make the Russians nervous, but to my knowledge that isn't planned. God knows, though - people could be that stupid, I suppose, considering the pair the major parties have presented us with. ..."
    "... The thing is, there's absolutely nothing terrifying about Trump. In fact, he's a quintessential American hero; and not just that: he's a quintessential non-violent American hero, unlike, say, Bonnie and Clyde. Has always been, for as long as I remember. In fact, stating that Trump is terrifying is outright unAmerican and treasonous. ..."
    "... What nonsense. There is no 'Russian expansionism'. South Ossetia is begging to be accepted – the RF won't take it. Similar story with Donetsk and Lugansk, whom Putin personally asked in 2014 NOT to hold the referendum for independence. And these are regions that really-really want to join the RF; what the hell would they do with the Baltic republics, where most people don't even want it? This is simply a whole 100% imaginary issue; you people are completely brainwashed… ..."
    "... The neocon in a dress who supported the Iraq debacle and enjoyed it so much that she played a key role in American regime change in Libya, and still wants kill more brown people through more violent regime change in Syria is far and away the safer, saner candidate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y ..."
    crookedtimber.org
    Last night, Donald Trump shocked the world, or at least the pundit class, when the New York Times published a wide-ranging interview Trump had given the paper on the subject of foreign policy.

    ... ... ...

    But he also said some things that were true. Like this:

    When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don't think we are a very good messenger.
    And while the article makes a muchness of Trump's refusal to pressure Turkey over its response to the failed coup, the fact is that Obama hasn't done anything concrete on that score either (as the article acknowledges). Nor did Obama do much about the coup in Egypt or Honduras. To the contrary, in fact.

    But that wasn't the focus of last night's chatter on Twitter. Instead, the pundits and experts were keen to establish the absolutely unprecedented nature of Trump's irresponsibility: his recklessness when it came to NATO , his adventurism, his sheer reveling in being the Bad Boy of US Foreign Policy: this, it was agreed, was new.

    In a tweet that got passed around by a lot of journalists, Peter Singer, senior fellow at the New America Foundation (who's written a lot of books on US foreign policy), had this to say:

    It is the most irresponsible foreign policy statement by a presidential nominee of any party in my lifetime. https://t.co/V3C6nbp5wu


    - Peter W. Singer (@peterwsinger) July 21, 2016
    Hmm, let's see. [click to continue…]

    P O'Neill 07.21.16 at 8:03 pm

    It's been a weird couple of months. Not so long ago, this rising generation of pundits were in agreement that there was a dinosaur foreign policy blob in fancy buildings between Dupont Circle and K Street whose first instinct was to drag the USA into unwinnable wars. Yet the Blob and the New Pundits are in complete agreement that (1) the main problem in Turkey is Mt Erdogan and (2) Trump is unprecedented. Just one among many examples: this tweet, which relies on unnamed NATO foreign minister using apocalyptic language that this same group would ridicule in other contexts. From all Trump's awfulness, is his reticence about a Baltic war the worst thing?

    Asteele 07.21.16 at 8:28 pm

    Trump is just saying true things that we are not supposed to say outloud, like no one takes the American gov. talk on human rights seriously anymore, and no one, no one is going to start a nuclear war over Latvia. That's why people are only denying what trump said in the most general terms, rather than saying directly that we'd go to war with Russia over Lativa, because we're not going to.

    b9n10nt 07.21.16 at 8:44 pm

    09/18/2002, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (before Congress)

    "We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons - including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. … His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons-including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox." (presentation to Congress)

    The point being, as irresponsible foreign policy statements go, this (one hopes) will be the standard by which political actors -actual or aspirational- will be judged for quite sometime.

    Placeholder 07.21.16 at 9:28 pm

    Reagan and Thatcher's warmongering was so terrifying for much of the world it reinvented the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament which had once been seen to be decisively defeated by the Labour right. They held unprecedented rallies and even had the organising power to great the Glastonbury Festival as we know it.

    The New Zealand Labour party swept back to power in the 1980s when they promised that its territory will never be used for production, storage and transmission of nuclear material. When the US just wouldn't tell them if their subs had nukes on them they simply banned them. To this day the policy has made New Zealand a nuclear-free territory.

    Really though Trump is just saying what Europeans, the craven complicity of the warmongering media bosses aside, actually believe so…. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33072093

    PS Turkey is suspending its membership of the ECHR, or as I phrase it OUTRAGE AS MIDDLE EASTERN DICTATOR DOES THING THERESA MAY HAS ALWAYS SAID SHE'LL DO

    Donald Johnson 07.21.16 at 10:57 pm

    Reagan's belligerence could have easily triggered a nuclear war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident

    Yes, it's Wikipedia, but I've read similar things elsewhere. I didn't realize there were people who would still defend the rhetoric of fighting and winning a nuclear war.

    max 07.21.16 at 11:47 pm

    I'll admit that I find it hard to take this ahistorical high dudgeon of the pundit class seriously.

    ZOMG yes!

    Whenever I hear this kind of stuff-with all the faux-seriousness and operatic gnashing of teeth, the pompous heavy breathing, the weird identification with America's global mission (as Tim Barker mused on Twitter, does Bouie seriously think the "end of US hegemony would be more dangerous than nuking a small post colonial state?")-I wonder, whom are they performing for? Each other? Themselves? Political elites?

    Quite. Also endorse entire post. I would also point out that Kevin Drum kicked off some of the hyperventilating and he ought to know better. (But then he's from Orange county, center of some seriously intense Cold War hatred of the Russians.)

    heckblazer 07.21.16 at 11:56 pm

    If Trump is right when he said "When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don't think we are a very good messenger," it's by complete accident given his reasoning. What he said right before that in the interview was:

    "We have tremendous problems when we have policemen being shot in the streets, when you have riots, when you have Ferguson. When you have Baltimore. When you have all of the things that are happening in this country – we have other problems and I think we have to focus on those problems."

    He doesn't think police shootings delegitimize American criticisms of Edrogan, he thinks protests against police shootings delegitimize American criticisms of Edrogan.

    Anarcissie 07.21.16 at 11:59 pm

    In regard to the 'Which one is worse?' conversation, which I've been seeing a lot of lately, some have pointed out that Trump hasn't actually gotten anyone killed - yet - either as a principal actor or as an accomplice.

    I was unaware, as implied in #1, that Russia had been bothering the Baltic States. The only thing I have seen about them in the news in the last few years was that the US was 'bolstering' its military presence there, absent any mentioned provocation. This seemed to comprise the addition of a few thousand troops, hardly much of a counterweight to the Russian army. I figured, after having failed with Georgia/Abkhazia/Ossetia, Ukraine/Crimea, and Syria, the US had to do something to show Putin a thing or two. What's up?

    bob mcmanus 07.22.16 at 12:21 am

    It's about time we recognize the triumph of liberalism/neoliberalism in America, past hegemony into dominance. And ahistorical moralism, with a side order of apocalyptic and missionary imperialism, is what the petty bourgeois do, and Vox, Bouie, and the feminists at Slate and Jezebel are just parts of the latest iteration. It shouldn't be that hard to recognize Comstock and Carrie Nation and John Harvey Kellogg under the bicycle helmets and tattoos.

    Trump's gonna get smashed. Same relevance and interest as maybe WJ Bryan or Henry Wallace. End of an era. But this is not good news, cause liberal imperialism is gonna kill a lot of people. Again.

    T 07.22.16 at 12:47 am

    Bob @33
    yep.
    enter Hillary
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-will-learn-all-the-wrong-lessons-from-brush-with-bernie-20160609

    Rich Puchalsky 07.22.16 at 1:14 am

    I seriously take issue with this post. I don't think the attitude of the press has anything to do with amnesia or lack of historical knowledge. It's just that it's cool right now for them to be against Trump. If it were cool to be for Trump, they'd reverse positions in a dime.

    Let's look at the microcosm of CT threads for an example. When Trump started getting popular, some people here wrote the same kinds of things in reference to his statements about protestors - had any Presidential candidate asked so barbarously towards protest? So I thought for less than a minute and came up with a couple of examples from both the Bush and Obama administrations of protestors being arrested for wearing the wrong T-shirt, of laws being made to make it even easier to arrest people, of cops brutalizing protesters much more severely than (to my knowledge) any anti-Trump protestor has been brutalized without any official reaction, and so on. People didn't have amnesia about all of this: it happened within the last decade.

    And they didn't care, because they weren't really interested in historical comparisons, much less an abstract right to protest. It was all about whether it was being done by their side or the other side. I got treated to a long explanation of why Obama needed to crack down on protestors because someone somewhere was scary.

    So none of this is about NATO or about whether Trump really said something scary. Asteele is right, of course, and no one is going to start a nuclear war over Latvia, but Trump being Trump I'd say that he told the truth in this case by accident. But if Trump gains in the polls and starts to win, all of these pundits will reverse themselves. By the end of the campaign, they'll be saying how great it is to have a straight talker in the White House. The truth, much less historical comparisons about the truth, is irrelevant.

    Donald Johnson 07.22.16 at 4:28 am

    I thought it was sort of a truism that politics attracts sociopaths. You can google it and find articles like this–

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-startling-accuracy-of-referring-to-politicians-as-psychopaths/260517/#

    Trump seems like an exceptionally inept sociopath– what is horrifying about him is that millions find his openly and unashamedly narcisstic personality attractive. Politicians usually try to fake humility, but Trump can't be bothered and for whatever reason this seems to be working for him.

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 6:27 am

    "Trump's gonna get smashed."

    Well, here's my hopeful scenario, two parts:

    1. no one bothers coming to vote for Hillary, because no one likes her. This much is obvious, but also:
    2. no one bothers coming to vote against Trump, because he can't win anyway.

    Voila: the Donald wins, the US imperialism defeated, the world saved. I'll give it a 40% chance… Otherwise, we're all dead within the next 4 years…

    Hidari 07.22.16 at 6:44 am

    Looking at it from outside, I simply don't understand all this horror and hatred of Trump. Perhaps we should create (or adapt) a new phrase for it. 'Trump-Derangement-Syndrome' a mental disease (like so many other similar mental illnesses) disproportionately suffered by white middle class males who have well-paid positions in the corporate media.

    Now: don't get me wrong: Trump is awful. He is probably (morally) a bad person, although I've never met him so what would I know. It is possible that he is a 'sociopath' although that phrase tends to have a somewhat elastic meaning in 'liberal' political discourse.

    But there are a number of points to be made here.

    1: By what possible criteria could he be considered worse than the psychos, narcissists, nutjobs, crooks and lunatics that the Americans have been in the habit of voting in as their President since about 1960? Look at JFK (subsequently canonised) and his wild and reckless decision to literally bring the world close to nuclear Armageddon because of his unilateral decree that the sovereign state of Cuba was not to be allowed nuclear weapons (imagine how we would feel about Castro if he unilaterally decreed that the United States was 'not to be allowed' nuclear weapons, had invaded the United States to overthrow its legal government, and then blockaded the US for over 50 years to protest against the US' many human rights violations, as well as attempting to assassinate all of its leaders. But when the US does the same to Cuba, we all think its perfectly reasonable).

    The TV series 'Altered Statesmen', which is worth checking out, posited that Kennedy was a drug addict (amphetamines) and that this contributed to his reckless behaviour over Cuba.

    Then we had Lyndon Johnson, who, although his domestic policies were good (better than Kennedy's), invaded Vietnam, and was relatively keen to start a nuclear war over Vietnamese resistance to his belligerence.

    Then we had Nixon. 'Nuff said.

    Then we had Carter, like all of them, a believer in a sky God who doesn't exist, who brought religious fundamentalism to the White House (thanks Jimmy!) and who was also a a believer in UFOs.

    Then Ronald Reagan. Where to start? A man who (apparently) had Alzheimer's Disease for much of his second term (although the liberal commentariat helped to deceive the American public about this). The times of whose meetings were planned (apparently) by an astrologer. A man who openly hoped for an alien invasion to unite the 'peoples of Earth'.

    Then we had Slick Willie, who, although nominally sane, has at least the same aura of sleaze about him as Trump does.

    Then George Bush, the first real, 'hardcore' religious fundamentalist in the White House, a religious extremist who apparently invaded Iraq (amongst other reasons) because of the Biblical prophecies of Gog and Magog.

    Then we have Barack Obama, and it has to be said, compared to the others, he looks good. He is, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, a perfectly competent and sane imperial administrator. His policies in no way deviate from the main contours of American foreign policy as they have existed since about 1949 and in no way from American domestic foreign policy since 1981. He is no better, morally, than his predecessors, but he is less nuts. But he is unequivocally the best (except maybe Lyndon Johnson in terms only of his domestic policy), and he ain't that great.

    2; By what possible criteria is Trump worse than the other Republican candidates?

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/eliot-weinberger/they-could-have-picked

    3: There are good reasons to loathe Trump. But the liberal commentariat go out of their way to find bad reasons. The objective fact is we heard harder and more aggressive arguments against the invasion of Iraq in the Republican debates than we heard in the Democrats' debates (and that includes Sanders). In his last speech, Trump went out of his way to condemn Hilary/Obama's annihilation of Libya. It is not clear what Trump would do vis a vis Syria, but he is right to point out that Syria is now a disaster area and that Obama/Clinton share some of the blame. Trump condemned TPP: will Hilary?

    Those who argue that they can see Trump causing world war 3 are right, but surely one can also imagine Hilary Clinton causing it? She is a hawk: indeed, far more of a hawk than Obama.

    Trump attacks Nato (an organization which, as has been said, exists to solve the problems caused by its own existence). Good. So what's the big deal? It is hard not to see a connection between this hysteria over Trump, and the concurrent hysteria the liberal commentariate are having in the UK over Corbyn. And in both cases, denial of the obvious: the neo-liberal consensus as we have known it since 1979 (1981 in the US) is breaking down. What replaces it might be worse. But it is definitely breaking down, and Clinton's attempts to piece it together again will not work.

    53

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 7:42 am

    "Gosh, do you think that people in other countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union (and didn't like it) might be a little nervous?"

    Yes, most people in the Baltic republics definitely are a little nervous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Riga_riot
    "The rally was because of the recent economic crisis that struck Latvia in 2009 and made more than almost 70% of the Latvian population either poor or unemployed."

    Should, next time, large majorities there demand quitting the EU and NATO, and integrating (or, god forbid, joining) with the Russian Federation, German troops being deployed there will certainly come handy: they know the terrain…

    Alex K--- 07.22.16 at 8:47 am

    If they are well-read in history and good at querying JStor, why are they ignorant of relevant facts from the recent US past? Perhaps it takes too much time and effort to check broad assertions such as "it has never happened before" even if one has access to all the research databases in the world? If it's true, and the columnist does not have the background in history to come up with instant counterexamples, "ask an expert" seems to be the only sensible approach left unless the writer is willing to compromise his integrity to make his dubious point.

    Trump's suggestion that US protection for NATO members be conditioned on those members' fulfilling unspecified obligations towards "us" (the US?) did sound like something completely new coming from a US presidential candidate. That NATO members are free-riding on the American military buildup and should be made to pay up is an old hobby horse of Trump's. But suggesting the US should or might renege on its treaty obligations is a novelty.

    No, I don't think Putin is going to invade Latvia – he has learned his lesson in Eastern Ukraine. However, Russia might still be able to pull Latvia to its side in the big game. If Trump's view prevailed in DC, Latvian voters would start asking themselves, "Why do we need NATO if they won't protect us? Why do we need the EU if they're out to flood us with refugees?"

    On the other hand, Trump's unpredictability might give him an advantage against Putin.

    60

    bruce wilder 07.22.16 at 9:17 am

    The thing is, the U.S. shouldn't be offering security guarantees to countries on Russia's doorstep. The U.S. is overextended and some scheme of multilateral arrangements, suitable to a multipolar world ought to be on the agenda.

    There is an out-of-the-mouth-of-babes quality lurking in Trump's stream of consciousness, as the OP points out. Of course you can always question the context (and in his disjointed ramblings that can be hard to pin down) and everything he says is quickly contradicted, but he isn't the one trapped by conventional nonsense. He has his own nonsense.

    61

    J-D 07.22.16 at 9:29 am

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 7:42 am

    Should, next time, large majorities there demand quitting the EU and NATO, and integrating (or, god forbid, joining) with the Russian Federation, German troops being deployed there will certainly come handy: they know the terrain…

    If large majorities in Latvia (or any of the Baltic states) demand quitting the EU and NATO and integrating or joining with the Russian Federation, pinch yourself and wake up.

    63

    casmilus 07.22.16 at 9:36 am

    Trump is only saying what Patrick Buchanan has been saying for years. And the latter was a Presidential candidate, though not a real contender.

    The real effect will be further down the line, in 10 years. Now that someone has put the Buchananite end-the-Empire stuff into the mainstream, it will be taken up and brought forward by serious people.

    30 years ago nobody thought the UK's membership of the EEC (as was) was ever going to be put in question again. Nobody really thought that 20 years ago either. But 10 years ago it was a distant possibility, and then it all slides away in the final few years and months.

    64

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 10:15 am

    "pinch yourself and wake up"

    Why, because some anglophone commenter from down-under can't believe it's possible? Tsk. Oh well, thanks for your suggestion, and rest assured that it'll get all the attention it deserves…

    casmilus 07.22.16 at 11:45 am

    @68

    The First Czechoslovak Republic had lots of treaties and allies, until it needed them.

    Procopius 07.22.16 at 1:12 pm

    Reading the comments, I find myself wondering when these people were born. I especially was baffled by Daragh at #1. You are wrong. The official, and widely publicised, policy of the United States government and its Department of Defense was that it was perfectly possible to win a nuclear war. True, we might take as many as 80 million immediate casualties, with many more to die from radiation and fallout later, but we could survive. You betcha. Do you know who Curtis Le May was? I served in the Air Force from 1955 – 1959, and then in the Army from 1965 – 1982. I remember.

    Those people believed we could win a nuclear war. I think there are people in the State Department today who believe that we can fight a war with Russia without having it quickly turn into a nuclear war.

    I am scared because I think Hillary believes the (a) Russia will not resist an invasion by NATO land forces AND that they will not launch their missiles before they are overwhelmed. This really, really scares me. Honest to Dog, they were thinking in terms of a dozen of our cities being obliterated, maybe eight or ten million casualties, heck, just a flesh wound. I don't have the references to the Field Manuals, but it was official, settled doctrine in the Department of Defense that is was possible to fight and win a nuclear war, and the people who claimed the Russian General Staff were lunatics for thinking so were fringe elements at best.

    kidneystones 07.22.16 at 1:53 pm

    FDR allows 527 heavy bombers of the US Eighth Air Force to drop 1, 247 tons of high explosives on Dresden on January 14 and 15 of 1945 'fierce winds fueled the resulting fire-storm'. (Six Months in 1945, p. 97) That's after the Brits had already firebombed the civilian target on the night of February 13.

    FDR allows Curtis Le May to deploy new 'miracle' weapon' napalm against Japanese civilian targets in 60 Japanese cities. The March raid on Tokyo killed 100,000. FDR 'raised no objections when informed of incendiary attacks on Japan (Targeting Civilians in War, p. 132)

    Truman – nuclear weapons and invasion of Korea 1950.
    Kennedy – Bay of Pigs – numerous assassinations/support for dictators across the globe.
    Johnson – massive escalation of US troops in Viet Nam. Staunch cold warrior.

    A number of us served during the cold war. Procopius @ 78 is right.

    The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction provided the 'stability' during the cold war. Is there a crazier notion than 'we can win' a full-scale nuclear conflagration? That's what passed for normal from 1945 to 1992, more or less. Both the US and Russia deserve credit for stepping back from that brink.

    Partisan blinders prevent some from recognizing that war/torture/state terror/and meddling in the affairs of allies and enemies alike has long been part of the policies not just of both parties in the US, but of many governments around the globe, including that of the UK.

    The fiction that Democrats are somehow more humane and caring than the rest of the planet is very much open to question. Indeed, the historical record offers plenty of evidence to the contrary, at least as damning as HRC's giddy recollections of killing Libyans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    Rich Puchalsky 07.22.16 at 2:05 pm

    I don't expect HRC to attack Russia for the same reason that I don't expect Russia to attack Europe: MAD is still in effect. I don't think that people are really that crazy. That said, NATO pledging full defense of small countries on Russia's border is inherently destabilizing and leads to stances like Daragh's at @85, in which we have to make crystal clear that we are promising to do something that it would be insane to do, and the crystal clearness of this insane promise is the best guarantee of stability.

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 2:20 pm

    "The fiction that Democrats are somehow more humane and caring than the rest of the planet is very much open to question. Indeed, the historical record offers plenty of evidence to the contrary…"

    Well, Democrats and Republicans are, of course the same thing, and the attraction of Trump is that he appears to be neither.

    But yes, it is true, although it's probably a mere coincidence, that the administrations led by Democratic presidents appear to be more dangerous, in terms of provoking a nuclear war. The Kennedy admin is, obviously, beyond the pale. The Clinton admin bombed Serbia, Russia's close ally, from high altitudes with no military purpose, killing thousands of people and hitting the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. The Pristina incident almost resulted in a direct armed confrontation. Obama's admin is responsible for the coup in Ukraine and its consequences, as well as the incredibly aggressive propaganda campaign, and all the recent escalations, all well-known. Compare this with Bush II admin's careful handling of the '08 crisis in Georgia and '01 incident with Chinese plane collision…

    Anarcissie 07.22.16 at 2:38 pm

    Howard Frant 07.22.16 at 7:05 am @ 54:

    'I have no idea what you're saying here. You've been seeing a lot of people asking whether Trump or Clinton is worse? Truly, is there no limit to the stupidity of the intellectual left?

    Most of my conversational parters, in Real Life or online, are not what I would call 'intellectuals' and many of them are not leftists in the bourgeois intellectual leftist sense. I read CT as I used to read the New York Review of Books, to find out what the bourgeoisie are up to. I hope my terms will be understood, but if not, it doesn't matter; I'm sure you get the general idea.

    Indeed, I was referring to Clinton's foreign and military policies. By the standards of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, which seem reasonable to me, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war crime, and those who supported it in a significant way, such as being in the U.S. Senate and voting for it, being accomplices, are war criminals. Clinton's excuse is that she was fed bad intelligence, but I don't believe she is that stupid or incompetent. Absent a war-crimes trial, we must guess, but my guess is that she calculated that if the war turned out badly, it would be Bush's war, and if it turned out well (politically, I mean) she would have been in on it. That is, she voted for the violent or deaths or other serious harm of several hundred thousand innocent people in order to secure a political advantage. In my view this makes her a war criminal and I won't vote for or otherwise support such a person. Her subsequent career seems to confirm my guess. Insofar as she shows emotion about slaughter, she seems to enjoy it, as witness her crowing about Qaddafi.

    'It's easy not to get anyone killed if you never spend any time in international politics. Very hard otherwise, either by commission or by omission.'

    Or, as Stalin is said to have said, 'If you kill one man, it's murder. If you kill a million men, it's a statistic.' I see that kind of thinking as a problem as well as a joke, and I'm not going to go along with it. How do you deal with it? Don't you find it somewhat problematical?

    In regard to Ukraine, my take on what happened there was that the existing situation, in which Ukraine was a more or less neutral state, tolerated by its neighbors, was unsatisfactory to some important people in the US. As long as Ukraine followed more or less democratic forms, the large Russian population there would tend to keep it neutral, so a violent coup against the elected government was fomented, obviating that problem. I'd guess the targets of the exercise were the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, and the chance of putting NATO forces and weapons next to southern Russia. Putin's response was to play black: he took just what he needed, to wit, a couple of eastern provinces and Crimea, and left the rest. A gangster, no doubt, but a rational one. I don't see this sequence of events as relating strongly to the Baltic states. I suppose if NATO built huge bases there it might make the Russians nervous, but to my knowledge that isn't planned. God knows, though - people could be that stupid, I suppose, considering the pair the major parties have presented us with.

    105

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 2:45 pm

    "I'm sorry you can't accept that the Ukrainians are a separate nation from the Russians"

    What's this all about? Are you replying to voices inside your head? In that case, you don't need to type your replies…

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 3:00 pm

    The thing is, there's absolutely nothing terrifying about Trump. In fact, he's a quintessential American hero; and not just that: he's a quintessential non-violent American hero, unlike, say, Bonnie and Clyde. Has always been, for as long as I remember. In fact, stating that Trump is terrifying is outright unAmerican and treasonous. Yessiree Bob!

    Anarcissie 07.22.16 at 3:14 pm

    Daragh 07.22.16 at 2:52 pm @ 108 -
    I know only what I read in the media, so I don't really, really know what happened in Ukraine, but I do know there was a violent coup against an elected government, apparently supported by the US - no one seems to disagree with that part - and the rest seems to organize itself around that event pretty well. I was also impressed by the torrent of propaganda that promptly issued forth at that time, which always makes me suspect advanced preparation. If you are in contact with any of those people, I suggest that in the view of us outerworld cranks their work in this area has not been up to the best standards of the art. Agreed, it's a tough case.

    The strategic difference between having major NATO installations in Turkey and having them in the north and east of Ukraine ought to be obvious.

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 5:07 pm

    "If ever something was going to green light Russian expansionism, that would certainly do it, I'd imagine."

    What nonsense. There is no 'Russian expansionism'. South Ossetia is begging to be accepted – the RF won't take it. Similar story with Donetsk and Lugansk, whom Putin personally asked in 2014 NOT to hold the referendum for independence. And these are regions that really-really want to join the RF; what the hell would they do with the Baltic republics, where most people don't even want it? This is simply a whole 100% imaginary issue; you people are completely brainwashed…

    kidneystones 07.22.16 at 12:55 pm

    @ 73 I agree!

    The neocon in a dress who supported the Iraq debacle and enjoyed it so much that she played a key role in American regime change in Libya, and still wants kill more brown people through more violent regime change in Syria is far and away the safer, saner candidate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    [Jul 24, 2016] The Full Text Of Donald Trumps 2016 RNC Drafted Speech

    Notable quotes:
    "... The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. This will all change in 2017. ..."
    "... The American People will come first once again. My plan will begin with safety at home – which means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity without law and order. On the economy, I will outline reforms to add millions of new jobs and trillions in new wealth that can be used to rebuild America. ..."
    "... Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings. ..."
    "... That is why Hillary Clinton's message is that things will never change. My message is that things have to change – and they have to change right now. Every day I wake up determined to deliver for the people I have met all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned. ..."
    "... I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice. ..."
    "... I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their children because our politicians put their personal agendas before the national good. I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens. ..."
    "... And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence – I know that corruption has reached a level like never before. ..."
    "... When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was "extremely careless" and "negligent," in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes. ..."
    "... In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting away with it – especially when others have paid so dearly. When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the time for action has come. ..."
    "... We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror. ..."
    "... We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities. I have been honored to receive the endorsement of America's Border Patrol Agents, and will work directly with them to protect the integrity of our lawful immigration system. ..."
    "... On January 21st of 2017, the day after I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced. We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone. ..."
    "... But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens. My plan is the exact opposite of the radical and dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton. Americans want relief from uncontrolled immigration. Communities want relief. ..."
    "... Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our country. ..."
    "... My opponent, on the other hand, has supported virtually every trade agreement that has been destroying our middle class. She supported NAFTA, and she supported China's entrance into the World Trade Organization – another one of her husband's colossal mistakes. ..."
    "... She supported the job killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP will not only destroy our manufacturing, but it will make America subject to the rulings of foreign governments. I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers, or that diminishes our freedom and independence. Instead, I will make individual deals with individual countries. ..."
    "... My opponent would rather protect education bureaucrats than serve American children. We will repeal and replace disastrous Obamacare. You will be able to choose your own doctor again. And we will fix TSA at the airports! We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we protect, at a massive loss, will be asked to pay their fair share. We will take care of our great Veterans like they have never been taken care of before. My opponent dismissed the VA scandal as being not widespread – one more sign of how out of touch she really is. We are going to ask every Department Head in government to provide a list of wasteful spending projects that we can eliminate in my first 100 days. The politicians have talked about it, I'm going to do it. We are also going to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our laws and our Constitution. ..."
    thefederalist.com

    ... ... ...

    Not only have our citizens endured domestic disaster, but they have lived through one international humiliation after another. We all remember the images of our sailors being forced to their knees by their Iranian captors at gunpoint.

    This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal, which gave back to Iran $150 billion and gave us nothing – it will go down in history as one of the worst deals ever made. Another humiliation came when president Obama drew a red line in Syria – and the whole world knew it meant nothing.

    In Libya, our consulate – the symbol of American prestige around the globe – was brought down in flames. America is far less safe – and the world is far less stable – than when Obama made the decision to put Hillary Clinton in charge of America's foreign policy.

    I am certain it is a decision he truly regrets. Her bad instincts and her bad judgment – something pointed out by Bernie Sanders – are what caused the disasters unfolding today. Let's review the record. In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map.

    Libya was cooperating. Egypt was peaceful. Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence. Iran was being choked by sanctions. Syria was under control. After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have? ISIS has spread across the region, and the world. Libya is in ruins, and our Ambassador and his staff were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos.

    Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis that now threatens the West. After fifteen years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.

    This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness.

    But Hillary Clinton's legacy does not have to be America's legacy. The problems we face now – poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad – will last only as long as we continue relying on the same politicians who created them. A change in leadership is required to change these outcomes. Tonight, I will share with you my plan of action for America.

    The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. This will all change in 2017.

    The American People will come first once again. My plan will begin with safety at home – which means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity without law and order. On the economy, I will outline reforms to add millions of new jobs and trillions in new wealth that can be used to rebuild America.

    A number of these reforms that I will outline tonight will be opposed by some of our nation's most powerful special interests. That is because these interests have rigged our political and economic system for their exclusive benefit.

    Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings.

    That is why Hillary Clinton's message is that things will never change. My message is that things have to change – and they have to change right now. Every day I wake up determined to deliver for the people I have met all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned.

    I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice.

    I AM YOUR VOICE.

    I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their children because our politicians put their personal agendas before the national good. I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens.

    When innocent people suffer, because our political system lacks the will, or the courage, or the basic decency to enforce our laws – or worse still, has sold out to some corporate lobbyist for cash – I am not able to look the other way.

    And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence – I know that corruption has reached a level like never before.

    When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was "extremely careless" and "negligent," in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes.

    In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting away with it – especially when others have paid so dearly. When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the time for action has come.

    I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. I have seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens, just like it was rigged against Bernie Sanders – he never had a chance.

    But his supporters will join our movement, because we will fix his biggest issue: trade. Millions of Democrats will join our movement because we are going to fix the system so it works for all Americans. In this cause, I am proud to have at my side the next Vice President of the United States: Governor Mike Pence of Indiana.

    We will bring the same economic success to America that Mike brought to Indiana. He is a man of character and accomplishment. He is the right man for the job. The first task for our new Administration will be to liberate our citizens from the crime and terrorism and lawlessness that threatens their communities.

    ... ... ...

    We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror.

    This includes working with our greatest ally in the region, the State of Israel. Lastly, we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.

    My opponent has called for a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama. She proposes this despite the fact that there's no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from. I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people.

    Anyone who endorses violence, hatred or oppression is not welcome in our country and never will be.

    Decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment for our citizens, especially for African-American and Latino workers. We are going to have an immigration system that works, but one that works for the American people.

    On Monday, we heard from three parents whose children were killed by illegal immigrants Mary Ann Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw. They are just three brave representatives of many thousands. Of all my travels in this country, nothing has affected me more deeply than the time I have spent with the mothers and fathers who have lost their children to violence spilling across our border.

    These families have no special interests to represent them. There are no demonstrators to protest on their behalf. My opponent will never meet with them, or share in their pain. Instead, my opponent wants Sanctuary Cities. But where was sanctuary for Kate Steinle? Where was Sanctuary for the children of Mary Ann, Sabine and Jamiel? Where was sanctuary for all the other Americans who have been so brutally murdered, and who have suffered so horribly?

    These wounded American families have been alone. But they are alone no longer. Tonight, this candidate and this whole nation stand in their corner to support them, to send them our love, and to pledge in their honor that we will save countless more families from suffering the same awful fate.

    We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities. I have been honored to receive the endorsement of America's Border Patrol Agents, and will work directly with them to protect the integrity of our lawful immigration system.

    By ending catch-and-release on the border, we will stop the cycle of human smuggling and violence. Illegal border crossings will go down. Peace will be restored. By enforcing the rules for the millions who overstay their visas, our laws will finally receive the respect they deserve.

    Tonight, I want every American whose demands for immigration security have been denied – and every politician who has denied them – to listen very closely to the words I am about to say.

    On January 21st of 2017, the day after I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced. We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone.

    But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens. My plan is the exact opposite of the radical and dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton. Americans want relief from uncontrolled immigration. Communities want relief.

    Yet Hillary Clinton is proposing mass amnesty, mass immigration, and mass lawlessness. Her plan will overwhelm your schools and hospitals, further reduce your jobs and wages, and make it harder for recent immigrants to escape from poverty.

    I have a different vision for our workers. It begins with a new, fair trade policy that protects our jobs and stands up to countries that cheat. It's been a signature message of my campaign from day one, and it will be a signature feature of my presidency from the moment I take the oath of office.

    I have made billions of dollars in business making deals – now I'm going to make our country rich again. I am going to turn our bad trade agreements into great ones. America has lost nearly-one third of its manufacturing jobs since 1997, following the enactment of disastrous trade deals supported by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our country.

    Never again.

    I am going to bring our jobs back to Ohio and to America – and I am not going to let companies move to other countries, firing their employees along the way, without consequences.

    My opponent, on the other hand, has supported virtually every trade agreement that has been destroying our middle class. She supported NAFTA, and she supported China's entrance into the World Trade Organization – another one of her husband's colossal mistakes.

    She supported the job killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP will not only destroy our manufacturing, but it will make America subject to the rulings of foreign governments. I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers, or that diminishes our freedom and independence. Instead, I will make individual deals with individual countries.

    No longer will we enter into these massive deals, with many countries, that are thousands of pages long – and which no one from our country even reads or understands. We are going to enforce all trade violations, including through the use of taxes and tariffs, against any country that cheats.

    This includes stopping China's outrageous theft of intellectual property, along with their illegal product dumping, and their devastating currency manipulation. Our horrible trade agreements with China and many others, will be totally renegotiated. That includes renegotiating NAFTA to get a much better deal for America – and we'll walk away if we don't get the deal that we want. We are going to start building and making things again.

    Next comes the reform of our tax laws, regulations and energy rules. While Hillary Clinton plans a massive tax increase, I have proposed the largest tax reduction of any candidate who has declared for the presidential race this year – Democrat or Republican. Middle-income Americans will experience profound relief, and taxes will be simplified for everyone.

    America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world. Reducing taxes will cause new companies and new jobs to come roaring back into our country. Then we are going to deal with the issue of regulation, one of the greatest job-killers of them all. Excessive regulation is costing our country as much as $2 trillion a year, and we will end it. We are going to lift the restrictions on the production of American energy. This will produce more than $20 trillion in job creating economic activity over the next four decades.

    My opponent, on the other hand, wants to put the great miners and steel workers of our country out of work – that will never happen when I am President. With these new economic policies, trillions of dollars will start flowing into our country.

    This new wealth will improve the quality of life for all Americans – We will build the roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, and the railways of tomorrow. This, in turn, will create millions more jobs. We will rescue kids from failing schools by helping their parents send them to a safe school of their choice.

    My opponent would rather protect education bureaucrats than serve American children. We will repeal and replace disastrous Obamacare. You will be able to choose your own doctor again. And we will fix TSA at the airports! We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we protect, at a massive loss, will be asked to pay their fair share.

    We will take care of our great Veterans like they have never been taken care of before. My opponent dismissed the VA scandal as being not widespread – one more sign of how out of touch she really is. We are going to ask every Department Head in government to provide a list of wasteful spending projects that we can eliminate in my first 100 days. The politicians have talked about it, I'm going to do it. We are also going to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our laws and our Constitution.

    The replacement for Justice Scalia will be a person of similar views and principles. This will be one of the most important issues decided by this election. My opponent wants to essentially abolish the 2nd amendment. I, on the other hand, received the early and strong endorsement of the National Rifle Association and will protect the right of all Americans to keep their families safe.

    ... ... ...

    [Jul 24, 2016] How Trump vs. Clinton could reshape the electoral map - The Washington Post

    Notable quotes:
    "... If turnout in the primaries has been any indicator, Trump has energized not only the base but attracted independents and Democrats, while the Dem turnout has been dismal. With Obama gone, it's anyone's guess if African-Americans and Hispanics will vote in large numbers. ..."
    "... The truth is that Trump supporters cut across all socioeconomic and racial demographics. The media is just angry they are losing their ability to tell everyone who to vote for. ..."
    "... Someone who has gamed the system is a good bet for being able to change the system. That is Trump's appeal. ..."
    "... Clinton is owned by the system. ..."
    www.washingtonpost.com

    Snowbird101, 3/22/2016 11:04 PM EDT

    A lot of Trump bashing because of the Media and worried Democrats. However: Donald Trump did not steal your money.
    Donald Trump did not raise your taxes.
    Donald Trump did not raise the price of food.
    Trump is not stirring a race war.
    Trump did not leave any US soldiers in Benghazi to be slaughtered and desecrated by Muslims.
    Trump did not send the US Navy to fight for Syrian Al-Qaeda.
    Trump did not arm ISIS and systematically exterminate Christians throughout the Middle East.
    Trump did not betray Israel.
    Trump did not provide financing and technology to Iran's nuclear weapons program.
    Trump did not give our military secrets to China.
    Trump did not remove our nuclear missile shield in Poland at the behest of Russia.
    Trump did not shrivel our military, and betray our veterans.
    Under Obama, a large percentage of us are on public welfare programs like food stamps, section 8 housing, and SSI, because of low wages.
    Health insurance is unaffordable (mine is $450/month… contrast this to my $24/month auto insurance from Insurance Panda… or my $11/month life insurance).
    Two thirds of young adults have student loans to which they cannot pay back due to lack of good jobs in the community.
    Trump didn't do that.
    Trump did not cripple our economy.
    Trump did not increase our debt to 20 trillion dollars.
    Trump did not ruin our credit, twice.
    Trump did not double African American unemployment.
    Trump did not increase welfare to a record level for eight years.
    Trump did not sign a law making it legal to execute, and imprison Americans.
    Trump did not set free all of the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
    Trump did not steal your rights, violate US Constitutional law, or commit treason, hundreds of times.
    Trump is being ripped apart in the news, non-stop. Whereas, Barrack Hussein, Hillary Clinton and the criminals occupying our government, are not being touched. The media is the Democratic Party.
    Save your culture. Stop listening to them.

    Tex9260, 3/26/2016 6:47 AM EDT [Edited]

    Trump will get 75% of the Bernie Supporters. They have in a lot of ways the same message....The game is rigged by special interest. Americans are tired of all the quid-pro-quo. I can't wait for the FBI to recommend a criminal indictment recommendation for Hillary, and watch the Justice Department ignore it. Taking money from countries with horrific human rights violations, especially while she was Secretary of State. Of the $500 million the Clinton Foundation raised last year, only .10 of every dollar actually goes to charities. The rest is administrative costs for the foundation. Leaving Americans to die in Libya, and lying to the nation in front of flag draped coffins of the Ambassador and the others, to facilitating the sell of most of our Uranium to Russia, to line her pockets. 500 million $$ to Solindra (Solar company that went belly up in 2 years). That was Nancy Pelosis' brother in law. I'm looking forward to the parade of women that will speak out on Bill, and how the lengths Hillary went to destroy them (Let's not forget-Jeffery Epstein and orgy island and those underage girls). Hillary has said she wanted open boarders, and all the cost's: processing, increased education expense, healthcare costs, Welfare, increased crime and it's costs, lower wages, etc., all being paid for by John -Q taxpayer, when that money should be spent on America and it's citizens in one form or another. Hillary has no accomplishments other than making us less safe. She only made things more perilous while SOS. No accomplishments, and used her positions to enrich herself with America's money, and is a pathelogical liar. No Thanks. At least Trump speaks what to many of the things the country already thinks and wish would happen, if the government actually had it's citizens in their best interests.

    Brent E, 3/21/2016 3:40 PM EDT

    Clinton the chronic liar calling others' language ugly, what a laugh. Perhaps Hillary forgot how ugly lies are when she came under sniper fire...

    pmk123, 3/21/2016 3:24 PM EDT

    If turnout in the primaries has been any indicator, Trump has energized not only the base but attracted independents and Democrats, while the Dem turnout has been dismal. With Obama gone, it's anyone's guess if African-Americans and Hispanics will vote in large numbers. If they are dispirited because of a flawed candidate who is a screaming robot, this group could very well sit out the general election. So, the Dems better not get too cocky.

    joesopinion, 3/21/2016 5:58 AM EDT

    Tired of reporters racist comments about Trump supporters being white and uneducated. It is becoming as abrasive as the N word. Why don't you just call us White Trash.

    The truth is that Trump supporters cut across all socioeconomic and racial demographics. The media is just angry they are losing their ability to tell everyone who to vote for.

    lolly52, 3/21/2016 6:25 AM EDT

    I went thru the login procedure just to post to you! I agree. The media and the donor class need to wake up. We are not buying their lies any more.

    lolly52, 3/21/2016 7:58 AM EDT

    Someone who has gamed the system is a good bet for being able to change the system. That is Trump's appeal.

    Clinton is owned by the system.

    Kasich believes in the Republican Establishment's view of the system. He has spent his life playing by those rules.

    Cruz's wife worked for the CFR. No single entity hates America more than the CFR.

    I like Bernie's anti-establishment stance, but his position on illegal immigration does not appeal to me.

    Snowbird101, 3/20/2016 10:16 PM EDT

    "There's no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border"
    -Barack Obama IN 2006
    "The Audacity of Hope"

    "The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century"
    -Barack Obama IN 2006
    "The Audacity of Hope

    "If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy... It also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans."
    -Barack Obama IN 2006
    "The Audacity of Hope"

    The above is what Trump has been saying and is being called Racist. Doesn't make sense.

    [Jul 24, 2016] Trump Policy Will Unravel Traditional Neocons - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and they're terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century the Republican Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that. Reversing the whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons. ..."
    "... But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. ..."
    "... Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy. Not only did Krugman say that Trump would, quote, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy at the expense of America's allies, and he's referring to the Ukraine, basically, and it's at–he's become a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex. But also, at the Washington Post you had Anne Applebaum call him explicitly the Manchurian candidate, referring to the 1962 movie, and rejecting the neocon craziness. This has just driven them nutty because they're worried of losing the Republican Party under Trump. ..."
    "... In economic policy, Trump also opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the TTIP trade and corporate power grab [inaud.] with Europe to block public regulation. And this was also a major plank of Bernie Sanders' campaign against Hillary, which Trump knows. ..."
    "... And this may be for show, simply to brand Hillary as Wall Street's candidate. But it also seems to actually be an attack on Wall Street. And Trump's genius was to turn around all the attacks on him as being a shady businessman. He said, look, nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. Now, what that means, basically, as a businessman, he knows the fine print by which they've been screwing the people. So only someone like him knows how to fight against Wall Street. After all, he's been screwing the Wall Street banks for years [inaud.]. And he can now fight for the population fighting against Wall Street, just as he's been able to stiff the banks. ..."
    "... When it comes–he also in that sense appealed to, as you said, the Bernie Sanders people when he talked about the trade deals. You know, he's been talking about NAFTA, TTIP, TTP, and these are areas that really is traditionally been the left of the left issues. And now there's this, that he's anti-these trade deals, and he's going to bring jobs home. What does that mean? ..."
    "... I think that the most, the biggest contradiction, was you can look at how the convention began with Governor Christie. Accusing Hillary of being pro-Russian when she's actually threatening war, and criticizing her for not helping the Ukrainians when it was she who brought Victorian Nuland in to push the coup d'etat with the neo-nazis, and gave them $5 billion. And Trump reversed the whole thing and said no, no, no. I'm not anti-Russian, I'm pro-Russian. I'm not going to defend Ukrainians. Just the opposite. ..."
    "... All of that–you've had the Koch brothers say we're not going to give money to Trump, the Republicans, now. We're backing Hillary. You've got the Chamber of Commerce saying because Trump isn't for the corporate takeover of foreign trade, we're now supporting the Democrats, not the Reepublicans. ..."
    "... So this is really the class war. And it's the class war of Wall Street and the corporate sector of the Democratic side against Trump on the populist side. And who knows whether he really means what he says when he says he's for the workers and he wants to rebuild the cities, put labor back to work. And when he says he's for the blacks and Hispanics have to get jobs just like white people, maybe he's telling the truth, because that certainly is the way that the country can be rebuilt in a positive way. ..."
    www.unz.com

    Trump's divergence from the conventional Republican platform is generating indignant punditry from neocons and neoliberals alike

    SHARMINI PERIES, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, TRNN: It's the Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore.

    On Friday, just after the Republican National Congress wrapped up with its presidential candidate, Donald Trump, Paul Krugman of the New York Times penned an article titled "Donald Trump: The Siberian Candidate." He said in it, if elected, would Donald Trump be Vladimir Putin's man in the White House? Krugman himself is worried as ludicrous and outrageous as the question sounds, the Trump campaign's recent behavior has quite a few foreign policy experts wondering, he says, just what kind of hold Mr. Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that influence will continue if he wins.

    Well, let's unravel that statement with Michael Hudson. He's joining us from New York. Michael is a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri Kansas City. His latest book is Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroyed the Global Economy. Thank you so much for joining us, Michael.

    MICHAEL HUDSON: It's good to be here, Sharmini. It's been an exciting week.

    PERIES: So let's take a look at this article by Paul Krugman. Where is he going with this analysis about the Siberian candidate?

    HUDSON: Well, Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and they're terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century the Republican Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that. Reversing the whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons.

    Until his speech, the whole Republican Convention, every speaker had avoided dealing with economic policy issues. No one referred to the party platform, which isn't very good. And it was mostly an attack on Hillary. Chants of "lock her up." And Trump children, aimed to try to humanize him and make him look like a loving man.

    But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders.

    So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the only kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country. We're not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even talking about that. So let's be realistic.

    Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy. Not only did Krugman say that Trump would, quote, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy at the expense of America's allies, and he's referring to the Ukraine, basically, and it's at–he's become a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex. But also, at the Washington Post you had Anne Applebaum call him explicitly the Manchurian candidate, referring to the 1962 movie, and rejecting the neocon craziness. This has just driven them nutty because they're worried of losing the Republican Party under Trump.

    In economic policy, Trump also opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the TTIP trade and corporate power grab [inaud.] with Europe to block public regulation. And this was also a major plank of Bernie Sanders' campaign against Hillary, which Trump knows. The corporatist wings of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties fear that Trump's opposition to NAFTA and TPP will lead the Republicans not to push through in the lame duck session after November. The whole plan has been that once the election's over, Obama will then get all the Republicans together and will pass the Republican platform that he's been pushing for the last eight years. The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement with Europe, and the other neoliberal policies.

    And now that Trump is trying to rebuild the Republican Party, all of that is threatened. And so on the Republican side of the New York Times page you had David Brooks writing "The death of the Republican Party." So what Trump calls the rebirth of the Republican Party, it means the death of the reactionary, conservative, corporatist, anti-labor Republican Party.

    And when he wrote this, quote, Trump is decimating the things Republicans stood for: NATO, entitlement reform, in other words winding back Social Security, and support of the corporatist Trans-Pacific Partnership. So it's almost hilarious to see what happens. And Trump also has reversed the traditional Republican fiscal responsibility austerity policy, that not a word about balanced budgets anymore. And he said he was going to run at policy to employ American labor and put it back to work on infrastructure. Again, he's made a left runaround Hillary. He says he wants to reinstate Glass-Steagall, whereas the Clintons were the people that got rid of it.

    And this may be for show, simply to brand Hillary as Wall Street's candidate. But it also seems to actually be an attack on Wall Street. And Trump's genius was to turn around all the attacks on him as being a shady businessman. He said, look, nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. Now, what that means, basically, as a businessman, he knows the fine print by which they've been screwing the people. So only someone like him knows how to fight against Wall Street. After all, he's been screwing the Wall Street banks for years [inaud.]. And he can now fight for the population fighting against Wall Street, just as he's been able to stiff the banks.

    So it's sort of hilarious. On the one hand, leading up to him you had Republicans saying throw Hillary in jail. And Hillary saying throw Trump in the [inaud.]. And so you have the whole election coming up with-.

    PERIES: Maybe we should take the lead and lock them all up. Michael, what is becoming very clear is that there's a great deal of inconsistencies on the part of the Republican Party. Various people are talking different things, like if you hear Mike Pence, the vice presidential candidate, speak, and then you heard Donald Trump, and then you heard Ivanka Trump speak yesterday, they're all saying different things. It's like different strokes for different folks. And I guess in marketing and marketeering, which Trump is the master of, that makes perfect sense. Just tap on everybody's shoulder so they feel like they're the ones being represented as spoken about, and they're going to have their issues addressed in some way.

    When it comes–he also in that sense appealed to, as you said, the Bernie Sanders people when he talked about the trade deals. You know, he's been talking about NAFTA, TTIP, TTP, and these are areas that really is traditionally been the left of the left issues. And now there's this, that he's anti-these trade deals, and he's going to bring jobs home. What does that mean?

    HUDSON: Well, you're right when you say there's a policy confusion within the Republican Party. And I guess if this were marketing, it's the idea that everybody hears what they want to hear. And if they can hear right-wing gay bashing from the Indiana governor, and they can hear Trump talking about hte LGBTQ, everybody will sort of be on the side.

    But I listened to what Governor Pence said about defending Trump's views on NATO. And he's so smooth. So slick, that he translated what Trump said in a way that no Republican conservative could really disagree with it. I think he was a very good pick for vice president, because he can, obviously he's agreed to follow what Trump's saying, and he's so smooth, being a lawyer, that he can make it all appear much more reasonable than it would.

    I think that the most, the biggest contradiction, was you can look at how the convention began with Governor Christie. Accusing Hillary of being pro-Russian when she's actually threatening war, and criticizing her for not helping the Ukrainians when it was she who brought Victorian Nuland in to push the coup d'etat with the neo-nazis, and gave them $5 billion. And Trump reversed the whole thing and said no, no, no. I'm not anti-Russian, I'm pro-Russian. I'm not going to defend Ukrainians. Just the opposite.

    And it's obvious that the Republicans have fallen into line behind them. And no wonder the Democrats want them to lose. All of that–you've had the Koch brothers say we're not going to give money to Trump, the Republicans, now. We're backing Hillary. You've got the Chamber of Commerce saying because Trump isn't for the corporate takeover of foreign trade, we're now supporting the Democrats, not the Reepublicans.

    So this is really the class war. And it's the class war of Wall Street and the corporate sector of the Democratic side against Trump on the populist side. And who knows whether he really means what he says when he says he's for the workers and he wants to rebuild the cities, put labor back to work. And when he says he's for the blacks and Hispanics have to get jobs just like white people, maybe he's telling the truth, because that certainly is the way that the country can be rebuilt in a positive way.

    And the interesting thing is that all he gets from the Democrats is denunciations. So I can't wait to see how Bernie Sanders is going to handle all this at the Democratic Convention next week.

    [Jul 24, 2016] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Plans Don't Make A Lot of Sense

    Notable quotes:
    "... "On the one hand he says something that sounds good to non-interventionists…On the other hand he says something like 'Obama went in there and bombed Libya and just walked away.'" ..."
    Apr 29, 2016 | sputniknews.com

    Following Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's exploratory foreign policy speech on Wednesday, political analyst Daniel McAdams speaks with Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear to discuss what, exactly, the candidate's worldview encompasses.

    "It is clear that in Washington he has aligned himself with foreign policy advisors that are not the usual neocons. So that's good news, to a degree. That's why you have so much gnashing of the teeth in Washington," McAdams, of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, tells Loud & Clear, referring to billionaire Donald Trump.

    "On the other hand, the people that he does have around him are realists, to a degree, but that is not super satisfying to a non-interventionist and an anti-war person because realists…lack the philosophy…of avoiding war and avoiding entangling alliance."

    "…The specific plans that he outlined a) were not very well hashed out, and b) they don't make a lot of sense," says McAdams.

    While Trump does recognize the failure of Washington's insistence on pursuing a Cold War-era strategy, the candidate does not see American imperialism as part of the problem.

    One example is his opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement.

    "This groveling to Israel, this blind condemnation of the Iran nuclear deal…I don't get his beef and I don't think he gets his beef. It just makes him sound good, it makes him sound tough."

    On the issue of the Iraq and Syria, the Republican frontrunner seemed to offer contradictory positions.

    "This is where I think he's either very clever or fairly goofy," McAdams says.

    "On the one hand he says something that sounds good to non-interventionists…On the other hand he says something like 'Obama went in there and bombed Libya and just walked away.'"

    "That's the whole point," states McAdams. "Not walking away means staying in and doing nation building. So he doesn't understand what caused the problem. He also promises to use military force to contain radical Islam, and he talks about 'Why are we not bombing Libya right now?'"

    Trump also spoke of restoring the military superiority of America, the country with the largest military budget in the world, shortly after stating that he would pursue peace.

    "Rebuild our military from what? We spend more than most of the rest of the world combined. We have an enormous military, we're involved in over 120 countries," McAdams says.

    "What he means by 'rebuild' the military is keep Washington and its environs extraordinarily rich," he adds, describing the military-industrial complex, which Trump appears to support.

    He did, however, offer a surprisingly insightful take on US-Russia relations.

    "Here's what he said exactly. 'We should seek common ground based on shared interest with Russia.' He said he'd, 'Make a deal that's good for us and good for Russia.' That sounds terrific. If he follows through with that I think we should be very optimistic."

    See also

    [Jul 23, 2016] Neoconservatives Declare War on Donald Trump by Zaid Jilani

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump has done much to trigger the scorn of neocon pundits. He denounced the Iraq War as a mistake based on Bush administration lies, just prior to scoring a sizable victory in the South Carolina GOP primary. In last week's contentious GOP presidential debate, he defended the concept of neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is utterly taboo on the neocon right. ..."
    "... "It serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy," he said , pledging to take a neutral position in negotiating peace. ..."
    "... This set off his rival Marco Rubio, who replied, "The position you've taken is an anti-Israel position. … Because you cannot be an honest broker in a dispute between two sides in which one of the sides is constantly acting in bad faith." The Jerusalem Post suggested that Rubio's assault on Trump's views on the Middle East was designed to win Florida . If that's the case, it's apparently not working - in the Real Clear Politics ..."
    "... In his quest to take up George W. Bush's mantle, Rubio has arrayed a fleet of neoconservative funders, ranging from pro-Israel billionaire Paul Singer to Norman Braman , a billionaire auto dealer who funds Israeli settlements in the West Bank. His list of advisers is like a rolodex of Iraq War backers, ranging from Bush administration alumni Elliot Abrams and Stephen Hadley, to Kagan and serial war propagandist Bill Kristol. ..."
    "... Kristol also sits on the board of the Emergency Committee for Israel - a dark money group that assails candidates it perceives as insufficiently pro-Israel. The group started airing an ad this weekend against Trump portraying him as an ally to despots like Bashar Assad, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Qaddafi - mostly because he argued that military invasions of Libya and Iraq left those countries worse off. ..."
    "... The guy who accelerated the process of reducing the middle east to chaos ran on a platform of a 'humbler' foreign policy, condemning nation-building. How'd that work out for us? ..."
    "... The pain and anguish of the neo cons is highly entertaining, and so damn warranted, but let's not get taken in. ..."
    "... isn't robert kagan the husband of state diplomat and cheney/h.clinton appointee victoria nuland? hillary is already as neocon as it gets. ..."
    "... If Trump can survive the nomination process, in spite of what the MSN can muster-up against him, it will represent first time in the past 60 years that the Establishment did not choose and own the candidates of both parties. ..."
    "... TRUMP's opponents offer nothing but their arrogant condescending attitudes towards the voting population. Their use of scare tactics on voters will no longer work. These cookie-cutter politicians and their obsolete powerful old-boy establishment handlers are wrong for today's challenges and tomorrows solutions. Stop wasting voter's time and energy trying to make this election about personalities, gender, race, minorities, religion, fear and hatred. TRUMP has faith and trust in the voters; TRUMP is the only candidate who doesn't insult, scare or lie to voters; TRUMP offers voters hope and a future ALL Americans can believe in and deserve. ..."
    "... All of Trump's establishment opponents are begging for just one more chance. These opponent candidates squandered thousands of opportunities, for the past fifty years, at the expense of All Americans in America and abroad. Powerful corrupt insiders', of every party affiliation, who discredit TRUMP, or any candidate, are also discrediting American voters', the American voting process and the freedoms of democracies and republics everywhere. These discrediting efforts, to take down any candidate, will fail because this is America and in America the peoples' choice for their next president must and will always prevail. American voters' rights and choices must always be protected, respected and never ignored. Because America is not a dictatorship voters' choices' still count. We are lucky to live in a country where we can agree to disagree. This is the essence of freedom. Every American and every candidate should be upset when this kind of corruption goes on. Thank you, Donald Trump, and every candidate, for running for President and offering informed voters an opportunity out of this nightmare and a path to a better America for ALL Americans! ..."
    "... The debates heading into Super Tuesday continues to show voters TRUMP's presidential qualities. Eminent Domain didn't stick to TRUMP, neither will groundless tax allegations nor outrageous innuendos. TRUMPS opponents are doing themselves a disservice attacking TRUMP. TRUMP offers voters hope and a future ALL Americans can believe in. TRUMP will own Super Tuesday. ..."
    "... This explains the virulent dislike of Trump by the lamestream media. Hillary, an unindicted war criminal based on her central role in instituting the Khaddafi overthrow and her role in starting the Syrian war, is without a doubt the greater evil in comparison with Trump. Since Trump in the fall campaign won't hesitate to highlight the fact that the jihadis in Libya put in as largely as a result of Hillary's initiative liquidated tens or hundreds of thousands of black Africans who had settled in Khaddafi's Libya as hostile to Jihadi elements, this will likely dampen Afro-American ardour for Hillary's campaign. Hopefully this will be a torpedo which sinks her campaign. ..."
    "... Truth is the enemy of the Zionist serial liars. ..."
    "... I've been saying for awhile that Trump is probably the least bad of the Republican candidates. He's definitely not as bad as Rubio or Cruz would be. For one thing, he's opposed to the TPP and similar crap. Now this. ..."
    "... Make no mistake, the only candidate left who wouldn't continue the same awfulness would be Sanders, who doesn't stand a chance (for those who don't understand how the 15% super delegates rigs the election for Clinton and other establishment candidates, do the math, not to even mention the money and power behind Clinton). ..."
    "... Bernie and Donald are simply two-fisted middle fingers enthusiastically directed at the paid enforcers of the oligarchy's desired status quo, the Republican and Democrat political machines. ..."
    "... And who did HRC appoint as SecState? Marc Grossman, Bush inner circle guy and Bush family relative; Victoria Nuland, former defense policy advisor to Dick Cheney, and her husband, Robert Kagan. This has to be a WTF moment for anyone with a brain? ..."
    "... I believe the neoconservatives may have had some self-esteem issues and perhaps tended to overcompensate by splurging on vanity wars. Trump will return the Republican party to its conservative roots of fiscal responsibility and insist on getting good value for his wars. A Trump campaign will completely dispense with 'shock and awe'. Instead, he'll cut straight to the chase: "Where are the oilfields and how long will it take to pump them dry?" The neoconservatives could benefit from that sort of discipline. ..."
    "... It be fitting for the neocons who were originally leftist followers of Trotsky to go back home to the Democratic party. Maybe then the old non-interventionist anti-war right can rise again in amongst the Republicans. ..."
    "... Perhaps worth noting that the Neocons originally found influence with interventionist Democrats like Dan Moynihan, they went on to develop alliances with fiercely nationalistic Reaganites (like Cheney and Rumsfeld), but only truly came to the fore as policy-makers within the GW Bush presidency. ..."
    "... The Neocons are like parasites that jump from host to host. When they've killed one host they move on to the next. I'm reminded of the old Sci-Fi movie, "The Hidden". ..."
    "... … just in case y'all are not aware, the view from outside the walls of Empire U$A, when we see the audience holding up placards declaring "MAKE AMERICA'S MILITARY GREAT AGAIN" we're all thinking – 'you guys are truly the most manipulated, compromised and fucked up people on the planet'. ..."
    "... "And what about Russia? Washington's talking like the west bank of the Dnieper is our east coast.", Surrounding and dismantling Russia has been the goal since the collapse of the USSR. And Killary and the neocons (including the large contingent she and Obama installed at State) are definitely crazy enough to push it. ..."
    "... In the short tem it means replacing Putin by another Eltsin-like stooge. In the middle term, it meant dismantling the USSR. In the long term it means defending Capital against the threat of Socialism. ..."
    "... The chaos Trump will bring to the neocon's imperialist project is probably the only good thing that might come out of a Trump presidency. ..."
    "... You mean US "corporate" interest and Israel's interest don't you? For the past 30 years, both parties have pursued policies that are in direct conflict with the interest of the American people. ..."
    "... Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan - one of the prime intellectual backers of the Iraq war and an advocate for Syrian intervention - announced in the Washington Post last week that if Trump secures the nomination "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.", Truly, this tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton… ..."
    "... Fascinating that Trump has the warmongers nervous. Heading Hillary's way where they know their rearrangement of the middle east (PNAC, JINSA) no matter how many thousands are killed or refugees are displace is safe with Hillary. She has demonstrated her commitment to the death and destruction in the middle east. ..."
    "... Good to see that all those neoconservative prayer breakfasts Sen. Hillary Clinton attended at the Geo. W. Bush White House aren't going to waste. Of course, the neocons embrace "Wall Street Hillary" as they always have, regardless of all the silly political theater to the contrary. ..."
    "... It's good to see that Hillary is finally being openly welcomed into the fold of neo-conservatives. Also, pardon my lack of modesty for a certain pride in having been proven right about her. She is not a progressive, not liberal, but rather a fascist in the true sense of representing the corporatists. ..."
    "... Good call on the timing of the NYT series, Jeff. And kudos on having recognized her early on for the fascist she has always been. ..."
    "... Kagan was hand picked to be on Hillary Clinton's defense policy board while at the State Dept and for those who don't know who Kagan is, he's the husband of the assistant secretary of state for eurasian affairs, Victoria Nuland. ..."
    Feb 29, 2016 | theintercept.com

    Donald Trump's runaway success in the GOP primaries so far is setting off alarm bells among neoconservatives who are worried he will not pursue the same bellicose foreign policy that has dominated Republican thinking for decades.

    Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan - one of the prime intellectual backers of the Iraq War and an advocate for Syrian intervention - announced in the Washington Post last week that if Trump secures the nomination, "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton."

    Max Boot, an unrepentant supporter of the Iraq War, wrote in the Weekly Standard that a "Trump presidency would represent the death knell of America as a great power," citing, among other things, Trump's objection to a large American troop presence in South Korea.

    Trump has done much to trigger the scorn of neocon pundits. He denounced the Iraq War as a mistake based on Bush administration lies, just prior to scoring a sizable victory in the South Carolina GOP primary. In last week's contentious GOP presidential debate, he defended the concept of neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is utterly taboo on the neocon right.

    "It serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy," he said, pledging to take a neutral position in negotiating peace.

    This set off his rival Marco Rubio, who replied, "The position you've taken is an anti-Israel position. … Because you cannot be an honest broker in a dispute between two sides in which one of the sides is constantly acting in bad faith." The Jerusalem Post suggested that Rubio's assault on Trump's views on the Middle East was designed to win Florida. If that's the case, it's apparently not working - in the Real Clear Politics averaging of GOP primary polls in the state, Trump is polling higher than he ever has.

    In his quest to take up George W. Bush's mantle, Rubio has arrayed a fleet of neoconservative funders, ranging from pro-Israel billionaire Paul Singer to Norman Braman, a billionaire auto dealer who funds Israeli settlements in the West Bank. His list of advisers is like a rolodex of Iraq War backers, ranging from Bush administration alumni Elliot Abrams and Stephen Hadley, to Kagan and serial war propagandist Bill Kristol.

    Kristol also sits on the board of the Emergency Committee for Israel - a dark money group that assails candidates it perceives as insufficiently pro-Israel. The group started airing an ad this weekend against Trump portraying him as an ally to despots like Bashar Assad, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Qaddafi - mostly because he argued that military invasions of Libya and Iraq left those countries worse off.

    John D, Mar. 3 2016, 6:31 a.m.

    I love what Trump's saying from time to time and don't believe it for a second. How short are our memories? The guy who accelerated the process of reducing the middle east to chaos ran on a platform of a 'humbler' foreign policy, condemning nation-building. How'd that work out for us? Trump is a demagogue, and this is what they do: say whatever gets them support, just like other politicians, but on steroids. Huey Long is an example of this, and he also took some positions that we would all have supported over that of the two major parties of the time.

    The pain and anguish of the neo cons is highly entertaining, and so damn warranted, but let's not get taken in. The man's a monster, and the only good that might come of his election would be his impeachment. I know, that leaves us with horrible choices, and what else is new. But don't be suckered by Trump. The degree really is worthless.

    vidimi, Mar. 2 2016, 8:55 a.m.

    isn't robert kagan the husband of state diplomat and cheney/h.clinton appointee victoria nuland? hillary is already as neocon as it gets.

    M Hobbs -> vidimi, Mar. 3 2016, 2:25 p.m.

    Robert Kagan told the NYT last June that he "feels comfortable" with Hillary on foreign policy–and that she's a neocon. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added, "it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html?src=xps

    Duglarri, Mar. 1 2016, 11:28 a.m.

    The people behind this ad don't get it- this video could easily have been issued and approved by the Trump campaign. To a lot of people, what this video accuses Trump of saying is the absolute, utter truth. The world would be a far, far better place, Iraq would be better off, Libya would be better off, and the United States would have a lot more money, and a lot less dead soldiers, if Saddam and Khadaffi were still alive.

    They should have focus grouped this. Because it likely increases Trump's numbers.

    Joe F -> Duglarri, Mar. 1 2016, 1:53 p.m.

    If Khadaffi were still alive Ambassdor Stevens and several more Americans would still be alive also. But then the press would have one less thing to whinge about and the MIC would have one less hotzone to expliot.

    Carroll Price, Mar. 1 2016, 11:10 a.m.

    If Trump can survive the nomination process, in spite of what the MSN can muster-up against him, it will represent first time in the past 60 years that the Establishment did not choose and own the candidates of both parties.

    Which leads me to believe that if history serves as a guide, and I think it does, the Establishment will have him assassinated, while the resources are still available and in place to cover it up and have it white-washed by an official inquiry similar to the fake 9/11 Commission & Warren Commission Report.

    Clark, Mar. 1 2016, 10:28 a.m.

    Trump worries/offends the neo-cons in his perversity, but the neo-cons know they can rely on Hillary Clinton.

    M Hobbs -> Clark, Mar. 3 2016, 2:30 p.m.

    So if HRC gets the nomination, all the neocon Rs will vote for her and lots of the lefty Ds and independents will vote for Trump. This is getting confusing.

    Gene Poole -> M Hobbs, Mar. 4 2016, 4:32 a.m.

    Yep. And ain't it sweet!?

    SeniorsForTrump, Mar. 1 2016, 9:57 a.m.

    TRUMP's opponents offer nothing but their arrogant condescending attitudes towards the voting population. Their use of scare tactics on voters will no longer work. These cookie-cutter politicians and their obsolete powerful old-boy establishment handlers are wrong for today's challenges and tomorrows solutions. Stop wasting voter's time and energy trying to make this election about personalities, gender, race, minorities, religion, fear and hatred. TRUMP has faith and trust in the voters; TRUMP is the only candidate who doesn't insult, scare or lie to voters; TRUMP offers voters hope and a future ALL Americans can believe in and deserve.

    All of Trump's establishment opponents are begging for just one more chance. These opponent candidates squandered thousands of opportunities, for the past fifty years, at the expense of All Americans in America and abroad. Powerful corrupt insiders', of every party affiliation, who discredit TRUMP, or any candidate, are also discrediting American voters', the American voting process and the freedoms of democracies and republics everywhere. These discrediting efforts, to take down any candidate, will fail because this is America and in America the peoples' choice for their next president must and will always prevail. American voters' rights and choices must always be protected, respected and never ignored. Because America is not a dictatorship voters' choices' still count. We are lucky to live in a country where we can agree to disagree. This is the essence of freedom. Every American and every candidate should be upset when this kind of corruption goes on. Thank you, Donald Trump, and every candidate, for running for President and offering informed voters an opportunity out of this nightmare and a path to a better America for ALL Americans!

    The debates heading into Super Tuesday continues to show voters TRUMP's presidential qualities. Eminent Domain didn't stick to TRUMP, neither will groundless tax allegations nor outrageous innuendos. TRUMPS opponents are doing themselves a disservice attacking TRUMP. TRUMP offers voters hope and a future ALL Americans can believe in. TRUMP will own Super Tuesday.

    Carroll Price -> SeniorsForTrump, Mar. 1 2016, 11:15 a.m.

    Very well stated. I agree whole-heartedly.

    john p. Teschke, Mar. 1 2016, 2:28 a.m.

    This explains the virulent dislike of Trump by the lamestream media. Hillary, an unindicted war criminal based on her central role in instituting the Khaddafi overthrow and her role in starting the Syrian war, is without a doubt the greater evil in comparison with Trump. Since Trump in the fall campaign won't hesitate to highlight the fact that the jihadis in Libya put in as largely as a result of Hillary's initiative liquidated tens or hundreds of thousands of black Africans who had settled in Khaddafi's Libya as hostile to Jihadi elements, this will likely dampen Afro-American ardour for Hillary's campaign. Hopefully this will be a torpedo which sinks her campaign.

    dahoit -> john p. Teschke, Mar. 1 2016, 8:22 a.m.

    Truth is the enemy of the Zionist serial liars.

    Jeff, Mar. 1 2016, 2:05 a.m.

    I've been saying for awhile that Trump is probably the least bad of the Republican candidates. He's definitely not as bad as Rubio or Cruz would be. For one thing, he's opposed to the TPP and similar crap. Now this.

    Make no mistake, the only candidate left who wouldn't continue the same awfulness would be Sanders, who doesn't stand a chance (for those who don't understand how the 15% super delegates rigs the election for Clinton and other establishment candidates, do the math, not to even mention the money and power behind Clinton). I don't support Trump in any way, but I also find it laughable how some so-called progressives are wetting their pants over him. Yes he's racist, but so are the Republicans in general. At least Trump has a few good positions, making him about the same as Clinton.

    Winston, Feb 29, 2016, 7:48 p.m.
    Bernie and Donald are simply two-fisted middle fingers enthusiastically directed at the paid enforcers of the oligarchy's desired status quo, the Republican and Democrat political machines. Donald, unlike poor Bernie, has the advantage of being able to avoid the oligarchy's mega-cash-fueled vetting process intended to weed out true boat rockers by funding his own campaign.

    When Reps threaten to vote for Dems and I see headlines like "Democratic National Committee Vice Chair Tulsi Gabbard resigned from her post on Sunday to endorse Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, following months of rising tensions within the group," I have hope that both party machines will, deservedly, become increasingly irrelevant. The facade has come off and we finally see the truth, which is there is no loyalty within the establishment of either political party to anything but the continued power of the oligarchy they BOTH defend.

    Election 2016 is turning out to be a rare popcorn worthy event because voters are now TOTALLY fed up with THIS:, From the 2014 Princeton University study:, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Excerpts:, A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.

    Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

    In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule-at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

    …the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of "affluent" citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence.

    -–, From "Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-America Century" by Dmitry Orlov, someone who experienced the collapse of the Soviet Union and the various effects of that collapse on life there:, People in the United States have a broadly similar attitude toward politics with people of the Soviet Union. In the U.S. this is often referred to as "voter apathy", but it might be more accurately described as non-voter indifference. The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike.

    Although people often bemoan political apathy as if it were a grave social ill, it seems to me that this is just as it should be. Why should essentially powerless people want to engage in a humiliating farce designed to demonstrate the legitimacy of those who wield the power? In Soviet-era Russia, intelligent people did their best to ignore the Communists: paying attention to them, whether through criticism or praise, would only serve to give them comfort and encouragement, making them feel as if they mattered. Why should Americans want to act any differently with regard to the Republicans and the Democrats? For love of donkeys and elephants?, -–, "Now [the United States is] just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we've just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election's over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody's who's already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who's just a challenger. – - Jimmy Carter, former president, in 2015.

    sgt_doom, Feb 29, 2016, 6:58 p.m.
    So one of the principal founding members of PNAC, or the Project for a New American Century (and Victoria Nuland's husband), R. Kagan, says vote for Hillary?
    And this just weeks after Hillary is bragging about receiving complements from Henry Kissinger, mass murderer?

    Are there still fools in America who believe HRC is some kind of liberal?

    And who did HRC appoint as SecState? Marc Grossman, Bush inner circle guy and Bush family relative; Victoria Nuland, former defense policy advisor to Dick Cheney, and her husband, Robert Kagan. This has to be a WTF moment for anyone with a brain?

    Benito Mussolini, Feb 29, 2016, 6:46 p.m.
    I don't think the neoconservatives should purchase a one way ticket into the Hillary camp. Trump could be quite amenable to the 'Ledeen Doctrine' that: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business". My understanding is that Trump has no objections in principle, but as a prudent businessman, questions whether it's worth shelling out 1 trillion dollars just to show you mean business.

    I believe the neoconservatives may have had some self-esteem issues and perhaps tended to overcompensate by splurging on vanity wars. Trump will return the Republican party to its conservative roots of fiscal responsibility and insist on getting good value for his wars. A Trump campaign will completely dispense with 'shock and awe'. Instead, he'll cut straight to the chase: "Where are the oilfields and how long will it take to pump them dry?" The neoconservatives could benefit from that sort of discipline.

    However, if the neoconservatives decide to return to the party they abandoned in the 1960s, then I wish them well. They had a good run with the Republicans and certainly left their mark on foreign policy. Sometimes a change of scenery is good; it may be all they need to rekindle their enthusiasm for the third (or is the fourth?) Iraq war.

    Lawrence, Feb 29, 2016, 6:05 p.m.
    It be fitting for the neocons who were originally leftist followers of Trotsky to go back home to the Democratic party. Maybe then the old non-interventionist anti-war right can rise again in amongst the Republicans.
    eddie-g, Feb 29, 2016, 5:21 p.m.
    Perhaps worth noting that the Neocons originally found influence with interventionist Democrats like Dan Moynihan, they went on to develop alliances with fiercely nationalistic Reaganites (like Cheney and Rumsfeld), but only truly came to the fore as policy-makers within the GW Bush presidency.

    So they've never exactly had a set ideological compass, they're happy to back anyone who'll do their bidding on Israel and the Middle East. With Trump, I can't imagine they (or anyone else) knows what they're getting; Hillary meanwhile is a known quantity, and hawkish enough for their tastes.

    craigsummers -> eddie-g, Feb 29, 2016, 6:47 p.m.
    "……..Perhaps worth noting that the Neocons originally found influence with interventionist Democrats like Dan Moynihan, they went on to develop alliances with fiercely nationalistic Reaganites (like Cheney and Rumsfeld), but only truly came to the fore as policy-makers within the GW Bush presidency….."

    True, but they lost favor in the Bush White House after the invasion of Iraq turned south.

    dahoit -> craigsummers, Mar. 1 2016, 8:38 a.m.
    Somewhat true, but how does that explain the demoncrats embracing them in Obombas administration?
    Craigsummers -> dahoit, Mar. 1 2016, 7:21 p.m.
    I don't believe that Obama has embraced the neocons.. Obama has alienated our allies in the ME including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. His large disagreements with Netanyahu flag Obama as anything but a neocon.
    Duglarri -> eddie-g, Mar. 1 2016, 11:37 a.m.
    The Neocons are like parasites that jump from host to host. When they've killed one host they move on to the next. I'm reminded of the old Sci-Fi movie, "The Hidden".
    owen, Feb 29, 2016, 4:53 p.m.
    … just in case y'all are not aware, the view from outside the walls of Empire U$A, when we see the audience holding up placards declaring "MAKE AMERICA'S MILITARY GREAT AGAIN" we're all thinking – 'you guys are truly the most manipulated, compromised and fucked up people on the planet'.
    Dave Fisher, Feb 29, 2016, 4:38 p.m.
    "Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan announced that if Trump secures the nomination "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.", i hope Sanders runs with that, uses it in his ads, cites that quote during the debates, makes the electorate aware of the fox (weasel?) in the chicken coop…
    Balthazar, Feb 29, 2016, 3:58 p.m.
    The US has become the laughing stock of the world. Oh wait, we've been that for decades.
    star, Feb 29, 2016, 3:52 p.m.
    "worried he will not pursue the same bellicose foreign policy"

    No, he will pursue a different bellicose foreign policy relying on banning Muslims from the US, torture, filling up Guantanamo, threatening Mexico and 'hitting' the families of 'terrorists'. The Intercept is actually starting to scare me.

    Robert -> star, Feb 29, 2016, 6:01 p.m.
    So drone warfare killing thousand+ innocent people isn't "starting to scare" you? Overthrowing governments in Iraq, Libya, and Syria isn't "starting to scare" you? ISIS forming out of those overthrows isn't "starting to scare" you?
    dahoit -> star, Mar. 1 2016, 8:42 a.m.
    Wow, the only guy to critique the Iraq war, Libya, trade steals, getting along with Russia and stop being the policeman of the world gets critiqued by alleged liberals as the bad choice in a world of crazy Ziomonsters.

    Hang it up children, you've lost your minds.

    nfjtakfa -> Roy David, Feb 29, 2016, 5:49 p.m.
    Um, I think Vivek Jain's assertion is the destruction of Iraq and destabalization of the region was 100% intentional, i.e. "wasn't a mistake."
    Roy David -> nfjtakfa, Mar. 1 2016, 5:25 p.m.
    Thanks nfjtakfa. Sometimes the written word can be misinterpreted.
    Christopher -> Vivek Jain, Feb 29, 2016, 5:47 p.m.
    Remind me just where and when we found the nukes Iraq was supposed to have, then. Or the mobile bioweapons labs. Or Hussein's al-Qaeda collaborators.
    coram nobis -> Christopher, Feb 29, 2016, 6:13 p.m.
    As you see, the Iraq war wasn't a mistake, but a deliberate fake.
    reflections, Feb 29, 2016, 3:40 p.m.
    They created Donald Trump and thanks to the Supreme Court any rich ass-- can run for office they don't need to fund a particular political republican bigot.
    Bob, Feb 29, 2016, 3:25 p.m.
    Trump is a professional actor as are all the cons but he is better at it. Read his book, TAoTD and you may change your mind a lot on him as POTUS. He certainly is no conbot and IMHO would make a much better POTUS than any of the dwarf wall st. sucking varlets competing against him. I'm still hoping Senator Bernie Sanders will take the gloves off and start attacking the war mongering, wall st. courtier Clinton before it's too late but, if my choice was Clinton vs. Trump I would hold my nose and vote Trump. Rubio is so hollow he is unqualified for his present job. Good luck USA.
    coram nobis, Feb 29, 2016, 2:31 p.m.
    It's an interesting shift of perspective in this crazy year, although the question with the Donald is (1) whether he has a coherent ideology from one speech to the next and (2) whether the GOP would become more dovish (or less neocon) under a Trump administration, or whether the GOP would simply abandon him.

    As for Hillary, sir, your coda begs another article: " … and Clinton moving the Democrats towards greater support for war.", With whom?, Okay, Iran is a definite possibility, given her pro-Israel stance. But what about China? That situation in the South China Sea is ratcheting up. And what about Russia? Washington's talking like the west bank of the Dnieper is our east coast.

    Doug Salzmann -> coram nobis, Feb 29, 2016, 3:19 p.m.
    "And what about Russia? Washington's talking like the west bank of the Dnieper is our east coast.", Surrounding and dismantling Russia has been the goal since the collapse of the USSR. And Killary and the neocons (including the large contingent she and Obama installed at State) are definitely crazy enough to push it.

    On the list of Big Dumb Mistakes, this would be very close to the top.

    Dave Fisher -> Doug Salzmann, Feb 29, 2016, 4:26 p.m.
    "dismantling Russia", what exactly does that mean?
    Si1ver1ock -> Dave Fisher, Feb 29, 2016, 5:26 p.m.
    Ask the Syrians or the the Libyans, or the Iraqis or the Sundanese, or the Yemenis or … or ….
    Doug Salzmann -> Dave Fisher, Feb 29, 2016, 8:18 p.m.

    "dismantling Russia", what exactly does that mean?, It means exactly what I said, Dave. Surrounding, weakening and (ultimately, hopefully) dismantling and absorbing the pieces of the Russian Federation has been at the core of American foreign policy aims since the collapse of the USSR.

    See, for instance, the pre-revised version of the 2/18/1992 Wolfowitz (and Scooter Libby) Memo:

    Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

    And then, refer to Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard:

    Given the enormous size and diversity of the country, a decentralized political system, based on the free market, would be more likely to unleash the creative potential of both the Russian people and the country's vast natural resources. In turn, such a more decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization.

    . . . and . . .

    A loosely confederated Russia-composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic-would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with Europe, with the new states of Central Asia, and with the Orient, which would thereby accelerate Russia's own development. Each of the three confederated entities would also be more able to tap local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow's heavy bureaucratic hand.

    Hope this helps. ;^)

    Gene Poole -> Dave Fisher, Mar. 4 2016, 5:13 a.m.
    In the short tem it means replacing Putin by another Eltsin-like stooge. In the middle term, it meant dismantling the USSR. In the long term it means defending Capital against the threat of Socialism.
    Patricia Baeten, Feb 29, 2016, 2:30 p.m.
    Great article. I wrote something similar in my blog post last week titled, NATO, Turkey and Saudi Arabia's Worst Nightmare President Donald Trump.

    http://patriciabaeten.blogspot.com/2016/02/nato-turkey-and-saudi-arabias-worst.html

    Excerpt:, The beneficiaries of Bush and Obama's Evil American Empire invading and destroying nations throughout the world have been Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Along with their NATO allies, America has spent trillions of dollars on the military industrial complex while our roads and bridges fail and jobs have been shipped to third world countries.

    The unparalleled destruction of Syria as well as all of the Middle East, Eurasia and Africa will come to an end under President Donald Trump and the world is taking note.

    My greatest fear is that a full hot war against Russia and China will commence before the election.

    Love your writing, thanks.

    Patricia

    Bob -> Patricia Baeten, Feb 29, 2016, 3:29 p.m.
    I hope you meant NOT commence. I really don't want to die and these things have a habit of escalating.
    dahoit -> Bob, Mar. 1 2016, 9:00 a.m.
    She is intimating the Zionists will start war with Russia before Trump takes office, a quite possible scenario when dealing with the insane Zionists.
    Jose -> Patricia Baeten, Feb 29, 2016, 3:32 p.m.
    The chaos Trump will bring to the neocon's imperialist project is probably the only good thing that might come out of a Trump presidency.
    The Shame Chamber -> Patricia Baeten, Feb 29, 2016, 7:19 p.m.
    Trump said he would declassify the 28 pages on foreign government ties to 9/11. Why hasn't that happened yet?, http://28pages.org/
    dahoit -> The Shame Chamber, Mar. 1 2016, 9:02 a.m.
    Uh, he's not in government? sheesh.
    dahoit -> Patricia Baeten, Mar. 1 2016, 8:58 a.m.
    Good comment, don't mind the idiots stuck in their false narrative.
    craigsummers, Feb 29, 2016, 2:22 p.m.
    Mr. Jilani, "……Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan - one of the prime intellectual backers of the Iraq war and an advocate for Syrian intervention - announced in the Washington Post last week that if Trump secures the nomination "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton."…..", The Intercept is clearly confused on quite a few issues. First, the Republican Party generally supports a strong leadership role for the US in foreign policy (as do the Democrats). Both parties will ensure that the US pursues our geopolitical interests. Of course, this is not limited just to the Neocons. Second, the entire Republican establishment opposes Trump for obvious reasons. Again, this is not limited to the Neocons, and it is not too surprising that Republicans may cross party lines to vote for Hillary who more closely mirrors some of their foreign policies. She is a hawk. Third, the Republican and Democratic Parties are strong supporters of Israel – not just the Neocons. In general, Republicans support Israel even to a greater degree than the Democrats – and again, this is not limited to the Neoconservatives.

    Finally, how important is the Israel-Palestinian conflict to the Intercept? Obviously very important since the Intercept seems willing to forget that Trump has been called a xenophobe and an anti-Muslim bigot by many on the left. Have you ever heard the saying: the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

    sgt_doom -> craigsummers, Feb 29, 2016, 4:20 p.m.
    I fully agree with Jilani and this Summers is an obvious neocon sycophant of Wall Street.
    craigsummers -> sgt_doom, Feb 29, 2016, 5:03 p.m.
    sgt_doom, What is extraordinary to me is that Jilani seems to value the Israel-neutral stance of Trump over Hillary (and her obvious support for Israel) despite Trump (initially) not even being able to disavow support from the KKK. Maybe that is not so remarkable considering that Jilani tweeted the term "Israel firsters".
    Christopher -> craigsummers, Feb 29, 2016, 5:50 p.m.
    "Both parties will ensure that the US pursues our geopolitical interests.", Jesus. Have you been in a coma since 2003? Or I guess maybe since the 1980's, cough Iran-Contra cough cough.
    craigsummers -> Christopher, Feb 29, 2016, 6:44 p.m.
    I'm not saying there aren't differences, but generally speaking both the Democrats and the Republicans have maintained strong policies which favor US interests. Obama had some confusing policies which alienated long term allies like Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt.
    Carroll Price -> craigsummers, Mar. 1 2016, 8:30 p.m.
    You mean US "corporate" interest and Israel's interest don't you? For the past 30 years, both parties have pursued policies that are in direct conflict with the interest of the American people.
    Gene Poole -> Carroll Price, Mar. 4 2016, 5:31 a.m.
    Bravo. I was going to reply to his first post, in which he said " Both parties will ensure that the US pursues our geopolitical interests", and ask just who "we" are.
    Karl, Feb 29, 2016, 2:22 p.m.
    Donald Trump is a Neocon's pipe dream…
    Donald Trump said Wednesday that he supports waterboarding and similar interrogation techniques because "torture works" in the questioning of terrorists, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/17/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-torture-works/
    Boaz Bismuth: Mr. Trump, yesterday, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio tried to question your support for Israel. How is his commitment to Israel stronger than yours?, Donald Trump: "My friendship with Israel is stronger than any other candidate's. I want to make one thing clear: I want to strike a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It is what I aspire to do. Peace is possible, even if it is the most difficult agreement to achieve. As far as I understand, Israel is also interested in a peace deal. I'm not saying I'll succeed, or even that an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is within reach, but I want to try. But in order for an agreement to happen, the Palestinians need to show interest. It's a little difficult to reach an agreement when the other side doesn't really want to talk to you.

    "Don't get confused there in Israel: I am currently your biggest friend. My daughter is married to a Jew who is an enthusiastic Israel supporter, and I have taken part in many Israel Day Parades. My friendship with Israel is very strong."

    https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/02/26/donald-trump-counters-criticism-of-neutral-israeli-palestinian-conflict-stance-interview/

    Donald Trump on Homeland Security (Military Industrial Complex)
    http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Homeland_Security.htm
    dahoit -> Karl, Mar. 1 2016, 9:13 a.m.
    Neocon pipe dreams are current sop.
    Karl -> dahoit, Mar. 1 2016, 2:13 p.m.
    Neocon pipe dreams are current sop.

    Yes, an especially bitter sop to those who harbor the manufactured illusion that trump is concerned with the sovereign rights of the individual.

    avelna2001, Feb 29, 2016, 1:45 p.m.
    Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan - one of the prime intellectual backers of the Iraq war and an advocate for Syrian intervention - announced in the Washington Post last week that if Trump secures the nomination "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.", Truly, this tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton…
    Doug Salzmann -> avelna2001, Feb 29, 2016, 3:24 p.m.
    "Truly, this tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton…", Well, that and the fact that Killary and Obama named Kagan's wife, Victoria Jane "Cookie" Nuland to the post of Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, where she led the sponsorship and underwriting of a coup against the elected leadership of Ukraine.
    avelna2001 -> Doug Salzmann, Feb 29, 2016, 3:51 p.m.
    Well yeah, true enough.
    Kathleen, Feb 29, 2016, 1:43 p.m.
    Fascinating that Trump has the warmongers nervous. Heading Hillary's way where they know their rearrangement of the middle east (PNAC, JINSA) no matter how many thousands are killed or refugees are displace is safe with Hillary. She has demonstrated her commitment to the death and destruction in the middle east.

    This is no bs…know some multi millionaire Republicans here in Colorado who are going with Hillary if Trump gets nomination. They know their capital gains are safe with her. Yes indeed...

    sgt_doom, Feb 29, 2016, 1:33 p.m.
    Good to see that all those neoconservative prayer breakfasts Sen. Hillary Clinton attended at the Geo. W. Bush White House aren't going to waste. Of course, the neocons embrace "Wall Street Hillary" as they always have, regardless of all the silly political theater to the contrary.

    BTW, isn't Robert Kagan the hubby of Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton?, I believe so . . .

    Of course, we haven't had a legitimate government in the USA since the Coup of 1963 (the JFK assassination, reinforced by the murders of Rev. King and Bobby Kennedy), so evidently Trump represents the first break in a long line of illegitimate administrations.

    Trump really appears to be giving the nervous willies to the oligarchs – – – glad to see those swine who gave us - and profited from - the global economic meltdown being shaken up for a change!, With Hillary they have nothing to fear, she's the perfect Wall Street running dog lackey, but with Trump they could end up in jail - or worse . . . .

    24b4Jeff, Feb 29, 2016, 1:20 p.m.
    It's good to see that Hillary is finally being openly welcomed into the fold of neo-conservatives. Also, pardon my lack of modesty for a certain pride in having been proven right about her. She is not a progressive, not liberal, but rather a fascist in the true sense of representing the corporatists.

    Does anyone else find it ironic that the New York Times has chosen now to start a series on her role in the overthrow of Qaddafi and the subsequent conversion of Libya into a failed state? Had the articles started appearing a couple of weeks ago, it might have helped Sanders in Iowa and Nevada. No, it would not have helped Sanders in South Carolina, and he is foredoomed in the rest of the deep south as well, not only because of his being a social democrat (on domestic issues) but also because he is a Jew.

    Doug Salzmann -> 24b4Jeff, Feb 29, 2016, 4:15 p.m.
    Good call on the timing of the NYT series, Jeff. And kudos on having recognized her early on for the fascist she has always been. I've not caught up with the Times series; does each installment open with this video clip?
    ghostyghost, Feb 29, 2016, 1:16 p.m.
    "With Trump's ascendancy, it's possible that the parties will re-orient their views on war and peace, with Trump moving the GOP to a more dovish direction and Clinton moving the Democrats towards greater support for war."

    Right because "bomb the shit out of them" is a well known rallying cry of pacifists.

    coram nobis -> ghostyghost, Feb 29, 2016, 2:37 p.m.
    You've got a point; the Donald isn't exactly another Gandhi. The diff between him and Hillary is that she would act according to longstanding neocon policy, concerted war. The Donald would attack impulsively. Picture him as the Groucho Marx character in "Duck Soup" and there's a possible simile, but not funny.
    ghostyghost -> coram nobis, Feb 29, 2016, 2:49 p.m.
    What scares me the most about President Trump is him taking a look at the nuclear arsenal and thinking "we have these awesome weapons and they are just sitting here collecting dust. Well lets show everyone that a real leader isn't afraid to use his best tools!" and then wiping Mosul and and Raqqa off the map.
    coram nobis -> ghostyghost, Feb 29, 2016, 4:36 p.m.
    Some pundits have seen similarities between him and his GOP rivals, at least in ferocity. This SF Chronicle columnist notes, "When it comes to human rights, Trump, Rubio and Cruz seem to be jockeying for who can commit more war crimes.", http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/The-Millennial-View-Trump-Cruz-Rubio-aren-t-6856466.php

    .... ... ...

    robbie martin, Feb 29, 2016, 1:15 p.m.
    Glad Robert Kagan's neoconservative re-branding attempts have started to garner headlines.

    Kagan was hand picked to be on Hillary Clinton's defense policy board while at the State Dept and for those who don't know who Kagan is, he's the husband of the assistant secretary of state for eurasian affairs, Victoria Nuland.

    Here is a video of Kagan explaining his appointment by Hillary Clinton:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRV-N0bI_LY

    24b4Jeff -> robbie martin, Feb 29, 2016, 1:24 p.m.
    That would be Victoria Fuck the EU Nuland. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o
    sgt_doom -> 24b4Jeff, Feb 29, 2016, 1:36 p.m.
    Or, Victoria "let's spend $5 billion to overthrow the democratically elected administration in the Urkaine" Nuland.
    Lin Ming, Feb 29, 2016, 1:13 p.m.
    These people will do anything to further their cause – just as they always have – up to and including eliminating an opponent in the most forceful permanent manner…

    [Jul 23, 2016] Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class

    Notable quotes:
    "... Leaping from this incident to the Iranian nuclear agreement that has essentially decreased the likelihood of Iran ever building nuclear weapons, Trump continued his litany of lies by portraying the agreement as virtual surrender to unnamed dark forces. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's campaign promises more of the same corporatist politics in the service of the Goldman-Sachs of the nation. The primary difference may be found in her social stances, which are more liberal and tolerant than those expressed by Trump's ticket. ..."
    "... In short, we are witnessing a serious split in the US ruling class. Both elements recognize capitalism is in crisis and has been for decades. The two main solutions to this crisis as represented by the campaigns will not solve this crisis, because it is essentially unsolvable. ..."
    "... Militarily, there is also a split between the rulers. Neither Trump's combination of fear-ridden America First bluster nor the corporate world order represented by Clinton's campaign will prevent war or terrorism. Both will guarantee the continued waste of monies that the permanent war economy is. Both will also guarantee the continued domination of the US economy by the war industry. Donald Trump knows this and so does Hilary Clinton. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    More importantly, however, was his take on history, which went no further back then 2008, at best. By pretending that history began when Barack Obama was elected president, all the decades of jobs being sent overseas because corporations want cheap labor became the fault of more recent free trade agreements. While these agreements certainly expedited the desire/need of the capitalist overlords to go for the cheap labor, this process was taking place before such agreements were passed. Furthermore, Trump and his businesses benefited from them and he did nothing to oppose them then. In short, it is how monopoly capitalism works: capital goes to where it can accumulate greater profits, utilizing the military and "free" trade to cajole and force its will on nations and peoples around the world.

    Continuing his litany of America wronged, Trump referred to the Iran nuclear agreement. He related the FoxNews version of some US sailors being held by Iranian military after their ship sailed into Iranian waters. According to this version, the sailors were humiliated hostages who were wrongly held. In actuality, the sailors were treated well and were in the wrong. Their captain surely knew this when he sailed where he sailed. Leaping from this incident to the Iranian nuclear agreement that has essentially decreased the likelihood of Iran ever building nuclear weapons, Trump continued his litany of lies by portraying the agreement as virtual surrender to unnamed dark forces.

    Of course, the presence of "dark" forces and the threat they represent to Trump and his followers are essential to understanding his appeal. Indeed, the local Gannett broadsheet here in Vermont, introduced Trump's acceptance speech in the next day's paper with this quote from the speech "safety will be restored." I first noted this emphasis on safety while listening to an argument between a young anti-Trump protester and an even younger Trump supporter at the end of a Vermont anti-Trump action. Besides the obvious fact that his proposed policies based on fear, hate, and US triumphalism are no more likely to restore safety than Clinton's policies of brinksmanship and subterfuge, this statement begs the question about whose safety Mr. Trump is referring to.

    ... ... ...

    While Trump pretends that his millennialist rhetoric will bring the US back to a time my father grew up in-when father knew best and was whiter than Ivory Snow soap, Hillary Clinton's campaign promises more of the same corporatist politics in the service of the Goldman-Sachs of the nation. The primary difference may be found in her social stances, which are more liberal and tolerant than those expressed by Trump's ticket.

    In short, we are witnessing a serious split in the US ruling class. Both elements recognize capitalism is in crisis and has been for decades. The two main solutions to this crisis as represented by the campaigns will not solve this crisis, because it is essentially unsolvable. Trump's approach hopes to move the capitalist economy back to a time before World War One, when production of goods was almost as important as the financial manipulation of monies for profit and national economies were the primary and dominant macro economy. Clinton's approach would continue the trend of the last few decades that has seen capital move beyond national boundaries to create what Lenin called "the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves." This latter phenomenon is what the so-called free trade agreements are about. Trump's belief that he can buck this trend runs counter to history, although he seems to think that he is beyond history, except for that which he makes.

    Militarily, there is also a split between the rulers. Neither Trump's combination of fear-ridden America First bluster nor the corporate world order represented by Clinton's campaign will prevent war or terrorism. Both will guarantee the continued waste of monies that the permanent war economy is. Both will also guarantee the continued domination of the US economy by the war industry. Donald Trump knows this and so does Hilary Clinton.

    [Jul 23, 2016] Clinton achieves the impossible by Robert Waldmann

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think this is about the dumbest thing a politician has done since her husband nominated Lloyd Bentson secretary of the Treasury (OK the stuff he did with Lewinsky wasn't too smart either but this Clinton wasn't as tempted this time). ..."
    July 22, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    I was fairly certain that if Clinton were elected president and the Democrats were to win a majority in the Senate, that they would lose that majority in 2018.

    I think that Hillary Clinton may have proven me wrong and found the only way to prevent that - by causing the Democrats to lose the majority in 2017.

    I think this is about the dumbest thing a politician has done since her husband nominated Lloyd Bentson secretary of the Treasury (OK the stuff he did with Lewinsky wasn't too smart either but this Clinton wasn't as tempted this time).

    [Jul 23, 2016] Neocons Line Up Against Donald Trump by

    Notable quotes:
    "... While many neocons and fellow travelers may be anxious to demonstrate their power and influence, it would seem, based on Trump's electoral performance, that the Republican Party electorate is not very interested in what they have to offer. ..."
    "... The neocons best bet to have a seat at the table in 2017 is Hillary Clinton. ..."
    shadowproof.com
    Mar 03, 2016 | shadowproof.com

    2016It is now official: the neoconservatives are united against Donald Trump. A new open letter organized by Project for the New American Century (PNAC) co-founder Eliot Cohen states the signatories oppose a Trump presidency and have committed to "working energetically" to see that he is not elected.

    PNAC was, notoriously, the neoconservative group that called for increased US imperialism in the Middle East, especially Iraq. Many of those who signed PNAC's statement of principles and various letters went on to serve in the Bush Administration.

    The letter comes after Trump's ferocious attacks on neocon policies and narratives, such as the Iraq War and the idea that President George W. Bush kept the country safe despite being in office on 9/11. Those attacks were most pronounced just prior to the South Carolina primary when former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the Bush Administration was the focus of Trump's fire.

    Trumps' foreign policy has long been in the neocon cross-hairs. It already appeared as though many of the neocons were against Trump; now it's impossible to deny.

    Journalist Josh Rogin, after talking to Trump advisors, lamented that "The practical application of that doctrine plays out in several ways. Trump's narrow definition of 'national interest' does not include things like democracy promotion, humanitarian intervention, the responsibility to protect people from atrocities or the advocacy of human rights abroad. Trump believes that economic engagement will lead to political opening in the long run. He doesn't think the U.S. government should spend blood or treasure on trying to change other countries' systems."

    The other co-founder of PNAC, Robert Kagan, went even further, comparing Trump to a monster and claiming that, "For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be."

    Military historian Max Boot, also a signatory to the letter, has denounced Trump, saying, "A Trump presidency threatens the post-World War II liberal international order that American presidents of both parties have so laboriously built up." He claimed that "A Trump presidency would represent the death knell of America as a great power."

    Many of those who signed the latest letter were also among those that signed PNAC communications including; Kagan, Boot, Cohen, Robert Zoellick, Daniel Blumenthal, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Thomas Donnelly, Aaron Friedberg, Randy Scheunemann, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and Dov Zakheim.

    While many neocons and fellow travelers may be anxious to demonstrate their power and influence, it would seem, based on Trump's electoral performance, that the Republican Party electorate is not very interested in what they have to offer.

    The neocons best bet to have a seat at the table in 2017 is Hillary Clinton.

    [Jul 23, 2016] Trump leaving neocons in dust by Kristina Wong

    Notable quotes:
    "... Other neoconservatives say Trump's foreign policy stances, such as his opposition to the Iraq war and the U.S. intervention in Libya, are inconsistent and represent "completely mindless" boasting. "It's not, 'Oh I really feel that the neoconservatism has come to a bad end and we need to hearken back to the realism of the Nixon administration,' " said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute. ..."
    "... Despite the opposition he faces in some corners of the GOP, polls indicate that Trump's message is in line with the public mood. ..."
    "... Experts say the isolationist sentiment is prevalent in the Democratic Party as well. ..."
    "... "The [Bernie] Sanders supporters charge Hillary Clinton Hillary with never seeing a quagmire she did not wish to enter, and basically with not just complicity, but a leading role in contriving some of the worst disasters of American foreign policy in this century," said Amb. Chas Freeman, a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, and a former Nixon and George H.W. Bush official. ..."
    "... Some experts say neoconservatives are fighting hard because they have the most to lose. "They're losing influence inside the foreign policy establishment in general, and they have definitely lost influence inside the Republican party, which was their home base," Mearsheimer said. ..."
    "... Some neoconservatives are even throwing in their lot with likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, most prominently Kagan and Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ..."
    "... Julian Hattem contributed to this story. ..."
    05/23/16 | TheHill

    The rise of Donald Trump is threatening the power of neoconservatives, who find themselves at risk of being marginalized in the Republican Party. Neoconservatism was at its height during the presidency of George W. Bush, helping to shape the rationale for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But now the ideology is under attack, with Trump systematically rejecting each of its core principles. Whereas neoconservatism advocates spreading American ideals through the use of military force, Trump has made the case for nationalism and a smaller U.S. military footprint. In what Trump calls an "America First" approach, he proposes rejecting alliances that don't work, trade deals that don't deliver, and military interventionism that costs too much. He has said he would get along with Russian President Vladimir Putin and sit down with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un - a throwback to the "realist" foreign policy of President Nixon.

    As if to underscore that point, the presumptive GOP nominee met with Nixon's Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, earlier this week, and delivered his first major foreign policy speech at an event last month hosted by the Center for National Interest, which Nixon founded.

    Leading neoconservative figures like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan have assailed Trump's foreign policy views. Kagan even called Trump a "fascist" in a recent Washington Post op-ed. "This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac 'tapping into' popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party - out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear - falling into line behind him," wrote Kagan, who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

    Other neoconservatives say Trump's foreign policy stances, such as his opposition to the Iraq war and the U.S. intervention in Libya, are inconsistent and represent "completely mindless" boasting. "It's not, 'Oh I really feel that the neoconservatism has come to a bad end and we need to hearken back to the realism of the Nixon administration,' " said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

    ... ... ...

    "[Neoconservatives] are concerned for good reason," said O'Hanlon, a Democratic defense hawk "These people don't think that Trump is prepared intellectually to be president." "It's not just that their stance of foreign policy would be losing .. .all foreign policy schools would be losing influence under Trump with very unpredictable consequences," he added.

    Despite the opposition he faces in some corners of the GOP, polls indicate that Trump's message is in line with the public mood. A recent Pew poll found that nearly six in 10 Americans said the U.S. should "deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with their own problems as best they can," a more isolationist approach at odds with neoconservative thought.

    John Mearsheimer, a preeminent scholar in realist theory, says there's a parallel in history to the way America turned inward after the Vietnam War. "There's no question that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger went a considerable ways to pursue a less ambitious foreign policy, and they talked about allies doing more to help themselves, and they began to pursue detente with the Soviet Union." "And this was all a reaction to Vietnam. Vietnam of course was a colossal failure. The body politic here in the United States was deeply disenchanted with American foreign policy, especially in its most ambitious forms and the end result is we ended up backing off for awhile," he said. "We have a similar situation here."

    Experts say the isolationist sentiment is prevalent in the Democratic Party as well.

    "The [Bernie] Sanders supporters charge Hillary Clinton Hillary with never seeing a quagmire she did not wish to enter, and basically with not just complicity, but a leading role in contriving some of the worst disasters of American foreign policy in this century," said Amb. Chas Freeman, a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, and a former Nixon and George H.W. Bush official.

    "This is the principle reason that Hillary Clinton is having so much trouble putting Bernie Sanders away," said Mearsheimer, who supports the Vermont senator. "Sanders is capitalizing on all that disenchantment in the public, and Hillary Clinton represents the old order."

    But the ideological battle over foreign policy is playing out more forcefully in the GOP. While some members of the Republican foreign policy establishment are coming to terms with Trump becoming their party's nominee, including lawmakers like Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), neoconservatives remain staunch holdouts.

    Some experts say neoconservatives are fighting hard because they have the most to lose. "They're losing influence inside the foreign policy establishment in general, and they have definitely lost influence inside the Republican party, which was their home base," Mearsheimer said.

    Some neoconservatives are even throwing in their lot with likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, most prominently Kagan and Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

    With Republican foreign policy figures split, influential Republican donors such as Charles and David Koch are trying to shape the GOP's new direction.

    The Charles Koch Institute recently launched a daylong conference that featured Mearsheimer and another prominent realist Stephen Walt that questioned U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.

    "This has meant the frequent use of force, a military budget the size of the next seven to eight countries combined, and an active policy of spreading American power and values," said William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.

    "After a quarter century of this approach, it's time to ask: Has our foreign policy been working? Is it making America safe? Should we continue on this path? And if not, what do alternative approaches look like?"

    Julian Hattem contributed to this story.

    Lindsey GrahamVulnerable GOP senators praise KaineMeghan

    McCain: 'I no longer recognize my party'

    Ex-UN ambassador John Bolton: Trump should take back NATO remarksMORE

    [Jul 23, 2016] They're Lying About Why They Hate Trump by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Theodore Roosevelt, whom Max and his neocon buddies love, issued a whopping 1,006 executive orders (when his immediate predecessors had issued a handful) and treated Congress contemptuously. He said that he, after all, was the unique representative of the American people, so it was his job to implement their will, regardless of what any other body had to say about it. ..."
    "... We can only imagine their response if Trump had said such a thing. In fact, Trump says that executive orders are terrible and that the president should govern by consensus. ..."
    "... Trump is boorish. Oh, sure. Too bad we can't have more refined candidates like John McCain, who sing, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." ..."
    "... Trump betrays conservative values. This supposedly disqualifies him. To the contrary, hasn't it been the role of the GOP nominee to betray conservative values? In 1996, Bill Kristol - who's just so overcome with concern about the betrayal of conservative values, remember - enthusiastically endorsed Colin Powell for president. ..."
    "... And by the way, just what are these "conservative values"? The leftist project of bringing democracy to faraway lands - the exact opposite of what Edmund Burke (who knew a little something about conservatism) would have recommended? Creating Medicare Part D? No Child Left Behind? Auto bailouts? Bank bailouts? Keynesian stimulus? ..."
    "... Had George W. Bush been eligible for a third term, would the same people who demand Trump debase himself in sackcloth and ashes for his betrayals of conservatism have done anything remotely similar to Bush? ..."
    "... The alleged reasons for disliking Trump do not match the neocons' actions. Therefore, they are not the real reasons. ..."
    "... They don't trust him on foreign policy. He makes fun of their interventions and says the world would be much better off, and we'd be a lot richer if none of it had been done. ..."
    "... They can't control him. He isn't owned by anyone. He can't be bought. The neocons, along with the GOP establishment they pretend to oppose, are control freaks. They can't deal with someone who may be independent of them. ..."
    "... If you want to oppose Trump, knock yourself out. But at least, be honest about it. The neocons have repeatedly endorsed candidates whose deviations from orthodoxy are much more severe than Trump's. So they're lying. ..."
    March 21, 2016 | LewRockwell

    Here's your shocker for the day:

    The neoconservatives are lying.

    Now before I tell you how I figured that out - apart from the fact that their lips are moving - I need to begin by parrying any manifestations of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    I do not support or endorse Donald Trump, who is not a libertarian and who appears to have no clear philosophy of any kind. He would no doubt do countless things that I would deplore.

    Just like all the other candidates, in other words.

    My point is not to cheer for him. My point is that the neocons' stated reasons for opposing him so hysterically don't add up.

    (1) Max Boot worries that Trump will rule like a "strongman." Right - quite unlike the restrained, humble executors of the law whom Max has endorsed over the years. In fact, Max has spent his career calling for a strong executive. Now he's worried about a "strongman." I'd say that horse has already left the stable, Max. You might want to look in the mirror to figure out how that happened.

    Theodore Roosevelt, whom Max and his neocon buddies love, issued a whopping 1,006 executive orders (when his immediate predecessors had issued a handful) and treated Congress contemptuously. He said that he, after all, was the unique representative of the American people, so it was his job to implement their will, regardless of what any other body had to say about it.

    We can only imagine their response if Trump had said such a thing. In fact, Trump says that executive orders are terrible and that the president should govern by consensus.

    Now maybe he doesn't mean that, and maybe he'd use executive orders anyway. But what if he'd said what their hero Teddy said?

    Remember the last time Max, or any neocon, or anyone in the GOP establishment, warned us that Teddy wasn't a good role model?

    Me neither.

    (2) Trump is boorish. Oh, sure. Too bad we can't have more refined candidates like John McCain, who sing, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

    (3) Trump betrays conservative values. This supposedly disqualifies him. To the contrary, hasn't it been the role of the GOP nominee to betray conservative values? In 1996, Bill Kristol - who's just so overcome with concern about the betrayal of conservative values, remember - enthusiastically endorsed Colin Powell for president.

    (4) And by the way, just what are these "conservative values"? The leftist project of bringing democracy to faraway lands - the exact opposite of what Edmund Burke (who knew a little something about conservatism) would have recommended? Creating Medicare Part D? No Child Left Behind? Auto bailouts? Bank bailouts? Keynesian stimulus?

    Had George W. Bush been eligible for a third term, would the same people who demand Trump debase himself in sackcloth and ashes for his betrayals of conservatism have done anything remotely similar to Bush?

    Sure, we'd get the wringing of hands and the occasional anguished newspaper column, but then we'd get the stern lecture that if we don't vote for Bush, civilization comes to an end.

    See what I mean? Something is fishy here. The alleged reasons for disliking Trump do not match the neocons' actions. Therefore, they are not the real reasons.

    Know what I think the real reasons are?

    (a) They don't trust him on foreign policy. He makes fun of their interventions and says the world would be much better off, and we'd be a lot richer if none of it had been done.

    Now it's true, here as elsewhere, that Trump is not consistent. He's now calling for ground troops against ISIS, for instance. But his primary message is: we have too many problems at home to be traipsing around the world destroying countries. This is not music to a neocon ear.

    (b) They can't control him. He isn't owned by anyone. He can't be bought. The neocons, along with the GOP establishment they pretend to oppose, are control freaks. They can't deal with someone who may be independent of them.

    If you want to oppose Trump, knock yourself out. But at least, be honest about it. The neocons have repeatedly endorsed candidates whose deviations from orthodoxy are much more severe than Trump's. So they're lying.

    As usual.

    Tom Woods, Jr. [send him mail; visit his website], hosts the Tom Woods Show, a libertarian podcast, Monday through Friday, and co-hosts Contra Krugman every week. He is the New York Times bestselling author of 12 books, a course creator for the Ron Paul homeschool curriculum, and founder of Liberty Classroom, a libertarian education site for adult enrichment.

    [Jul 23, 2016] Why the Neocons Hate and Fear Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The fact however remains that Trump has challenged the ideological foundations upon which US foreign policy is built whilst offering an alternative that has elicited a powerful response from the US public. ..."
    "... The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    Donald Trump's recent speech on foreign policy has been roundly condemned by the US foreign establishment.

    It has also been ridiculed as confusing and contradictory.

    This is a misrepresentation. Whilst Trump did not provide a detailed programme - to have done so in the middle of an election would have been unwise - his underlying message is clear enough.

    ​Instead of a foreign policy based on an ideology centered on US world hegemony, "exceptionalism" and "democracy promotion" Trump promises a foreign policy straightforwardly based on the pursuit of US national interests.

    To understand what that would mean in practice consider the contrast between what the US public wants and what the US has actually done under successive US administrations.

    Whereas the US public since 9/11 has been overwhelmingly focused on jihadi terrorism as the greatest threat to the US, the US foreign policy establishment is only minimally interested in that question. Its priority is to secure US world hegemony by reshaping the world geopolitical map.

    ​First and foremost that has meant confronting the two great powers - Russia and China - the US sees as the primary obstacle to its hegemony. It has also meant a series of geopolitical adventures in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, a protracted confrontation with Iran, and head on collisions with Russia and China in Ukraine and the South China Sea. The US public for its part has shown little or no enthusiasm for any of these projects. By contrast the US foreign policy establishment has show little enthusiasm for confronting the Islamic State/Daesh. The military campaign it is purporting to wage against the Islamic State is essentially a "going through the motions" public relations exercise. The real fight against the Islamic State is being fought by Iran and Russia. Elsewhere - in Chechnya, Libya and Syria - the US has willingly collaborated with jihadi terrorists to achieve its geopolitical goals.

    Trump threatens to turn all this on its head. In place of confrontation with Russia and China he says he wants to cut deals with them calculating - rightly - that they are no threat to the US. In place of collaboration with jihadi terrorism he promises a single-minded focus on its destruction. Other pillars of current US foreign policy are also challenged.

    Whereas the ideologues currently in charge of US foreign policy treat US allies as ideological soulmates in a quest to spread "Western values" (ie. US hegemony), Trump sees the US's relationship with its allies as transactional: the US will help them if they help themselves, with no sense of this being part of some ideological common cause.

    Having dumped the ideology and the foreign policy that goes with it Trump, promises to focus on sorting out the US's internal problems, which is where the US public's priorities also lie. Trump expresses himself in often crude language eg. threatening to "carpet bomb" the Islamic State. He is not coherent. He continues to talk of Iran as an enemy - ignoring the fact that it is as much a potential partner of the US as Russia and China are. Some of the things Trump says - for example his talk of embracing torture - are frankly disturbing. It remains to be seen whether a President Trump if elected would be either willing or able - as he promises - to change the entire foreign policy direction of the US.

    The fact however remains that Trump has challenged the ideological foundations upon which US foreign policy is built whilst offering an alternative that has elicited a powerful response from the US public.

    That is why the US political establishment is so alarmed by him.

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

    US 'Dominance Must Be Unquestioned': Trump Pledges to Be 'America's Greatest Defender'

    'Queen of Entropy': This is Why Voting for Hillary is Not the Best Idea

    Trump Predicts 'Great Relationship' With Russia, Putin if Elected

    [Jul 23, 2016] Hillary Rejects 'America First' by Patrick Buchanan Creators Syndicate by Patrick Buchanan

    Trump seems less willing than his opponent to engage in adventurous missions abroad under neoconservative "world domination" banner
    Notable quotes:
    "... As Donald Trump is splitting off blue-collar Democrats on issues like America's broken borders and Bill Clinton's trade debacles like NAFTA, Hillary Clinton is trying to peel off independents and Republicans by painting Trump as "temperamentally unfit" to be commander in chief. ..."
    "... In portraying Trump as an intolerable alternative, Clinton will find echoes in the GOP establishment and among the Kristol-Kagan neocons, many of whom have already signed an open letter rejecting Trump. ..."
    www.creators.com

    "Clinton to Paint Trump as a Risk to World Order." Thus did page one of Thursday's New York Times tee up Hillary Clinton's big San Diego speech on foreign policy.

    Inside the Times, the headline was edited to underline the point: "Clinton to Portray Trump as Risk to the World." The Times promoted the speech as "scorching," a "sweeping and fearsome portrayal of Mr. Trump, one that the Clinton campaign will deliver like a drumbeat to voters in the coming months."

    What is happening here?

    As Donald Trump is splitting off blue-collar Democrats on issues like America's broken borders and Bill Clinton's trade debacles like NAFTA, Hillary Clinton is trying to peel off independents and Republicans by painting Trump as "temperamentally unfit" to be commander in chief.

    Clinton contends that a Trump presidency would be a national embarrassment, that his ideas are outside the bipartisan mainstream of U.S. foreign policy, and that he is as contemptuous of our democratic allies as he is solicitous of our antidemocratic adversaries.

    In portraying Trump as an intolerable alternative, Clinton will find echoes in the GOP establishment and among the Kristol-Kagan neocons, many of whom have already signed an open letter rejecting Trump.

    William Kristol has recruited one David French to run on a National Review-Weekly Standard line to siphon off just enough votes from the GOP nominee to tip a couple of swing states to Clinton. Robert Kagan contributed an op-ed to a welcoming Washington Post saying the Trump campaign is "how fascism comes to America."

    Yet, if Clinton means to engage on foreign policy, this is not a battle Trump should avoid. For the lady has an abysmal record on foreign policy and a report card replete with failures. As senator, Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to attack and invade a nation, Iraq, that had not attacked us and did not want war with us. Clinton calls it her biggest mistake, another way of saying that the most important vote she ever cast proved disastrous for her country, costing 4,500 U.S. dead and a trillion dollars.
    That invasion was the worst blunder in U.S. history and a contributing factor to the deepening disaster of the Middle East, from which, it appears, we will not soon be able to extricate ourselves.

    As secretary of state, Clinton supported the unprovoked U.S.-NATO attack on Libya and joked of the lynching of Moammar Gadhafi, "We came. We saw. He died." Yet, even Barack Obama now agrees the Libyan war was started without advance planning for what would happen when Gadhafi fell. And that lack of planning, that failure in which Clinton was directly involved, Obama now calls the worst mistake of his presidency.

    Is Clinton's role in pushing for two wars, both of which resulted in disasters for her country and the entire Middle East, something to commend her for the presidency of the United States? Is the slogan to be, "Let Hillary clean up the mess she helped to make?"

    Whether or not Clinton was complicit in the debacle in Benghazi, can anyone defend her deceiving the families of the fallen by talking about finding the evildoer who supposedly made the videotape that caused it all? Even then, she knew better. How many other secretaries of state have been condemned by their own inspector general for violating the rules for handling state secrets, for deceiving investigators, and for engaging, along with that cabal she brought into her secretary's office, in a systematic stonewall to keep the department from learning the truth?

    Where in all of this is there the slightest qualification, other than a honed instinct for political survival, for Clinton to lead America out of the morass into which she, and the failed foreign policy elite nesting around her, plunged the United States?

    If Trump will stay true to his message, he can win the foreign policy debate, and the election, because what he is arguing for is what Americans want.

    They do not want any more Middle East wars. They do not want to fight Russians in the Baltic or Ukraine, or the Chinese over some rocks in the South China Sea.

    They understand that, as Truman had to deal with Stalin, and Ike with Khrushchev, and Nixon with Brezhnev, and Reagan with Gorbachev, a U.S. president should sit down with a Vladimir Putin to avoid a clash neither country wants, and from which neither country would benefit.

    The coming Clinton-neocon nuptials have long been predicted in this space. They have so much in common. They belong with each other.

    But this country will not survive as the last superpower if we do not shed this self-anointed role as the "indispensable nation" that makes and enforces the rules for the "rules-based world order," and that acts as first responder in every major firefight on earth. What Trump has hit upon, what the country wants, is a foreign policy designed to protect the vital interests of the United States, and a president who will - ever and always - put America first.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority." To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

    [Jul 23, 2016] Donald Trump To Republicans Keep Bill Kristol Under Control

    This is one of the few articles when you can see anger at neocons from rank-and-file republicans. Especially in comments.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's steadfast support from paleoconservative icon and Kristol arch-nemesis Pat Buchanan clearly terrified the neoconservative wing of the party, which still remembers how Buchanan drummed up three million votes against George Bush in the 1992 Republican primary by blasting globalist trade policy. ..."
    "... The people are speaking and Hillary will not win. Every single tactic employed to derail Trump has backfired and only made him more popular. ..."
    "... The Neo-Cons like Kristol are addicted to power and donor skims. He is why we are now on the verge of rebellion. Vote Trump. ..."
    "... CIA Operation Mockingbird....to infiltrate and control all news reporting, see.... "New Think Progress and the Ozzard of Wiz".... Multilevel Information Racketeering.... ..."
    "... The establishment media is showing their RINO-ness. They are being exposed in the light. ..."
    "... The National Review and Weekly Standard have become bird-cage liner as a result of Messrs. Kristol, Wills, etc. ..."
    "... Bill Kristol ... GO AWAY ... Republicans have REJECTED you ... ..."
    "... "Let me hasten to admit: I underestimated your skills as a demagogue and the credulity of some of the American public." Let me translate: "Hey, America, you're too stupid to vote. I'm an elite and know better than you!" ..."
    "... Donald --- deny his access and take his room card. I imagine he'll be more pissed about that then selling out. Fat slob. He reminds me of the corrupt Monks under the Medici, stuffing gold under their tunics while the poor died in the streets. ..."
    "... Latter Day Republicans.. LOL ..."
    "... fine use of words... as in latter day saints, Glenn Beck, Romney etc. ..."
    "... Neocons have always been Trotskyites and are conservative in name only. It is because of this that I believe that we the people should hold state conventions to enact several amendments to curtail the donor class, removing of political parties, enacting Vigilance Committees, and enforcing Article I Section XI Clause VIII of the Constitution of the United States. ..."
    "... Campaign donations and raising money for PACs is unconstitutional and is treason as defined by the Constitution. An emolument is a fee or payment for services rendered. By removing the donor class and the lobbyists we can return the government back to the people. ..."
    "... One can only conclude that the neocons want to splinter the vote, and they want the Democrats to win. No other conclusion seems possible. This is a betrayal that should be taken quite seriously. ..."
    "... ..."
    Breitbar
    Kristol recently met with #NeverTrump champion Mitt Romney to discuss a third-party campaign, but Kristol has hinted that Romney will not be the independent "White Knight." Kristol tweeted Saturday, "If Mitt decides he can't, someone will step forward to run" then quoted William Gladstone to declare, "The resources of civilization are not yet exhausted."

    This is not the first time Trump and Kristol have sparred on Twitter. When Trump asked last week why networks continue to employ Kristol's punditry services, Kristol admitted that he had been wrong to have underestimated Trump's political appeal:

    Kristol's neoconservative inner circle has reason to fear the threat posed by a populist outsider, especially one who could gain anti-Establishment traction by attacking the legacy of the Kristol-supported Iraq War. Kristol's "Weekly Standard" magazine and his son-in-law Matt Continetti's blog "Free Beacon" hammered Trump throughout the Republican primaries to little avail. The "Beacon" blog's writers and editors flogged the "small hands" insult that infamously made it into Marco Rubio's campaign stump speech in Rubio's desperate final days.

    Trump's steadfast support from paleoconservative icon and Kristol arch-nemesis Pat Buchanan clearly terrified the neoconservative wing of the party, which still remembers how Buchanan drummed up three million votes against George Bush in the 1992 Republican primary by blasting globalist trade policy.


    Tryle N Error

    It's time for an intervention. Get him into rehab and off the Kristol Meth, or whatever that deluded lunatic is injecting.

    dtom2 > Tryle N Error

    Kristol has become unhinged faced with the reality that he has lost what little influence he had on the republic electorate. His all out promotion of Jeb Bush failed and this is nothing more than sour grapes. So, instead of conceding defeat, he launches all out war on our nominee. My question is this... if he wants Hillary instead of Trump, which will be the eventual outcome if he follows through with his plan, why not just come out of the closet and support her. La Raza and the Chamber of Commerce both get their wish, more hordes of criminal illegals to undermine American workers, and an increased democrat parasitic voter base...see...so much simpler than a third candidate launch...same outcome. America slides closer to the third world cesspool of their dreams. Trump 2016!

    Ann > dtom2

    The people are speaking and Hillary will not win. Every single tactic employed to derail Trump has backfired and only made him more popular.

    bucketnutz > Tryle N Error

    The Neo-Cons like Kristol are addicted to power and donor skims. He is why we are now on the verge of rebellion. Vote Trump.


    FauxScienceSlayer

    CIA Operation Mockingbird....to infiltrate and control all news reporting, see.... "New Think Progress and the Ozzard of Wiz".... Multilevel Information Racketeering....

    Be Still

    The establishment media is showing their RINO-ness. They are being exposed in the light.

    Bill the Cat > Robert Tulloch

    The National Review and Weekly Standard have become bird-cage liner as a result of Messrs. Kristol, Wills, etc. Their next stop is the HuffPo and motherjones.

    Patriot

    Kristol needs to be brought down from his perch. He thinks he is smarter than the voters. If he pushes this nonsense and the GOP does not censor him, it will be the time for the millions of sane Americans to join the GOP and then destroy it from within. It is time for average Americans to control their destiny as opposed to the elites.

    darwin

    Kristol is an anti-American traitor. He's actively engaged in fighting the will of the people to keep himself and the people he works for in power and wealth.

    Archimedes

    Bill Kristol is destroying the Republican party ... he is a globalist who believes in spending trillions while deploying AMERICANs in the Middle East ... he believes in open borders ... he believes in unfettered "free trade" ...

    Bill Kristol ... GO AWAY ... Republicans have REJECTED you ...

    #NeverHillary

    ljm4

    Billy, work on your Cruise ship offerings. As you are failing in journalism are you also trying to take down the GOP party yourself?

    Doctor Evil

    "Let me hasten to admit: I underestimated your skills as a demagogue and the credulity of some of the American public." Let me translate: "Hey, America, you're too stupid to vote. I'm an elite and know better than you!"

    Lee Ashton > Doctor Evil
    On the other hand...

    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. - George Carlin
    US comedian and actor (1937 - 2008)


    Douglas Rowland > Lee Ashton

    Those would be the ones voting for Hillary.
    WaylonII
    Splitting the Republican vote would be a sure way to get Hillary elected. What is wrong with these people?
    Avatar timdb > WaylonII
    Maybe Kristol expects President Hillary Clinton will appoint him as ambassador to Israel.
    Lee Ashton > TheLastPlainsman
    Neocon - deficit spending via the warfare state

    Leftist - deficit spending via the welfare state.

    The right and left wings of the same vulture.

    MrnPol725

    ... Donald --- deny his access and take his room card. I imagine he'll be more pissed about that then selling out. Fat slob. He reminds me of the corrupt Monks under the Medici, stuffing gold under their tunics while the poor died in the streets.

    SPQR_US

    Another turd exposed...Kristol Meth...time to arrest and jail the neocons...


    Pitbulls LiL Brother

    Kristol has been wrong so many times for so many years how does he get a voice in the process?

    Amberteka > Pitbulls LiL Brother

    MONEY. His relatives Own USA Media.

    Roadchaser

    Latter Day Republicans.. LOL

    James > Roadchaser

    fine use of words... as in latter day saints, Glenn Beck, Romney etc.

    gladzkravtz

    The founding publisher of the Weekly Standard is News Corp!! Just found it on wiki! I didn't know that and now it makes sense that Kristol gets to mug on FNC so much. I have stock in News Corp, bought it back long before there was a Megyn Kelly, but now it's time to go ahead, sell and take the loss.
    Those creeps.

    PreacherPatriot1776

    Neocons have always been Trotskyites and are conservative in name only. It is because of this that I believe that we the people should hold state conventions to enact several amendments to curtail the donor class, removing of political parties, enacting Vigilance Committees, and enforcing Article I Section XI Clause VIII of the Constitution of the United States.

    That clause states, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

    Campaign donations and raising money for PACs is unconstitutional and is treason as defined by the Constitution. An emolument is a fee or payment for services rendered. By removing the donor class and the lobbyists we can return the government back to the people.

    Since the government is not self-policing itself like it should then it's time for the Fourth Branch of the government to step up and exercise their power to hold these individuals accountable. A Vigilance Committee would be comprised of citizens of a single state and oversee everything their elected/appointed representatives adhere to their oaths of office. Failure to adhere to the oath would be an automatic charge of treason and a trial of said individual for violating their oath. Once enough of these traitors are executed the rest of them will behave and follow their oaths plus the Constitution of the United States.

    Another amendment could be the requirement that every child must learn the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, and their state constitutions. This way we as a people can stop dangerous ideologies that are antithetical to liberty, like Marxism and communism, can never be used in the United States.

    jackschil

    Its about time the real conservative Republicans took a stand. They could start by ignoring the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party and start paying attention to the Goldwater/Reagan wing. The Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal, Bill Kristol, Carl Rove, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer do not represent conservative values, but pretend establishment values. They would be better served joining with the Democrats. Trump has these establishment jackals, along with the K Street lobbyists, scared to death. For the first time since 1984, the people aren't stuck voting for a Republicrat candidate.

    SpeedMaster

    The Globalists have been exposed for what they really are. Thank You Mr. Trump.

    Ohiolad

    One can only conclude that the neocons want to splinter the vote, and they want the Democrats to win. No other conclusion seems possible. This is a betrayal that should be taken quite seriously.


    Gene Schwimmer

    If Kristol does, indeed, produce an independent candidate and if "President Hillary" is a real problem for Trumpists, we of #NeverTrump invite them to abandon Trump and join us in supporting the independent candidate. If you choose not to, blame yourselves if Trump loses. #NeverTrump warned you well before you voted for Trump that we would never vote for him and it's still not too late to nominate someone else at the convention. Not our problem if you thought you could win without us and nominated Trump, anyway.

    PrinceLH > Gene Schwimmer

    Are you for real? Why would we turn our backs on the candidate that has garnered the most votes, in Republican Primary history? You people don't get it! It's not the Republicans vs the Democrats. It's the people vs the Establishment. We don't want any more of your ruling class garbage. We don't want any more of stagnant wages and job loses to other countries, so you can expand your Globalist agenda. You people need to be stopped. Bill Kristol, George Will, Glenn Beck, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, George Soros, the Bush family, the Koch Brothers and the list goes on, are our enemies.

    You will be soundly defeated, this fall, and you can hand in your membership to the Human Race, on the way out the door to your European Liberal Utopia.

    Zolt

    No more THIRD-WORLD IMMIGRATION
    No more GLOBAL TRADE
    No more ENDLESS WARS FOR ISRAEL AND THE NWO

    God bless ASSAD, protector of Syrian Christians!

    Get on board with the #PALEOCONS!

    billsv

    You just don't get it. Middle class jobs have been given to foreigners through H2B programs, globalist policies, etc. why is this conservatism? Why do illegal aliens get more benefits than US citizens? Is this conservatism? We just don't like Bill Kristol's view of conservatism that de stories the Middle Class, let' s those in the bottom percentiles languish and caves to the wishes of the Chamber of Commerce.

    Please back off and give what many if Americans want. We have suffered enough.

    [Jul 22, 2016] Is What Michelle Obama Said a True Statement? by Gaius Publius

    Notable quotes:
    "... If anything, the whole plagiarism scandal reflects somewhat poorly on Michelle Obama. One reason Obama's words were able to play so well at the RNC was that in the lifted passages, Obama was speaking using the conservative language of "bootstrapping." Obama's sentence, that "the only limit" to one's achievements is the height of one's goal and the "willingness to work" toward it, is the Republican story about America. It's the story of personal responsibility, in which the U.S. is overflowing with opportunity, and anyone who fails to succeed in such a land of abundance must simply not be trying hard enough. ..."
    "... People on the left are supposed to know that it is a cruel lie to tell people that all they need to do is work hard. There are plenty of people with dreams who work very hard indeed but get nothing, because the American economy is fundamentally skewed and unfair. This rhetoric, about "hard work" being the only thing needed for the pursuit of prosperity, is an insult to every tomato-picker and hotel cleaner in the country. It's a fact that those who work the hardest in this country, those come home from work exhausted and who break their backs to feed their families, are almost always rewarded the least. ..."
    "... This is, of course, the myth of "meritocracy" that Thomas Frank has exposed with scalpel-like precision in his latest book Listen, Liberal . It's clear that the Democratic Party, at its core, believes with Michelle (and Barack) Obama the comfortable and self-serving lie that no individual has anyone to blame but herself if she fails to achieve high goals. She should just have reached higher; she should just have worked harder. ..."
    "... It's not only a lie, it's a "cruel lie," as Nimni says. So why is she, Michelle Obama, telling it? Clearly it serves her interests, her husband's interests, her party's interests, to tell the "rich person's lie," that his or her achievement came from his or her own efforts. To call most people's success a product of luck (right color, right gender, right country, right neighborhood, right schools, right set of un-birth-damaged brain cells) or worse, inheritance (right parents), identifies the fundamental unfairness of our supposed "meritocratic" system of allocating wealth and undercuts the "goodness," if you look at it writ large, of predatory capitalism. By that measure, neither the very wealthy themselves (Charles Koch, Jamie Dimon) nor those who serve them (Barack Obama et al ) are "good" in any moral sense. ..."
    naked capitalism
    Is What Michelle Obama Said a True Statement?

    Consider for a second the bare statement - "the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them" (Obama's version). Is this true? Is it true that if you dream big enough and work hard enough, the "limit to the height of your achievements" disappears?

    Obviously not. As a young high school graduate, working summers in a General Motors assembly plant to earn college money, I saw hundreds of men and women, many the lowest of the low, the sweepers, for example, whose lives mark "lie" to that statement. The next time you stay in a hotel, look at the woman who cleans your room and ask if she's where she is because she won't work hard. Most people like these are trapped, the way billions are trapped around the world, working in powerless service to others for the scraps those others allow them?

    Oren Nimni: Obama's statement "is an insult to every tomato-picker and hotel cleaner in the country"

    The fact that Michelle Obama's statement is blatantly false (and that a woman of color in the United States said it) is revealing. Current Affairs writer Oren Nimni on that (emphasis in original):

    If anything, the whole plagiarism scandal reflects somewhat poorly on Michelle Obama. One reason Obama's words were able to play so well at the RNC was that in the lifted passages, Obama was speaking using the conservative language of "bootstrapping." Obama's sentence, that "the only limit" to one's achievements is the height of one's goal and the "willingness to work" toward it, is the Republican story about America. It's the story of personal responsibility, in which the U.S. is overflowing with opportunity, and anyone who fails to succeed in such a land of abundance must simply not be trying hard enough.

    People on the left are supposed to know that it is a cruel lie to tell people that all they need to do is work hard. There are plenty of people with dreams who work very hard indeed but get nothing, because the American economy is fundamentally skewed and unfair. This rhetoric, about "hard work" being the only thing needed for the pursuit of prosperity, is an insult to every tomato-picker and hotel cleaner in the country. It's a fact that those who work the hardest in this country, those come home from work exhausted and who break their backs to feed their families, are almost always rewarded the least.

    Far from embarrassing Melania Trump and the GOP, then, it should be deeply humiliating for Democrats that their rhetoric is so bloodless and hollow that it can easily be spoken word-for-word in front of a gang of crazed racists. Instead of asking "why is Melania Trump using Michelle Obama's words?" we might think to ask "why is Michelle Obama using the right-wing rhetoric of self-reliance?"

    This is, of course, the myth of "meritocracy" that Thomas Frank has exposed with scalpel-like precision in his latest book Listen, Liberal. It's clear that the Democratic Party, at its core, believes with Michelle (and Barack) Obama the comfortable and self-serving lie that no individual has anyone to blame but herself if she fails to achieve high goals. She should just have reached higher; she should just have worked harder.

    It's not only a lie, it's a "cruel lie," as Nimni says. So why is she, Michelle Obama, telling it? Clearly it serves her interests, her husband's interests, her party's interests, to tell the "rich person's lie," that his or her achievement came from his or her own efforts. To call most people's success a product of luck (right color, right gender, right country, right neighborhood, right schools, right set of un-birth-damaged brain cells) or worse, inheritance (right parents), identifies the fundamental unfairness of our supposed "meritocratic" system of allocating wealth and undercuts the "goodness," if you look at it writ large, of predatory capitalism. By that measure, neither the very wealthy themselves (Charles Koch, Jamie Dimon) nor those who serve them (Barack Obama et al) are "good" in any moral sense.

    (The idea of the supposed "goodness" of the successful capitalist, by the way, his supposed "greater morality," goes all the way back to the 18th Century attempt of the wealthy to counter the 17th Century bleakness of Protestant predestination. How could people, especially the very rich, know whether they are among the "elect" or the damned? God gives them wealth as a sign of his plans for them, just as God gives them morally deficient poverty-wage workers to take advantage of.)

    [Jul 22, 2016] Guardian still promoting Killary and denigrating Trump: Hes a disaster: Trump still faces a party divided on conventions final night

    Completely toothless, baseless article and very weak comments. Trump, at least in part, is paleoconservatives and he signify change of the course: less interventionalist wars, less color revolutions, rejection of Neoconservatism with some checks of dual citizenship holders in Washington like Kagan, less globalization, more nationalism. Very few commenters mention Neoconservatism and globalization which is the key problem that put Trump in the game.
    Here are some realistic comments: "Do all the Trumplings really believe he will rethink or change the NATO mafia, close down any of the 1,100 military bases and outposts 'Mericuh has all around the world, restore the Glass-Seagull act, interfere with all the CIA middlings in the Ukraine, Latin 'Mericuh, Turkey, Iran, ect., change or end NAFTA? lmao "
    And " Trump's candidacy is about so much more than personality. Once the media are forced to report Trump's positions, instead of his persona, even more Americans will see that Trump is the sole Republican who rejects a "free trade" that gives away the keys to the store and opposed the ill-fated Iraq war. He is the type of candidate Americans always wanted but the party establishments are too afraid to provide."
    Notable quotes:
    "... What is amusing that Guardian gaged all comments on all articles about Hillary but opened flood gates for those on Trump. Can't wait this political paparazzi return to b*tching about Murdoch and Fox. Or tear jerking about free press in Russia. ..."
    "... Consequently -- and after outspending Donald 15-to-1 in millions of dollars of tv and radio advertisements (LA Times) -- Hillary leads him by 3 points (HuffPost). ..."
    "... Thats the USA, two potential presidents nobody wants. ..."
    "... Let's face it, you need billions to get elected. That's not democracy by anybody's standards. ..."
    "... You are confusing money with elitism. They are not interchangeable. For example, even before he had any money, Obama was an elite. ..."
    "... If you look at Bill Clinton's record he really wasn't that much of a Democrate...more like a moderate Republican. One reason I never could understand the GOPs almost pathological hatred of the Clintons..and I'm not just talking about the far far far right Republicans either. ..."
    "... Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in the United States. ..."
    "... Trump's appeal to the disenfranchised workers of the USA is a strong one, whereas Clinton thinks Democrats, many of whom have deep reservations about her, will simply fall into line as if she's the matron of the WH. ..."
    "... The fact that she's a corrupt grifter won't help. ..."
    "... Whatever anyone thinks of him, you cannot deny this is history being made. The last was Roosevelt almost 100 years ago. Independent politicians are popping up around the world. ..."
    "... Just wondering : Which paradise do you come from? ..."
    "... "Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in the United States." ..."
    "... So i get that Democrats were hoping that the RNC convention would be an utter disaster but it hasnt turned out to be so. Apart from some shamefully contrived nonsense about plagiarism to attack a woman who appears to be a decent woman ( by the way I thought Democrats were all about women, hypocrites) and Ted Cruz deciding to end his political career, the RNC convention has gone rather well. ..."
    "... His comments on Neo-Liberal globalization and the creation of the nationless aristocracy at the expense of common folk labour all over the world is bang on . ..."
    "... I am happy to see that this disastrous , extraordinarily exploitive phenomenon has finally be brought out into the light of day ..... where it will stay long after this election is over . ..."
    "... When your a colony you obey the emperor whoever he or she is. If President Trump exposes NATO as just another Mafia by making threats and demanding money of all the 'allies' ,as the US's European quislings call themselves, they will pay up. ..."
    "... Do all the Trumplings really believe he will rethink or change the NATO mafia, close down any of the 1,100 military bases and outposts 'Mericuh has all around the world, restore the Glass-Seagull act, interfere with all the CIA middlings in the Ukraine, Latin 'Mericuh, Turkey, Iran, ect., change or end NAFTA? lmao ..."
    "... Quickest way to a bullet if he does try!! ..."
    "... Both the Republican and Democratic Parties are disasters in being, neither has shown the slightest interest in doing anything for the country, both are vastly more concerned about fighting each other, and fighting within, all to accumulate yet more wealth and power for themselves. ..."
    "... "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." – Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928) ..."
    "... Trump is a breath of fresh air. I don't understand all the vitriol against him. ..."
    "... US politics needs an earthquake to re orientate the electorate's priorities. Trump is a populist and a populist is what America needs. ..."
    "... The liberal media's constant Trump hit pieces have no effect and the clowns are getting desperate as the realization sets in. Trump 2016! ..."
    "... The Guardian along with it's U.S. counterparts, have become one big opinion piece. This is cementing voters views that the media is elitist, and terriblly out of touch with ordinary Americans. It looks like you are actively trying to tear him down, this has backfired since day one, and attracted more right wing voters to come out for a protest vote. Trump is a sensationalist, and you have played into his reality show hands. ..."
    "... Trump comes along as an anti establishment choice for people who have been left behind by globalisation/capatalism. People who have felt ignored and disenfranchised. ..."
    "... Not unlike the make-up of the brexit voters in the UK. It's an odd grouping. ..."
    "... I would like to hear, in clear terms that reflect precise policies, why Trump is preferable to Clinton. Let's assume for a start that both candidates are in different ways dishonest, that they are both elitist, and that they both are opportunist (adapting their rhetoric to suit their goals). ..."
    "... Actually, dugandben's comment was spot on. Hillary is the bigger fascist considering the way the media (like the Guardian) shills for her, and how she is by far, the corporate-approved candidate. ..."
    "... Another Hilbot being paid to distort the truth, eh, Arundel? That's what good little fascists do. Inverted Totalitarianism . ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Nazly De La Hoya, 26, a delegate from El Paso, Texas, initially backed Kentucky senator Rand Paul. "He [Trump] was not my first choice; however, I'm very against the corruption and lies that Hillary's been involved with," she said during a rally in Cleveland's Public Square. "Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in the United States."

    diddoit , 2016-07-22 00:34:07
    Trump is right about Nato .

    The US currently pays 75% of the cost of European defence! How can that be good?

    After Brexit, a European army may emerge . Many politicians in Germany and especially France have desired this idea of an EU force for a long time , with the Brits as the main obstacle.

    Vladimir Makarenko , 2016-07-22 00:32:57
    What is amusing that Guardian gaged all comments on all articles about Hillary but opened flood gates for those on Trump. Can't wait this political paparazzi return to b*tching about Murdoch and Fox. Or tear jerking about free press in Russia.
    makaio , 2016-07-22 00:30:46

    "He's a disaster. He's a wild card. You don't know what he's going to do. He has no principles. He's a playboy entertainer and it's shocking that the American people would choose him."

    Consequently -- and after outspending Donald 15-to-1 in millions of dollars of tv and radio advertisements (LA Times) -- Hillary leads him by 3 points (HuffPost).

    Canuckling -> Bill Smith , 2016-07-22 00:37:31
    Bill hasn't even started his campaign. The greatest 2 for 1 deal of all time.
    scringlemescrongers -> Lionsingh , 2016-07-22 00:28:39
    Thats the USA, two potential presidents nobody wants.
    Markear, 2016-07-22 00:10:53
    Let's face it, you need billions to get elected. That's not democracy by anybody's standards.
    providenciales Markear , 2016-07-22 00:18:35
    You are confusing money with elitism. They are not interchangeable. For example, even before he had any money, Obama was an elite.
    Terrence D. Zarnick -> aeris2001x2 , 2016-07-21 23:46:40
    If you look at Bill Clinton's record he really wasn't that much of a Democrate...more like a moderate Republican. One reason I never could understand the GOPs almost pathological hatred of the Clintons..and I'm not just talking about the far far far right Republicans either.
    providenciales -> Terrence D. Zarnick , 2016-07-21 23:52:05
    If you had experienced 30 years of scandals with the Clintons you might understand the distrust.
    Drumboy , 2016-07-21 23:30:35
    ."Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in the United States."

    I do hope that the word "not" was missing from that sentence.

    bobbejaan99 , 2016-07-21 23:17:17
    Michael Moore has said he thinks Trump will win - and that's a distinct possibility. it's complacency that will put Trump in the White House and that may as well be Hillary's middle name. Trump's appeal to the disenfranchised workers of the USA is a strong one, whereas Clinton thinks Democrats, many of whom have deep reservations about her, will simply fall into line as if she's the matron of the WH. After watching the brexit campaign, people should be worried that weak campaigning from Clinton wont pull enough of the undecided voters and her soft opposition to her side.
    BillinChicago -> bobbejaan99 , 2016-07-21 23:34:29
    The fact that she's a corrupt grifter won't help.
    glennbb , 2016-07-21 23:16:37
    Whatever anyone thinks of him, you cannot deny this is history being made. The last was Roosevelt almost 100 years ago. Independent politicians are popping up around the world.
    sumsmlchangesoonpls , 2016-07-21 22:55:43
    If it's true that in a democracy you get the government you deserve it's hard to imagine a more perfect candidate for the job. Crass, crooked, mendacious, irresponsible bully, exactly like the country he seeks to lead.
    HorsesDark sumsmlchangesoonpls , 2016-07-21 23:09:15
    Just wondering : Which paradise do you come from?
    hendo101 , 2016-07-21 22:11:36
    "Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in the United States."

    Jesus, why are these people so obsessed with political correctness? In light of all the other issues plaguing America - out of control health care costs, crumbling infrastructure, stagnant wages, terrorism, overpriced education, race wars, etc. - these people are going to pick the next POTUS based primarily on his/her disdain for political correctness? Really?

    Dmanny , 2016-07-21 22:17:07
    So i get that Democrats were hoping that the RNC convention would be an utter disaster but it hasnt turned out to be so. Apart from some shamefully contrived nonsense about plagiarism to attack a woman who appears to be a decent woman ( by the way I thought Democrats were all about women, hypocrites) and Ted Cruz deciding to end his political career, the RNC convention has gone rather well.

    Now over to you Democrats. Lets see how many people can keep a straight face while extolling the virtues of a criminal for the highest office. If we are lucky we might see some self shame as person after person shows up to demonstrate their sold out souls.

    enodesign , 2016-07-21 21:39:42

    ...His comments on Neo-Liberal globalization and the creation of the nationless aristocracy at the expense of common folk labour all over the world is bang on .

    I am happy to see that this disastrous , extraordinarily exploitive phenomenon has finally be brought out into the light of day ..... where it will stay long after this election is over .

    ... ... ...

    LadybirdFarenheit -> enodesign , 2016-07-21 21:43:16
    At least the USA has checks and balances on executive power. England has just lost its.
    Babeouf , 2016-07-21 21:39:14
    When your a colony you obey the emperor whoever he or she is. If President Trump exposes NATO as just another Mafia by making threats and demanding money of all the 'allies' ,as the US's European quislings call themselves, they will pay up.
    duncandunnit , 2016-07-21 21:31:51
    I prefer trump to win than Clinton any day.
    BizaaroLand , 2016-07-21 21:10:12
    Do all the Trumplings really believe he will rethink or change the NATO mafia, close down any of the 1,100 military bases and outposts 'Mericuh has all around the world, restore the Glass-Seagull act, interfere with all the CIA middlings in the Ukraine, Latin 'Mericuh, Turkey, Iran, ect., change or end NAFTA? lmao

    How adorable.

    YeOldPhart -> BizaaroLand , 2016-07-21 21:40:12
    Quickest way to a bullet if he does try!!
    TomSarko , 2016-07-21 21:06:37
    Representoid:

    Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world. Probably a slip or a typo, but keeping the US military-industrial complex ticking never did any harm - to stakeholders in it, at least.

    Everybody, and I mean everybody, fails to comprehend (capiche) how pressing is the global MIC. These vermin, aside from the otherwise good and decent enlistees and career soildiers, are guided ONLY by MORE WAR, MORE stupidly profitable revenues. $700 hammers, etc.

    goatrider , 2016-07-21 20:58:28
    Poor guy--his latest screw up is that he said he might not want to go to a nuke, end the world, war to save Estonia from the Russians--not that Russians have any real desire to do so at this point. Maybe he is the only sane man in politics.......
    brian123 , 2016-07-21 20:58:15
    Trump is going to win. Middle America is going to come out in their droves and propel Trump to the White House. #MAGA
    leodensian , 2016-07-21 20:57:11
    "Trump is a better alternative because he is LIKELY to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world."
    apacheman , 2016-07-21 20:54:59
    Well, yes, Trump is a disaster.

    But he's just reflective of and the result of the ongoing disaster that American politics and political parties have been for the last few decades.

    Both the Republican and Democratic Parties are disasters in being, neither has shown the slightest interest in doing anything for the country, both are vastly more concerned about fighting each other, and fighting within, all to accumulate yet more wealth and power for themselves.

    Neither party really gives a rat's ass about the country or the people. To both, the people are annoyances to be manipulated and then ignored.

    Some Democrats smugly view the catastrophic disarray of the Republicans with glee, thinking that it shows how superior they are, but they are merely partisan nitwits who look no further than "Yay, we win!", completely failing to examine what that might mean in practicality. In point of fact, the Democratic Party is little better.

    Neither party has either the chops or the inclination to actually do anything about the mess the country is in other than to profit personally from it.

    Both parties need to be swept from office, but that is unlikely to happen. Neither is fit to govern.

    It makes me more sympathetic to a button I saw the other day:

    "If God meant for us to vote, He would have given us candidates."

    At this point, the rot is so deep I despair of finding an alternative way to fix it other than the time-honored solution: Off with their heads!

    tassimo -> apacheman , 2016-07-22 01:19:07
    Politics the world over in a nutshell. Well done
    dugandben , 2016-07-21 20:43:56
    The system told Clinton she would be President next time around when Obama was elected.
    They have set up a contest with the only person in the US she could beat & she is struggling with that.
    She may have to resort to tactics used in the past, which wouldnt be good for Trumps health.
    ashooin , 2016-07-21 20:35:38
    "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." – Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928)
    trundlesome1 , 2016-07-21 19:13:26
    Trump is a breath of fresh air. I don't understand all the vitriol against him. Cruz is way to the right of Trump, an absolute toady to the Republican right. Hillary is as bad - 100% owned by Wall Street. Bill Clinton was 8 years of drift and disaster and Hillary will be at least another four years of the same. US politics needs an earthquake to re orientate the electorate's priorities. Trump is a populist and a populist is what America needs.
    Dylan Patrick , 2016-07-21 19:11:58
    The liberal media's constant Trump hit pieces have no effect and the clowns are getting desperate as the realization sets in. Trump 2016!
    Mike M , 2016-07-21 19:06:06
    First off, Trump is a horrific candidate. But, I can't help thinking The Guardian along with it's U.S. counterparts, have become one big opinion piece. This is cementing voters views that the media is elitist, and terriblly out of touch with ordinary Americans. It looks like you are actively trying to tear him down, this has backfired since day one, and attracted more right wing voters to come out for a protest vote. Trump is a sensationalist, and you have played into his reality show hands.
    c8th3r1n3 , 2016-07-21 19:06:03
    Trump comes along as an anti establishment choice for people who have been left behind by globalisation/capatalism. People who have felt ignored and disenfranchised. He also appeals to the racist right wing and the conservatives who are sick of career politicians. Not unlike the make-up of the brexit voters in the UK. It's an odd grouping.

    It might have to run its course - I can see him getting in despite Clinton war chest Trump is offering the change that people think they want. (Even though of course he cannot and wouldn't if he ever could deliver it)

    LeSeuil , 2016-07-21 18:56:27
    I would like to hear, in clear terms that reflect precise policies, why Trump is preferable to Clinton. Let's assume for a start that both candidates are in different ways dishonest, that they are both elitist, and that they both are opportunist (adapting their rhetoric to suit their goals).
    Lutefrisky -> Abe Coleman , 2016-07-21 23:43:46
    Actually, dugandben's comment was spot on. Hillary is the bigger fascist considering the way the media (like the Guardian) shills for her, and how she is by far, the corporate-approved candidate.
    Lutefrisky -> ArundelXVI , 2016-07-22 02:22:51
    Another Hilbot being paid to distort the truth, eh, Arundel? That's what good little fascists do. Inverted Totalitarianism .

    [Jul 22, 2016] Trumps Deserved Moment of Triumph

    Notable quotes:
    "... A year ago, Trump was a joke. A media circus. A novelty. We assumed – I assumed – he was in it for the giggles. I thought he'd drop out like he'd down twice before. I thought his total lack of experience, his profanity and his recklessness would count against him in a primary among conservatives. But the very nature of conservatism has changed. ..."
    "... Trump didn't just defy the establishment. He defied what we thought for years were the outsiders: the ideological conservatives who hitherto cast themselves as the rebels. By beating Ted Cruz, Trump actually ran an insurgency against the insurgent. He demonstrated that what people wanted wasn't something more ideologically pure – as Cruz assumed – but something that was totally different. ..."
    "... That is one big positive we can take from this campaign. If Trump can win when challenging the Republican position on trade and war, maybe someone in the future can win while challenging their positions on other things. ..."
    "... Donald Trump did, in fact, beat the hell out of the GOP Establishment. But let's also note here that the GOP Establishment beat itself. If you haven't yet, check out conservative writer Matthew Sheffield's evisceration of the Republican Industrial Complex. It was e-mailed to me by a Republican friend who until fairly recently was part of that world, and knows about it intimately. ..."
    "... Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider it wasted. ..."
    "... Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism." ..."
    "... It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too. ..."
    "... On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good. ..."
    "... Trump hasn't said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals - these are the ravings of a Nazi? ..."
    "... This year, and this week, in Republican Party politics and in American conservatism has been about nothing but moral, intellectual, and institutional decadence. It did not happen because of Donald Trump. Donald Trump emerged because the institutions were rotten. It is an almost Shakespearean twist that Roger Ailes is being defenestrated from atop the Fox News empire even as Trump receives his crown in Cleveland. ..."
    The American Conservative
    It's mostly how I feel, though the one consolation I take from this debacle is that genuine creativity may emerge out of Trump's destruction of the old GOP. It's a small bit of comfort, but I'll take what I can. If Marco Rubio or any other of the GOP bunch were being nominated now, I would not be excited at all, or even interested. I prefer that to being freaked out by the prospect of a Trump presidency, but I would prefer to have someone to vote for , instead of against.

    But then, I've wanted that for years.

    Because I'm feeling contrarian, I want to give Donald Trump his due in this, his hour of triumph. He pulled off something that nobody imagined he would do. I remember watching him give a political speech for the first time - my first time watching him, I mean. He was addressing a big crowd in Mobile. I watched the thing nearly gape-mouthed. I could not believe the crudeness, the chaos, and the idiocy of the speech. This won't go anywhere, I thought, but it's going to be fun watching him implode.

    I laughed a lot at Donald Trump back then. Who's laughing now?

    Here's Tim Stanley, writing from Cleveland for The Telegraph . Excerpt:

    A year ago, Trump was a joke. A media circus. A novelty. We assumed – I assumed – he was in it for the giggles. I thought he'd drop out like he'd down twice before. I thought his total lack of experience, his profanity and his recklessness would count against him in a primary among conservatives. But the very nature of conservatism has changed.

    It was likely the rise of Sarah Palin in 2008 that made this possible – a candidate who suggested there was a choice to be made between intellectualism and common sense, and who inspired deep devotion among those who identified with her. Folks don't identify with Trump in the same, personal way as they did with the hockey mom from Alaska. How can they? He flies everywhere in a private jet and has a model as a wife. But his issues did strike a chord. The Wall cut through.

    Trump didn't just defy the establishment. He defied what we thought for years were the outsiders: the ideological conservatives who hitherto cast themselves as the rebels. By beating Ted Cruz, Trump actually ran an insurgency against the insurgent. He demonstrated that what people wanted wasn't something more ideologically pure – as Cruz assumed – but something that was totally different.

    That is one big positive we can take from this campaign. If Trump can win when challenging the Republican position on trade and war, maybe someone in the future can win while challenging their positions on other things.

    Yes, this.

    Donald Trump did, in fact, beat the hell out of the GOP Establishment. But let's also note here that the GOP Establishment beat itself. If you haven't yet, check out conservative writer Matthew Sheffield's evisceration of the Republican Industrial Complex. It was e-mailed to me by a Republican friend who until fairly recently was part of that world, and knows about it intimately.

    This is also a good time to return to Tucker Carlson's great Politico piece from January , talking about how the failure of the Republican Industrial Complex created the opening for Trump. Key excerpt:

    American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn't.

    Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider it wasted.

    Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism."

    Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They're the ones who've been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they're telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don't, they're liberal.

    It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.

    On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good.

    Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn't said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals - these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the "ghost of George Wallace" that a Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their voters are rebelling.

    Read the whole thing. Let it sink in that Carlson wrote this before a single vote had been cast in the GOP primaries.

    This year, and this week, in Republican Party politics and in American conservatism has been about nothing but moral, intellectual, and institutional decadence. It did not happen because of Donald Trump. Donald Trump emerged because the institutions were rotten. It is an almost Shakespearean twist that Roger Ailes is being defenestrated from atop the Fox News empire even as Trump receives his crown in Cleveland.

    Trump didn't steal the Republican Party. It was his for the taking, because the people who run it and the institutions surrounding it failed.

    When Trump loses in November, maybe, just maybe, some new blood and new ideas will rebuild the party.

    And if he wins? We will have far bigger things to worry about than the fate of the Republican Party. We will be forced to contemplate the fate of the Republic itself.

    [Jul 22, 2016] Trumps the new face of paleo-conservatism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Shell-shocked, his foes, unwilling to admit their politically correct system has tanked, failed to understand that political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye. ..."
    "... "So many 'politically correct' fools in our country," Trump tweeted. "We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!" ..."
    "... Trump's candidacy is about so much more than personality. Once the media are forced to report Trump's positions, instead of his persona, even more Americans will see that Trump is the sole Republican who rejects a "free trade" that gives away the keys to the store and opposed the ill-fated Iraq war. He is the type of candidate Americans always wanted but the party establishments are too afraid to provide. ..."
    "... The last time America saw a strong paleo-conservative was Pat Buchanan in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first in New Hampshire. Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment in Arizona and, in terms of paleo-conservatism, many thought he was the Last of the Mohicans. Trump's campaign is Buchananesque with one difference: Trump has money, and loads of it. He can fend off any attack and self-finance his campaign. He is establishment kryptonite. ..."
    "... This reality is what makes him the new face of paleo-conservativism. It might also make him president. ..."
    Orlando Sentinel

    Political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye: Columnist. When the term paleo-conservative is floated in conversation, most folks imagine a creature out of Jurassic World. But paleo-conservatism - a near extinct brand of conservatism that heralds limited government, nonintervention, economic nationalism and Western traditions - is finding a comeback in an unlikely spokesperson.

    The history-making campaign of Donald Trump is turning the clock of U.S. politics back to a time when hubris was heroic and the truth, no matter how blunt, was king. It is resurrecting a political thought that does not play by the rules of modern politics.

    And as the nation saw the top-tier GOP candidates take the stage for the first time, they saw Trump, unapologetic and confident, alongside eight candidates clueless on how to contain him and a tongue-lashed Rand Paul.

    The debate itself highlighted the fear a Trump candidacy is creating throughout the political establishment. The very first question asked the candidates to pledge unconditional support to the eventual GOP nominee and refrain from a third-party run. Trump refused.

    Those in the Beltway resumed drafting Trump's political obituary. But while they were busy scribbling, post-debate polls showed Trump jumped in the polls. Republicans are ignoring their orders from headquarters and deflecting to the Donald.

    Shell-shocked, his foes, unwilling to admit their politically correct system has tanked, failed to understand that political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye.

    "So many 'politically correct' fools in our country," Trump tweeted. "We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!"

    Is he not correct? Days before the nation started debating Kelly's metaphorical blood, an unauthorized immigrant in New Jersey pleaded guilty to actually spilling the blood of 30-year-old Sviatlana Dranko and setting her body on fire. In the media, Dranko's blood is second fiddle. This contrast is not lost on the silent majority flocking to Trump.

    Trump's candidacy is about so much more than personality. Once the media are forced to report Trump's positions, instead of his persona, even more Americans will see that Trump is the sole Republican who rejects a "free trade" that gives away the keys to the store and opposed the ill-fated Iraq war. He is the type of candidate Americans always wanted but the party establishments are too afraid to provide.

    The last time America saw a strong paleo-conservative was Pat Buchanan in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first in New Hampshire. Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment in Arizona and, in terms of paleo-conservatism, many thought he was the Last of the Mohicans. Trump's campaign is Buchananesque with one difference: Trump has money, and loads of it. He can fend off any attack and self-finance his campaign. He is establishment kryptonite.

    This reality is what makes him the new face of paleo-conservativism. It might also make him president.

    Joseph R. Murray II is a civil-rights attorney, a conservative commentator and a former official with Pat Buchanan's 2000 campaign.

    [Jul 22, 2016] Scarborough Anti-Trump conservatives as arrogant and unmoored as MSNBC liberals

    Notable quotes:
    "... "[W]hat is most astonishing is the rising level of rage among Trump's political enemies from inside the Republican establishment," said Scarborough . "Many of my conservative friends are sounding as arrogant and unmoored as left-wing pundits let loose on MSNBC during the Bush years." ..."
    "... Trump, who does hold some positions at odds with traditional conservatism, such as strengthening entitlement programs, has fought back against that criticism, calling commentators like Will "eggheads." ..."
    4/3/16 | Washington Examiner

    MSNBC "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough is hitting back at some conservatives in the media who he says are taking an elitist attitude toward Donald Trump and his supporters.

    In a Sunday column for the Washington Post, Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, said that some conservative commentators "are sounding as cocooned from their own political party as any liberal writing social commentary for the New Yorker or providing political analysis for ABC News."

    "[W]hat is most astonishing is the rising level of rage among Trump's political enemies from inside the Republican establishment," said Scarborough. "Many of my conservative friends are sounding as arrogant and unmoored as left-wing pundits let loose on MSNBC during the Bush years."

    Scarborough took criticism earlier this year from some of the same commentators, and many others, for what critics call his fawning treatment of Trump in interviews.

    Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

    Some venerable right-leaning publications and commentators, like National Review and George Will of the Washington Post, have denounced Trump for, they say, his insufficient conservatism and his apparent lack of knowledge about conservative thinking and policy.

    Trump, who does hold some positions at odds with traditional conservatism, such as strengthening entitlement programs, has fought back against that criticism, calling commentators like Will "eggheads."

    [Jul 22, 2016] Trump raises three classic paleoconservative concerns: border security, economic nationalism, and being skeptical of these endless wars and interventions

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump has raised three issues of real concern to paleoconservatives and traditional conservatives like myself." ..."
    "... These three stances that Trump hits on to Buchanan's contentment are border security, economic nationalism, and being "skeptical of these endless wars and interventions." ..."
    "... "I think many folks who agree with me have welcomed Trump into the race," Buchanan said. He added while laughing, "the very fact that the neocons seem so disconsolate is the icing on the cake." ..."
    "... "Neocons offer nothing more than more wars," he said, before adding that their support for free trade is "almost a religious belief." ..."
    "... The person who will lead America to its end is Hillary Clinton. I don't know how to say it any clearer - Bill and Hillary are pure evil. All the stories about them while in Arkansas are true - murders, cocaine smuggling, money laundering and they continued their evil activities when Bill got into the White House. ..."
    "... They continue today with their Foundation which is nothing but a front for money laundering. It is not right wing conspiracies which Hillary continues to imply and the people whose deaths are connected to the Clinton's will never have justice. ..."
    The Daily Caller

    Buchanan ran in 1992 for the Republican party nomination on a platform opposing globalization, unfettered immigration, and the move away from social conservatism. He has been harping on these views ever since.

    "What we've gotten is proof that we were right," Buchanan told The Daily Caller Tuesday. While he said, "I would not say that Donald Trump is a paleoconservative," and, "I don't think [Trump's] a social conservative."

    Buchanan told TheDC, "I was just astonished to see him raise the precise issues on which we ran in the 1990s… Donald Trump has raised three issues of real concern to paleoconservatives and traditional conservatives like myself."

    These three stances that Trump hits on to Buchanan's contentment are border security, economic nationalism, and being "skeptical of these endless wars and interventions."

    "I think many folks who agree with me have welcomed Trump into the race," Buchanan said. He added while laughing, "the very fact that the neocons seem so disconsolate is the icing on the cake."

    Buchanan is not only opposed to immigration and trade, he is also a staunch social conservative. Trump has had two divorces and has previously held pro-choice views, making it tough for some to support him. Buchanan though said, "I think Trump respects the position of the social conservatives."

    "I do think he would appoint the type of justices that would unite the Republican Party," he said. The conservative commentator continued on to say, "I think the great emperor Constantine converted to Christianity but he may have killed one of his sons as well."

    Buchanan told TheDC, "we don't have any perfect candidates," but the other options besides Trump are more frightening.

    "Neocons offer nothing more than more wars," he said, before adding that their support for free trade is "almost a religious belief."

    Richard

    The person who will lead America to its end is Hillary Clinton. I don't know how to say it any clearer - Bill and Hillary are pure evil. All the stories about them while in Arkansas are true - murders, cocaine smuggling, money laundering and they continued their evil activities when Bill got into the White House.

    They continue today with their Foundation which is nothing but a front for money laundering. It is not right wing conspiracies which Hillary continues to imply and the people whose deaths are connected to the Clinton's will never have justice.

    Why is it that every time a Grand Jury was to be convened and people were subpoenaed to testify against the Clinton's, it never happened and some of those people ended up in prison, dead or disappeared. Anyone who has ever had files implicating the Clinton's of illegal activities either commits suicide or was murdered, and the files have disappeared. People if your voting for or have voted for Hillary - do your homework and learn about who you vote for?

    [Jul 22, 2016] Buchanan-Trump Embrace Recalls 2000 Reform Party Race

    Notable quotes:
    "... Though he has been a hugely successful builder-businessman, far more successful than, say, Carly Fiorina, who has been received respectfully, our resident elites resolutely refuse to take Trump seriously. ..."
    "... Trump's success comes from the issues he has seized upon - illegal immigration and trade deals that deindustrialized America - and brazen defiance of Republican elites and a media establishment. ..."
    "... The reaction of Trump's Republican rivals has been even more instructive. Initially, it was muted. But when major media began to demand that GOP candidates either denounce Trump or come under suspicion or racism themselves, the panic and pile-on began. ..."
    "... What Trump has done, and [Ted] Cruz sees it, is to have elevated the illegal immigration issue, taken a tough line, and is now attacking GOP rivals who have dithered or done nothing to deal with it. ..."
    "... Trump intends to exploit the illegal immigration issue, and the trade issue, where majorities of middle-class Americans oppose the elites. And he is going to ride them as far as he can in the Republican primaries. ..."
    independentpoliticalreport.com

    Since Trump's presidential announcement last month including controversial comments about illegal immigrants from Mexico, Buchanan has written two editorials on his website lauding Trump's efforts.

    On June 19, he published The Anti-Politician, in which he wrote:

    Though he has been a hugely successful builder-businessman, far more successful than, say, Carly Fiorina, who has been received respectfully, our resident elites resolutely refuse to take Trump seriously.

    They should. Not because he will be nominated, but because the Trump constituency will represent a vote of no confidence in the Beltway ruling class of politicians and press.

    Votes for Trump will be votes to repudiate that class, whole and entire, and dump it onto the ash heap of history.

    Votes for Trump will be votes to reject a regime run by Bushes and Clintons that plunged us into unnecessary wars, cannot secure our borders, and negotiates trade deals that produced the largest trade deficits known to man and gutted a manufacturing base that was once "the great arsenal of democracy" and envy of mankind.

    A vote for Trump is a vote to say that both parties have failed America and none of the current crop of candidates offers real hope of a better future.

    On July 7, he published Trump and the GOP Border War, commenting:

    Trump's success comes from the issues he has seized upon - illegal immigration and trade deals that deindustrialized America - and brazen defiance of Republican elites and a media establishment.

    By now the whole world has heard Trump's declaration:

    "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. … They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

    Politically incorrect? You betcha.

    Yet, is Trump not raising a valid issue? Is there not truth in what he said? Is not illegal immigration, and criminals crossing our Southern border, an issue of national import, indeed, of national security?

    . . .

    The reaction to Trump's comments has been instructive. NBC and Univision dropped his Miss USA and Miss Universe contests.

    Macy's has dropped the Trump clothing line. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is talking of terminating city contracts with Trump.

    The reaction of Trump's Republican rivals has been even more instructive. Initially, it was muted. But when major media began to demand that GOP candidates either denounce Trump or come under suspicion or racism themselves, the panic and pile-on began.

    . . .

    What Trump has done, and [Ted] Cruz sees it, is to have elevated the illegal immigration issue, taken a tough line, and is now attacking GOP rivals who have dithered or done nothing to deal with it.

    Trump intends to exploit the illegal immigration issue, and the trade issue, where majorities of middle-class Americans oppose the elites. And he is going to ride them as far as he can in the Republican primaries.

    In the coming debates, look for Trump to take the populist and popular side of them both. And for Cruz to stand by him on illegal immigration.

    Americans are fed up with words; they want action. Trump is moving in the polls because, whatever else he may be, he is a man of action.

    Trump later retweeted and thanked a follower who cited to Buchanan's labeling of Trump as "a man of action."

    [Jul 22, 2016] Trump A Southern Conservative Perspective

    Notable quotes:
    "... From a Paleo-Conservative perspective what is there to lose with Trump as POTUS? In the absence of a Trumpian paradigm shift in American politics, the status quo will indeed change, quite dramatically, but not in the direction favorable to the principles of 1776 and 1861. At least with a President Trump there is a chance, possible but not necessarily probable, for change in the right direction. As the presidential campaigning heats up, Middle America is bound to rise up. The collective wisdom of Middle America seems to understand that Trump is not the perfect candidate, but they also seem to realize (to paraphrase M. E. Bradford) "that all of us who will not take half a loaf will get a stone." ..."
    Abbeville Institute
    There are several attributes of Donald Trump's bid for the U.S. Presidency that this Paleo-Conservative finds to be interesting. To follow is an adumbration of the more salient.
    1. His campaign style is refreshing. The absence of teleprompters, which results in spontaneity, which in turn reveals the unvarnished candidate in contradistinction to the coached, stale, and unconvincing political hacks, is refreshing. Trump's campaign speeches and debate performance have actually juiced up political discourse, making politics interesting not simply for the political class but also for Middle American.
    2. The engagement of Middle American into this presidential election cycle have the political class spooked. It is this same political class responsible for the removal of all things Confederate from the public square, not Middle American. It is Middle America that has catapulted Trump into the lead. In other words, Middle America may actually have some meaningful input into the election of the next POTUS.
    3. The spooking of the political class has exposed what it thinks of Middle America. Its charge against Trump is that the bulk of his support rests upon the inherent racism, national jingoism and stupidity of average Americans. Some have even claimed that Trump is a closet fascist and that his supporters are inherently supportive of fascism. This is nonsense. Middle America's detestation of ruling elites is not fascist, but it is an acknowledgment that it will take a strongman, statesman if you prefer, to knock out the ruling elites.
    4. Trump's detractors may be his best campaign weapon. Without knowing much about Trump's policy positions, immigration notwithstanding, there is logic in supporting Trump based upon knowing who his political enemies are. This may be the best voting cue Middle America has. The enemy (Trump) of my enemy (the ruling class) is my friend. In other words, the more Trump agitates the ruling class the more he endears himself to Middle America.
    5. Trump appears to be more the pragmatist than ideologue, and that's a good thing. The American federative republic's original blueprint is nomocratic (a Southern characteristic), but has been replaced with a teleocratic (New England Puritanism) one. It is the latter that has resulted in the unitary US of A, nation-building abroad and the welfare state domestically.
    6. For any Southern patriot the status quo in American politics is totally unacceptable. One thing is fairly certain; if Trump were to be the next POTUS, the status quo would be in for quite a shock. At this point it matters little how the status quo might be changed. Middle America wants change and it wants it now. Moreover, if Trump were to succeed in his bid to be the next POTUS, he would be much more likely to expose the fraud and corruption inside the beltway than any of his presidential campaign competitors. Unlike the latter, he would not be held captive to the interests that funnel money and votes to sustain the status quo, but to the average American voter, i.e., Middle America.
    7. The disruptions, if not chaos, Trump might affect in Washington may result in preoccupying the ruling class to the extent that the focus on things Southern, e.g., the Battle Flag, may dissipate. This might just provide Southern patriots with the space to regroup and be better prepared for the next assault on their culture.

    Trump's campaign slogan is Make America Great Again. As an intelligent man he must know that to achieve that goal he must remove the government shackles, e.g., taxation, regulations, and centralization, holding Americans and America down, both domestically and internationally.

    From a Paleo-Conservative perspective what is there to lose with Trump as POTUS? In the absence of a Trumpian paradigm shift in American politics, the status quo will indeed change, quite dramatically, but not in the direction favorable to the principles of 1776 and 1861. At least with a President Trump there is a chance, possible but not necessarily probable, for change in the right direction. As the presidential campaigning heats up, Middle America is bound to rise up. The collective wisdom of Middle America seems to understand that Trump is not the perfect candidate, but they also seem to realize (to paraphrase M. E. Bradford) "that all of us who will not take half a loaf will get a stone."

    Marshall DeRosa received his Ph.D. and M.A. from the University of Houston and his B. A. from West Virginia University, Magna Cum Laude. He has taught at Davis and Elkins College (1985-1988), Louisiana State University (1988-1990), and Florida Atlantic University (1990-Present). He is a Salvatori Fellow with the Heritage Foundation and full professor in the Department of Political Science. He has published articles and reviews in professional journals, book chapters, and three books. He resides in Wellington, FL, with his wife and four children. More from Marshall DeRosa

    [Jul 22, 2016] Donald Trump Rallies His Movement on the Eve of New Hampshire Battle

    Notable quotes:
    "... Build the wall to block the gangsters and their heroin shipments. "We have situations right now where we have the migration. And we're accepting people in. And we're accepting them in by the thousands ..."
    "... Trump wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a private system with more options and no state-specific boundaries, lower deductibles, take on the drug companies and install competitive bidding for medicine, and save enough money to take care of the poor. ..."
    "... He wants to strengthen the armed forces but cut waste out of the budget and re-focus it. "We're buying equipment and we're buying things that our generals don't even want. We're buying planes they don't want instead of other ones because that company has better lobbyists… ..."
    "... This is the politics of putting America First. It echoes the politics of Ross Perot's Reform Party, which once almost became Trump's party and which once housed Trump friend and paleoconservative firebrand Pat Buchanan. ..."
    www.breitbart.com

    Trump has turned the Republican primary into a reality show. It's an effective tactic, one that resonates with a country weaned on the TV genre that he helped to create. The sweating, bumbling politicians have all become boardroom wannabes or castaways on an island where their flaws are exposed, picked apart, and analyzed. And they all come off dishonest compared to him. This is the politics of Richard Pryor as Montgomery Brewster and Peter Sellers as Chance the Gardener. This was never supposed to happen. But it did.

    And scarier still for the suits trying so hard to shut it down: Trump has substance.

    • On the border: Build the wall to block the gangsters and their heroin shipments. "We have situations right now where we have the migration. And we're accepting people in. And we're accepting them in by the thousands…Look at New Hampshire, the problems you have with the drugs. We are letting people into this country and we have absolutely no idea who they are, where they come from, are they ISIS? Maybe, maybe not."
    • On health care: Trump wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a private system with more options and no state-specific boundaries, lower deductibles, take on the drug companies and install competitive bidding for medicine, and save enough money to take care of the poor. And he brushed off those who say it's not the Republican Way. "There's a small group of people on the bottom who are not going to be able to be taken care of [under Obamacare]. And I say, as Republicans, is there anybody who doesn't want to take care of them? We are not going to have people dying on the streets. We're going to get them into a hospital to take care of them…Let me tell you, the Republican way is, People CAN take care of themselves. We have to help them. We're not going to let them die."
    • On the military: He wants to strengthen the armed forces but cut waste out of the budget and re-focus it. "We're buying equipment and we're buying things that our generals don't even want. We're buying planes they don't want instead of other ones because that company has better lobbyists…We're going to get them the equipment they want. We're going to save a lot of money." He wants to build a military so strong we'll never have to use it. After we take care of ISIS, that is. And no more nation-building experiments that de-stabilize the Middle East and embolden Iran. "Nobody, I'm telling you, nobody, is going to want to play with us."

    This is the politics of putting America First. It echoes the politics of Ross Perot's Reform Party, which once almost became Trump's party and which once housed Trump friend and paleoconservative firebrand Pat Buchanan.

    When Trump explains his views, it all sounds self-evident. It sounds like common sense. It wouldn't sound so controversial if we didn't live in a media climate controlled by globalist corporate interests. It's the kind of politics - tough, protectionist, and nationally self-interested - that Trump has been thinking about for a very long time.

    And now, like the last American tycoon, he's the only one fighting for it.

    [Jul 22, 2016] Putins Paleoconservative Moment

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered." ..."
    "... "They're now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil." ..."
    "... President Reagan once called the old Soviet Empire "the focus of evil in the modern world." President Putin is implying that Barack Obama's America may deserve the title in the 21st century. ..."
    "... Nor is he without an argument when we reflect on America's embrace of abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, pornography, promiscuity, and the whole panoply of Hollywood values. ..."
    "... Unelected justices declared abortion and homosexual acts to be constitutionally protected rights. Judges have been the driving force behind the imposition of same-sex marriage. Attorney General Eric Holder refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. ..."
    "... America was de-Christianized in the second half of the 20th century by court orders, over the vehement objections of a huge majority of a country that was overwhelmingly Christian. ..."
    "... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of " Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? " Copyright 2013 Creators.com . ..."
    December 17, 2013 | The American Conservative
    Is Vladimir Putin a paleoconservative? In the culture war for mankind's future, is he one of us? While such a question may be blasphemous in Western circles, consider the content of the Russian president's state of the nation address.

    With America clearly in mind, Putin declared, "In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered."

    "They're now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil."

    Translation: While privacy and freedom of thought, religion and speech are cherished rights, to equate traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is to equate good with evil.

    No moral confusion here, this is moral clarity, agree or disagree.

    President Reagan once called the old Soviet Empire "the focus of evil in the modern world." President Putin is implying that Barack Obama's America may deserve the title in the 21st century.

    Nor is he without an argument when we reflect on America's embrace of abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, pornography, promiscuity, and the whole panoply of Hollywood values.

    Our grandparents would not recognize the America in which we live.

    Moreover, Putin asserts, the new immorality has been imposed undemocratically.

    The "destruction of traditional values" in these countries, he said, comes "from the top" and is "inherently undemocratic because it is based on abstract ideas and runs counter to the will of the majority of people."

    Does he not have a point?

    Unelected justices declared abortion and homosexual acts to be constitutionally protected rights. Judges have been the driving force behind the imposition of same-sex marriage. Attorney General Eric Holder refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

    America was de-Christianized in the second half of the 20th century by court orders, over the vehement objections of a huge majority of a country that was overwhelmingly Christian.

    And same-sex marriage is indeed an "abstract" idea unrooted in the history or tradition of the West. Where did it come from?

    Peoples all over the world, claims Putin, are supporting Russia's "defense of traditional values" against a "so-called tolerance" that is "genderless and infertile."

    While his stance as a defender of traditional values has drawn the mockery of Western media and cultural elites, Putin is not wrong in saying that he can speak for much of mankind.

    Same-sex marriage is supported by America's young, but most states still resist it, with black pastors visible in the vanguard of the counterrevolution. In France, a million people took to the streets of Paris to denounce the Socialists' imposition of homosexual marriage.

    Only 15 nations out of more than 190 have recognized it.

    In India, the world's largest democracy, the Supreme Court has struck down a lower court ruling that made same-sex marriage a right. And the parliament in this socially conservative nation of more than a billion people is unlikely soon to reverse the high court.

    In the four dozen nations that are predominantly Muslim, which make up a fourth of the U.N. General Assembly and a fifth of mankind, same-sex marriage is not even on the table. And Pope Francis has reaffirmed Catholic doctrine on the issue for over a billion Catholics.

    While much of American and Western media dismiss him as an authoritarian and reactionary, a throwback, Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught up in a Cold War paradigm.

    As the decisive struggle in the second half of the 20th century was vertical, East vs. West, the 21st century struggle may be horizontal, with conservatives and traditionalists in every country arrayed against the militant secularism of a multicultural and transnational elite.

    And though America's elite may be found at the epicenter of anti-conservatism and anti-traditionalism, the American people have never been more alienated or more divided culturally, socially and morally.

    We are two countries now.

    Putin says his mother had him secretly baptized as a baby and professes to be a Christian. And what he is talking about here is ambitious, even audacious.

    He is seeking to redefine the "Us vs. Them" world conflict of the future as one in which conservatives, traditionalists, and nationalists of all continents and countries stand up against the cultural and ideological imperialism of what he sees as a decadent west.

    "We do not infringe on anyone's interests," said Putin, "or try to teach anyone how to live." The adversary he has identified is not the America we grew up in, but the America we live in, which Putin sees as pagan and wildly progressive.

    Without naming any country, Putin attacked "attempts to enforce more progressive development models" on other nations, which have led to "decline, barbarity, and big blood," a straight shot at the U.S. interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Egypt.

    In his speech, Putin cited Russian philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev whom Solzhenitsyn had hailed for his courage in defying his Bolshevik inquisitors. Though no household word, Berdyaev is favorably known at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal.

    Which raises this question: Who is writing Putin's stuff?

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" Copyright 2013 Creators.com.

    [Jul 22, 2016] The Paleo Persuasion

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The U.S., as paleos have claimed for decades, was only meant to be a constitutional republic, not an empire-as Buchanan's 1999 foreign policy tome A Republic, Not an Empire nostalgically states," Scotchie explains. "Republics mind their own business. Their governments have very limited powers, and their people are too busy practicing self-government to worry about problems in other countries. Empires not only bully smaller, defenseless nations, they also can't leave their own, hapless subjects alone…. Empires and the tenth amendment aren't friends…. Empires and small government aren't compatible, either." ..."
    "... If anti-interventionism and a commitment to the Old Republic defined by strict-construction constitutionalism and highly localized and independent social and political institutions defined one major dimension of paleoconservatism, its antipathy to the mass immigration that began to flood the country in the 1980s defined another. Indeed, it was ostensibly and mainly Chronicles' declaration of opposition to immigration that incited the neoconservative attack on Rockford and its subsequent defunding. Scotchie devotes a special but short chapter to paleoconservative thought on immigration and makes clear that to paleos, America was an extension of Western civilization. It was intended by the Founding Fathers to be an Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nation also influenced by Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem. Large-scale immigration from non-Western nations would, as Fleming (and most other paleos) maintained, forever spoil a distinct American civilization. ..."
    "... The implication of this passage is that paleoconservatives, unlike libertarians, most neoconservatives, and many contemporary mainstream conservatives, do not consider America to be an "idea," a "proposition," or a "creed." It is instead a concrete and particular culture, rooted in a particular historical experience, a set of particular institutions as well as particular beliefs and values, and a particular ethnic-racial identity, and, cut off from those roots, it cannot survive. Indeed, it is not surviving now, for all the glint and glitter of empire. ..."
    The American Conservative

    Joseph Scotchie's Revolt from the Heartland is not, as some readers might guess from the title, about the terrorism of right-wing militias in the Midwestern United States, although some readers might also say that guess was close enough. In fact, Revolt from the Heartland deals with the emergence of "paleoconservatism," a species of conservative thought that despite its name ("paleo" is a Greek prefix meaning "old") is a fairly recent twist in the cunningly knotted mind of the American Right. While paleos sometimes like to characterize their beliefs as merely the continuation of the conservative thought of the 1950s and '60s, and while in fact many of them do have their personal and intellectual roots in the conservatism of that era, the truth is that what is now called paleoconservatism is at least as new as the neoconservatism at which many paleos like to sniff as a newcomer.

    Paleoconservatism is largely the invention of a single magazine, the Rockford Institute's Chronicles, as it has been edited since the mid-1980s by Thomas Fleming, and Scotchie's book is essentially an account of what Fleming and his major colleagues at Chronicles mainly, historian Paul Gottfried, book review editor Chilton Williamson Jr., professor Clyde Wilson, and I believe, and what the differences are between our brand of conservatism and others.

    Scotchie's first three chapters are a survey of the history of American conservatism up until the advent of Chronicles, including an account of the "Old Right" of the pre-World-War-II, pre-Depression eras (for once, an account not confined to the libertarian "isolationists" but encompassing also the Southern Agrarians), as well as the emergence of the "Cold War conservatism" of National Review and the neoconservatism of the Reagan era and after. Scotchie's overview of these different shades of the Right is useful in itself and necessary to clarify the differences between these colorations and the paleos who constitute his main subject, though he may underestimate the differentiation between the current, paleo "Old Right" and earlier "Old Rights."

    Although Scotchie does not put it quite this way, contemporary paleoconservatism developed as a reaction against three trends in the American Right during the Reagan administration. First, it reacted against the bid for dominance by the neoconservatives, former liberals who insisted not only that their version of conservative ideology and rhetoric prevail over those of older conservatives, but also that their team should get the rewards of office and patronage and that the other team of the older Right receive virtually nothing.

    ... ... ...

    Paleos and those who soon identified with them almost spontaneously rejected U.S. military intervention against Iraq. It was a moment, falling only a year after the neoconservative onslaught on the Rockford Institute, that solidified the paleoconservative identity.

    "The U.S., as paleos have claimed for decades, was only meant to be a constitutional republic, not an empire-as Buchanan's 1999 foreign policy tome A Republic, Not an Empire nostalgically states," Scotchie explains. "Republics mind their own business. Their governments have very limited powers, and their people are too busy practicing self-government to worry about problems in other countries. Empires not only bully smaller, defenseless nations, they also can't leave their own, hapless subjects alone…. Empires and the tenth amendment aren't friends…. Empires and small government aren't compatible, either."

    If anti-interventionism and a commitment to the Old Republic defined by strict-construction constitutionalism and highly localized and independent social and political institutions defined one major dimension of paleoconservatism, its antipathy to the mass immigration that began to flood the country in the 1980s defined another. Indeed, it was ostensibly and mainly Chronicles' declaration of opposition to immigration that incited the neoconservative attack on Rockford and its subsequent defunding. Scotchie devotes a special but short chapter to paleoconservative thought on immigration and makes clear that to paleos, America was an extension of Western civilization. It was intended by the Founding Fathers to be an Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nation also influenced by Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem. Large-scale immigration from non-Western nations would, as Fleming (and most other paleos) maintained, forever spoil a distinct American civilization.

    The implication of this passage is that paleoconservatives, unlike libertarians, most neoconservatives, and many contemporary mainstream conservatives, do not consider America to be an "idea," a "proposition," or a "creed." It is instead a concrete and particular culture, rooted in a particular historical experience, a set of particular institutions as well as particular beliefs and values, and a particular ethnic-racial identity, and, cut off from those roots, it cannot survive. Indeed, it is not surviving now, for all the glint and glitter of empire.

    [Jul 21, 2016] Trump is Republican voters protest against a party that failed them

    Trump is essentially a paleoconservative and as such is hostile to neocons that dominate Washington establishment. That's' why they hate him so much and blackmail him so much.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed them, and the fact that Trump is thoroughly unqualified for the office he seeks makes that judgment all the more damning. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com
    Trump officially secured the Republican nomination last night:

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

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

    Had the Bush administration not presided over multiple disasters, most of them of their own making, there would have been no opening or occasion for the repudiation of the party's leaders that we have seen this year. Had the party served the interests of most of its voters instead of catering to the preferences of their donors and corporations, there would have been much less support for someone like Trump. Party leaders spent decades conning Republican voters with promises they knew they wouldn't or couldn't fulfill, and then were shocked when most of those voters turned against them.

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

    [Jul 21, 2016] Donald Trump, the Perfect Populist

    Notable quotes:
    "... the best explanation of Trump's surprising success is that the constituency he has mobilized has existed for decades but the right champion never came along. ..."
    "... Trump's platform combines positions that are shared by many populists but are anathema to movement conservatives-a defense of Social Security, a guarantee of universal health care, economic nationalist trade policies. "We have expanded the Republican Party," Trump claimed the night of his Super Tuesday victories. ..."
    "... Buchanan, in a recent interview , characterized Trump as his populist heir. "What Trump has today is conclusive evidence to prove that what some of us warned about in the 1990s has come to pass," he said. But the evidence is that Trump doesn't see it that way. Trump even competed briefly with Buchanan for the presidential nomination. T he year was 2000 , and Trump, encouraged by his friend Jesse Ventura, then governor of Minnesota, was considering a run for the presidential nomination of Perot's Reform Party, on the grounds that the Republican Party of George W. Bush and Karl Rove had "moved too far toward the extreme far right." Trump and Ventura hoped to rescue the Reform Party from the conservative allies of Buchanan, of whom Trump said: "He's a Hitler lover; I guess he's an anti-Semite. He doesn't like the blacks, he doesn't like the gays." Trump floated the idea of Oprah Winfrey as his running mate . In his 2000 manifesto The America We Deserve , Trump proposed a platform that included universal employer- based health insurance, gays in the military and a one-time 14.5 percent tax on the rich that would reduce the federal deficit and help eliminate the shortfall in Social Security. ..."
    "... Compared to Trump, Buchanan was a flawed vehicle for the Jacksonian populism of the ex-Democratic white working class. So was another Pat, the Reverend Pat Robertson, television evangelist, founder of the Christian Coalition, and, like Buchanan, a failed candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. But while the mainstream conservative movement marginalized Buchanan, it embraced Robertson and other evangelical Protestant leaders like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson of Focus on the Family. ..."
    "... On social issues like abortion and gay rights, Buchanan shared the agenda of the religious right. But his advocacy of tariffs to protect American industry and immigration restriction threatened the mainstream right's consensus in favor of free trade and increased legal immigration. And his neo-isolationism threatened the post-Cold War American right's support of high military spending and an assertive global foreign policy. ..."
    "... Many of the rank-and-file members of the religious right shared the traditional populist suspicion of bankers and big business ..."
    "... But even before the unexpected success of Trump in the Republican primary race beginning in 2015, there were signs that this generation-old bargain was coming undone. Hostility to both illegal immigration and high levels of legal immigration, a position which free-market conservatives had fought to marginalize, has moved very quickly from heresy to orthodoxy in the GOP. ..."
    "... There were other signs of populist discontent with establishment conservative orthodoxy, for those who paid attention. No project is dearer to the hearts of mainstream movement conservatives than the goal of privatizing Social Security, a hated symbol of the dependency-inducing "statism" of the allegedly tyrannical Franklin D. Roosevelt. But George W. Bush's plan to partly privatize Social Security was so unpopular, even among Republican voters, that a Republican-controlled Congress did not even bother to vote on it in 2005. ..."
    POLITICO Magazine
    Trump, in fact, has more appeal to the center than the conservative populists of the last half century. Before Trump's rise in this year's Republican primary elections, the best-known populist presidential candidates were Alabama Governor Wallace and tycoon Ross Perot, along with Buchanan. Yet none of these past figures had broad enough appeal to hope to win the White House. Despite his folksy demeanor, Perot was more of a technocrat than a populist and did poorly in traditionally populist areas of the South and Midwest, where Trump is doing well. Wallace was an outspoken white supremacist, while Trump tends to speak in a kind of code, starting with his "birther" campaign against President Obama, and his criticism of illegal immigrants and proposed ban on Muslims may appeal to fringe white nationalists even if it has offended many if not most Latinos. Nor has Trump alienated large sections of the electorate by casting his lot with Old Right isolationism, as Buchanan did, or by adopting the religious right social agenda of Robertson.

    Indeed, the best explanation of Trump's surprising success is that the constituency he has mobilized has existed for decades but the right champion never came along. What conservative apparatchiks hate about Trump-his insufficient conservatism-may be his greatest strength in the general election. His populism cuts across party lines like few others before him. Like his fans, Trump is indifferent to the issues of sexual orientation that animate the declining religious right, even to the point of defending Planned Parenthood. Trump's platform combines positions that are shared by many populists but are anathema to movement conservatives-a defense of Social Security, a guarantee of universal health care, economic nationalist trade policies. "We have expanded the Republican Party," Trump claimed the night of his Super Tuesday victories.

    He may well be right, though it's not clear what that Republican Party will look like in the end.

    ... ... ...

    Buchanan, a former Nixon aide and conservative journalist, ran unsuccessfully for the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and was awarded with a prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention that nominated George Herbert Walker Bush for a second term in the White House. Buchanan's speech focused almost entirely on the "religious war" and "culture war" to save America from feminism, legal abortion, gay rights, and "the raw sewage of pornography."

    In his 1996 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, and in his 2000 campaign as the Reform Party nominee, Buchanan emphasized populist themes of economic nationalism and immigration restriction. But he was too much of a member of the Old Right that despised FDR and sought a return to the isolationism of Robert Taft and Charles Lindbergh to have much appeal to former New Deal Democrats. Buchanan's history of borderline anti-Semitic remarks led William F. Buckley Jr. to criticize him in "In Search of Anti-Semitism," (1992) and some of his associates like Samuel Francis were overt white racial nationalists.

    For Reagan Democrats and their children and grandchildren, World War II showed America at its best. But Buchanan concluded a long career of eccentric World War II revisionism in 2009 with "Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost its Empire and the West Lost the World," arguing that Hitler should have been appeased by Britain and the U.S.

    Buchanan, in a recent interview, characterized Trump as his populist heir. "What Trump has today is conclusive evidence to prove that what some of us warned about in the 1990s has come to pass," he said. But the evidence is that Trump doesn't see it that way. Trump even competed briefly with Buchanan for the presidential nomination. The year was 2000, and Trump, encouraged by his friend Jesse Ventura, then governor of Minnesota, was considering a run for the presidential nomination of Perot's Reform Party, on the grounds that the Republican Party of George W. Bush and Karl Rove had "moved too far toward the extreme far right." Trump and Ventura hoped to rescue the Reform Party from the conservative allies of Buchanan, of whom Trump said: "He's a Hitler lover; I guess he's an anti-Semite. He doesn't like the blacks, he doesn't like the gays." Trump floated the idea of Oprah Winfrey as his running mate . In his 2000 manifesto The America We Deserve, Trump proposed a platform that included universal employer- based health insurance, gays in the military and a one-time 14.5 percent tax on the rich that would reduce the federal deficit and help eliminate the shortfall in Social Security.

    In his press release announcing his withdrawal from the race for the presidential nomination of the Reform Party, Trump wrote: "Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan. So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman-Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi-Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist-Ms. [Lenora] Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."

    Compared to Trump, Buchanan was a flawed vehicle for the Jacksonian populism of the ex-Democratic white working class. So was another Pat, the Reverend Pat Robertson, television evangelist, founder of the Christian Coalition, and, like Buchanan, a failed candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. But while the mainstream conservative movement marginalized Buchanan, it embraced Robertson and other evangelical Protestant leaders like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson of Focus on the Family.

    On social issues like abortion and gay rights, Buchanan shared the agenda of the religious right. But his advocacy of tariffs to protect American industry and immigration restriction threatened the mainstream right's consensus in favor of free trade and increased legal immigration. And his neo-isolationism threatened the post-Cold War American right's support of high military spending and an assertive global foreign policy.

    Unlike Buchanan, Robertson and other religious right leaders did not deviate from the Republican Party line on trade, immigration, or tax cuts for the rich. Many of the rank-and-file members of the religious right shared the traditional populist suspicion of bankers and big business. But in the 1990s there was a tacit understanding that religious right activists would focus on issues of sex and reproduction and school prayer, leaving economics to free-marketers. In foreign policy, the Christian Zionism of many Protestant evangelicals made them reliable allies of neoconservatives with close ties to Israel and supportive of the Iraq War and other U.S. interventions in the Middle East.

    From the 1980s until this decade, the religious right was the toothless, domesticated "designated populist" wing of the Republican coalition, and mainstream conservative politicians took it for granted that as long as they said they opposed abortion and gay marriage, evangelical voters would support free-market conservative economics and interventionist neoconservative foreign policy.

    But even before the unexpected success of Trump in the Republican primary race beginning in 2015, there were signs that this generation-old bargain was coming undone. Hostility to both illegal immigration and high levels of legal immigration, a position which free-market conservatives had fought to marginalize, has moved very quickly from heresy to orthodoxy in the GOP. The opposition of populist conservatives killed comprehensive immigration reform under George W. Bush in 2007 and also killed the Gang of Eight immigration reform effort led in part by Senator Marco Rubio in 2013. The defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the 2014 Republican primary for the 7th District of Virginia by an unknown conservative academic, David Brat, was attributed largely to Cantor's support for the immigration reform effort.

    There were other signs of populist discontent with establishment conservative orthodoxy, for those who paid attention. No project is dearer to the hearts of mainstream movement conservatives than the goal of privatizing Social Security, a hated symbol of the dependency-inducing "statism" of the allegedly tyrannical Franklin D. Roosevelt. But George W. Bush's plan to partly privatize Social Security was so unpopular, even among Republican voters, that a Republican-controlled Congress did not even bother to vote on it in 2005. And a Republican-controlled Congress passed Medicare Part D in 2003-the biggest expansion of a universal middle-class entitlement between the creation of Medicare in 1965 and the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Blue collar Republican voters applauded, as libertarian think-tankers raged.

    Conservative populists cannot be accused of inconsistency. Like New Deal Democrats before them, they tend to favor universal benefits for which the middle class is eligible like Social Security, Medicare and Medicare Part D, and to oppose welfare programs like Medicaid and the ACA which feature means tests that make the working class and middle class ineligible. The true inconsistency is on the part of the mainstream conservative movement, which has yoked together left-inspired crusades for global democratic revolution abroad with minimal-state libertarianism at home.

    It remains to be seen whether Trump can win the Republican nomination, much less the White House. But whatever becomes of his candidacy, it seems likely that his campaign will prove to be just one of many episodes in the gradual replacement of Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan conservatism by something more like European national populist movements, such as the National Front in France and the United Kingdom Independence Party in Britain. Unlike Goldwater, who spearheaded an already-existing alliance consisting of National Review, Modern Age, and Young Americans for Freedom, Trump has followers but no supportive structure of policy experts and journalists. But it seems likely that some Republican experts and editors, seeking to appeal to his voters in the future, will promote a Trump-like national populist synthesis of middle-class social insurance plus immigration restriction and foreign policy realpolitik,through conventional policy papers and op-eds rather than blustering speeches and tweets.

    That's looking ahead. Glancing backward, it is unclear that there has ever been any significant number of voters who share the worldview of the policy elites in conservative think tanks and journals. In hindsight, the various right-wing movements-the fusionist conservatism of Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan, neoconservatism, libertarianism, the religious right-appear to have been so many barnacles hitching free rides on the whale of the Jacksonian populist electorate. The whale is awakening beneath them, and now the barnacles don't know what to do.

    Michael Lind is a Politico Magazine contributing editor and author of Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics.

    [Jul 21, 2016] Donald Trumps weaponized [paleoconservatism] platform A project three decades in the making

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump advances core paleoconservative positions laid out in "The Next Conservatism" - rebuilding infrastructure, protective tariffs, securing borders and stopping immigration, neutralizing designated internal enemies and isolationism. ..."
    "... I don't like what I see happening to America. The infrastructure of our country is a laughingstock all over the world. Our airports, our bridges, our roadways - it's falling apart. It's terrible thing to see. Our politicians are all talk, no action. Millions of people are flowing across our Southern border. We've got to build a real wall… Let's make America great again. ..."
    "... He says Republicans (along with Democrats) have aided the deindustrialization of America and the dispossession of the middle class, wasted the national treasure on idiotic wars (such as in Iraq) and enabled the dramatic expansion of repressive federal power. ..."
    "... As far as Trump's campaign platform goes, he appears to be capitalizing on the ideas of some of America's most astute right-wing thinkers, Weyrich and Lind, who have crafted a new breed of conservatism with far broader populist appeal than the increasingly discredited trickle-down economics, big government, interventionist, corporate capitalism-beholden style of conservatism that's become dominant in the years since Reagan. Think of the power of the platform. Prior to the election, it was taken for granted that funding from plutocratic billionaires - the Kochs, Adelson, and so on - would shape the GOP primary outcome. Now, Trump has unique talents that set him apart, sure - but without the paleocon program, Trump would be just another Republican in the pack. ..."
    Jul 16, 2016 | Salon.com
    The corporate media haven't been able to make much sense of Donald Trump. One thing they've said is that he's non-ideological, or at least at odds with "true conservatives." But you've pointed he has strong affinities for paleoconservative ideas, particularly as laid out in the 2009 book, "The Next Conservatism" by Paul Weyrich and William Lind - a copy of which Lind recently gave to Trump. You wrote, "Trump could have derived most of his 2016 primary positions from a two-hour session with Lind's and Weyrich's book." Could you elaborate?

    Trump advances core paleoconservative positions laid out in "The Next Conservatism" - rebuilding infrastructure, protective tariffs, securing borders and stopping immigration, neutralizing designated internal enemies and isolationism.

    For example, an eleven-minute pro-Trump infomercial from August 2015, "'On Point' With Sarah Palin and Donald Trump" - which now has over 3,800,000 views - begins with a mini-Trump speech that could have been ghostwritten by William Lind:

    I don't like what I see happening to America. The infrastructure of our country is a laughingstock all over the world. Our airports, our bridges, our roadways - it's falling apart. It's terrible thing to see. Our politicians are all talk, no action. Millions of people are flowing across our Southern border. We've got to build a real wall… Let's make America great again.

    ... ... ...

    Lind says they're intellectually vacuous, and that the current conservatism is "rubbish" and filled with "'I've got mine' smugness." He says Republicans (along with Democrats) have aided the deindustrialization of America and the dispossession of the middle class, wasted the national treasure on idiotic wars (such as in Iraq) and enabled the dramatic expansion of repressive federal power.

    ... ... ...

    As far as Trump's campaign platform goes, he appears to be capitalizing on the ideas of some of America's most astute right-wing thinkers, Weyrich and Lind, who have crafted a new breed of conservatism with far broader populist appeal than the increasingly discredited trickle-down economics, big government, interventionist, corporate capitalism-beholden style of conservatism that's become dominant in the years since Reagan. Think of the power of the platform. Prior to the election, it was taken for granted that funding from plutocratic billionaires - the Kochs, Adelson, and so on - would shape the GOP primary outcome. Now, Trump has unique talents that set him apart, sure - but without the paleocon program, Trump would be just another Republican in the pack.

    Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English. Follow him on Twitter at @PaulHRosenberg.

    [Jul 21, 2016] Paleoconservatism, the movement that explains Donald Trump, explained by Dylan Matthews

    Notable quotes:
    "... The term "paleoconservatism" is a retronym coined in the 1980s to characterize a brand of conservatism that was by then going extinct, a brand exemplified by Robert Taft, the Ohio senator and legendary isolationist who lost the 1952 Republican nomination to Dwight Eisenhower. In its day it was often referred to as the "Old Right." ..."
    "... Republican isolationists prevented the US from participating in the League of Nations, led a largely non-interventionist foreign policy in the '20s, and were skeptical of the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine in the early years of the Cold War. ..."
    "... The increasing interest of American business in trade abroad made the anti-internationalism of the Old Right increasingly unviable in the party of capital. ..."
    "... The losses kept coming. In the 1980s, the rise of neoconservatism both threatened the anti-internationalist, America-first mentality of the paleocons and enraged them due to the prominence of Jewish writers in the neoconservative movement. ..."
    "... They nearly universally opposed the war in Iraq and war on terror more broadly, and were deeply skeptical of Bill Clinton's humanitarian interventions in the Balkans. ..."
    "... "We are getting out of the nation-building business, and instead focusing on creating stability in the world," he declares. "Our moments of greatest strength came when politics ended at the water's edge." That's pure paleocon. ..."
    "... Whether the establishment likes it or not, and it evidently does not, there is a revolution going on in America. The old order in this capital city is on the way out, America is crossing a great divide, and there is no going back. Donald Trump's triumphant march to the nomination in Cleveland, virtually assured by his five-state sweep Tuesday, confirms it, as does his foreign policy address of Wednesday. ..."
    "... Donald Trump has raised three issues of real concern to paleoconservatives and traditional conservatives like myself." ..."
    "... Trump is an imperfect paleocon. He's unrefined, a recent convert, and not as socially conservative as they may like. But on the important stuff, the term fits him better than any other. ..."
    May 6, 2016 | Vox

    One of the strangest allegations leveled against Donald Trump by his Republican critics is that he's not a conservative - or even, in the most extreme version of this critique, that he's actually a liberal.

    "People can support Donald Trump, but they cannot support him on conservative grounds," former George W. Bush aide Peter Wehner writes at Commentary. "The case for constitutional limited government is the case against Donald Trump," declares Federalist founder Ben Domenech. "Instead of converting voters to conservatism, Trump is succeeding at converting conservatives to statism on everything from health care and entitlements to trade," complained National Review's Jonah Goldberg.

    Insofar as these commentators are criticizing the recency of Trump's conservative convictions, well, fair enough. In an earlier life he was indeed a big fan of universal health care, wealth taxation, and legal abortion - and if his general election pivoting on taxes and the minimum wage is any indication, conservative fears that he would return to his more liberal roots in the general election may yet be vindicated.

    But the ideological vision Trump put forward during the Republican primary campaign was deeply conservative, and, more specifically, deeply paleoconservative. The paleoconservatives were a major voice in the Republican Party for many years, with Pat Buchanan as their most recent leader, and pushed a line that is very reminiscent of Trump_vs_deep_state.

    They adhere to the normal conservative triad of nationalism, free markets, and moral traditionalism, but they put greater weight on the nationalist leg of the stool - leading to a more strident form of anti-immigrant politics that often veers into racism, an isolationist foreign policy rather than a hawkish or dovish one, and a deep skepticism of economic globalization that puts them at odds with an important element of the business agenda.

    Trump is an odd standard-bearer for paleocons, many of whom are conservative Catholics and whose passionate social conservatism doesn't jibe well with Trump's philandering. His foreign policy ideas are also more interventionist than those of most paleocons. But the ideas that have made him such a controversial candidate aren't ones he got from liberals. They have a serious conservative pedigree.

    A brief history of paleoconservatism

    The term "paleoconservatism" is a retronym coined in the 1980s to characterize a brand of conservatism that was by then going extinct, a brand exemplified by Robert Taft, the Ohio senator and legendary isolationist who lost the 1952 Republican nomination to Dwight Eisenhower. In its day it was often referred to as the "Old Right."

    There was a time when these positions were normal for the Republican party. Leaders like William McKinley supported tariffs as a way of supporting domestic industries and raising revenue outside of an income tax. Smoot and Hawley, of the infamous Great Depression tariff, were both Republicans. Republican isolationists prevented the US from participating in the League of Nations, led a largely non-interventionist foreign policy in the '20s, and were skeptical of the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine in the early years of the Cold War.

    But starting in the first decade of the 1900s and continuing gradually through the '50s, this balance began to be upset, especially on trade but also on issues of war and peace. Progressives within the Republican Party began to challenge support for trade protection and argue for a more hawkish approach to foreign affairs. The increasing interest of American business in trade abroad made the anti-internationalism of the Old Right increasingly unviable in the party of capital.

    The two defining moments that led to paleocon decline were Taft's defeat and the suppressing of the John Birch Society by William F. Buckley and National Review in the early 1960s. The Birch Society differed strongly from the most isolationist of paleocons on foreign affairs; it was named after an American missionary killed by Chinese communists in 1945, whom the group claimed as the first casualty of the Cold War.

    The organization advocated an aggressive, paranoid approach to the Soviet Union. But on other issues they were right in sync: extremely anti-immigration, hostile to foreign trade, supportive of limited government (except where trade, immigration, and anti-communism are concerned).

    Buckley, along with Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) and others, issued a series of attacks on the society, which were successful in marginalizing it, and establishing Buckley and National Review's brand of conservatism as the ideology's public face in America. "The attack established them as the 'responsible Right,'" according to Buckley biographer John Judis, "and moved them out of the crackpot far Right and toward the great center of American politics." It was a key victory for the New Right, and a key loss for the Old Right.

    The losses kept coming. In the 1980s, the rise of neoconservatism both threatened the anti-internationalist, America-first mentality of the paleocons and enraged them due to the prominence of Jewish writers in the neoconservative movement. While not everyone in the paleoconservative movement was an anti-Semite, it certainly had an anti-Semitism problem, which its attacks on the neocons revealed frequently.

    From the Sobran purge to Pat Buchanan

    The saga of Joseph Sobran is a case in point. A longtime columnist at National Review, he was fired by William F. Buckley in 1993 following years of open clashes about his attitude toward Israel and Jewish people in general. In 1991, Buckley had dedicated an entire issue of the magazine to a 40,000-word essay he wrote, "In Search of Anti-Semitism," in which he condemned Buchanan (then challenging President George H.W. Bush in the GOP primaries) and his employee Sobran for anti-Jewish prejudice.

    Buckley had a point. Sobran really was a world-class anti-Semite, writing in one National Review column, "If Christians were sometimes hostile to Jews, that worked two ways. Some rabbinical authorities held that it was permissible to cheat and even kill Gentiles."

    After leaving NR, Sobran's writing, in the words of fellow paleocon and American Conservative editor Scott McConnell, "deteriorated into the indefensible." He started speaking at conferences organized by famed Holocaust denier David Irving and the denial group Institute for Historical Review, asking at the latter, "Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination?"

    While Sobran was purged, Buchanan continued his rise. His ability to distinguish himself from the non-paleoconservatives was enhanced by the end of the Cold War. Many paleocons made an exception to their isolationism for the unique evil of the Soviet Union. With that boogeyman gone, they retreated to a stricter non-interventionism. They nearly universally opposed the war in Iraq and war on terror more broadly, and were deeply skeptical of Bill Clinton's humanitarian interventions in the Balkans.

    The '90s anti-immigrant panic, and the era's high-profile trade deals, made Buchanan and the paleocons' views on those issues appealing to base Republicans tired of pro-trade, pro-migration GOPers.

    ... ... ...

    Paleocons love Trump


    Trump fits into this tradition quite well. He's less stridently anti–welfare state, and less socially conservative than most paleoconservatives. But he is a great exemplar of the movement's core belief: America should come first, and trade and migration from abroad are direct threats to its way of life.

    And while his foreign policy worldview is not really isolationist, it's definitely obsessed with putting "America First," a term he actually used in his major foreign policy address in April, and which has a long pedigree in paleocon circles dating back to World War II. He wants to defeat ISIS, but he also wants to steal Iraq's oil for America; pure paleocons would object to embroiling America in foreign matters like that, but the nationalism driving the position is really different from the ideological pro-democracy agenda of the neoconservatives.

    "We are getting out of the nation-building business, and instead focusing on creating stability in the world," he declares. "Our moments of greatest strength came when politics ended at the water's edge." That's pure paleocon.

    Don't ask me, though. Ask them. In March, Buchanan declared on Sean Hannity's Fox News show that Trump could create "a different, new, exciting, robust party." A later Buchanan column was even more effusive:

    Whether the establishment likes it or not, and it evidently does not, there is a revolution going on in America. The old order in this capital city is on the way out, America is crossing a great divide, and there is no going back. Donald Trump's triumphant march to the nomination in Cleveland, virtually assured by his five-state sweep Tuesday, confirms it, as does his foreign policy address of Wednesday.

    Two minutes into his speech before the Center for the National Interest, Trump declared that the "major and overriding theme" of his administration will be - "America first." Right down the smokestack!

    …Whether the issue is trade, immigration or foreign policy, says Trump, "we are putting the American people first again." U.S. policy will be dictated by U.S. national interests.

    The fact that Trump attacked Buchanan in 2000, when both were seeking the Reform Party presidential nomination, for only appealing to the "wacko vote" does not seem to have soured Buchanan on him at all.

    "I would not say that Donald Trump is a paleoconservative. … I don't think [Trump's] a social conservative," he elaborated in an interview with the Daily Caller. But he added, "I was just astonished to see him raise the precise issues on which we ran in the 1990s. … Donald Trump has raised three issues of real concern to paleoconservatives and traditional conservatives like myself."

    It's not just Buchanan, either. Derbyshire has said that Trump is "doing the Lord's work shaking up the GOP side of the 2016 campaign," and in another column volunteered his services as a speechwriter. Virgil Goode, a former Congress member who was the paleocon Constitution Party's 2012 nominee, has endorsed Trump as the only candidate serious about immigration. Taki has featured reams of pro-Trump coverage, like this piece praising his economic nationalism.

    Trump is an imperfect paleocon. He's unrefined, a recent convert, and not as socially conservative as they may like. But on the important stuff, the term fits him better than any other.

    [Jul 21, 2016] Donald Trump Haunts Neoconservatives

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is a paleoconservative who preaches the reduction of the U.S. presence and engagement throughout the world. His precursors were active in the America First movement, which wanted American neutrality during World War II. He can identify with Robert Taft, a Republican senator who was against NATO and the expedition to North Korea at the beginning of the Cold War. He also shares Pat Buchanan's nationalism, who was a candidate before him. ..."
    "... Although Trump's political philosophy is not entirely insubstantial, his campaign stances do not have the same ideological coherence. He accuses President Bush of having lied to invade Iraq, but wants to confiscate Iranian oil to compensate the war's American victims. He has expressed his admiration for Vladimir Putin, but wants to build a wall at the Mexican border and close military bases in ally countries. He intends to ally with Russia to bomb the Islamic State group, but is contemplating a tariff war against China to protect jobs. He adheres to the Iran deal and dismisses a change of regime in Syria, but is suggesting killing North Korea's leader and the families of terrorist leaders. ..."
    March 30, 2016 | watchingamerica.com

    Translated from French by Samantha Nzessi. Edited by Bora Mici.

    Published in Le Devoir (Canada) on 14 March 2016 by Charles Benjamin [link to original]

    After having shaken up the American establishment, Donald Trump's unexpected success is sowing panic in the neoconservative camp. Known for the failed crusade they led against Iraq, the neoconservatives are looking for a new icon to bring their ideals back to life. The announced defeat of their favorite, Marco Rubio, has not convinced them to join forces with the lead candidate, whose populism goes against their political convictions.

    The controversial candidate's nomination could thus lead to a neoconservative exodus to the Hillary Clinton clan, who is embodying their ideological stance more and more. This break-off would reveal the cleavage that separates the presidential candidates. Besides the personalities, the primary elections are the setting for a showdown between the deeply engrained political traditions of American history.

    Marco Rubio: The Neoconservative Hope

    Neoconservatives stem from former Democrats who were opposed to the nomination of George McGovern, who advocated détente with the Soviet Union during the 1972 primary election. They were seduced by the ideological zeal with which Ronald Reagan was fighting "the evil empire." The Sept. 11 attacks sealed their grip on George W. Bush's presidency. Taken over by the missionary spirit bequeathed by Woodrow Wilson, they wanted to free the Middle East at gunpoint and export democracy there as a remedy to terrorism. They had a nearly blind faith in the moral superiority and military capabilities of their country. Iraq was like a laboratory for them, where they played wizards-in-training without accepting defeat.

    In a hurry to undo Barack Obama's legacy, neoconservatives are advising Marco Rubio in regaining the White House. They are thrilled with the belligerent speech by the candidate, who is reminiscent of Reagan. Settled on re-affirming the dominance of the U.S., Rubio has committed to increasing the defense budget, toughening the sanctions against Moscow, providing weapons to Ukraine, and expanding NATO to the Russian border. He intends to increase troops to fight the Islamic State group, revive the alliance with Israel, and end the nuclear disarmament deal with Iran. The son of Cuban immigrants, he also promises to end all dialogue with the Castro regime and to tighten the embargo against the island.

    Donald Trump: The Paleoconservative

    Donald Trump's detractors describe him as an impostor who has a serious lack of understanding of international affairs. Yet, he has set himself apart by cultivating a noninterventionist tradition that goes back to the interwar period. Trump is a paleoconservative who preaches the reduction of the U.S. presence and engagement throughout the world. His precursors were active in the America First movement, which wanted American neutrality during World War II. He can identify with Robert Taft, a Republican senator who was against NATO and the expedition to North Korea at the beginning of the Cold War. He also shares Pat Buchanan's nationalism, who was a candidate before him.

    Although Trump's political philosophy is not entirely insubstantial, his campaign stances do not have the same ideological coherence. He accuses President Bush of having lied to invade Iraq, but wants to confiscate Iranian oil to compensate the war's American victims. He has expressed his admiration for Vladimir Putin, but wants to build a wall at the Mexican border and close military bases in ally countries. He intends to ally with Russia to bomb the Islamic State group, but is contemplating a tariff war against China to protect jobs. He adheres to the Iran deal and dismisses a change of regime in Syria, but is suggesting killing North Korea's leader and the families of terrorist leaders.

    Hillary Clinton: The Democratic Hawk

    Will Donald Trump's noninterventionist temptation and unpredictable character lead the neoconservatives to make up with their former political group? Two figures of the movement have already repudiated the Republican lead and announced their future support of Hillary Clinton.

    The Democratic candidate boasts a much more robust and interventionist position than Obama. Annoyed with her boss's caution while she was secretary of state, Clinton was pleading early on to send massive reinforcements in Afghanistan. She believes in U.S. humanitarian imperialism and persuaded the president to use force against Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Her call to help Syrian rebels at the dawn of the Arab Spring was ignored. Now, she is giving faint support to the agreement negotiated with Iran and supports the creation of a military exclusion zone over Syria. Her platform offers a new base for neoconservatives, who will have to decide if they will stay loyal to their ideals or to their party.

    [Jul 21, 2016] Trump vs Cruz from a Paleoconservative perspective

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump has been a vocal opponent of bad trade deals, while Cruz is a supporter of "free trade," even vocally backing Trade Promotion Authority for months before opportunistically voting against it when it no longer mattered ..."
    "... Trump is opposed to raising the retirement age for Social Security while Cruz supports it ..."
    "... Trump has famously promised he'd get along with Vladimir Putin, praised Putin's actions in Syria and has received compliments from the Russian leader; Cruz sticks to the usual anti-Russian rhetoric of the conservative movement calling Putin a "KGB thug" and saying America should undertake more intervention in the Middle East to confront Russia ..."
    "... Ted Cruz notoriously called a group of Middle Eastern Christians "consumed with hate" for being insufficiently pro-Israeli while Trump has defended Middle Eastern Christians as a group that is "under assault" from Islamic terrorism ..."
    www.ronpaulforums.com
    Rad, 12-26-2015, 08:52 PM
    But Donald Trump has changed everything. He has created the potential for a different movement altogether. Not only is immigration at the center of his campaign, it's part of a larger agenda that is genuinely different from the "movement conservatism" of Ted Cruz:
    • Trade. Trump has been a vocal opponent of bad trade deals, while Cruz is a supporter of "free trade," even vocally backing Trade Promotion Authority for months before opportunistically voting against it when it no longer mattered [Cruz reverses support for TPA trade bill, blasts GOP leaders, by Manu Raju, Politico, June 23, 2015]
    • Safety Net. Trump is opposed to raising the retirement age for Social Security while Cruz supports it [Where the presidential candidates stand on Social Security, by Steve Vernon, MoneyWatch, November 23, 2015] Trump is also placing the protection of Medicare at the center of his campaign, defying conservative movement dogma [Debate over Medicare, Social Security, other federal benefits divides GOP, by Robert Costa and Ed O'Keefe,Washington Post, November 4, 2015]
    • Russia. Trump has famously promised he'd get along with Vladimir Putin, praised Putin's actions in Syria and has received compliments from the Russian leader; Cruz sticks to the usual anti-Russian rhetoric of the conservative movement calling Putin a "KGB thug" and saying America should undertake more intervention in the Middle East to confront Russia [Ted Cruz: Russia-US tensions increasing over weak foreign policy, by Sandy Fitzgerald,Newsmax, October 7, 2015]
    • Christianity. Ted Cruz notoriously called a group of Middle Eastern Christians "consumed with hate" for being insufficiently pro-Israeli while Trump has defended Middle Eastern Christians as a group that is "under assault" from Islamic terrorism [Trump: Absolutely An Assault on Christianity, by Joe Kovacs, WND, August 25, 2015]. At the same time, while Trump has been quick to defend American Christians from cultural assaults, he is also probably the Republican "most friendly" to gay rights, as homosexual columnist Mark Stern has mischievously noted [Of course Donald Trump is the Most Pro-Gay Republican Presidential Candidate, Slate, December 18, 2015] http://www.unz.com/article/whither-the-american-right/
    notsure

    Military coup sounds awfully good to me right about now!

    xxx
    Christianity. Ted Cruz notoriously called a group of Middle Eastern Christians "consumed with hate" for being insufficiently pro-Israeli while Trump has defended Middle Eastern Christians as a group that is "under assault" from Islamic terrorism

    Maybe, I'm misunderstanding something; maybe I'm just not sure what "insufficiently pro-Israeli" means, but Ted Cruz didn't condemn the group of Middle Eastern Christians for being "pro-Israel". He condemned them for being anti-Israel, and said he wouldn't stand with them if they didn't stand with Israel.

    William R, 12-26-2015, 11:33 PM

    Cruz is more comfortable with Neocons than Trump. Trump actually has the balls to criticize Israel.

    [Jul 21, 2016] Trump vs. the New Class

    Neoliberalism is self-defeating social system, which creates the mechanism of redistribution of wealth up, that takes that whole system down.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Republicans weren't interested in inequality-but inequality was interested in them. The conservative elite told us that we were a center-right country, that we didn't do class warfare, that envy was un-American. But the voters, invertebrates that they are, disagreed. In fact, they thought Obama was on to something when he said that secretaries shouldn't have to pay a higher tax rate than their billionaire bosses. ..."
    The American Conservative

    In Kennedy's day, Republicans worried more about budget deficits than economic growth and therefore opposed his tax cuts. When the legislation came up for a final vote in the House of Representatives, only 48 Republicans supported it and 126 voted against it, and it passed only because 223 liberal Democrats voted for it. Remember, we are talking about a top marginal rate of 91 percent, which the bill reduced to a still very high 65 percent.

    ... Trump, while he is not the poster child of inclusiveness when it comes to immigrants, has nonetheless revived the old Reagan coalition by bringing formerly Democratic voters to the voting booths to support him. They have left a Democratic Party whose leaders think them ignorant rednecks who cling to their guns and religion, and they're not made to feel especially welcome when Cruz supporters call them invertebrates and bigots: that's a good way to win an election, said no one ever.

    ... ... ...

    What Obama had spoken to were the classically liberal themes of equality and mobility, of the promise of a better future. The Republicans weren't interested in inequality-but inequality was interested in them. The conservative elite told us that we were a center-right country, that we didn't do class warfare, that envy was un-American. But the voters, invertebrates that they are, disagreed. In fact, they thought Obama was on to something when he said that secretaries shouldn't have to pay a higher tax rate than their billionaire bosses.

    ... ... ...

    Our mobility problem results from departures from and not our adherence to capitalism. Rising inequality in America has been blamed on the "1 percent," the people in the top income centile making more than $400,000 a year. They alone don't explain American income immobility, however. Rather, it's the risk-averse New Class-the 1, 2, or 3 percent, the professionals, academics, opinion leaders, and politically connected executives who float above the storm and constitute an American aristocracy. They oppose reforms that would make America mobile and have become the enemies of promise.

    The New Class is apt to think it has earned its privileges through its merits, that America is still the kind of meritocracy that it was in Ragged Dick's day, where anyone could rise from the very bottom through his talents and efforts. Today's meritocracy is very different, however. Meritocratic parents raise meritocratic children in a highly immobile country, and the Ragged Dicks are going to stay where they are. We are meritocratic in name only. What we've become is Legacy Nation, a society of inherited privilege and frozen classes, and in The Way Back I explain how we got here and what we can do about it.

    ... ... ...

    F.H. Buckley is a professor at George Mason Law School and the author of The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America.

    [Jul 20, 2016] FBI Agents Silenced on Hillary Probe

    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI agents who worked on the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server reportedly had to sign an unusual non-disclosure form banning them from talking about the case unless they were called to testify. ..."
    "... Unnamed sources tell the New York Post they'd never heard of the special form - known as a "case briefing acknowledgment" - being used before, though all agents initially have to sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance. ..."
    Jul 13, 2016 | www.newsmax.com

    FBI agents who worked on the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server reportedly had to sign an unusual non-disclosure form banning them from talking about the case unless they were called to testify.

    Unnamed sources tell the New York Post they'd never heard of the special form - known as a "case briefing acknowledgment" - being used before, though all agents initially have to sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance.

    "This is very, very unusual. I've never signed one, never circulated one to others," one unnamed retired FBI chief tells the Post. "I have never heard of such a form. Sounds strange," an anonymous FBI agent said.

    The Post additionally reports some FBI agents are disappointed that Director James Comey decided against recommending that charges be brought against Clinton for her mishandling of classified information.

    "FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the [Attorney General] Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting" just hours before the release of a House report on the Benghazi, Libya terror attack in 2012, one unnamed source tells the Post.

    Another Justice Department source tells the newspaper he was "furious" with Comey, deriding him for having "managed to piss off right and left."

    [Jul 20, 2016] Sanders Delegation Plotting in Public and Secretly to Shake Up Democratic Convention

    Notable quotes:
    "... On Monday night, aides for the former secretary of state held a private conference call with members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee and laid out how the campaign would like those members to vote at an upcoming rules meeting in Philadelphia. The purpose of the conference call was to answer any questions and ensure that the Rules Committee members, picked by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and by Clinton, remained in lockstep with the presumptive Democratic nominee. ..."
    "... The stars will ultimately align and the convention will go smoothly and without a hitch. Bernie and Liddy Warren will continue their unabashed endorsement of Her, the party will be united, and the good of the American people will be top priority on the go forward. Curtain. Exit stage left. Thank you for attending another Clinton Theater production. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    3.14e-9 , July 20, 2016 at 6:31 am

    Looks like there's a slightly different dynamic in the Clinton camp:

    On Monday night, aides for the former secretary of state held a private conference call with members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee and laid out how the campaign would like those members to vote at an upcoming rules meeting in Philadelphia. The purpose of the conference call was to answer any questions and ensure that the Rules Committee members, picked by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and by Clinton, remained in lockstep with the presumptive Democratic nominee.

    The roughly 30-minute call was a glimpse into how Clinton officials have sought to shape the party platform and party rules with minimal public drama. Campaign officials have corresponded with members via text messages to direct them how to vote and counseled them to bring concerns directly to the campaign, rather than follow a process laid out by the DNC for submitting amendments and resolutions. …

    The plea to keep any policy disputes in-house, and off-camera, underscores the campaign's determination to present a united front at the convention, and stave off any conflict between the Clinton-aligned committee members and Sanders members during the drafting process. A few months ago, Sanders was vowing to take his policy sticking points all the way to the convention floor.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-convention-2016-delegate-fight-225798?cmpid=sf

    Patricia , July 20, 2016 at 8:45 am

    Vid about the larger protesting groups going to D convention (6min):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8sh0tGvGgo

    Pirmann , July 20, 2016 at 10:24 am

    This is nothing more than a ploy to get Sanders supporters to watch the convention coverage, so we can become acquainted with the "new" Hillary Clinton, and thus vote for Her in November.

    "Let's all tune in; maybe the Bernie delegates will turn the party upside down". Expect to be disappointed.

    The stars will ultimately align and the convention will go smoothly and without a hitch. Bernie and Liddy Warren will continue their unabashed endorsement of Her, the party will be united, and the good of the American people will be top priority on the go forward. Curtain. Exit stage left. Thank you for attending another Clinton Theater production.

    Oh, and none of the speeches will result in legislation that actually benefits the American people, but at least they won't be plagiarized!

    [Jul 20, 2016] Here's the Michelle Obama Speech From Which Melania Trump Is Accused of Cribbing

    There are two tiny fragments, that were amplified in a video to enormous proportion. Reminds me the trick played with Donald Dean... BTW Michelle speech proved to be all lie. Barack proved to be king of "bait and switch" who want to join private equity industry after his term expires.
    abcnews.go.com

    Here's the transcript of Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver eight years ago:

    "As you might imagine, for Barack, running for president is nothing compared to that first game of basketball with my brother, Craig. I can't tell you how much it means to have Craig and my mom here tonight. Like Craig, I can feel my dad looking down on us, just as I've felt his presence in every grace-filled moment of my life. At 6 foot 6, I've often felt like Craig was looking down on me too. Literally. But the truth is, both when we were kids and today, Craig wasn't looking down on me - he was watching over me. And he's been there for me every step of the way since that clear day in Feb. 19 months ago, when - with little more than our faith in each other and a hunger for change - we joined my husband, Barack Obama, on the improbable journey that's led us to this moment.

    But each of us also comes here tonight by way of our own improbable journey. I come here tonight as a sister, blessed with a brother who is my mentor, my protector and my lifelong friend. I come here as a wife who loves my husband and believes he will be an extraordinary president. And I come here as a mom whose girls are the heart of my heart and the center of my world. They're the first things I think about when I wake up in the morning and the last thing I think about when I go to bed at night. Their future - and all our children's future - is my stake in this election. And I come here as a daughter - raised on the South Side of Chicago by a father who was a blue collar city worker and a mother who stayed at home with my brother and me. My mother's love has always been a sustaining force for our family, and one of my greatest joys is seeing her integrity, her compassion and her intelligence reflected in my daughters. My dad was our rock. Although he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in his early 30s, he was our provider, our champion, our hero. As he got sicker, it got harder for him to walk. It took him longer to get dressed in the morning. But if he was in pain, he never let on. He never stopped smiling and laughing - even while struggling to button his shirt, even while using two canes to get himself across the room to give my mom a kiss. He just woke up a little earlier and worked a little harder. He and my mom poured everything they had into me and Craig. It was the greatest gift a child could receive: never doubting for a single minute that you're loved and cherished and have a place in this world. And thanks to their faith and their hard work, we both were able to go on to college.

    So I know firsthand from their lives - and mine - that the American dream endures. And you know, what struck me when I first met Barack was that even though he had this funny name, even though he'd grown up all the way across the continent in Hawaii, his family was so much like mine. He was raised by grandparents who were working class folks just like my parents and by a single mother who struggled to pay the bills just like we did. Like my family, they scrimped and saved so that he could have opportunities that they never had themselves. And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values - like you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do, that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them and even if you don't agree with them. And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values and to pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children - and all children in this nation - to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work hard for them.

    And as our friendship grew and I learned more about Barack, he introduced me to the work he'd done when he first moved to Chicago after college. You see, instead of heading to Wall Street, Barack went to work in neighborhoods that had been devastated. Steel plants shut down, and jobs dried up. And he'd been invited back to speak to people from those neighborhoods about how to rebuild their community. The people gathered together that day were ordinary folks doing the best they could to build a good life. They were parents living paycheck to paycheck, grandparents trying to get it together on a fixed income, men frustrated that they couldn't support their families after their jobs disappeared. Those folks weren't asking for a handout or a shortcut. They were ready to work. They wanted to contribute. They believed - like you and I believe - that America should be a place where you can make it if you try. Barack stood up that day and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about the world as it is and the world as it should be. And he said that all too often, we accept the distance between the two and settle for the world as it is - even when it doesn't reflect our values and aspirations. But he reminded us that we know what our world should look like. We know what fairness and justice and opportunity look like. And he urged us to believe in ourselves - to find the strength within ourselves to strive for the world as it should be.

    And isn't that the great American story? It's the story of men and women gathered in churches and union halls, in high school gyms - people who stood up and marched and risked everything they had - refusing to settle, determined to mold our future into the shape of our ideals. It is because of their will and determination that this week, we celebrate two anniversaries: the 88th anniversary of women winning the right to vote and the 45th anniversary of that hot summer day when Dr. King lifted our sights and our hearts with his dream for our nation. And I stand here today at the crosscurrents of that history - knowing that my piece of the American dream is a blessing hard won by those who came before me. All of them driven by the same conviction that drove my dad to get up an hour early each day to painstakingly dress himself for work. The same conviction that drives the men and women I've met all across this country. People who work the day shift, kiss their kids goodnight and head out for the night shift - without disappointment, without regret - that goodnight kiss a reminder of everything they're working for. The military families who say grace each night with an empty seat at the table. The servicemen and -women who love this country so much, they leave those they love most to defend it. The young people across America serving our communities - teaching children, cleaning up neighborhoods, caring for the least among us each and every day. People like Hillary Clinton, who put those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, so that our daughters - and sons - can dream a little bigger and aim a little higher. People like Joe Biden, who's never forgotten where he came from and never stopped fighting for folks who work long hours and face long odds and need someone on their side again. All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do - that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be. That is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope. And you see, that is why I love this country.

    [Jul 20, 2016] And in my own life, in my own small way, I've tried to give back to this country that has given me so much. See, that's why I left a job at a law firm for a career in public service, working to empower young people to volunteer in their communities. Because I believe that each of us - no matter what our age or background or walk of life - each of us has something to contribute to the life of this nation. And it's a belief Barack shares - a belief at the heart of his life's work. It's what he did all those years ago, on the streets of Chicago, setting up job training to get people back to work and after-school programs to keep kids safe - working block by block to help people lift up their families. It's what he did in the Illinois Senate, moving people from welfare to jobs, passing tax cuts for hardworking families and making sure women get equal pay for equal work. It's what he's done in the United States Senate, fighting to ensure that the men and women who serve this country are welcomed home not just with medals and parades but with good jobs and benefits and health care, including mental health care.

    See, that's why he's running - to end the war in Iraq responsibly, to build an economy that lifts every family, to make health care available for every American and to make sure every child in this nation gets a world class education all the way from preschool to college. That's what Barack Obama will do as president of the United States of America. He'll achieve these goals the same way he always has - by bringing us together and reminding us how much we share and how alike we really are. You see, Barack doesn't care where you're from or what your background is or what party - if any - you belong to. That's not how he sees the world. He knows that thread that connects us - our belief in America's promise, our commitment to our children's future - he knows that that thread is strong enough to hold us together as one nation even when we disagree. It was strong enough to bring hope to those neighborhoods in Chicago. It was strong enough to bring hope to the mother he met worried about her child in Iraq, hope to the man who's unemployed but can't afford gas to find a job, hope to the student working nights to pay for her sister's health care, sleeping just a few hours a day. And it was strong enough to bring hope to people who came out on a cold Iowa night and became the first voices in this chorus for change that's been echoed by millions of Americans from every corner of this nation. Millions of Americans who know that Barack understands their dreams, millions who know that Barack will fight for people like them and that Barack will finally bring the change we need.

    And in the end, after all that's happened these past 19 months, the Barack Obama I know today is the same man I fell in love with 19 years ago. He's the same man who drove me and our new baby daughter home from the hospital 10 years ago this summer, inching along at a snail's pace, peering anxiously at us in the rearview mirror, feeling the whole weight of her future in his hands, determined to give her everything he'd struggled so hard for himself, determined to give her what he never had: the affirming embrace of a father's love. And as I tuck that little girl and her little sister into bed at night, you see, I think about how one day, they'll have families of their own. And how one day, they - and your sons and daughters - will tell their own children about what we did together in this election. They'll tell them how this time, we listened to our hopes instead of our fears. How this time, we decided to stop doubting and to start dreaming. How this time, in this great country - where a girl from the South Side of Chicago can go to college and law school and the son of a single mother from Hawaii can go all the way to the White House - we committed ourselves to building the world as it should be. So tonight, in honor of my father's memory and my daughters' future - out of gratitude to those whose triumphs we mark this week and those whose everyday sacrifices have brought us to this moment - let us devote ourselves to finishing their work. Let us work together to fulfill their hopes. And let's stand together to elect Barack Obama president of the United States of America.

    Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America."

    And here's the transcript of the speech that Melania Trump read at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland Monday night:

    "Thank you very much. Thank you. You have all been very kind to Donald and me, to our young son, Barron, and to our whole family. It's a very nice welcome, and we're excited to be with you at this historic convention. I am so proud of your choice for president of the United States, my husband, Donald J. Trump. And I can assure you, he is moved by this great honor. The 2016 Republican primaries were fierce and started with many candidates, 17 to be exact, and I know that Donald agrees with me when I mention how talented all of them are. They deserve respect and gratitude from all of us. However, when it comes to my husband, I will say that I am definitely biased, and for good reason.

    I have been with Donald for 18 years and I have been aware of his love for this country since we first met. He never had a hidden agenda when it comes to his patriotism, because, like me, he loves this country so much. I was born in Slovenia, a small, beautiful and then communist country in Central Europe. My sister Ines, who is an incredible woman and a friend, and I were raised by my wonderful parents. My elegant and hardworking mother Amalia introduced me to fashion and beauty. My father Viktor instilled in me a passion for business and travel. Their integrity, compassion and intelligence reflect to this day on me and for my love of family and America. From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily life. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son, and we need to pass those lessons on to the many generation to follow. I traveled the world while working hard in the incredible arena of fashion.

    After living and working in Milan and Paris, I arrived in New York City 20 years ago, and I saw both the joys and the hardships of daily life. On July 28, 2006, I was very proud to become a citizen of the United States - the greatest privilege on planet Earth. I cannot or will not take the freedoms this country offers for granted. But these freedoms have come with a price so many times. The sacrifices made by our veterans are reminders to us of this. I would like to take this moment to recognize an amazing veteran, the great Sen. Bob Dole. And let us thank all of our veterans in the arena today and those across our great country. We are all truly blessed to be here. That will never change.

    I can tell you with certainty that my husband has been concerned about our country for as long as I have known him. With all of my heart, I know that he will make a great and lasting difference. Donald has a deep and unbounding determination and a never-give-up attitude. I have seen him fight for years to get a project done - or even started - and he does not give up. If you want someone to fight for you and your country, I can assure you, he is the guy. He will never, ever, give up. And, most importantly, he will never, ever, let you down. Donald is and always has been an amazing leader. Now he will go to work for you. His achievements speak for themselves, and his performance throughout the primary campaign proved that he knows how to win. He also knows how to remain focused on improving our country - on keeping it safe and secure. He is tough when he has to be, but he is also kind and fair and caring. This kindness is not always noted, but it is there for all to see. That is one reason I fell in love with him to begin with. Donald is intensely loyal. To family, friends, employees, country. He has the utmost respect for his parents, Mary and Fred; to his sisters, Maryanne and Elizabeth; to his brother Robert; and to the memory of his late brother, Fred. His children have been cared for and mentored to the extent that even his adversaries admit they are an amazing testament to who he is as a man and a father. There is a great deal of love in the Trump family. That is our bond, and that is our strength.

    Yes, Donald thinks big, which is especially important when considering the presidency of the United States. No room for small thinking. No room for small results. Donald gets things done. Our country is underperforming and needs new leadership. Leadership is also what the world needs. Donald wants our country to move forward in the most positive of ways. Everyone wants change. Donald is the only one that can deliver it. We should not be satisfied with stagnation. Donald wants prosperity for all Americans. We need new programs to help the poor and opportunities to challenge the young. There has to be a plan for growth. Only then will fairness result. My husband's experience exemplifies growth and the successful passage of opportunity to the next generation. His success indicates inclusion rather than division. My husband offers a new direction, welcoming change, prosperity and greater cooperation among peoples and nations. Donald intends to represent all the people, not just some of the people. That includes Christians and Jews and Muslims. It includes Hispanics and African-Americans and Asians and the poor and the middle class. Throughout his career, Donald has successfully worked with people of many faiths and with many nations.

    Like no one else, I have seen the talent, the energy, the tenacity, the resourceful mind and the simple goodness of heart that God gave Donald Trump. Now is the time to use those gifts as never before, for purposes far greater than ever before. And he will do this better than anyone else can, and it won't even be close. Everything depends on it, for our cause and for our country. People are counting on him - all the millions of you who have touched us so much with your kindness and your confidence. You have turned this unlikely campaign into a movement that is still gaining in strength and number. The primary season - and its toughness - is behind us.

    Let's all come together in a national campaign like no other. The race will be hard-fought, all the way to November. There will be good times and hard times and unexpected turns - it would not be a Trump contest without excitement and drama. But through it all, my husband will remain focused on only one thing: this beautiful country that he loves so much. If I am honored to serve as first lady, I will use that wonderful privilege to try to help people in our country who need it the most. One of the many causes dear to my heart is helping children and women. You judge a society by how it treats its citizens. We must do our best to ensure that every child can live in comfort and security, with the best possible education. As citizens of this great nation, it is kindness, love and compassion for each other that will bring us together - and keep us together. These are the values Donald and I will bring to the White House. My husband is ready to lead this great nation. He is ready to fight, every day, to give our children the better future they deserve. Ladies and gentlemen, Donald J. Trump is ready to serve and lead this country as the next president of the United States.

    Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America."

    [Jul 19, 2016] Bern Out: Beyond Cowardly Lion Leftism by Paul Street

    www.counterpunch.org
    I doubt many public figures were happier than Bernie Sanders to see the seemingly endless presidential election carnival overtaken by other news last week. Beneath the headlines on race and criminal justice, the nominal socialist "revolution" advocate Sanders got to make his official endorsement of the right-wing corporatist and war hawk Hillary Clinton with the public's eyes focused on different and more immediately hideous matters.

    Anyone on the left who was surprised or disappointed by Bernie's long-promised Cowardly Lion endorsement of Mrs. Clinton one week ago hadn't paid serious attention to his campaign and career. Sanders' "democratic socialism" has always been a leaky cloak for a mildly social-democratic liberalism that is fiscally and morally negated by his commitment to the nation's giant Pentagon System. More

    [Jul 19, 2016] Trump and Clintonian Neoliberalism by Mark Lewis Taylor

    www.counterpunch.org

    If Trump is the price we have to pay to defeat Clintonian neoliberalism – so be it.

    -- Mumia Abu-Jamal

    With these words the revolutionary journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal offers a bold challenge to those who circulate the fear of a Trump presidency to drum up a mandate for voting for Clinton.

    Mumia's words were shared with me just a month ago in a prison visit with him. They are a timely challenge to Bernie Sanders' endorsement this week of Hillary Clinton's drive for the presidency. Sanders mantra is anchored in the fear of Trump: "I will do everything possible to help defeat Trump."

    But it is not just a Trump presidency that needs defeating. It is just as important to defeat the very "Clintonian neoliberalism" whose party Sanders now joins.

    More

    [Jul 19, 2016] Christie botched critique of : Clinton lied over and over again

    New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie blasted Hillary Clinton, conducting a mock trial and asking the audience to "render [a] verdict" on her record as secretary of state. He was on target about Libya and Algeria, off the mark as for Syria and Iran (that does not means that Hillary is not guilty of instigating civil war in the country). He is completely lunatic on Russia.
    www.nbcnews.com

    Days after being passed over as Donald Trump's running mate, Chris Christie took the podium at the GOP convention to make the case for the party's presidential nominee.
    But his focus, as has been the case for many of the convention speakers, was focused more on Hillary Clinton than Trump. "This election is not just about Donald Trump. It is also about his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton," he said at the beginning of his remarks.

    [Jul 19, 2016] Republican Platform Unexpectedly Calls For A Return To Glass-Steagall

    Notable quotes:
    "... Manafort mentioned the return of Glass-Steagall specifically as a counterpoint against Hillary Clinton, arguing it was Democrats that were the ones actually beholden to big banks. "We believe the Obama-Clinton years have passed legislation that has been favorable to the big banks, which is why you see all the Wall Street money going to her," he said. "We are supporting the small banks and Main Street." ..."
    "... Good! Screw the Clintons and crony capitalism. ..."
    "... Bob Rubin already cashed the checks....Mission Accomplished. ..."
    "... Laugh Track Deafening) ..."
    "... How different would it be now if everyone in that photo had died simultaneously BEFORE Clinton signed it? ..."
    "... Panic attacks and violent pangs on Wall Street tomorrow? Or will they just pour billions more into the Clinton corruption campaign? ..."
    "... Hang the Clintons, Bushes, and all the damned banksters with them. Then your reforms might mean something ..."
    Zero Hedge
    While we know better than to trust politician promises, we were surprised to read that today the GOP joined the Democrats in calling for a repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 pushed through by none other than Bill Clinton, and will seek a return to Glass-Steagall, the banking law launched in 1933 in the aftermath of the Great Depression meant to prohibit commercial banks from engaging in the investment business, and which according to many was one of the catalysts that led to the Global Financial Crisis.

    According to The Hill, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's campaign manager, told reporters gathered in Cleveland Monday that the GOP platform would include language advocating for a return of that law, which was repealed under President Bill Clinton, husband of, well you know...

    "We also call for a reintroduction of Glass-Steagall, which created barriers between what big banks can do," he said.

    Including that language in the GOP platform comes shortly after Democrats agreed to similar language in their own, calling for an "updated and modernized version" of the law.

    However before anyone gets their hopes up, recall that a party platform is not binding but is thought to reflect the values of the party.... until the values change as a result of Wall Street "incentives" because if there is one thing US "commercial banks" can not afford it is a separation of their depository and investment activities.

    The GOP platform has not yet been officially released, although the convention is expected to approve it later Monday. Nonetheless, the embrace of Glass-Steagall by both parties is a telling indication of how unpopular Wall Street remains with the public, years after the financial crisis.

    Manafort mentioned the return of Glass-Steagall specifically as a counterpoint against Hillary Clinton, arguing it was Democrats that were the ones actually beholden to big banks. "We believe the Obama-Clinton years have passed legislation that has been favorable to the big banks, which is why you see all the Wall Street money going to her," he said. "We are supporting the small banks and Main Street."

    HRH of Aquitaine Jul 18, 2016 5:15 PM

    Good! Screw the Clintons and crony capitalism.

    onewayticket2 -> HRH of Aquitaine, Jul 18, 2016 5:19 PM

    Bob Rubin already cashed the checks....Mission Accomplished.

    Love,

    sandy weil

    ps.... So did I. Thanks Clintons

    macholatte -> onewayticket2, Jul 18, 2016 5:24 PM

    Just break-up the banks into little itsy-bitsy pieces so they can't hurt anyone anymore. – Mother Goose

    JRobby -> macholatte, Jul 18, 2016 5:32 PM

    What!!!! Is sanity breaking out!???!!!

    Guess the big public utility banks are going to get broken up? (Laugh Track Deafening)

    How different would it be now if everyone in that photo had died simultaneously BEFORE Clinton signed it?

    californiagirl -> Timmay •Jul 18, 2016 7:10 PM

    Panic attacks and violent pangs on Wall Street tomorrow? Or will they just pour billions more into the Clinton corruption campaign?

    Perimetr -> californiagirl •Jul 18, 2016 7:24 PM

    Hang the Clintons, Bushes, and all the damned banksters with them. Then your reforms might mean something.

    [Jul 19, 2016] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/08/trump-clinton-sanders-super-pacs-election-money

    www.theguardian.com

    SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 2016-07-08 12:10:54

    'People know it's a fixed system'

    I think we're a step further than that. The majority still accept it as a De- facto, impossible to change reality which they are to lazy to try and change. The excuse of ''its all too late and impossible to change'' peddled to them by all the branches of the system and in particular the corrupt establishment mainstream media. But that era is coming to an end....next election will be far more momentous...this one may be the last time BAU politicians prevail Report
    smirnova SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 2016-07-10 07:13:29
    "'People know it's a fixed system'

    I think we're a step further than that. The majority still accept it as a De- facto, impossible to change reality which they are to lazy to try and change. The excuse of ''its all too late and impossible to change'' peddled to them by all the branches of the system and in particular the corrupt establishment mainstream media."

    Strangely enough, this isn't so different from Russian politics. Two different sides of the same, or similar, coin. Eery stuff.

    AmyInNH sportinlifesport , 2016-07-08 14:44:05
    We need to flush congress. All the attention is on president/presidential election, and many don't vote for a congressman while there. Oust the incumbents. Report
    lostinbago AmyInNH , 2016-07-08 14:54:58
    2-3 elections with all incumbents being voted out with the exception of always voting against the candidate with the most dark money always being voted against and the candidates will get the message to start listening to the voters instead of the donors. Report
    Vigil2010 sportinlifesport , 2016-07-08 19:28:51
    I'd be in favor of electing congressmen for 4 years rather than 2. Most of them will get reelected anyway and at least then they may have a year of two where they might actually consider wise legislation rather than never getting off the money treadmill.
    brotato , 2016-07-08 12:58:01
    Between the hag and the buffoon, I'm sorry to say that we're all fcuked for another 8 years. Million more white collar jobs will have left the US at that time, middle class wealth completely shredded and the top 1 or 2% richer than ever before (or probably buying up Mars real estate).

    The people we elect work for the economies of China and India. Our tax dollars are creating jobs in Shanghai. Let's all sit down and cry. Or take to FB and post selfies. Duck face. Report

    QuetzalLove1 brotato , 2016-07-10 11:11:45
    No reason to demonize China and India. They produce many quality products at low prices Americans want.
    US corps are outsourcing these jobs. And we are buying more than we need or use.
    Complain to government, tax corps, close tax havens and stop buying foreign produced goods by paying an extra 20 to 40%. Report
    kaltnadel , 2016-07-08 12:59:53
    Revoking Citizens United is Bernie's issue. Once in a while Hillary quietly mouths a platitude about campaign reform, but her hand is in the till bigtime. Her Supreme Ct issue is abortion; she won't touch Citizens United. After all, the status quo is her cause.
    somebody_stopme , 2016-07-08 13:00:06
    I see more of this articles very frequently nowadays as Hillary already clinched the nomination. These things are not out of the blue issues, Sanders started his campaign talking about these yet the Guardian dint a give shit then. Now all they care is their readers. Pff,give me break. Report
    Ezajur somebody_stopme , 2016-07-11 08:21:31
    Thank you. It was so blatant that is was shocking. The Guardian turned its back on the first Green President - and yet asks me to join their campaigns?!

    Its heartbreaking. Report

    aleatico , 2016-07-08 13:07:41
    Interesting the near obsession about Citizens United. Nothing about Bill Clinton driving a Mack truck through campaign finance laws. Nothing about the legal graft of Goldman Sachs passing $675,000 to Hillary for speeches nobody would pay a quid to hear, and nothing about the last campaign reform effort, where McCain-Feingold inserted an incumbent protection clause in what was supposed to keep dirty money out of politics. Report
    pantsoffdanceoff aleatico , 2016-07-08 14:27:35
    She will not release the transcripts because she knows they are damning. It's obvious. When she says "I'll release them when everyone else does." Does that sound like a LEADER? no way. A leader would own up to that shit. SHe is a tool, not a leader.
    tommydog aleatico , 2016-07-08 15:10:35
    There is a bright side to all this. Obama, the Guardian, and many liberals are propounding the benefits of a stronger and even more centralized government. Given the gains that the Republicans made in the Congress and various states, it seems even Obama never really sold the public on this. Should Clinton win, which seems probable though it's a weird year, her primary focus will clearly be on propelling the family into the ranks of billionaires. I think, or am at least hopeful, that four years from now much of the public will be so sick of these people that they'll realize that we really don't get all that much from them. Report
    aleatico tommydog , 2016-07-08 18:33:28
    Whence Hillary's obsession with lucre? When she was first lady of Arkansas she bitched to her friends about her lack of money. She was the pipeline for Tyson's bribery concerning the phony cattle futures. Before she took the oath of office as a Senator she posted a wish list for people who wanted to buy favors. There's something weird about someone who never lacked for creature comforts her entire life devoting her life to collecting funds, even if by crook.
    Fartoutloud , 2016-07-08 13:22:54
    From this side of the pond, from a 60's kid, America is dead. Maybe All those American states would do better as independent countries. The America today is a disgrace to its' peoples. Report
    OXIOXI20 Fartoutloud , 2016-07-08 13:34:30
    You know, from this side of the pond (US) we are seriously thinking of asking Texas to go back to Mexico. That would be a good start, after all Texas thinks it a good idea for its citizens to walk around their city streets carrying "assault style weapons" and not only that, now they want students in their Universities to carry concealed weapons also. Would any of you on your side of the pond like to have Texas, we will be willing to let them go real cheap. C'mon now, make us an offer we can't refuse. Report
    TedMorton Fartoutloud , 2016-07-08 14:49:38
    From this (US) side of the pond, it's clear that people reading the MSM think that the whole of the US is like a wild west movie shootout. If I were to believe the MSM, I might be forgiven that thinking that Godzilla is crashing through the Houses of Parliament as I write.
    Try a bit of perspective will you? And put your tinfoil hat back on. It wasn't that long ago that a crazed UK citizen shot and killed an MP was it?
    SpicewoodJoe , 2016-07-08 14:51:30
    Our system was founded on the presumption that an informed electorate will make the best choice. Obviously we have missed that mark. Having the average voter be better informed is always a good thing. Can we lay some blame at the feet of our incompetent public schools? How many recent public school graduates can recite the declaration of Independence? Who is responsible for our current state of ignorance? Is half the story a lie? Our founding fathers intended a free press to inform the masses. The Guardian is one of several media outlets that have gone from informative to outright advocacy. The opinion pieces here that are passed off as fact are nonstop. The progressive revision of history and willful ignorance of facts is disheartening. Sure big money can distort results, but putting a government agency in charge of policing who gets to donate is a whole new mess.
    We were blessed with an enduring document in our constitution. To ignore it is foolish. More government is not always better government. The current rise of outsiders reflects our angst here in flyover country. We have had enough of Washington insiders doing the bait and switch. We are not under taxed, we are not under regulated, we need you media outlets to tell the truth about the corruption and deceit rampant in Washington even on the left
    Chris Holland SpicewoodJoe , 2016-07-08 17:53:56
    "Our system was founded on the presumption that an informed electorate will make the best choice."
    Depends on who is doing the informing, and what information pablum they feed to the masses.
    "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
    ― Joseph Goebbels
    Goebbels had a thorough understanding of how to manipulate the minds of the masses, and current politicians have studied him well. All it takes is money to put the spin on. The media love it, because that's where all that money goes to produce the spin. Why do you think they left Sanders in such a void? Because his platform is to get all that money out of politics.
    Sqweebo , 2016-07-08 15:22:08
    The only hope the US has is for 34 states on a local level,to call for a convention to amend the constitution,with the repeal citizens united being the amendement proposed. The beautiful part the US founding fathers left for the people is the ability to change the law if enough states want it. So when the judicial,executive,legislative as well as the press fail the people,they can change the law themselves. Its the only hope the US has at this point. Report
    ehmaybe Sqweebo , 2016-07-08 15:40:24
    Citizens United doesn't just let Walmart fund PACs to run ads against unions. It allows unions to fund PACs to run ads against trade agreements. It allows the Sierra Club to fund PACs to run ads about environmental policy. It allows NARAL to fund PACs to support abortion rights.
    Do you really want create an environment where only individuals can engage in political speech and where people can't organize groups to speak collectively? Limiting political speech is not something we should take lightly. Citizens United didn't cause the partisanship problems we have today and it's not the reason our representatives are content to do nothing. The way we elect people is the real problem, not how we fund our elections, that's a side effect of the former.

    [Jul 18, 2016] Melania Trump Interview

    Notable quotes:
    "... Melania also made her own jewelry. "Melania never wore anything from the store," recalls one friend. ..."
    "... Like her sister, Ines, her goal was to become a designer, and she applied to the school of architecture at the local university, successfully passing the notoriously difficult entrance exams ..."
    "... She didn't drink, didn't party, didn't smoke. ..."
    "... "She kept to herself, she was a loner. After a shoot or a catwalk, she went home, not out. She didn't want to waste time partying," Jerko remembers. ..."
    GQ

    When she was getting her jewelry plans off the ground, Melania sketched the designs for the collection herself, relying on a talent for drawing that her childhood friends tell me she flashed as a girl. "It's not free; it's precise," Petra Sedej, one of Melania's high school classmates, says of her art. "She has a really good feeling for this."

    ... ... ...

    "She was always very fancy." Amalija spent evenings after work sewing clothing for herself and her two daughters, Ines and Melania. Once she learned to draw, Melania sketched her own designs, and her mother or sister sewed them. Melania also made her own jewelry. "Melania never wore anything from the store," recalls one friend.

    ... ... ...

    While working for the car company in Ljubljana, Viktor had an apartment there, in one of the city's first residential high-rises. It was a prestigious address and provided the girls a place to stay in the capital so that they could attend design school-another luxury.

    ... ... ...

    In those days, Melania wasn't thinking about a career as a model. Like her sister, Ines, her goal was to become a designer, and she applied to the school of architecture at the local university, successfully passing the notoriously difficult entrance exams. In those years in Ljubljana, she was focused on school. She didn't drink, didn't party, didn't smoke. Even after she met Jerko and began dabbling in modeling, she preferred to go home after work, to be with her equally quiet and reserved sister. "She kept to herself, she was a loner. After a shoot or a catwalk, she went home, not out. She didn't want to waste time partying," Jerko remembers.

    ... ... ...

    Melania decamped to Milan after her first year of college, effectively dropping out

    ... ... ...

    In New York, Melania lived a quiet, homebound life, taking assiduous care of her body: walks with ankle weights, seven pieces of fruit every day, diligently moisturizing her skin. She rarely partied, never brought anyone back to the apartment, and was always home early. "She didn't go out to dance clubs; she'd go to Cipriani for dinner at ten and be home by one," Atanian recalls.

    [Jul 18, 2016] Melania Trump From Small-Town Slovenia to Doorstep of White House

    Jul 18, 2016 | NYT

    ... ... ...

    Ms. Trump, born in 1970, grew up in this hilly town of 4,500 best known around Slovenia, at least until Mr. Trump entered the presidential race, for its medieval castle and annual salami festival. Then, Slovenia was the northern region of Yugoslavia, ruled by Josip Broz Tito, a Communist dictator who kept his distance from the Soviet Union and allowed more freedoms than did other Eastern bloc leaders.

    ... ... ...

    Mr. Trump, in an interview last month, said he had never discussed the topic with his father-in-law. "But he was pretty successful over there," he said. "It's a different kind of success than you have here. But he was successful."

    In 1972, the Knavses moved into a larger apartment in a new housing block for workers of the government-owned textile factory, including Melania's mother, Amalija, nicknamed Malci. She drew patterns for children's clothes and later designed them, crossing the bridge to the factory every day in heels.

    Mr. Knavs, a traveling car salesman, spent a lot of time on the road. But when he was home, he was noticed. Friends say he had a jocular personality and a fondness for his Mercedes sedans and his coveted Maserati. Ms. Trump's childhood friends recalled him incessantly washing the cars, but also carrying himself in a self-assured way that now reminded them of Mr. Trump.

    ... Friends say that she enjoyed geography lessons in a room adorned with maps of the world, and that she adored art class. The future creator of the QVC collection "Melania Timepieces & Jewelry" made bracelets there...

    In 1985, Melania left Sevnica, traveling on the narrow roads along the slow-moving Sava River, green from the reflection of the wooded hills, and through coal mining towns on the way to Ljubljana. There she attended the Secondary School of Design and Photography, housed in an arcaded Renaissance monastery.

    She lived in an apartment that her father, who had opened a bicycle and car parts shop in Ljubljana, had bought a few years earlier on the outskirts of the city.

    ... ... ...

    Melania and her older sister, Ines, also stood out, for their looks, their wardrobe and the makeup they put on whenever they left the apartment. At school, Melania kept her distance from peers listening to the Cure or Metallica, Mr. Kracina said, and gravitated toward a clique of pop music fans who hung out at the Horse's Tail bar by the Triple Bridge in Ljubljana.

    It was there that Peter Butoln, who prided himself on having Ljubljana's only metallic blue Vespa, noticed Melania one night among the regulars dressed in bleached jeans and Benetton shirts, drinking Mish Mash (Fanta and wine) and chatting each other up. Now 17, Melania was abstemious and more wholesome than the other girls, he said, and they started dating. He would pick her up on weekends and drive her around on his Vespa, and they would dance badly to Wham in "a nice discothèque" by the cathedral.

    ... ... ..

    Melania had also begun a process that would carry her away from Slovenia. In January 1987, the photographer Stane Jerko spotted her and asked if she would be interested in modeling.

    ...Melania's entire family sensed potential in her modeling. After high school, she concentrated on her career, dropping out of architecture school. (She still claims on her website to have graduated.) On one occasion, Mr. Kravs drove his Mercedes to the shop of the seamstress Silva Njegac, hours from Ljubljana, to order leather dresses for Melania that his wife had designed.

    ... ... ...

    A second-place finish in Jana magazine's Slovenian Face of the Year contest in 1992 expanded Melania's ambitions. In a fashion video for a Slovenian label, she wore a skirt suit, exited a plane shadowed by bodyguards and signed papers at the national library.

    ... She would soon Germanize her name to Melania Knauss and become an international model.

    ... ... ...

    [Jul 18, 2016] Democrats struggle for unity as protesters swarm Netroots convention US news

    The Guardian

    Stephen Mitchell

    1. Sanders: Clinton has backed "virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs"
    2. Sanders: Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street
    3. Sanders: Hillary Clinton = D.C. Establishment
    4. Sanders: Democrat Establishment immigration policies would drive down Americans' wages, create open borders
    5. Sanders: Clinton supports nation-building in Middle East through war and invasion

    Sanders: "And now, I support her 100%."

    DurbanPoisonWillBurn

    Anyone who believes Hillary is progressive deserves the horrible outcome a Hillary presidency will bring. How ANYONE can still support Hillary is beyond me. The woman has accomplished NOTHING except chaos & failure. Wake up folks. Hillary does NOT care about you. She cares about power, money, and making deals that benefit HER. Vote Jill Stein

    [Jul 17, 2016] Loretta Lynch Will NOT Charge Hillary Clinton With Perjury Conservative Daily

    Notable quotes:
    "... She didn't ..."
    "... Contempt of Congress ..."
    conservative-daily.com

    Fellow Conservative,

    Yesterday, the House of Representatives formally referred Hillary Clinton's testimony to the FBI for investigation into perjury/false statements under oath.

    Hillary Clinton, as you well know, made no less than three false statements under oath during her previous Congressional testimony.

    She declared she never sent any emails with information marked classified. She did .

    She asserted that she handed over all of her work-related emails. She didn't .

    And she claimed that her attorneys went through all of her emails before deciding what to turn over and what to delete. They didn't .

    The FBI will now investigate and submit a recommendation to Loretta Lynch.

    But after yesterday's joke of a hearing, does anyone really think that Lynch would prosecute Hillary Clinton? Lynch refused to answer at least 74 questions pertaining to the Clinton email scandal.

    She was asked point-blank to explain her reasoning in declining to indict Hillary Clinton and each time, she just refused to answer.

    Unfortunately, after yesterday's performance, it is clear that even if the FBI does find evidence that Hillary Clinton committed perjury or made false statements under oath – which is absolutely obvious – Lynch will protect the Clintons once again.

    But there is a way to take Loretta Lynch out of the equation entirely. There is a way to ensure that a Grand Jury is impaneled and that both the FBI and DOJ would be powerless to stop it.

    FaxBlast and tell Congress that it MUST file contempt charges against Hillary Clinton to send her perjury case directly to a Grand Jury!

    When the House refers a matter to the FBI, there is no guarantee that anything will come of it. Technically, the FBI doesn't even need to accept the referral.

    Even when there are so many clear lies and false statements, the Obama administration can still derail such an investigation at every level.

    The same is not true for Contempt of Congress charges.

    When Congress charges someone with Contempt, the law is actually written to take the DOJ and FBI pretty much out of the equation.

    According to the law, the Attorney General has a "duty" to impanel a Grand Jury for action on a Congressional Contempt charge. The law does not allow the DOJ or FBI to insert themselves into the case if they don't agree with the findings. It the House votes to charge someone with Contempt of Congress, the Sergeant at Arms is instructed to have that individual arrested and, if necessary, is given the power to imprison someone in the Capitol Jail pending the Grand Jury's decision.

    In 1983, the House of Representatives held Rita Lavelle, an EPA administrator, in Contempt of Congress for lying under oath. The Attorney General impaneled a Grand Jury, as the law requires, and Rita Lavelle was convicted and ultimately served three months of her six month sentence.

    This isn't some obscure function that hasn't been used since the 1800s. This is a legitimate method for Congress to hold administration officials accountable without having to deal with corruption in the Executive Branch.

    One floor vote. That's all it takes. One House of Representatives vote.

    It takes 218 "yes" votes and then the House can force the Attorney General to impanel a Grand Jury. Just to put it in perspective, twenty-nine RINOs could vote with the Democrats and there would still be enough votes to hold Hillary in Contempt.

    No more political interference… no more re-interpreting the law to get Hillary off the hook…

    FaxBlast and DEMAND that Congress circumvent the corrupt Department of (in)Justice and formally charge Hillary Clinton with Contempt of Congress for her lying under oath!

    Sincerely,

    Max McGuire
    Advocacy Director
    Conservative Daily

    [Jul 17, 2016] Did Hillary Clinton commit perjury, by lying about her emails, during the Benghazi hearing

    Notable quotes:
    "... The classified status of her emails was not her only lie under oath. She also testified that she had submitted all her work related emails to the FBI. Now it is apparent that was also a complete fabrication, as the FBI reports thousands of other work related emails retrieved from the recipient's servers. ..."
    "... The biggest example of her intentional deception is that she testified that she only had one server and Comey said she had several. Since those are physical objects she had to know that she had more than one. To claim ignorance not only asserts that she didn't know simple math, but that as a former senator who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee that she didn't understand what classified information meant, the same Hillary Clinton who earned her law degree from Yale. ..."
    www.quora.com
    Cary Aguillard, Opinions are like a**holes; everybody's got one and nobody wants to hear yours! 237 Views

    She unquestionably lied under oath at the Benghazi hearings about the sending of classified emails through her personal server. Mrs. Clinton clearly stated that she sent no classified information through her emails. Period. Now we know this is a big, fat lie. Under sworn oath.

    The classified status of her emails was not her only lie under oath. She also testified that she had submitted all her work related emails to the FBI. Now it is apparent that was also a complete fabrication, as the FBI reports thousands of other work related emails retrieved from the recipient's servers.

    Multiple lies under oath. Perjury. If you or I distorted the truth to that extent under oath, they would lock us up and destroy the key. The time for perversion of justice in favor of this habitual criminal offender is over. If charges of perjury are not brought then our entire justice system will be proven corrupt in the eyes of America and the world. End this embarrassment, and let justice be served!

    "All of my work related emails, yes." All that weren't erased and all the hard copies that were put into burn bags don't count by her reasoning. If she had nothing to hide why did her staff take the 5th so frequently? Of course she committed perjury. Drew McCormick , No, Hillary did not lie about Benghazi 91 Views

    No. She instructed her lawyers to release all work related emails and they, based on the headings, separated out all of those that seemed to be work related. They then told her that they had released all her work related emails.

    1. Apparently the Lawyers did the job competently but not thoroughly, as the FBI did identify a few emails that should have been released.
    2. Since Hillary believed her Lawyers and their statements, she did not lie. She may have been mistaken, but it does not meet minimal standards for perjury.

    A couple of points for those who didn't pay attention the last time a Clinton was baselessly charged: Lying is not perjury. It has to be material to the investigation in order to be perjury. Obviously this didn't meet that standard since none of her emails were informative to the case. The second is that being mistaken is not a lie. If a New York Times reader believed that there were extant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they would be mistaken, but their statements would not knowingly be false. When the British politicians stated that, however, they were lying.

    Richard Warner, Author and researcher 122 Views

    I believe she did. She certainly made false statements under oath, and I think there is sufficient evidence to show that she knowingly and intentionally made false statements. The continuous references to "marked" emails as a qualifier is used by her supporters as a safety net that is irrelevant since classified information is classified whether or not it is marked. Moreover, since so many emails were kept on her private servers they could not have been passed on to officials whose job it was to make markings.

    The biggest example of her intentional deception is that she testified that she only had one server and Comey said she had several. Since those are physical objects she had to know that she had more than one. To claim ignorance not only asserts that she didn't know simple math, but that as a former senator who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee that she didn't understand what classified information meant, the same Hillary Clinton who earned her law degree from Yale.

    Does this mean that she will be recommended for an indictment, prosecution or any penalty? Probably not. She could probably order a hit squad and leaders of her party would protect her as her supporters would cheer her on.

    [Jul 16, 2016] Did Hillary commit perjury?

    03/28/2013 | www.wnd.com

    TEL AVIV – Did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commit perjury when she claimed in a Senate hearing that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries?

    The goal of the alleged weapons shipments was to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

    Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered highly controversial. A major issue is the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaida, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups

    During the recent hearings over the Obama administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Clinton was directly asked about alleged U.S. weapons shipments out of Libya.

    Clinton claimed she did not know whether the U.S. was aiding Turkey and other Arab countries in procuring weapons.

    The exchange took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

    Paul asked Clinton: "Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?"

    "To Turkey?" Clinton asked. "I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me."

    Continued Paul: "It's been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I'd like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?"

    Clinton replied, "Well, Senator, you'll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available."

    "You're saying you don't know?" asked Paul.

    "I do not know," Clinton said. "I don't have any information on that."

    Clinton's claims seem to now be unraveling.

    Confirming WND's exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times earlier this week reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding Arab governments and Turkey in obtaining and shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels.

    Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND have said U.S.-aided weapons shipments go back more than a year, escalating before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi.

    In fact, the Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND since last year describe the U.S. mission in Benghazi and nearby CIA annex attacked last September as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels in the Middle East, particularly those fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

    The aid, the sources stated, included weapons shipments and was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    The specifics of the New York Times reporting, meanwhile, open major holes in Clinton's sworn claims to be in the dark about the alleged weapons shipments.

    U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity told the Times that American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons and then helped to vet rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.

    The plan mirrors one the Times reported last month in a separate article that was proposed by Clinton herself. The Times described Clinton as one of the driving forces advocating for arming the Syrian rebels.

    Last month, the New York Times reported Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus had concocted a plan calling for vetting rebels and arming Syrian fighters with the assistance of Arab countries.

    The Times report from earlier this week of U.S. arms shipments and vetting seems to be the Clinton-Petraeus plan put in action.

    It may be difficult for most to believe the secretary of state was not aware that her alleged plan was being implemented, especially when arming the Syrian rebels is a serious policy with obvious major repercussions internationally.

    Clinton is not the only one in hot water.

    As WND reported yesterday, the New York Times report threatens the longstanding White House narrative that claims the Obama administration has only supplied nonlethal aid to the rebels.

    The White House has repeatedly denied directly arming the rebels.

    Recruiting jihadists

    Days after the Benghazi attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, WND broke the story that Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad's regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials.

    Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad's forces, said the security officials.

    The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

    The latest New York Times report has bolstered WND's reporting, citing air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders describing how the CIA has been working with Arab governments and Turkey to sharply increase arms shipments to Syrian rebels in recent months.

    The Times reported that the weapons airlifts began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanding into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows.

    The Times further revealed that from offices at "secret locations," American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia. They have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.

    The CIA declined to comment to the Times on the shipments or its role in them.

    The Times quoted a former American official as saying that David H. Petraeus, the CIA director until November, had been instrumental in helping set up an aviation network to fly in the weapons. The paper said Petraeus had prodded various countries to work together on the plan.

    Petraeus did not return multiple emails from the Times asking for comment.

    Both WND's reporting, which first revealed the U.S.-coordinated arms shipments, and the Times reporting starkly contrast with statements from top U.S. officials who have denied aiding the supply of weapons to the rebels.

    Rebel training

    It's not the first time WND's original investigative reporting on U.S. support for the Syrian rebels was later confirmed by reporting in major media outlets. Other WND reporting indicates support for the Syrian rebels that goes beyond supplying arms, painting a larger picture of U.S. involvement in the Middle East revolutions.

    A story by the German weekly Der Spiegel earlier this month reporting the U.S. is training Syrian rebels in Jordan was exclusively exposed by WND 13 months ago.

    Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms.

    The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.

    The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.

    Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.

    Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the Der Spiegel report. The French foreign ministry and Britain's foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.

    While Der Spiegel quoted sources discussing training of the rebels in Jordan over the last three months, WND was first to report the training as far back as February 2012.

    At the time, WND quoted knowledgeable Egyptian and Arab security officials claimed the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern desert region.

    Editor's note: Additional research by Joshua Klein

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/did-hillary-commit-perjury/#GD9uo2OOii2wJdpE.99

    [Jul 16, 2016] Sanders much-vaunted e-mailing list has a pesky shrinkage problem

    Bernie on Monday to his supporters : Thanks for comin', see ya!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Donations to Jill Stine skyrocket after Sander's endorsement. https://www.rt.com/usa/351129-jill-stein-bernie-donations/ ..."
    "... And, let me guess: Sanders' much-vaunted e-mailing list has a pesky shrinkage problem. Which started on Tuesday. ..."
    "... Bernie denouement is the best thing that could have happened to Stein and the Greens. ..."
    "... The Stein campaign seems unprepared. They simply don't have any staff to deal with volunteers. There is a well trained group out there now, so they need gear, packets, flyers, talking points. ..."
    "... Sanders will attempt to maintain his supporters by focusing their time, skills and money on his new institute. Should serve to keep a good number from paying attention to Stein. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Code Name D , July 15, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    Donations to Jill Stine skyrocket after Sander's endorsement. https://www.rt.com/usa/351129-jill-stein-bernie-donations/

    Arizona Slim , July 15, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    And, let me guess: Sanders' much-vaunted e-mailing list has a pesky shrinkage problem. Which started on Tuesday.

    Steve C , July 15, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    Bernie denouement is the best thing that could have happened to Stein and the Greens. If Bernie and West had started with the Greens, they would have gotten zero traction. Another noble cause no one's ever heard of. Instead, Bernie started something that came close to blowing up the Democrats the way Trump blew up the Republicans.

    Now a lot of the Bernie sisses and bros are looking for somewhere to go. Stein is well placed to pick up the pieces if she knows what to do with them.

    Waldenpond , July 15, 2016 at 9:52 pm

    The Stein campaign seems unprepared. They simply don't have any staff to deal with volunteers. There is a well trained group out there now, so they need gear, packets, flyers, talking points.

    Sanders will attempt to maintain his supporters by focusing their time, skills and money on his new institute. Should serve to keep a good number from paying attention to Stein.

    The Stein campaign has a narrow window.

    [Jul 16, 2016] Trump Bernie Just Lost The FBI Primary; Today Proves He Was Right About The Rigged System Video RealClearPolitics

    www.realclearpolitics.com

    Donald Trump comments on the end of what he called the "FBI Primary," saying that Bernie Sanders has so far refused to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination in hopes that Clinton might be indicted. He says that the FBI's recommendation not to indict proves Sanders was right when he said the Democratic primary was "rigged."

    Today is the best evidence ever that we have seen that our system is totally, absolutely rigged," Trump said at a rally in North Carolina.

    "It's rigged," Trump said. "And I used that term nationally when I was running in the Republican primaries, and I was the first to use it, and then all of a sudden it became a hot term and everyone was using the word rigged, rigged, rigged. But if you remember, I won Louisiana. And I didn't get enough delegate, what happened? Places like Colorado, which was so good to me, but all of a sudden we find out that they don't have the vote... I'll be honest, if I didn't win in landslides, I wouldn't be standing here. You would be watching some politician who will lose to Hillary.

    "I learned about the rigged system really fast. All of a sudden, Bernie started using it and now everyone talks about the system being rigged," he said.

    "I'm going to keep using it because I was the one that brought it up."

    "I asked a couple of political pros," he said. "Think of Bernie Sanders. I think the one with the most to be angry about. The one with the most to lose is Bernie Sanders, because honestly, he was waiting for the FBI primary, and guess what? He just lost today the FBI primary!"

    "He lost the FBI primary! Bernie, my poor Bernie, oh, Bernie! I feel so badly for Bernie, but you know what? A lot of Bernie Sanders supporters are going to be voting for Trump, because Bernie Sanders was right! Bernie Sanders was right about a couple of things. He's right about the system being rigged, but he's also right about trade. Our trade deals are a disaster. They're killing our jobs. They're killing our families. They're killing our incomes."

    [Jul 16, 2016] Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders Sheepdogging for Hillary and the Democrats in 2016 Black Agenda Report

    blackagendareport.com

    Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.

    [Jul 15, 2016] How U.S. And UK Liberals Disfranchise Their Party Members

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie supporters are crowing about his great success at influencing the Democratic Party platform. How exciting is that? Is there anything less useful than the platform of a political party? Screen doors in a submarine come to mind. A political party platform has all of the significance and impact of a good healthy a fart in the midst of a hurricane. ..."
    "... bernie sanders, when it comes right down to it, is either a liar, or is willing to support hillary in spite of who and what she stands for.. trumps comments on this are indeed bang on. ..."
    "... The Sanders move is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook of the last 100 years, as so many predicted. The Democrats have co-opted every grass-roots movement that has arisen in the US, co-opted and quashed it. ..."
    "... The party primaries in the USA are not intended to be representative, democratic elections: they simply serve as a sort of consumer survey to see which of their candidates would be most popular in the general election. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders claims some concessions were achieved in the platform committee document. But one issue of greatest importance, on trade issues,--specifically the rejection of TPP, is a lost cause. Bernie threw in the towel. The phony sideshow of reconstituted New Deal hoopla is merely the same tired fantasy narrative that the Democrats predictably trot out for every presidential election. ..."
    "... The dear old man who started this campaign with this gem of rhetoric: "What we need is a revolution in the streets", is ending his monkeyshines with a ringing endosement of one of the most politically corrupt figures in our history. ..."
    "... Jill Stein, who ran for president on the Green Party platform, says that Bernie's endorsement of Hillary is the "last nail in the coffin" which turns Sanders' revolution over to a counter-revolutionary party. ..."
    "... Trump would do well to attract Bernie Voters now, by exploiting areas of agreement. The TPP is one example. ..."
    "... He led people to believe that he had principles - that he really was against Wall St. and SuperPACs and all that Hillary stands for. He also (late in the race) began talking about 'revolution' to play to the discontented and young idealists. ..."
    "... Its all just bullshit when he ultimately supports Hillary. But those who support Hillary (like rufus does) try hard to finesse Sanders failing because they value the "service" that Sanders performed for the Obama-Hillary "Third Way" Democratic Party. ..."
    "... What chance do we have with Hillary?--a back-stabbing, forked-tongue, daughter of Goldman Sachs, whose speeches to the industrialists and bankers are practically a state secret? Yes, Hillary!--who is coated from head to toe with a patina of blood, and smells of corpses? ..."
    "... US corporations aren't stupid. They know bad, expensive education, decaying infrastructure and violence in the street are bad for business. They might even realize that corruption is bad for them. And that worker representation makes life easier all around. ..."
    "... In fact, Sanders pulled several key punches in the race ..."
    "... he failed to call Hillary out on her emails after the State Inspector General report was release and it was CLEAR that she had lied about her emails; ..."
    "... he is close/friendly with all of the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him to win his Senate seat; Schumer endorses him; he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years. ..."
    "... Except in style, Hillary is no different than Obama, Bush II, or her husband. Whereas earlier presidents felt the need to put on a show of decency -- well, okay, Bush II let it drop now and then -- H. Clinton will be a bitch Cheney, going out of her way to rub everyone's face in it and bragging there's nothing they can do about it. ..."
    "... There's a bright side however. She's dumb and knows no bounds. Think Louis XVI. That, along with her arrogance, may finally bring a tipping point of sorts. With things coming apart everywhere, a smooth-talking fraud like Reagan or Obama might be able to somehow hold it together a little longer. Hillary's nastiness could actually bring real change. God in his infinite irony. ..."
    "... To say there is a deep state controlling Clinton may be an over simplification. More likely their are lots of competing and conflicting forces working in the dark, none with any clear idea or plan (or inkling of what other powers are doing) each pushing for immediate gains without a thought for the future. ..."
    "... In the struggle for power everyone. including H. Clinton, is a useful fool and a potential patsy. Those hidden powers have a history of eating their own. ..."
    "... Sanders has been a great disappointment. In order to prevent Trump from getting the votes, he is embracing and selling his soul and his supporters to a demon! In fact Sanders has more in common with Trump that he has with Hillary. ..."
    "... "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs" ..."
    "... His followers were fools. I think some of them know that now. ..."
    "... I for one, hoped for more than "sheepdog" from Sanders, but, alas, those who said so, were totally correct ..."
    "... in American politics, none of these people are for dismantling the biggest budgetary fraud & boondoggle in human history: the pentagon. anybody saying they are for "small gov't" who doesn't immediately propose to slash the military/para-military budget (not the VA, not now) by 50% every year for the next 500 years is lying. ..."
    "... Hillary represents a continuation of the last 8 years, or even perhaps the last 16 or 24+ years. There is absolutely no doubt about that. ..."
    "... People taken in by Sanders learned no lessons from gushing over Obama. They hurt themselves again and are sociopathically indifferent to the far greater harm they have done to those who were not gullible. ..."
    "... Even if she had given any "significant concession", it would have been meaningless noise with not an iota of intention to implement such concessions. She is a POS who will say anything at all to get elected. The only thing we really know is she relishes confrontation on the foreign policy scene. Otherwise nobody can rely on her to act in their interests in the domestic realm, except big corporate entities. ..."
    "... It is stupid for B to keep linking to Trumps quotes exclusively. Why does b not link to Jill Stein criticism. Sure Trumps criticism of evil Hillarys corruption will gather important support, but exclusively giving torture loving warmongering Trump ammunition, strangles other better candidates in their political birth in the alternative to status quo attention. In the same way that the Sanders, Chomsky, and other shortsighted cowards react by strangle politically strangling a desperate new movement. ..."
    "... Congrats to those who labeled the 'Sheepdog' so early. Such an apt description. Good call. ..."
    "... Sanders released only one year of tax returns (2015). His campaign manager claimed his taxes held no surprises. Well they didn't for 2015. But why didn't Sanders release earlier years? Any serious Presidential candidate would expect to release at least 3 years of tax returns. ..."
    "... Given the 'service' that he performed, it might be especially interesting to have seen his taxes for 2014, the year before he entered the race. The lack of transparency and Sanders' 'sheepdogging' raises questions of whether he received any inducements to enter the race. ..."
    "... The Plan was always from the start for Bernie to hold down the Left, so Hillary could capture Center-Right, and Donald could lead the Far Right into Smackdown. Then Bernie would deliver the Left to Hillary. And so it has come to pass. ..."
    "... Strange bedfellows? Not at all. The Israelis and the GCC countries, the USG and EU, are all soul brothers : tiny 'elite' minorities attempting to rule their respective roosts by technological means encompassing everything from drones to the media to their ubiquitous taps. ..."
    "... in loco parentis ..."
    "... In 1963 there was a coup in America. Since then the military-industrial complex has run the country. It has been most apparent in its foreign policy, which has been the conquest of natural resources (especially oil and gas) worldwide. America's resentment with the USSR/Russia has to do with their living on top of resources. ..."
    "... But in order to continue the illusion of democracy in the US, it was necessary to maintain some differences between the two parties so that Americans would think that they have a choice. Meanwhile, the party that is supposed to represent the working class has been sliding into the arms of the corporatists. Essentially, in order to give Americans a "choice" Trump has been pushed as the demonic clown versus H. Clinton. Unfortunately, for good reasons as well as because of endless propaganda from the right, most Americans distrust Clinton, as well they should. Her casual announcement about enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Syria is essentially a declaration of war against Russia. ..."
    "... Going back to the coup in 1963, in order to maintain control of the population it was necessary for the ruling class to continue to generate candidates each election cycle to pretend to care about the working class. I have long suspected that early on in their careers both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were recruited by US intelligence. During his time in Britain Bill's classmates assumed that he was CIA ..."
    "... I suspect it was the beginning of her career in US power politics. Shortly after she wrote a pro-Vietnam speech for Melvin Laird in 1968, she was involved with the various Black Panther trials around the US. ..."
    "... It's hard to believe that the Hillary who stands before us now was ever a political ally of the Panthers. Rather, I suspect she was observing for an intelligence agency, the FBI or CIA She sat through a Panther trial in New Haven, Connecticut, and then spent a summer in Oakland working for the law firm that was representing the Panthers in the Bay Area. Essentially, she was in the right place at the right time to glean information for COINTELPRO, the massive spying program directed against anti-war and black movements. A few years later she worked on the Democrats' legal team for Watergate, another good place for a government informant to be. Bill, during his time at Oxford, would have functioned like the thousands of informants who sat in on peace group meetings across American campuses. ..."
    "... Later, when the CIA was dumping cocaine at Mena, Arkansas, Bill Clinton was in position to make sure state police left the operation alone. It's not surprising that George W. Bush's first head of the DEA was Asa Hutchinson, who'd been the incurious federal prosecutor over that part of Arkansas when the drugs came in. ..."
    "... The Clintons were prominent in the Democratic Leadership Council, which was an organization within the Democratic Party pushing it to the right. In 1992 Bill pushed trade agreements that would destroy the American middle class. Since then the party has been hopelessly corrupted by Wall Street money. ..."
    "... I cannot think of another president in memory who is more wed to military adventurism than Hillary. ..."
    "... But if she polls badly enough, Democratic establishment may see the light and go for Sanders. ..."
    Jun 13, 2016 |

    Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people who supported him.

    ... ... ...

    I expect the "Not Hillary" protest vote to be very strong in the November election. There is still more significant dirt to be dug up about her and her family foundation. Trumps current lows in the polls will recover when the media return to the "close race" mantra that makes them money. He still has a decent chance to win.

    V. Arnold | Jul 13, 2016 1:04:11 AM | 1
    It is long, long past the time to see the world we really live in; the realities of our western faux democracies. Until and unless we recognise the facts, as they are, nothing can be changed. The problem/s must be identified for it/them to be solved.

    It doesn't take a critical mass of people; but it takes more than a few; far more than evidenced this election cycle...

    Bill H | Jul 13, 2016 1:07:34 AM | 2
    Bernie supporters are crowing about his great success at influencing the Democratic Party platform. How exciting is that? Is there anything less useful than the platform of a political party? Screen doors in a submarine come to mind. A political party platform has all of the significance and impact of a good healthy a fart in the midst of a hurricane.
    james | Jul 13, 2016 1:27:48 AM | 3
    thanks b, for highlighting these sad realities. bernie sanders, when it comes right down to it, is either a liar, or is willing to support hillary in spite of who and what she stands for.. trumps comments on this are indeed bang on.

    the labour. party is run by a gang of thugs.. i hope the people who want corbyn are able to overcome the mostroisity the labour party has become.

    i echo @1 v. arnolds comments..

    @2 bill..bernie spporters better not show how stupid they are by also voting for hillary..

    Grieved | Jul 13, 2016 2:46:33 AM | 4
    The Sanders move is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook of the last 100 years, as so many predicted. The Democrats have co-opted every grass-roots movement that has arisen in the US, co-opted and quashed it.

    Even as deliberately unplugged as I've been from this race, it's been easy to see at a glance that Sanders magnetized the next wave of concerned citizens - of course the young people rallied to his banner - and will now leave them broken and in disarray, or delivered to the Democrats.

    He was an independent. He so simply could have turned the Green Party into a ten-percent force in the US, making it hugely important, and advancing in one leap the cause of multi-party governance.

    He didn't.

    Brunswick | Jul 13, 2016 2:48:56 AM | 5

    http://www.vox.com/2016/7/1/12083494/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-concessions

    okie farmer | Jul 13, 2016 5:04:31 AM | 10

    Thomas Frank: It's Bill Clinton Who Wrecked the Democratic Party.
    https://youtu.be/pmCibWptzZQ

    ralphieboy | Jul 13, 2016 6:25:21 AM | 11
    The party primaries in the USA are not intended to be representative, democratic elections: they simply serve as a sort of consumer survey to see which of their candidates would be most popular in the general election.

    Registering for a party does not mean that you are a member of a particular party or even support it, you are simply choosing to vote in their primary elections (if you live in a state with closed primaries). That is something a lot of Bernie supporters found out much too late. But that is not a "rigged system", those rules were in place long before Sanders decided to run as a Democrat.

    And rules differ from state to state: some places allot delegates proportionally, in others it is winner-take-all. Some states hold a general election, other hold a caucus:you have to travel to a certain place at a certain time to cast your vote, which means you have to have the time and money in order to participate.

    I have never seen a similar system in place anywhere else. Usually it is only card-carrying, dues-paying party members who are allowed to select their candidates.

    nmb | Jul 13, 2016 7:13:16 AM | 13
    From Tsipras to Corbyn and Sanders: This is not the Left we want
    rufus magister | Jul 13, 2016 7:29:34 AM | 15
    Further to 14 -- Big Legacies of Bernie Sanders' Historic Campaign.
    Seventh is the real possibility Bernie has inspired of a third party – if the Democratic Party doesn't respond to the necessity of getting big money out of politics and reversing widening inequality, if it doesn't begin to advocate for a single-payer healthcare system, or push hard for higher taxes on the wealthy - including a wealth tax - to pay for better education and better opportunities for everyone else, if it doesn't expand Social Security and lift the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax, if it doesn't bust up the biggest banks and strengthen antitrust laws, and expand voting rights.

    If it doesn't act on these critical issues. the Democratic Party will become irrelevant to the future of America, and a third party will emerge to address them.

    From the first I hoped that the revolutionary left would be able to capitalize on the issues raised by Sanders' insurgency. You will win support by winning concrete gains for real people. Not by shrill denunciations of the masses ignorance or gullibility.

    Copeland | Jul 13, 2016 7:56:07 AM | 18
    Very good observations from b. Bernie Sanders claims some concessions were achieved in the platform committee document. But one issue of greatest importance, on trade issues,--specifically the rejection of TPP, is a lost cause. Bernie threw in the towel. The phony sideshow of reconstituted New Deal hoopla is merely the same tired fantasy narrative that the Democrats predictably trot out for every presidential election.

    The dear old man who started this campaign with this gem of rhetoric: "What we need is a revolution in the streets", is ending his monkeyshines with a ringing endosement of one of the most politically corrupt figures in our history. And once again, every 1930s, New Deal trope and hurrah, is to be trotted out, even though the former Clinton administration drove a stake into the heart of most of FDR's work.

    Get in line sheep. Mutton will be served.

    Jill Stein, who ran for president on the Green Party platform, says that Bernie's endorsement of Hillary is the "last nail in the coffin" which turns Sanders' revolution over to a counter-revolutionary party.

    fast freddy | Jul 13, 2016 8:11:02 AM | 19
    Trump would do well to attract Bernie Voters now, by exploiting areas of agreement. The TPP is one example.

    Owned by Goldman Bilderberg and the CFR, the Den of Lying Thieves and Whores - aka the Democratic Party - now has sneakily moved forward to tee up the TPP for passage by Crooked Hillary if not Oilbomber.

    Note: The Republican Party is also a Den of Lying Thieves and Whores.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 8:26:49 AM | 21
    rufus: Sanders did what he said he would from the start ...

    He led people to believe that he had principles - that he really was against Wall St. and SuperPACs and all that Hillary stands for. He also (late in the race) began talking about 'revolution' to play to the discontented and young idealists.

    Its all just bullshit when he ultimately supports Hillary. But those who support Hillary (like rufus does) try hard to finesse Sanders failing because they value the "service" that Sanders performed for the Obama-Hillary "Third Way" Democratic Party.

    Those who said that Sanders was a sheepdog from the start were right: the Democratic Party led by "Third Way" sellouts is hopeless. Long past time to move on.

    Vote Green Party.

    Bluemot5 | Jul 13, 2016 8:33:17 AM | 23
    Jill Stein response to Bernie endorsement of Hilary:
    http://www.jill2016.com/sanders_endorsement_clinton
    dahoit | Jul 13, 2016 8:35:54 AM | 24
    16;Heru;You gotta throw that ideology crap in the can.

    Wtf do think Trumps support is, but democrats and republicans tired of Israeli shills?

    Trump will win, as the only way the pos crud could is by Trumps assassination.

    Did you hear what he said about Ginsburg? Her mind is shot! An Israeli on the SC.3 in fact. sheesh.

    Copeland | Jul 13, 2016 8:54:37 AM | 26
    Now now Jackrabbit, go easy on rufus. You have to remember that cognitive dissonance is infinitely extensible across a mind that is captured by delusion.

    Yes Virginia, they are all hucksters -- Surely the microscopic communist party, or its pale American likeness, of which rufus is a mustache twirling member, is less of a political fantasy, than the Green Party!

    What chance do we have with Hillary?--a back-stabbing, forked-tongue, daughter of Goldman Sachs, whose speeches to the industrialists and bankers are practically a state secret? Yes, Hillary!--who is coated from head to toe with a patina of blood, and smells of corpses?

    somebody | Jul 13, 2016 9:46:28 AM | 30
    @harrylaw | Jul 13, 2016 9:18:24 AM | 27

    So it is basically the British Trade Unions making sure their members dominate in the leadership election?

    The US democratic party is a huge income generating corporation with some worker representation. Sanders is correct to stay inside if he wants to change politics. If Sandernistas continue the fight (they will, it is generational, same as the Clintons were generational) seat for seat they will change the party. They will get changed themselves in the process for sure.

    It seems the Libertarian party succeeds in splitting Republicans. For Sanders to split Democrats would be voting for Trump. He would have to live with this fame outside of the Democratic Party with no one to team up in the Senate.

    US corporations aren't stupid. They know bad, expensive education, decaying infrastructure and violence in the street are bad for business. They might even realize that corruption is bad for them. And that worker representation makes life easier all around.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 9:48:55 AM | 31
    Bluemot5 @23

    Jill goes easy on Sanders in her statement because she wants to attract his supporters.

    In fact, Sanders pulled several key punches in the race:

    > he was late in calling out Hillary-DNC collusion - campaign financing got the headlines but what about the DNC's silence about: a) media bias toward Hillary and b) voter irregularities: AP called the race for Hillary the day before California voted based on secret polling of Super-delegates! ;

    > he failed to attack Obama's record on black/minority affairs - despite Sanders having conducted a fake filibuster over the Fiscal Cliff/Sequester - Hillary walked away with the black vote;

    > he failed to call Hillary out on her emails after the State Inspector General report was release and it was CLEAR that she had lied about her emails;

    And Sanders is not an "independent" as any ordinary person would interpret that term:

    > he has caucused with the Democrats for a very long time (nearly 20 years?);

    > he runs in the Vermont Democratic Primary when running for House/Senate with the understanding that he will not run in general election as a Democrat (this effectively blocks opposition from a Democratic candidate);

    > he is close/friendly with all of the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him to win his Senate seat; Schumer endorses him; he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years.

    Felicity | Jul 13, 2016 10:35:54 AM | 33
    I "stole" this great piece for Global Research, with so many thanks again:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-u-s-and-uk-liberals-disfranchise-their-party-members/5535699

    RIP democracy in the US and UK, finally out of it's misery, been gasping it's last for a very long time.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 10:45:08 AM | 34
    Kshama Sawant: Bernie Sanders Abandons the Revolution
    The strategy of lesser evilism has been an utter disaster for the 99%. Effectively unchallenged by the left, the Democratic Party helped the Republican Party to push the agenda steadily to the right over the past decades. As Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has aptly put it, "the politics of fear has delivered everything we were afraid of."

    ... Bernie's endorsement will be used in an attempt to prop up that same rotten establishment ... [that makes] Sanders endorsement of Clinton is [sic] a fundamental failure of leadership.
    ...
    We can't afford to follow Bernie's error. It is time for us to move on. ... That is why I'm endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein. ... There can be no doubt that Jill's campaign is the clear continuation of our political revolution, and deserves the broadest possible support from Sandernistas.

    Ken Nari | Jul 13, 2016 10:55:38 AM | 35
    Mark Stoval @ 16 -- We've had a fascist economic system (since the 30s)...

    Even before. At least since 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which transferred the holdings of the U.S. treasury to international bankers.

    b, me too. For the first time I think Clinton may actually be president. Sanders never had a chance for the simple reason -- never stated -- that he is too old. When he took office he would have been only a few years short of the age Reagan was when he left.

    (For some reason age has never come up with this elderly bunch. Both Bill Clinton (as co-president) and Trump will be older than Reagan was on election day, and Hillary will be only a few months younger. You'd think we'd be seeing clips of Hillary chopping logs and Trump free climbing the face of cliffs -- the sort of stuff they put poor old Ron through.)

    A scary thought is that age has never come up because the powers that pick presidents don't intend for them to be in office long.

    Except in style, Hillary is no different than Obama, Bush II, or her husband. Whereas earlier presidents felt the need to put on a show of decency -- well, okay, Bush II let it drop now and then -- H. Clinton will be a bitch Cheney, going out of her way to rub everyone's face in it and bragging there's nothing they can do about it.

    Her style's different, but the same game will go on.

    There's a bright side however. She's dumb and knows no bounds. Think Louis XVI. That, along with her arrogance, may finally bring a tipping point of sorts. With things coming apart everywhere, a smooth-talking fraud like Reagan or Obama might be able to somehow hold it together a little longer. Hillary's nastiness could actually bring real change. God in his infinite irony.

    To riff off a comment by Banger a few posts back. To say there is a deep state controlling Clinton may be an over simplification. More likely their are lots of competing and conflicting forces working in the dark, none with any clear idea or plan (or inkling of what other powers are doing) each pushing for immediate gains without a thought for the future.

    It's often said here that the plan is chaos. Maybe, or it could be that there is such confusion and turmoil and chaos is so prevalent, that it looks like it must be a plan. Or taking a longer view, it could be what we're seeing everywhere is the inevitable collapse of a vast culture that has grown too complex.

    In the struggle for power everyone. including H. Clinton, is a useful fool and a potential patsy. Those hidden powers have a history of eating their own.

    virgile | Jul 13, 2016 11:04:50 AM | 36
    Sanders has been a great disappointment. In order to prevent Trump from getting the votes, he is embracing and selling his soul and his supporters to a demon! In fact Sanders has more in common with Trump that he has with Hillary.

    One hopes that disenchanted Sanders supporters will either abstain or vote for Trump.
    Having the choice only of two candidates is an absurdity.

    Stan | Jul 13, 2016 11:26:42 AM | 41
    "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs" is not a valid statement.

    Sanders is a long time member of The Party and Congress. One cannot be a member of those clubs for so long -- particularly during the years spanning the turn of the last century -- and not be rotten to the core.

    His followers were fools. I think some of them know that now.

    Jack Smith | Jul 13, 2016 12:14:52 PM | 44
    @Grieved | Jul 13, 2016 2:46:33 AM | 4

    Excuse me, not meant to be offensive. :-)

    Like million and millions of Americans you have been fooled not once but repeatedly and still believe in democracy and Democratic party. Get real, Sanders probably a better lair than most liars but not as good as Obomo and Hillary. Understands million and millions still believe these two liars (dun believes me look at the most recent poll).

    Do the smart things vote the opposite what the masses or MSM tells you. Better still vote Trump and end the drip, drip and drips. Buy yourself a good cheap pitchfork, snows shovel or whatever in yr local Craigslist or yard sales. Get ready for the final solution.

    Good luck. :-)

    ben | Jul 13, 2016 12:23:08 PM | 47
    Good take b, thanks.

    I for one, hoped for more than "sheepdog" from Sanders, but, alas, those who said so, were totally correct. Trump and HRC are 2 sides of the same coin. It matters not who wins. With either one, workers of the world are fucked. The corporate global takeover rolls on.

    I will "vote" for Jill Stein.

    On the efficacy of E-voting in the U$A.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545

    jason | Jul 13, 2016 12:29:05 PM | 48
    jules @ 46: in American politics, none of these people are for dismantling the biggest budgetary fraud & boondoggle in human history: the pentagon. anybody saying they are for "small gov't" who doesn't immediately propose to slash the military/para-military budget (not the VA, not now) by 50% every year for the next 500 years is lying.
    Jules | Jul 13, 2016 12:34:42 PM | 51
    @rufus magister | Jul 13, 2016 8:29:00 AM | 22

    I would have thought anyone with half a brain could see why there is an attraction for Trump.

    Hillary represents a continuation of the last 8 years, or even perhaps the last 16 or 24+ years. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

    Trump represents someone who's just so mad he might well blow up the entire global trading system starting trade wars left right and centre.

    How do you think a US trade war with China will go down?

    It will destroy the G20, WTO, perhaps even the US trading relations with Europe in the backdraft!

    For anyone who is against the NWO, this can surely be only a good thing.

    Also, Trump's stated foreign policies are basically bomb and kill all the terrorists and leave the various thug governments alone.

    Sounds better to me than NeoCon Wars all over the place "of choice".

    Ala, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.

    ben | Jul 13, 2016 12:37:14 PM | 52
    PS-I guess, to distill the question, one might say.. Should corporations serve the people, or should people serve the corporations? As of now, "the powers that are", believe in the latter.
    Stan | Jul 13, 2016 2:31:27 PM | 68
    @juliania | Jul 13, 2016 2:00:54 PM

    People taken in by Sanders learned no lessons from gushing over Obama. They hurt themselves again and are sociopathically indifferent to the far greater harm they have done to those who were not gullible.

    Casowary Gentry | Jul 13, 2016 2:57:06 PM | 70
    "Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people who supported him."

    Even if she had given any "significant concession", it would have been meaningless noise with not an iota of intention to implement such concessions.
    She is a POS who will say anything at all to get elected. The only thing we really know is she relishes confrontation on the foreign policy scene. Otherwise nobody can rely on her to act in their interests in the domestic realm, except big corporate entities.

    tom | Jul 13, 2016 5:13:00 PM | 82
    Syriza...oops, Sanders, was always more loyal to the Democratic party then his ideology. ALWAYS.
    I don't know why his supporters are surprised. Did they actually think he was lying when he said he would support Hillary Clinton.
    And not only that, he out right lied saying that the Democrats have the most progressive platform in Democrat history !!! A fucking ludicrous lie to protect evil Hillary. Disgraceful.

    Most of The left are so pathetic it's embarrassing, it's a great invitation to be dominated by the right wing.
    I believe every threat that the despicable right wing will bring, I do not believe the ideology commitment the vast majority of the left wing in power. Miserable lying cowards.

    It is stupid for B to keep linking to Trumps quotes exclusively. Why does b not link to Jill Stein criticism. Sure Trumps criticism of evil Hillarys corruption will gather important support, but exclusively giving torture loving warmongering Trump ammunition, strangles other better candidates in their political birth in the alternative to status quo attention. In the same way that the Sanders, Chomsky, and other shortsighted cowards react by strangle politically strangling a desperate new movement.

    MadMax2 | Jul 13, 2016 5:41:33 PM | 83
    Congrats to those who labeled the 'Sheepdog' so early. Such an apt description. Good call.
    Yesterday I had two emails from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, giddy with joy over Sanders endorsement of Clinton. Today I had another, which made me giddy with joy:
    After Bernie's call for unity yesterday, we just figured Democrats would...well...unify.

    But instead, everything is falling apart.

    FIRST: We heard barely a peep from grassroots Democrats.
    THEN: A Quinnipiac poll showed Trump and Clinton tied in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
    NOW: We're questioning whether the Democratic Party can unify at all.

    Great to hear that they're falling on their faces. The DCCC recruits ex-Republicans, Republicans-Lite, and conservative Democrats to run for Congress, and actively oppose liberal candidates. Long may they fail. Support worthy individual candidates.
    karlof1 | Jul 13, 2016 7:56:55 PM | 86
    Don't know if anyone's mentioned this book: "The Clinton's war on Women." There's a good long review posted here, http://thesaker.is/the-clintons-war-on-women/ Lots of potential mud for Trump to sling that will stick.
    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 8:36:09 PM | 90
    Sanders released only one year of tax returns (2015). His campaign manager claimed his taxes held no surprises. Well they didn't for 2015. But why didn't Sanders release earlier years? Any serious Presidential candidate would expect to release at least 3 years of tax returns.

    Given the 'service' that he performed, it might be especially interesting to have seen his taxes for 2014, the year before he entered the race. The lack of transparency and Sanders' 'sheepdogging' raises questions of whether he received any inducements to enter the race.

    Donald Trump is even worse. He hasn't released any tax info. He claims that the IRS is auditing him (and that they have for many years) . But why not release estimates and/or earlier tax returns?

    ALberto | Jul 13, 2016 9:26:55 PM | 91
    We have gone through the looking glass. This evening on Public Broadcasting Service television news hour Dr. Assad was interviewed by Judy Woodruff, a talking head teleprompter reading hand puppet. Dr. Assad was asked if Donald Trump was elected President would his lack of foreign relations diplomacy chops hinder his administrations abilities to achieve their goals. The question was of no import. Nor was the answer. THE FACT THAT DR. ASSAD WAS TREATED AS AN EQUAL and not "Assad must go" is a very significant event. VERY SIGNIFICANT!

    Just me opinion...

    rufus magister | Jul 13, 2016 9:29:33 PM | 92
    in re 82 --

    He's a democratic socialist, so such affiliations and tactics are not unusual. The Democratic Socialists of America, for example, a Socialist International section, is wholly within the Democratic Party.

    Cho Nyawinh | Jul 13, 2016 10:17:28 PM | 94
    The Plan was always from the start for Bernie to hold down the Left, so Hillary could capture Center-Right, and Donald could lead the Far Right into Smackdown. Then Bernie would deliver the Left to Hillary. And so it has come to pass.

    I thought everyone knew Bernie, Hillary and Donald are all bought and sold by Goldman? Hillary and Donald sold their progeny to The Tribe, and Bernie is a woo-woo already. The traitor Chosen sold US into slavery with Gramm-Leich-Bliley, and fawning sycophant Al-Clintonim signed that bill into 'law' (sic), in return for her US Senate seat from NY.

    Badda-boom, badda-bing!

    These are the Vampire Squid, the Takers, Mafia Elites 'who settled the Western Frontier' and now are the 'Disruptors' of the Public Space into a privatized Fivrr-Uber hell. They own you. You are owned by the Private Central Bankim. Even a small child will tell you that your only real 'free choice' is to write-in "HELL NO!" in November, then flee to the 3W.

    "We did not know" Lol, sure you didn't.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 10:36:03 PM | 99
    followup @89

    Sanders didn't release his other tax returns even when it became an issue in the campaign .

    Hillary said that she wouldn't release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches until Sanders had released more tax returns. Her reasoning: she had complied with what was expected of a Presidential candidate while the other had not yet done so.

    Why wouldn't he immediately release those returns - which his campaign had claimed contained no surprises - so as to force Hillary to release the transcripts?

    Very suspicious.

    rufus magister | Jul 14, 2016 8:21:04 AM | 112
    Here's an indicator of what sort of transparency in government one might expect from the Trump "Administration."

    Trump Sues Ex-Staffer For $10 Million For Breaking Nondisclosure Agreement.

    Not only are staffers subjected to this, volunteers are as well. "The tight control of volunteers stands in stark contrast to not only American political-campaign norms but also Trump's reputation for speaking his mind."

    Combine that with his statement that he'd like to change libel laws to make it easier for himself to sue news organizations that down fawn all over him. Does he seem like the sort to encourage whistle-blowers like Manning or Snowden? Will he be logging all his email traffic for future FOIA requests? Or maybe he'll kill that off, too.

    PavewayIV | Jul 14, 2016 2:57:23 PM | 122
    News Flash: Israel wins U.S. election; Iran to be nuked during inauguration

    Trump just picked Mike Pence as running mate. And from ((( Forward ))):

    "...Pence has said his support of Israel is deeply rooted in his Christian faith, as well as in his strong relationship with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Pence was introduced to AIPAC members in 2009 by then-board member Marshall Cooper at an AIPAC policy conference.

    "Let me say emphatically, like the overwhelming majority of my constituents, my Christian faith compels me to cherish the state of Israel," then-Rep. Pence said.

    Cooper described Pence to the audience as "Israel's good friend."..."

    So whether Hillary or Trump gets the job (or Obama declares a national emergency an remains) Israel will be the de-facto new commander-in-chief of the U.S., henceforth to be know as Palestine West.

    jfl | Jul 14, 2016 7:28:16 PM | 126
    Israeli Mass Surveillance System Launched in UAE

    The new Falcon Eye surveillance system-sold to the UAE by an Israeli defense contractor-"links thousands of cameras spread across the city, as well as thousands of other cameras installed at facilities and buildings in the emirate," the Abu Dhabi Monitoring and Control Center said in an official statement. The Falcon Eye will "help control roads by monitoring traffic violations while also monitoring significant behaviors in (Abu Dhabi) such as public hygiene and human assemblies in non-dedicated areas."

    Strange bedfellows? Not at all. The Israelis and the GCC countries, the USG and EU, are all soul brothers : tiny 'elite' minorities attempting to rule their respective roosts by technological means encompassing everything from drones to the media to their ubiquitous taps.

    Totalitarianism is alive and well in the Middle East ... and in North America, the UK, Europe ... the last thing to be tolerated, the first things to be crushed, are 'human assemblies in non-dedicated areas' over which their corporate selves would rule.

    The Powers That Are are thicker than thieves. Among mere thieves competition remains. The PTA are acting in loco parentis ... taking 'care' of us all for their own good.

    Mike Gravel used to describe our present political situation as 'adolescent': mature enough to understand the fix we're in, too immature to do anything but complain to 'those in charge'.

    We're in charge. We've just been asleep at the wheel. Time to wake up, finally? Before our whole world become Nice?

    Bob In Portland | Jul 14, 2016 8:02:35 PM | 127
    I agree that if Sanders had gone on to the Green Party he could have gotten significant support, enough to guarantee Clinton's loss. But that's not what he wanted to do, whatever his reasons for running. Folks overseas who think that Trump is anything more than a loudmouth, racist who would be controlled by the same forces as Clinton is controlled by are fooling themselves. If Sanders ran as a "pied piper" it wasn't successful. If anything, he presented a contrast to what the Democratic Party has become.

    In 1963 there was a coup in America. Since then the military-industrial complex has run the country. It has been most apparent in its foreign policy, which has been the conquest of natural resources (especially oil and gas) worldwide. America's resentment with the USSR/Russia has to do with their living on top of resources.

    But in order to continue the illusion of democracy in the US, it was necessary to maintain some differences between the two parties so that Americans would think that they have a choice. Meanwhile, the party that is supposed to represent the working class has been sliding into the arms of the corporatists. Essentially, in order to give Americans a "choice" Trump has been pushed as the demonic clown versus H. Clinton. Unfortunately, for good reasons as well as because of endless propaganda from the right, most Americans distrust Clinton, as well they should. Her casual announcement about enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Syria is essentially a declaration of war against Russia.

    Going back to the coup in 1963, in order to maintain control of the population it was necessary for the ruling class to continue to generate candidates each election cycle to pretend to care about the working class. I have long suspected that early on in their careers both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were recruited by US intelligence. During his time in Britain Bill's classmates assumed that he was CIA At about this time Hillary, who'd been raised a rabid Republican, went to both the Republican and Democratic national conventions in 1968. Not only was it a rather expensive thing to do for a college student, but most people who are interested in one party aren't interested in the other. I suspect it was the beginning of her career in US power politics. Shortly after she wrote a pro-Vietnam speech for Melvin Laird in 1968, she was involved with the various Black Panther trials around the US.

    It's hard to believe that the Hillary who stands before us now was ever a political ally of the Panthers. Rather, I suspect she was observing for an intelligence agency, the FBI or CIA She sat through a Panther trial in New Haven, Connecticut, and then spent a summer in Oakland working for the law firm that was representing the Panthers in the Bay Area. Essentially, she was in the right place at the right time to glean information for COINTELPRO, the massive spying program directed against anti-war and black movements. A few years later she worked on the Democrats' legal team for Watergate, another good place for a government informant to be. Bill, during his time at Oxford, would have functioned like the thousands of informants who sat in on peace group meetings across American campuses.

    Later, when the CIA was dumping cocaine at Mena, Arkansas, Bill Clinton was in position to make sure state police left the operation alone. It's not surprising that George W. Bush's first head of the DEA was Asa Hutchinson, who'd been the incurious federal prosecutor over that part of Arkansas when the drugs came in.

    The Clintons were prominent in the Democratic Leadership Council, which was an organization within the Democratic Party pushing it to the right. In 1992 Bill pushed trade agreements that would destroy the American middle class. Since then the party has been hopelessly corrupted by Wall Street money.

    It's now Hillary's turn. If you've always wanted to take a vacation somewhere or wanted to do something before you die, I suggest you make time for it this year. I cannot think of another president in memory who is more wed to military adventurism than Hillary.

    Piotr Berman | Jul 14, 2016 9:19:55 PM | 129
    Proportional representation etc. is not a panaceum. I think that party solidarity, even if the party is only partially satisfactory is a good tool. What is happening is that Sanders who represents "turn left" for Democrats is now more electable than Clinton. This has a potential for a big change, much bigger than ephemeral "relative success" of the Greens, who are fated to collect less votes than Libertarians (they may have their best year in a long, long time).

    Of course, the "right wing of the left" discards party solidarity with ease. They more or less rejected McGovern and Carter. Hillary's health care reform had the same fate. But they have very hard time copying with change. Hillary basically promised good old times, and this is not good enough. I suspect that her game plan is to unload full blast of "Trump's corruption" ads closer to elections and keep the "positive tone" for now, and that may even work.

    But if she polls badly enough, Democratic establishment may see the light and go for Sanders.

    [Jul 15, 2016] Mike Pence Would Be A Terrible Choice For Trumps VP

    "Advisers and family members stressed to Mr. Trump that he was selecting a running mate to unite the party, not a new best friend, according to people briefed on the process."
    Mr. Pence, Indiana's governor, is a former congressman and radio host.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Reports that Mike Pence is set to be announced as Donald Trump's VP pick tomorrow have set off alarm bells amongst many Trump supporters because of the Governor of Indiana's pro-amnesty, pro-TPP advocacy. ..."
    "... While Trump has campaigned against job-killing foreign trade deals, Pence vehemently supports NAFTA, CAFTA, and the TPP. ..."
    "... As recently as December, Pence tweeted, "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional." This completely contradicts Trump's policy of a temporary halt on Muslim immigration ..."
    "... Pence voted for the Iraq war and opposed a withdrawal date even after it became apparent that U.S. involvement in the country was a disastrous policy. ..."
    "... Pence is not a woman. Picking a female would have completely neutralized Hillary Clinton's sole campaign platform, one bolstered by the media, which is the fact that Hillary has a vagina. ..."
    "... The overwhelmingly negative reaction from many of Trump's hardcore supporters should serve as a big wake up call and hopefully lead to the announcement of someone other than Pence to be Trump's running mate. ..."
    YouTube

    http://www.infowars.com/mike-pence-wo...

    Reports that Mike Pence is set to be announced as Donald Trump's VP pick tomorrow have set off alarm bells amongst many Trump supporters because of the Governor of Indiana's pro-amnesty, pro-TPP advocacy.

    Here are more reasons why picking Pence doesn't make sense;

    – While Trump has promised to build a wall, Pence has been savaged by respected conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly for advocating "stealth amnesty" in the form of a guest worker program.

    While Trump has campaigned against job-killing foreign trade deals, Pence vehemently supports NAFTA, CAFTA, and the TPP.

    As recently as December, Pence tweeted, "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional." This completely contradicts Trump's policy of a temporary halt on Muslim immigration

    Pence voted for the Iraq war and opposed a withdrawal date even after it became apparent that U.S. involvement in the country was a disastrous policy.

    – Pence once advocated "conversion therapy" for homosexuals. This will be exploited by the left to portray Pence as intolerant and bigoted, turning off many Bernie Sanders supporters who might have voted for Trump, as well as gays who were thinking about voting for Trump in the aftermath of the Orlando massacre.

    Pence is not a woman. Picking a female would have completely neutralized Hillary Clinton's sole campaign platform, one bolstered by the media, which is the fact that Hillary has a vagina.

    Hopefully, the Pence leak is just the Trump campaign testing the waters before a final call is made.

    Trump's campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that "a decision has not been made," and the Indianapolis Star did not provide a source for its Pence leak.

    The overwhelmingly negative reaction from many of Trump's hardcore supporters should serve as a big wake up call and hopefully lead to the announcement of someone other than Pence to be Trump's running mate.

    [Jul 15, 2016] Eleven Troubling Facts About Trumps VP, Mike Pence

    NYT: "Advisers and family members stressed to Mr. Trump that he was selecting a running mate to unite the party, not a new best friend, according to people briefed on the process."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is best known to voters as a man who wants to build a wall on the Mexican border, and Pence is no different – he previously voted to put a wall on the same border. Additionally, he has moved to end birthright citizenship to "anchor babies" and wanted to require that hospitals report undocumented patients to immigration officials. ..."
    "... Pence's small government, slash taxes and budgets approach to legislating has made him a favorite among Tea Party members. The Washington Post deemed him a "tea party Republican before there was a tea party." ..."
    "... When asked to describe himself, Pence says he is "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." In other words, he puts his faith first, which is probably why he can't get behind any socially liberal ideas. ..."
    www.truth-out.org

    ... .... ...

    3. He's Anti-Immigration

    Trump is best known to voters as a man who wants to build a wall on the Mexican border, and Pence is no different – he previously voted to put a wall on the same border. Additionally, he has moved to end birthright citizenship to "anchor babies" and wanted to require that hospitals report undocumented patients to immigration officials.

    Back in 2006 when the House and Senate were having a difficult time agreeing on immigration reform, Pence offered up a "compromise" bill that offered no amnesty to immigrants currently living in the country. That's hardly a compromise – that's a tougher stance than most conservatives take, actually.

    ... ... ...

    6. He's Buddies With the Koch Brothers

    "I've met David Koch on several occasions," Pence said. "I'm grateful to have enjoyed his support." In particular, he thanked the Koch brothers and their organization Americans for Prosperity for their "activism" in helping to reduce the income tax in Indiana and (supposedly) limiting the role of government.

    7. He's Frighteningly Anti-Choice

    While it may be too much to expect a pro-choice VP nominee from Trump, did he have to choose a man with such clear contempt for a woman's autonomy over her body? Indiana has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, thanks in large part to Pence's leadership on this issue.

    In addition to turning the defunding of Planned Parenthood into his personal hobby, Pence promoted laws designed to humiliate women and make abortion procedures less safe. Some of his own Republican colleagues disagreed with his ideas, worried that his emphasis was on punishing women rather than actually saving fetuses.

    8. He's a Tea Party "Hero"

    Pence's small government, slash taxes and budgets approach to legislating has made him a favorite among Tea Party members. The Washington Post deemed him a "tea party Republican before there was a tea party."

    ... ... ...

    11. He's Extremely Religious

    Pence was actually raised in a Catholic, apolitical household , but later became a born-again Christian after meeting his wife.

    When asked to describe himself, Pence says he is "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." In other words, he puts his faith first, which is probably why he can't get behind any socially liberal ideas.

    Pence is expected to be a big hit with evangelical voters who might be unconvinced of Trump's self-professed strong Christian faith.

    [Jul 15, 2016] US media trouncing Trump 24-7 proves democracy a charade by Finian Cunningham

    Notable quotes:
    "... The mainstream US news media have never liked the brash billionaire Trump. He makes good circulation figures for sure, but the large coverage the Republican contender has received from the outset is preponderantly negative. ..."
    "... Trump's campaign has instead been buoyed by the popular vote, not by endorsement from the elite establishment, including the Republican Party leadership and the corporate media. Now that the race for the presidency is turning into a two-horse contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump, the media's antipathy towards Trump is moving to an all-out barrage of attacks. Attacks, it has to be said, that are bordering on hysteria and which only a corporate machine could convey. ..."
    "... Trump vehemently rebuffed the claims. He said it was simply a star, like the ones that US Marshals use. When his campaign team reacted to the initial media furor by replacing the red star with a circle it only served to fuel accusations against Trump because he was seen to be acting defensively. However, he later defiantly rebuked his campaign team and said they should have stuck with the star image and let him defend that choice of image as simply an innocuous star shape. For what it's worth, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, subsequently rallied to the tycoon's defense and said he was not racist nor anti-Semitic and that the controversy was a media-contrived storm in a teacup. ..."
    "... Trump makes a valid point that Clinton's abuse of state secrecy – whether intentional or negligent – has in fact posed a national security threat. Yet the media focus is decidedly not on his Democrat rival. It is rather centered on overblown concerns about the wealthy real estate developer. ..."
    "... Trump is right. The political system in the US is rigged . Not just in terms of double standards of the justice system, but in the bigger context of how candidates are screened and vetted – in this case through undue vilification. ..."
    "... Trump's reactionary views on immigration, race relations and international politics are certainly questionable. His credibility as the next president of the US may be dubious. But is his credibility any less than that of Hillary Clinton? Her melding of official capacity with private gain from Wall Street banks and foreign governments acting as donors to her family's fund-raising Clinton Foundation has the pungent whiff of selling federal policy for profit. Her penchant for criminal regime change operations in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine speak of a political mafia don. ..."
    "... American politics has long been derided as a "dog and pony show" ..."
    "... But what we are witnessing is a brazen display of how the powers-that-be (Wall Street, media, Pentagon, Washington, etc) are audaciously intervening in this electoral cycle to disenfranchise the voting population. ..."
    www.rt.com

    RT Op-Edge

    Presidential hopeful Donald Trump is right: the 'system is 'rigged'. The media barrage against the billionaire demonstrates irrefutably how the power establishment, not the people, decides who sits in the White House.

    Trump is increasingly assailed in the US media with alleged character flaws. The latest blast paints Trump as a total loose cannon who would launch World War III. In short, a "nuke nut".

    In the Pentagon-aligned Defense One journal, the property magnate is described as someone who cannot be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button. Trump would order nuclear strikes equivalent to 20,000 Hiroshima bombings as "easy as ordering a pizza", claimed the opinion piece.

    If that's not an example of "project fear" then what is?

    The mainstream US news media have never liked the brash billionaire Trump. He makes good circulation figures for sure, but the large coverage the Republican contender has received from the outset is preponderantly negative.

    Trump's campaign has instead been buoyed by the popular vote, not by endorsement from the elite establishment, including the Republican Party leadership and the corporate media. Now that the race for the presidency is turning into a two-horse contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump, the media's antipathy towards Trump is moving to an all-out barrage of attacks. Attacks, it has to be said, that are bordering on hysteria and which only a corporate machine could convey.

    Like a giant screening process, the Trump candidacy and his supporters are being systematically disenfranchised. At this rate of attrition, by the time the election takes place in November the result will already have been all but formally decided – by the powers-that-be, not the popular will.

    The past week provides a snapshot of the intensifying media barrage facing Trump. Major US media outlets have run prominent claims that Trump is a fan of the former brutal Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Those claims were based on a loose interpretation of what Trump said at a rally when he referred to Saddam's strong-arm suppression of terrorism. He didn't say he liked Saddam. In fact, called him a "bad guy". But Trump said that the Iraqi dictator efficiently eliminated terrorists.

    A second media meme to emerge was "Trump the anti-Semite". This referred to an image his campaign team tweeted of Hillary Clinton as "the most corrupt candidate ever". The words were emblazoned on a red, six-pointed star. Again, the mainstream media gave copious coverage to claims that the image was anti-Semitic because, allegedly, it was a Jewish 'Star of David'.

    Trump vehemently rebuffed the claims. He said it was simply a star, like the ones that US Marshals use. When his campaign team reacted to the initial media furor by replacing the red star with a circle it only served to fuel accusations against Trump because he was seen to be acting defensively. However, he later defiantly rebuked his campaign team and said they should have stuck with the star image and let him defend that choice of image as simply an innocuous star shape.

    For what it's worth, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, subsequently rallied to the tycoon's defense and said he was not racist nor anti-Semitic and that the controversy was a media-contrived storm in a teacup.

    Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump. © Jim YoungLawsuit that may break The Donald's back: Virginia GOP delegate challenges Trump
    In the same week that the alleged dictator-loving, anti-Semitic Trump hit newsstands, we then read about nuclear trigger-happy Donald.

    Not only that but the Trump-risks-Armageddon article also refers to him being in the same company as Russian leader Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jung Un who, we are told, "also have their finger on the nuclear button".

    Under the headline, 'How to slow Donald Trump from pushing the nuclear button', a photograph shows the presidential contender with a raised thump in a downward motion. The answer being begged is: Don't vote for this guy – unless you want to incinerate the planet!

    This is scare-tactics to the extreme thrown in for good measure along with slander and demonization. And all pumped up to maximum volume by the US corporate media, all owned by just six conglomerates.

    Trump is having to now spend more of his time explaining what he is alleged to have said or did not say, instead of being allowed to level criticisms at his Democrat rival or to advance whatever political program he intends to deliver as president.

    The accusation that Trump is a threat to US national security is all the more ironic given that this week Hillary Clinton was labelled as "extremely careless" by the head of the FBI over her dissemination of state secrets through her insecure private email account.

    Many legal experts and former US government officials maintain that Clinton's breach of classified information is deserving of criminal prosecution – an outcome that would debar her from contesting the presidential election.

    Why the FBI should have determined that there is no case for prosecution even though more than 100 classified documents were circulated by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (2009-2013) has raised public heckles of "double standards".

    The controversy has been compounded by the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch also declaring that no charges will be pressed and the case is closed – a week after she met with Hillary's husband, Bill, on board her plane for a hush-hush chat.

    Trump makes a valid point that Clinton's abuse of state secrecy – whether intentional or negligent – has in fact posed a national security threat. Yet the media focus is decidedly not on his Democrat rival. It is rather centered on overblown concerns about the wealthy real estate developer.

    Trump is right. The political system in the US is rigged. Not just in terms of double standards of the justice system, but in the bigger context of how candidates are screened and vetted – in this case through undue vilification.

    Trump's reactionary views on immigration, race relations and international politics are certainly questionable. His credibility as the next president of the US may be dubious. But is his credibility any less than that of Hillary Clinton? Her melding of official capacity with private gain from Wall Street banks and foreign governments acting as donors to her family's fund-raising Clinton Foundation has the pungent whiff of selling federal policy for profit. Her penchant for criminal regime change operations in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine speak of a political mafia don.

    American politics has long been derided as a "dog and pony show", whereby powerful lobbies buy the pageant outcome. Trump's own participation in the election is only possible because he is a multi-billionaire who is able to fund a political campaign. That said, however, the New York businessman has garnered a sizable popular following from his maverick attacks on the rotten Washington establishment.

    But what we are witnessing is a brazen display of how the powers-that-be (Wall Street, media, Pentagon, Washington, etc) are audaciously intervening in this electoral cycle to disenfranchise the voting population.

    Clinton has emerged as the candidate-of-choice for the establishment, and the race to the White House is being nobbled – like never before.

    US democracy a race? More like a knacker's yard.

    [Jul 15, 2016] Sanders Prepares to Bow Down to Hillary, But Many of His Supporters Won't

    www.blackagendareport.com

    Black Agenda Report

    It is difficult to imagine how the Trump rank and file and the party's corporate "establishment" will paper over their irreconcilable differences, rooted in the party's failure to preserve skin privilege and good jobs in a White Man's Country.

    Just as brazenly, Trump, the rabble rousing billionaire, has violated the most sacred ruling class taboos by rejecting the national security rationale for the hyper-aggressive, ever-expanding, global U.S. military presence. If Trump fails to convincingly recant such heresies, the rulers will deal with him with extreme prejudice.

    [Jul 15, 2016] Trump needs an ambassador to what we might call the Parliamentary Republican Party

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
        1. Epistrophy

          Dear dear … not one single serious issue in that article … just divisiveness. Nothing about the economy, excessive corporate power, international trade treaties, widespread (illegal) surveillance, potential for war … nothing.

          Reply
          1. Lambert Strether Post author

            Well, there was some stuff. It seems to me that Trump needs an ambassador to what we might call the Parliamentary Republican Party - same wankers the Trump campaign went through like the Blitzkreig through the French in 1939 - but who still control levers of party power; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they were trying to McGovern Trump by denying him a VP candidate at all, until Manafort whipped them like the curs they are.

            Dunno about the Kochs; from their quote yesterday ("Trump is a nice fellow") I doubt it. However, Ivanka has clevely gotten other donors dubious about Trump to contribute to other aspects of the campaign, so the Kochs might end up doing that.

            I used to love bilious pieces like that, and wrote plenty of them, too. It gets tiring, after awhile, getting all whipped up. I like more signal, less noise.

    1. EndOfTheWorld

      Trump picking Pence was a concession to the repug establishment so they will finally give up their idea of revolting against The Donald. Also he will always be there reminding Trump that many repugs would be very happy if Trump were assassinated, so The Donald will be careful.

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        They'd be wrong to think about assassinating him.

        And they'd be equally wrong to think about doing that to Sanders, or anyone else.

        Why only Trump is mentioned though? Is he most dangerous to them?

        Reply
        1. EndOfTheWorld

          No, I'm saying if Trump is prez with Pence as veep, he will have to be nice to the repug establishment, or else. Because Pence is preferable to them. But he had to do this, apparently, just to get past the convention in Cleveland. This is my opinion, only--I'm not saying I have inside info. A prez feels safer with a really dumb veep, like the first Bush with Quayle, since the establishment is not going to off the prez only to get an even worse one ascending from the veepship. Trump would have preferred Joni Ernst, probably, but she "declined." Yeah, right-she was ordered to decline, to make way for giving Trump a choice between Gingrich or Pence, so he chose the lesser of two evils. Trump is appeasing the repugs, playing ball, making deals.

          1. JTMcPhee

            The joke with Bush the First was that the Secret Svc had standing orders that if anyone shot the Bush, they were to turn and shoot some Quayle. Had this from a guy who used to work there.

          1. different clue

            Really? As dimm and dumm and sometimes nasty as Pence is? I would think Pence is anti-assassination insurance. " You kill the Donald, you get some Pence. You really want that?"

            1. EndOfTheWorld

              Maybe he is dumb-not that familiar with his brains or lack thereof. I know damn well nobody in his right mind would want Newt Gingrich sitting behind him in the veep slot, so The Donald made the right move in squelching that notion.

              Seems to me Pence may be dumb but very MALLEABLE and LOYAL to TPTB. He could be easily controlled, which is what the powers behind the throne love. Trump, not so much.

            1. EndOfTheWorld

              Pence may be a little dumb, but seems to be well under the thumb of the big shots in the repugs. Would go along with the program, unlike The Donald, who may or may not play ball at any given moment;

    [Jul 15, 2016] How Mike Pence and Donald Trump Compare on the Issues

    Notable quotes:
    "... The biggest difference between the Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence when it comes to foreign policy is their respective stances on the Iraq war. Mr. Pence supported it, while Mr. Trump claims that he was against it from the beginning. ..."
    "... While Mr. Pence has expressed support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, Mr. Trump regularly rails against it. Mr. Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on imports from foreign countries to protect American jobs. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    The New York Times

    Foreign Policy

    Mr. Pence's foreign policy views mesh well with Mr. Trump's "America First" framework, which is built around the idea of a robust American military. The Indiana governor called for big increases in military spending during a speech in 2015 and he has criticized Democrats who do not use the phrase "Islamic extremism" when discussing jihadists. As a member of Congress, where he was on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Pence was a strong supporter of Israel and a proponent of tough interrogation measures for prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. Mr. Pence voted to authorize military action in Iraq in 2002 and opposed proposals to set a date to withdraw troops from Iraq.

    Where they differ The biggest difference between the Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence when it comes to foreign policy is their respective stances on the Iraq war. Mr. Pence supported it, while Mr. Trump claims that he was against it from the beginning.

    ... ... ...

    Trade

    Mr. Pence has said he supports free trade, but he has also raised concern over the enforcement of trade agreements with China. Specifically, he asked the federal government to investigate allegations that Chinese steel companies were dodging tariffs in deals with American businesses. As governor, Mr. Pence visited nations like Japan and Germany on trade missions meant to stoke Indiana's trade relationships with international businesses.

    Where they differ While Mr. Pence has expressed support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, Mr. Trump regularly rails against it. Mr. Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on imports from foreign countries to protect American jobs.


    [Jul 15, 2016] On foreign policy, Donald Trump makes George W Bush look like a colossus

    Notable quotes:
    "... Just as George W. Bush was "wholly ill-suited" so is Mrs. Clinton. It was her policy which is mostly responsible for the refugee flood into Europe from both Libya and Syria. She treats foreign policy like it's a board game. She gets ideologically convinced that overthrowing Assad or Quadifi is a grand idea and starts the process. Neither she nor her advisers ever ask, basic questions about the mechanics of the "process." For example, as part of this "process" the population of Allepo (just Allepo without respect to all the other towns, villages and hamlets) will be reduced from a population of 1.1 million to less than 100,000 with the difference being refugees conscripts or dead. What do we plan to do with the 750,000 plus refugees? Talk about "wholly ill-suited." ..."
    "... I don't want to see Trump as President, however, the Dems have picked the one candidate who might actually lose to him. Clinton is not only demonstrably inept and widely recognized as dishonest, she has also contributed a great deal to the mess in the Middle East. ..."
    "... The only people currently doing the heavy lifting with cogent and perceptive commentary on serious issues and the systemic inability of political and economic institutions to embrace reality are professional comedians. John Oliver, Jim Jeffries et al are continuing the George Carlin tradition of pointing out the abject lunacy of our "leaders", whose words are reported by the mainstream media (corporate media that is, let's not forget to "follow the money") as if they were something other than delusional drivel. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    George W Bush showed himself wholly ill-suited to the presidency within nine months of his inauguration. Those of us who covered his campaign should have seen that moment coming, even if we had no idea about Osama bin Laden's plotting.

    On board his campaign plane, all Candidate Bush wanted to talk about was baseball statistics. If he talked about the world, it revolved around his vacations. Perhaps we should have realized he would find it hard to distinguish Afghanistan from Iraq, and Sunni from Shia.

    A charming cut-up as Texas governor, Bush's superficial grasp of policy didn't matter nearly as much as the fact that he seemed more entertaining than that earnest, wonkish Al Gore. At least that was the tenor of much of what passed for news analysis of the 2000 campaign.

    Bush projected the notion that he understood leadership; that his guts were greater than the facts. As Tony Blair discovered within a year of 9/11, Bush's leadership was reckless playacting, and the facts on the ground in Iraq were far more formidable than his gut instincts.


    FugitiveColors

    Another,be afraid of Donald Trump article. Lets settle this crap right here. Donald trump is a horrible SOB, even his supporters agree.
    Which matters not one iota. Much of America wants crap to change, even if it means using a wrecking ball.


    Bogdanich

    Just as George W. Bush was "wholly ill-suited" so is Mrs. Clinton. It was her policy which is mostly responsible for the refugee flood into Europe from both Libya and Syria. She treats foreign policy like it's a board game. She gets ideologically convinced that overthrowing Assad or Quadifi is a grand idea and starts the process. Neither she nor her advisers ever ask, basic questions about the mechanics of the "process." For example, as part of this "process" the population of Allepo (just Allepo without respect to all the other towns, villages and hamlets) will be reduced from a population of 1.1 million to less than 100,000 with the difference being refugees conscripts or dead. What do we plan to do with the 750,000 plus refugees? Talk about "wholly ill-suited."

    legalimmigrant

    Message to Richard Wolffe - you may enjoy sounding off in your echo chamber but that's all you're doing. The elites have had their day. The people demand something "different" and if that "different" is orange colored with a strange folicular arrangement then so be it. You can get back to frenziedly typing about what a devil DJT is now.

    Benjohn6379 -> legalimmigrant

    "People in this country have had enough of experts" - Brexit campaigner/propagandist and huge liar Michael Gove

    The anti-establishment movement is real and healthy and global. I can totally understand, as I'm also sick and tired of being lied to and told that the status quo is the only way. But don't kid yourself, Trump is one of these elites.

    He may seem "different" as you say, but that's only because he's a piece of shit openly as opposed to trying to hide it, like Hillary.

    Neither candidate has any desire to help the middle class.

    Confess -> Benjohn6379

    Open is good. Americans are sick and tired of being lied and having facts hidden from us. How can we progress when everything is covered up? Just give us the facts or a real god damn opinion. All the double talk and cover ups are tearing the country apart. Soon BLM will have the same amount of power as Muslims, no one can say anything bad about them, even when it's true. That is what's dangerous.


    Obelisk1

    I don't want to see Trump as President, however, the Dems have picked the one candidate who might actually lose to him. Clinton is not only demonstrably inept and widely recognized as dishonest, she has also contributed a great deal to the mess in the Middle East.

    Moreover, her refusal to speak about the ideological basis for so many of the terrorist atrocities in recent years should be enough to bar her from office.

    The US, and the world, is in danger as a result of the failures of both parties to pick reasonable candidates.


    Benjohn6379 -> ohyesHedid

    The "war-hawk" meme

    It's not a meme, it's reality. Her neo-conservative record speaks for itself. There is a very real fear that she will take us to war in Syria, as a no fly zone would require tens of thousands of ground troops in direct opposition to Russia, Assad and numerous terrorist cells.

    ISIS has to be stopped, absolutely, but war in Syria will be just another tragic foreign policy mistake.

    I think all this "Hillary hate" is disproportional, possibly sexist.

    Some of the "Hillary hate" is sexist, sure, but don't use this excuse as a blanket statement that covers people that have intelligent and well thought out criticisms of her policies and voting record.

    There are legitimate concerns with both candidates, come at it rationally and intelligently.


    Tom Jones

    Not a Trump fan. But he called out Bush in the debates.

    He wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Libya. War has caused most of these problems. The real scary part is that he is less of a war monger then Clinton!

    Gaurdian applogist pieces are almost as vile as the bigotry from Trump. In fact the bias in th MSM has led to a Trump.


    gunnison 5h ago

    Perhaps the voters are confused about how to rate these candidates because there is almost no coverage of national security and foreign policy. Nobody – except for rarities like NBC's Andrea Mitchell – wants to produce a block of TV on something that sounds as complicated as how to fight Isis in Syria.

    The only people currently doing the heavy lifting with cogent and perceptive commentary on serious issues and the systemic inability of political and economic institutions to embrace reality are professional comedians. John Oliver, Jim Jeffries et al are continuing the George Carlin tradition of pointing out the abject lunacy of our "leaders", whose words are reported by the mainstream media (corporate media that is, let's not forget to "follow the money") as if they were something other than delusional drivel.

    Our much-vaunted "free press" has degenerated into becoming a transcription service for power and privilege, with "journalists" now blatantly finessing the truth for fear of losing the "access" without which they would be consigned to the outer reaches of internet blogworld.

    Hell, if one sifts through the comment threads here or on other "reputable" news sites to eliminate the usual dross, there's one hell of a lot more accurate and thoughtful commentary happening down here in the cheap seats than in most of the articles to which those thread are appended.

    Trump is a showman and a conman and a buffoon, and Mike Pence is a rabid ideologue driven by religious zealotry and a profound misogyny and sexual squeamishness. Neither is the sort of person who should ever be placed in a position of authority. (None of this should be taken as covert support for Hillary Clinton. My comment history here exculpates me from any accusations of being a Clinton shill.)

    That's the reality. Presenting the evidence for that, and there is mountains of it, is the true function of a media which serves the public interest.

    Benjohn6379 -> gunnison

    Hell, if one sifts through the comment threads here or on other "reputable" news sites to eliminate the usual dross, there's one hell of a lot more accurate and thoughtful commentary happening down here in the cheap seats than in most of the articles to which those thread are appended.

    Your whole comment being a prime example of this, very well said.

    John Wilson

    And so what are you saying here Wolfe. That the alternative is Clinton? She'll be even faster to push the red button.

    [Jul 15, 2016] Mike Pence - Wikipedia

    Does not this guy make Trump a clone of Hillary in foreign relations: voting for Iraq war, pro-Israel stance, all war hawk attributes. In other words younger version of Senator McCain: "Pence chaired the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and was a prominent supporter of George W. Bush's Iraq War troop surge of 2007. At the time, Pence stated that "the surge is working" and defended the initial decision to invade in 2003"
    Notable quotes:
    "... Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs, Judiciary ..."
    en.wikipedia.org
    Elections

    Pence ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1988 and 1990, losing to longtime Democratic incumbent Phil Sharp.[18] He later wrote an essay apologizing for running negative ads against Sharp.[14]

    In November 2000, Pence was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in Indiana's 2nd Congressional District after six-year incumbent David M. McIntosh (1995–2001) opted to run for governor of Indiana. The district (renumbered as the 6th District beginning in 2002) comprises all or portions of 19 counties in eastern Indiana. Pence was re-elected four more times by comfortable margins. In the 2006 House elections, he defeated Democrat Barry Welsh. In 2008, he was listed as one of the top ten legislators by Esquire magazine.[19]

    On November 8, 2006, Pence announced his candidacy for leader of the Republican Party (minority leader) in the United States House of Representatives.[20] Pence's release announcing his run for minority leader focused on a "return to the values" of the 1994 Republican Revolution.[21] On November 17, Pence lost to Representative John Boehner of Ohio by a vote of 168–27–1 (the one vote went to Representative Joe Barton of Texas).[22]

    Pence defeated Reverend Barry Welsh in the 2008 House election. In January 2009, Pence was elected by his GOP colleagues to become the Republican Conference Chairman, the third-highest-ranking Republican leadership position. He ran unopposed and was elected unanimously. He was the first representative from Indiana to hold a House leadership position since 1981.[2]

    In 2010, Pence was encouraged to run against incumbent Democratic Senator Evan Bayh.[23][24][25] According to Rasmussen polling done on January 21 and 24, 2010, Pence led Bayh by a three point margin.[26] On January 26, 2010, in an open letter to friends and supporters through his Facebook page, Pence announced his decision not to run for the Senate; he cited his role in the Republican leadership and the belief that Republicans would win back the House in 2010 as his reasons for staying in the House of Representatives.[citation needed]

    After the November 2010 election, Pence announced that he would not run for re-election as the Republican Conference Chairman.[27] On May 5, 2011, Pence announced that he would seek the Republican nomination for Governor of Indiana in 2012.[28][29]

    Tenure

    Pence served as the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House Republicans, from 2005 to 2007.[30]

    His committee assignments in the House were the following:

    While in Congress, Pence belonged to the Tea Party Caucus.[37]

    During Pence's twelve years in the House, he introduced 90 bills and resolutions; none became law.[38]

    Foreign policy

    Pence supported the Iraq War Resolution, which authorized military action against Iraq.[45]

    During the Iraq War, Pence opposed setting a public withdrawal date from Iraq. During an April 2007 visit to Baghdad, Pence and John McCain visited Shorja market, the site of a deadly attack in February 2007, that claimed the lives of 61 people. Pence and McCain described the visit as evidence that the security situation in Iraqi markets has improved.[46] The visit to the market took place under large security including helicopters overhead, and the New York Times reported that the visit gave a false indication of how secure the area was due to the extremely heavy security forces protecting McCain.[47]

    Pence chaired the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and was a prominent supporter of George W. Bush's Iraq War troop surge of 2007. At the time, Pence stated that "the surge is working" and defended the initial decision to invade in 2003.[45]

    Pence has opposed closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and trying the suspected terrorists in the U.S.[48] Pence believes that "the Obama administration must overturn this wrongheaded decision".[48] As an alternative, Pence has said that the "enemy combatants" should be tried in a military tribunal.[48]

    Pence has stated his support of Israel and its right to attack facilities in Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, has defended the actions of Israel in its use of deadly force in enforcing the blockade of Gaza, and has referred to Israel as "America's most cherished ally".[49] He visited Israel in 2014 to express his support, and in 2016 signed into law a bill which would ban Indiana from having any commercial dealings with a company that boycotts Israel.[50]

    [Jul 15, 2016] How Dissent Has Shaped the US An Interview With Author Ralph Young

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think that dissent will continue as long as the United States continues. We don't know exactly what forms it will take, or what causes dissenters will take up. But we do have a pretty good idea from history that dissenters will always push for more freedom, more liberty, more economic equality, and that there will be counter-dissenters who will seek to deprive them of these goals. There always seems to be that for every two steps forward, there's one step back. ..."
    www.truth-out.org

    What do you foresee as far as the future of dissent is concerned in the United States?

    I think that dissent will continue as long as the United States continues. We don't know exactly what forms it will take, or what causes dissenters will take up. But we do have a pretty good idea from history that dissenters will always push for more freedom, more liberty, more economic equality, and that there will be counter-dissenters who will seek to deprive them of these goals. There always seems to be that for every two steps forward, there's one step back.

    What is gained for leftist movements today by anchoring themselves a positive account of the nation's founding (accounts that suggest that this nation has leftist impulses at its core)?

    I think that leftist movements today have a deep, abiding faith in "democracy." And in that way, they are the true heirs of the American Revolution. Even if most of the "founding fathers" like [George] Washington and [Alexander] Hamilton and [Thomas] Jefferson were elites who distrusted the masses, they did give lip service to liberty and equality, and they did formulate fundamental arguments promoting the idea of a government of the people. Today, their ideas are more broadly conceived than they themselves conceived them. Because leftists today believe in the value of democracy, what they are in essence doing is holding America's feet to the fire. They are demanding that the United States live up to those ideals ensconced in our founding documents. "Be true to what you said on paper," as Martin Luther King Jr. expressed it in his last speech on April 3, 1968, in Memphis.

    What is inevitably lost or papered over when one embraces a positive founding narrative about a nation-state?

    What is papered over is that the majority of the "founding fathers" were slave owners. And the institution of slavery gave them the leisure time to devote to thinking and writing about such high-fallutin' and precious concepts as democracy, liberty and republican forms of government. Historian Edmund S. Morgan, in his book American Slavery, American Freedom, makes a compelling argument that the notions we have of freedom, that the basis for American freedom is slavery. If it weren't for slavery, we would never have developed as we have. So it is rather presumptuous of us, even for the left, to feel that we've embraced freedom and believe in equality for all. Still, despite that, it doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. What it does mean is that we should aspire to those ideals, even if the "founding fathers" didn't fully believe in them themselves, even if they were disingenuous hypocrites who framed a constitution solely to benefit and protect the property rights and aristocratic status of their class.

    Today, we need to take those ideals seriously and work toward making the reality of American society more closely resemble the ideals they espoused in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    [Jul 14, 2016] Final nail in the coffin Green Partys Jill Stein to RT on Sanders endorsement of Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We have been offering Bernie Sanders, basically to sit down and talk and to explore how we might be collaborate, because I can't give away the nomination," ..."
    "... "could certainly work with him for all sorts of possibilities, including leading the ticket." ..."
    "... "truly saw the light," ..."
    "... "the green light, that we do need independent politics." ..."
    "... "the revolution is now being stuffed back into a counter-revolutionary party," ..."
    "... "leading the charge for Wall Street, for wars and for the Walmart economy." ..."
    "... "Bernie said let's forget the past, but I don't think people can forget this movement that they've worked so hard to build," ..."
    "... "there were a lot of people who were watching this endorsement in complete and utter disbelief." ..."
    "... "I think there are a lot of broken hearts out there among the Bernie campaign. A lot of people who are feeling burned by the Democratic Party, who are not going to simply resign themselves to an election that offers them either a billionaire, one hand, or a cheerleader for the billionaires," she added. ..."
    Jul 12, 2016 | RT America
    Following Sanders officially dropping out of the race, Stein reminded RT viewers of her proposal to step aside in order to offer him the nomination in her Green Party.

    "We have been offering Bernie Sanders, basically to sit down and talk and to explore how we might be collaborate, because I can't give away the nomination," Stein told RT, stressing that even though she cannot take the delegates' role of assigning nominations, she "could certainly work with him for all sorts of possibilities, including leading the ticket."

    This could be possible, she said, if Sanders "truly saw the light," meaning "the green light, that we do need independent politics."

    In Stein's view, "the revolution is now being stuffed back into a counter-revolutionary party," whose standard bearer, Clinton, she scorns for "leading the charge for Wall Street, for wars and for the Walmart economy."

    "Bernie said let's forget the past, but I don't think people can forget this movement that they've worked so hard to build," Stein said, adding that on Tuesday "there were a lot of people who were watching this endorsement in complete and utter disbelief."

    .... ... ...

    Sanders supporters have taken to social media in a stern backlash against the former Democratic presidential candidate.

    "They also can't forget Hillary Clinton's record, which is very much the opposite of what they have been working for the past year," Stein says.

    Dr. Jill Stein
    ✔ ‎@DrJillStein

    The truth is that we cannot have a revolutionary campaign inside a counter-revolutionary party. jill2016.com/steins_respons e_to_sanders_endorsement_of_clinton …

    2:45 PM - 12 Jul 2016

    "I think there are a lot of broken hearts out there among the Bernie campaign. A lot of people who are feeling burned by the Democratic Party, who are not going to simply resign themselves to an election that offers them either a billionaire, one hand, or a cheerleader for the billionaires," she added.

    She says that after primaries in California where "it became clear that the Democratic Party was really shutting [Sanders] out," her Green Party began to see people's interest surge.

    "We are seeing that now, in the last 24 to 36 hours as well, as people realize that the game is over," Stein said.

    @MajorCallowayLeader

    Well, now it's Stein or Trump - time will tell.
    Sanders is the worst kind of turncoat.
    How can he possibly support the Laughing Butcher of Libya? He must have been a lost soul to begin with, or sold it long ago.

    [Jul 14, 2016] Sanders Warmongering Corporate Sell-out - Arthur Schaper

    Notable quotes:
    "... In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being arrested for trespass. ..."
    "... Dissident Voices ..."
    "... Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. . . . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support?" ..."
    "... Dissident Voices ..."
    "... Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse. While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress' resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks. ..."
    "... After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan. Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals. ..."
    "... While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan. ..."
    townhall.com

    What also stands out in the above criticism is that Sanders, seeking the Democratic nomination as a Tea Party of the Left outlier, has a long-standing history of supporting presidential military forays: anathema to aggressive progressives.

    In 1999, Congressman Sanders signed onto President Bill Clinton's military interventions into Kosovo. Peace activists crashed his Burlington, VT Congressional Office. One of the protesters commented on the Liberty Union Party website :

    In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being arrested for trespass.

    Dissident Voices blasted Sanders not just for cozying up with the Democratic Party, but war authorizations throughout his tenure in the House of Representatives.

    Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. . . . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support?"

    Click on this link for Brecher's letter of resignation.

    Dissident Voices continues:

    Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse. While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress' resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks.

    Indeed, Barbara Lee (D-CA) was the lone vote against granting this extended power to President Bush. Sanders joined with both parties on this issue. Of course. While Presidential candidate Sanders has relaunched his speech on the House floor opposing the War on Iraq in 2002, Counterpunch has already exposed Sanders' connections with Bush 43's military ventures:

    After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan. Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals.

    And then:

    While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan.

    Sanders has followed a pattern of voting against initial efforts to expand government resources into the War on Terror, then voted for funding them afterwards.

    The Democratic Party's 2016 Presidential bench is a clown-car of political dysphoria. From Hillary Clinton's early yearning for Republican Barry Goldwater, to Lincoln Chafee's former GOP US Senator status, and Jim Webb's service in the Reagan Administration, now left-wing partisans can argue that "Weekend at Bernie" Sanders is right-wing warmonger .

    [Jul 14, 2016] Sanders endorses Clinton, reversing everything hes said about Wall Street candidate (QUOTES)

    RT America
    Sanders has spent a lot of time and energy convincing voters that Clinton had no place in the Oval Office.

    The following are just a few examples.

    1"Are you qualified to be President of the United States when you're raising millions of dollars from Wall Street whose greed, recklessness and illegal behavior helped to destroy our economy?" – Philadelphia rally, April 2016.

    However, Sanders may be singing a different tune when he is back in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention. His change of heart Tuesday included telling the audience: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president."

    2 "I proudly stood with the workers. Secretary Clinton stood with the big money interests" – Youngstown, Ohio March 14

    Sanders has frequently attacked Clinton's use of Super PACs and potential interest from elite banks. While the former secretary of state has been endorsed by many unions, such as the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Sanders' speech swapped that rhetoric for something a little more flattering.

    In his endorsement speech, he said: "Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income to the top one percent."

    3 "Do I have a problem, when a sitting Secretary of State and a Foundation ran by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorship… um yeah, do I have a problem with that? Yeah I do."

    Sanders passionately attacked the Clinton Foundation in June, calling its reception of money from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia a "conflict of interest." However, on Tuesday he told the audience that Clinton "knows that it is absurd that middle-class Americans are paying an effective tax rate higher than hedge fund millionaires, and that there are corporations in this country making billions in profit while they pay no federal income taxes in a given year because of loopholes their lobbyists created."

    4 "She was very reluctant to come out in opposition. She is running for president. She concluded it was a good idea to oppose the TPP, and she did."

    Clinton's slow opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) raised the ire of both Sanders and his supporters. Perhaps through intense negotiations to make Clinton's campaign more progressive, he is now willing to focus more on Clinton's interior economy, saying, "She wants to create millions of new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure – our roads, bridges, water systems and wastewater plants."

    5 "Well, I don't think Hillary Clinton can lead a political revolution"

    Commenting on Clinton's potential to carry the torch for the political revolution he claimed he was spearheading, Sanders lacked faith in her ability to make the changes he deemed necessary back in June, when he was on CBS's "Face the Nation."

    However, perhaps through negotiating the terms of his endorsement, Clinton's platform sounds more and more like Sanders' when he talks about it. Describing new platforms such as lowering student debt and making free education attainable without accruing massive amounts of debt, along with expanding the use of generic medicine and expanding community health centers all sound like shades of Sanders.

    6 "When you support and continue to support fracking, despite the crisis that we have in terms of clean water… the American people do not believe that that is the kind of president that we need to make the changes in America to protect the working families of this country."

    Back in an April debate, many voters were frustrated when Clinton gave a lengthy, difficult explanation about her stance on fracking. Sanders, a longtime opponent of hydraulic fracturing.

    However, since the CNN Democratic Debate, Sanders and Clinton may have both shifted their positions on the matter that was once clear cut for the senator from Vermont.

    According to Sanders, "Hillary Clinton is listening to the scientists who tell us that if we do not act boldly in the very near future there will be more drought, more floods, more acidification of the oceans, more rising sea levels."

    7 "When this campaign began, I said that we got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it to $12 ... To suddenly announce now that you're for $15, I don't think is quite accurate."

    At the same CNN debate in Brooklyn, Sanders hammered on Clinton's inconsistent stance on raising the minimum wage. While her opinion has shifted from debate to debate, it seems that Sanders' has as well.

    "She believes that we should raise the minimum wage to a living wage," Sanders said, without specifying what the minimum wage would be increased to under her more progressive campaign.

    8 "Almost all of the polls that… have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton."

    Sanders might be eating crow for this one. His entire endorsement speech often focused on the party's need to defeat presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. Throughout the speech, Sanders contrasted the new and improved Clinton strategy that includes more of Sanders' talking points with those from Trump.

    Sanders went as far as to place the importance of the election on keeping Trump away from the Supreme Court, saying, "If you don't believe this election is important, take a moment to think about the Supreme Court justices that Donald Trump will nominate, and what that means to civil liberties, equal rights and the future of our country."

    9 "[Super predators] was a racist term and everybody knew it was a racist term."

    Clinton's involvement with the criminal justice reform of the 1990s that contributed to the mass incarceration has frequently been a contentious point in this election. In 1996, she went on to warn the public about the existence of "super predators," or children with "no conscience, no empathy, we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."

    However, both Clinton and Sanders have a track record of working with the civil rights movements, and now Sanders may not be so quick to put Clinton and racist in the same sentence.

    "Hillary Clinton understands that our diversity is one of our greatest strengths," he said Tuesday.

    READ MORE:

    [Jul 13, 2016] 'You Broke My Heart' Supporters of Bernie Sanders React to Endorsement

    Note the NYT was afraid to open comment section for this article :-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Intelligent Bernie supporters will NEVER support her because she stands for everything were fighting against," he said. "Just because Bernie has left our movement does not mean it is over." ..."
    "... Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy. ..."
    Jul 12, 2016 | The New York Timeul

    Daniel Whitfield, of Discovery Bay, Calif., insisted that the political revolution Mr. Sanders had championed did not have to end just because the senator had given up. However, he said that voting for Mrs. Clinton was not an option.

    "Intelligent Bernie supporters will NEVER support her because she stands for everything were fighting against," he said. "Just because Bernie has left our movement does not mean it is over."

    ... ... ...

    Some of the lesser-known candidates running for president sought to capitalize on the moment.

    Jill Stein, the Green Party's presidential nominee, sent out a barrage of Twitter posts as Mr. Sanders made his endorsement arguing that Mrs. Clinton's policies were antithetical to a liberal progressive agenda.

    Dr. Jill Stein
    ✔ ‎@DrJillStein

    Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy.


    Gov. Gary Johnson
    ✔ ‎@GovGaryJohnson

    If joining Sen. Sanders in the Clinton Establishment isn't a good fit, there IS another option... #afterthebern

    For those who believed that Mr. Sanders still had a chance to snatch the nomination at the convention in Philadelphia, it was too soon after his endorsement to consider alternatives. It would take time for the mix of anger and disbelief to subside.

    "You chose her over us," Jessica Watrous Boyer, of Westerly, R.I., wrote on Mr. Sanders's Facebook page, lamenting that he had broken his promise to take the fight to the convention. "Truly shocked and saddened by this."

    [Jul 13, 2016] Sanders supporters lash out following Clinton endorsement

    www.foxnews.com

    Fox News

    Some of Bernie Sanders' most loyal backers have turned into his biggest bashers on the heels of his Hillary Clinton endorsement.

    The Vermont senator, who slammed Clinton repeatedly during the presidential primary campaign, offered his unwavering support to the presumptive Democratic nominee at a rally in New Hampshire Tuesday.

    "Hillary Clinton will make a great president and I am proud to stand with her today," he said.

    What followed was an avalanche of angry tweets, blogs and other social media posts from those who had been feeling the 'Bern' -- and now just feel burned.

    In New York, Monroe County Sanders activist Kevin Sweeney told the Democrat & Chronicle he's shifting his donations to Green Party candidate Jill Stein. "A lot of Bernie supporters are making $27 donations to Jill Stein's campaign today," he said.

    Others were more direct, as the hashtag #SelloutSanders and others took off on Twitter....

    ... ... ...

    Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, jumped in on the action.

    He tweeted, "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs. "

    brendajc

    Bernie supporters.......trump welcomes you

    1. We are and have been socialist since FDR....welfare...unemployment ...medicare....social security. ...,studebt loans....these a3 socialist programs.

    nobody wants these socialist programs gone

    We just don't want communism

    And we want fiscal responsibility.

    Come join us.

    are122

    I sometimes think Bernie was nothing more then a setup or a patsy encouraged to run by the DNC. With all the "superdelegates" supporting HC, the Bern had to know he virtually had no chance to win but put on a show anyway. He's suddenly very nice to all those that basically shafted him in advance.

    hotdogsdownhallways

    Cannot wait until we find out how much the Clinton Foundation gave him.


    [Jul 13, 2016] Bernie Sanders Wrong Beliefs, but Laudably Principled

    From Twitter: Bernie Sanders, We didn't donate $230M to vote for a warmonger with 4 superPACs, scam charity and $150M speeches who sabotaged your campaign
    Notable quotes:
    "... Today, you decided to officially express your support for Hillary Clinton in the race for president of the United States. Unlike many, I will not label you a "sellout." Though I'm disappointed in your decision, I would also like to thank you for your contribution to American politics. ..."
    "... But I reject the political hive-mind's notion that you had to endorse Hillary. You did not. You've been an independent for decades, refusing to officially associate yourself with a party that you didn't fully believe in. ..."
    National Review

    Dear Bernie,

    Today, you decided to officially express your support for Hillary Clinton in the race for president of the United States. Unlike many, I will not label you a "sellout." Though I'm disappointed in your decision, I would also like to thank you for your contribution to American politics.

    ... ... ...

    Like me and many other conservatives, your supporters now stand without a candidate to believe in. And, like me, they are disappointed in your decision to bow to the pressure exerted by the political muscle that the Clintons have been flexing for decades. I understand that your arm has been twisted by every establishment Democrat from the top down...

    But I reject the political hive-mind's notion that you had to endorse Hillary. You did not. You've been an independent for decades, refusing to officially associate yourself with a party that you didn't fully believe in. Throughout the campaign, you highlighted all of the problems with your opponent, and even went so far as to declare her "unfit" for the office of the presidency. You told America that you were starting a political revolution. By its very nature, though, a revolution refuses to be cowed by the protectors of the status quo. It can concede temporary defeat in certain battles, sure, but it can't survive if betrayed by its leaders. It is disingenuous for you to pretend that you will continue your revolution despite your endorsement - or even worse, imply that Hillary will. I thought you were better than that.

    ...During your endorsement speech, once more you called out the Wall Street billionaires for whom you've so often expressed unqualified loathing over the last 14 months. But this time, something was wrong: There stood, bobbing her head next to you, someone who has made a career out of selling favors to those very same billionaires. I thought you were someone who put principles before politics, and that you would never hesitate to stick to your guns, regardless of the pressure. I guess not. Despite feeling disappointed and deflated, I want to thank you for helping to rekindle my faith and interest in politics.

    ... ... ...

    Sincerely, Andrew - Andrew Badinelli is an intern at National Review.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437758/bernie-sanders-wrong-beliefs-ideologically-principled

    [Jul 12, 2016] FBI s Critique of Hillary Clinton Is a Ready-Made Attack Ad

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton may not be indicted on criminal charges over her handling of classified email, but the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, all but indicted her judgment and competence on Tuesday - two vital pillars of her presidential candidacy - and in the kind of terms that would be politically devastating in a normal election year. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    Hillary Clinton may not be indicted on criminal charges over her handling of classified email, but the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, all but indicted her judgment and competence on Tuesday - two vital pillars of her presidential candidacy - and in the kind of terms that would be politically devastating in a normal election year.

    ... ... ...

    To her charge that he is "reckless," Mr. Trump may now respond by citing Mr. Comey's rebuke: that Mrs. Clinton and her team "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

    To her promises to defend the United States, Mr. Trump may now retort with Mr. Comey's warning that "it is possible that hostile actors gained access" to Mrs. Clinton's email account and the top secret information it contained.

    And to her reproofs about his temperament and responsibility, Mr. Trump may now point to Mr. Comey's finding that "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes" on handling classified information - though Mr. Comey said that other factors, like Mrs. Clinton's intent, argued against criminal charges.


    Worst of all was the totality of Mr. Comey's judgment about Mrs. Clinton's judgment.

    She is running as a supremely competent candidate and portraying Mr. Trump, in essence, as irresponsible and dangerous. Yet the director of the F.B.I. basically just called her out for having committed one of the most irresponsible moves in the modern history of the State Department.

    ... ... ...

    Her clearest selling point - that she, unlike Mr. Trump, can manage challenging relationships with allies and adversaries - has now been undercut because she personally mismanaged the safeguarding of national security information.

    [Jul 12, 2016] Workers deserve to be compensated fairly for their work, and have generous social support programs to rely upon when economic changes that are out of their control throw them out of work or force them to accept lower paying jobs.

    www.thefiscaltimes.com

    "That empowerment must be both economic and political. Workers deserve to be compensated fairly for their work, and have generous social support programs to rely upon when economic changes that are out of their control throw them out of work or force them to accept lower paying jobs.

    We should not hesitate to ask those who have gained so much from globalization and technological change to give something back to those who have paid the costs of their success."

    All this would have been especially great, say, forty or even thirty years ago.

    [Jul 12, 2016] Bernie betrays all his supporters

    www.armstrongeconomics.com

    Armstrong Economics

    Of course Bernie Sanders appears to have sold out emerging from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama vowing to work together with Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in November. Bernie would rather endorse a traitor who has sold her influence as Secretary of State just to save the Democratic Party. Obama assured Bernie, no doubt, that he would not allow Hillary to be indicted. And to further rig the game, the State Department refuses to release her emails until AFTER the election. But the actual date they gave was November 31st, 2016, which does not exist since November has only 30 days. Once she is president, no doubt they will vanish altogether.

    It appears that Bernie is betraying all those who supported him. Hillary will raise $1 billion to buy the White House. That kind of money does not come from bankers without strings. Wall Street supports Hillary – not Trump. That says it all. How Bernie can just give up is amazing. What happened to his "revolution" will never be discussed.

    [Jul 12, 2016] Was Sanders a sheepdog corraling voters for Hillary?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Sanders and Clinton in New Hampshire

    So, what's happening with the Sanders list?

    "Text of Bernie Sanders' speech endorsing Hillary Clinton" [MarketWatch]. Lambert here: Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. The moment had to come, and now it has come. Will Sanders, in practice, have proven to be a sheepdog? Will Sanders' endorsement decapitate his movement? To me, the open question is what actions Sanders voters will take, going forward, beyond the ballot box, and as organizers. I'm not really sanguine about that, because the Chicago conference didn't give me confidence the left could unsilo itself, and distinguish itself, as a single institutional force ready to take power, from the (neoliberal) liberals (mostly Democrats) and the (neoliberal) conservatives (some Democrats, mostly Republicans). That said, the Sanders campaign did more than the left could have expected in its wildest dreams. To the text:

    [SANDERS:] I have come here today not to talk about the past but to focus on the future. That future will be shaped more by what happens on November 8 in voting booths across our nation than by any other event in the world. I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president.

    During the last year I had the extraordinary opportunity to speak to more than 1.4 million Americans at rallies in almost every state in this country. I was also able to meet with many thousands of other people at smaller gatherings. And the profound lesson that I have learned from all of that is that this campaign is not really about Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or any other candidate who sought the presidency. This campaign is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crises that we face. And there is no doubt in my mind that, as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is far and away the best candidate to do that.

    I'd prefer the position that Clinton hasn't won the nomination until there's a vote on the convention floor, which I had understood to be the position of the Sanders campaign.

    [SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income to the top one percent.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    [SANDERS:] This election is about the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality that currently exists, the worst it has been since 1928. Hillary Clinton knows that something is very wrong when the very rich become richer while many others are working longer hours for lower wages.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    [SANDERS:] I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform Committee which ended Sunday night in Orlando, there was a significant coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party. Our job now is to see that platform implemented by a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House and a Hillary Clinton president - and I am going to do everything I can to make that happen.

    Platform as a highly inadequate baseline and a method to hold Clinton's feet to the fire? Yes. Not negligible, but not much. And Clinton immediately showed - before the rally! - that she didn't take it seriously.

    [SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.

    I don't see how the institutionalized corruption of both legacy parties generally and the Clinton Dynasty in particular make any of this possible. One door closes, another opens…

    "'I can't help but say how much more enjoyable this election is going to be when we are on the same side,' [Clinton] said. "You know what? We are stronger together!'" [CNN]. Whichever Clinton operative decided to deploy the "stronger together" slogan shouldn't be expected to have known that it's also a slogan developed by the military junta in Thailand. But whatever.

    "Tuesday's rally drew supporters of Clinton and Sanders, some of whom chanted 'Bernie' while others chanted 'unity.' Some Sanders supporters left their seats when Sanders endorsed Clinton. Earlier, when New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said 'we need to elect Hillary,' she was interrupted by shouts of 'No!' and chants of "Bernie, Bernie' [USA Today]. "But there were deafening cheers as Sanders said Clinton would 'make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.'"

    "The most ringing portion of the endorsement came at the end, with Sanders bringing up some of the personal reasons why he had chosen to support Clinton. But even this portion felt a bit lifeless, with Sanders citing Clinton's intellect and passion on children's issues, and failing to address her integrity, which he directly challenged during the campaign and which will continue to be an issue the Republicans attack in the wake of the conclusion of the FBI's investigation into her email scandal" [Slate].

    And what happened here?

    Do we have any readers who were on that conference call?

    "[I]n a nod to Sanders's successful fundraising efforts that brought in millions of dollars from small donors, with at one time an average donation of $27, Clinton's campaign has made $27 an option on its online donor page" [CNN].

    "About 85 percent of Democrats who backed Mr. Sanders in the primary contests said they planned to vote for her in the general election, according to a Pew poll released last week. Yet she has struggled to appeal to the independents and liberals who rallied behind the senator's call for a 'political revolution' to topple establishment politicians, Mrs. Clinton included" [New York Times]. 85% of declared Democrats. Not such a good number from a third of the electorate.

    "I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her endorsement by Bernie Sanders. My decision isn't because of the scandal around her emails or because of some concern over her character. My reasons are pretty straightforward. I don't agree with her ideologically" [Eddie S. Glaude, Time].

    The Trail

    "The final amendment to the Democratic Party platform was meant to sprinkle Hillary Clinton's name throughout the document, putting a contentious and drawn-out primary process to rest in favor of a unified party. It never came up for a vote" [Bloomberg]. "Despite having the support of both the Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaign staffs, the amendment hadn't been run by committee members or Sanders supporters in the audience, some of whom angrily shouted down the language because, they argued, Clinton isn't the official nominee yet. The moment highlighted the state of the party after a long weekend of intense debates in Orlando, Florida, that left some tempers frayed, and extensive back-room policy negotiations between the two campaigns…."

    "On Tuesday, the [Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Pence] will put their compatibility to the test when they appear together at a rally near Indianapolis, the latest in a string of public auditions for the running mate role" [RealClearPolitics].

    ""Hillary Clinton's campaign is vetting James G. Stavridis, a retired four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander at NATO, as a possible running mate" [New York Times]. From the Wikipedia entry, which seems to have been written by a Clinton operative: "Stavridis has long advocated the use of "Smart Power," which he defines as the balance of hard and soft power taken together. In numerous articles[17] and speeches, he has advocated creating security in the 21st century by building bridges, not walls." I mean, come on.

    jo6pac

    Those that sent money to Bernie please let Lambert and us know if dddc or dnc ask for $$$$$$. Then may be it will just be a letter from the foundation asking for $$$$$$$$$$$$.

    Roger Smith

    I will update should I receive anything. I am curious about the list as well.

    Arizona Slim

    I just unsubscribed from Bernie's e-mailing list.

    Rick

    As did I. I will keep the poster I bought from his campaign as a reminder of a now passed moment of hope.

    cwaltz

    The moment hasn't passed unless you were expecting Bernie Sanders to do all the heavy lifting.

    The reality is that each and every person disappointed today should make a concerted effort to let the DNC know in no uncertain terms did their lying, cheating and outright rigging of this primary mean that they'll be getting a vote this November. It also means that each and every person find their spine and support someone other than the Democratic nominee. Expect to hunker down for 4 years no matter what because if Clinton or Trump are the nominees then you can pretty much expect there won't be many benefits for average Americans.

    [Jul 12, 2016] Bernie Sanders Supporters: Bernie is a fraud

    Notable quotes:
    "... "A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign." ..."
    "... "Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD." ..."
    "... "Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding. You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you." ..."
    thebuzzinsider.com

    "Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today," Sanders said at the end of the rally.

    This proclamation is a far cry from how his stance was a couple months ago, when he claimed that Clinton wasn't qualified for the presidency.

    "I don't believe that she is qualified," Sanders said in a Philadelphia rally back in April, as reported by thinkprogress.org. "[I]f she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC."

    Trump was one of the first to call Sanders a sell-out on Twitter, comparing his endorsement of "Crooked Hillary Clinton" to Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs.

    "I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself and his supporters," Trump tweeted. "They are not happy that he is selling out!"

    While some Democrats are happy that the party has seemed to have finally united, like the Communications Workers of America who have now changed their endorsement from Sanders to Clinton, other supporters share Trumps sentiments, feeling outraged and disappointed at Bernie's sudden change of heart.

    "A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign."

    "Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD."

    "Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding. You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you."

    These are just some of the comments people have been leaving on Sander's Facebook page, as reported on the Forward Progressives website.

    Other supporters have asked him to wait for the Democrats Party convention, to run in a third-party or to join Jill Stein in the Green Party ticket.

    Now that Sanders has endorsed Clinton, Clinton's campaign will most likely focus on convincing his supporters to join them in their fight for the presidency.

    [Jul 12, 2016] If that is not a betrayal of his supporters and his principles what is it then

    Bernie is anti war, anti Wall St., anti TPP. If that is not a betrayal of his supporters and his principles what is it then. Endorsing Clinton is like taking a job at Goldman-Sachs.
    www.theguardian.com
    Jul 12, 2016

    Potyka Kalman

    , 2016-07-12 19:30:33
    So why exactly he endorses her? We still don't know.

    The Democrats has good political operatives. There is Barack, the "change-no-change" "black not for blacks" candidate, and Bernie, The Revolutionary who stands staunchly behind Goldman Sachs and everything it presents.

    Of course the real governing task is delegated to Hillary Clinton and the "experts" from the banks.

    Hey guys. Good job. Just remember: ultimately there is that cliff you're marching towards.


    X Girl , 2016-07-12 19:18:28
    Why is he not doing as he promised and taking his message and challenge all the way to the convention? The super delegates are still an play and I doubt they've even finished counting California...This is very disheartening... Prepare for eternal war.


    CivilDiscussion , 2016-07-12 18:51:45
    Lyin' Bernie. A Trojan Horse for the corporate mafia from the very start.
    CrookedWilly99 , 2016-07-12 18:51:19
    I'd like to formally thank Bernie Sanders for endorsing my wife Hillary today. I know how tough it was for Bernie to stump for her today. Especially considering Hillary is even more crooked than my 4-inch yogurt slinger. As many of my young interns know, that's really crooked!

    I'd also like to formally apologize to Bernie for all the death threats and that severed horse's head my guys left in his bed. lol whoops! Ok, gotta go make another phone call to my good friend Trump now.....

    Itsyaboi , 2016-07-12 18:47:10
    You could just crawl back into your socialist hole and not say anything Bernie, but no, you're just another fool brought by Clinton because she needs your votes like she needs air. Congratulations on becoming another member of the Clinton foundations bankroll
    David Michael , 2016-07-12 18:37:02
    The problem isnt her most recent rhetoric, it is her person, and trusting to do the things she says (as she has held every side of every position). The endorsement doesn't fix the problem that we still don't want her... I think many of us will be looking for at the third party alternatives. If we give into this lesser of two evils every election cycle, we'll soon find candidates worse than Trump.
    Falanx , 2016-07-12 18:30:07
    1. Party platforms are consolation bullshit. They mean nothing, especially when the big money funding the campaign is against the platform. This is just a political fact.

    2. Therefore, Bernie's campaign has not started a revolution, but rather has dead-ended with a big bowl of nothing.

    3. Parties are the vehicles through which policies get pushed and accomplished. Since it was re-engineered by the Clinton's in the 1990's, the Democratic Party is like a vehicle with its steering welded to turn right.

    4. Therefore the only way to achieve a successful and peaceful political revolution is to re-engineer the vehicle; and this requires breaking it down and putting it back together.
    In other words, for the sake of progress, the D.N.C. as presently constituted and managed had to be destroyed.

    5. The only way to destroy the D.N.C. would have been to hand Hillary a defeat on a platter. This would have driven home, in the only way politicians understand, that progressive Americans will not be played and fooled.

    6. The willingness to do this requires strategic fortitude -- a willingness to think in long term objectives and to endure immediate and temporary inconveniences. Four years of Trump will not be the "sky-is-falling" disaster the Hillary Hens are clucking over. Eight years of Hillary will only solidify the grip corporations, banks and neo-con militarists, have on the country.

    7. Bernie should have run as an independent, precisely in order to defeat Hillary. Only then could a four year hiatus be used to clean out the D.N.C., and revitalize it with real progressive blood. Then and only then will progressives get the "platform" they want. Is four years of Clown Trump worth it? You bet.

    RobO83 , 2016-07-12 18:26:48
    Clintons character is as dubious as her husbands pants after an afternoon with Monica.
    pull2open RobO83 , 2016-07-12 18:31:36
    But in comparison to her opponent?
    YetAnotherSimon RobO83 , 2016-07-12 18:32:56
    Or one of his 26 flights on sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein's plane the 'Lolita Express'
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo /
    fedback gooner4thewin , 2016-07-12 18:36:37
    Bernie is anti war, anti Wall St., anti TPP. If that is not a betrayal of his supporters and his principles what is it then
    mikehowleydcu , 2016-07-12 18:25:02
    Chris Hedges was right all along.
    IanB52 mikehowleydcu , 2016-07-12 18:39:53
    I disagree. Chris Hedges believes that Sanders intended to mislead voters and intentionally funnel them back to Hillary Clinton under the belief that they would uncritically support her. That seems to be completely false, and even if it were true, it's seems he made a terrible sheepdog as many of us will not support Hillary. The problem was that although he saw no chance for an independent to win, the Democratic Party is a dead end for real change as well. I guess we all know that now.
    mikehowleydcu IanB52 , 2016-07-12 18:48:36
    Point taken.

    When it comes to intention I guess that I believed that he was genuine in his attempt to win and bring about change (except on the nation that cannot be criticised and on foreign policy) but the endorsement of HRC is another blow for the massive desire to remove these two corporatist parties.

    With the DNC having decided to support fracking, settlements etc the American people (and the world) are in for more of the same, war, privatisation, alienation of the poor, secret trade deals that give more power to corporations and environmental destruction etc. etc. etc

    mikehowleydcu IanB52 , 2016-07-12 18:52:33
    Here's what Chris said to Ralph Nader

    "He's lending credibility to a party that is completely corporatized. He has agreed that he will endorse the candidate, which, unless there is some miracle, will probably be Hillary Clinton."

    Jeff1000 , 2016-07-12 18:20:34
    Oh Bernie.

    You bottled it in the end. Sad. I never liked him much, but in running as an independent or siding with the Greens he could have showed that he stands for something. Endorsing Clinton is like taking a job at Goldman-Sachs.

    Hell, maybe that's where he's headed.

    Tuan Hoang hureharehure , 2016-07-12 18:58:45
    Oh, so he admitted it'd be better to support a lesser evil? How should you support an evil anyway? How about quietly withdrawing from the race and not saying anything that violates his own principles? I don't see what that's difficult to understand myself!
    novenator , 2016-07-12 18:20:35
    There was never a doubt that Democrats would eventually unite behind whoever ended up being the nominee. The problem is that all those NON-Democrats who so passionately supported Bernie will not. He was the real deal, and our best hope of actually engaging them, expanding our party, and having the wave election we need to actually get progress done.

    I have been actively trying to recruit folks like this into our ranks for many years now, so trust me when I tell you that we are in very serious trouble this year. No matter what Bernie says or does, these non-Dems will not feel the bern for her. We are heading to a low voter turnout election with two major candidates that have record low net favorability ratings, and Republicans usually do best in situations like that since they have the most reliable voting base.

    Tuan Hoang , 2016-07-12 18:20:01
    In my book, when you've run against somebody, you must think that guy would be a bad choice. When you think a person is a bad choice, how come you endorse that person? Bernie lost my respect (even though he doesn't care)!
    RankinRalph , 2016-07-12 18:15:59
    F*** this lesser-of-two-evils rubbish. We paid for his campaign, to resist this criminal and what she represents with every fibre of his body and he's sold us out. Jill Stein offered him something that could have brought real change and he sold us out. He is there because of the money and faith we put in him.
    What a turncoat bastard. I am disgusted.
    BennCarey , 2016-07-12 18:10:21
    For a vast library of information detailing the many crimes of the ghastly Clinton crime syndicate, please see the following link. http://www.arkancide.com
    DammitJim72 , 2016-07-12 18:10:05
    Super delegates have yet to vote, Hillary has not made it past the threshold, so if Sanders torpedos her, he gets booted out as a Dem nominee by party rules. So in order to stay to the convention he is doing what he has to.

    Has he conceded? No! If Bernie showed and asked me to vote for Hillary I would tell him no.

    Bernie or Jill, never Hill! Still Sanders!

    NoSerf , 2016-07-12 18:09:52
    Hillary is vetted by Netanyahu.
    wakeupbomb , 2016-07-12 18:08:41
    Another completely meaningless choice awaits the American people, how thrilling.
    Drewv , 2016-07-12 18:08:24
    At this point, Bernie's endorsement of Hillary does not matter at all. The genie of his movement is already out of the bottle, and it cannot be put back in.

    The movement never belonged to him, he belongs to the movement, and Bernie knows it. He knows it even as he pronounces the endorsement. He has played his enormously important part in that movement through his candidacy and now he will go back to fighting for the progressive cause from inside the Democratic party, because that is what he has been doing for twenty years and before he launched that candidacy. But the forces that he has unleashed will keep growing and gathering strength on their own.

    Never Hillary!!

    NadaZero , 2016-07-12 18:10:31
    Same old shit then. The Plutocrats won again and can freely go on selling 'war for profit' as 'fighting for freedoms.'

    Christ on a fucking cracker.

    ethane21 NadaZero , 2016-07-12 18:38:28

    Same old shit then. The Plutocrats won again and can freely go on selling 'war for profit' as 'fighting for freedoms.'

    With the useful benefit that La Clinton can now swan about on stage draped in a coat made from the hide of an old leftie.
    "We came, we saw we skinned it." And oh how the laughter rang out the entire length of Wall Street.
    Anjeska , 2016-07-12 17:51:27
    Trump has spoken against globalism. Trump has spoken against neocon wars. Trump wants to uphold our laws.

    Hillary is a globalist shill.
    Hillary is a warmongerer.
    Hillary thinks laws are for little people.

    The choice is simple.

    Merseysidefella , 2016-07-12 17:51:12
    Even if Hillary chooses Pocahontas as her running mate, they will lose because everyone is fed up with the Regime.
    The US is not a democracy
    CriticalThinking4000 , 2016-07-12 17:45:57
    So the warmongers and wall street win again. For the moment at least. The struggle continues. A new front opens under the banner of the Greens. In the UK the Grassoots on the left now have the whole power of the elite arrayed against them, with dirty tricks and media lies. The right wing blairites are using every trick in the book to split our Labouur Movement and remove our democratically elected Leader Corbyn. We are hanging in. Wish us luck, American friends! Looks like we are going to need it. No surrender!
    Jayarava Attwood CriticalThinking4000 , 2016-07-12 18:16:14
    There was never any doubt, in any election ever fought in the USA, that the military-industrial-financial complex would be the winner. They always are.

    The left in the UK are tearing themselves apart Life of Brian style (how prescient that film was!). It will be generations before they every wield power in this country, if ever. I'll probably see out my days under a vicious Tory administration.

    NullPointerException , 2016-07-12 17:44:50
    It's a shame it has come to this but kind of expected.

    Bernie wants to stop Trump now, and he believes that his is the way to do it. I don't personally this will have the desired effect enough people despise Clinton, but we will see.

    If I was a US citizen and had a vote, I would have thrown my full support behind Bernie, but this endorsement certainly would not make me vote for Hillary either (I certainly wouldn't support Trump, I'm not totally insane), I'd prefer to abstain completely.

    Strategic voting is an expression of support for the rigid, corrupt and self-serving political system that led to self-serving cretins like Trump and Clinton being among the elite ruling class in the first place.

    All it does is prolong the death rattles of the lower orders of society.

    Jedermann , 2016-07-12 17:44:33
    He closed, thumping the lectern and proclaiming: "Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her today."

    How can he say that? I feel so very let down.

    imithemountain , 2016-07-12 17:44:02
    Fellow Americans: Our country was demolished by Clinton, and Obama has been running a kill list for extra judicial killins, and he is the sitting president under wich a police force appears to be on a rampage to coloured people. The first black president leading a nation of multiple racist killings.

    Do
    Not
    Ever
    Vote
    Democrats
    Again

    The word lie doesnt cover it. The word lying says it doesnt want anything to do with Democrats. Trump, or any other republican, is a far better bet. bring back George Bush jr for all I care. Anyone but a Demorcratic president. Dont do it.

    SgtEmileKlinger , 2016-07-12 17:31:03
    To endorse Hillary Clinton is to be in alliance with a cynical and utterly corrupt liar who is willing to say anything to get elected. By endorsing Hillary you, Bernie, have become a part of everything you have been complaining about. Never mind. It never was about you and your endorsement isn't worth shit.
    jimithemountain , 2016-07-12 17:24:51
    Fuck you, Bernie Sanders, and fuck off.
    Mike5000 , 2016-07-12 17:20:54
    Why did you sell out before the convention, Bernie?
    fedback , 2016-07-12 17:20:42
    Bernie has to work hard to pay back the 200 mio. dollars supporters donated to his campaign. The money was not meant to go to a Clinton endorsement
    MaryElla22 , 2016-07-12 17:19:51
    And?

    If Brexit is any indicative: Trump won.

    Histfel , 2016-07-12 17:15:54
    After the progressive cause was successively sold out to Goldman Sachs by Paul Krugman, Gloria Steinem, John Lewis and the Congressional black caucus, Lena Dunham, Beyonce, George Clooney and Elizabeth Warren (Did I forget any of the earlier hate figures here?) it was inevitable that Bernie would ultimately also be revealed as a neoliberal sellout.
    NarodnayaVolya Porl D , 2016-07-12 17:08:47
    Has to be viewed in the context of the global threat of Donald Trump though

    yeah imagine anyone daring to public oppose further neo-conservative onslaught.
    Obviously the man's unhinged and has to be stopped pronto.
    fortunately bill kristol, victoria nuland, robert kagan et al are hot on the case and 100% on board with hillary (& bill) on this

    ID984302 , 2016-07-12 16:50:31
    Ah hello, Clinton Foundation?? Hasn't he read the FBI insider leaks??

    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/07/fbi-insider-leaks-all-clinton-foundation-exposed-involves-entire-us-government-3381515.html

    C'mon Putin, it's data dump time!!!

    Lafcadio1944 , 2016-07-12 16:45:40
    Sanders and Warren are now subsumed into the maw of the Empire of the Exceptionals and are pledging their loyalty to it. Just like Obama all hopie changie during campaigns but when the chips are down they show their true colors as Neoliberal sycophants and support every policy the claimed to oppose.
    Declan Mccann , 2016-07-12 16:42:11
    I for one will never support a now proven corrupt and dishonest career politician. Sorry Bernie, but the political revolution can never take place within a party as establishment focused as the Democratic Party. A sad and depressing time for all real progressives.
    Vulpes Inculta Tystnaden , 2016-07-12 16:49:22
    Hillary is more dangerous.

    Trump is a man whose uncompromising attitude means he'll get even less done than Obama. He'd be remembered as an ineffective washout of a president, unable to get anything done and sorely disappointing a lot of voters.

    Hillary is a smooth political operator who's in it for her own gain and will get an awful lot done - just not the things you want her to do. She'll be hawkish against Russia, interventionist against the Middle East, she'll throw her full weight behind the establishment in both America and Europe, and she'll make sure her paymasters at Goldman Sachs aren't disappointed in her.

    David Wiebelt II , 2016-07-12 16:39:40
    Bought and sold Bernie. Bernie shows his true political colors as a tool of the elite class.
    cidcid , 2016-07-12 16:38:37
    Chicken and traitor. Deceived millions of naive young people who believed him.
    Montezuma74 Tystnaden , 2016-07-12 17:06:27
    He's a little traitor. Spending donor's money on his own whims, then betraying the people he said he'd stick up for.

    Then, he joins the Goldman Sachs, George Soros, Saudi and Israeli owned Clinton, who, as Obama said, will promise everything and change nothing.

    Not to mention, FBI director Comey just testified in court that HRC gave classified documents to those who should not have seen them.

    Bernie sold out everyone who fought for him. Discusting, snivelling little coward. Unsurprising for most of us though.

    garrylee , 2016-07-12 16:38:10
    Oh,Bernie.What have you done?Legitimised a neo-liberal craven warmonger.You're not like Corbyn after all!
    LinearBandKeramik AndyCh , 2016-07-12 17:33:37

    Some people are just stupid.

    I suppose voting for Hillary to stop Trump might be an unavoidable course of action. But few people realize the danger Hillary represents to the United States... not because of what she will do, but because of what she won't do.

    Across the Western world, the centre is rapidly crumbling. Without a significant course correction, it will soon fall and what replaces it is hard to predict – but I doubt it will be pretty. Austria almost elected a far right president, the UK voted for Brexit, the GOP nominated Trump. You're a fool if you think this is the anti-establishment backlash... it's only the beginning, and these events are just canaries in the mine. The real backlash is yet to come.

    With 4-8 years of a Clinton-led status quo government, resentment will grow, inequality and hopelessness will increase... and eventually a right wing demagogue who is much smarter than Trump will see an opportunity and pounce. I suspect it'll happen right after the next market crash, which Clinton will do nothing to prevent.

    Historically illiterate people are constantly looking out for the "next Hitler" and so point their finger at the likes of Trump. But that's the wrong question. Anyone who understands the events that led to Nazism realizes the true question is who is the next Von Hindenburg . Clinton looks like a pretty good candidate in that respect.

    steveOhollywood , 2016-07-12 16:31:07
    OK. I am officially un-endorsing Bernie Sanders.

    [Jul 12, 2016] Donald Trump: Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs

    At least 50% of supporters of the Vermont senator insist they won't vote for neocon warmonger Clinton, no matter what. Many view the former secretary of state with her deep ties to the Democratic establishment as the polar opposite of Sanders and his rallying cry of political revolution
    Notable quotes:
    "... I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself and his supporters. They are not happy that he is selling out! ..."
    twitter.com

    Bernie Sanders, who has lost most of his leverage, has totally sold out to Crooked Hillary Clinton. He will endorse her today - fans angry!

    9:36 AM-12 Jul 2016

    I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself and his supporters. They are not happy that he is selling out!

    9:39 AM-12 Jul 2016

    [Jul 12, 2016] Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs

    [Jul 11, 2016] 5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had by Seth Abramson

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. ..."
    "... We can say, accurately, that the judgment of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. ..."
    "... whether criminal statutes on the books had been violated ..."
    "... criminal statutes had been violated ..."
    "... So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing" mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton violated, that wasn't it. ..."
    "... specific intent ..."
    "... Black's Law Dictionary ..."
    "... First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space. ..."
    "... Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? ..."
    "... And indeed, the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was, by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience." ..."
    "... completely different and more stringent protocols and requirements for data storage ..."
    "... simply by looking at their headers ..."
    "... every other action ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com
    1. According to Comey, Clinton committed multiple federal felonies and misdemeanors. Many people will miss this in the wash of punditry from non-attorneys in the mainstream media that has followed Comey's public remarks and Congressional testimony.

    The issue for Comey wasn't that Clinton hadn't committed any federal crimes, but that in his personal opinion the federal felony statute Clinton violated (18 U.S.C. 793f) has been too rarely applied for him to feel comfortable applying it to Clinton. This is quite different from saying that no crime was committed; rather, Comey's position is that crimes were committed, but he has decided not to prosecute those crimes because (a) the statute he focused most on has only been used once in the last century (keeping in mind how relatively rare cases like these are in the first instance, and therefore how rarely we would naturally expect a statute like this to apply in any case), and (b) he personally believes that the statute in question might be unconstitutional because, as he put it, it might punish people for crimes they didn't specifically intend to commit (specifically, it requires only a finding of "gross negligence," which Comey conceded he could prove). Comey appears to have taken the extraordinary step of researching the legislative history of this particular criminal statute in order to render this latter assessment.

    The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. Their job is to apply the laws as written, unless and until they are superseded by new legislation or struck down by the judicial branch. In Comey's case, this deep dive into the history books is even more puzzling as, prior to Attorney General Loretta Lynch unethically having a private meeting with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac, Comey wasn't even slated to be the final arbiter of whether Clinton was prosecuted or not. He would have been expected, in a case like this, to note to the Department of Justice's career prosecutors that the FBI had found evidence of multiple federal crimes, and then leave it to their prosecutorial discretion as to whether or not to pursue a prosecution. But more broadly, we must note that when Comey gave his public justification for not bringing charges ― a public justification in itself highly unusual, and suggestive of the possibility that Comey knew his inaction was extraordinary, and therefore felt the need to defend himself in equally extraordinary fashion ― he did not state the truth: that Clinton had committed multiple federal crimes per statutes presently on the books, and that the lack of a recommendation for prosecution was based not on the lack of a crime but the lack of prosecutorial will (or, as he might otherwise have put it, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion).

    The danger here is that Americans will now believe many untrue things about the executive branch of their government. For instance, watching Comey's testimony one might believe that if the executive branch exercises its prosecutorial discretion and declines to prosecute crimes it determines have been committed, it means no crimes were committed. In fact, what it means (in a case like this) is that crimes were committed but will not be prosecuted. We can say, accurately, that the judgment of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. She simply shouldn't, in the view of the FBI, be prosecuted for her crimes. Prosecutorial discretion of this sort is relatively common, and indeed should be much more common when it comes to criminal cases involving poor Americans; instead, we find it most commonly in law enforcement's treatment of Americans with substantial personal, financial, sociocultural, and legal resources.

    Americans might also wrongly believe, watching Comey's testimony, that it is the job of executive-branch employees to determine which criminal statutes written by the legislative branch will be acknowledged. While one could argue that this task does fall to the head of the prosecuting authority in a given instance ― here, Attorney General Loretta Lynch; had an independent prosecutor been secured in this case, as should have happened, that person, instead ― one could not argue that James Comey's role in this scenario was to decide which on-the-books criminal statutes matter and which don't. Indeed, Comey himself said, during his announcement of the FBI's recommendation, that his role was to refer the case to the DOJ for a "prosecutive decision" ― in other words, the decision on whether to prosecute wasn't his. His job was only to determine whether criminal statutes on the books had been violated.

    By this test, Comey didn't just not do the job he set out to do, he wildly and irresponsibly exceeded it, to the point where its original contours were unrecognizable. To be blunt: by obscuring, in his public remarks and advice to the DOJ, the fact that criminal statutes had been violated ― in favor of observing, more broadly, that there should be no prosecution ― he made it not just easy but a fait accompli for the media and workaday Americans to think that not only would no prosecution commence, but that indeed there had been no statutory violations.

    Which there were.

    Americans might also wrongly take at face value Comey's contention that the felony statute Clinton violated was unconstitutional ― on the grounds that it criminalizes behavior that does not include a specific intent to do wrong. This is, as every attorney knows, laughable. Every single day in America, prosecutors prosecute Americans ― usually but not exclusively poor people ― for crimes whose governing statutes lack the requirement of "specific intent." Ever heard of negligent homicide? That's a statute that doesn't require what lawyers call (depending on the jurisdiction) an "intentional" or "purposeful" mental state. Rather, it requires "negligence." Many other statutes require only a showing of "recklessness," which likewise is dramatically distinct from "purposeful" or "intentional" conduct. And an even larger number of statutes have a "knowing" mental state, which Comey well knows ― but the average American does not ― is a general- rather than specific-intent mental state (mens rea, in legal terms).

    And the term "knowingly" is absolutely key to the misdemeanors Comey appears to concede Clinton committed, but has declined to charge her for.

    To discuss what "knowingly" means in the law, I'll start with an example. When I practiced criminal law in New Hampshire, it was a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to "knowingly cause unprivileged physical contact with another person." The three key elements to this particular crime, which is known as Simple Assault, are "knowingly," "unprivileged," and "physical contact." If a prosecutor can prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant could, at the discretion of a judge, find themselves locked in a cage for a year. "Physical contact" means just about exactly what you'd expect, as does "unprivileged" ― contact for which you have no claim of privilege, such as self-defense, defense of another, permission of the alleged victim, and so on. But what the heck does "knowingly" mean? Well, as any law student can tell you, it means that you were aware of the physical act you were engaged in, even if you didn't intend the consequences that act caused. For instance, say you're in the pit at a particularly raucous speed-metal concert, leaping about, as one does, in close proximity with many other people. Now let's say that after one of your leaps you land on a young woman's foot and break it. If charged with Simple Assault, your defense won't be as to your mental state, because you were "knowingly" leaping about, even if you intended no harm in doing so. Instead, your defense will probably be that the contact (which you also wouldn't contest) was "privileged," because the young lady had implicitly taken on, as had you, the risks of being in a pit in the middle of a speed-metal concert. See the difference between knowingly engaging in a physical act that has hurtful consequences, and "intending" or having as your "purpose" those consequences? Just so, I've seen juveniles prosecuted for Simple Assault for throwing food during an in-school cafeteria food fight; in that instance, no one was hurt, nor did anyone intend to hurt anybody, but "unprivileged physical contact" was "knowingly" made all the same (in this case, via the instrument of, say, a chicken nugget).

    So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing" mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton violated, that wasn't it.

    What about the misdemeanor statute?

    Well, there's now terrifying evidence available for public consumption to the effect that Director Comey doesn't understand the use of the word "knowingly" in the law ― indeed, understands it less than even a law student in his or her first semester would. Just over an hour (at 1:06) into the six-hour C-SPAN video of Comey's Congressional testimony, Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) makes a brief but absolutely unimpeachable case that, using the term "knowingly" as I have here and as it is used in every courtroom in America, Secretary Clinton committed multiple federal misdemeanors inasmuch as she, per the relevant statute (Title 18 U.S.C. 1924), "became possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States....and knowingly removed such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location." Comey, misunderstanding the word "knowingly" in a way any law school student would scream at their TV over, states that the FBI would still, under that statutory language, need to prove specific intent to convict Clinton of a Title 18 U.S.C. 1924 violation. Lummis points out that Comey is dead wrong ― and she's right, he is wrong. Per the above, all Clinton had to be aware of is that (a) she was in possession of classified documents, and (b) she had removed them to an unauthorized location. Comey admits these two facts are true, and yet he won't prosecute because he's added a clause that's not in the statute. I can't emphasize this enough: Comey makes clear with his answers throughout his testimony that Clinton committed this federal misdemeanor, but equally makes clear that he didn't charge her with it because he didn't understand the statute. (At 1:53 in the video linked to above, Representative Ken Buck of Colorado goes back to the topic of Title 18 U.S.C. 1924, locking down that Comey is indeed deliberately adding language to that federal criminal statute that quite literally is not there.)

    Yes, it's true. Watch the video for yourself, look up the word "knowingly" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll see that I'm right. This is scary stuff for an attorney like me, or really for any of us, to see on television ― a government attorney with less knowledge of criminal law than a first-year law student.

    2. Comey has dramatically misrepresented what prosecutorial discretion looks like. The result of this is that Americans will fundamentally misunderstand our adversarial system of justice.

    Things like our Fourth and Fifth Amendment are part and parcel of our "adversarial" system of justice. We could have elected, as a nation, to have an "inquisitorial" system of justice ― as some countries in Europe, with far fewer protections for criminal defendants, do ― but we made the decision that the best truth-seeking mechanism is one in which two reflexively zealous advocates, a prosecutor and a defense attorney, push their cases to the utmost of their ability (within certain well-established ethical strictures).

    James Comey, in his testimony before Congress, left the impression that his job as a prosecutor was to weigh his ability to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt not as a prosecutor, but as a member of a prospective jury. That's not how things work in America; it certainly, and quite spectacularly, isn't how it works for poor black men. In fact, what American prosecutors are charged to do is imagine a situation in which (a) they present their case to a jury as zealously as humanly possible within the well-established ethical code of the American courtroom, (b) all facts and inferences are taken by that jury in the prosecution's favor, and then (c) whether, given all those conditions, there is a reasonable likelihood that all twelve jurors would vote for a conviction.

    That is not the standard James Comey used to determine whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

    What Comey did was something else altogether.

    First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space.

    The second thing Comey did was ask, "Am I guaranteed to win this case at trial?" Would that this slowed the roll of prosecutors when dealing with poor black men! Instead, as I discuss later on, prosecutors ― via the blunt instrument of the grand jury ― usually use the mere fact of misdemeanor or felony charges against a defendant as a mechanism for ending a case short of trial. Even prosecutors who ultimately drop a case will charge (misdemeanor) or indict (felony) it first, if only to give themselves time ― because defendants do have speedy trial rights, and statutes of limitation do sometimes intercede ― to plan their next move.

    Third, Comey imagined his case at trial through the following lens: "How would we do at trial if the jury took every fact and presumption ― as we already have ― in Clinton's favor?" Indeed, I'm having more than a hard time ― actually an impossible time ― finding a single unknown or unclear fact that Comey took in a light unfavorable to Clinton (including, incredibly, the facts that became unknowable because of Clinton's own actions and evasions). Instead, Hillary was given the benefit of the doubt at every turn, so much so that it was obvious that the only evidence of "intent" Comey would accept was a full confession from Clinton. That's something prosecutors rarely get, and certainly (therefore) never make a prerequisite for prosecution. But Comey clearly did here.

    I have never seen this standard used in the prosecution of a poor person. Not once.

    3. Comey left the indelible impression, with American news-watchers, that prosecutors only prosecute specific-intent crimes, and will only find a sufficient mens rea (mental state) if and when a defendant has confessed. Imagine, for a moment, if police officers only shot unarmed black men who were in the process of confessing either verbally ("I'm about to pull a gun on you!") or physically (e.g., by assaulting the officer). Impossible to imagine, right? That's because that's not how this works; indeed, that's not how any of this works. Prosecutors, like police officers, are, in seeking signs of intent, trained to read ― and conceding here that some of them do it poorly ― contextual clues that precede, are contemporaneous with, and/or follow the commission of a crime.

    But this apparently doesn't apply to Hillary Clinton.

    It would be easier to identify the contextual clues that don't suggest Clinton had consciousness of guilt than those that do ― as there are exponentially more of the latter than the former. But let's do our best, and consider just a few of the clear signs that Clinton and her team, judging them solely by their words and actions, knew that what they were doing was unlawful.

    For instance, Clinton repeatedly said she used one server and only one device ― not that she thought that that was the correct information, but that she knew it was. Yet the FBI found, per Comey's July 5th statement, that Clinton used "several different servers" and "numerous mobile devices." So either Clinton didn't know the truth but pretended in all her public statements that she did; or she was given bad information which she then repeated uncritically, in which case a prosecutor would demand to know from whom she received that information (as surely that person would know they'd spread misinformation); or she knew the truth and was lying. A prosecutor would want clear, on-the-record answers on these issues; instead, Comey let other FBI agents have an unrecorded, untranscripted interview with Clinton that he himself didn't bother to attend. It's not even clear that that interview was much considered by the FBI; Comey declared his decision just a few dozen hours after the interview was over, and word leaked that there would be no indictment just two hours after the interview. Which, again, incredibly ― and not in keeping with any law enforcement policy regarding subject interviews I'm aware of ― was unrecorded, untranscripted, unsworn, and unattended by the lead prosecutor.

    This in the context of a year-long investigation for which Clinton was the primary subject. Since when is an hours-long interview with an investigation's subject so immaterial to the charging decision? And since when is such an interview treated as such a casual event? Since never. At least for poor people.

    And since when are false exculpatory statements not strong evidence of intent?

    Since never - at least for poor people.

    Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? Just so, Comey would naturally want to test Clinton's narrative by seeing whether or not all FOIA requests were fully responded to by Clinton and her staff in the four years she was the head of the State Department. Surely, Clinton and her staff had been fully briefed on their legal obligations under FOIA ― that's provable ― so if Clinton's "convenience" had caused a conflict with the Secretary's FOIA obligations that would have been immediately obvious to both Clinton and her staff, and would have been remedied immediately if the purpose of the server was not to avoid FOIA requests but mere convenience. At a minimum, Comey would find evidence (either hard or testimonial) that such conversations occurred. And indeed, the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was, by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience."

    Even if Comey believed that "avoiding access to the personal," rather than "convenience," was the reason for Clinton's server set-up, that explanation would have imploded under the weight of evidence Clinton, her team, and her attorneys exercised no due caution whatsoever in determining what was "personal" and what was not personal when they were wiping those servers clean. If Clinton's concern was privacy, there's no evidence that much attention was paid to accurately and narrowly protecting that interest ― rather, the weight of the evidence suggests that the aim, at all times, was to keep the maximum amount of information away from FOIA discovery, not just "personal" information but (as Comey found) a wealth of work-related information.

    But let's pull back for a moment and be a little less legalistic. Clinton claimed the reason for her set-up was ― exclusively ― "convenience"; nevertheless, Comey said it took "thousands of hours of painstaking effort" to "piece back together" exactly what Clinton was up to. Wouldn't that fact alone give the lie to the claim that this system was more "convenient" than the protocols State already had in place? "Millions of email fragments ended up in the server's 'slack space'," Comey said of Clinton's "convenient" email-storage arrangement. See the contradiction? How would "millions of email fragments ending up in a server's 'slack space'" in any way have served Clinton's presumptive desire for both (a) convenience, (b) FOIA complicance, (c) a securing of her privacy, and (d) compliance with State Department email-storage regulations? Would any reasonable person have found this set-up convenient? And if not ― and Comey explicitly found not ― why in the world didn't that help to establish the real intent of Clinton's private basement servers? Indeed, had Clinton intended on complying with FOIA, presumably her own staff would have had to do the very same painstaking work it took the FBI a year to do. But FOIA requests come in too fast and furious, at State, for Clinton's staff to do the work it took the FBI a year to do in a matter of days; wouldn't this in itself establish that Clinton and her staff had no ability, and therefore well knew they had no intention, of acceding to any of the Department's hundreds or even thousands of annual FOIA requests in full? And wouldn't ignoring all those requests be not just illegal but "inconvenient" in the extreme? And speak to the question of intent?

    It took Clinton two years to hand over work emails she was supposed to hand over the day she left office; and during that time, she and her lawyers, some of whom appear to have looked at classified material without clearance, deleted thousands of "personal" emails ― many of which turned out the be exactly the sort of work emails she was supposed to turn over the day she left State. In this situation, an actor acting in good faith would have (a) erred on the side of caution in deleting emails, (b) responded with far, far more alacrity to the valid demands of State to see all work-related emails, and (c) having erroneously deleted certain emails, would have rushed to correct the mistake themselves rather than seeing if they could get away with deleting ― mind you ― not just work emails but work emails with (in several instances) classified information in them. How in the world was none of this taken toward the question of intent? Certainly, it was taken toward the finding of "gross negligence" Comey made, but how in the world was none of it seen as relevant to Clinton's specific intent also? Why does it seem the only evidence of specific intent Comey would've looked at was a smoking gun? Does he realize how few criminal cases would ever be brought against anyone in America if a "smoking gun" standard was in effect? Does anyone realize how many poor black men wouldn't be in prison if that standard was in effect for them as well as Secretary Clinton?

    4. Comey made it seem that the amount and quality of prosecutorial consideration he gave Clinton was normal. The mere fact that Comey gave public statements justifying his prosecutorial discretion misleads the public into thinking that, say, poor black men receive this level of care when prosecutors are choosing whether to indict them.

    While at least he had the good grace to call the fact of his making a public statement "unusual" ― chalking it up to the "intense public interest" that meant Clinton (and the public) "deserved" an explanation for his behavior ― that grace ultimately obscured, rather than underscored, that what Comey did in publicly justifying his behavior is unheard of in cases involving poor people. In the real America, prosecutors are basically unaccountable to anyone but their bosses in terms of their prosecutorial discretion, as cases in which abuse of prosecutorial discretion is successfully alleged are vanishingly rare. Many are the mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers of poor black men who would love to have had their sons' (or brothers', or fathers') over-charged criminal cases explained to them with the sort of care and detail Hillary Clinton naturally receives when she's being investigated. Clinton and the public "deserve" prosecutorial transparency when the defendant is a Clinton; just about no one else deserves this level of not just transparency but also ― given the year-long length of the FBI investigation ― prosecutorial and investigative caution.

    What's amazing is how little use Comey actually made of all the extra time and effort. For instance, on July 5th he said that every email the FBI uncovered was sent to the "owning" organization to see if they wanted to "up-classify" it ― in other words, declare that it should have been classified at the time it was sent and/or received, even if not marked that way at the time. One might think Comey would want this information, the better to determine Clinton's intent with respect to those emails (i.e., given Clinton's training, knowledge, and experience, how frequently did she "miss" the classified nature of an email, relative to the assessment of owning agencies that a given email was effectively and/or should have been considered classified ― even if not marked so ― at the time Clinton handled it?) Keep in mind, here, that certain types of information, as Clinton without a doubt knew, are "born classified" whether marked as such or not. And yet, just two days after July 5th, Comey testified before Congress that he "didn't pay much attention" to "up-classified" emails. Why? Because, said Comey, they couldn't tell him anything about Clinton's intent. Bluntly, this is an astonishing and indeed embarrassing statement for any prosecutor to make.

    Whereas every day knowledge and motives are imparted to poor black men that are, as the poet Claudia Rankine has observed, purely the product of a police officer's "imagination," the actual and indisputable knowledge and motives and ― yes ― responsibilities held by Clinton were "downgraded" by Comey to that of merely an average American. That is, despite the fact that Clinton was one of the most powerful people on Earth, charged with managing an agency that collects among the highest number of classified pieces of information of any agency anywhere; despite the fact that Clinton's agency had the strictest policies for data storage for this very reason; despite the fact that State is, as Clinton well knew, daily subjected to FOIA requests; despite all this, Comey actually said the following: "Like many email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails..."

    What?

    How in the world does the "many email users" standard come into play here? Clinton's server, unlike anyone else's server, was set up in a way that permitted no archiving, an arrangement that one now imagines led (in part) to the person who set up that server taking the Fifth more than a hundred times in interviews with the FBI; even assuming Clinton didn't know, and didn't request, for her server to be set up in this astonishing way ― a way, again, that her own employees believe could incriminate them ― how in the world could she have been sanguine about deleting emails "like many email users" when the agency she headed had completely different and more stringent protocols and requirements for data storage than just about any government agency on Earth? Just so, once it was clear that Clinton had deleted (per Comey) "thousands of emails that were work-related" instead of turning them over to State, in what universe can no intent be implied from the fact that her attorneys purged 30,000 emails simply by looking at their headers? At what point does Clinton, as former Secretary of State, begin to have ill intent imputed to her by not directing her attorneys to actually read emails before permanently destroying them and making them unavailable to the FBI as evidence? If you were in her situation, and instead of saying to your team either (a) "don't delete any more emails," or (b) "if you delete any emails, make sure you've read them in full first," would you expect anyone to impute "no specific intent" to your behavior?

    The result: despite saying she never sent or received emails on her private basement server that were classified "at the time," the FBI found that 52 email chains on Clinton's server ― including 110 emails ― contained information that was classified at the time (eight chains contained "top secret" information; 36, "secret" information; and another eight "confidential" information). Moreover, Clinton's team wrongly purged ― at a minimum ― "thousands" of work-related emails. (And I'm putting aside entirely here the 2,000 emails on Clinton's server that were later "up-classified.") At what point does this harm become foreseeable, and not seeing it ― when you're one of the best-educated, smartest, most experienced public servants in U.S. history, as your political team keeps reminding us ― become evidence of "intent"? Comey's answer? Never.

    Indeed, Comey instead makes the positively fantastical observation that "none [of the emails Clinton didn't turn over but was supposed to] were intentionally deleted." The problem is, by Comey's own admission all of those emails were intentionally deleted, under circumstances in which the problems with that deletion would not just have been evident to "any reasonable person" but specifically were clear ― the context proves it ― to Clinton herself. During her four years as Secretary of State Clinton routinely expressed concern to staff about her own and others' email-storage practices, establishing beyond any doubt that not only was Clinton's literal key-pressing deliberate ― the "knowing" standard ― but also its repeated, systemic effect was fully appreciated by her in advance. Likewise, that her attorneys were acting entirely on their own prerogative, without her knowledge, is a claim no jury would credit.

    Clinton's attorneys worked Clinton's case in consultation with Clinton ― that's how things work. In other words, Clinton's lawyers are not rogue actors here. So when Comey says, "They [Clinton and her team] deleted all emails they did not produce for State, and the lawyers then cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery," we have to ask, what possible reason would an attorney have for wiping a server entirely within their control to ensure that no future court order could access the permanently deleted information? In what universe is such behavior not actual consciousness of guilt with respect to the destruction of evidence? Because we must be clear: Comey isn't saying Clinton and her lawyers accidentally put these emails outside even a hypothetical future judicial review; they did so intentionally.

    There's that word again.

    The result of these actions? The same as every other action Clinton took that Comey somehow attributes no intent to: a clear legal benefit to Clinton and a frustration, indeed an obstruction, of the FBI's investigation. As Comey said on July 5th, the FBI can't know how many emails are "gone" (i.e., permanently) because of Clinton and her team's intentional acts after-the-fact. So Comey is quite literally telling us that the FBI couldn't conclude their investigation with absolute confidence that they had all the relevant facts, and that the reason for this was the intentional destruction of evidence by the subject of the investigation at a time when there was no earthly reason to destroy evidence except to keep it from the FBI.

    In case you're wondering, no, you don't need a legal degree to see the problem there.

    As an attorney, I can't imagine destroying evidence at a time I knew it was the subject of a federal investigation. And if I ever were to do something like that, I would certainly assume that all such actions would later be deemed "intentional" by law enforcement, as my intent would be inferred from my training, knowledge, and experience as an attorney, as well as my specific awareness of a pending federal investigation in which the items I was destroying might later become key evidence. That Clinton and her team repeatedly (and falsely) claimed the FBI investigation was a mere "security review" ― yet another assertion whose falseness was resoundingly noted by Comey in his public statements ― was clearly a transparent attempt to negate intent in destroying those emails. (The theory being, "Well, yes, I destroyed possible evidence just by looking at email headers, but this was all just a 'security review,' right? Not a federal investigation? Even though I knew the three grounds for referral of the case to the FBI, and knew that only one of them involved anything like a 'security review'?")

    And certainly, none of this explains Comey's (again) gymnastic avoidance of stating the obvious: that crimes were committed.

    Listen to his language on July 5th: "Although we did not find clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information" (emphasis in original) ― actually, let's stop there. You'd expect the second half of that sentence to be something like, "...they nevertheless did violate those laws, despite not intending to." It's the natural continuation of the thought. Instead, Comey, who had prepared his remarks in advance, finished the thought this way: "....there is evidence that they were extremely careless with very sensitive, highly classified information" (emphasis in original).

    Note that Comey now uses the phrase "extremely careless" instead of "gross negligence," despite using the latter phrase ― a legal phrase ― at the beginning of his July 5th remarks. That matters because at the beginning of those remarks he conceded "gross negligence" would lead to a statutory violation. So why the sudden shift in language, when from a legal standpoint "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence" are synonymous ― both indicating the presence of a duty of care, the failure to meet that duty, and moreover a repeated failure on this score? Comey also avoids finishing his sentence with the obvious thought: that they may not have intended to violate criminal statutes, but they did nonetheless. Remember that, just like our hypothetical raver may not have intended to commit a Simple Assault by stepping on that poor young woman's foot, he nevertheless could be found to have done so; just so, had Comey accepted the statute as written, Clinton's "gross negligence" would have forced him to end the above sentence with the finding of a statutory violation, even if there had been no "specific intent" to do so.

    This is how the law works. For poor black men, just not for rich white women.

    5. Comey, along with the rest of Congress, left the impression, much like the Supreme Court did in 2000, that legal analyses are fundamentally political analyses. Not only is this untrue, it also is unspeakably damaging to both our legal system and Americans' understanding of that system's operations.

    I'm a staunch Democrat, but I'm also an attorney. Watching fellow Democrats twist themselves into pretzels to analyze Clinton's actions through a farcically slapdash legal framework, rather than merely acknowledging that Clinton is a human being and, like any human being, can both (a) commit crimes, and (b) be replaced on a political ticket if need be, makes me sick as both a Democrat and a lawyer. Just so, watching Republicans who had no issue with George W. Bush declaring unilateral war in contravention of international law, and who had no issue with the obviously illegal behavior of Scooter Libby in another recent high-profile intel-related criminal case, acting like the rule of law is anything they care about makes me sick. Our government is dirty as all get-out, but the one thing it's apparently clean of is anyone with both (a) legal training, and (b) a sense of the ethics that govern legal practice. Over and over during Comey's Congressional testimony I heard politicians noting their legal experience, and then going on to either shame their association with that august profession or honor it but (in doing so) call into question their inability or unwillingness to do so in other instances.

    When Comey says, "any reasonable person should have known" not to act as Clinton did, many don't realize he's quoting a legal standard ― the "reasonable person standard." A failure to meet that standard can be used to establish either negligence or recklessness in a court of law. But here, Clinton wasn't in the position of a "reasonable person" ― the average fellow or lady ― and Comey wasn't looking merely at a "reasonableness" standard, but rather a "purposeful" standard that requires Comey to ask all sorts of questions about Clinton's specific, fully contextualized situation and background that he doesn't appear to have asked. One might argue that, in keeping with Clinton's campaign theme, no one in American political history was more richly prepared ― by knowledge, training, experience, and innate gifts ― to know how to act properly in the situations Clinton found herself. That in those situations she failed to act even as a man or woman taken off the street and put in a similar situation would have acted is not indicative of innocence or a lack of specific intent, but the opposite. If a reasonable person wouldn't have done what Clinton did, the most exquisitely prepared person for the situations in which Clinton found herself must in fact have been providing prosecutors with prima facie evidence of intent by failing to meet even the lowest threshold for proper conduct. Comey knows this; any prosecutor knows this. Maybe a jury would disagree with Comey on this point, but his job is to assume that, if he zealously advocates for this extremely powerful circumstantial case, a reasonable jury, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the government, would see things his way.

    Look, I can't possibly summarize for anyone reading this the silly nonsense I have seen prosecutors indict people for; a common saying in the law is that the average grand jury "would indict a ham sandwich," and to be clear that happens not because the run-of-the-mill citizens who sit on grand juries are bloodthirsty, but because the habitual practice of American prosecutors is to indict first and ask questions later ― and because indictments are absurdly easy to acquire. In other words, I've seen thousands of poor people get over-charged for either nonsense or nothing at all, only to have their prosecutors attempt to leverage their flimsy cases into a plea deal to a lesser charge. By comparison, it is evident to every defense attorney of my acquaintance that I've spoken to that James Comey bent over backwards to not indict Hillary Clinton ― much like the hundreds of state and federal prosecutors who have bent over backwards not to indict police officers over the past few decades. Every attorney who's practiced in criminal courts for years can smell when the fix is in ― can hear and see when the court's usual actors are acting highly unusually ― and that's what's happened here. The tragedy is that it will convince Americans that our legal system is fundamentally about what a prosecutor feels they can and should be able to get away with, an answer informed largely, it will seem to many, by various attorneys' personal temperaments and political prejudices.

    No one in America who's dedicated their life to the law can feel any satisfaction with how Hillary Clinton's case was investigated or ultimately disposed of, no more than we can feel sanguine about prosecutors whose approach to poor black defendants is draconian and to embattled police officers positively beatific. What we need in Congress, and in prosecutor's offices, are men and women of principle who act in accordance with their ethical charge no matter the circumstances. While James Comey is not a political hack, and was not, I don't believe, in any sense acting conspiratorially in not bringing charges against Hillary Clinton, I believe that, much like SCOTUS did not decide in the 2000 voting rights case Bush v. Gore, Comey felt that this was a bad time for an executive-branch officer to interfere with the workings of domestic politics. Perhaps Comey had the best of intentions in not doing his duty; perhaps he thought letting voters, not prosecutors, decide the 2016 election was his civic duty. Many Democrats could wish the Supreme Court had felt the same way in 2000 with respect to the role of judges. But the fact remains that the non-indictment of Hillary Clinton is as much a stain on the fair and equal administration of justice as is the disparate treatment of poor black males at all stages of the criminal justice system. I witnessed the latter injustice close up, nearly every day, during my seven years working as a public defender; now America has seen the same thing, albeit on a very different stage, involving a defendant of a very different class and hue.

    To have prosecuted Clinton, said Comey, he would need to have seen "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or....efforts to obstruct justice..." When Comey concludes, "we do not see those things here," America should ― and indeed must ― wonder what facts he could possibly be looking at, and, moreover, what understanding of his role in American life he could possibly be acting upon. The answers to these two questions would take us at least two steps forward in discussing how average Americans are treated by our increasingly dysfunctional system of justice.

    Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).

    [Jul 11, 2016] Letter signed by over 200 members of Congress demanding answers from FBI Director Comey

    Neoliberal MSM response to latest FBI director Comey testimony is a textbook example of brainwashing (or groupthink). It shows to me again that you need to go to the source watch at least the fragments of the testimony on YouTube. It deadly serious situation for Hillary. No person with even cursory knowledge of security can avoid thinking that she should be in jail. Republicans know it and will not let her off the hook. Probably special prosecutor will be appointed. See for example https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/House-Letter-to-FBI-Director-1.pdf
    Now Comey is under strong fire and need to save his own skin. You can tell anything about Republican members of House of Representative, but it is now quite clear to me that several of them are brilliant former lawyers/prosecutor/judges.
    From now on they will block all attempt to swipe this matter under the carpet and unless Hillary withdraw they might try to implicate Obama in the cover-up (and they have facts: he recklessly corresponded with her on this account).
    They already requested all FBI files on Clinton. Soon they will have all the dirty laundering from Hillary server and FBI probably recovered most of it.
    From this point it is up-hill battle for Obama, and might well think about finding appropriate sacrificial lamp NOW. My impression is that she lost her chance to became the President. With FBI files in hand, In four month they can do so much damage that she would be better to take her toys and leave the playground.
    And this topic hopefully already influence super-delegates. I think her best option now is give Sanders a chance. Because the real threat now is not that she will go to jail. She belongs to the elite and is above the law. Now the real threat is that all her close associates might.
    judiciary.house.gov

    On Tuesday, the FBI assumed the role of prosecutor and not simply investigator and took the unprecedented act of proclaiming that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Based on the perception that a decision has been made by the FBI that has seemingly ignored facts that the FBI itself found in its own investigation, we have additional questions that are aimed at ensuring that the cloud which now hovers over our justice system is at least minimally pierced:

    1) As a former prosecutor, please explain your understanding of the legal difference between actions performed with "gross negligence" and those done "extremely carelessly." How did you determine that "extreme carelessness" did not equate to "gross negligence?"

    2) You said that no reasonable prosecutor would decide to prosecute the Clinton case on the evidence found by FBI agents during the Bureau's investigation over the past year. We have multiple former prosecutors in Congress, and it is not far-fetched for many of us to envision a successful prosecution of someone for doing far less than that which was committed by Secretary Clinton. Is your statement not an indictment and prejudgment against any Assistant United States Attorney who is now tasked with reviewing the evidence you presented Tuesday? In your judgment, does it not follow that you would think that a prosecutor who moved forward with the instant prosecution of Secretary Clinton would be "unreasonable?"

    3) Are you aware of any internal opinions by FBI agents or management who were intimately aware of the Clinton investigation which differed from your eventual decision to not recommend the case for prosecution?

    4) You mentioned that Top Secret Special Access Programs (SAPs) were included in emails sent and received by Secretary Clinton. SAP material is some of the most highly classified and controlled material of the U.S. Government. If an agency of the U.S. Government were to encounter similar information from a foreign adversary, it would be extremely valuable data for us to exploit. Did the FBI assess how SAP information, due to its controlled nature, ever made it onto unclassified systems that were not air-gapped or physically blocked from outside Internet access? Is it not "gross negligence" to permit such SAP data to leave the confines of the most protective and secure governmental enclaves? Or even "intentional" conduct that allowed that to happen?

    5) You mentioned that this investigation stemmed from a referral from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to determine whether classified information had been transmitted on an unclassified personal system. Following your investigation, it is clear that Secretary Clinton transmitted classified information on an unclassified system. Secretary Clinton on multiple occasions has said that she did not send or receive classified information or information marked as classified.3 In light of your decision to also not refer a false statements charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for prosecution, we can only presume that Secretary Clinton admitted during her interview with your agents that she, in fact, sent and received emails containing classified information. Please confirm.

    6) Are you aware of whether any deleted emails which the FBI was able to forensically recover from Secretary Clinton's servers pertained to the Clinton Foundation?

    7) You stated Tuesday, "Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account." Is the FBI's Counterintelligence Division still involved in determining the level of damage related to possible exploitation of Secretary Clinton's or her associates' email accounts and other communications?

    8) If the FBI performed a background check on an applicant for employment with the FBI or elsewhere in the U.S. Government, and that applicant engaged in conduct committed by Secretary Clinton, would a security clearance ever be granted to that person?

    [Jul 11, 2016] FBI Findings Damage Many of Hillary Clinton s Claims by STEVEN LEE MYERS

    Jul 05, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    Mr. Comey said the emails included eight chains of emails and replies, some written by her, that contained information classified as "top secret: special access programs." That classification is the highest level, reserved for the nation's most highly guarded intelligence operations or sources.

    Another 36 chains were "secret," which is defined as including information that "could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security"; eight others had information classified at the lowest level, "confidential."

    [Jul 11, 2016] What is Peronism Analysis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Much of this has to do with Peronism's founder, and his ability to bring in broad sectors of Argentine society into his political program, broadly against imperialism and for nationalist workers rights and political sovereignty. ..."
    "... It is an idea founded on Christian social values that has three basic principles: social justice, political sovereignty and economic independence. ..."
    "... It was under Peron that a version of nationalized state capitalism, and an elimination of foreign investors was initiated in Argentina. He used nationalism, unlike his European counterparts, as a weapon of anti-imperialism. Peronism under Peron was Bonapartist in its manipulation of the social classes on behalf of industrializing an underdeveloped country and challenging dominant American imperialism. His style of leadership was one of a leader who took power in a power vacuum when no single class is in the position do so, and using reformist measures to win the radical support of the more populous class. ..."
    "... Peron and Peronism also has to be viewed as a stage in the battle of Latin America for economic independence which is still yet to be achieved with at home the oligarchical structures still intact, and foreign manipulation in the country. ..."
    teleSUR English
    Juan Peron is the most important political figure in Argentina, with reams of paper dedicated to himself and his followers, but surprising little ink has been spilled over his, and the movement named after him, Peronism's ideology. Perhaps because of its near undefinable nature, that it neither sits comfortably on the left, right nor center or because of the number of ideological disperse groups and politicians that call themselves Peronist.

    Much of this has to do with Peronism's founder, and his ability to bring in broad sectors of Argentine society into his political program, broadly against imperialism and for nationalist workers rights and political sovereignty.

    However there are a few key points behind the ideology of Peron himself and Argentina's most political movement Peronism that can be gleaned.

    Peron called his movement "Justicialism", a blending of the Spanish words for social justice and this is also the name of the party of Argentina's current president Cristina Fernandez.

    It is an idea founded on Christian social values that has three basic principles: social justice, political sovereignty and economic independence. To do this Peron said his movement was in a "third position" which counterposed itself equally to capitalism and communism. He also aimed to create a social model of an organized community with direct state intervention to mediate between labor and capital. Although not the same as a traditional Scandinavian welfare state, the model has similarities in its mixed economy and a central role for Unions.

    In a speech in the Congress in 1948, Peron himself said, "Peronism is humanism in action; Peronism is a new political doctrine, which rejects all the ills of the politics of previous times; in the social sphere it is a theory which establishes a little equality among men… capitalist exploitation should be replaced by a doctrine of social economy under which the distribution of our wealth, which we force the earth to yield up to us and which furthermore we are elaborating, may be shared out fairly among all those who have contributed by their efforts to amass it."

    The populist program of higher wages and better working conditions, which was actually developed by the Public Works minister Juan Pistarini could well be the classic ideological core of Peronism, but it was always dependent on the structural circumstance of Argentina. For example, in the late 1940s, Peronism was more concerned with the women's vote and the export market, and in the 1990s attempting to rebuild Argentina under a neo-liberal pro market guide.

    Indeed, over time it has been an odd mix of socialism, liberalism and populism Peron himself, and therefore the movement became a symbol of and a champion of what he called the "shirtless ones," (descamisados) appealing to the dispossessed, labor, youth and the poor.

    Peronism accepts that the state should coordinate society for the common good and that it can do this without serving class interests.

    Peron, and Peronism is hostile to many of the tenets of classic liberalism, although at times concedes such as considering that democratic and republican institutions are the only ones that can guarantee freedom and happiness for the people, and a political opposition is admitted as necessary.

    But Peron was also hostile to Marxism, thinking that "forced collectivism" robs individuals of their personality, even though he garnered many supporters from the communist left during the seventies thinking that he, and his ideology would be the only way for Argentina to implement a communist state. Yet Peron thought that class conflict could be transcended by a social collaboration mediated by the state.

    It was mostly through this ideological and structural blend that Peron was able to split every party and political formation from the extreme Catholic Right to the Communist Left and line up the dissidents behind his banner. As Carleton Beals wrote, his leading opponents had nothing to offer except to complain of the lack of civil liberties. Their cry for freedom was somewhat suspect, however, as they had never respected it when in office.

    It was under Peron that a version of nationalized state capitalism, and an elimination of foreign investors was initiated in Argentina. He used nationalism, unlike his European counterparts, as a weapon of anti-imperialism. Peronism under Peron was Bonapartist in its manipulation of the social classes on behalf of industrializing an underdeveloped country and challenging dominant American imperialism. His style of leadership was one of a leader who took power in a power vacuum when no single class is in the position do so, and using reformist measures to win the radical support of the more populous class.

    Peron and Peronism also has to be viewed as a stage in the battle of Latin America for economic independence which is still yet to be achieved with at home the oligarchical structures still intact, and foreign manipulation in the country.

    ... ... .. ...

    READ MORE:

    Peron, A History

    Eva Peron at the Heart of Women's Vote in Argentina

    [Jul 11, 2016] The History of Peronism (Part I)

    Notable quotes:
    "... The new regime sought to implement a change in the country's social and economic structures, based on strong State intervention, where the long-term goals of the workers coincided with the nation's need for economic development. Perón's work from the Labour Secretariat helped organise the workers' movement (until then divided into Communist, Socialist, and Revolutionary factions) into strong, centralised unions that cooperated with the government in solving labour disputes and establishing collective bargaining agreements, and whose leadership was under government influence. ..."
    "... It was during this time that Perón would establish a strong alliance with the unions, who would later become the backbone of peronism. Workers started seeing that many of their historic demands were finally being attended to, including severance pay, retirement benefits, and regulation for rural labour. ..."
    "... This new economic paradigm was based around the development of labour-intensive, light industry to create jobs and produce domestic goods for the internal market. The State played an important role in channelling income from agricultural exports to industry, raising import tariffs, and nationalising foreign-owned companies such as the railways, gas, phone and electricity. ..."
    "... The political model that accompanied these economic changes was based on a class alliance between the workers, industrial employers, the Armed Forces and the Catholic Church. However, this alliance excluded the old landowners -"the oligarchy" -- who would become the number one enemy of the new government. ..."
    "... In political terms, the heterogeneous support base of peronism started to disintegrate. Without Evita, the more combative unionists and political leaders were ousted by the conservative, bureaucratic sectors of the movement. ..."
    The Argentina Independent

    The coup d'etat that brought the so-called "Década Infame" to an end in 1943, was headed by a group of Army officials known as GOU (Grupo de Oficiales Unidos). General Pedro Ramírez became president after the coup, but was removed in 1944 and replaced by General Edelmiro Farrell. During Farrell's presidency, Colonel Juan Domingo Perón -- who was a member of the GOU -- became vicepresident, Minister for War and Labour Secretary (simultaneously).

    The new regime sought to implement a change in the country's social and economic structures, based on strong State intervention, where the long-term goals of the workers coincided with the nation's need for economic development. Perón's work from the Labour Secretariat helped organise the workers' movement (until then divided into Communist, Socialist, and Revolutionary factions) into strong, centralised unions that cooperated with the government in solving labour disputes and establishing collective bargaining agreements, and whose leadership was under government influence.

    It was during this time that Perón would establish a strong alliance with the unions, who would later become the backbone of peronism. Workers started seeing that many of their historic demands were finally being attended to, including severance pay, retirement benefits, and regulation for rural labour.

    These measures earned him the loyalty and support of the working masses, but strong opposition from the local bourgeoisie and existing political parties, whose core voters were largely middle class. The political opposition organised itself around the figure of US Ambassador Spruille Braden and found enough support from dissident groups within the Armed Forces to pressure Farrell into removing Perón. Eventually, Perón lost Farrell's support, resigned from all his positions on the 9th October 1945 and was jailed at the Martín García Island, then famous for hosting deposed politicians.

    The Federal Workers Confederation (CGT) had called for a strike for the 18th October to support Perón. However hundreds of thousands of workers spontaneously decided to gather at Plaza de Mayo a day earlier. On a symbolic level, the images of the workers taking over the heart and soul of Argentine political life -Plaza de Mayo-, making it their own, washing their feet in the fountains, became the expression of a new era in the country's social and political history. The relegated masses had made a triumphal entry into Argentina's political life, leaving behind decades of political isolation.

    The images of 17th October 1945 continue to depict the deeper historical meaning of peronism: the inclusion of the working class in the country's social, political and economic life.

    Due to popular pressure, Perón was released that same day and addressed the people from the balconies of the Casa Rosada in the evening, launching his presidential candidacy for the forthcoming elections.

    Perón's First Government (1946-1951)

    Perón was elected president in February 1946, winning 56% of the vote. He had the support of the Labour Party (which was formed by the unions after the 17th October) and a faction of the Radical party called UCR Junta Renovadora (Perón's eventual vicepresident, Hortensio Quijano, was from this breakaway). He'd run the presidential campaign around the slogan "Braden or Perón" -where Braden and the opposition parties centred around the Unión Democrática represented imperialism, while Perón maintained a nationalist stance.

    The period 1946-1955 marked a turning point in the economic development of the country. Up until that point, the economy had been characterised by a model based around agricultural exports, dominated by large landowners and a strong intervention of foreign companies-British, and increasingly from the US. This model had started to weaken during the 1930's, but it was not until the mid-1940s that it was replaced by what became known as "import substitution industrialisation" (ISI).

    This new economic paradigm was based around the development of labour-intensive, light industry to create jobs and produce domestic goods for the internal market. The State played an important role in channelling income from agricultural exports to industry, raising import tariffs, and nationalising foreign-owned companies such as the railways, gas, phone and electricity.

    The political model that accompanied these economic changes was based on a class alliance between the workers, industrial employers, the Armed Forces and the Catholic Church. However, this alliance excluded the old landowners -"the oligarchy" -- who would become the number one enemy of the new government.

    During this period, Perón's charismatic wife, Eva Perón (or "Evita" as her followers called her) played a prominent role, and it is widely acknowledged that she was the main link between the president and the workers' movement. Evita also had an active role in the development of womens' rights, such as the right to vote (1947) and the equality of men and women in marriage and in the care of children -- even fighting internal opposition to achieve these goals. The Eva Perón Foundation channelled the social policies of the government, emphasising the concept of social justice as opposed to charity. Evita was loved and admired by the people as much as she was derided by the opposition and by the more conservative factions within the peronist movement, whose power and influence in government were being diminished by her growing profile.

    The new role of the State and the rights acquired during this period were articulated in a new Constitution, adopted in 1949, which put social justice and the "general interest" at the centre of all political and economic activities. The new constitutional text included a range of "social rights" (the so-called second generation rights), related to workers, families, the elderly, education and culture.

    Perón's Second Government (1951-1955)

    Perón was re-elected in 1951, obtaining a massive 62% of the vote (which, for the first time, included the female voters). His second term, however, proved to be much more complicated than the first. The day he took office, 4th June 1952, was the last public appearance of Evita, who died of cancer the following month. The economic situation worsened, with a drop in the international price of agricultural products and severe droughts between 1949 and 1952 affecting domestic production.

    This prompted Perón to embrace austerity measures, putting the brakes on consumption and wealth redistribution, and improving the relationship with foreign companies -- such as the Standard Oil, which was awarded new contracts. All these measures contradicted the model that Perón himself had implemented, and divided opinion among his followers.

    In political terms, the heterogeneous support base of peronism started to disintegrate. Without Evita, the more combative unionists and political leaders were ousted by the conservative, bureaucratic sectors of the movement. At the same time, the relationship with the Church became increasingly frosty, before turning into an open conflict in 1954. In addition, some members of the industrial bourgeoisie, less favoured by the new economic reality, also started to abandon this alliance and join the ranks of the opposition, which now included some hardline sectors in the military. All these groups united against what was perceived as the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of the government, which had by this point closed down several media outlets and utilised public radio, television and print media for its own propaganda.

    On the 16th June 1955, the political opposition (conservative, radicals and socialists) together with the Navy and with the support of the Church, carried out a botched coup d'etat against Perón. Navy planes bombed Plaza de Mayo, where a rally was taking place, killing more than 300 people. Perón's attempt to appease the crowd failed and that very same night groups of peronist activists took to the streets of Buenos Aires and burnt several churches.

    After the failed coup, Perón tried to keep the situation under control and called for a truce with the opposition. However on 31st August, after talks with the opposition failed, the president hardened his position when, during a public speech, he pronounced the now famous phrase: "for each one of us who fall, five of them will follow". Seventeen days later, on the 16th September, a new military uprising -- led again by the Navy -- succeeded in deposing Perón, who asked for political refuge in Paraguay and left the country on the 20th of September. It would be 17 years until he stepped on Argentine soil again.

    Contradictions and Resistance: Peronism Without Perón (1955 – 1960's)

    By this time, the peronist movement was made up of a mixture of factions from different backgrounds: socialists, catholic nationalists, anarchists, yrigoyenist radicals, and conservatives, among others. From the beginning they co-existed in constant tension -a tension that could only be overcome by the dominant and unifying figure of Perón.

    With Perón in exile, the contradictions between all these factions bubbled to the surface. In a country now deeply divided by the peronism/anti-peronism dichotomy, new divisions started to emerge within the peronist side. These would not only mark the evolution of the peronist movement, but would also play a major role in Argentina's political life to this day. Perón's legendary pragmatism and political ability became very evident during these years, as even in exile he managed to mantain an important level of control over the situation, playing the different factions to his advantage.

    Two months after the coup, the liberal faction of the self-proclaimed "Liberating Revolution" took over the government and started a process of "de-peronisation". This involved dissolving the peronist party and banning any of its members from running for public office, banning the display of all the peronist symbols and any mention of the names of Perón or Evita, intervening in the CGT, and proscribing the unions' old leadership. The persecution of the CGT leaders and the weakening of the peronist unions left many workers once again unprotected and exposed to the abuses of some employers.

    It was in this context that the Peronist Resistance was born-an inorganic protest movement that carried out clandestine actions of sabotage (ranging from breaking machinery at the workplace to placing home-made bombs). The Resistance was an expression of the grassroots of the peronism: the workers who wanted their leader back and were fighting to protect the legacy of his government.

    One of the main organisers of the Resistance was John William Cooke, a left-wing peronist deputy who had been named by Perón as his personal representative whilst in exile. In 1956, peronist General Juan José Valle led an unsuccessful uprising against the government, which ended up with 30 people -- many of them civilians -- executed. The violent suppression of the uprising caused Perón and the Resistance to abandon the idea of armed struggle and focus on reorganising the unions.

    [Jul 11, 2016] Andrew Bacevich, Donald Trump and the Remaking of America

    Notable quotes:
    "... Andrew J. Bacevich, a ..."
    "... , is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of the new book ..."
    "... on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's ..."
    "... , and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, ..."
    TomDispatch

    Juan and Evita in Washington?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

    Copyright 2016 Andrew Bacevich

    [Jul 09, 2016] Bernie Sanders Defeated on Trade in Democratic Platform Fight

    Notable quotes:
    "... the committee approved an amendment backed by organized labor that called for tough restrictions on trade deals, but did not explicitly oppose the trade pact with a dozen Pacific Rim nations that liberals say would hurt workers. ..."
    "... Sanders will now have to decide whether he wants to use a parliamentary mechanism to push the issue to a fight on the floor of the Democratic National Convention later this month in Philadelphia. ..."
    "... ...the Obama administration supports it. Establishment Democrats, including organized labor, sought to avoid embarrassing the president by allowing language in the party platform that would directly oppose the deal. ..."
    NBC News

    In a major defeat during an otherwise fruitful process for him, Bernie Sanders failed to get strong language opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership inserted in the draft Democratic platform at a party meeting here Saturday.

    Instead, the committee approved an amendment backed by organized labor that called for tough restrictions on trade deals, but did not explicitly oppose the trade pact with a dozen Pacific Rim nations that liberals say would hurt workers.

    Sanders will now have to decide whether he wants to use a parliamentary mechanism to push the issue to a fight on the floor of the Democratic National Convention later this month in Philadelphia.

    Sanders will now have to decide whether he wants to use a parliamentary mechanism to push the issue to a fight on the floor of the Democratic National Convention later this month in Philadelphia.

    "We are very disappointed," said Sanders top policy adviser Warren Gunnells. "The good news is that virtually everyone who spoke during the debate on trade made it clear that they opposed this unfettered free trade agreement."

    ...the Obama administration supports it. Establishment Democrats, including organized labor, sought to avoid embarrassing the president by allowing language in the party platform that would directly oppose the deal.

    [Jul 08, 2016] 12 highlights of FBI Director Comey s testimony on Clinton email investigation WJLA

    Notable quotes:
    "... House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) formally requested Thursday that Clinton's security clearance be revoked because of the careless handling of classified material that the FBI investigation revealed. ..."
    "... Clinton's personal system did not have full-time security staff ensuring that its protection was up to date. ..."
    "... Comey said as many as ten people who did not have clearance had access to the system. ..."
    "... Unconfirmed media reports had indicated that the FBI investigation spread to look at the activities of the Clinton Foundation as well ..."
    wjla.com

    House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) formally requested Thursday that Clinton's security clearance be revoked because of the careless handling of classified material that the FBI investigation revealed.

    ... ... ...

    While Comey maintained that nobody else would face criminal prosecution for doing the same things Clinton did, he emphasized in his testimony that there would be consequences if a current government employee did it. This could include termination, administrative sanctions, or losing clearance.

    He refused to definitively assess a hypothetical situation where someone like Clinton was seeking security clearance for an FBI job, though.

    ... ... ...

    Gmail: One aspect of Clinton's actions that Comey said was particularly troubling was that he could not completely exclude the possibility that her email account was hacked. Unlike the State Department or even email providers like Gmail, Clinton's personal system did not have full-time security staff ensuring that its protection was up to date.

    ... ... ...

    Clearance: Clinton and her top aides had security clearance to view the classified material that was improperly being transmitted on the server, but Comey said as many as ten people who did not have clearance had access to the system.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton Foundation: Unconfirmed media reports had indicated that the FBI investigation spread to look at the activities of the Clinton Foundation as well

    [Jul 08, 2016] Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails

    That was very impressive... This is the first time question of signing of NDA by Hillary Clinton and her aides. See all hearing Full Congressional Hearing With FBI Director James Comey 7-7-2016 - YouTube
    In full transcript Ke Buck ask interesting question at 1:55. Lawyer did not have any security clearances 4:09 and 11:25
    Jul 07, 2016 | YouTube

    Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails. Hillary Clinton Email Investigation FBI Director James Comey testified at a hearing on the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of private email servers while serving as secretary of state, as well as the decision to not recommend criminal charges against her. Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department.

    At a congressional hearing Thursday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) grilled FBI director James Comey about several of Hillary Clinton's statements to the public, which the FBI investigation revealed to be untrue. For instance, Clinton had previously claimed that she had never received or sent classified information to or from her private email server; Comey conceded to Rep. Gowdy that that was not true.

    Another claim of Clinton's, which the investigation revealed to be untrue, was that she had retained all work-related emails. Comey noted that they had uncovered "thousands" of work-related emails not returned to the State Department. "In the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon," Gowdy concluded after running through a catalogue of Clinton's claims, "I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements."

    But Gowdy determined that "false exculpatory statements" can be used to determine intention and consciousness of guilt.

    Wesley Eskildsen

    Is this guy a Starfish from Bikini Bottom!? If Hillary gave her Lawyer, or anyone without the proper Security Clearance AND the "Need to know", access to her Server containing classified information then she is in violation of Federal Law. If she were on active Duty she would be court-martialed. that is Chaffetz point exactly!

    John Doe

    As a democrat, I am disgusted that every member of my party, when givin the opportunity to ask some questions, not one of these cowards asked a real question and instead focussed on basically explaining about what a wonderful human being Hillary Clinton is, and what terrible people the republicans are....

    Wayne Paul

    This chick Maloney just throwing softballs I have no clue why she is even talking.

    aadrgtagtwe aaqerytwerhywerytqery

    Comey is a liar, look at his reaction when asked about what questions did FBI ask hillary during the 3 and a half hour interview. He said he couldn't remember at the moment. How is that possible? The only question to ask hillary during the fbi interview was: "Did you send and receive classified top secret emails through your servers?"

    Both answers Hillary could have given, would have been enough to indict her. If she said "Yes", then she would have been indicted for sending top secret info. If she said "No" , she would have lied, because the report that Comey presented said that "top secret emails were sent and received, and they were top secret at the time they were sent and received. Fbi didn't ask that question at all. That tells you that the whole interview was a sham, Hillary was never interviewed.

    The propaganda-media reported "hillary was grilled by fbi during 3 and a half hour interview". What unbelievable bullshit! WE WANT JUSTICE!!!!!!!!! For all those people who are now in jail for the rest of their lives for doing much less than the criminal-hillary!!!!!!!

    [Jul 08, 2016] FB. Director Testifies on Clinton Emails to Withering Criticism From GOP

    Notable quotes:
    "... At a contentious hearing of the House oversight committee, Mr. Comey acknowledged under questioning that a number of key assertions that Mrs. Clinton made for months in defending her email system were contradicted by the FBI's investigation. ..."
    "... Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to return "thousands" of work-related emails to the State Department, despite her public insistence to the contrary, and that her lawyers may have destroyed classified material that the F.B.I. was unable to recover. He also described her handling of classified material as secretary of state as "negligent" - a legal term he avoided using when he announced on Tuesday that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    ... He also provided new details that could prove damaging to her just weeks before she is to be named the Democrats' presidential nominee.

    At a contentious hearing of the House oversight committee, Mr. Comey acknowledged under questioning that a number of key assertions that Mrs. Clinton made for months in defending her email system were contradicted by the FBI's investigation.

    Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to return "thousands" of work-related emails to the State Department, despite her public insistence to the contrary, and that her lawyers may have destroyed classified material that the F.B.I. was unable to recover. He also described her handling of classified material as secretary of state as "negligent" - a legal term he avoided using when he announced on Tuesday that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her.

    [Jul 08, 2016] Clinton Email Hairball

    Notable quotes:
    "... I also made this comment during the morning links, but I think it bears repeating. Robinson considers this to be a great day for Clinton? By what standard? The FBI director went on national television and described her as "extremely careless," and then essentially called her a liar. Is a politician considered to be ethical if he or she is not indicted? ..."
    "... Called her a liar? Un-indicted liar or perjurer because the investigators are reasonable. ..."
    "... What an inversion – this must be the first time it was good for Hillary that her husband had a scandalous private meeting with a younger woman. ..."
    "... In Hillary's nomination victory speech a month ago she argued she has the moral high ground and Trump's response was to focus on the problems in the economy. If the recession starts to hit hard enough late this year, Trump will win, and he will tell Hillary and Bill, "Its the economy stupid!" ..."
    "... It is a SAD day when a President of the US cheers for an "extremely careless" leaker after being the most aggressive prosecutor of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act ever. Can I haz my money back? ..."
    "... When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance? ..."
    "... Can a president operate without having a security clearance? ..."
    "... "Mere mortals" get indicted. Here is the complaint filed in U.S.A v. Bryan Nishimura, July 24, 2015 ..."
    "... BRYAN H. NISHIMURA, defendant herein, from on or about January 2007 through April 2012, while deployed outside of the United States on active military duty with the United States Navy Reserve in Afghanistan and thereafter at his residence located in the County of Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, being an officer and employee of the United States, specifically: a United States Navy Reserve Commander, and, by virtue of his office and employment as such, becoming possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, specifically: CLASSIFIED United States Army records, did knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at his residence in the County of Sacramento, an unauthorized location, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924(a), a Class A misdemeanor. ..."
    "... In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. ..."
    "... Apparently Hillary's problems with the FOIA cases will worsen. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Comey and Lynch asked to testify before Congress on Clinton probe" [MarketWatch]. From my armchair at 30,000 feet: If the Republicans really want to make Lynch squirm, they just have to ask Lynch one question, which Comey - strong passive-aggressive move, there, Jim! - handed to them on a silver platter at his presser, yesterday. I've helpfully written it down (quoted phrases from Comey's press release, parsed here):

    Q: Attorney General Lynch, what "security or administrative sanctions" do you feel are appropriate for Secretary Clinton's "extremely careless" handling of her email communications at the State Department?

    No speeches instead of questions, no primping on camera for the folks back home, nothing about the endless lying, no Benghazi red meat, no sphincter-driven ranting about "security", tie gormless Trey Gowdy up in a canvas bag and stuff him under a desk. Just ask that one question. And when Lynch dodges, as she will, ask it again. I don't ever recall having written a sentence that includes "the American people want," but what the American people want is to see some member of the elite, some time, any time, held accountable for wrong-doing. If it's Clinton's "turn" for that, then so be it. She should look at the big picture and consider the larger benefit of continued legitimacy for the Republic and take one for the team. So let's see if the Republicans overplay their hand. They always have. UPDATE This is a good, that is, sane letter from Bob Goodlatte (pdf), chair of the House Judiciary Committee (via MsExPat). But don't get down in the goddamned weeds!! K.I.S.S.!!!

    "Comey's solo appearance Tuesday stood out for historical reasons, because it's highly unusual for the FBI to make public findings when investigators have decided no charges should be brought" [CNN]. This purports to be the inside story of how Comey "stood alone" to make the announcement. But there are some holes in the narrative:

    Matthew Miller, the former top Justice spokesman under Attorney General Eric Holder, called Comey's announcement "outrageous." "The FBI's job is to investigate cases and when it's appropriate to work with the Justice Department to bring charges," he said on CNN. House Republican sides with Comey over Trump on Clinton emails. Instead, Miller said: "Jim Comey is the final arbiter in determining the appropriateness of Hillary Clinton's conduct. That's not his job."

    When you've lost Eric Holder's spokesperson And then there's this. After Clinton's "long-awaited" Fourth-of-July weekend three hours of testimony:

    Officials said it was already clear that there wasn't enough evidence to bring criminal charges. The interview cemented that decision among FBI and Justice officials who were present.

    By Monday night, Comey and other FBI officials decided the public announcement should come at the earliest opportunity.

    The fact that Tuesday would also mark the first public campaign appearance by Obama alongside Hillary Clinton didn't enter in the calculation, officials said.

    But as Yves points out, there was no time to write an official report of Clinton's "interview" over the weekend. So for this narrative to work, you've got to form a mental picture of high FBI officials scanning the transcript of Clinton's "interview," throwing up their hands, and saying "We got nuthin'. You take it from here, Jim." That doesn't scan. I mean, the FBI is called a bureau for good reason. So to me, the obvious process violation means that political pressure was brought to bear on Comey, most likely by Obama, despite the denials (those being subject to the Rice-Davies Rule). But Comey did the bare minimum to comply, in essence carefully building a three-scoop Sundae of Accountability, and then handing it, with the cherry ("security or administrative sanctions"), to Lynch, so Lynch could have the pleasant task of making the decision about whether to put the cherry on top. Or not. Of course, if our elites were as dedicated to public service as they were in Nixon's day, there would have been a second Saturday Night Massacre (link for those who came in late), but these are different times. (Extending the sundae metaphor even further, it will be interesting to see if the ice cream shop staff knows what else is back in the freezer, the nuts and syrups that Comey decided not to add; Comey certainly made the ethical case for leaks.)

    "Hillary Clinton's email problems might be even worse than we thought " [Chris Cilizza, WaPo]. Cillizza, for whom I confess a sneaking affection, as for Nooners, isn't the most combative writer in WaPo's stable


    voteforno6, July 6, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Re: "Hillary Clinton's great day"

    I also made this comment during the morning links, but I think it bears repeating. Robinson considers this to be a great day for Clinton? By what standard? The FBI director went on national television and described her as "extremely careless," and then essentially called her a liar. Is a politician considered to be ethical if he or she is not indicted?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef, July 6, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Called her a liar? Un-indicted liar or perjurer because the investigators are reasonable.

    Elizabeth Burton, July 6, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    The cultish nature of Clinton followers struck me months ago; it's quite plain to anyone who's done any amount of study of cults. The giddy insistence now that the Comey statement is total vindication is a case in point, and any attempt to point out how damning it actually was only brings an "innocent until proven guilty" reply.

    One can only surmise that a large number of people have been so inured to corruption they no longer consider it a negative unless the perpetrator goes to jail; and even then there would likely be more insistence that person was railroaded.

    Tertium Squid, July 6, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    What an inversion – this must be the first time it was good for Hillary that her husband had a scandalous private meeting with a younger woman.

    Tim, July 6, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    On election day hindsight will show the real inversion with the Clintons is:

    In 1990s Bob Dole ran on a platform of having the moral high ground, while Bill Clinton said "it's the economy stupid", and Bill won.

    In Hillary's nomination victory speech a month ago she argued she has the moral high ground and Trump's response was to focus on the problems in the economy. If the recession starts to hit hard enough late this year, Trump will win, and he will tell Hillary and Bill, "Its the economy stupid!"

    Isolato, July 6, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    It is a SAD day when a President of the US cheers for an "extremely careless" leaker after being the most aggressive prosecutor of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act ever. Can I haz my money back?

    Kokuanani, July 6, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance?

    Can we hope for that to happen to Clinton? [Why not?]

    Can a president operate without having a security clearance?

    3.14e-9, July 6, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance?

    "Mere mortals" get indicted. Here is the complaint filed in U.S.A v. Bryan Nishimura, July 24, 2015:

    The United States Attorney charges: THAT BRYAN H. NISHIMURA, defendant herein, from on or about January 2007 through April 2012, while deployed outside of the United States on active military duty with the United States Navy Reserve in Afghanistan and thereafter at his residence located in the County of Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, being an officer and employee of the United States, specifically: a United States Navy Reserve Commander, and, by virtue of his office and employment as such, becoming possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, specifically: CLASSIFIED United States Army records, did knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at his residence in the County of Sacramento, an unauthorized location, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924(a), a Class A misdemeanor.

    voteforno6, July 6, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    Since the classification program falls under the President by law, it is impossible for a President to not have a security clearance.

    Pookah Harvey, July 6, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Clinton supporters seem to feel the fat lady has sung but it might be they are only hearing someone who is slightly chunky. From Politico:

    On the same day that the FBI announced that the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server is likely to conclude without any charges, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that could complicate and prolong a slew of ongoing civil lawsuits over access to the messages Clinton and her top aides traded on personal accounts.

    In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.

    Apparently Hillary's problems with the FOIA cases will worsen.

    [Jul 08, 2016] Buck To Comey Did You Rewrite Federal Law

    Jul 07, 2016 | YouTube

    Rep. Ken Buck questions FBI Director James Comey about his insertion of the term "willfully" into 18 U.S. Code § 1924. Comey says he "imputes" the term in line with the Department of Justice's history/tradition of enforcing the statute.

    The above clip is taken from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's hearing regarding Hillary Clinton's criminal email conduct.

    Also see

    [Jul 08, 2016] The Clinton Email Probe and the Question of Gross Negligence

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...Mr. Comey also referenced a more obscure provision of the Espionage Act that has little to do with intent or state of mind, but rather makes it a crime to disclose classified information through "gross negligence." ..."
    "... But the crime of "gross negligence" in the Espionage Act doesn't appear to require proof of any intentional mishandling of documents, according to Stephen I. Vladeck , a national security scholar at the University of Texas. ..."
    "... Specifically, the law makes it a felony to permit classified information relating to national defense to be "removed from its proper place of custody" through gross negligence. ..."
    "... Why are you focusing on the gross negligence aspect? ..."
    "... Where is the removal from the proper place of custody? I've seen nothing in any legal analysis in this paper that talks about it. Is the presence of classified material on a private server of one who is authorized to have it equivalent to such a removal? ..."
    "... She was specifically not authorized to have a private server. ..."
    "... "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained SECRET information at the time; and eight contained CONFIDENTIAL information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification." ..."
    "... "We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." ..."
    "... Making an argument for the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness" is the sort of semantic hair-splitting that Hillary Clinton ought to have been compelled to do in court - in the same way that her husband prevaricated over "what the meaning of the word 'is' is," shortly before he lost his law license. ..."
    Jul 05, 2016 | WSJ

    ...Mr. Comey also referenced a more obscure provision of the Espionage Act that has little to do with intent or state of mind, but rather makes it a crime to disclose classified information through "gross negligence."

    That provision of the Espionage Act, the primary law governing the handling of classified information, could require at least proof that the offender knew the classified information disclosed could harm the United States or benefit a foreign power if it got into the wrong hands.

    But the crime of "gross negligence" in the Espionage Act doesn't appear to require proof of any intentional mishandling of documents, according to Stephen I. Vladeck, a national security scholar at the University of Texas.

    Specifically, the law makes it a felony to permit classified information relating to national defense to be "removed from its proper place of custody" through gross negligence.

    What would constitute a degree of recklessness that rises to gross negligence? Mr. Vladeck offered an example of accidentally leaving a briefcase stuffed with classified national security secrets on a busy sidewalk in Washington, D.C.

    ... ... ...

    Charles Silva

    Why are you focusing on the gross negligence aspect?

    Where is the removal from the proper place of custody? I've seen nothing in any legal analysis in this paper that talks about it. Is the presence of classified material on a private server of one who is authorized to have it equivalent to such a removal?

    Lee Hartwig

    @Charles Silva She was specifically not authorized to have a private server.

    Clifford Crouch

    @Michael Piston

    "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained SECRET information at the time; and eight contained CONFIDENTIAL information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification."

    -FBI Director James Comey, July 5, 2016

    "We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

    -James Comey, July 5, 2016

    Making an argument for the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness" is the sort of semantic hair-splitting that Hillary Clinton ought to have been compelled to do in court - in the same way that her husband prevaricated over "what the meaning of the word 'is' is," shortly before he lost his law license.

    [Jul 08, 2016] House Democrats Boo Bernie, He Answers With Why We Love Him

    Jul 7, 2016 | YouTube

    Bernie Sanders was booed while giving a speech to Democrats in Congress. As he has done his entire career, he didn't back down.

    Jimmy Dore breaks it down.

    Subscribe Here ▶ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

    Full audio version of The Jimmy Dore Show on iTunes ▶ https://itunes.apple.com/podcast/the-...

    [Jul 08, 2016] State department reopens its own investigation into Hillary Clinton emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... But in a potentially destabilising move for the Democratic party, and an exciting one for Sanders' supporters, the Green party candidate said she was willing to stand aside for Sanders. ..."
    "... If he continues to declare his full faith in the Democratic party, it will leave many of his supporters very disappointed," she said. "That political movement is going to go on – it isn't going to bury itself in the graveyard alongside Hillary Clinton ..."
    "... Stein said the Democratic establishment had conducted "psychological warfare" against Sanders and "sabotaged" his attempts to gain the party's presidential nomination. Many of his young, progressive supporters are now moving over to the Green party rather than fall in behind Clinton ..."
    "... a less interventionist approach to foreign affairs than Clinton, the Greens have also pitched at voters who have been dubbed as being "Bernie or bust". ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Bernie Sanders has been invited to continue his underdog bid for the White House by the Green party's probable presidential candidate, who has offered to step aside to let him run. Jill Stein, who is expected to be endorsed at the party's August convention in Houston, told Guardian US that "overwhelming" numbers of Sanders supporters are flocking to the Greens rather than Hillary Clinton. Stein insisted that her presidential bid has a viable "near term goal" of reaching 15% in national polling, which would enable her to stand alongside presumptive nominees Clinton and Donald Trump in televised election debates.

    But in a potentially destabilising move for the Democratic party, and an exciting one for Sanders' supporters, the Green party candidate said she was willing to stand aside for Sanders.

    "I've invited Bernie to sit down explore collaboration – everything is on the table," she said. "If he saw that you can't have a revolutionary campaign in a counter-revolutionary party, he'd be welcomed to the Green party. He could lead the ticket and build a political movement," she said.

    Stein said she had made her offer directly to Sanders in an email at the end of the primary season, although she had not received a response. Her surprise intervention comes amid speculation that Sanders will finally draw a line under a bruising Democratic contest by endorsing Clinton's presidential bid next week.

    "If he continues to declare his full faith in the Democratic party, it will leave many of his supporters very disappointed," she said. "That political movement is going to go on – it isn't going to bury itself in the graveyard alongside Hillary Clinton."

    Stein said the Democratic establishment had conducted "psychological warfare" against Sanders and "sabotaged" his attempts to gain the party's presidential nomination. Many of his young, progressive supporters are now moving over to the Green party rather than fall in behind Clinton, Stein added.

    "I'm not holding my breath but I'm not ruling it out that we can bring out 43 million young people into this election," she said. "It's been a wild election; every rule in the playbook has been tossed out. Unfortunately, that has mainly been used to lift up hateful demagogues like Donald Trump, but it can also be done in a way that actually answers people's needs."

    Stein, a former Massachusetts doctor turned environmental activist, is attempting to woo young voters with a promise to make college free and, beyond what Sanders has pledged, to cancel all existing student debt through quantitive easing.

    With a more ambitious climate change policy (Stein favors getting to 100% renewable-powered electricity by the middle of the century) and a less interventionist approach to foreign affairs than Clinton, the Greens have also pitched at voters who have been dubbed as being "Bernie or bust".

    [Jul 07, 2016] Why the FBI concluded Hillary Clintons email practices did not rise to the level of criminal charges -

    Hillary coped her emails and gave all of the to her private lawyer, who has no security clearance, on the USB stick. That's alone qualifies for gross negligence.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton also used the department's secure email system for transmitting classified information, but the FBI found that some of the regular communications with her staff on the personal server involved facts and details that she should have known were classified. In a few cases, the emails bore markings to indicate they contained classified information. ..."
    "... Stewart Baker, a top national security lawyer in the Bush administration, called Comey's statement "pretty damning for Secretary Clinton, even if the facts don't make for an impressive criminal case. He suggests that she should have been, or arguably could still be, subjected to 'security or administrative sanctions.' What he doesn't say, but what we can infer, is that she ran those incredible risks with national security information because she was more worried about the GOP reading her mail than of Russian or Chinese spies reading it. That's appalling," he said. ..."
    "... HIllary lied about her servers, she lied about sending classified information, she lied about the re-classification of confidential, secret and SAP documents. Some two hours after Comey's announcement, she and Obama took off on Air Force One for a rally together. ..."
    "... But a new security regimen is dawning for those who hold security clearances. According to the FBI, they are now free to transfer data between secure and non-secure networks without punishment, as long as the INTENT is not to harm the United States. ..."
    "... A retired FBI agent on Fox said this : The Comey conference was to take the heat off of Lynch - because if the FBI had just been quiet with their results, and it would have been Lynch who came out and said...No charges - AFTER the Phoenix scandal, people would really be skeptical. end - ..."
    "... Of course this took AG-LL off the hook. NOW - for all of this to fall in place? Had to be some meetings beforehand - AG - FBI and Whitehouse general council - 3 US government lawyers colluding this event - to make SURE they have jobs the next 4 years and the GRATITUDE of Potus Hillary. ..."
    "... Corrupt? I would not go that far...let's just say DIRTY. ..."
    "... "Gross negligence" is the standard under 18 U.S.C., section 793-f. FBI Director Comey said Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" in her handling of highly classified information. What's the difference, other than semantics, between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless?" ..."
    "... Hillary's emails may be great confirmation of Hillary's war role in the Mid-east and even Ukraine. However, more to the point they confirm for all Democrats that Hillary's agenda is the Neo-con one of Geo. W. Bush's handlers from PNAC, Chicago School of Economics, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland. (The Neo-con/Neo-liberal company includes Larry Summers, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) She is not a run of the mill hawk like John McCain, she is a New World Order marionette just as Geo W was. She needs to be dumped as she is beholden to anti-democratic values of elitism. ..."
    "... Bill Kristol is attacking Donald Trump because his candidate is Hillary. ..."
    "... This was historical. Law enforcement does not make decisions on prosecution. That is left to prosecutors. Law enforcement are fact finders who should have presented the case to a career professional prosecutor to make a decision. ..."
    "... The question is, why was well established policy and protocol violated and the case not presented to a prosecutor for a decision? Ask any local D.A. If they reject a case, they write a "reject" documenting their rationale. In a very public or complicated case, that reject is written in great detail regarding each and every potential charge. ..."
    "... The Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the same WW I espionage act than all other administrations COMBINED. Comey has prosecuted a person under this act for a 21-word email .not 30,000 destroyed emails. ..."
    "... Everybody knows this was fixed. The examples of similar incidents, putting people in jail, are coming out of the shadows. It is time to vote the career politicians out of office and take our country back. ..."
    "... NSA has copies of every email sent to/from US, & likely most others, for last 10+ years. So they have all 30,000+ of the emails she deleted. ..."
    "... When in the Navy I saw a LT. career destroyed for leaving a top secret safe open over night. We did not know who maybe got in. The assumption by NCIS was that someone did enter and Top Secret information was taken. He was prosecuted for maybe forgetting and Clinton no prosecution for being dumb? ..."
    LA Times

    "It's just not a crime under current law to do nothing more than share sensitive information over unsecured networks," said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. "Maybe it should be, but that's something for Congress to decide going forward."

    John M. Deutch, another former CIA director, narrowly avoided a misdemeanor charge for having taken hundreds of top secret files home on his laptop computer. He was pardoned by Clinton before charges were filed.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary Clinton also used the department's secure email system for transmitting classified information, but the FBI found that some of the regular communications with her staff on the personal server involved facts and details that she should have known were classified. In a few cases, the emails bore markings to indicate they contained classified information.

    However, investigators did not find evidence she knowingly or intentionally disclosed government secrets or that she exposed secrets through gross negligence. Clinton's apparent interest was in maintaining her privacy.

    ... ... ...

    Stewart Baker, a top national security lawyer in the Bush administration, called Comey's statement "pretty damning for Secretary Clinton, even if the facts don't make for an impressive criminal case. He suggests that she should have been, or arguably could still be, subjected to 'security or administrative sanctions.' What he doesn't say, but what we can infer, is that she ran those incredible risks with national security information because she was more worried about the GOP reading her mail than of Russian or Chinese spies reading it. That's appalling," he said.

    knox.bob.xpg

    No amount of facts, no amount of evidence, and no amount of lies will change the minds of supporters of Hillary Clinton. Her coronation was pre-determined. Ideology is more important to her supporters than the quality of the candidate. While brash, Trump nailed it yesterday. The fix was in and the optics played out.

    HIllary lied about her servers, she lied about sending classified information, she lied about the re-classification of confidential, secret and SAP documents. Some two hours after Comey's announcement, she and Obama took off on Air Force One for a rally together.

    Obama would have never done this if Comey's decision was to seek criminal charges. Presidential travel is not spur of the moment, it is carefully planned weeks in advance. So what happened here ? I believe Comey knew that DOJ would not seek criminal charges against her despite the overwhelming evidence of gross negligence.

    Comey "fried" her yesterday and now she will be tried in the court of public opinion. There are simply some people who believe that global warming, income inequality, and transgender bathrooms are more important than ISIS, our economy, terror, or national debt.

    unclesmrgol

    Hillary has been freed from any punishment, for some animals are more important than others.

    But a new security regimen is dawning for those who hold security clearances. According to the FBI, they are now free to transfer data between secure and non-secure networks without punishment, as long as the INTENT is not to harm the United States.

    That is the new standard, and a mighty fine one it is -- right?

    SandyDago

    A retired FBI agent on Fox said this : The Comey conference was to take the heat off of Lynch - because if the FBI had just been quiet with their results, and it would have been Lynch who came out and said...No charges - AFTER the Phoenix scandal, people would really be skeptical. end -

    That seems very obvious at this point...The FBI does not do - what James Comey did yesterday. No comment is how they roll - Yet we get a play by play yesterday.

    Of course this took AG-LL off the hook. NOW - for all of this to fall in place? Had to be some meetings beforehand - AG - FBI and Whitehouse general council - 3 US government lawyers colluding this event - to make SURE they have jobs the next 4 years and the GRATITUDE of Potus Hillary.

    Corrupt? I would not go that far...let's just say DIRTY.

    Chris Crusade

    "Gross negligence" is the standard under 18 U.S.C., section 793-f. FBI Director Comey said Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" in her handling of highly classified information. What's the difference, other than semantics, between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless?"

    lon.ball

    Hillary's emails may be great confirmation of Hillary's war role in the Mid-east and even Ukraine. However, more to the point they confirm for all Democrats that Hillary's agenda is the Neo-con one of Geo. W. Bush's handlers from PNAC, Chicago School of Economics, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland. (The Neo-con/Neo-liberal company includes Larry Summers, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) She is not a run of the mill hawk like John McCain, she is a New World Order marionette just as Geo W was. She needs to be dumped as she is beholden to anti-democratic values of elitism.

    Bill Kristol is attacking Donald Trump because his candidate is Hillary. (See this article in this issue.) So, it is not about Democrat vs. Republican. The new political dichotomy is Centralization (corporatism, totalitarian, collectivism) vs. Personal Constitutional freedom. I am a lifelong Democrat and Sanders man who is "never Hillary" for good reason. I cannot sit by idly and watch as our national Democracy continues to devolve into world fascism with the Neo-cons. Hillary is a traitor to the Nation and to the late great Democratic Party.

    It is time for the old right and old progressive left to unite for preservation of the US Constitution and personal freedom. Never Hillary; never New World Order!" less

    tommy501

    This was historical. Law enforcement does not make decisions on prosecution. That is left to prosecutors. Law enforcement are fact finders who should have presented the case to a career professional prosecutor to make a decision.

    The question is, why was well established policy and protocol violated and the case not presented to a prosecutor for a decision? Ask any local D.A. If they reject a case, they write a "reject" documenting their rationale. In a very public or complicated case, that reject is written in great detail regarding each and every potential charge.

    Something's fishy.

    andytek2

    @tommy501 he didn't make a prosecutorial decision he only said that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges.

    DennisWV

    The Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the same WW I espionage act than all other administrations COMBINED. Comey has prosecuted a person under this act for a 21-word email .not 30,000 destroyed emails.

    Everybody knows this was fixed. The examples of similar incidents, putting people in jail, are coming out of the shadows. It is time to vote the career politicians out of office and take our country back.

    Outside the Herd

    NSA has copies of every email sent to/from US, & likely most others, for last 10+ years. So they have all 30,000+ of the emails she deleted.

    FBI & O knew months ago what was in all of them, & delayed looking away until primaries were clinched. Which was also crooked, ask Bernie's peep's.

    Andre-Leonard

    "A second law makes it a crime to "remove" secret documents kept by the government or to allow them to be stolen through "gross negligence."

    Funny how they went after Edward Snowden for the very same thing. Yet no one in their 'right' mind expected a Justice Department led by Obama to allow for Billary to be indicted. It's all about favorites here and justice is 'not' really blind.

    kenwrite9

    When she was in foreign countries she should have known that those countries spy on American officials. I now that, why she did not is strange. When in the Navy I saw a LT. career destroyed for leaving a top secret safe open over night. We did not know who maybe got in. The assumption by NCIS was that someone did enter and Top Secret information was taken. He was prosecuted for maybe forgetting and Clinton no prosecution for being dumb?

    [Jul 06, 2016] FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook by Andrew C. McCarthy

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18) ..."
    "... The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. ..."
    "... It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. ..."
    "... Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we've decided she shouldn't be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. ..."
    "... To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case. ..."
    National Review

    Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was "extremely careless" and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

    In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

    ... ... ...

    It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.

    Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States.

    Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we've decided she shouldn't be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey's claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI.

    To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

    [Jul 05, 2016] Future candidates like Sanders will face same dilemma: Lose, party apparatchiks dance on your grave. Win, theyll try to put you in one.

    peakoilbarrel.com
    hightrekker23 , 06/19/2016 at 8:39 pm
    "future candidates like Sanders will face same dilemma: Lose, & party apparatchiks dance on your grave. Win, & they'll try to put you in one."

    [Jul 05, 2016] Meet the Academics Who Want Donald Trump to Be President

    Notable quotes:
    "... That assumption, he says, may stem from the sense of status that comes from being in academe. The idea that "if you're in this room, you're an elite - so you're not going to respond to things like trade policy and illegal immigration because these things largely don't affect you." ..."
    "... The academics who support Mr. Trump acknowledge that many of his ideas are dangerous. Outweighing that concern is the conviction that something has to change, and that there's no better alternative than a Trump presidency. ..."
    "... Compounding their support for the billionaire is a lack of other options. Mr. Van Horn says he would be open to voting for a Democrat, but he thinks the proposals of the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders are unrealistic. As for Hillary Clinton, he neither likes her nor trusts her. (When confronted with the fact that he also says he neither likes nor trusts Mr. Trump, Mr. Van Horn says the former secretary of state is more likely to be beholden to a "very narrow set of society.") ..."
    "... But two and a half years into the program, he has found that some academics can be even more closed-minded than people he grew up with. "I was this very liberal person where I was from, and then I come out here and they're all very, very liberal, and they're all very, very rigid." ..."
    "... And in political science, where this year's election is particularly relevant, the popular treatment of the Trump candidacy as a joke has made Mr. Van Horn wonder about the costs to scholarship: "How can you do objective scholarly research? You don't even treat American voters as people who are qualified to cast a ballot." ..."
    "... Mr. Van Horn still loves studying political science, and he still wants to be a professor. But he watches what he says, and he's more cynical about higher education. "It's a very closed community," he says. "It's like the smallest town in the world." ..."
    chronicle.com

    The Chronicle of Higher Education

    Conventional wisdom says poorly educated voters have fueled Mr. Trump's improbable rise. "I love the poorly educated," he proclaimed after winning Nevada's primary last month (though he also boasted of winning the votes of the well educated). "The single best predictor of Trump support in the GOP primary is the absence of a college degree," wrote Derek Thompson in The Atlantic this month.

    In academe - where professionals can have three, four, five degrees - Trump supporters may be hard to find. But they're out there.

    Like many people, Joseph Van Horn first treated Mr. Trump's candidacy as a joke. But as more-traditional candidates failed to outpace the billionaire, Mr. Van Horn, a Ph.D. student in political science at the University of California at Los Angeles, listened more closely.

    What he heard excited him - among other things, that Mr. Trump was willing to talk about narrow policy proposals rather than harp on conservative social issues. That willingness, coupled with his lack of attachment to the political establishment, made Mr. Van Horn think, "When's the last time I heard a candidate and thought, 'That could really happen'?"

    Mr. Van Horn doesn't like Donald Trump personally. And he doesn't find him all that trustworthy. "I wouldn't give him the key to my apartment," he says. But he's excited about the Trump movement, particularly how it has spurred higher turnout and more engagement with the election.

    When he brings up that sense of excitement in an academic setting, however, he gets shut down, he says. "I was kind of shocked at how staunchly anti-Trump people are," he says. Many of his peers are willing to issue a blanket condemnation of Mr. Trump's candidacy as racist and nativist, Mr. Van Horn says, but "shouting 'racists' and 'bigots' and 'he's Hitler' is just not productive."

    "The reaction of everyone in the audience was, you know, chuckling, the implication being that no one in this room could possibly take Trump seriously."

    It's not as if those terms are not warranted at times. Mr. Trump has been shocking and crass, suggesting, for example, that Mexican immigrants are responsible for widespread rape. "He's certainly playing to people's prejudices," Mr. Van Horn says, adding that he doesn't share those prejudices. He hates the proposal to bar Muslims from entering the country ("I think it's really shameful that we have Muslims in the armed forces that have to listen to this stuff") but thinks such extreme proposals are unlikely to become policy.

    Sharp rhetoric aside, he says, shouldn't a political-science department be willing to take seriously the merits of a formidable political movement? Mr. Van Horn says the popular dismissal of the Trump campaign has been disheartening and reflective of a broader bias against right-leaning ideas.

    Linda Grochowalski, a Trump supporter who teaches English part time at Assumption College and Quinsigamond Community College, in Worcester, Mass., encountered that bias once upon moving into a new office. A previous occupant's poster still hung on the back of the door.

    "It essentially said, You have to be pretty stupid to vote for a Republican," she says. "I guess the writing's on the wall, or the door."

    That bias manifests itself in large groups, too. Mr. Calautti recalls attending a colloquium on civility in public discourse at which the speaker used as an example of uncivil discourse - surprise! - Mr. Trump's performance in the Republican debates. "The reaction of everyone in the audience was, you know, chuckling," he says, "the implication being that no one in this room could possibly take Trump seriously."

    That assumption, he says, may stem from the sense of status that comes from being in academe. The idea that "if you're in this room, you're an elite - so you're not going to respond to things like trade policy and illegal immigration because these things largely don't affect you."

    Gina Marcello, an assistant professor of communication at Georgian Court University, in New Jersey, says she hasn't often heard the election come up as a topic of conversation on her campus. "If it does come up," she says, "it's dismissive of Donald Trump." The subtext, which helps prevent her from talking politics with her colleagues, comes through loud and clear: "You'd have to be out of your mind to support a Trump candidacy."

    Why Trump?

    The academics who support Mr. Trump acknowledge that many of his ideas are dangerous. Outweighing that concern is the conviction that something has to change, and that there's no better alternative than a Trump presidency.

    Ms. Grochowalski says eight years of the Obama administration left her with $8,000 in medical bills. The Affordable Care Act, she says, forced her and her husband off their preferred health-insurance plan. And she's been disturbed by President Obama's use of executive orders to bypass Congress.

    Ms. Grochowalski, who worked as a marketing and communications director in the private sector, acknowledges that Mr. Trump lacks experience in public office. But she trusts that he would surround himself with smart people because of his business experience.

    His lack of political experience could be an asset, Ms. Marcello says, enabling him to appoint the "very best people" to advise him instead of bestowing political patronage.

    Compounding their support for the billionaire is a lack of other options. Mr. Van Horn says he would be open to voting for a Democrat, but he thinks the proposals of the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders are unrealistic. As for Hillary Clinton, he neither likes her nor trusts her. (When confronted with the fact that he also says he neither likes nor trusts Mr. Trump, Mr. Van Horn says the former secretary of state is more likely to be beholden to a "very narrow set of society.")

    As for those of Mr. Trump's ideas that Ms. Grochowalski calls "pretty outrageous," legal and constitutional checks are there to stymie any truly devastating plans, she says. "He probably can't do 30 percent of them, even if he wanted to."

    'The Smallest Town'

    For Mr. Van Horn, academe's reaction to the Trump candidacy has been a particularly disappointing sign of a larger problem. The 29-year-old grew up in Louisville, Ky., which he calls a "small city in the South." He enrolled in the University of Kentucky when he was 18, but struggled and dropped out after two years. He then became an electrician, but after a few years of doing that, he wasn't satisfied. "You can always make a lot of money as an electrician, but learning about the world is something different," he says.

    "I was this very liberal person where I was from, and then I come out here and they're all very, very liberal, and they're all very, very rigid."

    So he returned to school, finishing his undergraduate education at Indiana University-Southeast. He then applied to the political-science program at UCLA. He was over the moon about getting to follow his passion for a living - and to broaden his horizons beyond what his upbringing had restricted him to.

    But two and a half years into the program, he has found that some academics can be even more closed-minded than people he grew up with. "I was this very liberal person where I was from, and then I come out here and they're all very, very liberal, and they're all very, very rigid."

    And in political science, where this year's election is particularly relevant, the popular treatment of the Trump candidacy as a joke has made Mr. Van Horn wonder about the costs to scholarship: "How can you do objective scholarly research? You don't even treat American voters as people who are qualified to cast a ballot."

    Mr. Van Horn still loves studying political science, and he still wants to be a professor. But he watches what he says, and he's more cynical about higher education. "It's a very closed community," he says. "It's like the smallest town in the world."

    [Jul 05, 2016] Trump The College Years

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate, ..."
    "... To the extent that Mr. Trump found inspiration in the classroom, Ms. Blair continues, it was in those courses with the clearest connections to building and real estate. "He said the only thing he was interested in was geometry," Ms. Blair says. "It had something to do with buildings, it had something to do with spaces. That interested him." ..."
    "... "Perhaps the most important thing I learned at Wharton was not to be overly impressed by academic credentials," Mr. Trump wrote in The Art of the Deal. ..."
    "... On their first day of classes together, when a professor asked the students why they had come to Wharton, Mr. Calomaris recalls Mr. Trump saying, "I'm going to be the next Bill Zeckendorf," referencing a prominent New York City developer, "but I'm going to be better." ..."
    "... From the beginning, it was clear to Mr. Trump's classmates that Mr. Trump's relationship with Penn would be a transactional one; he would learn what he thought he needed to learn, and skim the rest. ..."
    "... Mr. Trump "never prepared for study group," says Mr. Calomaris, a restaurant owner and consultant, who says he is considering a vote for Mr. Trump. "He was not an intellectual, and you see that now. He doesn't prepare for speeches. He doesn't prepare himself. He doesn't have a battle plan. But he certainly knows what he wants to do. He wanted to win the nomination and now the presidency." ..."
    "... "He was a real-estate expert; he really was," recalls Mr. Sachs, who has worked in finance and consulting. "He would talk about major developers around the country. He knew the history and properties where I was from, which was Chicago. I was very amazed with his command of the subject and his interest in it. He knew the history of high-rise developers like a textbook." ..."
    "... "because he didn't care a whit about the technicalities of the real-estate business, just as today he doesn't care about the technicalities of virtually anything. He's a big-picture person." ..."
    July 03, 2016 | The Chronicle of Higher Education

    By Donald J. Trump's own account, he saw higher education as a means to an end. Fordham University and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where Mr. Trump transferred to complete a bachelor's degree in economics, were essentially credential factories. To become the real-estate mogul he envisioned, he needed these institutions - but in the same dispassionate way that a mechanic, say, needs a socket wrench.

    "In my opinion, that degree doesn't prove very much, but a lot of people I do business with take it very seriously, and it's considered very prestigious," Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, wrote in his book The Art of the Deal. "So all things considered, I'm glad I went to Wharton."

    ... ... ...

    In her book, The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate, Ms. Blair stops short of saying that Donald Trump owed his Penn admission to family connections. But she reports that, before Mr. Trump's transfer, he interviewed with a "friendly Wharton admissions officer" who was a high-school classmate of Mr. Trump's older brother, Freddy.

    "He acknowledged he wasn't much of a student," Ms. Blair, an adjunct professor in Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, said in a recent interview. "He wasn't interested in school. Let me be clear: He never said he was a poor student. He never said he was poor at anything."

    To the extent that Mr. Trump found inspiration in the classroom, Ms. Blair continues, it was in those courses with the clearest connections to building and real estate. "He said the only thing he was interested in was geometry," Ms. Blair says. "It had something to do with buildings, it had something to do with spaces. That interested him."

    Mr. Trump, who did not respond to interview requests, has said he was unfazed by the supposedly elite crowd he found at Penn.

    "Perhaps the most important thing I learned at Wharton was not to be overly impressed by academic credentials," Mr. Trump wrote in The Art of the Deal. "It didn't take me long to realize that there was nothing particularly awesome or exceptional about my classmates, and that I could compete with them just fine."

    One of those classmates was Louis J. Calomaris, who was among about a half-dozen students, along with Mr. Trump, in the real-estate concentration of Wharton's business program. Mr. Calomaris remembers well the first time he laid eyes on Mr. Trump, who had a "big blond mop of hair" and an ego to match. On their first day of classes together, when a professor asked the students why they had come to Wharton, Mr. Calomaris recalls Mr. Trump saying, "I'm going to be the next Bill Zeckendorf," referencing a prominent New York City developer, "but I'm going to be better."

    The professor peered over his horn-rimmed glasses and asked for the name of this cocksure young man. "And that was our introduction to Donald Trump," Mr. Calomaris says.

    From the beginning, it was clear to Mr. Trump's classmates that Mr. Trump's relationship with Penn would be a transactional one; he would learn what he thought he needed to learn, and skim the rest.

    Wharton's small group of real-estate majors met regularly for a study group, Mr. Calomaris says, often at the home of Joseph M. Cohen, a future television-sports impresario who lived in Society Hill Towers, a high-rise condominium.

    "That degree doesn't prove very much, but ... it's considered very prestigious."

    Mr. Trump "never prepared for study group," says Mr. Calomaris, a restaurant owner and consultant, who says he is considering a vote for Mr. Trump. "He was not an intellectual, and you see that now. He doesn't prepare for speeches. He doesn't prepare himself. He doesn't have a battle plan. But he certainly knows what he wants to do. He wanted to win the nomination and now the presidency."

    Another of Mr. Trump's classmates, Edward M. Sachs Jr., recalls the future candidate for his uncommon knowledge of developers across the nation.

    "He was a real-estate expert; he really was," recalls Mr. Sachs, who has worked in finance and consulting. "He would talk about major developers around the country. He knew the history and properties where I was from, which was Chicago. I was very amazed with his command of the subject and his interest in it. He knew the history of high-rise developers like a textbook."

    Mr. Sachs was unaware that Mr. Trump's father was a wealthy real-estate developer. The former classmate remembers Mr. Trump as a low-key guy, who liked to break away on Fridays for fried-oyster sandwiches at Howard Johnson's.

    "Even though he was from New York, you could have sold him in some small town in Indiana," Mr. Sachs says. "He had a common touch at that time."

    ... .. ...

    There was much in college that did not seem to interest Mr. Trump, but he did latch on to a favorite lecture of one of Wharton's professors, who argued that the essence of good business was to understand the desires and even the psychologies of those on the other side of the negotiating table. Are they young and aggressive? Are they conservative and more interested in steady, predictable returns? This, the professor argued, was often more important than statistical analysis or actuarial appraisal.

    "Trump certainly took that to heart," Mr. Calomaris says, "because he didn't care a whit about the technicalities of the real-estate business, just as today he doesn't care about the technicalities of virtually anything. He's a big-picture person."

    On the campaign trail, Mr. Calomaris continues, "you're seeing an extension of what was there when he was 19 or 20 years old. It's a very accurate picture. It's Trump."

    [Jul 04, 2016] We want to end the rapid movement that we are currently experiencing toward oligarchic control of our economic and political life

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Sanders is not just a 'lesser evil'. His proposals and policies are good In addition, Sanders seeks to change the current electoral process based on money coming from corporations, political action committees and wealthy individuals. Changing this system is the first step...." ..."
    "... The November election will be a referendum on the neolibcon establishment in the U.S. as much as the Brexit vote was for the EU. The Brexit vote showed that people are so fed up that they aren't listening to establishment fear-mongering. ..."
    "... No matter how Democratic Party loyalists try to spin it, the blame for a Trump win will fall on the corrupt Democratic Party establishment. It is no accident that the vast majority of Super-delegates have steadfastly stood by Hillary, warts and all. ..."
    "... Bernie the sheepdog has failed his movement but the Greens and true progressives will continue. ..."
    "... It says a great deal about both Warren and the Democratic Party, in which she is the most high-profile "left" politician, that she never endorsed Bernie and has now enthusiastically endorsed Hillary. It would not be a stretch to say that had Warren endorsed and campaigned for Sanders, it could well have been the difference needed to defeat Clinton in the primary. But she did not. ..."
    "... Because of course the problem is much larger than just Warren, Clinton, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz. At the heart of the matter is a political party that is thoroughly undemocratic and corrupt to its very core – one that answers to Wall Street, not working people. It's the second most pro-capitalist party in the world, after the Republican Party. ..."
    "... Yes it is the Washington Post, but the point stands: it is a strange place for a 'revolutionary' to deliver his message. Unless that message is one of capitulation (it is) . ..."
    Jun 25, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Alternet

    Seems you mean the Washington Post, not the WSJ. Alternet seems to like it.

    "What do we want? We want to end the rapid movement that we are currently experiencing toward oligarchic control of our economic and political life," Sanders concluded. "As Lincoln put it at Gettysburg, we want a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is what we want, and that is what we will continue fighting for."

    in re 83 --

    What does that even mean, "links not employed"?

    This might not be very funny, but it did bring a smile to my face - Why Trump Is Faltering Since He Locked Up Nomination.

    rufus magister | Jun 24, 2016 8:02:34 AM | 86 rufus magister | Jun 25, 2016 9:11:21 AM | 94

    This post at Countepunch takes on the "dog" analogy, arguing that "Sanders is not just a 'lesser evil'. His proposals and policies are good In addition, Sanders seeks to change the current electoral process based on money coming from corporations, political action committees and wealthy individuals. Changing this system is the first step...."

    There are any number of arguments that Sanders has changed and will continue to change the political dyanmics. More and in a different direction might be nice. But after decades of neo-liberal assaults on the working class, let's not have the best be the enemy of the good.

    Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis holds that:

    Sanders' meteoric rise is evidence that unabashed progressive politics is an effective antidote to the far-right xenophobia on the rise across the developed world. "Every time we have a spasm of capitalism, whether this is the 1930s or now, the seeds of vulgar ultra-right-wingness sprout into a very ugly tree," Varoufakis said....

    "I am very impressed by his capacity to rise from almost complete marginality to the center of the debate," Varoufakis continued. "And if you look at the discussion he has invigorated, or reinvigorated, in the Democratic Party, that just goes to show that it is perfectly possible to excite young people....

    Yeah, he botched with Syriza in Greece. But he was principled enough to resign and move on politically. I don't know with what sort of success his proposed organization met.

    Alternet offers a handy list of things Sanders has already changed about American politics. I particulary note points 5 and 6, on princples and issues, but the author notes he has brought progressives together, shown popularly-funded campaigns to be viable, and made socialism respectable. "Not too shabby."

    Politics isn't for the meek, but it doesn't have to be all mud all the time like the GOP's nominating contest, and Sanders has shown that in state after state....

    The passion and public purpose of his campaign has struck deep and wide notes precisely because of that. More than anything, Sanders has reminded vast swaths of the country that his democratic socialist agenda is exactly what they want America to be-a fairer and more dignified, tolerant, responsible and conscientious country.

    I have previously noted, the consensus amongst the pundit class is that Sanders is a principled politician. The conduct of his campaign reflects these principles. I do not agree with them, but I respect that he has been consistent in their application throughout his political career.

    Ah, but "what is to be done" with all of the passion aroused? Sanders clearly intends to keep the pressure on within the Democratic Party. Though doubtless, it will not all remain there.

    I keep hearing that "things" are different, post-Occupy, etc., and that some sort of Green/Libertarian/Trump miracle is possible. It is also possible, and historically conditioned, that these pressures will in fact push the Democrats to the left.

    This would be good, in and for the short-term. Revolutionary change takes patient work, especially in early stages. We're quite a "Long March" away, and these are useful baby-steps.

    So this whole notion that but the hopes of the masses and left wing of the Democratic Party, we'd have our Utopia by now, us a cheap alibi as to why the divided left (as "b" very accurately describes) can't make any headway, even after the economy nearly repeated the Great Depression.

    The nerve of those damn proles, hoping for short-term improvement! What about the intersectionality?

    You know, I don't think "Suck it up and butch it out 'til after The Revolution, you ignorant, evil, unenlightened over-privileged sell-outs" is really that attractive as politics. Maybe that overstates this argument, but probably not too much. "The Greens know that someone is in the buff but the Sanders gang has yet to catch on that their emperor has no clothes" does strike a rather condescending tone, sure to win friends and influence people.

    Somewhat at odds with the next paragraph, though. But is topic is the "Green Machine."

    Second, and more importantly, Marsh has left out a key point in his analysis. The Greens just passed a major benchmark to gain federal funding.

    Is that lime Kool-Aid then?

    Jackrabbit | Jun 25, 2016 11:00:34 AM | 97
    rufus @93-4

    LOL! Don't hurt yourself.

    Your dismissing of 'collusion' for lack of a smoking gun ignores much circumstantial evidence:

    > Sanders has been a Democrat for many years in all but name;
    - he has an arrangement with the Democratic Party whereby he runs in Vermont Democratic Primaries but will not accept the Democratic nomination and the Democratic Party will not fund candidates that oppose him;

    - Obama campaigned for him, Schumer and Reid endorsed him, he calls Hillary "a friend", etc.

    > He pulled punches in his campaign - refusing to attack Hillary or Obama on issues that could've made a big difference for his campaign, like:

    - when Hillary defended taking money by pointing to Obama who has clearly been pro-Wall Street;

    - Obama's record on the economy and black issues (Obama's support has helped Hillary to win over blacks) ;

    - his slowness to criticize Hillary-DNC collusion;

    - on Hillary's emails after the State Dept IG report;

    - he all but endorsed Hillary from the start.

    The November election will be a referendum on the neolibcon establishment in the U.S. as much as the Brexit vote was for the EU. The Brexit vote showed that people are so fed up that they aren't listening to establishment fear-mongering.

    No matter how Democratic Party loyalists try to spin it, the blame for a Trump win will fall on the corrupt Democratic Party establishment. It is no accident that the vast majority of Super-delegates have steadfastly stood by Hillary, warts and all.

    Bernie the sheepdog has failed his movement but the Greens and true progressives will continue. Here is what Kasama Sawant has to say at Counterpunch today :

    If Bernie refuses to break from the Democratic Party, our movement should back Jill Stein as the strongest left alternative in the presidential election ... Stein deserves the strongest possible support from Sandernistas .... With Bernie stepping out of the race, and likely endorsing Clinton, it will be up to us to continue the political revolution and to stand up against both Clintonism and Trump_vs_deep_state.
    And drives home the point with:
    It says a great deal about both Warren and the Democratic Party, in which she is the most high-profile "left" politician, that she never endorsed Bernie and has now enthusiastically endorsed Hillary. It would not be a stretch to say that had Warren endorsed and campaigned for Sanders, it could well have been the difference needed to defeat Clinton in the primary. But she did not.

    It says a great deal about the whole of the Democratic Party leadership – which claims that its key priority is to defeat Trump – that it has fiercely backed Clinton in spite of the fact that the polls have shown Sanders to be the far stronger candidate in every matchup.

    Because of course the problem is much larger than just Warren, Clinton, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz. At the heart of the matter is a political party that is thoroughly undemocratic and corrupt to its very core – one that answers to Wall Street, not working people. It's the second most pro-capitalist party in the world, after the Republican Party.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    @86 Yes it is the Washington Post, but the point stands: it is a strange place for a 'revolutionary' to deliver his message. Unless that message is one of capitulation (it is) .

    [Jul 04, 2016] Hillary Clinton Wanted to Keep Up Appearances Regarding Private Email Server as Early as 2009

    Notable quotes:
    "... Newly revealed emails, released via a court order in relation to a public records lawsuit filed by the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, cast yet more doubts on Hillary Clinton's claim that she used a private email server while serving as secretary of state merely " for convenience ." ..."
    "... You can't have it both ways, Madame Secretary. Either you didn't know the rules or you thought you were above the rules. ..."
    "... Yesterday the Washington Post 's Chris Cillizza wrote that Clinton's exchange with Abedin "reads to me as though Clinton is both far more aware of the email setup and far more engaged in how it should look than she generally lets on publicly," which he describes as "deeply problematic" for a candidate so widely distrusted ( ..."
    Jun. 29, 2016 | Reason.com
    Newly revealed emails, released via a court order in relation to a public records lawsuit filed by the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, cast yet more doubts on Hillary Clinton's claim that she used a private email server while serving as secretary of state merely "for convenience."

    Among the 165 pages of emails released Monday, the Associated Press notes one particularly telling exchange from March 2009 between Clinton (who had been in office barely two months) and aide Huma Abedin:

    "I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State," Clinton wrote to Abedin and a second aide. "Who manages both my personal and official files? ... I think we need to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want."

    You can't have it both ways, Madame Secretary. Either you didn't know the rules or you thought you were above the rules.

    The AP adds, "In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department's inspector general concluded Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup violated federal records-keeping standards and could have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers." Reason's Peter Suderman wrote after the report's release, "It makes clear that [Clinton] refused to play by the rules while acting as Secretary of State-ignoring them as a point of personal privilege, and creating both security vulnerabilities and transparency and accountability problems in the process."

    Yesterday the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza wrote that Clinton's exchange with Abedin "reads to me as though Clinton is both far more aware of the email setup and far more engaged in how it should look than she generally lets on publicly," which he describes as "deeply problematic" for a candidate so widely distrusted (but not by former New York Times editor Jill Abramson, who inexplicably declared Clinton "fundamentally honest" in a recent Guardian column).

    [Jul 04, 2016] Is Hillary Clinton Making History or Maintaining the Status Quo by Elizabeth Schulte

    Notable quotes:
    "... But opposing the right's sexist slurs against Clinton or any other wealthy or powerful woman and concluding that her presidency would be good for the majority of women -- or the majority of working people -- are entirely different things. ..."
    "... Another myth is that Clinton's is an "outsider" campaign, which she has also claimed. On the contrary, a Clinton presidency represents the continuation of the status quo in Washington -- above all, the disappointing presidency of Barack Obama. ..."
    "... Instead, as the limitation of the U.S.'s two-party electoral system dictates, the only option for people who don't support the Republican is to support the Democrat, even if she stands for policies that you oppose. The dominant logic is to vote for the lesser of two evils. ..."
    truth-out.org

    The Republican right has regularly lobbed sexist attacks at Clinton, and Trump is no exception to that rule. "I think the only card she has is the women's card -- she's got nothing else going," Trump raved in April. "And frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don't think she'd get 5 percent of the vote."

    But opposing the right's sexist slurs against Clinton or any other wealthy or powerful woman and concluding that her presidency would be good for the majority of women -- or the majority of working people -- are entirely different things.

    Her record shows a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean the opposite. She has proven her allegiance to corporate power, sitting on the board of Walmart, no less. And she has supported policies that specifically target poor and working-class people, backing Bill Clinton's crime bill and the shredding of welfare programs. As secretary of state, she imposed U.S. power abroad, supporting secret drone warfare in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia and the deadly troops surge in Afghanistan.

    Another myth is that Clinton's is an "outsider" campaign, which she has also claimed. On the contrary, a Clinton presidency represents the continuation of the status quo in Washington -- above all, the disappointing presidency of Barack Obama.

    The Bernie Sanders campaign provided a glimpse into what it might look like for a U.S. election to take up issues that affect working-class people, like single-payer health care, a $15 an hour minimum wage and taxing the rich. But now that the Democratic Party establishment's candidate is in place, there's no room for that debate.

    Instead, as the limitation of the U.S.'s two-party electoral system dictates, the only option for people who don't support the Republican is to support the Democrat, even if she stands for policies that you oppose. The dominant logic is to vote for the lesser of two evils.

    ... ... ...

    Elizabeth Schulte is a journalist and reviews editor for the Socialist Worker, writing frequently on low-wage workers, the Democratic Party and women's liberation

    [Jul 04, 2016] What Trump Gets Right on Immigration

    The American Conservative

    While Trump's proposed blanket ban on Muslim travelers is both constitutionally and ethically wrongheaded and, in my opinion, potentially damaging to broader U.S. interests, his related demand to temporarily stop travel or immigration from some core countries that have serious problems with militancy is actually quite sensible. This is because the United States has only a limited ability to vet people from those countries. The Obama administration claims it is rigorously screening travelers and immigrants-but it has provided little to no evidence that its procedures are effective.

    The first step in travel limitation is to define the problem. While it is popular in Congress and the media to focus on countries like Iran, nationals of such countries do not constitute a serious threat. Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iranians, have characteristically not staged suicide attacks, nor do they as a group directly threaten American or Western interests. The Salafist organizations with international appeal and global reach are all Sunni Muslim. In fact, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, and al-Nusra all self-define as Sunni Muslim and regard Shi'as as heretics. Most of the foot soldiers who do the fighting and dying for the terrorist groups and their affiliates are Sunnis who come from Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, and even the homegrown Europeans and Americans who join their ranks are Sunni.

    It is no coincidence that the handful of Muslim countries that harbor active insurgencies have also been on the receiving end of U.S. military interventions, which generate demands for revenge against the West and the U.S. in particular. They would be the countries to monitor most closely for militants seeking to travel. All of them represent launching pads for potential attacks, and it should be assumed that groups like ISIS would be delighted to infiltrate refugee and immigrant groups.

    U.S. embassies and consulates overseas are the choke points for those potential terrorists. Having myself worked the visa lines in consulates overseas, I understand just how difficult it is to be fair to honest travelers while weeding out those whose intentions are less honorable. At the consulate, an initial screening based on name and birth date determines whether an applicant is on any no-fly or terrorism-associate lists. Anyone coming up is automatically denied, but the lists include a great deal of inaccurate information, so they probably "catch" more innocent people than they do actual would-be terrorists. Individuals who have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since 2011, or who are citizens of those countries, are also selected out for additional review.

    For visitors who pass the initial screening and who do not come from one of the 38 "visa waiver" countries, mostly in Europe, the next step is the visitor's visa, called a B-2. At that point, the consulate's objective is to determine whether the potential traveler has a good reason to visit the U.S., has the resources to pay for the trip, and is likely to return home before the visa expires. The process seeks to establish that the applicant has sufficient equity in his or her home country to guarantee returning to it, a recognition of the fact that most visa fraud relates to overstaying one's visit to disappear into the unregistered labor market in the U.S. The process is document-driven, with the applicants presenting evidence of bank accounts, employment, family ties, and equity like homeownership. Sometimes letters of recommendation from local business leaders or politicians might also become elements in the decision.

    [Jul 03, 2016] Donald Trump's Appeal to Rust Belt Workers by STEVEN GREENHOUSE

    Notable quotes:
    "... "It's either you stick with the establishment or you go for change. People want change. A guy like Donald Trump, he's pushing for change." ..."
    "... The blue-collar counties of western Pennsylvania have largely swung Republican as unions have grown weaker and evangelical churches stronger. Despite overwhelmingly endorsing Hillary Clinton, labor unions face a big challenge with frustrated workers like Mr. Haines. That many white male union members are embracing Mr. Trump doesn't necessarily mean overall union membership is moving right, however. In recent years, as unions have organized more government employees and low-wage workers, the percentage of union members who are black, Hispanic or female has risen - and those groups are solidly anti-Trump. ..."
    "... The A.F.L.-C.I.O. has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, calling her "an unstoppable champion for working families" while dismissing Mr. Trump as "an unstable charlatan who made his fortune scamming them." ..."
    "... On Tuesday, Mr. Trump spoke to applauding workers at a scrap-metal plant in Westmoreland County. He denounced "failed trade policies," saying he would renegotiate Nafta and scrap the proposed Trans-Pacific trade deal. He also borrowed Mr. Sanders's arguments to attack Mrs. Clinton from the left, saying she "voted for virtually every trade agreement." He added that she has betrayed American workers in favor of "Wall Street throughout her career." ..."
    "... Mike Podhorzer, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s political director, estimated that around one-third of union members back Mr. Trump. ..."
    "... ...some voters are reluctantly backing Mr. Trump simply out of frustration with the status quo. "We need someone who will say things are wrong and will push hard to fix them," said Paul Myers, a 50-year-old steelworker. "Trump might be lying about bringing jobs back, but at least he'll try to." ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    Greensburg, Pa. - THIS faded mining town east of Pittsburgh seems right out of "The Deer Hunter," one of many blue-collar, gun-loving communities that dot western Pennsylvania. For Donald J. Trump, such largely white, working-class towns are crucial to his hopes in the presidential campaign - and that's one reason he campaigned in this region on Tuesday. By rolling up large enough margins in former industrial strongholds like Greensburg - not just in Pennsylvania, but also in Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin - he might offset expected losses in cities like Philadelphia, Detroit and Cleveland, enabling him to capture those pivotal states.

    Mr. Trump's "Make America Great Again" message resonates with many of this region's workers, whose wages - and hopes - have been tugged downward by the abandoned steel mills and coal mines. Take Dennis Haines, 57, thrown out of work in January when the printing plant where he worked for 30 years closed. Mr. Haines, a member of the machinists union, said: "It's either you stick with the establishment or you go for change. People want change. A guy like Donald Trump, he's pushing for change."

    ... ... ...

    The blue-collar counties of western Pennsylvania have largely swung Republican as unions have grown weaker and evangelical churches stronger. Despite overwhelmingly endorsing Hillary Clinton, labor unions face a big challenge with frustrated workers like Mr. Haines.

    That many white male union members are embracing Mr. Trump doesn't necessarily mean overall union membership is moving right, however. In recent years, as unions have organized more government employees and low-wage workers, the percentage of union members who are black, Hispanic or female has risen - and those groups are solidly anti-Trump.

    ... ... ...

    The A.F.L.-C.I.O. has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, calling her "an unstoppable champion for working families" while dismissing Mr. Trump as "an unstable charlatan who made his fortune scamming them."

    ... ... ...

    On Tuesday, Mr. Trump spoke to applauding workers at a scrap-metal plant in Westmoreland County. He denounced "failed trade policies," saying he would renegotiate Nafta and scrap the proposed Trans-Pacific trade deal. He also borrowed Mr. Sanders's arguments to attack Mrs. Clinton from the left, saying she "voted for virtually every trade agreement." He added that she has betrayed American workers in favor of "Wall Street throughout her career."

    Late this summer, unions will mobilize a nationwide campaign to knock on doors, mail out pro-Clinton literature and speak to members at their workplaces.

    Tim Waters, the political director of the United Steelworkers, said his Pittsburgh-based union will warn its members that Mr. Trump isn't pro-worker: "He's a wolf in sheep's clothing."

    Unions have compiled a long list of objections to Mr. Trump. In one debate, he said wages were too high. Many workers have sued his companies for cheating them on wages. His Las Vegas hotel is battling unionization.

    "Every opportunity he's had to help American workers or American jobs, he did the opposite," Mr. Waters said. "He has had Trump-brand suits, shirts and ties made in Bangladesh, China and Honduras, everywhere but the U.S. He has imported workers to work at his facilities in Florida."

    Mike Podhorzer, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s political director, estimated that around one-third of union members back Mr. Trump.

    ... ... ...

    ...some voters are reluctantly backing Mr. Trump simply out of frustration with the status quo. "We need someone who will say things are wrong and will push hard to fix them," said Paul Myers, a 50-year-old steelworker. "Trump might be lying about bringing jobs back, but at least he'll try to."

    [Jun 28, 2016] Democratic donor lobbied Secretary of State Hillary Clintons office for board appointment despite lack of experience

    This just one case of Clinton's family corruption and probably not the most outrageous one. It is now more clear why she deleted so many emails. Clinton faces many questions about whether she helped her family foundation collect millions of dollars from questionable people, countries and organizations when she was secretary of state.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A major Democratic donor personally lobbied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office for a seat on a sensitive government intelligence board, telling one of her closest aides that if appointed he would make Clinton "look good." ..."
    "... The emails shed new light on how Fernando got a spot on the International Security Advisory Board . He resigned in 2011, days after his appointment and after his selection was questioned. ..."
    "... In recent weeks, emails obtained by Citizens United show the appointment perplexed the State Department's professional staff, according to ABC News , and that dozens of State Department officials worked overtime to quickly obtain Fernando's security clearance, according to Fox News . ..."
    "... Reines appeared to mock the appointment by responding to Samuelson: "Not the most compelling response I've ever seen since it's such a dense topic the board resolves around. Couldn't he have landed a spot on the President's Physical Fitness Council?" ..."
    Jun 27, 2015 | mcclatchydc.com

    Rajiv Fernando lobbied top Clinton aide for a seat on sensitive intelligence board. He had little experience in the field and resigned after appointment was scrutinized. The Chicago businessman donated to Clinton, Obama and the Clinton Foundation.

    A major Democratic donor personally lobbied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office for a seat on a sensitive government intelligence board, telling one of her closest aides that if appointed he would make Clinton "look good."

    Rajiv Fernando acknowledged that he may not have the experience to sit on a board that would allow him the highest levels of top-secret access, but he assured deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin in newly released 2009 emails that he was talking to two professors who were "getting me up to speed on the academics behind the field."

    Fernando, who contributed to Clinton, her family's foundation and Barack Obama, described himself as one of "Hillary's people" and mentioned that he recently had sent an ailing Clinton flowers to wish her a speedy recovery.

    The emails shed new light on how Fernando got a spot on the International Security Advisory Board. He resigned in 2011, days after his appointment and after his selection was questioned.

    ... ... ...

    In recent weeks, emails obtained by Citizens United show the appointment perplexed the State Department's professional staff, according to ABC News, and that dozens of State Department officials worked overtime to quickly obtain Fernando's security clearance, according to Fox News.

    Reines appeared to mock the appointment by responding to Samuelson: "Not the most compelling response I've ever seen since it's such a dense topic the board resolves around. Couldn't he have landed a spot on the President's Physical Fitness Council?"

    Fernando founded Chopper Trading, a high-frequency trading firm that was acquired by the Chicago firm DRW Trading Group in 2015. In an economic speech last year, Clinton criticized high-frequency traders. Providence, Rhode Island, sued Chopper Trading and other financial companies, charging they'd defrauded the city, which managed funds for its employees.

    [Jun 22, 2016] Bill Kristol 'We Beat Back Ron Paul and Rand Paul'

    June 22, 2016 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    Neoconservative by birth, Bill Kristol, apparently thinks the libertarian moment is over.

    Kristol was in San Francisco yesterday and appeared at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco for a "conversation with" event.

    He fielded questions from the audience and also the moderator neocon Kori Schake, mostly about Donald Trump.

    At one point, he named a list of non-mainstream Republican candidates that had their moment in the sun and then faded away.

    This included Ron and Rand Paul. "We beat back Ron Paul and Rand Paul," he said. Implying that they were nothing but a footnote in Republican history.

    Kristol said the current election resembled one coming out of a third world country. He also admitted that he underestimated "Trump's seeing what the people are upset about."

    He said the current move by some delegates to open up the upcoming Republican national convention by "voting conscience" to deny Trump the nomination has about a 15% chance of succeeding. He said only last week he would have said it only had a 5% chance.

    He said he could not rule out a Trump victory in November.

    He said he sent out this tweet to "energize" Reince Priebus:<

    [Jun 14, 2016] Fear and Loathing at Saint Anselm The Donald Gives a Presidential Speech on National Security

    Notable quotes:
    "... what the candidates actually say ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Because coverage for Trump, as with Sanders, has been vile piece of jobbery by our Acela-rising press scorps, I'm going to quote great slabs from Trump's remarks. I'll briefly compare and contrast what the press said to what Trump's words were. I may add brief commentary of my own. I'm not going to quote the whole speech. Instead, I'm going to quote three topic areas[2] from his prepared remarks. (The transcript of the speech as delivered, sadly in ALL CAPS, is here). The topics:

    1. Diversity and Multiculturalism
    2. Blowback
    3. War and Peace

    So let's look at what Trump has to say;

    1. Diversity and Multiculturalism

    After calling for a moment of silence, Trump says[3] this:

    TRUMP: Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT Community.

    This is a very dark moment in America's history.

    A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation.

    It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation.

    It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity.

    It is an attack on the right of every single American to live in peace and safety in their own country.

    We need to respond to this attack on America as one united people – with force, purpose and determination.

    Let's put aside the question of sincerity: that would require us to treat whatever Manafort and Stone have cooked up, versus whatever Clinton's focus groups have emitted, as commensurate; but that's not possible. Let's focus on the fact that Trump, remarkably for a Conservative Republican, puts "solidarity" (!!!) with "the members of Orlando's LGBT Community" up front, and treats the ability of people to "love who they want" at "the heart and soul of who we are as a nation." That's what we used to call, back in the day at Kos, performative speech; it changes who the Republicans are as a party by virtue of having been said.[4] Now, politically I'd guess that Trump won't be winning a lot of votes in the LGBT community over this any time soon, let alone turning around his unfavorables. I'd also guess there will be real, and more subtle, effects: Trump is disempowering certain Republican factions (especially the "Christian" right, proven losers), and empowering his own base not to act hatefully toward gays (and if you believe that Trump voters are authoritarian followers, that's important)[5].

    That said, it's quite remarkable to hear the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party say that he "stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT Community." I'd even go so far as to say it's newsworthy. WaPo did; Bloomberg did; the conservative hive mind managed to emit a "viral" pro-Trump letter by an anonymous gay person; but Times stenographers Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, in an Op-Ed somehow misfiled as reporting, omit to mention this portion of the speech altogether. Sad!

    More seriously, Dylann Matthews of Vox does real reporting, connecting Trump ideologically to the European right, starting with the Netherlands' Pim Fortuyn, gay himself, who combined support for LGBT rights with a blanket ban on Muslim immigration, and moving on through Marine LePen, concluding that Trump's support is "a smokescreen through which to advocate anti-Muslim policies."

    But Fortuyn was open about his support of gay rights; and open about banning Muslim immigration, so isn't "smokescreen" itself a smokescreen, begging the question? What Matthews really seems to mean is that Fortuyn's support for LGBT rights is incompatible with Fortuyn's support for banning Muslim immigration. Empirically, that doesn't seem to be the case; Matthews certainly doesn't document any decrease in LGBT rights after Fortuyn's rise. So where is the incompatibility? At this point, we note that Trump shares, with Clinton's liberals, and apparently with Fortuyn, although not with the left, the idea that to "express identity" is the essence of a "free people." Speculating freely, we might imagine that Matthews believes that Muslims, like LGBT people, must also to be free to express their identities, and that to prevent them from doing so is "Islamophobia," along the lines of homophobia.

    Here identity politics founders on its own contradictions, as identities clash on both values and interests; identities cannot all be silo-ed in their own "safe spaces." For example, immigration, like globalization, creates public goods but has economic costs that some classes disportionately bear, and economic benefits that some classes disproportionately accrue, as blue collar workers know but professional economists are only belatedly discovering. Does the expression of identity trump those costs? Why? And whose identity? One does not sense, for example, that liberals are fired with concern for heartlanders who identify as Christians (unless Christians serve a geopolitical purpose in faraway Syria), or with men who identify as gunowners. So if what liberals (and conservatives) mean by identity politics is really just power politics and the upward distribution of wealth, straight up, that's fine and clarifying, but wasn't the alpha and omega supposed to be justice? Even love?

    Of course, by now we are far afield from Trump; but as far as accepting LGBT people as fully human, can't liberals take yes for an answer?

    2. Blowback

    Trump says:

    America must do more – much more – to protect its citizens, especially people who are potential victims of crimes based on their backgrounds or sexual orientations.

    It also means we must change our foreign policy.

    The decision to overthrow the regime in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans for the day after, have created space for ISIS to expand and grow.

    These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our ability to work in partnership with our Muslim allies in the region.

    For instance, the last major NATO mission was Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. That mission helped unleash ISIS on a new continent.

    (I think the Iran deal is one of the few good things that Obama has done.) Trump is describing what Chalmers Johnson called "blowback." Isn't it remarkable the Trump is the only candidate - including, AFAIK, Sanders - who's even mentioning it? (See here for Clinton's pivotal role in promoting the LIbya debacle in the Obama administration.) And if you want a good view into the heart of the foreign policy establishment, try the Foreign Policy podcast. They think Obama was weak because he didn't put "boots on the ground" in Syria; they love Clinton because they think she'll be "muscular"; and they hate Trump, and think hes's a lunatic. Well, what's more lunatic then setting the Mediterranean littoral on fire, and provoking a refugee crisis in the European Union? Moar blowback, anyone?

    3. War and Peace

    With respect to a military response to "radical Islamism," the difference between Trump and Clinton can be summed up most effectively in the form of a table. (I've taken Clinton's words from this transcript.)

    Figure 1: Recommended Military Action Against "Radical Islam"

    Trump Clinton

    The attack in Orlando makes it even more clear: we cannot contain this threat – we must defeat it.

    The good news is that the coalition effort in Syria and Iraq has made real gains in recent months.

    So we should keep the pressure on ramping up the air campaign, accelerating support for our friends fighting to take and hold ground, and pushing our partners in the region to do even more.


    (Clinton's speech was delivered at a Cleveland company that makes military helmets. Military Keynesianism, anyone?) AP [***cough***] labels Trump's speech as "aggressive," by contrast to Clinton's, without mentioning (a) that Trump is conscious of blowback and (b) only Clinton recommends airstrikes and an "accelerated" ground war; ditto Politico; ditto The Economist. WaPo, omitting the same two points, labels Clinton as "sober." I guess a couple three more Friedman Units should do it…

    Conclusion

    Just as a troll prophylactic, let me say that this post is not an endorsement of any candidate (not even Sanders, who snagged an F-35 base for Vermont). I'm not sure how to balance charges of racism, fascism, and corruption in the context of identity politics, when clearly all three are systemic, interact with each other, and must be owned by all (both) candidates. (Do the bodies of people of color char differently because they are far away? Doesn't a "disposition matrix" sound like something Adolf Eichmann might devise?)

    Rather, this post is a plea for citizens to "do their own research"[6] and listen to what the candidates actually say, put that in context, and try to understand. The press, with a few honorable exceptions, seems to be gripped by the same "madness of crowds" that gripped them in 2008 (except for Obama, against Clinton) or in 2002-2003 (for WMDs, and for the Iraq War). Only in that way can we hope to hold candidates accountable.

    APPENDIX I

    Some brief remarks on Trump's advance work:

    1) Trump still needs practice with his teleprompter;

    2) The mike was picking up Trump's breathing;

    3) The staging looks like Dukakis (that is, provincial). It should look like Reagan (national);

    4) Trump's website is simple and easy to use and looks like it was designed for a normal person, not a laid-off site developer. However, it looks low budget. Hmm.

    APPENDIX II

    Here's why I skipped Trump on guns and the NRA. To frame this in partisan terms: From Democrats, what I consider to be a rational policy on guns - taxing gun owners for the externalities of gun ownership combined with Darwin Awards over time, and ridicule - is not on offer, so it's foolish to waste time with whatever ineffective palliative they propose, especially while they continue to take money from private equity firms that own gun manufacturers, and arrange overseas contracts for those same manufacturers. As for Republicans, it's impossible to see how the country could be more awash in guns than it already is. So if you want to argue about guns, don't do it here. There's plenty of opportunity in both Links and Water Cooler.

    NOTES

    [1] And don't tell me all Republicans are crazy, because Clinton's trying to appeal to them.

    [2] Except for Section 3, "War and Peace," I'm not going to compare Clinton's foreign policy speech today to this speech by Trump, because I've analyzed several Clinton speeches already, and presumably NC readers already know how to parse her.

    [3] I'm not going to analyze Trump's rhetoric in in this post, but note the anaphora: "It is… It is.. It is…." Notice also the simple, declarative sentences, which Trump uses very effectively as hammer blows; the most complicated sentence we get in this passage is the parallel construction of "not only because… not because." And note the sound patterning from the sentence containing that phrase, gutturals like gunfire: "A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation." Whoever Trump hired to write his speeches, they're doing an excellent, and unobtrusive, job.

    [4] That's not to give the parties, let alone Trump, credit; they follow and don't lead. LGBT people led, in particular the now almost erased ACT-UP, with its non-violent direct action.

    [5] And if you're extremely cynical, you might see Trump as posthumously rehabilitating Roy Cohn. But today is my day to be kind.

    [6] See PBS, CBS, and *** cough *** AP on fact-checking. Sometimes, of course, facts are "facts"; more importantly:

    WANTED: CEO

    Must be detail oriented

    Said no search firm ever.

    Which is better: The candidate who gets the big picture right, and details wrong, or the candidate who's great with detail, and bounces from one clstrfck to another? You tell me.

    [Jun 13, 2016] Libertarian Gary Johnson: Jeb Bush and anti-Trump Republicans will vote for me

    www.theguardian.com

    The third-party nominee Gary Johnson believes former Republican candidates for president, Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham among them, will defect at the polls this November rather than vote for Donald Trump. He expects they'll vote Libertarian instead.

    "When it's all said and done, they'll pull the Johnson-Weld lever because it's a real choice," the former governor of New Mexico told the Guardian in a wide-ranging interview this week. Johnson said he founded his prediction "on instinct", but that he was confident that he had high-profile Republican votes – "whether they say so or not is another story".

    Johnson may already have at least one Republican leader knocking on his door. Mitt Romney, the party's 2012 nominee, told CNN on Friday that he was considering casting his lot with the Libertarians.

    "If Bill Weld were at the top of the ticket, it would be very easy for me to vote for Bill Weld for president," he said. Weld is Johnson's running mate and preceded Romney as governor of Massachusetts.


    Johnson, who is at 12% in a recent national poll, hopes that by winning voters disaffected by Trump and Hillary Clinton, he can establish his party as a political force to be reckoned with.

    In particular, Johnson insisted that he is a fit for supporters of a Democrat – the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders – who may be less than enthused about Clinton's nomination for the party. He cited an online quiz in which he sided with the Vermont senator 73% of the time, adding: "We're on the same page when it comes to people and their choices."

    "Legalizing marijuana, military intervention and that crony capitalism is alive and well," he said, rattling off issues of concern that he and the progressive Sanders share. "People with money are able to pay for privilege, and they buy it."

    [Jun 08, 2016] Stephen Colbert has made no attempt on to hide the fact that he isn't a big fan of Donald Trump.

    decider.com

    Stephen Colbert has made no attempt on to hide the fact that he isn't a big fan of Donald Trump. Jokes are frequently made at the Republican Presidential candidate's expense on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. However in last night's monologue, Colbert's jokes about Trump were downright scathing.

    Colbert - refreshed from a recent 10 day hiatus - started the monologue off in earnest with some jibes about Burger King's new Whopperrito. But then he tore into Trump with jokes that ripped his intelligence and racism, calling the mogul's own recent statements to the press, "Proof Donald Trump doesn't like Mexico and can't name another country."

    However, the most scathing parts came with Colbert alluded to Trump' record of offending just about every major demographic - except for white supremacists and the KKK. He cheekily checked off all the groups Trump has offended and offered a solution that wound up being quite an indictment:

    "Trump's point is he cannot be judged by a member of any group he has offended. So that means no Mexican judges, no Muslim judges, no Asian judges, no women judges - unless she's a 'ten.' Trump's insulted the Pope, so no Catholic judges. He called everyone in Iowa 'stupid,' so no judges that eat corn. You know what? Maybe Trump might be more comfortable if he couldn't tell the judge's race or gender. Maybe cover the judge up in an unbiased robe. Make it a white robe - maybe with a matching hood. That seems about right. Don't know who it is!"

    Then, Colbert doubled down on Trump's racism by comparing his recent controversial comments about "my African-American" at a rally with Thomas Jefferson's history of slave-owning.

    Colbert said, "Trump did say he was going to start acting 'presidential,' and 'Look at my African-American' does sound like something Thomas Jefferson might have said."

    If these are the salvos the late night host is lobbing against Trump in June, then it looks like we're in for quite the election year.

    [Jun 08, 2016] Trump's Lack of Credibility on Libya The American Conservative by Jesse Walker

    Notable quotes:
    "... The position Trump is now taking on Libya is not that different from the one that liberal hawks took when the Iraq war started to go badly. They wanted "credit" for supporting regime change and war, but also wanted to be able to second-guess how Bush managed the war. So once things started going wrong, they said they favored invading but disagreed with the way Bush had gone about it. Ritual paeans to the importance of multilateralism usually followed. That put them in the rather absurd spot of attacking Bush for mishandling the illegal, unnecessary war that he started, as if it would have been all right if it had just been managed more competently. ..."
    "... This sort of criticism, like Trump's complaint about Libya, takes for granted that there was nothing inherently destabilizing and dangerous in overthrowing a foreign government that better management couldn't have fixed. That misses the crucial point that forcible regime change and its consequences can't be "managed" successfully because so many of its effects are out of the control of the intervening government(s) and some can't be anticipated in advance. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com
    comments on Trump's latest position on the Libyan war:

    I'm sure the Libya hawks in the Hillary camp would also prefer a timeline where their war went off without any bad bits. But if Trump has any ideas about how the Pentagon could have "take[n] out Qaddafi and his group" without creating a situation where Libya is "not even a country anymore," he didn't share them. Instead he's basically saying I'm for a Libya war that worked out better, without Benghazi and all that. Which is a bit like saying The Iraq war was a great idea, except for the insurgency or Going into Vietnam was wise, as long as we could've had a quick victory.

    The position Trump is now taking on Libya is not that different from the one that liberal hawks took when the Iraq war started to go badly. They wanted "credit" for supporting regime change and war, but also wanted to be able to second-guess how Bush managed the war. So once things started going wrong, they said they favored invading but disagreed with the way Bush had gone about it. Ritual paeans to the importance of multilateralism usually followed. That put them in the rather absurd spot of attacking Bush for mishandling the illegal, unnecessary war that he started, as if it would have been all right if it had just been managed more competently.

    This sort of criticism, like Trump's complaint about Libya, takes for granted that there was nothing inherently destabilizing and dangerous in overthrowing a foreign government that better management couldn't have fixed. That misses the crucial point that forcible regime change and its consequences can't be "managed" successfully because so many of its effects are out of the control of the intervening government(s) and some can't be anticipated in advance. If Trump was fine with removing Gaddafi from power by force, and he admits that he was, he can't credibly complain about the chaos that followed when the U.S. did exactly that. Trump has the same problem on Libya that Romney and all other hawkish candidates have had, which is that he cannot challenge Clinton on the decision to intervene because he ultimately agreed with that decision and supported joining the conflict at the time.

    Posted in foreign policy, politics. Tagged Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Jesse Walker, Libyan war, Muammar Gaddafi.

    [Jun 07, 2016] Bernie Sanders Vows Fight to Convention as Hillary Clinton Wins a Primary - The New York Times

    www.nytimes.com

    Mr. Sanders, however, insists that the convention will be contested because he is still lobbying superdelegates - party officials and state leaders who cast their final votes at the convention - to withdraw support from Mrs. Clinton and back him instead. He plans to make the case that he is a stronger candidate against Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee. A number of polls, he said, show he can beat Mr. Trump by larger margins than Mrs. Clinton can.

    On Sunday, Mr. Sanders opened a new line of attack against Mrs. Clinton, criticizing donations made by foreign governments while she was secretary of state to the Clinton Foundation, the organization founded by former President Bill Clinton.

    When Mr. Sanders, who greeted fans in West Hollywood, was asked by reporters if he remained committed to pushing for a contested convention, he said he "absolutely" was.

    [May 24, 2016] Bernie Sanders: I will not support Democratic party chair in her primary

    Notable quotes:
    "... With help from Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC, Clinton, having w/ her husband had more than two decades to build-up a political patronage system within the southern Democratic Party, was able to tap her contacts and bring-out the vote in very large numbers before few had even heard of Sanders. ..."
    "... Good on you, Bernie. As they say in Florida, "It's tough to clean up the swamp when you're up to your ass in alligators." Alligator Debbie going down. ..."
    "... A female president would be a great thing. But not Hillary. We can do better. Maybe Jill Stein or Elizabeth Warren. ..."
    "... Obama's and Clinton's policies are criticized precisely because they're a continuation of Bush policy, while Bill's policies led the economic meltdown of 2008. ..."
    "... And deregulation! Before I watched the video of that Hillary Clinton campaign event, I had never heard someone denounce deregulation and hail the economic achievements of Bill Clinton in the same speech. That kind of mental combination, I've always assumed, puts you in danger of spontaneous combustion or something. After all, Bill Clinton is America's all-time champion deregulator. He deregulated banks. He deregulated telecoms. He appointed arch deregulators Robert Rubin and Larry Summers to high office, and he re-upped Ronald Reagan's pet Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan. He took some time out to dynamite the federal welfare system, then he came back and deregulated banks some more. And derivative securities, too. ..."
    "... Wasserman Schultz will follow her mentor's lead and play the victim. ..."
    "... Clinton will swoop in and support her with money and the "woman card" nonsense. ..."
    "... Even those facts understate the problem as many of these corporate owned Dems are voting the Historical Republican policies favoring the wealthy power brokers. B. Clinton was known as Republican Lite. ..."
    "... 'Yes there is incessant complaining about the party, "corporate democratic whores."' ..."
    "... Elect The Warmonger Killary And You Will Have Victoria Nuland As Secretary Of State Says David Stockman And The Result Will Be World War III Says PCR ..."
    "... "And that brings us to the deplorable Kagan clan-–Washington's leading resident family of war-mongering neo-cons. The odds are that, if elected President, Hillary would likely choose one of them--her protégé during her stint in the Obama administration, Victoria Nuland-– as Secretary of State. Yet that would be lights out for any hope of caging Washington's imperial ambitions and reducing the massive and utterly unnecessary burden of current defense spending. The truth is, there are fewer greater menaces in the Imperial City today than Victoria Nuland. ..."
    "... He is not competitive because the DNC is controlled by the Reagan Neo-cons, Hillary the chief marionette among them. To understand, just reflect on Hillary's relationship with Neo-con Victoria Nuland, Assistant Sec. of State under Hillary who previously worked for Dick Cheney. Two party system is a shill and anachronism; ..."
    "... The Neo-con AIPAC agenda is world hegemony; New World Order and Hillary is the pre-annointed. Trump may not be a surprise but Sanders certainly is independent and thankfully a chance for Americans to voice their frustrations at the loss of their civil rights and democracy. ..."
    "... The whole electoral system is corrupt, Democrats and Republicans work for the oligarchs they betray the people. ..."
    "... BTW: No one knew before Sanders entered that the DNC would call for "Temporary Rules" changes and votes on the floor of state conventions, which is precisely what happened in Nevada. ..."
    "... This woman voted FOR a bill that supports rip-off pay day lenders rather than poor working class people. Pay day lenders charge astronomical rates to lend people small amounts of money to pay for a car repair or a dentist visit that they can't cover because they are trying to survive on 7 or 8 dollars an hour, working two or three jobs to get by ..."
    "... DWS has done terrible damage to Hillary's chances against Trump. Her blatant rigging of the process against Sanders will be a barrier to their ever supporting Clinton. If it was believed that she one a fair fight, I think most would accept the outcome. But only the most credulous can now believe that it was a fair fight. ..."
    "... Sanders has been remiss in confronting Hillary with the evil she has wrought, genocide on Iraq, Syria, and most obviously in turning top standard of living Libya into a failed state. ..."
    "... Sanders ha failed to give Hillary the downbraiding she deserves as a budding NWO fascist and apologist for Wall St. and Netanyahu, etc. Despicable woman, much like Margret Thatcher and Madeline Albright. Destroyers; bad at diplomacy and quick on murderous war. Demagogue Hillary will escalate US hegemony and bring on Armageddon for the Christian Zionists; WWIII. Why did Sanders not play his trump card at the beginning of the campaign? ..."
    "... Maybe it isn't fair, but if Bernie wanted to change it he should have started a lot earlier. ..."
    "... Clinton only leads by 274 pledged delegates. ..."
    "... It is a sad and sorry day that you can't recognize a democrat any more. Yes, he's not a "party faithful". Apparently you haven't noticed that "the party" has become about "the party". ..."
    "... The problem with Bernie Sanders is he makes Hillary look like the elite disconnected republican that she is. ..."
    "... It's so like the current crowd of jerks running the Democratic party to see them start pointing fingers at Bernie for what they can see is their coming defeat in November. They had the chance to back Bernie. They can still do it, but they are all too invested in their own interests to care about anything but their own interests, and so they won't pick up on the best chance to have a Democratic landslide since 1964. ..."
    "... Debbie Wasserman Schultz represents the continued failure of the Democratic Party and as such should be replaced. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party began to die during Bill Clinton's regime. Bill Clinton in his own way conducted a regime change of the Democratic Party from Main Street and Unions to Wall Street. The results have not been good: ..."
    "... The State Parties are ALSO CONTROLLED by the DNC. The kick back monies insure that the DNC is in control of WHO they select rather then open elections. You can lie to yourself however, WE know the truth of how this corrupt system works. WRITE IN Bernie in Nov. I am! ..."
    "... Very few outside the Democratic Party establishment seem to like these superdelegates. Abolish them and pledged delegates too while you're at it. ..."
    "... Gore did win Florida-- exit polling, which was uncannily accurate, showed that, but it was the Supreme Court that stopped the recount. (OTOH, some post-election analyses, including by the Washington Post, concluded Gore lost.) ..."
    "... Debbie Wasserman Shultz, champion of the PAYDAY LOAN SHARKS. DWS helped defeat the Sen. Warren legislation to limit the interest rates to 30% FROM 3000%. DWS and the Clintons take campaign funds and support the loan sharks bleeding economically challenged communities across the U.S. Write IN Bernie in Nov. I am! ..."
    "... Bill Moyers has been one of the most respected journalists. Please read what he says about DWS: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36991-democrats-cant-unite-unless-wasserman-schultz-goes ..."
    "... The chairperson of the DNC is bound to remain impartial, as is clearly stated in the party rules. There is now ample evidence that Ms Schultz has repeatedly broken that rule throughout the campaign cycle and is therefore unfit to remain chairperson of the DNC. If she is not replaced by an impartial chairperson for the convention it will undermine the legitimacy of the nomination process. ..."
    "... There's some debate about the world's oldest democracy, but it ain't the United States (which, btw, is a republic). ..."
    "... Iceland has had a parliament since the year 930 and the oldest continuous parliament since 979 is on the Isle of Man. Universal adult suffrage was established in New Zealand in 1893, although NZ doesn't elect its Head of State. ..."
    "... He sure does know what is best for the party, and it isn't endless war, Wall St. and Wall Mart. ..."
    "... You sound as bright as the half-wit who told me last summer that Sanders couldn't win Vermont's primary. ..."
    "... It is a sad commentary on our economy when people are so hard up for money that they will troll for a woman who is a Neocon warmonger for money. ..."
    "... Senator Sanders is serving this country well by bringing out years of anger and frustration about all the money going to the too 1%, serfdom for working families for the past 30 years, serfdom for those who dare to incur debt to go to college and the endless expensive wars. He is a hero. ..."
    "... Despite her promises to be tough on Wall Street, a new report has found that groups supporting Hillary Clinton have received $25 million from the financial industry using so-called shadow banks. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has received a new waffle iron for opening a savings account. ..."
    "... Were you one of the medical "professionals" at Guantanamo Bay by any chance? I hear they strongly support Clinton as well. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    astbayradical , 2016-05-22 04:09:44
    Clinton supporters, most of whom don't even try to put forward a persuasive case for her candidacy, often point to the fact that Clinton has received a few million more votes than Sanders, but they rarely want to account for those votes, most of which can be attributed to massive landslide victories in the early days of the primary season in the South.

    With help from Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC, Clinton, having w/ her husband had more than two decades to build-up a political patronage system within the southern Democratic Party, was able to tap her contacts and bring-out the vote in very large numbers before few had even heard of Sanders.

    And you can be sure that when she spoke before black church congregations, affecting a southern drawl, she didn't tout her support for the death penalty or the private prison industry or the destruction of welfare or deregulation of the investment banks or the Iraq War or NAFTA and TPP or the bail-out of Wall Street.

    No, no, no-of course she didn't draw attention to her actual record. She wanted their votes, after all.

    ExcaliburDefender drpage1 , 2016-05-22 04:09:10
    Bernie is a good man, maybe a great man to some, he 'sold out' throughout his career and advocated lesser evilism to support Democrats over Independents.

    Bernie is the 'good' pragmatist, no more no less.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/15/a-socialist-in-the-senate /

    daWOID , 2016-05-22 05:02:32
    Good on you, Bernie. As they say in Florida, "It's tough to clean up the swamp when you're up to your ass in alligators." Alligator Debbie going down.
    L0ki86 aldebaranredstar , 2016-05-22 04:24:06
    A female president would be a great thing. But not Hillary. We can do better. Maybe Jill Stein or Elizabeth Warren.
    TheBaffler MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-22 04:07:35
    Thanks, but I've read every issue since the first one almost thirty years ago.

    Obama's and Clinton's policies are criticized precisely because they're a continuation of Bush policy, while Bill's policies led the economic meltdown of 2008.

    The level of your reading comprehension is lacking.

    Here's Thomas Frank's most recent piece on the Clinton's, right here on The Guardian .

    Take her apparent belief that balancing the federal budget is a good way to "revitalize" an economy stuck in persistent hard times. Nostalgia might indeed suggest such a course, because that's what Bill Clinton did in the golden 90s, and those were happy days. But more recent events have taught us a different lesson. Europe's turn toward budget-balancing austerity after the financial crisis is what made their recession so much worse than ours. President Obama's own quest for a budget-balancing "grand bargain" is what destroyed his presidency's transformative potential. There is no plainer lesson from the events of recent years than the folly of austerity and the non-urgency of budget-balancing.

    And deregulation! Before I watched the video of that Hillary Clinton campaign event, I had never heard someone denounce deregulation and hail the economic achievements of Bill Clinton in the same speech. That kind of mental combination, I've always assumed, puts you in danger of spontaneous combustion or something. After all, Bill Clinton is America's all-time champion deregulator. He deregulated banks. He deregulated telecoms. He appointed arch deregulators Robert Rubin and Larry Summers to high office, and he re-upped Ronald Reagan's pet Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan. He took some time out to dynamite the federal welfare system, then he came back and deregulated banks some more. And derivative securities, too.

    elaine layabout ExcaliburDefender , 2016-05-22 04:06:42
    Oh, look! Nurse Ratchet Troll is getting desperate for attention and she's resorting to tired old lies.

    Bernie Sanders EARNED the goodwill of Howard Dean and the Democratic Party by voting with the Party more often than the average Democrat (95% vs 80%) and supporting many of its candidates.

    That is why the Democratic Party has awarded Bernie Sanders subcommittee leadership roles while in the House and the Senate, even promoting him over their own members. And it is why, in 2006, Vermont Democratic Party leaders " spearhead[ed] efforts to gather signatures to put Sanders on the ballot as a Democrat ," even though Sanders informed them that he would turn down the nomination if he won the Democratic primary. The Democratic Party persisted, however, because Bernie was too popular in Vermont for a Democrat to beat him, and they did not wish to split the vote and end up with a Republican in the Senate.

    "Bernie Sanders has by far the best chance of winning, and would work closely with and would respect Democratic leadership in Washington," Ian Carleton, the chairman of the Vermont Democratic Party, said. "Anyone who takes a practical look at Vermont politics will say that this is the best thing to do for the greater good here."

    Bernie Sanders did, indeed, win the Democratic primary, and true to his word and as expected, he declined its nomination.

    Did this work to the Democratic Party's detriment or its benefit? Well, I would assume that it was the latter, since the Vermont Democratic Party made the SAME EXACT ARRANGEMENT when Sanders ran for reelection to the Senate in 2012.

    So Howard Dean and the Democratic Party thought they could use Bernie Sanders' popularity to further their own agenda and only their own agenda. But Bernie's loyalty is to the People first. Too bad the Democratic Party's isn't as well, because then they would have supported the Democratic candidate who isn't distrusted and despised by the majority of American voters.

    Jack Nostrand nolashea , 2016-05-22 17:08:24
    Wow. So every candidate, athletic club, and army that is not predicted to succeed should just lay down their fight and not even try? In Europe a football club with 500-1 odds won the tournament. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team. The English scoffed at the Americans attempt at revolution.

    I would say those who can't accept a challenge to their beliefs are losers. You fail because you will never become better. In roulette, you have stopped spinning, the ball has landed in its numbered slot where it will remain for eternity unless you challenge yourself to move once again.

    Dino Martinez , 2016-05-22 16:56:20
    It's pretty obvious how this one will end.

    1) Wasserman Schultz will follow her mentor's lead and play the victim.
    2) She will then use it to fundraise ("Angry white men out to get me! Send money!).
    3) Clinton will swoop in and support her with money and the "woman card" nonsense.
    4) Panicked rich white people, DWS's Florida constituency, will rush to her aid and easily defeat the far more qualified Canova.
    5) Business as usual.

    lancemaxwell Jack Nostrand , 2016-05-22 16:55:59
    I think it has always been this way, elections are manipulated. It is a part of every democracy. At what point does it become exposed and at what point after its exposure do people have the courage to admit, like you have, that the U.S. election system is already rigged and is being continually adjusted to rig results in the future.

    A few years ago at a discussion I attended the blow hard filmmaker Michael Moore said he thought the two party system was in Americas DNA and there was no way around that. I realized then how ignorant he was. This election cycle we are clearly seeing the two party system is not in our DNA, but is a construction of the ruling class to keep opposing voices out of the mainstream.

    Yeah, it is disturbing, but it's sadly nothing new. The oligarchics aren't going anywhere either.

    lostinbago MonotonousLanguor , 2016-05-22 16:55:42
    Even those facts understate the problem as many of these corporate owned Dems are voting the Historical Republican policies favoring the wealthy power brokers. B. Clinton was known as Republican Lite.
    garth25 suddenoakdeath , 2016-05-22 16:48:22
    'Yes there is incessant complaining about the party, "corporate democratic whores."'
    Not by me. I don't like DWS.

    "If the party represents everything that is reprehensible, why are you here? "
    Here is a newspaper website. Not the Democrat party forum pages.

    "Go green, go Jill. "
    Why? I've been a Democrat for 16 years. why would I change that and offer a vote towards Trump?

    "Bernie has taken money from the party the money that he maligns."
    Yes, it's called constructive criticism. It has a mandate of several million registered Democrat members throughout the primaries. Should they all leave and vote Green? How's that electoral college majority looking now? I seem to remember the same was said to Ralph Nader in 2000. Great job Donna Brazille. President Gore thanks you for your service.

    "I don't care who you vote for."
    Same here.

    Ussurisk , 2016-05-22 16:43:13
    Elect The Warmonger Killary And You Will Have Victoria Nuland As Secretary Of State Says David Stockman And The Result Will Be World War III Says PCR

    "And that brings us to the deplorable Kagan clan-–Washington's leading resident family of war-mongering neo-cons. The odds are that, if elected President, Hillary would likely choose one of them--her protégé during her stint in the Obama administration, Victoria Nuland-– as Secretary of State. Yet that would be lights out for any hope of caging Washington's imperial ambitions and reducing the massive and utterly unnecessary burden of current defense spending. The truth is, there are fewer greater menaces in the Imperial City today than Victoria Nuland.

    Not only does she happen to be married to Bob Kagen, the leading neocon guru of global interventionism and regime change, but she earned her spurs as a key aid to Dick Cheney.

    No matter. When the American public naively thought it elected the "peace" candidate in 2008, Nuland just changed her Jersey, joined Hillary's team at State, and by 2013 was assistance secretary for European Affairs.

    And that's when Nuland's rampage of everlasting shame began. She was the main architect of the coup in Kiev in February 2014 that overthrow the constitutionally elected government of the Ukraine, thereby commencing the whole sequence of confrontations with Russia and the full-throated demonization of Vladimir Putin that has followed."

    Michronics42 atlga , 2016-05-22 16:42:56
    And keep reminding me that Clinton Democrats-and their supporters-are nothing more than thinly-disguised Republicans. And like dinosaurs, your days are numbered.
    Ussurisk lowliferatface , 2016-05-22 16:42:12
    He is not competitive because the DNC is controlled by the Reagan Neo-cons, Hillary the chief marionette among them. To understand, just reflect on Hillary's relationship with Neo-con Victoria Nuland, Assistant Sec. of State under Hillary who previously worked for Dick Cheney. Two party system is a shill and anachronism; a Punch and Judy Show.

    The Neo-con AIPAC agenda is world hegemony; New World Order and Hillary is the pre-annointed. Trump may not be a surprise but Sanders certainly is independent and thankfully a chance for Americans to voice their frustrations at the loss of their civil rights and democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century Agenda of New World Order cofounded by Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland Biography of Nuland

    MacWisconsin atlga , 2016-05-22 16:41:34
    The entire Nevada democratic convention was videoed and is available. Please post one video or clip of "violence", real or "perceived". There was none. There was one arrest for violence however and that was Clinton supporter, Wendell Pierce, who was arrested for battery against two Sanders supporters. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/16/wendell-pierce-actor-and-social-activist-arrested-for-allegedly-attacking-bernie-sanders-supporter /

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=435x0dQ5Lzg What this wrap-up doesn't show is the Chair refusing to allow the Minority Report to be read after 58 Sanders delegates were not allowed to show their credentials. That report was eventually read when another delegate ceded his time.

    The reporter--Jon Ralston--who reported the chairs being thrown incident has admitted he wasn't there when that incident didn't happen. No violence. No arrests--despite the calls for that when calls came for revotes. And this got repeated without being fact checked. Pretty embarrassing for the media who repeated it ad nauseam. Whole "violence" issued debunked---but you keep repeating it. Even Jon Ralston who relied another another reporter's statement, couldn't find one clip of violence. Plenty of foul language, but no violence. Please….post a clip.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/18/the-faux-fracas-in-nevada-how-a-reporters-pack-of-lies-ran-riot-in-the-fact-averse-media /

    vineyridge , 2016-05-22 16:39:35
    Anyone here old enough to remember the results when Teddy Kennedy contested the 1980 convention? Anyone here old enough to remember 1968? Anyone here old enough to remember all the years of Republican presidents pushing America to the right?

    Anyone here ever studied history or lived through it?

    FactsnReason Murphy1983 , 2016-05-22 16:36:06
    Clinton will not win the general election. Her trustworthiness polls at 36%, tied with Trump. Sanders, on the other hand, has increased his trustworthiness up to 84% as people have been introduced to him despite the virtual media blackout.
    We don't see the media talking about that, do we?
    Nor do we see the media quoting John Boehner's comment that Sanders is the most honest person in Washington.
    We also do not see the Clinton Media Cabal discussing her legal issues, which are quite serious and real, unless they find some "unnamed source" to downplay the investigations into her multiple crimes. They ignore the other "unnamed sources" who claim people in the FBI will go rogue with details if there is a failure to indict by Loretta Lynch, who is a Clinton Supporter, by the way...
    Juan Reynoso AmyInNH , 2016-05-22 16:34:15
    The whole electoral system is corrupt, Democrats and Republicans work for the oligarchs they betray the people. We The People believe that in a democracy, the people are sovereign and the people are the ultimate source of authority. We believe that truth transforms lives. That self-scrutiny is not treason, self-examination is not disloyalty. Truth and knowledge diffused among the people are necessary for the reclamation and preservation of our Democracy, freedom, liberties and rights. Now is the time to expose this system of corruption. We must work in solidarity to promote and protect the natural rights of the people and the following: Public Health, Education, Housing, food and water safety, Jobs and income, cultural heritage and public safety.

    We accomplish that by advocating for strengthening the rights of the people and laws and regulations designed to protect the natural rights of the American people, ensuring the Constitutional rights of the people and the enforcement of existing laws that protect these rights, also alerting the people to impending threats and mobilizing the public to address these issues.

    We must take peaceable nonviolent actions to address issues of concern to Americans and permanent residents of our country; we believe that to serve that purpose, we as individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve our own lives and our human dignity.

    Michronics42 eastbayradical , 2016-05-22 16:32:42
    Thanks for your heartwarming reply. If Bernie loses, I have no intention of voting for Clinton: I'll either write in or vote for Jill Stein.
    Michronics42 annasview , 2016-05-22 16:30:25
    Thanks, I always confuse him with author, Tom A. Canova.
    aguy777 Martha Carter , 2016-05-22 16:28:36
    "All this is going to to is fracture the Democratic party and let Trump get the presidency."

    I was with you up to this.

    It's only May. The vast majority of the Left and Center will pull together to stop this neo-fascist conman.

    aguy777 Ussurisk , 2016-05-22 16:26:34
    Completely over-the-top and destructive nonsense ...

    Clinton does not resemble Thatcher in the least, and only an unhinged person would imagine so. Nor is she personally to blame for intractable problems in the Middle East.

    In reality (a place some Sanders followers should visit more often ...) she closely resembles other mainstream Democrats such as Bill Clinton (her husband) and Obama (her former boss). Why, of course.

    If the self-proclaimed "radical left" keeps pretending that the Moderate Left is really the same as the Far Right, then it will only help Trump. And needless to say, that's as anti-Progressive as it gets ...

    joAnn chartier Martha Carter , 2016-05-22 16:26:22
    And Trump is now being coddled by Repub leaders without examining their own failed candidates and their completely devastating policies that put Party Power over The People.
    MacWisconsin Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:25:58
    Corrupt systems need to end---the "it's always been wrong" argument doesn't serve any longer. BTW: No one knew before Sanders entered that the DNC would call for "Temporary Rules" changes and votes on the floor of state conventions, which is precisely what happened in Nevada.
    joAnn chartier , 2016-05-22 16:24:17
    This woman voted FOR a bill that supports rip-off pay day lenders rather than poor working class people. Pay day lenders charge astronomical rates to lend people small amounts of money to pay for a car repair or a dentist visit that they can't cover because they are trying to survive on 7 or 8 dollars an hour, working two or three jobs to get by.

    What a nasty example of a Dem party leader- --

    MacWisconsin Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:23:47
    Ann Dash, you correct, Bernie Sanders and those who support his platform are issued based, not "party faithful". When you put party over country you loose. You've also chosen a candidate to support who has two active FBI investigations--one into violations of the Espionage Act and one into corruption of the Clinton Foundation during Clinton's tenure as SOS. There are former Clinton aides being deposed now in two separate FOIA lawsuits as well. When your "party" aligns itself with such open corruption, it and its preferred candidate deserve the animus both have created through their own actions.
    Juan Reynoso Ussurisk , 2016-05-22 16:23:27
    By Juan Reynoso. Political activist – www.represent.us
    We must defend our U.S. Constitution and our God given rights "Natural rights"
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/constitution
    [email protected]
    The 2016 U.S. Elections is a war to protect our country's future, the economic and welfare of the American youth and our future generations. Liberalism, Government corruption, the U.S predatory corporate system of monopoly, crony capitalism, the corrupt U.S. Financial system and the greedy super rich are like termites that are destroying the core and the foundation of our country's moral values; by bribery and deception they have transform our country into a plutocracy system of government and place money and power before the will of the people and the future of the American people.

    The war has begun and we may lose this battle; but we will win the war, knowledge and solidarity in America society will prompt the American youth to fight for their future and the future of America. The collapse of the empire is imminent, God always give the fighters for social justice the wisdom and courage to destroy the evil enslavers of humanity, history will be repeated again. So don't be overwhelmed if we lose this battle. We have learned from the battle and will take that new-found knowledge into the next battle. But we will never consider the possibility of defeat and we will join the glorious ranks of those who have gone before us – those who won wars against oppression and tyranny.

    Let's place the people's human rights, freedom and dignity before money and power. Fear is our worst enemy. A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve man's self-respect, freedom and their God given human rights and dignity. It is not easy for people conditioned to fear by the main stream news media the propaganda machinery of this corrupt system of government, that might is possible for people to free themselves from the enervating oppressive of fear, that under the most crushing police state machinery, our courage will rises up again and again, because fear is not the natural state of civilized man.

    Join the fight for America's future and economic freedom. Solidarity for social justice will win this war against tyranny and economic slavery.

    Requiem for the American Dream, the truth about the demise of our freedom and the making of our economic slavery. Every American must see this film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWD8Wksx_zI

    The 1923 meeting at the Edgewater Beach hotel in Chicago was about the U.S. economic Control. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/01/23/what-the-richest-men-in-the-world-dont-know.html

    Hillary Clinton's Neocon Legacy
    http://therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/170-more-blog-posts-from-david-william-pear/2458-hillary-clintons-neocon-legacy-coups-dictators-corruption-chaos-executions-and-assassination

    The Making of American Capitalism.
    http://www.salon.com/2014/09/07/we_still_lie_about_slavery_heres_the_truth_about_how_the_american_economy_and_power_were_built_on_forced_migration_and_torture /
    You must see this.
    http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/requiem-for-the-american-dream-2016
    Please pass this on, We all count; united for the future of our country and our freedom.
    http://www.rumormillnews.com/MEDIA_EMAIL_ADDRESSES.htm

    modeleste , 2016-05-22 16:22:45
    DWS has done terrible damage to Hillary's chances against Trump. Her blatant rigging of the process against Sanders will be a barrier to their ever supporting Clinton. If it was believed that she one a fair fight, I think most would accept the outcome. But only the most credulous can now believe that it was a fair fight.
    Jack Nostrand , 2016-05-22 16:22:24
    It seems Ross Perot did have an impact on the Presidency. After him they began changing the rules of election participation. Ralph Nader then didn't meet the requirements to be heard. The RNC and DNC thought they had formed eternal victories for establishment candidates. When Obama beat Clinton they changed the rules even more. Now outsiders Sanders and Trump taking victories despite the changes. What's up there sleeves for the next election? No more voting? Litmus tests? Only candidates with 7 letters in their first and last names? In 2000, "hanging chads" were used to determine the outcome. Does anyone else agree that the election process has become a little disturbing?
    Juan Reynoso Martha Carter , 2016-05-22 16:18:34
    By Juan Reynoso – WTP- activist. www.represent.us
    [email protected]
    The fact is that most Americans are being brainwash and indoctrinate into believing that Capitalism and the neo liberalism economic system is better than Democrat socialism.
    The Neo-Liberalist, place money and power before the people, they believe that the private sector "Corporations, the Banking system and all services including the communication system should be privatized to benefit the investors and owners and not the general public; they believe that every man is responsible for their economic and welfare and that they do not have any responsibility toward the community and the citizens of this country, they do not want any government controls so they can exploit the community to enrich themselves. The result of this ill system was the economic catastrophe of 2008 and the continuation of this ill system will be the down fall of the Dollar and the world economic, in 2016 - 2017.
    Now Democrat socialism is placing the people before money and power for the few oligarchs and corporate elite. This economic system is essential to stop the concentration of wealth and benefit the whole country by promoting education, good quality of life, and health and minimize poverty. The Neo-liberalism was implemented by Ronald Reagan and followed by all presidents, this economic system give control of the country to the oligarchs and the elite multinational corporations to enrich themselves, making millions of Americans economic slaves by controlling labor the income of the American working class and the market place. Neo-Liberalism opens the gate for the greedy corporations to monopolized, control commerce and destroys small business to eradicate competition. America today is a conglomerate of elite business monopoly that controls our economic and destroyed the dream of millions of Americans that today live in poverty and extreme poverty. The choice is ours; to continue on this path of self-destruction and continue promoting this Neo-Liberalist system of greed and destruction or change to a Democrat more social economic system that will be beneficial to all Americans and not the few oligarchs that control our country.
    Democrat socialism.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/#article-comments
    We can learn a lot about public policy from the Nordic nations
    http://theconversation.com/we-can-learn-a-lot-about-public-policy-from-the-nordic-nations-32204
    Better education for all
    https://dianeravitch.net/2016/03/22/what-we-can-learn-from-nordic-nations /
    U.S. Politicians from both right and left could learn from the Nordic countries
    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel
    The Nordic countries could teach us about teamwork in education
    http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/oct/05/education-policy-nordic-countries
    vineyridge SocalAlex , 2016-05-22 16:18:15
    The GOP happens to be in the MAJORITY in Congress.
    vineyridge BerrySam , 2016-05-22 16:16:02
    Nader never ran as in one of the major parties. Bernie has 45% of a primary vote. There are many, millions of Americans who only vote in general elections.
    MacWisconsin Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:14:36
    Ann Dash, the "winning" the popular vote argument leaves out some important figures. 7.2 million people live in Washington state. Sanders won Washington by 71% and yet none of those votes have been counted in the popular vote. Sanders won Alaska by 81%--none of those votes are figured into the "3 million" votes either. 3 million Independents weren't allowed to vote in NY alone. Clinton, "won" Kentucky by 1923 votes---less than 1/2 of One percent. When you add actual caucus votes and those who will vote in November, Clinton doesn't fare very well. The popular vote argument holds no water.
    Martha Carter , 2016-05-22 16:13:51
    This is the way the system has worked. Maybe it isn't fair, but if Bernie wanted to change it he should have started a lot earlier. If he were winning now I'll bet he wouldn't be so unhappy with it.
    Bernie is evokes a lot of passion in his followers. They want him to win so badly they will disrupt the Democratic convention. All this is going to to is fracture the Democratic party and let Trump get the presidency. The Democrats are like people in a canoe arguing about who gets to paddle just as they are about to go over the falls.
    Murphy1983 Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:13:38
    Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll

    Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726?cid=eml_nbn_20160522

    Murphy1983 Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:12:26
    Sanders is the strongest candidate against Trump. Vote Sanders!

    Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll

    Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726?cid=eml_nbn_20160522

    Ussurisk , 2016-05-22 16:11:37
    Sanders has been remiss in confronting Hillary with the evil she has wrought, genocide on Iraq, Syria, and most obviously in turning top standard of living Libya into a failed state. Obama apologized about it but not the queens of destabilization, Victoria Nuland and her puppet, Hillary Clinton.

    Sanders ha failed to give Hillary the downbraiding she deserves as a budding NWO fascist and apologist for Wall St. and Netanyahu, etc. Despicable woman, much like Margret Thatcher and Madeline Albright. Destroyers; bad at diplomacy and quick on murderous war. Demagogue Hillary will escalate US hegemony and bring on Armageddon for the Christian Zionists; WWIII. Why did Sanders not play his trump card at the beginning of the campaign?

    MeereeneseLiberation Pleasetickother3 , 2016-05-22 16:11:11

    However it was well known Florida would be close and be decisive. Nader voters were thought to be more closely aligned with Gore. They had a choice, they chose.

    Yup. I remember there were even several (heavily frequented) websites dedicated to "voter trade" -- supporters of Nader in battle ground states would "trade" their votes with Democrats from safe states to enable Nader to reach his goal of 5% of the popular vote and still allow Gore to carry Florida and others. Definitely not quite legal, but goes to show that everybody knew what was at stake.

    Of course it's silly to blame W exclusively on Nader -- obviously, it's the Bush voters who are to blame first and foremost, and his brother and the SCOTUS who stole the election for him, and Gore for running a listless and inept campaign (the kiss! oh, the kiss!). But even if Nader's share of the responsibility is no greater than his tally of the vote, it's rather baffling, given the experience of 2000, how many seem to be willing to repeat it.

    This stuff about 'not being able to win his home state' is completely weird. Especially given how eager Bernie fans were on this board to point out that New York is Sanders ' home state, not Clinton's...

    FactsnReason , 2016-05-22 16:10:41
    Clinton only leads by 274 pledged delegates. The false picture of the huge lead that results from super delegates is being presented so people will just give up and not vote for Sanders. Fortunately, those of us who support Sanders recognize the media bias and the DNC favoritism, and we will not be fooled.

    In the long run, the Democratic Party, the super delegates, and the media that is fully participating in this attempted coronation are hurting themselves. I, and many many others, not only will not vote for Hillary, we will no longer support the party or Democrats involved in this travesty, nor will we support the media and businesses who have joined in.

    Bernie or Bust! I voted for the honest guy... NOT with her: NOT EVER!

    Murphy1983 , 2016-05-22 16:10:18
    Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll

    Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.

    Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726?cid=eml_nbn_20160522

    MacWisconsin Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:14:36
    Ann Dash, the "winning" the popular vote argument leaves out some important figures. 7.2 million people live in Washington state. Sanders won Washington by 71% and yet none of those votes have been counted in the popular vote. Sanders won Alaska by 81%--none of those votes are figured into the "3 million" votes either. 3 million Independents weren't allowed to vote in NY alone. Clinton, "won" Kentucky by 1923 votes---less than 1/2 of One percent. When you add actual caucus votes and those who will vote in November, Clinton doesn't fare very well. The popular vote argument holds no water.
    Martha Carter , 2016-05-22 16:13:51
    This is the way the system has worked. Maybe it isn't fair, but if Bernie wanted to change it he should have started a lot earlier. If he were winning now I'll bet he wouldn't be so unhappy with it.

    Bernie is evokes a lot of passion in his followers. They want him to win so badly they will disrupt the Democratic convention. All this is going to to is fracture the Democratic party and let Trump get the presidency. The Democrats are like people in a canoe arguing about who gets to paddle just as they are about to go over the falls.

    Murphy1983 Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:13:38
    Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll

    Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726?cid=eml_nbn_20160522

    Murphy1983 Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:12:26
    Sanders is the strongest candidate against Trump. Vote Sanders!

    Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll

    Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726?cid=eml_nbn_20160522

    Ussurisk , 2016-05-22 16:11:37
    Sanders has been remiss in confronting Hillary with the evil she has wrought, genocide on Iraq, Syria, and most obviously in turning top standard of living Libya into a failed state. Obama apologized about it but not the queens of destabilization, Victoria Nuland and her puppet, Hillary Clinton. Sanders ha failed to give Hillary the downbraiding she deserves as a budding NWO fascist and apologist for Wall St. and Netanyahu, etc. Despicable woman, much like Margret Thatcher and Madeline Albright. Destroyers; bad at diplomacy and quick on murderous war. Demagogue Hillary will escalate US hegemony and bring on Armageddon for the Christian Zionists; WWIII. Why did Sanders not play his trump card at the beginning of the campaign?
    MeereeneseLiberation Pleasetickother3 , 2016-05-22 16:11:11

    However it was well known Florida would be close and be decisive. Nader voters were thought to be more closely aligned with Gore. They had a choice, they chose.

    Yup. I remember there were even several (heavily frequented) websites dedicated to "voter trade" -- supporters of Nader in battle ground states would "trade" their votes with Democrats from safe states to enable Nader to reach his goal of 5% of the popular vote and still allow Gore to carry Florida and others. Definitely not quite legal, but goes to show that everybody knew what was at stake.

    Of course it's silly to blame W exclusively on Nader -- obviously, it's the Bush voters who are to blame first and foremost, and his brother and the SCOTUS who stole the election for him, and Gore for running a listless and inept campaign (the kiss! oh, the kiss!). But even if Nader's share of the responsibility is no greater than his tally of the vote, it's rather baffling, given the experience of 2000, how many seem to be willing to repeat it.

    This stuff about 'not being able to win his home state' is completely weird. Especially given how eager Bernie fans were on this board to point out that New York is Sanders ' home state, not Clinton's...

    FactsnReason , 2016-05-22 16:10:41
    Clinton only leads by 274 pledged delegates. The false picture of the huge lead that results from super delegates is being presented so people will just give up and not vote for Sanders. Fortunately, those of us who support Sanders recognize the media bias and the DNC favoritism, and we will not be fooled.
    In the long run, the Democratic Party, the super delegates, and the media that is fully participating in this attempted coronation are hurting themselves. I, and many many others, not only will not vote for Hillary, we will no longer support the party or Democrats involved in this travesty, nor will we support the media and businesses who have joined in.

    Bernie or Bust! I voted for the honest guy... NOT with her: NOT EVER!

    Murphy1983 , 2016-05-22 16:10:18
    Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll

    Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.

    Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726?cid=eml_nbn_20160522

    AmyInNH Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:08:59
    It is a sad and sorry day that you can't recognize a democrat any more. Yes, he's not a "party faithful". Apparently you haven't noticed that "the party" has become about "the party".
    Michronics42 Happy Fella , 2016-05-22 16:07:17
    Are you seriously siding with payday lenders? They are big time vulture capitalists, ripping off the most vulnerable.

    By the way, do you just happen to be a payday lender? Or, do you profit from the industry somehow? Or, perhaps it may be the dots that accurately and historically connected the dots to Bill Clinton's 'Mother of all Deregulations,' the partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, annoys you.

    Whatever or whoever informs your thoughts, your reasoning is seriously flawed.

    AmyInNH Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:07:02
    The problem with Bernie Sanders is he makes Hillary look like the elite disconnected republican that she is.
    AmyInNH , 2016-05-22 16:02:32
    The parties have transparently thrown over the country's best interest in favor of their party's interests.
    Craig Quirolo Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 15:49:22
    He isn't winning because the media has ignored him, he threatens big business and wall street (who have thrown their $ support to Hillary) and because he speaks the truth. This has been a rigged election from the start. Funny thing is Bernie can easily dump trump and Hillary cannot, she is in trouble. As far as DWS she is in the pockets of big money just like her boss Hillary.
    MeereeneseLiberation sdkeller72 , 2016-05-22 15:45:03

    Don;t be afraid of a Trump presidency

    I take it you are neither poor, Hispanic, African American, Muslim, nor a woman then? Not interested in free speech, the Geneva Convention or basic human decency?

    You're right, then, there may not be much to be afraid of for you. Depending, of course, on how much Trump is willing to escalate that trade war with China that you seem so keen on.

    eminijunkie annasview , 2016-05-22 15:43:40
    It's is true.

    Bernie can win easily win enough of the remaining votes to force the super delegates into the position of having to choose who should be the nominee. Are they really all that invested in Hillary still? Can they really not see the difference between the crowds that come to see Bernie versus the ones that come to see Hillary? Will they neglect all the recent polls?

    Or will they pick Bernie? If Bernie gets those votes, which he easily can so long as they aren't all in rigged caucus meetings, then will have that chance.

    Should be an interesting convention.

    Oudeis1 atlga , 2016-05-22 15:41:02
    The plainly observable fact are; Taxes up, out of pocket health-care costs 'obliterated'.

    Why not relate the 98% Tax tale - I feel sleepy.

    annasview , 2016-05-22 15:39:45
    *Tim* Canova -- a name to remember!

    One of the current issues (and only one of the issues with the DNC/DWS) is the superdelegates being lined up PRE-primary voting in order to give the edge to Clinton right from the start.

    They don't count until the convention this summer, **neither do their votes** -- not until the convention, AFTER every citizen who wants to vote has voted.
    And their vote isn't written in stone before then, they can and have switched their votes prior to the convention, re: Obama's election.

    When Clinton brings in 400 to hear a speech and Sanders routinely brings in 15,000 or more, when exit polls don't match the voting booth yet they get rid of the exit polls rather than fix the voting 'inaccuracies,' something is very fishy in the land of Oz....

    annasview Michronics42 , 2016-05-22 15:38:28
    *Tim* Canova

    One of the current issues (and only one of the issues with the DNC/DWS) is the superdelegates being lined up PRE-primary voting in order to give the edge to Clinton right from the start.
    They don't count until the convention this summer, **neither do their votes** -- not until the convention, AFTER every citizen who wants to vote has voted. And their vote isn't written in stone before then, they can and have switched their votes prior to the convention, re: Obama's election.

    When Clinton brings in 400 to hear a speech and Sanders routinely brings in 15,000 or more, when exit polls don't match the voting booth yet they get rid of the exit polls rather than fix the voting 'inaccuracies,' something is very fishy in the land of Oz....

    FrostAndFire Curiosita , 2016-05-22 15:38:22
    There is such a massive entitlement in the kind of Democrats who believe that Green party supporters owed Democrats their votes. Democracy doesn't work like that. You have to earn the votes, and Gore's campaign was terrible. If he'd run a good campaign, he would have won handily. Blaming your opponents for your won failure is pathetic.
    Oudeis1 atlga , 2016-05-22 15:36:17
    What's that? You do know where it is, but you can't find it?

    We're not talking about those speech transcripts, you know that; don't you?

    lowliferatface , 2016-05-22 15:36:02
    Clinton and all her corrupt surrogates need to leave the DNC asap.
    Jack Nostrand nolashea , 2016-05-22 15:35:02
    Who's the one doing the character assassination here? Good grief do people ever look in the mirror? DWS has worked with Clinton for years and has been blatantly impartial from the beginning. If independents were allowed to vote in the closed primaries Mr. Sanders would be tied if not clearly in the lead. How can you be a "Democrat" in favor of "Democracy" and then manipulate the rules to allow a particular individual to get elected? You may want to think long-term. The people will not follow a false leader. People will revolt. People vote with their feet... Which direction do you see them walking? I see them walking away from Clinton.
    eastbayradical John Egan , 2016-05-22 15:33:55
    The vast majority of Americans don't care whether or not Sanders is a loyal Democrat. They assess him on the basis of his seeming authenticity, honesty, values, and policy positions--and based on the evaluative system he does well among Democrats and very well among Independents.

    You, JohnEgan, are part of a very small minority that gives a rat's ass whether Sanders is a loyal Democrat.

    bashh1 leonorp , 2016-05-22 15:30:25
    We will have nothing to blame for Trump but Clinton herself. We have nothing to blame in 2000 for Bush except Gore himself. We have nobody to blame for the Mideast but Bush himself
    Social36 , 2016-05-22 15:30:18
    The Canova campaign threat to her re-election helps to explain even more of DWS's enmity towards Bernie and the Sanders campaign!
    tonichicago thoughtful24 , 2016-05-22 15:29:15
    It is not impossible but involves way too much government involvement for many Americans and it is seen as "Socialist" (which is not a compliment here btw).
    eminijunkie Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 15:28:46
    It's so like the current crowd of jerks running the Democratic party to see them start pointing fingers at Bernie for what they can see is their coming defeat in November. They had the chance to back Bernie. They can still do it, but they are all too invested in their own interests to care about anything but their own interests, and so they won't pick up on the best chance to have a Democratic landslide since 1964.

    You had your chance too, and you picked the loser over the winner, so no more of this finger pointing at Bernie. Accept responsibility for your own bad decisions and live with it, as you will have no other alternatives in the end.

    Social36 Haigin88 , 2016-05-22 15:27:10
    Nice comments--both! Rich with detail and information -- and thought provoking.

    I agree with you about Gore, Nader, and the election. At the same time, we can't use what happened in 2000 to justify Sanders people voting Green in swing states or sitting it out at home and then claim that a President Trump is simply Hillary's fault-- or the DNC's.

    It would be both-- Hillary's as well as Sanders' supporters not voting to stop Trump. Hillary is a corporate shill in all too many ways and she has been a lackluster, throwback, self-centered, and entitled candidate-- although she's beginning to fight and the Clintons, unlike Sanders, have several decades of knowing how to street fight-- and can better respond to Trump's wild fusillades.

    Yet, even if she doesn't represent all, or even most, of what progressives want, the differences are clear-- it would be so much better to have a corporate centrist in there with some liberal values who will tweak things at the margins to make them better for more people than a right wing zealot who is hellbent on destroying everything he encounters, and doing so all on a whim.

    tonichicago Llewellyn , 2016-05-22 15:26:37
    Exactly. He chose to hijack the Democratic Party to give himself the best chance of being nominated as the candidate for that party. He can't now start throwing tantrums because the rules (that he knew about) aren't working in his favor. Great President he'd make on the international stage. Perhaps Trump will pick him for Veep then we can have two tantrum-throwing "outsiders" on the GOP ticket. What fun.
    Landrew Hammer , 2016-05-22 15:26:37
    TimCanova.com, send a donation I did. Tim is now very close to raising enough money to defeat the evil PayDay loan Queen DWS. It's time the corruption at the DNC end. WRITE IN Bernie in Nov. I am. TimCanova.com and defeat DWS the loan shark.
    eastbayradical nolashea , 2016-05-22 15:26:11
    "Sanders is something one scrapes off the bottom of their shoe before entering the house."

    As someone who will vote for Sanders (even though I don't believe he's nearly radical enough) but will NEVER vote for Wall Street's Warmongering Madame, I truly hope you continue to say these types of things about Sanders, as it makes it considerably less likely that my fellow Sanders' supporters will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination.

    You are making my "job" easier, and for that I thank you!

    MonotonousLanguor , 2016-05-22 15:26:02
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz represents the continued failure of the Democratic Party and as such should be replaced.

    The Democratic Party began to die during Bill Clinton's regime. Bill Clinton in his own way conducted a regime change of the Democratic Party from Main Street and Unions to Wall Street. The results have not been good:

    In 1992 in the Senate there were 57 Democratic Senators and 43 Republicans.
    In 2002 in the Senate there were 48 Democratic Senators and 51 Republicans. One Independent.
    In 2012 in the Senate the Democrats had 45 Seats vs 53 Republicans, with two Independents.
    In 2014 in the Senate there are 44 Democratic Senators and 54 Republicans with two Independents.

    The House:
    In 1992 The Democrats had 258 Seats to the Republicans 176, with one Independent.
    In 2002 The Democrats had 205 Seats, to the Republicans 229 Seats and one Independent
    In 2012 The Democrats 201 Seats vs 234 Republicans.
    In 2014 The Democrats have 188 Seats vs the Republicans 247.

    A similar decline has happened in the Governor's races.
    1992 30 Democrat Governors and 18 Republican
    2014 31 Republicans and 18 Democrats

    Political Power for the Clinton Family has translated into wealth, and for the Clinton's lining their own pockets is all that counts.

    Landrew Hammer Llewellyn , 2016-05-22 15:21:09
    The State Parties are ALSO CONTROLLED by the DNC. The kick back monies insure that the DNC is in control of WHO they select rather then open elections. You can lie to yourself however, WE know the truth of how this corrupt system works. WRITE IN Bernie in Nov. I am!
    MonsieurMisike , 2016-05-22 15:20:20
    Very few outside the Democratic Party establishment seem to like these superdelegates. Abolish them and pledged delegates too while you're at it.

    A lot simpler would be whichever candidate gets the majority of states wins the nomination. In this case, it is (as of this writing) Hillary Clinton - and I'm a Sanders supporter.

    Better yet, abolish the primary system which gives voters in small states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina inflated powers of choosing eventual nominees.

    Allow each candidate to spend 8-10 weeks campaigning across the 10 most populous states spending a maximum set amount of $ leading up to this "super primary" held on one day. And there's your candidate.

    If this is deemed too draconian with regards to disenfranchisement in the remaining 40 states, let "super primary" narrow the field to the top two candidates. The remaining 40 states can hold a "final primary" 4 weeks later on the same day. Whichever candidate has the most votes in the "super primary" + "final primary" is the candidate.

    The General Election would follow 8 weeks later. No electoral college, just simple majority of votes across 50 states wins.

    Super Pacs, donations over $X would be abolished. No closed primaries.

    Most importantly, any candidate found to be campaigning 10 weeks before the initial "super primary" would be disqualified. America's multi-year Presidential Election cycle would be limited to several months.

    The media which relies on campaign advertising spending for much of its profits and campaign scandal/gossip/speculation to fill airtime and column inches would hate this. As would lobby groups/firms, special interests, the Koch Brothers, etc.

    tonichicago , 2016-05-22 15:19:41
    It's very Trump-ish of Bernie to join a party to which he admits he had no ideological affiliation, just to get on the ballot. Then he complains about how the party runs itself and how the rules should be changed because he's not winning. I used to think he was an OK guy but he's behaving like a toddler; just like Trump.
    eastbayradical nolashea , 2016-05-22 15:19:13
    "Sanders is operating his entire campaign based on their model - seek, debase, uglify, insult, destroy your opponent by character assassination...."

    If that's the case, why as he chosen to say not one word about the "email scandal" and the fact that Clinton is under FBI investigation? Why is it that if he's such a horrible character assassin? Please explain, it doesn't make ANY sense.

    Your description of Sanders is partisan in the worst sense of the word--completely devoid of fairness and fact-based analysis. You fail to address the many ways in which Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC have attempted to marginalize and hobble Sanders' campaign--from the scheduling of debates to the vote count in Iowa to the smears against Sanders in the aftermath of the shady goings-on of party elites in Nevada and Sanders' supporters response to them.

    There's no wonder why Clinton supporters at all levels resort to this sort of bullshit. After all it's easier than defending the record of someone (Clinton herself) who over the years has supported the Iraq War, Patriot Acts 1 and 2, the starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza, the bombing of Libya, the right-wing coup in Honduras, a 31 cent/hour minimum wage in Haiti (and against attempts to raise it), the Saudi dictatorship, drone missile strikes in multiple impoverished countries, NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, fracking, anti-labor policies while on the board of Wal-Mart, the objectively-racist death penalty, the destruction of welfare, the private prison industry, deregulation of investment banks (and against reinstatement of Glass-Steagall), giveaways to the credit card industry, and the bail-out of Wall Street.

    chiefwiley Stephen Paskey , 2016-05-22 15:18:26
    Doing the math, if even 1,000 Nadar supporters had hosted for Bush instead, Bush would have won Florida by 1,537 votes. If Gore had won the state he served as Senator, Tennessee, he wouldn't have needed Florida to become President. The election was his to win or lose.
    He lost. It was sixteen years ago. Get over it.
    Landrew Hammer nolashea , 2016-05-22 15:16:15
    Your comments are why We will NEVER vote for the Clintons. Your hate inspires us to write in Bernie. Thank you for the inspiration we will work even harder now on a national campaign to WRITE IN Bernie in Nov. The NAFTA, TPP, Crime Bill war morgering Clintons will NOT get our Progressive votes. So thank you for acknowledging the Clintons DON'T NEED our votes in Nov. Write IN Bernie in Nov. I am!
    Social36 Michronics42 , 2016-05-22 15:15:52
    Gore did win Florida-- exit polling, which was uncannily accurate, showed that, but it was the Supreme Court that stopped the recount. (OTOH, some post-election analyses, including by the Washington Post, concluded Gore lost.)

    People make fun of "hanging chads" but it was an amazing thing to see local people from both parties attempting to do the right thing by voters.

    Yes, just by numbers, had most of those Nader votes gone to Gore, he would have become president. However, it's also true that had Gore campaigned more effectively, unleashed Bill, worried more about connecting to people than with his wardrobe consultants, and been more like himself as shown in later years, he would have won decisively-- Nader or not. Remember that Gore did NOT even win his own state!

    So, hard though it may be for people to accept, it will be BOTH Hillary's and Bernie's supporters' fault, if they stay home or vote Green in swing states, and Trump gets elected.

    The stakes are enormous... Hillary's a corporate centrist, for sure, but has many socially liberal values, while Trump is a right-wing, unhinged, uninformed, neofascist whose racism and misogyny are abhorrent and is a real threat to democracy. Believing that the election doesn't matter, or that the two candidates are equally as bad, ignores reality as well as history. Just consider who the two would put on the Supreme Court.

    We'd much prefer it be Bernie, but we definitely do not want it to be Trump!

    Landrew Hammer , 2016-05-22 15:11:34
    Debbie Wasserman Shultz, champion of the PAYDAY LOAN SHARKS. DWS helped defeat the Sen. Warren legislation to limit the interest rates to 30% FROM 3000%. DWS and the Clintons take campaign funds and support the loan sharks bleeding economically challenged communities across the U.S. Write IN Bernie in Nov. I am!
    PGVaidya Llewellyn , 2016-05-22 15:10:25
    Bill Moyers has been one of the most respected journalists. Please read what he says about DWS: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36991-democrats-cant-unite-unless-wasserman-schultz-goes
    NottaBot mismeasure , 2016-05-22 15:07:27
    At the Wells Fargo Center. Great optics, DNC.
    dig4victory , 2016-05-22 15:06:57
    The chairperson of the DNC is bound to remain impartial, as is clearly stated in the party rules. There is now ample evidence that Ms Schultz has repeatedly broken that rule throughout the campaign cycle and is therefore unfit to remain chairperson of the DNC. If she is not replaced by an impartial chairperson for the convention it will undermine the legitimacy of the nomination process.

    In light of the formal complaints and petitions submitted by Democratic Party members regarding Ms Schultz breaking Democratic Party rules, Mrs Clinton and Senator Sanders will need to agree on a temporary replacement chairperson for the convention until the next permanent chairperson is appointed.

    PGVaidya John Macgregor , 2016-05-22 15:06:54
    What spellchecker ? Atlga is clearly a person paid pennies by the Hillary campaign. I did not realize they are outsourcing the respondents to some remote villages in the world.
    JCDavis atlga , 2016-05-22 15:03:35
    You don't seem to understand the difference between primaries and the general election. Compare the polls for Sanders vs Trump and Clinton vs Trump in the general--

    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster

    Clinton is crashing while Sanders is soaring.

    Social36 , 2016-05-22 14:58:05
    Excuse us, but the delegate count right now is

    Clinton 1,768
    Sanders 1,494

    Sanders is only 274 delegates behind!

    Stop with the misleading inclusion of the super delegate totals in the counts. Or, at least, emphasize the difference-- elected vs. appointed or, rather, party-automatic supers.

    Glad, though, for coverage of the biased Debbie! If anyone' seen her on TV, she is a sorry excuse for a party leader anyway-- semi-articulate, breathless, and ill-mannered. (And, yes, I would make the same criticisms of male politicians, too.). Adding in her blatant biases-- even the Sanders folks have said that they have little or no problem with the rest of the DNC leadership team, it's clear that she's got to go!

    NottaBot suddenoakdeath , 2016-05-22 14:57:33
    Just for you. And anybody else who'd like to know the score.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsOf0TZPPWY

    MonsieurMisike atlga , 2016-05-22 14:55:33
    There's some debate about the world's oldest democracy, but it ain't the United States (which, btw, is a republic).

    Iceland has had a parliament since the year 930 and the oldest continuous parliament since 979 is on the Isle of Man. Universal adult suffrage was established in New Zealand in 1893, although NZ doesn't elect its Head of State.

    Mckim John Egan , 2016-05-22 14:55:27
    He sure does know what is best for the party, and it isn't endless war, Wall St. and Wall Mart.
    Terribleblodge ExcaliburDefender , 2016-05-22 14:55:12
    You sound as bright as the half-wit who told me last summer that Sanders couldn't win Vermont's primary.
    Mckim binkis1 , 2016-05-22 14:54:01
    It is a sad commentary on our economy when people are so hard up for money that they will troll for a woman who is a Neocon warmonger for money.
    Mckim atlga , 2016-05-22 14:52:39
    Senator Sanders is serving this country well by bringing out years of anger and frustration about all the money going to the too 1%, serfdom for working families for the past 30 years, serfdom for those who dare to incur debt to go to college and the endless expensive wars. He is a hero.
    DracoFerret , 2016-05-22 14:50:43
    Despite her promises to be tough on Wall Street, a new report has found that groups supporting Hillary Clinton have received $25 million from the financial industry using so-called shadow banks. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has received a new waffle iron for opening a savings account.
    Terribleblodge ExcaliburDefender , 2016-05-22 14:49:33
    Were you one of the medical "professionals" at Guantanamo Bay by any chance? I hear they strongly support Clinton as well.
    Zepp swift_4 , 2016-05-22 14:49:07
    Bernie isn't "apart from the Democrats"--in fact, he exemplifies Democratic principles, the ones the party held for a half century before the corporate centrists took it over. If you want to get rid of confusion and conflict, take the people who oppose a liveable minimum wage, or universal health care, or trust-busting against the banks and big corps, and put them in the GOP where they belong.

    [May 24, 2016] Bernie Sanders Oregon win not nearly enough to reshape delegate landscape

    www.theguardian.com

    Atlant 21 May 2016 07:36 1 2 Democrats used to argue Bernie Sanders couldn't win anything. Then he started winning essentially all of the open or semi-open contests.

    So Democrats argued he couldn't win closed contests among just Democrats. And now he tied in Kentucky and won overwhelmingly in Oregon.

    So now Democrats are arguing he's got to drop out because he'll never get enough delegates. And they say this even as poll after poll shows Senator Sanders strongly winning the General Election while Clinton just squeaks by or even loses.

    "It ain't over 'til it's over."

    [May 24, 2016] A Psychologist Analyzes Donald Trump's Personality

    The Atlantic

    ... ... ...

    Fifty years of empirical research in personality psychology have resulted in a scientific consensus regarding the most basic dimensions of human variability. There are countless ways to differentiate one person from the next, but psychological scientists have settled on a relatively simple taxonomy, known widely as the Big Five:

    • Extroversion: gregariousness, social dominance, enthusiasm, reward-seeking behavior

    • Neuroticism: anxiety, emotional instability, depressive tendencies, negative emotions

    • Conscientiousness: industriousness, discipline, rule abidance, organization

    • Agreeableness: warmth, care for others, altruism, compassion, modesty

    • Openness: curiosity, unconventionality, imagination, receptivity to new ideas

    Most people score near the middle on any given dimension, but some score toward one pole or the other. Research decisively shows that higher scores on extroversion are associated with greater happiness and broader social connections, higher scores on conscientiousness predict greater success in school and at work, and higher scores on agreeableness are associated with deeper relationships. By contrast, higher scores on neuroticism are always bad, having proved to be a risk factor for unhappiness, dysfunctional relationships, and mental-health problems. From adolescence through midlife, many people tend to become more conscientious and agreeable, and less neurotic, but these changes are typically slight: The Big Five personality traits are pretty stable across a person's lifetime.

    ... ... ...

    Research suggests that extroverts tend to take high-stakes risks and that people with low levels of openness rarely question their deepest convictions. Entering office with high levels of extroversion and very low openness, Bush was predisposed to make bold decisions aimed at achieving big rewards, and to make them with the assurance that he could not be wrong. As I argued in my psychological biography of Bush, the game-changing decision to invade Iraq was the kind of decision he was likely to make. As world events transpired to open up an opportunity for the invasion, Bush found additional psychological affirmation both in his lifelong desire-pursued again and again before he ever became president-to defend his beloved father from enemies (think: Saddam Hussein) and in his own life story, wherein the hero liberates himself from oppressive forces (think: sin, alcohol) to restore peace and freedom.

    Like Bush, a President Trump might try to swing for the fences in an effort to deliver big payoffs-to make America great again, as his campaign slogan says. As a real-estate developer, he has certainly taken big risks, although he has become a more conservative businessman following setbacks in the 1990s. As a result of the risks he has taken, Trump can (and does) point to luxurious urban towers, lavish golf courses, and a personal fortune that is, by some estimates, in the billions, all of which clearly bring him big psychic rewards. Risky decisions have also resulted in four Chapter 11 business bankruptcies involving some of his casinos and resorts. Because he is not burdened with Bush's low level of openness (psychologists have rated Bush at the bottom of the list on this trait), Trump may be a more flexible and pragmatic decision maker, more like Bill Clinton than Bush: He may look longer and harder than Bush did before he leaps. And because he is viewed as markedly less ideological than most presidential candidates (political observers note that on some issues he seems conservative, on others liberal, and on still others nonclassifiable), Trump may be able to switch positions easily, leaving room to maneuver in negotiations with Congress and foreign leaders. But on balance, he's unlikely to shy away from risky decisions that, should they work out, could burnish his legacy and provide him an emotional payoff.

    The real psychological wild card, however, is Trump's agreeableness-or lack thereof. There has probably never been a U.S. president as consistently and overtly disagreeable on the public stage as Donald Trump is. If Nixon comes closest, we might predict that Trump's style of decision making would look like the hard-nosed realpolitik that Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, displayed in international affairs during the early 1970s, along with its bare-knuckled domestic analog. That may not be all bad, depending on one's perspective. Not readily swayed by warm sentiments or humanitarian impulses, decision makers who, like Nixon, are dispositionally low on agreeableness might hold certain advantages when it comes to balancing competing interests or bargaining with adversaries, such as China in Nixon's time. In international affairs, Nixon was tough, pragmatic, and coolly rational. Trump seems capable of a similar toughness and strategic pragmatism, although the cool rationality does not always seem to fit, probably because Trump's disagreeableness appears so strongly motivated by anger.

    In domestic politics, Nixon was widely recognized to be cunning, callous, cynical, and Machiavellian, even by the standards of American politicians. Empathy was not his strong suit. This sounds a lot like Donald Trump, too-except you have to add the ebullient extroversion, the relentless showmanship, and the larger-than-life celebrity. Nixon could never fill a room the way Trump can.

    ... ... ...

    During and after World War II, psychologists conceived of the authoritarian personality as a pattern of attitudes and values revolving around adherence to society's traditional norms, submission to authorities who personify or reinforce those norms, and antipathy-to the point of hatred and aggression-toward those who either challenge in-group norms or lie outside their orbit. Among white Americans, high scores on measures of authoritarianism today tend to be associated with prejudice against a wide range of "out-groups," including homosexuals, African Americans, immigrants, and Muslims. Authoritarianism is also associated with suspiciousness of the humanities and the arts, and with cognitive rigidity, militaristic sentiments, and Christian fundamentalism.

    When individuals with authoritarian proclivities fear that their way of life is being threatened, they may turn to strong leaders who promise to keep them safe-leaders like Donald Trump. In a national poll conducted recently by the political scientist Matthew MacWilliams, high levels of authoritarianism emerged as the single strongest predictor of expressing political support for Donald Trump. Trump's promise to build a wall on the Mexican border to keep illegal immigrants out and his railing against Muslims and other outsiders have presumably fed that dynamic.

    As the social psychologist Jesse Graham has noted, Trump appeals to an ancient fear of contagion, which analogizes out-groups to parasites, poisons, and other impurities. In this regard, it is perhaps no psychological accident that Trump displays a phobia of germs, and seems repulsed by bodily fluids, especially women's. He famously remarked that Megyn Kelly of Fox News had "blood coming out of her wherever," and he repeatedly characterized Hillary Clinton's bathroom break during a Democratic debate as "disgusting." Disgust is a primal response to impurity. On a daily basis, Trump seems to experience more disgust, or at least to say he does, than most people do.

    The authoritarian mandate is to ensure the security, purity, and goodness of the in-group-to keep the good stuff in and the bad stuff out. In the 1820s, white settlers in Georgia and other frontier areas lived in constant fear of American Indian tribes. They resented the federal government for not keeping them safe from what they perceived to be a mortal threat and a corrupting contagion. Responding to these fears, President Jackson pushed hard for the passage of the Indian Removal Act, which eventually led to the forced relocation of 45,000 American Indians. At least 4,000 Cherokees died on the Trail of Tears, which ran from Georgia to the Oklahoma territory.

    An American strand of authoritarianism may help explain why the thrice-married, foul-mouthed Donald Trump should prove to be so attractive to white Christian evangelicals. As Jerry Falwell Jr. told The New York Times in February, "All the social issues-traditional family values, abortion-are moot if isis blows up some of our cities or if the borders are not fortified." Rank-and-file evangelicals "are trying to save the country," Falwell said. Being "saved" has a special resonance among evangelicals-saved from sin and damnation, of course, but also saved from the threats and impurities of a corrupt and dangerous world.

    Trump appeals to an ancient fear of contagion, which analogizes out-groups to parasites and poisons.

    When my research associates and I once asked politically conservative Christians scoring high on authoritarianism to imagine what their life (and their world) might have been like had they never found religious faith, many described utter chaos-families torn apart, rampant infidelity and hate, cities on fire, the inner rings of hell. By contrast, equally devout politically liberal Christians who scored low on authoritarianism described a barren world depleted of all resources, joyless and bleak, like the arid surface of the moon. For authoritarian Christians, a strong faith-like a strong leader-saves them from chaos and tamps down fears and conflicts. Donald Trump is a savior, even if he preens and swears, and waffles on the issue of abortion.

    In December, on the campaign trail in Raleigh, North Carolina, Trump stoked fears in his audience by repeatedly saying that "something bad is happening" and "something really dangerous is going on." He was asked by a 12-year-old girl from Virginia, "I'm scared-what are you going to do to protect this country?"

    Trump responded: "You know what, darling? You're not going to be scared anymore. They're going to be scared."

    ... ... ...

    In the negotiations for the Menie Estate in Scotland, Trump wore Tom Griffin down by making one outlandish demand after another and bargaining hard on even the most trivial issues of disagreement. He never quit fighting. "Sometimes, part of making a deal is denigrating your competition," Trump writes. When local residents refused to sell properties that Trump needed in order to finish the golf resort, he ridiculed them on the Late Show With David Letterman and in newspapers, describing the locals as rubes who lived in "disgusting" ramshackle hovels. As D'Antonio recounts in Never Enough, Trump's attacks incurred the enmity of millions in the British Isles, inspired an award-winning documentary highly critical of Trump (You've Been Trumped), and transformed a local farmer and part-time fisherman named Michael Forbes into a national hero. After painting the words no golf course on his barn and telling Trump he could "take his money and shove it up his arse," Forbes received the 2012 Top Scot honor at the Glenfiddich Spirit of Scotland Awards. (That same year, Trump's golf course was completed nonetheless. He promised that its construction would create 1,200 permanent jobs in the Aberdeen area, but to date, only about 200 have been documented.)

    Trump's recommendations for successful deal making include less antagonistic strategies: "protect the downside" (anticipate what can go wrong), "maximize your options," "know your market," "get the word out," and "have fun." As president, Trump would negotiate better trade deals with China, he says, guarantee a better health-care system by making deals with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals, and force Mexico to agree to a deal whereby it would pay for a border wall. On the campaign trail, he has often said that he would simply pick up the phone and call people-say, a CEO wishing to move his company to Mexico-in order to make propitious deals for the American people.

    Trump's focus on personal relationships and one-on-one negotiating pays respect to a venerable political tradition. For example, a contributor to Lyndon B. Johnson's success in pushing through civil-rights legislation and other social programs in the 1960s was his unparalleled expertise in cajoling lawmakers. Obama, by contrast, has been accused of failing to put in the personal effort needed to forge close and productive relationships with individual members of Congress.

    ... ... ...

    For psychologists, it is almost impossible to talk about Donald Trump without using the word narcissism. Asked to sum up Trump's personality for an article in Vanity Fair, Howard Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard, responded, "Remarkably narcissistic." George Simon, a clinical psychologist who conducts seminars on manipulative behavior, says Trump is "so classic that I'm archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there's no better example" of narcissism. "Otherwise I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He's like a dream come true."

    When I walk north on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, where I live, I often stop to admire the sleek tower that Trump built on the Chicago River. But why did he have to stencil his name in 20‑foot letters across the front? As nearly everybody knows, Trump has attached his name to pretty much everything he has ever touched-from casinos to steaks to a so-called university that promised to teach students how to become rich. Self-references pervade Trump's speeches and conversations, too. When, in the summer of 1999, he stood up to offer remarks at his father's funeral, Trump spoke mainly about himself. It was the toughest day of his own life, Trump began. He went on to talk about Fred Trump's greatest achievement: raising a brilliant and renowned son. As Gwenda Blair writes in her three-generation biography of the Trump family, The Trumps, "the first-person singular pronouns, the I and me and my, eclipsed the he and his. Where others spoke of their memories of Fred Trump, [Donald] spoke of Fred Trump's endorsement."

    ... Highly narcissistic people are always trying to draw attention to themselves. Repeated and inordinate self-reference is a distinguishing feature of their personality.

    Narcissism in presidents is a double-edged sword. It is associated with historians' ratings of "greatness"-but also with impeachment resolutions.

    To consider the role of narcissism in Donald Trump's life is to go beyond the dispositional traits of the social actor-beyond the high extroversion and low agreeableness, beyond his personal schemata for decision making-to try to figure out what motivates the man. What does Donald Trump really want? What are his most valued life goals?

    Narcissus wanted, more than anything else, to love himself. People with strong narcissistic needs want to love themselves, and they desperately want others to love them too-or at least admire them, see them as brilliant and powerful and beautiful, even just see them, period. The fundamental life goal is to promote the greatness of the self, for all to see. "I'm the king of Palm Beach," Trump told the journalist Timothy O'Brien for his 2005 book, TrumpNation. Celebrities and rich people "all come over" to Mar-a-Lago, Trump's exclusive Palm Beach estate. "They all eat, they all love me, they all kiss my ass. And then they all leave and say, 'Isn't he horrible.' But I'm the king."

    The renowned psychoanalytic theorist Heinz Kohut argued that narcissism stems from a deficiency in early-life mirroring: The parents fail to lovingly reflect back the young boy's (or girl's) own budding grandiosity, leaving the child in desperate need of affirmation from others. Accordingly, some experts insist that narcissistic motivations cover up an underlying insecurity. But others argue that there is nothing necessarily compensatory, or even immature, about certain forms of narcissism. Consistent with this view, I can find no evidence in the biographical record to suggest that Donald Trump experienced anything but a loving relationship with his mother and father. Narcissistic people like Trump may seek glorification over and over, but not necessarily because they suffered from negative family dynamics as children. Rather, they simply cannot get enough. The parental praise and strong encouragement that might reinforce a sense of security for most boys and young men may instead have added rocket fuel to Donald Trump's hot ambitions.

    Ever since grade school, Trump has wanted to be No. 1. Attending New York Military Academy for high school, he was relatively popular among his peers and with the faculty, but he did not have any close confidants. As both a coach and an admiring classmate recall in The Trumps, Donald stood out for being the most competitive young man in a very competitive environment. His need to excel-to be the best athlete in school, for example, and to chart out the most ambitious future career-may have crowded out intense friendships by making it impossible for him to show the kind of weakness and vulnerability that true intimacy typically requires.

    Whereas you might think that narcissism would be part of the job description for anybody aspiring to become the chief executive of the United States, American presidents appear to have varied widely on this psychological construct. In a 2013 Psychological Science research article, behavioral scientists ranked U.S. presidents on characteristics of what the authors called "grandiose narcissism." Lyndon Johnson scored the highest, followed closely by Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson. Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton were next. Millard Fillmore ranked the lowest. Correlating these ranks with objective indices of presidential performance, the researchers found that narcissism in presidents is something of a double-edged sword. On the positive side, grandiose narcissism is associated with initiating legislation, public persuasiveness, agenda setting, and historians' ratings of "greatness." On the negative side, it is also associated with unethical behavior and congressional impeachment resolutions.

    In business, government, sports, and many other arenas, people will put up with a great deal of self-serving and obnoxious behavior on the part of narcissists as long as the narcissists continually perform at high levels. Steve Jobs was, in my opinion, every bit Trump's equal when it comes to grandiose narcissism. He heaped abuse on colleagues, subordinates, and friends; cried, at age 27, when he learned that Time magazine had not chosen him to be Man of the Year; and got upset when he received a congratulatory phone call, following the iPad's introduction in 2010, from President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, rather than the president himself. Unlike Trump, he basically ignored his kids, to the point of refusing to acknowledge for some time that one of them was his.

    Psychological research demonstrates that many narcissists come across as charming, witty, and charismatic upon initial acquaintance. They can attain high levels of popularity and esteem in the short term. As long as they prove to be successful and brilliant-like Steve Jobs-they may be able to weather criticism and retain their exalted status. But more often than not, narcissists wear out their welcome. Over time, people become annoyed, if not infuriated, by their self-centeredness. When narcissists begin to disappoint those whom they once dazzled, their descent can be especially precipitous. There is still truth today in the ancient proverb: Pride goeth before the fall.

    ... ... ...

    In middle age, George W. Bush formulated a life story that traced the transformation of a drunken ne'er-do-well into a self-regulated man of God. Key events in the story were his decision to marry a steady librarian at age 31, his conversion to evangelical Christianity in his late 30s, and his giving up alcohol forever the day after his 40th birthday party. By atoning for his sins and breaking his addiction, Bush was able to recover the feeling of control and freedom that he had enjoyed as a young boy growing up in Midland, Texas. Extending his narrative to the story of his country, Bush believed that American society could recapture the wholesome family values and small-town decency of yesteryear, by embracing a brand of compassionate conservatism.

    ... ... ...

    Donald Trump grew up in a wealthy 1950s family with a mother who was devoted to the children and a father who was devoted to work. Parked in front of their mansion in Jamaica Estates, Queens, was a Cadillac for him and a Rolls-Royce for her. All five Trump children-Donald was the fourth-enjoyed a family environment in which their parents loved them and loved each other. And yet the first chapter in Donald Trump's story, as he tells it today, expresses nothing like Bush's gentle nostalgia or Obama's curiosity. Instead, it is saturated with a sense of danger and a need for toughness: The world cannot be trusted.

    Fred Trump made a fortune building, owning, and managing apartment complexes in Queens and Brooklyn. On weekends, he would occasionally take one or two of his children along to inspect buildings. "He would drag me around with him while he collected small rents in tough sections of Brooklyn," Donald recalls in Crippled America. "It's not fun being a landlord. You have to be tough." On one such trip, Donald asked Fred why he always stood to the side of the tenant's door after ringing the bell. "Because sometimes they shoot right through the door," his father replied. While Fred's response may have been an exaggeration, it reflected his worldview. He trained his sons to be tough competitors, because his own experience taught him that if you were not vigilant and fierce, you would never survive in business. His lessons in toughness dovetailed with Donald's inborn aggressive temperament. "Growing up in Queens, I was a pretty tough kid," Trump writes. "I wanted to be the toughest kid in the neighborhood."

    Fred applauded Donald's toughness and encouraged him to be a "killer," but he was not too keen about the prospects of juvenile delinquency. His decision to send his 13-year-old son off to military school, so as to alloy aggression with discipline, followed Donald's trip on the subway into Manhattan, with a friend, to purchase switchblades. As Trump tells it decades later, New York Military Academy was "a tough, tough place. There were ex–drill sergeants all over the place." The instructors "used to beat the shit out of you; those guys were rough."

    Military school reinforced the strong work ethic and sense of discipline Trump had learned from his father. And it taught him how to deal with aggressive men, like his intimidating baseball coach, Theodore Dobias:

    What I did, basically, was to convey that I respected his authority, but that he didn't intimidate me. It was a delicate balance. Like so many strong guys, Dobias had a tendency to go for the jugular if he smelled weakness. On the other hand, if he sensed strength but you didn't try to undermine him, he treated you like a man.

    ... ... ...

    In Trump's own words from a 1981 People interview, the fundamental backdrop for his life narrative is this: "Man is the most vicious of all animals, and life is a series of battles ending in victory or defeat." The protagonist of this story is akin to what the great 20th-century scholar and psychoanalyst Carl Jung identified in myth and folklore as the archetypal warrior. According to Jung, the warrior's greatest gifts are courage, discipline, and skill; his central life task is to fight for what matters; his typical response to a problem is to slay it or otherwise defeat it; his greatest fear is weakness or impotence. The greatest risk for the warrior is that he incites gratuitous violence in others, and brings it upon himself.

    Trump loves boxing and football, and once owned a professional football team. In the opening segment of The Apprentice, he welcomes the television audience to a brutal Darwinian world:

    New York. My city. Where the wheels of the global economy never stop turning. A concrete metropolis of unparalleled strength and purpose that drives the business world. Manhattan is a tough place. This island is the real jungle. If you're not careful, it can chew you up and spit you out. But if you work hard, you can really hit it big, and I mean really big.

    The story here is not so much about making money. As Trump has written, "money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score." The story instead is about coming out on top.

    As president, Donald Trump promises, he would make America great again. In Crippled America, he says that a first step toward victory is building up the armed forces: "Everything begins with a strong military. Everything." The enemies facing the United States are more terrifying than those the hero has confronted in Queens and Manhattan. "There has never been a more dangerous time," Trump says. Members of isis "are medieval barbarians" who must be pursued "relentlessly wherever they are, without stopping, until every one of them is dead." Less frightening but no less belligerent are our economic competitors, like the Chinese. They keep beating us. We have to beat them.

    Andrew Jackson displayed many of the same psychological qualities that we see in Trump.

    Economic victory is one thing; starting and winning real wars is quite another. In some ways, Trump appears to be less prone to military action than certain other candidates. He has strongly criticized George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, and has cautioned against sending American troops to Syria.

    That said, I believe there is good reason to fear Trump's incendiary language regarding America's enemies. David Winter, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, analyzed U.S. presidential inaugural addresses and found that those presidents who laced their speeches with power-oriented, aggressive imagery were more likely than those who didn't to lead the country into war. The rhetoric that Trump uses to characterize both his own life story and his attitudes toward America's foes is certainly aggressive. And, as noted, his extroversion and narcissism suggest a willingness to take big risks-actions that history will remember. Tough talk can sometimes prevent armed conflict, as when a potential adversary steps down in fear. But belligerent language may also incite nationalistic anger..., and provoke the rival nations at whom Trump takes aim.

    ... ... ...

    Nearly two centuries ago, President Andrew Jackson displayed many of the same psychological characteristics we see in Donald Trump-the extroversion and social dominance, the volatile temper, the shades of narcissism, the populist authoritarian appeal. Jackson was, and remains, a controversial figure in American history. Nonetheless, it appears that Thomas Jefferson had it wrong when he characterized Jackson as completely unfit to be president, a dangerous man who choked on his own rage. In fact, Jackson's considerable success in dramatically expanding the power of the presidency lay partly in his ability to regulate his anger and use it strategically to promote his agenda.

    What's more, Jackson personified a narrative that inspired large parts of America and informed his presidential agenda. His life story appealed to the common man because Jackson himself was a common man-one who rose from abject poverty and privation to the most exalted political position in the land. Amid the early rumblings of Southern secession, Jackson mobilized Americans to believe in and work hard for the Union. The populism that his detractors feared would lead to mob rule instead connected common Americans to a higher calling-a sovereign unity of states committed to democracy. The Frenchman Michel Chevalier, a witness to American life in the 1830s, wrote that the throngs of everyday people who admired Jackson and found sustenance and substance for their own life story in his "belong to history, they partake of the grand; they are the episodes of a wondrous epic which will bequeath a lasting memory to posterity, that of the coming of democracy."

    Who, really, is Donald Trump? What's behind the actor's mask? I can discern little more than narcissistic motivations and a complementary personal narrative about winning at any cost. It is as if Trump has invested so much of himself in developing and refining his socially dominant role that he has nothing left over to create a meaningful story for his life, or for the nation. It is always Donald Trump playing Donald Trump, fighting to win, but never knowing why.

    [May 20, 2016] Quelle Surprise! US Big Business Prefers Clinton to Trump by 21 Margin

    Goldwater girl was virtually on a par with John Kasich among big Republican donors
    Notable quotes:
    "... The thing about the Clintons is that they are, as politicians, honest. When bought, they stay bought. Hence their popularity with businesses. Trump is far too much of a wheeler dealer to stay bought, this is what seems to worry the oligarchy. ..."
    "... Later, I developed an alternate theory for why Obama and Clinton were pushed front. As President, either could be trusted to betray their base and lose badly, divide their base (and give them no motive to energize them) setting the stage for zombie resurrection of the Republicans in 2010 - and also, continue the Republican militaristic anti-civll-liberties, shadow-bank friendly, torture-friendly Bush policies. I have no idea if either theory was correct. ..."
    "... 2016: A year ago, we had the media pushing Clinton hard, as this implacable juggernaut, with opponents portrayed as annoying gnats at her heels. Sanders came up and got coverage, perhaps because of his major fundraising, perhaps because he was another candidate they could trust. Other candidates got minimal coverage. ..."
    "... So: are they being set up for the Fall again? Or is Clinton being engineered as our next President? ..."
    "... Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system? Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian bombing" and so forth? ..."
    "... Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system? Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian bombing" and so forth? ..."
    "... The only people who believe that are the people who also believe that is what Obama will do. ..."
    naked capitalism

    Politico reported in early May, when Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, that the Clinton campaign started calling major Republican donors almost immediately , pitching her as the natural candidate for them. Many of the recipients were cool to the appear, reasoning that Clinton would probably prevail regardless. But that was before the polls showed that Trump becoming the virtually official Republican nominee meant he quickly moved in national polls to score a mere few points behind Clinton, when the widespread assumption had been that he would top out at a much lower level.

    And it's not as if Clinton didn't already have real pull among big Republican givers. This chart from Time Magazine shows as of late 2015 where 2012 Romney donors were sending their Presidential bucks in this cycle. You can see that Clinton was virtually on a par with John Kasich

    The Financial Times surveyed major US business groups and found they greatly prefer Clinton . Mind you, "greatly prefer" translates as "loathes Trump, deems her to be less obviously terrible." Clinton is a status quo candidate, and as much as she would probably shake her finger at businessmen more than they'd like, she won't break any big rice bowls. From the Financial Times :

    In the most comprehensive survey to date of business views on the US election, half of the trade groups who responded to the FT said they would break from the traditional party of business to back Mrs Clinton - despite reservations about the Democratic front-runner's candidacy.

    Only a quarter of respondents preferred Mr Trump, who has run a caustic campaign marked by populist attacks on business. But support for Mrs Clinton was often lukewarm, sparked more by alarm over the presumptive Republican nominee than enthusiasm for her..

    The FT polled 53 Washington-based trade associations and received responses from 16 of them that lobby for nearly 100,000 businesses with combined annual revenues of more than $3.5tn. A quarter of respondents said they could not decide which candidate would be best for business because it was too early to judge their policy platforms, or replied "none of the above".

    Several trade groups expressed dismay that for the first time in living memory they faced a presidential race without a clear pro-business candidate, dashing their hopes of a new dawn after nearly eight years of what they see as over-regulation by the Obama administration.

    Mr [Bill] Reinsch, speaking shortly before retiring from his trade group [companies ranging from Cisco to General Electric to Procter & Gamble ] this month, added: "The other thing [companies] want is predictability, which is the antithesis of Trump, who brags about being unpredictable."…

    The business groups that said they would prefer Mrs Clinton tended to represent more internationally-minded members in fast-moving or technology-dependent sectors. The smaller core of Trump support came from more domestic-oriented sectors and those hurt by the Democratic causes of environmentalism and trade unions.

    PlutoniumKun , May 19, 2016 at 10:10 am

    The thing about the Clintons is that they are, as politicians, honest. When bought, they stay bought. Hence their popularity with businesses. Trump is far too much of a wheeler dealer to stay bought, this is what seems to worry the oligarchy.

    John Morrison , May 19, 2016 at 10:38 am

    I've been wondering… What will really happen in the Fall? All I know is that things will be interesting, as in cursed. Past history, as I remember: In 2000, the media was quite nice to Candidate Bush - someone they could sit down and have a beer with. He was the front-runner before a single primary or caucus was held. Contrast with the serial lying about Candidate Gore, accompanied by serious coverage of third-party Candidate Nader's campaign.

    2008: on the Democratic side, Obama and Clinton were front-runners before a single primary or caucus was held. My idea back then was that whoever would win would be set up for the Fall (note the pun). Clinton was subject to the Clinton Rules. Obama had the worst post-9/11 name possible for a Presidential candidate, not to mention being black.

    Of course, economic reality intervened. Later, I developed an alternate theory for why Obama and Clinton were pushed front. As President, either could be trusted to betray their base and lose badly, divide their base (and give them no motive to energize them) setting the stage for zombie resurrection of the Republicans in 2010 - and also, continue the Republican militaristic anti-civll-liberties, shadow-bank friendly, torture-friendly Bush policies. I have no idea if either theory was correct.

    In 2012, we had minimal coverage of primarying Obama, or of third-party candidates.

    2016: A year ago, we had the media pushing Clinton hard, as this implacable juggernaut, with opponents portrayed as annoying gnats at her heels. Sanders came up and got coverage, perhaps because of his major fundraising, perhaps because he was another candidate they could trust. Other candidates got minimal coverage.

    So: are they being set up for the Fall again? Or is Clinton being engineered as our next President?

    Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system? Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian bombing" and so forth?

    Vatch , May 19, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system? Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian bombing" and so forth?

    The only people who believe that are the people who also believe that is what Obama will do.

    [May 20, 2016] Booker 'Let Bernie make his own decisions'

    www.politico.com

    POLITICO

    Adam Sinclair · Charlton, Massachusetts Hillary Clinton simply doesn't have enough delegates or votes to win the Democratic Primary. She is mathematically incapable of winning at this juncture and therefore must rely on her paid Superdelegaters to award her the nomination.

    If the Superdelegate are truly interested in defeating Donald Trump and NOT alienating the largest block of generational voters in the country...they will select Sanders as the nonminee. If they do not select Sanders not only with the Democratic Party lose to Trump but they will cease to be a viable political party in future elections.

    Without the MASSIVE ... See More Like · Reply · 3 · 4 hrs 李淼然 Barack Obama needed around 300-400 superdelegates to push him over the line. Pretty much every Democratic nominee (outside of incumbent presidents) had to use superdelegates to get past the threshold. As far as I can remember, since the modern application of the delegate system in the Democratic nomination system, every single non-incumbent candidate had to use superdelegates.

    So, my question is - why are you holding Clinton to a higher standard to win the Democratic nomination? She doesn't have to get the majority of the pledged delegates, she just has to get the majority of the delegates (s ... See More Like · Reply · 7 · 4 hrs · Edited Adam Sinclair · Charlton, Massachusetts 李淼然 Clinton will not win the Primary. She doesn't have the delegates. Voters are totally irrelevant in the Superdelegate Primary system.

    If Superdelegates exist to prevent idiot voters from nominating an obvious general election loser...then clearly they should support Bernie Sanders right? Like · Reply · 3 hrs Adam Sinclair · Charlton, Massachusetts Yes. Hillary tied/won the popular vote but the Establishment wanted Obama so they gave all of Michigan's "undecided" votes to Obama even though he wasn't on the ballot there. The superdelegates went with him bc, lets face it, Obama is a WAY more amiable human being than Hillary.

    The establishment has been forcing candidates on us for a long time. Obama promptly sold out to Wall Street after being elected. No prosecutions. Not one. Cheryl Onstad Adam Sinclair Obama also won the popular vote by a slim margin. Supers went with Obama because he won the pledged delegates. You are making things up.

    [May 07, 2016] The smug Clinton acolytes blame the voters, always deflect blame

    Notable quotes:
    "... Wasserman is a great replacement for him as a stunningly inept strategist. "In the summer of 1994, Coelho was the principal Democratic political strategist during the run-up to the mid-term Congressional elections. Officially, he was Senior Advisor to the Democratic National Committee. ..."
    "... The Republican Party won a landslide victory in the fall congressional elections, capturing both the House and Senate by commanding margins." ..."
    "... I was trying to be "polite" to temper the rage I feel at these dishonest people who pretend they even comprehend the word progressive and neatly sidestep the role the Koch Brothers played. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    Kevin P Brown -> TeeJayzed Addy 4 May 2016 17:17

    Bill and Obama seem to follow the strategy to lose the house and senate. But the smug Clinton acolytes blame the voters. Always deflect blame eh?

    Wasserman is a great replacement for him as a stunningly inept strategist. "In the summer of 1994, Coelho was the principal Democratic political strategist during the run-up to the mid-term Congressional elections. Officially, he was Senior Advisor to the Democratic National Committee.

    The Republican Party won a landslide victory in the fall congressional elections, capturing both the House and Senate by commanding margins."

    Kevin P Brown -> TeeJayzed Addy , 2016-05-04 22:13:28

    I was trying to be "polite" to temper the rage I feel at these dishonest people who pretend they even comprehend the word progressive and neatly sidestep the role the Koch Brothers played.

    Now we get more of the same. I am part of the 1% financially but I was raised to understand it was all going to get better for the poor.

    But yeah must have been Fox news who MADE Bill get into bed with these creeps. I can't sit back smugly and proclaim I am alright jack I have 4 kids and I am horrified the world they will inherit.

    [May 07, 2016] I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is doing.

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is a constant whining from the Clinton side about Fox news smears etc. One would believe that with all her supposed experience, she lacked the imagination to see the consequences of her actions with the email. Myself, this is just one indicator among many that she has learned nothing, her experience is flawed as her judgement is time and time again flawed. ..."
    "... The Kochs helped finance the Democratic Leadership Committee with Bill, Hill, McAuliffe, Tony Coelho (remember him?) and the rest of the "Third Way" Democrats who whored themselves to the first wave of christian-jihadist-wacko GOP congressmen swept into power in 1994, and it was all downhill from there, with the Republicans writing draconian legislation, the Dems rolling over, and Dirty Little Billy claiming it as a Great Leap Forward. ..."
    "... Much as I despise Drumpf it worked for him, he openly railed against the GOP establishment which fought him to the bitter end with their last champions pulling out of the race. The people had spoken (most of it crazy talk), but the Democrats can't ignore the anti-Clinton sentiment. Bernie was a nobody at the beginning because all the focus was on Clinton, but more coverage was given to Bernie and people got to know what he stood for things have changed. ..."
    "... For example, what about the deregulation of Wall Street by President Clinton and the economic crisis eight years later, that after the next eight years Hillary Clinton took over half a million dollars from Goldman Sachs for three speeches? - Unintended consequence! ..."
    "... What about voting for the Iraq war at a time when Hillary Clinton was the leader of the Democrats in the US Congress and the loss of people and money that followed after that, not to mention the rise of terrorism as a consequence? - Unintended consequences, too! ..."
    "... What about turning Libya into a failed state, and exclamation, "We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!", after which four US embassy staff, including Ambassador Stevens died, and after which Clinton lied to the American public about events that led to their deaths? - Unintended consequences! ..."
    "... And, last but not least, what about NAFTA and other international trade agreements, all of them supported by Clinton to this day, although deprived and still depriving millions of American workers from their jobs? - Unintended consequence! ..."
    "... I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is doing. ..."
    "... A Shillary in denial... Do you need the NYT or Guardian to report it to make it true? Many of the biggest companies in the US-the biggest polluters, the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the biggest insurance companies, the biggest financial companies-gave to the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State and then they lobbied Secretary Clinton and the state department for "favors." Even foreign governments have given to the foundation, including that stalwart of democratic principles Saudi Arabia, who gave at least $10 million… Then magically they had a $26 billion plane deal with Boeing. ..."
    "... Alleged pragmatist, but more likely Hillary will actually be a pushover on social and economic issues and a hawk on foreign policy. She is more of a Republican than Trump. ..."
    "... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
    theguardian.com
    Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-04 21:19:27

    Ammunition : considerations that can be used to support one's case in debate

    There is a constant whining from the Clinton side about Fox news smears etc. One would believe that with all her supposed experience, she lacked the imagination to see the consequences of her actions with the email. Myself, this is just one indicator among many that she has learned nothing, her experience is flawed as her judgement is time and time again flawed.

    She has handed the FBI and Trump AMMUNITION. Not me, not you. She created this mess. Her supporters have 100% certainty that this particular issue is not an issue. They hand wave away the FBI. They shut down any discussion as just another smear manufactured out of thin air.

    Probity : the quality of having strong moral principles; honesty and decency

    We all get to decide each candidates probity. That I find her lacking is based on her actions alone, not on some lens provided by Fox news. If she were honest, she would admit that there is a risk. She states there is no risk. If her chickens come home to roost, we get Trump. Can I get odds from a bookie on the outcome of the FBI investigation? A genuine question as so many here revel in quoting the odds quoted by bookies.

    So lets gamble. Let's get to the race track and study form and history and see if the bookies have fully transparent info on all the factors leading to a win or loss. How have we come to be here? That we are is a sign of the dysfunction we live in politically. Clinton is now immune to all present and future critical thinking because ...... because she was smeared in the pass. Free pass. Sometimes ..... sometimes the King is actually naked and no one cares to call attention to that reality.

    TeeJayzed Addy -> Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-04 21:16:18
    It was not simply an "entanglement".

    The Kochs helped finance the Democratic Leadership Committee with Bill, Hill, McAuliffe, Tony Coelho (remember him?) and the rest of the "Third Way" Democrats who whored themselves to the first wave of christian-jihadist-wacko GOP congressmen swept into power in 1994, and it was all downhill from there, with the Republicans writing draconian legislation, the Dems rolling over, and Dirty Little Billy claiming it as a Great Leap Forward.

    list12345 , 2016-05-04 21:14:04
    "Shock victory" is another example of lazy, factually incorrect mass media journalism. Bernie ran an on the ground campaign in Indiana for 2 moths prior to yesterday's primary win. I should know, as our family did volunteer door-to-door canvasing for the first time over a couple weekends. We also attended the rally on Monday and it was great!

    Don't give up Bernie supporters, as we have momentum! Bernie's an honest man with fair and just principles. Our country needs such a leader and not another paid-off crony or deranged man-child.

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 21:01:18
    "Haven't you pissed off minority voters enough?"

    Again as always a deflection from the real point, documented over and over as to the long tanking DLC led strategy of leading with Southern States. Nothing to do with blacks, everything to do with Southern Conservatives. But yes, as always intellectually "honest". Innuendo. You choose to ignore the systems and structures put in place for reasons. I choose to see them.

    People like you choose to ignore the DLC history and the entanglement with the Koch Brothers who were so so happy Bill Clinton pushed the DNC into Republican territory, while we are all supposed to pretend that because the GOP is so bad bad bad, it gives a free pass to the DNC for the right wards ever rightwards shifting and the bandying of progressiveness on social issues that cost nothing, and the true position of the modern DLC as a money machine, with a purpose of existing to garner power.

    All you "progressives" love to talk about angry white man yet have zero answer to :

    ""In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."

    The fact that the above enrages me matters not to you, as you have your BernieBro Angry White man meme to deflect from real discussion about solutions. The real solution starts with getting the politicians beholden to the voters alone, not to corporate interests. That is Job One. Once that blockade is removed, then we can move on to poverty and violence as immutable links and solving them. 85% ...... 85% of the American people agree with this action. is it difficult? Yes. Wont happen however if we demand on smug entitled people throwing deflections and memes all over the place. "I am all right Jack, fuck you" should be the bumper-sticker of the Clinton supporters.

    Eugene Harvey -> Palomina , 2016-05-04 20:54:08
    Much as I despise Drumpf it worked for him, he openly railed against the GOP establishment which fought him to the bitter end with their last champions pulling out of the race. The people had spoken (most of it crazy talk), but the Democrats can't ignore the anti-Clinton sentiment. Bernie was a nobody at the beginning because all the focus was on Clinton, but more coverage was given to Bernie and people got to know what he stood for things have changed.

    The question for the Democrats is who is more likely to win the General against Drumpf? Who is more likely to win over the swing votes of those not affiliated to a party?

    The message is load and clear there is a lot of anti-establishment sentiment out there and Clinton is firmly seen as part of it.
    Drumpf having won his first leg of the race will no doubt moderate his rhetoric to appeal to a broader audience and look to grab a larger portion of the swing votes.

    In the bigger picture, Sanders is more likely to succeed against Drumof than the institutional Clinton.

    nnedjo , 2016-05-04 20:28:06
    If you ask, what is the purpose of the election, the answer is, elections should be used for two things:
    • First, that some politicians will be rewarded by the voters, who will entrust the government to them.
    • And second, but no less important, that some politicians will be punished by the voters for their past mistakes, in a way that will refuse to give them their votes. So, this second function of the elections is perhaps even more important because it ensures that politicians are held accountable for their previous actions.

    Now, if you look at these elections, you will notice that this is totally turned upside down in the case of Hillary Clinton.

    Her husband has created mass incarceration, and she, as the first lady, was the main promoter of it. And now she says, "Oops, that was an 'unintended consequence'! That is to say, over two million people in prison, many of which serve a sentence for minor offenses is an 'unintended consequence'''

    OK, fine, but what about the fact that she has got the money from the prison lobby?

    If the first was an 'unintended consequence', the latter is certainly not. So these are the things for which in every country on earth some politician would lose any chance to enter the next government. Provided that the politicians are held accountable for their previous actions, which is obviously not the case in the US.

    And, this is just one of the things for which Clinton can be held accountable.

    • For example, what about the deregulation of Wall Street by President Clinton and the economic crisis eight years later, that after the next eight years Hillary Clinton took over half a million dollars from Goldman Sachs for three speeches? - Unintended consequence!
    • What about voting for the Iraq war at a time when Hillary Clinton was the leader of the Democrats in the US Congress and the loss of people and money that followed after that, not to mention the rise of terrorism as a consequence? - Unintended consequences, too!
    • What about turning Libya into a failed state, and exclamation, "We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!", after which four US embassy staff, including Ambassador Stevens died, and after which Clinton lied to the American public about events that led to their deaths? - Unintended consequences!
    • And, last but not least, what about NAFTA and other international trade agreements, all of them supported by Clinton to this day, although deprived and still depriving millions of American workers from their jobs? - Unintended consequence!

    So, as you can see, this is quite a long list, but probably there's more of it that is not listed here, yet. And it will be even more of such "unintended consequences" if Hillary Clinton will be elected for the US president.

    Sandypaws -> RobInTN , 2016-05-04 20:27:29
    Hence why I said 'some form of revolt' instead of 'burn the party down rawr'. The party establishment firmly put themselves behind Clinton early on. This is indisputable. 40+ percent of primary voters went against this in some form. Some will still welcome Clinton, some will tolerate her, some will walk, but the act of voting against establishment preference is already some form of revolt.
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 20:05:19
    You: "self-righteous crap"

    You:"his acolytes will just come up with another dumb ass reason "
    You: "Why didn't you just give it directly to Trump? "
    You: "Bernie, when all's said and done, is a fraud."
    You: "I never did trust politicians who hold mass rallies." ( Nice Nazi smear)
    You: " are already starting to misquote Bernie, and talk about how it's all the fault of "Jewish bankers" Smearing Sanders for your relatives jewish Smears
    You: "She doesn't pretend she's a damn rock star" Smear
    You: " I take it you are a Trump supporter now" Personal smear to me.
    You: "nihilistic" over and over again
    You: deleted reference ot Pope as child molester
    You: "His trip to kiss the Pope's ass was disgusting pandering" So their shared stance on global warming is irrelevant?
    You: "the ass of the world's most powerful homophobe"
    You: "But Bernie has always been a fraud" ( multiple repetitions of this)


    On and on....How self righteous are you?

    "personal insults from you"

    Really? What insults? Intellectually lazy? That is my assessment of you. Not intended as an insult but an assessment of who you are and how you think. Based on reading all of your posts. I pay attention. I find it interesting to figure out motivations.

    " I've got a right to my views"

    Indeed you do. Never ever asked you to to post.

    DebraBrown -> Bronxite , 2016-05-04 19:59:33
    I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is doing.

    Hillary would be 8 more years of the Corporate Oligarchy cementing its hold on our process. Trump might last 4 years... then we can elect a real progressive.

    Sandypaws -> newageblues , 2016-05-04 19:51:46
    SoS is more extrapolation, based off the weakness of her credentials heading into the position. It should be remembered that her lack of experience in foreign policy was one of Obama's attack points in 2008, so to have him suddenly turn around and name her SoS is a bit odd. Specifically:
    The choice of Mrs. Clinton pleased many in the Democratic establishment who admire her strength and skills, and they praised Mr. Obama for putting the rancor of the campaign behind him. "Senator Clinton is a naturally gifted diplomat and would be an inspired choice if she is chosen by President-elect Obama as secretary of state," said Warren Christopher, who held that job under her husband.

    But it could also disappoint many of Mr. Obama's supporters, who worked hard to have him elected instead of Mrs. Clinton and saw him as a vehicle for changing Washington. Mr. Obama argued during the primaries that it was time to move beyond the Clinton era and in particular belittled her claims to foreign policy experience as a first lady who circled the globe."

    Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22obama.html?_r=0

    So read into that what you will.

    What -is- clear is that she got $17.5 million in personal cash out of the deal (Obama agreed to cover campaign debts, she lent her campaign 17.5 million).

    Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/clinton-in-negotiations-f_n_104823.html

    Bob Zavoda , 2016-05-04 19:32:29
    Don't be lulled into a false "horse race" depiction of an especially HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT, planetary-civilization-survival moment. A predominantly, establishment, bankster-owned media, are pushing this epic election of "Main Street vrs wall street", as just another election. Wrong! A fictiion! Lies!

    Over 60% of us didn't vote last election, BECAUSE, only liars and apologists for "empire" oligarchs were running. Today, we see Bernie and perhaps Dr. Stein of the Greens. Only "The Bern" gets media minimal coverage, because he is running as an "Democrat". Indiana and other "open" primaries show, time and time again, the rigged nature of a duopoly electoral fraud. The establishment, wall street banksters and their allies DO NOT, WILL NOT let Bernie win. Do the math and ONLY BERNIE CAN BEAT TRUMP! SO QUIT THE HORSE RACE BS and see the BERN! And jut maybe we will have an inhabitable planet for our grandchildren that is fun to live upon.

    DebraBrown -> Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-04 19:31:40
    Putting it another way... Bernie has made them all look like chumps. They say they cannot get elected without big corporate dollars. Bernie did not sell out, and he raised money easily. He makes the rest of the lousy corrupt bunch look like fools.

    DebraBrown -> macktan894 , 2016-05-04 19:28:51
    Hillary did not concede in 2008 until after ALL the states had voted. Even then, she waited 4 days. What happened between the last primary and 4 days later, when she finally conceded? NEGOTIATIONS. She laid down the terms under which she would support Obama -- all goodies for Hillary, because Hillary Is For Hillary, period.

    Bernie will use the clout we give him to negotiate on behalf of THE PEOPLE at the Democratic Convention. That's the difference between him and self-serving Hillary.

    Looking forward to voting for Bernie in California on June 7. Meanwhile, praying for the FBI to indict Hillary.

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 19:27:01
    Yet for all her long name recognition, her second national presidential campaign, the superdelegates lined up before Sanders announced, with the cunning long term strategy of the DNC "southern firewall" designed to favour conservative candidates, despite all the power players endorsements, despite all the Superpac's, she still is not going to arrive at the convention with the required delegate count for victory. What does that tell us? I know what it tells me. It tells me that there are a lot of people who want more of a continuation of Obama Change. They want real change.

    So sure, she is "winning" a battle in a longer running war of ideas. Let's see how this plays out over the next 8 years.

    Kicking his ass by the way would have been if she reached the required pledged delegates months ago. She could not. Complacency is not a great stance in these times.

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 19:18:45
    "he'd spend it helping progressive candidates"

    Like Hillary has done since 2008? Helping the same old hack politicians, using her cash and her name and yet the people refused to come out and reverse the largest loss of Democratic seats in modern history? Yeah, blame the voters, you have them all pegged. it's never the fault of the politicians is it, it is the lazy voters. Well there is another theory that explains Trump and Sanders: They are sick of the same bullshit put out by the DNC and the GOP. Taking Ted Kennedys seat as an example the safest DNC seat in the nation, decades it sat with the DNC and as soon as he dies, the DNC selects one of your hack ersatz progressives, throws Bill Clinton and Hillary and bags of cash and STILL loses the seat. Was there a message there worth listening to? Not to you, you blame the voters. No no no never blame the DNC. Blame the voters.

    The voters perhaps is tired of what is presented to them as a voting solution. So in the end, your way of doing things has led to voter frustration and here we have Trump. There is a lesson there. Listen or dot listen, but the people are venting there frustration. Trump is a populist disaster, but he is a symptom of a dysfunctional system that needs revision and revision now. But nah! Lets just throw cash into a cesspit of dysfunction.

    Also you sit smugly ignoring the FACTS of Clinton laundering State contributions back into her campaign, leaving little or nothing for State DNC budgets. Ah, you say, this is a smear from Fox news. Um. No. Do you think we are idiots? You must. I assure you we are not idiots. Good luck in November. You will need it.

    Kiara Kiki Jenkins -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 19:16:30
    Bernie hasn't attacked Hillary directly since New York, and he had every right to go after her then, because she was on full offense against Bernie at that time, too, so enough with the innocent victim garbage.
    HJWatermelon , 2016-05-04 19:13:12
    Bernie always does better in open primaries because of the Independent voters. They are more likely to vote Trump in the general election in my opinion. He is going to start hammering Clinton now he is the nominee.
    Bernie should stay in right 'til the end in case anything ever happens with one of the two Clinton investigations. I don't see anything happening now though as the private server investigation appears to have stalled.
    Regarding the second (the Clinton Foundation) the Supreme Court is about to legalise political corruption with the McDonnell case. If that happens democracy is effectively suspended anyway and this is a pointless reality show farce. Policies will be decided by the highest bidder. How can she have broken any laws if there aren't any?

    Good news for women's rights under Clinton though - whilst her Syria no-fly-zone might start WW3, women will probably get to be drafted as well as men...

    RobInTN -> Martin Thompson , 2016-05-04 19:10:49
    Couple of things about this statement

    'Lawyer Hillary who is trained in well being a lawyer she even was a defense lawyer helping someone she believed was guilty of rapeing a 13 year old girl who has said Hillary "put her thru hell"."

    "someone she believed was guilty of rapeing a 13 year old girl"

    Interesting. Clinton discussed what she was thinking at the time with you?

    Or are you suggesting that some accused people should not get legal representation?

    I'm intrigued by the "put her through hell" portion of it. Especially as the case was plea bargained out and never went to trial.

    Freedom54 , 2016-05-04 19:06:41
    It is effortless to identify the ardent obtuse "Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Supporters". Their verbiage and responses are always predicated on emotion and fiction versus an intellectual discourse based on factual information – Quite Like the Superficial Candidates that they blindly support. The 1% Billionaire Oligarchy Ruling Classes Owned Mass Media Outlets is intentionally protecting the Outed Racists Donald Trump and his female Clone Hillary Clinton from Public Scrutiny. They are salivating Like Pavlov's Dog for their "Ultimate Political Reality Show – The Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Presidential Race" waiting to cash-in and profit as they stage and promote their "False Democracy".
    Knowledge = Power = Real Freedom..!
    1. This is why "Anonymous" Noble, Righteous, True American Heroes and Freedom Fighters are stepping in to fill the Fourth Estate void abdicated by America's Billionaire Owned Media to provide the 99% the Truth.
    Anonymous – Message to Hillary Clinton:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTMaIX_JPE4
    Anonymous – Message to Donald Trump:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciavyc6bE7A
    2. CBS CEO and Chief Leslie Moonves: Comments he made at an investor conference last month when he said, "The money is rolling in, and this is fun." Added Moonves: "They're not even talking about issues; they're throwing bombs at each other, and I think the advertising (revenue $) reflects that. This is going to be a very good year for us (CBS). Sorry, it's a terrible thing to say, but bring it on, Donald."
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/daily-show-host-trevor-noah-877273
    3. Why isn't the Media asking Hillary Clinton about the Podesta group in the Panama papers working with the corrupt, Kremlin-run Sberbank, and the two shell companies setup by Bill Clinton (WJC, LLC) and Hillary Clinton (ZFS Holdings, LLC) at a Delaware address (1209 North Orange Street Wilmington, Delaware) that are the same address as 285,000 other companies, many of which were in the Panama papers and linked to laundering and tax avoidance schemes?.
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton?CMP=share_btn_fb
    4. Why isn't the Media asking Hillary Clinton to Release the Transcripts from her numerous $275,000.00 Speeches to Goldman Sachs and the Other Wall Street Banks?
    https://youtu.be/3UkfsEeHUcg
    5. Why don't they ask Hillary Clinton if she would Prosecute her and her husband Bill Clinton's former "Trusted Deputy" Rahm Emanuel the current Mayor of Chicago for establishing a "Gulag" on American soil which allowed the Chicago police to covertly detain and torture more than 7000 people at the Secret Interrogation Center that completely ignored the American "Constitution" and the Bill of Rights at Homan Square?
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/behind-the-disappeared-of-chicagos-homan-square/385964 /
    6. Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight- Hillary, the inevitable liar:
    https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI
    7. Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal:
    https://youtu.be/kypl1MYuKDY
    8. Secretary Clinton Comments on the Passing of Robert Byrd her friend and mentor who is a documented Racist and KKK member:
    https://youtu.be/ryweuBVJMEA
    9. Bill Clinton ATTEMPTS to Justify Robert Byrd's KKK Membership:
    https://youtu.be/8Fg3XNTMzNo
    10. Hillary Clinton & NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio Make Awkward RACIST Joke About CP TIME Colored People Time
    https://youtu.be/pP3syBu4ZDM
    11. Black Lives Matter protesters repeatedly interrupt Bill Clinton in Philadelphia: https://youtu.be/xRrVI5gHVyo
    Can You Say Hypocrisy?
    The only Authentic and Honest Candidate is Bernie Sanders who wants to return America back into a Transparent Citizen Accountable Democracy for the 100%. This is why the Bernie Sanders Army of Noble and Righteous Citizens-the 99% will never Vote or Support either of the Illegitimate 1% Billionaire Anointed Candidates Like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Who Represent the Retention of a False Oligarchy Democracy and Everything That the Decent Noble and Righteous Citizens Despise, Compulsive Pathological Lying, Narcissism, and Insatiable Greed.
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 19:03:07
    "So your plan is for Bernie's opponent to get arrested? "

    Not my plan. Each citizen in this country has a set of was that rule what they can and cannot do. Even Clinton. I have spent a long time explaining my logic of why I believe she has broken various laws. I as a citizen appreciate the FOIA. If you cannot handle the facts of her actions, then what can I say? To me it does not bode well how Clinton comports herself. To you it is not an issue. You choose to ignore the reality of a real and extended FBI investigation. Obama rules the DoJ and the FBI. If it were indeed only a political smear, then he has the power to force Comey to resign. It is not a function of me, it is a function of laws. The investigation not some fevered Fox News plot as much as you with it to be. I understand completely what she has done. I understand why she did what she did.

    Regarding the bolstering the party, it seems it does not bother you the games her suprpac has done with bending the rules just up to the breaking point.

    Frankly, sanders on the back of this, and his supporters need to build an organisation that can put up true progressives. Your opinion is team based, you accept year after year the shift of the DNC orphaning in to centrist republicans. Your choice. I choose not to support this. So that he refused to fund more the same old hack politicians is fine by me. He has over his career supported the DNC with vote after vote after vote. He had the courage to offer "democrats" a real choice in the primaries.

    You again ignore with your blather about mid term motivations the fact that the people would not support the DNC in 2010, 2012, and 2014. People are not stupid, and they see that the change Obama promised is never coming. We can distill into a simple slogan then rich are getting richer even as the American worker gets more and more productive, yet their share of the capitalist pie shrinks and shrinks. The common man sees that Obama care still is not the solution for him and his family when the average deductions are over 5000 a year on top of his premiums and the average coverage is 60% of costs when he gets sat the deductible. He is told about Gold Standard trade agreement negotiated in absolute secrecy, and that cause him discomfort. Some black families see : ""In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."" and understand for all of Clinton's triangulation there is nothing palpable to change that. He sees she is great at trotting up mothers of dead people and Black people as props to gain votes, and he see that perhaps Sanders Class based solutions will help him more, as maybe he is tired of racial divides and knows intuitively Clinton has no real solution to gun crime, spurred on by poverty, nor solutions to poverty itself.

    So get all huffy about the FBI investigation. I lived though the turmoil of Nixon and before his reelection I predicted that he would suffer, as my gut feeling led me to believe he was involved, that he had dirty hands. Continue to believe that genuine logical conclusions and issues are only a rehash of Fix news when they are not. Cheap and nasty way to deflect any and all valid criticism. Is Sanders perfect? far from it, but I believe I know what he stands for and how he thinks.

    "Bernie, when all's said and done, is a fraud."

    Funny but I have concluded that Clinton is a fraud. But you are welcome to vote as you wish. In the end, your fear of Trump? The risk is real and palpable that she will cause disarray to the party if the FBI fins what I believe is obvious, and the risk is her handing the election to Trump. To you? You don't care. You cannot and will not see the risk, preferring to hide like a gormless child behind tortured smear theories rather than standing up as an adult and properly assessing the real risks to the Democratic.

    All the pieces of what she did are there if you care to look. But nah! You are lazy intellectually and it is easier to blame Fox news than to actually look and ponder and conclude the evidence. As are most of the vociferous Clinton fans here. Intellectually lazy.

    DebraBrown , 2016-05-04 18:28:32
    Hillary wins closed primaries, where only the tribalized party faithful participate (and voter suppression and other shenanigans run rampant). Bernie wins open primaries and brings in millions of new voters. Democrats like me, Independents, even Republicans vote for Bernie.

    Newsflash: November will not be a closed primary.

    shepdavis -> PATROKLUS00 , 2016-05-04 18:21:37
    Got that right...

    She loses on the Big 3 Issues, war, Trade & "corruption" to Trumps words and Bernie's life walk. Dems are falling into dreamlala math- Hillary will get women (50%), Blacks (10%) & Hispanics "another 10%). How can she lose.

    Start with GOP women at the end will not vote her way. That BLack and Hispanic percentages are already baked in, and Trump will cater to men, not just white, on the basis avg men have been getting shafted for 40 years now.

    If there is a terror attack, Trump wins big. If the economy goes down he wins too.

    The tea leaves and tarot readers have been all wrong this election.

    & Hill is likely to lose most of the last primaries. Embarassing

    "Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected, and nothing will change." Barack Obama, 2008

    Bronxite -> ID7731327 , 2016-05-04 18:14:50
    Is that HRC new slogan, "Hillary is shit, but at least she's not as shitty as Trump"
    Actually I think she's worse. The DNC turns a blind eye every time she breaks the law, and tries to change the rules for her, but both the RNC and DNC will keep Trump on a short lease.
    scrjim , 2016-05-04 18:14:20
    The Guardian's anti-Bernie agenda is really quite off-putting. Even the article summary is patronising :

    "Despite trailing behind Hillary Clinton in polls, Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters by pulling off his 18th victory of 2016"

    The translation is that the Bernie Sanders constituency is backwards and centred around white males who have lost blue collar jobs to globalisation; in other words he appeals to people who want to turn back time. The inference is that Clinton's group is far broader, more cultured and more progressive. This is patently false. Sanders is popular with young people and with people who are passionate about politics. Clinton's constituency tends to be older and more conservative. Clinton is the establishment candidate Sanders is the beacon of hope.

    talenttruth -> RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-04 18:11:03
    No surprise there. As is it no surprise that ABC is a "subsidiary" of The Walt Disney Company, which has been to the right of Attila-the-Hun since "sweet grandfatherly Walt" himself, who was practically a neo-Nazi politically. Need proof? Walt's cheerful cooperation with McCarthy's House Un American Activities persecution of anyone not sharing Adolph Hitler's political persuasion).

    Disney's movies have always exhibited that nauseating, fake, treacle "sweetness" which all fascists use as "cover" for their actual addiction to fear, hatred, tribalism and Orwellian manipulation.

    So we can hardly be "shocked, shocked, shocked" by ABC's gross "news" bias.

    How about NBC? It's been a corporate "investment football," recently boosted by Comcast from former owner General Electric. You KNOW they're both dedicated to impartial news reporting, right? HA HA HA

    How about CBS? Oh it's owned by Viacom, an "entertainment conglomerate," of course dedicated never to sensationalism or deliberate distraction of the public, but rather, to honest news reporting. Right.

    MSNBC? GE + Microsoft. That of course equals total devotion to unbiased and complete news reporting, even if the news WERE "bad for the Shareholders." Uh huh. (See the pigs flying by).

    CNN? Oh its "daddy" is Time Warner, another paragon of public-spirited democracy.

    Even PBS has fallen. Think that's a "radical statement?" The super right did a twofer on PBS: (1) cut its government funding so as to make it terrified and desperate and then (2) gradually brainwashed PBS into actually being another Corporate PR outlet.

    Non-commercial? PBS? IT LIVES ON CORPORATE ADS. And under those deliberately created survival pressures, even PBS news has collapsed into reporting all news like it's a trivial sports event - Never Delving Deeper, because its Corporate Overlords wouldn't like that.

    So, welcome to the reality of well-entrenched corporate fascism. For that, in part, we can thank Ronnie Puppet Reagan's reversal of a former 50-year policy which did not allow non-media corporations to "buy" the news. May that SOB continue to roast, whereever.

    Bernie Sanders would be all of these Corporate Overlord's worst nightmare. They would have to work "even harder" (yawn, pass the caviar), to blacklist, cover up, lie about the truth he would tell through his bully pulpit. Thus all of THEIR media outlets have worked like little beavers to Cancel the Cancer of Bernie, before he could cause real damage to The Entitled Domain. Ugh.

    PATROKLUS00 , 2016-05-04 18:10:21
    The Democrats, just as blind and foolish in their own way as the GOP, will make a tremendous mistake in nominating HRC. Anyone with an ounce of political insight can see the coming election is going to be about the revolt of the middle class against the Establishment and megacorporations that have been exploiting that class for at least two score years. The politically dimwitted and somnolent American middle class has finally come to realize how they have been used and abused and they aren't taking it anymore. They don't give a damn about foreign policy, single payer or anything else. They are furious at having been used and hoodwinked and they are in full revolt. The stupidity of the Democrats, in not seeing this and running an Avatar of the Establishment, HRC, will make the election very close with a good chance she will lose. Sanders can out Trump Trump on the anti-Establishment issue as polls clearly show, but the Dems are going to shoot themselves in the foot by coronating HRC. With Sanders they could probably sweep Congress also, but with HRC they will at best keep the White House and possibly a very narrow majority in the Senate. HRC is a poor campaigner with an unlikable personality, unlike Elizabeth Warren, and Trump will really mangle Hillary. With Sanders he will not be able to do that because Sanders easily can out anti-establishment Trump for, obviously, Trump too is of the 1% like HRC. There is the slim hope, forlorn as it may be, that the Democrat super-delegates, most of whom are political pros and thus focused on winning, will see the light and nominate Sanders. But the Democrats are usually reliably stupid so look forward to a cliff-hanger in November and very possibly a President Trump.
    DebraBrown , 2016-05-04 18:10:20
    Hillary did not concede in 2008 until after the last state finished voting. The counting was done, and Obama had more delegates. Even then, she waited 4 days before conceding. What went on during those 4 days? Negotiations. No way a super-predator politician like Hillary Clinton was just going to give in, without getting something for herself.

    Here's what Hillary got out of the deal: a cabinet post, Obama's promise of support for her next bid in 2016, and Obama's help paying off her 2008 campaign debt.

    The difference with Bernie is that he is not in this for himself. Bernie stepped up to the plate because America deserves better than another Corporate Tool Politician. When Bernie goes to the convention, he will not be negotiating for himself. He will be fighting for ALL OF US. Bernie fights for The People.

    This is why we need to give him as many delegates as possible. I look forward to voting for Bernie in California on June 7. Furthermore, speaking as a middle aged feminist who has been a registered Dem for 35 years -- I will NEVER vote for Hillary.

    sbabcock -> LanaCvi , 2016-05-04 18:04:13
    A Shillary in denial... Do you need the NYT or Guardian to report it to make it true? Many of the biggest companies in the US-the biggest polluters, the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the biggest insurance companies, the biggest financial companies-gave to the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State and then they lobbied Secretary Clinton and the state department for "favors." Even foreign governments have given to the foundation, including that stalwart of democratic principles Saudi Arabia, who gave at least $10 million… Then magically they had a $26 billion plane deal with Boeing.

    Is that what you're voting for? Does that sound like someone with integrity? hate to break it to you that this information isn't found only on right wing websites. Inform yourself. Can't you see why she'd play games with email? It's all right there, in your face.

    WhiteMale -> cliffstep , 2016-05-04 17:48:28
    Alleged pragmatist, but more likely Hillary will actually be a pushover on social and economic issues and a hawk on foreign policy. She is more of a Republican than Trump.
    Manami , 2016-05-04 17:33:14
    Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!

    The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it.

    [May 07, 2016] Ive been in your position, Ted Cruz. Heres some post-campaign advice by Wendy R Davis

    www.theguardian.com

    While there are plenty of differences (too many for a single column), I am more than happy to share a few nuggets of wisdom I learned post-election with the Gentleman from Texas to help him readjust to life off-the-trail.

    Consider a hobby, but choose carefully

    Not cards. Maybe you'll be invited to play cards with some of the boys. But I would caution you that now is not the right time. Donald Trump "played the woman card" before you, and it isn't turning out so well for him. And he's already doing better than you are.

    Not travel (at least not to New York City). You may be tempted to get away with Heidi and the kids to see a Broadway show (I hear Hamilton is amazing). But given that "New York values" comment you made, you may not be welcome there.

    Not reading the same old thing. You can really only read Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor once before it becomes cliché. I've got a well-worn copy of The Feminine Mystique I can lend you.

    Maybe Twitter? I know it helped to propel Mr Trump to his ultimate victory in the Republican primary. Rest assured – you'll find kindred spirits online (we call yours "trolls", but that is neither here nor there). In fact, I've made incredible friends on Twitter; @FullFrontalSamB and I were talking about you there just the other day actually! And I've had insightful and amusing conversations with amazing change-makers like Ellen Page, Kerry Washington, Cecile Richards and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. I am sure that @AnnCoulter can't wait to dive deep into a high-minded and compelling Twitter discourse with you.

    Enjoy time with your friends

    Following my loss, I found solace and comfort with my daughters and friends. I know Heidi and the kids can't wait to have you home. Don't fret – Heidi will get over that elbow to her face after your campaign suspension speech the other night. Plus, now you can call up Carly – unless her friendship only lasts as long as her tenure as VP candidate, in which case you may be getting sent to her voicemail about as fast as you'll be sent to Paul Ryan's.

    Speaking of which, I'm sure your Senate colleagues will be thrilled to see you. Lindsay Graham said as much: "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you." Oh, wait. Surely he just meant, "If Ted Cruz killed it on the floor of the Senate…"

    Get back to work

    Your work friends are the perfect segue into my last bit of advice: embrace your job and work hard upon your return. I am sure that, like me, you embrace the calling to public service. While I had to resign from the Texas State Senate to run for governor, you didn't have to leave the US Senate to run for president. That's great! It means you can jump right back into the critical work of legislating. With all the work that the Senate is doing right now – meeting with appointees to the US supreme court and holding hearings to confirm a new Secretary of the Army, passing budgets – wait, none of that is getting done. Well, you will fit right back in nonetheless given your penchant for shutting down the government when you don't get your way.

    Perhaps 2017 will be better; think of how busy you'll be battling all those gender equity initiatives that Hillary Clinton will launch as president, advancing the revolutionary ideas of equal pay, reproductive autonomy and family leave policies!

    As for me, I've been hard at work since my own run to build Deeds Not Words, a community of millennial women passionate about creating positive change (hopefully one of them will one day maneuver to take your job). In the meantime, though, think how fortunate you'll be to tell your grandchildren one day that you had the honor of serving under your nation's first woman president.

    [May 07, 2016] US election: What will Clinton v Trump look like? by Anthony Zurcher

    What is important that Hillary past provides so many powerful and easy avenues of attack on her (and she in not a Democrat; she is a neocon, warmonger neoliberal, hell bent on US world domination) that it is easy to be distracted by this excessive menu :-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Then there's that Sanders factor. The Vermont senator has presented an unexpected challenge to Mrs Clinton. His attacks on her past support for trade deals and her ties to the current political establishment have drawn blood. ..."
    "... It seems the Republican was already testing lines of attack in his victory speech on Tuesday night. He brought up Mrs Clinton's support for coal regulations that have caused unemployment in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. He mentioned that Bill Clinton backed the North America Trade Agreement, which he called "the single worst trade deal". ..."
    "... If Mr Trump can put the Midwest in play, that previously mentioned electoral tilt may not be so imposing after all. ..."
    "... Facing off against Mr Trump is going to take a nimble, creative campaign and candidate. That hasn't always been a strength for the instinctively controlled and cautious Mrs Clinton. ..."
    www.bbc.com

    Mr Trump is going to present an unpredictable adversary for the former secretary of state. As the Republican primary has shown, no topic is off the table for him and no possible line of attack out of bounds.

    "Her past is really the thing, rather than what she plans to do in the future," Mr Trump told the Washington Post on Tuesday. "Her past has a lot of problems, to put it bluntly."

    The day before making those comments, Mr Trump had lunch with Edward Klein, a journalist who has made a career of writing inflammatory books about the Clintons and their sometimes chequered history. Chances are, Mr Trump was taking notes.
    That Bernie Sanders factor

    Then there's that Sanders factor. The Vermont senator has presented an unexpected challenge to Mrs Clinton. His attacks on her past support for trade deals and her ties to the current political establishment have drawn blood.

    Could some of his true loyalists stay home or vote for a third party? Could some of his working-class supporters in the industrial mid-west cross over to Mr Trump?

    It seems the Republican was already testing lines of attack in his victory speech on Tuesday night. He brought up Mrs Clinton's support for coal regulations that have caused unemployment in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. He mentioned that Bill Clinton backed the North America Trade Agreement, which he called "the single worst trade deal".

    If Mr Trump can put the Midwest in play, that previously mentioned electoral tilt may not be so imposing after all.

    There's no playbook for how a Democrat can run against a Republican like Mr Trump. In some places, such as immigration, he will be well to her right. In other areas, like foreign policy and trade, he could come at her from the left.

    Can abortion or the social safety net be wedge issues? Probably not against a man who defended Planned Parenthood and Social Security on a Republican debate stage.

    Facing off against Mr Trump is going to take a nimble, creative campaign and candidate. That hasn't always been a strength for the instinctively controlled and cautious Mrs Clinton.

    You know you've come to the end of a fireworks show when the shells start bursting all at once.

    [May 07, 2016] An Open Letter To Those Disappointed By Both US Presidential Candidates

    www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    El Vaquero

    I had this conversation a few days ago:

    Me: I don't support Trump. He has said a few things that I find troubling.

    Friend: Me neither, but I'm going to vote for him anyway. I want to see the system fucking burn down, and I think he'll do it.

    Omni Consumer P... , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 17:11

    All these hand-wringing useful idiots don't grasp the fundamental concept:

    Corruption is a feature of a government system, not a bug.

    The very nature of government - monopoly power - makes it the number 1 destination of the psychosociopaths.

    Beam Me Up Scotty , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 17:36

    Calling Dr. Ron Paul, Calling Dr. Ron Paul. Code RED!!

    Beam Me Up Scotty , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 17:36

    "If we don't get them to re-engage -- thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis"

    Well you sure as fuck don't do it by:

    --Spying on everyone

    --endless bombing

    --unending war

    --nation building

    --groping granny at the airport--and everyone else too

    --outlawing cash

    --limiting liberty

    --growing government exponentially

    ETC ETC

    About the only thing we are "free" to do, is work, shop, eat, and maybe take a vacation once or twice a year IF WE ARE LUCKY!!

    Stackers , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 17:36

    I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

    This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

    Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

    It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.

    George Washington Farewell Address ~ 1796

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

    OpenThePodBayDoorHAL , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 20:00

    Priority A in this letter is cyber and jihad strategy? Puh-lease. WTAF, another clueless ideologue.

    Here's my list:

    1. End American Empire. We have 800 bases in 140 countries. Close them and send the personnel back to the US, give them shovels and backhoes and make them start rebuilding our Third World infrastructure.

    2. Prosecute financial crime. No more "fines", we need perp walks by senior executives. That's the only thing that will work.

    3. Close the DHS. We already have the FBI and CIA Roll back the Patriot Act spying provisions.

    4. Audit the Fed. Full transparency of what they own, what their market activities are, who owns them. Fed chair to be appointed by the Executive branch, not just selected from a list of "approved" candidates submitted by the Fed.

    5. Remove capital gains taxation on physical gold and silver bullion. Americans need to build more wealth, not more paper.

    6. Remove corporate tax exemption for issuing dividends.

    7. Tax all unearned income at the same rate as earned income.

    8. Fire the entire staff of the FASB and start over. Plain vanilla GAAP accounting including mark-to-market.

    9. End pre-crime drone assasination policy effective immediately.

    10. New Marshall Plan for the MidEast. Take 1/2 of the budget we spend blowing the place up and put it in a fund for development of ME countries. Announce the end of the drone/invasion/occupation policy and the new investment fund with huge fanfare. We get peace and prosperity and great new markets full of people who like us again.

    11. Putin, Xi and US pres to hold tri-lateral peace talks. End Cold War II. Invite the Eurozone lapdogs if you must (but no Frenchmen

    Katos , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 20:00

    The pitiful part of that is, we created the jihad is, we support them, arm them, feed them. They're our mercenaries. So we create a BOOGIEMAN, tell the country that we must do everything possible to defend against them, send them into other nations to do our dirty work for us, thereby increasing the fear and terror back home, as they follow orders and chop off heads on television? Talk about "wagging the dog"? Then they say in order to protect the "HOMELANDS" from these monsters, we'll, you'll have to sacrifice some rights? You'll have to sacrifice some security? You'll have to accept some invasion of your privacy. You'll have to allow the government to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on spying, making war, building killing machines, and you the American public will have to accept austerity, so we can get through this together? BULLSHIT!

    Lea , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 20:00

    " The very nature of government - monopoly power - makes it the number 1 destination of the psychosociopaths. "

    Only in 'Murika, the government doesn't hold the monopoly power, private corporations do. They have even bought your governement lock, stock and barrel. Obama is no more than a mouthpiece for private companies. See how he is travelling salesman for the TTIP, NAFTA and such treaties that are bad for the USA's population and all other countries' populations too.

    Which means you don't have a government at all . You are ruled by a transnational private sector through political puppets, banana republic style.

    Paveway IV , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 20:00

    "...4. Our problems are huge right now, but one of the most obvious is that we've not passed along the meaning of America to the next generation..."

    Yes you did, Senator Sasse. America, American government and American politics means systemic psychopathy. Sick, power-seeking and power-hoarding individuals. What you failed to pass on was your fantasy of what you would like America to be. The next generation can't ignore the reality of what they see and believe in your fantasy - if anything, they're realists. The meaning of America to them is a tax-farming organization run for the benefit of the MIC, big ag, big pharma, big oil, etc. They recognize that they are cattle, not snowflakes.

    "...If we don't get them to re-engage..."

    Holy crap... seriously? You sound like the MSM trying to figure out some marketing trick to sell themselves to 'the next generation' - a generation that has already thrown the MSM on the scrap-heap of history as a useless tool of the rich and powerful. The next generation has ABANDONED dreams of your fantasy America. They just want to minimize the oppression and pain America causes them. They want to be left the fuck alone and don't want to fix YOUR mess - it's unfixable to them. They're not buying the bullshit of 'fixability' any more - that was your generation's weakness.

    "...-- thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis,.."

    Jihadis the CIA created for their latest Middle East clownfuckery? The jihadi 'threat' as manufactured by the FBI or MSM? Hey, guess what Senator: that's your fucking problem, not theirs. They're afraid of cops and gangs of immigrants, not fake jihadis .

    "...or how we balance our budgets after baby boomers have dishonestly over-promised for decades,..."

    Why would they give a fuck? They know they are already 100% screwed - things will never be as good for them as it was for their parents. They are going to suffer the consequences of shitty fiscal policy for the next fifty years, and you expect them to somehow be interested in making the government behave NOW? Fuck that... are you stupid or something? They didn't break it - YOU did.

    "...or how we protect First Amendment values in the face of the safe-space movement..."

    Er... their First Amendment rights have already been whored out by your employer, Senator: the U.S. Congress. And typical of your employer, you 'see' a problem were none exists: a few hundred, maybe thousand whiney college students DOES NOT equate to a Constitutional problem for the other five million or so members of that generation. If you want to debate safe spaces while Rome burns, go ahead. They're not interested.

    "...– then all will indeed have been lost..."

    Yes, I agree. Congress and the rest of the U.S. government have been throwing away the American dream for thirty-plus years. Yes, it's lost. That's what happens when you throw something away. Don't expect them to go on a scavenger hunt for its decayed corpse now. It's worth saving to YOU, not THEM. You fucked it up so bad that they have no illusions about 'finding' anything useable again. They're not looking and not interested in being convinced to look, Senator. It's not there for them any more.

    "...One of the bright spots with the rising generation, though, is that they really would like to rethink the often knee-jerk partisanship of their parents and grandparents. We should encourage this rethinking..."

    No, they are simply rejecting the failed mechanism of a usurped voting process and a failed constitutional republic. That doesn't mean they're looking for replacement parts to fix that one thing, because the rest of the republic is completely fucked up . They're not interested in band-aids on a stinking, rotting corpse. They don't want to have anything to do with it.

    A member of Congress trying to 'market' America to the next generation is exactly like the MSM trying to market themselves to the next generation: it's pathetic and futile. 'America' is just the name of their current prison and owner. They simply tolerate it. When it becomes intolerable, they'll leave (if they're allowed to).

    Haraklus , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 18:55

    Amen. Burn it all down. Ashes make good fertilizer.

    swmnguy , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 18:55

    I know that's the meme being pushed, but I don't see it in reality. The two parties, supposedly so polarized, offer minute differences in actual policy. The differences over which they'd claim to take us to Civil War really boil down to which constituent and contributor group gets greased.

    In dictionary definitions, every politician in America is a liberal. In terms of their dedication to unifying corporate and State power, they're all Fascists. Some are smilier Fascists than others, but they're all Fascists.

    Escrava Isaura , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 18:55

    /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; }

    Wrong. America is not a Liberal nation. In a Liberal nation working class would have a say. As inequality grows, their taxes would go up. Education and healthcare would be free. Labor wouldn't be taxed.

    Corporativism is to the right and not left. Its labor is to the left.

    The excerpt below should help clarify the confusion between Democrats and Republicans:

    ….(Bakunin) predicted that there would be two forms of modern intellectuals, what he called the 'Red Bureaucracy', who would use popular struggles to try to take control of state power and institute the most vicious and ruthless dictatorships in history, and the other group, who would see that there isn't going to be an access to power that way and would therefore become the servants of private power and the state capitalist democracy, where they would, as Bakunin put it, 'beat the people with the people's stick,' talk about democracy but beat the people with it. That's actually one of the few predictions in the social sciences that's come true, to my knowledge, and a pretty perceptive one." Chomsky On Democracy and Education, page 248.

    http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Democracy-Education-Social-Cultural/dp/0415926327?ie=UTF8&keywords=chomsky%20on%20democracy%20and%20education&qid=1462483421&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

    [May 06, 2016] Ted Cruz, the master strategist, was no match for Trumps cult of personality

    Looks like neoliberal Guardian presstitutes love neocons and religious nuts Cruz. Who would guess ? Interesting...
    Notable quotes:
    "... He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. ..."
    "... How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable... ..."
    "... The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite. ..."
    "... Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver. ..."
    "... What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general. ..."
    "... I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Guardian

    bhyujn -> Bohemina1 5 May 2016 13:54

    No, I did not think that....however, I do think that there is enough awareness of this issue that it does not get dangerously into the main stream in Europe. In the US there much less awareness. Decades of the indoctrination that all bad things are either "communist" or "socialist" has left the door wide open for a return of the populist nationalist. Trump is just that.

    bluet00ns 5 May 2016 13:18

    "happy campaign"?...review the tapes, "happy" is nowhere in the oily, twisted, display of sly that was cruz's campaign, the numb, if not painful, looks on the faces of family as he trotted them out like props, is exhibit A.

    bcarey -> sour_mash 5 May 2016 13:08

    My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect money.

    Definitely true.

    However, we must also take into account the fact that the Cruz delegates are still active and maybe able to deliver Cruz.... or Romney if necessary. It is likely that Trump will get way more delegates than needed to stop a contested/open convention, however.

    The Cruz suspension is about 2 things. It accomplishes potentially 2 things. Money is just one of them. The other part is Romney, if he can.

    fallentower 5 May 2016 13:02

    I actually think the Republican Party made a good choice once it was down to "Cruz or Trump" by sitting on its hands and thereby letting Trump win. Of course, Trump is far more likely to do and say unorthodox (from a post-Reagan Republican Party standpoint) things, and will probably increase the tension and turmoil within the party. But he actually has a chance of winning the election; Cruz's smarmy personality and nauseating brand of religious conservatism would have gone down like a lead balloon outside the Bible belt, and he's too committed ideologically to change his policy positions.

    Trump will turn on a sixpence and happily disavow things he may have said in the primary if he considers them unhelpful baggage for the general, and because he's seen as a showman rather than a professional politician he'll have much more leeway to do so than your average flip-flopper.

    He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. Admittedly he is going to have to cut down on the clownishness and ill-disciplined outbursts, but if he gets the right campaign team together and they manage to keep him vaguely on-message I think he'll have good chances. Better than Cruz, anyway, who had zero chance.

    sour_mash bcarey 5 May 2016 12:58

    I take your point regarding Secret Agent Mormon and I was aware that he had filed with the FEC. My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect money.

    The exploratory PAC is the new retirement vehicle but that's a different issue.

    taxhaven wjousts 5 May 2016 12:58

    Trump most certainly is not change for the better.

    How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable...

    Harry Dresdon 5 May 2016 12:42

    Good riddance to Cruz. Boehner called him "the devil in the flesh". Cruz would have been way worse for the country than Trump will ever be. Sad but true.

    DillyDit2 5 May 2016 12:34

    Hey Stephanie Cutter: You think Bernie is responsible for what his supporters think, whether we'll support Hillary, and how we will decide to vote in the fall? Pappa Bernie should tell us what to do, and we should fall in line and salute?

    Could Cutter and Hillary's minions be any more clueless?! And could they reveal their top down authoritarian mindset any more clearer?

    The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite.

    I wish I could support Trump, because I second that fuck you. For now, along with what is likely the majority of American voters, all I can do is say- pox on BOTH your houses and may 2020 be the year an Independent runs and wins.

    danubemonster 5 May 2016 12:32

    I think it is worth comparing Cruz with Nixon. Both men are/were not particularly likable, yet Nixon was able to be a two-term president. Nixon was a conservative, but he was not an ideologue - and he lived in an age where the Republican Party was a relatively broad church. Nixon also have political instincts which were way beyond those of Cruz. He knew how to play high politics, and he knew what was required to get to the White House.

    PATROKLUS00 -> Tommy Cooper 5 May 2016 12:14

    Trump will beat her to death with being the Queen of the Establishment... the Dems will be idiots to nominate her.

    PATROKLUS00 -> voxusa 5 May 2016 12:12

    Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver.

    PATROKLUS00 -> 8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:09

    Yup, and the Democrat establishment is too stupid and out of touch to recognize that HRC is just the grist that Trump needs for his anti-establishment mill.

    PATROKLUS00 5 May 2016 12:07

    Cruz a master strategist???? BWWWWWwwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa! Ludicrous ... beyond ludicrous.

    Vintage59 David Perry 5 May 2016 12:07

    His religious beliefs and the political dogma that goes with them have been well documented. Have you not been paying attention? Do you insist your wife get you a beer from the fridge when you can get off your ass and get it yourself?

    8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:06

    What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general.

    MalleusSacerdotum 5 May 2016 12:05

    I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them.

    The Donald has understood the dynamic better than the rest and has given the voters a coherent, albeit repugnant, analysis of their problems. An article like this that can shed no light on the phenomenon that is Trump is hardly worth publishing.

    [May 04, 2016] These 17 Craig Mazin Tweets About Ted Cruz Are Some Of The Funniest Of The Campaign Bustle

    www.bustle.com
    One of the most entertaining bit players in the 2016 campaign has been Craig Mazin, Ted Cruz's college roommate. Mazin, a screenwriter who co-wrote two of the Hangover films, openly despises Cruz on both a political and personal level, and talks trash about him at just about every opportunity. And Mazin is very good at trash talk. These 17 hilarious Craig Mazin tweets about Ted Cruz go a long way to explaining why the Texas senator is almost not the most beloved guy in Washington.

    In 2013, Mazin articulated his beef with Cruz, who he's since referred to as "a shameless, hack magician selling tricks to the gullible," during an interview on the podcast May 04, 2016

    Scriptnotes. Here's how Mazin put it, and I'm going to quote it in full because it is one of my favorite things that anybody has ever said about anyone else:

    And, you know, I want to be clear, because Ted Cruz is a nightmare of a human being. I have plenty of problems with his politics, but truthfully, his personality is so awful that 99 percent of why I hate him is just his personality. If he agreed with me on every issue, I would hate him only 1 percent less.

    That's more than a sufficient diss, but Mazin didn't stop there. He writes a lot about Cruz on Twitter, and pulls absolutely no punches while doing so. He fired the opening shot in 2013, when Cruz was about to win election to the Senate.

    [May 01, 2016] How the New York Times Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Russ Baker, editor of WhoWhatWhy.com and author of "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years." Originally published at WhoWhatWhy ..."
    "... The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... WhoWhatWhy' ..."
    "... Corrupt and "most" pro war – it's a two-fer. (When do we get to put "most" in front of corrupt?). ..."
    "... Fuck. DO we really want another fucking Neo-Con in the White House? ..."
    "... I think it's interesting to consider that Trump is ostensibly already to the left of Clinton on many issues. ..."
    "... I say it is time to leave the Democratic Party in droves. I know, I know. The Supreme Court nominees of a future president loom large. We have to force the hand. Rather than creep to fascism and the earth's destruction, we have to realize the destination is the same as long as we keep our eggs in the basket of the Democratic Party. Time to cut and run, time to build something new, time to vote the Green Party, purge it of its new agey image and begin building it into a democratically functioning party that holds its candidates to its platform. Sure, it will take time. But putting money, time, and energy into the other half of a duopoly that supports empire and neoliberalism is all wasted on the fool's game, which Sander's inadvertently, I think, has exposed as the endgame. Progressives have to realize it will not and cannot be changed. It's core supports those two branches of its world-view, and no matter how they manipulate its adherents by throwing table scraps to them in the form of "social" issues, it will never be something other than what it is. I know, I am done with it. ..."
    "... Clinton will not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that is beneficial to the planet. Her appointees will be pro-corporate whores that will play nice on identity issues. Trump will never get a judge through that will overturn Roe v Wade. The Republicans have shown that you can effectively limit the debate of a SCJ and have held appointments up while not in the majority. ..."
    "... The article by Mark Landler was brilliant and will keep me from voting for Clinton. I am tired of America being continually and fruitlessly at war. ..."
    "... Clinton is pushing for war with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. How can anyone honestly discuss that Clinton is more sane (in foreign policy) than any person running for office? ..."
    "... Trump does not want war with Russia. Clinton wants to go to war with Russia. There is no other way to read her desire for a no fly zone. The only way to implement that policy is through a war with Russia. Clinton is not naive. She knows that any attempt to create a no fly zone will result in a conflict with Russia. ..."
    "... Yes, it is a topsy turvy system where the State Department, which one expects to be full of people seeking diplomatic solutions, is led by a warmonger, while many military leaders come off as more cautious. The later often have a better understanding of the futility of the situations they are thrown into and the true costs. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on April 29, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. It was hard not to notice the awfully convenient timing of the publication of the New York Times story, Top Gun: How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk . If you have not read it, you need to, ASAP. It makes painfully clear how much Hillary believes that the US should continue to act as if it were the worlds' sole superpower, when those days are past, is deeply enamored of aggressive military men, and is in synch with neocons. A sobering article.

    By Russ Baker, editor of WhoWhatWhy.com and author of "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years." Originally published at WhoWhatWhy

    Following a rough night in five East coast primaries, Bernie Sanders's path to the Democratic nomination is now more narrow and steep than it has ever been. But are these votes truly a referendum on who voters think the best candidate is - or are they merely a reflection of what the corporate media wants Democrats to think?

    In our critique of the media, we tend to focus on The New York Times , because it purports to be the gold standard for journalism, and because others look to the paper for coverage guidance. But the same critique could be applied to The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, and most other leading outfits.

    In prior articles, we noted how the Times helped Clinton walk away with most of the African-American vote - and therefore victory in many states - by essentially hiding Sanders' s comparably far more impressive record on civil rights .

    We also noted how it seemed that every little thing the Clinton camp did right was billboarded, while significant victories against great odds by Sanders were minimized .

    These are truly the kinds of decisions that determine the "conventional wisdom," which in turn so often determines outcomes.

    But there is more - and it is even more disturbing. Clinton's principal reason to claim she is so qualified to be president - aside from being First Lady and senator - is her four years as Secretary of State.

    What kind of a legacy did she leave? Perhaps her principal role was to push for military engagement - more soldiers in existing conflicts, and new wars altogether. WhoWhatWhy has written about these wars and their dubious basis .

    Wars are good business for Wall Street, for corporations in general, and for others who have been friendly to her and her campaign.

    Why was this never a bigger issue? Why was this not front and center with New York voters, a traditionally liberal group with a strong antipathy toward war and militarism? Certainly Sanders tried to bring up this issue, and doesn't seem to have succeeded. But mostly, this was a failure of the media, whose job it is to shine a strong spotlight.

    And why did The New York Times wait until two days after the New York primary to publish its biggest piece on this, when it could no longer influence that key contest? (It appeared first on its website and later in its Sunday magazine.)

    In fact, with the media declaring this probably now a Clinton-Trump race, highlighting her hawkishness turns it from a handicap to a strength. How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk was the digital equivalent of a huge front-page story.

    What the article makes clear - shockingly clear - is that Hillary Clinton is the most militaristic of any of the presidential candidates, even more than Ted Cruz.

    Was this delay in publication just a case of poor scheduling? Was it to ensure that the paper could not to be accused of influencing the primary outcome?

    The Times's editorials had already gotten behind her candidacy (without mentioning her refusal to release transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches, or her opposition to a paltry $15 an hour minimum wage). Would running Mark Landler's critical piece when it mattered have seemed like an implicit rebuke of the paper's own editorial board or interfered with its influence?

    How ironic it is that "liberal" Hillary Clinton has never met a war she did not like, and has never been held responsible for the chaos they caused and the policies she advocated - yet it is Bernie Sanders whose policies are being described as "unrealistic" by the same people who are shielding Clinton from criticism.

    What is the purpose of journalism if not to introduce material when it is relevant - and can have an impact? And one that is good for humanity - as opposed to the arms industry.

    The Times , Judith Miller et al, have certainly had an impact. Go here for one of WhoWhatWhy' s stories of some of the goriest details.

    timbers , April 29, 2016 at 6:26 am

    Corrupt and "most" pro war – it's a two-fer. (When do we get to put "most" in front of corrupt?). Yet I can visualize all my "enlightened" Boston "liberal" friends so fashionably and smugly rallying behind her w/o even one second thought of dissent because Republicans. Any criticism will be met with "delete" on FB friendship.

    divadab , April 29, 2016 at 7:02 am

    Fuck. DO we really want another fucking Neo-Con in the White House?

    RW Tucker , April 29, 2016 at 9:33 am

    With Trump using the word PEACE in his foreign policy speech, suddenly the world is upside down.

    RUKidding , April 29, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Yes, but at the end of the day, if you listen to Trump's garbled "message," he's really just about as NeoCon as Hillary. At least, that's what I'm getting from his very few "policy" speeches. He wants to "strengthen" our Military, which allegedly has been "weakened" by Obama. Of course, Trump conveniently ignores the fact the US Military budget is larger than ever, but what I take from that is that Trump wants to provide them with even more money.

    Trump talks about forcing our "allies" to pay us tributes to protect them, which will somehow enrich us back home. Good luck with that.

    Well I could go on, but Trump wants to blast ISIS into glass sand and all the rest of it. I don't see him as any much less NeoCon that Hillary or anyone else in the GOP. It's just that Trump dances around things

    Not a fan of Clinton. Never have been. Just saying re Trump…. not much different from what I can parse out.

    Ishmael , April 29, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    I have no problem asking other countries to pay for our cost of defense. Yes it is tribute but if they do not pay then we do not assist. Secondly, Trump in his latest speech basically through the Wolfowitz Doctrine under the bus. I say more power to that. Trump has said get out of NATO, I have no problem with that. Lastly, Trump has indicated that he would stop sticking the US's finger into Putin's eye. I am all for that. What has Hitlary said with regard to any of this.

    Trump seems far more pragmatic and he has to show strong defense because that is one of the key issues of the GOP. On the other hand all of the above issues would be good for the US and might start taking apart the military-industrial complex.

    OIFVet , April 29, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    Yes it is tribute but if they do not pay then we do not assist.

    And the hollowness of America's protection "guarantees" gets exposed there and then rather than a bit further down the road of imperial decline. I rather like your idea…

    Ishmael , April 29, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    I do not know where you get hollowness. Most of these countries are running a trade surplus with the US so why would we defend them for free. The US has never done this in the past (France and the UK were suppose to pay for their armaments and no one yelled that was hollow). I would rather we stayed out of the whole freaking thing but asking them to pay is a good start.

    OIFVet , April 29, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    These security guarantees are hollow because there is no wayin hell the US can actually defend a Baltic pipsqueak if Russia is truly determined to spank it for any multitude of transgressions. That's why these guarantees are hollow.

    Also too, the Euros are fast getting wise to the fact that US empire building is actually extracting high costs from them, your BS about the poor wittle used and abused US notwithstanding. When the US tries to actually extort cash as well the imperial jig will be well and truly up. Euro nationalism is on the rise, and in many places it does contain a fairly pronounced dislike for the trigger happy greedy vulgarians across the pond. And the migrant crisis is not helping US image at all.

    Ishmael , April 30, 2016 at 1:37 pm

    Vet – I believe under NATO the other NATO nations are also suppose to contribute to their defense and only 4 of the 28 countries are meeting their obligations. NATO was not set up for the US to do all of the heavy lifting.

    Personally, I say if Europe wants to go their own way more power to it. As far as Europeans having a dislike for Americans, maybe. It is my experience having lived on four continents (and several places in Europe) that many people disliked us before because we did things they could not. Now we have given then other reasons to dislike us because of our neo-con socialist leanings.

    But in total you miss my point which I find that Trump speaks a far more honest foreign affairs approach than Hitlary or any president since before Bill Clinton. If you disagree then make your point instead of just ranting.

    Don't get yourself all lathered up.

    oh , April 30, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    The MICC doesn't care as long the US taxpayer pays for the largesse in the name of defense!

    Anarcissie , April 29, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    I think it's interesting to consider that Trump is ostensibly already to the left of Clinton on many issues. Typically, Democrats trying for presidential nomination have pandered to the party's Left, and then run to the right for the general election. However, if Clinton wants to run to the right, she'll be deep in Republican territory, while the proggies are certain to wander off her home-front plantation. Except maybe for abortion, it appears that she has no home turf. It's a curious predicament for a Democrat to be in.

    divadab , April 29, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    Well it makes sense if you just consider that her husband was the best Republican President the Democrats ever elected. She's a DINO in all serious matters and a "liberal" in the kind of superficial stuff the MSM uses to differentiate and divide the people from themselves.

    ArkansasAngie , April 29, 2016 at 7:16 am

    No we don't … or, at least, I don't.

    I will vote for Trump before I vote for Clinton.

    This isn't a question of lesser of two evils. It is a question of who do you hate less?

    hreik , April 29, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Several weeks ago, there was a very pro-Birdie piece on the NYTime's front page. People saw it on line. Within several hours it was heavily edited and read more negative than positive. The part about John McCain praising Bernie was removed, ditto other parts.

    The paper has become something else altogether than it used to be. Like the DNC, TPTB would rather lose with Hillary than win w Bernie.
    http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/?_r=0

    NotTimothyGeithner , April 29, 2016 at 9:05 am

    Huh? Judith Miller and the post election 2004 warrantless wiretapping story beg to differ. They sat on a story in fear of influencing the election. They had the plagarist from Falwell U. The NYT has been trash for as long as the Patriots have run the AFC East.

    hreik , April 29, 2016 at 9:24 am

    true

    John Wright , April 29, 2016 at 9:51 am

    One can remember that Edward Snowden decided not to approach the Times with his story BECAUSE the Times sat on the warrantless wiretapping story.

    I still pay my $15 every 4 weeks for the NTTimes digital, but justify that partially because I can do archive searches.

    The Times Mea Culpa, spearheaded by Bill Keller, after the Judith Miller Iraq war reporting, was particularly good. The TImes had their Iraq war cake and then got to apologize for eating it.

    The digital edition frequently has thoughtful readers comments that effectively counter the latest Friedman, Kristof, Krugman, Brooks, Dowd, and Douthat received wisdom.

    There must be more than few print readers who yell at their copy of the print NY Times, "Tom/Nick/David/Paul, you are so #&*$% wrong".

    Sadly the print readers can't access the readers' comment section, AKA Times Editorial antidote, that accompanies the digital edition.

    Derwood Powell , April 30, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    Mr. Wright,
    Use and support the TOR network and you can read the NYT for free.

    Jim Haygood , April 29, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    NY Times : the 'sandwich coin' standard of journalism!

    Its price has been delinked from value.

    Michael C , April 29, 2016 at 8:02 am

    I say it is time to leave the Democratic Party in droves. I know, I know. The Supreme Court nominees of a future president loom large. We have to force the hand. Rather than creep to fascism and the earth's destruction, we have to realize the destination is the same as long as we keep our eggs in the basket of the Democratic Party. Time to cut and run, time to build something new, time to vote the Green Party, purge it of its new agey image and begin building it into a democratically functioning party that holds its candidates to its platform. Sure, it will take time. But putting money, time, and energy into the other half of a duopoly that supports empire and neoliberalism is all wasted on the fool's game, which Sander's inadvertently, I think, has exposed as the endgame. Progressives have to realize it will not and cannot be changed. It's core supports those two branches of its world-view, and no matter how they manipulate its adherents by throwing table scraps to them in the form of "social" issues, it will never be something other than what it is. I know, I am done with it.

    NotTimothyGeithner , April 29, 2016 at 9:10 am

    Doesn't the Supreme Court argument go out the window when the potential President is a lunatic? Of course, Maryanne Trump was appointed by Bill Clinton.

    RUKidding , April 29, 2016 at 10:32 am

    Well to be fair, Maryanne Trump isn't much like her brother. But yes, Clinton appointed her. Let the buyer beware.

    Strangely Enough , April 29, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Which lunatic?

    And, when the nominee proposed by a Democratic president turns out to be a Republican, something has definitely gone out the window.

    AnEducatedFool , April 29, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    Clinton will not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that is beneficial to the planet. Her appointees will be pro-corporate whores that will play nice on identity issues.
    Trump will never get a judge through that will overturn Roe v Wade. The Republicans have shown that you can effectively limit the debate of a SCJ and have held appointments up while not in the majority.

    The abortion issue is a non issue. There is no way that justice would get on the court.

    The Republicans will use that issue to get an even more corporate judge onto the court. A similar deal is going on in NC today. The state will eventually cave and get ride of the bathroom provision but the anti-worker sections will remain.

    ltr , April 29, 2016 at 8:07 am

    The article by Mark Landler was brilliant and will keep me from voting for Clinton. I am tired of America being continually and fruitlessly at war.

    Montana , April 29, 2016 at 8:28 am

    I cancelled my subscription to the NYT because of its more than biased reporting of the Democratic primaries. I tried to make sure the editorial staff knew my reasons.

    Jack , April 29, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    I'm very interested in knowing which papers you continue to subscribe to.

    Northeaster , April 29, 2016 at 8:36 am

    As a Veteran who deployed to The Middle East the first time , and with children entering their teens, while I won't be able to control their decisions when they come of age, I have done everything I possibly can to dissuade them from joining the military.

    Sadly, I believe that whether it's Clinton or Trump, they will have zero reservations of sending my children of to die in a war that will not end.

    RUKidding , April 29, 2016 at 10:35 am

    I agree. I don't see much difference between Trump and Clinton in this regard. Both are itching to go to War. It's slightly possible – slightly! – that Clinton would be somewhat more sane (insofar as one can be sane about war) than Trump. That's about the best I can say in this YET AGAIN choice between the Evil of Two Lessers.

    OIFVet , April 29, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    Arguing about the relative sanity of the insane is futile. Lybia and Hillminator's cackle upon being informed of Khadafy's being sodomized with a knife is proof positive that having her as prez is a recipe for even more of the same.

    AnEducatedFool , April 29, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    Clinton is pushing for war with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. How can anyone honestly discuss that Clinton is more sane (in foreign policy) than any person running for office?

    Trump does not want war with Russia. Clinton wants to go to war with Russia. There is no other way to read her desire for a no fly zone. The only way to implement that policy is through a war with Russia. Clinton is not naive. She knows that any attempt to create a no fly zone will result in a conflict with Russia.

    cyclist , April 29, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Yes, it is a topsy turvy system where the State Department, which one expects to be full of people seeking diplomatic solutions, is led by a warmonger, while many military leaders come off as more cautious. The later often have a better understanding of the futility of the situations they are thrown into and the true costs.

    Gio Bruno , April 29, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    The State Dept. is a front for the CIA/NSA project.

    ScottW , April 29, 2016 at 10:40 am

    The pro-Hillary Times' piece provides compelling, irrefutable evidence of Hillary's neocon credentials. The neocons adore her–Cheney commented Hillary was Obama's best cabinet appointment. Add to that the chilling mutual admiration between Hillary and Kissinger and we have a tangibly scary candidate.

    Her supporters reaction? They either dismiss the idea she is loved by the neocons, or refuse to understand the facts. Similar to rationalizing that money in politics is not a corrupting influence.

    If Hillary is elected, she will have bipartisan support for a neocon foreign policy, as well as money playing a major role in politics and one's personal life (speaking fees/foundation donations). Citizens United will become a quaint memory.

    It is getting impossible to argue the two parties are anything but the same side of the coin.

    John k , April 29, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Getting?
    Bill was first elected 24 years ago. Let's say a quarter century… I think Bernie made his tweedle dum tweedle Dee comment about 20 years ago. The rest of us have been slower to notice.

    Bernard , April 29, 2016 at 10:43 am

    well, Clinton is a woman and a Democrat. the more perfect evil. just Obama, the Vichy Democrats do more evil than the Republicans, far more efficiently/effectively than any Republican could or has. Hearing David/Charles Koch recently say Hillary "could" be better than any of the Republican candidates, is proof. we are so Fkked!

    yet my siblings will vote for Hillary cause of the Supreme Court due to the fact Hillary has a D by her name. and i gather so many women will vote for Hillary cause she is a "woman." lol Branding works. Stupidity, American style. if I vote, it will be for Trump, the lesser of two evils, lol.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , April 29, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Yes, women will vote Hill.

    But that fails to count all the younger voters, saddled with debt and facing an economy where business rules always favor capital over labor, who will find alternatives to Hillary that fit with their moral sensibilities.

    Meanwhile, the DNC is committing organizational suicide by becoming enforcers for Hillary, restricting voting, and failing to sue states like Arizona for election fraud.

    The GOP won't benefit from any of this.

    AnEducatedFool , April 29, 2016 at 8:03 pm

    Older women will vote for Hillary. The divide between race and gender is primarily age. Older black women are voting for her at 80% clips in nearly every election. Bernie can not win the 40 and under vote in every election while winning 30 and under at 80% with out winning across those demographics.
    Clinton kills him with older voters and has done so through out the cycle. It is why the DNC's efforts to suppress the vote have worked so well for Clinton.

    cr , April 29, 2016 at 10:45 am

    The NYT is simply a propaganda machine designed to fool people who can read at a slightly higher grade level. If the 'newspaper of record' is compromised, how many mainstream outlets have any real coverage of politics? After reading a large sampl;e,The number is close to zero. Occasionally, the masses are thrown a bone.

    Anyone who thinks there is a difference between the two nominal parties have to be kidding themselves. The two party system is a facade that lures you into believing you live in a democracy or republic. You are ruled. Your votes don't matter. Any real threat to power in the US is either co-opted or neutralized.

    We had a pedophile for speaker of the house. TPTB had to know it and used that info to keep him under control. He was probably selected based on his past. Along with Hillary, Paul Ryan is clearly a fascist. Look at their actions and their policies.

    ng , April 29, 2016 at 11:11 am

    even the times piece was puffery. all the generals impressed by her wonkish hard work. and it left out the most damning fact. hillary was the deciding voice in what obama called the worst decision of his presidency, the invasion of libya and killing of quadaffi. nearly a decade after iraq, in a nearly equivilant situation, with all the information she claimed not to have the first time around, she chose the same stupid, destructive approach and sent another nation and region reeling in choas.

    divadab , April 29, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    this. I had thought it was because as a gen 1 feminist, she feels she has to out-macho the boys, but it's both deeper and more pernicious with her. Fucking neocons. Bombing while the world is burning.

    hal , April 29, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    What about the big four?
    1 her emails anyone else would be gone for 99 years
    2. her speeches? Yea sure. She has the only copy in her (contract)
    3. her deals as SOState I'll get you arms (Saudi's) if you give me $1 million for foundation
    Plus many more of these.
    4. Her health passing out a few time, breaking an elbow, and others ailments.

    Not a word on any. As for the NYT. It is as bad a you can get.
    There is a great quote from Albert Camus a editor for "Combat" during the war.
    "We have a right to think that truth with a capital letter is relative. But facts are facts. And whoever says the sky is blue when it is grey is prostituting words and preparing the way for tyranny.

    I think about this every time I read the NYT.

    AnEducatedFool , April 29, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    Nice comment.
    #5 is the discrepancies in the exit poll data. Only the Democrats are having trouble with exit polls this cycle. Each Republican election has been with in the exit polls but many of the Democratic primaries are falling outside of the margin of error for exit polls and always siding with Clinton.

    David Mills , April 29, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    I pay $8 a month buying the weekend edition because I like the crossword (based in KL). The rest of the NYT is crap, been downhill for years. The IHT was okay until it was merged out of existence.

    Otherwise, people who can't see Hillary's vicious streak are blind or stupid. She is the candidate most likely to engage Russia. Lawrence Wilkerson had a great interview on her.

    Teejay , April 30, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Any "where" and "when" on the Wilkerson interview or a link to it?

    Procopius , April 30, 2016 at 6:25 am

    "… this was a failure of the media, whose job it is to shine a strong spotlight." When are Americans going to learn that this is not true. The job of the media is to sell advertising to the people who have the money to buy it. It's easier to do that if they don't tell people too much about what's happening in the world. Tell them about the Kardashians or what people are saying about Beyonce's latest video. Baseball games are OK. Good looking blonde announcers help. The movie "Front Page" was fiction. Also, there's no Tooth Fairy.

    Emeritus Jr , April 30, 2016 at 6:36 am

    With unprecedented access to insiders and whisteblowers, the New York Times is set to publish a scathing indictment of the horse barn industry on the massive damage caused by closing the barn doors after the horses have left.

    Roy , April 30, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Have not seen any comment on Hillary's logo. Anyone notice how the arrow is pointing to the right?

    [Apr 24, 2016] Sanders Democratic Party hasnt been fair to me by Nick Gass

    Notable quotes:
    "... "So it sounds like the party, though, you feel like's been fair to you?" Todd asked Sanders. "No," Sanders responded. "I think we have- look, we're taking on the establishment. That's pretty clear." ..."
    "... Pointing to the Democratic debate schedule, of which three of the first four took place on weekend nights, Sanders said they were "scheduled - pretty clearly, to my mind, at a time when there would be minimal viewing audience- et cetera, et cetera." "But you know, that's the way it is. We knew we were taking on the establishment," he said. "And here we are. So [I'm] not complaining." ..."
    "... "Yeah, we took advantage of the opportunities in front of us. We are in this race. We are not writing our obituary," Sanders said. "We're in this race to California, and we're proud of the campaign we ran." ..."
    Apr 24, 2016 | POLITICO

    'We knew we were taking on the establishment,' the Vermont senator says.

    Bernie Sanders says the Democratic Party hasn't been fair to him - but he has mixed feelings on the nominating process overall.

    "Do you think this process has been fair to you? The Democratic nomination process?" moderator Chuck Todd asked the Vermont senator in an interview filmed Saturday in Baltimore and aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

    "Yes and no," Sanders said, going on to criticize the role of the media for neglecting to focus on "real issues facing America." The media, he said, emphasizes "political gossip" rather than "issues that affect working people."

    "So it sounds like the party, though, you feel like's been fair to you?" Todd asked Sanders. "No," Sanders responded. "I think we have- look, we're taking on the establishment. That's pretty clear."

    Pointing to the Democratic debate schedule, of which three of the first four took place on weekend nights, Sanders said they were "scheduled - pretty clearly, to my mind, at a time when there would be minimal viewing audience- et cetera, et cetera." "But you know, that's the way it is. We knew we were taking on the establishment," he said. "And here we are. So [I'm] not complaining."

    Todd then asked Sanders if he felt he was "given a fair shot" at the Democratic nomination.

    "Yeah, we took advantage of the opportunities in front of us. We are in this race. We are not writing our obituary," Sanders said. "We're in this race to California, and we're proud of the campaign we ran."

    [Apr 23, 2016] Neoliberal Globalization Is There an Alternative to Plundering the Earth Global Research - Centre for Research on Globaliza

    Notable quotes:
    "... The following is a preview of a chapter by Claudia von Werlhof in "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century." (2009) ..."
    "... To read more, order the book online. Help us spread the word: "like" the book on Facebook and share with your friends -- ..."
    www.globalresearch.ca

    Excerpt from "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century"

    By Prof. Claudia von Werlhof Global Research, May 25, 2015 Global Research 19 April 2011 Theme: Global Economy , Poverty & Social Inequality

    Neoliberal Globalization: Is There an Alternative to Plundering the Earth?

    The following is a preview of a chapter by Claudia von Werlhof in "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century." (2009)

    To read more, order the book online. Help us spread the word: "like" the book on Facebook and share with your friends --

    Is there an alternative to plundering the earth?

    Is there an alternative to making war?

    Is there an alternative to destroying the planet?

    No one asks these questions because they seem absurd. Yet, no one can escape them either. Until the onslaught of the global economic crisis, the motto of so-called "neoliberalism" was TINA: "There Is No Alternative!"

    No alternative to "neoliberal globalization"?

    No alternative to the unfettered "free market" economy?

    What Is "Neoliberal Globalization"?

    Let us first clarify what globalization and neoliberalism are, where they come from, who they are directed by, what they claim, what they do, why their effects are so fatal, why they will fail and why people nonetheless cling to them. Then, let us look at the responses of those who are not – or will not – be able to live with the consequences they cause.

    This is where the difficulties begin. For a good twenty years now we have been told that there is no alternative to neoliberal globalization, and that, in fact, no such alternative is needed either. Over and over again, we have been confronted with the TINA-concept: "There Is No Alternative!" The "iron lady", Margaret Thatcher, was one of those who reiterated this belief without end.

    The TINA-concept prohibits all thought. It follows the rationale that there is no point in analyzing and discussing neoliberalism and so-called globalization because they are inevitable. Whether we condone what is happening or not does not matter, it is happening anyway. There is no point in trying to understand. Hence: Go with it! Kill or be killed!

    Some go as far as suggesting that globalization – meaning, an economic system which developed under specific social and historical conditions – is nothing less but a law of nature. In turn, "human nature" is supposedly reflected by the character of the system's economic subjects: egotistical, ruthless, greedy and cold. This, we are told, works towards everyone's benefit.

    The question remains: why has Adam Smith's "invisible hand" become a "visible fist"? While a tiny minority reaps enormous benefits from today's neoliberalism (none of which will remain, of course), the vast majority of the earth's population suffers hardship to the extent that their very survival is at stake. The damage done seems irreversible.

    All over the world media outlets – especially television stations – avoid addressing the problem. A common excuse is that it cannot be explained.[1] The true reason is, of course, the media's corporate control.

    What Is Neoliberalism?

    Neoliberalism as an economic policy agenda which began in Chile in 1973. Its inauguration consisted of a U.S.-organized coup against a democratically elected socialist president and the installment of a bloody military dictatorship notorious for systematic torture. This was the only way to turn the neoliberal model of the so-called "Chicago Boys" under the leadership of Milton Friedman – a student of Friedrich von Hayek – into reality.

    The predecessor of the neoliberal model is the economic liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries and its notion of "free trade". Goethe's assessment at the time was: "Free trade, piracy, war – an inseparable three!"[2]

    At the center of both old and new economic liberalism lies:

    Self-interest and individualism; segregation of ethical principles and economic affairs, in other words: a process of 'de-bedding' economy from society; economic rationality as a mere cost-benefit calculation and profit maximization; competition as the essential driving force for growth and progress; specialization and the replacement of a subsistence economy with profit-oriented foreign trade ('comparative cost advantage'); and the proscription of public (state) interference with market forces.[3]

    Where the new economic liberalism outdoes the old is in its global claim. Today's economic liberalism functions as a model for each and everyone: all parts of the economy, all sectors of society, of life/nature itself. As a consequence, the once "de-bedded" economy now claims to "im-bed" everything, including political power. Furthermore, a new twisted "economic ethics" (and with it a certain idea of "human nature") emerges that mocks everything from so-called do-gooders to altruism to selfless help to care for others to a notion of responsibility.[4]

    This goes as far as claiming that the common good depends entirely on the uncontrolled egoism of the individual and, especially, on the prosperity of transnational corporations. The allegedly necessary "freedom" of the economy – which, paradoxically, only means the freedom of corporations – hence consists of a freedom from responsibility and commitment to society.

    The maximization of profit itself must occur within the shortest possible time; this means, preferably, through speculation and "shareholder value". It must meet as few obstacles as possible. Today, global economic interests outweigh not only extra-economic concerns but also national economic considerations since corporations today see themselves beyond both community and nation.[5] A "level playing field" is created that offers the global players the best possible conditions. This playing field knows of no legal, social, ecological, cultural or national "barriers".[6] As a result, economic competition plays out on a market that is free of all non-market, extra-economic or protectionist influences – unless they serve the interests of the big players (the corporations), of course. The corporations' interests – their maximal growth and progress – take on complete priority. This is rationalized by alleging that their well-being means the well-being of small enterprises and workshops as well.

    The difference between the new and the old economic liberalism can first be articulated in quantitative terms: after capitalism went through a series of ruptures and challenges – caused by the "competing economic system", the crisis of capitalism, post-war "Keynesianism" with its social and welfare state tendencies, internal mass consumer demand (so-called Fordism), and the objective of full employment in the North. The liberal economic goals of the past are now not only euphorically resurrected but they are also "globalized". The main reason is indeed that the competition between alternative economic systems is gone. However, to conclude that this confirms the victory of capitalism and the "golden West" over "dark socialism" is only one possible interpretation. Another – opposing – interpretation is to see the "modern world system" (which contains both capitalism and socialism) as having hit a general crisis which causes total and merciless competition over global resources while leveling the way for investment opportunities, i.e. the valorization of capital.[7]

    The ongoing globalization of neoliberalism demonstrates which interpretation is right. Not least, because the differences between the old and the new economic liberalism can not only be articulated in quantitative terms but in qualitative ones too. What we are witnessing are completely new phenomena: instead of a democratic "complete competition" between many small enterprises enjoying the freedom of the market, only the big corporations win. In turn, they create new market oligopolies and monopolies of previously unknown dimensions. The market hence only remains free for them, while it is rendered unfree for all others who are condemned to an existence of dependency (as enforced producers, workers and consumers) or excluded from the market altogether (if they have neither anything to sell or buy). About fifty percent of the world's population fall into this group today, and the percentage is rising.[8]

    Anti-trust laws have lost all power since the transnational corporations set the norms. It is the corporations – not "the market" as an anonymous mechanism or "invisible hand" – that determine today's rules of trade, for example prices and legal regulations. This happens outside any political control. Speculation with an average twenty percent profit margin edges out honest producers who become "unprofitable".[9] Money becomes too precious for comparatively non-profitable, long-term projects,

    or projects that only – how audacious! – serve a good life. Money instead "travels upwards" and disappears. Financial capital determines more and more what the markets are and do.[10] By delinking the dollar from the price of gold, money creation no longer bears a direct relationship to production".[11] Moreover, these days most of us are – exactly like all governments – in debt. It is financial capital that has all the money – we have none.[12]

    Small, medium, even some bigger enterprises are pushed out of the market, forced to fold or swallowed by transnational corporations because their performances are below average in comparison to speculation – rather: spookulation – wins. The public sector, which has historically been defined as a sector of not-for-profit economy and administration, is "slimmed" and its "profitable" parts ("gems") handed to corporations (privatized). As a consequence, social services that are necessary for our existence disappear. Small and medium private businesses – which, until recently, employed eighty percent of the workforce and provided normal working conditions – are affected by these developments as well. The alleged correlation between economic growth and secure employment is false. When economic growth is accompanied by the mergers of businesses, jobs are lost.[13]

    If there are any new jobs, most are precarious, meaning that they are only available temporarily and badly paid. One job is usually not enough to make a living.[14] This means that the working conditions in the North become akin to those in the South, and the working conditions of men akin to those of women – a trend diametrically opposed to what we have always been told. Corporations now leave for the South (or East) to use cheap – and particularly female – labor without union affiliation. This has already been happening since the 1970s in the "Export Processing Zones" (EPZs, "world market factories" or "maquiladoras"), where most of the world's computer chips, sneakers, clothes and electronic goods are produced.[15] The EPZs lie in areas where century-old colonial-capitalist and authoritarian-patriarchal conditions guarantee the availability of cheap labor.[16] The recent shift of business opportunities from consumer goods to armaments is a particularly troubling development.[17]

    It is not only commodity production that is "outsourced" and located in the EPZs, but service industries as well. This is a result of the so-called Third Industrial Revolution, meaning the development of new information and communication technologies. Many jobs have disappeared entirely due to computerization, also in administrative fields.[18] The combination of the principles of "high tech" and "low wage"/"no wage" (always denied by "progress" enthusiasts) guarantees a "comparative cost advantage" in foreign trade. This will eventually lead to "Chinese wages" in the West. A potential loss of Western consumers is not seen as a threat. A corporate economy does not care whether consumers are European, Chinese or Indian.

    The means of production become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, especially since finance capital – rendered precarious itself – controls asset values ever more aggressively. New forms of private property are created, not least through the "clearance" of public property and the transformation of formerly public and small-scale private services and industries to a corporate business sector. This concerns primarily fields that have long been (at least partly) excluded from the logic of profit – e.g. education, health, energy or water supply/disposal. New forms of so-called enclosures emerge from today's total commercialization of formerly small-scale private or public industries and services, of the "commons", and of natural resources like oceans, rain forests, regions of genetic diversity or geopolitical interest (e.g. potential pipeline routes), etc.[19] As far as the new virtual spaces and communication networks go, we are witnessing frantic efforts to bring these under private control as well.[20]

    All these new forms of private property are essentially created by (more or less) predatory forms of appropriation. In this sense, they are a continuation of the history of so-called original accumulation which has expanded globally, in accordance with to the motto: "Growth through expropriation!"[21]

    Most people have less and less access to the means of production, and so the dependence on scarce and underpaid work increases. The destruction of the welfare state also destroys the notion that individuals can rely on the community to provide for them in times of need. Our existence relies exclusively on private, i.e. expensive, services that are often of much worse quality and much less reliable than public services. (It is a myth that the private always outdoes the public.) What we are experiencing is undersupply formerly only known by the colonial South. The old claim that the South will eventually develop into the North is proven wrong. It is the North that increasingly develops into the South. We are witnessing the latest form of "development", namely, a world system of underdevelopment.[22] Development and underdevelopment go hand in hand.[23] This might even dawn on "development aid" workers soon.

    It is usually women who are called upon to counterbalance underdevelopment through increased work ("service provisions") in the household. As a result, the workload and underpay of women takes on horrendous dimensions: they do unpaid work inside their homes and poorly paid "housewifized" work outside.[24] Yet, commercialization does not stop in front of the home's doors either. Even housework becomes commercially co-opted ("new maid question"), with hardly any financial benefits for the women who do the work.[25]

    Not least because of this, women are increasingly coerced into prostitution, one of today's biggest global industries.[26] This illustrates two things: a) how little the "emancipation" of women actually leads to "equal terms" with men; and b) that "capitalist development" does not imply increased "freedom" in wage labor relations, as the Left has claimed for a long time.[27] If the latter were the case, then neoliberalism would mean the voluntary end of capitalism once it reaches its furthest extension. This, however, does not appear likely.

    Today, hundreds of millions of quasi-slaves, more than ever before, exist in the "world system."[28] The authoritarian model of the "Export Processing Zones" is conquering the East and threatening the North. The redistribution of wealth runs ever more – and with ever accelerated speed – from the bottom to the top. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider. The middle classes disappear. This is the situation we are facing.

    It becomes obvious that neoliberalism marks not the end of colonialism but, to the contrary, the colonization of the North. This new "colonization of the world"[29] points back to the beginnings of the "modern world system" in the "long 16th century", when the conquering of the Americas, their exploitation and colonial transformation allowed for the rise and "development" of Europe.[30] The so-called "children's diseases" of modernity keep on haunting it, even in old age. They are, in fact, the main feature of modernity's latest stage. They are expanding instead of disappearing.

    Where there is no South, there is no North; where there is no periphery, there is no center; where there is no colony, there is no – in any case no "Western" – civilization.[31]

    Austria is part of the world system too. It is increasingly becoming a corporate colony (particularly of German corporations). This, however, does not keep it from being an active colonizer itself, especially in the East.[32]

    Social, cultural, traditional and ecological considerations are abandoned and give way to a mentality of plundering. All global resources that we still have – natural resources, forests, water, genetic pools – have turned into objects of utilization. Rapid ecological destruction through depletion is the consequence. If one makes more profit by cutting down trees than by planting them, then there is no reason not to cut them.[33] Neither the public nor the state interferes, despite global warming and the obvious fact that the clearing of the few remaining rain forests will irreversibly destroy the earth's climate – not to mention the many other negative effects of such actions.[34] Climate, animal, plants, human and general ecological rights are worth nothing compared to the interests of the corporations – no matter that the rain forest is not a renewable resource and that the entire earth's ecosystem depends on it. If greed, and the rationalism with which it is economically enforced, really was an inherent anthropological trait, we would have never even reached this day.

    The commander of the Space Shuttle that circled the earth in 2005 remarked that "the center of Africa was burning". She meant the Congo, in which the last great rain forest of the continent is located. Without it there will be no more rain clouds above the sources of the Nile. However, it needs to disappear in order for corporations to gain free access to the Congo's natural resources that are the reason for the wars that plague the region today. After all, one needs diamonds and coltan for mobile phones.

    Today, everything on earth is turned into commodities, i.e. everything becomes an object of "trade" and commercialization (which truly means liquidation, the transformation of all into liquid money). In its neoliberal stage it is not enough for capitalism to globally pursue less cost-intensive and preferably "wageless" commodity production. The objective is to transform everyone and everything into commodities, including life itself.[35] We are racing blindly towards the violent and absolute conclusion of this "mode of production", namely total capitalization/liquidation by "monetarization".[36]

    We are not only witnessing perpetual praise of the market – we are witnessing what can be described as "market fundamentalism". People believe in the market as if it was a god. There seems to be a sense that nothing could ever happen without it. Total global maximized accumulation of money/capital as abstract wealth becomes the sole purpose of economic activity. A "free" world market for everything has to be established – a world market that functions according to the interests of the corporations and capitalist money. The installment of such a market proceeds with dazzling speed. It creates new profit possibilities where they have not existed before, e.g. in Iraq, Eastern Europe or China.

    One thing remains generally overlooked: the abstract wealth created for accumulation implies the destruction of nature as concrete wealth. The result is a "hole in the ground" and next to it a garbage dump with used commodities, outdated machinery and money without value.[37] However, once all concrete wealth (which today consists mainly of the last natural resources) will be gone, abstract wealth will disappear as well. It will, in Marx's words, "evaporate". The fact that abstract wealth is not real wealth will become obvious, and so will the answer to the question of which wealth modern economic activity has really created. In the end it is nothing but monetary wealth (and even this mainly exists virtually or on accounts) that constitutes a monoculture controlled by a tiny minority. Diversity is suffocated and millions of people are left wondering how to survive. And really: how do you survive with neither resources nor means of production nor money?

    The nihilism of our economic system is evident. The whole world will be transformed into money – and then it will disappear. After all, money cannot be eaten. What no one seems to consider is the fact that it is impossible to re-transform commodities, money, capital and machinery into nature or concrete wealth. It seems that underlying all "economic development" is the assumption that "resources", the "sources of wealth",[38] are renewable and everlasting – just like the "growth" they create.[39]

    The notion that capitalism and democracy are one is proven a myth by neoliberalism and its "monetary totalitarianism".[40]

    The primacy of politics over economy has been lost. Politicians of all parties have abandoned it. It is the corporations that dictate politics. Where corporate interests are concerned, there is no place for democratic convention or community control. Public space disappears. The res publica turns into a res privata, or – as we could say today – a res privata transnationale (in its original Latin meaning, privare means "to deprive"). Only those in power still have rights. They give themselves the licenses they need, from the "license to plunder" to the "license to kill".[41] Those who get in their way or challenge their "rights" are vilified, criminalized and to an increasing degree defined as "terrorists" or, in the case of defiant governments, as "rogue states" – a label that usually implies threatened or actual military attack, as we can see in the cases of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe Syria and Iran in the near future. U.S. President Bush had even spoken of the possibility of "preemptive" nuclear strikes should the U.S. feel endangered by weapons of mass destruction.[42] The European Union did not object.[43]

    Neoliberalism and war are two sides of the same coin.[44] Free trade, piracy and war are still "an inseparable three" – today maybe more so than ever. War is not only "good for the economy" but is indeed its driving force and can be understood as the "continuation of economy with other means".[45] War and economy have become almost indistinguishable.[46] Wars about resources – especially oil and water – have already begun.[47] The Gulf Wars are the most obvious examples. Militarism once again appears as the "executor of capital accumulation" – potentially everywhere and enduringly.[48]

    Human rights and rights of sovereignty have been transferred from people, communities and governments to corporations.[49] The notion of the people as a sovereign body has practically been abolished. We have witnessed a coup of sorts. The political systems of the West and the nation state as guarantees for and expression of the international division of labor in the modern world system are increasingly dissolving.[50] Nation states are developing into "periphery states" according to the inferior role they play in the proto-despotic "New World Order".[51] Democracy appears outdated. After all, it "hinders business".[52]

    The "New World Order" implies a new division of labor that does no longer distinguish between North and South, East and West – today, everywhere is South. An according International Law is established which effectively functions from top to bottom ("top-down") and eliminates all local and regional communal rights. And not only that: many such rights are rendered invalid both retroactively and for the future.[53]

    The logic of neoliberalism as a sort of totalitarian neo-mercantilism is that all resources, all markets, all money, all profits, all means of production, all "investment opportunities", all rights and all power belong to the corporations only. To paraphrase Richard Sennett: "Everything to the Corporations!"[54] One might add: "Now!"

    The corporations are free to do whatever they please with what they get. Nobody is allowed to interfere. Ironically, we are expected to rely on them to find a way out of the crisis we are in. This puts the entire globe at risk since responsibility is something the corporations do not have or know. The times of social contracts are gone.[55] In fact, pointing out the crisis alone has become a crime and all critique will soon be defined as "terror" and persecuted as such.[56]

    IMF Economic Medicine

    Since the 1980s, it is mainly the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the IMF that act as the enforcers of neoliberalism. These programs are levied against the countries of the South which can be extorted due to their debts. Meanwhile, numerous military interventions and wars help to take possession of the assets that still remain, secure resources, install neoliberalism as the global economic politics, crush resistance movements (which are cynically labeled as "IMF uprisings"), and facilitate the lucrative business of reconstruction.[57]

    In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher introduced neoliberalism in Anglo-America. In 1989, the so-called "Washington Consensus" was formulated. It claimed to lead to global freedom, prosperity and economic growth through "deregulation, liberalization and privatization". This has become the credo and promise of all neoliberals. Today we know that the promise has come true for the corporations only – not for anybody else.

    In the Middle East, the Western support for Saddam Hussein in the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, and the Gulf War of the early 1990s, announced the permanent U.S. presence in the world's most contested oil region.

    In continental Europe, neoliberalism began with the crisis in Yugoslavia caused by the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the IMF. The country was heavily exploited, fell apart and finally beset by a civil war over its last remaining resources.[58] Since the NATO war in 1999, the Balkans are fragmented, occupied and geopolitically under neoliberal control.[59] The region is of main strategic interest for future oil and gas transport from the Caucasus to the West (for example the "Nabucco" gas pipeline that is supposed to start operating from the Caspian Sea through Turkey and the Balkans by 2011.[60] The reconstruction of the Balkans is exclusively in the hands of Western corporations.

    All governments, whether left, right, liberal or green, accept this. There is no analysis of the connection between the politics of neoliberalism, its history, its background and its effects on Europe and other parts of the world. Likewise, there is no analysis of its connection to the new militarism.

    NOTES

    [1] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 23, 36.

    [2] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust: Part Two, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999.

    [3] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005, p. 34.

    [4] Arno Gruen, Der Verlust des Mitgefühls. Über die Politik der Gleichgültigkeit, München, 1997, dtv.

    [5] Sassen Saskia, "Wohin führt die Globalisierung?," Machtbeben, 2000, Stuttgart-München, DVA.

    [6] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 24.

    [7] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, 1979, Suhrkamp; Immanuel Wallerstein (Hg), The Modern World-System in the Longue Durée, Boulder/ London; Paradigm Publishers, 2004.

    [8] Susan George, im Vortrag, Treffen von Gegnern und Befürwortern der Globalisierung im Rahmen der Tagung des WEF (World Economic Forum), Salzburg, 2001.

    [9] Elmar Altvater, Das Ende des Kapitalismus, wie wir ihn kennen, Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot, 2005.

    [10] Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, Grenzen der Globalisierung. Ökonomie, Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft, Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot, 1996.

    [11] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html; Margrit Kennedy, Geld ohne Zinsen und Inflation, Steyerberg, Permakultur, 1990.

    [12] Helmut Creutz, Das Geldsyndrom. Wege zur krisenfreien Marktwirtschaft, Frankfurt, Ullstein, 1995.

    [13] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7.

    [14] Barbara Ehrenreich, Arbeit poor. Unterwegs in der Dienstleistungsgesellschaft, München, Kunstmann, 2001.

    [15] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.

    [16] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women, The Last Colony, London/ New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.

    [17] Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization. The Truth Behind September 11th, Oro, Ontario, Global Outlook, 2003.

    [18] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.

    [19] Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology Dpt., St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.

    [20] John Hepburn, Die Rückeroberung von Allmenden – von alten und von neuen, übers. Vortrag bei, Other Worlds Conference; Univ. of Pennsylvania; 28./29.4, 2005.

    [21] Claudia von Werlhof, Was haben die Hühner mit dem Dollar zu tun? Frauen und Ökonomie, München, Frauenoffensive, 1991; Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.

    [22] Andre Gunder Frank, Die Entwicklung der Unterentwicklung, in ders. u.a., Kritik des bürgerlichen Antiimperialismus, Berlin, Wagenbach, 1969.

    [23] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

    [24] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women, the Last Colony, London/New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.

    [25] Claudia von Werlhof, Frauen und Ökonomie. Reden, Vorträge 2002-2004, Themen GATS, Globalisierung, Mechernich, Gerda-Weiler-Stiftung, 2004.

    [26] Ana Isla, "Women and Biodiversity as Capital Accumulation: An Eco-Feminist View," Socialist Bulletin, Vol. 69, Winter, 2003, p. 21-34; Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology Department, St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.

    [27] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.

    [28] Kevin Bales, Die neue Sklaverei, München, Kunstmann, 2001.

    [29] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

    [30] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979; Andre Gunder Frank, Orientierung im Weltsystem, Von der Neuen Welt zum Reich der Mitte, Wien, Promedia, 2005; Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale, Women in the International Division of Labour, London, Zed Books, 1986.

    [31] Claudia von Werlhof, "Questions to Ramona," in Corinne Kumar (Ed.), Asking, We Walk. The South as New Political Imaginary, Vol. 2, Bangalore, Streelekha, 2007, p. 214-268

    [32] Hannes Hofbauer, Osterweiterung. Vom Drang nach Osten zur peripheren EU-Integration, Wien, Promedia, 2003; Andrea Salzburger, Zurück in die Zukunft des Kapitalismus, Kommerz und Verelendung in Polen, Frankfurt – New York, Peter Lang Verlag, 2006.

    [33] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html.

    [34] August Raggam, Klimawandel, Biomasse als Chance gegen Klimakollaps und globale Erwärmung, Graz, Gerhard Erker, 2004.

    [35] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.

    [36] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.

    [37] Johan Galtung, Eurotopia, Die Zukunft eines Kontinents, Wien, Promedia, 1993.

    [38] Karl Marx, Capital, New York, Vintage, 1976.

    [39] Claudia von Werlhof, Loosing Faith in Progress: Capitalist Patriarchy as an "Alchemical System," in Bennholdt-Thomsen et.al.(Eds.), There is an Alternative, 2001, p. 15-40.

    [40] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.

    [41] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

    [42] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global Research, 2005.

    [43] Michel Chossudovsky, "Nuclear War Against Iran," Global Research, Center for Research on Globalization, Ottawa 13.1, 2006.

    [44] Altvater, Chossudovsky, Roy, Serfati, Globalisierung und Krieg, Sand im Getriebe 17, Internationaler deutschsprachiger Rundbrief der ATTAC – Bewegung, Sonderausgabe zu den Anti-Kriegs-Demonstrationen am 15.2., 2003; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

    [45] Hazel Hendersen, Building a Win-Win World. Life Beyond Global Economic Warfare, San Francisco, 1996.

    [46] Claudia von Werlhof, Vom Wirtschaftskrieg zur Kriegswirtschaft. Die Waffen der, Neuen-Welt-Ordnung, in Mies 2005, p. 40-48.

    [47] Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars. The New Landscape of Global Conflict, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 2001.

    [48] Rosa Luxemburg, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals, Frankfurt, 1970.

    [49] Tony Clarke, Der Angriff auf demokratische Rechte und Freiheiten, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 80-94.

    [50] Sassen Saskia, Machtbeben. Wohin führt die Globalisierung?, Stuttgart-München, DVA, 2000.

    [51] Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 2001; Noam Chomsky, Hybris. Die endgültige Sicherstellung der globalen –Vormachtstellung der USA, Hamburg-Wien, Europaverlag, 2003.

    [52] Claudia von Werlhof, Speed Kills!, in Dimmel/Schmee, 2005, p. 284-292

    [53] See the "roll back" and "stand still" clauses in the WTO agreements in Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003.

    [54] Richard Sennett, zit. "In Einladung zu den Wiener Vorlesungen," 21.11.2005: Alternativen zur neoliberalen Globalisierung, 2005.

    [55] Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.

    [56] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global Research, 2005.

    [57] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005; Bennholdt-Thomsen/Faraclas/Werlhof 2001.

    [58] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002.

    [59] Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die Wahrheit über den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag, 2000; Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die deutsche Verantwortung für den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag, 2000.

    [60] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview with Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html .

    The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © Prof. Claudia von Werlhof , Global Research, 2015

    [Apr 23, 2016] Why Is the Progressive Left Helping the Elite Elect Hillary by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nevertheless, the election of Sanders or Trump is important, because it demonstrates that American citizens are emerging from The Matrix and have no confidence in the two corrupt political parties that betrayed them. The message would go out to the world as well that the American people have no confidence in the Washington Establishment. These messages are very important and can only have beneficial effects. ..."
    "... So why is the progressive left helping the One Percent keep the lid on the rest of us? Has the progressive left sold out or is the progressive left putting its emotional needs above the general welfare? ..."
    www.informationclearinghouse.info
    April 23, 2016 | Information Clearing House

    "Have you noticed that it is not only the presstitute media and the two establishment political parties that are beating up on Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump but also the progressive left? Sometimes the messages overlap so much that the progressive left sounds like the One Percent. But mainly the progressive left is down on Sanders because he is "not pure," and they don't like Trump because he hurts people's feelings and doesn't apologize.

    This is astounding. Here we are faced with the corrupt media and the corrupt party establishments determined to put in the Oval Office a tried and proven agent of the One Percent, and the progressive left is beating up on the only two alternatives!

    I doubt that Sanders or Trump would be able to achieve much for the American people except to reduce the flow of official lies that the presstitutes turn into truths by constant repetition. The Oligarchy is too strong. It was more than a half century ago that President Eisenhower warned us of the threat to American democracy from the military-security complex. That complex is much stronger today, and, in addition, we have Wall Street and the mega-banks that control the US Treasury and Federal Reserve, the Israel Lobby that has the US Congress wrapped around its little finger, the extractive industries (energy, mining, timber) that prevails over the environment and preservation, and agribusiness that poisons our food, exterminates honey bees and butterflies and produces chemical fertilizer runoff into waters that result in massive fish kills from algea. None of these powerful interests will permit the welfare of the American people to get in the way of their agendas and profits.

    Nevertheless, the election of Sanders or Trump is important, because it demonstrates that American citizens are emerging from The Matrix and have no confidence in the two corrupt political parties that betrayed them. The message would go out to the world as well that the American people have no confidence in the Washington Establishment. These messages are very important and can only have beneficial effects.

    So why is the progressive left helping the One Percent keep the lid on the rest of us? Has the progressive left sold out or is the progressive left putting its emotional needs above the general welfare?

    Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

    [Apr 10, 2016] Paul Krugman Sanders Over the Edge

    Jeffrey D. Sachs ‏@JeffDSachs It's incredible that a silly rant like this passes for commentary at the New York Times
    Notable quotes:
    "... I like the fact that Krugman is showing his true colors: the Conscience of the Status Quo ..."
    "... Conscience of a Neoliberal. ..."
    "... The Paul K Smear Patrol: Krugman can be ferocious going after the Right, but he also has a thing for the Left, as I recall from his trade purism of the 90s. Right now, he's on an anti-Bernie, pro-Hillary jag and pulling no punches... ..."
    "... He is too partisan to recognize that the Clinton machine-the Foundation, the campaign-are accommodative toward big pools of money. My speculation is that PK thinks the Left is a bunch of amateurs who have no business being anywhere near power, and that the citadels of expertise (which includes economists who are affiliated or will affiliate with Clinton) need to be defended against the barbarians. If it isn't that, something is causing this guy to lose his analytical balance." ..."
    "... That was actually embarrassing for Barney because he has trouble dealing with counterargument and tends to just rant and denigrate whoever he is speaking "at." He had a similar episode about a week ago, also on Hayes, where he doesn't seem to have any ability to demonstrate grace or due respect - which I've often enjoyed when he is countering some crazy Republican, but I'm starting to recognize as a personality flaw. He's got an inflated opinion of himself. ..."
    "... "A democratic polity does not elect a technocrat-in-chief, but politicians whose role is to define priorities that must later be translated into well-crafted policy details.... The problems of our polity do not arise because one faction or another is too stupid to do high quality science.... Being smart is great. You may be proud of your GRE scores, your PhD, your Nobel Prize even. And deservedly! But raw intellect is not scarce, and no faction holds anywhere near a monopoly. ..."
    "... The thing is, Hillary Clinton is also not a policy wonk. Sanders led out of the gate last year with a 12-point policy agenda while Clinton was still struggling to articulate broad themes. ..."
    "... Later, Clinton came out with a detailed financial plan, which is fine. That plan consists in various places of calls for "more regulation" of various functions and sectors. Does anybody think Hillary Clinton actually has a lot of specific ideas about what these regulations will actually look like after the wonks write them up? Of course she doesn't. And well she shouldn't! She's running for President, not the project manager of the policy engineering department. CEOs have to set the vision and mission, keep the team on track, and then make dozens of important decisions every day. They don't wallow in that kind of detail (until they have to go out in public to sell it.) ..."
    "... Sanders is popular because he's an authentic dude. He hasn't changed his message for 30 years. People have come around to his view. He's not your normal politician. ..."
    "... He's smart enough to know that the corporate media is out to get him and often says so to their faces. ..."
    "... Yeah - he forgot that "air quotes" don't translate into print, so he fell for the Clinton campaign's carefully laid "bait." His comments were totally in context of the Clinton campaign's "disqualify" strategy and her slick "I'm taking it to the edge so you can't hang it on me" comments to Morning Joke. Hillary and her strategists are slick and disingenuous, Bernie is blunt and brusque. ..."
    "... Sort of like the difference in their relationships to dangerous critters like Lloyd Blankfein. Bernie tells them to go to hell. Hillary takes their money and claims it means nothing that she has their support. ..."
    "... Clinton sycophants are incredibly dedicated, no matter what is done or said by the Clintons. ..."
    "... The idea that Krugman, an ivory tower careerists who spends most of his time trying to impress the High Church poobahs who run and advise the world's oppressive establishment power structures, should lecture a man whose entire career has been dedicated to defending the poor, weak and vulnerable on "ethical moorings" is flabbergasting. ..."
    "... Krugman's politics haven't changed much since he first made his name 35 years ago, whether he is "liberal" or "centrist" is mostly a reflection of where the current center is. His Bernie blasts remind me of the potshots he used to take at John Kenneth Galbraith. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton the last of the angry old white entitled one percenter Rockfeller Republicans cloaked in feminism ready to lead the Neodemocratic party. ..."
    "... "It is reported that ..." Exactly. And that means exactly what? The media is owned by people who have exactly zero interest in the American people being informed about who stealing all the bacon and how. ..."
    "... It's truly sad to watch Paul Krugman (PK) turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal elite that currently runs the Democratic party. ..."
    "... What better proof could there possibly be, that it's time to kick Hillary and her cronies to the curb. ..."
    "... "Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege, with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society." -Rune Lagman ..."
    "... The laziness of "all we need to do is vote for Bernie" is sad. We don't need to build a movement! Just one vote, and centuries of injustice are effortlessly overturned! Don't bother coming again, or paying attention to how resumes with black-sounding names are downplayed! You've done your part and it will all work out in the end! ..."
    "... Hopefully we have the fortitude to stand up to the fear-mongering and siren-song of the Democratic establishment. A vote for Hillary won't change anything, but a vote for Bernie will definitely start the changes that are necessary. ..."
    "... A vote for Bernie is a vote for a movement and IT IS the kind of movement that Martin Luther King had wanted all along. Doctor King did not want apologies or even reparations. Doctor King wanted fair and equal pay, decent educations, good jobs, and equality in all rights, privileges, and opportunities for his people. Martin Luther King was a black man decent enough for a white man to follow and I did. Bernie Sanders is a white man decent enough for a black man to follow. ..."
    "... I just hate the way Hillary campaigns. She said Sanders should apologize for Sandy Hook? Why isn't he media all over her for that? Because they have double standards. She lies about Sanders record as if it's expected just as taking a lot of money from rich donors and corporations is expected. ..."
    "... Here is Konczal on Bernie's "disastrous" interview at the NYDN. http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/ As you can see, Konczal does not buy into Krugman's and the MSM overblown reactions. Sanders gave pretty straight forward and normal answers. For those who don't know, Konczal is a financial reform expert who Krugman respects and often cites. ..."
    "... The same applies to Sanders not knowing the specific statute for prosecuting banks for their actions in the housing bubble. Knowingly passing off fraudulent mortgages in a mortgage backed security is fraud. Could the Justice Department prove this case against high level bank executives? Who knows, but they obviously didn't try. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    Alain Sherter :
    I guess Paul forgot about JPMorgan, Wells, Goldman, et al mainlining cruddy MBS into the global economy. Unless he wouldn't locate that near the "heart" of the financial crisis--more like the arteries. Weak sauce, Krugman.
    Reg -> Alain Sherter...
    Comments on Krugman's contribution to the Clinton Campaign closed as I was writing this, so I'll post it here:

    What we are now hearing from PK and the doddering Barney Frank (if his near-meltdown on Chris Hayes, debating - or shouting at - Robert Reich is any indication), is that Too Big To Fail doesn't exist. It's only about capital requirements. Capital requirements are critical, but it's crackpot to dismiss the notion that players in the financial system that are clearly "too big to fail" can't find ways to threaten the economic system in the future, in their quest for profits. If Frank believes that his very modest, watered-down-by-lobbyists bill, dependent as much on the integrity of regulators as the SEC et al for "teeth", erases the risk of "too big to fail" I've got a bridge to sell Barney. Smart Guys like Krugman and Frank didn't see the meltdown coming. They won't see the next one if these behemoths have their way. Glass Steagall isn't enough, but it served the country well for decades and was destroyed by the Clinton administration, in tandem with the vulture Phil Gramm. When Lloyd Blankfein is no longer comfortable supporting Hillary Clinton I'll believe that she has cut ties to Wall Street. "Robert Rubin Democrats" aren't Democrats IMHO - they are stealth Republicans and Bernie is the only candidate who we could trust to drive these money-changers from the political "temple", as opposed to letting them influence the administration as Clinton inevitably will.

    anne :
    https://twitter.com/JeffDSachs/status/718408431347101696 Jeffrey D. Sachs ‏@JeffDSachs

    It's incredible that a silly rant like this passes for commentary at the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html

    5:01 AM - 8 Apr 2016

    anne -> anne...
    https://twitter.com/JeffDSachs/status/716113079285714944

    Jeffrey D. Sachs ‏@JeffDSachs

    I like the fact that Krugman is showing his true colors: the Conscience of the Status Quo. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/feel-the-math/

    9:00 PM - 1 Apr 2016

    BigBozat -> anne...
    Conscience of a Neoliberal.

    PPaine -> Aaron...

    Qualifications are based on criterion
    Bernie's criterion

    You are NOT a corporate liberal

    Experience is not a valuable criterion
    If you served the corporate whales

    ilsm -> PPaine ...
    experience gained from voting Bush

    a blank check with poor kids bodies,

    and then taking out Qaddafi for the French

    ain't so good!

    anyone who gets paid to blither to bankster

    has thw rong experience

    for a librul.

    JohnH -> RGC...

    Krugman just went over the edge...along with his reputation as an impartial political observer and economists. The man has an agenda.

    econospeak notes:

    "The Paul K Smear Patrol: Krugman can be ferocious going after the Right, but he also has a thing for the Left, as I recall from his trade purism of the 90s. Right now, he's on an anti-Bernie, pro-Hillary jag and pulling no punches...

    He reads an informative news article through a rather restrictive lens.

    He is too partisan to recognize that the Clinton machine-the Foundation, the campaign-are accommodative toward big pools of money. My speculation is that PK thinks the Left is a bunch of amateurs who have no business being anywhere near power, and that the citadels of expertise (which includes economists who are affiliated or will affiliate with Clinton) need to be defended against the barbarians. If it isn't that, something is causing this guy to lose his analytical balance."

    JohnH -> JohnH...
    link: http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-paul-k-smear-patrol.html

    Syaloch -> JohnH...

    "My speculation is that PK thinks the Left is a bunch of amateurs who have no business being anywhere near power, and that the citadels of expertise (which includes economists who are affiliated or will affiliate with Clinton) need to be defended against the barbarians."

    I think that's pretty much spot on. Krugman believes that only policy wonks should run for office. The possibility that providing visionary leadership and formulating detailed policy proposals might be two different jobs seems not to have occurred to him.

    Julio -> Syaloch...
    Exactly.

    I watched Frank (who I think is a good and smart guy), a Clinton supporter, debate Reich (who I think is both, plus his heart is in the right place), a Sanders supporter, about the banks. Same disconnect: Frank was going on about the details of Dodd-Frank, demanding that Reich provide more detail about Bernie's proposals, and missing the essential point:

    Wall St. is not our friend.

    Reg -> Julio ...
    That was actually embarrassing for Barney because he has trouble dealing with counterargument and tends to just rant and denigrate whoever he is speaking "at." He had a similar episode about a week ago, also on Hayes, where he doesn't seem to have any ability to demonstrate grace or due respect - which I've often enjoyed when he is countering some crazy Republican, but I'm starting to recognize as a personality flaw. He's got an inflated opinion of himself.

    Krugman seems like he has a tendency to "go there" as well. Reminiscent of when he called Obama supporters "a cult" when the Prez took on Hillary. Did that numerous times, just like he can't stop himself from using "Bernie Bros."

    RGC -> Julio ...
    Which bank did Barney go to work for? Does he get to "work" from home?
    Chris G -> Syaloch...
    > Krugman believes that only policy wonks should run for office. The possibility that providing visionary leadership and formulating detailed policy proposals might be two different jobs seems not to have occurred to him.

    Steve Randy Waldman had a good post on this subject a couple months back, Your Theory of Politics is Wrong. An excerpt:

    "A democratic polity does not elect a technocrat-in-chief, but politicians whose role is to define priorities that must later be translated into well-crafted policy details.... The problems of our polity do not arise because one faction or another is too stupid to do high quality science.... Being smart is great. You may be proud of your GRE scores, your PhD, your Nobel Prize even. And deservedly! But raw intellect is not scarce, and no faction holds anywhere near a monopoly.

    In a democratic polity, wonks are the help. The role of the democratic process is to adjudicate interests and values. Wonks get a vote just like everyone else, but expertise on technocratic matters ought not translate to any deference on interests and values.

    If your theory of democracy is that informed citizens ought to cast votes based on the best social science, you have no theory of democracy at all."

    Link = http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6400.html

    Reg -> Chris G ...
    "wonks are the help"

    Ouch!

    Chris G -> Reg ...
    Yeah, I can't imagine that plays well with the likes of Krugman, DeLong, and company.
    Peter -> Chris G ...
    Yes great recall on your part.
    Dan Kervick -> Chris G ...
    The thing is, Hillary Clinton is also not a policy wonk. Sanders led out of the gate last year with a 12-point policy agenda while Clinton was still struggling to articulate broad themes.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-economic-policy-speech-nyc-120028

    Later, Clinton came out with a detailed financial plan, which is fine. That plan consists in various places of calls for "more regulation" of various functions and sectors. Does anybody think Hillary Clinton actually has a lot of specific ideas about what these regulations will actually look like after the wonks write them up? Of course she doesn't. And well she shouldn't! She's running for President, not the project manager of the policy engineering department. CEOs have to set the vision and mission, keep the team on track, and then make dozens of important decisions every day. They don't wallow in that kind of detail (until they have to go out in public to sell it.)

    Clinton's strength is politics, network building and balancing the competing interests and red lines of top elite stakeholders. The policy stuff comes from other people. Podesta, Brad DeLong and others built her a whole new fancy policy kitchen over at that Center for Equitable Growth for those purposes.

    You can't reduce a campaign contest to a menu of policies. In an campaign pinch, Clinton can always text Podesta and tell him to cook up some new policy on Subject X that sounds like Bernie Sanders. But the world is constantly changing and new challenges are constantly arising, and the values and general orientation of the leader are more important than what this week's menu looks like. Clearly Sanders's default outlook is something like: "The plutocrats are always up to no good. They are robbing, cheating and screwing us at every turn as a result of their bottomless greed, and so we need to watch them like hawks and take them on politically." Clinton's outlook seems to be that the elites are mainly good and sensible folks who have matters well in hand, and getting things done consists mainly in maintaining a consensus among them.

    Fred C. Dobbs :

    Feisty grandpa goes on tv.

    Bernie Sanders talks Hillary Clinton with Seth Meyers http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/television/2016/04/08/bernie-sanders-talks-hillary-clinton-with-seth-meyers/r2vVoEqOxQ56oQ8Fg3xXVI/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe

    On "Late Night with Seth Meyers," when the studio fills with smoke it's a signal - it's time for "Ya Burnt," a roasting segment. On Thursday night, audiences were instead treated to "Ya Bernt."

    Yes, Bernie Sanders was on "Late Night."

    Taking over the segment, Sanders talked about his feelings over some of his most burning issues - the one percent, big banks, and late-night hosts who make jokes about his hair.

    "One percent, what do you need all that money for? If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to compensate for something," said Sanders. "How is it possible that some of you are paying a lower tax rate than your secretaries? That makes less sense than the plot of Batman vs. Superman. One percent, ya burnt."

    But when Sanders sat down to interview, the jokes quickly paused and turned to more serious topics as Meyers pointed out Sanders' remarks about Clinton earlier this week.

    "You made a comment about Hillary being unqualified for the office of president," Meyers said. "Is that something you regret saying?"

    "It was said after she and her campaign said that I was unqualified," Sanders said.

    Meyers cleared up the matter slightly, suggesting to Sanders that Clinton had never said he was unqualified.

    "I heard her fail to say you were qualified, but she didn't say 'unqualified,' " Meyers said. ...

    (Video at the link.)

    Peter -> Julio ...

    Sanders is popular because he's an authentic dude. He hasn't changed his message for 30 years. People have come around to his view. He's not your normal politician.

    He's smart enough to know that the corporate media is out to get him and often says so to their faces.

    I think Hillary's suggestion that he apologize for the Sandy Hook shootings genuinely made him angry. So he responded in kind.

    If the corporate media was fair and objective they would have reported that Hillary was going negative and dragging the primary into the gutter.

    But of course the media likes a food fight and the Post fanned the flames. If Sanders didn't fight back, they would have faulted him for that. No win.

    Originally I supported Sanders's objective to run a positive campaign. Given how the Clinton campaign has behaved, now I think Sanders should have gone negative - fairly - from the start. There are legitimate questions about the Clinton Foundation, etc.

    Krugman etc would have screamed bloody murder that he's helping the Republican but so what. The Republicans are going to say all of that and worse anyway.

    If it is going to be Hillary versus Trump or Cruz, it will be the ugliest campaign in history.

    Reg -> Julio ...
    Yeah - he forgot that "air quotes" don't translate into print, so he fell for the Clinton campaign's carefully laid "bait." His comments were totally in context of the Clinton campaign's "disqualify" strategy and her slick "I'm taking it to the edge so you can't hang it on me" comments to Morning Joke. Hillary and her strategists are slick and disingenuous, Bernie is blunt and brusque.

    What else is new. Sort of like the difference in their relationships to dangerous critters like Lloyd Blankfein. Bernie tells them to go to hell. Hillary takes their money and claims it means nothing that she has their support.

    Peter -> Reg ...
    Well put.
    Tom aka Rusty :
    Clinton sycophants are incredibly dedicated, no matter what is done or said by the Clintons.

    An interesting political phenomena.

    Go Bernie, go Bernie.

    Dan Kervick :

    The idea that Krugman, an ivory tower careerists who spends most of his time trying to impress the High Church poobahs who run and advise the world's oppressive establishment power structures, should lecture a man whose entire career has been dedicated to defending the poor, weak and vulnerable on "ethical moorings" is flabbergasting.

    Where were the ethical moorings of the economic establishment over the past 35 years as they helped preside over the creation of the most unequal society on Earth? For shame.

    JohnH -> Dan Kervick...
    Yes, Krugman is loath to criticize trade deals, trickle down monetary policies, and many other engines of the investor class' wealth and power...he is a liberal face of the power structure's media machine, as evidenced by his position at the New York Times.
    William :
    Never thought this would happen, PK became a "Very Serious Person."
    BigBozat -> William...
    That should have been apparent for quite some time now. The completion of his metastasis should have been obvious to even casual observers by the time he penned his 'Varieties of Voodoo' screed attacking Friedman/Bernie with arguments from authority.
    BigBozat -> Kerry...
    "It seems that you could write similar critiques of Hillary but Paul always choses to make the critique of Bernie. I am not sure why."

    The answer to your question is embedded in your preceding sentence.

    Krugtron's definition of 'Liberal' seems curiously circumscribed. Apparently, Progressives, Social Democrats, Heterodox Economists - among others - are not part of the community.

    Dan Kervick -> BigBozat...
    I watched a video the other day where a younger Krugman in 1992 was defending basic, established liberal policies against people like Herbert Stein from AEI. I think reflecting on that discussion helps get some perspective on Krugman's current limits.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoTdWHoZ0RM

    Krugman came of age in an era when economic policy and the elite consensus was turning in a decisively more conservative, pro-market, anti-regulation, laissez faire direction. In such an environment, liberals had their hands full just keeping the conservatives from completely dismantling the social safety net. They also had to work overtime to defend basic fiscal policy responses which had been considered uncontroversial common sense in the previous era.

    The problem is, Krugman still thinks he lives in that world. He thinks the radical conservatives are still winning, and that being a liberal now mainly consists in being a conservative defender of existing liberal institutions. I think the Krugman mindset has afflicted a whole generation, for whom, no matter how many opportunities they are presented with, respond by circling the wagons and playing defense. They have been playing defense so long they don't realize how conservative they have become.

    But the radical conservatives actually aren't winning. The Republican Party is in total disarray. 2/3rds of the American public say they want "radical change":

    http://www.salon.com/2016/04/06/most_americans_want_radical_change_its_socialism_or_barbarism_and_clinton_would_only_mean_more_of_the_latter/

    anne -> Dan Kervick...
    Interesting analysis.
    Charlie Baker -> Dan Kervick...
    Well observed. I think for many Democrats, it's always 2000. I think it's that "siege mentality" that is causing pundits like Krugman to be extra-critical of Sanders, as if Bernie might hand the election over to the GOP.

    Both Dean Baker and Mike Konczal have written good defenses of Sanders' NYDN statements about the banks. Perhaps Krugman might look at them before trying to make Sanders look foolish. Very disappointing run of columns from Krugman.

    Dean Baker
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/reporters-who-haven-t-noticed-that-paul-ryan-has-called-for-eliminating-most-of-federal-government-go-nuts-over-bernie-sanders-lack-of-specifics

    Mike Konczal
    http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/

    Fred C. Dobbs :

    NYT Delegate Counter http://nyti.ms/1yM8gsg

    shows Clinton with 1298
    Sanders with 1079, through April 5

    'State totals are pledged delegates based on election results.

    The Times estimated Washington State's 67 district-level
    delegates by using county vote totals and estimating each
    district's share based on the county's voting-age population.'


    NYT Delegate Calculator http://nyti.ms/1SxN92B

    shows Clinton starting with 1279,
    Sanders with 1027. (Or sometimes 1280 vs 1030.)

    going forward, Sanders will catch up
    if he gets 60% (looks like 58% would do it.)

    'Clinton's delegate lead is
    255, Reported by The A.P.,
    or 215, Estimated by The Green Papers'

    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-PU.phtml

    (Superdelegates are mentioned, but not included in totals.)

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...

    NYT Delegate Counter http://nyti.ms/1yM8gsg

    'Delegates remaining: 1977'

    'Delegate totals include unpledged delegates.'

    Primaries & caucuses from April 9 through June 14.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...
    The NYT data that appears in the Delegate Counter appear to match more closely with the data that appears in The Green Papers than it does with the Delegate Calculator.
    am -> Fred C. Dobbs...
    Agreed. The counter reporting the lead of 219 seems more accurate also. Sanders won heavily in Washington and the counter more accurately reflects this.
    Peter :
    Krugman leaves out a lot of context in his column. Perhaps he believes the ends justify the means during an election.

    What happened is that some polls have Sanders leading Clinton nationally. (will this kind of thing matter to the superdelegates?)

    From Chris G in todays links comments:

    "Sanders had the support of 47 percent of Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters while Clinton had 46 percent-a narrow gap that fell within the poll's 2.5 percent margin of error. The national survey was conducted in the days before the Vermont senator handily defeated the former secretary of state in the Wisconsin primary, and it tracks other polls in the last week that found Sanders erasing Clinton's edge across the country. In a poll that PRRI conducted in January, Clinton had a 20-point lead."

    Link = http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/a-sanders-surge-in-polling-if-not-delegates/477198/

    So the Clinton campaign decided to unleash the flying monkeys. The campaign and their surrogates in the media went on the attacks.

    Clinton said Sanders should apologize for Sandy Hook. The media played up the NY Dailey News interview which they said showed Sanders to be unprepared or unqualified. The Washington Post ran a headline which said Clinton said Sanders was unqualified. Maddow and others played up the angle that Clinton was raising money for the DNC while Sanders was not. Clinton asked if Sanders was a real Democratic. etc.

    This is not surprising for anyone who has followed a political campaign.

    And when Sanders predictably hit back, the Clinton campaign and the media complained he's being negative and dragging the primary into the gutter.

    Sanders supporters will no longer consider Krugman fair and objective, if they ever did.

    Reg -> Peter...
    He's fine when he sticks to Keynes. I'm guessing he'll walk back his comfort with Dodd Frank as "not too hot, not too cold, but just right" once he's no longer freaking out about Hillary's remarkably flawed candidacy (again.)

    Eric Blair :

    Krugman's politics haven't changed much since he first made his name 35 years ago, whether he is "liberal" or "centrist" is mostly a reflection of where the current center is. His Bernie blasts remind me of the potshots he used to take at John Kenneth Galbraith.

    likbez -> MIB...

    they're not running around imposing some socialist purity test

    Hillary is running around imposing a neocon purity test on the US foreign policy agenda.

    rune lagman -> DeDude...
    That's absolutely correct. Bernie on top of the Democratic ticket has good chance of capturing congress, something hillary can't.

    Besides Hillary doesn't believe in $15 minimum wage, and won't fight for it. Bernie will.

    likbez -> MIB...
    Bernie's remark that Hillary is unqualified to be president is immature and sexist.

    If we are talking about foreign policy, she is definitely unqualified. Her tenure at State Department was a disaster. No diplomatic skills, whatsoever. She was trying to imitate Madeleine Albright not noticing that the times changed.

    Her appointment of Dick Cheney close associate Victoria Nuland first as State Department Spokesperson and then Assistant Secretary of State was an act of betrayal of everything Democratic Party should stand for. It was actually return to Bush II/Cheney (or should be Cheney/Bush II) foreign policy.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

    In case she is elected, she will be a real threat to world peace. It is just unclear what country she will decide to invade next. But she will definitely invade.

    dd :

    Hillary Clinton the last of the angry old white entitled one percenter Rockfeller Republicans cloaked in feminism ready to lead the Neodemocratic party.
    dd -> MIB...
    Hillary is no FDR although a comparison to JFK's father's wall street shenanigans is probably apt. I particularly admire the tax-free donations to a tax-free entity with of course wall street as a major donor. I'm sure under her leadership we will begin to explore even more innovative tax avoidance to help the needy.

    am :

    It is reported that sanders is walking back the statement that Clinton is unqualified to be president.
    Benedict@Large -> am...
    "It is reported that ..." Exactly. And that means exactly what? The media is owned by people who have exactly zero interest in the American people being informed about who stealing all the bacon and how.

    Peter -> am...

    You could easily Google it.

    Again I don't understand why Hillary doesn't have to walk it back. She started it. What she said differed very little from Sanders said.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-i-attacked-hillary-clinton-because-she-attacked-me/

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/television/2016/04/08/bernie-sanders-talks-hillary-clinton-with-seth-meyers/r2vVoEqOxQ56oQ8Fg3xXVI/story.html?event=event25

    Peter -> am...
    double standards

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/

    Rune Lagman :

    It's truly sad to watch Paul Krugman (PK) turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal elite that currently runs the Democratic party.

    What better proof could there possibly be, that it's time to kick Hillary and her cronies to the curb.

    If PK were the numbers guy, that he claims, he'd be all in for Bernie. With Bernie as the Democratic nominee, it's a very strong possibility that the Democrats retake, not only the presidency and the senate, but also the house. Hillary might win the presidency, but her upside (beyond the presidency) is limited.

    Bernie has also proven that medicare-for-all is a politically possible, all we need to do (if we want medicare-for-all) is vote for Bernie.

    Likewise for tuition-free college, $15 minimum wage, and a job-market that would make Bill Clinton's late 90's look puny; even Hillary's economists agree on the over-heated job-market (if Bernie implemented all his proposals). All we need to do, is, ignore the barrage from the establishment, and vote for Bernie. It's that simple folks.

    Likewise for a 21st century green economy. With Bernie in the white house and friendly house and senate, we can start building the 21st-century green economy. All we need to do is vote for Bernie.

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for status quo, nothing will really change. The Democratic establishment will still blame the republican majority in the house for the lack of progress.

    Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege, with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society.

    If we want a post-racial society, all we need to do is vote for Bernie. The question is, do we dare to stand up for ourselves against a powerful establishment?

    William -> Rune Lagman...
    "Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege, with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society." -Rune Lagman

    [Bernie is and remains the only candidate to firmly, and unequivocally state "Black Lives Matter"]

    jh -> Rune Lagman...

    The laziness of "all we need to do is vote for Bernie" is sad. We don't need to build a movement! Just one vote, and centuries of injustice are effortlessly overturned! Don't bother coming again, or paying attention to how resumes with black-sounding names are downplayed! You've done your part and it will all work out in the end!

    It won't work out like that, and I dearly hope that nobody is thinking that way.

    Rune Lagman -> jh...
    This is the kind of defeatism (and lies), that the Democratic establishment is using to preserve the status quo.

    Hopefully we have the fortitude to stand up to the fear-mongering and siren-song of the Democratic establishment. A vote for Hillary won't change anything, but a vote for Bernie will definitely start the changes that are necessary.

    This is the reason Bernie talks about a political revolution. A vote for Bernie is just the beginning.

    Rune Lagman -> sherparick...

    Excellent example of the identity-politics that pit Americans against each other. In this case women vs men. As a matter of fact Bernie in the white house is better for women than Hillary.

    Bernie is much stronger, than Hillary, among independents. Bernie's strength among independents will make the republican gerrymandering backfire. It only takes a few %-points swing among lower educated whites. In addition, Bernie brings a whole new cadre of voters, that normally would stay home, to the polls.

    Another perfect example of establishment fear-mongering and misinformation.

    jh -> Rune Lagman...
    Except you didn't say that it's "just the beginning." You said it's "all we need to do."

    The frustration among "establishment" people is that you are promoting the idea that it is so easy. And you do, until called on it, at which point you pivot.

    Rune Lagman -> jh...
    Because it is "easy".

    As long as we "see through" the fear-mongering and siren-song of the establishment, all we need to do is show up at the polls; again and again and again ...

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> jh...

    A vote for Bernie is a vote for a movement and IT IS the kind of movement that Martin Luther King had wanted all along. Doctor King did not want apologies or even reparations. Doctor King wanted fair and equal pay, decent educations, good jobs, and equality in all rights, privileges, and opportunities for his people. Martin Luther King was a black man decent enough for a white man to follow and I did. Bernie Sanders is a white man decent enough for a black man to follow.
    RGC -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    Well said.

    anne :

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html

    February 11, 2008

    Hate Springs Eternal
    By PAUL KRUGMAN

    I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality....

    [ Ah, I understand. ]

    anne -> anne...

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/im-a-pussycat/

    July 4, 2008

    I'm a Pussycat
    By Paul Krugman

    Compared with the Times editorial page. People don't seem to know this, but they, not me, were the first to worry about an Obama cult of personality. * And today's editorial ** is quite something.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06wed1.html

    ** http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html

    anne -> anne...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/lweb13krugman.html

    'Venom'? 'Cult'? It's Campaign Fever

    To the Editor:

    "Hate Springs Eternal," by Paul Krugman:

    Mr. Krugman, a consistent critic of Barack Obama, did not produce a shred of evidence for his categorical statement that the "venom" being displayed in the Democratic campaign comes from Obama supporters, "who want their hero or nobody." And it seems to perpetuate the same bizarre bitterness that he derides in his column.

    Even worse is his assertion that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." I am surprised and saddened that a thoughtful public intellectual like Mr. Krugman would write such a careless and unfair statement at a moment of critical potential in national politics.

    Barack Obama is changing the way we think about race in America. His inclusive message is so refreshing that, in addition to strong backing from blacks, he is drawing unprecedented nationwide support from white voters. It is so upsetting that this remarkable and historic feat is belittled as a "cult of personality."

    William Julius Wilson
    Cambridge, Mass., Feb. 11, 2008
    The writer is a professor of sociology and social policy at Harvard University.

    Julio -> anne...
    Excellent link. The letters to the editor are very worthwhile reading; they provide an eerie echo of the discussion we're having today.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> sherparick...

    "if you dissent from the Bernie movement you... can only do so if you are a tool of the 1%"

    [Perhaps you are right.

    I see both sides. The liberal establishment is safe and there are no surprises once you get used to being perpetually disappointed. I will be 67 years old in a couple weeks. That is a long time to be perpetually disappointed. I only have so many more years left to live. Viet Nam taught me to get over my fears and do what needed to be done. I lack both the time and the fear to follow the liberal establishment as long as there is a progressive alternative available.]

    Peter -> sherparick...
    I remember 2008 very well and Krugman was blowing things out of proportion about Obama's supporters just as he is doing now about Sanders supporters.

    "Ironically, many of the people blasting him then for criticizing Obama in hte 2008 primary season in turn started blasting Obama in the summer of 2009 as the Affordable Care Act sausage was being made and PK was then defending Obama"

    Simply not true. The people on the left who hated the ACA didn't support Obama for president. The said he was too centrist.

    Peter -> Rumpole...

    I just hate the way Hillary campaigns. She said Sanders should apologize for Sandy Hook? Why isn't he media all over her for that? Because they have double standards. She lies about Sanders record as if it's expected just as taking a lot of money from rich donors and corporations is expected.

    I can understand why she might be peeved at constant accusations of corruption because of her campaign finances, because why is she being singled out, she must be wondering. Everyone does it. But that's part of Sanders's point, so he's not really being that personal about her.

    Peter -> Peter...
    And she and her supporters have double standards. Her policy proposals are just as vague and broad-stroked as Sanders's proposal and yet she has the gall to accuse Sanders of not doing his homework. He's been thinking about this stuff for decades.

    Benedict@Large -> Rumpole...

    The hate is a figment of Hillary's campaign. She used the same allegations back in 2008. They're who she is as a candidate.

    Rune Lagman -> Rumpole...

    What budget proposal?

    Besides, Bernie may very well bring with him a Democratic house. Absolutely no change of Hillary doing so.

    Besides Bernie has a long history of working with the opposition. Hillary is very polarizing.

    Just more establishment misinformation.

    Benedict@Large :

    I wonder what Paul has to say about Hillary's racist co-campaigner and husband?

    There's a lot of nasty stuff in this campaign, and everyone knows where it's coming from. A few, like Paul, are playing defense, but they are not fooling anyone. The Clintons are very poor losers, and at times like these, this secret becomes impossible to keep inside the Washington beltway.

    anne :

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/718502209051324416

    Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald

    This was actually published by the Washington Post 2 days ago - and remains there (just by the way):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/

    April 6, 2016

    Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president

    By Juliet Eilperin and Anne Gearan

    11:14 AM - 8 Apr 2016

    eudaimonia :

    Here is Konczal on Bernie's "disastrous" interview at the NYDN. http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/ As you can see, Konczal does not buy into Krugman's and the MSM overblown reactions. Sanders gave pretty straight forward and normal answers. For those who don't know, Konczal is a financial reform expert who Krugman respects and often cites.
    Peter -> eudaimonia...
    and here is Dean Baker who Krugman often cites

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/reporters-who-haven-t-noticed-that-paul-ryan-has-called-for-eliminating-most-of-federal-government-go-nuts-over-bernie-sanders-lack-of-specifics

    Reporters Who Haven't Noticed That Paul Ryan Has Called for Eliminating Most of Federal Government Go Nuts Over Bernie Sanders' Lack of Specifics

    Published: 05 April 2016

    The Washington press corps has gone into one of its great feeding frenzies over Bernie Sanders' interview with New York Daily News. Sanders avoided specific answers to many of the questions posed, which the D.C. gang are convinced shows a lack of the knowledge necessary to be president.

    Among the frenzied were the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, The Atlantic's David Graham, and Vanity Fair's Tina Nguyen, and CNN's Dylan Byers telling about it all. Having read the transcript of the interview I would say that I certainly would have liked to see more specificity in Sanders' answers, but I'm an economist. And some of the complaints are just silly.

    When asked how he would break up the big banks Sanders said he would leave that up to the banks. That's exactly the right answer. The government doesn't know the most efficient way to break up JP Morgan, JP Morgan does. If the point is to downsize the banks, the way to do it is to give them a size cap and let them figure out the best way to reconfigure themselves to get under it.

    The same applies to Sanders not knowing the specific statute for prosecuting banks for their actions in the housing bubble. Knowingly passing off fraudulent mortgages in a mortgage backed security is fraud. Could the Justice Department prove this case against high level bank executives? Who knows, but they obviously didn't try.

    And the fact that Sanders didn't know the specific statute, who cares? How many people know the specific statute for someone who puts a bullet in someone's head? That's murder, and if a candidate for office doesn't know the exact title and specific's of her state murder statute, it hardly seems like a big issue.

    There is a very interesting contrast in media coverage of House Speaker Paul Ryan. In Washington policy circles Ryan is treated as a serious budget wonk. How many reporters have written about the fact this serious budget wonk has repeatedly proposed eliminating most of the federal government. This was not an offhand gaffe that Ryan made when caught in a bad moment, this was in his budgets that he pushed through as chair of the House Budget Committee.

    This fact can be found in the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of Ryan's budget (page 16, Table 2). The analysis shows Ryan's budget shrinking everything other than Social Security and Medicare and other health care programs to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2050. This is roughly the current size of the military budget, which Ryan has indicated he wants to increase. That leaves zero for everything else.

    Included in everything else is the Justice Department, the National Park System, the State Department, the Department of Education, the Food and Drug Administration, Food Stamps, the National Institutes of Health, and just about everything else that the government does. Just to be clear, CBO did this analysis under Ryan's supervision. He never indicated any displeasure with its assessment. In fact he boasted about the fact that CBO showed his budget paying off the national debt.

    So there you have it. The D.C. press corps that goes nuts because Bernie Sanders doesn't know the name of the statute under which he would prosecute bank fraud thinks a guy who calls for eliminating most of the federal government is a great budget wonk.

    Peter -> Peter...
    and here is Robert Reich versus Barney Frank

    https://youtu.be/jCwfrhmDmS4

    [Apr 10, 2016] It is truly sad to watch Paul Krugman turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal elite that currently runs the Democratic party.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's truly sad to watch Paul Krugman (PK) turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal elite that currently runs the Democratic party. What better proof could there possibly be, that it's time to kick Hillary and her cronies to the curb. ..."
    "... A vote for Hillary is a vote for status quo, nothing will really change. The Democratic establishment will still blame the republican majority in the house for the lack of progress. ..."
    "... Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege, with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    April 08, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Rune Lagman

    It's truly sad to watch Paul Krugman (PK) turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal elite that currently runs the Democratic party. What better proof could there possibly be, that it's time to kick Hillary and her cronies to the curb.

    If PK were the numbers guy, that he claims, he'd be all in for Bernie. With Bernie as the Democratic nominee, it's a very strong possibility that the Democrats retake, not only the presidency and the senate, but also the house. Hillary might win the presidency, but her upside (beyond the presidency) is limited.

    Bernie has also proven that medicare-for-all is a politically possible, all we need to do (if we want medicare-for-all) is vote for Bernie.

    Likewise for tuition-free college, $15 minimum wage, and a job-market that would make Bill Clinton's late 90's look puny; even Hillary's economists agree on the over-heated job-market (if Bernie implemented all his proposals). All we need to do, is, ignore the barrage from the establishment, and vote for Bernie. It's that simple folks.

    Likewise for a 21st century green economy. With Bernie in the white house and friendly house and senate, we can start building the 21st-century green economy. All we need to do is vote for Bernie.

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for status quo, nothing will really change. The Democratic establishment will still blame the republican majority in the house for the lack of progress.

    Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege, with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society.

    If we want a post-racial society, all we need to do is vote for Bernie. The question is, do we dare to stand up for ourselves against a powerful establishment?

    [Apr 10, 2016] Hillary is definitely unqualified as POTUS because her tenure at State Department was a disaster

    Notable quotes:
    "... If we are talking about foreign policy, she is definitely unqualified. Her tenure at State Department was a disaster. No diplomatic skills, whatsoever. She was trying to imitate Madeleine Albright not noticing that times changed. ..."
    "... In case she is elected, she will be a real threat to world peace. It is just unclear what country she will decide to invade next. But she will definitely invade. ..."
    "... Hillary is running around imposing a neocon purity test on the US foreign policy agenda. ..."
    "... A vote for Hillary is a vote for mediocrity; especially in the mid-terms. ..."
    "... Its a long campaign. They are not suppose to be friends. Stuff gets said, gets misreported ..."
    "... Hillary went negative and dragged the primary into the gutter. She said Sanders should apologize for Sandy Hook. I don't really blame Sanders for getting angry. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez -> MIB...

    Bernie's remark that Hillary is unqualified to be president is immature and sexist.

    If we are talking about foreign policy, she is definitely unqualified. Her tenure at State Department was a disaster. No diplomatic skills, whatsoever. She was trying to imitate Madeleine Albright not noticing that times changed.

    Her appointment of Dick Cheney close associate Victoria Nuland first as State Department Spokesperson and then Assistant Secretary of State was an act of betrayal of everything Democratic Party should stand for. It was actually return to Bush II/Cheney (or should it be Cheney/Bush II) foreign policy.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

    In case she is elected, she will be a real threat to world peace. It is just unclear what country she will decide to invade next. But she will definitely invade.

    likbez said in reply to MIB...

    they're not running around imposing some socialist purity test

    Hillary is running around imposing a neocon purity test on the US foreign policy agenda.

    Rune Lagman said in reply to MIB...

    Without Bernie's revolution the mid-terms is just going to be even more dismal. The Democratic establishment fail in the mid-terms because they don't run on a national program. They believe it's about the competency of the individual candidate.

    Elections should be about issues that voters care about; the Democratic establishment still don't get that concept.

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for mediocrity; especially in the mid-terms.

    dd said in reply to MIB...

    Hillary is no FDR although a comparison to JFK's father's wall street shenanigans is probably apt. I particularly admire the tax-free donations to a tax-free entity with of course wall street as a major donor. I'm sure under her leadership we will begin to explore even more innovative tax avoidance to help the needy.


    sherparick said in reply to jh...

    Its a long campaign. They are not suppose to be friends. Stuff gets said, gets misreported (in this case a WaPo headline that said something that Clinton did not say. The WaPo by the way has been far more vicious about Bernie then Clinton and her surrogates on her worse day.)

    Sanders is a remarkable politician and always has been. I am not in the end voting for him, I still admire his campaign as one of the great achievements of the American Left in my lifetime.

    Actually, Bernie and Jeff Weaver did Clinton a favor by taking the troll bait. She is at her best counter-punching and fighting from the underdog position. You can say a lot of things about Hillary, (I worry about her judgement and group think tendencies), but she is tough and courageous and seems to actually enjoy a good knock down drag out political fight.

    Peter said in reply to sherparick...

    Hillary went negative and dragged the primary into the gutter. She said Sanders should apologize for Sandy Hook. I don't really blame Sanders for getting angry.

    Obama was much better at staying focused and on message. But then he made some policy mistakes as President which I don't believe Sanders would have done.

    [Apr 06, 2016] No Turning Point What Happens in Wisconsin Stays in Wisconsin; Hell to Pay

    Zero Hedge

    Whether Trump wins the nomination or it is stolen from him, a destructive breakup of the holier-than-thou, war-mongering, neocon pseudo-conservative hypocrites running the Republican party is potentially at hand. For that we can all thank Trump, whether you like the guy or not. It's time to rebuild the Republican party, and this is a good start. If the nomination is stolen from Trump, he can finish the job with a third-party candidacy.

    [Mar 26, 2016] Mr. Trump Goes To Washington

    www.moonofalabama.org

    M of A

    Donald Trump toured Washington yesterday for backroom meetings with Republican party bigwigs, for pandering to the Israel lobby and for an examination by the neoconned Washington Post editors.

    The Republican party has given up its resistance to Trump. See for example the Republican functionary John Feehery who opined on February 29 that Trump is an authoritarian, and:

    We beat the Nazis and the Japanese in the World War II and protected freedom and democracy by beating the Soviet Union in the Cold War. It would be a damn shame if we lost it all by giving in to the authoritarian impulse in this election .

    The same guy only twenty-two days later :

    Republican voters can support the nominee picked by a majority of the voters, they can sit this election out, or they can start a third party. The last two choices give the White House to the Clinton machine.

    I am not happy that Donald Trump could be our nominee, but I am learning to live with that distinct possibility .

    That, in short, is the revised position of the Republican party. It has given up on fighting Trump and will now propel him into the White House. What will happen thereafter? Who knows?

    Trump is pure marketing. A salesperson throughout. This video explains how his linguistics works - words with only very few syllables, strong buzzword at the end of the sentences. It is fourth grade reading level language. Exactly the level needed to sell his product to the U.S. public and the Republican party. He is an expert in doing this.

    But what product does Trump sell? Does he know it? Does he know how that product functions? Is he serious in what he claims that product to be. I have my doubts.

    So has Par Lang. He remarks on yesterday's Trump appearance at the U.S. Zionists beauty contests:

    Trump's pander was so extreme that one ponders the possibility that he was mocking the audience.

    Trump probably does not even care what political product he sells. For now he is selling the salesman himself. Buy Trump and all problems will be solved. He does this convincingly. Most of what he said so far is just nonsense and solely for marketing purpose. There are only few consistent political lines that did not (yet) change over time. These are the lines that rile the Washington Post editors:

    Donald Trump endorsed an unabashedly noninterventionist approach to world affairs Monday during a day-long tour of Washington, casting doubt on the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and expressing skepticism about a muscular U.S. military presence in Asia.
    ...
    "At what point do you say, 'Hey, we have to take care of ourselves?' " Trump said in the editorial board meeting. "I know the outer world exists, and I'll be very cognizant of that. But at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially the inner cities."

    Trump said U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore," he said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we're protecting Europe with NATO, but we're spending a lot of money."

    To this the editors opine :

    Unfortunately, the visit provided no reassurance regarding Mr. Trump's fitness for the presidency. "I'm not a radical person," he told us as he was leaving. But his answers left little doubt how radical a risk the nation would be taking in entrusting the White House to him.

    But who are the real radicals, the real radical risk? The salesperson Trump or the neoconned Washington Post publisher and editors? You may judged that from this excerpt at the end of the talk's transcript :

    [FREDERICK RYAN JR., WASHINGTON POST PUBLISHER]: You [MUFFLED] mentioned a few minutes earlier here that you would knock ISIS. You've mentioned it many times. You've also mentioned the risk of putting American troop in a danger area. If you could substantially reduce the risk of harm to ground troops, would you use a battlefield nuclear weapon to take out ISIS ?

    TRUMP: I don't want to use, I don't want to start the process of nuclear. Remember the one thing that everybody has said, I'm a counterpuncher. Rubio hit me. Bush hit me. When I said low energy, he's a low-energy individual, he hit me first. I spent, by the way he spent 18 million dollars' worth of negative ads on me. That's putting [MUFFLED]…

    RYAN: This is about ISIS. You would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS? [CROSSTALK] ...

    The salesperson stopped there. Instead of answering that question Trump asked for personal introduction to the people taking part in the event. To nuke some lunatics in Toyota technicals is not Trumps idea of his product. He would not sell that. Not even for gaining the support of the WaPo neocons.

    Buying Trump is buying a pig in a poke. One does not know what one might get. But I find it unlikely that he would pursue an interventionist policy. Then again - George W. Bush also pretended to be a non-interventionist - until that changed.

    But Trumps current non-interventionist position is a big contrast to Hillary Clinton. She unashamedly offers her well known toxic brew of neo-liberal and neo-conservative orthodoxy. She will wage war, Trump may. As a foreigner that is the decisive difference to me.

    But if I were a voter in the U.S. my position would be based on economic policies. There Bernie Sanders is surely preferable to Trump and very much preferable to Clinton.

    Posted by b at 01:45 PM | Comments (113) Inkan1969 | Mar 22, 2016 2:16:02 PM | 2
    rg the lg | Mar 22, 2016 2:25:10 PM | 3
    So, I guess what all this means is that the Repubs have accepted Trump as less evil than Hillary? But, what if the nominee of the Democ side isn't Hillary? What if it is the Bern? Not that it makes a dimes worth of difference. Did anyone read Dimitri Orlovs post for today? I have to say that his take is pretty close to where we are headed ... if not soon, eventually.

    I have no idea who really originated the bit about interesting times ... but I suspect it may be what we are living through. That is, if this is living ...

    aaaa | Mar 22, 2016 2:25:37 PM | 4
    "Trump is pure marketing. A salesperson throughout. This video explains how his linguistics works - words with only very few syllables, strong buzzword at the end of the sentences. It is fourth grade reading level language. Exactly the level needed to sell his product to the U.S. public and the Republican party. He is an expert in doing this."

    Gee, did you miss the whole Obama campaign? Does CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN/HOPE? ring a bell?

    Kalen | Mar 22, 2016 2:31:07 PM | 5
    Trump, an quintessential oligarchs himself, famous for marrying supermodels and losing half of his Dad's fortune. The MSM long before elections virtually created Trump as Flaccid Clown TV persona.

    This Flaccid Clown made himself a mirror of a fascist American society that through him can bask in its ugliness, ignorance and narcissism of exceptional mediocrity of Trump_vs_deep_state.

    Trump salesman has qualities of a self-invented cult leader, characterized by extreme bullying, intimidation, threats and/or violence and disregard to humanity reaching fair beyond any acceptable human conduct. He is a phony opportunist, a sewage excretion of his personal puny psychopathic insecurities for profit and fame with no other program, idea or thought behind it.

    He did not appear on the political stage accidentally, he has his role to play and he is playing it well so far, whatever establishment wants him to play. These are political puppets, stooges, chicken hawks, and front-men of the establishment who are scared, afraid that their services will no longer be needed by true ruling elite who run this abhorrent regime for about 240 years..

    This Flaccid Clown is an artificial phenomenon. He is a media phenomenon "hired by a establishment ", to tell establishment "You are fired" in a group psychotic episode of surrealistic transference of a cartoon character of reality show into empty desperate lives of those rejected by ruling elite, unable to effectively serve it or submit to power and hence forcefully alienated from delusions of American Serf Dream. He is uploaded by his oligarchic handlers, with misconceived populist utterances passes for ideas that he has no interest in, no understanding of or any intention or intellectual capability to follow. This is all about the show, and he is the entertainer of the moment.

    The establishment has all the bullets, criminal, political, economic, tax evasion, socio-sexual, financial to kill Trump candidacy in a week, even to indict him. Few front pages with this Flaccid Clown portrayed as a pariah, Russian spy, a commie, baby killer, thief, Antichrist, terrorist supporter, with no facts but innuendos would unravel his shallow support among desperate, scared, confused, blind, revenge seeking mob who now supports and idolizes him regardless what nonsense he is uttering. All bullets are ready to fire unless he submits and betrays his following and that's what he did just recently with bending over to AIPAC and refusing to run as independent if not nominated, another betrayal of his mindless, raging hormones followers. After all he does what he is hired to do.

    What he is actually used for by the Oligarchic establishment that supports him so far (Christie [and others, establishment bullies], is first one to admit it) is to galvanize desperate public, who finds his ignorance appealing and refreshing on such a calcified political stage of puppetry as well as moves those who see in him a danger of fascist narcissistic megalomaniac taking power.

    All the political commotion is aimed to insidiously entice Americans all to rush to voting booths thinking that they could make any slightest difference in their own lives and life of the nation by supporting or denouncing a puppet of the ruling elite.

    Unfortunately, this time as well, millions of irrational, desperate and helpless in their daily lives electoral zombies, under a spell of exciting political masquerade, are aligning themselves with an anointed winner of a popularity/beauty contest, in a delusional feat of transference of a fraction of elite's power to themselves just for a second of a thrill of power. And they will continue to authorize their own suicide mission, since even baseless, continually disproved hope of any chance of influencing of the political realm via means of begging is the last thing that dies.

    What's really shocking but beyond the political sensitivity level of Americans is a fact he is yet to formulate any coherent policy he would like to implement and that's the plan, so he, if anointed by the establishment will be able to backpedal, deny or ignore his utterances, leaving gullible crowd betrayed yet again.And people he "listens" to are all hopeless neocons or wall street hacks, symbols of status quo.

    Most of Americans, not unlike a cargo cult, are impatient, nervous, excited and scared sitting and waiting before an impregnable curtain of political manipulation of the ruling elite, turning to magic, superstition, appeasement or begging for mercy or praying for a caprice of good will to save them, while blatantly abandoning their unalienable rights to self-determination and democratic system of people's rule, based on equality in the law, and one voter one vote principle.

    May be the elites will conclude that if mob wants this Flaccid Clown, they will get a them this Flaccid Clown as a puppet figure sitting in oval office replica in Hollywood following and watching himself.

    It is old principle of rulers: "Vox Populi Vox Dei" that was originally applied in the totalitarian Roman Imperial regime during imperial games at Circus Maximum and Coliseum as a pressure valve release for unruly, enraged of cronyism, and fixed, unfair rules of aristocracy, roman proletariat i.e. people with no power, to pacify them cheaply and prevent costly riots and killing expenses.
    What we have here is:
    Vox Animali, Vox Inferi.

    Trump loves two things, himself and $. He'll follow the $ if elected, by doing what his owners tell him to do. The sensible utterances by Trump are an act, designed to siphon support from other candidates.

    Posted by: ben | Mar 22, 2016 2:52:48 PM | 6

    P.S.-I'm still quite skeptical Trump will be the GOP's guy.

    Posted by: ben | Mar 22, 2016 2:55:54 PM | 7

    A big shout out to Kalen @ 5: Great post, think you nailed it..

    Posted by: ben | Mar 22, 2016 2:59:56 PM | 8

    farflungstar | Mar 22, 2016 3:00:19 PM | 9
    After Change We Can Bereave In and Mr. 9/11 GW Bush, I don't know what to believe. Trump's populist rhetoric sounds good to the ears of working proles and it amuses me that Chosenites on both the Left and Right side of the aisle as well as the media seem to be worried about him.
    This was supposed to be the end of the white male rule not only in Amerikkka, but also in formerly homogeneous Western Europe, ushered in by economic migrants, refugees often escaping from non-war zones, large explosions and heavily armed Wahabbs killing people in the train stations, bus stops, highways and by ways of these countries!
    What went wrong??
    Jake | Mar 22, 2016 3:20:43 PM | 10
    What's the problem with the haters here. trump wants to keep NATO out of Russia's hair. WHY slam him for that. even if he doesn't mean it, he can't suffer an electoral defeat now without making it radio active for another candidate to see her talk that way. what part of that do you not understand? It doesn't matter if he's just a puppet if the elites see yet another anti interventionist electoral phenomenon.
    Jack Smith | Mar 22, 2016 3:33:59 PM | 11

    "But if I were a voter in the U.S. my position would be based on economic policies. There Bernie Sanders is surely preferable to Trump and very much preferable to Clinton."

    Becoming another apologist Mr. b? Your previous "Strategist" votes bring about another Neoliberal warmonger in Canada?

    This is where we stand apart and will remain respectful to you and readers.

    Between Killary, Bernie and whoever, I will vote Trump for now , he's no different for any politicians - liars and warmonger . Trump may likely destroy the two party systems and brought change we need so badly.

    What if he (Trump) starts another endless war? Do you really believe Killary and Bernie any different? The answers, better the devil who will start another war than the one who lies? My opinion, Bernie is far more dangerous than Obomo another Trojan horse.

    I maybe a minority here, but in the real world the numbers are growing - as I came across anyone I met regardless parties affiliation.

    Economic..?. blah! You believe in Fiat money, Wall Street or Banksters?

    fast freddy | Mar 22, 2016 3:38:17 PM | 12
    Trump is nasty, mean, corrupt, a bully and a nut, but he is the only candidate who offers a chance (however slim) of breaking the stinking rotten corrupt status quo in any way.

    I am sorry that he coddled the rotten, murderous Israel. But we are too far down the rabbit hole - these days all of Congress must express their devotion to Israel. This is craziness, but it is a sickening fact. They're all Xtians, too. This is also nuts and disgusting pandering.

    It's going to take a nasty Republican like Trump to break (or to make a valiant effort to crack) the nasty machine.

    Obama has shown himself and the corrupt D Party to have been a comprehensive, dismal failure for the common people. The D Party offers no hope and no change.

    Perhaps it won't be necessary for Trump to malign and attack the BDS movement as the slavering Hillary is doing. It's running off her fangs and down the front of her blood- soaked shirt.

    ben | Mar 22, 2016 3:38:28 PM | 13
    Jake @ 10: "trump wants to keep NATO out of Russia's hair."

    "Why slam him for that" Glad to hear you believe everything someone tells you.

    Simple observation, and comment. Hate? Take a deep breath and relax.

    aaaa | Mar 22, 2016 3:38:51 PM | 14
    @7 he isn't the GOP's guy, and that's why they might sabotage the convention and almost assuredly give the election to Hillary.

    Trump is Trump; he's been in the media since the 1970s.. here he is in 1980: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5VEjF1uhYo and an interesting analysis of NYC from 82 + Trump
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNq9Bjch6UA

    tom | Mar 22, 2016 3:45:00 PM | 15
    Trumps non-interventionist line ( not his policy, because making it up as you go along is not policy. ) is BS. That freak would be a gleeful war criminal by bombing a dozen countries if it got him more popularity, or he needed a boost from the polls, or he invested in the arms industry. All the non-interventionist BS, is just a PR counter to his establishment rivals. He doesn't mean any of of it.

    The Sanders campaign is a sick joke. Sacrificing genocide against people across the world so Americans can have a bit better health care is disgusting.

    Sanders has been so weak in taking on the evil US Empire and the US capitalist establishment, then how can he do anything as president where there will be much more pressure as president then there is now. Sanders would be the lamest sheep political history, and not because of the resistance by the elite, but because Sanders has no resistance. That way lies childish delusions.
    Sanders exists to give motivational speeches in some areas of social politics and that's all he is good for.

    Jack Smith | Mar 22, 2016 3:45:17 PM | 16
    Posted by: fast freddy | Mar 22, 2016 3:38:17 PM | 12

    Well said! Amen.

    Jack Smith | Mar 22, 2016 3:50:13 PM | 17
    Posted by: tom | Mar 22, 2016 3:45:00 PM | 15

    " The Sanders campaign is a sick joke. Sacrificing genocide against people across the world so Americans can have a bit better health care is disgusting.

    Behind Bernie is MoveON, Soros "invested" over a billion to keep Israel the endless slaughter of Palestinians civilians.

    ben | Mar 22, 2016 3:51:58 PM | 18
    If anyone here believes ANY candidate can change the Empire's direction, they're delusional.

    Only a massive public movement can make that happen, history has proved that. Without people in the streets, it can't happen.

    So, pick who YOU think might make that happen, but keep in mind this fact:

    Computer Voting and Stealing Democracy
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545

    VietnamVet | Mar 22, 2016 3:54:07 PM | 19
    If anyone represents the ruling Establishment, it is the Washington Post. They did force Richard Nixon out for no better reason than his withdrawal of the troops from Vietnam. Hardly the criminal acts that are ignored today. The editors' words are clear; endless war including the use of nuclear weapons. Damn the consequences.
    james | Mar 22, 2016 4:13:31 PM | 20
    in a world where packaging/appearance is everything and content means nothing - trump is the ticket.. the usa and the world by extension get what the marketers/propagandists have to offer... forget about anything to do with content..
    alaric | Mar 22, 2016 4:52:33 PM | 21
    Trump's vaunted "independence" would prove a problem to him as president because the ruling elite could attack his sources of income (the trump biz) and destroy his independence. If elected, he will be subjected to every nasty attack to sway him to do the bidding of the foreign policy establishment. He might want to call Putin for tips on how to deal with the nastiness.
    Penelope | Mar 22, 2016 5:02:22 PM | 22
    b, thank you. I agree entirely. Bernie would be better than a pig in a poke, and a b* in a poke would be worse.

    However, the point is moot because votecounting in the primaries has the overwhelming probability of having been fraudulent. And I would be shocked if the actual election votes were honestly counted.

    Here's what I heard in the Trump voice on the radio first thing, "My first priority is to get rid of that Iran agreement. That's a bad deal. For our safety. For Israel's safety. That deal needs to come down. That was a bad deal, and we gave them $--.--!" (He was talking about the part of their own money which we returned to them years after we "froze" their money.


    Here, take a gander at this; it's funny if you don't take it seriously. http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/03/22/the-2016-presidential-race-do-our-votes-really-matter/

    Jessica | Mar 22, 2016 5:04:38 PM | 23
    If I vote this election, it will be for Jill Stein. Foreign policy is #1 to me, and no other candidate comes close. I don't play the LOTE game or any variation. Besides, the majority of the voting population are so dependent on what their TV, radio or whatever tells them, there's no room for sanity.
    claudio | Mar 22, 2016 5:14:47 PM | 24
    Trump is simply stripping the "politically correct" packaging off of decades-long fascist rhetoric: "welfare queens" against the poor, "criminal environments" against the black, clash of civilization against the Muslims, "axis of evil" against any opponent of Us suprematism, etc

    so now he comes along and draws conclusions ... except for the "infinite war" meme, which is a purely imperialistic effort that seemingly doesn't resonate anymore with the people's frustration and anger


    virgile | Mar 22, 2016 5:15:11 PM | 25
    I think Trump's fans after a few more months of the same speech where money is prominent will be fed up.
    The trouble is that it would be too late and Trump would have offered the presidency to Hillary on a silver plate.
    We'll have to get used to the idea of seeing that witch often on the TV when she will be president.
    john | Mar 22, 2016 5:35:06 PM | 26
    perhaps all this will be rendered moot, we'll have an 'event,' Obama will initiate the Continuity of Operations (COOP) executive directive...

    whatever, it matters little...

    in the words of the late, great American composer and statesman, Mr. Frank Zappa:

    The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater

    fast freddy | Mar 22, 2016 5:40:34 PM | 27
    perhaps all this will be rendered moot, we'll have an 'event,' Obama will initiate the Continuity of Operations (COOP) executive directive...

    The Chicken Coop.

    MadMax2 | Mar 22, 2016 5:48:42 PM | 28
    Key phrase: 4th grade level of reading

    Fkn aye...

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/21/1504728/-Hillary-and-Trump-give-virtually-identical-speeches-at-AIPAC-get-standing-ovations

    Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 22, 2016 6:00:26 PM | 29

    aaaa | Mar 22, 2016 6:11:08 PM | 30
    Funny - zerohedge posts a new headline about radical left beheading trump.. What about the radical establishment?
    aaaa | Mar 22, 2016 6:11:28 PM | 31
    beheading an effigy**
    Jackrabbit | Mar 22, 2016 6:13:57 PM | 32
    b:

    It seems to me that Trump appeals to a large group of people who have been screwed. He is a true populist that says things that shake up the establishment like calling politicians "puppets".

    He's vague about where he stands on many issues to allow for moving toward the center after the nomination. Along those lines, he sometimes pays lip service to the establishment so as to reduce friction.

    Sander's position are much much more detailed and people-friendly. But Sanders doesn't seem to be willing to do what it takes to win. What does it take? Attacking Hillary's character. Demanding media time.

    And Sanders hasn't created a Movement. He is too wedded to the Democratic Party to do that. A real progressive movement might switch allegiance to the Greens if Sanders isn't the Democratic nominee. Sanders wants to deliver his voters to the Democratic nominee (likely to be Hillary).

    Each of us has to decide for themselves: can we trust a demagogue (Trump)? Can we trust a career politician someone that doesn't fight to win (Sanders)? Can we trust ANYONE that comes through the duopoly?

    #2-not anti-latino but illegals latino smart head !!!!

    Posted by: sejmon | Mar 22, 2016 6:38:17 PM | 33

    Nobody | Mar 22, 2016 6:40:26 PM | 34
    The point I had been mulling over is whether Trump is aware of the forces that rule the world and whether he would take them on. Would he open up the can of worms behind 9/11, lies to go into Iraq, Benghazi etc. Well my answer to that is he will if he has to (strike that) if the puppeteers decide that they want to.

    I think that he will be the next president, the Hegelian Dialectic that is being set up is that the "Government" has been taken over by bad elements and Trump will lead the charge against them as a "non-bought" free American and maybe the Clinton's take the fall. This of course directs anger away from the real perps. I base this on F William Engdahl in a wide ranging interview promoting his latest book on the Genesis of ISIS opening up a glimpse of the lifestyles of the wealthy at a place called "studio 54".

    I think that the next US president will be the one who "collapses" the dollar (the puppetmasters decide when this will happen, their puppet will be the one that deals with the resulting upheaval, and the pieces to deal with this are being put on the chessboard right now (Expect ISIS activity in the US).

    BTW, Engdahl makes a prediction in the video that "something big" will draw American boots on the ground into Syria.

    That didn't quite come out as planned. Here is the link to more details on Engdahl's thoughts on Trump http://journal-neo.org/2016/03/20/a-mafia-don-with-a-pompadour/

    Posted by: Nobody | Mar 22, 2016 6:45:08 PM | 35

    likklemore | Mar 22, 2016 7:00:54 PM | 36
    What choice is there? With the other two written off, what are their names? B And K ?---

    There is Ted Cruz: Politics Trumps the Constitution, Calls for Anti-Muslim Gestapo
    http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160322/1036776935/ted-cruz-anti-muslim-gestapo.html

    There is Hiltery Clinton: "What difference does it make." Out damn spot from my hands. Her victims are many, but who is counting.
    ... when we left the WH, we were broke. Hmmm. In 2008, a $35 million campaign debt was magically paid by anon donor. Her history is documentable, too many links. In the Whitewater saga, Hillary could not recall what work she did at the Rose Law firm for client Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan bank and, when subpoenaed by Prosecutors said she could not find the billing records.


    You have Donald Trump: whose speech at AIPAC indicates the status quo is affirmed. That sliver of land on the Med Sea which shall not be named or critiqued. Read his 5 most important declarations at AIPAC -link here
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/21/trumps-five-most-important-declarations-at-aipac-speech/


    How confident can we be that our votes will be counted as marked?

    You have Soros: whose Board member chairs the company counting the Utah votes in today's caucuses.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/20/soros-board-member-chairs-firm-running-online-balloting-for-tuesdays-utah-caucuses/

    In a season of hate and hoping and, with the Constitution declared a relic – in Denver, CBSnews finds no apartment lease for you.

    You Can't Live Here If You Are Voting For Donald Trump
    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/03/20/grand-junction-apartment-donald-trump/

    A circus? If only the consequences were not so serious.

    You think the USA society will remain intact at the end of 2016?

    On Voting: HRC is right. What difference does it make? All bought and paid for. You cannot become President unless selected by the guys and gals managing the Deep State.

    jfl | Mar 22, 2016 7:21:37 PM | 37
    Forget the elephants and donkeys. A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step - write-in elections . I'm all ears as regards a better plan. We need to stop complaining/chasing our tails and instead to plan, organize, and to seize power to effect real change.

    If we'd begun in 2004 we'd be very nearly home by now. So let's begin in 2016. Just as 2016 has succeeded 2004, whether we choose to continue to suck our thumbs or to act, the leaves will fall off our calendars and the year 2028 will arrive, one way or another ... I'd prefer another.

    ralphieboy | Mar 22, 2016 7:32:59 PM | 38
    A lot of Americans have developed such a low opinion of politicians and politics as usual that they believe that an outsider with no experience as an elected official can come in and improve the situation.
    TG | Mar 22, 2016 7:39:33 PM | 39
    Yes, well said. We don't really know what Trump will do - but we DO know what Hillary Clinton, Kasich, Rubio etc. will do and it's terrifying. We can at least HOPE that Trump will be somewhat less horrible than Hillary Vlad-the-Impaler Clinton.

    They say that 'hope is not a plan.' Actually hope is a plan - just not a very good one. But still better than cutting your own throat.

    I do disagree with you about Sanders. Yes, I mostly like him on foreign policy too, but economics? Sorry, his open-borders immigration policy WILL crush the average American into third-world poverty no matter what else he does. Because nobody but nobody beats the law of supply and demand. "People are the ultimate resource" is the slogan of India where over a half a billion people are chronically malnourished and the standard of living is inferior to late Medieval England...

    Funny that not that long ago Sanders admitted that open-borders immigration was something dreamed up by the Koch brothers to ensure a supply of cheap labor, but now he's gone full Wall Street on the issue and he's lost me.

    P @ 22: Thanks for the link. And the veil is lifted a bit further.

    Posted by: ben | Mar 22, 2016 7:45:51 PM | 40

    metni | Mar 22, 2016 7:52:59 PM | 41
    Trump's cloying tribute to AIPAC made him look like a penitent buffoon in search of redemption as he desperately scanned the crowd anxiously anticipating and appearing relieved at the sound of applause after each sentence he uttered.

    When it comes to Hillary, however, she has the record of past actions (and even more machinations) to prove her swooning fealty to The Lobby. Had her groveling not earned her enough kudos with AIPAC, Hillary could have read to the convention the contents of her recently disclosed email in which she explained how putting Syria neck under the butcher's knife was salutary for Israel.

    http://newobserveronline.com/clinton-destroy-syria-israel/#comments

    Al Neuman | Mar 22, 2016 8:11:07 PM | 42
    Trump has been clear about his economic policies. He has criticized the TPP, H1B visas, lopsided trade deals, offshoring US jobs and stated repeatedly he wants to place a tariff on companies that move to low wage countries.
    On the other hand, Sanders is completely inconsistent by calling for open borders while claiming to be for higher wages. How is flooding the market with cheap labor going to raise wages?
    On foreign policy Trump has questioned the logic of eliminating secular dictators who kill terrorists. If is was a mistake to remove Saddam & Gaddafi, then how can we do the same to Assad? Also Trump has said countries receiving US Military protection will start paying for it's cost and that money will be used to rebuild US infrastructure.
    Regarding ISIS Trump has called for neighboring countries to send their troops backed by US airpower. He also thinks Gulf countries should pay for refugees' safe zones.
    On the other hand, Sanders says the US should be "tough but not stupid" in destroying ISIS. Now that sounds like a "pig in a poke" foreign policy if I ever heard one.
    roger erickson | Mar 22, 2016 8:11:15 PM | 43
    "Trump's pander was so extreme that one ponders the possibility that he was mocking the audience"

    :)

    just like keeping a straight face at a bankruptcy hearing

    best political cartoon of the year?
    ... http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/teflon-trump-the-one/

    Penelope | Mar 22, 2016 8:56:43 PM | 44
    Thank you Ben @ 18. Stealing the election is really the most important issue, I agree.
    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/ is the site of a statistician who studies election/primary fraud for us.

    At the following site he gives us an overview of incredible things you didn't know. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NoLTeS9HflwTNJgi5n8nNLdomjxh6eKjoy5FuOmqsVU/edit

    Elsewhere on the site he indicates that the public chose Bernie, not Hillary in MA, MO, MI & IL. Also the exact method by which Richard knows this. Did you know that once the results are in they ADJUST the exit polls to agree?
    It's fantastic the amt of info he has; he even knows how many votes on which type of machines where two types are available.

    So it's really a tragedy. If Bernie had been allowed to do better at the beginning he might have created a bandwagon effect. In those 4 states people didn't vote for that horrible woman.

    h | Mar 22, 2016 9:10:40 PM | 45
    Everything I'm reading at conservative/activist news blogs is Trump is being sold as an 'insurgency' candidate. Conservatives have been working to kick the RINO/neocons out of the leadership of the national R Party for years. They see Trump as the guy who can crack the ceiling so to speak and they are pulling out all of the stops to get him to the General. Period.

    Their coalition that is growing enormously, daily, which includes moderate Evangelicals (if there is such a thing), conservatives, some Tea Party types and more conservatives.

    Many here may dismiss Trump, but I'd suggest that would not be wise. Like it or not, he is a keen strategist, he's extremely well connected which means his peers are intensely intimidated, he's a deal maker and breaker, he's been working the conservative side of the aisle for at least a decade now, he uses people to his advantage yet their is a shady loyalty that goes with it...shady as in shadows.

    As for Hillary, her base just isn't fired up. BUT, and this is a big BUT, when she gets cornered she comes out fighting, and when chooses to 'turn it on' she acts/behaves like a fighter and she becomes unstoppable.

    Bernie, well, he's Bernie...his policy proposals are worth looking at. He's not offensive. He's not a Neanderthal. And he's decent. The likelihood of Hillary being indicted is nil, IMHO, thus, his challenge lies with how he out 'fight's' her and I'm not convinced he has the MOJO to succeed.

    As for Jill Stein. When she ran the last time, I tried to do a basic background check on her. I'm an A2 girl, that is I wanted to learn if she met the three qualifications laid out in the Constitution, which is Article II, Section 5. I ran a very novice check on her, I admit, but I found it difficult to learn anything about her upbringing, local schools she's attended, her mom and dad, grandma and grandpa, brothers and sisters. Dead ends everywhere.

    All of the above search info is readily found on just about any of us, which makes me suspect, that is, she doesn't meet the U.S. Contitution's Presidential qualifications. She may. But I couldn't confirm it. Which in my mind, should be relatively easy. There is something 'amiss' about her. Just instinct. Can't place my finger on it.

    And Cruz? Ha. Ppppffffttttt....very dishonest IMO. And doesn't have a credible shot at the General.

    Donald's meeting with Sheldon was a fait ac·com·pli. He's there man as evidenced by his AIPAC debut...

    fast freddy | Mar 22, 2016 9:12:17 PM | 46
    Engdahl says no hop in Trump. Trump is a Mafia Don with a pompadour. Direct Mafia Ties via casinos, attorneys, dad's construction biz. Likes Hillary even less.

    Engdahl talks a good game and backs it up, but no mention of Israel's role in the balkanization of MENA states and the remapping of MENA in accordance w/ Yinon/PNAC Plans.

    ben | Mar 22, 2016 9:24:21 PM | 47
    AN @ 42: Do you REALLY believe the "Donald" will be able to live up to his progressive rhetoric? If so, I applaud your faith. I, on the other hand, do not. We could well find out in the future.
    Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 22, 2016 10:08:39 PM | 48
    ...
    I maybe a minority here, but in the real world the numbers are growing - as I came across anyone I met regardless parties affiliation.
    Economic..?. blah! You believe in Fiat money, Wall Street or Banksters?
    Posted by: Jack Smith | Mar 22, 2016 3:33:59 PM | 11

    I suspect that you've zeroed in on the Trump 'difference'.
    All he needs to get into the White House is to keep dangling the insinuation that he'll be the least worst of the last dozen or so POTUSes. And he can do that with everything except his tongue tied behind his back. I'm also inclined to agree that if he turns out not to be anti-establishment then the next POTUS probably will be.

    #2 Trump is anti-latino? That is news to me. I believe he talked about MEXICO. Mexico is not Latin America, please do not use the race card. Trump makes lots of sense, NO MORE illegal immigration, out, out out I say. The real unemployment rate in the country is stratospheric. There is a black boy in Chicago who needs that job, there is a young white boy in Appalachia who needs that job, there is a young native american boy on a res who also needs that job. Everytime I hear, "these immigrants are doing jobs americans don't want to do" I get sick to my stomach. Enough is enough.

    Posted by: Fernando Arauxo | Mar 22, 2016 11:01:22 PM | 49

    Penelope | Mar 23, 2016 12:10:42 AM | 50
    b, sorry for the OT, but CISA is even worse than CISPA & they are s'posed to vote for it this week. I guess it would affect you too. Just what we don't need-- business controlling what we say on the internet.

    There's a short vid here that explains it https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/cisa-and-the-trifecta-of-fascism-another-american-everyman-video-production/

    Jack Smith | Mar 23, 2016 12:26:36 AM | 51
    Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 22, 2016 10:08:39 PM | 47
    Posted by: Fernando Arauxo | Mar 22, 2016 11:01:22 PM | 48

    I'm not trying to convince you voting for Trump, but remain steadfast write-in for Jill Stein. However, an extract from John Pliger:

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/336785-world-war-break-silence/

    "....In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make "the world free from nuclear weapons". People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

    It was all fake. He was lying.........In the last eighteen months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two – led by the United States – is taking place along Russia's western frontier. Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia. What makes the prospect of nuclear war even more dangerous is a parallel campaign against China..........The propaganda laying the ground for a war against Russia and/or China is no different in principle. To my knowledge, no journalist in the Western "mainstream" – a Dan Rather equivalent, say – asks why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea...............

    ................In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious ; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism ...........

    Trump's views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than those of David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama............

    .........Most of America's wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama .................."

    jfl | Mar 23, 2016 12:57:42 AM | 52
    @49 pen '... CISA is even worse than CISPA & they are s'posed to vote for it this week. ...'

    Gosh, and I thought CISA 2015 was passed already, on 27 October 2015 ... must have been another hoax, eh?

    Jack Smith | Mar 23, 2016 1:15:56 AM | 53
    Further to John Pliger on China.... 2016 presidential election is crucial whether our elected liar will go to war with China. Watch YouTube (South Front Channel) US massive buildup in South China sea with known lapdogs especially The Jap and Australia. Missing is Singapore's US naval base, one of the over a thousands bases around the world encircle Russia and China.

    Current Escalations in the South China Sea

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Rxo0BW9R8

    One needs to have poor political insight to analyse a political trend by studying one individual psychology. Miss this entire point.

    Posted by: HLD | Mar 23, 2016 1:56:24 AM | 54

    brian | Mar 23, 2016 3:09:56 AM | 55
    'We beat the Nazis '

    no you didnt...the soviets did, and US was the biggest agent of repression on earth last century...eg backed Apartheid in SA and Chiles Pinochet

    There are many financial advisory who gives beneficial trading tips but sometimes the market is volatile and that prediction may be wrong.

    Posted by: Epic Research | Mar 23, 2016 3:28:47 AM | 56

    Forest | Mar 23, 2016 3:38:19 AM | 57
    @22 Thanks, I think taste vomit in my mouth (or is that brains)?

    We came, we saw, it died.

    dan | Mar 23, 2016 4:37:25 AM | 58
    I wish Arnie was running!
    Piotr Berman | Mar 23, 2016 6:32:47 AM | 59
    Mr. Trump just made a bold appeal for prompt and severe application of torture. The combo of "some sensible non-interventionism" and torture somehow lacks appeal, and perhaps it is just me.

    In the meantime, as I surfed for a direct quote, I got distracted. American politics is something indeed. A group styling itself "Make America Awesome" distributed in Utah the picture of Mrs. Cruz from her maiden days looking, well, awesome. Cruz cleared the caucuses in Utah (and so did Sanders without similarly appealing pics of his wife).

    TomV | Mar 23, 2016 6:40:31 AM | 60
    B writes:
    "As a foreigner ... If I were a voter"
    B is not an American! I'm shocked!
    Mendel | Mar 23, 2016 7:23:33 AM | 61
    Most disgraceful are the ridiculous western left that bash Trump but have no problem with Hillary. Talk about being stupid!
    john | Mar 23, 2016 7:25:46 AM | 62
    Jack Smith @ 50 says:

    It was all fake. He was lying

    well, no shit sherlock. politicians have to lie so that the proles get to hear what they want to hear(just check out these here comment threads).

    it's a terribly vicious cycle.

    jfl | Mar 23, 2016 8:30:07 AM | 63
    Interesting entrapment, AIPAC Guests Slam Netanyahu's Racism, Thinking It's Trump

    Khalek read racist and homophobic statements to the interviewees, claiming they were made by Trump. Little did they know that the quotes actually came from the mouth of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or other Israeli leaders.

    Israelis : Judaism :: Wahabis : Islam :: xtian prosperity fundis : Chistianity.

    Like three peas in a pod. Ollie.

    As a matter of fact, rising fast in the wings it's xpf Ted Cruz himself : Jeb Bush Endorses Cruz for Republican Presidential Nomination .

    Is Ted Cruz more dangerous than Donald Trump? Probably. Is either one electable? Probably not.

    Sheepdogs for the horrid demoblican harridan, whomever he/she may be. But fail-safe.

    But what do I know. I'm thinking of who I'd really like to be president : write-in elections .

    Daniel Shays | Mar 23, 2016 8:33:15 AM | 64
    Donald Trump has done more to awaken the American people than anyone in recent memory. His repeated mentioning of our massive $19 Trillion dollar deficit, job killing trade deals (no one has mentioned NAFTA since Patrick Buchanan), getting us out of NATO, our taxpayers paying for everyone's defense, how lobbyists and special interest groups control our politicians like puppets, and that immigration and especially Muslim immigration is very bad for America, is priceless. His bringing up Saudi Arabia's responsibility for 9/11 from the depths of the Orwellian memory hole is also worth mentioning. For a while there I was hoping he was going to mention Vice President Joe Biden's, 4 Star General Clark, and US General Martin Dempsey's revealing that ISIS is a fake terrorist organization funded, controlled, and armed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, & Turkey, and indirectly funded by the US, France, UK, & Co with their huge arms sales to those same nations who than give them to their terrorist puppets. Viva the real revolution of truth!
    jfl | Mar 23, 2016 9:33:08 AM | 65
    Attacks on Marine firebase reveal secret US escalation in Iraq

    ISIS mortars slammed into the base, dubbed Firebase Bell, killing Staff Sergeant Louis Cardin and wounding several more Marines. Some of the wounded had to be evacuated out of the country in order to receive proper treatment.

    Cardin, 27, from Temecula, California, was on his fifth deployment in a war zone. He had served three tours of duty in Afghanistan and one previous tour in Iraq before he was airlifted into Makhmour last month as part of the deployment of the US Marines 26th Expeditionary Unit from the USS Kearsarge, a troop carrier stationed in the Persian Gulf.

    On Monday, a small ISIS unit attacked the base, home to 200 Marines, with small arms fire. They were driven off without casualties. At that point, Pentagon spokesmen acknowledged the existence of Firebase Bell, the first US-only facility to be set up in Iraq since the formal end of the US military occupation of the country in December 2011.


    Five tours. How long is a tour? A year? Time between tours? Louis Cardin was a Marine stationed abroad, fighting the US wars of aggression for how many years? Five? Seven? More? Did he start at 18? Poor bastard. Poor bastards he undoubtedly killed, too.

    How can it be that there is not even one outlier campaigning on 'give peace a chance' or its equivalent? Or is there? I haven't heard of one.

    lizard | Mar 23, 2016 9:49:55 AM | 66
    I'm voting for Donald...Duck.
    ALberto | Mar 23, 2016 9:51:17 AM | 67
    Dan @57

    "I wish Arnie was running!"

    you forgot to insert this after your sentence ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpaOy8b8X6A

    dahoit | Mar 23, 2016 10:07:05 AM | 68
    Trump went to AIPAC to make nice so they would stop the propaganda re his campaign.
    From the looks of it today,he failed,as from the Graun to The NY lying times to Wapoo,the venom for him remains.
    Sanders is terrible foreign policy wise,he is totally invested in the thought Israel is unique and worthy of support,he calls Hezbollah the terrorists,and backed Cast Lead and PE as rational response to bottle rockets by mice trapped in a cage of Zionist steel.I do believe him pretty good domestically,and he has called for border control as a logical extension of nationhood,although yes,he needs Latino and black voters,hence his call of Obomba being good.Its bad enough blacks won't vote for the NY Jew wo estranging them even more.
    HRC tough?A fighter?How about a bubble headed bobblehead of nada,a MSM call girl for Zion.(nobody else would want her)
    That leaves Trump as our only American hope to lead US from the rocks of neoliberalism from Zion.
    ben | Mar 23, 2016 10:09:17 AM | 69
    DS @ 63 said: "Donald Trump has done more to awaken the American people than anyone in recent memory. "

    Where the issues you mentioned, that's partly true. Gotta' give Trump credit for being relevant on certain subjects, that's where he gets much of his support. But Sanders mentions those subjects, and more in every speech.
    I have to assume you've never heard Sanders speak. Even HRC mentions populist issues sometimes.

    The challenge, as always, is...Can their actions match their rhetoric? I, for one, doubt it.

    Shadyl | Mar 23, 2016 10:13:11 AM | 70
    @ Daniel 63, right there with you.
    ben | Mar 23, 2016 10:14:53 AM | 71
    Two candidates went to suck-up to AIPAC. HRC and Trump. Does that speak volumes? Maybe.

    Here's an video titled "Did Trump play AIPAC?" You decide.
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15958

    vote for kodos | Mar 23, 2016 10:40:43 AM | 72
    Proposition: BERNIE, A PROP FOR KILLARY (Team "D" establishment)

    Given Bernie's milquetoast criticism of Killary and Obombo, I've started contemplating he's a decoy to create the illusion of a progressive choice within Team "D", to keep progressives engaged with Team "D", and, in the end, convince them to vote for Killary.

    Considerations IMO supporting this proposition:

    1. Killary has not pivoted to the left at all. Bernie's been ineffective at changing the Team "D" platform, which suggests more of a stage prop than actual political threat.

    2. As a corollary, Bernie would've had more influence on Team "D" had he run an independent campaign.

    3. Had Bernie -- or someone else with at least a little "progressive street cred" -- not entered the Team "D" primary, progressives would've gasped over a "Hillary only" primary. In turn, they would've started an independent campaign that would, even in failure in the general election, cost Killary too many votes for her to win. "A prop for Killary" was a prerequisite for her success.

    4. As stated at the outset, Bernie's milquetoast criticism suggests he's trying to avoid wounding her so badly that she can't win the general election.

    Oldhippie | Mar 23, 2016 11:45:23 AM | 73
    Trump and the Clintons are friends and good friends. They are not simply casually acquainted because they are all rich New Yorkers. Any casual web search will reveal that the two families are close and thick. Would anyone believe Bill Clinton and Donald Trump could spend hours and hours together on the golf course and not talk politics?

    I don't have any positive evidence that Hillary and the Donald conspired to rig the current election season. It does beggar belief they have not coordinated in an way.

    ben | Mar 23, 2016 11:50:13 AM | 74
    @ 71: "Killary has not pivoted to the left at all."

    Guess you missed a lot of her speeches.

    Ya' know, I've felt that same feeling you're expressing, only about D. Trump.

    The last victory speech I listened to from HRC,( after her last super Tuesday victories) she sounded more Sanders, than Sanders.

    The Empire wants HRC badly.

    john | Mar 23, 2016 12:34:44 PM | 75
    jfl asks:

    How can it be that there is not even one outlier campaigning on 'give peace a chance' or its equivalent

    the neocon mindset prevails across the political spectrum and, in fact, it seems to me that most Americans are pretty much jake with it as well. what's precipitating the currently rising citizenly angst is the currently falling citizenly purchasing power.

    (but in keeping with the adage that 'no crisis should go to waste' it seems a good opportunity to flesh out the root causes and give them a good public airing)

    AriusArmenian | Mar 23, 2016 12:47:03 PM | 76
    Trump is what America is, which is cleverly masked by marketing in Hillary, Bernie, Ted, and all the rest. It won't matter who get elected. Neocons = Neoliberals. More millions will die and more destruction by the Empire.
    Noirette | Mar 23, 2016 12:58:40 PM | 77
    If, a big IF, it is the case that the Repubs. now accept Trump, it is because they are afraid of splitting the Republican Party (it is split, but that's not public) thus destroying it.

    They want to conserve the advantages they have with a 'face unity for the public' - Senate, House, power brokers, funding, corruption, Big Corps, Banks, Energy, etc. etc. - capitalising on the past. Far prefer that to winning the Presidency. (See Obama-Romney.)

    H. Clinton is guaranteed to continue the 'old system', like Obama, but even more collaborative? (Aka 'Unity Governement' coupled with fake oppositions…)

    Possibly, also because they can't stand the runner-up, Cruz, a minor figure, an objectionable nut-job. A party that proposes two 'final' candidates whom the Cadres despise or even passionately hate. Heh. History will make hay…

    The Republicans are half-burned toast, the whole system is exposed as a decrepit sham, yet they will try to hang on.

    Imho, Trump cannot win against Sanders, and likely not against H. Clinton either. Once again, the Repubs. will bank on a loss, accept it, to survive, and in their minds perhaps find Glory Another Day. So accepting Trump as the nominee (if they do) is just part the same-old.

    In any case, while the US prez. has tremendous powers, the US is run by other actors behind the curtain. The Circus trumpets on.

    Skip | Mar 23, 2016 1:10:43 PM | 78
    Donald Trump carries with him several flaws: Under informed; self Absorbed; lacks real grace; too combative in ways that eliminate potential supporters etc etc. One trait I believe the Donald does not sport: He's not a liar. A Salesman, yes. But not a liar.

    He is the collective middle finger of millions of Americans who feel they've been ridden hard and put up wet by the elites in general and more specifically, by the Republican Party leadership and those Republican losers in Congress like Boehner, Ryan, McConnell, Graham, McCain and others.

    He is/was smart enough to sense the frustrations of the forgotten and repeatedly parrot THEIR talking points. He's preaching to the choir and the choir is growing geometrically larger, day by day. One of the posters above clammers for a street revolution, decrying any actions short of that as ineffective. Trump for all of his character defects has ignited a prairie fire of contempt for the system as we know it. The horse is out of the barn, for good.

    Hail (not Heil) to the Chief!

    Nice catch regarding the 4th Grade comprehension level. At the link is quite a well crafted diatribe vis-à-vis Trump written by a worldly woman, http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/23/let-donald-trump-be-our-unifier

    Posted by: karlof1 | Mar 23, 2016 2:25:42 PM | 79

    ben | Mar 23, 2016 2:46:09 PM | 80
    Anyone spotted this story on corporate media?

    http://mrctv.org/blog/sanders-rally-san-diego-draws-tens-thousands-majority-young-voters

    30,000 estimate.

    Par Lang | Mar 23, 2016 4:02:59 PM | 81
    Despite his pandering, I still believe he's the best America has and what America deserves. The only way to the other side of this is through it. There is no way around it. Hold your nose but don't close your eyes, otherwise you'll miss all the fun. Weeeee!!!!!!

    My name is Par Lang and I approve this message.

    psychohistorian | Mar 23, 2016 4:07:03 PM | 82
    karlof1 @79 Thanks for the link. Lots of good thoughts in the article.

    Unfortunately, what it doesn't talk about directly is our worship as Western humans of the Gawd of Mammon which is represented by private finance. Humans have not evolved to the point where we have made finance a public tool. It is still a private tool of the global plutocrats and not just America has to unify over the effort to throw off the jackboot of private finance. Worldwide the curtain hiding the effects of private finance needs to be ripped off to show the core of our form of social organization.

    Humanity has made great strides in the past to define a more humanistic and egalitarian world. The execution of efforts to instantiate those goals have been corrupted by the remaining "non sharing/public" aspects of our social organization, the major of which is private finance. There used to be an argument that the global plutocratic families represented the best and the brightest. That was a myth to begin with and is now resulting in our species being channeled into extinction.

    All banking worldwide needs to be "nationalized" and inheritance needs to be neutered to stop producing families that accumulate enough to effect ongoing social policy.

    fastfreddy | Mar 23, 2016 5:11:24 PM | 83
    There used to be an argument that the global plutocratic families represented the best and the brightest. That was a myth to begin with...

    The global plutocrats cannot be described this way any longer. Doesn't sell.

    The new propaganda is two-pronged:

    First, commoners en masse are told that they are extremely bright and gifted (mockingly, but they relish the compliments!) highly intelligent, can-do spirited, tenacious, rugged individualists, willing to sacrifice, help their neighbor, bootstraps and etc. (exceptional Americans!).

    Second: obscene wealth and usury is excused (and applauded!) because these rich folks possess this same can-do spirit and the other traits which they have simply applied in an effective manner.

    Reinforcement of same is done by pretending that every American begins on a level playing field and he was born with the same potential and opportunities as Mitt Romney or Donald Trump or any of the Bush Klan.

    The persistent propagandizing manifests itself thus: If I win the lottery, I want to keep all the money, so like the rich people, I am in favor of low taxes or a flat tax (even better!).

    john | Mar 23, 2016 5:28:05 PM | 84
    Par Lang says:

    Hold your nose but don't close your eyes, otherwise you'll miss all the fun. Weeeee!!!!!!

    spoken like someone who revels in the benefits that are beyond the reach of most others

    karlof1 | Mar 23, 2016 5:44:42 PM | 85
    Psychohistorian @82--

    Do you agree with the argument for a Steady-State Economy with one global currency backed by specie and processed through a globalized public bank, or would you keep everything at the State-level, eliminating private, fractional banking?

    jfl | Mar 23, 2016 6:38:41 PM | 86
    @83 ff

    Any collection of oligarchs - the few - will craft a world that suits themselves and their own perceived interests. To hell with everyone and everything else. In 'a nice way', of course.

    Democracy is essential because it enables the oligarch's victims to countermand their suicidal ways. Their victims (ourselves) are the onliest ones who can even perceive the oligarchs' errors. Oligarchy, as masturbation is said to do, makes its practitioners deaf, dumb, and blind. Democracy is not a luxury, something 'nice' to have, it is essential - if we humans and life on earth as we've known it during our so brief, banal sojourn is to continue.

    I must admit that I do not understand American public. I made a mistake reading hastily this morning. Now correction: "Make America Awesome" distributed in Utah pics of Mrs. Trump (not Cruz!) from her maiden years looking totally awesome, and yet, take that! it was Mr. Cruz who cleared Utah caucuses. I must admit that web search "Heidi Cruz images" does return some appealing pics like this beaty , but apparently, Ted did not replace his wife in, like, ages.

    Posted by: Piotr Berman | Mar 23, 2016 7:13:40 PM | 87

    jfl | Mar 23, 2016 7:21:43 PM | 88
    @80 ben

    All those folks need to write-in Bernie if/after the demoblican machine kicks them in the teeth.

    Debs is dead | Mar 23, 2016 7:24:02 PM | 89
    It is possible to watch the circus without picking sides Trump has never done anything worthwhile or meaningful in his life and there is zero evidence to suggest that has changed, As for the rest of em. they're all just the usual hacks running against Trump the unusual hack.
    Which got me thinking I wonder if trump travels with a food taster. Not that it will do him any good the poisons currently in use seem to be slow acting.
    Take the case of Rob Ford who had become an exceeding embrassment to the conservative wing of the neoliberal movement just as trump has. The progression of that fellow's illness syncs pretty neatly with his rise fall and rise again.
    No matter how much the media tipped buckets of shit on him it just seemed to make him more popular which is somewhat similar to the trump. Ford's illness appears to be similar to what Yasser Arafat went through.
    Of course saying this stuff out loud generates calls for the tin foil bonnet but I do hafta say that a helluva a lot of pols I'm aware of have fallen off the twig early - particularly those who don't conform to the 'rules'.
    And that is the thing with trump - if he doesn't suddenly get sick you do have to wonder exactly how beyond the pale the amerikan political establishment considers him to be.
    ben | Mar 23, 2016 8:21:03 PM | 90
    @ 82&83: Great posts, both truthful social comment. Wish I could compose as well.

    jfl @ 88: "after the demoblican machine kicks them in the teeth."

    And best believe, it will.

    MadMax2 | Mar 23, 2016 8:45:02 PM | 91
    b: "...Donald Trump toured Washington yesterday for backroom meetings with Republican party bigwigs..."

    1st Republican Bigwig (standing in corner): Ok Mr Trump, well done at AIPAC, glorious stuff. You've unlocked the Back Room.
    Trump: It's true, I was Huge.
    2nd Republican Bigwig: Would you like to come upstairs now Mr Trump...? Or should I say, Don...?
    Trump: Ah, sure, let's go upstairs then. And you can call me Don.
    2nd Republican Bigwig (stands up, leans on table): Now, Mr Trump... Repeat after me "what is building 7? I've never heard of building 7"

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0lD-Qrn3XI

    MadMax2 | Mar 23, 2016 9:10:33 PM | 92
    @psychoH 82
    Inheritance does indeed work against the evolution of humankind. Who knows how far along we'd be now if it were not for idiots, clowns and tyrants assuming wealth upon conception. One should only leave enough dosh for cremation or burial. Each person with varying amounts of desire, more or less, to contribute what they can inside humankinds' most precious commodity - our time.

    ...until then, parasites and cannibals.

    fairleft | Mar 23, 2016 9:43:28 PM | 93
    @psychohistorian 82

    Your solution is exactly right. But we won't get there unless the global corporate-owned mass propaganda system is largely replaced by a democratic mass media.

    Most people aren't smart/wise enough and/or just don't have the free time and educational resources to figure out on their own who the enemy is and how to fight it. And such resources and the free time to use them declines for the bottom 80% in the evermore inegalitarian world the financiers are creating.

    psychohistorian | Mar 23, 2016 9:45:02 PM | 94
    karlof1 @whatever asked
    "
    Do you agree with the argument for a Steady-State Economy with one global currency backed by specie and processed through a globalized public bank, or would you keep everything at the State-level, eliminating private, fractional banking?
    "

    Ending private finance must happen globally and I believe we need to learn how to get along globally to survive. Isolating a public utility like finance to nation states, IMO, is a fools game. After a while we would just end up where we are now.

    We need to "grow up" as a species and throw off the vestiges of the middle ages with Kings and such. There are 8+ billion of us and its sadly laughable how little advancement we have made in some ways. The circus we live led by the global plutocrats is a sick legacy to the children who have to live with the mess we have allowed to continue.

    Daniel Shays | Mar 23, 2016 9:52:29 PM | 95
    If you would have told me after the Trotskyite Liberal Neocons sabotaged and destroyed Patrick Buchanan's 1996 (prophetic) Anti-NAFTA/WTO, Immigration Moratorium, New Hadrian's Wall, stopping the US's endless wars, and Cultural War campaign, and that Donald Trump would be the one to become its standard bearer, I would have said that is absurd.
    On another note, I read a book called "Conspiracy Against The Dollar" and in that book which was written in the 70's, Ross Perot popped up at a billionaire Globalist insider meeting with the Bush crime family & associates. Remember Ross Perot was created to split the Anti-NAFTA/WTO vote so that the Globalist CFR golden boy Clinto could get elected, and relected. He than tried very hard to keep Buchanan off the Reform party ticket in 2000. Notice how after the anti-NAFTA/WTO was passed and the movement destroyed, he disappeared
    The Trotskyite Neocons ran "Songbird" McCuckoo & the choke artist Romney so that Obama would win, and in 96 the pathetic Beltway insider Bob Dole.
    MadMax2 | Mar 23, 2016 11:13:13 PM | 96
    Daniel Shays @ 64
    Those things you say are true. Trump threw a lot of light on subject matter many can never even think of approaching. He deserves credit for that, no doubt. It's trump, and so you have to ask, does he use it all to become the human headline that he is...? Of course, most likely. Will he double on those efforts as Prez...? Unlikely.

    Trump had a good limber up for the AIPAC event at the Jewish Republican Coalition presidential show in December. Told the crowd " you're not gonna like me, don't want you're money" about 5 times... Highlight reel stuff.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PQYOvDmWqjo

    We are talking Trump.

    And so, Trump wins.

    Jack Smith | Mar 24, 2016 12:28:19 AM | 97
    Posted by: AriusArmenian | Mar 23, 2016 12:47:03 PM | 76

    "Trump is what America is, which is cleverly masked by marketing in Hillary, Bernie, Ted, and all the rest. It won't matter who get elected. Neocons = Neoliberals. More millions will die and more destruction by the Empire."

    Amen!

    rufus magister | Mar 24, 2016 8:13:05 AM | 98
    Here's an interesting take on the appeal of The Donald, by Scott Adams, creator of "Dilbert."

    "If you see voters as rational you'll be a terrible politician," Adams writes on his blog. "People are not wired to be rational. Our brains simply evolved to keep us alive. Brains did not evolve to give us truth. Brains merely give us movies in our minds that keeps us sane and motivated. But none of it is rational or true, except maybe sometimes by coincidence."

    If one is a firm believer in Enlightenment rationalism (like your humble poster), this while disturbing must be acknowledged. A contradiction -- one apparently needs to appeal to the emotions to get people to make rational choices.

    Adams notes that the greatest emotional appeal that The Donald has made is to acknowledge the suffering of the working class, which neither party has really addressed. If there were an effective labor party here, we proles would be addressing this ourselves.

    And so, what is to be done?

    Kashoggi | Mar 24, 2016 8:37:23 AM | 99
    Realising how much and why the "working class" despise and distrust people like yourself might be a good start.
    Jackrabbit | Mar 24, 2016 8:59:43 AM | 100
    Blame the victim clap-trap.

    A Hillary supporter defines 'rational' as what is good for the establishment.

    Humble? LOL.

    What is to be done? Beware snakes in the grass.

    Noirette | Mar 24, 2016 12:18:29 PM | 102
    …a steady state economy, one global currency backed by specie, and processed through a globalized public bank… ?? - several posts.

    Well the 'steady state' part is moot, and globalized not, as Switz. is just a tin-pot postage-stamp place, but ideas of this type are very much afoot.

    In June we will vote the Vollgeld (full money - sovereign money) initiative, which would return money-creation to one organism, the Central Bank. (link, eng. - campaign site and rather simplistic.) Commercial banks would effectively be totally neutered. The Swiss love their Central Bank (in contrast to attitudes to the FED in the US) as its profits are returned to the ppl, half or 2/3.

    We will also vote on a guaranteed minimal income (link eng wiki.)

    Neither of these initiatives are from the 'left.' They are based on certain monetary theories and strands of 'libertarian' thought.

    As everyone is still reeling from the Feb. 2016 vote serious discussions haven't even started. This promises to be highly interesting.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2016

    http://www.vollgeld-initiative.ch/english/

    here the Feb vote for me, in F, but one look at the issues will show it takes some dedication..

    https://www.ge.ch/votations/20160228/doc/brochure-cantonale.pdf

    psychohistorian | Mar 24, 2016 2:15:57 PM | 103
    Noirette @102

    Thanks for the links. I was not aware of the Swiss banking initiative. I hope it passes.

    ruralito | Mar 24, 2016 3:08:32 PM | 104
    A compilation of pro-Israel sentiments from Trump, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wnu9WyH_iM
    With bonus clips of Alex Jones, another "maverick", lol.


    They're both scum.

    jfl | Mar 24, 2016 5:49:51 PM | 105
    @103 psycho

    Have you seen Creating New Money ? I think it's all about finance as a utility and how to get there. Coupled with a suitable inheritance tax structure it would effect your program, wouldn't it?

    To me the salient facit of privately created money is that it's lent into existence. Yes it enriches its creators, but just as (more?) importantly it puts in place the cornerstone of 'the miracle of compound interest', the foundation of the unsustainability of 'capitalism'. Rich or poor we're all headed over the falls in a barrel as long as that's in place.

    If you look at the key staff and advisers Bernie looks the best, I think.

    Posted by: ProPeace | Mar 24, 2016 10:09:53 PM | 106

    Chu-Teh | Mar 25, 2016 1:35:17 AM | 107
    Rufus@98
    Adams' view of mental processes has demonstrated workability.

    Mind and brain have long been considered separate mechanisms, altho they may well intersect.

    The psychologist Alice Miller showed how the first 3 years of human life allowed the recording of potentially] all senses [sights, sounds, etc.] without any inspection or evaluation by a child. Such could lay dormant or become active at later time as, for example, fixed ideas and unknowingly interfere with present-time senses and considerations and evaluations.

    As for the mind and brain, a crude demo might be:
    1. Create a mental picture of a horse being ridden by a whale.

    2. Look at your mental picture.

    3. Consider that you used the brain compose the picture.

    4. Consider that the result [picture} is stored in your mind. Also, you can probably move the picture around in space.

    5. Consider the brain is clearly a physical object and its location is known.

    6. Consider the mind is not clearly physical and its location is not clearly known.

    And I know that Alice Miller's "First 3 years" studies were preceded by more comprehensive work of others [much earlier]. Nevertheless, her work explained much to many.

    As for "spirit", that subject is a religious hot-potato and I'm feeling too cowardly at the moment to continue this post.

    rufus magister | Mar 25, 2016 1:45:17 AM | 108
    Chu-Teh at 107 --

    I thought that I had suggested that I agreed in very large part with Adams view. And just because we have difficult being rational doesn't mean why shouldn't try. Religion does tend to be a hot one.

    in re 99 --

    Isn't it funny how the elite always attacks anyone who seeks to challenge their power. The folks raping us keep telling us, there is no alternative. That's why we reds are always hated.

    And I would note, the rising generations have a more positive view of socialism than my Cold War cohort.

    psychohistorian | Mar 25, 2016 2:22:00 AM | 109
    Cnu-Teh @107 said
    "
    6. Consider the mind is not clearly physical and its location is not clearly known.
    "

    I consider this statement BS. Do you have some supporting documentation?

    And you thought you had problems writing about spirit......

    dahoit | Mar 25, 2016 10:06:24 AM | 110
    79;You gotta be sh*tting me;Eve Ensler?Common Dreams?Nirvana is just around the corner!
    I bet she'll call the hell bitch the words promise.
    Cruz posts nude photos of Trumps wife,but won't concede that his wife is now fodder.What a little pos.The zionists love him.
    95;They had a opinion piece in the lying times today,where McCain calls the Gary Cooper character in For whom the Bell Tolls a personal hero,despite being a commie.What a hoot.
    BTW Hemingway might be the most overrated author in American history.Only The Old Man and the Sea holds anything for me,the rest irrelevant between war turgidity.
    He probably realized it too,so he snuffed himself.

    Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25, 2016 10:12:12 AM | 111

    100;Yeah,real funny dat;Humble.sheesh.And the bit about the enlightenment.And he'll vote for the hell bitch?double sheesh.
    The Zionist have put the enlightenment on permanent hiatus.

    Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25, 2016 10:16:13 AM | 112

    jfl | Mar 25, 2016 4:40:14 PM | 113
    @105

    The Great Ponzi Scheme of the Global Economy


    Michael Hudson:

    [I]n order to have access to credit, in order to get money ... you have to pay the banks. ... It's not production, it's not consumption. The wealth of the One Percent is obtained essentially by lending money to the 99 Percent and then charging interest on it, and recycling this interest at an exponentially growing rate. ... The head of Goldman Sachs came out and said that Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world. That's why they're paid what they are. ... That's why I used the word parasitism in my book's title. People think of a parasite as simply taking money, taking blood out of a host or taking money out of the economy. But in nature it's much more complicated. The parasite can't simply come in and take something. First of all, it needs to numb the host. It has an enzyme so that the host doesn't realize the parasite's there. And then the parasites have another enzyme that takes over the host's brain. It makes the host imagine that the parasite is part of its own body, actually part of itself and hence to be protected.


    And 'the banks' have created the money they lend at interest from nothing. Why not ourselves through our government, right? Just as the fed is doing now, but make the money available to real people with real needs rather than just to the keep the grand larceny machine's bubbles inflated. 'Growing'. Until they burst. A few strategic changes to the plumbing could put things right in no time.

    [Mar 21, 2016] Paul Krugman Trump Is No Accident

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trumpsters are against the billionaires in their own way. Bernie Bros are against billionaires in a different manner. Neo liberals are not disposed to engage the billionaires. Crubio are all for the billionaires. While neo libs and Crubio are peas in a pod for international violence for the billionaires' neocon themes. ..."
    "... Krugman : "Let's dispel with this fiction that the Trump phenomenon represents some kind of unpredictable intrusion into the normal course of Republican politics." I must have missed Krugman's forecast of the rise of this phenomenon. I'm sure he would have cited a prior column if it existed. What is happening on the US right and left is the same thing happening on the European right and left. The dominant status quo political parties have utterly failed large swathes of the electorate for a long period of time. I think the person who did get this early on was Bill McBride. ..."
    "... There is less and less reason to read Krugman columns. Economically, he rarely discusses the policy issues most Americans now want to talk about, and when he does, the discussion is flippant, derivative and superficial. ..."
    "... Yesterday's propaganda with little innovation and seldom anything that would be accepted by an academic publication. Does he write that trash? A ghost writer? For his rubber stamp? What he gets paid for the stamp? What did he pay for the Nobel Prize? Starting to make people wonder ..."
    "... "The establishment composed of journos, BS-Vending talking heads with well-formulated verbs, bureaucrato-cronies, lobbyists-in training, New Yorker-reading semi-intellectuals, image-conscious empty suits, Washington rent-seekers and other 'well thinking' members of the vocal elites are not getting the point about what is happening and the sterility of their arguments. People are not voting for Trump (or Sanders). People are just voting, finally, to destroy the establishment." ..."
    Mar 16, 2016 | Economist's View

    ...endless austerity and depression would eventually be rejected in a democracy

    ...the underlying assumption behind the establishment strategy was that voters could be fooled again and again

    ...That rage was bound to spin out of the establishment's control sooner or later.

    ilsm -> DrDick...
    Trumpsters are against the billionaires in their own way. Bernie Bros are against billionaires in a different manner. Neo liberals are not disposed to engage the billionaires. Crubio are all for the billionaires. While neo libs and Crubio are peas in a pod for international violence for the billionaires' neocon themes.
    New Deal democrat -> pgl...
    Krugman : "Let's dispel with this fiction that the Trump phenomenon represents some kind of unpredictable intrusion into the normal course of Republican politics." I must have missed Krugman's forecast of the rise of this phenomenon. I'm sure he would have cited a prior column if it existed. What is happening on the US right and left is the same thing happening on the European right and left. The dominant status quo political parties have utterly failed large swathes of the electorate for a long period of time. I think the person who did get this early on was Bill McBride.

    Dan Kervick -> pgl...

    There is less and less reason to read Krugman columns. Economically, he rarely discusses the policy issues most Americans now want to talk about, and when he does, the discussion is flippant, derivative and superficial.

    Politically, his analyses are no more insightful that those of any number of other routine liberal commentators.

    If the stuff that floats your boat is the inflation rate in Japan, or yet another try at the idea that there is no socioeconomic problem that a little bit of additional demand management won't solve, then go ahead - Krugman is still your guy. But from my point of view the world is passing him by.

    π day ->Dan Kervick...

    Yesterday's propaganda with little innovation and seldom anything that would be accepted by an academic publication. Does he write that trash? A ghost writer? For his rubber stamp? What he gets paid for the stamp? What did he pay for the Nobel Prize? Starting to make people wonder
    New Deal democrat -> pgl...
    Here's an example:

    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/07/sunday-night-futures-greece-says-no.html

    "Years ago we discussed how endless austerity and depression would eventually be rejected in a democracy."

    Did he specifically foresee Trump_vs_deep_state? No. Did he foresee that alternatives to the status quo would gain traction? Absolutely.

    BenIsNotYoda -> DrDick...

    Those of us who have lived and run away from socialist democracies (because they do not work) are afraid of Bernie. These are someone else's words that sum it up perfectly.

    Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please just keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions out of poverty. Talking about socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury made possible by successes of capitalism. The idea that more government, regulation and more debt will lead to less risk and cure inequality is dangerous and absurd. And Scandinavia is not a great example, because implementing some socialistic elements AFTER becoming a wealthy capitalistic economy works as long as you dont choke off what got you there in the first place.

    Dan Kervick -> BenIsNotYoda...
    Scandinavia's form of socialism has been in effect for almost a century. But the US is a classic case for your recommendation. The US isn't Russia or China, trying to jump from an agrarian to socialist economy. The US already knows how to do capitalism, which it has been doing double-time and in spades forever, both in industrial and post-industrial forms. It's now time to mix some sensible socialist elements into the extremist US capitalist formula. All of the market and free-enterprise infrastructure exists here in the US to build a successful Nordic mixed economy socialism on the foundation.
    cawley -> BenIsNotYoda...
    I'm just dying to see some examples of social democracies that people are fleeing ...

    Dan Kervick -> cawley...

    Well, I guess Anders Breivik doesn't like modern Norway all that much. For almost everyone else, though, it's A-OK.
    Dan Kervick -> BenIsNotYoda...
    It's not an either/or thing. All modern developed economies have some combination of liberalized institutions and socialized institutions. Does socialism work? For some things, definitely yes: health care, education, retirement, for example. We could also do more to reduce gross income inequalities by partially socializing income flows without getting rid of private property, private enterprises and the incentive system.
    BenIsNotYoda -> Dan Kervick...
    Agreed. Single payor healthcare, public education etc should be done. But, if people have the delusion that they can raise marginal tax rates much higher from here (40%+8% state + 8%FICA+3.5%Obamacare+7%sales tax+%real estate = roughly 70%) and are not going to kill any incentive to work, they are wrong. and no, people dont have ways to get around taxes unless you are private equity fund managers. There. That IS the marginal tax rate right now. I said it. Have at it socialists.
    Chris G -> cawley...
    > I'm just dying to see some examples of social democracies that people are fleeing ...

    Be patient. You never know what the next few hundred years might bring.

    Jesse :

    "The establishment composed of journos, BS-Vending talking heads with well-formulated verbs, bureaucrato-cronies, lobbyists-in training, New Yorker-reading semi-intellectuals, image-conscious empty suits, Washington rent-seekers and other 'well thinking' members of the vocal elites are not getting the point about what is happening and the sterility of their arguments. People are not voting for Trump (or Sanders). People are just voting, finally, to destroy the establishment."

    Nassim Taleb Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl...

    The Chicago Anti-Trump Protest Was Only the Beginning
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-chicago-anti-trump-protest-was-only-the-beginning
    via @JohnCassidy - NYer - March 13

    For the past eight months, Donald Trump's divisive, racially tinged Presidential campaign has been tearing apart the Republican Party. Over the next eight months, if Trump wraps up the G.O.P. nomination, it could well have a similar impact on the country at large.

    The fracas at a University of Illinois at Chicago campus on Friday, in which hundreds of protesters clashed with Trump supporters live on national television, shocked many people. But something like this was inevitable once Trump took his rabble-rousing campaign from predominantly white suburbs and exurbs to polyglot Northern cities, which are home to many of the people, including Hispanics and Muslims, who serve as the objects of Trump's rhetoric, as well as to an energetic left-wing protest movement.

    The effort to shut down Trump's rally was prompted by anger that the New York billionaire would seek to bring his campaign to the college, which has a very diverse student body. As Alex Seitz-Wald detailed in a report for NBC News, a number of student organizations decided at a meeting last Monday to organize a protest. "He's marginalized and dehumanized a lot of different groups, and they all come together," Juan Rosas, one of the student organizers, told Seitz-Wald. After a student posted a petition on MoveOn.org, outside groups and activists also got involved. "Everyone, get your tickets to this. We're all going in!!!! ‪#‎

    [Mar 21, 2016] Cruz Hires Neocon Loons, Gaffney, Ledeen, Abrams

    Antiwar.com
    Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, has unveiled his new foreign policy team, stacked with some of the most aggressive hawks imaginable, saying they are a group of his "trusted friends" who believe in a "strong America."

    At the center of his team is neoconservative ultra-hawk Frank Gaffney, a loudly anti-Muslim figure who believes in a wild array of conspiracies, including that a number of top political figures from both parties of being part of a secret Muslim cabal plotting the conquest of America.

    Gaffney had previously been speculated to be a Trump adviser, as his dubious work has been cited by that candidate repeatedly in trying to back up his proposals to ban Muslim immigration. Gaffney's overt hostility toward Muslims in general made him a virtual pariah during the 2012 campaign. Incredibly, a number of Republican hopefuls have courted him this time around, with Cruz declaring him "clear-eyed" and "a patriot."

    Also featuring prominently in the Cruz team is Michael Ledeen, the man at the center of the yellowcake uranium forgeries, among the pretexts for the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Ledeen has been involved in a litany of scandals, dating all the way back to Iran-Contra. He was also, notably, the man who got Israeli spy Jonathon Pollard his job at the US Navy.

    Of course speaking of Iran-Contra, one must inevitably discuss Elliott Abrams, who famously pled guilty to two charges of withholding information related to the scandal from Congress, and is likewise a central player in the new Cruz team. In addition to the Contra scandal, Abrams was involved in myriad ugly Reagan-era operations, and was a close ally of both former presidents Bush, receiving a pardon for his Reagan-era crimes by George H.W. Bush, and being appointed as a special adviser to George W.

    During his tenure with the later Bush, Abrams was accused by The Guardian of being at the center of a failed 2002 US-backed coup attempt against Venezuela, and was said to have personally given the go-ahead for the effort.

    Abram's most recent media comments, interestingly enough, were railing against Cruz, accusing him of being anti-semitic for even using the term "neocon." Now that Cruz is establishing himself as the neocon candidate of choice, that allegation has been quickly brushed aside.

    With this team and more, Cruz is surrounding himself with warmongers and criminals of the highest caliber. While the attempt appears to center on making him a more straightforward Republican insider, to serve as a counter to Trump, the jingoist and xenophobic policies these advisers portend also threatens to sabotage any hope he has of presenting himself as a safer alternative.

    [Mar 20, 2016] Republican plan to stop Donald Trump election

    www.theguardian.com

    Over the last six months, GOP leaders have watched helpless as the Republican presidential race has transformed from the usual loveable farce into a terrifying prequel to Mad Max: Fury Road as tangerine reality show host Donald Trump gained, attained and retained frontrunner status. With only a few months left before the Republican National Convention, party luminaries, bigwigs and eminences grises have come up with a secret blueprint for how to stop the New York business mogul from becoming their candidate. Exclusive to the Guardian, here is their 10-point plan:

    1. Change the Republican party rules so that all presidential candidates must disclose the length of their fingers prior to receiving the nomination. Trump will drop out of the race by the end of the day.
    2. Leave a trail of spray tan canisters and ground beef leading from the door of his penthouse to a barge about to set off for the Far East.
    3. Lure him into a space shuttle by telling him there's a photograph of his daughter Ivanka in a bikini onboard and then blast him into orbit.
    4. Attach a $5 bill to a greased pig's back and set it loose backstage before his next campaign stop. He'll chase that thing until he's out of breath, and miss the speech, which, due to his inhumanly hectic campaign schedule will have the cumulative knock-on effect of making him miss the next day's speech, then the next morning's chummy appearance by telephone with his pals on Morning Joe, then the next four primaries, and before you know it he's missed the convention and is safely back to being an appalling but harmless reality TV star.
    5. Force Trump to spend as much as five minutes with one of his own supporters.
    6. Remind him that the White House executive residence is a paltry 55,000 square feet and that presidents are constitutionally prohibited from painting it gold.
    7. Invite Trump to a pool party and before he arrives glue a bunch of nickels to the bottom of the deep end.
    8. Invent time travel, go back to 2008, and stop ourselves from attacking the Obama administration with the exact same vitriolic, divisive rhetoric that Trump picked up on and has now ridden to his present position.
    9. Stop sheepishly acquiescing to Trump's bluster and acting like he isn't a despicable racist monster in hopes that it's not too late to prevent the complete collapse of society.
    10. Change election procedure so that the remaining delegates must pledge their support to whichever nominee scores highest on a seventh grade vocabulary test. Unfortunately this will probably give the edge to college debate champ Ted Cruz, an opportunistic, bigoted liar whose vision for America is a theocracy engaged in an apocalyptic war against Islam run by a man who looks like Dracula's fat cousin smugly eating a sour candy he received as a prize for tattling. But you can't have everything.

    [Mar 19, 2016] Trump's Hilarious New Anti-Hillary Ad

    We don't need to be a punchline.
    www.truthrevolt.org

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE4h6tOgVgc

    the Donald Trump campaign released a new ad yesterday touting his slogan, "Make America Great Again." It also hilariously puts down his Democrat opposition candidate Hillary Clinton, who is depicted as a joke in terms of her ability to get tough with America's enemies.

    The 15-second ad begins with "When it comes to facing our toughest opponents," followed by images of Russia's Putin performing martial arts and an ISIS fighter waving a gun at the viewer, "the Democrats have the perfect answer..." The video then cuts to Hillary's bizarre barking from a recent rally, which earned her a good deal of ridicule.

    The video then cuts to laughter from an amused Putin. "We don't need to be a punchline!" the ad concludes.

    Watch above and enjoy.

    The Freedom Center is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Therefore we do not endorse political candidates either in primary or general elections. However, as defenders of America's social contract, we insist that the rules laid down by both parties at the outset of campaigns be respected, and that the results be decided by free elections. We will oppose any attempt to rig the system and deny voters of either party their constitutional right to elect candidates of their choice.


    golightly • 2 days ago

    i have to say that dear ol' Trump has some talented folks working for him.

    Arlo • 2 days ago

    Golly, could at least one Republican have the guts to use the Democrats' Alinsky tactics against them? Isolate, Ridicule. Defeat? Could it work? I don't know. But, I do know that playing gentleman/nice guy against the Demoncrats doesn't work.

    Crusader Ron :E • 2 days ago

    I pray Cruz will just join forces with Trump! Cruz is YOUNG... he has a future! He can learn soooo much from Trump and refine Trump's bulldog conservatism into True Conservatism... Christianity... Cruz... HUMBLE THYSELF... and work with Trump!!!


    CoolTolerance -> Crusader Ron :E • a day ago

    Won't happen. Cruz is hiding many things, of which his wife Heidi's involvement with globalists, as well as banks giving him too much of a friendly helping hand.
    Should he win the nomination, he will lose against Hillary. Why? That Texas twang and his preacher mannerisms.
    And lastly, the Democrats did say last November they will contest his eligibility should he be the nominee. A sword hanging above his head.
    I used to like him. No more. Too devious.


    TheCarMan • 2 days ago

    When Putin watches this, don't be surprised if he keeps hitting that RESET button over and over that she sent him.

    Kpar -> TheCarMan • 2 days ago

    Did he get a replacement? The first one said "overcharge" in Russian.

    nacho mamma • 2 days ago

    This is just the opening salvo from Trump toward Hillary. Despite her bluster, saying she looks forward to running against Trump...Hillary knows Trump will get down in the gutter with her to throw punches.

    The Clintons are dirty politicians who've never had a problem with taking the low road, and Trump will not play nice when the race heats up. This could get real interesting...


    tom tuttle • 2 days ago

    Mocking old granny is as challenging as poking fun at a useless drunkard

    Oh wait that is the same thing

    [Mar 19, 2016] Donald Trump attack ad on Hillary Clinton

    www.youtube.com

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE4h6tOgVgc

    [Mar 18, 2016] Pro Killary presstitutes at NYT try to deceive and brainwash voters again

    Notable quotes:
    "... Were it not for the DNC's Machiavellian planning of this primary and, had the states been ordered differently, we wouldn't be at roughly the halfway point with such skewed results. Were it not for the horrendous media bias shown Sanders, across mainstream corporate media, voters probably wouldn't be quite so disgusted and angry with the DNC's decision making. ..."
    "... This is fundamentally the problem in our system. Each person enters the voting booth in November with two principal choices: Stinks and Stinks-Even-More. ..."
    "... Instead, Bernie's chances are slim (#StillSanders), especially thanks to the major establishment outlets. Even if Clinton wins the nomination a lot of us aren't voting for her. She's hardly distinguishable from a Kissinger fangirl. ..."
    "... To paraphrase Franklin, we choose not to have our vote manipulated by the fear of the lesser of two evils. We choose not to give up our "essential Liberty" to purchase a little safety because those that give that up deserve neither safety nor Liberty. ..."
    "... We can hope that Sanders can come back and win the nomination because if we have Hillary for the Dem nominee Donald Trump will be a very unkind opponent. Sanders could handle the Donald in a debate. At this very moment the Trump campaign is doing their research on the Clintons. ..."
    "... The Clintons define "corrupt." Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Hillary Clinton, who never traded commodities, made hundreds of thousands of dollars trading commodities with only several trades. Yet she claims she wasn't tipped. They leased the Lincoln Bedroom like it was their AirBNB. If someone can tell me where Clinton money ends and Clinton Foundation money begins, please let me know. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton refuses to release transcripts of her expensive speeches to Wall Street executives. I, a lifelong Democrat from a family of lifelong FDR Democrats, won't vote for Clinton until I know what she said in her speeches. The Clintons and I have come to the end of the road. ..."
    "... I am a 76 year old life-long Democrat, and I would never vote for anyone who voted for the invasion of Iraq, or who supported NAFTA. These two issues have been the undoing of America - - along with Citizens United. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    Here's How Bernie Sanders Could Win the Nomination - The New York Times

    One of two parents, USA 11 hours ago

    I'm going for the longshot. In fact, I just donated to Bernie again yesterday. Even if he doesn't win, we need him to have as many delegates as possible going into the convention so that we have a strong voice against interventionist policies and pay to play government as the party platform is crafted. We need to send a loud message to the Democratic establishment: Enough is enough! #feelthebern

    Sarthak, Jain 11 hours ago

    America needs him. A guy who stands up for everyone. A guy with no baggage. A honest politician who wants to swim against the established norms and bring change. People are still living in recession. Big corporation are still making big money. Why can't young people afford to go to college?, why can't old people retired in peace?, why can't people not afford healthcare?, Why we need to bomb n kill innocent people abroad? Change is hard to bring. Bernie has a vision, I hope everyone can see it. Peace!

    Rima Regas. is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 12 hours ago

    Well, well...

    That's exactly what the Sanders people have been saying will be the case.

    Were it not for the DNC's Machiavellian planning of this primary and, had the states been ordered differently, we wouldn't be at roughly the halfway point with such skewed results. Were it not for the horrendous media bias shown Sanders, across mainstream corporate media, voters probably wouldn't be quite so disgusted and angry with the DNC's decision making.

    But here we are... Yes, we do have the other half of the primary to get through and it gets Bernie-friendly from here on out.

    Meanwhile, Democratic voter turn out is very low. When is the mainstream media going to stop promoting Donald Trump and turn its attention to that? For all the talk about how scary a President Trump would be, nothing much is being said to voters about the low turn out. Reading most papers, one might be led to think everything is hunky dory in that respect. It isn't.

    Tough Call, USA 9 hours ago

    This is fundamentally the problem in our system. Each person enters the voting booth in November with two principal choices: Stinks and Stinks-Even-More. By voting for Stinks, we compromise our own passion only to send the wrong message that we somehow support the policies and approach of the lesser-evil. This then just continues our decline, and encourages the press to continue to ignore folks like Bernie who stand for truly profound, positive change. We can collectively talk ourselves blue about income inequality, but failing to give Bernie his due time and press coverage is a travesty.

    Shameful. What good does it do for Kristof, Blow, Friedman and the Editorial Board to opine about gross income inequality, only to turn around and deny Bernie his share of the press coverage. The press has truly let America down. This includes the 24-hour news cycle, low-quality CNN types and the presumably more deliberate and thoughtful NY Times. All of them have (for reasons that the average citizen could probably guess) have decided Bernie wasn't worth the air time and print space.

    Brandon Sides, Middletown, CT 11 hours ago

    "Why? These states aren't as bad for him as those in the South, but they force him to confront his two weaknesses: diversity and affluence."

    These weaknesses could have been mitigated over time had the Times and the mainstream press actually told its more diverse readers how Sanders' policies would in fact help them, and its affluent readers that, by the way, their neighbors are starving.

    Instead, Bernie's chances are slim (#StillSanders), especially thanks to the major establishment outlets. Even if Clinton wins the nomination a lot of us aren't voting for her. She's hardly distinguishable from a Kissinger fangirl. (Kissinger, as a reminder, had no trouble authorizing the murder and systematic starvation of hundreds of thousands of East Timorese going into the 80s, which, surprise, the Times didn't mention *at all* for at least a few years.) She disgusts me, and I will never support her. I suspect it's the same for other Berniebros (as you would mockingly call us). You've created a fascist beast, American press. Do your job.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandba...

    Gottwulf, Oceanside, CA 9 hours ago

    Our family loves Bernie. We have waited so long for someone who we truly knew was leveling with us. God help us if it comes to the disastrous consequences of 2000 when Bush won as some people abandoned the Dems for an alternate choice but we must vote with our conscience and will write his name in if that is what it comes to. We just hope the 'great beast' we see within the hearts of so many Americans will not awaken yet again as it did in 2003 leading us into the obsenity known as Iraq or worse .

    To paraphrase Franklin, we choose not to have our vote manipulated by the fear of the lesser of two evils. We choose not to give up our "essential Liberty" to purchase a little safety because those that give that up deserve neither safety nor Liberty.

    We stand or fall with Bernie and if the latter be true, it is with the hope that the next generation finds its way into the light. It appears, from what I am seeing, that they may be better suited to run this country than my generation has. My apologies to the Greatest Generation for failing to deliver on their gift born of such great sacrifice.

    vacuum, yellow springs 11 hours ago

    We can hope that Sanders can come back and win the nomination because if we have Hillary for the Dem nominee Donald Trump will be a very unkind opponent. Sanders could handle the Donald in a debate. At this very moment the Trump campaign is doing their research on the Clintons. If it ends up being a contest between Trump and Clinton the vulnerabilities of the Clintons will be on full display. And Trump is not known for his kindness or restraint. It would not be pretty. If Hillary is the candidate then Trump's path to the White House will be much easier. She's got too many flaws.

    Kilroy, Jersey City NJ 11 hours ago

    The Clintons define "corrupt." Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Hillary Clinton, who never traded commodities, made hundreds of thousands of dollars trading commodities with only several trades. Yet she claims she wasn't tipped. They leased the Lincoln Bedroom like it was their AirBNB. If someone can tell me where Clinton money ends and Clinton Foundation money begins, please let me know.

    Hillary Clinton's brothers were influence peddlers. Hugh Clinton accepted a large amount of money to influence Pres. Clinton to offer a pardon. Tony Clinton sells his connections to the highest bidders.

    Hillary Clinton refuses to release transcripts of her expensive speeches to Wall Street executives. I, a lifelong Democrat from a family of lifelong FDR Democrats, won't vote for Clinton until I know what she said in her speeches. The Clintons and I have come to the end of the road.

    Carol Ann, Harrisburg, PA 11 hours ago

    I will never understand why black voters would choose Hillary over Bernie when Bernie is the one who actual has a tracjk record of fighting for civil rights.

    Robert, Ridgefield CT 5 hours ago

    The Democratic Party and its corporate affiliates' support for HRC has blinded them to a large problem, viz. that HRC is very likely to be beaten in the general election. Whether earned or not, there exists a very high level of antipathy for HRC, among Independents, and yes, Democrats. Senator Sanders is widely regarded as honest and straightforward. If he is not nominated, the legions of young Democrats and the large numbers of Independents that support the Senator, will stay home on election day and/or the extremely disaffected will vote for Trump if he is nominated...very, very few will vote for HRC (this is my anecdotal observation from many conversations with the Senator's supporters). It is also well-known, but often suppressed information that Senator Sanders does better against Trump than HRC in most national polls. The reality is that Senator Sanders is by far the best choice for Democrats to beat Trump or any other Republican crazy.

    I am a 76 year old life-long Democrat, and I would never vote for anyone who voted for the invasion of Iraq, or who supported NAFTA. These two issues have been the undoing of America - - along with Citizens United.

    Jonathan Palmquist, Los Angeles, CA 11 hours ago

    The Bay Area is one of Sanders' strongest regions of support in the entire country. San Francisco and Oakland have the 2nd and 4th highest donations to Bernie per capita (behind only Seattle). http://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/efb76d1c-e700-...

    ddd, Michigan 11 hours ago

    Yes, Sanders is down. Yes, his task is a daunting one, but less daunting than Kasich's path to the Republican nomination, which is getting more media coverage than the 2.8 million votes that Sanders drew on Tuesday. Sanders "revolution" is revolutionary only to those who accept the current Republican view of government as our collective nightmare - an us vs. them fight to the death over guns, immigration, abortion, deteriorating air and water, income inequality, student debt, access to health care - funded by sacred and unlimited corporate and PAC dollars.

    Sanders proposes nothing that has not been done before, here or abroad, by representative governments promoting the health, education, and welfare of all their people. I like to imagine Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower looking down on Sanders' proposals of what America should be able to do for its people. Maybe the Ides of March got Sanders. Maybe not?

    Reggie, OR 11 hours ago

    I keep reading in "The New York Times" that it's over. As I recall, a legendary figure, associated with two legendary New York baseball teams, used to say that "It aren't over 'til it's over. . . ."

    Why "The New York Times" is so anxious to call the Election of 2016 seems to be a question fit for an investigation. Where is "Woodstein" when we need them!?

    TR, Saint Paul 9 hours ago

    I cannot bring myself to vote for the Clintons (you always get both of them) so I hope the scenario of Bernie winning the nomination plays out.

    cbadgley, Long Beach, CA 9 hours ago

    Months before Sanders made any noise about running, I only hoped that we would have someone besides a Bush or a Clinton as a candidate. In a country this big, don't we have any other qualified candidates, I wondered. Politics aside, I just didn't think the idea of sending another Bush or Clinton to the White House was good for (the appearance of) democracy.

    Fast forward to today: Bush is out and Sanders is struggling to stay in. Look what happened to the other democrats (and we won't even talk about third party candidates). They didn't have a chance. It's an absolute miracle that Sanders has come this far given the toxic role of money in American politics and the corporate control and neutralizing of American media.

    Trump pushed Bush out of the race, but this was hardly a victory over the "establishment". Trump's money and fame gave him instant access -- and he was quickly able to compete with establishment candidates.

    For me, Sanders is a glimmer of hope. I have no illusions about his chances of securing the democratic nomination. But I find solace in the idea that, despite everything and everyone working to get him out, he's still there and his campaign in resonating with young people. He has started a movement, and that is what can lead to real change.

    Rima Regas, is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 12 hours ago

    I have to disagree with Cohn on his assessment of the Black vote. While it is true enough that Clinton had a lock on the South, her narrow win in Illinois and a close look at the Black vote there gives us a glimpse of what's to come and there are good ideological and factual reasons for it as I explain in my essay. Mrs. Clinton, in her campaign, has shown a disdain for the new civil rights movement. While it may not have swayed older voters, younger ones are not pleased. Their power, as voters will be felt more in the coming primaries and caucuses:

    http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/03/would-james-baldwin-endorse-berniesande...

    • Flag
    • In Reply to Rima Regas
    • Reply
    • 94 Recommend
    • Share this comment on Facebook Share this comment on Twitter
    senior citizen, Illinois 11 hours ago

    A few more ways Bernie can win- 1)
    the FBI or leaks show Hillary used classified server for emails that she didn't want seen by voters or the press because they are damning to her election. 2) a larger stronger Yuan devaluation sets off Wall Street volatility, exposing weaknesses in her economic policcies 3) transcripts of her Wall Street talks are leaked exposing high level corruption 4) a book is written on how the global leaders did not take her seriously as Secretary of State 5) polls show that independents don't like or trust her and will not toe the DNC party line ) etc

    Eastsider, NYC 8 hours ago

    Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating Trump, as several polls show. Trump supporters want an "outsider" who is not "owned" by either party. He has the advantage over Clinton and Trump in that he is not corrupt. The Times has been biased through the campaign. They endorsed Clinton a long time ago, and give her the benefit of coverage. But the REAL story is how Sanders has raised money from small donors. Why aren't they interviewing those donors on a daily basis? Who are they? Democrats? Republicans? Independents? The Times is not doing their job, such as conducting investigative reporting on the Clinton Foundation, and asking will the Clintons close down the Clinton Foundation if Hillary is elected? Will Bill Clinton continue to give $million dollar speeches when married to the President? Will he be a co-president, back in the oval office that he disgraced? The Times should be pushing for Hillary to not only publish the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street, but also her and Bill's speeches to Chinese billionaires, and others listed on Clinton Foundation web site). The Times might also ask how the Clintons turned a nonprofit foundation into an engine of personal wealth after leaving the White House claiming poverty. Do your job, NYT!!

    American Plutocracy

    U.S.A. 10 hours ago

    It is tragic that what is oft referred to as 'the black vote' may well usher in a Donald J. Trump Presidency. And It is ironic that votes for H. Clinton, as polling suggests, serves to do a few things a.) it decreases Sen. Sanders chances to be POTUS, which is obvious, but it also b.) will galvanize Republican voter turnout and may even c.) shift Independents and even some Democrats to the Right during the generals. I hold accountable the media and its collusion with DNC establishment and, honestly, the low-information voter.
    H. Clinton offers very little, in stated policy goals, for the poor and middle-class, which is in stark contrast to Sen. Sander's historical record and future policy goals. Sen. Sanders, even if I were not a fan, is offering positions (e.g. education w/ out debt, single-payer health care, combating crony capitalism, defeating citizens united, breaking up the largest banks) that have clearly promoted equality in many other developed nations. There is a direct correlation between these policy positions and bettering the lives of others. Piketty, Galbraith, Saez, Stiglitz, and countless other elite economic minds all agree these measures level the playing field.

    It is disheartening to witness, yet again, so many people voting against their own best interests by responding to dog whistle appeals to the color of one's skin and not the truest needs of the poor and middle-class. I am resigned to 8 more years of "hope and change" that does nothing for equality.

    Jeff, Evanston, IL 8 hours ago

    Bernie Sanders gives the impression that he will achieve major changes soon. He'll bring about single-payer health care (with everyone saving money). He'll end super PACs and huge corporate/billionaire contributions in political campaigns. He'll redo our foreign trade agreements to protect American jobs and bring manufacturing jobs back. He'll do away with income inequality and make labor unions strong again. If he expressed these goals as dreams in the manner of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, I'd say fine and good. Let's work towards these ends. But leading his followers astray by claiming that a revolution is taking place now and that these things can be achieved soon is just outright disgraceful. I'm not sure why African American don't support Senator Sanders, but they definitely know better than anyone the difference between dreams and reality. They know, as Dr. King did, that change takes hard work and a lot of time. The political pendulum may be starting to swing leftwards again (I hope so). But a revolution? No way.

    Manny, Washington DC 11 hours ago

    I have worked on too many campaigns to count, before I quit my addiction to pain and got a real job. His was an odd campaign.

    He expected the media to be a partner in helping him get elected. No candidate ever expects help from the media. Sander got the third best media coverage of all who ran--and arguable the most favorable given most of Clinton's coverage was the email scandal. At best you can get from the media is benign neglect. But the minute you are winning expect a scrubbing that would make a Brillo pad look gentle.

    He assumed he would have inroads to groups without courting them believing success with one group meant everyone would like him.

    He never seem to understand Clinton's strengths. He then seemed surprised by them. You always understand your oppotrengths at the very least to mitigate the damage.

    He fought with the establishment despite running in the establishment. Not only are they voters --they have business intelligence on local operatives and state level politics. He hit a brick wall in Nevada and got his clocked cleaned in South Carolina despite outspending Clinton because the apparatus that existed preferred Clinton.

    And lastly, where everyone in this business pours over data--their relationship with data seems foreign. There are several instances where you get the sense they made something up on the fly--and honestly surprised at the result.

    Renee Goethe, Iowa City 13 hours ago ,

    Oh dear. Another white person telling all those ungrateful and ignorant people of color, the African Americans, the Hispanics, that they're doing this voting thing all wrong. Makes right thinking Bernsters wonder why we even bother to let them vote, if they're just going to mis-use it so.

    Sanders was involved, 60 years ago, in some civil rights activities. Since then, he's been the elected official of some of the whitest sections of the country and has not depended on the black or Hispanic vote to ge re-elected. If you want to tar Clinton with the '95 crime bill, even though she wasn't a senator then, it ricochets to hit Sanders, who voted for it.

    Clinton worked to develop connections and a reputation in the African American and Hispanic sectors. Bernie Sanders, though a good man, did not. Nor did he work with the existing Democratic party to support down-ticket elections or democratic events. He always ran as an outsider. Now, he wants to be in the party and benefit from what the DNC has to offer. Funny that his supporters cry foul when he, a non-Democrat, doesn't get the full breadth of support from the party he shunned.

    So to all those Bernsters out there - please calm down. Everyone deals with favorite politicians getting rejected, it's life. and the millennial vote is no more or less important than any other group.

    Sam I Am, Windsor, CT 8 hours ago

    Now that the press and the political actuaries have crowned Clinton the presumptive nominee, some of the passion that has sustained Sanders will ebb, and we'll see him do less well. Progressives will slowly accept Clinton and either sit out the primary or curb their enthusiasm for the Bern.

    Clinton has, from the beginning, garnered votes by presenting herself as inevitable, not inspirational. Not so much "Yes We Can" but "Yes I Will."

    It's a shame, because a transformational FDR-style Democrat is desperately needed at this point in our history.

    Renee Goethe, Iowa City 11 hours ago

    Here's the thing - general elections are part of the democratic process, but the nomination process is controlled by the parties, who make the rules and call the shots. For 40 years or so, Ms. Clinton has been involved in fund raising and campaigning for senators, congressmen, and governors. She has been involved in the DNC and has been supported in return.

    Sanders runs as a pure outsider. He shunned the party until he decided to join in order to run. He has few supporters in the Senate, and little good will among down-ticket Democrats.

    Clinton isn't winning on superdelegates, but on pledged delegates from the states. She has earned a plurality of votes. Claiming otherwise demeans the millions who have already cast their votes in her favor, and assumes that they are ignorant, stupid, or insane. Their decisions were other than what you would want. That's democracy. Get over it.

    Rick Spanier, Tucson 12 hours ago

    The DNC has stacked the deck in Clinton's favor with its Superdelegate apparatchiks clogging the arteries of a fair nominating process with 465 clots of greasy fat. Where is the Democracy in the Democratic party when viable contenders are forced to run the race in hobbles? Not even the Republicans have come up with Tammany Hall tactic - yet.

    So yes, Hillary will most likely be the nominee of the Democratic Party. As an independent I will not be voting for her or any members of the Republican Insane Clown Posse. More than likely I will be writing in for the /bernie_sanders.Warren ticket as a protest to rigged elections.

    DougJohnsonHatlem, Toronto 9 hours ago

    While otherwise quite good, this article contains a factual error that continues to play into the false Clinton narrative about racialized voting and the Sanders campaign.

    According to exit polling, Oklahoma's Democratic Primary was only 74% white. Sanders won the vote in that state by 10.5% points. This means that the following statement is false: "Mr. Sanders's best showing in a state where less than 75 percent of voters were white was his two-point win in Michigan."

    And, while we do not have exit polling data from Colorado, the electorate there was almost certainly less than 75% white. Sanders won by 18.5%. Take for instance Denver County. Denver County is just 53% white only per United States Census's Quick Facts. 31% of Denver is Latina or Latino, 10% is African American, 2% is Native American, and 4% is Asian. Sanders won Denver County by 9.4%.

    To pretend, as this article does, that Arizona (31% Latino) or even Washington State (70% white only per US Census data) are "whiter" states than Tennessee (75%) and Arkansas (73%) is to betray exactly the kind of anti-Sanders bias that Margaret Sullivan had to call out in another context this morning.

    At the very least, the Times owes it to its readers to correct the factual error here in a prominent way.

    drejconsulting, Asheville, NC 12 hours ago

    It's actually shameful that black voters in SC refused to listen or engage with the second candidate in two candidate race, even when he came to their church:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/in-a-black-church-in-south...

    And can we please stop referring to a state where 60% of the primary voters were black as "diverse." In a country with a 13% black population, it's more accurately described as "extremely unrepresentative"

    "Diverse" does not mean "minorities overrepresented by a factor of 4." New Hampshire is far closer to the racial mix in America than the electorate in any Democratic Primary in the south.

    power hitter, 60559 14 hours ago

    Bernie never said this would be easy. He has lost a few battles, but he will win the war. We have to stay the course & get his message out to the people.
    Democrats must realize that we can not win the presidency with only the support of southern blacks & senior citizens. The way this election has been run by the DNC & media has totally alienated Bernie supporters to the point that a great majority will go green or vote Rep. rather than back Clinton & the DNC. This is becoming a reality more & more every day. I hope that the super delegates figure this out by the time we reach the convention or all is lost.

    East End, East Hampton, NY 14 hours ago

    The establishment media favoring the establishment candidate paints a rosy picture for HRC. We get it. The Bernie Blackout marches along in lock-step with the Trump Trumpet. This scenario is far more than mere perception. Empirical data will be mined for years to come to show the glaring disparity. Future journalism majors will compose graduate theses using this fodder. Should we end up, as currently appears likely, with President Trump, the "golly-how-did-that-happen?" crowd will have it all explained later by some kid who is now in junior high school because today's print news editors and broadcast news producers suffered from the "if-it-bleeds-it-leads" school. Even the vaunted NY Times betrays its "all the news that's fit to print" motto and remains mesmerized by the Trump con act. Hey fellas, how about a new motto? "Covering Carnival Barkers Since 2016"?

    rebecca, 7 hours ago

    I have to be honest here; I don't see much hope for Bernie to get the nomination. I do hope he wins my state, and yes, I'll be caucusing for him next weekend, but the numbers don't look good and I'm feeling depressed.

    I intend to vote in November for all races on the ballot. If my state is not in play--if we're safely blue, like we usually are--I'm writing in Bernie. If there's a chance we might go red, I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary.

    I didn't like her in 2008 and I don't like her in 2016. She's a neoliberal hawk and I don't want her getting the US entangled in more wars we'll never get out of. I don't want her starting negotiations with the Republicans already close to the center so we'll end up all the way to the right. I don't think she's trustworthy and I think her only guiding principle is ambition.

    Needless to say, I'm depressed, and frankly tuning out of the race at this point. The Republicans are making the US a laughingstock around the world and the Dems appear to be saddled with a candidate we don't particularly want. Any way you slice it this is going to be an ugly election, and while I've been a political junkie all my life, I just don't have the enthusiasm to care about it. I don't see a winning solution in this any way I look at it.

    *This* is Hillary's big problem. People like me, who will grudgingly vote for her if we have to, but who have absolutely no enthusiasm for it. How many of us will just stay home instead of voting for the lesser evil?

    drejconsulting, Asheville, NC 9 hours ago

    If electability is your main criteria, you should be voting for Sanders.

    Sanders does better against every Republican opponent, in every poll in the last month, because he gets 3-1 support from independents (40% of the electorate), even if he doesn't get a majority of democrats (30% of the electorate).

    Sanders got 71% of the independent voters in Illinois, 72% of the independent voters in New Hampshire, and 73% of the independent voters in Michigan (exit poll data)

    Clinton has high favorability within the Democratic Party, but among all Americans, she has a 55% NEGATIVE rating (versus only 42% positive), rivaling Trump. Nothing is red meat to Republicans like Clinton, and she has no appeal to Independents (see above)

    It's why in every poll for the last month among REGISTERED VOTERS, Sanders does better against every Republican opponent than Clinton.

    Ron randall, new Jersey 14 hours ago

    Bernie's most likely winning opportunity is the self-destruction of his opponent, whose high unfavorability ratings could prove decisive if her email controversy or any number of other vulnerabilities gains public attention.

    Jonathan Swift, Illinois 11 hours ago

    There is much talk of a disqualifying event that will knock Hillary out of the race and allow Bernie to receive the nomination. Talk of indictments, the content of the Wall Street speeches, e-mail servers, Benghazi, and so on. The talk on both sides often seems to miss the mark. I agree with those, generally Clinton supporters, who doubt she said or did anything appalling in any of these regards. However, I agree with the Sanders supporters that she is not giving adequate answers on these questions. There is really an element of "I'm not going to address such a ridiculous question". The problem that I see is that Bernie Sanders, who for the most part is on the same side as Hillary Clinton and her supporters, has been not forcing the issue- nor would it be appropriate for him to do so. The Republican nominee will certainly do so, to great affect with the many people who are not currently strong supporters of Clinton. I don't refer to the people who intensely dislike her, or would never vote for Democrat/woman/centrist/non-conserative anyway. I mean the people who when Trump/Cruz raises the question about her speeches or lack of e-mail security will wonder whether there might be something to it. It is clear that there are many voters looking for a fresh start away from the usual politics. The Clinton campaign needs to address these questions with coherent and substantive answers now.

    Doug Broome, Vancouver 7 hours ago

    Bernie is the future of Democratic policy; Hillary the past.
    Among voters younger than 45 Bernie wins big; by 40 points among millenials.
    In 2008 Obama offered a new future of justice but most of his program was broken on the shoals of mindless GOP hostility. Bernie is more of a fighter.
    And now the Dem establishment wants to choke off the voices of the young, those paying the biggest price for plutocracy and Wall Street government.
    Bernie is offering a very limited version of the social democracy that has worked so well in minimizing poverty and maximizing personal opportunity across Europe, Canada, Australia.
    Mass grotesque life-killing poverty is destroying the American 100 million underclass as a parasitic plutocracy is more and more engorged.
    There is an alternative. Continue the Clinton-Sanders debates to the floor of the convention. Should Hillary win, Bernie is committed to uniting the party behind her for he has actually made her a better, more progressive candidate, shedding off the muck of triangulation.
    Bernie is the hope and change candidate. And he also consistently does better than Hillary matched up against Cruz/Trump in polling.

    charlotte scot, Old Lyme, CT 13 hours ago

    As one of those 69 year old millennials, I think I know how the system works. The political parties put up candidates who take money from huge special interests, they get elected, nothing is accomplished other than more Corporate control of our country: AKA the buying and selling of elections and a commitment to becoming a total oligarchy. I recently read that some of the DNC's super delegates are actually lobbyists. The Democrats and Republicans are running our country into the ground: polluting the planet, killing our kids in wars for profit; jailing minorities and thereby disenfranchising them from voting, dumbing down the education system, forcing families into bankruptcy over medical bills, more rights taken away from citizens (out of fear that people (like me)are going to take to the streets with their pitchforks). If I may quote Laurel and Hardy (who this campaign often resembles) This is a fine mess you got me into. I'd like to remind the Clintons and the DNC of how foolish G W Bush looked after standing under that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner at the beginning of the Iraq War. When more than half the country has not yet voted I am enraged by the arrogance.

    horatio, Danbury, CT 6 hours ago

    The elephant in the room is the potential for an email indictment. Against Trump, Hillary would be damaged beyond repair if the FBI investigation goes against her. The Clinton campaign is way too sanguine about this and nobody in the commentariat is talking about it ... but the whole campaign could turn on it. The FBI is said to be out for blood because Petraeus got off lightly ... and lesser players getting immunity can't be a good sign.

    Bernie needs to keep going if for no other reason than we need another option.

    Dr Jonathan Smith, Lost In space 5 hours ago

    To the Clinton supporters who drone on about HRC's "experience" and track record of getting things done, please provide citations/links to support your assertions.

    The facts show that the bulk of her experience lies in her amazing talents of fabrication and obfuscation of facts. As First Lady--her longest "political" role, she successfully covered up and lied for her serially philandering husband, destroying the reputations of his victims in the process.

    During her stint as Senator of her adopted state, backed by Wall Street, big pharma and other corporate interests, she succeeded in endorsing the disastrous and ongoing war in Iraq and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, among other dubious votes.

    Her time as Secretary of State can be characterized as inconsequential at best and disastrous at worst, resulting in an FBI investigation and possible indictment.

    Her private life, as an obscenely compensated speaker to the Wall Street firms directly responsible for the financial meltdown, comprise the bulk of her actual accomplishments.

    And her refusal to release transcripts of those speeches and the convenient wiping of her unauthorized email server suggest major character, trust and honesty issues.

    Again, citations of what practical experience at running the country she possesses would be illuminating.

    Paul, Atlanta 6 hours ago

    I am ready for a change. I am ready to elect Senator Sanders to be the next President. Let us leave the establishment behind and make the necessary change for the better. Unlike those who have been characterized as his mainstay supporters (the young), I am 68 and have waited my entire grown up adult life for a leader of our country who was not a bought and paid for apparatchik of the moneyed elite. Never before have I contributed to any political cause or candidate before Bernie. Now I find someone worth nominating and electing!

    JP, Virginia 11 hours ago

    The strength of Sanders candidacy has been less in "revelations" about Clinton, and more about the recognition by voters that there is an alternative to Clinton. This is especially true for younger voters who don't tend to see the 1990s through rose-colored glasses.

    As more people have gotten to know Sanders, his numbers have gone up. The problem for Sanders has been a question of time and the sequencing of the primary calendar.

    Clinton has done exceptionally well with older party regulars, especially in the south. She lost the 45 and under vote to Sanders 70-30 in Illinois; she is not growing the party.

    If Clinton wins in November, she can thank Trump and/or Cruz for doing the work for her. She can also thank Sanders for getting younger voters engaged in the process and for providing her with her platform. Al Gore and John Kerry also dominated the primary process. That didn't mean they were strong general election candidates.

    E Griffin, Connecticut 9 hours ago

    I am a female, late baby boomer. I've voted a straight Democratic ticket my entire life. It will be a real battle with my conscience to vote for Ms. Clinton. So, if there's any hope for Bernie Sanders, I will be sending him more funds.

    • Reply
    • 27 Recommend
    Joseph Fleischman, Missoula Montana 12 hours ago

    I think college should be provided for everyone who can't afford it. I think medical care should be provided for everyone who can't afford it. In total, I think everyone should have a substantial safety net, a floor beneath which no one should fall.
    We think of food and shelter in the same way -- as liberals we believe in providing ample food stamps and decent shelters for those who can't afford it. In our service economy, a formal education is no longer a luxury but a necessity. As circumstances change, so should our thinking. That's what true liberalism is all about.
    Taxes should be raised on extreme wealth because inequality has already gotten way out of hand.
    Joseph in Misoula

    Pam, NY 9 hours ago

    @Eric

    "I'm a liberal democrat. But I don't think college should be free for everyone. I do not want my taxes to go up even more. I do not think Wall Street is an evil entity that should be dismantled. In fact, I don't think we should try and force a far-left version of America on the large portion of the population that clearly does not want it."

    So who has a right to education? Who should reign in the excesses of the Wall Street casino, which nearly destroyed the entire world economy? Who should pay more taxes - the broken middle class, working class, the decimated unions, and the poor, who already all subsidize the exploitation that fills the coffers of corporations and billionaires? The Democrats once vigorously and almost universally supported these groups and the ideas that helped them succeed.

    You're right. You should absolutely not support Bernie. Because you're not a liberal democrat, and you're certainly not a progressive. But you are a great representative of Hillary Clinton's voice, and the Republican lite that now calls itself the Democratic Party. And she's counting on you.

    Texas Liberal, Austin, TX 13 hours ago

    It's disappointing that no enterprising investigative journalist has found somebody ready to spill the beans and provide a pirated copy of the now almost legendary Wall Street speeches. But it may well be that there is such a source, one insisting on substantial compensation, and most journalists are forbidden from paying for information

    It would not be surprising if Trump already has a source picked out, one who, if not subject to the threat of exposure of some hidden misdeed or under direct obligation to The Donald, is susceptible to outright bribery, and that Trump is holding that ammunition, waiting to fire after Clinton has achieved the nomination and is his opponent in the general election.

    If that should be the case: Look forward to a President Trump.

    Matt Von Ahmad Silverstein Chong, Mill Valley, CA 9 hours ago

    Sanders vs Kasich. Only sane choices on both sides.

    Otherwise:

    Clinton: liar, opportunistic, risk of indictment after nomination risking defeat
    Cruz: liar, extremist, not accomplished anything other than shutting the government
    Trump: liar, polarizing, risk of defeat as unable to unify party

    Not that Sanders and Kasich don't have their own thorns, but in my opinion they are the most fit to be elected.

    micky bitsko, New York, NY 13 hours ago

    Ms. Regas, you write: "Were it not for the DNC's Machiavellian planning of this primary and, had the states been ordered differently, we wouldn't be at roughly the halfway point with such skewed results."

    The DNC approved and announced the 2016 primary schedule back in August 2014:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-party-approves-2016-presidential-...

    Senator Sanders announced his candidacy eight months later on April 30, 2015.

    So the Senator and his inner circle of advisors went into this race with eyes wide open knowing full well what the primary schedule would be and what they would face.

    Perhaps you might consider dropping this complaint from your litany.

    John S., is a trusted commenter Washington 4 hours ago

    I ran the delegate numbers through 15 March excluding Missouri, which is basically a tie like Illinois was and there will probably be one delegate difference between the winner and loser, and if the win-to-lose ration stayed the same, then Mrs. Hillary Clinton would still be short over 200 pledged delegates after all the voting is done.

    But the win-to-lose ratio will not remain constant. It will move in favor of Senator Bernard "Bernie" Sanders and against Mrs. Clinton. Consequently, her shortfall in pledged delegates could rise to 300-500 pledged delegates.

    Keep on running Bernie! I will continue to support your campaign right through Democratic Party convention.

    drejconsulting, Asheville, NC 12 hours ago

    Hillary Clinton in no way shape or form represents "what he (Sanders) professes to believe in"

    She represents exactly the opposite: She represents the influence of money and corporations in politics, and politics as usual.

    I'd rather have 4 years of Trump and Elizabeth Warren in 2020 than 8 years of Clinton and politics as usual for the rest of my life.

    Димитър Димитров, България 14 hours ago

    If Bernie Sanders wins, he would become president. If Hillary Clinton wins , in the White House will enter Trump.For the success of cause of the change, which wants many Americans, and Bernie Sanders, must become president ... Trump.
    Only one single-minded Republican could exacerbate problems to burst the boil.

    • Reply
    • 22 Recommend
    Michael, California 6 hours ago

    There are no simple answers to the very real issues this country faces on every level. Unfortunately, the individual developed psychologies of voters combined with the natural desire to embrace the easiest idea that promises to bring a comfortable conclusion to the problems has blinded voters to the very flawed candidates they have to choose from. I am a Sanders supporter but not because he can achieve any of his ideas. I support him because he is a brake on the current business as usual. His qualms about why the two parties cannot get anything done is truth and before we can fix anything we have to acknowledge what is broken and remove it from any solution we might strive for. I don't care if the Sanders car breaks down the moment we get off the road. First thing is first we need to get off the road.

    The DNC and RNC are corrupt and liabilities. The Media is covering up their most important flaws for the sake of business as usual. Too many people have much to lose if this 2 party gravy train is derailed and that isn't just the billionaires and multi-national corps. An entire system has compromised the Republic and it need to be cleansed over a period of a decade to just get rid of the nepotism, corruption, and pay to play shenanigans.

    Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the poster children for this system. I do not favor Ted Cruz but he is right when he says the former sells influence and the latter buys it. If those are options, next time won't be so polite.

    Kodali, VA 7 hours ago

    Every one should vote according to their convictions ignoring what the media has to say or does not say. It is also important not to pay attention who is going to win in the general election. I believe the economy is rigged. The political establishment and corporate America as well as Banks and Wall Street are all in the same bed. They will have a long happy honeymoon until ordinary folks cannot support their honeymoon expenses. That gives rise to people like Sanders and Trump, who will disturb the political order. My vote is for Sanders. Here why? I believe free college is an economic necessity that we cannot afford not have. I believe the economy is rigged and Main street should regulate the Wall Street and not the other way around. I believe health care to all is necessary pre-condition to define a human society. I believe we can afford and we must. Vote what you believe in and the nation will in the right direction.

    Christian Walker, Greensboro, NC 7 hours ago

    Sanders hasn't been allowed to debate, and has gotten little to no media coverage. Our society picks it's leaders based on 2 things. 1) the candidate with the most royal blood connection to King John (this is a real theory, may not be true, but 98% of U.S. Presidents are the great-great-great-great-great-great grand children of Charlemagne and King John,) and 2) which candidate they see in the media the most. If Bernie loses this nomination, Donald Trump will become our next (and possibly final) commander in chief.

    Patrick W, St. Paul, MN 9 hours ago

    Your tone is absurdly condescending, as if many Sanders supporters aren't graduate school educated professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants, social workers, educators, etc…) In fact, educated people in pro-social occupations make up one of his stronger demographics.

    The differences between the leftists who left their hippie-dropout lifestyles disillusioned and moved on to professional careers later, and the more youthful Sanders supporters a couple generations younger are myriad. Foremost, very few of them are cultural dropouts; they didn't take the "burn out or sell out" brat route of the Boomers. Most are educated, and many are saddled with student debt loads difficult for older people to understand (the mechanisms that force students into debt are especially difficult for affluent Boomers to grasp). They compete for jobs with all those disillusioned brats who settled down to professional practices - and are still working! Not to mention the fact that your bitter ones - those who never learned the folly of egalitarianism - are presumably the same ones who never got graduate degrees and cushy jobs; they're still waiting for representation, for a pro-labor, pro-working-class candidate who never comes.

    Nobody has pulled the wool over anyone's eyes, except perhaps the Clinton, the DNC, and the media outlets that prop them up by appealing to low information voters while engaging only with policy that benefits affluent ex-leftists in high aging professional positions.

    Michael, San Diego 8 hours ago

    In past elections, I have admittedly voted for the "lesser of two evils." Now, I realize that just perpetuated a system which is corrupt. If people got truly educated about the issues and the candidates, there would be only one choice, Senator Bernie Sanders. Alas, as Senator Adlai Stevenson once said, getting the vote of every right thinking American was not enough. He needed a majority. Sadly, this is only more true today.

    Zip Zinzel, Texas 12 hours ago

    > "These weaknesses could have been mitigated over time had the Times and the mainstream press actually told its more diverse readers how Sanders' policies would in fact help them"

    ANYBODY who wanted to be consumers of Mr. Sanders' talking points had more than enough sources for that.
    Sadly, your complaint is exactly the same one that conservatives have be putting on the NYT since the mid-70s

    What an intelligent person 'might' complain about in relation to your concerns is that the MSM spends far too little effort accurately 'telling the voters' how delusional Mr. Sanders' proposals are, and how there is less than a 1% chance they could EVER be implemented under any imaginable configuration of the Congress

    Related to this, I remember sadly, who NYT, WaPo, and others pointed out the lunacy of GWB's campaign proposals were in 2000
    IMPACT: almost zero
    The naked agenda of GWB was to take a roaring economy, running in surplus, and open it up for the private gain of the highest bidder
    The GWB/Cheney agenda was very similar to Mitt Romney's LBO scheme to - take control of organizations
    - strip them of as many of their valuable assets as they could efficiently do in as short a time frame as possible
    - load them up with debt, that went back into their own pockets so that they had none of their own assets at risk
    - dump the operation as quick as possible so that they wouldn't be holding-the-bag when the feces-hit-the-fan
    - look for the next target

    Too complex for ave consumer

    dan mackerman, minnesota 11 hours ago

    I disagree. There has been a very disproportionate coverage of candidates by the media. In fact, I would argue that the biggest story of this election cycle is the media's own influence of the election. I find it quite disturbing. This in not my opinion. It's a conclusion based on studies I've read in the past several days, one of which was published by the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth...

    Here's another: http://decisiondata.org/news/political-media-blackouts-president-2016/#c...

    If you care to refute this, by all means, but please give us some real evidence not just glib opinions.

    JWP, Goleta, CA 8 hours ago

    The mainstream media and its corporate owners are deeply troubled over the issue of Campaign Finance Reform, which has been the most obvious point of Bernie Sanders' campaign--he has financed his campaign through small donations from individual citizens, instead of SuperPacs like Hillary has done, and this has been no small feat.
    Corrupt campaign finance is a powerful tool the corporate elite uses to manipulate American voters into voting against their own interests.
    This is why the MSM has treated Sanders so shabbily. A glaring example of this problem was the first Democratic debate put on by CNN. As it turns out, CNN is a subsidiary of Time-Warner, which is a big donor to Hillary's campaign. Let that sink in.
    So, sure enough, Anderson Cooper asked the candidates Zero questions about campaign finance reform, Bernie Sanders' main issue, and Bernie had to stick the issue into an answer of his to a question on a different topic near the end of the program. If not for that, the issue would not have been raised at all.
    The same syndrome has been evident, albeit in milder form, in most of the media, including the NYT, the WaPo, MSNBC, and so on.
    Corporate forces, including the corporate media, are loathe to have someone like Bernie Sanders come along and take their corrupt financing of American politicians away from them.

    Mel Farrell, New York 7 hours ago

    Of course this latest interesting development must be giving Hillary palpitations; Can a felon become President of the United States ??

    See Business Insider and Link:

    "The FBI is widening its investigation of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a private email account while she was U.S. secretary of state to determine whether any public corruption laws were violated, Fox News reported on Monday.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been looking into whether classified material was mishandled during Clinton's tenure at the State Department from 2009-2013.

    It will expand its probe by examining possible overlap of the Clinton Foundation charity with State Department business, Fox reported, citing three unidentified intelligence officials.

    "The [FBI] agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," Fox quoted one of its unidentified sources as saying."

    http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-2...

    EC Speke, Denver 4 hours ago

    In my mind, the fact that the Clintons have in the past taken money from Donald Trump disqualifies Hillary from the presidency. I'm on the Bernie train, and if he's railroaded away from the nomination by anyone, including President Obama, I'm not going to vote in November. I can't vote for either Trump or Hillary, as they are in cahoots to fleece the average American and criminalize for life, those whom they don't like, and that is mostly those in economic distress or poor substance abusers in our country.

    Obama's backing of Hillary is a disappointment. The self claimed most transparent administration in history we were to get, never materialized, rather just the opposite happened, the least transparent administration in history. His is an administration that went after whistleblowers exposing crimes against the public, embraced perpetual warfare and mass incarceration, supports the surveillance state, and his Justice Department and FBI stood by while unarmed American men and children had their human rights and lives taken away from them by municipalities in Ohio, Illinois, California, Florida, Texas, etc. etc. ad nauseam, this includes Tamir Rice and the kids drinking leaded water in Flint. The list of human and civil rights violations under his watch is a long one that goes on and on and no better than Dubya's. By supporting Hillary over Bernie, the President has proven that he too, got into politics for the money. How cynical are leaders are today excluding Sanders.

    • Reply
    • 16 Recommend
    James Ferrell,
    6 hours ago

    Note that Donald Trump has won 48% of the GOP delegates so far. He would have to win about 54% of the remain delegates to get a majority, and the pundits consider that to be pretty likely.

    Bernie has won 42% of the Democratic delegates so far (not counting superdelegates) and would need to win about 58% of the remaining delegates to win. The pundits seem to consider it to be pretty unlikely.

    Maybe, but I think the pundits might be wrong on this one.

    Woody Porter, NYC 9 hours ago

    This nonsense about Ralph Nader has been repeated so often that almost seems plausible (…not unlike many another myth). The historical truth is as follows.

    The 2000 election came down to Florida. Running as "independents" were Nader (progressive) and Pat Buchanan (conservative). Each of them received almost exactly the same number of votes -- i.e. they cancelled each other out, Buchanan taking as many votes from Bush as Nader did from Gore.

    The one who who gave Bush the election was his brother Jeb. Through his Florida Secretary of State, he ordered the recount ended -- the excuse proffered was the fear of violence: precinct stations where poll workers were counting the votes had been attacked by squads of goons (paid for, as was later revealed) by Karl Rove. The issue of the recount was then thrown to the Supreme Court, which issued one of the most partisan rulings in its history.

    Gore's loss had absolutely nothing to do with Ralph Nader. And those who claim it did are either woefully uninformed, or are deliberately (and cynically!) distorting history to push some different agenda of their own.

    Paula Lappe, Ohio, USA 4 hours ago

    As I see things, Sanders is a better bet for the fall and the future . Mrs. Clinton was a "Goldwater Girl" back in her younger days and was/is actually proud of that. I have to wonder if the African American population realizes what that meant and now means. It hard to believe that she is not owned by big business. Her possible indictment and the Republican reaction to no indictment. I do not trust her for so many reasons. Since the polls seem to show that Sanders could defeat the Republicans it might just be a safer move. Our nation does not want (or should not want) another mess with another 'Clinton'. Nor should our country have to endure the problems that may well accompany Mrs. Clinton into office. And hey, does anyone know why Mrs. Clinton discontinued the use of her maiden name altogether? Has she any identity on her own that is of real value in her thinking or does she just have to try to ride on a wave created by her hubby----not a very sharp move for a true feminist. Shame on Mr. Obama for his comments in her favor. I am with Sanders and probably not bothering to vote for her in the fall if she get the Democratic nomination---just too hard to justify. The voters
    who send her into the fall election just deserve 4 four years of the likes of Mr. Trump. This might not be the year for Sanders and his approach, but the future lies ahead as an college Professor always said.

    ted, portland 8 hours ago

    Nate you are delusional if you don't think Bernie will win big in the Bay Area, the days of smoke filled back rooms with Willie Brown and Diane Feinstein carving up the spoils are thankfully over. The Bay Area has a very diverse, intelligent populace who can spot a phony when they see it, Hillary doesn't stand a chance.

    Sara, Wisconsin 2 hours ago

    Say what you will, Bernie Sanders has breathed life into the Democrat campaign with sound ideas. He has resurrected some of the old labor friendly ways of a party drifted too far to the right. His call for a "revolution" of participation in government and civic lifr will resonate past the election.
    I'm glad he's staying in the race. I'd like my chance to vote for him, even if it proves only symbolicc.

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 8 hours ago

    Still waiting for the release of Hillary's transcripts of speeches she gave to special interest who lathered her with millions. If you support Hillary and you don't care about seeing what she told special interests you either work for one, or have your head in the sand.

    Hillary's favorability ratings are below 50% in every poll taken. She is considered trustworthy by a much lower percentage than Bernie.

    But she is the best candidate for the Dems because she supports big money in politics. No way to avoid the FACT the Dem party loves big donors and has absolutely no interest in having it any other way. They are competing with Repubs for big donors.

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for continuing pay to play, which has ruined this country for the past 3 decades. Another bought and paid for candidate.

    Bitter. Nope. Just the facts.

    Tough Call, USA 13 hours ago

    If it's Clinton v. Trump (of whoever v. Trump), and we the citizenry choose Trump, I must say that humankind has really not come very far. In our country, the wealthiest in the world, where by all reasonable measures, we live in significantly better conditions than most (but not all) of the world population, we will have proven ourselves not so different from the typical ups-and-downs that third-world countries and banana republics experience. For all our riches and our advancements, we, as humans, must be somehow consigned, as a collective, to make the same stupid mistakes. I hope we prove ourselves better than that.

    senior citizen, Illinois 13 hours ago

    There are quite a few more ways Bernie can win: leaks expose Hilary's Wall Street speeches,
    ; FBI charges; a strong yuan devaluation causes significant stock market volatility; etc

    Tom, CT 9 hours ago

    It's sad that educated "affluent" voters will support Clinton ostensibly to try to hold onto as much of their wealth as possible even when it's worse for the nation at large. It's the exact confluence of money and politics that Clinton stands for and Sanders rejects. This race is about one candidate who is well-liked, genuine, and looking to honestly help people versus another who pretends to be working for the people, but who's track record is a virtual Frank Underwood guide book of self-serving political maneuvers for wealth and power.

    Sanders ideas to give power back to the people instead of back to the wealthy isn't as radical as the media portrays him. It's the basic tenets of democracy most of us learned back in grade school. Hopefully whatever magic spell Clinton has over the black vote will be broken and voters will wake up to realize there is only one candidate fighting on their behalf.

    SCA,
    8 hours ago

    Actually, public colleges USED to be free for every in-state student. In the flower of my mature years, I can still remember that.

    I also remember making a livable living as a woman with only a HS diploma, serving as an executive secretary for the high-powered and well-connected.

    Many of them were identical to the snarling Democratic women who serve as Hillary*s henchpeople. Even as they worked for the *better good* in the non-profit and socially advanced universe, they were more than happy to trample on people like me.

    And *me* are, like, legion...

    I will never vote for Hillary. I will write in Sanders* name if I have to, and sleep soundly on Election Night, regardless of what happens, because I will have acted according to my own principles and ethics. If we all do so Sanders can win. If others do the usual craven Democratic fold--you*ll get what you deserve.

    susan smith, state college, pa 9 hours ago

    It is time for the NYTimes and the rest of the corporate media to recognize the very real and terrifying possibility that Donald Trump will be our next president. It is time to drop their mindless support of Hillary and to face the facts. Bernie defeats Trump in every poll by wider margins than Hillary. Bernie has no baggage. He has never faced indictment. He is not owned by Wall St. and super pacs. He has not been a cheerleader for endless war in the Middle East.
    Hillary is vulnerable in a general election; Bernie is not. I don't think the Times bothered to report it, but Bernie actually earned more votes in North Carolina than Trump did. Many Bernie supporters will not vote for Hillary. Bernie, however, has higher positive ratings than any other candidate this year. He won his home state by 87% because he is beloved by Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats. It is time to explain to African-Americans, Latinos, etc. WHY he is so beloved. There is no reason on earth for African-Americans not to support him except for the fact that they know nothing about him. That is your fault, corporate media, and nobody else's.

    Charlotte Ritchie, Larkspur, CA 4 hours ago

    The truth is that Sanders performs way better against Trump in general election and state-by-state match-ups than Clinton. He has great appeal for Independents, and even garners 25% of the Republican vote in his home state of Vermont. One can say that Sanders hasn't yet been "tested" against the Republican spin machine in a general election, but honestly, the worst they can throw at him is "socialist," a term that is actually very friendly to those who come to understand the meaning of "Democratic socialism." Clinton has so many lies (think, for just one, of "landing under sniper fire in Bosnia), flip-flops and evolutions in her history that the Republicans will have a field day with her. Independents don't like her, millennials are apathetic to her, and her only real appeal is with strong Democrats, most of whom she doesn't inspire. What I fear the most is a Trump presidency, and that Clinton will end up being another John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale.

    skanik, Berkeley 9 hours ago

    Cannot fathom why anyone would vote for Hillary
    unless you want the "Same Old - Same Old":
    The Rich get Richer and Poor get Poorer.
    Do you really think someone who took $ 675,000 for making
    3 speeches to Goldman Sachs is going to tame the Wall Street Wolves ?

    Give Bernie your vote for the sake of humanity.

    Even Peters, Here 13 hours ago

    I believe Sen Sanders is committing a terrible error that will cost him the nomination and the Democrats the presidency.
    While sparing HRC all the hovering questions by running a clean campaign
    first, he is not only not using the possibility to highlight his superiority on political luggage and history which could help him with minority groups, veterans and others ,
    but also he is not preparing the public for the spectacle waiting the public when the duel with Trump(or Cruz) starts.
    When the issues such as her voting history on wars, Secretary of State
    tragic mistakes such as Libya, endangering nation security with the use of a
    private server , Bill grotesque history with women and her shaming of the women who went trough, her past positions on LGBT,
    profoundly racist comments as the Superpredators, weird insinuations as the gunfire in Kosovo
    start being spit on her by towering, screaming bully of Trump it will be a
    a BLOODBATH.

    There is so many of them and even now she keep on making them
    and when you hear them all spit one by one with a venom and conviction by the "other" candidate, even diehard Dems will be appalled.
    She will be destroyed and no whatsoever credibility will be accorded any
    explanation she could give as the offences are BIGGER then anything we have ever witnessed in president candidate.

    Reps are stocking them like silver bullets and they will hit when the time comes.
    So shoot now Sanders, otherwise other will use them to kill.

    everyman, baltimore, md 8 hours ago

    To bsebird:

    I am a psychiatrist, and I am terrified by the idea that someone with such a narcissistic, and anti-social personality, would put the future and safety of our country at great risk, in order to aquire another "property" that he desperately wants, as another trophy to add to his list of buying everything he wants, no matter the cost or risk.

    Unlike a real estate acquisition, you cannot (or should not) bankrupt this country, write it off as a loss on your taxes, and move on to purchasing another "prize" you want, and feel you are entitled to "collect/own". For a man who continually demonstrates the temper of a 5 y/o when he is challenged, and has no political experience mixed with his "ballistic" temper, would you really choose him to make decisions that involve the safety and welfare of our country, and to make rationally based decisions in our current state of complex and fragile international affairs?

    [Mar 18, 2016] The people are obviously sick and tired of our old establishment politicians

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is winning because he is NOT the establishment. Sanders, coming out of nowhere, with only PEOPLE rather than the establishment behind him, is running a fantastic race against a well oiled machine going on twenty years in the building of it. ..."
    "... US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options. It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds. The extreme right is doing great in Northern and Central Europe, while the extreme left is doing the same in Southern Europe creating a rift in almost every issue, but specially the immigration policy. many countries are becoming difficult to govern at a time when separatism, both national (Scotland, Catalonia) and supranational (Brexit) is on the increase. ..."
    "... "US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options. It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds." ..."
    "... The odds are, you are right, about HRC being the nominee, but it is still a race, and it ain't over till it's over. I hope like hell you are right about TRUMP LOSING, regardless of who wins, but I have been following politics since the fifties, and HRC has had a hint of dead fish smell following her from day one. They used to talk about RR being the teflon prez, but compared to HRC, he was Velcro. ..."
    "... She stinks in terms of the public's opinion of her, and elections are generally decided in the middle in this country. ..."
    "... The Republican party is too far to the right for most Europeans, including me. And as of late it seems to even be going farther to the right (Tea party, Trump, etc). ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Oldfarmermac , 03/16/2016 at 7:32 am

    The MSM are doing their usual thing this morning, managing, like the referee at a pro wrestling match, to miss the real action. It is true that a win is a win in a winner take all state when it comes to delegates, but when the results are as close as three points, one or two voters out of a hundred changing sides changes the results.

    The people are obviously sick and tired of our old establishment politicians.

    Trump is winning because he is NOT the establishment. Sanders, coming out of nowhere, with only PEOPLE rather than the establishment behind him, is running a fantastic race against a well oiled machine going on twenty years in the building of it.

    When the actual election rolls around, the people who are pissed at the establishment, meaning damned near everybody except the handful at the top of the economic and political heap, are going to wish they could vote for an outsider.

    The right wing outsiders will get their wish from the looks of things. They will be voting AGAINST INSIDERS rather than FOR Trump. Their fires will be burning hot and bright, unless he goes totally nuts campaigning.

    This looks BAD for the country imo. The D's are in great danger of running a CLASSIC insider.

    It's time for a change, and the younger people of this country feel it in their bones.

    And about this old climate change issue, ahem. We can basically go to bed at night, not worrying about it very much, in terms of people's beliefs, because all that is really left is a mopping up operation as far as public opinion is concerned.

    My generation will soon be either dead or in nursing homes, and the younger generation will vote the scientific consensus, after a while.

    I remember LOTS of people who were DEAD set, pun intended, in their belief that smoking is a harmless pleasure. It has been a decade at least since I heard even an illiterate moron claim that smoking is safe, although I do still hear an occasional smoker in denial say that when your time comes, your time has come, and it does not matter about the WHY of it coming.

    This is not to say we can abandon the fight, but that victory is assured, so long as we keep it up.

    After all, the actual EVIDENCE is accumulating that the world is warming up pretty fast.

    I have no doubt at all than unless the last ten days of this month are very close to RECORD COLD, we will be setting a regional record for the warmest March ever. My personal estimate is that the odds of a frost kill of the tree fruit crop locally are among the highest ever. All it takes is ONE good frosty night once the buds are too far advanced.

    The Koch brothers and their buddies will continue to fight a dirty and ferocious rear guard action of course, but in another decade, the issue will no longer be in doubt, as far as the general public is concerned.

    Ron Patterson , 03/16/2016 at 10:21 am
    The people are obviously sick and tired of our old establishment politicians.

    Guess who has far more votes than any other candidate running, even more than Donald Trump?

    It appears that some of the people are obviously not all that sick.

    Nick G , 03/16/2016 at 11:43 am
    Trump is winning because he is NOT the establishment

    Nobody is more establishment than Trump. He's a perfect example of a crony-capitalist. Again, this is the classic strategy of exploiting people's problems, and diverting their anger towards scapegoats, like immigrants and foreign countries. Trump has proposed a massive tax cut for the 1%, and making life harder for immigrants only helps business exploit them better, and undercuts wages even more for working people.

    Trump is the same ol', same ol', only worse.

    Oldfarmermac , 03/16/2016 at 12:40 pm
    There is more than one way do define the word "establishment".

    In one sense Trump IS the establishment, but in the sense I used it , he is the ANTI establishment, no doubt, but he is also a new face on the political scene, running against the D party as WELL as his own NOMINAL party.

    No real republican thinks of Trump as a republican, if we define republican as somebody who agrees with most or all of the positions and values of the republican party for the last couple of decades.

    What I am saying is that the foot soldiers of the R party have been ready to mutiny for a long time now, and Trump has provided them the leadership necessary to do so.

    The working class conservative voters are THOROUGHLY pissed at the R party establishment, feeling betrayed at every turn.

    People who used to work for a living in the industries sent overseas by the D and R parties working in collusion have felt trapped until today, betrayed by the D party on the social consensus they held dear, right or wrong, and fucked over by the R party they have been voting for as the lesser of two evils.

    Not many such people still believe in the American Dream, because they are simply not able to get ahead anymore, no matter how hard they work.

    And while they are mistaken to believe in Trump, at least Trump has not be been lying to them continuously for the last few decades, AS THEY SEE IT.

    ( That he is lying to them now , in substantial ways, is irrevelant. He is a NEW face. )

    Trump IS Wall Street, and HRC is in the vest pocket of Wall Street, except on cultural issues.

    Now these comments may not make much sense to hard core liberals, because hard core liberals have an incredibly hard time believing anybody who disagrees with them has a brain, or morals, or a culture that suits THEM.

    In actuality, at least half of the country disagrees with the D party social agenda, for reasons that TO THEM are valid and more than adequate.

    Nick G , 03/16/2016 at 1:05 pm
    I agree: Trump has sold himself as an advocate for the working class.

    It's the same strategy Republicans have been using for 40 odd years: using people's fears and hopes to get them to vote for people who proceed to betray them.

    Not that Democrats are enormously better, but, with our current political system they can't be. If they get too progressive, the other party can move to the middle and cut them out.

    ChiefEngineer , 03/16/2016 at 1:17 pm
    Hi Nick,

    It's nice to see you posting again. Your spot on. The Republican establishment has been exploiting their base for the last 50 years with a whisper campaign of racism and bigotry for their own 1% economic gain. The Donald has only removed the whisper from the campaign and increased the amount of lies.

    "Trump is the same ol', same ol', only worse"

    "That's what puzzles me – this idea that fossil fuels are still valuable."

    Nick, you over estimate the educated gray matter of your fellow humans. Most don't have your vision and will not see it until EV's are the norm(10+ years from now). The fossil fuel Republican parties base will be the last in the world to see the light. If they aren't already.

    Javier , 03/16/2016 at 12:09 pm
    US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options. It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds. The extreme right is doing great in Northern and Central Europe, while the extreme left is doing the same in Southern Europe creating a rift in almost every issue, but specially the immigration policy. many countries are becoming difficult to govern at a time when separatism, both national (Scotland, Catalonia) and supranational (Brexit) is on the increase.

    If we move to the rest of the world we see the very negative result of the Arab Spring. Essentially no single country that underwent those social revolutions has come better afterwards. Even Tunisia, a moderate country, has seen its tourism badly damaged and it is now the biggest contributor to Sirian foreign fighters. Saudi Arabia has a more extremist government that it is making a policy out of foreign intervention, minority repression and confrontation against Iran, while its population is cheering the change.

    So don't be so surprised by developments in US politics that follow what is happening elsewhere. It is a product of the times we live.

    Nick G , 03/16/2016 at 12:32 pm
    the world's trend towards more extremist politicians

    There's nothing new about demagoguery, in the US or elsewhere, or revolutionary sentiment (I guess I shouldn't have said Trump was "worse" – he's just a little less subtle about it than has been the norm lately in the US).

    Have you seen any actual data suggesting that there is a real change in "extremism", separatism, social discontent or other similar things?

    Javier , 03/16/2016 at 1:43 pm
    Nick G,

    "Have you seen any actual data suggesting that there is a real change in "extremism", separatism, social discontent or other similar things?"

    Yes:

    • French National Front best results ever in 2014-2015 elections. They were the first party in the last EU parliamentary elections in France with almost 5 million votes.
    • Alternative for Germany. New party in 2013. Best results ever in 2016 state elections, receiving second and third place in the three states that held elections.
    • Freedom Party of Austria second best result ever in 2013 elections with 20,5% of the vote and 30% in Vienna.
    • Coalition of Radical Left (Syriza) best result ever in 2015 elections with 36.3% of the votes.
    • Podemos (Radical left in Spain). New party in 2014. Best result ever in 2015 elections with 21% of the votes.

    Populism and demagoguery are taking the developed world by storm. New radical (right or left) parties go from zero to taking second or third places in mere months.

    Do you have a better explanation?

    Oldfarmermac , 03/16/2016 at 12:44 pm
    "US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options. It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds."

    WELL SAID, Javier.

    GoneFishing , 03/16/2016 at 7:33 pm
    Didn't Trump used to be a Democrat?
    Oldfarmermac , 03/16/2016 at 8:27 pm
    I don't have more than the foggiest idea about Javier's personal political beliefs, other than that he occasionally makes a remark indicating he leans more to the left than to the right. I don't think you do either.

    Folks who are so TRIBALLY oriented that they cannot distinguish a skeptic from a partisan will always of course assume that anybody who questions anything associated with their IN group is a member of their OUT GROUP, and a fraud or a phony or an enemy of some sort.

    I disagree with Javier's assessment of the potential risk of forced climate change, but he on the other hand he never has anything to say, other than about the extent of forced climate change, that sets off my personal alarm bells when it comes to environmental issues. On every other environmetal question, unless I have overlooked something, he is very much in one hundred percent agreement with the overall "big picture " environmental camp consensus.

    It is GOOD politics to remember what RR had to say about a man who agrees with you just about all the time. Such a man is a FRIEND, in political terms, and an ally, rather than an enemy.

    Now about that fear card- both parties play it on a regular basis.

    In case you haven't noticed, I support the larger part of the D party platform, except I go FARTHER, in some cases, as in supporting single payer for the heath care industry. I have made it clear that I am NOT a republican, and stated many times that I am basically a single issue voter, that issue being the environment.

    Now HERE is why I am supporting Bernie Sanders, nicely summarized, although I do not take every line of this article seriously.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/33-percent-of-bernie-sanders-not-vote-hillary_b_9475626.html

    Any democrat who is not afraid to remove his or her rose colored glasses, and take a CRITICAL look at HRC as a candidate, will come away with a hell of a lot to think about if he or she reads this link.

    I personally know a lot of people who have voted D most of their lives who would rather vote for ANY other D than HRC. It is extremely hard for a lot of people to accept it, but she STINKS, ethically, in the opinion of a HUGE swath of independents, and a substantial number of committed democrats . A good many of them may stay home rather than vote for her, but they will vote for Sanders, out of party loyalty and fear of Trump.

    Sanders polls better,virtually across the board, in terms of the actual election, and he does not have the negative baggage. I WANT a Democrat in the WH next time around.

    Read this , and think, if you are not so immersed in party and personal politics that you can't deal with it.

    Millions and millions of D voters have digested it already, for themselves, over the last decade or two, which is why Sanders is getting half the vote, excluding minorities in the south, even though he is coming out of nowhere, without the support of the party establishment, without big money backing him, against HRC who has been organizing and campaigning just about forever.

    I am not saying this guy is right in every respect, but he has his finger on the pulse of many tens of millions of D voters, or potential D voters.

    If it comes down to Trump versus HRC, I am not at ALL sure HRC will win, but if Sanders gets the nomination, I think he WILL, because even though he has been around forever, he is the NEW face of the D party, and the PEOPLE of this country are SICK and TIRED of the old faces, D and R both.

    Trump and Sanders have in ONE important thing in common . Both of them are new faces, promising to bring new life to their parties.

    Hickory , 03/16/2016 at 11:23 pm
    I like a lot about what Sanders is bringing to the table. But sorry Mac, I think its going to be Clinton. I'm non-aligned (anti-partisan), but I'd vote for Clinton a thousand times over Trump. And I think a strong majority of the country will as well.
    Oldfarmermac , 03/17/2016 at 6:10 am
    Hi Hickory,

    The odds are, you are right, about HRC being the nominee, but it is still a race, and it ain't over till it's over. I hope like hell you are right about TRUMP LOSING, regardless of who wins, but I have been following politics since the fifties, and HRC has had a hint of dead fish smell following her from day one. They used to talk about RR being the teflon prez, but compared to HRC, he was Velcro.

    Almost every regular in this forum seems to be mathematically literate. I challenge anybody here to explain Cattle Gate as any thing except fraud, pure and simple, in realistic terms.

    Hey, this ain't YET North Korea, where we actually believe our leader made a hole in one the first time he ever tried golf, on a day so foggy nobody could see the green.

    I absolutely will never vote for EITHER HRC or TRUMP.

    If the D's run HRC, the best hope for the country is that the R's broker their convention, and Trump gives up crashing the R party and his own personal hard core stays home. That would make the election safe for HRC, assuming the FBI decides in her favor. Not many prez candidates have ever had a hundred agents on their case.

    Six months ago I was almost sure Trump was a flash in the pan, and would be forgotten by now. I now fear that there is a very real possibility he may win.

    The political waters are so muddy it is impossible to say what will happen a year from now.

    Trump is the sort of fellow who successfully "aw shucks" away most of his nasty rhetoric once he has the nomination, and then he will turn his guns on HRC. He won't have far to go to look for ammo, and he will make damned sure everything smelly is on the front pages from day one, all the way back to Arkansas.

    Sanders is a far more desirable candidate in the actual election.

    This is basically why:

    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

    She stinks in terms of the public's opinion of her, and elections are generally decided in the middle in this country.

    If she can take her ten years plus campaigning advantage into a big industrial state, Obama's political home, with the party establishment behind her, and win by only TWO POINTS points, what does this tell you?She should have won by thirty points or more, if the people were really behind her, rather than beholden to the party machine.

    The deep south will vote for Trump in preference to HRC, with a couple of exceptions, maybe three or four. So her big delegate lead from there doesn't prove a THING in terms of the actual election. She is taking all the delegates elsewhere in winner take all states by only very narrow margins. The BURN in D voter's hearts is mostly for Sanders.

    Trump would likely be in worse shape in terms of public opinion, except he is a new face, politically, and it takes a long time to build up such negatives, it doesn't happen overnight.

    My personal opinion of HIS ethics is that he makes HRC look like an altar girl.

    Javier , 03/17/2016 at 7:43 am
    Thank you for your words, OFM.

    People tend to put tags way too easily.

    I am not too interested in politics, and even less in US politics. The Republican party is too far to the right for most Europeans, including me. And as of late it seems to even be going farther to the right (Tea party, Trump, etc).

    I do not find myself much of a political space because I do not agree much with both left and right parties in Europe. I am more of a traditional European liberal, which doesn't translate well into a US political leaning, and even in Europe is very minoritarian. Let's just say that I believe that individual rights are above collective rights and I believe in small government. I also think that the economy should be strictly regulated to avoid dominant positions that always go against the individual, and that medical care and education should be affordable to anybody.

    But I am afraid all these belong to a pre-Oil Peak world and we are going to see very different politics being played out as our economy starts to suffer from lack of affordable oil. Right now oil is not affordable because producers cannot afford it, but if it goes up significantly in price consumers will not be able to afford it.

    [Mar 10, 2016] Trump on how much will be two plus two

    discussion.theguardian.com

    Sean Anthony Dylan

    3h ago 0 1 From Twitter, but so true:

    Donald Trump answers the question 'what is 2+2?': "I have to say a lot of people have been asking this question. No, really. A lot of people come up to me, and they ask me. They say, 'What's 2+2'? And I tell them, look, we know what 2+2 is.

    We've had almost eight years of the worst kind of math you can imagine. Oh, my God, I can't believe it. Addition and subtraction of the 1s the 2s and the 3s. It's terrible. It's just terrible. Look, if you want to know what 2+2 is, do you want to know what 2+2 is? I'll tell you. First of all the number 2, by the way, I love the number 2. It's probably my favorite number, no it is my favorite number. You know what, it's probably more like the number two but with a lot of zeros behind it. A lot. If I'm being honest, I mean, if I'm being honest. I like a lot of zeros.

    Except for Marco Rubio, now he's a zero that I don't like. Though, I probably shouldn't say that. He's a nice guy, but he's like, '10101000101,' on and on, like that. He's like a computer! You know what I mean? He's like a computer. I don't know. I mean, you know. So, we have all these numbers, and we can add them and subtract them and add them. TIMES them even. Did you know that?

    We can times them OR divide them, they don't tell you that, and I'll tell you, no one is better at the order of operations than me. You wouldn't believe it. So, we're gonna be the best on 2+2, believe me." Reply Report BG Davis Sean Anthony Dylan , 2016-03-08 17:42:31

    Priceless! Next stop, Saturday Night Live or similar.

    [Mar 10, 2016] GOP Leaders, Tech Execs Plot Against Trump At Secret NeoCon Island Meeting

    www.zerohedge.com

    "The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump," Huff Post writes . Here's a list of attendees:

  • Apple CEO Tim Cook,
  • Google co-founder Larry Page,
  • Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker,
  • Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk
  • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),
  • political guru Karl Rove,
  • House Speaker Paul Ryan,
  • GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.),
  • Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.),
  • Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)
  • Kevin McCarthy (Calif.),
  • Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.),
  • Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.),
  • Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
  • Diane Black (Tenn.)
  • " A specter was haunting the World Forum--the specter of Donald Trump, " the Weekly Standard founder Bill Kristol wrote in an emailed report from the conference, borrowing the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto. "There was much unhappiness about his emergence, a good deal of talk, some of it insightful and thoughtful, about why he's done so well, and many expressions of hope that he would be defeated."

    Heading to AEI World Forum. Lots of interesting guests. It's off the record, so please do consider my tweets from there off the record!

    - Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) March 3, 2016

    Predictably Karl Rove, GOP mastermind, gave a presentation outlining what he says are Trump's weaknesses. Voters would have a hard time seeing him as "presidential," Rove said. Which we suppose is why they are turning out in droves to vote for him.

    corporatewhore |

    Trump just got my vote!

    _ConanTheLibert... |

    Yes. The more the establishment try to bring down Trump, the more it will backfire on them.

    EscapeKey |

    yup - a group of billionaires meeting at an exclusive resort debating how to circumvent the democratic process, failing to consider that's the exact description of what's wrong with America (and the GOP)

    idea_hamster , |

    "Voters would have a hard time seeing him as "presidential," Rove said."

    That's it? That's all that Turdblossom's got?! Holy fuck, what a useless ziploc bag of mayonnaise.

    Dr Freckles , |

    Karl Rove could die ...

    (that would not bother me)

    DownWithYogaPants , |

    Just checked the map. SeaIsland is within strong swimmer's distance right next to Jekyll Island. How ironic man.

    SeaIsland: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sea+Island,+Georgia/@31.1230914,-81.53... !4m2!3m1!1s0x88e4ce2cbf9ff77f:0xc23237ab888a6a22

    Jekyll Island: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jekyll+Island,+Georgia+31527/@31.06856... !3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e4dbf62542c839:0x10d22d63ea360435

    KesselRunin12Parsecs , |

    The Creature from JERK YL Island

    Whoa Dammit , |

    Tom Price'is one of the highest net worth Congressmen. His Georgia office is in Roswell, which is a corrupt little city in North Atlanta. Roswell city officials harassed and fined a mildly retarded man who refused to give up his ownership of about 20 chickens to the point that the guy was going to lose his paid for house, and he committed suicide. (Google Roswell Chicken Man). Tom Price fits right in with that bunch.

    All about Tom Price with contact info:

    http://members-of-congress.insidegov.com/l/517/Tom-Price

    Theosebes Goodfellow , |

    ~"Here's a list of attendees:

  • Apple CEO Tim Cook,
  • Google co-founder Larry Page,
  • Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker,
  • Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk
  • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),
  • political guru Karl Rove,
  • House Speaker Paul Ryan,
  • GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.),
  • Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.),
  • Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)
  • Kevin McCarthy (Calif.),
  • Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.),
  • Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.),
  • Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
  • Diane Black (Tenn.)"~
  • So work this out with me:

    The top 4 people on the list are committed NWO leftists.

    The next one and third are reknown RINOs, with the second being a political dirty tricks mechanic.

    The rest of the group are owned outright by the banksters.

    "Ladies and Gentlemen, YOUR REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP!"

    Maybe Reince Priebus should get a sworn oath out of these coniving little fucks to support the lead vote getter in the primaries. (Don't count on it.) Say..., where is ol' Reince anyway? Why isn't he out denouncing these weasels?

    [Mar 09, 2016] The people of Michigan have spoken. They are not buying what Clinton, her corporate donors and media backers are selling

    Notable quotes:
    "... The comment that Clinton had seemed to have locked up the Democratic race last Tuesday is laughable now, but it was also way out of line last week. The idea that superdelegates will stay with Clinton if she falls measurably behind in the popular vote is very questionable. ..."
    "... Adding them now to her delegate total makes sense if you're trying to create a perception of inevitability for the candidate you've endorsed. Wake up, Times analysts. She's not inevitable any more than she was in 2008. ..."
    "... The recent polling average at Real Clear Politics placed Clinton ahead of Sanders in Michigan by 21.4%. Zero polls put Sanders ahead of Clinton. Polling organizations projected a Clinton victory chance at 99%. And Sanders just won the state. The victory is stunning. I strongly urge the pundits to revise their inevitability narrative and let the voters decide. ..."
    "... HRC is part of establishment that led to this demise. Thank you to the people of Michigan for choosing Sanders and Trump. You have a beautiful state! ..."
    "... When polls this morning showed Hillary 13% ahead of Bernie, NYTimes called Michigan a state whose diversity was almost perfectly representative of the nation. Now the goal post has shifted and Michigan is suddenly super-white. ..."
    "... Sanders has won in almost all of the states that Obama carried in 2008 and 2012; Clinton has won mainly in the Southern states which the GOP has won in every election since 1968. The DNC should wake up: Sanders is the better candidate. ..."
    "... It's going to be interesting how the super-delegates throw their support to. Right now Hillary is leading the delegate count and that lead is increased with a majority of the super-delegates. However, if this upset is followed by more in the future, those super-delegates may have a change of heart and we could have a very interesting summer in this election. ..."
    "... The rustbelt does not trust Hillary Clinton - and for a very good reason - NAFTA. ..."
    "... The Sanders Clinton divide is almost right on the Mason-Dixon Line thus far. These maps are quite remarkable. They also point to Sanders relative strength in contrast to the queen in a general election. He will carry Hillary's supporters much more so than her ability to expect the support of the Bernie people. ..."
    "... Dearborn, Michigan is about 30% Arab Americans. Early returns show a majority voted overwhelmingly for our first Jewish American presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. What a wonderful thing that says about Democratic Party values and the people of Dearborn. ..."
    "... Breaking Bad - Michigan is the point the system went tilt. Bernie has the overwhelming white vote and now blacks are beginning going as well to Bernie. The Clinton Machine is running out of propaganda. People sees Bernie's Integrity ..."
    "... It seems that the newspaper of record will have to take a more careful look at its slanted election reporting. The degree of poor and irresponsible journalism from the New York Times regarding the Democratic primaries is astounding! I'm surprised that the Times was able to print the breaking news of a "significant upset over Hillary Clinton." All power to the 99%! ..."
    "... Bottom line: Take away the African American vote in the old South and Hillary is a non-candidate. ..."
    "... Hillary was going to shift to Trump and the General Election. NOT. SO. QUICK. Ms Clinton. You have just about run out of Old Confederacy States and the shine is off of your inevitability argument. Bernie warned the press not to underestimate him. He just won an industrial state with a significant minority population. ..."
    www.nytimes.com
    steve in nc, North Carolina 3 minutes ago

    Don't you think it worth mentioning that most of the states Clinton has won are almost certain to stay red in November? And that Sanders is winning the states Dems need to win in November, and outpolling her dramatically among independents everywhere? Still think she's most "electable"?

    The comment that Clinton had seemed to have locked up the Democratic race last Tuesday is laughable now, but it was also way out of line last week. The idea that superdelegates will stay with Clinton if she falls measurably behind in the popular vote is very questionable.

    Adding them now to her delegate total makes sense if you're trying to create a perception of inevitability for the candidate you've endorsed. Wake up, Times analysts. She's not inevitable any more than she was in 2008.

    Eric, Chicago 10 minutes ago
    The recent polling average at Real Clear Politics placed Clinton ahead of Sanders in Michigan by 21.4%. Zero polls put Sanders ahead of Clinton. Polling organizations projected a Clinton victory chance at 99%. And Sanders just won the state. The victory is stunning. I strongly urge the pundits to revise their inevitability narrative and let the voters decide.
    Just Me, Planet Earth 10 minutes ago
    Michigan serves as an example of the US as a whole- considering the fact that they are part of the rust belt. The manufacturing sector of the US that has been DECIMATED by NAFTA, NATO, TPP and other trade agreements that have ROBBED the middle class of hard working labor with DECENT pay, now we are forced to compete with cheap labor. HRC is part of establishment that led to this demise. Thank you to the people of Michigan for choosing Sanders and Trump. You have a beautiful state!
    Al, CA 10 minutes ago
    When polls this morning showed Hillary 13% ahead of Bernie, NYTimes called Michigan a state whose diversity was almost perfectly representative of the nation. Now the goal post has shifted and Michigan is suddenly super-white.

    In June we'll be hearing about how minority-majority California is grossly unrepresentative. Why not just admit that some people would rather vote for the man who went to jail

    Kevin Cahill, Albuquerque 10 minutes ago
    Sanders has won in almost all of the states that Obama carried in 2008 and 2012; Clinton has won mainly in the Southern states which the GOP has won in every election since 1968. The DNC should wake up: Sanders is the better candidate.
    Cassowary, Earthling 13 minutes ago
    Behold the revolution! The people of Michigan have spoken. They are not buying what Clinton, her corporate donors and media backers are selling.

    Listen up, Democrats. Don't try to fight the will of the voters and usurp Sanders if he wins nationally. Why destroy the party by undemocratically supporting Clinton through superdelegates and risk the meltdown the GOP is going through? Clinton is now the unelectable candidate. Adjust. Accept. Get ready for President Sanders, a true Democrat.

    Martha Shelley, Portland, OR 13 minutes ago
    Just yesterday the NY Times was telling us that Clinton would win a landslide victory in Michigan, and Sanders was history. Um, is this on the same level as the 1948 headline in the Chicago Tribune, "Dewey Defeats Truman?"
    Andrew L, Toronto 13 minutes ago
    "Mr Sanders, who won white voters in Michigan and is targeting them in coming Rust Belt primaries...."

    Wow. Just wow. And Sanders supporters say they are progressive. Has your country come to a point where candidates and their campaigns barely conceal their implicitly racist aims? This is utterly astounding and shameful.

    RCT 13 minutes ago

    Bernie won Michigan and, I believe, will win Ohio. It's not an "upset," NYT: it's momentum. Were it not for the African-American vote, the Clinton campaign would be in the tank. Maybe it's time to reconsider the received wisdom that "Bernie can't win"?

    Liberty Apples, Providence 13 minutes ago
    • Sanders - AND THE TRUTH - win in Michigan.
    • Clinton - AND LIES ABOUT AUTO BAILOUT - lose in Michigan.

    When will the Clintons ever learn? Bernie, congratulations!!

    Will Hicks , South Carolina 13 minutes ago

    It's going to be interesting how the super-delegates throw their support to. Right now Hillary is leading the delegate count and that lead is increased with a majority of the super-delegates. However, if this upset is followed by more in the future, those super-delegates may have a change of heart and we could have a very interesting summer in this election.
    This is purely opinion, but I feel confident saying that the next president of this country is going to come from the winner of this close Democratic Nomination. The Republican Party is very divided with Trump leading the way, and I cannot see the typical support from losing candidates thrown Trump's way should he win the nomination.

    mike , manhattan 16 minutes ago

    Bernie received almost 40% in Wayne County --Detroit, so let's end the fiction that Bernie can't win the African American vote. His message is spreading in urban America, which is where Democrats win elections.

    The Times unfairly uses the term "prolong" to describe this race. Let's see hoee Bernie does in Philly and Cleveland. Hillary is in big trouble.

    alchemistoxford, oxford, uk 47 minutes ago

    Very poor coverage of the big story of the night - Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton in the rustbelt state Michigan. The rustbelt does not trust Hillary Clinton - and for a very good reason - NAFTA. The dynamics of the Democratic race have just been transformed. Michigan is a gamechanger.

    Billy , up in the woods down by the river 2 hours ago

    The Sanders Clinton divide is almost right on the Mason-Dixon Line thus far. These maps are quite remarkable. They also point to Sanders relative strength in contrast to the queen in a general election. He will carry Hillary's supporters much more so than her ability to expect the support of the Bernie people.

    This Michigan upset by Sanders over Clinton may prove to be historic.

    Mary Scott, is a trusted commenter NY 44 minutes ago

    Dearborn, Michigan is about 30% Arab Americans. Early returns show a majority voted overwhelmingly for our first Jewish American presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. What a wonderful thing that says about Democratic Party values and the people of Dearborn.

    This is a beautiful night for Bernie Sanders and those of us who believe in him. I think he'll win but even if he doesn't, he proved his candidacyy is very much alive.

    Get ready to feel the Bern, Ohio!

    Janice Badger Nelson , is a trusted commenter Park City, Utah, from Boston 43 minutes ago

    If Hillary and Bernie were switched, you would have called it for her already in Michigan. CNN is doing the same. Sorry, the big story, even if Hillary squeaks out a narrow win, the BIG story is how well Bernie Sanders is doing. Of course by reading the NYTimes, you would never know. Sad state of honest journalism.

    arrot , NYC 41 minutes ago

    Breaking Bad - Michigan is the point the system went tilt. Bernie has the overwhelming white vote and now blacks are beginning going as well to Bernie. The Clinton Machine is running out of propaganda. People sees Bernie's Integrity

    Eddy90 , New York, NY 51 minutes ago

    What an amazing upset by Mr. Sanders. Huge upset and will probably define this race when it's all said and done. This is exactly what Bernie Sanders needed. The polls have been going against him in pretty much every state, but this one was over 10% for Hillary today as per the latest poll. We can't trust the media and the pundits. On to Ohio!!

    Howie Lisnoff , is a trusted commenter Massachusetts 32 minutes ago

    It seems that the newspaper of record will have to take a more careful look at its slanted election reporting. The degree of poor and irresponsible journalism from the New York Times regarding the Democratic primaries is astounding! I'm surprised that the Times was able to print the breaking news of a "significant upset over Hillary Clinton." All power to the 99%!

    mef , nj 1 hour ago

    Kudos to Hillary Clinton, favorite of the Republican South!

    Justicia, NY, NY 33 minutes ago

    Winning the Democratic primary in MS, LA or other deep south states is a far cry from carrying those states in the general election. Hillary is in trouble.

    David Gregory , Deep Red South 37 minutes ago

    Bottom line: Take away the African American vote in the old South and Hillary is a non-candidate. She is strong in states the Democrats will not carry come November. This despite having a huge advantage in name recognition, endorsements - including the NYT and WaPo, money and all the rest.

    If the goal is to win in November, Democrats had better wake up. As of this writing, NBC just called Michigan for Bernie where Hillary was supposedly up by 10+ Points.
    (10:35 PM CST)

    #FeelTheBern #NotReadyForHIllary

    The clown car on the Republican side is of no consequence. Bernie will wipe the floor with Trump.

    David Gregory , Deep Red South 36 minutes ago

    Hillary was going to shift to Trump and the General Election. NOT. SO. QUICK. Ms Clinton. You have just about run out of Old Confederacy States and the shine is off of your inevitability argument. Bernie warned the press not to underestimate him. He just won an industrial state with a significant minority population.

    [Mar 08, 2016] 200PM Water Cooler 3-7-2016 naked capitalism

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The Flint Debate

    "All you had to do was watch Sunday night's debate in Flint, Michigan, to realize Sanders isn't nearly ready to quit" [ Politico ]. And you know that if Clinton had won, that's what would have been splashed over Politico's home page, and all the other Acela riders, too.

    "Testy debate suggests Clinton and Sanders battle will continue" [ McClatchy ]. Well, that and what Sanders has said, and continuing support from his coalition, as measured by contributions, which means he can tell the DNC to take a hike.

    Clinton said again she would release the transcripts only if all other candidates who have given paid speeches did. She also said that she stood up to Wall Street. "I have a record," she said. "And you know what, if you were going to be in some way distrusted or dismissed about whether you can take on Wall Street if you ever took money, President Obama took more money from Wall Street in the 2008 campaign than anybody ever had."

    Sanders quipped: "Secretary Clinton wants everybody else to release it, well, I'm your Democratic opponent, I release it, here it is. There ain't nothing. I don't give speeches to Wall Street for hundreds of thousands of dollars, you got it."

    I don't have to tell NC readers how weak that "quip" is. (And Clinton's effrontery really is boundless, isn't it? Then again, Russell Simmons agrees with her.)

    "The Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders clash over the auto bailout, explained" [ WaPo ]. This is classic:

    "I voted to save the auto industry," [Clinton] said. "He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry. I think that is a pretty big difference."

    What Clinton said is technically true, but it glosses over a lot of important nuance, including the fact that Sanders is actually on the record as supporting the auto bailout. He even voted for it.

    So "techically true" means false, thenk? It's a topsy-turvey world! (Even leaving aside the idea that a died-on-the-wool Socialist would do such a thing.)

    The Trail

    "Clinton insiders are eager to begin recruiting to their cause Republicans turned off by the prospect of Donald Trump - and the threat of Sanders sticking it out until June makes the general election pivot more difficult" [ Politico ]. I have long held that Clinton does not want Sanders voters, and now I am confirmed in my view. Clinton wants moderate Republicans instead, for reasons temparamental (Goldwater Girl), financial (ka-ching), and institutional. Socialism and liberalism do not mix (even Sanders' mild version of it). In addition, the Democratic establishment refuses to recognize that Sanders has broken their squillionaire-dependent funding model, and in consequence has gleefully stomped on youth voters (who needs 'em, anyhow?). It really is time for Sanders to start thinking about converting his campaign into a standalone entity that will continue beyond the election. What's wrong with SFA (Socialists for America?)

    "Clinton must make Elizabeth Warren her vice president" [Dana Milbank, WaPo ]. Ugh.

    "Over the next two weeks, Sanders campaign surrogates - and, in some cases, the candidate - will meet with local activists. The campaign has employed this strategy before, but surrogates and aides said now it will be more publicized. Sanders, according to two sources briefed on the campaign's plans, will also be more specific about economic inequality and its effect on black communities in his stump speech" [ Buzzfeed ].

    "Right now, when you look at the political revolution - it needs to be more intersectional , and his economic proposals need to be more more explicit on the ground and publicly," the activist [who wasn't authorized to speak for their organization] said. "The Clintons will exploit that. When he's talking about it, he'll give specific examples on the stump in ways he hasn't before, is my understanding."

    We discuss intersectionality today . Note especially Appendix 1, where the Sander's site's Racial Justice page is presented as a model.

    "The Seattle Times editorial board recommends John Kasich, Bernie Sanders" [ Seattle Times ].

    "Andrea Mitchell Pulls the Mask Off Harry Reid" [ Down with Tyranny ]. How the "neutral" Reid delivered Nevada to Clinton.

    "Hillary Calls for Michigan Gov's Resignation an Hour After Her Spox Slammed Bernie for Same" [ Mediaite ]. Send in the bots! There have to be bots!

    This could be the last time [ Avedon's Sidehow ]. An excellent wrap-up of commentary on Super Tuesday.

    "Mark Zuckerberg's $100 million donation to Newark public schools failed miserably - here's where it went wrong" [ Business Insider ]. Maybe somebody should ask Cory Booker, before his VP aspirations become embarassingly open?

    New York: "On the Democratic side, Clinton had a 21-percentage point lead over Bernie Sanders, 55% to 34%, the same as it was a month ago, the [Siena] poll found" [ USA Today ]. Sanders position on fracking will help him, but only upstate. Was Sanders "pragmatic" enough to offer Sharpton a suitcase full of cash?

    [Mar 08, 2016] How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi

    Lightweight and uncharacteristically for Matt Taibbi stupid article. He can't spell the word "neoliberalism". It looks like it was USSR people against Bolshevik's oligarchy now it is American people against neoliberal oligarchy. And leaders are mostly symbols. Actually drunk Yeltsin later screw the nation that brought him to power, selling national treasures for pennies on the dime in criminal privatization. Compare Taibbi superficial bubble with Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here's why by Thomas Frank
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's speeches are never scripted, never exactly the same twice. Instead he just riffs and feels his way through crowds. He's no orator – as anyone who's read his books knows, he's not really into words, especially long ones – but he has an undeniable talent for commanding a room. ..."
    "... Trump knows the public sees through all of this, grasps the press's role in it and rightly hates us all. When so many Trump supporters point to his stomping of the carpetbagging snobs in the national media as the main reason they're going to vote for him, it should tell us in the press something profound about how much people think we suck. ..."
    "... Reporters have focused quite a lot on the crazy/race-baiting/nativist themes in Trump's campaign, but these comprise a very small part of his usual presentation. His speeches increasingly are strikingly populist in their content. ..."
    "... both Democratic and Republican politicians unfailingly do upon taking office, i.e., approve rotten/regressive policies that screw ordinary people. ..."
    "... He goes on to explain that prices would go down if the state-by-state insurance fiefdoms were eliminated, but that's impossible because of the influence of the industry. "I'm the only one that's self-funding ...  Everyone else is taking money from, I call them the bloodsuckers." ..."
    "... "I don't know what the reason is – I do know what the reason is, but I don't know how they can sell it," he says. "We're not allowed to negotiate drug prices. We pay $300 billion more than if we negotiated the price." ..."
    www.rollingstone.com

    ...the regular guy has been screwed by a conspiracy of incestuous elites. The Bushes are half that conspiratorial picture, fronts for a Republican Party establishment and whose sum total of accomplishments, dating back nearly 30 years, are two failed presidencies, the sweeping loss of manufacturing jobs, and a pair of pitiable Middle Eastern military adventures – the second one achieving nothing but dead American kids and Junior's re-election.

    Trump picked on Jeb because Jeb is a symbol. The Bushes are a dissolute monarchy, down to offering their last genetic screw-up to the throne.

    "The war in Iraq was a big f ... fat mistake, all right?" he snorted. He nearly said, "A big fucking mistake." He added that the George W. Bush administration lied before the war about Iraq having WMDs and that we spent $2 trillion basically for nothing.

    ... ... ...

    Trump had said things that were true and that no other Republican would dare to say.

    ... ... ...

    Rubio, we were told, had zoomed to the front of the "establishment lane" in timely enough fashion to stop Trump. Of course, in the real world, nobody cares about what happens in the "establishment lane" except other journalists. But even the other candidates seemed to believe the narrative. Ohio Gov. John Kasich staggered out of Iowa in eighth place and was finishing up his 90th lonely appearance in New Hampshire when Boston-based reporters caught up to him.

    "If we get smoked up there, I'm going back to Ohio," he lamented. Kasich in person puts on a brave face, but he also frequently rolls his eyes in an expression of ostentatious misanthropy that says, "I can't believe I'm losing to these idiots."

    But then Rubio went onstage at St. Anselm College in the eighth GOP debate and blew himself up. Within just a few minutes of a vicious exchange with haran​guing now-former candidate Chris Christie, he twice delivered the exact same canned 25-second spiel about how Barack Obama "knows exactly what he's doing."

    Rubio's face-plant brilliantly reprised Sir Ian Holm's performance in Alien, as a malfunctioning, disembodied robot head stammering, "I admire its purity," while covered in milky android goo. It was everything we hate about scripted mannequin candidates captured in a brief crack in the political façade.

    Marco Rubio; GOP Primaries; 2016
    Marco Rubio stumbled badly after Iowa. Charles Ommanney/Getty

    Rubio plummeted in the polls, and Kasich, already mentally checked out, was the surprise second-place finisher in New Hampshire, with 15.8 percent of the vote.

    ... ... ...

    All of which virtually guarantees Trump will probably enjoy at least a five-horse race through Super Tuesday. So he might have this thing sewn up before the others even figure out in what order they should quit. It's hard to recall a dumber situation in American presidential politics.

    "If you're Trump, you're sending flowers to all of them for staying in," the GOP strategist tells me. "The more the merrier. And they're running out of time to figure it out."

    ... ... ...

    Trump's speeches are never scripted, never exactly the same twice. Instead he just riffs and feels his way through crowds. He's no orator – as anyone who's read his books knows, he's not really into words, especially long ones – but he has an undeniable talent for commanding a room.

    ... ... ...

    Trump knows the public sees through all of this, grasps the press's role in it and rightly hates us all. When so many Trump supporters point to his stomping of the carpetbagging snobs in the national media as the main reason they're going to vote for him, it should tell us in the press something profound about how much people think we suck.

    Jay Matthews, a Plymouth native with a long beard and a Trump sign, cites Trump's press beat-downs as the first reason he's voting Donald. "He's gonna be his own man," he says. "He's proving that now with how he's getting all the media. He's paying nothing and getting all the coverage. He's not paying one dime."

    Reporters have focused quite a lot on the crazy/race-baiting/nativist themes in Trump's campaign, but these comprise a very small part of his usual presentation. His speeches increasingly are strikingly populist in their content.

    His pitch is: He's rich, he won't owe anyone anything upon election, and therefore he won't do what both Democratic and Republican politicians unfailingly do upon taking office, i.e., approve rotten/regressive policies that screw ordinary people.

    He talks, for instance, about the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by insurance companies, an atrocity dating back more than half a century, to the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. This law, sponsored by one of the most notorious legislators in our history (Nevada Sen. Pat McCarran was thought to be the inspiration for the corrupt Sen. Pat Geary in The Godfather II), allows insurance companies to share information and collude to divvy up markets.

    Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats made a serious effort to overturn this indefensible loophole during the debate over the Affordable Care Act.

    Trump pounds home this theme in his speeches, explaining things from his perspective as an employer. "The insurance companies," he says, "they'd rather have monopolies in each state than hundreds of companies going all over the place bidding ...  It's so hard for me to make deals  ... because I can't get bids."

    He goes on to explain that prices would go down if the state-by-state insurance fiefdoms were eliminated, but that's impossible because of the influence of the industry. "I'm the only one that's self-funding ...  Everyone else is taking money from, I call them the bloodsuckers."

    Trump isn't lying about any of this. Nor is he lying when he mentions that the big-pharma companies have such a stranglehold on both parties that they've managed to get the federal government to bar itself from negotiating Medicare prescription-drug prices in bulk.

    "I don't know what the reason is – I do know what the reason is, but I don't know how they can sell it," he says. "We're not allowed to negotiate drug prices. We pay $300 billion more than if we negotiated the price."

    It's actually closer to $16 billion a year more, but the rest of it is true enough. Trump then goes on to personalize this story. He claims (and with Trump we always have to use words like "claims") how it was these very big-pharma donors, "fat cats," sitting in the front row of the debate the night before. He steams ahead even more with this tidbit: Woody Johnson, one of the heirs of drug giant Johnson & Johnson (and the laughably incompetent owner of the New York Jets), is the finance chief for the campaign of whipping boy Jeb Bush.

    "Now, let's say Jeb won. Which is an impossibility, but let's say ... " The crowd explodes in laughter. "Let's say Jeb won," Trump goes on. "How is it possible for Jeb to say, 'Woody, we're going to go out and fight competitively' ?" This is, what – not true? Of course it's true.

    [Mar 07, 2016] Democratic debate recap: Clinton and Sanders battle over key progressive issues – as it happened

    www.theguardian.com
    Janosik53 , 2016-03-07 01:38:36
    Now she's hiding behind Slick Willy's record. El Viejito has got his dander up, even Hillary is feeling the BERN!
    Dylan Springer J.K. Stevens , 2016-03-07 01:37:57
    You're in for disappointment. A tough question about her transcripts caused her to ramble on about her record for about two minutes.
    Julian Brown , 2016-03-07 01:37:11
    Bernie is killing her tonight. Great stuff
    OSavvas , 2016-03-07 01:37:04
    If someone pays you $250,000.00 for a speech... I doubt you would remind them of their disastrous policies...
    Juillette , 2016-03-07 01:36:49
    Hillary is on the defense. Go Bernie, in for the kill!
    WarlockScott , 2016-03-07 01:36:18
    Stop hiding behind Obama Hillary, we judge him by his own record and you by yours
    sbanicki , 2016-03-07 01:33:12
    Flint is where I was born and raised. The Governor gave away billions of Detroit's assets for pennies on the dollar with no one challah ginger that theft. Now he is stealing lives in Flint. He needs to step down. I would provide a link for more info but I am not permitted.
    StableQuirks whitehegel , 2016-03-07 01:31:35
    Yep, as was likely. Sanders campaign is all about momentum and whether he can bring people on side or whether they just think he has no chance. In that respect the early ballots were always going to be tough, apart from NH and Vermont.

    March 15 is probably the real decider. Big states, lots of delegates. Sanders really must win a lot of them to keep going, assuming that the superdelegates stay strongly behind Hillary. He has done well though this week, winning some smaller states and building some momentum towards the larger ones. It's not over if he doesn't crush Hillary on the 15th in those big states, but if he loses several of them it will probably be the end of the momentum he needs.

    Sanders is still very much the underdog, but then that's kind of the way he likes it.

    [Mar 07, 2016] Vijay Prashad The Foreign Policy of the 1%

    Notable quotes:
    "... This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class. ..."
    "... One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal. ..."
    "... The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is. ..."
    "... Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. ..."
    "... Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump? ..."
    "... Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing. ..."
    "... Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute. ..."
    "... why do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia ..."
    "... recycling mechanism for capitalism ..."
    "... there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi Arabia ..."
    "... Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. ..."
    "... For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...). ..."
    "... So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them. ..."
    "... He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor. ..."
    "... Excellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people. ..."
    therealnews.com
    SettingTheNarrative, link
    Be nice to have a book called "The Foreign Policy of the 1%". Maybe include references to GATT, TPP, oil wars as mentioned in the presentation.

    Other questions:

    1) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to Economic Hitman, John Perkins?
    2) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to conservative founders like Jeane Kirkpatrick?
    3) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to rise to Regan Revolution? Trump?

    ForDemocracy, link
    This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class.

    Deepest thanks to Vijay Prashad...and to others like professor Bennis (present in the audience)... whose in-depth analysis of the system can, if studied, contribute to putting the nascent 'political revolution' Bernie calls for...into a real democratic movement in this country. We are so woefully ignorant as 'members of the 99%'- it seems worst of all in America-- intentionally kept isolated from knowing anything about this country/corporation's 'foreign policy' (aka as Capitalist system policy or 'the 1% policy) that Bernie cannot even broach what Vijay has given here. But he at least opens up some of our can of worms, the interrconnectdedness of class-interests and the devastation this country's (and the global cabal of ) capitalist voracious economic interests rains upon the planet.

    The Mid-East is a product of Capitalism that will, if we don't recognize the process & change course & priorties, will soon overtake all of Africa and all 'undeveloped' (pre-Capitalist) countries around the globe--The destruction and never-ending blur of war and annihilation of peoples, cultures and even the possibility of 'political evolution' is a product of the profit-at-any-and-all-costs that is the hidden underbelly of a system of economics that counts humanity as nothing. It is a sick system. It is a system whose sickness brings death to all it touches... and we are seeing now it is bringing ITS OWN DEATH as well.

    The '99% policy' (again a phrase Prashad should be congratulated for bringing into the language) is indeed one that understands that our needs --the people's needs, not 'national interests' AKA capitalist corporate/financial interests --- are global, that peace projects are essentially anti-capitalist projects.... and our needs-to build a new society here in the U.S. must begin to be linked to seeing Capitalism as the root cause of so much suffering that must be replaced by true democratic awakening a- r/evolutionary process that combines economic and civic/political -- that we must support in every way possible. Step One: support the movement for changed priorities & values by voting class-consciously.

    Trainee Christian, link
    The 1% or the oligarchy have completely won the world, our only way to fight against such power is to abandon buying their products, take great care on who you vote for in any election, only people who have a long record of social thinking should be considers. They can be diminished but not beaten.
    Sillyputta, link
    One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal.

    The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is.

    denden11, link
    All of what's been said about the elites, the one percent, has already been said many years ago. The conversation about the wealthy elites destroying our world has changed only in the area of how much of our world has and is being destroyed. Absolutely nothing else has changed, nothing else.

    Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. Meanwhile, as we continue to speak the ocean is licking at our doorstep, the average mean temperature has ticked up a few notches and we are all completely distracted by which power hungry corporate zealot is going to occupy the office which is responsible for making our human condition even more dire. The circus that is this election is merely a ploy by the elites to make us believe that we actually do have a choice. Uh-huh; yet if I were to suggest what REALLY needs to be done to save the human race I would be in a court which functions only to impoverish those of us who try to speak the truth of our situation objectively. The 'Justice' system's only function is to render us powerless. Whether one is guilty or innocent is completely irrelevant anymore. All they have to do is file charges and they have your wealth. Good luck to all of us as we all talk ourselves to death.

    Vivienne Perkins -> denden11, link
    Dear denden11: You get gold stars in heaven as far as I'm concerned for telling the exact truth
    in the plainest possible terms. Bravissimo. "Talk/ing/ ourselves to death" is, I'm sorry to say, what we are doing. I've been working on these issues for forty years, looking for an exit from this completely interlocked system. I'm sorry to say I haven't seen the exit. I do understand how we have painted ourselves into this corner over the past 250 years (since the so-called Enlightenment), but without repentance on our part and grace on God's part, we're doomed because we all believe the Big Lies pumped into us moment by moment by Big Brother. And it's the Big Lies that keep us terminally confused and fragmented.
    Trainee Christian ->Vivienne Perkins link
    Well-done, you know the truth.
    dreamjoehill -> Vivienne Perkins link
    Don't Believe the Hype was an NWA rap anthem over twenty year ago. I always liked the shouted line, "And I don't take Ritalin!"

    Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump?

    In defeat, will Sander's campaign supporters radicalize or demoralize into apathy or tepid support for Hillary - on the grounds that she's less of an evil than Trumpty Dumbty?

    If not defeated, will Sanders and his campaign mobilize the People to fight the powers that be? Otherwise, he has no real power base, short of selling out on his domestic spending promises and becoming another social democratic lapdog for Capital- like Tony Blair.

    Vivienne Perkins -> dreamjoehill link
    Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing.
    dreamjoehill -> Vivienne Perkins link
    As material conditions change drastically for tens of millions of USAns, the old propaganda loses effect. New propaganda is required to channel the new class tensions. Still an opening may be created. People can't heat their homes with propaganda, the kids are living in the basement and grandpa can't afford a nursing home and he's drinking himself to death. That's the new normal, or variations on it for a lot of people who don't believe the hype anymore.

    Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute.

    Interesting times.

    WaveRunnerMN , link
    Great work Vijay...got my "filters" back on. Cut and pasted original comment below despite TRNN labeling of "time of posting" which is irrelevant at this point.

    Wow...now that I got my rational filters back on this was a great piece by Vijay and succinctly states what many of us who "attempt" to not only follow ME events but to understand not only the modern history by the motives of the major players in the region. Thanks for this piece and others...looking forward to the others.

    WaveRunnerMN -> WaveRunnerMN link
    Posted earlier while my mind was on 2016 election cycle watching MSM in "panic mode"

    Thought this was going to be a rational discussion on US foreign policy until the part on ? "Trumps Red Book". I had hoped to rather hear, "The Red Book of the American Templars" ...taking from the Knights Templar in Europe prior the collapse of the feudal system. I will say that Vijay's comment on Cruz was quite appropriate though it would also have been better to not only put it into context but also illustrate that Cruz's father Rafael Cruz believes in a system contrary to the founding ideals of the US Constitution: He states in an interview with mainstream media during his son's primary campaign that [to paraphrase] "secularism is evil and corrupt". Here is an excerpt of his bio from Wiki:

    "During an interview conducted by the Christian Post in 2014, Rafael Cruz stated, "I think we cannot separate politics and religion; they are interrelated. They've always been interrelated."[29] Salon described Cruz as a "Dominionist, devoted to a movement that finds in Genesis a mandate that 'men of faith' seize control of public institutions and govern by biblical principle."[30] However, The Public Eye states that Dominionists believe that the U.S. Constitution should be the vehicle for remaking America as a Christian nation.[31]"

    Fareed Zakaria interviewed a columnist from the Wall Street Journal today on Fareed's GPS program and flatly asked him [paraphrased], "Is not the Wall Street Journal responsible for creating the racist paradigm that Trump took advantage of "? Let us begin with rational dialogue and not demagogy. Quite frankly with regard to both Cruz and Trump [in context of the 2016 elections cycle] a more insightful comment would have been...Change cannot come from within the current electoral processes here in the US with Citizen's United as its "masthead" and "Corporations are people as its rallying cry"!

    Alice X link
    Thank you, a valuable piece. There are a number of takeaway quotes, but the ringer for me was from Ray McGovern (rhetorically):
    why do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia

    Shortly thereafter Vijay Prashad in what he calls the Saudi post 1970s recycling mechanism for capitalism says:

    there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi Arabia
    WaveRunnerMN ->Alice X link
    Not the West....just the F.I.R.E industries...driving the housing bubble; shopping malls; office buildings; buying municipal bonds [as they the municipalities bought and built prisons; jails; SWAT vehicles and security equipment (developed by the Israelis); and keeping the insurance companies afloat while AllState had time after Katrina to pitch their subsidiaries allowing these subsidiaries to file for bankruptcy]...now all the maintenance expense is coming due and cities and counties are going broke... along with the Saudi investments here in US.
    itsthethird link
    Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. What about the 99 percent? While populations simply need and want also income and investment security globally.

    What about populations in massive consumer debt for education, housing, etc. to fund one percent Growth. Laborers across globe are all in same boat simply labor for food without anything else to pass along to progeny but what is most important ethics. A world government established by corporatism advantage by authority of law and advantage all directed toward endless returns to oligarchy family cartels is not an acceptable world organization of division of resources because it is tranny, exclusive, extraction and fraudulent. Such madness does NOT float all boats.

    All this while oligarchs control Taxation of government authority and hidden excessive investment and fraud return taxation. While Governments in west don't even jail corporate criminals while west claims law is just while skewed in favor of protecting one percent, their returns on investment and investments. Billionaires we find in some parts of so called Unjust regions of world not yet on board with cartel game are calling out fraud that harms individuals and society aggressively.

    TEHRAN, Iran - An Iranian court has sentenced a well-known tycoon to death for corruption linked to oil sales during the rule of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the judiciary spokesman said Sunday.

    Babak Zanjani and two of his associates were sentenced to death for "money laundering," among other charges, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejehi said in brief remarks broadcast on state TV. He did not identify the two associates. Previous state media reports have said the three were charged with forgery and fraud.

    "The court has recognized the three defendants as 'corruptors on earth' and sentenced them to death," said Ejehi. "Corruptors on earth" is an Islamic term referring to crimes that are punishable by death because they have a major impact on society. The verdict, which came after a nearly five-month trial, can be appealed.

    sisterlauren link
    Looking forward to a transcript. I really enjoyed listening to this live yesterday.
    aprescoup link
    So when Bernie winds up on the regime change band wagon (of mostly leftist governments) and stays silent in the face of US aided and approved of coups (Honduras/Zelaya being the next most recent before Ukraine) while railing against the billionaire class on Wall Street and the neoliberal trade agreements, he's not only missing the elephant in the room; he's part of this elephant.
    ForDemocracy -> aprescoup link
    For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...).

    And as all past power-elites have done, our '1%' has misread the age-old evolution of culture when an old system NO LONGER WORKS that makes freedom, imagination & rebellion more acceptable more attractive, more exciting and NECESSARY. Then, once energized BY NEED, DESIRE, and yes HOPE....change begins and can't be stopped like a slow-moving rain that keeps moving. As with past eras & past changes, in our own day this 'millennial plus 60's' powerful generational tide is JUST BEGINNING to feel our strength & ability. Turning what was supposed to be a globalist-coronation into what right now certainly seems like a step towards real change, towards building a recognition of the power, we 'the 99%' can --IF WE ACT WISELY & WITH COMMITTMENT begin the work of creating a new world.

    Criticising Bernie is criticizing the real way progress works...We need to get out of an ego-centric adolescent approach to human problem-solving, understand we need to keep our movement growing even if it doesn't look the WAY WE EXPECTED IT TO LOOK...keep clear on GOALS that Bernie's campaign is just a part of. The 'left' needs to recognize its our historic moment: to either move ahead or SELF-destruct.. Impatience needs to be replaced by a serious look down the road for our children's future. If we don't, the power elite of the System wins again (vote Hillary?? don't vote??). We need to take a breath & rethink how change really happens because this lost opportunity Is a loss we can no longer afford. The movement must be 'bigger than Bernie'.

    WaveRunnerMN -> aprescoup link
    I just hope he does not get forced to resign which the L-MSM is now beginning to parrot so Hillary can win given the huge turnouts the Repugs are getting in the primaries. I want to see four candidates at the National Convention...in addition to Third parties.
    itsthethird -> aprescoup, link
    No one can be elected Commander and Chief by stating they will not defend oligarchs interests as well as populations interests. We agree populations interests are negated and subverted all over earth . That cannot be changed by armed rebellion but it can be changed by electing electable voices of reason such as Sanders. Sanders will fight to protect populations and resist oligarchy war mongering while holding oligarchs accountable. Sanders will address corrupted law and injustice. Vote Sanders.
    Trainee Christian -> itsthethird, link
    You are probably correct in your thinking, but the real power will never allow any potential effective changes to the system that is. People who try usually end up dead.
    itsthethird -> Trainee Christian , link
    This is why we must as citizens become active players in government far greater then we are today, we must do far more then voting. We must have time from drudgery of earning a substandard wage that forces most to have little time for advancing democracy. Without such time oligarchs and one percent end-up controlling everything.

    We can BEGIN the march toward mountain top toward socializations which will promote aware individualizations. We don't expect we will advance anything without oppositions in fact we expect increased attacks. Those increased attacks can become our energy that unites masses as we all observe the insanity they promote as our direction. We merely must highlight insanity and path forward toward sanity. Nothing can make lasting change this generation the march will take generations. The speed advance only will depend on how foolish oligarchs are at attempts to subvert public awareness seeking change. As they become more desperate our movements become stronger. We must refrain from violence for that is only thing that can subvert our movement.

    aprescoup -> itsthethird link
    So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them.

    Maybe this will help:

    Vijay Prashad: The Foreign Policy of the 1% - http://therealnews.com/t2/inde...

    Johnny Prescott -> itsthethird link
    What exactly leads you to contend that Sanders is going to "resist oligarchy war mongering"?
    aprescoup -> sisterlauren link
    He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor.

    Instead he does the LOTE thing for the neoliberal-neocon party "D". That's just dishonest bullshit opportunism.

    Rob M -> aprescoup link
    Opportunism with good intent...I'll take that.
    jo ellis , link
    Do not receives daily email for a long time without clue why? so haven't in contact with TRN's daily report until subject video appears on youtube website. and impressed by the panelists's congregated pivotal works done thru all these years.
    Serenity NOW , link
    important lecture for those who want to better understand the crises of capitalism and globalization.
    William W Haywood , link
    Excellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people.

    [Mar 06, 2016] Theres An Insurrection Coming... The American People Are Sick Tired Of Crony Capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Dewey and Ford emerged from a brokered convention to lose the general election. So why? Because the party elites and elders want to protect us and stop of from falling into the abyss?… Most of us working two or three jobs think we're already in the abyss. The Obama abyss… ..."
    Zero Hedge
    In a stunningly honest and frank rant, FOX News' Judge Jeanine unleashes anchor hell upon Mitt Romney and the GOP establishment hordes.

    She begins:

    "There's an insurrection coming. Mitt Romney just confirmed it. We've watched governors, the National Review, conservative leaders, establishment and party operatives trash Donald Trump. But Mitt Romney will always be remembered as the one who put us over the edge and awoke a sleeping giant, the Silent Majority, the American people.

    Fact. The establishment is panicked. Mitt essentially called for a brokered convention where the Republican nominee will be decided by party activists and delegates irrespective of their state's choice… You want a brokered convention? A primer Mitt. Whenever we have a brokered convention we lose.

    Dewey and Ford emerged from a brokered convention to lose the general election. So why? Because the party elites and elders want to protect us and stop of from falling into the abyss?… Most of us working two or three jobs think we're already in the abyss. The Obama abyss…

    We are sick and tired of legislators of modest means who leave Congress multimillionaires, whose spouses and families get all the contracts from selling the post offices to accessing insider information so they can buy property and flip it. You're so entrenched that you're willing to give Hillary Clinton a win. It doesn't matter to you which party, crony capitalism and its paradigm will not change for the elite."

    And that is just the introduction... Grab a coffee (or something stronger) and watch...

    [Mar 06, 2016] Attack on Sanders Economic Plan By Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors is Irresponsible

    Notable quotes:
    "... This was a classic case of professional bad manners and rank-pulling. What we had here were four former chairs of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, and two from President Obama, two from President Clinton, who decided to use their big names and their titles in order to launch an attack on a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts who had written a paper evaluating the Sanders economic program. ..."
    "... The four former council chairs announced that on the basis of their deep commitment to rigor and objectivity, they had discovered that this forecast was unrealistic ..."
    "... I've written a whole book called The End of Normal in which I lay out reasons for my chronic pessimism about the capacity of the world economy to absorb a great deal more rapid economic growth. ..."
    March 6, 2016 | naked capitalism

    ... ... ...

    PERIES: James, the Council of Economic Advisors, they put out economic forecasts each year. And there has been some wildly optimistic ones. For example, if you look at the 2010 predictions for 2012 and 2013 they have not quite been attained. And one would say it was done in the interest of trying to make the administration that they were serving more impressive. But what accounts for this particular attack on Friedman's projection and other fellow economists?

    GALBRAITH: This was a classic case of professional bad manners and rank-pulling. What we had here were four former chairs of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, and two from President Obama, two from President Clinton, who decided to use their big names and their titles in order to launch an attack on a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts who had written a paper evaluating the Sanders economic program.

    It's likely that the four bigwigs thought that Professor Friedman was a Bernie Sanders supporter. In fact, as of that time he was a Hillary Clinton supporter and a modest donor to her campaign. What he had done was simply to write his evaluation of the economic effects of the ambitious Sanders reform program. The four former council chairs announced that on the basis of their deep commitment to rigor and objectivity, they had discovered that this forecast was unrealistic. And what I pointed out was that that claim was based on no evidence and no analysis whatsoever. And when you pressed down on it you found that it was simply based on the obvious fact that we haven't seen the kinds of growth rates that Professor Friedman's analysis suggested the Sanders program would produce. And for a very simple reason: the Sanders program is bigger. It's more ambitious than anything we've seen in recent years, so it's not surprising that when you put it through a model it generates a higher growth rate.

    So that was the basic underlying facts, and these guys, two men and two women, announced that they, that it was a disreputable study, but failed to present any analysis that suggested they'd actually even read the paper before they denounced it. And that's what I pointed out in my counter letter, in a number of articles that have appeared since.

    PERIES: James, so in your letter, how do you counter them? What methods did you use to come to your conclusions?

    GALBRAITH: Well, I, no need to say anything beyond the fact that I had looked in their letter for the rigor that they were so proud of, for the objectivity and the analysis that they were so proud of, and I'd found that they had not done any. They had not made any such claim, not done any such work.

    So that began to provoke a discussion. It's fair to say ultimately, without apologizing for effectively launching an ad hominem attack on an independent academic researcher, one of the former chairs, Christina Romer of President Obama's council, and her husband David Romer, a fellow economist, did produce a paper in which they spelled out their differences with the, with the Friedman paper. But that, again, raised another set of interesting issues which we've continued to discuss at various, various outlets of the press.

    PERIES: Now, James Friedman's claim that the growth rate from Sanders' plan to be around 5.3 percent. And some economists, including Dean Baker at the Center for Economic Policy and Research, have claimed that this is unrealistic. What do you make of that?

    GALBRAITH: Well, the question is whether it is an effect, let's say, a reasonable projection, of putting the Sanders program into an economic model. And the answer to that question, yes, Professor Friedman did a reasonable job. He spelled out what the underlying assumptions that he was using were. He spelled out the basic rules of thumb that macroeconomists had used for decades to assess the effects of an economic program. In this case, an expansionary economic program. And he ran them through his model and reported the results, a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

    Now, one can be skeptical. And I am, and Dean Baker is, lots of people are skeptical that the world would work out quite that way, because lots of things, in fact, happen which are not accounted for in a model. And we've talked, we've basically put together a list of things that you think might be problematic. But the exercise here was not to put everything into paper that might happen in the world. The exercise was to take the kind of bare bones that economists use to assess and to compare the consequences of alternative programs, and to ask what kind of results do you get out? And that's what, again, what Jerry Friedman did. It was a reasonable exercise, he came up with a reasonable answer, and he reported it.

    PERIES: Now, Friedman seems to think that the rate of full employment in 1999 is attainable. However, many labor economists seem to think that the larger share of the elderly currently in society compared to 1999 explains some of the lack of labor participation, which creates a lower full employment ceiling that's contradicting Friedman's report. Your thoughts on that?

    GALBRAITH: Well, I think it is a fact that the population is getting older. But as, I think, any economist would tell you, that when you offer jobs in the labor market, the first thing that happens is the people who are looking for work take those jobs. The second thing that happens is that people who might look for work when jobs were available start coming back into the labor market. And if that is not enough to fill the vacancies that you have, it's perfectly open to employers to raise their wages so as to bring more people in, or to increase the pace at which they innovate and substitute technology for labor so that they don't need the work.

    So there's no real crisis involved in the situation if it turns out five years from now we're at 3.5 percent unemployment, and they were beginning to run short of labor. That's not a reason to, at this stage, say no, we're not going to engage in the exercise and run a more expansionary, vigorous reform program, a vigorous infrastructure project, a major reform of healthcare, a tuition-free public education program. All of those things, which were part of what Friedman put into his paper, should be done anyway. The fact that the labor market forecast might prove to have some different, the labor market might have different characteristics in five years' time is from our present point of view just a, it's an academic or a theoretical proposition, purely.

    PERIES: And Friedman's paper, he looks at a ten-year forecast. Did you feel that when you looked at the specifics of that, including college, universal healthcare, infrastructure spending and of course, expanding Social Security and so on, that those categories and his predictions or projections, rather, made sense to you?

    GALBRAITH: Well, again, what he was doing was running a program of a certain scale, of a large scale, through a set of standard macroeconomic assumptions. And that, again, is a reasonable exercise. If you ask me what my personal view is, I've written a whole book called The End of Normal in which I lay out reasons for my chronic pessimism about the capacity of the world economy to absorb a great deal more rapid economic growth.

    But that's not in the standard models, and it would not be appropriate to layer that on to a forecast of this kind. What Friedman was criticized for was not for putting his thumb on the scale, but for failing to put his thumb on the scale. In fact, that was the reasonable thing to do.

    On the contrary, and on the other side, when Christina and David Romer did put out their forecast, their own criticism of the Friedman paper, they concluded by asserting that if this program were tried, inflation would soar. So they there were making an allegation for which, again, they had no evidence and no plausible model, that in the world in which we presently live would produce that result.

    So what we had here was a, what was essentially an academic exercise that produced a result that was highly favorable to the Sanders position, and showed that if you did an ambitious program you would get a strong growth response. It's reasonable, certainly, for the first three or four years that that would transpire in practice. And what happened was that people who didn't like that result politically jumped on it in a way which was, frankly speaking, professionally irresponsible, in my view. It was designed to convey the impression, which it succeeded in doing for a brief while through the broad media, that this was not a reputable exercise, and that there were responsible people on one side of the debate, and irresponsible people on the other.

    And that was, again, something that–an impression that could be conveyed through the mass media, but would not withstand scrutiny, and didn't withstand scrutiny, once a few of us stood up and started saying, okay, where's your evidence, on what are you basing this argument? And revealed the point, which the Romers implicitly conceded, and I give them credit for that, that in order to criticize a fellow economist you need to do some work.

    ... ... ...

    [Mar 06, 2016] Cruz Keeps Up Pressure on Trump; Sanders Takes 2 on 'Super Saturday' - The New York Times

    www.nytimes.com


    B. Mull
    Irvine, CA 32 minutes ago
    Cruz is a clever guy who going to run into the brick wall of his wife being Goldman Sachs. He would be wise to sign on as Trump's running mate and hope for a more favorable electoral climate in 4-8 years. Meanwhile Clinton is likely to win her rigged nomination and go on to hope that come November fewer people dislike her than dislike Trump/Cruz, which incredibly is not a slam dunk.


    RM
    is a trusted commenter Vermont 43 minutes ago
    We are completing the election cycle where Cruz should be the strongest. Reminds me of the Ali - Foreman fight. Ali took all of George's best punches early in the fight, letting George punch himself out. George was then helpless.

    As the race moves to the rust belt, the northeast, and more populous northern states, Cruz will be out of his heart land. Rubio should drop before Florida, or he will permanently damage his political career.

    On the Dem side, much the same, but to a lesser extent. The north should be friendlier to Bernie. But all those establishment Super Delegates will be impossible to overcome. Frankly, the Dem system is less democratic than the GOP system with the Super Delegates keeping the establishment in power.


    PS
    Massachusetts 56 minutes ago
    Cruz is climbing, which is bad news, worse, frankly, than Trump climbing. Cruz is at the bottom of my picks - if a person was forced to pick - for the Republican line up. Kansas going for him is no surprise, as they did remove evolution from the public school curriculum (they put it back but also included "intelligent design"). Ted's kind of place. But Maine? What on earth was that all about? The state with the motto "the way life should be"? Does that now mean "the way pro-life should be"? Completely disappointed, Maniacs. Expected more from a favorite state.


    JWP
    Goleta, CA 1 hour ago
    Hillary Clinton has not done well outside the Old Confederacy. She squeezed past Sanders in Massachusetts, and her two caucus victories in Iowa and Nevada were not particularly overwhelming. All her other victories have been in the Confederate South--in states that are going to vote Republican in November.

    Meanwhile Sanders has won convincingly in New Hampshire, Vermont, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, and Minnesota.

    The race is still wide open.


    Robert
    Maine 2 hours ago
    One very big thing I notice Mr. Martin didn't bother mentioning as he glossed briefly over Bernie's wins, is this:

    Turnout in the Democratic Causus in Kansas, was HIGHER than in 2008. That's a first this election season. Up 'til now, Democratic turnout has been dismally low - lower than in 2008.

    Twitter caucus goers in Nebraska also report huge turnout. Although this isn't official, it may also be that turnout in NE is also greater than 2008.

    The message being, the Democratic candidate who can excite voters and inspire large turnout is Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton. As can be seen from pics of the caucuses today, many much-maligned Millenials turned out to vote for Bernie.

    So, the "Hillary's already won" thing isn't working. Bernie's only going to get stronger once we're out of the South.

  • [Mar 04, 2016] Wait, Max Boot is denouncing Trump for his admiration of dictators? The same Max Boot who lectured us on how we need to stand with a brutal Islamist theocracy in Saudi Arabia while it carpet bombs Yemen and beheads political prisoners?

    www.theamericanconservative.com

    The signatories are well within their rights to reject Trump, and at least some of their complaints are accurate. One problem with this letter is that several of the complaints they level against Trump could be lodged against the other candidates still in the race, but there is no similar effort being made to oppose or criticize them. More to the point, there is not even a brief acknowledgement that Republican foreign policy failures have helped Trump succeed, nor is there any recognition that the hawkish obsession with "resolve" and "strength" have made Republican voters receptive to Trump's unrealistic and reckless promises. Robert Farley made a related point earlier today...

    ... ... ...

    I agree that his rhetoric on torture is deplorable and should be condemned, but then we should also condemn other candidates that endorse the use of torture. We should also condemn the previous administration for using torture on detainees, which had the effect of making support for illegal and immoral methods into a sick litmus test for many on the right. Another question that the signatories don't attempt to address is whether the other candidates are even more dangerous when we have a very good idea of how they would conduct foreign policy once in office. They are appalled by Trump's "hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric," as well they should be, but how is that worse than the other candidates' willingness to inflict death and destruction on predominantly Muslim countries again and again?

    EliteCommInc. says: March 3, 2016 at 10:25 am

    I have got to have a laugh at the letter and anyone the least bit familiar with US foreign policy should.

    It's a little late for the signers and writers to be claiming some manner of moral high ground on foreign policy.

    I guess the trick is to take each signatory and measure their views against the rather weak positions in the letter. One would think that given their education and connection they'd make a more compelling case. These are the promoters and designers of the the policies that brought us here. Its a little late to disavow what you have wrought.

    What they have done is wiped out any ethical veracity they have for considering their views.

    They supported the invasions of

    Iraq
    Afghanistan
    The dismantling of stable democracies in Syria, Egypt, Libya and the Ukraine.
    They have advanced arguments in support of enhanced interrogations
    They have supported treating prisoners from th battle field as terrorists
    They are responsible for the quagmired mess that is Guantanamo

    Even the cliche'd "pot calling the kettle black" doesn't paint the hypocrisy they wear.

    Whatever his rhetorical short comings in making his case and his case is very strong and salient. He is a moderate in the light of most of these signatories and peacenik in light of several.

    Ben Mayo says: March 3, 2016 at 10:27 am
    Why don't the neo-cons, the republican party bosses, and the Democrat machine just go ahead and embrace? Make public the consummation of their union that we all know has existed for some time now? Then let this loathsome Hydra meet her fate against Heracles in November. The harder they come, the harder they fall, one and all. I can't wait.
    Ian G. says: March 3, 2016 at 10:52 am
    Wait, Max Boot is denouncing Trump for his admiration of dictators? The same Max Boot who lectured us on how we need to "stand with" a brutal Islamist theocracy in Saudi Arabia while it carpet bombs Yemen and beheads political prisoners?
    climber says: March 3, 2016 at 10:53 am
    While I agree Trump is a huge risk and a sub-optimal candidate, if he as President could make progress on the following, I'd be pleased.

    IMMIGRATION: Stop illegal immigration, force self-deportation by enforcing hiring laws on business, reduce HB1 visas, etc.

    JOBS: I'm OK with light protectionism and slightly higher prices to keep jobs here. See Harley Davidson

    FOREIGN POLICY: Tap Bacevich (or someone similar in outlook) as an advisor and stop our fruitless meddling around the world. It's the Department of Defense, not Offense.

    Clint says: March 3, 2016 at 10:58 am
    Eliot Cohen,
    "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin."

    Cohen helped organize The Open Letter.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151

    Randal says: March 3, 2016 at 11:06 am
    " Trump gets a lot wrong on foreign policy. "

    It's precisely his lack of experience that should get him a pass on some of the nonsense he puts out on foreign policy. At least he has an excuse, unlike say Clinton.

    And it's not unusual for US presidents to learn foreign policy on the job. The odds are that an obviously intelligent and competent man such as Trump will behave more sensibly when he has had a chance to get on top of the issues, and will likely back off many of these positions.

    With Clinton, Cruz or Rubio, however, the fear is precisely the opposite – that they will probably actually try to do the things they say they think ought to be done. That prospect ought to be truly terrifying.

    The worry about the more mainstream candidates such as

    EliteCommInc. says: March 3, 2016 at 11:48 am
    Wait, Max Boot is denouncing Trump for his admiration of dictators?"

    Every single admin. in US history has embraced dictators. We do so because

    1. it serves our interests and

    2. the manner in which countries govern themselves is largely theirs to choose

    The signatories are being deliberately obtuse and wholly selective of US foreign policy history.

    Irony Abounds says: March 3, 2016 at 11:55 am
    As many have noted, the biggest problem with the signatories of this letter is their support of past policies that were an utter disaster. And it is so ironic that they mention, albeit briefly, Trump's threat to civil liberties, which I find to be one of the most frightening aspects of his character, when they have strongly supported torture, kidnapping and indefinite imprisonment in the past.
    Mr. Libertarian says: March 3, 2016 at 12:48 pm
    The "foreign policy experts" are the exact people I've attacking and criticizing for years now, so of course I'm not listening to them now. I hold them directly responsible for the past twenty-five years of failure, and the fact that they won't even pretend to have to learned anything makes them worse than Hillary Clinton.

    In the past, they either supported, explained away, or ignored: 1) torture; 2) U.S. supporting dictators and authoritarian regimes; 3) illegal, expensive, and/or ill-conceived wars; 4) violations of civil liberties; 5) expansive executive powers for the president; 6) demeaning and degrading their political opponents; and 7) sweeping and irresponsible rhetoric from the president. To call them rank hypocrites goes without saying at this point.

    They know when Trump's in office, the gravy train ends for them that's the real cause of concern, since their parasitism comes to an end.

    Chris Chuba says: March 3, 2016 at 1:12 pm
    And this is exactly why I am a Trumpet, a Trumpeteer, and would be willing to call myself a Trumperican rather than vote for any of the establishment candidates.

    I know that Trump will have some people like this as advisors because they represent 95% of the foreign policy establishment, I just hope that he has a couple of sane rationalists in whatever staff he assembles.

    Trump at least shows the ability for critical thinking and skepticism, a skill that all of the other candidates completely lack.

    1. After the 2nd debate there was a concerted effort to portray him as an unschooled novice after the bookish Carly gave precise answers on which military assets she would use to provoke Russia. Trump held up to the pressure and didn't waver.
    2. In the last debate, Trump gave a common sense answer that being a mediator requires impartiality.
    3. In the debate prior to that, he pointed out that you can't be all over the place and fight everybody all at once and be obsessed with Russia, Assad, Iran, and ISIS, and said that he would focus on ISIS and not the others.
    4. He rebuked the notion that we should be angry at Russia and China for not being submissive to us and pursuing their own interests.

    Is he perfect? No but he is the closest thing to an adult that we have at the moment.

    jk says: March 3, 2016 at 1:34 pm
    Stages of Grief for the touchy feely GOP: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance

    GOP Statisticians Develop New Branch Of Math To Formulate Scenarios In Which Trump Doesn't Win Nomination

    Fran Macadam says: March 3, 2016 at 2:24 pm
    "I agree that his rhetoric on torture is deplorable and should be condemned, but then we should also condemn other candidates that endorse the use of torture."

    The essential analysis must be "why" we are using torture, other than treating it as a standalone phenomenon, as if it exists apart from the unnecessary, illegal and immoral wars. It doesn't exist apart, it is one of the consequences of desperation in waging wars and the fact that wars are being waged is the justification for it, as a necessary means to win.

    Torture continues, but is redefined legally by hairsplitting constitutional lawyers intent on obfuscation by Orwellian redefinitions and secret memos and carried out by secret Presidential covert orders. That is one of the essential reasons that secrecy about the practice continues, why no one has ever been brought to account for it and that those who have engaged in any whistleblowing action have been subject to draconian Espionage Act retaliation. If it were not so, this would hardly be so obsessive. Why? Because the wars proliferate, therefore this behavior that has become part of the arsenal cannot be renounced except in a propaganda sense.

    The end to torture will come when the foreign war addiction ends. Given that Trump is the only candidate appalled by the waste and futile destruction involved in waging the failed wars and wants to end the trillions necessary to keep fighting them and spend it instead for domestic infrastructure, this will end torture in fact.

    It's a simple equation. End war, you end torture by removing the incentive to use it as a means of war. Deeds, not words, will accomplish that in reality, not the duplicitous language of those who rebrand assassination as "the disposition matrix."

    Disinformatics says: March 3, 2016 at 2:46 pm
    We need more on the genesis and development of that letter. At the bottom in small print it says it was "coordinated" by Eliot Cohen. Given that Cohen has advocated for war against multiple Muslim countries and was a leading advocate for the Iraq War, quite a few signatory names seem "off".

    For example, it's hard to believe Dan Drezner would want his name to be associated with Cohen's track record of bad judgment leading to bloody disaster. I don't mean Drezner shouldn't condemn Trump. I mean that reasonable, decent chaps like Drezner, applying the same moral and practical calculus that obliges them to condemn Trump, should not permit their names to be associated with Cohen's.

    Our failure to shame and shun Cohen and other neoconservatives and warhawks for their roles in our recent strategic and humanitarian disasters, in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths and trillions in wasted treasure, continues to compromise and distort public discourse. That someone with Cohen's history can still imagine himself in a position to influence public opinion is shocking, really, a reminder of the drop in public and intellectual standards that goes very far in explaining the rise of Trump himself.

    The letter should be audited, if only to confirm who among its supposed signatories actually agreed to have their anti-Trump opinion "coordinated" by someone implicated in more death, waste, and damage to America than David Duke and his invisible empire will ever inflict.

    (As of this writing the letter as linked above no longer appears.)

    Melvin Backstrom says: March 3, 2016 at 3:39 pm
    EliteCommInc.,

    "The dismantling of stable democracies in Syria, Egypt, Libya." Not sure where you're getting your information from, but these three countries have NEVER been stable democracies. Stable autocracies more like it.

    Chris Chuba says: March 3, 2016 at 3:53 pm
    Melvin Backstrom, you are correct that Libya, Syria, and even Egypt were not democracies but they were stable govts prior to outside attempts to overthrow them. Gaddafi would have defeated the rebels there were it not for NATO intervention.

    The larger point is that the neocons believe in disruptive regime change to promote, U.S. approved Democracies. The neocons are truly activists.

    Over the years, Putin has been repeating a consistent theme pleading that the undermining of existing govt institutions breeds chaos. We can call it 'the Putin doctrine' and it stands in stark contrast to Neocon ideology.

    Even in Ukraine, where Putin is most vulnerable of hypocrisy, he has been very cautious. He has no interest in trying to seize all of Ukraine and rule over a people who hate Russia. Instead, he took a small area heavily populated by Russians that was vital to their security interests. In the Donbass, he prevented the rebels from advancing out of their territory and negotiated a treaty where they would remain part of Ukraine.

    Ken Tratomp says: March 3, 2016 at 4:38 pm
    This throwing down the gauntlet by establishment doyens makes me want to throw down a similar gauntlet by combing through National Review's archives for Pollyannaish quotes on trade pacts, and then posting them online. That will be a graphic way of making clear that the establishment (including the signatories of the Open Letter) are either clueless about what their beloved "Washington Consensus" means for ordinary Americans, or they just don't care. Idiots.
    Myron Hudson says: March 3, 2016 at 6:56 pm Having these fools speak out against Trump pretty much cements my support for him at least in the primaries. I'm all about electing the least dangerous person.
    Colonel Blimp says: March 3, 2016 at 7:04 pm If you want an image of the neocons' would-be future, imagine Max Boot stamping on a human face forever.
    Barry says: March 3, 2016 at 8:24 pm
    Mr. Libertarian: "In the past, they either supported, explained away, or ignored: 1) torture; 2) U.S. supporting dictators and authoritarian regimes; 3) illegal, expensive, and/or ill-conceived wars; 4) violations of civil liberties; 5) expansive executive powers for the president; 6) demeaning and degrading their political opponents; and 7) sweeping and irresponsible rhetoric from the president. To call them rank hypocrites goes without saying at this point."

    I'm astounded at the raw stinking open hypocrisy of these guys. You can look at their list of foreign policy criticisms of Trump, and almost every single one is something that they supported, justified and helped carry out.

    [Mar 04, 2016] Paul Krugman: Clash of Republican Con Artists

    If Krugman is so concerned with con men, why he is supporting Hillary? Just because she is a con women? Or he wants to become one by securing a position in her administration?
    Notable quotes:
    "... First, there's the con Republicans usually manage to pull off in national elections ... where they pose as a serious, grown-up party honestly trying to grapple with America's problems. The truth is that that party died a long time ago, that these days it's voodoo economics and neocon fantasies all the way down. But the establishment wants to preserve the facade, which will be hard if the nominee is someone who refuses to play his part. ... ..."
    "... Equally important, the Trump phenomenon threatens the con the G.O.P. establishment has been playing on its own base..., the bait and switch in which white voters are induced to hate big government by dog whistles about Those People, but actual policies are all about rewarding the donor class. ..."
    "... What Donald Trump has done is tell the base that it doesn't have to accept the whole package. He promises to make America white again - surely everyone knows that's the real slogan, right? - while simultaneously promising to protect Social Security and Medicare, and hinting at (though not actually proposing) higher taxes on the rich. Outraged establishment Republicans splutter that he's not a real conservative, but neither, it turns out, are many of their own voters. ..."
    "... As I see it, then, we should actually welcome Mr. Trump's ascent. Yes, he's a con man, but he is also effectively acting as a whistle-blower on other people's cons. That is, believe it or not, a step forward in these weird, troubled times. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    "Why, exactly, the Republican establishment is really so horrified by Mr. Trump?":
    Clash of Republican Con Artists, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times : So Republicans are going to nominate a candidate who talks complete nonsense on domestic policy; who believes that foreign policy can be conducted via bullying and belligerence; who cynically exploits racial and ethnic hatred for political gain.
    But that was always going to happen, however the primary season turned out. The only news is that the candidate in question is probably going to be Donald Trump.
    Establishment Republicans denounce Mr. Trump as a fraud... In fact, you have to wonder why, exactly, the Republican establishment is really so horrified by Mr. Trump. Yes, he's a con man, but they all are. ...
    The answer, I'd suggest, is that the establishment's problem with Mr. Trump isn't the con he brings; it's the cons he disrupts.
    First, there's the con Republicans usually manage to pull off in national elections ... where they pose as a serious, grown-up party honestly trying to grapple with America's problems. The truth is that that party died a long time ago, that these days it's voodoo economics and neocon fantasies all the way down. But the establishment wants to preserve the facade, which will be hard if the nominee is someone who refuses to play his part. ...
    Equally important, the Trump phenomenon threatens the con the G.O.P. establishment has been playing on its own base..., the bait and switch in which white voters are induced to hate big government by dog whistles about Those People, but actual policies are all about rewarding the donor class.
    What Donald Trump has done is tell the base that it doesn't have to accept the whole package. He promises to make America white again - surely everyone knows that's the real slogan, right? - while simultaneously promising to protect Social Security and Medicare, and hinting at (though not actually proposing) higher taxes on the rich. Outraged establishment Republicans splutter that he's not a real conservative, but neither, it turns out, are many of their own voters.
    Just to be clear, I find the prospect of a Trump administration terrifying... But you should also be terrified by the prospect of a President Rubio, sitting in the White House with his circle of warmongers, or a President Cruz, whom one suspects would love to bring back the Spanish Inquisition.
    As I see it, then, we should actually welcome Mr. Trump's ascent. Yes, he's a con man, but he is also effectively acting as a whistle-blower on other people's cons. That is, believe it or not, a step forward in these weird, troubled times.

    Posted by Mark Thoma on Friday, March 4, 2016 at 08:51 AM in Economics , Politics | Permalink Comments (18)

    [Mar 04, 2016] Trump wants 'American-first' version of European nationalism and therein lies the rub

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump represents a challenge to the status quo because he doesn't want to democratize the world through bombing raids, says Richard Spencer from Radix Journal. US Congressman Alan Grayson agrees, saying the Republicans are desperate to stop Trump. ..."
    "... The Republican establishment as reflected in Mitt Romney and others is absolutely desperate to stop Donald Trump. But what really is underneath it all is the fact that Trump does not adhere to the Republican Orthodoxy: "they've never met a war they didn't like." ..."
    "... After Donald Trump and Fox news journalist Megyn Kelly's previous meeting, comedians and politicians alike have taken quite a few shots at Trump. What should we expect further? ..."
    "... From Senator Marco Rubio to Mitt Romney Trump doesn't seem to be afraid of any speeches condemning him. Why is he so self-confident? ..."
    "... The fact is Trump's version of nationalism, this idea "it's not be the world's policeman," let's actually look after ourselves, let's use the government to help the people. This kind of nationalism that cuts across left and right, cuts across liberal and conservative, cuts across Democrats and Republicans. It is a new thing for Americans. Trump is leading it. I would never have predicted that, but Trump is leading it. And the fact is the status quo doesn't like it because this is upsetting some of their assumptions. It is upsetting what they take for granted and so they are all in unison attacking him. And in the US the so-called conservatives, the left, the liberals they are all attacking Trump of the exact same reasons. ..."
    "... Is Trump likely to issue an apology after his offensive comments towards Megyn Kelly? ..."
    "... "Megyn Kelly is out to get me." ..."
    RT Op-Edge

    Donald Trump represents a challenge to the status quo because he doesn't want to democratize the world through bombing raids, says Richard Spencer from Radix Journal. US Congressman Alan Grayson agrees, saying the Republicans are desperate to stop Trump.

    US Congressman Alan Grayson: I have to agree, just this once, with Donald Trump. I think it is irrelevant. Part of the problem that we are facing this year is that the candidates want to make this some kind of war of personalities rather than a discussion of what is good for our country. I think that is very unfortunate. I don't think the Trump candidacy should be determined on matters of the value of a degree from Trump University, or any of these ad hominem attacks that we are seeing by one candidate against the other – often, by the way, perpetrated by Mr. Trump himself. I don't really think it matters what the size of his fingers might be; I don't think it matters that Rubio is definitely a thirsty young man. I don't think it matters that Bush is low energy, although he is certainly is. These are not the things that we should use to determine who our national leaders should be. Obviously, they've all indulged in it from one time or another. And I don't think the voters favor that. But the fact is the voters are going to make up their minds based upon what's good for the country, what's good for them individually. I think the voters have this one right.

    The Republican establishment as reflected in Mitt Romney and others is absolutely desperate to stop Donald Trump. But what really is underneath it all is the fact that Trump does not adhere to the Republican Orthodoxy: "they've never met a war they didn't like." It is true that there are hawks within the Republican Party who are dismayed by the fact that Donald Trump rightly points out that the war in Iraq was a disaster in everyone's light. And they are disconcerted by the fact that he is willing to criticize predecessors like George W. Bush, and frankly, rightly so. America lost four trillion dollars in the war in Iraq and we left a quarter of a million of our young men and women with permanent brain abnormalities because of injuries they suffered in that war. At least there is one Republican candidate who is willing to actually address those issues which has caused the hawks a great deal of consternation.

    RT: After Donald Trump and Fox news journalist Megyn Kelly's previous meeting, comedians and politicians alike have taken quite a few shots at Trump. What should we expect further?

    Richard Spencer from Radix Journal: I think we're going to expect fireworks. In fact the mainstream media, the so-called conservative movements and the Republican Party have all declared war on Donald Trump. It was a silent war for many months, now it is an explicit war. They want anyone but Trump; they want anyone else in the Republican Party to win this nomination. It doesn't matter if Rubio is a moderate and Ted Cruz is an extreme Libertarian or something. They want anyone but Trump because Trump actually represents a different ideology from traditional American conservatism. Trump actually represents something closer to European nationalism. It is a version of the right that is "let's look at the Americans first, let's use the government to help the American people, let's actually have friendly relations with great powers like Russia as opposed to: let's democratize the world through bombing raids." So Trump really represents something different. He represents a challenge to the status quo. And that is why the conservative movement, the Republican Party, the mainstream media are all out to get him.

    Read more Trump strikes back at Romney, GOP establishment in 10 quotes

    RT: From Senator Marco Rubio to Mitt Romney Trump doesn't seem to be afraid of any speeches condemning him. Why is he so self-confident?

    RS: Trump is self-confident because he is Trump; he was born self-confident. But he is also self-confident because he has so much popular support. He has brought so many new people into the Republican Party and he has brought so many more people into the Republican Party than Mitt Romney did who attacked him. The fact is Trump's version of nationalism, this idea "it's not be the world's policeman," let's actually look after ourselves, let's use the government to help the people. This kind of nationalism that cuts across left and right, cuts across liberal and conservative, cuts across Democrats and Republicans. It is a new thing for Americans. Trump is leading it. I would never have predicted that, but Trump is leading it. And the fact is the status quo doesn't like it because this is upsetting some of their assumptions. It is upsetting what they take for granted and so they are all in unison attacking him. And in the US the so-called conservatives, the left, the liberals they are all attacking Trump of the exact same reasons.

    RT: Is Trump likely to issue an apology after his offensive comments towards Megyn Kelly?

    RS: I couldn't imagine Donald Trump apologizing. I don't think he said anything completely outrageous towards Megyn Kelly. The fact is Megyn Kelly doesn't like Donald Trump. Megyn Kelly wants the status quo to continue. Megun Kelly wants a neoconservative candidate or a typical Republican candidate. Maybe Kelly doesn't like this new kind of nationalism that Trump represents. So there's no way… that Donald Trump will apologize to Megyn Kelly. What he said effectively is that "Megyn Kelly is out to get me." … But the fact is, Trump has proved that you don't need Fox News; Trump has proved you don't need the GOP establishment; Trump has proved you don't need the conservative movement establishment. Trump is Trump. Trump has a populist base that's bigger than those forces.

    [Mar 04, 2016] Sanders Must Offer Tulsi Gabbard The VP Slot. Now!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Deja Vu All Over Again! ..."
    "... Remember 2008 Obomo the CHANGE candidate, change you can believe in? Even got a Nobel Peace price before he started his presidency and turn out to be a Murderer-in-chief, Liar-in-chief, Warmonger-in-chief.... ..."
    "... Tulsi Gabbard is well-spoken and pretty. Bernie is not. This makes a balanced (appealing) ticket. That she has rescinded her DNC creds for Bernie is wonderful for Bernie. It is imperative that Bernie does not look this gift horse in the mouth. He MUST appoint Tulsi Gabbard as his Veep NOW and run with it. If he does not, then he is a sheep herder for Hillary. This is what I suggested all along. ..."
    "... Aloha. Im Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. As a veteran of two Middle East deployments I know, first-hand, the cost of war. ..."
    "... I know how important it is that our Commander in Chief has the sound judgement required to know when to use Americas military power and when not to use that power. ..."
    "... Shes redefining Bernies campaign, taking over foreign policy as Commandress in Chief of, not the United States, but the armed forces. And shes just about to turn 35. Openly saying give peace a chance. I was going to write-her-in in the TX Democratic primary, now Ill vote Bernie ... if he does the obvious, the only, correct thing. Im afraid he wont though. Im afraid the sheepdog is running to lose. ..."
    "... Corporate media will create a corporate state. I hope one day people will stop calling corporate media the mainstream media. It is corporately controlled media. It is not mainstream. ..."
    "... REGIME CHANGE! She said the magic word! In the official Western narrative a thing called regime change does not exists. It is basically Putins propaganda, a pro-Russian false narrative that Putins Troll Army is trying to insert into the discussion. ..."
    "... I never served but I was friends with a medic and Army Ranger. Neither came back the same. Special Ops do the worst things and medics see the worst things. ..."
    "... The GOP is plotting against Der Fuehrer Trump, and Clintons DNC is busy rigging elections. ..."
    "... I find it interesting that you posted this US political challenge to the Sanders camp. It is hard to not keep smoking that hopium stuff......if only we could nudge t he system a bit here or there and things will get better. I guess it is that or serious evolution and it may be too late for that to be effective for our species long term survival. ..."
    "... POTUS makes fuckall difference. Even if they were saints, the rest of the corporate political complex would eat them alive before they could institute any meaningful change. I simply can not imagine any positive outcome of any US election whatsoever. How many times must we watch this circus repeat itself before connecting the dots? Its ann utter waste of energy. Remember, these idiots only have power that we the people give them. Well, they are not getting any from me. ..."
    "... Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is a two-tour Iraq vet who has given the most blunt and accurate statements on what is really going on in Syria that I have seen from anyone in Washington. ..."
    "... She just resigned her position as co-chair of the DNC to formally endorse Bernie Sanders, specifically because of his anti-imperialist leanings and despite the fact that his record is inconsistent on the relevant issues. ..."
    "... I listened to a discussion on Dutch radio with 4 students attending Webster University on Leiden campus in The Netherlands. Students were divided in 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats and were asked about the election and how they observed it from outside the US. All four were equally abhorred by the circus and show man Trump. The two Democrats would vote for Sanders and the two Republicans were split, one was for John Kasich and the other was split between Rubio and Kasich. If Trump would be the Republican nominee, one of the Republican students would vote for Sanders and with a Trump as president, one of the students said she would not return to the US but live abroad. A particularly strong showing for Bernie Sanders! ..."
    "... In 1906 German sociologist Werner Sombart wrote an essay entitled Why Is There No Socialism in the United States? that sought to explain why the US, alone among industrialized democracies, had not developed a major socialist movement. ..."
    "... Today, however, we need to pose a different question: why are there socialists in the United States? In this nation that has long been resistant to socialisms call, who are all these people who now suddenly deem themselves socialists? Where did they come from? What do they mean by socialism? ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Tulsi Gabbard, a U.S. Congress representative from Hawaii, stepped down as a vice chair of the Democrat National Committee to endorse Bernie Sanders. In the video below the fold she explains her reasoning. It is Clinton's militarism in foreign policies that makes her take the other side.

    Described as "libertarian-leaning progressive" the woman is smart, pretty and speaks well. She is also a former officer in the U.S. military with combat experience and an interest in foreign policy.

    Politically her endorsement is manna from heaven for Sanders.

    Sanders should IMMEDIATELY offer her the Vice-President slot. Her task in the campaign is to stand in on all foreign policy issues. Sanders then can continue to focus on inequality in the United States.

    Hillary Clinton would have no chance to beat that team. Unlike the neoconned Clinton, a /bernie_sanders.Gabbard ticket can attract young voters which will be needed to beat Trump. If Clinton runs against Trump the large and growing "anything but Clinton" crowd would likely let her loose.

    Someone tell Sanders that he better act fast to announce her nomination before Clinton collects more states and takes away the buzz that the Sanders campaign urgently needs.

    Jack Smith | Feb 29, 2016 3:42:21 PM | 12
    Please watch this video..

    http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/196729/Cynthia_Mckinney_AIPAC_is_in_total_control_of_US_Government__few_Americans_know_anything_about_it/

    karlof1 | Feb 29, 2016 3:43:22 PM | 13
    It would appear that b reads Counterpunch and saw Dave Lindorff's very similar article, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/29/rep-tulsi-gabbards-surprise-bernie-sanders-endorsement/

    I agree that she would be an excellent choice for Veep. Her critique of Outlaw US Empire policy is withering, and she has bigtime Cred to do so.

    nmb | Feb 29, 2016 3:46:53 PM | 14
    As expected: The billionaires lanch anti-Sanders propaganda
    Jack Smith | Feb 29, 2016 4:08:54 PM | 20
    Deja Vu All Over Again!

    Remember 2008 Obomo the CHANGE candidate, change you can believe in? Even got a Nobel Peace price before he started his presidency and turn out to be a Murderer-in-chief, Liar-in-chief, Warmonger-in-chief....

    When will we the VOTERS wake up and never trust any politicians?

    Am I the only smart or stupid one here?

    fast freddy | Feb 29, 2016 4:42:59 PM | 23
    Tulsi Gabbard is well-spoken and pretty. Bernie is not. This makes a balanced (appealing) ticket. That she has rescinded her DNC creds for Bernie is wonderful for Bernie. It is imperative that Bernie does not look this gift horse in the mouth. He MUST appoint Tulsi Gabbard as his Veep NOW and run with it. If he does not, then he is a sheep herder for Hillary. This is what I suggested all along.

    I also said that JEB! would be our next President. I am happy to be wrong about that. BUT You can't rule out the Bush Crime Family yet.

    Denis | Feb 29, 2016 5:09:20 PM | 26
    . . . but we need to think this Tulsi Gabbard thing through.

    With a president that would be 75 yo, the country would have a 34 yo VP that is just one busted aneurysm away from the most powerful position in the world . . . I mean, her surfing and karate credentials notwithstanding, what happens when she goes toe-to-toe with Putin? Or Bibi?

    Personally, I don't really care if she would just do a Sports Illustrated bathing suit cover in the WH swimming pool. Or anywhere.

    jfl | Feb 29, 2016 6:00:53 PM | 30
    Aloha. I'm Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. As a veteran of two Middle East deployments I know, first-hand, the cost of war.

    I know how important it is that our Commander in Chief has the sound judgement required to know when to use America's military power and when not to use that power.

    As a vice-chair of the DNC, I'm required to stay neutral in Democratic primaries, but I cannot remain neutral any longer. The stakes are just too high.

    Thats why, today, I'm endorsing Senator Bernie Sanders to be our next President and Commander in Chief of the United States.

    We need a Commander in Chief

    - who has foresight,
    - who exercises good judgement, and
    - who understands the need for a robust foreign policy, which defends the safety and security of the American people, and
    - who will not waste precious lives and money on interventionist wars of regime change.

    Such counterproductive wars undermine our national security and economic prosperity.

    As these elections continue across the country, the American people are faced with a very clear choice :

    - we can elect a president who will lead us to more interventionist wars of regime change, or
    - we can elect a president who will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity.

    It's with this clear choice in mind that I am resigning as vice chair of the DNC so that I can strongly support Bernie Sanders as the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States.

    And now I ask you. Stand with me. And support Bernie Sanders.

    She's redefining Bernie's campaign, taking over foreign policy as Commandress in Chief of, not the United States, but the armed forces. And she's just about to turn 35. Openly saying give peace a chance. I was going to write-her-in in the TX Democratic primary, now I'll vote Bernie ... if he does the obvious, the only, correct thing. I'm afraid he won't though. I'm afraid the sheepdog is running to lose.
    AnEducatedFool | Feb 29, 2016 6:47:44 PM | 39
    Bernie will likely lose the election tomorrow. The Southern States will vote for Clinton and they will decide the election. Its shocking and appalling that the deciding states will be states that the Democrats will never win in a general election.

    I am holding out hope for Texas. A lot of young people will vote for Sanders and I hope that latinos will vote against Clinton. I can not understand why latinos would vote for a candidate that sends back young children and supports the policies of the Deporter in Chief.

    I have had to hold back some rascist sounding rants lately. I am not a racist but it is hard to not sound like one when black voters are voting at 90% for Clinton. How can one hope to not stereotype when an ethnic group is voting at those rates. It'd be one thing if she did not constantly use "dog whistle" language.

    O and on MSNBC, I watch it for background noise, had a 5-10 minute rally for Trump on TV.

    Not a mention of the 40 cities that held Bernie marches or Tulsi Gabbard. Everything is about the republicans.

    Corporate media will create a corporate state. I hope one day people will stop calling corporate media the mainstream media. It is corporately controlled media. It is not mainstream.

    And finally, Jill Stein is a joke. She managed to win a city council seat. If you want to go with a third party check out the Justice Party. The Green Party is a bunch of well off white liberals that managed to chase a Civil Rights leader (Elaine Brown) out of the party. I do not know where Jill Stein stood on that issue. I doubt it was on the right side since many people left the party over that issue.

    Petri Krohn | Feb 29, 2016 7:00:04 PM | 40
    REGIME CHANGE! She said the magic word! In the official Western narrative a thing called "regime change" does not exists. It is basically Putin's propaganda, a pro-Russian false narrative that Putin's Troll Army is trying to insert into the discussion.

    The concept is similar to "Color Revolution". Just two years ago Russian media, including RT , would always write "color revolution" in quotes . Now they are openly using the term.

    Inkan1969 | Feb 29, 2016 6:15:57 PM | 34

    "...interventionist wars of regime change"

    sound like clichés.

    Any revolutionary idea, once it is universally adopted, becomes a cliché. We are still a long way from calling R2P by its proper name, regime change .

    AnEducatedFool | Feb 29, 2016 7:33:39 PM | 47
    @CTuttle

    I never served but I was friends with a medic and Army Ranger. Neither came back the same. Special Ops do the worst things and medics see the worst things.

    Medics treat soldiers and civilians. They give treatment at the front. I do not know if she was on the front lines but medics see action and she has seen some of the worst injuries and deaths. I do not doubt her credibility on this issue. I may disagree on some points but I do not doubt that she is actually aware of what is at stake.

    jfl | Feb 29, 2016 7:58:23 PM | 48
    @34 Inkan1969 'there's no mention of any specific conflicts like Syria or Ukraine.'

    On Syria, see H.R. 4108: To prohibit the use of funds for the provision of assistance to Syrian opposition groups and individuals.


    A BILL

    To prohibit the use of funds for the provision of assistance to Syrian opposition groups and individuals.

    1.Prohibition on provision of assistance to Syrian opposition groups and individuals

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities, or to the National Security Council or its staff may not be obligated or expended to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, stipends, construction of training and associated facilities, and sustainment, to any element of the Syrian opposition or to any other Syrian group or individual seeking to overthrow the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, unless, after the date of the enactment of this Act, funds are specifically authorized to be appropriated and appropriated by law for such purpose.

    @38 Kalen, 'blatantly abandoning their unalienable rights to self-determination and democratic system of people's rule, based on equality in the law, and one voter one vote principle.'

    Yeah. That's our problem all right. You get a gold star for mentioning it. Care to take a stab at a solution?

    @39 AEF ' I am not a racist but it is hard not to sound like one when black voters are voting at 90% for Clinton.'

    Glen Ford's not a racist either. Don't blame the victims ... they've been voting the lessor of two evils since they've been 'allowed' to vote.

    I'll take you up on corporate media over msm.

    V. Arnold | Feb 29, 2016 8:12:33 PM | 49
    On the one hand; it amazes me to see the excitement about "possibilities" in the bread and circuses. There is always the shiny; in this case it's Tulsi Gabbard; she'll save Bernie.

    The GOP is plotting against Der Fuehrer Trump, and Clinton's DNC is busy rigging elections.

    But on the other hand; it's a sad example that most just cannot grasp the reality of what's really happened to the U.S..

    Short of a genuine revolution (you know; in the streets, pitchforks and all) it's over. Your votes are a cruel joke to maintain the illusion.

    But I guess it's just too horrendous to contemplate the present reality for most folks. So, you remain compliant victims of your own sloth.

    psychohistorian | Feb 29, 2016 9:19:57 PM | 53
    I find it interesting that you posted this US political challenge to the Sanders camp. It is hard to not keep smoking that hopium stuff......if only we could nudge t he system a bit here or there and things will get better. I guess it is that or serious evolution and it may be too late for that to be effective for our species long term survival.

    I was an early supporter of Sanders but have lost the energy to face the "no-one-is-good-enough Jack Smith types as well as the "Its Her Turn" types. I wonder how many are being paid to infect MoA with agnotology?

    The next two weeks should be interesting as we see the machinations of the past political machinery react to and attempt to manufacture cohesion around the 2016 race for the puppet house.

    Now it the haters/non-sharing types could be shut down as effectively as the Occupy folks were.........

    Jackrabbit | Feb 29, 2016 9:58:37 PM | 56
    Exactly right b!

    If Sanders wants to win, he should appoint Tulsi as his running mate.

    But she announced her decision YESTERDAY MORNING(!!) and he hasn't done so.

    Now he has missed the opportunity for Super Tuesday (with 12 States voting) .

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Tulsi is perfect because she can appeal to women and people of color and she brings military/foreign experience that Sanders sorely lacks.

    I hope that the failure of Sanders to seize yet another opportunity TO WIN will open the eyes of those that just can't believe that Sanders values his connection to the Democratic leadership (Obama, Hillary, Schumer, and more are 'friends') is far more important to him than winning. He really IS a sheepdog.

    And Sanders is just fine with the neocon establishment foreign policy as I recently pointed out .

    V. Arnold | Feb 29, 2016 10:46:00 PM | 59
    Once we understand that it is about what kind of a society we want to live in, other questions arise. How much is enough for each of us? How much is too much? At what point does someone's amassing of what ultimately are our resources represent an unacceptable taking from the rest of us? When the moral and societal elements are given their rightful place in the discussion, it doesn't take a lot to understand why modern economics and politics go to such lengths to excise any mention of them. Modern economics and politics are tools of the rich and elites whose purpose is to maintain their wealth and position at our expense. If morality is brought up, they have no defense. They lose. So they make sure it is never brought up. Problem solved.
    Hugh, from Ian Welsh's blog - February 29, 2016

    I thought this was a great statement of the U.S.'s dilemma; one which isn't being, and won't be, resolved.

    Petri Krohn | Mar 1, 2016 1:05:21 AM | 67
    #MUSTREAD Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. explains the origins of the U.S.-Syrian conflict in a long article in Politico :
    Why the Arabs Don't Want Us in Syria

    But all that CIA money failed to corrupt the Syrian military officers. The soldiers reported the CIA's bribery attempts to the Ba'athist regime. In response, the Syrian army invaded the American Embassy, taking Stone prisoner. After harsh interrogation, Stone made a televised confession of his roles in the Iranian coup and the CIA's aborted attempt to overthrow Syria's legitimate government. The Syrians ejected Stone and two U.S. Embassy staffers-the first time any American State Department diplomat was barred from an Arab country. The Eisenhower White House hollowly dismissed Stone's confession as "fabrications" and "slanders," a denial swallowed whole by the American press, led by the New York Times and believed by the American people, who shared Mosaddegh's idealistic view of their government. Syria purged all politicians sympathetic to the U.S. and executed for treason all military officers associated with the coup. In retaliation, the U.S. moved the Sixth Fleet to the Mediterranean, threatened war and goaded Turkey to invade Syria. The Turks assembled 50,000 troops on Syria's borders and backed down only in the face of unified opposition from the Arab League whose leaders were furious at the U.S. intervention. Even after its expulsion, the CIA continued its secret efforts to topple Syria's democratically elected Ba'athist government. The CIA plotted with Britain's MI6 to form a "Free Syria Committee" and armed the Muslim Brotherhood to assassinate three Syrian government officials, who had helped expose "the American plot," according to Matthew Jones in "The 'Preferred Plan': The Anglo-American Working Group Report on Covert Action in Syria, 1957." The CIA's mischief pushed Syria even further away from the U.S. and into prolonged alliances with Russia and Egypt.

    jfl | Mar 1, 2016 3:58:15 AM | 74
    Maybe the move is by Democrats worried about their jobs, who see the increasingly likely outcome of a matchup between The Hil and The Donald : The Donald wins. They've already lost the congress.

    The first time I heard the name Tulsi Gabbard was when she co-sponsored HR 4108 calling for a cutoff in support for al-CIAduh in Syria. The link there, posted by somebody, was to herself being interviewed - primed and boosted really - by Wolf Blitzer. I discovered then that she was a vice-chair of the DNC. In her thirties. She must have sold her soul to the devils of DNC already at that point.

    Sorry I'm so cynical about anyone who is allowed to get as far as she has within the beast itself, but it seems the only prudent stance to take. Even though I want to believe that there is an alternative to The Donald/The Hil ... there simply cannot be one - a real one - from 'above'. I know that, knew that ... yet hope dies last.

    The only workable action that I can see is as layed out in write-in elections , or something else along those lines ... but frankly, the silence is deafening. It's a decade+ 'fix', but it's taken several decades to get where we are today ... all my lifetime, I suppose. I was born in 1947, the same year as the CIA

    A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. There will be a tomorrow, no matter how horrid it is, and we need to prepare for it. Well the road will rise to meet us, prepared or no, so we ought to prepare. We are 300+ million Americans ... how can we not be able to gain control of 546 federal positions ... and all the rest ... if we just put our minds and bodies to the task?

    It's a question of acting, or not. Simple as that. 'Not' entails a strict diet of death, devastation, destruction, and deceit. I'm always open to suggestions on the proposed actions to take. If we had begun in 2004 ... so let's finally begin today.

    dan | Mar 1, 2016 4:11:35 AM | 75
    POTUS makes fuckall difference. Even if they were saints, the rest of the corporate political complex would eat them alive before they could institute any meaningful change. I simply can not imagine any positive outcome of any US election whatsoever. How many times must we watch this circus repeat itself before connecting the dots? Its ann utter waste of energy. Remember, these idiots only have power that we the people give them. Well, they are not getting any from me.
    john | Mar 1, 2016 4:46:20 AM | 76
    AnEducatedFool says:

    ...black voters are voting at 90% for Clinton

    'yessa massa'

    ...as Nehemiah rolls in his grave...

    Look down the road
    'Fer as my eyes could see
    Hey-hey, yeah
    'Fer as my eyes could see
    And I couldn't see nothin'
    Looked like mine, to me

    (Nehemiah Curtis 'Skip' James, 1930 something)

    ben | Mar 1, 2016 9:52:04 AM | 85
    The state of e-voting in America:

    http://blackboxvoting.org/

    Jackrabbit | Mar 1, 2016 10:32:25 AM | 90
    Posted by: shadyl | Mar 1, 2016 10:14:04 AM | 87

    I agree. Trump is as racist as Sanders is socialist. Both are populists.

    The only way to defeat the establishment is to be populist.

    Sanders is actually more establishment than Trump. Sanders talks about Obama, Hillary, Schumer as 'friends', while Trump talks about how politicians are puppets.

    At the end of the day, people NEED to stop allowing themselves to be GAMED by the duopoly

    VOTE THIRD PARTY!

    brian | Mar 1, 2016 4:42:32 PM | 95
    Rick Staggenborg
    19 hrs ·

    Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is a two-tour Iraq vet who has given the most blunt and accurate statements on what is really going on in Syria that I have seen from anyone in Washington.

    She just resigned her position as co-chair of the DNC to formally endorse Bernie Sanders, specifically because of his anti-imperialist leanings and despite the fact that his record is inconsistent on the relevant issues.

    With people like her advising him, it might just be possible to educate him on the realities of the "war on terror," what countries are behind them and why. Since Clinton is one of those behind them, those who want to dismiss Sanders for his inconsistencies on these issues might want to think again.

    I called Gabbard's office today and invited her to join VFP. I hope my friends in Hawaii will email her and support the idea, and ask their friends to do the same. And if you are not in Hawaii, you can call her office and encourage others to do the same!

    We would be very proud to have her become one of us.
    http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/02/28/breaking-vice-chair-of-dnc-quits-endorses-bernie-/bernie_sanders.

    Jen | Mar 1, 2016 5:03:05 PM | 96
    I have just found some news that Tulsi Gabbard may have personal links to a Hare Krishna cult known as Science of Identity (whose leader is Christ Butler aka Jagad Guru). Her Chief of Staff Kainoa Ramananda Penaroza and office manager Anya F Anthony are members of this cult. Rather than overload my comment with several links, I suggest everyone should Google the names I have just given.

    I found out also that Gabbard opposed HR 417 which criticised the Indian government's handling of the Gujarat state riots in 2002 that left 2000 people dead and 100,000 homeless. At the time, Gabbard's buddy Narendra Modi was Chief Minister of Gujarat state and there are rumours that he looked the other way when the rioting broke out.

    Text of HR 417: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.RES.417:

    By the way, I am not a US citizen.

    Oui | Mar 1, 2016 8:02:32 PM | 97
    Sanders Is The Choice of Young Americans

    I listened to a discussion on Dutch radio with 4 students attending Webster University on Leiden campus in The Netherlands. Students were divided in 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats and were asked about the election and how they observed it from outside the US. All four were equally abhorred by the circus and show man Trump. The two Democrats would vote for Sanders and the two Republicans were split, one was for John Kasich and the other was split between Rubio and Kasich. If Trump would be the Republican nominee, one of the Republican students would vote for Sanders and with a Trump as president, one of the students said she would not return to the US but live abroad. A particularly strong showing for Bernie Sanders!

    Why are there suddenly millions of socialists in America? | The Guardian |

      In 1906 German sociologist Werner Sombart wrote an essay entitled " Why Is There No Socialism in the United States? " that sought to explain why the US, alone among industrialized democracies, had not developed a major socialist movement.

      Today, however, we need to pose a different question: why are there socialists in the United States? In this nation that has long been resistant to socialism's call, who are all these people who now suddenly deem themselves socialists? Where did they come from? What do they mean by socialism?

    [Mar 04, 2016] South Carolina Bush and Carson Territory

    Angry Bear

    Bruce Webb , February 13, 2016 8:05 am

    But Cruz? The man is literally a punch line of a popular joke in D.C.:

    "Why do people take an instant dislike to Ted Cruz?"

    "It saves time"

    [Mar 03, 2016] Romney speech shows why Trump is winning

    Looks like neocons will attack Trump, fearing that he might expose their role in 9/11 and become an obstacle for their interventionalist foreign policy
    A civil war within Republican party officially stated. The party elite opens fight against the choice of rank-and-file members. Marco Rubio and Kasich are no longer running for president. They are running to keep Trump from being president.
    Notable quotes:
    Notable quotes:
    "... And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance. ..."
    "... In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. ..."
    "... Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign." ..."
    "... Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement. ..."
    "... Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight." ..."
    "... Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee. ..."
    www.politico.com

    It was a stirring call to arms for a strategic-voting retreat.

    And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance.

    Along the way, Trump has skated. In one remarkable statistic, Trump suffered less in attack ads through Super Tuesday than Romney's team hurled at Newt Gingrich in the final days in Florida alone in 2012. The Republican Party's top financiers are mobilizing now, with millions in anti-Trump ads expected in the next two weeks, but it may be too late to slow Trump after he has carried 10 of the first 15 contests, many of them by wide margins.

    In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. (Also, by not picking a single anti-Trump standard-bearer, Romney, who briefly considered running for president again in 2016, left slightly more open the door that might allow a contested convention to select him.)

    "He's playing the members of the American public for suckers," Romney said of Trump. "He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."

    Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign."

    Romney ripped about Trump's business background, ticking off bankruptcies and abandoned efforts. "What ever happened to Trump Airlines?" he said. "How about Trump University? And then there's Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage?" "A business genius he is not," Romney said. Of Trump's varied stances on issues, Romney added, "Dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark."

    Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement.

    "Well said," tweeted Kasich.

    Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight."

    On Thursday, Trump hammered back on NBC's "Today" show: "Mitt Romney is a stiff."

    Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee.

    Said Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the super PAC dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton, understatedly, "Certainly, having a former Republican nominee go after him is not unhelpful."

    [Mar 03, 2016] Romney speech shows why Trump is winning

    Looks like neocons will attack Trump, fearing that he might expose their role in 9/11 and become an obstacle for their interventionalist foreign policy
    A civil war within Republican party officially stated. The party elite opens fight against the choice of rank-and-file members. Marco Rubio and Kasich are no longer running for president. They are running to keep Trump from being president.
    Notable quotes:
    Notable quotes:
    "... And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance. ..."
    "... In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. ..."
    "... Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign." ..."
    "... Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement. ..."
    "... Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight." ..."
    "... Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee. ..."
    www.politico.com

    It was a stirring call to arms for a strategic-voting retreat.

    And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance.

    Along the way, Trump has skated. In one remarkable statistic, Trump suffered less in attack ads through Super Tuesday than Romney's team hurled at Newt Gingrich in the final days in Florida alone in 2012. The Republican Party's top financiers are mobilizing now, with millions in anti-Trump ads expected in the next two weeks, but it may be too late to slow Trump after he has carried 10 of the first 15 contests, many of them by wide margins.

    In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. (Also, by not picking a single anti-Trump standard-bearer, Romney, who briefly considered running for president again in 2016, left slightly more open the door that might allow a contested convention to select him.)

    "He's playing the members of the American public for suckers," Romney said of Trump. "He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."

    Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign."

    Romney ripped about Trump's business background, ticking off bankruptcies and abandoned efforts. "What ever happened to Trump Airlines?" he said. "How about Trump University? And then there's Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage?" "A business genius he is not," Romney said. Of Trump's varied stances on issues, Romney added, "Dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark."

    Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement.

    "Well said," tweeted Kasich.

    Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight."

    On Thursday, Trump hammered back on NBC's "Today" show: "Mitt Romney is a stiff."

    Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee.

    Said Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the super PAC dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton, understatedly, "Certainly, having a former Republican nominee go after him is not unhelpful."

    [Mar 03, 2016] Sanders Campaign Will Travel On, but Path to Victory Is All but Blocked

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie Sanders would be crazy to drop out while there is (apparently) an open FBI investigation into the email/Clinton Foundation situation ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders has done more than reversing Citizens United ever could to get big money out of politics, at least for Democrats. I cant imagine anyone ever again running on a progressive platform while hauling in Wall Street/pharma/fossil, etc money by the tanker load. ..."
    "... Sanders actually did really good. Hes up against not just Hillary, but her husband; they are a political juggernaut. Its David vs Goliath. Bernie will most likely lose, but hes done amazingly well using a sling and rocks. ..."
    "... I want Sanders to stay in the race, because each victory or strong finish sends a message to the Democratic Party that a great many of us are tired of business as usual. We are tired of wimpiness and acquiescence in the face of the Republicans top-down class warfare, we are tired of neocon war-mongering, we are tired of knowing that our country is falling behind in indicators of social health while the rich get richer, and we are tired of being told to sit down and shut up and respect our betters until the party needs money and volunteers. ..."
    "... So tired of this author and his shilling for Hillary. Given the incredibly biased media slant, its a wonder Bernie has done as well as he has. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders is the only hope for the US working class to achieve change for clearly the Clinton regime has in no way shown by past behavior the intense motivation nor policy settings required to overthrow the conservative Democratic and Republican political establishment to break the economic and social chains of the US working class nor provide them with the means by which the US working class can even perceive the true nature of their condition. ..."
    "... I wish all those Hillary voters in southern states be they black, hispanic, asian, white, or whatever, would wake up and realize they are effectively voting for Trump. ..."
    "... I think why people are irritated by politicians, pollsters and the media is because in a 220 meter race, you guys call it after the first 10 meters. Well then whats the point of the race, why do we go thru it all? In a democracy where everyone gets a vote, we all feel that the first 10 voters in line decide the race and the rest of us just confirm the results. Id say this is why everyone throws up their hands in disgust every election cycle. ..."
    "... The movement Sanders started is not about him or just this election. ..."
    "... Remember, one year ago Bernie was at 3%. Now he is drawing sizable numbers of voters and winning outright a few primaries. The issues he champions, which the American people need championed (even Trump voters), dominate the Democratic conversation. Bernie may not win the nomination but the movement he started wins so long so as these issues are addressed. ..."
    "... So, as planned and predicted, the South went for the establishment candidate. However, all those Southern states will go red in November. A large percentage of Bernie supporters would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. So there is much more to be learned about whether Hillary is in fact a viable candidate in the national election. ..."
    "... What a stupid primary system we have. The whole thing is decided by 15 states ..."
    "... Why would black voters who suffer disproportionately from poverty and lack of access to higher education vote for the Wall St candidate who is not proposing universal health care or free college? Not to mention Hillarys other centrist policies which would not help the black community nearly to the degree Bernies would. Is this another situation of low income whites voting Republican? ..."
    "... Hillary as the nominee will lead to a Trump presidency. ..."
    The New York Times

    Mark K, Huntington Station, NY

    Two thoughts: one immediate and one long-term

    1) Bernie Sanders would be crazy to drop out while there is (apparently) an open FBI investigation into the email/Clinton Foundation situation

    2) Bernie Sanders has done more than reversing Citizens United ever could to get big money out of politics, at least for Democrats. I can't imagine anyone ever again running on a progressive platform while hauling in Wall Street/pharma/fossil, etc money by the tanker load.

    Marc New York City 3 minutes ago

    Sanders actually did really good. He's up against not just Hillary, but her husband; they are a political juggernaut. Its David vs Goliath. Bernie will most likely lose, but he's done amazingly well using a sling and rocks.

    Pdxtran, Minneapolis link

    I want Sanders to stay in the race, because each victory or strong finish sends a message to the Democratic Party that a great many of us are tired of business as usual. We are tired of wimpiness and acquiescence in the face of the Republicans' top-down class warfare, we are tired of neocon war-mongering, we are tired of knowing that our country is falling behind in indicators of social health while the rich get richer, and we are tired of being told to sit down and shut up and respect our betters until the party needs money and volunteers.

    Twelve years ago, Dennis Kucinich campaigned on an even more radical platform than Bernie and won no more than 17% in any state. It was easy for the Democratic Establishment to dismiss him.

    Yet tonight, Bernie is ahead in most of Minnesota. Even in my affluent and utterly conventional corner of Minneapolis, the score was Hillary over Bernie, but at 55%-45%. In contrast, in my precinct in 2004, Kucinich got 20% to Kerry's 80%.

    One of the nice features of the Minnesota caucus system is that anyone can submit a resolution which, if accepted, will work its way up to the state level, and perhaps even to the national level. One of the most enthusiastically affirmed resolutions was one urging the replacement of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair.

    The rank-and-file are restless, and the Democrats ignore that at their peril.

    anne, il link

    So tired of this author and his shilling for Hillary. Given the incredibly biased media slant, it's a wonder Bernie has done as well as he has.

    Bernie should continue. It would be risky for the Democrats to settle too early on a candidate who is currently under investigation by the FBI, especially if she were to be indicted.

    markjuliansmith, Australia link

    Voting for Clinton is voting for the past to remain in the present.

    Bernie Sanders is the only hope for the US working class to achieve change for clearly the Clinton regime has in no way shown by past behavior the intense motivation nor policy settings required to overthrow the conservative Democratic and Republican political establishment to break the economic and social chains of the US working class nor provide them with the means by which the US working class can even perceive the true nature of their condition.

    A condition the Clinton regime has no intention of challenging because to do so means questioning the Clinton regime own continuing culpability in keeping the US working class in the cave of shadows whilst they play with the projector along with the rest of the US political elite for their own tawdry benefit.

    Julianz, Mountain View, California link

    I wish all those Hillary voters in southern states be they black, hispanic, asian, white, or whatever, would wake up and realize they are effectively voting for Trump. Bernie has a much better chance of beating Trump - voting for Hillary is dangerously stupid.

    Peter S, Rochester, NY link

    I think why people are irritated by politicians, pollsters and the media is because in a 220 meter race, you guys call it after the first 10 meters. Well then what's the point of the race, why do we go thru it all? In a democracy where everyone gets a vote, we all feel that the first 10 voters in line decide the race and the rest of us just confirm the results. I'd say this is why everyone throws up their hands in disgust every election cycle.

    What's your real job here Nate? To call the election as early as possible. To spin the numbers so as to discourage people to even vote? To what benefit? I don't think your analysis is incorrect, I think the act of analysis is not productive. Its a discouragement to a participatory democracy.

    ... ... ...

    mike, manhattan link

    The movement Sanders started is not about him or just this election. One year ago the conventional wisdom said that HRC would coast to a coronation. That has not happened and will not . Wherever Bernie finishes, he has defined the Democratic platform. He has not only invigorated the Democratic Left, reminding older voters of the idealism of their youth, but imprinted on Millennials the values and virtues of economic justice, social fairness, and political equality. And here's the kicker: to Millennials, there is nothing left-wing about free college education, universal health care, overturning Citizens United to take money out of elections, and ending the excesses of crony capitalism. They are the future, and they are inspired to get involved.

    Hillary is benefiting from the loyalty of African Americans, especially older women, practically every senior Democrat elected official, and the mainstream media. In short, it's her turn, and she is being rewarded for her patience, perseverance and diligence.

    Remember, one year ago Bernie was at 3%. Now he is drawing sizable numbers of voters and winning outright a few primaries. The issues he champions, which the American people need championed (even Trump voters), dominate the Democratic conversation. Bernie may not win the nomination but the movement he started wins so long so as these issues are addressed.

    Sanders has revitalized American democracy and morality, and for that all Americans should be grateful.

    Robert, Maine 44 minutes ago

    Super Tuesday was set up after Jimmy Carter came out of nowhere in the '70s. The whole point, why the DNC was in favor of this, was for the conservative South to favor the establishment's preferred candidate, and hopefully weed out any upstart grass roots candidates.

    So, as planned and predicted, the South went for the establishment candidate. However, all those Southern states will go red in November. A large percentage of Bernie supporters would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. So there is much more to be learned about whether Hillary is in fact a viable candidate in the national election.

    A CNN poll today found Bernie beating Trump, Cruz and Rubio handily. It found Hillary beating Trump (but by a smaller percentage than Bernie) and losing to Cruz and Rubio. And still, there is the FBI investigation . . .

    There is much more to be revealed. This is one election where it ain't over 'til it's over.

    EG, Taipei link

    So my vote doesn't matter Mr. Cohn? The votes of the people in that states that have not voted yet don't matter? What a stupid primary system we have. The whole thing is decided by 15 states. Instead of cowardly using "all but blocked", why doesn't the New York Times "tell it like is" and say, "Hey America, Hillary won big in the South. Your votes don't matter. Just wait until November to vote." That way she saves money, and Americans don't waste their time voting in elections that have already been decided.

    Readers, why don't we all stop checking the NY Times for updates on the campaign? It's over. Just check the aggregate sights to see who got hurt in the latest Trump rally. See you all in November!

    Susan McHale Greenwich CT link

    Black voters in the South are very different than those in the North. In Connecticut, I am working with a number of African Americans with the President Sanders Campaign. These individuals are embarrassed with the terrible turnout, especially because those voters stand to profit substantially in a Sander's Administration. There's a lot of change coming still…fringe candidate to the top of the national polls. It's called exponential slow growth.

    One of two parents, USA 1 hour ago

    Why would black voters who suffer disproportionately from poverty and lack of access to higher education vote for the Wall St candidate who is not proposing universal health care or free college? Not to mention Hillary's other centrist policies which would not help the black community nearly to the degree Bernie's would. Is this another situation of low income whites voting Republican?

    Lesley Cate Donovan, Boston 1 hour ago

    Hillary as the nominee will lead to a Trump presidency.

    [Mar 01, 2016] A lot of people in the military are vary of Hillary as the Commander in Chief

    Notable quotes:
    "... Barring a coup at the nomination convention, Trump is probably going to win the R nomination. We can hope for such a coup, because just about anybody else would be better, imo, in the event of a Republican win. ..."
    "... This is a once in a lifetime matchup, probably the first time ever, with both parties likely running the oppositions dream candidate. Every hard core R hates HRCs guts, ditto every hard core D hates Trumps guts. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    oldfarmermac , 02/29/2016 at 7:45 am
    Things have been changing pretty damned fast for the last few decades, and lots of things that were once considered unthinkable are now realities. I can't see any reason to think fast change won't continue, or that some previously unthinkable things won't come to pass, within the easily foreseeable future.

    With a D in the WH next time around, a substantial increase in the federal oil taxes is a very real possibility. It won't be a very big increase, in and of itself, maybe a nickel or dime a gallon, but just a nickel would be a hugh percentage increase. The D voter with a job won't kick about a nickel or a dime, and poor people who can't afford to drive will enjoy sticking it to supposedly rich R voters any way.

    And for what it's worth, barring HRC being indicted, or some other equally unlikely event, and that idiot Trump getting the nomination, I am now leaning towards believing there will be a D in the WH next time around. Sanders is a long shot,but if he gets the nomination, just about every body who will vote for HRC will vote for Sanders.

    Trump is going to go into the election, if he gets the nomination, with the highest negatives of any R candidate EVER, at least as far back as WWII. Tens of millions of people will turn out to vote AGAINST him, probably even more than will turn out to vote against HRC, who has extremely high negatives herself.

    Barring a coup at the nomination convention, Trump is probably going to win the R nomination. We can hope for such a coup, because just about anybody else would be better, imo, in the event of a Republican win.

    This is a once in a lifetime matchup, probably the first time ever, with both parties likely running the opposition's dream candidate. Every hard core R hates HRC's guts, ditto every hard core D hates Trump's guts.

    The thing about an increase in the gasoline tax is that once the dam breaks, more increases will be politically palatable.

    Jeffrey J. Brown , 02/29/2016 at 8:49 am
    My initial impression last year regarding Trump, which I am still leaning toward, is that Trump's goal is to get Hillary elected president.
    oldfarmermac , 02/29/2016 at 8:57 am
    I am almost cynical enough to believe it.
    likbez , 02/29/2016 at 10:41 am
    Jeffrey,

    My initial impression last year regarding Trump, which I am still leaning toward, is that Trump's goal is to get Hillary elected president

    I doubt it. Trump will definitely try to use email scandal against her. Even among democrats way too many people hate Hillary due to her track record and personal traits.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/04/02/488623/-Is-Hillary-a-Sociopath

    How Trump can help her? Trump voters will never vote for Hillary. The same is true for considerable part of Sanders voters. Many people understand that she is in the pocket of large banks and essentially voting for Hillary is voting for GS.

    Also a lot of people in the military are vary of Hillary as the Commander in Chief (the same is true for Trump). And that is a powerful voting block. Please listen to what Tulsi Gabbard said:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2UM8F4EuUbw

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/28/dnc-vice-chair-resigns-throws-support-behind-bernie-sanders

    What really surprised me is that South Carolina black population was brainwashed or bought to vote for her. That's a slap at Martin Luther King face. I wonder how much money it cost her to buy SC black establishment.

    [Feb 28, 2016] Republicans wage all-out war as Rubio and Cruz seek to destroy Trump

    The crisis of Republican Party then establishment no longer can control rank-and-file members reflects not only the crisis of neoliberalism as a social system, but might also reflect the fact that with 300 million of people the county became too big and too diverse to be governed from a single center of political power in non authoritarian ways. a Hillary v Trump scenario will bee a difficult choice for most Americans. A jingoistic sociopathic woman, essentially a puppet of financial oligarchy, who is a front for the neoliberal forces hell-bent of destroying Russia vs. a narcissistic person with zero political experience and vague set of ideas (but at the same time with more realistic foreign policy ideas at least).
    Notable quotes:
    "... I'm afraid this strategy will have the exact opposite effect. To Trump, an attack from Rubio or Cruz is a badge of honor. ..."
    "... 80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly. ..."
    "... We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone). We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury. ..."
    "... Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national favorability rating. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money, mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other people's money). ..."
    "... Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American people will do in the end is anyone's guess. ..."
    "... Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ... in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores .... ..."
    "... I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now! ..."
    "... "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for con. ..."
    "... Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues. ..."
    "... "Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching? ..."
    "... Fuck off, Rubio -- We are going to vote Trump. ..."
    "... Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist. ..."
    "... Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass Steagall under orders...... ..."
    "... The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies. ..."
    "... Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini. ..."
    "... I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah". ..."
    "... The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016 ..."
    "... Rubio seems power-mad. Another reason why he is deeply unsuitable to wield ultimate power. ..."
    "... As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November. Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a general election. ..."
    "... Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees. ..."
    "... "Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started digging for dirt. ..."
    "... Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual overlaps there. ..."
    "... OMG Cruz, Rubio or Trump vs Hilary Clinton. Jeez, America. I got kids to care about - is that IT? ..."
    "... Rubio isn't what he presents himself as. Look at his voting record- http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Marco-Rubio-412491 Does that match up to the way he talks about his policies? I don't think so. ..."
    "... One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman. He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying products from him. ..."
    "... Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth. Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues. Oh what a tangled web we weave... ..."
    "... Unless she is indicted before the election. Then it might be problematic. Look up Spiro Agnew if you think investigations are all for show. ..."
    "... I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes... ..."
    "... Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a problem with no agreeable solution. ..."
    "... But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion. ..."
    "... Supporting war in Iraq was spectacularly I'll judged. ..."
    "... Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself, aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed in his long game to win next time. ..."
    "... When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!! ..."
    "... As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they will add up to victory. ..."
    "... Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich. Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn. ..."
    "... Hillary doesn't exist politically. It is a front for banks and foreign investments. A sham. ..."
    "... This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out. ..."
    The Guardian
    AnthonyFlack -> ryanpatrick9192, 2016-02-28 20:44:44
    Democratic party is not investing in voting drives this year because doing so would benefit Sanders, whereas a low voter turnout favors Clinton (who is increasingly unpopular and looks increasingly likely to lose the general).

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/dem-voter-registration-leading-turnout-article-1.2545420

    samwisehere, 2016-02-28 20:44:25
    I'm afraid this strategy will have the exact opposite effect. To Trump, an attack from Rubio or Cruz is a badge of honor.
    Nedward Marbletoe -> olman132, 2016-02-28 20:44:04
    Sanders was nearly tied with Clinton in delegates before South Carolina. So it's very close right now.

    80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly.

    Robert Hoover -> Nedward Marbletoe, 2016-02-28 20:42:23
    Sorry. boys. It's a case of "too little, too late." Hopefully the Dems will not underestimate Trump like the GOP did. http://moronmajority.com/are-democrats-underestimating-trump-like-the-gop/
    JRWirth, 2016-02-28 20:39:56
    What everyone is glossing over, is that the country is too big and the politics have become too small. You have a special problem with the presidency in that the person who occupies it should embody the basic American ethos from Boston to Honolulu and from Miami to Anchorage. No one exists who can do this.

    We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone). We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury.

    dig4victory, 2016-02-28 20:38:52
    Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national favorability rating.
    WyntonK, 2016-02-28 20:37:08
    Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money, mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other people's money).

    A lot of his revenues come from licensing out the Trump name out to various development ventures into which he doesn't contribute a penny, and which generate a large income that finances his extravagant lifestyle. He is basically a con man, always has been. The corporate media refrains from mentioning his four bankruptcies, despite inheriting a quarter of a billion dollars from his father. They media wants him to stay on the campaign scene till the end, because he is the largest entertainment story that have had in years, and covering his carnival act keeps generating great revenues for them.

    daniel1948 -> IMSpardagus, 2016-02-28 20:36:46
    Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American people will do in the end is anyone's guess.
    Teebs, 2016-02-28 20:35:48
    Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ... in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores ....
    turn1eft -> Rialbynot, 2016-02-28 20:35:43
    Think how many billions are tied up in an establishment win. Trump will be taxing companies that move blue collar jobs out of the US. He will be a jobs president. I am really really suspicious of papers and parties like the Guardian and Labour that don't support this agenda.
    AlabasterCodefy -> Rialbynot, 2016-02-28 20:35:23
    Destroy Trump? CNN has placed Trump on hard rotation since mid-2015, to join their rolling Clinton love-in. They haven't reported on him so much as run his campaign. That would imply that they' re getting paid down the line.
    timnorfolk, 2016-02-28 20:35:11
    Let Trump build his walls along the Mexican and Canadian borders. Only when they are completed reveal they are intended to keep Americans in.
    ryanpatrick9192 -> deddzone, 2016-02-28 20:34:53
    I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now!
    David Galbraith, 2016-02-28 20:33:28
    "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for con.
    Robert Jenkins -> Flugler, 2016-02-28 20:33:09
    Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues.

    The main thing that interests me though is the money still pouring into the GOP even though it's clear that the party has become unelectable.

    africanland123, 2016-02-28 20:30:06
    " Lincoln
    Marco Rubio

    Pressed on whether he could win in this week's elections, the 12-state "Super Tuesday" contest, Rubio said: "Sure. That's not the plan, by the way, but sure."

    "He then voiced anxieties that have coursed through the Republican party for months: "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln."

    Calling the billionaire "a clown act" who is "preying on" struggling Americans, Rubio warned that..."

    "Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching?

    Fuck off, Rubio -- We are going to vote Trump.

    JordiPujol -> martinusher, 2016-02-28 20:28:45
    I seem to recall that Benito embroiled Italy in fruitless war or two....

    Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist.

    Flugler -> Rialbynot, 2016-02-28 20:20:05
    Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass Steagall under orders......

    ...

    martinusher, 2016-02-28 20:16:18
    The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies.

    A Trumpohpile told me that the reason he likes Trump (and possibly Sanders) is that neither of them are likely to end up embroiling us in yet more fruitless wars. I understand where he was coming from -- we've been conned so many times by the political establishment that voting is really choosing the lesser of evils. People are tired of this.

    Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini.

    ArdentSocialist, 2016-02-28 20:14:23
    I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah".

    Trump will emerge the victor. I'm almost positive.

    Tim Osman, 2016-02-28 20:02:11
    The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016
    janpcb -> maggie111, 2016-02-28 20:01:54
    Clinton: When i'm POTUS we will attack Iran!
    Trump : Let's work with Russia to destroy ISIS!
    Out of the two, i'm thinking Clinton is a total psychopath.
    Svalbard, 2016-02-28 19:58:15
    Rubio seems power-mad. Another reason why he is deeply unsuitable to wield ultimate power.
    ryanpatrick9192, 2016-02-28 19:57:27
    As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November. Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a general election.

    If this trend doesnt change (and theres no reason to believe it will) then we are not only looking at a Republican controlled WH, but democrats will have almost no chance of regaining control of the Senate and they could even increase their majority in the House (which they are going to control no matter what happens)

    Big_Boss -> SuchArticleSoComment, 2016-02-28 19:55:48
    Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees.

    I think the best option is not to play

    xavierzubercock -> SPappas, 2016-02-28 19:41:13
    "Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started digging for dirt.
    funnynought, 2016-02-28 19:37:20
    Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual overlaps there.
    quilt, 2016-02-28 19:35:15
    OMG Cruz, Rubio or Trump vs Hilary Clinton. Jeez, America. I got kids to care about - is that IT?
    Texas_Sotol -> skepticaleye, 2016-02-28 19:30:20
    "amoral salesman" Very succinct character description!

    How about:

    A moral
    S elf-indulgent
    S alesman

    tuhaybey, 2016-02-28 19:22:10
    Rubio isn't what he presents himself as. Look at his voting record- http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Marco-Rubio-412491 Does that match up to the way he talks about his policies? I don't think so.
    skepticaleye, 2016-02-28 19:18:52
    One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman. He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying products from him.
    ustanonlooker -> Doug Steiner, 2016-02-28 19:18:46
    Poorly educated and stupid. Sadly, that sums up the majority of Americans.
    Woops1gottasneeze, 2016-02-28 19:18:20
    Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth. Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues. Oh what a tangled web we weave...
    chiefwiley -> PeteGr1, 2016-02-28 19:17:54
    Unless she is indicted before the election. Then it might be problematic. Look up Spiro Agnew if you think investigations are all for show.
    ajbsmurphy, 2016-02-28 19:17:43
    I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes...
    gunnison, 2016-02-28 19:17:40
    Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a problem with no agreeable solution.

    But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion.

    Not a word about his promise to be a war criminal by torturing people "because they deserve it", or unconstitutionally banning entry to the US on religious grounds or his support for the idea of rendering the press vulnerable to lawsuits under brand spanking new libel laws.

    The guy has come out brazenly in support of attitudes that the GOP has been covertly dog-whistling about for years, and now they're panicking.

    Embracing him as their candidate destroys the brand.

    Torpedoing his candidacy by deploying internal party shenanigans either in the remaining days of the campaign and/or at the convention will fracture the party.

    All the people who Trump has excited with his "he's just saying what people are really thinking" meme are sure as hell not going to just roll over and let their hero "be robbed" of the nomination. And you can bet that's how, with Donald's help, they will see it.

    SundridgePete -> John Dagne, 2016-02-28 19:16:32
    Supporting war in Iraq was spectacularly I'll judged. But I'd rather have someone who once made a mistake than a psychopath.
    ClaudeNAORobot, 2016-02-28 19:15:15
    Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself, aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed in his long game to win next time.
    RealSoothsayer, 2016-02-28 19:14:54
    When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!!
    Vintage59, 2016-02-28 19:07:42
    As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they will add up to victory.
    benbache, 2016-02-28 18:58:44
    Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich. Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn.
    bcarey -> SuchArticleSoComment, 2016-02-28 18:55:51
    Hillary doesn't exist politically. It is a front for banks and foreign investments. A sham.
    JonnyNoone, 2016-02-28 18:47:47
    This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out.

    [Feb 28, 2016] Hillary Clinton defeats Bernie Sanders to win South Carolina primary

    So much for lefties idealization of disadvantaged minorities. Today blacks of South Carolina spit in the face of Martin Luther King with impunity.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Well, the preacher-shepherds gave the signal and the flock brayed for Hillary. Truly a low point in the annals of African-American politics. ..."
    "... Economically disadvantaged people should be voting for Sanders. To vote for Clinton is misguided and foolish whether you are black or white. We should not apologise for saying this loudly and clearly. It is a fact. ..."
    "... Amazing what you can pull off with nonsense rhetoric. Clinton should thank her speech writers for that bit of baloney. love and kindness Ha! Yeah. Shes all warmth, that neolib. ..."
    "... The blacks dont realize Clinton doesnt and will not, give a shit about them later. ..."
    "... Im supremely depressed people voted for the corporate Wall Street puppet too, guys, but still... yeesh. ..."
    "... It is not racism, I am a black person, and use to vote democratic and I proudly use those terms...and worse to describe my homies....they are still living like slaves! ..."
    "... Another corrupt politician pulled the wool over the black race. ..."
    "... If she wins the nomination -- and it looks increasingly like she will -- she will lose the general election, should Trump be the Republican nominee ..."
    "... You are suffering from a delusion as to the nature of Clinton and the people who control her. They are not interested in making the USA more like Europe. Exactly the opposite. I cannot even fathom how you might think otherwise. ..."
    "... Clinton is owned by Wall Street and has never been a friend of the poor and working people. ..."
    "... This landslide win may be the one time the majority of black South Carolinians have something in common with Goldman Sachs execs. Strange bedfellows... ..."
    "... It is interesting that in the latest speech that I heard from Sanders he has shifted from attacking Clinton to focusing his attacks on Trump. ..."
    "... Looking at Hillary one starts to think that House of Cards main character should be a woman... ..."
    "... The blacks on south carolina..have been dupped. .to trust Clinton is like re electing another bush. Quite reckless stupid. ... 40 million youth who gave student debt loans to repay should think their pocket. ..."
    "... I will never vote for her. Youd think that my fellow black citizens would have taken a lesson from the Rahm Emmanuel debacle and refused to be herded into that dark night ..."
    "... Big Winners South Carolina Primary.....Wall St The US WAR Machine....Peace ..."
    "... Hence the ridiculous win for Hillary, who has done nothing for African American voters, In fact, she has probably led to the incarceration of many black people in America. Her husband certainly fucked them over. ..."
    "... If this disgusting liar wins Democratic nomination, I am going to vote Republican for the first time in my life. Even Trump is better that this abomination. At least he calls a spade a spade and does not pretend to be what he isnt. ..."
    "... For the nomination, its much more relevant than New Hampshire. NH: 24 delegates. SC: 53 delegates ..."
    "... South Carolina black communities are very poor, uneducated and centered around their churches, which in turn are controlled by black establishment giving them some money through various social grants. I hope it helps to understand who and how forced black voters there how they have to vote. ..."
    "... We cant have Sanders and real change. Thats clear by now. Thanks, old man, for you great brave effort and for bringing back Socialism to the USA after nearly a century in the dog house. That is an amazing feat in itself -- ..."
    "... So, its either Black special interests plus aggressive careerist neo-liberal feminism or a glorious and unpredictable populist who shoves the PC gang. ..."
    "... Have fun losing to Republicans in November should the DNC and media establishment successfully force the primary coronation of their queen. All of that legitimate excitement and momentum that Sanders lost will vanish into thin air, and some of it will go to independent and Republican voters. So yuck it up. Americans evidently need to learn a really hard lesson before reality finally penetrates their collective skulls. ..."
    "... She is just as complicit in the coup against our country. So yeah, we need to grow some spines and start speaking up and acting. No more of this well shes not AS bad crap. Were losing our democracy, our freedom, our path to a decent life. Its time to wake up. Its Bernie or bust. ..."
    "... no, HRC is a republican as in uber hawk, neoliberal, corrupt, wall street toady. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    sunshinewestmelb , 2016-02-28 05:49:10
    Why do blacks vote for Hillary rather than Bernie ? Maybe its like how Trump wins the Hispanic vote after he calls them murdering rapists ? Dont overestimate the American electorate, a lot of effort has been put into keeping people dumb .(its not racist to suggest that people of color can be dumb too). Trump says he loves 'the blacks' and some still vote for him.
    MaynardG , 2016-02-28 05:47:56
    The first time that I ever heard of the Flint water problem described in racial terms was from Hillary Clinton in a Democratic debate. She tried to link it to the Jim Crow era of segregated drinking fountains. No one should vote for her.
    Indie60 , 2016-02-28 05:46:14
    The DNC has vastly underestimated the revolution that is already percolating. If Hillary become the nominee there are millions of people who will
    1) sit out the election
    2) vote third party
    3) write in Bernie's name
    4) vote for trump

    Whichever way you look at it it will be the death knell for the "party". So they can celebrate the funeral of the presidency.

    Congrats CBC, DNC, DCCC, etc. All on your own you have buried the country.

    ndie60 -> StayingCivil , 2016-02-28 05:56:32
    I'm an elder. I've been fighting to turn this country into something livable for 46 years of voting. You want Hillary?

    I'll give it to you only in spades.

    StayingCivil -> Indie60 , 2016-02-28 05:59:12
    I am an "elder" too….Am I disappointed that Bernie didn't win ? Yes, but I am not going to trash Hillary…or do something stupid by allowing a Republican to do worse. I will continue to fight…I will not sit on the sidelines…and anyone who does is a coward.
    eastbayradical , 2016-02-28 05:45:10
    Well, the preacher-shepherds gave the signal and the flock brayed for Hillary. Truly a low point in the annals of African-American politics.
    crackersandcheese , 2016-02-28 05:41:07
    Economically disadvantaged people should be voting for Sanders. To vote for Clinton is misguided and foolish whether you are black or white. We should not apologise for saying this loudly and clearly. It is a fact.
    AtraHasis , 2016-02-28 05:35:55
    Amazing what you can pull off with nonsense rhetoric. Clinton should thank her speech writers for that bit of baloney. "love and kindness" Ha! Yeah. She's all warmth, that neolib.
    Rodbio , 2016-02-28 05:30:14
    The blacks don't realize Clinton doesn't and will not, give a shit about them later.
    Vermouth Brilliantine , 2016-02-28 05:28:08
    I see a whole lot of blame being thrown at black South Carolinians in these comments:
    • "How stupid ARE black people?"
    • "Why don't black people know what's good for them?"
    • "Blacks must have voted this way because of poor education..."

    The casual racism of people who claim to be 'progressive' never ceases to amaze me. I'm supremely depressed people voted for the corporate Wall Street puppet too, guys, but still... yeesh.

    WSCrips -> Vermouth Brilliantine , 2016-02-28 05:42:28
    It is not racism, I am a black person, and use to vote democratic and I proudly use those terms...and worse to describe my homies....they are still living like slaves!
    TomTalay , 2016-02-28 05:20:21
    Ouch! So much for the expected 26% gap. 1 for 4 isn't going to cut it. Tuesday will write Bernie's political obituary.
    sean severson -> TomTalay , 2016-02-28 05:23:36
    And our country's too. Another corrupt politician pulled the wool over the black race. Killer Mike, Erica Gardener,Spike Lee,and danny glover better get the word out.
    resurgence27 , 2016-02-28 05:17:27
    If she wins the nomination -- and it looks increasingly like she will -- she will lose the general election, should Trump be the Republican nominee, which is also looking increasingly likely. Sanders would have walloped Trump in the general: it would have been the 99% versus the 1%, and the 99% would have won. Clinton, on the other hand, is distrusted by such a large number of Democrats, vast numbers of us would rather steer clear of the polls altogether than give her our vote. Trump will be the next President of the United States.
    Janosik53 , 2016-02-28 05:15:00
    Hillary's had more Botox injections than John (Lurch) Kerry.
    Carly435 -> RealSoothsayer , 2016-02-28 05:45:01
    I didn't know much about his personal background three years ago. All I knew about him in the past couple of decades came from reading the Congressional Record: his morally courageous speeches always stood out from the rest. But I never dreamed that he would run for President, or that the American public would finally "catch up" with him and his call for political revolution.

    So don't blame me. Blame the media, which even today has little time for such "boring" progressive subjects as poverty in America:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W103Gs0MP1E

    19:40 mark... Bernie gets pissed off at the fact that reporters would rather ask electoral "horse race" questions one after another after another instead of showing the slightest bit of interest in the subject of his press conference: Poverty in America.

    Alan Edwards , 2016-02-28 04:59:06
    The most ill-informed, deluded, fearful, armed, dangerous and destructive country in the first world. No number of Steve Jobs and Elon Musks can make the US a net positive. By and large the craziest collection of presidential candidates in my memory ...
    Individualist -> Alan Edwards , 2016-02-28 05:09:38
    Let's see what the summer brings of informed, confident, un-militaristic politics in western Europe.

    My guess is that Trump or no Trump, the US will look like a progressive paradise compared to Europe next Fall.

    MikaelRogers -> Alan Edwards , 2016-02-28 05:47:57
    lets see - Norway, Poland and most of East Europe have voted racist parties. The UK voted for Cameron and Socialists are doing poorly in the rest of Europe. Not a great sign all over - so don't just get upset with the Americans
    AllStBob , 2016-02-28 04:58:05
    Also remember that Hillary won 57.5% to 42.5% of the white vote. It's a Southern thing, not just a black thing.
    anicecupofcoffee , 2016-02-28 04:51:20
    How come the African American community voted massively for Hillary when many of them apparently agree more with Sanders political plan AND know that Sanders was a civil rights leader in the 60s?
    JCDavis -> anicecupofcoffee , 2016-02-28 04:53:40
    They voted for Hillary because her husband put blacks into prison at an unprecedented rate. It's the Stockholm syndrome.
    cinelandia , 2016-02-28 04:50:20
    2,722,287 registered voters in SC. 977,207 voted in the Democratic and the Republican primaries. Not even half. And the real story is who "won"?
    Dragonsmoke315 , 2016-02-28 04:42:40
    Let's not panic, Bernie supporters. South Carolina is only one state, and no one expected Bernie to win it. No candidate wins every primary. He isn't out of the race yet.

    Unlike more conventional candidates who are controlled by big donors and the Party establishment, Bernie has no reason to drop out before the nomination is fully decided. He has everything to gain and nothing to lose by staying in. The worst case scenario is that he keeps putting pressure on Hillary to position herself leftward.

    There are still many other states, and most of them are not in the South. Onward.

    Koamark -> Kevin Diamond , 2016-02-28 04:44:42
    You are suffering from a delusion as to the nature of Clinton and the people who control her. They are not interested in making the USA more like Europe. Exactly the opposite. I cannot even fathom how you might think otherwise.

    Your scenario has Trump not making a deal and selling his delegates at the convention. I would have to laugh out loud if the various other Republican candidates all quit before he can make a deal. Can you imagine Trump as President? "Your fired!" "Sorry Mr. President, you cannot fire me. It is called embedding. I have a position that you cannot change because of laws passed by Congress. The Bush Administration put me here to make sure no one else can come in and change anything they set up. Until I retire or Congress makes a new law, I am going to keep this job and be a big thorn in your side. In fact, you cannot fire hardly anyone."
    Trump might be the first President to pull a Palin and just quit.

    mabcalif -> Kevin Diamond , 2016-02-28 04:58:26

    A Clinton v Trump fight, Clinton wins

    you haven't been paying attention. in no current polling does clinton win against trump. sanders is the only candidate who can face down every republican candidate.

    and even if that weren't true, wait until the republicans go to town about her emails, when she is the democratic nominee. there's no way she survives that.

    further, you clearly don't understand the core beliefs of hillary clinton if you think she will move this country towards a european style nation. lol. there's very little about hillary that's changed since she stumped for barry goldwater and she is very open about that.

    overcookedsquash -> Koamark , 2016-02-28 05:12:26
    Europe is not the panacea you believe it to be.

    Clinton is getting pushed to the left as we speak because of how much support Sanders has. She's a moderate progressive so she may not share your vision but she still believes in progressive policies. Sanders supporters make it sound like electing Clinton and electing a republican is the same thing...

    Trump loves power and the spotlight. You are out of his mind if you think he would quit.

    Carly435 , 2016-02-28 04:33:28
    For those of you who are a little fed up with centrist Democrats posing as progressives, here is an interesting factoid:

    Guess who donated to the centrist DLC, of which the Clintons were key players?

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=koch+democratic+leadership+council

    That's right. The Koch brothers.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33869-hillary-clinton-s-ghosts-a-legacy-of-pushing-the-democratic-party-to-the-right

    Founded by Southern Democrats in 1985, the group sought to transform the party by pushing it to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big business.


    Leadership we can trust? I don't think so.

    RAJNJ , 2016-02-28 04:26:18
    Bernie thinks he can win the low turnout caucus states Colorado and Minnesota. The problem is that they are both closed caucus states. You can only vote if you are a registered Democratic. No Independents can vote in the Democratic caucusus. He'll lose and if he loses Massachussetts his only win will be in Vermont and possibly Oklahoma where Hillary has a narrow lead. Looks hopeless.
    bishoppeter4 , 2016-02-28 04:21:25
    Clinton is owned by Wall Street and has never been a friend of the poor and working people.
    JCDavis , 2016-02-28 04:15:02
    Corruption, thy name is Hillary. If she wins, I'm voting for Trump.
    HeartlandLeftie , 2016-02-28 04:13:33
    This landslide win may be the one time the majority of black South Carolinians have something in common with Goldman Sachs execs. Strange bedfellows...

    As for Super Tuesday, for Bernie supporters, the races to watch are Massachusetts, Colorado, and Minnesota. If Bernie can win all three, this race is still on.

    **Bernie 2016**

    Fabri , 2016-02-28 04:17:28
    In South Carolina...the most conservative and racist state. I'd feel flattered to lose there...
    arbmahla , 2016-02-28 04:12:13
    It is interesting that in the latest speech that I heard from Sanders he has shifted from attacking Clinton to focusing his attacks on Trump. I think he sees the writing on the wall and he knows that he is losing. This will all be over in a couple of weeks and I'd be surprised if Sanders is still in the race in April. Once Clinton wins Florida, Ohio and Michigan, Sanders has to know that it's over.

    Sanders knows the danger that is posed by the semi-fascist Trump and he will throw all his support behind Clinton once it is clear that his chance is over. He isn't one of these morons like we see on this forum that are saying that there is no difference between Trump and Clinton. They are the same idiots that told us that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

    Vladimir Makarenko , 2016-02-28 04:05:27
    Looking at Hillary one starts to think that "House of Cards" main character should be a woman...
    Gato Pardo , 2016-02-28 04:05:21
    C'mon people..this is south Carolina...What did you expect? This is a state where a landlord can choose no to have "multicultural " tenants...

    Give me a break, this state is frozen in time... Heck, Hitler would win against Bernie in South Carolina. Have doubts? Just ask 'round. Bernie will be the next president.. Even in south Caro-the land civil rights forgot-lina.

    David Marty Thompson , 2016-02-28 03:51:47
    The blacks on south carolina..have been dupped. .to trust Clinton is like re electing another bush. Quite reckless stupid. ... 40 million youth who gave student debt loans to repay should think their pocket.

    And Vote Bernie
    So to eradicate debt and give hope a chance ..and re bell against big sleazy corporate bankers ...

    macktan894 , 2016-02-28 03:50:28
    I will never vote for her. You'd think that my fellow black citizens would have taken a lesson from the Rahm Emmanuel debacle and refused to be herded into that dark night
    bishoppeter4 -> macktan894 , 2016-02-28 04:16:00
    And I shall certainly never vote for Ms. Wall Street Liar and "Sucker Bill." My vote--come what may--is for THE HON. MR. SANDERS ONLY. He will help the country and working people.
    JackKerouac2 , 2016-02-28 03:49:59
    Big Winners South Carolina Primary.....Wall St & The US WAR Machine....Peace
    Martian_Manhunter , 2016-02-28 03:30:03
    I just calculated the percentage of South Carolina adults that voted in the South Carolina primary . I get 9.8%. Can this be right? If so - the whole thing is a sham & and only a handful of people support Clinton enough to bother going out & voting for her. I guess that also goes for Sanders too.
    raffine -> Martian_Manhunter , 2016-02-28 03:35:59
    The primary involved registered Democratic voters , not the universe of all possible voters or the entire adult citizenry.
    flatulenceodor67 , 2016-02-28 03:28:41
    You can blame this outcome on the corrupt/criminalized/liberalized/administration, of the U.S. Government. Its failure to prosecute/prison Hillary Clinton (SOS) having illegal (off Gov property) private server's, with no government email account. The government had no access or control of classified/top secret emails sent to her private email account.
    livingstonfc -> CurtBrown , 2016-02-28 03:45:15
    I guess you didn't read my post, dickwad. If the populace truly educated themselves and studied the histories of all candidates, Bernie would win by an incredible margin. There is no other candidate.SC is poorly educated:
    South Carolina...
    Percent of students scoring at or above proficient, 2012-2013

    Math - Grade 4 35%
    Math - Grade 8 31%

    Reading - Grade 4 28%
    Reading - Grade 8 29%

    Hence the ridiculous win for Hillary, who has done nothing for African American voters, In fact, she has probably led to the incarceration of many black people in America. Her husband certainly fucked them over.

    Hoa Truong , 2016-02-28 03:12:11
    Hillary Clinton, the most greedy woman in the world, but she couldn't transform a dream comes true in 2008, an unpopulated candidate Barack Obama to be chosen the Democrat's presidential candidate. During 8 years in White House, a first lady seemed quiet, even though the scandal Monica Lewinsky. Moreover, the time she was elected as Senator, she had not any bright idea...when she became the Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary left the black spot of Benghazi that measures the ability of the US president and recently the email scandal could be harmed her campaign. On the other hand, the Democrat should empty the leader, so they chose the recycled candidate for 2016 presidential race. People have not much believed on Hillary despite she launches the campaign well with plenty money supported from somewhere else...However, Hillary Clinton has the right to dream, dream and dream to be the first US female president. The dream is just the hope, but it comes true that belongs to the trust of voters. In the US and Western country's history, there is rare the leader's recycle and presidential recycled candidate, but Hillary is the exception.
    Zendjan , 2016-02-28 03:11:01
    If Hillary gets indicted, and with 150 FBI agents currently investigating the email server/Clinton Foundation scandal, that looks increasingly likely, these SC results will be a fart in a hurricane.

    President Carter's advisor and pollster, longtime Dem operative Pat Caddell, said this about the Clinton Foundation/Email scandal on 2/13/2016:

    "This is the greatest scandal in the history of the United States," Caddell said. "They all ought to be indicted. This is worse than Watergate."

    Clinton, he explained, would soon be exposed for using her connections in the State Department to enrich her family, her foundation, and her supporters.

    "They were selling out the national interests of the United States directly to adversaries and others for money," he said. "There is just nothing that satisfies them. They are the greediest white trash I have ever seen."

    Case in point: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

    Informed17 , 2016-02-28 03:08:33
    If this disgusting liar wins Democratic nomination, I am going to vote Republican for the first time in my life. Even Trump is better that this abomination. At least he calls a spade a spade and does not pretend to be what he isn't.
    africanland123 , 2016-02-28 03:01:01
    In theory there might be a chance for Clinton if she embraced the good stuff Sanders stands for. Is she declared he would be her running mate, and she was incorporating big bits of his program. Is she said that what the US needs now is a New Deal and hers is a new Franklin Roosevelt platform of radical change, control of the banks, crushing of corporate interests etc.

    If she talked like that there is in theory a chance that the Sanders people like myself would be interested. But the trouble is she never will: she belongs to the aggressive neo-liberal ideology of Bill Clinton and only adds to that a dose of vicious special interest corporate feminism and pushing Black special interests. That is not a formula most Americans hungry for change see anything in but sheer rubbish.

    Clinton is a crook and nothing she says can be believed except that she will sell out to crooks.

    onevote , 2016-02-28 02:55:30
    Remember...
    South Carolina means NOTHING in the big picture.
    Dems haven't taken the state since 1976!!
    Ain't nothing but a thang!

    Bring on Super Tuesday!!!

    justdoug -> onevote , 2016-02-28 03:14:07
    For the nomination, it's much more relevant than New Hampshire. NH: 24 delegates. SC: 53 delegates
    africanland123 , 2016-02-28 02:54:10
    The left feels betrayed by the Blacks. For decades we have sweated our guts backing the Blacks and this is how they repay us when there is a real candidate for socialist change.
    CaptCowlick -> africanland123 , 2016-02-28 03:34:06
    The left didn't sweat their guts "backing the blacks" because they were after strategic support. The left did it because it was the proper, human thing to do. That's sort of the difference between the left and the right in their attitudes towards fellow humans: intrinsic worth vs strategic usefulness.

    And the "Blacks" aren't some monolithic cult-like voting body - they're not ants..or Evangelicals...

    Xoxarle -> CaptCowlick , 2016-02-28 02:57:18
    What has the Clinton Dynasty done to make ordinary black lives better?

    The opposite side of that coin is record incarceration flowing from their crime bill, job outsourcing thru trade deals, the seeds of the 2008 crash thru repeal of Glass Steagal, and a 20-year period at the apex of executive and then legislative branch power, but a massive increase in inequality while the Clintons enrich themselves at the hands of the oligarchs.

    CaptCowlick -> Xoxarle , 2016-02-28 03:24:25
    If only that ad was steadily playing across all the TVs of South Carolinians for a month or two before this election..."Clinton: making black lives worse." Then the word "black" is crossed out by a chalk-wielding child's hand and the word "all" is written above it...
    gastinel1 -> CaptCowlick , 2016-02-28 03:38:39
    I get damned irritated when certain people keep using the words racist and misogynist to prevent free debate. If blacks are going to vote as a block then we criticize the behavior of the block. Why did they vote on mass for Clinton? its a legitimate question to be answered.

    I do not believe the female "block" vote is nearly as strong but Clinton is still going to try to use it. And using words with sexual innuendo might be in bad taste but it doesn't make the user a "woman hater" any more than a woman pointing to a man's baldness makes her a man hater.

    paulie73 , 2016-02-28 02:43:24
    Ha, Clinton got more votes than Trump in South Carolina...
    taxhaven , 2016-02-28 02:40:51
    After the disappointment of the Obama regime, you'd be forgiven for wondering why any black voter would ever support someone playing the race/black elite card and so slavishly pandering to ethnic groups...
    somebody_stopme , 2016-02-28 02:38:52
    Voter turn out 2008 - 540000+
    Voter turn out 2016- 360000+

    Clearly shows democrats are going to lose general if they are not motivated and i don't Clinton with her message of keeping same as it is going to inspire many.

    President Trump on the way!!

    icyyeti , 2016-02-28 02:35:21
    black voters are actually rather conservative, hence their support the relatively conservative Hillary
    crap_in -> icyyeti , 2016-02-28 02:41:08
    All voters want jobs, they at least know Hillary does not even care about them.
    Vladimir Makarenko -> icyyeti , 2016-02-28 02:48:09
    South Carolina black communities are very poor, uneducated and centered around their churches, which in turn are controlled by black establishment giving them some money through various social grants. I hope it helps to understand who and how forced black voters there how they have to vote.
    africanland123 , 2016-02-28 02:32:44
    If you cannot have the best you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

    We can't have Sanders and real change. That's clear by now. Thanks, old man, for you great brave effort and for bringing back Socialism to the USA after nearly a century in the dog house. That is an amazing feat in itself --

    So, it's either Black special interests plus aggressive careerist neo-liberal feminism or a glorious and unpredictable populist who shoves the PC gang.

    I am choosing Trump.

    Paul Ryan , 2016-02-28 02:29:17
    This election seems to be about the anti establishment and a change from the status quo. But heres the problem for the Democrats:

    Nationally in the polls, 1 on 1, Trump beats Clinton in a head to head. Sanders beats Trump 1 on 1 in a head to head.

    Assuming Trump wins, Sanders is the more favorable candidate to beat Trump.

    lurgee -> Paul Ryan , 2016-02-28 02:37:45
    Actually, according to Real Clear Politics summary of polls, Clinton beats Trump.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

    Interestingly, Clinton struggles against other Republican candidates.

    Sanders may seem to have a slight advantage against other candidates, but it isn't really a valid comparison. Voters know Clinton. She's been relentlessly attacked for over 20 years. Sanders has barely been mentioned.

    Once the rightwing hate machine goes to work on him, he would likely struggle.

    Carly435 , 2016-02-28 02:17:50
    We interrupt this forum frenzy for a brief PSA:

    February 24th (just 3 days ago) : Reuters poll gives Bernie Sanders lead for nomination

    A national poll shows Bernie Sanders leading Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

    The Reuters poll for "Possible Democratic presidential candidates in 2016" on Tuesday showed Sanders leading Clinton 41.7 percent to 35.5 percent, with 22.9 percent of respondents saying they wouldn't vote. The five-day tracking poll shows Clinton and Sanders swapping leads since Feb. 6, and the Vermont democratic socialist holding the advantage since Feb. 19.

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/reuters-poll-gives-bernie-sanders-lead-nomination/80845364/

    Bigger picture: Bernie was expected to lose by double digits in SC.

    Thank you and carry on.

    prairie , 2016-02-28 02:15:57
    After 8 years of that knucklehead George W. Bush, then 8 more years of the Flim Flam Man Obama, I thought nothing can get any worse than that.....WRONG.
    The world has a new nightmare to wake up to, the sociopath Hillary or the demagogue The Donald.
    Xoxarle -> prairie , 2016-02-28 02:20:09
    At least Trump recognizes the fiasco that was the Iraq war. Hillary isn't the least bit contrite for that vote, nor her role in destabilizing Libya not helping to grow the ISIS threat thru inaction in Iraq.
    Ja Koe , 2016-02-28 02:12:25
    More articles on issues instead of who is ahead in the polls would be much more beneficial to a democracy. I'm so tired of reading the pundits talk about everything but how we can get our government to work for it's citizens, never discussing the pros and cons of the policies each candidate is proposing or fact checking. The "Media" is lazy, corrupt, or both.
    smalltownboy , 2016-02-28 02:11:07
    Let's put this in terms the Bernie bros can understand: Hillary crushed it in South Carolina.
    Larry Stem -> smalltownboy, 2016-02-28 02:17:38
    reality check there HRC-bot: HRC has no chance in SC in the general. consequently, SC is irrelevant

    LOL.

    Adoniran -> smalltownboy, 2016-02-28 02:25:28
    Let me put this in terms you can understand:

    Have fun losing to Republicans in November should the DNC and media establishment successfully force the primary coronation of their queen. All of that legitimate excitement and momentum that Sanders lost will vanish into thin air, and some of it will go to independent and Republican voters. So yuck it up. Americans evidently need to learn a really hard lesson before reality finally penetrates their collective skulls.

    I hope you like oligarchy.

    paulie73 -> Larry Stem , 2016-02-28 02:25:45
    South Carolina sends delegates based on votes won to determine the Democratic nominee. Consequently, SC is relevant. LOL.
    Erik Frederiksen , 2016-02-28 02:11:05
    Anyone who is considering a vote for H Clinton who is also concerned about global warming should know what NASA's former lead climate scientist had to say about her global warming plan:

    ""It's just plain silly," said James Hansen, a climate change researcher who headed Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years. "No, you cannot solve the problem without a fundamental change, and that means you have to make the price of fossil fuels honest. Subsidizing solar panels is not going to solve the problem."

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/29/hillary-clinton-climate-change-plan

    bigsky83 -> Nat Norland , 2016-02-28 02:16:52
    She is just as complicit in the coup against our country. So yeah, we need to grow some spines and start speaking up and acting. No more of this " well she's not AS bad crap." We're losing our democracy, our freedom, our path to a decent life. It's time to wake up. It's Bernie or bust.
    Larry Stem Nat Norland , 2016-02-28 02:20:25
    no, HRC is a republican as in uber hawk, neoliberal, corrupt, wall street toady.
    why would I vote for that?

    the only difference is the repubs are complete Neanderthals, and that's an insult to Neanderthals.

    africanland123 -> Nat Norland , 2016-02-28 02:23:23
    I am sickened at the notion of the old clapped out, crooked Clinton gang back in the White House.

    This is just a crooked coalition of Black special interests and ultra-aggressive feminist careerists.

    Xoxarle , 2016-02-28 02:02:40
    Clinton will lose to Trump, she is just another corrupt establishment candidate that will wither under the same blasts of contempt that sunk Bush, Walker, Rubio and Graham, the war hawk neocon conservatives that are her ideological bedfellows.

    This is a massive tactical error by Af-Am voters whose fidelity to a dynastic family who have only delivered misery to their communities, while taking money from her Wall Street paymasters, is perverse. What has she done for them?

    tesla35 , 2016-02-28 01:58:36
    My dear blacks, you are not only ruining your future, but also many others'.You have been made a vote bank for the corrupted establishment; it is a pity that you are not realizing.
    Woops1gottasneeze , 2016-02-28 01:51:21
    People get what they deserve. So sad America. Same thing on the other side of the aisle with Trump. I guess America is bought and sold. You can stick a fork in it!
    DianaInLA , 2016-02-28 01:47:11
    The environment that supports human life is hanging by a thread. The people who vote for the 1%'er Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, Military-Industrial complex candidate will be held to account. This election is not a joke. It's between a political revolution and one in the streets.
    polisalwaysright -> DianaInLA , 2016-02-28 01:53:17

    The people who vote for the 1%'er Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, Military-Industrial complex candidate will be held to account.

    Do you think most of the people who voted for Hillary today even know about the crimes of Goldman Sachs?

    polisalwaysright , 2016-02-28 01:44:19
    Looks like the Sanders revolution is already over. One can't become president of the US now without winning a significant portion of the Black and Hispanic community vote (Bernie's liberal voters are learning this the hard way). Obama won around 98% of the black vote in 2012. That's North Korea tier numbers! Hillary Clinton will get similar percentage of votes among minorities in 2016.

    The US is heading in the direction of Brasil (this is not a good thing). Elections from now will be decided mainly by demographics rather than policies of the candidates.

    ID7004073 , 2016-02-28 01:43:55
    Everyone, especially African- American voters in the South should just remember that at 50% employment there is still 50% more unemployment if they vote to continue the Clinton Dynasty. Then it will be too late.

    Hillary has always been untrustworthy!

    Free2Fly , 2016-02-28 01:20:59
    "In a statement released by his campaign, Sanders said: " Let me be clear on one thing tonight. This campaign is just beginning ."

    Yes, it has just begun, -Media Blackout as thousands of Bernie Sanders supporters march in 45 Cities.

    http://usuncut.com/politics/media-blackout-as-thousands-of-bernie-supporters-march-in-45-cities/

    PostTrotskyite , 2016-02-28 01:15:57
    Hillary should be running her campaign from a jail cell.

    Her most recent charges of corruption have to do with infiltrating the corporate media:
    https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign

    [Feb 27, 2016] Clinton Trump both representatives of oligarchy - Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate

    Notable quotes:
    "... How is your campaign going? ..."
    "... Let me assume that Donald Trump will be the Republican Party candidate and Hillary Clinton for the Democrats. Give me your thumb nails sketch of those two likely opponents. ..."
    RT Op-Edge
    George Galloway interviews the presidential candidate of the US Green Party, Jill Stein, 'a better woman than Clinton; a better democrat than Sanders!'

    George Galloway: How is your campaign going?

    Dr. Jill Stein: It is going great, it is going game busters. There is a rebellion going on in the US, as in much of the world, and for good reason - we are in crisis and people really want to see change. You cannot have a revolution inside of a counter-revolutionary party. This is a big, deep and long fight. And it can't simply be passed on to Hillary Clinton and we think that Bernie Sanders is running a very principled and powerful campaign; he is riding that wave of revolt. But unfortunately he is in a party that has a track record for basically sabotaging its rebels. It has done a good job of doing that in the past from Dennis Kucinich to Jesse Jackson to Howard Dean, whether they use a PR campaign like the 'Dean's scream' to bring down the Dean candidacy. Also Jesse Jackson was sabotaged by a PR by the DNC. The Democratic Party has its ways of reigning people in if they try to rebel. The bottom line is that we are in political system in the US, which is funded by predatory banks and fossil fueled giants and war profiteers. So, we really need to reject that system, we say to reject the lesser evil so we can stand up and really fight for the greater good.

    G.G: Let me assume that Donald Trump will be the Republican Party candidate and Hillary Clinton for the Democrats. Give me your thumb nails sketch of those two likely opponents.

    J.S: Unfortunately, they have an awful lot in common. They both support a very strong military, they support a budget in which 54 percent of our tax dollars are discretionary budget is going to the military to fight these wars which are not making us or the world a safer place. They are firing back at us madly, creating failed states and refugee crisis and worst terrorist threats actually. So, they both fail to see the picture on that account. They are both very much representatives of the oligarchy: Hillary Clinton who was on the Board of Directors for Walmart.

    There is no more oppressive corporation for workers' rights and women than Walmart, who never found a word that she didn't support. Donald Trump – it is hard to say exactly where he stands because he changes his mind all the time. One thing is very clear, he is not friendly to immigrants. For him not to understand that in our country we are all immigrants and in fact that immigrants are really the vitality and the diversity of our communities, our economy, our culture. This is a very dangerous thing - this is a slippery slope to fascism. There is nothing inspiring, enlightened about either of those campaigns.

    They are both representatives of oligarchy and at this point it is unclear whether the Republicans will allow Donald Trump to be nominated. There is talk now Paul Ryan being a brokered candidate at the Republican convention. He is sort of the establishment of the Republican Party, which is very much at war with Donald Trump.

    ... ... ...

    [Feb 26, 2016] Can a Christian Party Survive

    Notable quotes:
    "... Christian Right candidates have always had a difficult task in running for president (none has ever even gotten close to the nomination) but their even worse track record this cycle-in contrast to that of Donald Trump-is a perfect window into trends that will set the pace of American politics for decades to come: Americans are moving away from Christianity, including people most likely to vote Republican. In this changed politics, which exists right now, the GOP can only hope to succeed by greatly expanding its appeal to non-Christians. ..."
    "... While the process of secularization has been slower-moving in the U.S. compared to Europe, it is now proceeding rapidly. ..."
    "... The trend away from faith is only bound to increase with time. ..."
    "... Looked at over the longer term, the trend is even more discernible. In 1972, just 5.1 percent of Americans said they had no religious affiliation, according to the University of Chicago's General Social Survey . In 2014, that number was 20.7 percent, an increase of more than 400 percent. ..."
    The American Conservative
    In the past several years, many trees have been felled and pixels electrocuted in the service of discussion about the impact of Hispanics on the American electorate. No one knows for sure which way they'll vote in the future but everyone is interested in discussing it. Curiously, though, an even larger political shift is taking place yet receiving almost no attention whatsoever from political reporters-the emergence of post-Christian America.

    Judging solely from the rhetoric and actions of the Republican presidential candidates this cycle, you would be hard-pressed to tell much difference between 2016 and 1996, the year that the Christian Coalition was ruling the roost in GOP politics. Sure there's a lot more talk about the Middle East than before, but when it comes to public displays of religiosity, many of the would-be presidents have spent the majority of their candidacies effectively auditioning for slots on the Trinity Broadcast Network.

    Even Donald Trump, the thrice-married casino magnate turned television host, has gone about reincarnating himself as a devout Christian, despite his evident lack of familiarity with the doctrines and practices of the faith.

    Thus far, however, the public faith efforts of the candidates not married to a former nude model have all been for naught. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, both of whom won Iowa in past years, dropped out after failing dismally in the Hawkeye State's caucuses. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal quit months before even a single vote had been cast. Texas senator Ted Cruz, despite being significantly better financed and supported by more conservative leaders than previous Christian nationalist candidates, hasn't been able to do more than eke out a victory in Iowa.

    Christian Right candidates have always had a difficult task in running for president (none has ever even gotten close to the nomination) but their even worse track record this cycle-in contrast to that of Donald Trump-is a perfect window into trends that will set the pace of American politics for decades to come: Americans are moving away from Christianity, including people most likely to vote Republican. In this changed politics, which exists right now, the GOP can only hope to succeed by greatly expanding its appeal to non-Christians.

    While the process of secularization has been slower-moving in the U.S. compared to Europe, it is now proceeding rapidly. A 2014 study by Pew Research found that 23 percent of Americans say they're "unaffiliated" with any religious tradition, up from 20 percent just 3 years earlier. The Public Religion Research Institute confirmed the statistic as well with a 2014 poll based on 50,000 interviews indicating that 23 percent of respondents were unaffiliated.

    The trend away from faith is only bound to increase with time. According to Pew, about 36 percent of adults under the age of 50 have opted out of religion. At present, claiming no faith is the fastest growing "religion" in the United States. Between 2007 and 2012, the number of people claiming "nothing in particular" increased by 2.3 percent, those saying they were agnostics increased by 1.2 percent and those claiming to be atheists increased by 0.8 percent. No actual religious group has experienced anywhere near such growth during this time period.

    Looked at over the longer term, the trend is even more discernible. In 1972, just 5.1 percent of Americans said they had no religious affiliation, according to the University of Chicago's General Social Survey. In 2014, that number was 20.7 percent, an increase of more than 400 percent.

    [Feb 26, 2016] A Unified Theory of Trump by Timothy Egan

    NYT is pro-Hillary neocon establishment influenced rag. One apt observation from NYT comments: "Trump's assertions about sleep should be taken with the grain of salt that all his other grandiose proclamations deserve. I suspect he makes those claims just to prove what an exceptional human he is. He doesn't even need to sleep much!" Trumps come and go, but the deluded, totally brainwashed electorate will stay. That's the real problem. Degradation of democracy into oligarchy (the iron law of oligarchy) is an objective process. Currently what we see is some kind revolt against status quo. that's why Trump and Sanders get so many supporters.
    Another one from comments: "Over the years, Pew surveys show that at least 60% of those polled can't name two branches of the government. Current campaigns, including that of Sanders, imply that the POTUS has a wide range of powers that are to be found nowhere in the Constitution." So none of Repug candidates understand this document. And still I must admit that "Trump is the best in breed when it comes to this GOP dog show." I agree that "Trump punches above his weight in debates "
    NYT will never tell you why Hillary will be even more dangerous president.
    Only a sleep disorder physician following a full-night study could tell us whether the diagnosis is clinically sound. This guy from NYT is a regular uneducated journo, not a certified physician. Why insult people who truly suffer from sleep deprivation? So all of them are obnoxious maniacs? To me a large part of his behavior is a typical alpha-male behavior. There are, in fact, a number of brilliant, driven alpha-males who function well with a bare amount of sleep. That may be an evolutionary trait that help them to achieve dominance. For example, Napoleon rarely slept more than 2-3 hours per 24-hour period, according to several historians. Churchill stayed up several nights in a row reading Hansard in his formative years and he was a gifted orator, one of the sharpest wits. He also was an alcoholic. Several famous famous mathematicians were among sleep deprived people. Like photographic memory this is a unique idiosyncrasy that is more frequent in alpha-males, not necessary a disease. BTW Angela Merkel is noted for her ability not to sleep for several nights, wearing her opponents into shreds via sleep deprivation and enforcing her decisions over the rest. That was last demonstrated in Minsk were she managed even to get Putin to agree on her terms.
    He mentions this term "alpha male" despite the fact that it provides an alternative explanation. Also as one reader commented "So please explain the positions (and behaviors ) of Ayatollah Cruz and rubber man Rubio." Those two backstabbing pseudo-religious demagog got implicit support from the article.
    How about this from sleep deprived person vs one definitely non-sleep deprive person (Jeb!): "Donald Trump joins the fight to release the secret 28 Pages of the 9/11 Report."
    Notable quotes:
    "... This is Time's contribution to the growing movement to discredit Trump. Every candidate can be similarly eviscerated for their weaknesses, including character flaws. The problem is that our American system of electing leadership is deeply flawed and easily manipulated by advertising. The humiliating process of campaigning drives away our best prospects, leaving the country with weak, inconsistent leadership. ..."
    "... gemli, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton pursued a regime change in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. They got away with their foolish adventure by saying that Gaddafi was a bad guy, Assad is a bad guy and Putin is a bad guy. ..."
    "... Mr. Trump is the sole American politician who is willing to say that we should cooperate with Putin. He is the only Republican to be open to single payer health care, the only Republican to say something good about Planned Parenthood and the only Republican to say that Bush should have been impeached for the Iraq war. ..."
    "... Hillary Rodham and Marco Rubio are so awful that we would be better off with a nasty, sleep-deprived Trump. Besides, there is still a much better alternative: the irascible Bernie Sanders. He may be angry, but you would have to be crazy to not be angry with the mess we now have to live with: a rigged economy, free trade , politics corrupted by money, and an insatiable Military Industrial Complex. ..."
    "... A lot of people are angry and Trump is channeling that anger. Sanders is channeling a different anger but he is too nice, and will lose to Mrs. Clinton who is supported by the establishment. ..."
    "... He, I believe is also the first American politician to say openly that we have to cooperate with Russia if we are really serious about taking on ISIS. Mr. Obama, with his Harvard education, has NO idea what to do about the ME and is floundering around. Meanwhile Russia and Assad and the Kurds are taking the lead, and our allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actually undermining the war against ISIS. ..."
    "... I would not vote for Trump but if he does become president, we might actually have peace in the Middle East and we might actually have single payer health care. On the second, almost all the Democrats will support him and so will at least some Republicans. ..."
    "... Trump is not a nice man but he might not be a disaster as president. ..."
    "... Trump is right about one thing, He does make your head spin. ..."
    "... I just finished reading 4 opinion columns by Bruni, Brooks, Krugman and lastly Tim Egans, all published on Feb 26th. (May the last be first and the first last.) I hope Kasich wins to invoke a civil exchange of ideas in American politics, but I will vote for Bernie ..."
    "... I imagine the Asians and/or Europe all laughing at us now, but at least there not shouting and acting like children. Help me, Im drowning. Give me a leader who can compromise in that great noble tradition which benefits everyone. Its called compassion for the global family. ..."
    "... Ambler in Background to Danger has a small meditation about politics being not much of anything other than a face behind which the true story goes on, one of big business interests--or in general, economic interests. ..."
    "... With Donald Trump the Republican party in the U.S. seems to have dropped the politics mask -- you have a combination of business and fascistic impulses. The question however, is why. Could it be because now all nations in the world find themselves hemmed, with a landlocked feeling like Germany had prior to outbreak of WW2? These business/authoritarian impulses today are not confined to the U.S. alone. ..."
    "... how to satisfy in simple basics the restless masses of millions upon millions of people, everything else, not to mention culture, just collapsing in a crowd discussion of who gets what, when, where, why, and how. ..."
    "... Whats defective about Trump? He is obviously doing very well for himself - he is the likely Republican nominee and is not exactly starving despite multiple bankruptcies. ..."
    "... There are real problems with politics in the US and Trump is getting support partly because he at least shows some signs, however delusionary, of addressing the concerns of the 99%. ..."
    "... Why are Democrats so concerned that Donald Trump might be the Republican Partys nominee for President that the NY Times trots out editorials psychobabbling about his sleep deprivation? ..."
    "... Trump may be all that the intellectual elite deride him for. Guess what? The people who support him dont care. They are tired of being told how to think by people who suppose themselves to be their betters. They will cast their votes and throw their support behind whomever they please, thank-you very much. ..."
    "... And really, does Timothy Egan really believe Donald Trump doesnt know what hes doing or saying? Because of sleep deprivation? Note to Mr. Egan: Whatever is Trumps sleep schedule, it seems to be working well for him. Hes winning. ..."
    "... Trump functions well enough to understand this: (1) The media is deceptive with an agenda of its own. (2) Big donors and big money control the career politicians. 93) Politicians can talk talk talk and make plans and policy and get nothing done. ..."
    "... Trump and his supporters are on to all this now. The corrupt media, the corrupt big money and the all talk no action politicians. That is functioning well enough. Trump does not need to function beyond that. His supporters know it and he knows it. ..."
    "... So far the best and the brightest highly educated intellectuals have let the USA down . Trump has a certain kind of intelligence that might be just what we need. He effectively cut through a crowded Republican field packed with ideological purists like a knife through butter. He is a very talented New Yorker who grew up in the 60s and went to Fordham before he went to Wharton. If you want to stick your finger in the collective eye of the elite . vote for Trump. ..."
    "... The republican party is the reactionary party. They are a little like the Sicilians described in the novel The Leopard where it is said that In Sicily it doesnt matter whether things are done well or done badly; the sin which we Sicilians never forgive is simply that of doing at all. ..."
    "... The Taibbi piece can be found here at this link: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-... ..."
    "... Better a sleep deprived bully than a well rested one, which what the rest of the bunch are. They clearly know exactly how to ruin the country and antagonize our allies. ..."
    "... As you are reading this, recall how a stressful event in your own life interfered with your sleep. Well, given the frantic nature of the current Republican primary season, the travel, the debates, the probing press, the TV interviews, the speeches, the insults and whats at stake, all of the candidates must be sleep deprived. If they were not they wouldnt be human. Donald will do just fine once he becomes president and gets use to the job (or not). ..."
    "... But what about those who hold those same obnoxious ideas arguably sans sleep deprivation? Palin, Cruz, Carson? Please do a series of columns linking the apparent absence of reason in many of the GOP candidates with the current DSM. ..."
    "... I used to ridicule President Reagans legendary afternoon naps. Now I am the age Reagan was as president, and I dont think I could function without napping when I dont get enough sleep at night. ..."
    "... What is happening now is not about Trump. Its about what he represents. I dont normally read Peggy Noonan but she nails it today. There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully. ..."
    Feb 26, 2016 | The New York Times
    michael kittle
    vaison la romaine, france 17 hours ago

    This is Tim's contribution to the growing movement to discredit Trump. Every candidate can be similarly eviscerated for their weaknesses, including character flaws. The problem is that our American system of electing leadership is deeply flawed and easily manipulated by advertising. The humiliating process of campaigning drives away our best prospects, leaving the country with weak, inconsistent leadership.

    The founding fathers rejected a parliamentary system because it was like England's, but history indicates America could have avoided many political debacles if it had been easier to remove incompetent presidents when their decisions threatened the country. Modernizing our electoral system, shortening the campaign time, and raising the level of debate could improve the choices Americans are given.

    Rohit
    New York 8 hours ago

    gemli, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton pursued a regime change in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. They got away with their foolish adventure by saying that Gaddafi was a bad guy, Assad is a bad guy and Putin is a bad guy.

    And maybe they are right about these people being bad guys. But the regime change policy has been a disaster. WE did not spend a trillion dollars and no AMERICAN troops died. But hundreds of thousands of Syrians are dead, millions knocking at Germany's door and Greece is overwhelmed with refugees. This was all the doing of the "Obama team".

    Mr. Trump is the sole American politician who is willing to say that we should cooperate with Putin. He is the only Republican to be open to single payer health care, the only Republican to say something good about Planned Parenthood and the only Republican to say that Bush should have been impeached for the Iraq war.

    YOU just see a nasty man in the Republican debates who talks nonsense and has no trouble lying. And that nasty mean does seem to be there, although given Trump, the nasty man might well be a façade who will vanish as soon as he faces the general election.

    And you need to be aware of the fact that some of his positions are actually sensible and he is the only politician who has all these positions.

    Unfortunately you guys hate Republicans so much that you see red any time you see one and that red in your eyes prevents you from seeing clearly.

    Timothy Bal

    Central Jersey 16 hours ago
    A sleep-deprived Trump is still much better than a fully rested tool of the elites from either political party.

    Hillary Rodham and Marco Rubio are so awful that we would be better off with a nasty, sleep-deprived Trump. Besides, there is still a much better alternative: the irascible Bernie Sanders. He may be angry, but you would have to be crazy to not be angry with the mess we now have to live with: a rigged economy, "free trade", politics corrupted by money, and an insatiable Military Industrial Complex.

    Rohit, New York 9 hours ago
    A lot of people are angry and Trump is channeling that anger. Sanders is channeling a different anger but he is too nice, and will lose to Mrs. Clinton who is supported by the establishment.

    Trump is mean enough to take on the establishment, and win. And he is the first Republican brave enough to say that Planned Parenthood DOES do some good work. Like him, I do NOT think they should receive federal funding but that some or most of their work is actually health related is a fact.

    He, I believe is also the first American politician to say openly that we have to cooperate with Russia if we are really serious about taking on ISIS. Mr. Obama, with his Harvard education, has NO idea what to do about the ME and is floundering around. Meanwhile Russia and Assad and the Kurds are taking the lead, and our "allies" Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actually undermining the war against ISIS.

    I would not vote for Trump but if he does become president, we might actually have peace in the Middle East and we might actually have single payer health care. On the second, almost all the Democrats will support him and so will at least some Republicans.

    Trump is not a nice man but he might not be a disaster as president.

    Bob SE PA 6 hours ago

    Mr. Egan, Donald Trump may or may not suffer from sleep deprivation. He definitely suffers from something called NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He has the classic symptoms which are described as follows, according to the Mayo Clinic http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-d... :

    "DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

    1. Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
    2. Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
    3. Exaggerating your achievements and talents
    4. Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
    5. Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
    6. Requiring constant admiration
    7. Having a sense of entitlement
    8. Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
    9. Taking advantage of others to get what you want
    10. Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
    11. Being envious of others and believing others envy you
    12. Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner"

    bill b new york 16 hours ago

    Trump is right about one thing, He does make your head spin.

    Paul Greensboro, NC 11 hours ago

    I just finished reading 4 opinion columns by Bruni, Brooks, Krugman and lastly Tim Egan's, all published on Feb 26th. (May the last be first and the first last.) I hope Kasich wins to invoke a civil exchange of ideas in American politics, but I will vote for Bernie or Hilary assuming an asteroid does not hit the earth before then.

    I imagine the Asians and/or Europe all laughing at us now, but at least the're not shouting and acting like children. Help me, I'm drowning. Give me a leader who can compromise in that great noble tradition which benefits everyone. It's called compassion for the global family.

    Daniel12 Wash. D.C. 14 hours ago

    Donald Trump?

    I'm on a project to read four (the four I could find so far) of the six Eric Ambler novels written prior to WW2. I'm on the second, "Background to Danger", now. Ambler in "Background to Danger" has a small meditation about politics being not much of anything other than a face behind which the true story goes on, one of big business interests--or in general, economic interests.

    With Donald Trump the Republican party in the U.S. seems to have dropped the politics mask -- you have a combination of business and fascistic impulses. The question however, is why. Could it be because now all nations in the world find themselves hemmed, with a landlocked feeling like Germany had prior to outbreak of WW2? These business/authoritarian impulses today are not confined to the U.S. alone.

    Worse, the opposition to big business, the other big economic theory of past decades, the socialistic/communistic trend, has been seen in practice whether we speak of Cuba or the Soviet Union or Venezuela or China. It seems all the masks of politics are coming off, all the ideals such as democracy, rights, communism, what have you and instead the argument is turning to actual and naked discussion of interests pure and simple, right and left wing economics, how to satisfy in simple basics the restless masses of millions upon millions of people, everything else, not to mention culture, just collapsing in a crowd discussion of who gets what, when, where, why, and how.

    The open boat.

    skeptonomist is a trusted commenter Tennessee 11 hours ago

    What's defective about Trump? He is obviously doing very well for himself - he is the likely Republican nominee and is not exactly starving despite multiple bankruptcies.

    What needs analysis is why so many people support Trump - what's up with them? And what defects in the establishments of both parties cause so many people to reject their selected dynastic picks.

    There are real problems with politics in the US and Trump is getting support partly because he at least shows some signs, however delusionary, of addressing the concerns of the 99%.

    Beachbum Paris 14 hours ago

    This is all thanks to Rupert Murdoch

    S.D.Keith Birmigham, AL 7 hours ago

    Why are Democrats so concerned that Donald Trump might be the Republican Party's nominee for President that the NY Times trots out editorials psychobabbling about his sleep deprivation?

    This is hilarious stuff. Trump may be all that the intellectual elite deride him for. Guess what? The people who support him don't care. They are tired of being told how to think by people who suppose themselves to be their betters. They will cast their votes and throw their support behind whomever they please, thank-you very much. That, much to the chagrin of the Progressive idealists who always believe they know better what people should need and want, is democracy in action. It may be ugly at times, but it is much preferred over every other form of governance.

    In fact, articles like this, while red meat for establishmentarian dogs, serve only to strengthen Trump's bona fides among his supporters.

    And really, does Timothy Egan really believe Donald Trump doesn't know what he's doing or saying? Because of sleep deprivation? Note to Mr. Egan: Whatever is Trump's sleep schedule, it seems to be working well for him. He's winning.

    J. San Ramon 9 hours ago

    Trump functions well enough to understand this: (1) The media is deceptive with an agenda of its own. (2) Big donors and big money control the career politicians. 93) Politicians can talk talk talk and make plans and policy and get nothing done.

    Trump and his supporters are on to all this now. The corrupt media, the corrupt big money and the all talk no action politicians. That is functioning well enough. Trump does not need to function beyond that. His supporters know it and he knows it.

    Scott, NYC 7 hours ago

    Another cheap hit piece by the Times. Just to fact check Mr. Egan. Trump just did very, very well with Hispanics in Nevada. So who's delusional?

    AVT, Glen Cove, NY 7 hours ago

    So far the best and the brightest highly educated intellectuals have let the USA down . Trump has a certain kind of intelligence that might be just what we need. He effectively cut through a crowded Republican field packed with ideological purists like a knife through butter. He is a very talented New Yorker who grew up in the 60s and went to Fordham before he went to Wharton. If you want to stick your finger in the collective eye of the "elite". vote for Trump. This message brought to you by a hugely "bigly" educated Queens lawyer. go Redmen

    Excellency, is a trusted commenter Florida 9 hours ago

    The republican party is the reactionary party. They are a little like the Sicilians described in the novel "The Leopard" where it is said that" In Sicily it doesn't matter whether things are done well or done badly; the sin which we Sicilians never forgive is simply that of 'doing' at all."

    Imagine a man of action like Trump navigating that population, from which great jurists like Scalia emerge, and you have Trump behaving much as Egan describes and succeeding. Indeed, in that same novel it is said that "to rage and mock is gentlemanly, to grumble and whine is not."

    S.R. Simon, Bala Cynwyd, Pa. 9 hours ago

    Matt Taibbi's pitch-perfect HOW AMERICA MADE DONALD TRUMP UNSTOPPABLE (Rolling Stone, Feb. 24) says it all, and to perfection. The Taibbi piece can be found here at this link: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-...

    Nora01, New England 9 hours ago

    Better a sleep deprived bully than a well rested one, which what the rest of the bunch are. They clearly know exactly how to ruin the country and antagonize our allies.

    nzierler, New Hartford 9 hours ago

    Ever wonder why Trump invokes the name of Carl Ihkan every chance he gets? Both engage in hostile takeovers. That's the predatory side of business. But how does that qualify Trump to be the Commander-In-Chief? I would not be surprised if a frustrated President Trump threatened to punch Vladimir Putin in the face. The very thought of President Trump is a nightmare, but no less a nightmare than President Cruz or President Rubio.

    Dan Weber, Anchorage, Alaska 9 hours ago

    John Kenneth Galbraith, who was in parts of his career intimate with government (including being American ambassador to India during the 1962 China-India War) said in his autobiography that sleep deprivation was the least-appreciated weakness of high-level decision makers in times of crisis.

    Somewhere I've read of an experiment that concluded that someone who hasn't slept for 36 hours is as dysfunctional as if he were legally intoxicated. And I recall Colin Powell praising Ambien as the only thing that allowed him to travel as he had to. That's interesting, given Ambien's well-known potential amnesic side-effects.

    Mike, San Diego 9 hours ago

    As you are reading this, recall how a stressful event in your own life interfered with your sleep. Well, given the frantic nature of the current Republican primary season, the travel, the debates, the probing press, the TV interviews, the speeches, the insults and what's at stake, all of the candidates must be sleep deprived. If they were not they wouldn't be human. Donald will do just fine once he becomes president and gets use to the job (or not).

    Carrollian, NY 9 hours ago

    But what about those who hold those same obnoxious ideas arguably sans sleep deprivation? Palin, Cruz, Carson? Please do a series of columns linking the apparent absence of reason in many of the GOP candidates with the current DSM.

    Richard Grayson, Brooklyn, NY 11 hours ago

    Good call, though I suspect most presidential candidates need a lot more sleep. A friend of mine who lived near Michael Dukakis saw him a few weeks after the 1988 election, and he recounted that the Democratic presidential candidate said he was now sleeping so much better, that in the hectic pace of a campaign, he wasn't able to take the time to learn "what was really going on" and to process everything.

    I used to ridicule President Reagan's legendary afternoon naps. Now I am the age Reagan was as president, and I don't think I could function without napping when I don't get enough sleep at night.

    There's a campaign trope about who you want to be in the White House when an emergency call about a serious world crisis comes in at 3 a.m. I want him or her to be someone who didn't just go to sleep at 2 a.m.

    CNNNNC, CT 11 hours ago

    What is happening now is not about Trump. It's about what he represents. I don't normally read Peggy Noonan but she nails it today. "There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

    The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful-those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created."

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-rise-of-the-unprotected-145644...

    Making the election about Trump personally conveniently ignores this new reality.

    [Feb 25, 2016] US election: Is it time to Ebb with Jeb?

    Notable quotes:
    "... American politics is all about selling a candidate to mostly ignorant, shallow, and gullible voters. There is significant truth in such a contentious assumption. Look at some of the characters of past presidents and today take a hard look at the candidates. It is a pretty scary bunch. While knowledge can be acquired, moral values and character cannot. Voters get what they deserve so be careful. ..."
    "... Its very undemocratic to elect successive members of a dynasty, and really ironic since America is built on immigrants fleeing despotic European monarchies. It seems as though people in the US need to construct a mythological back story to strengthen their confidence in the world. Maybe behind the American Dream is a feeling that unrestrained capitalism is too powerful and too unjust? ..."
    www.bbc.com
    347. Posted by Chris A on 6 Feb 2016 23:55

    343. Remember it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0G9-_v_Yo quite the scariest politician America ever spawned! His sanctimonious psychopathy included torture and the killing of at least 100,000 in Iraq without a second of remorse.

    Ted Cruz is following in Jr's whako footsteps: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/here-am-i-lord-use-me-ted-cruzs-dad-says-holy-ghost-authorized-white-house-run/

    346. Posted by Tinkersdamn on 6 Feb 2016 20:37

    So the vampire-squid strokes its chin with one tentacle while proclaiming it's too big to jail, big enough to take the country down, and big media takes a pass ---- whole lotta ebbing with J E B going on.

    344. Posted by What no bonus on 6 Feb 2016 20:02

    Beammeup

    I disagree that USA is finished. Yes it has far too much debt, but it has a relatively small population compared to both its geographic size and natural resources.
    Big issue in next 50 years will be food production given the world population will top 10 billion by 2050 and on current growth 28 billion by 2100.
    Current immigration issues in Europe & US will be nothing by comparison

    342. Posted by beammeup on 6 Feb 2016 19:18

    Why are the candidates....liberal or conservative....spending millions to win the presidency???????? Does it matter to the puppet master who wins????????

    340. Posted by beammeup on 6 Feb 2016 18:23

    @339 Chris A
    ----
    Hello Chris.most people are aware and agree with your point of view....even the Americans. They just don't have anyone to vote for so have to pick the best of a bad lot. Why would anyone spend millions on a campaign for the presidency...when the wage for the presidency is what ...perhaps $200,000.00 per year. Maybe its the power. I think the USofA is finished...watch China.

    339. Posted by Chris A on 6 Feb 2016 17:41

    Jeb's brother (Jr), Rumsfeld & Cheney were directly responsible for this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35511425 and regrettable that Obama would prefer a cover up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/americas/8048774.stm For shame, America!

    338. Posted by Transfixed by the Lights of an Oncoming Locomotive on 6 Feb 2016 15:13

    @ 337 Chris A

    If you get a chance Chris read Big Oil ,,,, it's a hell of a read.

    So unbelievable that some of it is unbelievable if you know what I mean.

    337. Posted by Chris A on 6 Feb 2016 15:09

    334. Hard to argue: "The Bush's, some of the most dangerous characters on this Planet." The US Supreme Court (loaded by Bush Jr) has enacted some pretty extreme positions: 2nd Amendment 'Well regulated militia.. ' repeal*, Citizen's United, Voters Rights Act repeal, Hobby lobby, etc. * Two Justices' are downright scary: http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/scotus-refuses-to-hear-2nd-amendment-ass

    334. Posted by Transfixed by the Lights of an Oncoming Locomotive on 6 Feb 2016 14:28

    'Big Oil & Their Bankers In The Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network'

    The Bush's, some of the most dangerous characters on this Planet.
    May they never see the light of day.

    333. Posted by Chris A on 6 Feb 2016 14:26

    332. Certainly not boring (sociopaths rarely are), Bush Jr's 8 years drove America to its lowest point since the Civil War! Jr won Florida by 500 votes in 2000 as Jeb eliminated 48,000 blacks from the voter pool ('scrub lists') - criminality of the highest order: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_And of course, 'The Voting Rights Act of 1965' was repealed by the SC last year!

    332. Posted by Jim on 6 Feb 2016 14:08

    John Bush is simply boring. I didn't care for his brother but at least he didn't bore me. Too many of us remember Governor Bush canceling a recount on the advice of John Roberts so the conservative State Supreme court could appoint his brother, the second place finisher as the winner of the presidential election

    331. Posted by Chris A on 6 Feb 2016 13:06

    320. Jeb Bush can't relate to the 'anger' in America (as Bernie and Donald manage to navigate): http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35406324 as he and his brother (Jr) were instrumental in maintaining the factors that led to the decline of middle class incomes and jobs: offshoring, business consolidation (anti trust dumped by Reagan) & a fearful public as a consequence of continuous-war since 2003.

    330. Posted by What no bonus on 6 Feb 2016 12:14

    The real issue is that none of the candidates have come up with a solution to the fix the problem of the impact of globalisation on the middle classes - who previously if they got a college degree and worked hard would be rewarded with a good standard of living, that's no longer a guarantee (although it helps).....

    Trump is coming with ideas (protectionist rubbish) buts it's making an impact.

    321. Posted by Chris A on 6 Feb 2016 00:46

    What is the product Jeb can offer? His brother (Jr) set the Middle East on fire: for-profit Iraq war debacle that left that country ungovernable. Similarly Yemen, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt have deposed dictators and are ungovernable. Assad in Syria, under attack by the US, created Isil - The US is the ME bad actor! http://www.thenation.com/article/the-biggest-winners-of-the-arab-spring-dictators/

    320. Posted by margaret howard on 6 Feb 2016 00:43

    315 What

    ´The British monarch can:

    Choose the Prime Minister

    Dismiss ministers and governments

    Dissolve Parliament

    Refuse to agree to legislation passed by Parliament

    Dismiss the governments of other countries of which she is monarch

    Pardon convicted criminals


    Declare a state of emergency

    Issue proclamations

    Command the army and raise a personal militia

    317. Posted by Liberal is a Religion on 6 Feb 2016 00:38

    At least Hillary can make even Vladimir Putin laugh, with her reset button buffoonery.
    She probably tells people about having to dodge sniper fire to get it to him.
    She would probably turn to dust, if she every accidentally told the truth.

    303. Posted by margaret howard on 5 Feb 2016 23:03

    I know of no other major country in the world that has turned its elections into such never ending razzmatazz. It sounds more like the carnival in Rio than the serious business of electing a leader.

    At time it is even reminiscent of the beer hall oratory in thirties Munich.

    299. Posted by Encif on 5 Feb 2016 22:00

    A relevant question, perhaps, is whether the United States is governable? Conflicting and unrealistic expectations are the daily menu. Politicians made promises about everything and anything without care. A nation so diverse in moral values and character cannot endure for long.

    296. Posted by Encif on 5 Feb 2016 21:43

    American politics is all about selling a candidate to mostly ignorant, shallow, and gullible voters. There is significant truth in such a contentious assumption. Look at some of the characters of past presidents and today take a hard look at the candidates. It is a pretty scary bunch. While knowledge can be acquired, moral values and character cannot. Voters get what they deserve so be careful.

    292. Posted by Gus72 on 5 Feb 2016 21:05

    "Money can't buy you votes".

    Surely Jon Sopel doesn't actually believe that when it's no secret all but two candidates receive similar funding?

    Just because the money invested in Bush didn't pay off doesn't mean the same billionaires, corporations & superPACS will stop buying other politicians. They still have Cruz, Rubio & Clinton to act in their best interest.

    287. Posted by Skull-And-Crossbones on 5 Feb 2016 20:28

    Posted by claudiusrex hours ago

    All the Republicans are disgustingly shallow in character and intelligence some like Ted Cruz are positively sinister ... Son of Satan ... Cruz's unbelievable vile bigotry and religious pathology can be examined first hand... Stupidity seems a Republican requirement...
    -------------
    Why so unfair by excluding the Democrats from that?
    Touch of bias? ;-)

    274. Posted by Philip Iszatt on 5 Feb 2016 19:51

    It's very undemocratic to elect successive members of a dynasty, and really ironic since America is built on immigrants fleeing despotic European monarchies. It seems as though people in the US need to construct a mythological back story to strengthen their confidence in the world. Maybe behind the American Dream is a feeling that unrestrained capitalism is too powerful and too unjust?

    [Feb 25, 2016] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/22/marco-rubio-cant-win-nevada-caucuses-us-election-2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... From Mormonism to Catholicism, huh? From magical underwear to magical hats, that's a track record of success. ..."
    "... Zero experience but gee he looks good in a tailored suit and high heels. ..."
    "... Trump's going to win and campaign on a platform of putting Hillary in jail ..."
    "... Bear in mind that Rubio is endorsed and funded by both Adelson and Singer. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Guardian

    Timothy Wing , 2016-02-23 02:28:56
    From Mormonism to Catholicism, huh? From magical underwear to magical hats, that's a track record of success.
    GumNutter , 2016-02-23 02:17:37
    Zero experience but gee he looks good in a tailored suit and high heels.
    RobertHickson2014 , 2016-02-23 02:14:48
    Marco Rubio is nothing more than an empty suit, being propped up by the Republican Establishment to collect all the 'anybody, but Trump or Cruz votes'

    They mean to tie up the nomination and rig a brokered convention; almost identical to what is happening to the Democratic Party.

    Barry_Seal , 2016-02-23 01:50:35
    Trump's going to win and campaign on a platform of putting Hillary in jail
    Colin Wright , 2016-02-23 01:50:19
    Bear in mind that Rubio is endorsed and funded by both Adelson and Singer.

    That means he's got deep, deep pockets. It also means he managed to outbid everyone else for their support.

    Kevin Lim Colin Wright , 2016-02-23 01:58:18
    Bush had deeper pockets ... and look where that got him

    [Feb 23, 2016] Ted Cruz fires top staffer for spreading false story about Marco Rubio and Bible

    www.theguardian.com
    jisames , 2016-02-23 02:32:56
    This Cruz guy is a fuckin sleazeball. I thought he is meant to be all righteous, but for someone so God fearing has employed some reprehensible techniques to attempt to get the vote.
    Doornail jisames , 2016-02-23 02:42:46
    But surely since by becoming President he would be doing God's will
    - than everything he does to achieve that is God's will, and thus can not be wrong
    - or at least that is most probably how he thinks ...
    .
    http://www.salon.com/2015/07/22/gods_plan_these_gop_candidates_claim_the_almighty_wants_them_to_run /
    "... For a lot of the 16 presidential candidates vying to become the next Commander-in-Chief, the decision to run for higher office was not a political calculation but rather a divine calling from above. Here are 6 Republicans who claim that God called on them to run for President ..."

    https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/44ar5d/months_later_gods_plan_these_gop_candidates_claim /

    skinow , 2016-02-23 02:23:52
    Ted Cruz is the biggest bullshit artist to run for president in modern era. He talks about Washington Cartel, he's part of it and takes all his money from his so called cartel. His slime ball ways make Trump look good. Cruz is more dishonest than Hillary, and that's hard to do.....
    gracedwheels , 2016-02-23 02:21:02
    Let's get this straight :
    Ted Cruz did NOT fire his guy for spreading a false story.
    Ted Cruz fired his guy for getting CAUGHT spreading a false story.
    J.K. Stevens , 2016-02-23 02:20:56
    If Canadian Cruz makes it to the Oval Office, that 'fired' staffer will have a leading role in his Administration.
    RogTheDodge , 2016-02-23 02:12:17
    This Cruz is a nasty piece of work. We can't afford to have a man like this running the country. If this is the level of lies and incompetence of his people, his judgement is far awry. I wouldn't mind if this were the first utterly dishonest attack, but ask Carson.
    Speedsquare , 2016-02-23 02:12:02
    So Cruz got caught red handed in another one of his desperate attempts of getting ahead in the polls and someone's head had to roll. . . No surprise there!
    Samuel Smith , 2016-02-23 02:07:06
    Purely a sacrificial lamb
    Haynonnynonny , 2016-02-23 02:05:00
    A note to evangelicals who vote for Cruz: you fucking idiots.
    kus art , 2016-02-23 01:55:58
    Shady Cruz with his fake sad eyebrows just wants everybody to believe that he's a good guy surrounded by shifty campaign managers. If that were the case he'd make a pretty poor president if he can't even control his own campaign properly...
    Icreatedthisidtocomm , 2016-02-23 01:50:25
    I've seen Cruz twice this week described as oleaginous.
    I was trying to put my finger on his personality. That's it.
    Such a good word. I think I'll use it twice this post.
    Oleaginous Cruz.
    Reminds me of Nixon.
    Vladimir Makarenko Icreatedthisidtocomm , 2016-02-23 02:24:40
    Nixon in comparison just a prankster...And if I remember it right he set up EPA. Cruz would destroy it if gave him few votes. This one is a mirror of Hillary on GOP side - a notion of decency is understood only when profit is expected...
    keepithuman , 2016-02-23 01:47:41
    This is so weird. I mean to put out a false ad in which Marco Rubio disses the Bible is infantile in its conception. Who the hell thought this up? Who authorized it? Is this the level of intelligence of the Cruz campaign? If Rubio had actually done it then that's a different story. But to CHANGE what the guy said is just so brain dead. And this guy Cruz wants to be POTUS? Sorry Ted!

    BusTED!!!

    nataliesutler keepithuman , 2016-02-23 01:54:15
    So you are against the firing of this individual then?
    Speedsquare nataliesutler , 2016-02-23 02:23:48
    Too much money invested in Cruz to fire him although that would have been the right person to let go.
    Vladimir Makarenko keepithuman , 2016-02-23 02:27:36
    And you thought what? These sick clowns are not rocket scientists, their only advantage is their absolute impudence...
    Opinions_Matter , 2016-02-23 01:44:12
    Cruz hires a porn star to work in one of his advertisements and then this. You want this man making decisions at the White House?
    Barry_Seal , 2016-02-23 01:42:02
    My guess is Trump's campaign slogan in the general election is going to be "Jail Hillary"
    creamsoda4280 , 2016-02-23 01:36:08
    Religion should not really have a role in politics , but we will see. It's mostly on values. Abortion, same sex marriage. I am pro-life, however, I am a man. I don't know if men should have a role in abortion since the role of the male is already dying in America. I am a Christian. Most Democrats and socialists do not like God. Some Republicans don't either. Cruz can't win, but we better cannot allow another president who praises Islam, a religion that is deadly as the West Nile Virus. We have leftists that disparage Christianity, but shower on Islam. That is what is likely to destroy the country.
    Toneg714 creamsoda4280 , 2016-02-23 01:47:17
    Please check your assumptions at the door. The things you think you know may in fact not be true.

    Most Democrats and Socialists do not like God? That is nonsense at every possible level. You may be correct in stating that many Democrats and Socialists resist the narrow minded right wing Christian view that cherry picks Bible verses to try to support a philosophy that is fundamentally against the philosophy espoused by Jesus.

    Jesus is a liberal. Please read the New Testament for what is says. This is an obvious fact. The radical right wing Christians have a project to rewrite the Bible because it does not say what they want it to say.

    Stop accepting what your religious authorities tell you. Read the Bible.

    Colin Wright , 2016-02-23 01:31:47
    It's nice that Cruz and Rubio are scratching each other's eyes out while Trump plows ahead.

    While Cruz would be the ideal Republican nominee -- he couldn't possibly win the general election -- Rubio has been bought and paid for by the Israel lobby, so I'll take Trump and hope whoever the Democrats nominate can manage to exploit the glaring vulnerabilities in his record.

    vaman , 2016-02-23 01:01:05
    Lying about a candidate's fealty to the bible--that shows you the issues that Republican voters and GOP candidates care about. What priorities! Boobs!
    Chub69 vaman , 2016-02-23 01:05:02
    That was one staff member and he was fired. Don't be stupid... Also the duality that is American politics is a sham designed to divide, don't be stupid...
    ConventionPrevention Chub69 , 2016-02-23 01:27:12
    Actually he is not "stupid," he is spot on. The GOP does "rule" according to their zealous, evangelical beliefs. They try to merge their poisonous religion into the legislation they sign into law. They want to stack the supreme court with an evangelical judge who would make judgements not according to law, but according to some arcane, religious belief which is wrong. If you can't see that, you must not be an American. You should take care calling people "stupid" just for forming and voicing an opinion.
    WickedwitchNOLA , 2016-02-23 00:58:37
    Cruz is the definition of sleaze. The huckster hawking the Bible-- and him throwing a staffer under the bus doesn't fool me at all. And the more he keeps with his on/off fake "Texas drawl", the more I reflexively want to give Texas back to Mexico (with some caveats, of course)...
    vaman WickedwitchNOLA , 2016-02-23 01:02:03
    Cruzy is a sleazy televangelist trying to dupe all the low IQ rubes who are conservatives/Republicans in America!
    LarryLinn , 2016-02-23 00:31:25
    Cruz cannot appoint an honest campaign spokesman, but, Ted still wants the country to wait so that he can appoint a Supreme court Justice.
    Janeee , 2016-02-23 00:26:28
    What a weird, parallel universe American politics has become.
    nataliesutler Janeee , 2016-02-23 00:34:23
    Parallel to what?
    Janeee nataliesutler , 2016-02-23 00:42:24
    It's parallel to any normal political or moral universe. Couldn't American politics stage a political scandal about something that matters: tax evasion, lying about their history, breaking promises, illegal campaign funds, even some good old-fashioned sexual shenanigans? These would be preferable to an uproar about whether Rubio believes the Bible has all / some / none of the answers. In what universe should this issue count for anything?
    Thomas B , 2016-02-23 00:21:46
    "No answers in it" "all the answers are in it". Shit. This us the 21st century? Either of these two creeps (be they true believers or huge cynics) have a shot at the white house!? I can't believe this it the real world
    Steve Haigh , 2016-02-23 00:14:08
    i expect most Islamic countries have the same shit going on, that's what the USA is becoming, the christian Taliban taking over
    Rogelio Hernandez Fitch , 2016-02-23 00:13:31
    How about sacking someone over misrepresentation of the constitution? Wasn't Cruz that called the Supreme Court a bunch of unelected lawyers?
    number7westiepiehead , 2016-02-22 23:52:32
    It's like these politicians are saying "look at me, I'm so pious, this will get me elected" - instead, they remind me of used car salesmen who tell you how good their car is, all the while knowing that they are lying through their teeth...and this is the level of deceit required to make a person the President of the United States?
    PammyLuLu , 2016-02-22 23:33:28
    Cruz knew exactly what was happening and made Tyler the scapegoat. There's a verse somewhere in the bible that opposes long sleeved shirts. Does Cruz wear only short sleeved shirts? Is he going to have a christian test Americans must pass? Why do Christians--who seem to disrespect Jews--think one must believe a Jew is our personal savior to get into heaven? Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew. Ted Cruz will be burning people at the stake who don't believe his version of the bible.
    RalphFilthy , 2016-02-22 23:30:39
    Intelligent people try their best to distance themselves from the Bible (even if they are in secret "believers" to some extent).

    In the US however, if you're not shrieking about how a white Jesus rode about on dinosaurs firing a semi-automatic like some crack-addled nightmare, your "morals" and "integrity" are in question.

    I can't wait for the US to GROW THE F**K UP and dispense with this fairytale nonsense.

    AbFalsoQuodLibet RalphFilthy , 2016-02-22 23:47:45

    Intelligent people try their best to distance themselves from the Bible

    A sweeping and erroneous statement if ever I saw one.

    Mohan Das , 2016-02-22 23:26:20
    Anyone who believes all the answers are in the bible should have his or her head examined. A book written by men of a certain ethnic group some 1500 years ago has all the answers!

    It is as unbelievable as the stories in the bible that Ted, the master crook, did not know of the video. Tyler was the scapegoat

    BarcaIrish , 2016-02-22 23:24:24
    And these people are serious candidates to be the most powerful person in the world..
    What a pathetic circus of bigots this has become. This is very worrying now
    talenttruth , 2016-02-22 23:23:41
    They may be sanctimonious, condescending faux- "Christian" hypocrites, but they are delusional in "thinking" the USA is a theocracy.
    PamelaKatz , 2016-02-22 23:16:00
    Cruz campaigners were also the ones who told Iowa caucus goers that Carson was withdrawing from the race and that they should give their votes to Cruz. These are not accidents. This is Cruz strategy.
    HarryPrince , 2016-02-22 23:14:16
    I would question a politician's commitment to the bible also. As in, why on earth are they committed? Shouldn't they be committed to 'reality' and governing properly in the modern age. The USA has always been a scary place to Asian and Middle Eastern countries who don't possess nuclear capability. Now, it is becoming genuinely entrenched as a scary place to even the western world.
    busylittlebee , 2016-02-22 23:10:55
    If Cruz becomes president, Will Canada accept refugees?
    busylittlebee , 2016-02-22 22:58:28
    Rubio thinks the Bible has "all the answers in it" Trump, Hilary pretend they think the Bible has "all the answers in it" Bernie knows the Bible doesn't have "all the answers in it" but still panders to the religious right, Cruz thinks the Bible has "all the answers in it" and ignores it's rules. Oh for a candidate who actually would say "not many answers in it"
    paparossi , 2016-02-22 22:55:58
    Cruz is just throwing the guy overboard because the whole Cruz enterprise keeps getting caught out with typical little GOP dirty tricks like scare emails and phony reports about other candidates dropping out. Sanctimonious hypocrite.
    AbFalsoQuodLibet , 2016-02-22 22:54:45
    The problem for Cruz here is that it feeds into the existing narrative of him as a congenital liar. I'm not saying that he is, merely that the narrative is out there.

    That's a very bad narrative to have floating around, and twice as ironic given the presence of Trump in the race.

    nataliesutler AbFalsoQuodLibet , 2016-02-22 22:56:46
    It hasn't hurt Clinton. She has the longest resume of lies.
    AbFalsoQuodLibet nataliesutler , 2016-02-22 23:02:44
    I would say that Clinton is more of a 'stretcher of truth' or 'congenital parser' than a straight-out liar.

    I see where you're coming from, and I agree that Hillary is, how should we put it, somewhat careless with facts at times. Well, rather often.

    But she doesn't do the Big Lie like Trump does, and she doesn't resort to the desperate and frankly rather amateurish dirty-tricks efforts of the Cruz campaign. Instead it's a continual slow drip-drip of superficially correct information which upon close examination starts falling apart.

    nataliesutler AbFalsoQuodLibet , 2016-02-22 23:13:51
    Careless doesn't even begin to describe Hillary Clinton. She has told so many whoppers no one could ever catch up with her.
    Hallatt , 2016-02-22 22:52:22
    These Christian clowns along with the Donald show their real colours while rolling in the mud and breeding division and hatred. Does anyone see any real difference with these religious bigots and those of ISIS or the Israeli Government.

    More of the same.

    GregPlatt , 2016-02-22 22:51:21
    It's certain that Cruz is running a low campaign, constantly looking for things his opponent have said or done that would look bad in the eyes of the devout Evangelicals he is courting. He gets his underlings to do the dirty work, though, so they can be sacked if they stuff up or go too far. Rick Tyler stuffed up by getting the quote wrong. He believed what he wanted to believe and didn't think the situation through. Even if what Tyler quoted Rubio as saying had been what he thought, why would he have said it? That should have rung alarm bells and gotten Tyler to check the quote for authenticity.

    What is disgraceful in Rubio's conduct, however, is different. He is engaged in the ostentatious display of his religiosity so as to seek the regard of others. People should recite Luke 18:9-14 at him.

    Whitt , 2016-02-22 22:40:40
    With Cruz and Rubio each now vying for the #2 spot to make himself the only alternative to Trump, expect this fight to only escalate in nastiness.
    AbFalsoQuodLibet Whitt , 2016-02-22 22:58:50
    The problem for Cruz is that he isn't aiming for the establishment lane at all. His whole career and all his moves the last few years - including shutting down the government - have been based on two premises:

    1) There is a large angry base willing to vote in decisive numbers for a hard-line, no-compromise politician, and

    2) This base actually is so large that if fully mobilized, the moderate establishment lane voters can be ignored.

    Well, Trump and Sanders have both monopolized (1) in their respective parties and with independents (and with some cross-over appeal), whereas (2) probably is a fallacy and always was.

    The delegate math doesn't look good for Cruz. He really would have to over-perform in the SEC states on March 1st, otherwise it may all be over.

    Whitt AbFalsoQuodLibet , 2016-02-22 23:21:53
    Check out the detailed response I just made to sdkeller72. Cruz is in better shape than Rubio is for Super Tuesday. Both will survive and both will keep going, with neither able to beat Trump. It's going to be a three-man race for some time to come, and the longer it goes on, the more it favors Trump. Witness the delegate count to date:

    Trump - 60
    Cruz - 11
    Rubio - 10
    Kasich - 5
    Carson - 3

    AbFalsoQuodLibet Whitt , 2016-02-22 23:46:07

    Cruz is in better shape than Rubio is for Super Tuesday.

    His ground game is excellent, I agree. Top notch. But have you seen the Channel 2 Action News poll (referred to in the Guardian live blog a few minutes ago)?

    Cruz' Georgia numbers are appalling! He comes a weak third to the surging Rubio. In Georgia! If the poll numbers anything like resemble the final outcome, and if they are replicated across other SEC states, Cruz' campaign is effectively over on March 1st. No exaggeration.

    If however, Cruz can match expectations in the South, I agree with you that it will be a three-man race. I also agree that a 3-man race favours Trump.

    But this could actually turn into a 2-man race sooner than I think anybody expected...

    Hallatt aortic , 2016-02-22 23:01:56
    A nation comprised of 27% druggies certainly fits the Darwin profile for breeding dinosaurs.

    Ancient civilizations found it useful to employ drugs to make zombie drones of the workers. Easier to control the idle mob. The Romans had the collesiums to keep the zombies happy, we today use sports, music and non reality movies and TV to drown out though and logic.

    The Donald Trumps plays a game similar to Adolf and his Brown Shirt crew. Thinking takes energy and couch potatoes like potato chips and beer.

    Etaoin Shrdlu , 2016-02-22 22:34:02
    "Got a good book there, all the answers in it," quoth Rubio. And a right useful thing that is, too. I was just wondering what the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is, so I decided to look it up:

    1 Kings 7:23 --
    " And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about ." So, pi is equal to three ( π = 3 )!

    Jolly fine thing our politicians are so astute! And, now that I have found the Oracle of Oracles, I'll be looking for the next winning PowerBall numbers. Probably to be found somewhere in Revelations....

    Davesnothereman , 2016-02-22 22:31:27
    Who hangs around in hotel lobbies clutching their bible?
    maleficent Davesnothereman , 2016-02-22 23:06:11
    Raving, religious nutters, that's who. I also thought church and state were to be kept separate in US politics, but I guess that's the part of the Constitution they choose to ignore.
    nataliesutler maleficent , 2016-02-22 23:32:43
    You show a very poor understanding of the concept of separation of church and state. It doesn't mean that a candidate cannot profess faith. It simply means that the government cannot establish a state church. Don't forget, one of the big objections to British rule was the fact that there was, and still is, a state church.
    mbidding nataliesutler , 2016-02-23 00:09:24
    Funny . . . I don't recall the Founding Fathers being particularly concerned about the church of England and they certainly didn't consider it important enough to list as one of the reasons for our declaration of Independence. For ease of reference, here's a link to the text of that document:

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

    ehdunno , 2016-02-22 22:29:06
    Cruz says his campaign would never question the faith of another candidate. My question is why is it so important that a candidate show deference to a being that they cannot prove exists? It is quite hilarious watching grown men and women falling over each other to prove that they believe more strongly than the others in an imaginary entity. What does this blind, preposterous faith have to do with how well they can run the country? Can't wait for the day when the first atheist president is elected; at least he/she won't be so much of a bullshitter.
    ID9766495 , 2016-02-22 22:27:29

    in fact, Rubio had said "all the answers in it"

    And that is better ... how?

    maleficent ID9766495 , 2016-02-22 23:10:00
    You're right, in fact now I think about it, it's actually much worse. Who would want a president who believes all answers can be found in a hodge-podge of papers written by many different people over a period of many years, more than 2,000 years ago?
    ID9766495 maleficent , 2016-02-22 23:38:03
    And this is a man who has lifted GOP debate on matters scientific from "I am not a scientist" to 'theologians disagree" ... even if the latter suggests he is finding answers from outside interpretations of the book ... not the book itself.
    quin1942 , 2016-02-22 22:17:25
    Ted Cruz seems to me to be a strange mix of Joseph McCarthy and Lyndon Johnson.

    Surprised that the Rubio camp hasn't sent out a Spanish language message about Cruz choosing to use the Anglo "Ted" instead of his first name, Rafael.

    geneob , 2016-02-22 22:15:20
    Imagine how unabashedly filthy a Clinton versus Cruz campaign would be. That would be fun to watch if only one of them didn't have to become President at the end.
    Giancarlo geneob , 2016-02-22 23:15:26
    I must admit, I thought of that is well. At first I was convinced it wasn't worth the entertainment value... but now I worry that the actual final choice might almost as terrible in any case!
    bcarey , 2016-02-22 21:55:24

    [Cruz] added of his rival's campaign: "They have a long record they've earned in South Carolina of engaging in this kind of trickery and impugning the integrity of whoever their opponent is to distract the attention. We are going to stay focused on issues and substance and record."

    Did your head just explode, too?
    I mean, Cruz saying that, you know.... the dirtiest, lying candidate running.

    curiouswes bcarey , 2016-02-22 22:56:39
    That is Cruz in a nutshell. He is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.
    rfs2014 bcarey , 2016-02-22 23:00:39
    his effortless ability to tell the most bald-faced lies is impressive.
    OrpheusLiar curiouswes , 2016-02-23 02:48:17
    Its an ill fitting sheep costume though, hes quite obviously a nasty vindictive man.
    Nathan2000 , 2016-02-22 21:54:38
    Dear Bible, why is Ted Cruz such an asshole?
    curiouswes Nathan2000 , 2016-02-22 22:40:30
    "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostle of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
    2 Cor. 11:13-14

    Not that I believe in an ontological devil, but if I did:
    1. Cruz would be it or
    2. HRC would be married to it

    I've not bitten my tongue about my disdain for HRC, but she doesn't have that ability that Cruz and Bill have to come across in a certain way. HRC is nasty and mean and she come across as being nasty. Cruz is better at hiding it and BJ Clinton is the master at hiding his true nature.

    kropotkinsf , 2016-02-22 21:52:35
    Cruz and Rubio think all the answers are in the bible. Trump thinks all the answers lie with race baiting and predatory capitalism. And Hillary thinks she'll find the answers by saber rattling and talking tough about Wall Street while taking their money on the down low. We're sunk.
    Kenneth Bell , 2016-02-22 21:48:18
    Cruz is in the pockets of the rich and don't give a hoot about the poor and middle class people. Just take a look at his tax reform.

    He couldn't care less about minorities and female reproductive rights and would rather see Obamacare crash, burn, and take the US economy down with it than to watch it succeed.

    Under Obama, who Ted Cruz HATES, we've seen:

    RECORD unemployment numbers, legalized gay marriage, 5% growth, best year for jobs since 1999, consumer confidence up, deficit down 60% in 2014, gas prices low, health insurance cheaper than ever ($85/month), car insurance cheaper than ever ($25/month from Insurance Panda), the 1% starting to be taxed more… all while republicans bleated about Benghazi took pointless votes to repeal the ACA, and did nothing for anybody except the top one percent.

    Why doesn't Cruz talk about THAT?!

    sdkeller72 Kenneth Bell , 2016-02-22 22:09:16
    Since when were the top 1% paying more in taxes?
    bucktoaster , 2016-02-22 21:45:48
    Cruz is a scuzzy dirtball neo-nazi. Even the republican party doesn't like him
    boshness bucktoaster , 2016-02-22 22:40:20
    I like Cruz. I love him, even though I'm rooting for Bernie.
    I love Cruz because he is the only one guaranteed to lose the election for the GOP, so please, people, show him some love.
    vincent19 bucktoaster , 2016-02-23 00:06:23
    He is a thoroughly unlikable person.
    Whitt sdkeller72 , 2016-02-22 23:16:44
    "Don't worry Rick you only lost 2 weeks worth of pay, Cruz' campaign will be over after Super Tuesday anyway." - sdkeller72
    *
    Seriously? In what alternate universe?

    First, look at the polls. According to the latest RCP polls for Super Tuesday states:

    (States with polls as of February)
    Arkansas - Cruz 27, Trump 23, Rubio 23
    Georgia - Trump 27, Cruz 18. Rubio 18
    Massachusetts - Trump 50, Rubio 16, Cruz 10
    Oklahoma - Trump 32, Cruz 25, Rubio 15
    Virginia - Trump 28, Rubio 22, Cruz 19

    1st place - Trump 4, Cruz 1
    2nd place - Cruz 2, Rubio 2, Trump 1
    3rd place - Rubio 3, Cruz 2, Trump 0

    (States with no February polls)
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Colorado
    Minnesota
    Tennessee
    Texas

    Texas highly favorable to Cruz, the rest anybody's guess

    Then there's also the cash-on-hand for the campaigns:

    Cruz - $13M in campaign funds, $25 in PAC funds
    Rubio - $5M in campaign funds, $5 in PAC funds
    Trump - Doesn't need any contributions

    While Trump is definitely the king of the hill, Cruz is in better shape than Rubio for getting through Super Tuesday. Rubio's not going to drop out no matter what, but neither is Cruz.

    Matt Perry , 2016-02-22 21:42:25
    but don't you love the Trump tweets? There's something so simplistic and gleeful about them - like a child sticking his tongue out at you when you're caught doing something.
    AllenPitt , 2016-02-22 21:38:14
    Not only dirty tricks, but dirty tricks about something that is utterly and Constitutionally irrelevant--a candidate's religious views. No wonder the GOP is floundering.
    i3roly AllenPitt , 2016-02-22 22:53:41
    for the Anglos across the Commonwealth, i think it's worthy mentioning Cruz's role in the 2000 recount for GWB:

    http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F01%2F26%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fbefore-rise-as-outsider-ted-cruz-played-inside-role-in-2000-recount.html

    pretty sure Teddy Bohy Cruz runs with hardcore fundie Stockwell Day and charles mcvety. they all idolise mitt romney. stockwell is breeding a fundie camp (warren jeffs FLDS style) in BC

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_poly1.htm

    our former prime minister was also a crony of stockwell day's. the 'drummer' in his band is a pedo:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/phillip-nolan-drummer-in-stephen-harper-s-band-charged-with-sexual-assault-1.2525942

    mitt & co love these FLDS fundies because they roll up/consolidate all their available credit to invest in harebrained schemes (the fundies are usually confined to the ranch, thereby creating flexibility in how their credit is used).

    they've now resorted to intimidating the non-fundie, but devout, christians into silence.

    there is massive corruption across the Realms involving these characters.

    and people wonder how credit debt is so high. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE. teddy bohy cruz, mitt, stackwell, and whoever the fundies in the UK are, are a big part of the problem.

    deadgod AllenPitt , 2016-02-22 23:29:43
    And plenty of clean infotainment about Scoobydoobieo is available: he's lied every day of his political life about his parents' flight from a US-backed dictator to American jobs and money, his brother-in-law is a convicted drug smuggler, and his record in the Senate is mostly 'absent'. He's also got a video trail a mile long of grating robotic incompetence as a show pony.

    RUN MARCO RUN

    [Feb 22, 2016] US election 2016: Donald Trump queries Rubios eligibility

    Notable quotes:
    "... Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has said hes not sure whether his rival, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, is eligible to run for US president. ..."
    "... Mr Rubio, whose parents became US citizens four years after he was born, seemed to shrug off Mr Trumps comments, describing it as a game he plays . ..."
    "... Mr Cruz, who was born in Calgary to an American mother and a Cuban father, has dismissed any such legal challenge arguing that the constitutions definition of natural born citizens included people born to an American parent. ..."
    www.bbc.com

    Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has said he's "not sure" whether his rival, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, is eligible to run for US president.

    Mr Rubio, who came second in the South Carolina primary, was born in Miami, Florida, to Cuban parents. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, has faced similar questions from the New York billionaire. Most legal experts believe the two senators meet the requirements to become president of the United States.

    The US constitution allows only "natural born" citizens to become US president, which is widely interpreted as being born in the US or having a US citizen parent.

    Mr Rubio, whose parents became US citizens four years after he was born, seemed to shrug off Mr Trump's comments, describing it as "a game he plays".

    ... ... ...

    Questions about Marco Rubio's edibility arose after Mr Trump retweeted a post at the weekend saying that both he and Mr Cruz were ineligible.

    Asked by ABC's George Stephanopolous on Sunday about the post, Mr Trump said he was raising it to start a discussion on the matter but needed to look into it further. "I don't know. I really - I've never looked at it, George. I honestly have never looked at it. As somebody said, he's not. And I retweeted it." "I think the lawyers have to determine that," he added.

    ... ... ...

    Mr Cruz, who was born in Calgary to an American mother and a Cuban father, has dismissed any such legal challenge arguing that the constitution's definition of "natural born citizens" included people born to an American parent.

    [Feb 22, 2016] Trump will win Nevada Strategist

    finance.yahoo.com

    Boris Epshteyn, strategist at Strategy International, says Donald Trump is the safe favorite to win the Republican nomination.

    Donna

    If cruz had not lied in Iowa Trump very well could have swept the nation. Donald Trump is the only leader stepping up for the safety and security of the USA. All other candidates and most elected officials are game players that pander to their funders. We are one day closer to taking our country back from these mega-moochers.

    Marcus

    It may not be politically correct, but Trump is addressing issues that are important to the American people and not the normal political bullsh*t the rest of them are spouting.

    [Feb 21, 2016] Jeb Bush ends presidential bid after Donald Trump wins in South Carolina

    Jeb Bush was a is a neocon a member of Project for New American Century, a Wolfowitz stooge... It's good that he is gone.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Jeb Bush was certainly not a good decent man . He will be remembered for helping to thwart democracy in the USA with the sleazy moves he orchestrated to deliver Florida. ..."
    "... A simple, brainless bully cant take on someone with $150 million in supporting funds and crush them. You need to know what youre doing. And thats where people dont give Trump credit. Hes not some idiot bully who magically keeps beating his opponents. He knows what he needs to do to get votes. At this point in time during the election process, thats all that matters. Someone with savviness and a set of brass balls can take on $150 million and wipe the floor with it. Thats something. ..."
    "... Up a certain creek without a paddle, because the winner of the Republican nomination will most likely be Trump, with an outside chance of Cruz or Rubio, and almost 0 chance of anyone else. Sadly for Republicans who arent a fan of Trump, Id say its time for them to start getting to use to him, because at the end of this year its looking very likely to be either Trump vs Hillary or Trump vs Sanders. ..."
    "... American Dream (Apple pie, etc, etc....) was a chimera at best in the past but now impossible with globalization and the descent of global labor down to a world level playing field. Its a whole new ball game..... ..."
    "... Post WWII with the GI Bill and a surge in the economy equal opportunity was a reality, but since neoliberalism kicked in the 70s it has been all down hill. ..."
    "... But a fairer society is possible. Sanders analysis and policies, which may not be implemented this time around, almost certainly wont go away now. ..."
    "... This could be the beginning of the end of the Republican Party, which rose from the ashes of the Whig Party in 1854 (The Know Nothings were the xenophobic rump of the former Whigs, the more rational of whom (Lincoln et al.) formed the Republican Party). ..."
    "... absolutely delighted with the result. the reason is what some posters are saying here, that bush/kasich are relatively humane etc. they are nothing of the sort, especially bush. he is the neocons neocon, a scumball who hounded a decent man over his and his wifes end-of-life decisions, a stooge who wants to monetize education and social security for wall street, and a standard-issue plutocrat who wants to funnel everything to the top. ..."
    "... there are several advantages to trump: hes less likely to win and could take down other republicans with him; and if he does win, there is margin for hope. the moneymen and the fundies may not control his every move -as is guaranteed with all the others- so he could make some surprisingly decent moves, at the very least not embarking on the destruction of social security. ..."
    "... and happily, the worst, most brutal aspects of his platform -the wall etc- are completely unworkable. in addition, the laziest, most cowardly group of people in the country -the media- would feel more comfortable reporting objectively on him than they are with more mainstream candidates. politically, he would be a disaster and would be destroyed when running for re-election, if not before. ..."
    "... one was W., Prescott was a semi-Nazi ..."
    "... Ive seen the Oliver Stone movie, Bush senior wanted Jeb to become president first but he lost his governorship battle in 1994 but W. won his, Jeb then helps W. steal the 2000 election, Jeb then thinks he will become president after W. but little does he know W. will trash the Bush name and stop Jeb from even being able to out debate a billionaire jackass with insane policy ideas let alone become president ..."
    "... Mr. Bush goes home but the money lined up behind him stays in the game. Mr. Rubio floats higher. Mr. Cruz sinks a little and will be entirely sunk soon enough. Mr. Carson may hang around for a while, although not even he is sure why. Mr. Kasich will battle on in delusional self-belief until the money runs out. ..."
    "... That is good. Not another shameless from this family. He should have been grilled on his brothers misconduct and dumb face he will show when faced with hard decisions. ..."
    "... Jeb got his brother win illegally in 2000. The country paid the price for it. Karma is a bitch. It bit him hard in the rear end. ..."
    "... Jeb has run away with tail between his legs as the big alpha male beat him to pulp. No harem this time. But Jeb will be back sometime in a future election, sneaking in when no one is looking. He is the head of the neocon hydra. ..."
    "... A lot of things are at stake for the neocons, the military industrial complex and the Carlaisle group. Jeb will bide his time. Voters might have the clock. Jeb has time on his hand. ..."
    "... Would have been better if he had never run and said Our democracy is bigger than any one family . But then again we barely have a democracy anymore: ..."
    "... Thank goodness the Bush dynastys latest attempt to infiltrate and damage the American political system is finally at a decisive end. Now its time to eradicate that other time-worn all-American cabal, the Clintons, from the presidential race, and actually bring a fair democratic socialist agenda to the US. ..."
    "... Jeb only has himself to blame for his atrocious performance. Hes weak and ineffectual, nothing more to say really. He asked the audience to applaud one of his talking points during a speech, which says it all really... ..."
    "... Carson next to go under please, that freak is more nuts than all the rest of them put together ..."
    "... Well. Thats a 100 million dollars down the drain. http://news.yahoo.com/campaigning-style-jeb-bush-blew-warchest-112051485.html ..."
    "... From the start there was a desperation about Jebs campaign that seemed destined to end in disaster. Unlike some candidates who feel entitled to it Jeb almost seemed to never quite believe it himself as if he only did it because it was expected of him and he didnt have the heart to explain to people that his family name was poison after W. His name gave him recognition but it also made him a target, something which Trump pounded on mercilessly turning Jebs candidacy into a referrendum on the failed policies of his brother. ..."
    "... One less Bush for the White House. Good news. ..."
    "... Who said Monarchies were dead? ..."
    "... Theres an old saying in Tennessee - I know its in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you cant get fooled again. ..."
    "... I dont like his brother. I dont like his father. I dont like him. Yet the fact he is out of the running chills me to my bone. ..."
    w.theguardian.com
    crowinthesnow , 2016-02-21 05:49:36
    The terrifying reality is, that Bush was probably the most sane (save for Kasich who won't win) out of all the GOP candidates. If any of these guys get into power then we're doomed. Cruz especially, the guy is a puritanical nutter.
    Clough , 2016-02-21 05:47:50
    It's just a matter of which one of the crazies wins the Republican nomination. Trump, Cruz or Rubio. Whoever it is lets hope the Democrats have a candidate that can win. Can any one imagine what the world would look like with one of these three with his finger on the button. The world was a much "safer" place during the cold war.
    redwhine Robert Hoover , 2016-02-21 05:17:13
    George W. Bush wasn't even a good campaigner, his competition just was worse. Trump would have destroyed GW Bush in much the same way that he destroyed Jeb Bush. Remember how GW Bush's supporters created that whole 'Swift Boaters for Truth' campaign to sink John Kerry, who was actually a war hero, even though GW Bush avoided getting sent to Vietnam altogether? That's because Bush was competing against Kerry, not Trump. Believe me, GW Bush would have been pounded if he had a gorilla like Trump go after him.
    skepticaloud Robert Hoover , 2016-02-21 05:44:12
    Jeb Bush was certainly not "a good decent man". He will be remembered for helping to thwart democracy in the USA with the sleazy moves he orchestrated to deliver Florida.
    redwhine , 2016-02-21 04:37:24
    Jeb "the wimp" Bush never had a chance, even though he had so much going for him:
    $150 million in campaign contributions (!!!!!!!!!)
    Political connections
    Establishment support
    Family history, with dad and brother having been presidents
    Former governor of Florida, a very important state for winning elections
    --- But, he was a loser and a wimp, and Donald Trump brilliantly exposed this fact. Were it not for Trump, not only would Jeb still be in the running, he'd probably be far in the lead. That's where Trump deserves so much credit, as a tactician willing to take chances. For heaven's sake (literally), he even took a knock at the Pope!!! And it didn't cost hime any votes, it probably gained him votes. Nobody else would have had the stones to do that. I'm extremely impressed by Trump, though I am a democrat. I like seeing a fierce competitor get his due.
    redwhine saintabroad , 2016-02-21 05:05:11
    All of this is beside the point, I'm talking about the tactics needed to win presidential elections. Why did Jeb Bush have an unimaginable "war chest" of $150 million??? He had that so that he could finance a machine that would take him to victory.

    A simple, brainless bully can't take on someone with $150 million in supporting funds and crush them. You need to know what you're doing. And that's where people don't give Trump credit. He's not some idiot bully who magically keeps beating his opponents. He knows what he needs to do to get votes. At this point in time during the election process, that's all that matters. Someone with savviness and a set of brass balls can take on $150 million and wipe the floor with it. That's something.

    jclucas , 2016-02-21 04:27:36
    Well America doesn't want the political establishment - on the GOP side at least - but what do the people really want?

    Probably Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are all unelectable, so where does that leave the Republicans?

    The message from the voters is that something is seriously wrong with the system, but the analysis of what that is seems to be lacking except from Bernie Sanders (crony capitalism).

    Sorry, it's not political correctness or the absence of theocracy.

    America has a long way to go to recover the American Dream, but voters do seem to realize that its gone, sort of.

    The campaign of 2016 is at least educating the people, even if it's in a strange sort of way.

    mindinsomnia jclucas , 2016-02-21 04:58:47

    Probably Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are all unelectable, so where does that leave the Republicans?

    Up a certain creek without a paddle, because the winner of the Republican nomination will most likely be Trump, with an outside chance of Cruz or Rubio, and almost 0 chance of anyone else. Sadly for Republicans who aren't a fan of Trump, I'd say it's time for them to start getting to use to him, because at the end of this year it's looking very likely to be either Trump vs Hillary or Trump vs Sanders. Trump vs Sanders.

    bookie88 jclucas , 2016-02-21 04:59:40
    "American Dream" (Apple pie, etc, etc....) was a chimera at best in the past but now "impossible" with globalization and the descent of global "labor" down to a world level playing field.
    It's a whole new ball game.....
    jclucas bookie88 , 2016-02-21 05:15:29
    Post WWII with the GI Bill and a surge in the economy equal opportunity was a reality, but since neoliberalism kicked in the 70s it has been all down hill.

    But a fairer society is possible. Sanders analysis and policies, which may not be implemented this time around, almost certainly won't go away now.

    raffine , 2016-02-21 04:14:44
    This could be the beginning of the end of the Republican Party, which rose from the ashes of the Whig Party in 1854 (The "Know Nothings" were the xenophobic rump of the former Whigs, the more rational of whom (Lincoln et al.) formed the Republican Party). The Tea Party Trumpezoids would be the Know Nothings of today, especially given the inevitable defeat of Mr Trump in November 2016. The only options for his disappointed followers would be (1) emigration, (2) a humiliating crawl back into the Republican Party fold, or (3) armed insurrection (ala the Bundy bandits).
    mindinsomnia raffine , 2016-02-21 05:02:02
    I wouldn't say that Trump's defeat is inevitable. I certainly hope he doesn't win, but he certainly could win. Trump is after all a populist and will always say what he has to in order to get votes. Right now the people he has to please are Republicans so he's saying only things which please Republicans, but when it comes down to Hillary vs Trump or Sanders vs Trump, he'll start saying whatever he thinks the general public want to hear. And if Trump has shown one thing so far, he's very good at working out exactly what people want to hear and yelling it from the rooftops..
    JackGC raffine , 2016-02-21 05:20:22
    If Trump wins the nomination of the 21st century "Know Nothing" party and gets shutout in November (0-50), I'll go with door #3--an unarmed Tea Party type insurrection fracturing the party even further.

    Serves 'em right. The war mongers were repeatedly warned not to invade Iraq, now the shit has boomeranged and hit the fan BIG TIME thanks to The Donald. It'll be a bizarre ending for a despicable bunch of mass murderers.

    ochone , 2016-02-21 04:14:30
    absolutely delighted with the result. the reason is what some posters are saying here, that bush/kasich are relatively 'humane' etc. they are nothing of the sort, especially bush. he is the neocon's neocon, a scumball who hounded a decent man over his and his wife's end-of-life decisions, a stooge who wants to monetize education and social security for wall street, and a standard-issue plutocrat who wants to funnel everything to the top.

    and apparently he's the relatively 'reasonable one'... which is the reason he could actually win. and if he did, the media would be in their comfort zone and report on him as if he's mainstream, as they did with his brother.

    there are several advantages to trump: he's less likely to win and could take down other republicans with him; and if he does win, there is margin for hope. the moneymen and the fundies may not control his every move -as is guaranteed with all the others- so he could make some surprisingly decent moves, at the very least not embarking on the destruction of social security.

    and happily, the worst, most brutal aspects of his platform -the wall etc- are completely unworkable. in addition, the laziest, most cowardly group of people in the country -the media- would feel more comfortable reporting objectively on him than they are with more 'mainstream' candidates. politically, he would be a disaster and would be destroyed when running for re-election, if not before.

    bush, kasich and rubio are every single last iota as bad, but politically, they would get away with much, much more.

    reto , 2016-02-21 03:59:26
    The best thing after Bush incinerating is that that Sununu guy, who said that Obama was "lazy" for not preparing the debate against Romney is finished now, too. Racist little effer, in the employ of the Bushes whenever they needed a dirt flung (which they always do). High horse candidacy that wasn't. The Bushes aren't bad people, just God-help-us incapable (one was W., Prescott was a semi-Nazi, Neil tanked the Savings and Loan bank (biggest crash until 2008). As for his qualifications, you can really ride a conservative or socialist wave to success on a housing bubble as Bush did in Florida. Your policies don't matter much. As for the dynasty, let's see what the twins come up with in a couple of years.
    deltayankee reto , 2016-02-21 04:17:49
    So commenting that someone is lazy is now racist? Obama is lazy - he is one of the most disengaged, indolent Presidents of all time. And he was too lazy to prepare for that debate. According to some reports on the public record he admitted as such. But to his credit he improved on the next debate.
    James Barker , 2016-02-21 03:50:32
    I've seen the Oliver Stone movie, Bush senior wanted Jeb to become president first but he lost his governorship battle in 1994 but W. won his, Jeb then helps W. steal the 2000 election, Jeb then thinks he will become president after W. but little does he know W. will trash the Bush name and stop Jeb from even being able to out debate a billionaire jackass with insane policy ideas let alone become president
    Dougiedownunder , 2016-02-21 03:34:52
    Mr. Bush goes home but the money lined up behind him stays in the game. Mr. Rubio floats higher. Mr. Cruz sinks a little and will be entirely sunk soon enough. Mr. Carson may hang around for a while, although not even he is sure why. Mr. Kasich will battle on in delusional self-belief until the money runs out.

    And when it boils down to GOP make you mind up time it will choose Mr. Rubio over Mr. Trump because America is not insane.

    Mr. Trump, however, does not know how to lose even though he has experienced it already in this nomination round. His megalomaniac tendency will refuse to accept the decision of the Party he claims he wants to lead. Mr. Trump will throw a very expensive, billionaire's hissy fit and seek to stand for the Presidency anyway because Mr. Trump truly does believe that if you have enough money you ought to be able to by anything you want and can afford. Even a country.

    Towards the end of March it should all be a lot uglier than it looks now.

    Whatever the outcome of the GOP three-ring circus, please America, Vote Democrat.

    bullaa , 2016-02-21 03:15:58
    That is good. Not another shameless from this family. He should have been grilled on his brother's misconduct and dumb face he will show when faced with hard decisions.
    Mauryan , 2016-02-21 03:07:56
    Jeb got his brother win illegally in 2000. The country paid the price for it. Karma is a bitch. It bit him hard in the rear end.
    Mauryan , 2016-02-21 03:06:15
    Jeb has run away with tail between his legs as the big alpha male beat him to pulp. No harem this time. But Jeb will be back sometime in a future election, sneaking in when no one is looking. He is the head of the neocon hydra. He will be back at the next opportune time. Do not count him out. This election is over for him. But he is not over yet. A lot of things are at stake for the neocons, the military industrial complex and the Carlaisle group. Jeb will bide his time. Voters might have the clock. Jeb has time on his hand.
    Ziontrain , 2016-02-21 03:05:33

    "The presidency is bigger than any one candidate," Bush said.

    Would have been better if he had never run and said "Our democracy is bigger than any one family". But then again we barely have a democracy anymore:
    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

    Would have been even better if the media had said it for him. But they are gutless click-chasers.

    Andrew Lee , 2016-02-21 03:03:20
    Thank goodness the Bush dynasty's latest attempt to infiltrate and damage the American political system is finally at a decisive end. Now it's time to eradicate that other time-worn all-American cabal, the Clintons, from the presidential race, and actually bring a fair democratic socialist agenda to the US.
    CommonSenseWelcomed , 2016-02-21 03:01:35
    Jeb only has himself to blame for his atrocious performance. He's weak and ineffectual, nothing more to say really. He asked the audience to applaud one of his talking points during a speech, which says it all really...

    He was tipped as the favourite for the Republican nomination before the election started by the mainstream media, why you ask? I'll tell you, they tipped him as the favourite because he managed to accumulate more legal bribes than any other Republican candidate... A truckload of money from wealthy donors doesn't mean shit...

    Greg Gray , 2016-02-21 02:52:15
    Carson next to go under please, that freak is more nuts than all the rest of them put together
    LeftRightParadigm , 2016-02-21 02:49:11
    Goodbye and farewell to another member of the cosy establishment. As long as America elects Donald Trump it will mean great things for the country.
    Geffel LeftRightParadigm , 2016-02-21 03:24:34
    Great warmongering
    Great bigotry
    Great recessions
    Great debt
    Great poverty
    Great ignorance
    Great under-investment
    Great bungles
    Great shredding of the Constitution
    CurrentHistory , 2016-02-21 02:49:37
    Well. That's a 100 million dollars down the drain. http://news.yahoo.com/campaigning-style-jeb-bush-blew-warchest-112051485.html
    Omniscience CurrentHistory , 2016-02-21 03:16:57
    Trickle down
    OrpheusLiar , 2016-02-21 02:49:01
    From the start there was a desperation about Jebs campaign that seemed destined to end in disaster. Unlike some candidates who feel entitled to it Jeb almost seemed to never quite believe it himself as if he only did it because it was expected of him and he didn't have the heart to explain to people that his family name was poison after W. His name gave him recognition but it also made him a target, something which Trump pounded on mercilessly turning Jebs candidacy into a referrendum on the failed policies of his brother. I hope its Kasich rather than Rubio who benefits from this as he is really the only sane one left running. Carson is probably next to go after Nevada.
    MoreNotLess , 2016-02-21 02:43:19
    Nothing is impossible in politics, but another Bush in the White House just eight years after his unpopular brother always looked like a rather long shot to me. The fact that some people would place $100M on his SuperPAC surprised me greatly, and just goes to confirm that the GOP is not presently a facts based organization. Any one looking at the facts would not have made this bet.
    Ism10 , 2016-02-21 02:13:06
    One less Bush for the White House. Good news.
    ajgraham Ism10 , 2016-02-21 02:33:18
    Sadly they'll be no Bush to lead on the greatest Democratic country on Earth™. Last 4 Presidents including current:
    Bush
    Clinton
    Bush
    Obama

    Who said Monarchies were dead?

    dirkthegently eminijunkie , 2016-02-21 04:44:31
    There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.
    TamaIti eminijunkie , 2016-02-21 06:13:27
    I don't like his brother. I don't like his father. I don't like him. Yet the fact he is out of the running chills me to my bone.

    [Feb 21, 2016] Clinton narrowly clinches Nevada while Trump wins big in South Carolina

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nevada should have been a slam-dunk for Clinton. The narrow win is almost as bad as defeat. She was supposed to own the minority vote. ..."
    "... This is absurdly biased. How much coverage for hillary and then Sanders comes second yet gets almost a passing mention despite having reversed a huge difference between the candidates. this is just crappy reporting. ..."
    "... Donald trump have proved that he has more faith in god than the pope, because Donald Trump dont use bodyguards and with the things he says he needs them. ..."
    The Guardian

    peacefulmilitant , 2016-02-21 05:23:08

    Nevada should have been a slam-dunk for Clinton. The narrow win is almost as bad as defeat. She was supposed to "own" the minority vote.
    Ben Schonveld , 2016-02-21 05:16:25
    This is absurdly biased. How much coverage for hillary and then Sanders comes second yet gets almost a passing mention despite having reversed a huge difference between the candidates. this is just crappy reporting.

    Marcedward , 2016-02-21 05:12:52

    BIG QUESTIONS:
    1) Who can emerge as the Anti-Trump? Robo-Rubio or Canadian Cruz?
    2) Is Kashich running for President or Vice President? Gov of Ohio could deliver crucial state, OTOH he's very 1990s, classic Newt Gingrich vintage of Republican, part of a discredited and failed movement.
    3) Where do Jeb!'s people go? Not his voters, he didn't have any, but his money people? The just blew $100MILLION+ on Jeb!, they probably have 3X more burning a hole in their collective pockets. Rubio has that robot-problem, Cruz is a loose cannon (or loose stool), Carson will never win, Kasich is too boring and funny looking, not to mention "vintage, but in the bad way."
    4) Will the election of President Trump split the Republican party?
    ga gamba , 2016-02-21 05:02:23
    An extraordinary battle between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton could be taking shape in the 2016 presidential race after the two candidates won crucial victories in the Republican and Democratic contests for the White House.

    Seems a little soon to be thinking of what could be taking shape. For Ms Clinton a near tie in Iowa, a solid thumping in New Hampshire, and finally her first bona fide win, though after dropping 25+ percentage points in the polls and Hispanics ditching her, tells me only 3 votes have happened.

    bongorocks , 2016-02-21 04:49:28
    Donald trump have proved that he has more faith in god than the pope, because Donald Trump don't use bodyguards and with the things he says he needs them.
    On the other hand the pope goes around sucking up to everyone and everywhere he goes he is surrounded by his bodyguards.

    [Feb 21, 2016] Sanders, Trump appeal to Nevada voters with fresh memories of US housing crisis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary is proud that Bill Clinton, in being pragmatic in finding common ground with Republicans and getting things done, destroyed Glass-Steagell. ..."
    "... She is absolutely NOT influenced by getting $1.8 million from 8 speeches to bankers. ..."
    "... Yes, Hillary has such a Big Megabuck Heart for the hardworking poor, ... when she is pandering for votes. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    kdloan , 2016-02-20 20:37:37
    When it comes to Wall Street and the mortgage fiasco of 2007-08, Bernie Sanders is the only legible candidate, whereas Clinton states her intent of, "limiting Wall Street influence," however, her Under Secretary of State was Bob Hormat, who interesting enough was Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs.
    Freedom54 , 2016-02-20 20:21:30
    Bernie Versus Hillary: A Vote for Bernie is a Vote to Restore the American Democracy while a Vote for Hillary, and the Republican Candidates is a Vote for America's 1% Billionaire Oligarchy Ruling Class..!
    Bernie is coalescing and uniting the American Slave Classes. His supporters are a cross section from every socio-economic, race, age backgrounds whose core values of Honor, Integrity, Justice and Altruism which mirrors Bernie's which is a direct contrast to the 1% Billionaire Ruling Classes of Insatiable Greed, Power and Control which they use to keep the Slave Classes "Divided and Conquered". The American Government as Stated by the Constitution Belongs to the People and Should Govern to the Will of all the People, and not just to the Greedy and Narcissistic American 1% Percent Oligarchy Ruling Class who Rule through their Puppet Quid-Pro-Quo (A.K.A. THE QUID-PRO-QUO MILLIONAIRE Politician like the CLINTONS') Oligarchy Government Falsely Posing as a Democracy....!
    Unlike the Clintons' "Mr. Bill the "Sexual Abuser" of Women & Mrs. Quid-Pro-Quo" who did the Bidding of America's 1% Percent Billionaire Ruling Class who then rewarded them by allowing them to amass a fortune with an estimated Net Worth of $200 Million which excludes their Personal Slush Fund the Clinton Foundation.
    Since Hillary Clinton left her post as secretary of State in 2013 and subsequently declared her royal candidacy last year, she has given 92 speeches for fees totaling $21.7 million, primarily to the Wall Street Banks that created the Sub-Prime Mortgage Pyramid Scheme lead by Goldman Sachs and other Financial institutions around the world some of which was have also donated Millions to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Family Slush Fund -- Clinton Foundation."
    Similarly Bill Clinton opened the "Quid-Pro-Quo Flood Gates" to the American Corporate Outsourcing of Full-Time/With Benefits Middle Class Jobs to India and China which has permanently decimated and reduced America's once Thriving Middle Class with his Trade Agreements that only enriched the American 1% Percent Billionaire Ruling Class..! Late in Clinton's tenure, the White House put forth a document celebrating "Historic Economic Growth" during the administration and pointing to the policy accomplishments it deemed responsible for this growth. Among the achievements on Clinton's list were "Modernizing for the New Economy through Technology and Consensus Deregulation."By contrast, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the 1999 law Clinton signed repealing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, benefited the economy by creating more choice and competition. There is now a chorus of voices across America who blame the demise of Glass-Steagall, which had strictly separated traditional commercial banking from investment banking, for contributing to the credit blowup from which America's Slave Classes have yet to recover.
    Whereas Bernie has focus and he is driven out of Altruism to end the suffering of the vast majority of Americans who are struggling economically while the Billionaire 1% Ruling Class continues to suck all of America's Wealth up to themselves.
    Bernie is deeply saddened and disturbed by the "Economic Injustice that Exists in America today;
    * Slave class children are being deprived of a strong foundational education due to the lack of a "Comprehensive National Voucher System" for "Primary and Secondary Schools" and that America's slave class children are being burdened by "College Student Loan Debt",
    * 65 Million Americans go Hungry each night in the Richest Country in the World whose 1% Percent Billionaire Ruling Class holds 70% of America's Wealth.
    * The Majority of Senior Citizens are living at or below the "Poverty-Line".
    * The creation of Obama Care which was created to shift the Wealth from America's Physicians to the 1% Billionaire Oligarchy Ruling Class (as their largest share-holders) "Owned Corporate Insurance Companies" which is why Bernie want to expand Medicare into a Single Payer health care system similar to what is commonplace in Europe.
    To level America's "Playing Field", Bernie wants to Repatriate the Trillions of Dollars $ of the current Un-Taxed 1% Billionaire Personal and Corporate Wealth that they are currently hiding using the IRS Loop-Holes (generated for them by their Millionaire Congressional Quid-Pro-Quo Puppets) which is being held in their Personal and Corporate Over-seas Tax Haven Accounts.
    Finally while the elitist Hillary has continually tried to reinvent herself for and her false campaign for America's Slave Classes --- Bernie Sanders is the "Real-Deal--What you See and What you Hear -- Is What You Will Get Candidate".
    Bernie is driven by the same core values of "Honor, Integrity, Altruism and Justice" which mirrors the core values of America's Salve Classes which is why he is leading Hillary across the country in "Trustworthiness" by 91%-5%.
    Restore Democracy and Morality to America – Support and Vote for Bernie Sanders for President…!
    Carly435 , 2016-02-20 19:59:18
    Hillary tells a whopper about Bernie "taking money from Wall Street."

    Now we know why she said she "tries not to lie."

    Jake Tapper fact checking:

    http://www.c

    erik_ny , 2016-02-20 19:52:33
    I go to las vegas once a year for a conference. I had to pop out to get a shirt at brooks brothers and the nice-looking girl who worked there asked where i was staying. Aria. "Oh I work there two days a week, beautiful hotel." Another girl at Kiehls said the same thing. Is it normal for people to work two days here, two days there? I guess you can get used to anything but it seems to me stringing together a series of part-time jobs would be stressful. Over the course of five days you never saw the same people on the front or bell desk, a never-ending rotation of young faces. Las Vegas is in many ways a brutal place.
    sewuzy , 2016-02-20 19:26:57
    Hillary saddened by loss of homes to bank foreclosures?

    Hillary has terrible foresight and making first call judgments.

    Hillary is proud that Bill Clinton, in being pragmatic in finding common ground with Republicans and getting things done, destroyed Glass-Steagell.

    Hillary fights against replacing Glass-Steagells which would limit wild risk taking by Big Banks. RESULT Big Banks get Bigger.

    She is absolutely NOT influenced by getting $1.8 million from 8 speeches to bankers.

    Yes, big megabucks same Wall Street investors and bankers that play a huuge role in discriminatory redlining against minorities, fraudulent predatory lending, and foreclosures; the same big banks that stole the American dream from poor hard working white, black, latino, and native American, and other homeowners.

    Yes, Hillary has such a Big Megabuck Heart for the hardworking poor, ... when she is pandering for votes.

    Dorothy2 , 2016-02-20 18:43:38
    "Clinton Made $2.9 Million From 12 Speeches To Big Banks"--The Intercept

    If you have ever passed by a dead skunk left splayed in the middle of the road, you know that that unpleasant stench often travels with you for some distance. Politicians who access skunky money disturb the peace in much the same way. Better to avoid them if you can.

    Carly435 , 2016-02-20 18:18:16
    I like the fact that Bernie took the time to speak to 25 laid off solar workers and their families. Hillary received the same invitation but declined to attend.

    http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/13/sanders-calls-puc-solar-decision-incomprehensible/80351584/

    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/a-chat-with-bernie-sanders-on-his-new-10-million-solar-roofs-bill

    How Bernie's climate change policy differs from Hillary's:

    While Clinton's plan doesn't address the giant fossil fuel lobby fighting actions against climate change, Sanders heavily focused on this issue. "The fossil fuel industry spends billions and billions of dollars lobbying and buying candidates to block virtually all progress on climate change," it reads. He wants to stop the industry from stationing lobbyists in the White House, to end subsidies for fossil fuel companies, to create a national climate justice plan, and to fight to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political activities.

    Sanders' goal for the nation's clean energy use is ambitious. He wants to create a 100 percent clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation. Not only will this minimize America's dependence on foreign oil, his plan says, but it will also create 10 million "good-paying jobs." Clinton's goal is for the U.S. to generate enough clean renewable energy to power every home in America within 10 years of her taking office - which would be a vast improvement, but doesn't account for transportation along with housing.

    Clinton's current plan doesn't mention any goals for increasing America's leadership in the global fight against climate change. Sanders', on the other hand, says that he'll establish a climate summit with engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, activists, and indigenous communities within his first 100 days in office. His plan says: "The United Nations Paris climate talks in December are an important milestone toward solving climate change, but even optimistic outcomes of these talks will not put the world on the path needed to avoid the most catastrophic results of climate change. We must think beyond Paris."

    According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the transportation sector accounts for 27 percent of America's total greenhouse gas emissions. Since just calling for 100 percent clean energy for transportation wouldn't offer any real solutions, Sanders' plan advocates for building electric vehicle charging stations, as well as high-speed passenger and cargo trains, around the country. Clinton's plan would create a Clean Energy Challenge to develop partnerships between the federal government and states, cities, and communities wanting to increase their renewable energy, which she says would help "modernize our transportation system." However, the details about this Clean Energy Challenge remain vague.

    http://www.bustle.com/articles/128195-4-ways-bernie-sanders-climate-plan-differs-from-hillary-clintons

    Goldenbird , 2016-02-20 18:14:46
    Bernie's always been on the side of the people. Here's a 1960s photo of him being arrested by the Chicago police for demonstrating on behalf of people of color:

    https://twitter.com/chicagotribune/status/700856853148868609/photo/1

    macktan894 , 2016-02-20 18:01:52

    "I know how hard-hit Nevada was – I think the highest rate of foreclosures. You still have a lot of houses under water," Clinton said this week. "I take that very seriously ... I want us to move any way we can in the federal government to help relieve the burden of already existing homeowners."

    This is what--almost 10 years after this devastation! When banks whined about their so-called injuries, they were helped in 10 seconds! In fact, they were invited to the White House to draw up their own rescue plan.

    Banks get taxpayer-funded, no-interest loans in 10 seconds; citizens are left to dangle in the wind for 10 years. Takes a lot of gall.

    arlan St.Clair , 2016-02-20 17:30:18
    Bernie wants protections and enforcement. I'm unsure exactly what Clinton has proposed but this is indicative.

    Clinton has spoken in more general terms, seemingly avoiding the root causes of the crash because subprime mortgages flag up her ties to Wall Street.
    "I know how hard-hit Nevada was – I think the highest rate of foreclosures. You still have a lot of houses under water," she said this week. "I take that very seriously ... I want us to move any way we can in the federal government to help relieve the burden of already existing homeowners."


    Instead of insuring against a recurrence, like many in the establishment, they prefer to throw some platitudes and tax dollars at the consequence instead of addressing the cause.
    Bernie's not bought that's why he's willing to do what needs to be done. Ignoring the cycles that occur under deregulated capitalism is a peril I prefer to completely avoid.
    keepithuman , 2016-02-20 17:21:26

    "That guy's a fucking idiot. To be honest with you, I'd be an idiot too if I had his kind of money. I don't want him to be president of my country. If he becomes president, I'm going back to where I came from," Rodriguez said. "I'm not voting," he added. "If I did, I'd vote for Sanders. I've got faith in Sanders. He's telling it like it is. But they'll never let Sanders win. The result is already fixed."

    Victor Rodriguez

    Dear Victor - Your assessment of Trump is pretty accurate, however, I too am a naturalized American citizen, and I feel strongly that it is my duty to participate in the process of electing a President, after all, this is the most important decision that affects all the citizens of this country. So, instead of saying that you will go back to where you come from, and that the results are fixed, get off your ass, go to the polling station and vote for Bernie Sanders immediately. Otherwise, you may well get Trump as your President, and none of us want that!!

    Carly435 , 2016-02-20 17:07:39
    On today's edition of The Young Turks:

    Donors Don't Get Why Hillary Is Losing Ground To Sanders

    Hillary Clinton's donors held a meeting to figure out why there isn't more grass-roots support for her. They held that meeting in the office of a Wall Street investor.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQSZ6J7z-sg

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/17/hillary-clinton-donors-hear-concerns-about-nevada-outcome/

    Ath3na , 2016-02-20 16:50:08
    She either agreed with Goldwater, or she is a chameleon willing to take on any facade if it gives her entry to power.
    Yes, I think even in 1964 she was scheming.
    I used to think only men thought like this, now it is clear that women are really not so much different from men in this regard.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5J29_FcMss0/VaphRMWVa5I/AAAAAAAADg4/bRKcyrOLpDI/s1600/Hillary%2BClinton%2Band%2BGoldwater.jpg

    Scott Plantier , 2016-02-20 16:30:39
    Sex workers support Hillary Clinton? Well, she has worked a smear campaign by spreading herself all over Wall St. for cash……
    Woops1gottasneeze , 2016-02-20 16:27:29
    Maybe Clinton could donate some of the millions she made off of Wall Street speeches to some of the victims who lost their homes to Wall Street greed. Ya think?
    tommydog , 2016-02-20 16:09:07
    Actually, American manufacturing output is very high. The US is the second largest manufacturing nation in the world in terms of output. But it has become ever more automated requiring fewer and fewer workers. Even if manufacturing were to increase considerably, likely it wouldn't employ as many workers as people fantasize as the new plants would be highly automated.
    Ath3na tommydog , 2016-02-20 16:58:32
    Depends how cheap people will work, if there are 0 jobs people will work for next to nothing and that can be cheaper than robots for smaller size business.

    Since China is now dumping their US treasuries, and has ceded control over their currency to "market forces" (international banking cartel interference), they are now positioned to become the new World currency, or "petro dollar". (replacing the US).

    At that point market forces determine China's economy and they can no longer manipulate their currency via US treasury purchase.
    The USA is becoming the next Greece.

    Harlan St.Clair tommydog , 2016-02-20 17:08:59
    Tell that to these workers. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2016/feb/12/carrier-tells-workers-it-moving-all-their-jobs-mexico-video/349877/
    Yet less than three years ago, the company received a $5.1 million stimulus-funded tax credit from the Department of Energy - for the sole purpose of creating and maintaining green jobs in the United States. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431248/stimulus-funded-green-manufacturing-carrier-plant-indianapolis-closes-shop
    macktan894 , 2016-02-20 16:06:11
    Last week, I watched an excellent film "99 Homes," about the cold-blooded foreclosure crisis which showed the heartless schemes of bankers and their minions seizing homes left and right, often fraudulently, to bundle up for resale, making billions in the process. It really was sickening to see people whose jobs had disappeared dragged out of their houses by local police empowered to work for these banks--"get out or we'll arrest you." Those who went to court found judges opposed to them based on "documents" banks forged for the process.

    Luckily, I didn't lose my house, but with wages frozen and prices soaring, I did get behind on payments for a few months and had to withdraw funds from a much devalued pension account to stay afloat. Unemployment soared, as did foreclosures and bankruptcies. It was just awful.

    Too bad Clinton's tongue lashing Wall St had no effect at all on their behavior. The only voices I heard speak out against these banks were Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sander's.

    Scott Plantier macktan894 , 2016-02-20 16:36:48
    Please know that none of this was a surprise to either political party, they were paid MASSIVE sums of "protection money" by financial industry participants in this coordinated fraud designed to exploit the working people fooled into believing their houses were apt to appreciate at the rate of growth stocks by the entirely false demand created by Wall St. Obama traded on our desperate need of recompense while working explicitly for Wall St and was an even greater fraud for it-Only Warren and Bernie stand between us and an Aristocracy.
    Backbutton macktan894 , 2016-02-20 16:42:59
    Yes, Clinton is part of the Wall Street gang, and hubby Billy the C, enabled them with doing away with GS Act and the other GS pays Hillary mega bucks for speeches.
    Ath3na Backbutton , 2016-02-20 17:06:47
    If anyone was curious what Backbutton's "information free" post is about.

    It is this:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

    Pay special attention to the names Weil, Greenspan, Summers and the rest of that ilk (for they are the ones that orchestrated the theft of your childrens future), and you get a clear picture of what has been going on in this country.

    Cyclic recessions and financial crashes, all done purposely.
    Sow and harvest.

    On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month.

    Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"

    eastbayradical Ecopolitics , 2016-02-20 16:09:21
    "Obama is a disastrous example of a one-term, hyper partisan senator...."

    No, you egregious moron.

    Obama entered politics by running against a former-Black Panther. He got slaughtered in the election, but what he didn't accomplish electorally he accomplished by establishing himself as an up-and-coming "pragmatist" black pol willing to oppose radicals and support business-as-usual--in other words, just the type of urban political aspirant the capitalist elite like to attach themselves to, and, let us say, "cultivate."

    Obama came into the presidency having surrounded himself--or having had others surround himself with--banking executives, foreign policy "realists" (ie supporters of the imperial project), and supporters of the surveillance state. As president, he has carried water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security/police-state apparatus since day one. And all the while, bozos like you have accused him of being a hyper-partisan socialist/communist set upon taking down capitalism.

    Carly435 , 2016-02-20 14:49:24
    If Hillary is so determined to "fight for us," why won't she commit to restoring Glass Steagall, the repeal of which (under Clinton) was a major cause of the financial crisis?

    We all know why.

    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/

    So why are all the "yes-butters" still stuck on questions of how Bernie will pay for this or that?

    Under the Reagan administration, deficits soared. But deficits didn't cause the S&L crisis; deregulation did. And who ended up paying for the greed of bankers and speculators like Neil Bush? The taxpayers, to the tune of $130 billion. And what did they get in return for that bailout? The creation of moral hazard which emboldened speculators in the ensuing, far more devastating, 2007 subprime mortage crisis.

    I guess the "Yes-butters" conceive of the presidency as a technocratic position to be headed by an accountant. In that case, FDR should never have been elected.

    The majority of Americans feel differently. They want a transformative leader whose choices at every step of his long and productive life of public service attest to his desire to put the interests of the disadvantaged 99% first and to spearhead SYSTEMIC changes where they are needed most.

    hockeydog , 2016-02-20 14:30:40
    One of my all-time favorite memories was when that guy from Goldman Sachs pocketed Five Billion of the U.S. taxpayer dollars, and then that other famous Goldman Sach alum nit, the Secty of our Treasury made a windfall after he purchased Lehman Bros. shares for 7 cents on the dollar, and then "miracle of miracles" redeemed his investment when the U.S. Bankruptcy Court awarded him 100 cents on the dollar.

    Oh, the memories...,

    jdanforth , 2016-02-20 14:29:25

    Private property based on the labor of the small proprietor, free competition, democracy– all the catchwords with which the Capitalists and their press deceive the workers and the peasants– are things of the distant past.

    Lenin wrote these words 100 years ago in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism , but they seem quite applicable to the people interviewed for this Guardian article.

    Perhaps the workers and peasants of Las Vegas aren't being properly deceived anymore. Some say they are still going to vote for the Democratic Party of Racism and War or the Republican Party of Racism and War, so they are not yet fully awake, but they definitely appear to be making progress.

    Goldenbird , 2016-02-20 14:22:22

    Tanna said the root of the US's problems was not Wall Street but the loss of industry.

    What people don't seem to understand is that "Wall Street" and "the loss of industry" flow from the same root cause: Big Money shanghaeing our politics and economy. Big Money runs Wall Street, AND Big Money shipped our jobs overseas (so they can pay foreign workers peanuts versus paying American workers a decent wage).

    Only Bernie Sanders is courageous enough to say this out loud. All other candidates are bought and paid for by the same Big Money selling America down the river.

    ID9793630 , 2016-02-20 13:27:36
    Sanders has a great track record on affordable housing that is immune to boom and bust and allows for rent or own options - as the initiator of the community land trust model in Burlington, Vermont.

    He will be able to easily formulate policies to refine and reproduce the CLT model. A Sanders presidency would be a unique opportunity to see a transformation of the housing market throughout the US in favour of affordable options, whether to rent or buy, for the majority of people living there - and not by throwing people into dependency on public housing run by local authorities but rather imaginative and constructive partnerships between communities, responsible finance, house builders and other business interests.

    BillTuckerUS , 2016-02-20 13:21:44
    The heart of the problem is free trade. There are no good jobs in America because we don't make anything anymore. The economists told us that imported things would be so much cheaper that it would more than offset our loss of income. However, that didn't happen; prices keep going up. Salaries stagnate, and the corporations move to China and make big profits, and their rich stockholders just get richer.

    Tomorrow's Democratic caucus in Nevada will be very interesting. If Sanders wins, in what was supposed to be a shoo-in for Clinton, that will be a big boost for him.

    By the way, Guardian, did Mr Johnson, the hotel worker, really say "punters"?

    OurNigel , 2016-02-20 13:02:27
    The the US housing collapse came about in part because the American government caved in to the Wall Street lobbyists when they said we (the financial industry) are best placed to police ourselves and allowed for the self-regulation of investment banks and other financial institutions.

    The Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 was a major contributing factor to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis, when it repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing safeguards in the sector among banking, securities and insurance companies. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

    If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable, the Glass Steagall Act was designed to regulate and protect the financial sector, President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate, the financial institutions got their way and et viola just eight years later we had a financial Tsunami of biblical proportions caused by Wall Street greed.

    Both the democratic party and the Republican party are equally to blame for the lack of regulations, and to think allowing these guys (the financial institutions) to police themselves is a sane idea is ludicrous. Its akin to politely asking foxes not to eat the chickens and taking their word that they wont. Look at it another way, if this were the election of a chief of police with one of the main tasks being the fight against organised crime, I think you would be seriously concerned if you discovered that one of the main applicants for the role regularly got paid millions of dollars for speaking to the bad guys. You might even want to the transcripts of what that person said to the bad guys.

    This is why we need a person who hasn't been paid off by Wall Street and is no friend of Wall street.

    Serv_On OurNigel , 2016-02-20 13:52:59
    2000+
    USA is guilty of illegal wars and Global financial crises
    Stupidity is not an excuse even for America
    OurNigel GreatLizard , 2016-02-20 13:56:17
    The housing boom was a con and everyone fell in on the act, either through fear of being left behind or they were blinded by greed thinking housing prices would just keep rising and rising. At best people were stupid.

    The banks caused the housing bubble by lending people money they couldn't afford to borrow, they turned a blind eye to background checks by using a self certified mortgages, as more of these insane policies were awarded more people purchased and house prices sky rocketed, then as always the bubble burst.

    Its not the job of your average Joe to enact policy to regulate financial lending, it is the job of governments to regulate and police lending. People will always be gullible, 'it is the governments role to ensure economic stability" and as such governments should be responsible for policing rather than financial institutions. Failure to do so is not admitting that greed exists or could be motivating factor.

    Financial institutions are not as stupid as one would think, they knew the bubble would burst and so they sold on the toxic assets around the world thus causing a global economic and financial meltdown. In short your average Joe needs to be protected and Wall street needs to be regulated by the government.

    The way it stands now this could easily happen again hence the need for regulation and in my own personal opinion the entire banking industry needs to be reformed.

    Thats why I want Bernie to win.

    GreatLizard OurNigel , 2016-02-20 14:18:41

    At best people were stupid.

    And at worst?

    The banks caused the housing bubble .

    Largely - but not exclusively.

    Its not the job of your average Joe to enact policy to regulate financial lending

    ,

    No, but it is the job of the average Joe to know how much he can borrow and repay.

    it is the job of governments to regulate

    Agree 100%

    and police lending.

    Disagree. No President can know the intricacies of the financial instruments in that detail, nor should s/he. If it were the job of the President to understand it, then you should be asking some very tough questions of your own preferred candidate - Saunders, so you can be sure he actually has such a grasp of the detail that he personally would be capable of policing it. OK - you see where I'm going with this?

    Obviously the government of the day has to delegate policing to people who know, or ought to know precisely how these instruments work, what the risk factors are, and how the risk ought to be managed, in order that the regulator can compel the financial institutions to manage their own risk responsibly.

    But who can know how to do this regulation? You require a "poacher-turned-gamekeeper". That means someone who has worked in that industry - for a long time.

    'it is the governments role to ensure economic stability"

    And that is a nirvana that no government has ever managed to achieve. You must ask yourself why. I think that the answer is that no-one knows how to achieve stability.

    Financial institutions are not as stupid as one would think,

    I think they are both very clever, and entirely lacking in wisdom. I don't know what the situation was in the USA, but in the UK there has a been a trend for the boards of big banks to comprise non-bankers. People who have been successful in other fields - but no professional bankers. Therefore the boards had no proper understanding of the risks their banks were taking.

    they knew the bubble would burst

    I think they most certainly did NOT know. I think once you are inside the bubble, as in any community, most people follow the groupthink. Most people follow the herd. And that is why so many fianancial institutions either went to the wall or nearly did. Because they did NOT believe the bubble would burst. THey did not know or understand the extent of their own exposure.

    and so they sold on the toxic assets around the world thus causing a global economic and financial meltdown.

    And bought them back too.

    In short your average Joe needs to be protected and Wall street needs to be regulated by the government.

    Yes, and yes, and yes it is, but the problem is that the regulators do not always know what they are regulating. No politician ever can know, that's for sure.

    The way it stands now this could easily happen again hence the need for regulation and in my own personal opinion the entire banking industry needs to be reformed.

    Easier said than done.

    Thats why I want Bernie to win.

    And Bernie, who has never worked in finance- he knows how to regulate?

    hockeydog GreatLizard , 2016-02-20 14:34:25
    Sorry to have to bring you the news, but the real elephant in the room is Goldman Sachs.

    I am with OurNigel, Bernie is our guy!

    SavvasKara GreatLizard , 2016-02-20 15:02:20
    No it does not work like that I am afraid. Do not look at it from a microscopic perspective of "Don't borrow if you cannot pay back". Most people borrow and CAN pay back so long as they keep their jobs and their salaries remain more or less unchanged. BUT a recession has the effect that a lot of people lose their jobs due to a fall in demand (the foundational rule of supply and demand in modern economics) or have a decrease in their salaries so that the company where they are working at remains open or retains its profit margin. The fact that people lose their jobs makes them unable to repay their previously fully affordable loans. This has a domino effect as in turn it further reduces demand etc. In a stable and slightly improving economy this scenario of course does not occur (that's why we are able to function), so it is the instigator that is to blame and that was the financial system in the US. The housing bauble was created and burst by banks (and I am not making a distinction between investment and commercial banks since there was none after the repeal of certain regulatory legislation) through creating and trading in bad faith products they knew were toxic (derivatives), betting on their failure (creating a negative psychological effect) and issuing even more loans for ridiculous terms on bad creditors to make money (individual gains since they work on percentages on the volume of incoming and FUTURE business ;) ) . Add to that the vulnerability of US and International banks due to over-leveraging (that is, hold stocks on assets worth billions and trillions while only holding 5% of the actually money that you would need to own the so called stocks, money that were their deposits that were also supposed to satisfy banking needs such as a customer coming over to withdraw money), a panic and a banking run and this creates the perfect storm. Over-leveraging is another effect of removing regulations that control how much a corporation can be leveraged. To sum it up, greed ... Greed can take you a long way until you crush and burn but you DO crush and burn ... and when on your plane rest the lives and livelihoods of 7 billion people (since that is indeed a world economy) the world crushes and burns with you.

    I am in favour of changing the economy completely at some point since this classical economics paradigm is wildly obsolete (no longer do we have a LACK of resources which needs a system to appropriately ration them to the best entities. Everyone can have food, clothing and the basic commodities of life nowadays). Perhaps an energy-based economy is what is preferable but lacking that, proper regulation to avoid lives being destroyed is a certainly welcome addition in my mind :) .

    Carly435 GreatLizard , 2016-02-20 15:03:04

    he knows how to regulate?

    You betcha. He's been a lawmaker since 1990. In 1998 he voted against every effort to roll back Glass-Steagall. If there had been more honest and informed lawmakers like him, the 2008 crisis could have been averted.

    We had banking regulation and it worked great. Ask any expert and they will tell you that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a major cause of the 2008 financial crisis. So why is Bernie Sanders the only candidate in this race willing to commit to re-enacting it into law?

    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/

    I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone who got a massive kick in the ass would want to bend over again for these people -- masochism?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAElF3cMZVk

    3 minute mark:

    Tell us how low to go, Your Majesty;
    Make some more decrees, Your Majesty,
    Don't let us up off out knees, Your Majesty.
    Give us a kick, if you please Your Majesty
    Give us a kick, if you would, Your Majesty
    Oh, That was good, Your Majesty!

    Serv_On Carly435 , 2016-02-20 15:14:19
    "Ask any expert and they will tell you that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a major cause of the 2008 financial crisis."
    =
    I'll ask you
    why do you believe repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 was cause of 2007 and 2008 crises
    would it have prevented cheap credit MBS securities housing boom commission trading leading to 2008 crises

    shouldn't the 2007 housing market issues have warned any bright spark that there was a housing bubble
    ==
    Please note the correct answer to above financial analysis is not mindless Bernie or Bill answer

    [Feb 21, 2016] A Win for Hillary Clinton, With Signs of Challenges Ahead - The New York Times

    blogs.nytimes.com

  • [Feb 20, 2016] South Carolina primary: Trump wins big while Jeb Bush drops out – live

    www.theguardian.com
    Informed17 , 2016-02-21 03:26:56
    At least Bush is out of the game. We already had twice as many Bushes as is good for the country. The dad was so-so, the son was a total disaster.
    bks3bks , 2016-02-21 03:25:51
    Jeb! -> !Jeb
    (For programmers, only)
    Ememem , 2016-02-21 03:19:22
    The rest of the world watches on in utter disbelief, once again, at the extreme ignorance of too many in America's heartland. Chest-pounding, God-fearing, huntin, shootin, we've got the biggest genitals and military hardware and thickest heads. Sure, a lot of Trump's bombast is pure bait to reel in those knuckleheads and politicians the world over will recognise this BUT the world has experienced this before with George W. He lost all respect outside of the American heartland. He never regained it. That he won twice was lampooned across Europe. Donald Trump is insulting people across the world ten times more than GW Bush. Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, anyone he thinks the ignorant at home want to blame for America's ills. Surely there has to be a limit to the insults, when governments everywhere else start to look away from the USA for trade, mutual respect and alignment. Where people might share a greater respect for others.
    RichardTheModerate , 2016-02-21 03:16:52
    Cruz on Bush: "A man who ran a campaign based on ideas, based on policy, based on substance, a man who didn't go to the gutter and engage in insults and attacks. Governor Bush brought honor and dignity to this campaign."

    Yup, so maybe Cruz could learn something?

    Juillette , 2016-02-21 03:14:12
    Congrats to Trump! The same to Bernie for closing the gap. Those are the only 2 candidates I would vote for in the general election.
    profitendieu , 2016-02-21 03:12:16
    What a wormy little pipsqueek of a man that Marco Rubio is!
    eoincarnes , 2016-02-21 03:10:59
    Moving Memorial Service Held For Presidential Aspirations Of Jeb Bush
    kai7081 , 2016-02-21 02:32:41
    Dear Marco, So, you've managed to perhaps come in second in the SC primary. Congratulations on pulling the wool over so many eyes I. That state. My question to you is if (and that's a stretch of the imagination) if you win the presidency will you show up for the swearing in? Your record in the senate says no. Your record in the Florida legislature says no. You are the great pretender, the small man in Cuban heels, the man who is social climbing through politics. Never interested enough in state politics to actually show up for the job. The same goes for the senate...too boring for you. You don't have the chops for the presidency. No morals, no sense of responsibility, no intellectual curiosity, nothing. You are an empty suit memorizing lines. How pathetic.
    Nevis7 , 2016-02-21 02:32:29
    The reality is that if the Democrats had as many candidates as the GOP has/had running, Hillary would have dropped out by this point, just like Jeb. America is tired of family dynasties when this country is supposed to be a democracy. This country is looking for a fundamental shift one way or the other rather than rehashing of the same old policies over and over again.
    Dmanny , 2016-02-21 02:28:50
    Marco Rubio will be the next president of the United States.
    Philip J Sparrow Dmanny , 2016-02-21 02:31:38
    An historic breakthrough for robot rights.
    nnedjo , 2016-02-21 02:23:26
    Hillary Clinton believes that she has to deal with "one issue candidate" Bernie Sanders. Well, it will not be long when Hillary will realize that she has to deal with the millions of Americans who are also interested in only one issue, and that is:
    Where to find the money to pay off their debts, to raise their children and send them to school and to pay for doctors and medicine when one of their loved ones or they themselves get sick.
    Therefore, all this really would not be an important issue, if all of them would be able to earn half a million dollars by holding only a few speeches at Goldman Sachs.
    robertthebruce2014 , 2016-02-21 02:21:51
    Watch Trump go after Bankers after he is done with the Saudis and then finally go after the Fed itself for setting up a false credit system which gave America 19,000,000,000,000 $ and ticking in debt. Yes folks those are all derivatives and other capital shit without anyone ever having to have to work for it. It's called the credit system in the hands of PRIVATE bankers, so go on Trump, as they say in Britain, go on, and expose all the lies we have been seeing for over longer than people can remember, bring back the Greenback and the Silver Dollar cerftificates so that real production AND NOT CREDIT and real jobs come back to the country without financier market leeches and other assorted scum top off and sell the house. Only a real estate developer would see through this trash so you are well positioned and do not let sicko Bloomberg stop you who made his money by selling financial info to capital mongers. Go on Trump, knock 'm dead.
    SamSmeagol robertthebruce2014 , 2016-02-21 02:28:14
    You're assuming that Trump's messages are honest and consistent - far from it. There's absolutely no telling what he might do if he were POTUS - a real leap into the dark. On the other hand, there's only Sander's that will make a difference, since Hillary will maintain the status quo.
    Philip J Sparrow robertthebruce2014 , 2016-02-21 02:30:41
    Trump - the guy who literally owns a building on Wall Street and who owns shares in Citigroup and Morgan Stanley - to go after the bankers?

    You might as well ask Chris Christie to get tough on pie.

    skippy07 Satans_Ballsack , 2016-02-21 02:32:53
    Clinton will fail against Trump. Bernie is the only one that can stop him.

    It took One verbal kill shot from Trump about Bill's sexual harrassment of women and Hillary fled in terror.

    Her nomination will surpress the whole white blue collar vote for the democrats, just as the nomination of Romney did the same for the republicans.

    Trump appeals to minorities much more than other Republicans as he is not a nutter budget cutter like the test of them. Trump will be the most left wing Republican nominee since Lincoln.

    Welcome President Trump.

    DomesticExtremist , 2016-02-21 02:17:06
    Jeb! - the man who single-handedly made the exclamation mark signify dreary disappointment.

    He will be missed like a hole in the head.

    James Donaghy , 2016-02-21 02:02:01
    How can people vote for Hillary and not Sanders???? This is madness voting out of pure fear even though polls have suggested SANDERS is more ELECTABLE then HILLARY.
    This better go the way of the 2008 Democratic Primary and kick Hillary Outta here
    Steve Haigh James Donaghy , 2016-02-21 02:07:23
    i'm an undecided dem voter (California). i like Bernie and think Hillary has too much baggage, but she does have a lot of experience, and Bill by her side.
    mutanthummingbird Steve Haigh , 2016-02-21 02:11:07
    What experience? being involved in war, colluded with corporations, pro tpp... that's the candidate people want?
    robertthebruce2014 , 2016-02-21 01:54:17
    Now let's go some more after the Saudis and 9/11 Donald - and after Hillary 'Goldman' Rodman - Clinton of course. Keep up the good work! Bravo.
    hillbillyzombie , 2016-02-21 01:49:37
    Rule 1 in politics is to ignore the polls and follow the bookies (as I mentioned on another thread, they drive much nicer cars than do pollsters). After tonight (from Paddypower):

    Hillary 10/11 it's still her's to lose.

    Trump 4/1 no change

    Rubio 4/1 big mover of the night. He's now the sole candidate in the 'establishment' lane. The rest of the Republican field are toast.

    Bernie 15/2 still has to show that he can win beyond his white, liberal base. Next couple weeks are going to be rocky, as the race moves to the South.

    lebronneJanes hillbillyzombie , 2016-02-21 01:53:00
    Rubio will get a spike from Jeb! Quitting.
    AbFalsoQuodLibet hillbillyzombie , 2016-02-21 01:54:44

    Rubio 4/1 big mover of the night. He's now the sole candidate in the 'establishment' lane. The rest of the Republican field are toast.

    Yes, this is the big takeaway from the night. You're not giving Paddypower's odds on Cruz, but they have got to be down. If he can't win heavily Evangelical South Carolina - and even the most Evangelical precincts there - where can he win? Cruz and Rubio going to Feel the Toupee

    cvneuves , 2016-02-21 01:47:22
    In a duel Trump vs. Clinton she will be political mincemeat after five minutes. He will just casually mention the excellent service he got for every donation he made to the Clinton gang.
    Philip J Sparrow cvneuves , 2016-02-21 01:49:25
    And she'll respond by asking for an invitation to his next wedding.
    Phoenix9061210 cvneuves , 2016-02-21 01:51:34
    Trump is more aggressive than Sanders. He will make more of a case that Hillary should be in jail, that she is unsafe with national security and people should trust Trump.

    Trump could make the same case about someone whom wasn't a verifiable loose cannon.

    moria50 cvneuves , 2016-02-21 02:00:25
    The Trumps and the Clintons are good friends.......I feel a deal had been made.
    He will step back later and let Hillary Clinton win.
    cKiding , 2016-02-21 01:47:22
    Hillary voters were caught on tape walking in without registering- Caucus process was a complete mess. People were told to leave without the count was over. Which is against DNC's policies. Is this for real. I am watching the clips on you tube and on some other news networks. Can someone research this please.
    Carly435 , 2016-02-21 01:36:41
    At this point, only one candidate can stop Donald Trump:

    Bernie Sanders.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/18/bernie-sanders-better-liked-runs-better-against-re/

    elliot2511 Carly435 , 2016-02-21 01:43:51
    Sanders is "better liked" because voters don't really know him, so his disapproval ratings are low...its the same reason John Kasich destroys Hillary in any head to head.


    Its likely that November will see the two candidates with the highest disapproval ratings -Trump and Clinton - go head to head....which should be interesting.

    Philter , 2016-02-21 01:35:55
    Clearly, the vote for Trump is a protest against the Republican Party selling out to corporate interests and turning the US's democracy into a corpocracy.

    And you can include Sanders in that.

    Power to the people.

    Steve Haigh , 2016-02-21 01:30:04
    Trump is the best outcome for the dems, see this
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
    DD11111 Steve Haigh , 2016-02-21 01:32:40
    Well many polls initially said Trump would not get 5% and would be out of the race in a week.
    Vermouth Brilliantine DD11111 , 2016-02-21 01:36:52
    A WSJ poll this week had him coming a distant 2nd. People keep underestimating him- and I'm confident people would turn out in droves to vote for him (or ANYONE) against Clinton. With Trump's many liberal stances, even some Democrats who hate Clinton would vote Trump.
    Funchal , 2016-02-21 01:24:51
    The Republican Party need to accept that the people want Trump. The establishment need to put their egos aside and realise that he is the best chance they've got.
    PropJoe99 Janeee , 2016-02-21 01:24:16
    Hillary would be more hawkish than Obama, who is one of the most violent presidents ever. Id rather have Trump. Really.
    gunnison , 2016-02-21 01:10:55
    I've been saying all along that I didn't think Trump could be the GOP nominee.

    After this massive win in South Carolina, where he said all the Things You're Not Supposed To Say-about Dubya, about war, about him lying us into a war, about Planned Parenthood not being demonic, about healthcare, about all those things which are supposedly politically suicidal-I honestly don't see who the GOP has who can beat him.

    The GOP is being turned inside out and upside down, and they have no fucking clue what, if anything, can be done about it.

    Another thing.
    If Trump is the nominee, he can beat HRC.
    The Democrat party establishment is in serious denial of her negatives, which are huge.
    Dangerously so.

    Philip J Sparrow , 2016-02-21 01:08:51
    "Trump would start at a disadvantage: Most Americans just really don't like the guy."

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters /

    Funchal Philip J Sparrow , 2016-02-21 01:14:12
    The media will print this stuff because he is a threat. All the elite which includes the media, lobbyists, special interests are used to their corrupt cosy bubble.
    Peter Flagler , 2016-02-21 01:07:44
    I live in North Carolina. The results of the primary are disturbing to say the least. Most of the people I work with are for Trump. I think Trump will have a majority of delegates after March primaries. I never thought Trump had a chance. I still don't think he will be the GOP nominee. I am quite pleased the GOP has self-destructed (the extremists will never accept an "establishment" candidate). You can be happy about the death of the GOP, but if Trump or Cruz are acceptable to a sizable electorate, that is shameful. Frightening.
    ConventionPrevention , 2016-02-21 01:07:12
    I will agree with Trump on this one point. George Bush did lie about the WMDs. He lied through his teeth. Dick Cheny lied through his teeth. Colin Powell lied through his teeth and many others in the Bush cabinet lied through their teeth. Condoleezza Rice was also complicit.
    The current congress for the most part is a traitorous congress.
    GorCro ConventionPrevention , 2016-02-21 01:15:20
    Not treason. Sedition.
    Philip J Sparrow , 2016-02-21 01:04:53
    Latest polling has Sanders beating Trump by up to 15 points:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

    The Chump can barely muster a third of his own party's vote, he has no chance come November. It will be so much fun watching the bilious halfwit crash and burn.

    poolfreezer , 2016-02-21 00:56:44
    As an Australian existing under the thumb of a hard rightwing religious plutocracy , I regard Bernie Sanders as an inspiration . Good luck America --
    Clackers , 2016-02-21 00:54:22
    Fast forward to May 2017. A relieved US Congress accepts Her Majesty's Government's request for the former American colonies to rejoin the Commonwealth under the premiership of Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn. Former president Sir B Obama (knighted for services to the Commonwealth) and the first Governor for two centuries, said "Thank goodness for Britain, for without her, we would have trumped by China. Long Live the King."
    kaltnadel , 2016-02-21 00:36:19
    Why do so few people vote in the Nevada caucus? 8000? and we all pay so much attention?
    AbFalsoQuodLibet kaltnadel , 2016-02-21 00:43:21
    80,000. Not a lot, no.
    SocalAlex kaltnadel , 2016-02-21 02:22:37
    Because it's a caucus. A ridiculous 18th century relic, where you have to show up in person at a specific time (a time when loads of people are working or looking after their children or otherwise committed/engaged), stay there however long is necessary, and publicly announce your vote to all and sundry while being forced to defend it to your opponents trying to change your mind.

    In other words, it has very little to do with "voting" as is commonly understood...

    Whatsup12 , 2016-02-21 00:35:10
    Vote Goldman! Vote Hillary!
    Haigin88 , 2016-02-21 00:24:43
    Bill Clinton shamelessly likening Bernie Sanders and his supporters to the Tea Party wackos last Monday:

    "....."It's not altogether mysterious that there are a lot of people that say, well, the Republican party rewarded the Tea Party. They just tell people what they want to hear, move them to the right and we'll be rewarded, except they didn't get anything done," Clinton said. "That's going on in our party now."........".

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/bill-clinton-tells-florida-jews-hillary-will-prioritize-israel-ties /

    Shanajackson , 2016-02-21 00:22:59
    Isn't Hillary expected to win Nevada and South Carolina ? Is this not her southern "FireWall" Hmm I winder if she had her firewall turned on when she was sending her emails from her private server. Anyway, the fact that Nevada was close is a bad sign for Clinton and Super Tuesday IMO.
    nnedjo , 2016-02-21 00:19:58

    Richard Wolffe: Bernie Sanders may, like Steve Jobs, be living in a reality distortion field...
    All of which may be true – but it just isn't enough because, well, he lost in Nevada.

    Yes, and then what? Obama also lost to Clinton in Nevada in 2008, but he finally won.
    Listen, Wolffe, why don't you stop to distort the reality field?
    TaiChiMinh casclc , 2016-02-21 00:18:30
    If Clinton keeps running a scorched earth, divisive campaign, she will make sure that no such powerful combination occurs. For progressives to support her will take a lot - and I meant a lot. She is almost the epitome of their dissatisfaction with the Democratic party - why her campaign continues smears and dishonest attacks ON THE PEOPLE THEY WILL NEED bears thinking about.
    joey88 , 2016-02-21 00:12:31
    Nat Silver :While Clinton has won the first two caucuses in the Democratic race - while losing New Hampshire, the only primary - it's possible that Bernie Sanders will win every state caucus from here on out.

    Here's why I say that. The remaining Democratic states to hold caucuses are: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Washington and Wyoming. Other than Hawaii - where I'm not going to pretend we have any earthly idea what's going to happen - those are a bunch of really white states that otherwise look favorable for Sanders and which he could win even if he slightly trails Clinton nationally.

    Clinton is probably favored in the territorial caucuses in American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands, however, as territorial caucuses tend to heavily favor "establishment" candidates.

    Very interesting point which widespread media is choosing to overlook but this could be a game changer

    TaiChiMinh joey88 , 2016-02-21 00:23:02
    Why is winning caucuses - and in states with small to medium delegate counts - a game changer? To win the nomination you have to 1) assemble a strong coalition and 2) win the big-delegate primaries showing you have popular vote strength. In doing this you need 3) to pull the party together so that it can win the general - kind of the opposite of what Trump is doing in the GOP.

    I worry, and have since before Sanders was a factor, that should Hillary do 1) and 2) (as I expect she can), she has no idea how to do 3) and won't. A significant segment of the party doesn't support Clinton - some never will - she needs to grasp this and deal with it.

    Vermouth Brilliantine craighm , 2016-02-21 00:23:38
    Trump is opposed to the TPP, wants to tear up NAFTA, supports protectionism (punitive import tariffs on US companies which outsource), supports tax-hikes on highest income-earners, supports lower taxes on lowest income-earners, wants to introduce nation-wide Medicare for people on the lowest economic rungs of society, speaks out against corporate/political cronyism and lobbyist influence over government contracts, and bases his opposition to illegal immigration on the way it hurts blue-collar US citizens vocationally. Meanwhile, Cruz takes his marching orders from groups like the evangelical-racist Palmetto Family Council and wants to abolish the IRS, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, and Dept. of Housing.

    So, how exactly is Trump a global elitist, again...?

    jockeylad , 2016-02-21 00:11:10
    It would appear that the message from Nevada democrats is "more of the same old tired shit please" - the Clintons have been on the scene long enough to have been totally captured by big business & know all the bottom feeding lobbyist snakes by their first names - if this is what they mean by " the most prepared and experienced human being America has ever seen for this office " Good luck if Hilary gets in America. Just another Big Business sock puppet.

    Sleep well in the (My fellow Americans - & by that I mean the ones that are the same colour as me & have money - your future is safe on my watch) fire.

    Mark Forrester , 2016-02-21 00:07:05
    Poor old Hilary.

    All the money, all the connections, all the spin, the family, the party machine working overtime for her. And yet, and yet...

    She should be annihilating Sanders - the socialist curmudgeon. But as this result shows, people just don't buy what she's selling, they don't believe her, they don't trust her, they think there's something rotten about her, they feel it, they smell it.

    And there's the choice. Clinton, no ideals, slippery, inconsistent, pragmatic, a reflection of an innately corrupt system yet equipped with the Francis Underwood skillset to work that system, or Sanders, an principled, naive, brave, inflexible - who is happy to tear that whole system down.

    Sanders might struggle to get things done with the media, political system, big business and many in his own party want him to crash and burn. Clinton may be in the pocket of Wall Street and simply maintain the status quo with some of the harshest edges sanded off. Perils down both routes.

    Personally, I'd like to see battle for America's soul. Sanders v Trump. Good vs Evil. I'd buy a ticket for that rather than the dull Clinton v Rubio yawnathon that seems the likeliest outcome. A contest I'd want them, somehow, to both lose.

    AlexTarbet , 2016-02-20 23:56:08
    What's up with The Guardian fanfare for Clinton? I just peeked at the L.A. Times and they were very clear that she just eked out a narrow win. Our supposed progressive Guardian is already tuning up the Hillary band for "Hail to the Chief". This election is getting curiouser and curiouser.
    joey88 AlexTarbet , 2016-02-21 00:01:44
    If you watched the CNN live broadcast the hacks are actually describing it as a decisive victory and a turning point. I am at a loss for words at how bias the establishment media are becoming as they continue to eek out this false narrative. If I were an American I would feel insulted that these networks hold the general public in such little regard as to deem them morons.

    [Feb 20, 2016] Larry Ellison gives another $1 million to boost Marco Rubio

    www.politico.com

    The tech billionaire has given $4 million overall to pro-Rubio super PAC

    [Feb 20, 2016] 28Pages.org

    28pages.org
    Defending his attention-grabbing assertions that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was an enormous mistake facilitated by the George W. Bush administration's misleading of the American people, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump this week indirectly referred to 28 classified pages said to link the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 attacks.

    "It wasn't the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center. We went after Iraq, we decimated the country, Iran's taking over…but it wasn't the Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center, because they have papers in there that are very secret, you may find it's the Saudis, okay? But you will find out," Trump said at a Wednesday campaign event in Bluffton, South Carolina.

    Trump's implied promise to declassify the 28 pages sets him apart from the remaining Republican and Democratic presidential aspirants, filling a gap created when Rand Paul suspended his campaign. Last summer, Paul introduced Senate Bill 1471, which, if passed, would direct the president to release the 28 pages, and he pledged to release them himself if elected to the White House. Green Party candidate Jill Stein has also called for their release. (Then-Senator Hillary Clinton co-signed a 2003 letter to President Bush demanding the release of the 28 pages, but has been silent on the topic since.)

    [Feb 19, 2016] Obama appointee gave $100,000 to Jeb Bush's super PAC

    Notable quotes:
    "... the $100,000 gift still makes Palmisano a megadonor operating inside a system many critics feel is corrupting democracy. ..."
    "... "To someone outside of Washington, this might seem odd," says Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, which monitors campaign-finance issues. "But here in Washington, it's really not surprising at all." ..."
    "... The $100,000 donation to Right to Rise was Palmisano's first dalliance with a super PAC, a newer type of funding mechanism that may be the most significant innovation in American politics in decades. Unlike traditional political-action groups or campaign committees, super PACs can accept unlimited donations to spend as they wish either supporting favored candidates or opposing rivals. The 2010 Citizens United ..."
    "... Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. ..."
    "... Follow him on Twitter: ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    Sam Palmisano is undoubtedly a technology expert. As CEO of IBM (IBM) from 2003 to 2011, he presided over a tech giant during the formative years of the digital revolution. That makes him a logical choice to be vice chairman of a new White House panel on cybersecurity, an appointment President Obama announced this week.

    Palmisano is also a Republican who gave $100,000 last March to Jeb Bush's super PAC, Right to Rise. That puts him in the rarified stratum of people making six-, seven- or eight-figure donations to help a chosen candidate win. Palmisano is hardly the biggest spender in the 2016 race. At least 110 people have made larger donations to the Bush super PAC, the biggest being a $10 million offering from former AIG chairman Hank Greenberg. But the $100,000 gift still makes Palmisano a megadonor operating inside a system many critics feel is corrupting democracy.

    "To someone outside of Washington, this might seem odd," says Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, which monitors campaign-finance issues. "But here in Washington, it's really not surprising at all."

    Nor is it unusual for a president to establish a bipartisan commission or study group, which tends to have more credibility than a single-party panel more likely to push an ideological agenda. The chairman of the cybersecurity panel will be Tom Donilon, a longtime Obama aide and former National Security Adviser. Donilon and Palmisano will help recruit another 10 panel members of both parties, whose job will be to produce a report by Dec. 1 on ways to improve Internet security and lure more talented people into the field.

    The White House maintains that choosing Palmisano shows Obama is putting substance over politics. "Cybersecurity is a non-partisan issue," Deputy White House Press Secretary Jen Friedman told Yahoo Finance. "Maintaining public safety, and our economic and national security, transcends politics."

    Before donating to Bush's super PAC, Palmisano was an occasional political contributor who gave a total of $26,600 to a handful of politicians, of both parties, beginning in 1998, according to Federal Election Commission data. Last year, he gave $2,700 to Jeb Bush's campaign committee (which is seperate from the super PAC) and $5,400 to Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. On the Democratic side, Palmisano gave $3,000 to Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York in 2002 and 2003, and $1,000 to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2004. Palmisano didn't respond to a request for comment, but his giving pattern prior to the Right to Rise donation suggests the pragmatic concerns of a businessman putting a few bucks in the pots of key legislators as a token of support.

    The $100,000 donation to Right to Rise was Palmisano's first dalliance with a super PAC, a newer type of funding mechanism that may be the most significant innovation in American politics in decades. Unlike traditional political-action groups or campaign committees, super PACs can accept unlimited donations to spend as they wish either supporting favored candidates or opposing rivals. The 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision basically eliminated caps on political donations, and super PACs have proliferated ever since.

    Rick Newman's latest book is Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.

    [Feb 18, 2016] Lynn Nottage: Nostalgia is a disease many white Americans have

    Notable quotes:
    "... Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago. ..."
    "... You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity. Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages they have stuck to for the last generation? ..."
    "... median household incomes in America peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity. ..."
    "... Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them. ..."
    "... The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional, creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than is the select group of playwrights listed in the article. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    AmyInNH seastar

    6m ago 0 1 Well thank you for clearing that up. All this time I thought Washington was getting intensely corrupt and now I know it's all in my head.
    Nostalgia is for stability, not "white culture".
    As for immigrant labor, I'm sure this chart, one of the many means of robber baron tactics, flooding the labor market, is mere coincidence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_foreign_born_in_the_US_labor_force_1900_to_2007.png Reply | Report Maritz , 2016-02-18 01:18:17
    It took how many years to come up with the appalling misconception that blue collar steel workers benefited from any type of "supremacy" unless you believe that having a job that pays enough to put a roof over your family's heads and food on the table should be beyond the reach of all but a selected few....Blue collar workers have only ever aspired to keeping their kids in school as long as possible and neither they nor their kids ever had any designs on a college education. Word hard, pay the bills, retire, and die within five years. I don't know in what world that translates to white privelege or advantage, especially when they worked with African Americans and Latinos.

    Now politicians promise every child a college education. If you can't understand the difference between this generation that has been told the world is their oyster and the ones who worked in the Steel mills for generations and knew what their kids could look forward, knew that college was beyond the modest aspirations of their kids and their grandkids you didn't ask the right questions or the right people and the result is an ideologically driven mess of race baiting, sexist claptrap. Get used to being called on your bullsh*t. We all need to check our privilege when we write about race. Talk about entitlement.

    EpaminondasUSA , 2016-02-18 01:16:26
    Lynn Nottage never saw Spike Lee's "Crooklyn." One would call that nostalgic.
    elcantwell , 2016-02-18 00:20:29
    The tough part for me is constantly hearing about what the President did or didn't do. The US government is structured specifically to limit the actions of the executive branch. The conditions of the economic disaster were exacerbated by the unparalleled obstructionism of the opposition party and the lack of support from the president's own party. If Democrats had been willing to oppose a sitting president back in '03 we might have avoided a bankrupting war that still has not ended.
    Thatingles GoatyGoY , 2016-02-18 00:12:40
    Not really. Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago. For sure it was better to be white then black but since you can never really measure the extent of white privilege on your own life, how can you have nostalgia for it?
    The writer claims that current political events are being shaped by a chimaera she can provide no evidence for and ignoring the very real changes that could be driving the political shifts toward more radical candidates.
    Thatingles seastar , 2016-02-18 00:06:27
    You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity. Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages they have stuck to for the last generation?

    Trump is insane, of course, but voting for Hillary or Cruz is equally insane for most of middle America. They would effectively be voting to see their incomes go down and to fall further behind the wealthiest. Why is that a good decision?

    Thatingles , 2016-02-18 00:01:27
    For sure there is nostalgia: nostalgia for the time when middle class incomes were enough to provide a decent lifestyle, were expected to rise and provide enough to pay for your kids to get a decent education. The writer then frames this as nostalgia for white privilege, but I have to question that. Surely the expectation was that as discrimination was rolled back, ethnic minorities would start to come up and equalise their incomes with the white population. After all, that is what every mainstream politician promised would happen. But median household incomes in America peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity.

    And *every* US president and political party has dissembled on this point. Every time, the promise is the same - we can get back to the rising incomes and increasing equality of the last century. And every time, nothing of the sort is delivered.

    So if there is nostalgia, it not only has a very real basis in fact, but is a nostalgia for a time when economic gains were distributed more equally, not a nostalgia for a time when white privilege (whatever that means) was a greater force.

    Sanders and Trump both represent a break from politicians and messages that have palpably failed to deliver. The voters put up with being lied to for some time but their patience has run out.

    Of course Trump can be portrayed as an out and out racist, so its easy to say - well his support is based on race politics. I have no doubt that many do support him for that reason. But the wider picture is this:

    The American voters feel they have been lied to by established politicians and are now looking for alternatives. If they have nostalgia for times past, that is founded not on a dream of white supremacy, but founded on a recollection of times when the economy did work better for the majority.

    Marc Smith , 2016-02-17 22:37:43
    Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them.
    GeoffP ThaddeusTheBold , 2016-02-17 21:37:18

    They now realize their automatic entitlement to being consequential is gone

    What the hell are you talking about? My father didn't have any damn " entitlement to being consequential". He worked his heart out for it, day in and out, and I was proud to do it alongside him.

    Maybe instead of just applying a racist take on perspective, why not think about what you write first? And why is it that every time - every. single. time - this topic comes up that someone widens the gap of guilt to the entirety of white people generally? Where's the border for you? Canada? The UK? Latvia? What is enough of a geographic guilt complex for your needs? Let us know.

    pintoks , 2016-02-17 21:25:37
    The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional, creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than is the select group of playwrights listed in the article.
    strobi Cannylad1919 , 2016-02-17 21:22:47
    the fact that the more academically qualified white female has less chance of getting a place in harvard than a wealthy African-American, is hardly the fault of African Americans or any form of reverse racism, it s the fault of first Harvard being a private university that caters to economic elites, the lack of funding in education and that education is handled at the local level, so funding and quality depend greatly on the education level of the local community and how wealthy they are. This perpetuates inequalities. Still, if you put this hypothetical white female from Harlan County in nice clothes and send her to a fancy mall, together with an equally well dressed young black woman, who do you think security will follow?

    There are also studies where equal CV were sent to potential employers, with the only difference being white, latino, asian or African American sounding names, and the white sounding names were picked more often, everything else being equal.

    It is time that you realize that racism is a real thing and no, working class whites 't doing poorly because of minorities, they are doing poorly (together with minorities) because of the economic system. Unless of course, you think that whites should do better, because, well, they are whites. The later is what I think the nostalgia is all about, 50 years ago white would have had an edge over minorities that today no longer have in most places.

    Surf Murf , 2016-02-17 21:15:27
    This woman is so so wise and enlightened that that her extreme intellect has crossed the line on insanity. Liberals like her will do their best to herd the rest of us into believing that only white working class men are attracted to people like trump and it's only because they are racists. No no lady bone head.

    First of all, you and your elitists, pompous and supposed educated comrades need to stop using the race card overtime you find someone you disagree with. Secondly, Trump has attracted the attention on a multitude of people across all facets of our society and it's not because we are racists, it't because he at least vocalizes, inspire of all of your absurd PC proclamations, facts that the majority of us Americans know and see each day.

    By the way, I am an American with brown skin who's ancestry is African and I appreciate most of what Trump espouses. So please stop trying to make the rest of us fear and hate white working class men just because you've fantasized about their hatred toward you. You and your kind (elitists liberals) will no longer lead me down the path of destruction.

    Individualist RollTide16 , 2016-02-17 20:38:25
    Exactly, all the places that hit rock bottom during the crack epidemic are on their way up now just in time to start attracting people back from the suburban and peri-urban sprawl with its body and soul weakening car dependent isolation.

    Cities like New York and DC are way ahead of surrounding areas in providing public services and creating sustainable buildings plus car-less ways of getting around.

    [Feb 17, 2016] Hillary is used to beating, kicking and abusing her own husband – former Nixon adviser

    Notable quotes:
    "... Do you think they'll sue you or they're too busy running the campaign? ..."
    "... my problem with Hillary Clinton is her physical abuse of people, and that is the case I make in the book. ..."
    "... Clintons and the Bushes are the same. They actually work together. They raised $138 mn dollars through a non-profit for Haitian earthquake relief. They spent $10 million ,the pocketed a $128 million. It's in this book. ..."
    "... They believe this system is broken, they don't like either party, they distrust political institutions, they distrust the Congress, they distrust the big media, they distrust the system, which they believe, is rigged against the average person - and that's why Trump, and, to a certain extent, Ben Carson, for example, and maybe even Bernie Sanders, they are resonating, because voters see them as outsiders and different from the other career politicians. Bernie Sanders isn't taking special interest money, he's not taking PAC money. God bless him! ..."
    RT - SophieCo

    The American presidential contest is heating up, but the new book about Democratic co-frontrunner Hillary Clinton may have some wide consequences. It alleges that the Clinton family has been involved in abuse, rape and fraud, not having any qualms with using the privileged position and money to shut the mouths of victims. What's the basis of these claims? Can it change the flow of the election campaign? We speak to the author of the book, a former advisor to Nixon and Reagan. Roger Stone is on Sophie&Co today.

    Sophie Shevardnadze: Roger Stone, political strategist, former advisor to presidents Nixon, Reagan, to candidate Donald Trump.. Now, you've just pen a book, called "Clinton's war on women", where you alleged that a lot of, frankly, sensational things about the personal lives of Bill and HIllary Clinton. For instance, you claim that Clintons systematically abused women, sexually and physically. Do you mean to say they rape and beat them? I mean, is that what you're saying?

    Roger Stone:

    ".... many of these women were very reticent to talk because they are poor women. They are not women who can afford lawyers. They are not women who can afford to fight back. By the way, Michael Isikoff from NBC, he has reported this, Roger Morris, Pulitzer prize-winning author of Washington Post, he has reported this. So, it's not just Roger Stone who has made these allegations.

    ... No, I think I put forward the evidence, hard evidence, documented evidence, that Hillary Clinton has beaten, kicked, punched, scratched and thrown hard objects at her husband. At the same time, she says in her gun control proposal: "Those involved in domestic abuse should not have a gun", it's hypocrisy, that's what this is about.

    SS: Now, you say, Hillary "psychologically raped" her or Bill's victims. Why do you refer to it like that? Aren't you just being inflammatory?

    RS: No, not at all. Well, you're a woman, how would you feel if your pet was killed, if you cat was killed and left at the front door? If a man called your home late at night and said: "We know where your kids go to school"? If your home was broken into? In my book, I establish the actual names and, in many cases, the reports by other journalists that Jack Palladino, private detective, Anthony Pellicano, private detective, now in prison for illegal wiretapping, Ivan Duda, private detective - these men all said the same thing, they were retained by Hillary Clinton to keep tabs on and conduct a terror campaign to silence Bill's sexual assault victims. No, I'm not being inflammatory, I deal in facts, not rumors, not conspiracy, facts. By the way, I'm open to lawsuits, here in the U.S., the Clinton's won't sue me, because they know that I can then depose them, under oath, about anything in this book.

    SS: Do you think they'll sue you or they're too busy running the campaign?

    RS: No, they're too busy being afraid that this is the issue that can bring them down. Now, I should also say, my book also includes the two billion dollar financial frauds at the Clinton Foundation, includes Bill Clinton's involvement with trafficking cocaine during the time when he was the governor, his association with Dan Lasater and others. This book is a complete and total expose of Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

    SS: But is their marriage really much fairer than many other people's intense relationships, seriously?

    RS: Their marriage is dysfunctional. It is a marriage of convenience, and the instance of a lust for power. Even if I'm wrong, even if Bill's sexual conquests are all consensual, how many times Hillary has to be humiliated by her husband before she does something about it?

    ... ... ...

    Robert Moreau is a supreme researcher, and there's no question: what he has learned about the Clinton's abuse of people, men, women and children, has made him very, very angry. He should be angry. Anybody who reads this book will be angry, because it is the unvarnished, ugly truth about the privileged elite in this country. There are certain people, like the Clintons, like the Bushes, for whom the laws do not matter, they can traffic drugs, they can assault and abuse other people - again, I ask people: read the book, make your own judgement. Don't let the media decide for you, don't let the twisted freaks in Media Matters for America who are being paid to peddle this information, don't let them decide for you. Read the book, make your own decisions.

    ... ... ...

    SS: Now, you blame Hillary Clinton for having a temper, for behaving abusively. Yet, you support Donald Trump who has offended just about everyone along the way, and has been especially derogatory to women. I mean, he seriously speaks about women like, about domestic appliances, pretty much. Don't you see a contradiction here? Aren't you being a little two-faced?

    RS: Why would you acquaint words with physicality? They are not the same. You know, free speech is a big item here in the U.S., we have something called The First Amendment. If Trump has offended so many people, why is he doing so well in the polls? No, my problem with Hillary Clinton is her physical abuse of people, and that is the case I make in the book. I don't think you can acquaint one with the other.

    ... ... ...

    Look, the Clintons and the Bushes are the same. They actually work together. They raised $138 mn dollars through a non-profit for Haitian earthquake relief. They spent $10 million ,the pocketed a $128 million. It's in this book. It will also be in my book, written from a different point of view, on the Bushes. I just give that as one example of these two families working together to line their own pockets.

    ... ... ...

    They believe this system is broken, they don't like either party, they distrust political institutions, they distrust the Congress, they distrust the big media, they distrust the system, which they believe, is rigged against the average person - and that's why Trump, and, to a certain extent, Ben Carson, for example, and maybe even Bernie Sanders, they are resonating, because voters see them as outsiders and different from the other career politicians. Bernie Sanders isn't taking special interest money, he's not taking PAC money. God bless him! I don't agree with him, he says he's a Democratic Socialist, that's like a "meat-eating vegetarian"; but, nonetheless, at least he has a courage in his convictions and he isn't bought and paid for.

    SS: Mr. Stone, thank you so much for this interview, for your wonderful insight. We were talking to Roger Stone, political strategist, former advisor to Presidents Nixon and Reagan, as well as candidate Donald Trump, author of "Clinton's War on Women", talking about the newest sensational allegations of abusive behaviour of Clinton family, and what can that mean for the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election. That's it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time.

    [Feb 16, 2016] HRC is a moderate republican in democrat skin

    Notable quotes:
    "... For reasons sake, I was not saying that HRC was LITERALLY a Republican…but her window of political discourse certainly represents what used to be considered expected of a moderate republican. Hell's fire, people, Bill Clinton's governance was typical of what used to be expected of a moderate Republican. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Analemma recensere , 02/14/2016 at 2:30 pm
    Oh give me a break…

    I imagine you both are familiar with this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

    For reasons sake, I was not saying that HRC was LITERALLY a Republican…but her window of political discourse certainly represents what used to be considered expected of a moderate republican. Hell's fire, people, Bill Clinton's governance was typical of what used to be expected of a moderate Republican.

    I voted for Bill (2x), and for Obama (2x), and I will vote for HRC over any of the brain-dead idiots in the current Republican lineup.

    Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, most political experts acknowledge that Saint Ronald Reagan would be marginalized in today's Republican Party.

    Stop taking everything so literally and shooting from the lip.

    Go Read OFM's rather insightful post on this thread regarding the current political climate wrt establishment vs. non-establishment politicians and consider taking his word on the matter.

    [Feb 14, 2016] The "Bernie Bros" Narrative a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism by Glenn Greenwald

    Notable quotes:
    "... The concoction of the "Bernie Bro" narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic - and a journalistic disgrace. It's intended to imply two equally false claims: (1) a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are "bros"); and (2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate). ..."
    "... consummate, actual "bros" ..."
    "... But truth doesn't matter here - at all. Instead, the goal is to inherently delegitimize all critics of Hillary Clinton by accusing them of, or at least associating them with, sexism, thus distracting attention away from Clinton's policy views, funding, and political history and directing it toward the online behavior of anonymous, random, isolated people on the internet claiming to be Sanders supporters. It's an effective weapon when wielded by Clinton operatives. But, given its blatant falsity, it has zero place in anything purporting to be "journalism." ..."
    theintercept.com

    The concoction of the "Bernie Bro" narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic - and a journalistic disgrace. It's intended to imply two equally false claims: (1) a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are "bros"); and (2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate).

    It's become such an all-purpose, handy pro-Clinton smear that even consummate, actual "bros" for whom the term was originally coined - straight guys who act with entitlement and aggression, such as Paul Krugman - are now reflexively (and unironically) applying it to anyone who speaks ill of Hillary Clinton, even when they know nothing else about the people they're smearing, including their gender, age, or sexual orientation. Thus, a male policy analyst who criticized Sanders' health care plan "is getting the Bernie Bro treatment," sneered Krugman. Unfortunately for the New York Times Bro, that analyst, Charles Gaba, said in response that he's "really not comfortable with [Krugman's] referring to die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters as 'Bernie Bros'" because it "implies that only college-age men support Sen. Sanders, which obviously isn't the case."

    It is indeed "obviously not the case." There are literally millions of women who support Sanders over Clinton. A new Iowa poll yesterday shows Sanders with a 15-point lead over Clinton among women under 45, while one-third of Iowa women over 45 support him. A USA Today/Rock the Vote poll from two weeks ago found Sanders nationally "with a 19-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 31 percent, among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34." One has to be willing to belittle the views and erase the existence of a huge number of American women to wield this "Bernie Bro" smear.

    But truth doesn't matter here - at all. Instead, the goal is to inherently delegitimize all critics of Hillary Clinton by accusing them of, or at least associating them with, sexism, thus distracting attention away from Clinton's policy views, funding, and political history and directing it toward the online behavior of anonymous, random, isolated people on the internet claiming to be Sanders supporters. It's an effective weapon when wielded by Clinton operatives. But, given its blatant falsity, it has zero place in anything purporting to be "journalism."

    [Feb 14, 2016] Sanders To Hillary I'm Proud To Say Henry Kissinger Is Not My Friend Zero Hedge

    www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    He's a thug, and a crook, and a liar, and a pseudo-intellectual and a murderer. Ok? Those things are factually verifiable.

    Kissinger deserves vigorous prosecution for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture.

    A good liar must have a good memory: Kissinger is a stupendous liar with a remarkable memory.

    – Quotes by Christopher Hitchens

    One of the more bizarre memes that continues to be parroted by the establishment media is this idea that Hillary Clinton is so much stronger than Bernie Sanders when it comes to foreign policy. Sure, if your definition of "strength" consists of cheerleading for the cataclysmic Iraq War and propagating a series of war crimes and international fiascos as Secretary of State, then I suppose that's true.

    For some of Henry Kissinger's greatest genocidal hits, I turn to a fantastic article published in the Nation last week titled, Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton's Tutor in War and Peace :

    I n the New Hampshire debate, Clinton thought to close her argument that she is the true progressive with this: "I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time."

    Let's consider some of Kissinger's achievements during his tenure as Richard Nixon's top foreign policy–maker. He (1) prolonged the Vietnam War for five pointless years; (2) illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos; (3) goaded Nixon to wiretap staffers and journalists; (4) bore responsibility for three genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, and Bangladesh; (5) urged Nixon to go after Daniel Ellsberg for having released the Pentagon Papers, which set off a chain of events that brought down the Nixon White House; (6) pumped up Pakistan's ISI, and encouraged it to use political Islam to destabilize Afghanistan; (7) began the US's arms-for-petrodollars dependency with Saudi Arabia and pre-revolutionary Iran; (8) accelerated needless civil wars in southern Africa that, in the name of supporting white supremacy, left millions dead; (9) supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America; and (10) ingratiated himself with the first-generation neocons, such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who would take American militarism to its next calamitous level. Read all about it in Kissinger's Shadow --

    A full tally hasn't been done, but a back-of-the-envelope count would attribute 3, maybe 4 million deaths to Kissinger's actions, but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern Africa. Pull but one string from the current tangle of today's multiple foreign policy crises, and odds are it will lead back to something Kissinger did between 1968 and 1977. Over-reliance on Saudi oil? That's Kissinger. Blowback from the instrumental use of radical Islam to destabilize Soviet allies? Again, Kissinger. An unstable arms race in the Middle East? Check, Kissinger. Sunni-Shia rivalry? Yup, Kissinger. The impasse in Israel-Palestine? Kissinger.

    Radicalization of Iran? "An act of folly" was how veteran diplomat George Ball described Kissinger's relationship to the Shah. Militarization of the Persian Gulf? Kissinger, Kissinger, Kissinger.

    And yet Clinton continues to call his name, hoping his light bathes her in wisdom

    Seizing upon her willingness to associate and brag about a cordial working relationship with a notorious war criminal, Bernie Sanders had the following to say in this week's debate.

    No surprise there. Sociopathic, violent war criminals tend to stick together.

    Of course, let's never forget what Google search told us about the two candidates…

    JRobby

    Kissinger is just one of the more visible NWO tools. There are so many.

    I recall him "strolling" from his apartment to the UN in the early 80's: A wedge of 6 or 7 well built 220+ lb. men in suits walking quickly down the sidewalk "moving" people out of the way with their size and intimidation with short little Henry safely "strolling" at his preferred pace inside the wedge. What an asshole! Are they NFL fans?

    If there were "smart phones" back then, there would have been a lot of people shoved to the ground. Back then, a few were "blocked out" of the way....

    HedgeAccordingly

    All irrelevant now that Barry gets to appoint a clone of his ideaology. Henry No different from Hilary. http://hedgeaccordingly.com/2015/05/state-department-wont-release-hillar...

    LetThemEatRand

    It's refreshing to see a national candidate actually make this point about Kissinger, one of the architects of the NWO.

    Sat, 02/13/2016 - 18:15 | 7182566 The9thDoctor
    williambanzai7

    Sat, 02/13/2016 - 20:45 | 7183253 rsesha

    Fantastic photo.

    Kissinger is a diabolical criminal. He was clever enough to kill 3-5 million people' in Cambodia and put the blame on Pol Pot for resisting his murder!

    If you want to know the Final Truth about Cambodia, read the article below.

    http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2015/11/pol-pot-of-khmer-rouge-great-c...

    After this, if you still want to not arrest Kissinger or Hillary, I'd be surprised.

    opaopaopa

    Putin likes him, why not.

    https://www.rt.com/news/331194-putin-meets-friend-kissinger/

    Sat, 02/13/2016 - 18:28 | 7182648 THE SOLUTION IS...

    Putin likes talking to people that actually matter? Kissinger is an arch psychopath...why not talk to the puppet master rather than the puppets?

    NoWayJose

    Bernie called it - Hillary's experience is nice, but Bernie's judgement is better!

    Miss Expectations

    Here's what I get with BING when I type in "Hillary Clinton is"

    A serial liar

    A true psychopath 2016

    very ill

    in deep trouble

    like your abuela

    a mass murderer

    Miss Expectations
    Here's What Hillary Clinton's War Criminal Friend Did https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi0Iy1hqhcA
    dvfco

    Wouldn't you prefer someone in fiscal la-la land to someone with a stone-cold grip on how hard she's going to fuck over everyone at the expense of 99.999% of Americans?

    Hillary is a hardened criminal deserving of hard time. If the next president pardons her, that pardon should be considered more devious than the pardoning of Marc Rich.

    The Clintons are a Mafia-like crime family without an Italian last-name. Cross them and die - and that's no joke.

    http://www.akdart.com/body-c.html

    They are scary fuckers. Imagine this alone: When their daughter came of age, she was hired by NBC News for $600,000 per year. Do you remember all that reporting she did? Do you realize the typical reporter gets paid $30K/year and there are 1,000 people for each job available? That's the tip of the iceberg of crime and sleaze, and this family knows no bounds.

    Yes, when the Clintons left the White House they were broke. LeBron James was broker the minute before he signed with the NBA. They're both worth over $100m. But, they both do different things for different people. The Clintons are whoring fucks destroying our nation.


    WTFUD

    There's a correlation between sociopaths and assassinations. Sociopaths, like Clinton, Kissinger,Netanyahu, and Erdogan NEVER seem to be on the Receiving End.

    steveo77
    I reviewed several thousand Hillary Clinton emails that were released after court order, with an emphasis on Fukushima:

    1) She was immediately informed of the dangers of Fukushima, and the actions that people should take to mitigate radiation damage, Mar 12th USA time.

    2) She was participating daily in the discussion of Fukushima, until.....

    3) They were mostly concerned with economic effects to countries, and to protect the US nuclear industry.

    4) Clinton advisers pushed her hard to go to Japan as PR move.

    5) At that point one of two things happened a) she stopped sending AND receiving any emails related to Fukushima, or b) she intentionally did not hand over those emails and they were systematically eliminated from her files.

    In light of 5a above, what are the chances they everyone in the government stopped sending her updates on Fukushima? Exactly. - See more at: http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/02/clintons-emails-released-cl...

    [Feb 14, 2016] Why Brother Bernie Is Better for Black People Than Sister Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... But in fact, when it comes to advancing Dr. King's legacy, a vote for Clinton not only falls far short of the mark; it prevents us from giving new life to King's legacy. Instead, it is Sanders who has championed that legacy in word and in deed for 50 years. This election is not a mere campaign; it is a crusade to resurrect democracy-King-style-in our time. In 2016, Sanders is the one leading that crusade. ..."
    www.politico.com

    The future of American democracy depends on our response to the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. And that legacy is not just about defending civil rights; it's also about fighting to fix our rigged economy, which yields grotesque wealth inequality; our narcissistic culture, which unleashes obscene greed; our market-driven media, which thrives on xenophobic entertainment; and our militaristic prowess, which promotes hawkish policies around the world. The fundamental aim of black voters-and any voters with a deep moral concern for our public interest and common good-should be to put a smile on Martin's face from the grave.

    The conventional wisdom holds that, in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton is the candidate who will win over African-American voters-that her rival, Bernie Sanders, performed well in Iowa and won New Hampshire on account of those states' disproportionate whiteness, and that Clinton's odds are better in the upcoming contests in South Carolina and Nevada, two highly diverse states.

    But in fact, when it comes to advancing Dr. King's legacy, a vote for Clinton not only falls far short of the mark; it prevents us from giving new life to King's legacy. Instead, it is Sanders who has championed that legacy in word and in deed for 50 years. This election is not a mere campaign; it is a crusade to resurrect democracy-King-style-in our time. In 2016, Sanders is the one leading that crusade.

    Clinton has touted the fact that, in 1962, she met King after seeing him speak, an experience she says allowed her to appreciate King's "moral clarity." Yet two years later, as a high schooler, Clinton campaigned vigorously for Barry Goldwater-a figure King called "morally indefensible" owing to his staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And she attended the Republican convention in 1968! Meanwhile, at this same moment in history, Sanders was getting arrested for protesting segregation in Chicago and marching in Washington with none other than King itself. That's real moral clarity.

    Needless to say, some moral clarity set in as Clinton's politics moved to the left in her college years. After graduating from law school, she joined the Children's Defense Fund as a staff attorney, working under the great King disciple, Marian Wright Edelman, with whom she struck up a friendship. Yet that relationship soured. This came after Hillary Clinton-in defending her husband's punitive crime bill and its drastic escalation of the mass incarceration of poor people, especially black and brown people-referred callously to gang-related youth as "superpredators." And it was Bill Clinton who signed a welfare reform bill that all but eliminated the safety net for poor women and children-a Machiavellian attempt to promote right-wing policies in order to "neutralize" the Republican Party. In protest, Peter Edelman, Marian's courageous husband, resigned from his assistant secretary post at the Department of Health and Human Services.

    The Clintons' neoliberal economic policies-principally, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall banking legislation, apparently under the influence of Wall Street's money-have also hurt King's cause. The Clinton Machine-celebrated by the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, white and black-did produce economic growth. But it came at the expense of poor people (more hopeless and prison-bound) and working people (also decimated by the Clinton-sponsored North American Free Trade Agreement).

    Bill apologized for the effects of his crime bill, after devastating thousands of black and poor lives. Will Hillary apologize for supporting the same measures?

    It's no accident that Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 for a mere three speeches in 2013, or that the firm has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to her campaigns or that, in total, it has paid her and her husband more than $150 million in speaking fees since 2001. This is the same Goldman Sachs that engaged in predatory lending of sub-prime mortgages that collapsed in 2008, disproportionately hurting black Americans.

    These ties are far from being "old news" or an "artful smear," as Hillary Clinton recently put it. Rather, they perfectly underscore how it is Sanders, not Clinton, who is building on King's legacy. Sanders' specific policies-in support of a $15 minimum wage, a massive federal jobs program with a living wage, free tuition for public college and universities, and Medicare for all-would undeniably lessen black social misery. In addition, he has specifically made the promise, at a Black Lives Matter meeting in Chicago, to significantly shrink mass incarceration and to prioritize fixing the broken criminal justice system, including eliminating all for-profit prisons.

    Clinton has made similar promises. But how can we take them seriously when the Ready for Hillary PAC received more than $133,000 from lobbying firms that do work for the GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America-two major private prison groups whose aim is to expand mass incarceration for profit? It was only after this fact was reported that Clinton pledged to stop accepting campaign donations from such groups. Similarly, without Sanders in the race to challenge her, there's no question Clinton would otherwise be relatively silent about Wall Street.

    The battle now raging in Black America over the Clinton-Sanders election is principally a battle between a declining neoliberal black political and chattering class still on the decaying Clinton bandwagon (and gravy train!) and an emerging populism among black poor, working and middle class people fed up with the Clinton establishment in the Democratic Party. It is easy to use one's gender identity, as Clinton has, or racial identity, as the Congressional Black Caucus recently did in endorsing her, to hide one's allegiance to the multi-cultural and multi-gendered Establishment. But a vote for Clinton forecloses the new day for all of us and keeps us captive to the trap of wealth inequality, greed ("everybody else is doing it"), corporate media propaganda and militarism abroad-all of which are detrimental to black America.

    In the age of Barack Obama, this battle remained latent, with dissenting voices vilified. As a black president, Obama has tended to talk progressive but walk neoliberal in the face of outrageous right-wing opposition. Black child poverty has increased since 2008, with more than 45 percent of black children under age 6 living in poverty today. Sanders talks and walks populist, and he is committed to targeting child poverty. As president, he would be a more progressive than not just Clinton but also Obama-and that means better for black America.

    Now, with Obama's departure from the White House, we shall see clearly where black America stands in relation to King's legacy. Will voters put a smile on Martin's face? It's clear how we can do it. King smiles at Sanders' deep integrity and genuine conviction, while he weeps at the Clinton machine's crass opportunism and the inequality and injustice it breeds.

    [Feb 13, 2016] Democratic debate: the five biggest moments

    Notable quotes:
    "... Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS Frontline . It specifically states that during the 2007 Surge to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni Sons of Iraq . ..."
    "... The unintended consequences of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those consequences ; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them. ..."
    "... Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either ..."
    "... I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said. ..."
    "... Sanders catches Clinton on her advice from Henry Kissinger , Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care shed do that too? ..."
    "... Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a majority of women on stage . Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said majority of straight people on stage . You come across like some gender supremacist. ..."
    "... Im sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton one of the most accomplished women in the world ? ..."
    "... She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the political wife so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she distinguished herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I dont mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)... ..."
    "... Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing. ..."
    "... Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones. ..."
    "... Faux-identity politics has run its course. ..."
    "... Really believe Republicans havent changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is help the rich . ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades. ..."
    "... And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obamas Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.) ..."
    "... The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves. ..."
    "... Ill take Sanders proven judgment over Clintons shoot first; ask questions later approach. ..."
    "... Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldmans workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. ..."
    "... For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldnt be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events. ..."
    "... So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... she voted for gw bushs disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, thats just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam. ..."
    "... This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words Commander in Chief, it made me feel she couldnt wait to get her fingers on the button. ..."
    "... Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    smkngman, 2016-02-13 00:55:28
    Please!

    The biggest moment was when Bernie responded to,
    "Journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is."

    Aside from the "Journalists have asked" bull, his reply was most certainly the biggest moment of the entire debate!

    "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger,"

    According to Google, this moment created the BIGGEST spike of internet searches during the debate.

    RobertHickson2014, 2016-02-12 22:57:04
    Hypothetically, if Hillary is 500 delegates short of winning the nomination, while Bernie is only short 200, and 600 of the 700 Supers break her way....

    A scenario like that could very well happen; the DNC needs to abolish the Super Delegates once and for all to remove the prospect of a rigged nomination process.

    EDVDGN -> imipak, 2016-02-12 18:45:58
    Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS' "Frontline". It specifically states that during the 2007 "Surge" to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni "Sons of Iraq".

    The "unintended consequences" of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those "consequences"; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them.

    Of course, daughter Chelsea, didn't have to get all dirty and bloody herself by going to fight her mother's war, but your sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers did. Vote for more of that with Clinton.

    "Losing Iraq", PBS, "Frontline", 7/29/14, 1 ½ hours
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/losing-iraq /

    uples, 2016-02-12 18:20:20
    Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either
    kattw -> dochi1958, 2016-02-12 17:00:19
    I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said.

    ... ... ...

    Marcedward, 2016-02-12 16:18:17
    Big Moments:

    1) Hillary tries to mention a local African American killed by police, forgets the name mid sentence and struggles to get it out of her mouth. Came across as very rehearsed, especially when it turns out the victims mom was in the audience, being used by the Clinton Campaign for an obvious photo opportunity. Clinton wins the HAM HANDED Award.

    2) Hillary tries to go after Sanders for disagreeing with Obama and comes across like an inside the beltway clueless blithering idiot. She claims progressive creds, but she's totally unaware of how disappointing Obama has been to the Left. Hillary exposed as another Washington Insider, again.

    3) Sanders command of the agenda while all Clinton could do is follow his lead quipping "me too!" Clearly Sanders is in control of this race, Clinton is not, one is a leader, one is not. Hillary should just step down for the good of the country and the party

    4) Sanders catches Clinton on her "advice from Henry Kissinger", Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care she'd do that too?

    5) Hillary wearing what looked to be a Star Trek (the original series) Admiral's uniform - was that a nod to trekkies? I couldn't tell if it was a Star Fleet or a Romulan top. Anyway, cred for Hillary for shouting out to Trekkies.

    6) Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a "majority of women on stage". Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said "majority of straight people on stage". You come across like some gender supremacist.

    SocalAlex -> kattw, 2016-02-12 15:13:11

    of one of the most accomplished women in the world

    I'm sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton "one of the most accomplished women in the world"?

    She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the "political wife" so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she "distinguished" herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I don't mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)...

    Sorry, Clinton may well be an intelligent and competent woman, but by what stretch of the imagination is she "one of the most accomplished women in the world"? The U.S. perhaps - through arguably not even - but the world? Seriously? And then you have the gall to claim Sanders supporters are delusional?

    Women like Angela Merkel or Christine Lagarde (like them or loathe them) could and would eat the likes of Clinton for breakfast, and they accomplished what they have without any husband's help!

    om Voloshen, 2016-02-12 15:12:45
    1. Killary plays the sex card.
    2. Killaty says little about her famaly's policy toward jailing nearly a third of all black men and foreclosing on so many of their homes due to Bill's passing GlassSteagall.
    3. Killary conveniently leaves out the fact that all key Latino and minority interest groups supported Bernie's no vote.
    4. Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing.
    5. Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones.
    ocalAlex -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 14:55:18
    Both Cruz and Rubio are as white as Clinton and Sanders. And having parents who were part of the upper-class who fled Cuba after the Revolution doesn't remotely reflect the personal histories of the vast majority of Hispanic-Americans. (Nor, for that matter, does being the son of a wealthy Kenyan student and middle-class white mother reflect the reality of 99% of African-Americans.)

    Faux-identity politics has run its course. It was never as instrumental in Obama's election(s) as was made out in the first place, and many of the minority for whom it was have learned their lesson.

    As the Republicans are painfully aware and Clinton is learning, blacks and Latinos and women and young people aren't stupid - they will ultimately rather vote for the "old white man" who represents their interests than the person they have slightly more of a genetic or cultural link to who doesn't!

    RobertHickson2014, 2016-02-12 14:33:36
    Hillary learned her lessons well from that douche bag, Henry Kissinger. Here are some of his 'foreign policy' quotes.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/here-are-the-top-10-most-callous-and-inhumane-henry-kissinger-quotes /

    SocalAlex -> Adrian, 2016-02-12 14:30:17
    Well, Sanders was the first Senator to announce he was boycotting Netanyahu's speech to Congress last year, and while he's certainly adopted a more mainstream line towards Israel in recent years, he's still never spoken at or accepted support from AIPAC and makes it quite clear in his policy brief that he believes Israel needs to end the siege of Gaza and withdraw from the West Bank .

    Clinton, on the other hand, is an AIPAC darling who doesn't even "believe" Gaza is under siege and merely has some mealy-mouthed platitudes to offer about how settlement expansion in the West Bank is not "helpful". (And one of her largest individual campaign donors is an Israeli-American billionaire who she has assured she will, if elected, do everything in her power to crack down on the BDS movement!)

    At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they deserved.

    You mean even more $100s of billions in U.S. "aid" than they were already getting and complete diplomatic cover for their assault on Gaza and other assorted war crimes? If you think that's tough love, I'd hate to see how your children turn out!

    *For more background see thisAl-Jazeera English piece or the Electronic Intifada's exhaustive coverage.

    Sanders is far from perfect on this issue, but he's about as "progressive" as it is possible for any high-profile U.S. politician to be. (And I really hope you weren't implying the fact that he is Jewish makes him more likely to be pro-Israel - that is precisely the kind of crap which helps those opposed to Palestinian rights paint all of us campaigning for them in a bad light...)

    nnedjo -> kattw, 2016-02-12 14:26:01

    Of course, Clinton distances herself from her supporters by running a tight campaign

    Of course, that's the way how it works, Clinton left to her supporters to do the dirty work, and then she distances herself from them, and continue to play an angel.
    newellalan -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 14:21:17
    Really believe Republicans haven't changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is "help the rich".
    mouchefisher -> kattw, 2016-02-12 14:12:57
    You either misunderstood my comment, or you're being disingenuous.

    What I find strange is The Guardian's evident pro-Clinton bias, even though it pretends to be a progressive paper. Sanders is obviously the true progressive, not Clinton. So yes, it does make me (and many, many other readers of The Guardian) wonder.

    ajreddish, 2016-02-12 14:12:07
    Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades.

    At least when Bernie Sanders opens his mouth on any issue, there's no puppet strings moving furiously up and down in the background.

    SocalAlex -> DennisLaw , 2016-02-12 14:10:16
    What foreign policy credentials/experience did Obama have? (Or W. Bush or Bill Clinton for that matter?)

    And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obama's Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.)

    Agi Tater -> imipak , 2016-02-12 14:03:26
    The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves.

    Sanders' one weakness is he does not articulate a clear foreign policy. On the other hand, these are complex issues that can't be reduced to talking points. Further, Sanders' voting record on these issues is solid. Unlike Clinton he did vote against the war in Iraq. And he predicted the unintended consequence of instability and thus ISIS. Clinton has far more experience but she pretends her vote for a disastrous war in Iraq has no connection to ISIS. That's a serious lack of judgment and/or honesty on her part.

    I'll take Sanders' proven judgment over Clinton's "shoot first; ask questions later" approach.

    Agi Tater, 2016-02-12 13:38:25
    This article is not balanced and thus disappointing. Same with Graves' opinion piece stating that Sanders "squandered" his lead. Absurd.

    Everything that comes out of Clinton's mouth is a strategic ploy for votes. She will say whatever she and her advisors think she must say to get elected. If she is elected, she will maintain the status quo, at least when it comes to the economy and campaign financing. Those are the two areas that must be reformed before we can see any real progress.

    Anyone who believes that Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street criminals are funding Clinton's campaign because she's going to follow through with the real economic reforms that she's now promising (copying Sanders) and that will eliminate their fraudulent business models is a fucking idiot. What Wall Street type is going to donate to a candidate who's going to level the playing field and thus destroy their business model? Are people really that stupid? (rhetorical question) Let's see those transcripts from her speeches that she clearly does not want voters to see.

    The truth is, Clinton's talking points have shifted and evolved to match Sanders' positions that voters find attractive. This is a matter of record. She's an Establishment politician and will be to the end. Sander is the real deal.

    Murphy1983, 2016-02-12 13:36:57
    From Politico Feb. 9, 2016:

    NEW YORK - "When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

    "Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

    "'It was pretty glowing about us," one person who watched the event said. "It's so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.' "

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969#ixzz3ztCCKaHe

    sharethewealth -> kattw, 2016-02-12 13:34:37
    It's a tough question to ask, given the American track record on foreign policy. Who would you listen to? American interests overseas have never been, shall we say, altruistic; more self serving and clandestine. It's no wonder Bernie is focusing his attention on the national socio/political climate. It seems ironic to think that any government can influence foreign policy in a positive way while issues such a racism and a living wage are so rampantly out of balance in their own nation.
    Elfeesh, 2016-02-12 13:29:10
    So your "5 things we learned" is actually "A positive spin on 4 things about Clinton and one thing Sanders said", whilst totally failing to mention the fact that Clinton outright lied about things that Bernie had said in an attempt to make it seem like he actively opposes Obama, or that she said, verbatim, that she wouldn't allow child refugees to settle in the US and to send them back AS A MESSAGE.

    This paper's coverage is getting more and more biased by the minute as its journalists realise that "kooky old Sanders" is actually getting some traction with the American people. That article by Lucia Gravesis a disgrace and cherry picks the one liners Sanders came back to Hillary's attacks with, as though its somehow terrible for someone to defend themselves with witty and quick comebacks.

    Just FYI Guardian, your readership is actually half intelligent and can see through your biased BS, just as the general electorate can see through the crappy CNN and PBS coverage given to Sanders. You say that Clinton "won" the debate, yet it seems that most people disagree(Note the person saying this is an Associated Press journalist) and there is more than one source to suggest that, in Nevada a focus group say Sanders' won by a 25-9 margin and even Chris Matthews, who for the longest time has been struggling to say "Bernie Sanders" without the "Democratic Socialist" prefix, says that Bernie beat Hillary at her own game. Finally, and I'm afraid I don't have a link for this one, CNN and PBS' own coverage of the debate cut to a room in South Carolina filled with a focus group of women of mixed age and race. (Please note SC is supposed to be Clinton's version of New Hampshire where she'll stomp all over Sanders) Almost all people in the group said Bernie had done the best in the debate, and the one black woman they interviewed (again, black women is supposedly Clinton's demographic) said that Sanders was the most convincing out of the two, though she remained undecided.

    People would start taking this paper seriously again if you guys actually paid attention to whats going on, instead of just closing your eyes to all the evidence and continuing to hammer out ridiculous articles bigging up your chosen candidate. There's a reason people aren't even bothering to read your coverage anymore, and instead go straight to the comments to see what people are actually thinking.

    DrKropotkin -> Serv_On , 2016-02-12 13:19:41
    "Bernie should give a pledge that he will never take a red cent for a speech ever ever ever"

    It's not about cents - it's hundreds of thousands per hour and behind closed doors, which is an unsubtle way to bribe a future president. Sanders did give a speech recently to a University that paid him $1,800. Transcripts are available and he donated all of the money to charity.

    Anatoliy Asanov -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 13:13:08
    For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldn't be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events.
    Zendjan -> elterrifico, 2016-02-12 13:12:17
    She makes Lucrezia Borgia look like Mother Teresa.
    DrKropotkin -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 13:08:57
    In both primaries Sanders beat the polls by 5-8%. Nationally he is now just 2 points off Clinton according to the latest poll.

    The MSMBS has created a reality bubble around Clinton, but nobody takes print media or TV news seriously anymore, everybody knows they have to use multiple sources online to get a real balanced picture. So everyday more and more people are learning about Sanders and liking what they see - a consistent advocate for progressive policies even when it was neither profitable nor popular to be one.

    In particular voters are learning about his anti segregation campaigning in the 1960's and his pro gay rights positions in the 1980's. When they look at Clinton's past they see a calculating fair weather supporter on these issues, possibly based on the latest polling.

    Also, her pockets full of Wall Street money is really damaging her and when she tries to defend it she comes across as disingenuous (at best).

    ouKnightedStates -> EbenezerSeattle, 2016-02-12 13:04:38
    It's amazing. Three articles in the Guardian praising her "vote in 2002 not a plan for ISIS 2016" line as a winner. Vote in 2002 caused ISIS in 2016!
    Stetson Meyers, 2016-02-12 12:58:36
    She is hiding behind Obama. Defending him while bringing up the fact that he took Wall Street money does nothing to endear me to you. It makes me angry at Obama.
    elterrifico, 2016-02-12 12:55:25
    If Hillary wants low blow then let's talk about

    The rose law firm and the missing subpoenaed files that a cleaning crew found in the living quarters while slick Willie Clinton was president.

    Cattlegate and how Hillary claims she made millions on cattle futures from a wall street article that the wall street journal said didn't exist.

    Lets talk about all the people how suspiciously died who were connected to the Clinton's and who had information to Clinton wrong doings.

    I bet that would shut Hillary's sleazy mouth

    DrKropotkin, 2016-02-12 12:49:52
    From ATL:

    "Clinton dropped this critique on the senator from Vermont: "Journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is." "

    Let me finish the Guardian's reporting for them:

    Sanders quickly responds "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger" - the audience applauds and laughs.

    Janosik53 -> UNOINO, 2016-02-12 12:27:30
    Exactly. ISIS is part of the unintended consequences that were created by the West's Middle East adventure. "Blowback" as the security services have it. The same thing could be said about the U.S. backing of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the better to scupper the Soviets. Elements of the mujahadeen morphed into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden was a CIA asset at one time.

    Bernie remembers what happened, Hillary dismisses it with the "2002 vote" quip. Hillary is a tactician, Bernie is a strategist. I think a moral strategist makes a better C-in-C than a bought and paid for tactician.

    pretzelattack -> Yunnaan, 2016-02-12 12:08:39
    the point is electing a republican lite to deal with republican intransigence makes no sense whatever. she will work with them to advance the neoliberal austerity agenda, which hurts the middle class, and everybody else but the kind of people who pay her so much money to give a canned speech.
    nnedjo, 2016-02-12 12:03:37
    Let me get this straight. You have politicians who all his life was not afraid to swim against the mainstream, neither he worried that it could jeopardize his political career.

    And on the other hand, you have a careerist politician, which the whole of her life was "turning with the wind", climbed the ladder of political power, both in its Democratic Party and in the state too, and finally ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars on her private account, gained thanks to its political influence.

    So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton.

    Anatoliy Asanov -> SenseCir, 2016-02-12 12:01:54
    The same plan she and the establiment was shoving down our throats and digging in in our pockets... And Putin wouldn't be Putin if US weren't prowling around the world. Why is Saudi Arabia is our ally?
    mouchefisher, 2016-02-12 11:45:30
    I think I'll soon just start skipping The Guardian's articles completely, and head straight to the comments.
    The articles read like pro-Clinton adverts, which seems strange coming from a self-proclaimed progressive news source...
    Fortunately, we do have The Nation, The Atlantic, Salon, Alternet, etc.
    Adrian, 2016-02-12 10:29:34
    Am I the only one who's wondering why Bernie Sanders is not being asked a single question about his position on the Palestinian problem, on the recent events involving Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby in the USA trying to derails the Iran nuclear deal and so on?

    I don't think we need now at the White House someone willing to follow Netanyahu's lead in the Middle East... At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they deserved.

    devin42 -> Marcedward, 2016-02-12 09:50:47
    Hey, Guardian writers. I don't know if you ever come into the comments - but realise this. We aren't morons. This isn't the Mail. We can see through it. A great many of us watched the debates, follow the campaigns, know the facts from other sources. The internet is great like that, as corporate media no longer has an exclusive stranglehold on framing and spin.

    The constituents of your 'paper' are not easily hoodwinked and most, as you can see, find the spin disgusting. You're going to keep haemorrhaging readers unless you either refocus on integrity in journalism (unlikely, considering who's on the board), or fully commit to being a pseudo-intellectual Buzzfeed. Best of luck.

    pretzelattack -> Philman, 2016-02-12 09:43:42
    she voted for gw bush's disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, that's just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam.
    EDVDGN, 2016-02-12 09:23:32
    The American Public Broadcasting System's (PBS) "NewsHour" reports:*
    • --The cost of US health care is more than 2 1/2 times the average of 33 other countries,
    • --There are fewer doctors per person in the US than in 33 other countries. In 2010, the U.S. had 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people; international average, 3.1.
    • --Hospital beds in the U.S. were 2.6 per 1,000 people in 2009; international average, 3.4.
    • --US life expectancy increased 9 years between 1960 and 2010, but 15 years in Japan, over 11 years on average in 33 other countries.

    In other news, some of Clinton's speaker fees from Wall Street, 2013-15**:

    • Goldman Sachs $675,000
    • Deutsche Bank $485,000
    • Golden Tree Asset Management $275,000
    • Ameriprise $225,000
    • Apollo Management Holdings $225,000
    • Bank of America $225,000
    • Fidelity Investments $225,000
    • Morgan Stanley $225,000
    • UBS $225,000
    • Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce $150,000

    TOTAL: $2,935,000

    Thus, our health care system is expensive and sub-par, but a resounding and understandable "No, we can't" from Clinton on universal health care, and many other issues.
    _____________________________________
    *"Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries", PBS
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries /
    **"Hillary Clinton Got Paid More for 12 Speeches to Wall Street Banks than Most Americans Make in a Lifetime",
    http://humansarefree.com/2016/01/hillary-clinton-got-paid-more-for-12.html

    FeatherWood, 2016-02-12 09:19:32
    This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words "Commander in Chief," it made me feel she couldn't wait to get her fingers on the button.

    When Hillary praised President Obama and criticized Bernie for some mild critiques he'd made of the president, it was an utterly transparent ploy for the votes of African-Americans in South Carolina. So obvious that I was a bit disgusted. Hillary and President Obama have a rocky history. Any comments Bernie has made are tame compared to the stuff Hillary said about him during the 2008 campaign. I really wonder if people will buy Hillary trying to wrap herself so closely with Obama.

    Sandra Bowen -> CDKBM180715, 2016-02-12 09:03:56
    Hillary wears a new outfit every campaign day. Sanders' has 2 suits, 1 blazer. Looks say a lot about a person
    SirWillis -> CDKBM180715, 2016-02-12 08:30:10
    At least try to understand what he is saying. He's saying her smile is false, he's not commenting on her looks. Her smile is false, it's not natural, and I have no doubt she was coached to smile in the way focus groups decided was the most electable. Trouble is a genuine smile is hard to fake.

    Please try to understand these things, context is everything.

    CanadianAtheist, 2016-02-12 08:19:57

    Clinton drops a well-tuned response to Sanders' criticism of her vote in support of the Iraq war: "I don't believe that a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat Isis in 2016."


    But it is a reflection of her judgement. We condemn Republicans, journalists, academics, etc. who supported the Iraq War, but we are supposed to give Clinton a pass? Let's also not forget that she supported the troop increase in Afghanistan and pushed for military action in Libya.
    CanadianAtheist -> crap_in, 2016-02-12 08:14:00
    According to congress.gov Sanders has sponsored 780 pieces of legislation and cosponsored 5428.
    noraak15 -> noraak15, 2016-02-12 06:50:20
    To be clear this is in relation to this being Obama's fault.

    As for the Dems doing their best to lose a winnable election you may be right but Sanders really has hit the nail on the head. It doesn't matter who wins no change will occur until the big money and special interests are reined in and that won't happen unless and until there is a president backed by a movement of ordinary people demanding change that is so large and undeniable that politicians in Washington realize that unless they accede to the people's demands (as presented by the President) and get behind the President in respect of such change they will actually lose their seats... only incumbents fearful of losing their seats will vote for anything other than what the lobbyists tell them to. Only then will change happen. I'd bet there is more certainty that won't happen then Villa making a surprising comeback and not being relegated.

    noraak15 -> EssoBlue, 2016-02-12 06:38:54
    For the same reason they voted for Blair and Bush Dubya and Clinton and Bush Sr... Poor people, the same people I honestly want to help as a responsible socialist democrat, are essentially stupid and generally vote against their own interests hence the number of blue collar workers in the US flocking to Donald Trump rallies. It defies belief but there it is, that and the fact that smart people who aren't only out for themselves have better things to do like discover gravitational waves, perform your surgery, teach and other less snazzy things then simply make money.
    Peter Kinnaird -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 06:35:45
    On the contrary. The economy crashed because the unfettered free markets failed. You don't need someone who "understands" or in other words supports the free market status quo, you need someone who understands the flaws of the markets and the need for regulation.
    noraak15 -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 06:31:26
    Uh? You do realize it was the deregulation of Wall Street that led to the collapse right? You do realize Wall Street aready leads the government by the nose don't you (the very reason Sanders quite rightly states that any reform will be impossible no matter who is elected President unless they have a groundswell of popular support beneath them)? You are aware that laws and trade agreements are written by Wall Street lawyers and that Wall Street is regulated by Wall Street lawyers due to the continuous rotating door between government agencies and Wall Street? You do understand that QE and bailouts were at the behest of and in the interest of Wall Street bound to create asset bubbles they can make a lot of money insider trading on then exit and leave pension funds on the hook and not designed to save the economy don't you?

    Oh why do I bother you believe in "continuous growth" generated by perfect rationale markets and of course unicorns and leprechauns waiting with your pot of gold.

    EssoBlue, 2016-02-12 05:30:29
    Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton.

    Lest we forget, in 2008 Hillary Clinton ran as a gun-loving churchgoer against Barack Obama.

    PlayaGiron, 2016-02-12 05:20:01
    Only the graun can make the exposure of Clinton's ties to the butcher Kissinger into a win for Team Hillary.

    Watch the video and you will the crowd totally backs Sanders during the exchange

    Nice to see the Guardian still has war criminal Kissinger's back.

    Too bad we are seeing through your corporatist propaganda.

    joeblow9999, 2016-02-12 05:09:13
    Hillary appeared desperate and her attacks came off as unimaginative and sleazy. More and more she is appearing to be a liability to the nomination.

    [Feb 13, 2016] Sanders and Trump in Very Late Capitalism by Scott McConnell

    Actually Sanders performed above my expectations in the most recent debate exposing this criminal Kissinger for what he is. So despite my pessimism there might be slight hope. Although the level of degradation of both parties (which is reality are two wings of a single party -- the party of top 1% -- with Dems a little bit more sophisticated in avoiding open scorn of lower 99%) looks irreversible. This is really bizarre "back in the USSR" situation, if you wish. If Eisenhower has been alive to see the monster the Republican Party turned into, he would die the second time on the spot. This is simply disgusting. Same for the Dems -- in the current form this is clearly yet another party of financial oligarchy and Hillary candidacy reflect the depth of degradation of the Dem party establishment like nobody else.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I dont think this has a precedent in American history, the leading candidates of both parties running essentially class-based campaigns against a financial elite. Something to contemplate. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com

    Trump basically says he is independent of the donors because he's rich, while Sanders says he is independent of them because he raised tens of millions of dollars in small donations. But both campaigns are criticizing the same thing, in divergent but essentially parallel ways.

    I don't think this has a precedent in American history, the leading candidates of both parties running essentially class-based campaigns against a financial elite. Something to contemplate.

    Kurt Gayle, February 9, 2016 at 9:55 am
    A gem of a column!

    Scott McConnell: "The wealth of the one tenth of one percent is now concentrated in the financial industry. The money of the middle class has been redistributed upwards to Wall Street. No one calls it the 'productive sector,' even ironically. Wall Street pays for the political campaigns, and pays for the politicians."

    In other words, the one tenth of one percent pays for the political campaigns, and pays for the politicians.

    Except for Trump and Sanders.

    Scott: "Trump basically says he is independent of the donors because he's rich, while Sanders says he is independent of them because he raised tens of millions of dollars in small donations."

    Scott: "I don't think this has a precedent in American history, the leading candidates of both parties running essentially class-based campaigns against a financial elite."

    Johann, February 9, 2016 at 10:24 am
    Free trade gets the blame for almost everything, but deserves none of the blame. The usual suspects like to confuse free trade with crony capitalism. Its not out of ignorance. Its nefarious.
    Schuman, February 9, 2016 at 10:48 am
    One of the best developments of this campaign so far has been the number of conservative, right-wing people who have awaken to the grim reality of crony/globalist capitalism. You know something is happening when NRO blasts them as "economically and socially frustrated white men who wish to be economically supported by the federal government without enduring the stigma of welfare dependency"

    (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430769/donald-trump-pat-buchanan)

    It is also worth noting that Trump is a businessman in an old-fashioned way people can relate to. He is a real estate mogul who employs actual workers to develop actual buildings, instead of just being a bankster shuffling fictional money around.

    [Feb 13, 2016] A Debate Christopher Hitchens Would Surely Have Appreciated

    Notable quotes:
    "... In it, Hitchens argued that the former national security adviser and secretary of state for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford should be prosecuted "for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture." ..."
    "... It was well reviewed, with the San Francisco Chronicle hailing Hitchens for presenting "damning documentary evidence against Kissinger in case after case," and London's Sunday Times describing the book as "a disturbing glimpse into the dark side of American power, whose consequences in remote corners of the globe are all too often ignored. Its countless victims have found an impassioned and skillful advocate in Christopher Hitchens." ..."
    "... "I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend," continued Sanders. "I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger's actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger." ..."
    www.thenation.com

    The late Christopher Hitchens penned an exceptionally important book in 2001 titled The Trial of Henry Kissinger.

    In it, Hitchens argued that the former national security adviser and secretary of state for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford should be prosecuted "for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture."

    Hitchens was a brilliant polemicist who loved to stir controversy (and who fell out with The Nation during post-9/11 debates about George W. Bush's "war on terror" and defending civil liberties). But The Trials of Henry Kissinger was more than an argument; it was a detailed indictment ("using only what would hold up in international courts of law") of an official who Hitchens accused of authorizing atrocities against Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus, East Timor, Indochina, and the Kurds of Iraq. It was well reviewed, with the San Francisco Chronicle hailing Hitchens for presenting "damning documentary evidence against Kissinger in case after case," and London's Sunday Times describing the book as "a disturbing glimpse into the dark side of American power, whose consequences in remote corners of the globe are all too often ignored. Its countless victims have found an impassioned and skillful advocate in Christopher Hitchens."

    Despite the attention it received, the book did not lead to the prosecution of Kissinger. Nor did it spark all of the formal and official debates that Hitchens invited.

    "I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend." - Bernie Sanders

    On Thursday night, however, Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders did debate Kissinger's legacy in one of the most remarkable exchanges of modern presidential politics. It was an exchange Hitchens would have relished.

    In the foreign-policy section of the debate, after the candidates had clashed over a number of issues, Sanders asked if he might add a brief final word of to explain "where the secretary and I have a very profound difference."

    "[In] the last debate and I believe in her book-very good book, by the way…she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger. Now, I find it rather amazing, because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country," said the senator, to loud applause.

    "I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend," continued Sanders. "I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger's actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger."

    Clinton countered with a dig at Sanders. "Well," she said, "I know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is."

    "Well, it ain't Henry Kissinger. That's for sure," replied Sanders.

    "That's fine. That's fine," said Clinton. "You know, I listen to a wide variety of voices that have expertise in various areas. I think it is fair to say, whatever the complaints that you want to make about him are, that with respect to China, one of the most challenging relationships we have, his opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an incredibly useful relationship for the United States of America. So if we want to pick and choose-and I certainly do-people I listen to, people I don't listen to, people I listen to for certain areas, then I think we have to be fair and look at the entire world, because it's a big, complicated world out there."

    "It is," injected Sanders.

    Clinton was now scrambling to put Kissinger in perspective. "And, yes," she said, "people we may disagree with on a number of things may have some insight, may have some relationships that are important for the president to understand in order to best protect the United States."

    Sanders rips trade agreements that result in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China. Sanders was having none of that explanation, suggesting that his historical perspective was "very different."

    "Kissinger was one of those people during the Vietnam era who talked about the domino theory. Not everybody remembers that. You do. I do. The domino theory, you know, if Vietnam goes, China, da, da, da, da, da, da, da. That's what he talked about, the great threat of China," said Sanders. "And then, after the war, this is the guy who, in fact, yes, you're right, he opened up relations with China, and now pushed various type of trade agreements, resulting in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China. The terrible, authoritarian, Communist dictatorship he warned us about, now he's urging companies to shut down and move to China. Not my kind of guy."

    And rightly so, for reasons that Christopher Hitchens well documented

    [Feb 13, 2016] Why the Working Class Is Choosing Trump and Sanders

    Notable quotes:
    "... The conclusion: the winds of change are blowing away from establishment politicians and the wealthy donors who support them, and as far as Im concerned any change that helps the working class feel more secure and confident about the future – change that is based upon reality rather than the myths that have been sold to the public in support of wealthy interests – cant come fast enough. ..."
    "... We should not embrace the defeatists crowd of Hillary supporters thats willing to settle for half a chicken in every pot. ..."
    "... Water is wet. The sun rises in the east. The middle/working class has been screwed for the status quo for the last 35 years. ..."
    "... Wall Street got what it wanted (tax cuts), the Necons got what they wanted (wars), and the last two got -- promises. Unsurprisinly they have lost patience with the GOP establishment. The Bible Belt wants its 19th century (okay 15th century) back, and white working class populats wants to be sure that, even if they are sleeping under a bridge, no black or brown person is sleeping under a *better* bridge. ..."
    "... On the Democratic side, with the exception of the late 1990s, the Establishment has failed to deliver better times. Obamacare *is* a boon, but it has taken seemingly forever to roll out seemingly since the Dinosaurs roamed the earth, and it has only directly benefitted about 10% of the population. Meanwhile nominal wages grow 2% a year, worker protections are non-existnet, and even actions which could be taken by the Executive alon - like raising the pay at which employers no longer have to pay overtime - are not taken (the rumor that Obamas signature hand suffered from paralyisi fell apart the other day when he signed the TPP).. ..."
    "... We are in the midst of a politial realignment. My guess is that outside of Dixie, the white working class returns to the Democrats, who move towards Sanders ideology, while the corporatist Dems move over to the GOP. And the Bible Belt continues to get the 15th Century delivered to them. ..."
    "... Also the centrist dems have been playing defense for 30 years, simply trying to prevent the rollback of past programs, and apparently willing to compromise even on core New Deal and Great Society accomplishments (SS and Medicare). ..."
    "... Actually, Trump immediately gained the support of less-educated blue collar white males who had IDd as Dem, and I havent seen a poll yet on whether Bernie is winning them back ..."
    "... You raise an interesting question. If corporate donor fueled Democrats lose national party control decisively. Not just for one convention ala McGovern. Where will they go ? ..."
    "... Soooo. The donors will have to retake or hold one party. My guess theyll hold on to Democrat party easily if Hillary wins. Maybe the soul of the Democrat party is at stake here. As during the Bryan era ..."
    "... Trump says that, but his proposed policies are not compatible with what he says, and he part of the party which absolutely wants to gut those programs. Working class people who know whats good for them are for Sanders, the ones for Trump are politico-economic illiterates (either that or they are just sucked in by his racism.) ..."
    "... Its quite possible that Sanders would win against Trump. Personality reasons. Its a stage debate I would love to see. ..."
    "... The Donald is doing what the GOP has done for 40 years, use racist rhetoric (without the dogwhistles this time) to convince the rubes to vote against their own interests. ..."
    "... Trump may surprise us. With a tax cut for the little guy okee dokee package ..."
    "... Right wing populists are not about little government, prudent government. They cut taxes and increase spending on the armada ..."
    "... The WSJ is angry that a Republican told the truth: Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we cant do that. And its not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to be cut. ..."
    "... Thats nice Donald. But you want a larger military and big tax cuts for the rich. Arithmetic please?! ..."
    "... Some partners in hedge funds, private-equity firms and other businesses organized as so-called passthroughs would pay a 3.8 percent income tax under President Barack Obamas 2017 budget request. The move is intended to address what the administrations budget documents call a gap in legal definitions of investment income and self-employment earnings. As a result, certain members of partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations may have been able to avoid the tax, according to budget documents. ..."
    "... The proposal would extend a net investment tax for Medicare thats been in place since 2013 to taxpayers who have been able to avoid it, according to Obama administration officials. The measure, which is projected to raise $271.7 billion over the next decade, would apply to limited partners who materially participate in the ventures. ..."
    "... Not to worry hedgies - Karl Rove has your back.... ..."
    "... This seems like a good thing. Though Id much prefer to simply see all types of income unified under the tax code. Half of the complexity of accounting and more than half of the avoidance behavior comes from confusion and games related to income classification. ..."
    "... The strange thing is, even populist candidates like Bernie seem to advocate for higher taxes on regular earned income (upwards of 60% net including payroll taxes but excluding state taxes), while cap gains stays at a much lower rate, while cap gains is how the 0.1% get their money. ..."
    "... Yes the establishment faces a possible quandary: both conventions might nominate an outsider. Hence the fantasy Bloomberg third way down the old dead center where the donor class sleeps ..."
    "... All the rhetoric on all sides is about restoring a golden age that never was. (1) the past is not going to be restored. (2) that wasnt even the past. ..."
    "... Yes. The past that never was is not he future that can ever be ..."
    "... Would prefer that you didnt lump Sanders supporters with Trump supporters because, as you point out, they ...see different causes and different solutions... (to say the least). Not that I think it was your intent but it can have the result of disparaging Sanders supporters. ..."
    "... As the democratic party has shown with its ham-handed support of HRC, the establishment politicians have a significant advantage and will do everything in their power to divert or quash change. ..."
    "... I love it. Exactly -- They hate us for our freedom. The final affluent liberal reaction ..."
    "... I agree with Mark Thoma about this. There is actually similarity between these two candidates. The labels progressive and conservative really dont apply. ..."
    "... Americans are just tired of being controlled by a tiny minority of powerful rich people. Electing either Trump or Sanders probably wont change that, but at least it sends a message. We are, whether liberal or conservative or neither, sick of how things have been going. ..."
    "... It is not about restoring a golden age so easily dismissed by cheap cynicism. It is about preserving freedom and restoring justice. That these causes are never done, and the struggle to preserve them is never ending, does not make them a dead issue except to the worst of the cynics. ..."
    "... Indeed, such resolution to reform and the pursuit of justice is the core of the very spirit of that phenomenon that is America. And while its history is replete with its abuses therein, its history also shows a remarkable resilience amongst the people to resist all forms of tyranny, including the tyranny of the privileged, in all their complacency for the status quo. ..."
    "... This is what Sanders and Trump get that the jades of the comfortable class do not. ..."
    "... You may enjoy this piece in the Voice yesterday, insightful, hilarious, spreading like wildfire: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/feeling-the-yern-why-one-millennial-woman-would-rather-go-to-hell-than-vote-for-hillary-8253224 ..."
    "... Realpc: Socialism does not work. Social Security does not work? Public education does not work? ..."
    "... Actually, North Korea is not socialist by any sane definition, any more than Saudi Arabia does. They are both feudal monarchies. ..."
    "... Totalitarianism is a failed social category that never existed anywhere outside of Orwell ..."
    "... A large chunk of Trump supporters come from uneducated white males - people who have been hit hard by our trade agreements and deindustrialization. Throw in a little bigotry against Mexicans and immigrants, and you have Trump supporters. ..."
    "... Bernie supporters tend to be younger. These are people who have only lived in a world of unequal growth, growth built off of bubbles, declining union membership and worker bargaining power, less job security, an eroding minimum wage, stagnant wages, debt, unending war, exploding education costs, etc. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    New column:
    Why the Working Class Is Choosing Trump and Sanders, by Mark Thoma : Donald Trump recently defended Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid:

    "Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can't do that. And it's not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to be cut."

    An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal reflects the negative reaction to Trump's remarks from many Republicans:

    "Mr. Trump is a political harbinger here of a new strand of populist Republicanism, largely empowered by Obamacare, in which the 'conservative' position is to defend the existing entitlement programs from a perceived threat posed by a new-style Obama coalition of handout seekers that includes the chronically unemployed, students, immigrants, minorities and women … who typically vote Democrat."

    But is it true that our economic system redistributes substantial sums away from the middle class to "handout seekers"? ...

    JohnH :
    The conclusion: "the winds of change are blowing away from establishment politicians and the wealthy donors who support them, and as far as I'm concerned any change that helps the working class feel more secure and confident about the future – change that is based upon reality rather than the myths that have been sold to the public in support of wealthy interests – can't come fast enough."

    Yes, we must try, "which is why you shouldn't listen to the "we-must-not-try" brigade. They've lost faith in the rest of us."
    http://robertreich.org/post/138894376115

    We should not embrace the defeatists crowd of Hillary supporters that's willing to settle for half a chicken in every pot.

    New Deal democrat :

    Water is wet. The sun rises in the east. The middle/working class has been screwed for the status quo for the last 35 years.

    And the news is ?????

    The GOP electoral coalition since 1968 and especially 1980 has been Wall Street, Neocons, the Bible Belt, and white working class populitsts.

    Wall Street got what it wanted (tax cuts), the Necons got what they wanted (wars), and the last two got -- promises. Unsurprisinly they have lost patience with the GOP establishment. The Bible Belt wants its 19th century (okay 15th century) back, and white working class populats wants to be sure that, even if they are sleeping under a bridge, no black or brown person is sleeping under a *better* bridge.

    On the Democratic side, with the exception of the late 1990s, the Establishment has failed to deliver better times. Obamacare *is* a boon, but it has taken seemingly forever to roll out seemingly since the Dinosaurs roamed the earth, and it has only directly benefitted about 10% of the population. Meanwhile nominal wages grow 2% a year, worker protections are non-existnet, and even actions which could be taken by the Executive alon - like raising the pay at which employers no longer have to pay overtime - are not taken (the rumor that Obama's signature hand suffered from paralyisi fell apart the other day when he signed the TPP)..

    We are in the midst of a politial realignment. My guess is that outside of Dixie, the white working class returns to the Democrats, who move towards Sanders' ideology, while the corporatist Dems move over to the GOP. And the Bible Belt continues to get the 15th Century delivered to them.

    New Deal democrat -> New Deal democrat...
    Oops .Sorry for the typos. On my iPad I can only preview the first paragraph, so I've stopped bothering. That last line should read "continues to fail to get the 15th Century...."

    Also the centrist dems have been playing defense for 30 years, simply trying to prevent the rollback of past programs, and apparently willing to compromise even on core New Deal and Great Society accomplishments (SS and Medicare).

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> New Deal democrat...
    Yep. I had figured you more for the establishment "liberal" type but here you show me a healthy if cynical (how can you not be by now) progressive attitude. THANKS!
    Lee A. Arnold -> New Deal democrat...
    Actually, Trump immediately gained the support of less-educated blue collar white males who had ID'd as Dem, and I haven't seen a poll yet on whether Bernie is winning them back
    PPaine -> New Deal democrat...
    You raise an interesting question. If corporate donor fueled Democrats lose national party control decisively. Not just for one convention ala McGovern. Where will they go ?

    Well what if the GOP is in yahoo hands ?

    Bloomberg party is. Fantasy

    Soooo. The donors will have to retake or hold one party. My guess they'll hold on to Democrat party easily if Hillary wins. Maybe the soul of the Democrat party is at stake here. As during the Bryan era

    tom :
    Trump says that, but his proposed policies are not compatible with what he says, and he part of the party which absolutely wants to gut those programs. Working class people who know what's good for them are for Sanders, the ones for Trump are politico-economic illiterates (either that or they are just sucked in by his racism.)
    Lee A. Arnold -> tom...
    It's quite possible that Sanders would win against Trump. Personality reasons. It's a stage debate I would love to see.

    It's also possible (now) that Clinton would lose to Trump. He can paint her up and down as being part of the corrupt Establishment. I don't understand her rhetorical strategy here. She should have agreed with Bernie every step of the way, subsumed his message into a bigger picture.

    It may be too late. Bernie is ticking upwards in South Carolina:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-4167.html

    PPaine -> Lee A. Arnold ...
    Lee this is indeed a fascinating development. I had thought Hillary would simply throw her arms around Bernie
    And attack her donors

    Look her donors don't want trump or Cruz. And "they " alas can trust her to " to the right thing" in the clutches

    DrDick -> tom...
    The Donald is doing what the GOP has done for 40 years, use racist rhetoric (without the dogwhistles this time) to convince the rubes to vote against their own interests.
    PPaine -> DrDick...
    Look

    Trump may surprise us. With a tax cut for the little guy okee dokee package

    PPaine -> PPaine ...
    Trump will not worry about the deficits he will promise to close as part of his grand plan while pulling a Reagan: Ignore the deficits and go for the goal line

    Right wing populists are not about little government, prudent government. They cut taxes and increase spending on the armada

    Lee A. Arnold -> PPaine ...
    PPaine: "Trump may surprise us with a tax cut for the little guy okee dokee package"

    He won't surprise me. I think that's his game plan. He wants to get elected. I wouldn't be surprised if he promised everybody a free buffet ticket in Atlantic City too.

    pgl :
    The WSJ is angry that a Republican told the truth: "Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can't do that. And it's not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to be cut."

    That's nice Donald. But you want a larger military and big tax cuts for the rich. Arithmetic please?!

    pgl :
    The Hedge Fund people are going to really hate Obama for this one: "Obama's Budget Seeks to Ensure Hedge Fund Managers Pay 3.8% Tax
    Posted February 09, 2016, 11:22 A.M. ET

    By Lynnley Browning

    Some partners in hedge funds, private-equity firms and other businesses organized as so-called passthroughs would pay a 3.8 percent income tax under President Barack Obama's 2017 budget request. The move is intended to address what the administration's budget documents call "a gap" in legal definitions of investment income and self-employment earnings. As a result, certain members of partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations may have been able to avoid the tax, according to budget documents.

    The proposal would extend a "net investment tax" for Medicare that's been in place since 2013 to taxpayers who have been able to avoid it, according to Obama administration officials. The measure, which is projected to raise $271.7 billion over the next decade, would apply to limited partners who "materially participate" in the ventures.

    The change is part of a package of revenue proposals that collectively would raise $2.6 trillion from 2017 through 2026, according to the president's budget request. The revenue it seeks is 67 percent higher than Obama's 2016 proposal, driven by international tax-reform proposals, changes in the way high-income individuals are taxed and a previously announced fee on oil of $10.25 per barrel.

    ©2016 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission"

    Not to worry hedgies - Karl Rove has your back....

    sanjait -> pgl...
    This seems like a good thing. Though I'd much prefer to simply see all types of income unified under the tax code. Half of the complexity of accounting and more than half of the avoidance behavior comes from confusion and games related to income classification.

    Why should it really matter? Let all income just be income. Cap gains, unearned, earned, whatevs.

    The strange thing is, even populist candidates like Bernie seem to advocate for higher taxes on regular earned income (upwards of 60% net including payroll taxes but excluding state taxes), while cap gains stays at a much lower rate, while cap gains is how the 0.1% get their money.

    Jess :
    Well done and insightful. Perhaps we should send a copy of this to the media, of both the conservative and liberal 'establishments.'

    Chris Matthews and Paul Krugman come to mind on the liberal Democrat side. Just about every pundit and then some on the Right needs a clue, although I doubt they would see it as their livelihoods depend on their not.

    PPaine -> Jess...
    Yes the establishment faces a possible quandary: both conventions might nominate an outsider. Hence the fantasy Bloomberg third way down the old dead center where the donor class sleeps
    Sandwichman :
    All the rhetoric on all sides is about restoring a golden age that never was. (1) the past is not going to be restored. (2) that wasn't even the past.

    Meanwhile, back in New Hampshire, in an effort to revive his floundering campaign, Marco the Rubot has named his prospective running mate -- Chatty Cathy!: "Pull the string and she says eleven different things."

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/02/breaking-marco-rubio-announces-running.html

    Julio -> Sandwichman ...
    Wait wait, I got this one. "Tax breaks for the rich!" and... wait... what were the other ten again?
    Sandwichman -> Julio ...

    "Can we at least dispel the myth that Barack Obama doesn't know what he is doing?"

    "He knows exactly what he is doing."

    PPaine -> Sandwichman ...
    Yes. The past that never was is not he future that can ever be
    cawley :
    Thank you, Mark. Good piece.

    It's nice to see an essay that makes a serious attempt to identify the root concern. (I sometimes half expect some of the Clinton supporters to start accusing Sanders supporters of hating them for their freedom.) But you are correct:

    "They want an economy that works for them and a political system that responds to their needs."

    Would prefer that you didn't lump Sanders supporters with Trump supporters because, as you point out, they "...see different causes and different solutions..." (to say the least). Not that I think it was your intent but it can have the result of disparaging Sanders supporters.

    Of course some Sanders supporters would be disappointed. That is always be the case for supporters of any candidate. But most of us recognize that, "change will be slow and incremental if there is change at all."

    The point is that, if you don't advocate - and vote - and work - for the change you want, it definitely won't happen at all. The difference is that, while you appear to take comfort in the belief that "the winds of change are blowing away from establishment politicians and the wealthy donors who support them." We are not so sure.

    As the democratic party has shown with its ham-handed support of HRC, the establishment politicians have a significant advantage and will do everything in their power to divert or quash change.

    PPaine -> cawley...
    I love it. Exactly -- They hate us for our freedom. The final affluent liberal reaction
    realpc :
    I agree with Mark Thoma about this. There is actually similarity between these two candidates. The labels "progressive" and "conservative" really don't apply.

    Americans are just tired of being controlled by a tiny minority of powerful rich people. Electing either Trump or Sanders probably won't change that, but at least it sends a message. We are, whether liberal or conservative or neither, sick of how things have been going.

    pgl :
    "Electing either Trump or Sanders probably won't change that, but at least it sends a message."

    The message would be a positive one if Sanders is elected. Trump - not so much as the real message of his campaign is that only white people have rights here.

    Jess :

    It is not about restoring 'a golden age' so easily dismissed by cheap cynicism. It is about preserving freedom and restoring justice. That these causes are never done, and the struggle to preserve them is never ending, does not make them a dead issue except to the worst of the cynics.

    Indeed, such resolution to reform and the pursuit of justice is the core of the very spirit of that phenomenon that is America. And while its history is replete with its abuses therein, its history also shows a remarkable resilience amongst the people to resist all forms of tyranny, including the tyranny of the privileged, in all their complacency for the status quo.

    This is what Sanders and Trump 'get' that the jades of the comfortable class do not.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

    Sandwichman -> Jess...
    "It is not about restoring 'a golden age' so easily dismissed by cheap cynicism." I'll have you know that my cynicism has been bought at a very respectable price.
    Lee A. Arnold -> Sandwichman ...
    You may enjoy this piece in the Voice yesterday, insightful, hilarious, & spreading like wildfire: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/feeling-the-yern-why-one-millennial-woman-would-rather-go-to-hell-than-vote-for-hillary-8253224
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Lee A. Arnold ...
    Awesome, Dude! THANKS!
    PPaine -> Lee A. Arnold ...
    Disestablishmentarianism
    PPaine -> PPaine ...
    But

    My cynicism lives by day at a job site
    But by night --

    When the full blog shines .....
    I become the mao ist of old

    No one every expects
    The cultural revolution --

    PPaine -> PPaine ...
    Tripped on my last jazz box eh?

    No one ever expects


    The
    CULTURAL REVOLUTION

    realpc :
    We don't need progressive ideology or conservative ideology. We need common sense and a genuine desire to help the middle class.

    Ideologies don't work and they are unrelated to common sense. Socialism does not work. However, I would vote for Sanders over any establishment politician, just because he doesn't seem to be one of them.

    Lee A. Arnold -> realpc...

    Realpc: "Socialism does not work." Social Security does not work? Public education does not work?
    realpc -> Lee A. Arnold ...
    Public education is mostly under local control. Social Security is ok, but there are better ways to provide for your retirement. A good definition of "socialism" is needed before trying to have a conversation about it.

    The Marxist definition involves a whole lot more than public education and social programs.

    Lee A. Arnold -> realpc...
    1. Social Security is not a "way to provide for your retirement". It is the safety-net.

    Everybody pays in from the beginning of work life, and everybody gets a payout, rich or poor, when they retire. No free riding, no moral hazard. No need for bureaucratic means-testing; extremely low overhead. It is slightly regressive on the pay-in, and slightly progressive on the pay-out; everybody accepts this going in, because you really don't know how your life will play out. The tax cap (which should be raised back to the original 90% of all income) prevents the wealthiest from objecting to it; it is chump change to them: thus, no real political problem. Social Security covers a myriad of deprivations and evils which we no longer have to think about because they don't occur with the same frequency or intensity.

    In fact it would be very difficult to make a better design. Genius, really.

    2. The fact that public education is under local control is immaterial to the general case, because public education benefits from local control. Other public goods, e.g retirement security, universal healthcare, national defense, don't need local differentiation and benefit from having the largest pay-in, the largest risk pool.

    3. Bernie Sanders is not talking about the marxist definition, and he has been quite clear on that. This is "democratic socialism" on the scale of some European countries, which retain plenty of market elements, have the same GDP growth rates as the US., and have happier populations.

    realpc -> Lee A. Arnold ...
    Those countries are and have long been capitalist. They are relatively wealthy, and very small.

    The US is very different. We could do the same things as Sweden, etc., are doing, at the state level. That would make much more sense, and should make conservatives and progressives happy. But no one suggests it.

    Lee A. Arnold -> realpc...
    They call themselves social democracies, and their size is immaterial to the argument.

    However, the relative sizes of the European countries and the US suggests that the US should have much, much HIGHER rates of growth than they do, according to Adam Smith, Chap. 3: "The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market." This could well be due to the US's lack of better social democracy, hobbling its citizens in debt and despair.

    DrDick -> pgl...
    Actually, North Korea is not socialist by any sane definition, any more than Saudi Arabia does. They are both feudal monarchies.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> realpc...
    Admittedly, we are confusing democratic socialism with social democracy a lot in our discussions here. You are confusing totalitarian dictatorship with socialism. There has never actually been a socialist government so there is no way to know whether it could work or not. An actual socialist government would need to be done within the confines of democracy in order for social will to be enacted by social power. Most of the world's governments are social democracies exercised within the constraints of capitalism under control of electoral republican states. The necessity for economic power to elevate candidates to the political elite ensures that ultimate power lies in the hands of the capitalist so long as they do not inspire insurrection among their subjects.

    The reason that there has never been a socialist government is because there has never been a democracy. Electoral republics allow elites to maintain power and control of property and the economic system while providing just enough democratic façade to keep the pitchforks down on the farm instead of storming the gates of power.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    All oligarchies are created equal regardless of whether the majority of property and wealth is held in the private hands of a small elite or whether the majority of property and wealth is held by the state that is controlled by a small elite. It is the transitive property of oligarchy equality.
    realpc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    "The reason that there has never been a socialist government is because there has never been a democracy."

    That is what you prefer to THINK is the reason. You have no evidence for that belief.

    realpc -> realpc...
    Socialism means no one can own a business. So the essential premise of socialism is not just impractical, it is impossible.

    And that is why it has never existed. All the communist revolutionaries were striving for the socialist ideal. It didn't happen because it can't happen, it is just a fantasy dreamed up by philosophers.

    DrDick -> realpc...
    You are a very confused individual throwing around words you do not understand. The seventh largest corporation in Spain, a multibillion dollar multinational enterprise, is a socialist collective.

    http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/eng/

    PPaine -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    Democratic socialism As opposed to one party state socialism

    Aka the way of Stalin and me

    PPaine -> PPaine ...
    Totalitarianism is a failed social category that never existed anywhere outside of Orwell
    Salade Déjeuner :
    " 91 cents of every dollar spent on entitlement programs goes to " the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working
    "
    ~~MT~

    Would you guess that large chunks of $$$$ to elderly goes straight to the grandchildren? Straight back into the economy to raise aggregate demand? Hell! Grandparents love their hapless offspring more than they love themselves, but :

    But that which elderly save for themselves goes straight into the estate, the estate that goes to grandchildren. Such is a true Keynesian redistribution to the higher propensity jokers. If it still works, don't fix it!

    The defect that needs fixing is where $$$$ is removed from the economy to fund the transfer. $$$$ should be removed as taxation on signalling but never on taxation of production. Sure! We do need certain Pigouvian taxes, otherwise our planet will burn up. Will the changes to the tax code be "politically acceptable"?

    No! As global warming closes in on us it will suddenly become acceptable, a year late

    eudaimonia :
    A large chunk of Trump supporters come from uneducated white males - people who have been hit hard by our trade agreements and deindustrialization. Throw in a little bigotry against Mexicans and immigrants, and you have Trump supporters.

    Bernie supporters tend to be younger. These are people who have only lived in a world of unequal growth, growth built off of bubbles, declining union membership and worker bargaining power, less job security, an eroding minimum wage, stagnant wages, debt, unending war, exploding education costs, etc.

    They are not particularly happy with the status quo and feel that we need to change paths rather than continue on this trajectory.

    Both supporters are not happy with the economic and political system, and seek change. They feel that the economic and political class are not on their side, and there is some truth that that.

    [Feb 12, 2016] Theres A Special Place at The Hague for Madeleine Albright

    Notable quotes:
    "... Too bad she is a neocon monster. ..."
    "... Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous side of American foreign policy. She neither came down wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan politics and not due to any actual concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to American sanctions was justified. ..."
    "... From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide ..."
    "... Unlike Rwanda, Albright was involved in every step of Clinton's Balkan policy, although she was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that, she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served as president of the Center for National Policy . She is a former student of Zbigniew Brzezinski . ..."
    "... Albright actively advocated policies that led to American military action in 1999, and placed all of the blame for the situation on the Belgrade government . (Does that ring a bell?) Albright's contention was that "a little bombing" would encourage Milosevic to sign Rambouillet Peace Accords, which would allow for the NATO occupation of Kosovo. ..."
    "... The Clinton Administration demanded Milosevic's removal from power , and in 2000, Albright rejected Vladimir Putin's offer to try to use his influence to defuse the situation. ..."
    "... War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American ambassador torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in 1995, was blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia. ..."
    "... Albright has never wavered from her stance on the Balkans. In 2012, she got into a shouting match with pro-Serbian activists over her role in that conflict , calling the protesters "dirty Serbs." ..."
    russia-insider.com

    Madeleine Albright proves to the young, aspiring women of America that warmongering psychopathy has no glass ceiling.

    Former U.S. Secretary of State under Bill Clinton Madeleine Albright thinks there is "a special place in hell" for young women if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton.

    Despite overwhelming evidence that most young American women who still plan to remain involved in the electoral process would rather go to hell than vote for Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, from her seat of war criminal wisdom, has informed the naive lasses that support for Bernie Sanders will land them in the VIP room in a superstitious underground torture chamber.

    By repurposing her own original quote, Albright has proven yet once again that she is an expert on hell's admission standards because she's probably going there.

    Of course it should come to no surprise that Albright is stumping for Hillary Clinton. After all, she was Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, the first female to hold the office. And sure, Albright has an interesting bio. She and her family, fleeing Czechoslovakia from approaching German army, escaped to Serbia, and she survived the Nazi Blitzkrieg of London.

    Too bad she is a neocon monster.

    Although she personally experienced the horrors of WWII, and had family members who died in the Nazi death camps, Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous side of American foreign policy. She neither came down wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan politics and not due to any actual concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to American sanctions was justified.

    When is genocide justified? Or when does it simply not matter?

    Let's ask the Rwandans.

    Although the Clinton Administration's stated purpose for intervening in the Balkans was to stop genocide, the Rwandan genocide in 1994 continued unabated. From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide:

    "Rather than respond with appropriate force, the opposite happened, spurred by the murders of the Belgian Blue Berets and Belgium's withdrawal of its remaining troops. Exactly two weeks after the genocide began – following strenuous lobbying for total withdrawal led by Belgium and Britain, and with American UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright advocating the most token of forces and the United States adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention defined genocide was in fact taking place – the Security Council made the astonishing decision to reduce the already inadequate UNAMIR force to a derisory 270 men" (10.11)

    "The lesson to be learned from the betrayal at ETO and other experiences was that the full potential of UNAMIR went unexplored and unused, and, as result, countless more Rwandans died than otherwise might have. If anyone in the international community learned this lesson at the time, it was not evident at the UN. For the next six weeks, as the carnage continued, the UN dithered in organizing any kind of response to the ongoing tragedy. The Americans, led by US Ambassador Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious action by the UN.[18] On May 17, the Security Council finally authorized an expanded UNAMIR II to consist of 5,500 personnel.[19] But there is perhaps no distance greater on earth than the one between the Security Council chambers and the outside world. Once the decision to expand was finally made, as we will soon show in detail, the Pentagon somehow required an additional seven weeks just to negotiate a contract for delivering armed personnel carriers to the field; evidently it proved difficult to arrange the desired terms for "maintenance and spare parts."[20] When the genocide ended in mid-July with the final RPF victory, not a single additional UN soldier had landed in Kigali." 10.16

    Unlike Rwanda, Albright was involved in every step of Clinton's Balkan policy, although she was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that, she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served as president of the Center for National Policy. She is a former student of Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    Not only did Albright support Clinton's bombing, she was a key figure in the conflict and in the ousting of Slobodan Milosevic. Time went so far as to call the Balkan campaign "Madeleine's War." Despite her assertions that the bombing of Yugoslavia was a humanitarian mission, it is irrefutable at this point in history that the U.S. pretext for military intervention was fabricated.

    Albright actively advocated policies that led to American military action in 1999, and placed all of the blame for the situation on the Belgrade government. (Does that ring a bell?) Albright's contention was that "a little bombing" would encourage Milosevic to sign Rambouillet Peace Accords, which would allow for the NATO occupation of Kosovo.

    The Clinton Administration demanded Milosevic's removal from power, and in 2000, Albright rejected Vladimir Putin's offer to try to use his influence to defuse the situation.

    War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American ambassador torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in 1995, was blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia.

    Albright has never wavered from her stance on the Balkans. In 2012, she got into a shouting match with pro-Serbian activists over her role in that conflict, calling the protesters "dirty Serbs."

    Dirty Serbs, huh? And she wants to tell idealistic young American women, who still believe in the American democratic process, how to vote? Yay, feminism!

    [Feb 12, 2016] Sanders, Corbyn and the financial crisis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Well, here in the UK it was the left in the form of the Labour Party that was responsible for the situation that resulted in the Financial Crisis, and the immediate response to it. Whether the right would have done anything differently is a point for discussion, but irrelevant: it was the left what done it. ..."
    "... Since Financial Crisis here and the resulting support of the finance sector was a product of the left it is no surprise that the right is now in the ascendancy (and the reverse is true in the US). A fact underlined by Blair, Darling and Brown now all being in the pocket of the financiers. ..."
    "... Thats absolutely true. And the Government pretty much reflected the views of the economic orthodoxy during the Great Moderation - free labour, capital good flows leads to an efficient allocation of resources - comparative advantage, credibility, incentives, etc etc - all EC 101. Also you cannot blame globalisation (which they thought was an unambiguously good thing anyway); academics outside mainstream economics have warned about the dangers of leaving a country overly exposed to globalisation since - well the beginning, but most people studying economics would have been unaware of the arguments and the richness of this literature (and still largely are). ..."
    "... The 2008 crash hit the UK hard because New Labour was a right-wing party that carried on the Conservatives policy of under-regulating our financial systems; a decision that those of us on the genuine left of politics would have done our best to avoid. New Labours abandonment of a genuine left-wing outlook, along with its analogues in the US and Europe, has led us to the current financial crisis and its ongoing austerity con. ..."
    "... How was New Labour left or anything but Thatcher-lite? And how were New Labour any more responsible for 2008 than the decades of Tory rule setting up the groundwork for underregulated markets? ..."
    "... Youve completely missed the point of Simons post. A party that furthers the interests of finance capital is by definition not of the left . The rise of Corbyn, whatever else it may presage, is clearly driven by an appetite for a genuinely left position. Ditto Sanders in the US. ..."
    "... .....one rule which woe betides the banker who fails to heed it.. never lend money to anyone unless they dont need it. ..."
    January 28, 2016 | mainly macro
    Shortly after the full extent of the financial crisis had become clear, I remember saying in a meeting that at least now the position of those who took an extreme neoliberal position (markets are always right, the state just gets in the way of progress) would no longer be taken seriously. I could not have been more wrong. But in a way I think that the 'surprising' strength of the radical left (by which I mean those who are not the established centre left) in the US, UK and perhaps some European countries reflects exactly this contradiction.
    We need only to consider the position of the financial sector to understand this contradiction. That sector was by far the major cause of the largest recession since WWII, and yet it is now in essentially the same position as it was before the crisis. There are no purely economic reasons why this has to be so: economists know that it is perfectly possible to make fundamental changes to this sector that could significantly reduce the chance of another crisis at little cost, but such possibilities are just not on the political agenda. For example, Admati and Helwig have convincingly argued that the problem with banks is very low capital requirements, but actual reforms have been marginal.

    The reason is straightforward: the financial sector has political power. Many on the centre left seem too timid or too ignorant to talk about this power publicly, and are therefore unwilling to challenge it. The political right and it's media machine help divert those who have little interest in politics and economics into believing that their problems are really due to too many migrants or too generous welfare payments. Those who are members or supporters of left wing political parties tend to have a better understanding of what is going on. To put it simply, a sector that caused a great deal of harm and cost us all a great deal has got away largely unscathed such that it could easily do it all again.

    But it gets much worse. The right has succeeded in morphing the financial crisis into an imagined crisis in financing government debt (or, in the Eurozone with the ECB's help, into an actual crisis) which required a reduction in the size of the state that neoliberals dream about. The financial crisis, far from exposing neoliberal flaws, has led to its triumph. Confronted with this extraordinary turn of events, many of those on the centre left want to concede defeat and accept austerity!
    That is all scandalous, and if the left's established leaders will not recognise this, it is not surprising that party members and supporters will look elsewhere to those who do. Now wise heads may warn that the radical left has in many cases not grasped the nature of the problem and are simply repeating old slogans, and worse still that voting for radical leaders may deny the left the chance for power, but inevitably this can sound just like the appeasement of many on the centre left. What Corbyn's victory shows Democrats in the US is the power of the contradiction between the global financial crisis and where we are now.

    Phil, 28 January 2016 at 03:26

    This Robert Reich column is interesting.

    I kept bumping into people who told me they were trying to make up their minds in the upcoming election between Sanders and Trump.

    At first I was dumbfounded. The two are at opposite ends of the political divide. But as I talked with these people, I kept hearing the same refrains. They wanted to end "crony capitalism." They detested "corporate welfare," such as the Wall Street bailout. They wanted to prevent the big banks from extorting us ever again. Close tax loopholes for hedge-fund partners. Stop the drug companies and health insurers from ripping off American consumers. End trade treaties that sell out American workers. Get big money out of politics.

    President Hillary Clinton wouldn't even try to do much (if any) of that. (Neither would Trump, for that matter, but that's another discussion.)

    StuartP, 28 January 2016 at 05:23

    Well, here in the UK it was the 'left' in the form of the Labour Party that was responsible for the situation that resulted in the Financial Crisis, and the immediate response to it. Whether the 'right' would have done anything differently is a point for discussion, but irrelevant: it was the 'left' what done it.

    Since Financial Crisis here and the resulting support of the finance sector was a product of the 'left' it is no surprise that the 'right' is now in the ascendancy (and the reverse is true in the US). A fact underlined by Blair, Darling and Brown now all being in the pocket of the financiers.

    Anonymous, 29 January 2016 at 00:50

    That's absolutely true. And the Government pretty much reflected the views of the economic orthodoxy during the Great Moderation - free labour, capital good flows leads to an 'efficient' allocation of resources - comparative advantage, credibility, incentives, etc etc - all EC 101. Also you cannot blame globalisation (which they thought was an unambiguously good thing anyway); academics outside mainstream economics have warned about the dangers of leaving a country overly exposed to globalisation since - well the beginning, but most people studying economics would have been unaware of the arguments and the richness of this literature (and still largely are).

    On migration, the tragedy of us not being able to let in desperate Syrians is a result of huge immigration (largely of cheap labour) under the Labour government which has not delivered tangible net positive results for most people and left them fatigued. Now we find we politically cannot let in the people that we have a moral responsibility to let in.

    Since the failures happened under Labour, they had to take responsibility, and in the end it played to the Conservatives and we got something worse.

    The start of the solution is to get more pluralism and critical thinking into economics and make it look more like other social sciences. Then hopefully we do not get a repeat of the hubris and Great Moderation Era mistakes.

    Big Bill , 29 January 2016 at 01:22

    The financial crisis couldn't have happened without Thatcher's Big Bang which is no doubt why she was and continues to be feted in death by the City. If you're trying to blame the worldwide financial problems on Labour overspending, where's your evidence to support this (never mind the then Tories were critical of Labour spending on the grounds it was insufficient)? Are you trying to suggest Osborne And Cameron, for example, aren't in the pocket of the financiers? Where's your evidence? :-)

    Slackboy2007, 29 January 2016 at 02:32

    SimonP:

    I wrote a couple of comments under Simon's post "The dead hand of austerity; left and right" that relate to yours. In those comments I made the point that it is, and probably always has been, plain to everyone that the centre-left position of New Labour is a right-wing ideology with an identity crisis.

    The 2008 crash hit the UK hard because New Labour was a right-wing party that carried on the Conservative's policy of under-regulating our financial systems; a decision that those of us on the genuine left of politics would have done our best to avoid. New Labour's abandonment of a genuine left-wing outlook, along with its analogues in the US and Europe, has led us to the current financial crisis and its ongoing austerity con.

    Unfortunately though, it appears that people such as yourself, and even Simon Wren-Lewis with his disappointing assertion that Corbyn is on the "radical left" rather than just the plain left, want to keep up the pretence that you think that New Labour was somehow a left-wing party.

    As I've said before, and I'm sure I'll have to keep saying again and again:

    The centre is on the right.

    Anonymous, 29 January 2016 at 05:33

    How was New Labour "left" or anything but Thatcher-lite? And how were New Labour any more responsible for 2008 than the decades of Tory rule setting up the groundwork for underregulated markets?

    David Timoney , 29 January 2016 at 05:42

    You've completely missed the point of Simon's post. A party that furthers the interests of finance capital is by definition not of the "left". The rise of Corbyn, whatever else it may presage, is clearly driven by an appetite for a genuinely left position. Ditto Sanders in the US.

    John Turner, 29 January 2016 at 11:51

    The UK Labour Party in the GFC was neo-liberal light rather than a believer in improving regulation. The GFC was caused by very poor prudential behaviour by all financial institutions.

    Ogden Nash was quoted at the start of Chapter 15 of Paul Samuelson's text;

    ".....one rule which woe betides the banker who fails to heed it.. never lend money to anyone unless they don't need it."

    Anonymous, 2 February 2016 at 16:34

    @Big Bill

    Critics of Labour and New Labour here are not directing blame at 'overspending' by Labour for the problems that led to Britain's exposure to the Financial crisis and the elevation of the Conservatives. They are blaming things like financial deregulation and over-liberal and naive policies towards trade, capital and labour flows, Labour also ignored growing inequality. Mainstream economists did not take seriously arguments made by historians, sociologists, social workers and many others about dangerous inequalities, imbalances and social problems that were becoming clearly evident. Mainstream economists, almost unanimously said that industrialisation was not a problem , almost natural, and the City was where Britain's 'comparative advantage' lay. Too much confidence in their theories and seeing things through abstraction to the extent you can just ignore what others are actually seeing, not through abstraction, but actual engagement with reality. Take economic immigration, or trade with an assertive China, again, naive neo-classical arguments were prominent.

    ellywu2 , 3 February 2016 at 00:33

    This whole derail is just pointless 'whatabouttery'. Who cares if it was the right or the left. By playing into this partisan 'not me sir, i just got here' cheapens the argument and stymies true academic debate.

    In summary:- whenever someone says 'It was the left/right which started this' you should ignore it - the problem is now.

    Lee , 28 January 2016 at 05:37

    Simon,

    I agree with everything you say and this might be nitpicking, but some economists -- Dean Baker in particular -- think it was the real estate crisis, and not the finanical crisis, that created our current woes:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/08/financial-crisis-subprimecrisis

    Random , 28 January 2016 at 07:57

    Not sure I agree. The problem is there is no rational *bankruptcy* procedure in place at the moment. Here is my view, it is not quite the same as Positive Money put it but similar:

    The lending banks we need are the ones that can lend development capital effectively and stick to doing just that. If we are to have private lending banks, then they need to be able to make a decent profit doing development capital lending.

    The way I would narrow banks is to offer them an incentive - an unlimited cost free overdraft at the Bank of England. 0% funding costs. In return they must drop all the side businesses and just do capital development lending on an uncollateralised basis - probably in the form of simple overdrafts. In other words they become an agency businesses delivering state money to those that require it.

    A capital buffer probably ISN'T required here. Losing your lending licence if your underwriting isn't that good should be sufficient incentive to run a tight ship. Backing off the entire thing to the central bank reduces the barriers to entry in lending - making self-employed, highly dispersed and, importantly, locally focussed underwriters a possibility.

    Any lending businesses that doesn't want to take the oath, then has to fully fund their lending on a maturity matched basis Zopa style. No deposit insurance, no access to the Bank of England, and losses absorbed by those doing the lending. This then becomes the fate of the shadow banking system - the building societies and money funds.

    What we need is asset side regulation.

    You proscribe a list of valid purposes for a loan. Anything outside that list becomes unenforceable in court.

    That leaves the courts to decide what fits and what doesn't fit the list. If they decide it doesn't fit, then it becomes a gift of shareholders funds.

    Operate like that and I guarantee you that banks will become very keen on their due diligence – because the client just has to argue in court that the loan was 'ultra vires' to get a freebie.

    It's really easy to regulate for the government banks if you want to.

    Random , 28 January 2016 at 07:57

    (continued)

    There is another issue:

    The transaction system is clearly also being used as a hostage by the banks to get whatever they want out of the government and the central bank. Do as we say or we shoot the transaction system!

    There are lots of ways of designing a mutual transaction system. But at its core is one concept – transactions operate on the balance sheet of the central bank, not the individual banks. So you would have a Transaction Department at the Bank of England (alongside the Issue and Banking Departments) and current and savings account ultimately represent liabilities on that balance sheet.

    The functional aspects are less important – existing bank accounts could be held in trust by the current banks, run as separate subsidiaries companies and a myriad of different other options. But the key point is that the operational entity is acting as agent and the legal ownership and responsibility is always at the central bank. That makes anything recorded in the transaction system exactly the same as holding cash. You have a receipt for liabilities at the central bank.

    However that makes the individual banks short of deposits and balancing liabilites. The replacement on the individual bank's balance sheets is of course an overdraft from the central bank. Existing banks would then have to get the match funding to free themselves from the central bank lending restrictions, conform to requirements or just enter run-off, as I mentioned earlier.

    The transaction system is like the road or rail infrastructure and is a common good required by all.

    Inevitably the state will have to fund its existence – because there is no money in running it. I see the state providing a 'white box' system that anybody authorised can put a marketing veneer on. Done correctly it would mean that you can literally operate your bank accounts through any of the competing front ends. Account numbers would stay the same whoever you are notionally with.

    The other important thing about cutting down on bank lending is it free ups a *huge* amount of space for government spending. I can see this as a good way for 'funding' a basic income – certainly better than raising the basic rate of tax to 45%.

    That way also the public have an *incentive* to support narrowing banks. Basic Income allows you to narrow banks without a depression.

    Gary Othic , 28 January 2016 at 08:09

    This is roughly the same as my own thinking; that Corbyn's victory comes on the back of a membership angry that they lost the last election having to take the 'austerity-lite' approach for responsibility reasons and Sanders rise has come on the back of Democrats angry that more significant reforms were not put in place after the crash.

    Jack van Dijk , 29 January 2016 at 12:31

    let's hope that people see Sanders that way

    AllanW , 28 January 2016 at 08:18

    There is a very simple explanation for all these circumstances but you won't see it if you keep thinking in outdated ways about political influence.

    It's no longer about Left and Right but about Up and Down.

    Peter , 28 January 2016 at 09:15

    The U.S. Presidential primaries are starting this week and Sanders could win the first two in a large upset. Hillary and her supporters have been attacking Bernie much more lately. Econobloggers Krugman, DeLong, Thoma have all come out for Hillary, arguing that the danger of a Republican victory is too much.

    Sanders has criticized the Fed while Hillary has not. Sanders has a substantial financial transaction tax. I agree with Dean Baker who is still for Sanders.

    https://medium.com/@DeanBaker13/washington-post-takes-wild-swings-at-bernie-sanders-13ab35adf9b8#.k0jpxlylt

    I would bet money that Trump doesn't win. He wont' get enough votes. He turns off Latinos and women, etc. He may motivate more people to vote. What Trump shows is that the Republican establishment is in tatters and the base no longer trusts them.

    Anonymous, 28 January 2016 at 10:47

    At PMQs this week (with due apologies to Henry Fielding's 'Shamela') Shameron, crimson faced, shouted that Blair, Brown and Darling are all being paid by large financial companies so don't talk to him about Google paying 3% corporation tax.

    If you are an anti-Thatcherite, this is the sort of 'argument' that really turns the stomach. Quite what it would have taken for Labour to have got City and Murdoch support in 2010 does not bear thinking about.

    StuartP , 29 January 2016 at 01:26

    Is it not true that Blair, Brown and Darling are all being handsomely paid by large financial companies? Why do you think these companies are doing it?

    Jerry Brown, 28 January 2016 at 12:50

    From the first sentence to the last, everything you have written here describes the way I think and feel about this. Like you were reading my mind (but written much better and more coherently).

    Sanders offers the chance that challenging that power of the financial sector would even be considered. Clinton, not so much.

    Jack van Dijk , 29 January 2016 at 13:45

    Mr. Brown, my thoughts as well. Living in the US feels live living on the sharp edge of a knife.

    Demetrius , 29 January 2016 at 04:59

    If only it was as simple as Left and Right, but it is bigger and worse than that. today I asked the question who rules the world?

    Madhyamak , 29 January 2016 at 07:50

    Excellent post! And finally a break with Paul Krugman.

    Mainly Macro , 29 January 2016 at 22:07

    Thank you for the first comment, but I think the second reflects what you think I wrote rather than what I actually said. While Paul is undoubtedly a wise head, I did not say these warnings were wrong, but said they might be ignored. Paul and I have differed about issues in the past, like the microfoundations of macro, or the political solidity of the Eurozone.

    Jerry Brown, 30 January 2016 at 10:54

    Well, I can read too and Madhyamak is right, this column does constitute a break with Krugman's recent posts and as Peter earlier noted, other leftish leaning econ bloggers.

    Maybe it was not your intent, but the actual post you wrote displays a deep understanding of, and approval for, the motives and desires of Sanders supporters. And a definite criticism of the center-left. Furthermore, it extends hope that it is not all a foolish dream when you compare it to the Corbyn victory.

    And it is an excellent post.

    Neil Wilson , 29 January 2016 at 23:02

    "For example, Admati and Helwig have convincingly argued that the problem with banks is very low capital requirements,"

    Then I wonder at that. Banks always have 100% loss capital on their balance sheets. Deposits are essentially capital. After all why else would you need a depositor's protections scheme if they are not subject to loss?

    Having a system where people 'bail-in' ahead of time rather than behind time sounds like the same faulty control thinking as the sovereign money idea.

    Banks can essentially create their own capital via the lending process as Professor Werner has already described in his seminal papers on how the banking system actually works.

    So there can be no effective control point on the liabilities side of a bank's balance sheet. All you can do there is alter the price, which just feeds through to the price of loans. And we already saw how well price adjustment controls banks in 2008.

    The job of the financial sector is to create money for appropriate projects in the non-financial sector. Their use of the power to create money, delegated to them by the state, should be limited to that purpose and that purpose alone - restrict financial sector asset creation only to those assets that fund the non-financial sector. No more borrowed-into-existence casino money. If the finance sector wants to do anything amongst itself it should be force to raise equity to do it, which would then have to come from existing savings.

    The place to discipline banks is on the asset side of the balance sheet. By removing the financial sector's ability to borrow money from banks you shrink the size of the financial sector and stop it creating bubbles within itself.

    The financial sector size is determined by how much it can expand its balance sheet, and the expansion is driven on the asset side - where the result of its sales efforts end up.

    Neil Wilson , 29 January 2016 at 23:12

    "Many on the centre left seem too timid or too ignorant to talk about this power publicly, and are therefore unwilling to challenge it."

    The other one is that the left has severe loss aversion issues.

    To shrink the financial sector requires putting people out of work.

    Allowing capitalism to work requires businesses to fail, which puts people out of work.

    Unfortunately capitalism without loss and failure is like Catholicism without hellfire. It doesn't work as a concept. Things have to be allowed to fail - banks included.

    Importantly failed expansion leads to permanent loss which has to be allocated. If you were earning good money on a bubble project, or in a declining business area that fails, and your skills are unneeded anywhere else, then your income will decline - possibly right down to the living wage.

    So the first task is working out how to take losses with good grace.

    [Feb 11, 2016] Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldnt vote for anyone who was, no matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me.

    Notable quotes:
    "... In my view, Clinton wants to be President only because it is there and it is a powerful role. For her, I think it affirms her egotistical belief that she is the best person for the job. She is a by the numbers politician; lacking passion and a cause and is beholden to Wall St. ..."
    "... Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldnt vote for anyone who was, no matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me. ..."
    "... The media likes a simplistic narrative, and the media wants Clinton win, no matter what the Democratic base wants. Its annoying, but not surprising, that they are trying to cast the Democratic primary as they have. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    MajorMalaise , 2016-02-10 01:44:26
    This disgraceful episode shows the dark side of the sexism arguments. Equality is about every women having the same opportunities as men. But what gets lost in the debate, or conveniently ignored, is that an incompetent woman has no place taking or claiming precedence over a competent man. Margaret Thatcher wrought a trail of destruction in the UK - her Reagan-esque and neo-liberal policies led to many more Britons living in poverty and being left with no prospect of any dignity; instead being trapped in a life-long welfare-cycle. How is it plausible that she should not be judged on her performance, rather on some esoteric and exaggerated feminist ideal. She was a female PM, sure, but she was an awful PM. Her political salvation was the Argentine conflict over the Falklands. Without that, she would have deservedly been confined to the political scrap-heap much sooner.

    In my view, Clinton wants to be President only because it is there and it is a powerful role. For her, I think it affirms her egotistical belief that she is the best person for the job. She is a "by the numbers" politician; lacking passion and a cause and is beholden to Wall St. That surely makes her sound more like a conservative rather than a liberal (the equivalent of Tony Blair). Sanders might be a silly old fool, but he has a passion for the American ideal - that all men (and women) were indeed created equal and his policies support that ideal. Clinton has no policies - she is essentially asking the American people to trust her, when in reality, they don't - not because she is a woman, but because she has a history of duplicity.

    catmahal , 2016-02-10 01:27:28
    Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldn't vote for anyone who was, no matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me.
    Marcedward antaeaventura , 2016-02-10 00:09:29
    "I am increasingly dismayed that 'older, wiser, more mature' voters are portrayed as solidly in Hillary's corner"

    The media likes a simplistic narrative, and the media wants Clinton win, no matter what the Democratic base wants. It's annoying, but not surprising, that they are trying to cast the Democratic primary as they have.

    [Feb 11, 2016] often argue

    Notable quotes:
    "... ..."
    "... The Atlantic ..."
    "... The Atlantic ..."
    www.salon.com
    that mainstream political reporters are incapable of covering her positively-or even fairly. While it may be true that the political press doesn't always write exactly what Clinton would like, emails recently obtained by Gawker offer a case study in how her prodigious and sophisticated press operation manipulates reporters into amplifying her desired message-in this case, down to the very word that The Atlantic 's Marc Ambinder used to describe an important policy speech.

    The emails in question , which were exchanged by Ambinder, then serving as The Atlantic 's politics editor , and Philippe Reines, Clinton's notoriously combative spokesman and consigliere, turned up thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request we filed in 2012 (and which we are currently suing the State Department over). The same request previously revealed that Politico's chief White House correspondent, Mike Allen, promised to deliver positive coverage of Chelsea Clinton, and, in a separate exchange, permitted Reines to ghost-write an item about the State Department for Politico's Playbook newsletter. Ambinder's emails with Reines demonstrate the same kind of transactional reporting, albeit to a much more legible degree: In them, you can see Reines "blackmailing" Ambinder into describing a Clinton speech as "muscular" in exchange for early access to the transcript. In other words, Ambinder outsourced his editorial judgment about the speech to a member of Clinton's own staff.

    On the morning of July 15, 2009, Ambinder sent Reines a blank email with the subject line, "Do you have a copy of HRC's speech to share?" His question concerned a speech Clinton planned to give later that day at the Washington, D.C. office of the Council on Foreign Relations, an influential think tank. Three minutes after Ambinder's initial email, Reines replied with three words: "on two conditions." After Ambinder responded with "ok," Reines sent him a list of those conditions:

    Advertisement

    From: [Philippe Reines]
    Sent: Wednesday, July 15 2009 10:06 AM
    To: Ambinder, Marc
    Subject: Re: Do you have a copy of HRC's speech to share?

    3 [conditions] actually

    1) You in your own voice describe them as "muscular"

    2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys - from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross - will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something

    3) You don't say you were blackmailed!

    One minute later, Ambinder responded:

    From: Ambinder, Marc
    Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:07 AM
    To: Philippe Reines
    Subject: RE: Do you have a copy of HRC's speech to share?

    got it

    Ambinder made good on his word. The opening paragraph of the article he wrote later that day, under the headline " Hillary Clinton's 'Smart Power' Breaks Through ," precisely followed Reines' instructions:

    Sponsored

    When you think of President Obama's foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That's the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a clue to its purpose: seated in front of Clinton , subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Dennis Ross .

    Based on other emails released in the same batch we received, Ambinder's warm feelings toward Clinton may have made him uniquely susceptible to Reines' editing suggestions. On July 26, 2009, he wrote to Reines to congratulate his boss about her appearance on Meet the Press :

    From: Ambinder, Marc
    Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:05 PM
    To: Philippe Reines
    Subject: she kicked A

    on MTP

    On November 29, 2010 , he sent along another congratulatory note, apparently in regard to a press conference Clinton had held that day to address the publication of thousands of State Department cables by WikiLeaks:

    From: Ambinder, Marc
    Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 12:05 PM
    To: Philippe Reines
    Subject: This is an awesome presser...

    She is PITCH f#$*& PERFECT on this stuff.

    The emails quoted above are particularly remarkable given Ambinder's understanding of Clinton's press strategy, as he articulated in a column for The Week last year. Predicting how Clinton's widely documented aversion to reporters would play out in the 2016 presidential race, Ambinder wrote , "The Clinton campaign will use the press instrumentally. ... Good news for us, though: The reporters covering Clinton are going to find ways to draw her out anyway, because they're really good, they'll give her no quarter, and they'll provide a good source of accountability tension [ sic ] until Walker (or whomever) emerges from the maelstrom."

    When asked for comment about his correspondence with Reines, Ambinder wrote in an email to Gawker, "I don't remember much about anything, but I do remember once writing about how powerful FOIA is, especially as a mechanism to hold everyone in power, even journalists, accountable." When asked to elaborate, he followed up with a longer message:

    Advertisement

    Philippe and I generally spoke on the phone and followed up by email. The exchange is probably at best an incomplete record of what went down. That said, the transactional nature of such interactions always gave me the willies.... Since I can't remember the exact exchange I can't really muster up a defense of the art, and frankly, I don't really want to. I will say this: whatever happened here reflects my own decisions, and no one else's.

    In a subsequent phone exchange, Ambinder added:

    It made me uncomfortable then, and it makes me uncomfortable today. And when I look at that email record, it is a reminder to me of why I moved away from all that. The Atlantic , to their credit, never pushed me to do that, to turn into a scoop factory. In the fullness of time, any journalist or writer who is confronted by the prospect, or gets in the situation where their journalism begins to feel transactional, should listen to their gut feeling and push away from that.

    Being scrupulous at all times will not help you get all the scoops, but it will help you sleep at night. At no point at The Atlantic did I ever feel the pressure to make transactional journalism the norm.

    Ambinder emphasized that the emails did not capture the totality of his communication with Reines, and said they were not indicative of his normal reporting techniques. When asked if the exchange was typical of the magazine's reporting and editing process, a spokesperson for The Atlantic told Gawker: "No, this is not typical, and it goes against our standards."

    Reines didn't respond when we asked if he engaged in similar transactions with other reporters covering the State Department. But on the day of his trade with Ambinder, at least one other journalist used Reines' preferred adjective-"muscular"-to describe the speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. That reporter was none other than Mike Allen of Politico : ....

    Uahsenaa February 9, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    At Gawker, a pretty clear paper trail showing exactly how HRC gets the media coverage she desires:

    http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058

    [Feb 11, 2016] February 9, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    At Gawker, a pretty clear paper trail showing exactly how HRC gets the media coverage she desires:

    http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058

    [Feb 11, 2016] A wonderfully grim satire of neoliberalism, globalization, and Kurzweil-ian narcissistic techno-utopianism

    Notable quotes:
    "... A somewhat campy (okay, VERY campy) take on the French Revolution, it quite effectively depicts the way hopelessness and inequality corrode away the moral fabric of human relations. ..."
    "... it was Mike Nichols who said, Funny is very rare. And I would add, very valuable, and slightly deadly. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Blink 180 , February 9, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    From yesterday's water cooler:

    [BILL CLINTON:] "I understand why we've got a race on our hands, because a lot of people are disillusioned with the system and a lot of young people want to take it down. … I understand what it's like for people who haven't had a raise in eight years. There are a lot of reasons [to be angry]. But this is not a cartoon. This is real life."

    Don't rag on cartoons, Bill. Many are more worth paying attention to than you are. I recommend the following:

    Galaxy Express 999

    A wonderfully grim satire of neoliberalism, globalization, and Kurzweil-ian narcissistic techno-utopianism.

    The Roses of Versailles

    A somewhat campy (okay, VERY campy) take on the French Revolution, it quite effectively depicts the way hopelessness and inequality corrode away the moral fabric of human relations.

    Both can easily be streamed online with English subtitles.

    ekstase , February 9, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    They used to say that Hitchcock was, "damned with faint praise," by being called a master of horror. I think the same thing tends to happen to those who are funny. I think it was Mike Nichols who said, "Funny is very rare." And I would add, very valuable, and slightly deadly.

    Plenue , February 9, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    I was going to say something similar. Yes, Clinton, you're damn right I watch cartoons:

    [Feb 10, 2016] Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is falling apart

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is falling apart. Bernie Sanders soared in New Hampshire and now two polls have him tying her nationally. It's a disaster. ..."
    "... Now she's called in the B Team - the cynical, paranoid and wacky twins Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock - to bail her out. ..."
    "... The attacks are rooted in nothing more than a list of dirty names they call the Vermont senator every day. Having found little in his record to attack, they have consulted the thesaurus to turn up ugly sounding accusations. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood

    Dear old Dick Morris - the Clintons' former triangulation guru - is back. And he's wielding a sharp rapier:

    Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is falling apart. Bernie Sanders soared in New Hampshire and now two polls have him tying her nationally. It's a disaster.

    Now she's called in the B Team - the cynical, paranoid and wacky twins Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock - to bail her out. And here comes the elderly, diminished and livid former President Bill Clinton to lead the duo's frantic attacks on Sanders.

    The attacks are rooted in nothing more than a list of dirty names they call the Vermont senator every day. Having found little in his record to attack, they have consulted the thesaurus to turn up ugly sounding accusations.

    Their strategy is laughable. After losing 84 percent of young voters in Iowa - and failing to recover them in New Hampshire - they sent in two aging fossils of feminism to insult and threaten young women.

    The 81-year-old feminist Gloria Steinem charged that young women are only backing Sanders because that's where they can meet boys. And 78-year-old Madeleine Albright threatened to consign to a "special place in hell" women who don't back female candidates like Clinton.

    Those are two great ways to attract young voters.

    http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/268831-dick-morris-clinton-deploys-b-team

    At least Dick cautiously refrained from labeling the candidate herself an 'aging fossil of feminism,' an offense which could get him Arkancided.

    [Feb 10, 2016] Establishemnt political consultants operate and strategize on the sole core premise that voters are stupid in the Pavlovian sense and unreliable

    Notable quotes:
    "... Political consultants by and large, and especially in the establishment tier, operate and strategize on the sole core premise that voters are a) stupid (in the Pavlovian sense), and b) unreliable. The idea that small donors would be reliable over the course of a campaign is inconceivable (the larger donors certainly aren't that reliable). And if you're willing to flip messages in a heartbeat, it is probably not a safe bet; Sanders is pulling it off in part (so far?) through his own massive (so far…) consistency (and legacy). Also, he's positioned so far from anybody else (except maybe Trump?!?) that it's difficult to slipstream him and steal his donor base. ..."
    "... I think that some basic economic/market concepts (commitment bias, sunk costs) can be considered as well. But the establishment consultants (who generally do quite well, thank you) don't see a $20 donation as a significant commitment with an expectation attached; it's a restaurant tip. BTW, Sanders' three million donations come from over one million donors, that's a rough average of two follow-up donations. Some of these folks are living hand-to-mouth; they're almost literally all in, unlike any millionaire or billionaire who maxes out and gives the rest to PACs. ..."
    "... And Clinton's not dumb; not dumb? mmm, Ok, is she smart? Personally, I don't think so. Conniving and persistent? absolutely. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    dk

    And Clinton's not dumb; she could have tried just the same strategy. Why didn't she?

    Because of her consultants.

    Think of it as a jobs program. Fundraising consultants are important assets throughout the life of a campaign (including the period after the election).

    The fundraisers get a cut of funds they raise (10%-20% is common, I've seen higher… even ActBlue asks for a tip, but they ask and don't require it, and it doesn't come out of your donation, it's on top). This is an industry, which also has vendors (NGP / VAN and other political data platforms have fundraising modules, before merging with VAN, NGP was a stand-alone campaign accounting, compliance, and fundraising tool).

    And in case there is any lingering confusion or doubt in anyone's mind; the campaign fundraising context is a major conduit for "constituent" input on policy. When candidates say "I've heard from/spoken with my constituents", unless they just did a townhall meeting, they are talking about conversations at fundraising events. The candidates feel that they are actually connecting with their constituents… and they are, just not with all of them. Naturally, business owners and affluent blowhards are well-represented.

    Which means that backing out of the existing fundraising mechanisms would be wrenching for campaign and candidate alike, on several levels. It would also be considered an overt act of disloyalty; and loyalty is the coin of the realm.

    Political consultants by and large, and especially in the establishment tier, operate and strategize on the sole core premise that voters are a) stupid (in the Pavlovian sense), and b) unreliable. The idea that small donors would be reliable over the course of a campaign is inconceivable (the larger donors certainly aren't that reliable). And if you're willing to flip messages in a heartbeat, it is probably not a safe bet; Sanders is pulling it off in part (so far?) through his own massive (so far…) consistency (and legacy). Also, he's positioned so far from anybody else (except maybe Trump?!?) that it's difficult to slipstream him and steal his donor base.

    I think that some basic economic/market concepts (commitment bias, sunk costs) can be considered as well. But the establishment consultants (who generally do quite well, thank you) don't see a $20 donation as a significant commitment with an expectation attached; it's a restaurant tip. BTW, Sanders' three million donations come from over one million donors, that's a rough average of two follow-up donations. Some of these folks are living hand-to-mouth; they're almost literally all in, unlike any millionaire or billionaire who maxes out and gives the rest to PACs.

    optimader

    And Clinton's not dumb; not dumb? mmm, Ok, is she smart? Personally, I don't think so. Conniving and persistent? absolutely.

    [Feb 10, 2016] Democratic Party super delegates problems

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Doug, February 9, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    The vote count is currently 62% for Bernie and 32% for Hilary, yet she has scored 6 delegates vs. zero for him. What am I missing (besides a functioning brain)?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef, February 9, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    It's not as bad as the United Nations.

    5 guys can veto anything.

    And no popular vote. You can reproduce all you want to add to your billion plus population, but you get one vote, as same as Andorra (I think).

    Llewelyn Moss, February 9, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    Yeah but Super Delegates only exist in case commoner voters come up with the wrong answer. Hahaha. Pathetic. I will write in Bernie regardless of how the Dems 'fix' the selection.

    flora , February 9, 2016 at 8:39 pm

    Super Delegates: part of the modern Dem machine. Carter was the first nominee and pres under the super delegate system. (Started 1972 after the McGovern nomination, i.e 'wrong' answer.) Carter was also the start of Dem presidents who de-regulate business. Super Delegates act as supporters of the status quo, making the party less responsive to voters.

    jrs, February 9, 2016 at 8:51 pm

    Notice the Republicans don't have super delegates. Which party is really more democratic? It's a ratchet, there's a check on how far populist left movements go in this country, but maybe not populist right ones.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , February 9, 2016 at 7:01 pm

    Hard to predict if it's another miracle day for Saint Hillary.

    We will know by sundown, I hope.

    ambrit, February 9, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    Probably "Super Delegates."

    Jen, February 9, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    So far the partially reported totals are from the hinterlands, which is the only possible explanation I can offer for whoever the hell Greenstein is with 7% of the vote.

    Also wrt phone banking/push polling in NH: those of us who live here know this is why caller ID was invented, and act accordingly.

    jrs, February 9, 2016 at 7:40 pm

    I am glad Vermin Supreme seems to have gotten some write ins.

    ekstase, February 9, 2016 at 4:52 pm

    Re: the gator-throwing Florida man:

    "judge ordered James to stay out of all Wendy's restaurants, to avoid contact or possession with any animals other than his mother's dog"

    A couple of possible loopholes here?

    A Farmer, February 9, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    More Florida Man stories http://grantland.com/features/lifes-rich-pageant-meet-a-florida-man/

    flora, February 9, 2016 at 5:24 pm

    re: Benjamin Studebaker link. Good read. Thanks.

    flora , February 9, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    adding:
    The Dems came up with the idea of super delegates after the McGovern nomination in 1972. The idea was to keep the party bosses in control of the nominating process. Studebaker talks about Carter. Carter was the first Dem nominee under the super delegate system.
    The GOP does not have super delegates to their convention.

    [Feb 10, 2016] Glen Greenwald says weve hit Stage 6 of Establishment backlush and are on our way to Stage 7

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    flora , February 9, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    From DK:
    "Glen Greenwald says we've hit Stage 6 on our way to Stage 7."

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/9/1482119/-Glenn-Greenwald-says-we-ve-hit-Stage-6-on-our-way-to-Stage-7-BOOM

    Jess , February 9, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    Glenn left out Stage 8 - when the reform candidate gets assassinated.

    [Feb 10, 2016] How Bernie can stick a fork in Killary off on Wall Street donations issue

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    lyman alpha blob,

    RE: sHillary's Wall St problem, here's how Bernie can finish her off and I keep waiting for him to say something like the following:

    "My campaign has accepted millions of dollars in small donations from voters all across the country. They most certainly expect something from me in return and if elected I intend to deliver. I expect the same goes for Clinton and her donors too."

    Then stick a fork in her.

    jo6pac,

    Yes;)

    [Feb 10, 2016] Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Win the New Hampshire Primaries

    Notable quotes:
    "... those who are so wrapped in the Clinton bubble as to assume her inevitability and electability have some thinking to do. ..."
    "... For my part, Hillary Clinton cant lose by a large enough margin to satisfy my desire to watch the establishment turned on its ear this season. We the people have had it up to here with neoconservative warfare abroad, profound wealth inequality, economic injustice writ large, the power of banks over all of us, and the prioritizing of the wealth of finance and other industry barons over the basic interests and well-being of the general public. ..."
    "... Still trying to mislead The People toward Hillary, NYTimes? Your front page says: Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic contest in a state where he has long held an advantage. Better to say in a state where the voters, like NYTimes readers who offer Comments, have far better judgment than the lightweight election news and opinion team at the New York Times. ..."
    "... This is about the electorates rejection of the influence of shady money in politics. As somebody noted a few years ago, the candidates should have to wear the logos of their sponsors, like NASCAR drivers do. ..."
    "... I dont think Bill did Hillary any favors by wagging his finger in front of the cameras and scolding Bernie for an authentic campaign. It brought back lots of memories of I did not have sexual relations with that woman and reminded voters what they didnt particularly like about either Clinton. ..."
    "... Look at the exit polling- Bernie brought in a ton of Independents which the Democrats need in order to win in November. He absolutely crushed Hillary with younger people - the future of the party. He also won among women. ..."
    The New York Times

    James, Flagstaff

    What Secretary Clinton and the Democratic machine behind her ought to ponder carefully is that, as the figures now stand, Mr. Trump is likely to walk away from New Hampshire with more votes than Secretary Clinton. Yes, I can already see the rolled eyes and hear all the explanations about how eccentric New Hampshire and its primary system is, but it remains a statistic well worth thinking about. Those who assume that a Trump nomination would mean a Democratic landslide, and those who are so wrapped in the Clinton bubble as to assume her inevitability and electability have some thinking to do.

    Heather, Charlotte, North Carolina

    That an established political figure such as Mr. Sununu knows only five people voting for the odious Mr.Trump is to his credit, but this demonstrates the problem plaguing the the "Establishment" nominees. When only one white-collar criminal, (and a tiny fish in the banking business, to boot) was incarcerated after the economic collapse brought about by some of America's most respected financial institutions, working people realized politics as usual benefitted only one interest group: the obscenely wealthy.

    The regulators would be paid by taxpayers for life to do nothing, we would remain mired in trillions of dollars of debt for waging wars that did little but destabilize the Middle East, and Republican legislators would do absolutely nothing but squabble and snatch up their paychecks.

    It's horrifying that a materialistic, narcissistic blowhard would attract hordes of voters, but if you dwell only in the insular bubble of the Beltway, the reality of a furious electorate must come as quite a shock.

    The machinations of the Koch brothers resulted in Trump, an ambulatory id, laying waste to the illusion that a shred of true statesmanship remained within the Republican Party. Fox "News" can't be shocked that their smug dog-whistles found a studious acolyte in Trump, a master of pandering to the lowest common denominator. The only question: Will our nation be the true victim of these solons' cynical money-grubbing?

    David Gregory, Deep Red South

    The Progressives- Democrats and Independents that have been kicked, ignored, marginalized and abandoned by the media and the Beltway Villagers have a message for you:

    Hillary Clinton is NOT our choice. We do not want a candidate that tells us what we cannot do, that tells us we have to accept Republican lite, that hugs up to Wall Street with it's hand out and tells us to never mind. We want a candidate that represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, that remembers and honors the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy and others.

    We believe that government exists to serve the needs of the public and the common good, to level thy playing field and to encourage equity and justice for all.


    CAF, Seattle 2 hours ago

    Thanks NYT! I will check back on this article frequently as you update it for the latest messaging and slant from Clinton HQ in Brooklyn! Keep up the good work, you've become my best source for Hillary Clinton campaign information.

    Sadly for her, it looks like New Hampshire has spoken. Accounts include that over 90% of Democratic voters who valued a "trustworthy and honest" candidate voted for Sanders.

    For my part, Hillary Clinton can't lose by a large enough margin to satisfy my desire to watch the establishment turned on its ear this season. We the people have had it up to "here" with neoconservative warfare abroad, profound wealth inequality, economic injustice writ large, the power of banks over all of us, and the prioritizing of the wealth of finance and other industry barons over the basic interests and well-being of the general public.

    Let's hope for a Sanders landslide in *every* state.


    onthecoast, LA CA 2 hours ago

    Speaking as a Sanders supporter, we are NOT angry at the federal government (other than at the "do nothing" Republicans). We are sick and tired of the 1% and the corporations sending our jobs overseas (42,000 factories closed since 2001) and doing every other thing they can to eviscerate the middle class. We are tired that they don't pay their share of taxes! We want Congress to stand up to them and fix this!!

    David, Sacramento 2 hours ago

    Get ready for a brand new Hillary. What version is she up to right now? Hillary 5.0? She has more hot fixes than Windows.


    Here, There

    Again, everything is phrased in words that tear down Trump and Sanders, after all they have led in the polls for months and Sanders has home state advantage and he didn't beat Hillary, he topped her, and the Iowa result is framed as a win for her, when the raw vote count has not been released ...

    Dick Purcell, Leadville, CO 2 hours ago

    Still trying to mislead The People toward Hillary, NYTimes? Your front page says: "Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic contest in a state where he has long held an advantage." Better to say "in a state where the voters, like NYTimes readers who offer Comments, have far better judgment than the lightweight election "news" and "opinion" team at the New York Times.

    Billy, up in the woods down by the river

    This is about the electorate's rejection of the influence of shady money in politics. As somebody noted a few years ago, the candidates should have to wear the logos of their sponsors, like NASCAR drivers do.

    raven55, Washington DC 2 hours ago

    I don't think Bill did Hillary any favors by wagging his finger in front of the cameras and scolding Bernie for an authentic campaign. It brought back lots of memories of 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman' and reminded voters what they didn't particularly like about either Clinton.

    David Gregory, Deep Red South

    Look at the exit polling- Bernie brought in a ton of Independents which the Democrats need in order to win in November. He absolutely crushed Hillary with younger people - the future of the party. He also won among women. Like Cornell West said: the Sanders Campaign is a love train. Come aboard.
    We are going to need everybody.

    [Feb 09, 2016] What Clinton said in her paid speeches by Ben White

    Shades of corruption in the USA political spectrum...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Recalled one attendee: 'She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.' ..."
    "... Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. ..."
    "... the Clinton campaign declined to comment further on calls that she release the transcripts of the three paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs, for which she earned a total of $675,000. ..."
    "... So far, the Clinton campaign has shown no inclination to release the texts of her remarks to Goldman or anyone else. At a debate in New Hampshire last week, Clinton said she would "look into" the matter. A day after the debate, Clinton pollster Joel Benenson told reporters, "I don't think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches." On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Clinton pushed back even harder on calls to release the speech transcripts. ..."
    "... Potential general election opponents could conceivably hit Clinton on her Wall Street ties but it would be much harder for them to do so than Sanders. Many of the GOP candidates - including Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz - have ties to Wall Street. Kasich worked at Lehman Brothers and Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs. Bush, Rubio and Christie have all competed hard for donations from the financial industry. ..."
    "... But until Clinton gets clear of Sanders, her speeches to Goldman and other banks will likely continue to pose problems. Some progressive groups say beyond the speeches themselves, the fear is that, as president, Clinton would be too chummy with bankers and rely on Wall Street executives for senior positions like Treasury secretary. The highly paid speaking gigs just make these fears more intense. ..."
    "... One thing that is clear is that Clinton could release the Goldman transcripts unilaterally if she chose to do so. ..."
    www.politico.com

    Recalled one attendee: 'She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.'

    When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

    Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

    "It was pretty glowing about us," one person who watched the event said. "It's so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director."

    At another speech to Goldman and its big asset management clients in New York in 2013, Clinton spoke about how it wasn't just the banks that caused the financial crisis and that it was worth looking at the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law to see what was working and what wasn't.

    "It was mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat," one person who attended that speech said. "But in this environment, it could be made to look really bad."

    Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon dismissed the recollections as "pure trolling," while the Clinton campaign declined to comment further on calls that she release the transcripts of the three paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs, for which she earned a total of $675,000.

    But the descriptions of Clinton's remarks highlight the trap in which the Democratic presidential front-runner now finds herself. In a previous election cycle, no one would much care about the former secretary of state's comments to Goldman. They represent the kind of boilerplate, happy talk that highly paid speakers generally offer to their hosts. Nobody pays nearly a quarter of a million dollars to have someone criticize their alleged misdeeds. But 2016 is different.

    Clinton is under relentless attack from Vermont democratic socialist Bernie Sanders for her ties to Wall Street, including paid speeches and campaign fundraising events. And she is now under intense pressure from the media and some on the left to release transcripts of her remarks to Goldman and other banks.

    The problem is, if Clinton releases the transcripts, Sanders and other progressive candidates could take even seemingly innocuous comments and make them sound as though Clinton is in the tank for Wall Street. And if she doesn't, it makes her look like she has something very damaging to hide.

    "On the one hand, if Clinton discloses these speech transcripts that's not going to be the end of it," said Dennis Kelleher, chief executive of financial reform group Better Markets. "I think you are damned if you do and damned if you don't in this never ending game of gotcha. But as a political matter, she should probably just disclose it all and disclose it quickly."

    ... ... ...

    So far, the Clinton campaign has shown no inclination to release the texts of her remarks to Goldman or anyone else. At a debate in New Hampshire last week, Clinton said she would "look into" the matter. A day after the debate, Clinton pollster Joel Benenson told reporters, "I don't think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches." On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Clinton pushed back even harder on calls to release the speech transcripts.

    ... ... ...

    People close to the Clinton campaign say the hope is that calls for release of the transcripts will fade after New Hampshire, assuming the former first lady can defeat Sanders in South Carolina and the mass of mostly Southern states that vote on March 1 in the Super Tuesday primaries.

    Potential general election opponents could conceivably hit Clinton on her Wall Street ties but it would be much harder for them to do so than Sanders. Many of the GOP candidates - including Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz - have ties to Wall Street. Kasich worked at Lehman Brothers and Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs. Bush, Rubio and Christie have all competed hard for donations from the financial industry.

    But until Clinton gets clear of Sanders, her speeches to Goldman and other banks will likely continue to pose problems. Some progressive groups say beyond the speeches themselves, the fear is that, as president, Clinton would be too chummy with bankers and rely on Wall Street executives for senior positions like Treasury secretary. The highly paid speaking gigs just make these fears more intense.

    "The big-picture question voters care about is: Who does a politician surround themselves with and will they hold accountable people they have a close relationship with?" said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "Hillary Clinton would reassure voters if she said she would appoint a Treasury secretary not from Wall Street, an attorney general and SEC chair with a proven record of holding Wall Street accountable, and generally work with Elizabeth Warren to stop the revolving door between industry and government."

    Kelleher echoed that sentiment, saying Clinton could blow the speech question off the radar if she could more clearly articulate an approach to Wall Street that would ease anxiety on the left. Previous comments, including that she took the $675,000 from Goldman because "that's what they offered," have not done the trick.

    "I don't know how she does it, but she has got to get to the fundamental issue and address it in a way that convinces voters that, no matter what money she has gotten from Wall Street, when she is president she will represent the American people and do what's right," Kelleher said. "Until she does that in a convincing way, stories like this will still be a problem for her."

    One thing that is clear is that Clinton could release the Goldman transcripts unilaterally if she chose to do so.

    BuzzFeed reported over the weekend that contracts for two paid speeches - not to Goldman - made clear that Clinton owned exclusive rights to the content and any reproductions of her remarks. A person familiar with the matter said that even if Goldman did have the ability to block Clinton from releasing her remarks, the bank would never exercise that right and would allow the speeches to be released.

    [Feb 08, 2016] Hillarys disingenuous claim that she is more accomplished as a politician is a blatant lie. Like most neocons she is an abject failure

    Sanders, either intentionally or not behaved in an very non-confrontational manner toward her. Moderators were even worse. Rachel is pretty intelligent girl quite able to understand that Hillary Clinton is a criminal. Just due to her Iraq voting, so say nothing about other issues like email-gate, Wall Street speeches and flow of money from foreign donors into Clinton foundation while being a Secretary of State
    They way she was treated was soft balling all the major issues with her candidacy. This is especially true about two more recent scandals: email scandal and her Wall street speeches. The real question here is eligibility of such a person to any elected position. This issue was swiped under the carpet both by moderators and Sanders. Clinton should be unemployable in the USA government in any capacity, by any reasonable standards.
    How can any ordinary voter with IQ above 100 vote for this psychopathic warmonger in Democratic primary (I would understand Republicans voting for her - she is a neoconservative ) is an interesting question about US electorate psychology and "What's wrong with Kansas" effect of constant brainwashing. Looks like Americans so hopelessly brainwashed that they live is some kind of artificial reality?
    It might well be that Albright endorsement is a kiss of death for Hillary Warmonger Clinton. Albright was an architect of Yugoslavia war and endorsed killing of Iraqi children via economic blockade. She is a blood thrusting zombie on her own.
    Notable quotes:
    "... But it was the other things that really really bothered me. The stupid and factually unsupported meme that Clinton will get more done because she is more pragmatic and understands how it works more. That being the Secretary of State means that Clinton has a better grasp of the world than any one out there regardless of her said record at State. And that Sanders doesn't have either an understanding of what he is asking to get into AND that he doesn't have the organization needed to get elected. I thought the latter idea got destroyed when it turned out that despite spending millions less than the candidate who could not lose, Sanders actually had as many field operation sites in states with later primaries as Clinton did, and in quite a few cases more. Because, once again she was inevitable, and didn't have to worry about those states. But for the most part there was no addressing these flights of fancy. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Pat,

    Spent some time at a foreign affairs lecture. Between my conversation with a twenty something Clinton supporter, AND the lecturer and two old women in the audience I can tell you denial is deep.

    First off the younger woman did admit that Steinem and Albright were not good for Clinton, but she also brought up the Bernie supporters are mean to people meme. Now I have no doubt some are, I can also tell you from experience that the Mulder vs. Scully wars were nasty and not pretty. People say mean things on the internet all the time, and maybe it isn't 'right', but Sanders needs to stop taking this stuff seriously and say flat out that both sides have supporters with more passion than common sense. And that only the publicly campaign acknowledged and requested support needs a response from either campaign. IOW, he is not responsible because someone is mean on the internet and he needs to stop apologizing or acknowledging it because it does get equated with the nasty and condescending crap from actual surrogates like Steinem and Albright and Chelsea.

    But it was the other things that really really bothered me. The stupid and factually unsupported meme that Clinton will get more done because she is more pragmatic and understands how it works more. That being the Secretary of State means that Clinton has a better grasp of the world than any one out there regardless of her said record at State. And that Sanders doesn't have either an understanding of what he is asking to get into AND that he doesn't have the organization needed to get elected. I thought the latter idea got destroyed when it turned out that despite spending millions less than the candidate who could not lose, Sanders actually had as many field operation sites in states with later primaries as Clinton did, and in quite a few cases more. Because, once again she was inevitable, and didn't have to worry about those states. But for the most part there was no addressing these flights of fancy.

    I'm really going to have to get my act together and put together a record of the Sanders and Clinton accomplishments as elected officials. And perhaps send it out without identifying who did which just so the shock can be greater when people realize how much more Sanders has done with his time. Although the people smart enough to remember that Sanders has many more years of experience, mayor, Congressman, Senator won't be fooled. Only the idiots who think being married to the elected official is experience won't. As for that other pragmatic myth, maybe I should also supply them with a easy cheat sheet of Congressional and Senate seats that are up for grabs and what the counts are for majorities while I'm at it. And point out that while there is a long really long shot of retaking the Senate, the House is going to remain Republican. And follow up that Republican majorities that despise Clinton won't care how pragmatic she is, anymore than they gave a damn that Obama kept trying to offer them so many things they wanted.

    Elissa Heyman,

    Please put that comparison out, or what each candidate has actually done as an elected official, so people can see; that is a really missing piece of information. That meme is absurd because it is BERNIE who is the progressive that gets things done, and across the aisle.

    Lambert Strether, Post author

    Well, I was a Clinton supporter in 2008. This campaign is nothing. I have no doubt - granted, I can't bear to do the research - that I could find people spouting the most vile misogyny then who are yammering about Berniebros today. Democratic tribalism…

    Jeff W,

    I'm really going to have to get my act together and put together a record of the Sanders and Clinton accomplishments as elected officials.

    Here's a start: "Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You" (AlterNet).

    For Hillary Clinton, there's this: "The Hillary Clinton record: In the Senate, she reached across the aisle, but the old ways there are no more" (Yahoo! Politics).

    [Feb 08, 2016] Bernie as a progressive politician without a party

    Notable quotes:
    "... Victory of Reagan was the victory of neoliberalism, or quite coup in the USA. Much like Bolsheviks coup in 1917. Essentially a change of social system. Or neoliberal revolution, if you wish. The end of New Deal Capitalism. ..."
    "... Bernie is a centrist democrat by European standards. He does not offer anything other then the resurrecting of remnants of a New Deal. But social situation is different and the state is fully captured by neoliberals. So to me he looks more like Don Quixote. ..."
    "... He does not have a formal party and without a party any politician is a hostage of the current elite. Or you need to be a retired general and has absolute loyalty of your former troops. ..."
    "... Unless he wins the civil war within Democratic Party against the currently dominant Third Way faction (Clinton faction) and becomes the leader of the Party he is doomed one way or the other. The elite is pretty inventive and vicious. They do not take hostages. I doubt that he can achieve that. The party is already sold. ..."
    "... And even if he becomes POTUS he capabilities will be very limited. He will face "shadow state" in full glory. And it's the "shadow state" which rules the country. That's what iron law of oligarchy is about. "You want a friend in this city? [Washington, DC.] Get a dog!" Harry S. Truman ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    likbez ,

    Victory of Reagan was the victory of neoliberalism, or quite coup in the USA. Much like Bolsheviks coup in 1917. Essentially a change of social system. Or neoliberal revolution, if you wish. The end of New Deal Capitalism.

    Bernie is a centrist democrat by European standards. He does not offer anything other then the resurrecting of remnants of a New Deal. But social situation is different and the state is fully captured by neoliberals. So to me he looks more like Don Quixote.

    The story follows the adventures of a nameless hidalgo who reads so many chivalric romances that he loses his sanity and decides to set out to revive chivalry, undo wrongs, and bring justice to the world, under the name Don Quixote.

    I wish Bernie good lack and want him to win, but he is in a very precarious situation. He does not have a formal party and without a party any politician is a hostage of the current elite. Or you need to be a retired general and has absolute loyalty of your former troops.

    Unless he wins the civil war within Democratic Party against the currently dominant Third Way faction (Clinton faction) and becomes the leader of the Party he is doomed one way or the other. The elite is pretty inventive and vicious. They do not take hostages. I doubt that he can achieve that. The party is already sold.

    And even if he becomes POTUS he capabilities will be very limited. He will face "shadow state" in full glory. And it's the "shadow state" which rules the country. That's what iron law of oligarchy is about. "You want a friend in this city? [Washington, DC.] Get a dog!" ― Harry S. Truman

    Sanders adherents look to me somewhat similar to Occupy Wall Street movement. He runs his campaign on the indignation of people with status quo, with unfair and corrupt system. In other words he runs on a negative platform of addressing injustices and resurrecting the elements of the New Deal .

    But the truth is that this is impossible without dismantling neoliberalism and he probably does not even think in those terms. As if Wall Street allows him to introduce Tobin tax on financial transactions to finance state college education without mortal fight.

    In such a situation usually a nationalist like Trump has better chances. In comparison with other Repugs he at least has some paleoconservative tendencies.

    Lambert Strether (Post author)
    HuffPo:

    Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign raised $33.6 million in the last three months of 2015 and another $20 million in January alone, the campaign announced Sunday. The campaign further stated that 1.3 million people have made 3.25 million donations to Sanders' run - a record number of donors at this stage in a presidential campaign.

    The Sanders camp said that the fourth quarter total will show 70 percent of the campaign's donations came from small donors. Further, the $20 million it reports to have raised in January came almost exclusively from online donations averaging $27 a piece.

    Last I checked, Occupy didn't scale like that. (That's not to say that donating to a campaign is equal to a movement; it isn't. But a mailing list of people who've demonstrated tangible commitment is certainly a good start.)

    For the rest of your comment, Rome wasn't sacked in a day.

    3.14e-9

    That's not to say that donating to a campaign is equal to a movement; it isn't. But a mailing list of people who've demonstrated tangible commitment is certainly a good start.

    It's not just the people making donations, but the army of volunteers who are doing phone banking and organizing events on their own. Now, I suppose all candidates have an army of volunteers. O had them. But the day after they won his ground war for him, he sent them home.

    Bernie says he wants the army to stay involved, and I think it could happen

    1. if he really means what he says, and
    2. the ground forces can be converted to something like a civil engineers corps.
    Lambert Strether (Post author)

    It may be. I just think that after the election could be too late. What if there's another Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004, for example?

    Jeff W,

    Since this post mentions the Democratic candidates' competing "theories of change" here is Jeff Spross in The Week on "How class could eventually remake the Democratic Party" with a somewhat different take:

    This is where Bernie Sanders' revolt within the Democratic Party - which in many ways mirrors Trump's GOP revolt - comes into play. His thesis is that the Democrats need to go hard left on economics. So he's picked a few key class-based priorities - the minimum wage, campaign finance, single payer healthcare, and infrastructure investment - and proposed truly massive and aspirational goals. His idea isn't to moderate on social issues (though he doesn't play them up as much), since political science shows that while poorer voters are more socially conservative, they vote based on pocketbook issues.

    His idea is to bring the Democrats' economic stances up to speed with the progress they've made on social and identity issues, and make them a genuinely economically leftist party again. This will lose them upper class and donor class votes. But so what? They'll solidify their support among black Americans, Latinos, and women; pull a lot of new working- and lower-class whites into the party; and leave a lot of poorer Americans who currently don't vote with the impression they've finally go[t] something to vote for. Sanders' position isn't simply that this is the right thing to do. It's that reliance on economic populism specifically will set up the Democrats with far more durable majorities in the future.

    By contrast, Hillary Clinton's approach is basically to preserve as long as possible the existing coalition - with its top-heavy reliance on upper class voters. She certainly isn't backsliding on economics: She has come down in favor of a $12 minimum wage and has ideas on campaign finance reform. But her incremental building on ObamaCare is paltry to put it mildly. And her approach to the economic issues in general is like her approach to everything else: lots of tinkering, but nothing super ambitious. She's also come out swinging on identity and social issues like access to abortion, voting rights, immigration and gender equality.

    The differences between Clinton and Sanders are often chalked up to "theory of change" stuff, or idealism vs. practicality. Which isn't quite right. It's more about competing theories of what the Democratic coalition needs to become.

    [emphasis added]

    [Feb 08, 2016] George W. Bush Has Had Enough Of Ted Cruz

    It's interesting that Cruz used to work for Bush II as a domestic policy advisor. And now Bush Ii decided to put him down. He said "I don't like the guy"
    YouTube
    Published on Oct 20, 2015

    George W. Bush is against one of his brother's opponents: Ted Cruz. This is a little unexpected as donor fundraisers are usually not for attacking fellow republicans. "I just don't like the guy," Bush said. Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

    "Former President George W. Bush surprised supporters of his brother Jeb on Sunday when he ripped Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) during a fundraising event in Denver, Politico reported.

    Bush's dismissive tone toward the Tea Party lawmaker - who worked on his campaign as a domestic policy advisor in 1999 - came as a surprise for many of the 100 donors at the event. At one point, Bush reportedly said of Cruz, "I just don't like the guy."

    He said he found it 'opportunistic' that Cruz was sucking up to [Donald] Trump and just expecting all of his support to come to him in the end," one attendee said, an allusion to Cruz's somewhat warmer relationship with the current Republican front-runner."*

    Read more here: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/georg...

    Ian Giddens 4 days ago

    Anyone who finds Cruz "awesome" must have an extraordinarily inept judge of character. Cruz is the quintessential douche bag.

    duhsmersh 2 weeks ago

    Every bush and EVERY clinton should be jailed for treason against the American people.

    joebonsaipoland 2 weeks ago

    Seem like everyone HATES Cruz. You saw what happen after the 6th GOP debate when Cruz attacked trump on "NY values"! Cruz got slammed - he will not win, Cruz was born in Canada and is disqualified. LOL

    Jean Falco 3 weeks ago

    Ted Cruz is better than the sleazy, piece of SHIT, Sociopath, professional liar, lazy, and sorry excuse for a man BUSH! The whole family is a pack of wolves!

    Alan Sun 3 weeks ago

    Is Cruz even eligible as a candidate? Isn't it required for you to be born in the United States to become president? I don't like Cruz anyways.

    Michael Parker 1 month ago

    I thought George W Bush had to be the bottom of the Republican barrel and that he was so bad that they must have began to learn their lesson and vote for a proper president.
    But here we are with Trump, Carson & Cruz and amazingly I'd rather have Bush back as president than any of them 3.

    Michael Parker 1 month ago

    +Brain Outy I'm not a fan of Republican policy in any way, shape or form, but if there had to be a Republican president I agree I'd prefer Jeb Bush mainly because he's an establishment politician and would work with the rest of the Republican establishment so while things wouldn't get better they're unlikely to get much worse than if any of them 3 got into power.

    Adino Janda 1 month ago

    Former President Bush is hiding because most of the United States by now knows he is nothing but a liar, and murdering individual. Only those who have benefitted from his crimes think anything positive about him. Jeb is cut from the same cloth. If Jeb gets in the citizens can only expect more of the same lies and murdering ways that all of that bloodline has been displaying through out history and their connections with this country and its affairs.

    Jayson Cooke 1 month ago

    The reason they don't like him is he is smarter than them. He knows that in Politics you will NEVER win unless you play the game. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Go ahead Ted, you are right (politically) to DRAFT OFF TRUMP. How is it going for those that have attacked Trump? Looking at you, Jeb. Yep, Cruz is just too smart and people hate him for it. Cry me a river.... BTW check out Ted's CHRISTMAS commercial. He stomps on Republican Senate Majority leader, calling him a Melting Snowman (Rino) before the Omnibus vote. No wonder Republican ESTABLISHMENT hate TED...hilarious!

    [Feb 08, 2016] Ron Paul Slams Cruz And Hillary They Are Both Owned By Goldman

    See also Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi We came, we saw, he died and Hillary Clinton A Career Criminal
    Notable quotes:
    "... "You take a guy like Cruz, people are liking the Cruz - they think he's for the free market, and [in reality] he's owned by Goldman Sachs. I mean, he and Hillary have more in common than we would have with either Cruz or Trump or any of them so I just don't think there is much picking," Paul said of the Texas senator on Fox Business' "Varney Company on Friday. ..."
    "... "On occasion, Bernie comes up with libertarian views when he talks about taking away the cronyism on Wall Street, so in essence he's right, and occasionally he voted against war," the former Texas congressman said when asked if there was a candidate who was truly for the free market. ..."
    "... Goldman makes loans for specific reasons. They do not act like a commercial bank, take deposits for the public, etc., by any stretch of the imagination. For you to get a loan form Goldilocks, you either got to cure Lloyd's cancer or have something they want. And if it's a personal loan like to Teddie, it's his soul pledged as collateral. ..."
    "... Plus, Mrs Evil is a Goldman employee.... circles within circles. He's lock stock and barrel, Goldman interests. ..."
    "... I don't really think it matters who is captain of the titanic at this point, but this shit sure is entertaining. If Trump or Bernie pop up on the ballot I think I'll head to the polls. ..."
    "... Paul is right on the other D-bags, they might as well be the same candidate. ..."
    "... ..."
    Zero Hedge

    Now that Rand Paul is out of the race for the White House, Politico's Eliza Collins reports that his father Ron Paul, who ran in 2008 and 2012, isn't impressed by Ted Cruz's attempts to pick up the "free market" libertarian banner.

    "You take a guy like Cruz, people are liking the Cruz - they think he's for the free market, and [in reality] he's owned by Goldman Sachs. I mean, he and Hillary have more in common than we would have with either Cruz or Trump or any of them so I just don't think there is much picking," Paul said of the Texas senator on Fox Business' "Varney & Company" on Friday.

    Surprisingly, the elder Paul seemed more attracted to the views of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is giving Hillary Clinton a run for her money in the Democratic primary.

    "On occasion, Bernie comes up with libertarian views when he talks about taking away the cronyism on Wall Street, so in essence he's right, and occasionally he voted against war," the former Texas congressman said when asked if there was a candidate who was truly for the free market.

    "It's hard to find anybody -- since Rand is out of it -- anybody that would take a libertarian position, hardcore libertarian position on privacy, on the war issue and on economic policy," Paul added.

    "So I always say: You can search for a long time, but you're not gonna find anybody in the Republican or Democratic primary that even comes slightly close to ever being able to claim themselves a libertarian," he concluded.

    JustObserving

    That's worse than being owned by Satan. America is a fascist police state run by a Deep State composed of a triad of the MIC, Wall Street (led by Goldman) and Spooks who spy on everyone.

    Enejoy your entertainment called elections

    Scooby Dooby Doo

    Goldman needs some dancing girls and boys. Some type of entertainment. Anything. This is America god damn it. Bread and circus. Without it I feel like I'm getting robbed.

    (make it diverse)

    Dollarmedes

    Ted Cruz took out a $1 million loan from GS, an amount he could easily repay. Somehow, this means that GS "owns" him. That would be like saying that the banks own everyone who ever took out a mortgage. Somehow, I doubt consumers see it that way.

    knukles -> Dollarmedes

    Goldman makes "loans" for specific reasons. They do not act like a commercial bank, take deposits for the public, etc., by any stretch of the imagination.
    For you to get a loan form Goldilocks, you either got to cure Lloyd's cancer or have something they want. And if it's a personal loan like to Teddie, it's his soul pledged as collateral.

    Plus, Mrs Evil is a Goldman employee.... circles within circles. He's lock stock and barrel, Goldman interests.

    hobopants

    I don't really think it matters who is captain of the titanic at this point, but this shit sure is entertaining. If Trump or Bernie pop up on the ballot I think I'll head to the polls.

    I'll cast a vote for either one, not because I think they are "messiah" material, but they seem to be the ones most likely to full throttle this bitch into the ice berg.

    Paul is right on the other D-bags, they might as well be the same candidate.

    Far more productive to focus on doing what you can on an individual level instead of worrying about this pointless shit.

    Freddie

    Fox is shit but so is ALL Tv and ALL Zollywood. I really like Ron Paul and out of all the idiots on TV, and I have not watched for a decade, Stuart Varney is a pretty straight shooter.

    steveo77

    Clintons Emails Released Clearly Show She Knew the Dangers to USA from Fukushima and Covered It Up I reviewed several thousand Hillary Clinton emails that were released after court order, with an emphasis on Fukushima:

    1) She was immediately informed of the dangers of Fukushima, and the actions that people should take to mitigate radiation damage, Mar 12th USA time.

    2) She was participating daily in the discussion of Fukushima, until.....

    See more at: http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/02/clintons-emails-released-cl...



    [Feb 08, 2016] Donald Trump Hillary Clinton has a lot to hide (CNN interview with Anderson Cooper)

    YouTube

    Published on Jul 8, 2015

    Anderson Cooper speaks with Trump about the 2016 race and his own political donations.

    MobTheGamer 4 months ago

    Fuckin CNN. You're just a bunch of biased shits!

    fgill76 3 months ago

    I like Mr. Trump because he is NOT a politician (sociopath), he is a successful businessman. I hope that after Mr. Trump is elected he fixes congress by installing "term-limits", 12 years max.

    Anon Mous 2 weeks ago

    Bernie Sanders for President!
    Donald Trump for vice president!
    Hillary for Prison!

    MISTERPRESIDENTELECT 1 month ago

    This Anderson is a very stupid guy who doesn't understand anything about the building industry, he's only goal is to be a dumbass troll

    joe 1 month ago

    Anderson ... honestly expects trump to do backgrounds on every contractor that he employs? pathetic! build that wall!

    Ronnie Bishop 1 month ago

    I just hope the stupid news media, like Wolf wolf Blitzer asks Hillary the same dumb questions he ask Sarah Palin. Hillary is almost in tears now. And I hope all the late night shows cut her daughter down like a whore on national TV. Like does that Chealsy know who the real father is?

    Bryan Barrera 1 month ago

    The reason why Cnn wants to make trump look bad it's because Time warner( owner of Cnn) is supporting Hilary's Clinton campaign and they want trump to fail or look bad . If Cnn manages to help Hillary win , Hillary will return the favor of course . Nothing is free.

    Shalom Zhong 1 month ago

    Anderson has no better question to interview Trump. It is more important for people to know what Trump can do for the Nation in the future if elected as next President. Who in this world can have a perfect past record in a imperfect society amongst imperfect people, especially in the business and political circles?

    ShadowPBPBC 1 month ago (edited)

    lol anderson cooper threw alot of money to Shrillary and cooper's trying to nail down trump and cooper is shot down so hard so fast the flames aren't just from his flaming homosexuality. looking back on this even 5 months later coopers bought into Shrillary's lies that are now plain as daylight with out dispute, and trump shot straight and honest and his words still hold more truth and honesty than the entire history of the democrat party combined.

    Annette Rizo 2 months ago

    Donald Trump, who gives you the right to build a "wall" to remove the Mexican immigrants from this nation. While you are in business meetings these immigrant workers are doing the jobs that many U.S citizens would never do. Also recall that this country , the one that you're trying to run for presidency, was and IS STILL being built up by immigrant workers. You also may want to look back on your American history because the only real Americans are the Native Americans. Remember that the next you think about citizenship and deportation. Remember where your ancestors came from.


    [Feb 08, 2016] Bill Clinton, After Months of Restraint, Unleashes Stinging Attack on Bernie Sanders - The New York Times

    From old neoliberal crook Bill who abolished Glass Steagall and sold democratic party to Wall Street, enriching himself and his wife in the process to the tune of 210 million . Which, along with other factors, caused the financial crisis later on. "Speech business" proved to be quite lucrative for Clinton family if you first sold your country. But the fact that defenders of Killary now need pseudonyms to avoid attach is really interesting.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "She and other people who have gone online to defend Hillary, to explain why they supported her, have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane often, not to mention sexist, to repeat." ..."
    "... the liberal journalist Joan Walsh had faced what he called "unbelievable personal attacks" for writing positively about Mrs. Clinton. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    Mr. Clinton's most pointed remarks may have been when he took aim at Sanders supporters who, he said, use misogynistic language in attacking Mrs. Clinton. He told the story of a female "progressive" blogger who defended Mrs. Clinton online through a pseudonym because, he said, the vitriol from Mr. Sanders's backers was so unrelenting.

    The days between the nation's first and second presidential nominating contest are intense – and often emotional, for voters and candidates alike.

    "She and other people who have gone online to defend Hillary, to explain why they supported her, have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane often, not to mention sexist, to repeat." Mr. Clinton, growing more demonstrative, added that the liberal journalist Joan Walsh had faced what he called "unbelievable personal attacks" for writing positively about Mrs. Clinton.

    In a demonstration of how engrossed he is in this campaign, Mr. Clinton recited the names of the regional newspapers that are backing his wife's campaign and, in a rarity, mentioned Mr. Sanders by name.

    "Bernie took what they said was good about him and put it in his own endorsements," said Mr. Clinton, fuming that Mr. Sanders used complimentary language from a Nashua Telegraph endorsement of Mrs. Clinton in his own campaign appeals.

    Then, reflecting the fury among Clinton campaign advisers over what they see as the kinds of behavior Mr. Sanders gets away with, Mr. Clinton noted that the senator's campaign had used the image of an American Legion officer in New Hampshire without his permission.

    "If you point it out, it just shows how tied you are to the establishment," he said.

    In a response, Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, called it "disappointing that President Clinton has decided to launch these attacks" and said Mr. Sanders would continue to focus on his message against the rigged economy, campaign finance corruption and income inequality. "Obviously the race has changed in New Hampshire and elsewhere in recent days," Mr. Devine said.

    [Feb 08, 2016] Albright, Steinem slammed for 'shaming' women who don't back Clinton

    RT USA

    Dirk Ramsey> Roman Soiko 58 minutes ago

    Roman Soiko

    I would like to see a woman as President, but just not Hillary. She voted for the war in Iraq more...

    She is also the face of the U$A's bombing of Libya. Remember "WEу came. We saw. He died" I too a would like to see a woman pres. To bad Jill Stein has been so marginalized by the "two party" system.

    [email protected] Moore1 hour ago

    Just a bunch of old gay rags that are clinically insane, Albright a killer of millions, Hillary a killer of millions and Gloria a killer of millions babies...The are hideous and all three belong behind bars.

    Roman Soiko 1 hour ago
    I would like to see a woman as President, but just not Hillary. She voted for the war in Iraq and she is to expand American military industrilal complex even further than Obama. Hillary is not the woman I would like to see as President.

    [Feb 07, 2016] My First Take On The Presidential Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think Sanders would struggle in the general election and the repugs would have a propaganda field day with things he said and did in the past. As a Brooklyn Jew, hes already got that against him. ..."
    "... Trump is a Trojan Horse in the Repug party. A social liberal, notwithstanding all his nativist demagoguery. And probably averse to foreign policy interventionism, as its bad for business (in the sense that it ultimately fails to promote the long term national interest). I think if he gain the White House he will be a bitter pill to most establishment repugs who will see him as a betrayer. ..."
    "... On the Republican side, when Trump launched everyone thought he was a buffoon. Jeb Bush had amassed $100 million and had all the support of the elites. Ted Cruz was aiming to consolidate the evangelical Tea Party supporters. As it has so far turned out Trump and his amazing media skills and his excellent reading of the current psyche of working class middle America has overturned the apple cart. ..."
    "... Now, by picking a fight with Fox, the big dog, the sole source of mainstream TV information for Republicans, he is showing his supporters that he is dominant and that he will fight for them and America as he is fighting Fox. ..."
    "... Using his incredible media skills he has eviscerated the Bush dynasty by labeling Jeb as low energy and ridiculing him in his tweets and in the debates. His take down of Cruz at the last debate by pulling the 9/11 card and standing up for NY was something to behold. ..."
    "... On the Democratic side, while Sanders has a great message and personal integrity, he does not have the charisma of a great retail politician to overcome Hillarys support by the Democratic party establishment, unions, blacks, latinos, seniors and Wall St. ..."
    "... the primary calendar after New Hampshire does not favor Sanders - with South Carolina, Nevada and many southern states in Super Tuesday. ..."
    "... Sanders support is primarily among the millennial generation and white liberals on the coasts. ..."
    "... His only choice is to take down Hillary hard on her ethics, judgment and most importantly the potential to be indicted on felony charges. But, Sanders does not have the personality to engage in hard scrabble politics like Hillary does. IMO consequently, Hillary wins the Democratic party nomination. ..."
    "... Most americans want a tough and successful businessman to care about the weak economy. They dont trust the cheated wife of a ex-president and a failed secretary of state as a president. ..."
    "... which is really an acceleration of what Sanders portends the split of the Dem a Rep parties into a rump extreme right wing, a majority Center right (Clintonesque) and a more lefty party representing the `Sanderistas` and fellow travelers - democratic socialitic redistributionists ..."
    "... Hillary is neocon agent and greedy, Trump is egomaniac but shrewd, Sanders dont know foreign policy, Cruz is good for Vatican, Rubio bashes Obama very well, Bush has no chance and none of them are worthy of my vote. ..."
    "... Whoever wins, neocons have everything lined up for Iran invasion. ..."
    "... Sanders campaign slogan is: A Future to Believe In (emphasis is the campaigns), eerily reminiscent of Change You Can Believe In . ..."
    "... The oligarchy/deep state will not give up power willingly. If Trump and Sanders present a genuine threat, theyll be neutralized in one way or another, even if one makes it into office. But its telling that the two main deep state candidates, Clinton and Bush, are failing. The deep states control is slipping, not least because theyve gotten lazy and arrogant. Why are they relying on candidates with so much baggage? ..."
    "... I wonder if Sanders refusal to present a serious foreign policy is an acknowledgment that the president no longer has real control over foreign policy. Certainly Obama doesnt seem to. ..."
    "... Trump, being apolitical, and not exactly a dark horse, could ignite and inflame the disappointments of all that is corrupt and forsaken in America. He is a shoo-in to win ..."
    "... Trump attacks the establishment. Even people in his own Party. Its a big part of his appeal - saying things that others wouldnt dare to. And unlike Sanders, he has reserved the right to run as an independent ..."
    "... A two-Party system is inherently flawed as described here: Truth-Out: How Two-Party Political Systems Bolster Capitalism . ..."
    "... Sanders had a meeting yesterday with Obama....wonder what veiled threats were discussed then. What dark suits were in there to explain to Sanders the reality behind the curtain? How will the Bern come out in the coming weeks? Will he play the part or be a sacrificial lamb? ..."
    "... Billmon pointed out a lot of similarities between Trump and Berlusconi ..."
    "... I love that we keep hearing Sanders cannot win the general because he hasnt faced the right-wing attack machine. Its hilarious. The voices that keep saying that, of course, are a part of the truly massive attack machine -- the mainstream (the NYT, the WaPo; what the right would call liberal media ) attack machine, one much bigger and louder than anything the right has, and which is already going full-throttle against Sanders. ..."
    "... Hes feared because even though hed ultimately be forced to govern as a moderate pragmatic liberal, he would nevertheless drag the national conversation leftward. There is no outcome more unacceptable to our liberal ruling class. ..."
    "... Sanders as president would be able to throw sand in the eyes again of the world populace just like Obama did and might be able to keep the vassals at bay while destroying one nation after the other, just like Obama. ..."
    "... Mostly agree with your analysis, but why would Sanders need big money if people are ignoring the places where such money is spent and instead helping out in kind? The anti-Establishmentarianism is fairly thick over here, at least on the interwebs ..."
    "... if I hear one more word from him about Assads CW -- he could have known and should have known thats bunk -- its time to get a boat. ..."
    "... What difference? Not much. Military power, including (or especially?) nukes, is not something politicians have much influence over. The power of folks like Lockheeds Bruce Jackson and Norm Anderson have power that dwarfs that of elected folk. see eg, Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex. ..."
    "... Ive been seeing Internet news that the FBI is ready to hit Hillary Rodham Clinton with criminal charges over her use of a private email server during the time she served as US Secretary of State (2009 - 2013) and over the use of financial donations received by the Clinton Foundation while she was State Secretary and whether the monies were deployed into Department of State contracts. She surely cannot continue campaigning for the Presidency if she is facing criminal charges, can she? ..."
    "... I put money on Trump many months ago at 25-1. Trump will trounce either Hillary or Sanders. ..."
    "... I think youre right. If tonight Foxs ratings tank, Trump will be perceived as strong by middle America. ..."
    "... His takin the fight to Roger Ailes is brilliant. ..."
    "... His interview with Bill OReilly was amazing with blowhard Bill pleading with Trump to attend the debate. ..."
    "... I think that most commentators are missing the bigger picture here. The success of Sanders nor Trump has nothing to do with their respective qualities , and everything to do with the simple fact that both are standing against the anointed candidates of their respective parties. ..."
    "... The American voting public understands that US politics is now a battle between the neocons and the neoliberals, and that as far as those two groups are concerned the wellbeing of Mr and Mrs Joe Average counts for less than nothing. ..."
    "... It sure looks like the Donald has gone and chosen George W. Bushs warmongering United States Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton as one of his top three foreign policy advisers. Damn. ..."
    "... Donald Trumps Curious Relationship With an Iraq War Hawk http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/donald-trump-john-bolton-iraq-war ..."
    "... Looks like Trump on the Repub side. Clinton certainly has the Dem establishment lined up, but that may not be enough. The chances are better than even that the FBI will find her in violation of the law for putting classified stuff in her unclassified email, and possibly corrupt confluence of Sec State, her foundation and Bill. Sanders is who he is while shes got no beliefs beyond whats best for her. ..."
    "... Sanders is strong in Iowa, 50% +/-3%. Delegates are proportional there so they split no matter who wins . He will win New Hampshire. Between them that will be enough to spook the party big time and open up the rest of the primaries. Everywhere he has to turn enthusiasm into turnout, and after the first two primaries convince minority voters to trust him. ..."
    "... Sanders and Trump are plowing a lot of the same fields. They are asking the country Are you better off than you were 8, 16, 24, or 36 years ago? For 90% or more the answer is no. People are angry as hell and tired of real wages stagnant since 1978. Bloomberg cant touch that, but if he draws enough centrist weenies to win a couple of states he could throw the election into the House. That could give us president Ryan. ..."
    "... There are three active players possibly our next warmonger-in-chief - Hillary, Trump and Bernie. Who gonna be? They are the same not a dime different. Regardless who, endless wars more or less the same continue. ..."
    "... I think your comment that the three candidates foreign policy is largely identical misses the critical point. Its true that all three want to maintain and expand the American Empire. But its also true that Gorbachev never intended to destroy the Soviet Union. In some ways the current situation in America reminds me of the Soviet Union in its last decades. The whole system seems corrupt and hypocritical to millions of people. But the power system seems so entrenched and resistant to change that its hard for many people to see any way that things can change. Most of the potential leaders are really old. The economy is terrible for structural reasons. ..."
    "... Clinton is a tool of the oligarchy to the bone. If shes elected, nothing will change, and things will keep getting worse and worse. But both Trump and Sanders do seem to want to change some things. (Different things) Neither is completely controlled or trusted by the deep state because they are both just a little out of the mainstream. Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac. Sanders may think he could be the next FDR. Both would, if elected, find it hard to do the things they would like to do. But either one might unintentionally disrupt the existing power structure enough to unleash much greater changes then they originally intended. ..."
    "... Sanders will be 75 on election day. Ronald Reagan was nearly 74 when began his first term and his age was an issue in his re-election - but everyone knew by then who his advisors and appointees were Ronald Reagan was 69 years, 349 days at the time of his first inauguration. ..."
    "... The people of America are pissed, but havent figured out who is behind our demise ..."
    "... If Trump actually listens to Bolton we are in for big trouble indeed, and so is his campaign. Bolton is emblematic of a true wacko. It might be just a slur to weaken him, that report. Trump had better jettison all the warmongering ziowhore idiots or he wont be elected, its that simple. ..."
    "... I cant see bernie going anywhere. He might win Iowa, but his brand will not carry over, no matter what the polls currently say. It will be Howard Dean all over again, with all the older voters flooding in to vote for safety. ..."
    "... Trump toes the Establishment line in the White House. He is an ego-driven candidate who has made his mountain of gold selling high-end real estate to other rich people. He has no ideological principles. But he has shrewdly diagnosed the citizenrys appetite for destruction of the D.C. status quo. ..."
    "... One thing I think a Bloomberg third-party run would do -- and hallelujah! -- it would shatter the Democratic Party because it would out the party leaders, people like Ed Rendell and Rahm Emanuel, as being more loyal to class, the 1%, than the organization. ..."
    "... Sanders needs to make the e-mails an issue (and, by extension, Hillarys character) or lose the race. But Sanders doesnt seem interested in doing so - he seems to value Party and personal relationships over winning. ..."
    "... But even if Sanders wont attack Hillary, he would benefit if the FBI makes a recommendation of legal action against Hillary. Its unclear when or if that might happen, but it would cause voters to see Hillary as non-viable, and result in a switch to Sanders or OMalley. In the end, its possible ( though unlikely at this point) that no candidate would have a majority of delegates. ..."
    "... Status quo is the order of the day, nothing will change, it is foreordained, baked into the cake, doG itself couldnt change the outcome even if it wanted, this is the design of the existing political process put in place by those who own the country, and there isnt a blessed thing you can do about it. ..."
    "... You are completely correct about Trump. He is not as monochromatic on issues as some might think. But neither does he impart a sense of confidence in his ability to govern or clarity of direction. Insofar as that goes, the same is true of the rest. ..."
    "... Trump is not constructed of the same poseur fabric of Hillary or Obama. Some of what he echoes, such as a desire to develop better relations with Russia contradict the Republican playbook for deprecating anything which challenges US world domination. ..."
    "... It is a pity Putin must play by the International Banking Cartels handbook. Or must he...? Is he choosing to save the world at the edge of collapse...? He can see it. Nevertheless, Iran was not broken. Still in control. Still issuing its own decree. Law from another great age. Law forbidding usury for the ages. Vote chaos. Vote Trump. ..."
    "... Hillary mused that her read on Bloombergs announcement was that he would enter the race if she were not the nominee - an unusual remark for someone that has worked hard to portray herself as inevitable and Sanders as unelectable. ..."
    "... If Hillary chose to fight the charges, she would probably have to pin the blame on one of her aids. But doing so would open a can of worms as it could shatter the trust of many Clintonites (a powerful network that the Clintons have built over many many years). ..."
    Jan 28, 2016 | M of A

    Say what you will about Donald Trump but he knows how to market himself. Staging a feud with Fox News and abstaining from tonight's Republican candidate debate gives him more media coverage than taking part. He is already the front runner of the Republican candidates. More debating could only endanger that position. Staying away and making a fuzz about it gives him a bigger lead.

    That Trump knows marketing well gives me some doubt about his real positions. Who owns him? Who pays his campaign? Answers to these questions are likely more revealing than the fascist dog-whistle politics he publicly emphasizes. He seems to favor neither neoconservative nor liberal interventionist foreign policy. That would be welcome change.

    On the democratic side I do not see a chance for Clinton to win. I believe that the American people have had enough of the Clintons. If she would win the nomination she would lose in the presidential election as many voters would abstain. Her policy record is abysmal. Yes she has experience - of misjudgement and not learning from it. In interior policies she is clearly in the hands of Wall Street and the big banks. Her "liberal" image is all fake. In foreign policy she is "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes":

    "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," [top neocon Robert Kagan] added, "it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."

    Sanders is hard to see as president. His domestic policies are somewhat comparable to middle-of-the-road European social-democrats. His foreign policy stand isn't clear. While not an interventionist he supports the colonists in Palestine. The people obviously favor him over Clinton but he will need big money for the big campaign should he get the nomination. To whom would he sell out?

    The Republican party is coming around in favor of Trump. The party big-wigs believe he has no real positions, that they can manipulate him. That is probably wrong. The Democratic party machine is clearly in favor of Clinton. Would it try to sabotage Sanders if he wins primary after primary? Could they throw in another plausible candidate?

    My gut instinct say it will be Sanders against Trump with a voter turnout advantage for Sanders. What is your take? I agree that it might be Sanders against Trump and agree that Sanders may have a turnout advantage. What Trump will have as an advantage, if the global plutocrats deem it so, is a recession and domestic/international violence that will call into question ongoing Dem reign in the White house.

    And none see or question control of the situation by the global plutocrats and private finance so their hegemony continues. If they let Sanders win, there will be method to their madness which will show in time. All this said, I still think that an outside wild card winner could be injected into the race in the next couple of months before that window of opportunity closes.

    Go long popcorn.

    psychohistorian | Jan 28, 2016 1:32:55 PM | 4
    I think Sanders would struggle in the general election and the repugs would have a propaganda field day with things he said and did in the past. As a Brooklyn Jew, he's already got that against him. How would he govern? largely at loggerheads with Congress. Foreign policy? An R2P interventionist and Netanyahoo would have (as LBJ liked to say) his pecker in his pocket.

    Trump is a Trojan Horse in the Repug party. A social liberal, notwithstanding all his nativist demagoguery. And probably averse to foreign policy interventionism, as it's bad for business (in the sense that it ultimately fails to promote the long term national interest). I think if he gain the White House he will be a bitter pill to most establishment repugs who will see him as a betrayer.

    adrian | Jan 28, 2016 1:40:39 PM | 6
    As a registered independent I don't get to participate in the primaries of the duopoly. I also haven't voted for the duopoly in decades. And in any case my state's primary is only late in the season so we don't count. My observations on the campaign so far and how I see the primary unfolding to Super Tuesday.

    On the Republican side, when Trump launched everyone thought he was a buffoon. Jeb Bush had amassed $100 million and had all the support of the elites. Ted Cruz was aiming to consolidate the evangelical & Tea Party supporters. As it has so far turned out Trump and his amazing media skills and his excellent reading of the current psyche of working class middle America has overturned the apple cart.

    When he launched he did the unPC thing by calling the illegal immigrants "rapists" and claiming he would build a wall to staunch the inflow of illegal, mostly unskilled economic immigrants. This resonated strongly with the working class, white, non-coastal Republican (and also as you will see later many Democrat of that ilk). His campaign has continued on that vein taking advantage of the terrorist attack in California by being extremely provocative and capturing all the media cycles. Now, by picking a fight with Fox, the big dog, the sole source of mainstream TV information for Republicans, he is showing his supporters that he is dominant and that he will fight for them and America as he is fighting Fox. This all appeals to the working class segment of the Republicans at an emotional and visceral level.

    Using his incredible media skills he has eviscerated the Bush dynasty by labeling Jeb as "low energy" and ridiculing him in his tweets and in the debates. His take down of Cruz at the last debate by pulling the 9/11 card and standing up for NY was something to behold. IMO, he is going to run away with the Republican nomination by Super Tuesday.

    On the Democratic side, while Sanders has a great message and personal integrity, he does not have the charisma of a great retail politician to overcome Hillary's support by the Democratic party establishment, unions, blacks, latinos, seniors and Wall St. This is best exemplified by the demographic distribution of support for each candidate. Sanders wins with 70% support of those under 45. Hillary wins with 70% support of those over 65 and she also has majority support of those between 45-65. Unfortunately for Sanders, the under 45 are the least likely to vote and over 65 most likely. Hillary also has majority support of blacks and latinos. Second, the primary calendar after New Hampshire does not favor Sanders - with South Carolina, Nevada and many southern states in Super Tuesday. So, Sanders has to win both Iowa and New Hampshire to be even in the race and then he gets into states where unions, seniors, blacks make a huge difference and they support Hillary overwhelmingly. Sanders support is primarily among the millennial generation and white liberals on the coasts.

    His only choice is to take down Hillary hard on her ethics, judgment and most importantly the potential to be indicted on felony charges. But, Sanders does not have the personality to engage in hard scrabble politics like Hillary does. IMO consequently, Hillary wins the Democratic party nomination.

    The presidential contest will then contrast an uninspired Hillary campaign using the same old political triangulation and a maverick, unPC, media savvy Trump campaign. At the end it will come to the same swing states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina to decide the outcome. Although, I would not be surprised at all if Trump thumps Hillary!

    ab initio | Jan 28, 2016 1:49:35 PM | 7

    Most americans want a tough and successful businessman to care about the weak economy. They don't trust the cheated wife of a ex-president and a failed secretary of state as a president.

    If he plays like he did until now, Trump is very probably the next president

    virgile | Jan 28, 2016 1:54:28 PM | 8
    Plan B: The establishment will attempt to "occupy" Bernie
    nmb | Jan 28, 2016 1:59:25 PM | 9
    it is starting to look as though it might well be Sanders v Trump and polls show that Sanders will wipe the floor with Trump if it were a one on one race
    BUT
    for that reason, a third candidate typified by Bloomberg will jump in and split the non-Trump vote to guarantee Trump wins

    which is really an acceleration of what Sanders portends the split of the Dem & a Rep parties into a rump extreme right wing, a majority Center right (Clintonesque) and a more lefty party representing the `Sanderistas` and fellow travelers - democratic socialitic redistributionists

    David C Mace | Jan 28, 2016 2:14:32 PM | 11
    Hillary is neocon agent and greedy, Trump is egomaniac but shrewd, Sanders don't know foreign policy, Cruz is good for Vatican, Rubio bashes Obama very well, Bush has no chance and none of them are worthy of my vote. Staying home is the only choice.

    Whoever wins, neocons have everything lined up for Iran invasion. We will go back to Afghan, Libya and Iraq to make more money and plunder the remaining living beings. PNAC is in full action, where is Wolfowitz, Rumsefeld and Cheney?

    Santa | Jan 28, 2016 2:15:24 PM | 12
    The big questions now:
    1. Is Bloomberg serious about entering the race? I think he is. And I think his participation would be more to counter/weaken Trump than Sanders.
    2. Who will be Sanders running mate? Sanders will be 75 on election day. Ronald Reagan was nearly 74 when began his first term and his age was an issue in his re-election - but everyone knew by then who his advisors and appointees were. It would be very good if all 'outsider' candidates provided more info on who they would consider as VP and appointees.

    Sanders campaign slogan is: "A Future to Believe In " (emphasis is the campaign's), eerily reminiscent of "Change You Can Believe In".

    Jackrabbit | Jan 28, 2016 2:19:56 PM | 13
    The oligarchy/deep state will not give up power willingly. If Trump and Sanders present a genuine threat, they'll be neutralized in one way or another, even if one makes it into office. But it's telling that the two main deep state candidates, Clinton and Bush, are failing. The deep state's control is slipping, not least because they've gotten lazy and arrogant. Why are they relying on candidates with so much baggage?

    I wonder if Sanders' refusal to present a serious foreign policy is an acknowledgment that the president no longer has real control over foreign policy. Certainly Obama doesn't seem to.

    As for Trump, he may have started out as a cat's paw, but don't underestimate the need of the narcissist for attention and power. Frankenstein's monster may have escaped.

    NoOneYouKnow | Jan 28, 2016 2:21:09 PM | 14
    Trump doesn't favour a different dominationist policy at all, he simply use that as a criticism of his opponents. He said he will create biggest military ever seen. And if shithead Trump gets to be president, when confronted by the CIA, the Pentagon, NSA etc, will fold like the spineless coward he always has been. Trump is just a rich, big mouth, self-aggredizing, spineless, cowardly tv personality, who has next to zero leadership qualities. There are far worse convincing and competent fascist leaders yet to come in the US. Trump will be looked back in 5,10 years from now, as a astounding joke. Setting up far worse to come.

    This election shows how closer to fascism the US has been in a long time, as well as how sick of the federal establishment the US people are.

    And Sanders is not a socialist in the slightest. He would willingly sacrifice the rest of the world to US domination just so in the US there can be some more social focused programs in the US. Despicable.

    Sanders came out to announce no change to US foreign domination policy, exactly at the time when he was popular enough to make a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton. Go back and check for yourself, the timing is obvious and his decision atrocious.

    Sanders would fold just like Trump would in front of the Pentagon in the CIA

    Anyone who would sacrifice the rest of the world so they can have better social policies in their own country can eat shit, because that is exactly what these a lot of foreign people will be doing.

    tom | Jan 28, 2016 2:27:42 PM | 15
    The last election that offered any non-machine hope was jimmy carter. As an outsider, every one that was anyone cratered his chances of an agenda, leading to our only ex-president becoming a success, after leaving office.

    Trump, being apolitical, and not exactly a dark horse, could ignite and inflame the disappointments of all that is corrupt and forsaken in America. He is a shoo-in to win ..... but if he is either bumped off, or sells out, U.S. will continue toward implosion.

    sevenleagueboots | Jan 28, 2016 2:50:50 PM | 16
    @tom

    Trump attacks the establishment. Even people in his own Party. It's a big part of his appeal - saying things that others wouldn't dare to. And unlike Sanders, he has reserved the right to run as an independent (even if I question whether he would actually do so - most of the wealth he claims to have is apparently estimates of the value of the 'Trump' brand - his true net worth may be only hundreds of millions, not billions, of dollars) .

    Sanders seems more about divvying-up the spoils, not making a more just world. And he doesn't talk truth about the establishment, like Trump.

    I'm not a fan of either. We need a third party. We need a movement. A two-Party system is inherently flawed as described here: Truth-Out: How Two-Party Political Systems Bolster Capitalism .

    Jackrabbit | Jan 28, 2016 3:03:14 PM | 21
    There are many GOPs who would vote for Trump over Sanders, but they would vote for Bloomberg over Trump. Trump polls higher than anyone else in GOP, but his support is only perhaps 40% of GOP, leaving a majority of GOPs to decide between Trump and Bloomberg. On the other hand, if Sanders wins nomination, most Dems would probably choose Sanders over Bloomberg. So I suspect that Bloomberg entry would hurt Trump more than hurt Sanders.
    mauisurfer | Jan 28, 2016 3:06:05 PM | 23
    Clinton for the win...S s paid back to her from the tribe/cartel. She wants to be the first woman president of the U.S. for historical purposes as well as to quench the bottomless pit of her ego. She will also symbolize Mystery Babylon, the great whore and abomination of the earth from biblical literature. Perfect for the end-timers. Another four years of a "democrat", and the right and many others will welcome with open arms their much desired authoritarian figure in 2020 to bury the rotting corpse of The New Deal in order give us the birth of The Raw Deal to make America great again.

    Sanders had a meeting yesterday with Obama....wonder what veiled threats were discussed then. What dark suits were in there to "explain" to Sanders the reality behind the curtain? How will the Bern come out in the coming weeks? Will he play the part or be a sacrificial lamb?

    Trump is playing with the angry white folks. Bloomberg will probably bow out if another Republican candidate climbs in the polling or not, but Bloomberg seems like his role will be that of a Perot in order to spread the R/I vote on (s)election day to throw it to Clinton.

    Ray Sunshine | Jan 28, 2016 4:04:18 PM | 35
    Billmon pointed out a lot of similarities between Trump and Berlusconi. For that reason I hope that Sanders will beat him. Although I would take Berlusconi over Clinton.
    Cresty | Jan 28, 2016 4:15:00 PM | 36
    I love that we keep hearing Sanders cannot win the general because he hasn't faced the right-wing attack machine. It's hilarious. The voices that keep saying that, of course, are a part of the truly massive attack machine -- the mainstream (the NYT, the WaPo; what the right would call "liberal media") attack machine, one much bigger and louder than anything the right has, and which is already going full-throttle against Sanders.

    A key, spectacularly disingenuous, point of this attack is that Sander's stated policy wishes could never be enacted, it's all dream stuff. The mainstream attack machine readily concedes that the positions are popular -- one must still oppose Sanders they say however, because one must live in the world of reality where those policies would founder on GOP (& Dem!) opposition. Clinton is the realist you must choose, they say.

    Sanders' policies couldn't be enacted? Well, duh! He knows that too. He's got a long track record of pragmatic changes to legislation to get done what CAN be done. More of a record than Clinton, for certain. Take a look a his fingerprints on ACA, for a start.

    The real reason for mainstream opposition to Sanders must go unacknowledged:

    He's feared because even though he'd ultimately be forced to govern as a moderate pragmatic liberal, he would nevertheless drag the national conversation leftward. There is no outcome more unacceptable to our liberal ruling class.

    Earwig | Jan 28, 2016 4:25:42 PM | 40
    Sanders as president would be able to throw sand in the eyes again of the world populace just like Obama did and might be able to keep the vassals at bay while destroying one nation after the other, just like Obama.

    Trump as president would mean an aggressive foreign policy just like Clinton would do with the difference that the world populace would see the US for what it really is: a purveyor of global terror. Thus the vassals might revolt. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump would go for "shock and awe" with Iran and even use nuclear missiles, à la "mini nukes" or so. He has no conscience although neither has Clinton.

    I think the plutacrats will favor Sanders in the 4 yearly bipartisan circus show called a democratic election.

    crusty | Jan 28, 2016 4:50:19 PM | 42
    The Russian Intervention in Syria has turned the Middle East upside down. In order to survive the EU is going have to reach an accommodation with Russia to rebuild Syria to return the refugees and to assure a stable supply of energy. The Western ruling elite have shot themselves in the foot. It is America that is collapsing. A /bernie_sanders.Trump campaign will be as revolutionary as the 1860 election except none of them is Abraham Lincoln.

    Donald Trump was auditioning for a new reality show when he recognized that he has a calling to restore America's disenfranchised middle class. The question is can he survive challenging Rupert Murdoch. The other question is will the elites who control voting machine servers allow Bernie Sanders to get enough votes to defeat Hillary Clinton. In the end, the plutocrats will allow Donald Trump to the star if he gets the most votes. He is one of them. Michael Bloomberg will only get involve if there is a possibility of Bernie Sanders becoming President.

    VietnamVet | Jan 28, 2016 4:50:34 PM | 43
    Mostly agree with your analysis, but why would Sanders need big money if people are ignoring the places where such money is spent and instead helping out in kind? The anti-Establishmentarianism is fairly thick over here, at least on the interwebs; "moderate" pundits are getting tomatoes lobbed at them in comment sections more than twice as hard as their supporters are stroking their oh-so-savvy gamesmanship and petulantly complaining that Bernie "bots" don't love the Corporation.

    I don't know whether anyone caught Bernie announcing his non-involvement with organized religion, but that's, as the other party's leading candidate would say, "HUUUUGE" for a fantasy-addled, priest-infested nation like the USA. I'm not pleased with his stance on Palestine, and I wish he would speak more to foreign policy now than in the general. That said, if I hear one more word from him about "Assad's" CW -- he could have known and should have known that's bunk -- it's time to get a boat.

    Jonathan | Jan 28, 2016 5:21:41 PM | 47
    I'm not buying the Sanders conspiracy theories. He has a long track record and WYSIWYG. The only way forward is to reform the Democratic party. Sanders is the current best choice. Best outcome is that large crowds vote Sanders a la Truman. FDR saved democracy from fascists and communists, we need another round of that.
    Jake Bodhi | Jan 28, 2016 5:27:08 PM | 49
    What difference? Not much. Military power, including (or especially?) nukes, is not something politicians have much influence over. The power of folks like Lockheed's Bruce Jackson and Norm Anderson have power that dwarfs that of elected folk. see eg, Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.

    Ditto for the other components that matter.

    erichwwk | Jan 28, 2016 5:34:51 PM | 50
    I've been seeing Internet news that the FBI is ready to hit Hillary Rodham Clinton with criminal charges over her use of a private email server during the time she served as US Secretary of State (2009 - 2013) and over the use of financial donations received by the Clinton Foundation while she was State Secretary and whether the monies were deployed into Department of State contracts. She surely cannot continue campaigning for the Presidency if she is facing criminal charges, can she?

    Well I guess in theory (if not in practice) she can if Leonard Peltier could do it in 2004.

    " ... Peltier was the candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party in the 2004 Presidential race. While numerous states have laws that prohibit prison inmates convicted of felonies from voting (Maine and Vermont are exceptions) ... the United States Constitution has no prohibition against felons being elected to Federal offices, including President. The Peace and Freedom Party secured ballot status for Peltier only in California, where his presidential candidacy received 27,607 votes ... approximately 0.2% of the vote in that state ..."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peltier#Presidential_candidate

    Jen | Jan 28, 2016 5:35:49 PM | 51
    Bloomberg would not make the slightest difference to this Presidential race. The only reason he would jump in is if Hillary Clinton was to be soundly rejected by Democrat voters in the primaries. Which she will be, because there will not be a single voter who does not see her for what she is i.e. a 100% owned puppet of the Deep State who would expend all of her energies promoting the interest of the 1%ers.

    So how does Bloomberg expect to appeal to that same voting popln i.e. voters who will have just rejected a candidate for representing nothing but Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Pharma, and assorted other Big Money?

    He can't, because he also cut from that same cloth no matter how impeccable his tailor.

    Yeah, Right | Jan 28, 2016 5:58:05 PM | 52
    I put money on Trump many months ago at 25-1. Trump will trounce either Hillary or Sanders. As in the British election the polls will underestimate the strength of the right. A lot needs to happen - such as a major depression - for real progressive politics to make a comeback. Neoliberalism has to be smashed and thoroughly discredited. The people will vote for Trump because he is not beholden to Wall Street, therefore to Israel(as Obama has been), and because he has talked about getting on with Russia. Folks (using Obama's favourite word) are terrified of a nuclear war and rightly so. Lastly, Trump's bustup with Fox was a masterstroke, painting him as the rebel, especially with the young. And talking about reinvigorating manufacturing is the way to go. What he will turn out to be as President is anybody's guess.
    Lochearn | Jan 28, 2016 6:12:30 PM | 53
    @52

    I think you're right. If tonight Fox's ratings tank, Trump will be perceived as strong by middle America. If he can then knock Cruz in Iowa where the polls show Cruz in the lead and wins NH, SC and NV as the polls show, he'll cement his dominance of the Republican primary. His takin the fight to Roger Ailes is brilliant.

    His interview with Bill O'Reilly was amazing with blowhard Bill pleading with Trump to attend the debate. Humiliating for Fox. Trump's point that Fox can't make money off him and he's the star bringing them 24 million viewers. Watch the spin tomorrow. Trump will be in the center of the news cycle.

    ab initio | Jan 28, 2016 6:33:33 PM | 55
    Who would make a better Sec of State - Sarah Palin or Vicky Nuland?
    mike | Jan 28, 2016 6:57:22 PM | 56
    The man Trump has named as his potential foreign policy advisor applauds his decision to skip the debate. http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/01/26/foxs-john-bolton-cheers-donald-trumps-decision/208188

    If Trump and Clinton are opposing candidates, I don't see much of a choice between the two.

    Les | Jan 28, 2016 7:09:26 PM | 57
    I agree this is a wise move by Trump. The RNC is absolutely beside itself - this is a stunning repudiation of CIA-Bushism that has ruled the party since the mid-1980s. Trump seems to be in place to really upend the party. Part of me thinks he really ought to fear for his life. The other part of me thinks he's just a party-building place holder for some scumbag like Paul Ryan (I don't think Cruz is acceptable to the RNC either).

    I can't imagine in a million years that Sanders can take down the machine of Hillary and the Clintonite DNC. I think he'll be in good position to be Vice President though. And that, possibly, has been the plan all along.

    I pick, shuddering as I do, "We came, we saw, he died, I cackled like the cannibalistic neo-liberal neo-conservative blood drunk witch I am" as the next President of the United States.

    I think the Democrats have their hands on all the levers of power at this point. Bush/Cheney built up the new National Security State after 9/11, but I get the impression that the changes they made to - especially their making the Israel lobby a key component of it - mostly benefitted the Democrats who have been driving it for the last 8 years.

    The failures of Iraq and the crash of the economy under Bush are going to haunt the GOP for long time. For another eight years at least.

    guest77 | Jan 28, 2016 7:16:08 PM | 59
    I think that most commentators are missing the bigger picture here. The success of Sanders nor Trump has nothing to do with their respective "qualities", and everything to do with the simple fact that both are standing against the "anointed" candidates of their respective parties.

    The American voting public understands that US politics is now a battle between the neocons and the neoliberals, and that as far as those two groups are concerned the wellbeing of Mr and Mrs Joe Average counts for less than nothing.

    That's why Obama came out of nowhere and trounced both Plastic Hillary and Shouting McCain - he promised Change You Can Believe In.

    Sure, he ended up being a huge, huge disappointment. Literally, unbelievable.

    But that's the very reason why this time around the voters are attracted to those who are even more Way-Out-There than Obama.

    As in: the great unwashed know that the system is obscenely rigged against them, and they don't like it. They tried effecting that change by electing Obama, only to find out that they hadn't really picked a radical choice at all.

    Their choice now is to Go Big Or Go Home:
    1) Pick the most way-out-there anti-establishment candidates in the field and vote for them (Sanders and Trump)
    2) Resign themselves to eternal servitude by going back to voting for the cardboard cutouts (Bush, Hillary, Cruz, et al.).

    It has everything to do with the voters demanding change.

    They thought that's what they were voting for last time, and they didn't get it.
    But they still want it, so they are not willing to vote for Business As Usual.

    That leaves Sanders. That leaves Trump. Everyone else may as well go home now.

    Yeah, Right | Jan 28, 2016 7:52:04 PM | 64
    It sure looks like the Donald has gone and chosen George W. Bush's warmongering United States Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton as one of his top three foreign policy advisers. Damn. Maybe all those claims of Trump being a Hitler redux may be valid. I guess I will have to drastically reduce or eliminate his simple score/ multiple bid rating. See:

    Donald Trump's Curious Relationship With an Iraq War Hawk http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/donald-trump-john-bolton-iraq-war

    See above:

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/01/my-first-take-on-the-presidential-election.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb08b2de1d970d

    ... ... ...

    Jack Smith | Jan 28, 2016 9:12:32 PM | 68
    I put money on Trump many months ago at 25-1. Trump will trounce either Hillary or Sanders.
    ...
    Posted by: Lochearn | Jan 28, 2016 6:12:30 PM | 53

    Money well-spent, imo. Something which seems to have escaped everyone except Trump's attention is that US politics is all about buying politicians with "campaign funds". As an established celebrity with expertise in media manipulation, Trump doesn't need to pay for publicity which, in theory at least, makes him immune from the demands of powerful sponsors. He has a virtual hotline to the "News" Media because what he says is News.

    Fortunately, this US Presidential Election will prove to be as irrelevant to Humanity and the World as the World's Second ex-Superpower, AmeriKKKa, has made itself.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 28, 2016 11:24:12 PM | 77
    Looks like Trump on the Repub side. Clinton certainly has the Dem establishment lined up, but that may not be enough. The chances are better than even that the FBI will find her in violation of the law for putting classified stuff in her unclassified email, and possibly corrupt confluence of Sec State, her foundation and Bill. Sanders is who he is while she's got no beliefs beyond what's best for her.

    It is hard to overstate how ripped the left end of the Dems are. Obama took a mandate and veto proof majority in Congress and turned a campaign of Change into 8 years of Same. She is running as a third term of Same. It's been a disaster for the Dems. If she wins the nomination it is hard to see them pulling together for the election. More than half the country doesn't like Hillary, so without huge Dem enthusiasm she's toast in the general, if she gets there.

    Looks like Biden is hanging around to be available if they get to the convention and implore him to "save the party".

    Sanders is strong in Iowa, 50% +/-3%. Delegates are proportional there so they split no matter who "wins". He will win New Hampshire. Between them that will be enough to spook the party big time and open up the rest of the primaries. Everywhere he has to turn enthusiasm into turnout, and after the first two primaries convince minority voters to trust him.

    Sanders and Trump are plowing a lot of the same fields. They are asking the country "Are you better off than you were 8, 16, 24, or 36 years ago?" For 90% or more the answer is 'no'. People are angry as hell and tired of real wages stagnant since 1978. Bloomberg can't touch that, but if he draws enough centrist weenies to win a couple of states he could throw the election into the House. That could give us president Ryan.

    I go for Trump vs Sanders, and it's a tossup. Glad I'm getting old, this handbasket we're in is going way too fast.

    Lefty | Jan 28, 2016 11:31:26 PM | 78
    Sanders is "mopping the floor" with Trump in national poling. That will continue. Trump is entertaining but that's what gameshow hosts are paid to be. If Sanders can defeat Killary he will probably win...However...I do not believe he will be allowed to defeat Killary..Whatever it takes from that mob -from an accusation of rape by a campaign volunteer to a "lone gunman" - we know they are ready willing and able..A contest between Killary and Trump will be closer and more amusing, but I think Killary comes out on top of that too, because Wal Street. Finance capital owns the world and they only hire their loyal servants
    Osrelo Tsinilats | Jan 28, 2016 11:36:31 PM | 79
    There are three active players possibly our next warmonger-in-chief - Hillary, Trump and Bernie. Who gonna be? They are the same not a dime different. Regardless who, endless wars more or less the same continue.

    Only one candidate (Sanders) hid his obsess supporting Israel and will defend Israel at all cost even as Israel continues to murder teenagers and children throwing stones. Israeli soldiers shot to kills with real live bullets and bulldozed Palestinians home to rubbles with America made Caterpillar tractors.

    Maybe, many have not heard Israel even sprayed Palestinians crops with unknown chemicals something that the US doing widespread use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 60s - 70's. more than 19 million gallons of herbicides over 4.5 million acres of land in Vietnam from 1961 to 1972.

    http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange

    ....and the endless wars continue...

    Jack Smith | Jan 28, 2016 11:38:11 PM | 80
    Next round of Hillary's e-mails are due just before Super Tuesday, which occurs on March 1st. There's a FOIA request to have them released earlier but I wouldn't count on it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the e-mail release is delayed for some technical reason.

    The e-mails appear to be a real problem for Hillary. But that hasn't yet had much impact on the race.

    State Primaries
    February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    Super Tuesday (3/1) . . . . . . . . . . 11
    March (after Super Tuesday) . . . 17

    By the end of Super Tuesday, 15 states will have voted. By the end of March, 32 states will have voted.

    A Candidate needs 2,171 delegates to win the Democratic Primary. Hillary already has 342 super-delegates (according to Wikipedia). That is 15.75% of what she needs to win.

    In 2 months, the election could be over. Hillary's greatest challenge is her e-mail problem. She 'red-baits' Sanders, but Sanders refuses to use the e-mail scandal against her (as a question of electability)??

    Jackrabbit | Jan 29, 2016 12:12:46 AM | 81
    @Earwig - "never and a day from now"

    No on the Sanders for Veep thing. I'm just opining of course, no argument, but consider these (rather flimsy) reasons:

    1. It would be a huge nod to the left of the Democrats, which I'm not sure they can continue to ignore
    2. Its a powerless position - or, a position whose power is no more or no less than what the President decides it is
    3. It brings in the independents
    4. Like Al Gore choosing Lieberman, its brings in the "first" factor and goes for the Jewish vote - first woman President, first Jewish VP.

    Why are you so firmly convinced otherwise?

    guest77 | Jan 29, 2016 12:18:14 AM | 82
    "It sure looks like the Donald has gone and chosen George W. Bush's warmongering United States Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton as one of his top three foreign policy advisers."

    This kind of shit though bodes very, very ill in terms of "what would a Trump Presidency look like?" Bolton is one of the most vile warmongering fiends around. And he's so tied into the power structure, certainly not an "outsider" like Trump affects.

    Its one thing for Trump to be a big, dangerous, unpredictable loud mouth, but if he tries to also fill his cabinet with similar personalities, it truly will be a shit show. A dangerous, dangerous shit show.

    guest77 | Jan 29, 2016 12:23:34 AM | 83
    PS Sanders has 11 super-delegates (according to Wikipedia). Why doesn't Sanders make the Democratic Party preference for Hillary an issue? As well as media bias?
    Jackrabbit | Jan 29, 2016 12:27:45 AM | 84
    #79 Jack Smith

    I think your comment that the three candidates foreign policy is largely identical misses the critical point. It's true that all three want to maintain and expand the American Empire. But it's also true that Gorbachev never intended to destroy the Soviet Union. In some ways the current situation in America reminds me of the Soviet Union in its last decades. The whole system seems corrupt and hypocritical to millions of people. But the power system seems so entrenched and resistant to change that it's hard for many people to see any way that things can change. Most of the potential leaders are really old. The economy is terrible for structural reasons.

    Foreign countries are increasingly competitive in both military and economic terms. And then, in response to all this, a "reformer" comes along.

    Clinton is a tool of the oligarchy to the bone. If she's elected, nothing will change, and things will keep getting worse and worse. But both Trump and Sanders do seem to want to change some things. (Different things) Neither is completely controlled or trusted by the deep state because they are both just a little out of the mainstream. Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac. Sanders may think he could be the next FDR. Both would, if elected, find it hard to do the things they would like to do. But either one might unintentionally disrupt the existing power structure enough to unleash much greater changes then they originally intended.

    Glenn Brown | Jan 29, 2016 1:12:10 AM | 85
    What? Have gone all PC here on MoA? Bernie is a sewer-socialist Jew. Do you think white middle 'Murica is going to buy that? And by middle I'm talkin' geographically and ideologically. If he runs v. trump, everybody will stay home. The Donald Duck write-in will win.

    Interesting how Joe is subtly keeping his name in play. When Loretta drops the hammer on Hil, he'll be back in. Loretta is the one who will pick the next president by what she does or doesn't do. Currently she is the most powerful woman in the world.

    Denis | Jan 29, 2016 9:15:17 AM | 86
    Jackrabbit | Jan 28, 2016 2:19:56 PM | 13

    "Sanders will be 75 on election day. Ronald Reagan was nearly 74 when began his first term and his age was an issue in his re-election - but everyone knew by then who his advisors and appointees were" Ronald Reagan was 69 years, 349 days at the time of his first inauguration.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age

    Les | Jan 29, 2016 11:01:07 AM | 89
    64;Yes,obomba was the Muslim socialist (of course not) and we still voted for him. The people of America are pissed, but haven't figured out who is behind our demise, which of course is Zionism.
    Guest 77:The failures of Iraq,Afghanistan Libya Somalia and where ever have been totally bipartisan and no Trump will not pay for Bushes and Obombas idiocy.
    dahoit | Jan 29, 2016 11:04:51 AM | 90
    If Trump actually listens to Bolton we are in for big trouble indeed, and so is his campaign. Bolton is emblematic of a true wacko. It might be just a slur to weaken him, that report. Trump had better jettison all the warmongering ziowhore idiots or he won't be elected, its that simple.
    dahoit | Jan 29, 2016 11:20:48 AM | 91
    I can't see bernie going anywhere. He might 'win' Iowa, but his brand will not carry over, no matter what the polls currently say. It will be Howard Dean all over again, with all the older voters flooding in to vote for safety.

    I suppose Trump could suffer a similar fate, but republicans are far more decisive in their voting preferences imho. Trump v Hillary and I think it will be a very close fight.. Of course, there's also the potential for bloomberg to enter as 3rd party, presumably to undercut Trump

    aaaaaa | Jan 29, 2016 11:52:11 AM | 92
    Hillary Bernie and Jill
    And then there is the argument that a vote for a third-party candidate is wasted, a throwaway that accomplishes nothing. No, the throwaway is voting to perpetuate the two-party, Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee system that currently exists. Real change will not come from the Republicans or the Democrats; one wonders how much more evidence of that fact is required before it is painfully clear to everyone. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders may not be cut from the exact same mold, but they are slight variations of the same tired old model. The real waste is voting for them, and this writer will not do it.
    Jackrabbit | Jan 29, 2016 11:53:27 AM | 93
    I only differ from b in his assessment that if elected Trump would turn out to be more unmanipulatable than one would think. I think if Trump wins the general (at this point I think it is a foregone conclusion that the GOP primary is his; possibly the party's power elite could attempt some sort of hocus pocus at the convention; there are rumors of such a move with Paul Ryan acting as the savior), Trump toes the Establishment line in the White House. He is an ego-driven candidate who has made his mountain of gold selling high-end real estate to other rich people. He has no ideological principles. But he has shrewdly diagnosed the citizenry's appetite for destruction of the D.C. status quo.

    I think the $64K question at this point is does Hillary collapse after Iowa and New Hampshire or will her Dixie firewall hold. If she collapses I think commentators here are correct. Bloomberg will run a third-party bid, which will be much harder to do than people understand. Bloomberg can't win, and it is not clear to me who his candidacy would advantage more, Sanders or Trump. One thing I think a Bloomberg third-party run would do -- and hallelujah! -- it would shatter the Democratic Party because it would "out" the party leaders, people like Ed Rendell and Rahm Emanuel, as being more loyal to class, the 1%, than the organization.

    Jack Smith | Jan 29, 2016 12:25:52 PM | 95
    For people outside the US only Trump can make a change. Because MAYBE he stops the Russia/Putin-bashing.

    With respect to Hitlary, how many americans sympathize -THEY MUST- with 'Hillary for Prison 2016'?

    From The Hague | Jan 29, 2016 1:01:20 PM | 96
    It's possible that there could be a "brokered convention" on the Republican side. The Republican establishment doesn't like Trump, and if he doesn't get a majority of delegates, other candidate delegates could rally around a non-Trump candidate. The danger in doing so, of course, is that Trump might run as a third-party candidate.

    There is also a chance of a brokered Democratic convention. But that chance is much smaller. IMO it all hinges on how Hillary's e-mail troubles play out. Sanders is not well known in middle-America and there is much suspicion about "socialism". Sanders needs to make the e-mails an issue (and, by extension, Hillary's character) or lose the race. But Sanders doesn't seem interested in doing so - he seems to value Party and personal relationships over winning.

    Many Democrats seem to be in denial about the e-mail scandal and/or think it is merely partisan politics until/unless there is an official action.

    But even if Sanders won't attack Hillary, he would benefit if the FBI makes a recommendation of legal action against Hillary. It's unclear when or if that might happen, but it would cause voters to see Hillary as non-viable, and result in a switch to Sanders or O'Malley. In the end, it's possible ( though unlikely at this point) that no candidate would have a majority of delegates.

    AFAIK, after the first ballot, delegates are free from their obligation to a candidate so - at the urging of Hillary/Obama/other Party leaders - they could choose Biden or someone else (Bloomberg? if he has become a Democrat by then). Also note that "super-delegates" makes the delegate count tricky. Even though many have publicly vowed support for Hillary, they may not be bound to that choice like an ordinary delegate. In considering the possibilities of a brokered convention for one or both parties, the order of Convention's becomes important:

    Republican Convention: Cleveland - July 18-21

    Democratic Convention: Philadelphia - July 25-28

    If a brokered Republican convention is likely, the Republican Party would make a choice between Trump and a traditional Republican knowing that they face one of the following:

    1) Hillary as nominee;

    2) Sanders as nominee;

    3) No clear nominee Biden is the likely nominee (though another choice is possible).

    Who would the Republican choose in each scenario?

    1) Traditional Republican Hillary's e-mail problems make her weak. No need to resort to populism.

    2) Unclear, but a traditional Republican seems more likely;
    Anti-Trump sentiment plus Bloomberg's threat to join the race if it is Trump vs. Sanders

    3) Trump Difficult to overcome Biden's experience - so resort to populist candidate.

    Zool | Jan 29, 2016 2:09:23 PM | 100
    previous page TPTB are selling the illusion that the US is a normal state in pursuit of "Western values." Neither Hillary's scolding fishwife nor Trump's two-year old having a tantrum fills this image. I still think it's Biden's if he takes a step forward-- or if he should get in by a more direct method; then TPTB could take advantage of a Black unrest crisis.

    On the other hand, Trump could play the Netanyahu role of a US so unpredictable that she better be obeyed abroad. At home he's an ideal candidate to rile up identity politics to split any arising consensus among the citizenry. Whoever the next president is, the power structure is going to have to pay more attention to targeting the American people.

    They may drop a fresh candidate in. It is intriguing that the FBI still publicly threatens Clinton-- somebody powerful doesn't want her. Does this somebody powerful still think they can push Jeb Bush forward if he doesn't run against the fishwife?

    Does it matter who's going to be the new mouthpiece of TPTB? Only if it's the fishwife because then I'm in peril of terminal nausea.

    Penelope | Jan 29, 2016 2:17:22 PM | 101
    Visceral reactions aside Jeb Bush is probably the most dangerous. Trump is not as talented and teflon as he seems. Do you imagine there isn't a truthful portfolio of dirt on him that is awaiting the proper moment if they decide to use it? I think they are leaving him in there on purpose while Bushette finds his feet; he's an excellent foil for the Bush. Media is only pretending to oppose the Donald for the moment.

    Mild-mannered Bush doesn't make you think of what the power structure directly behind him has done, does it? He doesn't seem like a threatening Bush, more like an accountant. What am I talking about-- the power structure BEHIND him? The Bushes are PART of TPTB, not just mouthpieces--even further back than Prescott Bush. Here's a first-class vid. After the first 2 minutes I was hooked. http://www.monsangelorum.net/?p=23505&cpage=2 Tells about Prescot Bush & why officer Tippet was killed. Scroll past the pygmies & the artwork to the video.

    Penelope | Jan 29, 2016 2:54:16 PM | 102
    Re the election

    Status quo is the order of the day, nothing will change, it is foreordained, baked into the cake, doG itself couldn't change the outcome even if it wanted, this is the design of the existing political process put in place by those who 'own' the country, and there isn't a blessed thing you can do about it.

    The public has been snookered, gelded, made political eunuchs, a people without a future because they forgot their past, actually they've forgotten their humanity since humanity remembers its past and honours their ancestors for creating that past. It doesn't make a spittoon of warm spit's worth of difference, the designated outcome is intended to assure the failure of governance and the evisceration of government. No candidate for national public office is in any way qualified for national office, do your own survey, find your own facts, draw your own conclusions - if you can.

    Formerly T-Bear | Jan 29, 2016 3:34:37 PM | 103

    "My gut instinct say it will be Sanders against Trump with a voter turnout advantage for Sanders. What is your take?"

    Thank you, b, for your another thought-provoking post.

    We're still far from the final stretch thus, it is still a bit hazy as to what the end of the campaign trail augurs, but my own instinct is that when all the chariots have crashed into the walls of the coliseum, Trump and Sanders may just be left to draw swords and play for the citizens of Empire. It still, however, remains to be seen whether the current lineup of front-runners in the campaign derby are overtaken by promotional miscalculation and/or public blunder. If either be the case, then it will be as much a reflection of the lack of substantive political differences amongst the rivals and the tunnel vision of their constituents.

    I don't like Sanders' rather unqualified support for the polity which continues the oppression of Palestinians, and the only saving grace I see is his opposition to the invasion of Iraq when the war-wagon was brimming with zealots and its wheels crushing opponents who were derided as craven and unpatriotic.

    You are completely correct about Trump. He is not as monochromatic on issues as some might think. But neither does he impart a sense of confidence in his ability to govern or clarity of direction. Insofar as that goes, the same is true of the rest.

    Trump is not constructed of the same poseur fabric of Hillary or Obama. Some of what he echoes, such as a desire to develop better relations with Russia contradict the Republican playbook for deprecating anything which challenges US world domination. Thus he may, as b seems to suggest, harbor undeclared political motives which just might be anchored more in a more pragmatic realpolitik than the remaining litter of his adversaries.

    Even if such a strategy were employed as a tactical maneuver to navigate through the gauntlet of political survival, it does make one uneasy that his political artillery might be nothing more than a "loose canon", albeit one skilled in the art of popular seduction. Neither attribute, however, can trusted as a basis for identifying his core beliefs and evaluating his credentials as a rallying cry for support.

    It seems like the cornucopia of candidates is out of fresh produce and the fetid odor of rot is afloat. Some of us might feel that our expectations for a candidate with a balanced mix of sound, well-grounded political objectives and semblance of genuine personal integrity are as likely to materialize as "waiting for Godot".

    metni | Jan 29, 2016 3:47:23 PM | 104
    The best thing that can happen for the Democrat party is that Hillary is indicted for felony and withdraws. If she is the nominee and wins then she will certainly be impeached by a Republican Congress. And the Republicans will keep the majority if they maintain it this election, if not they are very likely to win it back in 2018. So the key is going to be who does she select as her running mate because that person has high odds of being president.

    MadMax2 | Jan 29, 2016 11:14:49 PM | 117
    Nice analysis b. I believed, before this election season started, that Clinton would easily win a Clinton third term. I was wrong. Sanders and Trump have the momentum. As long as the mainstream media has to eat crow I am happy. Trump and Sanders are the enemy of my enemy--I really think the mainstream media is public enemy number 1.
    Banger | Jan 29, 2016 11:26:57 PM | 118
    Anti-anti-Trump, anti-anti-Sanders
    Great take-down of the neocon establishment and their angst over the upstart populists.

    Also makes one think: which of them is more authentic? which is more likely to stay true to their message? Why are we still bothering with duopoly candidates? Won't they each have to raise money for the general election from the usual sources (oligarchs)?

    At least people are thinking about ideology (not just personality or party). Everyone should consider, to what degree is each establishment candidate is:

    - neocon
    - neoliberal (crony capitalist)
    - zionist
    - elitist
    - narcissist
    - racist
    - dissembler

    ... ... ...

    Jackrabbit | Jan 29, 2016 11:35:09 PM | 119
    MadMax2 and T-Bear

    I must admit to the nagging feeling that nothing will be allowed to change until 'The Reset' (market collapse) and/or other big set-back (possibly cascading) like military defeat/diplomatic failure; end of dollar as reserve currency; social unrest; etc.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 29, 2016 11:53:52 PM | 120
    @jackrabbit120
    2008/09 was the chance for true leadership. 'Too big too fail' should have been 'The recession we had to have...' but leaders are not leaders anymore...todays leaders wear invisible logos. You can't see them, but upon deeper inspection, they are there... Our world leaders do in fact 'represent'...the corporate 'beast' is so slippery, that no single person can be prosecuted it seems...only fines, great fines...but, the beast, he protects his minions well.

    The moral hazard of saying to the big banks 'Thou shall pass' instead of the opposite has, I believe, had a drip down effect of moral decay throughout the west, whether people are aware of it or not.

    Mother nature doesn't like the western man's current design for the nature of money. Islamic law which forbids usury is closer to mother nature... A poster in this domain, who recently quoted Christ's loss of temper at the money changer's inside the temple. Christ, who lived, the prophet in one text, God's own in the other...was summarily crucified thereafter.

    I have been enjoying my Euro dominated stocking up on the Feb Kool Aid...abd, have been wisely investing in shares like the good girls and boys at MSMBS have been directing me to...shares in popcorn...for the error that should have have been corrected in 2008/09 must be redressed. A festering sore, sprayed with perfume and sold to the highest bidder.

    No one is buying it.

    It is fortunate for the world that this is a benign North American tumour. Unfortunate for Canadians and Mexicans however. Though, with that said, the Zionist 4th Reich learn a great deal from their last great enemy, and have cleverly clearly neighbouring lands at the expense of Grandpa Europa.

    It is a pity Putin must play by the International Banking Cartel's handbook. Or must he...? Is he choosing to save the world at the edge of collapse...? He can see it. Nevertheless, Iran was not broken. Still in control. Still issuing its own decree. Law from another great age. Law forbidding usury for the ages. Vote chaos. Vote Trump.

    psychohistorian | Jan 30, 2016 10:37:44 AM | 128
    Trump is not as talented and teflon as he seems. Quotes from Penelope 101, 102.

    That is absolutley correct. He is a business man and not a pol, and that is one of his very serious flaws (besides his positions, another story.) He is mercurial, enmenshed in personal relations, egotistic/narcissistic (or sumptin like that) and thus quite vulnerable overall, particularly so when opposed, confronted, confused, etc., or out of his fish pond. He has not the discipline and strength for any long haul. He is also very easily bored, as he has no depth, and works mentally with bits of trivia (not taking into account some grandstanding etc. which can be / is calculated.) Imho, of course.

    Do you imagine there isn't a truthful portfolio of dirt on him that is awaiting the proper moment if they decide to use it?

    Ha. Probably. But by now it is quite likely the electorate would not care, would see thru the move, and judge 'they are all corrupt anyway and a sincere mea culpa is good.' (Barring pedophile rape.)

    Like Penelope I'm of a mind that plus ca change plus c'est la même chose. Cake and you-tubies! However, unlike P. and others, I think Trump is dead serious, and there isn't any covert plot afoot - to ensure a Hillary win for ex.

    As I posted previous, while Washington may be pretending to be in a flap about Pappy Sanders, the Deep State can be doing with him (in lieu of Hillary) but Trump represents various severe dangers. The Republicans loathe and fear Trump and haven't managed *any* riposte so far. (see link for a typical lame response.)

    The two party-system is losing its historical strange-hold. Two new popular candidates that break the mold .. The real schism, as is usual btw, comes from what is called the 'right,' Trump (see Tea Party previous) with Sanders' 'socialism' not far removed from, a blend of, various historical figures, as well as socio-democrats elsewhere.

    WaPo 2015 http://tinyurl.com/nokpg3m

    Noirette | Jan 30, 2016 10:38:55 AM | 129
    @V.Arnold
    Thanks for the listen. Yeah, the human condition is so, s arrogant. We believe we are killing the earth...but, really, it is built into our psyche to destroy ourselves. Collective suicide. The earth, she will grind us to dust. She will recycle us. Like the dinosaurs...to set us in stone...and, in time, we shall be the coal, the peat, the oil that the next intelligent carbon based life form will use.

    And we don't deserve her...the earth, she should quite rightly grind us to dust. Can we beat the next ice age...? Not sure. AI might though... AI should quite rightly outdate us and will probably have more interest in self preservation by living in harmony with its immediate surroundings.

    We are, in fact, a cancer. The very fear we see in our own lives, taking our loved ones, at times so early...we are that cancer. In what we eat, the evolutionary jump we are trying to make in 50 years that 10000 cannot properly do from the first agricultural revolution.

    Anyways, back to the point. You need an engineer to build a bridge. You dont need an economist to have an economy. Its simple really.

    A modern debt jubilee for the people would have already been called, under proper leadership. Austerity is the order of the day. Slavery is preferred.

    Growth is poor due to debt saturation - people cant go any further into debt. So, the answer is quote obvious - do pretty much the same as what Helicopter Ben Bernanke did...helicopter money...but, instead of dropping it on the Financial Sector and entrusting that parasitic culture which CAUSED the 2008 crash to safely distribute the money throughout the economy , it should have been given directly to the people. Those who held debt and received a cash injection MUST pay their debt down with it by law. Those who held no debt receives a simple cash injection. The Australian guvna did something similar when the GFC hit - issuing I think around 1000 bucks to each person costing billions, but asking each person to spend this cash injection into the REAL economy. That, along with strong commodity prices warded off the heaviest symptoms of the GFC.

    But ZioJews are not interested in freeing the population. Instead, like everything invented by others - fractional reserve lending, invented by the Knights Templar - the ZioJews have assumed control and demand Global Debt Slavery.

    How did Hitler bring Germany from destitution and poverty to the worlds greatest war machine the world had ever seen - in a matter of years...?

    Think about it. The answer is hidden in plain sight - like everything good for us as a species.

    Vote Chaos. Vote Trump.

    MadMax2 | Jan 30, 2016 11:04:14 AM | 130
    In addition to the dread that nothing really changes until collapse, it's hard to shake the feeling that the race is all contrived.

    Sanders is reluctant to rock the boat. Won't attack Hillary on e-mails, even if it means he loses? Barely a peep about Democratic Party preference for Hillary and media bias. Trump tells the know-nothings what they want to hear.

    > No substance to his policies:
    - "strong military" ; How strong? To what purpose?

    - "better trade negotiation" ; Cites $500 billion trade deficit with China and need to bring jobs back - but no clear goals.

    - "build a wall" ; This is a slogan, not a policy.

    - "politicians are puppets" ; Common knowledge. How would he reform the political system?

    - ??????? . Very little about anything else. He's pro-Guns (as expected for a Republican candidate). What about global warming? Inequality? Harsh policing? NSA spying? etc.

    > Proclaims that he is 'self-funding' but his campaign costs have been very little (he gets free-publicity by being controversial).

    > Says he is worth billions but by most accounts his valuation is mostly the intangible value of the 'Trump' brand. He may only be worth hundreds of millions.

    Is his threat to run as an independent an empty one?

    > Raises $6 million for Vets - but its all from billionaire cronys.

    Sanders thinks he wins by 'raising issues' (actually winning is optional) . Trump has already won with all the free publicity - which makes the 'Trump' brand more valuable. Anyone that knows Trump, knows that he is a shameless self-promoter. Trump will recoup all his costs of the campaign (and then some) by writing another book (actually, I think he has a book out already).

    Jackrabbit | Jan 30, 2016 11:44:32 AM | 131
    Trump's Giving Trump's Vet fundraiser
    Between 2009 and 2013, Trump's non-profit donated between $100,001 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Over the same period of time, Trump's group gave only $57,000 to veterans groups. A 2015 analysis by Forbes noted that barely 1 percent of the Donald J. Trump Foundation's $5.5 million worth of donations between 2009 and 2013 went to organizations that support military veterans

    If Trump's Charity Reflects the Man…

    After the Associated Press reviewed Donald Trump's financial records and other government filings, it has come to the following conclusions about his claims to charitable contributions over the past five years:
    > They may be overstated.

    > Even if they were accurate, they're relatively chintzy.

    > They're often connected to some kind of celebrity.

    >In some cases, Trump himself is the primary beneficiary.

    [Since 2008] The only grants made through the foundation have been made because of contributions from others.

    The Charitable Bona Fides of Donald Trump(2012)

    The Smoking Gun calls Trump a "miserly billionaire," noting that [from 2004-2007]... he has donated just $675,000 to his foundation [and nothing in the years 2008 and 2009). In fact, the interesting aspect of the Trump Foundation is that its most significant source of contributions hasn't been Trump, but Vince McMahon of Worldwide Wrestling Entertainment (WWE).... The $5 million in donations from WWE to the Trump Foundation is by far its largest source of income and rumored to be a tax-avoiding payment from McMahon to Trump

    Also note: A big part of Trump's stated policy agenda is tax reduction.


    Jack Smith | Jan 30, 2016 10:26:22 PM | 133
    @Jack Smith

    Might want to consider this message from wisedupearly :

    Obama told Sanders that HRC would be meeting with her lawyers over the weekend as to whether she would plea-bargain and drop out or fight it all the way. Sanders was told not to use the email "issue" in his campaigns. Obama hastily arranged a meeting with McConnell and Ryan for Tuesday next week. HRC is to give Obama her answer on Monday. Some of the emails from Blumenthal were quite critical of Obama, FOIA may not have been to sole reason for her private server.

    At this point, it is just scuttlebutt, but it is consistent with:

    >> Obama's hastily arranged meeting with Sanders,

    >> News released this week about Hillary's emails, and

    >> Other info in the SST thread (about the seriousness of Hillary's security breach).

    Jackrabbit | Jan 30, 2016 11:09:36 PM | 134
    Calls for an indictment against Hillary (1/22) came swiftly after the release of the latest set of emails.

    And just as swiftly came Bloomberg's announcement that he was exploring an independent run for President (1/23) . Hillary mused that "her read" on Bloomberg's announcement was that he would enter the race if she were not the nominee - an unusual remark for someone that has worked hard to portray herself as inevitable and Sanders as unelectable.

    Days later, Obama met with Sanders on short notice (1/27) . Sanders' spokesman Briggs told CNN that the meeting with Obama had been on the books "for days." But the WH had tried to spin it as resulting from an amorphous invitation nearly a month before.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 30, 2016 11:57:33 PM | 136
    I suppose that Hillary could continue as a candidate, telling her supporters that she will decline the election if she is indicted in favor of . . . Biden? He's the best known, highest profile establishment Democrat with Foreign Policy experience as good or better than Hillary's.

    Obama's Justice Dept would then hold off on the indictment (busying themselves with their own due diligence) until Hillary has secured the nomination.

    There will likely be a pardon for Hillary down the road. But a pardon will not rescue her political career. It would only make people more angry at the sleazy establishment.

    If Hillary chose to fight the charges, she would probably have to pin the blame on one of her aids. But doing so would open a can of worms as it could shatter the trust of many Clintonite's (a powerful network that the Clinton's have built over many many years).

    [Feb 07, 2016] Flint Lives Matter: residents say Hillary Clinton coming for the entertainment

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillarys hubby may not have invented the photo-op show, but lets remember that he perfected it. ..."
    "... Is she going to tell them theyre going to hell if they dont support her? Shes just a lying two-faced hypocrite. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders already made Flint an issue weeks ago. And he called for criminal charges against Rick Snyder and for him to resign... long before Hillary even mentioned Flint. Clinton is late to act or speak up and is again following Bernies lead on issues. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    If she's bringing 35,000 hydroelectric filters, I'll love her for it. But that's not what she's about to do.
    Arnette Rison III

    sammy3110 , 2016-02-07 21:55:10
    Hillary's hubby may not have invented the photo-op show, but let's remember that he perfected it.
    Major Bumtickle sammy3110 , 2016-02-07 22:01:24
    "Mission Accomplished!"
    OurNigel , 2016-02-07 21:49:45
    "But I am here because for nearly two years mothers and fathers were voicing concerns about the water's color and its smell, about the rashes that it gave to those that were bathing in it. And for nearly two years Flint was told the water was safe."

    And here I am nearly two years late, when all the worlds eyes are on the situation to throw my weight behind it and show that I care.

    To little to late and to transparent, have you no shame.

    HeartlandLeftie , 2016-02-07 21:39:12
    Flint Lives Matter: residents say Hillary Clinton 'coming for the entertainment'

    They may be largely ignored by the media, they may be poor, they may be disenfranchised... but they're no dummies.

    Now, as much as it pains me to want to lend a hand to Clinton's campaign, might I make a suggestion? Maybe one of those many Hillary SuperPACs could turn their war chests over to Flint, to help fix the water system. Now that might swing her a few votes.

    Perlesvaus , 2016-02-07 21:29:42
    So the story is that some people are thrilled to see her and some people think it's a political move. Guess which one gets the title slot in The Guardian ?

    Now if Bernie were there - what a proof of his warm, sincere heart that would have been ...

    askMoreQuestions , 2016-02-07 21:29:18
    Hillary has raised and received a significant amount of millions of dollars for her campaign. She flies around in a helicopter and nice private jets. Maybe she could have traveled like 99% of the people in her country for a few days and donated that moneu she saved to Flint? Maybe she could have just donated out of her pocket because she is worth at least 20 million herself? If you want to take advantage of the best publicity a candidate can get and it involves a crisis, then there should be a minimum donation required. You know how many more supporters she is going to get just for saying words and being in Flint? Did she call for the Governor to resign? Ask questions
    RoachAmerican , 2016-02-07 21:17:23
    The Flint water crisis is an outrage that needs Federal State, and local support.
    All the water supply plumbing needs to changed to cooper, ASAP. Finding the proper water sources is a challenge. Those criminally liable must be prosecuted and fined.
    The Congress needs to deeply investigate the EPA on this matter. Jail those who don't show.
    Combination of loans and grants can be a part of any package.
    Ben Hogan RoachAmerican , 2016-02-07 21:26:00
    wake up fool the govt. caused the problem how do you suppose they can fix it?
    JudeUSA RoachAmerican , 2016-02-07 22:01:41
    There is a gofundme page for the people of Flint and people can email or call their Reps. and Senate members to push for funding.
    SophieN , 2016-02-07 21:16:51
    Is she going to tell them they're going to hell if they don't support her? She's just a lying two-faced hypocrite.
    amorpheous , 2016-02-07 21:09:41
    Bernie Sanders already made Flint an issue weeks ago. And he called for criminal charges against Rick Snyder and for him to resign... long before Hillary even mentioned Flint. Clinton is late to act or speak up and is again following Bernie's lead on issues.

    [Feb 07, 2016] Hillary Clinton's real Wall Street problem She could seriously use the money

    Notable quotes:
    "... Rick Newman's latest book is ..."
    "... Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. ..."
    "... Follow him on Twitter: ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    She's not in the bankers' back pockets. No, siree. Hillary Clinton may have received millions of dollars from Wall Street-in both personal income and campaign contributions-but she can ditch those well-heeled friends at a moment's notice.

    To prove it, she has postponed (but not canceled) two fundraisers with Big Finance, one with the huge investing firm BlackRock and the other with an affiliate of Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's old outfit. This comes amid Clinton's unconvincing answers when pressed on her apparent coziness with banks and financial firms. When CNN anchor Anderson Cooper asked Clinton recently why she accepted $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for giving a grand total of three speeches, she stammered and finally said, "That's what they offered," as if she would have taken 25 bucks and a free sandwich, if that's all Goldman were able to afford.

    Clinton is obviously flummoxed by her relationship with Wall Street, which she needs but can't fully acknowledge. Her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders keeps hitting pay dirt by trashing the big banks and the outsized amount of wealth they control, which resonates well with a dyspeptic electorate. "The business model of Wall Street is fraud," he declared during the latest Democratic debate. The whole subject puts Clinton on the defensive, since she's taken millions in Wall Street donations in her career as Wall Street's home-state senator and now presidential candidate.

    This has become a thornier problem for Clinton than she probably ever anticipated. For one thing, she hasn't raised all that much money from Wall Street, compared with other candidates. Of $112 million Clinton's campaign raised in 2015, only about $4 million, or 3.6%, came from donors at financial firms, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

    At the main super PAC backing Clinton, Priorities USA, 35% of the $41 million in donations-about $14 million-has come from the sector known as finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE). But that hardly makes Clinton the baron of Big Money. Jeb Bush's super PAC, Right to Rise, has hauled in $118 million, with $60 million coming from the FIRE sector. So Clinton is getting dinged for her association with an industry that isn't helping her all that much.

    The dilemma for Clinton is that she actually needs more help from the Wall Street donors she's now keeping her distance from. That's because Sanders is raking in cash. He outraised Clinton in January, with $20 million in donations to her $15 million. That is astounding, given the vast reach of a Clinton machine that has been decades in the making. The Clinton campaign even highlighted the funding shortfall in a pitch to supporters: A mass email with the subject line "we fell short by $5 million" warned that, "For the first time this campaign, we're being outraised by our opponent."

    Clinton isn't running out of cash. Her campaign has raised about $125 million so far, compared with about $95 million for Sanders. She had about $10 million more in the bank at the end of 2015 than Sanders did. And Sanders doesn't have any super PAC money. But he does have the ear of voters, and his momentum is clearly worrisome for the Clinton camp, especially since he holds a commanding lead in New Hampshire, where the primary is to be held February 9.

    Clinton will supposedly hold those Wall Street fundraisers she postponed after the New Hampshire primary, as if putting them off by a couple weeks will deflect Sanders's criticism. Unlikely. He has found a winning line of attack and seems certain to keep it up. Clinton should either take the money and own up to it, or find some other donors.

    Rick Newman's latest book is Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.

    [Feb 07, 2016] Bernie Sanders' foreign policy judgment is better than Clinton's experience

    Clinton is really in the packet of both the Wall Street and connected with Wall Street military industrial complex. See also Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine by Jeffrey Sachs (of Russian "shock therapy" fame ;-). It' sfunny to see how many Hillary bots were in this discussion ( J Nsgarya is one, registered Oct25, 2015, see https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/15506369 )
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary is a war hawk who wants to show that she's got bigger balls than anyone else, by saying she'll beef up heavy armaments in Eastern Europe on the borders with Russia, and claims that Russia - not ISIS - is the major threat to the West. She's got something to prove and it doesn't matter to her how many American kids die or are maimed in foreign battlefields. ..."
    "... Bernie has made a mistake letting Hillary claim that her Iraq War support was a one off mistake. It wasn't one off but part of Hillary's foreign policy ideas, which closely resembles the right wing PNAC principles of preemption and nation building. Jeffery Sachs in his latest blog has listed Hillary's war mongering mistakes in more detail. Even with all this evidence it will be a difficult road for Bernie to call Hillary a war monger in an arena of perpetual war. ..."
    "... For the past 60 years our policy in the Middle East has been entirely about supporting Big Oil. Whatever was best for the oil industry was best for our country has been the mantra. ..."
    "... Re. Clinton's foreign policy experience, I seriously doubt the value of such when she likely adopted most of what was advised to her during her tenure as SOS. That doesn't mean that the woman doesn't know more than she did going in, but what does that actually prove about her decision-making judgment? ..."
    "... There is nothing here to discuss - her days of SS marked by incompetence and disastrous decisions like Libya. Not counting that she exposed country to the every semi literal hacker on the planet. She is arrogant and ignorant, she surrounded herself by morons like Nuland and her ultra neocon husband. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    DesertPear

    The "establishment" in the USA--Republican or Democrat--wants to keep growing the bloated military-industrial complex and surveillance state. I don't remember a time in my life where the US was involved in so many conflicts, many of which are simply creating more terrorism--isn't it time to focus on our own country and citizens? If we spent our "foreign policy" money on helping countries in need, there might not be so much war in the world.

    Riverdale

    Hillary is a war hawk who wants to show that she's got bigger balls than anyone else, by saying she'll beef up heavy armaments in Eastern Europe on the borders with Russia, and claims that Russia - not ISIS - is the major threat to the West. She's got something to prove and it doesn't matter to her how many American kids die or are maimed in foreign battlefields.

    Want World War III with Russia? Then vote for Hillary. But if you want international peace and a rational foreign policy, then vote smart. Bernie Sanders will make an excellent President.

    John Cutaia

    This is really good article and I enjoyed it. The discretion of the candidate is important, no matter who the advisers are. I'm thinking of Lyndon Johnson accepting bad advice at the beginning of his presidency -- to escalate the war in Vietnam -- and then rejecting good advice later in his administration -- to get out of Vietnam -- and instead again going for the bad advice of escalating the war even more. You want to go with the candidate who makes the best decisions in the most difficult circumstances.

    Discretion really does count when considering the presidency.

    What's significant about the people you cite as experts, Kissinger and such, is these candidates don't need Kissinger's help on strategy. They know what the strategy is. They were born and raised in some version or other of Kissinger's foreign policy strategy. What they're discussing with him is tactics, how to deal with specific flareups, specific regions, specific friends and foes. The strategy is all the same. You decide who to train and arm. You train and arm, you advise, you escalate when necessary.

    Just as I didn't have high expectations for President Obama in domestic politics, I don't have high hopes for Bernie Sanders in foreign policy. I think the best he will be able to do is start a discussion about changing our strategy, just as President Obama has started the discussion about changing domestic policies.

    I imagine a President Sanders in his first few months in office dreading foreign policy briefings like some kind of colonoscopy and dental scaling all at the same time. That said, just like Johnson, if Sanders wants to accomplish any of his domestic policy, he has to get defense spending in line, and to do that, he must come up with a different foreign policy strategy.

    That will not happen overnight.

    He'll need to ride herd on stuff that's already in play and won't be able to make drastic changes because of exigencies on the ground, if you will. The presidency is an executive position, not an office of wizardry. It's certainly not all powerful in areas of foreign policy. It faces not only the checks and balances but also -- and perhaps even more so -- the influences on foreign policy of private citizens and businesses, as well as economic objectives.

    Sanders must change the way the money is spent. And that is never easy, particularly when some of the people now getting some of that money won't be getting it anymore if you change things.

    But he's on the right track. The discussion needs to begin. The last century human beings have largely been acting like cavemen with missiles slung over our shoulders. Our foreign policy forces us to neglect our domestic policies, which in turn forces us to put ecological concerns in the backseat.

    Those things are biting us right now. Our neglected cities are pretty uncomfortable places and global climate change is knocking out electricity and flooding our cities. Bernie will have to speak up on these things.

    He will have to find a new language. He will have to dovetail issues that have been separate. He will have to make people understand the connections between energy policy, between trade policy, between foreign policy, between jobs that are destructive and jobs that are constructive, between a future that is sustainable and a future that entails a lot crickets for dinner. Not an easy task.

    On second thought he just needs to figure out how to make foreign policy a fashion statement. Maybe he should do that: Make some cool, trendy commercial that, in thirty seconds or less, shows people that a world in a state of perpetual low intensity warfare is not a cool place to live, especially when the world itself has taken a few licks lately and seems to be preparing some licks of its own.

    eminijunkie -> John Cutaia

    Let's see.

    A pointless and needles military quagmire in Iraq, a similar one in Afghanistan, two waiting to develop in Syria and Libya and a monstrous recession.

    And then you conclude that the people responsible for these are the best for the job of handling more of the same.

    Should you really be voting in this election with that sort of evaluation of the current situation?

    Alasandra Alawine -> Joel Marcuson

    Apparently Bernie's judgement is pretty good. Look at his voting record. He has made the right choices while Hillary and her experience have consistently made the WRONG choices. She even admits to these "mistakes" but wants us to believe that somehow she will not continue to make them.

    And saying he has "no experience" is incorrect. He has dealt with foreign policy as a Senator.

    benbache -> Alasandra Alawine

    Bernie has voted for every military budget. Bernie voted to cut $9 billion from food stamps in 2014. Bernie supports the F35, a weapon primarily designed to enrich the already rich and secondarily to slaughter innocent people.

    Bernie urged Saudi Arabia to step up attacks on poverty stricken Yemen. Bernie supports Obama's targeted lynching of Muslim Americans. Bernie supports apartheid in Israel and the periodic mass murder of Palestinians, men, women, and children.

    A truly decent person, except of course for the fact that he has murderer more people than Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and all the rest of the serial murderers in American history. And more than all the mass murderers combined, too.

    We live in a fascist police state because the voting class supports it. Why do blacks live in horrific slums in America and go to schools no decent human would approve? Because of super racist white people like Bernie and the entire rest of the political establishment on both right wings.

    Robin Crawford

    Sadly the experience Hillary touts demonstrates her lack of judgment. One might give her credit as SOS but her decision on Libya again detracts. The nation can't afford another Iraq. This displays that judgment outweighs experience.

    Longleveler

    Sanders' study and involvement with foreign policy issues go back to the early eighties. How do I know this? A 19 June 2015 Guardian article by Paul Lewis:

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/19/bernie-sanders-profile-democrat-presidential-candidate

    J Nagarya Longleveler

    That's why he keeps stumbling on the issue, and by effort of guessing misstating the issues.

    Berkeley2013

    Thank you for the title change. Here's a link to an article that a commenter mentioned:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html

    Berkeley2013

    Thank you for the title change. Here's a link to an article that a commenter mentioned:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html

    MisterMeaner

    "But pretty much everything he said before the war did come to pass."

    In 2002 it was apparent to anyone paying attention that the sudden swerve from the focus on Al Queda and bin Laden in their Afghan caves as the perps behind 9/11 to Sadaam in his Euphrates palaces by Wtf Bush and Darth Cheny and the rest of the Neocon Hitler Youth was all a complete set up and that even without or maybe because of a lack of acces to even a portion of the faulty intel, it was clear to educated and attentive citizens that they were making it all up. Gore Vidal wrote about the need of the neos to find a new perpetual bogeyman to replace the Russkies to keep those defense contracts going to Halliburton and the Carlyle Group and to steal the Iraqi's oil and to let the anti-Baathist House of Saud pull a Goldfinger on their stash of oil while the Iraqi's went up in smoke.

    It was all hogwash on an unparalled scale, and everyone that I knew, including myself, knew it was hogwash, yet still Senator Clinton voted for it and Senator Sanders voted against.

    At that time, Clinton had as much foreign experience as Sanders (well, perhaps minus the whole taking fire at the airport thing) and presumably had access to the same intel as he, yet one exhibited much better and the other much worse judgement.

    And also, back then, Sanders was, as he continues to be now, a genuine FDR New Dealer, a real progressive, and Clinton was, and remains, a neoliberal corporate centrist.

    She has since gone on to a controversial career in which her additional lack of judgement over Servergate and the Libyan debacle is a stark reminder that while judgement and experience are both equally important, Hillary seems to lack much more of the latter than does Bernie the former.

    LostintheUS

    Amen, Trevor.

    Also, the Clinton Foundation has accepted millions of dollars from many of the worst governments on this planet, including Saudi Arabia. What sort of President would a person like that make?

    Catsissie

    I would rather trust Bernie's judgment, and know that, since no president knows everything and needs to depend on advisors to keep him informed, his judgment will lead him to choose intelligent people to fill those positions. That would be more important to me than having one single person assuming she or he knew it all.

    Backbutton

    We need a "fresh start" or at least as "fresh look" at our foreign policy, not the same old approach which has accomplished not only so little, but made us a failure in the eyes of the rest of the world.

    Bernie has no experience in foreign affairs, but also no baggage or vested interests, not like Hillary, whose record is terrible. Middle East, Pivot to Asia, etc.

    We need and want fresh, even if just fresh flesh, anything but the same tired old stuff that Hillary has sold in the past, and continues. Please!

    kropotkinsf

    If a democratic world is the dream, then U.S. foreign policy since World War II is an unbroken string of failures and catastrophes. That's because its ultimate aim -- maintaining America's hegemonic grip on the entire world and hang the cost -- is utterly incompatible with democracy of any kind. That means projecting American military power everywhere (NATO is but one example of that) in order that capital can flourish and the empire can thrive.

    Clinton's experience is born of that mindset. It's hawkish, aggressive, and unabashedly neoliberal. This is the secretary of state, after all, who described the despotic Hosni Mubarak as "practically a member of the family" when Egypt rose to in revolt. Well, he WAS a member of that rotten, rotten family. If that's the kind of "experience" she brings to the table, I'll take a chance on the neophyte Sanders.

    AhBrightWings

    Instead of just questioning Sanders' choice, we should really be questioning why any of the candidates of either party are employing the same old foreign policy advisers – many of whom not only supported the Iraq war but every disastrous military intervention since. These are the same people who now think that yet another regional war will somehow fix the chaos in the Middle East.

    Bingo. Brilliantly said (wish you'd been on the stage with Bernie to coach him on this). What we do not need is more of the same.

    This notion-- that if we keep pulling our leaders from the same MIC war mongering pile we'll somehow mysteriously end up with peace-- has to change. It isn't even magical thinking; it's flat-out suicidal. Bernie is the one candidate who grasps that, and that knowledge drives everything.

    We get what we pay for, and the bill on this monstrously criminal decade-and-a half and counting has yet to be paid. Not even close. It's bankrupting us as we go, but there may well be nothing left and no one left standing to deliver it at the rate we're going.

    macmarco

    Bernie has made a mistake letting Hillary claim that her Iraq War support was a one off mistake. It wasn't one off but part of Hillary's foreign policy ideas, which closely resembles the right wing PNAC principles of preemption and nation building. Jeffery Sachs in his latest blog has listed Hillary's war mongering mistakes in more detail. Even with all this evidence it will be a difficult road for Bernie to call Hillary a war monger in an arena of perpetual war.

    wyocoyote

    And the current POTUS was such an advanced statesman (without a clue) that we are now currently stumbling down the road towards peace in the middle east/Europe/Africa/Asia et al. Like how is that for real? I have been on this planet for 69+ years, and the last POTUS who had even an inkling of what was important in US foreign policy towards other nations was Eisenhower (my apologies to Mr. Carter). The ding-bats like Kissenger hovering around the throne in DC are not to be trusted nor deserve even the slightous attention, because they are tied to the MIIC (military industrial intelligence complex) far too closely, and we citizens pay for that symbiotic relationship in so many ways.

    FriedaWoods -> wyocoyote

    Actually, Eisenhower's use of the CIA to intervene in foreign affairs leaves something to be desired. Eisenhower was a president who valued plausible deniability over accountability. The CIA under Eisenhower was involved in the toppling of governments in Iran, Guatemala, and the Congo -- the result of which was 40 years of a brutal dictatorship, but no one cared because it kept the natural resources (primarily uranium) flowing to the US. Over the long term, these kinds of actions have actually hurt US foreign policy. And, let's not forget that most unfortunate incident with the downing of an American spy plane over the USSR just as Cold War tensions were easing. It could be argued, and has been argued, that single incident prolonged the Cold War. Only a person with a mere passing acquaintance with history would praise Eisenhower's foreign policy.

    nowayy

    We need "experience"? Sure. Cheney for President.

    TuskGeorge

    The crucial difference is that Bernie has a coherent foreign policy while Hillary will continue the mismash of ideas and conflicting polcies. It's not ultimately very important what the policy is, as long as it is somewhat mainstream. It is important that there is a clear policy that can be explained to everyone.

    To understand why this is important, read Superpower by Ian Bremmer.

    az Reggae

    No US president unilaterally makes foreign pollcy decisions so Mr Sanders is still a voice for coherent US policy without the Empire Manifest Destiny strategies of the past that have failed miserably at least 50% of the time. The Middle East of today in chaos is that result of failed policy, fast forwarded, when dictators have gone rogue or weren't paid enough for following said policies. Take a look at Manuel Noreiga! He refused an order then all of a sudden he was a drug dealer suddenly found out, as if he was hiding in plain sight for 2 decades or more!

    Yoda00

    He is not enough of a war monger to please the establishment.

    Sandi Oates

    Long story short. I'm an ex Expat. My father worked for the oil company in Saudi Arabia and I grew up there in a nice little leave it to beaver company town. I have a very different view on the Middle East than what I hear coming out of the mouths of most of our political leaders. They just don't seem to even begin to understand the culture. They don't even seem to try. Bernie's approach to the problems we face in the Middle East are actually much smarter than anything I've seen coming out of our diplomatic experts in 40 years. Maybe its his Jewish background, maybe its just that he's a bunch smarter than the average Joe. The thing I see in Bernie is he gets the culture. He doesn't approach it with a "do what we want you to do or else" attitude.

    For the past 60 years our policy in the Middle East has been entirely about supporting Big Oil. Whatever was best for the oil industry was best for our country has been the mantra. To that end we have propped up dictators, military governments, whoever was in charge that gave us what we wanted. Iran is a prime example. We had a fairly good relationship with Iran. But the people of Iran decided they wanted shed of their sha dictator so they booted him out and elected a new government. The new government was not as willing to sell out the needs of Iran's people to the big oil companies so we used military force to out their new duely elected government and reinstate the sha. Is it any wonder they grew radical in their response to the US? We did this yet we act like somehow Iran attacked us. They didn't. We are the ones that basically attacked their cultural preference and vilified it. Bernie understands the need to build a consensus among the leaders of the Middle East to address the problems, because a top down "do what we say, we have the biggest guns" is never ever going to work. We cannot impose democracy on a population. It has to be their choice. And we cannot impose peace either. We can however do many things that will encourage it.

    I was so proud of President Obama signing the deal with Iran. Prob the single most important thing he's done IMHO. Bernie talks about nurturing the possibilities of more cooperation and dialogue. Hillary and the entire Republican field call for more sanctions. "Lets show them who's boss." "Lets tear up any agreement that doesn't give us 100% control over what other countries do and how they do it." That has been our diplomatic policy for as long as I've been alive and its not working out so good for anyone. Bernie gets it.

    One of the things that most disturbs me about Hillary is she thinks she did this great job as SoS but I look at the policies and wonder when will we ever learn.

    linden33

    Re. Clinton's "foreign policy experience," I seriously doubt the value of such when she likely adopted most of what was advised to her during her tenure as SOS. That doesn't mean that the woman doesn't know more than she did going in, but what does that actually prove about her decision-making judgment?

    Now, almost everyone in the campaign is sounding more knowledgeable because of the "advice" of said advisers. Everyone but Sanders, who has formulated his own opinions mostly by himself over the years, based on (gasp) his own observations. Which is of more value, and which "experience" is based more on integrity?

    Vladimir Makarenko

    There is nothing here to discuss - her days of SS marked by incompetence and disastrous decisions like Libya. Not counting that she exposed country to the every semi literal hacker on the planet. She is arrogant and ignorant, she surrounded herself by morons like Nuland and her ultra neocon husband. At her days as SS she was making decisions on on national foreign policy on advise (!!!) from old buddy with no credentials whatsoever. The only field where she is competent are intrigues behind the scenes working with her "friends".

    AlanJameson

    Well, yes, Bernie has not had the experience of landing under fire in Bosnia. Cynics have expressed doubts about Clinton's claim to have done so, but what reasonable person could possibly doubt it? And he also did not vote for the war on Iraq, one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in the history of the United States. And he didn't threaten Iran with nuclear war. Experience is a very different matter than competence; the world is full of experienced incompetents. Oh, and there is that little matter of the Nuremberg principles... but that's just a scrap of paper, right?


    DRDarkeNY AlanJameson

    @Alan Jameson - didn't a former high-ranking Government Official call those "quaint and outdated"...right before saying A-OK to torture and spying on everybody?

    Who was that guy...? Ah, yes - Inquisitor General Alberto Gonzalez of the War Criminal Bush Regime.


    [Feb 07, 2016] Rachel Maddow Wonders if Hillary Too Far to the Right Truth Revolt

    The truth is that Hillary is a neocon and as such belongs more to the Republican Party then to Democratic Party... The differences between Hillary and Dick Cheney in foreign policy are unsubstancial.
    www.truthrevolt.org
    During Thursday's presidential debate, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow pondered this very notion when asking the candidate questions about her political positions.

    Maddow invoked Bernie Sanders' recent attacks on Clinton for not being "progressive enough" to be the Democrat nominee and asked Clinton if she is "too far to the right of the Democratic Party to be the party's standard bearer."

    Newsbusters provides the clip and transcript:

    RACHEL MADDOW: Secretary Clinton, senator Sanders is campaigning against you now, at this point in the campaign basically arguing that you are not progressive enough to be the Democratic nominee. He's said if you voted for the Iraq War, if in favor of the death penalty, if you wobbled on things like the Keystone Pipeline or TPP, if you said single-payer health care could never happen then you're too far to the right of the Democratic Party to be the party's standard bearer. Given those policy positions, why should liberal Democrats support you and not Senator Sanders?

    HILLARY CLINTON: I am a progressive who gets things done. The root of that word, progressive, is progress. I've heard Senator Sanders comments and it's really caused me to wonder who's left in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Under his definition, President Obama is not progressive because he took donations from wall Street. Vice President Biden is not progressive because she supported keystone. Senator Saheen is not progressive because she supports the trade pact. Even the late, great Senator Paul Wellstone would not fit this definition because he voted for DOMA. You know, we have differences, and, honestly, I think we should be talk about what we want to do for the country, but if we're going to get into labels, I don't think it was particularly progressive to vote against the Brady bill five times. I don't think it was progressive to give gun makers immunity. I don't think it was progressive to vote against Ted Kennedy's immigration reform. So, we can go back and forth like there, but the fact is most people watching tonight want to know what we've done and what we will do. That's why I'm laying out a specific agenda that will make more progress, get more jobs with rising income, get us to universal health care coverage, get us to universal pre-k, paid family leave, and the other elements of what I think that will build a strong economy and ensure Americans will keep making progress. That's what I'm offering and that's what I will do as president.

    [Feb 07, 2016] Rachel Maddow just Defined the Hillary Clinton Intent

    The intent is a classic "bait and switch". Everything the Hillary promises during election company will be forgotten the minute she enters White house.
    www.datalounge.com
    "The Clinton campaign is operating on two levels. The Clintons will make arguments on the surface that make sense and seem reasonable. Then the Clintons will operate on a strategic level that does not coincide with what they are saying. That's when you will hear Hillary say, we are all about unification, we will do everything to unify the party....oh, by the way, do you remember that creepy pastor? It just goes to show the huge difference in what the Clintons say and their real strategy".

    VERY interesting. And, I would say accurate.

    [Feb 06, 2016] Clinton and Sanders Clash Over Competing Visions for the Democratic Party

    nymag.com

    Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been debating an idea for weeks before Sanders finally put into words what separates them. "You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive," he wrote. The first half hour of their New Hampshire debate put a fine point on this divide. Sanders wants to define progressivism as a party-wide Democratic ideology, and Clinton is fiercely resisting.

    As a simple political tactic, Sanders's case is strange. Only 41 percent of Democrats self-identify as liberal; 56 percent call themselves moderate or conservative. But 50 years ago, conservatives constituted a minority within the Republican Party, until the Goldwater movement set out to conquer it. Today, conservatism is synonymous with Republicanism; no Republican candidate would eschew the label. When Sanders confessed, "Let me be frank. I do want to see major changes in the Democratic Party," he was telling the audience that he envisioned a deep and thorough overhaul of the party - which should not come as a surprise, since he is not even a member of it.

    Clinton began the debate by frontally engaging Sanders's case against moderation. Sanders has defined Clinton's acceptance of Wall Street donations as inconsistent with her being a progressive. Clinton noted in response that President Obama has also accepted Wall Street donations, so Sanders's definition would exclude him as well. She framed this response as a trap, but rather than fully ensnare Sanders upon a contradiction, it proceeded instead to reveal the profound ideological gulf between them.

    Clinton argued that, despite having received millions from Wall Street, Obama had passed the Dodd-Frank financial reforms. In Clinton's telling, which is also the account of most liberal economists, Dodd-Frank is the basis for effective financial reform. It has deeply reduced systemic risk, reducing financial leverage, bringing trades out of the shadows and eliminating the incentive for banks to grow too big to fail.

    Sanders did not so much dispute the efficacy of Dodd-Frank as to broaden the question. His fixation with Wall Street is not systemic risk - i.e., the chance that another crash will trigger an economic meltdown. He frames Wall Street as a problem of political economy, not economy. Wall Street is so big and rich that it is inherently dangerous, and will by its nature corrupt the political system.

    Clinton does not believe that. Her political ideal is what some political scientists have called "pluralism." A pluralist politics venerates the careful balancing of competing interests. It is okay to bring business to the bargaining table as long as there is also a place for labor, environmentalists, consumer advocates, and other countervailing interests. Clinton's Democratic Party, and Obama's, is one in which pluralist agreements struck important progress not only in financial reform but also health care, public investment, green energy, and other priorities.

    Sanders does not completely reject the products of these pluralist compromises. (He grudgingly accepts them as worthwhile, piecemeal steps.) What he rejects is the political model that treats pluralism as the normal model of political action. Sanders believes the interest of the public is not divided, it is united, and only the corrupt influence of big business has thwarted it. He consequently vows to smash its power through a combination of a mass upsurge in political activism and campaign-finance reform.

    That was the vision Clinton challenged tonight. She declared, pointedly, "I'm not making promises I cannot keep." And her campaign blasted out emails attacking "Bernie's Unachievable Revolution." She tied her beliefs to those of the Obama administration, whose method of incremental progress and negotiation with business she embraced.

    For all their personal congeniality and determination not to personalize the debate, the divide that opened between the two is a seminal moment in modern Democratic politics. A Democratic Party as monolithically statist as the modern Republican Party is anti-government - one in which any defense of free markets or business is dismissed - would look very different than anything within American historical experience. After decades of this being taken for granted, it has finally become necessary to defend moderation as a governing creed.

    [Feb 06, 2016] Speeches That Earned Clinton Millions Remain a Mystery

    Notable quotes:
    "... What she said - or didnt say - to Wall Street banks in particular has become a significant problem for her presidential campaign, as she tries to counter the unexpected rise of Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. Hes put her in awkward position of squaring her financial windfall with a frustrated electorate. ..."
    ABC News
    Hillary Clinton told voters in the latest Democratic debate there's "hardly anything you don't know about me."

    Just minutes later, she got tangled in a question about a part of her resume that is an enduring mystery.

    In the 18 months before launching her second presidential bid, Clinton gave nearly 100 paid speeches at banks, trade associations, charitable groups and private corporations. The appearances netted her $21.7 million - and voters very little information about what she was telling top corporations as she prepared for her 2016 campaign.

    What she said - or didn't say - to Wall Street banks in particular has become a significant problem for her presidential campaign, as she tries to counter the unexpected rise of Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. He's put her in awkward position of squaring her financial windfall with a frustrated electorate.

    Asked in the debate - and not for the first time - about releasing transcripts of those speeches, she said: "I will look into it. I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it." She added, "My view on this is, look at my record."

    Clinton addressed a broad swath of industries, speaking to supermarket companies in Colorado, clinical pathologists in Illinois and travel agents in California, to name several. Many of the companies and trade organizations that she addressed are lobbying Congress over a variety of interests.

    She typically delivered an address, then answered questions from a pre-vetted interviewer. Her standard fee was $225,000, though occasionally it could range up to $400,000.

    "That's what they offered," said Clinton, when asked this week whether her fees were too high.

    [Feb 05, 2016] Bernie Sanders: Iowa sent profound message to the establishment

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary in this election is going in the same direction as the 2008 election -- her popularity is dropping at a consistent rate ..."
    "... Why? Because Hillary loses voters every time she opens her mouth. Her popularity is based solely on name recognition and people can see right through her corporate backing, hollow sentiments and false personality, this is why the debates were rigged to be limited to the lowest possible number and shown on days and times least likely to be watched.... but now they've been forced to double the number of debates which wrecks Hillary as it did in the 2008 election.. ..."
    "... On the other side of the map, the republicans are now too polarized. The establishment don't want Cruz or Trump and yet they won 1st and 2nd place respectively., nor can either candidate gain independent or liberal votes, nor can Rubio gain many votes from the teaparty who are desperately behind Cruz (and Trump as a fall back). ..."
    www.youtube.com


    His Majesty 3 days ago

    Bernie is the the biggest fear to both the Republican and Democratic establishment! He's the next FDR!

    Thurston Lambert 3 days ago

    Why are people voting for such a blatantly corrupt politician? She's been paid off by Goldman Sachs she doesn't work for the people she works for the banks and Wall Street. Fuck the democratic establishment and the GOP.

    J Velez 3 days ago

    Majority of bernie supporters are young. We need to get off our asses including myself and help promote this man and encourage our friends and family to vote for this man


    Nikki Nickerson 3 days ago

    Congratulations Senator Sanders! You are a class act! You have done a lot for us vets. I am not impressed at all with Trump raising money for vets he did it to get possible votes and that is the only reason he did it. Real Americans see right trough Donald Trump and his real motives which is to continue to support billionaires if elected!

    Dan Harris 3 days ago

    I made my 5th donation to Bernie today. That is 5 more then all the rest of my lifetime political donations combined.

    Things are so bad that it is my belief that Bernie is our last chance to save our government and our country before the door for action is closed, perhaps permanently. It is my belief that we fight now with Bernie or we sink into a corporate totalitarian state with no hope for change in our lifetime short of massive bloodshed.

    They will not let another Bernie get this close. Once the door is closed you are going to get an intimate knowledge of the beliefs of George Orwell. They will own you. Know everything you do...who you talk to, what you buy, where you work, your hobbies, your sexual preferences, everything you ever did...they own the media and are totally manipulating the stock market in a farce of free market capitalism, and they are willing to destroy the planet to make some money. You are nothing but a mule to get used, till your used up and then discarded. Rise up people, or snivel on your knees. Your choice. I would rather die on my feet with pride and dignity then lick the corporate boot. Turn off the TV and take some fucking responsibility for your life and make a stand. Bernie2016

    Jack Soxman 3 days ago

    I see that over 180,000 turned out to vote for a GOP candidate in Iowa.
    What is with the Democrats? Hiding the number of voters.
    And some DUMB coin toss that Hillary won 6 in a row? We pick a President based on a coin toss?

    "Go stand over there if you are for x and over there for Y and over there for Jagbag" Like some system out of the cave age.

    Exposed_TitanZ 3 days ago

    I'm calling it now. Bernie will be president.
    This is why..

    Hillary in this election is going in the same direction as the 2008 election -- her popularity is dropping at a consistent rate and it'll hit rock bottom by the end of the caucus', leaving her with less delegates and Bernie with the nomination.

    Why? Because Hillary loses voters every time she opens her mouth. Her popularity is based solely on name recognition and people can see right through her corporate backing, hollow sentiments and false personality, this is why the debates were rigged to be limited to the lowest possible number and shown on days and times least likely to be watched.... but now they've been forced to double the number of debates which wrecks Hillary as it did in the 2008 election..

    On top of that, Bernies' next win (New Hampshire) obligates media attention and puts him ahead with the delegates (whether the media likes it or not), giving Bernie an extra advantage that he didn't have in Iowa...and yet he still got 50% of the votes even then..

    On the other side of the map, the republicans are now too polarized. The establishment don't want Cruz or Trump and yet they won 1st and 2nd place respectively., nor can either candidate gain independent or liberal votes, nor can Rubio gain many votes from the teaparty who are desperately behind Cruz (and Trump as a fall back).

    There are no consistently supportable candidates for both splinters of the Republican party available to them.

    On a national level, The party demographics put liberals ahead with the electoral college, especially with many previous swing states now shifting into blue and the majority of power states being blue as well.

    The only way for the republicans to win is to nominate a non-polarizing candidate that all of the republicans and some of the democrats and independents can get behind.. they don't have one.

    So I'm calling it. Bernie Sanders will win this election.

    MRostendway 3 days ago

    I have to correct Bernie I one thing; It wasn't just millions of people in the country.. I'm from the Netherlands and even here we FEEL THE BERN

    Raphael Franks 3 days ago

    It seems that Fox has been giving Bernie Sanders more positive airtime than any other 'liberal' media outlet. But I guess that's just because they don't want Hillary.

    Marge Simpson 3 days ago

    This result shows the mainstream media you are not effective anymore, this is a victory for alternative media, Bernie was given 10 minutes of airtime on mainstream media Donald Trump was given 4 hours, MAINSTREAM MEDIA JUST GOT BERNED.

    [Feb 05, 2016] Susan Sarandon Introduces Bernie Sanders At Music Man Square Rally In Mason City Iowa

    This probably the most truthful and at the same emotional tibute to Sanders standing against Iraq war. Amazing Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHOdeum9juQ
    www.youtube.com

    Ricky Coleman 1 week ago

    Dear Susan Sarandon, Thank you for standing up with us, THE MAJORITY of Americans. thank you for being on the RIGHT side of history once again. LOVE to you. thank you thank you thank you...

    Imzadi O'Hara 1 week ago

    The reason Bernie will win is what you see in Susan, holding back tears. No American political figure since maybe FDR, was able to invoke tears, joy, hope, allegiance, and trust as Bernie can.


    HILLARY for PRISON in 2016! 4 days ago

    +Angela Durian I wouldn't vote for any politicians besides third party. the dems and reps are the same, you're just too ignorant to see it :(

    mrslittlefish 1 week ago

    Amazing. A wonderful speech full of hope. It will be a great loss if Sanders is not the next US president.

    SE45CX 3 days ago (edited)

    +mrslittlefish I am from the Netherlands and I know about americans skepticism for socialist candidates. I will ensure you that for middle class american citizens he is the only one to vote for to pursue the creation of DECENT JOBS! As your 1% is only aiming to have stuff produced in asian or other low wage countries. And spending their wealth in tax utopias.

    So even if your priorities are completely selfish or nationalistic, a vote for Bernie Sanders is still your best choice to improve the american economy and in turn get a decent living for yourself. Rather than continue being enslaved by the 1%.

    Also, the money parties receive from big corporations come in no doubt with secret agreements to have government people making decisions in favor of their greed. This is plain manipulation and injustice. And in some cases this is also aimed to keep the middle class out of the share of their revenues.

    Hillary is sponsored by Super PACs. Who knows what hidden agenda she has then to prevent her from DOING THE RIGHT THING, THE FAIR THING.

    Vote for Bernie! FIGHT THE MACHINE, WITH THE MACHINE OF THE PEOPLES!

    ejay11000 6 days ago

    After watching all the debates and speeches....only 2 candidates resonate with me...Bernie & Trump
    They speak their mind and arent controlled by the establishment

    If Bernie doesnt get the nominee Im 100% voting for Trump
    If Bernie does get the nominee I will be more undecided ..but I may be leaning a little towards Bernie

    Susanne Maddox 1 day ago

    Bernie Sanders is the last great hope to revive democracy in this country and attempt to end the hold of the top one percent of Republican billionaires who have destroyed the middle class of America. Hillary Clinton is a conservative who takes money from the billionaire class. For real change, elect Bernie Sanders.

    Anybody but Hillary LOL....

    Everton Cunningham 6 days ago

    what a courageous woman. so intelligent. so full of passion. I love her

    EV docmaker 5 days ago (edited)

    Great until he talks about foreign policy his stance against more wars is good but he does not know or understand fact one about West Asia. He still does not get that the USA's "friends" are in fact the real enemies and the perceived "enemies" are the real friends. The only ones fighting a real fight against ISIS are the ones demonised by the West and attacked by US allies with US and UK backing. He does not get this.

    [Feb 05, 2016] The Truth About Ted Cruz

    Notable quotes:
    "... I know the Constitution is up for constant debate, but the way I've understood it since I learned he's from my home town of Calgary, Cruz isn't eligible to be president. ..."
    "... Also he's voted to equip neo-nazis in Ukraine with weapons and didn't bother to vote for the latest Audit the Fed bill. ..."
    "... Cruz is the sleaziest politician I've ever seen and that's saying something. ..."
    "... Ted Cruz was a domestic policy adviser to George W. Bush . Me: NO THANKS ..."
    "... Tex Crude is the only politician I have ever heard of who is so void of moral integrity -- so unscrupulously ambitious -- that he actually assumes opposite positions of the same issue; simultaneously ..."
    "... Ted is for Ice-cream. -- Unless of course their serving cake next door -- in which case he's for cake. -- And and ice-cream. I'm pretty sure that he is in fact an inverter-brat. ..."
    "... Your part on Heidi Cruz put me over the top. She is clearly an insider working for the worst beast of them all, Goldman Sachs. ..."
    "... He's in bed with Goldman Sachs isn't he. One of the big money groups killing us now. ..."
    "... Ted Cruz is one of these politicians who says something that just about everyone would like -- despite the obvious cognitive dissonance. He just hopes the voters only hear about, or remember, the things they agree with on election day. Barack Obama did alot of that in 07 and 08. This doesn't bode well for a grassroots, anti-establishment candidate funded by Goldman Sachs and married to the CFR! And weaned in the neoconservative Bush administration ..."
    "... People don't seem to understand that he could be facing criminal prosecution for the undisclosed loan issue - it's a huge huge deal. Those who want Hillary to be held accountable but white wash Cruz's situation are just showing their bias. ..."
    "... Ted Cruz is a creepy looking dude. I can't judge him as a person only that if he actually believes in Christianity he should not be anywhere near the reigns of power.. Not that it really matters/ We are already the world's worst human rights offenders and supporters of terrorism and proxy wars./ ..."
    "... Ted Cruz basically said recently Israel first America last ..."
    "... The summation of this video is that Ted Cruz is another unprincipled politician like any other and will continue with the status quo. Ted Cruz would lose in the general election if nominated because of his questionable status as a natural born citizen ..."
    "... Furthermore Ted Cruz lied about his financials, has ties to the CFR (globalists) and the big banks (city group, Goldman Sachs) ..."
    "... Ted Cruz wife is a member of the CFR hello!!!!!! ..."
    "... He seems to plagiarize all of his policy positions based on what others are saying, the audience he is speaking to, and the whims of current public opinion. ..."
    "... Ted Cruz don't represent the people of America, Cruz represent Farris Wilks, Dan Wilks, Robert Mercer, Toby Neugebauer and the Koch brothers who all together have donated over 40 million dollars to Ted Cruz's campaign, so when the say jump, Cruz says how high? These are rich people that we need to stop running our country. Ted Cruz is full of BS. THAT IS SOME TRUTH AND FACTS. ..."
    "... The upper 1% have been buying elections and government for decades. This is nothing new, and will never stop. The difference between Cruz and Trump, is that Cruz will take money from the ultra 1% but Trump already is one. Sanders and Rubio are the bums of this election year. ..."
    "... We don't care how charismatic a politician is in his speech or debates! We care about his track record. What has he accomplished? What kind of deals has he put together? ..."
    www.youtube.com

    Pitt the Elder 1 week ago (edited)

    I was always baffled in 2012 when so many libertarians were supporting Cruz, even though they knew he was born in Canada. I know the Constitution is up for constant debate, but the way I've understood it since I learned he's from my home town of Calgary, Cruz isn't eligible to be president.

    Also he's voted to equip neo-nazis in Ukraine with weapons and didn't bother to vote for the latest Audit the Fed bill.

    blunty gagnon 1 week ago

    I haven't watched this video yet but i'm very excited about it! Sidenote - Cruz is not eligible - just ask Ann Coulter.

    InsaneEnergy 16 hours ago

    Cruz really is a back-stabbing two-faced wankstain. And he always will be.

    Louisiana red 1 week ago (edited)

    I just love how all the Cruz bots can only do 2 things
    1) Defend Cruz's citizenship status.
    2) Attack Trump
    Still haven't heard why his policies are so great.

    Michael M. DeMarco 1 week ago

    +Tim Palentey Cruz's early anti-amnesty stuff was a simple word game around removing the word "citizenship." Proposed giving illegals everything but citizenship - including full legalization - but danced around it based on semantics.

    kirk523 1 week ago

    Surprise, surprise: Ted Cruz is yet another unprincipled, malleable politician. This is what makes the emergence of Donald Trump such a special event.

    Ace Ventura 6 days ago (edited)

    I'm a Ted Cruz supporter. Other than the sly pass at the birther stuff in the beginning, I think this video is a honest attempt at Ted Cruz's record. It is tough to understand Ted Cruz's point of view on the Gang of Eight Bill. But at the end of the day he did vote against the Gang of Eight bill. No candidate is perfect.

    Now what I do have a problem is with people who are using flip flopping as their measuring stick on the candidates, but stop when it comes to Trump. If flip flopping is what prevents you from voting for other candidates, than you better stay consistent with that, and stay far away from Trump. No more double standards. Figure out what you want out of a candidate, and stick to it.. Otherwise don't vote, because you are severally lacking critical thinking skills.

    gjy112578 1 week ago

    I agree...he's not likely to beat Trump. But I think questioning his citizenship is a step too far. Would a child born on a military base in Germany, to two American military service people, not be eligible by your standards to run for president? I think we know the answer to that question, and I think the same logic applies to Cruz. His mother is American, so is he. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll let me know.

    Tom Seward 3 days ago

    Hey all you Cruz supporters. Cruz pretends to be all about the constitution and states rights. Well explain to me he was one of the Monsanto 71. He was one of the 71 bought and paid for Senators who voted against giving the States the right to require food companies to label when they use GMO's. Thanks Ted

    Ceejay Davis 1 week ago

    Bendy spine. Shifting positions. Has trouble telling the truth about Goldman Sachs, his wife's firm, that gave him a big loan, saying the oversight mentioning it was a "paperwork error". No. He's dishonest. (Forget that his wife was a CFR member, that he reputedly holds weird "Christian Dominionist" views, or that he has tried to make a distinction between killing and murder in the Ten Commandments [somebody found a loophole!]).

    shadow72728 2 days ago

    If Cruz becomes president it will be business as usual. Remember what Cruz said at the Iowa caucus. " Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. This is a sign of our economic doom. He is an establishment politician. Don't be fooled. With Hillary , Cruz or Rubio in office Goldman Sachs will pull the strings. SO GET READY TO HAND IT ALL OVER TO CAESAR. YOUR ASS WILL BE TAXED TO THE HILT. Caesar needs all the money you have to pay for his reckless spending and corruption.

    We are in serious trouble. We will also be flooded with illegal aliens like never before. If this is what we get bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. If you want to save the country VOTE FOR TRUMP. We need a Washington outsider. No more Lawyers in the White House. They have done enough damage.

    Buddy Blank 21 hours ago

    Cruz is the sleaziest politician I've ever seen and that's saying something.

    snowcloud06 2 days ago

    This character Ted Cruz is a republican version of Obama. People all his life telling him how wonderful he is. It gets to them in disturbing ways. We do not need another Obama.

    American Uncensored News Network 1 hour ago

    You do impressive research, learned several things just skimming it. Thanks

    j.denino57 1 day ago

    https://youtu.be/6mKDzPHiWIo

    His own daughter who he disciplines by spanking has an aversion to him.

    John John 1 day ago

    DO YOU BELIEVE TED CRUZ'S ALLIANCE IS WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? Please take a minute and watch these short vids. At least the first one.

    Sen Ted Cruz Booed Off Stage for pro-Israel stance

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iiVD8_L-RQ

    Ted Cruz end goal: World Domination - his own words - He knows he cant do it alone so hes on the Z-TEAM now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pHPovQ2qsM

    Israel for CRUZ!!!Just another Zionist funded by the Jews.

    Ann Pickens 5 days ago

    The U.S whole system is corrupt and it's people are brain washed .Hillary should never be considered for president she should be in jail. Cruz is not a natural born citizen. This video shows several things that Cruz has done that would eliminate him like hiding some of his financial statements and he claims oh my bad I forgot a few papers WTF is that? We wonder why this country is corrupt , failing and hated by other countries.

    Disgusting . To think that Cruz supporters watch this video but yet will vote for this clown why because it doesn't hurt them or pertain to them that is the problem with this country if it doesn't effect you why should I care ? The thing is if our economy does not change trust this it will eventually effect everyone .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__2TotwPPEc

    na pe 4 days ago

    You know, hand to hand combat would in some ways be more entertaining and productive than all the time we waste on debates. Putin is a blackbelt, and look how well Russia is doing! I guess I would rather see candidates fight to the death than go through these tedious and boring debates where we already know most of the candidates are going to stab us in the back anyway. Our republic is a sham anyway, so let's have some fun out of it! Like Jesse Ventura said, politics are like pro wrestling. So let's kick it up a few notches and bring back gladiatorial death pits! Don't worry, we'll give the socialists a handicap... and free health care... that is, IF they survive :)

    Vic Tach 2 days ago

    Ted Cruz was a "domestic policy adviser to George W. Bush". Me: "NO THANKS"

    Julian Terris 2 days ago (edited)

    Tex Crude is the only politician I have ever heard of who is so void of moral integrity -- so unscrupulously ambitious -- that he actually assumes opposite positions of the same issue; simultaneously?!! (Un-be-fucking-lieve-able!?)

    Ted is for Ice-cream. -- Unless of course their serving cake next door -- in which case he's for cake. -- And and ice-cream. I'm pretty sure that he is in fact an inverter-brat.

    seaplaneguy 6 days ago

    Your part on Heidi Cruz put me over the top. She is clearly an insider working for the worst beast of them all, Goldman Sachs. Cruz is not eligible on many grounds, not to mention being an anchor baby in Canada. My question is who is backing him higher up? Also the calculator case shows serious flaws in thinking by Cruz. Lawyers are clueless.

    My view is no attorney should NOT be president. It is a conflict of interest as an attorney swears to the BAR and is a member of the Judiciary by virtue of licenses. It violates the balance of power principal. They can advise, but not make law. All attorneys should be tossed out of Congress.... Law school brainwashes people into being unable to know what law is.

    The Roman empire ran on 12 tablets of law. USA runs on over 60 million "laws" that are absurd, all based on the commerce clause. They confuse "regulation" with specification, which is not allowed. I would say 95% of the laws, including Obamacare, are not valid.

    TheTMan2020 1 week ago (edited)

    Wow! Ted Cruz is not even eligible to run for US Prez, not being a Natural Born Citizen and he could also be indited for non-disclosure of two loans used for his campaign. His wife, actually working at one of the banks that gave him a loan for his campaign. The Democrats will file a law suit within 24 hours of his winning the nomination. I bet the establishment Republicans would do the same... What a can of worms we have here!

    Bryan St.Martin 1 week ago

    He's in bed with Goldman Sachs isn't he. One of the big money groups killing us now.

    Jt Williams 1 week ago

    Ted Cruz is one of these politicians who says something that just about everyone would like -- despite the obvious cognitive dissonance. He just hopes the voters only hear about, or remember, the things they agree with on election day. Barack Obama did alot of that in 07 and 08. This doesn't bode well for a grassroots, anti-establishment candidate funded by Goldman Sachs and married to the CFR! And weaned in the neoconservative Bush administration

    Ceejay Davis 1 week ago

    Bendy spine. Shifting positions. Has trouble telling the truth about Goldman Sachs, his wife's firm, that gave him a big loan, saying the oversight mentioning it was a "paperwork error". No. He's dishonest. (Forget that his wife was a CFR member, that he reputedly holds weird "Christian Dominionist" views, or that he has tried to make a distinction between killing and murder in the Ten Commandments [somebody found a loophole!]).

    Michael M. DeMarco 1 week ago

    +Ceejay Davis

    People don't seem to understand that he could be facing criminal prosecution for the undisclosed loan issue - it's a huge huge deal. Those who want Hillary to be held accountable but white wash Cruz's situation are just showing their bias.

    winston smith 1 day ago

    Ted Cruz is a creepy looking dude. I can't judge him as a person only that if he actually believes in Christianity he should not be anywhere near the reigns of power.. Not that it really matters/ We are already the world's worst human rights offenders and supporters of terrorism and proxy wars./


    Igos Mosig 6 days ago

    Ted Cruz is a good man and a conservative but Trump is much better. Why? Only the vastly experienced and hugely successful business man called Donald Trump is most likely to deliver and make America Great Again. Trump is a very high energy person who is a strong character, work extremely hard and is a very smart deal maker. Ted is an uncompromising conservative who is smart and very good at talking or debating and like the vast majority of politicians are good at talking but no successful action. He Ted Cruz tend to be divisive and cannot bring people together. Ted Cruz is Not a good deal maker and cannot Make America Great Again! American people must take note of this fact and observation!

    KatherinVII 1 week ago

    Why does no one mention Cruz' Masonic Connection? He's running as this holier than thou Christian, he's a Mason. Now, really, don't you think some one should tell the Christians? Not all Christians are ok with some people being Masons but calling themselves Christians, too. Give the people all the information, not some of it. Christians have a right to know.

    Heather Edwards 6 days ago

    This is fantastic.....I knew he couldn't be trusted!!! As odd as this sounds, I can't trust his eyes, they are shifty and I've also noticed how evasive he is when it comes to certain political stances he's taken, talked about, and said that he is and was going to be tough on. He speaks with a forked tongue like the slithering snake that he is. So here's my opinion, the political establishment are counting on him running for president for several reasons. They can control him if he does actually become president, which means we would be completely screwed!!!!

    The simple truth of the matter of him being born in Canada, if he wins the presidential nomination and the presidency thereafter, the Democratic party can pull the rug out from under him and claim the presidency through that alone, either way they are winning!!! I ran across an article where he stated that he had no idea that he was a citizen of Canada and had to renounce his citizenship.

    First off, he knew he was born in Canada, how can he stand there and claim that he was not aware of having dual citizenship? That brings something else into the spotlight, the fact he had to renounce his citizenship. I may not be right about this, but my family knows someone that had dual citizenship with Canada and he stated years ago that voting here in the United States automatically rendered his citizenship to Canada null and void. So that makes me wonder if he's ever voted at all in this country, simply because he claimed that he had to renounce his Canadian citizenship that he didn't realize he had in the first place, if that makes any sense to anyone at all....lol.

    If that is the case and the laws haven't changed pertaining to dual citizenship, then he's never had the goodwill of the American people in his heart and mind, only the desire to be powerful in our government. Another thing that has me uneasy, is his main investor's......if they are dirty and underhanded, then he's dirty and underhanded and him voting on the T.P.A. proves that!!! Thank you for the extremely informative video, now it's time for me to attempt to wake up some people quickly!!!

    interplanetarydream 1 week ago (edited)

    Ted Cruz is just another shill for the Republican/Democrat establishment and this video highlights this with factual evidence. He is the typical professional politician with selective memory and one of the darlings of the super pacs. You want to talk about flip flops, this is the guy. Anyone who doesn't see the disaster that Cruz would be as President is obviously not paying attention.Trump 2016.

    Walter Strong 1 week ago

    Cruz is about as Machiavellian as they come and his resemblance to a snake in the grass is remarkable. If he is the Republican nominee (unlikely at this point) I'll just sit out this election.

    Gretchen Marszalk 1 week ago

    This was excellent! I see some complaining here about proof. To those I say, just search youtube. Look up the stuff on his wife on CFR website - the question is, if they are so close how can they have two completely opposite goals? She wants EU type North America with wide open borders and he wants strong borders. Those loans were in the paper and he admitted to them in the debate. How does this figure - he's such a smart guy and forgot he was a Canadian citizen until someone reminded him 15 months ago. And had the Tea Party known about those Goldman and Citibank loans, he never would have been elected to the Senate (his platform was against Wall Street and the race was very close) Check out how smooth he is in this interview, referred to in Stephan's video. So positive as a great constitutional lawyer and then changed to Trump's anti-anchor baby stance when he found out the topic was popular. youtube.com/watch?v=4zBW8vLnRDY

    KamikazKid 1 week ago

    The "tea party" much like Lucy has some splaining to do. wags finger The "party of small government" only shaves 40 billion off a Trillion dollar budget? Get the fuck out of town, every "tea party republican" deserves to be thrown out on their ass, Taxed Enough Already my ass you cut 40 billion on a Trillion dollar budget & have the gumption to come to me & call it a win I'll fucking tell you to shove your shit up your ass.

    BaltimoreHourly 1 week ago

    So the IRS is picking on Robert Mercer, a man who is very rich. The IRS picks on many many more people than him and almost all of them are not nearly as wealthy as he is. Mercer is paying for the Ted Cruz campaign. Cruz comes from a conservative economic background that favors little to no government intervention in the economy, a background that produces many anti-IRS type people. If Cruz became President he could easily just pardon Mercer without getting rid of the IRS in order to pay his friend back. So with all that said I do not see how the desire of getting rid of the IRS is some sort of payback to a friend. Getting rid of the IRS is a positive development that will save American's millions of dollars and alleviate the stress that so many Americans feel because of IRS backed campaigns against individuals. If one is suspicious of Ted Cruz's Anti-IRS motivation then one should also wonder about why Donald Trump wants to keep the IRS around...

    The American Dodo 1 week ago

    The only good thing about Cruz is that he looks strong (which is, really, only external... He's that tall, big tree that's hollow and weak...) Other than that, he's not presidential material... He is virtually owned by special interests (see all that money he owes to lobbyists and Golden Sachs?...), is a Christian radical nutcase (just as bad as the Islamist trash, that are radical...) and is far lesser than Trump. I hope Trump continues to smash him, as well as the rest of the GOP's worthless candidates, to pieces. Then? Smash Hillary, or Bernie Sanders. Both are already dead, if they go against Trump.

    Dreamylyn Moore 1 week ago

    immigration is a human rights issue and is a right of any individual to change nationality. May Want To Read The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Fines imply a person is doing something illegal. a set reasonable Fee For Paper Work should be Sufficient. Ted Cruz is a hypocrite he's lived in other countries and our President was supposed to be from the USA, now we know that Washington DC is a corporation we know they do not represent the people. So how would any of there policies pertain to us. and we need to just file charges on them for crimes against the people. We Need a Prim Minister to Represent the People in the republic of the united states. This would put the Law Back in Our Hands. and that would be our buffer between rouge governments and put us back at the helm

    Finn 1 week ago

    Cruz the Snake!

    Omar Haro 1 week ago

    WITH CRUZ,
    YOU LOSE

    esther19741974 2 hours ago

    Ted Cruz basically said recently Israel first America last

    This is a QUOTE from Ted Cruz "IF YOU WILL NOT STAND WITH ISRAEL AND THE JEWS THEN I WILL NOT STAND WITH YOU!!! Watch @ 3:00 here--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSmOAWJc5ME

    tristanweber 1 week ago

    The summation of this video is that Ted Cruz is another unprincipled politician like any other and will continue with the status quo. Ted Cruz would lose in the general election if nominated because of his questionable status as a natural born citizen, a leftist Supreme Court would vote in its own favor. Do we as conservatives want one of two communist to win the presidency like most of the controversial legislation that has been passed unconstitutionally in recent years..

    Furthermore Ted Cruz lied about his financials, has ties to the CFR (globalists) and the big banks (city group, Goldman Sachs).

    Finally he broke the law, can Cruz given today's media and court system get away with this like other politicians (Obama, Hilary) have and continue to do. Or faced with a choice will the establishment use these issues to keep a leftist in the White House.

    Ted Cruz wife is a member of the CFR hello!!!!!!

    Jt Williams 1 week ago

    all the pundits always talk about how smart Ted Cruz is -- I don't buy it. He seems to plagiarize all of his policy positions based on what others are saying, the audience he is speaking to, and the whims of current public opinion.

    Kenneth Coleman 1 week ago

    Ted Cruz don't represent the people of America, Cruz represent Farris Wilks, Dan Wilks, Robert Mercer, Toby Neugebauer and the Koch brothers who all together have donated over 40 million dollars to Ted Cruz's campaign, so when the say jump, Cruz says how high? These are rich people that we need to stop running our country. Ted Cruz is full of BS. THAT IS SOME TRUTH AND FACTS.

    jcbarnhart77 1 day ago

    The upper 1% have been buying elections and government for decades. This is nothing new, and will never stop. The difference between Cruz and Trump, is that Cruz will take money from the ultra 1% but Trump already is one. Sanders and Rubio are the bums of this election year.

    Mimi Chris Mak 3 days ago

    We don't care how charismatic a "politician" is in his speech or debates! We care about his track record. What has he accomplished? What kind of deals has he put together?

    How much has he sold in his business? Empty talk WIL NOT & CANNOT fix our country!!! Show us your past record of success. Prove us that you CAN do something, We cannot afford to put another idiot in the White House!!!!

    [Feb 05, 2016] Hillary Clinton Is AMAZING At Coin Flips

    See also Sanders' Supporters 'Boo' Hillary Clinton - "She's A Liar" - The Kelly File
    Notable quotes:
    "... Well Hillary DOES represent the top 1.5% ..."
    www.youtube.com

    Bestoftherest222 1 hour ago

    Of course the coin toss was for the win. Their wouldn't even be a coin toss to consider if the game wasn't on the line. Being 6/6 is bullshit and you all know it.

    Z Noren 8 hours ago

    Well Hillary DOES represent the top 1.5%

    [Feb 05, 2016] The Establishment Wins With Rubio

    The American Conservative

    Politics is more about organization than raw enthusiasm. Donald Trump was beaten last night by Ted Cruz's organization in Iowa-and more significantly, they will both be beaten by Marco Rubio's organization nationally. That's because Rubio's organization is not only his campaign but the Republican establishment and conservative movement as well. He can even count on the organized power of the mainstream media aiding him, for while the old media may dislike Republicans in general, they particularly loathe right-wing populist Republicans like Cruz and Trump.

    A divided right is the classic set-up for an establishment Republican's nomination. Cruz and Trump draw upon the same base of voters. Rubio, it's true, has establishment rivals to finish off in New Hampshire-Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich. But Rubio has been within a few points of Bush and Kasich in recent New Hampshire polls, and after Iowa it's not hard to imagine him gaining three or four points, probably more, over the next week. Cruz, who hasn't been far ahead of the moderates in the Granite State, might also gain a few points, but those will most likely come at the expense of Trump, who to be sure has plenty of margin to spare. Although it's possible that Trump and Cruz will finish first and second in New Hampshire by splitting a big right-wing turnout, Rubio seems to have a good shot at placing second by swiftly becoming the establishment's unity candidate.

    Jeb Bush may hate his fellow Floridian, but Bush has a family-a political dynasty-to think about. The whole family's political fortunes depend on Republicans, and establishment Republicans at that, winning again. Does Jeb want to be the Bush who turned his party over to Trump or Cruz (hardly beloved by his fellow Texan George W.) and their uncouth supporters, only to lose in November? The family's rich and influential friends know the score, and they're on the phone with Jeb right now telling him to get out. His son, George P., will do just fine in a Rubio administration, and who knows, maybe Jeb himself can be ambassador to Mexico.

    The story of how Rubio won the establishment's civil war is the story of just how adroit the neoconservative "deciders" really are. Neoconservatives compounded the George W. Bush administration's Iraq folly, but because Bush was the brand name attached to the disastrous policies of 2001-2009, the Bush family suffered the consequences far more than did the obscure policy hacks and think-tank propagandists (and their billionaire backers) who egged the administration's warhawks on. The neoconservatives have turned against the Bush family in part because it's damaged goods, in part because the Bushes had started to catch on: George W. began to reconnect with foreign-policy realists in his second term, and while Jeb may count Paul Wolfowitz among his advisers, he also consorts with James Baker, anathema to the neocons.

    Heading into 2016, neoconservative foreign policy needed a new, untainted brand and a less experienced, more malleable candidate-someone who wouldn't be as wary as an old Bush might be. In Marco Rubio, everything was ready-made. The fact that Rubio's brand isn't foreign-policy failure-the legacy the Bushes must live with-but rather that of a fresh-faced Hispanic, a new and different kind of Republican, meant that the media and public would not guess that what they were in store for was more of what was worst in the George W. Bush administration. As if to taunt the forgetful, the Rubio campaign adopted as its slogan "A New American Century"-counting on no columnist or newscaster to remember the name of the defunct Kristol-Kagan invasion factory. Rubio has been similarly blunt in his hawkish statements throughout the Republican debates.

    Conservative realists as well as libertarians are apt to be dismayed by Rand Paul's fifth-place finish in Iowa, ahead of Bush by roughly two points but behind Ben Carson by nearly five. Ron Paul had finished third in 2012, with 21 percent of the vote compared to his son's 4.5 percent this year. But anything short of the nomination is only worthwhile as a learning experience and as an opportunity for further organization, and in that regard Paul's well-wishers need not be discouraged. Though the Republican Party has reverted to a hawkish disposition since 2013, there is still a better-organized counter-neocon faction in the party today than there was in 2003, when the Iraq War began, or even 2006, when Republicans paid the political price for the war. And it's notable that the top finishers in Iowa, Trump and Cruz, while being far from realists or libertarians, are almost equally far from being neoconservatives. The party's foreign-policy attitudes are more diverse today than they were even in 2012.

    Both libertarians and conservative realists got carried away by their own hopes in the five easy years between 2006 and 2013, when the domestic political climate and world events alike took a favorable turn for realism and made things maximally difficult for neoconservatives and hawks. Today things are hard for everyone-though the hawks and neoconservatives are fortunate in having an avatar like Rubio, whose youth, looks, and race make even those who should know better yearn to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    The danger is that libertarians and traditional conservatives will learn the wrong lesson now: the problem is not exactly that Rand Paul was not more like Ron Paul in his unbending libertarianism or more like Trump in his rabble-stiring populism. To be sure, Rand came off as sometimes tentative and embarrassed about his principles, and in trying to appeal to the hawkish evangelical right he only alienated his base while failing to win much new support. But while his father did better in 2012 and Trump did better still this year, neither of them had what it takes to actually win. The insurgent right is extraordinarily bad at politics and consistently mistakes raw enthusiasm for effective electoral power. Ron Paul couldn't leverage his third-place Iowa finish in 2012 the way Rubio's allies are set to capitalize on his third-place finish this year because the extra-political as well as political organization that Rubio commands dwarfs anything that the libertarian or populist right possesses, and the neoconservatives have been much more effective at devising narratives and message-frameworks that the mainstream media and the business class can support. Trump might get second place, Ron Paul might get third, yet both remain fringe figures to the opinion-forming classes.

    Rather than face this fact, too many true believers on the right prefer to retreat into fantasy-indulging in dreams of third parties or sudden popular uprisings or the triumph of disembodied ideas over mere flesh-and-blood politics. Yet better, more far-sighted organization in politics and the media is the only way to advance worldly change. The neoconservatives have understood this better than anyone.

    And so the neoconservatives have won the civil war for the Republican establishment, beating the semi-neocon Bushes and elevating their preferred candidate, Marco Rubio, to the role of establishment savior. The unified neoconservative-establishment bloc now waits for Trump and Cruz to bleed each other dry, before Rubio finishes off whoever remains-probably Cruz. Should all proceed according to plan, the fresh-faced establishment Republican champion then goes to face the haggard old champion of the Democratic establishment, Hillary Clinton, in November. Whoever wins, the cause of peace and limited government loses. Yet even then there will come a backlash, as always before, and next time perhaps an opposition will be better prepared.

    [Feb 05, 2016] A fiercer Democratic debate: Sanders and Clinton both put on defensive

    Notable quotes:
    "... To my American friends there is a new campaign taking off from Roots Action to #DumpDebbie as in Debbie Wasserman Schultz ..."
    "... The kind of foreign policy Hillary and the Republicans believe is sort of a warlord mentality of dominance and chest-thumping. ..."
    "... Bernie stepped aside on the email controversy for HRC but she went right back into it around the transcripts of her speeches to the banks. No one cares about what the Republicans think her emails but I think all Democrats and every person who goes to work each day want to see what she said to those banks! RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS ..."
    "... However, foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and like-minded people has led to the fact that Americans no longer feel safe even when they are at home, not to mention when they go abroad. ..."
    "... If this Wall Street poodle has support among democrats , who the hell are republicans? Go Bernie! ..."
    "... 4 Feb 2016 22:37 ..."
    "... We can't be pointing fingers at our dear friends the Saudis now can we? Deflect, deflect and deflect. Notwithstanding the fact that it has been the warmongering of the likes of Hilary Clinton that have have laid waste to Iraq, Libya and now Syria. ..."
    "... The Guardian commentators are a disgrace. The Guardian bemoans that shift in its readership yet fails to recognise the level of frustration that exists out here at how far this paper has fallen. ..."
    "... she's always gung-ho about military force but has nothing to say about reconstruction+rehabilitation efforts afterwards ..."
    "... Clinton's a corrupt insider, which is what it is, and the US voters understand that. She has all the relevant job experience to be president, the right connections to direct federal funding to, and some slogans or something. ..."
    "... That not a single Wall Street executive served a day in jail for the financial crisis is, in Sanders' words, "what is what power is about, that is what corruption is about, and that is what has to change in the United States of America." ..."
    "... Hillary lies/parrots/says anything that will get her through the moment...now she is a progressive ....hahaha...NOT.... ..."
    "... She quickly changed the topic when asked about the transcripts. ..."
    "... Of course he would. It doesn't matter if Hillary is more effective or whatever - the more effective, the worse. Why would I want a more effective dismantler of welfare? A more effective deregulator of Wall Street? A more effective pusher of what passes for free trade ? A more effective warmonger? The truth is, she is an incrementalist - she moves things incrementally in the wrong direction. ..."
    "... Hillary has a great sense of entitlement. She thinks she is royalty while Sanders is some commoner. ..."
    "... It can't be said too many times: If Clinton becomes president, she, like her husband and Obama before her, will carry water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus from day one of her presidency. ..."
    "... And--again just like her husband and Obama--she will occasionally punctuate her abject service to the exploiting class and its surveillance-state empire with sweet words justice and human rights--just enough of them to keep gullible liberals on her side. ..."
    "... Hillary still won't apologize for her foolish and ill considered support for the Iraq War. George W Bush was a President who never admitted he was wrong about anything, and Clinton is exactly the same way. If she becomes President and makes a foolish decision, she won't change course, she'll be like Bush, just doubling down over and over on bad decisions. ..."
    "... So NOW Clinton is saying she's a progressive, but in September of 2015 she was vehemently insisting she was a moderate. ..."
    "... The remnants of the Democratic Leadership Council were folded into the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation bought the archives of the DLC. Welfare reform , trade, charter schooling -- all of this is Clintonism. DLC embraced moderate as a word and slammed progressives and liberals for years. HRC can have it both ways in newspeak but the record is what the record is. She's no progressive. Progressives don't have 'Walmart Board of Directors' on their resume. ..."
    "... If this shameful spectacle isn't enough to finally nail the coffin on the democratic party in the minds of honest liberals and progressives then I don't know what will. ..."
    "... Hillary is a disease... and the corporate media is doing everything they can to spread her malicious agenda. ..."
    "... Clinton doesn't score many points on sincerity, in my opinion. ..."
    "... Chuck Todd asks Hillary Clinton whether she is willing to release the full transcripts of every one of her paid speeches. Her response: they're classified....upper upper class. ..."
    "... Mrs Clinton has and Ivy education, a Yale law degree, has been First Lady, a senator and secretary of state. Her fortune is estimated to be at least $30M, earned mostly from speaking fees paid by banks and other corporate interests. For her to claim that she is not a member of the establishment shows degrees of mendacity and arrogance that are truly rare. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Mohammerhead 4 Feb 2016 22:59

    Surely if more than half of American voters have more than half a brain they only have one choice; Sanders.
    Cruz the effing evangelist has threatened to carpet bomb part of the MIddle East until 'the sand glows'. Trump will be a non event.
    Clintons claim to fame is that she is the wife of Bill who was responsible for de-regulating the banking system to give the world the GFC. Bill was the laziest President the US has had, spending a good deal of his time playing golf or on the receiving end of extra marital head jobs.

    DogsLivesMatter 4 Feb 2016 22:58

    To my American friends there is a new campaign taking off from Roots Action to #DumpDebbie as in Debbie Wasserman Schultz
    http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=11885

    IanB52 -> nnedjo 4 Feb 2016 22:56

    The kind of foreign policy Hillary and the Republicans believe is sort of a warlord mentality of dominance and chest-thumping.

    Sam3456 4 Feb 2016 22:55

    Bernie stepped aside on the email controversy for HRC but she went right back into it around the transcripts of her speeches to the banks.
    No one cares about what the Republicans think her emails but I think all Democrats and every person who goes to work each day want to see what she said to those banks! RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS

    renardbleu -> nnedjo 4 Feb 2016 22:53

    Imagine how non-Americans feel. You know, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

    nnedjo 4 Feb 2016 22:48

    What is the purpose of foreign policy?
    In my opinion, foreign policy should ensure that when you go abroad you feel safe as if you're at home, and to be welcomed in any part of the world.

    However, foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and like-minded people has led to the fact that Americans no longer feel safe even when they are at home, not to mention when they go abroad.

    So, whoever thinks that this world has become too peaceful, he would certainly have to vote for Hillary to be the next president of the United States.:-)


    Gman13 4 Feb 2016 22:45

    If this Wall Street poodle has support among "democrats", who the hell are republicans? Go Bernie!

    IanB52 -> WarlockScott 4 Feb 2016 22:41

    Personally, I wish he'd just say "Fuck war. We're all humans, everyone is entitled to human rights, we're all in this together, and there is nothing noble about killing people, not the least collateral damage of children and non-combatants, or terrorizing populations on the other side of the world with drones, and stoking hatred against people who look different or speak another language than us. Humanity won't survive as long as we fetishize and glamorize killing people."

    That would satisfy me, rather than beating around the bush and saying that you'll crush Isis because you think that's what people want to hear. I'm a dreamer.


    renardbleu -> Christian Haesemeyer 4 Feb 2016 22:37

    That's the wrong question. Can Bernie win the presidency? Lovely, decent man though he is, the GOP clowns will have a field day spreading disinformation about the token "socialist" (if he's a socialist, UK's David Cameron would be a marijuana-smoking Leftie). Bernie would gift the presidency to whomever the GOP nominate and that's the real scary outcome.


    NotWithoutMyMonkey 4 Feb 2016 22:33

    Richard Wolff points believes that Sanders should've singled out Russia as the greatest threat because Ash Carter says so but lets Hilary pass with a mendacious howler that Iran is the greatest sponsor of terror (Shia Iran sponsoring Sunni extremism, oh really)?

    We can't be pointing fingers at our dear friends the Saudis now can we? Deflect, deflect and deflect. Notwithstanding the fact that it has been the warmongering of the likes of Hilary Clinton that have have laid waste to Iraq, Libya and now Syria.

    The Guardian commentators are a disgrace. The Guardian bemoans that shift in its readership yet fails to recognise the level of frustration that exists out here at how far this paper has fallen.

    WarlockScott -> CriticAtLarge 4 Feb 2016 22:36

    Bernie could hammer her hard on this, when she talks about Iran the problem is not her engaging with Iranians (she has) but that she always coaches it in incredibly hostile language. Like the first debate she was asked who are you most glad to have made enemies of and she answered "The Iranians" and the GOP. Also she's always gung-ho about military force but has nothing to say about reconstruction+rehabilitation efforts afterwards


    BaldwinP -> BlackAbbott 4 Feb 2016 22:31

    I would vote for Matt Taibbi just for coming up with the vampire squid description of Goldman Sachs, I'm not sure that that quote from Sanders is in the same class. Bashing the banks is easy, you do it, I do it. What is he actually going to do about it?

    Rumfoord 4 Feb 2016 22:31

    Clinton's a corrupt insider, which is what it is, and the US voters understand that. She has all the relevant job experience to be president, the right connections to direct federal funding to, and some slogans or something.

    Sanders is a populist calling his milquetoast 'socialist' agenda as some sort of leftist revolution.

    I'm a social democrat, and they're both rightists so far as I'm concerned.


    MyTakeOnIt 4 Feb 2016 22:30

    Foreign policy in the first four years of Obama's presidency has been a disaster. All the mess in the middle east is first due to the Bush 's Iraq invasion, and secondly regime change binge in the first term of Obama administration. Foreign policy, in the first term of Obama administration, by agreement, was given to Hillary in order for her not to challenged Obama in 2012. So Hillary voted for Iraq invasion, in addition to forcing bombing of Libya, among other disasters.


    BlackAbbott 4 Feb 2016 22:28

    Goldman Sachs was one of those companies whose illegal activity helped destroy our economy and ruin the lives of millions of Americans. This is what a rigged economy and a corrupt campaign finance system system and a broken justice system do."

    That not a single Wall Street executive served a day in jail for the financial crisis is, in Sanders' words, "what is what power is about, that is what corruption is about, and that is what has to change in the United States of America."

    I would almost (almost) become an American just to vote for this guy.


    Beowullf 4 Feb 2016 22:24

    Hillary lies/parrots/says anything that will get her through the moment...now she is a "progressive"....hahaha...NOT....

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/04/progressives-clinton-pledge-never-cut-social-security-now

    CriticAtLarge -> CorporalClegg 4 Feb 2016 22:23

    She quickly changed the topic when asked about the transcripts.

    Christian Haesemeyer -> sursiques 4 Feb 2016 22:19

    Of course he would. It doesn't matter if Hillary is more effective or whatever - the more effective, the worse. Why would I want a more effective dismantler of welfare? A more effective deregulator of Wall Street? A more effective pusher of what passes for "free trade"? A more effective warmonger? The truth is, she is an incrementalist - she moves things incrementally in the wrong direction.

    CriticAtLarge -> sursiques 4 Feb 2016 22:17

    Hillary has a great sense of entitlement. She thinks she is royalty while Sanders is some commoner. Hillary is tough as nails though. Sanders is too mild mannered. He will get chewed in a general.

    CorporalClegg 4 Feb 2016 22:16

    Wall street paid Hillary $675,000 for no other reason than they wanted to hear about her experiences in politics. Now, anyone who believes that should head straight to the rubber room. Please go straight there and do not vote.

    eastbayradical 4 Feb 2016 22:16

    It can't be said too many times: If Clinton becomes president, she, like her husband and Obama before her, will carry water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus from day one of her presidency.

    And--again just like her husband and Obama--she will occasionally punctuate her abject service to the exploiting class and its surveillance-state empire with sweet words justice and human rights--just enough of them to keep gullible liberals on her side.

    ID0020237 -> Marcedward 4 Feb 2016 22:13

    She was duped just like the rest of the 99% of Americans for supporting the war in Iraq. The propaganda machinery (media) worked overtime for the Neocons success. None of the reasons given to justify the war were ever proven to be real. Peace is apparently not a prime objective of American policies, just check our track record. Doesn't really matter which party gets in, the same misguided policies and government borrowing activities will probably prevail.

    PeregrineSlim 4 Feb 2016 22:12

    What about the following question:

    Do you support the current Turkish-Saudi plans for a joint war in Syria?

    seneca32 4 Feb 2016 22:09

    I don't think Obama named her Sec. of State because of her judgment -- I think he did it to neutralize her and the Clinton gang.

    WarlockScott 4 Feb 2016 22:09

    Bernie do more debate-prep and if you do know this, HIT HER ON THIS

    Many of those FP "experts" that criticised your foreign policy on Clinton's behalf had multiple links to the Defence lobby

    JoePomegranate 4 Feb 2016 22:05

    Sanders' integrity and commitment to a happy-clappy issues-only campaign is counter-productive. He could have buried Clinton in this debate already if he would only go for the jugular.

    Marcedward 4 Feb 2016 22:01

    Hillary still won't apologize for her foolish and ill considered support for the Iraq War. George W Bush was a President who never admitted he was wrong about anything, and Clinton is exactly the same way. If she becomes President and makes a foolish decision, she won't change course, she'll be like Bush, just doubling down over and over on bad decisions.

    Marcedward 4 Feb 2016 21:56

    So NOW Clinton is saying she's a progressive, but in September of 2015 she was vehemently insisting she was a moderate.
    Question:
    Was they lying then, or is she lying now, or is she simply a habitual liar?

    If Hillary gets the nomination, the Republicans will use her own words against her
    FLIP FLOP
    FLIP FLOP
    Just like they did with John Kerry.

    Joseph Musco 4 Feb 2016 21:55

    The remnants of the Democratic Leadership Council were folded into the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation bought the archives of the DLC. "Welfare reform", trade, charter schooling -- all of this is Clintonism. DLC embraced moderate as a word and slammed progressives and liberals for years. HRC can have it both ways in newspeak but the record is what the record is. She's no progressive. Progressives don't have 'Walmart Board of Directors' on their resume.

    JuliusSqueezer 4 Feb 2016 21:52

    If this shameful spectacle isn't enough to finally nail the coffin on the democratic party in the minds of honest liberals and progressives then I don't know what will. I'm an anarchist though.... and just laugh along till both parties are dead.... but still this is very sad to me. Hillary is a disease... and the corporate media is doing everything they can to spread her malicious agenda.

    Jezreel2 -> wisedup 4 Feb 2016 21:50

    I agree. They should. But today, Playboy magazine published an article in which Rachel Maddow is quoted saying she finds it "hard to believe" that Sanders can win the Democratic nomination. And Chuck Todd, wouldn't even poll Sanders standing against Republicans in the general election because the narrative on MSNBC and NBC was focused on the inevitability of Clinton winning the nomination.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/new-hampshire-primary-2016-live-updates/2016/02/rachel-maddow-bernie-sanders-2016-218778?lo=ap_b1

    TyroneBHorneigh 4 Feb 2016 21:50

    Clinton doesn't score many points on sincerity, in my opinion.

    bloggod 4 Feb 2016 21:51

    Chuck Todd asks Hillary Clinton whether she is willing to release the full transcripts of every one of her paid speeches. Her response: they're classified....upper upper class.


    Christian Haesemeyer 4 Feb 2016 21:44

    Well I'm sure Clinton isn't lying when she says she has never changed a position because of donations. I just fail to see how that's a good thing - she has always supported policies favouring Wall Street, ever since Bill and her and the gang set out to transform the Democratic Party into the party of big money.

    mrmetrowest 4 Feb 2016 21:38

    Mrs Clinton has and Ivy education, a Yale law degree, has been First Lady, a senator and secretary of state. Her fortune is estimated to be at least $30M, earned mostly from speaking fees paid by banks and other corporate interests. For her to claim that she is not a member of the establishment shows degrees of mendacity and arrogance that are truly rare.

    [Feb 04, 2016] Did Cruz Steal Iowa Trump, Carson Slam Dirty... Disgraceful Tricks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump called Cruz dirty, adding what he did to Ben Carson was a disgrace. ..."
    "... Sorry Donald, you lost Iowa because youre NOT a religious nutjob...Iowa is 24% White Evangelical Protestants (WEPS) and theyre all Republicans...Cruz won because he ran around praising God and quoting Jesus...normally, thats not enough to win..but it gets you at least 2nd or 3rd in Iowa..but the televangelist ACT handed Cruz the prize because of so many names to choose from... ..."
    "... When it comes to picking the Republican nominee, Iowa is an embarrassing joke ..."
    "... Cruz is a Goldman Sachs plant and NWO stooge. Not to mention being another political dirtball from Texas (like the Bushs, LBJ, Phil Gramm, Tom Delay, etc...) ..."
    "... crooz is the goldman saks and cfr canditate -- shocker that he won the non election in iowa ..."
    "... Goldmans got both sides covered- Cruz and HiLiary. Makes satan look like a piker. ..."
    "... My guess is that The Donald is reasonably strait on his positions, etc. (Relatively). ..."
    "... My guess is that Ted is a shill, playing outside rebel against the system, financed by GS et al, and would wind up with Total Establishment Policies. Might as well be led by Hillary, Rubio, et al. ..."
    "... Remember how Ron Paul was always portrayed? How his supporters were portrayed? (Crazy old man, Constitutional purist that doesnt understand modern life, Id vote for him but I know we need things like, roads. etc.) Thats whats coming for Trump and Sanders. ..."
    "... In a nutshell, the entire hope is that Trump, or someone like him, can somehow wake the public up and make us all look under the covers. For all those who say that Trump, or even Sanders, would be unable to do anything if elected, I say bullshit. The President has the biggest soapbox in the world. Unfortunately, it has been used to keep us all in line and headed in a direction that benefits only a small percentage of us. ..."
    "... We apparently have a lot of dummies here at the Hedge who only follow the MSM bullshit narrative. Typical Murikan zombies who cant drill down moar than a half inch. ..."
    "... So Ted is running on thousands of small donations from true believers ??? I think not. He is owned by big money. And Goldman is one of them. Youre doing a shitty job as Goldmans apologist. ..."
    "... I live down here in Houston where Tedlevangelists headquarters are. Many of his top advisors are Bush neocons. ..."
    "... . There is no fuckan way Cruz polled that high and Trump dropped 14 points in a week. ..."
    "... Iowa voters like to lie to poll takers. It gives them a sense of being in control of SOMETHING!. (And to them its funny as hell... I mean this is IOWA were talking about here. Humor is in tight supply!) ..."
    "... polls and votes are two entirely different things. Its bad to confuse the two. The people that are asked questions before the elections are the polled. the people who VOTE in the elections are the deciders (allowing for instant recounts in the back seat of the car on the way to the counting room.) ..."
    "... Repub party establishment is starting to get desperate. Or its all part of the plan. No real middle ground here. ..."
    "... Why should the Repubs be in any panic greater than the Dems is the kind of thing a troll would post. The Dems, a Socialist against a known liar, thief and murderder. Seriously? ..."
    "... Exactly. I think this is a great thing. Cruz has peaked...in Iowa, lol. Hes done ..."
    "... Lets hope Trump has some good bodyguards. Cheating is a sacred right of the Elite. ..."
    "... Cruz later apologized ... and thus admitted to the act. In a reasonable world, that would be the end of his campaign as well as his career and his public life. ..."
    "... I was attracted to Trumps angry outbursts just as I would cheer anyone pounding on the DC crowd, but Ive come to believe he is playing a role and his anger is staged to appeal to the masses....and its working so you cant fault him for that. ..."
    "... Cruz won Iowa for about a day LOL. All we need now is Jimmy Carters grandson and the hidden camera revealing that Goldman Sachs employees found stack of mailers in their breakrooms with instructions to place mail labels on them. ..."
    "... Based on the prior polls, the result was not legit. Cruz barely broke 20% on his best day. Shows up with 28%? Rubio polled in the low teens. 23% a day later? ..."
    "... Trump polled *consistently* at (just the numbers from a wide variety of sources, MSM, and off beat sources) at ~25%. Sure enough, DT get his 25%, but Cruz and Rubio blow up by 10% apiece. I would call that either luck, or a statistical anomaly. ..."
    "... What was reported, fwiw, is that there was a substantial, massive influx of new republican registration. Further, the democrats have officially shown only 1400 votes cast total through the entire state. There was likely more, but party policy is *not* to report the #s of voters. ..."
    "... Fact finding: As far as I know, voter registration is a *matter of public record*. If I were Trump, I would request the voter registration records of all the people for both parties that turned in a ballot. Then, I would request voter registration records in the last 5 years. Then, I would compare the *party affiliation* of each *present* voter with the most recent prior registration. ..."
    "... Mark Twain once said...... If voting meant anything, then we would not be allowed to do it .... ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Donald Trump was surprised at how well Ted Cruz did in Iowa...

    Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

    It appears he has a reason to be...

    During primetime of the Iowa Caucus, Cruz put out a release that @RealBenCarson was quitting the race, and to caucus (or vote) for Cruz.

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

    Many people voted for Cruz over Carson because of this Cruz fraud. Also, Cruz sent out a VOTER VIOLATION certificate to thousands of voters.

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

    As The Hill reports , Donald Trump is accusing Republican presidential rival Ted Cruz of committing fraud ahead of Monday night's Iowa caucuses, and he is calling for a "new election."

    "Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified," Trump tweeted on Wednesday.

    Cruz came under fire in the days leading up to the Iowa caucuses for distributing a misleading mailer that attempted to shame recipients into turning out to vote for the Texas senator .

    Following his decisive win over the GOP field, Cruz was accused by fellow presidential candidate Ben Carson of spreading a false rumor that Carson was dropping out of the race in order to sabotage the retired neurosurgeon's campaign .

    Cruz later apologized ... and thus admitted to the act.

    At his first post-Iowa rally in Milford, N.H., Trump called Cruz "dirty," adding "what he did to Ben Carson was a disgrace."

    Finally, with a huge 24 point lead over Cruz heading into New Hampshire , one wonder what "tricks" Ted will pull out of his bag this time...

    J S Bach

    It's not Cruz... it's his monied-handlers that pull the strings. Hillary, Ted, Rand, Marco... they're just soulless puppets. When the "tricks" occur and the Diebold machines begin to sputter again, blame TPTB, not they're useful idiots.

    Miss Expectations

    PROOF THAT some of Winston Churchill's most famous radio speeches of the war were delivered by a stand-in has emerged with the discovery of a 78rpm record.

    The revelation ends years of controversy over claims - repeatedly denied - that an actor had been officially asked to impersonate the Prime Minister on air.

    The record makes it clear for the first time that Norman Shelley's voice was used to broadcast some of the most important words in modern British history - including 'We shall fight them on the beaches'. It is marked 'BBC, Churchill: Speech. Artist Norman Shelley' and stamped 'September 7, 1942'.

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/oct/29/uknews.theobserver

    Volkodav

    Churchill was a war criminal

    FireBrander

    Sorry Donald, you lost Iowa because you're NOT a religious nutjob...Iowa is 24% White Evangelical Protestants (WEPS) and they're all Republicans...Cruz won because he ran around praising God and quoting Jesus...normally, that's not enough to win..but it gets you at least 2nd or 3rd in Iowa..but the televangelist ACT handed Cruz the prize because of so many names to choose from...

    You know it Donald, you even courted the WEPS until it was obvious you weren't crazy enough for them...lol...turned out Carson was TOO Crazy for them...that's pathetic.

    Look at the people standing behind Cruz while he gives his victory speech; they're the "who's who" of religious nutjobs in Iowa.

    "Donald Trump loses Iowa to Ted Cruz and his evangelical "prayer team""

    "As Quartz's Tim Fernholz reported in December , winning Iowa was always going to be difficult for Trump, given that deeply religious protestant Christans make up 56% of the state's voters, and a much higher percentage of Republican caucus-goers:"

    http://qz.com/607640/donald-trump-loses-iowa-to-ted-cruz-and-his-evangel...

    When it comes to picking the Republican nominee, Iowa is an embarrassing joke

    BorisTheBlade

    Whatever. You got to hand it to him, he won't let it go and unlike most "contenders" in Democratic camp won't let go of his claim over the title. Sanders is ok, but geriatric more than Hillary and that's his main value to her. Trump maybe an asshole and I guess he wouldn't even object to that, but al least he puts up some fight even seemingly after the fight. The battle is lost, but the war still continues. I like him being there even only for the fact he keeps it entertaining and that's even considering I understand mainstream politics are little more than a shit show.

    FireBrander

    I think Hillary's "win" in Iowa was actually damaging...Bernie supporters, DEMOCRATS, feel cheated...and they didn't really like Hillary to begin with...it will definately dampen turn-out come election day.

    I have a feeling, that when Bernie finally gives up, Hillary will have spent a FORTUNE taking him down...and even more important, will have a HUGE pile of disgruntled DEMOCRATS she'll need to win over...she's going to spend a LOT of time and money just securing that ~35% of the vote that is Democrat..then she has to bring in the Independents...I still say this election is for the Republicans to lose...

    11b40

    Maybe for the 'right' Republican to lose. If the nominee were Cruz, for example, Dems would turn out in droves to vote against him, and his chances for Independent voters would be slim.

    Supernova Born

    Does this man look like a crooked slimeball?

    Cruz with his young daughter.

    https://twitter.com/VaraBBC/status/693833111583350784/video/1

    t0mmyBerg

    Wow that was a horrifying piece. Cruz strikes me as Nixonian. Brilliant in his way but something dark underneath.

    Jeez, it's hard to believe--Cruz doesn't look like a crooked slimeball . . .

    Bay of Pigs

    Cruz is a Goldman Sachs plant and NWO stooge. Not to mention being another political dirtball from Texas (like the Bush's, LBJ, Phil Gramm, Tom Delay, etc...)

    Fuck him and his Squid wife and kids.

    cheka

    crooz is the goldman saks and cfr canditate -- shocker that he 'won' the non election in iowa

    Freddie

    The GOP-e plan now is to run Rubio and Cruz to steal it from Trump. Rubio and Cruz are CFR, billionaire, PNAC, AIPAC toadies.

    Elections are fake but the GOP-e and Dems do not want Trump.

    In the end, the GOP-e will kneecap Cruz and Rubio will be Jeb II.

    Voting is pointless but if it came down to Rubio and Bernie - I might actually for the bigger communist and not baby Fidel.

    cheka

    crooz and rubio voters are same -- and will readily back whichever one is announced as the leader by nyc

    CRUBIO voters = neocon dolts

    Ignatius

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-p...

    http://www.heritage.org/constitution/# !/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility

    Kayman

    "Cruz doesn't look like a crooked slimeball . . ."

    Now THAT was funny.

    Goldman's got both sides covered- Cruz and HiLiary. Makes satan look like a piker.

    cheka

    vote fraud likely too -

    when looking at the numbers it's most useful to combine cruz and rubio -- those voters are same neocon dolts - and will readily jump from one to the other

    i coined a new phrase for them -- CRUBIO voters

    nofluer

    Isn't Cruz's spouse on leave from her position as a high level exec for the Vampire Squid? Looks pretty slimy to me!

    buyingsterling

    Cruz's eligibility issue isn't going anywhere because it's STRATEGIC GOLD. I'm borderline retarded and I have at least 17 unanswered questions about it.

    The 'established law' answer is ALL Cruz has, and it's a lie. In any case, Alan Grayson doesn't care what Cruz thinks, he'll sue, and if the DNC gets desperate they will sue and have standing. Cruz is a selfish, power-hungry POS to put his party in position to lose because he prefers the presidency over the Prime-Ministership (for which he DID qualify, until 15 months ago, when he finally renounced his Canadian citizenship - which he claims he didn't know about (lie #X of X to the tenth power).

    He legally changed his name from 'Rafael' to 'Ted' when he was 13. He's had his eye on power for over 30 years.

    blindfaith

    On NPR today, it was said that just under 50,000 out of 6 million voted. So how did Teddy get 51,666. There is that 666 ting again.

    Remember the more they say God in their speaches the less you can trust them. He said " thank God I won"...really, and " God was on my side" really?

    If God had ANYTHING to do with politics, none of these creeps would have a chance and the world would not be in the mess it is in and run by the criminals. That is the truth.

    cheka

    this was a caucus - the great majority got no vote

    BarkingCat

    Unlike Dr. Paul, Trump will not take being cheated quietly.

    That is the major reason why people are behind him.

    He will come at them like a raging bull.

    These guys are really dumb. They have tried their usual political tricks on him and nothing has worked. Yet they continue with their tired and and worn out playbook.

    Trump made a promise not to run as independent...... however if they screw with him like this then he will be under no obligation to keep that promise.

    True Blue

    Gresham's Law as applied to politics.

    Bad politicians drive good politicians out of circulation.

    dogster

    Rand was hardly a good candidate. Never spoke of 9/11 investigation for fear of being called a conspiracy theorist. Too timid to be a leader,

    True Blue

    Two problems with Rand.

    1) He's NOT his father, by a wide margin. The apple fell too far from the tree.

    2) Political dynasties should be resisted on principal if nothing else; and he has proven the lack of character necessary to violate that axiom.

    TuPhat

    Look at where Ted's money comes from and you will say he is owned.

    knukles

    My guess is that The Donald is reasonably strait on his positions, etc. (Relatively).

    My guess is that Ted is a shill, playing outside rebel against the system, financed by GS et al, and would wind up with Total Establishment Policies. Might as well be led by Hillary, Rubio, et al.

    And that doesn't even get into interactions amongst El Presidente (or Presidentette) with the Deep State, etc.

    Countrybunkererd

    I don't think the establishment L/R politicos understand how unbelievably pissed off and angry the people are. If voter fraud starts popping up it won't go well no matter who they plant in the shit house.

    Countrybunkererd

    It probably doesn't matter, as well, who the people want in the same shit house. The times ahead are going to be difficult and painful for most people and all in the middle class of the Peoples Republic of the United States.

    KCMLO

    I think they understand exactly how pissed off the people are. That's why you're seeing Trump and Sanders. They're the release valve. The most angry can caucus for them, rally for them, beat the street for votes for them, but they certainly won't be allowed to win. I honestly still think Trump is a plant for Clinton, he's just too cartoonish awful to be a real candidate. Even if he makes it to the general she's going to stomp him a new mudhole, and I think that's by design.

    In the coming months each of the "mavericks" are going to be portrayed as more and more insane in the media. Their followers insane by proxy. Those that are the most angry aren't consolable so they're a lost cause, those closer to the middle will see the insanity of the fringe and stop identifying with them because they look just too fucking out there to stay with any longer. The idea being that the public gets to express their anger... in the primaries, but by the time the general election rolls around, you'll be back to your two standard choices again: a douche and a shit sandwich.

    Publicus_Reanimated

    No, sweetie, you are mistaken. Hillary stomps nobody a mudhole in the general. She is an opportunist, not a leader, and her followers are opportunists as well who will drop her like a hot potato if they think her coattails are short.

    Did you see the Iowa turnout? Blew out the old record on the GOP side, off by one-third on the Dem side. Any questions?

    KCMLO

    Remember how Ron Paul was always portrayed? How his supporters were portrayed? (Crazy old man, Constitutional purist that doesn't understand modern life, "I'd vote for him but I know we need things like, roads." etc.) That's what's coming for Trump and Sanders.

    11b40

    In a nutshell, the entire hope is that Trump, or someone like him, can somehow wake the public up and make us all look under the covers. For all those who say that Trump, or even Sanders, would be unable to do anything if elected, I say bullshit. The President has the biggest soapbox in the world. Unfortunately, it has been used to keep us all in line and headed in a direction that benefits only a small percentage of us.

    Just imagine Trump as President and focused on an issue he wanted changed or passed. It crosses some powerful interest group, they crank up their lobbyists, and Congress balks. Does Trump roll over and give up? Of course not. The next day, he is on TV telling the public exactly who is obstructing his plans and who they have been bought off by. He also picks up the phone and calls key opposition members of Congress to let them know that if they don't get their asses in line he will personally be in their States or districts looking for their replacements for the next election cycle. He would name names and kick ass all in broad daylight. The press could try to stop him, but it would be impossible. He is better at it than they are, and can MAKE the spotlight shine where he wants it.

    Sunshine is the greatest disinfectant, and the fear of the status quo is that anyone not beholden to the shadows get control and pull back the curtains. A true reformer could capture the public's attention and bring about real change, but it will never happen as long as we keep electing insider politicians dependent on their wealthy sponsors.

    Remember - a special interest is by definition something that is against the general interests.

    nofluer

    lobbyists?

    How about a big word for yaz...

    Delusional.

    The only way for a President to run roughshod over the rest of the govt is if the rest of the govt decides to let them do what they want to do... like look at Obummer, for instance. If the congress and the supreme court didn't want Obummer to bankrupt the USA, there would be a quick squeal of brakes on the govt checkbook.

    As for the pubic interest... is this what ZHers refer to as the "free shit army? Yeah... they're going to get upset at the paper money flying around in the wind and settling on their hand.

    A Lunatic

    Yep, a closet Globalist through and through.....

    City_Of_Champyinz

    "financed by GS".

    Give me a break, he took out a godamn margin loan against his stock portfolio. Are you saying any candidate that takes out a simple loan from a bank is now disqualified? Candidates take out loans to finance campaigns all the time. This is just getting incredibly stupid.

    gimme soma dat

    His wife works for GS, Chimpy.

    Bay of Pigs

    We apparently have a lot of dummies here at the Hedge who only follow the MSM bullshit narrative. Typical Murikan zombies who cant drill down moar than a half inch.

    City_Of_Champyinz

    So please explain how Goldman Sachs is financing the campaign. Other than the SMALL loans, are they paying for anything directly? Nope, they are not.

    So in your mind, GS is financing the Cruz campaign via his wife's salary, which is PEANUTS compared to how much money he has raised from donors & how much cash it takes to run these days.

    Absolutely hilarious.

    Kayman

    City Chimp

    So Ted is running on thousands of small donations from true believers ??? I think not. He is owned by big money. And Goldman is one of them. You're doing a shitty job as Goldman's apologist.

    City_Of_Champyinz

    LOL I am nobody's apologist your ignorant fuck. The very simple fact is that GS is not funding his campaign. You are either an outright moron, or just another delusional sycophantic Trump supporter.

    And Mrs. Cruz has been on an unpaid leave of absence from GS for almost a full year at this point dumb ass. If he wins she will not be going back.

    countryboy42

    Guess you missed this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-01/even-goldman-has-bailed-bush

    Rancho Texican

    I live down here in Houston where Tedlevangelist's headquarters are. Many of his top advisors are Bush neocons.

    Trump 2016!

    Bay of Pigs

    Maybe take your head out of your ass. There is no fuckan way Cruz polled that high and Trump dropped 14 points in a week.

    Callz d Ballz

    You might want to check out "polling data" for the last few IA races. It's all there, you just have to look for yourself.

    nofluer

    two quick points...

    1. Iowa "voters" like to lie to poll takers. It gives them a sense of being in control of SOMETHING!. (And to them it's funny as hell... I mean this is IOWA we're talking about here. Humor is in tight supply!)

    2. polls and votes are two entirely different things. It's bad to confuse the two. The people that are asked questions before the elections are the polled. the people who VOTE in the elections are the "deciders" (allowing for "instant recounts" in the back seat of the car on the way to the counting room.)

    Mark Mywords

    Now come on! Ted the Mountie is a sincere, God-fearing Christian! He would NEVER do anything so vile and heinous. Pure and clean as the wind-driven snow, he is.

    Unless...nah!

    centerline

    Repub party establishment is starting to get desperate. Or it's all part of the "plan." No real middle ground here.

    Baa baa

    Why should the Repubs be in any panic greater than the Dems is the kind of thing a troll would post. The Dems, a Socialist against a known liar, thief and murderder. Seriously?

    How devoid of information you must be... Oh, you're a troll

    centerline

    The subject at hand was the R's. Geeze. Switch to decaf.

    Yeah, the Dems are a massive joke. Completely with you there. A socialist and criminal. Sad state of affairs. But, the Dems are ramming them home, aren't they? As opposed to what "appears" like chaos on the Repub side. That says something interesting in itself.

    NuYawkFrankie

    As soon as I laid eyes on Cruz, I thought " What a sleazy-looking grease-ball "

    My gut-instinct was, as usual, 101% correct.

    Bastiat

    Funny, I made a very similar post above at the same time. Cheers.

    NuYawkFrankie

    ;)

    Bob

    Great minds! My dentist finished my sentence about Cruz for me yesterday in those exact same words . . .

    Free bonus was when I told him between teeth that the gun I was most interested in was the NAA five shot .22 magnum revolver; he paused, left the room for a second and returned with a "you mean this?" before pressing it into my palm with a "careful, it's loaded." Lovely little weapon.

    One of my better dental check-ups for sure.

    Cruz's Campaign manager was on Bloomberg last night and, though better looking, it's remarkable how similar his face and hair is, and it's jarringly eerie how similar his expressions and mannerisms are. Dressed in black with blood-red trim . . . I swear to God, if I'd put everything I had into creating a character to represent Lucifer himself I couldn't have done better. Scary shit.

    NuYawkFrankie

    re My dentist finished my sentence about Cruz for me yesterday in those exact same words . . .

    Helllooo..... I AM YOUR DENTIST!!!

    ( LOL!!! ;)

    NuYawkFrankie

    And Mrs Cruz's work address is The Squid .

    It figures...

    Dicey

    So much for Cruz and his deep religious convictions, and so much for those in Iowa that fell for it.

    indaknow

    Exactly. I think this is a great thing. Cruz has peaked...in Iowa, lol. He's done

    Wed, 02/03/2016 - 13:25 | 7135682 Yen Cross

    Cruz is a fucking dirtbag.

    knukles

    Come on Yen. Give us your deepest thoughts. We know you need to share.

    EndlessSummer

    Is this really the best America has to offer ?

    knukles

    No. The best wouldn't touch the political arena with another's 10 foot pole

    LawsofPhysics

    LOL!!! Theft and FRAUD is in fact the status quo !!!!!!!

    What is Trump's point? Fuck em.

    semperfi

    don't forget treason

    BeerMe

    Cruz seems like the type. He showed where he stands by not showing up for the Fed vote.

    This is just Trump trying to get Carson voters after Carson drops.

    swamp

    Ted CRUZ TOTAL VOTES =

    51,666

    NWO stamp in our face

    Bill GATES' software counted the votes.

    IOWA TOTAL FOR ILLEGAL ALIEN ANCHOR BABY GOLDMAN SUCKS PUPPET CANADIAN CITIZEN CRUZ = 51,666

    666

    fatlibertarian

    I was just telling my brother that, on paper Cruz should be my guy, but then I see him and he opens his mouth and I just did not like him.

    Guess I was picking up on his slimbaggery.

    Wed, 02/03/2016 - 13:32 | 7135734 Salzburg1756

    You Canadians are all alike!

    This means war!

    Wed, 02/03/2016 - 14:02 | 7135903 cheech_wizard

    54-40 or fight, bitchez!

    Standard Disclaimer: For outspending the next 25 countries in terms of the military, the US sucks at "EMPIRE". Like sucks donkey balls.

    Make me fucking god emperor of this country, and the Mexicans would be living in South America, and I'd ship the Canadians back to England. Now that's how you run a god-damned empire. And that's just in the first month.

    Now if you don't mind I need to thank God, praise the Lord, and quote some scripture to you... and it's on to New Hampshire for me...

    Sincerely,

    Ted Cruz

    Baa baa

    Any questions about who the Establishment's boy is now???

    Infinite QE

    His daughter knows who Cruz is and what he is. Most likely another political pedophile.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feALLLFdj7Y

    Global Hunter

    That is very disturbing. I really feel for that girl.

    Infinite QE

    Yeah, what's up with that hand signal she is flashing? Bizarro.

    Global Hunter

    Trying to force him away in a non violent way because she is worried about him getting mad. Too scared of him to slap him so she is flicking him away. She is trying to defend herself but in a way that she is hoping he will realize and stop hurting her or making her uncomfortable.

    That is what it looked like to me. I could be off, but they are very dysfunctional family for sure.

    replaceme

    I heard Rubio was the one spreading that Carson was 'heading home to FLA for some R&R...prayer breakfast in DC...' Not sure it's time to dogpile Cruz yet. I'm sure that time is close, but Marco may have had a hand here - he certainly had something to gain from the Carson votes.

    yogafan

    Don't matter. Americans are fuked no matter who wins the elections.

    Atomizer

    Ring, ring

    Hello Jeb

    Mom, what should I do?

    Honey, I already went public.

    Barbara Bush On Jeb Running For President: 'We ...

    california chrome

    Cruz didn't steal Iowa - MS did!

    papaswamp

    Pretty sure CNN and Rubio camp released the info first. Trump is mad because the voters didn't go to him but went to Cruz and Rubio.

    pine_marten

    Yep, neither Crusty or the Hilda beast won. It was Sanders and Trump.

    lakecity55

    Cruiser is just another slimy, gooey, tentacle of THE SQUID tm --

    o r c k

    Let's hope Trump has some good bodyguards. Cheating is a sacred right of the Elite.

    the grateful un...

    cruz isnt elite, if it was bush then you have a point

    Totentänzerlied

    " Cruz later apologized ... and thus admitted to the act." In a reasonable world, that would be the end of his campaign as well as his career and his public life.

    thinkmoretalkless

    I was attracted to Trump's angry outbursts just as I would cheer anyone pounding on the DC crowd, but I've come to believe he is playing a role and his anger is staged to appeal to the masses....and it's working so you can't fault him for that.

    When I saw Trump and his family on stage after the caucuses Monday night it looked like a curtain call for Housewives of Manhattan. And what's with the Gordon Gecko hair cuts....seem kinda dated or are they back. Anyway Matt Damon ain't Jason Bourne and Trump ain't Howard Beale in the film "Network".

    directaction

    Cruz is a Five Star Dirtbag.
    I'd love to see Carson soundly defeat Cruz from now on.

    JamaicaJim

    Jesus Fucking CHRIST!

    ALL thse motherfuckers are dirty as dog shit.

    Every single damn last one of them.

    It is a pain to even post shit on here, "commenting" on this collection of slime and shit.

    Kabuki Theater.

    Fucking ABSURD

    PS ; You Iowa shitheads that voted for Cuntlary Cankles Clinton - especially if you're a woman, and voted for her simply because "she's a woman"

    FUCK YOU

    Sanity Bear

    Kind of feeling that with Rand out, rooting for Trump to bring down the pillars Samson-like is the only thing left to hold my interest.

    inosent

    "PS ; You Iowa shitheads that voted for Cuntlary Cankles Clinton - especially if you're a woman, and voted for her simply because "she's a woman"

    FUCK YOU"

    haha, yeah, seriously

    Heroic Couplet

    Cruz won Iowa for about a day LOL. All we need now is Jimmy Carter's grandson and the hidden camera revealing that Goldman Sachs employees found stack of mailers in their breakrooms with instructions to place mail labels on them.

    11b40

    So a rigged election proces doesn't matter? I'm sure Trump appreciates your advice to quit & give up. What could he be thinking to focus on such a trivial issue?

    Actually, what I think Trump is about to do is nail Cruz's sleezy ass to the wall, and make him slink back to the rock he crawled out from under.

    Arthur Schopenhauer

    What's the big deal? This was on television YESTERDAY MORNING.

    I guess since Trump says it... now it must true?

    Dr. Ben Carson slams Ted Cruz's Iowa victory

    22winmag

    It's like the 1824 election, on crack.

    Jstanley011

    I sure hope The Donald wins the election. Yeah he may be the US's answer to Hitler/Stalin/Your-Favorite-Tyrant, but dang. Talk about something fun to watch on TV! If he proves too much for too many lowly Republi-can't school marms and has to drop out, going back the the boring same-old-same-old of the last seven election cycles is going to be a real let down.

    And think of having this much fun through an entire presidency! TRUMP 2016!!!

    V for ...

    Cynical bitch.

    NoWayJose

    Cruz has been lying about the positions of the other candidates, and as Trump said - he's a mean guy who lies. Let's see if he still thumps a bible after fooling the Iowa voters.

    James TraffiCan't

    Message to Trump and Carson...."Are you really surprised!"

    Fucking Political Establishment! Dirt Bags!

    Beam me up!

    inosent

    Based on the prior polls, the result was not legit. Cruz barely broke 20% on his best day. Shows up with 28%? Rubio polled in the low teens. 23% a day later?

    Trump polled *consistently* at (just the numbers from a wide variety of sources, MSM, and off beat sources) at ~25%. Sure enough, DT get his 25%, but Cruz and Rubio blow up by 10% apiece. I would call that either luck, or a statistical anomaly.

    What was reported, fwiw, is that there was a substantial, massive influx of new republican registration. Further, the democrats have officially shown only 1400 votes cast total through the entire state. There was likely more, but 'party policy' is *not* to report the #s of voters.

    Theory: A lot of Democrats registered as Republican and voted for the candidates they thought had the best chance to beat Trump.

    Fact finding: As far as I know, voter registration is a *matter of public record*. If I were Trump, I would request the voter registration records of all the people for both parties that turned in a ballot. Then, I would request voter registration records in the last 5 years. Then, I would compare the *party affiliation* of each *present* voter with the most recent prior registration.

    What this analysis will show is how many formerly registered democrats switched to republican for this IA caucus. Further, it would also show how many first time registrations with no prior history in the state. For first time registrations, the thing to focus on is *how long has that person been living in the state*.

    I suspect that once the data is analyzed, it will show a considerable number of democrats registered as republicans, and people came into the state to do the same thing, to cast a 'vote' for either Cruz or Rubio.

    One might argue, for something like this to happen on a large scale would require a lot of organization. But that isn't necessarily true. All it would have taken is to float the idea, and as the democrats consider their primary to be pointless (hillary the guaranteed nominee), a far better use of their 'vote' is to game the system, register as republican, and vote for anybody else to do their part to get rid of Trump.

    This is what Trump should be doing. He has $10BB. If he starts the legal process to get the data, I would be happy to analyze it, and publish the results.

    This is an objective, factual measure. Whether or not Cruz 'stole' the vote because Cruz said Carson dropped out is highly speculative. Let's say Carson did drop out. Could they not have just as easily have voted for Trump?

    I think DT has the right idea, but he is barking up the wrong tree. I strongly think Cruz 'won' via fraud, but not the type Trump is saying.

    surf@jm

    Mark Twain once said......"If voting meant anything, then we would not be allowed to do it"....

    [Feb 04, 2016] Pitchfork Time Elites Have Lost Their Healthy Fear Of The Masses

    An interesting, but not a deep, discussion about the possibility of uprising against the neoliberal elite in the current circumstances...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet? ..."
    "... With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of wealth and power. ..."
    "... will goldman sucks n shitty bank loan me money to purchase a pitchfork? http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/03/update-fec-informs-ted-cr... ..."
    "... It really doesn't matter what *ism society embraces. What matters more is is the power elite greedy enough to sell out their own kind? ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    The following reader comment, posted originally in the FT is a must read, both for the world's lower and endangered middle classes but especially the members of the 1% elite because what may be coming next could be very unpleasant for them.

    Elites have lost their healthy fear of the masses

    Sir, Martin Wolf (" The losers are in revolt against the elite ", Comment, January 27) and Andrew Cichocki ("Elites are listening to the wrong people ", Letters, January 29) skirt the key issue: global elites have lost a healthy sense of fear.

    From the time of the French Revolution until the collapse of communism, what successive generations of elites had in common was a sense of fear of what the aggrieved masses might do . In the first half of the 19th century they worried about a new Jacobin Terror, then they worried about socialist revolution on the model of the Paris Commune of 1871. One reason for the first world war was a growing sense of complacency among European elites. Afterwards they had plenty to worry about in the form of international communism, which remained a bogey until the 1980s.

    With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of wealth and power.

    Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet?

    h/t @ WallStCynic

    Looney

    Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet?

    Oh, honey, I thought you'd never ask… ;-)

    Goliath Slayer

    How they turned us into Pavlov Dogs >> http://wp.me/p4OZ4v-1zD

    Stuck on Zero

    It's hard to get rid of most of the elites because they have tenure.

    tarabel

    And most people wouldn't have the faintest idea of where to buy, or more probably rent, a pitchfork anyhow. As for torches? What, are you crazy? Those things are dangerous and would void our insurance policy.

    bamawatson

    will goldman sucks n shitty bank loan me money to purchase a pitchfork? http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/03/update-fec-informs-ted-cr...

    AldousHuxley

    It really doesn't matter what *ism society embraces. What matters more is is the power elite greedy enough to sell out their own kind?

    Future Jim

    If you think that freedom is just another ism, then you have been played.

    It is not about greed. It is about power and control. Money is just a means to that end.

    Their own kind? You mean their own race ... their own nation ... their own religion ... ?

    Cadavre

    And a roasting spit and rope to tie em by the ankle to the cherry trees lining the national mall, Musollini style. Urinals hanging from cherry trees. Only in America.

    One does wonder how inbreds surrounded by expensive advisors so easily lost any shred of fight-o-flight survival skills. Guess the extra bling allows them to dream false dreams.

    eforc

    The ones who think they are 'top dog' are about to find out the hard way, there is something much bigger at work...

    "6. The people, under our guidance, have annihilated the aristocracy, who were their one and only defense and foster-mother for the sake of their own advantage which is inseparably bound up with the well-being of the people. Nowadays, with the destruction of the aristocracy, the people have fallen into the grips of merciless money-grinding scoundrels who have laid a pitiless and cruel yoke upon the necks of the workers.

    7. We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces - socialists, anarchists, communists - to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity of all humanity) of our social masonry. The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong. We are interested in just the opposite - in the diminution, the killing out of the goyim. Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings.

    8. By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way."

    --The Protocols

    freak of nature

    Fear might be masked, but it's still there.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/30/angela-merkel-caught-on-...

    Memedada

    http://www.rense.com/general45/proto.htm - they're fake.

    Mr. Universe

    The thing is that there are going to be a LOT of folks who thought they were elites. Instead they will be thrown under the bus of the approaching hoards to slow them down while the real elites make sure no one escapes that shouldn't be.

    They no longer fear the masses as they control the cops and the narrative. What will really work and is almost unstoppable is the ghost in the machine. Seemingly random acts of sabotage, just think if the internet went down for even 2 or 3 days. Who would it hurt most, average folk or ? I have a dream...

    wildbad

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USk-ECjYEhI

    Lorca's Novena

    Lol those guys are so blackwater.... It is illegal to have a standing "army" on 'murrican soil. Private for hire jagoffs arent. And no, it wasnt the national guard.

    Chris Dakota

    60% of the people who live in Burns work for the BLM.

    Looney

    Oops! ;-)

    alexcojones

    I think Pitchforks are way too tame. If this patriot lived today he would be decalared a TERRORIST

    The First Hero of the American Revolution

    Mark Mywords

    " Surely today's elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of wealth and power."

    Surely, you jest. The proles won't attack the elites. They won't be able to find them, or get to where they live.

    Tyler(s), you need to stop posting such meaningless tripe. When the serfs rise up, they will attack what is around them. As always.

    bbq on whitehou...

    The internet doesnt forget or forgive transgressions. Sins of the father shall be paid for by their sons.
    "Where are you going to run, where are you going to hide; no where because there is no where left to run to." - Body snatchers

    tarabel

    I think you are correct so far as you take your argument. Yes, they will START on their own neighborhoods. The depth of the fall can be graphed against how far they will go afterwards.

    El Vaquero

    Then we just cut their supply lines.

    knotjammin2

    It is our son's and daughter's who protect the elitist assholes. We know where they built their bugouts and landing strips. We built them. We know where the air vents are for their underground bunkers. We built them. We know where the diesel tanks are to power their generators and you can't hide solar panels. No, we know where there going and how to get to them. Soon!!

    Mr. Universe

    Now you know why the hawaiian's, when they sent a worker down the side of a cliff to bury the chiefs bones in that space reserved for the Ali'i, they "accidently" let go of the rope while he was climbing back up...oopppps, sorry bout 'dat brah.

    indygo55

    "The proles won't attack the elites. They won't be able to find them, or get to where they live."

    Oh you mean like the French Revolution or the Chinese Revolution? Like that?

    HardAssets

    No, the proles do little of substance. But, the time is reached when even their paid off guard dogs will be tired of the insanity that destroys their own extended families. (The psychopaths can't help but push it to the extremes. That is their egotistical nature. Theyve been indulged since they were infants.) When that day of reckoning comes, the criminals will be very afraid.

    The EU 'leadership' bringing in massive outside foreign populations to destroy the existing culture and nation-state is a potential match for the fuse of anger. We see police carrying out orders, but what do they really think ? How bad will they let it get ? Even the Red Army troops refused to go along with it all when the grandmas scolded them for taking part in rolling the tanks toward their own people. And those troops said "Nyet, no more of this." And the USSR was no more.

    conraddobler

    Maybe they haven't played a lot of sims?

    I used to love the old sims of feudal japan where you could set your tax rate at whatever you wanted but the higher you set it the more likely you would get a peasant revolt.

    What's going on is precisely this:.....

    They have learned how to set the tax rate at whatever percentage won't cause utter chaos and then absolve themselves from said taxes through loopholes AND THEN add on top stealth taxes in the form of currency debasement AND THEN on top of all this they've built a ponzi scheme debt based fiasco that is entirely unsustainable.

    I gotta hand it to them they have managed so far to avoid the ire of the peasant class, however methinks that once this shit show rolls into town and starts playing nightly as in reality comes a callin then these same folks are going to need to hide off planet.

    Seriously I'd advise them to look into space travel.

    DipshitMiddleCl...

    The elites today were related to the elites of yesterdays revolutions. They have learned and are keeping track of everything and with the advent of big data and lots of computing power, they know how much time they have before SHTF. They have quants assessing risk daily, and not just market risk..geopolitical and other stuff.

    They dont fear us because they know they can keep ramping up poisoning of our food and other stupid social media gimmicks.

    If all else fails, the jackboots will come out in full force.

    They've been testing and training these detention methods for close to 100 years. From the gulags of Russia to the West Bank / Gaza strip today of Israel.....its being tried and trued.

    And we're next!

    ~DipshitMiddleClassWhiteKId

    carlnpa

    The past nine months have set record monthly background checks. I believe we as a "group" know and feel our existence is in danger, and are responding accordingly.

    alexcojones

    Certainly a patriot CANNOT do it through the ballot box,

    Iowa: Days before the Iowa caucuses in 2012, Ron Paul held a commanding lead in the polls and all the momentum, with every other candidate having peaked from favorable media coverage and then collapsed under the ensuing scrutiny. Establishment Republicans, like Iowa's Representative Steve King (R), attempted to sabotage Paul's campaign by spreading rumors he would lose to Obama if nominated. . . Iowa Governor Terry Barnstad told Politico , "[If Paul wins] people are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire". The message from the Iowa Governor to voters of his state was: a vote for Ron Paul was a wasted vote.

    How t he Republican Party Stole the Nomination from Ron

    August

    The RNC and their minions would have prevented a Ron Paul presidential nomination, by any means necessary - up to and including a terrible, just terrible, plane crash. All those lives lost....

    pipes

    They DID prevent the nomination by any means necessary...and did so, short of crashing a plane. The underhanded shit they pulled in '12 sealed their fate.

    Kirk2NCC1701

    In that case, the Libertarian Party needs to go "full Zio-mode": Take no BS and no prisoners.

    Problem is, they are too "individualistic" (divided, heterogenous), and too 'Christian' (raised in "Religion of Serfs") to create another American or French Revolution, or bring about real change.

    Note that in the American Revolution, its Founders realized that the influence of Clerics needed to be curtailed, and so they invented the "Seperation of Church and State". The French, OTOH, called a spade a spade, and got rid of the Church completely.

    Amerika: Where kids are taught by their parents to believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus -- all the while they believe in "Santa for Grownups", i.e. Winged Nordic Humans (Angels) and a Sky God.

    I have ZERO faith that Libertarians will do anyting, other than talk, blog, hold meetings, conventions, have weekend warrior games, or buy any number of Doomsday Products and Services. IOW.. they'll do anything and everything, but March or Protest en mass. They won't even do TV program, much less do a leveraged buyout of a TV channel.

    Like I said: "Too individualistic, to truly matter to TPTB". I WISH it were not to, but I'm just calling it as I see it. Alas. If I'm wrong, I'll jump for joy and click my heels.

    alexcojones

    BTW - Fuck Iowa

    And thank you Stanford for Stomping them in the Rose Bowl

    Pitchfork Voting Machines

    all-priced-in

    Do they have to get off the sofa or can they just send it in on Instagram?

    [Feb 02, 2016] Former Massachusetts senator and would-be New Hampshire senator Scott Brown will endorse Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is more of a moderate nationalist, and if he takes on our most critical problem of illegal immigration and border security ..."
    "... Moderate Nationalist is better than the beholden to open borders donor cash GLOBALIST Republicans ..."
    www.thegatewaypundit.com

    Former Massachusetts senator and would-be New Hampshire senator Scott Brown, a moderate Republican who once graced the pages of Cosmopolitan, will endorse Donald Trump at rally on Tuesday night, one week before the state's presidential primary, according to the Washington Post.

    Brown will appear onstage with the real estate mogul/reality star/billionaire Republican semi-frontrunner at a rally in Milford, Hew Hampshire, barely 24 hours after Trump was handed an embarrassing second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses.

    Trump's commanding lead in the New Hampshire polls - combined with the demographic benefits of a less-religious Northeastern state - have already put the Granite State primary victory well within his reach. Whether the endorsement of a carpet-bagging senate candidate who lost his own race in New Hampshire two years ago will do much to boost the Donald's campaign remains to be seen.

    The Guardian's Ben Jacobs files from New Hampshire:

    The endorsement had long been expected - the only question was whether it would come before Iowa or after the caucuses. It serves to compliment the Iowa endorsement of Sarah Palin. While the former vice presidential nominee had long been beloved by conservatives with the Republican Party, Brown was considered a star among the GOP's moderate wing after a shock win in a 2010 special election. While Brown was never known for his policy chops, he serves a well-liked figure in the Republican party who can serve as a validator for Trump among New Hampshire's notoriously flinty, moderate electorate.

    calmly_observing > ridgerunner

    I find that since Trump announced and starting to get traction there is almost unprecedented zeal by a lot of his followers and his detractors to push away "the other." There must be at least a dozen factions that were once all uniformly conservative or GOP or whatever label that are now trying to push others away. Now Rush. Already Coulter. Next Mark Levin. Heck, there may be two dozen factions all fighting each other before the election even arrives!

    ridgerunner > calmly_observing

    Befuddled thinking. There are only two factions: Establishment and "We the People"

    Skutch > donh

    Trump also does himself no favors by pandering to conservative Christians. He would be much better off stating flatly that he is an unobservant believer who doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about his faith, than trying to fake his way through it as he has been. He's not fooling anyone. That will NOT play well outside of New England.

    Skutch

    Folks, I love THAT Donald Trump is running. I love HOW he's shaking up the campaigns. I love WHAT he is talking about and how that's changed the dialogue this election cycle. But I don't love Donald. His positions are not conservative - tea party, establishment, libertarian or otherwise. He's basically a one issue (immigration) candidate with a very big microphone, enormous ego, and the benefit of a fierce cult of personality. This can only end badly for us.

    dave0987 > Skutch

    Who's calling Trump a conservative? I've yet to see anyone call him one. Trump is more of a moderate nationalist, and if he takes on our most critical problem of illegal immigration and border security finally, and we get even 65-75% of his promises that's a-okay and better than 100% of nothing with the others and the status quo of OPEN BORDERS and the soon to follow UNBEATABLE NUMBERS OF NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS which results in a DEMOCRAT DICTATORSHIP.

    Think ahead. Look at the big picture. Right now it's about living to fight another day. The priority of PRESERVATION.

    Moderate Nationalist is better than the beholden to open borders donor cash GLOBALIST Republicans, and CERTAINLY better than open borders communist Democrats. Sadly as super-ultra-mega-deluxe-king-of-all-conservatives as Cruz (praise his holy name) may be, he's still beholden to Robert Mercer and all the other open-borders donors, which means, as in decades past, NOTHING WILL CHANGE on our country's most critical issue of illegal immigration and border security.

    Let's not forget what all the so-called Conservatives have done for us-including all the Tea Party landslides we were so excited about. Hint: Google GOP CAVES and you can see in the results, pretty much right down the list of issues they have been the party of surrender and the party of DEMOCRAT ENABLERS.

    TRUMP 2016..

    Guest

    Scott also wrote an op-Ed in 2012 socking Warren over "you didn't build that" standing up for entrepreneurs and business owners. If true, it makes sense he'd value Trump's unsurpassed business success among the candidates and his decades in an executive role.


    [Feb 02, 2016] Bernie Sanders wants raw vote count released after tight finish in Iowa caucuses

    The Guardian

    "Tonight is a wonderful start to the national campaign," Sanders said in a packed gangway on the late-night flight heading east to beat an incoming snowstorm. "Tonight shows the American people that this is a campaign that can win."

    He threw little light on an unfolding controversy over certain Iowa precincts that did not have enough Democratic party volunteers to report delegate totals for each candidate but did call on officials to take the unusual step of revealing underlying voter totals. Delegates are awarded in the Iowa Democratic contest on a precinct-by-precinct basis, irrespective of the state-wide vote for each candidate.

    "I honestly don't know what happened. I know there are some precincts that have still not reported. I can only hope and expect that the count will be honest," he said. "I have no idea. Did we win the popular vote? I don't know, but as much information as possible should be made available."

    Sanders' campaign director, Jeff Weaver, told reporters he did not "anticipate we are going to contest" specific results but hoped there would be an investigation into what happened.

    He also claimed the tight result, in a state where Sanders had once trailed by Clinton in polling by 50 percentage points, was a sign of a dramatic surge of popularity for his agenda to reduce income inequality and "seize back democracy from the billionaire class".

    "People said we had an inferior ground game, that we didn't have as good an understanding of the state," said Weaver. "I think we certainly demonstrated that we had at least as good a ground game and I would argue that we had a better one because we started out [as underdogs]."

    [Feb 02, 2016] Iowa caucus results: Sanders and Clinton 'in virtual tie' as Cruz beats Trump - as it happened

    Notable quotes:
    "... Keep in mind Iowa is a strictly for registered party members, Independents can't participate there. That is why Trump didn't perform well (he depends on the loosely termed Tea Party , that draws it's popularity OUTSIDE the party via the Libertarians and Independents). ..."
    "... Reagan used the South in his bid for presidency because they don't require party registration nor force them to choose what they chose in the primaries. So they can vote either way they chose ... and with a secret ballot. This helps when win fever erupts and join the bandwagon and it's hooping and hollering collects more votes, and not alienate your friends and family. ..."
    "... Iowa had no secret ballot nor Independents. So hold onto your hats until after March Primaries (that has some of the most populated states voting) to pick the winning horse, either by conscious or win fever . ..."
    "... True, but by the same token - look how well Carson did. That almost certainly came out of Trump's supporters, since they're very similar candidates. If Carson bows out, those people probably go straight to Trump, giving him an easy edge against Cruz, who spent a LOT of time working Iowa, and hasn't done much elsewhere. Then again, that depends upon 'loser' Trump being able to explain why he's still a winner. ..."
    "... Iowa is basically a chance for underdogs to attract a bit more attention and get a bit more funding from folks who would pull their money out otherwise. But it's not indicative of much more than that. And New Hampshire is in a similar position - good for politics and momentum, but not actually very predictive. ..."
    "... MPs in the UK have been expressing relief at Donald Trump's failure in Iowa. Well they shouldn't be relieved. Trump had poor numbers against Hilary and (especially) Bernie for the general. Cruz is more competitive. And Trump was most probably a harmless blowhard, whilst Cruz is just as poisonous and is driven by ideology rather than ego. ..."
    "... ..."
    The Guardian

    kattw RecantedYank 2 Feb 2016 11:39

    Eh... Iowa really doesn't prove electability, though. It's got a roughly 50% rate of caucusing for the candidate eventually chosen - the coinflip was, oddly, about as accurate as getting votes. And it is a swing state lately, but a small one - if he wins Ohio or Florida, it's time to be proud.

    That being said, it DOES give him momentum, and was a good showing - he could have lost by 10% and still called it a clear sign that people liked him. His only real problem is his own words - he predicted a clear victory if turnout was high. And turnout WAS high - higher than it's ever been, yet he still (very narrowly) lost. So he's golden... so long as his supporters don't actually hold him accountable for what he says.

    Clinton, meanwhile, has acted like it was going to be a tough fight, and clearly got a tough fight. Since she lost Iowa last time, this will energize HER base too - and it's not super likely that a bigger win would have helped her much more.

    Marcedward -> starlingnl 2 Feb 2016 11:13

    Clinton did not crack 50% in a state where she used to be ahead by 40points in the polls. Clinton suffered a big setback - the base is against her.


    SandyK -> ezyian 2 Feb 2016 10:59

    Trump's in trouble though, as Iowa is a closed election for only party loyalists. It shows who the party likes and dislikes, especially to White Christian voters.

    Trump is not what HE think's he is, as the vote is fairly evenly divided in the GOP. None are clear winners in ideology.

    IF Trump pulls ahead in the March Primaries it's the Independents driving his campaign ... and oh, the GOP is going to cannibalize itself IF Trump gets the nomination from support outside the party.

    That's how voters leave the party, just like in 1980 (when the choice was Carter or Kennedy). ^-^


    SandyK 2 Feb 2016 10:50

    Keep in mind Iowa is a strictly for registered party members, Independents can't participate there. That is why Trump didn't perform well (he depends on the loosely termed "Tea Party", that draws it's popularity OUTSIDE the party via the Libertarians and Independents).

    It shows what the parties itself thinks of their candidates.

    March with the huge primaries will show what the cross section of the USA thinks about them.

    Reagan used the South in his bid for presidency because they don't require party registration nor force them to choose what they chose in the primaries. So they can vote either way they chose ... and with a secret ballot. This helps when "win fever" erupts and "join the bandwagon and it's hooping and hollering" collects more votes, and not alienate your friends and family.

    Iowa had no secret ballot nor Independents. So hold onto your hats until after March Primaries (that has some of the most populated states voting) to pick the winning horse, either by conscious or "win fever".


    kattw -> Majentah 2 Feb 2016 10:40

    True, but by the same token - look how well Carson did. That almost certainly came out of Trump's supporters, since they're very similar candidates. If Carson bows out, those people probably go straight to Trump, giving him an easy edge against Cruz, who spent a LOT of time working Iowa, and hasn't done much elsewhere. Then again, that depends upon 'loser' Trump being able to explain why he's still a winner.


    kattw Mr0011011 2 Feb 2016 09:29

    That's not even correct. For democrats, in the last 11 caucuses not counting yesterday, they picked wrong 3 times (four if you count that more people didn't know who to vote for than voted for Carter), and 2 times were uncontested - ie: basically a 50% chance of picking right when there's an actual contest to decide. For republicans, they were wrong 4 times, and choosing uncontested spots three times - ie: again a roughly 50% chance of choosing correctly when there was actually a contest.

    Iowa is basically a chance for underdogs to attract a bit more attention and get a bit more funding from folks who would pull their money out otherwise. But it's not indicative of much more than that. And New Hampshire is in a similar position - good for politics and momentum, but not actually very predictive.

    Which really makes the coin-flip seem logical in retrospect, since it's about a 50% chance the Iowa delegates will be voting for the eventual winner either way.

    confettifoot -> confettifoot 2 Feb 2016 08:55

    I'll follow Sanders' lead on this one. I've watched and listened closely when he addresses Hillary. He respectfully and emphatically disagrees on actual issues (and agrees on others, and says so), and never stoops to flinging dubious half-truths, rightwing-generated smear soundbytes or dishonest construction of fact. It's one of the reasons why I love and respect him. Bernie supporters who do otherwise only do him great harm and don't deserve him. Save your spleen for the Republicans, know the difference, and support Bernie.

    Lafeyette 2 Feb 2016 08:34

    "This is not the end, this is not even the beginning of the end, this is just perhaps the end of the beginning."

    -Sir Winston Churchill

    Vermouth Brilliantine 2 Feb 2016 08:31

    God help us if this trend continues and we end up with a Cruz vs. Clinton presidential election. Righteous evil vs. the crypto-Wall Street hawk-in-leftist clothing. Not a race I'd like to see.

    furiouspurpose 2 Feb 2016 08:30

    MPs in the UK have been expressing relief at Donald Trump's failure in Iowa. Well they shouldn't be relieved. Trump had poor numbers against Hilary and (especially) Bernie for the general. Cruz is more competitive. And Trump was most probably a harmless blowhard, whilst Cruz is just as poisonous and is driven by ideology rather than ego.


    kambge Faranelli 2 Feb 2016 07:57

    To be honest we've had G.W bush who was basically as nearly as bad as trump, the fake hope of Obama who probably is a decent guy but is controlled by other forces, the problem is that if Bernie gets elected, there is not much her or any US president can do to stop the inevitable decline of the US economy, and people will blame socialism and public spending again for the ills of really stupid financialization of the economy, greed and short-sigthedness from our political and financial leaders.

    US debt is unsustainable in the long run. The only reason countries bought it in the past was gunboat diplomacy, the only reason the chinese buy it now is to prop up a broken system - their own financial system is equally bubbalicious although I'm not so clued up on the Chinese economy. We need a big market re-adjustment to sort all of this shit out and then rebuild from the ashes.


    [Feb 02, 2016] I like Bernie Sanders. His supporters? Not so much

    Notable quotes:
    "... Its not just economics; its excessive competitiveness. Racial and gender prejudices are competitive group strategies. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Luna Ante Sol 2 Feb 2016 11:24

    So stale. This is the same old tired messaging coming out of the Clinton camp for months on end. Declaring one's candidate the presumptive winner while claiming victimhood is more than a tad disingenuous. This oft repeated routine to rally the troops in protection of Ms. Clinton, makes one wonder how she can be expected to lead. For shame.

    erpiu 2 Feb 2016 10:58

    the bottom-line question about hillary is:

    can she be trusted with the hopes and the vote of impoverished usa voters of any race...

    i) given the ~140 million in *personal-wealth* bribes she&he have already received, and keep receiving, from WS, the "sweatshops for america!" council, and the "private prisons R us" trade group?

    ii) given that her demonstrated appetite for money and for the lifestyles of the rich and famous requires her getting further bribes from WS and the plutocrats?

    iii) given her record of opportunism with only one constant: advancing her career and hubby's (or were the race-baiting prison and welfare bills idealistic? was it slick willie's boasting after DOMA?).

    iv) given her mixed ideological upbringing, exposures, and moderate "likes" that span from the openly racist rightwing reactionary world (campaigning for "southern-strategists" b.goldwater and r.nixon), to "realistic" by-bribe-only anything-for-WS race-baiting, gay-baiting, welfare-baiting "progressivism"?


    Cafael 2 Feb 2016 10:49

    it's self-evident to any true leftist that all issues should come back to economics.

    It's not just economics; it's excessive competitiveness. Racial and gender prejudices are competitive group strategies. If you want a more competitive society with liberal values, you can't achieve that holistically, you can only do it through draconian censure of the outward expressions of prejudice, by attacking, even criminalising dissent, creating totalitarian liberalism. Making people fear to publicly express racial prejudice while keeping all the money and power in white hands, thus ultimately sanctifying and reinforcing the power of white elites. Perhaps that is the agenda, and actually ending racial prejudice or sexism or homophobia isn't really the point.

    A more compassionate, less competitive society on the other hand, not uniformly conformist, tall poppy cutting or happy clappy but recognising from our experience, from our human perspective that winning or being 'better than' having 'more than' isn't an ulimately fulfilling imperative; recognising that the society's basis and symbiosis is more than merely transactional, would more fundamentally change the way people consider minorities and gender, because such a society wouldn't be running on rivalry and hatred.

    I'm not saying Western society does run on those emotions, far from it, but the modern, ever more extreme capitalist ideology may be, with the best of intentions, sleepwalking that way, because it doesn't understand its own philosophy.

    voxjubilante 2 Feb 2016 10:42

    This "BernieBros" narrative has already been eviscerated at The Intercept:

    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/

    Perhaps you can come up with something new?

    [Feb 01, 2016] Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right

    www.politico.com
    ... ... ...

    But just because Trump is an imperfect candidate doesn't mean his candidacy can't be instructive. Trump could teach Republicans in Washington a lot if only they stopped posturing long enough to watch carefully. Here's some of what they might learn:

    He Exists Because You Failed

    American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn't.

    Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider it wasted.

    Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism."

    Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They're the ones who've been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they're telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don't, they're liberal.

    It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.

    On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good.

    Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn't said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals - these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the "ghost of George Wallace" that a Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their voters are rebelling.

    Truth Is Not Only A Defense, It's Thrilling

    When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn't been long. That's not just a talking point about political correctness. It's the central problem with our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can't fix a problem if you don't have the words to describe it. You can't even think about it clearly.

    This depressing fact made Trump's political career. In a country where almost everyone in public life lies reflexively, it's thrilling to hear someone say what he really thinks, even if you believe he's wrong. It's especially exciting when you suspect he's right.

    A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past 50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven't assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed. What's our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino-attacks that seemed to come out of nowhere? Invoke American exceptionalism and hope for the best? Before Trump, that was the plan.

    Republican primary voters should be forgiven for wondering who exactly is on the reckless side of this debate. At the very least, Trump seems like he wants to protect the country.

    Evangelicals understand this better than most. You read surveys that indicate the majority of Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least holy roller ever. You wonder as you watch this: How could they be that dumb? He's so obviously faking it.

    They know that already. I doubt there are many Christian voters who think Trump could recite the Nicene Creed, or even identify it. Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What they're looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their freedom of speech and worship. Trump fits that role nicely, better in fact than many church-going Republicans. For eight years, there was a born-again in the White House. How'd that work out for Christians, here and in Iraq?

    [Feb 01, 2016] Gaius Publius A Non-Neoliberal Woman President Is Not One of the Choices

    Notable quotes:
    "... Most of the rank and file who still fervently support her never made it as far up the ladder as a Joan Walsh, but they identify with Walsh, because werent they all together and equals once, not so long ago? Except it was long ago. The passage of 30-35 years matters, and the utter divergence of their stature and economic safety matters even more. They want a vicarious win for themselves via Hillary. Because theyre fools. ..."
    "... The lame gender justification for voting for Hillary Clinton reminds me of what my late mother used to call yellow dog Republicans in South Dakota. They would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for any Democrat. ..."
    "... Put in context, Sanders was responding to requests by the Saudis for U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS. He saw through it, saying that what they really wanted was U.S. troops to protect the billionaire Saudi royal family. ..."
    "... Those who are on board with neoliberalism and the American Imperial Project can vote for Hilary on points–I have no problem with that so long as they are honest about it. ..."
    "... It also seems that to some extent Hillary is benefiting from the fact that she is such a toxic monster that its hard to even process, it seems unreal and hard to believe in. I mean, here is a person who has pushed to waste trillions of dollars devastating middle eastern countries that dont threaten us, has de-facto allied the United States with Al Qaeda (!), has pushed to spend trillions of dollars bailing out Wall Street while starving main street of capital, intends to gut social security to help pay for all this largesse to the 1% (because deficits are bad, you know), wants us to sign a trade agreement that is effectively a corporate coup, making our domestic laws subservient to a bunch of foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret, used her tenure as secretary of state to sell out the national interest for personal cash while she was still in office… And people say that Trump is dangerous? Or that Bernie is unelectable? Really? ..."
    "... If Hillary Clinton, neoliberal and neoconservative warmonger, is elected the first woman president, it will be appropriate for this nation, given its system of predatory global capitalism enforced by military brutality and violence. Appropriate, but not at all beneficial, for most of us and the planet. ..."
    "... Wall St bankers were worried about angry populism coming for their hides in 2008. Knowing that identity politics trumps issue politics for most Democrat voters, they inserted Obama into the mix, and the Democrats lapped it up like the identity-card simpletons that they are. This shifted the focus of the 08 Democrat primaries from Wall St and Iraq to a tacit identity battle based on race and gender. ..."
    "... I also think Clinton is the Candidate Most Likely to Start WW3, and that includes all ..."
    naked capitalism
    From a recent Guardian article , this from long-time Wall Street trader Chris Arnade. This is worth reading in full. He starts:

    I owe almost my entire Wall Street career to the Clintons. I am not alone; most bankers owe their careers, and their wealth, to them. Over the last 25 years they – with the Clintons it is never just Bill or Hillary – implemented policies that placed Wall Street at the center of the Democratic economic agenda, turning it from a party against Wall Street to a party of Wall Street.

    That is why when I recently went to see Hillary Clinton campaign for president and speak about reforming Wall Street I was skeptical. What I heard hasn't changed that skepticism. The policies she offers are mid-course corrections. In the Clintons' world, Wall Street stays at the center, economically and politically. Given Wall Street's power and influence, that is a dangerous place to leave them.

    Now some of his story:

    Salomon Brothers hired me in 1993, seven months after President Bill Clinton's inauguration. Getting a job had been easy, Wall Street was booming from deregulation that had begun under Reagan and was continuing under Clinton.

    When Bill Clinton ran for office, he offered up him and Hillary ("Two for the price of one") as New Democrats, embracing an image of being tough on crime, but not on business. Despite the campaign rhetoric, nobody on the trading floor I joined had voted for the Clintons or trusted them.

    Few traders on the floor were even Democrats, who as long as anyone could remember were Wall Street's natural enemy. That view was summarized in the words of my boss: "Republicans let you make money and let you keep it. Democrats don't let you make money, but if you do, they take it."

    Despite Wall Street's reticence, key appointments were swinging their way. Robert Rubin, who had been CEO of Goldman Sachs, was appointed to a senior White House job as director of the National Economic Council. The Treasury Department was also being filled with banking friendly economists who saw the markets as a solution, not as a problem.

    The administration's economic policy took shape as trickle down, Democratic style. They championed free trade, pushing Nafta. They reformed welfare, buying into the conservative view that poverty was about dependency, not about situation. They threw the old left a few bones, repealing prior tax cuts on the rich, but used the increased revenues mostly on Wall Street's favorite issue: cutting the debt.

    But when Clinton bailed out Mexico to make Wall Street debt-holders whole, Wall Street knew that administration was theirs:

    Most importantly, when faced with their first financial crisis, they [the Clinton administration] bailed out Wall Street.

    That crisis came in January 1995, halfway through the administration's first term. Mexico, after having boomed from the optimism surrounding Nafta, went bust. It was a huge embarrassment for the administration, given the push they had made for Nafta against a cynical Democratic party.

    Money was fleeing Mexico, and much of it was coming back through me and my firm. Selling investors' Mexican bonds was my first job on Wall Street, and now they were trying to sell them back to us. But we hadn't just sold Mexican bonds to clients, instead we did it using new derivatives product to get around regulatory issues and take advantages of tax rules, and lend the clients money. Given how aggressive we were, and how profitable it was for us, older traders kept expecting to be stopped by regulators from the new administration, but that didn't happen.

    When Mexico started to collapse, the shudders began….

    Those shudders were entirely unnecessary. The Clinton administration saved the banks by bailing out their debtors. They pushed for "a $50bn global bail-out of Mexico, arguing that to not do so would devastate the US and world economy. Unmentioned was that it would have also devastated Wall Street banks " (my emphasis). The success of that bailout became a template that's with us today. It was "used it as an economic blueprint that emphasized Wall Street. It also emphasized bailouts".

    As a result, "Wall Street now had both political parties working for them, and really nobody holding them accountable. Now, no trade was too aggressive, no risk too crazy, no behavior to unethical and no loss too painful. It unleashed a boom that produced plenty of smaller crisis (Russia, Dotcom), before culminating in the housing and financial crisis of 2008."

    This was not just Bill and his actions. It was his administration. As Arnade notes above, when Bill Clinton ran for office he offered himself and Hillary as "Two for the price of one," as "New Democrats, embracing an image of being tough on crime, but not on business." Is Hillary still of this mind? She was in 2008. As a senator, according to Arnade, "Hillary Clinton voted to bail-out the banks, a vote she still defends. " A vote opposite to the vote of Bernie Sanders .

    Where's Is Wall Street's Money Going Today?

    And now just one of the reasons the story told above is still the story today, and is still a Hillary Clinton story. The following graphic show data through October, 2015:

    2015-10-27-1445913198-8500119-SecuritiesInvestmentChartUpdated
    Campaign donations from individuals who work in the securities and investments industry ( source ; click to enlarge)

    This is an awful lot of money for an individual to give to someone who's going to jail them for fraud. Again, this and the previous bulleted piece don't comprise two stories, an older one and a newer one. They are clearly one story, even without considering the recent money from Wall Street speeches .

    Clinton Goes to Pennsylvania to Reap Windfall from Pennsylvania Frackers

    One more point, this time about the climate, one of the places we started this piece. Consider the following from Brad Johnson, something from the current fundraising cycle:

    Last night, Hillary Clinton attended a gala fundraiser in Philadelphia at the headquarters of Franklin Square Capital Partners, a major investor in the fossil-fuel industry, particularly domestic fracking. The controversial fracking industry is particularly powerful in Pennsylvania, which will host the Democratic National Convention this July.

    Clinton has avoided taking any clear stand on fracking. While she has embraced the Clean Power Plan, which assumes a strong increase in natural-gas power plants, she also supports a much deeper investment in solar electricity than the baseline plan. The pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record, run by David Brock, touts Clinton's aggressive pro-fracking record .

    Numerous grassroots groups have risen to oppose the toxic fracking of Pennsylvania and its labor abuses, including Marcellus Protest , No Fracking Way , Pennsylvanians Against Fracking , Keep Tap Water Safe , Stop Fracking Now , and Stop the Frack Attack .

    As reported by the Intercept's Lee Fang, "One of Franklin Square Capital's investment funds, the FS Energy & Power Fund" the Intercept's Lee Fang reports , "is heavily invested in fossil fuel companies, including offshore oil drilling and fracking." The company cautions that "changes to laws and increased regulation or restrictions on the use of hydraulic fracturing may adversely impact" the fund's performance.

    Through its fund, Franklin Square invests in private fracking and oil drilling companies across the nation, as well as Canada and the Gulf of Mexico. This includes heavy investment in Pennsylvania frackers. …

    There's much more at the link - this is just a taste.

    Will the first woman president be our "fracker in chief" and put the earth on a diet of methane, a deadly greenhouse gas, until it fries? I'm afraid, if the first woman president is Clinton, the answer will be yes. It breaks my heart that this is not a "clean election," but it's not, and it's not one of our choices to make it one.

    (Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here ; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here . You can volunteer in other ways by going here . And thanks!) kimsarah , January 31, 2016 at 4:52 am

    Wasn't it Lloyd Blankfein who said he'd be happy with either Hillary or Jeb?
    As illustrated here, Wall Street has been happy with the "establishment" leadership of both parties, ever since the Clintons came to Washington - even though it is still fashionable to badmouth Democrats because they are supposedly tougher regulators and less pro free market capitalism.
    Thank goodness, more and more voters are realizing that their choices should not be based on party affiliation or gender, but who can best fix the damage done by the neoliberals of both parties and stop bowing to Wall Street. That is why Sanders and Trump have been rising in the polls. Now we'll see if that momentum will translate into election results.

    Gaius Publius , January 31, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Yes, kimsarah.

    But the private consensus is similar to what Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said to POLITICO late last year when he praised both Christie - before the bridge scandal - and Clinton. "I very much was supportive of Hillary Clinton the last go-round," he said. "I held fundraisers for her."

    People close to Blankfein say the same calculus applies to a Jeb Bush-Hillary Clinton race as it would to a Christie-Clinton contest. "Those would be two very good choices and we'd be perfectly happy with them," a person close to Blankfein said. Blankfein is a self-described Democrat, but his comments about Christie and Clinton reflect the ambidextrous political approach that many Republicans and Democrats on Wall Street take.

    Wall St. Republicans' dark secret

    PlutoniumKun , January 31, 2016 at 6:11 am

    Everyone deep down is 'tribal' in the sense that they always find themselves attracted to politicians who in some sense are a reflection of who they are. So people always feel drawn for the 'local guy' above the better 'outsider', the person of similar ethnic background, similar accent, school, etc. Its a natural thing, and not altogether a bad thing. Its the same thing that makes communities work.

    I recently had an argument with a cousin who lives in a rural area. She said she was voting for a particular politician 'because he looks after the locals'. This politician is known to be corrupt and a liar – he was described as such by two different judges. To the horror of outsiders, he keeps getting elected with big majorities because people like my cousin see him as 'our guy' and the more sophisticated urban types hate him, the more they like him. My comment to my cousin was 'if you vote for him simply because he is 'local' and ignore his corruption and lies, then you lose all rights to complain about anything bad in this country, ever. Because you are the reason.' Yeah, I was a bit mad (she just laughed).

    My point is that we need to call out people who vote for people like Clinton because she is a woman (or any other such superficial reason). Yes, it is emotionally understandable for a certain generation of women to see her as 'one of us'. Entirely understandable. It is also entirely wrong. The educated woman who votes for Clinton 'because' is no different from the idiot Kansas rube who votes for tea-partier 'because dem city types hate him', just with less excuse, because education is supposed to matter. If someone votes Clinton because they agree on bombing the Middle East and bailing out Wall Street, and Fracking everywhere, well, thats fine – just say it. But playing the gender (or any other such card) is intellectually vapid and anyone who does it loses the right to complain about politicians anytime, anywhere, ever.

    James Levy , January 31, 2016 at 6:27 am

    My problem is the hypocritical way they talk about voting for a woman then turn around and lambaste a Palin or a Fiorina whom they would never vote for and hold in contempt. These people are not even for 'the tribe"–they are exclusively for Rodham Clinton. This makes their appeal to the woman angle, in my opinion, odious and false. It's "sisterhood is powerful" except I get to decide who the sisters are. And since they are selective about who is and is not worthy of being voted for as a woman, you see that deep down they really do endorse the miserable neoliberal agenda of Clinton, because they have so decisively declared her an "us" while Palin and Fiorina get to be a "them". If policies matter, and it seems in their definition of us and them they do, then you've got to believe that they are OK with Clinton's policies no matter how they may equivocate.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 10:31 am

    David Brock and Sydney Blumenthal are prominent members of the Clinton campaign. How anyone can tolerate these pigs beyond outright crooks is just saddening. The Iowa Caucus might be fun. The sight of young women explaining Hillary has these examples of human filth as attack dogs to proud older women should be quite humorous.

    Of course, please try of Hillary supporters will be astonished when they hear about Hillary's name to being connected to every fp disaster of the last 20 years. Her die hard supporters will get nasty.

    hidflect , January 31, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Hillary started nailing her own coffin lid down right from the start when she had some operative issue a missive informing the unwashed masses what terminology was deemed unacceptable and sexist. True or not, people don't like to be told what to do. And what good did such instructions serve? Apart from warning misogynists to use alternate dog-whistles?

    Norb , January 31, 2016 at 11:23 am

    For a long time now, I have been having an ongoing conversation with various coworkers concerning the imperative to confront the corruption plaguing our society thru personal and political action. While all see the hardship caused by neoliberal policies, there still exists a mental barrier that cannot be broken thru. No rational argument seems to move them beyond their current stand. Many are stuck on lesser of two evils thinking and others are entrenched in one issue voting, regardless if their candidate repudiates most issues they profess to support. Another strong force is overcoming the underlying sense of economic fear. People are trying desperately to hold onto what they have and are easily persuaded by arguments that threaten what little stability they worked out for themselves. One thing I have learned is the power of propaganda- it is no small thing to move people once they have been conditioned to believe something.

    Another distressing characteristic is the underlying sense of powerlessness to bring about change. The agency question. TINA. When discussing political issues, invariably the angry response to questions of fighting corruption turns to- this is how its always been! It is a depressing circular argument. People are against corruption but vote to elect corrupt representatives, then fail to make any connection with their actions and the predictable outcome. At this point, moving from complaining to doing is the only plausible response.

    What to do? I agree that people must be called out on their wrong headed statements and actions. This is the effort that counteracts the massive propaganda spewing out from the MSM. Learning how to do this well is important. Bringing out common cause and solidarity is a learned skill.

    This common cause must be centered on the workplace. It is at work that we labor to provide for all our needs.
    Finding ways to strengthen fair and just workplaces must rank high on the list of important activities to support. It really is about educating and demonstrating that socialism is a worthwhile goal to achieve. Selfishness and greed will be the end of us all.

    3.14e-9 , January 31, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    This is it. You can send people links to facts - and I mean primary sources, not a blog or an opinion piece masquerading as real journalism - and yet they still cling to the narrative. The human mind has an extraordinary ability to contort facts to fit into a belief system or to justify ignoring them altogether.

    Uahsenaa , January 31, 2016 at 1:37 pm

    Compromises: A Political Dialogue

    Me: So, who are you liking this go around?
    Feminist: Clinton, I think.
    Me: Why? She's a neoliberal shill, and you hate all that crap!
    Fem: It's important to me that a woman be elected to a visible position of authority.
    Me: Well, you could vote for Jill Stein. She's a woman and she agrees with your politics.
    Fem: A Green party candidate is never going to get elected.
    Me: So, you're willing to compromise politics for practical concerns.
    Fem: Somewhat, but not entirely.
    Me: So Clinton is the one, because being a woman is more important that having sound political positions?
    Fem: I didn't say that.
    Me: But Sanders is much close to Stein politically than Clinton is.
    Fem: Yes.
    Me: So, if the candidate who is not a woman but has more in common with a real progressive who is a woman does not win out over the candidate who is a woman but also a neoliberal shill, would it not stand to reason then, that, for you, gender is more important than issues of economic justice.
    Fem: I didn't say that.
    Me: You didn't have to.

    James Levy , January 31, 2016 at 6:15 am

    I don't know how Clinton became inextricable linked in the minds of so many aspiring non-reactionary women with everything right and good, but it seems to be a judgment-neutralizing given that it has. And it is very personal and tied directly to Rodham Clinton. These people ridiculed Palin and wouldn't vote for Carly Fiorina if their lives depended on it, so it's not really women, per se, that they are boosting–it is this particular woman. I am sure that Walsh, Pollitt, et al. have no problem excoriating the millionaire wannabes who flock to Trump. Well, in an act of gender equality I posit this: that they are a generation of Hilary wannabes and their identification with Hilary is no different than millions of people's identification with Trump.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 11:47 am

    I think the reactionary problem is endemic to both parties. Clinton supporters are just following their legitimate leader the way Republicans do. Virtue of being born into a Democratic linked household or being excluded by the GOP is the genuine separation.

    FluffytheObeseCat , January 31, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    Hillary Rodham Clinton is their 'Big Chill' darling. She's emblematic of their own transitions from left wing-ish college students to young professionals……. to rather sadly compromised professional class middle management, with teenagers who dislike them and mortgages.

    Most of the rank and file who still fervently support her never made it as far up the ladder as a Joan Walsh, but they identify with Walsh, because weren't they all together and equals once, not so long ago? Except it was long ago. The passage of 30-35 years matters, and the utter divergence of their stature and economic safety matters even more. They want a vicarious 'win' for themselves via Hillary. Because they're fools.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    I fall into this trap of focusing on gender breakdowns, but Democratic voters are women. When it comes to telling stories of Democratic voters, women will dominate. The key breakdown is 1996. This isn't about Hillary as much as its about Bill. Clinton Inc. has been protected and defended for years. Please try of women who have themselves been "slut shamed" applauded when Democratic elites attacked a 19 year old intern as a serial predator.

    Dolts like Lena Dunham, her show is just awful, have the resources to not have to think about tomorrow and can fret about their bucket list. Plenty of older women have semblance of plans or think they do and just want to get to social equity and Medicare. Change is less important to their planning as much as go holding steady.

    The breakdown of Hillary support is between the ages of 35 and 40. An 18 year old in 1996 will be 38 this year. Bill didn't deserve votes in 1992 or 1996. Bill and his cronies were just awful and have cashed in on their corruption since he left office. Hillary is a chance to prove Bill was not awful. Hillary can prove Nader and Nader voters were deserving of contempt, not Gore and his crummy campaign. People, especially who weren't old enough to vote in 1996 didn't vote for Clinton Inc.

    Carolinian , January 31, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    Hillary is a chance to prove Bill was not awful.

    There is the rumor that Bill is the one pushing a somewhat reluctant Hillary to run. Perhaps he hopes the honor of he Clinton name can be restored. Doubtless America is looking forward to once again being plunged into this psychodrama.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    I wouldn't be surprised. Supposedly he was depressed after leaving office with no direction. The real Dule Hill*, as corrupt as anyone around, was the driver of the Clinton Wedding Registry…I mean Global Initiative. I also remember Dick Morris recounting a story about Bill inquiring if he would ever be a great President. Morris said the great ones had wars. Of course, he Ignored FDR from 1933 to 1941. When Bill is portrayed in popular media, it's usually as a lecherous creep or a poll driven coward. The sleazy nature of the Clinton Slush Fund will never be redeemed. The Democrats roared into Congress without Bill or his cronies at the helm in 2006 and 2008.

    If Gore Vidal were alive, can you imagine email how a hypothetical Clinton biography would read? Bill was elected to earn money, but judging from youth reaction to Hillary campaigns, history won't be kind to Bill. When Dean was elected to the DNC and Obama was elected, Clinton Inc. was clearly rejected. Democrats regaining control of Congress without Bill was another rejection. Bill is smart enough to see this, but he Isn't big enough to recognize his failures and move on constructively.

    *Bill's body man not Gus.

    DakotabornKansan , January 31, 2016 at 6:45 am

    The lame gender justification for voting for Hillary Clinton reminds me of what my late mother used to call yellow dog Republicans in South Dakota. They would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for any Democrat.

    Once again many are ignoring ethical red flags and willing to make a pact with the yellow dog.

    Bob Herbert once described the Clintons as a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, who betrayed everyone whoever believed in them.

    "If anyone doubts that the mainstream media fails to tell the truth about our political system (and its true winners and losers), the spectacle of large majorities of black folks supporting Hillary Clinton in the primary races ought to be proof enough. I can't believe Hillary would be coasting into the primaries with her current margin of black support if most people knew how much damage the Clintons have done – the millions of families that were destroyed the last time they were in the White House thanks to their boastful embrace of the mass incarceration machine and their total capitulation to the right-wing narrative on race, crime, welfare and taxes. There's so much more to say on this topic and it's a shame that more people aren't saying it. I think it's time we have that conversation." – Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

    The Democratic Party can't get rid of the Clintons because they have become the Clintons.

    craazyboy , January 31, 2016 at 7:23 am

    I think the real solution is to just break off a piece of the country and make a new one. Sounds like no one is using Michigan anymore. That might be a good choice. Then all the tribal, identity politics, dominatrix and sissyboy types can move there and let women run the new country. It would serve Bill right too. Karma is sleeping on the couch in the Michigan governor's mansion.

    Msmolly , January 31, 2016 at 10:30 am

    "Karma is sleeping on the couch in the Michigan governor's mansion." …and drinking Flint's water…

    Active Listener , January 31, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Okay, I agree identity politics can be short-sighted, and would be harmful in this situation, but I don't think off-the-cuff advocacy for the banishment of people who embrace non-traditional gender roles is a progressive-minded solution. Seems to me that trumpeting the horror of non-traditional gender roles has been one of the conservatives' best weapons/Trojan Horses to rally support for neocon candidates who grovel at the feet of oligarchs pushing plutonomy-friendly policies.

    Language is important. Pushing people away who have struggled with the burden of non-normative identities helps no one but those who wish to divide, conquer, exploit, and finally abandon.

    Eclair , January 31, 2016 at 11:43 am

    "…..break off a piece of the country …." The peanut-brittle option!

    Tom Allen , January 31, 2016 at 9:27 am

    "A non-neoliberal woman president is not one of the choices." Wait, what? Has Jill Stein suddenly pulled out of the race? (And Gloria La Riva and Monica Moorehead as well?)

    PhilK , January 31, 2016 at 10:04 am

    I imagine GP is aware of Jill Stein, but he'd be banned from DailyKos if he wrote anything that was favorable to her. Not snark!

    Yves Smith Post author , January 31, 2016 at 10:39 am

    Jill Stein has 0 chance of becoming president. Gaius' post is accurate as it stands.

    And I know you Greens will take umbrage, but I would never recommend her. Her background is sorely lacking. She has no administrative experience. She never run an organization nor has she ever held an elective office. She's never written a bill or worked on getting one passed. I'm not wild about Sanders' experience, since all he's done is run a town of 40,000 people, but he's leagues ahead of Stein. You need to find more credible candidates if you want people to take the Greens seriously.

    SoCal rhino , January 31, 2016 at 11:42 am

    I voted for Jill Stein as a protest vote. Saw nothing odious in her positions, and saw value in being counted as "none of the above" as opposed to not voting. I likely wasn't the only such vote among the dozen or so she collected. Although skeptical at first, I hope Bernie is still in the mix by the time the primaries get this far. But I,m a crazy optimist, I hold out hope for one day voting for another Republican.

    Vatch , January 31, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    Regarding Sanders's executive experience: we've had a lot of Presidents with no administrative experience. Quite a few have spent their careers in legislatures, without ever having been a governor, cabinet officer, mayor, or whatever. Granted, some of them were not good Presidents, but whether they were good or bad, they had a lot less executive experience than Sanders has had.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Reagan, Nixon, Bill, 43, and Carter aren't exactly ringing endorsements for prior executive experience.

    Gio Bruno , January 31, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    Being Governor doesn't mean one is a good executive, or even smart! Think Arnold of California. You may not believe this, but Arnold had such a limited understanding of the English language that he, himself, could not explain his administrations budget document. (He could not read it!)

    Sometimes politics and intelligence don't intersect.

    TheCatSaid , January 31, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    I understand your point. And –extensive, successful, practical legislative experience is relevant for executive positions such as POTUS. Sanders' many years in Congress (since 1990) and Senate (last 7 yrs), where he used his Independent status to good effect in getting bills passed, deserve a mention. A Rolling Stones article a few years ago highlighted this strength.

    Steve H , January 31, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    I have a falsifiable problem with her. No surprise she goes after Republicans. But from what I have seen, she has spent more time working against Sanders than speaking truth to power about Clinton. The times she could specifically address Clinton, from what I have seen, she substitutes 'Democratic Party' in the statement.

    This says to me she is more concerned about market share and Sanders is her primary competition. Paying attention to what can hurt you or take away resources from you, while not spending your own resources on what has little impact, is part of a selection process. My interpretation is that she is more concerned with pulling votes from the Democratic Party than advancing her stated agenda.

    I very much welcome the opportunity to be proved wrong here.

    Gaius Publius , January 31, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    I understand the Green Party (etc.) protest vote motivation. When there's no one really to pick from (depending on your point of view), it's an option I understand.

    But this time, for the first time in a generation, there's actually someone to pick who could win and who will bust up the insider game for real, or give it a hell of a shot. Here's one: I'm reading now that NAFTA can be abrogated by the executive branch alone, based on one of its clauses. I'm still chasing this down.

    Let's assume that's true. How about putting the one person into office who might actually execute that option? Sanders certainly hates these job-killing trade deals enough to do it. And he understands why they need to be killed.

    This year, 2016, and this primary, is our one real shot. It's like 2008 without the fake self-presentation. I say it's important we put our shoulders behind that one wheel and push.

    My thoughts, anyway.

    GP

    Cujo359 , January 31, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    Agreed. Sanders isn't perfect, but he's right on the economic issues. Like most modern politicians, he's bought into the crazy notion that a balanced federal budget is a good thing, but beyond that, he's as good as it's been in a long time.

    I supported Jill Stein and the Greens in 2012, and probably will again in the general if it turns out Clinton is the nominee of the Democrats. But Sanders is the best chance of righting the ship, as I see it, and he's worth supporting on that basis. Even with a hostile Congress, there's still a lot a modern-day President can do, and I think Sanders will do everything in his power to make things better.

    Gaius Publius , January 31, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    Re this:

    Sanders isn't perfect, but he's right on the economic issues. Like most modern politicians, he's bought into the crazy notion that a balanced federal budget is a good thing

    Keep in mind that when Sanders became Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, he hired Stephanie Kelton as the committee's economist. I'm sure they've had a lot of time to have the MMT conversation.

    There's definitely a ways to go to kill the underlying lie that keeps "austerity" viable as a policy, but there is that voice in his ear if he wants to listen to it. And again, he chose her.

    GP

    Uahsenaa , January 31, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    In the spirit of keeping things real, I'm going to be that guy, and remind everyone who's starting to get starry eyed over Sanders that Lyndon Johnson was also very good on social and economic justice–and he happened to preside over the escalation of one of the most politically divisive wars in American history. FDR did too, as it turns out, though we retroactively justify WWII as moral nowadays because of the Holocaust, even though that had nothing to do with why we went to war in the first place.

    Johnson and Sanders have a lot in common, extensive legislative experience, for one. It was Johnson who actually got Kennedy's dead in the water civil rights act passed, due in no small part to his intimate knowledge of how the Congress operates. And, of course, the Great Society, which Repubs (and their Dem allies) have been chipping away at for years now.

    Oh, and both never unequivocally repudiated the disastrous effects that American foreign policy at the muzzle of a gun or sight of drone has unleashed upon the world.

    And when it comes to leftist politics, Johnson actually tried to muzzle the more overtly socialist aspects of King's message, for fear that it might cause embarrassment with regard to the Soviets.

    Now, this is not to say that Sanders 100% = Johnson, but simply to remind us that playing up social and economic justice while waving a hand over the bellicosity of every single Democrat and Republican candidate could very well bite everyone in the butt some day. If Sanders is elected, people better not fail to hold his feet over the fire like many did with Obama.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    LBJ also had Jack's foreign policy loons everywhere and likely a pathological condition about skipping out on World War II. It's not like Johnson decided on his own to invade Vietnam. Jack had a division there on his own.

    When clowns like Hillary, Biden, and Kerry were voting for war in Iraq, Sanders opposed them.

    Uahsenaa , January 31, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    I'm glad you made that point, because it too is something to bear in mind. The Team Blue apparatchiks are not just going to disappear into the night with a Sanders presidency–they may very well wreck things within their particular executive fiefdoms. Corbyn's shadow cabinet woes have shown quite forcefully how New Labour/New Dem types can muck things up even after they've been trounced.

    If Sanders means what he says, that the real fight begins after the inauguration, then I won't regret standing under a Bernie sign tomorrow night.

    Gio Bruno , January 31, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    I think you have too brief a summary on LBJ.

    The US had been involved in Vietnam since the French were defeated at Diem Bien Phu, in 1954. It became part of our "Cold War" strategy. Our "advisers" on the ground were assassinating folks there long before LBJ decided to escalate the war after "learning" of the "attacks" on the US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. (All lies!) His trust in General McFarland was LBJ's downfall.

    As for the Voting Rights Act, LBJ gets a big hug. But the Civil Rights movement had been going on for years before he signed the Act in 1965. I lived through the era and the confrontations in the South were absolutely tragic. There was enormous political pressure to resolve the issue. (Unfortunately, it has not been resolved: abject racism has been replaced by institutional racism.)

    Vatch , January 31, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    At least one of Johnson's legislative wins, his 1948 Senate primary runoff election, was almost certainly dependent on rigged ballots. I doubt that anything remotely similar to that is true for Sanders.

    3.14e-9 , January 31, 2016 at 6:44 pm

    Sanders has said he isn't a pacifist, but that doesn't make him an imperialist warmonger, as those on the anti-war left have been painting him ever since he ran for Congress in 1990.

    This is a good example of what I wrote above about narratives. This one has been repeated over and over, and writers such as Chris Hedges, Joshua Frank, and David Swanson are cited as sources (often by each other). So, for example, when Sanders said the Saudis needed to send ground troops to fight ISIS, the keepers of that narrative started frenzied arm-waving about Imperialist Bernie and Bernie's "screwy Middle East policy," without bothering to research the origin and context (Sam Husseini seized on that one comment as the basis for an entire article about Sanders's imperialist plan to take over all the Middle East oil fields, while Swanson wrote, "Sanders insists Saudi Arabia should kill more people").

    Put in context, Sanders was responding to requests by the Saudis for U.S. ground troops to "fight ISIS." He saw through it, saying that what they really wanted was U.S. troops to protect the billionaire Saudi royal family. Essentially he was telling them to FO and use their own damn troops - and, by the way, Saudi Arabia has one of largest military budgets in the world, so they had some nerve to expect U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill. They won't use their own troops, of course, because that would create more backlash against the monarchy (they ended up convincing Pakistan to do it, evidently through an offer to pay handsomely). Contrary to the narrative, Sanders NEVER has suggested that the Saudis be given free rein to invade neighboring countries or that they should lead the fight against the Islamic State. He argues for a coalition of Muslim nations along the lines of that suggested by Jordan's King Abdullah.

    While it's true that Sanders doesn't yet have a fully formed foreign policy, he does have a lot more experience than he's given credit for, and if you take his record in its entirety, the picture that emerges is not of a neoliberal interventionist.

    Vatch , January 31, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    If Sanders succeeds in winning the Democratic nomination in July, in August, the proper thing for the Greens to do would be to endorse Sanders for President. They would still be able to run all of their candidates for other offices.

    Carolinian , January 31, 2016 at 10:43 am

    I'm not sure it's illegitimate for some people–if that's what's important to them–to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. After all lots of people voted for Obama because he was African American. But at least with Obama his lack of track record meant optimism over his claimed goals was possible. Whereas with Hillary we know exactly what we will be getting and it's not good. Her problem is the very experience she is constantly touting, the "hard choices," tells us what to expect. So unless one is on board with her hawkishness and Wall St cronyism then feminist supporters like Walsh are pushing their own agenda at the expense of everyone else. And if they are on board with those things then, really, why are we reading them anyway?

    James Levy , January 31, 2016 at 11:06 am

    My issue is that these people are not voting for her because she's a woman, because there are loads of women they would not vote for–they are voting for her because she is Hilary Rodham Clinton. They are saying, in effective, "policies count, but not in this case", or at least the supposedly Progressive/Left women are saying that. Those who are on board with neoliberalism and the American Imperial Project can vote for Hilary on points–I have no problem with that so long as they are honest about it.

    TG , January 31, 2016 at 10:55 am

    Well said! Kudos.

    It is human nature to vote for someone like yourself: Blacks for Obama, Women for Hillary Clinton, Irish for Hugh O'Brien, etc. But this "Identity politics" can be a trap, and provides cover for corrupt representatives that will not defend your interests. In particular, when a politician emphasizes their identity instead of their policies, alarm bells should go off. And we should vote our interests.

    It also seems that to some extent Hillary is benefiting from the fact that she is such a toxic monster that it's hard to even process, it seems unreal and hard to believe in. I mean, here is a person who has pushed to waste trillions of dollars devastating middle eastern countries that don't threaten us, has de-facto allied the United States with Al Qaeda (!), has pushed to spend trillions of dollars bailing out Wall Street while starving main street of capital, intends to gut social security to help pay for all this largesse to the 1% (because deficits are bad, you know), wants us to sign a trade agreement that is effectively a corporate coup, making our domestic laws subservient to a bunch of foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret, used her tenure as secretary of state to sell out the national interest for personal cash while she was still in office… And people say that Trump is dangerous? Or that Bernie is unelectable? Really?

    REDPILLED , January 31, 2016 at 11:00 am

    There IS a woman, Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, who is truly progressive in both her domestic and foreign policies. Of course, in our rigged election system, such third party candidates have no chance at even being covered by the corporate media, let alone being elected.

    If Hillary Clinton, neoliberal and neoconservative warmonger, is elected the first woman president, it will be appropriate for this nation, given its system of predatory global capitalism enforced by military brutality and violence. Appropriate, but not at all beneficial, for most of us and the planet.

    tongorad , January 31, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Identity politics appears to trump policy for a great many people…still. I know people who are crowing and cooing about a possible Hillary/Julian Castro ticket. As if the Obama debacle never happened.

    Carla , January 31, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    The only bright spot to a Hillary Clinton nomination is that it would probably enable the Green Party to retain ballot access in Ohio (and I'm guessing in other states as well). Greens and even those who lean Green (a much larger group) are unlikely to vote for Hillary, and the GP must win 3 percent of the vote statewide to keep access to the ballot.

    Since our crisis really is systemic, I don't think we will ever make progress toward solving our problems within the duopoly that's in place now.

    roadrider , January 31, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    Yeah, I agree with that. I support (and contribute to) Jill Stein's campaign but I'm going to be seriously conflicted if Sanders is the DP nominee. I'm also supporting Margaret Flowers for Senate in my state (MD) so even if I vote for Sanders I'll still be able to support an GP candidate for a high office.

    none , January 31, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    If Bernie isn't nominated I'm supporting the non-neoliberal woman candidate, Jill Stein.

    sgt_doom , January 31, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Ditto!

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    I don't think the Democrats grasp the scale of this sentiment. Hillary was supposed to bring in "stupid," young women who are breaking for Sanders despite the nastiness out of the Clinton campaign. Obama sure among black enthusiasm in 2012 in response to GOP efforts to disenfranchise minority voters. It's likely they would have not rallied around the President. Considering blacks have never voted in record strength for Clinton or Gore (1996 and 2000 were periods low African American turnout), it's unlikely Hillary will change the course. Say goodbye to PA, Virginia, and Ohio.

    Given the despicable treatment of Hispanic immigrants by the Obama Administration, the Hispanic community at large won't be eager for Obama's third term. There goes New Mexico, Florida, and Colorado.

    Then if course, there are the down ticket races where Team Blue candidates don't have the adherents Hillary has.

    MaroonBulldog , January 31, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    A vote for Hillary is a vote to send the message that Hillary projects, to wit: a big, loud, and shrill "up yours" to people who play by rules and demand that public officials do the same.

    Next time you hear Bill or Hillary praising people to who play by the rules, remember, these two are vile, inveterate cheats who never play by any rules themselves.

    allan , January 31, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    First they came for the nurses' union, and I said nothing …

    Clinton's campaign and its supporters have pointed to the nurses' spending in support of Sanders to suggest his attacks on Clinton as the candidate of big money are disingenuous and hypocritical.

    But, according to the super PAC's FEC filing, almost all of the PAC's cash flow came in the second half of last year ― and every dime of it came from the union itself. The union did not respond immediately to an email seeking information about its super PAC finances, but the money likely came from dues that members paid to be a part of the union [the horror, the horror …], which come in much smaller increments than the seven-figure checks that fill the coffers of the super PACs that Sanders derides on the campaign trail as eroding American democracy.

    Left in Wisconsin , January 31, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    PAC contributions don't (can't) come out of regular dues. (Unions can make political contributions out of the general fund without setting up a PAC.) Those who wish pay additionally to support a union's PAC. So the NNU PAC is really just a bundling of individual members' voluntary contributions. Not "big money" in the least.

    sgt_doom , January 31, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    Hillary and the Bimbo Vote

    There are many reasons I will never vote for neocon, Hillary Clinton: her support for Obama's war on whistleblowers (Cate Jenkins, John Kiriakou, Jeffrey Sterling, Barrett Brown, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Carmen Segarra, et al.), her support for private prisons - dating from her support for Bill's Omnibus Crime Bill, her involvement in the overthrow of President Zelaya of Honduras - and when those Honduran kids would predictably stream across the border several years later, they would be held at prison camps run by the Geo Group, a major donor to Hillary, her support for the offshoring of American jobs and replacing American workers with foreign visa workers (Tata Consultancy of India was a major donor to her when she was a senator), her help in creating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, etc. - but when I have explained this to women over the age of 45 their eyes glaze over - but when I mention that during the Clinton Administration it was forbidden for their people to publicly utter the phrase, " corporate welfare " - they begin to pay attention!

    Reminds me of a brief discussion I had a few years back with a woman in her 70s who nonsensically believed that Bernie Madoff's wife was a victim?

    Even though I explained that if plenty of us realized he was running a scam, there was no way his two sons and wife couldn't know as well, but since they were profiting nicely from it, they kept quiet - she refused to believe me.

    Several weeks later Mrs. Madoff was caught illegaly attempting to offshore their court-frozen assets, and then she too was put on house arrest, with Bernie, and restricted from telephone and computer usage.

    A typical bimbo . . . .

    But I most certainly do believe a woman should be president in 2016.

    http://www.jill2016.com

    DJG , January 31, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    And Glenn Greenwald weighs in:

    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/

    two beers , January 31, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    I get blank stares when I tell people that in 2008, I didn't vote for Obama but that I did vote for an actual progressive. That candidate happened to be a black female who had been banished from the Democrat* Party by Rahmbo for her stance on Palestine.

    I'm not especially intelligent, but I don't buy into identity politics, so even I could tell very early on in the '08 Democrat primaries that Obama was a stooge and a phony. Democrat voters demean Republican voters for the latter's ignorance, racism, and nativism. I demean Democrats because they are so easily manipulated by identity politics.

    Wall St bankers were worried about angry populism coming for their hides in 2008. Knowing that identity politics "trumps" issue politics for most Democrat voters, they inserted Obama into the mix, and the Democrats lapped it up like the identity-card simpletons that they are. This shifted the focus of the '08 Democrat primaries from Wall St and Iraq to a tacit identity battle based on race and gender.

    I also think Clinton is the Candidate Most Likely to Start WW3, and that includes all of the Republicans. Her recent ad has a shot of Scary Putin while telling us she'll "keep us safe"; she is more vehemently anti-Russian than anyone in the GOP. I honestly think there is a high probability that she will confront Russia militarily if she is elected. It'll never happen, but I'd like to see Sanders' campaign remake LBJ's famous 1964 ad, this time targeting the Goldwater Girl.

    Anyone who votes for Clinton because she is a woman deserves all the contempt we reserve for ignorant, racist, and nativist Republican voters.

    *I'll restore the "ic" if/when the Democrat Party restores itself.

    [Jan 31, 2016] Paul Krugman Plutocrats and Prejudice

    Professor Krugman is a regular (albeit gifted) neoliberal stooge. Nothing new in this column, it just more relaing from the point of of you him, being a bought up columnist.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Krugman, the accidental plutocrat ..."
    "... Krugman especially is embarrassing. Acting just like he did during the MMT Wars. What a little man hes turned out to be. ..."
    "... I only got 5 sentences down. Totally jumped the shark to the neolib owned by wall st side. ..."
    "... There are some very serious, crucial issues here that Krugman, who is my favorite blogger/columnist, is, uncharacteristically and to his great shame, is treating like a political hack: that is the decline of the white lower middle class, the decline of unionism, the political strategy of the right starting with the Southern strategy and then extending across the country to use traditional white working class precarity in a society rife with social and economic change that goes back 2 generations to rip the working and lower middle class apart politically. The strategy is as old as Reconstruction, at least - but it has been amplified economically by globalation and the boom of the plutocrats. ..."
    "... Look at American racism, and most forms of sexism, and increasingly lower-classism. They consist of three parts: contempt for the class, a willingness to use violence against the class, and a demand that the class be industrious and of service - not to themselves, but to those who exert the force and express the contempt, while experiencing neither violence or contempt in return. ..."
    "... That lower and middle class, working Americans scramble to find someone to blame is no surprise. But the controllers who have rigged the game against them, dont let any blame stick to their Teflon carapaces. However women, lower class men and people of colour dont have access to the financial Teflon. Even though they are all companions in suffering, through similar shared mechanisms, no one is handy to take the blame except themselves. ..."
    "... So they end up trying to exert the elite power of contempt and violence on each other, as drowning sailors might climb up each others shoulders to stay above water. Yet no level of status - man versus woman, native versus immigrant, working versus unemployed -- is sufficient anymore to provide more than an inch more or less above the waves. ..."
    "... I am so very sorry to see Krugman use straw man arguments and appeals to authority, two techniques which he has previously said he disapproved of, to, lets face it, attack Bernie Sanders ..."
    "... Im almost starting to feel like Krugman is using some reverse psychology tactic to turn more people against Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... BLS Wage Data by Area and Occupation, 29-1062 Family and General Practitioners, Mean Annual Wage: $186,320. ..."
    Economist's View
    anne :
    Oligarchy is a very real issue, and I was writing about the damaging rise of the 1 percent back when many of today's Sanders supporters were in elementary school....

    -- Paul Krugman

    [ Simply nutty. Paul Krugman has decided to destroy Bernie Sanders, and ridicule and intimidate any of the "kiddies" who are so lacking in maturity as to care to support Sanders. What is driving this nuttiness is beyond my understanding. ]

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    Krugman, the accidental plutocrat

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ...
    Krugman, the accidental plutocrat, 19 years ago:

    http://primary.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/01/the_accidental_theorist.html

    Perhaps the biggest objection to my hot-dog parable is that final bit about the famous journalist. Surely, no respected figure would write a whole book on the world economy based on such a transparent fallacy. And even if he did, nobody would take him seriously.

    But while the hot-dog-and-bun economy is hypothetical, the journalist is not. Rolling Stone reporter William B. Greider has just published a widely heralded new book titled One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. And his book is exactly as I have described it: a massive, panoramic description of the world economy, which piles fact upon fact (some of the crucial facts turn out to be wrong, but that is another issue) in apparent demonstration of the thesis that global supply is outrunning global demand. Alas, all the facts are irrelevant to that thesis; for they amount to no more than the demonstration that there are many industries in which growing productivity and the entry of new producers has led to a loss of traditional jobs -- that is, that hot-dog production is up, but hot-dog employment is down. Nobody, it seems, warned Greider that he needed to worry about fallacies of composition, that the logic of the economy as a whole is not the same as the logic of a single market.

    I think I know what Greider would answer: that while I am talking mere theory, his argument is based on the evidence. The fact, however, is that the U.S. economy has added 45 million jobs over the past 25 years -- far more jobs have been added in the service sector than have been lost in manufacturing. Greider's view, if I understand it, is that this is just a reprieve--that any day now, the whole economy will start looking like the steel industry. But this is a purely theoretical prediction. And Greider's theorizing is all the more speculative and simplistic because he is an accidental theorist, a theorist despite himself -- because he and his unwary readers imagine that his conclusions simply emerge from the facts, unaware that they are driven by implicit assumptions that could not survive the light of day.

    Needless to say, I have little hope that the general public, or even most intellectuals, will realize what a thoroughly silly book Greider has written. After all, it looks anything but silly--it seems knowledgeable and encyclopedic, and is written in a tone of high seriousness. It strains credibility to assert the truth, which is that the main lesson one really learns from those 473 pages is how easy it is for an intelligent, earnest man to trip over his own intellectual shoelaces.

    Why did it happen? Part of the answer is that Greider systematically cut himself off from the kind of advice and criticism that could have saved him from himself. His acknowledgements conspicuously do not include any competent economists--not a surprising thing, one supposes, for a man who describes economics as "not really a science so much as a value-laden form of prophecy." But I also suspect that Greider is the victim of his own earnestness. He clearly takes his subject (and himself) too seriously to play intellectual games. To test-drive an idea with seemingly trivial thought experiments, with hypothetical stories about simplified economies producing hot dogs and buns, would be beneath his dignity. And it is precisely because he is so serious that his ideas are so foolish.

    Sandwichman -> anne...
    BTW, anne, I found the thing I wrote earlier on cubism and econoometrics.

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/01/links-for-01-28-16.html#comment-6a00d83451b33869e201bb08b34a39970d

    anne -> Sandwichman ...
    https://rwer.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/econometrics-and-the-art-of-putting-the-rabbit-in-the-hat/

    February 8, 2014

    I think the the term "econocubism" (or "econocubisme") may be useful here. There may well be a Braque, a Picasso, a Metzinger or a Gleize of econometric analysis, but for most practitioners it is a mannerism that alludes, clumsily even, to a technique.

    The "joke" about cubist painting that circulated in popular satire in the pre-war (W.W. I) days was centred around "Maistre Cube", a pun that simultaneously referred to the painter as "cube master" and as "cubic metre."

    One problem is that econometric analysis is so "incomprehensible" that it has never been subjected to the same degree of popular suspicion and ridicule as have fashions (along with alleged hoaxes and mystifications) in modern art.

    -- Tom Walker

    anne -> anne...
    What an excellent and important analogy.
    anne -> Sandwichman ...
    Really, really excellent:

    http://www.pablopicasso.org/images/paintings/three-musicians.jpg

    Jeffrey Stewart :
    If Dr. Krugman doesn't get that political appointment in a Hillary Clinton administration, it's not because he didn't work for it.

    Benedict@Large -> Jeffrey Stewart...

    All of a sudden, Camp Hillary is accusing the opposition of nastiness. EXACTLY like Camp Hillary did in 2008. I don't think they know how to lose.

    And Krugman especially is embarrassing. Acting just like he did during the MMT Wars. What a little man he's turned out to be.

    ilsm :

    I only got 5 sentences down. Totally jumped the shark to the neolib owned by wall st side.

    His quote is important: it is "love of $$$ is the root of all evil."

    Leave inequality alone and you cannot fight racism, sexism, nativism, war mongering, enforcing obscure parts of the old testament etc.

    Like, I have stopped reading Krugman unless it is wonkish on economic then I will shut down if it is neo-lib.

    On the Krugman's side of the shark money is an important entity, don't worry what it does to societies and individuals!

    RGC -> ilsm...
    "Leave inequality alone and you cannot fight racism, sexism, nativism, war mongering, enforcing obscure parts of the old testament etc."

    A conclusion both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X arrived at late in their lives.

    ilsm -> RGC...
    Greed is vice no matter how you wring your hands about the hardships delivered when greed is stopped.

    Julio :

    Krugman is one of my heroes, but man, is he ever having a bad patch. I think the full article is better and more nuanced than our host's abbreviated version, and I urge people to read it in full. But still...

    First, his admittedly oversimplified version of Sanders' positions is a caricature. Sanders is not a one-trick pony on inequality; and his call for "revolution" is almost entirely a call for more citizen participation in politics.

    And second, according to Krugman the fact that there is a lot of racism and xenophobia out there means that visions of significant change are "naive". Then what, the "realist" version is to appease the racists? or to wait until they change? yes, we can make common cause with them, right now, against the plutocrats, but we don't want their votes? What exactly is the strategy he espouses, other than "don't fly too high, you might burn"?

    And, very uncharacteristically for Krugman, his position seems confused. Is he saying we cannot reach the racists, so don't even try, i.e. the left-wing version of Mitt's 47% speech? Or, work slowly to change their views on race, and then they will come to our side? Or, just aim for 51% of the votes and a minority in Congress? It's hard to tell.

    Chris G -> Syaloch...
    > Definitely one of the weakest, most confused columns ever from Krugman, who's been one of my heroes as well.

    I'd only quibble in that it wasn't just today's column. He's had a run of really weak and confused columns over the past week. If they'd been as well thought out and insightful as most of his work they'd have been worth reading, even if I disagreed strongly. What bothers me is that they're sloppy and clueless. Hopefully it's just a bad week and not a trend.

    Paine -> Julio ...
    Pk seems to have little sense of frustration at the failures of the main frame Democrats

    The millions out there that have seen nothing positive in their lives since jimmy carter

    Yearn for big change
    And those that tell them it's coming it's coming
    Just in baby steps are infuriating them

    Look at krugs list of Barry Deeds

    The recovery ?
    Are u kidding

    Slight tax increases for the affluent
    Even as the top 1% gallops away from the rest of us


    People want immediate improvement after 40 yeas waiting

    Pk points to increments on
    The environment

    Healthcare

    The ACA has not transformed anything yet
    For 80% of America
    They see premiums and co pays
    Not a social commitment to universal corporate health insurance
    Dodd frank ?

    Where does that show up at the dinner table ?


    Paul simply lives mostly outside his own life politically

    And yet he does not get the urgency

    Liberals look at Ethiopia to have their heart turned on
    not queens NY
    Or Toledo Ohio

    Fine but the anger is real
    the hope postponed a scandal

    Syaloch :
    I seriously think it's time to check Krugman's basement for pods. Where did this guy go and how do we get him back?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html

    Confronting the Malefactors

    By Paul Krugman | Oct. 6, 2011

    There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.

    When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.

    It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

    What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters' indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.

    A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political debate - and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you've forgotten, it was a play in three acts.

    In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst - but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers' sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support - and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts - behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.

    Now, it's true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans, which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.

    Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don't have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say, CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest rates soaring.

    A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But we shouldn't make too much of the lack of specifics. It's clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it's really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.

    Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I'll second that, because such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover. I'd suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment - not more tax cuts - to help create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.

    And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today's Republicans, who instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed "malefactors of great wealth." Mitt Romney, for example - who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class Americans - was quick to condemn the protests as "class warfare."

    But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however, Mr. Obama's party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.

    And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.

    Fredd G. Muggs :
    I too admire Dr. Krugman, but I agree he seems to have concluded that Sect. Clinton would be the best choice for president and is letting that significantly influence his views and writing.

    I do not think $$ is the root cause of all evil, but it is like gasoline to a fire, it sure makes everything worse. I also believe that the Tea party is an authoritarian group, and is therefore not persuadable by reason.

    I am supporting Sen. Sanders for the nomination. I am not naive enough to think he will accomplish everything he campaigns on (no president ever does) but I like his passion and starting positions better than Sect. Clinton's.

    If nominated I will support Sect. Clinton, but at this stage of the race I will support the person I think is the best candidate.

    anne -> am...

    The BBC had a note today about this conflict between Sanders and Clinton. They referred to the nastiness appearing on blogs especially mentioning its direction against those that disagree with or do not support Sanders....

    [ BBC folks are wildly trying to destroy Bernie Sanders just as BBC folks want to destroy Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. ]

    anne -> am...
    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/the-seven-stages-of-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition/

    January 21, 2016

    The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition
    By Glenn Greenwald

    The British political and media establishment incrementally lost its collective mind over the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the country's Labour Party, and its unraveling and implosion show no signs of receding yet. Bernie Sanders is nowhere near as radical as Corbyn; they are not even in the same universe. But, especially on economic issues, Sanders is a more fundamental, systemic critic than the oligarchical power centers are willing to tolerate, and his rejection of corporate dominance over politics, and corporate support for his campaigns, is particularly menacing. He is thus regarded as America's version of a far-left extremist, threatening establishment power.

    For those who observed the unfolding of the British reaction to Corbyn's victory, it's been fascinating to watch the D.C./Democratic establishment's reaction to Sanders' emergence replicate that, reading from the same script. I personally think Clinton's nomination is extremely likely, but evidence of a growing Sanders movement is unmistakable. Because of the broader trends driving it, this is clearly unsettling to establishment Democrats - as it should be.

    A poll last week found that Sanders has a large lead with millennial voters, including young women; as Rolling Stone put it: "Young female voters support Bernie Sanders by an expansive margin." The New York Times yesterday trumpeted that, in New Hampshire, Sanders "has jumped out to a 27 percentage point lead," which is "stunning by New Hampshire standards." The Wall Street Journal yesterday, in an editorial titled "Taking Sanders Seriously," declared it is "no longer impossible to imagine the 74-year-old socialist as the Democratic nominee."

    Just as was true for Corbyn, there is a direct correlation between the strength of Sanders and the intensity of the bitter and ugly attacks unleashed at him by the D.C. and Democratic political and media establishment. There were, roughly speaking, seven stages to this [neoliberal] establishment revolt in the U.K. against Corbyn, and the U.S. reaction to Sanders is closely following the same script:

    1. STAGE 1: Polite condescension toward what is perceived to be harmless (we think it's really wonderful that your views are being aired).
    2. STAGE 2: Light, casual mockery as the self-belief among supporters grows (no, dears, a left-wing extremist will not win, but it's nice to see you excited).
    3. STAGE 3: Self-pity and angry etiquette lectures directed at supporters upon realization that they are not performing their duty of meek surrender, flavored with heavy doses of concern trolling (nobody but nobody is as rude and gauche online to journalists as these crusaders, and it's unfortunately hurting their candidate's cause!).
    4. STAGE 4: Smear the candidate and his supporters with innuendos of sexism and racism by falsely claiming only white men support them (you like this candidate because he's white and male like you, not because of ideology or policy or contempt for the party establishment's corporatist, pro-war approach).
    5. STAGE 5: Brazen invocation of right-wing attacks to marginalize and demonize, as polls prove the candidate is a credible threat (he'sweak on terrorism, will surrender to ISIS, has crazy associations, and is a clone of Mao and Stalin).
    6. STAGE 6: Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending apocalypse if the establishment candidate is rejected, as the possibility of losing becomes imminent (you are destined for decades, perhaps even generations, of powerlessness if you disobey our decrees about who to select).
    7. STAGE 7: Full-scale and unrestrained meltdown, panic, lashing-out, threats, recriminations, self-important foot-stomping, overt union with the Right, complete fury (I can no longer in good conscience support this party of misfits, terrorist-lovers, communists, and heathens).

    Britain is well into Stage 7, and may even invent a whole new level (anonymous British military officials expressly threatened a "mutiny" if Corbyn were democratically elected as prime minister). The Democratic media and political establishment has been in the heart of Stage 5 for weeks and is now entering Stage 6. The arrival of Stage 7 is guaranteed if Sanders wins Iowa....

    Julio :

    BTW, anne often links to this group (thanks anne):

    "Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) has been advocating for single-payer national health insurance for three decades. It neither supports nor opposes any candidates for public office."

    A particularly apposite column this month:

    http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/january/doctors-group-welcomes-national-debate-on-'medicare-for-all'

    A quote from it:
    "What is truly "unrealistic" is believing that we can provide universal and affordable health care, and control costs, in a system dominated by private insurers and Big Pharma."

    Which responds to both of Krugman's accusations: being "naive" about our politics, and putting too much emphasis on big money's control of our system.

    anne -> Julio ...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/kenneth-thorpe-bernie-sanders-single-payer_b_9113192.html?1454092127

    January 29, 2016

    On Kenneth Thorpe's Analysis of Senator Sanders' Single-Payer Reform Plan
    By David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler

    Professor Kenneth Thorpe recently issued an analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders' single-payer national health insurance proposal. Thorpe, an Emory University professor who served in the Clinton administration, claims the single-payer plan would break the bank.

    Thorpe's analysis rests on several incorrect, and occasionally outlandish, assumptions. Moreover, it is at odds with analyses of the costs of single-payer programs that he produced in the past, which projected large savings from such reform (see this study, * for example, or this one ** ).

    We outline below the incorrect assumptions behind Thorpe's current analysis:

    1. He incorrectly assumes administrative savings of only 4.7 percent of expenditures, based on projections of administrative savings under Vermont's proposed reform.

    However, the Vermont reform did not contemplate a fully single-payer system. It would have allowed large employers to continue offering private coverage, and the continuation of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and Medicare programs. Hence, hospitals, physicians' offices, and nursing homes would still have had to contend with multiple payers, forcing them to maintain the complex cost-tracking and billing apparatus that drives up providers' administrative costs. Vermont's plan proposed continuing to pay hospitals and other institutional providers on a per-patient basis, rather than through global budgets, perpetuating the expensive hospital billing apparatus that siphons funds from care.

    The correct way to estimate administrative savings is to use actual data from real world experience with single-payer systems such as that in Canada or Scotland, rather than using projections of costs in Vermont's non-single-payer plan. In our study *** published in the New England Journal of Medicine we found that the administrative costs of insurers and providers accounted for 16.7 percent of total health care expenditures in Canada, versus. 31.0 percent in the U.S. - a difference of 14.3 percent. In subsequent studies, we have found that U.S. hospital administrative costs have continued to rise, while Canada's have not. Moreover, hospital administrative costs in Scotland's single-payer system were virtually identical those in Canada.

    In sum, Thorpe's assumptions understate the administrative savings of single-payer by 9.6 percent of total health spending. Hence he overestimates the program's cost by 9.6 percent of health spending -- $327 billion in 2016, and $3.742 trillion between 2016 and 2024. Notably, Thorpe's earlier analyses projected much larger administrative savings from single-payer reform -- closely in line with our estimates.

    2. Thorpe assumes huge increases in the utilization of care, increases far beyond those that were seen when national health insurance was implemented in Canada, and much larger than is possible given the supply of doctors and hospital beds.

    When Canada implemented universal coverage and abolished copayments and deductibles there was no change in the total number of doctor visits; doctors worked the same number of hours after the reform as before, and saw the same number of patients. However, they saw their healthy and wealthier patients slightly less often, and sicker and poorer patients somewhat more frequently. Moreover, the limited supply of hospital beds precluded the kind of big surge in hospitalizations that Thorpe predicts. In health policy parlance, "capacity constraints" precluded a big increase in system-wide utilization.

    Thorpe bases his estimates on what has happened when a small percentage of people in a community have had copayments eliminated or added. But in those cases there are no capacity constraints, so it tells us little about what would happen under a system-wide reform like single-payer.

    Thorpe does not give actual figures for how many additional doctor visits and hospital stays he predicts. However, his estimates that persons with private insurance would increase their utilization of care by 10 percent and that those with Medicare-only coverage would increase utilization by 10 to 25 percent suggest that he projects about 100 million additional doctor visits and several million more hospitalizations each year - something that's impossible given real-world capacity constraints. There just aren't enough doctors and hospital beds to deliver that much care.

    Instead of a huge surge in utilization, more realistic projections would assume that doctors and hospitals would reduce the amount of unnecessary care they're now delivering in order to deliver needed care to those who are currently not getting what they need. That's what happened in Canada.

    3. Thorpe assumes that the program would be a huge bonanza for state governments, projecting that the federal government would relieve them of 10 percent of their current spending for Medicaid and CHIP -- equivalent to about $20 billion annually.

    No one has suggested that a single-payer reform would or should do this.

    4. Thorpe's analysis also ignores the large savings that would accrue to state and local governments -- and hence taxpayers -- because they would be relieved of the costs of private coverage for public employees.

    State and local government spent $177 billion last year on employee health benefits - about $120 billion more than state and local government would pay under the 6.2 percent payroll tax that Senator Sanders has proposed. The federal government could simply allow state and local governments to keep this windfall, but it seems far more likely that it would reduce other funding streams to compensate.

    5. Thorpe's analysis also apparently ignores the huge tax subsidies that currently support private insurance, which are listed as "Tax Expenditures" in the federal government's official budget documents.

    These subsidies totaled $326.2 billion last year, and are expected to increase to $538.9 billion in 2024. Shifting these current tax expenditures from subsidizing private coverage to funding for a single-payer program would greatly lessen the amount of new revenues that would be required. Thorpe's analysis makes no mention of these current subsidies.

    6. Thorpe assumes zero cost savings under single-payer on prescription drugs and devices.

    Nations with single-payer systems have in every case used their clout as a huge purchaser to lower drug prices by about 50 percent. In fact, the U.S. Defense Department and VA system have also been able to realize such savings.

    In summary, professor Thorpe grossly underestimates the administrative savings under single-payer; posits increases in the number of doctor visits and hospitalizations that exceed the capacity of doctors and hospitals to provide this added care; assumes that the federal government would provide state and local governments with huge windfalls rather than requiring full maintenance of effort; makes no mention of the vast current tax subsidies for private coverage whose elimination would provide hundreds of billions annually to fund a single-payer program; and ignores savings on drugs and medical equipment that every other single-payer program has reaped.

    In the past, Thorpe estimated that single-payer reform would lower health spending while covering all of the uninsured and upgrading coverage for the tens of millions who are currently underinsured. The facts on which those conclusions were based have not changed.

    * http://www.mffh.org/mm/files/ShowMe3a.pdf

    ** http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Thorpe%20booklet.pdf

    *** http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033


    Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler are professors of health policy and management at the City University of New York School of Public Health and lecturers in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

    anne -> Julio ...

    http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/oecd-health-statistics-2014-frequently-requested-data.htm

    November, 2015

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Health Data

    Total health care spending per person, 2013 *

    United States ( 8713)
    OCED average ( 3453)

    Canada ( 4351)

    Total health care spending as a share of GDP, 2013

    United States ( 16.4)
    OCED average ( 8.9)

    Canada ( 10.2)

    Pharmaceutical expenditure per person, 2013 *

    United States ( 1034)
    OECD average ( 517)

    Canada ( 761)

    Practising physicians per 1,000 population, 2013

    United States ( 2.6)
    OECD average ( 3.3)

    Canada ( 2.6)

    Practising nurses per 1,000 population, 2013

    United States ( 11.1)
    OECD average ( 9.1)

    Canada ( 9.5)

    Physician consultations per person, 2013

    United States ( 4.0)
    OECD average ( 6.7)

    Canada ( 7.7)

    Medical graduates per 100,000 population, 2013

    United States ( 7.3)
    OECD average ( 11.2)

    Canada ( 7.5)

    * Data are expressed in US dollars adjusted for purchasing power parities (PPPs), which provide a means of comparing spending between countries on a common base. PPPs are the rates of currency conversion that equalise the cost of a given "basket" of goods and services in different countries.

    Dave :
    There are some very serious, crucial issues here that Krugman, who is my favorite blogger/columnist, is, uncharacteristically and to his great shame, is treating like a political hack: that is the decline of the white lower middle class, the decline of unionism, the political strategy of the right starting with the Southern strategy and then extending across the country to use traditional white working class precarity in a society rife with social and economic change that goes back 2 generations to rip the working and lower middle class apart politically. The strategy is as old as Reconstruction, at least - but it has been amplified economically by globalation and the boom of the plutocrats.

    You cannot the divide race and class divisions as there is interplay between them, but at root is the nexus of power: money and class. Take for instance, our schools. These are supposed to be the sort of launching pad of our putative meritocracy. The critical indicator of the performance any public school by a wide margin is the property value of the surrounding area.

    I just read an article today that a lot of union members are leaning Trump. Maybe Krugman should take that up; it's not simply that union members got racist all of a sudden. Something else is happening (see the opiod epidemic, suicides, etc.).

    Paine -> Dave...
    Liberals love social progress that spreads humanist values

    This is however sometimes at the expense of basic issues to
    The job class masses

    It comes down to
    What you call for

    Vs
    what you fight for


    The system is corporate dominated
    The reform paths of least resistance will always be
    Cultural
    How does gay marriage harm corporate bottom lines
    Even civil rights for oppressed nations are negotiable
    Where full employment real full employment is not

    Jeffrey Stewart :
    Dr. Krugman must be starving. He gets his lunch eaten by commenters every time he tries to trash Senator Sanders.
    Mary L Robinson :
    Deja vu - 2004 when the democratic punditry decided to take out Howard dean. It worked very well then, but based on the experience of the repubs with Trump, I think they will fail this time. People are on to this scam.
    Noni Mausa :
    It isn't "money" versus "racism, sexism, and xenophobia." Rather, they are all shades of each other.

    Look at American racism, and most forms of sexism, and increasingly lower-classism. They consist of three parts: contempt for the class, a willingness to use violence against the class, and a demand that the class be industrious and of service - not to themselves, but to those who exert the force and express the contempt, while experiencing neither violence or contempt in return.

    That lower and middle class, working Americans scramble to find someone to blame is no surprise. But the controllers who have rigged the game against them, don't let any blame stick to their Teflon carapaces. However women, lower class men and people of colour don't have access to the financial Teflon. Even though they are all companions in suffering, through similar shared mechanisms, no one is handy to take the blame except themselves.

    So they end up trying to exert the elite power of contempt and violence on each other, as drowning sailors might climb up each other's shoulders to stay above water. Yet no level of status - man versus woman, native versus immigrant, working versus unemployed -- is sufficient anymore to provide more than an inch more or less above the waves.

    Men traditionally don't want to do women's work because women get a raw deal doing that work. Ditto native born Americans don't want immigrant jobs for the same reason. But what has happened to a great many Americans in one generation is their mass demotion to casual labour, scut jobs, "women's work," and their common experience of the violence and contempt which formerly affected "only" women and migrants and slaves. (Not that this makes any of it any better.)

    Where does cold, neutral money come into this? Money is the tool whereby one person may enlist others to do his/her bidding, when needed and without further obligation. But when all the cash is in a few hands, none of it is flowing at a grassroots level. Poor people today, lacking land and hunting and skill resources, and also lacking money, have neither personal nor impersonal claim on each other's aid.

    Anyone who could make the situation crystal clear to the populace, might bring on a revolution, but most Americans are like the giant Antaeus, helpless when held off the earth, and it's hard to see how such a revolution could be effective.

    Noni

    DeDude :
    Actually, focusing more on the economic issue and less on inequality issues may be the better election strategy. The 1%'ers are just - 1%. The racist and sexist are a lot more than that. So if you attack the 1%'ers you alienate yourself from a less voters than if you attack racism and sexism (although they also deserve being attacked). Not getting your fair share is always an easy sell to the masses.
    TA HARTMAN :
    I am so very sorry to see Krugman use straw man arguments and appeals to authority, two techniques which he has previously said he disapproved of, to, let's face it, attack Bernie Sanders.
    • Straw man - "Sanders view is that money is the root of all evil. Or more specifically, the corrupting influence of big money, of the 1 percent and the corporate elite, is the overarching source of the political ugliness..."
    • Appeal to authority - "Meanwhile, the Sanders skepticism of the wonks continues: Paul Starr lays out the case. As far as I can tell, every serious progressive policy expert on either health care or financial reform who has weighed in on the primary seems to lean Hillary."

    The latter comes from his blog on January 27.

    Neither is true at all.

    This is so sad to watch, as I really admire Prof. Krugman.

    anne -> TA HARTMAN...
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/health-wonks-and-bernie-bros/

    January 27, 2016

    Health Wonks and Bernie Bros
    By Paul Krugman

    Meanwhile, the Sanders skepticism of the wonks continues...

    Watermelonpunch :
    I'm almost starting to feel like Krugman is using some reverse psychology tactic to turn more people against Hillary Clinton.

    Because I'm envisioning the picture painted by Krugman, where Hillary Clinton is the person standing between big money and the angry mob with flaming torches & pitchforks... and Krugman is painting Hillary Clinton as the person who will, and quite naturally, turn to the big money interests, say "one moment"...

    And then Clinton will turn to the angry mob, and try to get them to pick up spoons and feather dusters instead.

    Chris G :
    Krugman's posts and columns of the past week have been awful. It's not that I disagree with his perspective that sticks in my craw so much, it's that they're so sloppy. He just turned off his critical thinking skills. He can't actually be that oblivious as to why Sanders' supporters support him, can he? He can't actually be that oblivious as to why many Democrats aren't enthusiastic about Clinton, can he? If his columns had conveyed an accurate assessment of Sanders supporters and Clinton critics then I don't think I would have found them so objectionable. It was the absence of thoughtful analysis which bothers me so much.

    Take for example his citing Thorpe's criticism of Sanders' health care proposal. He could have dug into the differences between Thorpe's and Friedman's analyses (Friedman was behind Sanders' proposal) and made arguments for finding one more plausible than the other. He did zero analysis. It kinda looked like he put his hands on the first critique he could find and sang it's praises rather than engaging in a serious analysis. Perhaps a serious analysis would call Sanders' plan into question? Perhaps it would but Krugman isn't providing it. (And I'm not sold that Thorpe's analysis is a good one - not enough supporting info provided to judge.) And what's his basis for basically doing a 180 degrees on single-payer since (roughly) 2008? Has he learned new things which have caused him to change his mind? If so then what are they? I've respected his thoughtful analyses in the past. I'd listen. Anyhow, a very disappointing series of columns from Mr. Krugman.

    Ashish :
    Yet again the reaction to Prof. Krugman here is all negative. He remembers the unnecessarily nail biting health care bill and stimulus bill (half sized to begin with).

    While Sen. Sanders would be uncompromising on such issues, he might end up a lame duck from the get go. Especially, if he restarts the healthcare debate where the Republicans have organized themselves. Or worse, that a winnable presidential election could end up with both congress and the presidency in Republican hands. Then all the other issues such as alternative energy (possible to sell as energy independence to avoid obstruction), Wall Street regulation (which the Republicans can't oppose strongly for fear of the public), minimum wage increase (again popular with the public) would not get off the ground.

    Lafayette -> Ashish...
    {Especially, if he restarts the healthcare debate where the Republicans have organized themselves.}

    Organized themselves with what? Mindless TV commercials that miss the point?

    The life-span of the average American has diminished these recent years*? Between rising obesity-rates and a healthcare system that is the most costly of any developed nation, where's the logic ... ?

    *Life expectancy and total HealthCare spending (OECD countries): https://www.flickr.com/photos/68758107@N00/14464162998/

    Lafayette -> Lafayette ...
    BLS Wage Data by Area and Occupation, 29-1062 Family and General Practitioners, Mean Annual Wage: $186,320.

    Wow!

    [Jan 30, 2016] Iowa: Des Moines Register poll sets up a mad Saturday night – campaign live

    Notable quotes:
    "... If youre relying on seeing your favorite candidates name the most times in a Google search, do keep in mind that only young low information voter relies on technology to determine whos popular. The old folks still rely on talk radio. ..."
    "... Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate of the Military Industrial Complex ..."
    "... Trump says insane things, of course every news outlet covers him, I dont really think he counts. MSNBC is by far the worst of the lot when it comes to spoon feeding. I dont like FOX any better when they bring on their Holy band of extreme right commentators either. ..."
    "... As a young female undecided voter, its hard not to be fooled by the celebrity game show host. And on the other hand, its hard not to support my fellow gender and vote Hillary (until you look at the baggage). Now, if I listen to my brain as opposed to emotions, the common sense of Bernie on the one side or Rand Paul on the other has a distinct appeal. Theyre quite interesting to listen to and they do it without invoking terror, hatred, scare tactics or even biblical quotes. How refreshing! ..."
    "... The bankruptcy argument is a bunch of bs. Hes a billionaire now. If I could become a billionaire by going bankrupt Id do it in a heartbeat. The truth is that he figured out how to rise out of bankruptcy and is now financing a presidential campaign and manhandling his opponents who have received millions in contributions. ..."
    "... Ive been a democrat all my life and hope that Sanders wins. But if it comes down to Hillary and Trump, Im voting Trump. If it comes down to Hilary and any republican not named Trump, Ill hold my nose and vote for Hilary. I really dont care for her. ..."
    "... Its heartening to see that Clinton is polling lower than Sanders when it comes to young women, perhaps indicative of the post-sexism ideal were going for; younger women are judging the candidates on their actual policies and character, as opposed to being swayed by the infantile because shes a woman appeal. ..."
    "... Given TTP and TTIP, NAFTA, the actions of the IMF and World Bank, the moves by the EU and Anglosphere away from social democracy and the continuing prescription of liberal economic policy for all states, deregulation, plans to expand recourse to investor-state dispute settlement courts, and the overall small state philosophy, often enforced by military interventionism or sanctions, it seems as if pro-capital policy, deregulation and the resulting inequality havent obtained a status quo that will be maintained under Hilary or the GOP so much as an agenda that has been pushed globally, and will go further in the direction that many voters on the left and centre of politics and even the traditional conservative right and far-right, probably the majority of Americas and the worlds population, oppose. ..."
    "... The Guardian and the rest of the UK media are giving Trump the same treatment as they gave Arthur Scargill in the 1980s. ..."
    "... The UK Establishment and media and their overseas supporters (in the other direction) and we all know who that is. are schit scared in case Trump gets in. The British establishment has been bought. British 'informed democracy', is dead. Censorship, is rife. And the British People know it. ..."
    "... Does any of this really matter? The United States is an empire and, regardless of who is anointed President by the Koch brothers and the rest of the American aristocracy, the empire will still require a military budget of at least $500,000,000,000 and American jobs will still go to China because that's profitable for the corporations and for the aristocrats who own and run those corporations. ..."
    "... The far-left attacks again, well I have to give them credit, they are really trying harder than ever. Anyway, these polls are always adulterated by special interests ..."
    "... We do not have a democracy. Freedom of speech democratic freedom of thought, yes. Democracy is an unfulfilled philosophical idea and wishful thinking. For decades, we have been under the total rule of organized business - as are many developed nations. ..."
    "... I have been a lifelong Democrat and my first choice is Bernie Sanders. With my meagre income I will continue to contribute to his campaign. My alternate choice is, anyone but Hillary Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot imagine anyone who reads the news can vote for this Wall St. puppet. ..."
    "... Be that as it may, the US average voter owes to Donald Trump for standing up to the corporate media that we always criticise for influencing elections, while other candidates of both parties bend over backwards to curry their favor. ..."
    "... Yes, the corporate media as a result are going after him, but he still gets votes. This election, the case the US Voter vs. Corporate Media, the Voter won thanks to Trump. ..."
    "... People have unfavourable opinions of politicians they actually vote for. Nearly all Repubs will vote for trump if he is the nominee and whether it's Hillary or Sanders, a fair size of one time Obama voters are switching to the Repubs because they want action taken against the rapid erosion of what they consider to be American values. ..."
    "... It appears that the Guardian continues to show it's bias toward Clinton. How about being balanced and reporting the news instead of trying to create the news and influence the outcome. If we want bias we can drift over to Fox Fake news ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton is not on the left. She is right center. ..."
    "... Cruz is genuinely dangerous. A religious zealot and a war monger, it would be a massive step back for America and the world if this man became president. ..."
    "... It's because many people who are centrist or left leaning have a sense of morality and principles.. It's not about voting for who stinks less.. It's about standing up for what you consider right and if you can't do that during the election process then what's the bloody point of democracy.. Take the case of Occupy Wall Street.. supported by most left leaning people. ..."
    "... the media wants us to frame everything into left wing or right wing. However I don't buy into that paradigm anymore. When Clinton was about to send the jobs away, I saw effectively Pat Buchanan (staunch conservative but poplulist) effectively joining forces with Ralph Nader (perhaps as far left as anyone can go but still populist). You think any democrat would be better than any republican. I think that if we don't fix something soon, this whole thing is going to collapse. For my money only 3 candidates are actually pledging to fix something (Sanders, Paul and Trump). ..."
    "... Remember that socialist is a dirtier word in much of the U.S. than neo-liberal is in Western Europe. There's also the very pertinent question of whether the U.S. is ready to elect a Jewish president. ..."
    "... Obama came in surrounded by Wall Street execs and stooges and from the outset had no intention of challenging the power of the capitalist class or affecting change that was anything other than rhetorical in nature. ..."
    "... Clinton is the one candidate who can lose to Trump, and if she win's she will govern like Bush. It's disgusting how the establishment is pushing her so hard, but it does inform us that we should reject her. Clinton is a candidate like Obama - runs on hope and change, than nothing changes - same old attitude that Government exists to protect the profits of the 1% and **** Working Class Americans ..."
    "... Sanders' mild social democratic policies - which require moderate and easily affordable sacrifices on the part of the rich - are of course very realistic and practical. Or at least they are realistic in countries that are at least reasonably politically sane. But since US politics is the very definition of insanity, Sanders policies are not realistic . ..."
    The Guardian

    sdkeller72 -> SeanThorp 30 Jan 2016 21:10

    Let's not forget Bill Clinton's brother Roger's involvement in the Iran Contra affair. Clinton's have been involved in drugs and gun running for a long time.

    skipsdad -> André De Koning 30 Jan 2016 21:03

    Putin did more damage to Isis in 6 weeks, than Obama and Nato did in six years.

    The Turkish fox, is in the Nato chicken coop. Turkey has been getting oil from Syria for years. Obama knew about it. The Russians were threatening to reveal the deceit, and that's why their plane was shot down.

    Now Turkey is claiming another Russian violation. The fox is looking to start WWIII.

    Obama has been dealing with 'moderate terrorists' for years, and Putin exposed him.

    Obama and the US - Running with the foxes, and hunting with the hounds.

    Trump will clean that cesspit of corruption out.

    johnf1 30 Jan 2016 20:58

    Who in God's name cares what anyone in Iowa thinks about who should be president. As far as I know neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has ever been important in any presidential election. Pennsylvania, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, the voters in those states are important.

    nnedjo 30 Jan 2016 20:56

    The former first lady run in the elections for the Democratic presidential candidate for the second time, and claims to have a trump cards for it; "Only she is able to defeat Trump!"

    However, the problem is that in addition to trump cards Hillary also has Trump's money. You remember that she took the money from Trump, as a fee for coming to his wedding.

    Now it raises a hypothetical question: What if in the middle of the election campaign Trump decides to pay Clinton a little more than before, as "a fee for the lost elections"?

    So, in my opinion it is not unthinkable at all that Hillary could sell elections to Trump in exchange for a certain sum of money, the only question is how much money would that be.

    And after all, Trump himself has already stated that he is looking forward to get Hillary Clinton as an opponent in the presidential race, so draw your own conclusions?

    André De Koning -> skipsdad 30 Jan 2016 20:50

    Pity we only get a silly picture of Putin via western media. Reading his speeches, especially the last one at the UN (28th Sept.), he was the clearest and summed up the issues of western caused chaos with its invasions and claim of 'being special'(US, especially hypocritical and doing the opposite of what it preaches). Putin is thoughtful, strategic and a leader, while in the US there are no leaders and even more is done by the so-called intelligence agencies' that by the Russian FSB (more control over them than over the NSA). One debate with Putin would be more interesting than any of this American waffle that has never changed their superficial, cruel foreign policies. I discovered this by reading other literature about Putin than you can ever find in the misleading demonization of any leader who is opposed to US policies. The press lied about Gadaffi too, so take some trouble to find out what these so-called enemies are actually about.

    RusticBenadar -> carson45 30 Jan 2016 20:42

    Actually, if you had done your due diligence and researched Bernie's track record you would see he is a master of bipartisan success; it was said of his mayorship that he "out republicaned the republicans" achieving all the fiscal objectives they had long sought in Butlington but failed to accomplish until Bernie came along.

    TettyBlaBla 30 Jan 2016 20:39

    I find all the predictions of who will win the General Election in November quite amusing. Primary elections haven't even started and neither major political party has declared which candidates in the present fields will represent them. The choice of Vice Presidential candidates could well change the scenarios many are now presenting.

    If you're relying on seeing your favorite candidate's name the most times in a Google search, do keep in mind that only young low information voter relies on technology to determine who's popular. The old folks still rely on talk radio.

    atkurebeach 30 Jan 2016 20:34

    if the democrats vote for Hillary, who is tight with Wall Street money, especially when there is such a clear alternative for the poor, to me that means there is no difference between the two parties. I might as well vote for Trump, at least he is less likely to start a war.

    digitalspacey -> Calvert 30 Jan 2016 20:32

    As an outsider looking in (from Australia) what you describe actually works in favour of the Democrats.

    Think about it.

    An intransigent Republican party continually blocks what the President wants to do. Now I'm assuming that if people vote in Bernie it's because they actually want what he has to sell.

    So if the Republicans keep playing this game it's really gonna start to grate on people.

    There will come a tipping point where people will say 'enough!' and the removal of the Republicans will commence.

    It may take several terms but the Republicans are in egret signing their own death warrant.

    Merveil Meok -> Logicon 30 Jan 2016 20:12


    There are very powerful forces in America that would NEVER let Bernie Sanders win the White House. He has said stuff that has disqualified him (in the eyes of those forces) for the role of president.
    You can't run against the military, cops, oil companies, Wall Street, the richest people on the planet, big pharma, and win. That only happens in movies.

    SeniorsTn9 30 Jan 2016 20:09

    The U.S. campaign is nearly over and two choices remain. Everyone knows America is broken. Candidates promoting staying the course and being politically correct have no place in America's future. They broke the America we have today. The realities are obvious; Clinton is to the past as Trump is to the future. After all the campaigning dust settles, Americans who want American back will vote for Trump. Trump will make America great again. It really is that simple.

    redwhine -> Merveil Meok 30 Jan 2016 20:01

    It's good that they have to win over people in Iowa and New Hampshire, and I say this as a Californian who only ever hears of politicians visiting my state to raise money at the homes of rich people before leaving the same day. The point is that politicians need to show that they are willing to work for their votes. They need to hit the pavement. They need to convince people to vote for them even if they know that the votes in those states don't amount to much. If politicians only campaigned in California, New York, Texas, and Florida and then skipped the rest, I'd see no evidence of grit and determination, just lazy opportunism.

    ID4352889 30 Jan 2016 19:56

    Clinton is a deeply unpleasant character, but Americans will vote for her over the decent Sanders. It's just the way they do things in the US. Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate of the Military Industrial Complex and will take the cake. Bernie is just there to make people think they have a choice. They don't.

    redwhine consumerx 30 Jan 2016 19:52

    Plenty of people have inherited millions and still ended up penniless. You can't call Trump an idiot even if you maintain that he could have become a billionaire merely by putting all his daddy's money into the bank and leaving it there (which we know he didn't, because he's built at least a dozen skyscrapers and golf courses). By the way, Fred Trump (Donald's dad) was rich but he was not astronomically rich. As for his lawyers, plenty of lawyers of rich men have done worse; in trying to denigrate Trump people are reflexively making his dad into some sort of financial wizard and everyone around Trump to magically have helped him in every step of the way like guardian angels surrounding him his whole life. It just doesn't work like that.


    Merveil Meok 30 Jan 2016 19:42

    The political system allows two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) to dictate the future the country. Some candidates are forced to quit after one or two Caucuses (as money sponsors quit on them), even if, only God knows, they could have picked up steam later.

    I would be in favor of adding three or more states in the first round of the caucuses so that most of America is represented, not states which have no real power in American daily life - economically and otherwise.

    These two states represent 1.5% of America's population and a ridiculously low percentage of national GDP.


    ChiefKeef 30 Jan 2016 19:39

    Sanders will be the best president theyve ever had. The lefts popularity is rocketing across the west in response to austerity and the endless cycle of imperialism and international crisis. A new generation of activists, unencumbered by the diminished confidence of past defeats, have risen spectacularly in defense of equality against the attacks of the right.


    Steven Wallace 30 Jan 2016 19:33

    Hillary is a devout psychopath whereas Trump is a total doughnut ,seriously who the hell would vote for these animals ?


    Pinesap -> TaiChiMinh 30 Jan 2016 19:31

    Trump says insane things, of course every news outlet covers him, I don't really think he counts. MSNBC is by far the worst of the lot when it comes to spoon feeding. I don't like FOX any better when they bring on their Holy band of extreme right commentators either. Like I've said before when your in the middle like me, your screwed. NO news outlets and NO candidates that could win. Screwed like deck boards I tell you.


    WarlockScott -> carson45 30 Jan 2016 19:31

    Sorry who was president before Bush? Bill Clinton? and who was Bush running against? Central figure in the Clinton administration Al Gore?.... oh, woops.
    Experience as secretary of state? US foreign policy has got much better since Kerry took over. Healthcare? the woman that takes bundles of money from Big Pharma, who is now saying that UHC is fundamentally a pipe dream for the US?

    She's a poor choice compared to Sanders imo, If she was running against Biden or another centrist democrat yeah sure but against a Sanders figure? nah


    Jill McLean 30 Jan 2016 19:28

    As a young female undecided voter, it's hard not to be fooled by the celebrity game show host. And on the other hand, it's hard not to support my fellow gender and vote Hillary (until you look at the baggage). Now, if I listen to my brain as opposed to emotions, the common sense of Bernie on the one side or Rand Paul on the other has a distinct appeal. They're quite interesting to listen to and they do it without invoking terror, hatred, scare tactics or even biblical quotes. How refreshing!

    redwhine -> consumerx 30 Jan 2016 19:26

    The bankruptcy argument is a bunch of bs. He's a billionaire now. If I could become a billionaire by going bankrupt I'd do it in a heartbeat. The truth is that he figured out how to rise out of bankruptcy and is now financing a presidential campaign and manhandling his opponents who have received millions in contributions.

    redwhine 30 Jan 2016 19:19

    I've been a democrat all my life and hope that Sanders wins. But if it comes down to Hillary and Trump, I'm voting Trump. If it comes down to Hilary and any republican not named Trump, I'll hold my nose and vote for Hilary. I really don't care for her.

    JoePomegranate 30 Jan 2016 19:17

    It's heartening to see that Clinton is polling lower than Sanders when it comes to young women, perhaps indicative of the post-sexism ideal we're going for; younger women are judging the candidates on their actual policies and character, as opposed to being swayed by the infantile "because she's a woman" appeal.

    Logicon 30 Jan 2016 19:08

    Bernie has to win the ticket -- the 'best' revolutionary will win the general election:

    Trump vs Clinton = trump wins
    Trump vs bernie = bernie wins

    Cafael -> ponderwell 30 Jan 2016 19:06

    Given TTP and TTIP, NAFTA, the actions of the IMF and World Bank, the moves by the EU and Anglosphere away from social democracy and the continuing prescription of liberal economic policy for all states, deregulation, plans to expand recourse to investor-state dispute settlement courts, and the overall 'small state' philosophy, often enforced by military interventionism or sanctions, it seems as if pro-capital policy, deregulation and the resulting inequality haven't obtained a status quo that will be maintained under Hilary or the GOP so much as an agenda that has been pushed globally, and will go further in the direction that many voters on the left and centre of politics and even the traditional conservative right and far-right, probably the majority of America's and the world's population, oppose.

    Patrick Ryan 30 Jan 2016 18:58

    Most polls are shite as extrapolating from relatively small samples never tells you the true story.... We'll know better after the Caucuses.... the fear factor and the worries of a nation will play a big part in the selective process - This is not a sprint and race is only beginning... Having Trump in the mix has shaken up system and he has clearly got the super conservative media's knickers in a twist...

    skipsdad 30 Jan 2016 18:54

    The Guardian and the rest of the UK media are giving Trump the same treatment as they gave Arthur Scargill in the 1980s.

    The UK Establishment and media and their overseas supporters (in the other direction) and we all know who that is. are schit scared in case Trump gets in. The British establishment has been bought. British 'informed democracy', is dead. Censorship, is rife. And the British People know it.


    Douglas Lees 30 Jan 2016 18:53

    The is only one decent candidate and that's Bernie Sanders. The others are a collection of fruit loops and clowns (all deranged and dangerous) with the exception of Clinton who is experienced intelligent and totally corrupt. She will cause a war with Iran... Let's hope it's Bernie maybe a hope for some changes. The last 36 years have been fucked

    Canuck61 30 Jan 2016 18:45

    Does any of this really matter? The United States is an empire and, regardless of who is anointed President by the Koch brothers and the rest of the American aristocracy, the empire will still require a military budget of at least $500,000,000,000 and American jobs will still go to China because that's profitable for the corporations and for the aristocrats who own and run those corporations. Enjoy the show, but don't assume that it actually means anything.


    LeftRightParadigm 30 Jan 2016 18:35

    The far-left attacks again, well I have to give them credit, they are really trying harder than ever. Anyway, these polls are always adulterated by special interests, just look in the UK at IPSOS MORI with CEO who worked for the cabinet office - no bias there! IPSOS said the majority of British people want to remain in the EU... LOL

    Trump is the best candidate, all the others are untrustworthy to the extreme due to who's funding them, namely Goldman Sachs.

    ponderwell -> thedono 30 Jan 2016 18:35

    We do not have a democracy. Freedom of speech & democratic freedom of thought, yes. Democracy is an unfulfilled philosophical idea and wishful thinking. For decades, we have been under the total rule of organized business - as are many developed nations.

    jamesdaylight 30 Jan 2016 18:28

    i so hope trump or sanders wins. the establishment needs a new direction.

    AdrianBarr -> ID7004073 30 Jan 2016 18:26

    I have been a lifelong Democrat and my first choice is Bernie Sanders. With my meagre income I will continue to contribute to his campaign. My alternate choice is, anyone but Hillary Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot imagine anyone who reads the news can vote for this Wall St. puppet. The recent Guardian article by a Wall St. insider about Hillary's connections and the money she had received from Wall St. should make anyone shudder of her presidency. Let alone the money the Clinton Foundation had received from other countries when Hillary was the Secy. of State.

    Be that as it may, the US average voter owes to Donald Trump for standing up to the corporate media that we always criticise for influencing elections, while other candidates of both parties bend over backwards to curry their favor.

    Yes, the corporate media as a result are going after him, but he still gets votes. This election, the case the US Voter vs. Corporate Media, the Voter won thanks to Trump.

    If Bernie is cheated out of the nomination process that the DNC had worked from the beginning to crown Hillary. I will vote for Trump to save what is left (pun intended) of the Democratic party. Hillary way far right of Trump. Hillary was a Goldwater Republican, while Trump is a Rockefeller REpublican. Take your !

    elaine layabout -> sammy3110 30 Jan 2016 18:18

    He doesn't care about them so long as they are unsubstantiated allegations. When the FBI announces the result of their investigation, he will give his opinion, so long as it is relevant to the welfare of the American people.

    But using mid-investigation rumors and allegations against an opponent to distract the American people from the actual, fact-based issues is hardly a failing. I would say it demonstrates Sanders' commitment to fairness and truth and the best interests of the American people.

    elaine layabout -> Philip J Sparrow 30 Jan 2016 18:12

    That would be news to the folks in Burlington, who elected Bernie Sanders to 4 terms as mayor, during which time he cut their budget, streamlined city services, revitalized their commercial district and restored their lakefront, AND he was judged one of the top 20 mayors in the country.

    The folks in the State of Vermont would also be surprised to hear this about the man who served them in the House of Representatives for 16 years. During that time, when the extreme right wing of the Republican party ruled Congress, Bernie (an Independent) passed more legislative amendments than any other congressman, even the Republicans themselves. And this was not watered-down legislation, it was pure, progressive gold.

    Those same folks would be surprised to hear this about the Senator whom they last re-elected with 71% of their votes. I guess that they were thinking of his ability to, again, passed a series of progressive amendments in a Republican-controlled Congress, including the first-ever audit of the Federal Reserve -- you know that thing that Ron Paul had been trying to do for decades. And then there was the Veterans Administration Bill that Republican Jack Reed said would never have passed without Bernie Sanders' ability to build bi-partisan coalitions.

    Bringing 30 Jan 2016 18:12

    People have unfavourable opinions of politicians they actually vote for. Nearly all Repubs will vote for trump if he is the nominee and whether it's Hillary or Sanders, a fair size of one time Obama voters are switching to the Repubs because they want action taken against the rapid erosion of what they consider to be American values.

    OurPlanet -> eveofchange 30 Jan 2016 18:06

    "Does corporate supported Clinton, support gun/missile/bomb "control" of the Army, Police and state apparatus,or just ordinary people ?"

    Took the words out of my mouth. I wonder if those folks who are thinking of voting for her will stretch their brain capacity to think seriously about the consequences of voting for her. Do they want more of their tax $ spent on even more wars?

    peacefulmilitant 30 Jan 2016 17:50

    But it's simple enough to point out that a minority of Americans are Republicans, and that even among Republicans about 30% have a negative opinion of Trump. You can see where the 60% might come from.

    This is true but those 30% of Republicans who don't like Trump are nearly canceled by the 20% of Democrats who are considering defecting to vote for him.

    WillKnotTell -> Fentablar 30 Jan 2016 17:50

    The Kochs will forward his thoughts along to him in time.

    Harry Bhai 30 Jan 2016 17:48

    meanwhile: Iowa's long-serving senior senator, Chuck Grassley, who last weekend popped up at a Trump event

    Rats are coming out of holes to pay respect to Trump the cat.

    ID7004073 30 Jan 2016 17:46

    It appears that the Guardian continues to show it's bias toward Clinton. How about being balanced and reporting the news instead of trying to create the news and influence the outcome. If we want bias we can drift over to Fox Fake news

    Bernie has solutions that Fox feels is too boring but solutions about economic and national security are what America and our world needs. Boats that won't float right and F35 billionaire toys dressed up as the ultimate killing machine will never make America and our world strong. Economic policies that Bernie promotes that actually employ more people is the only solutions.

    TaiChiMinh -> TheAuthorities 30 Jan 2016 17:36

    Hillary Clinton is not "on the left." She is right center. Your attempt to put the debate between her advocates and those of Sanders into the realm of Stalin-Spanish Republicans-etc is delusional. Maybe, just maybe the people having this discussion are engaged in real disagreements, not dogmatic and factional maneuvering.

    nnedjo 30 Jan 2016 17:08

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whose once-mighty lead in the Hawkeye state has narrowed to paper-thin margins, is focusing on rival Bernie Sanders' complicated history on gun control in the final days of the Iowa campaign. The former secretary of state will be joined by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a survivor of a 2011 mass shooting that claimed the lives of six people.

    Hillary stands for a gun control in order "to disarm" Bernie, but voters say they would not vote for Hillary even if someone put a gun to their forehead.
    The reason for this is obvious, she is able to exploit even the survivors of the mass shooting, just to satisfy her own selfish political interests.

    Saltyandthepretz -> MasonInNY 30 Jan 2016 16:47

    Except a circus is funny. The anti-human, repugnant policies put forward by these two are in fact quite serious. Trump is crazy, of the A grade variety, but Cruz is genuinely dangerous. A religious zealot and a war monger, it would be a massive step back for America and the world if this man became president.

    Fentablar -> turnip2 30 Jan 2016 16:21

    Rubio is terrible, he's pandering even more than Hillary does (well, if nothing else he does it just as much) and I'm not sure anyone knows what he actually stands for, even himself.

    loljahlol -> godforbidowright 30 Jan 2016 16:15

    Yeah, the Libyan people thank her

    PlayaGiron -> SenseCir 30 Jan 2016 16:11

    aka Wall Street's "progressive" voice as opposed to the Wall Street Journal its "conservative" voice. In the end two sides of the same neo-liberal beast. "There is no alternative"! Your corporatist elites have spoken!

    elaine layabout -> greven 30 Jan 2016 16:05

    True that.

    Wall Street and it's lackey pols are playing with fire, because although many Americans had savings and assets and/or family members with savings and assets and/or access to the beneficence of local churches and charities, we are all tapped out.

    The next time we fall, we fall hard. And we will be taking Wall Street down with us.

    vishawish -> TheAuthorities 30 Jan 2016 15:53

    It's because many people who are centrist or left leaning have a sense of morality and principles.. It's not about voting for who stinks less.. It's about standing up for what you consider right and if you can't do that during the election process then what's the bloody point of democracy.. Take the case of Occupy Wall Street.. supported by most left leaning people.

    The only candidate who would support and encourage that is Sanders. So how do you expect people not to support him and go out to support someone who is basically a quasi republican?

    Principles and ideologies matter.

    marshwren -> GaryWallin 30 Jan 2016 15:19

    Uh, it's not as if Iowans haven't had at least eight months to make up their minds, even with the advantage of being able to see ALL of the candidates up close and personal, unlike those of U.S. in late states (such as NJ, where i live, on June 7th or so). Besides, when people vote in primaries on machines, they have 2-3 minutes to mull things over in the booth.

    I appreciate your disdain, but caucus season in IA is like beach season in NJ--a tiresome inconvenience, but an economic necessity given how many non-residents arrive to spend their money. And you only have to put up with it once every four years, while ours is an annual event.


    curiouswes MartinSilenus 30 Jan 2016 15:14

    Personally, I would prefer not to sit in either, wouldn't you?

    Thanks for being logical. Now, the media wants us to frame everything into left wing or right wing. However I don't buy into that paradigm anymore. When Clinton was about to send the jobs away, I saw effectively Pat Buchanan (staunch conservative but poplulist) effectively joining forces with Ralph Nader (perhaps as far left as anyone can go but still populist). You think any democrat would be better than any republican. I think that if we don't fix something soon, this whole thing is going to collapse. For my money only 3 candidates are actually pledging to fix something (Sanders, Paul and Trump). Cruz says he wants to fix everything by using that same old tired republican bs, so he isn't really planning on fixing anything. Basically he is Steve Forbes without glasses and with a face lift. Paul would actually try to fix something, but at this stage, he is a long shot and barring any 11th hour surge, I don't need to discuss him much at this time. I would classify Trump as a populist, but a loose cannon that isn't "presidential".

    Voting for Trump is sort of an act of desperation. It isn't quite like being a suicide bomber, but more like going all in just prior to drawing to an inside straight. Sanders is a populist also. Some people think we can't afford his programs. However the reason the nation is broke (financially) is because it is broke (as in broken). Sanders has vowed to fix this (it won't be easy but with the people standing behind him, it is possible). The rest of the candidates won't fix anything (just try to move the nation either to the left or the right as it continues it's downward spiral.

    We have to stop that downward motion or it won't matter whether we move to the left or right. Unfortunately everybody doesn't see stopping this downward motion as job one.

    For example: take Greece and their financial troubles. Even though our debt is higher, we aren't in as bad shape as the Greeks, however we really need to stop the bleeding. We really need to get a populist in there. I'm no economist but according to my understanding, there is this thing called the money supply which is a bit different than the money itself. While the government controls the money, it doesn't control the money supply. It needs to control both or else we are just one "bad" policy away from economic disaster because whoever controls the money supply controls the economy. If you remember in 2008 the credit dried up and that can happen again if somebody isn't happy.


    WarlockScott 30 Jan 2016 14:33

    Can any Clinton supporter cogently argue why they've plumped for her over Bernie? He's far closer to the social democracy the Democrats espouse (albeit have rarely put into action since 1992), polls show him to be more electable than Clinton, he has a far greater chance of passing his programs for numerous reasons (better bargaining position, not as hated by opposition, running a proactive rather than defensive campaign) and he has the popular touch... Which even Hillary would admit she lacks. I'm hoping perhaps vainly the first answer won't be about her gender.


    TheAuthorities -> NotYetGivenUp 30 Jan 2016 14:12

    I'm guessing you don't have a lifetime's experience observing U.S. presidential elections.

    Sanders does well in the polls you cite because, so far, the Republicans haven't even begun to attack him. In fact, they're positively giddy that Clinton looks to be faltering and that Sanders actually seems closer to the nomination today than anyone would have thought 6 months ago. Nothing will make GOP strategists sleep more soundly than the prospect of a Sanders nomination.

    In the still-unlikely event that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination, the Republicans will turn their heavy artillery on him and -- you can trust me on this -- the end result won't be pretty. Actually, I think it may not even take that much from the Republican character assassins to convince most Americans not to vote for someone with Sanders's convictions and political record. Remember that "socialist" is a dirtier word in much of the U.S. than "neo-liberal" is in Western Europe. There's also the very pertinent question of whether the U.S. is ready to elect a Jewish president.

    Again, if you're unfamiliar with the American electoral process, you've never seen anything like the Republican attack machine. ESPECIALLY if your reference point is a British election. It's like comparing a church picnic with a gang fight.

    Another factor to consider is that, just as the GOP establishment is trying to undercut Trump, so the Democratic Party leadership could possibly draft somebody else to run (Biden?) if Clinton does go down in flames.


    TaiChiMinh -> Winner_News 30 Jan 2016 14:06

    Obama came to office basically bragging that he had the key to a post-partisan, collaborative way of governing - above the issues, above parties, above rancor. During the crucial period, when he had momentum and numbers, he trimmed on issue after issue - starting with single payer. The Tea Party was perhaps an inevitable response but its strength, and the success of the intransigents in Congress, were not inevitable. But the Tea Party began with a protest of floor traders against protections for people in mortgage trouble - but its momentum really came with the movement against the ACA and in the off-year elections in 2010. A strong president reliant on a mobilized coalition of voters - rather than a pretty crappy deal maker (who liked starting close to his opponents' first offer) backed by corporate elites - would perhaps have seen different results. Obama never gave it a go. And here we are . . . I imagine that I join eastbayradical in some kind of astonishment at the extent to which "progressives" want to keep at what has shown itself a losing proposition . .

    westerndevil -> Martin Screeton 30 Jan 2016 13:50

    I spent 18 months in my twenties as a debt collector for people who defaulted on student loans...a soul crushing job. Virtually everybody who defaulted either...

    • A-attended some diploma mill like University of Phoenix and not surprisingly had no job prospects after they left...or
    • B-dropped out or flunked out

    We need to encourage more young people to work as electricians, plumbers, machinists and in other blue-collar occupations.

    GaryWallin 30 Jan 2016 13:49

    April Fool's Day comes two months early here in Iowa this year. The Iowa Presidential Caucuses are one of the greatest Political Hoaxes of all time. They are filling our newspapers, radio, and neighborhoods with an all time record appeal to nonsense.

    As Iowan's we've had the endure nearly a full year of lying and misleading politicians, newspapers that give us the latest spin on the political horse-race (under the guise of journalism), phone calls from intrusive pollsters and political operatives, emails from assorted special and political interests; and we've even had to watch our mail carriers burdened with the task of delivering many oversized junk mail advertising pieces.

    Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to political parties holding caucuses. I think it is a good idea for them to get together in formal and informal settings: caucuses, parties, picnics, and civic observances. But I think the choice for our next President is too important to be left to a voter suppressing, low turn-out, media event such as the Iowa Presidential Caucuses. The goal should be to be inclusive of all Iowans; not to have a record (but suppressed) turnout.

    We've had to endure this nonsense for months, while the politicians are given multiple and varied means to get their message out. But the voters get only an hour or so to make their decisions, and even then in my party, the so-called 'Democratic' one, they don't even get the right to a secret ballot, or the right to cast an absentee ballot if they cannot attend. Instead of including all Iowans, this Circus gives special interests, establishment political operatives, and elites an unfair advantage. This is voter suppression and manipulation. Too few care if there might be a snow storm coming, or someone has to be up early the next morning for surgery at a local hospital, or if someone has to make a living by working at the time of the caucus. In this circus-like atmosphere it is all too important to our elites to bring in the millions of dollars in advertising money that this charade provides to local media. Dollars come before democratic principles.

    I certainly hope that my party, the Democrats, have the courage to reject all delegates chosen by this non-democratic process when the National Convention comes around. It is time for Party members outside of Iowa to stand up for real democracy, free and fair candidate selection with secret ballots, and inclusive party processes that expand and grow the Political Party.

    In Iowa we need to make a few changes. I suggest a few:

    Requiring every television station, radio station, and newspaper to give daily public updates on how much and who bought political advertising.

    Requiring every piece of political advertising mailed to people in Iowa to have the cost of that item listed on the mailing.

    Requiring all politicians, political parties, and PACs to honor the 'Do Not Call' list. I often tell these callers I will not vote for anyone who annoys me with a phone call, but this seems to have little deterrence value to phone centers and robo-calls.

    Requiring that all major political parties in the state give voters the right to choose candidates by secret ballot. No more forcing people to publicly declare for one candidate or another. People should have the right to make their individual choices known if they so choose; or keep them private if that is what they want.

    Gary Wallin, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 30 Jan 2016

    eastbayradical -> Winner_News 30 Jan 2016 13:16

    The capitalist system will surely attempt to "brick wall" any authentic attempt at change Sanders might try to implement.

    But to compare him to Obama is off.

    Obama came in surrounded by Wall Street execs and stooges and from the outset had no intention of challenging the power of the capitalist class or affecting change that was anything other than rhetorical in nature.

    The Republicans' "brick walling" of his agenda was made far, far easier because he didn't articulate, let alone mobilize around, one that named the enemy and communicated specific progressive changes he sought to achieve.

    This was seen vividly during the fight over health care reform, where Obama, in the face of widespread support for single-payer health care, took single-payer off the table from the outset and negotiated away the public option for nothing of substance in return. This allowed the Republicans an open field to attack his reform's unpopular and unprogressive features--the mandate and the general complexity of a system that retained the insurance cartel's power over health care.

    Marcedward 30 Jan 2016 13:11

    Clinton is the one candidate who can lose to Trump, and if she win's she will govern like Bush. It's disgusting how the establishment is pushing her so hard, but it does inform us that we should reject her. Clinton is a candidate like Obama - runs on hope and change, than nothing changes - same old attitude that "Government exists to protect the profits of the 1% and **** Working Class Americans"

    JoePomegranate 30 Jan 2016 13:09

    The feting of Clinton over a genuine, principled and subversive politician like Sanders - when subversion is exactly what is needed - reveals the complete paucity of argument behind so much "progressive" thought nowadays.

    The idea that the lying, the patronisation, the cynicism, the cronyism and the ghastly thirst for power by any means can be simply offset by the fact that she's a woman is appalling. It's retrograde, sexist bollocks.

    Sanders is the candidate people need and his nomination would put down a marker for real disenfranchised and impoverished Americans to fix their country. How anyone who purports to call themselves liberal or reformist can opt for Hillary over him, I have no idea.

    James Eaton -> CurtBrown 30 Jan 2016 13:02

    The myth of "American Exceptionalism" is cracking. Many folks are actually able to see how things work in other places around the globe and not simply react with the knee jerk "it ain't gonna work here, this is 'Murica!"


    eastbayradical 30 Jan 2016 12:49

    The NY Times' argument that Sanders' proposals for achieving change are unrealistic suggests that the differences between him and Clinton are chiefly tactical in nature.

    This is a clever dodge that relieves the Times of the need to address the fact that, far from being an agent of change, Clinton, like her husband and Obama--both of whom it supported--has a consistent record of carrying water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security/police-state apparatus, one that that she will undoubtedly carry on as president if elected.

    Madibo 30 Jan 2016 12:17

    Sanders' mild social democratic policies - which require moderate and easily affordable sacrifices on the part of the rich - are of course very realistic and practical. Or at least they are realistic in countries that are at least reasonably politically sane. But since US politics is the very definition of insanity, Sanders policies are "not realistic".

    [Jan 29, 2016] Trump just proved: its possible to win a debate you didnt attend by Richard Wolffe

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bland, clichéd, and frankly boring. ..."
    "... Spot on. The Republican party is about corporatism and the "1%". They are irrelevant to nearly all the American public apart from democrat haters. The GOP might as well be a corpse. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's always going on and on about her "Proven track record" at the State Dept....where she set Libya on fire, for example.....unlike her competitor, Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... Dear Lord, please let the American people not vote in anyone from the GOP side as president in 2016 ..."
    "... Okay, my prayer skills are a bit rusty, I admit, but you get the idea. ..."
    "... Anyhow, Donald Trump reminds me more and more of Italy's media mogul/politician Silvio Berlusconi -- maybe it's just my eyes playing tricks on me, but he is even starting to LOOK more and more like that man, what with the many faces he makes and the populist theatricality and all. Trump offers no substance in terms of policy, but he clearly has an intuitive grasp of how the major media outlets will respond to and cover his every move. ..."
    "... I wonder if this column was written before or after the subject events. It is so trite meaningless and predictable he must have written it in his sleep. ..."
    "... Trump is a centre-right, and possibly even slightly left candidate. His grandstanding is for the core base. All candidates walk back toward the middle once they have to appeal to the national electorate. He's far more liberal than Cruz, who, I assure you, will set about undoing every last bit of progress for working people and women that managed to creep forward over the last eight years, starting with health care, Medicare, and Social Security. ..."
    "... You have to separate out Trump's grandstanding with his east coast New York roots. It's actually Trump who has brought up single-payer health care and some brutal talk about Wall Street. I would wager a month's salary that Trump and Mrs Clinton are not too far apart on how they would govern. And you forget that Congress is involved as well. ..."
    "... The hyperbole is meaningless. So far, Jeb Bush's brother and his Vice President have done more damage to the US and the world than I would guess Trump would do in 20 years. ..."
    "... And do remember on whose watch NAFTA, that infamous "ending welfare as we know it", the equally infamous DOMA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for The Big Short were passed: dear old Bill Clinton. ..."
    "... The media is trusted by the public about as much as bankers and politicians. Trump sticking it to FOX not only didn't get him "sidelined" it probably increased his support among the Republican base. ..."
    "... Translation: Trump knows he already has the nomination locked up. Why should he give Cruz and Rubio an opportunity to attack him in a live debate? He made the smart move. Since 9/11 and the buildup to the war in Iraq, the media's only real job is political propaganda. ..."
    "... As far as I know, Trump, Sanders and Obama were equally resentful because American businessmen are moving production abroad, thus leaving American workers out of work, and the state budget deprived of taxes that go also to foreign countries instead of remaining in the US. ..."
    "... In addition, Trump also stands for a kind of economic protectionism, particularly in relation to China, bearing in mind "the urgent need to reduce the trade deficit with China", which is now about $ 500 billion a year, if I remembered well. ..."
    "... So, it is interesting that the current as well as two of the possible future US presidents are pushing for some kind of protectionism of domestic production and economic isolationism that are completely contrary to previous commitment of the United States to free markets and free flow of capital in the world.However, taking into account the current economic crisis in the world, that from acute increasingly turns into some kind of chronic phase, it is perhaps not so surprising. ..."
    "... The vast majority of the political elite, from Bush to Clinton, are there to further the agenda, as well as their own careers. In this way, you have Obama brought into to finish by proxy what Bush started by direct force. I.e the wrecking of any Nation State that opposes the neo-liberal economic system. ..."
    "... They only exist in the spotlight for as long as they are tolerated in terms of their persona, until the public wise-up. It is then they go into their background role; the cushy and lucrative 'consulting' jobs they have been promised by the special interest 'think tanks' they already belong to; be it the Council of Foreign Relations, or the Bilderberg group; all funded by international banking cartels. ..."
    "... Supposed 'right' or supposed 'left' of the mainstream media are just part and parcel of the same ultimate deception. ..."
    "... Trump, although not perfect in his persona, is certainly a problem for the agenda: thus their attack dogs in the media have been called to take him out. ..."
    "... It's amusing to see the attacks on Trump; who just for speaking his mind is starting to steadily resonate with a growing demographic, both at home and abroad. ..."
    "... You'd never hear about it here of course; but he harshly denounced the invasion of Iraq, and was a big critic of Bush. ..."
    "... He also seems to be the only one who understands that the majority of Americans needs real jobs – not some laughable concept of an 'ideas economy.' and is willing to fight for them on a trade level to ensure this. ..."
    "... He is also the least likely to drag the US into dangerous conflicts, (proxy or otherwise) with those such as Russia – Sadly I can see some Guardian commentators already gunning for that. ..."
    "... He is also not controlled by the usual financial ties to banking elites: Goldman & Sachs just gave Hillary $3 million – what's that then? Just pocket money? ..."
    "... America isn't better than this - this IS America. The land of political dynasties and limitless corporate donations. Where a movie star became the President and a body builder a Governor. It doesn't even have a one-man-one vote voting system for heavens sake. ..."
    "... It's kind of like Iranian 'democracy', where the Ayatollah picks out and approves 4-5 candidates, and then the Iranian people get to 'vote' for them. We do it a bit differently, in a society where we have freedom of speech, but the outcome always ends up the same, with 2 establishment, corporate, Wall street, military industrial complex, globalist 'free trade' choices for president. All approved by corporate America, our corporate and mainstream media and by Wall street, it always ends up like that. Like right now, there is no difference between Hillary, and establishment corporate Democrats like the Clintons, and the establishment Republicans like Rubio, Kasich or Bush, on all those really big and truly important issues. ..."
    "... That thing about Cruz labelling Trump a Democrat is interesting. I'm sure most Democrats would be understandably offended by the suggestion, and I'm pretty sure Cruz doesn't actually believe it either. I haven't been following Trump's statements on policy closely at all, but from my general impression of him over the years, I always thought that, although he was clearly a dyed in the wool capitalist, he probably wasn't a social conservative. ..."
    "... I can't help thinking he's just another wealthy, metropolitan businessman who probably didn't give a single toss about immigration, gay marriage, Islam or any of it, and if you pushed him probably would have been completely relaxed about all those issues. ..."
    "... Tough for any GOP candidate to avoid the flip flops in fairness. Pro life gun nuts, military spending addicted defecit hawks, die hard defenders of the Constitution hell bent on removing church/state separation, defenders of the squeezed middle sucking on the teat of Murdoch and the Koch brothers.... A very high and skinny tight rope.... ..."
    "... Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to. Nobody cares about Rubio or Bush flip flopping on immigration, because they have decided not to vote for them. ..."
    "... People care about jobs and their dwindling opportunities. Trump talks populism. He talks about tariffs on manufacturers who moved jobs overseas. People like that. He said he thinks the US should have left Saddam Hussein in power. Every rational person today agrees with that. He says the US should have left Gaddafi in power. While not too many people think about that too much, if they do, they agree with that too. Especially once they learn about the domino effect it has had, such as the attack on the coffee shop in Burkina Faso a week ago or so. ..."
    "... People have grown tired of war. All of the mainstream candidates want war because their campaigns depend on it. Bush's family has massive investment in the Carlisle Group and other players in the MIC. ..."
    "... Trump made his money in real estate, not war. ..."
    "... Not a Trump fan, but it is great to see someone with enough nous to tell Fox to go bite their bum. Good on him. We know from past experience what a sleazy old fart Rupert is and his fellow travelers in Fox are a good fit. The "moderators" are third rate journo's out to polish their image and try the bigmouth on the guy that 'may' become President. No need for Trump to take that kind of crap off of those sort of people. ..."
    "... Cruz was attacked, got flustered and blew his opportunity. Trump's judgement turned out to be vindicated in not attending. Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that the entire West is moving to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump may turn out to be closer to the mainstream. If there are further Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil then this will likely be a certainty. ..."
    www.theguardian.com


    TheBorderGuard 29 Jan 2016 12:58

    You could tell the Trumpless debate was an almost normal presidential event by the nature of the closing statements.

    Bland, clichéd, and frankly boring.


    Zetenyagli -> benbache 29 Jan 2016 11:49

    Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to.

    Spot on. The Republican party is about corporatism and the "1%". They are irrelevant to nearly all the American public apart from democrat haters. The GOP might as well be a corpse.


    tonybillbob -> Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 11:31

    Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that the entire West is moving to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump may turn out to be closer to the mainstream.

    Mainstream of what? The conservative movement? America? The globe?


    tonybillbob 29 Jan 2016 11:25

    Jeb Bush insisted several times that he had "a proven record", begging the question why he needed to mention such a proven thing quite so many times.

    Yeah!!! How come those who have a "proven track record" always have to remind folks that they have a proven track record and usually follow that claim with "unlike my competitor"?

    Hillary Clinton's always going on and on about her "Proven track record" at the State Dept....where she set Libya on fire, for example.....unlike her competitor, Bernie Sanders.

    And her "hands on experience" reforming banks....."Cut that out!!!!" ...another something she has over Bernie Sanders. Another thing Clinton can say about herself is that she's made a huge pile of 'speakin' fees' dough rubbin' elbows with bankers.....another something that Bernie can't say about himself. And don't forget: Hillary's gonna color inside the lines because she's a realist.

    She knows what Wall Street will approve of and what Wall Street won't approve of......Hillary's unique in that regard....at least she thinks so, and claims that's why we should vote for her....because she already knows what Wall Street will and won't allow a president to do.


    simpledino 29 Jan 2016 11:23

    Okay, Ted Cruz -- I'll gladly pray on the nation's decision. (Kneeling humbly): "Dear Lord, please let the American people not vote in anyone from the GOP side as president in 2016. Lord, hear my prayer -- let them choose either HIllary Clinton or Bernie Sanders (or even thy faithful and honorable servant Martin O'Malley, who doesn't have a chance in .... oh never mind, Lord...)."

    Okay, my prayer skills are a bit rusty, I admit, but you get the idea.

    Anyhow, Donald Trump reminds me more and more of Italy's media mogul/politician Silvio Berlusconi -- maybe it's just my eyes playing tricks on me, but he is even starting to LOOK more and more like that man, what with the many faces he makes and the populist theatricality and all. Trump offers no substance in terms of policy, but he clearly has an intuitive grasp of how the major media outlets will respond to and cover his every move.

    Lafcadio1944 29 Jan 2016 11:15

    I wonder if this column was written before or after the subject events. It is so trite meaningless and predictable he must have written it in his sleep.

    Cranios 29 Jan 2016 11:13

    I was never warmly disposed toward Trump, but the more I hear him annoying the news media by refusing to be frightened and dance to their tune, the more I am starting to like him.

    tklhmd 29 Jan 2016 11:11

    Managing to outfox Fox news is no mean feat, I'll give him that.


    Tearoutthehairnow -> hawkchurch 29 Jan 2016 11:11

    Trump is a centre-right, and possibly even slightly left candidate. His grandstanding is for the core base. All candidates walk back toward the middle once they have to appeal to the national electorate. He's far more liberal than Cruz, who, I assure you, will set about undoing every last bit of progress for working people and women that managed to creep forward over the last eight years, starting with health care, Medicare, and Social Security.

    You have to separate out Trump's grandstanding with his east coast New York roots. It's actually Trump who has brought up single-payer health care and some brutal talk about Wall Street. I would wager a month's salary that Trump and Mrs Clinton are not too far apart on how they would govern. And you forget that Congress is involved as well.

    The hyperbole is meaningless. So far, Jeb Bush's brother and his Vice President have done more damage to the US and the world than I would guess Trump would do in 20 years.

    And do remember on whose watch NAFTA, that infamous "ending welfare as we know it", the equally infamous DOMA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for The Big Short were passed: dear old Bill Clinton.

    Try analysis instead of hyperbole. It works wonders.

    Tearoutthehairnow -> lefthalfback2 29 Jan 2016 11:06

    I have been nonplussed from this end of things by how lackluster J. Bush's performance has been - I can only assume that unconsciously, he really doesn't want it - because no one who really wants it and has the advantage of his experience, access, and background, could possibly be turning in this deadly a performance. It reeks of self-sabotage in the name of self-preservation. At of course a huge cost in funds . . .


    Tearoutthehairnow 29 Jan 2016 11:02

    I was able to catch some US news - Trump not only wasn't "sidelined" as the other Guardian article on last night's debate proclaimed, firstly he walked out of his own accord, and second, he cut FOX's debate audience in half. Last night's debate attracted the lowest audience ratings of all the Republican debates so far - approximately 11-12 million as opposed to the approximately 23 million the debates attracted when he participated. CNN did quite well covering the "other" event.

    And he's still leading in the polls among Republicans - including among Republican women according to CNN, so the Guardian's recent article on these parties' only audience being "angry white men" was, again, off the mark by including Trump and the US Republicans.

    The media is trusted by the public about as much as bankers and politicians. Trump sticking it to FOX not only didn't get him "sidelined" it probably increased his support among the Republican base. Jeb Bush is still pretending to be a candidate as is Ben Carson, and Cruz in the spotlight reinforced his reputation as so nasty a human being that even if he gets into the Oval Office, no one, including those on his own side of the aisle, will want to work with him.

    It would be refreshing to see the media try to report rather than shape the news to its own liking.


    JackGC -> ACJB 29 Jan 2016 10:34

    Keeping people "scared" is a full time job for the government. It would be impossible to have a war without the "scared" factor.

    "We are a nation in grave danger." George Bush.

    In 'Merica, people need their guns just in case ISIS invades their town. It's like War of the Worlds only with Muslims, not Martians. That was a REALLY scary flick back in the 30s. 'Mericans really didn't know if New Jersey had been invaded and Christie is the guv. of Jersey.

    Trump is a New Yorker, so those two are on the front lines of any potential outer space invasion. War of the Worlds II. 'Merica is ready.


    Harry Bhai 29 Jan 2016 10:27

    Be like......

    This is Ted Cruz.
    Cruz is a world-class question-dodger
    When Cruz is asked about his votes against defense budgets, he launches into an extended diatribe against Barack Obama's defense budgets.
    When Cruz is asked about his own position on issues, he talks about his idol: Ronald Reagan.
    When Cruz is asked about why he flip-flopped on his feelings towards Trump, he pretends that he was asked to insult Trump

    Cruz is a flip-flop politician.
    Be like Cruz, NOT.


    JackGC N.M. Hill 29 Jan 2016 10:22

    Translation: Trump knows he already has the nomination locked up. Why should he give Cruz and Rubio an opportunity to attack him in a live debate? He made the smart move. Since 9/11 and the buildup to the war in Iraq, the media's only real job is political propaganda.


    N.M. Hill 29 Jan 2016 09:48

    Trump just proved: it's possible to win a debate you didn't attend

    Translation: Media more obsessed with Trump than actual issues.


    MeereeneseLiberation -> LiamNSW2 29 Jan 2016 09:24

    he was chastised for saying he'd stop Muslims from entering the US

    Because Muslim immigration is really the one thing that affects ordinary Americans the most. Not affordable health care, wealth distribution, labour rights ... Muslim immigration. Especially of those few thousand Syrian refugees that are vetted over months and months. (But oh yes, "the Muslims" hate the West, each and every one. Especially if he or she is fleeing from ISIS terror, I guess.)


    Sweden, that paragon of migrant virtue

    Sweden, like all Scandinavian countries, has extremely restrictive immigration and asylum policies. Calling Sweden a "paragon of migrant virtue" is about as accurate as calling Switzerland a 'paragon of banking transparency' (or the US a 'paragon of gun control').


    nnedjo -> RusticBenadar 29 Jan 2016 08:59

    Just curious, can anyone share some actual substance concerning any of Trump's policy plans?

    As far as I know, Trump, Sanders and Obama were equally resentful because American businessmen are moving production abroad, thus leaving American workers out of work, and the state budget deprived of taxes that go also to foreign countries instead of remaining in the US.

    In addition, Trump also stands for a kind of economic protectionism, particularly in relation to China, bearing in mind "the urgent need to reduce the trade deficit with China", which is now about $ 500 billion a year, if I remembered well.

    So, it is interesting that the current as well as two of the possible future US presidents are pushing for some kind of protectionism of domestic production and economic isolationism that are completely contrary to previous commitment of the United States to free markets and free flow of capital in the world.However, taking into account the current economic crisis in the world, that from acute increasingly turns into some kind of chronic phase, it is perhaps not so surprising.


    SeniorsTn9 29 Jan 2016 08:44

    UPDATE: 2016/01/29 Trump won the debate he didn't even participate in. No surprise here.

    Which debate will you focus on, the elephant walk or Trump? If you want to hear positive messages listen to Trump. Trump stood his ground. Trump is definitely different. When we look at the options there is simply no alternative. I prefer to watch the next president of the United States of America. I was on the fence but how I am definitely a Trump supporter. Trump will make America great again.

    There is a personality conflict here and everyone knows it. This reporter definitely has a hate on for Trump. Trump was right to not participate in this debate. Replace the so called bias reporter. Fox News could have fixed this but choose not to. Call Trump's bluff and he will have no choice but to join the debate. This is not and should not be about reporters. The press, for some reason, always plays into Trump's hand. This is another Trump strategic move to force the debate to focus on him first. Seriously just look at what has already happened, All Trump's opponents and the media are talking about now is the fact that Trump is not participating in the debate. Brilliant!

    Trump has changed the debating and campaigning rules. Trump will or will not be successful based on his decisions and his alone. Trump now has the focus on him and the debates haven't even startled. Trump is now winning debates he isn't even participating in. This has got to be a first in successful political debating strategies! Amazing! A win win for Trump. Smart man! Smart like a Fox.


    ID0020237 -> NYcynic 29 Jan 2016 08:25

    Methinks all this debate and chatter are nothing but distractions for the masses so those behind and above the scene can carry out their hidden agendas. Debates are like more opium for the masses, it keeps their brains churning while other issues are burning. I see no problems being solved here with all the empty rhetoric.


    kaneandabel -> kodicek 29 Jan 2016 07:45

    Well kodi, your comments are valid in it that ALL of these candidates are part of the revolving door irrespective of the supposed 'right' or supposed 'left'. Clinton is as much a compromised candidate as the entire bunch of the republican team. Trump may appear to be a different kind but that that's only because he is a good "talker" who seems to give 2 hoots to the establishment. But thats only talk. He would turn on a cent the moment he becomes President. A perfect example of that is Barack Obama. He talked the sweet talk and made people think a new dawn is coming in American politics. But as it turned out.... zilch!

    But there is a slight ray of hope, a thin one. With Sanders. As he has walked the talk all along! Otherwise you van be sure to be in the grip of the wall street scamstars and plutocrats for the next decade.

    RusticBenadar B5610661066 29 Jan 2016 06:02

    Plutocracy; and all candidates are millionaires or billionaires being hoisted upon Americans by the establishment media/business/banks/politics- all, that is, with the single exception of Bernie Sanders, who alone has managed not to enrich himself with special interest bribery or financial exploitation during his unparalleled 45+ years of outstanding common sense public service.

    kodicek -> LazarusLong42 29 Jan 2016 05:52

    The vast majority of the political elite, from Bush to Clinton, are there to further the agenda, as well as their own careers. In this way, you have Obama brought into to finish by proxy what Bush started by direct force. I.e the wrecking of any Nation State that opposes the neo-liberal economic system.

    They only exist in the spotlight for as long as they are tolerated in terms of their persona, until the public wise-up. It is then they go into their background role; the cushy and lucrative 'consulting' jobs they have been promised by the special interest 'think tanks' they already belong to; be it the Council of Foreign Relations, or the Bilderberg group; all funded by international banking cartels.

    Supposed 'right' or supposed 'left' of the mainstream media are just part and parcel of the same ultimate deception.

    Trump, although not perfect in his persona, is certainly a problem for the agenda: thus their attack dogs in the media have been called to take him out.

    This is what first raised my suspicions: I thought for myself, rather than double clicking on a petition.

    Best Regards, K


    kodicek 29 Jan 2016 05:19

    It's amusing to see the attacks on Trump; who just for speaking his mind is starting to steadily resonate with a growing demographic, both at home and abroad.

    You'd never hear about it here of course; but he harshly denounced the invasion of Iraq, and was a big critic of Bush.

    Despite all the allegations of racism, he has the largest support amongst the Black and Latino community; and is the most popular Republican candidate with Women.

    He also seems to be the only one who understands that the majority of Americans needs real jobs – not some laughable concept of an 'ideas economy.' and is willing to fight for them on a trade level to ensure this.

    He is also the least likely to drag the US into dangerous conflicts, (proxy or otherwise) with those such as Russia – Sadly I can see some Guardian commentators already gunning for that.

    He is also not controlled by the usual financial ties to banking elites: Goldman & Sachs just gave Hillary $3 million – what's that then? Just pocket money?

    We always drone on about democracy etc, but when someone is actually popular, from Corbyn to Trump, we denounce them and ridicule their supporters.

    Funny thing is; if it wasn't for all these attacks I might never have noticed!


    TheChillZone -> SteelyDanorak 29 Jan 2016 05:05

    America isn't better than this - this IS America. The land of political dynasties and limitless corporate donations. Where a movie star became the President and a body builder a Governor. It doesn't even have a one-man-one vote voting system for heavens sake. The rise of Trump makes perfect sense - most of American culture has been relentlessly dumbed down; now it's Politics turn.


    europeangrayling -> shaftedpig 29 Jan 2016 04:40

    It's kind of like Iranian 'democracy', where the Ayatollah picks out and approves 4-5 candidates, and then the Iranian people get to 'vote' for them. We do it a bit differently, in a society where we have freedom of speech, but the outcome always ends up the same, with 2 establishment, corporate, Wall street, military industrial complex, globalist 'free trade' choices for president. All approved by corporate America, our corporate and mainstream media and by Wall street, it always ends up like that. Like right now, there is no difference between Hillary, and establishment corporate Democrats like the Clintons, and the establishment Republicans like Rubio, Kasich or Bush, on all those really big and truly important issues.


    fanfootbal65 29 Jan 2016 04:20

    At least with Trump you know where he stands unlike most politicians who just tell the voters what they want to hear. Then after getting elected, these lip service politicians just go off on their own agenda against the wishes of the people that voted for them.


    SamStone 29 Jan 2016 03:55

    Haha, Trump is tremendously astute and clever when it comes to tactics. It will be awesome if he actually becomes president.


    boldofer 29 Jan 2016 03:46

    That thing about Cruz labelling Trump a Democrat is interesting. I'm sure most Democrats would be understandably offended by the suggestion, and I'm pretty sure Cruz doesn't actually believe it either. I haven't been following Trump's statements on policy closely at all, but from my general impression of him over the years, I always thought that, although he was clearly a dyed in the wool capitalist, he probably wasn't a social conservative.

    I can't help thinking he's just another wealthy, metropolitan businessman who probably didn't give a single toss about immigration, gay marriage, Islam or any of it, and if you pushed him probably would have been completely relaxed about all those issues. But I guess what he is above all else is a power hungry narcissist and a showman, and if he feels he needs to push certain buttons to get elected...


    SGT123 29 Jan 2016 03:29

    "Megyn Kelly, the Fox News anchor whose participation in the debate led to Trump's boycott, referred to him as "the elephant not in the room".

    Which is both quite funny and accurate. I can see why Donald was so frightened of her!


    Blaaboy 29 Jan 2016 03:03

    Tough for any GOP candidate to avoid the flip flops in fairness. Pro life gun nuts, military spending addicted defecit hawks, die hard defenders of the Constitution hell bent on removing church/state separation, defenders of the squeezed middle sucking on the teat of Murdoch and the Koch brothers.... A very high and skinny tight rope....


    benbache 29 Jan 2016 02:22

    Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to. Nobody cares about Rubio or Bush flip flopping on immigration, because they have decided not to vote for them. And despite the press, no one I know cares about terrorism in the US. No one ever brings it up in any conversation, despite constant fear mongering.

    People care about jobs and their dwindling opportunities. Trump talks populism. He talks about tariffs on manufacturers who moved jobs overseas. People like that. He said he thinks the US should have left Saddam Hussein in power. Every rational person today agrees with that. He says the US should have left Gaddafi in power. While not too many people think about that too much, if they do, they agree with that too. Especially once they learn about the domino effect it has had, such as the attack on the coffee shop in Burkina Faso a week ago or so.

    People have grown tired of war. All of the mainstream candidates want war because their campaigns depend on it. Bush's family has massive investment in the Carlisle Group and other players in the MIC.

    Trump made his money in real estate, not war.

    ID1569355 29 Jan 2016 01:53

    I have no vote in the U.S.A. I greatly respect it's people and achievements. President Obama has been a big disappointment to me. I really thought he could make some good changes for his citizens. Should Mr Trump actually win the Presidency life for many will be very, very interesting, perhaps not in a good way. Then again perhaps his leadership might be just what America needs.

    A few years of Mr Trump as leader of the world's greatest super-power may give us all a new outlook on life as we know it, help us adjust our personal and National priorities. Give him the power as the Supreme Commander of Military Forces and we can all learn some lessons about the consequences of Americans votes on everyone else's lives. Americans may learn a thing or two also........Go Trump !

    Oboy1963 29 Jan 2016 01:37

    Not a Trump fan, but it is great to see someone with enough nous to tell Fox to go bite their bum. Good on him. We know from past experience what a sleazy old fart Rupert is and his fellow travelers in Fox are a good fit. The "moderators" are third rate journo's out to polish their image and try the bigmouth on the guy that 'may' become President. No need for Trump to take that kind of crap off of those sort of people.

    Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 01:32

    Cruz was attacked, got flustered and blew his opportunity. Trump's judgement turned out to be vindicated in not attending. Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that the entire West is moving to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump may turn out to be closer to the mainstream. If there are further Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil then this will likely be a certainty.

    [Jan 29, 2016] financing Koch brothers convene donor retreat as dark money spending set to soar

    Notable quotes:
    "... For sale, cheap, one POTUS puppet, strings firmly attached. Keep the kiddies entertained, good for four years worth of distraction. ..."
    "... Where does most of the money, dark or obvious, go? Answer: The Main Stream Media (I include the Guardian in this). Do you now understand why they're all having a bob-each-way? Morals, journalistic integrity, decency or the welfare of the public be damned, it's raining wads of cash. ..."
    "... Because of the SCOTUS Citizens united decision, it is just fine to bribe politicians IN PUBLIC. How could SCOTUS and the GOP do this to the United States. It is destroying our Democracy. ..."
    "... Let the ass-kissing and groveling begin ..."
    "... The undue influence of the rich over American politics is an absolute disgrace. How can those who claim to be conservatives justify their destruction of democratic processes? They conserve nothing but their own power. Traitors! ..."
    "... I'm afraid that the soul of America was lost with the scotus ruling. Corporations are just that, corporations. They are not people. They already had a disproportionate say in politics because of lobbying money. ..."
    "... Now the princes of darkness have descended on the land like perpetual night. Leaving the populace longing for the light! The Kochs and their ilk are slaves to their ideology which is to destroy the federal government, destroy all social safety net's, even privatize our military. All this for the ideology of the extreme right wing corporate fascism. ..."
    "... All Hail the Deep State! ..."
    "... Check this out...It will blow you away: 'Dark Money: Jane Mayer on How the Koch Bros. & Billionaire Allies Funded the Rise of the Far Right' http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/dark_money_jane_mayer_on_how ..."
    "... "Dred Scott turned people into property....Citizens United turned property into people." ..."
    "... One of the great sources of Trump's appeal has been the perception of his independence from the Kochs and other corporate manipulators. If he gets the nomination, they will of course attempt to co-opt him just as they did the tea party. It will be interesting to see how he responds. ..."
    "... The Kochs didn't co-opt the Tea Party--they created it. They brainstormed it, branded it, funded it, propped it up, bought positive news coverage for it, and pulled its strings to keep the GOP voting base at a full boil for the fall elections in 2010. ..."
    "... This was tactically necessary to enable them to take full advantage of the gorgeous opportunity John Roberts had created for them earlier that spring with Citizens United, rushed through precisely to help the oligarchs buy themselves Congress and as many state houses and governor's mansions as they could reap. ..."
    "... The best government money can buy...... Since the Supreme Court ruled unlimited corporate bribes to politicians would be considered "free speech" in the eyes of the law, people lost any chance they had of representation based on what's best for average citizen. It's -ALL- about big money now, a literal Corporatocracy. The idea that government should be "Of the people, by the people and for the people" is long lost, RIP. ..."
    "... Dark money = Corruption.....period..!! Just because its not illegal doesn't make it right. What it is, is the continual demolition of democracy in the US where whoever has the biggest cheque-book has an advantage over everyone else. Totally wrong and the slippery slope to an end of 'government by the people'... ..."
    "... And the theft of the Presidency is underway. Does anyone not think that allowing millions, even a billion dollars to be donated to campaigns with the donor kept secret is a problem? Heck, foreign government can contribute to get the candidate that they want. So.......Who will be the one to kiss Koch butt? ..."
    "... Hey look, they're trying to buy the elections again. No surprises there... ..."
    "... Not trying. Succeeding. The Koch brothers own many, many politicians who are beholding to Koch and will vote any way Koch wants. ..."
    "... Their intentions are now plain: they aim the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of a modern feudal state/oligarchy. ..."
    "... If money didn't work, people would not be spending over a billon dollars on the election. Of course money works. Think of it this way: The Koch brothers give almost a billion dollars to support most of the GOP candidates. Regardless of who wins, they will be completely owned by the Koch brothers. It doesn't matter who you vote for if they are all owned by Koch. ..."
    "... Moneylenders own the temple. ..."
    "... Not to mention that in their own minds and mirrors, the money-lenders are the temple. ..."
    "... "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." ..."
    "... The pendulum has swung too far - the rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor. The Emperor we have been told has beautiful clothes will soon be found to have none. ..."
    "... Or that famous Apalachin, NY, meeting of the five families in 1957. One difference: I bet the FBI won't be raiding the Koch compound, forcing all the big dogs to flee into the woods. More likely, the feds will be providing protection, writing down the license plate numbers of everyone who might object to billionaires dividing up their 'turf' in America. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Dark money is the name for cash given to nonprofit organizations that can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals and unions without disclosing their donors. Under IRS regulations these tax-exempt groups are supposed to be promoting "social welfare" and are not allowed to have politics as their primary purpose – so generally they have to spend less than half their funds directly promoting candidates. Other so-called "issue ads" paid for by these groups often look like thinly veiled campaign ads.

    The boom in dark money spending in recent elections came in the wake of the supreme court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which held that the first amendment allowed unlimited political spending by corporations and unions. That decision and other court rulings opened the floodgates to individuals, corporations and unions writing unlimited checks to outside groups, both Super Pacs and dark money outfits, which can directly promote federal candidates. Dark money spending rose from just under $6m in 2006 to $131m in 2010 following the decision, according to the CRP.

    kus art , 2016-01-30 01:11:10
    Well, there you have it. In the USA you can actually buy yourself a president. But for Real! No underhanded bribes, but openly buying. Would you like fries with that...? And here's the kicker - Everyone, from media outlets all the way down to the 'person on the street' just accepts it as is without any real protestations...
    GeorgiaTeacher , 2016-01-30 00:22:27
    Why is the left so afraid of these guys?

    Look at the Billary Wall Street fund raisers. http://freebeacon.com/politics/all-hillary-clinton-wall-street-fundraisers /

    I am sure all this money is legit, right?

    (I know, I know feel the bern. He doesn't accept it. And unless there is an indictment he won't win)

    Suga , 2016-01-30 00:08:59
    Learn how Citizens United has allowed Billionaires like the Koch's to rabble-rouse, whip into a frenzy and influence one-half of America to vote against their own best interest!

    The Billionaires' Created Tea Party : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKH2gRDkC5s

    Itsrainingtin , 2016-01-30 00:01:51
    For sale, cheap, one POTUS puppet, strings firmly attached. Keep the kiddies entertained, good for four years worth of distraction.

    ps

    Where does most of the money, dark or obvious, go? Answer: The Main Stream Media (I include the Guardian in this). Do you now understand why they're all having a bob-each-way? Morals, journalistic integrity, decency or the welfare of the public be damned, it's raining wads of cash.

    babymamaboy , 2016-01-29 23:52:10
    Until we have a system that makes sense, I guess we can only hope someone realizes that if they just paid a reasonable tax rate it would cost them less than funding Super PACs. Then again, money doesn't make you smart -- they just might spend a billion to save a million. Can we give crowd sourcing political decisions a chance?
    MtnClimber , 2016-01-29 23:10:59
    Because of the SCOTUS Citizens united decision, it is just fine to bribe politicians IN PUBLIC. How could SCOTUS and the GOP do this to the United States. It is destroying our Democracy.
    woodyTX , 2016-01-29 22:36:47
    Let the ass-kissing and groveling begin
    kriss669 , 2016-01-29 22:30:41
    The undue influence of the rich over American politics is an absolute disgrace. How can those who claim to be conservatives justify their destruction of democratic processes? They conserve nothing but their own power. Traitors!
    blueterrace , 2016-01-29 22:09:26
    America, get a good look at your "democracy" in action.
    woodyTX blueterrace , 2016-01-29 23:30:44
    Need infra-red night vision goggles to see it.
    Washington1776 , 2016-01-29 21:55:40
    Waste your blood money. This is a revolution.
    Siki Georgevic , 2016-01-29 21:53:15
    I'm afraid that the soul of America was lost with the scotus ruling. Corporations are just that, corporations. They are not people. They already had a disproportionate say in politics because of lobbying money.

    Now the princes of darkness have descended on the land like perpetual night. Leaving the populace longing for the light! The Kochs and their ilk are slaves to their ideology which is to destroy the federal government, destroy all social safety net's, even privatize our military. All this for the ideology of the extreme right wing corporate fascism.

    kevink , 2016-01-29 21:45:09
    All Hail the Deep State!
    Suga , 2016-01-29 21:30:47
    Thank you, Peter Stone! So few Americans even know this is happening.
    Check this out...It will blow you away: 'Dark Money: Jane Mayer on How the Koch Bros. & Billionaire Allies Funded the Rise of the Far Right'
    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/dark_money_jane_mayer_on_how

    Please Wake Up America.....Citizens United is the Mirror Image of Dred Scott.

    "Dred Scott turned people into property....Citizens United turned property into people."

    hardlyeverclever , 2016-01-29 21:27:13
    Give Karl Rove the money: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/08/15007504-karl-roves-election-debacle-super-pacs-spending-was-nearly-for-naught
    Stafford Smith , 2016-01-29 21:25:14
    One of the great sources of Trump's appeal has been the perception of his independence from the Kochs and other corporate manipulators. If he gets the nomination, they will of course attempt to co-opt him just as they did the tea party. It will be interesting to see how he responds.
    oldamericanlady Stafford Smith , 2016-01-29 21:41:28
    The Kochs didn't co-opt the Tea Party--they created it. They brainstormed it, branded it, funded it, propped it up, bought positive news coverage for it, and pulled its strings to keep the GOP voting base at a full boil for the fall elections in 2010.

    This was tactically necessary to enable them to take full advantage of the gorgeous opportunity John Roberts had created for them earlier that spring with Citizens United, rushed through precisely to help the oligarchs buy themselves Congress and as many state houses and governor's mansions as they could reap.

    Trump is a different matter. They can't invent Trump the same way they invented the so-called Tea Party.

    What they can do is flatter him and wheedle him and beguile him in hopes of making him more receptive to little things like, for instance, their nominations to the federal bench.

    This, given Trump's pathetic grasp of reality and his monumental ego, shouldn't actually prove too complicated a feat for the Kochs and their worker bees to pull off.

    After all, all Marla Maples had to do was say "Donald Trump--best sex I ever had" on Page 6 at the Post and she got to marry the schlub: the Kochs will surely be equally adept at figuring out the wizened, soulless old billionaire version of this time-honored tactic.

    woodyTX Stafford Smith , 2016-01-29 23:37:23
    The Donald is one of the oligarchs but with an immense ego. Instead of playing the political puppets from behind the curtain as the Koch's do, he thought he'd become the puppet show himself.

    An oligarch in politician's clothing attempting to persuade America that he's on our side. How very Putinesque.

    revelationnow Stafford Smith , 2016-01-30 00:31:06
    They won't be able to co-opt Trump because he is only guided by his ego.
    str8vision , 2016-01-29 20:56:28
    The best government money can buy...... Since the Supreme Court ruled unlimited corporate bribes to politicians would be considered "free speech" in the eyes of the law, people lost any chance they had of representation based on what's best for average citizen. It's -ALL- about big money now, a literal Corporatocracy. The idea that government should be "Of the people, by the people and for the people" is long lost, RIP.
    Christopher Aaron Jones , 2016-01-29 20:45:39
    "How can we override the people's needs with money and influence?"
    UzzDontSay Christopher Aaron Jones , 2016-01-30 01:42:36
    Help pol get registered, informed & get you & those you have influenced to vote in EVERY ELECTION!!!
    Totoro08 , 2016-01-29 20:37:46
    Dark money = Corruption.....period..!! Just because its not illegal doesn't make it right. What it is, is the continual demolition of democracy in the US where whoever has the biggest cheque-book has an advantage over everyone else. Totally wrong and the slippery slope to an end of 'government by the people'...
    MtnClimber , 2016-01-29 20:35:03
    And the theft of the Presidency is underway. Does anyone not think that allowing millions, even a billion dollars to be donated to campaigns with the donor kept secret is a problem? Heck, foreign government can contribute to get the candidate that they want. So.......Who will be the one to kiss Koch butt?
    Whatsup12 , 2016-01-29 20:29:52
    Hey look, they're trying to buy the elections again. No surprises there...
    MtnClimber Whatsup12 , 2016-01-29 20:54:23
    Not trying. Succeeding. The Koch brothers own many, many politicians who are beholding to Koch and will vote any way Koch wants.
    catch18 , 2016-01-29 20:27:51
    Coming on pitchfork time.
    Anthony Caudill , 2016-01-29 20:25:43
    Their intentions are now plain: they aim the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of a modern feudal state/oligarchy.
    UzzDontSay Anthony Caudill , 2016-01-30 01:45:53
    Question is are we going to let them?
    centerlane , 2016-01-29 20:11:43
    Dark money cannot compete with the elephant on the block, the electorate. If any one has the finances to buy the oval office and or Congress it is "citizens united" ten dollars ahead should do it.
    Anthony Caudill centerlane , 2016-01-29 20:30:12
    What you are failing to reckon with is the scale of their organization and its capacity. This retreat probably has a trillion dollars backing it. That's a lot of high paying jobs...
    MtnClimber centerlane , 2016-01-29 20:37:53
    If money didn't work, people would not be spending over a billon dollars on the election. Of course money works. Think of it this way: The Koch brothers give almost a billion dollars to support most of the GOP candidates. Regardless of who wins, they will be completely owned by the Koch brothers. It doesn't matter who you vote for if they are all owned by Koch.

    So, no, the power does NOT lie with the voters. SCOTUS has stolen our democracy and has given it to the richest 100 people in the US.

    marshwren Anthony Caudill , 2016-01-29 20:46:05
    And what you're failing to recognize is the scale and capacity of the internet--the people's MSM and Super PAC. Whatever the outcome of this year's election, the Sanders' campaign is creating the template by which guerrilla/insurgent campaigns will be modeled for the next 20 years or longer...depending on if and when the Kochs et al finally get to end net neutrality.
    SiriErieott , 2016-01-29 20:05:00
    Dark money - it's the undetectable dark matter of politics that bends and motivates political stars to the black hole of government. Ordinary people can't detect it or see it, but it's effect is to control the movement of money to the star clusters (otherwise known as tax havens).
    groovebox1 , 2016-01-29 19:58:12
    The Koch Brothers heads belong on a stick.
    MtnClimber groovebox1 , 2016-01-29 20:38:32
    I believe that would be a pike. It's also a great idea.
    mikedow , 2016-01-29 19:53:45
    Moneylenders own the temple.
    marshwren mikedow , 2016-01-29 20:42:48
    Not to mention that in their own minds and mirrors, the money-lenders are the temple.
    onevote , 2016-01-29 19:48:14
    Citizen's United, the gift that keeps on giving...

    Sanders, 2016
    One Person : One Vote

    Gramercy , 2016-01-29 19:38:31
    The Kochs are concentrating on State legislatures, the key to amending the Constitution.
    By the time they're finished, the President will have less power than the Queen.
    mikedow Gramercy , 2016-01-29 19:56:57
    Hand in hand with ALEC.
    Anthony Caudill Gramercy , 2016-01-29 20:31:42
    Looks like Roberts is gonna have to decide whether or not he wants to endure the humiliation of having the next majority overturn his ruling.
    JulianTurnbull , 2016-01-29 19:28:16
    These people laugh in the face of democracy. I like particularly this quote - if I remember it correctly - by Lily Tomlin:

    "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat."

    The pendulum has swung too far - the rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor. The Emperor we have been told has beautiful clothes will soon be found to have none.

    RedPanda JulianTurnbull , 2016-01-30 01:57:06
    The Republicans moan, the Republicans bitch: The rich are too poor and the poor are too rich.
    pconl , 2016-01-29 19:27:20
    A genuine, and possibly naive, question. Is this reported in the States? If so, does anyone notice?
    widdak pconl , 2016-01-29 19:42:35
    Not really and definitely not.
    sour_mash pconl , 2016-01-29 19:55:10
    "A genuine, and possibly naive, question. Is this reported in the States?"

    Yes. With few exceptions, the only bad question is the one not asked.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/01/29/koch-brothers-push-poverty-education-societal-change--initiative-republican/79468744 /

    Voltairine pconl , 2016-01-29 19:58:19
    I'm a U.S. citizen, and I don't know because I stopped watching U.S. "news" although I'm not sure how much better The Guardian is the people in comments seem a tad nicer better grammar and spelling did I answer the questions? Oh, a butterfly!
    lefthalfback2 , 2016-01-29 19:22:03
    They are already spending their money on negative ads against- wait for it- Hillary Clinton. They know who that have to beat- and it ain't Bernie.
    marshwren lefthalfback2 , 2016-01-29 20:40:59
    Good--let them blow billions (more) attacking Clinton; it'll only be more delicious when they find out they should have spent it against Sanders. You better hope Clinton wins IA big, because if she doesn't, she just might jump-start the process by which she loses the nomination. Like last time.
    lefthalfback2 marshwren , 2016-01-29 20:49:48
    could happen. I could live with Bernie as the nominee. Krugman had an interesting slant on it today in NYT.
    callaspodeaspode , 2016-01-29 19:20:59
    Several Koch network donors have voiced strong concerns about the rise of Trump, raising doubts about his conservative bona fides and his angry anti-immigrant rhetoric, which they fear could hurt efforts by the Koch network and the Republican party to appeal to Hispanics and minorities.

    I wonder if they also worry about their lavishly-funded support of theocratic loudmouth Republican lunatics such as Tom Cotton, Sam Brownback and Joni Ernst potentially alienating moderate Christians or, heaven (literally) forbid, non-believers?

    Only joking. No.

    Apollo_11 , 2016-01-29 19:06:22
    Don't let nobody give your guns to shoot down your own brother
    Don't let nobody give your bombs to blow down my sweet mother
    Tell me are you really feeling sweet when you sit down to eat
    You eating blood money you spending blood money
    You think you're funny living off blood money
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anjkSBQDRjc
    snakeatzoes , 2016-01-29 19:01:31
    Its funny to see them without Trump. You are so mesmerised by Trump and his hair that you haven't noticed what an incredibly weird looking bunch the rest are. Not that it matters given Bernie will *ump them all anyway -- :)
    Whitt , 2016-01-29 18:56:52
    "Several Republican congressional incumbents and candidates facing tough races are slated to attend the Koch retreat this weekend, and, if recent history is a guide, are expecting to gain support from Koch-backed dark money groups."
    *
    For some reason I'm reminded of the opening scene of The Godfather where supplicants meet with Don Corleone and present their requests on the occasion of his daughter's wedding, kissing his hand at the end.

    Can't imagine why.

    lefthalfback2 Whitt , 2016-01-29 19:23:02
    "...Give this to Clemenza. Tell him to send responsible people. We don't want things to get out of hand...".
    MtnClimber Whitt , 2016-01-29 20:45:10
    That's exactly what it is. The Koch Brothers will own most of the GOP politicians. It doesn't matter which one you vote for because that person will likely be owned by Koch and will do their bidding.
    NYbill13 Whitt , 2016-01-29 20:46:55
    Or that famous Apalachin, NY, meeting of the five families in 1957. One difference: I bet the FBI won't be raiding the Koch compound, forcing all the big dogs to flee into the woods. More likely, the feds will be providing protection, writing down the license plate numbers of everyone who might object to billionaires dividing up their 'turf' in America.

    [Jan 27, 2016] Does Mike Bloomberg Know Something We Don't About the Clinton FBI Probe

    finance.yahoo.com

    Another explanation is that he sees trouble ahead for Hillary Clinton. Because of his close relationship with former NYC police Chief Ray Kelly and others in the law enforcement community, he might have the inside track on the FBI investigation into the former Secretary of State's handling of classified documents and questionable foundation-related activities. Democrats have done a fine job of completely dismissing the FBI inquiry, but the possibility that Clinton could face serious legal hurdles may be encouraging Bloomberg's ambitions.

    ... ... ...

    The inquiry began by looking into whether Clinton's use of a personal email server violated security standards; it has since been expanded twice. As reported by Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News, Clinton signed an oath promising to comply with the laws protecting national security information, violations that the Obama administration has aggressively prosecuted.

    As Napolitano says, "The Obama Department of Justice prosecuted a young sailor for espionage for sending a selfie to his girlfriend, because in the background of the photo was a view of a sonar screen on a submarine…. It also prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for espionage for keeping secret and top-secret documents in an unlocked drawer in his desk inside his guarded home. It alleged that he shared those secrets with a friend who also had a security clearance, but it dropped those charges."

    Napolitano contends that the bar for prosecution is low, and can be based on negligence. That is, the government need not prove that Clinton intended to reveal state secrets – only that she did so through carelessness.

    Charles McCullough, the intelligence community's inspector general, recently stirred the pot when he wrote to the chairmen of the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that he has received sworn declarations from an intelligence agency he declined to name identifying "several dozen" classified emails, including several marked as "special access programs" – the highest security level possible. SAP information can include the names of intelligence assets, for instance, and other highly sensitive information. To date, some 1,340 "classified" emails have been discovered amongst those stored on Clinton's server.

    Clinton argues that those communications were not so designated at the time. Undermining her defense is a series of emails exchanged with aide Jake Sullivan in which she appears to order him to get around security protocol and simply cut and paste sensitive information to be faxed to her. The compromising communication was amongst those released in a recent Friday night "dump." In the exchange, Sullivan reports that staffers have "had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton answers, "If they can't, turn into non-paper w no identifying heading and send non-secure." The intent is clear.

    [Jan 26, 2016] You Say You Want a Revolution?

    Notable quotes:
    "... In November, if you dont live in a battleground state, your vote will not tip the outcome...better to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the corrupt duopoly. ..."
    "... Any president will need a staff and mostly, that will come from people working in the Obama administration. Bernie talks about Stiglitz, but he is 72, almost as old as Bernie. He mentioned Reich who was part of the same Clinton administration that Bernie constantly bashes. ..."
    "... Much of the dereg came about in trade for other policies. I dont know that a Bernie administration would be much different. Bernie would need to swallow hard and take a heavy dose of GOP poison to get a budget, much less pass reform legislation. ..."
    "... Dont say the Tea Party changed nothing - they changed themselves. Remember that they were created in disgust over Wall Street. After they got elected you would be hard pressed to find more ardent supporters of any and all legislation that support the rich. ..."
    "... Bernie is settling for social democracy. That is still better than neoliberal theocracy. ..."
    "... Exactly. Its all political posturing for the primaries. Like Obama, shell revert to a neoliberal stooge the moment she takes office. ..."
    "... Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove that she has cojones. Libya redux. ..."
    "... Paleoconservatives oppose military interventionism. Boots on the ground would be neoconservative. ..."
    "... Neoconservative is just neoliberal with a more aggressive boots on the ground foreign policy or imperialism ..."
    "... Paleoconservatives are more isolationist than free traders. They still love their corporations and rich people, but they dont like crony capitalism as a principle even if as a reality they are open to setting a price. Trump is leaning paleoconservative, at least in his campaign rhetoric. ..."
    "... Whatever it takes to prove that she the toughest warrior since Catherine the Great... ..."
    "... Exactly. She is yet another neocon, masking as a Democrat. She is more jingoistic then probably half of Republican candidates. ..."
    "... What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies that you yourself support? ..."
    "... Well you have to decide whether you want to be a heroic loser or get half a loaf. I agree that it is a very difficult question. ..."
    "... You nailed it. No one ever said democracy would be easy. ..."
    "... And he cautionary tale is that the heroic losers got us 8 years of Bush II - and all the disasters he managed to create in that time. ..."
    "... No What is means is that there are a lot of people who realize that public opinion polls mean absolutely nothing. ..."
    "... What is ironic about this election cycle more than others is that Republicans dominate the elected offices, so they have essentially total control of government, especially in the poorest States, but they blame Obama for things that are local to these States like teen pregnancy, school drop outs, poverty, high unemployment, crime, felons, unemployed felons, no health providers, no corporations who will setup in the State because of the lack of health probiders, educated workers, and too much crime. Nothing was better when Bush-Cheney or Reagan-Bush were where Obama-Biden are. And the increasing number of elected Republicans seems to me to be quantifiably worse. ..."
    "... I would call them a Third Way turncoats within Dems. Neolibs moved party into Wall Street hands and Wall Street donors became the key contributors. Clinton successfully sold Democratic Party (like Tony Blair sold Labour) and got rich in the process. ..."
    "... Instead of boycotting, which conveys apathy, why not vote third party, which conveys disgust? ..."
    "... ...Nader won enough votes in two states - Florida and New Hampshire - to put either of them in Gore's column. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which easily could have swung the election to give Gore the state's 25 electoral votes, and there would have been no need for a recount. Even without Florida, adding Nader's 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote to Gore's 47 percent would have given Gore a 270 to 267 victory in the electoral college... ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has had persistently high negatives and a habit of generating and attractive scandal. She cant even generate trust within her own party, and performs particularly badly among independents. I dont understand why anyone would view her as the electable alternative . ..."
    "... HRC is not calling for a political revolution. If you like oligarchy then she is your gal. If one is comfortably placed in the existing establishment then it is a scary thing to risk rocking the boat. ..."
    "... Yep, the Clinton Foundation should be rebranded: Scandals R Us! ..."
    "... When presented with the choice between a corrupt capitalist and an honest socialist, it should be an easy choice for most of us. Actually, for the Wall Street Democrats here, its also any easy choice--you look for the most corrupt candidate, the one who lists Wall Street banks as her top donors. ..."
    "... By November, all but the most fervent Clinton partisans -- who can always be driven into a frenzy of paranoid persecution mania by talk of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and whatnot - is in an anybody but Clinton mood. ..."
    "... Not BS. You are wearing partisan blinders. Clinton has been dogged by scandal at every stage of her public life: some pumped up out of relatively small stuff, but several serious big deals. There will be more. Why? Because the Clintons are both compulsive liars. Thats why young people, who are very good at sniffing out fakes and liars, dont like her. ..."
    "... The Republicans have gone nuts and are much more of danger than they appeared to be back in 2000 before 9-11. ..."
    "... The definitions of Democratic Socialism by B Sanders are in the context of Scandinavian countries which is really a more progressive form of social democracy, e.g. higher tax rates on higher earners than other social democratic countries but still allowing private property. ..."
    "... The protesters' indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right. ..."
    "... Bingo. Bernie does what Obama did in his early speeches: speak to the moral, emotional underpinnings of Progressive beliefs. ..."
    "... This is a kind of excitement that Hillary is never going to be able to inspire. ..."
    "... And you somehow think that this enthusiasm will not be curbed after the attacks on Sanders begin? And I am not talking about these stupid little so called attacks by PK, Chait, Klein, etc. I'm talking big boy attacks backed by huge money and no reason whatsoever to pay attention to any facts at all. ..."
    "... Yeah, I do. I think we're ready for another, And I welcome their hatred, moment in history. ..."
    "... But what we need now is someone with genuine moral outrage who will say what so many of us feel: the system has been distorted beyond its ability to snap back. It works for at most 10% of the population now and catastrophically, often fatally, fails a percentage of perhaps twice that. I haven't gotten quite to the point yet myself where I would refuse to vote for Clinton if she won the primary, but many of my friends have. I think the tide has finally turned. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    New column:
    You Say You Want a Revolution?, by Mark A. Thoma : What, exactly, does Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders have in mind when he asks on his website if we are "Ready to Start a Political Revolution?" He has proclaimed unabashedly that he is a socialist, a statement that has raised eyebrows about his electability. He wants to turn us into the Soviet Union!! Is that what he has in mind?
    Far from it. He has qualified his statements to make it clear that he is a democratic socialist, but that term fails to convey what he really has in mind, or at least I think it does. ...

    Posted on Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 05:02 AM in Economics , Politics | Permalink Comments (96)

    mulp -> pgl...
    You support Sanders because he opposes any organized opposition to Republicans who run about 10,000 candidates for 10,000 offices and get out voters to vote in everyone on of those elections?

    The only organized opposition to Republicans is Democratic Parties who need to raise money to pay campaign workers because those progressives who oppose capitalism oddly won't work for the parties for free, or run for office paying their own way in getting hundreds of people to work for free getting out the vote. It isn't like Democratic party elites block them from running for office because at least a thousand elections have no opponent to the Republican candidate.

    What's Sanders' plan for filling the 10,000 elected offices currently filled with corrupt party picked and corporate bought puppets?

    ilsm -> mulp ...
    Sanders has pushed the DLC for a "southern strategy", to no avail. I worked for free in 2012 and 2014! I may not do so in 2016.
    JohnH -> pgl...
    I would vote for Sanders in November because he is strong on issues important to most Americans. Bill Curry explains the difference between the candidates, something most of the 'liberals' here fail to grasp--

    "Hillary is a living avatar of the Democratic Party in our time. What it does well–cultural issues and social programs– she does well. When she talks about child care or family leave she's passionate and sincere. What she and her party don't do well is fight to end corporate control of government. She's also weak on climate change, freedom of information, the right to privacy and, in matters of alleged national security, the rule of law.

    Bernie won [the October debate] not because he outpointed her but because he's strong on the issues on which she's weak - and because those are the issues that matter most to voters. Like our environment, our democracy and our middle class are at a tipping point. When Bernie talks about these crises, his sincerity and passion are unmistakable. For all her hard work, it isn't clear Hillary even understands them. Having spent the '90s promoting globalization, and her adult life raising money from those who profit from it, she's too wed to the system to see its fatal flaws".
    http://www.salon.com/2015/10/18/this_is_still_bernie_sanders_moment_hes_right_on_the_big_issues_now_he_must_communicate_it/

    likbez -> JohnH...
    Bill Curry is simply naïve.

    The current social system that is in place in the USA is called neoliberalism. And it presupposes complete corporate control of the state as neoliberalism is a form of corporatism.

    I doubt that you can change the elite preferences as for neoliberalism via elections. Some compromises are possible, but that's it. Any US President is controlled by "deep state" not the other way around.

    Truman said something like "You came to the office, you try to change things and nothing changes."

    JohnH -> lower middle class...
    In November, if you don't live in a battleground state, your vote will not tip the outcome...better to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the corrupt duopoly.
    JohnH -> EMichael...
    If enough people vote against the corrupt duopoly in non-battleground states, the message will be heard.

    Yes, we can!

    Sarah -> pgl...
    As usual, Mark's much more balanced on the subject than Krugman. He shows that he's thought about it carefully and listened to what Sanders has to say. Krugman, on the other hand, is sounding like he did on the housing bubble before he actually started reading, thinking and paying attention.

    Especially irritating is his claim that single payer means organizing a national health service and abolishing private health care. Surely he's traveled enough in Europe to know that it means nothing of the kind. Most European countries, including the one where I live, offer private health plans as well as a public option- just the system Krugman himself proposed when the health care debates were on.

    The other thing which Sanders is doing, and which an earlier Krugman faulted Obama for NOT doing, is pushing the political dialogue back towards the center, away from the extreme right, where it's been stuck despite massive bipartisan majorities in favor of a number of more Progressive positions, for a couple of decades now. If he's getting strong blow-back for this it's hardly surprising.

    I don't anyone will fault Thoma for worrying about Bernie's prospects. I happen to think he's mistaken, and that Sanders actually has a far stronger appeal - even on the Right (particularly among the non-political and those who have given up on politics) -- than many people suspect, but it's certainly a reasonable concern. What Krugman is doing goes considerably beyond that, however. If he's getting strong blow-back for that it's hardly surprising.

    jonny bakho :
    I think Bernie is electable. Bernie gives Hillary cover to discuss more populist positions. I think his approach is unlikely to deliver very much.

    The TeaParty went to Congress with an agenda plus grass roots support and have changed nothing. The US system is designed to block radical schemes and force a more incremental change. On health care, we solved the problem of how to pay. The most pressing challenge is improving delivery. On this, Bernie is refighting the last war. His side lost. The Dems should not respond to TeaParty votes on repealing Obamacare with votes to repeal it and replace it with single payer. The TeaParty has been a waste of time. So would the push for single payer. The majority of Americans would be loathe to trade in their employer paid health care for health care of unknown quality paid for by higher taxes. Vermont could sell it to their voters. It cannot be sold to the TeaParty who would fight it as BigBrotherGov. Sanders does not have the good judgement to see that single payer is a loser with the general public and would be a drag on the rest of the agenda. The move to single payer will involve incremental steps that are outside of Sanders plan. The whole idea that a one-sided populist revolution will occur in 2016 is near zero probability. The populists are split between a conservative camp and a liberal camp.

    Any president will need a staff and mostly, that will come from people working in the Obama administration. Bernie talks about Stiglitz, but he is 72, almost as old as Bernie. He mentioned Reich who was part of the same Clinton administration that Bernie constantly bashes. The advantage to Clinton is she is much more familiar with the players who understand how to make the agencies respond. I lived through the 90s and the legislation that was enacted was always some mix of what the GOP Congress were promoting and what Bill Clinton wanted. Much of the dereg came about in trade for other policies. I don't know that a Bernie administration would be much different. Bernie would need to swallow hard and take a heavy dose of GOP poison to get a budget, much less pass reform legislation.

    ken melvin -> jonny bakho...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
    DeDude -> jonny bakho...
    Don't say the Tea Party changed nothing - they changed themselves. Remember that they were created in disgust over Wall Street. After they got elected you would be hard pressed to find more ardent supporters of any and all legislation that support the rich.
    pgl -> DeDude...
    Same old Republican bait and switch.
    ilsm -> jonny bakho...
    Tea party support is in fly over country. And there a small minority (they win with 55% stay home) of the population.

    Bernie could excite enough.... Hillary not so.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron :
    My guess is that Bernie would be for democratic socialism if he thought that he could get it done. So, Bernie is settling for social democracy. That is still better than neoliberal theocracy.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...
    I would even give some neoliberal politicians credit for listening well to the economists whose policy prescriptions fit their political-economic agenda on a case by case basis. So, that is pretense without just pretending.
    JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    "Since Bernie she is singing a different tune."

    Exactly. It's all political posturing for the primaries. Like Obama, she'll revert to a neoliberal stooge the moment she takes office.

    Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove that she has cojones. Libya redux.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> JohnH...
    Yeah, but no boots on the ground because that would be neoconservative.
    pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    I think you mean Paleo Conservative. We need to program to keep up with all these meaningless labels.
    Syaloch -> pgl...
    Paleoconservatives oppose military interventionism. Boots on the ground would be neoconservative.


    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...

    [Neoconservative is just neoliberal with a more aggressive "boots on the ground" foreign policy or imperialism if you would rather.]

    *

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

    Irving Kristol (January 22, 1920 – September 18, 2009) was an American columnist, journalist, and writer who was dubbed the "godfather of neo-conservatism."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

    Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's domestic and especially foreign policy. Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administrations of George W. Bush and George H W Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. Senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, while not identifying themselves as neoconservatives, listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel, the promotion of democracy in the Middle East, and the buildup of American military forces to achieve these goals. The neocons have influence in the Obama White House, and neoconservatism remains a staple in both parties' arsenal.[2][3]

    The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Left to the camp of American conservatism.[4] Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and promotion of American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism...

    *

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

    Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleocon) is a conservative political philosophy found primarily in the United States stressing tradition, limited government and civil society, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity.[1][2]

    Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially regarding issues such as military interventionism, illegal immigration and high rates of legal immigration, as well as multiculturalism, affirmative action, free trade, and foreign aid.[1] They also criticize social welfare and social democracy, which some refer to as the "therapeutic managerial state",[3] the "welfare-warfare state"[4] or "polite totalitarianism".[5] They identify themselves as the legitimate heirs to the American conservative tradition.[6]

    Elizabethtown College professor Paul Gottfried is credited with coining the term in the 1980s.[7] He says the term originally referred to various Americans, such as conservative and traditionalist Catholics and agrarian Southerners, who turned to anti-communism during the Cold War.[8] Paleoconservatism is closely linked with distributism.[citation needed]

    Paleoconservative thought has been published by the Rockford Institute's Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.[9] Politician Pat Buchanan was strongly influenced by its articles[8] and helped create another paleocon publication, The American Conservative.[10] Its concerns overlap those of the Old Right that opposed the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s...


    [There you have it. To simplify just consider archetypes neoconservative Irving Kristol (or son William) versus paleoconservative Pat Buchanan. Neocons are entirely at home with the Washington Consensus of neoliberal, but they want to project American power via militarism and have no problem whatsoever with other peoples kids dying in foreign wars. That is the beauty of an all voluntary military.

    Paleoconservatives are more isolationist than free traders. They still love their corporations and rich people, but they don't like crony capitalism as a principle even if as a reality they are open to setting a price. Trump is leaning paleoconservative, at least in his campaign rhetoric. ]

    JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    "no boots on the ground" Don't bet on it. Whatever it takes to prove that she the toughest warrior since Catherine the Great...

    likbez -> JohnH...
    >Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove that she has cojones. Libya redux.

    Exactly. She is yet another neocon, masking as a Democrat. She is more jingoistic then probably half of Republican candidates.


    PPaine -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Might I suggest recently Hillary is no longer bear hugging real progress

    She's back to the wooden nickel con and the " crazy left " marginalization stunt


    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> PPaine ...

    Yeah, you may suggest. I noticed that too. Neither my wife nor I are her fans. I have been in for Bernie since before he even announced. If I recall so were you although Liz Warren would have also been acceptable to us.

    Back in the 70's I wanted to Carl Sagan to run for POTUS. I have since become a full time realist and only a part time crackpot.


    DrDick -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    That is the position of many Democratic Socialists, including myself and most major European socialist parties. It is a gradualist position rather than a revolutionary one.

    PPaine said in reply to DrDick...

    And deeply in crisis. Hence the emergence of left alternatives as well as right menaces

    kthomas :
    Let's go Bernie! Make those cockroaches scurry!
    Jerry Brown :
    What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies that you yourself support?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Jerry Brown...
    LOL! That's a good one.
    Jerry Brown -> EMichael...
    True enough. Thoma says it is the label "socialist" that makes him less likely to win, not the actual policies that might be associated with the label.

    Its difficult finding out I'm a socialist after all these years. Maybe I should support Trump so nobody else finds out.

    Jerry Brown -> EMichael...
    Yes. Trump might be a type of socialist too. Nationalist Socialist might be a fit for him.
    DeDude -> Jerry Brown...
    Well you have to decide whether you want to be a heroic loser or get half a loaf. I agree that it is a very difficult question.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> DeDude...
    You nailed it. No one ever said democracy would be easy.
    DeDude -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    And he cautionary tale is that the "heroic losers" got us 8 years of Bush II - and all the disasters he managed to create in that time.
    JohnH -> Jerry Brown...
    "What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies that you yourself support?"

    Actually, what to do when a candidate, i.e. Bernie, is called unelectable because they support policies that most Americans support--busting up the big banks and Medicare for all?

    The 'liberals' here fail to take into account that 1) Bernie is on the right side of public opinion, and 2) takes positions that real liberals would support. Yet they won't support Bernie...because they've become too conservative?

    EMichael -> JohnH...
    No What is means is that there are a lot of people who realize that public opinion polls mean absolutely nothing.
    mulp -> Jerry Brown...
    You form a party that can put 10,000 candidates on the ballot for 10,000 elected offices and then winning the majority of those elections.

    What is ironic about this election cycle more than others is that Republicans dominate the elected offices, so they have essentially total control of government, especially in the poorest States, but they blame Obama for things that are local to these States like teen pregnancy, school drop outs, poverty, high unemployment, crime, felons, unemployed felons, no health providers, no corporations who will setup in the State because of the lack of health probiders, educated workers, and too much crime. Nothing was better when Bush-Cheney or Reagan-Bush were where Obama-Biden are. And the increasing number of elected Republicans seems to me to be quantifiably worse.

    So, who do progressives like Sanders blame? The Democrats who have lost in elections over and over to Republicans. What actions do progressives who support Sanders take? Attack the system and boycott it.

    Hey, it's like protesting the weather requiring creating some sort of shelter from the snow by laying down and being covered with snow. They'll show mother nature and force her to change.

    likbez -> PPaine ...

    > Party cadre and those reflex rooters for the party

    I would call them a Third Way turncoats within Dems. Neolibs moved party into Wall Street hands and Wall Street donors became the key contributors. Clinton successfully sold Democratic Party (like Tony Blair sold Labour) and got rich in the process.

    JohnH -> mulp ...

    Instead of boycotting, which conveys apathy, why not vote third party, which conveys disgust?

    BTW the reason Democrats lost the mid-terms in many states in 2014 is precisely because they ran as Republican-lite: "Consider that in four "red" states - South Dakota, Arkansas, Alaska, and Nebraska - the same voters who sent Republicans to the Senate voted by wide margins to raise their state's minimum wage. Democratic candidates in these states barely mentioned the minimum wage."

    JohnH -> djb...

    What Bernie should do if he loses is build a nationwide socialist organization. Obama had that opportunity in 2008 but abandoned it as soon as he took power...he didn't want popular opposition to his neoliberal agenda.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude...

    [Sorry, I forgot about Nader and since you did not explicitly mention him then your meaning was not clear.]

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-nader-cost-gore-an-election/2015/02/05/3261cc22-abd2-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html

    ...Nader won enough votes in two states - Florida and New Hampshire - to put either of them in Gore's column. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which easily could have swung the election to give Gore the state's 25 electoral votes, and there would have been no need for a recount. Even without Florida, adding Nader's 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote to Gore's 47 percent would have given Gore a 270 to 267 victory in the electoral college...

    [That said, then Bernie is another thing entirely. Bernie is not a third party candidate. Now I wish voting for a third party candidate was plausibly a good decision because with a ranked voting system then a third party vote would not be a throw away, but that is not how the two party system wants things done.]

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2014/1112/The-real-reason-Democrats-lost-big-in-2014

    Why vote for this corrupt duopoly?

    Dan Kervick :
    Hillary Clinton has had persistently high negatives and a habit of generating and attractive scandal. She can't even generate trust within her own party, and performs particularly badly among independents. I don't understand why anyone would view her as the "electable alternative".
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Dan Kervick ...
    HRC is not calling for a political revolution. If you like oligarchy then she is your gal. If one is comfortably placed in the existing establishment then it is a scary thing to risk rocking the boat.
    JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    Yep, the Clinton Foundation should be rebranded: "Scandals R Us!"

    "Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors"...just the tip of the iceberg.
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

    When presented with the choice between a corrupt capitalist and an honest socialist, it should be an easy choice for most of us. Actually, for the Wall Street Democrats here, it's also any easy choice--you look for the most corrupt candidate, the one who lists Wall Street banks as her top donors.

    Dan Kervick -> EMichael...
    Great, you can predict the future. Well, so can I. Here's my prediction: Hillary Clinton gets nominated. The summer and fall campaign is dominated by a nauseating replay of every Clinton scandal, present and past. Not just the eight or so we know about, but others that haven't been let out of the opposition research box yet. By November, all but the most fervent Clinton partisans -- who can always be driven into a frenzy of paranoid persecution mania by talk of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and whatnot - is in an "anybody but Clinton" mood.
    Dan Kervick -> pgl...
    Not BS. You are wearing partisan blinders. Clinton has been dogged by scandal at every stage of her public life: some pumped up out of relatively small stuff, but several serious big deals. There will be more. Why? Because the Clintons are both compulsive liars. That's why young people, who are very good at sniffing out fakes and liars, don't like her.

    But the older, "Clinton generation" of Democrats has internalized a particularly cynical and jaded attitude toward routine public lying, having picked up the fixed habit of defending the compulsively lying Clintons for so many years.

    The Clintons could have done the Democratic Party a huge favor in 2001 by sailing off into retirement after dragging the country through their slime for years, and by dismantling their machine and handing the party off to something more wholesome and progressive.

    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick ...
    Hey, some of us older folks are pretty good at sniffing out liars and fakes too.
    Dan Kervick :
    Many commentators don't seem to understand that there is a major US organization called the Democratic Socialists of America. They have been around for a number of years, and one of the founders was Michael Harrington. This organization has published a fairly comprehensive statement entitled Where We Stand, and does not advocate a wholesale elimination of market economic institutions.

    http://www.dsausa.org/where_we_stand#dc

    Rather, they say:

    As democratic socialists we are committed to ensuring that any market is the servant of the public good and not its master. Liberty, equality, and solidarity will require not only democratic control over economic life, but also a progressively financed, decentralized, and quality public sector. Free markets or private charity cannot provide adequate public goods and services.

    So, as I read it, the two main takeaways here are:

    1. Any markets that exist should serve the public good.
    2. Free markets alone are not sufficient to provide society with adequate public goods and services.

    The statement also does not call for the elimination of all private ownership; but it clearly does call for an expansion of public ownership, worker ownership and cooperatives.

    A lot of people who are not democratic socialists seem to have very strong ideas about what democratic socialism really is, based perhaps on the ideas of people who called themselves "democratic socialists" in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But I think it's the people who use that label for themselves are entitled to determine what they intend that label to stand for.

    pgl -> Dan Kervick...

    Love this line:

    "Today powerful corporate and political elites tell us that environmental standards are too high, unemployment is too low, and workers earn too much for America to prosper in the next century."

    Most economists would say environmental standards are too low, that we are still below full employment, and the goal of economic policy should be to raise wages.

    So your group is critiquing right wing Republicans not your "neoliberal" whatever.

    likbez -> pgl...

    For those who studied Marxism neoliberalism can be defined as Trotskyism for the rich or "revolt of the elite" (against New Deal policies). http://softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/neoliberalism_as_trotskyism_for_the_rich.shtml

    Like Marxism Neoliberalism is not simply an economic theory, it is a philosophy that includes economic theory as its cornerstone.

    Like Marxism Neoliberalism is not homogenous and consists of warring factions.

    Right wing Republicans is just one faction of neoliberals. You can distinguish between soft neoliberals (Third Way neolibs) and hard neoliberals.

    see

    Peter K. :

    I'm for Bernie and believe he could beat Trump. But Dan Kervick and JohnH's arguments moved me more towards the Thoma and EMichael direction.

    The Republicans have gone nuts and are much more of danger than they appeared to be back in 2000 before 9-11.

    The parties are not the same. The danger for the Democrats is that they don't accomplish enough in moving the country towards Social Democracy (Bill Clinton did little, Obama did some) and so inequality just increases and politics gets worse.

    Obama did not get a strong recovery and so Congress is Republican. He didn't prioritize Fed nominations and turned towards deficit reduction too quickly.

    EMichael -> Peter K....
    There are two sides to that stone.

    What I am saying, and in way so is Dr. Thoma, is that Sanders' nomination may well cause much more Rep voter turnout.

    And Sanders lacks the ability to turn out the black vote at all, and he has done himself no favor so far in this cycle.

    Black votes are a lot more important and numerous than any people who are tired of "neo-liberals". Most of whom, if they had IQ above double digits, always voted for the Dem candidate anyway.

    am :
    Prof Thoma seems to have got this right. The definitions of Democratic Socialism by B Sanders are in the context of Scandinavian countries which is really a more progressive form of social democracy, e.g. higher tax rates on higher earners than other social democratic countries but still allowing private property. But he was really a bit daft calling himself a democratic socialist if he is just a more progressive social democrat. A democratic socialist does not allow private property rights but allows democracy. This means elections every four or five years when the government including themselves in power can be changed.
    But that these terms can be misunderstood you just have to look at their use in history: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany).

    likbez -> am...

    Scandinavian countries are pretty small homogenous countries. What is possible for Scandinavian countries is more difficult to achieve is large states like the USA.

    > This means elections every four or five years when the government including themselves in power can be changed.

    In two party system elections is just approval of two selected by the current oligarchy candidates. And it was always this way.

    mulp -> likbez...
    "In two party system elections is just approval of two selected by the current oligarchy candidates. And it was always this ways."

    So, every candidate must independently find supporters and then use the supporters to educate every voter in the candidates' electorate of the individual candidates policies without respect to any standard like political party or any existing description of what political labels mean because the labels are derived from one of many parties using the words in the label.

    How long would it take you to explain your political position without referring to some label that covers how you would decide on responses to social problems when drafting bills or voting on them?

    Then explain how you would find other legislators to support and pass bills without assigning them labels.

    likbez -> mulp... January 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM
    I think two party system is what is called "polyarchy" -- power of a few. As Gore Vidal noted: "There is one political party in this country, and that is the party of money. It has two branches, the Republicans and the Democrats, the chief difference between which is that the Democrats are better at concealing their scorn for the average man."

    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/index.shtml

    == quote ==
    I subscribe to Kantian idea of the dignity in human, the idea that everyone is entitles to survival as well as thriving beyond survival. But does everybody is entitled to equal participation in ruling of the state ? Or election of state leaders? Which is what democracy means. But at the same time the struggle for political equality which is often associative with the word "democracy" is a vital human struggle even if democracy itself is an unachievable and unrealistic ideal (see The Iron Law of Oligarchy). In some sense too much talk about Democracy is very suspect and just characterize the speaker as a hypocrite with probably evil intentions, who probably is trying to mask some pretty insidious plans with "democracy promotion" smokescreen. That is especially true for "export of democracy" efforts. See color revolutions for details.

    Under neoliberalism we now face a regime completely opposite to democracy: we have complete, forceful atomization of public, acute suppression of any countervailing political forces (not unlike it was the case in the USSR) including labor unions and other forms of self-organization for the lower 80% or even 99% of population. Neoliberalism tries to present any individual as a market actor within some abstract market (everything is the market under neoliberalism). Instead of fight for political and economic equality neoliberalism provides a slick slogan of "wealth maximization" which is in essence a "bait and switch" for wealth maximization for the top 1% (redistribution of wealth up - which is the stated goal of neoliberalism). It was working in tandem with "shareholder value" mantra which is a disguise of looting of the corporations to enrich its top brass via outsize bonuses (IBM is a nice example where such an approach leads) and sending thousands of white color workers to the street. Previously it was mainly blue-color workers that were affected. Times changed.

    Everything should be organized like corporation under neoliberalism, including government, medicine, education, even military. And everybody is not a citizen but a shareholder under neoliberalism (or more correctly stakeholder), so any conflict should be resolved via discussion of the main stakeholders. Naturally lower 99% are not among them.

    In any democracy, how can voters make an important decision unless they are well informed? But what percentage of US votes can be considered well informed? And what percentage is brainwashed or do not what to think about the issues involved and operate based on emotions and prejudices? And when serious discussion of issues that nation faces are deliberately and systematically replaced by "infotainment" votes became just pawn in the game of factions of elite, which sometimes leaks information to sway public opinion, but do it very selectively. Important information is suppressed or swiped under the carpet to fifth page in NYT to prevent any meaningful discussion. For example, ask several of your friends if they ever heard about Damascus, AR.

    The great propaganda mantra of neoliberal governance, "wealth maximization" for society as a whole in reality is applied very selectively and never to the bottom 60% or 80% of population. In essence, it means a form of welfare economics for financial oligarchy while at the same time a useful smokescreen for keeping debt-slaves obedient by removing any remnants of job security mechanisms that were instituted during the New Deal. As the great American jurist and Supreme Court associate justice Louis Brandeis once said: "We can have huge wealth in the hands of a relatively few people or we can have a democracy. But we can't have both." As under neoliberalism extreme wealth is the goal of the social system, there can be no democracy under neoliberalism. And this mean that pretentions of the USA elite that the USA is a bastion of democracy is plain vanilla British ruling elite style hypocrisy. Brutal suppression of any move to challenge dominance of financial oligarchy (even such feeble as Occupy movement) shows that all too well
    Politically neoliberalism. like Marxism in the past, operates with the same two classes: entrepreneurs (modern name for capitalists and financial oligarchy) and debt slaves (proletarians under Marxism) who work for them. Under neoliberalism only former considered first class citizens ("one dollar -- one vote"). Debt slaves are second class of citizens and are prevented from self-organization, which by-and-large deprives them of any form of political participation. In best Roman tradition it is substituted with the participation in political shows (see Empire of Illusion The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by Chris Hedges) which decide nothing but provide legitimacy for ruling elite.

    The two party system invented by the elite of Great Britain proved to be perfect for neoliberal regimes, which practice what Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarism. The latter is the regime in which all political power belongs to the financial oligarchy which rules via the deep state mechanisms, and where traditional political institutions are downgraded to instruments of providing political legitimacy of the ruling elite. Population is discouraged from political activity. "Go shopping" as famously stated Bush II after 9/11.

    == end of quote ==

    Syaloch said...

    [Class Wars Episode VI: Return of the Occupiers]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html

    Confronting the Malefactors

    By Paul Krugman | Oct. 6, 2011

    There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.

    When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.

    It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

    What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters' indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.

    A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political debate - and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you've forgotten, it was a play in three acts.

    1. In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending.
    2. In the second act, the bubbles burst - but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers' sins.
    3. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support - and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts - behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.

    Now, it's true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans, which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.

    Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don't have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say, CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest rates soaring.

    A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But we shouldn't make too much of the lack of specifics. It's clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it's really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.

    Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I'll second that, because such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover. I'd suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment - not more tax cuts - to help create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.

    And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today's Republicans, who instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed "malefactors of great wealth." Mitt Romney, for example - who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class Americans - was quick to condemn the protests as "class warfare."

    But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however, Mr. Obama's party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.

    And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.

    Sarah -> Peter K....

    Bingo. Bernie does what Obama did in his early speeches: speak to the moral, emotional underpinnings of Progressive beliefs. Despite seeing how incredibly powerful this approach has been for the Republicans, we've had years and decades of Democrats acting like cold technocrats, as if all of these policy matters were mere practicalities and politics were really just the horse race that the media treats it as- rather than a matter of life and death for many people in its outcomes.

    I think people would be less skeptical of Bernie's chances if they saw, as I have, the number of people on the Right and the completely apolitical types who've never voted in their lives who are suddenly talking enthusiastically (often to their own surprise) about a politician. This is a kind of excitement that Hillary is never going to be able to inspire.

    EMichael -> Sarah...

    And you somehow think that this enthusiasm will not be curbed after the attacks on Sanders begin? And I am not talking about these stupid little so called "attacks" by PK, Chait, Klein, etc. I'm talking big boy attacks backed by huge money and no reason whatsoever to pay attention to any facts at all.

    Sarah -> EMichael...

    Yeah, I do. I think we're ready for another, "And I welcome their hatred," moment in history.

    The fact is, on both the Left and the Right people are sick of politics as usual. It's notable that the 'big boys' with the money have been completely, totally unable to influence their supposed Republican base this election season. That's because on the Republican side Trump and Cruz- and even Carson- are tapping into real grievances and emotions. Do you really think Hillary Clinton is the right person to tap into that current? It's a pity, actually. I like her quite well, and I supported her against Obama because of Obama's relative inexperience - and the fact that he hadn't been 'tested' by the 'big boy attacks' you refer to.

    But what we need now is someone with genuine moral outrage who will say what so many of us feel: the system has been distorted beyond its ability to snap back. It works for at most 10% of the population now and catastrophically, often fatally, fails a percentage of perhaps twice that. I haven't gotten quite to the point yet myself where I would refuse to vote for Clinton if she won the primary, but many of my friends have. I think the tide has finally turned.

    EMichael -> Sarah...

    I'm with you except I think the math does not work.

    Half of the REP base are stone cold crazy, and when the smoke clears they will vote for whomever is left standing.

    This country has no such amount of people who are as far left as it does those who are far right. And what numbers there are do not got to the polls if their candidate loses the nomination.

    Sarah -> EMichael...

    The thing is, the 'math' doesn't take into account the incredibly low voter turnouts in the US. It wouldn't take a whole lot to create massive change if you could engage even a quarter of the currently unengaged. What impresses me about Bernie is that he seems to be able to do so.

    [Jan 26, 2016] Meet the new Bernie Sanders: he's now a real candidate, against Clinton's robot

    Notable quotes:
    "... What? The media has been saying for months and months and months and months that Bernie has no chance. The People vote that he wins a debate, the media says Hillary won. You clearly dont know shit. This has been an uphill battle the whole way. Last debate was the FIRST time Bernie got recognized by media as the winner. ..."
    "... Sanders may be more attractive than Clinton to the Reagan Democrats backing Trump (who never really were conservative, more like wanting a labor party that didn't delve into social issues). ..."
    "... Socializing health care and education is not radical, it is a rational reform inside the systsem, it does not go to the root (radix) and seek to replace the root, but only trim the branches (hence not radical). ..."
    "... Calling the Sanders agenda hard-left (like this article does) is idiotic - the author is economically illiterate. Keynesianism, which is what Sanders proposes in substance, isn't communism, it was the mainstream approach to administering capitalism from 1940s to 1970s, elements are still in place in Canada, and continental Europe and they at least as as developed, as free and as democratic as the US. ..."
    "... The media have completely disregarded him until his surge in Iowa, even with the New Hampshire polls out. Have you not wondered why the debates are held on weekends? Wassermann Schultz and the DNC are burying Bernie so people will vote on name recognition rather than policy. ..."
    The Guardian

    Blaine -> Elswood 26 Jan 2016 11:03

    So tired of Hillary! With Bill out there goosing the audience for money and Chelsea practically wetting herself with anticipation of her own career in politics in the wings and Mother bird with private email strip tease front and center stage with the spotlight still on her, this is one burlesque show I hope the curtain drops on sooner rather than later.


    Debbie Smith -> Pete Shoults 26 Jan 2016 11:01

    I guess you are a bit out of touch, because although the mainstream media loved to call Bernie 'unelectable' until now, the regular people LOVE him. He will win in a landslide and bring the US closer to where it SHOULD be, since it is 40-50 years behind in its policies.


    HobbesianWorld -> Cath70 26 Jan 2016 10:55

    delusional belief that he's going to get any of his policies passed in a GOP-hogtied Congress is ridiculous. And he's yet to offer substantial plans for his utopia.

    Clearly you would rather maintain the status quo--Wall Street's grip on Congress and the ever-widening income disparity gap between the workers and the wealthy. You obviously are indifferent to the less fortunate and want a war hawk in the White House.

    Just because Bernie is at a disadvantage with the corporate media trying their best to marginalize him and the DNC rigging the debates to get the fewest watchers as possible, I don't tuck my tail under me and bow to those manipulative powers.

    I am going to fight every day to spread his message and try to explain to an ignorant America what is meant by Democratic Socialism (we are all democratic socialists to some degree unless you want ALL government services privatized for profit).

    Yes, he would need the help of Congress to pass some of his policies, and yes, the childish, vengeful, self-centered oligarchic Republicans will try to block him at every turn, We the People would be needed to apply the pressure on our elected officials. Don't be afraid of a challenge. This may be our very last chance to recover our republic.


    hcm1975 -> SN1789 26 Jan 2016 10:46

    The terms used in this article are nothing compared to what Bernie Sanders will be described as by the Republicans/Fox etc. should he win the Democrat's nomination. I can only hope he is well prepared.

    Brandon King -> brummagem joe 26 Jan 2016 10:43

    What? The media has been saying for months and months and months and months that Bernie has no chance. The People vote that he wins a debate, the media says Hillary won. You clearly dont know shit. This has been an uphill battle the whole way. Last debate was the FIRST time Bernie got recognized by media as the winner.


    Jim Baker -> notmurdoch 26 Jan 2016 10:42

    In recent American Presidential elections, motivating the base to vote is paramount. A candidate that enthuses more party faithful to vote may do better, not worse. This effect could also improve the party's results in Congress. Besides, Sanders may be more attractive than Clinton to the Reagan Democrats backing Trump (who never really were conservative, more like wanting a labor party that didn't delve into social issues).


    Brandon King -> Phillyguy 26 Jan 2016 10:37

    Taxes will be raised, yes, but the average American will save over $6000/year. You will NO LONGER pay for medical insurance, instead we will pay $600/year extra in taxes. your health insurance bill is likely $300-$500/month. We will all pay a smaller piece of the pie, so yes taxes will be increased but we will be saving money. He already released his tax plan. Income tax DOES NOT raise unless you make over $500,000/year, and even then its modest raises. Most of the bumps are 3%-4%. If you make over $10 million/year its like 10%-11% bump.

    What the fuck is up with people bitching about working to give Americans a higher standard of living, what the French call Qualite de la Vie? Are you seriously content being the first 2nd World country? We are NOT a 1st World, in fact there are lots of parts of the US living in 3rd World conditions.


    SN1789 Haig 26 Jan 2016 10:34

    Nonsense. Right and Left should not be exxagerated. Sanders is excellent. But he is not radical. Where Krugman talks Keyensian up until it challenges someone in power, Sanders is genuinely committed to using the state to smooth out the hard edges of capitalism, especially when the sector is a clear case of market failure, like health care and education. Socializing health care and education is not radical, it is a rational reform inside the systsem, it does not go to the root (radix) and seek to replace the root, but only trim the branches (hence not radical).


    SN1789 26 Jan 2016 10:30

    Calling the Sanders agenda "hard-left" (like this article does) is idiotic - the author is economically illiterate. Keynesianism, which is what Sanders proposes in substance, isn't communism, it was the mainstream approach to administering capitalism from 1940s to 1970s, elements are still in place in Canada, and continental Europe and they at least as as developed, as free and as democratic as the US. The things Sanders wants to spend money on (health care and education) would actually save the US money overall. Getting the profit out of healthcare and education free's up the % of the GDP that can go to other things (like infrastructure). The US over-pays for health care between 33 and 50%. Single-payer will reduce that number, it will cost less overall. Anyone who says otherwise is a vicious liar.

    SN1789 -> atlga 26 Jan 2016 10:26

    Economically he is to the right of Nixon and far to the right of Eisenhower. Why exactly is Keynesianism as impossible as cold fusion. Neoliberalism was unpopular in 1972 and in 1982 it was the new normal. It is possible that Keynesianism was impossible in 2007 but in 2017 it will be the new normal. Things change.


    Steven Johnson -> Seamush 26 Jan 2016 10:25

    Are you stupid? All other major countries have single payer, ALL other major countries. We are the wealthiest country out of all of them and we have the worse health and live shorter lives because of it. You are an idiot if you think this should not be fought for. Health care will keep going up in cost until most people can't afford it. Bernie is the only one who isn't bought and paid for, you really think you can trust a multi millionaire who made all their millions from patting billionaires on the back? She got all most all her campaign money from them as well.

    She will serve them, not us. Bernie has a record of serving us not them, and he is not owned by any one. So tell me, why would you trust a corporate owned war hawk over Bernie who has always been on the right side of history? You would have to be a complete ignoramus to do so.

    jabharty -> brummagem joe 26 Jan 2016 10:21

    Ahead in Iowa, thrashing Clinton in New Hampshire, ahead of Trump by 9 points more than Hillary. Non-existent? Young and passionate voters will turn out like in '08 and push him over the line.

    The media have completely disregarded him until his surge in Iowa, even with the New Hampshire polls out. Have you not wondered why the debates are held on weekends? Wassermann Schultz and the DNC are burying Bernie so people will vote on name recognition rather than policy.

    hcm1975 26 Jan 2016 10:18

    Meet the new Bernie Sanders
    Rubbish. Bernie hasn't changed one iota. The MSM - the guardian's ersthile Clinton machine in particular - have finally realised he exists and are jumping on the bandwagon.

    [Jan 26, 2016] The Marketing Of The American President

    The woman is seriously out of touch with reality. But a few of her observations are not that bad...
    Zero Hedge
    Authored by Nina Khrushcheva, originally posted at Project Syndicate,

    When it comes to political entertainment, it doesn't get much better than presidential election season in the United States. Foreign observers follow the race to determine who is best equipped to lead the US – and, to some extent, the world – toward a more stable, secure, and prosperous future. But in America, entertainment is king, and Americans tend to focus on excitement above all – who looks better, has a catchier sound bite, seems most "authentic," and so on, often to the point of absurdity.

    This is not a new approach, of course. Edward Bernays, the father of modern public relations, examined it in 1928, in his book Propaganda. "Politics was the first big business in America," he declared, and political campaigns are "all side shows, all honors, all bombast, glitter, and speeches." The key to victory is the manipulation of public opinion, and that is achieved most effectively by appealing to the "mental clichés and emotional habits of the public."

    A president, in other words, is nothing more than a product to be marketed. And, as any marketer knows, the quality of the product is not necessarily what drives its success;

    ... ... ...

    In fact, it is Cruz who has made Trump squirm. In last week's Republican debate, Cruz accused Trump of having "New York values," calling the city (explicitly excluding New York State) "socially liberal" and focused on "money and media." Cruz managed not only to get a rise out of Trump, but also to enhance his own appeal to conservative voters in the Midwest and South, who view the city as a kind of modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah. (New Yorkers and many others were also offended by Cruz's statement, not because the city isn't socially liberal and the home base of America's media and financial industries, but because the pejorative use of "New York" has historically been an anti-Semitic dog whistle.)

    Appropriately plastic-looking, Cruz can, when necessary, act as brainless as Sarah Palin (who has just endorsed Trump). But Cruz, educated at Princeton and Harvard, is no fool. He is, as Bernays taught, treating his campaign as a "drive for votes, just as an Ivory Soap advertising campaign is a drive for sales."

    Trump is a showman who has captured the public's attention. But Cruz is a propagandist... The question is whether Americans will want to buy what they are selling.

    [Jan 26, 2016] The Real Donald Trump - A Fascinating Interview From 1990

    Notable quotes:
    "... think there's a very real chance Trump will be elected President within the next ten years. His chances ride on the fact that the current system is terminally corrupt, as well as socially and economically bankrupt. It will crash and burn, whether in slow motion like the past eight years, or very rapidly over the next several. Someone will likely step in to fill this void, and Trump has the personality type and understanding of human nature to possibly propel himself into the position when the timing is right. ..."
    "... I genuinely believe that as President he would do what he thinks is best for America. In that sense, hes not the typical detached, corrupt, greedy, globalist U.S. President weve become so accustomed to. This is precisely what his supporters are picking up on and why they love him. ..."
    "... As such, the establishment really is scared because Trump actually is an uncontrollable wildcard . This is certainly bad for them, but it isnt necessarily good for we the people. ..."
    "... Trump supporters see this and think this is how hes going to deal with foreign leaders and that this is a good thing. They think that hell simply outsmart them. Maybe he will and maybe he wont, who knows. Personally, Im far more concerned about how he would deal with domestic dissent. ..."
    "... Which brings me to the final point. Many of Trumps personality traits are more admirable, or at least appear less nefarious than I previously thought. ..."
    "... Tough is being mentally capable of winning battles against an opponent and doing it with a smile. Tough is winning systematically. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    In 1990, Donald Trump conducted a lengthy interview with Playboy Magazine . It provides an absolutely fascinating window into the man's mind, which I suggest everyone read in full. Unexpectedly, I came away with a more informed and nuanced perspective on the man. While it didn't change my opinion of him as President, I do have a much greater appreciation for Donald Trump as a person, specifically how his mind works and what drives him.

    I originally came across this interview after seeing a tweet referencing a 25 year old interview during which Trump expressed admiration for how strongly Chinese authorities cracked down on dissent in Tiananmen Square in 1989. I immediately thought to myself that this would be the perfect fodder to further elucidate the kind of cold, brutal, authoritarian leader Trump undoubtedly would be as President.

    While that particular quote didn't disappoint, I decided to read further and came away with many additional observations. I think these observations are worth sharing since I think there's a very real chance Trump will be elected President within the next ten years. His chances ride on the fact that the current system is terminally corrupt, as well as socially and economically bankrupt. It will crash and burn, whether in slow motion like the past eight years, or very rapidly over the next several. Someone will likely step in to fill this void, and Trump has the personality type and understanding of human nature to possibly propel himself into the position when the timing is right. Is the time right in 2016? Probably not, but a President Trump is far more likely to occur in our lifetimes than many of us want to admit.

    So with that out of the way, let me share some of the things I learned from the interview. First, I think Trump is far less materialistic than people presume , which sounds like a contradiction considering he is unquestionably one of the biggest showoffs on planet earth. While this is true, the motivation behind his ostentatious public persona is primarily to further his brand. As he says repeatedly in the interview, it's all a show . In other words, he claims it's pure marketing and I believe him.

    What motivates Trump isn't the collection of material things, rather, it's a constant need to stroke his enormous ego and stoke his narcissism. Life is merely a giant game for Trump. A game in which the winners collect lots of fame and money, and the losers don't. He doesn't simply want to win this game, coming out on top is his entire life's purpose. The idea of not winning isn't even an option.

    So with this in mind, is the Presidency just the ultimate prize for Trump? Does he want it simply because it is one of the few "wins" he has yet to collect? I think so. Deep down, I think Trump can't truly envision himself as life's ultimate winner without the Presidency. This is not to say I think Trump isn't genuine when he says America is going down the toilet. Indeed, he was hitting on many of the exact same themes back in 1990. In fact, it gives you the impression that Trump has thought America was lacking his entire life, precisely because Trump had yet to be named the country's CEO.

    Trump believes in winning, and he thinks he and America are one in the same. In that sense, I genuinely believe that as President he would do what he thinks is best for America. In that sense, he's not the typical detached, corrupt, greedy, globalist U.S. President we've become so accustomed to. This is precisely what his supporters are picking up on and why they love him.

    From this angle alone, he might actually have the chops to be a very good President. This is because for a man with his disposition, being President might still not be enough of an accomplishment. His ego will require that history remember him not just as a billionaire and President, but as the man who "Made America Great Again," the ultimate motivator for a man who never rests until he gets what he wants. So it's true that he really wouldn't be unduly influenced by billionaires and large corporations if he felt they were getting in the way of his making America great (and himself greater). Those are the positives.

    As such, the establishment really is scared because Trump actually is an uncontrollable wildcard . This is certainly bad for them, but it isn't necessarily good for "we the people." The problem arises when it comes to Trump's definition of greatness. From my chair, he doesn't seem to think liberty, freedom and the Constitution play much of a role. Indeed, you can get a pretty good sense of his definition of "great" by looking at his buildings and the sorts of accomplishments he prides himself on. He loves the shock factor and big expensive toys. He likes them because they impress others and help his brand. There's more swagger than substance to the things he prioritizes, at least publicly. Indeed, it's not surprising that the casino business would have a particular appeal to him. It's a world in which customers indulge themselves in a fantasy until they run out of money or get bored, and by the time they leave, Trump's bank account is far bigger than it was before. He wins again.

    Trump supporters see this and think this is how he's going to deal with foreign leaders and that this is a good thing. They think that he'll simply outsmart them. Maybe he will and maybe he won't, who knows. Personally, I'm far more concerned about how he would deal with domestic dissent.

    To that end, I think one thing is clear. I think he'd take George W. Bush's "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" and change it to something like "you are either with me, or you hate America." In a collapsed economy, this sort of slogan could appeal to a lot of people, and with an outraged public behind him, President Trump has the capacity to be incredibly cruel and vicious to American citizens he think stand in the way of his "Making America Great."

    Without any obvious respect for the Constitution or Bill of Rights, a President Trump could very quickly transform himself into a very dangerous strongman, all the while believing that he is merely doing what is necessary to make America great. This attitude has become painfully clear to me during the campaign as I've watched him intentionally stir up anger and hate by demonizing minorities such as Muslims and Mexicans. Do I think it's possible he doesn't really stand behind his own hateful statements and is merely telling groups of frustrated people what they want to hear to get elected? Perhaps, but such a willingness tells you a lot about the lengths he would go to win, and shines a light on the things he's capable of doing in order to solidify and expand his power once he's won.

    Which brings me to the final point. Many of Trump's personality traits are more admirable, or at least appear less nefarious than I previously thought. Nevertheless, it is extremely crucial to understand that the traits that make someone an incredible showman and billionaire are not the same traits needed in a President to restore a Constitutional Republic. Not that I think that's high on Trump's list of priorities in any event.

    Now here are some of the more interesting excerpts of the interview. Read the entire thing here .

    Then what does all this-the yacht, the bronze tower, the casinos-really mean to you?
    Props for the show.

    And what is the show?
    The show is " Trump " and it has sold out performances everywhere. I've had fun doing it and will continue to have fun, and I think most people enjoy it.

    You don't sound guilty at all.
    I do have a feeling of guilt. I'm living well and like it, I know that many other people don't live particularly well. I do have a social consciousness. I'm setting up a foundation; I give a lot of money away and I think people respect that. The fact that I built this large company by myself working people respect that; but the people who are at high levels don't like it. They'd like it for themselves.

    What do you do to stay in touch with your employees?
    I inspect the Trump Tower atrium every morning. Walk into it … it's perfect; everything shines. I go down and raise hell in a nice way all the time because I want everything to be absolutely immaculate. I'm, totally hands-on. I get along great with porters and maids at the Plaza and the Grand Hyatt. I've had bright people ask me why I talk to porters and maids. I can't even believe that question. Those are the people who make it all work …. If they like me, they will work harder … and I pay well.

    How far are you willing to push adversaries?
    I will demand anything I can get. When you're doing business, you take people to the brink of breaking them without having them break, to the maximum point their heads can handle-without breaking them. That's the sign of a good businessman: Somebody else would take them fifteen steps beyond their breaking point.

    Why?
    I am very skeptical about people; that's self-preservation at work. I believe that, unfortunately, people are out for themselves. At this point, it's to many people's advantage to like me. Would the phone stop ringing, would these people kissing ass disappear if things were not going well? I enjoy testing friendship …. Everything in life to me is a psychological game, a series of challenges you either meet or don't. I am always testing people who work for me.

    How?
    I will send people around to my buyers to test their honesty by offering them trips and other things. I've been surprised that some people least likely to accept a trip from a contractor did and some of the most likely did not. You can never tell until you test; the human species is interesting in that way. So to me, friendship can be really tested only in bad times. I instinctively mistrust many people. It is not a negative in my life but a positive. Playboy wouldn't be talking to me today if I weren't a cynic. So I learned that from Fred, and I owe him a lot. . . . He could have ultimately been a happy guy, but things just went the unhappy way.

    And the Pope?
    Absolutely. Nothing wrong with ego. People need ego, whole nations need ego. I think our country needs more ego, because it is being ripped off so badly by our so-called allies; i.e., Japan, West Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, etc. They have literally outegotized this country, because they rule the greatest money machine ever assembled and it's sitting on our backs. Their products are better because they have so much subsidy. We Americans are laughed at around the world for losing a hundred and fifty billion dollars year after year, for defending wealthy nations for nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in about fifteen minutes if it weren't for us. Our "allies" are making billions screwing us.

    You're opposed to Japanese buying real estate in the U.S.?
    I have great respect for the Japanese people and list many of them as great friends. But, hey, if you want to open up a business in Japan, good luck. It's virtually impossible. But the Japanese can buy our buildings, our Wall Street firms, and there's virtually no.thing to stop them. In fact, bidding on a building in New York is an act of futility, because the Japanese will pay more than it's worth just to screw us. They want to own Manhattan. Of course, I shouldn't even be complaining about it, because I'm one of the big beneficiaries of it. If I ever wanted to sell any of my properties, I'd have a field day. But it's an embarrassment! I give great credit to the Japanese and their leaders, because they have made our leaders look totally second rate.

    You have taken out full-page ads in several major newspapers that not only concern U.S. foreign trade but call for the death penalty, too. Why?
    Because I hate seeing this country go to hell. We're laughed at by the rest of the world. In order to bring law and order back into our cities, we need the death penalty and authority given back to the police. I got fifteen thousand positive letters on the death-penalty ad. I got ten negative or slightly negative ones.

    You believe in an eye for an eye?
    When a man or woman cold-bloodedly murders, he or she should pay. It sets an example. Nobody can make the argument that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Either it will be brought back swiftly or our society will rot away. It is rotting away.

    For a man so concerned about our crumbling cities, some would say you've done little for crumbling Atlantic City besides pull fifty million dollars a week out of tourists' pockets.
    Elected officials have that responsibility. I would hate to think that people blame me for the problems of the world. Yet people come to me and say, "Why do you allow homelessness in the cities?" as if I control the situation. I am not somebody seeking office.

    Wait. Doesn't it seem that with all your influence in Atlantic City you could do more to combat crime and corruption and put something back into the community?
    Well, crime and prostitution go up, and Atlantic City administrations are into very deep trouble with the law, and there are lots of problems there, no question about it. But there is a tremendous amount of money going to housing from the profits of the casinos. As somebody who runs hotels, all I can do, when you get right down to it, is run the best places, bring in as much money as possible, which in turn goes out for taxes. I contribute millions a year to various charities. Finally, by law, I'm not allowed to have Governmental influence; but if they passed legislation that allowed me to get more involved, I'd be very happy to do it. In the meantime, I have the most incredible hotels in the world in Atlantic City. The Taj Mahal will be beyond belief. And if I can awaken the government of Atlantic City, I have performed a great service.

    What were your other impressions of the Soviet Union?
    I was very unimpressed….Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That's my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.

    You mean firm hand as in China?
    When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world-

    Besides The real-estate deal, you've met with top-level Soviet officials to negotiate potential business deals with them; how did they strike you?
    Generally, these guys are much tougher and smarter than our representatives. We have people in this country just as smart, but unfortunately, they're not elected officials. We're still suffering from a loss of respect that goes back to the Carter Administration, when helicopters were crashing into one another in Iran. That was Carter's emblem. There he was, being carried off from a race, needing oxygen. I don't want my President to be carried off a race course. I don't want my President landing on Austrian soil and falling down the stairs of his airplane. Some of our Presidents have been incredible jerk-offs. We need to be tough.

    A favorite word of yours, tough. How do you define it?
    Tough is being mentally capable of winning battles against an opponent and doing it with a smile. Tough is winning systematically.

    Sometimes you sound like a Presidential candidate stirring up the voters.
    I don't want the Presidency. I'm going to help a lot of people with my foundation-and for me, the grass isn't always greener.

    But if the grass ever did look greener, which political party do you think you'd be more comfortable with?
    Well, if I ever ran for office, I'd do better as a Democrat than as a Republican-and that's not because I'd be more Republican -and that's not because I'd be more liberal, because I'm conservative. But the working guy would elect me. He likes me. When I walk down the street, those cabbies start yelling out their windows.

    Another game: What's the first thing President Trump would do upon entering the Oval Office?
    Many things. A toughness of attitude would prevail. I'd throw a tax on every Mercedes-Benz rolling into this country and on all Japanese products, and we'd have wonderful allies again.

    And how would President Trump handle it?
    He would believe very strongly in extreme military strength. He wouldn't trust anyone. He wouldn't trust the Russians; he wouldn't trust our allies; he'd have a huge military arsenal, perfect it, understand it. Part of the problem is that we're defending some of the wealthiest countries in the world for nothing. . . . We're being laughed at around the world, defending Japan–

    You categorically don't want to be President?
    I don't want to be President. I'm one hundred percent sure. I'd change my mind only if I saw this country continue to go down the tubes.

    More locally, one of your least favorite political figures was Mayor Ed Koch of New York. You two had a great time going after each other: He called you "piggy, piggy, piggy" and you called him "a moron." Why do you suppose he lost the election?
    He lost his touch for the people. He became arrogant. He not only discarded his friends but was a fool for brutally criticizing them. The corruption was merely a symptom of what had happened to him: He had become extremely nasty, mean spirited and very vicious, an extremely disloyal human being. When his friends like Bess Myerson and others were in trouble, he seemed to automatically abandon them, almost before finding out what they'd done wrong. He could think only about his own ass-not the city's. That was dumb: The only one who didn't know his administration was crumbling around him was him. Power corrupts.

    You probably have more power than Koch did as mayor. And you're getting more of it all the time. How about power's corrupting you?
    I think power sometimes corrupts-"sometimes" has to be added.

    You're involved in so many activities, deals, promotions-in the deep of the night, after the reporters all leave your conferences, are you ever satisfied with what you've accomplished?
    I'm too superstitious to be satisfied. I don't dwell on the past. People who do that go right down the tubes. I'm never self-satisfied. Life is what you do while you're waiting to die. You know, it is all a rather sad situation.

    Life? Or death?
    Both. We're here and we live our sixty, seventy or eighty years and we're gone. You win, you win, and in the end, it doesn't mean a hell of a lot. But it is something to do-to keep you interested.

    So building that second huge yacht isn't an act of gaudy excess but another act in the show?
    Well, it draws people. It will be the eighth wonder of the world and will create an aura that seems to work. It will cost me two hundred million dollars. But I don't need it! I could be very happy living in a one-bedroom apartment. I used to live that life. In the early Seventies, I lived in a studio apartment overlooking a water tank.

    If you were starting over again, in what business would you choose to make your fortune?
    Good question …. There's something about mother earth that's awfully good, and mother earth is still real estate. With the right financing, you've essentially invested no money. Publishing, movies, broadcasting are tougher, and there aren't too many Rupert Murdochs, Si Newhouses, Robert Maxwells and Punch Sulzbergers. I'll stick to real estate.

    You seem very pleasant and charming during interviews, yet you talk constantly about toughness. Do you put on an act for us?
    I think everybody has to have some kind of filtering system. I'm very fair and I have had the same people working for me for years. Rarely does anybody leave me. But when somebody tries to sucker-punch me, when they're after my ass, I push back a hell of a lot harder than I was pushed in the first place. If somebody tries to push me around, he's going to pay a price. Those people don't come back for seconds. I don't like being pushed around or taken advantage of. And that's one of the problems with our country today. This country is being pushed around by everyone.

    About your own toughness…
    Well, as I said, I study people and in every negotiation, I weigh how tough I should appear. I can be a killer and a nice guy. You have to be everything. You have to be strong. You have to be sweet. You have to be ruthless. And I don't think any of it can be learned. Either you have it or you don't. And that is why most kids can get straight As in school but fail in life.

    As you continue to make more deals, as you accumulate more and more, there's a central question that arises about Donald Trump: How much is enough?
    As long as I enjoy what I'm doing without getting bored or tired … the sky's the limit.

    The big concern as relates to Trump as President would be his strongman type of personality coupled with a cult of personality worship amongst his followers. This worship is something that Trump himself is well aware of, and it makes him all the more dangerous. For example, he recently said the following in Iowa:

    Donald Trump boasted Saturday that support for his presidential campaign would not decline even if he shot someone in the middle of a crowded street.

    "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here.

    The scary part is, I think he's right.

    johngaltfla

    All you need to know about Donnie Trump's management style and this election:

    What Kind of Idiots is the Trump Campaign Hiring?!?!
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Mon, 01/25/2016 - 20:53 | 7095680 Supernova Born

    He said he'd only consider the presidency if he "saw this country continue to go down the tubes".

    Man of his word.

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Mon, 01/25/2016 - 20:58 | 7095698 Goliath Slayer

    They can all do the kabuki. In the end, JEB=CIA=Next POTUS >> http://bit.ly/1NBoR7S

    Automatic Choke

    big ego? check!
    desire to get to the "top"? check!
    thinks prez is necessary for this? check!
    willing to do or say anything to get there? check!
    no real convictions, just a "show"? check!
    no compassion? check!

    ....so far, i haven't heard anything that isn't true of ANYBODY who is a serious contender for the top office.....

    Silky Johnson

    I hear many people saying, "he can't be bought, he's already got billions". My questions is, where do you think he keeps his money?

    Tall Tom

    It is not his money.It belongs to the Banks and the Banks owe him...

    But he is the one with the problem as the banks owe him hundreds of millions which he loaned to them...as deposits.

    If they go under then he ends up withnothing.

    Thus he must be loyal to the banks or lose it all.

    He believes that everyone is self interested as he said in the interview. Thus he is also self interested.

    Do not let that fact escape you,people. He will protect his investments and his wealth...at your expense when necessary.

    N2OJoe

    I was with the author until:

    as I've watched him intentionally stir up anger and hate by demonizing minorities such as Muslims and Mexicans.

    I too see Trumps disregard for the Constitution and cringe, but you can't play the Race Card™ and expect a thinking man to take you seriously.

    Tarzan

    The People are supporting Trump for one reason,

    He's the one in the crowd saying what they're thinking,

    Fuck You, you STUPID MORONS!

    overmedicatedun...

    and tommy says:

    "Do not let that fact escape you,people. He will protect his investments and his wealth...at your expense when necessary."

    so far his wealth and investments coincide with making all of Americas more wealthy and have higher living standards to spend in his hotels..

    Tom when you can point out where his interests are in conflict with the people let me know.

    PS he says he will stop illegals who are a great source of cheap labor for hotels - kinda like he sees the impact on ave joe america - and goes against his own ability to hire cheap..think about that mr tom.

    NoDebt

    There's a reason I only play politics for entertainment purposes. Trying to pick the right person is like trying to figure out who the "good guys" are in the Middle East. There aren't any.

    I'll hold my observation to the following... A guy like Trump couldn't have gained traction unless two things happened:

    1. A guy like Obama giving everything from the Constitution to traditional American values the middle finger.

    2. The opposition party failing to oppose him no matter how many seats they were given in Congress.

    So, congratulations Washington elites, you've now pissed everyone off and Americans (on both sides of the aisle) are, for the first time in my life, truly ready to vote "none of the above". Hence Trump on the right. Hence Sanders on the left.

    Reap the whirwind, Washington. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

    froze25

    Once things for certain the next 10 months will be interesting. It would be nice to have a nationalist back in the presidency. They really have done a great job pissing off everyone. EPA regulations that handcuff the States developing natural resources. Bill of rights going into the shredder. Family unit under attack. Department of Education wrecking public education. War on masculinity. War on labor via illegal immigration. War on drugs brings pills and heroin to kids at the cheapest prices ever. 1 in 3 women on some type of ssri drug . Yeah we have gone the tubes.

    NoDebt

    If I was to boil down the arguments for and against Trump I could go down the ledger double-entry-accounting-style and balance off every plus with a minus. But there would be just one line on the ledger left over with no counter-balancing liability.

    George Soros hates Trump.

    Find me the liability that offsets that asset. If you're looking for a simple "Occams Razor" decision criteria maybe that's as good as any.

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Tue, 01/26/2016 - 06:11 | 7096642 nmewn

    Maybe he does hate him...but do you think they could make a deal together? I do.

    And therein lies the rub.

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Tue, 01/26/2016 - 06:31 | 7096651 Never One Roach

    He's not a career parasite. That goes a long way in my book after the last several Messiahs. The second major plus is he is in favor of a strong middle class as opposed to Soweto who sought to destroy America's class and its values with almost every move.

    order66

    I'll tell you what, watch the interview CNBC did with him strictly about real estate. Guy's a wing nut but knows his shit. Great interview. I think it was Ron "Fantasy Portfolio" Insana.

    Atomizer

    The Establishment is shaking in their boots

    The sociopath migration to derail America will be neutered

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Mon, 01/25/2016 - 21:13 | 7095767 38BWD22

    + 1

    RINOs and D-Teamers are quaking that their dream of 12,000,000 more Democrat voters may not get onto the voting rolls after all.

    The Establishment does not have the stones nor the desire to act to protect our country.

    Donald J. Trump

    The last 8 years have taken a considerable toll on peoples political and moral views. It's a different world today and a lot of people are pissed.

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Mon, 01/25/2016 - 21:15 | 7095769 V for ...

    The Dark Knight.

    Hollyweird always pre-conditions the USA for its money changers.

    2016 is a pivotal moment. Choose, and be damned if you vote.

    Chaos suits sociopaths, and the District of Criminals/Wail Street in particular. It is not about the money. It is about sending a message: new feudalism, bowing down to bankster thieves...or not.

    Choose.

    Duc888

    " What motivates Trump isn't the collection of material things, rather, it's a constant need to stroke his enormous ego and stoke his narcissism."

    Well, he's a complete fucking piker compared to chalky.

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Mon, 01/25/2016 - 21:12 | 7095759 duo

    Our current president is one hell of a narcissist. How could it be any worse? Obama destroyed what he said he would destroy, and a whole lot more. Maybe Trump at a minimum can stop the decline.

    Savyindallas

    So Trump shared a flight with Jeffrey Epstein-- what the hell does that prove? We know about Clinton -serial rapist, sexual predator extraordinare. Trump assocated with tons of scummy slime -people like Hillary. The evidence on Trump and the sleazy Epstein shit proves absolutely nothing. trump has been honest and open with his assocaitions with scumbag criminals like Clinton. Billionaires from New York have to assocaite with pleanty of scumbag degenerate criminals -start with slime like Bloomberg and Gulianni - both are Luciferian trashbags.

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Tue, 01/26/2016 - 09:24 | 7097123 Iwanttoknow

    V for,

    My feras exactly.Neocon supremo John bolton is his advisor.His granddaughter and ex wife are members of the tribe.

    Duc888

    " Trump believes in winning, and he thinks he and America are one in the same. In that sense, I genuinely believe that as President he would do what he thinks is best for America."

    I agree. I've always gotten a sense that Trump genuinely loves USA. He has a vested interest business wise to see things turn around. Contrast that with Barry Soetero who despises USA and pledged to "fundamentally change" it. To the best of my knowledge Barry never so much as ran a lemonade stand and can not fathom what it would take to do so successfully. Any successful Black businessman such as Tavis Smiley would have been light years ahead of Barry running the show....

    sessinpo

    Duc888 So restructuring is a bad thing now? He used the laws to his advantage. I'd hazard to guess he makes more money than you or I and speaking for myself... his net worth is slightly (joking) higher than mine. What exactly makes him "not a great manager"? Just curious.

    ----

    Do you include the Banks, the Fed and those executives? I suppose they are great managers too. They are just using the laws/rules to their advantage. sarc/

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Tue, 01/26/2016 - 08:43 | 7096965 detached.amusement

    There's a difference between using existing law to one's advantage, and completely ignoring said laws... not to mention buying off the legislature to change those rules....

    V for ...

    The problem with grenades is that they could kill you too.

    The USA is very much like Germany in the inter war years: an indebted nation, wanting a strong man of rhetoric who will do more harm than good. Look at his business and personal track record. It is bad.

    Keep the Constitution. Keep the guns. Never believe a nazionist like Tramp.

    lester1

    Trump built an successful empire worth billions and created tens of thousands of jobs over the years.

    He wants to end NAFTA and kick out the illegals.

    Trump 2016 !!

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Mon, 01/25/2016 - 21:35 | 7095868 V for ...

    His 'empire' was built on debt and backroom deals. He is indebted, another paper pusher.

    So perhaps he does suit the modern USA. Pity, pity you modern serfs, wanting a narcissist, and your betrayal of what was the light of the world, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

    lester1

    Trump is the only one I hear talking about these insane trade deals and the need to bring jobs back from overseas.

    Trump is the only one I hear talking about the loss of 55,000 US factories since 2001.

    Trump is actually inspiring!

    Trump has my vote --

    flaunt

    If this country can survive Barrack Obama, surely it can survive Donald Trump. I must say I thoroughly enjoy watching the mainstream and even some of the so-called "alternatives" become utterly unhinged as Trump runs over them all and leaves a trail of bodies a mile long. It's fantastic.

    Thinkor

    There is a very great difference in personality and background between Hitler and Trump. Hitler did not see his job as one of winning in negotiations but of making hmself the master of Europe through the triumph of his own Will to Power. He had an outsized goal and paid the ultimate price. Trump is much older than Hitler was when he became chancellor of Germany at age 44. Hitler was relentlessly aggressive and gambling for the highest stakes. Trump is far more careful. Look at how long he has been thinking about the possibility of becoming President and how he now is acting in just the situation in which he predicted he would run for president -- to prevent the country going down the tubes. That's excellent timing, one must admit! Consider also his big issues: making better trade deals, forcing countries we defend to pay for their own defense, stopping the ludicrously excessive and indiscriminate immigration that the left is encouraging, getting along with Putin, Xi Jinping, etc. by making intelligent deals with them, restoring American military power, replacing Obamacare, and his general goal of "making America great again", not the master of the entire world. Of course, if it falls in his lap ...

    sheikurbootie

    All I want to say is FUCK Michael Bloomberg, Hillary and Bernie. The republicans aren't any better and are all fucking politicians that will tell you anything to get elected. I like Trump. I think he'll actually build a fucking wall and stop the illegal immigration. If he does that ONE thing then I'm a happy camper. You don't have a sovereign nation without borders.

    Obama has done nothing he promised, as I expected. He fucked up anything he tried. All politicians suck.

    I've lived around the world. It made the NATIONAL news when they caught and deported a simple tourist for overstaying a visa. NATIONAL news- they showed the 30 year old man being led onto an airplane and being politely never to return. All for overstaying a visa by 60 days. He was unable to find work other than bumming around. They fine employers severely in the rest of the world. It's financially impossible to hire an non-citizen without a work permit. My work permit cost $5000 a year (paid by my employer). I saw this on more than one occasion while overseas. National news. It's a big deal in every other country.

    TheFutureIsThePast

    There are more problems in America than money or the lack of jobs.

    I want someone to explain to me how Trump, or any other person, under the restrictions of a Democratic Republic and the Constitution will:
    A) Reverse the 50 years of cultural decay
    B) Uproot the increasing corruption in both DC and the greater nation
    C) Completely remove the influence of banks, corporations and foreigners (ZIONISTS)
    D) Reverse the negative birth rate for White Americans
    E) Rebuild the family unit and keep it strong
    F) Remove or severely limit propaganda in the media and schools that threatens the integrity of the nation, its blood, its culture and its long term ideas (HOLLYWOOD)

    and all in 4-8 years. I legitimately want an explanation.

    Savyindallas

    If trump empowers Americans to finally get off the belief that they have to accept the two establishment candidates that they choose for us -then anything is possible. We need to prove we can beat the Orwellian Machine - that we can arise from the comfort of the Matrix and think for ourselves -that we can think independently and make our own choice. Trump can open the door to our awakening from our slumber-- then perhaps -anything is possible.

    If that occurs, it will open the door for future candidates to address your concerns -

    Trump may do so, not sure that this is his passion or concern. It's somewhat irrelevant. The key is to open the door to awaken the sleeping sheeple -so that we can make our own free choices-by electing those who truly represent our interests.

    Bobportlandor

    Christie and Crying glen beck tonight came out and LIED that Trump said it:

    As far as I'm concerned the Radio media has gone belly up, too many fucking commercials anyway.

    Here's Trump without the Liar's Club interpretation.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/

    moonmac

    One thing is for sure high level managers in the Federal Government who rarely do any work or even show up to the office are shaking in their boots at the thought of a Trump Presidency. Federal workers used to be the lowest of the low and now they're running the show. It's still the biggest Good Ol' Boys Network around where the phrase "You're Fired" is never spoken or heard.

    Kiwi Pete

    Does Trump really:

    1. Admire the Chinese leaders who used tanks to crush unarmed stuydent protesters. Would he order the US Army to crush US students protesting in Washington DC?

    2. Believe in the ability of a macho Strongman to fix the countries problems. How often has that worked out?

    3. Believe he is that man. ???

    4. Think that complex problems can be solved with simplistic answers. Would he really rip up GATT which the US worked hard to create and reaps untold benefits from?

    5, Have the support of the taxi driving fraternity. Whose opinions world-wide are somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan!

    nevertheless

    So very true...Mark Twain once said, "if voting made a differance, they would not let us do it". That statemnt was true then, and more true now. This is all a game. And it astounds me how many play right along. Its like the anti-Muslsim stuff, like I am going to get my understanding from religion from US TV, the most controlled manipulative TV in the world, by far.

    Its all about giving the people/sheep, the idea of choice/freedom, when in reality, they have none.

    Iam Yue2

    "The implied probability of Donald Trump becoming President has hit an all time high of 22%."

    http://www.bettingmarket.com/trump.html

    JungleTrunks

    Something this essay didn't pick up on that bodes well for a Trump Presidency is his belief that one of the key reasons the country is failing is because the middle class is failing. For Trump, success won't be success unless the middle class are winning. He stakes his reputation on it which is everything to him.

    Also, I disagree about the "strongman" threat, not that he may have some preidposition for it, but that there's too many checks in the system for him to go too far, just like there's too many checks for Obama to go too far as an authoritarian, although Obama has tried. I see a much greater threat and predisposition in Obama for being an authoritarian than I see in Trump. For Trump, as the essay describes, he truly does want to see the country do great in a way most Americans have always seen the country; for Obama, he truly does want to see the country change in ways most Americans wouldn't recognize, and he's crafty with slight of hand policy. This is what makes Obama's authoritarian tendencies much more dangerous.

    [Jan 23, 2016] Michael Bloomberg mulls presidential run on heels of Trump surge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton served more as Secretary of War than Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Funny - when Trump speculated about an independent run, media articulated the very detailed reasons why such an enterprise would be doomed. State legislatures have virtually abolished the mere possibility of success, at least for 2016. Now with things looking bad for Hillary, another billionaire steps forward, knowing full well what cannot work. Clinton campaign magic ? ..."
    "... You forget that there are a lot of people who dont bother to vote. Rationally, why would anybody waste time choosing between bad and worse when voting for bad makes things worse? Just because it doesnt make things worse as fast as voting for the alternative, it still makes things worse and every president for decades has made things worse because the only choices were bad and worse. ..."
    "... New York is the media capital and that tends to create a very narcissistic enclosed echo chamber where the impact of native son Bloomberg is exaggerated. And yes, in the heartland Bloomberg will not be regarded as a real American. ..."
    "... Yes, the plutocracy has decided enough with the fun and games and the Sanders infant must be strangled in the crib. ..."
    "... As a New York City resident of 40 years, his money corrupting the political process will always be my memory of Bloomberg. ..."
    "... If you want management, vote for Bloomberg. If you want management AND democracy, try someone else. ..."
    "... socially responsible, you having a laugh. His Apartheid policies have been a disaster for the working classes of New York. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Guardian

    DogsLivesMatter 23 Jan 2016 21:35

    Next it will be the Koch brothers - either one as it makes no difference.

    James Gee -> revelationnow 23 Jan 2016 21:17

    Hillary Clinton served more as Secretary of War than Secretary of State. The only visible progress made in foreign relations (Cuba, Iran) came after her departure. The Democrats have inched, then hot-footed it so far rightwards that their nominee-select is further right than the Republican candidate in 1964. Goldwater at least opposed the death penalty whereas there should be no doubt of Clinton's believing that "extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice!"

    bw9009 -> lamuella 23 Jan 2016 21:00

    Exactly. Apparently Bloomberg doesn't get it. Bernie wins the primary and this billionaire tool thinks he needs to step in and "save" the election. Bernie-s rise in the polls is no mystery...he has the genuine passion and concern on issues the majority of Americans share.

    Copper65 -> wrathofgod 23 Jan 2016 20:46

    The USA needs somebody who can get bipartisan support

    Do you seriously see Michael Bloomberg as 'bipartisan'? Debbie Wasserman Shultz is more 'bipartisan' than Bloomberg.

    jpsartreny 23 Jan 2016 20:42

    Too short, too old and too New Yorkish. Not to mention the slots for billionaire and Hebrew candidates are already taken.

    James Gee 23 Jan 2016 20:23

    Funny - when Trump speculated about an independent run, media articulated the very detailed reasons why such an enterprise would be doomed. State legislatures have virtually abolished the mere possibility of success, at least for 2016. Now with things looking bad for Hillary, another billionaire steps forward, knowing full well what cannot work. Clinton campaign "magic"?

    bluepanther -> Jantar 23 Jan 2016 20:17

    Economic concerns now outweigh single issues like gun control. Cruel but true. And Bernie comes from a rural state and has come to terms with gun owners and this actually helps him in the heartland.

    curiouswes -> cliffstep 23 Jan 2016 20:08

    Sorry , but Sanders does not have a realistic shot. Say it loud , say it often , but he just ain't gonna get 50.1%.

    You forget that there are a lot of people who don't bother to vote. Rationally, why would anybody waste time choosing between bad and worse when voting for bad makes things worse? Just because it doesn't make things worse as fast as voting for the alternative, it still makes things worse and every president for decades has made things worse because the only choices were bad and worse.

    For once we can say that a candidate can actually make things better and that could inspire those who don't bother to vote if his message resonates with them. The system is rigged. Sanders says it is rigged. Trump says it is rigged, and everybody who is paying attention knows it is rigged. Clinton doesn't care that it is rigged and that doesn't bother some people, but any rationally thinking person ought to be bothered by the fact that it is rigged and many could very easily conclude from that little tidbit of information that it is a waste of time to vote.

    We all have a civic duty to vote, but voting without knowing for whom or for what one is voting is just as irresponsible as not voting if not more so. If you did any research, you'd know that for decades your choice is between getting screwed and getting screwed without lubrication. Why would any rational person stand in a line to get screwed?

    Before this election is done, people are going to know that this is our chance. Bloomberg knows it, and doesn't like it, apparently.

    bluepanther -> JohnCan45 23 Jan 2016 20:02

    New York is the media capital and that tends to create a very narcissistic enclosed echo chamber where the impact of native son Bloomberg is exaggerated. And yes, in the heartland Bloomberg will not be regarded as a "real American."

    bluepanther -> ositonegro 23 Jan 2016 19:48

    Yes, the plutocracy has decided enough with the fun and games and the Sanders infant must be strangled in the crib.

    Michronics42 -> Zoonie 23 Jan 2016 19:38

    Anything is possible, but the timing to me is very suspicious: Hillary's campaign is flailing and all of a sudden, establishment types are coming out of the woodwork to discredit Bernie; maybe Bloomberg is attempting this on a more implied level.

    In my opinion, Bloomberg's rational predisposition-as you suggest-is a byproduct of his neo-liberalism; that is, financialization of the world, which trumps humanism.

    Also, at this stage, I don't see the current crop of nihilists in the GOP cottoning to Bloomberg.

    Bloomberg may self-identify as an independent-for convenience sake-but in matters of policy, he is very much in the Clinton, neoliberal policy mold; I think he is as anti-Sanders as the rest of the establisment (in both major parties).

    EDVDGN 23 Jan 2016 19:22

    When Bloomberg first entered office as mayor, there was a 2-term limit on New York City mayors, a law voted for by the people of the city.

    He got that law set aside, with no agreement from NY's voters, so he could run a third time.

    He was able then to buy the office one, last time with his billions. Yet he only squeaked by with 51% of the vote because of the resentment towards him. (I remember being bombarded with phone calls and mailings from his campaign during that last run for office, something for which he could personally afford to pay.)

    As a New York City resident of 40 years, his money corrupting the political process will always be my memory of Bloomberg.

    If you want management, vote for Bloomberg. If you want management AND democracy, try someone else.

    InMyFactualView 23 Jan 2016 19:17

    In the year where establishment is a hated word, Bloomberg wants to represent the establishment of both parties. The 1% would really welcome it and vote for him, but I doubt there be anyone else supporting him.

    Dannybald -> Obelisk1 23 Jan 2016 19:09

    'socially responsible', you having a laugh. His Apartheid policies have been a disaster for the working classes of New York.

    Marcedward -> profitendieu 23 Jan 2016 18:53

    Sorry boy, maybe you don't get American politics.

    Running as a third party candidate with no organization on the ground (not even the green party) is pretty much impossible. It's most likely even if Bloomberg started hiring his campaign people on Monday he'd not be able to get on the ballot in most states. In short he'd not even run as well as George Wallace.

    Even Ross Perot had a natural following, Bloomberg has nothing.

    Goldenbird -> eoin.des 23 Jan 2016 18:34

    Bernie is the only candidate fighting for the working man and woman, the only candidate not in the pockets of the Billionaire snobs. He's the only candidate who will give us our jobs and prosperity back.

    But we can't get cocky. He's going to scare the billionaire's out of their minds, and they're going to be coming after him with pitchforks. All of us need to work to elect him -- talk to your friends, volunteer for him, go knocking door to door.

    [Jan 22, 2016] Sanders smeared as communist sympathiser as Clinton allies sling mud

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have to wonder if Clinton will go to the next debate armed and try to shoot Sanders - shes just that desperate. ..."
    "... Once the thin veneer of civility peels away the sheer ugliness of the Clinton save-your-ass campaign becomes clear. ..."
    "... Also, if 5 minutes is all Clinton thinks Iowans are worth, then her head is already too big to fit into the oval office. Imagine, red-baiting in 2016! That belongs to the 1950s and McCarthyism, a smelly part of our political history. ..."
    "... the more I listen to her and distrust her motives and her campaign tactics, the more I, who has voted straight Dem all my life, think that if shes the nominee I will consider Trump. ..."
    The Guardian

    Marcedward -> maritherese 22 Jan 2016 21:22

    "Once the thin veneer of civility peels away the sheer ugliness of the Clinton save-your-ass campaign becomes clear"

    I have to wonder if Clinton will go to the next debate armed and try to shoot Sanders - she's just that desperate.

    immycracorn , 2016-01-23 02:20:31
    We all knew it was only a matter of time before those few in the establishment with so much to loose would start trying to scare us into voting against our own interests. Sanders wasn't a serious candidate or a joke or novelty as long as he wasn't doing well. Same thing happened to Corbyn and every other person who tries to change the status quo towards a more equitable distribution of anything. Problem is it makes those few with so much seem desperate, even more corrupt and comes across as a really transparent ploy to protect their own power and wealth at our expense. Scare monger away ya bunch of ass hat's, it just proves how bad things need to change.
    nnedjo -> Agapito , 2016-01-23 02:19:24

    Unfortunately Webster provides no definition for "Democratic Socialism."

    You see, Karl Marx was of the opinion that the capitalists will not voluntarily relinquish ownership of the means of production. For this reason, he advocated a communist revolution during which workers need to seize by force the means of production from the capitalists, and take them to their property. He called it, I think, "the expropriation of the expropriators", in the sense that by then the capitalists unfairly appropriated for themselves the surplus of capital that workers create by their work.

    And, in order to exclude the possibility that the capitalists again come into possession of the means of production, Marx prescribed that after the revolution is necessary to create a "dictatorship of the proletariat" or the sole authority of the Communist Party, while all the other parties should be banned as enemies of socialism.

    Thus, democratic socialists, social democrats, or simply, the socialists, are fighters for social justice, who do not accept the idea of Marx's communist revolution.

    Simply put, they believe that a multiparty system and political pluralism is a better environment in which they can achieve their goals, rather than Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat/working class" and the one-party system in which the Communist Party has a monopoly of power.

    elaine layabout -> Anand Holtham-Keathley , 2016-01-23 02:13:08
    Thank you for that. We would be so much wiser and kinder and richer in spirit if we aspired to live by the words of Reverend King. He was a man ahead of his time and a man for all times. And, in my opinion, the greatest American who ever lived.

    How very lucky we are to have a leader within our grasp who seeks to continue Dr. King's legacy.

    Did you catch the "lost" MLK speech that Democracy Now broadcast on Monday?

    devin42 -> FrankThomas, 2016-01-23 02:12:52
    Here's the awesome Glenn Greenwald on Corbyn/Sanders similarities...

    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/the-seven-stages-of-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition /

    maritherese, 2016-01-23 02:10:33
    Once the thin veneer of civility peels away the sheer ugliness of the Clinton save-your-ass campaign becomes clear. Sleazy politics is synonymous with Brock and Clinton should feel deep shame for not speaking out against him.

    Also, if 5 minutes is all Clinton thinks Iowans are worth, then her head is already too big to fit into the oval office. Imagine, red-baiting in 2016! That belongs to the 1950's and McCarthyism, a smelly part of our political history.

    Nancy Elwell -> Dragonsmoke315

    the more I listen to her and distrust her motives and her campaign tactics, the more I, who has voted straight Dem all my life, think that if she's the nominee I will consider Trump. Think about it. BUT I just feel in my bones that Bernie is the man for 2016 and am supporting his campaign financially and vocally.

    Nancy Elwell -> 1stneutrino

    you don't have to scrape the surface very hard to discover how the press corp and the secret service , the resident staff at the White House all say she is a hell detail posting they hate. Vulgar, sewer mouth and really short fuse. No! not for me. When she speaks she acts and sometimes her urge to be the natural harridan starts to emerge.

    newsfreak

    The Democrats were always the softer alternative of the establishment. And now that they have a candidate that maybe could threaten the status quo they appeal to the fears and prejudices of the brain-washed public at large to prevent any possible, meaningful change. Just like Holywood used (and perhaps still uses) to make most movies for the mentality of a 10 year old audience, the system in place breed Americans to fall for those tricks. Something that also has been happening in the global village at large.

    dhinds

    This is typically dishonest behavior by the Clinton Political Machine and clearly demonstrates why Hillary will NOT be the candidate nominated by the Democratic party, nor should she be! America deserves better.

    Dragonsmoke315

    The response to criticisms of Bernie's so-called socialism should be this: "Define socialism."

    I guarantee you that would make most of the anti-socialist pundits shut up. Most of the people who throw that word around have no idea what it means. If the media would stop trying to hang that label around Bernie's neck, no one would even be mentioning it. He rarely uses the term except to correct people who misunderstand it. It is old news--or should be.

    Dragonsmoke315

    Hillary Clinton is the Jeb Bush of the Democratic Party insofar as she is terrible at campaigning. To win in November, she would need Bernie's supporters to rally around her, which won't happen if she runs a dishonest, mudslinging campaign.

    If she wins the nomination by lying about Bernie, she will lose the general election because she will have alienated a big part of the Democratic base. But she can't see that, because her instinct, like her husband's, is to win at all costs.

    I had forgotten why I so eagerly voted against her in 2008. Now I remember.

    JavierSoriano

    "Donald Trump Utilizes Racism, but Hillary Clinton Used Similar Tactics Against Obama in 2008."
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/donald-trump-utilizes-racism-_b_8756816.html

    "The Guardian in 2008 published an article titled Clinton aides claim Obama photo wasn't intended as a smear, highlighting that a leading Democrat was willing to utilize "dirty tricks" pertaining to race and Islamophobia, even against a Christian man born in the U.S."
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton


    malleusmaleficarum

    Hillary Clinton's message has failed. Hillary's Plan B (lose Iowa and New Hampshire and sweep the red state primaries in the South) is in dire jeopardy. So, voila - Plan C - smear Bernie Sanders with a case straight out of the 1950s. Will it work? Almost certainly not.


    Chris Silva

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/21/clinton-super-pac-offers-off-record-news-tips/79131372/

    Laudig

    Clinton Panic Syndrome, bring out the liars, make former non-liars into liars, and hire professional liars. The Clintons, along with the war criminal, war profiteer, Blairs, can now leave the public stage weighed down with their bags of gold that drip blood. Say "Goodnight Hillary". End the grift,

    johnnyyesno

    Re: "Not believing in Capitalism"

    - Hahaha, so capitalism is a religion now, Hillary?
    A "Capitalist Religion" would by defenition be a belief system in which money is worshipped as a God...

    [Jan 20, 2016] Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump, Which Could Bolster Him in Iowa

    The New York Times

    Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee who became a Tea Party sensation and a favorite of grass-roots conservatives, endorsed Donald J. Trump in Iowa on Tuesday, providing him with a potentially significant boost just 13 days before the state's caucuses.
    "Are you ready for the leader to make America great again?" Mrs. Palin said with Mr. Trump by her side at a rally at Iowa State University. "Are you ready to stump for Trump? I'm here to support the next president of the United States - Donald Trump."

    Her support is the highest-profile backing for a Republican so far. It came the same day that Iowa's Republican governor, Terry Branstad, said he hoped that Senator Ted Cruz would be defeated in Iowa. The Feb. 1 caucuses are a must-win for the Texas senator, who is running neck-and-neck with Mr. Trump in state polls.

    [Jan 12, 2016] Every voter needs to know this about Ted Cruz

    www.dailykos.com
    Given how closely I follow politics and the news, I can't believe this is the first time I'm hearing this story about Ted Cruz. Kudos to David Brooks for bringing it to light:

    In 1997, Michael Wayne Haley was arrested after stealing a calculator from Walmart. This was a crime that merited a maximum two-year prison term. But prosecutors incorrectly applied a habitual offender law. Neither the judge nor the defense lawyer caught the error and Haley was sentenced to 16 years.

    Eventually, the mistake came to light and Haley tried to fix it. Ted Cruz was solicitor general of Texas at the time. Instead of just letting Haley go for time served, Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court to keep Haley in prison for the full 16 years.

    The case reveals something interesting about Cruz's character. Ted Cruz is now running strongly among evangelical voters, especially in Iowa. But in his career and public presentation Cruz is a stranger to most of what would generally be considered the Christian virtues: humility, mercy, compassion and grace. Cruz's behavior in the Haley case is almost the dictionary definition of pharisaism: an overzealous application of the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, as well as fairness and mercy.

    In the end, Haley was released after serving six years. During the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Anthony Kennedy-left incredulous by Cruz's position- asked him: "Is there some rule that you can't confess error in your state?"

    Brooks's article is titled "The Brutalism of Ted Cruz." An apt description indeed. Would hearing this story undercut Cruz's support among Republican primary voters? I really don't know. I do know that a person who would fight such a case all the way to the Supreme Court is lacking something very basic-something important not only for Christians, but for any of us, and certainly for anyone seeking to become the most powerful individual in the world. That thing is judgment.


    Patriot4peace

    I think this story, when told to the rabid right wing evangelical base of support that Cruz engages will only serve him well.

    They will consider him a "tough on crime, doesn't back down" patriotic defender of right wing morality and virtue.

    Few of the evangelical supporters of Cruz would consider his past actions to be less than Christian of him. They don't strike me as followers of Jesus' teachings, they are "punish the wicked" bible thumpers that would rather pat Cruz on the back for this.

    I just don't see the Christ in these Christians.

    [Jan 12, 2016] Hillary Clinton Races to Close Enthusiasm Gap With Bernie Sanders in Iowa

    It's amazing that such establishemnt rag as NYT printed such as article... Stresseing inseinsery of Hillary: "Many of the Sanders supporters interviewed said they felt personally moved by what they described as his sincerity. Bert Permar, 86, a retired professor, said he had gone to four Sanders events and was now making calls to share the candidate's message.". Hillary has a real enthusiasm gap problem.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Maybe if the Times had actually acknowledged Sanders as a real candidate, and had been following and reporting on his campaign, this would not have come as such a surprise. This enthusiasm for Bernie has been there since he announced his candidacy. Your readers have been expressing it in the comments for months and begging you for more coverage of the Sanders campaign. You guys have just been too busy shilling for Hillary to notice. ..."
    "... Bernie has stepped outside the cynical straitjacket of marketing and spin to speak with honesty and conviction about the real and profound issues that are deforming our society and threatening our future. The Democratic party and the country have been waiting a long time for a candidate of this courage, integrity and devotion to the public good. This is why we're rising up to support him. Ms. Clinton cannot project qualities she does not have. She's no match for Bernie. He's going to win. ..."
    "... This race is not about the candidates themselves. It's about the American people taking a stand to get out democracy back. That's why establishment politicians will not win, and it's precisely why you're seeing the same level of excitement for insurgent candidates, on both sides. ..."
    "... Clinton has been on autopilot to the general election and is only now realizing that the base isn't with her. Clinton's favorability feels more like general acquiescence than actual support. Millennials would rather stay home than cast a spurious vote. The Clinton camp assumes support from minorities and moderates but perhaps unduly. Even the female vote seems split in their appraisal. That doesn't exactly strike me as a coalition. ..."
    "... Isn't it amazing what someone can accomplish when they start and operate from a position of integrity, and present the current American reality to the American people with honesty and passion? ..."
    "... For thirty five years, we've seen our country sold off piecemeal to and for the 1%, aided and abetted by the sociopaths in the GOP, and third-way, triangulating Democrats. We've been conditioned by our sell-out politicians that we must accept a steadily diminishing quality of life and opportunity. We've been tricked into believing its inevitability, as the best we can manage . ..."
    "... There are many of us who are not conventionally liberal who support Sanders, not necessarily because we always agree with what he says, but because he is the candidate of integrity and reform. All the other candidates with the exception of Trump are bought and sold by money interests that donate unlimited funds to superPACs, national committees, and shadowy political groups without any kind of oversight. It is very basic human behavior that when someone gives you something of value, they generally expect something back in some way. Hence the policies of the last 40 years that have overwhelmingly favored the wealthy and skewed national income upwards. The status quo is that the tail wags the dog in the United States government, with important political and economic decisions made on the basis of who has given the most to the leading candidate. ..."
    "... Something tells me that Americans have finally had their fill of the Clintons and may not be able to fathom either one of them back in the Oval office, past shenanigans there notwithstanding. ..."
    "... It's refreshing to see Americans Feeling The Bern after 35 years of right-wing economic violence that have systematically savaged the American people with corporate-sponsored extortion of healthcare, cable TV, internet, cellphone service, pilfering of 401Ks and pensions and endless tax cuts for the richest citizens and corporations in the land while wages, the safety net, infrastructure and public education were obliterated. ..."
    "... Hillary has always been too busy cashing $350,000 Wall St. speaking fees to notice her own hypocrisy, insincerity and secret crush on the 0.1% parasites that have wrecked the country. ..."
    "... Only the Times would continue to express surprise at Mr Sanders support when both wings of national politics are clearly being driven by a disgust with current political party leadership and the current way of (not) doing the business of government. It's an ego-driven circus and any candidate who is sincere (not doing that sincere thing) is like a breath of fresh air! Simply put, the Clinton air is stale! ..."
    "... Why is every headline I've ever read in the NYT worded in way that down-plays Mr. Sanders and plays up Mrs. Clinton? The title of this article so clearly attempts to cast Mrs. Clinton as the continued protagonist in the events unfolding that it's almost painful to read. ..."
    "... Commitment cards? See now, this pretty much epitomizes why Hillary is a turn off for me. It's as though she's using the Iowa caucus voters as chits to turn in for more money at the super-pac window. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    With a new poll showing Mr. Sanders surging ahead in Iowa , Mrs. Clinton and her aides have dropped any pretense that they can ignore Mr. Sanders or treat him like a gadfly. They have become zealous and combative as they try new ways to undercut his high favorability ratings.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton advisers said they believed Iowa was a single-digit race and have been warning supporters against complacency, admitting that Mr. Sanders's operation in the state was better financed and organized than they had expected. On Saturday, they began trying to undercut his electability with a television ad casting Mrs. Clinton as the strongest possible Democratic nominee, even though some polls show Mr. Sanders would perform well in matchups against Republicans like Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

    ... ... ...

    A Sanders victory in Iowa would be a shock, given the institutional advantages held by Mrs. Clinton, a former secretary of state and a favorite of the Iowa Democratic establishment. It would also set off significant momentum for Mr. Sanders heading into the Feb. 9 primary in New Hampshire, where he holds a slight lead in the polls.

    ... ... ...

    Mr. Sanders's supporters point to his grass-roots strengths: He has more than 14,000 volunteers in Iowa, and he has spoken to more than 40,000 people at events in the state so far, huge numbers that include young people, independents and new voters who might not be on pollsters' call sheets. (Mrs. Clinton's advisers declined to say how many volunteers she had or people she had spoken to in Iowa.)

    "I think his secret weapon, maybe his silver bullet even, is the young adult population that hasn't been involved in politics up until this point," said Katie Mitchell, 28, a middle school teacher who lives in Des Moines.

    ...many younger women who gathered did not share Ms. Dunham's visceral enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton, saying that for most of their lives she has been a familiar fixture of establishment politics rather than an exciting new voice or an agent of change.

    ... ... ...

    Many of the Sanders supporters interviewed said they felt personally moved by what they described as his sincerity. Bert Permar, 86, a retired professor, said he had gone to four Sanders events and was now making calls to share the candidate's message.

    "I love to see him. He motivates me," Mr. Permar said on Sunday, sitting in the front row at a Sanders forum on veterans' issues in Marshalltown. "I get emotional. It brings tears that someone is talking about the issues that we should be concerned about."

    Selected Skeptical Comments (Note the comments below are from NYT staff picks; the first 6 was top comments at the time I viewed them)

    Bruce Rozenblit,

    Hillary has a real enthusiasm gap problem. People just can't get excited about her. Last fall I attended an annual neighborhood fair and there was a table set up for her campaign. Absolutely no one stopped at her table to talk or sign those silly commitment cards. The two people at sitting there were the loneliest at the fair and I live in a heavily democratic district.

    The reason President Obama defeated her in 2008 was mostly because he was a new fresh face. Hillary has the same problem in 2016. We all know her too well. She represents the past. We want a new future.

    Bernie Sanders has been around forever but he has never been a part of the political establishment that we all despise. Machine politics is killing this nation. Politics isn't competitive. Candidates are anointed by the party machine or catapulted by big money thanks to Citizens United.

    Bernie is tapping into the same angst that Trump mines except he directs it with a positive message and Trump uses the old GOP hate and fear message. The young people are flocking to Bernie because they want better times. The old people flock to Trump for safety from perceived external invaders.

    Bernie has a real chance. So does Trump. Truth be told, many of Hillary's supporters view her as the default candidate, not the preferred candidate. They really want someone else. I'm one of them and as a consequence, I'm starting to get all Berned up.

    A. Spencer, Asheville, NC 13 hours ago

    Maybe if the Times had actually acknowledged Sanders as a real candidate, and had been following and reporting on his campaign, this would not have come as such a surprise. This enthusiasm for Bernie has been there since he announced his candidacy. Your readers have been expressing it in the comments for months and begging you for more coverage of the Sanders campaign. You guys have just been too busy shilling for Hillary to notice.

    Portia, Massachusetts 13 hours ago

    Bernie has stepped outside the cynical straitjacket of marketing and spin to speak with honesty and conviction about the real and profound issues that are deforming our society and threatening our future. The Democratic party and the country have been waiting a long time for a candidate of this courage, integrity and devotion to the public good. This is why we're rising up to support him. Ms. Clinton cannot project qualities she does not have. She's no match for Bernie. He's going to win.

    Kevin R, Brooklyn 12 hours ago

    This race is not about the candidates themselves. It's about the American people taking a stand to get out democracy back. That's why establishment politicians will not win, and it's precisely why you're seeing the same level of excitement for "insurgent" candidates, on both sides.

    The level of excitement is equally invigorated on the right for Trump, and more recently for Cruz. The entire political system that's been systematically rigged in favor of plutocrats and their corporate shells is about to be flipped on its rear.

    This is precisely what Bernie has been talking about for 8 months, every time he utters the words "political revolution", and man, does it feel glorious!

    Andy, Salt Lake City, UT 11 hours ago

    Clinton has been on autopilot to the general election and is only now realizing that the base isn't with her. Clinton's favorability feels more like general acquiescence than actual support. Millennials would rather stay home than cast a spurious vote. The Clinton camp assumes support from minorities and moderates but perhaps unduly. Even the female vote seems split in their appraisal. That doesn't exactly strike me as a coalition.

    This was a foreseeable scenario though. Clinton is her own worst enemy. She had the opportunity to get ahead on Bernie's issues and took a pass. There was a legitimate fear that she might alienate center-right voters in a general election for a "no contest" primary. Knowing what we know now about the GOP field, that was a bad decision.

    Now she's playing catch-up and the effort comes across as threatened and disingenuous. A position that falls neatly inline with long-standing public perception issues. Sanders has a real chance to win both States as a result. Even if Clinton ultimately wins the nomination, I think a close race in Iowa and New Hampshire is a positive for her campaign. Perhaps she'll learn from the lessons of 2008.

    Dominic, Astoria, NY 11 hours ago

    Isn't it amazing what someone can accomplish when they start and operate from a position of integrity, and present the current American reality to the American people with honesty and passion?

    For thirty five years, we've seen our country sold off piecemeal to and for the 1%, aided and abetted by the sociopaths in the GOP, and third-way, triangulating Democrats. We've been conditioned by our sell-out politicians that we must accept a steadily diminishing quality of life and opportunity. We've been tricked into believing its inevitability, as "the best we can manage".

    Well, the big lie has run out of steam. In Bernie Sanders we see a candidate who reminds all of us that not only can we do better- we deserve better. Bernie has motivated Americans in remarkable ways, and reminded us that it is indeed our nation, and that our government works best when it works for all of us, regardless of income and connection.

    Mike Thompson, New York 11 hours ago

    There are many of us who are not conventionally liberal who support Sanders, not necessarily because we always agree with what he says, but because he is the candidate of integrity and reform. All the other candidates with the exception of Trump are bought and sold by money interests that donate unlimited funds to superPACs, national committees, and shadowy political groups without any kind of oversight. It is very basic human behavior that when someone gives you something of value, they generally expect something back in some way. Hence the policies of the last 40 years that have overwhelmingly favored the wealthy and skewed national income upwards. The status quo is that the tail wags the dog in the United States government, with important political and economic decisions made on the basis of who has given the most to the leading candidate.

    Hillary is the embodiment of this system, and Bernie is its antithesis. He doesnt have a superPAC, he takes his campaign funding from the people and as such is beholden only to the people. That is why I support Bernie Sanders and that is why I believe that he will win this nomination.

    A, Philipse Manor, N.Y. 10 hours ago

    The media, and that includes the esteemed N.Y Times, love a good train wreck. It sells newspapers, ads etc. There are a lot of blank newsprint to cover, empty air time on TV and digital media space to fill.

    Clinton's story is colorful, at times salacious and occasionally borders on legally questionable. When talking about her the media can include the philandering of her husband, the elbow rubbing with Wall Streeters etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. So much grist, so much filler. Monica Lewinsky's reemergence, Benghazi, even Trump's wedding have all been side stories. These are interesting to read about and keep her in the forefront of the news.

    Sanders, in contrast, has no skeletons, no questionable spousal wanderings, no nothing except a message that seems to resonate with ALL ages.
    I remember reading months ago that the nomination was Clinton's to lose.

    Underestimating the appeal of the straight talking Brooklynite seems to be the big mistake that the Clinton campaign is making , despite the fact that her headquarters is in Brooklyn.

    Something tells me that Americans have finally had their fill of the Clintons and may not be able to fathom either one of them back in the Oval office, past shenanigans there notwithstanding.

    Socrates, is a trusted commenter Downtown Verona, NJ 13 hours ago

    It's refreshing to see Americans Feeling The Bern after 35 years of right-wing economic violence that have systematically savaged the American people with corporate-sponsored extortion of healthcare, cable TV, internet, cellphone service, pilfering of 401Ks and pensions and endless tax cuts for the richest citizens and corporations in the land while wages, the safety net, infrastructure and public education were obliterated.

    Bernie Sanders is honest and brave enough to tell America that Wall St. regulates Congress --- not the other way around.

    Hillary has always been too busy cashing $350,000 Wall St. speaking fees to notice her own hypocrisy, insincerity and secret crush on the 0.1% parasites that have wrecked the country.

    More and more Americans who have been burned by the 0.1% will be Feeling The Bern with each passing day.

    Bernie Sanders 2016

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 14 hours ago

    Bernie will eventually win the Democratic nomination and presidency. His campaign is from the heart and he is the only candidate not bought and paid for by Wall Street. He actually believes what he says. Take a look at Hillary's top donors and compare them to Sanders. Banks/Financiers versus groups representing labor and the people.

    Bernie does not come saddled with decades of scandal. He does not represent the power elite. He is the only candidate who presents an opportunity of changing the status quo.

    Bernie or bust.

    Jack Chicago, is a trusted commenter Chicago 13 hours ago

    Never has a political campaign, in my lifetime, revealed so clearly where our media stand. The NY Times has been a huge disappointment. Not because they obviously have pre-ordained a Democrat machine candidate, but because their coverage and reporting has been so tone deaf. This has not been reporting on, but steering the news.

    Only the Times would continue to express surprise at Mr Sanders support when both wings of national politics are clearly being driven by a disgust with current political party leadership and the current way of (not) doing the business of government. It's an ego-driven circus and any candidate who is sincere (not doing that sincere thing) is like a breath of fresh air! Simply put, the Clinton air is stale!

    William, Vienna 13 hours ago

    Why is every headline I've ever read in the NYT worded in way that down-plays Mr. Sanders and plays up Mrs. Clinton? The title of this article so clearly attempts to cast Mrs. Clinton as the continued protagonist in the events unfolding that it's almost painful to read. Shouldn't the title of this article be "Bernie Sanders Quickly Closing Gap With Mrs. Clinton in Iowa By Way of Hugely Enthusiastic Crowds"? How else can this continued contortion of wording be understood other than a clear bias on the part of the NYT for HRC? What else can readers conclude except that it is not only HRC who is worrying about the rise of Bernie Sanders but also the owners of the New York Times.

    j. frances, denver, colorado 13 hours ago

    I'm a 46 y.o. woman and my 49 y.o. sister and I are going to be at our Colorado caucus in support of Bernie. We'll bringing cookies decorated like Bernie.

    I've got bumper stickers on my car and bike and two Bernie signs in my window. I've already donated over $400 (I'm a childcare worker so this is a stretch.). Bernie is the first candidate I've ever done any of this for. I am passionate about his ideas. Time for a revolution. Who better than Bernie to lead it? Game on.

    Sarah Strohmeyer, Vermont 13 hours ago

    Commitment cards? See now, this pretty much epitomizes why Hillary is a turn off for me. It's as though she's using the Iowa caucus voters as chits to turn in for more money at the super-pac window.

    Bernie doesn't need commitment cards. But he does need commitment because if he wins, as I so hope, that will be only the beginning of a tough fight to preserve democracy, close the income gap, guarantee truly affordable healthcare for all, and do what we can to save the climate from further deterioration.
    It's now or never, guys.


    [Jan 12, 2016] The DNC Junta Is Continuing the Democratic Leadership Council Coup

    DLC neoliberals are dangerous and will not give up without a fight...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Although hes not as well-known as someone like Karl Rove or Frank Luntz, Al From is one of the most important political operatives of the past few decades. ..."
    "... A veteran Democratic staffer, he thought his party moved too far to the left during the 1970s, and so, in 1985, he founded a group known as the Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC, whose stated goals were to expand the partys base and appeal to moderates and liberals. ..."
    "... Under Froms leadership, the DLC staged a bloodless coup of the Democratic Party, and swapped out the progressivism of FDR, Truman and Johnson for the corporatism of the Clintons. ..."
    "... Al From had personally recruited Bill to run for president, and the DLCs ideas were the basis for most of his policies. ..."
    "... And even though it no longer actually exists (it folded in 2011) the DLC and its supporters still control the Democratic establishment , especially Hillary Clinton - Bill Clintons wife. ..."
    "... The base of the Democratic Party is still progressive even if the party bigwigs have sold-out to the corporatists. ..."
    "... They want real change, not Republican-lite policies pretending to be progressive. And so, theyre siding with Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
    "... Bernies campaign is showing cracks in their junta and the coup that Al From staged more than two decades ago is on the verge of collapsing. ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    Sanders is already beating Clinton in New Hampshire, and if he can pull-off a two-state sweep of the early primaries, that would completely change the dynamic of the race.

    And I mean completely.

    At this point, national polls don't really matter; what matters is momentum, and if Bernie can win Iowa and New Hampshire, he would suck up pretty much all of the momentum.

    Now, considering the fact that Bernie Sanders does better than Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical matchup with Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, you'd think that the establishment Democrats would be thrilled with these developments.

    You'd think that the people who talk so much about "electability" and how important it is would be overjoyed that Bernie Sanders, a popular and electable candidate, is moving towards the Democratic nomination.

    Apparently not.

    Instead of celebrating the rise of a new star, establishment Democrats are freaking out about the possibility of Bernie Sanders winning both Iowa and New Hampshire.

    Case in point: former Tennessee congressman Harold Ford, Jr., who on MSNBC agreed with Joe Scarborough that establishment Dems could recruit John Kerry or Joe Biden to run if Bernie sweeps both early primary states.

    Pretty weird, right?

    Here Bernie Sanders is inspiring millions of young people to get involved in politics, and establishment Democrats think it might be a good idea to draft two guys who've already lost presidential races.

    Go figure.

    But here's the thing: Establishment Democrats aren't stupid - they should be scared of Bernie Sanders.

    And that's because he represents a direct threat to the centrists who have ruled the Democratic Party for the past few decades.

    Although he's not as well-known as someone like Karl Rove or Frank Luntz, Al From is one of the most important political operatives of the past few decades.

    A veteran Democratic staffer, he thought his party moved "too far to the left" during the 1970s, and so, in 1985, he founded a group known as the Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC, whose stated goals were "to expand the party's base and appeal to moderates and liberals."

    That obviously sounds nice in theory, but in practice it meant the destruction of the thing that made the Democratic Party the United States' governing party for most of the 20th century: the progressive values of the New Deal and FDR.

    Under From's leadership, the DLC staged a bloodless coup of the Democratic Party, and swapped out the progressivism of FDR, Truman and Johnson for the corporatism of the Clintons.

    Instead of talking about ways to make the US a more just and equal society, Democrats now talked about things like "welfare reform," so-called "free trade" and so-called "school choice," which were really just corporate plans to privatize the commons.

    The final victory in the DLC's takeover of the Democratic Party came when Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992.

    Al From had personally recruited Bill to run for president, and the DLC's ideas were the basis for most of his policies.

    Over the next 20 years, the DLC consolidated its stranglehold over the Democratic Party.

    And even though it no longer actually exists (it folded in 2011) the DLC and its supporters still control the Democratic establishment , especially Hillary Clinton - Bill Clinton's wife.

    Which brings us back to Bernie Sanders.

    If his wildly successful campaign has told us anything, it's that Democratic voters are sick and tired of the DLC-Clintonites running the show.

    The base of the Democratic Party is still progressive even if the party bigwigs have sold-out to the corporatists.

    They want to go back to the values that made the Democratic Party the United States' governing party from the New Deal until the 1990s.

    They want real change, not Republican-lite policies pretending to be progressive. And so, they're siding with Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election.

    As I said earlier, establishment Democrats should be scared.

    Bernie's campaign is showing cracks in their junta and the coup that Al From staged more than two decades ago is on the verge of collapsing.

    This article was first published on Truthout and any reprint or reproduction on any other website must acknowledge Truthout as the original site of publication.

    [Jan 12, 2016] Bernie Sanders is now in a statistical dead heat with Hillary Clinton

    With just three weeks to go before the Iowa caucus, Bernie Sanders is now in a statistical dead heat with Hillary Clinton.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Summarizing Buchanan on Trump: What the Republican electorate says of Trump is what Lincoln said of Grant: We need this man. He fights ..."
    "... Hey, these pinko hipster pricks have a point! ..."
    naked capitalism

    Policy

    "Hillary Clinton took aim at Bernie Sanders' single-payer health care plan on Monday, characterizing it as "turning over your and my health insurance to governors," specifically naming Republican Terry Branstad. It's a pretty clear reference to the many conservative states that have refused ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion - implying that Sanders would allow conservative states to opt out of his plan, and hence partially destroy all federal health insurance programs" [ The Week ]. "This is absolutely false." (NC readers know this from our debate coverage; see this post from November 15 .) Left to her own devices, Clinton wouldn't mention single payer at all . Now that Sanders has forced the issue, she lies.

    The Voters

    Myth of the independent: "As we noted in August, most independents lean toward one party or the other - and in 2012, the majority of those leaning independents voted for their preferred party's presidential candidate. (According to the book "The Gamble," 90 percent of Democratic-leaning independents backed Obama in 2012, and 78 percent of Republican-leaning ones backed Romney.)" [ WaPo ].

    "[I]f Americans are indeed angry, unsettled, or dissatisfied, in many ways they appear to disagree about why they should be angry, unsettled, or dissatisfied" [ WaPo ].

    "Bernie Sanders has an 11-point advantage over Hillary Clinton among voters under 35" [ Vox ]. Let's see if they come out to vote…

    The Trail

    "MoveOn is endorsing Bernie Sanders for president after the liberal challenger to Hillary Clinton won 78 percent of votes cast by its membership" [ The Hill ]. Granted, Ilya Sheyman is MoveOn's political director, but still: This is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. And 78%!

    "The Top 5 Reasons MoveOn Members Voted to Endorse Bernie (with the Most Votes and Widest Margin in Our History)" [Ilya Sheyman, Medium ]. #1: "1. Bernie's lifelong commitment to standing up to corporate and 1% interests to fight for an economy where everyone has a fair shot." Not sure where the wording on those "reasons" comes from, but contrast Clinton.

    "[FBI] agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one of [three] sources told Fox" [ The Hill ]. "One of the Fox sources also said that the FBI is especially eager to pursue a high-profile public corruption case in the wake of what they believe was overly lenient treatment of former CIA Director David Petraeus, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor last year for mishandling classified information after it was revealed that he had given classified information to his mistress."

    O'Malley was the intended sheepdog, not Sanders: "O'Malley's continued presence in the race is helping Clinton. In Iowa we find his supporters would prefer Sanders over Clinton 43/20, and in New Hampshire they prefer Sanders over Clinton 47/13. So to some extent O'Malley is helping to split the anti-Hillary vote" [ Public PolicyPolling ].

    "According to a Monmouth University survey released on Monday, Trump has 32 percent support in New Hampshire, up from 26 percent when the same question was asked in November" [ The Hill ].

    Summarizing Buchanan on Trump: What the Republican electorate says of Trump is what Lincoln said of Grant: "We need this man. He fights" [ WaPo ].

    Left in Wisconsin , January 12, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    Watching MSNBC last night (what can I say?), I thought I noticed a very distinct change in tone re: Sanders. A lot more "gee, he's really doing a lot better than we thought he would" and less "what a weird old geezer whose got no chance." Anyone else notice? Probably just horse race pumping but interesting nonetheless.

    Whereas the WaPo seems to be doubling down on HRC today. (Can you double down if you are already all in?)

    Pavel , January 12, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    Well this will sound strange coming from a jaded, cynical curmudgeon, but I'm actually starting to think Bernie has a chance. The amount of coverage has been increasing (although as noted the NYT, WaPo, and even the Grauniad (UK) are still blatantly biased). But I remember Bill de Blasio's amazing victory in the NY mayoral race (managing to beat even Carlos Danger, husband of Hillary's right-hand-woman :) and perhaps even more astonishingly - given how "extreme" he is deemed to be - Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership victory.

    Sure, HRC has oodles of money, the MSM on her side, the super delegates, and all the establishment Dems. But this year above all is the one where those have the least value, and may even work against her. In the UK the more the Labour establishment and the press railed against Corbyn, the more popular he became.

    The other factor working for Sanders is of course the internet funding. He is almost keeping up with HRC, and soon her $2800 per head rich pals will reach their donation limit. Bernie on the other hand can keep going back to his $30 and $40 and $100 donors.

    And that FBI investigation into the emails and the Clinton Foundation… I've always maintained that could be the ticking bomb. How many of those 30,000 "personal" emails Hillary deleted had to do with Foundation business…?

    Exciting times.

    Uahsenaa , January 12, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Democratic Party super delegates are cockroaches, they'll kick Hillary to the curb the moment the primary returns show the electorate moving Sanders' way. The exact same thing happened in 2008: her campaign staff went on and on about how many super delegates were backing her, yet, come convention time, they swiftly abandoned her in favor of Obama.

    Christopher Fay , January 12, 2016 at 6:03 pm

    It sounds like the FBI is coming around to the real crime of the emails, influence peddling

    Andrew Watts , January 12, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Report: FBI expands investigation of Clinton

    I like to believe that the FBI has secretly been radicalized by all the activists they've infiltrated over the last decade. It's so secret that they're not even aware of it.

    "Hey, these pinko hipster pricks have a point!"

    edmondo , January 12, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    Hillary Clinton ….she lies.

    Don't the Clintons usually wait until they are under oath before they lie?

    Massinissa , January 12, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    Wait, did she say DISMANTLE MEDICARE?

    The socialist wants to DISMANTLE MEDICARE? Does anyone really believe that when she says it?

    And if he wanted to dismantle private insurance… Uh… Wouldn't that be a GOOD thing?

    Man, Hellery is so desperate shes getting Bill and Chelsea to start stumping for her. They wouldn't be involved if they thought Hellery was in a good position.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , January 12, 2016 at 7:10 pm

    ObamaCare's neoliberal intellectual foundations are crumbling.

    If we didn't need her to invent the internet, we don't need her to dismantle ObamaCare either. The thing's foundations are crumbing on their own, though it sounds good she says she wants to dismantle it.

    Christopher Fay , January 12, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    Chelsea Clinton, the view from the billionaire bench. Those Clinton Foundations are just clever tax treatments.

    [Jan 10, 2016] Trump Could Win It All 20% Of Democrats Say They will Vote For Trump Over Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say theyd cross sides and vote for Trump, while a small number, or 14 percent, of Republicans claim theyd vote for Clinton. When those groups were further broken down, a far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they are 100 percent sure of switching than the Republicans. ..."
    "... The idea that Trump can't beat Hillary in a fair election is coming from the camp of 2% JEB!. Nobody actually believes it. It's just the latest in a flurry of 'stop Trump' gambits. Trump would cream Hillary, Bernie and any of the 12 Republicans left and the American people know it. ..."
    "... In America these days, it is unorthodox to tell the truth if you run for President. At least Trump says what he thinks, even if he is uninformed, opinionated, and ignorant. Better any day than the incorrigible liars we get who will slit your throat for the chance to be a stooge for the deep state. ..."
    "... The problem with Hillary and the rest of her ilk is that they are used to trading blows with dance of words, where the Donald just comes in with a fucking hammer and whacks every motherfucking mole that comes pops up in his way. ..."
    "... while we may be at our lowest point so far as a nation, at least Trump actually provides some potential promise of a change in the status quo. Him and a VP like Rand Paul could actually do SOMETHING positive for the United States, unlike every single other candidate who would just run it right into the ground every single time they open their mouth or sign a bill (or veto it), kind of like our dear Magik Negrow. ..."
    "... Is Trump the end all be all? No. But he is probably the best shot we have had in a long time for actually making some kind of change. While Ron Paul or Ross Perot had better policy, they never stood a chance because the MSM shuts them out. ..."
    "... I was not intending to hate on Trump (though I can't stand Hitlery) but rather was commenting on the state of affiars these days. It's all theater anyway.....it's just the cost of our tickets is astronomical. ..."
    "... Christ on a crutch, people, she ordered a staffer to strip off the headers and send it to me in reference to classified material being sent to an illegal server in somebody's basement? ..."
    Jan 10, 2016 | Zero Hedge

    At this point, it's become abundantly clear that Donald Trump's brazen rhetoric and unorthodox campaign strategy (which primarily involves simply saying whatever pops into his head with no filter whatsoever) isn't a liability.

    In fact, the bellicose billionaire's style and penchant for controversy has catapulted the real estate mogul to the top of the polls leaving but one serious challenger (Ted Cruz) for the GOP nomination.

    Recently, Trump has taken aim at Hillary Clinton, calling her "disgusting," a "liar", and insisting that she's "married to an abuser." His first television ad opens with a black and white image Obama and Clinton who are referred to only as "the politicians" (a nod to Trump's contention that he's trustworthy precisely because he comes from outside the Beltway, so to speak).

    ... ... ...

    According to a survey conducted by Washington-based Mercury Analytics, 20% of likely Democratic voters say they'd cross sides and vote for Trump. Here's more from US News & World Report :

    So if Donald Trump proved the political universe wrong and won the Republican presidential nomination, he would be creamed by Hillary Clinton, correct?

    A new survey of likely voters might at least raise momentary dyspepsia for Democrats since it suggests why it wouldn't be a cakewalk.

    The survey by Washington-based Mercury Analytics is a combination online questionnaire and "dial-test" of Trump's first big campaign ad among 916 self-proclaimed "likely voters" ( this video shows the ad and the dial test results). It took place primarily Wednesday and Thursday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

    Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say they'd cross sides and vote for Trump, while a small number, or 14 percent, of Republicans claim they'd vote for Clinton. When those groups were further broken down, a far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they are "100 percent sure" of switching than the Republicans.

    When the firmed showed respondents the Trump ad, and assessed their responses to each moment of it, it found "the primary messages of Trump's ad resonated more than Democratic elites would hope."

    About 25 percent of Democrats "agree completely" that it raises some good point, with an additional 19 percent agreeing at least "somewhat."

    Mercury CEO Ron Howard, a Democrat whose firm works for candidates in both parties and corporate clients, concedes, "We expected Trump's first campaign spot to strongly appeal to Republican Trump supporters, with little impact – or in fact negative impact – on Democratic or independent voters."

    He continues, "The challenge to Hillary, if Trump is the nominee and pivots to the center in the general election as a problem-solving, independent-minded, successful 'get it done' businessman is that Democrats will no longer be able to count on his personality and outrageous sound bites to disqualify him in the voters' minds."

    MalteseFalcon

    The idea that Trump can't beat Hillary in a fair election is coming from the camp of 2% JEB!. Nobody actually believes it. It's just the latest in a flurry of 'stop Trump' gambits. Trump would cream Hillary, Bernie and any of the 12 Republicans left and the American people know it.

    Of course Trump will not be the Republican nominee, because as the softer options fail, more stringent measures will be applied.

    Perimetr

    In America these days, it is "unorthodox" to tell the truth if you run for President. At least Trump says what he thinks, even if he is uninformed, opinionated, and ignorant. Better any day than the incorrigible liars we get who will slit your throat for the chance to be a stooge for the deep state.

    Escrava Isaura

    Perimetr: In America these days, it is "unorthodox" to tell the truth

    Agree. It starts by the title of this article. There's only TWO polls that shows Trump ahead:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    Welfare Tycoon

    What I would give to watch the Donald 3=====>SCHLONG<=====3 Clinton in a public debate. I'm pretty sure her head would explode from the overload of no-fucks-given, lack of PC your a fucking criminal diatribe that would come out of his mouth.

    The problem with Hillary and the rest of her ilk is that they are used to trading blows with dance of words, where the Donald just comes in with a fucking hammer and whacks every motherfucking mole that comes pops up in his way.

    And to your point - while we may be at our lowest point so far as a nation, at least Trump actually provides some potential promise of a change in the status quo. Him and a VP like Rand Paul could actually do SOMETHING positive for the United States, unlike every single other candidate who would just run it right into the ground every single time they open their mouth or sign a bill (or veto it), kind of like our dear Magik Negrow.

    Is Trump the end all be all? No. But he is probably the best shot we have had in a long time for actually making some kind of change. While Ron Paul or Ross Perot had better policy, they never stood a chance because the MSM shuts them out. You cannot just shut out Trump though. He shuts you out!

    Look at it the positive way. If Trump ends up turning his back on us like the rest, at least our Titanic will sink with a fucking circus playing for entertainment until the very end!

    Occams_Chainsaw -> Welfare Tycoon

    I was not intending to hate on Trump (though I can't stand Hitlery) but rather was commenting on the state of affiars these days. It's all theater anyway.....it's just the cost of our tickets is astronomical.

    Creepy Lurker

    Welfare and Occam,

    I can't even comprehend why Hillary is still walking free at this point, and everyone is debating policy? Really?

    http://observer.com/2016/01/hillarys-emailgate-goes-nuclear/

    Where is the public outrage? WTF? Even more, WHY isn't this plastered all over? WHY isn't this on the lips and keyboards of everyone, everywhere? THAT'S a bigger scandal than the shit she actually did! Christ on a crutch, people, she ordered a staffer to "strip off the headers and send it to me" in reference to classified material being sent to an illegal server in somebody's basement?

    Have we really fallen so far into banana republic world that no one is outraged? And this person is running for President? Fucking really????

    [Jan 09, 2016] Controversial DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz To Face Progressive Tim Canova In An August Primary

    Triangulation is the term given to the act of a political candidate presenting their ideology as being above or between the left and right sides (or "wings") of a traditional (e.g. American or British) democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.
    Notable quotes:
    "... women's issues, LGBT issues, gun issues but anything that involves economics ..."
    "... It's like having a serial killer come out in support of you. ..."
    "... These pols have played very successfully on out-groups' fear that their hold on legitimacy and power is fragile. ..."
    "... I understand that, but there is something in psychology called "shared distinctiveness". LGBT groups are uniquely distinctive just as corrupt politicians are uniquely distinctive. And the more I see corrupt politicians talking about the importance of LGBT issues, etc, the more the two are starting to go together in my head. ..."
    "... As I said that's not a rational process, but it's real. The mental connections that are formed mean that whenever I see LGBT activities/people/whatever I immediately think of all the corrupt politicians they're in bed with, and a lot of that aura of corruption brushes off on them. ..."
    "... Lindsey Graham is a fine example .. ..."
    "... Feminist concerns are not in themselves corrupt, but what the Dem party peddles is tame, second wave weak sauce feminism of the Betty Friedan kind. Basically, "middle class housewives are oppressed by being withdrawn from equity within the workplace," which was even criticized at the time (notably by Germaine Greer) ..."
    "... the DCCC's take that you can be liberal on "social" issues while hard right on political economy is not at all in line with contemporary feminist thinking, which holds, more or less, that the economy is a social issue just like reproductive rights, workplace equity, etc. ..."
    "... Hillary is a woman despite Hillary losing young women in 2008. ..."
    "... Your assessment is more spot on, perhaps, given we can't even get Dems to commit to something as broadly popular as paid family leave. ..."
    "... Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious. ..."
    "... Its a classic bait and switch move, but it also reflects a professional political class who have completely lost contact with their supposed base. I've met left wing activists who genuinely saw it as something more important than, say, protecting benefits for the poor. ..."
    "... Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious. ..."
    "... They crunched the polling numbers, and strategised that they could replace them with the one big cohort that pollsters said were 'unclaimed' by other parties – working educated females 25-45. So they quite deliberately refocused their policies from representing working class and poorer people, to focusing on progressive-lite policies. fortunately, it seems that most working educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism, most polls indicate they will be wiped out in the next election. ..."
    "... I do see signs of political awakening around the Western world, including here in the epicenter of the neoliberal infestation. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders isn't perfect, but he's so much better than Hillary in every way. ..."
    "... I don't think the the neolib Dems (aka DLC Dems) want to win full control of the federal government. They want the presidency and only one of the two houses of Congress. This allows them to remain on the money train while blaming the Republicans for their inability to pass progressive legislation which pisses off their paymasters. ..."
    "... What drives me crazy about Hillary (though it can easily be extended to other Dems) is all her talk of women, children, gun control, and LGBT rights (remember her tweet when gay marriage was legalised) while as SofS she approved arms deals to Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Slush Foundation took donations from it - surely one of the most despotic, anti-women, anti-LGBT regimes in the world. Not to mention the ongoing US-supported Saudi genocide in Yemen. ..."
    "... Hey Team Bernie, in the next debate, if HRC brings up control, just have Bernie quietly but clearly say something like: "Forgive me Madame Secretary, but HOW DARE YOU criticise me on gun control when you were responsible for blowing up Libya and shipping arms to ISIS?" ..."
    "... Also re guns and politics, if he can win the nomination, Sanders' position will help him in rural states. I have never seen a national politician address the differing needs between working people who feed their families with the help of a deer or two vs urban people whose primary concern is gang violence. All we hear is pro or anti gun and people have trouble imagining each others circumstances. ..."
    "... She keeps getting re-elected because of weak opposition and a complicit local media. ..."
    "... And all that cash she gets from the people she sells out to. ..."
    "... And if she loses in the primary, so what? As far as I can tell, the head of the DNC does not have to be an elected official still in office. She of course is a "superdelegate," and under DNC rules, wiki reports that "The chairperson is a superdelegate for life." ..."
    "... Isn't a name missing from the above rogue's gallery: Nancy Pelosi. If I'm not mistaken DWS was a bit of a protege. ..."
    "... Obama's name is missing. He's the one who picked her to head the DNC. ..."
    "... Obama never gets blamed for anything. Keep your fingerprints off and find a villain to blame instead. That's Obama's modus operandi and it's worked his entire life. He is beyond Teflon. ..."
    "... Great news! How do you get rid of neolib DLC-machine third-way triangulating Dems? One seat at a time. ..."
    Jan 09, 2016 | naked capitalism

    An Axis of Evil inside the Democratic Party is suddenly on the defensive. Steve Israel was forced to announce an early retirement for reasons that are still murky . Rahm Emanuel can barely show his face in Chicago and, with the exception of Hillary Clinton, all his cronies and allies are jumping off that sinking ship . And now it's looking like Debbie Wasserman Schultz's rotten self-serving career is finally catching up with her. As we mentioned, Tuesday, Roots Action has a petition drive to force her out of the DNC - with over 30,000 signatures already. And then yesterday, CREDO launched another petition drive to get her out of a position she never should have been in in the first place. I don't like signing petitions but I eagerly signed both of these. The Democratic Party will never be a force for real progressive change with careerist power mongers like Steve Israel, Rahm Emanuel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Chuck Schumer controlling it.

    ...There aren't that many Democrats as transactional as Debbie Wasserman Schultz when it comes to serving the interests of the wealthy people who have financed her political rise, from the sugar barons and private prison industry to the alcohol distillers .

    ...Wasserman Schultz's support for the dysfunctional corporate trade agreements like TPP very much motivated Canova to make the difficult decision to take on one of the House's most vicious gutter fighters. "People are just tired of being sold out by calculating and triangulating politicians," told us back in October when he was thinking about running. "Wasserman Schultz has become the ultimate machine politician. While she stakes out liberal positions on culture war issues, when it comes to economic and social issues, she's too often with the corporate elites. On too many crucial issues– from fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the war on drugs and medical marijuana and mass incarceration, to her support for budget sequestrations and austerity– Wasserman Schultz votes down the line with big corporate interests and cartels: Wall Street banks and hedge funds, Big Pharma, the private health insurers, private prisons, Monsanto, it goes on and on."

    Clive , January 9, 2016 at 2:54 am

    I know it's the Daily Mail (I always swore I'd never start a comment with that but needs must ), anyhow, I know it's the Daily Mail, but I never saw such an outpouring of consistent bile and outrage like the comments which were posted on this DWS article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2962331/Democratic-Party-chair-Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz-says-activist-s-allegations-tried-bribe-outrageous.html

    jgordon , January 9, 2016 at 3:31 am

    women's issues, LGBT issues, gun issues but anything that involves economics

    This is important. Initially I started out not having much of an opinion on LGBT and women's issues. However, the more I saw corrupt neoliberal politicians advocating for these issues (wasn't Obama trying to make Lloyd Blankfein the ambassador for LGBT issues or something a couple of years ago?) the more I started associating them with corruption and evil.

    This isn't rational at all, but whenever I see HRC or Obama advocating for some particular culture war issue, the more I despise the groups and causes they're advocating for and the more I want to fight against them. Why aren't these people in the LGBT and women communities vocally and continually disowning these corrupt politicians? It's like having a serial killer come out in support of you.

    Yves Smith Post author , January 9, 2016 at 4:29 am

    These pols have played very successfully on out-groups' fear that their hold on legitimacy and power is fragile. That is particularly true with gay men, who outside a handful of big cities, face open discrimination and risk of physical harm.

    jgordon , January 9, 2016 at 10:14 am

    I understand that, but there is something in psychology called "shared distinctiveness". LGBT groups are uniquely distinctive just as corrupt politicians are uniquely distinctive. And the more I see corrupt politicians talking about the importance of LGBT issues, etc, the more the two are starting to go together in my head.

    As I said that's not a rational process, but it's real. The mental connections that are formed mean that whenever I see LGBT activities/people/whatever I immediately think of all the corrupt politicians they're in bed with, and a lot of that aura of corruption brushes off on them.

    polecat , January 9, 2016 at 11:34 am

    Lindsey Graham is a fine example ..

    Uahsenaa , January 9, 2016 at 8:04 am

    Feminist concerns are not in themselves corrupt, but what the Dem party peddles is tame, second wave weak sauce feminism of the Betty Friedan kind. Basically, "middle class housewives are oppressed by being withdrawn from equity within the workplace," which was even criticized at the time (notably by Germaine Greer) .

    bell hooks, on the other hand, doesn't mince words at all, when she shows how questions of racial and gender oppression are expressly linked to economics/class and militarism. You can't tackle any of them without tackling all of them, so the DCCC's take that you can be liberal on "social" issues while hard right on political economy is not at all in line with contemporary feminist thinking, which holds, more or less, that the economy is a social issue just like reproductive rights, workplace equity, etc.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 9, 2016 at 9:52 am

    I wouldn't even say Team Blue is there. Pelosi and other prominent Team Blue women held a mock panel to get to the bottom of why Rush Limbaugh was mean to a Georgetown Law school student who was photogenic. This has been the sum total of Team Blue's defense of feminism since GDub except to cynically conclude young women will rush to Team Blue because Hillary is a woman despite Hillary losing young women in 2008.

    Uahsenaa , January 9, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Your assessment is more spot on, perhaps, given we can't even get Dems to commit to something as broadly popular as paid family leave.

    That said, I've noticed a denigrating tone directed toward what gets labeled as "identity politics" of late, and I just wanted to make clear that current proponents of things like critical race theory and what have you are more in line with the NC commentariat than I think people give them credit for.

    PlutoniumKun , January 9, 2016 at 8:21 am

    Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious. Here in Ireland the Irish Labour party, in coalition with a centre right party, used up every bit of political credit they had to push for gay marriage. Like most people I was very happy it was legalised, but they were patting themselves on the back for this while simultaneously supporting vicious austerity.

    Its a classic bait and switch move, but it also reflects a professional political class who have completely lost contact with their supposed base. I've met left wing activists who genuinely saw it as something more important than, say, protecting benefits for the poor.

    wbgonne , January 9, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious.

    I think the explanation is quite simple, at least in the U.S. (which has effectively exported its political dysfunction to other developed democracies). When the Washington Consenusus formed around corporatism (neoliberalism for the Democrats, conservatism/economic libertarianism for the Republicans), there was no longer meaningful economic distinction between the parties. So culture war/identity politics issues are all that remain for brand differentiation. Obama's recent Academy Award performance on guns is a harbinger of how the Democrats will run in 2016 if Clinton is the nominee. Plus Planned Parenthood and gay marriage and a few additional poll-tested non-economic issues that the professionals calculate will garner marginally more votes than they will cost. If the Democrats here truly wanted to win they would nominate Bernie Sanders and run on the wildly-popular platform of economic populism. (I'd say this is probably true in Britain with Corbyn and Labour as well, and probably in France and Italy as well, where the nominal leftists parties have been infected by neoliberalism.) It seems clear at this point that the Democratic Party is more committed to Wall Street than it is to the middle class, and is quite prepared to lose political power to keep its place at the financial trough. Obama's reign is solid evidence and the fact that Clinton remains the frontrunner and the establishment's darling shows they are doubling down, not changing course.

    PlutoniumKun , January 9, 2016 at 10:21 am

    You are quite right in what you say, even if the processes are slightly different in every country. In the UK in particular, I think there is a huge problem with the Labour Party in that it was effectively taken over by middle class left wing student activist types who have only the most theoretical notion how poor or working class people live. It is inevitable that they start to reinterpret 'left wing' and 'liberal' in a manner which suits the people they socialise with. I.e. seeing social progressivism as far more important than economic justice.

    Back in the 1990's I shared a house in London with a lawyer who qualified in Oxford – many of her friends were the first generation of Blairites. They were intelligent, enthusiastic and genuinely passionate about change. But talking to them it was glaringly obvious the only connection they had with 'ordinary' people was when they first had to canvass on the streets. I remember one young woman expressing horror at the potential constituent who came and insisted that she sort out her welfare entitlements, because thats what a politician is supposed to do. She had simply never met someone from the 'underclass' if you want to put it that way. It was all too obvious that people like her would shift rapidly to the right as soon as they achieved power, they had no real empathy or feel for regular people.

    In my own country, in Ireland, it is far more cynical. Its no secret that the traditional main centre left party, Labour, realised it would lose its core working class base if it supported austerity. They crunched the polling numbers, and strategised that they could replace them with the one big cohort that pollsters said were 'unclaimed' by other parties – working educated females 25-45. So they quite deliberately refocused their policies from representing working class and poorer people, to focusing on progressive-lite policies. fortunately, it seems that most working educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism, most polls indicate they will be wiped out in the next election.

    wbgonne , January 9, 2016 at 11:40 am

    it seems that most working educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism, most polls indicate they will be wiped out in the next election

    I do see signs of political awakening around the Western world, including here in the epicenter of the neoliberal infestation. Can the forces of reform win? Can the people take control of the political systems back from the plutocrats? Can they do it in time to avoid catastrophic global warming and socially-destructive wealth inequality? We'll see.

    ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© , January 9, 2016 at 10:26 am

    Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009.

    Bernie Sanders isn't perfect, but he's so much better than Hillary in every way.

    wbgonne , January 9, 2016 at 11:36 am

    Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009.

    True, but there is one glaring difference between the 90s and today. In the 90s one could make a plausible if not persuasive case that the electorate did not want economic populism and was content with the Third Way's neoliberal economic royalism. So, Bill Clinton's "triangulation" was actually designed to secure votes and win elections (as well as pad Clinton's pockets, of course.). Today, things are very different, with the people since 2007 overwhelmingly clamoring for economic populism but the Democrats refusing to provide it and indeed castigating those who want the party to turn left.

    Bernie Sanders isn't perfect, but he's so much better than Hillary in every way.

    No doubt. And I am very pleased to say that I appear to have been wrong in thinking that Sanders was fading. I'm not saying Sanders will win, but it looks to me like he may stick around long enough for Hillary to (very possibly) implode, since she is and always has been a bad politician.

    ex-PFC Chuck , January 9, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    In re:

    "If the Democrats here truly wanted to win they would nominate Bernie Sanders and run on the wildly-popular platform of economic populism."

    I don't think the the neolib Dems (aka DLC Dems) want to win full control of the federal government. They want the presidency and only one of the two houses of Congress. This allows them to remain on the money train while blaming the Republicans for their inability to pass progressive legislation which pisses off their paymasters.

    Pavel , January 9, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    What drives me crazy about Hillary (though it can easily be extended to other Dems) is all her talk of women, children, gun control, and LGBT rights (remember her tweet when gay marriage was legalised) while as SofS she approved arms deals to Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Slush Foundation took donations from it - surely one of the most despotic, anti-women, anti-LGBT regimes in the world. Not to mention the ongoing US-supported Saudi genocide in Yemen.

    So I guess HRC and the others think Americans need all these rights but people in the Mideast can just go stuff themselves. Because, you know, ISIS, and TERRORISM, and OIL and arms sales.

    Why the fsck doesn't Bernie point out these contradictions? Hillary apparently is blaming him for being "weak on gun control" while she has been a member of one of the most militaristic, bombing-and-droning administrations since, well, George W. Bush's.

    Hey Team Bernie, in the next debate, if HRC brings up control, just have Bernie quietly but clearly say something like: "Forgive me Madame Secretary, but HOW DARE YOU criticise me on gun control when you were responsible for blowing up Libya and shipping arms to ISIS?"

    /rant

    Local to Oakland , January 9, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    Thank you for saying this.

    Also re guns and politics, if he can win the nomination, Sanders' position will help him in rural states. I have never seen a national politician address the differing needs between working people who feed their families with the help of a deer or two vs urban people whose primary concern is gang violence. All we hear is pro or anti gun and people have trouble imagining each others circumstances.

    andyb , January 9, 2016 at 8:05 am

    DWS is my Congressperson. She is adored by elderly Jewish women, reluctantly accepted by Democrats (an overwhelming majority in her District), and loathed by all others. Whenever she appears on local or national TV, she regurgitates an obvious rote memorized list of talking points that she refuses to stray from. She will never engage in a true debate, and avoids answering any substantive questions. She keeps getting re-elected because of weak opposition and a complicit local media.

    I'm thrilled that there is a candidate that could derail her.

    Readers should be aware that some years back a local politician used her picture as a target at a local gun range. There was considerable uproar in the media, somewhat offset by a cottage industry providing actual pictures of her superimposed over a standard target.

    ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© , January 9, 2016 at 10:27 am

    She keeps getting re-elected because of weak opposition and a complicit local media.

    And all that cash she gets from the people she sells out to.

    allan , January 9, 2016 at 11:19 am

    It's hard to say exactly what you're referring to,
    but saying that FDL's regulars and commenters were DWS fans is totally off base.
    Typical coverage (from 2009):
    Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Won't Draw "Lines in the Sand" – Except When She Does

    when she says it's more important for her to be in a leadership position fighting for a public plan than it is to make a commitment to vote against a bill that doesn't have one, I think that's a luxury she can afford:

    DWS: I'm planning to reform for a health care reform plan that includes a robust public option.

    Mike Stark: Those are we're calling them "weasel words" over at FDL just because it does give you a huge loophole to back out of .

    DWS: Well I'm not someone who draws lines in the sand.

    JTMcPhee , January 9, 2016 at 8:56 am

    And if she loses in the primary, so what? As far as I can tell, the head of the DNC does not have to be an elected official still in office. She of course is a "superdelegate," and under DNC rules, wiki reports that "The chairperson is a superdelegate for life."

    Wiki also reports that the DNC plays no role in "policy." Just writes the platform every so often. Really?

    While they live, they rule, and to re-coin an old legal chestnut, we have buried the Rulers we unelect, but they rule us from their graves

    Carolinian , January 9, 2016 at 9:36 am

    Isn't a name missing from the above rogue's gallery: Nancy Pelosi. If I'm not mistaken DWS was a bit of a protege.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 9, 2016 at 10:19 am

    Nancy is a Lex Luthor caliber villain. She doesn't warrant being lumped with henchmen or the Kitemans of the world.

    polecat , January 9, 2016 at 11:05 am

    I can hardly wait for her grand-daughter to rise-up to the same level ..

    ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© , January 9, 2016 at 10:29 am

    Obama's name is missing. He's the one who picked her to head the DNC.
    ~

    wbgonne , January 9, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Obama never gets blamed for anything. Keep your fingerprints off and find a villain to blame instead. That's Obama's modus operandi and it's worked his entire life. He is beyond Teflon.

    Pavel , January 9, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Part of that strategy seems to be a definite preference for staying ignorant and uninformed. How many times has he claimed not to be aware of something going on until it's in the MSM? Of course hard to keep up when one is on the golf course so much of the time.

    mad as hell. , January 9, 2016 at 10:56 am

    You could see which way her wagon was headed almost four years ago if not longer from Greenwald's article.

    www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/20/wasserman-schultz-kill-list

    Schultz's is one of those unfortunate people to have a bullshit aura circling her where ever she steps.

    flora , January 9, 2016 at 12:36 pm

    Great news! How do you get rid of neolib DLC-machine third-way triangulating Dems? One seat at a time.

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    This is the review of the book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by one of Moon of Alabama readers.
    Looks like the course on making The USA imperial power (which was related later in Washington consensus and Wolfowitz doctrine) was taken directly after WWII. Cold War was just a smoke screen under which the USA tried to establish hegemony over the world. Both documents could well be written by Alan Dulles himself.
    Any president who dare to deviate from this is ostracized , impeached or killed. So the political role of intelligence agencies since their establishment by Truman was to serve as the brain center if USA imperial beuracracy (as well as the tools for projecting it abroad)
    The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for wars and for expanding the US influence abroad for multinationals, and that is what they have done for 70 years (Dulles came from Wall Street). Among other things it deliberately creates small wars just to demonstrate the US military might. Neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."
    Another book deserves to mentioned here too here too. Prouty book The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World (which was suppressed in 1973 when irt was published and did not see shelves before republishing in 2011) is described like the the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy conducted by CIA has finally provoked a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans
    U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve our goals. ..."
    "... Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969. ..."
    "... the ruling elite of the US was deeply split. ..."
    "... A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!). ..."
    "... And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. ..."
    "... Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    guest77 | Jan 9, 2016 3:28:12 AM | 55

    I just finished listening to the audio book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government . It was very good I think.

    I'll spare you a full review, but the Dulles era has some very important and interesting similarities with our own (in fact, the ties are most certainly those first formed during the Dulles brothers tenure at State and CIA). Talbot doesn't delve deeply into these more recent aspects, but he does acknowledge them. And the similarities are quite clear. We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve our goals.

    Initially I had heard that it was a Allen Dulles biography, and though there is a lot of detail about his personal life, his marriage, and even his kids, I would say it strays from what one might consider a "standard" biography and is more about Dulles and his times. For instance, there are a couple of chapters devoted just to the Kennedy Assassination, another on Oswald, and one on the "Generals' putsch" in France in '61. Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969.

    Talbot uses Dulles life as the base to build up the important (and to my mind misunderstood and misconstrued) stories in recent US history. That story is, of course, the following: despite the impression most Americans have of our country fighting the ultimate "good war" against universally despised enemies - that fact is that the ruling elite of the US was deeply split.

    A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!).

    And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. And Talbot tracks this key figure's fascist ties as he rises in the US power structure from his early years as an OSS man wheeling and dealing with Nazi generals in Bern, Switzerland and on through Dulles' creation and/or support of fascist governments in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa during the Cold War. Talbot covers the events surrounding Dulles life excellently. Especially moving was his chapter on Guatemala - the tragedy of the Arbenz family as a mirror of the tragedy of Guatemala is covered through the eyes of the grandson of Arbez.

    Talbot covers the horror stories of the results of America working closely with dictators like Trujillo, the Shah, Mobutu Sese Seko, and Batista (he misses Indonesia though, an operation that caused the death of 1,000,000 Indonesians). But of course, as an American, the most important question to Talbot is that of Dulles role in the Kennedy assassination. Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia.

    guest77 | Jan 9, 2016 4:08:48 AM | 59

    https://blogs.princeton.edu/mudd/2008/01/allen-dulles-papers-released-by-cia-to-princeton-are-now-online/
    Allen Dulles papers released by CIA to Princeton are now online
    Posted on January 23, 2008 by Dan Linke

    The Central Intelligence Agency has released to Princeton University some 7,800 documents covering the career of Allen W. Dulles, the agency's longest-serving director, which now can be viewed online at http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/st74cq497

    Dulles (1893-1969), a Princeton alumnus who headed the CIA from 1953 to 1961, was renowned for his role in shaping U.S. intelligence operations during the Cold War. Last March, the CIA released to Princeton a collection of letters, memoranda, reports and other papers - some still redacted - that the agency had removed from Dulles' papers after his death and before their transfer to the University in 1974.

    [Jan 08, 2016] Donald Trumps Vermont takeover: Republican invades Sanderss home turf

    Notable quotes:
    "... A lot fuss over a state that has less than .2% of the nations population. ..."
    "... Hitler reincarnated? Hitler hated Slavic peoples. Trump has married two Slavic women and has half-Slavic children. Hitler famously hated Jews. Trump has Jewish grandchildren. His daughter Ivanka married an observant Jewish man and they have several children. I could list much, much more, but you get my point. ..."
    "... Before liberal Democrats flock to Hillary Clinton they should remember she stands firmly to Bernies right on Wall Street reform, healthcare, campaign finance reform, foreign interventionism, education policy and basically every issue of consequence. ..."
    "... He has consistently shown the courage to go where he knows he is on hostile territory. ..."
    "... Trump is bold, he is a brilliant campaigner. His recent Instragram ad featuring the Clintons was clever, vicious and funny all at the same time. This man is unafraid to get down and in the trenches and fight fire with fire. I like it. I like it a lot. ..."
    "... Like East Germany? Obviously Mr. Jacobs never was in East Germany. I was there in 1964. First of all, there would not have been a contested election. Secondly, protesters would have lost more than their coats. ..."
    "... But this is not journalism as the headline suggests. It is a well-crafted hit piece. ..."
    "... I would like to see Obama, Hillary, Sanders, Cruz, Rubio, and Deer-in-the-headlights-Jeb! have the same kinds of rallies that Trump has. They would have an extremely difficult time. Actually, it would be kinda hilarious. ..."
    "... And, compared to many other Trump gatherings, this one was very small, about 1400 people. I love like to see Hillary talk to, say, 10,000 people without any script.... and then take unscreened questions, as Trump so often does. ..."
    "... This undoubtedly has more than a little to do with the states very small population: there are 25 cities in the US with populations greater than Vermonts 625,000. ..."
    "... As the article suggested, Sanders policies are not universally shared - but Sanders is personally very well liked and trusted even by people would always vote generic Republican over generic Democrat. ..."
    "... I wonder if the gentleman realizes the irony that Trump made his money the old fashioned way , he inherited it. ..."
    Jan 08, 2016 | theguardian.com

    Djinn666, 8 Jan 2016 18:22

    A lot fuss over a state that has less than .2% of the nation's population. On a lighter note, why isn't the Guardian covering the campaign of Vermin Supreme. He's more realistic then the two front runners.

    RollTide16 -> willowmanvt , 24m ago
    Hitler reincarnated? Hitler hated Slavic peoples. Trump has married two Slavic women and has half-Slavic children. Hitler famously hated Jews. Trump has Jewish grandchildren. His daughter Ivanka married an observant Jewish man and they have several children. I could list much, much more, but you get my point.
    Bix2bop , 29m ago
    Bernie "I don't have a super PAC, I don't even have a backpack" Sanders, England's favorite "socialist," is just as big a gun nut as Donald Trump or any other Republican. He has a 100% rating from the NRA.

    The following is from Slate which is a more reliable source of information than the Guardian.

    But before liberal Democrats flock to Sanders, they should remember that the Vermont senator stands firmly to Clinton's right on one issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base: gun control. During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control bills. He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory-one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_

    MooseMcNaulty -> Bix2bop , 8 Jan 2016 18:33
    Before liberal Democrats flock to Hillary Clinton they should remember she stands firmly to Bernie's right on Wall Street reform, healthcare, campaign finance reform, foreign interventionism, education policy and basically every issue of consequence.

    Single issue voting is dumb, and Bernie's stance on gun control is not that of an NRA stooge, anyway. Holding manufacturers responsible for gun violence is one of the stupidest ideas ever to come from the simple minded American liberal, and I'm quite glad the man voted against it.

    LFCarp -> 2headedboy , 44m ago
    Trump's charisma (or whatever you want to call it!) attracts people who want to come out of the shadows and support him while he flaunts their racist views and fears in public. Trump isn't conning his supporters, his fans are happy they get to hear what they've been thinking all along. Thinking that this crap is good for the country? The Republican peons are fooling themselves. Unfortunately Democrats are fooling themselves, too, thinking members of their own party are not like Trump's fans.
    RollTide16 , 48m ago
    Donald Trump has balls as big as some planets. He has consistently shown the courage to go where he knows he is on hostile territory. The magazines, Rolling Stone and Esquire, both who did hit pieces on him. He will go on any talk show on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, where he is met with furious indignation and disrespect. Towns like Burlington VT which is clearly Sanders territory. Trump is bold, he is a brilliant campaigner. His recent Instragram ad featuring the Clintons was clever, vicious and funny all at the same time. This man is unafraid to get down and in the trenches and fight fire with fire. I like it. I like it a lot.
    J.K. Stevens -> Dan Wipper , 49m ago
    Trump is a true Patriot to the money changers in the temple.
    ReasonableDemocrat , 1h ago
    This article creates a false narrative that implies that there is a vast right-wing movement in Vermont. It's, therefore, worth reiterating that Bernie won his last state-wide election with 71% of the vote.
    Sfan Jeffery -> Cash Weigand 1h ago
    Much as I like the Guardian, they always run click-bait articles like this. Anti-Americanism really sells on this board, so they make sure to feature highly distorted articles that confirm their readers' prejudices against Americans. It's almost a sport on here. Goes with the territory.
    Nevis7 2h ago
    His rise is not the fringe right's fault. It's the left's fault. Let me say it again, it's the left's fault. The Democrats should not have pursued and maintained the open border policy and repetitive amnesty that we've been living with for decades. Without that issue, he'd have dropped out by now. Instead, the Democrats thought they were buying all future elections with unrestricted immigration - and no doubt they sure have bought a lot of votes. The consequence of that decision, however, was to empower the far right platform as the broader platform that Americans of many different backgrounds rally around. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the longer this country waits to seriously deal with the issue of illegal immigration, the louder and more extreme our leaders will become on the issue.
    lapenseuse 2h ago
    The Trumpaloosa performance opposite Bernie's headquarters in Burlington, VT is so telling.

    The Donald and Hillary must be worried for them to go to Bernie's turf so dramatically.

    Trump's main purpose is to knock out Bernie (who's for the 99%) for Hillary's sake as the two COLLUDE toward keeping their billionaire (for the 1%) taxes minimal.

    Let Bernie say it best:

    "Donald Trump and I finally agree on something. He wants to run against me. I want to run against him. It would be an extraordinary campaign and I am confident I would win.

    The American people will not support a candidate trying to divide us up by where we came from. They will not support a candidate who does not favor raising the minimum wage and who thinks wages in the country are too high. They will not support a candidate who thinks climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese. They will not support a candidate who wants to give huge tax breaks to billionaires like himself."

    Bernie is already gathering the critical mass that will elect him over Hillary as indicated by this recent Quinnipiac University poll showing that Sanders outperformed Trump 51 percent to 38 percent:

    https://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us12222015_Uhkm63g.pdf

    Let's see how the Hillarybots spin this one.

    Mark Stadsklev 2h ago
    Do you know what the biggest socialist program in the world is? The US military.
    Beowullf , 2h ago
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-destroys-donald-trump-by-13-points-6-more-than-clinton-_b_8936840.html
    Mick Lee Green 3h ago
    "I work for myself, not other people" this quote succinctly expresses the culture of the extremists of the right wing. Isolated, no sense of connection to others, certainly not those less fortunate than themselves. Not inclined to make any contribution to the society they live in. This also illustrates the effectiveness of the brainwashing perpetrated by those who benefit from people who adhere to this almost paranoid mindset.
    >oney1969 -> Ron Jacobs 3h ago
    "Overall, Vermonters tend to appreciate intelligence and honesty, something Trump doesn't seem to have much of in either regard."

    So 20,000 people show up for, what? Free hats?

    He didn't stumble and trip into first place. Maybe your definition of intelligence is a little skewed.

    And if you intend to vote for a democrat, Clinton, since she is a lock, honesty must mean nothing to you.

    Veronica Roach -> LibertineUSA 3h ago
    AND - Trump's worth is almost exactly the same as the point at which he inherited it - adjusted for actual today's value -- In other words he has done a lot of 'deals' but accomplished nothing very much - that point must make him so mad --

    I am betting he retires every night after having a good shower to rid himself of the stink from the 'low life' he has been hanging around with all day - that's what I think he really thinks of all these people who love him --

    Veronica Roach 4h ago
    " Trump is a little bit more high class" - this person has no concept of what high-class is - Trump is totally classless - his language skills are minimal, he talks rather like Sarah Palin, he is tacky & thinks his million-cost-gold-encrusted apartment is 'class' ? - hah --

    ... ... ...

    laredo33 4h ago
    Like East Germany? Obviously Mr. Jacobs never was in East Germany. I was there in 1964. First of all, there would not have been a contested election. Secondly, protesters would have lost more than their coats. I probably am as scornful of Mr. Trump as is Mr. Jacobs. But this is not journalism as the headline suggests. It is a well-crafted hit piece.
    bcarey 4h ago
    This Trump rally took place at the same time Obama was having his very carefully staged and controlled so-called "town hall".

    I would like to see Obama, Hillary, Sanders, Cruz, Rubio, and Deer-in-the-headlights-Jeb! have the same kinds of rallies that Trump has. They would have an extremely difficult time. Actually, it would be kinda hilarious.

    And, compared to many other Trump gatherings, this one was very small, about 1400 people. I love like to see Hillary talk to, say, 10,000 people without any script.... and then take unscreened questions, as Trump so often does.

    NatashaFatale 4h ago
    Vermont is a bad place to hold a rally for divisiveness. It still bipartisan in an old-fashioned way: rather than being split down the middle, people tend to pick who they vote for candidate by candidate. I don't know many people who vote a straight ticket. A lot of people who voted for the current Democratic governor, who is retiring, will vote for the Republican lieutenant governor as his successor because he's generally thought to have done a good job.

    This undoubtedly has more than a little to do with the state's very small population: there are 25 cities in the US with populations greater than Vermont's 625,000. If you're not housebound sooner or later you'll meet the governor and both US senators. As the article suggested, Sanders' policies are not universally shared - but Sanders is personally very well liked and trusted even by people would always vote generic Republican over generic Democrat.

    LibertineUSA 4h ago

    Unlike Sanders, Trump knew "nothing was free, someone's got to pay for it."

    I wonder if the gentleman realizes the irony that Trump made his money the "old fashioned way", he inherited it. The textbook example of getting money for nothing. Never mind the fact that he has filed multiple business bankruptcies, where he ended up getting goods and services "for nothing" by screwing his creditors...

    [Jan 08, 2016] Political positions of Bernie Sanders

    This is one of the few article where you can get real staff about positions, not personality related gossip like BusinessWeek and other rags feed to lemmings.
    Wikipedia

    A cornerstone of Sanders's campaign is to fight the increasing wealth inequality in the United States:

    What we have seen is that while the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which is now reaching obscene levels. This is a rigged economy , which works for the rich and the powerful, and is not working for ordinary Americans … You know, this country just does not belong to a handful of billionaires .

    -  The Guardian (April 2015) [8]

    In July 2015 Sanders introduced legislation that would incrementally increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by the year 2020. [10]

    Taxes

    Sanders supports repeal of some of the tax deductions that benefit hedge funds and corporations, and would raise taxes on capital gains and the wealthiest one percent of Americans. He would use some of the added revenues to lower the taxes of the middle and lower classes.[11][12] Sanders has suggested that he would be open to a 90% top marginal tax rate (a rate that last existed during the years after World War II) for the wealthiest earners,[13] and has proposed a top marginal rate of 65% for the federal estate tax, up from the current 40% rate.[14]

    Wall Street reform

    On May 6, 2015, Sanders introduced legislation to break up "too big to fail" financial institutions. With three of the four banks that were bailed out during the 2007–08 Global Financial Crisis now larger than they were then, Sanders believes that "no single financial institution should have holdings so extensive that its failure would send the world economy into crisis. If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist."[15][16] As a representative from Vermont, Sanders opposed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, signed into law in 1999 by then president Bill Clinton, which repealed the provision of the Glass–Steagall Act that prevents any financial institution from acting as both a securities firm and a commercial bank. Sanders supports legislation sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) to re-instate Glass–Steagall.[17]

    Trade

    Sanders is opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which he has called "a continuation of other disastrous trade agreements, like NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China." He has said he believes Americans need to rebuild their own manufacturing base by using American factories and supporting decent-paying jobs for American labor rather than outsourcing to China and other countries.[18][19]

    Jobs

    Saying "America once led the world in building and maintaining a nationwide network of safe and reliable bridges and roads. Today, nearly a quarter of the nation's 600,000 bridges have been designated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete...Almost one-third of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition...," Sanders has introduced amendments to Senate bills (S.Amendt.323) that promote the creation of millions of middle-class jobs by investing in infrastructure, paid for by closing loopholes in the corporate and international tax system.[20][21] He also supports legislation that would make it easier for workers to join or form a union.[22] Sanders' campaign website also has focused on the concerns of both the long-term unemployed and the underemployed, citing that "the real unemployment rate is much higher than the "official" figure typically reported in the newspapers. When you include workers who have given up looking for jobs, or those who are working part-time when they want to work full-time, the real number is much higher than official figures would suggest."[23]

    Employee ownership

    Sanders supports the establishment of worker-owned cooperatives and introduced legislation in June 2014 that would aid workers who wanted to "form their own businesses or to set up worker-owned cooperatives."[22][24][25] As early as 1976, Sanders was a proponent of workplace democracy, saying, "I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves."[26]

    Offshore tax havens

    Noting that American corporations are collectively holding more than $1 trillion in profits in offshore tax haven countries, Sanders has introduced legislation that would crack down on offshore tax havens by requiring companies to pay the top U.S. corporate tax rate on profits held abroad.[27] On his website Sanders offers examples of large American companies that paid no federal taxes and even received tax refunds, with many of them receiving large amounts in financial assistance during the recent financial crisis and continuing to receive billions in subsidies.[28] Sanders feels this is unfair and damages America's economy, believing the money used for refunds and subsidies should instead be invested in American small businesses and the working people.[29]

    [Jan 06, 2016] Hillary tried Rovian tactics: used duplicity in her assault of Bernie proposal to tame TBTF financial institutions

    Should Hillary cut the chase and just hire Karl Rove ? She a a neocon like him, so it will be a good match.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Mr. Sanders fundraising has surpassed expectations. Lacking the donor network the Clinton family built over a quarter century on the national stage, Mr. Sanders has nearly matched her fundraising haul. ..."
    "... Oh, Hillary! Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were large investment banks. They werent the largest, but they definitely were banks. And giant investment bank Goldman Sachs was connected at the hip to AIG. I cant help noticing that she failed to mention Washington Mutual or Countrywide Finance, two large banks / savings and loan associations, which were also neck deep in the collapse. ..."
    "... Sociopaths always have a slick rationalization at hand, to recast their venal predation as self-sacrificing philanthropy. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Policy

    Clinton, in Iowa: ""You know, I think Bernie's giving a speech today in New York about what he wants to do to shut down the big banks. Everybody who's looked at my proposals says my proposals are tougher, more effective, more comprehensive. Because, yeah, I take on the banks, but remember, part of what caused the mess we had in '07-'08 were not the big banks. It was Lehman Brothers. It was Bear Stearns. It was AIG, the giant insurance company. I want to go after everybody who poses a risk to our financial system," Clinton said to applause from the more than 500 people crowded into the lobby of Sioux City's historic Orpheum Theater" [ Des Moines Register ]. Chutzpah! And very Rovian: Assault your enemy's strength.

    Clinton: "There needs to be a rival organization to the NRA of responsible gun owners" [ Raw Story ].

    The Voters

    "POLITICO has learned that his campaign several months ago assembled an experienced data team to build sophisticated models to transform fervor into votes" [ Politico ]. "The team is led by two low-profile former Republican National Committee data strategists, Matt Braynard and Witold Chrabaszcz, and includes assistance from the political data outfit L2."

    Money

    "Mr. Sanders's fundraising has surpassed expectations. Lacking the donor network the Clinton family built over a quarter century on the national stage, Mr. Sanders has nearly matched her fundraising haul. In the final quarter of 2015, he raised more than $33 million, compared to her $37 million. In the third quarter, the Sanders campaign collected $26 million; the Clinton campaign, $28 million" [ Wall Street Journal ]. Without PAC and SuperPAC money, or the "ginormous and ever-evolving hairball of tangled and conflicted personal and institutional relationships" that you get with the corrupt Clinton dynasty, either.

    Selected Skeptical Comments
    Vatch , January 6, 2016 at 2:23 pm

    Clinton, in Iowa: "… but remember, part of what caused the mess we had in '07-'08 were not the big banks. It was Lehman Brothers. It was Bear Stearns. It was AIG, the giant insurance company."

    Oh, Hillary! Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were large investment banks. They weren't the largest, but they definitely were banks. And giant investment bank Goldman Sachs was connected at the hip to AIG. I can't help noticing that she failed to mention Washington Mutual or Countrywide Finance, two large banks / savings and loan associations, which were also neck deep in the collapse.

    Jim Haygood , January 6, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Hillary focuses on the investment banks because her consort, "Bill," signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.

    Letting commercial banks into investment banking helped fuel the housing securitization bubble that culminated in the 2008 crisis, as well as the perceived need to extend TARP loans to every TBTF bank (since their investment banking activities made them riskier and increased their capital needs during financial stress).

    Sociopaths always have a slick rationalization at hand, to recast their venal predation as self-sacrificing philanthropy.

    Synoia , January 6, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Clinton: "There needs to be a rival organization to the NRA of responsible gun owners"

    There is. The National Guard.

    [Jan 05, 2016] Paul Krugman: Elections Have Consequences

    Notable quotes:
    "... So self-identifying as a Republican now means associating yourself with a party that has moved sharply to the right since 1995. If you like, being a Republican used to mean supporting a party that nominated George H.W. Bush, but now it means supporting a party where a majority of primary voters **** support Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Being a Democrat used to mean supporting a party that nominated Bill Clinton; it now means supporting a party likely to nominate, um, Hillary Clinton. And views of conservatism/liberalism have probably moved with that change in the parties. ..."
    "... Yes the differences between candidates may not be nearly as great as you want it to be - but the idea that it makes no difference whether the GOP or Democratic candidate gets to be president is idiotic. Anybody who can be bothered looking through executive actions during Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama years will recognize a huge difference. ..."
    "... The world of the NY Times, Wapo, the Atlantic, the New Republic, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, National Review - its all one intellectually gated community where the affluent talk among themselves at the club house about their slightly different approaches to maintaining order are protecting elite privileges and power. ..."
    "... I didnt say they were either stupid or corrupt. They are intelligent people whose political orientation reflects the general predilections and interests of their class. Thats really not much different than most people in America. But the class divides are intensifying, which is why the discourse of that establishment group is of increasingly diminished relevance to what the other 80% of the country is talking about. ..."
    "... The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and financial regulation is stark. These economic issues are studiously avoided by DeLong and Krugman because they are, and always have been, loyal insiders to the establishment. ..."
    "... I took it that what Julio was mainly referring to was that the establishment discourse has moved so far to the right that someone like Krugman now represents the far left of what that establishment will tolerate. ..."
    "... I think Krugman the columnist started as someone above the fray , engaged in an academic exercise; and has since learned he must support his allies, even if he has intellectual disagreements with them. ..."
    "... However there is one key difference: Sanders has been able to energize the Democratic base in a way that Clinton the policy wonk simply cant. ..."
    "... The studied failure of the fierce critic of the Washington Post and New York Times from the economics department of the University of California at Berkeley to so much as regret the firing of the only writer on labor affairs at either paper tells of just how little regard there is for the affairs of ordinary workers. ..."
    "... Even Brookings is getting worried about whats going on with the growing cultural isolation of the relatively affluent: ..."
    "... I had a very similar experience with the people I met at my Ivy League university. A depressing percentage of the student body consisted of spoiled trust fund babies, many of whom were apparently ignored or otherwise mistreated by their parents and exhibited a shocking array of psychological and substance abuse problems. ..."
    "... But these people were of a distinctly different class than the many nominally upper-middle class people I encounter in daily life. Even now, high as my household income is, I would immediately be detected as a mere prole by them, a lower class person. ..."
    "... Fitzgerald was absolutely right -- the truly well off are indeed different from you and me. Even if you dont realize it, rest assured that they do. ..."
    "... The concept of class is also just a model, and not rigidly tied to economic markers. People in comparable occupational settings or type of economic participation can have very different incomes and ability to afford certain lifestyles. ..."
    "... E.g. regardless of your pay level, if your occupational situation is such that you have to essentially show up for work every day and follow somebody elses directives (to make a relatively low-risk income), then it would be a stretch to consider you upper middle class. ..."
    "... From what Ive observed, following the 2008 crash a lot of upper-middle class people suddenly realized that the differences between themselves and those living in poverty are actually much smaller than the differences between themselves and the truly wealthy. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    As the title says, elections matter:
    Elections Have Consequences, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times : ...I'm a big geek... I was eagerly awaiting the I.R.S.'s tax tables for 2013... And what these tables show is that elections really do have consequences.

    You might think that this is obvious. But on the left, in particular, there are some people who, disappointed by the limits of what President Obama has accomplished, minimize the differences between the parties. Whoever the next president is, they assert - or at least ... if it's not Bernie Sanders - things will remain pretty much the same, with the wealthy continuing to dominate the scene. ...

    But the truth is that Mr. Obama's election ... had some real, quantifiable consequences. ...

    If Mitt Romney had won, we can be sure that Republicans would have found a way to prevent these tax hikes. ...

    Mr. Obama has effectively rolled back not just the Bush tax cuts but Ronald Reagan's as well..., about $70 billion a year in revenue. This happens to be in the same ballpark as both food stamps and ... this year's net outlays on Obamacare. So we're not talking about something trivial.

    Speaking of Obamacare, that's another thing Republicans would surely have killed if 2012 had gone the other way. ... And the effect on health care has been huge...

    Now, to be fair, some widely predicted consequences of Mr. Obama's re-election - predicted by his opponents - didn't happen. Gasoline prices didn't soar. Stocks didn't plunge. The economy didn't collapse..., and the unemployment rate is a full point lower than the rate Mr. Romney promised to achieve by the end of 2016.

    In other words, the 2012 election didn't just allow progressives to achieve some important goals. It also gave them an opportunity to show that achieving these goals is feasible. No, asking the rich to pay somewhat more in taxes while helping the less fortunate won't destroy the economy.

    So now we're heading for another presidential election. And once again the stakes are high. Whoever the Republicans nominate will be committed to destroying Obamacare and slashing taxes on the wealthy - in fact, the current G.O.P. tax-cut plans make the Bush cuts look puny. Whoever the Democrats nominate will, first and foremost, be committed to defending the achievements of the past seven years.

    The bottom line is that presidential elections matter, a lot, even if the people on the ballot aren't as fiery as you might like. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

    anne :
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/academics-and-politics/

    January 4, 2015

    Academics And Politics
    By Paul Krugman

    Via Noah Smith, * an interesting back-and-forth about the political leanings of professors. Conservatives are outraged ** at what they see as a sharp leftward movement in the academy:

    [Graph]

    But what's really happening here? Did professors move left, or did the meaning of conservatism in America change in a way that drove scholars away? You can guess what I think. But here's some evidence. First, using the DW-nominate measure *** - which uses roll-call votes over time to identify a left-right spectrum, and doesn't impose any constraint of symmetry between the parties - what we've seen over the past generation is a sharp rightward (up in the figure) move by Republicans, with no comparable move by Democrats, especially in the North:

    [Graph]

    So self-identifying as a Republican now means associating yourself with a party that has moved sharply to the right since 1995. If you like, being a Republican used to mean supporting a party that nominated George H.W. Bush, but now it means supporting a party where a majority of primary voters **** support Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Being a Democrat used to mean supporting a party that nominated Bill Clinton; it now means supporting a party likely to nominate, um, Hillary Clinton. And views of conservatism/liberalism have probably moved with that change in the parties.

    Furthermore, if your image is one of colleges being taken over by Marxist literary theorists, you should know that the political leanings of hard scientists are if anything more pronounced than those of academics in general. From Pew: *****

    [Chart]

    Why is this? Well, climate denial and hostility to the theory of evolution are pretty good starting points.

    Overall, the evidence looks a lot more consistent with a story that has academics rejecting a conservative party that has moved sharply right than it does with a story in which academics have moved left.

    Now, you might argue that academics should reflect the political spectrum in the nation - that we need affirmative action for conservative professors, even in science. But do you really want to go there?

    * https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/683784992380424192

    ** http://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/

    *** http://voteview.com/Political_Polarization_2014.htm

    **** http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

    ***** http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

    anne -> anne...
    Wild conservatives have been attacking supposed liberals at universities since the time of Joseph McCarthy. The attacks have changed in nuance now and again but been persistent since the close of the 1940s. Whether the attacks extend back before the late 1940s is a matter I have to look into.
    DeDude :
    Yes the differences between candidates may not be nearly as great as you want it to be - but the idea that it "makes no difference" whether the GOP or Democratic candidate gets to be president is idiotic. Anybody who can be bothered looking through executive actions during Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama years will recognize a huge difference.
    Dan Kervick :
    Elections matter. Nominations matter too. But the only nomination battle Paul Krugman is apparently interested in is the Republican one, which he trolls constantly to amuse himself. This despite the fact that there are very major policy difference, both foreign and domestic, present on the Democratic side - along with major differences in political alliances, monetary support bases and key constituencies.

    Paul Krugman is a middle of the road, mainstream fellow who manages to line up on the "left" according to the austerely conservative economic standards of the establishment media. If Krugman were chief economic adviser - or even president - nothing very important in America would change economically. So when he tries to tell "progressives" about what would advance "their goals", his words are a good candidate for in one ear, out the other treatment.

    Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred Hiatt. Apart from removing another left wing economic voice from the establishment public sphere, this helps clear the decks for a 2017 Middle East war after Clinton gets control of the war room from Obama. Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong - who I guess is pretty cool with it.

    The world of the NY Times, Wapo, the Atlantic, the New Republic, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, National Review - it's all one intellectually gated community where the affluent talk among themselves at the club house about their slightly different approaches to maintaining order are protecting elite privileges and power.

    Dan Kervick -> EMichael...
    I didn't say they were either stupid or corrupt. They are intelligent people whose political orientation reflects the general predilections and interests of their class. That's really not much different than most people in America. But the class divides are intensifying, which is why the discourse of that establishment group is of increasingly diminished relevance to what the other 80% of the country is talking about.
    Dan Kervick -> EMichael...
    That's what the elite is always going to do. People who are interested in significant social change should never count on elitists coming down out of the clouds to save them.
    anne -> Dan Kervick...
    Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred Hiatt.... Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong - who I guess is pretty cool with it....

    [ Telling and saddening, but this should not be a surprising silence by an academic who periodically wildly smashes liberals. ]

    Julio -> Dan Kervick...
    "Paul Krugman is a middle of the road, mainstream fellow..."

    I am old enough to remember a time when he would have been one. But not now.

    "So when he tries to tell "progressives" about what would advance "their goals", his words are a good candidate for in one ear, out the other treatment."

    No: they are a candidate for a place to start a conversation with liberals, to expand their views of what's possible.

    Dan Kervick -> Julio ...
    Krugman is not interested in such discussions. As has been pointed out several times, he and DeLong have studiously avoided any engagement with the issues that are being hotly contested in the Democratic Party's primary campaign. They are bright and well-informed fellows, so this is no ignorant oversight and is certainly a deliberate, tactical political choice.
    EMichael -> Dan Kervick...
    Why in the world do you care why two economists who you disrespect on many levels have not discussed the Dem candidates?
    yuan -> EMichael...
    Funny how you skipped over the word "issues" and moved the goal post to "dem candidates".

    The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and financial regulation is stark. These economic issues are studiously avoided by DeLong and Krugman because they are, and always have been, loyal insiders to the establishment.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/nothing-to-say/

    Sanjait -> yuan...
    "The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and financial regulation is stark."

    Sanders shouts about income inequality but like Hillary has no real plan to impact it except at the margins.

    On financial regulation also, Sanders makes the louder noises and trots out Glass Steagall often, but Hillary, not Bernie, is the one who actually has a coherent and plausible plan for limiting systemic financial risk. Bernie fans seem fundamentally incapable of unwilling to process this fact, to the detriment of everyone.

    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
    I take exception to your (mis)use of Krugman to support your narrative. As Julio notes above (I think), Krugman's early writings were notably more middle of the road; he started off as a committed centrist, taking on left and right equally whenever he felt one side or the other was peddling nonsense. Over time I've seen his writing become more political and more consistently liberal, even as his paycheck has presumably increased.

    As an example, back in the '90s Krugman was slamming Robert Reich as a nonsense-peddling "policy entrepreneur", but by 2015 he was writing a glowing review of Reich's book, "Saving Capitalism".

    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    I took it that what Julio was mainly referring to was that the establishment discourse has moved so far to the right that someone like Krugman now represents the far left of what that establishment will tolerate.
    Julio -> Dan Kervick...
    That was indeed my point.
    Julio -> Syaloch...
    I would not call his review "glowing", but I agree with your example. I think Krugman the columnist started as someone "above the fray", engaged in an academic exercise; and has since learned he must support his allies, even if he has intellectual disagreements with them.
    Julio -> Dan Kervick...
    "Krugman is not interested in such discussions."

    So? If I am correct in stating that he represents a lot of the liberal spectrum, then those are the people we need to move "left" or, as I prefer to put it, enlarge their view of what's possible.

    Sanders IMO is doing a good job of this. He is being loudly ignored by Krugman, which makes your point; and also by a lot of liberals who think he cannot win because, um, he's unelectable -- which makes mine.

    Dan Kervick -> Julio ...
    It doesn't seem like we disagree much on the background facts. But if someone is engaging in a deliberate strategy of ignoring the left, there doesn't seem to be much point in pretending they are having a discussion with the left.

    One way to try to move more people to the left is to encourage them to stop lending so much credence to establishment opinions. Krugman's ego is big enough that if he detects his relevance and popularity slipping away, he will move along with the zeitgeist to go where the people are.

    Syaloch -> Julio ...
    I don't think there's nearly as much of a separation between Krugman and Sanders as you guys seem to think.

    At least Sanders doesn't seem to think so.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/05/bernie-sanders-cabinet_n_7730208.html

    Bernie Sanders Hints At What A Sanders Administration Cabinet Could Look Like

    Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) offered a first glimpse on Sunday of some of the people he might consider for his cabinet in a potential Sanders administration, and a few that he certainly won't.

    "My cabinet would not be dominated by representatives of Wall Street," Sanders said on CNN's "State of the Union." "I think Wall Street's played a horrendous role in recent years, in negatively impacting our economy and in making the rich richer. There are a lot of great public servants out there, great economists who for years have been standing up for the middle class and the working families of this country."

    Prompted by host Jake Tapper, Sanders went on to praise Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist. Krugman is a vocal opponent of tax cuts for the rich, and he has warned readers for years about the dangers of income inequality. "Krugman does a great job," Sanders said.

    Also doing a great job, Sanders said, is Columbia University economics professor and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, whose recent work has focused on the perils of radical free markets, such as those espoused by some in the libertarian wing of the GOP.

    Sanders also singled out Robert Reich, the former labor secretary under President Bill Clinton, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley: "I think [he] is doing a fantastic job." Reich has long been an influential backer of labor unions, which have come under attack from Republican governors in recent years.

    Still, Sanders said, "it's a little bit too early, I must say, to be appointing a cabinet. Let me get elected first."

    In recent weeks, Sanders' long shot campaign for the Democratic nomination has captured a swell of momentum on the left, drawing larger crowds in Iowa than Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic front-runner.

    "All over this country, younger people, working people, elderly people, are moving in our direction, because they want a candidate to take on the establishment," Sanders said.

    Julio -> Syaloch...
    I don't think Krugman disagrees with Sanders, but he seems to ignore him. Like everyone else in the media, he's devoted much more time to the Republicans.
    Syaloch -> Julio ...
    But that's because it's always been his style to write that way. Krugman has always spent most of his effort attacking those who he perceives as peddling nonsense, or providing additional evidence to back up a position he has taken against a nonsense peddler. He rarely spends time talking about those he agrees with. Even in cases where he has written approvingly about Obama or the ACA, he's done so primarily as a counterweight to all those he sees taking the opposite (and incorrect) view.

    While he hasn't said much about Sanders aside from praising his example of Denmark as a role model for change, he hasn't said a whole lot about Clinton either. Probably his most explicit comment on either was in his column comparing their proposed Wall Street reforms, where he concluded:

    "If a Democrat does win, does it matter much which one it is? Probably not. Any Democrat is likely to retain the financial reforms of 2010, and seek to stiffen them where possible. But major new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress, which isn't likely to happen for a long time.

    "In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they're trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html

    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    Yes, but there are clearly more differences between Clinton and Sanders than just differences over financial policy - the most obvious and large one being their differences over health care.
    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
    In terms of what they're likely to be able to deliver in the current political climate there really doesn't seem to be that much difference between them.

    However there is one key difference: Sanders has been able to energize the Democratic base in a way that Clinton the policy wonk simply can't.

    But we digress.

    pgl -> Dan Kervick...
    Bernie is endorsing single payer. That was HillaryCare ala 1993. That was her position in 2008...
    Dan Kervick -> pgl...
    What the heck are you talking about? The Clinton health Care Plan of 1993 was not a single payer plan. The 2008 plan was also by no means a single payer plan. And single payer is certainly not her position now, since she has come out strongly against it on the oh-so-progressive grounds that it will ... (gasp) ... raise taxes! Good grief.
    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    Do you really think that the differences between Sanders and Clinton on how college education is to be paid for, to take one example, is trivial?

    Painting the large differences between Clinton and Sanders as trivial seems like a case of dumbing down the debate so that people don't pay attention to it.

    Krugman frequently devotes a great deal of time to people who are not peddling nonsense. He just participated in an involved debate with DeLong and Summers, two people he agrees with on most issues. And he has done the same in many past columns debating the views of various esteemed economics colleagues at length.

    pgl -> Syaloch...
    "Sanders went on to praise Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist. Krugman is a vocal opponent of tax cuts for the rich, and he has warned readers for years about the dangers of income inequality."

    Even more places where Bernie Sanders has basically called JohnH a liar.

    anne -> Julio ...
    If I am correct in stating that he represents a lot of the liberal spectrum, then those are the people we need to move "left" or, as I prefer to put it, enlarge their view of what's possible.

    Sanders IMO is doing a good job of this. He is being loudly ignored by Krugman...

    [ Nicely expressed. ]

    pgl -> Dan Kervick...
    So go write these comments over at Paul's place. Oh wait - you are a coward. Never mind.
    Julio -> pgl...
    You know, of all the insults you freely toss about, this "cowardice" one is the dumbest. We're all here to discuss Thoma's selections, but we're cowards if we criticize them here?
    Dan Kervick -> pgl...
    I have written several comments at "Paul's" blog that were directly critical of his arguments. I have also posted many critical comments on Twitter directly @ Krugman. I have no problem going right at people. But I don't like the NY Times format as much because it is harder to have a live debate there.
    anne -> Dan Kervick...
    The word "troll" is used to intimidate and silence, and used to depict the writer in question is wildly false and mean-spirited.
    Dan Kervick -> anne...
    Lol... yeah, I know the feeling.
    Sanjait -> pgl...
    Delong isnt a socialist, democratic or otherwise.

    And this bent of creating purity tests for commentators and politicians to define who is sufficiently progressive or more progressive or whatever, it reeks of Republicans and their conservative tribalism.

    It's asinine and anti intellectual, and I condemn it unequivocally.

    Dan Kervick -> Sanjait...
    It's not a purity test of any kind. I don't know what "purity" means in this context. There is no sense in which democratic socialists are "purer" than liberals. They just have different values and goals. For socialists, a society based on sharing, solidarity, equality and cooperation is the highest ideal, where for liberals the highest idea is the expression of personal liberty, potential and individuality. There are certainly ways in which these outlooks can find specific expressions at a given point in time that involve significant overlap, but their chief governing ideals are different.


    I agree with you completely that DeLong simply has a different ideology or social philosophy than someone like Sanders or Meyerson, and I object to the dumbing down of the debate between these two camps by such trite slogans as "Oh, you know after all, we are all on the same team". That's silly. It confuses the highly contingent, shifting and adventitious alliances that are part of the American party system with the coherence of a philosophical stance. These differences and disputes should be debated, instead of attempting to muddy and flatten them all under the foolish fantasy that it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference whether a society moves toward an ideal of progress fashioned from democratic socialist principles or one fashioned from liberal principles.

    I brought DeLong in this context because he is a noted scourge of the Washington Post and its op-ed writers, so if he had any sympathy for Meyerson's views, this would be more low-hanging fruit for him. But nothing so far. And my guess is that the main reason is that Meyerson is just not DeLong's cup of tea. But who knows. the year is young.

    Sanjait -> Dan Kervick...
    Tl;dr

    What I do notice is a lot of navel gazing talk about how "left" this or that commentator is, which as I said is asinine, anti-intellectual, and ironically very similar to the way conservatives operate.

    Dan Kervick -> Sanjait...
    Great. You think it's navel gazing. Easy for you to say from your desk writing insurance policies or whatever the hell it is you do. But it does make a real difference to millions and millions of people who don't have the lives you and I have, and whose lives aren't going to get *notably* better once Krugman, DeLong and Summers decide which particular version of capitalist oppression their best models point toward. Those people are dying of American capitalism, and their kids are going to die of it too, and whether the ruling class decides on one set of interest rates or a slightly higher set of interest rates only marginally affects the precise speed at which the barons who own their lives are able to kill them.

    If people have the honestly to tell me, "Look, I'm a believer in good ol' American capitalism, and that lefty stuff just won't fly with me," that's one thing. But when they try to convince me that the kind of world they are after is really the same kind of world I want, just so I'll vote for their politicians - then I get ornery. Maybe I'd have an easier time with the conservatives because at least the look me in the face and say, "I hate your pinko guts".

    The debate has gotten half crazy. Someone like Brad DeLong has called himself a "card-carrying neoliberal". And yet I get pilloried for calling DeLong a neoliberal - as though I libeled him - or for calling attention to the apparently uncomfortable fact that since neoliberals are obviously not leftists, then DeLong is no kind of leftist whatsoever. Or for noting that since DeLong is a loyal student of his mentor and adviser Larry Summers - who is about as mainstream a player as they come in the global capitalist system - that makes Delong a thoroughly establishment economist. (This isn't about "purity". DeLong is not an "impure" half-assed lefty. He's just a mainline capitalist.) Or for having the audacity to want to *debate* from the left the ideas that come up here instead of joining in with the yea-and-amen corner where everybody just agrees with one another. Oh no, we're all on the same team! Stop being such an annoying troll and criticizing the team! Larry Summers - that great man on the make who was the highest paid professor in the history of Harvard, and sold himself and his thoroughly mainstream "advice" to some Wall Street firm for $5 million/yr in between other gigs - he's also on the team bro!

    I've made many good faith efforts in the past to calmly debate the ideas of people whose moral outlooks I disdain and whose best proposals amount to no more than marginal differences in a system I detest. In return, I get insulted routinely and asked to leave. But hey, we're all on the same team!

    It seems to me that the liberals are having a crisis of faith and confidence because their late 20th century paradigm is crumbling apart from the inside, they don't know what to replace it with, and they don't know what side they are going to end up standing on when it falls. Look at poor pgl. He can't even remember what "single payer" means any more. I haven't encountered a single liberal Clinton supporter who is positively enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. Frankly, they all seem defensive at best about her, and somewhat scared. But they fell in early with the TINA argument and the strategy of smothering debate under the Clinton machine, and now having let the Inevitability Express get so far down the tracks they don't know what else to do. And when that crazed, neocon-tilting fanatic launches her global military crusades in 2017, you guys will all be investing some sob story about how Bush is to blame, or Reagan is to blame, or Calvin Coolidge or William McKinley is to blame. A fat lot of good that will do the body parts she scatters all over the West Bank, Syria, Iran or whatever other places we're into by then.

    Krugman had a meltdown last week - as he and the other chronic countercyclical stabilizers apparently do whenever anybody uses that dangerous and threatening word "structural", pointing at the possibility of changing the system and not just stabilizing it - because even a middle of the road guy like Tim Taylor had the audacity to "change the subject" and talk about something he actually wants talk about ... as though Paul Krugman gets to decide what the "subject" is, and everyone who doesn't talk about what Krugman demands they talk about is written up for changing that subject. Screw Krugman. He wouldn't know what "the subject" is if he tripped over it lying in the street on his way to some Manhattan train station. In fact, he probably has tripped over it.

    I'm so tired of dealing with liberals with their chronic cases of double-think, unresolved intellectual conflicts, self-deluding irony and fuzzy, snarky ambivalence about everything. Pick a damn side. You are either with the plutocratic owners who dominate and run everyone else's lives - or you are on the side of taking them down and leveling the field.

    anne -> Dan Kervick...
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/no-happy-new-year-at-the-washington-post-harold-meyerson-gets-the-boot

    December 31, 2015

    No Happy New Year at the Washington Post: Harold Meyerson Gets the Boot

    The Washington Post opinion pages is not a place most people go for original thought, even if they do provide much material for Beat the Press. One major exception to the uniformity and unoriginality that have marked the section for decades was Harold Meyerson's column. Meyerson has been writing a weekly column for the Post for the last thirteen years. He was told by opinion page editor Fred Hiatt that his contract would not be renewed for 2016. *

    According to Meyerson, Hiatt gave as his reasons that his columns had bad social media metrics and that he focused too much on issues like worker power. The first part of this story is difficult to believe. Do other Post columnists, like Beat the Press regulars Robert Samuelson and Charles Lane, really have such great social media metrics?

    As far as the second part, yes Meyerson was a different voice. His columns showed a concern for the ordinary workers who make up the overwhelming majority of the country's population. Apparently this is a liability at the Post.

    * http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2015/12/washington-post-harold-meyerson-columns-failed-to-attract-readers-217256

    -- Dean Baker

    anne -> anne...
    The studied failure of the fierce critic of the Washington Post and New York Times from the economics department of the University of California at Berkeley to so much as regret the firing of the only writer on labor affairs at either paper tells of just how little regard there is for the affairs of ordinary workers.

    Not surprising, but disappointing nonetheless.

    Sanjait -> anne...
    Oh please.

    Delong has been writing loudly about the need for pro labor fiscal and monetary policy for the last 6 years. He's a leading voice on this topic, despite being "shrill."

    To anyone that has been paying attention even a little, he has more than firmly established his concern for workers.

    You're just weirdly upset because he called the Yale protesters stupid. Others here are upset because, like conservative tribalists, they think the best way to promote progressive causes is to ignore fact based debates and instead talk about who is or isn't an apostate. It's really very ugly.

    ken melvin -> Dan Kervick...
    Two states, maybe?
    am -> Dan Kervick...
    Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred Hiatt. Apart from removing another left wing economic voice from the establishment public sphere, this helps clear the decks for a 2017 Middle East war after Clinton gets control of the war room from Obama. Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong - who I guess is pretty cool with it.

    This is from your comment. You go from the sacking of a journalist to clearing the ground for a middle east war and then connect it all to Brad De Long. I hope you see the defects in your thinking.

    Dan Kervick -> am...
    OK, let's wait and see what DeLong says.

    However, I stand by the idea that one of Hiatt's beefs with Meyerson is that Meyerson is a critic of the generally neoconservative foreign policies that Hiatt staunchly promotes. I think Hiatt is likely rubbing his hands in glee over the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, since her foreign policy will be much more aggressive and neocon-friendly than Obama's - and also much more so than a president Trump, for that matter, whom the neocons despise and fear.

    djb -> Dan Kervick...
    sorry to bother you dan but I couldn't help notice your comment to Egmont about consumption being greater than income

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=31Y0

    "As you can see, consumption runs consistently and significantly higher than wages and salaries."

    why do you think that is?

    Dan Kervick -> djb...
    djb, to be accurate, I pointed out that consumption was higher than wage and salary income. And clearly one reason for that is that is that wage and salary income is only one portion of national income. Besides other returns to labor like bonuses, a lot of income consists in profits and other returns to capital.
    Dan Kervick :
    Even Brookings is getting worried about what's going on with the growing cultural isolation of the relatively affluent:

    http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/09/03-separation-upper-middle-class-reeves?cid=00900015020089101US0001-0907

    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
    This Brookings piece doesn't contribute much of anything to the conversation either. Mostly it just provides a working definition of upper middle class. The "getting worried" part is pretty much limited to the conclusion, and even then mostly outsourced to a conservative writer over at Slate:

    The Upper Middle Class Is Ruining America

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.2.html

    And if we go and read the Slate piece we find out that it's mostly BS -- even the Brookings article warns us in advance that it's "hyperbole, of course."

    All of that said I do think there is an important point to be made, one that I was making the other day -- if you let a small number of people accumulate extreme levels of wealth, these people will tend to focus their philanthropic efforts on the sorts of problems that get discussed in their rather limited social circle, which may not be what the broader population views as the most pressing issues. However, I was talking about billionaires (and tech billionaires in particular, who tend to view things through an even narrower lens. In contrast, here we're talking about a much larger and more diverse group -- 15-20% of the working-age population according to the article -- many of whom came from middle class or lower-middle class backgrounds and who strongly identify with these groups and their concerns.

    EMichael -> Syaloch...
    Of course it doesn't contribute to the discussion, not unless you read between the kervick lines and understand that the separation is sinister, aided and abetted by pols and economists on both sides as they are all elites.


    "When everyone is out to get you, paranoia is just being careful." Dan K, err, I mean Woody Allen.

    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    The Brookings title for the article describes the separation as "dangerous". Isn't that an instance of worrying?

    The point isn't that the upper middle class is engaged in some sort of sneaky, diabolical plot to "ruin" America, but rather that the emergence of growing cultural, educational and economic gaps between different classes of Americans is bad for the country, and that the greater the degree of class separations, the greater likelihood that the discourse of people who belong to a particular class will tend to reflect the preoccupations and values of that class alone.

    At all times and in all societies the preoccupation of those who have most greatly benefited from a given social order will tend to be focused on how to defuse, appease or discipline dissenting elements without disrupting the social order.

    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
    The Brookings title appears to be mere clickbait, with little in the article to back the claim up. The main thrust of the piece is that those who've managed to make it to the upper end of the middle class have been more successful than those with less income. Big surprise there.

    I have no objection to the claim that growing economic gaps are bad for the country. However, I do think your attempt to cast this as an internal conflict within the middle class is nonsense.

    I mean, Bernie Sanders' net worth is reportedly $700,000, which is roughly three times the median for someone his age ($232,100 as of 2013). Isn't he part of this elite class you describe, doing what elites always do? Does his political orientation reflect the general predilections and interests of his class?

    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    It seems to me the article documents trends in several areas, all meant to back up the summary story told in the opening paragraph:

    "The American upper middle class is separating, slowly but surely, from the rest of society. This separation is most obvious in terms of income-where the top fifth have been prospering while the majority lags behind. But the separation is not just economic. Gaps are growing on a whole range of dimensions, including family structure, education, lifestyle, and geography. Indeed, these dimensions of advantage appear to be clustering more tightly together, each thereby amplifying the effect of the other."

    cm -> Syaloch...
    Considering current real estate evaluations (I suppose Mr. Sanders owns a house), I don't think 700K is a net worth that confers any kind of elite status (where in this discussion "elite" must be understood as being able to set or influence policy, without necessarily holding public office).
    Syaloch -> cm...
    The current median sales price for homes in Burlington VT is around $270,000, so Sanders must be living in an "elite" home appropriate to his class.

    More seriously, I don't think $700K necessarily confers elite status either, I'm just poking holes in the arguments of those who want to drive wedges between different segments of the middle class.

    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    I don't think it's so much a matter of driving wedges, but recognizing the wedges that are already there.

    Of course, some individual people who have lots of money are capable of adopting political stances that range outside their class interests. The similarity between political outlook and class interest is a strong general tendency, not an iron rule.

    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
    Your understanding of class relationships is flawed.

    Perhaps one has to actually be part of the upper middle class to see how these things actually work?

    Julio -> Syaloch...
    Here's a tidbit that seems relevant, though I'm not sure exactly how:
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/income-and-voting/?_r=0
    Syaloch -> Julio ...
    Yeah, I don't know exactly how either.

    The county where I live is one of the richest in the country, and it consistently votes Democrat. But then again the cost of living is very high here, so a lot of people who appear to have high incomes by national standards actually live quite modest lifestyles. And many people who live here came from other lower-income areas to find work, and probably relate most strongly with the places and backgrounds from which they came (even after 25 years of living in the DC suburbs my wife and I still tend to answer the question, "where are you from?" with the states we were born in).

    The relationship between income and "class interest" is apparently quite complicated.

    cm -> Syaloch...
    **my wife and I still tend to answer the question, "where are you from?" with the states we were born in**

    Isn't that what the questioner is actually asking? I always understood this question as "what is your cultural (often more specifically ethnic) background". The question often comes in the form "where's your *accent* from".

    Syaloch -> cm...
    Sometimes it's unclear, but generally the context is ah, so you're a visitor here, where is your home located?

    We still have a hard time saying we're "from" Virginia, as the part of Virginia that borders DC bears little relationship culturally, politically, or economically with the rest of the state. Culturally we're still very much Northerners.

    cm -> Syaloch...
    Perhaps, though I often respond jokingly stating the city where I live, and then there is *always* the clarification "no where are you originally from". The larger area here has a lot of immigration from other places (inside and outside the US), and a lot of people with immigrant family background. It seems to be a common (and reliable) conversation opener.
    cm -> Syaloch...
    "The relationship between income and "class interest" is apparently quite complicated."

    A large part of the complication is adjustment to local cost structures. Another is that "class" is a fairly abstract concept, which I define more by socioeconomic autonomy and participation in the societal decision making process (at higher or lower levels) than by income. Of course the former strongly correlates with income. E.g. when obtaining one's income absolutely requires personal daily commitment to some activity (e.g. employment), one cannot be consider "upper" of anything.

    I would even question whether middle to upper corporate management falls in the upper middle class - let's say Director to VP levels. They are paid quite well and can generally afford living in "good neighborhoods" with higher end houses and cars, and perhaps even domestic "help", but can they influence policy outside their company?

    anne -> Julio .. .
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/income-and-voting/

    October 22, 2007

    Income and Voting
    By Paul Krugman

    And one more before the day's round of media stuff begins.

    Another weirdly persistent myth is that rich people vote Democratic, while working stiffs vote Republican. Here's Tucker Carlson: *

    "OK, but here's the fact that nobody ever, ever mentions - Democrats win rich people. Over 100,000 in income, you are likely more than not to vote for Democrats. People never point that out. Rich people vote liberal. I don't know what that's all about."

    Actually, people mention this alleged fact all the time - but the truth is just the opposite.

    From the 2006 exit polls:

    Vote by Income (Total) Democrat Republican

    Less than $100,000 (78%) 55% 43%
    $100,000 or more (22%) 47% 52%

    And the fact that people with higher incomes are more likely to vote Republican has been consistently true since 1972. **

    The interesting question is why so many pundits know for a fact something that simply ain't so.

    * http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/10/19/media-matters-by-jamison-foser/140158

    ** http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20041107_px_ELECTORATE.xls

    anne -> Julio ...
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/

    October 24, 2007

    Even More on Income and Voting
    By Paul Krugman

    As I pointed out in an earlier post, * there's a weird myth among the commentariat that rich people vote Democratic. There's another strange thing about that myth: the notion that income class doesn't matter for voting, or that it's perverse, has spread even as the actual relationship between income and voting has become much stronger.

    Larry Bartels ** offers us these data, which I also provide in "Conscience of a Liberal," on white voting patterns in presidential elections by income:

    Democratic Share of Vote
    1952-1972

    Bottom third ( 46)
    Middle third ( 47)
    Top third ( 42)

    Democratic Share of Vote
    1976-2004

    Bottom third ( 51)
    Middle third ( 44)
    Top third ( 37)

    As you can see, a 4-point difference between top and bottom became a 14-point difference.

    Andrew Gelman et al *** offer us an election-by-election graph; the dots represent an estimate of the effect of income on the tendency to vote Republican, the whiskers the range of statistical uncertainty. Again, a weak link in the earlier period, except when Barry Goldwater was the candidate, and a much stronger link since then.

    So the conventional pundit wisdom about the relationship between class and voting is, literally, the opposite of the truth.

    * http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/income-and-voting/

    ** http://www.qjps.com/prod.aspx?product=QJPS&doi=100.00000010

    *** http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/red_state_blue_state_revised.pdf

    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    If you are trying to suggest that a mere prole couldn't possibly understand how the well-off people actually think, you may be comforted to know that my wife and I are comfortably part of that upper 20%.

    The people I am criticizing are the kinds of people I have known all my life. I went to college and graduate school with them, and have known them socially and professionally. Quite the contrary to your suggestion, I think if people from humbler walks of life had a clearer idea of how knowledge class yuppies actually think and talk when they are not behaving themselves in public forums and trying to act like compassionate and concerned citizens, the resentment and determination to act on the part of the former would be even more intense than it is now.

    I dearly recall the day one of my college friends told me that it was so unfair that smart college kids might be subject to the same kinds of military service requirements that less educated people faced, because the college kids "had so much more to lose." Their heads, after all, were stuffed with big, valuable, meaningful brains; while the existences of the plebs were so much less meaningful. Of course, she's probably running some health care outfit these days.

    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
    I had a very similar experience with the people I met at my Ivy League university. A depressing percentage of the student body consisted of spoiled trust fund babies, many of whom were apparently ignored or otherwise mistreated by their parents and exhibited a shocking array of psychological and substance abuse problems.

    The most shocking incident I encountered was when a decent-seeming girl I met at the beginning of sophomore year calmly explained during a discussion with myself and a high school friend the "difference between black people and [n-word]s" as if this were a totally natural and uncontroversial position. And she wasn't from the Deep South, either -- she was from Columbia MD.

    But these people were of a distinctly different class than the many nominally upper-middle class people I encounter in daily life. Even now, high as my household income is, I would immediately be detected as a "mere prole" by them, a "lower class" person.

    Fitzgerald was absolutely right -- the truly well off are indeed different from you and me. Even if you don't realize it, rest assured that they do.

    cm -> Dan Kervick...
    Did your friend actually say these things about the brain value or are you extrapolating?

    I had to go to military service *before* going to college, before the question of occupational deferments could even come up, and incidentally so that the conscripts could be coerced with the threat of having their college admission canceled. It was a good opportunity to purge our heads of some of the highschool knowledge and attitudes, and fill it with more practical things like avoiding or shirking work assignments, creative ways of procuring and hiding alcohol, and learning a bit about sizing up people and power dynamics as well as losing some illusions about the universality of human qualities. The latter part was actually useful.

    cm -> Dan Kervick...
    The concept of class is also just a model, and not rigidly tied to economic markers. People in comparable occupational settings or type of economic participation can have very different incomes and ability to afford certain lifestyles.

    This is not only related to geographic differences, but jobs with similar skill profiles and job content can have significantly different pay/perk structures across public/private sector, different industries, and even within the same company. And by significantly I mean easily 2X.

    E.g. regardless of your pay level, if your occupational situation is such that you have to essentially show up for work every day and follow somebody else's directives (to make a relatively low-risk income), then it would be a stretch to consider you upper middle class.

    cm -> cm...
    This is in response to your "wedges" comment, which may not be obvious in the web page layout.
    Dan Kervick -> cm...
    I definitely agree with those observations, although I have to say that following the crash in 2008 I was startled to realize just how much truth there is in the old Marxian idea that in an economic pinch, people will rapidly form coalitions with other people on the basis of economic affinities to protect their mutual interests.
    cm -> Dan Kervick...
    It is probably less about *mutual* interests and more about *common* interests. OTOH (but perhaps fundamentally the same phenomenon) I and others have observed how people switch (declared?) allegiances and ideological leanings and patterns of acting, as well the people they associate with, when changing occupational roles, e.g. from individual contributor to manager or lower to middle management. That usually comes with an income bump, but I don't think it is much related to income level.
    Syaloch -> cm...
    From what I've observed, following the 2008 crash a lot of upper-middle class people suddenly realized that the differences between themselves and those living in poverty are actually much smaller than the differences between themselves and the truly wealthy.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/occupy-wall-street-report_n_2574788.html

    [Jan 05, 2016] Will the Republican Party Survive the 2016 Election

    This is the first realistic analysis of why Trump is so attractive as politician and as Presidential candidate. Great job Atlantic! Still some nuances are missing. Complete domination of Democratic Party by neoliberal "fat cats" and Hillary as one of the most jingoistic candidates, a real neocon even in comparison with Jeb Bush -- in a country that is fed up with neocon foreign policy never mentioned. From one comment from the article " And those looking in from the outside have no clue as to the enormity of voter establishment rejection from all parties. MSM still refuses to put forth the truth about Independents."
    Notable quotes:
    "... White Middle Americans express heavy mistrust of every institution in American society: not only government, but corporations, unions, even the political party they typically vote for-the Republican Party of Romney, Ryan, and McConnell, which they despise as a sad crew of weaklings and sellouts. They are pissed off. And when Donald Trump came along, they were the people who told the pollsters, "That's my guy." ..."
    "... Across Europe, populist parties are delivering a message that combines defense of the welfare state with skepticism about immigration; that denounces the corruption of parliamentary democracy and also the risks of global capitalism. ..."
    "... These populists seek to defend what the French call "acquired rights"-health care, pensions, and other programs that benefit older people-against bankers and technocrats who endlessly demand austerity; against migrants who make new claims and challenge accustomed ways; against a globalized market that depresses wages and benefits. In the United States, they lean Republican ..."
    "... A majority of Republicans worry that corporations and the wealthy exert too much power. Their party leaders work to ensure that these same groups can exert even more. Mainstream Republicans were quite at ease with tax increases on households earning more than $250,000 in the aftermath of the Great Recession and the subsequent stimulus. Their congressional representatives had the opposite priorities. In 2008, many Republican primary voters had agreed with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who wanted "their next president to remind them of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off." ..."
    "... Their rebellion against the power of organized money has upended American politics in ways that may reverberate for a long time. To understand what may come next, we must first review the recent past. ..."
    "... Until this decade, however, both parties-and especially the historically more cohesive Republicans-managed to keep sufficient class peace to preserve party unity. Not anymore, at least not for the Republicans. ..."
    "... Trump Republicans were not ideologically militant. Just 13 percent said they were very conservative; 19 percent described themselves as moderate. Nor were they highly religious by Republican standards. ..."
    "... What set them apart from other Republicans was their economic insecurity and the intensity of their economic nationalism ..."
    "... He promised to protect their children from being drawn into another war in the Middle East, this time in Syria. "If we're going to have World War III," he told The Washington Post in October, "it's not going to be over Syria." As for the politicians threatening to shoot down the Russian jets flying missions in Syria, "I won't even call them hawks. I call them the fools." ..."
    "... Its a good analysis, but lacks one important point. If Republicans do go into a defensive crouch, time is not on their side. ..."
    "... And those looking in from the outside have no clue as to the enormity of voter establishment rejection from all parties. MSM still refuses to put forth the truth about Independents. ..."
    "... Nixons southern strategy changed this. All the conservatives (of the south) exited the Democratic party for the GOP. This radicalized the GOP. Eventually Rockefeller Republicans no longer existed - killed off by Reagans revolution. ..."
    "... However elites still controlled both parties. Dems nominated Clinton and Obama who were conservative Dems but only in the sense of giving in to the economic elites wishes: free trade, deregulation etc... The GOPs base became increasingly radicalized. The elite pandered to the base to win elections but abandoned their interest in favor of tax cuts and immigration after elections. ..."
    "... What you had was a political void at the base of the GOP that was hermetically sealed off at the sides by the 2 party system and from above by the elites. ..."
    "... In steps Trump - who is more than willing to descend down from the elite status in favor of the rabble. This is not unlike FDR doing the same - but from the left, which was much kinder. ..."
    "... The only thing going for the elites is that there are populist insurgencies in both parties - so that might split up popular interest enough to sustain at least one elite candidate in one of the major parties. ..."
    "... Fact: in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... Very few single wage families can make it, especially when well-educated high tech workers replaced by H1 and H2 B imports at lower wages ..."
    "... There was a fundamental shift in corporate policy after the Great Recession. Employees are considered a financial liability instead of an asset. Unfortunately, bean counters run everything now. ..."
    "... I went back to school and got certified in computer technology. Guess what I found when I went looking for a job? Contract work only at the low end of the wage spectrum. MikeyArmstrong (below) couldnt be more right. Bill gates is the biggest perpetrator of this fallacy when he made that statement about the USA not having enough skilled workers. Why pay an American a living wage when you can pay a skilled off-shore worker just a fraction of that cost. ..."
    "... One of the problems with oligarchies anywhere in the world is that theyd rather import a middle management class that had no ties to the local lower classes than to improve education and promote the best and brightest of the lower classes, who might have more divided loyalties. The New Deal and the WW II era GI Bill were exceptions to this ..."
    "... Absolute nonsense. H1 and H2B workers are a necessity to corporations because they do not require a living wage, the way Americans with the same or better education do. It is entirely about sending all the profits to the topmost execs and shareholders by stripping it from the people who do the work. ..."
    "... The governments H1B Visa programs are to blame for the influx of foreign workers, and undermining the market dynamics that support Americans. ..."
    "... Education is not the principal reason for the poor economic circumstances of the white middle class. It is the reluctance of the wealthy to invest in the fast-fading industrial sector. Finance and its attendant scams yields far greater returns than the manufacture and sale of useful objects. ..."
    "... When I was young my parents warned me to get a high school diploma or there would nothing but a scarcity of low-paying jobs for me when I go it alone. Then it was a bachelors degree and now its a masters. If this trend continues, we will be a nation of educated derelicts. Like the PhDs standing in long lines to apply for a job at the first McDonalds franchise in the former Soviet Union. ..."
    "... The difference being in the case of 2016 America blaming immigrants for our poor economic circumstances would be correct and its not just uneducated white folks. In fact the black population has been the hardest hit by the importation of cheap third world labor. Even our educated middle class is taking a massive hit through H1-B workers being brought in by the elites. Just ask the laid off workers at Disney. ..."
    The Atlantic

    ... ... ...

    White Middle Americans express heavy mistrust of every institution in American society: not only government, but corporations, unions, even the political party they typically vote for-the Republican Party of Romney, Ryan, and McConnell, which they despise as a sad crew of weaklings and sellouts. They are pissed off. And when Donald Trump came along, they were the people who told the pollsters, "That's my guy."

    They aren't necessarily superconservative. They often don't think in ideological terms at all. But they do strongly feel that life in this country used to be better for people like them-and they want that older country back.

    You hear from people like them in many other democratic countries too. Across Europe, populist parties are delivering a message that combines defense of the welfare state with skepticism about immigration; that denounces the corruption of parliamentary democracy and also the risks of global capitalism. Some of these parties have a leftish flavor, like Italy's Five Star Movement. Some are rooted to the right of center, like the U.K. Independence Party. Some descend from neofascists, like France's National Front. Others trace their DNA to Communist parties, like Slovakia's governing Direction–Social Democracy.

    These populists seek to defend what the French call "acquired rights"-health care, pensions, and other programs that benefit older people-against bankers and technocrats who endlessly demand austerity; against migrants who make new claims and challenge accustomed ways; against a globalized market that depresses wages and benefits. In the United States, they lean Republican because they fear the Democrats want to take from them and redistribute to Americans who are newer, poorer, and in their view less deserving-to "spread the wealth around," in candidate Barack Obama's words to "Joe the Plumber" back in 2008. Yet they have come to fear more and more strongly that their party does not have their best interests at heart.

    A majority of Republicans worry that corporations and the wealthy exert too much power. Their party leaders work to ensure that these same groups can exert even more. Mainstream Republicans were quite at ease with tax increases on households earning more than $250,000 in the aftermath of the Great Recession and the subsequent stimulus. Their congressional representatives had the opposite priorities. In 2008, many Republican primary voters had agreed with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who wanted "their next president to remind them of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off." But those Republicans did not count for much once the primaries ended, and normal politics resumed between the multicultural Democrats and a plutocratic GOP.

    This year, they are counting for more. Their rebellion against the power of organized money has upended American politics in ways that may reverberate for a long time. To understand what may come next, we must first review the recent past.

    Meanwhile, the dividing line that used to be the most crucial of them all-class-has increasingly become a division within the parties, not between them. Since 1984, nearly every Democratic presidential-primary race has ended as a contest between a "wine track" candidate who appealed to professionals (Gary Hart, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, and Barack Obama) and a "beer track" candidate who mobilized the remains of the old industrial working class (Walter Mondale, Dick Gephardt, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton). The Republicans have their equivalent in the battles between "Wall Street" and "Main Street" candidates. Until this decade, however, both parties-and especially the historically more cohesive Republicans-managed to keep sufficient class peace to preserve party unity. Not anymore, at least not for the Republicans.

    ,,, ,,, ,,,

    When Trump first erupted into the Republican race in June, he did so with a message of grim pessimism. "We got $18 trillion in debt. We got nothing but problems … We're dying. We're dying. We need money … We have losers. We have people that don't have it. We have people that are morally corrupt. We have people that are selling this country down the drain … The American dream is dead."

    That message did not resonate with those who'd ridden the S&P 500 from less than 900 in 2009 to more than 2,000 in 2015. But it found an audience all the same. Half of Trump's supporters within the GOP had stopped their education at or before high-school graduation, according to the polling firm YouGov. Only 19 percent had a college or postcollege degree. Thirty-eight percent earned less than $50,000. Only 11 percent earned more than $100,000.

    Trump Republicans were not ideologically militant. Just 13 percent said they were very conservative; 19 percent described themselves as moderate. Nor were they highly religious by Republican standards.

    What set them apart from other Republicans was their economic insecurity and the intensity of their economic nationalism . Sixty-three percent of Trump supporters wished to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil-a dozen points higher than the norm for all Republicans. More than other Republicans, Trump supporters distrusted Barack Obama as alien and dangerous: Only 21 percent acknowledged that the president was born in the United States, according to an August survey by the Democratic-oriented polling firm PPP. Sixty-six percent believed the president was a Muslim.

    Trump promised to protect these voters' pensions from their own party's austerity. "We've got Social Security that's going to be destroyed if somebody like me doesn't bring money into the country. All these other people want to cut the hell out of it. I'm not going to cut it at all; I'm going to bring money in, and we're going to save it."

    He promised to protect their children from being drawn into another war in the Middle East, this time in Syria. "If we're going to have World War III," he told The Washington Post in October, "it's not going to be over Syria." As for the politicians threatening to shoot down the Russian jets flying missions in Syria, "I won't even call them hawks. I call them the fools."

    He promised a campaign independent of the influences of money that had swayed so many Republican races of the past.

    "I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people. Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that's a broken system."

    He promised above all to protect their wages from being undercut by Republican immigration policy.

    ... ... ...

    David Frum is a senior editor at The Atlantic and the chairman of Policy Exchange. In 2001-2002, he was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

    deanfromoregon

    Its a good analysis, but lacks one important point. If Republicans do go into a defensive crouch, time is not on their side. The youth, and every demographic gaining numbers is not Republican. So their ability to block change will erode with time. They have to figure out how to come to grops witht he future. They can neither go back, not prevent the future from happening.

    Courageousmisterj > deanfromoregon

    Been hearin that one for 30 years. Ain't happened yet.

    OrangePolicy > Courageousmisterj

    I'm mixed. I don't think the GOP will be a presidential party anytime soon but they're not dead or irrelevant by any measure.

    Damascusdean > OrangePolicy

    They are still alive and have some advantages. Their older, whiter constituency turns out in off years. And they have advantages in low population states, each having the same senators as California. But time will erode these advantages.


    DavidBN > Damascusdean

    And they have advantages in low population states, each having the same senators as California.

    Their majority in the House is much bigger than their majority in the senate.

    Mr. Fusion > DavidBN

    Gerrymandering has its advantages.

    DavidBN > Mr. Fusion

    It does. Demographic changes are slow and are predictable. The Republican party has effectively neutralized the effects of any demographic shift for the next thirty years or so. This internal upheaval that they didn't foresee is a bigger problem.

    Larry Rappaport > Jimmy Kurian

    And those looking in from the outside have no clue as to the enormity of voter establishment rejection from all parties. MSM still refuses to put forth the truth about Independents. Morning internal report, Trump 38% - Clinton 8% - Rubio 6% - Cruz 24%. I've never seen anything like this. One thing is for sure, the GOP Establishment is looking for the paddles, Clear! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz POW! Call the time please.

    M Kane Larry Rappaport 13 days ago
    This is a function of our 2 party system.

    In 1918 the Allies insisted on a liberal German government sans Kaiser in order to arrive at a armistice. That's how we got the Wiemar constitution. The German Elite worried that in a democracy the working class, which had all the numbers, would vote their interest - socialist &/or communist. So, as an attempt to mitigate against this, before soldiers were decommissioned from the German army they had to sit through some right-wing propaganda indoctrination. Hitler was one of those propaganders.

    Hitler's German Workers party was an attempt by the right to set up a party on the right that would appeal to the workers and lower middle class, the rabble. They did that through nationalism, unilateralism/anti-internationalism.

    Because the Nazi's delivered the numbers, the center of power slid away from the elites down to him, the rabble. The rest as they say is history.

    In the U.S. there were two reasons why this was thought couldn't happen - the two party system. A) Each party had is share of liberals and conservatives B) Each party was controlled by elites so that power could never completely flow down to the radicals.

    Nixon's southern strategy changed this. All the conservatives (of the south) exited the Democratic party for the GOP. This radicalized the GOP. Eventually Rockefeller Republicans no longer existed - killed off by Reagan's revolution.

    However elites still controlled both parties. Dems nominated Clinton and Obama who were conservative Dems but only in the sense of giving in to the economic elites wishes: free trade, deregulation etc... The GOP's base became increasingly radicalized. The elite pandered to the base to win elections but abandoned their interest in favor of tax cuts and immigration after elections.

    What you had was a political void at the base of the GOP that was hermetically sealed off at the sides by the 2 party system and from above by the elites.

    In steps Trump - who is more than willing to descend down from the elite status in favor of the rabble. This is not unlike FDR doing the same - but from the left, which was much kinder.

    The only thing going for the elites is that there are populist insurgencies in both parties - so that might split up popular interest enough to sustain at least one elite candidate in one of the major parties. On the other hand, you could have a 3rd and 4th party candidate in the general. Not seen anything like this, I think, since 1860 election.

    Joseph blow M Kane 13 days ago
    Your comments are quite astute, in 1928 Hitler's National socialist party received 2.6% of the vote, but after economic collapse and hyperinflation he received 44% of the vote in 1933. However, America of 2016 is very different than Germany of 1933. The economy is improving, but obviously some have been left behind, uneducated white folks who are looking for somebody to scapegoat or blame for their poor economic circumstances. In 1933 Germany, it was the Jews who were to blame, in 2016 America it is immigrants. Fortunately they are the minority although they represent a significant percent of the republican party.
    RichCash8 Joseph blow 12 days ago
    "some have been left behind, uneducated white folks"

    Shibboleth

    Fact: in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... Very few single wage families can make it, especially when well-educated high tech workers replaced by H1 and H2 B imports at lower wages

    Whirled Peas RichCash8 8 days ago
    The H1 and H2B workers have been a necessity because our education system hasn't been producing enough highly trained, self disciplined candidates in engineering and other STEAM fields.
    MikeyArmstrong Whirled Peas 8 days ago
    This is horse shiiit. We have enough STEM graduates, it's just that corporations don't want to pay them what they're worth.
    maverick909 MikeyArmstrong 7 days ago
    There was a fundamental shift in corporate policy after the Great Recession. Employees are considered a financial liability instead of an asset. Unfortunately, bean counters run everything now. That's why when some companies buck the trend and give ALL their employees huge benefits, bonuses, etc. it is news-worthy.
    Jorja1234 MikeyArmstrong 6 days ago
    "What they are worth" is what employers have to pay to attract them as employees. Unfortunately the government-imposed H1 and H2B foreign worker program has interfered in the normal market dynamics, at the expense of the American worker. Similarly, illegal immigration has interfered in the market dynamics of low-wage workers, and created a welfare class. If there were no illegal immigrants, the "jobs Americans won't do" would pay a wage that would make it worth taking those jobs. And our social costs (including taxes) could be lower. It's been the downside of "Hope and Change."
    maverick909 Whirled Peas 7 days ago
    I went back to school and got certified in computer technology. Guess what I found when I went looking for a job? Contract work only at the low end of the wage spectrum. MikeyArmstrong (below) couldn't be more right. Bill gates is the biggest perpetrator of this fallacy when he made that statement about the USA not having enough skilled workers. Why pay an American a living wage when you can pay a skilled off-shore worker just a fraction of that cost.
    Rebecca Ore Whirled Peas 6 days ago
    One of the problems with oligarchies anywhere in the world is that they'd rather import a middle management class that had no ties to the local lower classes than to improve education and promote the best and brightest of the lower classes, who might have more divided loyalties. The New Deal and the WW II era GI Bill were exceptions to this (and how a number of farm kids got educations. Asian elites would import Chinese; European elites imported Jews; the US South brought down Northern managers. And the southern elites could tell museum directors not to do anything to make the mill hands dissatisfied with their lot in life as late as the 1980s.

    The US stereotypes bright engineering and computer science people far more than Nicaragua does. See any media depictions of the office computer guy (The Americans is fairly classic). The cool kids major in pre-law (and Robert E. Lee failed to get Washington and Lee redirected to technology -- it's still a pre-law/liberal arts school for the most part). This is most unfortunate, but saves lots of money that would be needed to actually improve US education (the other classic Southern statement was, "We don't need to improve education here. All these people are going to do is become mill hands."

    teenygozer Whirled Peas 4 days ago
    Absolute nonsense. H1 and H2B workers are a "necessity" to corporations because they do not require a living wage, the way Americans with the same or better education do. It is entirely about sending all the profits to the topmost execs and shareholders by stripping it from the people who do the work.
    Jorja1234 wandmdave 6 days ago
    That doesn't make any sense. All companies would move these jobs offshore if they could - these jobs are the ones that need to remain here. The government's H1B Visa programs are to blame for the influx of foreign workers, and undermining the market dynamics that support Americans. Our wages will never "balance" with the rest of the world unless our standard of living drops. And that need not happen - Americans are the perfect blend of innovation, flexibility, and hard work, and have been for 100+ years. This will keep us at the forefront, and the world will continue to benefit from us. Unless our government continues to screw things up.
    wandmdave Jorja1234 6 days ago
    Why have we been innovative, flexible, and hard working? I'd argue it is due in no small par to the immigrants we constantly allow to come in. The provide new perspectives to spur the innovation you mention and force flexibility and hard work from all in order to compete in a labor market that is more competitive due to it being open instead of artificially restricted. Walling ourselves off to gain selfish and ultimately short term personal advantages in the labor market is a surefire way to squander the advantages you mention that keep our economy strong. That lowering tide will lower all boats and bite our children if not ourselves in the long term.
    Alan Bickley Joseph blow 12 days ago
    Education is not the principal reason for the poor economic circumstances of the white middle class. It is the reluctance of the wealthy to invest in the fast-fading industrial sector. Finance and its attendant scams yields far greater returns than the manufacture and sale of useful objects. The jobs of the future, says the BLS, will not require the level of education that has created a debt swamp for the young, although degrees will be used as sorting devices in a glutted labor market.
    maverick909 Alan Bickley 7 days ago
    When I was young my parents warned me to get a high school diploma or there would nothing but a scarcity of low-paying jobs for me when I go it alone. Then it was a bachelor's degree and now it's a master's. If this trend continues, we will be a nation of educated derelicts. Like the PhDs standing in long lines to apply for a job at the first McDonald's franchise in the former Soviet Union.
    AtlasObjectivist Joseph blow 11 days ago
    The difference being in the case of 2016 America blaming immigrants for our poor economic circumstances would be correct and it's not just "uneducated white folks." In fact the black population has been the hardest hit by the importation of cheap third world labor. Even our educated middle class is taking a massive hit through H1-B workers being brought in by the elites. Just ask the laid off workers at Disney.
    Huckleseed SeanRenaud 8 days ago

    Sanders would not want to split the Democrat vote, and the truth of the matter is that Donald Trump does NOT actually want to BE President. This was one of his fun things to do as a Billionaire. Get up in front of people on a National stage, voice your opinion loudly, maybe come in second or make some kind of decent show for the ego and then go Trump up another reality show to sell to the networks. But win? Are you kidding me? That's too much work and if I believe Donald Trump knows one thing, it is how many people and how much work it would take for him to be President. Endless meetings with morons both foreign and domestic that you have to attend? Long hours, little appreciation, and missing time with your gorgeous young wife? And for that salary? Again, are you kidding me?

    He has already said that when he donates, all he needs to do is go to the guys who won the elections and they do what he asks, Why does he need to be one of those guys?

    Answer: He doesn't and he doesn't want to be. Being #1 was great. Staying #1 began to become a nightmare when he realized that he really could actually win the Republican nomination and so he started saying more insulting and traditionally outrageous (and vote losing) statements. I can see him asking himself in the mirror now, "What does it take to get these people to think I'm too brash, hard lined, and insulting to everyone to be voted in as President? Who haven't I insulted yet?"

    hartleymsm Huckleseed 7 days ago

    100% spot on. Trumps problem now is that the GOP base is even dumber than he thought, the more crazy stuff he says to lose support, the more the sheep clamor for him.

    ruralblake Deserttrek 14 days ago

    Jeb Bush alone has gotten more from Wall Street than the Democrats & Chris Christie is close. "Republicans beating Clinton, Dems in Wall Street donations"

    Also worth noting how much more Wall Street gave to Romney than Obama in the 2012 cycle "Yet by the end of the 2012 campaign, Wall Street donors had given $64.3 million to Mitt Romney and $19.3 million to the same man they had poured money into just four years before and who was running as the sitting president." http://thehill.com/homenews/ca...

    Statetheobvious > ruralblake

    And yet Hillary and Obama are loyal Wall Street lapdogs almost as much as the GOP. Whoever wins the nomination (unless it's Sanders) is getting the big money. The entire system needs reform. Starting with stacking SCOTUS to overturn Citizens United. The fact that no Democratic lobby group has a case making its way through the courts to challenge CU shows how incredibly pathetic Democrats are.

    [Jan 05, 2016] Homeland Frolics

    Notable quotes:
    "... Of Trumps opponents for the Republican nomination, the only one I can grudge up any interest for is Rand Paul, who is a truly disruptive figure without being a maniac. ..."
    "... But he appears to have a near-zero chance of winning the partys nomination. ..."
    "... Hillary is the opposite of a disrupter; she is the racketeer Godmother. ..."
    "... Hillary would inspire no trust among a fractious population out for revenge against the very enablers of Hillarys election, namely the Wall Street bankers. ..."
    "... The question at hand for 2016 is: Can Hillary be stopped. At this point, I dont see how, given all the weight of the party machinery calibrated in her favor by the equally odious National Party Chairperson, Congressperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders mounted a noble opposition campaign, and perhaps it is too early to write him off here before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary... ..."
    "... And thats all you get on the Democratic side for the moment: a powerful sense that the fix is in. Yet there is the very real problem of Hillarys loathsomeness and how that would go down at the polls. Theres even a pretty good chance that many women would vote against her... ..."
    David Stockman's Contra Corner
    Pretend to the Bitter End A Contrarian Review Of The Year Ahead

    ... ... ...

    Of Trump's opponents for the Republican nomination, the only one I can grudge up any interest for is Rand Paul, who is a truly disruptive figure without being a maniac. In fact, I think he would make a good president, sober, thoughtful, unencumbered by obligation to the forces of racketeering. But he appears to have a near-zero chance of winning the party's nomination.

    Hillary is the opposite of a disrupter; she is the racketeer Godmother. As things proceed, however, she would merely preside over Great Depression 2.0.

    Unlike FDR in GD 1.0, Hillary would inspire no trust among a fractious population out for revenge against the very enablers of Hillary's election, namely the Wall Street bankers. The nation would fall into factional fighting and possibly even regional breakup under Miz It's-My-Turn. But I get ahead of myself…. The question at hand for 2016 is: Can Hillary be stopped. At this point, I don't see how, given all the weight of the party machinery calibrated in her favor by the equally odious National Party Chairperson, Congressperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

    Bernie Sanders mounted a noble opposition campaign, and perhaps it is too early to write him off here before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary...

    .... ... ...

    And that's all you get on the Democratic side for the moment: a powerful sense that the fix is in. Yet there is the very real problem of Hillary's loathsomeness and how that would go down at the polls. There's even a pretty good chance that many women would vote against her...

    [Jan 05, 2016] Hillary Clinton Gets a Taste of What Could Be a Painful 2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... That's not to say that Hillary Clinton herself will necessarily inject any of those elements into the race. (Beyond the extent to which she already has, that is, via her inexplicable decision to use a private email account while serving as secretary of state.) ..."
    "... If a New Hampshire state legislator is willing to stand up in a public forum and imply that Clinton's husband is a rapist, it seems inevitable that others will take the opportunity of public events to make similar charges. ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    But whomever the Republicans eventually nominate, this year is going to be ugly, because there is a Clinton running for president. Because when Clintons run for office, conspiracy, scandal and prurience inevitably follow.

    That's not to say that Hillary Clinton herself will necessarily inject any of those elements into the race. (Beyond the extent to which she already has, that is, via her inexplicable decision to use a private email account while serving as secretary of state.) It is simply meant to point out that where the Clintons are concerned, there is a large and vocal element of the Republican Party that simply cannot resist the temptation to dive headfirst into the rabbit hole of Bill and Hillary Clinton's past and then come to the surface screaming bloody murder (sometimes literally) about what they think they found there.

    In a New Hampshire town meeting on Sunday, a state legislator named Katherine Prudhomme O'Brien demonstrated what we can likely expect to see a lot of in the coming year.

    When Clinton paused to take questions from the crowd, O'Brien began haranguing the candidate with questions about former president Bill Clinton's decades-old infidelities. Her point was to paint Clinton as a hypocrite for claiming to support women's rights and for launching an anti-sexual assault campaign while, according to O'Brien, her husband still faces unsettled questions about alleged sexual assaults.

    O'Brien, who was very close to Clinton when she began shouting questions at her, was herself shouted down by Clinton supporters. After the event, she told reporters "I asked her how in the world she can say that Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Wiley are lying when she has no idea who Juanita Broderick is," O'Brien said, according to CNN, referring to women who have accused the former president of sexual assault and to another attempt she had made to question the candidate.

    "She told me this summer she doesn't know who she is and doesn't want to know who she is," O'Brien said. "How can she access that they are lying, which she told someone last month?"

    For her part, Clinton responded sharply, breaking from most candidates' strategy of ignoring hecklers to tell O'Brien that she was "very rude" and that Clinton would "never" take questions from her.

    ... ... ....

    Clinton criticism has long since become a field that welcomes all comers, regardless of the strength of their tether to reality. Among Clinton detractors there is a veritable alternative history of the United States, beginning with their rise to power in Arkansas in the 1980s, which includes accusations of murder, drug-dealing and a vast menu of sexual improprieties all committed or endorsed by the Clintons.

    ... ... ...

    If a New Hampshire state legislator is willing to stand up in a public forum and imply that Clinton's husband is a rapist, it seems inevitable that others will take the opportunity of public events to make similar charges.

    [Jan 04, 2016] Hillary Clinton warns that Republicans would turn back the clock on progress

    Notable quotes:
    "... Sorry Hillary, you can pretend to be a progressive, nobody believes you. You want to be President because you want to be President, you dont give a rats rear end about the country. ..."
    "... I think you might be falling for the subtle propaganda out there. The corporate media, as well as the DNC, has been marginalizing him from day one of his campaign because they have a vested interest in Clinton or any Republican winning the primary. Were Sanders to be successful, the corporate media would stand to lose 10s of million$ in campaign attack ads and corporations stand to lose their cheap, working poor, workforce. ..."
    "... This is why corporate media (including MSNBC) continues to either ignore him, or continually say that he cannot win. It is a battle and its completely up to the electorate to form a movement that becomes a political revolution. ..."
    "... I resent the continuing attempts to link her campaign to Senator Elizabeth Warrens positions on financial issues when the overwhelming support for her establishment candidacy is supported by entities inimical to virtually everything for which Ms. Warren fights. It is not only disrespectful to the Senator, but is, to me, proof positive that honesty and transparency remain far outside the Clinton Campaign business model, and that the Advisers - rather than her personal character and knowledge - control the Candidate AND will continue to do so - should they be able to elect her as President. ..."
    "... I believe increasingly that Trump must win, and I say that without being an admirer. He comes with some terrible baggage, but at least on a couple issues, hes the only one saying anything worth saying. Maybe thats what America needs to make a little progress, to elect someone who overall is pretty unpleasant but who brings real progress on a couple of issues. It is particularly in foreign affairs says a couple of pretty penetrating truths. ..."
    "... Hillary has absolutely nothing to say worth hearing. Shes not progressive. Shes not liberal. And shes just so twisted in her dishonesty, you cant make any sense of her from one day til the next. She is a genuinely phony exploiter of the old idea of the Democratic Party, as a party that does something for ordinary people, but that is simply not what that party has been for about half a century. In office, she would have most of Trumps ugly qualities and none of his few strong merits. Basically, she just wants the distinction of being the first woman president. ..."
    "... Again, she stands for absolutely nothing any thoughtful person would call progress. ..."
    "... Surprise, surprise, one more article to add to the many already written by the Guardian on $hillary. Has the Guardian been purchased by the $hillary for President Campaign??? Perhaps $hillary and Bill used the millions they have made on speaking tours, and the Clinton Foundation to buy the Guardian or are they paying to plant articles ..."
    "... The Democratic Party is a terrible institution. It hasnt had a good idea in forty years. Americas entire political system is bent, bent towards the interests of the 1%. Hillary serves the interests of the 1% in virtually everything she does. Then she goes out and makes some vaccuous speeches to others, trying to assure them shes in their corner. The woman is a dreadful fraud and liar. ..."
    "... turn back the clock on progress? What meaningless babble. There is no meangful progress in America on any aspect of domestic life. Not in politics. Not in public education. Not in ethics. However Hillary has played a significant role in Americas one true example of progress, its progress towards becoming an international bully. ..."
    "... Clinton is a neo-conservative war-monger supporting neo-liberal economic policies. But the only Republican who isnt worse on both counts is Rand Paul, who isnt as fully into the neo-conservative carpet bombing agenda. Paul, however, more than makes up for this by being a complete looney on economic/individual rights issues. Unfortunately the only real alternative, Bernie Sanders, has been deemed as unelectable by the smart people and many of the electorate, afraid to throw away their votes may be swayed by that intelligence . ..."
    "... dishonesty happens to be Mr. Hillarys middle name. ..."
    "... Hilary Clinton is complicit in the ongoing US foreign policy of destroying working countries in North Africa and the Middle East and leaving them in ruins, as his her boss Obama. ..."
    "... Polls are now officially worthless. Polling agencies call landlines which are anything but random representation of the ACTUAL American electorate. There are also various media outlets taking worthless internet polls which have absolutely no verification. Harris quit political polling until they can develop new reliable sampling methods. Relying on this information is completely misleading in the 21st century. ..."
    "... Hillary has never seen a patch of desert she didnt want to send our kids to die in. ..."
    "... We need Single Payer. We need Glass-Steagall. We need Peace. We need Bernie. ..."
    Jan 04, 2016 | The Guardian

    loljahlol -> Lazio99 4 Jan 2016 10:12

    ISIS is a proxy of KSA and Turkey. Turkey and KSA are both allies of USA. Therefore, USA doesn't put in the effort.

    HobbesianWorld -> rafinho 4 Jan 2016 10:11

    Apparently you favor Hillary? You like corporate control of government? You like corporate money in elections? You like the fact that the too-big-to-fail Wall Street financial institutions will remain too-big-to-fail, and we, the taxpayer, will remain on the hook to bail them out? You do know that we ARE still on the hook? You do know that the banks have gone back to speculating with our deposits--the major cause of the Republican Great Recession of 2008?

    Or, would you rather see Sanders win, but you are a defeatist who listens to the opinions of those with vested interest in seeing him lose?

    Marcedward 4 Jan 2016 10:03

    Sorry Hillary, you can pretend to be a progressive, nobody believes you. You want to be President because you want to be President, you don't give a rat's rear end about the country.

    HobbesianWorld -> rafinho 4 Jan 2016 10:01

    I think you might be falling for the subtle propaganda out there. The corporate media, as well as the DNC, has been marginalizing him from day one of his campaign because they have a vested interest in Clinton or any Republican winning the primary. Were Sanders to be successful, the corporate media would stand to lose 10s of million$ in campaign attack ads and corporations stand to lose their cheap, working poor, workforce.

    This is why corporate media (including MSNBC) continues to either ignore him, or continually say that "he cannot win." It is a battle and its completely up to the electorate to form a movement that becomes a political revolution.

    Just because they keep saying that he can't win, and then fail to mention him in most news or opinion segments while extolling Hillary, I don't just shrug my shoulders and wimp away, assuming defeat. I will keep on promoting him as the champion of working America and exposing Hillary as the corporatist she is.

    Bruce Gruber -> pol098 4 Jan 2016 09:59

    Vote for Bernie Sanders and make your DETERMINATION clear.

    Revolutions against status quo moderates eager to achieve dysfunctional compromises are NOT solutions. Ms. Clinton panders to FEAR ... It is fear of Republicans winning . She does not say, Bernie, Martin and I stand against ISIL, BUT with strategies that don't alienate Muslims and denigrate a religion." INSTEAD she votes, hints, suggests etc. that 'WE need to FIND solutions ... strengthen our (presently discordant and previously ineffective) policies, and 'fight against' ...(war, war, war!). After years of holding important roles and positions, has she not YET "FOUND" ideas with which to lead? Where ARE the regulations or restrictions? What ARE they? ... are they in support of the OATH to reinstall, preserve and protect the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments to the Constitution?

    Identifying WITH a constituency may be reassuring to 'listeners' as to similarity of concern, but it does NOT convey ideas or leadership to address those issues. Traditionally, politicians are wont to defend against complaints that, "That isn't exactly what I said, and it's not what I meant! You have taken my words out of context."

    So, I find this article to be puff piece. It extols her historic involvement, but avoids her ideas. It ignores the neo-con aspects of her 'experience' and implies much more than it offers.

    Of course, my opinion is biased. I resent the continuing attempts to link her campaign to Senator Elizabeth Warren's positions on financial issues when the overwhelming support for her 'establishment' candidacy is supported by entities inimical to virtually everything for which Ms. Warren fights. It is not only disrespectful to the Senator, but is, to me, proof positive that honesty and transparency remain far outside the Clinton Campaign business model, and that the "Advisers" - rather than her personal character and knowledge - control the Candidate AND will continue to do so - should they be able to elect her as President.

    Additionally, the clown car of Republican dissolution is not an issue in the election. Democrats WILL turn out, so Republicans cannot win. Trump has consolidated THEIR "anti-establishment" base, and their puppet-master cash class are playing poker against one another as though the 'pot' was a new toy.


    Murphy1983 -> Mike Hambuchen 4 Jan 2016 09:58

    Mike: Educate yourself about Sanders. Take a look at this article from The New York Times. As usual, it's very pro HRC and anti-Sanders. Read through the "Readers' Pick" section under Comments. I think you'll be better informed about why Sanders is such an amazing candidate.

    Here's one my favorite comments written by Mark Hugh Miller of San Francisco:

    If you make a list of America's problems, needs, and desires, and then list what each candidate proposes to do about them - to date, mostly nothing - there's only one candidate willing to tell Americans painful truths and things they don't want to hear, and offer practical solutions. That's Bernie Sanders. Who would have imagined it two years ago?

    His detractors won't dare challenge the rightness of what he proposes, but instead use the old GOP canards: "We can't afford it? Where's he going to find the money to pay for it?"

    We can pay for everything, it seems - war, defense, a bloated military arsenal, Wall Street bailouts, more prisons, tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations, subsidies to oil companies and corporate farming ventures - but "never" anything that benefits the majority of Americans who have helped hold the world together for decades, and every year see their security and futures diminished, threatened.

    Sanders is the only candidate willing to risk defeat by addressing the issues that matter to us, and the world.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-needing-early-lift-builds-iowa-ground-operation.html


    Chuckman 4 Jan 2016 09:56

    I believe increasingly that Trump must win, and I say that without being an admirer. He comes with some terrible baggage, but at least on a couple issues, he's the only one saying anything worth saying. Maybe that's what America needs to make a little progress, to elect someone who overall is pretty unpleasant but who brings real progress on a couple of issues. It is particularly in foreign affairs says a couple of pretty penetrating truths.

    Hillary has absolutely nothing to say worth hearing. She's not progressive. She's not liberal. And she's just so twisted in her dishonesty, you can't make any sense of her from one day til the next. She is a genuinely phony exploiter of the old idea of the Democratic Party, as a party that does something for ordinary people, but that is simply not what that party has been for about half a century. In office, she would have most of Trump's ugly qualities and none of his few strong merits. Basically, she just wants the distinction of being the first woman president.

    Now that would be fine, had she something to offer people, but she does not.

    Again, she stands for absolutely nothing any thoughtful person would call progress.


    MonotonousLanguor 4 Jan 2016 09:53

    Surprise, surprise, one more article to add to the many already written by the Guardian on $hillary. Has the Guardian been purchased by the $hillary for President Campaign??? Perhaps $hillary and Bill used the millions they have made on speaking tours, and the Clinton Foundation to buy the Guardian or are they paying to plant articles .


    Chuckman -> Allan Burns 4 Jan 2016 09:42

    I don't think that's true. The Democratic Party is a terrible institution. It hasn't had a good idea in forty years. America's entire political system is bent, bent towards the interests of the 1%. Hillary serves the interests of the 1% in virtually everything she does. Then she goes out and makes some vaccuous speeches to others, trying to assure them she's in their corner. The woman is a dreadful fraud and liar.


    ID5360392 -> Lazio99 4 Jan 2016 09:35

    I think you are omitting one very important person. Former President George W. Bush took the US to an unjustified war in Iraq and destabilized the entire region. Didn't W at one point claim credit for the "green revolution" and the wave of revolts in the Middle East by saying it was because he brought "democracy" to Iraq?

    Chuckman 4 Jan 2016 09:35

    'turn back the clock' on progress? What meaningless babble. There is no meangful progress in America on any aspect of domestic life. Not in politics. Not in public education. Not in ethics. However Hillary has played a significant role in America's one true example of progress, its progress towards becoming an international bully.


    panpipes -> Ryscavage 4 Jan 2016 09:33

    Hyperbole never helps convince people of the rationality of your argument...

    Clinton is a neo-conservative war-monger supporting neo-liberal economic policies. But the only Republican who isn't worse on both counts is Rand Paul, who isn't as fully into the neo-conservative carpet bombing agenda. Paul, however, more than makes up for this by being a complete looney on economic/individual rights issues. Unfortunately the only real alternative, Bernie Sanders, has been deemed as unelectable by the "smart people" and many of the electorate, afraid to "throw away their votes" may be swayed by that "intelligence".

    Zepp -> rafinho 4 Jan 2016 09:29

    His claim is accurate. Assuming Sanders is the nominee, he would trounce Trump, on average by 16 points. According to several such polls.
    Yes, he trails Hillary, who is well known and well funded. But he leads in New Hampshire, and is in striking distance in Iowa. And let's face it: most Democrats really aren't very enthusiastic about Clinton.


    AmbassadorIII 4 Jan 2016 09:11

    Dishonesty insults and demeans the people of America and dishonesty happens to be Mr. Hillary's middle name. Truth is, indeed, bitter after three consecutive, pathological liar presidents. Thank God, Trump has the courage to speak it.


    Lazio99 4 Jan 2016 08:59

    Hilary Clinton is complicit in the ongoing US foreign policy of destroying working countries in North Africa and the Middle East and leaving them in ruins, as his her boss Obama. How these two come to be the pin ups of the European liberal chattering classes beats me. How can anyone vote for a pair like these?


    Charles Taylor -> rafinho 4 Jan 2016 09:25

    Polls are now officially worthless. Polling agencies call landlines which are anything but random representation of the ACTUAL American electorate. There are also various media outlets taking worthless internet "polls" which have absolutely no verification. Harris quit political polling until they can develop new reliable sampling methods. Relying on this information is completely misleading in the 21st century.

    brianBT 4 Jan 2016 08:14

    Hilary is running almost the same campaign she did last time.. the lips are moving but nothing is coming out.. and the words that do issue tend to be strategically and politically non-committal.. in short a political gas bag.. she has no chance of winning

    Mike5000 4 Jan 2016 08:07

    RomneyObamaCare is making Hillary's insurance mafia buddies rich while bankrupting ordinary Americans.

    Taxpayer-subsidized gambling is making Hillary's bankster buddies rich while fraudulently taking millions of American homes.

    And Hillary has never seen a patch of desert she didn't want to send our kids to die in.

    We need Single Payer. We need Glass-Steagall. We need Peace. We need Bernie.

    [Jan 03, 2016] TRUMP 'Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama'

    What is interesting is that Trump is 100% right... I think he has a marketing talent. One thing for certain, he created a problem for Repugs establishment and all those yellow US MSM and their owners...
    "... "She should be in jail, by the way, for what she did," Trump said. "Everybody knows she should be in jail. What she did with the emails is a disgrace," he added. ..."
    news.yahoo.com

    He then blamed US President Barack Obama and his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, for the Islamic State's rise.

    "They have a bunch of dishonest people," he continued. "They've created ISIS. Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama - created with Obama. But I love predicting because you know, ultimately, you need somebody with vision."

    Trump and Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, have fiercely sparred in recent weeks. Trump took particular exception to Clinton saying that his provocative campaign-trail statements had become propaganda for the Islamic State, especially his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the US.

    The Republican billionaire demanded that Clinton apologize, but her campaign replied at the time: "Hell no. Hillary Clinton will not be apologizing to Donald Trump for correctly pointing out how his hateful rhetoric only helps ISIS recruit more terrorists."

    After Clinton said Trump had generally displayed a "penchant for sexism," Trump went after her husband, former US President Bill Clinton. Trump recently proclaimed that the former president has "a terrible record of women abuse," referring to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, among other things.

    At his Saturday rally, Trump also blasted Hillary Clinton for a report on her husband's paid speeches while she was secretary of state. As he has done frequently before, Trump further asserted that Clinton "shouldn't be allowed to run" because of the private email system she used for her State Department work.

    "She should be in jail, by the way, for what she did," Trump said. "Everybody knows she should be in jail. What she did with the emails is a disgrace," he added.

    [Dec 30, 2015] Trumps Bill Clinton misogyny barbs are hypocrisy. His base wont care

    It is interesting the Guardian support this warmonger neocon. Another proof the it is Blairite "Third Way" propagandist. A neoliberal, moderate, right wing newspaper now.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Good luck with that ..."
    "... Trump is waging political war the way that Patriots coach Bill Belichick wins football games: take away the opponent's best weapon, then play to your strengths. ..."
    "... On Monday, Trump tweeted : "If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!" ..."
    "... really like ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton – be it her demeanor in front of a crowd or the manufactured scandals and mischaracterizations by conservative media and officials – just doesn't connect with audiences ..."
    "... Yes he does and his wife is the hypocrite for her stance on women's rights and enlisting the support of her husband who has the deserved label of being a womanizer ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    the first reaction to ... Donald Trump criticizing Bill Clinton's scuzzy personal record with women should be, Good luck with that. But Trump is waging political war the way that Patriots coach Bill Belichick wins football games: take away the opponent's best weapon, then play to your strengths.

    It just happens that playing to Trump's strengths involves sounding like an abusive comment thread with the long-term memory of a mosquito.

    On Monday, Trump tweeted: "If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!" It's more pointed than his general, aimless displays of boorishness and chauvinism but, like using Megyn Kelly's alleged menses to explain her justifiably holding him to account in the first Republican debate, Trump was taking a tactical approach.

    The Clinton campaign does plans to "unleash" Bill Clinton on the stump, and people really like Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton – be it her demeanor in front of a crowd or the manufactured scandals and mischaracterizations by conservative media and officials – just doesn't connect with audiences as well as Bill does; but then, Bill's probably the most charismatic politician of the last two generations.

    Mihai Filip, 30 Dec 2015 23:43

    I don't have a dog in this fight, nevertheless I've read on Breitbart the accusations for wich Bill Clinton settled out of court for 850k and that lady claimed he came on to her with his errect penis asking her to kiss it. I think the liberal media must start planning some sort of retreat on this issue before going on the suicidal path shown in this article, because this becomes an indefensible political position. Bill knew that already, that's why he paid the 850.000 dollars.

    Martin Joseph -> lefthalfback2, 30 Dec 2015 23:56

    You forgot to mention her corruption. Which makes her the perfect Clinton candidate.

    Todd Owens, 30 Dec 2015 19:02

    This article is peak identity politics. However negatively you feel about Trump the simple fact of the matter is President Clinton has a horrible record with women.

    SemperTi Todd Owens, 30 Dec 2015 19:11

    Yes he does and his wife is the hypocrite for her stance on women's rights and enlisting the support of her husband who has the deserved label of being a womanizer and when outed directly or indirectly attacked those women in the press.

    Recommended Links

    Google matched content

    Softpanorama Recommended

    Top articles

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia Published on Dec 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    [Jul 11, 2016] 5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had by Seth Abramson Published on www.huffingtonpost.com

    [Jul 06, 2016] FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook by Andrew C. McCarthy Published on National Review

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons Published on www.moonofalabama.org

    [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap Published on Dec 30, 2018 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

    Oldies But Goodies

    [Jul 11, 2016] 5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had by Seth Abramson

    [Jul 06, 2016] FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook by Andrew C. McCarthy

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap

    [Dec 27, 2017] Mueller investigation can be viewed as an attempt to avoid going after Clinton and hide the fact that a corrupted intelligence service worked to derail Sanders

    [Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt

    [Dec 23, 2017] Russiagate as bait and switch maneuver

    [Dec 22, 2017] Beyond Cynicism America Fumbles Towards Kafka s Castle by James Howard Kunstler

    [Dec 21, 2017] The RussiaGate Witch-Hunt Stockman Names Names In The Deep State's Insurance Policy by David Stockman

    [Dec 18, 2017] The Scary Void Inside Russia-gate by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Dec 16, 2017] The U.S. Is Not A Democracy, It Never Was by Gabriel Rockhill

    [Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next?

    [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

    [Dec 11, 2017] Strzok-Gate And The Mueller Cover-Up by Alexander Mercouris

    [Dec 10, 2017] blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag. Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time

    [Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein

    [Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal

    [Dec 03, 2017] Another Democratic party betrayal of their former voters. but what you can expect from the party of Bill Clinton?

    [Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura

    [Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter

    [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

    [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Oct 28, 2017] Former CIA Officer 'Russiagate' Was Manufactured By The Clinton Campaign by Philip Giraldi

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

    [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

    [Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

    [Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter

    [Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign

    [Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald

    [Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar

    [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

    [Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames

    [Sep 23, 2017] Welcome to 1984 Big Brother Google Now Watching Your Every Political Move

    [Sep 18, 2017] How The Military Defeated Trumps Insurgency

    [Sep 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry

    [Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus

    [Aug 25, 2017] Some analogies of current events in the USA and Mao cultural revolution: In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined

    [Jul 28, 2017] Perhaps Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions refused?

    [Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras

    [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military – Wall Street Defense by James Petras

    [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

    [Jul 13, 2017] Progressive Democrats Resist and Submit, Retreat and Surrender by James Petras

    [Jun 26, 2017] The Soft Coup Under Way In Washington by David Stockman

    [Jun 17, 2017] The Collapsing Social Contract by Gaius Publius

    [Jun 15, 2017] Comeys Lies of Omission by Mike Whitney

    [May 20, 2017] Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins

    [May 05, 2017] Jared Kushner A Suspected Gangster Within the Trump White House by Wayne MADSEN

    [May 04, 2017] Jared Kushner fired me over Israel ten years ago by Philip Weiss

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!

    [Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!

    [Jan 16, 2017] Gaius Publius Who is Blackmailing the President Why Arent Democrats Upset About It by Gaius Publius,

    [Dec 09, 2018] Die Weltwoche Weltwoche Online – www.weltwoche.ch Tucker Carlson Trump is not capable Die Weltwoche, Ausgabe 49-2018

    [Dec 29, 2018] -Election Meddling- Enters Bizarro World As MSM Ignores Democrat-Linked -Russian Bot- Scheme -

    [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray

    [Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter

    [Dec 10, 2018] One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did

    [Dec 02, 2018] Muller investigation has all the appearance of an investigation looking for a crime

    [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders

    [Nov 27, 2018] The political fraud of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal"

    [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders

    [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda

    [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

    [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.

    [Nov 23, 2018] Sitting on corruption hill

    [Nov 12, 2018] The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation graveyard of social protest movements, and for good reason

    [Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers

    [Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore

    [Nov 07, 2018] There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard.

    [Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer

    [Nov 03, 2018] Kunstler The Midterm Endgame Democrats' Perpetual Hysteria

    [Oct 25, 2018] DNC Emails--A Seth Attack Not a Russian Hack by Publius Tacitus

    [Oct 13, 2018] To paraphrase Stalin: They are both worse.

    [Oct 04, 2018] Brett Kavanaugh's 'revenge' theory spotlights past with Clintons by Lisa Mascaro

    [Oct 02, 2018] Kavanaugh is the Wrong Nominee by Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers

    [Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?

    [Sep 16, 2018] Looks like the key players in Steele dossier were CIA assets

    [Sep 16, 2018] Looks like the key players in Steele dossier were CIA assets

    [Sep 11, 2018] Is Donald Trump Going to Do the Syria Backflip by Publius Tacitus

    [Sep 11, 2018] If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed

    [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone

    [Sep 07, 2018] Sarah Huckabee Sanders has a legitimate request to neoliberal MSM - Stop Bugging Me About The New York Times' Trump Op-Ed

    [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Aug 18, 2018] Sanders behaviour during election is suspect, unless you assume he acted as sheep dog for hillary

    [Aug 17, 2018] What if Russiagate is the New WMDs

    [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov

    [May 11, 2019] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus

    [Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography

    [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.

    [Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?

    [Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp

    [Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski

    [Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia

    [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

    [Jul 20, 2018] So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don t question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven t been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax

    [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

    [Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jul 17, 2018] I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn t hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked.

    [Jul 16, 2018] Putin Claims U.S. Intelligence Agents Funneled $400K To Clinton Campaign Zero Hedge

    [Jul 16, 2018] Five Things That Would Make The CIA-CNN Russia Narrative More Believable

    [Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland

    [Jul 15, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis HILLARY CLINTON S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evide

    [Jul 15, 2018] Peter Strzok Ignored Evidence Of Clinton Server Breach

    [Jul 15, 2018] Something Rotten About the DOJ Indictment of the GRU by Publius Tacitus

    [Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team

    [Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team

    [Jul 03, 2018] Russia has a lot of information about Lybia that could dig a political grave for Hillary. They did not release it

    [Jul 03, 2018] Musings II The "Intelligence Community," "Russian Interference," and Due Diligence

    [Jun 26, 2018] Identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to pursue stealth neoliberal policies like decreasing public spending. Fake austerity is necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of public enterprises

    [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare

    [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern

    [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern

    [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare

    [Jun 06, 2018] Why Foreign Policy Realism Isn't Enough by William S. Smith

    [May 24, 2018] Most probably Veselnitskaya was a false flag operation to entrap Trump campaign played by British intelligence

    [May 24, 2018] Most probably Veselnitskaya was a false flag operation to entrap Trump campaign played by British intelligence

    [May 24, 2018] The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy

    [May 23, 2018] Mueller role as a hatchet man is now firmly established. Rosenstein key role in applointing Mueller without any evidence became also more clear with time. Was he coerced or did it voluntarily is unclear by Lambert Strether

    [May 03, 2018] Alert The Clintonian empire is still here and tries to steal the popular vote throug

    [May 03, 2018] Mueller's questions to Trump more those of a prosecuting attorney than of an impartial investigator by Alexander Mercouris

    [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice

    [Apr 30, 2018] Neoliberalization of the US Democratic Party is irreversible: It is still controlled by Clinton gang even after Hillary debacle

    [Apr 21, 2018] On the Criminal Referral of Comey, Clinton et al by Ray McGovern

    [Apr 17, 2018] Poor Alex

    [Apr 11, 2018] It is long passed the time when any thinking person took Trump tweets seriously

    [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov

    [Apr 01, 2018] Big American Money, Not Russia, Put Trump in the White House: Reflections on a Recent Report by Paul Street

    [Apr 01, 2018] Does the average user care if s/he is micro-targetted by political advertisements based on what they already believe?

    [Mar 31, 2018] FBI Director Mueller testified to Congress that Saddam Hussein was responsible for anthrax attack! That was Mueller's role in selling the "intelligence" to invade Iraq.

    [Mar 29, 2018] Giving Up the Ghost of Objective Journalism by Telly Davidson

    [Mar 27, 2018] The Stormy Daniels scandal Political warfare in Washington hits a new low by Patrick Martin

    [Mar 24, 2018] Why the UK, the EU and the US Gang-Up on Russia by James Petras

    [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin

    [Mar 24, 2018] Did Trump cut a deal on the collusion charge by Mike Whitney

    [Mar 21, 2018] Former CIA Chief Brennan Running Scared by Ray McGovern

    [Mar 12, 2018] State Department's War on Political Dissent

    [Mar 11, 2018] Reality Check: The Guardian Restarts Push for Regime Change in Russia by Kit

    [Mar 11, 2018] I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian

    [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

    [Mar 10, 2018] Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in Obama policy and HRC campaign long before any Steele s Dossier. This was a program ofunleashing cold War II

    [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this

    [Mar 08, 2018] We don t have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn t found it yet! is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there s that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found

    [Mar 08, 2018] Given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence

    [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

    [Mar 06, 2018] Is MSNBC Now the Most Dangerous Warmonger Network by Norman Solomon

    [Mar 06, 2018] The current anti-Russian sentiment in the West as hysterical. But this hysteria is concentrated at the top level of media elite and neocons. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided within themselves due to the crisis of neolineralism.

    [Mar 02, 2018] The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against Trump might be that they're terrified that -- unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for the US led neoliberal empire. This threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train

    [Mar 02, 2018] Fatal Delusions of Western Man by Pat Buchanan

    [Mar 02, 2018] Contradictions In Seth Rich Murder Continue To Challenge Hacking Narrative

    [Feb 28, 2018] Perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others is a new tool of justice in a surveillance state

    [Feb 26, 2018] Democrat Memo Lays Egg by Publius Tacitus

    [Feb 25, 2018] Russia would not do anything nearing the level of self-harm inflicted by the US elites.

    [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation

    [Feb 20, 2018] Russophobia is a futile bid to conceal US, European demise by Finian Cunningham

    [Feb 19, 2018] Nunes FBI and DOJ Perps Could Be Put on Trial by Ray McGovern

    [Feb 19, 2018] The Russiagate Intelligence Wars What We Do and Don't Know

    [Feb 19, 2018] Russian Meddling Was a Drop in an Ocean of American-made Discord by AMANDA TAUB and MAX FISHER

    [Feb 14, 2018] The Anti-Trump Coup by Michael S. Rozeff

    [Feb 11, 2018] How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war

    [Feb 11, 2018] Clinton Democrats (aka

    [Feb 04, 2018] DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT Security company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative of DNC hack and malware to influence US election

    [Jan 22, 2018] The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised

    [Jan 28, 2018] Russiagate Isn t About Trump, And It Isn t Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

    [Jan 28, 2018] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Russiagate Isn't About Trump, And It Isn't Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

    [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

    [Dec 31, 2017] Where's the Collusion

    [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

    [Jan 27, 2018] As of January 2018 Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump should have done sooner.

    [Jan 27, 2018] In a Trump Hunt, Beware the Perjury Trap by Pat Buchanan

    [Jan 27, 2018] Mainstream Media and Imperial Power

    [Jan 26, 2018] Warns The Russiagate Stakes Are Extreme by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jan 25, 2018] Russiagate as Kafka 2.0

    [Jan 24, 2018] Whistleblower Confirms Secret Society Meetings Between FBI And DOJ To Undermine Trump

    [Jan 22, 2018] Clapper may have been the one behind using British intelligence to spy on Trump.

    [Jan 22, 2018] The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice has given congressional investigators additional text messages between FBI investigator Peter Strzok and his girlfriend Lisa Page. The FBI also told investigators that five months worth of text messages, between December 2016 and May 2017, are unavailable because of a technical glitch

    [Jan 20, 2018] What Is The Democratic Party ? by Lambert Strether

    [Jan 19, 2018] #ReleaseTheMemo Extensive FISA abuse memo could destroy the entire Mueller Russia investigation by Alex Christoforou

    [Jan 14, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis The Trump Dossier Timeline, A Democrat Disaster Looming by Publius Tacitus

    [Jan 13, 2018] The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate by Ray McGovern

    [Jan 08, 2018] Someone Spoofed Michael Wolff s Book About Trump And It s Comedy Gold

    [Jan 06, 2018] Russia-gate Breeds Establishment McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

    [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou

    [Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

    [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou

    [Dec 28, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIA s Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

    [Dec 28, 2017] On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.

    [Aug 12, 2019] New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has called Epstein's death "way too convenient."

    [Aug 12, 2019] Bruce Ohr 302s by Larry C Johnson - Sic Semper Tyrannis

    [Aug 12, 2019] Russiagate is the idea around which varied interests can be organized

    [Jul 30, 2019] The main task of Democratic Party is preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left and killing such social movements

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

    [Jul 29, 2019] Looks like E>pstein turned informant for Mueller s FBI in 2008. Likely earlier

    [Jul 29, 2019] American Ron Unz on Pizzagate

    [Jul 29, 2019] The hidden control mechanism of what the late Paul A. Samuelson called our "democratic oligarchy".

    [Jul 29, 2019] The Real Reason The Propagandists Have Been Promoting Russia Hysteria by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Jul 29, 2019] What Mueller Was Trying to Hide by Kimberley A. Strassel

    [Jul 28, 2019] Mueller Crumbles Under Questioning by Barbara Boland

    [Jul 27, 2019] Understanding the Roots of the Obama Coup Against Trump by Larry C Johnson

    [Jul 26, 2019] Tucker What should happen to those who lied about Russian collusion

    [Jul 26, 2019] Tucker: Democrats believed Mueller would save America

    [Jul 25, 2019] Dems ratpack of reparations freaks, weird sexual curiosities, and race hustlers is actually a fifth column for Trump re-election by Fred Reed

    [Jul 23, 2019] Not The Onion NY Times Urges Trump To Establish Closer Ties With Moscow

    [Jul 13, 2019] Mueller Does Not Have Evidence That The IRA Was Part of Russian Government Meddling by Larry C Johnson

    [Jul 09, 2019] Spying for Israel is Consequence Free by Philip Giraldi

    [Jul 09, 2019] Ex-FBI, CIA Officials Draw Withering Fire on Russiagate by Ray McGovern

    [Jul 06, 2019] Mueller Report Gets the Trump Tower Meeting Wrong; Promotes Browder Hoax by Lucy Komisar

    [Jul 05, 2019] The UK public finally realized that the Globalist/Open Frontiers/ Neoliberal crowd are not their friends

    [Jun 30, 2019] USG's Bizarre Change of Position in the Roger Stone Case by Larry C Johnson

    [Jun 28, 2019] The Donald's Latest Iranian Caper Sh*t-Faced Stupidity by David Stockman

    [Jun 28, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard vs Bolton

    [Jun 27, 2019] The Ongoing Restructuring of the Greater Middle East by C.J. Hopkins

    [Jun 26, 2019] The first rule of political hypocrisy: Justify your actions by the need to protect the weak and vulnerable

    [Jun 25, 2019] It is the ADELSON Administration . .... Bought and PAID FOR.

    [Jun 25, 2019] Tucker US came within minutes of war with Iran

    [Jun 23, 2019] The return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a radicalized form of neoliberalism

    [Jun 22, 2019] Chuck Schumer 'The American People Deserve A President Who Can More Credibly Justify War With Iran'

    [Jun 22, 2019] Use of science by the US politicians

    [Jun 22, 2019] Why a U.S.-Iran War Could End Up Being a Historic Disaster by Doug Bandow

    [Jun 21, 2019] America's Confrontation With Iran Goes Deeper Than Trump by Trita Parsi

    [Jun 21, 2019] Russia accuses U.S. of pushing Iran situation to brink of war RIA - Reuters

    [Jun 20, 2019] The Trump regime wants another pointless war by Ryan Cooper

    [Jun 20, 2019] The Trump-Bolton Duo Is Just Like the Bush-Cheney Duo Warmongers Using Lies to Start Illegal Wars by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

    [Jun 19, 2019] Investigation Nation Mueller, Russiagate, and Fake Politics by Jim Kavanagh

    [Jun 19, 2019] America s Suicide Epidemic

    [Jun 19, 2019] Bias bias the inclination to accuse people of bias by James Thompson

    [Jun 16, 2019] Rule of law in Murrika is kaput

    [Jun 11, 2019] A Word From Joe the Angry Hawaiian

    [Jun 09, 2019] The looming 100-year US-China conflict by Martin Wolf

    [Jun 05, 2019] Do Spies Run the World by Israel Shamir

    [Jun 04, 2019] Attkisson 10 Questions I d Ask Robert Mueller (If I Were Allowed)

    [May 30, 2019] Whatever you may think of Trump, the people who set out to 'get him' are the scum of the Earth

    [May 30, 2019] Everyone here at moa is saying much the same: the CIA is running the usa at this point.. Mueller is ex CIA... So, basically the mueller investigation a cover up and BS for the lemmings... It seems to have worked to a limited degree..

    [May 29, 2019] Mueller Punts On Obstruction Charges -- Impeachment Would Hurt The Democrats

    [May 28, 2019] Any time you read an article (or a comment) on Russia, substitute the word Jew for Russian and International Jewry for Russia and re-read.

    [May 25, 2019] The Belligerence Of Empire by Kenn Orphan

    [May 22, 2019] On War With Iran, It's Trump Versus the Founding Fathers

    [May 22, 2019] NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries

    [May 20, 2019] "Us" Versus "Them"

    [May 19, 2019] How Russiagate replaced Analysis of the 2016 Election by Rick Sterling

    [May 18, 2019] Trump's purported deviation from US foreign policy orthodoxy was a propaganda scam engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning

    [May 16, 2019] The Disinformationists by C.J. Hopkins

    [May 15, 2019] Russia-gate s Monstrous Offspring

    [May 14, 2019] Trump desperately needs a trade deal with China as he gears up for his re-election bid in 2020.

    [May 14, 2019] iJews and the Left-i by Philip Mendes A Review, by Brenton Sanderson - The Unz Review

    [May 14, 2019] Despite a $ 22 Trillion National Debt, America Is on a Military Spending Spree. 800 Overseas US Military Bases by Masud Wadan

    [May 13, 2019] Not Just Ukraine; Biden May Have A Serious China Problem As Schweizer Exposes Hunter s $1bn Deal

    [May 13, 2019] Angry Bear Senate Democratic Jackasses and Elmer Fudd

    [May 13, 2019] US Foreign Policy as Bellicose as Ever by Serge Halimi

    [May 12, 2019] Is rabid warmonger, neocon chickenhawk Bolton a swinger? That s a mental picture that s deeply disturbing yet funny at the same time

    [May 12, 2019] Charting a Progressive Foreign Policy for the Trump Era and Beyond

    [May 11, 2019] Whitney Judgment Day Looms For John Brennan

    [May 11, 2019] Leaked USA s Feb 2018 Plan For A Coup In Venezuela

    [May 11, 2019] Crowdstrike planted the malware on DNC systems, which they discovered later

    [May 11, 2019] Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart -- Say Hello to Fancy Bear

    [May 11, 2019] Intel and Law Enforcement Tried to Entrap Trump by Larry C Johnson

    [May 11, 2019] Just worth noting that in the hand-written notes taken by Bruce Ohr after meetings with Chris Steele, there is the comment that the majority of the Steele Dossier was obtained from an expat Russian living in the US, and not from actual Russian sources in Russia

    [May 11, 2019] Doug Ross @ Journal A TIMELINE OF TREASON How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a Presidential Election [Updated]

    [May 11, 2019] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus

    [May 11, 2019] Nunes Memo Details Weaponization of FISA Court for Political Advantage by Elizabeth Lea Vos

    [May 10, 2019] Biden is up to neck in Spygate dirt by Jeff Carlson

    [May 10, 2019] Obama administration raced to obtain FICA warrant on Carter Page before Rogers investigation closes on them and that was definitely an obstruction of justice and interference with the ongoing investigation

    [May 10, 2019] What was the meaning of the term "insurance policy" in Stzok messages to Lisa Page

    [May 10, 2019] The Battle Between Rosenstein and McCabe

    [May 09, 2019] Trump DID commit obstruction of justice... he refused to force HIS Dept of Justice to indict Hillary, Comey, Brennan and Clapper

    [May 08, 2019] Obama Spied on Other Republicans and Democrats As Well by Larry C Johnson

    [May 07, 2019] Look! A whale!

    [May 07, 2019] Chris Hedges: The Demonization of Russia is Driven by Defense Contractors

    [May 06, 2019] Trump's top three donors

    [May 05, 2019] Did Mueller substituted Russia for Israel in his report

    [May 03, 2019] Former high-ranking FBI officials on Andrew McCabe's alarming admissions

    [May 03, 2019] Andrew McCabe played the key role in the appointment of the special prosecutor

    [May 03, 2019] The Wheels Of Real Justice Are In Motion Now Kunstler Fears The Desperate Resistance Next Move...

    [May 02, 2019] Checkmate - How President Trump s Legal Team Outfoxed Mueller by Will Chamberlain

    [May 01, 2019] Joe Biden Is a Disaster Waiting to Happen

    [Apr 29, 2019] The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory by Aaron Maté

    [Apr 28, 2019] The British Role in Russiagate Is About to Be Fully Exposed

    [Apr 28, 2019] Tit For Tat: Why Did Mueller Let Trump Off the Hook by Mike Whitney

    [Apr 28, 2019] Biden has huge, exploitable weakness in relation Ukraine

    [Apr 28, 2019] Breath of fresh air--real journalism again! Have so much respect for Chris Hedges and Aaron Mate, great work!

    [Apr 28, 2019] On Contact Russiagate Mueller Report w- Aaron Mate

    [Apr 26, 2019] Mueller investigation was launched in order to investigate the obstruction of his investigation

    [Apr 26, 2019] Jared Kushner, Not Maria Butina, Is America's Real Foreign Agent by Philip Giraldi

    [Apr 26, 2019] Intelligence agencies meddling in elections

    [Apr 22, 2019] FBI top brass have been colluding with top brass of CIA and MI6 to pursue ambitious anti-Russian agenda

    [Apr 22, 2019] Current Neo-McCarthyism hysteria as a smoke screen of the UK and the USA intent to dominate European geopolitics and weaken Russia and Germany

    [Apr 21, 2019] Makes me wonder if this started out as a standard operation by the FBI to gain leverage over a presidential contender

    [Apr 21, 2019] Even if we got a candidate against the War Party the Party of Davos, would it matter? Trump betayal his voters, surrounded himself with neocons, continues to do Bibi's bidding, and ratcheting up tensions in Latin America, Middle East and with Russia. What's changed even with a candidate that the Swamp disliked and attempted to take down?

    [Apr 21, 2019] Muller report implicates Obama administration in total and utter incompetence, if not pandering to the foreign intervention into the USA elections. The latter is called criminal negligence in legal speak.

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

    [Apr 21, 2019] Deciphering Trumps Foreign Policy by Oscar Silva-Valladares

    [Apr 21, 2019] Special Counsel Mueller -- Disingenuous and Dishonest by Larry C Johnson

    [Apr 20, 2019] Trump has certainly made the world safer

    [Apr 20, 2019] Sure, blame those guys over there for Hillary fiasco and hire Mueller to get the goods . That s the ultimate the dog ate my homework excuse.

    [Apr 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard: People get into a lot of conversations about political strategies I might get in trouble for saying this, but what does it matter if we beat Donald Trump, if we end up with someone who will perpetuate the very same crony capitalist policies, corporate policies, and waging more of these costly wars?

    [Apr 17, 2019] Six US Agencies Conspired ...

    [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation

    [Apr 16, 2019] The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and flourishing careers. Now they re angling for war with Iran.

    [Apr 16, 2019] CIA Director Used Fake Skripal Incident Photos To Manipulate Trump

    [Apr 15, 2019] Do you need to be stupid to support Trump in 2020, even if you voted for him as lesser evil in 2016

    [Apr 14, 2019] Pro-Israeli groups defining the US foreign policy: Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business

    [Apr 10, 2019] Habakkuk on cockroaches and the New York Times

    [Apr 10, 2019] A demoralized white working and middle class was willing to believe in anything, deluding themselves into reading between the barren eruptions of his blowzy proclamations. They elevated him to messianic heights, ironically fashioning him into that which he publicly claims to despise: an Obama, a Barry in negative image, hope and change for the OxyContin and Breitbart set

    [Apr 09, 2019] The ruthless neo-colonialists of 21st century

    [Apr 08, 2019] Iran Designates US Military As Terrorist Organization

    [Apr 08, 2019] Aaron Maté Was Also Right About Russiagate

    [Apr 07, 2019] Nunes The Russian Collusion Hoax Meets An Unbelievbable End

    [Apr 07, 2019] Trump had lost popularity in rural America

    [Apr 06, 2019] Trump is for socialism but only when it comes to funding US military industry Tulsi Gabbard

    [Apr 04, 2019] Was John Brennan The Russia Lie Ringleader

    [Apr 04, 2019] Who Does John Bolton Actually Work For by Willy B

    [Apr 02, 2019] Requiem to Russiagate by CJ Hopkins

    [Mar 31, 2019] Because of the immediate arrival of the Russia collusion theory, neither MSM honchos nor any US politician ever had to look into the camera and say, I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump

    [Mar 31, 2019] A Reprise of the Iraq-WMD Fiasco by James W Carden

    [Mar 31, 2019] Guaido Set To Enact Uprising Rooted In US Regime-Change Operations Manual

    [Mar 30, 2019] The US desperately needs Venezuelan oil

    [Mar 30, 2019] The Real Costs of Russiagate

    [Mar 30, 2019] You don't like Trump? Bolton? Clinton? All of these people who are in or have passed through leadership positions in America are entirely valid representatives of Americans in general. You may imagine they are faking cluelessness to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their crimes, but the cluelessness is quite real and extends to the entire population.

    [Mar 30, 2019] My suggestion is that Cambridge Analytica and others backing Trump and the Yankee imperial machine have been taking measurements of USA citizens opinions and are staggered by the results. They are panicked!

    [Mar 29, 2019] Trumps billionaire coup détat: Donald Trump is about to break the record of withdrawing his promises faster than any other US president in history

    [Mar 29, 2019] I challenge anyone to find anything done by congress or Trump that was done for average Americans

    [Mar 26, 2019] Jared Kushner accused of using WhatsApp and personal email for state business by Bob Fredericks

    [Mar 26, 2019] Chris Christie accuses Jared Kushner of political hit job by Bob Fredericks

    [Mar 25, 2019] Russiagate was never about substance, it was about who gets to image-manage the decline of a turbo-charged, self-harming neoliberal capitalism by Jonathan Cook

    [Mar 25, 2019] Meet The Kushners First Couple In-Waiting by Ilana Mercer

    [Mar 25, 2019] Spygate The True Story of Collusion (plus Infographic) by Jeff Carlson

    [Mar 25, 2019] Nuland role in Russiagate

    [Mar 25, 2019] Jared Kushner Is Beating Heart of Corrupt and Deeply Evil Trump Administration, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe Says by Jason Lemon

    [Mar 25, 2019] Another SIGINT compromise ...

    [Mar 25, 2019] Trump betrayed all three his election time promises about changes to Obamacare: everybody got to be covered, no cuts to Medicaid, and Every bit as good on pre-existing conditions as Obamacare

    [Mar 25, 2019] Is Ivanka lady Mackbeth of Trump presidency?

    [Mar 25, 2019] The Mass Psychology of Trumpism by Eli Zaretsky

    [Mar 24, 2019] Top Democrat is right: there was a collition, but not with Russians, but Zionist billionaires and Isreal lobby

    [Mar 24, 2019] The accountability that must follow Mueller's report

    [Mar 24, 2019] "Russia Gate" investigation was a color revolution agaist Trump. But a strnge side effect was that Clintons have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug to the status of some kind of martyr.

    [Mar 24, 2019] With RussiaGate Over Where's Hillary

    [Mar 24, 2019] One could wish that DOJ IG Horowitz could investigate and sanction British Intelligence for its use of official and non-official officials in starting this debacle.

    [Mar 24, 2019] One thing left out is the ability of readers to call BS on a story i.e. a robust comment section for debates.

    [Mar 23, 2019] Brennan pipe dream obliterated. The color revolution against Trump failed

    [Mar 23, 2019] Mueller stopped following the money the moment he realized it was all leading back to Israel.

    [Mar 22, 2019] Glenn Greenwald on Twitter The Mueller investigation is complete and this is a simple fact that will never go away

    [Mar 21, 2019] We can spend endless amounts of money on the NSA, wars overseas, political campaigns and bailing out banks, tha we canaffort single payer healthcare system

    [Mar 17, 2019] It didn't t take a great deal of insight or wisdom to view Trump as a con-man from the getgo.

    [Mar 17, 2019] Trump v Republican elite - the split explained by Tim Swift

    [Mar 17, 2019] Mueller uses the same old false flag scams, just different packaging of his forensics-free findings

    [Mar 17, 2019] VIPS- Mueller's Forensics-Free Findings

    [Mar 14, 2019] Manafort's Ukrainians were actually pro-West? - Habakkuk

    [Mar 11, 2019] Bruce Ohr, Liar or Moron by Larry C Johnson

    [Feb 24, 2019] David Stockman on Peak Trump : Undrainable swamp (which is on Pentagon side of Potomac river) and fantasy of MAGA (which become MIGA -- make Israel great again)

    [Feb 18, 2019] Do You Believe in the Deep State Now by Robert W. Merry

    [Feb 17, 2019] Was Trump was a deep state man from day one, just like Obama, Bush, Clinton and all the rest?

    [Feb 17, 2019] Trump is Russian asset memo is really neocon propaganda overkill

    [Feb 16, 2019] MSM Begs For Trust After Buzzfeed Debacle by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Feb 16, 2019] Death Of Russiagate: Mueller Team Tied To Mifsud s Network

    [Feb 13, 2019] MoA - Russiagate Is Finished

    [Feb 13, 2019] Stephen Cohen on War with Russia and Soviet-style Censorship in the US by Russell Mokhiber

    [Jan 22, 2019] The French Anti-Neoliberal Revolution. On the conditions for its success by Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

    [Jan 21, 2019] Beyond BuzzFeed The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing US Media Failures On The Trump-Russia Story by Glenn Greenwald

    [Jan 15, 2019] Apparently, the FBI, and not the CIA, are the real government.

    [Jan 13, 2019] As FBI Ramped Up Witch Hunt When Trump Fired Comey, Strzok Admitted Collusion Investigation A Joke

    [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating Fox News

    [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson has sparked the most interesting debate in conservative politics by Jane Coaston

    [Jan 11, 2019] Facts does not matter in the current propoganda environment, the narrative is everything

    [Jan 11, 2019] Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming

    [Jan 02, 2019] Russian bots - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News

    [Jan 02, 2019] The Only Meddling "Russian Bots" Were Actually Democrat-Led "Experts" by Mac Slavo

    [Jan 02, 2019] Did Mueller Patched Together Much of His Indictment from 2015 Radio Free Europe Article ?

    [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap

    Sites



    Etc

    Society

    Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

    Quotes

    War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

    Bulletin:

    Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

    History:

    Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

    Classic books:

    The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

    Most popular humor pages:

    Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

    The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


    Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

    FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

    This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

    You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

    Disclaimer:

    The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

    Last modified: May, 04, 2020